THE SCOPE FOR A UNV PROJECT
TO SUPPORT AND FACILITATE
ONGOING PROCESSES OF GREATER INVOLVEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF BUDDHIST INSTITUTIONS
IN THE RESPONSE TOWARDS
HIV/AIDS IN CAMBODIA
a pre-feasibility study
Roger Henke
Sou Ketya
Lath Poch
Lim Sidedine
Centre for Advanced Study
(CAS)
PO Box 2030, # 85, Road 141, Sangkat Veal Vong Khan 7
Makara, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel. +855-23-214494
cas@forum.org.kh
Contents
1.Introduction
2.Activities undertaken
3.Lay out of the report
4.The commitment of the Buddhist hierarchy towards greater involvement of religious institutions
5.The interpretation of greater involvement of religious institutions of other important stakeholders
6.The UNICEF Cambodia Buddhist Leadership Initiative ‘Religious Response to AIDS’
7.Assessment of question marks identified in the proposal
8.A recommendation to UNV on how to proceed from here
9.Additional References
1.Proposal for the pre-feasibility study
2.List of Key Informants
3.A tentative overview of all projects/non-governmental organizations relevant to the issue of social involvement of Buddhist religious institutions
Throughout this
report we will make use of the acronym GIEBI for indicating “Greater
Involvement and Effectiveness of
Buddhist Institutions in the response towards HIV/AIDS in Cambodia”.
Introduction
On the basis of initial discussions with (former) UNV Cambodia program officer Roland Campen and UNV’s GIPA project coordinator Alex Marcelino about the importance of involving religious institutions in the Cambodian response towards HIV/AIDS and the possibilities for UNV to support ongoing and potential involvement, CAS was invited to produce a proposal outlining our ideas regarding possible ways to explore these possibilities.
As input for our proposal UNV provided us with its accumulated (grey) literature on the subject. As a first service[1] to UNV we produced a discussion document that – based on a preliminary analysis of the available material - proposes a pre-feasibility. This analysis already identifies several operational conditions that a UNV project addressing the greater involvement of religious institutions should fulfill:
qIt should operate within a national framework within which a volunteer approach to supporting and facilitating ongoing processes of religious involvement can be embedded (this framework is available);
qIt’s major focus should be on ways to create an enabling environment;
qIt should address both the policy level (national and provincial) and the local support level;
qIt should test and demonstrate the effectiveness of this modality for supporting coordination and partnership between (activities of) religious institutions and GOs and NGOs in the sector of HIV/AIDS as an example for such coordination and partnership regarding other social issues.
This discussion document also outlines a list of issues that one would need more (solid) information about in order to be able to formulate practical objectives and activities for a UNV support project.
The document therefore proposes a two-stage approach: a limited pre-feasibility study followed by a more substantial follow up in case the pre-feasibility would discover real scope for a UNV support project.
After a feedback round, that included the current UNV program officer Ruby Bańez, this document was finalized as a pre-feasibility proposal (see annex 1) and served as the basis for a small-scale consultancy project executed by CAS and reported upon in the following.
1.Activities undertaken
All activities listed in the proposal (see annex 1) were undertaken:
1.Interviews were conducted in Phnom Penh with the Patriarch of the Mohanikaya sect and the secretary to the Patriarch of the Dhamayutakanikaya sect, the director of the NAA and the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Cults and Religions. Because of the central importance of UNICEF’s support to the MoRC’s religious response program both in terms of the number of activities undertaken and in terms of the fact that any UNV activity will have to be in line with this program, two key informants were added: UNICEF’s project officer HIV/AIDS and the UNICEF paid consultant to the MoCR[2]. For the overview of relevant NGO activities (see below) three short interviews were conducted in Phnom Penh (see annex 2).
2.A site visit was conducted to a total of three Battambang-based NGO’s. All of them are pagoda-based and we conducted interviews with program staff involved, most of them monks, and collected written material.
3.A tentative list of relevant NGO activities was drawn up (see annex 3).
3.Lay out of the report
These activities are reported upon in this paper along the lines specified in the proposal, with one new issue added to the list. This means that we do not report upon each individual interview, nor do we deliver assessments of the project sites visited in Battambang. The information collected is analytically used to address two core issues for assessing the feasibility of a UNV intervention as specified in the proposal.
qThe commitment of the Buddhist hierarchy towards greater involvement of religious institutions
qThe interpretation of greater involvement of religious institutions of other important stakeholders
To these issues, the UNICEF interventions are added as an important context factor that any UNV intervention will have to align itself with:
qThe UNICEF Cambodia Buddhist Leadership Initiative ‘Religious Response to AIDS’
Before concluding with a recommendation to UNV on how to proceed from here, we assess the list of question marks that came out of our initial analysis of the available material.
4.The commitment of the Buddhist hierarchy
towards greater involvement of religious institutions
5.The interpretation of greater involvement
of religious institutions of other important stakeholders
Apart from UNICEF staff (reported upon in the next paragraph) we have solicited the opinions of the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Cults and Religions and the director of the National Aids Authority.
The MoCR is the one and only Ministry which has (already) adopted a policy on its response towards HIV/AIDS and is very proud of it (MoCR 2002). The Secretary of State’s opinions were in line with the policy (adopted in May 2002, after a two year development phase, funded and facilitated by UNICEF):
qReligious resource persons (Monks, Nuns, Achars, Pagoda support committee members and Buddhist youth) are an important resource for awareness raising regarding HIV/AIDS, both for prevention oriented messages and for care and non-discrimination messages. This resource is considered important for its access to the population, both in terms of coverage (infrastructure) and in terms of the trust they hold.
qTheir messages should be integrated into their religious work, i.e. be made a part of their moral education. Also, religious resource persons should not turn into health educators or development workers but (only) complement and support the work of these other professionals.
qTheir work should therefore also be closely coordinated with the other stakeholders in the field, through the NAA framework, and the other stakeholders should play the coordinating role.
qTheir work should be community-oriented, i.e. their work should aim at communities taking up their social responsibility towards their HIV/AIDS affected members.
qThe main and so far only strategy followed to realize these objectives is providing HIV/AIDS education to religious resource persons, often intertwined with Buddhist morality education.
qThe initiative for becoming active is seen as lying with the individual religious teacher, and as being independent of the opinions of the religious hierarchy. In other words, as long as the Patriarchs and the provincial level and district level chief monks do not obstruct the program, it can fulfill its promises.
Like the Patriarchs, the Secretary of State explicitly mentioned that he did not object to monks acting as traditional healers.
The NAA strongly supports the involvement of religious resource persons, especially monks, for the same reasons as the MoCR. Obviously, involvement is conceptualized as being within the national framework coordinated by the NAA. The NAA supports the training efforts of the MoCR. Both the MoCR and the NAA are less ‘conservative’ than the Patriarchs regarding the extent to which monks can and should address practical issue like (proper) condom use etc.
But the following additional observations offered the NAA seem relevant:
qThe MoCR human resources are very limited. Only the people at the Ministry directly involved in the program are really aware of it, the others are not and – more damning – are not very interested. The reason offered was that there is not much money involved and the program is therefore not taken seriously.
qA directly related issue brought up was that the training of religious resource persons, especially monks should be accompanied by efforts to convince the public in general that monks have a social role to play. From a pragmatic point of view, getting this message accepted by those staffing local authorities, respected elderly, etc. was identified as a major prerequisite for creating an enabling environment. Training monks is a necessary but not a sufficient strategy to make optimal use of the Buddhist infrastructure.
qThe implicit message conveyed was that neither the MoCR nor the Buddhist hierarchy was active (enough) to publicly – i.e. beyond the confined circles of the national policy-arena - support involvement of religious resource persons.
qThe NAA pointed out that this is one of the reasons that substantial activities carried out by Wats/monks are far and few between and are very slow to develop. Another reason given for this was the dependence of such activities upon committed leadership by capable individuals (whose numbers are limited).
qThe NAA was very positive about Wats (like Wat Norea) developing hospice/orphanage/asylum initiatives. Given the urgency of the issue and the incapacity of the government to provide institutional care the more Wats would take up this role, the better it would be.
qThe NAA explicitly mentioned the potential that popular trust in the Wat infrastructure holds for creating sustainable, i.e. donor independent programs.
To summarize: the visions of the MoCR and the NAA share a lot but the NAA thinks that the religious response initiative lacks a crucial element and is therefore less effective than it could be and the MoCR and the NAA differ regarding the Wat-as-asylum issue and the extent to which Wats should take initiative (rather than ‘only’ participate in programs directed by others).
6.The UNICEF Cambodia Buddhist Leadership
Initiative ‘Religious Response to AIDS’
UNICEF supported the MoCR in its policy development regarding a religious response towards HIV/AIDS program and in organizing training activities in a selected number of provinces. The support is ongoing, implying that the translation of policy objectives into strategic interventions will be facilitated and the training extended to other provinces.
Defining features of UNICEF’s approach are:
qGIEBI is important even if only because monks are one of the venues through which the general population can be reached and made aware of HIV/AIDS and how respond to it (other venues are teachers/school system, health workers, mass media,..). The current level of awareness (e.g. as evidenced by the DHS) is quite high and keeping this level up needs constant attention. Monk training is therefore mostly awareness raising.
qAll interventions should ultimately aim at facilitating a community response. Especially regarding the issue of care UNICEF’s policy is clear cut: the Thai model of pagoda-based care arrangements is not supported. The reasons underlying this policy are:
ü(Extended) families are the natural helpers of PLHA and orphans; other facilities should be in 3rd or 4th line only;
üFamilies who are not within the community are much worse off; communities need moral and material support to be better able to take up community-based care.
üThe availability of pagoda-based care ‘enables/invites’ villagers to ‘get rid’ of PLHA and orphans;
üEven home-based care (teams) is an outside intervention that ultimately does not support communities to take up their natural care responsibilities;
üPagodas tend to show a gender bias, preferring to take boys rather than girls;
üMonks have no qualifications as teacher, health provider, orphanage manager, etc.;
üOrphanages are not within the mandate of the MoCR but within the mandate of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and hospices are within the mandate of the Ministry of Health. Pushing/facilitating pagodas to take up such service provision without established mechanisms of monitoring and accountability is asking for trouble.
qRelated to the above: a community-based approach implies that community needs are central. In other words vulnerable families need to be supported whatever their vulnerability consists of. Most children still die from diarrhea and dengue. An orphan is an orphan, whatever the cause of her parents’ death. This means that monk involvement should be aimed at supporting communities to take care of all vulnerable members, not only the HIV/AIDS affected ones.
(Other) relevant observations contributed by UNICEF
qGiven the scale of the problem there is ample scope for additional interventions supporting GIEBI;
qThe above depiction of UNICEF’s policy does not mean that it intends to change the current reality at village level wherein 10 to 20% of the poorest are taken care of by the local pagoda. UNICEF considers this a valuable end of pipeline safety net. However, valuing such services as a safety net is different from making this the basis of one’s policy. Policy should target the majority (80 to 90%).
qThe income-generating possibilities of the Wat infrastructure are recognized. However, funds collected through monks should primarily support community activities rather than enable the local Wat to run an orphanage or other shelter. If outside (donor) money is involved, the scenario in which the Wat takes the poorest in to attract money, especially if these are then limited to a particular vulnerability (e.g. AIDS orphans), should be opposed.
qInvolvement is very much dependant upon individuals, i.c. the abbot. These individuals are often islands to themselves.
qThere is a strong need for more synergy and collaboration between various HIV/AIDS initiatives. At the moment all organizations/projects develop their own response, their own IEC material etc. Apart from constituting a waste of resources and time this creates real possibilities of different initiatives counteracting each other.
The UNICEF
approach and program has to be taken into account when thinking about a
possible UNV GIEBI project. Given the Common Strategy 2001-2005 of the UN
Country Team supporting the national response to the HIV epidemic in Cambodia, it is imperative that a UNV project not only
fits into the national framework (NAA) but also supports, complements and
collaborates with UNICEF activities.
Obviously, if UNV is seriously considering a GIEBI initiative, joining the review process - the second phase[3] of which will take place in January 2003 - is a golden opportunity to create a program with objectives that that are in synergy with the UNICEF program and at the same time constitute a sensible contribution in its own right.
7.Assessment of question marks identified in
the proposal
Our proposal identified a list of issues that we would need to know more about in order to be able to develop possible objectives and approaches for a UNV GIEBI project. In this paragraph we will indicate what our study has delivered in terms of answers to these questions:
1.Although all stakeholders have pledged allegiance to the GIEBI it is not clear what different stakeholders mean by greater involvement.
The study bore out that different stakeholders indeed hold different opinions. On the other hand one should not oversee the very important commonalities:
üAll agree that involvement should be within the national framework, in close collaboration with GOs and NGOs;
üAll agree that GIEBI can address both prevention and care;
üAll agree on the freedom of individual Wats/religious individuals to initiate/participate in HIV/AIDS related activities, in other words, all downplay the importance of the religious hierarchy;
üAll equally agree on the importance of personal commitment and leadership at the level of individual Wats .
However, there is no agreement on and/or consistency regarding:
üThe issue of the Wat-as-asylum/orphanage/hospice;
üThe extent to which Wats should take initiative, be in the driving seat as opposed to participate in other-directed programs;
üTo which extent monks can and should address practical issue like (proper) condom use etc.
üThe extent to which monks and other religious resource persons operating as development volunteers should be motivated by and/or derive the legitimacy of what they are doing from religious doctrine; or expressed differently, in how far the Wat infrastructure is most effective with or without religious doctrine playing an explicit role.
1.Institutional involvement within a national framework presupposes active and full-fledged support of the heads of the religious hierarchy. In other words their (as yet unknown) interpretation of involvement is crucial.
The study seems to suggest the following:
üThe national leadership does condone involvement of monks in the response to HIV/AIDS but seems not interested to play an active role. This passivity is evident on two levels:
oThe national leadership is not actively promoting a more socially oriented interpretation of Buddhist doctrine;
oThe national leadership is not actively trying to promote popular acceptance of Wat involvement in HIV/AIDS issues;
üAlthough this is unfortunate and is argued by the NAA to hamper the effectiveness of the religious response program the study also showed that the presupposition expressed in the question is unfounded. Passive – as is the current reality – rather than ‘active and full-fledged support is a sufficient condition for making GIEBI initiatives possible.
In a way the example of Thailand underscores this conclusion: in Thailand there is no national policy regarding GIEBI but there certainly are a lot of (flourishing) local Wat initiatives.
2.Various sources (see lit. ref.) point to different bases for GIEBI, including their importance for the transmission of moral values, compassion as a core Buddhist value, and the role of monks as counselors. All of these can complement each other but they do imply different kinds of involvement.
The study shows that none of the stakeholders argues for an exclusive focus on either prevention or care activities (although some would prioritize prevention). In fact most see both as pretty much inseparable, very much along the lines of the situation and response analysis document of the NAA that underlies its strategic plan.
The interviews also make evident that different stakeholders use similar Buddhist value-based arguments to legitimate practices that are, for all practical purposes, quite different. The most obvious example being care activities: “compassion” legitimates both Wat-based and home-based involvement. It certainly might be the case that further exploration of the value issue would uncover differences in the doctrinal basis that proponents for one or the other model would use to legitimate their activities. We were not able to go into this deeper. However, it is our impression that dis/advantages of Wat- versus community-based care involvement can be discussed with monks without resort to value arguments.
3.It is as yet unclear if ongoing initiatives based on religious institutions should be interpreted as mainly resulting from individual commitment, or can indeed be said to receive active support from the hierarchy.
It is very evident that individual initiative, leadership and commitment of particular monks, mostly abbots, is at the heart of ongoing religious involvement.
4.Although in general most sources subscribe to the positive potential greater involvement of Buddhist institutions there is also some evidence for religiously motivated exclusionary practices (e.g. CAS) and to potential conflicts between religious consultation and medical treatment. Not much is known about this.
The study suggests that exclusionary practices indeed exist: some religious resource persons and some of the laity still strongly object to any involvement of their Wat in HIV/AIDS directed activities. Obviously, we are in no position to say how far spread this attitude (still) is but the interviews indicate that it is diminishing, and that the monk-trainings are definitely countering these practices at the Wat level. They also suggest that active and committed monks can overcome prejudices amongst the lay community, but that at present they, i.e. these committed and active individuals are more or less on their own. The NAA suggested that stronger public, more explicit support for them from both the Buddhist hierarchy and other authority figures, possibly targeting those in a opinion leading position at local level, would make a real difference.
We found overall support for monks-as-traditional-healers. This means that the possibility of conflict – as suggested by foreign examples as well as by Cambodian literature on health-seeking behaviour in general – is real. Obviously, we did not uncover evidence of conflict between religious counseling and medical treatment, but given the objectives and scope of our pre-feasibility we are in no position to rule out the possibility. This issue needs further investigation.
2.Certain kinds of institutional involvement, within a national framework of partnership between GO’s and civil society structures, imply coordination and collaboration between religious institutions at local level and e.g. local governmental health services. Hardly anything is known about current practices of coordination (if any) between various actors communicating health messages to villagers.
The interviews suggest that the existing structure of provincial level and district level AIDS committees and secretariats indeed seems to provide a functioning platform for exchange of information, coordination and collaboration. All interviewed agreed on the need for coordination and collaboration. UNICEF indicated problems in this area, but it is unclear in how far this refers specifically to Wat-based initiatives or more generally to all (NGO) HIV/AIDS activities.
3.In the plans (national strategic plan and MoRC plan) religious institutions are described as involving monks, but also lay persons, e.g. achar and the pagoda committee. While evaluations of foreign programs (e.g. see Dratshang Lhentshog et al.) point to the importance of being clear about whom to involve, nothing is known about how Cambodian religious authorities view the respective roles of monks/nuns and lay persons, nor about current project practices in this regard.
The MoCR and the Patriarchs are explicit about involvement of religious institutions having to be embedded in programs run by others (GOs and NGOs), but are not specific about possibly fruitful task differentiation between the various within-Wat actors. Those monks involved in actual projects are quite clear about task and involvement of lay people associated with the Wat. These differ according to the ‘model’ that the monk works within, close involvement being much more necessary in the social Buddhism model because this model is heavily dependant upon income-generation through the pagoda committee. But whatever the model, the monks are the driving forces behind the activities. We did not come across any example wherein lay people took the initiative to involve ‘their’ monks.
4.Patterns of overlap, both in terms of participants and in terms of activities undertaken, between pagoda-based civil society structures and government-initiated ones, like Village Development Committees are very locally determined and not well studied. This brings up the issue of limiting activities that are aimed at GIEBI to religious institutions or rather opening them up to influential community members, be they institutionally active (member of pagoda committee, achar) or not.
The above suggested lack of public support for involvement of Buddhist individuals and institutions would imply a need for activities that involves as many influential community members as possible.
5.Foreign examples of GIEBI combine training and a focus on pagoda’s as service providers (taking care of AIDS orphans, etc.). As Cambodia’s Buddhist religious infrastructure is not really comparable with that of e.g. Thailand, especially in terms of the educational level of its monks, it is risky to just copy foreign examples as ‘best practice’.
As indicated above the MoCR and UNICEF are very much against Wat-based care-arrangements. Monks active as volunteers in the Wats-as-infrastructure-for-development model argue for home- and community-based care arrangement. Monks working according a social Buddhism model are evidently inspired by the Thai examples and argue for a need for pagoda-based care arrangements. However, they hold different opinions about the nuts and bolts of such arrangements. Some argue for a temporary shelter facility and active family or community directed work towards reintegration, others argue for the Wat as a more permanent shelter. The NAA is positive about these activities, not differentiating between the two versions. The first opinion is easier to reconcile with the community-care vision underlying UNICEF’s program.
6.The track record of (INGO) attempts to bring about GIEBI in general is not very positive. However, no meta-evaluation of these attempts has been done so far. Even an overview of what has been implemented does not exist.
The study confirms that efforts so far to make use of the Buddhist infrastructure in general for development purposes are quite limited. Given the wide support at a national policy level for Buddhist involvement in social issues, and in HIV/AIDS in particular, the list of annex 3 is not very impressive. We haven’t looked into failures so cannot say anything about the reasons for this. We believe that a more in-depth exploration of why this might be the case is in order.
It is also evident that whatever has been initiated and shown success is geographically confined. Some activities in Phnom Penh, but most involvement is found in Battambang. Part of the answer might therefore be found in questioning this geographic oddity. What differentiates this province from the rest of the country - its Buddhist infrastructure, the relationship between that infrastructure and the surrounding communities, Thai influence,….?
8.A recommendation to UNV on how to proceed
from here
The study has added one operational condition for a UNV GIEBI project to the list of conditions already identified in the discussion/proposal document (see introduction and annex1):
qIt should operate within a national framework within which a volunteer approach to supporting and facilitating ongoing processes of religious involvement can be embedded (this framework is available);
qIt’s major focus should be on ways to create an enabling environment;
qIt should address both the policy level (national and provincial) and the local support level;
qIt should test and demonstrate the effectiveness of this modality for supporting coordination and partnership between (activities of) religious institutions and GOs and NGOs in the sector of HIV/AIDS as an example for such coordination and partnership regarding other social issues.
The study has identified some possible objectives for a UNV project. These objectives are not conceptualized as being either/or but could be integrated within one program:
qFirst of all, an objective that does not make sense given the ongoing activities: a UNV GIEBI initiative would not add anything specific if its major objective would be HIV/AIDS awareness raising of religious resource persons.
qOn the other hand, ‘creating an enabling environment’ can be interpreted as interventions that increase the acceptability in the eyes of the general public of monks and other religious resource persons being involved with HIV/AIDS issues and more general social work. So awareness raising regarding ‘social Buddhism’ would make sense.
qCollaboration and synergy between various ongoing Wat-centered activities is definitely asked for. Such a networking/forum objective would fit quite well with one of the roles that the GIPA project envisions for itself.
qOur study and the premise of the UNICEF program review dovetail. What is important is to have awareness at grassroots level translated into more actual responses. We do not know what the review will recommend regarding strategies and activities that UNICEF might follow to realize this objective. Given the manifold approaches that our very limited study discovered at grassroots level we believe that whatever UNICEF will decide upon will leave room for fruitful synergistic activities for a UNV GIEBI program. UNICEF’s own statement regarding the scope for more GIEBI initiatives says as much.
qOur study indicates at least the following issues in need of closer attention:
üGrassroots level initiatives work along at least two different models; it is unlikely that one is in principle, under all circumstances, superior to the other. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and viable combinations of the models might be very well possible.
üThe biggest issue of contention is without doubt the pagoda-based versus community-based perspectives. Given the diversity of opinion, who holds them (e.g. pagoda-based has the director of the NAA on its side), the admittance on the community-care side that there is some scope for pagoda-based care, and the assurance amongst some pagoda-based care proponent like Venerable Van Savet (Wat Norea) that this care is conceptualized as a temporary shelter, preparing for reintegration into the community, it makes sense to bring about an open and continuous dialogue between individuals active within one and the other perspective, and entice them to look for a middle ground, possibly in a networked way, that makes use of the advantages of each perspective.
üA lack of networking and mutual learning amongst Wat-based initiatives is identified by UNICEF as a problem. Our study does support this conclusion. We would add that networking and mutual learning might not only increase chances of local best practices spreading faster, but also create opportunities for a more Sangha-internal debate on Buddhist values and their interpretation in current times. It seems likely that – very similar to a lot of theological debate in Christianity – ‘grassroots’ (amongst active abbots) discussions about interpretation of e.g the Cbap Srey is a more powerful force of change than trying to work through the hierarchy.
A thought that imposes itself upon us when trying to think through the implications of the above is that there is a gap between objectives that are quite straightforward and the issues of attention for which it is not that clear what kind of ‘how to go about’ advice would make sense.
One major reason why that is the case is that it is not for outsiders to define the right way here but for the stakeholders, i.c. active monastics themselves. What has to be facilitated is dialogue. One might think of an action research approach, e.g. along the lines of what David Wharton (currently with CDRI’s Centre for Peace and Development, who has been a monk in the Thai forest tradition for 13 years, including time spent in Cambodian monasteries) proposed two and a half years ago (see lit. ref.). One can envision a UNV action research project preferably co-chaired by UNICEF and operating as a laboratory and ongoing learning experience for ‘how to go about’ creating mutual learning networks amongst Wats, discuss opinions about different perspectives, create mentoring/back-stopping facilities between those with practical experience and those without it, etc. Such an arrangement would add a generator of innovative ideas and a flexible testing ground to whatever the UNICEF program would decide to take on board.
The above translates into the following recommendation to UNV on how to proceed from here:
1.UNV is advised to join the table of the UNICEF’s Religious leadership Initiative review and establish a program framework in close collaboration with UNICEF.
2.UNV is advised to bring its program under the umbrella of the NAA rather than the MoCR. Such placement would create the best environment for synergistic collaboration between the NAA and the MoCR.
3.Presupposing UNICEF’s review does not yet result in UNICEF taking the following on board within its own program, UNV is advised to offer a program that targets one or more of the following three major objectives:
oAwareness raising regarding ‘social Buddhism’ in order to increase the acceptability in the eyes of the general public of monks and other religious resource persons being involved with HIV/AIDS issues and more general social work.
oNetworking amongst ongoing Wat-centered activities in order to increase collaboration and synergy between various initiatives, especially regarding use of IEC material etc.
oAn
action-research networking initiative of mutual learning regarding models of
community involvement (the second and third objective could be combined into
one).
9.Additional References
References not yet mentioned in the list attached to the pre-feasibility proposal (annex 1)
BDF (2002) Buddhism For Development Brochure.
NPC (2002) Project proposal: Gender equality project
leading towards coping with the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The scope for a UNV project
to support and facilitate ongoing processes of a Greater Involvement and
Effectiveness of Buddhist Institutions
(GIEBI) in the response towards HIV/AIDS in Cambodia
Based on a meeting with
Roland Campen (UNV program officer) and Alex Marcelino (GIPA project
coordinator)
The HIV/AIDS epidemic is a
serious threat to for the future social welfare of the Cambodian population.
“Cambodia faces an AIDS epidemic that potentially could reverse the development
gains made since peace returned to the country. It is estimated that 2.8% of
the adult population is infected with HIV, among the highest in Asia; that many
tens of thousands have already died as a result; and that possibly two hundred
thousand people including children will develop AIDS within the next 5-10
years” (Cambodia Human Development Report - CHDR, progress report 2001, p.7).
Although the rate of infections is declining, the number of AIDS cases will
increase. Because the country is ill equipped to face this social threat,
having the next to lowest Human Development Index score of the region, efforts
to increase the effectiveness of the national response are very important.
In consultation with all
stakeholders the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGoC) has developed and adopted
a National Strategic Plan for a comprehensive and Multi-sectoral Response to
HIV/AIDS 2001-2005, providing a commendable framework for involving all
stakeholders in a coordinated effort.
This framework explicitly
recognizes the importance of greater involvement of religious institutions in
mitigating the impact of HIV/AIDS. The major reasons underlying this
recognition are that:
qthe major challenge is to
develop local responses (especially in rural areas)
qreligious networks are often
very effective local structures
qbecause they have privileged
access to households
qas the individuals involved
are often respected and trusted to a greater extent than outsiders, be they
from GO’s or NGO’s
qand in case of illness
and/or psychological problems are the first to be called (especially monks).
As part of this framework,
the responsible sectorial Ministry of Cults and Religions (MoCR) has recently
adopted a “Policy on Religious Response to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Cambodia”
(which includes the Islamic and Christian response). This policy stance was
again developed in partnership with all stakeholders, and is supported by the
Supreme Patriarchs of both Buddhist sects.
This policy document is one
of the outcomes of the development phase of the HIV/AIDS Religious Response
Program (2002-2002). The MoCR’s major partner for this development phase was
UNICEF. The development of this program also included training activities,
again mainly by UNICEF funded local government partners and NGO’s.
Current UNV involvement in HIV/AIDS work
in Cambodia
UNV is already involved in HIV-related
work in Cambodia through its GIPA project: Greater Involvement of People Living
with, and affected by HIV and AIDS. The objective of GIPA is a guiding
principle for UNV/UNDP’s HIV-related work since the Paris AIDS summit of
December 1994. What is particular about the UN GIPA approach is:
qThat it is aimed at
involving those with the most direct experience of HIV/AIDS: people infected
and their friends, family and caretakers;
qThat its African experiences
have shown the volunteer modality to be especially effective;
Cambodia has been chosen as
one of the two Asian countries (the other one being India) to implement the
lessons learned from African GIPA experiences because of 4 reasons:
1.There is strong official
support and government backing for GIPA;
2.The existence of voluntary
structures that fit GIPA program requirements;
3.But outside support is still
necessary, both because civil society structures are still weak and,
4.Because HIV/AIDS is still
very much taboo;
The defining characteristics
of the Cambodian UNV GIPA project are:
5.It is aimed at creating an
enabling environment through working at both the policy level (national and
provincial) and the individual support level;
6.It is explicitly focused on
realizing its ambition within the context of the national strategic framework;
7.It is explicitly set up as a
pilot to support and facilitate ongoing processes of GIPA, and
8.Thereby increase the
understanding of the potential of the UNV program to operate in such a supportive
and facilitative role within a national framework that aims at creating
effective coordination and partnerships between government and civil society
organizations at all levels, and
9.Thus increase the awareness
of the value of national and international volunteer contributions in the
response to HIV/AIDS.
UNV interest in Greater
Involvement and Effectiveness of
Buddhist Institutions
The list
of reasons for implementing a UNV GIPA project in Cambodia seems equally valid
for implementing a Greater Involvement and Effectiveness of Buddhist Institutions (GIEBI) project:
qStrong official support and
government backing for GIEBI
qClear indications that
religious (Buddhist) institutions are the most trusted volunteer structures and
therefore an important potential instrument in the response towards HIV/AIDS; in other words, as
GIPA aims at involving those most intimately affected, GIEBI would aim at those
most trusted by people living with HIV/AIDS.
qAlthough there is a HIV/AIDS
Religious Response Program, and although there is strong official support and
government backing for GIEBI, the number of actual activities remains curiously
limited. And, until now, the foreign success-stories, e.g. the Sangha Metta
project in Northern Thailand, have not been replicated in Cambodia.
Also, the
defining characteristics of the Cambodian GIPA project, seem fit for
replication in a GIEBI project:
qThe existence of a national
framework within which a volunteer approach to supporting and facilitating
ongoing processes of GIEBI can be embedded;
qBy creating an enabling
environment through working at both the policy level (national and provincial)
and the individual support level;
qAnd thereby testing and
demonstrating the effectiveness of this modality for supporting coordination
and partnerships between government and civil society organizations.
In
addition to the above, a GIEBI-in-the-response-towards-HIV/AIDS project
seems relevant and timely because the lessons to be learned have implications
way beyond the issue of HIV/AIDS. The question on Greater Involvement of
Buddhist Institutions in social services
in general is a most urgent one. And greater involvement in HIV/AIDS is an
important testing ground for GIEBI in general, exactly because for this sector
a national framework has been established.
Irrespective of the many
similarities there are fundamental differences between GIPA and GIEBI.
Facilitating involvement of people living with HIV and their self-help groups
is fundamentally different from facilitating institutional involvement. Also,
translating the general objectives of GIPA into the Cambodian project is
relatively straight forward compared to translating successful regional
examples of GIEBI (e.g. the Sangha Metta Project) into a Cambodian version.
Cambodian Buddhist human capital and its institutional infrastructure was near
totally wiped out at the end of the Khmer Rouge regime and is far from rebuild
yet. Developing objectives and activities for a UNV GIEBI project would presuppose
more knowledge of at least the following issues:
10.Although all stakeholders
have pledged allegiance to the GIEBI it is not clear what different
stakeholders mean by greater involvement.
1.Institutional involvement
within a national framework presupposes active and full-fledged support of the
heads of the religious hierarchy. In other words their (as yet unknown)
interpretation of involvement is crucial.
2.Various sources (see lit.
ref.) point to different bases for GIEBI, including their importance for the
transmission of moral values, compassion as a core Buddhist value, and the role
of monks as counselors. All of these can complement each other but they do
imply different kinds of involvement.
3.It is as yet unclear if
ongoing initiatives based on religious institutions should be interpreted as
mainly resulting from individual commitment, or can indeed be said to receive
active support from the hierarchy.
4.Although in general most
sources subscribe to the positive potential greater involvement of Buddhist institutions
there is also some evidence for religiously motivated exclusionary practices
(e.g. CAS) and to potential conflicts between religious consultation and
medical treatment. Not much is known about this.
11.Certain kinds of
institutional involvement, within a national framework of partnership between
GO’s and civil society structures, imply coordination and collaboration between
religious institutions at local level and e.g. local governmental health
services. Hardly anything is known about current practices of coordination (if
any) between various actors communicating health messages to villagers.
12.In the plans (national
strategic plan and MoRC plan) religious institutions are equated with monks,
but in fact they also involve lay persons, e.g. the pagoda committee. While
evaluations of foreign programs (e.g. see Dratshang Lhentshog et al.) point to
the importance of being clear about whom to involve, nothing is known about how
Cambodian religious authorities view the respective roles of monks/nuns and lay
persons, nor current project practices in this regard.
13.Patterns of overlap, both in
terms of participants as in terms of activities undertaken, between
pagoda-based civil society structures and government-initiated ones, like Village
Development Committees are very locally determined and not well studied. This
brings up the issue of limiting activities that are aimed at GIEBI to religious
institutions or rather opening them up to influential community members, be
they institutionally active (member of pagoda committee, achar) or not.
14.Foreign examples of GIEBI
combine training and a focus on pagoda’s as service providers (taking care of
AIDS orphans, etc.). As Cambodia’s Buddhist religious infrastructure is not
really comparable with that of e.g. Thailand, especially in terms of the
educational level of its monks, it is risky to just copy foreign examples as
‘best practice’.
15.The track record of (INGO)
attempts to bring about GIEBI in general is not very positive. However, no
meta-evaluation of these attempts has been done so far. Even an overview of
what has been implemented does not exist.
Given this diverse (but
still not exhaustive) list of lacking and/or incomplete information it makes
sense to think about determining the scope of a UNV GIEBI project in terms of
phases, a pre-feasibility and a feasibility phase. Such phasing safeguards
against unnecessary investment of resources:
16.a limited pre-feasibility
study to determine if the concept of GIEBI indeed has the high-level support it
seems to have, determine the meaning it is given by those whose support seems
absolutely essential for any UNV GIEBI project within the national framework to
be feasible, and determine for a limited number of ongoing GIEBI projects what
they do, why they opted for this approach, what they run into while
implementing their projects, and what impact they have in a limited number of
project sites.
17.if this pre-feasibility
study shows that the support is indeed real and the quick scan of some ongoing
GIEBI activities indicates that a UNV GIEBI project to support and facilitate
ongoing processes creating an enabling environment would indeed be helpful, the
ToR for a feasibility proper can be formulated.
The aim of this phase is
qto cost-effectively
determine if the basic conditions that have to be met for any UNV project for
GIEBI in the response towards HIV/AIDS in Cambodia to be feasible indeed exist.
qto generate input for the
design of a feasibility study proper[4].
To realize these aims we
propose:
1.Conducting
interviews in Phnom Penh with:
qSamdech Tep Vong, Patriarch
Mohanikaya sect or his deputy
qSamdech Bour Kry, Patriarch
Dhamayutakanikaya sect, or his deputy
qChhorn Eam, secretary of
state MoRC
qH.E. Tia Phalla, secretary
general NAA
These interviews will
address the following issues:
qWhat is their general view
on HIV/AIDS?
qWhat do they understand by
greater involvement of religious institutions?
qDo they see scope for
involvement for prevention and for care, or is one or the other a more
appropriate objective for the involvement or religious institutions?
qWhat is the rationale for
supporting GIEBI (as they interpret it)?
qMay society expect active
personal involvement of the patriarch or other important religious leaders in
activities and/or programs targeting HIV/AIDS?
qWhich authoritative monk
practitioner (if any) can be expected to be willing and able to become actively
involved in a program to create an enabling environment for greater involvement
of religious institutions?
qWhat are the main hindrances
to GIEBI (as they interpret it)?
qWhat kind of activities do
they envision necessary to bring about GIEBI (as they interpret it)?
qHow do they see the
respective roles of religious practitioners and lay persons associated with the
pagoda?
qHow do they see the
relationship between GIEBI and other actors communicating health messages and
providing services to villagers?
qDo they understand GIEBI in
the response to HIV/AIDS as a special case of GIEBI in social services in
general?
The interviews will follow a format that is as open as possible to maximize the possibility of eliciting relevant information, with a concluding check on the coverage of the above indicated list of topics.
All interviews will be taped
and transcribed.
2.Visit two
Battambang-based NGO’s that run GIEBI projects, including visits to one
project-site (pagoda), for a quick scan SWOT analysis, collecting material on:
18.What activities does the
respective project consist of?
19.Was the project NGO/donor
initiated or did (local) religious institutions take the initiative?
20.What is the rationale for
choosing these activities?
21.How do they view respective
roles of monks/nuns and lay persons with a pagoda association?
22.How do they relate to other
actors communicating health messages or offering health services in their
target area?
23.Have they considered
alternatives, and if so, why were these not implemented?
24.Which of their expectations
are confirmed while implementing their projects?
25.Which are not borne out?
26.What unexpected developments
did occur?
27.What is seen as the
project’s strengths?
28.What as its weaknesses?
29.What opportunities are
identified that the project might make use of?
30.What are its major
constraints?
31.What do monks and pagoda-committee
members of a project-site pagoda think of the project?
32.What impact do their
activities have on the project-site?
Three NGO’s are active in
and around Battambang city: Wat Norea Peaceful Children’s Home (NPC), Buddhism
and Development (BFD) and Tean Thor Association/COERR. We propose to visit NPC
and only one of the other two as their programs have the same objectives.
3.Collect a
first overview of all relevant GIEBI projects (i.e. also projects outside the
HIV/AIDS sector; both ongoing and completed).
4.Expected
output
The pre-feasibility is
expected to deliver a concise report that presents the team’s findings on:
1.The commitment of the
Buddhist hierarchy of the two Cambodian sects.
2.The interpretation of
greater involvement of religious institutions that this commitment is based
upon, as well as the meaning of GIEBI in the eyes of important government
stakeholders.
3.An overview of all GIEBI
relevant projects.
4.A recommendation to UNV on
how to proceed from here. In case the pre-feasibility indicates scope for a UNV
project this recommendation will be a two-page pre-proposal.
The team
The team will consist of a
UNV advisor assisting with conceptualizing, analysis and report-writing, a
research-coordinator and a research assistant.
Estimated time-investment
Ad 1:
Organizing, conducting and
process 4 interviews: 2 researchers x 4 days 8
person-days
Analysis: 2 researchers x 1
days 2
person-days
Ad 2:
Travel-time,
data-collection: 2 researchers x 4 days 8
person-days
Analysis: 2 researchers x 1
days 2
person-days
Ad 3:
data-collection: 2
researchers x 3 days 6
person-days
Analysis: 2 researchers x 1
days 2
person-days
Report writing: 2
researchers x 5 days
10 person-days
Total
38 person-days
UNV advisor PM
Research coordinator 19 days
x $ 20/day $
380
Research assistant 19 days x
$ 10/day $ 190
Transcription 4 interviews x
$ 25 $ 100
Travel costs: $ 150
Per diems 2 researchers x 4
days x $ 20 $
160
Office costs PM
Total $ 980
To simplify the logistics of the project, which are very much dependent upon the availability of the interviewees, some of which are bound to have quite inflexible agenda’s, and identifying an opportunity for visiting Battambang that suits both NGO’s we propose a project duration of two months. CAS will aim to deliver a draft report on time for an early December stakeholder meeting.
References
CAS (2001) Volunteering at grassroots level in Cambodia.
Draft report for UNDP
COERR, Tean Thor
Association. 2001. Battambang Monks and
HIV/AIDS. Project proposal submitted to UNICEF
Dratshang Lhentshog, Health
Division, UNICEF (1999) Religion and
Health Project Evaluation: Data Analysis and Final Report (prepared by
Marion Young) (Bhutan)
Gyallay-Pap, P. (2002) Khmer
Buddhism resurfaces. In: Vijghen, J.L. People
and the 1998 national elections in Cambodia. ECR, nr. 44, pp. 109-116.
Mey Nay (2002) Progress and Final Report on HIV/AIDS
Religious Response Program Development. PP
Ministry of Planning (2002) Cambodia Human Development Report. Societal
Aspects of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Cambodia, Progress Report 2001. PP.
Ministry of Religion and
Cults (2002) Policy on Religious Response
to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Cambodia. PP
National Aids Authority
(2001) National Strategic Plan for a
Comprehensive and Multi-sectoral Response to HIV/AIDS 2001-2005. PP
NPC. 2001. Project for setting up Monk network to cope
with the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Project proposal to UNICEF
First progress report
Sangha Metta Project (2000) Buddhist Monks and HIV/AIDS Prevention and
Care: Evaluation Report. (Thailand)
United Nations Volunteers
(2001) Greater Involvement of People
Living with, and affected by HIV and AIDS (GIPA) in Cambodia. Project
Document. PP
Annex 2: List of Key Informants
Phnom Penh
1.Samdech Tep Vong, Patriarch
Mohanikaya sect at Unalom pagoda.
2.Venerable Yos Hot, Vice
Chair of Association Dhamma.
3.H.E Chhorn Iem, Secretary of
State of the Ministry of Cults and Religions.
4.H.E Tia Phalla, Secretary
General of National AIDS Authority.
5.Venerable Lai Yuvaneadh,
Secretary to Samdech Bour Kri, Patriarch Dhamayutakanikaya.
6.Dr. May Noy, Consultant on
HIV/AIDS religious response program development UNICEF/MoCR.
7.Mr. Ing Chivorn, Director of
Khmer Buddhist Society Cambodia.
8.Mr. Sok Sony, Director of
Buddhism Association for Relief of the poor
9.Mr. Etienne Poirot, Project
Officer HIV/AIDS UNICEF
1.Venerable Van Savet,
Director of Wat Norea Peaceful Children’s Home (NPC).
2.Venerable Men Sovann,
program manager (NPC) in charge of HIV/AIDS education at 13 Makara pagoda,
Chamkarusei village, Prah Sdech commune, Battambang district, Battambang.
3.Venerable Siang San, program
manager (NPC) in charge of HIV/AIDS and morality education at Balath pagoda,
Balath village, Norea commune, Sangke district, Battambang.
4.Venerable The Kong, program
manager in charge of HIV/AIDS and Buddhism-related morality education at Boran
Mongkul Hop pagoda in Hop village, Hop commune, Mongrusei district, Battambang.
5.Venerable Khut Ang, Chair of
Kien Kes Volunteer Networking Team on HIV/AIDS Education in the community.
6.Mr. Siv Lay, Vice Chair of
Kien Kes Volunteer Networking Team on HIV/AIDS Education in the community.
7.Pok Socheat, Health Project
Manager of Buddhism for Development.
8.Venerable Touch Yun,
Administrative Assistant of Buddhism for Development at Anglong Vel pagoda.
9.Venerable Thuk Dam, Program
Assistant of HIV/AIDS and morality education in Anglung Vel community.
10.Venerable Proeung Preuy,
Mobile Ciciv Education Team Leader and HIV/AIDS Trainer at Thmo Puok pagoda,
Thmo Puok district, Banteay Meanchey.
11.Venerable Soeun Rithy,
program manager of health, HIV/AIDS and morality education at Preak Rokar,
Battambang.
Kompong Chhnang (by phone)
1.Venerable Kim Hun, Director
of Wat Ponley Association for the Elderly.
Pursat (by phone)
1.Mr. Phum Phavath, Director
of Buddhism Association & Supporting Environment at Wat Peal Nhek.
Annex 3: A tentative overview
of all projects/non-governmental organizations relevant to the issue of social
involvement of Buddhist religious institutions
1. Buddhism for Development (BFD; Battambang)
- Providing general health
services, hand dug wells and pump wells, environmental and hygienic programs
and program on HIV/AIDS education about condom uses and counseling to people in
the communities.
- Providing encouragement
and materials to AIDS patients and visiting AIDS patients in the communities.
T 855-053 370 041, 016 881 521
Mr. Heng Mony Chenda,
director
2. Norea Peaceful Children's Home (Battambang)
- Taking care of
drug-infected children, domestic violence-infected children, HIV-infected
children and children whose parents have passed away due to AIDS.
- Network building program
on prevention of the prevalence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been carried out
in 6 districts in Battambang.
Providing AIDS education,
counseling and encouragement to people in communities.
- Facilitating suspected
people to have their blood tested at Battambang provincial hospital free of
charge.
H/P 012 754 613
Venerable Mony Savet, NPC
Director
3. Kien Kes Volunteer Network Group (Battambang)
- Taking
care of orphans who have been abandoned and whose parents have died of AIDS.
- Providing AIDS education,
counseling, rice, encouragement and medicines to cure opportunist diseases for
AIDS people in communities.
- Home based care.
Follow up AIDS-infected
people.
H/P 012 727535
Venerable Khut Ang, director
4. Tean Thor Association/CORRR (Action of Compassion; Battambang)
HIV/AIDS response program
involved, working for Monks HIV/AIDS home based care and counseling in the
communities.
5. Association Dhamma (Phnom
Penh)
- Humanitarian programs
concerning social work, health and education have been implemented in urban
areas. Workshops on health, education and development have been held. The
association creates network for the Buddhism community.
- Thousands of trees have
been planted over the last four years.
- A hospital was built in
1996 in Trabek district, Prey Veng.
- Development programs
consist of small-scale irrigation system, electricity and pump water wells and
credit in Trabek district.
Training courses on the
produce of Kampos fertilizers have been provided to people in Trabek.
- Buddhism-related morality
education has been given to young people since 1999.
- Buddhist Meditation Center
has provided meditations to Buddhists every Thursday and Saturday afternoon
since 1997.
T 855-23-721 001
Venerable Yos Hot, vice chairman
Mr. Ry Chor, operation officer
6. Khmer Buddhist Society Cambodia (KBSC; Phnom Penh)
- From 1992 to 1996,
training programs on human rights, development, democracy, community
development policies, general health and hygiene were provided to monks in 21
provinces and cities. Those monks became master teachers to train people in the
communities through out the country.
- Providing training
programs on Buddhism, human rights, environment and democracy to more than 400
police, military police and staff of the Ministry of Cults and Religions and
Environment.
- Training courses on
HIV/AIDS and human rights have been provided to 50-60 Chaov Adhika (chiefs of
monks) in 7 provinces, Kandal, Kompong Speu, Kompong Chhnang, Prey Veng, Svay
Reang, Takeo and Kampot since 2000. After training, these monks become master
teachers to train other 600 monks through out Cambodia, except for Udor
Meanchey province.
- Training courses on
emergency programs were provided 60 monks at Toul Tompung, Nirudh, Komsan and
Stoeung Meanchey pagodas in Phnom Penh to raise money from people during
traditional ceremonies to support AIDS patients. Monks visit AIDS patients in
hospitals.
T 855-23 362 423, 855-012
813 100
F 855-023362 423
Mr. Ing Chivorn, director
7. Salvation Center Cambodia (SCC; Phnom Penh)
SCC is a leading NGO working
with Buddhist monks and its major activities providing counseling, home base
care, disseminating HIV/AIDS education to AIDS patients in the community and
hospitals and serving orphans who are victimized and whose parents have died
from HIV/AIDS. Boosting and persuading relatives, neighbors and communities to
support and help children who have been affected by the AIDS epidemic.
H/P 855-012 901 738
Mr. Prum Thoeurn, director,
PC.
8. Buddhism Association for Relief of the poor (Phnom Penh)
- Training courses on
sewing, repairs of motorbikes, radio and television have provided to poor
people in Phnom Penh.
- Education about tradition,
beliefs and crop plantation and environmental conservation and prevention has
been given to young people in Battambang.
H/P 855-016 886 116
Mr. Sok Sony, director
9. Shanti
Volunteer Association (SVA) Cambodia (Phnom Penh)
A school Construction
Project, a Library Project, a Cultural Support Project, a Rural Village
Development Project and the Asian Children's House Project
# 28, St 288, Sangkat Olympic, Khan Chamkarmon,
Phnom Penh
P.O. Box: 2, Phnom Penh
T 855-023 219 080, 855-023 364 229
F 855-023 216 924
Mr. Naito Ryo, director
10. Meditation
Center of Wat Nonmony (Phnom Penh)
Developing the HIV/AIDS
social response and religious interest through mind concentrated, observing the
discipline of the Buddha and upgrading the national program, through HIV/AIDS
religious response sensitization meeting.
11. Santi Sena
(Svay Riang)
Preservation of natural resource and micro economic
(rice bank, pig bank, credit program, non formal education, environment on
prevention of community forests and solving and managing conflicts in the
community)
T 855-044 715 026, 855-012 924 855
Venerable Nehm Kim Teng, Director
12. Buddhism
Association & Support Environment (Pursat)
- Providing environment and
community development-related programs and literacy classes to people in Pursat
province since 1994.
- Environmental programs are
concerning preservation forests and fishery in the community.
- The association has taken
care of 13 children whose children passed away of AIDS and worked closely with
6 of 124 pagodas in Pursat to provide incentives, rice and materials to
AIDS-affected people. It has cooperated with Provincial AIDS Committee and
concerned organizations in Pursat to visit AIDS patients in the community and
monks have taken many AIDS patients to Pursat provincial hospital. The
AIDS-related program has been carried out since 2000. Monks have roles in
taking care of children whose parents died of AIDS as long as their community
doesn't accept them and in providing sermons to people in the communities about
AIDS in some communities.
H/P 855-012 866 450
Mr. Phum Phavath, Director
13. Wat Ponley
Association (Kom Pong Chhnang)
- Providing education on
non-violent Dharma, health and AIDS to young people in the community
surrounding pagoda.
- Providing encouragement
and materials to the elderly.
- Raising money and
resources from people in the community to building roads and school
Being involved in
development activities in the community.
- Solving problems relating
to land and rice fields between local authority and people in the community.
14. Buddhist
Association of Cambodia (BAC; Phnom Penh)
To develop a booklet on
HIV/AIDS religious response and National Workshop and Training on Buddhist
Morality Education.
15. Buddhist
Education Inspection (Phnom Penh)
Developing HIV/AIDS
religious response to Buddhist students of Buddhist High School, Buddhist
University in Phnom Penh, provinces and pagodas based school.
Health educator on HIV/AIDS
religious response and public health development with both Buddhist Morality
Education integrated.
16. Mlub
Baitong (Phnom Penh)
Monks have provided education on prevention of
forests and environment to the communities in Kompong Speu and Kompong Thum
since 1998.
T 855-023 214 409, 855-012 782 536
Mr. Va Moeun, Vice Director
17. Buddhism
and Democracy (Battambang)
1.Short-term training courses
on local democracy have been given to people, police and local authorities in
Thmor Kol, Bavel and Komrieng districts since 1998.
2.Programs on child and women
rights
3.Program on investigation in
human right violence
4.Providing training courses
on decentralization to commune councils
Public forum between local authorities and people
have been organized.
5.Publishing newsletter and
providing money and materials to 15 children whose parents have passed away due
to AIDS.
# 420, group 7, Romchek 4, Battambang district,
Battambang
Mr. Yoeun Yoeunt, director (012 921 401)
18. NYEMO
(Phnom Penh)
An international NGO that runs a programme focusing
on the reintegration of vulnerable women living with children and vulnerable
women living with HIV/AIDS. This programme involves monk volunteers
# 14 & 33, Steet 310, BKK1
023-213 160/216 944
[1] UNV supports CAS since many years. Currently this support consists of one Dutch institutional strengthening specialist. The time he devoted to this project is considered a free service of CAS to UNV. In addition, the project budget is based on below-regular staff salaries and does not cover any overhead.
[2] UNICEF took the initiative to be included in this pre-feasibility. This initiative is well appreciated because it greatly improved the validity of the study’s conclusions and recommendations
[3] During this phase organizational/project structures and design processes are identified that support action by Buddhist leadership and clergy.
[4] Although this goes beyond the confines of this
pre-feasibility proposal we suggest that such a feasibility study starts with a
proper meta-evaluation of all GIEBI (in general, not limited to HI/AIDS) attempts
to date. The feasibility’s aim is to generate practical project design
options. These can then be the basis for
a separate project formulation process that might include a mission and a
workshop with major stakeholders, or project formulation may be the concluding
part of the feasibility study itself.
[5] As this study is conceived as a service of CAS to its supporting agency UNV this budget is not based on our normal rates.