The suspension of one of the country's most effective donor supported poverty alleviation projects in remote western Nepal has sparked debate about where the line is drawn between staff safety and public need.

On 15 May, the German aid agency GTZ, British DfID and the Dutch group SNV jointly announced the indefinite suspension of Rural Community Infrastructure Works (RCIW) after Maoists beat up a female staff of the project's local partner in Kalikot.

Debkala Acharya was badly injured in the attack at Sukatiya VDC but reports from Kalikot headquarters of Manma say the reason was more personal enmity than her work with the project.

Donor agencies have always said safety of their staff is a priority and have often suspended projects after physical attacks in the past. But what if the threats are a result of local rivalry?

"We are also not happy with the suspension at all but we can't put our staff at risk, we don't have any other way," Ulf Wernicke of GTZ in Kathmandu told us, "We expect commitment from (the Maoists) and the suspension will remain until we have assurances of full security for our staff."

However, Kalikot-based community groups have sent word out that Acharya was targeted for reasons other than her work with the GTZ-funded food for work program in her district. A local Maoist commissar in Kalikot, while not denying that the beating took place, is said to want GTZ to justify the suspension of its program.

The fear now is that aside from depriving villagers of food, the withdrawal may also have put other aid groups in the district in the bad books of the rebels. Other Kathmandu-based aid agencies told us privately they were miffed at GTZ's abrupt decision.

The three other RCIW donors in Kathmandu, however, say the Maoists are in serious violation of the Basic Operating Guidelines signed by 10 aid organisations that allows termination of programs if aid workers are not safe.

The news from Kalikot was exaggerated in transmission and German media reported wrongly this week that two aid workers were killed in western Nepal. The government is also displeased with the suspension. "We were not consulted and we don't agree with the decision," says Basanta Raj Gautam, the Ministry of Local Development's national program coordinator for RCIW, who has just returned from a monitoring mission to Kalikot.

RCIW provides cash and food for infrastructure projects, and local communities are involved in digging a mountain road linking Dailekh to the Karnali Highway. Gautam says that nearly 10 km of the total 18 km of road trail is completed and the remaining would have been finished this year. The work is now halted.

Other development groups say pulling out like this sends the wrong message to the people and to the Maoists. Says Gauri Pradhan of the National Human Rights Alliance, "We understand this is to pressure the Maoists but such direct action is not necessary and they should have discussed it first with other NGOs." Pradhan's child rights group has been under pressure from rebels in Salyan, Rolpa and Rukum to hand over a share of project funds as donation but they haven't withdrawn.

Hari Prasad Limbu of the Nepal Trust in Humla had his office in Simikot bombed and staff threatened but says it is the duty of aid agencies not to be deterred. "The important thing is to continue to deliver assistance despite physical threats," Limbu says.

Shanta Lal Mulmi of the National Federation of NGOs had staff members beaten up recently when they refused to register with the Maoists in Sindhupalchok and Dadeldhura. "As people involved in development in conflict areas we have to overcome these challenges," Mulmi says.

Other development agencies didn't object so much to GTZ deciding to pull out but that the decision was taken unilaterally. They fear the message to the Maoists is that all they have to do is rough up staff to stop projects they don't like. Says Action Aid Nepal's Country Director Shibesh Chandra Regmi: "The donor action looks right if we think about the safety of staff but it doesn't seem fair from the poor people's point of view."