The PNPM-RESPEK
initiative is a case in point.
Following its establishment
in 2008, PNPM-RESPEK (the Village Community Empowerment Program in
Papua Province), reached almost every village in Papua — a province often
recognised as one of Indonesia’s poorest regions. This program was at the heart
of the central government’s effort to reduce poverty in Papua Province. For a
period of time it was the only program reaching native Papuans in remote rural
areas, mostly in the highlands, with very limited access to basic services. The
project cost 1.28 billion rupiah (approximately US$128 million) in 2013.
Although the program ended
in December 2014, it presents a useful lesson for the government of Indonesian
President Joko Widodo (Jokowi), which is set to implement a new village
development program in Papua in the near future. The environment of mistrust between
the central government in Jakarta and the provincial Papua government in
Jayapura must be addressed in order to achieve real development in Papua’s
poorest villages.
Unlike community-driven
development programs run in other parts of the country, PNPM-RESPEK
was funded by both the central and provincial governments. Specifically,
funding was provided through the central government’s Program for Community
Empowerment in Rural Areas and the Papua provincial government’s Strategic
Village Development Plan. The Papua provincial government was responsible for
channelling annual block grants of 100 million rupiah (US$10,000), while the
central government provided technical assistance and facilitation.
The implementation of this
flagship program has faced several challenges that may hinder the achievement
of long-term goals and the sustainability of future programs. These include the
timeframe, demanding administrative requirements, limited access to recipient
villages and facilitation quality. The resolution of these issues was not
helped by the prevailing environment of mistrust.
A lack of synchronization
over the timing of central and provincial government funding provision limited
the ability of the subdistrict facilitators to deliver the program. While central
government funding was ready for disbursement early in the year, provincial
government funds were generally not available until September, October or even
November. This became an issue as the provincial government temporarily
deactivated villagers’ bank accounts over the Christmas period to prevent
misuse of funds. This gave only a short window of time, from September to
mid-December, for the funds to be used.
The sub-district
facilitators were also subjected to lengthy administrative requirements for every
stage of the program. They had to facilitate at least nine implementation
stages, prepare required documents for the disbursement of funding, and write
project and individual progress reports for each of between four to 13 villages
in each sub-district. As a result of these reporting requirements, the time
that facilitators had available for actual program implementation was limited.
Sub-district facilitators, as the forefront of this program, prioritised the
fulfilment of their numerous administrative obligations over improving the
quality of project implementation.
The program also suffered
from issues of accessibility, with limited roads and transportation facilities
resulting in high costs required to reach many areas in Papua. These costs were
not met by transportation budgets. As a result, facilitator supervision,
especially in poorly accessible areas, was minimal and sometimes even omitted
altogether.
Stakeholder discussions
proposed several recommendations for reform. The two most significant were to
expand the program’s budgetary cycle to biannual cycles — one year for planning
and one year for implementation, giving more time to facilitators to plan. And
to formulate a special operational technical guide for Papua that considers
geographical accessibility issues and reduces unnecessary paperwork.
But these recommendations
faced critical challenges in their execution. The provincial government,
especially the governor, opposed the first recommendation because while the
amount of funds would remain unchanged, they would be channelled only once
every two years. This would likely have political repercussions, as village
elite’s unhappiness with this ‘long delay’ could potentially reduce the
governor’s popularity.
The follow-up on the second
recommendation has stalled as there has not been a clear agreement about who
should formulate a specific Community Empowerment Operational Guide for Papua.
The provincial government and facilitators feel that the current guidelines are
too ‘Jakarta-centric’ and would like to formulate their own, but they feel that
they have never been entrusted with that authority. On the other hand, the
central government expects Jayapura to be more proactive and to take the
initiative.
Unfortunately, the central
government seems hesitant to pursue further
dialogue or lobbying because they feel uneasy about dealing with
Jayapura. At the same time, Jayapura believes that Jakarta has not been serious
in following up Jayapura’s needs. These misperceptions, which are rooted in
decades of unresolved conflict and deep distrust between Jakarta and Jayapura,
have hampered the improvement of project implementation.
With President Jokowi’s
forthcoming program to accelerate
development in Papua, as well as the forthcoming implementation of
Village Law No.6/2014, there will be a significant rise in the allocation of
funds directly to villages, including in Papua. Most likely, this will be
through the mechanism of the village community empowerment program.
But the effectiveness of
these programs is highly dependent on how consistent Jokowi and central
government bureaucrats are in keeping their promise of building dialogue and
trust with Jayapura. To achieve this, the Jokowi government must
focus on facilitating more communication and consultation with the Papua
provincial government. Without a fundamental transformation of this
relationship, it is likely that future development initiatives will continue to
repeat the same unsuccessful pattern.
Yulia I. Sari is a PhD
Candidate at the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National
University.
No comments:
Post a Comment