INDONESIA RAPID DECENTRALIZATION APPRAISAL (IRDA) · PDF fileSecond Report of Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal T H E A S I A F O U N D A T I O N November 2002 INDONESIA RAPID

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

T H E A S I A F O U N D A T I O N

November 2002

INDONESIA RAPIDDECENTRALIZATION APPRAISAL (IRDA)

THE ASIA FOUNDATION


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

ABOUT THE FOUNDATION

The Asia Foundation is a nonprofit, nongovernmental grantmaking organization commitedto the development of a peaceful, prosperous, and open Asia Pacific region. The Foundationsupports programs in Asia that help improve governance and law, economic reform anddevelpoment, women’s political participation and international relations. The Foundationgives priority to strengthening leadership and the capacity of local organizations, as well asimproving public policy. Foundation grants are given for education and training, technicalassistance, exchanges, policy research and educational materials. Founded in 1954, TheAsia Foundation is headquartered in San Francisco, has 16 offices in Asia, and an office inWashington, D.C.

OFFICESBangkokBeijingColomboDhakaDiliHanoiHongkongIslamabadJakartaKathmanduManilaPhnom PenhSan FranciscoSeoulTaipeiTokyoUlaanbaatarWashington, D.C.

NON-RESIDENT PROGRAMSLaosMalaysiaMaldivesPacific IslandsSingapore

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


FOREWORD

The Asia Foundation is pleased to present the findings of the second Indonesia Rapid Decen-tralization Appraisal (IRDA) conducted between June and November 2002. The purpose ofthe IRDA, the second in a series of five appraisals to be conducted through 2004, is to monitorand assess Indonesia’s milestone decentralization process. It is intended to provide a snapshotof the pace and progress of decentralization from the perspective of local stakeholders, and tobring their views to the attention of national policy makers.

For the second IRDA, the Foundation extended the geographic scope of study from 13 to 30research sites comprising 7 kota (cities) and 23 kabupaten (regencies) and expanded its teamof local research partners from 13 to 25 organizations. The appraisal focused on seven priorityissues identified by stakeholders: the authority of kabupaten and kota; regional organizationalstructures and personnel development; revenue and expenditure; participation, accountability,and transparency; the role of local parliaments (DPRD); inter-governmental relations; andissues of particular concern to the special autonomous regions of Aceh and Papua.

Among the many challenges posed by decentralization, one of the key findings of the secondIRDA is the need for a coherent regulatory framework encompassing national laws, ministe-rial decrees, implementing regulations, and regional regulations, as well as legislationconcerning forestry, mining, fisheries, civil service, and other specific sectors. We hope thatthe findings and recommendations of the IRDA will serve as a valuable resource to govern-ments, public officials, and other stakeholders that are engaged in the decentralization process,promote informed dialogue on decentralization, and contribute to greater transparency, broaderpublic consultation, and other good governance practices on which the success of the decen-tralization process depends.

The Foundation is grateful to its 25 local research partners identified in Annex B for theircontribution to the second IRDA, and extends a special thanks to the U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development (USAID) for its financial support for the project. The Foundation alsothanks the Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Home Affairs for its support and collabora-tion on these appraisals.

Douglas E. RamageRepresentativeThe Asia FoundationDecember 2002

i


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................... iTABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iiLIST OF FIGURES, BOXES, AND TABLES ................................................................. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2A. The Changing Emphasis of Regional Autonomy Policy in the National

Sphere ..................................................................................................................... 2B. The IRDA Process: Objectives and Advantages...................................................... 3

II. THE FIRST IRDA TO THE SECOND: TRANSITION AND GROWTH .................... 5A. The First IRDA: Topics and Resulting Themes ...................................................... 6B. The Second IRDA: A Refined Set of Issues ........................................................... 7

III. FINDINGS OF THE SECOND IRDA............................................................................ 10A. Authority of the Kota and Kabupaten ..................................................................... 10

Health ...................................................................................................................... 10Education ................................................................................................................ 13Agriculture .............................................................................................................. 17Environment ............................................................................................................ 20Investment ............................................................................................................... 23

B. Regional Organizational Structure and Personnel Development ............................ 25C. Revenue and Expenditure........................................................................................ 28D. Participation, Accountability, and Transparency ..................................................... 31E. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (DPRD) ........................................................... 33F. Intergovernmental Relations ................................................................................... 36G. Issues in the Special Autonomous Regions ............................................................. 39

Papua ....................................................................................................................... 40Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam .................................................................................... 41

IV. MAKING USE OF IRDA’S INFORMATION ............................................................... 43A. The Challenges to Decentralization ........................................................................ 43B. The IRDA – A Tool to Track Progress and Accelerate Innovation .......................... 43

ANNEXAnnex A. IRDA Methodology ....................................................................................... 46Annex B. Local Research Partners for the Second IRDA .............................................. 49

ii

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Second IRDA Research Sites .................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Percentage 2002 Budget Allocated to Health ............................................ 12

Figure 3. Percentage 2002 Budget Allocated to Education ....................................... 16

Figure 4. Percentage 2002 Budget Allocated to Agriculture ..................................... 19

Figure 5. Percentage 2002 Budget Allocated to Environment .................................. 22

Figure 6. Local Government Sources of Revenue 2002 ........................................... 28

Figure 7. Local Government Budget 2002 ................................................................ 29

Figure 8. Proportion of Male and Female Members in the DPRD............................ 35

Figure 9. DPRD Member’s Highest Educational Attainment ................................... 36

Figure 10. The Use of IRDA Data in Monitoring Decentralization ........................... 45

Figure 11. Stages in the IRDA Process ....................................................................... 47

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. Profile of Respondents .............................................................................. 5

Box 2. Field of Governance Decentralized to Kabupaten and Kotaper Law 22/1999 Article 11 ....................................................................... 7

Box 3. Sample Sources of Local Revenue in IRDA Sites ..................................... 28

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Percentage of Local Government Budget Allocated to Health andEducation ................................................................................................... 29

iii


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Two years have passed since Laws 22/1999 and 25/1999 were fully implemented in January 2001. Thetwo laws provide a framework for decentralizing authority once held by central government andextend new responsibilities to local governments to manage their own regions. The regions were invarious stages of readiness and many of the “pre-conditions” for decentralization were not in place atthe time the laws came into force. As decentralization proceeds, central government agencies need afeedback mechanism to understand what is happening on the ground.

This was the context in which the Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA) initiative wasundertaken by The Asia Foundation with support from the U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (USAID). IRDA is intended to give immediate feedback to the central government and otherstakeholders about the activities of local governments in a decentralized structure. It documents bothproblems in implementation and innovations in governance. IRDA is intended to complement otherefforts that inform the central government about the progress of decentralization. IRDA’s findings arealso useful for local governments as they can compare their experience and progress with that of othersand benefit from lessons learned. Data from the first and second IRDAs can serve as inputs in themonitoring and evaluation activities that the Government of Indonesia is establishing.

This is a report on the results of the Second IRDA (June–November 2002). It builds upon the informa-tion already gathered during the first IRDA (November 2001–April 2002). “The second IRDArevealed seven general findings that describe the status and directions of decentralization after twoyears of implementation:

A. In assuming the authorities and functions devolved to them by Law 22/1999, local govern-ments are generally maintaining pre-existing services. In some cases, they are developing newinitiatives, including several that serve the interests of vulnerable groups such as women,children, and the elderly. Use of service standards is increasing.

B. In adopting structures that are simple but rich in functions, local governments are reorganizingto increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public services and bring them closer to thepeople.

C. While decentralization should make local governments more financially self-reliant in the longrun, after only two years, dependence on the General Allocation Fund (Dana Alokasi Umum-DAU) remains very high, comprising 75% of most regions’ budgets.

D. Public participation is growing, but improvements are still needed in the transparency,responsiveness, and accountability of local government so that policies are consistent withcitizens’ needs and aspirations.

E. DPRDs are striving to perform their designated roles and functions in an effective manner.Continued improvements are needed in relations with the Executive and in representingconstituent interests rather than simply party interests.

F. As all levels of government recognize the benefits of collaboration, new mechanisms areemerging to support both horizontal and vertical inter-relationships.

G. The Special Autonomous Regions (Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam and Papua) face uniquechallenges in decentralization and would benefit from implementing regulations issued bycentral government to promote the process. The Special Autonomy Laws for NAD and Papuawill not be fully implemented until these regulations are issued.

There will be three more IRDAs through 2004, comprising a data collection and analysis program thatwill provide continuing support to the Indonesian government and Indonesian citizens as they proceedto make decentralization a reality.

1

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA)SECOND REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

A. THE CHANGING EMPHASIS OF REGIONAL AUTONOMY POLICY IN THE

NATIONAL SPHERE

Indonesia’s decentralization initiative has been underway for nearly two years following theimplementation of Laws 22/1999 and 25/1999 in January 2001. In the last year, the focus ofdecentralization policy debate has shifted from substantially re-writing the legal framework todeveloping the much-anticipated implementing regulations to guide the application of existinglaws. The central government also stated that it would begin reviewing other laws and regula-tions to ensure their compatibility and consistency with the regional autonomy legislation.

The shift in focus to comprehensive regulatory instruments aimed to affirm the government’scommitment to implement the regional autonomy laws, and dispel the concern that thegovernment would return to a centralized system. Regulatory instruments are much neededby the regions and local communities to enable them to fulfill new responsibilities in adecentralized governance structure. The regulations that are especially required are thoseconcerning procedures, standards, and guidelines for the various functions performed bylocal governments, such as service standards.

Ongoing debate regarding the definition of authority of each tier of government and their func-tions has taken precedence over other issues in the implementation of regional autonomy,particularly over fiscal matters, government organization, and personnel. Since decentraliza-tion in Indonesia follows the precept “money follows function,” tensions and conflicting viewssurrounding the allocation of money to achieve these functions persist when the functions arenot fully defined. The central government continues to refine the block grant and revenuesharing formulas to ensure that fund transfers are equitable.

Two major national-level policy issues have dominated debate in the House of Representa-tives (DPR) and the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2001-2002. The first concerns the establish-ment of new regions (kabupaten, kota, and province). After the adoption of the regionalautonomy laws in 1999, approximately 4 new provinces, 10 kota, and 65 kabupaten werecreated from existing provinces and kabupaten as of this writing. Most of the bills of thesenew regions were initiated by the DPR to accommodate the political aspirations of local elitesand to establish new power linkages for national political actors.

The second issue of debate concerns electoral legislation. A number of bills – including thepolitical party bill, the electoral bill, the status and form of legislative bodies bill, and the

2

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


presidential election bill - will provide the legal framework for the 2004 national election. Thecurrent debate on these laws will also have some bearing on decentralization. For example, itwill sharpen local politics in the run-up to the election and in the post-election environment,particularly with respect to issues such as accommodation of local concerns in political cam-paigns; selection of candidates for the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (DPRD); electionprocedures for DPRD candidates; and the relationship between elected members and theirpolitical parties.

Following the adoption of the special autonomy laws for Papua and Nanggroe Aceh Darussalamin late 2001, the laws entered the preparatory stage of implementation in which variousgovernment regulations, presidential decrees, and local regulations were drafted andpromulgated. Unfortunately, such preparations in Banda Aceh, Jayapura, and Jakarta wereoccasionally over-shadowed by incidents of violence associated with separatist movements inthe two provinces. Consequently, much remains to be done in these special autonomous regions.

Revision of the regional autonomy laws continues to attract and generate substantial debateamong stakeholders. At the national level, the most recent amendments to the 1945 Constitu-tion have brought fresh attention on the need to revise the autonomy laws, particularly withreference to provisions for direct presidential election. Although not explicitly endorsed in theConstitution, direct election of heads of regions (the governors, the mayors and the bupatis) isconsidered by many to be the logical extension of having a direct presidential election. Cur-rently, Law 22/1999 provides that the election of the heads of region be done by the DPRD.

B. THE IRDA PROCESS: OBJECTIVES AND ADVANTAGES

The Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA) is a monitoring activity that aims todescribe the progress of decentralization in Indonesia since effective implementation startedin January 2001. There are five appraisals planned for the period 2001- 2004, and this is areport on the Second IRDA.

The topics and issues included in each appraisal are based on consultations with key actors inthe decentralization process, at both the central and local levels of government, as well as withcivil society groups. The resulting canvas of themes reflects implicit assumptions about whatpreparations should be made and what conditions should be created to sustain the process ofdecentralization. They are “road signs” that the IRDA seeks to track.

The unit of analysis in these appraisals is the kabupaten/kota to which substantial powerswere transferred from the central government. To capture the local perspective and enrich theinterpretation of information collected, research institutions familiar with the sites and withdecentralization gather the data from their localities. (See details of the IRDA methodologyin Annex A.)

3


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

Prior to the implementation of decentralization, donor agencies, NGOs, and the academiccommunity made many recommendations to the Government of Indonesia. Now that decen-tralization is under way, the IRDA is a unique source of information on how decentralizationis progressing and on the problems and opportunities that are emerging. The IRDA offersseveral key advantages to those charged with carrying out the process:

• There is a vast universe of topics that could be studied as decentralization movesforward. A comprehensive study would be slow. The IRDA focuses on a limited buttopical and relevant set of issues selected by stakeholders, and completes its investiga-tion and analysis in six months. It can respond quickly as stakeholder priorities changefrom one appraisal to the next. Therefore, it is an efficient and effective monitoringtool.

• It is critical to inform policy debates quickly so that key actors can take immediateaction to stimulate progress. This is where the IRDA method is most useful. It balancesthe need for in-depth information with the need for timely information. It providesfeedback in the form of a “snapshot” that describes the current state of affairs. Thissnapshot supports recommendations on how to accelerate the decentralization process.

• The IRDA tracks decentralization at the local level, focusing on how local govern-ments manage new responsibilities and engage with civil society to make governmentmore transparent and accountable. Detailed local-level information can be invaluableto national government in assessing progress. Where targets are clear, the IRDA canhelp assess the extent to which these are being met.

• Indonesia is a vast archipelago with significant regional variations. The IRDA sites arerepresentative of diverse areas and populations, and their number is increasing.

• The IRDA is highly participatory. Thus, the process itself helps establish dialoguemechanisms among key actors at both national and local levels. Broad-based dialogueis essential to transform the principles of decentralization into practice.

• The IRDA is identifying local-level good practices and models that are replicable oradaptable. Local governments can benefit from learning about these models andcapitalizing on those that are appropriate to the local environment. Overall, this willfacilitate successful decentralization.

4

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


II. THE FIRST IRDA TO THE SECOND IRDA: TRANSITIONAND GROWTH

The Second IRDA, conducted from June to November 2002, involved a geographic expan-sion as well as an increase in the number of research partners. The research sites grew from 13to 30 in order to provide more depth, capture the variations among regions, and track thediversity of the decentralization experience nation-wide (see Figure 1). The sites are repre-sentative of regional variations in terms of the Hu-man Development Index (HDI) score, Gross Re-gional Domestic Product (GRDP), natural resources,geographical location, and population distributionacross kabupaten and kota. Thirteen new researchpartners joined the team for the Second IRDA,bringing the total to 25 (see list in Annex B).

As in the First IRDA, key informants included rep-resentatives of local government (province, kota,kabupaten, and desa) and civil society organizations(see Box 1).

Box 1. PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

TOTAL RESPONDENTS 2,907Male 2,170Female 737

Desa/Kelurahan 14%Kabupaten/kota 31%Province 12%Government Officials 57%Civil Society Groups 43%Number of Focus Group Discussions 321

Figure 1. Second IRDA Research Sites

5

2nd IRDA Research Sites


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

A. THE FIRST IRDA: TOPICS AND RESULTING THEMES

The First IRDA addressed six topics that key actors felt were relevant at the time. Within eachtopic, the IRDA generated important information about the nature, status, and direction ofdecentralization as follows:

Accountability, Transparency, and Civil Society Participation – There is an increasing aware-ness and appreciation of the importance of people’s participation in local governance but wom-en’s participation in the public decision-making process remains low and limited.

Service Delivery – Local government agencies are providing public services and they are com-mitted to improving service delivery and are feeling the pressure to do so from citizens.

Reorganization, Devolution, and Capacity Building – Despite the vagueness of provisionson functions and decision-making, local governments are making organizational changes toimplement the law. They have coped with the immediate problem of integrating large num-bers of staff by reorganizing and restructuring agencies and units, without downsizing.

Fiscal Matters – Successful decentralization requires adequate funding and fiscal manage-ment capacity at the local level. Though local governments are largely dependent on centralgovernment transfers, they are seeking ways to increase their own sources of income in theform of taxes and “retributions” (user fees). Citizens are also demanding more open dialogueand consultations about budget allocations.

Inter-governmental Relations – Despite the absence of clear directions about the roles ofvarious government levels, local governments are cooperating and sharing information withone another and with provincial governments to solve a variety of shared problems.

Concept of Autonomy – An understanding of this concept, on the part of both the governmentand the people, is critical to implementing decentralization. Citizens in the regions generallyunderstand the principles associated with the concept of autonomy, but their interpretations ofthe concept vary.

6

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


B. THE SECOND IRDA: A REFINED SET OF ISSUES

The Second IRDA continues to look at similar topics and issues, but with a refined frameworkbased on the priorities of stakeholders as the decentralization process moves forward andon-the-ground experience is gained.1 Continuity of focus facilitates the tracking of progress inkey areas and deepens our understanding of the process. Refining the framework permitsin-depth attention to special areas of interest as they emerge.

The Second IRDA addresses seven topics. Many are closely inter-related, demonstrating thecomplexity of decentralization. For example, funding is related to service capacity, as areinter-governmental relations in terms of promoting service standards. Similarly, participationand transparency underlie all aspects of decentralization, as does the development of DPRDs(Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah – local parliament). For each topic, the research teamidentified key issues to explore. The topics and issues are as follows:

Authority of the Kota and Kabupaten – This followsup on the service delivery topic of the First IRDA.The Second IRDA explores how the kabupaten/kotaare carrying out the “fields of governance” defined inLaw 22/1999. Of the 11 sectors (see Box 2), the IRDAfocuses on five: education, health, agriculture, envi-ronment, and investment. The first two were selectedbecause they have immediate impact on citizens, whoare the clients of local government. The other threereflect what local partners consider most relevant attheir sites. Within each sector, the issues studied were:

• Services delivered by local government• Which services are new and which continue

from before devolution• Whether any minimum standards are used• Whether there are programs consciously designed for vulnerable populations, such as

women, children, and the elderly• How citizens are involved in monitoring or delivering public services

Regional Organizational Structure and Personnel Development – Organizational changesaffect the capacity of local government to deliver services, and this capacity is a function ofpersonnel capabilities. The issues studied were:

Box 2. Field of Governance de-centralized to Kabupaten andKota per Law 22/1999 Article 11

1. Public Works2. Health3. Education and Culture4. Agriculture5. Transportation6. Trade and Industry7. Investment8. Environment9. Land Affairs

10. Cooperatives11. Labor

1 The concept of autonomy was deliberately excluded from the Second IRDA because stakeholders believedthat more time should elapse, allowing more experience to be gained, before re-examining this topic.

7


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

• How the local government bureaucracy was restructured, including new officescreated or merged

• Whether new structures can carry out the necessary functions• Mechanisms for selecting and assigning personnel to positions• The nature and availability of human resource development programs

Revenue and Expenditure – The First IRDA documented dependence on the General Alloca-tion Fund (DAU-Dana Alokasi Umum) and the efforts of local governments to increase theirown sources of income, but it provided no quantitative data on budget sources or expendi-tures. The Second IRDA offers the first quantitative data on local government finances. Theissues studied were:

• Sources of the total local government budget• Sources of local revenues• Budget allocation priorities• Whether there is “sufficient” investment in services, such as health and education• How local governments and DPRDs develop the budget, including the extent of citizen

involvement in the process• The extent to which the budget reflects the community’s priority needs

Participation, Accountability, and Transparency – The First IRDA revealed an increasingawareness of the importance of people’s participation in local governance. The Second IRDAtracks the evolving forms and venues of participation. In terms of accountability and transpar-ency, it examines citizen involvement in decision-making, especially with respect to budget-ing, and whether such involvement leads to policy actions. The issues studied were:

• The extent to which citizens have been involved in the governance process, includingplanning, policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring

• Strategies citizens use to influence decision-making at various government levels• How local governments respond to public aspirations• How people know that their aspirations are addressed

The DPRD (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah – local parliament) – This is a new focusarea recognizing the key role the DPRD plays in local governance. The issues studied were:

• The kinds and sources of training that DPRD members have undergone• The relationship between the DPRD and its constituents• The basis upon which DPRDs approve or reject the “annual accountability report” that

the Executive is required to submit

8

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


Inter-governmental Relations – This topic cuts across various issues and processes. Theissues studied were:

• How the relationship between central and local governments is evolving to define roles• Areas where local governments share resources and costs to improve service delivery• The nature of collaboration among local governments, including the province

Special Issues in the Special Autonomous Regions – These regions have distinctive experi-ences with decentralization, providing an expanded view of the various ways in which decen-tralization is taking place in Indonesia. In addition to many of the issues identified under theother topics, the issues studied were:

• The concept of special autonomy• The process of formulating perdasus (Papua) and qanun (Aceh)• Progress to date in implementing the provisions of the special laws

9


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

III. FINDINGS OF THE SECOND IRDA

A. AUTHORITY OF THE KOTA AND KABUPATEN

In assuming the authorities and functions devolved to them by Law 22/1999, local govern-ments are generally maintaining pre-existing services. In some cases, they are developing newinitiatives, including several that serve the interests of vulnerable groups such as women,children, and the elderly. Use of service standards is increasing.

HEALTH

1. FINDINGS

• Most health programs implemented in the regions are a continuation of those deliv-ered prior to decentralization. One example is the Posyandu, a service program formaternal and childcare provided periodically in almost all villages. Coordinated by healthsupervisors, this program penetrates the neighborhood level because its delivery is notdependent on the presence of medical professionals whose number is usually limited, buton posyandu cadres such as housewives and other volunteers. Another example is the kartumiskin, a card issued to the poor citizens for free health services as part of the “socialsafety net.” In general, local governments are trying to keep the same level of services.Kabupaten Solok maintains a puskesmas (health center) in every district to cater to the256 villages. Moreover, it maintains puskesmas pembantu with sufficient personnel in 105villages.

• Some local governments have maintained free healthservices. In Kabupaten Bantul, the Dinas Kesehatan(Health Department) hand in hand with the DinasPendidikan (Education Department) gives free servicesto all elementary through high school students who visitthe puskesmas for a health examination.

• Autonomy has encouraged several regions to im-prove health services despite limited resources.Some local governments expanded the scope of theirhealth services by upgrading health centers to higherlevels, with corresponding increases in resources.For instance, in Kabupaten Ogan Komiring Ilir(OKI), some puskesmas pembantu (with the mostbasic minimum facilities) were upgraded to

GOOD PRACTICE

Kabupaten Gianyar providesfree reproductive health diag-nosis services for women viaa mobile unit that gives Papsmear tests for early detectionof ovarian cancer.

GOOD PRACTICE

Kota Metro’s Health Agency isworking with the Muhamadiyahfor the Jaminan PelayananKesehatan Masyarakat (PublicHealth Service Assurance Pro-gram). Also, civil society or-ganizations are actively in-volved in the Koalisi MetroSehat (Healthy Metro Coalition)

10

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


puskesmas status. In Kota Pontianak, some puskesmas were elevated to puskesmas unggulan(with a specialization service like dental care or a 24-hour emergency unit). KabupatenGorontalo upgraded a C-class hospital (10-bed capacity, with 4 specialists) into a ClassC+ hospital (with one additional specialist). In Kabupaten Bandung, two puskesmas are inthe process of being elevated to hospitals.

• Autonomy allows local governments to adjust their services to what they see as localneeds. Local governments are currently choosing to deliver some or all of the 18 healthservices that the central government used to provide (such as nutrition, mother and childhealth care, family plnning, control of epidemic, basic health care, management of healthcenters, laboratory services, and advancement of traditional medicine, among others). InOKI, each puskesmas has its own set of health services customized to its service area basedon local needs, resources, and location.

• There are initiatives in several regions to establish their own minimum servicestandards in health. In the absence of a presidential decree, the Ministry of Health hasissued Ministerial Decree 1107/2000 that outlines the indicators for health services. Someprovincial governments did their part as representatives of the central government insetting and promulgating these standards, and the local governments are using them asguidelines. In Kota Pontianak, the standard was adopted and adjusted to suit the localsituation. Initiated by the mayor who is a doctor, the city government revised the centralgovernment indicators and is now pilot testing the revision. If it is effective, it will beformalized as a local regulation. With the indicator as guide, the city also allocated budgetfunding for its health care of the poor through a social safety net fund (e.g. kartu merah,kartu sehat, kartu miskin) in the amount of Rp. 1 billion, as well as funds for the elderly inthe amount of Rp. 20 million.

• Civil society is playing an increasing role in health care service delivery, eitherindependently or in cooperation with other parties. Local governments are exploringpartnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector in enhancing thedelivery of health services.

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Recognition of the value of continuing pre-existing programs initiated by centralgovernment. The local governments see the value of continuing old programs and activi-ties that they find useful and already know how to carry out with the devolved staff andresources that previously used to perform those programs and activities. Rather thandiscarding them, they instead are modifying the programs as they see fit based on localgovernment priorities and available resources.

• Pre-decentralization collaborative experiences of local governments with the Ministryof Health. Health is one area where the local governments already had direct experience

11


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

in delivering services in cooperation with the Ministry of Health. Hands-on experience invaccination and nutrition, for example, was useful to local governments after devolution.

• Proactive stance of the Ministry of Health in facilitating the local government’sdesire to perform its health functions. Service standard is a developing concept in thehealth sector, and most local governments are informed about it. The indicators of servicestandard is still in the process of being finalized and fully “socialized” or disseminated,but the Ministry of Health has actively pursued a redefinition of its role in a decentralizedset up early on.

3. CONSTRAINTS / CHALLENGES

• Budget limitations that threaten sustainability of health service delivery. At 22 sitesreporting health expenditure data, the average proportion of the budget allocated for healthin 2002 is 1.99% (see Figure 2.). While this represents an average increase of 118% over2001, health care is still generally wanting at the local level. Also, there are cases wherethe budget for health has decreased. In Kabupaten Kupang for instance, the health budgetdecreased by 70%. In general, the allocation for health is far below 15%, the level agreedupon in a meeting between the ministry and the heads of the regions held in 2000.

• Lack of medical personnel and facilities. This is a function of budget limitations and isaffecting service delivery capacity.

• Limited transparency in operations. There are suspicions of corruption like misuse offunds because of the limited transparency in health operations. For instance, it is believedthat some of the kartu miskin which allow holders to get free medicines and other servicesdo not really get into the hands of the poor.

Figure 2. Percentage of 2002 Budget Allocated to Health (22 Sites)

Perc

ent

Average: 1.99

12

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local governments and the DPRD must exhibit a greater commitment to developing thehealth sector through higher budget allocations. The funds must be used in innovativeprograms, including those targeted to vulnerable populations like the elderly, women, andchildren.

• Local governments must increase their knowledge and technical expertise in MinimumStandard of Services (Standar Pelayanan Minimal – SPM) to decrease the possibility oferror in its use and application.

• The central government, through the Ministry of Health, should set up a mechanism toensure that efforts to disseminate SPM are followed up and sustained.

• Local government health operations should incorporate mechanisms for transparency whichinvolve civil society organizations.

• Local governments, supported by the DPRD, must increase and sustain their cooperationwith civil society organizations in health service delivery.

• To play their rightful part in health service delivery, some civil society organizations needto improve their skills and “specialize” in certain health issues.

EDUCATION

1. FINDINGS

• Regional autonomy has opened opportunities for local governments to take initia-tives and be creative in improving education services. While trying to make sure thatbasic education is provided for the first nine years, local governments have also foundcreative means to provide other programs, taking into account the unique needs of each

community. In the arena of formal education,some local governments are establishing schoolsthat provide special services for excellent stu-dents.

• Special programs are emerging in non-formaleducation. Kabupaten Deli Serdang introducedthe “Society Learning Hour” program with theleadership of the Local Agency on EducationalAffairs. The program was designed to encour-age children to study at least two hours a day. Amonitoring team oversees program implementa-tion. Kota Salatiga set up the “Community Learn-ing Activity Center,” a non-formal educationprogram for those who are out of formal school.The center offers skills on entrepreneurship,

GOOD PRACTICE

In Kabupaten Bandung, the elemen-tary schools (SD) were mappedbased on their “effectiveness” andthe quality of graduates. This revealedthat many SDs were built withoutconsideration of need or quality. Asa result, 699 SDs will be merged into289 SDs in school year 2002-2003.The local government hopes thatthis effort will help improve thequality of elementary education.

13


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

specifically meant to develop capacity to market products made by the local community.The center also serves as a “trading post” for local products.

• Some local governments are trying to keepeducation affordable. By law, public educa-tion is free in elementary and high school, butstudents pay for miscellaneous fees, and schoolfees tend to increase. In Kabupaten KutaiKertanegara, the local government decreed thateverything would be free and paid for every-thing from the local budget.

• Local governments recognize the need forquality instruction. Some regions have pro-vided scholarships to teachers to encouragethem to develop their teaching skills. In part-nership with Gajah Mada University (UGM)and Yogyakarta State University (UNY),Kabupaten Bantul initiated a program forimproving the quality of teachers through co-operative programs for S1 (undergraduatedegree) and S2 (master’s degree). Local budgetfunding will support the degree programs.

• Local governments are using incentives toattract teachers. There are many incentiveschemes such as new salaried positions, holi-day bonuses, uniforms, and cash subsidies.Local governments are shouldering the coststo retain current teachers and attract new ones.

• Local governments have entered into co-operation with the private sector andcommunities to improve the quality of edu-cation services and facilities. These partner-ships involve a range of participation, fromadvisory services and education policy for-mulation to specific initiatives like construc-tion of buildings. In Kabupaten Deli Serdang,the Local Agency of Educational Affairs forgeda partnership with the World Bank for itsBasic Education Project and with the IslamicDevelopment Bank for the construction ofschool buildings.

GOOD PRACTICE

“Rehabilitasi Gedung SD” (the reha-bilitation of elementary school build-ings) in Kabupaten Kebumen involvesa partnership among various sectors ofthe community. In 2001, 636 damagedclassrooms in various schools had to berenovated. Based on a proposal submit-ted by respective schools, the local gov-ernment donated a counterpart contri-bution of Rp. 3.05 billion from the lo-cal budget. This, plus additionalamounts of Rp. 10.4 billion raised bythe private citizens and Rp. 160 milliongiven by the provincial government,funded the project. The community vol-unteered labor to construct the class-rooms and perform other tasks.

GOOD PRACTICE

In Kabupaten Sidoarjo, a local school boardwas formed through Regent Decree No.399/2002. The board is composed of rep-resentatives from the local government,DPRD, schools, civil society organizations,and the private sector. In Kabupaten Bantul,the local government established an Edu-cation Council and a School Council basedon Bupati Decree 5/2001. The EducationCouncil advises the local government (thedinas pendidikan) on how best to carry outits education authority, while the SchoolCouncil focuses on managing and improv-ing schools. Both councils have representa-tives from civil society, business, academia,school alumni living in the area, and localgovernment.

14

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


• The existing forums for education stakeholders are being strengthened. The revitali-zation of local school boards, which have existed since before decentralization, and thecreation of new ones in regions where they were not yet set up are positive developments.Both local governments and the private sector realize that this body can be fully maxi-mized as a forum for education stakeholders in the era of decentralization. Almost allregions in the IRDA study have local school boards. The school board is a venue for citi-zens and the local government to interact on matters relating to education programs anddiscuss public aspirations about education. Thus, it contributes to greater transparency ingovernment operations, which will likely improve the quality and implementation ofeducation services.

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Awareness of local governments about the importance of education in developing thehuman resources in the regions. Local governments realize that education is one of theservices that has the most direct impact on the lives of citizens.

• Community and citizen demand for better education services. This is a function ofcitizens’ higher expectations to be heard by public officials.

• Broad-based support for education programs. Unlike some other sectors, it is relativelyeasy to mobilize support for education-related projects from the media, business, academia,and alumni.


• Increasing school fees. Observed increases in school fees are attributed to decisions ofthe local school boards, which have a semi-autonomous authority to manage and conducteducational activities. It is not yet apparent if increasing school fees will translate to betterquality education.

• Limited education budget. Although in 22 sites reporting data the average proportion ofthe 2002 budget allocated to education was 3.04 % (an increase over 2001), the budget isstill considered to be inadequate (see Figure 3.).

15


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

• Service standard for education remains unclear. The Ministry of Education has notclearly communicated its SPM to local governments. The local governments report aware-ness that central government is formulating education standards but are unaware of how toimplement them.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local governments should continue their initiatives to improve education services withoutunnecessarily increasing school fees.

• Local governments should advocate with the Ministry of Education for legislation thatincorporates SPM. These standards will inform local government planning and budgetingand also provide indicators and targets against which to measure the performance of localgovernments.

• Local governments should sustain existing partnerships with the private sector and tapthem for various purposes, from conceptualizing, planning, and development to imple-mentation and monitoring of education programs.

• Local governments must take advantage of the natural inclination of all sectors in thecommunity to support educational initiatives.

Figure 3. Percentage of 2002 Budget Allocated to Education (22 Sites)

Average: 3.04

Perc

ent

16

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


AGRICULTURE

1. FINDINGS

• Regional autonomy has encouragedseveral local governments to developservice programs based on local needsand potentials. They are strengtheningand modifying existing credit programsfor farmers. To support more locallybased agricultural programs, some localgovernments are establishing develop-ment centers to support other agriculturalproducts. In Kota Pontianak, the citygovernment built the Aloe Vera Centerwhich is an integrated service center thatprocesses food products from aloe vera.

• Some local governments have devel-oped programs specifically to supportwomen farmers for the first time. InKabupaten Lombok Barat, in addition tocontinuing the old credit program calledKredit Usaha Tani (Farmers BusinessCredit), the local government has createdtwo new credit programs uniquely tar-geted at women farmers. These are calledKeuangan Agrobisnis Tani (FarmersAgro-business Financing) and KiatUsaha Mandiri (Independent BusinessActivities).

• Regional autonomy has encouraged several regions to enter into partnerships withthe private sector for mutual support in addressing agricultural issues. The objectiveis to increase productivity in predominantly agricultural sites.

GOOD PRACTICE

In Kabupaten Sumba Timur, a credit repay-ment scheme that is sensitive to the farmers’condition is being revitalized and imple-mented. Credit is provided in the form of sev-eral packages like land tillage funds ofRp.500,000 per hectare, seeds in the amountof 30 kilograms per hectare, fertilizers, andpesticides. Pesticides are free, while tillage,seeds, and fertilizers are credit that the farm-ers must repay to the local government in kindinstead of cash. The government calculates theamount of credit to be repaid, and farmers areobliged to return 700 kg per hectare for ricepaddy and 600 kg for corn. To avoid burden-ing the farmers, if harvest yields are below thestandard production, credit repayment can bepostponed until the next harvest. Sumba Timurconsiders credit repayment in kind as a majorbreakthrough in terms of increasing food sup-ply as well as increasing the level of credit re-payment (70% repayment for rice paddy and46% for corn).

17


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Local government awareness of the im-portance of the agricultural sector. In-donesia is an agricultural country, and lo-cal governments know that they are facinga great challenge in this sector. New au-thority under decentralization to carry outagricultural functions translates this aware-ness into flexibility in defining local ag-ricultural programs.

• Growing consciousness of the role ofwomen in the farming sector. There is anincreasing recognition of the important rolewomen play in agriculture, stimulating theemergence of special projects aimed to helpwomen farmers.

• Public-private willingness to work to-gether. Local governments, the private sector, and the community are favorable towardscooperation. The more successful these cooperative ventures are, the greater the possibili-ties the partners see for future collaboration.


• Limited technical capacity of local governments to address agricultural issues. As theregional agricultural development plans become more and more localized, there is a grow-ing need for more specialized technical assistance, specifically in the form of the PPL(field agricultural assistants). Limited financial resources (see Figure 4.) are cited as abarrier to hiring more PPLs.

• There is no national framework (e.g., a national policy or SPM) for agriculture.Agriculture is one area where local governments urgently need such a framework. To re-spond to their immediate problems, they need to understand the macro level policy onagriculture. The strategy of the local governments can be effective only if designed in thecontext of a national strategy.

GOOD PRACTICE

In Kabupaten Malang, the local governmentdeveloped a collaborative program withlocal farmers called kawasan industri gulamilik masyarakat (community-owned sugarindustry area). The KUD consists of thou-sands of sugar cane farmers who own the4,000 hectares of land where the sugar fac-tory was located. The land produced 4 mil-lion tons of sugar cane yearly. The value ofland rental for the factory was converted asshares in the sugar factory. The farmersreceive dividends from their shares. To fur-ther the support the farmers in this under-taking, the local government also providedinputs to improve skills in maintenance ofcrop production facilities, crop processing,and transparent marketing.

18

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local governments should sustain initiatives in addressing local issues in agricul-ture, including the special needs of women.

• Because local governments need more capacity to address agricultural issues, they mustseek technical assistance and expertise from the central government as well as donor agen-cies where necessary.

• The central government must formulate a national framework for agriculture, in the formof a policy that local governments can use such as service standards. This framework shouldclarify whether or not there should be land reform and what the main agricultural productof a region should be. In addition to clarifying the overall direction of the central govern-ment, the framework will serve as basis for local planning and budgeting in the agriculturesector. With such a framework in place, the central government will also be in a betterposition to advise local governments in making their plans responsive to local needs.

• Existing public-private partnerships must be sustained and used for various purposes, fromconceptualizing, planning, and development, to implementation and monitoring of agri-culture programs.

Figure 4. Percentage of 2002 Budget Allocated to Agriculture (21 Sites)Average: 0.98

Perc

ent

19


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

ENVIRONMENT

1. FINDINGS

• Regional autonomy provides an atmosphere for some local governments to be atten-tive towards their environment, especially in industrial areas. One of the greatest fearsin decentralizing environmental management to the local governments is environmentaldegradation. Pressures from communities, civil society organizations, and internationalinstitutions have pushed local governments to take a better look at how they manage theenvironment. Some regions are beginning to consciously address environmental damage.In Kota Pontianak, a pilot project is underway whereby local government monitors facto-ries that throw waste in the Kapuas River. Industries that comply with proper waste dis-posal procedures receive an award from the Mayor. Those that fail to follow the proce-dures face the possibility of being ordered by the local government to shut down.

• There are early initiatives on environmen-tal protection, but it is too soon to determinetheir success. In Kabupaten Sanggau, the lo-cal government is trying to promote palm oilplantation as a leading sector. A counterpartsystem was introduced whereby 70% of theinvestment belongs to the company and 30%to the community. When production cycle isover, the community has the right to decidewhether or not to continue with the product.In the same region, Perda No. 15/200 on theRegulation of Forest Contribution and Retri-bution creates an opportunity for the commu-nity groups to manage the 100-hectare forest.

GOOD PRACTICE

Numerous offices/stakeholders havecome together to establish “Forum DASCidano (Cidano River Basin Forum)” inBanten Province. The participants includegovernment units, private industries,NGOs, and civil society. The goal is todevelop consensus on the vision and mis-sion for Rawa Dano spring water conser-vation management. The objective is tosustain this local natural resource andallows its long-term use by both industryand society.

20

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Pressure from the community. Local governments face the challenge of responding tothe pressures from civil society groups, communities, and international organizationsregarding environmental degradation.

• Role of NGOs in raising environmental awareness. NGOs, especially environmentalNGOs, are playing a very crucial role increasing community awareness of environmentalconservation issues.

• Local government’s awareness of the importance of environmental issues. This is animportant precursor that can translate into actual programs.


• Limited environmental management capacity of local governments. This hamperslocal efforts to address environmental degradation.

• Horizontal inter-governmental cooperation is under-developed. Many environmentalproblems cut across local government boundaries and territorial jurisdictions. Capacityconstraints in turn limit intergovernmental coordination.

• Lack of clear national and local government framework on the environment. Localgovernments need a national framework for environment to use as a guide. This frame-work could be in the form of a national policy or an SPM that provides the overall direc-tion for the environment sector. It could also serve as the basis for local environmentalplanning and budgeting. Local government environmental strategies can be effective onlyif designed in the context of a national strategy.

• Funds for environmental programs are limited. Environment gets a smaller proportionof the budget than education, health, and agriculture (see Figure 5.). This suggests thatlocal governments place a low priority on environmental management.

• Competing priorities between revenue generating measures and environmentalconservation. Local governments see forests and other resources as sources of revenues.Many have not paid serious attention to the environmental impact of such natural resourceexploitation.

21


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local governments and civil society organizations must increase their skills and capacityto better address environmental issues.

• Local governments must explore more horizontal intergovernmental cooperation inaddressing environmental problems.

• NGOs must continue their consciousness-raising efforts to increase environmental aware-ness and concern among all members of the community, including citizens and the publicofficials.

• The central government must formulate a national policy that local governments can referto in their local environmental planning. The various ministries that pertain to the environ-ment must coordinate and develop standards to ensure consistency among policies atvarious levels of government.

• The local governments must seriously look into the environmental impact of the licensesthat have been issued for forest product exploitation. The objective is to strike a balancebetween generating revenues and environmental sustainability.

Figure 5. Percentage of 2002 Budget Allocated to Environment (20 Sites)

Average: 0.93

Perc

ent

22

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


INVESTMENT

1. FINDINGS

• A few local governments have initiatedactivities to promote their regions for do-mestic and international investment. Intrying to raise more funds, local governmentscontinue their efforts to attract investors, bothdomestic and international. KabupatenSanggau provides an area for an integratedcommercial estate to attract domestic andinternational investors. Kabupaten Bantul hasattracted a Norwegian investor to build alanding/fishing pier in Parangkusumo/Parangtritis. Kabupaten Takalar has succeededin getting a South Korean investor in theagriculture sector. Several Kabupatens havedeveloped a website for their respective re-gions in order to promote their investmentpotential.

• Emergence of inter-governmental cooperation for investment purposes. Some localgovernments have ventured into cooperative agreements with other regions in order tocoordinate investment. An example of this is the inter-regional partnership among severallocal governments in Central Java called the Forum for Economic Development andEmployment Promotion (FEDEP). It was initiated and is facilitated and overseen by theprovincial government’s investment unit (Badan Penanaman Model – BPM) to promoteproducts from member local governments, especially those produced by small and me-dium enterprises. The FEDEP model, emphasizing cooperation between local governmentsto address poverty by creating employment, is being replicated in other kabupatens (likeJepara, Klaten, Pati, Pekalongan, and Wonosobo) and will be further extended to morekabupatens in the province.

GOOD PRACTICE

In Sidoarjo, there is a special dinas onLicensing and Investment. The staffmembers wear a ‘customer friendly uni-form’ based on Bupati Decree. Thedinas issued a Book of Licensing Pro-cedures and Investment Opportunity, aLicensing Catalogue, a leaflet, andaVCD, and also launched its own DeltaCyber Zone, which disseminates infor-mation and provides an internet licens-ing service. This dinas conducts an an-nual Costumer Satisfactory Survey, hasopened a special room for complaints,and has an interactive on-air complaintservice through radio every othermonth.

23


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Desire to increase revenues. Local governments want to increase their locally generatedrevenues in the face of limited resources. New investors will mean more revenue in theform of business taxes and permits.

• Regional potentials. Many regions have vast economic potentials that they have not fullyexploited.

• Need to create job opportunities for locals. To help alleviate poverty, local governmentsare eager to create new job opportunities for citizens. These opportunities would resultfrom greater investment and new businesses.


• Insufficient licensing authority devolved to the local governments. The central gov-ernment still has the authority to issue investment licenses. While local governments areanxious to attract foreign investors, their lack of authority to issue licenses could delayinvestment.

• Control of central government for land affairs. Some investments are connected to theavailability of land in the regions. The fact that local governments continue to have nopower over land affairs, despite the mandated provision in the Law 22/1999, is a constraintin attracting investors.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• The central and local government must provide legal certainty and assurance over securityfor investors.

• The central government should then provide a framework or guidelines for carrying outlocal government’s investment functions. Such guidelines would clarify, for example, ques-tions about powers and responsibilities of local governments in attracting local and for-eign investment, land issues, licensing, and guarantees and incentives for prospective in-vestors.

• While awaiting guidelines, local governments must continue exploring inter-governmen-tal cooperation to promote investment in their areas.

24

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


B. REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT

In adopting structures that are simple but rich in functions, local governments are reorganizingto increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public services and bring them closer to thepeople.

1. FINDINGS

• Following the devolution of functions and the trans-fer of large numbers of government personnel fromthe central government, the number of dinas (localdepartments) generally decreased as a result of merg-ers of units, but the number of new badan (agencies)and kantor (offices) increased. The rationale for estab-lishing these badan and kantor is to improve the capac-ity of local government and to strengthen coordinationamong government institutions. Local governments havemerged offices to restructure the bureaucracy, while cre-ating new ones to ensure that all personnel are assigned to an office. This transition haspushed governments to rationalize the structure so that the units reflect decisions on howto carry out new local government functions. Some regions have created the badan ofResearch and Development Agency that focuses on providing training and education.Another badan, created as a result of restructuring from previous institutions, is the Na-tional Unity and Community Protection Agency, which is a regional supervisory agency.Some former component units were upgraded to badan status, like the Regional Finan-cial Agency, formerly under a regional personnel agency. New kantor include the Elec-tronic Data Processing Office, the Regional Archive Office, and the Information andCommunication Office.

• Concern for women’s empowerment is reflected in some restructuring initiatives. Somelocal governments have dedicated sub-agencies or offices for women’s empowerment. Inregions without a dedicated unit, other structures handle women’s concerns, such as theSocial Affair Dinas, Social Affairs and Labor Office, or Social Affairs Section of theRegional Secretariat.

• The new structures are being reviewed and improved. A number of local governmentsare already reviewing and evaluating the performance of their new structures. Many ofthese evaluations reveal that the structures need improvement, and several regions arealready designing improvements. Moreover, new administrative units at the kecamatanand kelurahan levels are being created in several regions to provide more access points forpublic service to citizens.

GOOD PRACTICE

As a response to cases of vio-lence against women andchildren, Pemda Sidoarjo es-tablished a dedicated team forthe protection of women andchildren through a Woman’sCrisis Center.

25


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

• In general, there are no reductions in personnel,and some local governments have even made newhires. Although the DAU calculation was based onexisting personnel, new personnel have been hiredto carry out new functions.

• Local governments are upgrading the skills oftheir personnel through various types of train-ing and support for post-graduate schooling.Local government employees are beginning tounderstand that promotions will eventually be basedon merit and skills. They also recognize that equip-ping themselves with new skills will make themmore competitive in terms of professional advance-ment. Training and education programs have providedsome benefits, but programs to improve technicalskills are limited.

• In some regions, restructuring has resulted in functional overlap or duplication. Tosome extent, this results from unclear definition of functions. In Kabupaten Malang, forinstance, the local government established an Office of Public Communication to accommo-date devolved personnel from the information department. Although this office hasdefined tasks, some of its functions overlap with those of two other units (the Office ofElectronic Data Processing and Office of Public Relations and Protocol of the RegionalSecretariat).

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness in performing new govern-ment functions. The process of restructuring in continuing response to the devolution ofpersonnel helps local governments identify ways to improve their functions.

• Ability to self-criticize. Local governments are willing and able to review the effective-ness of the new structures they have created.

GOOD PRACTICE

Kabupaten Malang is seeking toobtain the ISO 9001 Certificationfor Quality Service Standard. Theregional secretariat is the firstoffice to be tested for the applica-tion of these standards of qualityservice. The local governmentengaged a local consulting insti-tution to assess its service stand-ards. This became the basis fordesigning a training and implemen-tation plan to meet the standards.

26

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal



• Questions about the rationale for creating new offices. There is a perception that someof the new offices are created not to improve efficiency, but as a strategy to accommodatelocal officials who should have structural positions but lack the relevant skills for thesepositions.

• Lack of clear job descriptions and qualifications for new positions. This creates a loop-hole for local favoritism and non-transparency in appointment of officials, and questionsare often raised about how positions are filled. Because procedures are unclear, appoint-ments are perceived to be political and not based on merit and qualifications.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local governments should ensure that review of the current structure is based on an analy-sis of regional requirements.

• Local governments should adopt transparent procedures that provide for the appointmentof career personnel based on competence or meritocracy rather than political considera-tions.

• Local governments should ensure that training provided to personnel is targeted to im-proving the technical and functional performance of each working unit.

27


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

C. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE

While decentralization should make local governments more financially self-reliant in the longrun, after only two years, dependence on the DAU remains very high, comprising 75% ofmost regions’ budgets.

1. FINDINGS

• Local governments are largely depend-ent on fund transfers from the centralgovernment. Law 25/1999 designatesfour sources of local government rev-enues: (1) locally generated revenues fromtaxes and user charges (PAD) (see Box 3.);(2) the Equalization Fund; (3) regionalloans; and (4) other income. The Equali-zation Fund is made up of (1) the GeneralAllocation Fund (DAU), (2) the SpecialAllocation Fund (DAK), and (3) revenuesharing from land and building taxes, feesfrom acquisition of land and buildings,and share in natural resources such as forests, mining, fisheries, oil, and gas. At 22 IRDAsites reporting budget data, the DAU accounts on average for over 75% of the local budget(see Figure 6.). In resource poor areas like Kabupaten Kupang (East Nusa Tenggara) and

Kabupaten Malang (East Java), the DAUproportion is over 90%. In resource richareas like Kota Dumai in Riau Province, theDAU makes up less than 50% of the budget,with the region’s share in natural resourceslike oil and gas contributing substantiallyto the total revenue.

• Local governments tend to expand thescope of their taxes and user charges toincrease PAD revenue. PAD now accountsfor only 7% of the local revenue. Some ofthese taxes and fees are perceived as a

burden to the citizens. When the central government (through the Ministry of Home Af-fairs) is able to review the local regulations on taxes and fees, some are revoked, such asthe retribusi or user fees for certain types of food products like the edible bird’s nest(Kabupaten Kebumen); transportation of palm, plantation products (Kabupaten Sanggau);and cattle registration, and inter-island goods transportation (Kabupaten Sumbawa).

Box 3. Sample Sources of Local Revenuein IRDA Sites

Taxes: Hotel and Restaurants, Local Busi-ness, Motor Vehicles, Mining [C Cat-egory: Gravel and Sand], Billboards,Specific Tax for Street LightsRetribusi (User charges): Business Li-cense, Building License, Parking, HealthServices Charge, Public Market Stalls,Terminal, House Rental, WarehouseRental, Forest Products, Shipping, Trans-port Route Franchise, Map Printing Cost,Slaughtering of Animals, Water Services.

Figure 6. Local Government Sources ofRevenue 2002 (22 Sites)

DAK0.2%

DAU75%

Savings & othersources

8%PAD7% Rev Share

10%

28

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


• The biggest portion of the local budget isallocated to salary. Salaries account for57% of the budget (see Figure 7.). The nextlargest portion (25%) goes to “development”expenses, principally to the 11 fields ofgovernance.

• Despite limited financial resources, local gov-ernments are maintaining the services that theyare expected to deliver and, in some sectors,increasing their expenditures (see Table 1.).Expenditures still fall short of official targets (theconstitutional provision to allocate 30% of thebudget to education and the “agreement” betweenlocal governments and the Ministry of Health toallocate 15% of the budget to health).

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Past revenue generating and budgeting practices. Local governments benefit from theirknowledge about sources of revenues to increase their PAD. Budgeting procedures remainbasically the same, allowing local governments to allocate to all required sectors.

• Desire to maintain basic services. This is evident in the retention of service levelsdespite limited financial resources.


• Unpredictable release of fund transfers from the central government to local govern-ments. This makes it difficult to sustain services. Delays are also cited as the reasonregions are imposing more local taxes and user charges to increase revenues. The collec-tion of excessive taxes and user charges is hurting the community and local business.

• Lack of clarity and citizen participation in the planning and budgeting process. Thebudget reflects local government priorities, becoming final after it is passed as legislationby the DRPD. Because the budget process has not significantly involved citizens, civilsociety groups feel that the budget does not reflect the citizens’ aspirations. For example,

Figure 7. Local Government Budget 2002(22 Sites)

Development25%

Unallocated4%

Operations14%

Salary57%

Table 1. Percentage of Local Gov-ernment Budget Allocated toHealth and Education (22 Sites)

2001 2002

Education 2.55 3.04

Health 1.71 1.99

29


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

budgets typically contain only minimal allocations for development and women’s empow-erment. There are no institutionalized mechanisms for substantive citizen participation inthe budget process, and the process as a whole lacks transparency. In almost all regions,citizen involvement is limited to attending the DPRD session when it is already scheduledto approve the budget.

• Limited funding for development. The 25% of the budget allocated to development mustbe split among numerous sectors.

• Lack of standard audit procedures. This reinforces unresponsiveness to demands forgreater transparency and accountability. The only audit is conducted by the regional super-visory agency, which is a local institution. Generally, reporting is only internal. In someregions, the audit reports are also submitted to the DPRD, but there is no follow-up by theDPRD.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local governments need to find creative ways to generate revenues, apart from taxes anduser fees. They must consider the business climate, investment, and the local economywhen formulating new taxes and fees. Assistance from the central government, in the formof education about alternative sources of local revenues or alternative ways to financeprograms and projects, is crucial in increasing local government fiscal capacity.

• Central government must keep local governments well informed about how fund transfersare decided and when they are released to avoid controversy and speculation.

• Given the limited financial resources in most regions, local governments must link thebudget to strategic plans, targets, goals, and objectives. This will permit an objectiveassessment of what is accomplished in various sectors and functions. It will require greatertransparency so that the public becomes realistic and fair in evaluating governmentperformance.

• Local governments must set up mechanisms for citizen participation in the budgeting andplanning process. Simultaneously, civil society groups must improve their skills in budgetand planning issues so that they can provide substantive input when they take part in theprocess.

30

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


D. PARTICIPATION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND TRANSPARENCY

Public participation is growing, but improvements are still needed in the transparency, respon-siveness, and accountability of local government so that policies are consistent with citizens’needs and aspirations.

1. FINDINGS

• With increasing civil society participation in vari-ous sectors, local governments have begun involv-ing the community to varying degrees in selectedaspects of planning, implementation, and monitor-ing of development programs. In some sites, partici-pation involves only informing the public after theDPRD has already made a decision on a policy or aproject. Civil society participation is then limited toholding protests or demonstrations when citizens disa-gree with the decision of the region. In other cases,civil society monitors project implementation. InKabupaten Bandung, an independent, multi-sectoral citi-zen forum called the Forum Masyarakat MajalayaSejahtera (FM2S) monitors and observes the implemen-tation of regency development programs. It also pro-vides a venue for dialogue between local government and the community on various is-sues.

• Even without a national framework on participation, some local governments areenacting legislation on community involvement in governance. In Kabupaten Takalar,Local Regulation No. 13/2002 established the Perda Sistem Dukungan (SISDUK.) Thisregulation provides the legal framework for involving NGOs and the community in devel-opment. It encourages the community to plan and implement its own programs, with costsharing by local government and NGOs.

GOOD PRACTICE

Gianyar regency has intro-duced a program calledGIANYAR PARTISIPASI inwhich the kabupaten informsthe public of donations andcontributions by Gianyarresidents to local develop-ment projects. The list wasput on a big billboard on themain street of Gianyar re-gency.

31


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Strengthening of citizens’ political resources. Citizens, represented by civil societyorganizations, have asserted themselves as major stakeholders in the community. Theirrising expectations to be part of the governance process can be seen in people’s attendancein community meetings. In addition, civil society organizations are acquiring new skills sothat they can respond to particular issues and concerns.

• Local government initiatives in encouraging public involvement. Local governmentshave generally tried to respond to the people’s demand for greater citizen participation byinviting them to participate in relevant forums and discussions.

• Democratization of the public policy making process and change in local politicaldynamism. Both citizens and local leaders understand decentralization to mean democra-tization of the public policy making process. This is generating a continuing search formechanisms for greater dialogue, exchange, and collaboration between all sectors of thecommunity. Regardless of personal political beliefs of individuals, the idea that “citizensmust be consulted” is gaining momentum.

• Proactive local media coverage of government operations. Local newspapers dissemi-nate periodic information about local government budgets, spending, and new regulations.This helps keep citizens informed and also increases the transparency of certain aspects ofgovernment operations.


• Limited transparency and lack of accountability in government operations. Despitethe growing trend towards openness on the part of local governments to citizen participa-tion, public involvement is not yet universal. Some local governments make it difficult forcitizens to access public documents. Typical constraints include bureaucratic red tape justto be able to see a local budget, for example, or even simply to get information about alocal regulation.

• Unclear conceptual understanding of participation and how to implement it. Unfa-miliar with the concept or the process, some local governments want clear guidelines onthe mechanics of civil society participation. Others are attempting to develop their ownstrategies.

• DPRD’s lack of responsiveness to the constituency. Some DPRD members are notgenuinely representing and consulting their constituencies. This limits civil societyparticipation as well as transparency of local government operations.

32

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• A proposed bill in national parliament seeks to define the process of legislation and publicpolicy making in general. Because this is applicable at the local level, the central govern-ment and the national parliament should ensure that the bill mandates public participationin this process. For example, it should specify the requirements and mechanisms forconsulting with stakeholders and with marginalized groups like women and the poor.

• Even without the framework of national legislation, local governments should pass theirown regulations on participation and transparency in the governing process, includingmechanisms for stakeholder participation and consultation with marginalized groups. Regu-lations should also include provisions on informing the public about government policiesthrough various media. These provisions should include specific mention of marginalizedgroups and women. In addressing transparency, they should take into account the mostappropriate media to be used in each particular region.

• Each local government should develop and disseminate information about its authority,functions, and organization. This will enable citizens to know who is responsible for whatfunctions.

E. THE DPRD (DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DAERAH)

DPRDs are striving to perform their designated roles and functions in an effective manner.Continued improvements are needed in relations with the Executive and in representing con-stituent interests rather than simply party interests.

1. FINDINGS

• DPRD members are trying to equip themselves with the necessary skills to performtheir expected functions. Most current DPRD members who were elected in 1999 arenew. Even senior members who have served before are not familiar with the new obliga-tions, functions, and responsibilities of the local parliament, enacted through Law 22/1999.However, despite funding limitations, members have taken part in self-initiated skill de-velopment trainings or in programs provided by universities or NGOs. This training hasfocused on legal drafting, budgeting, use of computers and the internet, regional autonomyorientation, and political education.

• Professional staff support for DPRDs is limited. There is a lack of staff support forlegislative, budget, and oversight functions. Though staff development funding is scarce,DPRDs are making efforts to secure expertise from outside sources such as university,private consultant and civil society organizations to assist in policy formulation.

33


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

• DPRDs are striving to gather input on constituentaspirations. Mechanisms include formal and informalvisits to villages and sub-districts, organized public hear-ings, receiving citizens in the DPRD, and using informa-tion from local news and other media. In some cases, theDPRDs are beginning to make meetings open to thepublic, not only for the budget evaluation session as man-dated by law, but also for meetings that involve discus-sions of draft legislation. Recognizing high public intereston the Executive’s annual accountability report, someDPRD members are beginning to conduct public consultations and field visits to verifycontents of the report. This indicates the responsiveness of DPRDs to citizens’ criticalview of DPRD operations and performance.

• DPRDs are slow to initiate legislation. Almost all local bills have been initiated by theExecutive, except for internal regulations and the DPRD’s annual budget allocation, andmuch of the budget bill comes from the Executive. DRPDs have been legislatively activein some regions. In Kabupaten Kebumen, the DPRD initiated bills on regulating theselling of alcoholic drink. In Sumba Timur, the DRPD is in the process of issuing aregulation on the code of ethics for members.

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Citizen criticism of DPRD performance. More and more, citizens are putting pressureon the DPRD to live up to its name.

• Increasing recognition among DPRD members of the importance of their legislativerole. Constant demand for better performance from civil society as well as the Executiveis making DPRD members realize that the DPRD as an institution is an important actor inthe governance process.


• Limited capability of DPRD in performing basic functions. This is especially apparentin the area of budgeting and development planning. While DPRD is tasked to approve theregion’s development plan as included in the draft budget, DPRD is not an integral part ofthe planning process. This process is largely in the hands of the BAPPEDA and other localgovernment agencies, with DPRD having little access to the information used as a basisfor the draft budget.

• Differing perceptions among DPRDs and citizens. Citizens feel that the performance ofDPRDs is not yet optimal, while DPRD members feel that they have tried to performedtheir tasks and functions.

GOOD PRACTICE

The DPRD of KabupatenBandung has tried to absorbcitizens’ aspirations throughpublic dialogue to gatherpublic opinion two monthsbefore the bupati’s account-ability address.

34

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


• A strained relationship between the DRPD and the Executive (Bupati) over theannual accountability speech or report (LPJ). The law requires the Bupati to submit anannual “accountability report” on its past year’s accomplishments to the DPRD. The DRPDcan accept or reject the report. Rejection means impeaching the Bupati. However, the DRPDhas no guidelines or standard criteria for deciding to accept or reject the report.

• Lack of a mechanism to resolve conflict between DPRD and Executive. To date, thereis no mechanism to resolve conflicts between DPRD and Executive that occur around theannual LPJ period. LPJ is still perceived as opportunity for DPRD members to “grill” theExecutive on issues not necessarily reported in the LPJ itself. The LPJ period has taken aconsiderable amount of the Executive’s time and energy.

• Insufficient commitment of DPRD members toward their constituents. This is becausethe members tend to promote party interests first. Election with the closed proportionalsystem made the members feel unattached to their constituents and their electoral area.There is no systematic accountability mechanism for the DPRD members to their con-stituents, their political party, or their electoral area.

• Low representation of women. Women continue tosuffer from political side lining, marked by lowpercentages of women DPRD members (see Figure8.). In 30 IRDA research sites, the proportion ofwomen DPRD members ranged from 0 to 16%,with an average of 6 %. Women’s participation inIRDA sampling sites is considered high comparedwith national average, which is 2%.

35

Figure 8. Proportion of Male and FemaleMembers in the DPRD (All Sites)

Female 6%

Male 94%


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Future training for the members of the DPRD should be designed according to their needsand capabilities. These may vary according to their educational background and theirexperience (see Figure 9.).

• DRPD members should strengthentheir political commitment to repre-sent their constituents.

• The central government is in theprocess of revising the Political Partyand Election Laws that will haveimplications for the selection or elec-tion of heads of regions. This processshould take place in a participatoryelemmanner, involving consultationwith stakeholders at both national andlocal levels.

• There is a need to improve the skills of DPRD members and the supporting secretariat.• A better mechanism for the LPJ is urgently needed.

F. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.

As all levels of government recognize the benefits of collaboration, new mechanisms areemerging to support both horizontal and vertical inter-relationships.

1. FINDINGS

• Local governments continue exploring coop-erative activities to handle common issues.More and more initiatives are emerging forcoordination. Some local governments incontiguous areas form local associations toshare information and approaches to commonproblems.

• Provincial governments are still seeking anappropriate role in the decentralized system.They appear to be unsure of how they fit in thenew set-up. Some are playing a coordination

GOOD PRACTICE

Several Dinas Kesehatan (of somekabupatens) at West Java Provincehave established the Wadah LintasBatas (Cross Boundaries Forum),working to combat the spread of con-tagious illness. The forum provideshealth assistance to mothers and infantsin riverside areas across the boundariesof several kabupatens.

36

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


role in local cooperation. The Bali provincial government has coordinated water resourcesmanagement in a clean-water project (“Sarba-gitaku”) involving five kabupatens. A wastemanagement project (“Sarbagita”), funded by the Bali Improvement Urban Project – WorldBank, involves four kabupaten. In Serang, the Banten provincial government established aForum of Cidano river basin to deal with Cidano wet-land degradation.

• Vertical relations between central and local gov-ernments (including between the province andthe kota / kabupaten) are evolving. These rela-tions define the division of labor between thegovernmental levels, and they are important toadvancing the aspirations of local governments thatare carrying out new functions. Given the perceivedlack of clarity in the roles of different levels ofgovernment, there is a debate about whether thepresent policy environment is sufficient for clari-fying them. Many believe that no less than national

legislation or a presidential decree is required. In the interim, both central and local gov-ernments rely on the existing “legal products.” PP 25/2000 (on Powers of the Governmentand Powers of the Provinces as Autonomous Regions) and PP 20/2001 (on Supervisionand Guidance for Regional Governance) assigned ministries the role of providing guid-ance, through the provinces, by setting the norms, standards, criteria, and procedures tosupport the implementation of the transferred authority. The formulation of the SPM andother memoranda contribute to developing a positive relationship – one that enhances theabilities of all parties to meet the overall goals of decentralization – between the kabupaten/kota and the central government (directly or via the provincial government).

• Central government agencies are beginning touse available tools, such as ministerial decrees,to communicate guidelines and performancestandards to local governments. The Ministryof Health established, through SK MOH 11/2001,24 types of health services needed in the com-munities. This can also guide the design of theorganizational structure. The issuance of “Indo-nesia Sehat 2005-2010” assists local governmentplanners to set targets by providing an analysisof existing data to show levels of nutrition, im-munization, and TB eradication. The local gov-ernments can use this information in their owntarget setting and development strategy .

GOOD PRACTICE

The Ministry of Health’s “Indone-sia Sehat 2005-2010” provided lo-cal governments with health indi-cators and priorities that reflect notjust national targets but also Indo-nesia’s commitment to meet globalstandards (such as those defined bythe World Health Organization).

GOOD PRACTICE

The Ministry of Education, throughits competency-based curriculum(KBK), sets the level of aptitude stu-dents must achieve, no matter whichregion they come from. In bothcases, the local governments are leftto design their own strategies to meetthese targets based on their capaci-ties. This arrangement promises tobe beneficial to both parties, as itleaves room for local governmentsto maneuver, while the central gov-ernment plays its role as facilitator.

37


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

• An emerging mechanism is providing technical assistance to local governments.The Ministry of Health is implementing a capacity building program for local govern-ments, focusing on upgrading skills in health management, planning, and budgeting.Coursed through the local Executive, the ministry set up Decentralized Assistance Teamsthat spent two weeks in a region to assist the local health personnel.

2. ENABLING FACTORS

• Common interest among local governments. Realizing common problems, localgovernments are exploring the possibilities of working together to improve public servicedelivery and on other issues such as revenue generation and resolving conflicts.

• Proactive central government agencies. Some central government agencies have aggres-sively redefined their roles and functions in a decentralized setting and taken it upon them-selves to play a facilitating role.


• Unclear division of authority between the central – provincial – kabupaten/kotalevels of governments. This has resulted in confusion regarding the role of the provincesin a decentralized set up, despite PP 25/2000. They feel that more guidelines are needed toclarify the roles between vertical levels of local government.

• Different understanding of the concept of autonomy among central government agen-cies and among local governments. There are differences in the ways various ministriesinterpret the law and the concept of autonomy. Similarly, there are differences at the locallevel, between provinces and kabupaten/kota. At both levels, these differences createdifferent expectations.

• Slow mind shift towards seeing local governments as partners. There are complaintsthat local governments can now disregard central government programs without sanctionsor consequence or that they do not submit reports (data) when requested. Some centralgovernment agencies also question the ability of the local governments to perform theirassigned functions. As a result, some central government agencies are reluctant to workwith local governments.

38

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


4. RECOMMENDATIONS

• The roles and relationships between central-provincial-kabupaten/kota levels must be clari-fied so that each level can effectively discharge its functions. This is particularly true forthe provincial level. Clarity is needed on how the province can be an autonomous unit andsimultaneously a “representative of the central government.” Clarification will avoid casesof overlapping functions and disharmonious relationships with kabupaten/kota and willhelp resolve questions about perceived intervention by the central government in suchareas as licensing and issuance of permits and in investment issues.

• Mechanisms for dialog and building networks among the local governments on variousissues should be institutionalized. The local government associations can take the lead.This is an opportunity for optimizing their role in advancing the interests of the regions,including in the management and resolution of conflicts.

• Both central and local governments must actively explore the prospects of building a posi-tive relationship via existing mechanisms for their linkage, such as formulation of servicestandards, and other informal mechanisms like consultation and coordination.

• Central government must fast track the formulation of service standards and must commu-nicate these standards clearly and effectively to the local governments for their purposeand methods of implementation, the resources required, and why they are useful.

• A mechanism should be developed for reporting from the regions to central government toensure coordination, discipline, transparency, and accountability. This mechanism shouldinclude citizen participation.

G. ISSUES IN THE SPECIAL AUTONOMOUS REGIONS

The Special Autonomous Regions (Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam and Papua) face unique chal-lenges in decentralization and would benefit from implementing regulations issued bycentral government to promote the process. The Special Autonomy Laws for NAD and Papuawill not be fully implemented until these regulations are issued.

Apart from Law 22/1999 and Law 25/1999, the national parliament enacted special autonomylaws for Aceh and Papua (Laws 18/2001 and 21/2001 respectively). These special laws con-tain some of the same provisions as the decentralization laws (such as the authorities that weretransferred), and others that are specific to the regions but still variants on decentralization.The IRDA tracks some of the unique processes in these regions as sources of insights forsuccessfully implementing decentralization as a tool to address human development issues.Key factors and recommendations are as follows:

39


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

PAPUA

1. FINDINGS

• Legal foundation. The special autonomy status of Papua Province is based on Law 21/2001. The law provides for special authority for the provincial government and the role ofindigenous institutions to ensure the preservation of the Papuan people’s heritage. The lawalso provides for special revenue sharing arrangements, particularly revenues from naturalresources. In addition, it provides for the formation of new institutions, such as the PapuanPeople’s Assembly (Majelis Rakyat Papua, MRP), the Human Rights Commission, theHuman Rights Court, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Papuan peopleare now waiting for the President to issue the necessary implementing regulations for theformation of these institutions. This delay is detrimental because the Papuan People’sAssembly is very important in making local regulations, especially those pertaining toculture and tradition and their inclusion in public policy.

• Development of regulations. As part of the initiatives by the Papuan provincial govern-ment and Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua (Papuan Local Parliament), they formed aspecial commission to draft the necessary regulations that would establish these specialinstitutions and propose them to the central government for approval. The commissionalso drafts other local regulations that would eventually be proposed for deliberation bythe Papuan People’s Assembly.

• Special autonomy funds received. On top of the present fund transfer scheme, the PapuanProvincial government has already received its share of the special autonomy funds. Thedisbursement of these funds should be a mandate of the Papuan People’s Assembly. How-ever, for 2002, the provincial governor made the disbursement decision, specifying that60% goes to the province and 40% to kabupaten/kota.

• Problematic acceptance of the autonomy concept. This is particularly true at the grass-roots level, and local governments are conducting “socialization” (dissemination) amongthe bureaucracy down to kabupaten/kota level. Many Papuans are still concerned that re-pressive measures are still being used to disseminate information on the implementationof Law 21/2001.

• Conflicting authorities between Law 21/2001 and Law 22/1999. Most of the overlap-ping functions and authorities result from the fact that the Special Autonomy status ofPapua is given at the provincial level, while Law 22/1999 emphasizes the new role andauthority given to the kabupaten/kota level government.

40

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


2. RECOMMENDATIONS

• The central government needs to immediately issue the Government Regulation for theestablishment of the Majelis Rakyat Papua, and Presidential Decrees for the establish-ment of the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Court, and the Truth andReconciliation Commission.

• Provincial and local governments need to come to an agreement on their respectiveauthorities. The facilitating role of the central government will be essential, as both con-flicting laws are at the national level. Implementing regulations will help to eliminate theconfusion and reduce the apprehension between the two levels of local governments.

• Using information dissemination methods that are participatory and consistent with hu-man rights principles, provincial and local governments need to continue the “socialization”of special autonomy, particularly to the communities and citizens.

NANGGROE ACEH DARUSSALAM (NAD)

1. FINDINGS

• Legal foundation. The special autonomy status of NAD Province is based on Law 18/2001. The law stipulates the special authority of the provincial government and new struc-tures and institutions of the local government. It gives rights to the provincial governmentwith respect to revenue sharing and balance funds. It also gives the people political rightsto directly elect heads and deputy heads of regions, and the rights to “recall” them andDPRD members. Special autonomy provides for the implementation of Syari’ah and theCouncil of Syari’ah, two features acknowledging NAD’s Islamic traditions. This marksthe main difference between NAD Province and other provinces, since religious affairssuch as Syari’ah comprise one area that is not decentralized based on Law 22/1999.

• Limited legislation by the Provincial DPRD. Only one qanun (local regulation) has beenpassed. It is on financial sharing between provincial and district governments. A specialcommittee of the DPRD is currently deliberating on 22 qanun proposed by the localprovincial government.

• Unclear authority boundaries between provincial and district governments. Withoutsuch boundaries, and with the overlapping of authorities as stipulated in Laws 18/2001and 22/1999, provincial government tends to take over the authority of the local govern-ments. This puts the local governments in a difficult position.

• Pressure to enact the qanun to elect of heads and deputy heads of provincial andkabupaten/kota governments as proposed by the provincial government. The provin-cial government received assistance from NGOs in drafting this qanun. Several NGOs arenow actively “socializing” the draft, and mobilizing citizens to push the DPRD to adopt

41


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

the draft qanun. In response to such pressure, the DPRD passed a resolution on August 20,2002 to deliberate on the draft, which by that time had been sponsored by several DRPDmembers.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Because in many cases special autonomy concepts are misinterpreted, there should beactive efforts to socialize the intent.

• The qanun on special autonomy should be enacted soon, particularly on the division ofauthority. In deliberating qanun for provincial authorities that are currently managed bythe central government, there is a need for common understanding between the provincialand the central government, particularly in reconciling Laws 18/2001 and 22/1999 as wellas other laws and regulations.

• To avoid misunderstanding, deliberation of a qanun should include dialogue between pro-vincial and local governments. Such dialogue is also expected between the central andprovincial governments on any Implementing Regulations for Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.

• The central government should be more open and intensify efforts to involve localgovernments in the process of managing and calculating revenue-sharing funds to avoidmisunderstanding. This is particularly important on the issue of oil and gas revenues, whichcomprise the main part of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam revenue.

42

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


IV. MAKING USE OF IRDA’S INFORMATION

Involving representatives of government at all levels, NGOs, citizens, and research partnersthroughout Indonesia, the IRDA has engaged stakeholders in dialogue about the decentraliza-tion process. These diverse inputs can be invaluable both in tracking the process of decentrali-zation and in identifying opportunities to facilitate it. Therefore, the IRDA is not simply areport; used judiciously, it is also a tool for all actors committed to successful implementationof decentralization.

A. THE CHALLENGES TO DECENTRALIZATION

All stakeholders acknowledge that implementation was rapid. Regions were in varying statesof readiness, and the national framework both government-wide and at the agency level wasnot fully formulated. Some provisions were vague, and the dissemination of laws and policieswas incomplete. Not all of the “pre-conditions” for decentralization were established. Never-theless, the process began, and actors at all levels were challenged to find their way and dotheir best despite an uncertain environment.

As the process continues to moves forward, the central government as a whole and its indi-vidual agencies need information to track what is happening so that they can refine their frame-works and strategic plans. These refinements will facilitate the decentralization process.Regional compliance with central reporting requirements is reportedly low. For example, theMinistry of Health wants data on local government budgets for health, but only 30% of alllocal governments throughout Indonesia have complied with the ministry’s request. Similarly,local governments need feedback, albeit of a different sort. They need to know how well theyare doing, and they need to learn about successful strategies implemented at the local levelelsewhere that strengthen local governance.

B. THE IRDA – A TOOL TO TRACK PROGRESS AND ACCELERATE INNO-VATION

The IRDA is one source of data about the decentralization process. It complements other sources,enhancing the information available to governments at all levels. It was conceived as anavenue for immediate feedback on a focused set of issues that stakeholders deem priorities. Itdocuments what is happening at the local government level – the extent of changes takingplace, the types and pace of changes, and strategies and approaches to change. In addition toproviding quantitative data, it documents the diversity of experience not captured by statisti-cal averages and therefore provides a much richer picture of decentralization as it evolves.This is a critical factor in Indonesia, with its vast geographic area, regional differences inresources, and multiplicity of cultures. Moreover, the IRDA is flexible and can target specialinterests and concerns as they evolve.

43


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

At the national level, when framework targets and indicators are clear, the IRDA can help thecentral government and its agencies monitor progress. The clearer the target, the more help theIRDA can provide. For example, the Ministry of Health and local governments have agreedupon one target, which is the allocation of 15% of local government budgets for public healthservices. The Second IRDA has documented the average allocation for health at selected sites.This data can inform planners, who can then decide if IRDA findings provide a sufficientsnapshot, or if they need a census of all local governments in order to refine their framework.To provide context for the quantitative data, the IRDA also helps answer questions about bothenabling factors and constraints, thus providing information that feeds into national-levelrefinements to the decentralization framework.

At the regional level, the IRDA provides another set of benefits. It helps each region see howit compares with others in terms of strategies used and progress achieved. It also providesadaptable or replicable models that will accelerate the spread of best practices. It describeswhat works, and what does not work. Disseminating lessons learned helps maximize the useof valuable resources.

Crossing both levels, the IRDA stimulates the national-local dialogue that is clearly critical tothe success of the decentralization initiative. By tracking the strength and nature of inter-governmental relations, it exposes various stakeholders to different points of view within thebureaucracy and engages them in identifying and resolving issues among them. As shown inFigure 10, the IRDA has a crucial niche in ongoing efforts to improve the decentralizationinitiative. It contributes data to monitor progress in achieving targets, and it provides anavenue for quickly exploring issues that need consideration in refining the overall framework.

44

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


Figure 10. The Use of IRDA Data in Monitoring Decentralization

National and AgencyFrameworks for Decen-

tralization

Monitor Progress

Identify AreasFor Improvement

IRDA and otherData Sources

Targets

Refine Policyand Laws

45


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

ANNEXES

ANNEX AIRDA METHODOLOGY

There is a vast universe of topics that could be studied about decentralization. However, policydebates need to be clarified in the soonest time possible so immediate actions could also betaken by key actors concerned. This is where the IRDA method is most useful. It strikes abalance between providing just enough useful information for clarifying policy debates, andmaking the information available in a timely fashion. Focusing on a limited but relevant set ofinformation is more efficacious than gathering tons of information that requires months if notyears to finish.

IRDA employs the appraisal method in monitoring decentralization in Indonesia. IRDAbelongs to a family of rapid appraisal methods, e.g. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Partici-patory Rural Appraisal (PRA) that use a range of “informal” data collection techniques suchas semi-structured interviews and secondary data analysis. While the general technique is quali-tative, the information gathered and analyzed is a mix of both qualitative and quantitativedata. To capture the local perspective, research institutions familiar with the sites and decen-tralization gathered the data from the field.

The unit of analysis in these appraisals is the kabupaten/kota where substantial powers weretransferred from the central government. IRDA’s main data gathering tools are key informantinterviews and focus group discussions. Using various tools and techniques allows for tri-angulation and validation of data from various sources. IRDA’s analysis and recommendationdevelopment process is participatory. Thus, by maximizing the use of participatory methods,the very IRDA process itself helps establish dialogue mechanisms among key actors at bothnational and local levels.

As illustrated in Figure 11, IRDA is a cyclical process with multiple stages.

46

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


Data Gathering

Briefing Seminar

Generating GuideQuestions

Setting the Stage/Research Agenda

Local Level PublicPresentation

Synopsis ReportWriting

National LevelPublic

Presentation

SynthesisSeminar

Report Writing

Setting the Stage. This phase sets the research agenda and defines the themes that will becovered in the appraisal. It involves the participatory gathering of information about whatissues the IRDA should address, rooted in stakeholder interest. Core issues that persist remainthe same from year to year, enabling the IRDA to measure progress consistently. New issuesmay be added in subsequent cycles, based on stakeholder inputs.

Generating Guide Questions. A peer group or small group representing the government, civilsociety, and private sector, along with the Foundation and some other groups working ondecentralization, filters the issues and themes to formulate interview and discussion questions.

Briefing Seminar. A briefing seminar for local research partners ensures that all institutionsconducting the IRDA have a common understanding of the parameters for the appraisal, theresearch agenda, the guide questions, and the data gathering methods. As part of the Founda-tion’s commitment to build local institutions, and eventually to transfer this technology to

Figure 11. Stages in the IRDA Process

47


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

them, local research partners are engaged for the data gathering process. The familiarity oflocal partners with the target area is critical because they understand the site-specific decen-tralization issues that should be pursued, in addition to the set of guide questions.

Data Gathering. The local research partners gather information by conducting a series of multi-stakeholder, participatory workshops and consultations using focus group discussions as theprimary data gathering technique. Data gathered from these inter-locking dialogues are vali-dated and enhanced through key informant interviews and analysis of secondary data such asthe local budget and local regulations passed.

Report Writing. Each local partner prepares a comprehensive report of all data gathered.Secondary data that support the research findings are appended to the reports.

Synthesis Seminar. The objectives of the synthesis seminar are a collective analysis of datagathered and the development of consensus based on empirical observations gathered by thepartners.

National Level Presentation. The findings are then presented in a national level forum, whichbrings the local perspective to national attention for discussion.

Synopsis Report Writing. The synopsis report integrates all inputs gathered throughout theprocess.

Local Level Public Presentation. This stage completes the cycle by bringing back informa-tion and analysis to local governments. This is also the stage at which inputs for possible newthemes for the next round are gathered.

48

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


ANNEX BTHE LOCAL RESEARCH PARTNERS FOR THE 2ND IRDA

This annex describes the local partners and identifies the sites in which they worked on the2nd IRDA. It also provides the address and contacts numbers.

1. CARDS (Center for Agriculture and Rural Development Studies). CARDS is an insti-tution organized by local experts to address issues on local agriculture and environment. Itworks towards the empowerment and prosperity of rural farming communities by educat-ing farmers about comprehensive and sustainable agriculture, as well as dealing with thechallenges of globalization. It provides technical assistance to the farmers in rural commu-nities and conducts local/international seminars and research in several sites in NanggroeAceh Darussalam.Study Site : Kota Banda Aceh, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

Address : Jl T. Nyak Arief No. 180 Jeulingke, Banda AcehPhone/Fax : (0651) 54264Contact : Mawardi Ismail

2. Pusat Studi Wanita (Center for Women’s Studies), Universitas Sumatera Utara (USU).The Center for Women’s Studies is established to provide a venue for USU faculty’s re-search and advocacy on women’s and gender issues. The research and advocacy addressboth policy and implementation.Study Site : Kabupaten Deli Serdang, North Sumatra

Address : Jl. Perpustakaan Kampus USU Padang Bulan , MedanPhone/Fax : (061) 8220803 / 8220803, 8214218Contact : Budi Agustono

3. Yayasan Riau Mandiri (YRM) was established on January 17, 1998 to empower mar-ginal community groups. Its primary sectoral areas are environment and human rights. Itsactivities in community development and assistance include education and training,research, seminars-workshops, and advocacy. It also provides support to members of thecommunity through its credit facility supported by both domestic and international sources.Study Site : Kota Dumai, Riau

Address : Jl. Wonosari No. 141 AA Tangkerang Tengah, Kec. Bukit Raya, Pekanbaru28282

Phone/Fax : (0761) 43919Contact : Alimin Siregar

4. PKSBE (Pusat Kajian Sosial, Budaya, dan Ekonomi), Universitas Negeri Padang(UNP). PKSBE was established in 1996 as a Social Science Center by a group of profes-sors and researchers from the Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Negeri Padang. It

49


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

has experts with background in history, political science, sociology, law, and education,which allows for multidisciplinary work in their research, policy analysis, and seminars.The center has been engaged in several collaborative activities at the local, provincial, andnational levels. The center publishes its own academic journal, called TINGKAP.Study Site : Kabupaten Solok, West Sumatera

Address : Ruang D. 40, Fakultas Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, Universitas Negeri Padang KampusUNP Air Tawar, Padang 25131

Phone/Fax : (0751) – 55671, 444609 / 41721Contact : Afriva Khaidir

5. Political Socialization and Policy Studies Center of Yayasan Bakti Nusantara. Thecenter was established in 1998 by a group of local researchers interested in the social andpolitical problems in Palembang in South Sumatra. It is actively involved in providinginputs to various groups through training, and public hearings. It conducts its activities inpartnership with both local and international donor institutions.Study Site : Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir, South Sumatera

Address : Jl. Perumahan Bukit Sejahtera Blok DB-07, Palembang 30139Phone/Fax : (0711) 440290 / 713189Contact : Retno Susilowati

6. Lembaga Penelitian, Universitas Lampung (UNILA). Universitas Lampung’s researchcenter is engaged in regional, environmental, cultural, human rights, and policy studies. Ithas a Center for Technology Promotion (Sentra PROMTEK) and a Center for IntellectualRights. It cooperates with various other institutions and donor agencies.Study Site : Kota Metro, Lampung

Address : Gedung Rektorat Lantai 5, Kampus Universitas LampungJl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1, Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung

Phone/Fax : (0721) 705173, 773479 / 705173, 785318Contact : Syarief Makhya

7. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). CSIS is a private, non-profitresearch organization established in Jakarta in September 1971. Its mission is to contributeto improved policy-making. Its main activity consists of policy-oriented studies on bothdomestic and international affairs. It undertakes research activities in three areas: Interna-tional Relations, Economics, and Politics and Social Change. As an integral part of itsactivities, CSIS organizes public lectures, seminars, and conferences, with an average of20 events annually. CSIS also has an active publication program covering a wide range ofsubjects in English and Bahasa Indonesia. CSIS publishes two academic journals, TheIndonesian Quarterly (in English) and ANALISA CSIS (in Bahasa Indonesia), as well asbooks and monographs.Study Site/Area: Central Government Agencies

50

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


Address : Jl Tanah Abang III/23-27, Jakarta 10160Phone/Fax : (021) 3865532, 3865535 / 3809641,3847517Contact : Medelina K. Hendityo, Ismanto

8. Indonesian Partnership on Governance Initiatives (IPGI). Established on January 1,2001, IPGI is a non-profit and multi-stakeholder network engaged in participatory research,training and consulting, and advocacy and local policy advising. It is dedicated to increas-ing the partnership capacity of civil society groups to advance local good governance andsustainable development. IPGI consists of local government, academic researchers, andNGO workers, thus bridging the gap between the state, university, and civil society. IPGIbegun with three offices: one national secretariat in Bandung and two offices in Solo andDumai.Study Sites: Kabupaten Bandung & Kabupaten Indramayu, West Java; Kabupaten

Serang, Banten

Address : Jl. Bogor 16 A BandungPhone/Fax : (022) 7272100Contact : Juni Thamrin, Sawedi Muhammad, Diana

9. Center for Micro and Small Enterprise Dynamics (CEMSED) – Satya Wacana Chris-tian University (UKSW). CEMSED is a center within the university’s Faculty of Eco-nomics at Salatiga. It was set up to take part in the development and empowerment ofsmall and medium enterprises (SMEs) around Salatiga in particular, and Central JavaProvince in general. Its activities include: policy research on problems faced by SMEs;policy advocacy; training of trainers; business training for SMEs; conducting seminars,discussions, focus group discussions, and business meetings with SMEs; SME network-ing; and building a database on SMEs. CEMSED conducts these activities in cooperationwith institutions such as local governments, NGOs, business associations, consultantassociations, universities, financial institutions, and international donors.Study Site : Kota Salatiga, Central Java

Address : Jl. Diponegoro 52 – 60 Salatiga 50711Phone/Fax : (0298) 321212 / 321433Contact : Konta Intan Damanik

10. Yayasan Persemaian Cinta Kemanusiaan (PERCIK). PERCIK is established to initiateefforts in disseminating care and concern, and also in upholding human rights and humandignity in a plural society. It has been actively engaged in research on various social andhumanitarian issues. It also organizes trainings, assists in community empowerment,carries out advocacy on issues such as democracy and social justice, and provides assist-ance in conflict resolution.Study Site : Kota Semarang, Central Java; Kab. Sumba Timur, East Nusa Tenggara

Address : Jl. Patimura Km. 1 Kampoeng Percik, Turusan, Salatiga 50714Phone/Fax : (0298) 321865 / 325975Contact : Nick Tunggul, Godril Yuwono

51


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

11. Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan (PSKK) – Universitas Gadjah Mada(UGM). The PSKK Center for Population and Policy Studies (CPPS) was established in1973 to generate and disseminate knowledge about population, reproductive health, vio-lence against women, international migration, small-scale business, urbanization, indus-trialization, social security, poverty, and public affairs. It is an interdisciplinary researchcenter, with 34 research professionals representing various disciplines such as geography,economics, medical science, psychology, demography, sociology, anthropology, publicpolicy, and management. It has conducted more than 200 research projects on various top-ics and has trained more than ,1000 junior researchers from various universities and gov-ernment research units. It maintains a strong network with other research centers, bothdomestic and foreign, and has extensive contacts and relationships with national and inter-national donor agencies.Study Site : Kabupaten Bantul, Yogyakarta Special Region; Kabupaten Kebumen,

Central Java.

Address : Bulaksumur G – 7, Yogyakarta 55281Phone/Fax : (0274) 563079, 522127 / 582230Contact : Partini, Agus Heruanto Hadna

12. Perkumpulan Untuk Peningkatan Usaha Kecil (Association for the Advancement ofSmall Business) (PUPUK). PUPUK is a private non-profit, independent, and non-political organization. It is committed to promoting more equitable and more decentralizedeconomic growth. Its main objectives are to advance entrepreneurs in running their smallbusinesses, assist them in achieving their goals, and fight for their interest. PUPUK doesnot seek to transform small enterprises into big ones, but to make them stronger, self-reliant, and sustainable. Its priority is to support small enterprises with demonstratedpotential for growth and those that use production methods that conserve natural resourcesand promote environmental protection. PUPUK is also committed to take part in develop-ing small business in the less developed areas, especially those far from the country’s centersof economic activities.Study Site : Kabupaten Sidoarjo & Kabupaten Malang, East Java

Address : Jl. Ketintang Madya No. 111, SurabayaPhone/Fax : (031) 8283976Contact : Alam Surya Putra, Moh. Yunus

13. PUSAT PENELITIAN Otonomi Daerah Universitas Udayana. The Research Centerfor Decentralization and Regional Autonomy was initiated by a group of concernedfaculty from a broad range of disciplines at the Universitas Udayana. It was established inSeptember 1996 and became part of the university’s Research Institute. It has been in-volved in many research activities in cooperation with a number of Kabupaten and Kota inBali. It has also been active in capacity-building endeavors in Badung, Gianyar, andDenpasar. In addition, it has been involved in various activities in support of decentraliza-tion in Bali in cooperation with a number of provincial and central government agencies,

52

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


other universities, and international agencies. Together with the university’s Center forWomen’s Studies and the Center for Traditional Law Studies, it has conducted women’sempowerment and traditional community empowerment programs.Study Site : Kabupaten Gianyar, Bali

Address : Jl. PB Sudirman Denpasar, Bali, 80232Phone/Fax : (0361) 231223, 224121Contact : Ketut Sudhana Astika

14. Yayasan KOSLATA. Koslata began in 1989 as a student study group. As it focused moreon social issues and became more involved in social development, it changed its status andbecame Yayasan Koslata on May 21, 1992. Its activities include research on the impact oftourism, advocacy for migrant workers and farmers, public dialogue on human rights,conflict resolution, and civic education to promote democracy. It has received support froma variety of international donor agencies.Study Site : Kabupaten Lombok Barat, West Nusa Tenggara

Address : Jl. Bung Hatta Komp. Akasia III/10, MataramPhone/Fax : (0370) 637017Contact : Sulistiyono

15. Solidaritas Masyarakat Anti Korupsi (SOMASI NTB). SOMASI NTB is an inde-pendent non-profit organization founded on May 23, 1998 by a group of informal leaders,religious leaders, scholars, local journalists, and university students who joined togetherto fight corruption. It is actively involved in building a civil society movement that pro-motes democratic governance and advocates for genuine public aspirations.Study Site : Kabupaten Sumbawa, West Nusa Tenggara

Address : Jl. Pariwisata 41 Monjok Baru, Mataram 83121, NTBPhone/Fax : (0370) 628251Contact : Syahrul Mustofa

16. Yayasan Peduli Sesama (SANLIMA) The Humanity Care Foundation. Established inMay 1998, the foundation aims to create a fair, free, democratic, and prosperous civilsociety. It has three divisions: the Democratization Division, Economy DevelopmentDivision, and Human Rights Division. Its areas of concern include democratization andcommunity development, economic programs, technology, human rights, environment,health, and gender issues. SANLIMA has also worked with various local and internationalinstitutions and donor groups.Study Site : Kabupaten Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara

Address : Jl. Herewila No. 25B, Naikoten II - KupangPhone/Fax : (0380) 831721Contact : Blasius Urikame Udak

53


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

17. Yayasan Madanika. Yayasan Madanika is a non-profit organization in Pontianak, WestKalimantan, established on April 20, 1998. It focuses on developing civil society activitiesin Indonesia, especially in West Kalimantan. Toward this end, it engages in research andpublication, training, and advocacy. It also facilitates community activities. Besides beinginvolved in IRDA, Yayasan Madanika conducts other activities to document the responseto regional autonomy implementation in West Kalimantan.Study Site : Kota Pontianak & Kabupaten Sanggau, West Kalimantan.

Address : Jl. Dr. Wahidin Sudirohusodo Kompleks Sepakat Damai, Blok I No. 6,Pontianak 78116

Phone/Fax : (0561) 573276Contact : Pahrian Ganawira Siregar, M. Taufik

18. KONSORSIUM LINGKAR. The consortium is a working group of NGOs in KutaiKertanegara. Though established itself in 2002, its member organizations were establishedbetween 1992 and 1997 and are working on environment and agricultural issues. Memberactivities include research on capacity building and political education of the community.Study Site : Kabupaten Kutai Kertanegara, East Kalimantan

Address : Jl. Pesut No. 16 Blok B, Rapak MahangTimbau Tenggarong, KalimantanTimur

Phone/Fax : (0541) 663822Contact : Erwinsyah

19. Yayasan Dalas Hangit (YADAH). Dalas Hangit Foundation is a non-profit organizationthat engages in research, development, and advocacy work. Established on October 22,1998 and based in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, it was organized by students and NGOactivists. Its areas of study are democracy and development, rule of law, human rightspromotion, and civil society empowerment and people’s political participation. The foun-dation advocates for good governance, political party accountability, respect for humanrights, and community participation in public policy making. It has conducted cooperativeactivities with local and national NGO networks.Study Site : Kabupaten Banjar, South Kalimantan

Address : Jl. Cendana II D No 87 RT 44 Sei Miai, Banjarmasin Utara, Banjarmasin70123

Phone/Fax : (0511) 302120Contact : Hairansyah

20. Institute of Management and Development Studies (LMPP) - Universitas Sam Ratulangi(UNSRAT). Located in the Faculty of Economics, this institute was established todevelop the faculty in the fields of research and training. Researchers are specialists in thefield of economic development, especially in regional economic development and smallbusiness. The institute has conducted training in the fields of management and accounting

54

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal


in cooperation with other agencies, such as Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Germany, and JICA,Japan.Study Site : Kabupaten Minahasa, North Sulawesi

Address : Kampus Fakultas Ekonomi UNSRAT, Manado 95115Phone/Fax : (0431) 847427 / 853584Contact : Paulus Kindangen

21. Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Gorontalo (Research Institute of Gorontalo Univer-sity). Established on June 10, 2000, the institute is responsible for managing and carryingout research activities within the university. The institute’s aims are to: (1) developresearch culture among students as well as lecturers; (2) be a center of excellence applyingcritical and independent thought to issues; (3) increase the quality of research proposalsand reports; (4) carry out cross-institutional research activities; (5) establish a scientificinformation system within the university; and (6) study and implement scientific conceptsand research findingsStudy Site : Kabupaten Gorontalo, Gorontalo

Address : Jl. Jenderal Sudirman 247 GorontaloPhone/Fax : (0435) 880370Contact : Bambang Supriyanto

22. Lembaga Kajian Demokrasi dan Otonomi (Institute for Democracy and AutonomyStudies or LeDO). LeDO was founded on November 14, 2000 and is a non-profit organiza-tion that promotes the principles of universal democracy and the democratization processin Indonesia. It aims to assess democracy and the implementation of decentralization andworks towards civil society empowerment. LeDO is involved in promoting awareness ofcitizens’ rights in a democratic state and society.Study Site : Kabupaten Bone, South Sulawesi

Address : Jl. Timah 4 Blok A-28 No. 10, Makassar 90222Phone/Fax : (0411) 439732Contact : Imran Thahir

23. Pusat Kajian Indonesia Timur Universitas Hasanuddin (PusKIT UnHas or The Centerfor Eastern Indonesian Studies/CEIS). PusKIT UnHas is a working group of scholarscommitted to the historical study of contemporary Indonesian societies. It focuses onregions on the eastern and western side of the Makassar Strait—areas that have served asnodes in a vast trading network over several centuries. This center is part of the ResearchCenter (Lembaga Penelitian) of Universitas Hasanuddin in Makassar, staffed by profes-sors and independent researchers.Study Site : Kabupaten Takalar, South Sulawesi

55


Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

Address : Gedung Pusat Kegiatan Penelitian (PKP) Lt. 5 Wing B, UniversitasHasanuddin, Tamalanrea Makassar

Phone/Fax : (0411) 588500 / 585636Contact : Abdul Latief

24. Universitas Negeri Papua (UNIPA). UNIPA was established in Manokwari on July 28,2001. Before becoming an independent state university, UNIPA was part of the Faculty ofAgriculture of Universitas Cendrawasih. Since then, UNIPA has conducted a variety ofresearch in rural sociology, resettlement, agriculture development policy, and environmentalstudies. UNIPA scholars have been actively involved in the process of social and politicalchange in Papua. Some have served as members of the Assisting Team on Drafting PapuaSpecial Autonomy Bill.Study Site : Kabupaten Manokwari, Papua

Address : Jl. Gunung Salju Amban Manokwari, PO BOX 23 Manokwari 98301Phone/Fax : (0986) 211974, 211982/ 211455, 214510Contact : Sombuk Musa Yoseph

25. Lembaga Penelitian (Research Institute) - Universitas Cendrawasih, Papua. Thisinstitute was established in 1983 to manage research activities at the university. As cur-rently organized, it oversees several research centers focusing on a variety of issues, suchas environment, population, women’s studies, communities, and culture. In addition tocoordinating regular research activities of the lecturers, the Institute manages research incooperation with other institutions and organizations, such as the Provincial Government,the Jayapura City Government, central government agencies, and several private compa-nies.Study Site : Kota Jayapura, Papua

Address : Jl Sentani Abepura, PO BOX 422 Abepura, Jayapura, PapuaPhone/Fax : (0967) – 581322Contact : M.S. Mayalibit, Josner Simanjuntak

56

Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal



Seco

nd R

epor

t of

Ind

ones

ia R

apid

Dec

entr

aliz

atio

n A

ppra

isal

Documents

INDONESIA RAPID DECENTRALIZATION APPRAISAL (IRDA) · PDF fileSecond Report of Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal T H E A S I A F O U N D A T I O N November 2002 INDONESIA RAPID