ANNUAL REPORT 2008 -...

ANNUALREPORT

2008

Ministry of Home AffairsDirectorate General of Communityand Village Empowerment

Rural PNPM was further expanded during 2008 to cover 2,230 subdistricts and 34,032 villages across the coun-try to extend the Program’s assitance to the poorest of Indonesia’s rural communities. This expansion required the recruitment of 1,410 additonal facilitators and consultants, bringing the total complement of professional field staff to 6,471. To further support the expansion of the program, additional consulting firms were hired to strengthen provincial and national-level consulting teams. Due to the increased size of the Program, additional regional management consultants were engaged to facilitate coordination between the provincial offices and the National Management Consultant. Each regional consultant manages five to six provinces. The provincial management offices were also strengthened with additional specialists. Each provincial office now has five spe-cialists, each regional managment office has also been allocated one microfinance specialist.

The expansion of Rural PNPM is an indication of the Central Government’s increasing confidence in the ability of the Program to function as a credible mechanism for poverty alleviation because of its orientation to: participato-ry development; the principles underlying regional autonomy and decentralization; its pro-poor and pro-women approach; local democratic decision making; transparency and accountability; and prioritizing real community needs to ensure maximum local ownership.

Once again high levels of participation continued to be seen in the attendance figures recorded at Rural PNPM village and kecamatan planning meetings. On average 49 percent were women (not including the special wom-en’s meetings) and 56 percent were from the poorest members of each community. Physical works programs employed a total of 1,605,394 people, 73 percent of whom were the poorest members of their communities. Ca-pacity building activities also provided traing to all program facilitators and involved local government officials during 2008.

Local governments continued to support the Program strongly in 2008 by committing more than Rp 936,513,750,000 from their own budgets to community block grants. This support demonstrates a strengthening of regional autonomy and increased local capacity.

We would like to take this opportunity to convey our thanks to all Rural PNPM stakeholders at both the central and local government levels. We hope that this report provides an informative and accurate potrayal of the Pro-gram’s performance during 2008; and we look forward to an equally successful year in 2009.

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRSREPUBLIK OF INDONESIA

MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

DIRECTOR GENERALCOMMUNITY AND VILLAGE EMPOWERMENT

AYIP MUFLICH

The rapid expansion of the Rural Community Empowerment Program (PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan) is an indication of the Central Government’s aggressive pursuit of its poverty alleviation policies. 2008 saw significant program achievements with USD 447 million being spent accross 34,032 villages on 49,836 activities ranging from village infrastructure to womens microcredit.

Specifically, 67 percent of community block grants (BLM) were spent on rural infrastructure including 12,900 km of roads, 2,277 bridges, 2,296 irrigation systems, 1,674 clean water systems and 20,669 public toilets and wash-ing facilities. In addition, 3,157 schools, 1,421 health clinics and 21,206 grant proposals for women’s microcredit groups were also funded from BLM grants during 2008.

The Programs employment creation objectives continued to be supported by the thousands of physical works programs undertaken by each participating village. These projects provided a total of 1,605,394 villagers with ap-proximately 9 and a half paid working days each. It is important to note that 73 percent of those who worked on these projects were classified as being very poor by their own communities. Participation of women at all levels also continued to remain high, both in terms of attendence at village and intervillage meetings (49 percent), and also in terms of paid labour on village projects. Successful proposals that were initiated by women totaled 30,614 or 68 percent of all proposals funded.

The distribution pattern of funds disbursed via direct community block grants (BLM) closely followed that of 2007, with 67 % of funds used to build village infrastructure, 16 % for women’s microcredit groups, 12 % for com-munity education and 4 % for health related activities. Physical works programs employed a total of 1,605,394 people and provided 15,329,463 paid working days for villagers.

Capacity building remained a high priority for the Program during 2008 with extensive routine training being un-dertaken for facilitators, consultants, local government officials and community members elected, and selected, to perform specific tasks for the Program in their villages and kecamatan. More than 7,400 facilitators and local government officials and over 66,000 village cadres received training during 2008.

We would like to thank all those who continue to support Rural PNPM at both the central and local government levels. We would also like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of thousands of facilitators and con-sultants who ensure that the Program’s mission is implementated in often challenging circumstances. We look forward to an even bigger role in rural development and poverty alleviation in 2009.

FOWARD

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY INSTITUTION AND TRAINING COMMUNITY AND VILLAGE EMPOWERMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIR

ARWAN SUBAKTI

Message from the Director General

Foward

1.1 Introduction 091.2 Program Objectives 111.3 Key Principles 111.4 Areas Covered and Consultants Employed 121.5 PNPM/ RESPEK in Papua and West Papua 131.6 Pilot Programs 14

2.1 Disbursement of Funds 192.2 Level of Community Participation 222.3 Outcomes of Rural PNPM Activities During 2008 252.4 Training and Capacity Building 302.5 Information, Education and Communication Activities 352.6 Microcredit Groups 38

3.1 PNPM/ RESPEK Papua and West Papua 45 3.2 Pilot Programs – P2SPP, SADI and Generasi 513.3 Postdisaster Locations - Nias Housing Reconstruction Program (R2PN) 64

4.1 Complaints Handling 694.2 Internal Financial Supervision 774.3 Key Performance Indicators 78

5.1 Challenges during 2008 81

I. PROGRAM OVERVIEW 07

2. PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES 17

3. RURAL PNPM SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND PILOT PROGRAMS 43

4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 67

5. CHALLENGES 79

Table of Contents

I. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

National Rural Community Empowerment Program Annual Report 2008

9

The National Rural Community Empowerment Program (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri Perdesaan - PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan) is one of a number of empowerment programs currently managed under the Indonesian Govern-ment’s national PNPM Mandiri umberella. During 2007, the program was tasked primarily with accelerating the govern-ment’s poverty alleviation efforts and increasing employment in rural areas. Current government planning indicates that PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan will continue to support efforts to increase the quality of life, general welfare and self reliance of rural communities at least until 2015. Rural PNPM has been operating since 1998, although prior to 2007 it was known under its previous name - the Kecamatan Development Program (KDP).

Rural PNPM is currently the largest community empowerment program in the country and focuses its activities on the poor-est rural communities in Indonesia. The program facilitates development through community empowerment by forming and strengthening local institutions at the subdistrict (kecamatan) and village levels, and by using direct facilitation, capacity building and providing block grants (BLM) directly to communities ranging from Rp 1 billion to Rp 3 billion per kecamatan.

Rural PNPM encourages all village community members to become involved in each phase of the program’s activities, start-ing with detailed planning, implementation/construction of projects, and post-project maintenance for assets built by the village. Rural PNPM activities at the village level normally include: rehabilitation or construction of infrastructure; capital loans and revolving funds; and social activities related to education and health. During implementation, Rural PNPM dis-burses grant funding directly to communities and provides technical assistance through consultants and facilitators.

The Implementing agency for Rural PNPM is the Directorate General of Rural Community Empowerment (PMD) in the De-partment of Home Affairs. Funding for the program comes from the national budget, local government budgets, loans from the World Bank and grants from donor agencies.

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Women workers building a public washing and sanitation facility (MCK) in Kecamatan Sapak Dolok Hole, North Sumatra.


10

Irrigation weir built in Kecamatan Hasambi Village, Kecamatan Padang Bolak Julu, North Sumatra.

Historical Development of the Program

KDP Phase I (KDP I) was executed during the period 1998/1999 to 2002. The next program, KDP Phase II (KDP II), started in 2003 and ended in late 2006. KDP Phase IIIA (KDP III) began in late 2005, and then continued into its second phase (KDP IIIB) which began in early 2006. Phase III of the program placed greater emphasis on trying to decentralize and institutionalize the KDP process at the local level to enhance sustainability.

In 2007, KDP was rebranded as PNPM-KDP under the new integrated PNPM approach. At this time KDP, and many other similar empowerment programs, were put under the overall coordination of the Coordinating Ministry for Peoples Welfare (Menko Kesra). During 2007, all of the government’s community empowerment and poverty alleviation programs were asked to focus primarily on reducing overall poverty levels and increasing employment. In the case of PNPM-KDP these objectives were to be pursued in rural areas.

In 2008, the Program underwent further changes and was renamed as PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan, or The National Community Empowerment Program for Self-Reliant Rural Villages. During 2008 many of the Program’s administrative and operational functions were delegated by the Program’s executing agency (PMD) to the PMD agencies based in each provincial govern-ment. The functions handed over to the provinical governments in early 2008 included:

• Recruitmentofkabupaten (district) and kecamatan (subdistrict) faciltators;• Employmentofprovincialcoordinatorsandconsultants,andkabupatenandkecamatanfaciltators through direct contracts;• Handlingallpayrollarrangementsforprovincialconsultantsandkabupatenandkecamatanfacilitators;• Maintenanceoffinancialrecordsandproductionofdetailedbiannualreportsforalloperationalfunding allocated to support the Program at the provincial and kabupaten level.


11

1.2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Rural PNPM implementation in 2008 continued the program’s focus on poverty alleviation and employment creation through its well known and effective community-based methods. As in 2007, field consultants were also instructed to devote more time and resources to working with communities during the initial stages of the Program’s planning cycle to more accurately document very poor households and pockets of severe poverty that until now have been over looked. Additional attention was also given to maximizing local labour content in infrastructure projects.

• TheDevelopmentofHumanPotential. Each activity is expected to support capacity building for indi viduals to help maximize existing human resources and enable residents to develop their communities with dignity and respect for basic human rights.• Autonomy. Communities are given the authority to decide how they will manage their own development.• Decentralization.Authority to manage sectoral and regional development has already been delegated to local governments under the regional autonomy law. The relative success of each region’s develop ment now largely depends on the capacity of local government and communities. • Pro-PoorApproach. All activities should be planned and implemented after taking into account the needs of the poorest members of the community. • Participation/CommunityInvolvement. Community members are empowered to make critical decisions about their own development priorities and given the opportunity implement projects themselves.• GenderEquality. Men and women are given the same opportunities to take active roles in each stage of the program cycle and are entitled to enjoy equally the benefits of their combined work. • Democracy. Every decision is taken collectively and with the needs of the poor taken into consideration.• TransparencydanAccountability. All community members must have the same access to information about the program, and about all decisions taken in their name. This must be done to ensure that those chosen to manage project implementation can be held accountable morally, technically, legally and ad ministratively.• Priorities. Local government and communities must be able to correctly prioritize local needs that help to alleviate poverty, address urgent issues and provide benefits for the largest number of community members by optimizing available and limited local resources.• Collaboration.All parties and stakeholders involved in local poverty alleviation programs are expected to work together in synergy for the common good.• Sustainability. Each decision taken during the program should take account of likely impacts on community welfare, not only during the project, but also over the longer term. Project decisions should also take into account longer term local environmental impacts.

1.3. KEY PRINCIPLES

Rural PNPM consultants and facilitators ensure that all program activitiesadhere to the following basic principles:


12

1.4. AREAS COVERED AND CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED

In 2008, the Government allocated funding for Rural PNPM to cover 2,230 kecamatan in 335 kabupaten across 30 provinces. Besides the mainstream Program, funds were also allocated for 9 kecamatan included in the Rehabilitation and Reconstruc-tion Program for Nias Islands (PNPM-R2PN), 178 kecamatan included in the PNPM Generasi Program, 24 kecamatan included the PNPM Pilot Smallholder Agribusiness Development Initiative (SADI) and 13 kabupaten included in the Pilot Program Pengembangan Sistem Pembangunan Partisipatif (P2SPP). The figures above do not include the kecamatan that received PNPM funding for the Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Kampung Program (PNPM-Respek) in Papua and West Papua

Rural PNPM locations are provided with consultants and facilitators to assist with program implementation from the national level down to the kecamatan level, i.e. National Management Consultant, Provincial Management Offices, Kabupaten Man-agement Consultants and Kecamatan Facilitators. At the end of 2008, there were 6,471 consultants working in the field for Rural PNPM and all pilot programs (see Table 1.B). This represented an increase of 1,410 consultants from 2007 due to an increase in total program locations and a restructuring of the provincial management offices which on average increased the number of specialists in each provincial office from four to six. Some provinces also received additional regional-based specialists for training, microcredit and financial supervision/auditing duties. The table below also shows the estimated number of Village Facilitators (FD). Each Rural PNPM village is entitled to select two village facilitators (one male and one female) to assist the kecamatan facilitator. These local community-based facilitators have now become an essential part of the program, and as the number of kecamatan are increased from year to year they are assuming ever more data gather-ing and local organizing duties to assist the already overstretched kecamatan facilitators. Many of these people have now kecamatan facilitators.

Consultants & Facilitators 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

National Management Consultants 31 29 37 69 35

Regional Management Consultants 98 98

Provincial Management Consultants 125 167 155

UPK Support Facilitators 78 59 51

Kabupaten Management Consultants 348 445 417 658 675

Kabupaten Assistant Consultants 2 2

Kecamatan Facilitators 2.210 3.278 2.870 3.789 5.325

Information Facilitators 44 44 33

Pilot Education Facilitators 19 19 19

PNPM-Generasi Facilitators 254 354

PNPM-SADI Facilitators 21

Total Consultants 3.850 3.850 3.428 5.061 6.471

Village Facilitators ± 39.890 ± 39.890 ± 39.890 ± 44.248 ± 66.442

Tabel 1.A. Coverage of Rural PNPM Locations

Table 1.B Total Consultants and Facilitators as of December 2008

Note :Data excludes locations for PNPM-Generasi, PNPM-Respek, PNPM-R2PN and PNPM-SADIPNPM-R2PN 2007/08: 252 villages | 9 kecamatan | 2 kabupaten | 1 province PNPM-Generasi 2008: 2.153 villages | 176 kecamatan | 21 kabupaten | 5 provincesPNPM-SADI 2007/08: 24 kecamatan | 4 provinces Pilot P2SPP 2007/08: 13 kabupaten | 12 provinces PNPM-Respek 2008:4.346 villages | 387 districts | 29 kabupaten | 2 provinces*Data 2006, does not include postdisaster locations: 6.526 villages | 318 kecamatan | 25 kabupaten | 4 provinces

Note : 2004-2006: KDP; 2007: PNPM-KDP; 2008: Rural PNPM

Province 22 30 30 29 32 30 32

Kabupaten (District) 130 225 245 232 331 335 348

Kecamatan (Subdistrict) 986 1.264 1.592 1.144 1.837 2.230 2.688

Village 16.000 21.994 27.244 18.007 26.724 34.032 42.319

Level of GovernmentAreas Covered

Total1998-2003 2004 2005 2006* 2007 2008


13

1.5. PNPM/ RESPEK PAPUA & WEST PAPUA

RESPEK (Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Kampung) is a village development program developed by the provincial govern-ment of Papua in response to the Special Autonomy Law for Papua (Law No. 21/2001). This law mandates a special autonomy fund (dana OTSUS) for Papua that is managed directly by the local governments. The RESPEK program aims to improve com-munities’ welfare, support local government peace-building and improve local governance in Papua and West Papua. In 2007, the program channeled block grants in the amount of Rp 100 million per village to more than 2,000 villages in Papua and West Papua provinces.

In 2008, the Governor of Papua decided to merge RESPEK with Rural PNPM. The new program, called PNPM RESPEK, covers over 4,500 villages in both Papua and West Papua. In this program, the central government provides funds for facilitators (technical assistants) while the provincial governments provide the block grants for subprojects. This program prepares vil-lages to manage their block grants through community-based planning and decision making to ensure that the grants are used for priority community needs.

2007 saw a significant reduction of the number of program locations in Papua due to preparations for the new RESPEK program which now covers all kecamatan (called districts in Papua) in both Papua and West Papua. The RESPEK program is essentially an autonomous local version of Rural PNPM. The BLM community block grants will be funded by the large special autonomy funds that have been allocated to both Papua and West Papua, while the cost of technical assistance (consultants and additional management support) will continue to be borne by the Central Government as part of its support for the national PNPM program.

Kecamatan (District) 20 56 41 19 283

Villages 447 935 762 239 3,141

Kecamatan (District) 7 30 13 35 104

Villages 137 583 312 500 1,204

Papua KDP 1 KDP 2 KDP 3 PNPM-KDP PNPM-RESPEK

West Papua KDP 1 KDP 2 KDP 3 PNPM-KDP PNPM-RESPEK

Table 1.C. PNPM-KDP/ RESPEK Locations in Papua & West Papua December 2008

Cement road built by the people of Murano Village, Teluk Etna District, Kabupaten Kaimana, West Papua Province


14

1.6. PILOT PROGRAMS

Rural PNPM has proven to be a valuable platform from which to launch and field test new methodologies and refine exist-ing approaches to the community-based approach to rural development. As part of this learning process, Rural PNPM sup-ported four pilot programs during 2008.

SmallholderAgriculturalDevelopmentInitiative(SADI)

The AusAID funded SADI pilot program commenced in 2007, although due to protracted delays block grants did not reach the target communities until mid 2008. The pilot was implemented in four provinces: West Nusa Tenggara; East Nusa Teng-gara, South Sulawesi; and South East Sulawesi. The SADI pilot was divided into three subprograms.

The first was Subprogram 1 which was linked to Rural PNPM and was designed to dovetail with the mainstream program. Its purpose was to provide block grants to groups of farmers that participated in a PNPM styled approach to determine suitable agricultural-based subprojects designed to support household-level economic activities.

The second subprogram was supported by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) which provided detailed marketing analysis and assistance for specific cash crops that were expected to be produced by the first subprogram.

The third subprogram was supported by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) which provid-ed high level support from agricultural scientists who advised on technical issues such as crop species. As with other Rural PNPM related activities, SADI also experienced a late start in 2007. Program block grants were disbursed to SADI’s target kecamatan by mid 2008.

Village Cadres attending SADI training with facilitators in Kecamatam Mollo, South Sulawesi.


15

PNPMHealthyandIntelligentGeneration(Generasi)

Rural PNPM communities have consistently proposed a large number of health and education activities. However, due to pressing infrastructure needs, and limited funds, only a small percentage of those proposals have been implemented. To accommodate these second priority proposals, another pilot program was created called PNPM Generasi Sehat dan Cerdas (The Healthy and Clever PNPM Generation) to focus on these types of activities - complete with additional funds and special facilitators. PNPM Generasi is an innovative pilot program and was launched by the Indonesian Government in July 2007. It was designed to accelerate the achievement of three Millennium Development goals: universal basic education, reduction in child mortality; and inprovement in maternal health.

Under the PNPM Generasi approach villagers, with asistance from trained facilitators, use a participatory planning process to identify problems. The community then uses its block grants to create local solutions. PNPM Generasi aims to improve 12 basic health and education indicators:Indicators for pregnant mothers1. Pregnant women examined at least 4 times by midwives.2. Pregnant women to receive 30 iron supplement pills (Fe) each month.3. Childbirth to be handled by qualified midwives or doctors.4. Mother and child receive a post natal examination within the first 40 days after birth by a doctor or mid wife, at least twice.Indicators for children under five5. Infants under 12 months old to receive full immunization.6. Babies under 12 months old should increase body weight each month, babies under 6 months should put on 500gr each month and babies 6-12 months should put on 300gr per month.7. Infants under 5 are to receive Vitamin A 2 times each year.8. Children under 5 years old to be weighed every month.Indicators for school-aged children9. Primary school aged children (6 years and over) must be enrolled in a local primary school or its equivi lant.10. Primary school students must attend school every day.11. Middle high school aged children (13-15 years) that have graduated from primary school, should be enrolled in middle (SLTP) school, or its equivilant.12. Middle high school students must attend school every day.

(Above) Young mothers receiving prenatal information from midwife in West Java. (Right) Babies being weighed at village health post.


16

ProgramPengembanganSistemPembangunanPasrtisipatif(P2SPP)

In 2006 the national coordinating team for KDP decided to undertake a special pilot program called Program Pengembangan Sistem Pembangunan Partisipatif (P2SPP) (Program for Developing a Participatory Development System) in May 2006. The main objective of this pilot was to fully integrate the regular development planning mechanism with the Rural PNPM bot-tom-up model. Institutionally, the P2SPP pilot has been based at the kabupaten level and uses kabupaten sourced BLM funds as a stimulant to bridge the missing link between village and kecamatan project proposals. It also ensures that kecamatan-based proposals are included in the final budget decisions that are always taken at the kabupaten level.

The P2SPP pilot initially started with four kabupaten: Batanghari; Boyolali; South Minahasa; and Ngada. In the second year (2007) another four kabupaten were added: Jombang; Tapin; East OKU; and Tabanan. The third year (2008) saw another five kabupaten added to the pilot: Way Kanan; Bantul; Sambas; West Lombok; and Nagekeo. This pilot produced mixed and gen-erally disappointing results with regard to its primary objective of integrating the regular development planning mechanism with the Rural PNPM bottom-up model.

With the exceptions of Kabupaten Batanghari, Boyolali and Ngada, very little progress was made with the pilot’s integration objective. This was due mainly to a general unwillingness among the participating local governments, and their local par-liaments, to reform the old entrenched development planning system. The P2SPP pilot attempted to shift the focus of the development planning process from kabupaten-based plans formulated by kabupaten elites to an approach that genuinely reflected the aspirations and needs of village communities.

Primary school built by P2SPP community in Nenowea Village, Kecamatan Rutojawa, Kabupaten Ngada


17

2. PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES


19

The Gantt chart below shows the relationship between PNPM cycles and calendar years. The solid green bars depict the an-ticipated (scheduled) time required to complete the annual program cycles in accordance with national budget allocations. The pink bars represent the additional time required to complete all the locations that were started in the years represented by the solid green bars. This chart shows the difficulty the Program has had in matching the time-consuming community-based approach with the rigid 12 month national budgeting system. On average, it takes between 14 to 16 months to prop-erly prepare, plan and implement one PNPM cycle.

2.1 DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS

During 2008, a total of 2,230 kecamatan (including the special Nias housing program and four pilot programs) receivedRp 3.844 trillion, or about USD 427 million (see Table below), in direct community grants (BLM) from PNPM loans and other sources. These funds covered all cycles and pilot projects. This figure represents a disbursement rate of 95% for all funds allocated to direct community grants (Rp 4.029 trillion – USD 447 million) through Rural PNPM during 2008.

However, as with 2007, the Program suffered once again from a late start caused by protracted discussions between cen-tral government agencies (PMD, Bappenas, Menko Kesra) and the World Bank on the number and type of subdistricts to be included in the 2008 Program. This problem also held up negotiations between the World Bank and GOI for a loan to fund the 2008 Program. The final loan agreement was signed in June 2008. Revisions then had to be made to PMD’s budget documents (DIPA) based on the revised list of locations. The subsequent revision of the Program’s budget (DIPA) was final-ized by September 12, while the approval for disbursement of BLM funds by the Department of Finance was approved on September 17.

KDP Phase Cycle

PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan 2

PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan 1

PNPM KDP 1

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

4

3

2

1 Calender year

Semester 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Planned completion time for subproject activities.

Additional time required for completion of late subproject locations.

2009

2009

KDP I

KDP II

1998 20072003 2004

KDP III A

2001 2002

PNPM CYCLES vs CALENDAR YEAR

200620051999 2000

KDP III B

2008

2008

2004 2006 2007200519991998 200320022000 2001


20

As of December 2008, the thirty provinces that participated in the program during 2008, had on average, disbursed 98 percent of their allocated local budget funds (APBD), and 84 percent of their allocated central government funds (APBN) to UPK accounts. However, only 22% of the kecamatan locations from 2008 had disbursed all their BLM funds to village project teams (TPK) for community projects, and only 13% had completed the final handover (MDST) of their projects.

As of December 2008 the cumulative disbursements for all sources of Rural PNPM funds, since the beginning of KDP I in 1998, totaled US$1.725 billion (see Table 2.1.B). Local government contributions if converted into US dollars (@ Rp9,000 = US$ 1.00) for the same period totaled US$215.32. Included in this amount over the same period Rural PNPM received a total of US$172.8 million in grants.

Table 2.1.A Disbursement of Direct Community Block Grants During (BLM ) 2008

PNPM MP Programs Sources of Financing Total Kec. Allocation (Rp) Disbursement (Rp) %

PNPM Mandiri APBN* 2,170 2,672,501,766,000 2,595,990,362,000 97.14 APBD** 910,793,750,000 889,863,750,000 97.70

Generasi Pilot APBN 176 231,070,000,000 221,520,000,000 95.87 APBD 41,200,000,000 40,650,000,000 98.67

SADI Pilot APBN 24 26,400,000,000 26,400,000,000 100.00

P2SPP Pilot APBN 13 52,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 15.38 APBD 29,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 20.69

Postdisaster Locations APBN 25 66,250,000,000 56,520,000,000 85.31

TOTAL 4,029,215,516,000 3,844,944,112,000 95.43TOTAL USD 447,690,613 427,216,012* Source of funds from National Budget** Source of funds from Local Government Budgets

Table 2.1.B. Funds Allocated From All Sources For Rural PNPM Mandiri 2008 (USD Millions)

IBRD IDA LOCAL CENTRAL NETHERLANDS JAPAN MDTFundsKDP I 225 48.2 0 273.20 KDP II 208.9 143.6 26 53.9 53.9 432.40 PEKKA 2.7 2.7 2.70 KDP III A 45.5 52.7 25 0 123.20 KDP III B & PNPM 80 84.7 66.5 0 231.20 Generasi & Education 2.3 6.1 6.1 8.40 R2PN 27.5 27.5 27.5 55.00 MDTF I 64.7 64.7 64.70 MDTF II 13.5 13.5 13.50 SADI 4.4 4.4 4.40 PNPM-Rural 41.19 181.99 95.52 197.97 0 516.68 TOTAL USD 600.59 511.19 215.32 225.47 53.90 2.70 116.20 172.80 1,725.38

PHASES TOTAL GRANTS

TOTAL FUNDS

WORLD BANK GOV'T CONTRIBUTION TRUST FUNDS/GRANTS

As with 2007, local governments continued to provide cost sharing funds during 2008 from their own local budgets to sup-port Rural PNPM. A total of 2,408 kecamatan provided cost sharing contributions worth Rp 936,513,750,000 during 2008 based on a formula for assessing each local government’s fiscal capacity. Those with ‘high’ capacity paid 70% of the cost of BLM funds, those with ‘medium’ capacity 40%, and those with ‘low’ capacity paid 20%. Once again the cost sharing ar-rangements continue to demonstrate the willingness of local governments, and their parliaments (DPRD), to redirect local resources into long neglected rural communities to support the Central Government’s poverty alleviation strategy.

As of May 2009, the thirty provinces that participated in the program during 2008, had on average, disbursed 99 percent of their allocated local budget funds (APBD), and 96 percent of their allocated central government funds (APBN) (see Table 2.1.C).


21

Loca

l Bud

get

Natio

nal B

udge

tTo

tal

Loca

l Bud

get

Natio

nal B

udge

tTo

tal

Loca

lNa

tiona

lTo

tal

1Na

nggr

oe A

ceh

Daru

ssal

am14

959

,618

,750

,000

238,

475,

000,

000

298,

093,

750,

000

59,6

18,7

50,0

0022

2,43

5,00

0,00

028

2,05

3,75

0,00

010

0%93

%95

%2

North

Sum

atra

133

46,3

00,0

00,0

0020

2,20

0,00

0,00

024

8,50

0,00

0,00

046

,100

,000

,000

193,

380,

000,

000

239,

480,

000,

000

100%

96%

96%

3W

est S

umat

era

102

23,6

75,0

00,0

0025

3,57

5,00

0,00

027

7,25

0,00

0,00

023

,675

,000

,000

244,

330,

000,

000

268,

005,

000,

000

100%

96%

97%

4Ri

au49

28,6

50,0

00,0

0045

,350

,000

,000

74,0

00,0

00,0

0028

,650

,000

,000

45,3

50,0

00,0

0074

,000

,000

,000

100%

100%

100%

5Ja

mbi

5434

,225

,000

,000

51,7

75,0

00,0

0086

,000

,000

,000

34,2

25,0

00,0

0049

,835

,000

,000

84,0

60,0

00,0

0010

0%96

%98

%6

Sout

h Su

mat

era

7829

,250

,000

,000

117,

000,

000,

000

146,

250,

000,

000

29,2

50,0

00,0

0011

2,25

0,00

0,00

014

1,50

0,00

0,00

010

0%96

%97

%7

Beng

kulu

299,

900,

000,

000

39,6

00,0

00,0

0049

,500

,000

,000

9,90

0,00

0,00

039

,100

,000

,000

49,0

00,0

00,0

0010

0%99

%99

%8

Lam

pung

6823

,550

,000

,000

94,2

00,0

00,0

0011

7,75

0,00

0,00

023

,550

,000

,000

90,4

05,0

00,0

0011

3,95

5,00

0,00

010

0%96

%97

%9

Bang

ka B

elitu

ng25

10,3

75,0

00,0

0026

,875

,000

,000

37,2

50,0

00,0

0010

,375

,000

,000

26,3

10,0

00,0

0036

,685

,000

,000

100%

98%

98%

10Ke

pula

uan

Riau

2311

,125

,000

,000

20,6

25,0

00,0

0031

,750

,000

,000

11,1

25,0

00,0

0020

,625

,000

,000

31,7

50,0

00,0

0010

0%10

0%10

0%11

Wes

t Jav

a12

041

,925

,000

,000

155,

325,

000,

000

197,

250,

000,

000

41,9

25,0

00,0

0014

6,92

0,00

0,00

018

8,84

5,00

0,00

010

0%95

%96

%12

Cent

ral J

ava

224

92,2

50,0

00,0

0036

9,00

0,00

0,00

046

1,25

0,00

0,00

092

,250

,000

,000

368,

600,

000,

000

460,

850,

000,

000

100%

100%

100%

13Sp

ecia

l Reg

ion

Yogy

akar

ta36

9,20

0,00

0,00

036

,800

,000

,000

46,0

00,0

00,0

009,

200,

000,

000

34,3

40,0

00,0

0043

,540

,000

,000

100%

93%

95%

14Ea

st J

ava

202

74,7

50,0

00,0

0029

9,00

0,00

0,00

037

3,75

0,00

0,00

074

,750

,000

,000

298,

000,

000,

000

372,

750,

000,

000

100%

100%

100%

15Ba

nten

4915

,650

,000

,000

62,6

00,0

00,0

0078

,250

,000

,000

15,6

50,0

00,0

0054

,805

,000

,000

70,4

55,0

00,0

0010

0%88

%90

%16

Bali

3928

,150

,000

,000

33,6

00,0

00,0

0061

,750

,000

,000

28,1

50,0

00,0

0029

,465

,000

,000

57,6

15,0

00,0

0010

0%88

%93

%17

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

ra56

19,6

50,0

00,0

0078

,600

,000

,000

98,2

50,0

00,0

0019

,650

,000

,000

72,6

30,0

00,0

0092

,280

,000

,000

100%

92%

94%

18Ea

st N

usa

Teng

gara

7022

,300

,000

,000

95,9

50,0

00,0

0011

8,25

0,00

0,00

022

,300

,000

,000

92,9

89,9

00,0

0011

5,28

9,90

0,00

010

0%97

%97

%19

Wes

t Kal

iman

tan

7424

,250

,000

,000

92,5

00,0

00,0

0011

6,75

0,00

0,00

024

,250

,000

,000

88,6

70,0

00,0

0011

2,92

0,00

0,00

010

0%96

%97

%20

Cent

ral K

alim

anta

n63

53,8

75,0

00,0

0053

,875

,000

,000

107,

750,

000,

000

53,8

75,0

00,0

0051

,395

,000

,000

105,

270,

000,

000

100%

95%

98%

21So

uth

Kalim

anta

n65

49,9

25,0

00,0

0061

,325

,000

,000

111,

250,

000,

000

47,1

75,0

00,0

0058

,514

,994

,325

105,

689,

994,

325

94%

95%

95%

22Ea

st K

alim

anta

n53

39,5

00,0

00,0

0047

,500

,000

,000

87,0

00,0

00,0

0039

,500

,000

,000

43,1

15,0

00,0

0082

,615

,000

,000

100%

91%

95%

23No

rth S

ulaw

esi

5613

,650

,000

,000

72,6

00,0

00,0

0086

,250

,000

,000

13,6

50,0

00,0

0068

,210

,000

,000

81,8

60,0

00,0

0010

0%94

%95

%24

Cent

ral S

ulaw

esi

5220

,275

,000

,000

70,9

75,0

00,0

0091

,250

,000

,000

20,2

75,0

00,0

0065

,255

,000

,000

85,5

30,0

00,0

0010

0%92

%94

%25

Sout

h Su

lawe

si17

472

,125

,000

,000

186,

875,

000,

000

259,

000,

000,

000

69,3

00,0

00,0

0016

6,15

0,00

0,00

023

5,45

0,00

0,00

096

%89

%91

%26

Sula

wesi

Teng

gara

5916

,850

,000

,000

67,4

00,0

00,0

0084

,250

,000

,000

16,8

50,0

00,0

0065

,920

,000

,000

82,7

70,0

00,0

0010

0%98

%98

%27

Gor

onta

lo13

3,80

0,00

0,00

015

,200

,000

,000

19,0

00,0

00,0

003,

800,

000,

000

14,0

70,0

00,0

0017

,870

,000

,000

100%

93%

94%

28W

est S

ulaw

esi

3010

,700

,000

,000

42,8

00,0

00,0

0053

,500

,000

,000

10,7

00,0

00,0

0039

,965

,000

,000

50,6

65,0

00,0

0010

0%93

%95

%29

Mal

uku

4012

,750

,000

,000

56,5

00,0

00,0

0069

,250

,000

,000

12,7

50,0

00,0

0051

,700

,000

,000

64,4

50,0

00,0

0010

0%92

%93

%30

North

Mal

uku

226,

950,

000,

000

30,3

00,0

00,0

0037

,250

,000

,000

6,95

0,00

0,00

029

,010

,000

,000

35,9

60,0

00,0

0010

0%96

%97

%2,

207

905,

193,

750,

000

3,01

8,40

0,00

0,00

03,

923,

593,

750,

000

899,

418,

750,

000

2,88

3,74

4,89

4,32

53,

783,

163,

644,

325

99%

96%

96%

Tabl

e 2.

1.C.

Dis

burs

emen

t Sta

tus

of A

lloca

ted

Bloc

k G

rant

Fun

ds (B

LM) b

y Pr

ovin

ce 2

008

Tota

l 30

Prov

ince

s

Perc

enta

ge(D

isbur

sem

ent d

ata

as o

f May

200

9 fo

r Rur

al P

NPM

200

8)

NoPr

ovin

ces

Tota

lKe

cam

atan

Allo

catio

nFu

nds

Disb

urse

d


22

2.2 LEVEL OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

In 2008, the level of attendance at various Rural PNPM village forums continued to be high. Data recorded in the field showed that a total 12,500,222 people attended the twelve program meetings. Of those who attended: 6,070,942 or 49 percent, on average were women; 6,429,280 were men and; 7,013,242 or 56 percent were assessed as being the poorest members of their communities (see Figure 2.2.A.). Attendance figures for women during 2008 were consistent with figures for 2007 where women comprised on average 47 percent of those who attended.

A number of standard Rural PNPM poverty mapping activities were redesigned during 2006, and further refined in 2007, to try and optimize the identification of the poor in each village and to ensure that their real needs were included in each vil-lage’s project proposals. This policy was continued in 2008 to ensure maximum participation by the poor throughout the Program. KDP I achieved an average participation rate of 53 percent. This increased to 61 percent at the beginning of KDP II in 2002, and increased again to 68 percent by the end of KDP II in 2005. The average participation rate for the poor in pro-gram village meetings during 2007 was 58 percent, this dropped slightly in 2008 to 56 percent.

First intervillage socialization meeting held in Kecamatan Sukadana, Kabupaten North Kayong, West Kalimantan.

Villagers building a stone road under supervision of village officials in Lampung.


23

Community participation in Rural PNPM does not only take the form of attendance at village meetings, but is also manifested in the form of voluntary labour and materials (“swadaya”) that communities contribute to the projects they propose. During 2007, communities added voluntary labour, cash and materials worth approximately 6 percent of the BLM funds disbursed to villages. This figure declined significantly in 2008 to 3.4 percent due to a change in program policy that no longer required the amount of swadaya contributed by villages to be part of the selection criteria for winning proposals. This change was necessary because as the Program focused its resources more and more on the very poor, it became clear that large swadaya contributions were becoming an unfair burden on very poor communities who badly needed the infrastructure and facilities they proposed to the subdistrict forums but were unable to complete with better off villages who could afford to contribute more swadaya in their project proposals.

Villagers learning how to prepare project proposals at special meeting in Lampung

Special women’s meeting in Tulang Bawang Baru Village in Lampung.


24

Figure 2.2.A Community Participation by Program Stage

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000550,000600,000650,000700,000750,000800,000850,000900,000950,000

1,000,0001,050,0001,100,0001,150,0001,200,0001,250,0001,300,0001,350,0001,400,0001,450,0001,500,0001,550,0001,600,0001,650,0001,700,0001,750,0001,800,0001,850,0001,900,0001,950,0002,000,0002,050,0002,100,0002,150,0002,200,0002,250,0002,300,0002,350,0002,400,0002,450,0002,500,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Prog. Stages

Num

bers

Par

ticip

atin

g

Women Poor

1. Inter-Village Forum 12. Village Forum 13. First General Discussion of Ideas4. Women’s Special Forum5. Village Forum 2

6. Inter-Village Forum 27. Inter-Village Forum 38. Village Forum 39. Village Accountability Report 110. Village Maintenance Meeting11. Village Accountability Report 2


25

In 2008, Rural PNPM funded 49,836 (see Table 2.3.B) separate activities in 2,230 kecamatan from BLM funds with a total value of Rp3.844 trillion (USD 427 million @ US$1=Rp9,000). Total funds allocated for the 2008 program were Rp 4.029 trillion (USD 447 million). This was significantly more than the 2007 program which completed 25,835 subprojects in 1,842 kecamatan. However, this number is likely to increase slightly after all the 2008 locations have completed their activities and submitted their final reports.

Since Rural PNPM (KDP) started in 1998, the Program has cumulatively funded more than 229,903 separate community-based activities - not including scholarships or education packages.

The percentage of activities, or village subprojects, by major activity grouping during 2008 were: infrastructure 67 percent; women’s revolving funds 16 percent; education activities 12 percent; and health and public sanitation activities 4 percent. During 2007, the percentages for the same activity groupings were almost identical: infrastructure 67 percent; women’s re-volving funds 17 percent; education activities 12 percent; and health and sanitation 4 percent.

It should be noted that the figures presented in Table 2.3.A. and Table 2.3.B. under ‘Women’s Microcredit’ were recorded for individual members of microcredit groups at the time of the third village meeting (MD III) where final proposals are decided. Although accumulated capital and repayment rates are monitored continuously, actual numbers of additional or repeat loans received by individual members after the initial capital grants (BLM) are disbursed, are not recorded at the national level. Likewise, additional members that might have joined the groups after the MD III, after receiving new loans provided from accumulated surpluses, are not recorded in these figures.

2.3 OUTCOMES OF RURAL PNPM ACTIVITIES DURING 2008

Bridge in Latawara Village, Kecamatan Rante Angin, Kabupaten North Kolaka, West Sulawesi

(Health clinic in Tera Iku Village, Kecamatan Kemapante, Kabupaten Sikka, Flores, N.T.T.)

(Kindergarten in Rote, Timor, N.T.T Province)


26

Figure 2.3.A. Disbursement of Community Block Grants by Type of Activity

Beneficiaries

Table 2.3.A. All Activities by Sector, Implemented by Rural PNPM Communities For 2008(Progress data for 2008 Program as of 4 June 2009)

Subproject Proposalsby Activity Sectors

TPro

otalposals

Length(m)

Ar(m

ea Sumber Dana Proposal Origin ²) Units

BLM Swadaya 1 Mixed Women Men Women The PoorGeneral Infrastructure 18,755 16,095,443 224,801 12,438 2,391,752,816,560 123,824,450,936 11,523 4,011 9,545,471 9,092,148 8,908,011

Education Infrastructure 3,470 5,659 310,895 4,537 423,016,765,650 19,136,549,019 1,291 1,870 498,856 509,133 456,974

Education Non Infrastructure 1,572 0 0 56,895 62,558,429,832 2,742,295,136 233 1,223 80,115 96,331 97,914

Health Infrastructure 3,948 1,920,726 99,484 18,333 411,243,797,711 20,044,832,916 1,612 2,070 1,440,329 1,501,891 1,489,982

Health Non Infrastructure 758 0 0 91,459 18,920,985,199 1,714,184,478 27 703 170,490 231,608 176,642

Women's Revolving Funds 21,206 0 0 0 634,470,265,721 6,380,999,371 155 20,631 19,027 575,542 446,811Capacity Building Mixed C

Groupsredit 127 0 0 478 3,057,278,267 195,173,050 14 106 1,216 4,166 3,908

49,836 3,945,020,338,940 174,038,484,906 14,855 30,614 11,755,504 12,010,819 11,580,242 1 Community contributions to the activity

Village market in Kamarian Village, Kec. Kairatu, Maluku. Primary school in Lurang Village, Kabupaten S.W. Maluku.


27

Beneficiaries

Table 2.3.A. All Activities by Sector, Implemented by Rural PNPM Communities For 2008(Progress data for 2008 Program as of 4 June 2009)

Subproject Proposalsby Activity Sectors

TPro

otalposals

Length(m)

Ar(m

ea Sumber Dana Proposal Origin ²) Units

BLM Swadaya 1 Mixed Women Men Women The PoorGeneral Infrastructure 18,755 16,095,443 224,801 12,438 2,391,752,816,560 123,824,450,936 11,523 4,011 9,545,471 9,092,148 8,908,011

Education Infrastructure 3,470 5,659 310,895 4,537 423,016,765,650 19,136,549,019 1,291 1,870 498,856 509,133 456,974

Education Non Infrastructure 1,572 0 0 56,895 62,558,429,832 2,742,295,136 233 1,223 80,115 96,331 97,914

Health Infrastructure 3,948 1,920,726 99,484 18,333 411,243,797,711 20,044,832,916 1,612 2,070 1,440,329 1,501,891 1,489,982

Health Non Infrastructure 758 0 0 91,459 18,920,985,199 1,714,184,478 27 703 170,490 231,608 176,642

Women's Revolving Funds 21,206 0 0 0 634,470,265,721 6,380,999,371 155 20,631 19,027 575,542 446,811Capacity Building Mixed C

Groupsredit 127 0 0 478 3,057,278,267 195,173,050 14 106 1,216 4,166 3,908

49,836 3,945,020,338,940 174,038,484,906 14,855 30,614 11,755,504 12,010,819 11,580,242 1 Community contributions to the activity

InfrastructureActivities

As in previous years, Rural PNPM villagers continued to give high priority to infrastructure; confirming the persistent na-tional deficit in rural infrastructure. There was a significant increase in the number of infrastructure activities undertaken in 2008 (23,662 activities) compared to 2007 (9,162 activities). Although, this was to be expected given that the 2007 program had 1,824 kecamatan, while the 2008 program was larger with 2,230 kecamatan.

In 2008, Rural PNPM villages completed infrastructure activities costing Rp 2.575 trillion (USD 287 million) or 61 percent of total BLM disbursements; this represented 53 percent of total pro-gram activities for 2008 (see Table 2.3.C).

(Progress data for 2008 Program as of 4 June 2009)

Block Grants Swadaya 1 Mixed Women Males Women The Poor

1 Roads 11,597 12,900,754 0 0 1,550,098,177,740 86,332,160,571 7,161 2,430 6,411,192 6,060,586 5,888,035

2 Bridges 1,187 66,168 0 2,277 142,938,193,700 6,863,476,040 784 231 575,079 558,938 583,443

3 Markets 228 0 39,955 595 30,538,980,223 1,477,173,912 131 67 150,052 158,254 138,886

4 Jetties 114 9,172 0 0 15,155,269,233 481,087,069 83 28 39,748 38,137 38,260

5 Gedung (PTO Bencana) 212 0 29,781 255 32,779,282,925 1,207,587,519 122 78 88,051 83,399 75,533

6 Irrigation 2,296 1,708,136 6,836 113 287,540,786,549 9,657,039,820 1,446 502 932,424 898,485 917,497

7 Electricity 249 22,354 0 851 43,532,847,440 3,905,860,835 178 63 72,263 72,207 86,312

8 Schools 3,157 0 283,860 3,985 394,376,130,677 17,570,225,305 1,158 1,717 458,158 468,395 411,197

9 Health Clinics 1,421 0 74,503 3,031 130,047,231,722 5,533,745,362 359 986 607,480 657,113 586,739

10 Clean Water Supply 1,674 1,879,189 0 7,521 194,429,059,834 7,622,930,536 835 710 625,072 628,736 657,943

11 Sanitation/Washing Facilities 666 0 20,669 5,362 67,622,034,760 4,185,252,643 347 287 159,124 165,143 193,996

12 Supporting Construction 2,013 846,418 896 1,384 181,237,629,895 8,523,096,542 1,030 394 966,108 906,497 865,602

13 Multipurpose Buildings 19 36 0 93 1,763,047,138 110,625,400 14 4 6,490 6,027 6,560

14 Other General Infrastructure 887 542,406 148,093 6,979 108,840,985,774 5,535,671,237 592 240 310,867 316,131 314,554

15 Education Infrastructure 269 5,659 26,275 473 26,233,228,348 1,386,709,705 117 128 35,127 35,376 39,293

16 Health Infrastructure 184 41,537 4,312 2,389 18,880,493,963 2,613,190,375 69 86 47,421 49,748 51,117

17 Teaching Materials/ Aids 322 0 0 18,728 13,265,486,036 432,037,042 81 223 43,531 44,794 39,964

18 Financial Assistance Educ. 342 0 0 26,718 27,280,466,731 727,115,744 82 234 21,293 20,934 30,421

19 Incentives for Teachers 104 0 0 988 4,006,210,645 464,571,000 24 77 3,229 3,931 4,728

20 Teacher Training 714 0 0 10,461 15,611,075,600 989,202,350 36 620 7,828 20,762 18,467

21 Other Education Activities 90 0 0 0 2,395,190,820 129,369,000 10 69 4,234 5,910 4,334

22 Supporting Facilities Health 359 0 0 4,343 7,978,440,007 569,454,038 9 336 97,877 142,138 85,897

No. Types of Activities

Table 2.3.B. All Activities Planned and Implemented by Rural PNPM Communities For 2008

Source of Funds Proposal Origin PemanfaatTotal Proposals

Length Constructed

(m)

Area(m²) Units

23 Financial Assistance Health 3 0 0 43 225,348,700 10,500,000 1 2 615 845 351

24 Incentives for Health Workers 8 0 0 283 139,423,600 4,200,000 1 7 226 476 324

25 Health Training 14 0 0 383 239,070,686 600,000 1 12 19 416 283

26 Supplementary Feeding 284 0 0 86,407 7,978,332,256 907,601,000 14 258 52,424 67,683 69,117

27 Other Health Activities 90 0 0 0 2,360,369,950 221,829,440 1 88 19,329 20,050 20,670

28 Women's Microcredit 21,206 0 0 0 634,470,265,721 6,380,999,371 155 20,631 19,027 575,542 446,811

29 Ass. For Mixed Credit Groups 127 0 0 478 3,057,278,267 195,173,050 14 106 1,216 4,166 3,908

49,836 3,945,020,338,940 174,038,484,906 14,855 30,614 11,755,504 12,010,819 11,580,2421 Community contributions to the activity

1 dari 1

Water tower in Kecamatan Tanggetada, West Sulawesi.


28

Bridge in Cempi Jaya Village, Kabupaten Dompo, Lombok.

Water tower in Langko Village, Kabupaten Central Lombok.

Road in Suka Makmur Village, Kabupaten. West Lombok

Jetty in Seliaun Village, Kabupaten Aru Islands, Maluku.

Within the infrastructure category, roads continued to dominate in 2008 accounting for 45 percent of all infrastructure activi-ties, bridges 4 percent, water supply 6 percent and irrigation 9 percent. Besides the long-term economic and social benefits, Rural PNPM infrastructure projects also provided significant short-term benefits by generating over 15,329,463 workdays and employing more than 1,605,394 people. It is important to note that 73 percent of those who worked on Rural PNPM projects were classified as being very poor by their own communities.

Since the commencement of KDP I in 1998, up to and including December 2008, Rural PNPM has funded a total of 203,729 village infrastructure activities. This number does not include construction of health and education facilities which sepa-rately have accounted for 6,015 activities and 14,788 activities respectively during the same period.


29

(Progress data for 2008 Program as of 4 June 2009)

Block Grants Communities Block Grants Communities All Labour The Poor All Labour The Poor

1 New Roads 5,591 714,671,770,774 35,576,539,519 89% 637,892,712,745 32,049,460,774 3,765,875 2,816,711 443,868 334,840

2 Upgrading Roads 3,978 495,242,303,209 34,808,799,696 93% 460,425,383,067 35,672,341,381 2,831,544 2,003,550 287,418 205,305

3 Repairing Roads 1,040 118,990,116,035 9,765,006,391 89% 105,722,692,563 8,459,169,491 659,234 343,104 87,263 60,290

4 New Bridges 743 91,917,600,312 4,271,191,805 86% 82,989,657,459 3,742,806,944 382,595 291,217 40,151 31,384

5 Upgrading Bridges 114 12,524,334,034 776,086,455 90% 11,885,470,105 699,941,791 66,561 42,896 8,117 4,707

6 Repairing Bridges 201 18,305,651,068 1,554,350,680 92% 17,393,578,171 1,368,531,930 103,600 56,792 12,162 7,305

7 New Market Buildings 145 18,463,529,022 942,592,012 91% 16,970,909,271 1,006,908,138 91,823 66,826 7,492 6,013

8 Upgrading Market Buildings 32 4,431,372,325 158,480,050 94% 4,223,997,000 162,882,050 29,953 17,652 8,521 3,054

9 Repairing Markets 37 4,599,379,165 295,268,400 89% 4,314,550,865 363,593,600 20,193 12,156 1,419 1,193

10 New Jetties 88 11,298,546,618 311,146,500 89% 10,398,479,671 246,280,000 45,755 35,064 4,760 4,237

11 Upgrading Jetties 3 413,084,190 43,600,000 40% 270,592,250 6,012,500 225 195 17 8

12 Repairing Jetties 10 1,210,054,802 8,711,900 81% 1,067,687,559 48,211,900 2,786 2,101 385 318

13 New Public Buildings 138 20,440,694,000 464,900,519 86% 17,944,809,823 379,147,023 84,380 66,966 9,487 8,665

14 Upgrading Public Buildings 18 2,421,402,750 367,657,000 83% 1,939,896,350 97,458,695 7,759 4,814 474 268

15 Repairing Public Buildings 41 5,509,320,107 228,540,900 75% 4,527,727,557 252,357,300 14,443 10,245 1,489 1,094

16 New Irrigation Works 1,508 176,967,943,858 5,740,013,802 89% 158,737,165,112 5,062,223,835 1,158,747 875,173 121,981 97,721

17 Upgrading Irrigation Systems 339 40,698,100,907 2,233,812,343 96% 38,619,942,085 2,123,675,664 315,456 205,040 20,511 14,089

18 Repairing Irrigation Systems 217 25,512,034,187 993,240,955 89% 22,895,699,570 835,569,462 146,369 85,852 13,186 10,441

19 New Electrification 193 31,324,371,135 3,489,747,971 80% 25,445,421,852 2,452,036,470 48,710 39,853 5,553 8,112

20 Upgrading Electrical System 26 5,089,685,200 267,969,864 85% 4,506,498,972 155,106,900 6,442 2,043 1,033 816

21 Repairing Electrical System 4 670,220,000 0 65% 555,776,000 0 300 300 19 19

22 New School Buildings 2,506 306,910,265,649 13,420,071,115 93% 287,323,026,063 13,503,451,635 1,695,255 1,285,550 113,322 82,423

23 Upgrading School Buildings 182 21,175,463,826 1,577,785,610 93% 19,900,367,129 1,363,592,892 120,681 82,864 16,940 9,304

24 Repairing School Buildings 327 29,745,717,947 2,051,902,280 93% 27,683,619,804 2,131,690,176 192,253 134,457 15,216 11,356

Table 2.3.C. Infrastructure Activities Completed by Rural PNPM Communities During 2008

Type of ActivityNo. %Progress

Source of Funds / Allocation Funds Already UsedTotal Activities

Person Days Worked Total No. Workers

25 New health Clinics 1,031 104,104,054,355 4,421,209,240 92% 95,969,100,049 4,504,095,795 634,981 499,804 44,916 28,169

26 Upgrading Health Clincs 38 4,266,173,200 226,019,800 91% 3,808,840,473 203,735,154 17,604 9,534 3,212 1,680

27 Repairing Health Clinics 44 3,700,503,822 163,288,322 90% 3,439,531,251 157,292,800 18,586 11,118 1,452 992

28 New Water Supply Systems 1,324 146,538,977,306 6,252,489,658 88% 132,304,480,591 5,599,605,651 640,296 476,045 60,062 47,506

29 Upgrading Water Supply 83 10,400,206,284 358,833,050 87% 9,136,959,067 307,239,332 66,478 46,155 9,128 3,133

30 Repairing Water Systems 77 6,740,888,574 285,719,251 91% 6,188,086,941 300,851,417 27,181 16,691 5,123 3,523

31 New Public Sanitation/ Washing Facilities 546 54,397,696,027 3,099,680,902 90% 49,305,479,059 2,923,036,588 281,746 220,177 34,185 24,075

32 Upgrading Public Sanitation/ Washing Facilities 16 1,295,810,955 30,393,341 90% 1,078,445,306 44,617,850 8,040 6,517 660 406

33 Repairing Public Sanitation/ Washing Facilities 17 1,382,403,553 211,980,700 51% 986,441,069 53,041,400 3,738 2,623 619 471

34 New Supporting Infrastructure 1,526 132,859,938,095 6,689,430,298 92% 124,246,020,301 6,548,354,822 932,458 687,112 138,768 87,048

35 Upgrading Supporting Infrastructure 183 17,591,305,999 807,255,360 95% 16,708,356,387 836,122,615 140,084 114,393 6,758 5,854

36 Repairing Supporting Infrastructure 103 9,230,613,684 337,189,975 94% 8,587,462,292 316,994,750 53,734 26,937 8,113 7,295

37 New Multipurpose Buildings 17 1,615,388,550 109,625,400 99% 1,550,765,500 92,793,400 4,371 4,064 641 615

38 Repairing Multipurpose Buildings 1 32,458,800 1,000,000 100% 32,458,800 1,000,000 1,050 1,050 87 87

39 New General Infrastructure 630 75,170,844,192 3,700,518,172 91% 67,141,734,477 2,922,533,564 334,414 250,210 34,639 30,251

40 Upgrading General Infrastructure 79 9,087,368,718 383,863,300 91% 8,367,778,874 494,592,397 59,847 37,395 3,684 3,266

41 Repairing General Infrastructure 83 10,099,628,280 1,246,656,965 97% 9,774,467,475 1,186,529,415 67,061 41,298 8,968 4,223

42 New Education Infrastructure 170 17,323,020,395 918,512,450 89% 15,902,870,650 663,208,800 89,782 64,348 9,146 6,792

43 Upgrading Education Infrastructure 34 2,941,495,969 204,224,205 92% 2,818,326,009 143,939,705 12,577 6,468 1,290 787

44 Repairing Education Infrastructure 31 3,026,908,877 123,314,350 94% 2,769,914,617 130,002,150 15,826 12,021 1,474 1,156

45 New Health Infrastructure 97 10,465,292,078 220,949,425 92% 10,085,323,800 275,941,025 56,993 45,075 5,975 5,391

46 Upgrading Health Infrastructure 21 1,566,162,100 112,754,000 97% 1,517,831,100 135,756,500 12,216 10,373 1,010 720

47 Repairing Health Infrastructure 30 2,661,783,020 2,205,873,550 100% 2,621,482,545 2,218,054,800 59,461 43,604 4,700 3,525

23,662 2,785,031,883,953 151,458,197,481 90% 2,537,977,817,676 142,241,790,481 15,329,463 11,114,433 1,605,394 1,169,927

1 dari 1


30

2.4 TRAINING & CAPACITY BUILDING

TypesofTrainingandCapacityBuildingActivitiesConducted

During 2008, over 6,400 facilitators, consultants and local government officials received training. Capacity building and training activities in Rural PNPM covered a wide range of activities. However, the main formal training and capacity building activities conducted by the Program included the following:1. Training Of Trainers (TOT) for preassignment training of kecamatan facilitators and refresher training for PjOK;2. Preassignment training of kecamatan facilitators and PjOK; 3. Preassignment training of kabupaten facilitators;4. TOT preassignment training for district facilitators, kabupaten facilitators and District PjOK officers for PNPM Mandiri Respek in Papua;5. Preassignment training for district PjOK in PNPM Mandiri Respek;6. Preassignment training for distrik facilitators in PNPM Mandiri Respek;7. Preassignment training for Kabupaten facilitators in PNPM Mandiri Respek;8. Preassignment orientation for technical facilitators;9. National training coordination meeting.

TrainingOfTrainers (TOT) forpreassignment trainingofkecamatan facilitatorsand refresher training forPJOK

Due to a lack of suitably qualified trainers across the Program, the National Management Consultant (NMC) conducted a three day Training-Of -Trainers course in January 2008. This training was conducted over three days and familiarized new trainers with preassignment training modules for kecamatan facilitators, technical facilitators and refresher modules for ke-camatan government officers (PjOK). Trainers were introduced to new methodologies and team teaching techniques. A total of 389 trainers from across the country participated in the course. These included mainly kabupaten facilitators and kabupaten technical facilitators. The training was conducted by specialists from the NMC and the Program’s regional training specialists.

PreassignmenttrainingofkecamatanfacilitatorsandPjOK

During 2008 a total of 2,420 kecamatan facilitators and technical facilitators undertook 11 days of special preassignment training. At the same time, 558 kecamatan government officers (PjOK) also underwent the same training.

Preassignmenttrainingofkabupatenfacilitators

National preassignment training for kabupaten facilitators took place during the 19th to the 24th of February 2008 at Puncak, West Java. A total of 113 facilitators participated in the training.

(Village cadres being trained in social mapping techniques in Kecamatan Bangkinang Seberang, Riau)


31

TOTpreassignmenttrainingfordistrictfacilitatorsandkabupatenfacilitatorsforPNPMMandiriRespekinPapua

Preassignment training for PNPM Mandiri Respek trainers was conducted from the 14th to the 18th of February 2008 Jakarta. Training was conducted by NMC specialists and qualified program trainers for a total of 55 participants.

PreassignmenttrainingfordistrikfacilitatorsinPNPMMandiriRespek

During 2008, a total of 1,109 new district facilitators underwent preassignment training for the PNPM Mandiri Respek Pro-gram in Papua and West Papua. The training was conducted in two courses, the first in February and March, and the second in December of 2008.

The training in Papua was conducted from the 25th of February to the 10th of March 2008 and involved a total of 711 par-ticipants consisting of 606 district empowerment facilitators and 105 district technical facilitators. Due to the large number of participants the training had to be conducted in nine separate hotels in Jayapura.

The first round of training in West Papua was conducted from the 26th of February to the 11th of March 2008 and involved a total of 324 participants consisting of 243 district empowerment facilitators and 81 district technical facilitators. Five hotels were needed to handle the number of participants and trainers for the course which was conducted in Manokwari.

An additional round of training in Papua and West Papua was conducted in December 2008 due to a continuing shortage of district facilitators caused by the following problems: long-term persistant vacancies; termination of facilitators for leaving their posts and commiting breaches of the program’s code of ethics; and a number of untimely deaths.

The second round of training in Papua was conducted on the 9th to the 24th of Desember 2008 with 42 participants in Jay-apura. The training in West Papua was also conducted from the 9th to the 24th of December 2008, with 32 participants.

Preassignment training for district level government operation-al officers (PjOK D) in Papua was conducted in parallel with the same training for PjOK D in West Papua from the 21st to the 25th of February 2008.

A total of 283 PjOK D officials were trained in Papua at Hotel Sen-tani Indah and Hotel Relat Indah near Jayapura. Whereas 105 PjOK D officials underwent training in West Papua, Manokwari.

PreassignmenttrainingfordistrictPjOKinPNPMMandiriRespek

(Training for village cadres in Kecamatan North Aru, Kabupaten Aru Islands, Maluku Province.)

(Villagers work with cadre to prepare project proposals in Buruway District, Kabu-paten Kaimana, West Papua)


32

PreassignmenttrainingforKabupatenfacilitatorsinPNPMMandiriRespek

Preassignment training for Kabupaten facilitators was conducted from the 25th of February to the 5th of March 2008 in Jay-apura with 27 participants consisting of 13 kabupaten empowerment facilitators and 14 kabupaten technical facilitators.

Preassignment orientation for technical facilitators;

Due to a continuing national shortage of technical facilitators in 2008, an additional recruitment drive was undertaken in September and October of 2008. The majority of new recruits were fresh graduates or very recent graduates who did not have the normally required three years professional experience.

In order to mobilize these new recruits quickly, the NMC conducted an intensive three days of technical training to orientate the new recruits to the realities of village-level infrastructure construction using a community-based approach. This three-day course covered significantly less material than the normal training given to new technical facilitators so assumptions of follow-up mentoring, on-the-job training and in-service training by senior kabupaten facilitators were incorporated into the training modules used.

The three day preassignment orientation course was attended by 200 new recruits and was conducted from the 10th to the 15th of October 2008 in the capital cities of the following 24 provinces: 1. Aceh;2. North Sumatra;3. West Sumatra;4. Riau;5. Riau Islands;6. Jambi; 7. Bengkulu; 8. Bangka Belitung; 9. South Sumatra;10. Banten; 11. West Java;12. East Nusa Tenggara;

(Training village cadres in Kecamatan Woja, Kabupaten Dompu, NTB.)

13. East Kalimantan; 14. South Kalimantan;15. Central Kalimantan; 16. West Kalimantan;17. South Sulawesi; 18. West Sulawesi;19. Central Sulawesi;20. South East Sulawesi; 21. North Sulawesi;22. Gorontalo;23. North Maluku;24. Maluku.


33

Nationaltrainingcoordinationmeeting.

The National Management Consultant (NMC) conducted a national training coordination meeting in October 2008 with 104 people in attendance in Jakarta. The main purpose of the coordination meeting was:

1. Disseminate information about new national policies for Rural PNPM 2008 and future plans for the 2009 Program; 2. Evaluate the Program’s 2008 activities action plan (RKTL) and national milestone calendar vis a vis agreed annual targets. 3. Discuss the completion of late locations funded from Rural PNPM TA 2007 and Rural PNPM TA 2008, in cluding the four pilot programs (Generasi, P2SPP, Education Pilot and SADI) post disaster locations, as well as other outstanding issues like consultant vacancies, infrastructure quality, complaints handling and internal monitoring/audits; 4. Draft recommendations to finalize implementation of Rural PNPM 2008 and prepare for the 2009 program; 5. The Financial Management Support specialists (FMS) included an in-service training activity as part of their special agenda during the meeting.

Those in attendance included: The National PNPM Coordination Team; Provincial Coordinators; The Coordinator from Nias island, Provincial FMS; Regional Microcredit Specialists (MCFS); NMC specialists; members of the National Rural PNPM Secre-tariat; and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialists from the SADI Pilot.

(Village project teams (TPK) being trained in Kecamatan Gangga Kabupaten West Lombok.)


34

CommunityTrainingandCapacityBuilding

Community training and capacity building activities continued as usual during 2008 with Operational Activity Funds (DOK) for community training being used for the following types of training:

1. Orientation for village forum leaders (MAD) & follow-up training2. Basic training for kecamatan assistant facilitators3. Training for the kecamatan based financial management unit (UPK).4. Orientation for the Verification Team.5. Capacity building for Village Heads (Kepala Desa).6. Orientation for village technical cadres.7. Orientation for the proposal writing team.8. Orientation for the UPK supervisory body.9. Training for the maintenance management team.10. Orientation for the village project management teams (TPK). 11. KDP training for the Village Heads and village council (BPD)

All provinces conducted the training activities listed above during 2008, although not all at the same time or during the same month. These extra activities were nearly all initiated and funded by provincial or kabupaten governments responding to the demands of local communities, or addressing what they considered to be additional needs for capacity building and special training.

(Village project teams (TPK) being trained in Kecamatan Gangga Kabupaten West Lombok.)


35

(TV Journalists interviewing women’s SPP credit group members in South Sulawesi.)

2.5 INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

In 2008, the Information, Education and Communication (IEC) unit continued to disseminate information about program policies and activities to Rural PNPM actors, communities and stakeholders. The unit also organized many exhibitions and displays to help inform visiting high ranking officials about the program’s activities with local communities.

IEC activities and materials supported capacity building and training for field consultants and facilitators, and helped to raise awareness among participating communities about the purpose of the Program. More specifically, the IEC unit handled the following special and routine activities during 2008 in support of the Program’s communication strategy:

Communication Activities:

a. Staged a program photo exhibition for the annual Rural PNPM coordination meeting held each year for governors, district heads (Bupati) and mayors (Walikota).b. Designed and made program banners and other promotional media materials.c. Facilitated visits to program field locations by journalists and university students.d. Wrote advertorials, advertisements for print media and scripts for radio info commercials in conjunction with communication and media consultants.e. Coordinated and prepared displays and exhibitions for presidential vists to field sites, celebration of National Family Day and demonstrations of appropriate technologies.f. Designed and printed program field posters.g. Participated in writing materials for socialization of the program’s Operational Guidelines (PTO).h. Helped organize and participated in the 2008 PNPM Mandiri National Meeting.


36

Journalists interviewing field consultants in N.T.T.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono visiting a program display and an exhibition of microcredit groups in South Sulawesi.

University students visiting project sites in West Java.

Information Activities:

a. Accompanied program guests (domestic and international) on visits to field locations.b. Managed and maintained the Program’s website.c. Produced the Program’s annual Information Package.d. Selected and formulated program data for presidential visits to field locations.e. Compiled data for provincial, kabupaten and UPK profiles.f. Participated in producing the Program’s Annual Report.g. Compiled and digitized data for program archives. Education Activities:

a. Production of flipcharts for training.b. Production of audio visual materials for preassignment training in Papua.c. Preparation of training materials for the R2PN housing program in Nias Island, North Sumatra.


37

PNPM-MP exhibition of program subprojects and microcredit products.

University students inspect bridge constructed by PNPM-MP villagers in West Java.

Rural PNPM Information Packet: In 2008 the IEC unit upgraded the 2007 KDP Information Packet with more up-to-date program information. 38,000 copies of this document were printed and distributed to every Rural PNPM kecamatan location. The information packet, which is published in both Indonesian and English, is the most widely read program publication, and as such is an important social-ization tool. It is supplied to central, provincial and local government officials, academics, journalists, the private sector and foreign guests who come to see the Program.

Rural PNPM 2008 Annual Report: The IEC unit is primarily responsible for producing the Program’s Annual Report. The Annual Reports are an obligatory re-quirement of the Rural PNPM loan agreements to ensure transparency and accountability. These documents are compiled through the combined efforts of many Rural PNPM specialists from the Program’s National Management Consultant office (KM-Nasional) and are published in both Indonesian and English.

Rural PNPM Website: The IEC unit is responsible for managing and maintaining the Program’s website. The website is now frequently used by both Rural PNPM actors, community members and interested private citizens to send in comments, complaints and questions about the program. It is also used to advertise vacancies for facilitators and consultants.

The Program website also has operational links to the websites of its main partners and institutional stakeholders. These include the following institutions:• TheWorldBank;• CoordinatingMinisterforSocialWelfare(MenkoKesra);• TheUrbanPovertyProgram(UPP/P2KP);• Dept.ofHomeAffairs;• Dept.ofCommunicationandInformation;• TheNationalCoordinatingTeamforPovertyAlleviation;and• TheMulti-DonorFund(managedbytheWorldBank)


38

2.6 MICROCREDIT GROUPS

Based on community proposals that were funded during the 2008 program, a total of Rp634,470,265,721 (USD 70 million) was allocated to women’s microcredit groups (SPP), or about 16 percent of disbursed community block grants (BLM). This was still significantly under the 25 percent of BLM permitted for allocation to SPP groups, as stated in the Program’s technical operations manual.

Mixed credit groups (Usaha Ekonomi Produktif) only received Rp 3,057,240,401 (USD339,693) for capacity building and ad-ministration assistance during 2008 (0.08 percent of BLM). Since December 2005, UEP mixed credit groups have not been allowed to receive additional loan capital from BLM funds.

The repayment target for UEP credit groups up to Desember 2008, was Rp1,757,551,056,894. However, nationally the actual repayment amount for that period totalled Rp 1,528,035,104,410 or 86.94 percent.

Women’s credit group in Aceh making clothes in their shop.


39

The repayment target for SPP women’s credit groups during the same period was Rp1,728,044,849,986. The actual amount repaid by the SPP groups during 2008 was Rp1,602,507,474,146 making their national aver-age repayment rate 92.74 percent. These figures were based on reports received from 31 provinces; only two provinces, Papua and West Papua, failed to provide mi-crocredit data for 2008.

As of December 2008, Kecamatan Activity Management Units (UPK) reported retained earnings of Rp182,971,691,170. While operating profits for the same period were Rp151,533,877,150. Thus, total surpluses reported by UPKs nationally were Rp334,505,568,320. The future use of these surpluses by UPKs must take account of lending risks for SPP and UEP groups and must follow program procedures for closing the books at the end of the year.

Program procedures state that surpluses must be allocated accordingly: a minimum of 50 percent allocated for additional lending capital; 15 percent for assistance to very poor households (RTM); 10 percent for capacity building for key community members and institutional strengthening of UPKs; 5 percent for bonuses for the UPK officers; and the remainder held as re-tained earnings for the following year. Common examples of the use of retained earnings by UPKs in 2008 were the purchase of livestock, such as goats, for very poor households in Central Java Province, and scholarships for children from very poor households in West Sulawesi Province.

Women’s credit group in Aceh making snacks for sale in their kitchen.

Women’s credit group receiving new loans from revolving fund in Kecamatan Kasui, Kabupaten Way Kanan, Lampung.


40

The total number of microcredit groups (both SPP and UEP groups) currently serviced nationally by UPKs is 189,888. Interest-ingly, the actual number of microcredit groups initially established with the help of program BLM funds to date is 112,779. The additional 77,109 groups have been funded by the profits generated by the UPKs themselves in the course of their lending activities. This represents an overall growth rate of 68 percent for the Program’s microcredit groups since December 1998.

From the numbers mentioned above, the microcredit groups can be further broken down into four main types: groups where each member has a different kind of business (67,091 groups); groups where members are part of one large group-based business (4,349 groups); women’s revolving fund groups (SPP) (100,567 groups); and mixed revolving fund groups (UEP) (17,881 groups). Based on the quality of their general management, microcredit groups are further classified by the Program into three main types: beginner groups (87,109 groups); developing groups (90,094 groups); and mature groups (12,685 groups). To determine which of the three main types a credit groups falls into, each group is assessed using six gen-eral managment criteria, these include:

1. Cohesiveness, cooperation and burden sharing within the group; 2. Coordinated action by all members to achieve the group’s objectives; 3. Overall management and support to group members;4. Repayment discipline within the group; 5. Rules and internal agreements within the groups; and 6. Overall administration and bookkeeping.


41

The credit disbursement functions of the 189,888 groups being monitored by the Program fall into two main types, i.e. “chan-nelling” (152,507 groups) and “executing” (37,381 groups). Unfortunately this data is not available for microcredit groups in Papua and West Papua Provinces.

Groups classified as “channelling” basically borrow loan funds from the UPKs on behalf of their members and distribute those funds to their members. The group leaders then collect the monthly repayments from their members and return them to the UPKs.

Groups classified as “executing” are somewhat more sophisticated and act as secondary lenders to the UPKs. They borrow generally larger sums for extended periods up to three years, although the average loan period for these groups is about 24 months. They then onlend the funds to their members who make monthly repayments to the group leaders. The group leaders are allowed to keep part of the interest they receive before returning the remainder of the funds (interest and prin-ciple) to the UPKs in accordance with the initial loan agreement. The interest spread the group leaders work with is based on local agreements with their group members and is supposed to be competitive with local bank rates.

As with the microcredit groups, the capacity of the UPKs to manage their revolving funds is closely monitored by the Pro-gram. The main purpose of this monitoring is to determine the types of support the UPKs need to continue improving their management. The evaluation is based mainly on the overal financial health of the UPKs and encompasses three main as-pects, i.e. lending risks, general productivity and income earning potenial, and general management capacity.

As per December 2008, program facilitators and consultants had evaluated 2,535 UPKs (these included kecamatan that were actively participating in the Program during 2008 and those that had phased out and no longer managed BLM funds). As with previous years, the results of the evaluation divided the UPKs into four categories:• CategoryA,1,581UPKs; • CategoryB,660UPKs; • CategoryC,172UPKs and • CategoryD,122UPK.

Women’s credit group making coconut sugar in South Sulawesi.


42

Women’s credit group being interviewed as part of verification process in Kecamatan Wonosobo, Kabupaten Tanggamus, Lampung

Clay cooking stoves being made by women’s credit group in East Kalimantan.

This evaluation determined that the number of UPKs with potential for further development (Categories A and B) was 2,241. The number of UPKs evaluated as having little or no future potential (Categories C and D) was 294. This evaluation did not include UPKs from Papua or West Papua Provinces.

It has become apparent that if the microcredit businesses established by the Program’s UPKs are to be sustainable then post-program they must have access to new sources of capital other then BLM grant funds. For this reason a ranking system to help evaluate the business potential of UPKs has been set up by the Program’s microcredit support unit. The results of this evaluation provide standardized information about selected UPKs to prospective donors and investors who are interested in supporting established microcredit groups, or working with them on a commercial basis.

The evaluation methodology covers two main aspects. Firstly, institutional factors which determine the maturity and profes-sionalism of the UPKs as well as additional technical, legal and financial support they receive from other local institutions. Secondly, quantitative factors such as financial performance, the overall quality and potential of their loan portfolios and their general management capability. As of December 2008, the results of this special evaluation indicated that of the 2,264 UPKs that participated in the evaluation 1,061 UPKs were assessed as Financially Healthy, 1,010 as Sufficiently Healthy and the remaining 193 UPKs were assessed as Not Financially Healthy. None of the UPKs from Papua, West Papua or Bengkulu Provinces were included in this evaluation.

3. RURAL PNPM SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND PILOT PROGRAMS


45

The RESPEK program aims to improve communities’ welfare, support local government peace-building and improve local governance in Papua and West.Papua. In 2007, the program channeled block grants in the amount of Rp 100 million per village to more than 2,000 villages in Papua and West Papua provinces.

In 2008, the Governor of Papua decided to merge RESPEK with Rural PNPM. The new program, called PNPM RESPEK, covered 4,345 villages in both Papua and West Papua during 2008. In this program, the central government provides funds for facili-tators (technical assistants) while the provincial governments provide block grants for subprojects that are funded by the large special autonomy funds that have been allocated to both Papua and West Papua. During 2008, villages continued to receive the Rp 100 million allocation per village. However, this amount was also increased by an additional Rp 300 million per district (kecamatan) from central government funding.

Table 3.1.A. PNPM/ RESPEK Locations in Papua & West Papua December 2008

Papua PNPM-RESPEK West Papua PNPM-RESPEK

Kecamatan (Districts) 283 Kecamatan (Districts) 104

Villages 3,141 Villages 1,204

3.1 PNPM / RESPEK PAPUA & WEST PAPUA

RESPEK (Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Kampung) is a village development program developed by the provincial govern-ment of Papua in response to the Special Autonomy Law for Papua (Law No. 21/2001). This law mandates a special autonomy fund (dana OTSUS) for Papua that is to be managed directly by the local governments.

Slum housing on the shoreline in Malaweli Village, Sorong, West Papua. Many communities in Papua still lack the most basic infrastructure.


46

Progress of PNPMRESPEK Activities for 2008

During 2008, implementation of PNPM (previously KDP) in Papua and West Papua Provinces continued to face significant challenges from: difficult terrian; very isolated communities; complex logistics; prolonged vacanies; persistant recruitment problems; uncompetitive salaries; and high operating costs. All of these factors conspired to create a very challenging op-erational environment. As with previous cycles of PNPM, the 2008 Program continued to experience chronic delays even though the transition to the new RESPEK Program was completed in 2008. Tables 2.3.1.B and 2.3.1.C. below show the prog-ress of RESPEK activities as of June 2009, and give an indication of how long it takes to work through one program cycle in Papua and West Papua.

It should be noted that the special RESPEK activity cycle was desgined to minmize the number of time consuming village and district meetings in an effort to speed up the completion time of each cycle. However, the challenges mentioned above con-tinued to influence progress across Papua and West Papua during 2008. Initail problems with many of the new procedures for the RESPEK Program can also be added to the challenges mentioned above.

SpecialTrainingCourseforTechnicalCadres

Since PNPM (KDP) first started in Papua and West Papua in 1998, the Program has had major difficulties recruiting qualified technical facilitators. The main factors contributing to this problem have been: a general scarcity of qualified civil engineers in Papua and West Papua; stiff competition from the private sector for civil engineers; unattractive salaries offered by PNPM; the remote and difficult nature of project locations; and the Program’s requirement for facilitators to live in remote districts (kecamatan) which have very minimal facilities and poor urban services.

Table 3.1.B. Progress of PNPM-RESPEK Activities for 2008

Dist

rict S

ocia

lizat

ion

Mee

ting

Villa

ge S

ocia

lizat

ion

Mee

ting

Trai

ning

of V

illag

e Ca

dres

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

Activ

ities

Prei

mpl

emen

tatio

n Vi

llage

Mee

ting

Disb

urse

men

t of B

lock

G

rant

s

Firs

t Vill

age

Acco

unta

bilit

y M

eetin

g

Seco

nd V

illag

e Ac

coun

tabi

lity

Mee

ting

Villa

ge H

ando

ver M

eetin

g

West Papua 104 104 76 96 67 44 18 1 0 104

TotalDistrictsProvince

Total Number of Districts That Have Completed PNPM RESPEK Activities

Papua 275 253 78 185 86 23 13 1 0 283

Total 379 357 154 281 153 67 31 2 0 387

1 dari 1

Table 3.1.C. Progress of PNPM-RESPEK Activities for 2008

Dis

tric

t Soc

ializ

atio

nM

eetin

g

Villa

ge S

ocia

lizat

ion

Mee

ting

Trai

ning

of V

illag

e C

adre

s

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

Act

iviti

es

Prei

mpl

emen

tatio

n Vi

llage

Mee

ting

Dis

burs

emen

t of B

lock

G

rant

s

Firs

t Vill

age

Acc

ount

abili

ty M

eetin

g

Seco

nd V

illag

e A

ccou

ntab

ility

Mee

ting

Villa

ge H

ando

ver M

eetin

g

West Papua 100% 100% 73% 95% 66% 50% 24% 4% 1%

Percentage of Districts That Have Completed PNPM RESPEK Activities

Province

Papua 97% 93% 29% 70% 33% 17% 9% 1% -

1 dari 1


47

The first attempt at resolving this problem was in 2003/2004 when the Program set up and funded an intensive six-month training course to train selected young people to become technical cadres. Local candidates for this course (male and female) had to have a minimum of high school education and be under 35 years of age. A total of 250 candidates were se-lected from eight kabupaten across Papua; they received training in basic village level engineering skills for constructing the main types of infrastructure built by PNPM. \

The management of the 2003/2004 course was subcontracted to Cendrawasih University in Jayapura, and was funded from the Program’s annual budget.

Two hundred and twenty-eight cadres graduated from the first course and became known within the Program as the “bare-foot engineers”, after the renowned “barefoot doctors” program that was so successfully implemented by China during the 1960s to help overcome the national shortage of trained doctors by training thousands of paramedics who were sent to villages and communes in the remote countryside. Eight years after the first course, there are still 84 of the original barefoot engineers still working in the Program. Based on the results of the first course, and the continuing difficulty in recruiting technical facilitators for Papua, it was decided to repeat the barefoot engineer’s course again in 2008.

This time, the Australian aid agency AusAID, agreed to contribute USD 1.18 million to fund the second course as part of its Indonesian aid program. AusAID have also expressed interest in funding a third eight-month barefoot engineer’s course, tentatively scheduled for early 2010. However, this was still under discussion at the time this report was published.

Significant improvements were made to the second course in 2008. It is expected that those improvements will result in higher levels of overall technical competence, and a higher retention rate of graduates compared to the first course. Some of the improvements included: the method of selecting participants; a significantly revised curriculum; the portions devoted to theory and practice; the management of field exercises; and the types of nontechnical topics included in the course. Cen-drawasih University in Jayapura was once again awarded the contract to manage the course on behalf of the Program. One hundred and twenty participants began the training in September 2008. Of these, 106 finished the training and graduated from the course. They were immediately placed in positions with the RESPEK Program.

(Top and side view of a wooden bridge built in the Central Highlands of Puncak Jaya in Papua by Pak Yosen, a graduate of the first barefoot engineer’s course)

(Pak Yosen (barefoot engineer) leading a district socialization meeting in the Central Highlands of Puncak Jaya Kabupaten)


48

The PNPM Mandiri RESPEK program in Papua is very large, serving more than 387 subdistricts. In general, the activities most desired and needed by the commu-nities are various kinds of rural infrastructure, funded by standard village grants given to all villages in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. The construction of this infrastructure up till now has been beyond the capabilities of the local people, who on the average have only attained a low level of formal education.

To help them build the infrastructure they have se-lected, a number of technical facilitators have been assigned to districts and subdistricts by PNPM. Ac-cording to standard PNPM placement, each subdistrict must receive a graduate engineer to help the people design and supervise works, but since the beginning of the program it has been nearly impossible to fill the slots with engineers. Engineers are hard to find in Papua, especially those willing to be placed in remote areas and to work in villages. It is also nearly impos-sible to find sufficient numbers of engineers from out-side Papua willing to be placed in Papua subdistricts. As a result, there tend to be hundreds of vacancies for technical facilitators in Papua.

The2008“BarefootEngineer’’TrainingCourseinPapua

(Barefoot engineers receiving a session with consultants from Jakarta)


(Learning to build a village-level piped water system during the course)

To help overcome these shortfalls, in 2003/2004 a specially designed training program was conducted to train 228 technical facilitators at Cendrawasih University in Jayapura. The curriculum and training materials were developed by a twelve person team of experienced civil engineers from Java and Sumatra. The training program ran for six months and was regarded as relatively successful; it produced technical cadres (male and female) that received associate degrees in civil engineering. The graduates of this course became affectionately known within KDP (Rural PNPM) as the “barefoot engineers”.

Four years have now elapsed since the first barefoot engi-neer course, however, the Program has continued to suf-fer from problems recruiting qualified technical facilitators for Papua. As a result, it was decided to conduct another barefoot engineer course in September 2008. Cendra-wasih University in Jayapura was once again contracted to manage the training course. Lessons learned from the first course were included in the detailed preparations un-dertaken for the second course. A combined team of Cen-drawasih lecturers, new instructors, provincial consultants and the provincial coordination teams revised several as-pects of the program, including the way participants were selected, the portions devoted to theory and practice, the management of field exercises, and the nontechnical topics. One hundred twenty persons began the training in September 2008, from which 106 graduated from the course.


49


(The girls show how it’s done. Female barefoot engineers use gabions to build a head weir for a village water supply system)

The training approach was a bit different from the first course. Civil engineering-related topics (including mathematics) took the largest portion of the training, more than three months. This material was made more practical and applicable than that given five years ago, and the materials were slanted towards the kinds of infrastructure normally built in Papua.

For example, road studies were limited to gravel and concrete, because the rock-based construction found elsewhere in Indonesia cannot be used in Papua. After basic infrastructure training was given, the participants received some special nontechnical training. The first special training included topics of lateral thinking, facilitation methods, presentation skills, rational problem solving and decision making, some management approaches relevant for facilitators, and ways to put to-gether persuasive arguments


50

(Barefoot engineers learning to built public stand pipes during the course)

(Applying classroom theory, barefoot engineers building a water storage tank during their course.)

These topics were delivered by a Jakarta-based consultant. The following week the participants were given basic training in microhydro systems used to generate electricity in villages. Over the following three weeks all the participants worked in the field practicing what they had received in class.

The last part of training was conducted by consultants and government officials working in Papua province, about the rules and basic ideas behind the RESPEK program as an example of a community empowerment program in Papua. This was fol-lowed by final examinations and evaluations.

The 106 cadres who passed the course received a short orientation to the RESPEK program, learning the details of how to complete forms, how the program cycle works, and specific rules and procedures. They were then successfully placed in subdistricts to fill existing vacancies as technical facilitators for RESPEK.


51

(Local government P2SPP “Setrawan” empowerment Cadres during training in Ngada, Flores, NTT.)

This program was launched in May 2006 in four pilot kabupaten (Group 1):1. Kabupaten Batanghari, Jambi Province;2. Kabupaten Boyolali, DIY Province;3. Kabupaten South Minahasa, North Sulawesi Province; and4. Kabupaten Ngada, N.T.T. Province.

The pilot was then expanded to another four kabupaten in 2007 (Group 2): 1. East Ogan Komering Ulu (OKU), South Sumatera Province; 2. Jombang, Central Java Province; 3. Tabanan, Bali Province; and 4. Tapanuli Induk, North Sumatera Province.

Another five kabupaten were added to the pilot in 2008 (Group 3): 1. Way Kanan, Lampung Province; 2. Sambas West Kalimantan Province; 3. West Lombok, NTB Province; 4. Bantul, Special Region Yogakarta Province; and5. Nagekeo, NTT Province.

3.2 PILOT PROGRAMS

3.2.1.ProgramPengembanganSistemPembangunanPartisipatif(P2SPP)

The main objective of the Local Government Participatory Development Planning Program (P2SPP) is to fully integrate the Rural PNPM bottom-up model with the regular district government development planning mechanism. Institutionally, the P2SPP pilot is based at the kabupaten level and uses kabupaten sourced BLM funds as a stimulant to bridge the missing link between village and kecamatan project proposals. ensure that kecamatan-based proposals are included in the final budget decisions that are always taken at the kabupaten level.


52

The motivation that prompted the Department of Home Affairs to develop P2SPP was a desire to capitalize on the hard won achievements and lessons of the ten year Rural PNPM experience, and more importantly, to make the Program’s bottom-up approach sustainable within local government after it no longer operates as a special program. Rural PNPM’s ad hoc ‘project’ nature must be replaced with a more formal place in the local government development planning cycle. To achieve this, P2SPP’s specific objectives are: • Increasethelevelofintegrationwithotherlocalgovernmentmanagedpovertyalleviationprograms;• Increasethelevelofintegrationinplanning,implementation,controlandmaintenanceofdevelopment activities by local communities, local governments and central government;• Increasetheinvolvementandstrengthenthecapacityoflocalcommunities,especiallythepoor,inlocal development;• Increasethecapacityoflocalcommunityinstitutionsandvillagegovernmentforsustainabledevelop ment management;• Integratethedirectcommunityfinancingmodelintothelocalgovernmentbudgetingsystem;• Increasethecapacityoflocalgovernmentstoprovidecommunityfacilitationthroughempoweringand training special local government facilitators called “Setrawan”.

Local governments were selected to participate in P2SPP based on the following criteria:• PreviousKDPKabupaten with good performance; • HighleveloflocalgovernmentcommitmentandsupportfortheProgram;• Preparedtocontribute25percentofthetotalcommunityblockgrants(BLM) of Rp 4 billion;• Preparedtocontributeaminimumof5percentofBLM funds as local counterpart funds.

Pilot locations (kabupaten) were added to the Program every year for three years as shown in Table 2.5.A. below.

(Primary school built by P2SPP community in Nenowea Village, Kecamatan Rutojawa, Kabupaten Ngada)


53

P2SPPThreeYearImplementationStrategy

The P2SPP pilot was based on a three year initial trial period beginning in 2006. The main activities implemented in each of the three years was basically as follows: • Year I (Initiation, explanation and socialization of program objectives ) Introduce the concept of integrating the two systems and explain the proposed modifications needed to the local development planning system to achieve this. Then begin the first steps in the integration process. • Year II (Facilitation of the ntegration process) Provide facilitation with integrating the PNPM approach into the local development planning mechanism (known as the Musrenbang) in parallel with the regular system. • Year III (Support to ongoing integration activities) Attempt to institutionalize the integration of the two planning systems within each of the pilot local governments.

Table3.2.1.A.P2SPPPilotKabupatenLocationsupto2008

Table3.2.1.B.BlockGrants(BLM)Disbursedin2008toAllLocations

No KabupatenBLM (Direct Community Block Grants)

APBN (Central Funds) APBD (Local Funds)

1 Batanghari 4 Billion 4 Billion

2 Boyolali 4 Billion 4 Billion

3 Minahasa Selatan 4 Billion 4 Billion

4 Ngada 4 Billion 4 Billion

5 Jombang 4 Billion 2 Billion

6 Tapin 4 Billion 2 Billion

7 OKU Timur 4 Billion 2 Billion

8 Tabanan 4 Billion 2 Billion

9 Way Kanan 4 Billion 1 Billion

10 Bantul 4 Billion 1 Billion

11 Sambas 4 Billion 1 Billion

12 Lombok Barat 4 Billion 1 Billion

13 Nagekeo 4 Billion 1 Billion

Total 52 Billion 29 Billion

No2008 2006 2007

Kab Prov Kab Prov Kab Prov

1 Batanghari Jambi Batanghari Jambi Batanghari Jambi

2 Boyolali Jateng Boyolali Jateng Boyolali Jateng

3 Sth Minahasa Sulut Sth Minahasa Sulut Sth Minahasa Sulut

4 Ngad a NTT Ngada NTT Ngada NTT

5 OKU Timur Sumsel OKU Timur Sumsel - -

6 Tapin Kalsel Tapin Kalsel - -

7 Tabanan Bali Tabanan Bali - -

8 Jombang Jatim Jombang Jatim - -

9 Way Kanan Lampung - - - -

10 Sambas Kalbar - - - -

11 Lombok Barat NTB - - - -

12 Bantul DIY - - - -

13 Nagekeo NTT - - - -


54

(Local government Setrawan empowerment cadres attend training in Kabupaten Ngada, Flores, NTT Province)

Besides the normal activity cycle that P2SPP locations follow, there have also been a considerable number of additional supporting ac-tivities designed to inform, facilitate and socialize the Pilot’s philoso-phy and objectives at each stage of the local government develop-ment planning cycle.

The additional supporting activities conducted during 2008 by each pilot district (kabupaten) are shown in the table below:

Evaluationof2008Implementation

Village-Level Development Planning Medium-term village development plans are still using Rural PNPM formats, and are not yet in accordance with the guide-lines contained in the Home Affairs Decree Permendagri No.66 Tahun 2007. Adoption of planned activities and budgets proposed by village-level and kecamatan-level communities into the annual kabupaten development plan cannot be done unless medium-term village development plans are submitted to the kabupaten-level departments. This is because these plans are used as the basis for drafting the departmental work plans and village budgets. However, as long as village govern-ments are not capable of producing these detailed documents to the standards demanded by the kabupaten government departments, they will continue to be used as an excuse for omitting the village and kecamatan proposals from the annual kabupaten budgets.

1 SKPD local government departmental working groups2 Local legislature / Parliament3 Local government interdepartmental development planning forum 4 Village consultation forum

Kabupaten Supporting Activities

1. Batanghari2. Boyolali3. Minahasa Selatan4. Ngada

1. Follow-up training for kecamatan Setrawan2. Training for UPK3. Seminar and workshops for 1SKPD4. Seminar and workshops for 2DPRD5. Regional workshop

1. Jombang2. Tapin3. OKU Timur4. Tabanan

1. Follow-up training for kecamatan Setrawan2. Training for UPK3. Review of 3Musrenbang kabupaten4. Seminar and workshops for SKPD5. Seminar and workshops for DPRD6. Training for village heads and 4BPD

1. Way Kanan2. Bantul3. Sambas4. Lombok Barat5. Nagekeo

1. Socialization meetings2. Training of trainers for Setrawan cadres3. Basic training for kecamatan Setrawan cadres4. Training for UPK5. Review of kabupaten level Musrenbang6. Seminar and workshops for SKPD7. Seminar and workshops for DPRD8. Training for village heads and BPD

ImplementationSupportActivities

Table3.2.1.C.P2SPPSupportingActivitiesConductedin2008


55

Capacity Building of Management Skills for Village GovernmentsCapacity building of key management skills for village governments such as drafting village regulations (Perdes) to approve medium-term village development plans (RPJM Desa), drafting village budgets and village accountability reports has not been given the attention needed. These skills are very important because unless the documents mentioned above can be produced by village governments the Pilot’s goal of integrating the two systems will not be achievable. Preparation ofSKPD Annual Work PlansSynchronization of local government interdepartmental annual work plans with the results of kecamatan-level development meetings (Musrenbang), has largely been ineffective. This has happened because the planning units of the local government departments (SKPD) have largely ignored the proposals produced by the kecamatan-level Musrenbang forums.

Support for Local Legislatures(DPRD)Support for the Pilot’s objectives from local legislatures is still weak. This is mainly due to poor communication and lack of contact between key P2SPP actors in local government and the members of the local legislatures (DPRD).

Seminars and Workshops for SKPD and DPRDThe seminars and workshops conducted by the Pilot were assessed to be largely ineffective as a method of persuading the kabupaten-level departmental working groups (SKPD) and local legislatures of the merits and need for integrating the two systems. This is due mainly to the fact that the seminars and workshops occurred outside of the formal decision making process, and as such, the results of the discussions were not seen as binding in any way by the SKPD officials and members of local legislatures who attended.

ProblemsandRecommendations

Problems

Management Team 1. The national-level P2SPP management team has been consistently understaffed throughout the three years of the Pilot. Vacancies for one assistant specialist and one operator have still not been filled by the central PMD working unit (Satker). 2. The special advisory team (Tim Penyelia) consisting of personnel from within PMD has not executed its duties in accordance with commitments given at the beginning of the pilot. This team was tasked with assisting the Pilot Program’s specialist and helping to supervise the Pilot’s implementation,

Pilot Program’s Design Concept1. The focus of the Pilot’s activities is mainly centered on the planning activities occurring at the kabupaten level, particularly with regard to the role of the SKPD units, as such, attempts at integration are largely being imposed from above.2. The implementation of the Pilot still tends to be similar to that of Rural PNPM - it does not yet reflect a balance between the role of the village governments and their communities, and the development plan ning process that is still determined at the kecamatan and kabupaten levels.

Implementation1. The Pilot’s implementation still strongly reflects a limited and traditional project approach. Supporting activities such as seminars and workshops give the impression of being project formalities controlled by the management working units (Satker) and are primarily focused on disbursing the Pilot’s budget. 2. As in previous years, none of the pilot kabupaten submitted routine monthly activity reports as re quired.3. In general, the main problems associated with management of the Pilot’s activities, can be traced to very weak monitoring and supervision from the National Management Consultant, the Central PMD Satker and the Provincial Satker.


56

Recommendations

Pilot Organization and ManagementThe Central PMD Working Unit (Satker) should undertake the following: 1. Complete the recruitment of an additional assistant specialist and operator to support the work of the current P2SPP specialist currently based in the NMC. 2. Clearly identify and mobilize the members of the special internal PMD advisory team (Tim Penyelia) to ensure that they provide assistance with monitoring and supervising the kabupaten-level Satker working units.

Pilot Program’s Design ConceptIn order for the Pilot’s basic design concept to be more effective in promoting the integration agenda, the following issues need to be addressed: • Thecurrent’Pilot’conceptneedstobereplacedwith’TrialKabupaten’ or ’Lab Sites’, to avoid the current impression that the Pilot is nothing more than a small-scale local field trial. • Significantcapacitybuildingneedstobegiventotargetedvillagegovernmentstoimprove their managment capacity. • Removalofcertainregulatorybarrierstoparticipatorydevelopment,andenforcementofother supporting regulations needs to be undertaken. • StrengthentheintegrationagendabyreorientatingthePilot’sactivitiestofocusmorestrongly on the intended targets of the Program, i.e. communities, local government agencies and the lo cal parliaments (DPRD).

ImplementationThe Central PMD Working Unit (Satker) needs to do the following: • Imposestrictsanctionsonthosekabupatenthathaveproventobeincapableofmanagingthe integration Pilot - including cancelling the Pilot Program. • DirectlyinvolvetheRuralPNPM facilitators in managing program activities.

3.2.2. Smallholder Agricultural Development Iniative (SADI)

The PNPM Agribusiness pilot program (SADI) is funded by AusAID grant no. TF057097. The SADI pilot program is closely linked to Rural PNPM and has been designed to dovetail with the stages of the mainstream program. Its purpose is to provide block grants to groups of farmers that participate in a PNPM community-based, bottom-up planning approach to determine suitable agricultural-based subprojects designed to increase the household incomes and general welfare of poor farmers.

(Village cadres training in Kecamatan Nth. Mollo, NTT Province)


57

SADI consists of three subprograms designed to work together to improve the productivity of village-level farmers groups and to ensure that they have access to local markets for their products. Part of this work entails detailed analysis of agricul-tural inputs and outputs and providing appropriate assistance to farmers to maximize their production efficiency. The three subprograms are: • Subprogram1.PNPM Agribusiness is the main focus of the SADI Pilot and works closely with the main stream Rural PNPM program. It uses a slightly modified verson of the Rural PNPM activity stages, but fol lows closely the participatory planning mechanism. • Subprogram2.IFC(InternationalFinanceCorporation)wastaskedwithanalysingandstrengtheningthe marketing networks and value chains that farmers depend on to get their products to consumers.• Subprogram3.ACIAR(AustralianCenterforInternationalAgriculturalResearch)wastaskedwith supporting the other two subprograms with techniques for improved growing methods and new crops that could be adapted by the Pilot’s farmers to improve their overall productivity and increase their incomes.

The general objectives of the SADI pilot are:• Toaccelerateruralpovertyalleviationeffortsbyincreasingthehouseholdincomesofpoorfarmersvia special capacity building of selected groups of farmers to increase their productivity and access to markets.

The specific objectives of the SADI pilot are:• Increasethecapacityofpoorfarmersbyhelpingthemtoacquiretheagriculturalinfrastructureneeded to increase their productivity.• Increaseboththequantityandqualityofcrops/goodsproducedbypoorfarmers.• Increasetheincomesofpoorfarmersbyreducingthepost-harvestobstaclestheyfaceinmarketing their products. • Increasetheeffectivenessofagriculturalcommunityinstitutionsviacapacitybuildingactivitiesforfarmersgroups.• Developpartnershipsbetweenfarmersgroupsandtheprivatefinancial/bankingsector.

(Coffee farmers receiving training on how to maintain their tress in Kabupaten Ngada, Flores, NTT Province)


58

Funding for the 2008 PNPM-Agribusiness program consisted of operational funds DOK (Dana Operasional Kegiatan) total-ing Rp 100,000,000 per year for each kecamatan. Each kecamatan also received direct block grants BLM (Bantuan Langsung Masyarakat) of Rp 1,100,000,000 per year. As of December 2008, a total of Rp 2,120,000,000 or 88 percent of DOK funds had been disbursed from a national allocation of Rp2,400,000,000. Disbursement of BLM funds for the same period wasRp 17,820,000,000 or 68 percent of the Rp 26,400,000,000 allocated for the Program.

Field locations for the SADI pilot are in four provinces in Eastern Indonesia: South East Sulawesi; South Sulawesi; East Nusa Tenggara; and West Nusa Tenggara. A more detailed breakdown of locations to the kabupaten and kecamatan level can be seen in the table below:

No. Province Kabupaten Kecamatan

1 South Sulawesi Tana Toraja1. Mengkendek2. Rindingalo3. Sesean

Bantaeng1. Bissappu 2. Tompobulu3. Gantarang Keke

2 South East Sulawesi Muna 1. Lawa 2. Kusambi 3. South Wakorumba

South Konawe1. Lainea 2. Palangga3. Konda

3 East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) South Central Timor (TTS)1. South Amanuban2. North Mollo 3. Kuan Fatu

Ngada1. Aimere 2. Golewa3. West Riung

4 West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) West Lombok 1. Gerung 2. Bayan 3. Narmada

Dompu1. Hu’u2. Manggelawa3. Pekat

Total 4 8 24

Table3.2.2.A.SADIPilotProgramLocations

TypesofActivitiesandSelectionCriteria

Selection Criteria

The types of activities (proposals) that are supposed to be prioritized should fulfill the following criteria: (1) will predominate-ly benefit the poorest farmers; (2) urgently needed to increase farmer’s household incomes; (3) can be handled by the com-munity itself; (4) is supported by local resources found within the community; (5) has potential for further development and is likely to be sustainable; (6) does not directly benefit any particular individual; (7) likely to increase local technical capacity by introducing new and appropriate technology to local farmers; (8) provides a solution to an existing problem, including low productivity; (9) provides an opportunity to increase community knowledge about as many aspects of agribusiness as possible, from basic inputs through to production and marketing; (10) provides opportunities for activities which can involve partnerships with external parties; (11) any other relevant activities that might help to increase local productivity and pro-vide increased access to markets, or be capable of increasing household incomes for poor farmers.


59

TypesOfActivitesThatHaveBeenFunded:

a. Development activities aimed at repairing basic agricultural infrastructure and facilities that provide clear socioeconomic benefits to target communities, particularly where problems of production quality and quantity are involved, or where distribution channels and access to markets needed to be improved;b. Activities that increased knowledge about technical production issues for small village-level farmer groups;c. Activities that increased farmer’s knowledge about post-harvest technical issues, including marketing;d. Activities that provided opportunites to access loans; e. Activities that strengthened the capacity of local institutions and small farmer’s groups;f. Activities in other agribusiness areas that helped to increase the incomes of poor farmers and provide them with additional work opportunities.

ActivitiesNotPermittedByTheSADIPilotProgram(Negativelist):

a. Loans or credit funded from BLM grants for agribusiness activities; b. Any kind of funding connected to military facilities or activities, political activities or political parties;c. Construction or rehabilitation of places of worship;d. Purchase of chainsaws, firearms, explosives, asbestos and other substances likely to damage the environment (pesticides, herbicides and other banned substances);e. Purchase of fishing boats in excess of 10 tons including equipment;f. Salary subsidies or incentives for government employees/civil servants;g. Activities that employ children under the legal working age;h. Activities linked with the production, storage and sale of tobacco products;i. Activities that involve exploitation of natural resources in areas already designated as natural reserves, except where written permission is given by the officials responsible for managing the area concerned;j. Activities that involve mining or exploitation of coral reefs.k. Activities that involve the use or management of water resources from a river that flows into another country;

(Chocolate farmers attending village meeting in Kecamatan Konda, Kabupaten Sth. Konawea, Sth East Sulawesi)


60

l. Activities that involve redirecting the flow of rivers or sizable perennial streams;m. Activities that involve reclaiming areas of land greater than 50 Ha;n. Construction of new irrigation works that cover an area greater than 50 Ha;o. Construction of dams or reserviors with a storage capacity in excess of 10,000 cubic meters.

The total number of project proposals submitted by SADI communities for all four provinces during 2008 was 405. The number of proposals by province was:(1) West Nusa Tenggara 79 proposals; (2) East Nusa Tenggara 130 proposals; (3) South Sulawesi 95 proposals; (4) South East Sulawesi 101 proposals.

Implementation of the SADI Pilot has been handled by specialists and consultants at the central and provincial levels, and specially trained agricultural facilitators at the kecamatan and village level. As of the end of December 2008, there were a to-tal of 34 specialists, consultants and facilitators working on the Pilot. In addition to the professional personnel, each kecama-tan facilitator has been assisted by two village-level agribusiness cadres based in each of the villages assisted by the Pilot.

ChallengesandObstacles

Program implementation in 2008 faced many challenges and obstacles. Hopefully valuable lessons can be learned from these to avoid similar problems in the future. Specifically the challenges and obstacles faced by the SADI Pilot during 2008 included the following:

1. Poor understanding of the Program’s design and implementation procedures by actors at all levels;2. Changes to program policies and procedures after activities had already commenced, of particular concern were increases in the amounts allocated to DOK and BLM funding;3. Poor planning resulting in inadequate program funding, especially with regard to DOK funds, technical assistance and shortages of operational funds for provincial and kabupaten field offices;4. Late salaries for consultants and facilitators which affected the quality of the program.5. Frequent resignations of kecamatan facilitators at peak times of program activity, which was exacerbated because there were no reserve facilitators available.

The PNPM Agribusiness Pilot will not be providing any further DOK or BLM funds for the 2009 budget year. Instead the Pilot’s professional staff will be optimizing and completing activities that have been ongoing since 2008.

Tabel3.2.2.B.ConsultantsandFacilitatorsPNPMAgribusiness(SADI)2008

No Consultants & Facilitators Total

1 Nasional Management Office 2

2 Provincial Management Offices 8

3 Kecamatan Facilitators 24

Total 34

Total Village Facilitators/ Cadres ± 525


61

3.2.3. Healthy and Intelligent Generation Pilot Program (Generasi)

PNPM communities have consistently proposed a large number of health and education activities for funding from the Program. However, due to the persistent rural infrastructure deficit across much of Indonesia, and limited funds, only a small percentage of those proposals have been implemented. To accommodate these second priority proposals, PNPM established another pilot program called PNPM Generasi Sehat dan Cerdas to focus on these types of activities. This pilot was allocated additional funds and has been supported by specially trained facilitators.

PNPM Generasi has two main objectives:• Upgradinghealthcareforpreandpostnatalmothersandinfantsuptofiveyearsofageintargetrural communities; • Improvingeducationstandardsandfacilitiesintargetcommunitiestohelpruralchildrencompleteprimary school (SD), and continue to middle high school (SMP) to complete their nine years of compulsory education.

PNPM Generasi is now operational in 178 subdistricts and 2,289 villages across five provinces (see Table 2.5.3.A.). Early startup problems in 2007 resulted in Generasi’s activity cycles not being able to run parallel with Rural PNPM.

• Year1 began in 2007. The planning process ran from July to November; implementation, monitoring and final scoring were conducted from December 2007 to August 2008. • Year2 began in early 2008. The planning process started in May and went until August 2008. Implementation, monitoring and final scoring were conducted from September 2008 to May 2009. • Year3 planning activities began in June 2009 and will run until September 2009. Implementation, monitoring and final scoring will be done from October 2009 until May 2010. All three cycles have a few months of overlap while monitoring and scoring is completed for the previous year.

(Midwife giving postnatal healthcare lesson to young mothers)


62

Province KabupatenTotal Kecamatan Total Villages

2007 2008 Total 2007 2008 Total

West Java Sukabumi 10 12 22 82 92 174

Kuningan 15 5 20 212 55 267

Majalengka 9 5 14 131 69 200

Sumedang 7 7 14 83 60 143

Subang 4 0 4 44 - 44

45 29 74 552 276 828

East Java Malang 11 3 14 116 36 152

Pamekasan 6 2 8 84 25 109

Trenggalek 6 2 8 57 26 83

Nganjuk 8 3 11 113 44 157

Magetan 5 4 9 72 59 131

36 14 50 442 190 632

N.T.T. Sumba Timur 8 2 10 71 19 90

Rote Ndao 4 - 4 57 - 57

TTS 6 - 6 145 - 145

Lembata 4 - 4 97 - 97

Flores Timur 4 - 4 89 - 89

Manggarai 6 2 8 108 49 157

32 4 36 567 68 635

Gorontalo Gorontalo 6 1 7 65 - 65

Boalemo 4 - 4 53 - 53

Pohuwato 4 - 4 35 - 35

14 1 15 153 - 153

N. Sulawesi Minahasa Utara 2 1 3 29 12 41

2 1 3 29 12 41

Total 129 49 178 1,743 546 2,289

(2007) (2008) Total (2007) (2008) Total

Table3.2.3.A.GenerasiPilotLocations2007and2008

FundsDisbursementDuring the first cycle approximately USD 14 million in block grants were disbursed, or 99 percent of the total funds allocated. In addition, villagers contributed USD 720,000 of their own resources (swadaya) to the activities which represented about 5 percent of the total block grants disbursed. A total of 1,743 villages and 2,490,580 villagers benefited from the Program during the first cycle.

ActivitiesFundedEducation activities absorbed USD 7.9 million or 56 percent of total funds, while USD 6.1 million or 44 percent, was spent on health activities. Of the five provinces participating, Gorontalo spent the most on education activities using 65 percent of their funds, while West Java spent the most on health activities using 48 percent of their funds.


63

EducationEducation activities funded during the first cycle fell into five categories: School materials, equipment and uniforms (59 percent); financial assistance for school fees and other needs (31 percent); infrastructure (5 percent); financial incentives for education workers (4 percent); and socialization and training (1 percent).

BreakdownofGenerasiFundsforEducation

(Before and after. A primary school constructed by the Generasi Pilot in Mekar Jaya Village, Sukabumi West Java)

HealthHealth activities funded during the first cycle fell into six categories: supplementary feeding for underweight and malnour-ished children (40 percent); financial assistance for pregnant women and mothers to access health services (30 percent); infrastructure (13 percent); facilities and equipment (11 percent); socialization and training (3 percent); incentives for health workers (3 percent).

BreakdownofGenerasiFundsforHealth

Because Generasi activities are community-based they utilize the existing network of local health centers and local health-care professionals, like midwives. The Pilot has provided upgrading to these centers, including training for staff. Community members have also received training so they can take a more active role in activities in their own communities.


64

Actually, 94 percent of allocated funding for the housing component of R2PN was already disbursed by December 2008. However, only 23 percent of funding allocated for schools and village offices and meeting halls was disbursed due to pro-longed shortages of wood, steel, cement and other building materials.

The housing program managed to complete 2,138 houses; thus providing houses for 3,694 families. These families were organized into 217 house construction groups, or Kelompok Pemukiman). By the end of 2008, 60 percent of the houses planned by the Program had been completed.

No Kecamatan No. Houses

Kabupaten Nias

1 Gido 253

2 Idanogawo 276

3 Lolofitumoi 240

4 Tuhemberua 222

5 Namohalu Esiwa 184

Sub total 1,175

Kabupaten South Nias

1 Lahusa 239

2 Teluk Dalam 240

3 Amandraya 303

4 Lolowau 181

Sub Total 963

Total 2,138

3.3 POSTDISASTER LOCATIONS

NiasIslandsRehabilitationandReconstructionProgram(R2PN)

In 2008, the PNPM-R2PN housing reconstruction program in Nias Islands, North Sumatera, continued to help victims of the 2005 earthquake to rebuild their houses. However, due to operational delays the activities during 2008 were still be-ing funded by 2007 TA funds. The Program was undertaken in nine kecamatan and two kabupaten. Based on the National Management Consultant’s weekly reports, the R2PN Program had disbursed 61 percent of its allocated funding by the end of 2008.

AllocationandDisbursementofFundsforPNPM-R2PNTA2007

TargetR2PNHousingProgram2007

Activity Allocation (Rp) Disbursed (Rp) %

R2PN Housing 115,452,000,000 108,442,800,000 94

R2PN School Construction 55,610,000,000 12,944,000,000 23

R2PN Village Offices/Halls 18,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 17

R2PN Supporting Infrastructure 18,000,000,000 3,200,000,000 18

Total 207,062,000,000 127,586,800,000 61


65

The PNPM-R2PN Program in Nias was strongly supported by the local communities that received the assistance, and by their local governments. This fact was evident by the high levels of community participation at each activity stage of the Program.

Of those who participated and received houses, 75 percent were from the poorest sections of their communities, and 49 percent were women. Field consultants inspect a housing group’s work during construction in Nias.

The mechanisms and procedures used for the R2PN Program followed closely the standard Rural PNPM bottom-up approach and involved as many community members as possible at each stage of planning, construction and project management. Training was also given to prepare community members for post-construction maintenance activities.

Field consultants inspect a housing group’s work during construction in Nias.

4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION


69

The Complaints Handling unit of the National Management Consultant (NMC) continued to have a busy year during 2008 due to the large number of corruption cases that were uncovered by the province-based (SP2M) complaints handling spe-cialists during 2007 and 2008. Reinstatement of these specialists during 2007 by the Directorate General of Community and Village Empowerment (PMD) led to a significant increase in the number of cases uncovered and handled during 2007 and 2008.

NationalOverviewofComplaintsHandlingHighlightsDuring2008

2008 began with a residual caseload from 2007 of 823 complaints. 691 new complaints were added to the Handling Com-plaints Unit’s caseload during 2008, with 669 complaints successfully resolved leaving 843 cases still in process. The total number of cases handled (all categories) during 2008 was 1,623 (see Table 4.A.). A monthly breakdown of cases during 2008 can be seen in Table 4.B.

Embezzlement cases carried over from 2007 were valued at Rp 20,793,913,596. An additional Rp 10,035,604,626 worth of new embezzlement cases was added to this amount in 2008, of which Rp 8,598,506,122 was recovered. This left Rp 27,378,770,505 worth of unresolved embezzlement cases at the end of 2008.

The main perpetrators involved in embezzlement cases during 2008 were community members, mainly microcredit borrow-ers, who accounted for 24 percent of cases. These were followed by officers of kecamatan activity units (UPK) who accounted for 21 percent of cases and village-level project implementation units (TPK) who accounted for 18 percent of cases.

In October 2008, the Directorate General of Community Empowerment (PMD) classified 113 kecamatan as problematic (ke-camatan bermasalah) due to unresolved cases; the vast majority involved embezzlement/ corruption cases. By the end of 2008, 81 of these kecamatan were removed from the list, however, 32 others were still in process and were carried over to be included in the list of 131 problematic kecamatan for processing in 2009. These kecamatan are spread over 88 kabupaten and 23 provinces.

4.1 COMPLAINTS HANDLING

4.A. Jumlah Kasus Yg Ditangani Selama 2008 No Category of Complaint Residual Cases '07 Total Cases1 Breaches of Prinsiples & Procedures 76 301

2 Embezzlement Cases 697 1,062

3 Negative Intervention by Officials 4 24

4 Force Majeure 12 50

5 Others 34 186

Total 823 1,623


70

120

140

160

180

400

500

600

700

800

Prose

4.B.

Sum

mar

y of

Cas

es a

nd H

andl

ing

Stat

us D

urin

g 20

08

N0M

onth

COM

PLAI

NT C

ATEG

ORY

SUBT

OTA

L

Total

Prin

cipl

es &

Pro

cedu

res

Embe

zzle

men

t Cas

esNe

gativ

e In

terv

entio

nFo

rce

Maj

eure

Oth

er C

ompl

aint

s

PF

NTo

tP

FN

Tot

PF

NTo

tP

FN

Tot

PF

NTo

tP

FN

Tot

1Ja

nuar

y74

14 12

88

69

1

28

22

719

3

2

1

5

164

8

20

41 11

18

52

825

59

61

88

4

2Fe

brua

ry86

7

16

93

70

4

25

41

729

4

2

3

6

175

6

22

32 17

8

49

84

3

56

74

899

3M

arch

82 11

9

93

71

5

19

27

734

3

1

- 4

152

- 17

25 8

2

33

840

41

38

88

1

4Ap

ril80

21 19

101

71

5

29

29

744

2

2

1

4

146

5

20

22 5

2

27

833

63

56

89

6

5M

ay13

3

16 70

149

70

2

56

48

758

4

-

2

4

144

4

18

41 19

38

60

894

95

162

989

6Ju

ne14

5

17 26

162

70

5

34

35

739

9

3

5

12

14

5

6

19

37

21

24

58

91

0

80

96

990

7Ju

ly16

2

14 32

176

69

5

48

37

743

102

3

12

13

2

1

15

40

13

16

53

92

0

79

89

999

8Au

gust

160

11

9

171

68

4

31

20

715

131

3

14

14

1

2

15

35

10

6

45

906

54

40

96

0

9Se

ptem

ber

117

49

5

166

68

3

25

18

708

103

- 13

12

2

-

14

28

14

7

42

850

93

30

94

3

10O

ctob

er11

1

13 6

12

4

688

22

31

71

010

1

1

11

103

1

13

24 10

6

34

84

3

49

45

892

11N

ovem

ber

110

11

10

12

1

677

34

24

71

110

--

10

8

2

- 10

32 7

15

39

83

7

54

49

891

12D

ecem

ber

113

8

11

121

66

1

52

33

713

11 -

1

11

11

2

5

13

24

18

10

42

82

0

80

60

900

SUB

TOTA

L19

2

225

403

365

1720

38 38

153

152

803

800

Note

: P =

In P

roce

ssF

= Fi

nish

edN

= Ne

w C

ases

Tot =

Tot

al C

ases

(P +

F)

Gra

fik P

erke

mba

ngan

Kas

us P

enyi

mpa

ngan

Prin

sip

& Pr

osed

urG

rafik

Per

kem

bang

an K

asus

Pen

yim

pang

an D

ana

Gra

fik P

erke

mba

ngan

Kas

us In

terv

ensi

Neg

atif

Gra

fik P

erke

mba

ngan

Kas

us F

orce

Maj

eur

Gra

fik P

erke

mba

ngan

Kas

us L

ain-

Lain

20406080100

Proses

Selesai

Baru

100

200

300

400

Prose

s Seles

ai

2468101214

Proses

Selesai

Baru

24681012141618

Prose

s Seles

ai

51015202530354045

Proses

Selesai

Baru


71

MisuseandCorruptionofFunds

As with previous years, the majority of both unresolved and new complaints were Category 2 complaints related to the mis-use and embezzlement of funds. This type of complaint accounted for 1,062 of both old and new cases handled during 2008. Typically the largest number of cases by category has always been Category 2 complaints. These cases also remain the most time consuming and difficult to resolve. Table 4.C. below shows the value of funds involved in the 365 cases handled during each month of 2008. These totaled Rp10,035,604,626 or about US$1,115,067 (@ US$1 = Rp 9,000).

While Rural PNPM expends significant energy and resources on preventing, uncovering and combating corruption, it is important to keep the total corruption picture in perspective. Total losses from block grants (BLM) and training / planning funds (DOK) to corruption from 1998 to 2008 were Rp 45,520,690,960 or US$5,057,854. However, during that period a total of Rp18,141,920,455 has been recovered in both cash and recovered assets representing a recovery rate thus far of about 40 percent.

If the amount of funds still outstanding is compared to the total amount actually dispersed since the beginning of the Pro-gram in 1998 (US$402,791,817), then the percentage lost to corruption as of December 2008 is about 0.75 percent of funds dispersed. By any standards, this is an impressive corruption management record in a country where development projects have to maintain constant vigilance to deal with this problem.

4.C. Value of Embezzlement Cases Handled by Month During 2008 4.D. Value of Embezzlement Cases Handled From 2005 2008

No Month No. CasesValue of Funds Lost

(During Month Shown)Funds Recovered (During

Month Shown)No Year

Value of Funds Lost(During Year Shown)

Funds Recovered (DuringYear Shown)

BalanceRemaining

1 January 22 592,085,900 505,595,177 1 1998 2005 19,591,557,368 5,054,086,194 14,537,471,1742 February 41 1,060,797,006 66,522,074 2 2006 8,391,324,171 2,441,966,442 5,949,357,7293 March 27 642,213,000 639,966,751 3 2007 7,502,204,795 2,047,361,697 5,454,843,0984 April 29 1,820,759,523 1,098,233,324 4 2008 10,035,604,626 8,598,506,122 1,437,098,5045 May 48 1,704,653,859 1,032,573,978 Total 45,520,690,960 18,141,920,455 27,378,770,5056 June 35 981,159,576 2,239,731,9637 July 37 308,498,519 464,825,708 Note:8 August 20 385,219,037 444,689,384 Amount shown for period 1998 2005 was the residual carried over from that period and handled during 2005 .9 September 18 557,149,335 337,504,380

10 October 31 1,049,647,758 685,469,475 Grafik Perkembangan Kasus Penyimpangan Dana 2005 200811 November 24 639,362,463 342,557,07412 December 33 294,058,650 740,836,834

Total 365 10,035,604,626 8,598,506,122

Akumulasi Kasus Penyimpangan Dana Selama Tahun 2008(Saldo Tahun 2007 + Perkembangan Selama 2008)

JumlahKasus

Nilai penyimpangan Nilai Pengembalian

365 10,035,604,626 8,598,506,122

Grafik Nilai Penyimpangan dan Pengembalian Khusus Tahun 2008

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Janu

ary

February

March

April

May

June July

August

Septem

ber

Octob

er

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Janu

ary

February

March

April

May

June July

August

Septem

ber

Octob

er

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

5,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

15,000,000,000

20,000,000,000

25,000,000,000

1998 2005 2006 2007 2008

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

Sisa Belum Kembali

4.C. Value of Embezzlement Cases Handled by Month During 2008 4.D. Value of Embezzlement Cases Handled From 2005 2008

No Month No. CasesValue of Funds Lost

(During Month Shown)Funds Recovered (During

Month Shown)No Year

Value of Funds Lost(During Year Shown)

Funds Recovered (DuringYear Shown)

BalanceRemaining

1 January 22 592,085,900 505,595,177 1 1998 2005 19,591,557,368 5,054,086,194 14,537,471,1742 February 41 1,060,797,006 66,522,074 2 2006 8,391,324,171 2,441,966,442 5,949,357,7293 March 27 642,213,000 639,966,751 3 2007 7,502,204,795 2,047,361,697 5,454,843,0984 April 29 1,820,759,523 1,098,233,324 4 2008 10,035,604,626 8,598,506,122 1,437,098,5045 May 48 1,704,653,859 1,032,573,978 Total 45,520,690,960 18,141,920,455 27,378,770,5056 June 35 981,159,576 2,239,731,9637 July 37 308,498,519 464,825,708 Note:8 August 20 385,219,037 444,689,384 Amount shown for period 1998 2005 was the residual carried over from that period and handled during 2005 .9 September 18 557,149,335 337,504,380

10 October 31 1,049,647,758 685,469,475 Grafik Perkembangan Kasus Penyimpangan Dana 2005 200811 November 24 639,362,463 342,557,07412 December 33 294,058,650 740,836,834

Total 365 10,035,604,626 8,598,506,122

Akumulasi Kasus Penyimpangan Dana Selama Tahun 2008(Saldo Tahun 2007 + Perkembangan Selama 2008)

JumlahKasus

Nilai penyimpangan Nilai Pengembalian

365 10,035,604,626 8,598,506,122

Grafik Nilai Penyimpangan dan Pengembalian Khusus Tahun 2008

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Janu

ary

February

March

April

May

June July

August

Septem

ber

Octob

er

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Janu

ary

February

March

April

May

June July

August

Septem

ber

Octob

er

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

0

5,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

15,000,000,000

20,000,000,000

25,000,000,000

1998 2005 2006 2007 2008

Nilai Penyimpangan

Nilai Pengembalian

Sisa Belum Kembali


72

SourcesofInformation

During 2008 the most frequent source of information about complaints and problems was field consultants; they reported 1,233 cases from all categories (see Table 4.E.).

The total number of reports received from all sources during 2008 was 1,623 even after adding residual data from December 2007. By comparison, 1,724 complaint reports were received in 2007.

In January 2007 the NMC further upgraded the complaints handling system by adding a complaints reporting facility to the Program’s website. The homepage of the website has a clearly identified window to access a direct email reporting facility for people who wish to send a complaint or enquiry directly to the National Management Consultant (NMC). This facility channeled 219 enquiries and complaints during 2007 from a wide range of Rural PNPM actors and community members. The NMC received a large number of valuable tips via these emails. It is clear that this method of communication with the Program is becoming increasingly popular.

From January to December 2008, the NMC received and acted upon 93 complaints via the website. A further 302 complaints were also received via text messages that were sent directly to the NMC. Only 14 letters were sent, and 5 direct telephone calls were made to make complaints during the same period. (see Table 4.F.)

61 74 38 56 162 96 89 40Jumlah

Saldo Tahun 2007No. Sumber Informasi Jumlah1 Konsultan 7112 Masyarakat 653 BPKP 254 LSM/ PBM 75 Media Massa 36 Bank Dunia 27 Lain Lain 10

Jumlah 823

Perkembangan Sumber Informasi Selama Tahun 2008

No. Sumber InformasiBulan

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mei Jun Jul Ags

1 Konsultan 39 59 32 44 90 52 48 282 Masyarakat 20 13 5 6 15 15 23 93 BPKP 1 1 0 2 55 25 17 14 LSM PBM5 Media Massa 16 Bank Dunia 3 27 Lain Lain 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 2

Jumlah 61 74 38 56 162 96 89 40

4.E. Sources of Information About Complaints 2008No. Sumber Informasi Total %1 PNPM Consultants 1,233 76.02 Community Members 217 13.43 Gov't Audit Agency (BPKP ) 127 7.84 Local NGOs 9 0.65 Mass Media Reports 6 0.46 World Bank Supervision Missions 7 0.47 Other Sources 24 1.5

Total 1,623 100.0

H. Sulaiman, ex village head of Gebangan Village, Kecamatan Krejengan, Kabupaten Probolinggo, standing trial for corruption of Rp 17,492,000 of program funds.


73

ActorsIdentifiedinComplaints

During 2008, the Rural PNPM actors most frequently reported for violations of all types were: community members (483 complaints) almost all for microcredit repayment problems; the officers of the subdistrict activity management units UKPs (416 complaints); and the village project management teams TPK (356 complaints). These actors were closely followed by consultants (230) and village heads and their officials (125). (see Table 4.G.)

61 74 38 56 162 96 89 40Jumlah

Saldo Tahun 2007No. Sumber Informasi Jumlah1 Konsultan 7112 Masyarakat 653 BPKP 254 LSM/ PBM 75 Media Massa 36 Bank Dunia 27 Lain Lain 10

Jumlah 823

Perkembangan Sumber Informasi Selama Tahun 2008

No. Sumber InformasiBulan

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mei Jun Jul Ags

1 Konsultan 39 59 32 44 90 52 48 282 Masyarakat 20 13 5 6 15 15 23 93 BPKP 1 1 0 2 55 25 17 14 LSM PBM5 Media Massa 16 Bank Dunia 3 27 Lain Lain 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 2

Jumlah 61 74 38 56 162 96 89 40

4.E. Sources of Information About Complaints 2008No. Sumber Informasi Total %1 PNPM Consultants 1,233 76.02 Community Members 217 13.43 Gov't Audit Agency (BPKP ) 127 7.84 Local NGOs 9 0.65 Mass Media Reports 6 0.46 World Bank Supervision Missions 7 0.47 Other Sources 24 1.5

Total 1,623 100.0

Table 4.F. Type Of Media Used To Report Complaints

No MonthMedia Used To Report Complaints

SMS Letters Email (Website) Telephone

1 January 43 3 11

2 February 62 2 5

3 March 30 3

4 April 24 2 6 1

5 May 38 15

6 June 37 2 8

7 July 10 13

8 August 10 4 1

9 September 19 1 10 2

10 October 16 7 1

11 November 2 3 6

12 December 11 1 5

Subtotal 302 14 93 5

Total 4145 Desa 2 1 2 2 11 5 6 7 1

Saldo Tahun 2007No. Pelaku Pelanggaran Jumlah1 Kel/ Masyarakat 2602 UPK 2473 TPK 1554 Konsultan 895 Kepala Desa/ Aparat Desa 816 PjOK & Staf Kecamatan 447 LKMD/ LPM 498 Camat 209 Suplier 1210 Lain Lain 73

Jumlah 1,030

Perkembangan Pelaku Pelanggaran Selama Tahun 2008

No. Pelaku PelanggaranBulan

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mei Jun Jul Ags Sep

1 Kel/ Masyarakat 23 19 13 16 24 26 33 14 82 UPK 13 14 5 19 33 5 24 12 63 TPK 14 21 9 11 67 26 18 5 24 Konsultan 3 10 9 5 39 36 7 5 65 Kepala Desa/ Aparat DesaKepala Desa/ Aparat 2 1 2 2 11 5 6 7 16 PjOK & Staf Kecamatan 1 3 1 4 6 4 17 LKMD/ LPM 0 1 1 18 Camat 2 0 1 19 Suplier 1 1 0 3 1 410 Lain Lain 8 15 7 10 10 15 12 5 8

Jumlah 65 86 47 63 192 121 106 52 32

4.G. Actors Identified in Complaints All Types 2008No. Main Actors Total %1 Community Members 483 24.62 UPK 416 21.13 TPK 356 18.14 Consultants/ Facilitators 230 11.75 Village Heads & Officials 125 6.46 PjOK & Kecamatan Staff 71 3.67 LKMD/ LPM 52 2.68 Camat (Subdistrict Head) 26 1.39 Suppliers 28 1.410 Others 180 9.2

Total 1,967 100UPK: Kecamatan Activity Management Units

TPK: Village Project Management Teams

PjOK: Kecamatan Staff Assigned to PNPM


74

HandlingStatusofActiveCases2008

Table 4.H. below shows the amount of attention devoted to resolving cases and the status of cases that were still active as of December 2008. Of the 894 cases being handled during the period shown, field reports indicated that 40 percent had made some progress. On the other hand, about 26 percent had made no progress at all for over 9 months.

The 2008 caseload has been divided into four columns in Table 4.H. showing the latest progress made on the caseload of complaints:1. Column A shows the number of cases that were last handled within the last 1 to 3 months.2. Column B shows the number of cases that were last handled within the last 4 to 6 months.3. Column C shows the number of cases that were handled within the last 7 to 9 nine months.4. The Stagnant column shows the number of cases that were last handled more than 9 months ago.

The six provinces with the largest percentage of cases reported as stagnant were Papua (80 percent), West Papua (73 per-cent), West Java (65 percent), North Sulawesi (56 percent), North Maluku (53 percent) and Aceh (51 percent). Many factors influence a case becoming stagnant, some of these include:• Theremotenessofthelocationandthetimeandexpenserequiredtomakevisits.• Thetotalcaseloadofcomplaintsbeinghandledbytheprovincialcomplainthandlingspecialist.• Thecapacityandmotivationoffacilitators,consultantsandlocalofficialshandlingthecase.• Thelevelofcomplexityofthecase.• Thenumberofpartiesoragenciesinvolvedlocatedoutsidetheimmediatearea.• Disappearanceofkeyactorsandsuspects,orevidenceconcerningthecase.• Unwillingnesstocooperateorresistancebyagenciescrucialtoresolvingthecase.• Protectionofkeysuspectsbycertainagenciesorinfluentialindividuals.

CasesHandedOverToLawEnforcementAgenciesandProsecutedDuring2008

Table 4.I. below shows each month the number of cases being handled by the police, public prosecutors and cases being tried by the courts during 2008. The table shows that during January 2008 there were a total of 187 cases (both old and new) being processed by legal means, and that by December 2008 there were 105 cases still in process. This means that 82 were resolved during that period.

During 2008, 37 cases were handed over to the police, 11 to public prosecutors and six cases were taken to local courts. None of the six cases taken to court during 2008 were resolved during that year; all six were still in process as of January 2009.


75

t

PERCENTAGE 40.38 14.77 18.57 26.29 100

Stagnant = Latest progress recorded more than 9 months ago

Table 4.H. Handling Status Of Active Cases

No PROVINCE A B C STAGNANT TOTAL % STAGNANT

1 Papua 0 1 2 12 15 80

2 West Papua 0 0 3 8 11 72.73

3 West Java 9 4 20 61 94 64.89

4 North Sulawesi 0 9 2 14 25 56

5 North Maluku 0 4 4 9 17 52.94

6 Aceh 3 3 14 21 41 51.22

7 South East Sulawesi 24 6 8 30 68 44.12

8 North Sumatera 5 4 22 24 55 43.64

9 Maluku 1 3 6 7 17 41.18

10 Central Sulawesi 12 1 5 9 27 33.33

11 Central Kalimantan 5 8 0 5 18 27.78

12 Bengkulu 0 3 0 1 4 25

13 Banten 3 2 1 2 8 25

14 South Sulawesi 12 3 9 8 32 25

15 South Kalimantan 6 3 0 2 11 18.18

16 Riau 19 6 2 5 32 15.63

17 Bali 11 3 0 2 16 12.5

18 West Sumatera 35 3 1 4 43 9.3

19 Lampung 26 9 17 4 56 7.14

West Kalimantan 13 0 0 1 14 7.1420

21 Gorontalo 19 5 3 2 29 6.9

22 Central Java 23 3 0 1 27 3.7

23 East Java 43 24 12 3 82 3.66

24 Riau Islands 4 0 0 0 4 0

25 Bangka Belitung 9 1 0 0 10 0

26 Jambi 16 0 0 0 16 0

27 South Sumatera 22 2 4 0 28 0

28 Special Region Yogyakar 14 2 0 0 16 0

29 East Kalimantan 4 0 0 0 4 0

30 West Nusa Tenggara 8 3 1 0 12 0

31 East Nusa Tenggara 7 7 30 0 44 0

32 West Sulawesi 8 10 0 0 18 0

SUBTOTAL 361 132 166 235 894

A = Latest progress recorded 1 – 3 months ago.B = Latest progress recorded 4 – 6 months agoC = Latest progress recorded 7 – 9 months ago


76

LargeCasesHandledDuring2008

Kecamatan Samigaluh, Kabupaten Kulon Progo, DI Yogyakarta Province: This case involved the embezzlement of funds lent to an UEP microcredit group. The case was declared as embezzlement when it became clear that there was no serious intent on the part of the borrowers to repay the funds. The main borrowers were local kecamatan and village officials and a number of the UEP group members. The total amount embezzled was Rp440,325,274. One kecamatan official borrowed Rp358,950,000 with the remainder, Rp81,375,274 being borrowed by members of the microcredit group. From this amount, Rp272,202,216 has already been recovered from the kecamatan official who is the main culprit. However, there have not been any funds recovered yet from the microcredit group. It has been decided to handle this group as a separate case report and if necessary to make a formal report to the local police.

Kecamatan Pengabuan, Kabupaten Jabung Barat, Jambi Province: This case involved the embezzlement of community block grant (BLM) funds by Nofriza (technical facilitor) totaling Rp309,000,000. On the 19th February 2008, Nofriza withdrew the funds from the BRI branch office at Kuala Tungkal from the BPPK community account owned by the Kecamatan Peng-abuan UPK and transferred them to his own account using a withdrawal slip that had already been signed by the FK, the head of the UPK and Nofriza himself. After withdrawing the funds he immediately dissappeared. He has now been placed on the police’s wanted persons list and is being sought. To date, no repayment of funds has been made by either Nofriza or his family.

Kecamatan Karanggede, Kabupaten Boyolali, Central Java Province: The head of the UPK (Adde Currie S.) illegally with-drew microcredit funds worth Rp 257,703,995 for his own personal use. Interestingly, Pak Adde had also previously taken micocredit funds under similar circumstances in 2005, however, the case was considered resolved because he returned all the money. He has now repeated his actions of 2005, and once again has faced a community forum. Thus far he has repaid Rp 41,000,000 of the funds he took, leaving a balance of Rp 216,703,995 to be returned.

Kecamatan Karangreja, Kabupaten Purbalingga, Central Java Province: This case involved the embezzlement of UEP and SPP microcredit funds by members of the TPK, one of the microcredit group leaders and the village heads of five villages. The total amount of money stolen was Rp 169,976,190. Intensive follow-up by field consultants and provincial specialists resulted in the return of all funds stolen. The last tranche of money returned after intensive negotiations was Rp 7,884,082. After this amount was returned the case was considered resolved by the community and the field consultants.

Distrik Assue, Kabupaten Merauke, Papua Province: In January 2004, Rp 500,000,000 worth of matching grant funds from the local kabupaten government were disbursed by the local camat (now ex camat). Rp 303,200,050 of that amount was disbursed illegally and used by the camat for private purposes. In June 2006, the complaints specialist, the kabupaten con-sultant and a legal team from a local NGO named ‘Forpamer’ reported this case to the head of the local public prosecutor’s office in Merauke. The head of the prosecutors office promised to handle the case immediately. However, as of April 2009 this case remains stagnant in the prosecutors office. No progress whatsoever was made on this case during 2008.

1 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4.I. Cases Handed Over To Law Enforcement Agencies And Prosecuted During 2008No Month Handled By Police Public Prosecutor Tried In Court Ruli Court Totalng Received

Old New Total Old New Total Old New Total Old New Total CasesCases from 93 2007 0 93 53 0 53 5 0 5 36 0 36 1871 January 93 2 95 53 1 54 5 0 5 36 0 36 1902 February 89 10 99 52 0 52 5 0 5 36 0 36 1923 March 86 2 88 46 0 46 5 0 5 36 0 36 1754 April 81 7 88 48 2 50 5 0 5 36 0 36 1795 May 85 4 89 50 2 52 5 0 5 36 0 36 1826 June 74 0 74 39 0 39 5 1 6 39 0 39 1587 July 73 1 74 38 1 39 0 3 3 0 0 0 1168 August 66 6 72 39 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 September 67 3 70 35 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 106

10 October 67 1 68 34 3 37 0 2 2 0 0 0 1071111 NovemberNovember 6767 6868 3535 0 3535 0 0 0 0 10310312 December 68 0 68 36 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

Note: 1. Not all cases handled in one month will be included in the next month's total. Cases resolved cease to be recorded. 2. Old cases are cumulative and remain in the data for subsequent months until they are resolved.


77

1 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4.I. Cases Handed Over To Law Enforcement Agencies And Prosecuted During 2008No Month Handled By Police Public Prosecutor Tried In Court Ruli Court Totalng Received

Old New Total Old New Total Old New Total Old New Total CasesCases from 93 2007 0 93 53 0 53 5 0 5 36 0 36 1871 January 93 2 95 53 1 54 5 0 5 36 0 36 1902 February 89 10 99 52 0 52 5 0 5 36 0 36 1923 March 86 2 88 46 0 46 5 0 5 36 0 36 1754 April 81 7 88 48 2 50 5 0 5 36 0 36 1795 May 85 4 89 50 2 52 5 0 5 36 0 36 1826 June 74 0 74 39 0 39 5 1 6 39 0 39 1587 July 73 1 74 38 1 39 0 3 3 0 0 0 1168 August 66 6 72 39 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 September 67 3 70 35 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 106

10 October 67 1 68 34 3 37 0 2 2 0 0 0 1071111 NovemberNovember 6767 6868 3535 0 3535 0 0 0 0 10310312 December 68 0 68 36 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

Note: 1. Not all cases handled in one month will be included in the next month's total. Cases resolved cease to be recorded. 2. Old cases are cumulative and remain in the data for subsequent months until they are resolved.

During 2006 the auditing approach of the NMC Internal Fi-nancial Supervision unit (IFS) was redesigned to focus more on capacity building and provide more intensive support to empowering consultants, facilitators and UPKs. This new approach was continued during 2007 and 2008. Since 2006, the work program of the IFS has been focused on strength-ening the capacity of consultants and facilitators to handle financial supervision and audit duties themselves rather than continue to rely on the NMC’s audit team.

InternalAuditStrategy

During 2008, the program of on-the-job training through joint audits called “audit bersama” continued in 30 provinces under the supervision of the provincial coordinators (Korprov) and the provincial Financial Management Support specialists (FMS). The main objectives of the on-the-job training program were:

1. Develop the capacity of consultants to undertake effective financial supervision duties and pass on those skills to capable community members so as to leave behind an independent local auditing capacity for future development projects.2. To create an internal audit system complete with inbuilt supervisory and control mechanisms that could be cascaded in an integrated way down to the kecamatan level thereby strengthening community per ceptions of accountability and deterrence. This internal audit program has been quite successful and has now been decentralized to the new Financial Management Support specialists (FMS) who replaced the Monitoring and Evaluation specialists in a restructuring of the provincial man-agement offices in early 2007.

ResultsoftheInternalAuditProgram2008

During 2008, the internal audit program covered the same financial and procedural issues, and the same number of program locations (30 provinces) as in 2007. However, because of the restructuring of the National Management Consultant the IFS unit was effectively disbanded and its members reassigned to regional locations in provincial offices. This meant that the NMC was unable to produce a consolidated national report on the results of the 2008 internal audit, even though each provincial management office had collected the data from the audit. This problem will be rectified in 2009 under the new expanded structure of the NMC. The IFS unit will be replaced with a new unit called Program Internal Audit unit.

ResultsoftheBPKPAudit

During 2008, the Financial Development Audit Body (BPKP) conducted its routine annual audit on a 15 percent sample of 2007 Rural PNPM kecamatan locations. The BPKP audits are always one year behind the current program. The results of the audit were reported to each local government concerned, and the Program’s executing agency (PMD) in June 2009. The re-sults of the audit were considered satisfactory overall, with no significant problems or large embezzlement cases discovered, although certain specific issues such as administrative and accounting problems and breaches of program procedures were reported to the NMC for further investigation and follow-up action.

4.2 FINANCIAL SUPERVISION

OverviewofthePNPMInternalAuditProgram

(Internal audit team inspects SPP and TPK documentsin Semembang Village, Riau Islands Province )


78

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR RURAL PNPM 2008

1 Progress on 2008 disbursements as of 14 June, 2009. 2 NA (Not Available) Review of local Perda (local government bylaws) is still ongoing.3 Figure used is based on Economic Impact Analysis conducted on 113 villages in 2004/2005.

INDICATORS Project Targets Results 2007 Results 2008

INPUTS - - -

No. of project Kecamatan 750 1,842 2,408

No. of villages with sub-projects 12,000 14,688 22,629

% of women in village meetings 40% 44%Av. 44%Av.

% of Grants disbursed 80% 186% 195%

% of villages with O & M committees formed 85% 100% 100%

% of villages with 3 Perda issued 85% 2NA 2NA

% of UPK receiving training 75% 100% 100%

OUTPUTS - - -

IRR on investments > 30% 353% 353%

% of agreed work completed (by type, value, etc) 85% 97% 85%

% of Kecamatan visited by project staff 50% 100% 100%

% of national data base complaints resolved 50% 55% 44%

% of villages with DESA formed Perda 65% NA NA

% of Intervillage forum by Perda 65% NA NA

IMPACTS - - -

1. Poverty - - -

No. of beneficiaries 12,000,000 14,951,052 22,825,930

% beneficiaries who are women 40% 50% 51%

% beneficiaries who are poor 65% 63% 48%

No. of primary schools rehabilitated 700 1,560 3,015

2. Governance - - -

No. of provincial and national complaints database published 50 0 0

3. Sustainability - - -

% infrastructure reviewed as “Good” to “Excellent” 70% 65% 65%

No. UPKs retaining > Rp 100 million 200 2,788 3,413

Studies on long-term maintenance 1 0 0

Studies of options for sustainable financing 1 0 0

4.3

5. CHALLENGES


81

5.1 CHALLENGES DURING 2008

LateStartto2008Activities

As with 2007, the Program suffered once again from a late start caused by protracted discussions between central govern-ment agencies (PMD, Bappenas, Menko Kesra) and the World Bank on the number and type of subdistricts to be included in the 2008 Program. This problem also held up negotiations between the World Bank and the GOI for a loan to fund the 2008 Program. The final loan agreement was signed in June 2008. Revisions then had to be made to PMD’s budget documents (DIPA) based on the new list of locations. The subsequent revision of the Program’s budget (DIPA) was finalized by September 12, while the approval for disbursement of BLM funds by the Department of Finance was approved on September 17.

The late start forced many 2008 locations to complete their activities well into 2009. For example, as of June 2009 only 75 percent of the kecamatan locations from 2008 had disbursed all their BLM funds for community projects, and only 64 percent had completed the final handover (MDST) of their projects.

In addition to the late disbursements problem, the Central Government also issued a new directive in 2006 that required all local governments to adopt a performance based budgeting system. Under the performance based budgeting system, local governments have to propose programs and specify detailed performance targets. Adjusting to this new system continued to cause some problems for local governments during negotiations with their parliaments to secure the obligatory cost shar-ing allocation for Rural PNPM in their 2008 budgets.

The problem with the new system is that detailed final results for PNPM activities cannot be determined in advance. Final results are based on implemented proposals created via the bottom-up, participatory PNPM method. However, thanks to intensive socialization and lobbying efforts by field consultants with local government officials and local legislators, this problem was much less of a factor in holding up local government contributions than in 2007. Local government officials, and local parliament members, have now accepted that concrete results will be forthcoming from their cost sharing funds, and that PNPM village communities do enjoy tangible and measurable benefits from the BLM funds they receive.

UnfilledConsultantandFacilitatorPositions

Consultant vacancies were a significant problem in 2008 and had a definite impact on the performance of some program provinces. As of 31 December 2008, the total number of vacancies for field consultants and facilitators at the kabupaten and kecamatan levels was 538. Of these, 337 were for kecamatan technical facilitators and 117 were for kecamatan empower-ment facilitators. Given that these two positions represent the front line of the Program in the field, it was inevitable that performance and progress would suffer in locations where vacancies for these two positions persisted. Kabupaten govern-ments eager to start their programs have expressed their frustration with this problem on numerous occasions. Vacancies fluctuated on a monthly basis due to consultant turn over, but generally this figure was representative of the personnel situation in the field.

Vacancies in the National Management Consultant office as of 31 December 2008 totaled 18 specialists. Vacancies for pro-vincial management consultants totaled 32 and regional management consultants totaled 8. The vacancies most strongly felt by provincial offices and the central NMC were for MIS specialists and assistants. The performance of the National Man-agement Consultant’s MIS unit was significantly affected by long-term vacancies, and as a result, a number of important IT initiatives were not able to be completed,

The provinces most affected by long-term vacancies were Papua and West Papua. Together they had 374 vacancies, of which 218 were for kecamatan/district technical facilitators and 56 for kecamatan/district empowerment facilitators. Although, the recent graduation and placement of 106 technical cadres from the 2008 ‘Barefoot Engineers’ course helped to reduce the chronic shortage of technical facilitators. However, there are still 112 vacancies for technical facilitators in both Papua and West Papua


82

NewProgramManagementStructure&TenderingForAdditionalConsultingFirms

In 2007 the PMD National Secretariat initiated a number of significant changes to the structure of the National and Provincial Management Offices in an effort to respond to the continuing expansion of Rural PNPM. The restructuring measures were also intended to further decentralize the program’s management to the provinces by delegating many of the management functions currently being handled by the NMC and the PMD National Secretariat.

Under the new program management structure, 10 consulting firms were to be engaged by PMD via an international com-petitive bidding process by the end of 2007. However, due to program and procedural delays the tendering process did not begin as planned in 2007. The final results of the tender were announced for eight successful companies in April and May 2008. However, World Bank due diligence and approvals for the results of the tender were still ongoing as of December 2008. Tenders were completed in 2008 for:1. National Management Consultant (1 Firm)2. Regional Management Consultants (6 Firms)3. Training Consultant (1 Firm)

Initially three other firms were also proposed to tender for the three Pilot Programs (1 Firm), Publishing and Printing (1 Firm) and an upgrade of the Program’s management information system (1 Firm, short-term 7 months). However, these functions have not yet been tendered.

It has now been decided to add additional specialists within the new NMC structure to strengthen the MIS unit and handle the three pilot programs (P2SPP, SADI and Generasi). There are still plans to tender the printing and publishing duties to an outside firm. There are also two additional studies yet to be tendered to evaluate the Nias Housing, Rehabilitation and Re-construction Program in North Sumatra.

Irrigation weir built by villagers in Kecamatan Kilo, Kabupaten Dompu, West Nusa Tenggara..

0088

NATIONAL SECRETARIATTel : (021) 7919 1684Fax : (021) 7919 6118E-mail : [email protected]

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTTel : (021) 798 8918Fax : (021) 797 4712E-mail : [email protected]

COMPLAINTSE-mail : [email protected] : (021) 7041 7594Website : www.pnpm-perdesaan.org

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

ANNUAL REPORT 2008 -...

Documents

Transcript of ANNUAL REPORT 2008 -...