PEOPLE-CENTERED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN PAPUA … PCDP.pdfKabupaten District Kampung Village...

PEOPLE-CENTERED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN PAPUA AND WEST PAPUA

2011 – 2012

Phase 2

January 2011

iii

GLOSSARY

AUSAID Australian Assistance for International Development BAPPEDA/BP3D Regional Development Planning and Monitoring Body BAPPENAS National Development Planning Agency BAWASDA Regional Inspectorate Office BPMK&K2 Office of Rural Community Empowerment and Family Welfare BPKD Regional (Provincial) Audit Office BPKP National Audit Office BPS Statistical Bureau/Badan Pusat Statistik CBO Community-Base Organization CI Conservation International CPRU Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit CSO Civil Society Organizations CTA Chief Technical Adviser DINAS Technical Agency Distrik Sub-district (used specifically in Papua region) ESP Environment Support Programme HACT Harmonized Advance and Cash Transfer IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ILO International Labour Organization INPRES Presidential Instruction/InstruksiPresiden IP Implementing Partner Kabupaten District Kampung Village (specific to the Papua region, in other provinces known as ‘Desa’) KDP Kecamatan Development Programme MRP Papua People’s Assembly/Majelis Rakyat Papua NAB National Advisory Board NGO Non-Government Organization NPC National Programme Coordinator NPD National Programme Director NZAID New Zealand Assistance for International Development PADNA Papua Accelerated Development Need Assessment PC Programme Coordinator PCDP People-centred Development Programme PEACH Public Expenditures Assessment PM Programme/Programme Manager PPD Provincial Programme Director PMAB Provincial Multi-donor Advisory Board PNPM Community Empowerment National Programme RESPEK Village Strategic Planning RNE Royal Netherlands Embassy SKPD Regional Task Force UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNV United Nations Volunteer USAID United States Assistance for International Development WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization WWF World Wildlife Fund

iv

Table of Contents

I. SITUATION ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PAPUA - GENERAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PAPUA PROVINCE................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 WEST PAPUA PROVINCE .......................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES IN PAPUA AND WEST PAPUA ..................................................... 3

1.4.1 Framework for Accelerated Development in Papua and West Papua (P4B) ................................. 3

1.4.2 Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat – Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Kampung

PNPM-RESPEK ............................................................................................................................................ 4

1.5 PAPUA NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND THE MDGS – NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES ................................................... 4

1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 1 (2006 TO MID-2010) AND KEY LESSONS

LEARNED ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

II. STRATEGY, APPROACH AND GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS ........................................................................ 7

2.1 PROGRAMME STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 The UNDP Framework of Assistance for Indonesia (UNPDF)......................................................... 7

2.1.2 The 2011-2014 Framework for Accelerated Development of Papua and West Papua ................. 7

2.1.3 Adjustments to the Programme Design for Phase 2 ..................................................................... 8

2.1.4 Gender Mainstreaming Strategy and HIV/AIDS responses ......................................................... 12

2.2 PROGRAMME APPROACH ...................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.1 Human Development Approach and MDG focus ......................................................................... 12

2.2.2 MARKET CHAIN APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Geographical Focus ..................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Target Areas ................................................................................................................................ 13

III. PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 PROGRAMME OUTCOMES ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 PROGRAMME OUTPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.2.1 Output 1: MDGs-based plans and budgets formulated with the active participation of

development partners ............................................................................................................................. 14

3.2.2 Output 2: Local Government and civil society have basic systems and procedures for the

delivery of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and

education, particularly in rural and remote areas ................................................................................... 15

3.2.3 Output 3: Local Government and civil society have basic systems and processes for developing a

framework for sustainable livelihood development in the Papua region ............................................... 16

3.2.4 Output 4: GOI agencies (national and sub-national) have systems and procedures for

administering coordinated development policies and programmes for accelerated development in the

Papua Region ........................................................................................................................................... 17

IV. RESULT AND RESOURCES FRAMEWORK (RRF) ............................................................................ 19

V. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 29

5.2 Project Board ............................................................................................................................... 29

v

5.3 Role of UNDP ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.4 Fostering partnership with key development partners ............................................................... 33

5.5 Financial Management ................................................................................................................ 40

5.6 Project Resources and Donor Contribution.................................................................................. 40

5.7 AUDITING ........................................................................................................................................ 41

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 42

VII. LEGAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................ 51

VIII. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 52

1

I. SITUATION ANALYSIS

1.1 PAPUA - General Overview Papua is a unique region of Indonesia. It is Indonesia's largest but most sparsely populated region with 3.6 million (2010 Census) inhabitants, consisting of more than 250 tribes and ethnic groups. Papua is rich in natural resources and its GDP has been growing faster than the national GDP for a number of years. However, investment and high economic growth in Papua have not translated into tangible improvements in the lives of people. Around 40 percent of the population lives below the national poverty line as compared to 16percent for the whole of Indonesia. Poverty and income disparities appear to be deeper than elsewhere in the country and primarily affect indigenous Papuans who make up around 66percent of the total population of the region. Development indicators also reveal that general health is poor, particularly among indigenous people. Existing social and economic dynamics are very sensitive to crisis and conflict of any kind, including the current financial crisis. In 2001, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) granted a special autonomy (OTSUS) status through Law No. 21/2001 to the Province of Papua in an attempt to accelerate development and to resolve a number of crucial issues, such as: (i) political conflict stemming from the Papuan demand for independence, (ii) social conflict between Papuans as a result of poor progress in resolving the wider political conflict in the area and (iii) poor economic conditions, particularly as they affect native Papuans and women in comparison with other regions in Indonesia. However progress on the implementation of the OTSUS law has been slow, among others as a result of: (i) continuous delays in promulgating certain aspects of OTSUS, including regulations/by-laws; (ii)unresolved differences with national laws including discrepancies in interpretation and thus implementation(iii) unclear criteria and targeting for the special autonomy funds and the lack of transparency in distribution (due in part to the continuing proliferation of villages); (iv) limited civil society involvement in the constructive review of the special autonomy status; and (v) lack of coordination between national, provincial and district levels and among government agencies resulting in stagnant development especially in the public service sectors of health, education and infrastructure. In addition, the official recognition of the West Papua province in 2006 has had political implications with regards to the distribution of special autonomy resources for development. In view of these problems surrounding OTSUS implementation the Government of Indonesia issued Presidential Instruction (INPRES) Number 5 Year 2007 on the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua. This regulation instructed 11 Government Ministers, the Governors of Papua and West Papua and all regents and mayors throughout both provinces to take coordinated action to accelerate the development of Papua through the so-called “New Deal Policy for Papua”. The INPRES gives responsibility to the two Governors to lead the implementation of policy coordination. The policy gave priority to:

Food security and poverty alleviation.

Improvement of education services.

Improvement of health services.

Improvement of basic infrastructure to improve the accessibility of remote areas.

Affirmative action to develop the human resources of native Papuans (INPRES Number 5 Year 2007 art.2).

2

However, there is only limited indication that such national policies have been implemented effectively and that any real benefit has reached the majority of people who live in the region. The minimal progress was attributed, among others, to: (i) the lack of management and coordination of the implementation of the INPRES; (ii) the lack of funds (APBN) – particularly in relation to an “on-top” budget allocation and limited fund optimization (KL budgets) as well as the lack of a local budget (APBD) support; (iii) existing institutional and regulatory issues; (iv) the inadequate role played by the provinces, regencies and municipalities in development acceleration; and (v) the lack of new initiatives for development acceleration in Papua and West Papua. INPRES 5/2007 will be continued through the Framework for Accelerated Development in Papua and West Papua for the period 2011 – 2014 (Percepatan Pembangunan Papua dan Papua Barat - P4B), which will be lead by a unit under the Office of the Vice-President of the Republic of Indonesia, the UP4B. UP3 and UP3B secretariats will be established in Papua and West Papua to ensure better coordination with the UP4B. Responsibilities of the UP4B, the UP3 and the UP3B include monitoring and controlling the implementation of the Accelerated Development Master Plan and Action Plan in Papua and West Papua for the period 2011 – 2014. 1.2 Papua Province The Papua Province currently consists of 28 Districts and 1 Municipality with a population of 2,851,999 (1,510,285 males) and (1,341,714 females), according to the 2010 Census. Papua, the easternmost region of Indonesia, is rich in natural resources such as forests, mountains, minerals, rivers, lakes, and swamps. Partly because of this abundance of natural resources, but also due to decentralization policies and the special fiscal provisions associated with autonomy, the annual growth rate of Papua Province has been far above the national average for a number of years and in fiscal terms it is the second richest province in Indonesia – second only to West Papua. Mining, oil and gas (69 percent altogether) dominates the economy in Papua, followed by agriculture (11 percent) government administration (5 percent), transport (4 percent), communications (4 percent), construction (4 percent), trade (4 percent) and others (3 percent). Unfortunately, Papua’s large revenue base and impressive GDP growth have been diametrically matched by underperformance in fighting poverty and improving human development outcomes. In 2009, Papua Province had the lowest HDI index in Indonesia at 64 compared to the national average of 71.5. Similarly, whereas national policies to fight poverty have succeeded in lowering the percentage of people living below the poverty line to the current percentage of 16.58 (BPS 2007), Papua Province still records the highest level of poverty, with 40.78percent of Papuans living below the national average (BPS 2007). Economic activity is concentrated in a few urban centres, whereas most human settlements interact relatively little with each other due to the extreme topographic features of the region, with scattered settlements frequently connected only by air or sea transport - or by foot. Coupled with this weak and fragmented infrastructure, gender disparities are severe and widespread, HIV is spreading rapidly, and corruption is endemic throughout all levels of society. It is not surprising therefore that Papua lags behind other provinces in achieving the MDG indicators and is unlikely to achieve many of them, especially those related to poverty and health, at the current rate of progress. 1.3 West Papua Province Based on Law No. 35/2008, the province of West Papua currently holds special autonomy status and consists of 10 Districts and 2 Municipalities with a population of 760,855 (402,587 males) and (358,268 females) (2010 Census). Formerly known as West Irian Jaya, the province was formed based on Law Number 45 Year 1999 issued by President Habibie on “the Formation of Central Irian Jaya Province, West

3

Irian Jaya Province, Paniai District, Mimika District, Puncak Jaya District and Sorong City”. However, this Law was overruled by the Supreme Court and only by mid 2006, after the province elected its first Governor, was it officially recognized as a separate administrative area from Papua. Through Government Regulation Number 24 Year 2007, the name was officially changed to West Papua in April 2007. With its capital in Manokwari, West Papua also has huge natural resource potential including agriculture, mining, forestry, fishery, and eco-tourism. As with Papua Province, West Papua Province has in the last three years, experienced positive growth on both levels of GDP and per capita income growth. As mentioned above, it is actually the fiscally richest province in Indonesia (World Bank 2008) and as anew province the local government continues to improve its bureaucracy, build government offices and appoint officials to fill the vacant posts, working to ensure an efficient operation of the administration. The Governor has also contacted donor agencies to support the coordination and implementation of the development agenda of the province and has invited investors to help boost economic growth and development, including introducing standard operating procedures for all development programmes funded by foreign loans and grants, which he hopes will bring more cohesion and uniformity to the province’s development agenda. Nevertheless, the same development paradox applies to West Papua as it does to Papua. The government has had to deal with a number of challenges, which have accompanied its rapid journey towards autonomy, such as increased migration, crime rate and a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Although the Human Development Index of 67,41 (BPS 2008) has been steadily increasing since the province obtained its special autonomy status, it is still among the lowest nationally, and the percentage of people living in poverty (39.31 percent - according to BPS 2007) is second only to Papua Province. 1.4 Development Policies and Programmes in Papua and West Papua 1.4.1 Framework for Accelerated Development in Papua and West Papua (P4B) Based on an assessment of the implementation of INPRES 5/2007, the Government decided to reinvigorate the Master Plan and Action Plan for accelerating development in Papua and West Papua through a new framework for the period 2011-2014 and through a special unit (UP4B) tasked with coordinating, facilitating and monitoring the implementation of accelerated development in Papua and West Papua. Percepatan Pembangunan Papua dan Papua Barat - P4B or the Papua and West Papua Accelerated Development takes the five new deals of INPRES 5/2007 and uses an area-based approach in terms of regional accessibility, supporting the formulation of policy-based action plans for food security, poverty reduction, people centred economics, education development, health services, basic infrastructure, affirmative action for indigenous Papuans as well as regional development for strategic areas. The new framework aims to focus on a better functional relationship between the national, provincial and district governments, improve the capacities of government institutions, respond to development needs by taking into account spatial planning regulations and further concentrate on developing the economic competitiveness of strategic regional clusters (Kerangka Ekonomi Kewilayahan - KEK). In addition, the new framework intends to optimize the funds channelling of APBN, special autonomy, province and district APBD, private sector contribution and possibly introduce a new special funding allocation. Structurally, the UP4B reports directly to the President through the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia. The Steering committee of the UP4B will consist of three coordinating ministries, 18 ministries and the Head of the UKP4. Secretariats of the UP4B, the UP3 and the UP3B will be established in Papua and West Papua, which will coordinate with the offices of the Governor and

4

the Regents. The UP4B, will be legalized through a Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden - PERPRES) which is currently being formulated. 1.4.2 Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat – Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Kampung

PNPM-RESPEK Beginning in 2007, the RESPEK programme funded through OTSUS funds, has been providing approximately USD 40 million through block grants of 100 million Rupiah a year to all villages in Papua and West Papua for development efforts in: (i) nutrition; (ii) basic education; (iii) primary health care; (iv) village infrastructure and (v) livelihoods. Community development facilitators stationed at the sub-district level provide support to village implementation teams who facilitate community meetings and manage the grant funds. In 2008, RESPEK was merged with the PNPM, the National Community Empowerment Programme of the Government funded from a World Bank loan, with PNPM providing technical assistance and formal training to community development facilitators and village implementation teams. Currently PNPM-RESPEK assistance is provided through PNPM-RESPEK, PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian (PNPM-RESPEK-Agriculture), the Papua Women’s Empowerment Project (conducted with GSTF-OXFAM), the Capacity Building Assistance Project to Cendrawasih University and UNIPA as well as through the forthcoming PNPM-RESPEK-Hijau (PNPM-RESPEK-Green). The Capacity Building Assistance Project to Cendrawasih University and UNIPA provide the “barefoot engineers” for the village infrastructure assistance provided through PNPM-RESPEK. With a focus on on-farm livelihoods, PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian just started about 7 months ago and is implemented in the districts of Sarmi and Yapen Waropen in Papua and in the districts of Fakfak and Manokwari in West Papua. In 2011, the project will expand to the districts of Puncak Jaya and Yakuhimo in Papua and Kaimana and Raja Ampat in West Papua. As in the case of the “barefoot engineers”, “barefoot “agronomists” are fielded after completing three months of full-time training in production facilitation. Focusing on 12 agricultural commodities, PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian covers the whole production cycle. In addition to the PNPM-RESPEK block grants, PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian will also provide block grants to the amount of 300 – 600 million Rupiah per sub-district per year for livelihood activities. Critical issues related to the implementation of PNPM-RESPEK include among others, (i) the late disbursement of the RESPEK block grants is a vis PNPM disbursement and implementation of activities, (ii) the continuing proliferation of villages wherein new villages are established every week and the resulting confusion this is creating in the sub-national databases; (iii) a perceived need of the province of West Papua to state a different identity and ownership to the initial PNPM-RESPEK programme resulting in non-adherence to the established guidelines and the non-allocation of West Papua OTSUS funds to the RESPEK programme; (iv) the availability of other sub-national block grants from the district level to the village level which are not coordinated with the PNPM-RESPEK grants, and last but not least, (v) the need to improve coordination between provincial, district and village planning and budgeting institutions and processes. 1.5 Papua Needs Assessment and the MDGs – Needs and Opportunities In response to a direct request from the Governor of Papua Province, the World Bank and the United Nations conducted a joint mission (PADNA)in 2009 to assess how best to support accelerated development in the Papua Province, focusing on the effective use of existing resources while considering how to secure access to and utilize additional resources. The assessment focused on 13 thematic areas of human development, fiscal management and governance. Three overarching recommendations were proposed:

5

1. The report confirmed the view of the Governor, and many others, that the central challenge in Papua was how to develop capabilities to lead better lives, in a context where capacities at every level and in every sphere of life are viewed by many as inadequate. A comprehensive capacity building approach, however, will only be successful if conducted with a comprehensive understanding of existing systems, structures, behaviours and perspectives. Therefore, all initiatives to accelerate development in Papua will require extensive effort to not only understand local and indigenous communities, but also to involve them fully in planning, decision-making, implementation and monitoring processes.

2. It is important for governments to collaborate with Faith-Based Organisations (FBOs), local NGOs and other local institutions, particularly in terms of facilitating development in rural and isolated areas, and empower local communities to participate in decision making processes.

3. There is a need to improve coordination and communication mechanisms at all levels and across all sectors. This will require effort on the part of government agencies, development agencies and other organizations to ensure that policies, directives and activities are complimentary rather than conflicting and to ensure that initiatives reflect the demands of the constituents whom they are designed to benefit.

These recommendations emphasize the findings of the Papua Needs Assessment (PADNA), conducted by the World Bank, UN, and Government of Papua Province during 2004-2005, which focused on the priority areas defined by the provincial government of Papua (at the time, West Papua provincial administration was not yet formed), namely health, education, community livelihoods (people’s economy) and basic infrastructure. A review of the local situation as related to these basic human development areas reveals that the MDG targets that may be met nationally by 2015 are likely to be missed in Papua overall, especially in certain sub-districts and remote areas. Furthermore, as both the 2004 and 2009 assessments suggest, the central obstacle impeding the development of Papua is weak governance. This is felt at all levels and includes issues such as: (a) weak local government capacity for policy-making, planning and delivering basic services outside the main cities or towns, (b) weak local government accountability, (c) capable but severely constrained civil society organizations, and (d) lack of locally-responsive programme designs. A critical requirement for the successful implementation of the next phase is therefore the strengthening of local government and civil society capacity to formulate and implement appropriate, locally-relevant development programmes that can tangibly contribute to the economic improvement of the lives of Papua people in the targeted districts of Papua and West-Papua. A comprehensive approach to strengthening institutional capacities at the local government level, civil society and communities is required, which will entail developing the capacities of individuals who work in these institutions, as well as facilitating a re-orientation of the ways that the institutions function in terms of enhanced coordination capacity, increased ownership and greater participation in development processes. History has shown that any intervention aimed at capacity development takes time to achieve significant improvement and a long-term commitment is required to make substantive changes and reduce poverty. It will also need collaborative and well-coordinated efforts with other stakeholders including development partners and the private sector working in Papua. Such collaboration requires a process of trust building, capacity assessments and integrated interaction as a means of improving governance. 1.6 Overview of the Programme Design and Implementation Phase 1 (2006 to mid-2010) and Key

Lessons Learned Strengthening government and civil society capacities to achieve the MDGs is the overarching goal of the People-centred Development Programme (PCDP). In responding to the needs identified in the first Papua assessment, the first phase of the programme was designed to deliver four components which were implemented across 12 -districts (8 in Papua, 4 in West Papua): 1. Strengthening policy development and operational planning:

6

Primarily supporting village, district and provincial level government authorities in planning and implementing effective development programmes, including the provision of technical assistance for budget and financial management;

2. Building effective local service delivery:

Focusing on improving access of local communities to knowledge and information for development results with the establishment of Community Resource Centres (CRC); creating local models of service delivery in health, education and livelihood through the provision of block grants to local CSOs as facilitators for community programmes; and the deployment of local facilitators and UNVs to support the work of CSOs and communities as well as improve local planning processes;

3. Supporting the monitoring and evaluation of development programmes,

Improving data management systems (data collection, quality, analysis and information flows) to assess, monitor and measure the achievement of MDG targets and development progress, challenges and effort.

4. Facilitating the harmonization of donor support:

Supporting the provincial and local governments to collate and use information on donor activities in their areas of mandate, and ensuring better coordination between donors, civil society and government in addressing development issues in the region.

Through these interventions a number of initiatives have been recognized as important contributions to the development agenda of Papua region, such as the review of the employment policy, institutional capacity assessment of the planning and audit institutions, the development of guidelines and manuals for RESPEK implementation, the provision of grants to CSOs for local development activities, development of manuals for village-based data collection, the 2007 Preliminary MDG Publication in Papua and West Papua, and the periodic publication of donor harmonization booklets as well as support to the government in donor coordination and government programmes and policies for the Papua region. The programme aimed primarily at building the capacity of various stakeholders in Papua. However, during the implementation of Phase 1, PCDP, for reasons of competing demands and limited resources, gradually deviated from its capacity development goal. There was no formalized capacity development strategy in place to guide implementation and ensure that capacity building was at the centre of all activities. This would have been critical for obtaining more sustainable and measurable impact on the ground. This will be rectified during Phase 2. Capacity building will become the backbone of all activities reflected in more tangible results and significant changes in the systems review of local governments and in the lives of communities as the primary beneficiaries of the programme. In other words, capacity building will be the main vehicle for facilitating change in people’s lives and not as an end in itself. The second key lesson learned is that the focus should shift towards improved coordination between the provincial level, district, sub-district and village levels, as well as vertically among the project components. During Phase 1, for example, PCDP provided substantial advisory support to all levels but failed to further consolidate these measures through strengthening the coordination among them. A siloed effect also resulted from the lack of communication between the components. An integrated coordination approach will be emphasized in Phase 2.

7

II. STRATEGY, APPROACH AND GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS 2.1 Programme Strategy

2.1.1 The UNDP Framework of Assistance for Indonesia (UNPDF) Within the overall framework of the UNPDF, assistance to the Papua region will support the achievement of the Country Programme Outcome 1.1: “By 2015, improved capacity of Government of Indonesia to implement poverty reduction policies and programmes based on lessons and good practices from Indonesia’s regions”, and Output 1.1.2: “National policies to address vulnerabilities, particularly among women and indigenous persons, are developed based on lessons and good practices at the sub-national level and South-South experiences”. Regional development initiatives of UNDP Country Programme will, thus, target the capacity of local governments (from province to village level) to pursue institutional strengthening, improve systems and procedures and build inter-governmental consensus on the regional development agenda. Efforts to strengthen capacities of non-government actors (CSOs including women’s groups, universities, the private sector and communities) to participate in development planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring will also continue. UNDP will assist in promoting and applying local models of MDG-related service delivery that address local needs and communicate these lessons learned to other regions. In accordance with its role as development broker, UNDP will also provide strategic advice and technical assistance to the government in its efforts to coordinate development players in the target regions. 2.1.2 The 2011-2014 Framework for Accelerated Development of Papua and West Papua Within the framework of the Accelerated Development Plan for the Papua Region, PCDP will provide capacity building technical assistance for strengthening the preparation and implementation of the Accelerated Development Action Plan at both the provincial and district level through coordination, coaching and mentoring during the preparation and implementation of the medium term development plans, the annual work plans and the annual budgets at the provincial and district level. PCDP will ensure that key capacities are reflected in efforts at the CSO and community level so as to ensure the minimization of gaps in awareness, understanding and perspectives.

8

2.1.3 Adjustments to the Programme Design for Phase 2 As in Phase 1, the PCDP will focus on capacity development and institutional strengthening, however, in Phase 2, sustainability, impact and accountability will be strengthened as the basic principles guiding the preparation and implementation of capacity building and institutional strengthening efforts and strategies. The identification of appropriate incentives for local governments, civil society and communities to assume ownership, engage in capacity development and institutional strengthening efforts as well as utilize and modify existing institutional arrangements for accelerated development in the Papua Region will be prioritized for Phase 2. In relation to this, understanding and capitalizing on the comparative advantage of existing institutions and organizations will be another factor that will guide the programme strategy for Phase 2.Further, capacity development and institutional strengthening strategies will feat reinter-links between the different programme outputs. Enhanced consultation, coordination and communication mechanisms will be in place in Phase 2 to ensure synergy between government, non-government and UNDP programmes. The programme’s overarching and operational strategies require simultaneously investment in infrastructure, transportation and energy as well as systems and processes for government and communities to fully harness development opportunities. PCDP addresses the latter by supporting capacity development and institutional strengthening for government and non-governmental actors working at the community (village and sub-district) level and supporting the development of specific capacities within government at all levels. Investment in infrastructure, transportation and energy are key responsibilities of the Government which it needs to initiate. With enhanced institutional capacities and revised incentive structures at all levels, it is expected that a greater number of development programmes will be

National Level Sub-National Level

9

implemented by local governments, or in parallel with local NGOs/CSOs, with increased allocation of resources from local government funds. 2.1.3.1 Capacity Development and Institutional Strengthening Strategy Capacity development can be defined as “the process by which individuals, institutions and societies develop abilities, individually and collectively, to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve their goals” (http://www.capacity.undp.org). Based on an identification of what key capacities already exist and what additional capacities are needed to reach objectives, capacity development and institutional strengthening responses will be formulated and delivered that consist of different initiatives for each of the programme outputs. A key element of the capacity building and institutional strengthening strategy in Phase 2 will be to prepare stakeholders towards impact and sustainability through an exit strategy for the Project and post-Project period. Reflecting on the lessons learned from past implementation of capacity development activities, the programme will enhance the capacity development and institutional strengthening inter-linkages between components as well as develop consistent and coherent approaches for national, provincial, district and sub-district levels. Every effort will be made to engage local governments in the process of formulating capacity development strategies and plans with a view to internalizing these concepts. The capacity development processes will begin with an institutional capacity assessment, followed by the development of appropriate response strategies, implementation in respective institutions with monitoring, evaluation and follow-up, geared towards sustainability, impact and accountability.

Output 1 and 4 2 and 3

Capacity Building Support

Target Beneficiary

National

Gov

Provincial & district BAPPEDA

Provincial BPS

Women’s Empowerment

Bureau

Relevant Sectoral Depart/ DINAS

BPMK-KK

Local CSOs

Communities

Papua & West Papua

Institutional strengthening:

Regulatory framework V V V V

Systems and Procedures

V V V V V

Coordination V V V V V V V V

Data management V V V V V V

Funds channelling V V V

HR:

Technical skills identification

V V V V V V

Accountability V V V V V V V

M & E V V V V V V

Tools:

Livelihoods V V V

Pro-poor planning and budgeting

V V V

Gender mainstreaming

V V V V V V V

In addition, strategies for ensuring the sustainability of results will be based on incentives to assume ownership based on an assessment of institutional comparative advantage. The programme will implement customized capacity development efforts and optimize the use of existing systems and structures, particularly at the sub-national government level where policies and programmes affecting the poor are implemented. Reviewing and changing the incentive structure will be a key approach for Phase 2 during the formulation of the exit strategy. Local government financial commitment to the development of think tanks to support policy formulation, the development of transparent, accountable and self-sustaining

10

mechanisms to support successful savings and credit schemes, and the development of instruments to improve commercial lending by local banks to the micro and small enterprises sectors are some of the policy inputs that will be proposed to ensure programme sustainability and which will require the commitment of all stakeholders to regularly review and seek alternative solutions. Each output-related capacity development and institutional strengthening initiative will be discussed and reviewed by local government stakeholders for their endorsement prior to implementation. Specifically, an attempt will be made to assess the three underlying capacity levels, including an enabling environment (review of relevant policies, legislative framework and procedures), organizational level (internal policies, arrangements, procedures and framework) and individual level (experience, knowledge and technical skills) of key institutions at various levels. As such, PCDP’s approach will focus beyond individual skills and training to address broader questions of institutional change, leadership, empowerment and public participation with a view to ensure sustainability of efforts and initiatives beyond the programme life. 2.1.3.2 Implementation of locally-specific socio-economic development initiatives A key element of phase 2 will be the integration of activities geared at improving the livelihoods and income of poor Papuans. The programme will include measures aimed at developing small/micro entrepreneurs and providing them with access to the financial resources and business support services necessary to initiate and sustain small/micro businesses. Additionally, the programme will, in parallel, address the enabling environment for small/micro business development. Specifically this will entail supporting improvements in government policy and regulations, advocating for increased government budgetary allocations, as well as building partnerships with the commercial lending sector and other suppliers of business support services to ensure improved and sustainable access by the poor to these services and financial resources. 2.1.3.3 Consultation, Coordination and Communication Coordination with UP4B (through the UP3 and UP3B), PNPM-RESPEK and other donor agency programmes and projects, including UN sister agencies will be strengthened. Capitalizing on the comparative advantage of existing institutions and organizations more coordinated and integrated efforts between development actors in the region will be obtained. This includes government institutions, development partners, NGOs, CSOs and private sectors. At the national level, the programme implementation unit will be in close coordination with the UP4B. Similarly, at the provincial level, the provincial programme management units will be in close coordination with the UP3, UP3B and the PNPM-RESPEK coordinators to ensure programme synergy and minimize duplication. At the district level, TA advisors will coordinate between the four output components to ensure the integration of key lessons learned and recommendations into planning and budgeting efforts. Thus vertically and horizontally, the programme should support more holistic implementation of accelerated development in Papua and West Papua.

11

Consultation, Coordination and Communication

12

2.1.4 Gender Mainstreaming Strategy and HIV/AIDS responses Gender inequality has been a prominent feature of gender assessments in the Papua region. Intense dialogue will be conducted to enable gender awareness and equality within the cultural framework of indigenous Papuans. A clear focus of such discussions will be on maternal and infant mortality as well as HIV/AIDS. Maternal and infant mortality as well as HIV/AIDS feature as MDG targets that need special attention and additional support in Papua. Phase 2 support will focus on:

a) Supporting provincial and district governments to translate maternal and child mortality and HIV/AIDs MDG goals and targets into medium term and annual planning targets and budgetary projections and allocations;

b) Facilitating the functioning of an inter-sectoral gender focal point team in the province in collaboration with the Bureau of Women’s Empowerment and BAPPEDA to implement MDG based planning and budgeting efforts; and

c) Ensuring the use of the MDG and HD reports for the integration of gender indicators in planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation frameworks;

d) Increasing women’s participation in the village development planning process e) Supporting the effectiveness of RESPEK fund utilization, especially the 15% specific allocation for

women In addition, PCDP has taken advantage of another UNDP supported programme – the National Gender Mainstreaming programme led by Ministry of Women’s Empowerment to include Papua region as one of the pilot areas for mainstreaming gender in development policies and programmes. 2.2 Programme Approach Guided by the programme strategy for phase 2, the programme approach for Phase 2 will continue to emphasize Human Development and MDG focus. However, in order to better implement these approaches, a market chain approach will be added. 2.2.1 Human Development Approach and MDG focus The People-Centred Development Programme provides support related to core skills in planning, implementation and monitoring, build capacities amongst local governments, parliament and civil society organizations to work more effectively and achieve tangible results in the focus areas related to the MDGs and human development. Developing a Human Development Strategy and crystallizing these efforts into medium term planning and budgeting activities will be the focus of Phase 2. The People-centred Development Programme follows the Human Development Approach to development. Human Development is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accordance with their needs and interests. The most basic capabilities for Human Development are to lead long and healthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living and to be able to participate in the life of the community. Human Development is about putting people at the centre of development. In the Human Development approach, people are both the ends as well as the means to development. The Millennium Development Goals are closely linked to the concept and objective of Human Development. The MDGs underscore Human Development importance and reaffirm commitments to human rights, democracy and good governance. The MDGs reaffirm values, including equality, mutual respect and shared responsibility. The Millennium Development Goals, targets and indicators lay out a roadmap for achieving many important Human Development objectives.

13

2.2.2 Market Chain Approach As was highlighted above, the development challenges of the region are enormous. It is one of the most under-developed regions in Indonesia with many development indicators fairing far below the national average. From the total indigenous population of Papua (around 1.46 million or 65.4 percent of the total population of 3.31 million), almost half lives in the remote, difficult-to-access highlands of Papua, with the highest rates of poverty, malnutrition, maternal and child mortality rates and the lowest school enrolment and literacy rates. The second national Food Security and Vulnerability ATLAS showed that 16 out of 17 rural districts of Papua ranked among the top 100 priority districts in the country. More than 90 percent of all villages, particularly in the remote areas, have no road access and more than half of all total households have no access to clean water.

In this second phase, PCDP will focus on more tangible impact for poor communities in the remote areas through a stronger emphasis on rural economic development. Development in the Papua and West Papua province are constrained by high transaction and transportation costs, weak infrastructure, unskilled labour, dispersed population, unstable energy and water supply and low investment levels. Markets do exist but the poor have limited access to them. In this respect, the identification of constraints to market related issues such as access to information, institutions, linkages and trade rules is essential. While governments are primarily responsible for providing or designing the architecture for the delivery of public goods such as basic infrastructure provision, limited attention and perspective has been provided to linking the poor to markets. Markets matter for the poor and it has become increasingly clear that in tackling poverty, market-related issues, including access to information, institutions, linkages and trade rules, are vital considerations. The market chain approach provides a framework for the analysis of market chains and the identification and design of interventions to enhance their performance, as well as solutions for ensuring the inclusion of the poor and limit their marginalization. Market chain analysis can provide insight towards how to synergize existing economic activities as well as establishing industries and markets to boost rural development, particularly those that have either already evolved or can potentially be developed. 2.3 Geographical Focus 2.3.1 Target Areas The programme has targeted four main geographical areas for support in the Papua region, namely the highland/mountains, hinterland/mid-ranges, the coastal/islands and lowland/swamps. Within each of these four areas, eight districts in Papua and four in West Papua were selected following criteria agreed on by the Programme Advisory Board, which includes among others, a low human development index. The selected districts represent diverse needs and challenges in improving human development in the Papua region. This coverage provides an opportunity for stakeholders from other districts in similar cultural/geographic areas to learn and ensure that policy and programming implications and lessons learned will adequately reflect the diverse dynamics of Papua. Further review of development issues in the region revealed the pressing need to bridge the significant gap between the policy framework and implementation at lower administration levels. The continuing proliferation of villages will require a firm stance on the part of the local government to decide on the number of target villages that will receive PCDP support as well as a review of government criteria for village formation.

14

III. PROGRAMME

3.1 Programme Outcomes

The PCDP Outcomes are: (a) improved human development and improved achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in the Papua region and (b) local governments and local stakeholders are more effective in accelerating the achievement of social development priorities and MDG targets in the Papua region. 3.2 Programme Outputs Four outputs are expected to be attained during Phase 2 of the PCDP. They are:

(i) MDG-based plans and budgets formulated with the active participation of development partners;

(ii) Local government and civil society have basic systems and processes for the delivery of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and education, particularly in rural and remote areas;

(iii) Local government and civil society have basic systems and processes for developing a framework for sustainable livelihood development in the Papua region; and

(iv) Local government planning and budgeting agencies have basic systems and procedures for administering coordinated development policies and programmes for accelerated development in the Papua Region.

The principle areas of support within each of the outputs are elaborated below. Specific output targets and indicative activities for each of these components are detailed in the Results and Resources Framework. 3.2.1 Output 1: MDGs-based plans and budgets formulated with the active participation of

development partners The primary focus of this output will be on enhancing local government capacity in formulating pro-poor and MDG-oriented development planning and budgeting, ensuring the active participation of various development actors including communities, civil society, development partners and the private sector in all stages of development planning processes. This will be conducted through coaching and mentoring to strengthen the capacity of government officials to conduct pro-poor and MDG oriented planning and budgeting including strengthening the MUSRENBANG processes, the development of data base forums, the institutionalization of methodologies and capacities to prepare Human Development and MDG reports, the implementation of MDG localization and capacity development for the formulation of OTSUS laws and regulations particularly those related to poverty reduction and MDG orientation. Capacities to strengthen the gender dimension will be integrated into all of these efforts and internalized within current government structures and systems. Most critical will be the review and establishment of SOPs, roles, responsibilities and TORs for specific government functions in relation to the above. In order to measure the above efforts the project will track the extent to which the Human Development and MDG reports are used in guiding pro-poor and MDG oriented policy formulation and the extent to which pro-poor and MDG database systems and POVERTY MAPS are used and accessible for policy formulation. As a result there should be an increase in the number of pro-poor and MDG oriented policies and programmes developed and implemented and a subsequent increase in provincial budget allocations for poverty reduction and MDG achievement. In light of the potential impact of development on Papuan society, the project will also initiate public dialogue on the sustainability of Papuan culture/heritage within the context of global and national social and economic change.

15

Key results expected at the end of the project : (i) provincial and district governments are utilising important human development indicators to develop policies and programmes and allocate budgets (ii) more resources are allocated at provincial and local levels for social development and poverty alleviation programmes. 3.2.2 Output 2: Local Government and civil society have basic systems and procedures for the delivery

of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and education, particularly in rural and remote areas

Both the Papua Needs Assessment (PNA) and PADNA identified major gaps in the availability of basic health, education and livelihood-related services for local people, particularly for those who live in rural and remote areas. Government personnel at the provincial level reiterated the importance of improving capacities ‘on the ground’ to ensure that services are delivered and real progress is made in terms of access to and quality of basic services. In particular recommendations were made for more strategic engagement of civil society organizations including faith-based organizations and community-based organizations (CBOs) to effectively address development issues on the ground and thus ensure that local authorities have the capacity to lead development programmes in their respective areas. Vertical and horizontal coordination among government institutions at different administrative levels, among government service delivery agencies, with development partners and their programmes as well as with non-government organizations, focusing on the delivery of basic services, will be strengthened. PCDP will work with PNPM-RESPEK to particularly provide the added coordination needed to synergize with the health and education DINAS and SKPD and effectively utilize OTSUS and APBD funds. PCDP’s existing and ongoing contract will be continued with CSOs/CBOs and NGOs/INGOs partners. However, during Phase 2 a more strategic role of CSOs/CBOs/NGOs/INGOs will be forged based on an analysis of institutional comparative advantage. Working more closely with PNPM-RESPEK, the CSOs/CBOs will only be eligible for PCDP grants if they can propose activities that synergize with the PNPM-RESPEK village grants as well as with district DINAS or SKPD activities. Coordination with other donors and government agencies working in the health and education sector is required so as to reduce duplicative efforts and enhance synergies. Further, while in the past the CSOs/CBOs/NGOs/INGOs provided a large variety of services, in Phase 2 the focus will be on basic health and education services only. Target beneficiary baselines will be mandatory as well as community satisfaction monitoring, feedback and reporting of CSO/CBO services delivered. In Phase 2, a sustainability assessment of Community Resources Centres (CRCs) will be carried out aimed at the identification of more appropriate modalities for the effective management and utilization of CRCs. Under the umbrella of the PCDP, the University Volunteer Scheme for Youth Empowerment and Development of Papua project will continue to support community development in Papua and West Papua through fostering, in partnership with two local universities, provincial volunteer infrastructure as a localized and sustainable approach to capacity development and provision of basic services to the targeted communities. Further information on this initiative can be found in the UVS project document. Key results expected at the end of the project: (i) a larger population of Papuans residing in the target districts and provinces have access to good quality basic health and education services; (ii) local government plans and budgets prioritise improving access to basic social services.

16

3.2.3 Output 3: Local Government and civil society have basic systems and processes for developing a framework for sustainable livelihood development in the Papua region

Markets matter for the poor and it is increasingly clear that in tackling poverty, market-related issues, including access to information, institutions, linkages and trade rules, are vital considerations. Therefore this component will support communities in generating sustainable livelihoods and increasing their incomes by providing access to the financial resources and business support services necessary to develop and sustain small and micro businesses. The programme will also seek to facilitate changes to key policies, plans and institutional arrangements which impact on small and micro business development. The market chain approach provides a framework for the analysis of market chains and the identification and design of interventions to enhance their performance, as well as solutions for ensuring the inclusion of the poor and limit their marginalization. Market chain analysis can provide insights towards how to synergize existing economic activities as well as establishing industries and markets to boost rural development, particularly those that have either already evolved or can potentially be developed. PCDP will provide technical support for capacity building on market chain analysis, provide training grants to CSOs/CBOs and community target beneficiary groups and business development grants to community target beneficiary groups. In close coordination with PNPM-RESPEK, particularly PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian, Output 3 will be conducted in the same eight districts of PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian, focusing on off-farm activities, specifically livelihood business development activities. Focusing on on-farm activities, PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian will field community development facilitators as well as the barefoot agronomists at the sub-district level to support village implementation teams, including the livelihood groups at the village level. Block grants for livelihoods will be provided per sub-district to support the production and processing of 12 commodities. PCDP will capitalize on these efforts by providing market chain analysis support and training and by providing business development support (off-farm support) to target beneficiary groups who have already received PNPM-RESPEK-Pertanian support. This will include identifying options for sustainable financing to these small businesses. A series of assessments will kick-off the implementation of Output 3, such as the conduct of market chain analysis, which includes the identification of sales markets and market segments, the identification of market channels and trends within the market chain, the identification of primary actors in the market chain, their roles and interrelationships, the development of a market map that is inclusive of the enabling environment and service provision and the identification of constraints and opportunities. This will be followed by an identification and assessment of solutions, which includes the identification of market based solutions and the development of explicit selection criteria and the identification of potential private-public partnerships. Last but not least the identification and design of interventions will be conducted, which can include the facilitation of sustainable market-based solutions and relationships among actors and exploring possibilities of working with multiple providers of market-based solutions. In addition, PCDP will provide joint quality assurance and supply continuity supervision for identified and developing commodities. PCDP will work with key UN Agencies and integrate their expertise, methodologies and resources as well as with other stakeholders such as local governments, particularly DINAS and Government SKPDs, local banks, aid agencies, CSO/CBOs/NGOs, community-based organizations including religious groups and traditional institutions such as adat groups—to develop livelihood business development skills, promote business entrepreneurship, develop micro-enterprises, provide savings and credit schemes and extend technical/business advisory and support. The sustainability of these efforts will be institutionalized through the establishment of Business Development Centres (BDCs) at the provincial and district level. The project will also seek to support the development of regulatory frameworks, spatial plans and investment strategies to support economic development of the province.

17

Key results expected at the end of the project: (i) increase in the level of commercial or market-based lending to the small and micro-enterprise sectors; (ii) growth in the numbers of small and micro enterprises; (iii) changes to provincial and district policies, regulations, plans and strategies to better promote economic development, local investment, and employment generation. 3.2.4 Output 4: GOI agencies (national and sub-national) have systems and procedures for

administering coordinated development policies and programmes for accelerated development in the Papua Region

In the last three years of implementation, the programme has taken initiatives to support government in establishing mechanisms for coordinating development partners’ assistance in the Papua region. The programme has facilitated the formation of a multi-donor advisory board in each province to harmonize and provide strategic direction and to consolidate and synchronize support in the Papua region. The programme has also been able to support the local governments of both Papua and West Papua in developing updated databases of development partners’ support provided to the Papua region and to facilitate regular inter-donor coordination meetings. However, more effort is needed to strengthen the capacity of the local governments in synchronizing development partners’ support for the achievement of local development priorities and to create synergies between programmes. More importantly there is a need to coordinate local initiatives with the national agenda, particularly as related to inter-ministries collaboration under the framework of the P4B. PCDP will support the planning agencies at national, province, and district levels in coordinating all relevant sectors so that policies, programs and projects can accelerate development in the Papua region. Building on past experiences and in response to the identified needs mentioned above, Output 4 will continue, among others, to focus on the following areas: 1) National Level:

(i) Support BAPPENAS to improve coordination within the framework of the P4B for the

accelerated development of Papua and West Papua; (ii) Support BAPPENAS to link with the BAPPEDA at the provincial and district level to ensure the

effective implementation of development plans and processes.

2) Provincial Level: (i) Support BAPPEDAs to improve coordination within the framework of the P3 and P3B for the

accelerated development of Papua and West Papua; (ii) Support to BAPPEDAs to ensure their capacity to lead donor coordination efforts within the

programme areas but also more widely to strengthen the development and implementation of the provincial development plans. Capacity building provided to BAPPEDAs will include a review of systems, processes and human resources to ensure efficient and effective donor coordination at all levels;

(iii) Facilitate the provincial and district government partners in their efforts to develop a coordination mechanism through the strengthening of the consultation and coordination forums between province and district governments.

3) District Level: (i) Strengthen the capacity of District BAPPEDAs to conduct results based planning and budgeting,

coordinate the development and implementation of strategic plans, harmonize efforts and ensure the effective involvement of development partners and donors, monitor, assess and provide alternative solutions to development gaps.

18

In summary, PCDP’s main role with respect to donor coordination and harmonization is to support government’s efforts in undertaking its function as the coordinating body of all donor coordination and harmonization activities through the provision of strategic advice and technical assistance as required by the government at both national and provincial level. Meanwhile, to strengthen the coordination among agencies at all levels in the government system itself, PCDP will continue to provide assistance and facilitation for more consolidated linkage among sectors at the national, provincial, and district levels. Key results expected at the end of the project: (i) well-functioning donor/partner coordination mechanism in place; (ii) improved coordination between national, provincial and district governments; general application of common/harmonised and results based planning and budgeting tools and systems that support poverty reduction and MDG achievement.

19

IV. RESULT AND RESOURCES FRAMEWORK (RRF)

Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Programme Results and Resource Framework: Outcome 1.1: National and sub-national authorities and stakeholders are more effective in reducing poverty and vulnerability, particularly in UNPDF provinces and districts

Outcome indicators as stated in the Country Programme Results and Resources Framework, including baseline and targets: Indicators: 1) Percent of national and sub-national budget allocated for poverty/vulnerability policies and programmes particularly in UNPDF provinces and districts 2) Level of delivery against budget

law (not budget revision or amendment) in national and UNPDF provinces and districts 3) Rate of poverty-vulnerability in UNPDF provinces and districts, by sex and indigenous people

Targets:) Real increase (inflation adjusted) in actual budget allocation figures for national1 and 25% increase in actual budget allocation figures for sub-national governments 2) Significantly increased

delivery against budget law (not budget revision or amendment) in national and UNPDF provinces and districts 3) Lowered rate of poverty-vulnerability in UNPDF provinces and districts, by sex

disaggregation and by indigenous people

Baselines:1) 25% of national and sub-national budget allocated for poverty/vulnerability policies and programmes particularly in UNPDF provinces and districts 2) 25 % delivery against budget law

(not budget revision or amendment) in national and UNPDF provinces and districts 3) Rate of poverty-vulnerability in UNPDF provinces and districts, by sex disaggregation and indigenous people

Applicable Key Result Area (from 2008-11 Strategic Plan): (i) Systems for inter-governmental, and government-civil society knowledge sharing are in place (ii) National policies to address vulnerabilities, particularly among women and indigenous persons, are developed based on lessons and good practices at the sub-national level, and south-south

experiences (iii) Application of policies and good practices for HD and MDG-based planning, budgeting and monitoring facilitated in three vulnerable regions

Partnership Strategy: The programme is a partnership between the Government of Indonesia and UNDP. It forms a framework for joint actions and technical support to the local government

and civil society stakeholders in Papua region to better coordinate and implement strategic planning processes for improved service delivery. Programme title and ID (ATLAS Award ID):

EXPECTED OUTPUTS OUTPUT TARGETS FOR (YEARS) INDICATIVE KEY ACTIVITIES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES INPUTS

Output 1: MDGs-based plans and budgets formulated with the active participation of development partners

Total budget: USD 943,891

Indicators: (i) Extent to which Papua Development

Report, Papua Human Development Report and the Papua MDG Report are

2011 (i) Papua Development Report is

finalized and used as a basis for the 2011-2015 medium-term development plan for Papua

2011 Poverty Mapping

- Conduct Training of Trainers (TOT) on poverty mapping for all Regional Planning

Provincial/District BAPPEDAs (Papua & West Papua province), UN Agencies, INGOs BPS, District Agencies,

Technical advisors Consultants Equipment Materials

20

used for guiding pro-poor and MDG oriented policy formulation

(ii) Extent to which pro-poor and MDG database systems and POVERTY MAPS are working, accessible and used for policy formulation

(iii) Percentage of districts that use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iv) Percentage increase in provincial and district budget allocations for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

Baseline: (i) The Papua Development and MDG

Report have been drafted but not yet finalized

(ii) Lack of available and disaggregated pro-poor and MDG database to guide policy formulation

(iii) Less than 30 percent of districts use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iv) Less than 30percent of provincial and district budgets are allocated for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

(ii) POVERTY MAPS are used to draft policy analysis

(iii) 10 percent increase in districts that use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iv) 15percent increase in provincial and district budgets for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

Officers (RPO), selected local government planning officers and key personnel of CSOs

Development Report

- Develop a Data Forum in two provinces HD and MDG Report

- Carry out MDG localization efforts in selected villages/sub-districts

- Revision of the Papua Development Report

- Provide support for the preparation (including public consultations) of the HDR and MDG Reports in two provinces

Policy Review

- Finalize and submit academic paper and draft PERDASI (Provincial Regulation) on Participatory Village Development Planning

- Conduct policy discussions on the local issues related to poverty reduction with local governments and non-state actors

- Provide technical support for the preparation and discussion of pro-poor and MDG-oriented RKPD, RPJMD and APBD in two provinces

- Prepare and discuss a provincial gender mainstreaming strategy and action plan for supporting pro-poor and MDG-oriented policy formulation

- Provide technical support for the preparation and discussion of pro-poor and MDG oriented RKPD and APBD in two provinces

- Establish Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups for supporting the achievement of gender related MDG targets

Capacity assessment and formulation of related

DINAS, PCDP Consultant, heads of pilot villages/sub-district, MRP, DPRP, Women Empowerment Bureau

Travel

21

response strategies for BAPPEDA district

- Conduct workshops on capacity assessment methodology and strategy

- Develop a response strategy and initiate its implementation in collaboration with local government and other capacity development institutions

2012 (i) Papua MDG and HD Report for

two provinces are finalized and used for discussion related to policy analysis

(v) POVERTY MAPS are used for policy analysis

(ii) 25percent increase in districts that use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iii) 30percent increase in provincial and district budgets for poverty reduction, MDG achievement, and gender equality.

2012 HD and MDG Report

- Provide technical support for the preparation (including public consultations) of the HDR and MDG Reports in two provinces

Policy Review

- Monitor the implementation of the provincial gender mainstreaming strategy and action plan for supporting pro-poor and MDG-oriented policy formulation

- Provide technical support for the preparation and discussion of pro-poor and MDG oriented RKPD and APBD in two provinces

Gender Mainstreaming

- Conduct a review of the Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups

Provincial/District BAPPEDAs (Papua & West Papua province), UN Agencies, INGOs BPS, District Agencies, DINAS, PCDP Consultant, heads of pilot villages/sub-district, MRP, DPRP, Women Empowerment Bureau

Technical advisors Consultants Equipment Materials Travel

22

EXPECTED OUTPUTS OUTPUT TARGETS FOR (YEARS) INDICATIVE ACTIVITIES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES INPUTS

Output 2: Local Government and civil society have basic systems and procedures for the delivery of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and education, particularly in rural and remote areas

Total budget: USD 3,466,852

Indicator: (i) Availability and implementation of

basic system and procedures. for the delivery of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and education, particularly in rural and remote areas

(ii) Percentage of selected CSOs/CBOs that are using an integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism for reporting on satisfaction towards programme implementation

(iii) Percentage of CSO/CBO/NGO staff and volunteers trained in project planning and costing through a TOT program

(iv) Percentage of residents in selected communities with access to basic services through the combined funding of PNPM-RESPEK and PCDP grants

(v) % of local community basic services initiatives with funding from APBD for op/maintenance

2011 (i) Draft of basic system and

procedures developed (ii) 30 percent of selected

CSOs/CBOs are using the integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

(iii) 45% of CSO/CBO/NGO staff trained

(iv) 50% of residents of selected communities receiving basic services

(v) 20% of local community basic services receive funding for op/m from APBD

2011 Technical guidelines for coordinating sustainable and integrated basic services

- Initiate the development of technical guidelines and mechanisms for coordinating the planning, implementation and maintenance of basic services

- Initiate the development of a community service satisfaction reporting and feedback mechanism

- Initiate the development of an integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

- 2 workshops to review PCDP technical notes in two districts

- Finalize the development of technical guidelines and mechanisms for grants channelling that requires participatory service delivery assessment committees

- Assess which other APBN/APBD programmes could use project guidelines, approaches and methodologies

BPMK-KK/BPM, District BAPPEDA, PNPM/RESPEK Facilitators, DINAS, NGOs/CSOs/CBOs/Faith-based organizations (FBO)


23

Baseline: (i) Existing system and procedures (ii) 0% (iii) 0% (iv) 0% (v) 0%

Mechanism of community service satisfaction reporting and beneficiary tracking

- Finalize the development of a community service satisfaction reporting and feedback mechanism

- Finalize the development of an integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

CSO/CBO grants programme

- Review and finalise 2011 contracts and agreements for CSOs to provide services to communities in the areas of health and education.

- Initiate new grants to CSOs/CBOs.

2012 (i) Basic systems and procedures

finalized and implemented (ii) 100 percent of selected

CSOs/CBOs are using the integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

(iii) 100% of CSO/CBO/NGO staff trained

(vi) 60% of residents of selected communities receiving basic services

(i) 80% of local community basic services receive funding for op/m from APBD

2012 Technical guidelines for grant channelling

- Monitor the development of technical guidelines and mechanisms for grants channelling that requires participatory service delivery assessment committees

- Provide TA for the development of guidelines, approaches and methodologies for APBN/APBD programmes

Mechanism of community service satisfaction reporting and beneficiary tracking

- Monitor the implementation of the community service satisfaction reporting and feedback mechanism

- Monitor the implementation of the integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

BPMK-KK/BPM, District BAPPEDA, PNPM/RESPEK Facilitators, DINAS, NGOs/CSOs/CBOs/Faith-based organizations (FBO)


24


Output 3 Local Government and civil society have basic systems and processes for developing a framework for sustainable livelihood development in the Papua region


Indicators: (i) Percentage increase in income of

target beneficiary households (ii) Number and percentage of new

businesses initiated and sustained beyond 12 months

(iii) Level of growth in commercial lending to SME sector in target districts

(iv) Number of Business Development Centres at provincial and district level with clear methodologies, curriculum and training programs, schedule for outreach, legal basis and funding.

(v) Level of progress made in developing required regulatory frameworks, spatial and investment plans to support accelerated development in Papua and West Papua

Baseline:

2011 (i) Baseline of target beneficiary

household income developed (ii) X number of new businesses

initiated with 70% or high 12 month sustainability (TBD)

(iii) Commercial lending to SME sector in target districts is tracked

(iv) 2 Business Development Centres at the provincial level are developed and established

(v) Core advisors recruited, work commenced on regulatory assessments and the preparation of draft spatial and investment plans.

2011 - Conduct study on household incomes in the

targeted districts/sub-districts/villages;

- Conduct participatory assessment on the area-based prime commodities that have market or economic value;

- Selection of participating local CSOs/CBOs based on agreed criteria

- Conduct participatory needs assessment on potential type of businesses and supply chain analysis by umbrella institutions

- Conduct business/entrepreneurial skills needs assessment of target beneficiaries

- Conduct integrated capacity development activities for target beneficiaries/CSOs/CBOs by umbrella institutions, focus on the following aspects:

Training on: o Technical know-how for

production and quality improvement on potential area based prime commodity

MFIs Provincial/district BAPPEDA, DINAS, BPM/BPMK-KK CBOs/NGOs and Bank


CSOs/CBOs grants programme

- Assess the engagement of CSOs/CBOs in the implementation of gender sensitive community development grant programmes

25


(i) Existing income (ii) Existing business (iii) Existing growth in commercial

lending (iv) Non-existence of Business

Development Centres (v) Limited progress on legal

formulation, spatial planning and land planning

o Micro-enterprises development:- business plan and simple book-keeping;

o Marketing and post-production processing;

Conduct Joint Quality Assurance involving umbrella institutions, related government institutions

Provide Supply Continuity supervision

- Review commercial bank lending practices to the small/micro enterprise sector and constraints to lending

- Channel Grants directly through CSOs/beneficiaries for business development

- Discussion and consultation with related

sectoral departments and other relevant

stakeholders for the promotion of local

economic models

- Recruitment of advisors/experts to work on

investment strategies, spatial plans, etc

- Initiate review of options for

developing/strengthening business support

centres.

2012 (i) 5-10 % increase in income of

target beneficiary households (ii) X number of new businesses

initiated with 80% or high sustainability (TBD)

(iii) 15% growth in commercial lending to SME sector in target districts

(iv) Business Development Centres in

2012

- Umbrella institutions link prime commodity products to market chain

- Umbrella institutions provides intensive accompaniment and coaching to ensure supply continuity

- Intensive accompaniment and coaching to umbrella institutions on micro-finance

Private Sector MFIs Provincial/district BAPPEDA, DINAS, BPM/BPMK-KK CBOs/NGOs and Bank


26


each target district are developed and established with clear legal framework and funding (TBD)

(v) Work on regulatory assessments and spatial and investment plans completed.

- Documenting success stories and best practices of local community initiatives

- Dissemination of success stories and best practices of local community initiatives

- Work on introducing measures to expand commercial/market-based lending to SME sector.

- Provide critical capacity development support to business support centres

- Finalise work on spatial plans, land use plans, investment promotion strategies, etc.

OUTPUT 4 GOI agencies (national and sub-national) have systems and procedures for administering coordinated development policies and programmes for Accelerated Development in the Papua Region.


Indicator: (i) Percentage and total amount of

resources mobilized (received) by the GOI (national and sub-national) from sources/organizations other than the PCDP that are coordinated for supporting accelerated development in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated Development Units (national and sub-national levels) have the systems, procedures and capacity to provide regular reporting and information dissemination to donors, beneficiaries and other organizations

2011 (i) 20% increase in resources

mobilized that are coordinated to support accelerated development in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated Development Units at the provincial level have the systems and procedures and capacity to report and disseminate key information on a regular basis

(iii) 20% increase in partnerships established for accelerated development efforts

2011 Coordination at Provincial BAPPEDA level

- Conduct coordination meetings for development partners including UN Agencies and INGO, both in Papua and West Papua hosted by BAPPEDA, for: (1) mapping and producing a database of donor activities and Private Sector involvement in the Papua region; (2) accelerated development in Papua and West Papua

- Conduct coordination meetings with the sectoral departments (DINAS and SKPD)

Coordination at BAPPENAS level

BAPPENAS, Provincial BAPPEDA, donors and other development partners, Programme Advisory Board UN Agencies, private sector UNDP/PMU for recruitment, procurement, management, supervision, monitoring and reporting


27


involved on policies, programmes and finances

(iii) Percentage increase and number as well as type of organizations that have established formal and/or legal partnerships with the GOI (national and sub-national) for Accelerated Development efforts.

Baseline: (i) Limited amounts of resources are

coordinated for supporting accelerated development efforts in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated development units have not been set up

(iii) Limited number of partnerships established to support accelerated development efforts in the Papua region

- Conduct consultations and discussions of the draft SOP, technical guidelines, TORs, work-plan, resources plan, procurement plan, financial management reports

- Conduct regular technical meetings with the provincial BAPPEDA

- Provide coordination support for the Papua Desk Secretariat at the national level

- Provide support for policy harmonization (P4B and UP4B)

Knowledge Products Documentation and Dissemination

- Document and publish programme lessons learned and best practices

- Provide regular exhibitions and symposiums to socialize and promote the replication of best practices

2012 (i) 40% increase in resources

mobilized that are coordinated to support accelerated development in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated Development Units at the district level have the systems, procedures and capacity to report and disseminate key information on a regular basis


2012 Coordination at Provincial BAPPEDA level

- Conduct coordination meetings for development partners including UN Agencies and INGO, both in Papua and West Papua hosted by BAPPEDA, for: (1) mapping and producing a database of donor activities and Private Sector involvement in the Papua region; (2) accelerated development in Papua and West Papua

- Conduct coordination meetings with the sectoral departments (DINAS and SKPD)

Coordination at BAPPENAS level

- Monitor the implementation of the draft SOP, technical guidelines, TORs, work-plan,

BAPPENAS, Provincial BAPPEDA, donors and other development partners, Programme Advisory Board UN Agencies, private sector UNDP/PMU for recruitment, procurement, management, supervision, monitoring and reporting


28


resources plan, procurement plan, financial management reports

- Conduct regular technical meetings with the provincial BAPPEDA

- Provide coordination support for the Papua Desk Secretariat at the national level.

- Provide support for policy harmonization (P4B and UP4B)

Knowledge Products Documentation and Dissemination

- Document and publish programme lessons learned and best practices

- Provide regular exhibitions and symposiums to socialize and promote the replication of best practices

GMS 7percent $666,648

TOTAL for 2010 – 2012 $9,063,170

29

V. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 5.1 Programme/Project Management The People-Centred Development Programme (PCDP) (hereto known as the Project) is implemented utilizing a national implementation modality in which the government counterpart is responsible for the management of the project implementation. Following a technical meeting of 6 July 2010 in Jakarta, it was decided that BAPPENAS will serve as the Implementing Partner (IP) and provincial level partners, including planning agencies (BAPPEDA), BPM/BPMKK will work as Responsible Parties (RP). A project implementation unit (PMU) will be set up in BAPPENAS and a project manager will head the PMU. The project manager will be supported by a finance officer, a monitoring and reporting officer, a project secretary and short term technical advisors. The project manager reports to the National Project Director (NPD) and liaises closely with the designated programme manager within the Poverty Reduction Unit at the UNDP country office. Two provincial project management units (PPMU) will also be set up, one in Papua and the other in West Papua, supported by two provincial project coordinators which will head the PPMUs. The provincial project coordinators report to the project manager and coordinate with a designated officer in the BAPPEDA. Each sub-national project office will be supported by an administration and finance officer, a monitoring and reporting officer, a project secretary and technical advisors. Based on needs, the technical advisors will work either at the provincial level or at the district level. Situated at the district BAPPEDA offices, technical advisors will coordinate and provide technical assistance to achieve project output delivery. The technical advisors will be supported by a re-profiled UNVs and finance admin assistants. The new and leaner project structure will be geared towards improved coordination with PNPM-RESPEK, UP3B and UP3 as well as with other development partners. 5.2 Project Board As in Phase 1, a Project Board will preside over the project and provide overall guidance to project implementation. The Project Board is the group responsible for making, by consensus, management decisions. The Project Board consists of the following: (a) An Executive which represents project ownership and chairs the group. The role will be performed by

BAPPENAS that has the decisive power if opinions of senior suppliers and senior beneficiaries are unable to reach a compromise.

(b) A Senior Supplier provides guidance with regards to the technical feasibility of the project. This role is held by UNDP Indonesia.

(c) A Senior Beneficiary ensures that the project benefits intended project beneficiaries. This role is conducted by the BAPPEDA and other responsible partners.

In addition and independently from the Project Board’s roles, two other roles will be important for smooth programme implementation. These are: The Project Assurance role which will be exercised by UNDP. This role entails conducting objective and

independent project oversight and monitoring to help ensure that the project meets its objectives.

30

During the initiation of the project, this role will ensure that appropriate project management milestones are established and completed. The project assurance role will involve: o Monitoring the project’s progress towards intended outputs; o Monitoring to ensure that resources entrusted to UNDP are utilized appropriately; o Ensuring national ownership, ongoing stakeholder engagement and sustainability; o Ensuring that the project’s outputs contribute to intended country programme outcomes; o Participating in the project management board; o When UNDP is identified as a responsible party, performing duties as associated with this role

including, when requested and agreed to, providing implementation support services; o Reporting on progress to donors and to UNDP through corporate reporting mechanisms.

The Project Support role will be performed by the project implementation units at the field levels. The National Project Director of the PCDP (Directorate of Special Regions and Disadvantage Areas - BAPPENAS) functions as the coordinator of both provinces of Papua and West Papua. Board members will regularly meet to discuss the project implementation, including the development, monitoring and review of annual work plan implementation. The National Advisory Board The National Advisory Board consists of various directorates in BAPPENAS, relevant line ministries and International Development agencies. The NAB provides advice and guidance to the Project Board, particularly in relation to national regulations and policies. The Project Board will report project implementation progress to the National Advisory Board on a regular basis.

31

MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME

33

5.4 Fostering partnership with key development partners The project will continue to work with and benefit key agencies and actors that are working in the areas related to the MDGs. Within the local government, these agencies are the planning agencies, the health SKPD, the education SKPD and the agencies related to livelihood development (agriculture, fisheries, livestock and commercial crops). These agencies are responsible for planning and implementing MDG related policies. In addition, strengthened partnership will also be forged with the BAWASDA and the DPRD. Within civil society, the religious organizations/faith-based organizations, media, selected NGOs and diverse community groups will continue to be engaged as partners in delivering services as well as in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of service delivery. UNDP will facilitate the coordination, harmonization and mobilization of additional support to build partnership between the government and civil society organizations. A mapping of development partner assistance has been prepared by BAPPEDA and substantial effort will be invested to ensure synergy of interventions with relevant partners and institutions. At implementation and operational levels, PCDP is planning a longer-term programme period which will be divided into several phases. The diagram below demonstrates the sequences and milestones of the long-term programme period as perceived and planned by PCDP:

34

Diagram of Programme and Cost-sharing Phasing

PRODOC PHASE I PRODOC PHASE II

2006-2008 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2012 2013 2014 2015

Initiation phase – cost sharing with RNE (US$8,000,000) and NZAID (US$2,040,000)Total expenditure for the period: US$6,554,992

Enhancement Plan (Adjustment of AWP 2009 + new initiatives: PADU, University Volunteer Programme + Scoping mission inputs)

Transfer of PCDP to the Directory for Special Area & Disadvantaged Regions, BAPPENAS

Budget estimate: US$ 5.2 million; Fund available: US$4.2 million. Total expenditure: US$4,096,825

Implementation of recommendations of the Enhancement Plan

AWP 2010 accommodates inputs of mid-term review, scoping mission and PADNA

Bridging to Phase II (Continued initiatives of amended PRODOC phase I and Review/Evaluation of the overall PCDP phase I achievement)

Bridging fund for the next phase of cost-sharing agreement with RNE: US$ 365,000 (till March 2010)

Initiation of the 2nd Phase of PCDP

Implementation of the 2nd phase with stronger focus on economic empowerment of communities, strengthened coordination at all levels and enhanced knowledge building, knowledge sharing between and within communities and between various levels of government

Submission of the proposal to RNE and NZ for a renewed Cost Sharing Agreement for the period of 2010-2012 for the initiation of the Phase 2 (programmed at US$ 10 million in 3 years).

PRODOC Amendment/Phase 2 PRODOC REVISION for Phase II

Strengthening the sustainable implementation of the PCDP programme within the context of Accelerated Development in Papua

35

Activities of existing donors/development partners in Papua can be seen in the matrix below developed by the local provincial Government of Papua.

M a t r i x o f I m p l e m e n t i n g A g e n c i e s – D o n o r A g e n c i e s i n P a p u a P r o v i n c e

No

Regency/ Municipality

RESPEK

Food and Nutrition Intake

Health Education Local Economy Development


Basic Infra-structure

Village level capacity development

1 Kab Biak Numfor GRM, Burnet –AUSAID NLR UNICEF-Government of

Netherlands FHI-USAID

UNICEF, UNESCO - NZAID

UNICEF

World Bank – AUSAID – Provincial Government

2 KabYapenWaropen

UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

NLR UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

UNDP-Government of Netherlands, NZAID



UNDP-Government of Netherlands,

NZAID

World Bank – AUSAID –

Provincial Government


NZAID

3 KabSupiori UNICEF-Government of Netherlands


4 KabWaropen World Bank – AUSAID – Provincial Government

5 KabNabire GRM, Burnet - AUSAID NLR FHI-USAID

Oxfam

Oxfam

World Bank – AUSAID – Provincial

Government AUSAID-PCI

Oxfam

6 KabPaniai NLR

FHI-USAID

Oxfam

Oxfam

World Bank –

AUSAID – Provincial Government

7 KabJayapura GRM, Burnet - AUSAID NLR

UNICEF-Government of Netherlands

UNICEF-USAID UNICEF-AUSAID FHI-USAID

KNCV-USAID AUSAID-HCPI, Clinton


UNICEF World Bank, IDA, IBRD

and Government of Netherlands

ILO EAST – Government

of Netherlands

ILO PIPE – Government of

Japan ICMC - Government

of US

ILO PIPE – Government of

Japan ICMC -

Government of US

UNICEF


Government

36

No


RESPEK






Foundation UNFPA

Handicap International

8 KabKeerom GRM, Burnet - AUSAID NLR


FHI-USAID

ILO EAST – Government of Netherlands

Oxfam ICMC - Government

of US

Oxfam ICMC -

Government of US


Government

9 KabSarmi UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID


Netherlands, NZAID






NZAID



UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

10 KabJayawijaya ACIAR-AUSAID

UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

GRM, Burnet - AUSAID NLR


UNICEF-AUSAID

FHI-USAID WHO, Provincial Government,

FHI UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

AUSAID-HCPI, Clinton Foundation

UNFPA



PBI – Government of

Canada and Britain ILO EAST – Government

of Netherlands


UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

PBI –

Government of Canada and

Britain

UNICEF UNDP-

Government of Netherlands, NZAID

AUSAID World Bank –


UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

Oxfam

ACIAR-AUSAID

11 KabYahukimo UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID


Netherlands, NZAID


World Bank, IDA, IBRD and Government of

Netherlands




NZAID




NZAID

12 Kab Peg. Bintang GRM, Burnet - AUSAID FHI-USAID WHO, Provincial Government,

FHI

SOfEI – Government of Netherlands


13 KabTolikara World Bank – AUSAID – Provincial Government

14 KabPuncak Jaya GRM, Burnet - AUSAID UNICEF World Bank –

37

No


RESPEK






MDM – EU, Cordaid FHI-USAID AUSAID-HCPI, Clinton

Foundation


15 KabMimika UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

GRM, Burnet - AUSAID NLR


FHI-USAID


AUSAID-HCPI, Clinton Foundation

PBI – Government of Canada and Britain




Canada and Britain

UNDP-

Government of Netherlands,

NZAID

UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID



UNDP-

Government of Netherlands,

NZAID

16 KabMerauke NLR


USAID-FHI

World Bank, IDA, IBRD


ILO EAST – Government

of Netherlands

World Bank –


17 KabAsmat NLR FHI-USAID


18 KabBovenDigoel UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

NLR WHO, FHI, Provincial

Government UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID






NZAID



UNDP-Government of

Netherlands, NZAID

19 KabMappi NLR FHI-USAID


Government

20 Kota Jayapura NLR UNICEF-Government of

Netherlands


FHI AUSAID-HCPI, Clinton

Foundation Handicap International

EDC, RTI - USAID AUSAID PBI – Government of

Canada and Britain AUSAID, World Bank,

UNICEF World Bank, IDA, IBRD


ILO PIPE-Government of Japan

Oxfam

ILO PIPE-Government of Japan

Oxfam PBI –

Government of Canada and

Britain

UNICEF

AUSAID World Bank –

AUSAID –


AUSAID, World Bank, UNICEF

21 Provincial level GRM, Burnet - AUSAID

MDM – EU, Cordaid UNICEF-Government of

UNICEF, UNESCO -

NZAID UNICEF

ILO PIPE – Government

of Japan


Canada and Britain

UNICEF

AUSAID-LPPM

UGM

World Bank –

AUSAID – Provincial

38

No


RESPEK






Netherlands UNICEF-USAID UNICEF-AUSAID


FHI AUSAID

AUSAID, World Bank, UNICEF


Canada and Britain ILO EAST – Government

of Netherlands

Government AUSAID,

World Bank,

UNICEF

22 National level UNICEF-Government of Netherlands

AUSAID-HCPI, Clinton

Foundation Handicap International

UNICEF, UNESCO – NZAID

World Bank, IDA, IBRD and Government of Netherlands

Matrix of Implementing Agencies – Donor Agencies in Papua Province (cont.) No


Natural Resources Management

Vocational Training/Human Resources Development

Local Government Reform Natural Disaster Management

Other

Bureaucracy

Reform

Budget Reform

1 Kab Biak Numfor SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Partnership-SIDA

2 KabYapenWaropen SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

3 KabSupiori SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID

4 KabWaropen SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

5 KabNabire SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Oxfam

AUSAID-PCI Oxfam

AUSAID-PCI Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

6 KabPaniai SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

7 KabJayapura

ILO PIPE – Government of Japan ILO EAST – Government of

Netherlands

UNICEF

SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID UNICEF Partnership – SIDA

8 KabKeerom ILO EAST – Government of Netherlands SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID

9 KabSarmi ILO EAST – Government of Netherlands SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

10 KabJayawijaya ILO EAST – Government of Netherlands SOfEI PEACH - AUSAID

Oxfam

Oxfam

Partnership – SIDA

11 KabYahukimo SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

12 Kab Peg. Bintang SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

13 KabTolikara SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

14 KabPuncak Jaya SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

15 KabMimika UNICEF SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID UNICEF

16 KabMerauke SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID Partnership - SIDA

17 KabAsmat SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID

18 KabBovenDigoel ILO EAST – Government of Netherlands SOfEI-PEACH

39

19 KabMappi SOfEI PEACH – AUSAID

20 Kota Jayapura

ILO PIPE– Government of Japan

Oxfam

SOfEI PEACH - AUSAID

Hassall & Associates - AUSAID

Provincial Level USAID ILO EAST – Government of Netherlands UNICEF

SOfEI PEACH - AUSAID

TAF – AUSAID UNICEF

World Bank – BNNP Hassall & Associates – AUSAID

Multi-donor AUSAID

40

5.5 Financial Management The Project National Implementing Partner will assume primary responsibility for the use of the funds, in consultation with UNDP. It will make decisions over the use and allocation of resources; whereby UNDP will act as the manager of project finances, making advance payments to the implementing partner and where agreed, direct payments to third parties (contracts). Upon receipt of contributions from the donors, the Implementing Partner will develop a detailed project work plan and budget, allocating the funds in line with the project priorities and, if appropriate, any specific requirements of the contributing donor. The multi-stakeholder Project Advisory Board will approve the proposed budget and the annual work plan. Counterpart contributions from the national, provincial and district governments, such as funds for grant implementation, will also be reviewed and incorporated in budget reviews as appropriate. Funds channelling mechanisms will follow the PCDP SOP and related technical notes developed by BAPPENAS. As is the case with all nationally implemented projects, the National Implementing Partner may request UNDP to implement specific components of the project or provide specific services. If requested, these services will be provided against an implementation fee which will be charged in line with the standard agreement between UNDP and the Government. Services negotiated directly with UNDP will be processed through UNDP procurement procedures and payments will be made directly by UNDP to contractors based on benchmarks and deliverables specified in terms of reference of the contracts. Prior to the issuance of progress payments, UNDP will review and evaluate narrative and financial reporting, including financial and non-financial supporting documents. A multi-stakeholder team assesses proposals from NGOs, CBOs, and other local partner institutions and advises them on how to improve their proposals and work plans to meet project standards and target criteria. 5.6 Project Resources and Donor Contribution Donor agencies being important constituents of the development partnership have effectively engaged with the project since its inception. The Dutch Government has provided financial support to the project since its implementation. The cost-sharing agreement between UNDP and the Dutch Government expired at the end of June 2009, to which a no-cost extension was granted till the end of 2009. The second amendment to this agreement affirmed Netherlands’ commitment to allocate additional resources for the next three years. In addition, the Government of New Zealand has also provided cost-sharing funds since June 2007 and has pledged to continue its commitment pending project document approval. UNDP has allocated its own resources as well. For the year 2006 - 2009, total contribution from UNDP and UNV (for the University Scheme) amounted to approximately USD 972,284. For the year 2010, UNDP and UNV have allocated resources of approximately USD 484,001. Total resources mobilized during the first phase reached more than USD 12.8 million. As part of the new cost-sharing agreement between UNDP and Netherlands signed in August 2010, an amount of USD 1,756,685 has been made available for PCDP implementation during the period 2010 - 2012. The funds will be used to cover the bridging phase (PIP/Project Initiation Plan) and second phase of PCDP. UNDP’s contribution to phase 2 will amount to USD 400,000 for the 2 year period. The development challenges of the region are enormous and it is expected that other donors will join the project especially in view of the fact that the project has started to yield worthwhile outputs and

41

deliverables. In this respect, effective resource mobilization and harmonization of donor activities is considered as an important part to the project (Component 4) and therefore special provision will be made to enhance this support. Matrix of project resources

Phase I Phase II

Period 2006 - 2010 PIP for transition period February 2011– December 2012

Committed expense for FY 2006 - 2010:

12,860,558.06

Committed expense to cover period Oct - January 2011

699,130.00

Estimated expense:

9,063,170.00

Source of funds Estimated source of funds

Estimated source of funds :

1. Netherlands : 8,722,828.51 1. Netherlands: 699,130.00 1. Netherland 4,740,870.00 Including : 2011: 2,370,435.00 - bridging funds to cover period Jan-Mar 2010 : 365,000,00

2012: 2,370,435.00

- bridging funds to cover period Aug-Sept 2010 : 360,000.00

(from last tranche in Aug 2010)

2. New Zealand 3,800,000.00 2. New Zealand: 2,681,444.07 2011: 1,900,000.00 Including : 2012: 1,900,000.00 - bridging funds in Dec 2009 :

608,328.00

. 3. UNDP : 1,368,804.79 3. UNDP : 400,000.00 2011: 200,000.00 2012: 200,000.00 4. UNV: 87,480.70 4. UNV 122,300.00

Total estimated of

funds: 699,130.00 Total estimated of

funds: 9,063,170.00

Total estimated funds for phase I: Grand Total estimated funds for phase II 12,860,558.06 9,762,300

5.7 Auditing Nationally implemented projects are subject to annual audit by the government’s audit agency. Operations of the UNDP Country Office, along with all projects implemented within the framework of the UNDP Country Programme, are audited on a regular basis by the Office of Audit and Performance Review internally and by the UN Board of Auditors externally. Based on a special request by NZA, a specific project audit will be conducted for Phase 2 implementation of the PCDP.

42

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK The monitoring and evaluation system will have the following interlinked components:

a) Activities and Progress M&E will focus on the quality of implementation, financial probity and the outputs of activities and how these contribute to the objectives of the programme;

b) Programme M&E will focus on the objectives of the programme and how these strategically contribute to the outcome statements;

c) Impact M&E will focus on the actual impact (negative and positive) that the activities, processes, outputs, and outcomes have on development in Papua; and

d) Financial M&E will focus on systems and mechanisms to carry out efficient financial monitoring, ensuring transparency and accountability of resources. The monitoring tools that will be used will be simple and practical, and be based on standardized formats related to the outputs and objectives of the programme.

In accordance with the programming policies and procedures outlined in the UNDP User Guide, the programme will be monitored through the following: Programme Monitoring The programme monitoring will be specifically conducted over each output to ensure that the set annual targets are achieved gradually against the baseline. The indicators are the basis for measuring how far the intended outputs have been achieved during project implementation. Detailed annual targets, indicators and baseline of each output are in the RRF matrix. Baseline information, in particular with regards to target beneficiary information, will be finalized within six months of Phase 2 implementation. Within the annual cycle

On a quarterly basis, a quality assessment shall record progress towards the completion of key results, based on quality criteria and methods captured in the Quality Management table below.

An Issue Log shall be activated in UNDP’s Enterprise Resource Planning system, “ATLAS”, and updated by a designated Programme Manager within PRU, UNDP to facilitate tracking and resolution of potential problems or requests for change.

Based on the initial risk analysis submitted (see annex 1), a risk log shall be activated in ATLAS and regularly updated by reviewing the external environment that may affect the project implementation.

Based on the above information recorded in ATLAS, a Programme Progress Reports (PPR) shall be submitted by the Programme Manager to the Programme Board through Programme Assurance, using the standard report format.

A programme Lesson-learned log shall be activated and regularly updated to ensure on-going learning and adaptation within the organization, and to facilitate the preparation of the Lessons-learned Report at the end of the programme

A Monitoring Schedule Plan shall be activated in ATLAS and updated to track key management actions/events

43

Annually

Bi-annual Review Report. A Bi-annual Review Report shall be prepared by the project manager and shared with the Programme Board and the Outcome Board. As a minimum requirement, the Annual Review Report shall consist of the standard format for the QPR covering the whole year with updated information for each of the above elements of the QPR as well as a summary of results achieved against pre-defined annual targets at the output level.

Programme Evaluation The programme adopts the monitoring and evaluation framework as directed in the UNDP programme operation planning and practices guideline. As such, the Results and Resource Framework (RRF), an integral part of the revised Programme document, will be used as a basis for regular programme reviews (both at the Outcome as well as Output levels), while annual work plans at activity-level will serve as a basis for regular monitoring. Specifically, the programme’s contribution towards expected Outcomes will be assessed against the qualitative and quantitative indicators as reflected in the Results and Resources Framework. The objectives of the People-centred Development Programme monitoring and evaluation system are to:

a) Identify key lessons learned and good practices to guide future support; b) Identify constraints in programme implementation and to ensure timely corrective action; c) Provide effective overall evaluation of programme performance; and d) Provide an effective system to meet the monitoring and evaluation requirements of donors, UNDP

and the UN system. In addition to the RRF, the Synthesis Document prepared by a Papua multi-stakeholder team during the Papua Needs Assessment provides a description of the baseline situation against which progress of development support could be measured in broader context. Furthermore, sectoral reviews and baseline data from the Papua Needs Assessment and PADNA will be used as complimentary inputs to the overall monitoring and evaluation framework. The People-centred Development Programme will be managed on an annual planning cycle, with Annual Work Plans and Budgets including logical frameworks as the primary management and monitoring tool. Monitoring activities will be incorporated in routine activities with regular multi-stakeholder field visits. Narrative and financial reports will be prepared for the donors on the basis of bi-annual reporting period. The Responsible Parties will submit quarterly financial and narrative reports to the Implementing Partner and UNDP. The Implementing Partner and UNDP will work together to prepare annual progress reports. The annual reports will also be shared with relevant local governments and distributed more widely.

44

Planning matrix for monitoring

Expected

results

Indicators (with baselines and

indicative targets)

M&E Event with

data collection

methods

Time or

schedule and

frequency

responsibilities

Means of

verification:

data source and

type

resources Risks

Output 1:

MDGs-based

plans and

budgets

formulated

with the active

participation

of

development

partners

Indicators:

(i) Extent to which Papua Development Report, Papua Human Development Report and the Papua MDG Report are used for guiding pro-poor and MDG oriented policy formulation

(ii) Extent to which pro-poor and MDG database systems and POVERTY MAPS are working, accessible and used for policy formulation

(iii) Percentage of districts that use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iv) Percentage increase in provincial and district budget allocations for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

Baseline:

(i) The Papua Development and MDG Report have been drafted but not yet finalized

(ii) Lack of available and disaggregated pro-poor and MDG database to guide policy formulation

(iii) Less than 30 percent of districts use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iv) Less than 30percent of provincial and district budgets are allocated for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

(i) Quarterly reporting and annual progress review

(ii) Joint field visits to the target areas

(iii) Survey on the percent increase in pro-poor and MDG-oriented policies and programmes in provincial and district RKPD and APBD

(iv) Survey on the percent increase in provincial and district budgets for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

(v) Publication of Papua Development Report

(vi) Review of the provincial and districts budgets allocation for poverty and MDGs

(i) Quarterly report submitted on time and progress reviews on achievements held jointly in the 4th quarter

(ii) Two field visits per year will be conducted prior to the 2nd quarter reporting and annual reporting

(iii) All surveys required to measure targeted achievements will be completed four months before the project closed

(i) Preparation of quarterly report will be lead by the Project Manager, and the result of progress reviews will be shared with Project Board members

(ii) The Project Management Unit will organize the joint field trip and Project Manager will ensure a representatives cross section of stakeholders join the visits

(iii) Project Manager is responsible to ensure all surveys are completed as scheduled

(i) Quarterly and annual reports

(ii) Minutes of annual progress reviews

(iii) Minutes of project board meetings

(iv) Back to Office Report of the joint field visits and its relevant management responses

(v) Data and analysis of surveys will be available in report for public

(vi) Papua Human Development Report, Papua MDGs Reports, Annual APBD

(vii) Provincial and district RPJMD for 2011-2015

Total budget:

USD 1,950,001

Technical

advisors

Consultants

Equipment

Materials

Travel

Assumptions:

Local government is committed to implement the national policy on human development and MDGs, including at provincial and district levels

Changes in administration due to the upcoming elections in the province and districts will not significantly affect the development priorities of Papua and West Papua

Risks:

The upcoming local elections for head of districts (Bupati) and further division of the target districts may impact the programme pace.

45

Target 2011

(i) Papua Development Report is finalized and used as a basis for the 2011-2015 medium-term development plan for Papua

(ii) POVERTY MAPS are used to draft policy analysis

(iii) 10 percent increase in districts that use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iv) 15percent increase in provincial and district budgets for poverty reduction and MDG achievement

Target 2012

(i) Papua MDG and HD Report for two provinces are finalized and used for discussion related to policy analysis

(v) POVERTY MAPS are used for policy analysis

(ii) 25percent increase in districts that use MDG/HD data in planning and budgeting systems and formulas

(iii) 30percent increase in provincial and district budgets for poverty reduction’ MDG achievement and gender equality.

Output 2:

Local Government and civil society have basic systems

Indicator:

(i) Availability and implementation of basic system and procedures. for the delivery of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and education, particularly in rural and remote areas

(ii) Percentage of selected CSOs/CBOs that are using an integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

Quarterly and annual progress review

Joint field visits to the target areas

(i) Quarterly report submitted on time and progress reviews on achievements held jointly in the 4th quarter

(ii) Two field visits per year will be conducted prior to the 2nd quarter

(i) Preparation of quarterly report will be lead by the Project Manager, and the result of progress reviews will be shared with Project Board members

(ii) The Project Management Unit

(i) Quarterly and annual reports

(ii) Minutes of annual progress reviews

(iii) Minutes of project board meetings

(iv) Back to Office Report of the joint field visits and its relevant management

Total budget

USD 2,500,000 Assumptions:

Smooth transfer of funds from BAPPENAS to province and district level beneficiaries

Stakeholders’

46

and procedures for the delivery of gender sensitive, enhanced, sustainable and integrated basic services in health and education, particularly in rural and remote areas

for reporting on satisfaction towards programme implementation

(iii) Percentage of CSO/CBO/NGO staff and volunteers trained in project planning and costing through a TOT program

(iv) Percentage of residents in selected communities with access to basic services through the combined funding of PNPM-RESPEK and PCDP grants

(v) % of local community basic services initiatives with funding from APBD for op/maintenance

Baseline:

(i) Existing system and procedures (ii) 0% (iii) 0% (iv) 0% (v) 0%

reporting and annual reporting

(iii) All surveys required to measure targeted achievements will be completed four months before the project closed

will organize the joint field trip and Project Manager will ensure a representatives cross section of stakeholders join the visits

(iii) Project Manager is responsible to ensure all surveys are completed as scheduled

responses (v) Data and analysis of

surveys will be available in report for public

(vi) APBN/APBD (vii) Availability of

project guidelines, grant channelling mechanism

commitment remains high.

BAPPEDA’s commitment and ability to co-ordinate development partners

Risks:

Creation of new

province (s) in Papua is

likely to impact on

project

implementation.

Target 2011

(i) Draft of basic system and procedures developed

(ii) 30 percent of selected CSOs/CBOs are using the integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

(iii) 45% of CSO/CBO/NGO staff trained (iv) 50% of residents of selected

communities receiving basic services (v) 20% of local community basic services

receive funding for op/m from APBD

Target 2012

(i) Basic systems and procedures finalized and implemented

(ii) 100 percent of selected CSOs/CBOs are using the integrated community target beneficiary tracking mechanism

(iii) 100% of CSO/CBO/NGO staff trained (vii) 60% of residents of selected

47

communities receiving basic services (ii) 80% of local community basic services

receive funding for op/m from APBD

Output 3

Local Government and civil society have basic systems and processes for developing a framework for sustainable livelihood development in the Papua region

Indicators:

(i) Percentage increase in income of target beneficiary households

(ii) Number and percentage of new businesses initiated and sustained beyond 12 months

(iii) Level of growth in commercial lending to SME sector in target districts

(iv) Number of Business Development Centres at provincial and district level with clear methodologies, curriculum and training programs, schedule for outreach, legal basis and funding.

(v) Level of progress made in developing required regulatory frameworks, spatial and investment plans to support accelerated development in Papua and West Papua

Baseline:

(i) Existing income (ii) Existing business (iii) Existing growth in commercial lending (iv) Non-existence of Business

Development Centres (v) Limited progress on legal formulation,

spatial planning and land planning


Joint field visits to the target areas

Survey on the commodities and their markets

Progress reviews on achievement will be held jointly in the second and fourth quarter

Minimum of two field visits will be held every year

All surveys will be completed 6 months prior to the completion of the project

progress reviews will be lead by Project Manager and the result will be shared to the Project Board members

Filed visits will be organized by Project Management Units (PMU) and participated by a representatives cross section of stakeholders

Project Manager is responsible to ensure that the survey will take place 4 months before the project is completed

Annual and quarterly reports

Minutes of the annual progress reviews

Assessment report on potential and viable rural economic development activities

BTOR/report of the joint field visits

Data and analysis of survey will be available in a report

Institutional agreement for micro financing schemes

Map of target beneficiary house hold income level

CSO/CBOs approved Proposals, Financial Statements

Total budget

USD 2,528,000 Assumptions:

Local government and community members willingness and strong commitment to practice market oriented approach

Sufficient and qualified staff assigned.

Partners/suppliers provide timely and cost effective inputs.

Risks:

This is a new approach,

and a careful

consideration as well as

initial assessment

should be made to

ensure the

development of a

successful model in at

least 2 districts

Target 2011

(i) Baseline of target beneficiary

48

household income developed (ii) X number of new businesses initiated

with 70% or high 12 month sustainability (TBD)

(iii) Commercial lending to SME sector in target districts is tracked

(iv) 2 Business Development Centres at the provincial level are developed and established

(v) Core advisors recruited, work commenced on regulatory assessments and the preparation of draft spatial and investment plans

Target 2012

(i) 5-10 % increase in income of target beneficiary households

(ii) X number of new businesses initiated with 80% or high sustainability (TBD)

(iii) 15% growth in commercial lending to SME sector in target districts

(iv) Business Development Centres in each target district are developed and established with clear legal framework and funding (TBD)

(v) Work on regulatory assessments and spatial and investment plans completed

Output 4:

GOI agencies

(national and

sub-national)

have systems

and

Indicators:

(i) Percentage and total amount of resources mobilized (received) by the GOI (national and sub-national) from sources/organizations other than the PCDP that are coordinated for supporting accelerated development in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated Development Units (national and sub-national levels) have the systems, procedures and capacity


Progress reviews on achievement will be held jointly in the second and fourth quarter

progress reviews will be lead by Project Manager and the result will be shared to the Project Board members

Annual and quarterly reports

Minutes of the annual progress reviews

Minutes of the coordination meetings and follow up actions

Documentation of the best practices

Papua donor

Total budget

USD 2,545,542

Risks:

Upcoming Governor

election in Papua (mid

2011) is likely to impact

on overall project

implementation

49

procedures for

administering

coordinated

development

policies and

programmes

for

Accelerated

Development

in the Papua

Region.

to provide regular reporting and information dissemination to donors, beneficiaries and other organizations involved on policies, programmes and finances

(iii) Percentage increase and number as well as type of organizations that have established formal and/or legal partnerships with the GOI (national and sub-national) for Accelerated Development efforts.

Baseline:

(i) Limited amounts of resources are coordinated for supporting accelerated development efforts in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated development units have not been set up

(iii) Limited number of partnerships established to support accelerated development efforts in the Papua region

(iv)

harmonization booklet

Target 2011

(i) 20% increase in resources mobilized that are coordinated to support accelerated development in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated Development Units at the provincial level have the systems and procedures and capacity to report and disseminate key information on a regular basis


Target 2012

(i) 40% increase in resources mobilized

50

that are coordinated to support accelerated development in the Papua region

(ii) Accelerated Development Units at the district level have the systems, procedures and capacity to report and disseminate key information on a regular basis


(iv) Core advisors recruited, work finalized and disseminated on regulatory assessments and spatial and investment plans

51

VII. LEGAL CONTEXT This document together with the CPAP signed by the Government and UNDP which is incorporated by reference constitute together a Project Document. (a) The Revised Basic Agreement for Technical Assistance signed 29 October 1954 between the United

Nations, the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and the World Health Organisation and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia,

(b) The Standard Agreement on Operational Assistance signed 12 June 1969 between the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the International Telecommunication Union, the World Meteorological Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Universal Postal Union, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia,

(c) The Agreement signed 7 October 1960 between the United Nations Special Fund and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, and

(d) All CPAP provisions apply to this document. Additionally, the project document shall be the instrument envisaged in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document, attached hereto. Consistent with the above Supplemental Provisions, the responsibility for the safety and security of the Implementing Party and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the executing agency’s custody, rests with the executing agency. The Implementing Party shall:

a) Put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried;

b) Assume all risks and liabilities related to the executing agency’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan.

UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement. The Implementing Party agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

http://intra.undp.org/bdp/archive-programming-manual/docs/reference-centre/chapter6/sbaa.pdf

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm

52

VIII. ANNEXES

Annex 1: Risk Analysis

Political conditions will have important ramifications for the People-centred Development Programme. The attention paid by the central government to development improvement for Papuans to benefit from the opportunities of OTSUS, is a clear indication that there is considerable support for the initiatives proposed. At the same time, the continuous proliferation of districts, sub-districts and villages into smaller administrative areas requires that UNDP and donor partners in Papua remain flexible in terms of the focus of the programme and remain realistic about the breadth of support that can be provided. For example, the continuous division of the area through “pemekaran” (proliferation) may require a relocation of the most capable individuals within the government to get involved in political dynamics or the formation of new administrative areas. As a consequence, there might be high staff turn-over and transfer of government officials to the new areas, hence the capacity development efforts will take further time to achieve significant improvement. The separation of West Papua from Papua has also posed a significant challenge in the programme implementation, which started during the PNA and programme design phases. Being a new province, the local government of West Papua is in the process of distinguishing West Papua from Papua and in search for own identity as well as a more equal distribution of resources under the OTSUS framework. This affects to some extents the responses to the programme, and effectiveness of technical assistance required to support both provinces. Therefore, additional time, travel and other resources will be foreseen to ensure positive impact of the programme in responding to the local needs and priorities While it is difficult to anticipate future political developments and their impact in Papua, with the focus on genuine development needs and key issues, which have been identified as priorities by the local population (and as was re-enforced by several reviews and assessments (Papua Needs Assessment, PADNA, PCDP mid-term review), the programme will implement a coherent set of activities and a framework that would allow to unlock the full, multi-stakeholder participation at the local level and contribute to the overall development in Papua. Geographical and logistical challenges are also important risks to programme efficiency in Papua. Mosquito and water-borne diseases are widespread and pose particular risks to supporting personnel. Apart from communication problems, poor support systems (for example, medical services and infrastructure) add to the difficulties and expenses of successful programme implementation in the Papua region. Security issues exist in Papua and continue to present a potential risk to programme personnel, particularly in certain sub-regions, as such regular security assessments will be carried out in cooperation with UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS). There is also a risk of difficulties and delays in recruitment of appropriate personnel for the roles outlined in the programme team. This risk relates to the challenges of identifying people with the right mix of skills, expertise, attitude and availability to commit to long-term roles in the Papua region. As the programme success depends to a large degree on the people that are involved, programme partners should be aware of the substantial time and efforts required to recruit personnel, obtain government clearances (particularly for international staff) and mobilize personnel. The programme will engage local partners in ensuring more timely recruitment of locally appropriate and needs responsive technical support. Local government commitment to the programme has been expressed directly and through its enthusiastic participation in the Papua Needs Assessment. Local government willingness to dedicate personnel and to co-finance selected programme activities will be important to ensure sustainability. However, poor institutional capacity, particularly with regards to human resources, is acknowledged locally and indeed is

53

part of the driving rationale for the programme. This could lead to in-adequate participation and engagement of programme partners that will affect the Programme implementation process and little ownership of the local partners to the results of the programme. Therefore, extensive consultation and advocacy using the existing channels and mechanism will be held in all level to promote ownership, partnership and participation of local government, active citizens, community organizations, and marginalized groups thereby ensuring adoption and sustainability of the implied changes. History has shown that a long-term commitment is required to make substantive changes and reduce poverty. During the PNA and PADNA, some local non-government organizations expressed concerns that the UN and donors continue to act on a stand-alone project basis that adversely affects the broader development situation in the Papua region. To address these concerns, the Programme should remain flexible so that support for Papua goes beyond the 5-year period envisaged in the current Programme and adopt a ‘programme approach’ vis-a-vis ‘project approach’. In anticipation of additional requests from the local government that are not directly related to the programme, PCDP will maintain its current position in assisting local partners to address their specific needs to the right institution/donor which is currently operating in Papua region. Another risk is an overly Jayapura-focused network of relationships, where non-urban Papuans remain ‘out of sight’ in the programme’s capacity building activities. This requires, among other things, deliberate effort to have training and other inputs take place in the rural areas. Additional costs must be borne, given the importance of supporting the provincial government (including BAPPEDA from Papua and West Papua provinces) in spending more time in the rural areas and servicing the communities living in remote and isolated areas in the region. Besides intensive effort will be carried out to advocate local district government to allocate financial support as well as man-power for effective engagement and strengthen linkage between province and district/sub-district/village level. The funding shortfall will seriously affect the programme effectiveness to deliver intended output and outcome. As such, joint activities will be initiated aiming at bringing relevant development stakeholders in the process, including potential future donor partners. Moreover, efforts will be made to put local partners in a ‘driving seat’ not only to ensure ownership and transfer of knowledge, but also to scale up best practices utilizing local government budget whenever possible.

54

RISK LOG

# Description Date

Identified Type

Impact (I) & Probability (P)

Countermeasures / Management response Owner Submitted, updated by

Last Update

Status

1 The continuous proliferation of districts, sub-districts and villages into smaller administrative areas

Q1 – Q4 2010-2012

Political Strategic

Relocation of the most capable individuals within the government to get involved in political dynamics or the formation of new administrative areas. As a consequence, there might be high staff turn-over and transfer of government officials to the new areas, hence the capacity development efforts will take further time to achieve significant improvement. P = 3; I = 4

- Capacity building for local government official, such as trainings, will be continued in regular basis and adjusted to local needs

CTA Provincial Programme Director

Programme Manager

2 Poor institutional capacity at all levels

Q1 2010 Organizational In-adequate participation of programme partners will affect the programme implementation process P=2; I=3

Effective and sustainable mechanisms (through the use of existing government mechanisms, systems, man-power, etc) will be established to promote consultation, partnership and participation of local government at all levels, including active citizens, community organizations, marginalized groups, etc


Programme Manager

3 Local conflict (horizontal and or vertical conflict)

Q1 – Q4 2010-2012

Security Delay of programme implementation and or activity stop P=2; I=3

Regular security assessments will be carried out in cooperation with UN DSS Obtain government clearances (particularly for international staff) and mobilize personnel.


Programme Manager

4 Governor Election Q1-Q2 2011

Political Strategic and security

- Mass campaign for the election will shift the attention of local governments from the development agenda and priorities

- The politic tension among the community members and local government officials

- P=2; I=3

- The programme team should remain neutral and non-align

- Setting the right schedule of all events with local government in order not to ensure the highest participation

- Avoid mass gathering and ensure effective information sharing and coordination with local UNDSS Advisor


Programme Manager

5 Support through this programme does not get translated into future action or results

Q1 2010

Political Strategic

No continuation/sustainability of the activities initiated by the programme P=3; I=4

Ensure local leader/government is committed for future action and adopt the pro-poor and MDG-oriented development agenda through strengthening partnership with local CSOs/CBOs, provision of guiding documents (i.e. manual, technical guideline) making clear roles of district & provinces reflected into MOU

CTA Provincial Programme Director BAPPENAS

Programme Manager

55

Annex 2: Asset management

Title to any equipment and supplies that may be furnished by UNDP or procured through UNDP funds shall rest with UNDP until such time as ownership thereof is transferred. Except for equipment whose title has been transferred, all other equipment shall be returned to UNDP at the conclusion of the project. Such equipment, when returned to UNDP, shall be in the same condition as when delivered to the Responsible Parties or Implementing Partner, subject to normal wear and tear. The Responsible Parties or Implementing Partner shall be liable to compensate UNDP for equipment determined to be damaged or degraded beyond normal wear and tear.

PEOPLE-CENTERED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN PAPUA … PCDP.pdfKabupaten District Kampung Village...

Documents

Transcript of PEOPLE-CENTERED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN PAPUA … PCDP.pdfKabupaten District Kampung Village...