Presented in Mexico City, Mexico August 2012
Background
Planning are sought to be a problem definition tool with
close relation of efficiency. When attached to the idea of planning, it became
dominating there too. Planning was then seen as a process of designing problem
- solutions that might be installed and operated cheaply. However, as time move
on and situations concerning the plan are changing and uncontrollable, by now
we are all beginning to realize that one of the most intractable problems is
that of defining problems and of
locating problems. In turn, and equally intractable, is the problem of
identifying the actions that might effectively narrow the gap between what-is
and what-ought-to-be. Budget on the other hand, plays a key role to
successful planning since it will be the device to transform a vision into
reality.
As theory might sound easy and adaptable, in
reality this is not come hand in hand with the socio and political situation of
a country. Political aspect influenced heavily on the way a country implement
its public economy policy, this will compromise the planning and budgeting capability
of a country or a region. Governance structure changes such as unitary to
decentralization can affect the planning and budgeting system if it is not
carefully and gradually implemented.
Most of the South East Asian countries are just
an infant in democratization compared to their Western counter part. With only sixty
years or less after their independence these countries still struggle to
implement democratization. Indonesia as largest populated country in the
South East Asia face heavy task and challenges in developing the ideal
democratization process, with an archipelago situation and quite big region the
relatively new decentralization policy is still an on-going challenges. While
participatory planning is still a new thing to adopt, the decentralization
policy in Indonesia hampered the effective planning and budgeting process since
it does not supported by clear concept of ‘appropriate ‘ grand design of
decentralization that suit the uniqueness of the country.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Participatory Planning Process in Indonesia’s National Development Planning and Budgeting
Indonesia began the process of reformation (reformasi)
in 1998, which resulted in decentralization as mandated by Law No.22/1999 on
Regional Government[1]. This law emphasized the role
of district governments as the central locus of regional autonomy, and removed
the hierarchical structure between provincial and district governments. Under
the new law, the two governments were treated autonomously, without
organizational ties between the two structures.
This structure has resulted in confusing intergovernmental
relations. National and provincial linkages to district level governments were
weak, and their roles were unclear. Dwindling coordination, unclear division of
labour and a lack of alignment to conflicting national priorities and
regulations were among the results of the law.
After three years, the law was revised (Law No.32/2004), but
many of these issues remained unresolved. A dual role of the provincial
governors (as both heads of autonomous regions and representatives of the
national government in the province) was clearly stated in the law, but at the
same time links between provincial and district governments were still lacking.
In addition, the mandate for governors in coordination with district government
was weak, and governance capacity in district governments was limited. While the first decade of
decentralization was focused primarily on attempting to resolve these internal
issues, external government responsibilities, including public service, were
also neglected.
The participatory planning process itself began in parallel
with the new laws on decentralization which along with it has challenges and
bottlenecks in the way. The ‘big bang’ process of Indonesian decentralization
and democratization is so fast and sudden, that it gives the people hard time
to catch up. While the real process of decentralizing the country is fast and
growing, the laws and attribute that needs to support it is slow and pragmatic
in approach. This allows big gap in planning budgeting system between national
and regional, hence creating misinterpretation and confusion at regional level
in the administration system of its regional autonomy management.
The current National Annual Development Plan (Rencana Kerja
Pemerintah-RKP) is developed through the Participatory Development Planning
Process (Musyawarah Rencana Pembangunan-Musrenbang), which works from
the village up to the national level as a forum to synergize development
planning. However, national and regional development plans are not always
aligned and integrated. A number of factors impeding effective development
planning have been identified by the government: 1) development goals and
objectives are not sharply defined; 2) the deliberation process is merely
focused on De-concentration and Functional Assignment Funds (Dekonsentrasi/Tugas
Pembantuan), while issues related to fund transfer, regional investment
plans and banking credit are neglected; 3) development programmes designed by
national ministries are too normative, with no clear explanation; 4) the
national-provincial arrangement of programmes and activities is not
standardized, thus potentially disconnecting planning from budgeting; 5)
priorities in programme criteria are unclear; 6) the Musrenbang process is
bound to a schedule which does not allow for adequate deliberation between
national ministries and provincial governments; and 7) there is no guarantee
that the results of Musrenbang will be used as the basis for formulating the
national development plan.
One way to smoothen the process of planning and budgeting
process in the context of decentralization is to focuses on the alignment of
national and local development priorities and plans. Through this activity the
government can apply tools such as Pro-Poor Planning, Budgeting, and Monitoring-Evaluation
(P3BM) and the Provincial Human Development Report (PHDR), and will initiate a
Decentralization Award to strengthen the link between national and regional
plans to achieve effective development planning. The target for this action is
to create an evidence-based development planning. The tools as well as the
capacity buildings are important to improve the participatory mechanism in
development planning and budgeting so that the community and civil society will
understand the process and have more contribution in obtaining the public
service.
The development of a guidance note on the alignment of national
and regional development plans through support to linking government offices (Satuan
Kerja Perangkat Daerah-SKPD) with national line ministries. This note is
expected to provide step-by step guidance for both government offices (SKPD)
and national line ministries in aligning national priorities into regional
plans, while at the same time recognizing the needs of the regions in the national
development plan. As part of the efforts to align national and local
policy/development plans, the project plans to support the government in
initiating an incentive to motivate the regional as well as line ministries
that are successful in aligning national and local policy or development plans.
In order to championing the change in the
community participatory planning process is to assist local governments in
mainstreaming the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) into the formulation,
implementation, and monitoring of provincial development strategies, and will
help build the capacity of relevant stakeholders to plan and budget using
Pro-Poor Planning, Budgeting, and Monitoring-Evaluation (P3BM). In undertaking
this activity, we need to closely collaborate with government national planning
agency to ensure the efforts will be sufficient and coordinated, including, in
particular, providing training to civil servants, parliamentarians, civil
society at regional levels in formulating pro-poor and MDG oriented planning
and budgeting. This will also ensure the active participation of relevant
stakeholders, including communities, civil society, development partners and
the private sector in all stages of the development planning processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment