Proceeding Papers: Strategy in Synergizing National Regional Development Planning System

National Development Planning System

National planning coordination as the main control and coordinating system has been neglected in the past decades. In line with decentralization process, the need of coordinating national and regional plan seems to be underestimated by related stakeholder. People are overwhelmed by the euphoria of decentralization and regional autonomy. The fact that human development index report is steadily increasing but on the other hand is also stagnant in most important area such as education, suggest that we still have problem in delivering public services. Evaluation system is also dwindling in methodology and function, the result were never been used as relevant indicator for future planning.

Supporting laws such as UU17/2003 of Regional Finance and UU 32/2004 of Decentralization are still work in progress and taking shape as framework for integrating national regional development planning process. Current budgeting process in central only took 1/3 from the total state revenue expenditure and the budget ceiling decision is divided between Ministry of Finance and House of Representative. This fact could potentially lead to deviation in planning and budgeting process from inception to execution. BAPPENAS as leading agency in national planning development only has the coordinating capacity up until the annual plan phase. This would hamper the effort in aligning the annual, mid-term and long-term plan since the authority to coordinate is being overshadowed by political intervention in some phase.

The need of harmonization in national regional development planning is critical. Problem in vertical alignment must also be in lined with horizontal sector alignment. Government institution strategic plans between sectors are also have to align and need to harmonize with participatory planning process from the community. As we are working in the public domain the concern of absorbing the input from local community as one of bottom up process is essential.

Planning in the Public Domain

Planning as holistic approach can be translated into particular field today’s focus is on the planning system itself, the context is national development, so what is the best way to elaborate if not discuss on public policy? The object-domain of public policy analysis comprehends all stages of public policymaking, from policy formulation to policy implementation and to policy review. It is obvious that this broad scope requires an equally broad theoretical and methodological basis. Policy analysis clearly needs to be an interdisciplinary field. Friedman in his critical overview of the intellectual history of policy analysis explains that planning system in public domain is dependent on territoriality based system of social relations. The political order systems are influenced by system maintenance, change, and transformation.

Figure 1 elaborates the planning system from knowledge to action. Friedman classified the planning system into four categories:

1.       Planning as social reform

In this system the government role is very significant and principal with centralized for people, top-down, staggered and limited in political aspirations.

2.       Planning as policy analysis

In this system act as equal to other stakeholders and draft current issues with its supporting policies. It is decentralized, scientific and liberal in politics.

3.       Planning as social learning

The government acts as facilitator with the characteristic of learning by doing, decentralized, bottom up and liberal in politics.

4.       Planning as social mobilization

Planning depicted as crystallization of political actions derived from the ideology of communitarian collectivism.               

The understanding of planning as social mobilization is seen as an ideal system since it based on ideology of communitarian collectivism where is applicable in today Indonesia’s Unitarian decentralization context.

The ideal planning system of Indonesia must incorporate positive and normative theory with social learning as main idea to future innovation. The analogy of this picture is depicted in the lack of integration of sectoral planning such as spatial planning, within the context of spatial planning; laws no. 26/2007 represents three local regulations, laws no. 27/2007 represents four, laws no. 24/2007 represent the disaster risk reduction while laws no. 32/2009 there is representation on environmental management. All of these laws are related to RJPD and RPJMD (mid-term and long term regional planning) unfortunately there is still lack of integration within the national context in the same field. There is no representation on spatial planning in national development planning system (SPPN), so the future challenge would be the role of SPPN as main guidance of integration national regional development planning.

Disharmonised in National Regional Development Planning System

The aforementioned could also interpret as disharmonised in national and subnational development planning system since there is still lack of integration among sectors vertically and horizontally. The gap between national and subnationals can be explained as follows:

a.       Disharmonized regulations,

b.      Mismatched cycles of Planning and Budgeting across levels of government.

c.       Weak linkage between planning-budgeting-output-outcome.

d.      Asymmetric information (where not all stakeholders have the same amount of information),

e.      Coordination problem occurred horizontally (between central entities or local entities) and vertically (across the levels of government).

f.        Inadequate capacities and burden.

Regulations are conflicting causing many things is not working in system.  There are mismatch in planning and budgeting cycle between national and regional, participatory planning process most of the time are lagging behind because of the inconsistency of time flow of the process. The linkage between RKPD to APBD is often mismatched and there is no mechanism for validation or sanction. More on the budget, the asymmetrical information flow is causing the inconsistency in data and information, the problem also fuelled by budget rigidity. Coordination on vertical and horizontal basis is still lacking and finally causing the incapacity and irregular budget allocation.

In terms of planning, although the coordination in national planning and budgeting exist, there should be an alignment on documents with continuous feedback to support the monitoring system. On the other hand, based on fact, the current national budgeting system still in the form of input based not yet performance based.

The fact that timeframe to do planning is very limited with only half of the subnationals can achieve the targeted delivery time, has the implication on monitoring and evaluation where at the same time they have to execute and plan. Planning needs to be structurally measured and realistic; the human development index currently used as baseline has to be able to be interpreted in the regional/local context not in ideal notion/standard. Outcome define output, the central government is responsible to determine outcome but with some adjustment in local capacity in carrying decentralization authority.

Best practices in developed country shows that although the government take over the economic situation is based on market failure, it is however take the responsibility on improving public service delivery. BAPPENAS position as planning coordinator is equal to those in other developing countries in managing national development planning and budgeting, therefore its position needs to be strengthened and centralized.

(...For complete paper please email me)

Challenges in promoting and institutionalizing community participatory planning within government planning and budgeting systems in Indonesia

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.

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.

---

[1] Its sister law was also launched in parallel with Law No. 25/1999 on Fiscal Equalization

Bob Eko Kurniawan: The Shift to a New Paradigm, Developing a Partneri...

Bob Eko Kurniawan: The Shift to a New Paradigm, Developing a Partneri...: ABSTRACT Housing provision in Indonesia just has been through a big shock caused by the notorious Asian financial crisis in 1997. This saw ...

Kasiba Driyorejo, a Solution to Urban Development Large Scale Land Management of Urban Areas in Eastern Java

Abstract

Land is the necessities for human life and it is also one of the economic factors for production. Indonesia is a liberal country specifically in economic area, although the Indonesian government constitutional law no. 33 year 1945 said that “The land, air and all the natural resources are under the government authority for the sake of public interests”1 but in practice, for economic development reasons the land became one of the free market objects as a consequences for this matter it attracted many investor both from overseas and domestic. The disadvantage of this situation is sometimes attracts speculators in this case, the land speculators. This situation in

the future could cause the low -income people to not having the opportunity to buy the land as a based to construct a better house.

In the beginning of the 1990s the idea of developing land banking management start to emerge. To solve this problem, the government of Indonesia in this case the Ministry of Infrastructure and Settlement came up with the “Kasiba” idea or in English “Pre Developed Areas”. This solution has been constitutionally declared with the government act No. 80 year 1998. The acts intend to manage the land better and to prevent it from speculators interference.

The Kasiba project is located in Surabaya city. The project called Driyorejo Kasiba Project. Surabaya as the second largest cities beside Jakarta is the main gate of central distribution for eastern Indonesia, which is developing into central trade, economic area, information, production and distribution. Surabaya is also has a large seaport which handles the trade goods from all over the world. As the consequences, support of infrastructure, facilities, and public utilities are in need. The recent implementation of the new authority decentralization policy for every province in Indonesia means the bigger Region/county authority, causing the need for new regulation of lands law, facilities and infrastructure so the optimum regional development could be achieved.

The government as the regulator and facilitator for the main course and strategies, should oriented to people welfare. Perum Perumnas or National Urban Development Corporation as a state owned company along with the other state owned counterpart, from the beginning had covered the above issues by developing the New Area Policy the “Driyorejo New Town” in east java province. The main objects of this consortium are to help the region authority to provide lands. The management considering the land development policy which is constructed with holistic pattern and. The Kasiba project is a large -scale project it has minimum requirements for the dwellings only to 3.000 units. This project also intended to develop a new town with

central business district (CBD) with good infrastruct ure facility.