070924 Donor Database Narrative Report English€¦ · Narrative Report I. Introduction Background The Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA - Directorate for Capacity Building and EKD)

Donor Mapping Database Report – September 2007

1

Donor Mapping Database Narrative Report

Report to the Government of Indonesia: Ministry of Home Affairs

By the Decentralization Support Facility

September 2007

Contents: Narrative Report

I. Introduction II. Lessons and Decisions III. Definitions IV. Database Contents and Usage V. Findings / Discussion VI. Next Steps

Annex:

I. MOU between MOHA and DSF (to be added when final) II. Database information and materials III. Technical Annex: how to access and navigate (available on the

website)

Narrative Report

I. Introduction

Background

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA - Directorate for Capacity Building and EKD) has identified and prioritized the task of developing a database on donor activities to support decentralization in Indonesia.

There have been several initiatives to generate such a database in the past, and the current effort builds on the lessons learnt from that experience. This is a prototype specifically designed by the Decentralization Support Facility (DSF) in partnership with the erstwhile Permanent Secretariat (PS) in MOHA, as a quick-access tool for reference or monitoring by Government and donors. Based on feedback on its usefulness, the database may be expanded and upgraded.

This database serves to bring together key information about all existing major donor supported programs in the field of decentralization. It provides a comprehensive overview of geographical and temporal project coverage by theme, approach and methodology. It also includes interactive maps to help users identify where donor-supported programs are located.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb425962

Typewritten Text

68690


2

Objectives:

The main objective of this exercise is ensuring that the government and donor community have access to a common tool that allows them to identify what donor-supported activities are being implemented and planned, to address decentralization issues in Indonesia. A further objective is to coordinate the efforts of different agencies, and reduce duplication and overlap in programming. This tool will be initially maintained through a partnership between the DSF and MOHA.

II. Lessons and Decisions

The main lessons learnt from the earlier attempts1 of setting up such a database are:

1) there needs to be clarity on the use and purpose of the database, before we start collecting the data. Otherwise information gathering becomes unwieldy and unmanageable.

2) The database should be “owned” by a set of actors who use it for specific purposes. Unless there is this ownership, there is no incentive to keep it updated and “live”.

3) Over time, the benchmarks and summary outputs used to frame and analyze the data will likely change and be refined, and therefore a database should be developed incrementally.

With this in mind, it has been decided that this proto-type will be uploaded to the web and posted on the websites of both MOHA and the DSF. The DSF will initially take responsibility for (i) periodic updating, every 6 months, (ii) distributing CD-Roms on demand (iii) collecting feedback on its usefulness, suggestions for improvements and (iv) prepare narrative reports such as this one for the Government. Based on feedback from the decentralization “community”, the proto-type will be modified, and expanded/upgraded. Currently it is in Excel format. If it is to be developed into a web-enabled, searchable database, it will need to be designed in HTML format, with a clear, fixed, user requirement report, signed by the key users (Government and donors). The user requirement report will list the queries that the database will respond to. III. Definitions

Before launching into the main body of the report, let us first make clear certain definitions.

1. What do we mean by decentralization? In this context, decentralization is defined as ‘the transfer of authority to plan,

1 See “Overview of Donor Supported Activities on Decentralization and Local Government Capacity Strengthening – Report on the database SP72 on TA”, by Rainer Rohdewohld, for GTZ and USAID, October 2000, and “Indonesia: Towards a Marketplace for Capacity Building at Local Level”, Govindan Nair, World Bank, 2004. This database is now hosted by YIPD.


3

make decisions or manage public functions from the national level to any organization or agency at the sub-national level.’2 This database contains information on programs that support this process.

2. The definition of a donor-supported program. By this, we mean programs which incorporate a substantial contribution from an international development aid agency (either multilateral lending aid agency or bilateral aid agency) in its design, funding, implementation, and/or monitoring. We use the terms project and program interchangeably.

3. Definition of a theme. We refer to themes in the context of this report to mean a broad area of work or challenge area that the program seeks to address. Specifically, we refer to a list of decentralization-related themes that was set by a 2006 DSF Stock-Taking study.

4. Definition of tools and methodology. Whereas ‘theme’ refers to the classification of the overall objective, by ‘methods and tools’ we refer to the processes and instruments used to accomplish the objective. As an illustration of the difference: a program with the stated objective/theme of improving the legal framework may rely on one or more methods and tools to achieve its goal. Methods could include reforms of the judiciary, or of the legislative function, or of the media’s watchdog role. Tools might be personnel management, (specifically, induction/in-service training, etc) or case-work tracking systems, or tools for public consultation in the drafting process. Methods and tools are fairly closely related. It is useful to differentiate between the broad thematic area by which a program is categorized, and the tools/methods that programs use or develop, to achieve their goals.

5. Geographical Location. Actual program activity takes place in a specific village or city, but for the database we show activity at district-level only, to keep the data manageable and allow users to easily identify the concentration of project activity in each area.

6. Results framework / Performance indicators. We use these two concepts interchangeably, in order to capture as broadly as possible any yardsticks used to evaluate program outcomes.

2 As defined by 2004 OECD report, Lessons Learned on Donor Support to Decentralization and Local Governance.


4

Using these definitions, let us go on to discuss the database contents and usage.

IV. Database Contents and Usage

This database contains the following information: 1. Overview of ongoing and planned decentralization-related projects 2. Individual project details 3. Location of activity, by project and by theme, at district and province

level 4. Performance indicators for each project 5. Funding commitments 6. Time period of each project 7. Methods and tools used by each project 8. Projects categorized by relevant theme3

Viewers will be able to derive a snapshot of ongoing decentralization-related program coverage in Indonesia, as well as to answer key issues of concern to Government such as:

- Which donors are engaged in providing support for decentralization

- How many districts and provinces are being served by donor programs

- Are there overlaps: (a) geographical – how many districts have more than one donor sponsored program, and how many are unserved by any? (b) thematic – how many agencies/programs concentrate on the same areas of work (c) tools and methodologies – do agencies/ programs duplicate each others’ work, or are they complementing each other’s efforts?

- What is the duration of the individual programs (to enable forward planning).

- What is the total external assistance committed under these programs?

At present the database comprises 30 projects, covering programs by ADB, AusAid, BMZ, CIDA, DFID, DTF, GTZ, UNDP, USAID, and the World Bank as follows.

Table of donor-supported programs:

3 19 decentralization-related themes were identified by the 2006 DSF publication Stock Taking on Indonesia's Recent Decentralization Reforms.


5

Donor Name Project Name and Abbreviation

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

1. Supporting Institutional Framework -

Supporting an Effective Institutional Framework for Fiscal Decentralization(TA 4682-INO)

* with Government of Netherlands 2. SCBD - Sustainable Capacity Building for Decentralization(Loan-1964 INO)

3. LGFGR-SDP - Local Government Finance and Governance Reform Sector Development Program(Loan-36541 INO)

4. CLGS II - Community and Local Government Support(Loan 38385-01-INO)

* with British Dept for Int'l Development (DFID)

5. Pro-Poor - Pro-Poor Planning and Budgeting(TA-4762 INO)

6. ACCESS - Australian Community Development and Civil Society Strengthening Scheme

7. ANTARA - Australia Nusa Tenggara Assistance for Regional 8. IASTP - Indonesia Australia Specialised Training Phase III9. TAMFIII - Technical Assistance Management Facility III

3. 10. GG PAS - Good Governance in Population Administration

11. ASSD - Advisory Support Services for Decentralisation12. CB Kaltim/

ProBANGKIT -Capacity Building for Local Governance in East KalimantanProyek Pengembangan Kapasitas Pemerintahan Daerah di Kalimantan Timur

13. GLG - Good Local Governance14. SfGG - Support for Good Governance

15. GRS II - Governance Reform Support16. BASICS - Better Approaches To Service Provision Through

Increased Capacities in Sulawesi

5. European Commission (EC) 17. ALGAP II - Aceh Local Governance Programme

18. BRiDGE - Building and Reinventing Democratic Governance19. GRADE - Governance Reform and DPRD Empowerment

* with ADB 20. LoGIC - Local Governance Reform Through Inter-Governmental 21. PGRI - Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia

22. DRSP - Democratic Reform Support Program

23. LGSP - Local Governance Support Program

9. The World Bank * with DTF - Dutch Trust Fund

24. WB-Netherlands Program -

World Bank-Netherlands Program for Institutional Development and Capacity Building

* with DTF, DFID, AusAID 25. SofEI - Eastern Indonesia Program / Makassar Multi Donor Center – TF 054663(Part of World Bank-Netherlands Program for Institutional Development and Capacity Building)

26. GFMRAP - Government Financial Management and Revenue Administration Project

27. KDP3 - Kecamatan Development Project 3B28. SPADA - Support for Poor and Disadvantaged Areas Project29. USDRP - Urban Sector Development Reform Project

* with British Department For International Development (DFID)

30. ILGR - Initiatives For Local Governance Reform

1.

2. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)

4. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

7. United States Agency For International Development (USAID)

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

6.


6

V. Findings/Discussion 1. Geographic coverage.

The scope of individual donor projects is limited. Excluding KDP activity, the remaining 29 major projects represented in the database cover an average of 13.9 kabupaten each, and have activities in:

• 25 out of 33 provinces, or 75.8%, leaving 8 without coverage.

• 178 out of 440 kabupaten, or 40.5%, leaving 220 without coverage.

(Including KDP, coverage jumps to 93.9% for provinces and 70.9% for provinces.) Donors can increase the impact of their decentralization and capacity building programs by coordinating with one another, to cover more areas. However, government involvement is crucial to scaling out projects nationwide.

2. Thematic coverage. Refer to Annex 2, Fig. 4 – Thematic Coverage

As noted earlier, this refers to the list of 19 decentralization-related themes identified in a 2006 DSF study. See Annex II for more information.

• There is relatively less donor engagement in the areas of territorial reform, role of Governor and province, DPOD, regional organizational structure, supervision, local parties, local elections and personnel management (civil service reforms).

• Project activities are concentrated most heavily in the three thematic areas of service delivery, planning and budgeting, and financial management/procurement.

3. Tools and methodology. Refer to Annex II, Fig. 5 – Methods and Tools.

The value added that donor supported programs bring is often the new tools and methodologies they introduce to enhance efficiency. There is a wide variety of these, and we need to develop a systematic menu, and study more closely the specific tools being used by different programs. For now, we have created a menu of 10 methods and tools. A quick analysis of the database reveals:

• Donors are less engaged in asset management and expenditure tracking systems and geographical information systems (important for area-based planning).

• On the other hand, 19 projects out of 30 use tools on management information systems, 16 on public financial


7

management, 12 on personnel management and 8 on performance oriented systems. There is a need to see that this overlap does not lead to duplication in reporting, and confusion. In practice, there are some differences and variation between programs, suggesting scope for harmonization.

4. Timeframe Refer to Annex II, Fig. 6 – Project Timeframe

• Although project coverage has been planned until 2015, of the 30 projects in the database, the bulk are projected to end within the next three years: three in 2007, six in 2008, and eleven in 2009.

Given the above conclusions, MOHA and donors may wish to consider the longer term programming requirements, with reqard to both substantive themes and geographical coverage of capacity development efforts in the future.

5. Results framework / performance indicators. Refer to Annex II, Fig. 7 – Results Framework/ Performance Indicators

• The wide range and often qualitative nature of the results frameworks given makes it difficult to assess projects on a standard platform. It would be good, where possible, to create quantitative yardsticks. It may also be useful to designate what indicators are relevant in measuring certain common program goals.

• Quantitative performance indicators are available for many but not all projects, and in most cases, the baseline data is lacking or not available.

• The type of performance indicators used to evaluate results vary widely. For example, although the SCBD – ADB and ACCESS – AusAID projects both have capacity building components and overlap in the thematic areas of planning and budgeting, ACCESS uses as a performance indicator the percentage of local organizations that are involved in capacity building activities and have demonstrated improvement in selected areas, while the SCBD project targets ‘the efficient delivery of public services’, ‘the maintenance of essential public facilities’ and ‘the management of poverty reduction programs’ among others.

4. Funding Commitments Refer to Annex II, Fig. 8 – Funding Commitments


8

• At present total funds committed to projects in the database appear to be US$1,291.1 million, CAD$17.2 million, Euro 55.1 million and AUD$147.5 million, equivalent to approximately US$ 1,523.8 million (calculated at the time of this report).

• Of this amount, US$ 754.3 million comprises external lending. GoI lending comprises US$20.1 and AUD$8.0 million. Grants and technical assistance total approximately $550.1 million. The breakdown of the remaining US$189.9 between external lending, grants and GoI contribution is not clear.

V. Next Steps

1. Query donors and MOHA as to usefulness of the donor mapping project outputs before deciding how to design the next phase.

- What questions do users want answered? - What information is not relevant to users?

2. Further define a set of methods and tools that are appropriate for

decentralization work.

3. Update the database at intervals. - What programs meet the definition of decentralization? - What programs should therefore be included in this database? - What are the trends in donor-supported programming? - What policy implications can be drawn from this overview?


9

Annex: I. MOU between MOHA and DSF (to be added when final) II. Database Information and Materials

III. Technical Annex (available on website)

A. Structure

The prototype database consists of a series of interlinked Excel reports which will be made available via the DSF and PS websites, and will be disseminated to donors on CD. Due to the limitations of Excel, the reports will only be accessible through Internet Explorer browser; should the information in the database prove useful and there is further demand as evidenced by comments and feedback, a more permanent solution will be created, involving creation of a web-enabled program to be hosted eventually on the DSF, PS and MOHA websites.

B. Materials and Usage

Presently the database is set up to contain the following information, on 30 projects. Note that the database parameters may be changed or expanded in the future, depending on Government and donor feedback. • Project Overview. This provides an overview of projects contained in the

database. Project name, donor name and status are shown.

• Individual project details, including contact information purpose/objectives, methods and tools, thematic areas, key performance indicators, project areas, and links to project documents.

• Geographical location of project activity, at district and province level.

• Thematic coverage by project and geographical location, according to 19 decentralization issues/thematic areas.4 Decentralization has many facets, and it is useful to know which area or themes of this very wide and complex subject are being currently tackled.

1. Legal framework 2. Territorial reform 3. Functional assignment 4. Role of the Governor and province 5. Intergovernmental fiscal relations 6. Supervision 7. DPOD 8. Regional organizational structures 9. Personnel management 10. Service delivery

4 The list of issues or themes in Decentralization is taken from 2006 DSF publication Stock Taking on Indonesia's Recent Decentralization Reforms.


10

11. Planning and budgeting 12. Financial management/ Procurement 13. DPRD support 14. Heads of Regions 15. Local parties 16. Local elections 17. Civil Society Organizations (CSO) / media 18. Village governance 19.CSO/university networks

Other themes outside of the 19 mentioned above may also apply, but for the sake of brevity and relevance we have kept to the list of decentralization-related measures that was identified by the DSF 2006 Stock-taking study. Further information can be gathered by contacting the contact person or checking relevant documents identified on the detailed project summary.

• Project listing by methodology and tools. Unlike with thematic areas, no

study has yet taken place to define a relevant list of tools and methodologies by which to evaluate decentralization projects in Indonesia. For the database, a variety of 10 commonly used tools and methods reflecting a wide array of approaches were used. This list may be refined in the future.

At present the list of methods/tools stands as follows:

1. Expenditure tracking 2. Management information systems 3. Asset management systems 4. Financial management systems (FMS):

including public expenditure analysis (PEA) and review (PER), financial tools and fiscal indicators (FTFI), procurement reform, cash and debt management

5. Local revenue management 6. Personnel management systems 7. Workflow management 8. Performance oriented systems 9. Geographic information systems 10. Public accountability mechanisms

including ‘citizens’ report cards, public participation in planning meetings, consumer satisfaction surveys, Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA) and focal group discussions.

• Project Timeframe. Shows projected start and finish of each projects.

• Results framework/performance indicators for each project. This exercise highlights the kinds of benchmarks that various donor projects have established as parameters of success. It is of note that


11

many but not all projects have quantitative performance indicators, without which it will be difficult to measure results.

• Funds Committed. Shows amount of funds committed by donors and Government of Indonesia. Technical assistance is considered to be a grant.

• Selected links to and information on sector related projects in Indonesia with reference to decentralization.

The following contains data and information.

Fig. 1 - Project Overview

No. Abbreviation Project Name Status Map # of Provinces

# of Kabupaten Themes

Methods & Tools

used

Results Framework

Funding (millions)

1Supporting Institutional Framework

Supporting an Effective Institutional Framework for Fiscal Decentralization

Ongoing n/a 0 0 Themes Methods Perf. Indicators

US $0.63

2 SCBDSustainable Capacity Building for Decentralization

Ongoing Location map

10 37 Themes Methods Perf. Indicators

US $52.05

3 LGFGR-SDP

Local Government Finance and Governance Reform Sector Development Program



US $330.50

4 CLGS II Community and Local Government Support

Planned Location map


US $25.00

5 Pro-PoorPro-Poor Planning and Budgeting


US $2.63

6 ACCESSAustralian Community Development and Civil Society Strengthening Scheme

Completed Location map


US $21.00

7 ANTARAAustralia Nusa Tenggara Assistance for Regional Autonomy


US $30.00

8 IASTPIndonesia Australia Specialised Training Phase III



US $70.50

9 TAMFIII Technical Assistance Management Facility III

Ongoing Central level


US $26.00

10 GG PAS Good Governance in Population Administration


US $3.00

11 GRS II Governance Reform SupportOngoing n/a 3 22 Themes Methods Perf.

IndicatorsUS $2.20

Active In:


Australian Government / Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)

Asian Development Bank (ADB) / Government of the Netherlands (GoN)




Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Asian Development Bank (ADB) and British Department for International Development (DFID)

Donor / Funding Agency

German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)



Donor Mapping - Project Overview

Fig. 1 - Project Overview (details)



Methods & Tools

used

Results Framework

Funding (millions)

Active In:


12 BASICSBetter Approaches To Service Provision Through Increased Capacities in Sulawesi

Planned n/a 0 0 Themes Methods Perf. Indicators

US $15.00

13 ALGAP II Aceh Local Governance Programme


US $4.40

14 ASSD Advisory Support Services for Decentralisation

Ongoing Central level


US $11.50

15 CB Kaltim/ ProBangkit

Capacity Building for Local Governance in East KalimantanProyek Pengembangan Kapasitas Pemerintahan Daerah di Kalimantan



US $1.30

16 GLG Good Local Governance



US $7.90

17 SfGG Support for Good Governance



US $7.00

18 BRiDGE Building and Reinventing Democratic Governance


US $4.50

19 GRADE Governance Reform and DPRD Empowerment


US $0.22

20 LoGICLocal Governance Reform Through Inter-Governmental Cooperation


US $1.10

21 PGRI Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia


US $68.00

German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)




United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB)



Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

European Commission

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB)


Fig. 1 - Project Overview (details)



Methods & Tools

used

Results Framework

Funding (millions)

Active In:


22 DRSP Democratic Reform Support Program



US $15.40

23 LGSP Local Governance Support Program



US $60.00

24WB/ Netherlands Program

World Bank-Netherlands Program for Institutional Development and Capacity Building


US $20.00

25 SofEI

Eastern Indonesia Program / Makassar Multi Donor Center – TF 054663(Part of World Bank-Netherlands Program for Institutional Development and Capacity Building)


n/a

26 GFMRAPGovernment Financial Management and Revenue Administration Project


US $250.00

27 KDP Kecamatan Development Project 3B



US $236.70

28 SPADA Support for Poor and Disadvantaged Areas Project



US $134.70

29 USDRP Urban Sector Development Reform Project



US $63.40

30 ILGR Initiatives For Local Governance Reform



US $46.30

United States Agency For International Development (USAID)

The World Bank

The World Bank

The World Bank

The World Bank

United States Agency For International Development (USAID)

The World Bank and the British Department For International Development (DFID)

Dutch Trust Fund at the World Bank

World Bank/ Dutch Trust Fund/ AusAID/ DFID


Fig. 2 - Sample Project DetailDonor / Funding Agency Asian Development Bank (ADB)Project Name Supporting an Effective Institutional Framework for Fiscal Decentralization

(TA 4682-INO)

Abbreviation Inst Framework - ADBGovernment and Counterparts Agency

Ministry of Home Affairs

Contact Person Dr. Daeng M. Nazier, Director General RFMContact Address Jl. Veteran No. 7, Jakarta PusatTelephoneFaxEmailGovernment and Other Counterparts AgencyContact PersonContact AddressTelephoneFax Mr. Tariq NiaziEmailImplementing AgencyContact PersonContact Address [email protected]

Purpose / Objectives The purpose of the TA is to provide technical and analytical support to Regional Autonomy Advisory Council (DPOD) Technical Working Groups in order to enable the DPOD to effectively develop coordinated recommendations for key policy reforms, which can be implemented, based on analytical studies, ongoing monitoring of the impact of decentralization, and dissemination and consultation

Methodology/Tools Description The proposed technical assistance includes preparation of technical studies, including related analytical work and development of recommendations, workshops, and design of a related monitoring framework.

Methodology / Tools Categories:1. Asset management systems2. Expenditure tracking Analysis of current inter-governmental fiscal transfers3. Financial management systems Focus on intergovernmental fiscal relations4. Geographic info systems Mapping of regions according to fiscal needs and capacity 5. Local revenue management6. Management information A framework for collection, monitoring and analysis of data 7. Performance oriented systems Development of indicators to benchmark performance in health, infrastructure8. Personnel management9. Public accountability mechanisms10. Workflow management

Thematic Area1. Legal framework2. Territorial reform3. Functional assignment4. Role of the Governor and province5. Intergovernmental fiscal relations Intergovernmental fiscal relations6. Supervision7. DPOD8. Regional organizational structures9. Personnel management10. Service delivery Service delivery, minimum service standards11. Planning and budgeting12. Financial mgmt /Procurement13. DPRD support14 Heads of Regions

15. Local Parties16. Local elections

2_project overview detail - Decentralization Projects 1 / 2

Fig. 2 - Sample Project Details (continued)Donor / Funding Agency Asian Development Bank (ADB)Project Name Supporting an Effective Institutional Framework for Fiscal Decentralization

(TA 4682-INO)

17. Civil Society Organizations (CSO) / media18. Village governance19. CSO/university networksOther

How does it support decentralisation?

Technical studies will increase efficiency of intergovernmental fiscal relations, including analysis of current inter-governmental fiscal transfers focusing on local governments participating in the LGF program, mapping of regions according to fiscal needs and capacity as a basis for developing equalization and efficiency policies among regions and a framework for collection, monitoring and analysis of data to measure horizontal and vertical inequities; (ii) formulating a methodology and financing parameters for minimum service standards in health, education and infrastructure, and development of indicators to benchmark performance in these areas; and (iii) upgrading the National Capacity Building Framework based on the assessment on the regional capacity building needs.

Key Performance Indicators Effective inter-governmental coordination and consensus in implementing decentralization reforms; development of Regional Autononomy Advisor Council (DPOD) recommendations for policy reforms;successfully concluding technical studies on (i) intergovernmental fiscal relations, including analysis of current inter-governmental fiscal transfers focusing on local governments participating in the LGF program, mapping of regions according to fiscal needs and capacity as a basis for developing equalization and efficiency policies among regions and a framework for collection, monitoring and analysis of data to measure horizontal and vertical inequities; (ii) formulating a methodology and financing parameters for minimum service standards in health, education and infrastructure, and development of indicators to benchmark performance in these areas; and (iii) upgrading the National Capacity Building Framework based on the assessment on the regional capacity building needs.

Level of Government Central, provincialLocation Nationwide

Stakeholder groups

Form of Aid MultilateralStarting Date 1-Jan-04Completion Date 31-Dec-06 Comments (if any) Phase 1Implementation Cycle Total Funds Committed US$625,000 Loan Grant US$ 0.5 M GOI central $ 125,000.00 GOI local govt Comments GOI local govtStart Mobilization dateEnd Date Website (URL): Supporting an Effective Institutional Framework for Fiscal

DecentralizationWebsite (URL): Supporting an Effective Institutional Framework for Fiscal Decentralization

2_project overview detail - Decentralization Projects 1 / 1

Fig. 3a - Geographical coverage summary statisticsSummary StatisticsProvinces with no project activity: DKI Jakarta, Kep Bangka BelitungProvince with the highest # of projects: South Sulawesi (13)

No. of Provinces: 33 No. of Kabupaten: 440Provinces with activity excluding KDP 25 Kabupaten with activity excluding KDP 178% of provinces with activity: 75.8% % of kabupaten with activity: 40.5%

Provinces with activity including KDP 31 Kabupaten with activity including KDP 312% of provinces with activity: 93.9% % of provinces with activity: 70.9%

# of projects working mainly 5 at central level:

Average # projects / province: 4.3 Average # projects / kabupaten 1.2Median # of projects/province 4 Median # of projects/ kabupaten 1.0Max # of projects/ province: 13 Max # of projects/ kabupaten 4

Provinces with: Kabupaten with: 0 project activity = 2 0 project activity = 128 1 project activity = 7 1 project activity = 170 2 project activities = 3 2 project activities = 92 3 project activites = 3 3 project activities = 36 4 project activites = 4 4 project activities = 13 5 project activities = 4 5 project activities = 1 6 project activities = 1 7 project activities = 4 8 project activities = 2 9 project activities = 0 10 project activities = 1 11 project activities = 1 12 project activities = 0 13 project activities = 1

Provinces Kabupaten

Fig. 3b - Project Activity at Provincial Level (excerpt)

Province Click drop down box to select by alphabet.

No. of Projects Click drop

down box to view by

quantity of projects.

Supp

ortin

g In

stitu

tiona

l Fr

amew

ork

SCB

D

CLG

S II

Pro-

Poor

AC

CES

S

AN

TAR

A

IAST

P

TAM

FIII

GG

PA

S

GR

S II

BA

SIC

S

ALG

AP

II

ASS

D

CB

Kal

tim/ P

roB

angk

it

GLG

SfG

G

BR

iDG

E

GR

AD

E

LoG

IC

Central Level 5

Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam 7

North Sumatra 4

West Sumatra 4

Riau 1

Jambi 1

South Sumatra 5

Bengkulu 1

Lampung 3

Kepulauan Bangka Belitung 0

Kepulauan Riau 1

DKI Jakarta 0

West Java 8

Central Java 11

DI Yogyakarta 7

East Java 10

Banten 6

Bali 1

West Nusa Tenggara 8

East Nusa Tenggara 7

West Kalimantan 2

Central Kalimantan 2

South Kalimantan 1

East Kalimantan 2

North Sulawesi 4

Central Sulawesi 5

South Sulawesi 13

South East Sulawesi 7

Gorontalo 5

West Sulawesi 1

Maluku 4

North Maluku 3

3a_Geographic coverage_province / Province 1 / 4

Fig. 3c - Project Activity at Kabupaten Level (excerpt)

Province Click drop down box to select by

alphabet

Kabupaten/Kota Click drop down box to select kabupaten by alphabet.

# of Known Projects Click drop down box to view by quantity of projects.

Supp

ortin

g In

stitu

tiona

l Fr

amew

ork

SCB

D

LGFG

R-S

DP

CLG

S II

Pro-

Poor

AC

CES

S

AN

TAR

A

IAST

P

TAM

FIII

GG

PA

S

GR

S II

BA

SIC

S

ALG

AP

II

ASS

D

Central Level Only 5

Simeulue 3Aceh Singkil 3Aceh Selatan 3Aceh Tenggara 3Aceh Timur 2Aceh Tengah 3Aceh Barat 4Aceh Besar 4Pidie 3Bireuen 3Aceh Utara 2Aceh Barat Daya 3Gayo Lues 3Aceh Tamiang 3Nagan Raya 4Aceh Jaya 4Bener Meriah 3Kota Banda Aceh 3Kota Sabang 2Kota Langsa 2Kota Lhokseumawe 2Unknown 3Nias 1Mandailing Natal 2Tapanuli Selatan 2Tapanuli Tengah 3Tapanuli Utara 2Toba Samosir 2Labuhan Batu 0Asahan 0Simalungun 2Dairi 0Karo 2Deli Serdang 2Langkat 0Nias Selatan 0Humbang Hasundutan 1Pakpak Bharat 0Samosir 1Serdang Bedagai 2Kota Sibolga 1Kota Tanjung Balai 0Kota Pematang Siantar 1Kota Tebing Tinggi 1Kota Medan 1Kota Binjai 1Kota Padang Sidempuan 0Unknown 0Kepulauan Mentawai 0Pesisir Selatan 1Solok 4

Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

North Sumatra / Sumatera Utara

3b_Geographic coverage_kabupaten / Kabupaten 1 / 27

Fig. 3d - Sample map of project activity (SPADA)

Fig. 3e - Sample map of project activity by province (Riau)

Fig. 4 - Thematic Coverage

# of Projects

Supp

ortin

g In

stitu

tiona

l Fr

amew

ork

SCB

D

LGFG

R-S

DP

CLG

S II

Pro-

Poor

AC

CES

S

AN

TAR

A

IAST

P

TAM

FIII

GG

PA

S

GR

S II

BA

SIC

S

ALG

AP

II

ASS

D

CB

Kal

tim/

ProB

angk

it

GLG

604230130

2414106121

623

9. Personnel management

5. Intergovernmental fiscal relations6. Supervision7. DPOD8. Regional organizational structures

1. Legal framework2. Territorial reform

18. Village governance

3. Functional assignment

14 Heads of Regions15. Local Parties16. Local elections

4. Role of the Governor and province

19. CSO/university networks

13. DPRD support

10. Service delivery11. Planning and budgeting12. Financial mgmt /Procurement

17. Civil Society Organizations (CSO) / media

4_Thematic Summary / Thematic Summary 1 / 2

Fig. 4 - Thematic Coverage (continued)

# of Projects Sf

GG

BR

iDG

E

GR

AD

E

LoG

IC

PGR

I

DR

SP

LGSP

WB

/ Net

herla

nds

Prog

ram

SofE

I

GFM

RA

P

KD

P

SPA

DA

USD

RP

ILG

R

604230130

2414106121

623


5. Intergovernmental fiscal relations6. Supervision7. DPOD8. Regional organizational structures

1. Legal framework2. Territorial reform

18. Village governance

3. Functional assignment

14 Heads of Regions15. Local Parties16. Local elections

4. Role of the Governor and province

19. CSO/university networks

13. DPRD support

10. Service delivery11. Planning and budgeting12. Financial mgmt /Procurement

17. Civil Society Organizations (CSO) / media

4_Thematic Summary / Thematic Summary 1 / 1

Methods and Tools# of

ProjectsSu

ppor

ting

Inst

itutio

nal

Fram

ewor

k

SCB

D

LGFG

R-S

DP

CLG

S II

Pro-

Poor

AC

CES

S

AN

TAR

A

IAST

P

TAM

FIII

GG

PA

S

GR

S II

BA

SIC

S

ALG

AP

II

ASS

D

CB

Kal

tim/ P

roB

angk

it

GLG

SfG

G

BR

iDG

E

GR

AD

E

LoG

IC

PGR

I

DR

SP

LGSP

WB

/ Net

herla

nds

Prog

ram

SofE

I

GM

RA

P

KD

P

SPA

DA

USD

RP

ILG

R

3

4

16

1

4

19

8

12

7

4

4. Geographic info systems

1. Asset management systems

2. Expenditure tracking

3. Financial management systems


5. Local revenue management

6. Management information

7. Performance oriented systems

9. Public accountability mechanisms

10. Workflow management

Fig. 5 - Methods & Tools

Fig. 6 - Project Timeframe

No

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

1 Supporting Institutional Framework Ongoing 1-Jan-04 unknown Phase 1 finished in December

2006

2 SCBD Ongoing 10-Dec-02 31-Dec-08

3 LGFGR-SDP Ongoing 1-Jan-04 30-Jun-09 Phase 1 ends 31 December 2006.

4 CLGS II Planned for approval in 2008 unknown

5 Pro-Poor Ongoing 1-May-06 30-Jun-08

6 ACCESS Completed 1-Feb-02 1-Feb-075 year program. In practice, still

winding down as of August 2007.

7 ANTARA Ongoing 1-Apr-04 30-Apr-09 ANTARA

8 IASTP Ongoing 1-Apr-04 12-Dec-08

9 TAMFIII Ongoing 1-Mar-04 28-Feb-09

10 GG PAS Ongoing 1-Jan-03 1-Dec-08

11 GRS II Ongoing 1-Mar-03 1-Jul-10 Exact dates are estimated.

12 BASICS Planned Estimated 2008

Estimated 2011

13 ALGAP II Ongoing 7-Feb-07 1-Feb-10

14 ASSD Ongoing 1-Jan-06 31-Dec-151st phase ends 12/31/09. 2nd

phase ends 12/31/13. 3rd phase ends 12/31/15.

15 CB Kaltim/ ProBangkit Ongoing 1-Jan-06 31-Dec-09

16 GLG Ongoing 1-Jan-06 31-Dec-15

17 SfGG Ongoing 1-Jul-00 31-Dec-091st phase ended 6/30/03; 2nd phase ended 12/31/07); 3rd

phase ends 12/31/2009.

18 BRiDGE Ongoing 14-Jan-05 13-Jan-08

19 GRADE Ongoing 11-May-06 31-Dec-09

20 LoGIC Ongoing 7-Dec-04 8-Dec-07

21 PGRI Ongoing 1-Jan-00 31-Dec-07Estimated start time used.

Project started in 2000, and gained legal status 2003

22 DRSP Ongoing 20-Apr-05 19-Apr-09

23 LGSP Ongoing 1-Mar-05 30-Sep-09

24 WB/ Netherlands Program Ongoing 1-Jan-05 31-Dec-09

25 SofEI Ongoing 1-Sep-04 31-Dec-09 Estimated end date.

26 GFMRAP Ongoing 30-Jun-04 30-Jun-15GFMRAP I ends 30/6/09.GFMRAP II: 2006 - 2010GFMRAP III: 2010 - 2015

27 KDP Ongoing 30-Jun-05 31-Dec-08

28 SPADA Ongoing 1-Jun-05 31-Dec-11 Effective project start date was 1/10/2005.

29 USDRP Ongoing 1-Jun-05 31-Dec-10Effective start date was

1/10/2005. Effective end date is30/6/2011.

30 ILGR Ongoing 11-Oct-05 30-Sep-09

GRS II

SCBD

LGFin&GovRef

SCBD

GG PAS

SfGG

GFMRAP

TAMF III

IASTP III

ACCESS ACCESSACCESS

PGRI

GG PAS

PGRI PGRIPGRI

SfGG

GRS II

SfGG

Select Project CommentsSelect Status Start Finish

Inst Framework

20012000 200420032002

SfGG SfGG

PGRI

Donor Database Mapping - Timeframe

Fig. 6 - Project Timeframe (details)

No

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

1 Supporting Institutional Framework Ongoing 1-Jan-04 unknown


3 LGFGR-SDP Ongoing 1-Jan-04 30-Jun-09



6 ACCESS Completed 1-Feb-02 1-Feb-07

7 ANTARA Ongoing 1-Apr-04 30-Apr-09




11 GRS II Ongoing 1-Mar-03 1-Jul-10


Estimated 2011

13 ALGAP II Ongoing 7-Feb-07 1-Feb-10 ALGAP II ALGAP II ALGAP II

14 ASSD Ongoing 1-Jan-06 31-Dec-15



17 SfGG Ongoing 1-Jul-00 31-Dec-09


19 GRADE Ongoing 11-May-06 31-Dec-09 GRADE


21 PGRI Ongoing 1-Jan-00 31-Dec-07 PGRI PGRI

22 DRSP Ongoing 20-Apr-05 19-Apr-09 DRSP



25 SofEI Ongoing 1-Sep-04 31-Dec-09

26 GFMRAP Ongoing 30-Jun-04 30-Jun-15


28 SPADA Ongoing 1-Jun-05 31-Dec-11

29 USDRP Ongoing 1-Jun-05 31-Dec-10 USDRP USDRP USDRP USDRP USDRP USDRP


GG PAS

BASICS

GRS II

Pro-Poor Planning and Budgeting

ANTARA

SCBD

ACCESS

LGFin&GovRefLGFin&GovRef

SCBD

Pro-Poor

GLG GLG

BASICS

GRS II

BASICS

ANTARA ANTARA

GLG

SfGG proposedSfGG SfGG SfGG SfGG proposed

LGSP

SPADA SPADA

GFMRAP

LGSP

GFMRAP

KDP3 KDP3

ILGR ILGR

SPADA

ILGR ILGR

SPADA SPADASPADA

GFMRAP GFMRAPGFMRAPGFMRAP

KDP3 KDP3

World Bank - DTFWorld Bank - DTF

SofEISofEI

ILGR

World Bank - DTF

DRSP

World Bank - DTF World Bank - DTF

DRSP DRSP

LGSP LGSP LGSP

ASSDASSD ASSDASSD

GLG GLG

ProBANGKIT ProBANGKIT

ASSD

IASTP III

TAMF III TAMF III TAMF III TAMF III

IASTP III IASTP III

ACCESS

ANTARA

LoGIC

GRS II

Select Project

SCBD

2007Select Status Start Finish

Inst Framework Inst Framework

2005 2006 2009 20102008

IASTP III

GG PAS GG PAS GG PAS

ProBANGKIT ProBANGKIT

SofEISofEISofEI

GRS II

BRiDGE

DRSP

GRADE GRADE

LoGIC

GRADE

Inst Framework

GRS II GRS II

SCBD

PGRI

BRiDGE BRiDGE

LoGIC


Fig. 6 - Project Timeframe (details)

No

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

1 Supporting Institutional Framework Ongoing 1-Jan-04 unknown


3 LGFGR-SDP Ongoing 1-Jan-04 30-Jun-09



6 ACCESS Completed 1-Feb-02 1-Feb-07

7 ANTARA Ongoing 1-Apr-04 30-Apr-09




11 GRS II Ongoing 1-Mar-03 1-Jul-10


Estimated 2011

13 ALGAP II Ongoing 7-Feb-07 1-Feb-10

14 ASSD Ongoing 1-Jan-06 31-Dec-15



17 SfGG Ongoing 1-Jul-00 31-Dec-09


19 GRADE Ongoing 11-May-06 31-Dec-09


21 PGRI Ongoing 1-Jan-00 31-Dec-07

22 DRSP Ongoing 20-Apr-05 19-Apr-09



25 SofEI Ongoing 1-Sep-04 31-Dec-09

26 GFMRAP Ongoing 30-Jun-04 30-Jun-15


28 SPADA Ongoing 1-Jun-05 31-Dec-11

29 USDRP Ongoing 1-Jun-05 31-Dec-10


BASICS

GFMRAP GFMRAP

SPADA

GFMRAPGFMRAP GFMRAP

GLG GLGGLG GLGGLG

Select Project Select Status Start Finish

20122011

ASSDASSD ASSD ASSD ASSD

2013 2014 2015


Fig. 7 - Results Framework / Performance Indicators

1

2

3

4

5

7

Given Performance Indicators

6

ProjectEffective inter-governmental coordination and consensus in implementing decentralization reforms; development of Regional Autononomy Advisor Council (DPOD) recommendations for policy reforms;successfully concluding technical studies on (i) intergovernmental fiscal relations, including analysis of current inter-governmental fiscal transfers focusing on local governments participating in the LGF program, mapping of regions according to fiscal needs and capacity as a basis for developing equalization and efficiency policies among regions and a framework for collection, monitoring and analysis of data to measure horizontal and vertical inequities; (ii) formulating a methodology and financing parameters for minimum service standards in health, education and infrastructure, and development of indicators to benchmark performance in these areas; and (iii) upgrading the National Capacity Building Framework based on the assessment on the regional capacity building needs.

Pro-Poor

Supporting Institutional Framework

CLGS II

LGFGR-SDP

ACCESS

ANTARA

Closer alignment of public services and preferences. Overall quantity, as well as quality, of public services will be enhanced.Greater accountability and efficiency through a strengthened and harmonized policy, legal and regulatory framework for regional autonomy, fiscal balance and PEFM.More sustainable intergovernmental relations through establishment of the new DPOD and greater cooperation in service delivery between local governments.More equitable and transparent system of intergovernmental fiscal transfers.Strengthened government capacity.

Measurable increase in the level of household income. Quantity and quality of basic infrastructure increased. Level of health of community members improved. More involvement of local community in decisionmaking. Measurable improvement in local government information disclosure, accountability, and transparency. Resettlement frameworks and requisite subproject resettlement plans are prepared. At least three subproject appraisal report (SPARs) are piloted and 22–27 SPARs are developed by local governments (with the support of technical assistance consultants) and are approved by regional. Prepare costs estimates, and analyze the technical, environmental, financial, and economic feasibility of the subprojects.

SCBD

Component 4: Coordination and reviewIndicator: Demonstrated improvements in collaboration of stakeholders towards civil society ideals. Develop practical guidelines for ensuring gender and poverty issues are integrated into all ACCESS supported community assessment and planning.

1. Local poverty reduction strategies (SPKD) that are operationalized, linked to a pro-poor and participatory budget process, and institutionalized in pilot districts; 2.a nationwide conditional cash transfer (CCT) program that provides income support to the poor while building human capital. 3. At least 10 SPKD are developed and approved by local governments. 4. At least 10 approved budgets demonstrate a more pro-poor and gender sensitive resource allocation than in previous years. 5. An Administrative Order issued,encouraging local governments to adopt a pro-poor and gender sensitive planning and budgeting process. 6. Local government budgets contain provisions for the SPKD process in subsequent years. From 72% in May 2005, 90% of local governments have established a KPKD. From 31% in May 2005, 50% of KPKD have launched the SPKD process.

Component 1: Preparation and PlanningIndicator: AUD$9.39 million in funds disbursed over 5 years according to approved Operating Guidelines, in priority and geographic focusComponent 2: Capacity building for organisational strengtheningIndicator: At least 60% of all organisations involved in capacity building activities demonstrate improvements in areas such as strategic alliances,governance, learning, project cycle responsiveness, resource management.Component 3: Community planning and managementIndicators: At least 15 community plans completed and signed by the community per target Province (Total 60). 15 community assessmentscompleted per target Province (total 60).Communities involved in projects demonstrate improvements in areas such as participation in decision making, building human capital, community management systems.

Improved coordination among relevant Australian development projects and other donor programs. Development of activities in targeted areas such as local planning and business development. Successfully investing in initiatives with proven capacity or strong potential for impact and expansion.

The Project will develop institutional capacity for 38-40 regional governments within the geographic focus area of the ADB, to increase their operational capability with regard to: (i) the efficient delivery of public services in accordance with minimum service standards, (ii) the maintenance of essential public facilities, (iii) the promotion of equitable economic development, and (iv) the management of poverty reduction programs.

Fig. 7 - Results Framework / Performance Indicators (details)

Given Performance IndicatorsProject

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

(1) Population adminstration authorities in the pilot areas apply at least 80% of the organisation and service standards developed by the project. (2) At least 5 other districts have commenced organisation and service reform according to the standards developed by the project. (3) The share of previously discriminated population groups in the pilot areas receiving population documents has increased by 30 %. (4) 80 % of the recipients of population documents in the pilot regions judge the services at least as satisfactory. (5) A regular exchange of population data between said authorities and the offices for religious affairs takes place in all pilot regions. (6) A periodically conducted customer satisfaction survey indicates that an increasing share of citizens has received their population documents without discrimination, free of illegial fees and timely. (7) A handbook for civil registrars on difficult registration cases has been published by the Ministry of Home Affairs and distributed to all registration offices. (8) The first group of civil registration officers trained at the new academy commences work at district offices.

---

(1) Parliamentary debates and public statements by parliamentarians and government officials, as well as contributions of CSOs to public policy debates reflect good understanding of contents and implications of LoGA. (2) Actions of governments and parliaments are in line with qanun and other regional regulations. (3) a) Delivery of essential services by local governments and DPRK improved; b) Participation by CSOs in public decision-making increased.

Phase objective: The political process of decentralization and its legal framework reflect proposals from different stakeholders that are based on their needs and experiences. Indicators: (1) the percentage of organizations consulted that regard the political process as transparent, participatory and gender-sensitive increases from 10% (2006) to 40% (2008) (source: survey). (2) the percentage of organizations from different sectors that assess the decentralization laws/regulations and policies as conducive to the provision of public services increase from 10% (2006) to 30% (2009) (source: survey). (3) The quantity of formalized coordination mechnisms (including national and international actors) in the field of decentralization increases from 2 (2006) to 8 (2009) (source: inter-institutional agreements, donor agreements, protocols).

1. Increase of the consideration of results of spatial, economic and social analyses which have been elaborated according to internationally recognized methods or national standards in the development plans of the three districts. (Increase of applications from 0 to 3 cases in 2. year, 7 in 3. year and 10 in 4. year and consideration in relevant annual and medium term plans) 2. Increase of the number of hearings with citizens and experts for medium-term development planning, budget planning, land use planning and local investment planning, which are being implemented according to newly devised municipal acts from 0 to 3 cases in 2nd year, 7 in 3rd year and 12 in 4th year.

To develop practical guidelines for ensuring gender and poverty issues are integrated into all ACCESS supported community assessment and planning. In total IASTP Phase III is required to deliver 196,020 participant training days in-Indonesia and in-Australia on the following components. Component 1: Economic Management. Objective: To develop the technical knowledge, skills and change-management capacity of selected participants involved in the promotion and management of economic growth and employment generation in an integrated Central, Provincial and District level system.Component 2: Other Governance. Objective: To upgrade the technical knowledge, skills and change-management capacity of participants who have responsibilities for designing and delivering government services, reflecting and promoting principles of good governance and democratisation in an integrated Central, Provincial and District level system.

BASICS

Among others: number of modern tax offices rolled out; successful auction of radio spectrum; organizational restructuring of newly merged BAPEPAM-LK.

3. Increase of implementation of regulations according to new laws on public finance, budgeting, and control of public finance as well as related implementation guidelines and municipal acts. (e.g. budgets established according to performance oriented budgeting, budgets being published regularly, financial administration and reporting conducted according to established accounting standards) (Implementation increases from 0 by 3 cases in 2nd year, by 5 cases in 3rd year, and by 8 cases in 4th year) 4. Significant increase of the percentage of citizens and representatives of the local economic sector who assess the quality of public services as positive (good or very good) in the three districts (10 % p.a. from 2007 until 2009. (survey results of independent organizations)

Component 3: Delivery of Basic Services. Objective: To upgrade the technical knowledge, skills and change-management capacity of selected participants who have responsibilities for delivering basic services at Provincial and District level to communities in targeted disadvantaged areas.Component 4: Capacity Building Training. Objective: To strengthen the capacity of participating Indonesian agencies to design and deliver appropriate short course training for their staff.

IASTP

TAMF III

GG PAS

GRS II

ASSD

ALGAP II

---

CB Kaltim/ ProBangkit



16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Develop minimum standards for services and create monitoring and information systems inside and outside government to evaluate results in key policy areas.

Creating Eastern Indonesia Information Exchange (BaKTI); Eastern Indonesia Internships and Institution Linkages; Traditional Cultures Festival and Value Chain Analysis; HIV/AIDS Awareness Campaign for Eastern Indonesia; and Development Marketplace Facility; Papua Public Expenditure Review and Capacity Enhancement.

Phase/component objective 2 (GTZ):Component 2: Sub-national regional authorities are implementing service-oriented budgets that incorporate planning results, together with the relevant groups and intermediary organisations.Indicators:1. Based on a survey, the proportion of affected groups and intermediary organisations that is satisfied with the degree of influence they have on sub-national plans and budgets has risen from 30% in 2006 (initial value) to 50% in 2009 (target value).2. The number of districts in the key regions - and in three additional provinces outside of the key regions - that are applying lessons learned from pilot measures (above all as regards the improvement of planning procedures, budgeting and participation) has increased from 0 in 2006 (initial value) to 20 in 2009 (target value).

An effective and transparent legal framework is developed, disseminated and implemented to allow the holding of democratic direct elections of local government heads.

% of citizens that indicate local government officials consult citizens before local laws are passed and before policies and programs are implemented;% of citizens that indicate that LG plans and budgets reflect women and youth needs and priorities;% of citizens that indicate that their service requests and complaints over the past year were addressed promptly and satisfactorily;% of citizens that indicate local government development and service delivery plans reflect stakeholders expressed needs and priorities;% of citizens that indicate targeted LGs publish and provide sufficient information on their plans, budgets, policies, performance, and expenditures to the public media;% of citizens that indicate they satisfied with local governments services.

Component 1: Sub-national regional authorities in the key regions have increased the coverage and quality of specific public services together with the relevant groups and intermediary organisations.Indicators:1. Based on a survey, the proportion of the entire population in the key regions, in particular disadvantaged groups and women, that is satisfied with the coverage and quality of public services in sectors for which minimum standards have been identified, has risen from 53% in 2006 (initial value) to 70% (target value).2. Based on a survey, the proportion of actors in the private sector that is satisfied with the coverage and quality of economically viable public services, has increased from 60% in 2006 (initial) to 75% (target value).

Annual opinion polls upon facilities of public administration on central and regional levels show that applications are handled according to regulations of procedure and permits are granted at official fees, citizens' complaints are handled within scheduled time and lead to corrective measures of the administration, administrative decisions are comprehensively well-founded for the citizens, and the administration allows its files to be seen.

Democratic and participatory development process established to assist the government and civil society to be more responsive and responsible respectively and able to network more effectively for knowledge sharing.

1. Number of trained DPRD members and secretariat staff and positive changes based on the self-performance monitoring by DPRD members; 2. Number of public consultations between DPRD members and their constituants 3. Better communication skills for DPRD members in interacting with constituents. 4. Number of initiative-making local government regulation produced by DPRD

Cooperation modalities and achieve inter-governmental cooperation developed and policy dialogue forums organised and effectively used.Best practices of effective inter-governmental cooperation mechanisms documented and disseminated.Operational joint regional secretariat for Sulawesi-Maluku.Effective support services mechanism developed.Enhanced capacity of the associations to effectively represent and lobby for the interest of their members in national policy dialogue and policy-making.Effective means of communication between the national and regional secretariats and its members.Effective means of promotion of member’s interest to private sector through development of market places.Government and UNDP’s consensus on future direction and support.

---

WB/ Netherlands Program

SofEI

GLG

SfGG

BRiDGE

GRADE

DRSP

LGSP

LoGIC

PGRI



26

27

28

29

30

National government policy priorities are reflected in a middle Term Expenditure Framework and annual budget.Reduced leakage in expenditure flows to end-user as measured by public expenditure tracking survey.Automated treasury payment system enables accurate and timely financial reporting, reduce incidence and size of idle cash balances, and reduces corruption in payments.Improved customs revenue performance and time for release performance.Demonstrable evidence of improved performance of tax and custom collection and greater transparency in implementation of tax and custom regulation, as indicated by increased in registered tax payers and filers, reduce tax arrears, and reduced clearance time in customs.

Improved access to cost-effective, quality infrastructure through participatory planning process.Quality and level of community participation in various project activities throughout the planning, decision-making and implementation cycle.Improvements in health and education outcomes.Increased use of altemative dispute resolution and legal mechanisms to resolve disputes peacefully.Creation or reform of government and local level institutions for handling conflict.

At least 10 ULGs improve priority urban service delivery selected for USDRP support.Greater public availability of information.Participating ULGs have public feedback mechanisms in place.Participating ULGs have participatory planning processes and public consultations/hearings taking place regarding urban strategies, plans & budgets.Participating ULGs have sound financial and procurement management practices.

Increased role of local governments and stakeholder groups in planning and monitoring service delivery and funds utilization. Local governments open their budgeting, planning and financial management practices to greater public scrutiny. Increased poverty targeted expenditures. Public consultation and the endorsement of the stakeholder forum (or a designated working group) with respect to the use of ILGR investment funds. It is anticipated that ILGR funds will target mainly pro-poor rural infrastructure; a “Transparency Commission” comprised primarily of civil society leaders to provide independent monitoring of the implementation of the perda on transparency and participation; Public consultation mechanisms (envisioned in some kabupatens as distinct and ongoing Working Groups) on specific issues deemed crucial to district-level poverty reduction; and Enhanced access to information and the possible involvement of independent non-government participants in tendering committees as part of the financial management and procurement reform package.

Improved HH expenditure rates and improved access to economic and social services.Increased economic internal rates of retum for major village infrastructure types.80% satisfaction levels from beneficiaries regarding improved services and local level governance.

ILGR

GFMRAP

KDP

SPADA

USDRP

Fig. 8 - Funding Commitments Currency KeyNote: Technical assistance is categorized as a grant. A$ - Australian Dollars

US$ - US Dollars

CAD - Canadian Dollars

Funds Committed (Millions) EUR - Euros

External Funds Govt of IndonesiaLoan Grant Central Local

US$ $0.50 $0.13

-

US $0.63

US$ $42.22 $8.54 $1.29-

US $52.05

US$ $330.00 $0.50- -

US $330.50

US$ $25.00- - -

US $25.00

US$ $1.80 $0.30 $0.53-

US $2.63

A$-

A$21.00- -

A$21.00

A$-

A$30.00- -

A$30.00

A$-

A$62.50 A$8.00-

A$70.50

A$-

A$26.00- -

A$26.00

EUR-

EUR 3.00- -

EUR 3.00

CAD-

CAD$2.20- -

CAD$2.20

CAD-

CAD$15.00- -

CAD$15.00

€-

EUR 4.40- -

EUR 4.40

€-

EUR 11.50- -

EUR 11.50

€-

EUR 1.30- -

EUR 1.30

€-

EUR 7.90- -

EUR 7.90

€-

EUR 7.00- -

EUR 7.00

US$-

$4.50- -

US $4.50

US$-

$0.22- -

US $0.22

US$-

$1.10- -

US $1.10

US$-

$68.00- -

US $68.00

US$-

$15.40- -

US $15.40

US$-

$60.00- -

US $60.00

EUR-

EUR 20.00- -

EUR 20.00

US$- - - - n/a

US$

- - - -

US $250.00

US$ $160.00 $76.70- -

US $236.70

US$ $104.00 $74.10- -

US $134.70

US$ $45.00 $5.00 $13.35-

US $63.40

US$ $46.30 $12.00 $4.80

-

US $46.30

US$ 754.82 US$ 326.36 US$ 20.09 - US$ 1,291.12- CAD$17.20 - - CAD$17.20- EUR 55.10 - - EUR 55.10- A$ 139.50 A$ 8.00 - A$ 147.50

Grantor is Dutch Trust Fund

Grant

Grant from DFID

CB Kaltim/ ProBangkit

SPADA

USDRP

ILGR

SofEI

KDP

GFMRAP

WB/ Netherlands Program

SfGG

BRiDGE

US$CAD$EUR$

A$

TOTAL

GRADE

LoGIC

PGRI

DRSP

LGSP

GLG

ACCESS

ANTARA

IASTP

TAMFIII

BASICS

ALGAP II

ASSD

GG PAS

GRS II

Includes $8.5 million from Sweden, Norway

-

For all 3 phases. (Phase 1: US$160million, = US$140m loan, $5m grant, and$15m from central GOI.)

Grantor is Japan PHRD

DFID granted $12m, JSDF US$2m (financial monitoring by NGOs)

Select Project

Grant is from Govt of Netherlands.

CommentsTOTALCurrency

CLGS II

Pro-Poor

Supporting Institutional FrameworkSCBD

LGFGR-SDP

Documents

070924 Donor Database Narrative Report English€¦ · Narrative Report I. Introduction Background The Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA - Directorate for Capacity Building and EKD)