Public Disclosure Authorized REPORT NO.: RES27023 ... · Posyandu Pos Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana ‐ Kesehatan Terpadu (Village Health Post) PPMD Pembangunan dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat

REPORT NO.: RES27023

RESTRUCTURING PAPER

ON A

PROPOSED PROJECT RESTRUCTURING

OF

THE VILLAGE INNOVATION PROGRAM (VIP)

APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2012

TO

THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

March 10, 2017

SOCIAL, URBAN, RURAL AND RESILIENCE GLOBAL PRACTICE

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

Regional Vice President: Victoria Kwakwa Country Director: Rodrigo A. Chaves

Senior Global Practice Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz‐Vasquez Practice Manager/Manager: Kevin A Tomlinson

Task Team Leader: Samuel T Clark, Bambang Soetono

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

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

The World Bank VILLAGE INNOVATION PROGRAM (VIP) (P128832)

ii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADD Alokasi Dana Desa (Village Fund Allocation)

AOB Absence of Objection

APB Des Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Desa (Village Budget)

ASF Administrative Service Firms

Bappenas National Development Planning Agency

BKAD Badan Koordinasi Antar Desa (Inter‐Village Cooperation Board)

BPKP Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (Development Finance Comptroller)

BPMD Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Desa (Provincial Community and Village Empowerment Agency)

BPMD KAB Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Desa Kabupaten (District Community and Village Empowerment Agency)

BP‐UPK Badan Pengawas – Unit Pengelola Kegiatan (Community‐Appointed Oversight Body of the Sub‐district Management Unit)

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CFAO Chief Financial and Administrative Officer

CMU Country Management Unit

COO Chief Operations Officer

CY Calendar Year

DD Dana Desa (Village Fund)

Dekon Program Operational Funds

DG‐PPMD Directorate General of Village Community Development and Empowerment

DIPA Daftar Isian Pelaksanaan Anggaran (Government Budget List)

EA Environmental Assessment

ECED Early Childhood Education

EO Event Organizer

ETP Executive Transformation Program

FM Financial Management

GoI Government of Indonesia

GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism

ICR Implementation Completion Report

IFR Interim Financial Report

IOI Intermediate Outcome Indicators

IRI Intermediary Results Indicators

ISR Implementation Status Report

Juknis Technical Instruction

KPI Key Performance Indicators

KPPN Kantor Pelayanan Perbendaharaan Negara (State Treasury Office)

Kecamatan Sub‐District

MAD Musyawarah Antar Desa (Inter‐Village Consultative Forum)


iii

Menko PMK Coordinating Ministry of Human Development and Cultural Affairs

M&E MIS

Monitoring and Evaluation Management Information System

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MoV Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NGO Non‐Government Organization

NMC National Management Consultant

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OM Operations Manual

P3MD Program Pembangunan dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Desa (Village and Community Development and Empowerment Program)

PASA Programmatic Advisory Services and Analytics

PAUD Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini (Early Childhood Education and Development

PD Pendamping Desa (Sub‐district Village Facilitator)

PDO Project Development Objective

PKH Program Keluarga Harapan (Hopeful Family Program).

PL Program Leader

PLD Pendamping Lokal Desa (Village Facilitator)

PNPM Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (National Program for Community Empowerment)

POM Project Operations Manual

Posyandu Pos Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana ‐ Kesehatan Terpadu (Village Health Post)

PPMD Pembangunan dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Desa (Village and Community Development and Empowerment)

RAB Rencana Anggaran Biaya Kegiatan (Activity Plans and Budgets)

RKPDes Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Desa (Annual Village Development Plan)

RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional National Medium‐Term Development Plan)

RLF Revolving Loan Fund

SATKER Satuan Kerja (Government Working Unit)

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SORT Systematic Operations Risk‐Rating Tool

SOM Supplementary Operations Manual

SP2D Surat Perintah Pencairan Dana (Remittance Order)

SP2D UP Surat Perintah Pencairan Dana Uang Persediaan (Petty cash Remittance Order)

SPM Surat Perintah Membayar (Payment Order)


iv

SPM UP Surat Perintah Membayar Uang Persediaan (Petty Cash Payment Order)

TA Technical Assistance

TAPM Tenaga Ahli Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (District‐Level Community Empowerment Expert)

TA VIG Village Innovation Grant Experts

TF Trust Fund

TNP2K Tim Nasional Percepatan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan (Team to Accelerate Poverty Reduction)

TOR Terms of Reference

TPK Tim Pengelola Kegiatan (Village Implementation Team)

TSP Technical Service Provider

UPK Unit Pengelola Kegiatan (Sub‐district Financial Management Unit)

VIIG Village Innovation Incubation Grant

VIG Village Innovation Grant

VIIT Village Innovation Implementation Team

VIP Village Innovation Program

VIT Village Innovation Team

ASF Administrative Service Firms

BKAD Badan Koordinasi Antar Desa (Inter‐Village Cooperation Board)

BPKP Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (Development Finance Comptroller)

BP‐UPK Badan Pengawas – Unit Pengelola Kegiatan (Community‐Appointed Oversight Body of the Sub‐district Management Unit)

CMU Country Management Unit

EA Environmental Assessment

IFR Interim Financial Report

IRI Intermediary Results Indicators

ISR Implementation Status Report

Kecamatan Sub‐District

MAD Musyawarah Antar Desa (Inter‐Village Consultative Forum)

M&E MIS

Monitoring and Evaluation Management Information System

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MoV Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration

NGO Non‐Government Organization

NMC National Management Consultant

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PASA Programmatic Advisory Services and Analytics

PD Pendamping Desa (Sub‐district Village Facilitator)

PDO Project Development Objective

PLD Pendamping Lokal Desa (Village Facilitator)


v

PNPM Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (National Program for Community Empowerment)

RKPDes Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Desa (Annual Village Development Plan)

RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional National Medium‐Term Development Plan)

RLF Revolving Loan Fund

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SORT Systematic Operations Risk‐Rating Tool

TAPM Tenaga Ahli Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (District‐Level Community Empowerment Expert)

TNP2K Tim Nasional Percepatan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan (Team to Accelerate Poverty Reduction)

TSP Technical Service Provider

UPK Unit Pengelola Kegiatan (Sub‐district Financial Management Unit)

VIG Village Innovation Grant

VIIG Village Innovation Incubation Grant


vi

BASIC DATA

Product Information

Project ID Lending Instrument

P128832 Specific Investment Loan

Original EA Category Current EA Category

Approval Date Current Closing Date

11‐Dec‐2012 31‐Mar‐2017

Organizations

Borrower Responsible Agency

Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Village, Development of Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration

Processing (this section will be automatically removed by the system before the paper is disclosed)

Form Type Based on the proposed changes this Restructuring type is

Full Restructuring Paper Level 1

Decision Authority

Board/AOB Decision

Project Development Objective (PDO)

Original PDO

The PDO of the Project is for villagers in PNPM‐Rural locations to benefit from improved local governance and socio‐economic conditions.

Summary Status of Financing

Ln/Cr/Tf Approval Signing Effectiveness Closing Net

Commitment Disbursed Undisbursed

IBRD‐82170 11‐Dec‐2012 22‐Jan‐2013 25‐Mar‐2013 31‐Mar‐2017 650.00 517.02 132.98


vii

Policy Waiver(s) Does this restructuring trigger the need for any policy waiver(s)?

No


1

I. PROJECT STATUS AND RATIONALE FOR RESTRUCTURING

PROJECT STATUS

1. Relevance. The relevance of the PDO to the government’s objective to support community development has evolved

since the government passed the Village Law in 2014 and began its implementation in 2015. At the time of the project’s

preparation and appraisal in 2012 the project’s objective was consistent with previous projects that supported PNPM

and was fully consistent with the Bank’s Country Partnership Strategy (FY13‐15), the government medium‐term

development plan (RPJMN) for CY10‐14, the government’s Strategy to Accelerate Poverty Reduction (TNP2K), as well

as the government’s PNPM Roadmap. The project design was also relevant in this context and the causal chain from

project interventions to outputs and outcomes clear. In 2014 the Coordinating Ministry that oversaw the project issued

a two‐year transition strategy (2015‐2016) to transition PNPM mechanisms and lessons to the Village Law framework

for village development and community empowerment. The first project restructuring, which was finalized in June

2015, moved the project from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) to the new Ministry of Villages, enabling it to

support this transition strategy (see Diagram 1 below). It is appropriate to adjust the PDO and project design given the

transition period is complete. The new PDO and design will ensure full alignment with Engagement Area 4: Delivery of

Local Services and Infrastructure of the new Country Partnership Framework (FY16‐20) as well as the new government’s

Medium‐Term Development Plan for CY15‐19.

2. Efficacy. The most recent ISR prior to this restructuring assessed the efficacy of both the local governance and socio‐

economic objectives of the project as substantial. The first objective of villagers benefiting from improved local

governance is evidenced by achievement of 15 of 18 PDO‐level Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Intermediate

Outcome Indicators (IOIs), which includes exceeding the PDO‐level target of involving 3 million community members

in participatory and democratic forums for planning, implementing and overseeing initiatives that directly address local

development. The second objective of villagers benefiting from improved socio‐economic conditions is evidenced by

achievement of all 9 KPIs and IRIs, including all six PDO‐level indicators relating to improved access to low‐cost

infrastructure, productivity improvements, project beneficiaries, and the local level multiplier of village infrastructure

projects. Survey results provide preliminary evidence that the facilitation structure has continued to provide valuable

technical assistance to support villages to finalize their medium‐term development plan, annual work plans and annual

budgets during the transition period. In November 2015 a survey of 3,671 village officials across 46 districts and 346

sub‐districts in all five main island regions found that 57% of villages said they had received facilitation support and

38% of which were recognized as project‐financed former PNPM facilitators. Qualitative evidence suggests that the

effectiveness of additional facilitators recruited in late 2015 and 2016 has been lower, and further analysis in 2017 will

be necessary to assess whether the project’s investments in facilitator systems and capacity development in 2016

provided the foundations for better quality village support.

3. Efficiency. The final ISR also assessed the economic and financial as well as the administrative and operational

dimensions of project efficiency, which it concluded were moderate. The Bank completed the PNPM Rural Evaluation

in March 2016 that assessed the project’s economic impacts as well as its cost effectiveness. It found average costs

savings in the order of 20‐25%, less than the target of 35%. The Evaluation found that the project fell short of project

cost savings over regular procurement because of weaker than expected facilitation supervision towards the end of

the project cycle in December 2014 and increasing number of vacancies, which can be attributed to the institutional


2

transition from PNPM to the Village Law. Furthermore, facilitators adopted government unit costs which meant that

the Project's material costs savings were negligible and that any cost savings were instead only derived from the labor

component (community labor). The institutional transition also affected the administrative and operational efficiency

of the project. The transfer of the project to the new Ministry of Villages (MoV) delayed implementation in 2015 and

an initial one‐year extension was required to support the transition.

4. Overall Implementation Progress. Overall implementation progress at the time of restructuring was assessed as

moderately unsatisfactory. Although the Project continued to make significant implementation progress in the second

half of CY16, the rating was downgraded to moderately unsatisfactory because of downgrades to FM and Project

Management. Overall the project has supported delivery of $5.9 billion in community block grants and village transfers

between 2013 and 2016, mobilized over 24,000 facilitators, and maintained a national program management structure,

which together have supported PNPM’s final two years of implementation (CY13‐14), the closure and handover of

PNPM assets (completed March 2015), and the complex transition to the Village Law (CY15‐CY16). The secondary

performance ratings have fluctuated over the life of the project. Counterpart Funding has been consistently rated as

Satisfactory, but FM, Procurement and Project Management were downgraded due to challenges of moving the project

to a new ministry established in 2015. M&E was also downgraded to moderately unsatisfactory after the transition

and has yet to improve because of institutional rivalries between the old and new implementing agency. Disbursement

has been slow overall; but the Project has met the revised targets for CY16. Compliance with applicable safeguard

provisions and legal covenants has been met. As detailed below, the restructuring will address the persistent project

management weaknesses that have hindered implementation progress.

5. Component 1: Kecamatan Grants. The Project has made steady implementation progress since the previous

restructuring in March 2015 shifted focus from disbursing and supporting implementation of PNPM block grants to

supporting Village Law implementation. The government has substantially increased direct fiscal transfers to villages

since the cessation of PNPM block grants in December 2014. In 2015 the national government allocated IDR 20.9

trillion ($1.6 billion) from the national budget in the form of Dana Desa (DD) and local governments allocated an

additional IDR 34.6 trillion ($2.7 billion) in the form of Alokasi Dana Desa (ADD); an estimated average of IDR 750 million

($56,000) per village. In 2016 these budget allocations increased to IDR 47 trillion ($3.6 billion) and 40 trillion ($3.1

billion) respectively; an estimated IDR 1.1 billion ($87,000) per village. Although these fiscal transfers are not legally

part of the project (and the Bank has no fiduciary responsibility), it is these annual fiscal transfers that project

Components 2 and 3 seek to leverage. The disbursement performance of village transfers has improved in 2016 (see

Figure 1 below); 65% of villages received their first tranche by June, from 23% in 2015, allowing villages more time to

execute village investment sub‐projects.

Figure 1: Dana Desa Disbursement to Villages (2015‐2016)


3

Source: World Bank survey of 368 districts in 2015, and 397 districts in 2016.

6. Component 2: Community Empowerment and Facilitation. The transition to a unified facilitation structure was

finalized in 2016. In February 2016 MoV and the Bank agreed to transition to a unified facilitation structure that

integrated former PNPM facilitators and new facilitators recruited to support implementation of the Village Law. MoV

also agreed to recruit an additional 2,900 sub‐district Village Facilitators (PD) with engineering qualifications. Although

the agreed target date of June 1 was missed, the integration was complete by October 31, 2016 with the re‐contracting

of 6,000 former PNPM Facilitators as PD and the termination of 1,471 unqualified and poor performing PD and inter‐

village Local Village Facilitators (PLD) (see Table 1). There has been progress on the recruitment of an additional 9,000

facilitators and mobilization of 4,095 facilitators in 2016, although MoV has yet to fulfill its ambitious target of 39,165.

As of November 2016 after the terminations, it has mobilized 22,965 facilitators or 59% of the target. Delays mostly

relate to the challenge of recruiting sub‐district level PD with engineering qualifications as well as recruitment

challenges in remote areas, particularly Papua and West Papua. The table below provides details on the current status

of facilitator mobilization and termination.

Table 1: Facilitator Mobilization and Termination (November 2016)

Facilitator Type ‐ Level Target Mobilized %

Mobilized Terminated

%

Terminated

Total

TA – District Level 2,290 2,248 98% 67 3% 2,181

PD – Sub‐district Level 15,756 7,919 50% 238 4% 7,681

PLD – Village Level 21,119 14,269 68% 1,166 8% 13,103

TOTAL 39,165 24,436 62% 1,471 6% 22,965

Note: TAPD refers to district‐level Technical Assistants; PD to sub‐district level Village Facilitators; and PLD to inter‐village Local Village Facilitators.

7. There has been slow but steady efforts to improve management of the new facilitation structure. Core Standard

Operating Procedures (S0Ps) and guidelines for professional village facilitation are now in place, including provincial

budget management, facilitator recruitment, provincial specialist recruitment, facilitator management, facilitator


4

mentoring and oversight, facilitator performance evaluation, as well as complaint handling and facilitation

coordination. MoV has also developed and piloted core facilitator training curriculum and modules, and is currently in

the process of making revisions and improvements based on recommendations from a Bank supported field review

undertaken in fifteen provinces in October and November 2016. Although these actions resolve important issues

relating to the facilitator transition, a joint government and Bank field assessment recently found deficiencies in

facilitator recruitment, management and performance assessment that require further improvement.

8. Component 3: Program Management and Technical Assistance. The implementation support and technical assistance

activities improved in the final six months of CY16, although structural and efficiency problems remained. MoV

finalized almost all contracts required for the project including the Administrative Services Firm (ASF) and Event

Organizer (EO) that were pending since June 2016. The National Secretariat’s TOR and budget were approved, and the

final ASF contract for providing support services to the facilitation structure was signed in September 2016. Still

pending at year end was the recruitment of four senior provincial specialist positions; the Bank approved 69 of 127

(54%) of those selected and MoV has recently agreed to recruit again for the remaining 58 positions. MoV, under the

leadership of the new Minister and as part of the loan restructure, has restructured the program management

arrangements so as to improve effectiveness and efficiency. This is detailed in the appraisal section below.

9. Disbursement. Loan disbursements have been slower than expected due to recruitment and mobilization delays as

well as external fiscal weakness. MoV proposed an initial annual work plan and budget of Rp. 1.8 trillion ($138 million)

for 2016, of which approximately Rp. 1.4 trillion ($114 million) or 78 percent had been spent at year end. Upon request

the Bank approved an additional allocation of Rp. 1.3 trillion ($100 million) in May 2016, which was inclusive of the

remaining loan balance. However, the budget revision (DIPA) was never processed because weak revenue collection

prompted MoF to postpone approval of budget revisions until cuts were finalized. These delays meant a significant

balance of $159 million remains unspent, $133 million of which is undisbursed and $26 million of which is disbursed

but remains in the Designated Account.

10. Fiduciary. The latest ISR rated FM as moderately unsatisfactory and procurement as moderately satisfactory. Financial

statements and audits are up to date, the auditors provided an unqualified opinion for 2015, and the Interim Financial

Reports (IFRs) have been submitted on time. However, the FM rating was downgraded in July 2016 because of the risk

that MoV would not complete the transition to a unified facilitation structure and would continue to employ facilitators

unqualified under the new Terms of Reference agreed as part of the integration process. As noted above, this has been

avoided. The transition to a unified facilitation structure (as noted above) resolves many of these outstanding issues,

and indeed the restructuring provides an opportunity to shift project financing to new activities. Generally

procurement has been carried out as per the agreed Procurement Plan, which was updated in October 2016 and found

in order. Procurement documentation are of generally adequate quality. However, shortcomings in properly applying

the required procurement procedures were observed which delayed the procurement process of some ASF and EO

contracts and the Bank had to provide repeated advice to MoV to correct the bid evaluations.

11. Safeguards. The latest ISR assessed safeguards as moderately satisfactory. MoV’s focus on safeguards has come under

pressure during the transition period as it has prioritized facilitator recruitment. More recently, however, MoV has made progress integrating safeguard procedures and systems into village facilitations Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and village facilitation training modules, including a new set of infrastructure modules. Further improvements will be made to the training materials based on participant feedback and the ongoing training assessment.

RATIONALE FOR RESTRUCTURING


5

12. PNPM to Village Law Transition. The restructuring responds to the government’s continuing institutionalization of

PNPM principles and mechanisms of community empowerment, good governance and frontline service delivery into

the support systems and structures for Village Law implementation. Diagram 1 summarizes how the project has

supported the government to address rural poverty, inequality and service delivery over three distinct phases. The

first phase (2013‐2014) focused on co‐financing PNPM, the previous government’s flagship community‐based poverty

reduction program. As noted above, the second phase (2015‐2016) focused on the government’s two‐year PNPM to

Village Law transition. This support was initiated with the restructuring of the project in 2015, which, at the

government’s request, saw the project focus on the transition of the PNPM community facilitation structure.1 With

the transition to a unified facilitation structure and the government allocating its own budget for the core facilitation

structure in 2017 and 2018, MoV, Bappenas and the Bank have agreed to shift focus to complementary systems that

will increase the capacity of villages to use their fiscal transfers for community development and frontline service

delivery within the framework of the Village Law.

Diagram 1: Project Phases, Strategic Focus and Financing (2013‐2018)

13. Social and Economic Sustainability. The restructuring will also improve the sustainability of PNPM investments in

community capacity as well as the government support systems. Both the PNPM and the current approach to

facilitation and technical assistance under the Village Law is entirely dependent on programs financed from the national

budget. The new Minister has indicated that such a structure is not sustainable and the National Development Planning

Agency (Bappenas), in its Roadmap for Village Law Implementation, has signaled that it intends to scale down such

programs in the current RPJMN period. Furthermore, despite many PNPM community volunteers actively supporting

village development planning and implementation activities under the Village Law, not all capacities are being fully

utilized. The development of a sustainable approach for the delivering technical services to villages was the main topic

1 The Village Law Programmatic Analytical and Advisory Program (PASA) Program (P153219) has provided complementary policy, regulatory and technical advice during the transition period in other areas, including fiscal allocations and fund flows, financial accountability, village procurement, community oversight and information systems.


6

of a high‐level Strategy Workshop hosted by the new Minister of Villages on October 5, 2016 on the Ministry’s priorities

(see Appraisal Summary below).

14. Operational Platform for Pilots. The loan restructuring will provide an operational platform for scaling up Trust Fund

(TF) financed pilots on local service delivery and local economic development. The Village Law provides an opportunity

to align the efforts of both district governments as well as villages and citizens to improve the utilization and quality of

local services and enhance rural growth. The Bank is using TF resources to support three pilots focused on this frontline

approach—Generasi (P132585) on maternal health, child nutrition and primary school attendance in 11 provinces and

66 districts, the ECED Frontline pilot (P156674) on village early childhood learning centers facilities and care‐givers in

11 provinces and 25 districts as well as KIAT Guru (P159191) on teacher attendance and performance‐based allowances

in 2 provinces and 5 districts—that can be brought to scale up through the Village Law’s fiscal transfers and governance

structures. As detailed below, the restructuring project will also support a pilot focused on local economic

development. The proposed Village Innovation platform will prioritize the dissemination and replication of these

village investments in village development plans and budgets as a way to scale up in districts and villages outside the

pilot locations.

15. Policy Dialogue. The loan will continue to also provide an important entry‐point for policy dialogue and analytical work

on local service delivery under the TF‐financed Village Law PASA (P153219) and Decentralization that Delivers PASA

(P154976). There are four core areas of particular relevance: a) shared district and village authorities and

responsibilities in the delivery of basic social services such as maternal health and early learning; b) local and global

knowledge exchange, including global south‐south exchanges with subnational knowledge networks; c) village financial

management rules and systems; d) village data collection and sharing policy and systems; and e) community

participation and inclusion, particularly of women and marginalized groups.

16. PNPM Closure. Finally, the restructuring, which includes a 21‐month extension, will allow more time to complete the

more complex PNPM closure activities that require inter‐agency coordination. MoV has made good progress on closure

activities that fall squarely within its remit, including submission of the 2015 PNPM Rural Annual Progress Report, the

verification and return of unspent block grant funds from PNPM Activity Implementation Units (UPKs) to treasury, the

re‐contracting of PNPM Rural facilitators to support PNPM closure activities in 2015 (prior to their regularization as

Village Law facilitators), and completion of the PNPM Closure Manual. More time is needed to resolve those issues

that require inter‐agency agreement and coordination, particularly the former implementing agency (MoHA) but also

Menko PMK and Bappenas. This includes issuance of a ministerial regulation of Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) that is still

with the Ministry's legal bureau, issuance of a directive on the facilitators to support the handover of PNPM

infrastructure assets to villages, the issuance of finalized guidelines on the Inter‐Village Collaboration Forums (BKAD)

handling of disputes, as well as addressing audit findings arising from when MoHA executed the project (2013‐2014).

It will also allow for further assessment of PNPM’s institutionalization in the Village Law framework for community

development.


7

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES

PROPOSED CHANGES

17. Change to the Project Development Objective. In consultation with MoV, Bappenas, the Ministry of Finance (MoF)

as well as the Bank’s Country Management Unit (CMU) it was agreed to modify the PDO to reflect the project’s shift

from financing the full package of block grants, facilitators and program management to focus on the financing of

capacity, innovation and monitoring that will enable and incentivize villages to use their own fiscal transfers to invest

in resolving village development problems. The revised PDO is as follows:

To improve participating village capacity to develop quality village development and implementation plans

18. Diagram 2 below depicts the results chain logic that was discussed and agreed with the Minister and his advisory and

operational staff in a series of strategic and technical workshops.

Diagram 2: Shifting Down the Results Chain in the Village Law Context

19. As shown in the diagram, the higher‐level objectives of the restructured project are consistent with the current PDO;

it will continue to focus on improving local governance and socio‐economic conditions. Given that villages will receive

approximately $7.8 billion and $12.6 billion in 2017 and 2018 respectively—a massive increase to the PNPM era

community block grants of around $800 million per year—the project will focus on enabling and incentivizing villages

to (a) allocate more of their transfers to entrepreneurship and improve the technical quality of these activities; (b)

allocate more to basic social services that improve human capital, particularly village health posts (Posyandu) and


8

early childhood education and development (PAUD), as well as improve the technical quality of these investments;

and (c) allocate more to growth‐enhancing infrastructure investments and improve their technical quality.

20. As outlined in more detail below, the project will provide financing for three platforms: (a) a district‐level village

innovation platform that will support institutionalization of the knowledge sharing functions of the PNPM facilitation

and community empowerment activities; (b) a capacity building platform for local Technical Service Providers (TSPs)

that will improve their ability to deliver technical services to villages; and (c) a data platform that will support

maintenance and use of a dataset on village development needs, priorities and outputs. These platforms will

complement ongoing GoI financing of the national facilitation support structure as well as the village fiscal transfers.

Together, these platforms and support structures will improve village capacity to plan and ultimately use their fiscal

transfers for village development investments with a particularly focus on village entrepreneurship, human capital

formation and village infrastructure.

21. Changes to Component Names. Minor modifications to the names of two project components are proposed to reflect

the institutional and policy context.

a) Component 1 – The Village Law consolidates transfers to villages for community development activities,

however, lessons from the first two years of implementation indicate that modest grants to stimulate

innovation, capacity development and citizen engagement are critical. Component 1, with some adjustments

as outlined below, provides an ideal mechanism to deliver this support. To reflect this adjustment it is

proposed to change the name of Component 1 from “Kecamatan Grants” to “Village Innovation Grants”.

b) Component 2 – MoV requested the project focus on improving the delivery of technical advisory support and

capacity building to villages in order to increase the quality of village investment (see the Technical Analysis

section below for more details). It is therefore proposed to change the name of Component 2 from

“Community Empowerment and Facilitation” to “Village and Technical Capacity Building”.

22. Changes to Components and Costs. Modest changes to component objectives and activities are also required to

reflect the new policy context and MoV’s priorities. The following changes are proposed:

a) Component 1: Village Innovation Grants and Village Innovation Incubation Grants (formally “Kecamatan

Grants”). The community grant mechanism under this component will be modified to stimulate innovative

use of village fiscal transfers rather than directly finance investment sub‐projects. The original purpose of

Component 1 was to deliver block grants to community groups for (i) development planning, (ii) training, and

(iii) execution of development sub‐projects, the latter of which was mostly for village‐scale infrastructure but

also small‐scale livelihood activities. The provision of such grants for sub‐projects is no longer relevant in the

context of the Village Law, which consolidated PNPM community grants into direct fiscal transfers to villages

and mandated a massive increase in these transfers over five years. The one exception is the use of matching

grants to pilot new initiatives for later dissemination through the Village Innovation Platform. The component

will therefore finance two grant types:

i. Sub‐component 1A: Village Innovation Grants. The objective of the Village Innovation Grants (VIGs)

is to stimulate the identification, documentation, dissemination and replication of innovative and


9

effective use of village fiscal transfers to address village development problems, particularly in relation

to village entrepreneurship, village infrastructure, and basic social services. This sub‐component will

not finance sub‐projects, but only knowledge sharing and capacity building activities that support

villages to replicate innovations. The size of the VIGs is therefore modest relative to former

Kecamatan Grants and village fiscal transfers. On average a sub‐district, which consists of 10‐15

villages, will receive approximately Rp. 80 million ($6,000) that villages can jointly use for knowledge

sharing and capacity building activities. Table 2 provides some examples of the types of knowledge

sharing activities that are eligible for financing. Note that villages are not anticipated to undertake an

activity in relation to all four phases. As noted above, the Village Innovation Platform will also be used

to disseminate innovations from pilots, and therefore villages may elect to jump straight to the sharing

and replication activities. Given the massive scale up of village fiscal transfers nation‐wide, MoV has

determined to implement the Village Innovation Platform in all 434 districts that have villages and

therefore receive Dana Desa.

Table 2: Knowledge Exchange Phases and Activities

Phase Activities

Identification Inter‐village innovation festivals

Community needs assessments

Community consultation forums

Technical expert talk‐shows

Documentation TPK and User‐centered radio interviews

Video mini‐documentary

Photo albums

Budget breakdowns and activity descriptions

Dissemination & Sharing VIT socialization activities

Inter‐village innovation festivals

Inter‐village peer‐to‐peer exchanges

Talk shows, local TV and Radio

Replication Technical training, workshops and learning events

Payment of technical service providers (TSPs)

Incentives for technical experts

Village regulation preparation workshops

ii. Sub‐component 1B: Village Innovation Incubation Grants. The objective of the Village Innovation

Incubation Grants (VIIGs) is to support piloting of new initiatives and innovations in select villages. On

average a village will receive Rp. 300 million ($25,000) and MoV will require villages to contribute te

least 50% as a matching grants. At the request of the Minister, and given the Bank’s existing pilot

initiatives on community health, nutrition and ECED, the sub‐component will focus on local economic

development. It will support villages to develop integrated village development plans that include

growth‐enhancing small‐scale infrastructure investment, business productivity enhancement and

youth job opportunities. The pilot will focus on 500 villages only, and will apply PNPM fiduciary and

safeguard procedures.


10

b) It will be necessary to make modifications to implementation arrangements for these grants. Similar to

Kecamatan Grants the government will allocate VIGs and VIIGs to sub‐districts, however, reflecting their

smaller size and scope, the oversight and management will be carried out at the district‐level. Specifically,

district‐level Village Innovation Teams will function as the UPK did at the sub‐district level in relation to

Kecamatan Grants. Continuing the emphasis on community participation, these teams will support village

representatives to come together to hold an Inter‐Village Consultative Forum (MAD) on how they will use the

funds for innovation exchange purposes as well as form an activity implementation team. The grant

mechanism has been designed in consultation with MoF and draws on the experience of integrating Generasi

project (P132585) into the Village Law, which piloted a sub‐district level grants for similar training and

knowledge sharing activities in 2016. MoV has prepared an Operations Manual and SOP that details the

process (see appraisal section below) and it has been agreed that Bank approval of the final Operations

Manual (OM) and SOPs will be a condition of disbursement under this component. It has also agreed that

MoV will prepare a Supplementary Operations Manual (SOM), Bank approval of which will be a condition for

VIIG disbursement.

c) Component 2: Village and Technical Capacity Building (formally “Community Empowerment and

Facilitation”). This Component will continue to provide technical assistance to villages, however,

modifications to its sub‐components are required to support implementation of the three platforms. Changes

to the Component will enable the government to implement three sub‐components:

i. Sub‐Component 2A: Village Innovation Teams. Building on the role PNPM facilitators have played in

the collection and dissemination of best practices across the country, this sub‐component will support

technical assistance at the district‐level to identify, document, share and facilitate replication of

village innovations as well as coordinate TSP capacity building activities. The teams will support

district governments to execute the VIGs and maintain a national knowledge sharing system. The

teams will work closely with existing technical and village facilitators as well as local TSP; specifically

they will maintain a registry of TSPs and technical village facilitators. VITs will also support

implementation of the VIIGs in the pilot districts.

ii. Sub‐Component 2B: Technical Service Provider Capacity Building. Building on the training on village

development that the project has delivered to professional facilitators but also civil society and

universities in 2015 and 2016, this sub‐component will support local firms, NGOs as well as existing

technical facilitator teams to become TSPs capable of meeting village demand for technical services.

The capacity building activities will focus on the transition to a market‐based model of technical

service delivery in three priority areas: village entrepreneurship, village infrastructure and human

capital. The capacity building will incorporate social and environmental safeguards drawn from

PNPM, thereby helping to ensure the sustainability of these practices.

iii. Sub‐Component 2C: Village Data Collection and Use Capacity. The sub‐component will support

capacity building activities that aim to strengthen the capacity of village cadres, village officials and

local government staff to collect, consolidate and use village non‐financial data, with a particular focus

on village economic activity, infrastructure, and basic health and education service needs, utilization

and quality. The Village Data Platform will also be critical to incentivizing villages to replicate village


11

innovations and improve performance. As outlined below in the technical analysis (see Diagram 6),

the Village Innovation Teams will integrate village data into the Village Innovation Platform so that

villages can easily asses their village’s performance relative to neighboring villages.

d) There are no proposed changes to the expenditure types that Component 2 will finance. It will continue to

finance the salaries and operational costs of technical assistants via deconcentrated funds, training and

capacity building, coordination and operational costs associated with local teams, as well as printing and other

materials.

e) Component 3: Implementation Support and Technical Assistance. This component will continue to provide

oversight, technical advisory services, training and other support for implementation of program activities at

the national and provincial and district level, strengthening of the implementing agency’s capacity, as well as

formulation of policy and procedures at the national level. There are not significant changes to the overall

objectives and activities, however, significant changes to the program management structure have been

agreed (see appraisal section below). The component will continue to finance the national and provincial

program management structure for the GoI‐financed unified village facilitation structure as well as program

management for the three complementary support platforms. This will assist to ensure coordination across

these four core village support systems. It will also finance additional activities to improve the M&E capacity

of the implementing agency (see further details below).

23. Table 3 below shows how the remaining funds of $159 million will be allocated to the restructured components for

the proposed extension period. The restructuring will require some reallocation across components, which reflects

underspending on Component 3 as well as agreed streamlining of the project management arrangements at the

national and provincial level.

Table 3: Component Cost Estimates (CY17‐CY18)

Component CY17 CY18 Total

Component 1: Village Innovation Grants $30,000,000 $36,000,000 $66,000,000

Component 2: Village and Technical Capacity

Building $33,000,000 $34,000,000 $67,000,000

Component 3: Implementation Support and

Technical Assistance $12,000,000 $15,390,388 $26,390,388

TOTAL $75,000,000 $85,390,388 $159,390,388

24. Changes to the Financing Plan. The changes to components and their costs necessitate modifications to the financing

plan. As shown in Table 4 below, the total project costs is reduced to $3.5 billion to reflect the government’s

discontinuation of Kecamatan Grants in 2015 onwards and the transition to village fiscal transfers. As noted above,

the latter are not formally part of the project and therefore not reflected in the project cost.


12

Table 4: Revised Project Cost and Financing

Component Initial Project Cost Revised Project Cost IBRD*

1. Grants** 3,723,770,000 2,789,746,357 265,976,357

2. Village and Technical Capacity Building 496,200,000 456,851,052 317,031,052

3. Implementation Support and TA 280,030,000 253,412,591 66,992,591

Total project cost 4,500,000,000 3,500,000,000 650,000,000 * The Bank will finance each respective project component in parallel and at 100%.

** Includes financing for the original Kecamatan Grants ($2,723,746,357) and the revised Village Innovation Grants ($60 million).

25. Reallocation between Disbursement Categories. The changes to the component budgets require complementary

adjustments to the allocations to the project’s disbursement categories as well as creation of two new disbursement

categories (1A and 1B). Table 5 below summarizes the initial allocations, amount disbursed, remaining balance and

proposed re‐allocations across the three spending categories. The reallocation is necessary to implement the changes

to the components noted above, and will have the effect of reducing the total amount spent on project management

and increasing the total allocation dedicated to activities that directly contribute to the PDO.

Table 5: Disbursement Categories – Proposed Reallocation

Cate‐gory

Category Description

Amount of Loan

Allocated

(Expressed in USD)

Amount Currently Disbursed

(Expressed in USD)

Amount Currently

Undisbursed

(Expressed in USD)

Revised Amount of the Loan Allocated (Expressed in USD)

Percentage of

Expenditures to be Financed (inclusive of taxes)

1 Kecamatan Grants 200,000,000 199,976,357 23,643 199,976,357 100%

1A Village Innovation Grants

‐ ‐ ‐ 54,000,000 100%

1B Village Innovation Incubation Grants

‐ ‐ ‐ 12,000,000 100%


13

2

Consultant services, goods, training and workshops, and incremental operating costs for facilitation support under Component 2 of the Project.

356,390,000 211,240,060 145,149,390 317,031,052

100%

3

Consultant services, goods, training and workshops, and incremental operating costs for implementation support and technical assistance under Component 3 of the Project.

93,610,000 26,538,514 67,071,486 66,992,591

100%

650,000,000 383,721,016 212,244,520 650,000,000

26. Changes to the Results Framework. Changes to the PDO‐level and intermediate outcome‐level (IOI) indicators to

capture achievements under the new PDO and project activities are necessary. The PDO level indicators will focus on

three indicators that reflect improved village capacity in solving local development priority problems/needs. The four

indicators are as follows:

a) Villages benefiting from technical services supported under the project (number);

b) Beneficiaries in project locations satisfied that village investments meet their needs, disaggregated by gender

(percentage);

c) Villages with development plans that reflect local development priorities (percentage); and

d) Villages with quality technical implementation plans (percentage).

27. Ten additional IRIs will also be added to capture the new activities: three for Component 1; five for Component 2; and

three for Component 3. The indicators reflect how each component contributes towards achievement of the PDO,

details of which (targets, data source/methodology, and explanatory notes) are below in the RF section. The task

team was advised to remove the existing PDO and IOI indicators in the RF but to ensure that these indicators are also

reflected in project’s Implementation Completion Report (ICR). The final results under the previous RF were finalized

in the final ISR of CY16, and subsequent ISRs will only report on the indicators in the revised RF.

28. Changes to Legal Covenants. Adjustments to existing Legal Covenants are required to align the Legal Agreement with

the changes outlined above. Three covenants added as part of the June 2015 restructuring have been deleted; they

have been fully complied with. One covenant, relating to ongoing PNPM Closure activities (see above), has been

revised and two annual covenants relating to project reports and audits are retained with minor changes to the


14

wording and referencing. Most importantly, it is proposed that no disbursements under Category 1A and Category

1B will occur unless the Borrower has adopted revisions to the OM and SOM satisfactory to the Bank.

29. Extension of Project Closing Date. Delays associated with budget availability, facilitator recruitment and mobilization,

and as well as the technical challenges of adapting to the new Village Law framework for village development require

an additional 21 month extension. The Bank assesses that this will sufficient time to implement the new activities and

fully disburse the remaining funds. The extension would take the Loan closing date from March 31, 2017, to December

31, 2018. This is the third extension to the closing date; the original closing date of December 31, 2015 was extended

for 12 months until December 31, 2016 in June 2015. A second extension was processed in December 2016 until

March 30, 2017. As noted above, this second extension was initiated to allow additional time to finalize the Level 1

Restructuring.

IMPLEMENTATION AND APPRAISAL SUMMARY

30. Institutional Arrangements. The Project will continue to be implemented by the Directorate General for Village and

Community Development and Empowerment (DG‐PPMD) at MoV. The Project will continue to adopt the institutional

arrangements that were agreed in the previous restructuring of June 2015.

31. Implementation Arrangements. Important changes have been agreed to the project management arrangements, the

overall aim of which are to enhance performance and streamline the current arrangements to ensure a more nimble

and efficient project structure. Diagram 3 below summarizes the agreed structure, which involves a matrix structure

that balances the leadership‐level focus under the Minister on driving results and performance, and the operation‐

level focus under the DG on inputs and resource management. The loan will finance the white boxes in the diagram

below.

Diagram 3: Program Leadership & Management Structure


15

a) Executive Support Team. The project will finance a small advisory team that will support the Minister’s

outward engagement on matters relating to implementation of village development and community

empowerment within the framework of the Village Law. It will include an External Affairs Adviser, an Internal

Affairs Adviser, an Executive Secretary as well as a Head of Office. The Secretary General will manage the unit.

b) Program Acceleration & Performance Team. The project will also finance small team focused on MoV’s

priority village development and community programs. The team will consist of four advisers—a village

facilitator adviser, a village infrastructure adviser, a village basic services adviser, and a local economic

development adviser. A CEO, who reports to the Minister, will lead the team and oversee a Chief Operations

Officer (COO) who will manage the two priority programs. The Team will monitor the performance of each

program.

c) National Satker (Work Unit). The project’s current National Satker will continue to administer the project

under DG‐PPMD. The National Satker’s responsibilities include: (a) overall management and general

administration of the project; (b) managing the p budget and contracting in accordance with agreed resources

agreements with the programs; and (c) instructing provincial governments to establish Provincial and Districts

Satkers to assist and coordinate project activities.

d) Program Secretariat (formally the “National Secretariat”). It has been agreed that the national‐level Sekpro’s

responsibilities will be significantly streamlined to focus on project administration only, and the total number

of specialists significantly reduced. The Sekpro will support the National Satker and will under the leadership


16

of a Chief Financial and Administrative Officer (CFAO). The Sekpro will no longer provide substantive technical

and policy inputs to the programs.

e) Village Facilitator Program (P3MD). MoV will maintain a National Management Consultant team to manage

the Village Facilitator Program (P3MD) that will be responsible for: (a) assisting with day‐to‐day

implementation and oversight of provincial specialists as well as technical assistants (TAPM) and village

facilitators (PD & PLD) at the district, sub‐district and inter‐village levels; (b) providing support and assistance

to the National Satker on the development of operational guidelines and standard operating procedures; and

(c) reporting on results and achievements to the Program Acceleration & Performance Team. A single

Program Leader will lead the program, who will report to the COO. The project will continue to finance the

program management structure (National and Provincial‐level) for the unified facilitation structure; MoV will

finance the actual facilitators, including both the district‐level TAPMs, the sub‐district‐level PDs, and the inter‐

village PLDs.

f) Village Innovation Program (VIP). MoV will maintain a National Management Consultant team to manage

the three complementary platforms. A single Program Leader will lead the program, who will report to the

COO. The COO will oversee the two programs, and ensure coordination across them.

g) Performance and Resource Agreements. The CEO and the COO will to agree on annual Performance

Agreements for each program. The performance agreements will specify concrete targets at the output,

intermediate output and outcome level. The Minister will endorse the performance agreements, and the

Director General of PPMD will acknowledge the agreements. The COO will also agree annual resource

agreements with the National Satker.

h) Provincial Satker. The project’s current Provincial Satkers will serve as the provincial program management

unit and function under the provincial Agency for Community Empowerment and Village Development

(BPMD) or equivalent. Provincial Satker responsibilities include: (a) managing the deconcentrated budget

from the National Satker; (b) recruiting and managing project specialists and consultants at the provincial and

district level; and (c) managing data and reporting on project activities. The Provincial Satker also an important

role in the disbursement of VIGs and VIIGs as well as the program’s operational funds at the district level, both

of which are detailed below.

i) Provincial Specialists. The Provincial Satker will manage a team of provincial specialists that will assist with

day‐to‐day implementation and oversight of project activities, and the provision of technical assistance to the

Village Innovation Teams at the district level. The provincial training specialists will be central to the delivery

of the capacity building activities under Component 2.

32. Operations Manual. The Government has revised the OM as well as four SOPs for key aspects of the program, which

the task team reviewed as part of the restructuring process and found was satisfactory. The OM details the program

objectives and principles, the P3BM and VIP implementation arrangements, the financial management arrangements

including the disbursement mechanisms (see below), program locations, the subnational coordination arrangements

as well as the monitoring and evaluation arrangements. SOPs on the Village Innovation Platform, the TSP Platform,


17

and the Integrated Data Platform were also reviewed and found to be satisfactory. As was the SOP on coordination

between the three platforms as well as between VIP and P3BM.

33. Village Innovation Platform SOP. The SOP for the Village Innovation Platform details objectives, principles, targets,

locations and roles and relationships as well as how sub‐district activities for financing from the VIGs (Component 1)

will be selected, executed, financed and accounted for. As shown in Diagram 4 below (from the SOP), the Platform

builds on key PNPM mechanisms, particularly the use of MADs to socialize the program, identify activities and

implementation teams, and to report back on progress.

Diagram 4: Village Innovation Platform – VIG Implementation Steps

34. TSP Platform SOP. The SOP for the TSP platform also details objectives, principles, targets, locations and roles as well

as the mechanism for the selection of TSP to participate in the program, establishes mechanisms for assessing

graduation from the program and inclusion in local TSP directories. Two related areas that require further technical

development relate to coordination with sectors, many of which have their own capacity and oversight arrangements,

and the ongoing arrangements for monitoring TSPs once they graduate from the program. In addition, the program

also will support establishment of district‐level TSPs Forum for coordination, information sharing and peer‐regulation.

35. Integrated Data Platform SOP. The SOP for the Integrated Data Platform clarifies objectives, data needs and

indicators and the complex and convoluted regulatory framework for village data. It is the most difficult SOP to

prepare because of this complexity and the SOP is not fully complete. MoV and the Bank have agreed that financing

from the project will focus on (a) the collection of reliable village development, with a particularly focus on the

consolidation and quality control processes at the district level; and (b) the integration of MoV’s existing village data

systems. The loan will not finance another new village MIS and the project will endeavor to support MoV to strengthen


18

collaboration and data sharing with MoHA and BPKP. MoV and the Bank have agreed on a timetable and key steps to

finalize the SOP.

36. Funds Flows – Village Innovation Grants. The VIGs will be disbursed via the deconcentration of MoV budget to

Provincial Satkers.

Diagram 5: Funds Flow – Village Innovation Grants

37. The OM details the following steps, which are summarized in Diagram 5 above:

a) The National Satker will prepare and provide Technical Instructions (Juknis Dekon), the SOP and Technical

Guidelines on the use of the village innovation funds to the Provincial Satker;

b) After the sub‐district Camat formally appoints the Village Innovation Implementation Team (VIIT) after the

first Inter‐Village Forum (MAD 1 – see Diagram 4 above), the team will open a special account to receive the

grant;

c) The district Village Innovation Team Leader will verify the Camat’s letter and then deliver it to the local BPMD

or equivalent district office, where it will be further verified and provided to the Satker Provinsi;

d) The Provincial Satker will prepare an MoU for each sub‐district VIIT;

e) The Satker Provinsi and VIIT will sign the MoUs;

f) The VIITs will then prepare TORs and Activity Plans and Budgets (RABs), which they will submit for to the

district Village Innovation Team and the BPMD for verification;

g) After verification, Provincial Satker will submit the Payment Instruction Letter (SPM) to the local State Treasury

Office (KPPN); (h) KPPN will then prepare the Fund Disbursement Letter (SP2D) and transfer the funds to the

VIIT’s bank account; and

h) VIITs will prepare realization reports and receipts, and provide these to the district Village Innovation Teams

and BPMD for reporting to the Provincial Satker.


19

38. Funds Flows – District Operational Funds. The district operational funds will also be disbursed via the deconcentration

of MoV funds to Provincial Satkers, who will assign Disbursement Treasury Assistants at the district‐level to manage

the transaction work load. The OM details the following steps:

a) The National Satker will prepare and provide Technical Instructions (Juknis Dekon), the SOP and Technical

Guidelines on the use of the program operational funds to the Provincial Satker;

b) The Satker Provinsi will assign a Disbursement Treasurer Assistant (Bendahara Pengeluaran Pembantu) to

facilitate the processing of financial transactions;

c) The Disbursement Treasurer Assistant will request Petty Cash (Uang Persediaan) from the Provincial Satker.

The maximum petty cash that can be withdraw by treasurer will refer to PMK No. 190/2012.

d) Based on the request, the Provincial Satker Treasurer will prepare a petty cash payment order (SPM UP) that

will be submitted to KPPN.

e) KPPN will verify the request from the Provincial Satker and transfer the petty cash fund to the Disbursement

Treasurer Assistant.

f) The Petty Cash funds are revolving funds that should be disbursed, withdrawn and accounted for within two

months.

g) District Innovation Teams will request operational fund to the Disbursement Treasurer Assistant based on

operational needs, with single transaction maximum of Rp. 50 million.

h) The Disbursement Treasurer Assistant will request reimbursement to the Provincial Satker after 50% of Petty

Cash funds are disbursed. Diagram 6 below summarizes funds flow mechanism.

Diagram 6: Fund Flows – District Operational Funds

39. Program Locations. MoV and the Bank have agreed that given the massive scale up of fiscal transfers in 2018 (from

$7.8 billion in 2017 to $12.6 billion in 2018), it is essential that the program prioritize the roll out of the Village

Innovation Platform to all 434 districts that have villages and therefore receive Dana Desa. The Integrated Data

Platform will also roll out nationwide. The TSP Platform will roll out in 246 districts. The number of TSPs targeted for

capacity building support will vary. It will target 6 TSPs that specialize in infrastructure in each district, 4 that specialize

in human capital, and 2 that specialist in village entrepreneurship. It is anticipated that each TSP will cover

approximately 10‐15 villages each. Table 6 below summarizes the coverage of the three platforms.


20

Table 6: Program Platforms: District and Approximate Villages

Platform District Coverage Village Coverage

(est.)

Village Innovation Platform 434 (100%) 75,000 (100%)

TSP Platform – Infrastructure 246 (57%) 20,000 (27%)

TSP Platform – Human Capital 246 (57%) 10,000 (13%)

TSP Platform – Entrepreneurship 246 (57%) 5,000 (7%)

Integrated Village Data Platform 434 (100%) 75,000 (100%)

40. Supplementary Operations Manual – Village Economic Development Pilot. MoV has agreed to prepare a SOM that

will guide implementation of the Village Economic Development Pilot. It will also detail the selection, implementation

and disbursement arrangements for VIIGs. It will also include dedicated sections on the social and environmental

safeguards that will build on PNPM procedures and capacity. As noted above, the SOM is a condition for disbursement

from Category 1B.

41. Executive Transformation Program (ETP). Upon request of the Minister, it has been agreed that the project will

finance a two‐year Executive Transformation Program that will focus on increasing the capacity of the Ministry’s

echelon I & II staff. The Secretary General will oversee the program that will be conducted with an international

university and local partner, which will customize the program to suit the Ministry’s needs. The Bank is currently

supporting MoV to design the program.

42. Monitoring & Evaluation. MoV and the Bank have used the restructuring to agree on a number of changes to improve

M&E arrangements for capturing and tracking project performance going forward. First, and as outlined above, MoV

has established a performance‐oriented management structure that includes setting Performance Agreements

between the Minister’s office and the Program. This will create strong incentives to implement M&E arrangements

as the Program will be required to directly report to the Minister, not just the Bank. Second, MoV has agreed to

revamp and integrate the program’s needs into an existing MIS in the ministry. It has been agreed that the integration

design will take into account compatibility with the PNPM‐era MIS to ensure that both dataset can be merged if the

PNPM MIS can be acquired. Third, and as noted above, the project will finance a significant investment increase in

data consolidation and collection (as part of the Integrated Data Platform), which will improve the timeliness and

quality of data. Fourth, MoV and the Bank have agreed to conduct baseline and endline surveys that will ensure the

program can accurately track and assess PDO and key IOIs. The baseline will also be designed to assess the impact of

the project’s investment in facilitation systems and capacity in CY15 and CY16 on facilitator performance. Fifth, MoV

will revise the M&E SOP to align with the M&E changes outlined in the revised OM. And sixth, the ETP will include a

dedicated technical stream on M&E.

43. Systematic Operations Risk‐rating Tool (SORT). All risk ratings remain unchanged, with the exception of the Technical

Design category which is upgraded to high. Overall the Restructuring Mission concluded that there was strong support

for the restructuring at the strategic level with the Minister, at the policy level with the Secretary General and the

Director General as well as at the operational and technical with the Director and DG Secretary that heads the National

Satker. However, additional technical design work is required, including the revision of the Operations Manual, in

order to effect the changes proposed in the restructuring paper. The restructuring mission reviewed the key technical

documents MoV have prepared implement the restructured project—including TORs for all national and district


21

technical specialists and advisers, Operations Manual and four SOPs, the draft Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB)

and the Procurement Plan. Additional mitigation measures include the formation of Implementation Acceleration

Team in March to support a quick transition from design to execution. It is also proposed that the “Other Risk Rating”

relating to “Monitoring Risk” be dropped, and that risks associated with MoV capacity be managed as part of the

standard “Institutional Capacity” risk category.

44. Economic and Financial Analysis. Modification to the economic analysis is required to: a) incorporate findings from

a third economic analysis of infrastructure; b) incorporate economic analysis on cost effectiveness of human capital

investments; c) recognize that the project will no longer finance revolving loan funds; and d) incorporate cost savings

a) Economic analysis of village infrastructure investments. As noted above the higher‐level objectives towards

which the project will contribute remain consistent with the current PDO, and the project will continue to

include a strong focus on village infrastructure that stimulates local economic activity. The Bank conducted a

project evaluation between October 2015 and April 2016 in 12 provinces, 12 districts and 24 sub‐districts that

found that community‐build infrastructure remain cost‐effective. Specifically, the study found that the cost of

access of roads and bridges, measured by a reduction in travel time, improved by 22‐26%, the average cost of

piped water supply systems dropped by almost 80% and increases in agricultural paddy yields was 40% for

mono‐crops and 23% for main crops mixed with secondary crops. The study also found cost savings over

regular procurement of 22%. These results are consistent with previous studies conducted in 2005 and 2012,

and indicate that the rate of return for well‐planned village infrastructure remains high.

b) Economic analysis of human capital investments. As noted above, the project will include an expanded focus

on supporting villages to use their Dana Desa to investment in basic health, nutrition and education activities.

Specifically, the project Village Innovation Platform is specifically designed as a mechanism to bring the

Generasi project (P132585) to scale. The cost effectiveness of village‐level investments in community

utilization of basic services as well as in village‐scale supply‐side service improvements, which the project will

support, is comparable with other programs such as GoI’s conditional cash transfer program, Program

Keluarga Harapan (PKH). Specifically, a study from 2012 found that Generasi is more cost effective when one

focuses only on the benefits enjoyed by PKH households. If estimated spillover effects from PKH to non‐

recipient households in the same sub‐districts are included (in PKH’s effectiveness), the $8 to $11 per point

cost of Generasi is comparable to PKH’s cost of $11 per point.2

c) Financial analysis of revolving loan funds. The financial analysis included in the original Project Appraisal

Document (PAD) is no longer applicable because the project will no longer finance activities that directly

generate financial revenue.

d) Project efficiency. The shift down the results chain (see Diagram 2 above) and the project’s leveraging of

massive village fiscal transfers is likely to significant increase the cost efficiency of the project. PNPM Rural

invested around $120 million per year to leverage approximately $880 million in community block grants for

community investments in infrastructure and basic services across around 67,100 villages. In contrast, the

restructuring project will invest $159 to leverage approximately $9.7 billion in village fiscal transfers across

2 Olken, B., J. Onishi, and S. Wong (2012), “Should Aid Reward Performance? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Health and Education in Indonesia.”


22

75,000 villages.3 Table 7 below shows that the leverage ratio will increase from 1:7 to 1:120, and that the

project cost per village will decrease by 40% from $1,788 to $1,067.

Table 7: Project Efficiency Projections (Per Year)

Program Support Costs Village Investment

(BLM & DD)

Ratio Villages Cost per village

PNPM Rural $120,000,000 $880,000,000 1:7 67,100 $1,788

VIP $80,000,000 $9,700,000,000 1:120 75,000 $1,067

45. Technical Analysis. Several changes to the model for delivering technical and facilitation services to villages are

proposed. The changes relate to the approach that emerged from a high‐level Strategy Workshop held with MoV on

October 5, 2016. It consisted of three main requests from government that the project should focus on: (a)

“segmenting the market” and the delivery of technical services to villages in the areas of infrastructure, human capital

formation and village entrepreneurship; (b) adopting a “Village Innovation Marketplace Model” to identify innovations

and match village problems with local technical support; and (c) the policies and data systems needed to better track

facilitator performance and village investment quality.

Diagram 6: Village Innovation Marketplace Model

46. The Village Innovation Marketplace Model consists of three main components (see components in Diagram 6 above). The

first component is village demand for technical services to more effectively invest village transfers (Dana Desa) in basic

infrastructure, human capital formation and entrepreneurship. The second component consists of the delivery of these

technical services. The third component consists of knowledge brokers and innovation brokers, which link demand and

supply for technical services but also stimulate and replicate innovations. The Marketplace Model shifts the locus of

innovation and knowledge exchange to the local level, and will primarily rely on non‐financial incentives to push villages to

allocate the funds differently and to improve the technical quality of their activities. The village innovation festival and the

data platform will be critical to the incentivizing performance. The Data Platform will provide districts and fellow villages

3 That is 70% of Rp. 180 trillion ($13.8 billion) in village fiscal transfers that are earmarked for village development and community empowerment. Villages are meant to only spend a maximum of 30% on village administration.


23

with more reliable data on village activities and performance, and the village innovation festivals will provide a forum to

compare and rank their village’s performance with other villages. Diagram 6 below summarizes the approach.

47. Fiduciary Analysis. The implementation arrangements for Financial Management (FM) and procurement will not

change significantly and therefore FM and Procurement assessments conducted during the previous restructuring in

March 2015 and updated from time to time during the supervision of the Project are still relevant. This assessment

determined that MoV’s FM systems are adequate to produce timely, relevant and reliable financial information to

support the Project, meet the Project’s fiduciary needs and satisfy OP/BP 10. Proposed funds flow arrangements, FM

systems and organization and procurement arrangements are sufficient but require the following mitigation

measures: (a) the National Satker apply professional standards to the recruitment of consultants and experts; (b) the

National and Provincial Satkers recruit dedicated FM and Procurement Specialists to manage project activities; (c) the

Bank provide technical support to strengthen the fiduciary capacity of the Ministry; (d) the program hold regular

coordination meetings at the national and local level to ensure adequate collaboration amongst the Satkers and

Project Specialists; (e) MoV strengthen its supervision and oversight role and capacities, including involvement of

MoV’s Inspectorate General; (f) BPKP be assigned to conduct annual financial audit of the program; and (g) the Bank

continue to provide on‐demand technical support and procurement advice. While all other contracts subject to prior

review have been awarded and implemented, for further clarity and streamlining of the Bank’s review requirement,

PPMD is expected to submit an updated/revised Procurement Plan for the Bank’s prior review by Mar 15, 2017. Ex

post review of contracts subject to post‐review will be carried out annually during the forthcoming supervision

mission. The Project will continue to support the government to adapt PNPM’s complaint handling and corruption tracking

mechanisms to monitor the identification and resolution of fraud and corruption cases relating to village fiscal transfers.

This includes finalization of guidelines, the development of training modules and the integration of information systems.

48. Environmental and Social Analysis. Safeguards categorization and policies triggered remain the same, and the risk

rating of Moderate is therefore unchanged. The proposed component changes aim to maximize utility of village funds

by fostering knowledge sharing, growth of local innovations, as well as support to local TSPs that respond directly to

the needs of communities. The project will no longer directly finance village‐level sub‐projects nor facilitators (with

the exception of the VIIGs used in the Village Economic Development Pilot in 500 villages), and the project’s safeguard

activities will continue to focus on mainstreaming safeguard policies and lessons from PNPM into the Village Law

implementation arrangements. The following additional measures will be introduced: (a) the appointment of a

dedicated social and environmental safeguard specialists at Village Facilitator and Village Innovation Programs with

responsibility for mainstreaming good practices in social and environmental management as well as social inclusion

into Village Innovation and TSP Platforms; (b) revising the project operational manual (POM) to ensure that

environmental and social safeguards are incorporated; (c) operationalization of a Grievance Redress Mechanism

(GRM) for village‐law related activities, to be coordinated by the National Satker; and (d) the incorporation of social

and environmental safeguard procedures into the SOM for the Village Economic Development Pilot.


24

I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Changed Not Changed

Change in Project's Development Objectives ✔

Change in Results Framework ✔

Change in Components and Cost ✔

Change in Loan Closing Date(s) ✔

Reallocation between Disbursement Categories ✔

Change in Disbursement Estimates ✔

Change in Overall Risk Rating ✔

Change in Legal Covenants ✔

Change in Institutional Arrangements ✔

Change in Financial Management ✔

Change in Implementation Schedule ✔

Change in Economic and Financial Analysis ✔

Change in Technical Analysis ✔

Change in Implementing Agency ✔ Cancellations Proposed ✔ Change in Financing Plan ✔ Change in Disbursements Arrangements ✔ Change in Safeguard Policies Triggered ✔ Change of EA category ✔ Change in Procurement ✔ Other Change(s) ✔ Change in Social Analysis ✔ Change in Environmental Analysis ✔


25

IV. DETAILED CHANGE(S)

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_PDO_TABLE

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE Current PDO The PDO of the Project is for villagers in PNPM‐Rural locations to benefit from improved local governance and socio‐economic conditions. Proposed New PDO

To improve participating village capacity to develop quality village development and implementation plans

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_RESULTS_TABLE RESULTS FRAMEWORK Project Development Objective Indicators

PDO_IND_TABLE

Households have low‐cost access to infrastructure or services selected by the community. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom

Baseline Actual (Current) End Target Action

Value 0.00 97.97 80.00 Marked for Deletion

Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016 Communities are involved in participatory and democratic forums for planning, implementing and overseeing initiatives that directly address local development priorities Unit of Measure: Number Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 31‐Dec‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016 Projects funded by PNPM provide economic benefits (direct and indirect) for community members. Unit of Measure: Amount(USD) Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016

Change in productivity and/or lower cost of access Unit of Measure: Percentage


26

Indicator Type: Custom Supplement



Local‐level multipliers Unit of Measure: Number Indicator Type: Custom Supplement



Cost savings over regular procurement Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom Supplement



Beneficiaries in project locations who feel that village investments meet their needs, disaggregated by gender (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016 Direct project beneficiaries Unit of Measure: Number Indicator Type: Core



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016


27

Female beneficiaries Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Core Supplement



Villages benefiting from technical services supported by the project (number) Unit of Measure: Number Indicator Type: Custom


Value 0.00 14000.00 New

Date 01‐Apr‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Beneficiaries in project locations satisfied that village investments meet their needs, disaggregated by gender (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom


Value 40.00 70.00 New

Date 01‐Jul‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Villages with development plans that reflect local development priorities (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom


Value 40.00 70.00 New

Date 01‐Jul‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Villages with quality technical implementation plans (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom


Value 40.00 70.00 New

Date 01‐Jul‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018


28

Intermediate Indicators

IO_IND_TABLE Percentage of poor community members who participate in planning, decision‐making. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of participants in planning and decision‐making meetings who are women. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of work plans completed in one program cycle (18 months). Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 18‐Nov‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of infrastructure works of high quality. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of infrastructure works utilized by community members. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom




29

Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Sub‐projects for which O&M arrangements involving community members are established and functional. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of RLF groups that are evaluated as mature/ready to be channeled to regular financial institutions. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2015 Percentage of districts that link the district‘s progress report into the local government‘s website. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of villages which are assisted to review their mid‐term village development plans. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of BP‐UPK that conducted an audit at a minimum once a year. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016


30

Percentage of BKAD that conduct supervision and M+E Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 18‐Nov‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentages of villages with a functional community oversight team. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 18‐Nov‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of members of the community oversight team who are women. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentages of villages with an updated information board. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 18‐Nov‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Number of SPP groups funded. Unit of Measure: Number Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016 Percentage of UPKs that are evaluated as healthy administratively and financially healthy. Unit of Measure: Percentage


31

Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Dec‐2016 Percentage of Non Performing Loans (Collectability 2‐5). Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of corruption cases that are resolved. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of sub‐districts audited each year and for which the results are published. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Percentage of provinces that provide complete monthly report in timely manner. Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 08‐Nov‐2012 15‐Jun‐2016 31‐Aug‐2016 Female participants in consultative forums to develop village innovation activities (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom


32


Value 49.70 50.00 New

Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Villages implement innovation activities that are shared through innovation forums (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom


Value 0.00 70.00 New

Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Participants in village innovation forums who feel that their capacity to solve village priority development needs improved (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Result from pilots disseminated in village innovation forums (number) Unit of Measure: Number Indicator Type: Custom


Value 0.00 4000.00 New

Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 District with functional village innovation and knowledge sharing platform (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Participants of village innovation forums aware of priority usage of village funds (percentage, by gender) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom


33


Value 30.00 80.00 New

Date 01‐Jul‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Villages with functional dataset that can be used to inform village development priorities (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Technical service providers with improved competencies to conduct their works as the result of project intervention (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 01‐Jul‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Participants of village innovation forums feel that technical service providers provide useful assistance in developing village plans (percentage, by gender) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 01‐Jul‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 MOV M&E system uitilized to track project performance and improve project implementation Unit of Measure: Yes/No Indicator Type: Custom


Value No Yes New

Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 MOV capacity to implement annual workplan improved as the result of the Executive Transformation Program supported by the project Unit of Measure: Yes/No Indicator Type: Custom


34


Value No Yes New

Date 03‐Apr‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 Village facilitators reporting on their dissemination of village innovations in village‐level planning meetings (percentage) Unit of Measure: Percentage Indicator Type: Custom



Date 01‐Jan‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_COMPONENTS_TABLE

COMPONENTS

Current Component Name

Current Cost

(US$M) Action

Proposed Component Name

Proposed Cost (US$M)

Kecamatan Grants 3723.77 Revised Village Innovation Grants and Village Innovation Incubation Grants

2789.74

Community Empowerment and Facilitation

496.21 Revised Village and Technical Capacity Building

456.85

Implementation Support and Technical Assistance

280.03 Revised Implementation Support and Technical Assistance

253.41

TOTAL 4,500.01 3,500.00

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_LOANCLOSING_TABLE

LOAN CLOSING DATE(S)

Ln/Cr/Tf Status Original Closing

Revised Closing(s)

Proposed Closing

Proposed Deadline for Withdrawal

Applications

IBRD‐82170 Effective 31‐Dec‐2015 31‐Dec‐2016, 31‐

Mar‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018 30‐Apr‐2019

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_REALLOCATION _TABLE


35

REALLOCATION BETWEEN DISBURSEMENT CATEGORIES

Current Allocation Actuals + Committed Proposed Allocation Financing % (Type Total)

Current Proposed

IBRD‐82170‐001 | Currency: USD

iLap Category Sequence No: 1 Current Expenditure Category: IBRD 8217 Kecamatan Grants

200,000,000.00 199,976,356.10 199,976,357.00 100 100

iLap Category Sequence No: 2 Current Expenditure Category: IBRD 8217 CS GO TRNG WS IOC PT2

356,390,000.00 211,240,610.83 317,031,052.00 100 100

iLap Category Sequence No: 3 Current Expenditure Category: IBRD 8217 CS GO TRNG WS IOC PT 3

93,610,000.00 26,538,514.29 66,992,591.00 100 100

iLap Category Sequence No: 1A Current Expenditure Category: IBRD 8217 Village Innovation Grants

0.00 0.00 54,000,000.00 100

iLap Category Sequence No: 1B Current Expenditure Category: IBRD 8217 Village Innovation Incubation Grants

0.00 0.00 12,000,000.00 100

Total 650,000,000.00 437,755,481.22 650,000,000.00

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_SORT_TABLE

SYSTEMATIC OPERATIONS RISK‐RATING TOOL (SORT)

Risk Category Rating at Approval Current Rating

Political and Governance Substantial

Macroeconomic Low

Sector Strategies and Policies Substantial

Technical Design of Project or Program High


36

Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability

High

Fiduciary Substantial

Environment and Social Low

Stakeholders Moderate

Other

Overall Substantial

OPS_DETAILEDCHANGES_LEGCOV_TABLE

LEGAL COVENANTS

Loan/Credit/TF Description Status Action

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section II.B 8 | Description: The Borrower, through PMD, shall ensure that the relevant Camat and Bupati in each Project Kecamatan and Project Kabupaten shall make publicly available, in a manner acceptable to the Borrower and the Bank, a report on the results of Project implementation and accounts for funds used during each year of Project implementation, by no later than May 15 of each subsequent year. | Frequency :Yearly

Complied with Revised

Proposed

Finance Agreement: Schedule 2, Section I.B 7 | Description: The Borrower, through PPMD, shall ensure that the relevant Camat and Bupati in each Project Kecamatan and Project Kabupaten shall make publicly available a report on the results and accounts of funds used each year by no later than May 15 of each subsequent year. | Frequency: Yearly

Not yet due

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section II.B 9 | Description: The Borrower, through PMD, shall ensure that all annual audit reports referred to in Section II.B of this Schedule 2, including Kabupaten audit reports, shall be published on the PNPM Website by no later than September 30 in each year of Project implementation. | Frequency :Yearly

After delay complied with

Revised

Proposed Finance Agreement: Schedule 2, Section I.B 8 | Description: The Borrower, through PPMD, shall ensure

Not yet due


37

that all annual audit reports referred to in Section II.B of Schedule 2, including Kabupaten audit reports, shall be published on MoV's website by no later than September 30 in each year of Project implementation. | Frequency: Yearly

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section II, B (c) | Description: No withdrawal shall be made under category (1) in the table in SectionI.A of this Schedule 2 for Kecamatan Grants unless the Borrower has adopted a revision to the Operations Manual satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank. | Due Date :31‐Mar‐2013


Revised

Proposed

Finance Agreement: Schedule 2, Section IV, B 1 (c) | Description: No withdrawal shall be made under Category (1A) in the table in Section IV, A of Schedule 2 for Village Innovation Grants unless the Borrower has adopted a revision to the Operations Manual satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank. | Due Date :31‐Mar‐2017

Not yet due

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section I.A 1 (c) (i) | Description: The Borrower, through MoV, shall ensure the issuance of terms of reference and standard operating procedures for the Facilitators in a manner satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank. | Due Date :30‐Jun‐2015


Marked for Deletion

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section I.A 1 (c) (i) | Description :The Borrower, through MoV, shall finalize the terms of reference and confirm the appointments of: (a) a Team Leader; (b) two senior financial management officers; (c) a senior procurement officer; and (iv) a senior management information system specialist. | Due Date :31‐Jul‐2015


Marked for Deletion

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section I.A 1 (c) (i) | Description: The Borrower, through MoV, shall develop guidelines for facilitation, the closure of PNPM Rural, the transfer of assets and the management of revolving

Complied with Revised


38

funds in a manner satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank. | Due Date :31‐Dec‐2015

Proposed

Finance Agreement: Schedule 2, Section I.A 7 | Description: The Borrower, through PPMD, shall develop guidelines for the closure of PNPM Rural, the transfer of assets and the management of revolving funds in a manner satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank. | Due Date :30‐Jun‐2017

Partially complied with

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement :Schedule 2, Section I.A.1(c)(v) | Description: The Borrower, through MoV, shall establish and maintain, until the completion of the Project, the Secretariat, with a mandate, staff composition, filled staff positions, and TORs acceptable to the Bank and the Borrower, to be responsible for improving general coordination, coherence and budgeting; and ensure that it shall be provided with adequate resources, supported by qualified personnel | Due Date :31‐Jul‐2015

Complied with Marked for Deletion

IBRD‐82170

Finance Agreement: Schedule 2, Section IV, B 1 (d) | Description: No withdrawal shall be made under category (1B) in the table in Section IV.A of this Schedule 2 for Village Innovation Incubation Grants, unless the Borrower has adopted the Supplementary Operations Manual in form and substance satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank. Due Date :30‐Jun‐2017

Not yet due New

Documents

Public Disclosure Authorized REPORT NO.: RES27023 ... · Posyandu Pos Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana ‐ Kesehatan Terpadu (Village Health Post) PPMD Pembangunan dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat