district governments and poverty

8/14/2019 District Governments and Poverty

1/12

G o v e r n a n c e

B r i e

f

1

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

orests andovernancerogramme Governance Brief

e n t e r f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l F o r e s t r y R e s e a r c h

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

SummaryDistrict governments in Indonesia are in the early stages of trying to reduce poverty in theirareas. We explain the inuences on district ofcials ability to effectively address poverty in twoforest districts based on observations between 2003 and 2005. We found that centrally-imposedprograms have created bureaucratic requirements that ofcials are reluctant to meet or preferto use to their own benet. District initiatives for economic development rarely reach the poorand even increase their vulnerability. This poor performance can be explained by weak incentivesand institutions, unclear strategies and information and little participation of the poor themselves.District, provincial and central authorities need to ensure benets for district ofcials who work toreduce poverty, have coherent, simple strategies, enable poor communities to voice their needs,revitalize coordination with funding and stronger leadership, and enable monitoring by districts andcommunities of government programs impacts on poverty.

IntroductionDecentralization reforms and national poverty strategy processes in Indonesia have given districtgovernments the mandate to address poverty. Yet current capacities and incentives to reduce povertyat the district level remain fragmented and insufcient. As districts seek to build their povertyalleviation programs, what factors affect their capability to reduce poverty in their regions?

We report here on research conducted in two forested districts1

from October to December 2004using interviews with 76 respondents and secondary data. Sixty of the respondents were districtgovernment staff members, and the other 16 were villagers, businessmen, nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) and journalists. District statistics were available through 2003. The districtsselected were newly established in 1999 and more than half of the families in each district werepoor (BKKBN 2003).

Why do districts (have to) care about poverty?Three types of policies presently shape districts interest in poverty: (1) national law (No. 32 2004)requires districts to assume obligatory functions, which include to provide basic services forcitizens, as regulated also in the constitution, (2) the national drive to develop and implement aPoverty Reduction Strategy (Strategi Penanggulangan Kemiskinan, SPK) requires participation fromdistricts, (3) national assistance programs intended to promote food security and reduce economicvulnerability allocate funds to districts and (4) districts own interest in creating self-sufcient,prosperous villages to maintain their nancial viability.

District Governments and PovertyAlleviation in Forest Areas in IndonesiaAgus Andrianto, Eva Wollenberg, Ade Cahyat, Christian Goenner,Moira Moeliono, Godwin Limberg and Ramses Iwan


2/12

2

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

G o v e r n a n c e B r i e f

2

All of these create new opportunities andresponsibilities. Law 32, article 167 states thatLocal governments expenditures have to beprioritized to protect and to improve the qualityof life of the people through the improvementof basic services, education, health facilities,proper public and social facilities and developing

the social security system. The SPK establishedPoverty Alleviation Committees (KomitePenanggulangan Kemiskinan, KPKs) responsiblefor coordinating poverty alleviation at thedistrict, provincial and national poverty levels.Based on their poverty level, as measured by theHuman Poverty Index and Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI), districts are eligible for increasedgeneral allocation funds from the center. Thenational assistance programs provide importantsubsidies, such as below-market price rice andcompensation payments for fuel, relying onthe district to distribute benets fairly. In the

forestry sector, the Forest and Land RehabilitationProject funded by National Reforestation Fundssubsidizes groups and individuals to plant trees.The districts interest in improving villageself-sufciency has caused districts to createprosperity movements and community forestryprograms. These, however, are not necessarilytargeted at specic groups of the poor; but ratherare a drive for general economic development.

In addition, districts with signicant numbersof poor people need to be concerned aboutpoverty to maintain a positive image. With

decentralization, districts are receiving morefunds and so have more resources with whichto address poverty, especially in areas rich innatural resources like forests.

What makes poverty alleviationdifcult for local governments?The districts we examined each administered

about twenty projects that aimed to reducepoverty (Table 1). District leaders have beensupportive of these efforts and well intentioned,hardworking ofcials have devoted many hoursto them. They are signicant endeavors.

Despite these efforts, there are underlyingpatterns that consistently weakened the districtsability to address poverty, especially to developlocally relevant programs and deliver resourcesefciently. We summarize here the reasons thatofcials themselves and other stakeholdersreported to us for these shortfalls.

Weak institutionsThe Village Empowerment Service (DinasPemberdayaan Masyarakat DPM) is the primarydistrict agency with the mandate to addresspoverty and lead the Poverty AlleviationCommittees (KPKs). KPKs were formed in 2004in accordance with directives from the centralgovernment and given the task of reducing thenumber of poor people in their districts. Theyhad to produce strategic poverty alleviationplans, hone district government programs, andmainstream funds towards poverty alleviation in

their current APBD (Anggaran Pendapatan danBelanja Daerah) budgets.

The KPKs have not coordinated a coherentor inuential poverty program. Coordinationacross sectors has been problematic as the KPKsare newly established and lack both nancialincentives and authority. Their planning andbudget recommendations are separate from thatof the district and they have no independentfunds. Unlike the District Secretary (SekretarisDaerah, Sekda) or the District Planning andDevelopment Agency (Badan Perencanaan dan

Pengembangan Daerah, Bappeda), the VillageEmpowerment Services do not have coordinatingauthority in the district. Many ofcials saw theKPK process as irrelevant and Java-centric asthe criteria for poverty were imposed by thecentral government and developed withoutconsideration of local conditions in these forestdistricts,. Most members of the KPK seemuninterested in carrying out the duties of thecommittee. The inuence and capacities of theEmpowerment Service also vary with quality of their leadership.

Aside from the ineffectual roles of KPKs, thenewly formed districts have had difcultynding skilled personnel and there has beenpolitical pressure to ll posts with people with

Photo by Agus Adrianto


3/12

G o v e r n a n c e

B r i e

f

3

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

close relationships to existing ofcials. Fewstaff members have any experience related topoverty alleviation. Many are more interested indeveloping their own capacities and well-beingand have worked to promote general economicdevelopment rather than assist specic groupsof the poor.

Poverty is not yet a budget priorityThe two districts strategic plans state that their

main focus is to develop villages and villagecommunities. Although APBD budgets rose in thedistricts more than 200% from 2001 to 2003, 2 themajority of the districts APBD budgets from 2001

to 2003 were used to develop district capitals,mainly for constructing government ofces andproviding civil servants housing and supportingfacilities. In one of the districts the cost of thenew administrations ofce complex almostequaled the districts full annual budget.

In 2004 the KPK chair in one district proposed28 programs to tackle poverty issues and thesewere included in the districts strategic plan.

However, the programs were not included in thedistrict budget (APBD). The same programs wereproposed again for 2005.

Table 1. Summary of Poverty Alleviation Activities by Government Institutions in Two Districts

Implementing Agency Activity Target ObjectiveSocial-EconomicsDivision

Provision of subsidizedrice

Poor families Fullling foodrequirements

Flight and transportationsubsidies

Communities Regular access ataffordable prices

Social assistanceAgriculture Service Direct community

AssistanceFarmer groups Increasing farming

production Establishing gardens Providing income security Agribusiness

Forestry Service Community forestry Farmer groups Getting earnings fromforestsRehabilitation of forestresources

Land and forestrehabilitation

Communities/Contractors

Providing employment

CommunityEmpowerment Service

Strengthening villageinstitutions

Villages Increasing capacitybuilding

Village DevelopmentFunds

Small enterprise (UKM/KUB) loans

Repairs to houses unt forhabitation

Communities Developing villagegovernments, support forlocal entrepreneurshipDeveloping villages

Direct communityAssistance

Communities Increasing economicproductivity

Providing clean water Improve health

Education Service Building schools Schools Providing access andmeans for formaleducation

Scholarships Pupils andstudents

Stopping education beinga nancial burden onfamilies

Special assistance forpupils

Pupils Helping pupils to continuewith their education

Special assistance forschools

Schools Improving educationalfacilities

Health Service Medical assistance The sick Improve health Improving nutrition Poor

communitiesImprove health

Source: CIFOR Governance Study, October-December 2004


4/12

4

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0


4

District programs do not reachtargetsDistricts meanwhile have allocated funds toenhance village self-reliance and self-sufciency.These government initiated movements havebeen promoted at the highest levels of thedistrict and have developed wide support amongdistrict ofcials for several years.

They have become so popular however, thatofcials refer to the movements to justify nearlyany government action, without regard to themovements original strategic objectives. Somerefer to the movements as a one-size-ts-allpolicy.

Ofcials also seem to interpret the districts self-sufciency movements according to the letterrather than the spirit of their intent, all too oftenwith their own self-interest in mind so as to makeas many projects as possible. As projects are thetypical way ofcials can earn additional money,the projects may be beneting local ofcialsmore than the intended beneciaries. There isan assumption that skimming a share from anyproject is acceptable, even if it reduces laterbenets to the poor.

Indeed, information from communities suggeststhat district agencies programs have often failedto reach their targets or meet local priorities.The district capital and the home villages of the district leaders receive disproportionablyhigh assistance. In general, the more remote orpolitically unconnected an area, the lower thequantity and quality of projects. Communitiesin one district reported little benet from thedistricts assistance program, which in 2002cost 74.6 billion rupiah to support 96 villagedevelopment projects. In another district,many communities were unaware that such aprogram existed and had no knowledge of anyprojects. The benets from economic programsthat do reach communities, such as scholarships,reforestation projects, fuel compensationpayments or free health care, are usuallydominated by the village elite. Ofcial monitorslook the other way in exchange for a bribe orfor fear of their career, since project contractorsare often related to high ranking ofcials orotherwise well-connected. All respondents fromcommunities said they would welcome povertyalleviation programs enthusiastically if it suitedtheir needs.

The general public received little informationabout district government policies andprograms. Minimal awareness building and alack of transparency have meant there is nofront door for communities to participate in

these movements. Although villages regularlysubmitted requests for projects, they rarelyheard from district ofcials about the statusof their request. Few requests were met,

although some were unreasonable in theamounts of money requested or type of projectproposed. Government ofcials behaviorhas contradicted their visions and left poorcommunities increasingly powerless to fend forthemselves. District heads have never requestedaccountability reports from KPK members.

Forest policies do not addresspovertyThough forests are essential to livelihoods andfood security for the majority of the population,ofcials still viewed forests primarily as apotential source of cash income. Small-scaletimber permits such as IPPK (Ijin Pemungutandan Pemanfaatan Kayu) , HPHH (Hak PemungutanHasil Hutan), and IUPHHK (Ijin Usaha PemanfaatanHasil Hutan Kayu) enabled some groups to makemoney in the short-run, but have also increasedconict, including conicts within villages andfamilies due to uneven distribution of fees andcompensation payments, damaged their safetynet, increased the gap between the better-off and the poor and reduced the quality of theirenvironment. After several years it is clear thesepolicies have failed to increase the standardof living of poor communities living around theforests. Forest cutting and conversion havecontinued to be promoted in places where thepoorest depend on the forest for food, therebyincreasing their vulnerability.

District government staff perceptions of povertyDistrict government staffs perceptions of povertyand its causes were diverse and partly reectedthe scope of their positions (Table 2). Agriculturalstaff said that poverty occurred where people

were unable to fulll their everyday needs, hadto struggle to provide agricultural inputs andcould not guarantee a decent yield from theirefforts. The Forest Service noted that withdeclining dependence on forest products andincreasing costs of living, families need moremoney to pay for goods and services. The VillageEmpowerment Service said poverty is caused bya lack of knowledge, poor health and isolationamong other factors. All parties should providethe public with information through formal ornon-formal education.

District governments considered poorcommunities to be homogenous and did notdistinguish among target groups with speciccharacteristics. Poverty was analyzed primarily at


5/12

G o v e r n a n c e

B r i e

f

5

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

the village level, resulting in eld interventionsthat focused on physical infrastructure in thevillages instead of peoples livelihoods.

Persistent attitudes about povertyalleviation: Bapak will provideAttitudes formed during the New Order periodcontinued to inform how people view thegovernments role in poverty alleviation.Many ofcials portrayed the government as afather ( bapak ) that cares for his children, thecitizenry. People have come to believe thatpoverty alleviation is mainly the responsibilityof the government. Many also viewed povertyalleviation as meeting basic, immediate needsof the poor for housing, food or healthcare orvillage infrastructure. Few thought of povertyprograms as enabling poor households to becomeempowered and self-reliant through education,information, organization and increasedeconomic opportunities.

Economic Development for the EliteIronically, district ofcials promoting economicdevelopment talked a lot about enablingvillages to become empowered and self-reliant, and have made some efforts to improveeducation, information, organization and localentrepreneurship. The most visible activities

though have been to increase large-scaleinvestment and improve district infrastructure.These activities may have created a foundationfor expanding economic opportunities for thepoor, but to date have mostly beneted a smallgroup of already inuential people. Realisticallythough, the district government needs thesupport of these inuential people and willalways seek to meet their interests before it canaddress the interests of the poor, especially whiledistricts are still new and seeking to consolidatetheir authority.

CapacitiesEvery district ofcial interviewed mentionedthe lack of capacity among district governmentagencies, including the heads of the agencies.Districts have been running capacity buildingprograms for their staff; unfortunately, many of the ofcials gaining scholarships are interestedonly in getting titles to secure promotions.

Confusing data about povertyHow can districts address poverty if they arenot sure of who is poor and why? Districts workcurrently with at least ve parallel informationsystems for determining who is poor: National Statistics Agency (BPS), based on

regionally determined poverty lines related tohousehold consumption, e.g. the line in one

district was Rp. 114,841 per capita per monthfor extreme poverty and Rp. 136,847 percapita per month for poverty; national socio-economic surveys (SUSENAS) are conductedevery three years at the provincial level andassess food and non-food consumption which isthen converted to a rupiah value using standardprices. Samples are drawn randomly, but rarelycover isolated or distant parts of the district.

National Statistics Agency (BPS), Program onCompensation for Reduced Petroleum FuelSubsidies (Program Kompensasi PenguranganBahan Bakar Minyak), based on a poverty lineof Rp. 150,000 /capita/month and accordingto centrally determined criteria related tobasic needs such as housing, water and foodconsumption. BPS identied poor householdswith input from village leaders and other dataexisting data and then surveyed households. The2005 program aimed to determine householdseligible for direct cash subsides. This povertyinformation is based on a one-time incidentalsurvey.

The former Family Planning Agency (BKKBN),measured in terms of a familys basic needssuch as clothing, housing and food consumptionand described as levels of prosperity, e.g., pre-prosperity, prosperity I, prosperity II, etc.

Districts own self-sufciency movements,which dene villages as self supporting, self-developing or self-sufcient/reliant, basedlargely on village heads reports.

The Human Development Index (HDI) andHuman Poverty Index (used to calculate HDI)developed by the United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP), which are used, among otherfactors, to calculate general fund allocationsfrom Jakarta.



6/12

6

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0


6

Working with this unwieldy mix of units(household, family and village), criteria andagencies makes districts jobs more difcult. Forexample, according to one agency, the majorityof the population in one district is poor, accordingto another, the majority is not poor. Even thetwo agencies lists of the ten poorest villages donot show any overlap. And the data from any oneagency is rarely representative of the diverseconditions in the district, especially more distantand isolated villages. How can districts developgood policies where such confusion and lack of information exists?

Exaggeration of poverty levelsSome districts may be using current policies toperverse ends. Respondents reported that theirdistrict manipulated gures to create povertyconditions that would secure additional fundsfrom Jakarta and the provincial capital. Ofcialsin several departmental ofces admitted thatpeople did this as a strategy to make the districtdevelopment program a success. It was not clearwhether the additional funds were allocated toprograms for the poor as a result.

Communities and individuals also inated theirpoverty levels to secure aid or attention fromthe district government. Legislative Assemblymembers pointed out increasing demands fromcommunity groups asking for facilities andinfrastructure to be built for them. However,most proposals did not come from poor peoplein the village and would not necessarily help inmanaging poverty in their areas. The inationof poverty increased with the compensationpayments to the poor following the sharpincrease in fuel price in October 2005. Sadly, some

neighborhood administrators (Ketua RT) in otherdistricts were under so much pressure to inatethe numbers that two tried to kill themselvesand one was murdered by local people.

Monitoring and evaluation of projectspoverty programsIn accordance with its function, the RegionalDevelopment Supervisory Board (BadanPengawasan Daerah or Bawasda) carries outinternal monitoring to supervise nances, outputsand procedures. The District Developmentand Planning Board (Badan PerencanaanPembangunan Daerah or Bappeda) monitorsphysical development together with theagencies involved and the project leaders. TheDPRD should monitor the district governmentby holding direct inspections and gatheringinformation and complaints from the public.The Meeting for Coordination of Quality Control(Rapat Koordinasi Pengendalian, RAKORDAL) isan annual meeting usually chaired by the headof the district to evaluate the years projects.Under Law No. 32 2004, the Provincial Governorand Minister of Home Affair have roles as wellin district monitoring, particularly in regulationmaking and the budget plan.

According to respondents, when monitoring andevaluations take place, the supervisory teamsinvariably give favorable evaluations even if aproject has neither met its targets nor run theway it was intended. This happens because thoseimplementing projects are usually close to thesupervisory teams and give bribes. Supervisoryteams do make reports of digressions and bringcharges in extreme cases such as total failure,fraud or demonstrations from communities.

ConclusionIn this study we tried to better understand thefactors affecting district ofcials efforts to

alleviate poverty. National and district policiesindicate that poverty alleviation should be adistrict priority. In practice, however, we foundthat centrally imposed poverty programs createdbureaucratic requirements that ofcials werereluctant to meet and preferred to use to theirown benet. District initiatives for economicdevelopment were concentrated around districtcapitals, and rarely reached the poor in remoterregions. While signicant efforts are being madeto tackle poverty, they are falling far short of their potential. The reasons for this shortfall canbe summarized as:

1. Limited incentives - Poverty alleviation isa public agenda that requires additionalsupport to make people change what theydo. It may be necessary for the central

hoto by Agus Adrianto


7/12

G o v e r n a n c e

B r i e

f

7

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

government to promote public-mindednessby providing the incentives to encouragethem to go beyond districts self-interest.But districts ofcials incentive to comply

with centrally directed programs is low.The policy is imposed, much of it is locallyirrelevant and rank and le ofcials receivelittle direct benet from such policies.While ofcials say they are supportive of poverty reduction, and some are trulycommitted, few work to ensure that fullproject benets reach the poor. Benetsfrom subsidies are siphoned off or shared asfavors to political allies and family beforethey reach the poor, especially those inremote places. District auditors are notfully effective. Perverse effects occur like

the manipulation of data to portray higherlevels of poverty and receive more projectfunds in areas that need it least.

2. Marginal institution - The lead institutionresponsible for coordinating povertyalleviation programs lacks authority andfunding, capabilities, inuence and insome places leadership to promote povertyalleviation programs.

3. Incoherent strategy and information base -District ofcials are faced with a confusingarray of classications of poverty and lackgood information to develop their programs.

Poverty assessments lead to contradictoryresults. Programs are built on differentsets of assumptions and have no denedclear groups of the poor that they seek toassist. Separate programs address poverty,prosperity, self-sufciency and economicdevelopment, and have no clear relationshipto each other. Although ofcials can easilydescribe poverty in their districts, differentagencies view povertys causes differently.There is a need for a common understandingof who are the poor, the causes of theirpoverty and what can be done to tackle it.

4. Lack of involvement of poor people -Ofcials are still learning about how tobest communicate with villagers aboutgovernment programs and to learn aboutlocal villagers perceptions of povertyand priorities. Local people complainedabout a general lack of transparency, weakprofessional competence, low responsivenessto local initiatives, a top-down approach, andrent-seeking behavior of project managers inthe district government. Most communitiesdid not even know about poverty reductionprograms in their area. One difculty is that

many of the poor are insufciently trainedand organized to participate effectively inpolitical processes.

What can be done?Efforts can be made to improve districtgovernments opportunities and interests inpoverty alleviation at the national, provincial anddistrict levels. With the current national drivefor poverty alleviation and districts interests inbuilding their capacities, new initiatives wouldbe timely. Starting points for action include:1. Central and provincial governments allow

districts to dene poverty locally, identifytheir own priorities and develop their ownapproaches to developing more integratedpoverty programs across district agencies.While district capacities and incentives arestill weak, the center may need to providethe legal mandate, funding, inuence andtraining to make poverty alleviation programsoperational.

2. District government makes poverty more of apriority. Coordination of poverty alleviation isplaced with an inuential government bodyand with an inuential person in charge.Planning, budgets, implementation andevaluation take place through mainstreamdistrict mechanisms.

District institutions responsible forpoverty programs are well-coordinatedthrough the District Development PlanningAgency (Bappeda) and the District Secretary.Budget is allocated from the APBD forintersectoral cooperation. The PRSP is part of district planning tools like the district workingunit plan (Rencana Kerja dan Anggaran,Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah, RKA-SKPD),annual plan (Rencana Kerja PemerintahDaerah, RKPD), medium-term plan (RencanaPembangunan Jangka Menengah, RPJM), long-term plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka



8/12

8

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0


8

Panjang, RPJP), and APBD. There is a legalmandate and set of targets from the district.

District leaders show their commitmentthrough the program and budget decisions

they support, the types of villages in whichthey spend time, and the values theycommunicate to district ofces.

More recognition and incentives aregiven to ofcials who effectively promotepoverty alleviation.

3. District develops a clear policy. Districtpolicy-makers have a clear idea of:- Who is to be assisted, i.e., who are the

different groups of poor, where they arelocated, how many people need assistance,and which groups receive priority.

- What are the causes of their poverty?

- What are the means for reducing theirpoverty and what are the center, province,district and community roles in doingso? Are these means for only meetingimmediate needs, or for addressing longer-term economic opportunities? What rolesexist for other parties?

- Why poverty alleviation is essential to theoverall well-being and economic aims of the district.The framework reects local conditions inthe district and provides locally relevantcriteria for assessing poverty. It is created

with consultations with different groupsof the poor in their villages, as well aswith government ofcials responsible forimplementing and assessing projects.

The framework provides focus anddirection to policy decisions and enablesbetter coordination. It enables povertyalleviation to happen outside of designatedpoverty programs. It is simple enoughthat people can remember its mainelements.

4. District policy creates an enabling

environment for people to work their way outof chronic poverty by supporting more diverseeconomic opportunities, generating moreenvironmentally and economically sustainableoptions and reducing vulnerability. It does thisthrough providing more support to strengthenexisting local livelihood strategies, helpinglocal people diversify their cash sources of income, providing good quality educationand training opportunities, building onexisting efforts of community-based resourcemanagement and supporting local efforts to

provide social safety nets. It should avoidcentrally driven, uniform programs are do notenable people to meet their own interests.

Decision-makers give more consideration

to the roles that forests play in poor villagerslivelihoods and the vulnerability theypotentially face with forest degradation ordeforestation.

Poverty alleviation is linked to economicdevelopment, and special efforts are madeto ensure positive roles and benets for thepoor.

5. District institutions responsible for povertyprograms are well-coordinated. Povertyalleviation committees are reorganized,revitalized and better integrated with existingcoordination bodies such as the District

Development Planning Agencies (Bappeda).The committees and their programs havea budget allocated from the APBD and, if necessary, a legal district mandate to supportthem. The committee is able to allocatefunds independently of individual agenciesto encourage intersectoral cooperation. Thecommittees are open to input from interestedcommunity members and organizations.

All parties receive adequateinformation. Government agencies, technicalagencies and ofces and district governmentsecretariats continually update information

about program proposals, implementation of ongoing programs and their impacts.

6. District decision-makers communicate withthe poor and are responsive to their needsand interests.

Ofcials conduct participatory villageand subdistrict planning sessions to facilitatebetter two-way communication betweenvillages and local ofcials. Ofcials assistvillages to know what is feasible to requestand communities communicate to ofcialsabout their needs and report back on theprogress of poverty alleviation efforts.

Communities receive information aboutgovernment programs so they can decide ontheir involvement, be aware of their rolesand responsibilities and understand thebenets they would get from being involvedin the program. Increased transparencymakes ofcials more accountable to deliverproject benets.

Planning efforts should be open to inputfrom interested community members andorganizations.


9/12

G o v e r n a n c e

B r i e

f

9

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

Table 2. District Government Perceptions of Poverty and Community Evaluations of GovernmentAgencies

Perceptions of PovertyCommunityEvaluationsGovernment

OfceCondition Causes Alternative

SolutionsSocial-Economics

Poor in termsof facilities andeconomically

Centralisticpolicies

Poor situation Geographic

isolation Minimal

investment

Subsidies Help with

facilities Make investment

easier

Mechanismsunclear

No money

Bappeda Basic needsand social andspiritual needs


Low humanresourcescapacity

Optimize KPK Capacity Building Making district

special plan

Projects strayfrom initialobjectives

CommunityEmpowerment

Unable to fulllbasic needs +socio-culturalneeds


Geographicisolation

Aspiratory andparticipatoryprograms

Make appropriateK&I

PMD is not astrong institution

NationalEducation

Education poorlypresented


Lack of education

Recruit teachers Procure facilities

Increasecompetence of teachers

Free up educationcosts

System yet to bebuilt

Lack of competence

Agriculture Unable to meet adecent standardof living

Unclear businessenvironment

Developagribusiness

Project approach

Forestry Incapable andno capital formanaging forestresources


Do not benetenoughnancially from

forest resources

Facilitate permitsfor communities

Make vegetablegardens

All about money

DistrictLegislativeAssembly

No facilities No economic

capacity

Lack of investment

Promotion Create

investmentopportunities

DPRD membersinvolved inprojects

Conict overnatural resourcesbetweencommunitiesand investorsand betweencommunities

Source: CIFOR Governance Study, October - December 2004


10/12


11/12

G o v e r n a n c e

B r i e

f

11

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0

Related policy briefs and reportsAffandi, O. 2005. Dampak kebijakan IPPK danIUPHHK terhadap perekonomian masyarakatdi Kabupaten Malinau . (Impact of districtlogging policies on village economy in MalinauDistrict). Governance Brief No. 12. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.

Angi, E.M. 2005. Bagaimana kebijakan dapatdikoordinasikan antara pusat, daerah danmasyarakat?. Governance Brief No. 11. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia.

Cahyat, A. 2004. Bagaimana kemiskinan diukur? Beberapa model pengukuran kemiskinan diIndonesia . Governance Brief No. 2. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.

Cahyat, A. 2004. Sistem pengawasan terhadap penyelenggaraan pemerintah daerah kabupaten:Pembahasan peraturan perundangan di bidang

pengawasan. Governance Brief No. 3. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia.

Cahyat, A. 2005. Perubahan perundangandesentralisasi: Apa yang berubah?, Bagaimanadampaknya pada upaya penanggulangankemiskinan?; Dan, Apa yang perlu dilakukan?.(Changes in decentralization laws: What haschanged?, What is the impact on povertyalleviation?; and What shall we do?). GovernanceBrief No. 22. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Cahyat, A. 2005. Perubahan Perundang-undanganKeuangan Daerah Tahun 2004: Bagaimana

pengaruhnya pada program penanggulangankemiskinan daerah?. (Changes in laws andregulation on local government nance system bythe year of 2004: What is the impact on povertyalleviation programmes?). Governance Brief No.24. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Cahyat, A. and Wibowo, S. 2005. Masyarakatmengawasi pembangunan daerah: Bagaimanaagar dapat efektif?. (Communities monitorlocal development: How to make it effective).Governance Brief No. 23. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Gunawan, H. 2005. Desentralisasi: ancamandan harapan bagi masyarakat adat - studi kasusmasyarakat adat Cerekang di Kabupaten LuwuTimur, propinsi Sulawesi Selatan. Forests andGovernance Programme Series. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.

Gunawan, H. 2005. Implementasi desentralisasisalah masyarakat adat menuai masalah.Governance Brief No. 8. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.

Haug, M. Literature review on decentralizationand poverty alleviation. http://cifor.catalog.cgiar.org/search/index0.htm

Lestiawati, Y. 2005. Kehutanan daerah diera desentralisasi penghambat koordinasi?.Governance Brief No. 5. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.

Moeliono, M. and Cahyat, A. 2005.Pengarusutamaan kemiskinan: Apa, mengapadan bagaimana?. (Poverty mainstreaming: What,Why and How?). Governance Brief No. 25. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia.

Rositah, E. 2005. Kemiskinan masyarakat desasekitar hutan dan penanggulangannya: Studikasus di Kabupaten Malinau. (Poverty of villagersnear forests and its reduction in Malinau District)Governance Brief No. 14. CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia,English summary also available.

Sukardi. 2005. Mencari benang merahkelangsungan hutan adat ongkoe di KabupatenBarru. Governance Brief No. 7. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.

Sumarlan. 2005. Kupu-kupu sayap burungmusnah, masyarakat Pegunungan Arfakmenderita. Governance Brief No. 6. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia.

Wiati, C.B. 2005. Apakah setelah desentralisasihutan penelitian lebih bermanfaat untukmasyarakat lokal?. Governance Brief No. 13.CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Wollenberg, E., Belcher, B., Sheil, D., Dewi, S.and Moeliono, M. 2004. Why are forest areasrelevant to reducing poverty in Indonesia?Governance Brief No. 4. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.(also in Indonesian)

Yulianti, A. 2005. Kopermas: masyarakathukum adat sebagai tameng bagi pihak yangberkepentingan. Governance Brief No. 9. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia.

Yusran. 2005. Mengembalikan kejayaan hutankemiri rakyat. Governance Brief No. 10. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia.


12/12

12

M a r c

h 2 0 0 6

N u m

b e r

3 0


12

district governments and poverty

Documents