PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS IN THE VILLAGE

The SMERU Research Institute – Local Solutions to Poverty

Jakarta, March 14, 2018

March ’18

Longitudinal study about Village Law Implementation

Study Context

BaselineSept–Nov ‘15

Endline

April 2018Case study: Village Fund Utilization

Mar ’17

Monitoring

Updates: Village Planning

No Prov District Village Pseudonym

1 Jambi Batanghari a. Tiang Berajo

b. Kelok Sungai Besar

Merangin a. Seberang Sungai

b. Jembatan Rajo

2 Jawa

Tengah

Wonogiri a. Kalikromo

b. Beral

Banyumas a. Deling

b. Karyamukti

3 NTT Ngada a. Ndona

b. Lekosoro

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES:

• Update data and information about annual planning and mid-term planning in study villages

• Discuss mid-term planning for villages and policy options that could be considered further

• Identify key issues to be further explored during the Endline Study

METHODOLGY:

• Qualitative

• Data gathered during baseline, monitoring activities and a case study are gathered through:• Interviews with the village government, BPD, community, and supra-village government• Men and women FGD• Observation of village activities

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

•THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING FOR VILLAGES

•THE ANNUAL PLANNING (RKPDes)

•THE MID-TERM PLANNING (RPJMDes)

•CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING FOR VILLAGES

Planning according to the regulatory framework• The Village Law requires villages to conduct planning

• Article 79: Villages should align the annual village workplan (RKPDes) and the mid-term village plan (RPJMDes) with the district’s development plan

• Article 80: Villages should involve the community in the process

• Permendagri 114/2014: The village government should be in charge of the village development planning process while involving the village council (BPD, Badan Permusyawaratan Desa), and the community to utilize and allocate village resources to achieve objectives of village development.

Illustrations from the Case Study on Village Funds Utilization

WHY IS VILLAGE PLANNING IMPORTANT?

• Findings from the Case Study show that some activities were not executed properly.• A Box culvert was constructed without conducting a location survey beforehand.• A Handtractor was purchased without clear specifications.• A Musholla bathroom does not have a septic tank and as such cannot be used.

• Infrastructure projects have limited socio-economic value.• Poskamling (security posts) were excessively built in a hamlet. • Construction of footpaths were distributed evenly among RTs and hamlets. • The root problem: sporadic, unintegrated planning and a dearth of ideas.

• Planning is also important for:• Village governance evaluation standard for participation, transparency and accountability. • Efficiency and effectiveness of development.• Support village works that are executed through swakelola.

ANNUAL PLANNING1. ANNUAL PLANNING SCHEME (RKPDes) ACCORDING TO PERMENDAGRI 114/2014

2. DRAFTING OF THE ANNUAL PLAN

3. IMPORTANT PHASES IN THE DRAFTING OF THE ANNUAL PLANS IN STUDY VILLAGES

A. PROPOSAL SUGGESTION

B. PRIORITY SETTING

C. AGREEMENT OF PROPOSALS

• Musdes results• Indicative ceiling• Village programs

• Review of the RPJMDes

• Agreement after reviewing the RPJMDes

• Formation of RAB verification team

• Indicative ceiling: DD, ADD, BHPRD, BKKDes

• Aligning the RKPD and Jaring Asmara

RKPDes(Permendagri 114/2014, article 29 – article 48)

Review of the Indicative ceiling

Musdes by the BPD (June)

RKPDes Drafting Team

Musrenbangdes

Second review of the RPJMDes

RKPDes Plan (July)

Perdes RKP village

(September)

Proposal Suggestion

Priority Setting Agreement Implementation in the field

DRAFTING THE ANNUAL PLAN

• Villages in Wonogiri, Banyumas and Batanghari have finished their RKPDes at the year T-1.

• Villages in Ngada dan Merangin have not finished their RKPDes at T-1• In Ngada, T-1 planning has started and proposal suggestion forums have been

conducted, but the RKPDes is not finished.

• In Merangin, the district does not care about T-1 planning. The village government and BPD tend to violate the phases in development planning.

• Planning in T-1 allows villages to start their development earlier and have more time to execute the development better governance and quality of activity.

• But this assumes that the national and district government do not make sudden changes in the regulation.

PROPOSAL SUGGESTION PROGRESS IN STUDY VILLAGES

Beginning of Village Law (2016):

• Most villages conduct their proposal suggestion directly at the village level during Musdes and Musrenbangdes.

• Karya Mukti Village collected proposals from the hamlets and mosques.

Current condition of Village Law implementation (2018):

• More villages started to collect inputs using different modes of forums: RT/RW forums, religious events, Musdus (hamlet deliberation forums) and Musdes.

• Proposal suggestions are usually on two bidangs (village development and community empowerment); except for Ngada that collects proposals in four bidangs.

• In Merangin:

• Local politics got in the way of proposal collection.

• Various conflicts cause village government to avoid conducting forum with community.

12

PROPOSAL SUGGESTION THAT “PIGGYBACK” ON THE COMMUNITY ROUTINE ACTIVITIES (SLAPANAN, YASINAN, ETC)

Routine community activities are now found to be used for the village to collect proposal

suggestions.

Advantages:

• Community participation is guaranteed even without pocket money.

• Proposal suggestion does not interfere with the community’s daily activities.

Disadvantages:

• Villagers could be unprepared with their suggestions, as the proposal forum is not formally scheduled.

• Villagers might be tired after participating in the other activity and thus are eager to go home.

• Women can potentially be excluded (Kalikromo, Beral, Jembatan Rajo, Seberang Sungai) because activities that are “piggybacked on” are mostly attended by men.

PROPOSAL SUGGESTION THROUGH FORUMSBASELINE PRESENT

RKPDesdrafting is based on RPJMDes

Type 1: Closed towards new proposals, except when there is a change in regulation at the supra-village level

It is difficult for villages to accommodate new needs that are not originally included in the RPJMDes

Type 2: Open towards new proposals not included in the RPJMDes

Risk: Planning becomes a “shopping list” and is sporadic

• Pattern 2a: new proposals are collected at village level forums Pattern 2b: new proposals are collected at village or sub-village forums

More proposals are collected and more opportunities are open for women and marginal groups to air their needs.

Proposal Suggestion at Ndona (2017)

Proposal Suggestion Musdes

PATTERNS IN PRIORITY SETTING

• Pattern 1: Through participation in Musdes forums. This method is found in Ngada and Batanghari. In Ngada, priorities are discussed and agreed in the Musyawarah. In Batanghari, if a consensus cannot be reached, voting becomes an alternative. This type promotes participation

• Pattern 2: Through internal discussions between the drafting team and the village government (Kalikromo, Beral, Deling). In Karya Mukti Village, priority setting is attended and consulted by the BPD. This type is technocratic (especially if there is a village level, or even inter-village level strategic program)

• Pattern 3 Behind closed doors by the village government, who “shares projects” (corrupt) between the village government and the BPD. This method is found in Merangin.

The best method is a combination between the participatory and the technocratic.

PROPOSAL AGREEMENTPatterns in proposal agreement Explanation

Pattern 1: Through the Musrenbangforum

This type is the best as it not only advocates for participation and accountability, but also has a berita acara (minutes of meeting) of the Musrenbang.

Pattern 2: Through Village level meetings, where priorities are communicated but suggestions are still welcome.

A formal proposal agreement is the initiative of the village inviting the BPD and community leader, usually done in conjunction with another activity.

Participation and accountability is strong.

Additional proposal suggestions are always needed to anticipate additional funds from the BKKDes.

Pattern 3: No proposal agreement (Merangin)

No formal proposal agreement and accountability is low.

MUSYAWARAH PARTICIPANTS

• In general, more people attend the Musyawarah compared to the last two years.

• Men still dominate the Musyawarah.

• The Musyawarah is usually attended by the elites: the village government, the BPD, representatives from the RT/RW/Hamlet, and village community institutions. • Only Batanghari requires marginal groups to attend the Musyawarah at the village level, but

they only show up without raising any opinions or concerns. • In Banyumas, the babinkamtibnas (Police) and babinsa (the Indonesian Army, TNI) are invited

to join the Musrenbang, but they only show up without giving any opinions.

• The kecamatan always shows up in Musrenbangs to give normative opening speeches, except in Jembatan Rajo Village. In Batanghari, the previous kecamatanadministration has a strong influence in the Musyawarah.

18

Musrenbangdes Seberang Sungai (2017)

Musrenbangdes Jembatan Rajo(2017)

Musrenbangdes Tiang Berajo (2017)

Musrenbangdes Kelok Sungai Besar (2016)

Musrenbangdes Deling (2017)

THE BUDGETING PROCESS

• In general, the drafting of the RAPBDes (APBDes draft plan) is done only by the Village Head and the village apparatus.

• Budget consultation with the BPD happens at Kalikromo, Beral, Deling, danKarya Mukti Village, in which the RAPBDes is discussed formally between the village government and the BPD. The village government explains the RAPBDes and the BPD gives comments on it.• Consultation with the BPD is a necessary condition to achieve participation and

accountability. However, the sufficient condition is the quality of the BPD itself to achieve a quality budget.

• A policy brief about the BPD highlights the lack of understanding in the APBDes of the BPD. Consequently, it is difficult for the BPD to criticize the APBDes draft by the village government. APBDes content training is highly needed for the BPD.

PATTERNS IN BUDGETING PROCESSBUDGETING PROCESS

Pattern 1: The RAB (detailed budget plan) is drafted simultaneously with the RKPDes

Follows the Permendagri 114/2014 (article 49).

The RKPDes, APBDes, RAB, and SPJ (letter of account) are managed through the Siskeudes (Village Financial System Application) this is the best pattern

Pattern 2: The RAB is drafted simultaneously with the APBDes.

The RAB becomes the attachment of the APBDes after the RKPDes.

Pattern 3: The RAB is drafted after the APBDes.

Follows Permendagri 114/2014 (article 37): APBDesshould be finalized before December 31.

The period between the finalization and the DD disbursement is used to draft the RAB.

Pattern 4: The RAB is drafted by a consultant after DD disbursement.

RAB is not part of the budgeting process, but a prerequisite before incurring expenses

MID-TERM PLANNING1. MID-TERM PLANNING SCHEME ACCORDING TO PERMENDAGRI

114/2014

2. DRAFTING OF THE MID-TERM PLAN (RPJMDes)

Consultation with the BPD

• Village resources

• Proposal suggestions in 4 bidangs(hamlet)

• RPJMD (district RPJM)• Renstra (strategic plan)• RUTR/ RTRW (regional spatial plan)

RPJMDesPermendagri 114/2014 (article 6, article 28)

Alignment with regulation

Study of the village condition

Drafting team of the RPJMDes

Musdes by the BPD

Drafting the report

RPJMDes draft MusrenbangdesVillage Regulation RPJMDes

(Deadline of 3 months after the inauguration of the Village Head)

STATUS AND PROCESS OF RPJMDes DRAFTING (in four villages conducting Pilkades in the Village Law period)Drafting phases Village

Create an RPJMDes drafting team (as well as RKPDes team) Ndona, Kalikromo

Align RPJMDes with the RPJMD ---

Conduct the Musdus Ndona, Kalikromo, Seberang Sungai, Jembatan Rajo

Conduct the Musdes (simultaneously with the Musdes RKPDes) Ndona

Draft the RPJMDes plan (through a list of proposals from the hamlets)

Ndona

Conduct a Musrenbanges (simultaneously with the Musren RKPDes) ---

Involve the BPD in RPJMDes drafting Ndona

Finalize the RPJMDes Ndona, Kalikromo

Time period between the Village Head inauguration and the RPJMDes finalization

6 months (Ndona); 14 months (Kalikromo). Two villages do not have RPJMDes: Seberang Sungai (21 months); Jembatan Rajo (3 months)

Musdus RPJMDes at Kalikromo Village (2017)

Planning consolidation at GS Sub district in Ngada

RPJMDes Dilemma:The RPJMDes is a responsibility of the village as mandated by the Village Law.Ideally In reality

Sufficient time is given to draft the RPJMDes in a participatory process.

Villages are constrained with time and lack of capacity in drafting the RPJMDes, while the drafting process is not always participatory and representative to the needs of villagers.

Village and sub district facilitators intensively support villages.

Village and sub district facilitators are lacking in capacity to facilitate villages.

The Village Head is committed to draft the RPJMDes.

The Village Head sees the RPJMDes only as a formality document.

The RPJMDes process must be participative andaligns with the RPJMD.

Villages “must” follow priorities for DD usage from central government and have no information about the RPJMD.

The RPJMDes is modified only in special and urgent cases.

The RPJMDes can be modified annually following changing regulations from the supra-village.

The RKPDes follows the RPJMDes. The RPJMDes is modified according to the RKPDes.

RPJMDesDocument of Kalikromo?

CONCLUSION• The village government tend to follow populist demand.

• There is proposal suggestion every year for he RKPDes not regulated in Permendagri 114/2014 • There is an increasing number of ways to collect proposal suggestions.

• Villages prioritize the RKPDes compared to the RPJMDes• Villages generally finish their RKPDes before their RPJMDes• There is a village with no RPJMDes for 21 months.

• Villages prioritize proposal suggestions for the RKPDes. But why do we need to do another proposal suggestion for the RPJMDes, if it has been done for the RKPDes?

• A too ambitious goal of aligning the RPJMN-RPJMD- RPJMDes, because: • Not all villages are able to draft an RPJMDes that satisfies the standard as stipulated in the

regulation, like that of the RPJMD and the RPJMN.• Items in the RPJMN and the RPJMD are at the broader strategic level, whereas the RPJMDes is at

the activity level• Both the RPJMN and the RPJMD are used as guidelines for planning and evaluation, different from

the RPJMDes.

THE URGENCY OF RPJMDES TO BE QUESTIONED WHEN…

• The RPJMDes is mainly a list of proposals coming from proposal suggestion forums, and is only used by supra-village governments to check whether the RKPDes aligns with the RPJMDes (e.g. for DD disbursement)

• The RPJMDes is not a guideline for planning. The RPJMDes is modified every year to align it with the RKPDes and DD priority activities and district activities.

• The RPJMDes is not an evaluation guideline for the performance of the Village Head. The Permendagri never requires the RPJMDes to be the basis for term performance reporting, whether to the BPD or supra-village.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

• The RPJMDes is intended to be the soul of village planning, but how can we answer the dilemma of the RPJMDes (as mentioned above)?

• How can we balance between the technocratic proposals from the Village Head and apparatus, with the participatory proposals from the community? Currently the Permendagri only gives room for participatory proposals and none for technocratic proposals to be accommodated, making the RPJMDes appear like a shopping list.

• Is it necessary to classify the format of the RPJMDes with the level of villages’ development?

Options Pros Cons

1. Eliminate the RPJMDes Villages do not need to waste energy to make a formality document, they can just concentrate to do the RKPDes. Prerequisite: change the Village Law.

Villages will not have a mid-term plan or a guideline to align their annual plans with the longer term goals.

2. Keep the RPJMDes as a formality document

Supra-village government can have a practical reference to match the RKPDes with the RPJMDes, at least in administrative terms.

Villages do not have a mid-term development plan, that can lead to sporadic development. There is too much “wasting time” to make the RPJMDes only for formality purposes and no technocratic aspect.

RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS TO DISCUSS

Options Pros Cons

3. Continue to uphold the RPJMDes to the standards of Permendagri 114/2014.

Synchronization between the vision and mission of the Village Head with the RPJMD, Renstra SKPD (strategic plan of the task force), RUTR (spatial general plan), and RTRW (national spatial plan), up to the activity level. Prerequisite: committed district to socialize the RPJMD, Renstra SKPD, RUTR/RTRW; support from PD/PLD; capacity of the village government

Require a lot of concerted efforts and time. Prerequisite: All villages are able to make complex RPJMDes’ and follow standards as specified by the Permendagri; districts are willing to provide relevant documents

4. Re-concept the RPJMDes to be a planning document and evaluation document, in which formats are customized according to the level of village development.

More efficient drafting process: (i) no need for proposal suggestion; (ii) does not include activities proposed, but projects derived from the vision and mission of the village head, (iii) development is not sporadic, technocratic, and mid-term. Prerequisite: support from PD/PLD, and change in regulation

Supra-village needs to really understand the RPJMDes to evaluate its alignment with the RKPDes.

RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS TO DISCUSS

Thank You

facebook.com/SMERUInstitute

@SMERUInstitute

Contacts:

The SMERU Research InstituteJl. Cikini Raya No. 10AJakarta 10330 IndonesiaPh: (62-21) 3193 6336Fax: (62-21) 3193 0850Email: smeru@smeru.or.id