Rapid Appraisal of PNPM Neighborhood Development (and Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant Mechanism)

Transcription

1 Rapid Appraisal of PNPM Neighborhood Development (and Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant Mechanism) Public Disclosure Authorized March 30, 2012 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Prepared by Nina Schuler (Lead Consultant) with Risye Dwiyani (Urban Planner). World Bank guidance provided by George Soraya (TTL, EASIN), Zoe Trohanis (Co- TTL, EASIN), Judy Baker (Lead Economist, WBI) Evi Hermirasari (EASIN), Kumala Sari (EASIN) 1

2 Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Study Methodology 2.1 Issue Identification 2.2 Site Selection 2.3 Data and Document Review 2.4 Field Visit 2.5 Data Collection 3. Understanding the PNPM- Neighborhood Development Approach to Community Driven Slum Upgrading 3.1 Mechanics 3.2 Analysis of Project Assumptions and Key Design Issues Vision: Does the ND process help to create a meaningful vision for kelurahan development? Planning: Does the facilitated planning process genuinely allow communities to identify the issues that are most critical for the development of their kelurahan/ neighborhood? Implementation and Investments: Are the ND resources prioritized in such a way as to create the most significant impact? Marketing and Channeling: What purpose does the process of marketing and channeling serve? Is it an effective way to engage local government and the private sector? Local Government Engagement: What roles and collaboration might be most effective to engage local government in a meaningful way? What lessons and tools from PAPG can be applied to a hybrid ND- PAPG model? Project Structure and Facilitation: Do the structures and facilitation mechanisms established by the PNPM ND project provide an effective way to engage the community and to manage the project? Replication: Are best practices from ND being shared within/ across cities? Is there evidence of replication? Social Mobilisation and Economic Development: What social and economic programs might be most compelling and effective to complement infrastructure investments? Slum Upgrading and New Approaches: What changes may be required to encourage a shift to slum upgrading and a focus on the urban poor? 3.3 Summary Strength Challenges 4. General Recommendations 4.1 Vision 4.2 Community Participation 4.3 Structures and Inputs 4.4 CSP and Urban Planning 4.5 Investment Quality and Guidance 4.6 Marketing/ Channeling and Sustainability 4.7 Documentation and Replication 4.8 LG Involvement 4.9 Economic Development 4.10 Social Mobilization 5. Slum Upgrading Recommendations 6. Conclusion ANNEX 1: Site Summaries for ND Rapid Appraisal Study (x6) ANNEX 2: Glossary and Abbreviations, List of Documents, National Level key informants ANNEX 3: ND/PAPG Rapid Appraisal Study Methodology 2

3 Executive Summary The World Bank s urban upgrading programs have largely been implemented within the PNPM (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat) framework 1 which uses a community driven development approach- providing block grants at the kelurahan level to community trusts (BKM) that work with their communities to identify, plan and implement activities (largely infrastructure) to improve urban settlements and support poverty alleviation efforts. The PNPM Urban approach utilizes teams of project facilitators (consultants) to support the implementation of the project. PNPM Urban has taken a learning- by- doing approach and in 2009, two pilot projects were launched to improve local government engagement and spatial planning. PNPM Urban Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant (PAPG) aims to increase partnership between communities and local government. The PNPM Urban Neighborhood Development (ND) pilot aims to promote urban upgrading by significantly increasing the size of the grant (to 1 billion IDR per kelurahan) and introducing spatial planning and area prioritization. Both pilots were scaled up rapidly and the World Bank commissioned a consultant team to undertake a Rapid Appraisal to review the progress and lessons learned from the pilots. The methodology consisted of national level interviews (to determine key issues), field visits to 11 kelurahan in 6 cities (including key informant interviews and visits to investment sites), and review of project documentation (including field level documentation). The methodology focused primarily on reviewing the ND project, but also reviewed selected PAPG sites. The Rapid Appraisal was designed to offer a snapshot of selected locations at a selected moment in time and should be read as indicative of potential trends. Overall Summary: The findings from the Rapid Appraisal suggest that while the ND Pilot Project offers an innovative model for community driven urban upgrading based on spatial planning, there are a number of implementation challenges that are constraining its potential impact. In general, the project appears to be most successful in locations that have a strong BKM, an engaged local government and generally do not have complex infrastructure needs. It is recognized that this initial phase has been a learning and experimentation period for the project and the findings of the Rapid Appraisal suggest that there are strong elements to the project design and structure that could be capitalized upon to build a more targeted project to support slum upgrading. Key Findings: Some of the key findings are presented below. Vision: A key element of the project is the development of a vision for kelurahan development that should inform the spatial planning and the investments. In practice, the exercise appears to be implemented as a formality (which results in very general and normative visions) and demonstrates a missed opportunity for the project. Planning: The planning process in ND is extensive (building on poverty mapping, community participation and spatial planning) and expensive (representing up to 30% of the block grant) and is intended to provide the kelurahan with a strategic spatial plan (CSP) that can inform both the ND investment as well as potential future investments from local government and elsewhere. The CSP is implemented by an external Urban Planner hired by 1 The Process Evaluation of PNPM Urban (RAND, 2011) provides an excellent overview of the history of the World Bank s Urban Programs. 3

4 the community. There are extensive guidelines on the proposed content of the CSP and in most cases these guidelines appear to be generally followed. However the final CSP and detailed CSP often appear to be too complex to resonate with the community (either to help them to understand their neighborhood or to help them advocate for infrastructure needs from local government) nor is it sufficiently linked with local government to help influence infrastructure and maintenance decisions (i.e. by helping to identify gaps in services and community needs). In addition, due to implementation and coordination issues, in many cases the CSP appears to become outdated quickly after completion (since there are shifts in priorities that seem to occur after the plans are printed and shared). In one location- with an active Urban Planner- the CSP maps are being proactively used to help communities advocate on issues of land tenure. This demonstrates good practice that should be replicated. Decision Making: Although the CSP and detailed CSP is a central tool in the project, it appears that the actual process for idea generation and decision- making is somewhat unclear and may not always be linked to the participatory planning process. In some cases it seems that potential ND investments reflect the unfunded activities from previous cycles of PNPM Urban (and are taken from the CDP- which appears to be a strong planning process that reflects community priorities). In other cases, it seems that the ideas and investments reflect projects that had already been defined by the community leaders or lurah in advance of the ND process. In many cases, there appears to be a genuine challenge in effectively soliciting meaningful participation from the community (particularly from the poor) throughout the planning process- resulting in a disproportionate bias towards the interests of community leaders. Priority area and impact: The infrastructure investments for ND are intended to be focused within a specific Priority Area (a geographic area that has a particular need/concentration of poverty within the kelurahan) and given the size of the block grant- 700,000,000IDR- the investments are intended to demonstrate a significant improvement to the settlement as a model of slum upgrading potential. The process of encouraging the selection of a Priority Area- and targeting the use of the resources- has been a new and challenging process but in fact demonstrates one of the strengths of the project. By encouraging communities to engage in the uncomfortable process of targeting the resources, the project has greater potential for demonstrating impact. Types of Investments: The types of investments appeared to fall into two general categories- there are those that are focused on settlement upgrading and those that are public goods (or icon investments which can be further divided into public spaces and economic development investments). The findings suggest that the public goods/icon investments- which are often apparent in more semi- urban sites- appear to often have rather weak analysis to determine their proposed benefit to the community (particularly what if any relevance they have for the poor) and/or their proposed economic impact (evidenced by lack of business plans and economic analysis accompanying these types of investments). The settlement upgrading activities appear to be of a similar type and quality at the PNPM Urban investments (i.e. paving, drains, housing improvement, sanitation), but a greater quantity- meaning that they do more rather than larger investments. Dealing with complex urban issues: In more complex urban environments- where the priority issues may involve land issues, negotiation amongst community members or linkages to municipal services- the CSP process has been successful in identifying the 4

5 community needs and issues (often related to market improvements, sanitation and drainage). However, implementation is often constrained by time and facilitation constraints whereby the proposed activities are deemed too difficult and involving too many stakeholders to be implemented within the ND timeframe and are often abandoned before implementation (and simpler investments are implemented). This explains why in many cases the ND- funded investments do not reflect the priorities raised in the CSP. A key question this raises- is who in the project has the incentive and the interest to support a potentially challenging implementation process (with lots of stakeholders and interests) to ensure that the ND investments respond to the most relevant needs of the community. This also relates to very practical project timing issues that encourage a bias towards investments that are easier to implement. Marketing and channeling: The ND project has integrated a unique marketing feature wherein a community marketing team (TPP) is facilitated by an external social marketing consultant. The team is intended to socialize the CSP as a community development plan- within the community to generate buy- in and also to share the plan with potential funders including local government and the private sector so as to channel additional resources. In most of the sites visited this process was still in progress, so as yet it is difficult to determine how successful this is. Initial findings suggested that the process of having an external consultant come in to help socialize and sell a plan that they had not been a part of and that may actually not reflect the most current community priorities- is often a challenge. The locations where this was most successful was when the Urban Planner also won the contract as the Social Marketer and could use their knowledge of the plan and the community to generate more buy in on specific issues. In addition, from a design perspective, there were some questions regarding the empirical basis for the channeling concept. It was unclear the extent to which local governments have flexible budget allocations to respond to the infrastructure requests of the kelurahan and also to what extent private sector resources are an appropriate or cost- effective channeling mechanism. However, the process of encouraging communities to look outside of PNPM block grant and outside of traditional funding sources may in fact be an important step in supporting proactive development- minded communities. Engaging the poor: One of the most challenging elements of the project appears to be generating community buy- in to the ND process and to the CSP. In many cases, there appeared to be a sense from those implementing the project (i.e. community leaders (BMK and RT heads), the PNPM facilitators and consultants)- that poorer segments of the community can be difficult to engage and exhibit entrenched slumlike behavior. This points to both a potential need for greater awareness raising about poverty issues to the project implementers but it also offers a potential entry point to strengthen community mobilization opportunities- by identifying issues and opportunities where behavior change can have a significant impact- particularly around issues like waste management and infrastructure management. In some communities, where ND investments have focused on public spaces, there has been evidence to suggest that residents are becoming more involved in improving the general upkeep and maintenance of an area that they feel proud of. Facilitation: Facilitation by PNPM facilitators is a critical lynchpin of the ND project. In response to the demands of the ND project, the PNPM consultant structure allocated additional facilitation resources- Urban Planner Facilitator- to ND sites. In most cases this 5

6 appears to have been welcome and effective in managing the workload (although there are issues of human resource management and financial incentives). There is wide recognition that the ND project is more challenging and labor intensive for facilitators. While the facilitators have been effective at supporting smooth project implementation, it has been unclear what their role is in terms of quality control and in helping communities to identify the most strategic investment opportunities. It is unclear whether facilitators feel that they have the mandate and the skills to provide input on the types of investments. There appears to be an appetite from facilitators for a potentially closed menu of investment categories (i.e. paving, sanitation, waste management, water, housing improvement, market improvement) - and guidance on those options- that would allow them to better help communities identify the ND investments with the greatest potential impact for slum upgrading. Local government: Local government engagement is particularly relevant for ND in terms of coordination (ensuring that the CSP is consistent and linked in with local government plans and activities), oversight (in terms of ensuring quality of community built infrastructure) and commitment of resources (to support the longer term plans). The findings suggest that local governments that are actively implementing community empowerment strategies and poverty alleviation programs appear to be the most engaged and supportive of ND. In addition, the ND project has established a unique coordinating structure- the Team Teknis (at kota level)- which provides an excellent opportunity to streamline communication and engagement between the ND project and local government. The PAPG project, which developed new approaches for PNPM engagement with local government - appears to have provided local governments will a positive tangible experience of working with communities and PNPM- that seems to translate into positive engagement with ND sites. In almost all locations, there appeared to be a collaborative relationship between the PNPM projects (ND and Regular and PAPG) and the musrenbang process. This relationship appeared to be focused mostly on PNPM as a funding source for community priorities. Practically, it appears that the community leaders engaged in PNPM are also involved in the musrenbang process. In Solo, there are interesting activities being implemented by a local NGO to strengthen the linkage between musrenbang and spatial planning that may offer useful lessons. Conclusion and Recommendations: The analysis suggests that there may be value in engaging in strategic reflection on the overall objective and direction of the project- in particular to what extent does the project wish to demonstrate impact in community empowerment and/or in slum upgrading. Currently the project appears to be somewhere in the middle, which may in fact be a strategic approach that is supportive of a longer- term development process. However, there are opportunities to strengthen the quality of both approaches by supporting more genuine community participation while also ensuring that the investments are strategic and targeted and have the potential to impact on the lives of the poor. 6

7 THEME SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS Vision The vision setting for the CSP should include defined development goals with attached timeframes and phases. Community Participation Review the planning process to determine whether the Community Self Survey (poverty mapping tool) is effective at engaging the community and how the findings can be more deliberately integrated into the CSP process. To encourage community buy- in and transparency, review the feasibility of establishing community- wide referendum and inputs on Priority Area selection and Priority Investments for Priority Area. Formally engaging community groups (PKK, youth groups) more actively into the PNPM community participation process may be a useful way to expand the outreach beyond the limited sphere of the RT and RW heads and their nominated representatives. Facilitation Clarify who has responsibility (and authority) for project quality control and if this role lies with the facilitators, then implement mechanisms to incentivize and monitor them in this task. The option of bringing in external expertise into the project is valuable and there may be an opportunity to expand the options of what type of expertise is desired/ appropriate. One example would be a Local Economic Development consultant who could help create economic analysis of localities, advise on more complex icon/economic development investments and/or provide business training to local businesses. Planning Critically review and revise the purpose of the entire CSP process. Below are two options that may be considered separately or in combination to improve the urban planning process so that it (i) is more aligned with community needs and/or (ii) is more integrated into local government urban planning. CDP Option: Build the ND project and investments upon the strong planning base of the CDP process by integrating in more mapping and planning elements to facilitate greater engagement in spatial planning and to focus on more targeting slum upgrading activities. LG Infrastructure Option: Increase the capacity of local government to develop slum upgrading plans and to work with communities to identify slum- upgrading needs at the kelurahan and kecamatan levels- with a focus on more complex interventions that may require both infrastructure and community interventions. Definitions of slum criteria should be clearly defined in advance. Investment Selection If the project aims to focus on slum upgrading, then it needs to provide a clear definition of what the characteristics of a slum are and to limit the project to address only those areas that can be defined as a slum. There is a critical need to introduce some element of cost benefit analysis into the identification and selection of investments. Such a process should be introduced with an aim to strengthen criteria setting skills, improve poverty targeting, improve transparency, encourage participation, and 7

8 most importantly encourage an orientation towards results (i.e. clear intended outcome for beneficiaries) that appears to be quite weak in the current project. This mind set will need to be integrated into all levels of the project. Given the desired shift to focus more on slum upgrading investments- it would appear that providing a greater menu and guidance on infrastructure and social/economic investments would allow the project to more effectively target its limited resources and would as well allow for greater learning across sites. Undertake a critical analysis of icon investments to determine in which cases they may be applicable. For example, public spaces may in fact be relevant in highly dense slum areas. In any case where the proposed impact is related to economic development the proposed investment should be required to submit a feasible business plan. Local Government A critical review of the composition and role of the Team Teknis should be undertaken to replicate good practice and maximize its potential impact. Encourage local governments to be a proactive part of site selection through their own demonstration of commitment to slum upgrading. City governments could (i) identify their most critical slum areas and (ii) express commitment to working with communities on slum upgrading. Marketing and Channeling Critically review the role and function of the social marketing consultant and the process of channeling to determine whether this actually encourages project financing. This should include a review of CSR to determine whether there is evidence that there is a realistic appetite for CSR to fund ND type activities. Incentives Consider developing some type of performance- based competition/ awards that can be administered across kelurahan participating in ND. Community Mobilization Consider integrating community mobilization on key issues as a part of the ND project to engage the community on social issues and to expand the perception of PNPM beyond infrastructure. Topics for community mobilization may include waste management, infrastructure maintenance, disaster management, urban health, economic development and access to finance. 8

9 1. Introduction The World Bank has had a long history of supporting community driven development and urban upgrading projects in Indonesia, reaching back to the 1970 s. Over time the projects have transformed responding to the changing political, economic and social dynamics in the country and in development thinking. Since 2008, the World Bank s urban upgrading programs have largely been implemented within the PNPM (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat) framework 2. The primary approach of all PNPM Urban projects is to provide block grants at the kelurahan level to community trusts (BKM) that work with their communities to identify, plan and implement activities (largely infrastructure) to improve urban settlements and support poverty alleviation efforts. In 2009, the World Bank and the Government of Indonesia launched two new pilot programs to build upon the success and lessons of PNPM Urban. These pilots were PNPM Urban Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant (PAPG) and PNPM Urban Neighborhood Development (ND). PNPM Urban PAPG was designed to increase partnership between communities and local governments- largely by requiring participating local governments to apply for the funds (thereby demonstrating interest) and to commit their financial and technical support to community driven (and implemented) projects. PNPM Urban Neighborhood Development was and is an effort to introduce more systematic urban upgrading by significantly increasing the size of the grant (to 1billion IDR per kelurahan) and introducing spatial planning and area prioritization to encourage communities to develop and implement projects with greater scale and impact. Both pilots were scaled up rapidly and there has yet to be a systematic evaluation or review of either project. To support project learning, the World Bank has commissioned this Rapid Appraisal of PNPM PAPG/ND with an aim to review broadly what is working, what isn t working and what improvements could be made explicitly with an aim to inform a future round of World Bank supported urban project(s) that will include a scale up of the PNPM ND approach- while integrating some key elements from PAPG (a hybrid approach). Several aspects of this new project have already been designed and this Rapid Appraisal is intended to provide evidence and guidance to support this process. This study builds on the recent studies undertaken by RAND Corporation (Process Evaluation of PNPM Urban, 2011) and Maria Catalina Ochoa (The Community Based Neighborhood Development Approach, 2011). It should be noted that the scaling up of PNPM Urban Neighborhood Development has the potential to result in one of the world s largest community driven slum- upgrading programs. As such, there is considerable interest in understanding, more broadly, how this project has been designed, implemented and what lessons have been learned from the initial pilots in 273 sites across Indonesia. The paper is divided into three sections. It begins with a brief overview of the study methodology. It then outlines the project s design structure and key assumptions, providing an analysis of each of the main project assumptions and inputs with lessons learned from the field visits. The final section offers project- specific recommendations. An extensive annex has also been provided which includes brief overviews of each of the sites visited. 2 The Process Evaluation of PNPM Urban (RAND, 2011) provides an excellent overview of the history of the World Bank s Urban Programs. 9

10 COMPARISON BETWEEN KG, PAPG and ND 3 Kelurahan Grant (core and coordination grants) PAPG (partnership grants) Neighborhood Development Objective Poverty reduction, sustainability and consolidation of community governance Facilitation of partnership between local government and community to plan and implement poverty alleviation program Improvement of quality of settlements Partnership with Local Government Not necessary, investments are limited to the Kelurahan. Yes, investments are within (and potentially across) Kelurahan. Active local government engagement in decision making, implementation and financing. Yes, investments should be done in coordination with the local government, yet not always the case. Team Teknis is local government coordination partner. Target area Inside a Kelurahan May involve more than 1 Kelurahan Inside the Kelurahan, in one Priority Area Specific consideration for the poor Main Eligibility requirements Grants awarded Grant Size (million Rp) Directly Formalization of BKM Indirectly, because selected Kelurahan had population of poor above 35%. Establishment of an independent PAPG committee (Pokja) and provision of operational cost from city budget, Completion of a regional poverty Alleviation strategy at the city level, existence of a functioning BKM forum. Although investing in the poorest of the community is one among other criteria, articulating a direct benefit is not enforced At least 20% population below poverty level, Priority to BKMs that have worked with local governments following PAPG approach 50, Small Kelurahan (150 million Rp $(16,000 USD)), Medium Kelurahan (200 million ($21,500 USD)), Large Kelurahan (350 million ($37,500 USD)) / per Kelurahan per year. Small city (4.5 billion Rp $(530,000 USD)), Medium city (6 billion ($706,000 USD)), Large city (7.5 billion ($880,000 USD)) / per city for three years. 1 billion Rp ($108,000 US) per Kelurahan in total Ceiling per subproject Grant to Local Government minimum ratio of contribution Planning to construction spending ratio Set of activities 50 million Rp ($5,500 USD) per 200 million Rp ($22,000 USD) per No ceiling subproject subproject 1 to 0 1 to 1 1 to 0 [Advanced BKMs will need to use at least 20% of the grant towards programs that leverage other sources of funding] There are no leverage requirements 2 to 8 No requirement 3 (max) to7 Open set of activities - (Activities need to be recorded in the CDP which generally fall in four categories (i) infrastructure investments identified by community consensus, (2) infrastructure investments through competition inside Kelurahan, (3) micro credits, and (4) grant assistance to the poorest) Open set of activities - (Activities need to be endorsed by the PAPG selection committee and selection criteria include level of partnership, level of contributions, and expected poverty alleviation impact) Open set of activities - (Activities need to be located in the priority area, and recorded in the detailed settlement plan) 3 This is adapted from the World Bank TOR for the ND Rapid Appraisal. 10

11 2. Summary of Study Methodology The methodology 4 used in this PNPM ND Rapid Appraisal was designed to be replicated throughout the life of the project as something more analytical and rigorous than a supervision mission and more rapid and less rigorous than an evaluation. It was also designed to be tailored to the particular issues/questions that may be of particular interest to the project team at a particular time in the life of the project. There were four elements to the study methodology. 2.1 Issue Identification: Through a process of document review and semi- structured interviews with national level partners (World Bank team, NMC, GoI) the consultant identified a long list of (i) key challenges (concerns and challenges identified by the project team) and (ii) key innovations (potential changes and revisions to the project that were being deliberated). Based on these, the consultant was able to identify a set of modules or key issues- that were then used as the basis of the field level interviews. For this first ND Rapid Appraisal the modules were as follows: Process: How is the process (committees, planning, decision- making, implementation) working? Urban Planning: How successful is the spatial planning innovation in ND? Facilitation: How is the facilitation working? Poverty: To what extent is there a poverty focus to the project? Local Government: What is the current LG engagement and to what extent is there apparent interest/hostility/ room for strengthening? 2.2. Site Selection: The site selection process consisted of three steps. Given the reality of developing a rapid appraisal with a single research team 5 - it was acknowledged that geography was an overriding factor that would likely influence the site selection significantly. In addition, it was accepted that the study would not aim to replicate the random sample of other larger studies, but would instead focus on sites that could likely inform the specific analysis for this research- i.e. looking for good/poor examples of LG cooperation, Innovation, Urban planning, Quality of facilitation etc. Some randomness however was included through the consultant team s decision to select the specific kelurahans within each city. The first step was development and agreement (from within the Bank team) on the basic criteria- which included: Geography- a preference for diversity of locations across islands (concern about a Java bias) Poverty- preference for poorer locations Urban Density- interest in more dense areas LG Performance- desire for a mix of good/poor/average performance Project/BKM Performance- interest in a mix Innovation- desire to include sites that may have some particular replicable innovation 4 A detailed description can be found in Annex 3. 5 The research team consisted on one international lead consultant, Nina Schuler and an urban planner, Risye Dwiyani. 11

12 PAPG performance- interest in a mix with a preference for sites with ND and PAPG but also one site with no PAPG The team then developed a comprehensive list of all ND sites (and all PAPG sites within that master list) and reviewed MIS to gather basic site data including, (i) Poor Households, (ii) Population, and (iii) Available progress information on implementation. The sites were then reviewed- with the World Bank team based on their experience with the sites - according to the criteria and a shortlist of 20 was identified. The consultant team selected the final sites that aimed to provide geographic coverage, a bias towards more urban dense areas, a variation in performance and local government engagement. In addition two sites (Surabaya and Solo) were included as innovation sites that could offer particular learning. 2.3 Data and Document Review: Once the 11 kelurahan were selected, the consultant team requested the CSP and Detailed CSP and any other project related data from the NMC. The intention was that the consultant team would have time to review the plans prior to the site visits so as to better target the key informant interviews. Unfortunately this data was not easily obtained and in reality the CSP and detailed CSP were only available during the site visits. The team developed a CSP Data Sheet to facilitate the collection of the salient features of the plans. (These are available upon request and narrative summaries of the CSP are available in Annex 1: Site Summaries) 2.4 Field Visits: The field visits to the 7 cities (and 11 kelurahan) were undertaken between January February and consisted of three days per city with 3-5 key informant interviews per day. The consultant team met with over 250+ key informants during the period. The interviews were roughly categorized into (i) Community (BKM, KSM, TIPP, TP, TPP, and beneficiaries), (ii) Local Government (Lurah, Heads of RT/RW, Team Teknis, Satker), (iii) Facilitators (korkot/askot team, kelurahan facilitator team, Urban Planner, Social Marketing Consultant) and (iv) PAPG module (Pokja (Local Government), 12

13 PAKEM (community)). The consultant developed a set of semi- structured interview questions for each category of interview (based on the key issues/modules described above)- however each of the interviews followed a similar pattern of inquiry including (i) introductions, (ii) location description and key development/poverty issues, (iii) project description, (iv) perceived project successes/strengths, (v) perceived project challenges/weaknesses and (vi) solicitation of recommendations/other issues. Site visits in each location were conducted with the facilitator and KSM member. 2.5 Data Collection: The team devised a simple system for data collection. A Data Package for each city is available that includes (i) rough transcription of interviews captured in Excel, (ii) summaries of each interview and site visit and lessons learned captured in Powerpoint and (iii) CSP (and Infrastructure) Data Sheet (in Excel) that provides a summary of the key features of the CSP. Photographs are also catalogued for each site and voice recordings of all interviews are also available. As this is a Rapid Appraisal, the data collection is shared upon request and is in a working- state, intended to be used primarily by the consultant team but can be used as a reference as required. 13

14 1 Sukoharjo SUMMARY TABLE OF ND RAPID APPRAISAL SITES AND PRIORITY INVESTMENTS 6 No Kota Kelurahan Development Priority Main Investment Funded by ND Klumprit Development of Public Green (1) Improvement of infrastructures for sport (1) Drainage and Paving Sports, Education, and (2) Sports Field and Jogging Track Klumprit Agricultural Facilities (3) Education Facility Development (4) Agricultural Facility Blimbing Flood prevention and Market improvement (1) Flood retention wall (2) Road to waste management facilities (3) Market renovation 2 Banjarmasin Pasar Lama 3 Mataram Cakranegara Selatan Pagutan Settlement improvement through pavement, playground and improved waste management (relating to slaughterhouse and toilets) Settlement improvement (housing, paving, sanitation) Settlement improvement (housing, paving, sanitation, biogas) (1) Street improvement (2) Slaughter house and its waste management facility (3) Playground (4) Public Toilet (land issue- waiting) (1) Street, pavement, retention wall and drainage improvement (to support Krupuk home industry) (2) House renovation "packet" (3) Public toilet (4) Waste water facility (1) Communal pig stall/ Waste management facility/ biogas (2) Public toilet (3) House renovation (4) Paving Karuwisi Settlement improvement and Public Goods (Community Meeting Hall) (1) Paving and drainage at settlement area (2) Plat decker (3) Community meeting hall 4 Makassar Sinrijala Settlement improvement (paving, drainage, bridge) (Has not been started) (1) Paving around settlement area (2) Drainage around settlement area (3) Second Bridge 5 Kendari Watulondo Economic Development (Outbound Facility) and settlement upgrading (paving, bridge) (1) Street improvement and bridge in a settlement area (Pasir Putih) (2) Canal sedimentation dredging (Pasar Putih) (3) Outbound area and facility (Pulongidda) (4) Public toilets and wells (Pulongidda) (5) Posyandu (not operating yet) and library (Puulonggida) Lapulu Public Space (reclaimed public road) and settlement upgrading (Fish Drying Facility, paving, sanitation) (1) Fish- drying racks (2) Pavement in a settlement area (3) Street furniture (lights, green open space, sitting area) (4) Retention wall (5) Toilet improvement/ septic tanks 6 Details are available in Annex 1: Site Summaries. 14

15 Podosugih Public Green Space (Riverwalk redevelopment) Riverwalk infrastructures (pavement, lights, bridge, benches) 6 Pekalongan Kraton Kidul Economic Development and Public Space (Public space that can accommodate food vendors) (1) Culinary tourism- supporting infrastructures (for food vendors)- Fountain/ Stalls (2) Pavement and greening adjacent to settlement area 3. Understanding the PNPM- Neighborhood Development Approach to Community Driven Slum Upgrading PNPM Urban theoretical framework: The PNPM Neighborhood Development project was designed as the fourth phase of a process of urban community driven development, referred to the project documentation as the social transformation concept. The first phase is intended to build social capital through the formation of BKM community trustee groups, the second phase is intended to address key challenges of the poor through initial rounds of block grants that are intended to be largely targeted at poverty reduction, and the third phase (intended as a graduated step after successful accomplishment in the previous phases) aims to establish constructive relationships with local government through implementation of joint community- local government activities in the PAPG program. From a theoretical perspective, the ND Project- or the fourth phase - assumes that the community has already built strong social capital, has successfully addressed critical poverty issues and has also developed a constructive relationship with local government. While this may appear quite theoretical, it is relevant insofar as it has informed both the selection criteria and the design of the ND program as the fourth phase in this linear trajectory of progress where communities are now given a large block grant with which they are encouraged to create and implement a vision of development for their kelurahan. As one informant at the national level suggested poverty was already addressed in the second phase, so that element is finished and the fourth phase is about aspiration. Project goal: From this perspective, PNPM Neighborhood Development has a stated project goal to support the Realization of a harmonious life structure based on the community s progressive culture to build a healthy, orderly, harmonious, everlasting, and with identity of a settlement environment. Although this may be a poor translation, it reflects the aspirational quality of the original project design. (In her paper, Ochoa 2011 offers some constructive alternative formulations.) To provide readers with a working knowledge of the project structure (which has been elaborated in detail in Ochoa 2011), the next section presents a summary in two parts- first a simple mechanical sketch of the key project elements and then a more nuanced description of the logic and assumptions underpinning the project, which will be the basis for further analysis. 3.1 PNPM ND Project Mechanics Site Selection: PNPM Neighborhood Development is intended for kelurahan that have (i) good BKM performance and (ii) have had good experience with PAPG. As such the communities should have already implemented several rounds of PNPM Regular- and have 15

16 conducted the prerequisite Community Development Plan (CDP- 3 year plan) and also Community Self Survey (CSS- identifying community issues). Selected sites are then entitled to an overall envelope of resources of 1billion rupiah that is intended to be divided 30% for planning and 70% for implementation (and within this- a further breakdown of 70% for infrastructure and 30% for related training). Planning Process: The planning process for ND is extensive and is largely facilitated by an external urban planner (TAPP) hired with grant funds by the BKM (and in collaboration with the lurah) for a 6- month period. This process is coordinated through a specific implementation committee: TIPP that includes community members, BKM members, and in some cases representatives from local government. The Urban Planner works with the TIPP and PNPM facilitators to implement a participatory planning process that includes an updating of the Community Self Survey (CSS), extensive socialization (including children s drawing competitions) and the preparation of a Community Spatial Plan (CSP) that maps out the kelurahan and divides the locality into different neighborhoods or zones that have particular challenges/ opportunities that could be addressed through the project. This process is intended to help the community develop a vision for their kelurahan and familiarize themselves with the issues across the kelurahan. A set of Community Rules are also developed as part of this process to generate community buy- in and to establish agreed behavior changes related to the key issues identified in the CSP. Selecting a Priority Area: The community is then facilitated in the process of selecting one of the neighborhoods as a priority area and a Detailed CSP is prepared to more closely map out the selected neighborhood and the proposed infrastructure improvements. Throughout this process the community is encouraged to think big and develop a vision of the kelurahan and neighborhood that extends beyond the scope of the available 700,000,000 IDR block grant. The outcome of the CSP and the detailed CSP is expected to feed into an ongoing process of revising the mid- term Community Development Plan (CDP) which is the primary PNPM planning tool. Implementation and Marketing: During the ensuing implementation and marketing phase two additional committees are convened: a marketing committee (TP) and an implementation committee (TPP)). During this phase (usually x months after starting) the community begins implementation of some of the activities (using a mechanism similar to PNPM Regular of convening KSM- or community groups- that manage and implement the construction). They also (in collaboration with the lurah) hire an external social marketing consultant (TAP) on a 6 month contract- who is responsible for working with the TP (marketing committee) to develop and implement a strategy of socializing the plans within the community (internal socialization) and externally seeking financial and technical support from local government and the private sector (mostly through CSR, but investors in some cases) for the activities identified in the priority area and in the kelurahan more broadly. The social marketing consultant s objective is to identify which activities could be externally funded (from sources other than the block grant) and to undertake a process of securing that funding- this is called channeling (in fact contractually, the social marketer is expected to channel a minimum of 40% BLM or 400,000,000 IDR of activities in cash or in kind, and minimum 2 committed partner outside of LG). As a result of this process, the community (BKM) then determines which activities are to be funded from the block grant (BLM) and which are to be funded externally (or in the future) through channeling. This is actually a rather complex process and often results in a fairly significant disparity between 16

17 what is in the detailed CSP and what is ultimately funded through the block grant. This will be discussed later in the paper. Implementation usually occurs in two phases and is expected to be completed within x months. Implementation is overseen by KSM, which are community committees formed at the time of implementation and are responsible for all aspects of implementation. During implementation the local public works department may be engaged to provide oversight and guidance. Maintenance plans are developed before, during or after implementation and are intended to help the community ensure that the infrastructure is maintained. 3.2 Analysis of Project Assumptions and Key Design Issues Building on the summary of the mechanics of the project, this next section briefly articulates the key project assumptions and design features for ND 7. It should be noted that ND is a project that has evolved and continues to evolve- so the following description aims to capture the direction in which the project is shifting, while retaining the core elements of the primary design. 1. Summary of the Project Vision: PNPM ND supports communities to develop and own a positive empowered vision for their development (physical, social and economic) - and provide them with the resources (human and financial) to make significant progress towards this aim. As a community- driven development project, PNPM- ND assumes that communities are most effective at identifying their own priorities and that- if given the resources- they can cost- effectively address their own needs- improving their settlements and reducing poverty. 2. Project Inputs: It aims to achieve this by providing the following inputs; a structure of inclusive community committees and groups to manage and oversee the project (BKM, TIPP, TPP, TP, KSM) linkage to local government through a committee structure (Tim Teknis) that can facilitate coordination and cooperation an extensive facilitated planning process (with support from the PNPM facilitators as well as externally hired experts (Urban Planner (TAPP) and Social Marketing Consultant) to allow communities to identify their issues and potential and to articulate their priorities a catalytic amount of resources (700,000,000IDR) that can be mobilized for impact- oriented infrastructure investments identified by the community a mechanism to encourage sustainability through which communities can seek additional funds and partnerships (channeling) to achieve their dreams. 3. Replication: Since the ND program, with its limited grant funds will never be able to cover all cities in Indonesia, it also aims to offer examples of urban upgrading potential within cities that can foster learning and replication. 7 Note that the Rapid Appraisal has focused primarily on ND mechanisms, but a review of PAPG is integrated throughout the analysis where relevant lessons can be applied. It was deemed beyond the scope of the current assignment to undertake a thorough analysis of both programs- particularly in that the PAPG program is very similar to the PNPM Regular with the exception of the financing model. 17

18 4. Future Focus: In the future 8, PNPM Urban ND plans to focus on denser urban areas, aiming to become a community- driven slum- upgrading project that impacts the lives of the urban poor with the goals to: (a) stimulate better coordination in community and local government planning; (b) promote more integrated block improvement based on a medium- term vision and spatial planning, rather than isolated investments; and (c) design a more sustainable social program as part of the block grant. Based on the above formulation, the following questions offer a framework for a constructive analysis- based on field evidence- of the critical inputs and assumptions underpinning the PNPM Neighborhood Development project. Vision: Does the ND process help to create a meaningful vision for kelurahan development? Planning: Does the facilitated planning process genuinely allow communities to identify the issues that are most critical for the development of their kelurahan/ neighborhood? Implementation and Investments: Are the ND resources prioritized in such a way as to create the most significant impact? Marketing and Channeling: What purpose does the process of marketing and channeling serve? Is it an effective way to engage local government and the private sector? Local Government Engagement: What roles and collaboration might be most effective to engage local government in a meaningful way? What lessons and tools from PAPG can be applied to a hybrid ND- PAPG model? Project Structure and Facilitation: Do the structures and facilitation mechanisms established by the PNPM ND project provide an effective way to engage the community and to manage the project? Replication: Are best practices from ND being shared within/ across cities? Is there evidence of replication? Social Mobilisation and Economic Development: What social and economic programs might be most compelling and effective to complement infrastructure investments? Slum Upgrading and New Approaches: What changes may be required to encourage a shift to slum upgrading and a focus on the urban poor? These questions 9 are intended to reflect the vision of the project and the assumptions that the project is built on. By organizing the analysis in this way and looking at the ways in which the building blocks are or are not serving their core function- it allows the consultant to offer the project team a more nuanced understanding of some of the project challenges and opportunities. The following sections offer an in depth review of each question with analysis and evidence from the field. 8 Based on the draft Project Appraisal Document for PNPM Urban 4, currently in development. 9 Methodology Note: Please note that the consultants had several sets of questions in mind when in the field, namely: (i) the 5- modules as their overarching framework, (ii) the detailed questions in the TOR and (iii) the list of issues/innovations offered by the project team. The consultant team hopes that the formulation here will offer sufficient answers to all of the areas of interest. 18

19 3.2.1 Vision: Does the ND process help to create a meaningful vision for kelurahan development? An important assumption underlying the ND project is that spatial planning can be a valuable tool to help communities better understand their localities and provide them with a perspective that can encourage broader thinking about the kelurahan as a unit of development and critically can help them prioritize their actions and investments to achieve an articulated vision. The visioning and planning process is intended to encourage communities to identify both their issues/challenges and opportunities/strengths. The focus on opportunities/strengths is a an innovation of the ND approach that promotes a more positive approach to planning- encouraging communities to not only focus on poverty issues but to identify and build on their strengths as well. Defining the vision: The consultant team reviewed the CSP documents and asked key informants (namely the BKM, lurah, heads of RT) about the visions that were defined as part of ND implementation. There appeared to be a range in types of visions - on the one hand some kelurahans had developed visions focusing on notions economic development (i.e. tourism in Klumprit (Sukoharjo) and Watulondo (Kendari), krupuk home industry in Cakranegara Selatan (Mataram) and on the other hand some had created visions with largely generic lists of nice things to create a green, healthy, happy, beautiful, religious community (most locations). In neither case, was there evidence that the Vision is resulting in a more systematic approach to development or is being used as a social mobilization tool. Even in the sites that purported to have an economic vision, (i.e. Krupuk Village) there appears to be little reflected in the plans or selected investments to reflect the vision. Watulondo, (Kendari) may offer a useful exception in that the Outbound Tourism facility Pulonggida - and the vision of Tourism associated with it- Pulonggida was selected as a way to draw attention and attract resources for a largely poor and underserved peri- urban area (that still does not have electricity). However, in this case (Watulondo was one of the 18 pilot sites) the idea seems to have preceded the entire planning process. The challenge with the vision process may relate to the perception of vision/mission statements in most planning processes as a generic statement that reflects an open aspirational view but is not intended as a limiting factor. This may therefore be simply an issue requiring more guidance and facilitation. What is a neighborhood? Another reason for the challenge of the visioning task may be that kelurahan may not necessarily have a unique economic/geographic feature or they may not serve as a unit of community cohesion. In some (denser) localities, the smaller neighborhood units of RT or RW often serve as the area that is most relevant to people s day- to- day lives and the kecamatan (the next larger unit) may offer the more strategic sense of identity/ belonging (the same holds true for economic activities and home industries that may be dispersed throughout a kecamatan). This is also reflected in the city planning process that does not extend below the kecamatan level. In these denser environments, the kelurahan may therefore offer less of a hook for creating a strategic development vision. For example- in Makassar the key issue relating to drainage management was directly impacted by the activities of a market in a neighboring kelurahan. Similarly in Pekalongan, the quality of the water in the newly revitalized riverbank is influenced by the batik- making activities in neighboring kelurahan and in fact the vision of an 19

20 improved riverfront has been broadened to the city level and the riverbank will be improved in adjoining kelurahan with support from the local government. In no kelurahan did the vision reflect issues of poverty or social inclusion directly. In almost all locations, the communities generally referred to PNPM Regular as the program addressing poverty and PNPM ND as the program that is about development and vision. The vision process is potentially a very strong tool for community mobilization and project criteria setting and it should be strengthened Planning: Does the facilitated planning process genuinely allow communities to identify the issues that are most critical for the development of their kelurahan/ neighborhood? The CSP (Community Spatial Plan) is intended to provide an overall vision of the kelurahan and the proposed improvements in all neighborhoods (not just the Priority Area)- the CSP should be an aspirational spatial plan for the kelurahan for the coming 5 years that donors, local government, CSR and communities can work towards. The Detailed CSP is then focused purely on the Priority Area and provides detailed guidance for the implementation of the ND block grant as well as other areas where additional support is required. Cost and value of planning: ND commits up to 30% of the grant resources- 300million IDR- for the planning and socialization process. As a result of this significant investment 10 in the planning process, the expectation is that the added value should be apparent in the caliber of the plans and the way in which they are used. By and large, this was not the case. Document preparation vs. planning process: The consultants found that the CSP and the detailed CSP do not appear to follow the sequential logic that one would anticipate: kelurahan mapping (issues and physical), defining of potential priority areas based on issues, identification of potential responses based on issue analysis, overall visioning for the kelurahan, selection of a priority area based on transparent criteria, detailing of possible investments, coordination and alignment with local government priorities, deliberation over appropriateness and impact of various investment options, decision making on selected priorities, budgeting and final planning for implementation (i.e. detailed engineering designs) and final socialization with local government and communities.) Instead the components of the process appear to be followed (some element of box ticking) but often with a limited amount of community participation and deliberation. Perception amongst the key informants in the field suggest that the documents are not seen as living planning documents that are intended to carry on and play a role in future development discussions but are instead seen as the finished product from the Urban Planner. The general level of familiarity with the documents and their content appeared generally weak among the BKM members, the Tim Teknis and even the social marketing consultants (in several locations). Urban planning and the CSP: The urban planning component of the ND project is a unique feature that is potentially a strong point of the project - providing maps and spatial plans at 10 Compare this amount to the discretionary budget allocation of 50million IDR that is allocated to each kelurahan for implementation of infrastructure as part of the local Community Empowerment schemes (Kendari/Mataram) or the standard size of block grants under PNPM Regular- approximately million IDR.) 20

21 the kelurahan level to empower communities to define their development. For the purposes of the analysis the consultant team aimed to see whether the CSP and the detailed CSP as planning processes and products- were successful in: Introducing spatial planning to communities Creating shared visions of kelurahan development Linking with LG spatial planning Selecting priority areas Identifying priority activities that address identified needs While the results were generally mixed (refer to the Annex 1 Site Summaries for an analysis of each location) it appeared that the quality of the plans and the planning process was largely a function of the quality of the urban planner (and possibly the complexity of the location, with les dense sites being easier to map and plan in). The urban planner plays perhaps an overly critical role in the project having to manage a participatory planning process in a location that he or she may or may not be familiar with while also producing a technical urban planning product with very clear specifications within a relatively short period of time. Challenges in community participation: As identified in the Ochoa and Rand reports, community participation (most notably the poor and women) appears to be a challenge in ND as well as in PNPM Urban regular. Most community participation appears to occur at the level of the Heads of RTs (community leaders who are selected by the lurah) who convene smaller community meetings to generate inputs into the planning processes. This process was very difficult to get more detail on or to get a feel for how inclusive this process is. The consultants did find, perhaps tellingly, that in a number of cases beneficiaries or individuals living near investments sites in many cases themselves had not been part of the planning process or had only heard the outcome of the planning process (that they had been designated as a beneficiary of a housing improvement investment for example). These challenges in participation may relate to the legacy of the more traditional PNPM process, or may relate to the fact that ND is targeted in only one area within a kelurahan. What does appear to be clear is that the community appears to have a generally positive view of the project, even if not directly engaged or if engaged only after the fact. In Mataram beneficiaries of housing improvements were unfamiliar with the planning process. In Sukoharjo, traders were unaware of an impending large PNPM- ND construction across the street. In Lapulo (Kendari), there appears to have been active community engagement about the moving of the fish drying facilities from in front of their homes to a central nearby location- with the women of the area (and the ones drying the fish) interested in the relocation whereas the men (and husbands) were less interested in having their wives undertaking activities away from the house. In the end the women prevailed. How are priority issues identified in the planning process? In most locations the identified community issues were often quite consistent and related to common urban development themes namely, water and sanitation, housing quality, economic opportunity, waste- management, flooding and lack of public space. In some cases crime and mosquito borne diseases were also identified. There were also some concerns about poor education amongst the poor resulting in too many children and slum- like behavior. In terms of the strength- based analysis this tended to focus on agricultural products, home industry or tourism potential. In some cases the issues appeared to be derived from the Community Self Survey, but this was not consistent across locations. 21

22 From Issues to Activities- deliberation and decision making: What appeared to be difficult to pinpoint in any of the interviews or in the plans themselves is a sense of how identified issues within the Priority Area and more generally- are discussed and then translated into a range of options (potential investments or activities) that could be considered for action. For example- if flooding is a key issue the ensuing discussion might include a range of options that might include community drain cleaning, dredging of a canal, building various reinforcements, addressing secondary and primary drainage. Similarly, issues of poor housing quality may encourage a discussion of how to identify the most needy houses, possibility of vertical housing, or what type of upgrading is required, potential cost and contribution and a need for training in certain construction skills. Or in the economic strengthening discussions- there may be several ways to support a food vendor industry for example- building a central location for food vending, supporting quality control efforts, investigating cost reduction in key ingredients etc. While the sample size of the study is relatively small, the limited evidence suggests that the process appears to often skip over this option- phase and jump immediately to a selection of pre- defined activities. It may be that the process is occurring more fluidly and without being documented, but this was difficult to ascertain. Pre- determined Ideas: Through interviews with facilitators, BKM members, TIPP members, Urban Planners, community members, Heads of RT and RW and lurahs - a picture emerged that suggested that in many cases this lack of issue- option deliberation reflects a situation in which the ideas were already pre- determined even before the planning process began. Working from the CDP: For communities that have extensive experience with PNPM Urban there remains a general mindset that identifies PNPM (and ND as a subset thereof) primarily as a financing mechanism for small- scale infrastructure. As such, in many cases the ND process is seen largely as a larger envelope from which to fund community priorities identified as part of the CDP process. This suggests that the CDP is in fact already a very strong planning process that is recognized as a tool for identifying pro poor infrastructure. In a number of kelurahan (perhaps the majority), communities readily explained that they simply referred to the CDP to identify their priority infrastructure requirements (based on what had remained unfunded from previous rounds of PNPM) within the given Priority Area and integrated these into the CSP. Thinking big from the start: In other cases, the size of the grant and the encouragement for communities to think big has resulted in community leaders beginning their deliberation not from issue identification- but from the point of view of what large impactful infrastructure could they build with 700,000,000 IDR. A number of the larger infrastructure items were actually identified in advance of the ND grant or in parallel with the planning process- i.e. the Outbound Facility in Watulondo (Kendari) was the idea of the lurah (and was proposed as the ND project in the kelurahan s application to the ND pilot program), the Culinary Institute in Kraton Kidul (Pekalongan) was a dream of one of the RW heads who has a food business, the Riverbank Improvement plan in Podosugih (Pekalongan) was the vision of the lurah who had seen something similar in Yogyakarta. What the analysis suggests is that, in many cases, the actual decisions around what issues and areas are to be prioritized may or may not be related to any specific urban planning process that is facilitated by ND. This is an important consideration for a project that places 22

23 a significant emphasis (and resources) on the role of urban planning as a central tool for issue and solution identification. What should the CSP be used for: The question appears to be whether the planning process is about: Planning for the implementation of ND Creating a kelurahan vision of development that can mobilize communities to action Providing a spatial analysis of the infrastructure requirements of a kelurahan Currently Implementation of ND Probably mostly focused on implementation (and meeting guideline criteria) but at the same time is often changed considerably after the document completion- rendering the CSP somewhat out of date. Kelurahan vision of development Little evidence of the process generating a genuine kelurahan vision. Few cases of the spatial plan being used to catalyze the community to address (localized or kelurahan wide) issues that they only learned through the spatial analysis. No community members of BKM members appeared to refer to the spatial elements of the plan. Kelurahan infrastructure requirements Not sufficiently detailed and not overlaid with data from the local government to provide a basis for analysis. Area to strengthen The CSS and the CDP are already strong tools and could likely be strengthened to accommodate an ND program that is focused on settlement upgrading. Would require more participation and community engagement to generate buy in to the mapping exercise and would require stronger analysis and facilitation to build a vision that could be the basis for community mobilization and action (beyond just infrastructure) Would require more technical inputs from the community and local government on infrastructure investments (planned and implemented) and the quality of current infrastructure. In summary, it seems that as a planning process the CSP appears to be somewhere between a technical urban planning process (set to very specific and perhaps overly technical guidelines), a community mapping and prioritization exercise, and a project implementation tool. As a result, in many cases the output appears to serve neither function adequately- too technical for communities but at the wrong level to be effectively linked with the city spatial planning process (official spatial planning is focused at the kecamatan level rather than the kelurahan level). In addition, because it is not linked with actual spatial mapping from the city - nor is it grounded in solid community priorities- there is a tendency for the mapping exercise to be an amalgam of small infrastructure requirements (often from the CDP) mixed with icon investments and/or visions that are not feasible and lose meaning rapidly upon completion. In Karuwisi (Makassar) for example, a major issue identified in the planning process was the condition of a traditional market that required some paving and upgrading. However, the community soon realized that the land where the vendors have their stalls is local government land and there may be some tension in some of the proposed upgrading and paving. In parallel, some members of the community had a vision for developing vertical housing along 23

24 the canal that would be for some of the houses in disrepair and also for members of the community more broadly. In the final CSP- there is no indication of the troubled market (only the legal section of the market is on the map), although several units of the vertical housing are proposed in some detail. The resultant plan therefore offers neither a reliable reflection of the status of the kelurahan nor does it offer a consensus driven view of future development Are the ND resources (the 700,000,000IDR block grant) prioritized in such a way as to create the most significant impact? There are two elements to this question- first, is the question of whether the priority area is being selected correctly and according to some criteria and second, are the investment(s) identified and prioritized in fact those that have greatest potential for impact. One of the primary reasons the community is required to identify a Priority Area in the ND project - and why the whole concept of spatial planning is introduced into the process- is to increase the potential impact of the resources and to shift away from a tendency towards isolated small investments spread throughout a kelurahan. Secondly, the rationale for the larger grant amount is also intended to serve a catalytic function- allowing communities to make improvements at a scale that would otherwise be unlikely (in most kelurahan, discretionary funds for community development are rare and if/when available are generally small scale) and as a result to generate a sense of accomplishment and achievement. Sharing benefits: To begin with, it is important to raise a point of Indonesian cultural context. There is strong, well- documented cultural bias in Indonesia to share benefits. This is generally seen as the strength of social capital and reflects a cultural preference for fostering harmony. Therefore any efforts to work against this tendency need to be strongly socialized and needs to have significant buy- in. The ND program has tried to do this, with mixed but largely positive results. Selecting a Priority Area: Within ND, there have been a few different responses to this challenge of selecting a priority area. A Priority Area is selected- usually using the criteria and with an emphasis on poverty and development needs- but then within the priority area the investments are scattered, like regular PNPM. In this case, the outcome is often a series of settlement upgrading activities but often at a small scale, i.e. paving, footpath improvement, some house improvements, and some drainage. A Priority Area is selected on the basis of there being public land and opportunities to create large scale public goods that are seen to benefit all. These are largely focused on public spaces and economic development activities. This was a common approach found in most cities (Sukoharjo, Pekalongan, Kendari, Makassar). See chart below for a sample of these types of public goods. In a small number of locations (largely in Makassar) the community failed to select a priority area and instead divided the resources to all of the RTs equally (or proportional to need). This was found in locations in Makassar where- for some unclear reason- ND sites were not selected on the basis of BKM performance and they did not have PAPG. Therefore, the communities in Makassar tended to be 24

25 weaker than other locations visited. The inability to select a priority area may be a reflection of the BKM capacity. Settlement Upgrading vs Icon Investments: What this discussion suggests is that the process for selecting a Priority Area and selecting an investment type are often interwoven often with a vision of an investment type as the overriding factor (and often decided in advance of the planning process). To take the analysis a step further- what then is the anticipated impact of selected investments? As mentioned earlier there are broadly two categories of investment types: settlement upgrading and public goods (or icons ) (which can further be divided into public spaces and economic development). These are by no means mutually exclusive categories but they are a useful way to think about investment types- in terms of how they are identified, implemented and what the anticipated impact is. Why good ideas don t get implemented? One issue that the consultant team was advised to look at was why do good ideas that address clear development objectives appear in the CSP plans and then do not appear to be implemented. Although it varied across locations, there were generally similar substantive issues relating to urban poverty- and specifically, when it came to looking at potential investments the issues that were identified as most common related to sanitation, flooding/drainage (often resulting from poor drainage combined with inadequate solid waste management), housing improvements and paving. However, the research suggested that in a number of cases these issues are often not prioritized or are not implemented (meaning they are prioritized and then fall off the list) because they are dropped in favor of bigger more visible investments (as described above) or they are seen as more complex issues often relating to land usage or community mobilization and likely requiring more time and facilitation than is feasible within the context of ND or they are identified as something that the local government wants to do or does not want the community to do. In Pagutan (Mataram) small settlement improvements were in fact grouped into what we referred to as packets meaning a set of improvements that were pre- designed (including some paving, some housing renovation, some drainage and public toilet construction) and then applied to a number of locations- thereby improving a number of the poorer settlement areas in the kelurahan. This may offer a useful way to support the scaling up of small scale infrastructure improvements. Doing what is familiar: In addition, there may be a bias for community members and for facilitators to do more of the same in terms of implementing types of infrastructure that communities feel comfortable implementing and that are easy to oversee and manage. The issue of facilitation and facilitator incentives has already been touched upon, but on this issue it is relevant to raise the possibility that facilitators are not incentivized (nor perhaps trained) to help communities in identifying and implementing more complex investments that may require greater time commitments. In cases where there are larger public goods investments (i.e. Outbound Facility, Riverbank Redevelopment) with or without complexity- the key to success may be attributed to presence of a champion (in the BKM, lurah s office, urban planner or facilitator) who has been supportive of the process and has committed the time and energy to get the community on board. In Pasar Lama/Kampung Arab (Banjarmasin)- a very deprived settlement with serious issues of sanitation and waste management- a settlement upgrading approach was being implemented but it appeared that the community had already done all of the small things with 25

26 PNPM resources (paving etc.) and were in fact struggling to find things to spend the ND funds on. In the end, they opted for a community playground (on private land) and an upgrading of a local slaughterhouse (also on private land). A much needed public toilet however was planned but ultimately delayed because of a lack of land (and an individual who had committed land then retracted the offer). The Riverbank Redevelopment in Pekalongan provides a useful example of leadership. It was championed by both a former lurah (who is now on the BKM) and the chairman of the BKM (who has served in that position since 1999 and is also a DPRD member). During the process of developing the riverbank several houses that had extended their structures onto local government land had to be convinced to remove the structures to allow for the development of the footpath. The BKM was able to address this in a creative way- identifying the full number of homes that would need to be approached and then dividing these into those that would likely be easy to negotiate with to those that would be difficult to negotiate with and held separate meetings with the respective groups (starting with easy to negotiate with houses). This level of engagement reflects the commitment and the standing of the BKM members and is difficult to replicate. Thinking Big- Icon Investments: The larger public goods investments reflect the emphasis of the initial ND philosophy of encouraging communities to think big and to use the ND resources to transform their neighborhoods. This original thinking was revised during the life of the project and there was a shift in later trainings and guidelines to reflect a greater emphasis on poverty reduction in the activities. That said however, it is useful review the rationale and the analysis underpinning these types of investments. The chart below provides a brief overview of some of the larger investments (details can be found in the Annex). It should be noted that within the limited sample size of the study there appeared to be a preference for icon investments in semi- urban areas where there was more available land and space and where the poor are not concentrated in one area. 26

27 Description of Sample Icon Investments A revitalized Binatur Riverwalk in a residential area in Podosugih, Pekalongan with space for communities to walk and for some market activities. A sportsfield with a jogging track and a gazebo in Klumprit, Sukoharjo, near a school and behind the lurah s office. Relocating fish drying activities from in front of people s homes (and on a public road) in Lapulu, Kendari and shifting the fish drying to a centralized location. This was also coupled with a process of repaving the road and creating lighting and public seating areas to allow to road to serve as a public space for the community. In Karuwisi, Makassar, a community hall to house BKM office but also to provide a meeting space for the community. A community hall is also planned in Kraton Kidul, Pekalongan. In Kraton Kidul, Pekalongan, a culinary institute was built on public land near a stadium. The area consists of a fountain, seating areas, improved paving, signage and a covered area to house 15 street food vendors (pedagang kaki lima). In Watulondo, Kendari, a community member provided a large area of land to be used to build an Outbound Facility with a Flying Fox, obstacle course, bicycle tracks (and bicycles), a fruit picking area and a fishing pond. The Outbound facility also includes public spaces (gazebos), wells, public toilets and a community hall as well as a Posyandu (maternal and infant health unit/library). Intended Impact Primarily to create a public space and to contribute to a sense of community building. The area has been significantly improved and there seems to be a real sense of community accomplishment. Some marketing activities are also planned. Primarily as a public space, although some vendor stalls are planned for economic development. This is intended primarily as a public space initiative and also a beautification of an area that was previously considered dirty and smelly (because of the fish). In addition, there is some discussion of trying to add value to the fish drying process to support economic development- there are some discussion to encourage training from the Dept of Fisheries and also an initiative as been started to package the dried fish (ikan asin) in a more appealing way to promote a local market. These are public spaces and often are raised as a priority when there is public land available. The actual usage is often unclear but communities tend to feel that community halls are useful and can be used by a range of community groups and activities. This is intended as a public space that will generate economic development by providing business space for 30 vendors (15 in a morning shift and 15 in an afternoon shift). It is expected that by beautifying the area they will increase its usage as a public area and this will generate business opportunities for the vendors. (no business plan is available although construction is nearly complete) This is primarily an economic development activity intended to generate tourism for an area that is poor and has few public services. What this analysis suggests is that the investments appear to follow a pattern of either settlement upgrading that is similar to PNPM Regular but concentrated in one area or icon investments are oriented towards larger public goods that may or may not be designed to contribute effectively to clear economic development or poverty alleviation. 27

28 Weak economic analysis: The findings suggested a consistent lack of sound economic development analysis underpinning large investments purporting to have economic benefits. This is problematic on the one hand in that it may mean that the desired results may or may not be achieved but it is also problematic in that it suggests that there is not a strong process in place of cost- benefit analysis to determine whether investments with scarce resources- will be generating the greatest impact for the communities. This lack of economic analysis was also evident in the much- celebrated Surabaya example of support for home industry where the local government, in collaboration with PNPM, is working with communities to help build home industries. However some of the home industries- making detergent, a salon for women- did not appear to be based on any evidence of market need or demand. Building on the previous section, there may be a need to reevaluate the overall ND planning and decision- making process to achieve greater impact. The challenge in this is that the interpretation of ND appears to have been quite varied and so the resulting projects are also quite varied- making it difficult to draw singular conclusions. As the World Bank project team has already identified- there may be an opportunity to narrow the scope of what ND means and to provide greater guidance and focus to achieve that aim and to ensure that the planning process and investments reflect that vision and desired outcome What purpose does the process of marketing and channeling serve? The concept of the marketing and channeling was intended (i) to ensure that plans and activities live on past the planning and implementation phase and that the communities buy into them, (ii) to encourage communities to think big and to think beyond just LG funding and to own and pursue their vision for kelurahan development and (iii) to invite local government to allocate support and resources on a larger scale (rather than simply prescribe a fixed amount of 50% as in PAPG). The rationale for bringing in an external consultant is to help catalyze and lead a process that may be unfamiliar (and uncomfortable) for community members. This is a novel and innovative concept that offers some new approaches to project sustainability. Since in most ND sites the marketing process is still underway the initial findings are incomplete, however, some initial observations are worth sharing. Social marketing consultant: The social marketing consultant is intended to be responsible for both internal socialization (getting the community to own the plans and the vision) and also external socialization (largely to generate funds to support proposed activities). However, the social marketing consultant often comes into the process only after the plans have been completed and in some most cases after the Urban Planner has completed his/her assignment. This may result in a lack of continuity- particularly in cases where facilitators may have also shifted during the period- with the social marketing consultants taking on a process of socialization with little understanding of the process or context (i.e. why certain decisions were made, what initial conversations and challenges may have occurred, who are the champions/critics of various activities). Working with incomplete plans: Coming in after the completion of the CSP would be less of an issue if the CSP and the detailed CSP were in fact genuinely completed documents that reflected a consistent process of analysis and consultation. However, as described earlier the CSP and the detailed CSP are often completed but with many questions left unanswered 28

29 (this may be a function of the Urban Planner contract being fixed at 6 months and dependent on the completion of the planning documents- whether or not the planning process is in fact complete). In fact, in many cases, considerable change occurs during the social marketing phase when the plans are shared more widely- particularly with local government- and issues of complexity arise. It appears that in some locations, the social marketing consultant plays a key role in helping to determine what should be funded through the ND grant and what can potentially be funded by other sources. This process explains why a detailed implementation plan (and clear identification of ND and non ND funded activities) is not part of the detailed CSP but only is available later, after the social marketing consultant has come on board. One facilitator suggested that up to 50% of the plan changed during the social marketing stage. Combining Urban Planner and Social Marketing Consultant: In two of the sites (Kraton Kidul and Lapulu), the Urban Planner carried on and became the Social Marketing consultant after completing their initial assignment. In both of these cases, the outcome was that the consultant, predictably, was quite committed to the issues of internal socialization and often prioritized elements of the plan that may not be critical for ND implementation but are relevant for engaging communities in community spatial planning. For example, in Kraton Kidul (Kendari) the Urban Planner (a young planner with a background in post- disaster management) had identified a number of homes during the planning phase that were considered to be on government land and therefore insecure. During the socialization phase, the consultant was working with the household to identify a strategy for them to address their land issues. This kind of engagement with the plan and with the community illustrates the positive potential of the spatial planning element of ND, but that with few exceptions was not widely seen. Getting the right skill sets: The quality of the social marketing consultants varied widely across the locations, but from the 11 sites visited the evidence suggests that in few if any cases- did the social marketing consultant both appear to have a very solid understanding of the CSP plan (and process that led to its development) and a strong process for connecting with and engaging with the community. Where the social marketing consultants appeared to be most successful was in the process of developing materials and in presenting the plans to various LG and CSR venues. In some cases like Kraton Kidul the social marketing consultant was launching an event to share the plans more widely. Challenge of internal marketing: In all cases, the marketing consultants expressed that the internal marketing of the plan to the community was considerably more challenging than the external marketing. There are a number of issues that may influence this including lack of community awareness from the outset (people who may not have been involved from the outset may also not be interested in the outcome), community fatigue (those that were involved may have lost enthusiasm), lack of passion/understanding of the plan from the consultant, lack of focus to the process (it is unclear from the social marketing consultants what the expected outcome is from the process of internal socialization), and also the possibility that the social marketing consultant may not have the skills and expertise or legitimacy to effectively engage with the community. Both the Urban Planner and the Social Marketing consultants are expected to have a strong skill set in their technical area of expertise as well as a strong participatory community mobilization skill set- this combination of skills may be somewhat ambitious to expect at scale. 29

30 Assumptions of channeling: The current process of marketing and channeling appears to operate on the assumptions that (i) the local government may have additional unallocated discretionary budget (in the SKPD) which it may be looking for opportunities to spend and that (ii) there is a significant appetite for CSR to fund activities at the kelurahan level. Across localities the evidence suggests that there may in fact be few opportunities to generate new resources from CSR or LG. The most successful cases of channeling appear to be when local governments take up an activity identified and prioritized in the CSP process, but that falls within their remit and was potentially something that they were planning to do anyway. In Banjarmasin, the community originally had planned to use ND as a resource to improve a local market. This priority was rejected by the local government because of their own plans to improve the market area- at some point in the future. In the case of Banjarmasin this required a substantial reworking in their planning process (since they had already progressed quite far). This type of example (and there were several such cases) can either be seen as a successful process of the ND process catalyzing local government to action, or a case of poor coordination (where the ND plans should have been vetted with local government earlier). However, the availability of local government support and resources varies widely, and will be discussed elsewhere- but for the purposes of marketing and channeling two points are relevant. First, local governments appear to vary significantly in their ability/willingness to allocate funds directly to communities and it is unclear whether the PNPM project has any means to influence this level of decision making. For example, in Pekalongan the mayor is committed to this process and is making significant progress in using the PNPM/ND model to transfer more resources to communities- whereas in Sukoharjo, the local government was explicit about the fact that their budgets are fully committed and there would be little to no chance for ND ideas and projects to receive direct funding from local government (and therefore if was suggested that the project focus entirely on CSR). Positive cases of channeling appear to occur when the activities are already aligned with the activities of NGOs, local government or the private sector. For example, in Pagutan (Mataram) channeling efforts resulted in a local NGO contributing additional resources to a pig biogas facility. In Lapulu, similar efforts of channeling resulted in the Fisheries Department of the government contributing additional fish drying racks (in addition to those provided by ND). Social marketing consultant incentives: Because the social marketing consultant is incentivized to channel at least 400million of external resources, this may however create incentives to pursue opportunities that were already planned and/or not related to the ND project at all. In some cases, like Karuwisi (Makassar) the channeling activities appear to be a running list of things that local government will do in the kelurahan rather than having any relation to the ND process or plan. The social marketing consultants in that area also appeared to see their role more as getting LG resources to the kelurahan and calling it channeling rather than having any strategic engagement with the plan or the community. There may be value in reexamining the implication of these incentives for social marketing consultants- particularly in light of the fact that many of the more complex issues that may have a direct poverty impact are often not implemented because of challenges in coordination, land and social mobilization. If social marketing consultants are incentivized on the basis of delivering additional resources, this may not encourage greater attention to 30

31 these types of complex issues that may not necessarily be avenues for channeling. In addition, if the elements of social marketing that are most fruitful relate to local government- then these relationships and the practice of lobbying local government should probably be more integrated into the BKM and community groups rather than with an external consultant. That said, while the consultant is intended to facilitate the social marketing committee (TP), in many cases it appears as though the social marketing consultant works largely independently and sees their function as fulfilling the terms of their contract rather than facilitating the social marketing committee. CSR: In some cases, the understanding of marketing and channeling- particularly the idea of CSR (corporate social responsibility) has resulted in a bias towards planning activities and priorities that can generate interest from outsiders such as public spaces and tourism related activities that may attract investors. For example, in Klumprit (Sukoharjo) the sportsfield was prioritized because it was felt that this was too public- oriented to be attractive to investors or CSR. However, the facilitators and BKM were pursuing opportunities to generate interest in a Rest Area/ AgroTourism showroom on public land that would be offered to private investors as an investment opportunity. While the research did not explore the success of the CSR and private investor route of channeling, it may be worthwhile to investigate the cost- benefit of these avenues in terms of whether pursuing these potential avenues of funding are in fact worthwhile and/or more valuable than the possibility of spending more time with communities internalizing the plans and addressing some of the more complex social mobilization issues What roles and collaboration might be most effective to engage local government in a meaningful way? What lessons from PAPG can be applied to ND? It is widely agreed that the constructive engagement of local government is an important success factor for the ND project and evidence from the sites visited suggest that the type and quality of engagement varies widely and there appears to be no clearly defined factor that can explain the levels of engagement. Levels of local government engagement: Broadly, the level of local government engagement can be categorized as follows: Largely uninterested or not engaged. (Makassar only convened its Tim Teknis in September 2011.) Passive but appreciative, wishing for more engagement and coordination. (Mataram expressed concern over lack of official oversight from BAPPEDA to PNPM) Integrating PNPM into kelurahan level planning and budgeting and viewing it as an additional source of funds. LG engages at planning and oversight stage, primarily. (Most sites, including Kendari, Mataram, Makassar) Engaging actively at the kelurahan level, largely relating to land and desire to build public goods. (Sukoharjo, Kendari, Pekalongan.) Active and supportive and using BKM as a way to channel resources to kelurahan level. (In Pekalongan, the local government is particularly active in all levels and has committed staff resources to the Tim Teknis as well as to Local Government participation in the TIPP (Planning committee) which was rarely seen in other locations.) It should be noted here that local government includes a range of levels including (i) lurah (at the kelurahan), (ii) local government departments (dinas) at the kota/kecamatan level 31

32 and (iii) BAPPEDA (coordinating body at the kota level). The table below briefly describes the ways in which the current ND structure aims to engage local government. Local Government Entry Point Lurah TIPP (Planning Committee) Tim Teknis POKJA (PAPG) Engagement in ND (and PAPG) The main role of the lurah is one of coordination and information sharing. To facilitate this, the lurah and the BKM together hire the Urban Planner and the Social Marketing Consultant. A local government representative is expected to be in the planning committee. The Team Teknis is convened by BAPPEDA and includes representatives from BAPPEDA, Public Works and other local government offices- as appropriate. The main function of the Team Teknis is to serve as the main interface between the PNPM ND project and the local government at the kota level and should serve an important role in all aspects- notably coordination, oversight and channeling. In PAPG, the equivalent of the Team Teknis is the POKJA which is convened with the more explicit task of approving proposals and coordinating work. Because in PAPG all of the projects explicitly involve and are coordinated with local government activities- the POKJA tends to have a more hands- on approach than the Tim Teknis. Dinas (Public Works, BAPPEMAS, Health, Local Industry) The individual dinas are usually involved in particular workstreams to oversee the work (notably oversight of infrastructure by Public Works). They are also approached at the channeling stage to potentially support additional work streams proposed in ND. There are a number of areas where local government engagement is most effective; these are briefly described below with some examples. Coordination with Local Government: Coordination is perhaps the most important element of the relationship between local government and the community in the implementation of ND because the main objective of ND is for the community to identify and implement infrastructure that complements that being provided by local government. For this reason, local government should be integrated into the planning process so as to ensure that (i) communities are aware of what services/plans are being prioritized by the local government in the kelurahan and (ii) that local government is aware of what ND is proposing and that this broadly fits within (or at the very least is not counter to) the local government plans for the kelurahan. This process of coordination is valuable both from a project implementation perspective (preventing duplication and delay) but also from an accountability and transparency perspective- by encouraging local government to share their plans and priorities with the community and to respond to the community s priorities. This latter point may often regrettably be overlooked as much of the emphasis of the project is focused on implementation issues- but in fact this communication and dialogue may in 32

33 fact be one of the stronger aspects of the project. That said however, this is also an area where the findings suggest that there are a number of weaknesses. In a number of locations, we found that ideas that had been proposed and developed as part of the CSP and even the detailed CSP had to be changed or altered because either they potentially duplicated work that was being proposed by the local government. What remains unclear (and was virtually impossible to ascertain from interviews) is whether this reflects a process of poor coordination and communication (i.e. were plans not shared with local government early enough) or if it reflects a changing of priorities and focus by local government in response to receiving plans (i.e. perhaps after seeing that a community has prioritized a particular issue they may feel compelled to prioritize it). For example, in Pagutan the community had prioritized a primary drainage canal as their priority and had anticipated focusing the ND resources on this canal. However they were informed that this would be prioritized by the local government and they then decided to change their priorities. The challenge however is that the local government has not (to date) provided the community with any definitive time frame or clarification of the proposed improvements. The ND process also encourages coordination around the spatial planning- both requesting initial maps from the local government at the outset and also sharing the CSP and detailed CSP with the local government. Access to maps from the local government varied (as described in previous studies as well) and in a number of cases the timing of the ND project in fact coincided with the national regulations for new spatial planning (RTRW) at the kota level. 11 Only in one case (Sukoharkjo) was there a conflicting issue around land usage- where the community had designated some public agricultural land as the site for infrastructure development and was then informed by the kota that according to the revised RTRW the area was intended to remain agricultural. This was easily resolved and the site location was moved. In this case, good coordination between Bappeda as the owner of RTRW (city planning process) and PU as the owner of PNPM program might help the coordinating and aligning CSP with local government s plan. It should be noted that the concept of spatial planning at the kelurahan level is an innovation of ND and efforts to coordinate with local government in this process illustrate new types of interactions between communities and local government and should be evaluated accordingly. Oversight and Technical Support from Local Government: The second primary function of the local government engagement is the provision of oversight and technical support. This appeared to be relatively straightforward with local governments engaged in some cases of providing technical oversight and commenting on the specifications developed as part of the detailed engineering design (DED). One observation on the DED and technical process was the potential opportunity to provide more templates (either from local government or the PNPM project) on generic specifications for common infrastructure. The DED process generally required the contracting of an engineer which in turn required the technical oversight of the Urban Planner (if still on site) or the PNPM facilitator. In some cases, however, a lack of oversight from local government presents concerns about both technical quality and longevity of proposed infrastructure. In Blimbing, Sukoharjo a small river with an eroding embankment is a common source of flooding in the community. To address this issue the community with ND resources- has opted to build a retaining wall. However, due to a quirk of decentralization, it appears that there is no obvious local 11 In fact, one local government official suggested that this timing overlap may have had an impact on the ability of the ND project to access good urban planners during such a peak time. 33

34 government counterpart who can provide oversight of the construction that is being managed by a community member with some engineering background. It was unclear from the discussions with the KSM or the documents if the quality of the proposed wall was in fact sufficient to address the flooding issue for the coming years. Quality of infrastructure and longevity appeared to be a potential issue, particularly when local government was not involved in oversight and where maintenance plans appear to be weak. The third critical area for local government engagement is the commitment of resources. At the most basic level this refers to the commitment of financial and human resources to effectively convene a Team Teknis and to allocate staff to participate in the TIPP. But in most cases, this refers to the capacity and willingness of local government to allocate actual resources (either directly to the community or through programmatic work). In the best case scenario, the ND process can catalyze local government- by proactively engaging local government and offering a potentially fruitful channel where resources will be used rapidly and effectively to address well planned activities. For example, in Banjarmasin and Pekalongan the proposed replication of ND provides a useful example of the ND process helping local governments think about how they can allocate their resources. In Watulondo, the development of the Outbound Facility has captured the imagination of the local government (the Mayor attended the opening) and there have been subsequent promises to bring much needed municipal services to the otherwise overlooked and deproved section of the kelurahan. On the other hand, the fact that a kelurahan has just received 1billionIDR of funds may in fact serve as a barrier to additional support- where local government may feel compelled to support kelurahan that have not received this level of support. Role of Tim Teknis and value of local poverty reduction initiatives: In all of these roles, the Team Teknis is an institutional asset- comprising the key representatives from the relevant dinas at the kota level who are aware of the LG plans and are involved in the allocation of SKPD resources. Sites that have a strong and engaged Team Teknis appear to be able to be more successful throughout the project and the converse is also true. Moving forward, the extent and manner of local government engagement should be considered as a function of what the aim of the project is and where on the spectrum from a more pure community driven development to a more technical infrastructure upgrading approach. An overall finding on local government engagement suggests that local governments are most engaged and most effective when they already have or are pursuing actively a poverty reduction program that involves the kelurahan level. For local governments like Surabaya, Pekalongan and Solo that have already committed resources and teams to address poverty and empower communities the PNPM model can be more easily integrated into local government strategies. This also applies to Banjarmasin and its commitment to slum upgrading. However in cities that are focused on other issues, the PNPM approach and poverty focus may be less compelling- for example in Makassar the local government official emphasized that his priorities were the priorities of the city which are traffic and flooding and that poverty is an issue but is one that will always be there and is just part of what they have to deal with. Engaging the Musrenbang process: There is also a question of the musrenbang process and the opportunities for better linkages. This is a complex question as there is widespread agreement that the musrenbang process as it currently is implemented requires 34

35 considerable strengthening. (See case study on Solo Kota Kita for a discussion on this.) However, conceptually the Musrenbang is potentially a valuable tool for integrating and articulating the development needs of a kelurahan and transmitting that information in a transparent and systematic way through the local government system. In all of the locations visited, the team inquired on the process of Musrenbang and the potential linkages with the PNPM process, including ND. In most cases there was some linkage but this linkage appeared to be primarily at the funding level- in that the community would use the Musrenbang to identify their priorities and would then (with the assistance of facilitators and BKM members in some cases) indicate whether this is the type of activity that would qualify for PNPM funding or not. However, in few cases did we hear of investments that were raised during the PNPM ND process but were not prioritized for ND funding being raised as part of the Musenbang process. This appeared to be in part because the ND process has a more direct model of channeling that involves directly pitching to government departments and CSR, and so the Musrenbang process- that many deem to be a potentially unreliable way to plan- is not the planning process of choice for pursuing channeling opportunities. What this does mean however, is that when it comes to generating ideas for what communities require- the Musrenbang along with the CDP- often provide communities with a long list of already- discussed and deliberated priorities that may be useful when a community is determining what to include in their ND CSP plans (whether or not this is the intended planning approach.) Lessons from PAPG: As mentioned in the methodology section, the review of PAPG sites was intended largely to shape the discussion on local government engagement (given that this is the main strength of the PAPG approach). In all locations, the consultants met with the PAPG committees and visited PAPG sites. While the PAPG program has demonstrated the ability to forge constructive partnerships between local government and communities, in many cases the result appears to emphasize community participation/implementation in local government activities rather than local government support of community driven development activities. For example in Lapulu, a canal rebuilding project was simply divided among various projects- with communities implementing the PAPG component- only several meters of a much larger project. In this case it is hard to see the process as requiring or building on community engagement. Through this process workers employed on the non- PAPG sites received higher wages than those on the PAPG sites, suggesting that the community is subsidizing labor costs on a LG initiative. In addition, the scale of the PAPG projects appeared to be very limited (and much smaller in scale than the consultant s anticipated)- and most often driven by the local government wishing to expand an ongoing type of work and using the PAPG approach as a way to leverage more funds. This may be considered a success, if the aim is to expand the reach of services and to foster stronger relationships with the community. For example, in Klumprit (Sukoharjo), the PAPG housing improvement program simply divided the number of houses served- 14 houses were provided funds from the local government and 11 houses were provided funds from the PNPM PAPG resources. However, there was some challenge in this model as the communities for the PAPG sites were required to provide a 30% cash contribution which for some households was too much, resulting in home improvements being targeted to households with more available cash. The issue of community contribution was interpreted and implemented quite differently across locations- notably whether the contributions are to be in cash or in kind. 35

36 List of PAPG Sites and Investments Visited as part of the Rapid Appraisal No Kabupaten/ Kota Kelurahan/ Desa Investments Visited 1 2 Kabupaten Sukoharjo Kota Banjarmasin Klumprit Pasar Lama Kelayan Selatan 3 Kota Mataram Cakranegara Selatan Drainage 4 Kota Kendari Lapulu House renovation Healthy houses (discussed only) Garbage motorcycle, Paving Waste crusher/ agricultural shredder River retaining wall/ Canal rebuilding 5 Kota Pekalongan Kraton Kidul Nursery school The team was generally unable to find PAPG projects that demonstrated cross- kelurahan activities or that were large in scope or scale addressing an issue that required community- local government collaboration. In most cases, the community and the local government considered PAPG as technical funding mechanism to implement activities that are similar to those in PNPM regular. However the findings do suggest that the PAPG process did create stronger linkages between communities and the local government and that these relationships proved to be beneficial in the implementation of the ND project. In addition, there appeared to be a preference (from local government) for program sharing over cost sharing, in that program sharing apparently allowed them greater flexibility in entering into partnership with communities whereas cost sharing initiatives seemed to be required to be more aligned directly with local government plans. In summary, the lessons on local government were varied and suggest that the conditions for encouraging supportive local government may lie outside the sphere of what the project can influence- although there may be opportunities to strengthen the quality of engagement of the Tim Teknis and to foster greater collaboration throughout the process to generate local government buy in and support (and to prevent costly communication gaps). Lessons from PAPG suggest that in general, program sharing appears to be a preferred mechanism (by local government) and that the experience of collaboration generated through PAPG was in fact, for many locations, the first of its kind and was able to create a more fruitful ground for ND implementation. 36

37 Case Study: Surabaya Local Economic Development As part of the Rapid Appraisal, the consultants visited the city of Surabaya to learn about their innovations in the area of economic development and collaboration between PNPM and the local government. The mayor in Surabaya has been widely recognized as being a progressive and forward thinking mayor and has been able to support reforms in the area of community empowerment, local economic development, slum upgrading and greening. In Surabaya, BAPPEMAS (Directorate of Community Empowerment) has taken the lead in developing a city wide local economic development program- the goal of which is to build and support pockets of economic development activities in each kelurahan. They have developed a community level program in which women s community groups are organized and facilitated by BAPPEMAS and are provided with training and resources to establish a selected home industry (which are linked into a larger city wide network of suppliers and distributors). These groups are then connected with the local PNPM structure to access (as a KSM) seed funding to develop their home industries. Industries are varied and the consultant visited teams making brooches, making laundry detergent and providing salon services. Through this partnership BAPPEMAS leads in the organization and the training and the PNPM structure is used to provide business funds. This is generally regarded as an innovative and strong synergy and through this partnership more than 10,000 women are being trained in Surabaya. In addition, BAPPEMAS has also linked with the local university to access technical and business skills to help strengthen the program. One weakness of the program is that the economic analysis underlying the home industries appears to be somewhat lacking and not based on market analysis. For example the hair salon had no business plan to manage its development and growth. The home industry in laundry detergent (made with chemicals purchased through local suppliers) appeared to be both potentially dangerous as well as not being a product which there would be any comparative advantage to produce as a home industry. The strongest feature of this program appears to be the synergy between PNPM and BAPPEMAS to leverage skills and finances- - which is impressive and inspiring. This is a good example of local government engagement and constructive engagement with PNPM. In addition, the linkage between BAPPEMAS and the university, while still in development, appears to be a strong example of leveraging local expertise. Strong elements of the program which may be less replicable elsewhere are the fact that Surabaya has a strong tradition of community engagement and strong social capital as well as a strong reform minded mayor. However, the example of Surabaya may be worth investigating further to determine how they have been so successful at creating strong community engagement and apparently their slum upgrading activities have also been noteworthy, although the consultants did not visit these Do the structures and facilitation mechanisms established by the PNPM ND project provide an effective way to engage the community and to manage the project? The PNPM ND project has three structural elements. First, the community committees namely the BKM, TIPP, TPP, TP and KSM- are established throughout the project (as described above) and are intended to manage the community inputs into the project. The Tim Teknis is convened by the local government and provides a linkage to local government. Secondly, there is the facilitation support provided through the PNPM consultant structure that provides a facilitation team at the kelurahan level and at the city level (Korkot and Askot team). At the Provincial level (KMW) and at the national level (NMC) the consultant structure provides oversight and guidance. Finally, there are the consultants that are hired at the kelurahan level to explicitly support the ND project- namely the Urban Planner and the Social Marketing Consultant. BKM: The composition and the quality of the BKM committees appeared to vary widely across the sites. In most cases, the BKM appeared to be well- respected community members 37

38 who are committed to community driven development and have some regard for the poor (although there were few members of the BKM that would consider themselves poor.) The most successful BKM are led by individuals who have been active in the BKM for several years and are familiar with the PNPM processes. In the worst cases, there is anecdotal evidence of some BKM being manipulated through money politics with individuals seeking leadership positions in order to influence the investments. In most cases, the most active BKM members seem to be retired men or housewives. Women s participation in the BKM varied and in most cases the meetings appeared to be dominated by male participants (whether BKM members or other committee members). Even in cases like Karuwisi (Makassar), where the BKM is predominantly women, the consultant team noted that the women generally appeared less informed and less willing to speak than men in the TIPP and TPP who ostensibly had secondary roles. KSM: The consultant team did not allocate much time to the KSM structures but did find that these appeared to vary across locations. In some sites, the KSM appeared to be appointed by the head of RT or the BKM to oversee the implementation process of an activity that they may or may not be directly involved in. For example, in Pagutan, the KSM members overseeing the housing improvements appeared to live nearby the sites but had not been involved in the planning process but were appointed after the fact to oversee implementation. In other locations, the KSM appeared to be primarily work units comprised of individuals who would physically implement the project and receive payment for their work. This was the case in Watulondo, Kendari where the project had a great number of KSM so that the income from the construction could be shared across the community. Structure satisfaction: When asked about the adequacy of the project structures- namely the many committees required to plan, implement and market the project- the key informants expressed their general satisfaction with the structures in place and added that even though active community members may serve on several of the committees, this was not a problem in and of itself, since the committees had clear purposes and expectations. BKM and ND Complexity: However, the community members and facilitators all agreed however, that the ND project is in fact significantly more complex that the other PNPM projects and that a strong BKM is an essential prerequisite. On a limited scale we could confirm this by comparing the performance of the sites in Makassar for whom BKM performance was not a prerequisite for ND participation and the other sites where BKM performance was a key criteria. The BKM sites in Makassar appeared to struggle both in understanding the rationale behind the ND project and in implementing the project in accordance with the guidelines. The kelurahan in Makassar were the only locations that we observed that had been unable to select a Priority Area and were instead allocating the block grant equally throughout the RTs. Related to the complexity of the project and the workload expected of the BKM members, a number of BKMs expressed concern over the lack of incentives and overhead costs for the BKM itself. Only in Pekalongan, was there evidence that the BKM were receiving any financial support and in this case the support apparently comes directly from the local government. In addition, relating to channeling- in some locations including Pekalongan- the BKM appear to have been fully integrated into a range of community development projects and increasingly have become project administrators. When asked about the workload of the BKM- the consultants received a range of responses- with some BKM 38

39 feeling clearly overwhelmed while others seemed to be able to manage effectively. There is no clear reason for this difference- although the quality of BKM members and the level of facilitation are likely contributing factors. Facilitation: The consultants conducted a limited review of the quality of facilitation (which likely requires a specific study that can focus in greater depth on the expectations and performance relating to all aspects of facilitation). The analysis of facilitation focused more on the roles that the facilitators see for themselves, their perceived workload and their perceived effectiveness- with an aim to better understand what aspects of the facilitation are most effective. Shifting staff: An important caveat is that a number of the facilitators that we met had in fact only been assigned to ND as of April 2011 or in some cases more recently- October 2011/ January For example, in Blimbing (Sukoharjo) the entire facilitation team except one person- had only joined in April In addition, those who had only recently joined ND also, somewhat surprisingly, were often remarkably unaware of the process of ND in their localities and often the only repository of what happened and why were decisions made was the Urban Planner or the BKM but again even the BKM also appeared to often not have a clear overview of the events and decision making process. In general, the quality of the facilitators varied widely in terms of technical capacity, enthusiasm and project knowledge. What was unclear- in discussions with the facilitators themselves and in seeing the projects- is whether facilitators see their role as helping communities generate the best ideas (to address poverty, build the community etc.) or if they see their role purely as facilitating what the community wants. Technically (from the Guidelines and the KMW) it appears that the role is intended to include quality control- but in practice we were unable to identify few if any situations in which the facilitator would guide the community to reconsider an idea or an approach, based on some technical or cost benefit criteria. On a practical level, there appeared to be some motivation issues surrounding facilitation in the ND program. Firstly, relating to ND specifically there is a sense that the workload is generally greater (although the compensation is the same as PNPM Regular) and that this has been different enough in scope to warrant having ND specific facilitators (as it was before). As a result there appears to be little incentive for facilitators to want to take up this additional workload. In addition, more broadly relating to PNPM Urban more generally- it appears that the salaries in PNPM Rural/Mandiri are in fact higher and so in many locations facilitators have shifted projects to take advantage of this difference. In summary, the facilitation appeared to be a critical tool to support all aspects of project management and ensuring that the PNPM funds are appropriately allocated and spent. However, the weakness appears to be in the time and capacity available for the facilitators to play a key role in quality control. External Consultants: The third element of the project support structure is the hired expertise for urban planning and social marketing. These positions are discussed below in light of the urban planning process and the social marketing process that they support. As a structural project element- the process of encouraging communities to identify and hire external experts appears to have been well received and has introduced a perceived professionalism to the project outputs (namely the CSP and the social marketing plans) as 39

40 well as a level of neutrality that the community and the local government seem to favor. The challenge however, is in finding competent professionals with the required technical skill sets who are interested in taking up 6- month contracts in kelurahans that they may not live in or be familiar with. This has been a challenge in all the sites visited, particularly those that are not near a university center. As a whole the structures and facilitation systems in place to support the implementation of PNPM ND appear to be adequate and functioning well- and demonstrate an impressive feat in scaling a new and relatively complex project. There are some weaknesses related to human resources and incentive structures that can be strengthened Are best practices from ND being shared within/ across cities? Is there evidence of replication? ND offers kelurahan the opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of communities to create and manage improvements in their communities. At its best, the ND program should be creating a demonstration effect- for other communities and importantly for local government- on the potential of community driven development. While the 1 billion rupiah investment is a challenge to replicate, the expectation would be that the extensive planning and socialization processes would at the very least create a sense of community pride and action that could be replicated (i.e. like the Green and Clean initiatives in Surabaya). Examples of replication: In Banjarmasin, the head of the Bappeda has indicated that he will be using the ND model as his approach to slum upgrading- with a rollout of 5 target slum areas (one per kelurahan) per year for the next 5 years in an effort to address the 23 most needy neighborhoods. In Pekalongan, the mayor is already committed to using the PNPM modality to channel more resources to the kelurahan level (approximately 1 billion/ kelurahan)- but has also indicated that the local government will dedicate resources in the coming year to enable additional kelurahan (3) to carry out ND like spatial planning. In addition, the Riverbank Redevelopment activity has been widely considered a success and the local government is planning to expand the process to 5 of additional kelurahan (2 kelurahan along the same river). Appetite for greater guidance: With the exception of sites that were part of the initial pilot of 18 (where some learning appears to have been shared), there appeared to be few cases of learning across or within cities- either from the facilitation teams or from the communities. However, the facilitators and the BKM groups across the sites visited expressed a considerable appetite for more guidance to (i) learn about what types of investments have been actualized in other locations and (ii) understand what some of the common challenges/ solutions have been- particularly around issues of land and social mobilization. Quality of project data: At the most basic level, it appears that the available data on the project is actually rather difficult to access- even from the NMC and MIS sources. In most cases, the CSP and detailed CSP were only available on site, suggesting at the very least that there is likely little opportunity for facilitators to review and learn from the progress in other kelurahan. In addition, the project summary data available was often incomplete and what was available was often unclear because of its oversimplification. However, there did appear to be a relatively good network that had been established amongst the social marketing consultants who referred to a network (likely informal) that they were using to share experiences and practices. 40

41 Case Study: Solo Kota Kita This case study of Solo Kota Kita offers a snapshot of some of the lessons learned from other cities. Solo Kota Kita is an independent NGO operating in Solo since With support of a reform- minded city government, SKK has been undertaking some innovative work related to the relationship between spatial planning, community empowerment and the musrenbang process. Their departure assumption has been that communities are better able to identify and prioritize decisions about their needs if they have better information. To this end, they began their project by creating Mini- Atlases (MA), or neighborhood profiles, that presented poverty and spatial data for each neighborhood in a graphically appealing and legible way 1. The information for the Mini- Atlases, which includes numerous socio- economic indicators, was collected through participatory surveys implemented by community leaders at the sub- neighborhood level (RT and RW levels). These atlases were distributed to each neighborhood in the lead up to the 2010 and 2011 musrenbang processes. Specifically, in addition to posting copies of the MA in public places in each neighborhood, each musrenbang neighborhood facilitator was given copies of the MA and were instructed by the city government to present the Mini- Atlases during RT, RW, and neighborhood level musrenbang community meetings during which projects are discussed, prioritized, and selected. The Mini Atlases are also made available online to the public ( Against the backdrop of the current round of musrenbang, the team is undertaking a research effort to assess how the MAs, including a revised version developed for four neighborhoods this year, support better issue identification and prioritization. As a complement to this effort, utilizing a comprehensive process and actor mapping methodology, the team is also assessing the overall implementation of the musrenbang process in Solo. To their knowledge this is the first in depth review of a city s musrenbang process of its kind in Indonesia. Based on this work, the team expects to make recommendations to the city government highlighting means by which the musrenbang process may be strengthened. The team acknowledges and has spent considerable time challenging the nontransparent way in which the local government allocates both budget envelopes and determines how these allocations are divided among the musrenbang priorities. This lack of transparency is the largest weakness of the musrenbang process and participatory budgeting more broadly. The outcome is often that communities are incentivized to create wish lists with little/no expectation of their priorities being funded. (For many communities the PNPM process is seen as superior for the main reason that the budget is clearly identified in advance and the allocation process is community driven). Recognizing a lack of transparency and information regarding the projects funded through musrenbang, the organization has launched an effort to consolidate and review neighborhood and city budget documents since 2008 to shine light on how project ideas make their way through the process as well as which are ultimately actualized. As part of their work with communities, the SKK team has identified some important issues and innovations that relate directly and indirectly to PNPM. Facilitation: The team has been looking closely at the issue of facilitation (of the musrenbang process) to understand what are the qualities of good facilitators and good facilitation Politics: In the case of PNPM in Solo, there has historically- been a tendency for politicization at the local level- with the PNPM process (and facilitators and BKM) representing the Partai Demokrat (the party of the President) and the musrenbang process (and facilitators) representing PDIP (the opposition party that is dominant in Solo). This is being addressed at the local level. While this is a unique feature in Solo, it remains a relevant point for consideration in other localities, particularly in areas with a history of conflict. But it also speaks to the larger more practical issue of parallel planning systems. Criteria setting: In Solo, the BAPPEDA has developed a set of four criteria that are used to facilitate a process of improved targeting. Each priority issue identified in the musrenbang process needs to have a justification for its impact on economic development, social/culture, infrastructure, and general governance. In this way, the community is encouraged to develop a justification for popular requests such as neighborhood gates (gampura) and to justify the impact this will have on the community- using the criteria. Along with a scoring system, the introduction of criteria is intended to focus priority setting. However, even with these in place, the findings suggest that while projects are indeed categorized into these criteria, not all communities actualize the justification process to prioritize projects. In an effort to improve the musrenbang planning process and to facilitate coordination with other projects, the Solo city government has been innovating efforts to integrate PNPM planning (namely the midterm CDP)- allowing for certain categories of investment (namely small scale infrastructure) to be allocated to PNPM through the musrenbang planning process. As they unfold, the efforts of SKK may be worth reviewing to provide insight into impacts of spatial planning, skills and motivating factors for facilitators and coordination with musrembang. 41

42 3.2.8 What social and economic programs might be most compelling and effective? In more complex urban areas the most pressing issues facing the poor may not in fact be infrastructure but may actually be issues relating to social and economic welfare. The current phase of ND has focused primarily on infrastructure with an allowance for training activities relating directly to infrastructure, and so within the context of the current ND implementation the social and economic training activities have not been a priority. However there are some points worth reviewing. In few sites was there evidence of much training being done related to the infrastructure and such that there was appeared to be coordinated outside the scope of ND with local government. For example, in Lapulu (Kendari) the fish driers were being trained by the Fisheries Department. Community mobilization around economic/social issues: However there appeared to be opportunities in a few common areas for training and community mobilization activities that could easily be integrated into a program like ND: Waste Management: A common issue in all sites is the challenge of waste management practices particularly in relation to drainage and flooding- meaning that community practices of throwing waste in the drains and canals results in blockages which then results in flooding- which affects the entire community. This challenge was nearly universal. However if few, if any locations, did there appear to be any organized efforts to create community waste management activities. More likely there were references from BKM members and facilitators to the challenge of changing behavior and the slum- like behavior of poorer residents. In some cases there appeared to be some success (Pekalongan) but in most this remained a strong challenge. Maintenance of Infrastructure: Evidence from the site visits suggests (and the Rand study also found) that infrastructure maintenance is a weakness of the PNPM programs, of which ND is no exception. In fact, given the size and scale of infrastructure in ND one could argue that maintenance is even more critical. In many cases, the consultant found that maintenance strategies were only discussed or convened after the completion of infrastructure. In Pekalongan, a section of the Riverbank Improvement completed less than 6 months ago was already in a state of severe disrepair. In Lapulo, Kendari efforts to collect fees to pay for street lighting failed after 3 months resulting in lights not being switched on. When looking for areas in which to build community cohesion and create a shared vision, there could be good opportunities to use the maintenance of infrastructure as a way to add value to the community. Disaster management/ Urban Health: Relating to the above issues of maintenance and waste management, there are also opportunities to look at disaster preparedness and also urban health more generally. For example, flooding and flood prevention, managing vulnerable land and managing malarial/dengue mosquitos may be areas where community mobilization could be instrumental. The potential for community training (and mobilization) could again have strong benefits for community cohesion as well as addressing important issues affecting the poor. Economic development/ Business development: As ND does not have a revolving loan component (although one local government official in Kendari 42

43 expressed regret at this and asked if future ND projects could dedicate the entire 700,000,000 to a revolving loan fund) the economic development focus has largely been on larger infrastructure projects, as discussed above. In addition to the critical need to improve the economic analysis around larger infrastructure investments there may be significant appetite for building of business development skills for small businesses as well. Access to finance: Related to the above point on economic development, there may also be value in providing community members (who may or may not have small businesses) with access to training and resources on financial management and on access to finance skills. In the context of ND this may be most appropriate in focusing on savings products relating to housing improvements, credit products related to small businesses and possibly microinsurance products related to productive assets (such as motorbikes). The above themes are identified because they relate directly to issues affecting the urban poor, they have the potential to build useful and needed skills and they offer an opportunity to build social capital. This is by no means an exhaustive list but offers an idea for types of training and activities that could be packaged as part of a program like ND and delivered at scale. Community Rules: The Community Rules tool used in ND is intended to provide communities with a set of mutually agreed upon guidelines for behaviors to achieve their vision. Currently, the consultants found little evidence that community members could recall the elements of the Community Rules or used them with the exception of Lapulu (Kendari) where the Community Rules included the fee structure for a shared fish drying facility. Community Rules could in fact be a powerful tool to create greater cohesion and mobilisation at the kelurahan level and to address issues of collective action- such as waste management What changes may be required to encourage a shift to slum upgrading and a focus on the urban poor? The ND program has been in the process of shifting (since 2011) from a purely empowerment focus to a more poverty focus (and the study has therefore not assumed that poverty targeting would be strong but instead has investigated decision making processes and rationales for sites selected and for sites not selected). The sites visited demonstrated a mix in approach, but for the large part they were most often not explicitly focused on poverty, as discussed in the preceding sections. To the extent that the project language has incorporated poverty, it appears that many of the project sites have (regardless of their poverty levels) been categorized as kumuh or slum 12. Challenge of poverty targeting: Some reasons that informants offered for this include: - Poor people are disbursed throughout the kelurahan so they are difficult to target - Issues of sanitation and flooding are complex and deemed too difficult for the project to undertake 12 To test this assumption, the consultant team in each city sought out the most kumu neighborhoods that we could find (getting advice from the Korkot as well as community members not affiliated with PNPM). These are available in photographs and will be presented as an annex to demonstrate the diversity of slums in Indonesia. 43

44 Public goods such as green spaces, agricultural showrooms and recreation facilities are seen to benefit everyone Slum upgrading may be too expensive and more impact can be seen with simpler interventions in less complex areas of the city Slum communities are difficult to work with, people are not engaged, people exhibit slum like behavior Poor residents cannot contribute to swadaya (community contribution) In areas that are pre- selected for being dense and poor (i.e. Pasar Lama in Banjarmasin) it appears that nearly any improvement activity will benefit the poor (although even in Banjarmasin, they struggled to identify activities that could be implemented by communities that had not already been completed by PNPM regular). However in areas where there are mixed neighborhoods, it appears that the investments are often not targeted to the poorest and that it has not always been clear to BKM members or facilitators why or whether the poorest should be targeted. Comparative advantage of ND: The limited evidence available suggests that the success in implementing ND is largely a function of BKM capacity, strong facilitation (including from Urban Planner and well as PNPM facilitators) and engaged local government (particularly in terms of willingness to coordinate and allocate resources). In addition, in the current mix of more dense and less dense sites, there may be a trend that suggests that in fact ND performance is generally stronger in the less dense area (often because the implementation issues are simpler) and that the spatial planning elements of the project are more pronounced in areas that are less dense and where there is greater scope for creating a community vision of development. In addition, the findings suggest that in many cases identifying and implementing investments that are pro- poor and that require more coordination and complexity have not been the strength of the ND project as it has been implemented. Therefore, in shifting to a community- driven slum upgrading approach, the project will likely need to reevaluate a number of the building blocks of the ND approach to identify opportunities for strengthening so as to address the current gaps and to ensure that the project is sufficiently resourced (in terms of financial, technical and human resources) to succeed in potentially more challenging environments. (Note: This is addressed in the Slum Upgrading Recommendations offered in Section 6 of the paper.) 3.3 Summary The above analysis aims to highlight that the PNPM Neighborhood Development Project is a complex project that operates on a number of important assumptions about process and outcome. Depending on where the project wishes to focus- there may be opportunities to change elements of the project accordingly. The consultant has aimed to remain neutral on these assumptions and directions- sensitive to the fact that certain elements may be deeply entrenched in the overarching design and philosophy of the project while others may be more experimental and flexible in nature. Given that the ND project is considered a pilot- the intention has always been to learn from the experiences on the ground and to refine the project accordingly- building on the strengths and addressing the challenges. Based on the evidence and analysis, the project strengths and challenges can be summarized briefly as follows. 44

45 3.3.1 Strengths: Encouraging Priority Area Selection: The objective of designating a priority area for the ND investments and allocating the time and resources to facilitate the process of doing this is a valuable element of the project and an important step in creating project investments with greater impact. While this process is still imperfect in implementation and could benefit from improvements - there is wide agreement that this is a welcome idea among community members and facilitators. Bringing in external expertise: The process of bringing in external expertise to support technical elements of the project (notably in urban planning, less so for social marketing) offers a unique way to improve the technical quality of the project without creating too much dependence on the PNPM facilitator network. It also creates a positive experience for the community to use an external expert as a mediator and as a generator of new ideas. This process could well be replicated with other types of technical expertise - in areas like economic development for example. Building on spatial planning: The spatial planning element of the project has significant potential to be beneficial and can be a valuable way to bring people together- but it has been acknowledged that the requirements may differ across sites. In areas that are less dense, detailed spatial planning can be used as a community- building tool and in the development of a kelurahan vision (i.e. creating more planned development, improving/preserving public spaces). In more dense or more complex areas there may be less opportunities to change the spatial planning but there may be a greater need of spatially oriented thematic/issue analysis that can be used to help households and communities identify and address their local issues (i.e. land tenure issues, flooding, crime). As mentioned earlier- the current approach could benefit from significant improvements, but conceptually and practically there area valuable potential benefits to be gained from spatial planning. Local government coordination through Team Teknis: The Team Teknis, as a government counterpart that is engaged and cooperating with the ND project, offers a valuable interface between government and community and potentially offers a unique way for communities to become better informed and more engaged with the local government Challenges: Many of the challenges of the project are in fact related to the way in which the project elements are implemented in practice, rather than their design per se. Creating meaningful community participation: Genuine community participation (particularly women and the poor) in the planning and decision making process is a challenge. This is not simply a challenge of process but reflects a larger orientation of the project that appears to be focused more on infrastructure than on community building. Project weaknesses in poverty orientation, community mapping and community empowerment likely stem from a project orientation that tends to position an elite BKM as the trustees of a development process for and on behalf of a larger community that may or may not agree or be involved in any meaningful way. This also relates to the persistent descriptions of the poor as slum like and difficult 45

46 to engage with that suggest that the project may have lost touch with its inclusive community empowerment aims. Getting the planning right: Related to community participation, the planning outputs themselves- the CSP and detailed CSP- represent a significant investment of human and financial resources, but the result is mixed and appears to be in an uncomfortable middleground between a technical urban planning output and a community mapping and visioning output. The result appears to be a set of documents that are unnecessarily complex as project documents (and in fact often quite poor at predicting what is actually supported by the project) and also not owned enough by the community to allow them to serve as community mobilization tools (with the exception of Kraton Kidul, where the urban planner/social marketer has taken on this function). Selecting the most appropriate investments: As discussed at length, the quality of selected investments- either of a slum upgrading or an icon/public goods variety- appears to be generally mixed with little evidence of either strategic settlement upgrading (rather than a compilation of small improvements similar to PNPM regular) or any analysis to support an economic development argument (that would justify an investment of 700,000,000IDR). The lack of basic cost- benefit analysis to determine which investments and what the desired impact should be- remains a significant challenge. Facilitation: Project facilitation is a critical issue for a project as complex as ND and in order to succeed - the role and the expectations of the facilitators needs to be very clear. Current incentive and staffing challenges in the project structure appear to create a gap in which there is limited ownership over the success and quality of the ND projects. While project implementation appears to be adequately facilitated, there remains an important gap in terms of who owns the quality control of the project. Who should be ensuring that communities are being supported to help use the ND resources to make strategic investments that promote poverty alleviation and settlement upgrading? 4. General recommendations This PNPM ND/PAPG Rapid Appraisal comes on the heels of two previous studies in 2011 conducted by internal and external teams (Ochoa 2011 and Rand 2011) both of which provided analysis and recommendations for the strengthening of the program. Much of the analysis presented here echoes those findings and analysis. In addition, the way this paper has been structured- the focus has been on inviting the project team to critically reexamine many of the core assumptions and practices of the project. 46

47 ND Recommendations (from Ochoa 2011) 1. Better define and articulate project objectives in a way that is comprehensible to all stakeholders 2. Selection criteria for future ND communities needs to be linked to project objectives and geographic targeting needs to be closely designed and monitored, from the communities to the investment selected 3. Enforce direct connection between findings of self survey and priority area 4. Monitor that funds are spent on activities that appear in the Community Settlement Plan, that these are complementing yet not replacing government investments 5. Develop a rough methodology to determine beneficiaries of larger infrastructure investments 6. Either limit menu of potential investments or use a more rigid screen criteria for selecting subprojects 7. Ensure that basic planning capacity building takes place in the community and avoid highly sophisticated planning tools 8. Evaluate and monitor facilitators performance 9. Develop a system that compensates for poor facilitation (e.g. videos and web based tools) 10. Mainstream into ND mechanism PAPG- like for collaboration with local government 11. Ensure that MIS is not just a recording system but also a tool for program improvement 12. Prepare basic results framework with community, give them the big picture Other recommendations 13. Use ND as an opportunity to push broader reforms in slum upgrading and land tenure at the local level 14. Follow up closely a group of pilots, give them extra supervision and create showcase projects for others to follow 15. Consider prioritizing areas where there is high density of urban poor and high risk of natural disaster risk and climate change 16. Continue the culture of learning by doing, and testing new approaches ND Findings (from Rand 2011) Monitoring. To maintain effectiveness and avoid corruption in the tender process, it is important to include community members in the committees overseeing the process. Relationship with local government: Ensuring that the representatives of local government that form the Technical Team assist to all meetings of the TIPP is an important mechanism to ensure compatibility between ND and government plans. In one site, the TIPP originally suggested establishing a physical space (stalls) for sellers along a major road. The kota, however, was planning to expand that road, which would have meant tearing down the stalls. The representative of PU in the Technical Team alerted the TIPP, which decided on an alternative project ultimately, the garbage disposal facility mentioned before. Targeting. ND should consider an alternative selection method for future sites to enhance the program s impact in alleviating poverty. To achieve this, the program would need to choose kelurahan based on their poverty level. Although it is reasonable that the pilot sites were chosen based on readiness rather than need, the program in the future should consider to direct resources to needier kelurahan. Allocation of funds to planning and marketing. In the sites visited, government and ND officials and volunteers did not find the planning and marketing activities to be very effective. Thus, the proportion of funds destined to them should be reduced, or at least the proportion destined to those purposes could be left for the community to decide subject to a maximum share. One of the overarching questions that emerged from the Rapid Appraisal is the where the emphasis lies between genuine community driven development and empowerment and technical infrastructure- based slum upgrading. If the emphasis is on the former, then issues of community participation, social mobilization, behavior change and democratic engagement with local government are critical areas for analysis and strengthening. If the emphasis is on the latter then issues of urban planning, identification of infrastructure requirements (primary and secondary), local government engagement, quality and cost- effectiveness of infrastructure investments, targeting of beneficiary sites, and maintenance of infrastructure become more critical. Surely it is a fine balance. As it is, the PNPM 47

48 Neighborhood Development project offers a mix of both approaches and in some cases this is where the project is the most vulnerable- potentially not delivering quality results on either front. As an overarching recommendation, the project team may wish to critically analyze the project objectives and anticipated impact as an initial step so as to prioritize project design changes that will have the greatest impact on the urban poor. Based on initial discussions of the findings 13, the recommendations are presented in two sections, (i) an overarching set of General recommendations ( ) and (ii) a set of more targeted Slum Upgrading recommendations (5)- focused on what might be required to focus the project on a more focused outcome of slum upgrading. 4.1 Focusing the Vision The objective of creating a kelurahan vision of development is potentially one of the most important elements of the project and has the potential to drive the direction and the outcome of the project. The current approach to the visioning exercise is quite weak and may simply reflect the general vagueness with which Vision and Mission exercises are often approached (i.e. as box ticking elements of a planning process.) The vision process should in fact be creating a shared- realistic goal- that the community (and local government) can work towards and that can be used to limit what is and isn t done. Some recommendations for consideration: The vision setting for the CSP could be revised substantially to include defined development goals with attached timeframes and phases. Currently in the planning process the concept of phasing is not well used- and instead creates long- term visions without the requite steps to achieve them. Within the vision, it is likely important to distinguish between (i) behaviors (how we wish our community to behave) (ii) infrastructure (what we need to improve and maintain our infrastructure) (iii) economic development/poverty alleviation (what types of analysis, activities and infrastructure we need to strengthen our economy and address poverty). 4.2 Strengthening Community Participation There is significant scope for improving the quality of community participation, notably in the processes of vision setting, issue identification and prioritization (including community mapping) and project implementation (particularly in addressing more complex projects and in infrastructure maintenance). As is well documented in the literature and in previous studies, communities have limited time and limited interest in participating in activities that do not demonstrate results. As such it is important that activities aiming to encourage community participation should be targeted at specific outputs and results- and should transparently deliver those results. 13 An internal meeting was held at the World Bank on March 29, 2012 to discuss the findings and to suggest this refinement to the recommendations. 48

49 Some recommendations for consideration: The Community Self Survey and Community Mapping 14 are probably two of the tools that have the greatest capacity to engage community members. Given the financial resources allocated to the planning process, it doesn t seem unrealistic that the project could finance genuine community mapping exercises that help community members identify their priorities and also help the local government know where there are critical gaps in core services. In addition, genuine community mapping can also be a building block for community mobilization as it can demonstrate causality between waste management and flooding for example. Similarly the process of developing an ambitious but realistic set of Community Rules can be used to generate community buy- in to a process that extends beyond infrastructure. Some review of the current Rules and their process for development and implementation should be undertaken to better understand in what cases this tool is being used successfully and how to replicate success. (This was not the case in any of the sites visited by the consultants). One of the current gaps in the project process appears to be that the community is engaged in the issue identification stage but is then largely not engaged proactively again until the final plans are socialized. To encourage buy in and transparency there may be an opportunity for community- wide referendum and inputs on Priority Area selection and Priority Investments for Priority Area. At the very least this would require the decision makers to offer a clear rationale and criteria for decision making. Currently the Urban Planner plays a disproportionately large role in the participatory planning process. It may be appropriate to review this responsibility and to determine whether there may be a greater role for the Facilitator Community Development to assist in the process of participatory planning. More training and guidance is likely required for the whole TIPP to support more meaningful participatory planning. In some locations 15, there appears to be some informal acknowledgment/ engagement with community groups such as youth groups, religious groups, and women s groups (PKK). Integrating these groups more actively into the PNPM community participation process may be a useful way to expand the outreach beyond the limited sphere of the RT and RW heads and their nominated representatives. The musrenbang process is a facilitated annual community planning process that in many locations is already informally linked to PNPM (insofar as the BKM are involved and PNPM is often identified as a funding source). There may be an 14 In Mataram, the local government referred to the CAP process that had been facilitated by GIZ as being an effective community engagement tool. They also referenced an example from Bankgok. In Jakarta, Mercy Corps has done some impressive community mapping. And in Solo, Solo Kota Kita has also provided some interesting examples. 15 In Pekalongan these groups- along with the BKM and LPM- have been formally integrated into a kelurahan structure that the mayor uses to engage with communities. 49

50 opportunity to review this process (with its fixed annual schedule) and identify best practices for aligning development priorities and issues at the kelurahan level. The issue here is the consideration that the musrenbang may be, in some cases, attracting participation and raising issues that may not be within reach of the PNPM process- and so this may be a good opportunity to, at the very least, see whether the development issues and priorities identified by the two processes are at least similar- or to understand where they diverge. 4.3 Strengthening the Structures and Facilitation While the Rapid Appraisal did not review the project structures in great depth, there was some evidence that there may be areas for strengthening. Some recommendations for consideration: As a start, it may be useful to revise and publish clear, concise TOR and performance targets for all of the positions and committees in the ND project, including facilitators, Urban Planner, Social Marketing Consultant, BKM, TIPP, TAPP and Team Teknis. While these are currently available in various guidelines and contracts it would create greater transparency and accountability if this were more widely shared. The question of who has responsibility (and authority) for project quality control is an important issue to clarify. If this role should in fact lie with the facilitators, then there may be an opportunity to clarify this responsibility and to ensure that the facilitators are both incentivized and monitored in this task. This may require new systems of oversight and supervision that depend not only on pace of project implementation but on quality of investments. This is also linked to the opportunity to create more guidance and clearer criteria on what investments are appropriate for ND (more on this in the section on Investment Quality). Given the repeated concern raised by the BKM members across the sites- and the fact that it may be affecting their enthusiasm/performance- it is likely important to review the issue of BKM operating expenses and incentives and to share the findings and decision in a clear and transparent way with all BKM. Whether or not financial incentives are considered, the project should also review alternative mechanisms for incentivizing BKM members- which may include more targeted training, opportunities to network/learn across sites, competitions to award performance, etc. Also in light of the concerns raised by a number of facilitation teams working on the ND project, it may be timely both to review the incentive structures (and salary) for those facilitating PNPM Urban projects and also to review whether in fact there are specific ND Facilitation requirements that may require a dedicated facilitator and/or expanded team. This is particularly relevant in light of recommendations/questions regarding the roles currently taken on by the external consultant. The role of the Social Marketing consultant should also be critically reviewed, with an eye to ensuring that the external expertise being brought into the project is in 50

51 fact relevant and required. As mentioned, channeling to local governments can likely be taken on through a more proactive Team Teknis (and if the project aims to take a more PAPG approach- requiring agreed commitments, this role may become less critical). Socialization of the plan to the community may be something that should be more iterative throughout the process and be owned more directly by the project team and/or the urban planer. (In cases where the urban planner took on the role of social marketing consultant there seemed to be more genuine community engagement with the actual spatial plan.) And the value of the social marketing consultant in accessing CSR funds may be worth testing. The option of bringing in external expertise into the project is valuable and there may be an opportunity to expand the options of what type of expertise is desired/ appropriate. One example would be a Local Economic Development consultant who could help create economic analysis of localities, advise on more complex icon/economic development investments and/or provide business training to local businesses. 4.4 Strengthening the quality and focus of CSP/ Urban Planning The quality of the urban planning elements of the project- namely the CSP and the Detailed CSP- have varied widely. As products that respond to a particular set of guidelines they have been adequate, but as urban planning tools that are intended to help shape community development they are somewhat weak. As indicated above, the urban planning element of the project can likely be revised and strengthened in a number of different ways to meet the objectives of the project. Some recommendations for consideration: Critically review and revise the purpose of the entire CSP process. Below are two options that may be considered separately or in combination to improve the urban planning process so that it (i) is more aligned with community needs and/or (ii) is more integrated into local government urban planning. CDP Option: Build the ND project and investments upon the strong planning base of the CDP process by integrating in more mapping and planning elements to facilitate greater engagement in spatial planning and to focus on more targeting slum upgrading activities. LG Infrastructure Option: Increase the capacity of local government to develop slum upgrading plans and to work with communities to identify slum- upgrading needs at the kelurahan and kecamatan levels- with a focus on more complex interventions that may require both infrastructure and community interventions. Definitions of slum criteria should be clearly defined in advance. 4.5 Improving Investment Quality and Guidance While communities should be encouraged to develop their own visions for their kelurahan, there should also be resources and guidance to ensure that communities are able to identify and implement investments that have significant potential for results and impact- in line 51

52 with the aims of the overall project which should be to address urban poverty and support slum upgrading. If the project aims to focus on slum upgrading and to achieve impact in slum upgrading, then it needs to provide a clear definition of what the characteristics of a slum are and to limit the project to address only those areas that can be defined as a slum. This could potentially be linked to larger efforts to increase awareness of city governments to the need to identify and prioritize investments in neighborhoods in the kota that can be considered a slum. The PNPM ND project could be seen as a catalyst to support this type of prioritization. There is a critical need to introduce some element of cost benefit analysis (why is this the most efficient way to use these scarce resources to benefit our target population?) into the identification and selection of investments. Such a process should be introduced with an aim to strengthen criteria setting skills, improve poverty targeting, improve transparency, encourage participation, and most importantly encourage an orientation towards results (i.e. clear intended outcome for beneficiaries) that appears to be quite weak in the current project. This mind set will need to be integrated into all levels of the project. Review of best practice across Indonesia and globally can likely identify strategies for identifying and implementing comprehensive slum upgrading plans. The project team has already identified the possibility of developing a menu or greater guidance to facilitate planning and implementation. Given the desired shift to focus more on slum upgrading investments- it would appear that providing a greater menu and guidance on infrastructure and social/economic investments would allow the project to more effectively target its limited resources and would as well allow for greater learning across sites, as there are experiences shared in addressing similar challenges in similar environments (i.e. how to address land challenges related to market improvements, how to mobilize community action to support solid waste management etc.). The project may wish to discontinue the practice of allowing Icon/Public Goods Investments, or at the very least it may chose to undertake a critical analysis of such investments to determine in which cases they may be applicable. For example, public spaces may in fact be relevant in highly dense slum areas. In any case where the proposed impact is related to economic development the proposed investment should be required to submit a feasible business plan. 4.6 Reviewing Marketing, Channeling and Sustainability The ideas of channeling and the ideas of having a marketing focus are compelling and do offer new approaches to sustainability, but in the context of the ND project it may be worth reviewing these concepts. An initial assumption of the marketing and channeling concept is that it will potentially encourage local government to provide an open ended amount- not limiting them to the 50% prescribed by PAPG. It may be useful to reexamine the assumptions behind this. If the project aims to introduce more of a PAPG 52

53 methodology with prescribed amounts of contribution than this element of external local government marketing may not be required. A review of the role of the social marketing consultant itself may be an important starting place to determine what the expected outputs and outcomes of this position are and whether an external consultant structure is in fact the most strategic way to achieve these For example, internal socialization could likely be taken up within the project itself. External socialization and channeling to local government might be effectively taken up with more proactive engagement from the Team Teknis. The project may wish to review the flow of CSR to ND projects and determine whether there is evidence that there is a realistic appetite for CSR to fund ND type activities that are focused on poverty alleviation. 4.7 Improving Project Documentation and Encouraging Replication On a very practical level, the quality of the available documentation on the ND program from the World Bank (MIS), NMC (national consultants) and from the facilitator teams (at city and kelurahan level) is relatively poor. This creates a number of challenges for project supervision, learning and sharing across locations, and analysis of investment priorities, impact and cost effectiveness. CSP plans and detailed CSP should be available at the national level and/or on a shared website. A current challenge may be that the formats used by the consultants result in excessively large files- this should be addressed so that the documents are shareable and usable in soft copy. The way in which data is collected and described in MIS and elsewhere tends to be quite high level and is not suggestive of what is actually funded and importantly there is little/no linkage between the investments and the proposed impact or results. The Detailed Engineering Designs serve as a key tool for project implementation. To the extent that locations are implementing similar interventions there may be scope for sharing these as templates- at one level through the PNPM structure- and at another level through PU to support the capacity of local governments to oversee community led infrastructure. Depending on the appetite, there may be an opportunity to develop some type of performance- based competition/ awards that can be administered across kelurahan by the Provincial level government, the PNPM project or nationally. A competition may be a mechanism to encourage learning and replication and gaining publicity for the program. 4.8 Strengthening opportunities for Local Government engagement As mentioned in the main text, the issue with local government engagement is complex on two fronts. First is the issue of how much the project aims to be a community driven development project that genuinely is run for and by the community and how it should be 53

54 linked with local government to address more complex settlement upgrading requirements. Where the project decides it wants to be on the spectrum will impact how it determines its engagement with local government. The second issue is the diversity of local government engagement, capacity and poverty focus (and the lack of clarity about what if anything within the PNPM project structure or design itself could affect these external conditions). That said, there are some recommendations that can be offered for consideration. The new project design will likely wish to build on a PAPG- like application process. As part of the process, the ND project could allocate some seed funding (and potentially the resources of a cadre of urban planners as well) to mobilize city governments to (i) identify their most critical slum areas and (ii) to collaborate with communities to identify a package of comprehensive slum upgrading activities that combine (a) local government infrastructure (funded by LG), (b) community infrastructure (funded by PNPM), and (c) community mobilization (supported by both). Slum upgrading activities should be focused on a clearly defined slum neighborhoods (selected based on objective criteria) and should include a phased development approach. If a PAPG hybrid approach is considered, the team may wish to consider the incentives and the issues that may accompany different mechanisms of cost versus program sharing. As suggested above, it may be most appropriate to create a shared vision/ plan and allow for allocation of resources to occur separately. In light of the way the project is currently implemented, there may be an opportunity to review the participation of the local government in the ND planning process- with a notable emphasis on reviewing the capacity and incentives for local government to engage in urban planning activities that can actually facilitate prioritization of infrastructure investments to support slum- upgrading needs at the kelurahan level. This may require a different aspect to the planning process and may require a greater focus on the kecamatan level. As a key structure in the project- the Tim Teknis represents a great opportunity for strengthening local government engagement throughout the ND process. A critical review of the composition and role of this committee should be undertaken to replicate good practice and maximize its potential impact. For local governments that are new to working with communities, there are likely lessons and guidance that can be extracted from the PAPG experience and shared with local governments. It is important that local governments are clear on the distinctions between community driven development and community implemented development. There are considerable lessons learned on this topic and nuanced experiences that can likely be turned into effective training tools to engage local governments on the value of working with communities and the potential pitfalls as well. The musrenbang process has been raised a number of times throughout this paper. If there is interest in alignment, there may be an opportunity to consider a financial alignment by using PNPM funds in a matching capacity to support the implementation of kelurahan priorities relating to certain investments having pre- 54

55 defined criteria (relating to slum upgrading, solid waste management, drainage etc). This may be outside the scope of what is feasible within PNPM, but if one of the critiques of the musrenbang rests on the fact that there is no money available for the investments and therefor the PNPM process is more compelling to communities (and thereby PNPM may be undermining the musrenbang process)- it may be worthwhile to review this as a potential entry point. 4.9 Looking critically at economic development: what is needed? There appears to be an interest in understanding how a project like ND can foster local economic development 16. This is a positive move and should be encouraged, but with caution that it may be promoted at the expense of or in lieu of activities that are more focused on addressing poverty directly. Although there are clearly constructive areas of overlap between economic development and poverty alleviation- addressing urban poverty- particularly in the context of slum upgrading- will often in fact require significant outlays of capital that may not in fact generate economic development in the short run. As indicated above, there may be an opportunity to consider a Local economic Development Consultant as a potential external consultant that can be hired to support the ND teams implement various tasks related to economic development. This skill set could also be integrated into the facilitator group- although currently this does not appear to be within the skill sets of any of the facilitators. For those areas interested in building on their economic strengths, there may be value in building in an economic analysis of the industry and economic potential of the kecamatan. This is likely the most feasible economic unit (although I would defer to those in the team who are currently working on local economic development issues in urban areas). As indicated above, if icon investments are continued in future rounds of projects, it would be essential that these have demonstrated clear cost benefit analysis and are based on a sound business plan that indicates why this investment is most efficiently made using grant funds rather than private sector funds. Given the interest (and potential misgivings) about engaging with the private sector- there may be value in training for local governments (and communities) in strategies (and pitfalls) in leveraging private capital for development. This may include some analysis of best practice on what types of things make sense for the private sector to fund and what types of things are more effectively funded through public resources. (Note, the consultant would suggest in such a review that the Surabaya best practice case for example, illustrates a complex mix of good and bad practice in this area). Linked to the community interest in Business development skills for community members (linked to access to finance) 4.10 Reviewing social capital and strengthening social mobilization opportunities 16 This was emphasized during an initial meeting with the World Bank and Government of Indonesia on February 28,

56 One of the great strengths of the PNPM structure is its ability to reach down to the community level with both facilitation skills and capital. To date this has proven to be an incredibly effective method of getting communities engaged in their local development and in implementing small- scale infrastructure throughout urban areas in Indonesia. One of the persistent challenges in the ND project implementation appears to be around the issue of socialization and behavior change. While this may simply reflect on the quality of the facilitation skills and the disposition of the BKM and facilitators towards the poor- it does suggest that this is an area where strengthening is required and where strengthening could have short and long term benefits- both in terms of addressing particular issues but also creating more community involvement. In this sense, the recommendation is to focus on social mobilization not simply as a box ticking exercise but as a way to more effectively use the leverage of the PNPM structure to engage the community. Waste Management: Learn from and aim to replicate experiences from Surabaya s incredibly successful Green and Clean efforts- explicitly around solid waste management- through proactive community mobilization activities. If ND could develop this methodology there could be great potential in building social capital in the community while addressing a key community issue. Maintenance of Infrastructure: Use infrastructure maintenance as a tool for community cohesion and create a shared vision. Community cleaning days could lead to specialized training (and payment) for poorer members of the community to take on the maintenance responsibilities. Fee collection for electricity could be linked to other community investments (instead of simply collecting for one issue). There are many ways in which the maintenance of sites could be linked with more strategic activities, training and mobilization. Disaster management/ Urban Health: Using key community concerns like- flooding- to engage in discussion of flood prevention and how to deal with severe flooding. Mobilizing communities to address potential breeding zones for malarial/dengue mosquitos. Training and community building opportunities to protect individuals living on vulnerable land (and potentially introducing discussions of relocation). Economic development/ Business development: Where the economic focus is on small/individual businesses (i.e. handicrafts, food vendors, agricultural/food products) identify training opportunities that can focus on basic business skills (i.e. balance sheets, cash flow projections) as well as in cases where industries are concentrated- trainings to improve quality control and to improve access to markets can be of great value. Access to finance: Providing community members (who may or may not have small businesses) with access to training and resources on financial management and on access to finance skills. Focus on savings products relating to housing improvements, credit products related to small businesses and possibly microinsurance products related to productive assets (such as motorbikes). 56

57 5. Slum upgrading recommendations Based on conversations with the World Bank 17, the following recommendations are based on the assumption that the ND project is based on a relatively good foundation of design and structure- notably BKM, block grants, facilitation structure, Urban Planners, spatial planning tools - but that there are significant issues of targeting and quality that are preventing it from having the desired level of impact. As part of the current planning process, this section provides a set of targeted recommendations focused on what might be required to focus the project on a more focused outcome of slum upgrading. From 2012 DRAFT Project Appraisal Document for FOURTH NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT IN URBAN AREAS A specialized neighborhood level intervention in very poor communities would be piloted in order to take a more holistic view to improving the living conditions for the urban poor on a larger scale. Its goals would be to: (a) stimulate better coordination in community and local government planning; (b) promote more integrated block improvement based on a medium- term vision and spatial planning, rather than isolated investments; and (c) design a more sustainable social program as part of the block grant. In addition, a separate pot of funding may be allocated on a pilot basis to be managed by women s groups to increase their participation and ownership of the program. This pilot would operate in kelurahan that meet one or more of the following conditions: (i) high population density, (ii) high poverty incidence, (iii) prone to natural disasters, and (iv) in need of complex interventions. These pilot programs will be undertaken in collaboration with local governments that commit themselves to planning investments with community groups, and to co- finance these from their own budgetary resources. There are a number of core requirements that would be required to shift the current ND project to become a slum- upgrading project. The matrix below begins to set out some of those issues and identifies some initial recommendations and some further areas for consideration. KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR SLUM UPGRADING 1 The sites selected for ND are in fact, slums 18 which are defined as highly dense urban areas with poor quality infrastructure, high rates of poverty. In many cases these areas may include a mix of formal and informal settlements. RECOMMENDATIONS Critically review ND site selection process, focusing on slum criteria and conditions rather than MIS data. The site selection process may not simply be at the kelurahan level, but may from the outset identify the most vulnerable neighborhoods, within a kelurahan. Likely most effective, if linked with local and national slum upgrading strategies. REMARKS Current site selection places a heavy emphasis on BKM quality - which is in fact a critical element. If poorer areas are selected, it is likely that they will have weaker BKMs and therefore the project will need to proactively address this issue to help strengthen community management of the project. Current sites have evolved a process of referring to all locations 17 These recommendations stem from an internal consultation with the World Bank team on March 29, 2012 in Jakarta where the consultant was requested to refine the recommendations to the specific area of slum upgrading. 18 From the World Bank: Slums are generally characterized as informal settlements with poor quality housing, limited access to services, high densities, and often insecure land tenure. 57

58 2 In order to create a measurable impact, it will be important for the types of investments and the expected outcome of the project (at local and national) level to be clearly defined and limited to slum upgrading. As such investments will likely focus on road improvement, housing and market improvement, water and sanitation, drainage, and solid waste management. Investments focused on public spaces, greening and economic development may be considered, but will likely be less common. 3 Effective slum upgrading will likely require more complex infrastructure investments (that extend beyond the traditional community infrastructure that PNPM Urban has excelled in). These types of complex slum upgrading infrastructure investments will also require the active support, cooperation and buy in of the community and local government. Public acknowledgement from local government on support for slum upgrading for selected sites will likely be an important element to ensure community trust and to allow for effective cooperation. Redefine and target ND project objectives and all related monitoring and evaluation tools. Develop a closed menu (or criteria) to clearly identify (i) what slum upgrading means and (ii) what types of investments are to be supported (and not supported) by ND. This will likely mean reducing or eliminating icon investments. If icon investments are permitted, a strong process of justification should be required to demonstrate intended impact. Local government engagement will be critical at all levels and evidence suggests that local government engagement is most successful when linked to larger policies. In the case of slum upgrading, getting local governments to publicly commit to supporting activities and investments that improve the quality of slums in cooperation with the community- may be a critical prerequisite. In addition, the project may require that local governments commit- up front- to certain agreed upon principles of engagement as well as certain specific types of support (including planning, financing, willingness to engage on land issues, supporting voluntary relocation, linking public services, providing oversight and support to construction). If land issues are likely to be a common theme throughout the project- if informal settlements are included- then there will likely need to be proactive support and targeted facilitation on these issues at all levels as a slum (which in most cases was obviously not a slum), so the targeting will need to rely on more specific information than self- identification of what a slum is. The project may also wish to consider piloting different approaches to site selection to determine the most effective approach for scaling. The project may wish to consider whether there out to be focus on economic and social activities in addition to infrastructure- to address the issue that the urban poor may be more concerned about economic and social issues than infrastructure. The project may also wish to consider piloting certain approaches to creating and implementing a more strategic/closed menu- and then scaling successful approaches. Some local governments may have non- benevolent approaches to slums and informal settlements. As much as the project should be engaged cooperatively with local government- the project will need to proactively develop a strategy for ways of working in sites with less cooperative or progressive local governments. Discussions at local and national level suggest that land issues are often some of the most complex issues to resolve and may require cooperation from central and local governments. The institutional buy in required and risks of not having that buy in should be heavily weighed. If the project pursues more complex urban upgrading as an objective but is unable to address land issues, the likelihood of success will be severely diminished. When implementing projects that are beyond the scope of communities, it is important that communities remain empowered 58

59 4 Identification of slum upgrading interventions will require spatial plans that can adequately reflect slum conditions and community priorities. It will also need to provide a clear roadmap for short, medium and long- term investments. Slum upgrading may involve sensitive issues relating to land use, relocation, and community behaviors. Sufficient time will be required to ensure that communities are effectively engaged and buying into reforms. of the project. Identify what specific types and elements of spatial planning would be most effective- reviewing the experience from the current ND to identify lessons learned. Emphasis on effective issue identification and detailed location- mapping will be a key component- and should be targeted. More focused and targeted outputs will be essential. Critically review the CSP guidelines to ensure that the outputs are fit for purpose. It may make sense to have several separate outputs rather than the current emphasis on large completed works. Community engagement in both providing inputs and engaging with the finished products should be proactively considered and strategies should be designed as part of the guidelines to improve all aspects of community engagement and ownership in a meaningful way. The spatial plan for ND may need to be coordinated more closely with local government and therefore the project may need to build in capacity building efforts for local governments to be an effective and engaged partner. Critically review the role and the skills required for the Urban Planner. Consider the option of integrating a team (across locations) that provides technical assistance to support ND urban planners. The project time- line will likely need to be revisited so as to encourage processes that may be more time consuming. ND will need to review its facilitation support structure to ensure that facilitators have the skills and the incentives to effectively engage communities in longer- term processes. This is particularly important when processes may require sensitive hands- on facilitation for long periods of time. and are not simply used as tools to implement local government projects. This will need to be a careful balance. Traditionally planning for slum upgrading can be exceptionally time consuming and costly- it will be a challenge for this project to identify the right level of planning required to achieve its aims. There has been genuinely mixed results in terms of community facilitation- particularly on challenging issues. This may require more than simply upskilling the facilitators but may require a rethinking about how the project engages with communities over time and what additional local structures (NGOs) can be integrated. 59

60 In addition, ND may need to reevaluate the BKM and various committees that operate under ND to identify ways in which to facilitate greater community engagement and involvement- particularly of the poor (noting that the BKM members and active participants often do not appear to have strong regard for or ability to engage with the poor). Shifting this mindset may require innovative strategies. Community mobilization around issues like waste management may be a useful entry point to engage community participation in activities besides infrastructure. The project should review best practice in this area. 6. Conclusion As the first ever Rapid Appraisal of ND/PAPG, this paper has taken on a large scope of work aiming to provide the World Bank and the Government of Indonesia with a rapid but in- depth analysis of an ambitious pilot project that has scaled quickly and widely. As a pilot, the ND project has prided itself on its ability to learn and adapt- and the findings suggest that the main project elements are functioning adequately and have potential to scale. It is hoped that the findings and recommendations within this report will aid in the constructive process of refining and strengthening the project. The ambitions of the project- to design and implement the world s largest community driven slum- upgrading project- are challenging and highlight the need to learn, innovate to improve during implementation. While the project aims for a boutique approach at scale it is a difficult product to deliver in a country as diverse and complex as Indonesia. In practice, future rounds of the ND project have the opportunity to build on best practices to help define what mix of investments (infrastructure, economic, social) can generate the greatest impact for the urban poor and can most empower communities to remain proactive in shaping their neighborhoods. There is also potential to link the project and the lessons learned from ND with the Government of Indonesia s own long term National Urban Policy and Strategy (KSPN) and to find ways to ensure that slum upgrading continues apace with efforts to improve the competitiveness of Indonesian cities. It is expected that this Rapid Appraisal of ND/PAPG will be replicated annually to provide the project team with critical and current analysis of the project, so as to capture and share the learning and to help guide improvements in implementation. 60

61 LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1: SITE SUMMARIES FOR ND RAPID APPRAISAL STUDY A. KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO B. KOTA BANJARMASIN C. KOTA MATARAM D. KOTA MAKASSAR E. KOTA KENDARI F. KOTA PEKALONGAN ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY, LIST OF DOCUMENTS, NATIONAL LEVEL KEY INFORMANTS ANNEX 3: ND/ PAPG RAPID APPRAISAL STUDY METHODOLOGY 61

62 ANNEX 1: SITE SUMMARIES FOR ND RAPID APPRAISAL STUDY A. KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO Section 1: Map of Kabupaten Sukoharjo Figure 1. Location of ND Sites for the Study in Kabupaten Sukoharjo Section 2: List of Key Informant Interviews and the Number of Respondents Text Box 1 List of Key Informant Interviews Role of Key Informant Number A. Province and Kota/ Kabupaten Level 1. Provincial Satker, Tim Teknis, Pokja PAKET & PAKEM City Coordinator Team, KMW, Facilitators - 3. Urban Planner and Social Marketer B. Kelurahan Level 2 1. Lurah BKM, TIPP, TP, TPP, KSM, Heads of RT/ RW 4 3. Beneficiaries Total Number of Respondents

63 Section 3: Summary of Overall Location Sukoharjo is a small city in Central Java with a population of 824,238 (BPS, 2010) about 1 hour drive from Solo. The area is not very dense and offers a mix of agricultural, commercial and residential land use. Section 4: Desa Klumprit Data 4.1 Narrative Summary of Desa Klumprit Klumprit is a semi- urban area with a considerable amount of agricultural land. As a whole, the kelurahan appears to have adequate infrastructure and the houses seem to be of decent quality. Some of the poorer homes are characterized by bamboo walls. The neighborhoods appear to be quite mixed with wealthy homes and poor homes on the same street. While the poverty rate is relatively high (56%) this likely reflects the agrarian profile of the area. Some mention that youth unemployment may be an issue. The drainage had been built largely by PNPM. 4.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered poor with particular weakness in major parts of the contents which are not plans, but they are normative ways on how things should work or just some recommended actions. The real needs of the poor are not identified, and thus the plans were directed more to what people were dreaming of, not based on the real needs of the poor. As the strength, this CSP has special section on features related to agriculture, including irrigation and livestock. Figure 2. The site for Sports Facility including the small drainage built through ND in Desa Klumprit b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 3 Priority Area as follows: Priority 1 - is described as a village- owned land which includes 2 hectares of farming land and field in Dusun Premban. The main proposed improvements are to build and manage this land as an integrated area which supports farming, education, sport and recreation activities. The management of this area is expected to generate multiplier effect for the poor to increase their income, to get opportunities to do sport, recreation and to obtain education. Priority 2 - is described as a village- owned land in Dusun Dondong, which is located next to an inter- kabupaten road. It is also located nearby a well- known Arabic graveyard for a particular Moslem community in Solo City. The proposed improvement is to build a Rest Area and a show room of local home industry 63

64 products. Praying room and cafeteria will be provided. The management of this area will be an opportunity for the poor to increase their income through parking fees, operation and management, and culinary activities. Priority 3 is described as 7 springs by the Cabak River called Sendang Pitu which is potential to be developed as an outbound recreation area. As an outbound track, this area will provide learning about spring, farming, river, rice mill, village life, and various potentials of Desa Klumprit. The development of this area can involve the poor in its management and it provides an opportunity to do trading along the outbound track. c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected Priority area 1 and 2, with the following rationale: both are good village potentials to be developed. Both locations are strategic and accessible from the main road (Regency- level road which connects Solo and Karanganyar). This area improvement is expected to generate direct economic impact which can be used for poverty alleviation in Desa Klumprit. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows (all ND and Non- ND main activities from the Detailed CSP): Agriculture, Sports and Recreation (1) Whole priority area management, which includes gate, road improvement and street furniture, greening, drainage, waste management, setting up the village hall as information center (2) Integrated agriculture management, which includes setting up management office, road construction, development of integrated agriculture, development of integrated fisheries, development of integrated livestock, biogas, fertilizer, culinary facilities, green house for research activity, other agricultural facilities and equipments. (3) Education, sport and recreation, which includes sports field construction, educational park and all supporting equipments. Rest Area (1) Whole priority area management, which includes gate, parking management near Islamic graveyard, greening, drainage and waste management. (2) Rest Area and Culinary tour, which includes parking, pedestrian, stalls, advertisement, lightings management. (3) Showroom, which includes parking, pedestrian, kiosks, advertisement etc. 4.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): 64

65 No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 Drainage 28,253,000 Complete 2 Jogging Track 38,907,000 In progress (construction) 3 Paving 61,964,000 Preparation 4 Sports field 78,717,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement 5 Drainage improvement 9,670,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement 6 Education facility 126,571,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement 7 Benches 29,551,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement 8 Paddy- fertilizing Building and Green House 326,367,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement Total 700,000,000 Table 1. The final approved investments supported by ND in Desa Klumprit 4.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Drainage at the site for sport facilities- The main investment is a sports field to be built behind the local government office. So far the drainage has been implemented and will be followed by a jogging track and various beautification elements. (Individuals living near the site were unaware of the project, but a nearby school was familiar with the project and appears to have been involved in the planning.) b. Site 2: House renovation (PAPG Site)- As part of the PAPG program a number of homes were being renovated- the cost sharing between local government and PNPM appeared to be by individual house- in that half of the 25 upgraded houses were supported by PNPM and the remaining by the local government. Beneficiaries were also required to provide cash contribution. The upgrading appeared to be extensive- and for 9million IDR they seemed to be building concrete houses (which seemed remarkably inexpensive). c. Freshwater Springs Revitalization (ND plan but not BLM)- Near the sports field there are a number of abandoned springs that the community would like to revitalize as a tourist site. Not funded by ND but channeling sought. d. Agrotourism/ Rest Area (ND plan but not BLM)- Another proposed activity to attract tourism and investors. The idea is to convert a municipal building near the highway into a rest area where local agricultural products could be displayed as part of an agro- tourism scheme. 4.5 Summary of the Sites Klumprit appeared to be a site where the community opted to use the BLM for a public good and identified a priority area based on where public land was available. In general it would not be described in any way as a slum and the ND project clearly offered an opportunity for the community to pursue aspirational goals. Section 5: Desa Blimbing Data 5.1 Narrative Summary of Desa Blimbing Blimbing was described by its own residents as being an average kelurahan with few distinguishing features and no particular economic potential (apparently nearby areas have rattan industries). It did however appear to have the highest number of educated people, as many residents worked as teachers in Solo. 65

66 5.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered good, with particular strengths in (1) providing informative maps and pictures on existing condition, problems, causes and action plan of each RW which would be helpful for users to imagine the situation of the village, (2) providing the determination in choosing priority area and SWOT analysis on the priority area plan. Figure 3. 3D Model of Desa Blimbing (left) and the site for flood retention wall (right) b. In the CSP, the selected priority area is already discussed. The location was then divided into four Priority Areas as follows: Priority A - is described as Dukuh Tempel, which includes a market area and village activity along the kecamatan- level road. The main proposed improvement is market renovation and provision of new stalls. Priority B - is described as Dukuh Blimbing, which includes area around kecamatan- level road which also includes institutional, trading and services and home industry activities. Priority C - is described as the whole area of Dukuh Bedodo, which includes riverbank area, settlement area, and center of home industry. The main proposed improvements are flood prevention activities and road improvement for farming activities. Priority D - is described as Dukuh Karang Ijo, in the area around the kecamatan- level road which includes trading and services activities, household industries and farming area for irrigation improvement. c. In the detailed CSP, it is mentioned that the community selected Dusun Bedodo and Desa Blimbing Market as the priority area, since flooding often occur in this area. The flooding disrupts the trading activity in the main road of the village, and market as the main source of income from trading sector should be well- managed. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows (all ND and Non- ND main activities from the Detailed CSP): Flood prevention (e.g. river normalization, retaining wall, and other related infrastructure), greening, pig stall improvement with its waste management, bridge rehabilitation, drainage, and garbage segregation in Dusun Bedodo area. 66

67 Tanjung Rejo Market physical infrastructure improvement, parking area, providing more stalls, and market waste segregation facility, greening, street lightings, and drainage. Temporary disposal site and waste management of Desa Blimbing, which includes road construction towards the temporary disposal site, temporary disposal site facility, greening and street lightings, waste management equipments, and trainings on management and organic fertilizer- making. 5.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): No Activity Amount from Status BLM 1 Flood Retaining Wall 214,720,000 In progress (construction) and waiting for the next BLM disbursement 2 Temporary waste disposal site 217,700,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement and waste management facilities 3 Village market management 267,580,000 Waiting for BLM disbursement Total 700,000,000 Table 2. The final approved investments supported by ND in Desa Blimbing 5.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Flood retaining wall - A river running through the central business/residential area is particularly prone to flooding and is a major issue for the community. A retaining wall is being built to reduce flooding. Apparently the site falls between the cracks in terms of local government authority- and so has not been addressed by local government. Currently at the design stage and being overseen by a BKM member who is also an engineer. Some questions on quality and oversight. b. Site 2: Site to build road that connects a future waste management facility: This appeared to be a plan to build a feeder road to the proposed future site of a kecamatan level waste facility site. Unclear what the community advantage is in building this. c. Site 3: Market In the business district (across from the lurah s office) there is a small market that they plan to improve through the BLM by cleaning it up and putting an overhead area for certain vendors. One storefront in the market appears to have never heard of the renovation plan. 5.5 Summary of the Site This site seemed quite straightforward in that flooding was clearly the most pressing issue and so the largest investment addresses this issue. However, there are questions as to whether the quality of the proposed retaining wall will be sufficient to serve as a long term solution to the issue of flooding. In addition, the activities proposed in the market and the road did not appear to have been widely deliberated. 67

68 B. KOTA BANJARMASIN Section 1: Map of Kota Banjarmasin Figure 4. Location of ND Site for the study in Kota Banjarmasin Section 2: List of Key Informant Interviews and the Number of Respondents Text Box 2 List of Key Informant Interviews Role of Key Informant Number A. Province and Kota/ Kabupaten Level 1. Provincial Satker, Tim Teknis, Pokja PAKET & PAKEM City Coordinator Team, KMW, Facilitators 2 3. Urban Planner and Social Marketer B. Kelurahan Level 2 1. Lurah BKM, TIPP, TP, TPP, KSM, Heads of RT/ RW 1 3. Beneficiaries Total Number of Respondents 51 68

69 Section 3: Summary of Overall Location Banjarmasin is a large urban center (population: 625,481, BPS 2010) that relies heavily on the extractive industries (mining, logging, coal). The waterways in the city are a defining feature of the city- and of the slums. Riverbanks are generally taken over with poor quality housing on stilts- some of which are likely illegal. The waterways appear to be both for waste and washing, and are generally slow moving and contain significant amounts of garbage. There are clearly efforts underway to reclaim the riverbank and this is a priority issue for the LG. Section 4: Kelurahan Pasar Lama 4.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Pasar Lama Pasar Lama is a dense urban area, with a large section of riverbank and an old traditional market (Pasar Lama (Zone A). Housing stock is generally poor. It is an area of mixed houses and vendors, most being mixed usage and generally suggesting low- income residents. Although the market (Zone A) was the original priority area, the community shifted to Arab Neighborhood (Zone B) because the local government wanted to discourage the BKM from making improvements to the market. Kampung Arab is a riverbank area with a predominantly Arab community (a longstanding, homogenous community). It is a generally impoverished area (1 public toilet/ 20 families, open slaughtering, waste) with significant opportunities for upgrading. 4.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered good with particular strengths in (1) comprehensive and quite informative in terms of providing information on existing condition from various aspects, without forgetting the final prioritization of neighborhood development at the most slum area, (2) scoring system to choose the priority area, (3) highlights the importance of learning on the community system and tradition, such as existing community groups and gatherings, means of communication and how the women were traditionally not that involved in decision makings. It also explains the diversity of ethnicity in the kelurahan and general characteristics of the people. The weakness is that it does not offer a clear strategy of solutions to alleviate poverty in a longer term (what is clear is only to refine the riverbanks and upgrade the slum area through infrastructure which could help sanitation problems). Figure 5. 3D Model of Kelurahan Pasar Lama (left), condition of the Kampung Arab (middle), and space for playground (right) 69

70 b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 4 Priority Areas as follows: Priority A - is described as Pasar Lama Traditional Market management. The main proposed improvements are (1) road, pedestrian and drainage quality improvement, (2) kiosks management, (3) fire prevention, (4) waste management, (5) slum houses upgrading, (6) health center building, and (7) community rules between residents, becak drivers and visitors to preserve the environment. Priority B - is described as the Antasan Riverbank management in Kampung Arab (Arab Village) Area. The main proposed improvements are (1) to create green area, pedestrian, beautification and public space along the riverbank, (2) waste management, (3) preservation of historical building, (4) road improvement and drainage construction, (5), to build a gazebo for fishing (6) to create knock- down kiosks, (7) to provide ambulance garage, (8) to create public open space in residential area, (9) fire brigade post, (10) to construct a wharf, and (11) slum area upgrading in RT 29. Priority C - is described as Jalan Sulawesi road management. The main proposed improvements are to (1) road widening, (2) construction of drainage and pedestrian, (3) micro economic development and commercial area management, (4) river normalization, (5) greening and beautification, (6) waste management, and (7) guard post and mosque improvement. Priority D - is described as slum area upgrading around Ex Bioskop Merdeka area. The main proposed improvements are (1) greening and beautification, (2) waste management, (3) road, pedestrian, drainage and lighting improvement, and (4) development of open space in residential area. c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected Priority area B which includes some parts of 8 RTs in RW06 and RW04 based on the following considerations: (1) legal issue of the location, (2) economic development at kelurahan level, (3) community institution, (4) attraction of the area, (5) land which can be developed, (6) level of slum, (7) accessibility, (8) historical value. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows: Antasan Park development (on the riverbank), which includes: (1) green area, pedestrian, street lights, fences, beautification and siring, (2) garbage bins, (3) drainage construction, (4) to build a community gazebo (6) to create knock- down kiosks, (7) to provide ambulance garage, (8) safety guard post, (9) community gates, and (10) wharf as a recreation facility. Neighborhood improvement in RT 29 and RT 12, which includes: (1) road improvement, (2) drainage construction, (3) greening, (4) playground, (5) livestock waste management, (6) gate, (7) garbage bin and carts and cleaning equipments, (8) street lights, and (9) siring. 4.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): 70

71 No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 Kampung Arab gate, guard post, - Taken over by government street lights 2 Playground 76,419,000 In progress (construction) 3 Garbage cans, composter and 23,850,000 In progress (construction) waste management training 4 Street and drainage 80,000,000 In progress (construction) improvement 5 Beautification (façade) and community gate 35,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in Livestock waste management 80,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in Slaughtering house and supporting infrastructure 145,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in 2012 around it (siring and bridge) 8 Pathway in Gang Farouq 40,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in Public toilet in Gang Ikhlas 60,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in Bridge construction in Gang Ibu 25,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, 11 Greening and providing garbage cans in priority area (in several points) 12 Street and drainage will be implemented in ,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in ,000,000 DED and Budget Plan in Progress, will be implemented in 2012 improvement Total 705,269,000 Table 3. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Pasar Lama 4.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Kampung Arab, which includes playground, site for the future slaughtering house and animal waste management, and pathway upgrading. In many ways this site offers a good example for where the impact of ND could be felt- the area is relatively compact, clearly a slum and has a largely cohesive community. The houses and settlement are in generally poor condition over the river with an open toilet and a slaughterhouse that spills waste directly into the river. ND investments will make some improvements but one of the challenges has been to find things that can be community implemented and that have not already been done/ prioritized by PNPM Regular. The slaughterhouse appears to be a renovation of an individual slaughterhouse and the playground is being built on private land (donated for a period by a wealthier resident). b. Site 2: Pasar Lama market. The traditional market was the original priority area as it is in need of upgrading (paving, cleaning, and drainage). However because of the complexity of land issues (many of the market vendors are not recognized and many of the houses on the waterfront may or may not be destined to be removed by the local government)- the BKM was advise to not prioritize this area. c. Site 3: (PAPG) Waste Crusher: This was a PAPG project in collaboration with the department of waste management. In fact it appears to be an agricultural mulcher than can be used to create compost out of agricultural waste. Two of the units are housed at the residence of a relatively middle class community member who lends the machine to other farmers as required. Not clear what the community/poverty impact is. 71

72 4.5 Summary of the Site There is only one ND site in Banjarmasin and it is performing moderately well- with a strong urban planner and a good facilitation team. In addition, the local government is interested in the ND approach and has expressed interest in replication of the model to address slum areas within the kota. However, in locations as dense and complex as Banjarmasin the project may find- as in Kampung Arab- that the number of easily implemented community infrastructure is limited and that genuine upgrading may require a more advanced approach to project design and implementation. 72

73 C. KOTA MATARAM Section 1: Map of Kota Mataram Figure 6. Location of ND Sites for the Study in Kota Mataram Section 2: List of Key Informant Interviews and the Number of Respondents Text Box 3 List of Key Informant Interviews Role of Key Informant Number A. Province and Kota/ Kabupaten Level 1. Provincial Satker, Tim Teknis, Pokja PAKET & PAKEM City Coordinator Team, KMW, Facilitators 4 3. Urban Planner and Social Marketer B. Kelurahan Level 2 1. Lurah BKM, TIPP, TP, TPP, KSM, Heads of RT/ RW 4 3. Beneficiaries Total Number of Respondents 55 73

74 Section 3: Summary of Overall Location Mataram is the largest city in Lombok with 402,843 inhabitants (BPS, 2010). It is a relatively well- planned city that is relatively dense with a central business district and residential areas mixed throughout. The city appears to be divided into a new area (with the central business area and municipal buildings), an older area (near the old port), and a beachfront that is home to relatively poor fishing communities. Section 4: Kelurahan Cakranegara Selatan Data 4.1 Narrative summary of Kelurahan Cakranegara Selatan Kelurahan Cakranegara Selatan appears to be primarily residential with a concentration of home industry in Krupuk production. The area appears to quite dense with residential housing in small compounds. The home industry appears to vary in scale from large operations (taking up a whole property and sold in store fronts) to much smaller operations (operating from a residential kitchen and sold on the street) 4.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered poor with particular strengths in the use of a scoring system used for choosing the priority area. The weakness is that the CSP and detail CSP consist of too many theories and much duplication (e.g. the map of flood risk is shown three times in the identification, planning at the CSP and detail CSP with the same information). Figure 7. Housing improvement complex in Cakranegara Selatan b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 4 Priority Zones as follows: Priority Zone A - is described as home industry area, which includes Seganteng Karang Subagan, Seganteng Gubuk Pande, Seganteng Karang Gebang, and Seganteng Karang Bangket (names of lingkungan/ part of sub district). The produce of the home industries are krupuk or crackers, snacks and chicken livestock. Since flooding often occur in this area, the main proposed improvements are normalization and rehabilitation of primary drainage Priority Zone B - is described as residential area, which includes the whole lingkungans (10 lingkungans). Priority Zone C is described as trading and services area, which includes Karang Kecicang, Karang Kelebut, Karang Batuaya, Karang Deha, and Karang Tangkeban along the Brawijaya Road. 74

75 Priority Zone D is described as education area, which includes Seganteng Karang Bangket. c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected Priority Zone A based on the following considerations: (1) flood prone area, (2) some houses are built on drainages which may affect the flow of the water, (3) sedimentation due to liquid and solid waste in the primary drainage, and (4) existence of home industries as economic potentials. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows (all ND and Non- ND main activities from the Detailed CSP): Settlement area improvement, including slum houses renovation, greening and beautification in the house units and along the neighborhood street. Krupuk village development, including setting up non permanent stalls for Krupuk and other Lombok snacks, beautification and greening, road and drainage improvement, and capacity building for krupuk home industry actors. Education area development, including provision of school books and Islamic books in the library, and training for youths. Flood prevention, including socialization on the impact of building a settlement on drainage, education on flood disaster, environment preservation, and greening along drainages. 4.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 House improvement 120,000,000 Complete 2 Toilet 27,000,000 Complete 3 Pavement 26,218,000 Complete 4 Street lights 4,550,000 Complete 5 Road 72,848,700 Complete 6 Drainage 10,539,800 Complete 7 Retention wall 5,240,000 Complete 8 SPAL/ waste water management facility 13,303,500 Complete 9 Drainage rehabilitation 26,700,000 In Progress 10 House improvement 102,000,000 In Progress 11 Pavement 75,000,000 In Progress 12 Retention wall 12,500,000 In Progress 13 Alley improvement (e.g. Kerupuk Village Sign) 45,817,000 In Progress 14 Lapak 40,500,000 In Progress 15 PDAM/ Clean water facility 15,000,000 In Progress 16 Street lights 26,250,000 In Progress 17 Well 13,500,000 In Progress 18 Buis Beton 10,450,000 In Progress 19 SPAL/ waste water management facility 11,583,000 In Progress 20 Communal toilet 35,000,000 In Progress 21 3R waste management 6,000,000 In Progress Total 700,000,000 Table 4. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Cakranegara Selatan 75

76 4.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Settlement upgrading: Road reconstruction, drainage, house renovation, public toilet, and waste management facility (SPAL), retention wall, and paving. The approach to upgrading appears to be through a small package of services that includes paving, public toilets, drainage and home improvement. Each package (there were 2) appeared to benefit up to 6 houses. Although it appeared that a less poor area had been prioritized and was to be followed by a poorer area. In addition, discussions with beneficiaries suggested that the selection process appeared to be centralized with the head of RT and the beneficiaries seem to not have been actively involved in the whole process. b. Site 2: Drainage site. Flooding is a priority issue for the community and the primary challenge appears to be a central canal running through the sub district. This was originally prioritized but then the local government said they would take up the task (so it is now considered to have been channeled ). An interesting observation was that although the main issue was the main canal, the secondary drains were in a terrible state and appeared to be where the community was actively throwing their garbage. c. Site 2: Krupuk home industry. The BKM and facilitator had indicated that the vision for the sub district was the development of a Krupuk Village to build on and support the home industry. However, neither in the CSP nor in the implemented activities did there appear to be any evidence of what that would entail. 4.5 Summary of the Site Overall, the settlement upgrading in Cakranegara Selatan appears to be positive. However, there does not appear to be any strategic vision or catalytic element to the support provided. Section 5: Kelurahan Pagutan Data 5.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Pagutan The area of Pagutan is similar to Cakranegara Selatan and is a largely residential area around a canal/river. The houses are in small neighborhood complexes. There is a walking path along the canal with a number of poor quality houses alongside it. The canal/river is in poor condition with a fair amount of garbage. It is a mixed Muslim and Hindu area with some of the Hindu communities raising pigs. 5.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered fair with particular strengths in the availability of special section on flood and fire disaster mitigation. The weakness is that it is not so informative in providing spatial information. 76

77 Figure 8. 3D Model of Kelurahan Pagutan (left) and a site for pig stalls in the neighborhood (right) b. From the CSP, there was no particular alternative of areas to be the priority areas, but there was a discussion on the zones which should be developed in the future: Pearl shop complex management Conservation area management, which includes spring and river Buildings and environment management Green space, which includes soccer field, graveyard, and green space in residential area c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected Priority Area: Lingkungan Presak Timur (RT 4, RT 5, RT 6, RT 7) Lingkungan Gulinten (RT 1 & RT 2) Lingkungan Karang Genteng (RT 1 & RT 2) with the following rationale: (1) has potential, (2) can provide employment, (3) can generate kelurahan economy at small and micro- level business, (4) maximum area 60 ha (3) can be covered by ND budget d. The main Priority Activities for the Priority Area are as follows: Blok I (Kampung Sraya settlement area): Street pavement, house rehabilitation, drainage, communal waste water facility for households Blok II (Improving Accessibility): Paving block, drainage, street furniture Blok III (Unus River Management): (1) Installation of communal waste water facility in pig stalls, (2) greening as buffer or filter of air pollution from the pig stalls, (3) sediment dredging and waste picking from the river, (4) public open space on the riverbank (paving block, drainage, street furniture). Blok Bung Karno Street Corridor as a supporting area for pearl shopping center: (1) public space (building for commercial and residential function, and green space), (2) greening (3) street furniture. 5.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): 77

78 No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 Retention wall 44,700, Complete 2 IPAL/ waste water management - Biogas 17,500, Complete 3 Communal pig stall 7,000,000 Complete 4 House improvement 65,000,000 Complete 5 Pavement 24,377,000 Complete 6 Communal toilet 70,000,000 Complete 7 PDAM Clean water connection 30,000,000 In Progress (30% disbursement) 8 Biopore 10,000,000 In Progress (30% disbursement) 9 Herbal plants 7,500,000 In Progress (30% disbursement) 10 Pavement 137,923,000 In Progress 11 Communal toilet 75,000,000 In Progress 12 Clean water management 20,000,000 In Progress 13 Waste water management facility 6,000,000 In Progress 14 RTLH 70,000,000 In Progress 15 Composter & 3R Waste management 115,000,000 In Progress 16 Retention wall 44,700, Complete Total 700,000,000 Table 5. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Pagutan 5.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Communal pig stalls, pig waste management facility/ biogas: This activity was being implemented in collaboration with Hivos (a Dutch NGO) that has contributed a portion of the technology and helped with the project design. Essentially the project has created communal pig stalls that also convert pig waste into biogas. This appears to be a very small operation benefiting a few Hindu households. b. Site 2: Settlement Upgrading: public toilet, house renovation, and pavement: Similar to Cakra Selatan the approach to upgrading has taken a package approach with a number of houses within a residential compound selected for home improvement. Apparently each home received 5million IDR worth of materials and then they are expected to raise additional funds. These matching funds varied widely- in some cases the houses are quite poor and can only raise a small bit whereas in other cases we saw that the houses were able to raise up to 20 million IDR (which begs the question as to why they were selected as beneficiaries in the first place). All the renovated houses are painted green. In discussion with beneficiaries and neighbors it appears that the selection process is not very transparent nor is the process of disseminating the materials (i.e. no receipt is signed or agreement on the expectation of materials to be received). In addition, the section along the canal has been paved to create a public area and to create a sense of community. 5.5 Summary of the Site This appeared to be a case of basic settlement upgrading within a neighborhood of a sub district. Most of the activities are small scale and similar to PNPM Regular. The priority neighborhood is within walking distance of the lurah s office (although surprisingly, the social marketing consultant who accompanied the consultant team had never visited the sites). 78

79 D. KOTA MAKASSAR Section 1: Map of Kota Makassar Figure 9. Location of ND Sites for the study in Makassar Section 2: List of Key Informant Interviews and the Number of Respondents Text Box 4 List of Key Informant Interviews Role of Key Informant Number A. Province and Kota/ Kabupaten Level 1. Provincial Satker, Tim Teknis, Pokja PAKET & PAKEM City Coordinator Team, KMW, Facilitators 4 3. Urban Planner and Social Marketer B. Kelurahan Level 2 1. Lurah (and staff) BKM, TIPP, TP, TPP, KSM, Heads of RT/ RW 2 3. Beneficiaries Total Number of Respondents 51 79

80 Section 3: Summary of Overall Location Makassar is the largest city in Sulawesi with 1,338,663 inhabitants (BPS, 2010). It is a complex dense city along an extended waterfront. Poverty appears to be dispersed throughout the city with the most vulnerable communities living on or near water sources that have been partially or completely reclaimed. There appear to have been some issues in the process of site selection for ND in Makassar- in that (i) the city has not had PAPG and (ii) the BKM/ kelurahan that were selected were not in fact amongst the best performers. In addition there appears to have been some communication challenges between the Korkot team and the government resulting in there not being a Tim Teknis in place until well into the project implementation (September 2011). Section 4: Kelurahan Karuwisi Data 4.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Karuwisi Karuwisi is a Kelurahan with a relatively high poverty rate- over 60% within the center of Makassar. The BKM is comprised of mostly women. The Priority Area selected includes a traditional market (in need of upgrading), a canal (with relatively poor quality housing alongside the canal) and mixed income housing. According to the community, poorer residents live throughout the kelurahan and are not concentrated in any one area. This was an interesting site in that the community had identified the market as a potential focus area for ND but then decided against it because of the potential complexity of land issues. They did however spend considerable time mapping out plans for vertical housing 19 as a long- term aspirational plan. 4.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered fair, with particular strengths in the (1) explanation on the formal/ informal organizations (e.g. activities of youth groups, community groups, religious groups in each RW, the frequency of the meeting, whether or not they have membership fee, and the number of members based on gender, and the proposed improvement for each organization) which exists in the community, with its problem analyses and countermeasures. The organizations are considered to be important to organize future development of Karuwisi, (2) information on land status is presented (certificate or without certificate, government status or non government status), and (3) the scoring system on how to select the priority area. The weakness is that the CSP includes too many planning theories and standards, instead of the plan itself. 19 Makassar has a history of experimentation with vertical housing. The consultant team went to visit one site (not ND or PNPM) that was built beside a slum alongside a reclaimed water area. The sites have generally been considered unsuccessful with half of the units occupied- mostly by residents who rent from the individuals who were awarded the right to live in the housing through a lottery system. The other units remain empty (after several years). The surrounding slum remains in poor condition. 80

81 Figure 10. Canal condition in Karuwisi (left) and neighborhood situation with pavement from ND (right) b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 7 Priority Areas as follows, with the main proposed improvements indicated: Priority A - RW 3 Perdamaian Street: revitalization of slum area, home industry development, and sanitation improvement. Priority B - RW 6: Road improvement and greening. Priority C - RW 8, Keamanan Street: slum market area revitalization, public transportation infrastructure improvement, waste management. Priority D - RW 2: canal improvement, communal septic tank, and beautification. Priority E RW 9: drainage Priority F RW 1: greening Priority G RW 4, Haeruddin Hasan Street: public space and road improvement. c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected priority area which includes 3 RW (RW 3, part of RW 4 dan part of RW 2) with the following rationale: (1) urgency, (2) local resources potential, (3) disaster potential, (4) easiness of implementation (land status, technical construction), (5) number of poor, (6) benefit for communities, (7) local government support potential. This corresponds to Priority Area A, D, and G. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows: Drainage and road improvement Vertical housing program Community activity hall Bridge Greening and beautification House improvement Urban farming program Canal normalization Communal septic tank Waste can and cart Hydrant Waste management training Healthy house training for communities Socialization of greening Training for home industry Enterprise management and marketing Capital support 81

82 4.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): No Activity Amount from BLM Status* ) 1 Building community hall in RW 2 122,911,000 In progress (Proposal making) 2 Pavement in Perdamaian Street 139,159,900 In progress (Proposal making) 3 Pedestrian construction in 128,342,000 Complete Drs. Haeruddin Hasan Street Total 390,412,900 * ) The allocation of the rest of the amount from BLM is now being considered by the community. Table 6. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Karuwisi 4.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Settlement Upgrading: paving, plat decker, drainage in the neighborhood, near the market: This was a selection of upgrading near a market area but not directly in the market area. Some infrastructure (plat decker) apparently to prevent flooding in the residential area and some scattered drainage improvement- although the market appeared to require significant improvement. b. Site 2: Community Hall (site): This was simply a piece of land where the intention is to build a two storey community hall. The site is in front of a residential property but apparently the owner had been informed and consented. The vision for the Hall appears to be unclear except that it will house the BKM office and serve the needs of the community. c. Site 3: Vertical Housing (site): The area along the canal was identified as a site for possible vertical housing. This is an aspirational project that appears to be the pet idea of a few members of the BKM and community and is part of a longer term vision for the kelurahan. Some residents in the area appear to have been consulted and expressed enthusiasm for the opportunity to live in vertical housing. 4.5 Summary of the Site This site represents an example of settlement upgrading that appears to be somewhat scattered throughout a neighborhood without an apparent focus on the urban poor. Much of the visit was spent discussing the reasons why the market improvements were nor pursued (or even mapped) while the aspirational vertical housing was deliberated and planned to some detail. Section 5: Kelurahan Sinrijala Data 5.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Sinrijala Sinrijala is a kelurahan along a canal on land that had been reclaimed since the 1970s. The neighborhood runs along a canal (which is poorly managed and full of waste) that is a source of flooding - a primary issue for the community. The area is mixed- with many houses along the canal in poor quality and rented (not owned) by inhabitants. Within the last year, the community had suffered a landslide and several houses fell into the canal (the remaining houses appear to have since been removed as well). There have been some challenges with the BKM and as a result- the ND project has had a late start. Unlike other 82

83 sites, the BKM in Sinrijala has not selected a single priority area but will be driving the ND BLM throughout the RT/RW as required. 5.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered poor with particular weakness in too many theories in the CSP on building management and its infrastructure which sounds very 'architectural' occupied almost 20 pages in the CSP, and it is repeated in the Detailed CSP. Figure 11. 3D Model of Kelurahan Sinrijala (left) and priority canal in Sinrijala (right) b. From the CSP, the kelurahan is divided into 5 zones, 1 zone for each RW. c. In the detailed CSP, there is no priority area selected. The investments are all distributed throughout the 5 zones. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows (all ND and Non- ND main activities from the Detailed CSP): Improvement or rehabilitation of: poor quality houses, pathway & drainage, street & drainage, plat decker, public toilet, clean water infrastructure, canal normalization, posyandu, mangrove vegetation, playground Provision of: canal, playground, pedestrian, widening the main road, souvenir kiosk, local and esthetical vegetation, signage, street furniture. 5.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are still being discussed. 5.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Site for bridge and the canal: A bridge is being planned over the canal beside a current existing bridge in front of the Lurah s office. Both bridges are for motorcycles and pedestrians. It was unclear why two bridges in the same location are required. b. Site 2: PNPM Regular s pavement and drainage constructed by PU. The consultants also visited a site where the PU had recently completed some drainage- without consulting 83

84 the community. As a result, they did not provide the community with access to open the drains, and therefore the community had to annually destroy the drain covers to gain access. 5.5 Summary of the Site Sinrijala appears to be an example of incremental settlement upgrading in the fashion of PNPM Regular. They have also appeared to be successful in channeling some activities- namely some greening that may be implemented with local government resources. This appears to be a location that has had significant challenges but is progressing to the best of its ability. 84

85 E. KOTA KENDARI Section 1: Map of Kota Kendari and Kelurahan for the Study Figure 12. Location of ND Sites for the study in Kota Kendari Section 2: List of Key Informant Interviews and the Number of Respondents Text Box 5 List of Key Informant Interviews Role of Key Informant A. Province and Kota/ Kabupaten Level 1. Provincial Satker, Tim Teknis, Pokja PAKET & PAKEM 2. City Coordinator Team, KMW, Facilitators 3. Urban Planner and Social Marketer (unable to meet the Urban Planner of Watulondo) B. Kelurahan Level 1. Lurah 2. BKM, TIPP, TP, TPP, KSM, Heads of RT/ RW 3. Beneficiaries Number Total Number of Respondents 32 85

86 Section 3: Summary of Overall Location The City of Kendari is the provincial capital of South East Sulawesi with a population of 289,966 (BPS 2010). The city rests along a bay and consists of a dense central business district, agricultural land that is quite rural (without electricity) and residential and fishing villages along the waterfront. A visit to one of these fishing communities revealed a community with no indoor plumbing and daily tidal flooding. The city appears to be growing and there is considerable new construction around the central business district. The city links to other cities in the province primarily through ferries. Both kelurahans were part of the original 18 pilot sites for ND. As a note, the field visit occurred during a local government election season, so the city was awash with campaign posters. The incumbent mayor- up for reelection is running on a platform that is promising to build a new mosque in the bay of the city. Figure 13. Mayor s campaign poster (left) and slum community affected by daily tidal flooding (right) Section 4: Kelurahan Watulondo Data 4.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Watulondo Watulondo is a large mixed area on the outskirts of the city with agricultural, industrial and residential area and with only partial electricity in the sub district. There are a number of neighborhoods within the sub district and for some reason the BKM had selected two priority areas- Pulonggida where the emphasis is on the development of an outward bound facility (an icon investment) and Pasir Putih where the investments are largely centered on upgrading. The rationale for the two Priority Areas was difficult to discern and the consultant team believed that this may have been related to some local political issues. 4.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered fair, with particular strengths in (1) clear statements about the planning area and activities, and (2) a chapter dedicated to the organization of the program implementation and monitoring. However, this CSP includes too many theories and standards of planning and design, which might lead to confusion whether it is a standard or it is the real plan of the area. 86

87 Figure 14. Map of Pulonggida Tourism Area (left) and a normalized river in Pasir Putih Area (right) b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 5 Possible Priority Areas as follows: Priority A- is described as Recreation and Fruit Field Area, which are spread in several RWs in Watulondo. The concept of development is to increase the land function and develop short- term plants as a priority instead of long- term plants. The main proposed improvements are: (1) to apply the design concept of short- term field plantation, (2) to limit the amount of long- term plants in the field, and (3) to manage the terminal or parking lots. Priority B- is described as Dense Residential Area which leads to poverty and health issues. The main proposed improvements are: (1) slum area upgrading, (2) quality improvement of residential area, and (3) development of healthy housing model to be applied by Watulondo communities. Priority C- is described as Industrial, Trading and Services Area, which is spread throughout the kelurahan. The proposed improvements are: (1) creating employment opportunities and infrastructure for trading area, (2) increasing the quality of economy through trainings, (3) increasing participation and role of communities in the economy for Watulondo. Priority D- is described as Plantation and Farming Area, where most of the community are farmers. The farm land is utilized manually and the condition of the land is less fertile. The main proposed improvements are: (1) land fertilization, (2) education activities for farmers, (3) infrastructure and facilities for the farmers. Priority E- is described as Recreation Area (Fruit Park and Fishing Area), located in RW 05 RT 15, an abandoned land. The plan is to create economy for communities through recreation area development. The main proposed improvements are: (1) recreation area for Kota Kendari, (2) fruit plantation development, (3) fishing area development, (4) environment preservation area. c. For this location there appeared to be two detailed CSPs (which is unusual). In the first detailed CSP, the community selected Priority area which includes Pasir Putih Area (RW 06 RT 17) with the following main justifications: a frequently flooded residential area and it is not accessible by 4- wheel vehicles. In the second detailed CSP, the priority area includes Pulonggida Area, with the following rationales: high level of poverty, with high potential of plantation products (although not mentioned explicitly as the justification of selected priority area). 87

88 d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows: 1 st Detailed CSP (Pasir Putih): (1) Road improvement (2) Drainage improvement (3) Bridge (4) Public facilities, including: temporary disposal site, guard post (Poskamling), Posyandu, public toilet, well, park, sports field, lights, and gate. 2 nd Detailed CSP (Pulonggida): (1) Road corridor improvement (2) Trekking area: cycling track, trekking, pier and bridge development (3) Residential area improvement (4) Natural recreation center: natural fishing area, outbound area, and camping ground development 4.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 Canal Dredging (Pasir Putih) 20,000,000 Complete 2 Drainage, road improvement, paving block (Pasir Putih) 93,398,000 Complete 3 Fishing Area (Pulonggida) 91,457,000 Complete 4 Toilet and well (Pulonggida) 18,502,000 Complete 5 DED and Budget Plan 6,500,000 Complete 6 Camping Equipments (Pulonggida) 26,900,000 Complete 7 Organic Field Establishment (Pulonggida) 12,700,000 Complete 8 Baruga Information Center (Pulonggida) 31,550,000 Complete 9 Cycling, outbound equipments and facilities (Pulonggida) 277,093,000 Complete 10 Gazebo, praying room, toilet and well in the outbound area (Pulonggida) 56,550,000 Complete 11 Toilet and gate (Pulonggida) 38,650,000 Complete 12 Posyandu and library (Pulonggida) 26,700,000 Complete Total 700,000,000 Table 7. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Watulondo 4.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1 (Pasir Putih- Settlement Upgrading): road improvement (widening and paving), bridge, canal sedimentation dredging. The Pasir Putih site was interesting in that the area did not appear to be particularly poor and the priority for the investment- namely making the village accessible to vehicles (although only one household in the village had a vehicle)- did not appear to be well articulated. b. Site 2 (Pulonggida Outward Bound Facility): Baruga information center (community center), outbound facilities, public toilet & well, posyandu & library, and rambutan field. This was an interesting example of an icon investment- the ND grant was used to build the infrastructure for an Outbound Facility replete with a zipline (flying fox), fishing pond, cycle paths (and bicycles) as well as a fruit picking area as well as public meeting spaces. The area appears to have been well thought out and the BKM received considerable assistance from a local environmental NGO (a member of which is also the 88

89 social marketing consultant). The land for the facility is private but the project has developed a land usage agreement along with profit sharing terms that split the resources between the BKM, the land- owner and the facility maintenance group. 4.5 Summary of the Site In summary, the Watulondo site offers a useful example of an icon investment that has been used strategically to generate interest from the mayor in the development of the sub district. This strategy is unique and offers one way to think about the big ideas that are encouraged by ND. If the community had purely focused on upgrading in what is a largely spread out and rural area- they would have been able to make some improvements, but by focusing on something bigger and with more potential to attract attention they have potential to create a successful tourism industry and more importantly they have been able to get the mayor to promise to provide additional services (namely electricity). That said, the success or failure of the endeavor will rely on the ability of the community to effectively manage the new facility as a business. It is too early to tell how successful this will be, but there is a considerable risk of failure. Section 5: Kelurahan Lapulu Data 5.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Lapulu Lapulu is a seaside sub district that is primarily a residential area for fisherman and those working in fish related businesses. The land directly on the bay (housing and road area) and the site of the Priority area- was in fact originally developed by the Indonesian government in the as part of the transmigration movement (providing land and livelihoods for migrants from Java). While the housing stock was originally good quality and well maintained, the quality deteriorated when the new settlers returned to Java. Subsequent settlers to the area are from Sulawesi and many are part time (seasonal) residents who rent their properties. The area has been known for fish drying- with the traditional practice of drying the fish in front of individual homes (and on the public road). 5.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered good, with particular strengths in (1) the informative maps and photographs of the existing condition and problems related to infrastructure of the area, and (2) the availability of zoning regulation, showing what can be built or what should not be built in each area, and other requirements to develop the area. The weakness is in the missing link between the real problems and the decision on which priority area and the investments to focus on. 89

90 Figure 15. 3D Model of Kelurahan Lapulu (left) and Fish- drying Racks in the Priority Area (right) b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 5 Possible Priority Development Plan as follows: Priority A- is described as social service improvement plan. The main proposed improvements include strengthening and developing institutions under kelurahan level and other community organizations, forming management groups for waste and clean water, and improvement of health facilities such as providing ambulance. Priority B- is described as micro economic activities development plan. The main proposed improvements varies across RT and RW, but mostly include (1) training to improve skills and home industries, (2) technical assistance and training on product marketing management, (3) support for equipments, (4) development of facilities and infrastructure to support the production Priority C- is described as provision of public open space in RT02 RW03 and greening along the riverbank in RT02 RW01. The main proposed improvements for RT02 RW03 include: (1) greening around the field, (2) drainage around the field, (3) developing a sports field and park, (4) jogging track, (5) playground, (6) gazebo, (7) parking area, (8) lights, and (9) public toilets. While the main proposed improvements for RT02 RW01 include: (1) greening with trees along the riverbank, (2) pathway, (3) street furniture, (4) street lights, (5) clean river. Priority D - is described as improvement of roads and drainage in different areas in the kelurahan. Priority E- is described as rehabilitation of slum settlements in RT01 RW01. The main proposed improvements include: (1) building a retention wall, (2) providing public open space, and (3) management of houses and infrastructures such as road, drainage, and green spaces. c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected the combination of Priority Development Plan B and C, which includes RT03 RW04 and some part of RT02 RW03 based on the following rationale: a slum area with fish- drying activities but good potential for economic development. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows: Relocation of Local Fish Processing Industry (moving of fish drying racks from in front of individual homes to a central location). Providing Public Open Space along the coastline in RT03 RW04, which includes improvement of the settlement area - Includes paving, drainage, and land clearing 90

91 Providing Public Green Open Space in the Puncak Area (the small island). 5.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 Retention wall improvement 69,381,000 Complete 2 Paving block 327,441,700 Complete 3 Toilet rehabilitation 4,200,000 Complete 4 Fish processing facilities 110,739,000 Complete 5 Drainage 10,994,000 Complete 6 Seats at the public spaces 26,952,400 Complete 7 Lights and electricity 28,591,500 Complete 8 Flower pots 46,429,500 Complete 9 Others (e.g. signage, fences, communal septic tank) 75,270,900 Complete Total 700,000,000 Table 8. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Lapulu 5.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the following sites during the field visit. a. Site 1: Priority Area C, Fish- processing facilities management and the surrounding settlement area. This has been primarily an effort to reclaim a public space by moving the fish drying activities from in front of people s homes to a centralized location thereby freeing up the road which has now been beautified and pedestrianized. This has required a comprehensive program of paving, beautification as well as upgrading of toilets in the area. It has also involved changing people s orientation towards the sea front with an aim to keeping the area well maintained. Appears to be a popular place for the community, although as a whole the settlement would not be considered to be very poor. b. Site 2: Slum settlements in RT01 RW01, often got inundated by the sea- water. This site visit was intended to view a location that was not prioritized but that we understood was a slum area that was in serious need of upgrading. The site was in fact one of the most challenging that we visited- with an entire community living over a body of water (on raised houses) that during 4 months of year experience daily tidal flooding. The facilitator/urban planner felt that this is an important area to rehabilitate but that improvements would be exceptionally costly and that the houses are actually mostly rental properties (owned by a few local residents who live in different neighborhoods). The potential cost and complexity encouraged the community to focus on the fish drying area instead. 5.5 Summary of the Site Interestingly, the discussion with the facilitation team here revealed that the original plan- and much of the early deliberation for the ND project- centered on the community desire to purchase some land that they wanted to use to build a mosque/community centre. This is not allowed under the ND rules, but it was the dominant preference for the area and may explain why the community opted for a public space investment over a slum upgrading investment in the end. As discussed in the main paper, the fish drying activities actually offer potential to also serve as an economic development activity- to improve the quality of 91

92 the production, expand market reach etc. But as yet, this has not been the focus of the project. However, the reclamation of the public land appears to have been well received by the community members. Maintenance remains a critical issue (as currently there is a challenge in gathering the fees to pay for the electricity for the street lights). 92

93 F. KOTA PEKALONGAN Section 1: Map of Kota Pekalongan Figure 16. Location of ND Sites for the study in Kota Pekalongan Section 2: List of Key Informant Interviews and the Number of Respondents Text Box 6 List of Key Informant Interviews Role of Key Informant Number A. Province and Kota/ Kabupaten Level 1. Mayor 1 2. Provincial Satker, Tim Teknis, Pokja PAKET & PAKEM City Coordinator Team, KMW, Facilitators 1 4. Urban Planner and Social Marketer B. Kelurahan Level C. Lurah and Heads of RT/ RW 8 D. BKM, TIPP, TP, TPP, KSM 10 E. Beneficiaries 1 Total Number of Respondents 38 93

94 Section 3: Summary of Overall Location Pekalongan is a city in Central Java with a population of 281,434 (BPS 2010). It is known for its batik industry. The overall poverty level is relatively low- less than 10%. It is perhaps known best in development circles for its forward thinking Mayor who has a genuine commitment to decentralization and has made significant progress in developing mechanisms to engage communities (using committees of BKM, LPM, PKK and youth groups) and in transferring financial resources and responsibility to the sub district level (through the Lurah). The Pekalongan Mayor has been a champion of PNPM and has used it as a development model in his city. There are 3 ND sites in Pekalongan, the consultant team visited two. Section 4: Kelurahan Podosugih Data 4.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Podosugih Podosugih is one of the 18 pilot sites for ND and has been visited several times by the World Bank team. Perhaps the most notable feature of Podosugih is the level of commitment from the BKM the head of which (who is also a DPRD member) has been active in PNPM since The area is mostly residential with good quality housing and the poverty level is around 18%. 4.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered good, with particular strengths in (1) providing a comprehensive identification of the existing condition and the plan on maps up to RW scale, and (2) identification of land status and land use. This information is important to understand the availability or complexity of land where the priority area is located. The weakness is lack of clarity in some maps since it provides too detailed information for its scale (e.g. unclear legend). Figure 17. Neighborhood condition in Podosugih (left) and the Binatur Riverwalk (right) b. From the CSP, each RW (in total 9 RWs, i.e. RW 1 to 9) has its own plan. There is no prioritized area mentioned in the CSP. The plan in each RW includes: Physical aspect (road, bridge, clean water, sanitation, electricity, river and drainage, waste, telecommunication, education facility, sport and recreation facility, health facility, religious facility, and other supporting facilities) 94

95 Non- physical aspect (improvement of economy, health, education and social- cultural aspect of the communities) c. In the detailed CSP, the community selected Priority Area along the Binatur Riverbank, which includes some parts of RW 7, RW 3, and RW 2 due to the existence of the followings: (1) slum houses and squatter along the riverbank, (2) potential for batik tourism, (3) flooding issue and poor quality of water. d. The main priority activities for the Priority Area are as follows: Street on the riverbanks Drainage Bridge across the river to connect neighborhoods Street furniture Plantation Waste water treatment facility Waste management facility 4.3 Investments using ND BLM In many cases there are changes to the priority activities after the completion of the plan. The final approved investments supported by ND are as follows (by End of February 2012): No Activity Amount from BLM Status 1 Retention wall and dredging 100,000,000 Complete 2 Pavement on the riverbank 153,306,000 Complete 3 Road improvement (RW 7) 10,538,000 Complete 4 Street lights 70,370,000 Complete 5 Bridge 50,000,000 Complete 6 House renovation on the riverbank 11,650,000 Complete 7 Gapura or community gate 11,500,000 Complete 8 Steel fence by the river 20,670,000 Complete 9 Pavement at Sikembang Area (RW 3) 150,000,000 Complete 10 Steel fence by the river at Sikembang Area 52,700, % Complete 11 Street lights at Sikembang Area 23,600, % Complete 12 Brick fence by the river at Sikembang Area (RW 2) 24,700,000 Preparing KSM 13 Road improvement (RW 2) 20,970,000 Preparing KSM Total 700,004,000 Table 9. The final approved investments supported by ND in Kelurahan Podosugih 4.4 Site Visit Summary The consultant team was able to visit the Binatur Riverwalk during the field visit, with observed infrastructures: pavement, bridge, street- lights and gates. The main investment in Podosugih is the Binatur Riverwalk which is an impressive project of reclaiming the land alongside a canal and turning it into attractive public space for the community. A major challenge and achievement was convincing residents living along the canal- who had traditionally used the canal for waste purposes as the canal section was at the back of their houses- to reorient their homes towards the canal and in some cases move their houses back from public land. The walk itself is well constructed with good paving, an ornamental bridge and street lights. There is a big question however around maintenance- as one stretch of the walk (alongside a cemetery)- has already (within 6 months) fallen into serious disrepair. Another challenge that the community is working on is trying to clean the 95

96 canal- although the source of the waste (batik waste water) is in other sub district and so requires some mobilization. 4.5 Summary of the Site This is an impressive site of community beautification and there appears to be a real sense of community pride in their ability to transform their neighborhood. In addition, the city appears to have been inspired by the project and is planning to replicate it along the canal, in other sub district. Section 5: Kelurahan Kraton Kidul Data 5.1 Narrative Summary of Kelurahan Kraton Kidul The neighborhood of Kraton Kidul is quite small and mixed with residential and commercial property. The poverty level is relatively high for the area at around 34% with the poor not concentrated in one area. This is apparently known as an entrepreneurial area with many small businesses. It also has a large partially used stadium. This area also has some land use issues with some houses (24) having been identified- during the CSP process- as being on land owned by a state- owned company. The Urban Planning Consultant/ Social Marketing Consultant had also been working with these families to help them identify their rights and resources. 5.2 Summary of Data from CSP and Detailed CSP a. The overall quality of the CSP would be considered good, with particular strengths in (1) detailed RT- level maps showing the owner of each land parcel, (2) the scoring on three alternative priority areas, based on social economy (number of poor household, level of unemployment, level of income, environmental aspect (availability of green open space), sanitation, drainage, road, and land ownership), and scoring on the prioritization of type of investments. The weakness is in the arrangement of maps and the maps are without scale, some of them are not readable. However, the planning document in Kraton Kidul has another set of Map Album which includes all the maps that one could refer to as needed without having to check on the CSP. Figure 18. Large Map of Kraton Kidul at the Sub District Office (left), Shelters for Vendors in the Culinary Institute (middle) and Greening and Pavement nearby PAPG s Nursery School (right) b. From the CSP, the location was divided into 3 Priority Areas as follows: 96