EVALUATION OF PNPM RESPEK/RURAL IMPLEMENTATION IN PAPUA AND WEST PAPUA //

Transcription

1 EVALUATION OF PNPM RESPEK/RURAL IMPLEMENTATION IN PAPUA AND WEST PAPUA //9-13

2

3 EVALUATION OF PNPM RESPEK/RURAL IMPLEMENTATION IN PAPUA AND WEST PAPUA (9-13)

4 16 The World Bank PNPM Support Facility, Jakarta, Indonesia This work is a product of the staff of the The World Bank, through the PNPM Support Facility program, with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Graphic Designer: Ardhi Yudho Photography: AKATIGA iv

5 CONTENTS CONTENTS CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 3 LOCATION AND METHODOLOGY 5 MAIN FINDINGS 9 Knowledge of PNPM/RESPEK 9 Participation in PNPM/RESPEK 11 Benefits of PNPM/RESPEK 14 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VILLAGE LAW 17 REFERENCES 19 FIGURES TABLES 57 v v

6 I. INTRODUCTION

7 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (PNPM) Mandiri Rural is the flagship rural poverty reduction program of the Government of Indonesia. Since its launch in 7, PNPM Mandiri Rural has empowered local community members to propose, design and approve of their own projects to reach their development goals. As the largest community-driven development (CDD) program in the world, PNPM Mandiri Rural has reached over 66, villages in more than 4,5 rural sub-districts in Indonesia. It has been instrumental in knowledge dissemination, deliberative decision-making, and the implementation of projects that are flexible and responsive to the needs of local communities. In Papua and West Papua, PNPM Rural has been implemented alongside Rencana Strategis Pembangunan Kampung (RESPEK), a CDD program initiated in 7 to address the two provinces most pressing development needs. Similar to PNPM Rural, RESPEK is aimed at improving the knowledge and participation of community members in the design and implementation of development projects, but differs from PNPM Rural in that it assigns a greater degree of decision-making authority to village leaders. Starting in 8, RESPEK was jointly implemented with PNPM Rural, but the two programs were separated in West Papua in 1. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of PNPM Rural and RESPEK in Papua and West Papua between 9 and 13. This evaluation focuses on three key aspects of PNPM and RESPEK: (i) community members knowledge of the programs; (ii) community members participation in the programs; and (iii) the benefits generated for community members by the programs. To assess the effectiveness of PNPM and RESPEK, this evaluation adopts a mixed-methods approach that relies on in-depth ethnographic accounts of the inner workings of the programs alongside a quantitative analysis of customized survey data. This analysis pays close attention to the context and the views of community members, while capturing overarching patterns and changes across regions and over time. 1

8 II. BACKGROUND

9 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Initiated in 7, PNPM Mandiri Rural (referred to subsequently as PNPM ) enables community members at the village and sub-district levels to propose, design and approve their own projects to reach their development goals. In contrast to large-scale top-down development programs, PNPM allows for community members to become directly involved in the decision-making process in order to address their greatest needs and suit their current context. It aims to empower communities to propose and approve projects that help to reduce poverty, enhance productivity, and are at the same time cost effective. The defining feature of PNPM s CDD approach is the use of community planning meetings at the hamlet, village and sub-district levels, to decide on projects to be undertaken, including infrastructure projects, microcredit and livelihood schemes, and the delivery of training activities, all of which are supported by an extensive facilitation network. At the village level, the main participants of PNPM/RESPEK are the village members themselves, but the program is supported by a sub-district facilitator who is responsible for guiding community members to participate in the different phases of the program, including the planning and implementation stages. There are two types of sub-district facilitator: one with a civil engineering background and one without, to help with both infrastructure-related and non-infrastructure-related projects. The implementation of PNPM projects is formally led by a Village Program Implementation Team (Tim Pelaksana Kegiatan Kampung, or TPKK) in partnership with appointed representatives from local authorities, including members of the village government, and traditional and religious leaders. The TPKK is composed of a head, a secretary and a treasurer from the village, and is supported by the sub-district facilitator, an activity operational manager, and elected village facilitators. At the sub-district level, the sub-district facilitator and activity operational manager work in partnership with an implementation team called the Tim Pelaksana Kegiatan Distrik, or TPKD, that performs a similar role as the TPKK. Once projects are agreed upon by community members in an intervillage meeting at the sub-district level, they are approved by this sub-district committee, and funds are granted to the villages for implementation. At the provincial and district levels, a provincial management coordinator and a district facilitator provide support for PNPM. Provincial management coordinators are trained professionals who offer managerial and technical support to all the program actors, while district facilitators offer guidance to program actors at the sub-district level. RESPEK was initiated by the provincial governments in response to the Special Autonomy Law for Papua (Law No. 21/1). The Special Autonomy Law was passed in 1 by the Government of Indonesia to address the need for greater decentralization and increased autonomy in lower levels of government, where relations with the central government were fraught with political, economic and social tensions that at times resulted in outbreaks of armed conflict between the government and secessionist movements. The Special Autonomy Law granted Papua a higher degree of cultural self-determination, but also allowed for the region to allocate a greater proportion of regional tax revenues (up to percent) for its economic and social development. When the province of West Papua was created in 3, it also received Special Autonomy status. Following the introduction of the Special Autonomy Law, both Papua and West Papua received a significant increase in their allocation of financial resources. However, even with this additional funding, progress remained limited due to the weak capacity of local governments and unequal access to resources. Many people living outside the main urban centers lacked reliable access to health care, education and basic infrastructure; vulnerable groups including women and children were not prioritized; civil society organizations serving in remote areas suffered from limited access to newly acquired resources; and public engagement with local governments also remained low (Sari, Rahman and Mansaf, 11). With the aim of addressing these problems, the governors of Papua and West Papua introduced RESPEK in 7. Under RESPEK, community grants of IDR million were allocated from Special Autonomy funds to each of the more than 4, villages across Papua and West Papua to finance development projects supporting education, primary health care, food security, village infrastructure and economic livelihoods. Beginning in 8, PNPM and RESPEK were implemented together in Papua and West Papua under the name, PNPM RESPEK. This merged program adopted the same inclusive planning and resource-allocation mechanisms as PNPM Rural. Block grants were provided by the provincial governments, and funds for professionally-trained facilitators and technical assistants were provided by the central government to assist in the design and implementation of community-level development projects. In 1, however, the Governor of West Papua decided to separate RESPEK from PNPM. Under this arrangement, RESPEK funds were to be managed and allocated directly by village leaders using their discretion with input from community members, while the allocation of PNPM funds would be decided through community planning meetings. Since then, PNPM and RESPEK have been implemented separately in West Papua, but have remained merged in Papua. 3

10 III. LOCATION AND METHODOLOGY

11 LOCATION AND METHODOLOGY LOCATION AND METHODOLOGY To evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, it is necessary to not only consider how they have been formulated to improve the lives of community members but also how they have been integrated within the social, political, economic and geographic conditions of these two provinces. Papua and West Papua face a unique challenge to development: both provinces encompass a rich variety of geographic conditions that include some of the most remote regions in Indonesia and feature a diverse range of ethnic and linguistic groups. Papua and West Papua feature a variety of mountainous ranges, lowlands, valleys and coastal areas, with a flat to hilly northern region, a mountainous central region, and a flat and marshy southern region. These geographic conditions have shaped the accessibility and distribution of the region s population, with some villages only accessible by small aircraft or boats, and other villages accessible only by foot. Both provinces are also deeply rooted in traditional social structures that shape the distribution of political power, and the control and allocation local resources, including land, money, labor and resources introduced through development programs (World Bank, 15). These social structures are centered on the tribe, which consists of numerous clans that have one or more families. Each village is governed by a village chief, who is typically the head of the most powerful clan in the village, and his close companions from the same clan that comprise the village elite. The village elite exert control over the resources of the village and maintain their status through close connections with higher levels of government that allow them to channel public resources for their benefit. In addition to the elites, villages are inhabited by members of less powerful clans and marginal groups, including migrants from other areas, who do not share formal access to resources in the village. Access to resources among these groups is then determined by agreements between the clan leaders. These institutions form the basis of social stratification within villages. 5

12 LOCATION AND METHODOLOGY Papua and West Papua also rank among the leastdeveloped provinces in the country: West Papua ranked 28 th and Papua ranked last among all Indonesian provinces in the Human Development Index (HDI) in 13. Both provinces exhibit low levels of education and access to health care, limited opportunities for economic advancement and widespread poverty. Thirty-seven percent of their populations live below the poverty line, despite both regions being rich in natural resources, and women remain in an especially vulnerable position with limited access to education and health care. Major challenges facing both provinces include the weak capacity of local governments, low levels of public accountability, resource-constrained civil society organizations, and a high degree of cultural and linguistic heterogeneity (World Bank, 15). To evaluate the impact of PNPM/RESPEK in Papua and West Papua, it is necessary to examine in detail three key features of the program: (i) the benefits generated for community members; (ii) knowledge of the program among community members; and (iii) the degree of participation among community members. Given the program s explicit focus on promoting flexible and deliberative decisionmaking that results in the funding of projects that address the community s greatest needs, it is essential to not only trace the benefits generated by the program but to also evaluate the program s effectiveness in raising public awareness and empowering community members to express their ideas. To achieve this goal, this evaluation adopts a mixedmethods approach that relies on a quantitative analysis of customized survey data and a rich ethnographic account of the inner-workings of PNPM/RESPEK at the village level. This pays close attention to the village context and the views of community members, while also capturing broad patterns and changes across regions and over time. The quantitative evidence is based on an analysis of survey data that records the opinions and experiences of villagers concerning PNPM/RESPEK in Papua and West Papua. These data were obtained from a module that was attached to the National Socio-Economic Survey (Susenas) implemented by the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) in 9 and 13. The survey covers 16, households in districts across both provinces, including remote and difficult-to-reach areas. The 9 survey data were collected through a two-stage sampling method. This involved selecting census blocks in the first stage using the Probability Proportion to Size (PPS) method from a master sampling frame based on the results of the 6 Economic Census, followed by the selection of 16 households from each census block using systematic random sampling. The 13 survey data were collected through a three-stage sampling method that randomly allocated Primary Sampling Units (PSU) from a master sampling frame based on the 1 Population Census to each quarter in the first stage, then selected census blocks from the PSUs during each quarter in the second stage, and finally selected 1 households using systematic random sampling from each census block in the third stage. The qualitative evidence is based on an ethnographic study conducted by AKATIGA Research Institute in villages in five districts (or kabupaten) in Papua and West Papua in 13. These districts were Yakuhimo, Dogiyai and Merauke in Papua, and Kaimana and Teluk Bintuni in West Papua. Two sub-districts (or kecamatan) were then selected from these districts, with one selected based on high accessibility and the other selected based on low accessibility, from which two villages were selected for study. These districts and sub-districts were selected in consultation with sub-district level facilitators to maximize the variation in social and geographic conditions, as well as political and cultural diversity. 6

13 LOCATION AND METHODOLOGY The ethnographic research involved the first-hand collection of data on the social, political and cultural aspects of PNPM/RESPEK at the village level from community members through group discussions, in-depth interviews, observations and case studies by research teams. Each district-level research team consisted of a coordinator and three assistants who collected data in each village over a two-week period. Group discussions were held with a wide range of groups including women s groups, marginalized groups, traditional leaders, village leaders and church leaders, and were aimed at capturing general views on participation in and the impact of PNPM/ RESPEK. Interviews were conducted with individuals from the above-mentioned groups to gain insights on how well the program was being implemented and how widely the benefits were being distributed according to these actors. Observations of the built infrastructure, including what was built, how it was built, who made the most use of it, and who owned it, and of the social structures and divisions in society were made to ascertain the beneficiaries of the program. Finally, case studies were prepared by junior researchers who accompanied the research teams to keep a record of any noteworthy events that occurred in the villages. This evaluation then turns to a statistical analysis of the impact of separating PNPM from RESPEK in West Papua. When PNPM/RESPEK was separated in West Papua in 1, this delegated a greater degree of authority to village leaders to determine how RESPEK funds would be used. In Papua, however, the two programs remained merged and were implemented together. This raises the question of whether, and to what extent, the separation of the programs impacted the knowledge, participation and benefits of community members in West Papua. By means of a difference-in-differences approach that compares the key outcomes in West Papua before and after the separation of PNPM/RESPEK with the same key outcomes in Papua where the two programs remained merged, it is possible to estimate the impact of this change on the knowledge, participation and benefits of community members. This approach treats Papua as a counterfactual scenario to West Papua in order to assess how these key outcomes would have been different if the two programs had not been separated. This evaluation first discusses the key outcomes related to PNPM/RESPEK from the survey results at the province and district levels in 9 and 13 to portray the variation in knowledge, participation and benefits across regions, and their changes over time. These results are then examined in relation to the findings of the ethnographic study to gain further insight into the underlying processes behind these outcomes and to confirm whether these broader trends are consistent with first-hand accounts from the field. 7

14 IV. MAIN FINDINGS

15 MAIN FINDINGS MAIN FINDINGS Knowledge of PNPM/RESPEK Survey Results Figure 1 shows the levels of knowledge of PNPM/ RESPEK among community members at the provincial level in Papua and West Papua in 9 and 13. There appears to be a large decrease in the percentage of households that were aware of PNPM/RESPEK in both provinces. In 9, 46 percent of respondents in Papua and 57 percent in West Papua said that a household member had heard of the programs. In 13, this awareness increased to 16 percent in Papua and 22 percent in West Papua. Figures 2 and 3 also show that the percentage of households that had heard of PNPM/RESPEK generally declined across districts in both Papua and West Papua. Figure 1: Are there any household members who have heard about PNPM/RESPEK? Papua West Papua 9 13 Figure 2: Are there any household members who have heard about PNPM/RESPEK? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 3: Are there any household members who have heard about PNPM/RESPEK? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 9

16 MAIN FINDINGS Between 9 and 13, there was also a decline in whether community members knew how much money was budgeted for their villages. As shown in Figure 4, 69 percent of respondents in Papua and 63 percent of respondents in West Papua said they knew how much money was budgeted for their villages in 9. But these figures dropped to percent of respondents in Papua and 34 percent of respondents in West Papua in 13. Figures 5 and 6 show the change in community members knowledge of the PNPM/RESPEK budget at the district level. Overall, there is a decline in the level of knowledge of the village budget, but some districts, such as Paniai and Puncak in Papua and Raja Ampat and Sorong Selatan in West Papua, were better informed than others. Figures 7 and 8 show how villagers obtained information on PNPM/RESPEK in 9 and 13. In Papua in 9, the most common sources of information were village governments or officials, meetings at the village level, and friends or neighbors. In 13, the most common sources of information remained the same. Other less common sources of information were community leaders, religious leaders, civil servants at the district and sub-district levels, media and women s and community group meetings. In West Papua, the most common sources of information were village governments or officials, friends or neighbors, and project implementers and facilitators. In 13, the most common sources of information in West Papua were again largely the same, with the largest percentage of respondents obtaining information from village governments or officials, friends or neighbors, and project implementers or facilitators. Figures 9 to 24 show the variation in the sources of information on PNPM/RESPEK in Papua and West Papua at the district level, which generally reflect the trends at the provincial level. Ethnographic Findings The ethnographic findings on community members knowledge of PNPM/RESPEK largely mirrored the survey results above. Among the villages studied in 13, most people had heard of PNPM/RESPK in both provinces. In Papua, most community members saw the two programs, PNPM and RESPEK, as being identical given that they were implemented together, while in West Papua, they saw the two programs as being separate, since they had been separated in 1. In Papua, only the village elites and TPKK members were aware that PNPM was implemented as a national program and RESPEK was implemented as a provincial program. Across villages, knowledge of the programs seemed to be spread out relatively evenly prior to 9, with villagers recognizing the benefits and outputs of the program, since many were involved in the construction of projects as paid laborers or by supplying materials. But when they were asked in 13, knowledge of the benefits and outputs on PNPM/RESPEK among community members seemed to have been diminished. This could have been because their direct involvement in contributing to projects decreased with the adoption of more complex infrastructure projects requiring outside expertise. Instead, detailed knowledge about the projects, including the plans for infrastructure development and the stages of fund disbursement and construction, was most often limited to the village elites and TPKK members, with the general community and marginal groups having far less knowledge in comparison. Community members commonly said that they wanted greater access to detailed information about the funds that were received and the program s budget. Detailed knowledge of PNPM/RESPEK was also dependent on a villager s role and position within the community and his/her degree of involvement in other village activities. When community members, especially women, were more involved in other village activities, such as Family Welfare Organizations or the local church or mosque, they were much more likely to be aware of the progress and details of PNPM/RESPEK projects. The discrepancies in knowledge on PNPM/RESPEK between village elites and the general community were largely dependent on the effectiveness of sub-district facilitators in ensuring that information was disseminated between both groups and with the TPKK. Sub-district facilitators were tasked with the duty of guiding the TPKK in ensuring that community members were informed of all stages of the PNPM process, but their incentives were largely structured 1

17 MAIN FINDINGS to attend to administrative procedures rather than disseminating information or encouraging participation. Specifically, given that their performance evaluations were based on administrative outputs, sub-district facilitators often sought to expedite or bypass the key deliberative and participatory outlets of PNPM/RESPEK to ensure that their reports and paperwork were completed only a timely basis. The focus of their training was often on developing administrative skills rather than improving their ability to facilitate discussions, encourage participation, moderate the influence of village elites, and address complaints and problems. Sub-district facilitators who were appointed from different sub-districts also faced language barriers when attempting to communicate information, especially when they did not speak the local dialect and used Bahasa Indonesia, which was often only understood by village elites. When sub-district facilitation was weak in these respects, villagers relied on TPKK members who were also limited in their understanding of the program and inadequately trained to communicate this information effectively. Ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity within villages also limited the degree to which information was uniformly disseminated among community members. When the village leadership was dominated by one clan and the village composition was heterogeneous, information was channeled unevenly between groups, with information flowing towards the dominant group. But when village leadership was balanced and village composition was heterogeneous, information was more evenly disseminated among groups. In homogenous villages where power was evenly distributed, information was also more evenly disseminated among groups. Regression Analysis Table 1 shows the results of how separating PNPM from RESPEK in West Papua influenced whether community members knew how the village budget was spent. There is evidence to suggest that separating PNPM from RESPEK is associated with a decline in knowledge of official budgetary and private spending among villagers, but there is no evidence to suggest that separating the two programs influenced the level of knowledge of how PNPM funds were spent. As shown, the difference-in-differences estimate is substantively marginal and statistically insignificant. This could be due to such factors as the quality of sub-district level facilitation, language barriers, or geographic remoteness, which also influences knowledge among community members. Table 2 shows the results of how separating PNPM from RESPEK influenced how community members obtained information on PNPM/RESPEK. The results indicate that separating PNPM from RESPEK in West Papua was associated with a decline in gaining information from all information sources, except from members of the neighborhood. This includes obtaining information on the two programs from friends, local leaders, religious leaders, and PNPM staff, although the greatest decline was from village leaders. These results coincide with the finding that village elites were often privy to detailed knowledge of the programs, with community members often being less informed (World Bank, 15). Separating the two programs, which granted greater decisionmaking authority to the village leaders, may have allowed for these elites to withhold information from community members. In contrast, the results indicate that there was a large positive increase in villagers obtaining information on PNPM/RESPEK from neighborhood consultations. Participation in PNPM/RESPEK Survey Results When asked whether any meetings with village heads or PNPM actors had been held in the past year, the results among respondents slightly declined at the provincial level between 9 and 13, as shown in Figure 25. In Papua, 41 percent said that meetings with village heads or PNPM actors had been conducted in 9 compared with 36 percent in 13. In West Papua, 43 percent said that community meetings had occurred in 9 compared with percent in 13. When examined at the district level, these results were largely mixed. As shown in Figures 26 and 27, some districts showed a large increase in the percentage of respondents saying that a meeting had been held in the past year and others showed a large decrease. 11

18 MAIN FINDINGS Furthermore, when asked how many meetings had occurred in the past year, the most common response in Papua in 9 was two meetings, followed by one, three, and four meetings. In 13, these results stayed the same, with the most common response again being two meetings. This trend was mirrored in West Papua, where the most common response was two meetings in both 9 and 13, followed by one, three, and four meetings. These results are shown in Figures 28 and 29. In both Papua and West Papua, the most common household members that attended community meetings were the head of households by a large margin. Figure 3 shows that in Papua, 69 percent of respondents said that the household head attended the last meeting in 9. The next most common answer was the respondent s spouse at 11 percent. By comparison, only 31 percent said that the household head had attended the last meeting in 13, but the next most common attendee was again the respondent s spouse at 11 percent. Similarly, Figure 31 shows that in West Papua, 76 percent said that the household head had attended the last meeting in 9, but this figure dropped to 33 percent in 13. The next most common household attendee in 9 was again the respondent s spouse at 11 percent, which rose to 17 percent in 13. Figure 32 shows the reasons why household members attended the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting Papua in 9 and 13. The most common answer in both years was that they were invited, followed by seeking information. Other reasons why community members attended PNPM/ RESPEK meetings were to submit complaints, suggest a program, support a recommendation or petition, register to receive government aid, and because they were obligated to attend. In West Papua, the two most common reasons why household members attended the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting in 9 and 13 were again because they were invited and because they were looking for information, as shown in Figure 33. Figures 34 to 47 show how these reasons varied across districts in Papua and West Papua, and over time. Among those respondents whose household members did not attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting, the most common reasons for not attending were that they were not invited or they had no time. This was the case for both Papua and West Papua, as shown in Figures 48 and 49. These figures also indicate that other reasons accounted for a large percentage of why household members did not attend the last meeting. These reasons were highly varied and included many personal reasons. In addition, household members said they did not attend because the meeting was held at the wrong place or time; they were late; they felt ashamed; or they felt the meetings were useless, although these reasons only account for a small proportion of the total results. Among those household members that did attend the last meeting in Papua in 9, it was most common for household members to suggest inputs, ask questions and participate in discussions. Similarly, in West Papua in 9, the main ways that household members contributed to the last meeting was to suggest inputs, participate in discussions and ask questions. Data on how household members participated in 13 were more limited, but it was again most common for them to suggest inputs and ask questions during meetings in both Papua and West Papua. Figures 5 and 51 show how community members contributed to meetings in these two ways across districts in Papua in 9 and 13. It was much more common for men to attend meetings than women across both provinces and years. In Papua in 9, close to 7 percent of respondents said that there were more men than women present at community meetings. Similarly, in West Papua in 9, 7 percent said that there were more men than women at meetings. In 13, 52 percent in Papua and 62 percent in West Papua said that more men had attended meetings. Finally, Figures 52 and 53 show how community members were involved in PNPM/RESPEK in their villages. In Papua in 9, the most common response was that they had either attended a PNPM/RESPEK meeting or had just heard about the program, with a smaller percentage saying that they 12

19 MAIN FINDINGS had worked on a PNPM project, such as an infrastructure project developing bridges, roads, schools, or sewers, experienced being a PNPM/RESPEK official in the village, or were involved in other ways. In 13, however, a majority of respondents said that they had worked on a PNPM project, with a smaller percentage saying that they had attended a meeting, had just heard of the program, or had experienced becoming an official. West Papua exhibited a much different trend in this area, with participation in PNPM/RESPEK among respondents staying largely the same or diminishing between 9 and 13. In 9, 96 percent said that they had attended a meeting, 49 percent had just heard about the program, 41 percent had worked on a PNPM/RESPEK project, and 29 percent had experienced becoming a village official for PNPM. But in 13, only 59 percent of respondents claimed that they had attended a meeting, 51 percent said that they had worked on a PNPM project, 5 percent had heard about the program, and 13 percent had experienced becoming an official. Figures 54 to 61 show the variation in these answers across districts in Papua and West Papua. Ethnographic Findings Several additional insights into community level participation in PNPM/RESPEK could be gathered from the ethnographic studies. First, although many villagers had attended meetings and worked on PNPM/RESPEK projects, a common view was that inclusiveness of the general community at every step of the program, especially the planning stage, could be improved. Villagers commented that community members attended and proposed ideas during meetings, but these inputs were often outweighed by the ideas of village elites. They also noted that decisionmaking processes were dominated by elites, especially the dominant clan of the village, and the planning meetings were largely symbolic. Many of the infrastructure projects were in fact built on customary land that was controlled by the elites, which served to enrich the dominant clans. Thus, community members wanted a stronger voice in deciding which projects would be chosen for the villages and where they would be located. Although meeting attendance levels were generally high, attendance was also conditioned by such factors as the livelihood of villagers and whether community members received an invitation to attend meetings. Some community members engaged in livelihoods such as fishing and hunting explained that it was impossible for them to attend and contribute to the meetings. Most villagers also believed that attending a meeting required an invitation. Community members who received an invitation directly from program facilitators were much more likely to attend the meetings and contribute to discussions than those who did not receive one. Given the importance of distributing invitations, some villages found that announcing an open invitation to the community was a good way to spread this information and encourage meeting attendance. Other villages used loud speakers to announce the meetings to community members. When village meetings were held in central locations where people commonly gathered, such as at the intersection of village roads, attendance was also much higher. Women s participation during community meetings was usually low and often amounted to just agreeing with proposals made by the men. Women suggested activities in only seven villages of the surveyed in the ethnographic study during community meetings, and those who did contribute ideas had long been involved in other village groups/activities. Women s participation was also conditioned by their relationship with men in society and, in those villages where gender roles were less customary and more fluid, or women had access to special facilitation programs through NGOs, women s participation was greater. Overall, the quality of sub-district facilitation also played an important role in shaping the degree of participation within villages. As discussed, sub-district facilitators were incentivized to complete administrative tasks, such as the disbursement of funds, program reporting and the repayment of loan funds in a timely fashion, rather than supporting community participation and discussions in meetings. Thus, the sub-district facilitators were often 13

20 MAIN FINDINGS unwilling, ineffective, or ill equipped to promote the theme of community empowerment during meetings. They were also limited in their ability to serve as power brokers between competing groups or the elites and the general community, and help women and marginalized groups to express their greatest needs. Geographically, it was also difficult for sub-district facilitators to access remote areas and cover all of the villages under their jurisdiction, which also limited the participation of community members in some villages. Regression Analysis Table 3 shows the results of how separating PNPM from RESPEK influenced whether community members participated in either of the programs. The results are mixed overall. They suggest that villagers were less likely to attend a PNPM meeting or work on a PNPM project but were more likely to become a program coordinator or become a member of a local working or savings group. Notably, the separation of PNPM from RESPEK was associated with the largest decline in whether community members attended a PNPM meeting. This is consistent with the view that many villagers considered the community meetings to be largely symbolic and dominated by village elites who pursued their own agendas (World Bank, 15). If villagers perceived community meetings to be unproductive, then separating the two programs, which delegated greater decision-making authority to these elites, may have further discouraged them from attending these meetings. Table 4 shows the results of how separating the two programs influenced the reasons for villagers to attend PNPM/RESPEK meetings. Separating the two programs was associated with a decline in whether community members attended meetings of their own accord, to support a recommendation or petition, to receive government aid, to obtain information, to submit a complaint, and because they were obligated. The magnitudes of these changes were greatest for whether villagers attended to submit a complaint and to request aid. The only exception was that separating PNPM from RESPEK was associated with an increase in whether community members attended meetings because they were invited, although the magnitude of this change was small. This is again consistent with the view that if villagers perceived community meetings to be dominated by elites, then separating the two programs may have further discouraged them from attending for any of these reasons. It also coincides with the ethnographic evidence that offering personal invitations to village members greatly enhanced the likelihood that they would attend meetings (World Bank, 15). Benefits of PNPM/RESPEK Survey Results Figures 62 and 63 show what PNPM/RESPEK funds were used across both provinces. In Papua in 9, PNPM/ RESPEK was most commonly used to fund infrastructure projects and economic assistance programs, and less commonly for health projects, food projects and education projects. In 13, infrastructure projects remained the most common use of PNPM/RESPEK funds, but education and food projects became more common sources of spending. In West Papua in 9, infrastructure projects and economic assistance programs were again the most common ways that PNPM/RESPEK funds were used. But in 13, education- and food-related projects similarly increased as major sources of spending. Figures 64 to 73 show how spending in each of these areas varied across districts between 9 and 13. Similar to the provinciallevel trends, these figures show that spending on education-related projects increased across many districts, and infrastructure spending remained high. They also show that in Papua many districts decreased their spending on economic assistance programs between 9 and 13. There were large, positive changes in the percentage of community members that received benefits from PNPM/ RESPEK across both provinces, as shown in Figures 74 and 75. In Papua, the percentage of respondents who received benefits from health, food, and education projects increased significantly, while the percentage of respondents who received benefits from an infrastructure 14

21 MAIN FINDINGS project remained high across both years. The percentage who received benefits from an economic assistance program dropped, however, from 39 percent in 9 to 13 percent in 13. West Papua showed a similar trend. The percentage of respondents who received benefits from health, education and food projects again increased significantly, while the percentage who received benefits from an infrastructure remained high also. The percentage who received benefits from an economic assistance program, however, stayed largely consistent, at 16 percent in 9 and 17 percent in 13. Figures 76 to 85 provide deeper district-level insights into these changes. In Papua, these figures clearly illustrate the trends described above. In West Papua, there were notable increases in nutrition-, health-, and education-related benefits in many districts, but the benefits gained from economic assistance programs were largely mixed. Ethnographic Findings Among the villages surveyed in the ethnographic study, PNPM/RESPEK was found to be largely popular among community members and was perceived to be a development program that delivered on what had been promised. The majority of surveyed villages agreed that they had benefitted from the program s projects, especially its infrastructure projects, as indicated by the survey results. It was seen as being integral to bringing basic infrastructure projects to villages that had no other development programs and was generally seen as being a very useful program that should be continued. The benefits generated by PNPM/RESPEK projects were at times constrained by the limitations of the TPKKs and sub-district facilitators. The same issues that limited the effectiveness of sub-district facilitators in promoting knowledge and participation discussed earlier also limited the benefits generated by PNPM/RESPEK projects. The TPKKs were primarily responsible for implementing the projects that were decided upon during the planning stages of the program, but TPKK members were heavily reliant on assistance from the sub-district facilitators, given their limited training and access to information from other sources, which impaired their capacity to implement the projects. Project implementation also suffered when subdistrict facilitators were sent from other regions and subdistricts and were unable to speak the local dialects. Regression Analysis Table 5 shows the results of how separating PNPM/ RESPEK influenced the existence of projects in West Papua. Overall, the results suggest that separating the program led to a decline in village funds being allocated towards development projects. This was the case for food and nutrition projects, health-related projects and infrastructure projects, although these changes were marginal. There was also a lack of statistical evidence to confirm that fund allocation towards infrastructure projects declined. The results indicate that separating the program was associated with an increase in village-fund allocations towards education-related and economic assistance projects, but there was only sufficient evidence to corroborate the increase in spending on economic assistance projects. This is largely consistent with the view that allocating greater decision-making authority to village leaders through the separation of the projects enabled them to channel RESPEK funds for their own benefit through spending on private goods and improving private property, rather than on projects that benefitted the whole community (World Bank, 15). Table 6 shows the results of how separating PNPM from RESPEK influenced the degree to which villagers received benefits from these programs. The results are mixed overall. They indicate that separating the program actually increased the percentage of respondents who benefitted from food or nutrition, health, education and economic assistance projects. The size of these changes was marginal for health and education projects, but large for food and nutrition, and economic assistance projects. Separating the programs was only associated with a decrease in whether community members benefitted from infrastructure projects. 15

22 V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VILLAGE LAW

23 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VILLAGE LAW CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VILLAGE LAW The new context provided by the 14 Village Law Time has moved on since this PNPM/RESPEK evaluation study was conducted. Over the intervening period, the Government enacted Law No. 6/14 (the Village Law) and replace previous PNPM Mandiri Rural program across Indonesia, including the PNPM/RESPEK programs in Papua/ West Papua. The law dramatically increases the authority and responsibilities of villages, including the recognition of traditional village government arrangements (adat). Under the Village Law, fiscal transfers (Dana Desa) to Indonesia s 74,91 rural villages (desa) have been significantly increased, and by 17 an average-sized village will receive about Rp 1.7 billion a year in funding. Given that the Village Law mandates the inclusion of participatory, transparency and accountability principles in its implementation mechanism just as with PNPM/ RESPEK so the findings of this evaluation of the PNPM/ RESPEK program in Papua/West Papua hold important insights and lessons for the disbursement of Dana Desa through the new law. The weaknesses observed in the PNPM/RESPEK program during this evaluation, including the separated PNPM and RESPEK programs, can usefully inform the design and implementation of the use of Dana Desa as it is rolled out across the country. Therefore, if we want to see successful community empowerment and participation in the use of Dana Desa going forward then, according to our experience with PNPM/RESPEK, we must ensure that the right implementation/support structures are in place for Dana Desa. This means provided well-trained facilitators, proper information/socialization/ monitoring systems, and effective community-feedback mechanisms. It is worth noting here that given that Dana Desa funds will be channeled directly to village accounts controlled by village heads, our evaluation of PNPM/RESPEK, and particularly our evaluation of RESPEK after separation, indicates that there is a tendency towards elite capture, while women and marginalized members of the community lose out. Although the Village Law and its implementing regulations mandated that decisions on what Dana Desa would be used for would be taken in a consultative and participatory forum with community, experience of the RESPEK program indicates that without proper oversight and facilitation this participatory deliberation could be easily compromised. Therefore, the weaknesses of the PNPM/RESPEK program highlighted in the evaluation are of great relevance. 17

24 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VILLAGE LAW Knowledge of the Program The results suggest overall that awareness of PNPM/ RESPEK has declined in both provinces since 9. This has been accompanied by a decline in community members knowledge of the amount of funds that have been allocated via PNPM/RESPEK towards the village budget. Furthermore, the results of the regression analysis suggest that separating PNPM from RESPEK in West Papua has contributed towards the decline in knowledge about how much money has been allocated towards the official village budget but not towards PNPM funds. The survey results also indicate that village and government officials and friends and neighbors were the most common sources of information on PNPM/RESPEK in both provinces in both 9 and 13. The ethnographic evidence largely corroborates these findings, while providing further insight into the factors that limited community members knowledge, specifically social hierarchies, linguistic and ethnic fractionalization, and the weakness of sub-district facilitation. Relevance for Dana Desa: Based on experience from PNPM/ RESPEK, there is a need to establish a reliable and robust facilitation structure with trained social, technical, and basic social service facilitators to provide technical assistance and capacity-building support to village governments and community institutions. Where infrastructure gaps are smaller, greater numbers of social and basic social service facilitators will be needed relative to technical facilitators. Participation in the Program Overall, the results indicate that the prevalence of PNPM/ RESPEK meetings in Papua and West Papua declined overall between 9 and 13, although there was large variation between districts. It was also most common for the male household head to attend the meetings, which typically occurred twice a year, to obtain information on the programs and also because the men were invited. This coincides with the most common reason why people did not attend the reason, which was because they were not invited. While attending meetings, it was most common for community members to suggest inputs, ask questions, and participate in discussions, rather than merely listening to others. When contributing to the implementation of PNPM/ RESPEK projects, there was also a greater tendency for community members to become involved in working on a related project rather than just attend a meeting in both Papua and West Papua. Despite these positive changes, the ethnographic research indicates that community members generally find that the inclusiveness of the programs could be improved at every stage. Relevance for Dana Desa: In order to ensure that women and marginalized groups are not left out by the dominance of the village elite, corporate affirmative action approaches for such groups should be institutionalized in the Village Law regulatory framework. Benefits of the Program The results indicate that PNPM/RESPEK funds were most commonly used to fund infrastructure projects in both Papua and West Papua but were increasingly being used to fund education-, and food- and nutrition-related projects. Between 9 and 13, there were also large, positive changes in the proportion of community members receiving benefits from PNPM/RESPEK s health, food, and education projects over time. The ethnographic study also points to a positive attitude among community members towards PNPM/RESPEK, although they once again criticized the weakness of sub-district facilitation. Furthermore, the results of the regression analysis suggest that the separation of PNPM from RESPEK contributed to a decline in funds being allocated towards development projects, specifically food-, nutrition- and health-related projects in West Papua. Relevance for Dana Desa: In order to ensure that benefits from Dana Desa match the needs of communities, their active involvement/participation in deciding what the funds will be used for is critical. Therefore, having the supporting structure (such as facilitation and oversight from the kecamatan/kabupaten) in place to safeguard the consultative process is very important in the implementation of the Village Law. 18

25 REFERENCES REFERENCES Sari, Y., H. Rahman, and D. Mansaf. 11. Final Report Evaluation of PNPM RESPEK: Village Infrastructure and Institutional Capacity. Jakarta, ID: AKATIGA. World Bank. 15. Beneficiary Assessment of PNPM/RESPEK. Jakarta, Indonesia: The World Bank. 19

26 FIGURES FIGURES Figure 4: Do you know how much money is budgeted for PNPM/RESPEK in your village? Figure 6: Do you know how much money is budgeted for PNPM/RESPEK in your village? Papua West Papua Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 5: Do you know how much money is budgeted for PNPM/RESPEK in your village? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City

27 FIGURES Figure 7: Where do you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK? Village Government Kelurahan Meeting Friend or Neighbor Project Facilitator Community Leader Religious Leader Media Community Group Meeting Papua Figure 8: Where do you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK? Village Government Kelurahan Meeting Friend or Neighbor Project Facilitator Community Leader Religious Leader Media Community Group Meeting West Papua 21

28 FIGURES Figure 9: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a kelurahan meeting? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 1: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a community group meeting? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 22

29 FIGURES Figure 11: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a friend or neighbor? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 12: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from the village government? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 23

30 FIGURES Figure 13: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a community leader? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 14: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a religious leader? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 24

31 FIGURES Figure 15: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a project facilitator or implementer? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 16: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from the media? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 25

32 FIGURES Figure 17: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a kelurahan meeting? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 18: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a community group meeting? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 26

33 FIGURES Figure 19: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a friend or neighbor? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure : Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from the village government? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 27

34 FIGURES Figure 21: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a community leader? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 22: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a religious leader? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 28

35 FIGURES Figure 23: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from a project facilitator or implementer? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 24: Did you obtain information on PNPM/RESPEK from the media? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 29

36 FIGURES Figure 25: Were there any PNPM/RESPEK meetings in the last year? Papua West Papua Figure 26: Were there any PNPM/RESPEK meetings in the last year? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 3

37 Figure 27: Were there any PNPM/RESPEK meetings in the last year? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 28: How many PNPM/RESPEK meetings were there in the last year? Figure 29: How many PNPM/RESPEK meetings were there in the last year? One Two Three Four One Two Three Four Papua West Papua FIGURES 31

38 32 Figure 3: In this household, who attended the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Figure 31: In this household, who attended the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? FIGURES Household Head Spouse Papua Child Parent Household Head Spouse West Papua Child Parent Figure 32: Why did your household member attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Invited Suggest a program Support a recommendation Register for aid Seek information Submit complaints Obliged to attend Other Papua

39 9 13 FIGURES Figure 33: Why did your household member attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Invited Suggest a program Support a recommendation Register for aid Seek information Submit complaints Obliged to attend Other West Papua Figure 34: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to suggest a program? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Jayapura City 33

40 FIGURES Figure 35: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to support a recommendation or petition? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Jayapura City Figure 36: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to register for government aid? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 34

41 FIGURES Figure 37: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to obtain information? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Jayapura City Figure 38: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to submit complaints? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Jayapura City 35

42 FIGURES Figure 39: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting because they were obliged to attend? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure : Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to suggest a program? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 36

43 FIGURES Figure 41: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to support a recommendation or petition? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 42: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to register for government aid? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 37

44 FIGURES Figure 43: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to obtain information? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 44: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting to submit complaints? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 38

45 FIGURES Figure 45: Did the head of household attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting because they were obliged to attend? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 46: Did the household member ask questions at the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 39

46 Figure 47: Did the household member provide inputs at the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? 9 13 FIGURES Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 48: Why did your household member not attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Figure 49: Why did your household member not attend the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Not invited No time Held at wrong place or time Other Not invited No time Held at wrong place or time Other Papua West Papua

47 FIGURES Figure 5: Did the household member ask questions at the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Jayapura City Figure 51: Did the household member provide inputs at the last PNPM/RESPEK meeting? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Jayapura City 41

48 FIGURES Figure 52: How were you involved in PNPM/RESPEK? Figure 53: How were you involved in PNPM/RESPEK? Attended a meeting Just heard of PNPM/RESPEK Worked on a project Became an implementer Attended a meeting Just heard of PNPM/RESPEK Worked on a project Became an implementer Papua West Papua Figure 54: Was the extent of your involvement just hearing about PNPM? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 42

49 FIGURES Figure 55: Did you participate in PNPM by attending a meeting? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 56: Did you participate in PNPM by becoming an implementer? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 43

50 FIGURES Figure 57: Did you participate in PNPM by working on a PNPM Project? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Sarmi Keerom Figure 58: Was the extent of your involvement just hearing about PNPM? Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 44

51 FIGURES Figure 59: Did you participate in PNPM by attending a meeting? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure : Did you participate in PNPM by becoming an implementer? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 45

52 FIGURES Figure 61: Did you participate in PNPM by working on a PNPM Project? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 62: What are PNPM/RESPEK funds used for in your village? Figure 63: What are PNPM/RESPEK funds used for in your village? Infrastructure Project Economic Assistance Project Health Project Food Project Education Project Infrastructure Project Economic Assistance Project Health Project Food Project Education Project Papua West Papua 46

53 FIGURES Figure 64: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for a food or nutrition project in your village? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 65: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for a health project in your village? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 47

54 FIGURES Figure 66: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for an education project in your village? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 67: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for an economic assistance project in your village? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 48

55 FIGURES Figure 68: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for an infrastructure project in your village? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 69: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for a food or nutrition project in your village? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 49

56 FIGURES Figure 7: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for a health project in your village? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 71: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for an education project in your village? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 5

57 FIGURES Figure 72: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for an infrastructure project in your village? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 73: Were PNPM/RESPEK funds used for an economic assistance project in your village? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 51

58 FIGURES Figure 74: How have you benefited from PNPM/RESPEK? Figure 75: How have you benefited from PNPM/RESPEK? Infrastructure Project Economic Assistance Project Food Project Health Project Education Project Infrastructure Project Economic Assistance Project Food Project Health Project Education Project Papua West Papua Figure 76: Have you benefited from a food or nutrition project? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 52

59 FIGURES Figure 77: Have you benefited from a health project? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure 78: Have you benefited from an education project? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 53

60 FIGURES Figure 79: Have you benefited from an infrastructure project? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City Figure : Have you benefited from an economic assistance project? Merauke Jayawijaya Jayapura Nabire Kepulauan Biak Numfor Paniai Puncak Jaya Mimika Boven Digoel Mappi Asmat Yahukimo Pegunungan Bintang Tolikara Sarmi Keerom Waropen Supiori Mamberamo Raya Nduga Lanny Jaya Mamberamo Tengah Yalimo Puncak Dogiyai Jayapura City 54

61 FIGURES Figure 81: Have you benefited from a food or nutrition project? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 82: Have you benefited from a health project? Fakfak Teluk Womdama Teluk Bintani Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 55

62 FIGURES Figure 83: Have you benefited from an education project? Figure 84: Have you benefited from an infrastructure project? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City Figure 85: Have you benefited from an economic assistance project? Fakfak Kaimana Teluk Wondama Teluk Bintuni Manokwari Sorong Selatan Sorong Raja Ampat Sorong City 56

63 TABLES Table 1: What do Respondents Know? Knowledge: PNPM Funding Knowledge: Official Spending Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Knowledge: Private Spending Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD TABLES 57

64 58 Table 2: Where Do Respondents Learn about PNPM-RESPEK? TABLES Information: Neighborhood Consultation Information: Social Leaders Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Information: Village Consultation Information: Religious Leaders Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Information: Friends Information: PNPM Staff Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD

65 Table 3: Do Respondents Participate in PNPM? Participation: Attend PNPM Participation: Become Coordinator Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Participation: Working through PNPM-RESPEK Participation: Enter Working or Saving Group Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD TABLES 59

66 Table 4: Why Attend Meetings? TABLES Attend: Invitation Attend: Get Information Attend: Get Assistance Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Attend: Own Accord Attend: Complain Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Attend: Support Attend: Sense of Obligation Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD

67 Table 5: Do Projects Exist? Project: Nutrition Project: Infrastructure Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Project: Health Project: Economy Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Project: Education Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD TABLES 61

68 62 Table 6: Do Respondents Benefit from Projects? TABLES Benefit: Nutrition Benefit: Infrastructure Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Benefit: Health Benefit: Economy Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD Benefit: Education Papua West Papua Difference Difference Estimate S.E. p-value DiD

69

70