93423         Rapid  Appraisal  of  PNPM  Neighborhood  Development     (and  Poverty  Alleviation  Partnership  Grant  Mechanism)       March  30,  2012                                                                         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   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   3.2.1 Vision:  Does  the  ND  process  help  to  create  a  meaningful  vision  for  kelurahan   development?     3.2.2 Planning:  Does  the  facilitated  planning  process  genuinely  allow  communities  to   identify  the  issues  that  are  most  critical  for  the  development  of  their  kelurahan/   neighborhood?       3.2.3 Implementation  and  Investments:  Are  the  ND  resources  prioritized  in  such  a  way  as   to  create  the  most  significant  impact?   3.2.4 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?   3.2.5 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?   3.2.6 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?   3.2.7 Replication:  Are  best  practices  from  ND  being  shared  within/  across  cities?  Is  there   evidence  of  replication?   3.2.8 Social  Mobilisation  and  Economic  Development:  What  social  and  economic   programs  might  be  most  compelling  and  effective  to  complement  infrastructure   investments?   3.2.9 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     3.3.1 Strength   3.3.2 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   Executive  Summary     The  World  Bank’s  urban  upgrading  programs  have  largely  been  implemented  within  the   PNPM  (Program  Nasional  Pemberdayaan  Masyarakat)  framework1  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   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   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   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   THEME   SELECTED  RECOMMENDATIONS     Vision   • The  vision  setting  for  the  CSP  should  include  defined  development  goals   with  attached  timeframes  and  phases.       Community   • Review  the  planning  process  to  determine  whether  the  Community  Self   Participation   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   • If  the  project  aims  to  focus  on  slum  upgrading,  then  it  needs  to  provide  a   Selection   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   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   • A  critical  review  of  the  composition  and  role  of  the  Team  Teknis  should  be   Government   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   • Critically  review  the  role  and  function  of  the  social  marketing  consultant   and   and  the  process  of  channeling  to  determine  whether  this  actually   Channeling   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   • Consider  integrating  community  mobilization  on  key  issues  as  a  part   Mobilization   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     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)  framework2.  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   COMPARISON  BETWEEN  KG,  PAPG  and  ND3         Kelurahan  Grant  (core  and   PAPG  (partnership  grants)   Neighborhood   coordination  grants)   Development   Objective   Poverty  reduction,  sustainability  and   Facilitation  of  partnership  between   Improvement  of  quality  of   consolidation  of  community   local  government  and  community  to   settlements   governance   plan  and  implement  poverty   alleviation  program   Partnership   Not  necessary,  investments  are   Yes,  investments  are  within  (and   Yes,  investments  should   with  Local   limited  to  the  Kelurahan.   potentially  across)  Kelurahan.  Active   be  done  in  coordination   Government   local  government  engagement  in   with  the  local   decision  making,  implementation  and   government,  yet  not   financing.   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   Directly   Indirectly,  because  selected   Although  investing  in  the   consideration   Kelurahan  had  population  of  poor   poorest  of  the  community   for  the  poor   above  35%.   is  one  among  other   criteria,  articulating  a   direct  benefit  is  not   enforced   Main   Formalization  of  BKM   Establishment  of  an  independent   At  least  20%  population   Eligibility   PAPG  committee  (Pokja)  and   below  poverty  level,   requirements   provision  of  operational  cost  from   Priority  to  BKMs  that   city  budget,  Completion  of  a  regional   have  worked  with  local   poverty  Alleviation  strategy  at  the   governments  following   city  level,  existence  of  a  functioning   PAPG  approach   BKM  forum.   Grants   50,000   118   18  +  255   awarded   Grant  Size   Small  Kelurahan  (150  million  Rp   Small  city  (4.5  billion  Rp  $(530,000   1  billion  Rp  ($108,000   (million  Rp)   $(16,000  USD)),  Medium  Kelurahan   USD)),  Medium  city  (6  billion   US)  per  Kelurahan  in   (200  million  ($21,500  USD)),  Large   ($706,000  USD)),  Large  city  (7.5   total   Kelurahan  (350  million  ($37,500   billion  ($880,000  USD))  /  per  city  for   USD))  /  per  Kelurahan  per  year.   three  years.   Ceiling  per   50  million  Rp  ($5,500  USD)  per   200  million  Rp  ($22,000  USD)  per   No  ceiling   subproject   subproject   subproject   Grant  to  Local   1  to  0   1  to  1   1  to  0   Government   minimum   [Advanced  BKMs  will  need  to  use  at   There  are  no  leverage   ratio  of   least  20%  of  the  grant  towards   requirements   contribution   programs  that  leverage  other  sources   of  funding]   Planning  to   2  to  8   No  requirement   3  (max)  to7   construction   spending   ratio   Set  of   Open  set  of  activities  -­‐  (Activities   Open  set  of  activities  -­‐  (Activities   Open  set  of  activities  -­‐   activities   need  to  be  recorded  in  the  CDP  which   need  to  be  endorsed  by  the  PAPG   (Activities  need  to  be   generally  fall  in  four  categories  (i)   selection  committee  and  selection   located  in  the  priority   infrastructure  investments  identified   criteria  include  level  of  partnership,   area,  and  recorded  in  the   by  community  consensus,  (2)   level  of  contributions,  and  expected   detailed  settlement  plan)   infrastructure  investments  through   poverty  alleviation  impact)   competition  inside  Kelurahan,  (3)   micro  credits,  and  (4)  grant   assistance  to  the  poorest)                                                                                                                   3  This  is  adapted  from  the  World  Bank  TOR  for  the  ND  Rapid  Appraisal.     10     2. Summary  of  Study  Methodology     The  methodology4  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  team5-­‐  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   • 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  31  2012-­‐  February  25  2012  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   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             SUMMARY  TABLE  OF  ND  RAPID  APPRAISAL  SITES  AND  PRIORITY  INVESTMENTS6     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,   Space  and   and   settlement   and  recreation  facility   (2)  Sports  Field  and  Jogging  Track   Klumprit   Agricultural   improvement   Facilities     (3)  Education  Facility   Development     (4)  Agricultural  Facility   1   Sukoharjo   (1)  Flood  retention  wall   Flood  prevention  and  Market   Blimbing   (2)  Road  to  waste  management  facilities   improvement   (3)  Market  renovation   Settlement  improvement   (1)  Street  improvement   through  pavement,  playground   (2)  Slaughter  house  and  its  waste  management   2   Banjarmasin   Pasar  Lama     and  improved  waste   facility   management  (relating  to   (3)  Playground   slaughterhouse  and  toilets)   (4)  Public  Toilet  (land  issue-­‐  waiting)   (1)  Street,  pavement,  retention  wall  and   drainage  improvement  (to  support  Krupuk   Cakranegara   Settlement  improvement   home  industry)   Selatan   (housing,  paving,  sanitation)   (2)  House  renovation  "packet"   (3)  Public  toilet   (4)  Waste  water  facility   3   Mataram   (1)  Communal  pig  stall/  Waste  management   Settlement  improvement   facility/  biogas   Pagutan   (housing,  paving,  sanitation,   (2)  Public  toilet   biogas)   (3)  House  renovation     (4)  Paving    Settlement  improvement  and   (1)  Paving  and  drainage  at  settlement  area   Karuwisi   Public  Goods  (Community   (2)  Plat  decker   Meeting  Hall)   (3)  Community  meeting  hall   4   Makassar   (Has  not  been  started)      Settlement  improvement   (1)  Paving  around  settlement  area   Sinrijala   (paving,  drainage,  bridge)   (2)  Drainage  around  settlement  area   (3)  Second  Bridge   (1)  Street  improvement  and  bridge  in  a   settlement  area  (Pasir  Putih)    Economic  Development   (2)  Canal  sedimentation  dredging  (Pasar   (Outbound  Facility)  and   Putih)   Watulondo   settlement  upgrading  (paving,   (3)  Outbound  area  and  facility  (Pulongidda)   bridge)   (4)  Public  toilets  and  wells  (Pulongidda)   (5)  Posyandu  (not  operating  yet)  and  library   5   Kendari   (Puulonggida)   (1)  Fish-­‐drying  racks   Public  Space  (reclaimed  public   (2)  Pavement  in  a  settlement  area   road)  and  settlement  upgrading   (3)  Street  furniture  (lights,  green  open  space,   Lapulu   (Fish  Drying  Facility,  paving,   sitting  area)   sanitation)   (4)  Retention  wall     (5)  Toilet  improvement/  septic  tanks                                                                                                                   6  Details  are  available  in  Annex  1:  Site  Summaries.     14   Public  Green  Space  (Riverwalk   Riverwalk  infrastructures  (pavement,  lights,   Podosugih   redevelopment)   bridge,  benches)   6   Pekalongan   (1)  Culinary  tourism-­‐supporting    Economic  Development  and   infrastructures  (for  food  vendors)-­‐  Fountain/   Public  Space  (Public  space  that   Kraton  Kidul   Stalls   can  accommodate  food   (2)  Pavement  and  greening  adjacent  to   vendors)   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   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   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  ND7.  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   4. Future  Focus:  In  the  future8,  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  questions9  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   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   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.     3.2.2  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  investment10  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  100-­‐500million   IDR.)     20   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     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   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       Implementation  of  ND   Kelurahan  vision  of   Kelurahan  infrastructure   development   requirements   Currently   Probably  mostly  focused   Little  evidence  of  the  process   Not  sufficiently  detailed     on  implementation  (and   generating  a  genuine  kelurahan   and  not  overlaid  with  data   meeting  guideline   vision.  Few  cases  of  the  spatial   from  the  local  government   criteria)  but  at  the  same   plan  being  used  to  catalyze  the   to  provide  a  basis  for   time  is  often  changed   community  to  address   analysis.     considerably  after  the   (localized  or  kelurahan  wide)   document  completion-­‐   issues  that  they  only  learned   rendering  the  CSP   through  the  spatial  analysis.  No   somewhat  out  of  date.   community  members  of  BKM   members  appeared  to  refer  to   the  spatial  elements  of  the  plan.       Area  to   The  CSS  and  the  CDP  are   Would  require  more   Would  require  more   strengthen   already  strong  tools  and   participation  and  community   technical  inputs  from  the     could  likely  be   engagement  to  generate  buy  in   community  and  local   strengthened  to   to  the  mapping  exercise  and   government  on   accommodate  an  ND   would  require  stronger   infrastructure  investments   program  that  is  focused   analysis  and  facilitation  to   (planned  and   on  settlement   build  a  vision  that  could  be  the   implemented)  and  the   upgrading.   basis  for  community   quality  of  current   mobilization  and  action   infrastructure.     (beyond  just  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   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.     3.2.3  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   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   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   Description  of  Sample  Icon  Investments   Intended  Impact       A  revitalized  Binatur  Riverwalk  in  a  residential   Primarily  to  create  a  public  space  and  to   area  in  Podosugih,  Pekalongan  with  space  for   contribute  to  a  sense  of  community  building.  The   communities  to  walk  and  for  some  market   area  has  been  significantly  improved  and  there   activities.     seems  to  be  a  real  sense  of  community     accomplishment.  Some  marketing  activities  are   also  planned.       A  sportsfield  with  a  jogging  track  and  a  gazebo   Primarily  as  a  public  space,  although  some   in  Klumprit,  Sukoharjo,  near  a  school  and   vendor  stalls  are  planned  for  economic   behind  the  lurah’s  office.     development.     Relocating  fish  drying  activities  from  in  front  of   This  is  intended  primarily  as  a  public  space   people’s  homes  (and  on  a  public  road)  in   initiative  and  also  a  beautification  of  an  area  that   Lapulu,  Kendari  and  shifting  the  fish  drying  to  a   was  previously  considered  dirty  and  smelly   centralized  location.  This  was  also  coupled  with   (because  of  the  fish).  In  addition,  there  is  some   a  process  of  repaving  the  road  and  creating   discussion  of  trying  to  add  value  to  the  fish  drying   lighting  and  public  seating  areas  to  allow  to   process  to  support  economic  development-­‐  there   road  to  serve  as  a  public  space  for  the   are  some  discussion  to  encourage  training  from   community.     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.         In  Karuwisi,  Makassar,  a  community  hall  to   These  are  public  spaces  and  often  are  raised  as  a   house  BKM  office  but  also  to  provide  a  meeting   priority  when  there  is  public  land  available.  The   space  for  the  community.  A  community  hall  is   actual  usage  is  often  unclear  but  communities   also  planned  in  Kraton  Kidul,  Pekalongan.     tend  to  feel  that  community  halls  are  useful  and     can  be  used  by  a  range  of  community  groups  and   activities.       In  Kraton  Kidul,  Pekalongan,  a  ‘culinary   This  is  intended  as  a  public  space  that  will   institute’  was  built  on  public  land  near  a   generate  economic  development  by  providing   stadium.  The  area  consists  of  a  fountain,  seating   business  space  for  30  vendors  (15  in  a  morning   areas,  improved  paving,  signage  and  a  covered   shift  and  15  in  an  afternoon  shift).  It  is  expected   area  to  house  15  street  food  vendors  (pedagang   that  by  beautifying  the  area  they  will  increase  its   kaki  lima).     usage  as  a  public  area  and  this  will  generate   business  opportunities  for  the  vendors.  (no   business  plan  is  available  although  construction  is   nearly  complete)     In  Watulondo,  Kendari,  a  community  member   This  is  primarily  an  economic  development   provided  a  large  area  of  land  to  be  used  to  build   activity  intended  to  generate  tourism  for  an  area   an  Outbound  Facility  with  a  Flying  Fox,  obstacle   that  is  poor  and  has  few  public  services.     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).       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   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.       3.2.4  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   (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   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   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.       3.2.5  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   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   Engagement  in  ND  (and  PAPG)   Entry  Point     Lurah   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.   TIPP  (Planning   A  local  government  representative  is  expected  to  be  in  the  planning   Committee)   committee.   Tim  Teknis   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.     POKJA  (PAPG)   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,   The  individual  dinas  are  usually  involved  in  particular  workstreams  to   BAPPEMAS,  Health,   oversee  the  work  (notably  oversight  of  infrastructure  by  Public  Works).  They   Local  Industry)   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   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   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   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   List  of  PAPG  Sites  and  Investments  Visited  as  part  of  the  Rapid  Appraisal     No   Kabupaten/  Kota   Kelurahan/  Desa   Investments  Visited   Kabupaten   House  renovation     1   Klumprit   Sukoharjo   “Healthy”  houses  (discussed  only)   Pasar  Lama     Garbage  motorcycle,  Paving   Kota     2   Banjarmasin   Waste  crusher/  agricultural   Kelayan  Selatan   shredder   3   Kota  Mataram   Cakranegara  Selatan   Drainage   River  retaining  w all/  Canal   4   Kota  Kendari   Lapulu   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   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.           3.2.6  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   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   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  2012.  For  example,  in  Blimbing  (Sukoharjo)  the  entire  facilitation  team  –   except  one  person-­‐  had  only  joined  in  April  2011.  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   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.       3.2.7  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     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  N GO  operating  in  S olo  since  2009.  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  way1.  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  (www.solokotakita.org).       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.    A s  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  S KK  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.  H owever,  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   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   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.       3.2.9  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  slum12.     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   -­‐ 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     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.       3.3.2  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   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   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  N D  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  N D  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   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  findings13,  the  recommendations  are  presented  in  two   sections,  (i)  an  overarching  set  of  General  recommendations  (4.1-­‐4.10)  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   Some  recommendations  for  consideration:     • The  Community  Self  Survey  and  Community  Mapping14  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  locations15,  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   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   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   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   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   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   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  development16.  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,  2012.     55     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     5. Slum  upgrading  recommendations       Based  on  conversations  with  the  World  Bank17,  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  c oordination  in  community  and  local  government  planning;  (b)  promote  more  integrated  block   improvement  based  on  a  m edium-­‐term  vision  and  spatial  planning,  rather  than  isolated  investments;  and  (c)   design  a  m ore  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   RECOMMENDATIONS   REMARKS   SLUM  UPGRADING   1   The  sites  selected  for  ND  are  in   • Critically  review  ND  site  selection   Current  site  selection  places  a   fact,  slums18  –  which  are   process,  focusing  on  slum  criteria  and   heavy  emphasis  on  BKM  quality  -­‐   defined  as  highly  dense  urban   conditions  rather  than  MIS  data.     which  is  in  fact  a  critical  element.  If   areas  with  poor  quality     poorer  areas  are  selected,  it  is   infrastructure,  high  rates  of   • The  site  selection  process  may  not   likely  that  they  will  have  weaker   poverty.  In  many  cases  these   simply  be  at  the  kelurahan  level,  but   BKMs  and  therefore  the  project  will   areas  may  include  a  mix  of   may  from  the  outset  identify  the  most   need  to  proactively  address  this   formal  and  informal   vulnerable  neighborhoods,  within  a   issue  to  help  strengthen   settlements.     kelurahan.   community  management  of  the     project.   • Likely  most  effective,  if  linked  with     local  and  national  slum  upgrading   Current  sites  have  evolved  a   strategies.     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     as  a  slum  (which  in  most  cases  was   • Public  acknowledgement  from  local   obviously  not  a  slum),  so  the   government  on  support  for  slum   targeting  will  need  to  rely  on  more   upgrading  for  selected  sites  will  likely   specific  information  than  self-­‐ be  an  important  element  to  ensure   identification  of  what  a  slum  is.   community  trust  and  to  allow  for     effective  cooperation.     The  project  may  also  wish  to     consider  piloting  different   approaches  to  site  selection  to   determine  the  most  effective   approach  for  scaling.     2   In  order  to  create  a  measurable   • Redefine  and  target  ND  project   The  project  may  wish  to  consider   impact,  it  will  be  important  for   objectives  and  all  related  monitoring   whether  there  out  to  be  focus  on   the  types  of  investments  and   and  evaluation  tools.   economic  and  social  activities  in   the  expected  outcome  of  the     addition  to  infrastructure-­‐  to   project  (at  local  and  national)   • Develop  a  closed  menu  (or  criteria)  to   address  the  issue  that  the  urban   level  to  be  clearly  defined  and   clearly  identify  (i)  what  slum   poor  may  be  more  concerned  about   limited  to  slum  upgrading.  As   upgrading  means  and  (ii)  what  types  of   economic  and  social  issues  than   such  investments  will  likely   investments  are  to  be  supported  (and   infrastructure.   focus  on  road  improvement,   not  supported)  by  ND.       housing  and  market     The  project  may  also  wish  to   improvement,  water  and   • This  will  likely  mean  reducing  or   consider  piloting  certain   sanitation,  drainage,  and  solid   eliminating  “icon  investments”.  If  icon   approaches  to  creating  and   waste  management.   investments  are  permitted,  a  strong   implementing  a  more   Investments  focused  on  public   process  of  justification  should  be   strategic/closed  menu-­‐  and  then   spaces,  greening  and  economic   required  to  demonstrate  intended   scaling  successful  approaches.   development  may  be   impact.     considered,  but  will  likely  be     less  common.         3   Effective  slum  upgrading  will   • Local  government  engagement  will  be   Some  local  governments  may  have   likely  require  more  complex   critical  at  all  levels  and  evidence   non-­‐benevolent  approaches  to   infrastructure  investments  (that   suggests  that  local  government   slums  and  informal  settlements.  As   extend  beyond  the  traditional   engagement  is  most  successful  when   much  as  the  project  should  be   community  infrastructure  that   linked  to  larger  policies.  In  the  case  of   engaged  cooperatively  with  local   PNPM  Urban  has  excelled  in).   slum  upgrading,  getting  local   government-­‐  the  project  will  need   These  types  of  complex  slum   governments  to  publicly  commit  to   to  proactively  develop  a  strategy   upgrading  infrastructure   supporting  activities  and  investments   for  ways  of  working  in  sites  with   investments  will  also  require   that  improve  the  quality  of  slums  in   less  cooperative  or  progressive   the  active  support,   cooperation  with  the  community-­‐  may   local  governments.   cooperation  and  buy  in  of  the   be  a  critical  prerequisite.     community  and  local     Discussions  at  local  and  national   government.   • In  addition,  the  project  may  require   level  suggest  that  land  issues  are     that  local  governments  commit-­‐  up   often  some  of  the  most  complex   front-­‐  to  certain  agreed  upon   issues  to  resolve  and  may  require   principles  of  engagement  as  well  as   cooperation  from  central  and  local   certain  specific  types  of  support   governments.  The  institutional  buy   (including  planning,  financing,   in  required  and  risks  of  not  having   willingness  to  engage  on  land  issues,   that  buy  in  should  be  heavily   supporting  voluntary  relocation,   weighed.  If  the  project  pursues   linking  public  services,  providing   ‘more  complex  urban  upgrading’  as   oversight  and  support  to  construction).   an  objective  but  is  unable  to     address  land  issues,  the  likelihood   • If  land  issues  are  likely  to  be  a  common   of  success  will  be  severely   theme  throughout  the  project-­‐  if   diminished.   informal  settlements  are  included-­‐     then  there  will  likely  need  to  be   When  implementing  projects  that   proactive  support  and  targeted   are  beyond  the  scope  of   facilitation  on  these  issues  at  all  levels   communities,  it  is  important  that   communities  remain  empowered     58   of  the  project.   and  are  not  simply  used  as  tools  to     implement  local  government   projects.  This  will  need  to  be  a   careful  balance.       4   Identification  of  slum  upgrading   • Identify  what  specific  types  and   Traditionally  planning  for  slum   interventions  will  require   elements  of  spatial  planning  would  be   upgrading  can  be  exceptionally   spatial  plans  that  can   most  effective-­‐  reviewing  the   time  consuming  and  costly-­‐  it  will   adequately  reflect  slum   experience  from  the  current  ND  to   be  a  challenge  for  this  project  to   conditions  and  community   identify  lessons  learned.  Emphasis  on   identify  the  right  level  of  planning   priorities.  It  will  also  need  to   effective  issue  identification  and   required  to  achieve  its  aims.   provide  a  clear  roadmap  for   detailed  location-­‐mapping  will  be  a  key     short,  medium  and  long-­‐term   component-­‐  and  should  be  targeted.     investments.     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.       upgrading  may  involve   Slum   • The  project  time-­‐line  will  likely  need  to   There  has  been  genuinely  mixed   sensitive  issues  relating  to  land   be  revisited  so  as  to  encourage   results  in  terms  of  community   use,  relocation,  and  community   processes  that  may  be  more  time   facilitation-­‐  particularly  on   behaviors.  Sufficient  time  will   consuming.     challenging  issues.  This  may   be  required  to  ensure  that     require  more  than  simply   communities  are  effectively   • ND  will  need  to  review  its  facilitation   upskilling  the  facilitators  but  may   engaged  and  buying  into   support  structure  to  ensure  that   require  a  rethinking  about  how  the   reforms.     facilitators  have  the  skills  and  the   project  engages  with  communities   incentives  to  effectively  engage   over  time  and  what  additional  local   communities  in  longer-­‐term  processes.     structures  (NGOs)  can  be   This  is  particularly  important  when   integrated.   processes  may  require  sensitive  hands-­‐ on  facilitation  for  long  periods  of  time.       59   • 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   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   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  &   50   PAKEM   27   2. City  Coordinator  Team,  KMW,  Facilitators   -­‐   3. Urban  Planner  and  Social  Marketer     B. Kelurahan  Level   2   1. Lurah   69   2. BKM,  TIPP,  TP,  TPP,  KSM,  Heads  of  RT/  RW   4   3. Beneficiaries   Total  Number  of  Respondents   152             62   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   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     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   326,367,000   Waiting  for  BLM  disbursement     House   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   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   • “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   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  &   21   PAKEM   14   2. City  Coordinator  Team,  KMW,  Facilitators   2   3. Urban  Planner  and  Social  Marketer     B. Kelurahan  Level   2   1. Lurah   11   2. BKM,  TIPP,  TP,  TPP,  KSM,  Heads  of  RT/  RW   1   3. Beneficiaries   Total  Number  of  Respondents   51                                       68           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   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   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              35,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   community  gate   will  be  implemented  in  2012   6   Livestock  waste  management              80,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   will  be  implemented  in  2012   7   Slaughtering  house  and          145,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   supporting  infrastructure   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  2012   9   Public  toilet  in  Gang  Ikhlas              60,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   will  be  implemented  in  2012   10   Bridge  construction  in  Gang  Ibu              25,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   will  be  implemented  in  2012   11   Greening  and  providing  garbage              50,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   cans  in  priority  area  (in  several   will  be  implemented  in  2012   points)   12   Street  and  drainage              90,000,000     DED  and  Budget  Plan  in  Progress,   improvement     will  be  implemented  in  2012   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   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   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  &   7   PAKEM   21   2. City  Coordinator  Team,  KMW,  Facilitators   4   3. Urban  Planner  and  Social  Marketer     B. Kelurahan  Level   2   1. Lurah   17   2. BKM,  TIPP,  TP,  TPP,  KSM,  Heads  of  RT/  RW   4   3. Beneficiaries   Total  Number  of  Respondents   55                                       73           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   • 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   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       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   No   Activity   Amount  from  BLM   Status   1   Retention  wall   44,700,000.00   Complete   2   IPAL/  waste  water  management  -­‐ Biogas     17,500,000.00   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   44,700,000.00   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   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  &   8   PAKEM   11   2. City  Coordinator  Team,  KMW,  Facilitators   4   3. Urban  Planner  and  Social  Marketer     B. Kelurahan  Level   2   1. Lurah  (and  staff)   24   2. BKM,  TIPP,  TP,  TPP,  KSM,  Heads  of  RT/  RW   2   3. Beneficiaries   Total  Number  of  Respondents   51                                           79       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   housing19  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       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     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   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   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   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   Number   A. Province  and  Kota/  Kabupaten  Level     1. Provincial  Satker,  Tim  Teknis,  Pokja  PAKET  &   7   PAKEM   5   2. City  Coordinator  Team,  KMW,  Facilitators   2   3. Urban  Planner  and  Social  Marketer  (unable  to  meet     the  Urban  Planner  of  Watulondo)     B. Kelurahan  Level     1. Lurah   1   2. BKM,  TIPP,  TP,  TPP,  KSM,  Heads  of  RT/  RW   17   3. Beneficiaries   -­‐   Total  Number  of  Respondents   32                                 85           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         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   d. The  main  priority  activities  for  the  Priority  Area  are  as  follows:   • 1st  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.       • 2nd  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   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  1996-­‐1997  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       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   • 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   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   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  &   8   PAKEM   9   3. 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   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   1999.   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   • 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   52,700,000   20  %  Complete   11   Street  lights  at  Sikembang  Area   23,600,000   20  %  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   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   • Priority  area  1-­‐  located  in  RT  1,  2,  and  6  of  RW01,  is  described  as  a  residential  area   with  snack  makers  and  sellers  as  the  major  occupation  in  the  community.  The  main   proposed   improvement   was   to   develop   the   area   to   be   a   culinary   tourism   and   sports   center  area.       • Priority  area  2-­‐  located  in  RT  1,  2,  and  3  of  RW02,  is  described  as  a  residential  area   with   batik   makers   as   the   major   occupation   in   the   community.   The   main   proposed   improvement  was  to  develop  the  area  to  be  an  art  and  culture  center.     • Priority   area   3-­‐   located   in   RT   5   RW02,   is   described   as   a   market   area,   less   houses.   The  main  proposed  improvement  was  to  increase  the  quality  of  market  facilities,  to   increase  the  community’s  economic  productivity,  and  to  develop  local  economy.       The   three   priority   areas   have   similar   physical   infrastructure   problems,   particularly   on   drainage   and   sanitation.   The   main   proposed   improvements   for   each   area   were   not   discussed  during  the  CSP  planning  process,  but  were  discussed  in  the  marketing  phase   and  written  in  the  Strategic  Marketing  Document  (note:  the  Urban  Planning  Consultant   is  also  the  Social  Marketing  Consultant  for  this  kelurahan).       c. In  the  detailed  CSP,  the  community  selected  Priority  area  1  which  includes  RW01  RT  1,   2,   6   based   on   the   following   rationale:   (1)   economically   it   is   an   area   with   the   highest   number  of  unemployment,  the  highest  number  of  poor  households,  the  highest  number   of   low   income,   (2)   the   densest   building   area   with   poor   condition   of   drainage   and   sanitation,  lack  of  greening  in  the  residential  area.     d. The  main  priority  activities  for  the  Priority  Area  are  as  follows:   • Culinary  tour  area  "Djadoel"  to  increase  the  economy.     • Settlement   upgrading   through   repairing   drainage,   sanitation   infrastructure,   road,   street  lights,  community  meeting  hall,  and  greening.     • Sub  district-­‐level  Public  Green  Open  Space     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   Pergola  for  each  RW                          25,851,000     Complete   2   Revitalization  of  green  area  in  RW  I  RT  01  and  RT   Complete                    113,150,000     06   3   Culinary  area  in  the  priority  area  1                    396,000,000     95%  Complete   4   Construction  of  community  hall  and  library  in  RW  I   Preparing  KSM                          60,000,000     RT  01  and  RT  06   5   Communal  toilet,  2  units  in  RW  I  RT  01  and  RT  06                          18,000,000     Preparing  KSM   6   3R  waste  bin  and  other  supporting  facility                          35,000,000     Preparing  KSM   7   Street  lights  in  RW  I  RT  01  and  RT  06                          12,000,000     Preparing  KSM   8   Pavement  and  drainage  in  RW  1  and  RW  2                          25,000,000     Preparing  KSM   9   Additional  pergola,  6  units  for  RW  1  –  3                          15,000,000     Preparing  KSM   Total   700,001,000     Table  10.  The  final  approved  investments  supported  by  ND  in  Kelurahan  Kraton  Kidul             97   5.4  Site  Visit  Summary     The  consultant  team  was  able  to  visit  the  following  sites  during  the  field  visit.     a. Site   1:   Djadoel   Culinary   Institute,   including   the   shelters,   pavement,   and   fountain.     This   “Culinary   Institute   Area”   is   the   primary   investment   consisting   mostly   of   beautification   to  an  area  beside  the  stadium-­‐  including  a  Fountain,  benches,  trees,  street  lights  and  an   area  for  food  stalls  (can  accommodate  15  at  a  time).  This  is  intended  to  be  a  public  space   that   will   attract   visitors   who   will   then   eat   at   the   food   stalls.   There   is   no   business   plan   as   yet.     b. Site   2:   Greening   and   pavement   nearby   a   PAPG   funded   nursery   school.     Nearby   the   Culinary   Institute   was   a   small   street   that   had   also   been   improved.   A   small   nursery   school  had  been  built-­‐  apparently  it  operates  3  days  a  week  although  it  did  not  appear   to   have   been   recently   used   (as   it   was   being   used   by   construction   workers   for   storing   goods  at  the  time  of  the  site  visit)     5.5  Summary  of  the  Site   This   kelurahan   offers   a   useful   example   of   an   icon   investment   for   economic   development   that   does   not   appear   to   have   been   built   on   sound   business   planning   principles   (i.e.   no   analysis  had  been  done).  For  this  BKM  and  lurah  the  ND  project  has  been  a  way  to  create  a   vision/dream.   As   mentioned   in   the   main   text   the   idea   for   the   culinary   institute   had   come   from  individuals  close  to  the  lurah,  in  parallel  to  the  CSP  planning  process.  In  addition,  this   site  also  offers  a  good  example  of  an  urban  planner  who  –in  addition  to  creating  plans  for   the  implementation  of  the  desired  investment-­‐  also  was  very  interested  in  looking  at  how  to   use   the   CSP   and   the   CSP   process   to   engage   the   community   in   dialogue   about   their   neighborhoods  and  land  issues.               98   ANNEX  2:  GLOSSARY  AND  ABBREVIATIONS,  LIST  OF  DOCUMENTS,  NATIONAL   LEVEL  KEY  INFORMANTS     A. GLOSSARY  AND  ABBREVIATIONS     Abbreviation   Indonesian     English   AB   Aturan  Bersama   Community  Game  Rules   AD/  ART   Anggaran  Dasar/  Anggaran  Rumah   Basic  Internal  Regulation  of   Tangga   Organization   APBD     Anggaran  Pendapatan  dan   City/  Regional  Income  and  Spending   Belanja  Daerah   Budget   APBN     Anggaran  Pendapatan  dan   National  Income  and  Spending     Belanja  Negara   Budget   Askot   Asisten  Koordinator  Kota   Assistant  City  Coordinator   Bapemas   Badan  Pemberdayaan  Masyarakat   Community  Empowerment  Board     Bappeda   Badan  Perencanaan  Pembangunan   Regional  Development  Planning  Board   Daerah   Bappenas   Badan  Perencanaan   City/Regency  Development     Pembangunan  Kota/Kabupaten   Planning  Board   BKM     Badan  Keswadayaan   Community  Trustees  (Community     Masyarakat   Institution  formed  through  PNPM)   BLM     Bantuan  Langsung  Masyarakat   Community  Block  Grants   BOP     Biaya  Operasional   Operational  Fund   CBD     Pembangunan  Berbasis  Komunitas   Community  Based  Development   CDD       Community  Driven  Development   CSP   Community  Spatial  Planning   Rencana  Pengembangan  Lingkungan   Permukiman  (RPLP)   CSR     Corporate  Social  Responsibility     CSS/  PS     Pemetaan  Swadaya   Community  Self  Survey   DED       Detailed  Engineering  Design   Detailed  CSP   Detailed  Community  Spatial  Planning   Rencana  Tindak  Pengembangan   Lingkungan  Permukiman  (RTPLP)       Dinas   Agency  (Governmental)   Dokumen  SPK-­‐D     Dokumen  Strategi   Strategic  Document  on  Poverty     Penanggulangan  Kemiskinan  di   Alleviation     Daerah     DPRD     Dewan  Perwakilan  Rakyat   Regional  Representative  Body     Daerah     GoI   Pemerintah  Indonesia   Government  of  Indonesia   IDR   Rupiah   Indonesian  Rupiah   KMP     Konsultan  Manajemen  Pusat   National  Management  Consultant  (NMC)   KMW     Konsultan  Manajemen  Wilayah     Regional  Management  Consultant  (at   province  level)     Kabupaten   Regency     Kecamatan   District     Kelurahan   Sub-­‐district   Korkot     Koordinator  Kota   City  Coordinator     Kota   City   KPKD     Komite  Penanggulangan   Regional  Poverty  Alleviation     Kemiskinan  di  Daerah   Committee  (at  Provincial  and     99     City/District  level)   KSM   Kelompok  Swadaya  Masyarakat   Physical  Implementation  Group       Kumuh   Slum   LG   Pemerintah  Daerah   Local  Government   LPM   Lembaga  Pemberdayaan  Masyarakat   Community  Empowerment  Organization   (partner  of  sub-­‐district  government)   LSM/  NGO     Lembaga  Swadaya  Masyarakat   Non  Governmental  Organization   Musrenbang     Musyawarah  Perencanaan   Annual  local  government     Pembangunan   development  planning  meeting  and   discussion  process   P2KP     Program  Penanggulangan   Poverty  Alleviation  Program  in  Urban     Kemiskinan  di  Perkotaan   Area  (previous  name  of  PNPM-­‐Urban)   PAKEM   Panitia  Kemitraan   Partnership  Committee  for  PAPG  (local   community  members)   PAKET/  PAPG   Penanggulangan  Kemiskinan   Poverty  Alleviation  Partnership   Terpadu   Grant   Perda   Peraturan  Daerah   Region/  City/  Regency  Regulation   PJM     Perencanaan  Jangka  Menengah   Community  Development  Plan  (CDP)   (5year  Mid  Term  Plan)   PKK   Pembinaan  Kesejahteraan   Family  Welfare  Women’s  Group   Keluarga     PLPBK/  ND   Pengembangan  Lingkungan   Neighborhood  Development   Permukiman  Berbasis  Komunitas   PMU     Program  Management  Unit   PNPM   Program  Nasional  Pemberdayaan   National  Program  for  Community   Masyarakat   Empowerment   Pokja   Kelompok  Kerja   Task  Force   Posyandu   Pos  Pelayanan  Terpadu   Maternal  and  Infant  Health  Unit   Pronangkis   Program  Penanggulangan   Poverty  Alleviation  Program   Kemiskinan     PU   Pekerjaan  Umum   Public  Works   RDTRK   Rencana  Detail  Tata  Ruang  Kota   Detailed  Spatial  Plan  of  a  City/  Regency,   at  Kecamatan  Level   RPJM   Rencana  Pembangunan  Jangka   Mid-­‐Term  Development  Plan   Menengah     RPJM-­‐ Rencana  Pembangunan  Jangka   Community  Development  Program   Pronangkis/   Menengah  Program  Penanggulangan   (Mid-­‐term  Development  Plan  for   CDP   Kemiskinan   Poverty  Alleviation)   RT   Rukun  Tetangga   The  smallest  neighborhood  unit   RTBL   Rencana  Tata  Bangunan  dan   Building  and  Environment  Plan   Lingkungan   RTRW   Rencana  Tata  Ruang  Wilayah   Regional/  Regency/  City  Level  Spatial   Plan   RW   Rukun  Warga   Neighborhood  unit  above  RT  (One  RW   consists  of  one  or  more  RTs)   SATKER-­‐P2KP   Satuan  Kerja  Program   Working  Unit  on  Poverty   Penanggulangan  Kemiskinan  di   Alleviation  Program  in  Urban  Area   Perkotaan   (PNPM  Structure)   SIM/  MIS   Sistem  Informasi  Manajemen   Management  Information  System  (MIS)   SKPD   Satuan  Kerja  Perangkat  Daerah   Coordinating  body  on   development  planning  at  the   District/City  level   TAP   Tenaga  Ahli  Pemasaran   Social  Marketing  Consultant     100   TAPP       Tenaga  Ahli  Perencanaan  Partisipatif   Community  Urban  Planning  Consultant   (Urban  Planner)   TIPP   Tim  Inti  Perencanaan  Partisipatif   Main  Team  for  Participatory  Planning   Tim  Teknis   Tim  Teknis  Pemerintah  Daerah   Local  Government  Technical  Team  for   Pemda   Neighborhood  Development  (Kab/  Kota   Level)   TKPKD   Tim  Koordinasi   Regional  Poverty  Reduction   Penanggulangan  Kemiskinan   Coordinating  Team   Daerah     TKPP   Tim  Koordinasi  Pelaksanaan   P2KP  Implementation   P2KP  (Kota/Kabupaten)   Coordinating  Team   TOR     Terms  of  Reference   TP   Tim    Pemasaran   Marketing  Committee   TPP       Tim  Pelaksana  Pembangunan   Implementation  Committee   UKL   Unit  Kelola  Lingkungan   Infrastructure  Management  Unit   UP   Unit  Pengelola  yang  dibentuk   Management  Unit  created  by  BKM   BKM     UPK   Unit  Pengelola  Keuangan   Financial  Management  Unit   UPL     Unit  Pengelola  Lingkungan   Infrastructure  Management  Unit   UPP       Urban  Poverty  Project   UPS     Unit  Pengelola  Sosial   Social  Management  Unit           101   B. LIST  OF  DOCUMENTS  REVIEWED     No   Title/  Contents   Remarks   National  Level     1   “Marketing  of  the  ND  Planning  Results,  Technical   In  English   Guideline  5”   2   “Participatory  Planning  Phase,  Technical  Guidelines  3”   In  English   3   “Capaian  11  Indikator  PAKET”  (Maret  2011)   In  Indonesian,  taken  from  MIS   (Translated  Title:  Achievement  of  11   PAPG  Indicator  based  on  MIS)     4   “Pedoman  Khusus  Pelaksanaan  PAKET”  (revised   In  Indonesian  (Translated  Title:  PAPG   version  June  2006)   Implementation  Special  Guideline)     5   “Pedoman  Pelaksanaan  ND”  (March  2008)     In  Indonesian  (Translated  Title:   Implementation  guideline  of  ND  -­‐   March  2008)   6   “Pedoman  Teknis  PLPBK/  ND”     In  Indonesian  (Translated  Title:  ND   technical  guideline)   7   “Process  evaluation  of  the  Program  Nasional   In  English   Pemberdayaan  Masyarakat  (PNPM)-­‐Urban”  (Draft  of   RAND  Study)   8   “Pedoman  Pelaksanaan  Pengembangan  Lingkungan   In  Indonesian  (Translated  Title:   Permukiman  Berbasis  Komunitas”  (September  2009)   Implementation  Guideline  of  ND)   9   “Suplemen  Pedoman  Pelaksanaan  PNPM  Mandiri   In  Indonesian  (Translated  Title:   2010”     Additional  and  Revised  Concept  of   PNPM  Mandiri  2010)   10   “TOR  NMC  -­‐  UPP  Advanced  March  2009  to  December   In  English   2010  “   11   “TOR  of  Amandment  Contract  NMC  –  PNPM  Urban  f.y.   In  English   2008  for  Bridging  Implementation  Support  F.y  2011-­‐ 2013”  (for  joint  advanced  team  -­‐  PNPM  Urban)   12   “TOR  PNPM  Urban  Team  2008”   In  English   13   “The  Impact  of  the  Community  Level  Activities  of  the   In  English   Second  Urban  Poverty  Project“  (Draft,  June  2010)   14   “TOR  –  ND  Program  Baseline  Midterm  Impact   A  Soft  Copy  File  Titled  “TOR-­‐ND   Evaluation  2012  –  2014”     Baseline  Study  Copy”,  In  English   15   “Implementation  Guideline”  (of  ND)   A  Soft  Copy  File  Titled  “ND  General   Manual”,  In  English   16   “The  Community  based  Neighborhood  Development   In  English   Approach:  Evolution,  Definition,  and  Key  Aspects   Moving  Forward”  (Version  1.0  March  2011,  Ochoa)   17   “Indonesia  Urban  Poverty  Program:  Aide  Memoire”   In  English   (2009-­‐2011)   City/  Regency  Level     1   “Peraturan  Daerah  No.11/  2008  tentang  Peningkatan   Pekalongan  City     Kesejahteraan  Keluarga  Berbasis  Komunitas”  (City   Regulation  on  Community-­‐based  Poverty  Alleviation   Acceleration)     2   Realization  of  Investment   Mataram  City   3   Brochure  and  PPT  explaining  the  PNPM  Urban  in  the   Sukoharjo  City   City   4   2011  ND  Report  by  Korkot  Team   Mataram  City   5   PPT  File  about  Partnership  Scenario  of  BKM  and   Surabaya  City   Bapemas     102   6   List  of  KSM  Trained  by  Bapemas  (2011  and  2012)   Surabaya  City   7   List  of  PAPG  Activities  3rd  Trench  2011   Mataram  City   8   Example  of  Contract  of  Social  Marketing  Consultant   Sukoharjo  Regency,  Pekalongan  City   Sub-­‐district  Level     1   CSP   All  ND  Sites  Visited   2   Detailed  CSP   All  ND  Sites  Visited   3   Community  Rules   Blimbing,  Pasar  Lama,  Cakra  Selatan,   Karuwisi,  Sinrijala,  Podosugih,  Kraton   Kidul   4   Plan  of  Investment   All  ND  Sites  Visited   5   Realization  of  Investment   All  ND  Sites  Visited  except  Sinrijala   6   Marketing  Strategy   Kraton  Kidul   7   Brief  Summary  of  ND  Activity  Cycle  or  Simplified  CSP   Blimbing,  Pasar  Lama,  Cakra  Selatan,   for  Marketing   Pagutan,  Watulondo,  Lapulu   8   Brochure  related  to  ND  Plan   Blimbing,  Pasar  Lama,  Watulondo,   Lapulu   9   PPT  File  explaining  the  ND  Activity     Cakra  Selatan,  Pagutan,  Podosugih,   Kraton  Kidul   10   “AD/  ART  2012  –  2013  Kuliner  Djadoel”  (Basic   Kraton  Kidul   Internal  Regulation  of  Organization  for  Operation  and   Management)   11   Records  of  Planning  Process  (e.g.  Date,  Participants,   Pagutan,  Kraton  Kidul   Pictures,  Contents)           103   C. LIST  OF  NATIONAL  LEVEL  KEY  INFORMANTS/  STUDY  PARTICIPANTS       No   Name   Affiliation   1   Arief  Rahadi   Advisory  Team  of  PNPM  Urban   2   Ayi  Sugandhi   Advisory  Team  of  PNPM  Urban   3   Dayu  Indira  Dharmapatni   World  Bank   4   Didiet  Akhdiat   PMU   5   Evi  Hermirasari   World  Bank   6   Evi  Rosantini   World  Bank   7   Firdaus   NMC   8   George  Soraya   World  Bank   9   Hari  Prasetya     NMC   10   Iwan  Suharmawan   NMC  –  Infrastructure  Specialist   11   Kumalasari   World  Bank   12   Lia  Kamila  K.     NMC   13   Maizil   NMC   14   M.  Bachtiar   NMC   15   Noorsyamsu   NMC  –  Local  Government  Specialist   16   Nurul  Widiartanti   NMC  –  ND  Specialist     17   Patricia  Y.  Sonata   World  Bank   18   Pramuja  W.     NMC   19   Sugioto  Parwoto   World  Bank   20   Sutadi   NMC  –  Deputy  of  Team  Leader   21   Yuli  Widyawati   World  Bank                               104   ANNEX  3:  ND/  PAPG  RAPID  APPRAISAL  STUDY  METHODOLOGY     The   study   has   been   designed   as   a   rapid   appraisal.   As   such,   the   methodology   has   focused   on   producing  high  quality  results  with  limited  time  and  resources  (in  this  case  the  entire  study   was   completed   in   12   weeks   (including   4   weeks   of   site   visits)   with   a   2   person   team).   The   following  methodology  and  the  attached  templates  should  be  easy  to  replicate  rapidly  (6-­‐8   weeks  would  be  feasible  for  a  follow  on  study).     1. Team   Composition:   for   the   purposes   of   this   study,   the   team   comprised   one   (international)  Lead  Consultant  and  one  Urban  Planner.  The  Lead  Consultant  has  overall   responsibility   for   study   design,   implementation   and   analysis.   The   Urban   Planner   has   served   in   a   dual   capacity   as   (i)   team   assistant/   translator   (managing   all   meetings,   logistics   and   translation)   and   (ii)   leading   on   data   collection   on   the   Urban   Planning   module   (consisting   of   reviewing   the   Community   Spatial   Plans   and   analysing   infrastructure  quality.)       2. Issue   Identification:  The  departure  point  for  this  study  has  been  that  there  have  been   two   previous   studies   (Rand   and   Ochoa)   and   so   the   Rapid   Appraisal   was   intended   to   provide  more  targeted  analysis  to  specific  issues  rather  than  provide  a  comprehensive   analysis/  evaluation  of  the  program.  As  such,  the  Lead  Consultant  (i)  reviewed  available   documentation   (Guidelines,   PAD,   Aide   Memoires   from   the   last   12   months),   and   (ii)   conducted  interviews  with:   a. World  Bank  Urban  Team   b. GoI  PMU   c. NMC  (national  consultants)   d. Advisory  Team  Members     The  interview  process  was  conducted  in  two  stages.  An  initial  round  of  interviews  with   the   World   Bank   team   and   review   of   the   documentation   allowed   the   consultant   to   propose   a   set   of   (1)   14   Key   Challenges   (what   are   the   particular   challenges   that   have   already   been   identified   by   the   team   and   that   they   would   like   the   study   to   investigate   further)   and   (2)   9   Key   Innovations   (what  are  the  proposed  changes  to  the  project  that  the   team   would   like   the   study   to   ‘test   the   appetite   for’   in   the   field).  These  were  compiled  into   a   questionnaire   that   was   used   as   the   basis   for   the   second   stage-­‐   an   informed   formal   round  of  interviews  with  the  national  level  stakeholders  (government,  consultants  and   World   Bank)   to   validate   the   issues   (refer  to  National  Level  Interview  Template)   and   to  pull  out  a  few  Key  Issues  (or  Study  Modules)  that  would  that  would  inform  the  focus   of  the  fieldwork.     In  this  case  the  5  key  issues  identified  were  as  follows:   • Processà   How   is   the   process   (committees,   planning,   decision-­‐making,   implementation)  working?     • Urban  Planningà  How  successful  is  the  spatial  planning  innovation  in  ND?     • Facilitationà  How  is  the  facilitation  working?     • Povertyà  To  what  extent  is  there  a  poverty  focus  to  the  project?       105   • Local   Governmentà   What   is   the   current   LG   engagement   and   to   what   extent   is   there  apparent  interest/hostility/  room  for  strengthening?     It  is  anticipated  that  this  process  would  be  an  essential  and  rapid  first  step  to  focus  the   process  of  site  selection  and  the  field  level  analysis  and  would  allow  the  Rapid  Appraisal   to   respond   to   the   pressing   issues   at   the   time   of   the   study,   while   building   on   previous   studies.       3. ND   vs   PAPG:  The  overall  emphasis  of  the  study  has  been  on  ND  with  analysis  of  PAPG   included   as   an   input   into   specific   questions   around   local   government   partnership   and   coordination.  The  consultant  team  felt  that  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  ND  and  PAPG  in   each   location   would   not   be   feasible.   In   addition,   in   most   cases   the   ND   programs   are   still   underway  whereas  the  PAPG  sites  have  largely  been  completed.       4. Site   Selection   Process:   The   site   selection   process   consisted   of   three   steps.   Given   the   reality   of   developing   a   rapid   appraisal   with   a   single   research   team-­‐   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/bad   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.   a. Criteria:   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  Performance-­‐  interest  in  a  mix   • Innovation-­‐   desire   to   include   sites   that   may   have   some   particular   replicable   innovation   • PAPG   performance-­‐   interest   in   a   mix   with   a   preference   for   sites   with   ND   and   PAPG  but  also  one  site  with  no  PAPG   b. Data  (MIS  and  team  knowledge)   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:   • Poor  Households   • Population   • Investment  Realization   • Approved  Value  of  Infrastructure  Investments.     This   data   proved   more   difficult   to   gather   than   anticipated   due   to   gaps   in   MIS   that   required  direct  follow  up  with  NMC  to  gather  data.  In  addition,  the  team  reviewed     106   new   BPS   data   to   ensure   poverty   data   was   more   up   to   date.   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.   This   shortlist   was   shared  with  the  NMC  for  additional  background  information  status  updates.  Where   possible,  CSPs  were  collected  as  an  additional  data  source.   c. Final   site   selection:  From  this  process,  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.   The   consultants   when  selecting  the  kelurahan  (two  per  kota)  made  their  selection  primarily  on  the   basis  of  poverty-­‐  seeking  to  include  one  ‘more  poor’  and  one  ‘less  poor’  site  in  each   location.   In   addition   two   sites   were   included   as   ‘innovation’   sites   that   could   offer   particular   learnings.   For   the   purposes   of   this   initial   Rapid   Appraisal-­‐   and   the   importance  of  reviewing  local  government  engagement-­‐  it  was  deemed  important  to   ensure   geographic   diversity   (so   as   to   capture   a   greater   diversity   of   city   level   governments).   This   has   required   an   extensive   travel   schedule   for   the   consultant   team.   Future   studies   may   choose   to   reduce   the   number   of   cities   and   focus   their   analysis  on  the  diversity  of  performance  and  experience  within  the  cities.   5. Field  Visit-­‐  Organisation:   As  mentioned,  the  study  team  selected  an  ambitious  agenda-­‐   with   6   kota/kabupaten   and   11   kelurahan.   Detailed   advance   letters   (with   proposed   sites   and   a   detailed   schedule   of   proposed   meetings)   were   sent   through   to   the   korkot   team   (City   Coordinator)   via   the   PMU.   In   addition,   each   site   was   requested   to   send   (in   advance)   (i)   the   CSP   and   detailed   CSP,   (ii)   an   agenda   and   schedule,   (iii)   a   map   of   the   ND   sites  and  (iv)  contact  details  for  Korkot  (for  coordination  purposes)  and  Urban  Planner   Consultant   (who   we   presumed   would   have   completed   their   contract   and   would   be   difficult   to   track   down).   This   process   took   longer   than   anticipated,   was   met   with   only   partial  success  and  required  significant  coordination  while  on  site.     a. Key  Informant  Interviews:   The  following  interviews  were  organized  and  generally   realized   in   all   locations.   Certain   groupings   became   apparent,   and   this   list   reflects   best  practice.     Kota/Kabupaten  (Day  1)   PNPM  City  Coordinator  Team  and  Assistant  City  Coordinators  (in  some  cases  the   Provincial  level  KMW  as  well)   BAPPEDA  liason  (PNPM),  Team  Teknis  (ND),  and  other  related  Local  Government  parties   as  relevant   PAPG  Taskforce  (PAKET  Pokja),  PAKEM  (selected)  (in  sites  with  PAPG)   Kelurahan  Level  (repeated  each  day  for  each  site)   PNPM  Facilitator  Team   BKM  and  TIPP  (Planning)  and/or  TPP  (Implementation)  and/or  TP  (Marketing)  teams   Lurah  and  RT  heads  (selected)   Urban  Planner  and  Social  Marketing  Consultant   Site  Visits  with  related  KSM  (and  often  a  facilitator  and/or  BKM  member)     b. Interview   Format   and   Questions:     In   order   to   create   an   open   environment,   the   consultants  emphasized  in  their  introduction  that  the  study  was  ‘not  an  evaluation’   and   the   consultants   are   ‘independent’   and   looking   to   gather   data   to   help   improve     107   and   strengthen   the   program.   The   objective   of   the   study   was   to   both   gather   evidence   on   ‘what’s   working,   what   isn’t   and   what   could   be   improved’   as   well   as   to   gather   evidence   and   input   on   some   more   specific   issues   identified   above-­‐   namely   local   government   engagement,   urban   planning,   facilitation,   processes   and   poverty   targeting.  As  such  the  interviews  generally  aimed  to  achieve  the  following:   • Ascertain   the   informant’s   knowledge   of   PNPM   ND   and   PAPG   and   their   distinguishing   features   (as   related   to   PNPM   regular).   This   would   often   include   prompting   on   particular   ‘innovations’   including   (i)   Spatial   Planning   (CSP)   and   prioritizing   (for   ND),   (ii)   Urban   Planner   and   Social   marketing   consultants   (for   ND),  and  (iii)  Partnership  with  local  government  (for  PAPG).     • Gather   information   about   the   selected   site/city 20  –   key   characteristics   and   poverty   dimensions-­‐   and   what   ND/PAPG   has   achieved   (or   is   planning   to   achieve).   • Understand  the  processes-­‐  particularly  around  decision  making-­‐  that  led  to  the   selection   of   certain   investments.   In   order   to   be   more   detailed   (and   to   move   beyond   rhetoric)   this   often   required   a   guided   discussion   about   one   particular   investment.   • Gather   specific   information   about   the   quality   of   local   government   interest/knowledge   and   engagement.   Again   this   often   required   prompting   around  a  particular  example.     • Invite   experiences   and   reflections   on   aspects   of   the   project   that   they   found   exciting,   challenging,   frustrating   and   what   recommendations   they   would   offer.   Depending   on   the   interview   type   this   would   often   include   specific   prompting   (based  on  the  Key  Challenges  identified  above)-­‐  BKM  administration,  facilitation   training,  coordination  with  LG,  etc.     c. Site   Visits   and   Beneficiary   Interviews:   In   each   kelurahan,   the   consultant   team   aimed   to   see   2   or   more   ongoing,   completed   or   planned   ND   and   PAPG   activities   (usually   only   1   PAPG   site,   with   a   greater   emphasis   on   ND   investments).   Given   the   intention   of   geographic   concentration   for   ND,   it   was   often   possible   to   view   all   of   the   ND   investment   areas   within   a   single   site   visit.   For   each   site   visit,   the   team   would   generally   inquire   about   the   cost,   implementation   process,   beneficiary   engagement,   engagement   with   local   government   (namely   in   supervision/technical   guidance)   and   maintenance   plans.   In   addition,   where   possible   the   consultant   would   undertake   a   beneficiary  interview  with  someone  near  the  investment  site  to  ascertain  his  or  her   knowledge  and  participation  in  the  ND  investment.     d. Data  Collection  and  Analysis:    There  are  4  types  of  data  captured  for  this  paper  (i)   key   informant   interviews,   (ii)   CSP   analysis,   (iii)   Infrastructure   review,   and   (iv)   photographs.   • Key   informant   interviews-­‐   an   interview   format   was   developed   that   includes   more  specific  criteria  for  each  type  of  interview  (divided  into  Local  Government,                                                                                                                   20  Because the consultant team rarely received the CSP and detailed CSP sufficiently in advance of the site visits, this element of the interview was critical. In future reviews some time could be saved if the consultant team had adequate time to familiarize themselves with the various planning documents.   108   Facilitators,   General,   Beneficiary   and   Unstructured)   and   notes   on   prompting.   While   the   interviews   varied   within   general   category-­‐   i.e.   a   Lurah/RT   interview   and   a   BAPPEDA/Tim   Teknis   interview   clearly   having   different   areas   of   focus-­‐   the   consultants   opted   to   maintain   broader   groupings   so   as   to   facilitate   data   collection  and  allow  for  rapid  review  of  data  within  general  categories.  Data  was   directly   transcribed21  during   interviews   into   the   data   sheets   prepared   for   each   site.   In   addition,   all   interviews   were   recorded   (files   available).   Summaries   of   each   interview   and   site   visit   were   prepared   daily   in   PPT   to   provide   the   team   with  an  opportunity  for  analysis  during  the  field  visits.     • CSP  Analysis-­‐   an   interview   format   was   developed   to   facilitate   a   rapid   review   of   the  salient  features  of  the  CSP  (quality,  poverty  focus,  clarity,  accessibility  etc).   This   was   developed   to   help   identify   particularly   strong/weak/innovative   elements   that   may   serve   as   useful   examples   in   recommendations   on   future   guidelines.     • Infrastructure   Review-­‐  a  format  was  developed  to  capture  the  salient  data  on   the   infrastructure   viewed-­‐   notably   on   quality   and   cost   effectiveness.   The   study   did   not   aim   to   develop   a   comprehensive   analysis   of   the   infrastructure   (neither   to  collect  the  type  of  data  collected  in  the  MIS  nor  to  conduct  thorough  analysis   like   that   of   the   Rand22  study)   but   just   to   focus   on   observations   of   sites   visited   and  to  collect  evidence  on  the  range,  quality  and  scale  of  infrastructure.     • Photographs-­‐   were  taken  extensively  on  sites  to  help  (i)  validate  site  conditions   in  specific  kelurahan,  (ii)  document  infrastructure  investments  and  also  to  (iii)   provide  an  overview  of  the  variation  of  ‘urban  slum  settlement23’  in  Indonesia.   Templates   of   the   above   formats   are   available   in   ANNEX.   (Original   data   will   be   provided  to  the  WB  team  separately)                                                                                                                         21  The   interviews   were   conducted   in   Indonesian   and   translated   by   the   Urban   Planner.   The   ‘transcription’   reflects  the  translation  conducted  during  the  interview-­‐  and  so  is  often  unclear.     22  The   consultant   team   consulted   with   the   Rand   team   and   was   satisfied   with   their   overall   findings   that   the   general   quality   of   PNPM   infrastructure   was   generally   adequate.   Based   on   this,   the   team   felt   that   they   did   not   need  to  undertake  detailed  analysis.     23  In  addition  to  documenting  the  primary  sites,  the  consultant  team  recognized  that  the  sites  may  not  reflect  the   entire   city-­‐   and   so   they   also   sought   out   ‘more   complex   urban   environments’   in   select   locations-­‐   namely   Mataram,  Surabaya,  Makassar,   109   Summary  of  Itinerary  (February  1-­‐  25,  2012)     No   Location   Date  of  Interview  and  Site  Visit   1   Sukoharjo   February  1  –  3   Klumprit   February  1  –  2   Blimbing   February  2  –  3   2   Banjarmasin   February  6  –  7   Pasarlama   February  7   3   Mataram   February  9  –  11   Cakra  Selatan   February  9  –  10     Pagutan   February  10  –  11     4   Surabaya   February  13  –  14     5   Makassar   February  15  –  17   Karuwisi   February  16   Sinrijala   February  17   6   Kendari   February  18  –  21     -­‐ Watulondo   February  18  –  19     -­‐ Lapulu   February  21   7   Pekalongan   February  23  –  25     -­‐ Podosugih   February  23  –  24     -­‐ Kraton  Kidul   February  24  –  25         110