Part 1 of 2: Does master plan for Aceh rehab drive NGOs away?
Part 1 of 2: Does master plan for Aceh rehab drive NGOs away?
Daniel Kingsley, Washington DC
The recent decision by Medicine Sans Frontieres (MSF) to
return donor funds intended for victims in Aceh is an indicator
that the international donor community is disappointed with the
prospects of developing reconstruction projects in for the
Acehnese under the new BAPPENAS master plan.
This underlines an important issue that the Indonesian
government (GOI) will be facing over the next few months: Donor
funding is not a given, and will not arrive to its intended
recipients through an agency that is not clearly efficient and
equitable. The government has created a facility in the new
Reconstruction Blue Print for Aceh (master plan) that allows for
"off-budget" contributions from donors to the reconstruction.
This alternative has been offered in spite of requests such as
those made by Coordinating Minister of Economy, Aburizal Bakrie
at a U.S.-Indonesia Society (USINDO) conference (Feb. 26, 2005).
In that forum he told donors that priority for project approvals
by the GOI will be given to donors that deposit funds to be
directly through the national budget (APBN).
This is understandable from the governments perspective, as
"on-budget" facility has been used for many years to allocate
both donor loans and state funds to government projects, and it
is a time tested method for dispersing funds.
The fact is that the NGO donor communities actually have
three alternatives when it come to funding reconstruction in
Aceh- the third being to not fund it at all. The donors can also
choose to direct the funds to other causes outside of Aceh if
they feel that the two other choices do not give them the
opportunity to direct funds responsibility on behalf of millions
of individual donors from around the world. It is hoped that the
architects of the master plan were aware of this fact when it was
developed.
Collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders- GOI,
NGOs, multilateral and bilateral donors-should be an important
component of this master plan if the government hopes to attract
the global contributions of individuals and charities to
contribute to successful and sustainable reconstruction in Aceh.
The authors of the new Agency for the Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction of Aceh (RRA) master plan may very well have used
the wrong approach if complicated regulatory requirements drive
donors away from Indonesia. Rather than be subjected to fund flow
constraints by the agency, it is very possible that other NGOs
will join the ranks of MSF and begin redirecting funds to other
causes outside of Indonesia.
International NGOs who review the master plan may realize
that the new agency will be requiring them to have a project
approved for its technical merits and must have its funds flow
directed through various government institutions. This is not
surprising as the government is the main stakeholder in the
reconstruction process However, equally important partners, all
of whom are accountable to the individual donors who have
contributed from around the world, are the NGOs and the local
government of Aceh.
They are likely to resist providing funds if their interests
are not guaranteed by the policy and regulations that govern the
project execution process. Just as the Indonesian government
right to approve projects must be guaranteed to protect their
sovereign interests. It is a dilemma that the Indonesian
government has no doubt considered prior to developing the master
plan, but it would be unfortunate if they did not consider the
possibility that funding is at the discretion of the donors.
A complicated framework for project implementation and funds
flow will work against reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh,
and the losers will be the Acehnese and the government of
Indonesia (GOI).
The master plan was a difficult document to produce, and it is
clear there will need to be interventions by the government
before it is acceptable to both Indonesian and foreign NGOs. If
there is no further collaboration and cooperation on the
regulatory and policy issues, then it can be expected that more
donors will capitulate.
The government needs to address how and where cooperation
with the donors can be improved. The capacity requirements of
the RRA to effectively manage third party funds, approve projects
and award rights for implementation of projects must be addressed
collaboratively with all stakeholders.
Once operational, the agency must successfully execute
equitable, transparent and efficient project management and funds
flow for reconstruction if it expects the donors to participate
in the reconstruction process. The current master plan (blue
print) is quite vague in defining the crucial implementation
processes for both budget and technical administration of project
management.
The new director for the reconstruction of Aceh, Kuntoro
Mangkusubroto, has already stated in a foreign newspaper
publication on May 11 that the blueprint is important, but the
actual needs of the people are more important, and that
cooperation will be needed for the agency to work effectively. He
further stated that foreign governments were waiting for his
agency to be up and running before handing out the billions of
dollars they had pledged.
Let's hope that this does not become an excuse for formally
launching operations prior to consensus building efforts. It is
necessary to consult with the international global community,
and Aceh communities and government, on the regulatory and
operational framework of the master plan. If not, it could become
an agency without international partners that is easily
manipulated, and the entire funding process will dissolve.
Institutional and Policy Concerns
Given that RRA has been created through BAPPENAS, under the
Coordinating Ministry of the Economy "umbrella", the government
should establish where the separation of institutional policy
control begins and ends. A transparent regulatory policy on how
the agency will operate autonommously should be disseminated
through a public Forum endorsed by the GOI.
This may be necessary to ensure that the agency is actually
autonomous from interference at the highest levels after project
implementation begins. It is not clear from the organizational
structure detailed in volume 11 (of 12 volumes) of the master
plan where the levers that control the RRA are being held, and
that it is actually autonomous.
This agency's responsibility to the donors and public, and
it's high profile, requires it be empowered as an independent
regulatory agency. However, the Indonesian government has
resisted regulatory bodies since the end of the New Order, in
spite of it being one of the key intentions of the reform
movement in 1999. Is the RRA an independent regulatory agency?
The writer is an international development consultant who has
worked on Tsunami related reconstruction planning for bilateral
and multilateral donors in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. He can be
reached at dkingsley@tmiconsulting.com