Transparency, accountability ke to decentralization

By Rainer Rohdewohld

JAKARTA (JP): In the context of implementing regional autonomy as stipulated in Law No. 22 (1999) on Regional Governance, one of the most-heard arguments is that "the regions are not yet ready and not yet able" to deliver the government functions that have been transferred.

This argument, which used to be the main weapon of the New Order government to defend its centralistic approach to administration while paying only lip service to decentralization, usually lacks empirical evidence, and in most cases, no clear benchmarks are established to define what "capacity" is needed or available.

During the last 12 months, the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit-GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) and the USAID-funded CLEAN Urban Project have conducted a study to identify the capacity building needs of local governments and local parliaments (DPRD).

Other donor-funded projects from ADB and CIDA contributed to the study (www.gtzsfdm.or.id). Findings and recommendations of the study team were presented to the government by the end of November, and initiatives are under way to formulate a medium- term strategy for capacity building which integrates government programs with support from various donor agencies, like USAID, GTZ and the World Bank.

While the field assessments of the study team confirmed the widespread lack of managerial and planning capacity at the local government level (we should not forget that in the past local governments were not supposed to plan and manage independently but to carry out instructions and orders from above), they also confirmed that in many cases the required technical competencies and skills are available.

The planned transfer of central government civil servants to the regions will in addition constitute a substantial infusion of skilled manpower into the local government agencies, and will give them - despite concerns over overstaffing and the "putra daerah" issue - access to professional experience and competencies.

The study also confirmed that the "lack" of local government capacity (and confusion about the details of the new local governance system) is often caused by insufficient information strategies of the central government, and by the lack of coordination between central government agencies responsible for certain aspects of the decentralization policy.

No doubt that many local government officials still adhere to the habit of waiting for instructions from above, but even in regions with innovative leadership, and with sufficient financial and human resources, the lack of policy management by the central government caused delays in preparing the regions for regional autonomy.

Building capacity at the local level to fully implement regional autonomy (and its underlying principles of democracy, participation and justice) requires concerted efforts by the central government and the regional governments.

A capacity building strategy must include a number of core elements: it must be linked to the realization of good governance (which includes having accountability, transparency and participation), it needs a medium-term orientation (no "quick fix" solutions!), and it should sequence priority areas so that urgent and important issues are tackled first.

Capacity building initiatives must be demand-driven and must be based on the specific conditions in each region. "One-size- fits-all" programs (which were the hallmark of the past New Order regime) are a waste of scarce resources and will fail to deliver results. Existing tools and instruments (like standard training programs in financial and urban management) should be adjusted to the new framework.

The horizontal exchange, between regions, of information and experience of "lessons learned" will become a major tool for disseminating innovations. Finally, capacity building programs should utilize a multitude of providers, including universities, professional associations, and private sector entities.

Capacity building is not something one government agency alone can claim ownership.

The GTZ/CLEAN Urban study has suggested 12 major areas for capacity building activities:

* Finalizing the regulatory framework for decentralization

* Managing the transition period

* A local government budget and finance reform

* Civil service issues

* Training and skills development

* Monitoring the performance of local governments

* Regional planning

* Interregional cooperation

* Adjusting sectoral systems (regulations, institutions, working mechanisms) to the new decentralization framework

* Supervision by the central government

* Institutional reform (both at the regional and the central level), and finally the

* Local policy arrangements, i.e. how political decisions are to be taken on the local level, aiming at a maximum involvement of stakeholders.

The capacity of public sector organizations is a dynamic and normative concept, not something that can be easily quantified.

Many factors influence whether a local government agency can deliver services with the required quantity and quality: the environment in which its operates (e.g. the legal framework), organizational issues (like its decision-making procedures, its organizational structure, access to information and other resources), and the knowledge, skills and work ethics of its workforce.

Some of these factors can be influenced by the local governments, some are determined by the central government. Others (like work ethics) are influenced by tradition, social norms and values which change only slowly over time.

Regional autonomy opens the way for local governments to tackle many (but not all) of these factors according to their own needs and conditions, without having to follow uniform blueprints determined by Jakarta.

For instance local governments can make choices regarding the mechanisms on how to deliver services: by using the traditional government agencies (dinas), by using local enterprises (BUMD), or by contracting-out to the private sector.

A functioning and transparent political system at the local level would ensure that the local leadership is held accountable for the results (positive and negative ones) of its decisions.

In this sense capacity building is more than ensuring that solid waste is collected regularly, and that KTPs are being issued; it also means ensuring that finally local communities have a voice in determining the kind of public services they want.

Regional autonomy requires a learning process for all involved: the local communities, local parliaments, the local government officials, and the officials in central government agencies. The capacity of local governments to deliver services to their communities will increase over time, if they are given a chance.

Participation of local communities, transparency and accountability of the local leadership are key principles of the decentralization policy, and local communities should not hesitate to insist that these principles are respected and adhered to.