Hibah Multidisiplin
FINAL REPORT
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION IN KABUPATEN BANDUNG (LESSON LEARNT FROM SUB- COMPONENT 2.3. INTEGRATED CITARUM WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT PROJECT)
Prepared by: Pius Suratman Kartasasmita, Ph.D. Aloysius Joni Minulyo, S.H., M.H. Devinissa Suhartono Caroline Gratia Sinuraya
Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Katolik Parahyangan
2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 LIST OF TABLES ...... 3 LIST OF MAP ...... 4 LIST OF GRAPH ...... 5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 11 A. Background ...... 11 General ...... 12 B. Research Questions ...... 12 C. Problem Identification ...... 12 Specific ...... 15 D. Problem Statement ...... 15 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 18 A. Community Development Framework ...... 18 B. Community-Driven Development (CDD) ...... 24 C. Land Acquisition versus Land Donation ...... 26 III. METHODOLOGY ...... 30 A. Reserch Design ...... 30 B. Selected Project Case ...... 30 C. Research Questions ...... 31 D. Expected Results ...... 32 E. Data Collection and Analysis ...... 33 D. Validity Measure ...... 33 F. Research Management ...... 38 IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 41 A. Introduction: Kabupaten Bandung at Glance ...... 41 B. The Implementation of Sub-component 2.3 in Kabupaten Bandung ...... 44 C. Compliance of the Set Procedures and Principles ...... 46 D. Project Sustainability ...... 49 E. Institutionalization Processes ...... 53 F. Legal Protection ...... 55 G. The Unresolved Conflict on the Use and Legal Ownership of Land ...... 56 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 60 A. Conclusion ...... 60 B. Recomendations ...... 61
ANNEXES ...... 62
2 | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Numbers of programs distributed by locations and type of the projects 30
Table 2. Matrix of the set procedures and principles along project cycle across community development principle and project line 35
Table 3. Summary on research method and instruments 37
Table 4. Personnel recruited to do the jobs. 38
Table 5. Time schedule according to the proposed plan 39
Table 6. Proposed and approved budget line 40
Table 7. Population of Kecamatan Kertasari by Villages 2009 44
Table 8. Profile those opted for donation in the previous survey 47
Table 9. Increasing Access by the Type of Infrastructure 51
Table 10. Number of people who have access to drinking water facilities and communal sanitation in Desa Cibeureum 51
Table 11. Number of people who have access to drinking water facilities and communal sanitation in Desa Tarumajaya. 52
Table 12. The complete chronology of the ongoing conflict in Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum, Kabupaten Bandung 57
3 | P a g e
LIST OF MAP
Map 1. Citarum River 41
Map 2. Map of Kabupaten Bandung 42
Map 3. Kabupaten Bandung 43
4 | P a g e
LIST OF DIAGRAM
Diagram 1. Research Scheme
Diagram 2. Five unique characteristics of community development approach
Diagram 3. Conceptual framework
Diagram 4. Project management cycle
Diagram 5. Operational model
Diagram 6. Organiztion Structure of TKM in Desa Tarumajaya
5 | P a g e
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning BBWSC ABagenlaic By)e sar Wilayah Sungai Citarum (Citarum River Basin Organization Unit) CBO Community Based Organization CDD Community Driven Development CIT Community Implementation Team CLTs Community Led Total Sanitation CPMU Central Project Management Unit CT Consultant Team CSO Civil Society Organization CRB Citarum River Basin CTPS Cuci Tangan Pakai Sabun (Washing Hands with Soap) CWSH Community Water Sanitation and Health DCT District Consultant Team DGWR Directorate General of Water Resources EA Executing Agency EMA External Monitoring Agency GOI Government of Indonesia ICWRMIP Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program IEC Information Education and Campaign IRM Indonesia Resident Mission MFF Multi Tranche Financing Facility MOF Ministry of Finance MOH Ministry of Health MPW Ministry of Public Works MIS Management Information System MPA Methodology for Participatory Assessment NGO Non-Government Organization P CMU Program Coordination Management Unit P IU Project Implementation Unit PIC Project Implementation Consultant PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation PHBS Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat (Clean and Healthy Lifestyle) PJT 2 Perusahaan Umum Jasa Tirta 2 (WTC Operator) PMM Project Management Manual RTA Rapid Technical Assessment SANIMAS Sanitasi Berbasis Masyarakat (Community Based Sanitation) SPS Safeguard Policy Statement STBM Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat (Community Based Total Sanitation) TOR T erm of Reference TFM Tim Fasilitator Masyarakat (Community Facilitator Team) VIT Villages Implementation Team WATSAN Water and Sanitations WSS Water Service and Sanitation WTC West Tarum Canal
6 | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This study is a case study on the implementation of voluntary land donation in Desa Tarumajaya, Kabupaten Bandung. It follows previous conducted survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi, and Kota Bekasi relate to the Sub-Component 2.3 of the Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Project (ICWRMIP).
2. ICWRMIP is set by the Government of Indonesia (GOI) with funding assistance from the Multi-tranche Financing Facility (MFF) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It is implementing in tranches over a period of 15 years. Among other activities, there is the Support for Community and NGO-Driven Initiatives for Improved Water Supply and Sanitation (Sub-component 2.3.) carried out by Ministry of Health, Directorate of Environmental Health with the support Provincial Health Agency and a number of District Health Agencies.
3. Sub-component 2.3, as indicated above, includes a community-driven approach, based on the process developed under the on-going Second Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities, Community Water Sanitation and Health, and Community-based Sanitation projects, that using the resources of the active Non-Government Organization and Community-based Organization in the field.
4. This component aims to provide the community with adequate amounts of accessible clean water, and additional financing for other health related activities of their choosing. This included an opportunity for individual households to construct private sanitation facilities or for the community to build simple solid waste disposal or waste water drainage, or to finance other kinds of health support services as they may choose (within established parameters). As far as possible, construction of water systems, communal sanitation and solid waste disposal be done by villagers through self-help, in which non- local material (e.g. pipes, pumps, etc.) financed by the project. The villages will co- finance with a 20% up-front contribution consisting of 4% of the total construction cost in cash, and an additional 16% in labour and local materials. Operation and Maintenance system will be the responsibility of the community with institutional support made available for difficult problems which might arise.
5. Strident procedures and principles were set and agree both by GOI as well as ADB to implement VLD as part of the signed loan agreement.
6. Two research questions are central to this study. Firstly, the extent to which the set procedures and principles agreed by both ADB and GOI were executed at the implementation level. Secondly, the extent to which the long-term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures beyond project time-line.
7. The purpose of the study, accordingly, are as the following: a. Collecting and reviewing the voluntary contribution report, social and economic data of those opted for donation, and related reports. b. Assessing that voluntary contribution was carried over with the clear and adequate information on the project, the close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating the land/assets will not be severely affected,
7 | P a g e
will not fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. The assessment should be inclusive of gender concerns and ADB policy. c. Assessing the long-term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures.
8. Two conceptual framework are central to this study. Firstly, community-driven development (CDD) and voluntary land donation (VLD).
9. Community development in this study is defined as a planned evolution of all aspects of community well-being (economic, social, environmental and cultural). It is a process whereby community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems. An effective community development should be a long- term envision, well planned, inclusive and equitable, holistic and integrated into the bigger picture, initiated and supported by community members, benefit to the community and grounded in experience that leads to best practice. The primary outcome of community development, therefore, is improved quality of live. It focuses on the centrality of oppressed people in the process of overcoming externally imposed social problems.
10. Voluntary land donation refers to a process of giving up individual or community rights on land for public usage voluntarily including at promoting development project managed either by government or private establishments.
11. Field survey previously conducted in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi concludes that: a. Those opted for contributions receive clear and adequate information on the project. b. Those opted for contribution directly benefits from the project, yet the conclusion is somewhat unclear. c. Selection on the project location is undertaken in close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating land/assets. The consultation about project location was done intensively and periodically. Information provided regarding project location was clearly understood and satisfying. d. There is possibility those opted for donation will be severely affected. There are 25% who donated their land above 10% that set as the contribution thresholds. There were 2 (two) respondents who gave up the whole land (100%) to the project, 1 (one) respondent provide 90% of their land and there is 1 (one) respondent who gave up their land up to 66.66%. Given all that fact, the average of land donated to the project is as high as 16.2% from the land of their owned. Although both EMA as well as project facilitators have no sufficient legal basis to verify respondents' land ownership, it is confident to note that the overall proportion of land donation as a whole, after excluding extreme cases, the percentage reach only 2.8% which is far below agreed donation thresholds. It is also clearly noted from depth interview that those who donated land beyond the set threshold were motivated by getting direct financial benefit from the project. e. Those opted for contribution most probably fall under the category of poor or vulnerable household when respondents' level of education, occupation, monthly income and expenditure were used as proxies. f. Detailed data on the socio economic back ground of those opted for donation and project potential impact to them was not properly collected and reported in
8 | P a g e
the project document. People who sell the land through negotiated land acquisition for the project also was not clearly indicated. g. The voluntary donation processes is properly recorded and administered. The majority of land contributors signed written documents and confirmed about appointed witnesses who were presence to witness the process of donation. It is also noted from the document that NGOs and local authorities were also presence for verifying the signing documents. However, the result from depth interview weakened the conclusion. h. Provisions on voluntary donation was integrally constructed in the decision making process at the community level and included in the technical guidance that serve as a reference for the project consultants and facilitators and was disseminated to the communities. It is confirmed that the result of consensus agreement and that information about selection of land donation was disseminated and socialized to the wider local community member. i. Gender discrimination did not exist in land donation processes, in the sense that women are treated equally as men. It is also concluded that the implemented projects were advantageous for women especially in the area of cleanness, health and education. Most respondents perceived that the compliance of women's need in land donation process was satisfying.
12. The said survey recommends five (5) critical points. Firstly, the project needs to run careful assessment on social economic background that might necessary for understanding and predicting economic aspect of the program. Secondly, the project needs to closely follow the set and agreed principles so that the project risk can be minimized. Thirdly, the project needs to develop systematic and clear project documentation, especially regarding the legal status of donated land and its donation process. Fourthly, since the verification includes also procedural compliance, the best time for verification is during project implementation instead of after project completion. Finally, it is recommended that in order to promote project sustainability, three factors need to be maintained i.e. long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets.
13. Using case study in Desa Tarumajaya Kabupaten Bandung, this study aims to deepen comprehension and confirm the above findings. Documentary study, in depth interview, and site-visit were conducted as data collection techniques. Data analysis utilized in this study is basically social analysis to include: a. Content analysis is intended to verify documents under study and obtained information from conducted depth interview, b. Policy analysis is applied to analyse policy related data and information. c. Stakeholder analysis is also endorsed to identify specific needs, interests and concerns of each different project stakeholders.
14. It is concluded that almost all items of a set procedures and principles agreed both by ADB and GOI were fully followed at the implementation level. This conclusion confirms the previously conducted field survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi. However, there was a situation in which TKM in Desa Tarumajaya as a representation of local community, together with village authority, and Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung, involved in unresolved conflict with PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan VIII regarding the legal status of land ownership on which project facilities were established. Instead of negotiating, looking a more feasible 9 | P a g e
alternatives or purchasing the land under concern with official consent from ADB, villagers together with village authority and officially known by Dinas Kesehatan, took an ad hock collective action of claiming the legal status of land that was also officially claimed by PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan as their belonging. This unnecessary collective action was not only shifting the project focus into different direction, but ultimately putting project sustainability into jeopardy.
15. As far as project sustainability is concerned, three contributing factors were considered under this study: long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets. It was confirmed, that the greatest project challenge in Kabupaten Bandung was not about complying project implementation towards a set procedures and principles agreed by both and GOI, but mitigating project sustainability through conflict resolution on land among committed parties and firmed legal protection of the established project institutions and assets. This information also gives a lot of sense in predicting project sustainability in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi.
16. The first general recommendation of this study is about compliance measures. The strengths should be maintained in the future project and the flaws need to be improved. Among others, this project earns some strong point in complying a set procedures and principles agreed by both ADB and GOI such as giving information, inclusion of land contributors in every stage of project phase, as well as considering women. However, there are 3 (three) critical points need to be improved for future projects. Firstly, the project needs to run careful assessment on social economic background that might necessary for understanding and predicting economic aspect of the program. Secondly, the project needs to closely follow the set and agreed principles so that the project risk can be minimized. Thirdly, the project needs to develop systematic and clear project documentation, especially regarding the legal status of donated land and its donation process.
17. The second general recommendation of this verification is on mitigating project sustainability. It is recommended that in order to promote project sustainability, three factors need to be maintained i.e. long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets. However, learning from this case study clear legal status of land for donation need to be guaranteed.***
10 | P a g e
I. INTRODUCTION A. Background
21. This study is a case study on the implementation of voluntary land donation in Desa Tarumajaya, Kabupaten Bandung. It follows previous conducted survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi, and Kota Bekasi related to the Sub-Component 2.3 of the Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Project (ICWRMIP).
22. ICWRMIP is set by the Government of Indonesia (GOI) with funding assistance from the Multi-tranche Financing Facility (MFF) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It is implementing in tranches over a period of 15 years. Among other activities, there is the Support for Community and NGO-Driven Initiatives for Improved Water Supply and Sanitation (Sub-component 2.3.) carried out by Ministry of Health, Directorate of Environmental Health with the support Provincial Health Agency and a number of District Health Agencies1.
23. The overall sub-components of ICWRMIP are listed as the following: Subcomponent 1.1: Roadmap Management (loan); Subcomponent 1.2: Roadmap Institutional Strengthening (grant); Subcomponent 1.3: IWRM Institutional Strengthening (grant); Subcomponent 1.4: Spatial Planning for the Citarum River Basin Territory (grant); Subcomponent 2.1: Rehabilitation of the West Tarum Canal (loan); Subcomponent 2.2: Improved Land and Water Management (loan); Subcomponent 2.3: Support for Community and CSO Driven Initiatives for Improved Water Supply and Sanitation (loan); Subcomponent 2.4: Water Supply Options for Upgrading Bandung Water Sources (grant); Subcomponent 2.5: Feasibility Study for Upgrading Bandung Water Sources (grant); Subcomponent 2.6: Detailed Engineering Design for Upgrading Bandung Water Sources (loan); Subcomponent 3.1: Development of Key Policies and Strategies for WRM (ADB TA); Subcomponent 4.1: Development and Implementation of a Basin River Quality Improvement Strategy and Action Plans (loan); Subcomponent 4.2: Watershed Management and Biodiversity Conservation (GEF-funded grant); Subcomponent 5.1: Upper Citarum Basin Flood Management (grant); Subcomponent 5.2: Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Citarum River Basin (grant); Subcomponent 7.1: Decision Support System for IWRM in Citarum River Basin (grant);
1 Cita-Citarum. Program Component. http://citarum.org/en/roadmap/implementation-icwrmip-phase-1/program- component.html
11 | P a g e
Subcomponent 8.1: Program Management Support (loan); Subcomponent 8.2: Independent Monitoring and Evaluation (loan).
24. Sub-component 2.3, as indicated above, includes a community-driven approach, based on the process developed under the on-going Second Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities, Community Water Sanitation and Health, and Community-based Sanitation Projects, that using the resources of the active non-Government Organization and Community-based Organization in the field. This sub-component aims to provide the community with adequate amounts of accessible clean water, and additional financing for other health related activities of their choosing. This included an opportunity for individual households to construct private sanitation facilities or for the community to build simple solid waste disposal or waste water drainage, or to finance other kinds of health support services as they may choose (within established parameters). As far as possible, construction of water systems, communal sanitation and solid waste disposal be done by villagers through self-help, in which non-local material (e.g. pipes, pumps, etc.) financed by the project. The villages will co-finance with a 20% up-front contribution consisting of 4% of the total construction cost in cash, and an additional 16% in labour and local materials. Operation and Maintenance system will be the responsibility of the community with institutional support made available for difficult problems which might arise3.
25. The land required for constructed project infrastructures were community responsibility as beneficiaries. It could be derived from: (i) individual with conditions; (ii) village which is social facility land; and (iii) institution, as if the land belongs to PJT-2.4
26. Provisions on voluntary donation must be integrally constructed in the decision making process at the community level and included in the technical guidance that will serve as a reference for the project consultants and facilitators and should be disseminated to the communities.
B. General Research Questions
27. Firstly, the extent to which the set procedures and principles agreed by both ADB and GOI were executed at the implementation level. Secondly, the extent to which the long- term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures beyond project time-line.
C. Problem Identification
28. The scope of study, accordingly, are as the following: a. Collecting and reviewing documents to include the voluntary land donation report, social and economic data of those opted for donation, and other related reports. b. Assessing that voluntary land donation was carried over under the agreed principles and procedures in particular with the clear and adequate information on the project; the close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating the land/assets, will not be severely affected, will not
3 Ibid 4 Ibid
12 | P a g e
fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. The assessment should be inclusive of gender concerns and ADB policy. c. Assessing the long-term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures.
29. Given the background and problem statement above, the purpose and urgency of this study are threefold. Firstly, describing social and economic profile of those opted for donation including information whether those who opted for donation will not be severely affected and will not fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. Secondly, to describe whether the implemented programs were complied with the set principles and procedures. Particularly, that voluntary contribution was carried over with the clear and adequate information on the project, that decision on project is done in close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating the land/assets, and that the study will be inclusive of gender concerns and donor policy. Thirdly, the study will conclude about the long-term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures beyond project time-line.
30. Field survey that was previously conducted in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi revealed with 6 (six) conclusions as the following: a. Firstly, that those opted for voluntary land donation in the study fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household measured by their education background, occupation, monthly income and expenditure as proxy. It clearly noted that the land contributors mostly consist of those who are reasonably categorized as vulnerable group. This was not comply with the set principles discussed indicating that those opted for contribution will not fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. This happened because their social economic background was not properly checked and documented. Consequential impact of this situation might risk those opted for donation to fall into deeper poverty or social and economic vulnerability. b. Secondly, on one side the study confidently concludes that those who opted for donation were requested to fill document related to their donation, the majority of land contributors signed written documents and they also appointed witnesses who were actually presence in the process of donation and that NGOs as well as local authorities were presence for verifying the signing documents signifying that the set and agreed procedures were administratively complied. On the other side, this study also concerns with the fact that procedural compliance did not associate with one of the set principle indicating that those who opted for donation will not be severely affected. Land to be donated does not exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land does not exceed 10% of the total income. This findings have two serious consequences. Firstly, less probability for maintaining project sustainability due to insufficient legal documentation. Secondly, increase the risk of those who opted for donation will fall into deeper poverty or social and economic vulnerability. c. Thirdly, it is interesting to note that majority of those who opted for donation (75%) believed that the project will directly benefit them. However, this study has not much confident to drag conclusion regarding the matter. The question used for obtaining the respective information did not pass content validity testing. Post survey evaluation with surveyors revealed that the main problem 13 | P a g e
may not be caused by unclear wording or other technical matters, rather it mostly related with uncertain attitude and less clear expectation of those who opted for donation about direct benefit of the implemented projects. All surveyors were in agreement at this point that respondents had difficulty to confidently respond the question. Such question needs to be broken down into more specific statement. d. Fourthly, this study confidently concludes that those who opted for land contributions received clear and adequate information about the project. It is found that most of respondents (82.6%) respond that information about the project both clear and adequate. In determining project location as part of participatory project planning and execution, majority of land contributors agree and strongly agree (90.7%) that project facilitators explained clearly about project location, it was done by close consultation with land contributors, intensively and periodically. Therefore, information shared regarding project location was clearly understood and accordingly it was satisfying. Such conclusive statement is confirmed through average percentage of respondents who are agree and strongly agree (85%) towards the discussed matter. Regarding provision on voluntary land donation, it is confidently concluded that voluntary land donation provision was proceed through consensual agreement of the community and the information about the selected land for donation was disseminated and shared within a wider circle of community members. This conclusion was empirically confirmed by the fact that majority of respondent (79.7%) agree and strongly agree about the respective matters. The positive implications of such findings are twofold, i.e. demonstrating high compliance of the set procedures and increasing the probability of potential complaints, therefore, enhancing project sustainability beyond closure. e. Fifthly, regarding gender perspective inclusion in project implementation it is convincingly concluded that gender discrimination was not exist in land donation process under study, in the sense that women are treated equally as men, the implemented projects were advantageous of women especially in the area of cleanness, health and education. The study indicates that most of respondent (69.7%) agree and strongly agree that the established project was consciously considering the needs and of women in the community. In details, it is clear that gender discrimination is not presence in implemented land donation process, in the sense that women are treated equally as men. In addition it is also indicated that the implemented projects were advantageous of women especially in the field of hygienic, health and education. As a result, most respondents perceived that the compliance of women's need in land donation process was satisfying. This also implies high compliance of integrating gender perspective in the implemented project. f. Finally, in general this study concludes that in terms of project compliance it was found that the set procedures were tend to be administratively complied. However, serious efforts to comply with principles need to be forwardly pushed. In terms of project sustainability, the study clearly demonstrates that clear information shared by those who opted for donation, optimistic perception about direct benefit of the project, and gender inclusion in the project would likely increase the probability of project sustainability beyond project closure. However, inadequate assessment and documentation of social and economic back ground as well as on land ownership of those who opted donation, would probably lessen project sustainability and increase the possibility of them falling
14 | P a g e
into deeper poverty and vulnerability.6
18. The said previous survey recommends five (5) critical points as the following: a. Firstly, the project needs to run careful assessment on social economic background that might necessary for understanding and predicting economic aspect of the program. b. Secondly, the project needs to closely follow the set and agreed principles so that the project risk can be minimized. c. Thirdly, the project needs to develop systematic and clear project documentation, especially regarding the legal status of donated land and its donation process. d. Fourthly, since the verification includes also procedural compliance, the best time for verification is during project implementation instead of after project completion. e. Finally, it is recommended that in order to promote project sustainability, three factors need to be maintained i.e. long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets.
D. Specific Problem Statement
31. Given findings from the previously conducted survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi, as well as mentioned problem identification above, this study aims to confirm and deepen comprehension regarding the following specific research questions. a. Why do those opted for voluntary land donation in the study fall under the category of poor or vulnerable. This fact is clearly was not comply with the set and agreed project principles under study. b. What are the accounted factors explaining the fact that some of land contributors donated their land exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land exceed 10% of the total income? c. The majority of those who opted for donation (75%) believed that the project will directly benefit them. However, this study has not much confident to drag conclusion regarding the matter. Post survey evaluation with surveyors revealed that uncertain attitude and less clear expectation of those who opted for donation about direct benefit of the implemented projects. This study aims to confirm the findings. d. It is found that most of respondents (82.6%) respond that information about the project both clear and adequate. In determining project location as part of participatory project planning and execution, majority of land contributors agree and strongly agree (90.7%) that project facilitators explained clearly about project location, it was done by close consultation with land contributors, intensively and periodically. Therefore, information shared regarding project location was clearly understood and accordingly it was satisfying. This study aims to identify whether such compliance of the set procedures leads to enhancing project sustainability beyond closure. e. It is convincingly concluded that gender discrimination was not exist in land donation process under study, in the sense that women are treated equally as
6 LPPM Unpar and ICORD Indonesia. 2016. Final Verification Report on Voluntary Land Donation. Pp.89-94. 15 | P a g e
men, the implemented projects were advantageous of women especially in the area of cleanness, health and education. In other words, most respondents perceived that the compliance of women's need in land donation process was satisfying. This also implies high compliance of integrating gender perspective in the implemented project. This study will confirm once again regarding the respective matters. f. Would inadequate assessment and documentation of social and economic back ground as well as documentation about land ownership of those who opted donation, lessen project sustainability and increase the possibility of them falling into deeper poverty and vulnerability?
32. Diagram 1 below demonstrates posisition of this study (marked in yellow) within a continual research scheme in connection with the previous conducted survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi.
16 | P a g e
Diagram 1. Research Scheme
RESEARCH CONCEPTUAL FIELD WORK 1 OUTPUTS FIELD WORK 2 OUTPUTS QUESTIONS FRAMEWORK
•Program •Community •Case study in •Confirmation compliances Development •District of •Field Survey District of about Field •Program framework Karawang Report Bandung Survey findings sustainability •Land donation •District of framework, Bekasi procedures •City of Bekasi and principles
Previous Field Survey This Study
17 | P a g e
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Community Development Framework
33. Literature review conducted in this study aims to deepen and widen comprehension both regarding community driven development approach as well as about voluntary land donation. The following paragraphs provide summary of conducted literature review.
34. Community-Driven Development (CDD) is a bottom-up development approach as part of community development approach that commonly defined as a planned evolution of all aspects of community well-being (economic, social, environmental and cultural). It is a process whereby community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems. An effective community development, therefore, should be a long-term endeavour, well planned, inclusive and equitable, holistic and integrated into the bigger picture, initiated and supported by community members, benefit to the community and grounded in experience that leads to best practice. The primary outcome of community development, therefore, is improved quality of live7. It focuses on the centrality of oppressed people in the process of overcoming externally imposed social problems.8
35. Community development approach is recently used as the contrary to the fact that for quite period of time, development programs and policies were by the government mostly planned and executed through a top-down approach, this study employ a bottom-up policy approach.9 It is believed that top-down policy approach only touched the community on its surface and did not touch the grass root level which means no involvement of the community in the decision making process. It is widely recognized that participation in government schemes often means no more than using the service offered or providing inputs to support the project.10
36. This approach assumes public participation through both policy cycle as well as collective actions. Such collective approach is important because ‘joining together in solidarity…facilitates community members’ understanding that their individual problems have social causes and collective solutions.11 But before the collective action being implemented, the exploration of community and individuals strength are often more effective than individual casework intervention in addressing social needs (in this case clean water and sanitation).12
37. Bottom up approach is embedded and becoming a solid identity of community development planning and execution. Such approach is commonly used among
7Flo Frank and Anne Smith. 1999. The Community Development Handbook, A Tool To Build Community Capacity. Human Resources Development Canada, Labor Market Learning and Development Unit, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). Page 6. 8 Allison Tan. 2009. Community Development Theory and Practice: Bridging the Divide between ‘Micro’ and ‘Macro’ Levels of Social Work. Indianapolis. Paper Presented at NACSW Convention 2009, October 2009 Indianapolis, IN), page 6. 9 Denoting A System Of Government Or Management In Which Actions And Policies Are Initiated At The Highest Level; hierarchical 10 Smith on Mathbor (2008:5) 11Checkoway in Tan Ibid. page 5 12 Mendes in Tan Ibid. page 5-6
18 | P a g e
community development practices in contradictory to a top down approach that used to be implemented in executing governmental programs and policies13. In the past, bottom up approach never reached the grass root level which means that no involvement of the community as a whole, such as in the decision making process. It is widely recognized that participation in government schemes often means no more than using the service offered or providing inputs to support the project.14
38. Five characteristics are commonly considered as unique to Community Development approach that will also be counted in this verification. These are: a. Community participation; is the collective action where the beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development once their capacity were built and adhered. b. Empowerment and self-help mechanism; is the social action process that enabling the member of community to overcome the problems in their neighbourhood using their own capacities. c. Capacity building; is the existing resources within a community which has something beneficial to offer. Capacity building is not always the ways and means needed to do what has to be done. d. Institution building; is the legal and regulatory changes that have to be made in order to enable organizations to enhance their capacities. e. Sustainability; is the long term impact and beneficiaries beyond project period.
39. Community participation as the very key element of community development is commonly practiced even in the government-managed programs and policy implementation. It is element that leads to develop other community development element such as empowerment and self-help mechanism, capacity building both at individual as well as institutional level; and program sustainability. Some readings reviewed in this study provides some working definitions.
40. Westergraad (1986) defined participation as “collective efforts (collective action) to increase and exercise control over resources and institutions on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from control.” This definition points toward a mechanism for ensuring community participation. 15
41. Oakley and Marsden (1987) defined community participation as the process by which individuals, families, or communities assume responsibility for their own welfare and develop a capacity to contribute to their own and the community’s development. In the context of development, community participation refers to an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than merely receive a share of project benefits.16
42. Charles Abrams defines community participation as “the theory that the local community should be given an active role in programs and improvements directly
13 Smith in Mathbor. 2008. Denoting a System of Government or Management in Which Actions and Policies are Initiated at the Highest Level; hierarchical. 14 Smith on Mathbor (2008:5) Ibid, P.5. 15 Ibid, p.14. 16 Ibid.
19
affecting it”. It is rational to give control of affairs and decisions to people most affected by them. Besides, since no government or authority has the means to solve all the public problems adequately, it is necessary to involve people in matter that affect them. 17
43. Harrison (1995) argues through citizen participation or community participation, a broad cross-section of the community is encouraged to identify and articulate their own goals, design their own methods of change, and pool their resources in the problem- solving process.18 Thus, community participation is an important component of community development and reflects a grassroots or bottom-up approach to problem solving. 19
44. In the broader sense, community participation is considered as a thought or as an instrument of empowerment. According to this view, development should lead to an equitable sharing of power and to a higher level of people’s in particular the weaker groups, political awareness and strengths. Any project development activity is then a means of empowering people so that they are able to initiate actions on their own and thus influence the processes and outcomes of development.20
45. One might argues that the objective of community participation, is to give the community legitimate power to conduct what they think they need, instead this approach attempts to give them trust to escalate their own capacity (empowerment). Empowerment-oriented interventions enhance wellness while they also aim to ameliorate problems, provide opportunities for participants to develop knowledge and skills, and engage professionals as collaborators instead of authoritative experts.21
46. Empowerment and self-help mechanism is another unique character of community development approach. As proposed by Barker (1991), self-help mechanism together with empowerment, democratic process, and local leadership play significant roles in community revitalization. Each community development program was given from the community, for the community and by the community itself. Most community development work involves participation of the communities as beneficiaries involved as indicated by Smith (1998). One of the major aims of community development is to encourage participation of the community as a whole. Indeed, community development has long been defined as a social process resulting from citizen participation. This view is commonly shared among community development practices such as the United Nations (1963), Vaughan (1972), Darby and Morris (1975), Christenson and Robinson (1980) and Rahman (1990) as discussed in Smith (1998).
47. The term community empowerment differs with development in some aspects. On one side, Korten (1990: 27) defined development as a process by which the members of a society increase their personal and institutional capacities to mobilize and manage resources to produce sustainable and justly distributed improvements in their quality of life consistent with their own aspirations. While on the other hand, Robinson, Hoare,
17 Ibid 18 Harison in Mathbor, (2008) 19 Ibid. 20 Op.cit accessed on Saturday, 19 September 2015, 17.40 WIB 21 Douglas D. Perkins and Marc A. Zimmerman, Empowerment Theory, Research and Application https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/empintro.proquest.pdf accessed on Saturday, 19 September 2015, 18.06 WIB
20 | P a g e
and Levy’s (1993) added the dimension of empowerment to Korten’s idea of development as indicated by Robinson (1993:199). They defined empowerment as a social action process that promotes participation of people, organizations, and communities towards the goals of increased individual and community control, political efficacy, improved quality of life, and social justice. 22
48. Various definitions of development are consistent with the concept of empowerment defined as “an intentional ongoing process centred in the local community, involving mutual respect, critical reflection, caring, and group participation, through which people lacking an equal share of valued resources gain greater access to and control over those resources” as proposed by Cornell Empowerment Group (1989) or simply a process by which people gain control over their lives, democratic participation in the life of their community as claimed by Rappaport (1987) and a critical understanding of their environment as proposed by Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, and Checkoway (1992).23
49. Capacity building, is the third unique characteristic in community development program. In community participation approach, the beneficiaries are given more information, responsibility and decision making power in diverse project areas including the project’s focus, the targeting of beneficiaries, the implementation strategy and assessment.24 Capacity building is going to have to develop the knowledge and skills to operate in different ways.
50. Capacity is simply the ways and means needed to do what has to be done. It is much broader than simply skills, people and plans. It includes commitment, resources and all that is brought to bear on a process to make it successful. Most often, capacity is referred to as including people who are willing to be involved; skills, knowledge and abilities; wellness and community health; ability to identify and access opportunities; motivation and the wherewithal to carry out initiatives; infrastructure, supportive institutions and physical resources; leadership and the structures needed for participation; economic and financial resources; and enabling policies and systems.
51. Community decision-making is one of requires effective community leadership to make high-quality decisions in them. The effective decision does not, as so many texts on decision-making proclaim, flow from a consensus on the facts. The key understanding underlies the right decisions grows out of the clash and conflict of divergent opinions and out of the serious consideration of competing alternatives. A high quality community decision process highlights the frame, potential alternatives and key assumptions that drive value. 25
22 Op.cit. 2008 23 Douglas D. Perkins and Marc A. Zimmerman, Empowerment Theory, Research and Application https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/empintro.proquest.pdf accessed on Saturday, 19 September 2015 18.11 WIB. 24 Ronelle Burger, Does Community Participation Enhance The Efficiency of Development Projects?, http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2007-EDiA-LaWBiDC/papers/035-Burger.pdf accessed on Friday, 18 September 2015 15.01 WIB 25I Adekeye Abiona and W Niyi Bello, Grassroots Participation in Decision-Making Process and Development Programmes as Correlate of Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Nigeria by. Journal of Sustainable Development 6.3 (http://search.proquest.com/docview/1416212657/fulltextPDF/291F68D7626E4CBCPQ/1?accountid=31495) accessed on September 20th 2015, 20.14 WIB. 21
52. The capacity of community in decision-making process is crucial. Once the capacity of the community is adhered, those capacities must be addressed in a manner the way it supposed to be, that is through decision-making process. Decision-making process is not one of the most important roles of the community stakeholders. Decision-making precisely is an act of choice between alternative causes of action. To be able to decide what action to take on any programs, the community stakeholders need to know, not only the various alternative action that exist, but also what type of decision to make, who should make the decision, how the decisions should be made and how decisions of the most urgent or pressing need of all the needs in the community.
53. Most of the times local community does not realize the capabilities they have to solve their own problems without highly rely on the government’s help. In fact, all people and communities have a certain amount of capacity. No one is without capacity but often we need to develop it.26 That is why the exploration of strengths and capacity is very important step to take first. Basically, it takes capacity to build capacity, and it takes a well-thought-out-process to start both capacity building and effective community development.27
54. Institutional capacity building is another concerns in community development program. As it is stated by the World Bank “…capacity building is…investment in human capital, institutions and practices.” 28 After the individual’s capacity has been increased by the empowerment, community development approach also hoping that there would be an institutional or organizational development. After the organization was developed, the member of community needs to build the organization’s capacity in order to obtain program sustainability.
55. Institutional capacity embraces human resource development, organizational development and institutional development. Building institutional capacity can generate consensus on what kind of collective game being played, and it offers trust and collaboration to respond flexibility to new situations. Capacity building is often too limited in its approach, equipping individuals with knowledge and skills to operate sustainability. It is suggested that organizational and broader institutional context presents as great an impediment to the sustainable development as the inability of individuals to operate sustainable development.
56. Institution is a system in which sustainable development is to be progresses. Institutions have informal as well as formal elements. Institutions are the norms and routines of working practices, as well as the administrative processes that structured and practiced. Institutions are simply described as the rules of the game as defined by Department for Institutional Development. Sustainable development needs to become the rules of the game, and as all collective actions are mediated through institutions.
57. Individual and institutional capacity building are tightly connected albeit it is not
26 Ibid. 27 Loc.cit.,16 (Frank and Smith ; 1999) 28 Capacity Development: Definitions, Issues and Implications for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Charles Lusthaus, Marie-Helene Adrien, Mark Prestinger, Universalia Occasional Paper, No.35 September 1999, http://andewal.com/archive/capacity_development_explored.pdf accessed on September 25, 2015 20.54 WIB page 4.
22 | P a g e
always parallel to each other. Individuals will need more ‘soft’ skill and organizations will need to recognize and reward these skills. Organizations will have to better understand the nature of partnering and collaborating. The legislative context will need to not only be supportive of sustainable development, but of the processes required to progress sustainable development, such as collaboration and shared decision-making. The policy process is going to have to better respond to creativity and innovation in the policy-making process, as well as recognizing that building capacity to progress sustainable development needs to be a key policy process in it-self. 29
58. Program sustainability is another key indicator for a successful development program since the aim of community development is the sustainable development. It would be waste of resources if there is no organization or institutional developed after what has been done. If there is one or two or more institutional development, it would indicate the existence of sustainable development. Two aspects are critical for sustainability of development, legal aspect and long term benefits.
59. Legal aspect is the essence of institutional development that has to be enforced in order to enable organizations and agencies at all levels and in all sectors to enhance their capacities. To bring about an effective change on this aspect needs involvement of political and legislative authority of national government.
60. Long term benefits are also essential at contributing to the sustainability of a development project beyond the disbursement period due to the enhanced level of beneficiary interest and competence in project management.30
Diagram 2. Five unique characteristics of community development approach
Community Participation
Empowerment Sustainability and Self-help Community Mechanism Development Approach
Institutional Individual Capacity Capacity Building Building
61. The challenging issues in the field of community development has thoroughly highlighted by Mick Carpenter et.al in their editorial remark for special issue of
29 Viv Heslop, Institutional Capacity To Progress Sustainable Development In New Zealand: What Will It Take? http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Reports/pdf/institution.pdf, 2006, accessed on Friday, September 25 2015 21.59 WIB 30 Samuel Paul, Community Participation in Development Project http://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Paul-1987- Community.pdf accessed on Saturday, 19 September 2015, 17.00 WIB
23
Community Development Journal (CDJ) published in celebrating its 50th continuous publication anniversary since 1966. Community development, according to them, faces as a set of principles as well as practices, in order to assess its future potential contribution in a rapidly changing world.31
62. This study was conducted in light of the above challenging context in understanding of how an international perspective represented by the set and agreed program procedures and principles, was implemented by local actors at the implementation level.
B. Community-Driven Development (CDD)
63. Community-Driven Development (CDD), in this study is defined as a development approach that gives control over planning decisions and investment resources to community groups and local governments. It has been considered and embraced as an effective program-based approach to delivering International Development Aid in the last decade.32
64. It is believed, since CDD gives communities with a voice and control over all project stages, it provides: a. Complements market and public sector activities. Experience has shown that policies aimed at promoting national economic competitiveness and state run public investment programs are essential but insufficient for poverty reduction. These policies and program often do not benefit everyone, and benefits often take years to trickle down. CDD offers the opportunity to fill this critical gap by achieving immediate and lasting results at the grassroots level (governments can support immediate poverty reduction by efficiently building human and physical assets at the local level). b. Enhance sustainability. CDD can make services responsive to demand expressed by poor men and women and as a result can enhance sustainability. Based on the experience of water supply on 1.875 households in rural communities in six countries (Benin, Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Uganda) suggests that water system sustainability is significantly higher when communities control key investment decisions and when they part of the investment costs, ensuring that they get what they want and are willing to pay for33 (demand is better articulated when communities contribute to investment costs and control investment choices). c. Improves Efficiency and Effectiveness. Studies and practical experience suggest that CDD can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services in many sectors and context. A recent study in South Africa in the term of infrastructure shoes that when CBOs are responsible for all aspects of the project (design, management, and monitoring), costs per beneficiary are less than half than when the CBOs are not decision makers. 34
31 Mick Carpenter, Akwugo Emejulu and Marilyn Taylor. “Editorial Introduction: What’s new and old in community development? Reflecting on 50 years of CDJ”. Community Development Journal. Vol 51 No 1 January 2016 pp. 1–7 32 Kwadwo Adusei-Asante and Peter Hancock. 2012. “Theories in Community-Driven Development Operations: A Case Study of Ghana Local Government System.” European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol.1 No.5 ISSN: 2235- 767X, School of Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia. http://www.ejbss.com/recent.aspx page 83-89. 33 Sara and Katz in Philip Dongier et.al. 2003, Community-Driven Development, Publish the World Bank Group. Community-Based Development General. Chapter 9. 34 Adato et.al., (2003;6)
24 | P a g e
d. Allows poverty reduction efforts to be taken to scale. Because CDD devolves responsibilities and resources to the local level, activities can occur simultaneously in a large number of communities without being constrained by a central bureaucracy. When poor communities are trusted to drive development and are given appropriate information, support and clear rules, a system can be put in place not to provide for poor people, but to facilitate their active and ongoing role in rolling out poverty reduction efforts. e. Makes development more inclusive of the interest of poor people vulnerable groups. Representative CBOs can provide voice and empowerment to groups that are typically excluded from the development process. The minority groups for example might not be effectively expressed through standard political and economic structures. If those minority groups are actively involved in CBOs, they will help make development process more inclusive. f. Empowers poor people, builds social capital, and strengthens governance. CDD empowers poor people. Targeted community-driven approaches devolve control and decision making to poor women and men, which empowers them immediately and directly. While clear rules, transparency, and accountability are important safeguards to prevent corruption or the capture of community resources by elites, the speed and directness with which CDD empowers poor people is rarely matched by other institutional frameworks for poverty reduction.
65. CDD gives control of decisions and resources to community groups. These groups often work in partnership with demand-responsive organizations and service providers, including elected local governments, the private sector, NGOs and central government agencies. CDD is a way to provide social and infrastructure services, organize economic activity and resource management, empower poor people, improve governance and enhance security of the poorest.35
66. Support to CDD usually includes: a. Strengthening and financing accountable and inclusive community groups or CBOs (Community Based Organizations).36 b. Facilitating community access to information through a variety of media, and increasingly through information technology, and: c. Forging functional links between CBOs and formal institutions and creating an enabling environment through appropriate policy and institutional reform, often including decentralization reform, promotion of a conductive legal and regulatory framework, development of sound sector policies, and fostering of responsive sector institutions and private service providers.37
67. CDD is best used for goods and services that are small in scale and not complex and that require local cooperation, such as common pool goods (for example, management
35 Philip Dongier et.al., op.cit., 2003 36 CBOs are normally membership organization made up of a group of individuals in a self-defined community who have joined together to further common interests. They often consist of people living near one another, in a given urban neighbourhood or rural village. They can also be groups of people who are united by a common interest but who do not live in the same geographic community. The common interest might be related to production, consumption, the use of common pool resources, or the delivery of services. CBOs can be stand-alone groups, or they can be linked to federations of groups at the regional, national or international level. CBOs can be informal or formal. (Dongier et.al., 2003:5) 37 Ibid.page 4 25
of common pasture and surface water irrigation systems), public goods (for example, local road maintenance), and civil goods (for example, public advocacy and social monitoring). CDD is used because it is an effective mechanism for poverty reduction, complementing market-and state-run activities by achieving immediate and lasting results at the grassroots level. Experience has shown that CDD can enhance sustainability and make poverty reduction efforts more responsive to demand. Because it works at the local level, CDD has the potential to occur simultaneously in a very large number of communities, thus achieving far-reaching poverty impact. Finally, well- designed CDD programs are inclusive of poor and vulnerable groups, build positive social capital, and give them greater voice in their community and with government entities.38
C. Land Acquisition versus Land Donation
68. Land acquisition and land donation are the same process viewed from opposite angles. Land acquisition is a process used by the state is contested for years on ground of ‘eminent domain’ and ‘public purpose’ for private industries (Sridhar, 2016). Whilst land donation refers to a process of giving up individual or community rights on land for public usage including at promoting development project managed both by government or private establishments.
69. Involuntary displacement of people has become common reality in development world, despite the fact that voluntary donation done by the people and communities in charity movements are also numerous. However, literature review reveals with humongous articles and books addressing land acquisition with all various dimensions of both conceptual and practical, the bright and the dark side. In the contrary, literature study found almost nothing under “land donation” entry. In this study therefore, researchers take a liberty to use “land acquisition” instead of “land donation” in order to build our conceptual framework.
70. Land is commonly regarded as the mean of production, particularly in the context of traditional state-led economic development. Dispossession and forced separation of people from their lands is a dramatic development action as usually done by a post- colonial paradigm development practice, a ‘top-down’ approach (Majumder, 2011). Using the case of India, it is observed that people living at the bottom of the socio- economic ladder is treated as equal partners who with respect to rising ‘mainstream’ material expectations experience ‘dispossession’ by displacement. Such treatment eventually leads to extreme radicalism based on growing uneven development across social and economic categories and across regions that concerns both the state and the civil society. The writer above opines, that the state has to play a key role in development the beginning and base of which has to be to take into confidence the marginalized sections of the society like the tribal people, the downtrodden, and the poor as dignified and equal partners. From the other angle, the voluntary land donation perspective, people and communities given up their land voluntarily covered by free choice and democratic expression.
71. Land acquisition (read also as voluntary land donation) particularly in developing countries is a complex process and institutionally consequential (Berlowitz, 1986). By
38 Ibid.page 4
26 | P a g e
the year 2000, almost sixty urban centres have populations in excess of five million, and almost fifty of those urban centres lie in developing countries. On-going discussion and analysis reveal with the threshold issue of whether the private sector or government should be primarily responsible for land policy formulation, and proceeds to an analysis of the cost advantages to a municipality if it undertakes a program of advanced land acquisition. Based on this premise, then the government need to examine the techniques employed in acquiring the land, the institutions charged with that responsibility, and the methods of financing the acquisition. From the opposite angle, voluntary land donation is highly relay on public responsibility and virtuous citizenship of the people and communities.
72. In predominantly agriculture-based society, like India and Indonesia, land is not only used for food production or is a source of livelihood but also is a symbol of social identity, status, power and wealth. Consequently, loss of land due to various development projects will always become pivotal point of civil society actors, especially the displaced and project-affected population (PAP). Meanwhile within industrialization perspective, land acquisition is a sound development paradigm to push economic growth through industrialization (Sridhar, 2016).
73. The impact of land acquisition were always questioned stridently. Large-scale displacement, multiple displacements and associated impoverishment, socio-cultural alienation and up-rootedness became points of contention against rampant and greedy land acquisition. Culturally, from the perspective of voluntary land donation, land acquisition can be perceived as voluntary changes in cultural and social values, norms, traits, rituals and symbols. People and communities giving up their land for education of their son and daughter can be attributed as a “modern” family with “modern” life style.
74. Land acquisition also exhibits dramatic social irony resulting greater poverty level and economic inequality, as well as deteriorating conditions for women and children (Amir Afaque Ahmad Faizi, 2014). In India, for example, around half of those who suffer from hunger in the country are the small and marginal farmers who grow food for the nation. It is easily identified, that continuous structural adjustments, economic reforms and globalization transformed the small and marginal food growing system into a corporate controlled industrial system of agriculture.
75. Land acquisition seriously impact vulnerable groups. In the hope to earn better wages labour force plunge into the labour market along with their small children and families. They are legally unprotected and economically insecure. They have no insurance coverage nor have any other legislated protective mechanisms like the employee provident fund or the legal sanction of a minimum prescribed wage. Thus, this labour force is exploited with impunity. The incidence of child labour and the deteriorating conditions of women on the farms are increasing. From the people and community development perspective, such irony is a major concern instead of just only “the cost of development and growth” need to be paid. The remaining critical question is who should and eligible to pay the price.
76. Land acquisition has something to do with capital concentration and inequality 27
(Akanda, 2014). Assessment on the pattern of capital concentration on rural land during 1906–2013, the capital output ratio of land increased to an extreme high for an excessive price hike that led the households to get ambitious for land in the contemporary desirous market. The land-rich medium and large farmers were found to accumulate over three forth of all purchases indicating their more contributions to land capitalization. Their major sources of fund were surplus over service income followed by that of agriculture and business. Moreover, continuous capital concentration made the land a commodity, for which a few households with fast-rising service income were even engaged in reckless purchases. However, people with investment opportunities in other high-productive sectors were less eager to purchase agricultural land. From the perspective of the people and communities, the significant question is whether actors has an equal access to market and information.
77. State policy and public officials are not flawless in enforcing firm, just transparent, participative, effective as well as efficient regulatory policy and administration on land acquisition (Maitreesh Ghatak, 2011). Take the 2011 Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill on land acquisition in India as an example. It is believed that its principal defect is that it attaches an arbitrary mark-up to the historical market price to determine compensation amounts. This will guarantee neither social justice nor the efficient use of resources. The Bill also places unnecessary and severe conditions on land acquisition, such as restrictions on the use of multi-cropped land and insistence on public purpose, all of which are going to stifle the pace of development without promoting the interests of farmers. The Bill presents an alternative approach that will allow farmers to choose compensation in either land or cash, determine their own price instead of leaving it to the government’s discretion, and also reallocate the remaining farmland in the most efficient manner. The study proposed method involves a land auction covering not only the project site but also the surrounding agricultural land.
78. Public officials are not always honest in dealing with land acquisition (Sinha, 2014). There is also clear evidence in Bangladesh that the revenue officials conspire with the landlords to delete entries in record-of-rights to disempower the assignees in respect of the land that they have enjoyed for decades. They plead their incapacity to help and palm off the problem to the Civil Courts where the assignees do not stand. Such situation is not unique to Bangladesh, it is also the case of other developing countries including Indonesia.
79. Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) concept was introduced to reduce abusive and unjust land acquisition process and increasingly spread along with land acquisition and displacement for restoration of lives of the project affected people (PAPs). It is believed that demands for effective R&R became stronger over time and was promoted as a prerequisite of land acquisition especially in the projects funded by international donors (Sridhar, 2016).
80. Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR), has been recognized by governments of developing countries, including Indonesia, as one package with land acquisition. The recognition through legislative process started in early 1990s in order to overcome lapses committed by the administrative officers in implementing as well as contending the greed of corporates and other institutions acquiring land. It is believed that policy framing needs to address two following aspects systematically.
28 | P a g e
Firstly, clear expected role of government in the process of land acquisition especially in the context of diverse development projects, for private industries and other institutions. Different types of land acquisition models need to be explored and exercised. Secondly, various types of assessments need to be conducted prior to land acquisition. Such assessments are perceived at strengthening democratic process as well as participatory and transparent governance. Land acquisition that based only on economic growth reason will not be sufficient and sustainable.
81. RFCTLARR (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2013) has attempted to address some of the issues. Promulgation of three ordinances on LARR—one in 2014 and LARR two in 2015—have heated debate on LADRR; it apparently created a threat to farmers and faced vehement opposition from different walks of life. The present NDA-led government then decided not to re-promulgate the ordinance at central level post August 2015, and let LA at the state level be taken care of by the state government. This decision suggests that issues of LADRR need to be understood and investigated in depth for introducing changes in existing policy or legislative processes.
82. International donors, Asian Development Bank is not the exception, are equipped with strong principles and procedures ensuring a just and fair land acquisition. It enforces them as a non-compromised element of their loan agreement of the hosting countries and governments. The set procedures of voluntary land donation for ICWRMIP as agreed by the GOI, for instance, are elaborated in other part of this report.
83. The intriguing question would be, to what extent are those strident principles and procedures executed at the project implementation level. Diagram 3 below shows a used conceptual framework in addressing the respective issue.
Diagram 3. Conceptual framework
VOLUNTARY LAND • PARTICIPATORY DONATION • LONGTERM BENEFIT • EMPOWERMENT/SELF- • PROPER HELP MECHANISM INSTITUTIONALIZATION • CAPACITY BULDING • JUST AND FAIR PRINCIPLES • LEGAL PROTECTION • INSTITUTION BUILDING • ACCOUNTABLE • SUSTAINABILITY PROCEDURES
COMMUNITY DRIVEN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY
29
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Reserch Design
84. This study uses a qualitative research design aims to deepen two general research questions. Firstly, the extent to which the set project principles and procedures that internationally or globally determined, were locally executed at community level. Secondly, is to deal with the long-term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures beyond project time-line.
85. Post-project evaluation is used as the basic research strategy since all of project activities had been completed by the time this study was conducted.
86. The study was independently designed as a qualitative case study involving an interpretative-naturalistic approach, in the sense that the study was conducted in its natural setting, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them40.
87. The study collected and used of a variety of empirical materials, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional and visual texts-that describe routine and problematic moment and meaning in individual’s lives41.
B. Selected Project Case
88. The selected case for this study the implementation of VLD in Desa Tarumajaya, Kabupaten Bandung. It is purposively selected as the case under study due to specific project circumtances after reviewing the implementation of Sub-component 2.3 of ICWRMIP, an ADB funded project hosted by Ministry of Health.
89. An official report released by the ICWRMIP reveals with the total number of program in Sub-component 2.3 is 84 that consists of 27 Construction of Water Supply (SAM), 29 Communal Sanitation (SANKOM), and 28 Recycling Centre (SATDALANG). Those respected programs are located in three districts and one city, namely 21 programs in the City of Bekasi, 16 programs in Bekasi District, 17 in Karawang District and 30 in Bandung District. Table 1 below shows the distribution of implemented programs.
Table 1. Numbers of programs distributed by locations and type of the projects.
Construction of Communal Recycling TOTAL Water Supply Sanitation Center Bekasi City 4 8 9 21 Bekasi District 6 7 3 16 Karawang District 7 4 6 17 Bandung District 10 10 10 30 TOTAL 27 29 28 84
40 Denzin and Lincoln on Emzir (2012:1) 41 Ibid. page 1
30 | P a g e
90. Initial conducted documentary study, however, suggested that the program implemented in Kabupaten Bandung should be excluded in the population for the previously conducted survey for two main reasons. Firstly, the programs implemented in Kabupaten Bandung have different funding scheme. Secondly, the intended land for program site was under conflict so that the necessary legal document of donated land was not finalized within the given project schedule.
C. Research Questions
91. As indicated earlier, procedures of voluntary land contribution that should be carried out in conducting verification are as the following: a. Provisions of the voluntary contribution are incorporated in the Community Action Plan (Rencana Kerja Masyarakat/RKM). b. The Community Action Plan (CAP) proposed by the community should be completed with the contribution statement letter. c. The statement letter must include personal data of the land/asset owner (contributors) and identification of land to be donated. d. The contribution statement letter should be signed by the land/asset owners and witnesses and come with stamp. e. If the land for the project cannot be obtained through donation and no another alternative location available, then the community should obtain the land through negotiated land acquisition/land purchasing and compensation for such land acquisition/land purchasing and compensations for such land acquisition cannot be shouldered by the CAP. If the land acquisition is undertaken, then the land acquisition (either involuntarily or voluntarily) should be prepared and submitted to ADB for concurrence. 42
92. While the principles agreed for voluntary land contribution used as the main conceptual framework for verification activities conducted by EMA are as follows: a. Those opted for contributions receive clear and adequate information on the project. b. Those opted for contribution will directly benefit from the project. c. Selection on the project location is undertaken in close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating land/assets. d. Those opted for donation will not be severely affected. Land to be donated does not exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land does not exceed 10% of the total income. e. Those opted for contribution will not fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. f. Detailed data on the socio economic back ground of those opted for donation and project potential impact to them should be collected and reported in the voluntary donation/contribution document. This will also apply for the people who sell the land through negotiated land acquisition for the project. g. The voluntary donation is properly recorded. Each donation will be verified by the independent party such as NGO or other parties having authority to conduct monitoring. h. Provisions on voluntary donation must be integrally constructed in the decision making process at the community level and included in the technical guidance that
42 ADB. 2016. Project Term of References for Voluntary Land Donation Verification. 31
will serve as a reference for the project consultants and facilitators and should be disseminated to the communities.
93. Two research questions addressed for conducting field survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi, remained central to this case study. Firstly, is to deal with how the set project principles and procedures agreed by both ADB and GOI were executed at the implementation level. Secondly, is to deal with the long-term efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures beyond project time-line.
94. Research objectives, accordingly, are twofolds. Firstly, is to accurately describe of how the set project principles and procedures agreed by both ADB and GOI were executed at the implementation level. Secondly, is to probe the long-term project efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the land utilization for community infrastructures beyond project time-line.
D. Expected Results
95. As it was previously mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, this conducted case study in Kabupaten Bandung aims to confirm and deepen comprehension regarding the following issues. a. Explanation of why do those opted for voluntary land donation in the study fall under the category of poor or vulnerable. b. Explanation of why do land contributors donated their land exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land exceed 10% of the total income? c. Confirmation on previous findings regarding long term project benefit concluding that the majority of those who opted for donation (75%) believed that the project will directly benefit them. Since the post survey evaluation with surveyors revealed that there was uncertain attitude and less clear expectation of those who opted for donation about direct benefit of the implemented projects. d. Confirmation on the previous findings regarding information clarity of the implemented program. It is found that most of respondents (82.6%) respond that information about the project both clear and adequate. In determining project location as part of participatory project planning and execution, majority of land contributors agree and strongly agree (90.7%) that project facilitators explained clearly about project location, it was done by close consultation with land contributors, intensively and periodically. Therefore, information shared regarding project location was clearly understood and accordingly it was satisfying. e. Confirmation on the previous findings regarding gender discrimination. It is convincingly concluded that gender discrimination was not exist in land donation process under study, in the sense that women are treated equally as men, the implemented projects were advantageous of women especially in the area of cleanness, health and education. In other words, most respondents perceived that the compliance of women's need in land donation process was satisfying. This also implies high compliance of integrating gender perspective in the implemented project. f. Proxy about program sustainability based on long term benefits of the program,
32 | P a g e
institutionalization processes and legal documentation about land ownership of those who opted donation as well as legal protection of assets and outputs.
E. Data Collection and Analysis
96. Primary data collected in this study were both individuals and institutions who contributed their land voluntarily. While secondary data collected were documents related to the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3. ICWRMIP to include those documented by Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung, Asian Development Bank (ADB), as well as by Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Citarum (BBWSC).
97. Three types of data were collected during the study. a. Relevant project documents and reports on voluntary land donation, social and economic data of those opted for donation, and other related project reports. b. Perceptional data of project stakeholders on the relevant informations. c. Conditions of the built physical projects.
98. Data collection techniques used in this study includes: a. Documentary study; to be used for verifying voluntary contribution reports, memorandum of understanding, correspondences, and project proposals related to Sub-component 2.3. b. In depth interview; with key informants (people or institutions who donated their land/or assets, village office heads, local leaders, project consultant, EA, IA, etc.). Interview guide is attached in ANNEX A. c. Project site visit; to get ideas about physical conditions of the built project facilities.
99. Threee data analysis were utilized in this study. a. Content analysis was used to verify documents under study. b. Thematic analysis was utilized to display and interprete perceptional data. c. Visual photographic analysis to describe physical condition of the built project facilities. D. Validity Measure
100. The set and agreed procedures and principles remain the point of departure in assessing the implementation of the programs. The said principles and procedures were mapped using community development key dimensions along project cycle. The given 5 (five) procedures and 8 (eight) principles within the matrix of community development framework along project line. This fact gave confidence to believe that the set procedures and principles can be used as a legitimate measure.
101. Triangulation technique is also applied in this study to ensure data validity as much as possible. This technique is used in terms of method, research team, data sources, as well as conceptual framework.
102. Diagram 4 below indicated project cycle commonly known and practiced by most of project management professionals elaborating initiation phase, planning phase, implementation phase and closing phase. Table 2 describes of how the set procedures
33
and principles were nicely fit along project cycle giving a great confident that the measure is constructly valid. Table 3 elaborates type of data, indicators, source of data, and collection technique along the given project cycle.
Diagram 4. Project management cycle
INITIATION
CLOSING PLANING
EVALUATION
103. Initiation phase is the first phase of the project which includes six key activities namely developing business case, performing feasibility studies, establishing project charter, appointing project team, setting-up project office, and performing phase review. Planning phase contains at least ten activities as follows; creating project plan, creating resource plan, creating financial plan, creating quality plan, creating risk plan, creating acceptance plan, creating communication plan, creating procurement plan, contracting suppliers, and performing phase review. Implementation phase is the stage where the prepared action planned being executed. It includes three main activities, namely building deliverables, conducting monitoring and control, and performing phase review. Closing phase is the last stage in which comprises two main activities to include performing project closure and reviewing project completion.43
104. Operational model of the previously given conceptual framework is illustrated in the following diagram below.
Diagram 5. Operational model.
VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION
• LONG TERM BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT • SATDALANG • PROJECT INCLUSION IN RKM • SANKOM • SOCIAL ECONOMIC BACKGROUND • LEGAL DOCUMENT AND PROTECTION OF • SAM • PROPORTION OF DONATED LAND DONATED LAND AND ASSETS • PROJECT INFORMATION SYSTEM • GENDER SENSITIVITY • PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF PROJECT FACILITIES
COMMUNITY PROJECT DRIVEN SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT
43 Method 123. 2003. Project Management Guide Book.
34 | P a g e
Table 2. Matrix of the set procedures and principles along project cycle across community development principle and project line..
PHASES OF PROJECT CYCLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES Project Initiation Project Planning Project Implementation Project Closure
Community Participation Selection on the project Provisions of the voluntary location is undertaken in contribution are close consultation with incorporated in the the land/assets owners Community Action Plan and communities (Rencana Kerja donating land/assets. Masyarakat/RKM)
Empowerment and Self-help The statement letter must Mechanism include personal data of the land/asset owner (contributors) and identification of land to be donated. Individual Capacity Those opted for Those opted for donation Building contributions receive will not be severely clear and adequate affected. Land to be donated information on the does not exceed 10% of the project. total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land does not exceed 10% of the total income.
35
Institutional Capacity The Community Action Provisions on voluntary The voluntary donation is Building Plan (CAP) proposed by the donation must be integrally properly recorded. Each community should be constructed in the decision donation will be verified by completed with the making process at the the independent party such as contribution statement community level and NGO or other parties having letter. included in the technical authority to conduct guidance that will serve as a monitoring. reference for the project consultants and facilitators and should be disseminated to the communities. Project's Sustainability If the land for the project Those opted for contribution Detailed data on the socio The contribution statement cannot be obtained will directly benefit from the economic back ground of letter should be signed by through donation and no project. those opted for donation and the land/asset owners and another alternative project potential impact to witnesses and come with location available, then them should be collected and stamp. the community should obtain the land through reported in the voluntary Those opted for contribution negotiated land donation/contribution will not fall under the acquisition/land document. This will also category of poor household purchasing and apply for the people who sell or vulnerable household. compensation for such the land through negotiated land acquisition/land land acquisition for the purchasing and project. compensations for such land acquisition cannot be shouldered by the CAP. If the land acquisition is undertaken, then the land acquisition (either involuntarily or voluntarily) should be prepared and submitted to ADB for concurrence.
36 | P a g e
Table 3. Summary on research method and instruments
Principle Elements of Community Data Collection Indicators Data Data Source Development Technique
Public participation during Community attendance Lists of attendance Local community Documentary initiation, planning, implementing in community gatherings Lists of land Participating NGOs study and the closing phases of the Community contributors Local leaders In depth interview projects. contributions Tim Kerja Kabupaten, MOH Empowerment during initiating, Community challenges, Village profile Local community planning, implementing and the community conditions, Participating NGOs In depth interview closing phases of the project. community capacity Local leaders Documentary Tim Kerja Kabupaten, study MOH Capacity building during initiating, Relevant training Lists of trainings Local community In depth interview planning, implementing and the activities and other Participating NGOs Documentary closing phases of the project. individual capacity Local leaders study building Tim Kerja Kabupaten, MOH Institutional capacity building Strengthening the Lists of the existing Legal documents Documentary during initiating, planning, existing local institution local institutions Project reports study implementing and the closing phases Building new Lists of the new local Tim Kerja Kabupaten In depth interview of the project. institutions institutions MOH
Project's sustainability Long term benefits Benefits for community Local community Documentary Legal protection Regulations, Participating NGOs study agreements, contract Local leaders In depth interview documents. Tim Kerja Kabupaten, MOH
37
F. Research Management
105. Research personel and their assigned imeline is shown in Table 4 below. In general all personel completed their tasks comply with the expected quality and in timely manner.
Table 4. Personnel recruited to do the jobs.
Total person-month input March - Total Name of Expert /Position Jan - 1 Feb- 2 Apr- 4 May-5 No 3 (month) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
National Expert 1. Pius Suratman Kartasasmita/Team Leader/Comdev 5 Firman Eko Putra/Co-Team Leader/Project 2 3 Management Aloysius Joni Minulyo, S.H., M.H./Legal Specialist on 3. 3 Land 4. Devinisa Suhartono/Field Coordinator 3 5. Surveyors ( 3 persons ) 2 Supporting Staff 1 Lely Pauline 5 2 Bilingual Secretary/Caroline Sinuraya 3 3 Driver/Nur Jaelany 5 4 Office Boy/Engkos Koswara 5
38 | P a g e
106. Research time schedule as planned shown in Table 5 below. In terms of conducted field study was completed on time. The first draft of final report as well as financial report was completed at the end of May. However, the final draft of the report (this report) was on delay due to shifting priority from finalizing the final report to preparing paper for international conference and publishing them in a reputable academic journal and proceedings. The completed schedule can be found in A Log Book and Financial Report attached in ANNEX C.
Table 5. Time schedule according to the proposed plan
Research Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
PREPARATION Proposal writing (15-28 January 2016) Proposal submission (29 January 2016) * Office preparation (1-5 February 2016) Mobilization of team (1-5 February 2016) Proposal revision (5 April 2016) * Contract sign (17 February 2016) *
DOCUMENTARY STUDY Collecting documents 1-28 February 2016 Reviewing documents 1-28 February 2016
FIELD RESEARCH Developing instruments 8-19 February 2016 Conducting field survey 22-27 February 2016 Interview w/ land owners 1-8 March 2016
DATA PROCESSING Data compilation 14-26 March Data Analysis 28 March -8 April 2016
REPORTING Draft Report 11-22 April 2016 Internal Seminar 25-28 April 2016 * Final Report submission 30 May 2016 *
JOURNAL PAPER WRITING Abstract Submission (15 October 2016) * Full Paper Submission (5 November 2016) * Revised Paper Submission * Presentation at the Conference (21-22 Nov 2016) Paper Published 2017
39
107. Proposed and approved budget line by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (LPPM) Parahyangan CatholicUniversity is shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Proposed and approved budget line
PROPOSED BUDGET LINE_LAND DONATION KABUPATEN BANDUNG
NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT COST VOLUME TOTAL BUDGET %
1 Field Trips Transportation cost man/trip 150,000.00 10 1,500,000.00 Meals pack 35,000.00 25 875,000.00 Accomodation man/night 200,000.00 10 2,000,000.00 Sub-total 4,375,000.00 25.0 Maximum Limit 4,375,000.00 25 2 Usable Suplies Research instruments pack 1,000,000.00 2 2,000,000.00 Office Suplies pack 250,000.00 6 1,500,000.00 Photo-copying page 150.00 7000 1,050,000.00 Flash disks/external drive unit 300,000.00 2 600,000.00 Communication pack 50,000.00 20 1,000,000.00 Sub-total 6,150,000.00 35.1 Minimum Limit 5,250,000.00 30 3 Meals Meeting pack 35,000.00 50 1,750,000.00 Sub-total 1,750,000.00 10 Maximum Limit 2,625,000.00 15
4 Remuneration Team Leader man/month 350,000.00 6 2,100,000.00 Team Member man/month 325,000.00 5 1,625,000.00 Research Assistant man/month 125,000.00 12 1,500,000.00 Sub-total 5,225,000.00 29.9 Maximum Limit 5,250,000.00 30
GRAND TOTAL 17,500,000.00 100
108. The actual budget used can be found in A Log Book and Financial Report attached in ANNEX C.
40 | P a g e
IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Introduction: Kabupaten Bandung at Glance
109. As it is noted by all, Citarum River is flowing through several areas in West Java, from upstream to downstream which include Kabupaten Bandung, Subang, Purwakarta, Karawang, Bekasi and Kota Bekasi down along the West Tarum Canal (WTC). Citarum river watersheds (DAS) and WTC is covering an area of 13,000 km2, and the lifeblood of some 40 million people who live along the Citarum River Basin.
110. In general the people who live in the Citarum River Basin, and WTC have a sufficient supply of drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities. However, the quality is very low both in in terms of physical, chemical, and microbiological. Pollution of the river from many household due to behavioral factors surrounding communities. People are still disposing of household trash and waste directly into the river.
Map 1. Citarum River
Source: Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Citarum’s Website
111. Kabupaten Bandung, as the site of this study is gegraphically a highland of the slope between 0-8percent, 8-15% to over 45%. Most of Bandung Regency is located between the hills and mountains. On the north there is the Mount Bukit Tongue with a high of 2,200 m, Mount Tang Kuban Perham with 2076 m high, which borders West Bandung and Purwakarta. In the south there are mountain Pathak with 2,334 m height, Mount Malabar with 2.076 m height, the volcano with a height of 2,262 m, and Mount Guntur 41
with a height of 2.249 m bordering with Regency of Garut. The Regency of Bandung administrative boundaries are as follows: a. North : Regency of West Bandung, Bandung and Sumedang b. East : Regency of Sumedang and Garut c. South : Regency of Garut and Cianjur d. West : Regency of West Bandung, Bandung and Cimahi.
Map 2. Map of Kabupaten Bandung
Source: www.bandungkab.go.id 46
112. In terms of its climate, Kabupaten Bandung is influenced by the tropical monsoon with an average rainfall between 1,500 mm to 4,000 mm per year. The temperature ranges from 120C to 240C with humidity between 78% in the rainy season and 70% during the dry season. The impact of geographical conditions make water resources in Kabupaten Bandung are available abundantly, both underground water and surface water which consists of four natural lakes, three artificial lakes and 172 river branches. Surface water sources are generally used to meet the needs of agriculture, industry and other social whereas ground water (60-200 m depth) is generally used for industrial purposes, non-industry, and a small portion of households.
113. To meet their daily needs, most people take advantage of free ground water (wells) and shallow groundwater (depth 24 to 60 meters) to meet domestic needs as well as a small portion of taps facilities, especially in urban areas. In addition, the condition of the average rainfall in Bandung Regency reached 1.500 to 4.000 mm per year means the volume of water that fell in the Regency of Bandung can reach 2.643 to 7.05 billion
46 Bandung Region’s Map, http://www.bandungkab.go.id/spaw2/uploads/images/sda.jpg downloaded on March 11, 2016 at 21.14 WIB.
42 | P a g e
cubic meters. Water potential is so great, however it will turn into flood in many areas if it is not properly managed. Existing land use in Bandung regency consists of protected areas, cultivated areas of agriculture, non-agricultural, and other areas.47
114. Historically Kabupaten Bandung was established on April 20th, 1641 of which Karapyak (Dayeuhkolot) as its capital that eventually move to current position at Soreang. Administratively, Kabupaten Bandung consists of 31 kecamatan (sub-district) and divided into 277 villages (desa) and urban villages (kelurahan).48 Population in Kabupaten Bandung work in various sectors for their living including agriculture, industry, mining, trade and service sectors for their living.
Map 3. Kabupaten Bandung
115. Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum are two typical villages in Kabupaten Bandung which are located in Kecamatan Kertasari. These two villages are the site of
47 Ibid. 48 https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabupaten_Bandung 43
this case study where the sub-component 2.3 was implemented. In terms of population, these two village are among three most populated villages together with Desa Sukapura. Although this data is outdated back to 2009, it helps researcher to figure out the position of Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum among other villages in Kecamatan Kertasari.
Table 7. Population of Kecamatan Kertasari by Villages 2009.
Total Total No. Village Male Female Population House- Hold 1 NEGLAWANGI 2.361 2.519 4.880 1.591 2 SANTOSA 2.687 2.742 5.429 1.642 3 TARUMAJAYA 6.717 6.724 13.441 4.179 4 CIKEMBANG 3.002 3.004 6.006 1.802 5 CIBEUREUM 8.125 7.620 15.745 4.626 6 CIHAWUK 2.755 2.805 5.560 1.604 7 SUKAPURA 7.042 7.051 14.093 4.821 TOTAL 32.689 32.465 65.154 20.265 KERTASARI Data Source : http://bapeda.bandungkab.go.id
B. The Implementation of Sub-component 2.3 in Kabupaten Bandung
116. Sub component 2.3 of ICWRMIP, as indicated earlier, is a community-driven program, based on the process developed under the on-going Second Water for Low Income Communities, Community Water Sanitation and Health, and Community-based Sanitation projects, that using the resources of the active Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Community-Based Organization (CBOs) in the field.
117. This component aims to provide the community with adequate amounts of accessible clean water, and additional financing for other health related activities of their choosing. This included an opportunity for individual households to construct private sanitation facilities or for the communities to build simple solid waste disposal or waste water drainage, or to finance other kinds of health support services as they may choose (within established parameters). As far as possible, construction of water systems, communal sanitation and solid waste disposal be done by villagers through self-help, in which non- local material (e.g. pipes, pumps, etc.) financed by the project. The villages will co- finance with a 20% up-front contribution consisting of 4% of the total construction cost in cash, and an additional 16% in labour and local materials. Operation and Maintenance system will be the responsibility of the community with institutional support made available for difficult problems which might arise.
118. The land required for constructed infrastructures were community responsibility as beneficiaries. It could be derived from: (i) individual with conditions; (ii) village which is social facility land; (iii) institution, as if the land belongs to PJT-2 or PT. Perhutani.
119. The program envisions that government together with communities who are living surrounding water conservation and along Citarum river cooperatively protect and
44 | P a g e
maintain the water clean, healthy and productive as well as provide sustainable benefit to the people along the river basin. As indicated earlier the program utilizes a community-driven approach, based on the process developed under the on-going Second Water and Sanitation for Low Communities, Community Water Sanitation and Health, and Community-based Sanitation projects, that using the resources of the active Non-Government Organization and Community-based Organization in the field. The main objectives of the program is to increase the level of community health, to decrease water-based contiguous diseases through provision of clean water, sanitation and hygienic behaviour. The program targeted 25 villages in 3 district and 1 city; 9 villages in Bekasi Region; 9 villages in Karawang Region; 2 villages in Bandung Region and 5 villages in Bekasi City.
120. As the Sub-Component 2.3 completed in June 2014, it was reported and came up with such impressive quantitative measures. In terms of local community development and institution building the program resulted in 25 Community Action Plan (Rencana Kerja Masyarakat/RKM), revealed with 4,899 villagers who were trained and 25 Facilities Management Council (Badan Pengelola Sarana-BPS). In terms of promoting clean and healthy behaviour, it was reported that two kinds of activities were promoted i.e. health promotion in the community and hygienic and sanitary behaviour at school. In terms of physical infrastructure, the program revealed with 29 units of Construction of Water Supply (Sarana Air Minum-SAM), 28 units Communal Sanitation (Sanitasi Komunal- SANKOM) and 27 units of Recycling Centre (Pusat Daur Ulang Sampah Pilah- SATDALANG).
121. With regards to the number of project implemented in Kabupaten Bandung (i.e. Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum), as indicated in the earlier paragraphs, was inconclusive. On one side, an initial obtained data that also consistently reported in various stakeholder meeting, including the closing ceremony of the project, it revealed with 30 projects consisted of 10 SAM, 10 SANKOM, and 10 SATDALANG. On the other side, it is also officially confirmed from the field that the number of projects implemented in Regency of Bandung were only 6 projects that consisted of 2 SAM projects, 2 SANKOM projects, and 2 SATDALANG projects. All are located in two villages, Desa Cibeureum and Desa Tarumajaya.
122. The set procedures of voluntary land donation for ICWRMIP as agreed by both ADB and the GOI, are the following: a. Provisions of the voluntary contribution are incorporated in the Community Action Plan (Rencana Kerja Masyarakat/RKM). b. The Community Action Plan (CAP) proposed by the community should be completed with the contribution statement letter. c. The statement letter must include personal data of the land/asset owner (contributors) and identification of land to be donated d. The contribution statement letter should be signed by the land/asset owners and witnesses and come with stamp. e. If the land for the project cannot be obtained through donation and no another alternative location available, then the community should obtain the land through negotiated land acquisition/land purchasing and compensation for such land acquisition/land purchasing and compensations for such land acquisition cannot be shouldered by the CAP. If the land acquisition is undertaken, then the 45
land acquisition (either involuntarily or voluntarily) should be prepared and submitted to ADB for concurrence.
123. The agreed principles both by ADB and the GOI for the said project above are as strident as follow: a. Those opted for contributions receive clear and adequate information on the project. b. Those opted for contribution will directly benefit from the project. c. Selection on the project location is undertaken in close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating land/assets. d. Those opted for donation will not be severely affected. Land to be donated does not exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land does not exceed 10% of the total income. e. Those opted for contribution will not fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. f. Detailed data on the socio economic back ground of those opted for donation and project potential impact to them should be collected and reported in the voluntary donation/contribution document. This will also apply for the people who sell the land through negotiated land acquisition for the project. g. The voluntary donation is properly recorded. Each donation will be verified by the independent party such as NGO or other parties having authority to conduct monitoring.
124. The focus of this case study, as indicated earlier, is to confirm comprehension about how the set procedures and principles are implemented and to envisage project sustainability beyond its project time line as resulted from previous field survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi.
C. Compliance of the Set Procedures and Principles
125. The following paragraphs reflect information collected through depth interview from 26 individuals in both Desa Tarumajaya as well as Desa Cibeureum who are opted for donation. The collected information was confirmed by other stakeholders including project team members, head of villages, community leaders, as well as CBOs’ leaders.
126. Regarding proportion of the donated land. The set principle is that those opted for donation will not be severely affected. Land to be donated does not exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income from the donated land does not exceed 10% of the total income. This principle is connected to the possibility of those opted for contribution will not fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household.
127. The previous survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi indicated that some of those opted there is possibility those opted for donation will be severely affected. There are 25% who donated their land above 10% that set as the contribution thresholds. There were 2 (two) respondents who gave up the whole land (100%) to the project, 1 (one) respondent provide 90% of their land and there is 1 (one) respondent who gave up their land up to 66.66%. Given all that fact, the average of land donated to the project is as high as 16.2% from the land of their owned. Although both researcher as well as project facilitators have no sufficient legal basis to verify
46 | P a g e
respondents' land ownership, it is confident to note that the overall proportion of land donation as a whole, after excluding extreme cases, the percentage reach only 2.8% which is far below agreed donation thresholds. It is also clearly noted from depth interview that those who donated land beyond the set threshold were motivated by getting direct financial benefit from the project.
128. According to the previous survey, those opted for contribution most probably fall under the category of poor household or vulnerable household. Using respondents' level of education, occupation, monthly income and expenditure as proxies, the fiture is as follows:
Table 8. Profile those opted for donation in the previous survey
Profile Measure Vulnerable Group Non-vulnerable Group
Education 59.4% 40.6% Occupation 63,1% 36.9% Monthly income 55.5% 44.5% Monthly expenditure 61.1% 38.9%
Average 59.8% 40.2%
Source: Final Verification Report on Voluntary Land Donation
129. Conducted interview with those who opted for donation and the leader of TKM in Desa Tarumajaya as well as in Desa Cibeureum confirm that land contributors donated less than 10% of their land or the income from the donated land does not exceed 10% of the total income. Although not all contributors provided detail information regarding the measure of their donation in their signed documents, conducted interview confirmed that most of contributors are fall under poor and vulnerable categories in terms of their education, occupation, montly income and expenditure. It means that the poor and vulnerable group has greater social virtue compare to their counterpart from higher social status. Strikingly the gap between income and expenditure of the poor and vulnerable group is closer than those who belong to a higher social-economic group. In the sense that expenditure of educated group is much higher than their income. 49
130. Regarding socio-economic background those who opted for donation. The set and agreed principles require the detail socio economic background of those opted for donation and project potential impact to them should be collected and reported in the voluntary donation/contribution document. This will also apply for the people who sell the land through negotiated land acquisition for the project.
131. The previous survey in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi indicated that the majority of land contributors signed written documents and confirmed about appointed witnesses who were presence to witness the process of donation. It is also noted from the document that NGOs and local authorities were also presence for verifying the signing documents. However, the result from depth interview weakened the conclusion.
49 Source: conducted interview with land contributors. 47
132. Conducted interview with 26 land contributors (100%) confirmed that they provided their social economic background as required by TKM. However, they were all agree that TKM did not ask them to provide legal certificate of their land ownership. One of contributor told researcher that his inhibited land was inherited from his grandfather who has been living there long before PT Perkebunan VII Kertamanah was there.50 Another donor similarly confirmed that the land she donated to the project is legally protected by law of communal property right (hak atas tanah ulayat) acknowledged in an avidavit certification (Surat Keterangan) from village authority. Provisions on voluntary donation was integrally constructed in the decision making process at the community level and included in the technical guidance that serve as a reference for the project consultants and facilitators and was disseminated to the communities. It is confirmed that the result of consensus agreement and that information about selection of land donation was disseminated and socialized to the wider local community member. However, such information was not verified by TKM.51 At this point, researcher has sufficient confidence to convincingly conclude, both about valid information on the conflicting situation between villagers and PT Perkebunan VII as well as about inaccuracy of land ownership.
133. In terms of information clarity, the previous survey findings shows that most of respondents (82.6%) respond that information about the project both clear and adequate. In determining project location as part of participatory project planning and execution, majority of land contributor agree and strongly agree (90.7%) that project facilitators explained clearly about project location, it was done by close consultation with land contributors, intensively and periodically. Therefore, information shared regarding project location was clearly understood and accordingly it was satisfying. This concludes that the first set principle mandating that those opted for contribution should receive clear and adequate information regarding the project was satisfactorily accomplished.
134. Interview conducted with 26 (100%) land contributors for SANKOM in Desa Tarumajaya confirmed that they were clearly and sufficiently informed about the project. As many as 20 donors (76%) confirmed that they were socialized about the project built on their land. In addition, 20 donors (76%) perceived they were provided with clear and complete information, while 23 donors (88%) confidently understood about the set land donation principles. It can be concluded, therefore, that land contributors in Desa Tarumajaya satisfied with the information given about the project.52 In addition, interview conducted with Kepala Desa Tarumajaya revealed that he clearly informed and understood about the SAM and SATDALANG project facilities. That was the reason of why he willingly assisted TKM to provide notification letter about land status used for building project facilities. 53
135. This study confirms findings previous survey regarding the accomplishment of the third project principle amending that selection on the project location is undertaken in close consultation with the land/assets owners and communities donating land/assets.
50 Source: interview with Mr.N, one of land contributor for SANKOM. 51 Source: interview with Ms.W, one of land contributor for SANKOM. 52 Source: interview with land contributors in Desa Tarumajaya. 53 Source: interview conducted with Mr.A, the Head of Desa Tarumajaya.
48 | P a g e
Quasi informal FGD involving 26 household head of land contributors in both Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum confirmed previous survey conducted in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi concluding that project facilitators closely consulted them and other community members in selecting project location. As many as 26 (100%) confirmed that they were consulted about project location, 17 contributors (65%) attended every single meeting for selecting project location and 19 (73%) donors confirmed that consultation about selecting locations were done more than once. Finally, as many as 23 donors (88%) confirmed that explanation and information about project location were both clear and sufficient. 54
136. Regarding gender discrimination this study confirms the previous survey conducted in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi, convincingly concludes that gender discrimination was not exist in land donation process under study, in the sense that women are treated equally as men, the implemented projects were advantageous of women especially in the area of cleanness, health and education. In other words, most respondents perceived that the compliance of women's need in land donation process was satisfying. This also implies high compliance of integrating gender perspective in the implemented project.
D. Project Sustainability
137. Three indicators were used in this study for probing project sustainability beyond project timeline; long term benefits, institutionalization process and legal protection. The final objective of the study is to probe program sustainability based on long term benefits of the program, institutionalization processes and legal documentation about land ownership of those who opted donation as well as legal protection of assets and outputs.
138. In terms of project benefit, the previous survey findings regarding long term project benefit concluding that the majority of those who opted for donation (75%) believed that the project will directly benefit them. Since the post survey evaluation with surveyors revealed that there was uncertain attitude and less clear expectation of those who opted for donation about direct benefit of the implemented projects.
139. This study reveals that assessment on long-term benefit of project was insufficiently conducted. It is indicated in the set principle requires that those opted for contribution should directly benefit from the project. It is confirmed from interview that Rencana Kerja Masyarakat (RKM) Desa Tarumajaya have conducted problem identification, situation analysis, TKM formation, as well as providing alternatives in satisfying the needs of those opted for land donation. Problem identification was focused on the initial access of those opted to SAM, SANKOM and SATDALANG facilities. This can be interpreted that direct benefit for land contributors has been the main concern since the very initial stage of the project.55 As an instance, one of recommendations resulted from Quasi FGD facilitated by TKM was that SAM should use the availability of natural spring water from the mountain as common-pool resources, so that benefit community
54 Source: conducted interview and FGD with land contributors. 55 Source: documentary study which were confirmed by conducted interview with member of TKM. 49
members especially those who opted for land donation. Conducted problem identification and situation analysis at RW 1, RW 2 and RW 3, as contrast example, indicated insufficient assessment on access of those opted for donation to SANKOM facilities. Therefore, it is indicated that the sustainability of SANKOM was built in RW 1, RW 2 and RW3 were doubtful. Similarly, SATDALANG facilities for both organic waste as well for plastic trash that was built in Desa Tarumajaya was not based on sufficient benefit assessment for the villagers have no habitual track towards harmless trash management.
140. This study indicates that the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3 ICWRMIP both in Desa Tarumajaya as well as in Desa Cibeureum, covered all types of project i.e. SATDALANG, SAM dan SANKOM. Those three types of projects introduced significant changes in terms of physical access to the facilities, changes in values and orientations, as well as changes in communal health behaviours. Such conclusion taken after comparing conditions before and after the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3 in both Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum. It was convinced that project achievement in Kabupaten Bandung with reference to Desa Tarumajaya as well as Desa Cibeureum positively probes project sustainability.56
141. Significant benefits can be illustrated as the following. With reference to SANKOM facilities in Desa Cibeureum, it is noted that after the implementation of Sub- Component 2.3, there are 579 drinking water facilities serving 810 households that consists of 2,717 family members. It means that one facilities serves 5 family members. At this point researcher had no reference to the previous condition before the Sub- Component 2.3 was implemented. However, the increasing facilities is more calculable. There were 67 new built facilities, or 53% more than the 126 existing facilities before the implementation of the project. The calculated ratio between SANKOM facilities and number of community member is as high as 1 to 4.7.57
142. With reference to SANKOM facilities in Desa Tarumajaya, it is noted that after the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3, there are 500 drinking water facilities serving as many as 647 households that consists of 2,271 family members. It means that one facilities serves 4.5 family members. Slightly better ratio in comparison to that of Desa Cibeureum. In terms of communal sanitation, there were 104 new built facilities, or 60% more than the 172 existing facilities before the implementation of the project with calculated ratio 1 facility for 4.5 community members. Such an impressive project performance. 58
143. It was also reported that community access to clean water and sanitation were significantly increasing. Table 9 below shows the feature of increasing access in the respective matters. In terms of budget, the program allocated as much as USD 5,700,866 which consisted USD 4,093,121 (72%) was loan component and USD 1,208,385 (28%) from the GOI state budget. Success story of the project implementation was claimed as community access to drinking water and communal sanitation were significantly increased. Official document on community work plan
56 Source: Laporan Akhir Desa Taruma Jaya Kecamatan Kertasari Kab Bandung 2013. 57 Ibid 58 Ibid
50 | P a g e
(Rencana Kerja Masyarakat) both for Desa Cibeureum as well as Desa Tarumajaya confirmed the claim quantitatively.59
Table 9. Increasing Access by the Type of Infrastructure
TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS SAM SANKOM SATDALANG People % People % People %
Number od Villagers 55942 58082 198362
Baseline/Initial Access (HH) 11501 20.6% 44920 77.3% 0 0.0%
Program Intervention 37333 66.7% 8972 15.4% 99804 50.3%
Increasing Access (HH) 48834 87.3% 53892 92.8% 99804 50.3% Source: Buku II-RKM 2 “Kegiatan Pembangunan Sarana Air Minum” in Chapter Desa Cibreureum and Chapter Desa Tarumajaya.
144. Desa Tarumajaya covers area of 524,176 Ha with 14,379 inhabitant that consists of 4,445 households. There are 3,713 houses located in 7 dusun, 27 RW and 106 RT. There are 2,866 households that categorized as keluarga pra-sejahtera, 278 households were categorized as keluarga sejahtera tahap I, 726 households were categorized as keluarga sejahtera tahap II, 512 households keluarga sejahtera tahap III, and 63 households wer in the category keluarga sejahtera tahap III plus.60 Observation was focused on the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3 ICWRMIP in RW 01, RW 02 and RW 03.
145. Table 10 and Table 11 comparatively show the number of community members who have access to drinking water facilities and communal sanitation before and after the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3 in Desa Cibeureum as well as in Desa Tarumajaya.
Table 10. Number of people who have access to drinking water facilities and communal sanitation in Desa Cibeureum.
59 Buku II-RKM 2 “Kegiatan Pembangunan Sarana Air Minum” in Chapter Desa Cibreureum and Chapter Desa Tarumajaya. 60 Source: Laporan Akhir Desa Tarumajaya, Kecamatan Kertasari, Kabupaten Bandung, 2013. 51
Table 11. Number of people who have access to drinking water facilities and communal sanitation in Desa Tarumajaya.
146. With reference to Desa Cibeureum, it is noted that after the implementation of Sub- Component 2.3, there are 579 drinking water facilities serving 810 households that consists of 2,717 family members. It means that one facilities serves 5 family members. At this point EMA has no reference to the previous condition before the Sub- Component 2.3 was implemented. In terms of communal sanitation, however, the increasing facilities is more calculable. There were 67 new built facilities, or 53% more than the 126 existing facilities before the implementation of the project. The calculated ratio between communal sanitation facilities and number of community members is 1:4.7.
147. With reference to Desa Tarumajaya, it is noted that after the implementation of Sub- Component 2.3, there are 500 drinking water facilities serving as many as 647 households that consists of 2,271 family members. It means that one facilities serves 4.5 family members. Slightly better ratio in comparison to that of Desa Cibeureum. In terms of communal sanitation, there were 104 new built facilities, or 60% more than the 172 existing facilities before the implementation of the project with calculated ratio 1 facility for 4.5 community members. Such an impressive project performance. General spirit of villagers, both in Cibeureum and Tarumajaya alike, welcome the implementation of the project with enthusiasm.
148. However, when it come to the issue of land need and use for the project, the discussion tune was turn to discouraging. One of community team work (Tenaga Kerja Masyarakat - TKM) explained that land use has been a sensitive issue for decades, especially in Desa Tarumajaya. The problem was deep rooted in two contradictory facts. On one side, villager realize that all land inhibited by villagers as well as that used for farming are claimed to be under the legal rights of Dinas Perhutani and PT Perkebunan. On the other side, neither Dinas Perhutani nor PT Perkebunan VIII were able to support their legal claims with official documents from National Bureau of Land (Badan Pertanahan Nasional).61 Such problematic situation was officially confirmed by Dinas Kesehatan.62
149. It is noted at one point, the mentioned latent conflict on land between villagers of Tarumajaya, PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan VIII were coming out on the surface. Villagers of Tarumajaya urged to propose the implementation of the project eagerly for
61 Based on depth interview with Tenaga Kerja Lapangan. 62 Based on depth interview with Dinas Kesehatan.
52 | P a g e
two reasons. Firstly, they see the benefit of implemented project for them. Secondly, they believed that both PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan have no legal documents on their claim.
150. Indication of manifest conflict in connection to the implementation of Sub- Component 2.3 ICWRMIP in Desa Tarumajaya was observable. During interview session as well as FGD, some villagers convinced researcher that they were terrorized due to their support for promoting the implementation of the project. Hence TKM, on behalf of the villagers, continue to asked permission for building project facilities to Dinas Perhutani and PT Perkebunan VIII, which were apparently refused.
151. Ad hock solution and yet legally questionable was taken by villagers under coordination with village authority who was agree to release letter of notification since it is claimed that the land used for building project facilities belong to the village for farming. Till the end of this study and to the best of our knowledge, the letter of notification from the village office has not come out yet. For refreshing information, Desa Tarumajaya implemented all three kinds of projects, SAM, SANKOM and SATDALANG.
152. It is also noted, however, in the review meeting of the Draft Final Verification Report on January 21, 2016 in BBWSC, the discussion regarding the respective matter was reduced into administrative issue rather than its substance and remained unresolved. One of the classic problem in bureaucracy elsewhere is which meeting should be attended by decision makers and which one should be delegated to low level administrative officers.63 It was regretted that the respective issue was not attracting attention of higher level officials who might give way for permanent solution.
E. Institutionalization Processes
153. In terms of institutionalization processes, it is confirmed that provisions of the voluntary contribution are incorporated in the Community Action Plan (Rencana Kerja Masyarakat-RKM). The conducted FGD with TKM as well as result from documentary study concluded that all voluntary contribution given by the community were documented by TKM and included in the Community Action Plan (Rencana Kerja Masyarakat). It is noted that the Community Action Plan of Desa Tarumajaya documented any voluntary contribution for project, either support from ADB, APBN or community contribution both in-cash and in-kind.64
154. It is mentioned in the set principle that the Community Action Plan (RKM) proposed by the community should be completed with the contribution statement letter. In the case of Desa Tarumajaya, it was reported, there are two projects supported by the villagers were completed with contribution statement i.e. for SAM and SANKOM, but it was not in the case for SATDALANG. Interview with the chief of TKM, gave an
63 See the Minute of Meeting prepared and distributed by External Monitoring Agency. 64 See Laporan Akhir Desar Tarumajaya Kecamatan Kertasari Kabupaten Bandung Tahun 2013 in Rencana Kerja Masyarakat “Kegiatan Pembangunan Sarana Air Minum” (Buku II-RKM 2) Chapter III about Rekapitulasi Kegiatan dan Biaya. See also Rencana Kerja Masyarakat “Kegiatan Pembangunan Sarana Sanitasi Komunal” (Buku II-RKM2) dan lampiran Surat Pernyataan Penyelesaian Pelaksanaan Pekerjaan (S-4) Sarana Air Minum Nomor: 01/SP4-TKM 1.1/A4/XII/13, Surat Pernyataan Penyelesaian Pelaksanaan Pekerjaan (S-4) Satdalang Nomor: 02/SP-4TKM 1.2/A4/XII/13, Surat Pernyataan Penyelesaian Pelaksanaan Pekerjaan (S-4) Sanitasi Komunal Nomor: 03/SP4-TKM 1.3/A4/XII/13. 53
insight because SATDALANG facilities was built on the land owned by the village (tanah kas desa). The statement letter, therefore, was expected to be released by village authority. As indicated earlier, till the end of this study the letter has never been released yet.
155. A well-established TKM in Desa Tarumajaya represented the successfulness of project institutionalization in Kabupaten Bandung. The structure and personnel in charge for TKM in Desa Tarumajaya is shown below.
Diagram 6. Organiztion Structure of TKM in Desa Tarumajaya
Kepala Agus Derajat, S.Pd - DesaTarumajaya ------KETUA Penasihat
Yusuf Rizal ------WK. KETUA
Opik Taofik, S.Pd Ida Kurniasih, S.Pd ------Sektretaris Bendahara
UNIT TEKNIS SAM UNIT SANKOM UNIT SATDALANG JAJANG YUDI ASEP AHMAD Yanot Suryana Kordinator Kordinator Kordinator
156. Initial formal status of TKM was legalized by SK Bupati Kabupaten Bandung No. 443/ Kep 352-Dinkes. TKM functions as implementing unit of SAM, SANKOM and SATDALANG. It assumes key roles in managing resources available both inside and outside the village. Socialization about TKM was managed by communicating with village authority, district authority (kecamatan), Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung and others. Eventually, TKM is now informally considered as an Infrastructure Management Bureau (Badan Pengelola Sarana-BPS) “…Sekarang, karena kami sudah dianggap BUMD, maka kami harus masuk dalam institusi pemerintah desa berbentuk BPS…“65
157. The transformation from TKM to BPS, however, has not been formalized yet as confirmed and indicated by our informant. “…perubahan bentuk dari TKM menjadi BPS hingga hari ini belum diformalkan oleh pemerintah desa, padahal kami sudah mendesak kepada Kepala Desa untuk segera mengeluarkan Perdes tersebut…“ (“…to date transformation from TKM to BPS has not been formalized yet by village authority, we have been urged Kepala Desa to release a village regulation (Peraturan Desa) on the respected matter…” 66 At this point informant assumed that village authority regards the implementation of Sub-Component 2.3 ICWRMIP is no longer its priority priority. It is indicated earlier that systematic and well establish institutionalization and legal protection are critical to project sustainability. It is concluded therefore that project
65 Source: guided interview with TKM Leader, Mr.AD. 66 Ibid
54 | P a g e
institionalization process is only half-done implemented.
F. Legal Protection
158. In terms of legal protection, it is confirmed that contribution statement letter for SAM was documented in Rencana Kerja Masyarakat “Kegiatan Pembangunan Sarana Air Minum” (Buku II-RKM2) Bab IX regarding Rencana Mobilisasi Kontribusi Masyarakat Dalam Pembangunan Sarana Air Minum, Table 9.1.: Tabel Cacahan In- Cash Desa Tarumajaya and Table 9.2: Tabel Cacahan In-Kind Desa Tarumajaya. While statement letter for SANKOM was documented in Rencana Kerja Masyarakat “Kegiatan Pembangunan Sarana Sanitasi Komunal” (Buku II-RKM 2) Bab IX regarding Rencana Mobilisasi Kontribusi Masyarakat Dalam Pembangunan Sarana Sanitasi Komunal, Table 9.1: Tabel Cacahan In-Cash Desa Tarumajaya and Table 9.2: Tabel Cacahan In-Kind Desa Tarumajaya.
159. The set and agreed procedures require that the statement letter must include personal data of the land/asset owner (contributors) and identification of land to be donated. It is noted that 26 individual donors of contributed land/asset provided contribution statement letter for SANKOM facilities in Tarumajaya. It is also informed in the letter about the measures and time limit of the donated land. It was notified by village authority that his office has released an official letter No. 593.2/1201Des/2013 stating the contribution of village-owned land for building SAM and SATDALANG facilities. However, the chief of TKM complained, as indicated in earlier paragraph, that the letter has never been released.
160. In term of documentation, the agreed principle states that the voluntary donation is properly recorded. Each donation will be verified be the independent party such as NGO or other parties having authority to conduct monitoring. Documentary study and observation revealed that land donation of individual donors in Desa Tarumajaya were relatively well documented. There were 26 documents represented 26 contributors. However, there was no document found related to the village contribution for SAM as well as SATDALANG as claimed by village authority.67
161. According to the agreed principle, the contribution statement letter should be signed by the land/asset owners and witnesses and came up with stamp mark on it. It is confirmed that all 26 (100%) contributors in Desa Tarumajaya signed the statement witnessed by 6 (six) eye-witnesses and officially stamped by the chief of RKM. One of land contributor confirmed that he was clearly informed to sign the document during the information session. (“…untuk pembangunan Sarana Sanitasi Komunal, saya telah mendapatkan penjelasan yang memadai mengenai hak dan kewajiban yang diterima sebagai penyumbang lahan. Kewajiban pertama saya adalah menandatangani surat pernyataan kontribusi yang menyatakan kesediaan dan menjelaskan soal batasan waktu penggunaan lahan tersebut.”)68
162. It is clearly stated in the project documents that if the land for the project cannot be obtained through donation and no other alternative location available, then the
67 Source: documentary study on land contributors. 68 Source: conducted interview with Pak E, one of land contributor in Desa Tarumajaya. 55
community should obtain the land through negotiated land acquisition/land purchasing and compensation for such land acquisition cannot be shouldered by the CAP. If the land acquisition is undertaken, then the land acquisition (either involuntary or voluntary) should be prepared and submitted to ADB for concurrence69. This set principle was violated in the field, since the community as well as TKM took their own mechanism without consent of ADB. The project was built on the land under conflict jeopardizing project sustainability.
163. The agreed principle, also articulates that provisions on voluntary land donation must be integrally constructed in the decision making process at the community level and included in the technical guidance that will serve as a reference for the project consultants and facilitators and should be disseminated to the communities. Conducted interview with TKM leader confirmed that land procurement for the project were agreed by whole TKM members, consulted with land contributors, and communicated to the community members.70 Such statement was also confirmed by other TKM member in a separate interview session. He confirmed that in providing land for SAMKOM facilities he consulted donors and informed the whole member of community.71 In addition procurement process for SAM and SATDALANG that using the land under conflict, was known and agreed by village authority.72 The said respective conflict will be discussed in the coming sub-title.
164. As far as compliance to the set principles are concerned, it is concluded that all principles are followed at the implementation level, except the principle of articulating the need of negotiation and purchasing process with ADB consent for land under conflict. The discussed principle was not followed by both TKM and village authority, instead they were taking their own solution. In terms of institutionalization process, it is concluded that the process was not fully completed.
G. The Unresolved Conflict on the Use and Legal Ownership of Land
165. As indicated earlier, there was unresolved conflict on the land use and land ownership between PT Perkebunan VIII Kertamanah and the village authority at providing land for SAM and SATDALANG facilities in Desa Tarumajaya. On one side, village authority claims its legal ownership through letter of notification signed by the head of DesaTarumajaya No.: 593.2/1201/Des/2013. On the other side, PTPN VIII refused to give an official permit for building SAM and SATDALANG facilities on the land perceived under its legal ownership and productive asset. Refusal letter registered officially under No: SB/KER/186/IX/2013. According to the set procedure mentioned in paragraph # 234 above, TKM needs to propose land acquisition through negotiation or to purchase the land by obtaining ADB approval. It is confirmed that such procedure was not taken by TKM for reason.
166. As indicated earlier that project sustainability implemented in Kabupaten Bandung, with reference to Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum, were seriously challenged by the unresolved on-going conflict between villagers, village authority, PT Perhutani and
69 ADB Project TOR 70 Source: conducted interview with TKM leader Mr.AS. 71 Source: conducted interview with Mr.C, TKM member responsible for SANKOM. 72 Source: conducted interview with village authority, Mr.AI.
56 | P a g e
PT Perkebunan VIII. The complete chronology of the ongoing conflict can best be described in Table 12 below.
Table 12. The complete chronology of the ongoing conflict in Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum, Kabupaten Bandung.
28 June 2013 Village authority sent a letter to PT Perkebunan VIII Administration in order to reconsider its claim on the land ownership. 23 July 2013 Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung sent a letter to PT Perkebunan VIII regarding ask permission to establish project facilities on the land that claimed both by village authority and PT Perkebunan as their legal owner. 28 August 2013 TKM leader sent a letter to PT Perkebunan VIII regarding permission to build project facilities. 2 September 2013 Administrator PT Perkebunan VIII sent letter to related Director Board asking for advice to respond land use permission. 12 September 2013 Instruction letter from director board of PT Perkebunan VII to administrator for not permitting land use for the project. 14 September 2013 Admnistrator of PT Perkebunan VII sent a refusal letter to TKM leader. 4 November 2013 Worker association of PT Perkebunan VIII sent letter to Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung to revoke its permission. Desember 2013 Village authority of Tarumajaya released permission to build project facilities on the land under conflict and claimed the land was legally under village ownership.
167. The ongoing conflict remains unresolved. It vibrates at grass root level in common aggressive expression such as “… kami Akan terus melawan, bahkan bila perlu hingga ke pengadilan. Karena memang tahu persis kondisinya, soal tanah di desa Tarumajaya ini memang hanya saling klaim saja.”(“…we will keep fighting, up to the court as necessary. Because we know exactly the conditions, the problem of land in Desa Tarumajaya is just about inter-claiming issue …”).73
168. It is confirmed that almost all items of a set procedures and principles agreed both by ADB and GOI were fully followed at the implementation level. However, there was a situation in which TKM in Desa Tarumajaya as a representation of local community, together with village authority, and Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung, committed in unresolved conflict with PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan VIII regarding the legal status of land on which project facilities were established. Instead of negotiating, looking a more feasible alternatives or purchasing the said land with official consent from ADB, villagers together with village authority and officially known by Dinas Kesehatan, took an ad hock action of claiming the legal status of land that also claimed by PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan. This unnecessary collective action was not only
73 Source: interview with villagers. 57
shifting the project focus into different direction, but ultimately putting project sustainability into jeopardy.
169. As far as project sustainability is concerned, three contributing factors were under study: long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets. It was confirmed, that the greatest project challenge in Kabupaten Bandung was not about complying project implementation towards a set procedures and principles agreed by both and GOI, but mitigating project sustainability through conflict resolution on land among committed parties and firmed legal protection of the established project institutions and assets.
170. This study was also conducting observation on the built physical facilities. It was confirmed that their conditions were all good and in function, but SATDALANG facilities. However, impressive habitual changes did occurred. With regards to SATDALANG in Desa Tarumajaya, 3R method (reduce, reuse dan recycle) for trash management was introduced. It is observed that habitual pattern of the villagers was changed from “buy – use – throw away” to “pilah – pilih – kumpul – jual” (“divide – select – collect – sell”). This transformation was not only has significant impact to communal health habitual and conditions, but also improved their economic standing by selling usable items. With regards to SANKOM facilities in RW 01, RW 02 and RW 03 were all in function and benefitted the community. It was also observed that communal campaign on “open defecation free” was still collectively promoted and monitored.74
171. With regards to SATDALANG facility, it was confirmed that the facility has been disfuctioned since 2014. The problem occurred due to technical problem i.e. unavailability of needed component, lack of skillful operator, product marketing and financing. It was explained that “…kualitas pengelola SATDALANG saya nilai masih kurang memadai, baik yang berkaitan dengan soal pemahaman manajemen, maupun operasional alat-alat produksi. Oleh karena itu masih sangat membutuhkan pendampingan. Sementara pendampingan dari pihak-pihak terkait pun juga kurang…” (…the quality of SATDALANG’s operator was not sufficient, both in terms of management and operational. He needs guidance that never been there …) 75
172. Marketing ability was a major contributor to the dysfunction of SATDALANG facilities. It was told that initially SATDALANG was in function to produce marketable products. Eventually, they were not able to sell them to the market and lead to bankruptcy afterward. Informant said that “…bahan baku disini sangat mudah didapatkan, namun kita kebingungan ke mana barang-barang hasil produksi tersebut harus dipasarkan, akhirnya barang-barang hasil produksi tersebut hanya mangkrak, katakanlah tidak laku dijual. Sementara pembiayaan operasional jalan terus…” (“…raw materials are easy to find here, but we do not know how to sell the products. At the end our products were wasted, unmarketable. In the meantime, operational cost is continue…”) 76
173. It was noted, that villagers did request for assistance from Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten
74 Source: observation result in RW 01, RW 02, RW 03. 75 Source: guided interview with TKM leader Mr.AS 76 Ibid
58 | P a g e
Bandung. “…saya pernah menyampaikan permintaan bantuan pemasaran kepada Dinkes, namun responnya baru sebatas akan diusahakan. Akhirnya, pengurus SATDALANG satu per satu mengundurkan diri. Sekarang SATDALANG tidak terurus dan menjadi tempat pembuangan sampah.” (“…I have been asking for marketing assistance to Dinas Kesehatan, but the respond is uncler. At the end SATDALANG’s personnel resigned one by one. Now SATDALANG is unintended and becoming trash dump.”)77
174. It is noted and confidently concluded that long-term benefit well predicts project sustainability. There is positive logical and empirical correlation between the two, the project will be disrupted or left unintended once it is no longer benefitted the community. On the reverse, the project that continually benefit people will be sustained beyond project timeline.
77 Ibid 59
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusion
175. Explanation of why do those opted for voluntary land donation in the study fall under the category of poor or vulnerable seems to be correlated with the expectation of those who opted for donation for the direct benefit of the project. This conclusion is also confirmed by the previous survey findings in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi regarding long term project benefit. The majority of those who opted for donation (75%) believed that the project will directly benefit them. Albeit the post survey evaluation with surveyors revealed that there was uncertain attitude and less clear expectation of those who opted for donation about direct benefit of the implemented projects. It is also interesting to note, there is indication that poor and vulnerable group tend to have greater sense of publicness so that they are willing to contribute their land for public utilities. It is particularly true in the village context of Desa Tarumajaya and Desa Cibeureum which is expectedly different from villages along West Tarum Canal which were characterized as urban villages.
176. This case study cannot identify that those who opted for donation donated their land exceed 10% of the total land owned or the income obtained from the donated land exceed 10% of the total income. Firstly, it cannot be clearly determined because the greater part of land used for project facilities, including the land used by villagers, are under conflict. Secondly, this study do not have any access to valid information about complete land ownership of those who opted for donation as valid reference. So as the case in Kabupaten Karawang, Kabupaten Bekasi and Kota Bekasi, cannot be confirmed.
177. Regarding information clarity of the implemented program, as it is found in the previous survey that most of respondents (82.6%) respond that information about the project both clear and adequate. In determining project location as part of participatory project planning and execution, majority of land contributors agree and strongly agree (90.7%) that project facilitators explained clearly about project location, it was done by close consultation with land contributors, intensively and periodically. Therefore, information shared regarding project location was clearly understood and accordingly it was satisfying. This study confirm, that project facilitator deliver information about the project in such a way that those who opted for donation are well informed about the project. It is convincingly concluded that the action of villagers together with village authority and officially known by Dinas Kesehatan, to take an ad hock collective action of claiming the legal status against PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan as their belonging, is not primarily related with unclear information about the set project principles and procedures, but it is driven by the long been ongoing conflict among parties.
178. This study confirmed the previous survey findings regarding gender discrimination. It is convincingly concluded that gender discrimination was not exist in land donation process under study, in the sense that women are treated equally as men, the implemented projects were advantageous of women especially in the area of cleanness, health and education. In other words, most respondents perceived that the compliance of women's need in land donation process was satisfying. This also implies high compliance of integrating gender perspective in the implemented project.
60 | P a g e
179. In short, this study confirmed that almost all items of a set procedures and principles agreed both by ADB and GOI were fully followed at the implementation level. However, there was a situation in which TKM in Desa Tarumajaya as a representation of local community, together with village authority, and Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Bandung, committed in unresolved conflict with PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan VIII regarding the legal status of land on which project facilities were established. Instead of negotiating, looking a more feasible alternatives or purchasing the said land with official consent from ADB, villagers together with village authority and officially known by Dinas Kesehatan, took an ad hock collective action of claiming the legal status of land that was also officially claimed by PT Perhutani and PT Perkebunan as their belonging.
180. As far as project sustainability is concerned, three contributing factors were used in this study: long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets. It was confirmed, that the greatest project challenge in Kabupaten Bandung was not about complying project implementation towards a set procedures and principles agreed by both and GOI, but about how to mitigate and resolve the ongoing conflict on land among committed parties and firmed legal protection of the established project institutions and assets.
B. Recomendations
181. The first general recommendation of this study is about compliance measures. The strengths should be maintained in the future project and the flaws need to be improved. Among others, this project earns some strong point in complying a set procedures and principles agreed by both ADB and GOI such as giving information, inclusion of land contributors in every stage of project phase, as well as considering women. However, there are 3 (three) critical points need to be improved for future projects. Firstly, the project needs to run careful assessment on social economic background that might necessary for understanding and predicting economic aspect of the program. Secondly, the project needs to closely follow the set and agreed principles so that the project risk can be minimized. Thirdly, the project needs to develop systematic and clear project documentation, especially regarding the legal status of donated land and its donation process.
182. This study confirms that those opted for contributions receive clear and adequate information on the project, it is recommended to maintain the course for the future project, both in terms of method and personnel. Those opted for contribution will somehow directly benefit from the project, however land contributors failed to clearly specific benefits of the project for them, both in the short term and particularly in the long run. It is recommended for the future project, therefore, to formulate specific benefit that can be easily understood and articulated by land contributors.
183. The second general recommendation of this verification is on mitigating project sustainability. It is recommended that in order to promote project sustainability, three factors need to be maintained i.e. long term project benefits, well institutionalized process of activities, and legal protection of both tangible and intangible project assets. Those opted for contribution will somehow directly benefit from the project, however land contributors failed to clearly specific benefits of the project for them, both in the 61
short term and particularly in the long run. It is recommended for the future project, therefore, to formulate specific benefit that can be easily understood and articulated by land contributors. Ultimately, this study recommend clear legal status of land for donation, so that sustainability of the project can be guaranteed, at least partly. ***
62 | P a g e
63
REFERENCES
Akanda, A. (2014). Capital Concentration on Land Ownership in Rural Bangladesh. Journal of Land and Rural Studies, 215-232. doi:DOI: 10.1177/2321024914534029 Amir Afaque Ahmad Faizi, T. M. (2014). Contract Farming and Gender Relations in India. Journal of Land and Rural Studies, 191–214. doi:DOI: 10.1177/2321024914534041 Bello, I. A. (n.d.). Journal of Sustainable Development 6.3. Retrieved September 20 : 20.14 WIB, 2015, from www.search.proqest.com: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1416212657/fulltextPDF/291F68D7626E4CBCP Q/1?accountid=31495 Berlowitz, A. J. (1986). Land Acquisition in Developing Countries. Fordham International Law Journal, 10(4). Charles Lusthaus, M.-H. A. (n.d.). Universalia Occasional Paper, No.35 September 1999. Retrieved September 25, 20.14 WIB, 2015, from www.andewal.com: http://andewal.com/archive/capacity_development_explored.pdf Editorial: Special Issue on Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in India. (2016). Journal of Land and Rural Studies, 4(1), 1-2. doi:10.1177/2321024915616668 Global Business Guide Indonesia. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.gbgindonesia.com: http://www.gbgindonesia.com/en/property/article/2016/indonesia_s_land_acquisition _laws_on_paper_only_11365.php Heslop, V. (2006). Institutional Capacity To Progress Sustainable Development In New Zealand: What Will It Take? Retrieved September 25, 21.59 WIB, 2015, from www.pce.parliament.nz: htttp://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Reports/pdf/institution.pdf Maitreesh Ghatak, P. G. (2011). The Land Acquisition Bill: A Critique and a Proposal. Economic & Political Weekly EPW, 65-72. Majumder, B. (2011). Accumulation by Dispossession and Radicalism in Circulation in India: Role of the State. (P. Tiwari, Ed.) Journal of History and Social Sciences, II (II). Retrieved April 4, 2016 Matbor, G. (2008). Effective Community Participation in Coastal Development. Monmouth University, Lyceum Books.Inc. Moatasim, F. (2005). Practice of Community Architechture: A Case Study of Zone Opportunitiy Housing Co-Operative. Montreal: McGill University. Pablo Bandeira, J. M. (n.d.). Major Issues in Indonesia's Urban Land Development. Land Use Policy, 21(4). Sinha, B. (2014). Land Reforms: Evidences of Reversal in Orissa. Journal of Land and Rural Studies, 2(2), 171–190. doi:10.1177/2321024914534048 Smith, F. F. (1999). The Community Development Handbook. A Tool To Build Community
64 | P a g e
Capacity . Canada: Human Resources Development Canada, Labor Market Learning and Development Unit. Tan, A. (2009). Community Development Theory and Practice: Bridging The Divide Between 'Micro' and 'Macro' Levels of Social Work. Indianapolis: NACFW Convention . Zimmerman, D. D. (n.d.). Empowerment Theory, Research and Application. Retrieved September 19 18.06 WIB, 2015, from www.search.proquest.com: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/empintro.proquest.pdf
65
ANNEXES
A. Interview Guide Used to Obtain Qualitative Data B. List of Documents under Study C. Research Log-Book and Financial Report
66 | P a g e
ANNEX A. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS NOMOR URUT: ……. Screening ⃝ Water Supply (Sarana Air Masyarakat / SAM) Jenis ⃝ Communal Sanitation (Sanitasi Komunal / Sankom) Proyek ⃝ Recycling Center (Pusat Daur Ulang / Satdalang) ⃝ Individu ⃝ Kota Bekasi Status ⃝ Desa / Kelurahan (Fasos / Fasum) Lokasi ⃝ Kab Bekasi Lahan ⃝ Institusi / Lembaga : ⃝ Kab Karawang ...... Total Total lahan Donasi ...... m2 yang Dimiliki ...... m2 Lahan
Nama Surveyor
Data Diri Responden Nama Responden Kategori Responden
(NGO/Konsultan/TKK/dll) Alamat Responden
No. Telp / HP
Umur ...... tahun
⃝ Islam ⃝ Protestan ⃝ Katolik ⃝ Budha ⃝ Hindu ⃝ Kong Hu Cu ⃝ Agama Lainnya ......
⃝ Tidak Pernah Sekolah ⃝ SD/Sederajat ⃝ SMP/Sederajat ⃝ SMA/Sederajat Tingkat Pendidikan ⃝ D3 ⃝ S1
Pekerjaan
Jenis Kelamin ⃝ Laki-laki ⃝ Perempuan
67
1 Bagaimana anda menjelaskan proyek kepada masyarakat?
Apa saja hal yang anda jelaskan mengenai proyek? 2
Initiation
Apakah anda memberikan materi terkait proyek? (prosedur, tata cara, dan 3 sebagainya)
4 Bagaimana lokasi proyek ditentukan?
Planning 5 Bagaimana donatur lahan untuk masing-masing proyek ditentukan?
Apakah anda mengadakan evaluasi terkait pelaksanaan proyek dan donasi 6 lahan?
7 Bagaimana anda melaksanakan evaluasi?
Evaluation 8 Apa saja hal yang dibahas dalam evaluasi?
9 Bagaimana kesimpulan yang didapat?
10 Apakah target proyek tercapai?
11 Berapa banyak jumlah proyek yang mencapai sasaran? Closing
12 Apakah terdapat proyek yang tidak terlaksana?
13 Apakah masyarakat terlibat dalam pertemuan negosiasi/sosialisasi
68 | P a g e
proyek?
Apakah masyarakat terlibat dalam pertemuan negosiasi/sosialisasi 14 pengadaan lahan?
Bagaimana bentuk keterlibatan masyarakat dalam proses pengadaan 15 lahan? Public
Participation
Bagaimana bentuk keterlibatan masyarakat dalam pembuatan 16 proyek?
Bagaimana bentuk kontribusi komunitas dalam proses pengambilan 17 keputusan?
Apakah terdapat permasalahan terkait pelaksanaan proyek di tengah- 18 tengah masyarakat?
19 Bagaimana reaksi masyarakat menghadapi masalah yang ditemui?
Empowerment Apakah masyarakat telah memiliki kapasitas yang cukup dalam 20 menangani masalah?
21 Bagaimana bentuk pemberdayaan masyarakat yang telah dilakukan?
22 Bagaimana proses pelatihan yang dilakukan?
Capacity 23 Hal apa saja yang disampaikan dalam pelatihan? Building
24 Pada masa apa pelatihan dilakukan?
69
25 Hal apa lagi yang dilakukan untuk penguatan kapasitas masyarakat?
26 Bagaimana kapasitas institusi lokal diperkuat?
27 Apa saja yang dilakukan untuk memperkuat institusi lokal? Institutional
Capacity
Building
28 Apakah terbentuk institusi lokal baru dalam proses pengadaan lahan?
29 Bagaimana keberlanjutan proyek yang dilaksanakan?
Apa saja hal yang dilakukan untuk mendukung keberlanjutan proyek 30 Project’s yang dilaksanakan? Sustainability
Bagaimana bentuk perlindungan hukum untuk proyek yang 31 dilaksanakan?
Bentuk ⃝ Tanah ⃝ Aset lainnya / Sebutkan Kontribusi
Skala Persepsi Pernyataan SS S N TS STS
5 4 3 2 1 Anda memberikan sosialisasi tentang proyek 32 yang akan dibuat Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang proyek 33 Clear and secara rinci adequate Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang jenis 34 information proyek secara lengkap Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang jenis on the project 35 proyek secara jelas 36 Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang proyek
Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang donasi 37 lahan
70 | P a g e
Anda merasa memberikan informasi 38 mengenai proyek dengan jelas Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang 39 manfaat proyek bagi donatur dan masyarakat 40 Anda melihat manfaat yang telah dijelaskan Directly Anda merasa proyek dari donasi lahan benefit from 41 bermanfaat bagi kehidupan sehari-hari the project Anda merasa pendonasi lahan mendapat 42 lebih banyak manfaat dari proyek dibanding
masyarakat lainnya Anda memberikan penjelasan tentang lokasi 43 proyek Setiap pertemuan dihadiri tentang penentuan 44 lokasi proyek dihadiri oleh donatur lahan Selection on Konsultasi perihal penentuan lokasi proyek the project 45 dilakukan lebih dari satu kali location Konsultasi perihal penentuan lokasi proyek 46 dilakukan secara intens Konsultasi perihal penentuan lokasi proyek 47 dilakukan secara berkala 48
49
Those opted Lahan yang didonasikan tidak melebihi 10% 50 m2 for donation dari total lahan yang dimiliki will not be Besaran Kompensasi yang didapat tidak 51 m2 severely melebihi 10% dari total pendapatan affected 52 Kompensasi yang didapat Rp 53 Total pendapatan sebelum donasi Rp 54 Total pendapatan setelah donasi Rp
Category of Standar hidup donatur menjadi lebih buruk 55 poor household setelah donasi lahan or vulnerable Pendapatan donatur menurun setelah donasi 56 household lahan Anda memintai data mengenai latar belakang 57 Detailed data ekonomi on the socio Anda memintai data mengenai latar belakang 58 economic sosial background Anda memintai data mengenai sertifikat 59 kepemilikan lahan
The voluntary Anda memintai mengisi dokumen mengenai 60 donation is pendonasian lahan
71
properly 61 BLANK recorded. Anda memintai tandatangan dokumen 62 penyerahan lahan Ada penunjukan saksi untuk pendonasian 63 lahan Donasi lahan disaksikan langsung oleh saksi 64 yang telah ditunjuk NGO melakukan verifikasi terhadap donasi 65 yang dilakukan Penentuan pengadaan lahan disepakati secara Provisions on 66 bersama-sama voluntary Penentuan pengadaan lahan telah donation 67 disampaikan ke seluruh masyarakat
Rencana proyek disusun dengan 68 memperhatikan kebutuhan laki-laki dan perempuan Proyek dilakukan dengan memperhatikan 69 kebutuhan laki-laki dan perempuan Laki-kaki dan perempuan mempunyai hak yang 70 sama untuk berpartisipasi dalam proses pengadaan lahan Anda puas terhadap perlakuan yang diberikan Gender 71 untuk laki-laki dan perempuan dalam proses pengadaan lahan ini Proyek ini memberi manfaat bagi kaum 72 perempuan dalam bidang kebersihan Proyek ini memberi manfaat bagi kaum 73 perempuan dalam bidang kesehatan Proyek ini memberi manfaat bagi kaum 74 perempuan dalam bidang pendidikan Anda puas terhadap usaha pemberdayaan 75 kaum perempuan ini
72 | P a g e
ANNEX B. LIST OF DOCUMENTS UNDER STUDY
No. Documents Name Documents' Sources
1. Community Action Plan Villagers, NGOs 2. Program Administration Memorandum ADB 3. ADB’s Safeguards ADB 4. The Gender Action Plan ADB 5. The Resettlement Framework ADB 6. The Environmental Management Plan ADB 7. The Environmental Assessment and Review ADB Framework 8. ADB’s Public Community Policy ADB 9. Terms of Reference ADB 10. Environmental Assessment Guidelines ADB 11. Indigenous People Safeguards ADB 12. Involuntary Resettlement Safeguards ADB 13. Sub-Component 2.3 ICRWMIP ADB 14. Sub-Component 2.3 Safeguards Report 2011 ADB 15. Sub-Component 2.3 Pedum Pengelolaan ADB ICRWMIP SC 2.3 16. Izin Pakai Lahan Fasum GOI 17. Kontribusi Lahan Fasum GOI 18. Statement of Grant 1-7 GOI 19. Land Use Permit Statement 1, 2, 5-8 GOI 20. Land Use 1-5 GOI 21. Land Grant Statement GOI 22. Pernyataan Izin Pakai Tanah GOI 23. Surat Izin Pakai Lahan Pribadi Sanitasi GOI 24. All Related Regulations GOI
No. Document’s Document’s Document's Short Description Source, Year Name
RELATED ADB POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND MANUALS
1 ADB. 2013 ADB’s The Safeguard Policy Statement describes common Safeguards objectives of ADB’s safeguards, lays out policy principles, and outlines the delivery process for ADB’s safeguard policy. The Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) builds upon the three previous safeguard policies on the environment, involuntary resettlement and indigenous peoples, and brings them into one single policy that enhances consistency and coherence, and more comprehensively addresses environmental and social impacts and risks. The SPS aims to promote sustainability of project outcomes by protecting the environment and people from project’s 73
potential adverse impacts by avoiding adverse impacts of projects on the environment and affected people, where possible; minimizing, mitigating, and/or compensating for adverse project impacts on the environment and affected people when avoidance is not possible; and helping borrowers/clients to strengthen their safeguard systems and develop the capacity to manage environmental and social risks108. The three objectives of this documents are to avoid negative impacts on the environment affected people where possible; to minimize, mitigate and or compensate for adverse project impacts on the environment and affected people when avoidance is impossible; to help borrows clients to strengthen their safeguard systems and develop the capacity to manage environmental and social risks.
Notes: This document is used as the main reference for verification
2 ADB. 2013 The Gender This document describes the policy of women's Action Plan involvement in any of the activities promoted by the Bank minimum of 30%. The Bank wants to ensure that the involvement of women in every activity of the Bank is under the protection of the government and the Bank itself. This document consists of one output and 4 components. Output 1 explains the River Basin and watershed management and investment plans established. Component 2 explains the striking smallholder and institutional investments in conservation URB Increased and enhanced productivity in the forestry, agriculture and rural sectors. While component 3 & 4 describes the river basin and watershed management capacity and related governance mechanisms strengthened and Project management and support services delivered.
Notes: This document is used as the main reference for verification
3 ADB. 2005 Bank's policy This document describes the rules about how to about publish project reports. publishing the report. Notes: This document is used as a main reference for writing verification report
108 http://www.adb.org/documents/safeguard-policy-statement
74 | P a g e
4 ADB, 2012 The Handbook This handbook is a one-stop center with online links to on Project Asian Development Bank (ADB) policies, procedures, Implementation and documents related to project implementation, including standard bidding documents and harmonized request for proposals; and a practical guide on project implementation with an online tutorial and templates on project management, incorporating the critical path method. The handbook is an aid to executing and implementing agencies of ADB-financed projects, ADB staff, and project consultants and managers.
Notes: This document is used as a main reference for writing verification implementation
5 ADB. 2014 Guidelines for These guidelines are interim in nature as they will be the Validation further revised to reflect changes in the Guidelines for of Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Project/Progra Sector Operations, which is being updated. This interim m Completion guidelines were prepared to accommodate various Reports changes in the validation exercise that have been introduced through various IED circulars and changes in ADB’s Operations Manual since 2012
Notes: This document is used as a main reference for implementing verification with adjustment
6 ADB. 2003 ADB's This document is designed to provide guidance on how Environmental to fulfil ADB's environmental assessment requirements. Assessment This document is organized into 2 parts. Part 1 is an Process and overview of environmental assessment requirements Technical and procedures (provides a description of procedural Guidelines environmental requirement for the preparation of the country strategy and program, and in lending operations). Part 2 provides technical guidance and is supported by technical appendix providing more detailed guidance.
Notes: This document is used as a main reference for verification
7 ADB. 1998. Bank's policy This documents mostly describes about how about indigenous people as one of the largest vulnerable Indigenous segments of society. Since it is impossible to exclude People indigenous peoples from development therefore, they need protection through policy and laws focuses on their safety and sustainability of the indigenous people in the development process.
Notes: This document is used as a main reference for verification
8 ADB. 2012. Operations This document focuses on the Safeguard Policy manual of Statement requirements pertaining to involuntary Bank's policy resettlement. This document aims to increase the 75
on involuntary likelihood that ADB-supported project will achieve the resettlement. objectives of involuntary resettlement safeguards sets out in the SPS, through adding clarity, providing further technical guidance and recommending good practices in the implement of the SPS.
Notes: This document is used as a main reference for verification
RELATED GOI REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
9 GOI Regulations This document contains policies set by the Framework Government of Indonesia, both central and local governments, regarding the use of land for development and health regulations regarding the environment surrounding the development program.
10 GOI Law No.2/2012 Land procurement for development for public interest article 10
ICWRMIP PROJECT DOCUMENTS SUB COMPONENT 2.3.
11 ADB. SC 2.3 This document explains about the components as well ICWRMIP as the social and environmental safeguards of Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program.
Notes: This document is the main source of verification and data analysis.
12 ADB. 2011 SC 2.3 This document is about the social and environmental Safeguards safeguards of ICRWMIP 2.3 in 2011 provides in Report 2011 Bahasa Indonesia.
Notes: This document is the main source of verification and data analysis.
13 ADB.2011 SC 2.3 Pedum SC 2.3 General Guidance contains explanations of the Pengelolaan tasks and functions of each department in ICWRMIP SC implementing, monitoring and evaluating the project. In 2.3 this document it is described in detail the responsibilities of each department to run the program as well as the elaboration of activities undertaken in the project. This guidance is issued by the ADB in 2011 in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, especially the Directorate of Environmental Health.
Notes: This document is the main source of verification and data analysis.
76 | P a g e
14 ICWRMIP Agreement: This document provides an agreement between the SC 2.3. Izin Pakai Bank and the land donator and signed by 12 chairmen Lahan Fasum in Jakasampurna.
Notes: This document is the main source of sample verification and data analysis.
15 ICWRMIP Agreement: This document provides an agreement between the SC 2.3. The Bank and the land donator and signed by 12 chairmen Jakasampurna' in Jakasampurna. s district administration Notes: agreed to This document is the main source of sample donates 200 M² verification and data analysis. land. 16 ICWRMIP Agreement: A document containing a statement that the public SC 2.3. Land Donation RW2, Jakasampurna represented by each of the RT for Public approved the program ICWRMIP Facilities SC 2.3 implemented in their environment, especially for (Fasum) at the development of Public Facilities (Fasum) located on Jakasampurna the ground of Jasa Marga/PLN to be used for the Village. public/ society usage in RW 2 Village Jakasampurna.
Notes: This documents is the main source of sample verification and data analysis
17 ICWRMIP Agreement: A document containing a statement that the public SC 2.3. Statement of RW2, Jakasampurna represented by each of the RT Grant 1-7 at approved the program ICWRMIP SC 2.3 implemented Jakasampurna in their environment, especially for the development of Village. Public Facilities (Fasum) located on the ground of Jasa Marga / PLN to be used for the public/society usage in RW 2 Village Jakasampurna. This document also provides evidence about the witnesses presented at the time of agreement and also about the negotiation process.
Notes: This document is the main source of sample verification and data analysis.
18 ICWRMIP Agreement: This document is a document of land use permit SC 2.3. Land Use statements to be used for the construction of sewage Permit treatment 3R with time use as long as the owner has Statement not used it. The land to be donated belongs to Mr. 1,2,5-8 at Rohadi within area of 200 M2 located at RT 5/26 Margahayu, Margahayu, Bekasi. Bekasi. Notes: This document is the main source of sample verification and data analysis.
77
19 ICWRMIP Agreement: Affidavit land grant by Nalih HS housed in Jatibening, SC 2.3. Avidafit Land Pondok Gede Bekasi. An area of 100 meters which will Grant be donated located in RT 003/14. Affidavit land grant Statement for was set on December 15, 2011 in Bekasi. The Sanitation at witnesses present in the process of ratification are Jatibening and Deddy Mulyadi, H. Supian Sauri, Railin HS, Number, Pondok Gede, and Mirsod. Land to be donated for the construction of Bekasi. sanitary septic tank.
Notes: This document is the main source of sample verification and data analysis. 20 ICWRMIP Agreement: This document established by Rohadi as the owner of SC 2.3 Statement the assets. It describes about the statement use permit grant by the of land with wide 200 M² for the use of construction of land owner in 3R waste processing. The process was witnessed by Bekasi. Madasa, Sanam S. Umran and Wardjan.
Notes: This document is the main source of sample verification and data analysis.
OTHER RELATED PROJECT REPORT
21 ADB. 2012. Inception This document is about the concept of resettlement Report of EMA and project management regarding the sub component about 2.1 West Tarum Canal. environmental and social Notes: safeguard This document is used as secondary reference in order monitoring to get insight from comparative perspective. report ICRMIP Project I. 22 ADB.2011. Quarterly This document explains about the component as well Report, as the social and environmental safeguards of ICWRMIP Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program.
Notes: This document is used as secondary reference in order to get insight from comparative perspective. 23 ADB. 2012. SC 2.3. This document is about the social and environmental Implementation safeguards of ICRWMIP 2.3 in 2011 provides in Report; Bahasa Indonesia. Laporan Pencapaian Notes: Pengamanan This document is used as secondary reference in order Lingkungan to get insight from comparative perspective. 2011. 24 ADB. 2012. Report on This document describes about the development and Uplands strengthening the irrigation and water resource irrigation and management in Kampong Thom and Battambang water Province, Cambodia. resources management Notes: sector project. This document is used as secondary reference in order to get insight from comparative perspective.
25 ADB. 2015. Report on This document describes about the development and
78 | P a g e
Uplands strengthening the irrigation and water resource irrigation and management in Kampong Thom and Battambang water Province, Cambodia. resources management Notes: sector project. This document is used as secondary reference in order to get insight from comparative perspective.
26 ADB. 2014. Report on Pro- This document focuses on reducing the poverty and poor vulnerability rate in Myanmmar, especially in Yangon community and Mandalang using community demand-driven infrastructure approach. and basic services Notes: project. This document is used as secondary reference in order to get insight from comparative perspective.
27 ADB. 2013. Report on This document describes about the integrated Building watershed management for mountain communities in Climate Nepal. Resilience of Watersheds in Notes: Mountain Eco- This document is used as secondary reference in order Regions. to get insight from comparative perspective.
28 ADB. 2014. Report on This document describes about the integrated Mahaweli environmental protection in Sri Lanka. Water Security Investment Notes: Program. This document is used as secondary reference in order to get insight from comparative perspective.
29 ADB. 2015. Report on This document focuses on the reporting project done ARM: Water by the Bank in Dilijan Town and Bagratashen, Supply and Ptghavan, Zorakan, Berdavan Villages, Armenia. The Sanitation project was about the water supply and sanitation Sector Project - sector and aims to provide public health and Additional environments and as an impact to reduce poverty, Financing improving women's routine and etc. Improvement of Water Supply Notes: Systems in This document is used as secondary reference in order Armenia. to get insight from comparative perspective.
79
ANNEX C. RESEARCH LOG BOOK AND FINANCIAL REPORT
1. RESEARCH LOGBOOK
KEGIATAN TANGGAL KEGIATAN PERSONEL YANG OUTPUT TERLIBAT PERSIAPAN 15-25 Jan 16 Menulis Proposal Ketua Tim Peneliti *Proposal siap 21-Jan-16 Mencari data Awal Surveyor (6 orang) *Dokumen data awal siap 29-Jan-16 Memasukan Ketua Tim Peneliti *Proposal diterima Proposal *Kontrak ditandatangani MOBILISASI 1-Feb-16 Kunjungan ke Ketua dan Anggota *Mendapat data BBWSC Tim Peneliti proyek 1-4 Feb 16 Menyusun alat ukur Ketua dan Anggota *Alat ukur siap Tim Peneliti 3-Feb-16 Menyiapkan Kantor Staf Administrasi *Kantor penelitian siap 5-Feb-16 Mobilisasi Tim Ketua Peneliti (1 *Kejelasan koordinasi Peneliti (6 jam) orang) seluruh tim Anggota Tim Peneliti * Kejelasan target (3 orang) penelitian Surveyor (5 orang) * Kejelasan proses penelitian Sopir (1 orang) * Kejelasan tugas masing-masing Administrative aid (1 * Pengelolaan konflik orang) PENELITIAN LAPANGAN 6-29 Feb Ketua Tim Peneliti (1 *Dokumen Proyek 2016 orang) Anggota Tim Peneliti *Hasil Wawancara (3 orang) Surveyor lapangan (5 *Hasil Observasi orang) *Catatan FGD PENGOLAHAN DATA 1-15 Maret Kompilasi data Ketua Peneliti (1 *Ringkasan hasil studi 16 lapangan orang) dokumen Pengelola data (1 *Ringkasan hasil orang) wawancara Pengumpul data (5 *Ringkasan hasil orang) observasi
80 | P a g e
16-31 Maret Penyajian data Ketua Peneliti (1 *Ringkasan hasil FGD 16 orang) Pengelola data (1 *Catatan lapangan orang) surveyor Pengumpul data (3 *Draf Laporan orang) PENULISAN LAPORAN 1 - 30 Apr 16 Penulisan draft awal Ketua Peneliti *Laporan Akhir Penelitian Penulisan skripsi Surveyor mahasiswa *Skripsi mahasiswa mahasiswa Pembahasan Ketua Peneliti internal Anggota Peneliti Pengolah Data Pengumpul Data Konsultasi stake- Ketua Peneliti holder DISEMINASI LAPORAN 1-31 Mei 16 Penyajian di BBWS Penyajian di Bappenas PUBLIKASI ILMIAH 1 - 30 Juni Menguji skripsi Mahasiswa penulis *Mahasiswa lulus 16 mahasiswa skripsi sangat memuaskan Menulis paper untuk Ketua Tim Peneliti *Draft paper untuk konferensi konferensi 1-31 Juli 16 Studi Literatur tambahan Ag - Sept 16 Menyiapkan dua Paper untuk Konverensi ICOSOP 16-Nov Conferensi ICOSOP Jan-Mar Revisi Paper untuk 2017 Publikasi
81
2. FINANCIAL REPORT
PENGELUARAN
NO.BON TANGGAL JENIS PENGELUARAN SATUAN VOLUME HARGA SATUAN TOTAL 18 20-Feb ATK pack 1 5,500.00 5,500.00 3 38 26-Apr ATK pack 1 1,691,500.00 1,691,500.00 3 39 27-Apr ATK pack 1 385,000.00 385,000.00 3 40 27-Apr ATK pack 1 5,000.00 5,000.00 3 41 29-Apr Bahan Habis Pakai: DVD-RW piece 8 25,000.00 200,000.00 3 24 29-Feb Buku referensi pack 1 695,000.00 695,000.00 3 37 25-Apr Fotocopy pack 1 216,000.00 216,000.00 3 42 29-Apr Fotocopy dan print pack 1 420,400.00 420,400.00 3 15 17-Feb Fotokopi pack 1 85,000.00 85,000.00 3 25 29-Feb Honor Anggota Peneliti_Februari 2016 man/month 1 325,000.00 325,000.00 1 4 31-Jan Honor Anggota Peneliti_Januari 2016 man/month 1 325,000.00 325,000.00 1 26 29-Feb Honor Ketua Peneliti_Februari 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 3 31-Jan Honor Ketua Peneliti_Januari 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 35 31-Mar Honor Ketua Peneliti_Maret 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 43 30-Apr Honor Ketua Penelti_April 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 47 31-May Honor Ketua Penelti_Mei 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 53 30-Jun Honor Ketua Peneliti_Juni 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 56 31-Jul Honor Ketua Peneliti _Juli 2016 man/month 1 350,000.00 350,000.00 1 27 3-Mar Honor pengolahan data_Firman pack 1 1,560,000.00 1,560,000.00 1 32 30-Mar Honor penyajian data lapangan_Firman pack 1 1,170,000.00 1,170,000.00 1 31 3-Mar Honor_input data_Laras pack 1 100,000.00 100,000.00 3 29 3-Mar Honor_input data_Putri pack 1 120,000.00 120,000.00 3 30 3-Mar Honor_input data_Stephany pack 1 145,000.00 145,000.00 3 34 30-Mar Honor_input data_Stephany pack 1 320,250.00 320,250.00 3 28 3-Mar Honor_Koordinator Lapangan_Devinisha pack 1 880,000.00 880,000.00 3 33 30-Mar Honor_Koordinator Lapangan_Devinisha pack 1 877,500.00 877,500.00 3 17 18-Feb Konsumsi: 2 orang pewawancara pack 1 100,000.00 100,000.00 4 23 28-Feb Konsumsi: 5 orang_review data lapangan 5 packs 1 98,350.00 98,350.00 4 21 26-Feb Konsumsi: sopir pack 2 20,000.00 40,000.00 4 6 5-Feb Konsumsi: warung ethnic (11 orang selama 6 jam) pack 1 615,300.00 615,300.00 4 49 14-Jun Konsumsi: Ciwalk (3 orang) pack 1 71,500.00 71,500.00 4 48 1-Jun Konsumsi: Kafe Halaman (5 orang) pack 1 194,350.00 194,350.00 4 16 18-Feb Konsumsi: makan siang dg Dinkes Bekasi pack 1 57,500.00 57,500.00 4 50 17-Jun Konsumsi: Noah Barn (5 orang) pack 1 176,715.00 176,715.00 4 52 21-Jun Konsumsi: Pizza Hut (5 orang) pack 1 171,002.00 171,002.00 4 5 1-Feb Transporasi: bahan bakar liter 41.84 7,050.00 294,972.00 2 46 23-May Transportasi surveyor a/n Laras trip 1 100,000.00 100,000.00 2 45 23-May Transportasi surveyor a/n Putri trip 1 100,000.00 100,000.00 2 44 23-May Transportasi surveyor-Dennieros trip 1 100,000.00 100,000.00 2 12 11-Feb Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 37.63 7,050.00 265,291.50 2 19 24-Feb Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 39.93 7,050.00 278,016.00 2 36 14-Apr Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 34.36 6,550.00 225,058.00 2 51 17-Jun Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 40.4 6,550.00 264,620.00 2 54 20-Jul Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 40.92 7,350.00 300,762.00 2 55 27-Jul Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 25.41 6,900.00 175,329.00 2 10 9-Feb Transportasi: bahan bakar liter 33.01 7,050.00 232,720.50 2 22 27-Feb Transportasi: bayar sopir man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2 1 12-Jan Transportasi: bensin liter 30.057 7,050.00 211,901.85 2 2 21-Jan Transportasi: dalam kota_BBWS_Dinkes_LSM_Tokoh man/trip 6 150,000.00 900,000.00 2 11 9-Feb Transportasi: sopir man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2 13 15-Feb Transportasi: sopir man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2 14 16-Feb Transportasi: sopir man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2 20 26-Feb Transportasi: sopir man/day 1 200,000.00 200,000.00 2 7 6-Feb Transportasi_Pengumpulan data_surveyor man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2 8 7-Feb Transportasi_Pengumpulan data_surveyor man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2 9 8-Feb Transportasi_Pengumpulan data_surveyor man/day 1 150,000.00 150,000.00 2
Total Pengeluaran 18,199,537.85
82 | P a g e