Experience in Promoting Local Good Governance and Public Participation in Indonesia

1. Experience in Promoting Local Good Governance and Public Participation in Indonesia Ilham Cendekia Srimarga PATTIRO (Centre for Regional Information and Studies) Indonesia

2. Country context • Since 1998, Indonesia has been actively developing democracy. • Since 2000, Indonesia has been implementing decentralization massively. • Strengthen society demand on public participation, transparency and accountability • Accordingly, society’s desire for creating clean, transparent and corruption-free governance becomes stronger • This situation encourages CSOs to improve their roles in the making, implementation and monitoring of public policies and budget.

3. Feasibility of Multi-stakeholder Approach • Such situation allows wide space for implementation of multi-stakeholder approach in development • It is strengthened by the acknowledgement of participation and transparency in national and sub-national legislation • Responding this condition, Indonesian CSOs take two kinds of approach: • Change advocacy strategy into a partnership manner • Maintain watch-dog approach and strengthen monitoring on government

4. Case Study: PATTIRO

5. PATTIRO (Background) • PATTIRO is a national NGO that works on promoting democratic governance in 22 regions of Indonesia • PATTIRO’s mission is encouraging policies, budget and public service system that reflect development needs of citizens, particularly those of the poor. • To achieve the mission, PATTIRO develops the following strategies: • Capacity strengthening to allow citizens to be involved in oubic policy-making processes • Partnership with government to encourage the rooms for citizens to be involved in policy-making processes

6. Cooperation Strategies with LA • Completing LA’s lack of knowledge and capacity • Promoting agenda setting in policy making process • Identifying policy issues from grass-root (community) level and raise the issues to policy discussion level

7. The form of cooperation between PATTIRO and Local Authority • Agenda Setting: • Encouraging policy demands from grass-root (community) level as policy agenda of government • Policy Formulation: • Completing LA’s needs for knowledge, new ideas and understanding of policy issues • Capacity Building: • Strengthening LA’s capacity in new issues (particularly governance and human rights issues) • Policy Implementation: • Building community action to help policy implementation of LA

8. Result of Approach • Improvement of public budget allocation to help fulfillment of citizens’ needs, particularly the needs of assisted communities • Assisted communities’ initiatives are accommodated into local public policies and budget • Dialog and cooperation rooms are created among CSOs and LA, and these rooms can be utilized by citizens • Community Centre institutions are created in village and sub-district level to serve as bridge among citizens and LA • Change of behavior of government in certain policy making processes

9. Opportunities • Trust: • Trust of society in NGOs • Strengthened LA ‘s acceptance on NGOs • Cooperation initiatives from various stakeholders (such as universities) arise • Opportunities in developing knowledge and new ideas that are adoptable for partnership with LA • They include awareness of LA on international issues and bridging international cooperation • Position that allows to bridge civic community with LA –as policy maker • Opportunities to develop strong political position, thus promote effectiveness in policy advocacy

10. Major Chalenges • Engagement between PATTIRO – LA to produce significant outcomes, since PATTIRO maintains independent relationship in financial matter (PATTIRO does not receive funds from LA) • Consequently, it leads to greater financial dependence of PATTIRO on donor agencies

11. Challenges • How PATTIRO maintains sustainability of process of partnership with LA • For instance: engagement between CSO-LA may produce budget increase for the poor in certain budget year. However, in the subsequent year, when engagement is not maintained, allocation for the budget item decreases. • How PATTIRO ensures that LA adopt achieved results from its engagement with CSOs • How PATTIRO continuously develops its knowledge capacity to address the growing knowledge demand from dynamic partnership of CSO-LA, particularly in policy-making processes • How CSO – LA partnership can be built to enter more strategic sectors (such as accountability of government revenues)

12. Major Obstacle • Financial dependence on donor agency often influence/limits PATTIRO’s innovation and organization capacity development to freely decide its advocacy issues, namely following the needs that arise from dynamic engagement with LA • Engagement PATTIRO with LA is highly influenced by political situation that develops in local level government and political will of LA leader • Multi-stakeholder approach has been politically accepted, but often resistance emerges from LA bureaucracy layer • Absence of financial dependence to follow-up emerging needs as consequences of dynamics of multi-stakeholder approach

13. Influence of relationship form with Donor agency • Policy and relationship pattern developed by international partner (donor agency/ international NGO) highly influence engagement pattern of PATTIRO – CSO • Engagement of PATTIRO – LA produce significant outcomes when international partner gives enough room for PATTIRO and LA to design their partnership form by themselves • Current trend of international partner that execute program directly and place local CSOs as part of implementation team reduces the role of PATTIRO and LA in problem solution at local level • Substantial involvement of international partner often gives much help when it comes in capacity building process, instead of directing the process

14. Key Success Factors • Independence of PATTIRO on LA, particularly in activity financing • PATTIRO’s opportunities to develop knowledge capacity and new ideas • Adjustment of addressed issues (by the program) and actual issues that grow in field level • Always take both cover approach, namely raising awareness of civic community and political organizing at policy-maker level prior to implementing multi-stakeholder engagement process • Rooms for PATTIRO to take informal / cultural approach to key stakeholders that encourage multi-stakeholder engagement process

15. Lesson Learnt • Rooms for local CSOs to address their own problem focus and decide intervention strategies are very important for the success of building multi-stakeholder approach • Local CSOs’ independence from local government, particularly in the activity financing, will give more rooms for local CSOs to make multi-stakeholder approach processes more productive