Delivering assistance to conflict-affected communities : the BRA-KDP Program in Aceh

53357  IndonesianSocialDevelopmentPapers Since1998,Indonesiahasbeenundergoingamomentouspoliticalandeconomictransition.The fall of the New Order, the economic crisis, and radical decentralization have changed the political, economic and social context. Within this new context, power relations are in flux, identities are being renegotiated, and institutions are changing. Changes in incentives, and in the role of formal and informal institutions at various levels, have altered the ways in which individualsandgroupsrelatetoeachotherandthestate.Understandingthisnewcontext,and the ways in which various actors (national and international) can promote progressive social changeisimportant. The Indonesian Social Development Papers series aims to further discussion on a range of issues relating to the current social and political context in Indonesia, and to help in the generation of ideas on how democratic and peaceful transition can be supported. The series willcoverarangeofissuesincludingconflict,development,corruption,governance,theroleof thesecuritysector,andsoon.Eachpaperpresentsresearchonaparticulardimensionofsocial developmentandofferspragmaticpolicysuggestions.Papersalsoattempttoassesstheimpact ofvariousinterventions--fromlocalandnationalactors,aswellasinternationaldevelopment institutions--onpreexistingcontextsandprocessesofchange. The papers in the series are works in progress. The emphasis is on generating discussion amongst different stakeholders--including government, civil society, and international institutions--rather than offering absolute conclusions. It is hoped that they will stimulate further discussions of the questions they seek to answer, the hypotheses they test, and the recommendationstheyprescribe. PatrickBarron(serieseditor) pbarron@worldbank.org Bagian dalam cover depan  DeliveringAssistanceto ConflictAffectedCommunities TheBRAKDPPrograminAceh AdrianMorel MakikoWatanabe RobertWrobel December2009 IndonesianSocialDevelopmentPaperNo.13 PapersintheIndonesianSocialDevelopmentseriesarenotformalpublicationsoftheWorldBank.They arepublishedinformallyandcirculatedtoencouragediscussionandcommentbetweenthoseinterested inIndonesiandevelopmentissues.Thefindings,interpretations,judgments,andconclusionsexpressed in the paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to: the World Bank and affiliated organizations; members of the World Bank's Board of Executive Directors or the governments they represent;oranyofthefundingagencies. ThefullrangeofpublicationsassociatedwiththebroaderstudyoflocalconflictinIndonesia(ofwhich thisreportisaproduct)isavailableonlineatwww.conflictanddevelopment.org. Emailaddressesforcorrespondence: amorel1@worldbank.org mwatanabe@adb.org rwrobel@worldbank.org Copiesofthispaperareavailablefrom: PNPMSupportFacility JalanDiponegoroNo.72 Jakarta10310Indonesia Tel:+62(0)213148175 Fax:+62(0)2131903090  Preface The end of the conflict in Aceh led to the arrival of a range of different programs aimed at `reintegrating' former combatants and providing assistance to conflictaffected groups. The BRAKDP program was an innovative attempt by local and national governments to employ lessonslearnedfromsuccessfulcommunitydevelopmentprogramstopostconflictAceh.The program, designed and implemented with support from the World Bank, delivered around US$ 21.7 million to over 1,700 conflictaffected villages, aiming to support the welfare of conflictvictimswhilebuildingsocialcohesionandtrustinthestate. DidBRAKDPwork?Whatdidtheprogramachieve?Whatchallengeswerefacedandwerethey addressedsuccessfully?WhatlessonscanbelearntfromtheBRAKDPexperiencethatmightbe usefultosimilarprogramsinthefuture?Thispaperaddressesthesequestionsbypresentingan assessment of program achievements drawing from data and evidence from the project's Monitoring Information Supervision (MIS) system, supervision missions and qualitative fieldwork. It should be read in conjunction with a complementary impact evaluation, CommunityBasedReintegrationinAceh:AssessingtheImpactsofBRAKDP(IndonesianSocial DevelopmentPapernumber12),whichidentifiesprojectimpactsonwelfare,socialcohesion, andtrustingovernment. PatrickBarron Conflict&Developmentteam WorldBank,Indonesia i  ExecutiveSummary The Communitybased Reintegration Assistance for Conflict Victims (or BRAKDP) channeled overUS$20millionto1,724conflictaffectedvillagesacross67subdistrictsin17districtsfrom August 2006 to August 2007. The program was designed and implemented after earlier attemptsbytheAcehPeaceReintegrationAgency(BRA)toapplyanindividualproposalbased system to identify and assist conflict victims proved unsuccessful, and an alternative mechanism was needed. BRA, with technical assistance from the World Bank, adapted the communitybasedblockgrantmechanismutilizedbytheGovernmentofIndonesia'sKecamatan DevelopmentProgram(KDP)toempowercommunitiestodecidewhoisavictimandwhatkind ofassistancevictimswouldreceive.Allvillageswithinthetargetedsubdistrictsreceivedblock grantsrangingfromRp.60million(US$6,000)toRp.170million(US$17,000)dependingonthe intensity of past conflict in the subdistrict and the village population size. The primary objectiveofBRAKDPwastoimprovethelivingconditionsofconflictaffectedcommunitiesand conflictvictimsbydeliveringdevelopmentassistancetailoredtolocalneeds. Mainfindings The program aimed to identify and deliver assistance to conflictaffected villagers. The responsibilityforidentifyingwhowaseligibletobenefit,byhowmuch,andinwhatwayswas devolved to communities who made these decisions through a series of village meetings. Overall,thisprocesswentwell.Whilefundswerespreadtoalargeproportionofhouseholdsin target areas, communities differentiated categories of beneficiaries based on levels of conflictaffectedness. The `mostaffected' conflict victims were prioritized and received larger amountsofassistance. Communityparticipationinprogrammeetings,evenamongstvulnerablegroupssuchasconflict victims and women, was strong: 40 to 56 percent of households were represented at key meetingsoftheprogramcycle.Conflictvictimsshowedsatisfactorylevelsofparticipationand awareness of program objectives and processes. A large proportion of women attended meetings,althoughthequalityoftheirinvolvementindecisionmakingprocessesoftenproved poor. Excombatants interacted with and influenced BRAKDP in positive and negative ways. Thenatureoftherelationshipwithformercombatantsvariedacrossareasandwasinfluenced by the local conflict history, relations between excombatants and villagers and the level of influenceformercombatantsretainedovercommunitiesafterthepeaceagreementand,above all, the ways in which program facilitators engaged with former combatants. Despite the fact thatprogramprocedurespreventedexcombatantsfrombenefitingdirectlyfromtheprogram, theywerebroadlysupportiveandsometimesplayedaveryconstructiveroleinsocializingand implementing the program. A number of attempts by former combatants at capturing funds through extortion or by exerting pressures on villagers were resolved peacefully after mediationbyprogramstakeholders. BRAKDP had positive welfare impacts in target areas. The program applied an open menu, which made both public and private goods eligible for funding. Communities overwhelmingly ii preferred economic activities over public goods. Eightynine percent of funds were spent on livelihoodsprojects.CommunitiesassociatedBRAKDPwithcompensationfortheconflictand opted for projects that would provide direct individual benefits. The large majority of beneficiaries invested funds in productive activities, such as the purchase of livestock and agricultureinputs.Technicalassistanceforsmallscalelivelihoodsprojectsprovidedthroughthe programwasinadequateandeffortstolinkbeneficiarieswithoutsidesourcesofknowhowand capitalfellshort. LevelsofsatisfactionwerehighandcommunitiesfeltthatBRAKDPwassuccessfulinproviding a wellneeded injection of capital as well as fulfilling the needs of conflict victims for compensation and recognition. The program instituted a complaints handling system that trackedcomplaintsovertimeandprovidedinformationandclarificationofprogramprocedures. ComplaintsoverBRA'sshiftfromaproposalbasedtoacommunitybasedsystemforassisting conflict victims, the amounts of subdistrict and village block grant allocations, and implementationdelaysdecreasedovertimeasaresultofintensivesocializationactivitiesand asfundshittheground. ImplicationsandRecommendations BRAKDPcouldhavebeenmoreeffectivehadseveralmodificationsbeenmade.Theseinclude the articulation of a clear policy stance by government linking BRAKDP assistance to the obligations defined in the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding, upgrading the skills of program facilitators to assist communities in the process of identifying conflict victims, and linking smallscale livelihoods subprojects to outside sources of technical assistance and capital. Policy makers in Aceh should continue to leverage KDP, now called the National Community Empowerment Program (PNPM Mandiri), to channel assistance to conflictaffected villages throughouttheprovince.In2009,thenewFinancialAssistanceforVillageProsperityprogram (BKPG)willchannelaroundUS$100millioninprovincialanddistrictgovernmentfundsthrough PNPM to all villages in Aceh. The government should explore possibilities of using BRAKDP's targeting mechanism within BKPG to deliver private goods to vulnerable groups. Future development programs in Aceh should avoid targeting mechanisms linked to conflictera identities.Instead,programsshouldapplytargetingmechanismsbasedonindicatorsofwelfare, suchasunemployment,education,andassetlevels. ExperiencefromBRAKDPisrelevanttoDDRandcommunitydrivendevelopmentpractitioners in conflictaffected countries and regions, as well as for policy makers in other parts of Indonesia. BRAKDP's positive welfare impacts suggest that funds intended as compensation can have developmental impacts provided that the proper delivery mechanisms are in place. ThisquestionsthewidelyheldassumptionthatDDRprogramsmustfollowasequenceinwhich compensation is delivered prior to implementing programs with a developmental focus. In terms of targeting, the program proved more successful when beneficiaries were identified strictly based on criteria related to conflict loss and victimhood. This suggests that iii communitybased DDR programs should allow all groups, including former combatants for whichothertargetedprogramsmayexist,accesstoprogrambenefitsprovidedthattargeting criteriaarebasedonwelfareindicatorsratherthanidentity. iv  TABLEOFCONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................................................................... II TABLEOFCONTENTS .................................................................................................................... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ VIII GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. IX 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 ThePeaceProcessinAceh.............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 CommunityBasedAssistancefortheReintegrationofConflictVictims ........................................ 2 1.3 Structure,Aims&Methods ............................................................................................................ 4 2 THEBRAKDPPROGRAM ....................................................................................................... 6 2.1 ObjectivesofBRAKDP.................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 TargetAreasandAllocations .......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 HowwastheProgramImplemented? ............................................................................................ 7 3 IDENTIFYINGCONFLICTVICTIMS .............................................................................................. 11 3.1 WhoisaConflictVictim?PerceptionsofVictimhoodandIdentificationCriteria ........................ 11 3.2 HowCommunitiesIdentifiedConflictVictims .............................................................................. 13 4 INCLUSION:INVOLVINGDISADVANTAGEDGROUPSINDECISIONMAKING .......................................... 21 4.1 LevelsofParticipation................................................................................................................... 21 4.2 ParticipationofDisadvantagedGroups:WomenandConflictVictims ........................................ 23 4.3 EngagingExCombatants .............................................................................................................. 27 5 HOWFUNDSWEREUSED:THEECONOMICIMPACTOFTHEPROGRAM .............................................. 34 5.1 WhatdidBeneficiariesUseFundsFor? ........................................................................................ 34 5.2 ReasonsfortheChoicesmadebyCommunities........................................................................... 37 5.3 TechnicalQualityofProjects ........................................................................................................ 39 6 VIEWSOFCOMMUNITIES:LEVELSOFSATISFACTION&COMPLAINTS ................................................ 41 6.1 LevelsofSatisfaction .................................................................................................................... 41 6.2 ComplaintsHandlingMechanisms................................................................................................ 42 6.3 Complaints .................................................................................................................................... 43 6.4 Socialization .................................................................................................................................. 49 6.5 OneYearafterCompletion:WhatIssuesareIdentifiedbyBeneficiaries? ................................... 52 v 7 IMPLICATIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 54 7.1 HowCouldBRAKDPhaveContributedmoreEffectivelytoReintegrationinAceh? ................... 54 7.2 What'sNextforCommunityBasedReintegrationandPostConflictRecoveryinAceh?............. 56 7.3 ImplicationsforDDRTheoryandPractice .................................................................................... 57 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................60 ANNEXA:LISTOF2006TARGETSUBDISTRICTSANDALLOCATIONS ..........................................62 ANNEXB:SUPERVISIONMISSIONSEF R NC I O D SEC CATIONS ......................................65 E E ES NS O ANNEXC:COMPLAINTSHANDLINGFLOWCHART .................................................................. 68 TableofTables Table1.1BRAReintegrationPrograms20052007 ........................................................................2 Table2.1SizeofVillageBlockGrants(Rp.) ....................................................................................7 Table2.2BRAKDPImplementationTimeLine ............................................................................10 Table3.1VariationintheProportionofBRAKDPDirectBeneficiariesinSubdistrictPopulation ......................................................................................................................................................14 Table3.2VariationintheProportionofWomenAmongBRAKDPBeneficiariesAcross Subdistricts ................................................................................................................................15 Table4.1LevelsofAttendanceofFemaleVillagersinBRAKDPandRegularKDP ......................24 Table4.2ReportedCasesofExtortionbyExcombatants ...........................................................31 Table6.1CategoriesofIssues ......................................................................................................43 TableofFigures Figure2.1BRAKDPProgramCycle ................................................................................................8 Figure3.1SampleofConflictVictimsMap...................................................................................13 Figure3.2DirectBeneficiariesasaPercentageoftheTotalPopulation......................................14 Figure3.3ProportionofWomenAmongBeneficiaries,ByDistrict .............................................15 Figure3.4AverageAmountsofAssistanceReceivedByVictimhoodCategory ...........................18 Figure 4.1 Comparison of Attendance Rate Between BRAKDP and KDP, as a Proportion of All Households...................................................................................................................................22 Figure4.2ParticipationandAwarenessbyGender .....................................................................26 Figure4.3ParticipationandAwarenessbyVictimhoodCategory ...............................................26 Figure5.1FundsSpentByTypeofActivity ..................................................................................35 vi Figure5.2EconomicSubprojectsvs.otherActivities,PerDistrict,asaProportionofFunds Allocated.......................................................................................................................................36 Figure5.3BreakdownofSubprojectsbyType(%ofFundsAllocatedtoEconomicActivities)...36 Figure5.4BreakdownofSubprojectsbyType(%ofFundsAllocatedtoInfrastructure) ...........37 Figure6.1BreakdownofInformationRequestsandComplaintsReceivedViaTextMessage ....47 Figure6.2EvolutionofInformationRequestsOverTime ............................................................48 Figure6.3PerceptionsofBRAKDP ..............................................................................................53 TableofBoxes Box1.1TheKecamatanDevelopmentProgramandPNPMinIndonesiaandAceh ......................3 Box2.1ObjectivesofBRAKDP.......................................................................................................6 Box3.1BRACriteriaforConflictVictims ......................................................................................12 Box3.2CriteriaUsedtoRankConflictVictimsandScaleAssistance ...........................................16 Box3.3RankingConflictVictimsinAcehTimurandAcehUtara .................................................20 Box4.1DefusingTensionsinBireuen ..........................................................................................30 Box4.2ExcombatantsDemandaPieceofthePietheCaseofNisam,AcehUtara...................32 Box4.3ExcombatantsasSpoilerstheCaseofSawang,AcehUtara .........................................33 Box5.1TheOpenMenu...............................................................................................................35 Box5.2TheBalancebetweenLivelihoodsandInfrastructureinBateeDabai,Makmur,Bireuen ......................................................................................................................................................39 Box5.3BagiRata