Jakarta (ANTARA News) - The government will propose an additional budget of Rp500 billion to Rp600 billion for the construction of infrastructure that had been damaged by the mudflow of Lapindo Brantas mining company in Sidoarjo, East Java.
“The government has made a request (to the House of Representatives) for additional budget of Rp 500 billion to Rp 600 billion for the rehabilitation damaged infrastructure,” Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati said at a socialization of the proper management of government accounts at the different ministries and agencies, here on Wednesday.
The minister said that the additional funds would be proposed by the Public Works Ministry through the 2007 revised state budget.
“The funds are for damaged infrastructure rehabilitation. The budget implementation list (DIPA) is in the hand of the Minister of Public Works,” she said.
Mulyani said that based on Presidential Decree No. 14/ 2007 on the Sidoarjo Mudflow Handling Agency (BPLS), the government was responsible for the repair and rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure which affected the people`s life and the national economy such as roads and railway tracks.
“Because of flooding and bing covered by mud, the infrastructure like roads and rail tracks can no longer function, and have to be rehabilitated or relocated. As it now has entered the year 2007, we will propose an additional budget allocation in the revised 2007 state budget to the House of Representatives (DPR) through the Public Works Ministry,” the finance minister said.
On the occasion the minister also said that the government would not bail out compensation funds for the mudflow victims. “There is no bail out fund,” she added.
Previously, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the government would not lend money for paying compensations to the victims of mudflow from PT Lapindo Brantas operations in Porong, Sidoarjo, East Java.
“Actually there has been an idea of the government to lend money, but it would no longer be necessary, because PT Lapindo Brantas is able to make the payments,” he said at a press conference after a meeting to discuss the handling of the disaster.(*)
Copyright © 2007 ANTARA
July 2nd, 2007
At the recently-announced presentation of the Adipura Award for the cleanest and greenest regions in the country, environmentalists commented that the five Jakarta municipalities who received the award hardly deserved it, while the leaders of the surrounding districts that scored bottom believed they did not deserve it either. Jakarta can hardly claim excellence in environmental management, but it is cleaner than it used to be.
But why did the surrounding regions do so badly?
The first reason is economics. Using 2006 data available from the Ministry of Finance website, we find that Jakarta had a per capita budget of twice the national average, and its neighbors had less than half the average. Of the seven regions that are Jakarta’s neighbors, six rank in the lowest eight in the revenues of their governments per capita.
These neighbors spent one quarter of what Jakarta spent per capita for salaries, one fifth for goods and services, and one tenth for maintenance. Dirty Depok, blighted Bekasi, blotted Bogor and trashy Tangerang have no enough money for staff, contractors or maintenance of assets needed to have a cleaner, greener environment.
Not just the environment suffers. These regions cannot provide any reasonable services. Urbanization of the periphery of large cities demands higher than average expenditure, due to population growth rates, the demand for employment and the need for new infrastructure.
In the same week that the Adipura Award was announced, the Jawa Pos Pro-Otonomi Awards were also announced in East Java. Articles written in the build-up to the Pro-Otonomi Awards suggest that district governments were more interested in winning the award, or getting several-hundreds-thousand-dollar ISO 9000 accreditation, than in genuinely serving the people, as the main reason.
The UK, Australia and USA use a Best Value approach that legislates continual improvement in local government services. I believe a similar approach in Indonesia would motivate regional governments to focus on improving services rather than focussing on awards and certifications. Six principles of Best Value are applied regardless of the funds available.
Firstly, each district government develops standards for the performance outcomes intends to achieve and the costs to be budgeted.
Secondly, it assures that all its public services are responsive to needs of the community.
Thirdly, plans are prepared to make each public service accessible to those members of the community for whom it is intended.
Fourthly, they plan continuous improvement for each service.
Fifthly, they develop a program of regular consultation with the community in relation to each service.
And sixthly, they report regularly to the community on its achievements.
Awards fail to motivate Indonesian local governments to improve services as the Best Value approach does. The long reports local governments are required to fill out for central government do not lead to better performance either. Central government can encourage regions to improve through special Best Value Officers visiting regions and assessing compliance with the above principles.
The purpose of their visits is to assist the local governments improve their services, not to penalize them for not doing so. Close supervision is only needed when there is serious failure to achieve standards, due to poor management or inadequate funding. In the case of environmental management by Jakarta’s neighbors, supervision should be directed to ensuring adequate funds are allocated to regional governments, and that they devote the funds to this goal.
In his excellent overview of this year’s Pro-Otonomi Award, the head of the Jawa Pos group, Dahlan Iskan, commented on the lack of innovation in improving services, and on an overly bureaucratic approach to government. His newspaper, with the City of Surabaya, has developed a Green Surabaya program that devotes a full-page write-up of community efforts in making a better environment, every day of the week. It motivates community and business participants, and acknowledges excellence and good ideas
Surabaya has a per capita budget 30 percent higher than Jakarta’s neighbors, so it can afford to be cleaner. But it is still 30 percent below the national average, and has a third of the budget of Jakarta. It has succeeded in becoming cleaner and greener only by a combination of alternative service delivery systems like Green Surabaya, and placing one of its best managers in charge of gardens and garbage.
There is a place for awards in highlighting good performance, but local governments tend to place more value on the award than on successfully serving their communities. When awards identify ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, rather than seek out ways of helping reduce the difference between them, awards cannot substitute for proper funding, alternative service delivery, and use of best value practices across all local governments.
We hope that by award time next year, we will be able to report an improved funding formula across all regions-and especially for those close to the capital-more creative efforts to do more with less, and especially a genuine concern of governments to serve their people better rather than win a meaningless trophy.
The writer is Performance Management Director, Public Management International Institute (PMII). He can be reached at micah68@centrin.net.id.
Owen Podger, Jakarta
July 2nd, 2007