1. Identification of Pro-Poor Policies in National Plans/PRSPs – The Role of Diagnostics and Participation
Widjajanti I. Suharyo
The SMERU Research Institute, Indonesia
Presentation at the “National Plans as Poverty Reduction Strategies in East Asia”
Vientiane, Lao PRD - April 4-6, 2006

2. Outline Participatory process in PRSP formulation in Indonesia
Poverty diagnostic
Lessons learned and future challenges

3. Indonesian PRSP (SNPK) Formulation - Chronology
January 2003
May 2004
October 2004
January 2005 I -
PRSP
Draft 0
Draft 1
Final
Document
(SNPK )
Poverty Reduction Committee (
KPK)
TKP3KPK –
Coordinating Team for the Preparation
and Formulation of
Poverty Redu
ction Strategy
Drafter T As
for Task
Force :
Universities
& NGOs
Finalization Team:
Governments, NGOs, Universities,
Research Institute
, & Business
Review Team:
Governme
nts, NGOs & Universities
Public
Consultations:
Meetings and
Workshops Ø
PPA
Academic
Research/
Papers
Consultations
conducted by
Task Forces
Inputs from
stakeholders:
In writing
Uploaded in
In writi ng
Harmonization
with Medium
Terms
Development
Plan
TA Cross Cutting Issues: Communication, Monev, Regional, Policy
Review,
Pro
poor Budgeting and Planning,
Gender
Mainstreaming

4. KPK and TKP3KPK
KPK: Consisted of Govt. Ministries, Chaired by Coordinating Minister for Social Welfare and Coordinating Minister for Economy
TKP3KPK: Special task force formed by KPK for PRSP formulation

5. TKP3KPK Structure TKP3KPK Core Team – High rank govt. officials
TASK FORCE (TF)
SEKRETARIAT
TF 3:
CAPACITY BUILDING
TF 1:
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES
TF 2:
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
SOCIAL PROTECTION
Function:
Synchronized Issues between TFs
Task Force members:
Government, Legislative, Business Communities, Universities, NGOs, Community
- Expertise based

6. PRSP Draft 0  Draft 1 Main critics to Draft 0:
Too broad (general) and lack of poverty focus – using very limited poverty data
Inconsistency: definition - indicators
Do not sufficiently accommodate various inputs, including inputs from task forces
Do not incorporate PPA results sufficiently
Lack of comprehensive strategy to reduce poverty, only listing of programs/project that do not match with poverty diagnostic

7. Preparation of Draft 1 - Challenges
How to incorporate/take into account the various inputs
How to use PPA results – beyond using them as “quotes” or anecdotal evidences
How to combine PPA and quantitative data
How to accommodate different perspective to poverty

8. Preparation of Draft 1 – The Process
INPUT
OUTPUT
Constitution
PPA
Review of policy and programs
Global targets (MDGs) – adjusted to Indonesia condition
Poverty data (quantitative)
Other Poverty studies
Indonesia PRSP (SNPK) – Right based approach
Input to Medium Term Development Programs
PROCESS
Finalization Team &
Review Team
(Government, Universities, Research Institutes, NGOs, Business Community)
Consultations
Workshops
Consolidation of Inputs
Drafting

9. Incorporating PPA Results
PPA Consolidation:
Common – found in all or many communities  national problems
Local specific: livelihood type, occupation type, ethnic group, gender, etc.
Poverty trap & poverty dynamic – impoverishment
Inputs to PRSP:
Poverty Problems (characteristics, causes & impacts of poverty)
Multidimensionality of poverty
Effectiveness of policy/programs
Scaling up process
PPA Characteristics:
(-) Local specific case, anecdotal, can not be scaled up
(+) explaining why and how – poverty dynamic

10. Combining Qualitative –Quantitative
Poverty Analysis
Quantitative
Macro
Absolute
Objective
Material/
Physiologist
Qualitative &
Participatory
Micro
Relative
Subjective
Structural/
Sociologist
“Why” & “How”
Verification
Deepening
Generalization
Data availability?:
Poverty Sensitive; Gender Sensitive
Problem Statement

11. Accommodating Different Perspectives – The Debate
Government:
Concept: multidimensional – heavily relied on Income/ consumption based
(+) Consistent with available indicators
(-) Static - failed to address capability and structural issues - impoverishment
NGOs:
Concept: Structural Poverty
(+) Focus on poverty dynamic, address poverty trap and exploitative relation
(-) data and indicator ??
Problem: Inequality in access and capabilities, across economic class, gender, occupation type, ethnic, etc.
Concept: Capability – equality in access and opportunities
Strategy/approach: right based approach
Data/Indicators: some are available, some not yet available

12. 10 basic rights Inputs: Indonesia Constitution (UUD 1945) PPA
Right based approach: to respect, to protect, and to fulfill
Food Security
Health
Education
Job and business opportunities
Housing
Clean water and sanitation
Land
Natural resources and healthy environment
Human security
Participation
Inputs:
Indonesia Constitution (UUD 1945)
PPA
International Conventions
Reference: UN – A Human Right Approach to PRS

13. Lessons learned and future challenges
Participatory process:
Cumbersome: need persistence, patience, systematic process, openness
Time consuming: allow enough time
Quality of participation: strategy to include all/most stakeholders, including the poor and the various government bodies
Lack of common understanding on Right Based Approach
The myth: very costly – the government could not effort
No reference to the role of good governance – which is the central of the approach (to respect and to protect)
Sharing of responsibilities between various stakeholders

14. Thank You