Summary
1. Outline of the ProjectCountry: Republic of Indonesia
Project Title: Community Development by the Participation of Civic Society
Issue/Sector: Governance
Cooperation Scheme: Technology Cooperation Project
Division in Charge: JICA Indonesia OfficeTotal cost (as of the time of evaluation): 295.78 million Japanese yen
Period of Cooperation:(R/D): December 22, 2003
Period of Cooperation: Three years (January 2004–December 2006)
Partner Country’s Implementing Organization:
1) Authority in charge: National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencanaan
Pembangunan Nasional - BAPPENAS)
2) Implementing organization: BAPPENAS, State Secretariat (Sekretariat Negara SETNEG), Local governments (ten eastern provinces), Local NGOs (ten eastern
provinces)
Supporting Organization in Japan: SOMNEED, i-i-network, Shaplaneer many othergroupsRelated Cooperation: None
1-1 Background of the ProjectIn the Republic of Indonesia (hereinafter "Indonesia"), as a result of its rapid
democratization since the collapse of the Suharto administration in 1998, the country’s
style and method of development have been changing from the traditional central
government-led top-down style to a decentralized style emphasizing local initiatives,
subsequently leading to bottom-up development with resident participation as its coreelement. Participation by NGOs and citizens’ groups in development projects
implemented by governmental administration has increased significantly.
However, governments do not have sufficient human resources and ability topromote the participation and strengthening of NGOs and citizens’ groups, andsystematic cooperation and networking between governments and NGOs/citizens’
groups are underdeveloped. As a result of the many years of top-down development,
neither the central nor the local governments have built an adequately trusting
relationship with one another, and governments do not understand the citizens’

activities and needs. Furthermore, due to decentralization, conditions and information
pertaining to local districts have not been reported by local governments to the central
government, and few of the circumstances and needs of local citizens’ groups have been
appropriately reflected in the policies, projects, and programs of the central
government.
Based on the situation described above, the assistance in regards to thepromotion of cooperation among (central and local) governments, NGOs, and citizens
with a view to promoting community development was requested by Indonesian
government, and "The Project of Community Development by the Participation of Civic
Society" was implemented for a three-year term of cooperation from January 2004 to
December 2006.
1-2 Project Overview (PDM)(1) Overall Goal
Policy and projects/programs related to community development are formulated andimplemented by way of a participation-type method.
(2) Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to improve cooperation among (central and local)
governments, NGOs, and communities with a view to empowering communities.
(3) Project Output
1. Participation-type approach for the community development by (central and local)
governments, NGOs, and communities has been improved.
2. Successful examples of community development projects in the target area are to beaccumulated and disseminated.
3. Pilot activity for community empowerment by local initiative is to be commenced.
(4) Project Inputs (as of this evaluation)
Japanese side:
Long-term experts

Two persons (54.5 man-months)

Short-term experts (total)

23 persons (26.75 man-months)

No. of trainees received in Japan 19 persons (3 courses)
Training in Indonesia

16 persons

Equipment brought along 3.766 million yen
Local cost

47.259 million yen

Indonesian Side:
C.P. arrangement

6 personsC.P. budget

3.759 million yen

Office facilities
2. Evaluation Team Overview
Members of the evaluation team
Number of team members

four(1) Leader/Supervisor: Nobuhiko Hanazato, Deputy Resident Representative, JICA
Indonesia Office(2)

Community

Development:

Toyokazu

Nakata,*InstituteofParticipatory

Development(3) Evaluation planning: Hiroaki Yamanishi, JICA Indonesia Office(4) Evaluation analysis: Harumi Iida, Global Link Management Inc.
Evaluation Period
From Sunday 16th to Saturday 29th of July, 2006(* Mr. Nakata: June 20 to July 21, 2006)
Evaluation type: Ex-ante evaluation
3. Overview of Evaluation Results
3-1 Achievements
Upon the commencement of this project, training and seminars/workshops
within Indonesia and training in Japan were implemented for the administrative
officials of local governments and NGO staff of the ten provinces in question. Throughthe implementation of this training, the deepening of understanding in regards to thecommunity development promoted through this project and the improvement ofknowledge pertaining to participation-type development have been widely achieved on
the part of the administrative officials of the central government such as the
BAPPENAS and SETNEG (State Secretariat) officials, the administrative officials ofprovincial and regency governments of ten target provinces, and the NGO staff. In
addition, ten of the Good Practice Case Studies have been completed and another threewill be completed in 2006.
(1) Output Achievements
Achievement of Output 1 to 3
Output 1

(Output 1)
Participation-type approach for the community development led by (central and local)
governments, NGOs, and communities is improved.
(Current conditions)
By way of this project, training (training in Indonesia and in Japan, technology
exchanges in third countries, seminars, etc.) pertaining to community empowerment
has been implemented for administrative officials from the central government and theprovincial and regency governments in the target provinces, as well as the staff ofIndonesian NGOs. Through these training sessions, the understanding of community
development promoted by the project and the improvement of knowledge onparticipation-type development have been deepened considerably on the part ofadministrative officials from central government organs such as BAPPENAS andSETNEG, the administrative officials of provincial and regency governments of the ten
target provinces, and NGO staff. As the result, seven training participants have been
selected as “Master Facilitators” who have mastered community empowerment along
the lines advocated by the project and are able to serve as practitioners. Furthermore,another three have been selected as candidates.
Output 2(Output 2)
Successful examples of community development in target areas are being accumulated
and disseminated.
(Current conditions)With Good Practice Case Studies (hereinafter GPCS), research plans were formulated
upon the commencement of the project’s activities and studies have been smoothly
implemented. A study pertaining to a total of ten cases - five in 2004 and 2005
respectively - has been completed. A study on a further three cases is in progress in 2006,
and 13 in total are scheduled to be completed by the end of the project. At the time ofthis final evaluation, reports in English and in Bahasa Indonesia for all the GPCSs,
with the exception of the three cases in progress in 2006, have been completed. On theother hand, consideration is necessary in order to use study result in improving
community empowerment in a concrete manner.
Output 3(Output 3)
Pilot activity for community empowerment by local initiative is being initiated.

(Current conditions)
At present, eight pilot activities are being conducted, mainly under the initiative of themaster facilitators in the regions in question, and together with the monitoring of these
activities, the necessary technical and monetary support is being provided as a part ofthe project. For this evaluation in particular, research on impact has been conducted in
the communities in question regarding the activities aimed at implementing community
empowerment. As a result, it has been confirmed that a significant degree of
empowerment has been established in the target communities.
(2) Project Purpose Achievement (Forecast)
At present, the administrative officials of the local governments and the NGO
staff in the target area who participated in the training in Indonesia are making various
efforts in regards to community development by using the knowledge and technologythat they gained through their training. Among these, below are three examples of such
efforts that aim to establish cooperation between local governments and NGOs aimed atcommunity development as pilot activities by master facilitators.
Table: Examples of initiatives aimed at establishing cooperation between local
governments and NGOs in promoting community development
Province

Implementing group

Southeast

BAPPEDA

Sulawesi

PerencanaName(Badan Formulation

Content
Formulation of guidelines for theof “GO-NGO establishmentofgovernment,

Pembangunan Daerah Partnership

NGOs, and provincial community-

partnership

Regional Guideline”1

Development Planning
Board) in the province
and local NGO
East Nusa

Provincial

BAPPEDA “Friend

Tenggara

and local NGO

Facilitation of cooperative activities

Forum”

between provincial government andOrganization

NGOs, implementation of GPCS
withintheindependent

provinceandestablishmentof

From “Guidelines for the Implementation of PKPM in Southeast Sulawesi/2005 2006” (translated by JICA Indonesia Office), which was submitted to the project officeby personnel related to the provincial BAPPEDA of Southeast Sulawesi and to theNGOs. For the details of the guidelines, please refer to the mid-term evaluation reportfor this project.

1

provincial secretariat for the project,etc.
East Nusa

Village

Development GPCS on 119 Village

Tenggara

Dept. of the regency of villages
East Lombok

Development

Dept.

regency

government

thethrough

the

GPCS

on

needs

implementation

119

villages

of

in

of
20

subdistricts that is conducted with
NGO's support, and connects suchneeds with provincial projects.

Aside from these examples, the groundwork for all pilot activities includes thesolicitation of cooperation among important local government personnel, NGOs,
communities, etc.. Various examples of community development projects are expected tobe accumulated, which this project aims, through future project activities by way ofvarious community development efforts on the part of the training participants and the
district GPCSs. It is expected, as a result, that a collaborative relationship between thecentral government, local governments, and civic society groups including NGOs will beestablished and be improved by the time of the project’s completion.
On the other hand, the manner in which one amasses the achievements of thecurrent three different outputs, namely the “improvement of the participation-type
development method,” the “implementation of pilot activities,” and the “practice of
GPCS” should be determined.
3-2 Summary of Evaluation Results(1) RelevanceThe purposes of this project are to develop the abilities of local provincial andregency governments, of which the roles and responsibilities as development
practitioners have increased in the Indonesia today wherein power is being
decentralized to local jurisdictions, and those of NGOs, which are expected to support
local governments and assume the role of promoter for community empowerment, andto improve the cooperative relationship between the two parties. These purposes concurwith the needs of the central government of Indonesia and with those of the local
governments and NGOs in the target region. Assistance with governance is also apriority policy area in Japan’s assistance to Indonesia (assistance and project
implementation plans for the countries in question). Therefore, the relevance of thisproject is high.
(2) EffectivenessAt the time of this evaluation, three outputs of this project are ready to be
produced. In particular, human resources including the master facilitators who havebeen fostered as a result of the training provided through this project are putting theirown pilot projects into practice in the target provinces, and the effectiveness of theconcepts and approaches of community empowerment promoted through this projectfocused have started to appear. As for this project, its effectiveness has been evaluatedon the basis of verification of the meaning of its concept and approach, in addition to
verification of the degree to which the project’s purpose has been achieved on the basisof its concepts and approach. On the other hand, it has also been pointed out thatmanner in which the three outputs will be synergistically materialized at the time of
project’s completion is still unclear.
(3) Efficiency
Input by both the Japanese and Indonesian sides are being effectively used so
as to ensure the smooth implementation of the project’s activities and the achievementof output. Also, in the administration of the project, the relationship between theJapanese experts and their Indonesian counterparts/local experts is positive and it isresulting in the smooth implementation of activities. For these reasons, the project’s
activities are leading to output without any problem, and the efficiency of this project ishigh in terms of its implementation.
On the contrary, it has been pointed out in regards to the project
implementation system that strategic management and administration have been on
the whole insufficient due to a lack of communication among the organizations related
to the project (project, JICA headquarters, JICA Indonesia Office, Indonesian
government, etc.).
(4) Impact
The positive effects and influences of this project were confirmed in this final
evaluation in relation to the pilot activities related to the project, including the election
in southeast Sulawesi to the position of regency governor of a person who underwent
the training program in Indonesia and the improvement in the relationship between
local government and community in the GPCS target regions and pilot activities. No
particular negative effects or influences have been found. Regarding the achievement of

the overall goal, from the formulation of the cooperative framework among the local
governments involved (provincial and regency governments), NGOs, and communities
to the concrete implementation of the community development policy and programs are
examined in the pilot activities, and there is every reason to expect that these goals will
be realized through the implemented policies and programs in the future. On the other
hand, measures for reflecting project outcomes in regards to policies and programs have
not yet been clarified at present at the central government level.
(5) Sustainability
It has been confirmed that the situation regarding sustainability has notchanged in any fundamental way since the time of the mid-term evaluation. In otherwords, the NGO staff and a portion of the local government personnel who attended thetraining in Indonesia have absorbed the approach to community empowerment
introduced by the project, and they have reached the level where they are able topractice it on their own, and as such it is apparent that these techniques will be carriedon in the future. Contrastingly, due to the fact that the outcome remains at theindividual level and has been little influence at the organizational and system levels,the extent of the ripple effect within the target provinces has not been ascertained. As
for the central government, BAPPENAS, which is the counterpart organization, has notclarified the measures by which the project outcome is to be reflected.
(6) Factors Contributing to or Impeding the Production of Effect(Contributing Factors)(1) Concepts and approaches of the project that concur with on-site needs
The concept on which the project focuses, namely the “bottom-up promotion ofcommunity development by way of regional initiatives,” and the approach to realize thisconcept were favorably accepted by the administrative officials who have become
accustomed to the traditional top-down system of local administration as well as by themembers of NGOs that served as a sort of subcontractor to the donor project, and thefollowing point was raised at the time of the mid-term evaluation.
This project fostered human resources for the role of facilitator by assigningfacilitators to serve as practitioners of community development with a view toestablishing community empowerment. As a result, the efforts that aimed atcooperation in community development between local governments and NGOs havebeen achieved through the pilot activities. This success stands in stark contrast to thefacilitators in the village development projects implemented by other donors, whomerely arrange development fund expenditures on a community level and give priority
to functionality.
(2) Implementation of activities emphasizing regional initiatives
The placing of great value on the part of the project activity implementation
policy on the sharing of information with and gaining a consensus among the concerned
people in the ten target provinces through seminars and workshops and to have
implemented the activities in a form conducive to the promotion of regional initiatives
has resulted in a great sense of project ownership on the part of the Indonesian side,
especially among the regional personnel concerned.
(Impeding Factors)(1) Relationship between output categories and project targets
The project expected that the synergic effects of the three outputs, namely
Output 1, “improvement of participation-type approach,” Ouput 2, “implementation of
GPCS,” and Output 3, “support for pilot activities,” would assure that the projecttargets are achieved. In actual fact, however, Output 2, spiral training (training method
to step up to the next stage before finishing one stage while doing the rest on OJT) in
the GPCS implementation process and the results of the study have not been useddirectly for community empowerment to a satisfactory extent, although Output 1 and 3
have achieved direct connection through the fostering of trainees and support for theactivities. Therefore, consideration is necessary in order to practically use the GPCS
results for other outputs.
(2) Nonexistence of local organizational network
At the beginning of the project, an administrative official and an NGO staff
member were appointed in each province as contact persons in the expectation that theywould transmit information related to the project activities and conduct coordination
with the concerned people within the province. However, as the project progressed, therelationship between the contact persons and the project has become estranged andtheir function has become a merely nominal one. Nevertheless, no alternative steps
have been taken.
(3) Utilization of project outcomes within central government policy
The reality of the “Community Development Planning Committee” enacted forthe purpose of utilizing project outcomes in central government policymaking has notbeen confirmed, and the Joint Coordinating Council (JCC) has not even once held ameeting. Therefore, central government involvement in the project is itself weak andthe responsibility of the central government therein is still unclear.
(4) Lack of approach to organization level
Participation on the part of the target provinces in the training and the GPCSs
implemented by the project is essentially based on the initiative of the individual
personnel. In addition, a high degree of motivation on the part of individuals isemphasized in regards to participation in these activities. Because of the difficulties
inherent in attending consecutive training sessions due to other engagements and a low
level of incentive to participate in such sessions, the level of participation byadministrative officials of local governments has dramatically decreased since thebeginning of the project. As a result, activities have become disproportionately
dominated by NGO members, and as such the inability of local administrators todisseminate project concepts and approaches in the target provinces is becoming aproblem.
(5) Nonexistence of training modules and methods in Indonesia
The project secretariat has documented each training session held thus far inIndonesia in video form and has also collected reports thereon. However, thesematerials are nothing more than the records of implementation, and the usage of third
parties has not been taken into consideration. The training has not been modularized inits entirety. Thus, methods for disseminating the project’s approaches have not been
established within the current rubric. Therefore, there is a concern that when local
personnel disseminate knowledge and technology gained through the training within
their region, the knowledge and experience of the person determines the level oftraining. In addition, it has become difficult to disseminate knowledge and technology
efficiently to individuals and groups who have participated in region-specific training,such as the case mentioned above, when they wish to newly participate in the project.
(6) Nonexistence of the definition of master facilitator
The title of master facilitator has been given to seven excellent training
participants and their activities are being supported as pilot activities at present.
However, individual levels of technological expertise still vary. Also, in regards to thequalifications of three candidates for master facilitator status, no substantial
agreement has been reached within the project. There are no objective criteria forpersonnel who have grasped the concepts and approaches of the project at a high levelin a manner in which said evaluation can be presented to a third party.
3-3 Conclusion, Recommendations, and Lessons Learned(1) Conclusion
The introduction of the concepts and approaches to community empowerment
in Indonesia put forward by this project can be said to have been revolutionary in its
promotion of bottom-up community development in the area of regional human resource
development in the target provinces. It is necessary for all of the communities, NGOs,
and local governments as well as the central government to be able use this approacheven upon the project’s completion.
On the other hand, the project at present does not have the methodology toimplement this approach. It is believed that community development in Indonesia will
advance further upon the establishment of methodology and the dissemination ofproject outcomes.
(2) Recommendations
Just prior to the project completion, the following recommendations were madeso as to ensure that the project’s activities achieve results.
1) Analysis of the project from a comprehensive viewpoint is necessary in order to see
how each activity has lead to its outcome and how it interacts with other activities.
Particularly in the case of monitoring of the activities of the regional people in question,
it is important to analyze what factors have affected the relationship between theactivities and the results thereof, instead of simply documenting the results for the sakeof record keeping. Furthermore, all people associated with the project need to share theresult of their analyses with one another together with the outcomes thereof upon thecompletion of the project.
2) The project needs to clarify its own criteria of the abilities required for the master
facilitators certified as part of the project. At present, the activity implementation
ability of individual facilitators is not necessarily consistent. Narrowing the gaps
between individuals and setting a certain standard for qualifications will deepen faith
in the project on the part of the people concerned.
3) The establishment of a methodology for the project’s approach and the preparation of
curriculum and teaching materials for use by third parties are important aspects of thisproject. Records of training sessions in Indonesia and GPCSs have been made in theform of reports and visual materials. However, these materials are difficult for people

not related to the activities in question to understand. Therefore, it is necessary toconsider how to convert these into practical teaching materials so that outsiders canutilize the experience of the project.
4) The project needs to provide the central and local government and NGO personnel
concerned with the opportunity to share not only experiences accumulated through past
activities and the results thereof but also methodology related to the implementation of
the project approaches in question.
5) The Indonesian government needs, when necessary, to lend its support upon thecommunication and diffusion of project results to other concerned people. In addition, it
is necessary to examine the use of project output when implementing the “National
Development

Planning

System(SPPN),

Law

No.

25/2004”

thatemphasizes

democratization and bottom-up decision-making in Indonesia.
(3) Lessons Learned
In terms of lessons for future projects of this sort, it can be concluded that thelack of communication among the concerned people had an effect on the efficiency of the
project. Not only is it necessary to incorporate a system within the project to promotesmooth communication at the target region and central government levels, it is also
vital that its functions be thoroughly utilized.