MONITORING DAN EVALUASI EFEKTIVITAS PEMANFAATAN PINJAMAN/HIBAH LUAR NEGERI DI INDONESIA: ANTARA TEORI, KEBIJAKAN, DAN PRAKTIK*

Umi Hanik[1]

Heru Subiyantoro[2]

1.     Pendahuluan

        Dalam upaya pemulihan ekonomi paska krisis tahun 1998 pemerintah telah berupaya dengan berbagai cara untuk mengembalikan perekonomian pada kondisi normal. Berbagai langkah pemulihan antara lain: transisi demokrasi, pemisahan BI dari pemerintah dan parlemen, reformasi hukum, birokrasi, dan berbagai peraturan yang terkait dengan pemerintahan kesemuanya menuju arah baru. Termasuk desentralisasi atau pembagian sebagian kewenangan pemerintah pusat kepada daerah.

        Lembaga internasional dan lembaga donor bilateral juga ikut memainkan peran yang cukup signifikan dalam proses perubahan tersebut. Kehadiran mereka dalam proses pemulihan dalam wujud bantuan pinjaman/hibah luar negeri. Bahkan, paska krisis sebagian besar struktur anggaran kita terkait dengan pinjaman/hibah luar negeri.

        Pinjaman luar negeri perlu disesuaikan dengan kemampuan perekonomian nasional, karena dapat menimbulkan beban Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Negara (APBN) dan Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (APBD) tahun-tahun berikutnya.

        Untuk itu diperlukan kecermatan dan kehati-hatian dalam pengelolaan pinjaman luar negeri, demikian diisyaratkan dalam Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) No 2/2006. Sehingga hal ini dapat dimaklumi mengingat perkembangan APBN menunjukkan posisi pinjaman luar negeri yang berat.

        Dollar dalam serial penelitiannya menyatakan, bantuan luar negeri akan membawa manfaat yang besar jika dikelola dalam lingkungan dengan kebijakan yang baik, manajemen yang baik, dan lembaga yang juga baik. Selanjutnya, Wangwe (1997) dalam salah satu studinya menyatakan lemahnya mekanisme monitoring dan akuntabilitas pengelolaan utang luar negeri berakibat pada gagalnya pemenuhan terhadap komitmen pemanfaatan utang luar negeri[i].

Selama kurun waktu 1970 dan 1980an, fungsi evaluasi telah banyak dibicarakan dan akhirnya fungsi evaluasi tersebut dilembagakan ke dalam sistem kebijakan publik. Kebanyakan lembaga donor juga menganut hal yang sama untuk efektivitas bantuan mereka dengan membentuk unit evaluasi dalam struktur administratif mereka (Berlage and Stokke, 1992)[ii]. Terkait hal tersebut Pemerintah-pun sebenarnya bukannya tidak bertindak. Mereka telah menerbitkan berbagai instrumen, regulasi, dan infrastruktur untuk mendukung tatakelola pinjaman luar negeri ke arah yang lebih baik termasuk terhadap fungsi monitoring dan evaluasi... (selengkapnya silahkan unduh di link berikut: http://www.slideshare.net/umihanik/bunga-rampai-2-ykpn-monev-phln-antara-kebijakan-praktikdeklarasi-paris)

---

*) Telah dipublikasikan dalam Seri Bunga Rampai Manajemen Keuangan Daerah, Edisi Ketiga Bab 21, hal. 231, April 2012, UPP STIM YKPN Yogyakarta

[1]   Spesialis Monitoring dan Evaluasi Kebijakan Publik, Bekerja pada Bank Dunia (saat menulis)

[2] Professor dan Staf Pengajar pada Program Magister Perencanaan dan Kebijakan Publik Fakultas Ekonomi-Universitas Indonesia dan menjabat sebagai Sesditjen Perimbangan Keuangan pada Kementerian Keuangan

---

[i] Hal ini juga mengakibatkan turunnya kepercayaan dari lembaga donor dan mau tidak mau juga berakibat pada turunnya kredibilitas pemerintah di mata lembaga donor. Senada, Berlage and Stokke (1992) berpendapat bahwa kebanyakan lembaga donor juga menganut hal yang sama untuk efektivitas bantuan mereka dengan membentuk unit evaluasi dalam struktur administratif mereka.

[ii] Wangwe, Samuel M (1997; p.6): The Management Of Foreign Aid In Tanzania: Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) Discussion Paper No. 15

Read more!

Improving Equity-Focused Development for Children through Monitoring and Evaluation: Case Study Papua[1]

Umi Hanik, SE, ME[2]

Erlangga Agustino Landiyanto SE, MA[3]

Abstract

Indonesia reaffirmed the commitment to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, a set of measurable objectives for development and poverty eradication. Indonesia pledged to halve the proportion of people suffering from hunger, ensure that all children can complete primary education, eliminate gender disparity at all levels of education, reduce under-five and infant mortality rates by two thirds, and halve the proportion of people without access to improved water sources by 2015. Nowadays, MDGs have become an important reference in the development implementation in Indonesia.

At national level, Indonesia was able to enact its first RPJPN[4] 2005-2025 as well as two periods of RPJMN[5] 2004-2009 and 2010-2014. The National planning clearly mentioned one of the priorities to enhance, overcoming poverty and unemployment drastically; provides access and eliminating discrimination including gender and child with one of specific issue to improve child protection in various areas of development. A reduction in the number of acts of violence, exploitation, and discrimination against children; and institutional capacity building and mainstreaming child networks at national level and regions, including the availability of child data and statistics is highlighted. However, we should admit that Indonesia is still facing many problems and challenges in the implementation of its development, including the commitment to achieve the above priority and target in child protection for more equitable development results.

Papua which have the highest per capita fiscal revenue in the country and the highest per capita spending with substantial support from Special Autonomy fund, regretfully is still lagging behind the rest of the country in attaining the MDGs. Poor infrastructure, enormous distances, weak institutions, uneven development planning, and low population density, and difficulties in attracting qualified health and education workers are just some of the significant challenges facing the region. Number of child violence is also significantly growing.

These challenges are compounded by ethnic and communal frictions, and the limited capacity of indigenous Papuans to compete with other communities for access to services and economic opportunities. High levels of food in-security and malnutrition are common. Women are often denied the same entitlements and resources as men, including property rights. Poor access to education similarly fails to harness the potential of youth[6].

Given the above fact, the Papuan government together with development partner continuously tries to improve the quality of the implementation of the development cooperation through strategic management of planning and budgeting, coordination enhancement, encouragement of harmonious implementation of cooperation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E).  

M&E is a powerful public management tool that can be used to improve the way governments and organizations achieve results. Just as governments need financial, human resource, and accountability systems, governments also need good performance feedback systems. Governments and organizations may successfully implement programs or policies, but have they produced the actual, intended results?[7] How about more equitable development results? Have governments and organizations truly delivered on promises made to their stakeholders? The introduction of M&E system takes decision makers one step further in assessing whether and how goals are being achieved over time. While this is the right way to go, it poses important challenges – and opportunities – to the evaluation function[8].

With regard to equitable development results M&E, the push for a stronger focus on equity focused development is gathering momentum at Papua. Its premise is increasingly supported by UNICEF on strengthening equity focused data and Monitoring and Evaluation in Papua. It is aligned to more provincial policies that are focusing on achieving equitable development results.

At this point, questions a rise on how to strengthen the capacity of the governments, organizations, and communities in Papua to evaluate the effect of interventions on equitable outcomes for marginalized populations. How is the institutional arrangement? What is the methodology and approach to assess whether interventions are relevant and are having an impact in decreasing inequity, are achieving equitable results, and are efficient and sustainable? How is the current policy and practice? What is the implication by using equity-focused evaluations approach to support evidence-based policy for poor children?

The above questions will be the focus and message of the paper.

  

Keyword: Development; Monitoring and Evaluation; Children

---

[1] The abstract is drawn from the report “M&E Gaps Analysis for More Improved and Strengthened M&E System and Capacity in Papua and West Papua: a Government-led, Performance-focused, and Equity-based M&E system, October 2012” wrote by Umi Hanik and Erlangga Agustino Landiyanto, Social Policy Monitoring Specialist, Unicef Indonesia

[2] Monitoring and Evaluation Professional, Founding Members and Deputy Chairman for Networking and Advocacy Indonesian Development Evaluation Community (InDEC). The author can be contacted at umihanik@gmail.com

[3] Social Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist in SPM Unit, Unicef Papua. Board members of Indonesian Development Evaluation Community (InDEC), member of Jaringan peneliti Anak Indonesia (JPAI) and member of Indonesian regional Science Association (IRSA). The author can be contacted at ealandiyanto@unicef.org, erlanggaagustino@yahoo.com and +6281330052705

[4] RPJPN (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional) a national long-term development planning, 20 yearly.

[5] RPJMN (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional) a national mid-term development planning, 5 yearly

[6] Cited from http://www.un.or.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=195&Itemid=126&lang=en

[7] Jody Zall Kusek dan Ray Rist 2004, p.23-25

[8] Marco Segone and Michael Bamberger, Evaluation Conclave Kathmandu Nepal, February 2013

Read more!