Law Number 6/2014 on Villages (Village Law) provides an opportunity for the village government and communities to manage their village according to their own expectations, aspirations and interests, including their village assets (economic resources, human resources and natural resources). Unfortunately, three-years into implementation of the Village Law, several problems remain. Non-democratic and unaccountable governance, also non-participatory and non-transparent, continues in many villages. Similarly, village assets are not managed optimally by lack of involvement of village marginalised groups. This project is directed “Towards Participative and Inclusive Governance of Local Assets Management”. To achieve the afore mentioned goal, the project targets existing marginalised groups in the village (demand side) and the village level government (supply side). The marginalised groups in the village are encouraged to be more active in the village budgeting process and in the village asset management. Meanwhile the village level government is supported to be more responsive toward the village community aspirations, especially their marginalised groups.

Promoting an Inclusive Governance Local Assets Management for Marginal Group Protection: IRE 

Despite the enactment of the Village Law (Law No. 6/2014), non-democratic and unaccountable governance, particularly in the management of village assets, as well as non-participatory and non-transparent governance systems persist in many villages. This law gives village governments and communities the ability to manage their villages according to their own expectations, aspirations, and interests, including managing village assets (economic resources, human resources and natural resources).  However, marginalised community members are scarcely involved in the management of assets due to difficulties that have continued three years into the implementation period.    

The Institute for Research and Empowerment (IRE) implemented the “Promoting an Inclusive Governance Local Assets Management for Marginal Group Protection” project in order to address these difficulties. IRE is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that emerged out of Yogyakarta’s academic community. IRE’s actions are focused on promoting democratization through bolstering initiatives and critical positions of communities, the state, and the corporate sector. The project was implemented as a consortium with the Consortium for Village Inclusive (CIV) that included Swara Nusa Institute, Yayasan SAPDA, PSPK UGM, and Perkumpulan Narsita.  

This initiative took place in four villages in Yogyakarta, one village in East Java, and one village in South Sulawesi provinces. Ngestiharjo village in Kulon Progo district and Guwosari village in Bantul district were the two focus communities in Yogyakarta province. The villages of Ngestiharjo and Guwosari and Bantul district all have a high poverty rate, with 16% of the population classed as poor. In Guwosari village, there are also 89 people with disabilities.  

Village Participation: The purpose of this project was to “achieve participatory and inclusive governance of local asset management.” This project targeted the existing marginalised group in the village (demand side) as well as the village level government in order to attain the aforementioned goal (supply side). The marginalised groups in the village were encouraged to participate more actively in the budgeting and asset management processes. Meanwhile, the village government was assisted to become more sensitive to the desires of the village population, particularly the marginalized groups in the village. 

The main activities of the project involved stakeholder forum workshops on policy input, and public hearing seminar on CIV project learning outcomes. Local economic actors, particularly VOE organizers, village administration, and village consultative body (BPD) have been successfully involved with the Village Owned Enterprises (BUMDesa).  

The marginalised groups were encouraged to develop a separate organization offering space or forums for them to actively practice in public settings. For example, they were invited to practice spotting problems and opportunities in their environment, and to debate issues that were significant to them. In each of the target villages, there are groups like “Mekar Jaya” in Guwosari, “KDD” and “FPPD” in Karangsari, “Bastari” in Rappoa, and “KRK” in Karangpring.  

Mainstreaming vulnerable groups in villages: The VOICE project increased IRE’s commitment to mainstreaming vulnerable and excluded groups in village reform design in the era of the Village Law. When IRE implemented the program and projects, social inclusion became a mainstreaming concern. Other CIV consortium members, such as Swara Nusa Institute, Narasita, SAPDA, and PSPK-UGM, have seen shifts in their approaches to village community empowerment, village governance, and social inclusion as a result. 

With increased capacity comes improved responsiveness. This is in line with initiatives to create village asset-based economic activity, under the system of more inclusive Village Owned Enterprises (BUMDesa). The village government has dedicated special pro-budget to vulnerable and marginalised group and the development of an inclusive village economy.  

Impact at the grassroots: Many improvements have occurred at the community level, both in terms of understanding of their rights as vulnerable and marginalised groups and actions. For example, in Guwosari, individuals with disabilities are bravely going out in public. They even created a shelter for the PWD peers called “Mekar Jaya” group.  In the shelter they learn to participate in the organization’s operations and to meet with village leaders with confidence.  Mekar Jaya has grown institutionally into a competent organization. These organizations have begun to raise cash independently to fund their operations, including social activities that might build their solidarity and togetherness (social capital).  

The CIV programme took a formal approach, giving capacity building to village governments through training and hearings. The project’s capacity building has led to policy changes at the village level. Village governments, for example, have helped vulnerable and marginalized group with special budget allocations. An informal strategy was also used, persuading key people and village government players. This was reinforced with initiatives for vulnerable and marginalized populations as well as village administrations. Instruments used to induce policy changes at the village level included (a) documents that reflected the ambitions of vulnerable and marginalized individuals, and (b) local tourism development plans that reflected their interests. 

The Linking and Learning Program has been very successful in strengthening partner networks. A collaborative program or arrangement outside the Voice partners’ project scheme has limitations. To strengthen program agendas for grassroots and policymaker reforms, it is necessary to develop alternative means of managing follow-up.