Indigenous Knowledge and Community Development Planning - Case Study Example

Integration of Indigenous Knowledge in Community Development Planning in Kutai Barat District, Indonesia A Literature Review Current development planning situation in Kutai Barat, Indonesia As far as community development is concerned in any area, it can be noted that to a greater extent, its success is determined by the involvement of indigenous knowledge in decision making process through the participation of local people. The involvement of the people from local communities will inculcate a sense of belonging among themselves given that they would fully cooperate knowing that they are the beneficiaries of the development initiative. This study is gong to review existing literature about community development planning in relation to the current state of affairs in Kutai Barat District in Indonesia. In the past, Indonesia used to have a centralised approach in delivering development packages in designated communities and regions. However, these development initiatives had little relevance to the local needs. This centralised, top-down approach has not fostered a sense of belonging and accountability among the beneficiaries. Furthermore, it has the challenge of inadequate participation at grassroots level by the local community members in the development activities and projects. Therefore, following the demise of the New Order and President Soeharto and the onset of ‘Reformasi’, an extensive decentralization process was initiated in 1999 through the enactment of Law Number 22/1999 which transferred significant authority and power from the central government in Jakarta to the district/municipal government. This legislation significantly empowered the local government (provincial and district) to take a leading role in local development planning and budgeting processes. Decentralisation is one of the most important reforms the Indonesian government has undertaken since the democratic elections of June 1999. Under Laws 22 and 25, which provide the framework for political and financial devolution, the districts and cities are assuming new responsibilities that were previously covered by the national government as well as managing new financial resources that have been transferred from the central government or raised within their own localities (Bappenas 2004). Since the decentralisation process, the number of municipalities (kota) and districts (kabupaten) has increased by about half, from 292 before decentralisation to 434 in 2003 (Fitrani et al. 2005). Most of the notable increase has been witnessed outside Java. The above statistics clearly indicate that the enactment of laws number 22 and 25 empowered authorities at lower levels to be responsible with managing their own affairs locally. Kutai Barat is one of the new districts, which emerged as a result of the Indonesian Law No. 47/1999 which also witnessed Sendawar being recognized as the capital city. The district government of Kutai Barat has the autonomous right to manage and is responsible for the provision of a range of services to all the communities in the region. The authority as well as responsibility for local development has been substantially decentralised, resulting in new and greater challenges for both the communities as well as local authorities. Whilst the government is the main actor in the process of development, it also has managed to build networks and partnerships with other development agencies such as non-governmental organizations (NGO) and the private sector. There are three development regions in Kutai Barat namely: wilayah pembangunan Hulu Riam (the upstream development area), wilayah pembangunan Dataran Tinggi (The highlands development area), and wilayah pembangunan Dataran Rendah (the uplands development area). The government has recently been trying to involve local people in community development and planning through MUSRENBANG (Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan; Development Planning Discussion). This refers to a community decision making process of planning and development at kampung (village) and kecamatan (sub-district) level. Musrenbang ensures a legal space for each Indonesian citizen to be actively involved in the decision making process with regards to development planning and practice. Musrenbang takes the form of community based development planning process which comprises of several stages based on the government’s hierarchy of authority. It takes place from the village level through to the sub-district and district/municipal level in ensuring the efficient use of local materials as well as non-material assets such as local knowledge and expertise (Bappenas 2004). The role of Musrenbang within broader government planning processes is illustrated in Table 2 on the next page. Involvement of local community members would certainly stimulate growth as it would create a sense of belonging to the members involved knowing that they would be doing something good for themselves. The study therefore, seeks to explore the major question that arises from this discussion if whether the Musrenbang has provided greater space for better formulation of local development planning and budgeting which reflects the communities’ needs. As highlighted by Syamsuddin et al. (2007) in their assessment of Musrenbang process in Lubuk Kambing Village, Jabung District, Jambi Province, Sumatra, the Musrenbang process merely proceeds to justify the programmes of the local governments instead of the communities’. This typical case is actually a process of control of institution’s power rather than community participation (Botes and van Rensburg 2000). It can be seen that local participation in the Musrenbang is often used by the government as a means of legitimizing the political system and as a form of social control. Whilst the aim of the new laws is to empower the local communities in decision making with regards to community development planning, it seems there still exist some bureaucratic structures which make it a bit challenging for local communities to determine their own destiny. Indeed, they ought to play a leading role though the government would be the ultimate source of authority. Table 2. Local Development Planning and Budgeting Process Sectoral Planning Local Government Working Units (SKPDs) Renja (workplan)-SKPD Based on Renstra-SKPD, Bupati’s priorities, District Musrenbang, annual sectoral program plan is formulated Community Participatory Planning, Musrenbang Communities, Village chiefs, Head of Sub-Districts, Bappeda, SKPDs Village, Sub-District and District Musrenbang report Development meetings were held in village, sub-districts and district level to identify and prioritize development programmes Drafting the Local Government Development Plans Bappeda, Musrenbang delegates, Head of SKPDs Regional planning agency Bappeda collates Renja-SKPD and Musrenbang’s outputs to prepare the RKPD Drafting general policy of APBD Bappeda Draft APBD (RAPBD) It was drawn according to Bupati’s priorities and RKPD Determining sectoral priorities and budget ceilings DPRD, Bupati Priorities of realized district budget (APBD) and its budget ceilings Sectoral priorities and budget ceilings for APBD are determined through deliberations between DPRD and Bupati Drafting sectoral budget SKPD SKPD’s working and budget plan Based on Renja-SKPD and APBD priorities, SKPD prepare their working and budget plan Drafting APBD Executive Budget Committee Draft of Regional Regulation on APBD Based on SKPD’s working and budget plan, Executive Budget Committee prepare RAPBD for submission to DPRD DPRD deliberations and approval DPRD, Bupati, SKPD Joint Decree on Draft Regional Regulations on APBD Various plenary and working group meetings are held by DPRD for reviewing and revising Draft of Regional Regulations on APBD Governor Evaluation Governor, DPRD (Regional House of Representatives), Bupati Regional Regulation on APBD Upon DPRD’s approval, Bupati submits Draft APBD to Governor for evaluation, and only after evaluation it can be stipulated as Regional Regulation Source: Beleli & Hoelman 2007 2. Community Development Planning In attempting to understand the concept of community development planning, this study will split up community development planning into the following terms: community, development, planning, community development, and community planning. The following definitions will try to show how these terms will be used for the purpose of this study. A clear understanding of these terms will assist in putting a proper perspective of the meaning of community development planning. According to Kenny (1994), a community is defined as people living within a geographically bounded area, involved in social interaction and within which exist one or more psychological ties with each other and with the place they live in. Ife and Tesoriero (2006) state that a community is a form of social organisation with five characteristics: human scale, identity and belonging, obligations, structures and relationships, and culture. In this study, the word ‘community’ is understood as a group of Tonyooi Benuaq people who live in a particular place, which have common identity such as geographical location, ethnicity, local social system, language, customary law, knowledge and other special interests. Within the context of community, planning has different meanings depending on the political or economic context in which it is used. In this study, planning is a process of preparing, creating and sustaining an action to reach a goal, which is crucial for meeting society’s needs with the availability of time, money, human resources or other resources. Healey (1992) mentions that planning is a ‘communicative enterprise’, which states that it is a process of thinking, understanding and communicating about the plans or actions needed to create a desired future. It also involves the integration of a plan with other plans. Development is a complex term with no one agreed meaning and is a debatable term. Kenny (1994) defines development as a process which seeks to underline the importance of quantification, the use of statistical indicators that demonstrate the extent of development in a community or a nation. In the context of this study, development for communities is focused on the development of people, development of quality of life, and social transformation in the egalitarian distribution of social goods, such as participation in political decision-making within a framework of local development and control (Kenny 1994). In the development sector in Kutai Barat, development does not just involve the biological and physical aspects of growth, but also the cognitive and social aspects associated with development throughout life. A key consideration in defining community development is to make a distinction between community development as a process or means and as an outcome or ends. Kelly and Sewell (1988:93-95) defined community development as “a way of working that aims to change a system” and the ultimate goal of community development is to “give back the work and resource to the local community”. For the purpose of this study, the writer will adopt the definition by Kingsbury et al. (2004:222) which states that community development not only “produce[s] real, tangible and appropriate benefit[s] for local people as well as providing greater sense of self worth and empowerment” but also ‘preserves local culture as well as maintains and enhances the social cohesion in the development process.’ Each community is born with a culture and has values and in most cases the values of a community determine their behavior which would make it easier to incorporate their value system in developmental projects as they would quickly adopt the dictates of the initiative. As Ife and Tesoriero (2006:185) conclude that the idea of community development is “at heart, a process’. Community development involves the challenge of addressing specific tasks and associated activities, while at the same time attending to group and organisation-maintenance goals such as government’s development goals. In this regard, the government should take a leading role in ensuring that there is compliance with the goals set though they may be managed at community level. Community planning: There is no one agreed definition of community planning because it depends on local needs where communities have diverse and conflicting interests. Healey (1992) explains that the process of community planning, which is incremental in nature, relies upon formal rules of engagement, which guide conduct, resource allocation, and management of activities and businesses. Community planning must be flexible in its use and application so as to be inclusive and effective as argued by Healey (1992). For the purpose of this study, community planning is a way to address community needs in a purposeful way with different levels of community involvement in the process to achieve the vision of that community. It is part of a process which the government works together with communities and other organisations to plan, provide for and advance the future wellbeing of the area. This process will include decision making process and community involvement to produce community action plan that empower local capacity and potential. Therefore, the community planning process should be ‘owned’ by local people. The challenge is to provide people with a voice that is heard and applied to a level playing field within the policy planning arena, so that each voice has a similar power since this would foster a sense of belonging to a particular community.  Significantly, the above discussion will be integrated and will define community development planning as a purposeful design and action by communities to plan or set goals and objectives, organising resources, getting commitment and implementing concrete action. It is important to involve local people in surveying their own situation, running their own programmes and managing local assets. Therefore, it is necessary to respect local knowledge and opinion, to understand local characteristics and traditions and use them as a starting point for planning, which is context-specific and can create local ownership. All people, whether literate or not, whether rich or poor, whether children, women or men, have a remarkable understanding of their surroundings and are capable of analysing and assessing their situation, often better than trained professionals or foreign experts. To help obtain data and understand the use of indigenous knowledge in community development planning and the people’s response to it, the concept of ‘change from below’ developed by Ife and Tesoriero (2006:121) will be adopted. They argue that ‘change from below’ is at the heart of community development where the community ‘should be able to determine its own needs and how they should be met.’ Action for change and development should come from the community itself, which is reflected by Ife and Tesoriero in that “participation is central to ‘change from below’ and critical in maintaining a focus on process” (2006:171). They argue that the idea of valuing local knowledge, skills, culture, resources and processes is important, but it is also radical, given the conventional wisdom of modern societies, which accept top-down structures and practices as a matter of course. It follows from this argument that change should come from below which would readily create a sense of belonging among the members of the community. The value system which determines people’s behavior in every society is likely to be incorporated at a lower level which would create a sense of responsibility among community members as they would know that they would be doing good things for themselves. Community development can become a genuine dialogue about power, knowledge, wisdom, and change, and can seek to empower local community members to validate and use their own experience, knowledge, expertise and skills to work towards change (Ife & Tesoriero 2006). In this regard, the involvement of locals would go a long way in promoting positive development as their knowledge and skills would be utilised as a way of empowering them. 3. Indigenous Knowledge Indigenous knowledge refers to the unique local knowledge that people in a given culture or communities have developed over time, and will continue to develop (Grenier 1998; Warren et al. 1995). In this study, indigenous knowledge relates to the traditional knowledge that covers all aspects of life such as agriculture, health, environment, education, animal and water, which is shared and communicated orally within the community and through culture. As elaborated by Grenier (1998), indigenous knowledge refers to the unique, traditional, and complex set of knowledge, skills and technologies existing and developed around specific conditions of populations and communities indigenous to a particular geographic area. This knowledge is passed from generation to generation, usually by word of mouth and cultural rituals, and has been the basis for local decision-making in agriculture, health, natural resource management and other activities that have sustained a society and its environment for many centuries (World Bank 1998, cited in Warrren 1991). Indigenous knowledge is embedded in community practices, institutions, relationships and rituals. Furthermore, Indigenous knowledge belongs to a community and access to this knowledge is gained through contact with that community. Therefore, the knowledge is readily available among the members of the community in the event that they decide to undertake community development projects which involve indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge represents an important component of global knowledge in relation to development issues (Grenier 1998). It is often an under-utilized resource in the development process and a key reason for this is the lack of guidelines for recording, codifying and applying such knowledge. An understanding is required of indigenous knowledge and its role in community life from an integrated perspective, which includes both spiritual and material aspects of a society as well as the complex relationship between them. At the same time, it is necessary to understand and to explore the potential contribution of indigenous knowledge to local and national development (Appleton et al. 2008). It is also necessary to protect, preserve and utilize indigenous knowledge to benefit its owners and the communities. Recently, there has been a serious risk that much indigenous knowledge is lost or has already been lost and, along with it, valuable knowledge about ways of living sustainably both ecologically and socially. Indigenous knowledge is part of the lives of the rural poor; their livelihood depends almost entirely on specific skills and knowledge essential for their survival. This study will start first from an emic perspective. Emic is the perspective of an insider for a given cultural phenomenon (Warren 1997, cited in Grenier 1998). It can be defined as activities and behaviors pattern unique of Tonyooi and Benuaq ethnics. In this study, emic perspective refers to the approach that deals with the Tonyoi and Benuaq people’s view of the knowledge and culture as indigenous people in Kutai Barat disttict. The insider or emic perspective is used to understand the way the Tonyooi and Benuaq people are involved in planning and development process, learn the concepts they use and try to see the ‘world’ the way they do. By exploring about the indigenous knowledge, this study aims to investigate as well as appreciate how people in another culture live their lives and make sense of their world. In this study, Tonyooi Benuag community members will be interviewed about their experience and feelings of their involvement in community development planning in Kutai Barat; express their thoughts and ideas to use and integrate indigenous knowledge in the development planning process. On the other hand, the etic perspective would be used to reflect the researchers view that is the outsiders perception since the researcher does not live in that area but is just part of that culture. However, the researcher believes that working with “insiders” with regards to cultural and social issues is a powerful concept but not as simple as it might at first seem to be. This paper explores the problems associated with accepting and understanding the concept by virtue of using a real-life example of a community issue to explore. Read More