PROVINCIAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT ACEH 2010 - UNDP

PROVINCIAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTACEH 2010Human Development and People EmpowermentPROVINCIAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT ACEH 2010IndonesiaUnited Nations Development ProgrammeMenara Thamrin Building, 8 th FloorKav. 3, Jl. M.H. ThamrinP.O. Box 2338, Jakarta 10250www.undp.or.idBADAN PUSAT STATISTIKGovernment of AcehIndonesia

Provincial HumanDevelopment ReportAceh 2010Human Development and People EmpowermentBADAN PUSAT STATISTIKGovernment of AcehIndonesiaProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010i

ISBN: 978-602-96539-2-2Manuscripts:BPS-Statistics, Provincial Government of Aceh, UNDP IndonesiaWriter:Hugh EvansLayout/cover design:CV. Aksara BuanaPhoto by:FakhrurruaziPublished by:United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) IndonesiaThe analysis and policy recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Provincial Government of Aceh, the CentralBureau of Statistics (BPS) or the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The report is an independent publication commissioned by theProvincial Government of Aceh, BPS, and UNDP under its Poverty Reduction Unit (PRU). The principal partner and executing agency of this projectwithin the Provincial Government of Aceh is BAPPEDA. In drafting this document, UNDP PRU collaborated with a team of eminent consultants andadvisers. The statistical tables of this report were prepared by BPS. The present report is the outcome of a series of open consultations, which wereheld in Aceh, involving the government, and civil society actors like the media, academia, and donors.iiProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Message from The UNDP Resident RepresentativeThis report was prepared at the request of the Government of Aceh and is the first for aprovince in Indonesia, though others are planned to follow.The intention behind HDRs is to place human development at the forefront of the developmentagenda, both at the national and local level. They provide an instrument which can be used toreview progress, compare indicators of wellbeing among different social groups, and identify thosepersons who are been left behind in the development process. Equally important, HDRs aim tospur debate on development priorities, enhance policy making and promote better use of publicresources to realize improvements in people’s lives.The achievements made in Aceh are impressive, and go beyond what many persons would haveimagined five or six years ago in the immediate aftermath of the conflict and natural disaster. Despitethe fears of some, the Peace Accords of 2005 have largely held, though more needs to be done.The unprecedented response from the global community after the tsunami of December 2004 hasmade it possible to repair most of the damage and destruction to physical infrastructure, althoughthe healing of trauma from the loss of kin and suffering during the conflict still requires furthersupport. Among the bigger challenges today are the need to resuscitate the economy in order togenerate productive jobs for all, as well as the need to improve the quality and efficiency of publicservices and ensure better access to these services by the poor and disadvantaged.The overarching message of this report is that an effective way to do this is by empowering peopleand local communities to decide themselves on the use of resources for local develop ment. Severalprecedents already exist in the province, and there are many other opportunities to extend theconcept to a wider range of other sectors and services. The report provides numerous examples ofhow this can be done.While most of the comments and feedback received during the writing of this report have beenfavourable, some will no doubt express reservations about the recommend ations advocated here.Debate and discussion are welcome, and one of the goals of HDRs is to advance new ideas andreforms to current practice. We hope that this report achieves that goal and helps the governmentand people of Aceh to forge a better future for all its citizens.El-Mostafa BenlamlihUNDP Resident RepresentativeProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010iii

Foreword of The Governor of AcehAssalamu ‘alaikum Wr. Wb.The development efforts, which are quite positive in the recent years, have contributed to theimprovement in the quality of life for the people of Aceh province. With Aceh’s regionalautonomy, the approach to this work has shifted from a centralized effort to a decentralizedone, placing human beings and families at the centre of this process. Success can be ensured by carefullypaying attention to the principles of human development and strong support for the implementationof human rights (economic, social, cultural and political).Human development and community empowerment are essential platforms from which people gainthe ability to develop options and opportunities. Community empowerment provides every personwith knowledge and skills to live more prosperously and more respectfully.In the era of regional autonomy nowadays, where the leadership and management of Aceh’sdevelopment are very close to their targets, opportunities are open to carry out properly targeted andpro-marginalized development. By placing people at the centre of these efforts, human beings aretransformed from the object to the subject of development.The Aceh Human Development Report 2010 is expected to be a reference to implement a wide rangeof high-quality, independent and cultured community empowerment programmes, so as to be ableto face challenges in advancing the province and contributing to promoting the Indonesian peopleand the humankind as a whole. Hopefully, the vision contained in this report can be used as a basicfoothold in the creation and implementation of policies and plans with great success.Wassalamu ‘alaikum Wr. WbIrwandi YusufGovernor of AcehivProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

AcknowledgementsThis report is the result of collaborative efforts and extensive consultations withexperts and practitioners in key government agencies and departments as well as civilsociety actors at the national and regional levelsProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010From the beginning, two main governmentagencies, namely the Provincial Government ofAceh and the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS),were actively involved in the process. BPS andits office at the Aceh provincial level, devotedconsiderable time and resources to collect andprocess the wide array of data included in thisreport.Government of AcehThe authors of this report express gratitude toand appreciation for Irwandi Yusuf, Governorof Aceh, Husni Bahri Tob, T. Said Mustafa andTabrani Usman.BPSThe BPS team, headed by Wynandin Imawan,meticulously checked the accuracy and consistencyof the data. The team also provided valuableanalysis as to what human developmentindices reveal as well as information about statisticaldefinitions and proposed methodologiesto guide us in preparing this report. We areenormously grateful to the BPS and its team, inparticular Nurma Midayanti and Tiodora H. S,as well as BPS staff in Aceh, including La OdeMarwan Hakim and Yudi Yos ElvinBAPPEDAThe BAPPEDA team, headed by Ir. Iskandar(and previously by Prof. Munirwansyah) andsupported by core staff such as MarthunisMuhammad, Warqah Helmi, Syafrigani, AuliaSofyan, Ir. Hamdani, Hasrati and LestariSuci, provided the writing team with constantguidance and helped to organize meetings withexperts and practitioners within BAPPEDA andother relevant local government departments.Special Autonomy and Oiland Gas SecretariatThe team is also grateful for support and theinputs provided by Dr. Islahuddin, T. Harmawanand Taufiq C. Dawood.ContributorsBackground studies on a range of thematic issueswere conducted by Satish Mishra, Derry Habir,Alakh Sharma, Katrina Lee-Koo Prabowo, andWahiduddin Mahmud. We would like to thankthem for their research and insights.Patrick Barron, as a reader of this report,provided excellent inputs to the final draft ofthe AHDR. A special acknowledgement goesout to Gull Gulluova who assisted at every stageof the report and consolidated all the data andstatistics. Her contribution is indispensable.Advisory GroupThis report benefited greatly from intellectualadvice and guidance provided by an externaladvisory panel of experts. The panel comprisedof Dr. Islahuddin, Harry Masyrafah, Dr. SaifulMahdi, Prof. Yusny Saby, Dr. Ahmad HumamHamid, Ita Fatia Nadia, Arijanto Komari, SaidIkram, Ingrid-Kolb Hindarmanto, Jean-Pierev

Paratore, Prof. Abdul Rahman Lubis, AmrinaHabibi, Jeff Herbert and Safriza Sofyan. Otherparticipants included Arman Fauzi, MartinVane, Rebecca B Domondon, Nur AisyahUsman, Dr. Nazamuddin, Saifuddin Bantasyam,Dr. Eka Sri Mulyani, Paul Greening, Vivi Sylvia,Dahlan, Hamdani, Hanif Asmara, Elvida, SaifulMahdi and Harry M.UNDPThe authors are also most appreciative of BeateTrankmann, UNDP Country Director, andStephen Rodriques, UNDP Deputy CountryDirector for their leadership and vision.Indispensable for the report wasAbdurrahman Syebubakar from UNDP’sPoverty Reduction Unit (PRU), as well asFelicity Pascoe and Genta Konci, who providedtechnical and administrative oversight.We extend thanks to key UNDP staffmembers for their contribution in revising thisreport and in the provision of inputs based ontheir areas of expertise. Special thanks are alsoextended to UNDP Banda Aceh, in particularSimon Field, Project Advisor UNDP BandaAceh, Fakri Karim and Ramon Hagad, as wellas Zulkarnain Lubis, Teuku Zulfi kar whosupported the AHDR processes with highprofessionalism and dedication. The report wascarefully edited by Danielle Ide-Tobin. Thebeautiful photography included in this reportwas contributed by Fakhrurrazi.This report received funding support fromthe UNDP Technical Assistance to BRRProject and the Aceh Governance TransitionProgramme.The report could not have been preparedwithout the generous contribution of manyindividuals. Without their keen interest in oureff orts, we would not have been able to producethe Aceh Human Development Report 2010 tothis quality.viProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Executive SummaryToday,Aceh facesfive majorchallenges:to improvesecurity; toexpand effortsto mitigatefuture naturaldisasters;to reducepoverty; toreverse thedownwardtrend inwomen’swellbeing;and to redressinequalities inless developedareas of theprovince.BackgroundRecent events in Aceh are the latest chapter in a long and turbulent history datingback to the time when it was a wealthy trading nation commanding the Straits ofMalacca. Long years of military and political struggle, coupled with changingeconomic conditions and continuing natural disasters, have left Aceh today as oneof the poorest provinces in Indonesia. Nevertheless, since the tsunami of December2004 and the Peace Accords that followed in August 2005 the people of Aceh, withsupport from many key international and national players, have achieved remarkableprogress in consolidating peace healing the wounds from conflict and disaster andrebuilding their communities.This report is in response to a request from the Governor of Aceh and is the first ofa number of Human Development Reports (HDRs) planned by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) for selected provinces in Indonesia.People empowermentThe central theme of this report is peopleempowerment. By this is meant not just participationin planning, but the sharing of decisionmaking with government or the delegation ofdecision making to forums represent government,consumers, beneficiaries and stakeholders.It is argued that this is the most effective way ofmaintaining peace, improving the delivery ofpublic services and promoting the wellbeing ofthe citizens of Aceh. It is also a better way toensure that the needs of disadvantaged andmarginalised groups are properly addressed, byproviding them with a ‘voice’ through activeparticipation and inclusion in such forums.reintegration of some former combatants intocivil society, and steadier progress towardshuman development. Massive recovery programmesafter the tsunami have repaired muchof the damage and destruction caused by boththe tsunami and conflict. Most of the people displacedby these events have been able to returnhome or settle in new locations. Positive socialconditions in Aceh provide a potential basis forparticipatory human development, althoughthe settlement of displaced persons and formercombatants has caused friction in somecommunities. Extortion and domestic violenceremain endemic problems.Development indicatorsSocial conditionsProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010The post-conflict period, officially marked bythe signing of the Peace Accords, has beencharacterised by the normalising of relationsbetween conflicting groups, including theDevelopment indicators in Aceh reveal a mixedpicture, but comparisons with other provincesare erratic, possibly due to different methodsof computation. Aceh’s Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI) advanced in step with the nationalfigure up to 2007, before dropping sharply invii

2008, the most recent year for which data isavailable. This is due mostly to a fall in personalspending, which reflects the winding downof massive recovery programmes that createda large number of temporary jobs after thetsunami. Compared with other parts of Indonesia,the HDI in Aceh has improved moreslowly in recent years, ranking 29 th among 33provinces in 2008.Two other indicators related to gender developmentin Aceh reveal discouraging trendsover the period 1996 through to 2008. TheGender Development Index (GDI) has shownlittle progress, hovering around the 60 mark,a couple of points lower in 2008 than it was12 years earlier. Meanwhile, the GenderEmpowerment Measure (GEM) has oscillatedup and down over the years, starting at a highof 57.3 in 1996 but finishing more than 7points lower by 2008 at 50.2. This runs sharplycounter to what might be expected, since themost recent figures after the Peace Accordsare below those achieved during the yearsof conflict. The poverty rate has fallen to 22percent compared to 14 percent for Indonesiaas a whole. Despite this, Aceh’s ranking accordingto the Human Poverty Index (HPI) rosefrom 20 th out of 26 provinces in 1996 to 17 thout of 33 by 2008. Meanwhile, the populationgrowth rate in Aceh has fallen dramatically inrecent years, a consequence of the prolongedconflict, out-migration and a deterioratingeconomy.Within the province, these indicators showWestern and Southern Aceh to be significantlyless developed than Northern and Eastern Acehor the Aceh Hinterland. Newly establisheddistricts are also shown to be less developedthan the original districts from which they wereformed, while cities not surprisingly emerge asmore advanced. Each year, the number of districts and cities falling below the national HDIaverage has increased, from only 1 out of 10districts in 1993, to all but one of the 23 jurisdictionsby 2008. This is partly explained bythe proliferation of new districts carved out ofexisting ones.Today, Aceh faces five major challenges: toimprove security; to expand efforts to mitigatefuture natural disasters; to reduce poverty;to reverse the downward trend in women’swellbeing; and to redress inequalities in lessdeveloped areas of the province.Access to public servicesBasic infrastructure. In 2005, around one infour households were still living in sub-standardhousing and lacked access to basic services.This figure is significantly higher, in Westernand Southern Aceh. At the aggregate level ofdistricts, there is a weak correlation betweenthe quality of housing and the incidence of sickness,a relationship that is usually found to bestronger at the level of individual households.The quality of housing is to a great extent dependenton the provision of basic infrastructure,which is largely in the hands of publicauthorities. This is one example where peopleempowerment can make a difference. Localcommunities receiving block grants fromgovernment do not have to wait for local ornational authorities to make these servicesavailable to neighbourhoods that lack them.Instead, they may decide to use funds allocatedto them to build needed infrastructure orto make repairs when required.Education. Aceh outperforms most otherprovinces in the country in school participationrates, where the difference rises at each level ofschooling. This does not necessarily translatehowever into better educated children due tothe uneven quality of teaching and schoolfacilities. At the high school and universitylevels, there is a marked tendency for childrenin more remote districts to move to cities andother districts with better facilities. As in otherparts of the world, many people with higherlevels of education remain among the poor, dueto the difficulty of finding jobs commensuratewith their qualifications. The education sectorin Aceh is one area where people empowermentis relatively well advanced. In line with nationaldirectives, school committees comprising representativesof teachers, administrators, parentsand students where appropriate have authorityto prepare and approve annual plans and budgets.At the provincial level, a forum comprisingstakeholders from government, universities,civil society, NGOs, donors and Islamic bodieshave authority to prepare and execute plans forthe sector.Health. Although considerable progresshas been achieved over the last 40 years, healthindicators show that Aceh still ranks in thebottom third or quarter of all provinces. Lifeexpectancy is lower, a higher proportion ofviiiProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010children are under-nourished and infant andmaternal mortality rates are higher. Theseproblems are particularly severe in Westernand Southern Aceh, where one in six peoplelack physical access to health facilities withina reasonable distance, about the same as in theAceh Hinterland. There is some evidence thatbetter health facilities in a district are relatedto better health, but it is not a strong one.A programme introduced by the provincialgovernment in 2009 providing free health careto all citizens has greatly increased demand forservices. While this is well intentioned, it maynot represent the best use of resources or besupportable in the longer term. Several opportunitiesexist to apply the concept of peopleempowerment in the health sector. Theseinclude establishing a public-private forum atthe provincial level, similar to the one for educationand organising similar forums at thelevel of the sub-district puskesmas. The expertiseof midwives in rural areas might be used moreeffectively by forming and training communitybased self help groups to support pregnantwomen and those with newborn children. Similargroups, with the help of medical personnel,could also be formed and trained for otherpurposes such as domestic violence, familyhygiene and nutrition, addiction to drugs andalcohol.Justice. Unlike other provinces in Indonesia,three legal systems operate in parallel in Aceh:the national positive state law; the traditionaladat system, and; since 2001, syariah law. Thisoften leads to confusion, since the scope ofjurisdiction covered by each system overlaps andsometimes leads to conflicting interpretations.Several barriers prevent people from initiating aclaim in the first place and later from obtaininga just outcome. Many people lack awareness oflegal options, they are subject to pervasive socialpressures compelling them to rely predominantlyon adat to resolve disputes, and thosein rural areas are often far from courts. Dueto the wide-spread perception of bribery andcorruption in the formal legal system, peoplehave greater confidence in the syariah courts.These have become increasingly active ona number of women’s human rights issues,including awarding child guardianship towomen after divorce, providing equal sharesof marital property at the time of divorce,and safeguarding women’s inheritance rights.Measures to empower community based organisationscould help to improve access to justicethrough campaigns to raise awareness ofpeople’s legal rights, monitoring the decisionsof syariah courts and adat rulings, andmonitoring the performance of the religiouspolice (wiliyatul hisbah).Access to economic opportunitiesWhile measures of per capita gross regionaldomestic product (GRDP) suggest Aceh is oneof the richest provinces in Indonesia, per capitaspending shows the people of Aceh are amongthe poorest. Contrary to common perceptions,unweighted average per capita spending outsidecities in 2008 did not differ greatly amongregions. Household spending was lowest in theAceh Hinterland, and highest in Western andSouthern Aceh, but only by 8 percent.For many years, the largest share ofprovincial GRDP has come from the oil andgas industry, but this is now dwindling rapidlyas reserves are depleted. The massive infusionof aid for rehabilitation and reconstructionafter the tsunami provided a temporary boostto the economy, but most programmes havenow ended. Investment in the region has beennegligible for many years, due to the conflict,lingering perceptions of insecurity, extortion,and unresolved regulatory issues concerningbusiness activities.Labour productivity in the agricultural sectorhas gradually risen over the years, but comparedto other provinces, GRDP growth in Aceh hashad a lower impact on creating jobs. The labourforce participation rate in Aceh is well belowthe national average, and tends to be lower incities and higher in rural areas. Apart from acouple of atypical years before and after thetsunami, the number of women in the workforcehas remained more or less steady aboveor below 650,000, rather lower in the two mostrecent years for which data is available. The recentdecline may in part be related to the returnof former combatants to the household, easingthe burden on women to be the primary breadwinners. The average non-agricultural wage forwomen in Aceh was less than that for men in allbut four districts.Six out of ten workers in Aceh are employedin the informal sector, but this proportion risesto four out five workers in the Aceh Hinterland,due mainly to favourable opportunities for theproduction of arabica coffee in that region.While a large informal sector is not normallyix

considered a sign of progressive development, itplays an important role in Aceh (and other partsof Indonesia) in providing opportunities forwork and reducing open unemployment. Onefactor impeding the growth of formal sectoremployment in Aceh is the minimum wagemandated by the provincial government, whichis the highest in the country, partly reflectingrapid inflation in the years immediately after thetsunami.Another constraint facing both small enterprisesand larger ones, especially in theagricultural sector, is the difficulty of obtainingcredit. The proportion of households receivingcredit in Aceh is lower than the national averageand is skewed in favour of consumer loans forurban residents. Recent efforts by governmentand donors to create employment and expandlivelihoods in Aceh have relied mainly on grantsand loans. While evaluation studies usuallyreport favourable results, more detailed studiesthat include control groups of non-recipientsindicate a high risk of zero sum gains, especiallyamong small enterprises catering mainly forneighbourhood demand and local markets.If Aceh is to achieve success in creatingmore widespread and productive opportunitiesfor people to earn a living, efforts are neededon two broad fronts. At the macro level,structural weaknesses in the economy need to beaddressed, while at the micro level programmesto support household enterprises and personallivelihoods need to be linked to structuralchanges that are taking place in the largereconomy. The main engine of economic growthfor the foreseeable future will have to comein part from greatly increased governmentspending arising from the Peace Accords, andmore importantly from exports of agriculturalcommodities broadly defined to include plantations,forestry and fisheries.Actions are called for to empower the businesscommunity, broadly defined, to collaboratemore effectively with government in shapingpolicy and priorities for economic development.Precedents already exist. With fundingfrom the International Finance Coorporation(IFC), an Aceh Business Forum was set upin 2008 as a platform for improving dialoguebetween government and the private sector onmatters related to economic development andbusiness activities in Aceh. A second model maybe found in the Aceh Partnerships for EconomicDevelopment (APED) project implementedby UNDP in collaboration with thexprovincial BAPPEDA since mid 2006. Thisapproach is based on empowering public privateforums for selected industries with a strongpotential for exports.Participation and EmpowermentRecent surveys conclude that positive socialconditions in Aceh provide a potential basisfor participatory decision making. Gender biasand social divisions resulting from the conflicthowever need to be addressed before full communityparticipation can be realized.There has been a marked shift over the pastdecade in Indonesia as a whole towards communityparticipation and empowerment. Theearlier strategy to promote bottom up planningthrough the development planning discussion(Musrenbang) has proved largely ineffective inyielding benefits for local communities. Newerstrategies such as those adopted in the SubdistrictDevelopment Programme (KDP)/National Programme for Community Development(PNPM)-Mandiri programmes nationallyand the Financial Assistance for VillageWelfare (BKPG) programme in Aceh now allocateblock grants directly to subdistricts andvillages (desas), and empower stakeholders tomake their own decisions on the use of suchfunds. This is an important step forwardin promoting human development in accordancewith local priorities.Over the past decade, Indonesia has alsomade huge strides towards promoting democracyin the country through the direct election ofrepresentatives at all levels of government fromthe village to the national parliament (DPRN),as well as government leaders from the villagechief to the national President. This represents aremarkable achievement in such a short periodof time and an important advance in humandevelopment. In 2009, some 75 percent of registeredvoters in Aceh participated in the electionsfor national, provincial and local assemblies.By 2008, the number and proportionof women in local assemblies (the DPRA andDPRKs) had risen substantially, due in part tothe proliferation of new jurisdictions. Thesefigures are reported to have dropped after the2009 elections, but official data has yet to bepublished.Data show that women have accounted for40 percent to 50 percent of all positions forprofessional and technical staff in Aceh for atProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010least the past decade, although many of thesepositions carry little authority. The proportionof women in leadership roles is much lower,ranging from highs of over 40 percent in somedistricts to zero in several others.Resource allocation for humandevelopmentSince the year 2000, fiscal revenues managed bythe provincial and local governments in Acehhave increased dramatically. The two mainsources of this revenue are transfers from centralgovernment for general allocation funds (DAU)and the special autonomy funds for Aceh agreedin the Peace Accords and subsequently enactedin the Law on the Governing of Aceh (LoGA)of 2006, a law which gives significant authorityto the Acehnese provincial government comparedto other provinces. With governmentrevenues in Aceh growing much faster than thelocal economy, the share of the governmentbudget in total GRDP has increased from only7 percent in 1999 to around 29 percent by2008, underlining the potential role for governmentspending as an engine for economicdevelopment.Although not specifically designed to do so,the allocation formula for the DAU has resultedin substantially higher per capita fiscal revenuesfor many less developed districts in theprovince, particularly in Western and SouthernAceh and the Aceh Hinterland. Since the DAUformula favours smaller jurisdictions, it may alsohave inadvertently played a role in spurring theproliferation of new districts carved out of existingones.The increase in fiscal revenues in Aceh hasbeen accompanied by a similar increase inpublic expenditures. The largest item has beengovernment administration, rising at an annualrate of 8 percent between 2001 and 2007,largely due to the creation of new districts.The second largest item has been education,although as a proportion of the total, it hasbeen falling, while shares have been rising forinfrastructure, social assistance and to a lesserextent the health sector. Higher per capitarevenues among districts and cities have alsotranslated into substantially higher per capitapublic spending in Western and Southern Acehand the Aceh Hinterland.While the provincial government mayseek to use the allocation of fiscal resourcesamong district and city governments as aninstrument for implementing public policies,control over the use SAF funds, which becameavailable starting in 2008, provides a far moreeffective tool. However, this assumes provincialgovernment departments have the capacityneeded to review proposals in a timely manner,provide technical support to districts and cities,and monitor implementation.GenderThe position of women in Acehnese society hasadvanced in some respects but several indicatorsshow a retreat in other areas. The arrival ofinternational agencies after the tsunami helpedto develop the capacity of civil society organizations(CSOs) on gender justice, and therehas been greater interaction and collaborationbetween them and the government on theseissues. The Syariah Courts have helped toadvance women’s rights concerning inheritanceand property, but some argue that Aceh’sinterpretation of Syariah law has been narrowand conservative. The Reconstruction andRehabilitation Agency (BRR) and the NationalLand Agency (BPN) established a policyfor the Joint Titling of Marital Property,but it has met with mixed success. Onthe other hand, GDI and GEM reveal a discouragingtrend over the years. While theirparticipation in the workforce steadily advancedto a peak of 40 percent in 2002, it has sincefallen back a little, due in part to the return offormer combatants to the household. Theircontribution to household income has droppedand average wage rates are lower than men inmost jurisdictions in Aceh. Their participationin local assemblies increased up until 2008, butsince then has fallen. More seriously, womenaccount for a small proportion of senior positions,and are still largely under-representedin decision making at the community level.Domestic violence perpetuated by men towardswomen is also still a major concern withinAcehnese families.Conclusions and recommendationsBased on an analysis of available information,this report advocates six primary goals to furtherenhance human development in the province.xi

Empower people for development: Perhapsthe single most effective instrument for enhancinghuman development is to empower peopleto make their own collective decisions on whatneeds to be done. This means not merely promotingparticipation in public meetings todiscuss priorities and plans, but also transferringfiscal resources to recognised groups anddelegating authority to decide how to use theseresources.Ensure benefits for everyone: While severalindicators show steady advances in human developmentin Aceh, it is important to ensure thatall individuals benefit from the progress beingachieved. All government programmes shouldpay special attention to addressing the needsof particular social groups that may have beenoverlooked or who are unable to get the helpthey need for one reason or another.Improve the quality of public services:Basic social services are now physically accessibleto most communities throughout theprovince. The main challenge for the futureis to improve the quality of these services,particularly in health and education.Enhance opportunities for productiveemployment: Another key goal in Aceh isto reduce the high rates of unemploymentand under-employment as a means to reducepoverty and raise household incomes. Thisis important not only for economic reasonsbut also as a means to make better use ofinvestments in education and human resources,and to enhance personal dignity and selfesteem.Effective strategies to achieve thesegoals require complementary measures atboth the macro and micro levels. Actionsto strengthen the economy at the regionallevel will help to create new jobs and expandopportunities for productive livelihoods acrossAceh.Couple disaster mitigation with environmentalprogrammes: While the tsunami wasa rare event, other kinds of natural disastersoccur frequently in Aceh and cumulatively causesubstantial loss and hardship. Since strategiesand agendas are often complementary, disastermitigation efforts should be coupled withother agencies responsible for the environment.Steps to mainstream measures to mitigate naturaldisasters should be reinforced in a broadrange of government and donor programmes,particularly in the forestry, agricultural andfisheries sectors.Make better use of public resources: Thehuge increase in fiscal resources flowing intoAceh as a result of the Peace Accords and theLoGA underline the imperatives of minimisingmisuse and ensuring resources are channelledtowards programmes and services that areeffective in further advancing human development.For this purpose, government departmentsare urged to adopt the general principlesof performance planning and budgeting. Sincethis approach is not yet well understood inAceh, the provincial government should seekthe help of donors to undertake a broad programmeof capacity building to enable relevantstaff to adopt the concept.Other recommendations: In addition, thisreport makes a number of other recommendationsfor specific sectors. These include:• Security• Poverty• Women• Basic infrastructure• Education• Health care• Justice• Economic development, and• The allocation of fiscal resources.xiiProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

ContentsISBN NumberForewordsAcknowledgementsExecutive SummaryBackgroundPeople empowermentSocial conditionsDevelopment indicatorsAccess to public servicesAccess to economic opportunities.Participation and EmpowermentResource allocation for human developmentGenderConclusions and recommendationsAcronymsiiiiivviiviiviiviiviiviiiixxxixixixviiiCHAPTER 1. Introduction 11.1 Human development and people empowerment 31.2 Measures of human development 51.3 Structure of report 5CHAPTER 2. The state of human development in Aceh 72.1 Recent events in Aceh 92.1.1 The conflict 92.1.2 Natural disasters 112.1.3 Internally displaced persons (IDPs) 112.1.4 Peace Accords 122.1.5 Recovery and reconstruction 122.2 Indicators of human development in Aceh 132.2.1 Aceh’s HDI in comparison to other Indonesian provinces 142.2.2 Variations within Aceh 172.3 Residual impacts 222.4 Conclusions 252.4.1 Challenges 252.4.2 Responses 26Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010xiii

CHAPTER 3. Access to public services 293.1 Access to basic infrastructure 313.1.1 Shelter 313.1.2 Housing and morbidity 323.1.3 Economic infrastructure 323.1.4 Conclusions 333.2 Access to Education 333.2.1 Adult literacy 343.2.2 Years of schooling 353.2.3 School participation 363.2.4 Gender differences 373.2.5 Education and poverty 383.2.6 Conclusions 383.3 Access to health services 403.3.1 Comparison with other provinces 403.3.2 Life expectancy 413.3.3 Infant mortality 423.3.4 Services for children 433.3.5 People’s health 443.3.6 Service indicators 453.3.7 People’s health and health services 463.3.8 Access among the poor 463.3.9 Conclusions 463.4 Access to Justice 483.4.1 Parallel legal systems 483.4.2 Common grievances 493.4.3 Barriers to justice 493.4.4 Gender considerations 503.4.5 Conclusions 52CHAPTER 4. Access to economic opportunities 554.1 The Aceh economy 574.1.1 Measures of per capita income in Aceh 574.1.2 Economic growth and poverty reduction 594.1.3 Investment 594.2 District comparisons 604.3 Employment 634.3.1 Productivity of Labour 634.3.2 Employment characteristics 644.3.3 Employment of women and former combatants 664.4 Access to financial resources 694.5 Approaches to economic development in Aceh 704.6 Conclusions 71CHAPTER 5. Participation and people empowerment 755.1 Political participation 775.1.1 Democratic elections 775.1.2 Post crisis political action 775.1.3 The 2009 elections 785.1.4 The role of women in leadership positions 785.2 Social cohesion 795.3 Empowerment and decision making 80xivProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

5.3.1 The Musrenbang 805.3.2 The Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) 815.3.3 Aceh Recovery Framework (ARF) 815.3.4 Financial Assistance for Village Welfare (BKPG) 815.3.5 Community organisations 825.3.6 Gender bias 825.3.7 Lessons learned 835.4 Conclusions 84CHAPTER 6. Planning and budgeting for human development 876.1 Revenues 896.1.1 Sources of revenue 896.1.2 Resource allocation 906.1.3 The Special Autonomy Funds (SAF) 926.2 Expenditures 936.2.1 Aggregate public spending by sectors 936.2.2 Sectoral spending per capita 956.3 Spending by districts 976.3.1 Spending on education 986.3.2 Spending on Health 996.4 Conclusions 99CHAPTER 7. Conclusions and recommendations 1017.1 Conclusions 1037.2 Recommendations 1047.2.1 Empower people for development 1057.2.2 Ensure benefits for everyone 1057.2.3 Improve the quality of public services 1067.2.4 Enhance opportunities for productive employment 1067.2.5 Couple disaster mitigation with environmental programmes 1077.2.6 Improve the use of fiscal resources 1077.3 Recommendations for specific sectors 1087.4 Final thoughts 110Statistical Annex 111Appendix A: Accompanying tables and figures 113Appendix B: BPS Special Tabulation 131References 145Technical Note 147Methodology 149TABLES2.2 Total cost of tsunami by sector (Billions Rp) 112.3 Achievements of the Board for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (BRR) 122.4 Summary of indicators Aceh 1996 – 2008 162.5 Overall ranking of jurisdictions in Aceh by development indicators 213.1 Rankings of health indicators for selected provinces, 2008 403.2 Under-nourished children in Aceh (% aged under Five years) 43Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010xv

FIGURES3.3 Attendance at birth deliveries in Indonesia and Aceh (%) 433.4 Summary table of health and service indicators by jurisdictions in Aceh 453.5 Distribution of land according to gender in Aceh, 2008 1 524.1 GRDP per capita selected provinces in Indonesia 1978-2007 (Rp current 000) 574.2 Per capita income growth in Indonesia and Aceh, 2005 - 2007 584.3 Adjusted per capita expenditure in Indonesia and Aceh, 2002, 2008 594.4 Investment by selected provinces in Indonesia 2006 – 2009 604.5 Summary table of per capita rankings by jurisdictions in Aceh 624.6 Percent of employment and GRDP by sector in Aceh, 2003 - 2008 634.7 Relative levels of GRDP per worker by sector in Aceh 2003 - 2008 636.1 Sectoral shares of public spending in Aceh 2001 – 2007(Province, districts and cities combined) (%) 936.2 Per capita spending by sectors for districts and cities in Aceh 2001 - 2007(Constant Rp 2006) 952.1 Levels of conflict intensity in Aceh sub-districts 102.2 Provincial human development index in Indonesia, 1996-2008 132.3 Gender-related development progress Aceh 1996 to 2008 142.4 Poverty rate by provinces in Indonesia: 1999-2009 152.5 Population growth rate in Indonesia 162.6 HDI difference across regions in Aceh 172.7 HDI range across districts and cities in Aceh, 1993-2008 182.8 HDI scores for districts and cities compared with the national average, 1993-2008 192.9 Human poverty index by districts in Aceh 2007 202.10 Violence in Aceh: January 2005 to December 2008 222.11 Aid and conflict, by jurisdiction in Aceh (number of conflicts, 2008) 243.1 Housing indicators and morbidity by jurisdictions in Aceh 2008 323.2 Education indicators in Aceh, 1990-2007 333.3 Adult literacy rate across regions of Aceh 343.4 Adult literacy rate by gender in Aceh, 1996 - 2008 343.5 Mean years of schooling across regions in Aceh 353.6 School participation rates in Aceh by age group and sex, 2007 373.7 Percentage of population who graduated from senior secondary schools orhigher level institutions who are living in poverty 383.8 Life expectancy across regions in Aceh 413.9 Infant mortality rate in comparison to life expectancy ratio in Aceh, 1971-2007 413.10 Infant mortality rate by jurisdiction in Aceh 2008 (Per 1000) 423.11 Immunization levels of children under the age of five by type at the nationallevel in comparison to the provincial level, 2003-2006 444.1 Shares of oil and gas in Aceh’s economy (%), 1983 – 2006. 584.2 Impact of economic growth on poverty reduction in Aceh and elsewhere 594.3 Expenditure per capita by district in Aceh (Rp current 2008) 614.4 Share of employment and GRDP in agriculture in Aceh, 1980 – 2007 644.5 Unemployment and labour participation rate by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 654.6 Informal sector employment and unemployment by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 664.7 Labour force by gender in Aceh, 1998 – 2008 674.8 Ratio of female-male average non-agricultural wage by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 674.9 Urban-rural gap in access to credit in Indonesia and Aceh 2006 and 2007 684.10 Aggregate number of credits 705.1 Voter participation in Aceh in 2009 elections 786.1 Revenues of provincial and district/city governments in Aceh(Rp billion, constant 2006 prices), 1999 – 2008 906.2 HDI and per capita fiscal revenue by jurisdiction in Aceh, 2007 91xviProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

6.3 Spending on health, education and general administration as a share oftotal public expenditure by provincial government in Aceh, 2001 - 2007 946.4 Spending on health, education and general administration as a shareof total expenditure by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2001 - 2007 946.5 Average spending per capita 2006-2007 (thousand rupiah) NAD Province 966.6 Per capita education expenditure by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2006 & 2007 976.7 Per capita spending and access to health facilities by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2007 98BOXES1 Aceh Justice Project 412 Witni’s story 513 Joint land titling 514 The APED Coffee Forum 725 The Kecamatan (Sub-District) Development Program (KDP) 816 The Kabupaten / Kota Recovery Forum (KRF) 827 People empowerment for service provision 84Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010xvii

AcronymsACMUAFRAHAHDRAPEDARIBappenasBCGBCPRBKPGBKPMBLTBLUBOKBOSBPDBPNBPP&PABPSBRABRR: Aceh Conflict Monitoring Update: Aceh Recovery Framework: Aceh Hinterland: Aceh Human Development Report: Aceh Partnership for EconomicDevelopment: Asia Research Institute: National Development PlanningAgency (Badan PerencanaanPembangunan Nasional): Bacillus Calmette-Guérin: Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery: Financial Assistance for VillageWelfare (Bantuan KeuanganPeumakmu Gampong): Investment Coordination Board(Badan Koordinasi PenanamanModal): Direct Cash Transfer (BantuanLangsung Tunai): Public Service Agency (BadanLayanan Umum): Health Operational Aid (BantuanOperasional Kesehatan): School Operation Support(Bantuan Operasional Sekolah): Local Development Bank (BankPembangunan Daerah): National Land Agency (BadanPertanahan Nasional): Women Empowerment andChildren Protection Agency (BadanPemberdayaan Perempuan danPerlindungan Anak): Central Statistic Agency (BadanPusat Statistik): Aceh Peace ReintegrationAgency (Badan Reintegrasi-DamaiAceh): Reconstruction and RehabilitationAgency (Badan Rekonstruksi danRehabilitasi)BukesraBulogCBOCSOCSRCDAKDAUDPDDPRDPRADPTDRR-AERTRGAMGDIGEMGNPGoIHDIHKIHPIIASCIDPIFCISEJKAJLTKDPKomnasKPA: Business Entity for disable welfare(Badan Usaha KesejahteraanPenyandang Cacat): State Logistic Agency (BadanUrusan Logisitik): Community Based Organization: Civil Society Organization: Civil Society Resource Centers: Special Allocation Budget (DanaAlokasi Khusus): General Allocation Budget (DanaAlokasi Umum): Regional Representative Council(Dewan Perwakilan Daerah): Indonesian Parliament (DewanPerwakilan Rakyat): Aceh House of Representatives(Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Aceh): Diphtheria, Pertussis and Tetanus: Disaster Risk Reduction - Aceh: Emergency Response andTransitional Recovery: Free Aceh Movement (GerakanAceh Merdeka): Gender Development Index: Gender Empowerment Measure: Gross National Product: Government of Indonesia: Human Development Index: Intellectual Property Right (HakKekayaan Intelektual): Human Poverty Index: Inter-Agency Standing Committee: Internally Displaced People: International Finance Corporation: Informal Sector Employment: Aceh Health Insurance (JaminanKesehatan Aceh): Joint Land Titling: Kecamatan Development Program: National Committee (KomiteNasional): Aceh Transitional Committee(Komite Peralihan Aceh)xviiiProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010KPN : Credit for Aceh Welfare (KreditPemakmu Nanggroe)KPU : National Elections Commission(Komisi Pemilihan Umum)KRF : Kecamatan/Kota Recovery ForumKUBE : Joint Business Group (KelompokUsaha Bersama)LKM : Micro Financial Institution(Lembaga Keuangan Mikro)LoGA : Law on Governing AcehMA: Islamic Senior Secondary School(Madrasah Aliyah)MDF : Multi Donor FundMDG : Millennium Development GoalsMenko Kesra : Ministry Coordinator in People’sWelfare (Menteri KoordinatorBidang Kesejahteraan Rakyat)MI: Islamic Elementary School(Madrasah Ibtidaiyah)MoU : Memorandum of UnderstandingMT: Islamic Junior Elementary School(Madrasah Tarbiyah)Musrembang : Development Plan Discussion(Musyawarah RencanaPembangunan)NAD : Aceh Province (Nanggroe AcehDarussalam)NEA : Northern and Eastern AcehNGO : Non-Government OrganizationNTB : Western Nusa Tenggara (NusaTenggara Barat)NTT : Eastern Nusa Tenggara (NusaNZAIDTenggara Timur): New Zealand Agency forInternational DevelopmentOtsus Migas : Special Autonomy – Oil and Gas(Otonomi Khusus – Minyak danGas)PAPAASPBA: Aceh Party(Partai Aceh): Safe and Prosperous AcehParty (Partai Aceh Aman danSejahtera): United Aceh Party (Partai BersatuAceh)PDAPDPPERPerdaPLNPNPMPNSPRAPSIRAPuskesmasRALASRBARPJPRSDSAFSDSLBSMASMESMKSMP: Sovereign Aceh Party(Partai DaulatAceh): People-centred DevelopmentProject: People’s Economic Empowerment(Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Rakyat): Local Regulation (PeraturanDaerah): State Electricity Company(Perusahaan Listrik Negara): National Program for CommunityEmpowerment (Program NasionalPemberdayaan Masyarakat): Government Civil Servants(Pegawai Negeri Sipil): Aceh People’s Party (Partai RakyatAceh): Aceh People Independent VoiceParty (Partai Suara IndependentRakyat Aceh): Community Health Center (PusatKesehatan Masyarakat): Reconstruction of Aceh LandAdministration System: Right Based Approach: Long Term Development Plan(Rencana Pembangunan JangkaPanjang): Darussa’adah Rehabilitation center(Rumah Sejahtera Darussa’adah): Special Autonomy Fund (DanaOtonomi Khusus (Dana Otsus): Elementary School (Sekolah Dasar): School for disable (Sekolah LuarBiasa): Senior Secondary School (SekolahMenengah Atas): Small and Micro Enterprises: Vocational Senior SecondarySchool (Sekolah MenengahKejuruan): Junior Secondary School (SekolahMenengah Pertama)xix

SSPDASusenasTKSKTNATNIUNUNFPA: Support for Sustainable Peace inAceh: National Socio-Economic Survey(Survey Sosial Ekonomi Nasional): Sub-district Social Welfare Worker(Tenaga Kesejahteraan SosialKecamatan): Aceh National Military (TentaraNasional Aceh): National Military (Tentara NasionalIndonesia): United Nations: United Nations Population FundUNICEFUNORCUnsyiahUUWHWSAYBKM: United Nations Children’s Fund: United Nations Office of theRecovery Coordination for Acehand Nias: Syiah Kuala University (UniversitasSyiah Kuala): Law (Undang-Undang): Religious Police (Wilayatul Hisbah): Western and Southern Aceh: Self Independent BuildingFoundation (Yayasan Bina KitorangMandirixxProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

1IntroductionProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 1

2Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER1IntroductionEmpoweringpeople tomake theirown decisionsconcerningdevelopmentprioritiesand the useof resourcesis the mosteffective wayof maintainingpeace,improving thedelivery ofpublic services,and promotingthe wellbeingof the citizensof Aceh.The area known as Aceh has a long and turbulent history. Located at the north-westerntip of the island of Sumatra, the people of Aceh built a rich and powerful nationcommanding the strategic trading routes through the Malacca Straits. To expandand protect their commercial interests in past centuries, the Sultanate was frequentlyengaged in struggles against rival states in the region. Reports from travellers in the16 th century remarked on the wealth of the Sultan’s court and the necessity of payinghomage to secure safe onward passage. As one of the first states to adopt Islam insouth-east Asia, the people of Aceh have developed and fiercely defended a strongcultural identity. Later on, they resisted efforts by the Dutch to incorporate the stateinto the Netherlands Indies, and were divided in agreeing to become part of Indonesiaafter independence. Resentment against Javanese domination of local governmentadministration was one factor that lead eventually to the protracted civilconflict, which only came to an end with the signing of the Peace Accords in 2005.Along with much of the rest of Indonesia,Aceh is also an area that is particularly proneto natural disasters. While the tsunami ofDecember 2004 attracted world-wide attentionand massive funds for reconstruction, the areahas long suffered, and continues to suffer,from many disasters of a smaller magnitude,particularly earthquakes, landslides and flooding.Nevertheless, since the tsunami, thepeople of Aceh together with support frommany national and international players haveachieved remarkable progress in consolidatingpeace, healing the wounds from conflict anddisaster and rebuilding their communities.This report on Aceh is in response to arequest from the Governor and is the first ofa number of Human Development Reports(HDRs) planned by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) on selectedprovinces in Indonesia. Reports for otherprovinces are currently under discussion forPapua and Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT). Theyfollow in the tradition of UNDP’s annualglobal reports and periodic reports for manycountries around the world. National reportsfor Indonesia were published in 1996, 2001 and2004, and another is due early next year (2011).1.1. Human development and peopleempowermentThe first HDR was published in 1990 with thesingle goal of putting people back at the centreof the development, and as a means to broadendiscussion of trends in national developmentbeyond a limited focus on economic factors. Thepurpose is to provide a broad assessment ofprogress in improving the quality of life for allpeople, but especially women, the poor and thedisadvantaged. The aim is to examine factors thatshape and account for the quality of life, highlightthe predicament of disadvantaged andexcluded groups, and point the way forward tomore inclusive policies for development thatbenefit citizens from all walks of life.Both the global HDRs published eachyear by UNDP and the periodic reports onindividual countries usually embrace a centraltheme tailored to recent events and particularProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 3

4circumstances. For example, the global reportfor 2009 featured human mobility and migration.The 2007 country report for Bosnia andHerzegovina highlighted the inclusion ofethnic and religious groups previously marginalisedin development programmes. Thecountry report for Indonesia due out thisyear adopts the theme of participation in localgovernance.Active participation is one step towardspeople empowerment, which is the themeof this HDR for Aceh. By this is meantnot just participation in planning, but thesharing of decision making with governmentor the delegation of decision making toforums representing government, consumers,beneficiaries and stakeholders. Empoweringpeople to make their own decisions concerningdevelopment priorities and the use of resourcesis the most effective way of maintaining peace,improving the delivery of public services, andpromoting the wellbeing of the citizens of Aceh.It is also a better way to ensure that the needsof disadvantaged and marginalised groups areproperly addressed.The distinction between participation andpeople empowerment needs to be emphasised.Arnstein (1969) 2 makes the obvious but oftenoverlooked point that there are wide gradationsin a ladder of participation, ranging from nonparticipation(manipulation) on the bottomrungs, to tokenism (information, consultation)in the middle range, to citizen power (partnership,delegated power, and citizen control)towards the top of the ladder. The typologyis useful to keep in mind while reviewingparticipatory processes discussed elsewhere inthis report. It is also useful in underlining thatpeople empowerment essentially involves aredistribution of authority and responsibility.The scope for people empowerment in humandevelopment is wide, especially in planningand implementing public infrastructure andservices at the community level. This may beseen from a brief review of the stages involved.• Identification of problems and opportunities.The collective knowledge and experienceof local inhabitants is likely to be the bestsource of information on which individualsand groups are excluded from governmentprogrammes or unable to access services, andon ideas for improving access.• Priorities. Likewise, local residents are bestpositioned to express the relative level of demandfor different proposals to improve servicesand assess priorities in allocating resourcesamong competing needs. InCambodia, for example, participants at apublic meeting were able to change agovernment decision as to which hamletswere most in need of flood controlmeasures.• Project design. Potential users of proposedinfrastructure and service facilities may alsoprovide useful ideas for the routing of roads,location and design of facilities. In Palestine,for example, community members greatlyexpedited the complicated issue of determiningthe alignment of an inter-villageroad that impinged on numerous farms,and produced a plan far superior to the oneproposed by the village chief for a networkof farm access roads.• Funding. Available funding from governmentsources may be inadequate to financepreferred proposals, but collective action bythe community may generate additional resourcesin cash or in kind to make it possibleto implement the project. Families in Kenya,for example, are renowned for raising additionalfunds for schools and education services.In Malawi, villagers produced the bricksneeded for the construction of school classrooms,a laborious task, which would otherwisebe expensive.• Procurement and execution. Many governmentagencies and donors are wary of delegatingauthority to local communities forprocuring the services of building contractors,NGOs or other private sectorproviders. But in Vietnam, for example,local government support units assistvillages for this purpose, following transparentbidding procedures witnessed bylocal stakeholders.• Disbursement of funds. Likewise, many governmentagencies and donors prefer tohandle payments to contractors themselves.But in Nepal, for example, after initial trialruns, UNDP agreed to delegate disbursementsto village staff subject to co-signaturesfrom project management units comprisingcommunity representatives.• Supervision and monitoring. While professionalstaff may be required to check thetechnical specification of work completedby building contractors, community basedproject implementation units may exerciseoverall supervision. In Palestine, for example,the community in one village activelyProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

This reporthas beenspecificallydesignedto assistgovernmentand civilsociety inrethinkingpolicies andprogrammesfordevelopmentand povertyreduction,and strategiesto enhancethe activeparticipation ofmarginalisedgroups indecisionmaking.monitored construction of classroom extensions,checking contractor invoicesagainst supplies of materials, drawingattention to faulty workmanship, and evenpersuading the contractor to pave the schoolyard with excess materials free of charge.• Operation and maintenance. Whilegovernment agencies are keen to build newfacilities, provision of funds for ongoingmaintenance is usually inadequate if nonexistent,resulting in an accumulation ofneeded repairs and steady deterioration ofbuildings and equipment. Numerous reportsmention long delays in waiting forgovernment to make simple cheap repairs,for example to water pumps in Timor Barat.But in Nepal farmers have long beenorganised to operate and maintain localirrigation schemes.These examples refer only to planning andimplementing public infrastructure and services.But there are many other opportunities, mostof them being volunteer based actions, forempowering people to play important roles inbroader aspects of human development, whichare discussed elsewhere in this report.1.2. Measures of human developmentFor fifty years or more, since governmentsfirst started collecting data on such things, thestandard indicator of national development wasper capita gross national product (GNP). But asis shown later in this report, that may convey amisleading picture of the quality of life for thepopulation of a country or a region.In 1990, UNDP introduced the Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI) as an alternative way ofmeasuring people’s wellbeing. Like the GNP figure,this was designed to yield a single numberthat could easily be used to compare conditionsamong different countries and regions. UnlikeGNP however, the HDI incorporates four measuresto give a broader indication of living conditions,including life expectancy, the rate ofadult literacy, mean years of schooling and percapita expenditure measured in real terms toallow for comparisons over time.Since then, UNDP and other internationaldevelopment organisations have created a numberof other indicators to measure differentaspects of development. Three of them arediscussed in this report: the Gender DevelopmentIndex (GDI); the Gender EmpowermentMeasure (GEM), and; the Human PovertyIndex (HPI). Although these indices may bestandardised to permit inter-regional comparisons,the formulations adopted by theCentral Bureau of Statistics in Indonesia havevaried over the years, depending in part on theavailability and reliability of data.The GDI is based on four components thatcompare data for men and women in terms oflife expectancy, adult literacy, years of schoolingand contributions to household income. TheGEM for provinces includes the proportionsof women in the local parliament or assembly,in senior official, managerial and technical staffpositions, and in the local labour force. TheGEM for districts in Aceh adds another indicator,the average non-agricultural wage. TheHPI for provinces is based on the proportionsof the population not expected to reach the ageof 40, without access to clean water, withoutaccess to health facilities, and the proportionof under-nourished children under the age offive. The HPI for districts adds the level of adultliteracy.These indicators are almost all based on datafrom central government agencies 3 , which inturn rely on local offices, sometimes all the waydown to the village. The collecting, collatingand processing of this data on a wide range oftopics represents a big challenge, particularlyfor a country as large as Indonesia. Inevitably,gaps may occur in collecting informationand errors may arise in processing the data,although statistical methods can reduce theseproblems. As was evident during presentationsof draft findings of this report, some readersmay question the precise figures presentedhere. While specific numbers may be open toquestion, the larger trends implied by the dataare more robust and are ultimately what is moreimportant.1.3. Structure of reportSince this report has been prepared at the requestof the Government of Aceh, it has beenspecifically designed to assist government andcivil society in rethinking policies and programmesfor development and poverty reduction,and strategies to enhance the activeparticipation of marginalised groups in decisionmaking. With this goal in mind, the reportis structured around themes and topics thatconcern those responsible for preparing me-Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 5

dium and longer term development plans(RPJM and RPJP) and determining theappropriate use of substantial additional publicrevenues resulting from the Peace Accordsof 2005. These relate to an increased share ofrevenues derived from oil and gas in the regionand special autonomy funds for Aceh, bothenacted under the Law on Governing Aceh(LoGA) of 2006.The report begins in chapter one with areview of concepts and approaches to humandevelopment and particularly the notionof empowering people to share in makingdecisions concerning development policiesand programmes. This is a recent conceptdesigned to focus on disadvantaged groupsoften overlooked in assessments of humandevelopment. Chapter two follows with anoverview of recent major events in Aceh andtheir impact on the state of human developmentin the province. This is measured according toseveral standard aggregate indicators, whichmay be used to make comparisons betweenAceh and other provinces of Indonesia andamong districts within Aceh.Chapters three and four examine access topublic services and economic opportunities, akey factor in reducing poverty and minimisingsocial exclusion. The discussion is organisedaccording to sectors and programmes commonlyadopted in government planning documents.This format is intended to make it easier forgovernment staff to reflect findings and recommendationsfrom this report in the plansand budgets they produce for each departmentor agency. Chapter three looks at access interms of basic physical infrastructure, healthand education, as well as justice. Chapter foursummarises recent trends in the local economyand examines access to income generatingopportunities for households in terms ofemployment, livelihoods and credit. An importantconsideration here is also access to marketsfor small scale producers. This is essential inavoiding a zero sum gain for livelihood programmesand to ensure the longer term growthand sustainability of employment and localbusiness.Chapter five reviews two other factors thatare critical to enhancing human developmentand promoting the inclusion of disadvantagedgroups, namely participation and empowerment.These issues are discussed in terms ofpolitical participation in elections and government,and civic participation and empowermentin local decision making, especially inthe design and allocation of financial resourcesfor community development programmes.While local governments in Aceh are alreadyaware of many concerns discussed in this report,an analysis of public spending reveals gapsbetween intent and practice. Chapter six takesa look at recent trends in public expenditureand the process of planning and budgeting. Itidentifies some of the reasons for the mismatchbetween goals and the allocation of fiscalresources, and suggests ways to close these gaps.The report concludes with a summary ofthe main findings and conclusions that emergefrom this analysis of human development inAceh, and presents a number of proposals andrecommendations. These aim to enhance thewelfare of the people of Aceh and to promotethe broader inclusion of all social groupsparticularly those that are currently at adisadvantage.In preparation for this report, UNDPcommissioned a number of background papersthat were completed over the past year. Amongother topics, these cover social inclusion,inequalities, gender, justice, livelihoods, economicgrowth and public expenditure. Thisreport draws extensively from these backgroundpapers, and many other reports, whoseauthors are indicated in the list of references.6Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

2The State of HumanDevelopment in AcehProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 7

8Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER2The State of Human Development in AcehThedevastatingimpact of theconflict on thesocial fabric ofAceh, besidesaggravatinghorizontaland verticalinequalitiesamong thepopulation,poseda severechallengein attemptsto improvetheir livingconditions.This chapter provides a broad picture of the state of development in Aceh today.Section 2.1 reviews recent major events that have had negative and positive impactson improving people’s welfare. Section 2.2 analyses several measures of developmentcomparing progress in Aceh with other provinces in Indonesia and among the districtsand cities of Aceh. Section 2.3 reports on a number of other aspects of social wellbeing that are not captured by quantitative indicators.2.1. Recent events in AcehRecent events have had a profound and farreaching impact on human development inAceh. The political conflict, natural disastersand the massive rebuilding efforts since 2005have each impacted people and regions in quitedifferent ways.2.1.1 The conflictAceh has a long and proud history as an independentstate before the Dutch incorporatedthe province into the Netherlands East Indiesin the 19 th century. The more recent catalyst forthe separatist movement is attributed to ethnictensions between the Acehnese and Javanesemigrants. According to Brown (2005), manyAcehnese perceived such migrants to be subjectedto preferential treatment by the CentralGovernment, with many capturing senior governmentpositions and granted ownershiprights over relatively large land holdings undertransmigration projects. Another source of discontentwas the disparity between the generationof wealth due to the oil boom on theone hand, and the continued impoverishmentof large sections of the local population onthe other.The armed conflict between the Free AcehMovement (GAM) and the national military(TNI), which lasted more than 30 years, led tothe death of 15,000 people and displaced morethan 30,000 households (KDP-World Bank,2007). It also caused widespread destructionof physical infrastructure and impeded governmentprovision and maintenance of publicservices.The devastating impact on the social fabricof Aceh, besides aggravating horizontal andvertical inequalities among the population,posed a severe challenge in attempts to improvetheir living conditions. In the three decadesfollowing GAM’s declaration of independence,Aceh’s progress towards human developmentdeclined relative to other provinces in Indonesiaand poverty increased. The establishment ofvirtual military control over the region by theIndonesian armed forces and the entry of theJavanese migrants into the oil boom areas,followed by their dominance over highly placedcivilian jobs, further aggravated the inequalitiesand disparities in Aceh (Brown 2005).The relative intensity of the conflict amongthe districts of Aceh is mapped in figure 2.1.Fighting was most intense among coastaldistricts in the northeast, inland areas in thenorth, and also scattered coastal districts in thenorthwest and far southwest. The city of BandaAceh and its hinterland was affected less dueto the strong presence of central governmentforces there.The impact of the conflict on economicinfrastructure and social facilities was severe(see, Appendix A: figures 2.1 and 2.2). Half ormore of jetties, fish and shrimp ponds, marketplaces and rice mills were damaged, and to aProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 9

Figure 2.1 Levels of conflict intensity in Aceh sub-districtsKOTA SABANGBANDA ACEHACEH BESARLHOKSUMAWEPIDIEBIREUENACEH UTARAACEH JAYABENER MERIAHACEH TIMURACEH BARATACEH TENGAHKOTA LANGSAACEH TAMIANGNAGAN RAYAGAYO LUESACEH BARAT DAYAACEH TENGGARAACEH SELATANNWSECompared withthe conflict,the tsunamihad a far moredevastatingimpact onhuman life.The deathtoll from thetsunami of130,000 peoplewas nearlyten times thenumber thatdied as a resultof the conflict,possibly evenmore giventhe 37,000people still notaccounted forin 2008.SIMEULUECONFLICTINTENSTITYHIGHMEDIUMLOWNo DataACEH SINGKILSource: BPSlesser extent farmland, rice fields, factories,shops and livestock. This eroded the livelihoodsof large numbers of households inAceh, including many of the poorest familieswho find it hardest to recover from theirlosses. The damage to social facilities was evengreater in terms of buildings and physicalassets. The conflict damaged more than half of10all the facilities in eight categories, includingprimary, middle and high schools, and as muchas three quarters of preschools and village healthclinics. These figures however, do not reflectthe damage to the social fabric. Not only werelivelihoods destroyed by conflict, but socialcapital and family welfare also suffered gravely.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Table 2.2Total cost of tsunami by sector (Billions Rp)Damage Losses Cost of TsunamiSocial Sectors 16.749 0.658 17.407Infrastructure 6.36 2.408 8.768Production Sectors 3.519 8.302 11.821Cross Sectoral 2.576 3.944 6.52Total Impact 29.204 15.312 44.516Source: Indonesia: Preliminary damage and loss assessment. Bappenas and International Donor Community.20052.1.2 Natural disastersThe massive earthquake and tsunami ofDecember 2004 caused more damage,destruction and loss of life, making a badsituation even worse. The World Bank (2008)summarized the cataclysmic effect of thetsunami on Aceh as follows:“The 2004 Tsunami caused devastatingphysical damage along Aceh’s coast with 130,000confirmed dead and 37,000 still missing. Anadditional 500,000 people were displaced by thedisaster. Damage and losses were estimated atUS$ 4.8 billion and the productive sector alonesuffered damage estimated at US$1.2 billion,with over 100,000 small businesses destroyed andmore than 60,000 farmers at least temporarilydisplaced.”The total assessed cost of the tsunami amountedto Rp 44 trillion (see, table 2.2). About twothirds of these costs are attributed to damage,while losses reflect destruction of physical assetsbut not the financial impact on activities. Thegreatest losses from the tsunami were for housing(Rp 14 trillion) and the productive sectors (Rp12 trillion) each comprising about a third of thetotal cost. Other large losses were incurred inthe infrastructure sector, mainly for roads, floodcontrol, irrigation and sea protection works.Compared with the conflict, the tsunami had afar more devastating impact on human life. Thedeath toll from the tsunami of 130,000 peoplewas nearly ten times the number that died as aresult of the conflict, possibly even more giventhe 37,000 people still not accounted for in2008.The fatality rate for women during thetsunami was disproportionately higher comparedto men. Oxfam reported in 2005 that infour villages surveyed in the Aceh Besar district,male survivors outnumbered women survivors bya ratio of almost 3 to 1. A number of explanationshave been offered to account for this imbalance.Women were more vulnerable because theycould not swim. They were attempting to savechildren and the elderly. Their traditionalclothing restricted their ability to move quickly.They were more likely to be at home on aSunday morning, and they generally lacked thephysical strength to struggle against the wateror to escape.2.1.3 Internally displaced persons (IDPs)The conflict and the tsunami combined tobring about a massive displacement of peopleand families throughout the region. One studymade in 2005 estimated the total number ofIDPs to be close to 350,000. Districts alongthe coast had a far larger number of IDPs thanthose inland like Aceh Tengah, Bener Meriahand Aceh Tenggara, indicating that the tsunamiwas the primary cause of displacement (see,Appendix A: table 2.1). Combined displacementwas greatest in Pidie district on the northcoast with 65,000 people, Aceh Barat (53,000),and Aceh Besar (40,000), both on the northwestcoast. Among IDPs, the male to femaleratio was 52 percent for men, and 48 percentfor women. The male proportion of IDPs in agiven location reached a high of 56 percent inthe city of Banda Aceh and 55 percent in AcehBesar, while women featured more prominentlyin Langsa (53 percent) and in Aceh Tengah(54 percent), which are inland and thereforealmost exclusively the result of the conflict. Ona more positive note, the resettlement of IDPshas taken place remarkably quickly. By 2009,UNORC reported that less than 0.1 percent ofthe population, or 2,600 people, were still considereddisplaced.The conflict and natural disasters alsoaltered the structure of many Acehnese families.The number of displaced women totalledProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 11

167,000, of whom 14,319 were widows and20,751 identified themselves as householdheads (kepala keluarga). More broadly and morerecently, there were some 148,000 widows inAceh in 2007. 4 The proportion of widowedheads-of-household in the province is higherthan the national rate, another consequence ofthe conflict, in which men were more likely tobe killed (see, Appendix A, table 2.3). Similarly,the percentage of kepala keluarga who are alsowidows is significantly higher in Aceh than inIndonesia nationally.2.1.4 Peace AccordsMany believe the shock of the tsunami in December2004 acted as a catalyst to the PeaceAccords that followed in August 2005. TheMemorandum of Understanding (MoU) betweenthe Indonesian government and GAMsigned in Helsinki included several importantprovisions. The parties agreed to a ceasefirein the conflict; the disarmament and demobilizationof GAM’s armed forces; thewithdrawal of emergency central governmentforces and police in Aceh; an amnesty to allpersons participating in GAM activities; andthe holding of elections. GAM also gave up itsdemand for independence, while the centralgovernment agreed to grant a degree of localautonomy to Aceh greater than that enjoyed byany other province in Indonesia, accompaniedby substantial additional public funding andthe right to form local political parties.Following the MoU, GAM disarmed itsmilitary wing, the Aceh National Military(TNA) and in the last months of 2005, createdtwo new institutions, namely the nationalcouncil (Majelis Nasional), headed by MalikMahmud, Aceh’s chief negotiator in Helsinki,and the Aceh Transitional Committee (KomitePeralihan Aceh-KPA), a body established tooversee the demobilisation of former TNAcombatants.A year later, in August 2006, the Indonesianparliament passed Law 11/2006 on GoverningAceh (LoGA) that contained special autonomymeasures based on the provisions of the MoU.The first direct elections for the positions ofgovernor, deputy governor and district officialswere held in December 2006, with the postsof governor and deputy governor secured byformer GAM members. In preparing for theelections, however, rifts developed within GAM12between the old guard still based in Sweden andthe younger generation inside Aceh. The electionof Irwandi Yusuf as Governor and MuhammedNazar as Vice Governor signified greater supportby the Acehnese for the latter. The 2006 electionswere followed by elections for the provincial,district and city legislatures in 2009.These events were greeted with acclaimby most people in Aceh, wearied by years offighting, death and destruction. With relativelyminor exceptions, peace has prevailed and socialstability has been restored, laying the groundfor potential economic recovery and smoothingthe way for the massive programme of reconstructionand rehabilitation, which startedright after the tsunami in December 2004.Table 2.32.1.5 Recovery and reconstructionNeeds and damage Progress to August 2008Houses built 139,195 unit 140.304 unitsAgricultural land 73,869 ha 69,979haRoads 2,618 km 3,696 kmPorts 22 23Airports/airstrip 8 13Teachers 1,927 died 39,663 trainedSchools 3,415 unit 1,759 unitsHealth Facilities 517 unit 1,115 unitsReligious Facilities 1,089 unit 3,781 unitsBoat 13,828 unit 7,109 unitGovernment Building 669 unit 996 unitBridge 119 unit 363 unitSmall Medium Enterprise 104,500 195,726 received grantLabour force155,182 trainedSource: BRR Book Series; Infrastructure 2009Achievements of the Board for Rehabilitationand Reconstruction Agency (BRR)As has been widely reported elsewhere, thetsunami triggered a global outpouring of resourcesand assistance for all affected regions.Aceh received by far the lion’s share, amountingto as much as $9.0 billion or more according tosome estimates, equivalent to some $2,000 perperson in the province. The Peace Accords inturn generated additional donor funding toconsolidate agreements, although much lessthan for the tsunami. Rescue and recoveryefforts started almost immediately after thetsunami. Several international donors clubbedtogether to form the Multi Donor Fund (MDF)for Aceh and Nias, an island in North Sumatraprovince also badly affected, pitching in morethan USD 600 million. In April 2005, theProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

central government established a special agencyto manage recovery, BRR, with a four yearmandate that expired in March 2009.Special provisions in the legislationestablishing the BRR allowed it to bypassmany cumber some government regulations asa means to accelerate support and programmeimplementation. To ensure that the hugesums contributed to the relief effort would beused properly and efficiently, special measureswere taken to recruit highly qualified staff atenhanced salary levels, to institute rigorousprocedures for financial management andmonitoring, and to make widespread use ofprivate sector consultants and contractors.By the end of its four year mandate, theBRR had achieved an impressive track recordand established itself as a model for others tofollow in post-disaster situations. The BRRcontributed greatly to the region’s recoveryfrom the natural disasters (see, table 2.3). Theconstruction of 140.304 houses, for example,was a big factor in quickly reducing the numberof IDPs mentioned earlier. The work on portsand roads helped to speed delivery of suppliesand restore transportation networks. The repairand construction of schools and health facilitiesin some areas more than offset losses fromthe conflict and tsunami.As part of peace building efforts, the centralgovernment also set up the Aceh Peace ReintegrationAgency (Badan Reintegrasi DamaiAceh - BRA). While the BRA has achievedimportant milestones, internal disputes havehampered broader success and as a resultmuch work remains to be done in terms ofreintegrating former combatants into civilsociety.2.2. Indicators of human developmentin AcehThis section analyses four indicators describedin chapter one: the Human Development Index(HDI); the Human Poverty Index (HPI); theGender Development Index (GDI), and; theGender Empowerment Measure (GEM). Section2.2.1 compares the indicators for Acehwith other provinces in Indonesia, whileSection 2.2.2 uses these indicators to revealvariations among districts and cities withinAceh.The reader might generally expect these indicatorsto reflect the debilitating impact ofyears of conflict and the devastation broughtabout by the tsunami. As revealed in thepages that follow however, this is not alwaysthe case. Instead, they show a mixed pictureof advancement in some areas and decline inothers, which presents a challenge on how bestto interpret the information.Figure 2.2 Provincial Human Development Index in Indonesia, 1996-200880.0075.0070.0065.0060.0055.001999 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Nanggroe Aceh DarussalamDKI JakartaNationalNorth SumateraPapuaSource: BPSProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 13

Figure 2.3 Gender-related development progress in Aceh, 1996 – 200870.060.050.040.030.020.0199619992002200810.00.0Source: BPSGDIGEM2.2.1 Aceh’s HDI in comparison to otherIndonesian provincesHuman Development Index: The HDI forAceh is a case in point. Despite the upheavals inthe province, the HDI surprisingly managed tokeep advancing almost in step with the nationalfigure up until 2007, rising from 65.3 in 1999to a peak of 70.4 in 2007, not far below theneighbouring province of North Sumatra (seefigure 2.2). This would appear to be a creditworthy performance, but compared to otherprovinces, Aceh slipped from 9 th in nationalrankings in 1996 to 15 th in 2002 and mostrecently to 29 th in 2008 after a sharp drop thatyear to 67.1 5 . This is a period that includedboth the negative impact of the final years of theconflict and the tsunami in late 2004, as well asthe positive impact of four years of recoveryprogrammes. The earlier rise in theHDI coupled with the slip in rankings indicatesthat other provinces were making fasterprogress.Gender development. Two other indicatorsrelated to gender development in Acehreveal discouraging trends over the period1996 through 2008, the most recent yearfor which data is available (see figure 2.3).The Gender Development Index (GDI) hasshown little progress, hovering around the 60mark, a couple of points lower in 200814than it was 12 years earlier. Meanwhile theGender Empowerment Measure (GEM) hasoscillated up and down over the years, startingat a high of 57.3 in 1996 but finishing morethan 7 points lower by 2008 at 50.2.This runs sharply counter to what might beexpected, since the most recent figures after thePeace Accords are below those achieved duringthe years of conflict. The slight fall in the GDIover the years appears to be due partly to a biggergap in literacy levels between men and womenand partly to a more marked fall in women’s contributionto household income. The latter mayreflect the displacement of women as primarybreadwinners in favour of men able to resume agreater economic role after disarmament.The GEM is particularly prone to ups anddowns due to the inclusion of a componentreflecting the proportion of women in localassemblies, which varies widely from oneelection to another. It is an importantcomponent however, since a greater role forwomen in the legislative can result in morerepresentative decision making, and laws andregulations which advance women’s wellbeing.Another factor contributing to the decline ofthe GEM is a drop in the proportion of womenin the work force, again due in part to formercombatants finding civilian employment. Somemight interpret the trends in these indicators asan ingrained gender bias or patriarchal attitudeProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 2.4 Poverty rate by Provinces in Indonesia: 1999-200960.050.040.030.020.010.00.01999 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Aceh North Sumatera DKI Jakarta Papua NationalSource: BPSon the part of Acehnese society towards theadvancement of women. But other factorsdispute such claims. Better results in earlieryears more likely reflect the greater economicand political role given to women during timesof conflict. The rise or fall in the proportionof women in senior and technical positions insome years is offset by a counter fall and rise intheir participation in the work force. The morerecent decline in the proportion of women inthe labour force is likely in part a reflectionof the end of conflict and the reintegrationof former combatants among the employed.While the ratio of female to male employmenthas been considerably lower inAceh compared to the national average, thisdoes not a priori imply gender bias. Thoseindustries that have created a large numberof new opportunities for female labour sincethe late 1970s, such as textiles, foot wear andlow value services, are located in major urbancentres but not in Aceh. The dominant roleof agriculture, forestry and fishing in thelocal economy, coupled with the specializedlabour force in the oil and gas industries inthe province, suggests that many other factorsbesides gender bias explain the relatively lowparticipation of women in the labour force.It should also be noted that women are oftenemployed in low paying jobs, which is reflectedin their contribution to household income, afactor included in the GDI.Poverty. Two standard measures of povertyare the poverty rate – the proportion of thepopulation with incomes (read expenditures)below a threshold sufficient to cover basic livingcosts – and the Human Poverty Index (HPI),which is discussed below under Section 2.2.2.An analysis of the poverty rate also shows Acehto be performing badly compared to mostother provinces (see Figure 2.4). The impactof declining GDP growth and rising incomeinequality since the mid 1990s had predictableresults, leading to a sharp rise in the populationbelow the poverty line. In 1996, the povertyrate in Aceh was 12.7 percent, very close tothe national average. The financial shocks of1998 pushed poverty rates up everywhere inIndonesia, although more slowly in Aceh. Mostother places experienced a decline after 1999,but due in part to intensified civil strife andthe harsh military response that followed, thepoverty rate in Aceh continued to rise, reachinga peak of 30 percent by 2002, a rate exceededby only four other provinces. Since then, inline with the rest of Indonesia, the povertyrate has declined, but has remained well abovemost other provinces. By 2009, the incidenceof poverty in Aceh had declined to 22 percentcompared to 14 percent for Indonesia as aProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 15

Table 2.4 Summary of indicators in Aceh, 1996 – 2008HDI GDI GEM HPI Provinces1996 69.4 63.6 57.3 28.91999 65.3 59.0 52.4 31.42002 66.0 62.1 55.5 28.42005 69.0 na na na2008 67.1 61.4 50.2 16.5Rank 1996 9 20 19 20 26Rank 1999 12 8 6 23 26Rank 2002 15 5 5 23 30Rank 2008 29 27 29 17 33Note: Data for GDI, GEM and HPI for Aceh in 2005 is not available.Source: BPSFigure 2.5Population growth rate in Indonesia%3.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.001971-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020Indonesia Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam PapuaSource: Population census (1971, 1980, 1990, 2000) dan Supas 2005; Indonesia Population Projection 2005-2025 (Bappenas, BPS, UNFPA-2005)whole. According to the 2010 census, thesefigures had each dropped 1 percent respectively,with Aceh currently ranked 7 th from bottomamong all provinces 6 .A comparison of these four indicators forAceh with other provinces over time indicatesbig swings in Aceh’s rank (see table 2.5). Despitehigh rates of poverty in Aceh, its rankingaccording to the HPI rose from 20 th out of 26provinces in 1996 to 17 th out of 33 by 2008.Aceh’s ranking for both the GDI and the GEMalso fell from 20th and 19 th respectively in1996 to 27 th and 29 th by 2008. In the interim,however, Aceh ranked much higher on bothcounts in 1999 and 2002, even though thescores were lower than in 1996.Something seems amiss here. Part of theexplanation is the addition of seven newprovinces between 1999 and 2008, which16would tend to push rankings down for allprovinces, especially by 2008 and for thosecloser to the bottom of the table. Other possibleexplanations arise from the scope for errorsboth in data collection and computation, anddiverse interpretations of computation methodsby different teams in each province. In sum,while rankings may make for lively discussion,trends in the indicators may be moremeaningful.Population Growth. Although the rate ofgrowth of population is not an indicator of developmentper se, it does reflect the impact oflarger forces at work in the local economy andsociety at large.In Aceh, the population growth rate hasfallen dramatically in recent years (see figure2.5.). Whilethis has been falling throughoutIndonesia, it has fallen much faster in Aceh,Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

from around 3 percent per year during theperiod 1971 through 1980 to only 0.5 percentper year during the period 2000 through 2005.This can only be caused by three factors, namelyhigher mortality, a falling birth rate and outmigration.Birth rates no doubt fell in part as aresult of the disruption to family life caused bythe conflict, which also increased mortality notonly among combatants but also among suspectedsympathisers on either side. Meanwhile,out-migration from Aceh accelerated due bothto the conflict and a weakening economy, asyounger men sought to escape involvement inthe fighting and many others to look for jobselsewhere. Projections by BAPPENAS andothers anticipate the growth rate to continuefalling after 2005, but this is based on pasttrends and may not hold true. This is especiallytrue in Aceh given the end of conflict and thealbeit temporary boost to employment fromthe massive recovery programmes after 2004.Results from the 2010 population census willshow whether or not projections are correct.2.2.2 Variations within AcehThis section examines development indicatorsfor the districts and cities of Aceh. For purposesof analysis, districts are grouped into threeregions: Northern and Eastern Aceh (NEA),Western and Southern Aceh (WSA), and theAceh Hinterland (AH). Cities are groupedseparately. Following legislation on localgovernment autonomy starting in 1999, thenumber of jurisdictions in Aceh has increasedfrom 13 to 23. This makes it difficult to makestrict comparisons of performance over time.To help the reader better understand whatis going on, tables listing jurisdictions are arrangedsuch that new ones carved out of existingones are listed directly below the name of theoriginal jurisdiction.Human Development Indices. Between2002 and 2008, HDIs rose then fell in all threeregions of Aceh (see, figure 2.6). The initial risebetween 2002 and 2005 was quite substantial,particularly in the WSA region, before a smallerdrop in all regions by 2008.HDI scores among individual districts andcities vary widely at each year of measurement,as shown by the vertical bars in figure 2.7. In1993, for example, they ranged from a low of62 in Aceh Tenggara to a high of 75 in BandaAceh, a difference of 13 points. Since then, therange has narrowed over the years averaging alittle more than 9 points since 2006, with a lowin 2008 of 63 in Gayo Lues and a high of 72 inBanda Aceh.When comparing HDIs for districts andcities 7 in Aceh with the national average, anothersurprise emerges. Leaving aside the twoyears in which HDIs fell sharply in 1999 and2008, the aggregate HDI for the province hasrisen steadily.Yet in each year, the number of districts andcities falling below the national HDI averagehas increased. In 1993, only 1 out of 10 districtsFigure 2.6HDI difference across regions in Aceh72.070.068.066.064.062.060.058.0Note: HDI is weighted for each regionSource: BPSNorthern and EasternAcehWestern and SouthernAcehAceh Hinterland2002 2005 2008Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 17

Figure 2.7 HDI range across districts and cities in Aceh, 1993-200880.078.076.074.072.0HDI70.068.066.064.062.060.0Source: BPS1993 1996 1999 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Acehin Aceh stood slightly below the national level(see figure 2.8). By the time the tsunami struckin December 2004, 12 out of 21 districtsstood at or below the national figure. In 2008,the proportion rose dramatically with all butBanda Aceh falling below the national average.This trend may be observed not just in Acehbut in many provinces throughout Indonesia.In Aceh at least, and probably elsewhere inthe country, this is partly explained by theproliferation of new districts carved out ofexisting ones. In some cases, the main urbancentre is restructured as a city jurisdiction, forexample Kota Lhokseumawe from Aceh Utaraand Kota Langsa from Aceh Timur. But inmany other cases, the new districts comprisethe rural hinterland of the main urban centre,which remains in the original district. Sincepublic facilities are usually better in urbanareas, and innovations and improvementsusually occur there first, the rural areas are lesswell served and not surprisingly score lower onmost development measures. Another factorthat helps to explain results is the self interestof the original district. Inevitably they wantto keep important assets and public facilities,such as high schools and higher order healthfacilities, and particularly revenue generatingservices such as water and solid waste collection(For more on this issue, see chapter 6 onPlanning and Budgeting).An analysis of HDI scores for each districtand city reflects the aggregate picture shown infigures 2.7 and 2.8. (see Appendix A: table 2.2.)Without exception all jurisdictions consistently18show a steady increase in HDI scores between2002 and 2006, and all except two show theHDI falling over the next two years to 2008.The two exceptions are Aceh Timur andAceh Barat, both of which record only smallincreases. The big downward revision of BPSestimates of HDI in 2008 implies that 13 ofthe 23 jurisdictions are worse off than theywere in 2004, largely due to lower per capitaexpenditures. This probably reflects the windingdown of massive recovery programmes thatcreated a large number of temporary jobs afterthe tsunami.Other general trends, however, remainunchanged over the years since 2002. TheNorthern and Eastern Aceh (NEA) regionconsistently scores a higher HDI than otherregions, followed by Aceh Hinterland (AH)with Western and Southern Aceh (WSA)trailing behind. The gap between the NEA andWSA was narrowing from 4.3 points in 2002 to2.7 points in 2006, but widened again in 2008.The gap in 2008 is clearly evident: whereas all11 jurisdictions in the NEA scored above theprovincial average, 6 of 8 districts in the WSAscored below the average. Although by nomeans the whole story, a look at the map helpsto explain why this is the case. The districts andcities in the NEA all lie along a relatively goodhighway connecting the two largest cities in theregion, Banda Aceh and Medan in NorthernSumatra, and two-thirds of the population inAceh. Those in the WSA region lie along a poorroad to nowhere serving a smaller scatteredpopulation. The locational advantages of betterProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 2.8 HDI Scores for districts and cities compared with the National Average, 1993-2008917355 49 9 9 910112 1214131993 1996 1999 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 200822Above national HDIBelow national HDINotes: HDI is less reliable for year 2004, 2006, 2007 because social economic survey only captured small numbers of household.Source: BPSaccess to major markets and public facilitiestranslates into lower transportation costs,greater economic opportunities and generallysuperior services.The trend among cities and districts alsoremains constant over the years. Cities consistentlyscore higher HDIs, as is to be expected,since generally better social services and higherpaying jobs are to be found there. Among districts,HDI scores show the newly establishedjurisdictions lag behind the original ones fromwhich they were formed, probably for similarreasons, as poorer services and lower paying jobsare generally to be found in predominantly ruralareas.Gender Development Indices. An analysisof GDI scores for individual jurisdictions inAceh reveals some surprising changes (seeAppendix A: table 2.4.). As with HDIs, GDIscores rose in all places between 1999 and 2002,with the exception of Aceh Utara where it fell 5points.Between 2002 and 2008 however, scoresfell in 8 of 13 jurisdictions for which data isavailable. The most notable increase is AcehUtara, offsetting the marked decline in theearlier period, which suggests an error incomputing the score for 2002. Large declinesin GDIs were recorded in Aceh Singkil, whereit fell 6.5 points, followed by Simeulue (down5.5 points) and the city of Banda Aceh (down4 points). Of the four components of the GDI,life expectancy, literacy and years of schoolingare unlikely to change greatly over short periods.This suggests most of the change is probably dueto a drop in women’s contribution to householdincome, arising from increased contributionsfrom men returning from the conflict.In regional terms, the Aceh Hinterlandscores slightly higher than the NEA, but theWSA region again lags behind. While only oneof the four districts in the Aceh Hinterland,Gayo Lues, scores below the average GDI forthe province, seven of the eight jurisdictionsin the WSA region fall below this mark. In theAceh Hinterland, Aceh Tengah, Bener Meriahand Aceh Tenggara score above the average onall components of the GDI. But the first twoand even Gayo Lues excel in terms of women’scontribution to household earnings, which wasmore than 50 percent in 2002 and still aboveothers in 2008. These three districts are theonly major producers in Aceh of highly pricedarabica coffee and many women participate inits production and marketing.At the other end of the spectrum, the fourdistricts with the lowest GDI scores in 2008were Aceh Singkil, Simeulue, Subulussalam andsurprisingly Kota Lhokseumawe. Aceh Singkilscores poorly on four of five components andSubulussulam on three of them particularlymean years of schooling where it ranks by farthe lowest (only 5.4 years). Women in Simeuluesuffer from the shortest life expectancy (65.3years) and the third lowest contribution tohousehold income (24.3 percent). Women inKota Lhokseumawe rank well above the averagescore on most components, but contribute leastto household income (only 22.2 percent).Among jurisdictions, contrary to whatmight be expected, the GDI is not consistentlyProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 19

Figure 2.9 Human Poverty Index by districts in Aceh 2007NWESSABANGBANDA ACEHACEH BESARACEH JAYAPIDIEBIREUENLHOKSUMAWEACEH UTARABENER MERIAHACEH TIMURACEH BARATACEH TENGAHKOTA LANGSANAGAN RAYAACEH TAMIANGGAYO LUESACEH BARAT DAYAACEH TENGGARAACEH SELATANSIMEULUEACEH SINGKILLEGEND6.3 - 9.39.3 - 12.112.1 - 18.318.3 - 21.421.4 - 28.3ACEH SINGKILSource: BPShighest in cities. In 1999 and 2008 it was higherin the original districts.Human Poverty Indices. Throughout theperiod 1999 to 2008, poverty as measuredby the HPI has steadily declined both at theprovincial level and among all districts (seeAppendix: table 2.5 and figure 2.9). The declinehas been most pronounced since 2002. Atthe provincial level, the HPI fell 3 points overthree years between 1999 and 2002, but then20a further 12 points over the next five years to16.5 in 2008. Based on unweighted averages,the NEA region consistently emerges with lesspoverty than other regions, lowering the HPIby almost 16 points between 1999 and 2008.However, the most dramatic reduction in theHPI during the same period is recorded in theWSA region, down by almost 20 points to ascore of 20.4 in 2008. Meanwhile, the HPIfell only 9 points in the Aceh Hinterland. TheProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Table 2.5Overall ranking of jurisdictions in Aceh by development indicatorsRegion/DistrictRank HDI2008Rank GDI2008Rank HPI2008AveragerankNorthern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)10.3 9.9 10.1 10.1 9.4Aceh Besar 6 6 5 5.7 4Aceh Timur 9 5 15 9.7 9Kota Langsa* 3 10 4 5.7 4Aceh Tamiang* 13 19 11 14.3 15Aceh Utara 15 12 19 15.3 16Kota Lhokseumawe* 4 21 3 9.3 8Bireuen 5 2 8 5.0 3Pidie 10 7 6 7.7 7Pidie Jaya* 14 18 7 13.0 12Kota Banda Aceh 1 3 1 1.7 1Kota Sabang 2 8 2 4.0 2Western and Southern Aceh(average)16.7 16.9 15.6 16.4 17.1Aceh Barat 11 16 20 15.7 17Aceh Jaya* 12 15 12 13.0 12Nagan Raya* 18 11 18 15.7 17Simeulue 19 23 23 21.7 23Aceh Selatan 16 14 9 13.0 12Aceh Barat Daya* 20 17 13 16.7 19Aceh Singkil 21 22 14 19.0 20Subulussalam* 22 20 22 21.3 22Aceh Hinterland (average) 13.8 6.8 16.0 12.2 11.8Aceh Tengah 7 1 10 6.0 6Bener Meriah* 17 4 16 12.3 11Aceh Tenggara 8 9 17 11.3 10Gayo Lues* 23 13 21 19.0 20AcehAverage cities 6.4 12.4 6.4 8.4 7.4Average original districts 11.5 10.6 13.3 11.8 11.5Average new districts 16.7 13.9 14.0 14.9 15.1Note: * Denotes new jurisdictions created after 1999Source: BPSOverallrankdistricts with the highest HPIs in 2008 includeSimelue (28), Subulussalam (26) and AcehBarat (21) in the WSA, Gayo Lues (25) in theAceh Hinterland and Aceh Utara (21) in theNEA.Looking more closely at components ofthe HPI reveals marked differences amongdistricts. The percentage of population withoutaccess to clean water was already high in Acehat 26 percent in 2008. In the same year it was72 percent in Simeulue, but only 1.1 percentin Banda Aceh. In 2008, 13 percent of theAcehnese population did not have access tohealth facilities, but the proportion rose to24 percent in Gayo Lues, 25 percent in AcehJaya and 31 percent in Subulussalam. At theother extreme, it fell to 1.4 percent in Simeulueand 0 percent in Banda Aceh. Big differencesare also evident in data on the proportion ofpoorly nourished children. While the figurefor the province is 31 percent, it ranges from49 percent for Aceh Tenggara to a low of only22 percent in Aceh Timur and 21 percent forBanda Aceh.Combined rankings. By combining the rankingsfor the three indicators HDI, GDI andHPI, we can see how the districts and citiescompare with one another (see, table 2.6). AtProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 21

Figure 2.10 Violence in Aceh: January 2005 to December 200850454035302520151050J FMAMJJ A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J FMAMJJ A S O N D05 06 07 08Violent Incidents (excl. GAM vs Gol)GAM vs Gol Violent IncidentsSource: Aceh Conflict Monitoring Update, World Bankthe regional level, the WSA region emergesas significantly less developed than the NEAand Aceh Hinterland. Rankings are muchlower than the other regions for both theHDI and the GDI, and only marginally aheadof the Aceh Hinterland for the HPI. Alleight jurisdictions in the WSA region rankin the bottom half of the table. In the AcehHinterland, Gayo Lues emerges as the leastdeveloped, while the other three districts rankin the top half of the table.Given the generally better economicopportunities and quality of services to befound in cities, it is not surprising to find mostof them high on the list, with Banda Aceh andSabang at the top, followed not far behindby Langsa in 4 th place and Lhokseumawe atnumber 8. Lhokseumawe would come muchhigher but for the low GDI score attributablealmost entirely to the small contribution bywomen to household income. The exceptionis the city of Subulussalam, just recentlyestablished as a new jurisdiction, which ranks22 nd , second from last.Also noticeable is the relatively low level ofhuman development in newly establisheddistricts, which as a group score an averagerank of 15, lower than the original districtswith an average ranking under 12. Among thenew districts, Bener Meriah stands out, ranked11 th , followed by Pidie Jaya and Aceh Jaya,both ranked 12 th . Bener Meriah’s positioncomes from a high GDI score, attributable22again almost entirely to the large contributionof women to household incomes. Since therange of values in that component of the GDI ismuch larger than others, it exerts a big influenceon resulting GDI scores and the overallrankings shown here.2.3. Residual impactsWhile open warfare has ended and much of thedamage from the natural disasters has beenrepaired, these events have left many scars thatsurvivors will have to endure for a long time.Physical capital may be restored relativelyquickly with the repair and rebuilding ofschools, clinics, market centres and productionfacilities for example. But it takes many yearsfor people to overcome the loss of loved onesand psychological trauma, for families torestore livelihoods, and for communities toheal social divisions that result from prolongedphysical insecurity and displacement. Somecommentators are even pessimistic about thefuture. Sidney Jones from the InternationalCrisis Group, for example, writes:“As long as ex-combatant unemployment remainshigh, the reintegration programme remainsdysfunctional, and resentment grows overthe perceived gulf between haves and have-nots,the potential for security problems remainshigh.” 8Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

In 2005,the UNFPAreported thatthe mostcommonproblemsfacing womenarose due to alack of gendersensitivityinemergencyrelief and aidarrangements.Reintegration: The reintegration of excombatantsis certainly a task that has yet to besuccessfully completed. The Multi StakeholderReview (MSR) estimates that there are 14,300former combatants in Aceh. Over half theformer combatants can be found in the fourmost heavily conflict affected districts: AcehUtara, Bireuen, Aceh Timur and Pidie. 9 The2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)between the Indonesian Government andGAM included several clauses on social reintegration.The Aceh Peace Reintegration Agency(BRA), set up in 2006, aimed to help find jobs,provide suitable farmland, and ensure access tosocial benefits for three groups: ex-combatantsand their supporters, amnestied political prisoners,and civilians affected by the conflict.While some progress has been achieved, manyex-combatants have found it difficult to returnto civilian life and find normal jobs.From the perspective of post conflict reconstructionand return to social and politicalnormality, the impact of conflict can be considerablymore pervasive and long term thanthat brought about by a natural disaster. Thesedimensions of conflict are well summarized bythe World Bank (2009):“Violent conflict alters the skills that arevalued in an economy: during the conflictthese skills are related to fighting, but theybecome irrelevant in the post-conflict economy.Conversely, in the post conflict environmentmuch needed skills may be in short supply, asoften the best-educated and the richest werethe first to emigrate and escape the conflict” 10Many ex-combatants are still unemployed.Efforts to encourage them to take up coffeeand cocoa farming, for example, have met withlittle interest. Some had no access to land, thosewho did could not afford to plant trees andwait three or four years for them to bear fruit.Others lacked the skills or found the prospectof hard manual labour required for farmingunappealing.Security and investment: Despite the end ofarmed conflict between GAM and the TNI,violent incidents still pose a threat to stabilityand a barrier to investment. The networksestablished by combatants during those yearsstill survive. In the absence of viable alternatives,many former combatants rely instead ontheir old networks to find work and income,sometimes involving illegal activities includinglogging and extortion. Widespread extortionby rogue groups of former combatants andlingering perceptions of insecurity among thebusiness community has proved a deterrentto investment and business expansion.The lack of regular employment amongex-combatants has also been attributed to risingviolence and crime in Aceh (see, figure 2.10).While clashes between GAM and the GoIbriefly rose after the tsunami in early 2005, suchviolence virtually stopped after the signing ofthe Peace Accords. Other violent incidentshowever, steadily increased reaching a peak inmid-2008, when they slowed a little. Accordingto data from the Criminal InvestigationDirectorate of the Aceh Police, there were 218cases of armed robberies and other street crimesbetween August 2005 and February 2008.Although less than half of these cases had beeninvestigated at the time of the report, more than90 percent of defendants who testified claimedthey were former combatants 11 .Impact on women: The aftermath of theconflict and the tsunami has also had a lastingimpact on women. In the period immediatelyfollowing the tsunami, women were particularlyvulnerable. In 2005, the UNFPA reported thatthe most common problems facing womenarose due to a lack of gender-sensitivity inemergency relief and aid arrangements. Womenfaced a lack of feminine hygiene products,limited access to maternal and reproductivehealth services, lack of access to proper latrines,bathing facilities, and clean water in the camps,and limited access to humanitarian aid.As the emergency subsided, women becameprimary caregivers to children, the elderly andthe injured in extended families. Women alsotook on greater responsibility for householdwork, within cramped conditions such ascamps, and often without access to water andhousehold facilities. This dramatically increasedwomen’s workloads. Consequently, they hadless time to engage in public programs linkedto the receipt of aid, or in participating indecisions regarding the distribution of aid.Unless women were directly targeted for aid,their access was limited and reliant upon redistributionby male family members. A general(though not universal) failure to design andimplement gender-specific aid programs in theearly post-emergency period created a sourceof social exclusion among Acehnese women.Recognition of this however, later generatedProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 23

a more inclusive, consultative, and consensusbasedapproach to aid and developmentprograms by a number of organisations operatingin Aceh.Domestic violence: During the time of theemergency, women often lacked protection andbecame more vulnerable to violence, includingtrafficking, sexual assault, and harassment. 12A comprehensive 2005 study of gender-basedviolence in Aceh undertaken by UNFPAexamined the extent of gender-based violencein the province, which had worsened during theconflict years and from the impact of the 2004tsunami. The study also discusses specific socioculturalfactors that contribute to gender-basedviolence in Aceh, such as Syariah (Islamic law)that placed restrictions on women’s dress andbehaviour. Domestic violence by males towardsfemales is still a major concern within Acehnesefamilies and also in the public sphere. RadicalIslamic clerics have even heralded that Acehnesewomen’s ‘impious’ behaviour (such as a failureto wear head coverings) was the cause of thetsunami. Women’s groups have argued thatgender biased violence has become ‘normalised’in Aceh.This was particularly the case in IDP campsfollowing the tsunami, and among lowersocio-economic groups. The under-reportingof domestic violence gives abusers impunity,and as a result, the level of domestic violenceremains high. In addition to physical andsexual abuse, domestic violence also shatterswomen’s domestic security and self esteem,undermining their motivation and drive toseek empowerment. This constitutes a majorinhibitor to human development.Nonetheless, Pennels (2008), in reportingon gender outcomes in Aceh concluded thatdespite prevalent high levels of gender basedviolence, there has been significant progressin gender equality compared to pre-tsunamidays. This includes more formal gender representationin the provincial and districtgovernments. There was also more interactionand collaboration between government sectorsand civil society organizations on genderequality issues. The Syariah Courts were alsoadvancing women’s inheritance and propertyrights. In the social arena, there were improvementsin schooling, access to village maternaland health services, and the building of childprotection networks.Post-tsunami assistance: The aftermath ofthe tsunami has also had its own longer termimpact. While it spurred an unprecedentedoutpouring of assistance, the major part ofthis, as intended, was directed towards areasaffected by the tsunami. The sheer volume ofaid allowed recovery programmes not only torepair much of the physical damage, but as theBRR frequently proclaimed to “build backbetter”. Worthy as this goal was, it had theunintended consequence of stirring argumentsGiven the hugevolume ofaid involved,authoritieswere aware ofthe potentialinequity thatwould resultfrom a narrowinterpretationof theconditionsattached bydonors, andmanagedto persuadesome of themto stretchinterpretationsto benefit awider rangeof people andcommunities.Figure 2.11 Aid and conflict, by jurisdiction in Aceh (Number of conflicts, 2008)160140120Post-Tsunami Post-Conflict Fuel Subsidies Other Govt Programs100806040200Banda AcehAceh BaratAceh UtaraAceh TimurPidieLhokseumaweBireuenAceh BesarAceh JayaAceh TamiangNagan RayaAceh SelatanAceh Barat DayaBener MeriahAceh TenggaraSabangAceh SingkilSubussalamLangsaPidie JayaAceh TengahGayo LuesSimeulueSource: ACMU, as cited from MSR Report, 200924Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Nevertheless,much moreremains tobe achieved.Many men,women andchildren whoselives have beendamaged bothphysically andmentally bythe events ofthe past arestill in need ofhelp in dealingwith sufferingand trauma.on the allocation of funds, projects and otherresources, sometimes leading to violence. Thenumber of disputes that arose in each district in2008 and the type of aid in dispute is shown infigure 2.11. Such disputes were mostly confinedto Banda Aceh, followed by Aceh Barat, AcehUtara and Aceh Timur. Disputes were oftenrelated to the identification of people andcommunities eligible to receive assistance,particularly among former combatants andcommunities affected by the tsunami.Given the huge volume of aid involved,authorities were aware of the potential inequitythat would result from a narrow interpretationof the conditions attached by donors, andmanaged to persuade some of them to stretchinterpretations to benefit a wider range ofpeople and communities. Despite this, misperceptionsare hard to dissolve and manycommunities no doubt had legitimate cause forcomplaint.2.4. ConclusionsCompared with the situation right after thetsunami in December 2004, the people ofAceh, and those that have helped them, haveachieved a remarkable recovery that few mighthave envisaged or dared to hope for at thetime. This recovery applies not only to therebuilding of the physical fabric, but also tothe reinvigoration of the social fabric so sorelydamaged by years of conflict.Rebuilding the physical fabric has beenthe easier task, given the huge amounts offinancial aid available for the purpose. As BRRdata shows, most of the physical damage anddestruction wrought by the tsunami have beenrepaired and large numbers of new houses andfacilities have been constructed. The streets ofBanda Aceh and many other coastal towns aretestament to this, although there still remainsthe task of repairing and rebuilding manyhomes and facilities in the hinterland destroyedas a result of the conflict but not eligible forfunding from resources allocated for tsunamirecovery.The harder task has been to repair the socialfabric and to address the trauma suffered bythose who suffered from the tsunami as well asthe conflict. Great progress has been achievedon some fronts, based on the foundations ofthe 2005 Peace Accords and the 2006 Lawon Governing Aceh (LoGA). As documentedlater in this report, the province now benefitsfrom substantial additional fiscal transfers fromcentral government. Local political parties havebeen formed and local elections have been held,which allowed many GAM members to assumepositions in government and local assemblies.Most displaced persons have been able toreturn to their communities or move to others.Many former combatants, although not all, havebeen reintegrated into civil society and foundemployment.Nevertheless, much more remains to beachieved. Many men, women and childrenwhose lives have been damaged both physicallyand mentally by the events of the past arestill in need of help in dealing with sufferingand trauma. As in many post-conflict regionsaround the world, former combatants whohave not been able to find work, or who havenot benefited from the peace dividend persistin violence and extortion. One key elementof the Peace Accords that has not so far beenimplemented is the establishment of a truth andreconciliation commission. Many argue thisis a vital step needed to support reintegration,heal divisions in communities, and resolve outstandinggrievances.Little of this remarkable progress or the setbacksis reflected in the development indicatorsdiscussed above, since they are designed toreflect other aspects of wellbeing. While theHDI and the GDI show progress up to 2006,they both reveal a sharp relapse in 2008.Despite upturns in some years, the overalltrend for the GEM since 1996 reveals a markeddeterioration between 1996 and 2008. Even theHPI, which showed a steady upward trend overthe years, fell sharply in 2008, and the povertyrate in Aceh continues to be higher thanmost other provinces. Much of the downwardmovement in these indicators appears to berelated chiefly to components reflecting thedownturn in economic activity.Comparisons based on these indicatorsbetween Aceh and other provinces in Indonesiashow marked inconsistencies between localtrends and national rankings. This may be dueto differences in methods of computing theindices among provinces or simple errors. Eitherway, the results throw doubt on the validity ofsuch comparisons.Among the regions of Aceh, the indicatorsgenerally show districts of Northern andEastern Aceh to be more developed, while thosein Western and Southern Aceh lag behind,Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 25

although the gap has been narrowing over time.Generally speaking, the indicators reveal citiesin Aceh to be more developed than districts, andthe new districts formed since 1999 tend to lagbehind the original districts from which theywere created.2.4.1 ChallengesIt is undeniable that Aceh faces majorchallenges. These are taken up in later chapters,but five overarching challenges stand out fromthe preceding discussion.• Security. Despite the success of the PeaceAccords in ending the conflict, security remainsa problem. Violent incidents continue,arising from disputes over benefitprogrammes, community friction, domestictensions and especially extortion and illegalactivities by former combatants.• Disasters. While great progress has beenmade in repairing loss and destruction fromthe tsunami, numerous natural disasters ona smaller scale continue to exert a toll inhuman lives, physical infrastructure andeconomic disruption. Risk analysis showsthat 35 percent of the land area of Acehprovince is vulnerable to tsunamis, and75 percent is prone to disasters of one kindor another, including less publicised butmore common events. These include earthquakes,landslides, flooding and pest infestationof agricultural crops. While individualevents may cause limited loss andhardship for those affected, the cumulativeimpact of these constantly recurring eventsrepresents a substantial economic andemotional burden on society.• Poverty. As indicated above, poverty is stillway above the national average and needs tobe reduced. Per capita expenditures fell in2008, probably reflecting the winding downof recovery programmes and the loss of jobs,which points to the urgent need to createmore and better employment opportunities.• Women. Measures of the wellbeing ofwomen reveal a discouraging trend over theyears, associated in part with lower rates ofparticipation in the labour force and fallingincomes. While this trend may be explainedin part by the return of male former combatantsto the household and the workforce,other factors are also involved and needto be addressed.26• Equitable development. Data show that developmentin Aceh has benefited some regionsand districts more than others. Severalindicators mentioned above and elsewhere inthis report show that Western and SouthernAceh is lagging behind, as also more remotedistricts in other regions.2.4.2 ResponsesThese challenges are recognised by governmentand development partners but current policiesand programmes are diffused, piecemeal and inneed of better coordination.Security. The security concern that bothersmost people, especially the business community,is the practice of extortion by rogue groups offormer combatants. This requires a strategyof carrots and sticks for those that persist inextortion and other illegal activities.Recommendation: Efforts should becontinued to place former combatants inattractive alternative employment, to provideskill training for this purpose and financialsupport to undergo training or to start abusiness of their own.At the same time, the military, the police,justice officials and other institutions shouldwork together more closely to curb illegalactivities and punish offenders. It may behelpful to establish a task force for this purposeand also an independent agency to receivecomplaints, request corrective actions, andmonitor responses.Disasters. A good start to mitigating naturaldisasters has been made with the launching in2008 of the Disaster Risk Reduction – Aceh(DRR-A) programme by the provincial governmentin collaboration with UNDP. Thisprovides a sound conceptual approach foraddressing the issue and includes elements forestablishing a supporting legal and institutionalframework, strengthening a technical instituteat Unsyiah, implementing pilot projects inselected communities and conducting a publicawareness campaign.Recommendation: Complementary initiativesare needed to consolidate and expandcoverage to areas throughout the province.Based on lessons learned from the pilotapplication, the model should be replicated,particularly within more vulnerable communities.Environmental damage, crop disease andpest infection also cause substantial damageProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

and loss. Future programmes should alsoengage other government departments, such asagriculture, forestry, plantations and the like.Poverty. Reducing poverty entails two mainstrategies (improving public services and economicopportunities) as discussed in chapters3 and 4.Recommendation: Improve access topublic infrastructure and social services. Enhanceopportunities for productive employmentand income generating activities.Women. Mainstreaming gender in developmentactivities has long been advocated, butin Aceh it has not received the attention itdeserves. The Department for Women andChildren (Badan Pemberdayaan Perempuandan Perlindungan Anak - BP3A) recentlyestablished a gender strategy for 2011-15, withinput from government and non-governmentactors.Recommendation: Such strategy should bemainstreamed by BAPPEDA into the plansof other provincial departments (SKPAs),perhaps through the establishment of an ad-hocdivision within BAPPEDA, with constant inputfrom BP3A. This can be modelled on actionsto mainstream the Action Plan for AcceleratedDevelopment in Aceh into the programsof other SKPAs.Equitable development. Economic disparitiesamong regions is a common phenomenonat earlier stages of development. This is attributableto a tendency for industries offeringhigher paying jobs to concentrate initially inurban centres. The quality of public infrastructureand services also tends to be better in cities.Recommendation: To ensure a more equitableaccess to these services in rural areas, publicagencies need to target investments accordingto specific indicators of service provision, anissue that is discussed further in chapter 6.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 27

28Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Access to Public3 ServicesProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 29

30Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER3Access to Public ServicesIn this chapter and the next, we examine access to public services and economicopportunities, key factors in reducing poverty and improving the welfare ofmarginalised groups. The discussion is organised according to sectors and programmescommonly adopted in government planning documents. This chapter looks at accessto basic physical infrastructure, health, education and justice.3.1. Access to basic infrastructureThe availability of basic infrastructure has animportant bearing on both the quality of housingand the productivity of economic activities.3.1.1 ShelterThe quality of the physical environment inwhich people live affects their health andwellbeing. Access to basic infrastructure suchas clean water and sanitation helps to reduceillness and disease, as does the qualityof housing. Electricity helps to reduce indoorair pollution, simplify household chores, andmakes the home a more attractive place forfamily activities.Data for four elements of housing quality in2008, indicating the percentage of populationliving in homes that are deficient in eachrespect, is presented in Appendix A: table 3.1.These include access to clean water and sanitation,dirt floors as an indicator of thequality of house construction, and connectionsto electricity. Jurisdictions are grouped by region,as before, and figures computed forcities, the original districts existing in 1999 andthose created since then.At the provincial level, the main deficiencieswere sanitation (36 percent) and clean water(27 percent), with approximately 10 percentof the population living in homes with dirtfloors and no electricity. Judging by the averagedeficiencies of the four indicators, the quality ofhousing is generally better in the NEA (wherethe average is 22 percent) and more or lesssimilar in the WSA and the Aceh Hinterland(both around 27 percent). In the NEA, a lowerproportion of homes lacked access to cleanwater, sanitation and electricity. In the WSA,the proportion of the population withoutsanitation (46 percent) and electricity (16percent) was higher than elsewhere. In theAceh Hinterland, lack of access to clean water(39 percent) was more extensive than otherregions.According to these indicators, the districtswith the poorest quality housing were AcehBarat Daya and Pidie Jaya (both with averagedeficiencies of 30 percent), and particularlyGayo Lues (35 percent) and Simeulue (37percent). More than half the population lackedaccess to clean water in Gayo Lues (52 percent),Subulussalam (56 percent) and almost threeout of four people in Simeulue (74 percent).The lack of sanitation was most widespreadin Pidie Jaya and Aceh Barat Daya (both 66percent), Pidie (71 percent) and Gayo Lues (74percent). More than a quarter of the populationin Simeulue and Aceh Jaya were living in homeswithout electricity.As might be expected, housing was generallyof better quality in cities, and slightlybetter in the original districts than the newones. This confirms the observation made inChapter two about newer districts generallyhaving weaker infrastructure and services.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 31

Figure 3.1 Housing indicators and morbidity by jurisdictions in Aceh 2008For manyfarmers, the35.0most expensivecomponent30.0of transportcosts is the25.0time and effortof carrying20.0producethe first few15.0kilometresfrom the farm10.0to the nearestmain road.Morbidity rate5.00.0Source: Table 3.10.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0Average of 4 indicators3.1.2 Housing and morbidityResearch based on household surveys showsa clear relationship between the physicalenvironment of the home and the incidence ofsickness. Although weak, this relationship iseven evident at the aggregate level of individualjurisdictions (see, figure 3.1). Among the groupof five cities, where the quality of housingis markedly better, morbidity was lower at16 percent, compared with 22 percent forthe original districts and 24 percent for newones. Also, among the 12 jurisdictions withbetter quality housing, 7 had lower levels ofmorbidity. Clearly, other factors are importantdeterminants, most obviously nutrition, incomelevel and to a lesser extent, access to health facilities.Among individual districts, the level ofmorbidity was highest in Bener Meriah (29percent), Bireuen (28 percent), Aceh Tengah,Aceh Timur and Aceh Jaya (all 27 percent). Allthese districts, with the exception of Bireuen,also had relatively poor quality housing.3.1.3 Economic infrastructure32Basic infrastructure in support of economic activitiesis also an important factor in raising productivityand expanding the scope foragricultural and non-agricultural opportunitiesto generate income, particularly for those wholive in rural areas. For many farmers, the mostexpensive component of transport costs is thetime and effort of carrying produce the first fewkilometres from the farm to the nearest mainroad. Farm to market roads, and even upgradedtracks for carts and motor bikes, can greatlyreduce these costs and make it possible to accesslocal markets and compete more effectivelyin distant locations. The condition of roadsalso affects transport costs, with many roadsimproperly maintained due to lack of funds.Recent data indicates that 20 percent ofnational roads in the province are in needof repair, a figure that rises to 30 percent fordistrict roads and 37 percent for provincialroads. 13While irrigation networks cover large swathsof farmland in Aceh, an extension of thesenetworks through mini-irrigation is neededto reach large numbers of other agriculturalproducers. Power shortages and unreliablesupplies are common sources of complaintin the business community. But electricityis also critical for setting up new small scaleenterprises, particularly in rural areas, includingfor people with disabilities and women who areProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

housebound and unable to seek employmentoutside.3.1.4 ConclusionsThe provision, quality and maintenance ofbasic infrastructure are largely in the handsof public authorities. Given limited fundsfor infrastructure, public works agenciesunderstandably place priority on investmentsthat yield higher returns. This implies infrastructurethat serves large numbers ofpeople, particularly roads, ports, primaryirrigation networks, to a lesser extent waterand sanitation in areas with a high populationdensity. Far lower down on the list is basicinfrastructure for rural settlements with dispersedpopulations, where unit costs areparticularly high.While home owners and citizens have someinfluence in pressuring local government toprovide and maintain basic infrastructure, thereis no guarantee their pleas will be addressedand they have much less influence on decisionsof the national providers, such as the stateelectricity provider PLN.People empowerment. This is one examplewhere people empowerment can make a difference.Local communities receiving blockgrants from government do not have to waitfor local or national authorities to make theseservices available to neighbourhoods that lackthem. Instead, they may decide to use fundsallocated to them to build new infrastructureor to undertake repairs on existing infrastructure.Alternatively, they may choose to organisetheir own user groups to share the costs of smallscale construction works or more commonlyto maintain facilities. An example comes tomind from a village in (Eastern Nusa Tengara)NTT, where residents complained of waitingmonths for the local authority to make a simplerepair to a water pump costing a few dollars.How much better if they had organised theirown user group to undertake such repairs.Recommendations:• Continue and expand existing programmesthat provide block grants to local communitiesthat can be used to extend and improvebasic infrastructure.• Consider opportunities for empoweringuser groups to build, operate, maintain andmobilise resources for small scale basic infrastructuresuch as clean water supplies, miniirrigationnetworks and even power generationin remote areas.• Allocate a higher proportion of public fundsfor the maintenance of basic infrastructurefor which government is responsible.3.2. Access to EducationOver the past twenty years, Aceh has madesubstantial progress in the education sector, althoughlike other parts of the world, furtherFigure 3.2 Education Indicators in Aceh, 1990-200710.0100.08.096.0Years6.04.092.088.0Percentage2.00.0Mean years of schoolingAdult literacy rate (right axis)1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2004 2005 2006 200784.080.0Source: Various Issues of BPS Statistics, Indonesia.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 33

Figure 3.3Adult literacy rate across regions of Aceh98.097.096.095.094.093.092.091.0Northern and EasternAcehWestern and SouthernAcehAceh Hinterland2002 2005 2007Note: Weighted Adult Literacy rate for each regionSource: BPSFigure 3.4 Adult literacy rate by gender in Aceh, 1996 - 2008Adult literacy percent100.095.090.094.286.296.290.198.094.796.693.297.694.285.080.01996 1999 2003 2006 2008MaleFemaleSource: Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (BPS), various years.improvements are proving increasingly difficultto achieve.The adult literacy rate in Aceh rose from 87percent in 1990 to 96 percent in 2007, whilethe mean years of schooling increased fromless than 6 years in 1990 to above 8 years bythe end of the decade (see, figure 3.2). Bothindicators reached a noticeable plateau by themiddle of the current decade. This plateau effectwas evident earlier in HDI indicators in moreadvanced countries after they achieved almostcomplete adult literacy. As a result, mean yearsof schooling was added as an HDI indicator34for educational attainment to create greaterdifferentiation in international comparisons.3.2.1 Adult literacyIn 2008, Aceh achieved an adult literacy rate of95.9 percent compared to 92.1 percent for thecountry as a whole, and ranked 10 th among allprovinces of Indonesia.A comparison of adult literacy rates acrossthe three regions of Aceh over the period 2002through 2007 shows Northern and EasternProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 3.5Mean years of schooling across regions in Aceh10.08.06.04.02.00.0Northern and EasternAcehWestern and SouthernAcehAceh Hinterland2002 2005 2007Note: Weighted Mean Years of Schooling number for each regionSource: BPSAceh with the highest rates, followed by AcehHinterland and then Western and SouthernAceh (see figure 3.3). All three regions showa dip in the year 2005, though this may bean anomaly, since other data in table 3.2 forthe years 1993, 2004 and 2007 show a steadyimprovement over this period. Since the dipis less pronounced in the Aceh Hinterland,perhaps it had something to do with surveyproblems during the disruptions in 2005 causedby the tsunami. Nevertheless, while two ofthe three regions equalled or exceeded levelsachieved in 2002, the Aceh Hinterland was stillstruggling to catch up by 2007.Figures also reveal a consistent gap in literacylevels between men and women (see figure 3.4).Up until 2006, this gap was steadily closing,shrinking from 8.0 points in 1996 to 6.1 pointsin 1999 and 3.4 points in 2006, but since thenhas held constant. The gap in literacy levels inrecent years no doubt reflects the residual effectof similar or bigger gaps in schooling amongolder generations of men and women.As is to be expected, literacy rates vary muchmore widely among jurisdictions. (see AppendixA: table 3.2). It was higher in cities than in districts,by a full 8 percentage points in 1993, butlately the gap has been closing. The rate is alsohigher in the original districts than the newerones by some 3 percentage points. While theaverage literacy rate for the whole of Aceh in2008 was 95.9 percent, it was notably low inGayo Lues in the Aceh Hinterland (84 percent),Nagan Raya (88 percent), Aceh Singkil (90percent) and Subulussalam (91 percent), all inthe WSA region. No matter which years are selectedfor comparison, data show a levelling offin literacy rates after 2004, with slight declinesin some years followed by a slight improvementlater.3.2.2 Years of schoolingIn 2008, the mean years of schooling for thepopulation in Aceh was 8.6 compared to 7.6 forthe country as a whole. This means Aceh ranked9 th among all provinces in Indonesia that year(see Appendix A: table 3.2.). This indicatorshows barely any difference between the NEAand the Aceh Hinterland, although the WSAregion lags behind again (see figure 3.5). Unlikethe story on literacy, each region is still showinga gradual increase in the average number ofyears of school attendance, which reflects thecumulative impact of steadily increasing schoolenrolment in past years, as documented in thenext section.At the level of individual jurisdictions, thepicture for years of schooling is similar to thatfor literacy (see Appendix A: table 3.2). Themean for cities has been consistently higherthan for districts, rising from 9.1 years in 1993to 10.1 years in 2008, but the gap is closing,from 2.8 years in 1993 to 2 years or less by 2008.Among districts, mean years of schooling hasbeen higher in the original districts than thenewer ones by a margin of 0.7 years in bothProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 35

2004 and 2008. The highest means in 2008were recorded in cities ranging from 12 yearsin Banda Aceh to 10 years or more in Langsa,Lhokseumawe and Sabang, but only 7.6 years inSubulussalam. During early and middle stagesof development, this pattern is not unexpected.Cities are where higher skilled jobs are morelikely to be found, requiring higher levels ofeducation. Conversely, the lowest means arefound in predominantly rural districts, sincejobs requiring advanced skills are more scarce.Most of them are in the WSA region, such asNagan Raya (7.4 years), Aceh Barat Daya (7.5years), and as just mentioned Subulussalam (7.6years), plus Pidie Jaya in the NEA region (7.6years).The variation in scores for years ofschooling among districts and cities shouldnot be interpreted solely as a reflection ofthe education system in each location. It isalso a function of the skill levels required foremployment, which tend to be higher wheremore senior technical and managementpositions are to be found, particularly in citiesand more urbanised districts. To the extentthat few of these jobs are found in rural areas,their scores for years of schooling will clearly belower.3.2.3 School participationAceh’s impressive record in terms of enrolmentrates at all levels of education is well recognized.The 2008 Poverty Assessment Report sums upthe situation in Aceh as follows:“Aceh has a higher enrolment level than Indonesiaor North Sumatra. This holds true acrossincome levels and all types of education. InAceh all income groups have higher enrolmentlevels than their peers in Indonesia and NorthSumatra, and this difference is more pronouncedin the poorer sections of the population.Higher enrolment rates in Aceh are not new.There is evidence that the Acehnese have hadconsistently higher enrolment rates than theaverage Indonesian household since beforeindependence, with a higher likelihood offinishing primary, junior or senior-highschool.” 14In 2008, Aceh ranked first or secondamong all provinces in Indonesia for schoolparticipation rates in all age groups includingthe eldest 15 (see Appendix A: table 3.3). Thedifference between Aceh and the nationalaverage rose at each level, from 1.2 percentamong the youngest age group to 9.7 percentfor the age group 13 through 15 years and 17.7percent for the age group 16 through 17 years.Aceh’s performance at higher levels is trulyremarkable. In the 16 – 17 year old age group,Aceh (72.4 percent) tops advanced educationalcentres such as Jakarta (49.4 percent) andYogyakarta (57.4 percent), and resource richprovinces such as Riau (47.3 percent) and EastKalimantan (51.4 percent). Even among theage group 18 through 23 years, participationrates in Aceh (22.4 percent) are higher thanJakarta (15.5 percent) and surpassed only byYogyakarta (35.0 percent), the two majornational centres for university education. By thesame token, the rate of school drop outs is lowerin Aceh than most other provinces, includingneighbouring North Sumatra and Riau.Within Aceh, variations in school participationrates among jurisdictions tell a morediverse and sometimes surprising story. (seealso Appendix A: table 3.3). Cities show higherparticipation rates than districts among thetwo older age groups. This is to be expected,since that is where senior secondary schoolsand further education facilities tend to be moreconcentrated. The figures for cities would beeven higher at these levels, but for the low ratesin Sabang. This is probably because studentsthere prefer to move to nearby Banda Aceh forhigher levels of education.At the primary school level, participationrates for all jurisdictions are close to the averageof 99 percent for Aceh, with only Aceh Jayaand Gayo Lues falling below 98 percent. Atthe junior secondary level, where the averageparticipation rate for the province is 94.1percent, only Aceh Timur and Gayo Lues fallbelow 90 percent. At the senior secondaryschool level, where the provincial average is72.4 percent, the figures vary more widely. Atthe top end, four jurisdictions score close to 80percent or higher. Two of these are cities, BandaAceh (86.8 percent) and Lhokseumawe (79.6percent), and two of them are remote ruralareas, Nagan Raya (70.5 percent) and the islandof Simeulue (83.3 percent). At the bottom endof the scale is Aceh Timur (58.9 percent), andthe new districts of Gayo Lues (61.4 percent),Aceh Jaya (62.1 percent) and Aceh Tamiang(64.7 percent).Participation rates inevitably fall as childrengrow older for many reasons, not least theThe variationin scoresfor years ofschoolingamong districtsand citiesshould not beinterpretedsolely as areflection ofthe educationsystem ineach location.It is also afunction ofthe skill levelsrequired foremployment,which tendto be higherwhere moreseniortechnical andmanagementpositions areto be found,particularly incities and moreurbaniseddistricts.36Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

attraction or necessity of getting a job andearning income, but also due to the sometimesdifficult adjustments required to move fromone school to the next. The differences inparticipation rates within a given jurisdictionbetween the junior secondary and seniorsecondary school levels is particularly pronounced(see column 6 of table 3.3). Whilesome districts show a dramatic decline, suchas Aceh Tamiang (down 28.9 percent), PidieJaya (-29.4 percent), Aceh Timur (-30 percent)and Aceh Jaya (-32 percent), the decline for alldistricts in Aceh except the last two mentionedare less than the national average of -29.7percent. Jurisdictions that show only marginallosses are the same as those mentioned earlierthat have high participation rates at the seniorsecondary school level. These wide fluctuationsare explained in part by children who drop outof school at that stage, but a large part is alsolikely due to migration, as children move awayfrom home to continue their education atsenior secondary schools elsewhere. Childrenin Aceh Jaya for example, are likely to moveto schools in Banda Aceh, whilst those inAceh Timur and Aceh Tamiang are likely tomove to Langsa. The same trend is even morepronounced at the tertiary level.To determine which jurisdictions achievedthe highest participation rates for the threelevels up to age 17, they were ranked for eachlevel and an average computed from their ranks(column 6 in Appendix A: table 3.3). The betterperforming jurisdictions include two cities,Lhokseumawe and Banda Aceh, and threefairly remote rural areas, Bener Meriah andAceh Tengah in the Aceh Hinterland and AcehSelatan in the WSA region. This speaks wellfor the last three mentioned to keep childrenin school and to educate them locally, withoutthe need to move elsewhere. The lowest rankedjurisdictions include Aceh Timur and thenew jurisdictions of Gayo Lues, Aceh Jaya andSubulussalam.Further research is needed to determinemore accurately the reasons for these lowrankings and what might be needed to improveparticipation rates there. Possible causes mayinclude poor facilities, overcrowded classes, badroads and transportation services, low teachingstandards, poor school management or simplya preference for better schools elsewhere. Indistricts where population density is low,catchment areas sufficient to support a highschool are large, meaning many children livebeyond a reasonable commuting distance,especially where roads and public transportare poor. To attend a senior secondary school,children in outlying areas may need to leavehome and move closer to a school. Childrenmay be reluctant to do so, and parents may nothave the funds to afford the extra cost. If theydo decide to move, they may prefer to go to abetter school further away, possibly in one ofthe bigger towns.Another factor affecting school participationrates in each jurisdiction is the estimateof school age children at each level. Estimatesof school age children were derived fromthe 2005 census, and such figures may nottruly reflect the actual number of school agechildren now in these areas due to internalmigration. This may have been quite significantin some jurisdictions, given the large numberof temporary jobs created as a result of themassive recovery programmes after the tsunamiin December 2004. This may partly explainwhy rates in some rural areas that experiencedheavy out-migration are relatively low andwhy other jurisdictions that experienced heavyin-migration are relatively high. However, thiswon’t become apparent until the results of the2010 census are made public.3.2.4 Gender differencesA perennial problem in many parts of the worldis the gap in school participation rates betweenboys and girls, with girls often lagging farbehind due to social, cultural or religioustraditions. This is not the case however inAceh. As figure 3.6 shows, the rates are almostFigure 3.6100806040200Source: Susenas data (BPS)School participation rates in Aceh byage group and sex, 20077-12 13-15 16-18 19-24Female MaleProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 37

Figure 3.7Percentage of population who graduated from senior secondary schools or higher level institutionswho are living in povertyBanda AcehSabangLangsaLhokseumaweAceh BesarAceh TenggaraBener MeriahAceh TengahBireuenAcehAceh TamianAceh TimurNagan RayaGayo LuesAceh UtaraPidieAceh Bara DayaAceh BaratPidie JayaAceh SelatanAceh SingkilAceh JayaSimeulueSubulussalamNote: Percent of the Total Poor Population, 2007Source: Calculated from BPS.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40the same for both sexes all the way throughsenior secondary school, with women evenoutnumbering men at the tertiary level. Thismay be because young men are under greaterpressure to seek employment and contributeincome to the family household. They may alsobe discouraged from seeking higher educationdue to lack of job opportunities and prospectsafter graduation.3.2.5 Education and povertyDespite the high levels of school participationin Aceh, a disturbing trend is found amongthose who have graduated from seniorsecondary schools or higher level institutionswho remain among the ranks of the poor. Atthe provincial level in Aceh, these graduatesrepresent some 10 percent of the poor, althoughthis figure fluctuates widely across locales,ranging from as low as 5 percent in AcehSingkil, to 22 percent in Sabang, and as high as37 percent in Banda Aceh. (see figure 3.7).38This situation is not unique to Aceh, but isa phenomenon found elsewhere in Indonesiaand many other countries in the middle stagesof development. The situation arises from a mismatchbetween the supply of skilled graduatesand weak demand for people with such skills.Those with better skills are reluctant to acceptjobs for which they are over qualified, since thiswill further weaken their prospects of getting abetter job in the future. They would rather waitindefinitely for the right job to come along, andtend to congregate in places where the prospectsof such jobs are better, namely close to theuniversity where they studied, larger cities andother urban centres. In an economy with arelatively low level of development, such a largeproportion of the educated ending up amongthe poor is a highly disconcerting phenomenon.3.2.6 ConclusionsAceh compared with other provinces. Insome respects, Aceh compares well withProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

other provinces in Indonesia in terms of itsperformance in the education sector. In 2008,it ranked in the top third for adult literacy andmean years of schooling and it was ranked aremarkable first or second according to dataon school participation rates at all levels fromprimary school through tertiary education. Thehigh scores no doubt reflect in part the longtradition in Aceh of encouraging children toattend school and continue their educationlonger.Challenges facing education. Althoughthese indicators convey a favourable impressionof Aceh’s achievements in education, they reveallittle about the challenges facing the sector.These may be summarised as follows:• While school participation rates are high,some children are still left out from the educationsystem and many drop out, particularlyafter junior secondary school.• Children in more remote areas have limitedaccess to senior secondary schools, whichmeans they either have to move closer to aschool, which poorer families cannot afford,or they may be forced to drop out.• The quality of education varies widely, and isoften deficient in many districts, particularlythose in rural and more remote areas.• Although exam results may be an unreliableindicator, they show that students from Acehperform poorly relative to many other provinces,again in part a reflection of the poorquality of teaching.• The curricula followed in many schools is inappropriateto prepare graduates for obtainingemployment, particularly in the few vocationaltraining institutes.• Many schools that were damaged or destroyedduring the conflict have yet to be repairedor rebuilt, particularly in inland districts awayfrom the coast that did not benefit from tsunamirecovery programmes.• The capacity of management and administrativestaff in many schools is weak.Responses. Fortunately, the provincialDepartment of Education in Aceh has shownstrong leadership in responding to thesechallenges. In 2007, they issued a strategicplan (renstra) for the sector, which is a modelfor other departments to follow 16 . Anotherimportant innovation has been the adoption ofthe concept of results based management andperformance budgeting for the preparation ofannual plans and budgets. This targets resourceson achieving specific goals and objectives, andaims to make more effective use of funds andimprove the management of education services.Among the strategies being pursued by theEducation Department are:• To rationalise the allocation of teaching staffto address surpluses in some areas and shortagesin others areas.• To improve access for all by targeting subsidiesfor particular levels and types ofeducation. Aceh recently introduced freeeducation for all up to junior secondaryschool and plans to extend this to seniorsecondary school.• To strengthen the quality of teaching staffthrough upgrading programmes and accreditationof key staff.• To strengthen governance and efficiencythrough participatory planning and development.• To use provincial resources to offset imbalancesin local government spending on education.People empowerment. Of particular interestare measures adopted by the EducationDepartment to promote people empowermentin the sector. At the provincial level, they haveestablished a forum comprising stakeholdersfrom government, universities, civil society,NGOs, donors and Islamic bodies, with authorityto prepare and execute plans for the sector.Meetings have been held with districts andcities to promote the agenda of the strategicplan.In line with national directives, at the levelof individual schools, committees have beenformed consisting of teacher, administrator,and parent representatives and in some cases,students, with authority to prepare and approveannual plans and budgets. This is a precedentthat might well be adopted in other sectors.Other opportunities for people empowermentmay be found in organising pre-schoolprogrammes, which are important in preparingthe youngest children for formal education. Atpresent, pre-school programmes cater for onlya small proportion of children under 7 yearsof age, and the private sector far surpasses thegovernment in providing such programmes.• While the government plans to expandthese are reccomendations of pre-schools,another option is for them to furtherencourage the private sector and communitygroups to do this, since parents havea strong interest in doing so. Governmentsupport should take the form of grantsProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 39

Table 3.1 Rankings of health indicators for selected provinces, 2008ProvinceLifeexpectancy(years)InfantMortality Rate(per 1,000)MorbidityRate (%)PopulationSelf-medicating(%)Populationw’out access tofacilities (%)D. I. Yogyakarta 1 1 2 4 1 1DKI Jakarta 2 2 1 5 2 2Jawa Tengah 5 4 4 8 6 3Aceh 19 19 23 19 16 18Sulawesi Tengah 29 29 30 26 18 31Maluku 26 26 25 29 28 32Maluku Utara 30 30 31 33 31 33Maximum 73.1 63.5 31.0 81.6 50.1Aceh 68.5 34.1 21.5 67.1 12.9Minimum 61.5 18.2 14.1 50.9 0.0Source: BPSOverallrankcoupled with a set of performance standardsto qualify for support.Another area that needs closer attention isvocational training to ensure that job seekershave appropriate skills matched to changingeconomic priorities and market conditions.Equally important is the need to expandopportunities for people who need tochange jobs or careers, particularly frommanual occupations in agriculture and unskilledday labour activities to those in technicalor service industries, a need often expressedby former combatants.• For the purpose of vocational training, representativesfrom the business communityshould be engaged in the planning anddesign of course offerings and curricula.• The government should consider out-sourcingthe management and direction of vocationaltraining institutes to the private sector.Courses could be organised on a fee forservice basis, funded in part by contributionsfrom businesses that require skilled staff,such as hotels, vehicle repair services and theconstruction industry 17 .• Finally, supplementing the afore mentionedefforts, active participation of youth involunteer-based out of school/extracurricularactivities should be promoted, as theabove have a significant impact on theemployability of the individual volunteers,by providing them with basic job-relatedskills such as improved leadership, communicationand management. In addition toenhancing volunteers’ skill levels, volunteerismcontributes to personal developmentand facilitates school-job transitions, and, in40the long-run, brings forth positive ramificationsfor the society as a whole 18 .3.3. Access to health services3.3.1 Comparison with other provincesUnlike the encouraging picture in the educationsector in Aceh, the situation in the health sectoris less satisfactory. To provide an overall assessmentof where Aceh stands relative to otherprovinces, rankings were computed for fiveindicators and averaged. Based on this method,Aceh ranks number 18 out of 33 provinces in2008. (see table 3.1). Life expectancy variesfrom 73 years in Yogyakarta to 69 in Acehand only 61 in NTB. Infant mortality (deathof infants below the age of five per 1000 livebirths) ranges from a low of 18 in Yogyakarta to34 in Aceh and a high of 63 in NTB. Morbidityis lowest in Jakarta (14 percent), highest inNTT (31 percent) and above the nationalaverage in Aceh (22 percent). The proportion ofthe population that does not use health servicesbut instead relies on self-medication rangesfrom 82 percent in Maluku Utara, to 67 percentin Aceh and a low of 51 percent surprisingly inPapua, perhaps because people there rely moreon traditional healers. Of the five indicators,Aceh does better in terms of close access tohealth facilities, where only 13 percent of thepopulation have no access, versus a high of 50percent in Papua, which might be expecteddue to the difficult terrain there, and a low of0 percent in Jakarta and Yogyakarta.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 3.8Life expectancy across regions in Aceh71.070.069.068.067.066.065.064.063.062.061.0Northern and EasternAcehNote: Weighted Life Expectancy number for each regionSource: BPSWestern and SouthernAcehAceh Hinterland2002 2005 20083.3.2 Life expectancyLife expectancy rates differ markedly amongregions in Aceh. Between 2002 and 2007, ithas consistently been highest in Northern andEastern Aceh and lowest in Western and SouthernAceh, although the difference has beendeclining from about 4 years in 2002 to about2.5 years in 2007 (see figure 3.8).Among jurisdictions, life expectancy in 2008was more than 70 years in only five places, threeof them cities – Sabang, Banda Aceh andLangsa, and two districts, Aceh Besar andBireuen, which recorded the highest average of72.2 years (see Appendix A: table 3.4). It waslowest in three districts, Simeulue (62.8 years),Aceh Singkil (64.5) and Subulussalam (65.5),all of them located in rural areas in Westernand Southern Aceh. This suggests, as expected,that access to clean water, sanitation andmedical facilities in urban areas is a contributingfactor in extending life expectancy. With oneexception, this increased in all districts over theperiod 2002 to 2008, notably in Aceh Tengahby 2.3 years and Aceh Selatan by 2.0 years. Theexception is Bireuen, where it dropped by 0.4years, perhaps reflecting inflated figures duringearlier years.Figure 3.9 Infant mortality rate in comparison to life expectancy ratio in Aceh, 1971-20071608012070per 1000 birth80406050Age0401971 1980 1990 1993 1995 1997 1999 2000 2002 2005 2007Infant mortality rateLife expectancy ratioSource: BPS various issues and publicationsProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 41

3.3.3 Infant mortalityAnother big factor in determining life expectancyis the rate of infant mortality. Back in1971, when infant mortality in Aceh was stillhigh at around 150 per 1000 live births, lifeexpectancy was a mere 36 years (see figure 3.9).By the turn of the century, infant mortalityhad dropped to almost a quarter of the level in1971 (around 40 per 1000 live births) and lifeexpectancy had doubled to nearly 70 years. Thisrepresents a remarkable advance, although aswith other indicators, further improvementsafter 2000 are proving hard to achieve 19 .While the infant mortality rate for Aceh infigure 3.9 is shown at 48 per 1000 in 2007, thefigure quoted in Appendix A: table 3.5 is 34per 1000 a year later in 2008. This does notFigure 3.10 Infant Mortality Rate by jurisdiction in Aceh 2008 (Per 1000)NWESSABANGBANDA ACEHACEH BESARACEH JAYAPIDIEBIREUENLHOKSUMAWEACEH UTARABENER MERIAHACEH TIMURACEH BARATACEH TENGAHKOTA LANGSANAGAN RAYAACEH TAMIANGGAYO LUESACEH BARAT DAYAACEH TENGGARAACEH SELATANSIMEULUEACEH SINGKILLEGEND20.920.9 - 29.329.3 - 35.235.2 - 42.242.2 - 57.6ACEH SINGKILSource: BPS42Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Table 3.2Percentage of under-nourished children in Aceh under five years1999 2002 2008Aceh 35.6 35.2 31.5Indonesia 30.0 25.8 23.5Difference 5.6 9.4 8.0Source: BPSnecessarily mean a sudden further decline, butinconsistencies in different sources of data andprobably different methods of computation.The 2008 figure for infant mortality in Acehof 34.1 compares with the national average of26.9. Among regions in Aceh, the average rateof infant mortality is lowest in the districts ofthe NEA (30), and highest in the WSA (41).Among jurisdictions, the rate ranges from alow of 27 or 28 per 1000 live births in fourof the five cities to highs of 46 in the fifthcity, Subulussalam, 51 in Aceh Singkil, and aworrying 58 in Simeulue (see also figure 3.10).On average, the infant mortality rate is highestamong the group of new districts, reflectingpoor coverage of post-natal services in ruralareas.Another indicator which measures thehealth of children, namely the number ofunder-nourished children below the age of 5,also shows Aceh lagging significantly behindthe national average, with the gap widening inrecent years. Data for 1999 show 36 percentof children aged under five years in Aceh wereunder-nourished, compared to 30 percentnationally, a gap of 5.6 percent (see table 3.2).By 2002, despite a reduction in the proportionof under-nourished children under five at boththe provincial and national levels, the gap hadwidened to 9.4 percent. At last count in 2008,the gap had narrowed a little to 8.0 percent butnearly a third of young children still remainedunder-nourished.3.3.4 Services for childrenGiven the importance of reducing infantmortality, it is instructive to look at a coupleof indicators related to children’s healthservices: attendance at birth deliveries bymedical workers and immunizations forchildren. Data for the first indicator during2005 and 2008 show that professional medicalstaff attended a higher proportion of births inAceh than the national average (see table 3.3).Midwives attended far more often than doctorsor paramedics both in Aceh and nationally,though doctors were present in Aceh lessoften than the national average. Conversely,traditional birth attendants were less likely tobe present in Aceh than elsewhere. During thethree year period, Aceh made greater progressthan nationally in expanding the provisionTable 3.3Medical workers in attendance during birth deliveries in Aceh comparedto Indonesia as a whole (%)Personnel2005 2008 Change 2005-2008Aceh Indonesia Aceh Indonesia Aceh IndonesiaMidwives 67.4 58.2 73.1 59.5 5.7 1.3Doctor 8.7 11.0 9.8 14.7 1.1 3.7Paramedic 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.7 -0.3 -0.5Subtotal 77.0 70.4 83.5 74.9 6.5 4.5Traditional birthattendants20.1 26.4 16.0 23.1 -4.5 -3.3Families 2.1 2.8 0.7 1.8 -1.4 -1.0Others 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 -0.6 -0.1Subtotal 23.0 29.6 16.9 25.1 -6.5 -4.5Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Source: Susenas data (BPS), 2005 and 2008.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 43

Figure 3.11Immunization levels of children under the age of five by type at the national level in comparisonto the provincial level, 2003-2006100806092.2 92.288.189.286.591.1 91.178.2 78.2 86.777.2 83.072.574.075.070.9 70.984.663.787.1 87.173.4 73.488.4 87.389.3 89.374.8 74.5 74.4565.756.6402003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006MeaslesPolioDPTBCGIndonesiaNanggroe Aceh DarussalamSource: Susenas (BPS),2003 & 2006of professional medical personnel at birthdeliveries, up 6.5 percent compared with 4.5percent.On the other hand, data for the secondindicator, shows Aceh consistently laggingnational averages for most types of earlychildhood immunizations. Only for polio hasAceh managed to come close to the nationallevel reaching 91 percent of children aged lessthan five years in 2006 (see figure 3.9). ForDPT and BCG immunizations for childrenunder the age of five years, Aceh’s performancehas plateaued at around 75 percent and ataround 71 percent for measles. For somereason, public campaigns targeting these threelatter immunisations, but not the one for polio,all faltered sharply in 2004 prior to the tsunami,but largely recovered the following year.3.3.5 People’s HealthThe quality of people’s health depends onseveral factors including diet, exercise, mode oflife and the quality of health services, which islikely to vary widely in less developed regions.A comparison of the data among jurisdictionsis useful in determining the extent to whichhealth services help to improve heath in Aceh.To assess people’s health, data for five indicatorsin 2008 were assembled for each jurisdiction.This was ranked on each indicator anda composite rank was then computed from44the average of the five individual rankings (seeAppendix A: table 3.5). As a group, people inthe four cities consistently showed up as havingthe best health (average rank 4.0) comparedto the 11 original districts (11.8) and the eightnew districts (17.3). The difference betweenthe two groups of districts in this case is quitemarked, once again underscoring the lowerlevel of development among the new ones. Atthe regional level, the people of Northern andEastern Aceh, excluding those living in cities,are shown to have better health, with an averagerank of 11.4, than those living in Western andSouthern Aceh and the Aceh Hinterland, withranks around 15.5.Among individual jurisdictions, people withthe poorest health reside in Pidie Jaya in thenorth-east, Bener Meriah in the Aceh Hinterland,as well as in the south-western locales of AcehBarat Daya and Aceh Selatan. Infant mortality,which averages 32 per 1000 live births for theprovince as a whole, is clearly highest in Westernand Southern Aceh with 5 of the 8 jurisdictionsthere, namely Aceh Selatan, Aceh Barat Daya,Sabulussalam, Aceh Singkil and Simelulue, registeringrates above 40 per 1000 live births, withthe latter two registering above 50 per 100 livebirths. Among other districts, only Gayo Luesin the Aceh Hinterland has a rate above 40 per1000 live births.While the provincial average for undernourishedchildren is 27 percent, four districtshave figures exceeding 40 percent, three of themProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

in the WSA – Simeulue, Nagan Raya and AcehBarat Daya – and one in the Aceh Hinterland,Aceh Tenggara, where the rate is worst of all at49 percent or almost half of all children.Children’s health problems clearly aboundin these districts, especially in the WSA. Curiouslythough, this region emerges as having alower incidence of health problems among thepopulation as a whole, with a rate of only 33percent compared to 37 percent in the AcehHinterland and 40 percent in the NEA. Giventhe prevalence of ill health among children inthe WSA, adults there may consider their ownmaladies of little significance and not worthreporting.3.3.6 Service indicatorsTo assess the quality of health services, a similarprocess was adopted based on five indicators reflectingstandards of provision. As before, jurisdictionswere ranked on each indicator and acomposite rank was then computed from theaverage of the five individual rankings (seeAppendix A: table 3.6).In terms of groups, as might be expected,the cities are ranked best for health serviceswith an average of 6.8, far ahead of the districts,where once again the original districts (average11.6) are better served than new ones (15.6).Cities score worst on only one indicator, thenumber of people per health facility (with anaverage of 21,800 residents per facility). Thismight be interpreted as a deficiency, but giventhe much higher population density there,only a small proportion of the population lackaccess to these services, with an average ofonly 5 percent, compared to 13 percent in theoriginal districts and 16 percent in new ones.Otherwise, the population of cities benefit fromrelatively more doctors and hospital beds per1000 people and a higher proportion of birthsattended by medical personnel compared todistricts. Among regions, Northern and EasternAceh emerge as having better health servicesaccording to these indicators, while Westernand Southern Aceh and Aceh Hinterland differTable 3.4Summary table of health and service indicators by jurisdictions in AcehBetter servicesPoorer servicesBetter healthNorthern and Eastern Aceh Kota Lhokseumawe* Aceh TimurKota Banda AcehKota SabangAceh Tamiang*Kota Langsa*Aceh BesarWestern and Southern Aceh Simeulue Subulussalam*Aceh SingkilAceh HinterlandAceh TengahPoorer healthNorthern and Eastern Aceh Pidie Aceh UtaraPidie Jaya*BireuenWestern and Southern Aceh Aceh Barat Daya* Nagan Raya*Aceh BaratAceh Jaya*Aceh SelatanAceh Hinterland Aceh Tenggara Bener Meriah*Gayo Lues*Better health total 11 8 3Poorer health total 12 4 8Services Better total 12 Poorer total 11Note: * Denotes new jurisdictionProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 45

little as was the case for the indicator of thequality of people’s health.Among individual jurisdictions, healthservices are ranked lowest in Aceh Timur inthe NEA, Bener Meriah in the Hinterland,and Aceh Jaya and Subulussalam in the WSA.Rankings for the latter and also Pidie Jaya arebased on only two indicators, and thereforeoffer a less accurate assessment. Outside thecities, access to doctors is generally poor, withone third of the districts having less than 1.0doctor per 10,000 people. This reflects thedifficulty of persuading them to work in ruralareas where facilities are usually rudimentary.Of 18 districts, 5 have less than 2 beds per10,000 people, and two of these, Bener Meriahand Aceh Jaya, have none.At the provincial level, medical personnelattended more than 80 percent of birthdeliveries in 2008, but the figures for AcehBarat, Simeulue and Gayo Lues were less than60 percent. The proportion of the populationwithout access to health facilities at theprovincial level is 13 percent, but it rises tomore than 20 percent in Aceh Timur in theNEA, Bener Meriah and Gayo Lues in theHinterland, and Aceh Barat, Aceh Jaya andSubulussalam in the WSA, in the latter caseabove 30 percent.3.3.7 People’s health and health servicesDo better health services contribute to betterhealth? The preceding results are summarised intable 3.4, in which jurisdictions are placed in oneof four categories according to their rankings forpeople’s health and health services. If the answerto the question is clearly “Yes”, then we wouldexpect to find most jurisdictions either in thetop left quadrant or the lower right quadrant.In Aceh, there is some evidence that there is acorrelation, but not a strong one.The information in this table is also useful insuggesting appropriate strategies for improvingpeople’s health. Among individual jurisdictions,the seven districts in the bottom right quadrantwith poorer health and poorer services clearlymerit priority attention, especially Nagan Rayaand Aceh Jaya in the WSA and Bener Meriahand Gayo Lues in the Hinterland, which allscore particularly low rankings. Districts in theupper right quadrant may have better health butthe services there are relatively weak and needimproving. Those in the lower left quadrant maybenefit from better services but they still sufferfrom poorer health, suggesting the problem mayhave more to do with physical access in remoteareas or high costs preventing the poor fromobtaining such services. People in the four citiesand the districts in the upper left quadrant allenjoy better health and better services, and maycount themselves relatively fortunate, but thatdoesn’t mean there is not still room for improvement.3.3.8 Access among the poorA national survey by the Kecamatan DevelopmentProgramme (KDP) revealed that theburden of ill health falls most heavily on thepoor, especially in Aceh. It shows that, unlikemany other parts of Indonesia where richerhouseholds reported higher incidences of illnesscompared to poorer ones, the situation wasreversed in Aceh. The KDP Poverty Surveyshowed that 29 percent of people in poorhouseholds reported being ill in the past monthcompared to 19 percent of people in richhouseholds. It also showed that the short-fallin immunization programmes tends to penalisepoorer families most, especially those inrural areas. Another problem is the cost ofaccessing medical services, not only for consultations,medications and treatment, but also fortransport to facilities from outlying areas. Thisprevents many people from using these services,especially those in rural areas as well as the poor.Another KDP survey reported that 34percent of people in poor households wereunable to access health services due to theirprohibitive cost. A further indication of howreluctant people are to seek medical advice isthe high proportion of the population thatprescribe and apply medications themselves.Nationally, this proportion is 67 percent, whilein Aceh it is slightly higher at 71 percent,but it rises to nearly 80 percent or more inSubulussalam, Aceh Jaya and Bener Meriah,and even 91 percent in Nagan Raya, all of themnew rural districts.3.3.9 ConclusionsChallenges facing the health sector. As impliedby the data presented above, Aceh faces manychallenges in raising the quality of health servicesAnotherproblem isthe cost ofaccessingmedicalservices,not only forconsultations,medicationsand treatment,but also fortransport tofacilities fromoutlying areas.This preventsmany peoplefrom usingthese services,especiallythose in ruralareas as wellas the poor.46Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

and improving people’s health. Chief amongthese are:• Inadequate provision for pre-natal and postnatalcare. The rate of infant mortality inAceh is above most other provinces, as is therate of maternal mortality, which reportedlyis unusually high in some remote areas ofAceh.• Limited access to midwives. Most midwivesare based in urban centres, with only 30 percentliving in rural areas, where the majorityof the population live. The ability of midwivesto reach rural areas in a timely manneris constrained by poor transport services andlimited funds for travel.• Trauma treatment. The need to treat thosesuffering from trauma is still not properly recognised.Large numbers of people need helpto cope with physical injuries and trauma resultingfrom the conflict and natural disasters.• Traditional health remedies. A significantproportion of the population still relies onself-medication and advice from traditionalhealers, especially the poor and those withlittle education.• Low density of population. A significant proportionof the population is scattered amongsome 6000 small villages, which makes it difficultand expensive to provide health servicesto them. While 85 percent of the populationreportedly live within 5 kilometres of ahealth centre of some kind, many of theseare low level facilities with limited staff andequipment.• Inadequate training. Even though the networkof health posts is extensive and reachesmost parts of the province, many medicalstaff have received only rudimentary trainingand their knowledge and expertise is limited.• Weak management capacity. The administrativeand management capacity of the staffproviding health services is weak in manyareas, affecting the quality of operations.• Limited funds. Underlying many of theseproblems is inadequate public investment inthe health sector. Some 70 percent of the totalis needed for salaries alone, leaving only30 percent for delivering services and upgradingfacilities.• Donor projects. While donor funded projectsin the health sector are useful, some tend tobe driven more by the donor’s agenda thanby local needs. A case in point are those relatedto HIV-AIDS, which is less prevalentthan many other diseases, such as malaria,dengue fever, typhoid, hepatitis and intestinaldisorders, not to mention strokes and cardiovascularproblems.Responses. The challenges mentionedabove are not new, and government and nongovernmentactors are taking steps to respondto them.• Free health care. An important step has beenthe introduction in 2009 by the provincialgovernment of a programme to provide freehealth care for all citizens of Aceh. While thisis well intentioned, it may not represent thebest use of resources or be supportable in thelonger term. Meanwhile, health administratorsin larger hospitals report a substantial increasein demand for services but no increasein funding to provide them. Apparently, thelegislature has yet to approve the additionalfunds needed as promised by the provincialexecutive.Recommendations:• Revisit the opportunity costs of free healthcare and ensure that resources are first used toprovide effective services for those that cannotafford it and for other priority needs suchas pre- and post-natal care. Wealthier familiesdo not need subsidies, since they can affordprivate health insurance or are able to paycosts incurred.• Funding for the health sector. In view of thelack of resources, steps are being taken to increasefunding for the sector. National LawNo. 34/ 2009 specifies that a minimum of10 percent of public spending should be devotedto the health sector. Likewise, thePNPM programme also specifies that thesame proportion of funds should be allocatedfor health related projects proposed by thecommunity.• BLUs. The central government is promotingthe concept of Public Service Enterprises(Badan Layanan Umum or BLU) for largerhospitals. BLUs are authorised to retain revenuesfor their services rather than forwardthem to the provincial Treasury. This will reduceuncertainties over budget allocationsand the timing of disbursements, and allowthem to exert greater control over planning,budgeting and coordination with other healthfacilities.• Focus on sub-district facilities. A reportcurrently being prepared by UNICEF on behalfof the Special Autonomy and Oil andProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 47

Gas Secretariat proposes measures to strengthenthe capacity of Puskesmas, healthfacilities at the sub-district level, particularlyfor operations management and financialadministration. The central government hasthis year introduced a programme titledBantuan Operasional Kesehatan (BOK),which provides direct financial support toPuskesmas for operational costs, and is intendedto help them improve the deliveryof services.• Local government health departmentswould do well to emulate the educationdepartments in adopting performancebudgeting to make better use of resources intargeting specific goals and objectives, suchas reducing infant and maternal mortality.People empowerment. As in the educationsector, several opportunities exist to apply theconcept of people empowerment in the healthsector, as outlined below.Recommendations:• Establish a public-private forum at the provinciallevel, similar to the one for education,whose function would be to collaboratewith government in formulating policies,strategies and programmes for thesector.• Organise similar forums at the level of thesub-district puskesmas, which are responsiblefor preparing plans and budgets forhealth services within their jurisdiction.• Given the patchy coverage of midwives inrural areas, their expertise might be usedmore effectively by forming and trainingcommunity based self-help groups tosupport pregnant women and those withnewborn children. There are already precedentsfor such groups, which can play animportant role in securing proper care forchildren during the first few formative yearsof their life.• Similar groups could also be formed andtrained with help from medical personnelfor other purposes, such as domestic violence,family hygiene and nutrition, addictionto drugs and alcohol.• Modest investments in technical supportand funding for these forms of people empowermentcan go a long way to enhancingpeople’s health and preventing sickness anddisease.3.4. Access to Justice 20Access to justice is increasingly recognised as anecessary condition for peace and development,especially in poor and post-conflict settings.Access to justice consolidates peace by creatingthe conditions that permit people to resolvelegitimate grievances, which might otherwiselead to social conflict. Access to justice alsocontributes to sustainable human developmentby defining a minimum scope of legitimateclaims based on human rights, while seeking toenhance claim-holders’ ability to reclaim theserights and by holding duty-bearers accountablein protecting these rights.3.4.1 Parallel legal systemsIn Aceh, unlike other provinces of Indonesia,three legal systems operate in parallel. This oftenleads to confusion, since the scope of jurisdictioncovered by each system overlaps and sometimesleads to conflicting interpretations. The generaljustice system in Aceh is informed by Indonesia’snational positive state law. In this respect, all lawsthat apply in the rest of Indonesia also apply inAceh. As in other provinces, many communitiesrely instead on the adat system used at the villagelevel based on traditional norms and practices.But in Aceh, since 2001, with Law 18/2001granting Aceh special autonomy, syariah lawhas also come into formal effect. Despite severalattempts to clarify the situation, ambiguitiesremain.The Law on Governing Aceh (LoGA) setsout certain rights and responsibilities that applyonly to Aceh. Provisions of the LoGA that mostaffect citizens’ access to justice include thoserelated to the Aceh House of Representatives(Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Aceh - DPRA), theestablishment of a Human Rights Court anda Truth and Reconciliation Commission, thecreation of local political parties, the formulationof adat institutions and, as enshrinedwithin article 231, the protection of women andchildren’s rights.As with other provinces, responsibility fordrafting new and revised local regulations,known in Aceh as qanun, lies with the localassembly, known as the DPRA in Aceh. As is thecase elsewhere in Indonesia, a large proportionof the members of the DPRA lack advancededucation and experience in government, have aOver ninetypercentof DPRAmemberscontinue tolack basicknowledgeabout theprocess oflegal drafting,a problem thatis compoundedby theintroductionof impracticalreligiousstipulationsinto law madeby syariahjurists andAcehneseulamas.48Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

limited knowledge of national and constitutionallaw, and change after each election. In Aceh,commentators have assessed that over ninetypercent of DPRA members continue to lackbasic knowledge about the process of legaldrafting, a problem that is compounded by theintroduction of impractical religious stipulationsinto law made by syariah jurists andAcehnese ulamas.The development of the syariah justicesystem in Aceh dates as far back as the sixteenthcentury, although Syariah Courts were onlyrecognised in the Province by the post-colonialNational Government in 1957 through Law29/1957. Although national laws have clearlystated that syariah law in Aceh applies only toMuslims, the provincial qanun passed later donot reaffirm this, and the LoGA includes anambiguous article suggesting that non-Muslimsmay be subjected to syariah law for committingcertain offences. Non-Muslims, including thelarge Chinese, Indian and, more recently, international(humanitarian) communities inAceh have contested this.The Indonesian term adat refers to culturallyand ethnically specific forms of law (hukumadat) or custom (istiadat). It is a largely uncodifiedbody of rules of behaviour or a systemof community leadership and governance,enforced by social sanctions, which is usedfor resolving disputes among other things.Adat consists of living norms, respected andrecognised by people, and acts as society’s codeof conduct. In Aceh today, it is also a symbolof local autonomy, although the practices andrituals of adat vary most notably across ethnicgroups. Regional Regulation No. 7/2000recognizes different adat institutions, lawsBox 1Aceh Justice ProjectUNDP’s Aceh Justice Project (AJP) contributed to theimprovement of the informal (adat) justice systemthrough groundbreaking work with the Aceh CustomaryCouncil (Majelis Adat Aceh - MAA) on adatjustice guidelines and adat leaders training. It wasan important source of discourse on legal issues andpublic policy in Aceh. It provided a neutral forum fordialogue in Aceh on important public policy issuesand provided valuable contributions in the formationof public policy in Aceh. The activities to support themulti-stakeholder consultations on transitional justicemechanism have demonstrated policy relevance andfacilitated communication and coordination betweencentral and provincial-level governments, as well asbetween the government and civil society. 21and customs at the village level, so long as theydo not contradict syariah law. Additionally,national legislation takes precedence overadat law where there are inconsistencies.3.4.2 Common grievancesIn addition to complaints that commonly arisein civil society, serious injustices and a risingnumber of disputes need to be addressed in thepost-crisis landscape, many of which have theirroots in the previous conflict as well as thetsunami. Since many of these claims involvewomen, the poor and other disadvantagedpeople, it is essential that access to justice isenhanced for Acehnese citizens. The channelsthey choose to redress their grievances mustresult in fair and effective results, so the peopleof Aceh feel they are genuinely benefiting fromthe dividends of peace and development.Common justice grievances identified inconflict-affected areas include: human rightsviolations; theft and destruction of property;destruction of livelihoods; displacement;violence against women, and; land disputes,especially for returnees. Common grievancesidentified in areas affected by the tsunamiinclude: lack of housing; land claims andboundary disputes due to missing documents;inheritance disputes; lack of assistance fororphans; domestic violence against women,and; unequal distribution of aid due todiscrimination, unfair distribution andcorruption.3.4.3 Barriers to justiceWhile legal systems are in place to resolvedisputes, many barriers prevent people frominitiating a claim in the first place and later fromobtaining a just outcome. One widespreadproblem is simply a lack of awareness of legaloptions and procedures. Studies have establishedthat a large proportion of Indonesiancitizens, particularly those with little or noformal education, are unaware not only oflaws that may be relevant to them, but also oftheir legal rights, services available to them andprocedures to access these services. A similarlack of legal awareness was found amongstvillage respondents in Aceh. Vulnerablegroups are further disadvantaged as they haveperceptibly lower legal awareness because theyProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 49

are often illiterate and have less access to sourcesof information.A second constraint is that pervasive socialpressures compel people to rely predominantlyon adat to resolve disputes, but decisions maybe overruled in higher courts, especially whereformal legal procedures are involved such ascompensation, inheritance and land titling.Other considerations however make it harderif not almost impossible for many peopleto access the formal justice system. It isperceived as bureaucratic, labyrinthine, timeconsuming and intimidating. Since courtsare located far from where most people live,they cannot afford the time to attend or themoney to cover travel expenses, let alone thecosts of legal counsel and court procedures.Another pervasive problem is that peoplecannot rely on adat or the formal system to arriveat just decisions. At the adat level, decisions aresometimes inconsistent from one case to another,and may be influenced by political considerationsor by the interests of powerful local citizens. Inthe formal system, people are well aware thatbribery often wins over the best legal arguments.In this regard, people have more confidence inthe syariah courts, particularly in judging fairinheritance and divorce rights, although againdecisions concerning some aspects of law may beoverruled by higher courts.Efforts to overcome the lack of awarenessamong the citizenry on both the syariah and theformal court systems are handicapped by lack ofresources, as reported both by state institutionsand NGOs, who also lack capacity.3.4.4 Gender considerationsThree issues of particular importance to womenare the gender implications of syariah law, rightsof inheritance as they pertain to land, and landtitling.Syariah Law: The process of introducingsyariah law did not involve women representativesand its implementation has mixed consequencesfor women. In some areas it has enhancedwomen’s access to human rights andsecurity, while in other areas it actively promotesgender injustice. Many Acehnese women expresslystress that they are not at odds with theconcept of syariah, however they are concernedwith its manner of interpretation and implementationin Aceh.Syariah courts have become increasinglyactive on a number of women’s human rightsissues. These include awarding child guardianshipto women during divorce where previouslychild custody was given to men, providing forequal sharing of marital property at the timeof divorce, and ensuring women’s inheritancerights are safeguarded. Syariah courts have alsoheard a number of cases that relate to divorce.Petitioning mostly on the grounds of domesticviolence or polygamous behaviour, womenconstitute more than 75 percent of those whosubmit to the courts for divorce. Syariah courtshave also indicated support for an increase inwomen’s political representation as enshrinedwithin Qanun No. 3/2008, which confirms that“the list of candidates… shall include at least30 percent of women.” This is supported by thenumerous examples of ‘progressive’ Ulamas, orIslamic religious leaders, who actively advocateon behalf of women in domestic violence andother gender relations issues.In other areas however, commentators haveargued that Aceh’s interpretation of Syariah hasbeen narrow and conservative. 22 This has had adetrimental effect on women’s human rights,particularly regarding controversial restrictionson women’s dress and public behaviour. QanunNo. 11/2002 requires all Muslims to wearIslamic dress. For women this is clothing whichcovers the entire body save for the hands, feetand face. Its most iconic symbol is the jilbabor headscarf. Qanun No. 12, 13, 14/2003criminalises gambling, the sale and consumptionof liquor, and relations between men andwomen which are seen as ‘illicit’. This includesthe khalwat, which forbids close proximitybetween an unmarried woman and a man who isnot her guardian.Human rights concerns arise from the implementationof these laws and the nature ofthe punishment, which include public flogging.The National Commission on Violence againstWomen (Komnas Perempuan) has argued thatthis form of punishment, in addition to beingcruel, results in stigmatisation of women, whoare simultaneously labelled ‘immoral’ by theircommunities and families.The targeting of women has become a particularconcern due to the inconsistent, and sometimesoverzealous, application of syariah law bythe Religious Police (wilayatul hisbah - WH),who have been charged with monitoring compliancewith Islamic law. The WH has beenOnly 7 percentof respondentsperceivedsyariah as animportantissue, whileonly 23percent werehappy with itsimplementation,yet 87 percentfelt that itcould solvepeople’sproblems.50Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

accused of corruption and brutality, and ofdisproportionately targeting women and thepoor, 23 activity which has generated muchresent-ment within the Acehnese community.The International Crisis Group has describedthe WH as “a haphazardly recruited, poorlydisciplined, poorly supervised force that distinguishesitself more by moral zeal thanlegal competence.” 24 While their powershave been curtailed to some extent, concernlingers over their role in Acehnese society.A poll in Aceh in 2007 claimed that only7 percent of respondents perceived syariah asan important issue, while only 23 percent werehappy with its implementation, yet 87 percentfelt that it could solve people’s problems.While this may appear paradoxical, Wilmotinfers from this that Acehnese understand thepotential and relevance for syariah in theirsociety. 25 They recognise that it may be ableto provide the context for social and economicjustice, rather than being used a narrow toolfor punitive measures. More importantly, itcontinues and expands its commitments topromote gender justice. Ongoing monitoringand partnership with civil society will be usefulin this case.Land inheritance: Rights of inheritance arealso an important issue for women in post-crisisAceh. Confusion over inheritance laws and aninconsistent application of those laws has seenwomen dispossessed of land. An attempt toredress this was made in September 2006 withthe establishment of a Joint Titling of MaritalProperty policy. This has been developed bythe BRR and the BPN and was administeredthrough the Reconstruction of Aceh LandAdministration System (RALAS). While thisprogram is an important step forward forwomen, it has met with mixed success.Women, particularly widows, found thatthey lost their claims to land because theirentitlement was mediated away from themto the families of their deceased or missinghusband. Furthermore, confusion or lack ofunderstanding regarding inheritance laws andwomen’s rights were also used to dispossesswomen of land.Consequently, for Acehnese women thereare two concerns surrounding land. The firstis inheritance and the second is the clarity ofrecording titles to land ownership. Inheritancelaws come under the jurisdiction of syariahcourts under Qanun 10/2002, but they do nothave jurisdiction over land rights (Law 3/2006).However, when land is a component of inheritance,syariah courts may make decisionsregarding land ownership, although in practiceadat law often applies. This is decided at thevillage level by the village head (keucik). Heor she is assisted by the imam, and the villageelders (tuha peut). Cases may also be solvedamicably among the survivors without the inputof the keucik. 26 In cases that cannot be resolvedat the family or village level however, the matteris deferred to the syariah courts. It is anticipatedthat the number of cases presented to thesyariah courts will increase. The BPN originallyaimed to title 300,000 land parcels in tsunamiaffectedareas, and a further 300,000 in unaffectedareas by 2006. However, by 2008 ithad achieved only 33 percent of that target. 27While it is not known how many customaryland titles are in existence, there remain asignificant number of unsettled claims.Box 2Witni’s storyWitni’s story: “Witni works as an official for an Indonesiancompany that distributes mobile phones. Priorto the tsunami, Witni’s husband was unwell for a longperiod of time and Witni’s wages were the sole familyincome. Witni is now a widow. She survived thetsunami, but her husband and children did not. Witniis extremely traumatised by the disaster and, worsestill, she is now being deprived of her inheritance byher husband’s four siblings who survived the tsunami.Despite Witni’s legal entitlements, her husband’s siblingshave claimed one hundred percent of her husband’sestate. Witni has been left with nothing andhas no confidence to protest her husband’s eldestbrother about the inheritance as he has a reputationfor violent behaviour. Witni feels alone and withoutsupport.” 28Land titling: A third important issue forwomen is the process of recording title to land,particularly since the introduction in 2006 oflegislation concerning the Joint Land Titling( JLT) of Marital Property. While women havenot formally been denied ownership to land,land ownership has traditionally been recordedin the name of the male head-of-household.Joint Titling is a gender-specific interventiondesigned to ensure that married women haveequal access to land ownership. Box 3 belowdescribes the BRR and BPN’s vision for theJLT program.This is an important step forward becauseit formalises women’s ownership. In cases ofProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 51

divorce, inheritance, accessing money madefrom the land, and in terms of collateral forloans, this provides women with economicempowerment. However, it is important to notethat the RALAS manual states that land ownedby the husband and wife can be registered“jointly in the names of both persons, and notjust the husband.” This does not require thata wife’s name be present on any jointly ownedproperty, but rather provides a moral imperativethat it should. In 2008, RALAS dataindicated that 6 percent of land parcels hadbeen recorded in the joint names of husbandsand wives. This indicates that overwhelminglythe practice of registering land solely in thename of the male heads-of-household continues(see table 3.5).Box 3This reflects the national trend. Fewparcels of land in Indonesia are registered inthe joint name of husband and wife. Nationwidestatistics on joint titling or registrationby sex are limited. However, for areas wheresystematic titling has been implemented,data indicates that relatively few householdsthroughout Indonesia opt for joint titling.In 1998 data suggested that only 30 percentof national titles were issued in the namesof women, 54 percent in the names of men,Table 3.5Land Owned(Hectares)52Joint land titlingJoint Titling: “In September 2006, the Aceh-Nias Rehabilitationand Reconstruction Agency (BRR) and theNational Land Agency (BPN) established a joint landtitling (JLT) policy for locations acquired by the governmentfor resettlement of tsunami victims. JLT is aprogram that applies to families (husband and wife orsiblings) and guarantees equality of land ownershipbetween men and women. With JLT, a husband andwife who are legally married under Indonesian law,or siblings who lost their parents, will be given landcertificates naming both the husband and wife or thebrother and sister as owners where they have been resettledon land acquired by BRR or local governments.The ownership shares shall be equal.”Distribution of land accordingto gender in Aceh, 2008 29Female Male Joint Total43, 195 71, 279 6, 961 121, 435Percentage 36 59 6 101and 5 percent in multiple names. 30 Clearly amore concentrated effort needs to be exertedby government agencies and advocacy groupsto ensure that women’s entitlement to land isrealised.3.4.5 ConclusionsIn response to barriers to justice and other issuesmentioned above, the UNDP’s “Access to Justicein Aceh” report made several recommendations,as summarised below.• Raise community awareness of legalrights: Without an understanding of theirrights and how to enforce them, peoplecannot resolve the legal problems they face.Legal awareness programs must focus notonly as they do now on obligations or duties,but also on rights.• Enhance community legal advisory andadvocacy services: Disadvantaged groupswho face economic or social hardship oftenneed support to access their legal rights ordefend their legal interests. Mechanisms toenable CSOs to establish and maintain legaladvisory and assistance services in cities andmore remote areas are essential to ensurethat more vulnerable sections of the communityhave full access to justice. 31• Strengthen the capacity of local justice institutions:The majority of injustice complaintsare handled by local leaders, includingvillage heads and religious leaders,through adat institutions. Such leadersrequire capacity building directed towardsimproving their mediation skills, knowledgeof substantive law and its processes, andgender awareness to deliver sustainable andequitable solutions to disputes. Members ofthe wiliyatul hisbah (WH) should be giventraining similar to police standards. Thereare positive steps towards justice capacitydevelopment however, by Government ofAceh (GoA) and international agenciesoperating in Aceh.• Support the formal justice sector: Theconflict has undermined public confidencein legal institutions, reduced their capacityto respond to legal problems and supportaccountable government. The tsunami alsoinflicted severe loss and damage on thecourts system, as well as prosecutors and thepolice, compounding existing weaknesses inhuman resources, infrastructure and infor-Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

mation management. Consultations withformal justice institutions as well as stakeholderswho are mandated and able to respondto these needs must continue in orderto seek input on other needs and strategiseon how these needs might best be addressed.• Resolve jurisdictional overlaps: The jurisdictionalambiguity between the generaland Syariah Courts and adat institutionsneeds to be clarified. The jurisdiction ofadat institutions in particular require regulation,and regulations adopted in Acehshould be consistent with the IndonesianConstitution and human rights principles.UNDP practice to support jurisdictionclarity with manuals and trainings thatclarify roles and responsibilities within thejurisdiction system has triggered promisingchanges.• Improve monitoring and oversight: Nationalcommissions charged with oversightof the judiciary, the prosecutors andthe police, as well as other governmentinstitutions responsible for public serviceprovision, should establish provincial officesin Aceh. Oversight and accountabilitymechanisms must also be established foradat institutions to ensure consistency withthe Indonesian Constitution and humanrights principles.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 53

54Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Access to Economic4 OpportunitiesProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 55

56Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER4Access to Economic OpportunitiesEconomicgrowth, is animportantdriver ofper capitaincome, butthe oil and gassector in Acehrepresents aclassic exampleof an enclaveeconomybearing fewbenefits forthe localpopulation.While ready access to public services helps to promote human development and reducepoverty, another important factor is access to opportunities for earning a living.This might be either as an employee working for someone else or as the owneror member of a family enterprise. In a rapidly growing economy, such opportunitiesare plentiful but that is no guarantee that some people will not get left behind. In aweak economy, as is the case in Aceh today, the challenge to ensure that everyone hasa fair chance is even greater. This is particularly true in less developed areas whichare handicapped in competing in markets further afield and in attracting new andexpanding industries and services. The nature of the economic problems facing thepeople of Aceh is explained in the following sections.4.1. The Aceh economy4.1.1 Measures of per capita income in AcehIn economic terms, Aceh presents two totallydifferent faces. According to one commonlyused indicator of development, gross regionaldomestic product (GRDP) per capita, Acehranks consistently among the most wealthyprovinces in Indonesia, although it slippedfrom 5 th among 28 in 1999 to 7 th among 32 in2007 (see table 4.1). This measure of GRDPincludes revenue from oil and gas, whichsince the mid 1970s has been a major sourceof income for Aceh. While the economy hasgrown, it has not been as fast as that impliedby the figures in the table. These are based onTable 4.1 GRDP per capita selected provinces in Indonesia 1978-2007 (Rp current 000)GRDPper cap1978 2008 1999 2007NationalRankGRDPper capNationalRankGRDPper capNationalRankGRDPper capNationalRankNanggroe AcehDarussalam188 6 1,910 4 6,864 5 17,329 7North Sumatera 167 9 808 9 5,476 6 14,167 11Riau 994 2 3,067 2 10,640 3 41,413 3DKI Jakarta 331 4 2,150 3 19,767 2 62,490 2Central Java 95 23 591 17 3,317 19 9,469 21East Kalimantan 1,246 1 4,672 1 23,640 1 70,120 1East Nusa Tenggara 73 26 299 25 1,456 27 4,302 32Papua 363 3 856 6 8,913 4 27,468 5Sumatera 227 1,053 5,455 -Indonesia 153 816 5,040 17,581Notes: (a) GRDP in current market prices. (b) After 2002, Riau formed into 2 provinces: Kepulauan Riau and Riau; while after 2003, Papua formed into West Papua and Papua.Source: (a) data for 1978 and 1988 from Bappenas (2001) “Pembangunan Daerah dalam Angka”; (b) data 1999 from BPS (2002) “Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia; (c) data 2005from BPS (2009) “Selected Socio-economic Indicators: Indonesia”.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 57

Figure 4.1 Shares of oil and gas in Aceh’s economy (%), 1983 – 2006.80.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.0010.000.00198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Note: Shares are calculated using constant prices based on 2000.Source: http://.dtwh.esdm.go.id/index.current prices and reflect substantial inflationover the years, particularly after the fiscal crisisof 1998.In most cases, economic growth is an importantdriver of per capita income, but the oil andgas sector in Aceh represents a classic exampleof an enclave economy bearing few benefitsfor the local population. Most of the inputsrequired are obtained from outside Aceh, as is ahigh proportion of skilled labour, which is notavailable locally. Furthermore, apart from a fewprocessing operations, the sector has generatedfew spin-off industries in the region, due partlyto political and physical insecurity and betterlocations elsewhere. The biggest contributionto Aceh from the industry has been in theform of a share of revenues accruing to centralgovernment, which was increased substantiallyas a result of the Peace Accords of 2005.Oil and gas resources are shrinking fast however,and with it the sector’s share of provincialGDP, hence the decline in rankings shown intable 4.1. At its peak in 1984, it accounted for75 percent of the total, but this has declinedsteadily since then to a little over 30 percent in2006, and less since then (see figure 4.1). Thismeans oil revenues to the government are alsodeclining, as is the modest multiplier effects forthe local economy. This represents an additionalchallenge confronting efforts to promoteeconomic recovery in Aceh and opportunitiesfor employment.If oil and gas are excluded from computationsof GRDP per capita, Aceh’s rankingcompared to other provinces falls to 17 th or18 th between 2005 and 2007. This is slightlybelow the median for the country, but stillsuggests that Aceh is apparently among a groupof middle income provinces. Furthermore,even though the oil sector has recorded negativegrowth in recent years, per capita income basedon non-oil GRDP has been rising, as much as6.6 percent in 2006 and 3.6 percent in 2007,which was above the national average in bothTable 4.2 Per Capita income growth in Indonesia and Aceh, 2005 - 2007Real GRDP per capita growth 2005-2006 (%) Real GRDP per capita growth 2006-2007 (%)Total Without oil & gas Total Without oil & gasAceh 0.5 6.6 -5.7 3.6Indonesia 5.6 6.2 0.5 1.0Aceh less Indonesia -5.0 0.4 -6.2 2.6Source: Based on BPS data.58Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Economicgrowth oughtto help increatingopportunitiesfor earninga living andreducingpoverty, butits impact inAceh has beenweak.Table 4.3 Adjusted per capita expenditure in Indonesia and Aceh, 2002, 2008years (see table 4.2). Most of this was due tothe massive programmes for reconstructionand rehabilitation in Aceh, which have nowlargely run their course. Recent estimatesindicate lower rates of growth since then.This picture looks troubling, but not especiallyalarming. A look at adjusted per capitaexpenditures however, as a proxy for per capitaincome reveals a much worse situation. Insteadof appearing as one of the wealthier provinces inthe country, Aceh emerges as one of the poorest,ranking last in 2002, and second last in 2008just above Papua. This is despite the massiverecovery programmes after the tsunami, whichcreated many jobs and pushed up wages, butwhich were already shrinking by 2008 (seetable 4.3).4.1.2 Economic growth and povertyreductionAdjusted monthly per capita expenditure(Constant Rp 000s)2002 2008 2002 2008Aceh 558 559 30 32Indonesia 591 634Aceh as % Indonesia 94% 88%Number of provinces 30 33Source: Derived from BPS data.Economic growth ought to help in creatingopportunities for earning a living and reducingpoverty, but its impact in Aceh has been weak.RankAceh’s Poverty Needs Assessment Study for2008 concludes that over the years growth hashad a far weaker impact on reducing povertythan other regions in Indonesia. Estimates byBPS and the World Bank suggest that while a1 percent increase in economic growth elsewherein Indonesia reduces poverty by 3percent, it achieves less than half that in Aceh(see figure 4.2). This clearly reflects the enclavenature of the oil and gas industry and its limitedcontribution to raising incomes in the province.4.1.3 InvestmentAnother big obstacle to achieving stronger economicgrowth in Aceh has been the lack ofinvestment both from within the country andfrom outside. This has long been a weakness ofthe local economy, due in part to the conflict andsince then to lingering perceptions of insecurityand extortion, documented in a recent WorldBank study based on a limited survey of businesses.32Figure 4.2Impact of economic growth on poverty reduction in Aceh and elsewhere0% Poverty Growth Elasticity, 1984-99-0.5-1-1.5-2-2.5-3Aceh Papua Riau EastKalimantanRest ofIndonesia-3.5Source: BPS and World Bank staff calculations.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 59

Table 4.4 Investment by selected provinces in Indonesia 2006 – 2009Licenses2006 2007 2008 2009Investment(Rp trillion)LicensesInvestment(Rp trillion)LicensesInvestment(Rp trillion)LicensesInvestment(Rp trillion)Aceh 0 0 2 17 0 0 3 80Aceh as % total 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%Riau 18 5,002 11 6,190 16 3,934 10 2,061Jakarta 359 4,560 399 8,889 468 11,765 494 15,205Jawa Barat 329 6,937 279 12,675 357 6,842 351 6,659Banten 103 4,323 100 1,778 130 2,467 115 5,794Kalimantan(4 provinces)32 3,071 38 1,859 31 1,936 53 3,223Subtotal 841 23,893 827 31,391 1002 26,944 1023 32,942Percent total 82% 90% 72% 69% 73% 76% 70% 68%Other provinces 190 2,748 312 13,812 375 8,290 443 15,593Subtotal 190 2,748 314 13,829 375 8,290 446 15,673Percent total 18% 10% 28% 31% 27% 24% 30% 32%Indonesia 1031 26,641 1141 45,220 1377 35,234 1469 48,615Provinces withno investment5 6 5 3Source: Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (BKPM)Despite the end of the conflict, the situationhas not improved. A contributing factor inrecent years has been a lack of clarity over whichagencies have authority to grant licenses andother permits necessary to conduct business inthe province. While the LoGA of 2006 grantsauthority to Aceh for many tasks, supportinglegislation to implement the transfer of authorityfrom central government is bogged downin protracted negotiations between central andprovincial agencies.Information from the Indonesia InvestmentCoordinating Board (BKPM) shows there hasbeen virtually no investment in Aceh during thepast four years. Only 5 licenses have been issuedfor investments that barely register above 0percent of the national total (see, table 4.4).The bulk of investment, around 70 percent ormore, has been going to Jakarta and adjacentprovinces, Riau and Kalimantan, although morerecently other provinces have been getting abigger share. Meanwhile, Aceh along withBengkulu and several other provinces mainlyin eastern Indonesia have received little ornothing. Aceh was one of only 5 provinces thatfailed to attract any investment both in 2006and 2008.The lack of investment has also affected thequality of physical infrastructure. The long yearsof conflict undermined efforts by the public60sector to maintain and improve infrastructure,particularly roads and electricity. While fundingfor disaster recovery programmes has helped inrecent years to upgrade several ports and roadsthroughout the province, shortfalls in powergeneration remain a major constraint to thegrowth of business activity and place an addedburden on private enterprise to invest in theirown standby equipment for power generation.Part of the problem arises from competingnational demands on funds available to thePLN, the national electricity authority.4.2. District comparisonsAs discussed in Section 4.1.1, measures of percapita income based on GRDP and adjusted percapita expenditures yield quite different results,giving rise to confusion and misunderstandingsabout which regions are poorer or richer 33 . Estimatesof these two measures are shown for localjurisdictions in Aceh in Appendix A: Table 4.1.GRDP figures are in current prices for 2007,while expenditure figures are in current pricesfor 2008 and come from the Susunas householdsurvey for that year 34 . Although not strictlycomparable, they do provide an idea of thedifference between the two measures and therankings among jurisdictions for each measure.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 4.3 Expenditure per capita by district in Aceh (Rp current 2008)NWESSABANGBANDA ACEHACEH BESARACEH JAYAPIDIEBIREUENLHOKSUMAWEACEH UTARABENER MERIAHACEH TIMURACEH BARATACEH TENGAHKOTA LANGSANAGAN RAYAACEH TAMIANGGAYO LUESACEH BARAT DAYAACEH TENGGARAACEH SELATANSIMEULUEACEH SINGKILLEGEND323 - 370370 - 420420 - 514514 - 652652 - 889ACEH SINGKILSource: BPSThe first thing to notice is the difference inthe rankings of jurisdictions based on these twomeasures (column 6 in Appendix A: table 4.1).For 8 of the 23 jurisdictions the difference is lessthan 3 places, meaning the GRDP figures arenot greatly misleading as an indicator of relativeincome levels. In 8 other cases, the GRDP figureoverstates income levels, particularly in AcehBarat Daya, Aceh Tamiang and Lhokseumawe,even though income from oil and gas has alreadybeen deducted from the figure for the last twomentioned. Conversely, in 7 other jurisdictionsthe GRDP figure understates income levels,particularly in Sabang and Pidie in the NEAregion, and Aceh Jaya and Simeulue in the WSAregion. This clearly shows that GRDP is not agood proxy for per capita expenditures, since itis based on additional factors. 35Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 61

Whichever figures are used, cities show upas wealthier than districts, ranking on average4 places higher. GRDP figures show originaldistricts as better off than new ones, but the percapita expenditure figures show them to be moreor less equal.Estimates of expenditure per capita shouldbe a more reliable proxy for personal income,and hence more useful for identifying poorercommunities. These yield some surprises. Whilethe WSA region consistently ranks lower thanothers on many indicators, it emerges hereahead of the other two, ranking three orfour places higher. In 2008 at least, threedistricts in the region, Aceh Barat and its twooffshoots, Aceh Jaya and Nagan Raya, rankamong the top 7 of all jurisdictions for percapita expenditures. Two districts in the AcehHinterland region, Aceh Tengah and BenerMeriah, follow close behind in 8 th and 9 thplaces. As mentioned in the discussion ofGDIs, three of these districts are the mainproducers of highly priced arabica coffee.The price of agricultural commodities isobviously a big factor affecting householdincomes and spending in rural areas, whichaccordingly will vary from year to year.Per capita spending was lowest in the rural areasof Aceh Tenggara, Subulussalam, Gayo Luesand Aceh Utara.The results of this analysis are summarisedin table 4.5 which sorts jurisdictions into fourcategories. Generally speaking, the jurisdictionsshown as having high non-oil GRDP percapita income are probably recipients of aboveaverage per capita government spending andinvestment.Examples include Banda Aceh, Lhokseumaweand Langsa, which are all cities. Thoseshown as having lower per capita expenditures(income) are rural areas, such as Gayo Lues,Aceh Tenggara, Aceh Singkil and Subulussalam,with a combination of lower payingjobs, farmers producing lower priced commodities,and most importantly poor access toexternal markets.The proportion of spending on food isanother indicator of relative income levels,since it shows what is left for other purposes(see Appendix table 4.1). Among regions thefigures are similar, but this hides wide vari-ationsamong jurisdictions. These range from lows incities like Lhokseumawe (57%) and Banda Aceh(41 percent) to highs in Aceh Tenggara (69Table 4.5Summary table of per capita rankings by jurisdictions in AcehNon-oil GRDP rankExpenditure rank High LowHighTotal 12LowTotal 11Aceh BesarLangsaLhokseumaweBanda AcehAceh BaratNagan RayaAceh TengahBener MeriahAceh TamiangBireuenAceh Barat DayaAceh SelatanTotal 12 11Source: Derived from Table 4.5.PidieSabangAceh JayaSimeulueAceh TimurAceh UtaraPidie JayaAceh SingkilSubulussalamAceh TenggaraGayo Lues62Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Table 4.6 Percent of Employment and GRDP by sector in Aceh, 2003 - 2008SectorEmploymentby Sector2003 2005 2008GRDPby SectorEmploymentby SectorGRDPby SectorEmploymentby SectorGRDPby SectorAgriculture* 62.1 21.0 59.8 26.7 48.5 26.2Mining 0.5 30.0 0.3 23.1 0.5 18.9Manufacturing 4.8 19.9 3.6 18.0 5.3 11.1Electy, Gas & Water 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3Construction 2.9 3.8 3.8 3.2 6.4 8.5Services# 29.7 25.0 32.3 28.8 39.1 35.0Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Notes: (*) Agriculture includes farming, livestock, forestry and fisheries(#) Services include transportation and communication; trade, hotel and restaurant; finance; and other services.Sources: BPS Statistical Yearbooks.percent), Gayo Lues (70 percent) and Pidie (72percent).4.3. Employment4.3.1 Productivity of LabourAverage per capita income in a given communitydirectly relates to the proportion of workers employedin different activities, how much theyearn, and indirectly to the relative productivity ofworkers in those activities. To better understandwhy income levels are lower in some locationsthan others, it is helpful to look at the compositionof employment and GRDP in each sector(table 4.6), from which are derived relative levelsof labour productivity (table 4.7). Due to datalimitations, this analysis is based on informationfor the province as a whole, although proportionswill obviously differ in each jurisdiction.As may be seen, the end of the conflict andparticularly the tsunami brought about big shiftsin employment, mainly from agriculture to theconstruction industry and the service sectors,especially transportation. While agriculturestill accounts for the bulk of employment inAceh, this dropped sharply from 60 percentof the total in 2005 to 49 percent by 2008, asmany rural workers picked up jobs in recoveryprogrammes. Meanwhile, employment in theconstruction industry expanded rapidly from 3percent in 2003 to more than 6 percent in 2008,although it was higher during the peak of thereconstruction programmes. Jobs in the servicesectors also expanded in recent years, from 30percent of the total in 2003 to 39 percent by2008, partly in response to opportunities inrecovery programmes and the large influx ofaid workers, but also in part to pent up demandaccumulated during the conflict.Big shifts are also evident in terms of sectoralcontributions to GRDP. As noted before, themining sector, which consists almost entirely ofoil and gas, has steadily been shrinking inimportance, down from 30 percent in 2003 to 19percent in 2008. Since much of manufacturing isrelated to oil, its share has also declined from 20percent to 11 percent during the same period.Table 4.7 Relative levels of GRDP per worker by sector in Aceh 2003 - 2008GRDP/worker 2003 GRDP/worker 2005 GRDP/worker 2008Agriculture* 0.3 0.4 0.5Mining 66.5 79.7 37.8Manufacturing 4.1 5.0 2.1Electy, Gas & Water 2.6 0.8 1.3Construction 1.3 0.9 1.3Services* 0.8 0.9 0.9Total 1.0 1.0 1.0Note: Sectors as defined in Table 4.7Source: Derived from Table 4.7Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 63

Meanwhile other sectors have been growing,boosted partly by reconstruction programmes,but not enough to offset the decline in mining.Despite this, GRDP shares from constructionrose 4.7 percent between 2003 and 2008, fromservices 10 percent and more significantlyfrom agriculture, also up over 5 percent.In terms of labour productivity, due to thehighly capital intensive nature of the activity,the mining sector (read oil and gas) vastly outperformsall others in Aceh, achieving some60 to 80 times the average for the province,but declining noticeably by 2008 and probablyfurther since then. Similarly, as oil-relatedmanufacturing winds down, productivity inthat sector has also declined. The figures forthe utilities sector dropped due to losses fromthe tsunami and by 2008 had yet to recover toearlier levels. The lower productivity figures forthe construction sector in 2005 are likely due tothe changing nature of the work. This involveda massive cleanup campaign in the year afterthe tsunami in 2005 and rehabilitation of fishponds and agricultural land for a couple of yearsmore, activities where productivity measures arerelatively low.The most encouraging trend shown intable 4.7 is the relative increase in labour productivityin agriculture, which rose from 0.3in 2003 to 0.5 by 2008. As shown in figure4.4, this is not a short term fluke, but has beensteadily improving over the years, certainly since1980, indicating a smaller number of farmersare producing a larger proportion of GRDP.This bodes well for households engaged inagriculture, forestry and fishing, and in ruraldistricts where these activities are important.4.3.2 Employment characteristicsWhile an analysis of the performance of thelocal economy helps to understand the structuralchanges taking place in the region, twoquestions are of more immediate concern inthinking about human development: Howare people presently occupied? And how canopportunities for earning a living be enhanced?To answer the first question, we look at keycharacteristics of employment in each jurisdiction.These include the labour force participationrate (LPR), informal sector employment(ISE) and open unemployment (see,Appendix A: table 4.2). The second question istaken up at the end of this chapter.Compared with the national average, thelabour force participation rate 36 in Aceh isconsiderably lower (60 percent vs 67 percent)and open unemployment 37 is slightly higher(9.6 percent vs 8.4 percent). Among regionswithin Aceh, the labour participation rate ismarkedly higher in the Aceh Hinterland, whichincludes three districts ranking in the top four,the only ones producing arabica coffee. TheNEA and WSA regions have comparable ratesfor labour force participation, slightly lowerFigure 4.4 Share of employment and GRDP in agriculture in Aceh, 1980 – 2007Agriculture sector807060504030201001980 1985 1990 1995 2003 2005 2007Share of employment Share of GRDP Gap between employment and GRDPSource: Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (BKPM)64Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 4.5 Unemployment and labour participation rate by jurisdictions in Aceh, 200880Labour force participation rate (%)75706560555045400 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Open unemployment percentSource: BPS Statistics, Indonesia, 2008.in the WSA, where the participation rate inmost districts is 60 percent or less, except forNagan Raya which ranks third overall. Thelowest ranking jurisdictions include Simeulueand Aceh Utara (both 55 percent), Aceh Tenggara(54 percent) and rather surprisingly thecity of Lhokseumawe (52 percent). Amongjurisdictions, the LPR is highest among newdistricts (64 percent) and lowest among cities(59 percent). It is hard to detect an overallpattern here, except that the LPR appears to behigher in remote rural areas, perhaps becausemost are employed in family enterprises,particularly farming.Open unemployment tends to be higherin cities, lower among the original districtsand lowest among the new districts. Averagerankings of unemployment among regions varygreatly. The Aceh Hinterland scores highest,meaning generally lower unemployment,followed by the WSA region, with the NEAcoming in last with higher levels of unemployment.Among individual jurisdictions, unemploymentis lowest in Bener Meriah (3.4percent), Gayo Lues (4.3 percent), Aceh Tengah(4.9 percent) and Nagan Raya (5 percent). It ishighest in Lhokseumawe (14.4 percent),Aceh Utara (14.0 percent) and Aceh Barat(12.1 percent), all in the NEA region, andSubulussalam (12.2 percent) in the WSA.The proportion of workers employed in theinformal sector 38 in Aceh is close to the nationalaverage for the country at 62 percent indicatingan economy that is still economically dependentupon this sector as a source of income for mostof the population. This is a typical situation incountries at intermediate stages of development.This figure is far higher in the Aceh Hinterlandthan other regions, with all four districts thererecording levels close to 80 percent or higher,far above the next district, Pidie Jaya at 69percent. It is lowest in the district of AcehBarat (49 percent) and the three cities of Langsa(54 percent), Sabang (49 percent), and BandaAceh (24 percent).As implied by the lower figures for cities,employment in the informal sector generallydeclines as the economy modernizes, andbusiness enterprises grow larger and enterthe formal sector. Conversely, rural areas thatare still highly dependent on small farms andhousehold enterprises may be expected to showhigher levels of informal sector employment. InAceh, this is highest in the new districts, whileit is lower in the original districts and lowest inthe cities, reflecting in part the relative size andconcentration of government offices.Looking at the larger picture, the data fromAceh hints at two broad trends which are alsofound in studies of other regions. In areas wherejobs are hard to find, where unemployment ishigh, people lose the incentive to seek work,which is reflected in lower rates of participationin the labour force. This appears to be the casein Aceh as shown in figure 4.5. For example,Lhokseumawe not only has the highestunemployment rate (14 percent) but also thelowest labour participation rate (52 percent).Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 65

Figure 4.6 Informal sector employment and unemployment by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008Open unemployment16.014.012.010.08.06.04.02.00.045.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0Informal sector employmentSource: BPS Statistics, Indonesia, 2008.Althoughthe gap hasnarrowed overthe years, theparticipationrate ofmales in theworkforceis still muchhigher thanthat offemales.Conversely, Bener Meriah with the lowestunemployment rate (3.4 percent) has thesecond highest labour participation rate (72.2percent).A second trend observed in Aceh is therole of the informal sector in absorbing peoplewithout work and reducing unemployment (seefigure 4.6). The three districts with the highestproportion of labour working in the informalsector, Aceh Tengah, Bener Meriah and GayoLues, all at 80 percent or higher, also have thelowest rates of unemployment (4.9 percent,3.4 percent and 4.3 percent respectively).Conversely, those jurisdictions with a lowproportion of workers in the informal sector –Banda Aceh, Sabang and Aceh Besar – also haveunemployment levels above 11 percent. Thisability of the informal sector to absorb thosewithout work was also observed in Indonesiaafter the Asian economic crisis of 1997-98,when large numbers of unemployed cityworkers returned to their home neighbourhoodsand family enterprises, especiallyfarming.This observation might be interpreted asimplying that efforts to reduce unemploymentshould focus on support for the informalsector. Perhaps, but there are risks. While thismight reduce open unemployment, it maysimply shift workers to the ranks of the underemployed.Jobs in the informal sector usuallylack social protection and labour rights, andwomen are especially vulnerable to exploitation.After 1998, many enterprises also resorted tooffering informal jobs to save money and evade66paying dues and taxes as well as overtime andpaid leave. The longer term goal must be toassist informal enterprises to become moreproductive, to offer better conditions foremployees, and eventually to graduate to theformal sector.4.3.3 Employment of women and formercombatantsBetween 1998 and 2008, the labour force inAceh grew unevenly from year to year, and notas might be expected (see Appendix table 4.3.).For the first few years, it generally grew fasterthan the population, reflecting perhaps a surgein the number of young people entering thework force that exceeded the number of thoseretiring. In 2003, data shows the size of theworkforce apparently exploded by the unlikelyrate of more than 20 percent only to shrink bya similar factor the following year in 2004. Ifthe labour count was conducted right at theend of the year, this might in part reflect thewidespread loss of life from the tsunami. Giventhe large increase the year before, it seems morelikely however that the figure for 2003 mightbe an error or an over estimate. If this is thecase, then the modest growth of 0.7 percentin 2005 probably reflects both the loss of lifefrom the tsunami offset by a larger influx ofrelief workers as recovery efforts got underway.Growth accelerated in 2007 to 4.1 percent asreconstruction programmes expanded butdeclined slightly by 0.4 percent in 2007,Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Figure 4.7 Labour force by gender in Aceh, 1998 – 200825002000Labor force (000s)15001000500019981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Female612635660693727867545681688621640Male10201045107111251101133510741082112611211154MaleFemaleSource: BPS-Statistics of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province 2009which is surprising since reconstruction was stillin full swing. By 2008, growth had resumed amorenormal pace at 2.9 percent, closer to theaverage in the earlier years.Employment of women: Over the years,the number of women in the workforce steadilyincreased up to a peak of some 850,000 in 2003,although this figure may be inflated (see figure4.7). From 2005 onwards, the number has oscillatedaround 650,000, rather lower in the twomost recent years for which data is available. Asa percentage of the total workforce, their parti-Figure 4.8 Ratio of female-male average non-agricultural wage by jurisdiction in Aceh, 2008Source: BPSSubulussalam*Aceh TenggaraAceh TimurBener Meriah*Aceh BesarGayo Lues*Aceh UtaraSabangBanda AcehAceh TengahACEHNagan Raya*Aceh Jaya*SimeulueBireuenLangsa*Aceh SelatanAceh Barat Daya*Aceh BaratAceh SingkilAceh Tamiang*PidieLhokseumawe*Pidie Jaya*0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 67

cipation rose steadily from 29 percent in 1980to a peak of almost 40 percent in 2002, signifyingan increase of 11 percent over a period of22 years. Since then it has dropped a little toaround 36 percent, which reflects the commentmade earlier that after the return of formercombatants to the household, the burden onwomen to be the primary breadwinners mayhave eased. Although the gap has narrowedover the years, the participation rate of males inthe workforce is still much higher than that offemales.Another area of concern is gender discriminationin wage rates. The ratio of male to femalewages in the non-agriculture sectors in 2008 isshown in figure 4.8. Two points stand out. First,the average wage for women in Aceh was lessthan that for men in all but four districts,Subulussalam, Aceh Tenggara, Aceh Timur andBener Meriah. Second, wage ratios for all fourdistricts in the Aceh Hinterland were abovethe mean for the province. Conversely, the fourjurisdictions with the lowest ratios – AcehTamiang, Pidie, Lhokseumawe and Pidie Jaya –are all in the NEA region. Other than that, theseratios did not exhibit any consistent regional orrural-urban distribution pattern.Employment of former combatants:According to the MSR 39 , there has also beena significant rise in employment levels amongformer combatants, with most now working.Former combatants are reportedly now morelikely to have jobs than the non-combatantpopulation. Most former combatants and politicalprisoners have returned to the occupationsthey held prior to joining the insurgency,mainly farming and agricultural wage labour,with others performing non-agricultural dailywage labour. Despite high employment rates,former combatants are on average less wealthyand have lower incomes than the civilian populationat large, although there is large variationwithin the former combatant population. Sincethe conflict ended, certain groups, particularlyformer TNA officers, are accruing wealth morerapidly than other groups.The MSR also points out that reintegrationassistance has had little measurable impact on theeconomic status of recipient households. In part,this is because many government programs havedelivered cash without guidance or follow-upassistance to ensure its effective use. Few servicesor programmes exist to provide skills training orbusiness development support to former combatants,political prisoners or conflict victims.Only a small number of former combatants oramnestied political prisoners have returned toschool since the conflict ended.In the medium to long term, strategies topromote broad economic growth may be moreeffective in dealing with the needs of most conflict-affectedpeople than targeted assistanceprogrammes. Certain vulnerable populationgroups however, especially IDPs / recent returnees,widows and female-headed householdswill continue to require carefully targetedA key factorconstrainingeconomicgrowth andopportunitiesfor people tobuild familyenterprises isthe difficultyof accessingcredit.Figure 4.9 Urban-rural gap in access to credit in Indonesia and Aceh 2006 and 2007Households with access to credit (%)876543210Access to credit2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007Urban Rural TotalIndonesiaAcehSource: National Social and Economic Survey (Susenas)68Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

assistance. Selection of such groups should bebased on indicators of vulnerability rather thantheir identity during the conflict, and in mostcases communities will be best placed to decideon who should benefit.4.4. Access to financial resourcesA key factor constraining economic growthand opportunities for people to build familyenterprises is the difficulty of accessing credit.This applies both to small enterprises as wellas larger ones, especially those involved in theagricultural sector (broadly defined). In Aceh,the proportion of households that receive creditfrom financial institutions and governmentprogrammes is generally below the nationalaverage, as illustrated for the years 2006 and2007 (see, figure 4.9). The higher proportionfor urban households in Aceh in 2007 wasan exception, due to the launching of a creditprogramme by the provincial government,which is described below.At the national level, there is no markeddifference between lending in urban and ruralareas, but in Aceh urban households tend tohave better access than those in rural areas, bya factor of more than 2 to 1 in the years shown.Banks have a preference for consumer loans,such as motor bikes and electronic appliances,which are in greater demand in urban areas. Itis also more cost-effective for them to monitorborrowers clustered in towns rather than thosescattered across rural areas with poor roads.Most private financial institutions in Aceh arealso reluctant to lend for economic activities,especially in agriculture, which they regard asfar more risky, given the vagaries of weather,disease and commodity prices.In addition to the banks’ selective preferencefor lending, potential borrowers face otherimpediments to accessing credit in Aceh.These are widely recognised in less developedeconomies around the world, and similar tothose already mentioned in accessing justice.Few financial institutions operate branches inrural areas, making it time consuming and costlyto initiate a loan and make periodic payments.Many people find the administrative proceduresdifficult to understand, especially thosewho are illiterate or who have little education.Requirements for collateral are hard to meet,especially those without title to land, a serioushandicap for the poor and also women asmentioned earlier. This forces most people,especially in rural areas, to rely on moneylenders, who usually charge high or exorbitantinterest rates, often exceeding 100 percent peryear.In an attempt to improve access to credit,as part of a strategy to reduce poverty andpromote small and micro enterprises (SMEs),the Aceh provincial government launched aprogramme in May 2007, called Credit forNanggroe Welfare (Kredit Peumakmu Nanggroeor KPN). This followed similar programmes,launched earlier by three previous governors,called People’s Economic Empowerment(Gema Assalam and Pemberdayaan EkonomiRakyat - PER). These are largely funded bydividends that the government of Aceh receivesfrom its shares in the Local Development Bank(Bank Pembangunan Daerah or BPD). TheKPN programme provides micro-credit up to amaximum of Rp 15 million for proposals fromindividuals, which are processed by the BPD.Although a large number of proposals werereceived after launching the KPN, it achievedlittle impact and is considered a failure. Thiswas predictable given the poor design of theprogramme, which was riddled with flaws. Itcontained no planned targets, no clear strategyand no clear procedures for evaluation. Loanswere nominally intended for the poor, but littlethought was given to how to reach them or toservice their special needs. As is often the casewith government credit programmes of thisnature, interest rates were set at 5 percent per year,far below the market rate, which usually leads tocorruption in awarding loans to favoured clients.Some proposed waiving interest altogetheron religious grounds. Although intended tobe sustainable, the scheme quickly collapsedas many borrowers defaulted on their loans,calculating they would suffer little or no penalty.This is another common problem with publicallyfunded credit programmes, especially where thegovernment decides on the allocation of loansand the bank merely acts as an intermediary andexecuting authority.A more successful strategy was implementedby the BRR during its four years of operation, inwhich funds were transferred to qualified NGOswith relevant experience, who were responsiblefor allocating and administering the loans. Manyother similar credit programmes were started bydonors as part of their recovery efforts, resultingin the creation of numerous micro creditagencies or Lembaga Keuangan Mikro (LKM) asProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 69

they are known locally. Together, these agencieshave issued large numbers of loans, totallingaround 140,000 by the end of 2008 (see, figure4.10). Many of these LKMs have since closed,as donor programmes ended, although othershave continued on their own. Since the BRRended operations in March 2009, some of thecredit schemes they started, along with otherfunctions, have been transferred to the provincialgovernment.Figure 4.10160.000140.000120.000100.00080.00060.00040.00020.0000Aggregate number of credits2007 (May) 2008 (Dec)4.5. Approaches to economicdevelopment in AcehBRRNGOGovernment thinking on promoting economicrecovery and development is reflected in anumber of recent documents. These includethe long and medium term developmentplans (RPJP and RPJM) and the annualbudgets, which all local governments prepare,as well as various reports produced by relateddepartments and agencies, notably the Governor’sOffice and the Aceh ReconstructionSustainability Agency (Badan KesinambunganRekonstruksi Aceh - BKRA). The latterwas charged with coordinating the continuationof the activities of the Board for Rehabilitationand Reconstruction, as well associal welfare and institutional capacity.In 2008, the Governor’s Office issueda concept paper titled Green EconomicDevelopment and Investment Strategy for Aceh,known as Aceh Green. The title is somewhatmisleading, since it refers primarily to theconservation of protected forest areas and theenvironmentally appropriate use of naturalresources. Among other ideas, it includesproposals for capitalising on Aceh’s vast forestareas through participation in global carbonmarkets. While the paper does not directlyaddress larger issues of economic recovery anddevelopment, it does serve a useful purposein drawing attention to the need to takeinto account environmental implications ofstrategies for economic development.These and other documents all reiteratein one form or another perceived prioritiesfor economic development, such as reducingpoverty, creating jobs and supporting smallenterprises. But they all suffer from a lack of anoverarching conceptual framework that wouldprovide the rationale for appropriate strategies,outputs and criteria for prioritizing the use ofresources. As a result, plans amount to littlemore than a long list of programmes proposedby individual departments, rather than acoherent portfolio designed to achieve statedgoals and objectives.Two other reports of note that relate to economicdevelopment in Aceh have been preparedby the World Bank. The Aceh PovertyAssessment, 40 published in 2008, recommendsthat priority should be given to the poorestregions in Aceh such as those in the rural interiorand more remote areas. The report argues:“The current concentration of resources in tsunamiaffected areas, particularly Banda Aceh andareas close to the capital, should be broadened tocover other areas affected by the conflict. Any povertyalleviation strategy should focus on increasingthe productivity of the agriculture andfisheries sectors. This should be linked to a strategyto improve the capabilities of the poor (skillsdevelopment, rehabilitation of physical assets)and link them to growth poles in the urbanareas (better rural infrastructure and accesstomarkets).”A second report by the World Bank, titledAceh Growth Diagnostic 41 , focuses on identifyingand removing constraints to growth.Among others, these include the shortageand unrealibility of power supply, physicalinsecurity, criminal extortion, and the role ofpublic investment in raising the supply of publicgoods and services. Recommendations relate toimproving the investment climate for privateinvestors, and promoting equitable develop-Delivery ofextensionservices,the repairof irrigationsystems, andpromotingaccess tomarkets wouldbenefit theentire farmingcommunityand thereforebe lessselective ordiscriminatory.70Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

The peoplewho bestunderstand theconstraints andopportunitiesfacingeconomicgrowth, andare bestpositioned topromote it, arethose who earntheir livingfrom economicactivities,namelybusinessentrepreneurslarge andsmall.ment as a means of preventing future conflict.Like other reports, this study also emphasizesthe crucial role played by the agricultural sectornot only in the overall economy but in theperformance of the non-oil industrial sector.An important recommendation of the studyin raising the productivity of the agriculturalsector is to reorient public spending away fromsubsidizing specific inputs, such as seeds andfertilizers, towards improving the provision ofpublic services. Delivery of extension services,the repair of irrigation systems, and promotingaccess to markets would benefit the entire farmingcommunity and therefore be less selective ordiscriminatory.4.6. ConclusionsImplications for economic development. Thestrategic implications of the preceding analysisare clear. If Aceh is to achieve success in creatingmore widespread and productive opportunitiesfor people to earn a living, efforts are needed ontwo broad fronts. At the macro level, structuralweaknesses in the economy need to be addressed,while at the micro level programmes to supporthousehold enterprises and personal livelihoodsneed to be linked to structural changes that aretaking place in the larger economy.What does this mean in practice?Recommendations:• Since the oil and gas industry is in steep decline,and the non-oil manufacturing sectorstill accounts for only a small portion ofGRDP and employment, economic recoveryand growth can only be achieved by expandingagriculture, broadly defined to includeplantations, fishing and forestry.• Since prospects for outside investment in theregion are poor, and local demand is severelyconstrained by low per capita spending,efforts to expand the agriculture sector mustfocus on exports to non-local markets eitherwithin Indonesia or abroad. This implies amarked shift in the government’s currentapproach to supporting agriculture, which isheavily oriented to the supply side.• Instead, policies and programmes must beshaped by external demand and aim to enablelocal producers to compete successfully inthose markets. Simply increasing productionis not enough; attention must also be paid toimproving quality of produce and meetingthe needs of specific buyers.• Without a clear understanding of the implicationsof structural changes occurring in theAceh economy, efforts to create opportunitiesfor employment and small enterpriseswill be largely ineffective.• Most programmes in support of livelihoodsin Aceh, especially those launched during themassive recovery effort, have focused primarilyon providing credit, sometimes grants,and technical assistance mainly for businessmanagement. Evaluations of these programmesalmost always report success, as demonstratedby the increase in business achievedby recipients.• However, few evaluations compare recipientsto a control group of non-recipients. Studiesthat have included control groups find thatmany report losing business, and warn thatthere is a risk of such programmes achievinga zero sum result, with gains by some offsetby losses by others.• This may be less of a risk in unusual circumstances,for example during the immediateaftermath of major disasters such as the tsunami,where demand temporarily exceedssupply. But the risk rises again as productiongradually recovers to pre-disaster levels.• Why should this be? Quite simply becausethe majority of small family businesses arecompeting in a limited local market. This isespecially true in the service sector, forexample among cafes, restaurants, grocerystores, repair shops and beauty parlours, butit also applies to some farmers and producersof food products, in other words those servingconsumers in the local neighbourhood ormarket area.• As emphasised at the macro level, the lessonhere is that programmes in support offarmers, fisher folk, small enterprises andother forms of livelihoods, must consider thelimits of local demand and search forpotential opportunities in markets furtherafield. At the provincial level, this meansoutside Aceh, especially for growers andprocessors of agricultural commodities.• As demonstrated by the APED project (box4), a proven strategy for doing this is bystrengthening supply chains that link localproducers to non-local markets throughbusiness partnerships that involve producers,processors, exporters and importers.Implications for people empowerment.In the past, many local governments in Indo-Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 71

Box 4 The APED Coffee Forum 42The Coffee Forum was originally launched by UNDP and others in September 2005 as part of the Emergency Responseand Transitional Recovery (ERTR) programme, and has been supported by APED since mid 2006. The Forum has so farfocused only on arabica coffee, which is grown mainly in three districts within the Aceh Hinterland, Aceh Tengah, BenerMeriah and Gayo Lues. If funding is available, the project could expand to cover districts growing robusta coffee.The full forum meets about twice a year and includes representatives from farmer groups, coffee cooperatives, processors,exporters, government departments, research institutions, financial institutions, NGOs, donors and other interestedstakeholders. Every two years, forum participants elect the members and chair persons of an Executive Committee,currently numbering twelve people. This meets formally about once a month and informally as needed. In 2008, theForum established itself formally as a legal entity with its own rules of conduct and receives technical support from theAPED project team attached to the provincial BAPPEDA in Banda Aceh.Since it was formed the Coffee Forum has undertaken a number of initiatives including:• Preparation and distribution of 1000 copies of a manual on the production, processing and marketing of Aceharabica coffee, which the IFC plans to revise for the use of coffee farmers nationally.• Research leading to the identification of coffee varieties most favoured by international buyers, which has attractedgovernment funding to obtain formal certification from the Ministry of Agriculture.• Introduction of a system to provide information on local market prices for coffee farmers using text messages broadcastthrough cell phones.• Collaboration with UNDP’s SSPDA project for the distribution of 37,600 agricultural tools and equipment to coffeecooperatives and 11,846 farmers, most of them victims of the conflict and IDPs who had since returned to theirvillages.• The formation of a Committee for Protecting Gayo Coffee, which has prepared documents to protect the name“Gayo” as a Geographic Indicator for coffee grown in the Gayo mountain area of Aceh. This is now being pursued ininternational forums by the Director General of the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (Hak KekayaanIntellectual - HKI) in Jakarta.• A programme to provide grants of US$100,000 to business groups comprising farmers, cooperatives, processors,exporters and NGOs for the purpose of strengthening market supply chains for coffee, which has resulted inimproved quality of produce and substantially increased sales and income for local farmers.• The increased participation of women in project activities including field training courses for farmers and theirelection to the Forum Executive Committee.• Initial success in overcoming resistance from local financial institutions to make loans to farmer cooperatives andprivate enterprises for agricultural production and trade.• Mobilising support from donors, the private sector and especially local governments for Forum activities.As may be seen, the Coffee Forum provides an excellent example of what can be achieved through empowering stakeholdersto collaborate with government in promoting economic development. It has attracted widespread attention fromgovernment and the business community throughout the province, and many other districts have expressed interest informing similar forums for other sectors.nesia have attempted to lead initiativesfor economic development themselves, butwith mixed success. Public investment in economicprogrammes has often proved largelyineffective, such as micro-credit schemes, subsidiesfor production inputs and particularlyindustrial parks that stand empty for years.While government can and should play animportant role as facilitators and coordinators,they do not make good entrepreneurs. Thepeople who best understand the constraintsand opportunities facing economic growth,and are best positioned to promote it, are thosewho earn their living from economic activities,namely business entrepreneurs large and small.Recommendations: This calls for actionsto empower the business community, broadly72defined, to collaborate more effectively withgovernment in shaping policy and prioritiesfor economic development.Two initiatives have already been launchedin Aceh and provide examples of how this canbe achieved. With funding from the IFC,an Aceh Business Forum was set up in 2008as a platform for improving dialogue betweengovernment and the private sector on mattersrelated to economic development and businessactivities in Aceh. Groups of representativesfrom government and the business communitymeet separately at first, and then come togetherperiodically to share ideas and proposals. Theconcept is modelled on IFC experience in othercountries, which has expanded to include subgroupsrepresenting individual sectors such asProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

trade, infrastructure, agriculture and tourism.A second model may be found in the AcehPartnerships for Economic Development(APED) project supported by UNDP sincemid 2006 with funds from the DecentralizationSupport Facility and later the Bureaufor Crisis Prevention and Recovery in Geneva.The APED approach is based on the selectionof local commodities with a strong potentialfor exports to non-local markets and formationof industry forums to collaborate with governmentin promoting the development of thesecommodities. To enable the forums to functioneffectively, a project support unit providesintensive technical and administrative assistance,particularly in developing detailed proposalsand implementing initiatives. TheAPED project has been implemented in Acehby UNDP in collaboration with BAPPEDAand has launched forums for coffee, cocoa andmost recently for rubber, which together coverten districts. Since it started, APED has spurredconsiderable financial support from governmentand the approach has attracted attention fromseveral other districts, which are interestedin replicating the approach in other sectors.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 73

74Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

5Participation andPeople EmpowermentProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 75

76Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER5Participation and People EmpowermentIn Aceh,nearly alllocally basedcommunityorganisationsare non-profitentities, runby volunteers,dependent oncontributionsfrom thecommunityitself orelsewhere.Most areinformallystructured,thoughsome maybe formallyregistered.As argued by Amarta Sen in his book Development and Freedom, perhaps the mostimportant goal for human development is to create freedom for individuals to makechoices. This may be considered at three levels. In personal terms, people shouldbe free to make social, cultural and religious choices concerning their way of lifewithout being forced to conform to the traditions and expectations of dominantgroups. At the local level, people should have the opportunity to participate inmaking decisions concerning the community in which they live. Where this is notpractical, people should have the right to choose those to represent them in largerdecision making forums at higher levels of government.This chapter looks at participation first interms of the larger political arena, and then interms of people empowerment and decisionmaking at the level of the community.5.1. Political participation5.1.1 Democratic electionsOne aspect of freedom to make choicesconcerns people’s right to choose those who areto represent them in larger decision makingforums. This refers primarily to the electionof representatives to district, provincial andnational assemblies. In this regard, Indonesiahas achieved great progress in the decade ofreformasi, following the fall of the Soehartoregime in 1998. Indeed, Indonesia is nowrecognised as a country where principles ofpolitical democracy are more widely practisedthan many other countries in Asia. UnderSoeharto, citizens had few rights to elect publicofficials. Today, Indonesians are entitled to votefor representatives at all levels of government,from the village to the national parliament(DPRN), as well as government leaders fromthe village chief, to the Bupati at the districtlevel, to the provincial Governor and mostrecently for the President of the country. Thisrepresents a remarkable achievement in such ashort period of time and an important advancein human development.5.1.2 Post crisis political actionIn addition to the rights enjoyed by all Indonesians,the people of Aceh also exercise otherprivileges, including the right to establish localparties, as part of its current special status. Sixhave been officially recognized: the AcehParty (Partai Aceh - PA), the Aceh People’sIndependent Voice Party (Partai Suara IndependenRakyat Aceh - PSIRA); the AcehPeople’s Party (Partai Rakyat Aceh - PRA); theSovereign Aceh Party (Partai Daulat Aceh -PDA); the United Aceh Party (Partai BersatuAceh - PBA), and; the Safe and ProsperousAceh Party (Partai Aceh Aman dan Sejahtera- PAAS). In December 2006, for the first timein Aceh, elections were held for the positionof Governor, district chiefs (Bupati) and citymayors (walikota).Prior to the 2009 legislative elections, a briefspate of violence broke out, caused by localpolitical rivalries. This and other factors wereperceived by some as a signal of waning politicalcommitment to the peace process. The continueduse of the word “Merdeka” or independenceby GAM was interpreted by the IndonesianProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 77

military as evidence that GAM still heraldedpro-independence leanings. The political violenceprior to the elections was seen by boththe military and ex-GAM members as signalinga deterioration of security and a potentialcatalyst for renewed conflict ( Jones 2009).Such sentiments however were overstated,given the fact that the violence was relativelycontained and that the elections were heldsuccessfully.5.1.3 The 2009 electionsIn April 2009, elections were held for membersof national and local assemblies. People votedfor four representatives, including one for theIndonesian Parliament (DPR), the RegionalRepresentatives Council (Dewan PerwakilanDaerah or DPD), the Aceh Provincial Assembly(DPRA), and the District Legislature (DPRK).Based on limited available information, thepeople of Aceh are making good use of theirright to vote. Some 75 percent of registered votersparticipated in these elections, well above thenational average for other provinces 43 .Based on independent election monitors,the Aceh elections were by and large consideredfree and fair with relatively low levels ofviolence. Problems related to money politicsand intimidation in the elections, should theycontinue to pose problems, could have a longertermimpact in its potential for underminingdemocratic governance in Aceh. Nonetheless,the success of the elections showed that thepeace agreement was still holding, despite fearsto the contrary.5.1.4 The role of women in leadershippositionsData on the participation of women in localassemblies in 2008 show different trends at theprovincial and district levels. While womencomprised 8 percent and 9 percent of themembers of the provincial DPRA in 1999and 2002, this figure dropped to less than 6percent by 2008. On the other hand, amongdistrict assemblies, the proportion of womenrepresentatives was low in the first two years,but increased dramatically by 2008. They wereelected to only 5 of the ten district assembliesin 1999 and 4 of the 13 assemblies in 2002, butby 2008 they had succeeded in being elected inall 23 districts. Furthermore, with the exceptionof Sabang, the proportion of women in 2008increased in all district assemblies that existedin 2002. By 2008, they counted for 1 percent orrepresentatives in 6 districts, up to 10 percent in9 more districts and more than 10 percent in 8other districts.Among regions, female participation wasabout the same in the NEA (7.7 percent) and theWSA (7.5 percent), but far higher in the AcehHinterland (13.0 percent), due mainly to BenerMeriah, where women accounted for 38 percentof assembly members, far higher than anywhereMany voters inAceh still seemen as moreappropriatefor leadershiprolesFigure 5.1Voter participation in Aceh in 2009 elections25%19%75%81%Proportion of people who votedProportion of people who did not voteProportion of valid ballotsProportion of invalid ballotsSource: National Elections Commission (KPU)78Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Key remainingtasks includeconsolidatingsocialcohesion,furtherenhancing there-integrationof formercombatants,addressinga number ofgender relatedissues, andpromotingbroaderinclusion ofpoor anddisadvantagedgroups indecisionmakingprocesses.else. While cities had higher average proportionsof women representatives in 1999 and2002, new districts, including Bener Meriahhad overtaken them by 2008.Part of the dramatic increase in women’s participationin 2008 may be attributed to nationalregulations that require parties to nominate womenfor at least 30 percent of their candidates.But it should also be noted that the source ofdata for 2008 is different from 1999 and 2002,so the method of computation may be different.Although comparable data is not yetavailable from the April 2009 elections forlocal assemblies, the DPRA and DPRK,female candidates apparently fared less well.While many women were recruited in order tomeet the stipulated 30 percent quota for eachparty, the majority of these candidates did notearn enough individual votes to be elected.Commentators claim that some candidateswere inexperienced politicians recruited merelyto achieve the quota, and did not campaignactively. In addition, many voters in Aceh stillsee men as more appropriate for leadershiproles, a view crudely expressed by one male officialfrom a (non-Islamic) national party: “Theworld was created for men, women cannot beleaders…women cannot think rationally for oneweek per month, so how could they make decisions?”(Palmer 2009). However, these factorsare not new and do not explain why women’sparticipation was so much higher in 2008 andapparently much lower after the 2009 elections.Although not directly related to the politicalarena, one of the indicators used in the GenderEmpowerment Measure (GEM) for provincesin Indonesia and districts in Aceh is thepercentage of women in senior official, managerialand technical staff positions. Datashows that in 2008, women held roughly 50percent of these positions, up from 2002 butnot as high as 1999 (the three right handcolumns in Appendix A: table 5.1). As in thecase with many other development indicatorspresented in this report, cities recordedwomen as accounting for the highestaverage proportion of these positions, whilenew districts had the lowest proportion.Among individual jurisdictions in 2008,the proportions are highest in Nagan Raya(65 percent), Bireuen (60 percent) andAceh Tengah (59 percent), and lowest inLhokseumawe (29 percent), Aceh Barat (33percent) and Aceh Tenggara (41 percent).While this indicator may be a reasonableproxy for women professionals, it is not a goodindicator of women as leaders and decisionmakers. Many of the personnel included in thedata hold relatively junior posts in governmentoffices with limited authority to make decisions.The indicator is based on the weighted averageof three sub-categories for senior officialsand managers, professional personnel, andtechnicians and assistant professionals. Data onthe first category varies widely among districts inAceh. In Simeulue, Aceh Timur, Bireuen, NaganRaya and Aceh Tenggara, women account forbetween 40 percent and 45 percent of seniorpositions, but in Aceh Barat, Aceh Barat Daya,Pidie, Pidie Jaya and Subulussalam, there are nowomen in these positions. A simple head countin most government offices indicates that menstill outnumber women in most senior positions,a situation that is probably similar among mostprivate sector businesses.5.2. Social cohesionThe most promising opportunities to promoteactive participation and people empowermentmay be found at the level of local communities,and to a lesser extent districts and the province.For these things to happen however, civilsociety must first achieve a satisfactory level ofpolitical stability, social cohesion and mutualtrust, conditions that are easily destroyed duringsevere armed conflict and hard to reestablishafterwards.Despite the widespread upheavals caused bythe conflict and natural disasters in Aceh, recentstudies have found that these conditions havemore or less been restored, although importanttasks still need to be addressed. In 2006, theKecamatan Development Program (KDP)undertook a comprehensive survey of infrastructureand social conditions in Acehnesevillages throughout the province, 44 withsurvey questions related to decision-makingmechanisms, community trust and solidarity,social cohesion and inclusion. The generalconclusion to be drawn from this survey isthat positive social conditions in Aceh providea potential basis for participatory decisionmaking. Gender biases and social divisionsresulting from the conflict however, need to beaddressed before full community participationcan be realized.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 79

More recent information is included in thedraft 2009 Multi Stakeholder Review (MSR) 45 ,which aimed to identify and better understandfactors that support or constrain recovery andredevelopment in communities in Aceh in thewake of the conflict and natural disasters. It isbased on data collected during 2008 – 2009from three surveys covering former members ofthe TNA (the military arm of GAM), individualmen and women, and village heads. Preparationof the MSR involved the governments of Acehand Indonesia, the Aceh Peace-ReintegrationBoard (BRA), and the National DevelopmentBoard (BAPPENAS) supported by several donoragencies.The report concludes that: “A comprehensiveand inclusive strategy for consolidating peace isstill lacking as is an effective institutional structureto oversee its implementation”. 46 Nonetheless,it also concludes that rural communitiesin Aceh have high levels of trust invillage government and traditional institutions,even though trust towards other levels ofgovernment is low. Its findings on socialcohesion supported in general the positivefindings of the 2006 KDP village survey inthat relatively positive social conditions couldprovide a basis to address further challengesin the reconstruction and rebuilding of Acehby empowering citizens through communitydevelopment approaches.Key remaining tasks include consolidatingsocial cohesion, further enhancing the reintegrationof former combatants, addressing anumber of gender related issues, and promotingbroader inclusion of poor and disadvantagedgroups in decision-making processes. The MSRfor example, reports that inter-village and interethnicrelations are a source of tension in somehighland areas, as are relations between IDPreturnees and villagers throughout the province.Deeper reintegration of former combatants hasyet to be achieved, as reflected by limitedclose friendships with civilians.5.3. Empowerment and decision makingFor many people, the most important decisionsin the public realm are those that directly affectthe communities in which they live. Actionsto improve access to public services and thequality of them are usually of greater interestand more direct benefit than policy matters athigher levels of government. For this reason,steps to enhance opportunities for people toparticipate actively in the process of makingdecisions concerning their community area vital component of human development.Since the end of the Soeharto regimein 1998, numerous initiatives have beenintroduced to allow decisions to be madeby local governments, elected parliamentsand other public forums closer to the peopleand communities affected by them. Initialdecentralisation legislation in 1999, whichdevolved powers and resources from centralto local governments (otonomi daerah),has spurred numerous other policies andprogrammes instituted by governments at thenational and local levels. A number of examplescurrently applied in Aceh are reviewed here.5.3.1 The MusrenbangThe Multi Stakeholder Consolidation Forumfor Development Planning (MusyawarahPerencanaan Pembangunan – Musrenbang)was established under Law No. 25/2004 onthe National Planning System. It was envisionedby the central government as a centralpart of a framework which would synchronizebottom-up and top-down planning andbudgeting processes as a means to reconcilethe different needs and interests of governmentand non-government stakeholders. The processstarts at the village level, where the communityprepares medium term development plansand annual budgets. These are then forwardedto the sub-district office (kecamatan), whichcoordinates proposals and produces anaggregate plan and budget. These in turn aresent to the district planning office (BAPPEDA),which repeats the process, incorporating otherproposals from government departments.The resulting district plan and budget is thensubmitted to the local assembly (DPRD) forreview, negotiation and eventual approval.Some components may also require discussionand negotiation with the provincial governmentand assembly. Due to the numerous stepsinvolved, the Musrenbang process has beenmuch criticised, especially by villages, as beingcumbersome, protracted and ineffective inresponding to community priorities.Steps toenhanceopportunitiesfor people toparticipateactively inthe processof makingdecisionsconcerningtheircommunityare a vitalcomponentof humandevelopment.80Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

5.3.2 The Kecamatan Development Program(KDP)The KDP was originally launched and fundedby the World Bank a decade ago and hassince been mainstreamed into the nationwideCommunity Empowerment National Program(Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat -PNPM - Mandiri), becoming one of the world’slargest participatory development programmes.It aims to deliver development resources torural communities through “inclusive, transparentand accountable decision-making mechanismsdesigned on the basis of extensiveprior social research in Indonesia”. The programnow operates in 40 percent of all subdistrictsin Indonesia.Guidelines on decision-making procedures,which aim to empower marginalized groups,Box 5The Kecamatan (Sub-District)Development Program (KDP)The Kecamatan (Sub-District) Development Program(or KDP) aims to introduce transparent, accountableand participatory development planning at the villageand sub-district levels in Indonesia. The program’sdefining element entails the transfer of block grantsto committees at the sub-district (kecamatan) level,largely made up of non-governmental representativeselected by constituent villages. Groups of villagersbrainstorm and then prioritize ideas for small projectsthey would like to see funded in their village—e.g.,the paving of a road, the building of a bridge overa stream, a community centre, or a saving and loansfund. Supported by input from technical experts, suchas engineers, they then submit proposals for fundingto the sub-district committee. The committee evaluatesproposals for technical and financial feasibility,poverty targeting, likely impact, and sustainability. Atleast one proposal from each village must be from awomen’s group. All deliberative processes are conductedin public, and all outcomes are posted on communitybulletin boards, with journalists and NGOs encouragedto report any abuses. KDP thus introduces,or tries to introduce, rules-based, transparent and accountablecompetition into village life. In the process,it creates “winners” and “losers”—some proposals getfunded, some do not—and thus increases the potentialfor dispute. However, it also creates new spacesfor public deliberation, new avenues for the participationof marginalized groups, and new opportunitiesfor the cultivation of civic skills: public participationin planning, debating differences, managing meetingsand keeping records.Patrick Barron, Rachael Diprose, Michael Woolcock,“Local Conflict and Development Projects in Indonesia:Part of the Problem or Part of a Solution?” WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper 4212, April 2007,p 8.can impact local power structures. Predictably,resistance to such changes from those who havetraditionally held power can be the cause ofdispute in KDP areas. At the same time, moretransparent processes created by KDP can alsocreate argument as villagers become aware ofinterference by village elites in the decisionmakingprocess. Nevertheless, while KDP has thepotential to trigger disputes, the evidence showsthat KDP-related quarrels are less likely to escalatethan other programmes, because of mechanismsfor conflict resolution and the inclusionof a wide range of people in the KDP planningprocess.5.3.3 Aceh Recovery Framework (ARF)The ARF was intended to form the basis for theGovernor’s four-year transitional road map forachieving sustainable peace and development inAceh, although it was never formally adopted.A consultative process was used to formulate theframework. Six Cluster Committees led by theProvince worked over an eight month periodto identify the major challenges faced by Acehduring its transition period and to set prioritiesand outcomes. Cluster Committees were cochairedby the UN, World Bank, donors and theBRR with membership from a range of local andinternational organizations and stakeholders.Ten ARF stakeholders’ consultations took placein districts and cities across the province in 2008to reflect Box 6 the realities, The Kabupaten/Kota concerns and needs oflocal government Recovery and communities, Forum (KRF) making useof existing Kabupaten/Kota Recovery ForumsOne of the most relevant large-scale participation(KRF). processes These recently forums undertaken were was chaired the KRF, by which electedprovincial supports government Aceh districts officials in creating with strategic a wide plans rangeof participants according to local from priorities. civil society, Field discussions cultural leaders, withthree KRF teams confirm that women’s input is notformer combatant associations and the privatealways being maximized. Gender training and skills insector. how to While overcome the obstacles ARF made to women’s strenuous partici-pation efforts toengage are needed. communities Field visits suggest in dialogue that richer however, information it didnot and provide more an buy-in opportunity will be generated for them if to separate share insessions are first held for men and women, followedthe process of making final decisions.by plenary sessions to build on commonalities. Ideasthat originate only from women or men can then beexplored collectively. Chances of success would be5.3.4 enhanced BKPGthrough sessions on gender sensi¬tizationand the participation of all actors involved in recoveryplanning.In 2009, the Aceh provincial governmentcreated Mission a Report new Gender programme Outcomes called & Reflections Financial –Assistance Aceh (p 12). for Village Welfare (Bantuan KeuanganPeumakmue Gampong – BKPG). ThisComments from Linda Pennells, IASC Gender Advisor,was designed to be the government’s chiefOffice of the Resident Coordinator, OCHA – Indonesiainstrument Mission, 14 August for realizing –3 September its 2008. vision of developingthe entire province. It aims to acce-Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 81

lerate rural development, reduce poverty,empower communities and strengthen thecapacity of village governments. Based onQanun No 1/2009, the government has set upa Gampong (village) Allocation Fund (AlokasiDana Gampong) to provide IDR 100 millionper year for each gampong, to be supplementedby IDR 50 million per year from districtbudgets. In addition, gampongs in Acehmay also receive funding from the centralgovernment through the PNPM programme.Technical guidelines for the BKPG programmeare contained in Governor Regulation No25/2009, which is a genuine attempt to empowercommunities in planning and decision making.5.3.5 Community organisationsIn addition to the government programmes justmentioned, a large number of organisationsoutside government are active in supportingcommunity led initiatives in Aceh. These arevariously referred to as Community ServiceOrganisations (CSOs), usually comprisingcitizens from the local area, Community BasedOrganisations (CBOs), which are similar innature, local and international Non-GovernmentOrganisations (NGOs). In Aceh, nearly alllocally based community organisations are nonprofitentities, run by volunteers, dependenton contributions from the community itselfor elsewhere. Most are informally structured,though some may be formally registered. Manyhave been formed through government or moreoften through donor programmes for specificpurposes, especially during the period followingthe tsunami, while others may have started as aresult of local initiatives. They may be formed fora wide variety of purposes, but are typicallyengaged in activities related to health, education,social welfare and sometimes economic development.Commenting on the situation in November2006, a UNDP study 47 reported that: “CSOsthat had been established after the tsunami andearthquake were weak in organizational andtechnical capacities. Long-established NGOsthat had been active in advocacy and communityempowerment had a higher level of capacity,but required capacity development” in manyother areas. To strengthen the capacity of theseorganisations and to facilitate their meaningfulparticipation in the post-disaster recoveryprocess, UNDP implemented the CommunityService Organisation project that ran for fouryears, ending earlier in 2010. In addition, theproject set up Civil Society Resource Centres(CSRCs) to serve as learning hubs for CSOsand provided small grants for income generationactivities, basic social services and women’sempowerment programmes.While this project was primarily designed toenable CSOs to participate in reconstruction andrehabilitation activities, it clearly demonstratedwhat can be achieved through people empowerment.It also serves as an example of the potentialrole these organisations can play in supporting awide range of initiatives to improve the welfareof the local community.5.3.6 Gender biasDespite findings regarding the relatively highlevel of social capital and cohesion in Aceh, the2006 KDP village survey also indicated thatwomen were still largely under-represented indecision making at the community level. Inspecific sectors, such as agriculture, fisheriesand irrigation, where women in Aceh areclosely involved, they rarely take part inpolicy formulating processes. At the villagelevel, decision making rarely involves womenbecause women’s involvement in formal villageinstitutions is still limited.Box 6The Kabupaten/Kota Recovery Forum(KRF)One of the most relevant large-scale participationprocesses recently undertaken was the KRF, whichsupports Aceh districts in creating strategic plansaccording to local priorities. Field discussions withthree KRF teams confirm that women’s input is notalways being maximized. Gender training and skills inhow to overcome obstacles to women’s participationare needed. Field visits suggest that richer informationand more buy-in will be generated if separatesessions are first held for men and women, followedby plenary sessions to build on commonalities. Ideasthat originate only from women or men can then beexplored collectively. Chances of success would beenhanced through sessions on gender sensitizationand the participation of all actors involved in recoveryplanning.Mission Report Gender Outcomes & Reflections – Aceh(p 12).Comments from Linda Pennells, IASC Gender Advisor,Office of the Resident Coordinator, OCHA – IndonesiaMission, 14 August –3 September 2008.In specificsectors, suchas agriculture,fisheries andirrigation,where womenin Acehare closelyinvolved, theyrarely takepart in policyformulatingprocesses.82Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Principlesof citizenparticipationandempowermentin planningand decisionmaking arealso now farmore widelyrecognisedand practisedthan before.Despite itslimitations, theintroductionof theMusrenbangprocessrepresentsa seriousattempt toheed the voiceof communitiesacross thecountry andto improvegovernment’sresponse totheir needsand priorities.5.3.7 Lessons learnedThe notion of public participation in theplanning process for community developmenthas been around for 40 years or more, but onlyin the past decade have attempts been made toput it into practice in Indonesia. The lessonslearned from experience in Aceh, Indonesia andelsewhere points to several broadly acceptedconclusions.• Public hearings and other weak forms ofparticipation such as the Musrenbang mayyield useful information for planners butoffer little assurance that stakeholder preferencesor priorities will be adopted or reflectedin budgets.• People empowerment requires strong formsof participation, including volunteer-based,that allow stakeholders to share responsibilityfor decisions with governmentofficials or that delegate respon sibility tostakeholders for making decisions themselves.• Empowerment also requires the allocationof financial and other resources to stakeholderforums or groups in order to implementdecisions.• People empowerment can be applied notonly at the community level, but also inother sectors, such as health, education andeconomic activities.• Empowerment in this manner is a potentiallypowerful instrument to improve thedelivery of public services, make better useof available resources and ultimately a moreeffective way to promote human development.While these conclusions are sound, theprinciple of stakeholder empowerment shouldnot be regarded as a panacea for success.Sceptics argue that empowerment carriespotential risks like collusion and corruption.Local elites may capture benefits, or pressureparticipants to support their own agenda.Participants may lack the technical andadministrative skills to make appropriatedecisions and manage funds properly. Whilethese may be risks, they merely emphasizethe need for government agencies, donorsand others to make a strong commitment tosupporting stakeholder forums.Recommendations: In order to ensure thatthese forums are able to fulfil their potentialand operate effectively, government agenciesand others involved in setting them up should:• Define precisely the powers and responsibilitiesto be delegated, so that participantsclearly understand the limits of their authority.• Specify clear operational procedures toensure the stakeholder forums abide byprinciples of good governance, transparencyand accountability.• Advise and assist forums in adopting methodsto ensure participation of women andmarginalised groups that have not so farbeen included and to strengthen their voicein decision making.• Provide intensive technical support to helpstakeholders formulate viable proposals foraction.• Allocate funds to cover not only actions proposedby the forum but also, where necessary,the operating costs to enable membersto hold and attend regular meetings. This isparticularly important for forums representingstakeholders dispersed across theprovince, such as industry clusters.• Formulate procedures for the disbursementof funds, procurement and financialreporting.• Monitor the proceedings and activities ofthe forums to minimise abuse of theirpowers and prevent misuse of funds.Already in Aceh today, there are severalsuccessful examples of stakeholder empowerment,which provide models for application inother fields. The forums established under thePNPM-Mandiri program are well establishedand have already been evaluated. The BPKGforums also operate at the community levelbut are newer and yet to be assessed. In theeconomic sector, examples may be found in thePublic Private Dialogue project funded bythe IFC, and UNDP’s Aceh Partnerships forEconomic Development (APED) project forcoffee, cocoa and rubber. In the educationsector, central government directives requireschool boards composed of teachers,administrators and parents to collaboratein preparing plans and budgets. Proposedplans and budgets have to be co-signed by theschool administrator and a representative ofparents. This is part of a strategy to improveadministration and management in line withperformance indicators.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 83

5.4. ConclusionsDuring the past decade, Indonesia has madegreat progress in empowering citizens to makechoices and to participate in decision makingin the public realm. Principles of democracyhave been greatly enhanced through the gradualexpansion of elections for public officialsat all levels of government. By the same token,public officials are now far more accountableto the citizenry than was the case earlier.While bribery and extortion are still endemicthroughout the country, and remain of seriousconcern to the people of Aceh, it is no longertolerated or ignored but widely prosecutedand punished, as is evident from frequentreports in public media.Principles of citizen participation andempowerment in planning and decisionmaking are also now far more widely recognisedand practised than before. Despite itslimitations, the introduction of the Musrenbangprocess represents a serious attempt to heed thevoice of communities across the country and toimprove government’s response to their needsand priorities.Perhaps the most ground breaking and farreaching innovation of the past decade hasbeen the launching and gradual expansionof the Kecamatan Development Programme(KDP) by the World Bank in collaborationwith the central government. This now coversthe whole country under its new name, theCommunity Empowerment National Program(Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat- PNPM - Mandiri). The allocation of blockgrants to representative committees of localcitizens along with the authority to determinethe use of these funds, represents a powerfulapplication of the concept of people empowerment.Adoption of the concept by centralgovernment, and the expansion of the programmeacross the country, provides a strongprecedent and example for local governmentsto replicate in their own programmes. It isencouraging to see the provincial and districtgovernments in Aceh adopting the modelthrough the BPKG programme which providesblock grants to all villages throughout theprovince. Many other opportunities exist toapply the concept of people empowermentto other fields of human endeavour.Box 7People empowerment for service provisionYapen, 6 September 2010 – Almost all the villages in remote areas of the Province of Papua lack electricity. Thegovernment-owned power company has not been able to reach these villages due to their difficult location andgeophysical obstacles. In response, the Yayasan Bina Kitorang Mandiri (YBKM), a CSO partner of UNDP’s PeoplecentredDevelopment Project (PDP), together with the people of Worioi village, conducted a study that showed it wastechnically feasible to build a micro hydro power plant in the area that would generate 5000 watts of electrical power.Given the high estimated cost of the project, the challenge was to mobilise sufficient funds to build the plant and relatedinfrastructure.The YBKM succeeded in obtaining a grant of some US$70,000 from the PDP project, but this was not enough. To reducecosts, the community agreed to contribute labour, materials and a share of the cost. This included the building of adam and reservoir, water tanks, the installation of water pipes, the construction of an electrical substation, electricalinstallations to each home, the construction of access paths, manual transport of materials and supplies for the turbines,provision of local materials such as wood, sand and stone, the installation of electricity poles and water pipes to theturbines.As a result of their efforts, the power plant now generates electricity twelve hours a day serving 50 households. For thefirst time, people can now watch television, children can study at night, and household chores are made easier throughuse of electrical appliances. Within four months after the start of turbine operation, households had purchased 15televisions and 10 parabolic antennas.To ensure sustainably, the community established a board to operate and maintain the facility, and to collect user fees.These amount to a modest Rp 10,000 per month (about one dollar), which is used to cover maintenance costs.The project is a joint cooperation between Government of Netherlands, NZAID, UNDP and the Government of Indonesia.For more information please contact:Source: Adapted from a report at:http://www.undp.or.id/press/view.asp?FileID=20100906-2&lang=en84Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Recommendations:• The concept of people empowerment shouldalso be applied to other public services, suchhealth centres (puskemas) and small scaleinfrastructure works, such as irrigationsystems, water supply, road maintenance andeven local power generation in remote areasas in Papua (box 7).• In the economic sphere, there is ample scopeto apply the concept through public-privatebusiness forums to promote local agricultureand industries.• Local governments in Aceh should exploreother opportunities for people empowermentas a means to improve service delivery, enhancelivelihoods and business activities, andadvance larger goals of human development.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 85

86Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

6Planning and Budgetingfor Human DevelopmentProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 87

88Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER6Planning and Budgeting for Human DevelopmentAs Aaron Wildavsky once pointed out, the best intentions, programmes andplans mean nothing until they are translated into approved budgets 48 . Even then,much can go wrong before or during execution. As discussed in chapter 4, thegovernment of Aceh has many times expressed its intentions to further advancehuman development in official plans and documents. The question to be exploredin this chapter is: To what extent are these intentions reflected in recent budgets ofthe provincial, district and city authorities in Aceh?There are three parts to this question: whatprocedures are used to determine the allocationof resources among districts and cities; howdo governments plan to use these resources asreflected in their annual budgets;and ultimately,how does actual spending correspond withplanned expenditures?The last question is what really matters,since many factors may intervene to preventresources being spent as planned. Localassemblies may take months to agree onproposed budgets, or may require substantialchanges, thereby causing delays in execution.Sometimes these delays mean it is eithertoo late to implement certain programmes,particularly those tied to harvest cycles, or thetime remaining in the fiscal year is too short.Other problems may arise from difficulties inprocuring necessary goods and services fromqualified suppliers, lack of agreement amongintended beneficiaries, or simply weak skills inproject management.An analysis of these kinds of problemswould be helpful in suggesting ways to enhancedelivery of public services and improveperformance. However, since information onactual expenditures is not widely available,these issues are better explored in more detailedstudies. Instead, this chapter will focus on thefirst two questions relating to the allocation ofresources and planned expenditures as indicatedin proposed budgets.6.1. Revenues6.1.1 Sources of revenueSince the year 2000, Aceh’s fiscal revenuesmanaged by the provincial and local governmentshave increased dramatically. The provincewas among the main beneficiaries of fiscaldecentralisation following legislation in 1999on local autonomy (otonomi daerah), whichawarded many local governments a share of oiland gas revenues, and additional shares to Acehdue to its special autonomy status. This wasfollowed in 2006 by a large increase in nationalresources for the General Allocation Fund(DAU). Beginning in 2008, a further boost toAceh’s revenues has come from an additionalDAU allocation, referred to as the “SpecialAutonomy Fund” (SAF) under the 2006 Lawon Governing Aceh. This will continue for 20years until 2028, and comprises 2 percent of thetotal national DAU funds for 15 years, and 1percent for the remaining 5 years. The SAF willmore than compensate for the decline in oil andgas revenues due to the depletion of reserves,and is expected to ensure a substantial inflow ofrevenues for the next two decades.The revenue of Aceh’s provincial, districtand city governments increased nearly fourfoldin real terms between 1999 and 2002, andProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 89

Figure 6.1Revenues of provincial and district/city governments in Aceh(Rp billion, constant 2006 prices), 1999 – 200816.00014.00012.00010.0008.0006.0004.0002.00001999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008District ProvincialSource: Estimated from data reported in World Bank (2008).nearly six-fold between 1999 and 2008 49 (see,figure 6.1). As a result, Aceh is now among therichest provinces in the country as measured byper capita fiscal revenues. On top of the increasein regular fiscal revenues, the province benefitedfrom huge inflows of resources for financingrecovery and reconstruction during 2005 –2009 in the aftermath of the tsunami. Theseresources represented a big addition to publicspending over and above regular governmentexpenditures. 50 Meanwhile, the central governmentcontinues to spend substantial resourcesin the region to finance developmentprojects classified as national priorities, such asthe recently completed airport for BAA, andthe proposed international seaport in Sabang.With government revenues growing muchfaster than the local economy, the share ofthe government budget in total GRDP hasincreased from only 7 percent in 1999 toaround 29 percent by 2008.6.1.2 Resource allocationA closer look at the fiscal resources received bydistricts and cities in Aceh over the past decadeindicates that the province has had little scopefor influencing the allocation of fiscal resourcesin accordance with declared goals for humandevelopment, poverty alleviation or otherpolicy priorities. This is simply because until the90introduction of the SAF in 2008 the provincehas controlled the allocation of only a smallportion of fiscal resources going to districts andcities.Sources of revenue. District and cityrevenues come from five main sources. Brieflysummarised, these include: (a) locally generatedrevenues from fees and taxes, amountingon average to about 5 percent of the total;(b) shares of certain taxes generated in theirown jurisdictions but collected by centralgovernment, representing on average between4 percent to 11 percent of the total; (c) sharesof non-tax revenues, mainly from oil and gas,which accounted for 20 percent of the totalearlier this decade, but has since fallen steadilyto around 7 percent by 2008; (d) SpecialAllocation Funds (Dana Alokasi Khusus orDAK), which is a conditional transfer from thecentral government to achieve national policyobjectives; and (e) General Allocation Funds(Dana Alokasi Umum or DAU).In contrast to the fixed proportions set forrevenue sharing, the central government usesa formula for the allocation of DAU funds,that explicitly takes into account local needs,though the details of the formula have beenmodified several times 51 . The specification ofthe formula is a constant source of argument,since DAU allocations constitute by far thelargest component of district and city revenues,which in Aceh have been close to 60 percentProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

on average in most years since 2000. TheDAU formula allocates 10 percent of the totalavailable as a standard basic amount sharedequally among all districts and cities, and 50percent is designed as a balancing factor forthe wage bill of government staff. This used tocover about 70 percent of the total cost of districtand city government employees but apparentlynow covers close to 100 percent. This effectivelyremoves any disincentive to forming new jurisdictionsand may in fact encourage the trend.The remaining 40 percent of the DAU isallocated to cover what is known as the fiscalgap, which is defined as the difference betweenexpenditure needs and fiscal capacity, or therevenue received from sources other than DAU.Estimates of expenditure needs take into accountfour factors: the population; geographic area;relative costs, and; the extent of poverty in eachjurisdiction. Each factor is weighted differentlyand weights are subject to change, but at least inthe early years, the emphasis was on populationand relative costs (40 percent each), with only10 percent placed on poverty and geographicarea. Some have questioned why poverty iseven included in DAU allocations to localgovernment, since the issue is better addressed atthe national level.Until 2008, the only fiscal resources controlledby the provincial government for distributionto districts and cities in Aceh were thoserelated to additional revenue sharing from oiland gas that were agreed as part of the PeaceAccords of 2005. The use of these resources isdetermined by the provincial government itself,and specifies 30 percent for education and 70percent for allocation among local governments.Of the latter, 40 percent goes to the province,25 percent goes to district and city governmentsthat generate the revenue and the remaining 35percent to other local governments. Half of thisis then shared equally among all recipients and50 percent according to a formula based only onpopulation and geographic area, ignoring otherfactors reflecting poverty or other objectives ofhuman development.Resource allocation and development. Insum, the allocation of resources among districtsand cities in Aceh over the past decade has moreor less ignored factors reflecting relative levels ofdevelopment, with the exception of the povertyfactor included in the formula for DAU.Furthermore, even though DAU representsthe largest component of fiscal revenues formost districts and cities, the poverty criteriaexerts a minor influence overall in calculatingthe amount for each juridiction. This beingthe case, we might expect to find little or norelationship between per capita fiscal revenueand levels of development among districtsand cities in Aceh. Surprisingly, this is not thecase. On the contrary, if we remove the twodistricts without complete data, Pidie Jaya andSubulussalam, and Sabang as an outlier, a ratherclear relationship emerges when HDI is used asthe indicator for level of development(see, figure 6.2 and Appendix A: table 6.1).In terms of regions, per capita revenue isFigure 6.2 HDI and per capita fiscal revenue by jurisdiction in Aceh, 200760005000Percapita fiscal revenue (Rp)4000300020001000066 68 70 72 74 76 78HDISource: HDI ranking is based on data from BPS; Per capita revenue ranking is based on data from World Bank (2008) “Aceh Public Expenditure Analysis”.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 91

highest in Western and Southern Aceh (Rp3.0 million), followed by the Aceh Hinterland(Rp 2.9 million), but significantly lower inNorthern and Eastern Aceh (Rp 1.6 million).Both the HDI and several other indicatorsdiscussed earlier in this report show the NEAas the more developed region and the WSAas the least developed. Furthermore, of elevenjurisdictions with higher rankings for per capitafiscal revenue, seven rank lower on HDI. Theseare Aceh Barat, Simeulue, Aceh Jaya, NaganRaya, Aceh Barat Daya, Bener Meriah andGayo Lues, the last five all being new districts.In addition, six jurisdictions out of ten withlower rankings for per capita revenue also rankhigher on HDI, these being Aceh Besar, Langsa,Aceh Utara, Lhokseumawe, Bireuen and Pidie.Three factors may explain these results. Standardequal shares for all jurisdictions included inthe formula for the DAU, and to a lesser extentfor additional revenue sharing from oil and gasagreed in the Peace Accords, benefit those withsmall populations. Six of the seven districtswith lower HDIs and higher per cap fiscal revenuesall have small populations, amounting to3 percent or less of the Aceh total. Another factoris the allocation of 50 percent of DAU funds as abalancing factor for the wage bill of governmentstaff, now reportedly covering virtually 100percent of the cost. Since this represents a sizeableproportion of total local government spending,this would also benefit smaller districtsand cities. It would not however contributeto the improvement of public infrastructureand services in less developed areas. A thirdfactor may be the inclusion of a cost index tocompensate for variations in construction costsfrom place to place. Since many less developedareas are more remote with poor access roads,costs there tend to be higher than in more urbanareas on main highways.6.1.3 The Special Autonomy Funds (SAF) 52The introduction of the SAF in 2008 potentiallycreates significant opportunities for theprovincial government to allocate resourcesaccording to policy priorities, although howthis is to be achieved is still being discussed.The SAF is expected to generate some US$400 million a year initially, and represented54 percent of provincial revenues in the firstyear and more than 20 percent of total localgovernment revenues in Aceh.92According to initial arrangements laid outin Qanun No. 2/2008 53 , 60 percent of SAF is tobe used to finance district and city developmentprogrammes jointly executed with the province,and the remaining 40 percent will be used tofinance provincial programmes, which couldalso be implemented in collaboration withindividual districts and cities. This arrangementwas proposed in order to give the provinceclose control over the allocation of resources,but it also requires the province to accountfor the use of all SAF funds. After furtherthought, the province realised this was neitherfeasible nor in the interests of the districts andcities. It is now proposed that 60 percent ofSAF should be transferred directly from thecentral government to districts and cities, butthe use of these funds should be subject toapproval by the province according to agreedpolicy priorities emphasising education, health,physical infrastructure and economic development.The allocation of SAF among districtsand cities in Aceh currently includes a basicallocation (30 percent of total) and a formulaallocation (70 percent of total). The basicallocation is simply equal shares for alljurisdictions, while the formula componentis designed to reflect fiscal needs. Accordingto Qanun 4/2007 54 , the formula takes intoaccount population, geographic area andHDIs, all weighted 30 percent, and a costindex weighted 10 percent. The basic allocationproviding equal shares for all districts and citieswould again tend to benefit local governmentswith smaller populations, many of which are lessdeveloped according to the HDI and severalother indicators.Before concluding this discussion onresource allocation, two points need to beborne in mind in formulating a model for theallocation of SAF resources by the provincialgovernment. The main purpose in adopting aformula is to ensure a transparent process whichall can understand and accept as a more or lessequitable division of resources. This explainswhy the choice of factors to include in a formulatends to be limited to a few obvious variablesfor which there is accurate data which can beverified objectively. The inclusion of indicessuch as HDI or HPI opens the door forarguments about which indicators to includeand whether they reflect realities on theground. No matter which formula is adopted,some recipients will always complain theyProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Much testingis needed todeterminewhichcombination of(variables and)weights yieldsthe optimumsolution andthe mostacceptableallocation of(resources).Table 6.1Sectoral shares of public spending in Aceh 2001 – 2007(Province, districts and cities combined) (%)2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007A. Government Administration 39 31 29 35 36 35 31B. Public Works and Transportation 14 12 11 9 13 13 17C. Public Health and Welfare 6 5 7 6 6 8 9D. Education and Culture 18 30 35 31 27 25 22E. Housing, Labour and Social Affairs 9 10 5 5 4 3 4F. Agriculture, Forestry, etc 7 5 5 5 5 5 6G. Industry, Trade, etc 4 4 1 1 1 1 1H. Social Assistance, Grants, etc 3 3 7 8 8 7 10Subtotal social sectors (C,D,E,H) 35 49 54 51 45 44 44Subtotal economic sectors (B,F,G) 25 20 17 15 19 20 25Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Rp bn (constant 2006) 6,038 6,309 7,975 8,356 6,449 8,943 11,980Source: Derived from World Bank, Aceh public expenditure analysis update 2008, Jakarta, World Bank, 2008; tables C.6 and C.7.are not getting a fair deal. This is inevitable,but preferable to the alternative of eachjurisdiction negotiating its own share.The second point is that the choice ofindicators and the weights attached to themoffers numerous possible combinations andcan yield a bewildering variety of outcomes,some of them counter-intuitive. While it mayseem appropriate to place relatively greaterweight on an indicator for poverty or levelof development, the resulting distribution ofresources may be contrary to what is intended.Other variables, such as distance from a majorurban centre, might produce better results. Asa recent study commissioned by UNDP for theMaldives Government concluded:“There is no obvious single solution to a formulafor block grants. Policy objectives rarelycoincide. A formula that achieves one objectivemay not produce good results for otherobjectives. But one conclusion is clear. Thespecific variables selected to represent policyobjectives influence outcomes less than theweights attached to them. Much testing isneeded to determine which combination of(variables and) weights yields the optimumsolution and the most acceptable allocation of(resources).” 556.2. Expenditures6.2.1 Aggregate public spending by sectorsThe second question to be explored in thischapter is how government plans to use resourcesas reflected in their annual budgets. In parallelwith the massive increase in fiscal revenues forlocal governments in Aceh over the past severalyears, spending has also increased proportionately,from Rp 6.0 trillion in 2001 to nearlydouble that in real terms by 2007. Sectoralshares of aggregate spending by all localgovernments in Aceh during the period 2001through 2007 are shown in table 6.1. 56Generally speaking, the data for the period2001 through 2007 indicates that local governmentshave given first priority to spendingon social programmes, although governmentadministration also takes up a large share of thetotal, while spending on economic programmeshas clearly been given a lower priority. Whenadded together, the four sectors that makeup most of the social programmes (health,education, housing and social assistance)accounted for the largest share of publicspending in all years between 2001 and 2007except for the first year. It increased sharplyfrom 35 percent in 2001 to over 50 percent by2004, but from then onwards has stabilised ataround 44 percent. Of this total, educationhas consistently been given priority over othersocial programmes, largely due to the high costof numerous teaching staff. Housing, labourand social affairs accounted for some 10 percentof total spending in the early years, but hassince fallen to around 4 percent. Meanwhile,spending on the health sector remained fairlysteady at around 6 percent of the total up until2005, but then rose sharply to 9 percent by2007. The health sector and social assistanceprogrammes have been the main beneficiariesProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 93

Figure 6.3Spending on health, education and general administration as a share of total public expenditure byprovincial government in Aceh, 2001 - 2007504540353025201510502001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007Source: Based on data reported in World Bank (2008).General Administration Health Educationof increased spending, the latter rising from3 percent in 2001 to 10 percent by 2007.In terms of individual sectors, the largestshare of aggregate spending is accounted for bygovernment administration, usually around 35 –40 percent of the total but dropping in 2007 to31 percent as revenues and spending increased.Meanwhile, spending shares for the three sectorsthat make up support for economic development(public works, agriculture and industry)dropped steadily from 25 percent in 2001 to15 percent in 2004, but then recovered by 2007to the point where they started six years earlier.While table 6.1 shows shares of aggregatelocal government spending, trends in the share ofexpenditures by the province and the districts andcities are shown separately in figures 6.3 and 6.4for general administration, health and education.Spending shares on general administration hasgone through ups and downs, perhaps indicatingthe unsettled nature of spending patterns in aperiod of fiscal transition. Provincial spendingFigure 6.4Spending on health, education and general administration as a share of total expenditureby jurisdictions in Aceh, 2001 - 2007504540353025201510502001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007General Administration Health EducationSource: Based on data reported in World Bank (2008)94Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Table 6.2 Per capita spending by sectors for districts and cities in Aceh 2001 - 2007 (Constant Rp 2006)(Rp bn)2001-02 2006-07Per capita(Rp 000s)(Rp bn)Per capita(Rp 000s)Percent percap changeEstimated Population 3,974,968 4,130,960 4%Total spending 5,633 1,417 8,439 2,043 44%Spending by sectorsA. Government Administration 1,988 500 2,753 666 33%B. Public Works and Transpn 763 192 1,349 326 70%C. Public Health and Welfare 283 71 708 171 141%D. Education and Culture 1,426 359 2,150 521 45%E. Housing, Labor and Social Affs 517 130 209 51 -61%F. Agriculture, Forestry, etc 275 69 461 112 62%G. Industry, Trade, etc 198 50 108 26 -48%H. Social Assistance, Grants, etc 183 46 701 170 268%Subtotal social sectors (C,D,E,H) 2,409 606 3,768 912 51%Subtotal economic sectors (B,F,G) 1,236 311 1,918 464 49%Source: Derived from World Bank, Aceh public expenditure analysis update 2008, Jakarta, World Bank, 2008; tables C.6 and C.7.on administration doubled from a quarterof the total in 2001 to almost a half by 2006,before falling back to less than 30 percent thenext year, while spending by districts and citiesstarted at 42 percent in 2001, fell sharply to lessthan 30 percent in the next two years, only torise again closer to 35 percent thereafter. Sharesof spending for education followed a similarpattern for both the province and districts andcities, rising from below 20 percent to highs of30 percent and 35 percent respectively in 2003,only to fall back in later years to 25 percent indistricts and cities, but much more sharply to 10percent for the province. Meanwhile, spendingshares for the health sector also followed similarpatterns in both cases, hovering around 5percent at the start and rising gradually to 9 or10 percent by 2007.6.2.2 Sectoral spending per capitaWhile the previous analysis looked at changesin sectoral shares of total spending, theconsequences for people are better illustratedby an analysis of changes in terms of per capitaspending by districts and cities over the period2001 to 2007. To even out large shifts from oneyear to the next, average spending in the firsttwo years is compared with average spendingin the last two years. Estimates of populationin each year are based on the average annualgrowth recorded between the two populationcensuses in 2000 and 2005, which wasa modest 0.85 percent. As discussed earlier, thelow rate of population growth in Aceh in recentyears is probably due largely to out-migration,which may have slowed or possibly reversedsince the Peace Accords of 2005. Even if thisis the case, it would not significantly affect theoverall picture.The first thing to notice is the substantialincrease in overall spending per capita arisingfrom the big increase in fiscal resources availableto districts and cities. This rose 44 percent fromRp 1.4 million at the start of the period to morethan Rp 2.0 million by the end (see table 6.2).Per capita spending on government administrationrose by a third (33 percent), due in partto the addition of 10 new jurisdictions over andabove the 13 that already existed in 2001.While big changes occurred amongindividual sectors, aggregate spending onsocial programmes and economic programmesboth increased by almost the same amount,up around 50 percent. Within the socialsectors, the biggest rise in per capita spendingoccurred in category H, Social Assistance etc,up more than threefold from Rp 46,000 in2001/02 to Rp 170,000 by 2006/07. Thisincludes both national and provincial socialassistance programmes, which were greatlyexpanded during these years. Big gains were alsorecorded for the health sector, up 141 percent,which previously had received rather modestfunding. By comparison, per capita spending oneducation rose a relatively modest 45 percent,although the increase in actual spending wasProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 95

Figure 6.5Average spending per capita 2006-2007 (Thousand Rupiah) NAD ProvinceNSABANGWESBANDA ACEHACEH BESARACEH JAYAPIDIEBIREUENLHOKSUMAWEACEH UTARABENER MERIAHACEH TIMURACEH BARATACEH TENGAHKOTA LANGSANAGAN RAYAACEH BARAT DAYAGAYO LUESACEH TAMIANGACEH TENGGARAACEH SELATANSIMEULUEACEH SINGKILLEGENDSectors(Health andeducation)1277 - 15191519 - 19671967 - 24792479 - 36173617 - 8983ACEH SINGKILSource: BPSmuch greater - Rp 734,000 versus Rp 425,000for health - since it started from a far higherbase. At the other extreme, per capita spendingon category E, ‘housing, labour and socialaffairs’, was cut dramatically, down 61 percentor Rp 308,000, possibly because of the hugeinvestments by the BRR and other donors inrebuilding houses destroyed or damaged by thetsunami.96Within the economic sectors, the biggestrise in per capita spending occurred for categoryB, ‘infrastructure and transportation’, up 70percent or Rp 586,000. This is important forimproving physical access and reducing costsfor people in more remote areas, althoughwhether funds were used for this purposerequires further analysis. Per capita spendingon category F, the agricultural sector broadlyProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

defined, also rose during the years under review,up 62 percent but only a modest Rp 186,000 inactual value, which is unlikely to make much ofan impact on economic recovery in the sector.Conversely, spending on category G, ‘industryand trade’, was cut almost by half, down 48percent or Rp 90,000 per capita. This maybe due in part to the small number of peopleemployed in the sector and possibly to thedecline in the oil and gas sector, but it mayalso reflect the difficulty of attracting privateinvestment. This is a clear example of spendingnot matching the rhetoric of developing agrobasedindustries and creating job opportunitiesin the sector.6.3. Spending by districtsWhile aggregate public spending by sectors providesa good overview, a more detailed analysisof spending by district and city governmentsindicates the relative priorities they give to eachsector. Again, to even out atypical years, spendingis averaged for the two most recent years for whichdata is available, 2006 and 2007. Two recentlyformed districts, Pidie Jaya and Subulussalam,are ignored for lack of data.The median level of per capita spendingfor all jurisdictions included in this analysisaveraged a total of Rp 2.2 million for all sectorscombined (see, Appendix A: table 6.2). Thisranged from a high in Sabang of more thanfour times the median, to a low in Pidie at lessthan 60 percent of the median. Jurisdictionsbelow the median are shaded in red. Sabangoutperforms all other jurisdictions in Acehon almost all indicators of spending due to itshigh per capita revenues, as shown in figure 6.5.Spending is highest among cities, largely dueto Sabang, at around Rp 4.0 million per capita,followed by the group of new districts at Rp3.2 million, with original districts trailing at alittle under Rp 2.0 million. In terms of regions,per capita spending is highest in Western andSouthern Aceh (Rp 2.8 million), followed bythe Aceh Hinterland (Rp 2.6 million) andNorthern and Eastern Aceh with significantlyless (Rp 1.8 million). This mirrors the data onper capita revenues shown in Appendix A: table6.1 and shows clearly that spending is inverselyrelated to several development indicatorsdiscussed in Chapter 3, a direct result of theoutcome in allocating fiscal resources discussedabove.Figure 6.6 Per capita education expenditure by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2006 & 2007Kota SabangAceh Jaya*Kota Banda AcehNagam Raya*Aceh Barat Daya*Aceh BaratKota Lhokseumawe*Aceh TengahBener Meriah*Aceh Tamiang*Aceh BesarKota Langsa*Gayo Lues*Aceh SelatanBireuenPidieAceh UtaraAceh TenggaraAceh SingkilAceh TimurSimeulueSource: World Bank staff calculations based on MoF data (constant 2006 prices)2007 20060 500.000 1.000.000 1.500.000 2.000.000 2.500.000Rupiah at 2006 pricesProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 97

The median level of combined spendingon the three key sectors of health, educationand infrastructure amounts to just over Rp2.0 million per capita or almost half of totalspending. This ratio varies little between citiesand districts, although average actual spendingis higher in cities, due mainly to Sabang, andlower in the original districts. If Sabang isremoved, then per capita spending in the newdistricts is about 50 percent more than othergroups (Rp 1.6 million versus plus or minus Rp1.0 million in the other two groups). Onaverage, per capita spending is highest foreducation (22 percent of the total), followed byinfrastructure (17 percent) and health (only 8percent).6.3.1 Spending on educationThe cultural preference among the people ofAceh for education at all levels is supported byrelatively high levels of public expenditure oneducation. Even before LoGA, which requires30 percent of additional revenue be allocatedto education, local governments in Aceh hadalready displayed a public expenditure priorityfor this sector. Thus in 2004, before the tsunami,the Peace Accords or LoGA, Aceh spent asmuch as 31.4 percent of its budget on educationcompared to 28.8 percent in Indonesia. WorldBank estimates suggest that the difference indevelopment as compared to routine spendingon education was considerably larger, 32.9percent for Aceh compared to 16.6 percent inIndonesia.As with other indicators, average per capitaexpenditure on education in Aceh shows variationsamong jurisdictions (see, figure 6.6). Unlikemany other indicators however, it is relativelyequal except at the two extremes. For mostplaces in the middle, spending hovers aroundRp 500,000 per capita, a little higher in 2007.Spending is highest in Sabang, followed by AcehJaya, Banda Aceh and Nagan Raya, and lowest inAceh Singkil, Aceh Timur and Simeulue.The main concern in improving educationservices in Aceh is not increasing overall literacyrates or even participation rates, but ensuringthat children everywhere have access to goodquality education. This includes properly maintainedphysical facilities, well qualified teachers,reasonably sized classes and competent managementstaff. The government is in the processof introducing an improved set of performancestandards and a budgeting and managementsystem oriented towards achieving and exceedingthese standards. The adoption of performancebudgeting by the provincial Department of Educationis a notable innovation and serves as aprecedent and example to be replicated by otherdepartments at the provincial and district levels.To achieve intended goals however, allocationsfrom the SAF will be needed to ensure that allFigure 6.7 Per capita spending and access to health facilities by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2007% Population Without Access to Health Facilities30252015105050 100 150 200 250 300 350Per capita spending on health (Rp 000s)98Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Improvingaccess ofcourse is onlyone elementin improvingthe qualityof healthservices. Otherchallengesincludepersuadingdoctorsand otherprofessionalstaff to work inless developedareas, alongwith theprovision ofappropriatesupplies andequipment.jurisdictions have the necessary resources for thepurpose.6.3.2 Spending on HealthAs indicated in table 6.2, aggregate spendingon the health sector by all local governmentsin Aceh combined has increased quitesignificantly, up from Rp 283,000 per capitain 2001-02 to Rp 708,000 by 2006-07. Mostspending and most of the increase has comefrom the provincial government. Averagespending by districts and cities in 2006-07 wasonly Rp 253,000, barely a third of the total. Asa share of total spending by districts and citieshowever, it has also increased in recent years,up from 6.3 percent (or Rp 105,000 per capitaat 2006 prices) in 2004 to 8.1 percent (or Rp253,000 per capita) by 2007, but this is still lowcompared to the 17 percent allocated toinfrastructure and the 22 percent for education(see table 6.4).The question here is whether districtsand cities are using available funds to addressdeficiencies in health services. If the percentof the population without access to healthfacilities is used as a measure, the answerappears to be yes in some cases and no in others.Districts with poor access to health facilities buthigh per capita spending (clustered in the topright quadrant of figure 6.7) include: Aceh Jaya;Aceh Barat; Bener Meriah; Aceh Tamiang, and;Nagan Raya. Except for Aceh Barat, the othersare all new districts. Those with poor access tohealth facilities but low per capita spending(clustered in the top left quadrant of figure 6.6)include: Gayo Lues; Aceh Timur, and; AcehUtara. The picture no doubt looks different ifother measures are used, but access is certainlyan important aspect of alleviating poverty andensuring that those living in more remote andsparsely populated areas are not denied medicalattention when they need it.Improving access of course is only one elementin improving the quality of health services.As for education, a big problem is persuadingdoctors and other professional staff to work inless developed areas, along with the provision ofappropriate supplies and equipment. Physicalfacilities are apparently less of a problem due torecent support from donors in rehabilitating andrebuilding health facilities that were damaged ordestroyed during the conflict and tsunami. Oneidea to consider, as suggested in chapter 5, is toestablish stakeholders forums for health facilities,allocate funds to each forum, and allowthem to decide how best to use availableresources. Such forums would need to includerepresentatives of both medical staff, users andlocal government departments of health.6.4. ConclusionsThis chapter aimed to explore the extent towhich government goals are reflected in resourceallocation and public spending. Further researchis needed to examine specific policy prioritiesand objectives in more detail, such as thosementioned in the Aceh Recovery Frameworkrelated to the peace process, human rights,reintegration of former combatants, the provisionof public services and economic development.Nevertheless, several points of note emerge:• In terms of resource allocation, currentprocedures adopted by the central governmentaim primarily to ensure an equitabledistribution of resources among localgovernments throughout the country. Somehave argued for the inclusion of factors thatreflect goals for human development,poverty alleviation, or other policy priorities.There is little agreement on whichindicators are appropriate however, orwhether they accurately reflect conditionsin the field, and in practice they may notyield the results intended. Despite this, asseen above, the current allocation formulaedo produce results that at least in Acehgenerally favour less developed districts,although not all of them.• This is reflected by the results shown intables 6.1 and 6.2, which indicate that bothaverage per capita revenues and expendituresfor new districts in recent years has beensome 50 percent greater than for theoriginal districts from which they wereformed. Leaving aside the widely held viewthat the main purpose in forming newdistricts is to enhance the power of localelites, the evidence clearly supports theargument that carving up large districts intosmaller units generates greater fiscal resourcesand potentially greater opportunitiesto improve local services.• The proliferation of new districts in Acehhas been a big factor accounting for thesubstantial increase in spending on governmentadministration in recent years, butProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 99

this has been largely obscured by the evenlarger increase in fiscal revenues. As shownin table 6.2, spending on government administrationwas a smaller proportion oftotal combined expenditures in 2007than in most previous years.In real terms however, it has been increasingat about 8.0 percent per year between 2001and 2007, and in per capita terms by morethan a third (see, table 6.3).• While the central government has expressedconcern about the huge proliferation of newjurisdictions across the country since thepassage of legislation on local autonomy (otonomidaerah) in 1999, a major cause hasbeen the inadvertent but substantial incentivesincorporated in the formula for allocatingfunds from the DAU. Recent discussionon the subject may result in a rethinking ofthe formula to reduce these incentives, implyingthat a larger share of costs will haveto be borne in the future by local governmentsthemselves.• Until the introduction of the SAF in 2008,the provincial government has had little scopefor influencing the allocation of resourcesamong districts and cities in Aceh, simplybecause the bulk of resources have come fromthe central government. This changes nowthat the SAF represents some 20 percent ormore of total fiscal revenues in Aceh.100Recommendations:• The provincial government should undertakemore detailed research to determine theappropriate formula for allocating SAF fundsthat achieves policy objectives for equitabledistribution. The inclusion of factors such asthe HDI or something similar in theallocation formula will not materially affectthe distribution of resources among districtsand cities, since basic allotments and factorsrelating to population and geographic areainfluence outcomes much more.• Instead, the provincial government shouldfocus more on applying policy prioritiesthrough other instruments related to expenditures.These include guidelines on thepreferred use of SAF resources, performanceindicators, and most directly through theprocess of approving proposals from districtsand cities for the use of SAF revenues.• Provincial and district governments shouldmake use of measures included in the HDI,GDI, GEM and HPI to determine appropriateperformance indicators for expendituresrather than in allocating resources.• The process of approving proposals assumesthe provincial government has the capacityneeded to review proposals in a timely manner,provide technical support to districts andcities, and monitor implementation. Initially,provincial departments may need outsidetechnical support for these purposes, similarto the Project Management Consultantsattached to the Economic Development FinancingFacility (EDFF).• The provincial government should strengthenthe capacity of line departments toconduct an effective review of district proposalsfor the use of SAF funds and to monitorimplementation. Without these measures,there is a risk that districts and cities willsimply use SAF funds for their own purposesat the expense of larger policy priorities.• Provincial and district governments shouldadopt principles of performance budgetingto ensure that expenditures are indeed directedtowards achieving larger goals forhuman development.• This differs markedly from current practicein budget making, which is usually characterisedby “incremental” adjustments topreviously established patterns of expenditure.Performance budgeting entails severalsteps, which include: first determiningindicators to be used that reflect policypriorities; setting performance targets to beachieved in a given time frame, usually thefiscal year; incorporating these indicatorsinto the budget and calculating the resourcesrequired to achieve the targets; close supervisionover the disbursement of funds inaccordance with agreed targets, and; finally,effective monitoring to determine to whatextent the targeted outputs or outcomeshave been achieved.• Since few donors have shown much interestin the issue, the provincial government shouldconsider using a portion of SAF funds torecruit technical support to introduce andimplement the concept of performancebudgeting on a much broader front, amongkey departments of both the provincialgovernment and the districts and cities.Efforts to introduce the concept in departmentsof local government in Aceh haveso far met with modest results. Most governmentofficials are unfamiliar with the ideaand lack expertise in applying it.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

7Conclusions andRecommendationsProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 101

102Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

CHAPTER7Conclusions and RecommendationsThe peopleof Aceh, andthose that havehelped them,have achieveda remarkablerecovery thatfew might haveenvisaged ordared to hopefor at the time.7.1. ConclusionsThe past decade has seen both progress and setbacks in promoting human developmentand social equity in Aceh. Compared with the situation right after the tsunamiin December 2004, the people of Aceh, and those that have helped them, haveachieved a remarkable recovery that few might have envisaged or dared to hope forat the time. This recovery applies not only to the rebuilding of the physical fabric,but also to the reinvigoration of the social fabric so sorely damaged by years of conflict.Despite fears to the contrary, the Peace Accords have held firm and mostagreements have been honoured.The reintegration of former combatants hasbeen largely successful, although problemsremain. Ex-combatants have mostly beenwelcomed back into communities, but deeperreintegration has not been achieved in someplaces. Most now have gainful employment,returning to occupations they held prior tojoining the conflict, mainly in farming and asdaily wage labourers. In recent elections, formercombatants participated extensively, and wonmany positions as assembly representativesand government leaders, which bodes well fordefusing tensions and maintaining peace in thefuture. Extortion and violence however, remainendemic problems.With massive assistance from the internationalcommunity, the destruction and damagecaused by natural disasters has been largelyrepaired, although many homes, farms andfacilities in areas affected by the conflict have yetto be rehabilitated. The great majority of peopledisplaced by the conflict and disasters havebeen resettled, although many still need help indealing with the trauma they suffered.These gains however, are not reflectedin three of the four development indicatorsreviewed in this report. The HDI, GDI andGEM all show a retreat from levels achievedearlier, particularly those related to gender,due largely to lower personal incomesas measured by spending. Only the HPIshows an improvement in reducing poverty,as does the poverty rate, which reflectsthe proportion of people with incomes (readexpenditures) below a threshold sufficient tocover basic living costs. The pace of reducingpoverty has been slower than elsewhere, withthe result that Aceh currently ranks among thepoorest provinces in Indonesia. The alleviationof poverty in Aceh remains a stubborn problem,particularly in Western and Southern Aceh. Ofthe 8 districts in WSA, 7 recorded poverty ratesabove the median for the province. While socialsafety net programmes offer benefits for thepoor, many are still unable to obtain them, oftenfor administrative reasons.The position of women in Acehnese societyhas advanced in some respects but several indicatorsshow a retreat in other areas. The arrivalof international agencies after the tsunamihelped to develop the capacity of civil societyorganizations on gender justice, and there hasbeen greater interaction and collaborationbetween them and the government on theseissues. The Syariah Courts have helped toadvance women’s rights concerning inheritanceand property, but some argue that Aceh’sinterpretation of Syariah law has been narrowand conservative. The BRR and the BPNestablished a policy for the Joint Titling ofProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 103

Marital Property, but it has met with mixedsuccess. On the other hand, GDI and GEMreveal a discouraging trend over the years.While women’s participation in the workforcesteadily advanced to a peak of 40 percent in2002, it has since fallen back a little, due in partto the return of former male combatants to thehousehold. Their contribution to householdincome has dropped and average wage rates arelower than men in most jurisdictions in Aceh.Their participation in local assemblies increasedup until 2008, but since then has fallen. Moreseriously, women account for a small proportionof senior positions, and are still largelyunder-represented in decision making at thecommunity level. Domestic violence be mentowards women is also still a major concernwithin Acehnese families.The end of the conflict has made it possibleonce again to improve the provision of publicservices, but the low density of population inmany areas makes it difficult and expensive toextend the reach of these services to peoplescattered among some 6000 small villages.Data on the education sector shows Acehperforming well compared to the rest of thecountry according to some measures, althoughfurther gains are proving harder to achieve.The quality of education still leaves much to bedesired, particularly in vocational training toequip school leavers to find jobs. Access toeducation, especially for the poor, has been madeeasier with introduction of free tuition for allstudents attending primary and junior secondaryschools, and plans are being discussed to extendfree access to senior secondary schools as well.In the health sector, life expectancy has increased,infant mortality has fallen, but is stillhigh in some areas, particularly the WSA region.Malnutrition has fallen a little but not as fastas many other provinces, and immunizationsremain below the national average. Provisionof services now cover most of the province,although quality is uneven due in part to poormanagement. The introduction of free healthcare in 2009 improves accessibility, especially forthe poor, but so far budget allocations have notbeen increased to cope with increased demand.Access to justice is improving, although obstaclestill remain due to lack of informationon legal options and the unpredictability andinconsistency of court rulings, especially in theformal system due to bribery and corruption.Syariah courts have bolstered women’s rights relatedto divorce and property.Despite a temporary boost from reconstructionprogrammes, the local economy remainsweak. The decline of the oil and gas industryhas not yet been offset by gains in other componentsof the economy, although productivityin the agricultural sector showing encouragingprogress. The labour force participation rate islow compared to other provinces, emphasisingthe need to create productive job opportunities.Investment is negligible due to lack of security,extortion and confusion over governmentauthority to issues permits and licenses for businessactivity.Aceh, along with the rest of Indonesia, hasshown impressive gains in participation in thepolitical arena and in community development.Particularly significant is the introduction ofprogrammes that empower citizens by offeringblock grants to local forums, and allow them todecide how to use them.A big bonus from the Peace Accords hasbeen a massive increase in fiscal resources forAceh stemming largely from the introductionof the Special Autonomy Fund (SAF) in2008. This has resulted in large increases inpublic expenditures for all sectors at both theprovincial and district levels. The increase infunding has more than offset the additionaladministrative costs incurred due to theproliferation of new districts since 1999, andcreates an opportunity to address deficiencies inthe provision of public service. Improvementsin the process of planning and budgetinghowever, are needed to ensure resources areeffectively targeted towards developmentpriorities.7.2. RecommendationsIn plans, reports and other documents, the governmentand others have expressed numerousdevelopment priorities for Aceh, including forexample:• Reducing poverty• Creating productive opportunities for employment• Restoring livelihoods• Consolidating peace• Promoting equitable development, by reducingdisparities between the more and lessdeveloped areas of the province• Promoting the conservation and appropriateuse of environmental resources (Aceh Green).Particularlysignificantis theintroduction ofprogrammesthat empowercitizens byoffering blockgrants to localforums, andallow them todecide how touse them.104Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

While there are sound arguments for eachof the priorities and many others, few plansindicate what the priorities imply forpolicies, strategies and programmes or aclear explanation of how proposed projectsare expected to lead to intended outcomes.Based on an analysis of available information,this report advocates six primary goalsto further enhance human development in theprovince as part of the longer term strategy forrecovery from the conflict and tsunami. Theseare to:• Empower people for development• Ensure benefits for everyone• Improve the quality of public services• Enhance opportunities for productiveemployment• Couple disaster mitigation with environmentalprogrammes.• Make better use of public resourcesThe paragraphs that follow outline elementsof strategies to achieve these goals.• Consult potential stakeholders to determinethe appropriate purpose and scope ofresponsibilities for participatory forums,and prepare rules of conduct incorporatingprinciples of good governance.• Draft and enact necessary regulations(qanun) to allow the allocation of fiscalresources to such forums, budgeting of localgovernments funds to locally support socialvolunteerism and delegate authority forthem to decide on the use of these resources.• Establish and strengthen the capacity ofthese forums to perform the functionsassigned to them in a manner that reflectsthe collective interests of all concernedincluding marginalised groups that areoften left out of the process.• Mobilise resources from government departments,donors and NGOs to provide ongoing technical assistance for this purposeand to monitor and evaluate their performance.7.2.1 Empower people for developmentPerhaps the single most effective instrumentfor enhancing human development is toempower people to make their own collectivedecisions on what needs to be done and activeparticipation, including on the voluntary bases,in the implementation of the prioritizedactions. This means not merely promotingcommunity participation in public meetings todiscuss priorities and plans, but also transferringfiscal resources to recognised groups anddelegating authority to decide how to usethese resources. Several precedents for peopleempowerment already exist in Aceh, such asthe PNPM and BKPG programmes, but thereare many opportunities to extend the conceptto other arenas, such as the managementof schools, health facilities and small scaleirrigation schemes, the repair and maintenanceof rural roads, and public-private businessforums for economic development. Steps toimplement a strategy for this purpose include:• Identify opportunities to empower users,consumers and other relevant groups in eachsecor to collaborate with governmentofficials, facility managers, and professionalstaff in establishing priorities, plans andbudgets.7.2.2 Ensure benefits for everyoneWhile several indicators show steady advancesin human development in Aceh, it is importantto ensure that all individuals benefit from theprogress being achieved. All government programmesshould pay special attention toaddressing the needs of particular social groupsthat may have been overlooked or who areunable to get the help they need for one reasonor another. Among the actions required hereare to:• Amplify awareness campaigns to inform allcitizens how to obtain services they are entitledto or that are available for them, especiallyfood programmes, income supplements,health insurance, education grants and legalservices.• Evaluate administrative procedures for accessingthese services, identify bottlenecks thatmake it difficult for the poor, the illiterateand other disadvantaged groups to obtain thehelp they need, and modify procedures to removeconstraints.• Identify gaps in the provision of services thatare needed by special groups and adjust programmesto address these gaps, particularlyfor those living with disabilities, orphans, thechildren of former combatants, former com-Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 105

atants themselves, displaced families thathave resettled in new communities, and thepoor who lack funds to pay for simple administrativeprocedures such as birth certificates.• Incorporate actions to identify, reduce andeliminate discrimination on the basis of gender,race, religion, age, physical limitationsor other social characteristics in all aspects oflife, for example in disputes concerning familyinheritance, title to property, and applicationsfor further education, employmentand credit.• Evaluate and enhance social safety net programmesto improve the targeting of supportfor intended beneficiaries and eliminateabuse and corruption by programme administratorsand those who obtain benefitsto which they are not entitled.• Introduce measures to strengthen the voiceof women, the poor and other disadvantagedgroups in community meetings and stakeholderforums to ensure their special needsare taken into account, if appropriate throughseparate meetings prior to plenary discussions.7.2.3 Improve the quality of public servicesKnowledgeable informants report that basicsocial services are now physically accessible tomore or less all communities throughout theprovince. The main challenge now is to improvethe quality of these services, particularly inhealth and education. This task implies actionsto:• Consolidate progress in repairing, upgradingor building new physical facilities, especiallyschools and health centres that are in poorcondition or that suffered damage or destructionduring the conflict.• Enhance incentives for qualified professionalsto work in outlying areas through salary supplements,expense allowances, housing benefitsand such.• Expand programs for human resource deveopmentto upgrade the skills and knowledgeof local teachers, health care auxiliaries andother junior staff.• Strengthen the capacity of administrativestaff for planning, budgeting, financial administration,procurement and facilitymanagement.• In the health sector, expand and improve programmesfor special groups, particularly forpregnant women to reduce infant and maternalmortality, young mothers and children toreduce stunting and ensure proper nourishment,and those suffering from the traumaof personal abuse or loss due to conflict,natural disasters and domestic violence.• In the education sector, mobilise communityresources to expand child care and pre-schoolprogrammes to better prepare children forschool and to allow women greater opportunitiesfor obtaining employment.• For the justice sector, please refer to the recommendationsin section 3.5.5.• Consider opportunities for introducing andexpanding mobile services, particularly in thehealth sector to extend the reach of qualifiedmedical staff such as midwives in rural areas.• Consider opportunities for outsourcing themanagement or provision of certain servicesto the private sector as a means to improvequality, efficiency and outreach.7.2.4 Enhance opportunities for productiveemploymentAnother key goal in Aceh is to reduce the highrates of unemployment and under-employmentas a means to reduce poverty and raise householdincomes. This is important not only foreconomic reasons but also as a means to makebetter use of investments in education andhuman resources, and to enhance personaldignity and self-esteem. Effective strategiesto achieve these goals require complementarymeasures at both the macro and micro levels.Actions to strengthen the economy at theregional level will help to create new jobs andexpand opportunities for productive livelihoodsacross Aceh. At the macro level, stepsare needed to:• Identify products and services from Acehwhich are in strong demand in non-localmarkets elsewhere in Indonesia and abroad,particularly agricultural commodities suchas coffee, cocoa, palm oil, rubber, fish andthe like.• Invite the business community, small scaleproducers, government departments andother stakeholders in districts throughoutAceh to establish networks of commodity106Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

ased forums to enhance local competitivenessin these sectors.• Allocate public funds to these forums tocover operating costs and finance initiativesto build up each industry, particularlythrough strengthening supply chains directlylinking small scale producers to exporters,importers and other buyers in non-localmarkets.• In response to proposals from these forums,improve physical infrastructure to supporteconomic activities, particularly power, water(irrigation), communications, informationtechnology and rural roads to improve accessto markets.At the micro level:• Expand access for small scale producers andhousehold enterprises to factors of production,primarily land (including land titles),water and capital.• Delegate management and fiscal responsibilityfor government loan programmes forsmall scale producers and enterprises throughqualified financial institutions and NGOswith proven expertise in micro-credit lending.• Establish and strengthen the capacity of community-runbusiness service centres to identifymarket opportunities for local enterprisesand to promote their goods and services innon-local markets.• Expand programmes through qualifiedNGOs to strengthen the capacity of localSMEs for business management, technicalskills and especially marketing.• Expand and refocus vocational training programmesin response to demand from employersto ensure job seekers have the requisiteskills to obtain employment as hotel staff,metal workers, motor mechanics, constructionworkers, administrative staff, foreign domesticworkers and the like.7.2.5 Couple disaster mitigation withenvironmental programmesWhile the tsunami was a rare event, and hopefullyone that will not occur again in the lifetimeof those alive today, it did draw attentionto the need to prepare for other kinds of naturaldisasters that occur frequently in Aceh.Cumulatively, these cause substantial loss andhardship for those affected, and many arecaused by human intervention and the misuseof environmental resources. Building on theUNDP (Disaster risk reduction Aceh (DRR-A)project, further actions are needed to:• Couple disaster mitigation efforts with governmentdepartments and other organisationsresponsible for the environment, sincestrategies and agendas are often complementary.• Replicate models for community preparednessin other vulnerable areas of the province,based on lessons learned from pilotapplications.• Expand coverage to include natural disastersassociated with crop failures due to diseaseand pest infestations, since these affect largenumbers of small scale farmers.• Reinforce steps to mainstream measures tomitigate natural disasters in a broad range ofgovernment and donor programmes, particularlyin the forestry, agricultural andfisheries sectors.• Disseminate guidelines for this purpose torelevant provincial and district agencies andprovide associated training workshops to increaseawareness and knowledge.• Capitalise on the potential resources ofCSOs to empower them to plan and implementtheir own initiatives to reduce the riskand potential impact of disasters.7.2.6 Improve the use of fiscal resourcesThe huge increase in fiscal resources flowing intoAceh as a result of the Peace Accords and theLoGA underline the imperatives of minimisingmisuse and ensuring resources are channelledtowards programmes and services that are effectivein further advancing human development. Forthis purpose, government departments are urgedto adopt the general principles of performanceplanning and budgeting. Since this approach isnot yet well understood in Aceh, the provincialgovernment should seek the help of donorsto undertake a broad programme of capacitydevelopment to enable relevant staff to adoptthe concept. Briefly summarised, performanceplanning and budgeting involves the followingsteps:• In medium and long term plans (RPJMand RPJP), clarify the larger objectivesfor each sector, define the outcomes to beProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 107

accomplished under each objective, andexplain broad strategies to achieve theseoutcomes.• In annual plans and budgets, specify outputsto be produced under each strategy and theactivities to be undertaken to produce theoutputs.• Define specific indicators and targets foreach output against which to measureprogress and performance, and estimate theinputs required and costs to be covered inthe budget.In addition, to support the adoption of performanceplanning and budgeting, complementaryactions will be needed to:• Establish a provincial task force to workwith qualified contractors to strengthenthe capacity of budget committees andassembly representatives to help them betterunderstand and support the rationale underlyingproposed plans and budgets.• Strengthen the capacity of government staffto monitor and evaluate the implementationof plans and budgets in accordance withtargets defined under performance indicators.• Introduce a system of incentives to rewarddepartments that are successful in achievingsignificant progress in achieving plannedtargets.As mentioned earlier, the introduction of theSpecial Autonomy Fund in 2008 potentiallycreates opportunities for the provincial governmentto allocate resources according topolicy priorities for human development. Toensure that these funds are used in the mannerintended, actions will be needed to:• Form inter-departmental task forces linkedto stakeholder forums to enhance inter departmentalcollaboration in pursuing policypriorities.• Provide guidelines on the recommended useof fiscal resources for health, education, infrastructureand economic development.• Specify performance indicators for each sectorand broad targets that are feasible toattain at intervals in the time frame envisaged.• Recruit qualified technical support to assistprovincial government staff in reviewing proposalssubmitted by districts and cities forthe use of SAF funds.• Assign staff in provincial government departmentsto assist districts and cities in revisingproposals where needed.7.3. Recommendations forspecific sectorsIn addition to the six primary goals outlinedabove, this report also recommends the actionsmentioned below for specific sectors.Security• Government agencies should continue toplace former combatants in attractive alternativeemployment and provide skill trainingfor this purpose. In addition, former combatantsshould be offered financial supportto undergo training and/or to start a businessof their own.• A task force should be formed to minimisethe practice of extortion, comprising representativesfrom the military, the police, justiceofficials and other relevant institutions.• An independent agency should be establishedto receive complaints about extortion and violence,initiate corrective actions, and monitorresponses.PovertyTo reduce poverty, the government shouldpursue two main strategies:• Improve access to public infrastructure andsocial services.• Enhance opportunities for productive employmentand income generating activities.Specific actions to implement these strategiesspan across many sectors and are mentionedelsewhere in this chapter.WomenTo further enhance the role of women in Aceh,the government should pay special attention to:• Informing them about their legal rights andoptions for seeking justice through the adatsystem, syariah courts and the national justicesystem.• Minimising discrimination in judicial decisions,seeking employment, staff recruitmentand career advancement.• Ensuring that they have equal access topublic services, particularly loans and credit.• Improving health care services that addressthe special needs of women and children, especiallythose living in rural areas.108Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

• Minimising domestic violence through awarenesscampaigns and family counsellingprogrammes.Basic infrastructureTo improve the provision and maintenance ofbasic infrastructure, especially in rural areas, thegovernment should:• Continue and expand existing programmesthat provide block grants to local communitiesthat can be used to extend and improvebasic infrastructure.• Empower user groups to build, operate, maintainand mobilise resources for small scalebasic infrastructure such as clean watersupplies, mini-irrigation networks and evenpower generation in remote areas.• Allocate a higher proportion of public fundsfor the maintenance of basic infrastructurefor which government is responsible.EducationIn the education sector, the government should,among other things:• Continue to encourage the private sectorand community groups to provide preschoolprogrammes and day care centres,since parents have strong interests in doingso.• Provide matching grants for this purpose,coupled with a set of performance standardsto qualify for support.• Engage representatives from the businesscommunity in the planning and design ofcourse offerings and curricula for vocationaltraining programmes.• Consider outsourcing the management anddirection of vocational training institutes tothe private sector, to include courses on a feefor service basis, funded in part by contributionsfrom businesses that require skilledstaff.Health careIn the health care sector, the government should,among other things:• Revisit the opportunity costs of free healthcare and ensure that resources are first usedto provide effective services for those thatcannot afford it and for other priority needssuch as pre- and post-natal care.• Establish a public-private forum at the provinciallevel, similar to the one for education,whose function would be to collaborate withgovernment in formulating policies, strategiesand programmes for the sector.• Organise similar forums at the level of thesub-district puskesmas, to be responsible forpreparing plans and budgets for health serviceswithin their jurisdiction.• Strengthen the capacity of puskesmas, particularlyfor operations management and financialadministration.• Collaborate with others to form and traincommunity based self-help groups to supportpregnant women and those with newbornchildren.• Collaborate with others to form and train similargroups for other purposes, such as domesticviolence, family hygiene and nutrition,addiction to drugs and alcohol.Economic developmentTo promote economic recovery and development,the government should pursue a strategythat:• Emphasises the expansion of the agriculturalsector broadly defined to include plantations,fishing and forestry, and related processingindustries.• Is shaped by external demand and aims toenable local producers to compete successfullyin those markets.• Focuses on exports of agricultural commoditiesto non-local markets either within Indonesiaor abroad.• Strengthens supply chains that link local producersto non-local markets through businesspartnerships that involve producers, processors,exporters and importers.• Promotes small enterprises and other formsof livelihoods through technical assistance,appropriate infrastructure, and particularlysupport for marketing products and servicesto consumers and buyers beyond the localcommunity.• Empowers the business community, broadlydefined, to collaborate effectively with governmentin shaping policy and priorities foreconomic development.People empowermentIn order to ensure that public-private stakeholderforums are able to fulfil their potentialand operate effectively, government agencies andothers involved in setting them up should:• Define precisely the powers and responsibilitiesto be delegated, so that participantsProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 109

clearly understand the limits of their authority.• Specify clear operational procedures to ensurethe stakeholder forums abide by principlesof good governance, transparency andaccountability.• Advise and assist forums in adoptingmethods to ensure participation of womenand marginalised groups that have not so farbeen included and to strengthen their voicein decision making.• Provide intensive technical support to helpstakeholders formulate viable proposals foraction.• Allocate funds to cover not only actionsproposed by the forum but also, where necessary,the operating costs to enable membersto hold and attend regular meetings.This is particularly important for forumsrepresenting stakeholders dispersed acrossthe province, such as industry clusters.• Formulate procedures for the disbursementof funds, procurement and financial reporting.• Monitor the proceedings and activities of theforums to minimise abuse of their powersand prevent misuse of funds.Resource AllocationIn allocating fiscal resources and preparing plansand budgets, government departments should:• Undertake more detailed research to determinethe appropriate formula for allocatingSAF funds that achieve policy objectives forequitable distribution.• Make use of measures included in the HDI,GDI, GEM and HPI to determine appropriateperformance indicators for expendituresrather than in allocating resources.• Focus more on achieving policy prioritiesthrough other instruments related to expenditures,including guidelines on the preferreduse of SAF resources, performance indicators,and most directly through the process ofapproving proposals from districts and citiesfor the use of SAF revenues.• Target investments according to specific indicatorsof service provision in order to ensurea more equitable access to these services inrural areas.• Strengthen the capacity of line departmentsto conduct an effective review of district proposalsfor the use of SAF funds and to monitorimplementation.• Adopt principles of performance budgetingto ensure that expenditures are indeed directedtowards achieving larger goals forhuman development.• Recruit technical support to introduce andimplement the concept of performancebudgeting on a much broader front, amongkey departments of both the provincial governmentand the districts and cities.7.4. Final thoughtsThe proposals and recommendations outlinedin this chapter represent an ambitious agendafor promoting human development in Aceh.Obviously, there are many other issues whichhave not been covered here that need to beaddressed, such as environmental conservationand the sustainability of natural resources.Readers will doubtless question the ideas presentedand may have quite different views on whatneeds to be done. That is all to the good andwelcome. Nevertheless, the main purpose inmaking these recommendations is to help spura vigorous debate and to advance constructivethinking about the future course of developmentin Aceh. Eventually, such debates should bereflected in future plans and programmes andlead to better results in improving the generalwelfare of all the people of Aceh.110Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

STATISTICAL ANNEXAppendix A: Accompanying Tables And FiguresChapter TwoAppendix A: Figure 2.1 Level of damage to the productive sector ............................................................ 113Appendix A: Figure 2.2 Level of damage to the social sector ..................................................................... 113Appendix A: Table 2.1 Gender Breakdown of Displacement by District, 2005 ......................................... 114Appendix A: Table 2.2 Human Development Index by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2002 – 2008 ................... 115Appendix A: Table 2.3 Percentage of female heads-of-household in Aceh comparedto Indonesia, 2003-06 ................................................................................................................ 116Appendix A: Table 2.4 Gender Development Index by jurisdictions in Aceh, 1999 – 2008 ............... 117Appendix A: Table 2.5 HPI by jurisdictions in Aceh 1999 - 2008 ............................................................... 118Chapter ThreeAppendix A: Table 3.1 Health and housing-related indicators by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 ........... 119Appendix A: Table 3.2 Education indicators by jurisdiction in Aceh 1993, 2004 and 2008 .................. 120Appendix A: Table 3.3 School Participation Rates by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 (Percent) ................. 121Appendix A: Table 3.4 Life expectancy in Aceh 2002, 2005 and 2008 (years) ........................................ 122Appendix A: Table 3.5 Indicators of people’s health by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 ............................. 123Appendix A: Table 3.6 Indicators for health services by jurisdiction in Aceh, 2008 .............................. 124Chapter FourAppendix A: Table 4.1 GRDP and Expenditure per capita per month by jurisdictionsin Aceh (Rp 000s) ....................................................................................................................... 125Appendix A: Table 4.2 Employment indicators by jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 ....................................... 126Appendix A: Table 4.3 Labour force participation by gender in Aceh 1998-2008 ................................... 127Chapter FiveAppendix A: Table 5.1 Participation of women in parliament and leadership positionsby jurisdictions in Aceh, 1999 - 2008 (%) ............................................................................... 128Chapter SixAppendix A: Table 6.1 HDI and per capita fiscal revenue by jurisdiction in Aceh, 2007 ...................... 129Appendix A: Table 6.2 Average per capita spending by jurisdictions in Aceh 2006-07(Rp 000s constant 2006) ............................................................................................................ 130Appendix B: BPS Special TabulationAppendix B: Table 1 Human Development Index (HDI) By Province, 2008 .............................................. 131Appendix B: Table 2 Gender-related Development Index (GDI)By Province, 2008 .................................. 132Appendix B: Table 3 Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) By Province, 2008 ..................................... 133Appendix B: Table 4 Human Poverty Index (HPI) By Province, 2008 ........................................................ 134Appendix B: Table 5 Human Development Index (HDI) By District, 2008 ................................................ 135Appendix B: Table 6 Gender-related Development Index (GDI) By District, 2008 ................................... 136Appendix B: Table 7 Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) By District, 2008 ...................................... 137Appendix B: Table 8 Human Poverty Index (HPI) By District,2008 ............................................................ 138Appendix B: Table 9 Health Conditions By District, 2008 ............................................................................ 139Appendix B: Table 10 School Attendance by District, 2008 .......................................................................... 140Appendix B: Table 11 Housing Condition By District, 2008 ......................................................................... 141Appendix B: Table 12A Economic Performance District, 2005-2007 .......................................................... 142Appendix B: Table 12B Economic Performance District, 2005-2007 ......................................................... 143Appendix B: Table 13 Labour Force and Poverty Condition by District, 2008 .......................................... 144Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 111

112Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Figure 2.1 Level of damageto the productive sectorChapter TwoDamageNot DamageJetty (unit)19139Fish or shrimp ponds (Ha)Fish auction market (unit)Village market (unit)45,4381271,40925,00995927Rice miller (unit)Other fields (Ha)Other factory (unit)Repair shop (unit)store/shop (unit)Rice fields (Ha)Livestock (head)803278,9146805656,14296,391200,553794293,77889781210,984214,212906,3940% 25% 50% 75% 100%Source: Cost of conflict in Aceh, MSR Report, 2009Appendix A: Figure 2.2 Level of damageto the social sectorDamageNot DamagePreschool (unit)2,601794Village Health Clinic (unit)1,134386Village Natal Care Center (unit)402197Place of Worship (unit)1,9401,115Primary School (unit)1,325985High School (unit)165143Community Health Centre (unit)330289Middle School (unit)288 278Source: Cost of conflict in Aceh, MSR Report, 20090% 25% 50% 75% 100%Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 113

Appendix A: Table 2.1 Gender Breakdown ofDisplacement by District, 2005Chapter TwoDistrict Female % of Total Male % of Total TotalPidie 32.075 49 33.399 51 65.474Aceh Barat 24.945 46.9 28.257 53.1 53.202Aceh Besar 18.041 45 22.055 55 40.096Banda Aceh 12.866 44.1 16.285 55.9 29.151Bireuen 14.123 50.9 13.598 49.1 27.721Simeulue 11.449 48.3 12.246 51.7 23.695Aceh Utara 11.786 50.1 11.741 49.9 23.527Aceh Singkil 9.916 49.8 9.995 50.2 19.911Aceh Timur 8.123 49.6 8.270 50.4 16.393Aceh Selatan 5.592 47.1 6.278 52.9 11.870Aceh Jaya 5.337 47.5 5.898 52.5 11.235Nagan Raya 5.306 47.3 5.921 52.7 11.227Lhokseumawe 2.675 50.5 2.619 49.5 5.294Aceh Barat Daya 1.517 49.2 1.568 50.8 3.085Aceh Tengah 861 53.7 742 46.3 1.603Aceh Tamiang 780 49.5 797 50.5 1.577Sabang 657 48 712 52 1.369Langsa 494 53.1 436 46.9 930Aceh Tenggara 180 49.2 186 50.8 366Bener Meriah 48 49 50 51 98Total 166.771 47.9 181.053 52.1 347.824Note: This table is taken from Daniel Fitzpatrick, Women’s Rights to land andhousing in tsunami-affected Aceh, Indonesia, ARI Aceh Working Paper No. 3, 2008, 11.114Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 2.2 Human Development Index byjurisdictions in Aceh, 2002 - 2008Chapter TwoRegion/District 2002 2004 2006 2008ChangeRank2004-08 2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)67.6 69.1 70.2 68.8 -0.3 10.3Aceh Besar 67.2 70.6 71.9 70.5 -0.1 6Aceh Timur 66.7 67.7 68.8 69.2 1.5 9Kota Langsa* 69.5 71.5 71.3 1.8 3Aceh Tamiang* 67.3 68.7 67.5 0.2 13Aceh Utara 65.9 68.6 70.4 67.4 -1.2 15Kota Lhokseumawe* 72.8 73.8 71.2 -1.6 4Bireuen 70.6 71.3 72.2 71.1 -0.3 5Pidie 67.8 68.8 70.0 68.5 -0.3 10Pidie Jaya* 69.4 67.4 -2.0 14Kota Banda Aceh 71.8 74.0 75.4 72.4 -1.6 1Kota Sabang 69.4 72.5 73.7 71.4 -1.1 2Western and Southern Aceh(average excl cities)63.4 65.9 67.5 65.8 -0.3 17.4Aceh Barat 65.6 66.7 68.1 68.2 1.5 11Aceh Jaya* 66.2 67.8 67.6 1.4 12Nagan Raya* 65.5 66.9 65.7 0.2 18Simeulue 61.8 64.5 66.4 65.2 0.7 19Aceh Selatan 63.8 66.9 68.4 67.0 0.1 16Aceh Barat Daya* 65.9 67.5 65.1 -0.8 20Aceh Singkil 62.2 65.8 67.2 64.5 -1.3 21Subulussalam* 67.8 63.3 -4.5 22Aceh Hinterland (average) 66.7 67.6 69.1 67.3 -0.3 13.8Aceh Tengah 66.7 69.9 71.2 70.1 0.1 7Bener Meriah* 66.3 68.1 66.7 0.4 17Aceh Tenggara 66.8 69.4 70.6 69.2 -0.2 8Gayo Lues* 64.8 66.6 63.2 -1.7 23Aceh (average) 66.0 68.7 69.4 67.1 -1.6Average cities 70.6 72.2 72.4 69.9 -2.3 6.4Average original districts 65.9 68.2 69.6 68.2 0.0 11.5Average new districts na 66.0 67.9 65.8 -0.2 17.4Note: * Denotes new jurisdictionSource: BPSProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 115

Appendix A: Table 2.3: Percentage of female heads-of-householdin Aceh compared to Indonesia, 2003-06Chapter TwoYear Aceh Indonesia2003 17 132004 18 132005 18 132006 19 13Source: Sejahtera and Suleeman, Inong Aceh Di Bentala Nusantara, 18.116Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 2.4 Gender Development Index byjurisdictions in Aceh, 1999 – 2008Chapter TwoRegion/District 1999 2002 2008ChangeRank2002-08 2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)62.5 9.9Aceh Besar 62.6 65.0 64.6 -0.4 6Aceh Timur 56.7 62.5 64.9 2.4 5Kota Langsa* 62.1 10Aceh Tamiang* 57.8 19Aceh Utara 58.8 53.8 61.3 7.5 12Kota Lhokseumawe* 57.2 21Bireuen na 68.3 67.3 -1.0 2Pidie 57.2 66.3 64.0 -2.3 7Pidie Jaya* 57.9 18Kota Banda Aceh 57.5 69.7 65.7 -4.0 3Kota Sabang 56.0 60.5 63.1 2.6 8Western and Southern Aceh(average excl cities)58.2 16.9Aceh Barat 56.2 60.2 58.3 -1.9 16Aceh Jaya* 58.8 15Nagan Raya* 61.7 11Simeulue na 60.1 54.6 -5.5 23Aceh Selatan 51.7 60.3 60.7 0.4 14Aceh Barat Daya* 58.3 17Aceh Singkil na 61.8 55.3 -6.5 22Subulussalam* 57.6 20Aceh Hinterland (average) 64.3 6.8Aceh Tengah 58.0 64.6 67.5 2.9 1Bener Meriah* 65.6 4Aceh Tenggara 63.0 65.4 63.0 -2.4 9Gayo Lues* 60.9 13Aceh (average) 59.0 62.1 61.4Average cities 56.8 65.1 61.2 12.4Average original districts 58.0 62.6 62.0 10.6Average new districts 60.1 13.9Note: * Denotes new jurisdictionSource: Laporan Kesenjangan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat Antar Daerah, BPSProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 117

Appendix A: Table 2.5 HPI by jurisdictionsin Aceh 1999 - 2008Chapter TwoRegion/District 1999 2002 2008Rank2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)31.5 27.5 15.9 10.1Aceh Besar 30.7 27.6 11.2 5Aceh Timur 29.3 27.0 19.9 15Kota Langsa* 9.3 4Aceh Tamiang* 17.8 11Aceh Utara 32.6 25.6 21.0 19Kota Lhokseumawe* 8.7 3Bireuen 31.0 15.3 8Pidie 33.3 26.3 12.1 6Pidie Jaya* 14.0 7Kota Banda Aceh 12.5 12.0 6.3 1Kota Sabang 20.6 19.7 7.8 2Western and Southern Aceh(average excl cities)42.3 40.0 20.4 15.6Aceh Barat 42.8 41.0 21.4 20Aceh Jaya* 18.3 12Nagan Raya* 20.7 18Simeulue 37.3 28.3 23Aceh Selatan 41.7 40.2 16.1 9Aceh Barat Daya* 18.3 13Aceh Singkil 41.3 19.6 14Subulussalam* 26.4 22Aceh Hinterland (average) 30.3 26.4 20.7 16.0Aceh Tengah 26.5 24.9 17.2 10Bener Meriah* 20.0 16Aceh Tenggara 34.0 27.8 20.1 17Gayo Lues* 25.4 21Aceh (average) 31.4 28.4 16.5Average cities 16.6 15.9 11.7 6.4Average original districts 33.9 31.8 18.4 13.3Average new districts 19.2 14.0Note: Due to missing data, figures for 2007 are drawn from a different source.* Denotes new jurisdictionSource: BPS and Riset Kesehatan Dasar 2007 – Depkes.118Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 3.1 Health and housing-related indicatorsby jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008Chapter ThreePercent of population living in homes withRegion/DistrictNo accessto cleanwaterNo accessto sanitationDirt floorNo electricityAveragefor4 indicatorsMorbidityrate #Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)26.5 37.5 13.0 9.7 21.7 22.3Aceh Besar 16.6 24.4 3.7 5.0 12.4 13.8Aceh Timur 41.9 30.4 21.1 9.9 25.8 26.8Kota Langsa* 6.1 8.9 3.9 0.7 4.9 16.4Aceh Tamiang* 30.2 9.0 12.4 3.5 13.8 19.6Aceh Utara 33.7 42.1 20.2 15.9 28.0 21.3Kota Lhokseumawe* 2.8 18.7 6.7 1.8 7.5 21.8Bireuen 16.8 22.4 9.2 5.9 13.6 28.4Pidie 18.8 70.7 7.7 10.7 27.0 21.0Pidie Jaya* 23.9 65.6 13.4 15.3 29.6 26.2Kota Banda Aceh 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.4 1.1 13.9Kota Sabang 3.0 22.5 3.9 0.5 7.5 8.6Western and Southern Aceh(average excluding cities)34.4 46.4 8.0 16.3 26.3 23.9Aceh Barat 37.8 51.6 8.5 18.9 29.2 22.1Aceh Jaya* 17.9 35.4 8.9 28.1 22.6 26.6Nagan Raya* 32.8 47.9 14.6 18.8 28.5 21.9Simeulue 74.0 43.1 4.4 24.6 36.6 15.9Aceh Selatan 20.4 48.9 5.5 6.8 20.4 25.6Aceh Barat Daya* 31.4 66.2 6.6 14.1 29.6 24.9Aceh Singkil 44.0 18.3 8.4 6.3 19.2 16.7Subulussalam* 55.7 18.2 10.9 15.1 25.0 19.3Aceh Hinterland (average) 38.8 45.0 12.7 11.8 27.1 23.2Aceh Tengah 41.5 33.2 13.4 14.1 25.6 27.3Bener Meriah* 39.6 27.0 21.4 14.2 25.6 29.4Aceh Tenggara 29.7 56.6 9.0 9.7 26.3 17.7Gayo Lues* 52.1 73.8 6.7 7.5 35.0 16.8Aceh 26.6 36.3 10.6 10.2 20.9 21.5Average cities 8.5 10.4 4.5 0.8 6.1 11.1Average original districts 29.6 40.7 11.6 10.7 23.2 19.8Average new districts 31.8 41.0 12.4 13.8 24.7 24.7Median 25.6 21.3Note. Averages are weighted by population.* Denotes new jurisdiction# Morbidity is the % of the population suffering from illness during the year 2005.Source: BPS, based on estimated population in 2008.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 119

Appendix A: Table 3.2 Education indicatorsby jurisdiction in Aceh 1993, 2004 and 2008Chapter ThreeMean years or schooling Adult Literacy rate (%)Region/District1993 2004 2008 1993 2004 2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)6.5 8.7 8.7 88.4 96.5 96.2Aceh Besar 7 9.4 9.9 87.4 96.1 96.2Aceh Timur 6.4 8.1 8.4 94.1 98.8 97.1Kota Langsa* 9.2 10.0 98.6Aceh Tamiang* 8.1 8.4 97.9 97.7Aceh Utara 6.6 8.9 9.1 89.6 94.4 95.1Kota Lhokseumawe* 9.6 10.0 98.8Bireuen 9.1 9.2 98.1 98.1Pidie 6.1 8.3 8.6 82.3 93.9 95.4Pidie Jaya* 7.6 93.5Kota Banda Aceh 10.3 11.2 12.0 96.3 97 99.0Kota Sabang 7.8 9.4 10.5 95.1 97.9 98.1Western and Southern Aceh(average)5.3 7.4 8.2 83.6 94.3 93.1Aceh Barat 5.1 8.1 8.3 81.1 89.1 92.8Aceh Jaya* 8.6 8.8 96.1 93.1Nagan Raya* 6.3 7.4 89.3 88.4Simeulue 6.1 8.5 98.7 98.0Aceh Selatan 5.5 8.1 8.3 86.1 95.7 93.4Aceh Barat Daya* 7.2 7.5 95 95.7Aceh Singkil 7.7 8.3 96.2 90.4Subulussalam* 7.6 90.7Aceh Hinterland (average) 6.8 8.6 8.9 89.7 92.9 93.8Aceh Tengah 7.3 9 9.2 93.2 97.1 97.7Bener Meriah* 7.8 8.1 97.0Aceh Tenggara 6.2 9.3 9.4 86.2 96 97.1Gayo Lues* 8.3 8.7 85.5 83.5Aceh 6.5 8.4 8.6 88.5 95.7 95.9Average cities 9.1 9.9 10.1 95.7 97.5 97.0Average original districts 6.3 8.4 8.8 87.5 95.8 95.6Average new districts 7.7 8.1 92.8 92.7Indonesia# 7.1 7.6 89.5 92.1Aceh’s rank 9 10Note: Regional averages are not weighted by school age population. Weighted averages will vary up or down slightly.* Denotes new jurisdiction # Data for Indonesia are for the years 2002 and 2008Source: Bappeda and NAD Department of Education.120Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 3.3 School participation ratesby jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008 (Percent)Chapter ThreeRegion/DistrictAge Group (In Years)AverageRank7-12 13-15 16-17 18-23 7-17Differencebetweenhigh andsecondaryNothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)99.1 93.6 69.5 20.4 13.0 -24.2Aceh Besar 99.1 94.4 76.8 30.5 9.0 -17.6Aceh Timur 98.9 89.3 58.9 14.6 20.3 -30.4Kota Langsa* 99.0 94.3 76.2 27.4 10.0 -18.1Aceh Tamiang* 99.2 93.6 64.7 13.9 14.3 -28.9Aceh Utara 99.5 90.4 70.5 13.7 12.3 -19.9Kota Lhokseumawe* 99.4 95.2 79.6 31.8 5.0 -15.6Bireuen 99.3 92.5 74.6 33.8 11.3 -17.9Pidie 98.8 97.1 72.0 22.0 12.0 -25.1Pidie Jaya* 98.9 98.2 68.9 14.2 11.3 -29.4Kota Banda Aceh 98.7 97.7 86.8 42.0 7.3 -10.9Kota Sabang 98.9 94.6 70.4 9.3 13.7 -24.2Western and Southern Aceh(average excluding cities)98.7 94.5 74.2 15.1 12.5 -20.3Aceh Barat 98.5 95.2 78.2 15.8 11.7 -17.0Aceh Jaya* 97.3 93.8 62.1 8.3 19.7 -31.8Nagan Raya* 99.0 92.9 79.5 17.5 11.0 -13.4Simeulue 98.7 93.9 83.3 12.6 11.7 -10.6Aceh Selatan 99.4 97.4 74.4 17.1 6.3 -23.0Aceh Barat Daya* 98.9 95.2 72.7 20.8 10.7 -22.5Aceh Singkil 98.9 93.0 69.0 13.6 16.7 -24.0Subulussalam* 97.6 91.6 73.3 15.9 17.3 -18.3Aceh Hinterland (average) 98.9 95.3 69.5 15.8 11.1 -25.8Aceh Tengah 99.2 98.5 71.5 14.0 7.7 -27.0Bener Meriah* 99.4 97.3 75.7 18.9 5.0 -21.6Aceh Tenggara 99.4 96.6 69.6 16.1 9.3 -27.0Gayo Lues* 97.5 88.8 61.4 14.1 22.3 -27.4Aceh 99.0 94.1 72.4 22.4 -21.7Average cities 98.7 94.7 77.3 25.3 10.7 -17.4Average original districts 99.1 94.4 72.6 18.5 11.7 -21.8Average new districts 98.6 94.3 69.3 15.4 13.5 -25.0Indonesia 97.8 84.4 54.7 12.4 -29.7Aceh’s rank 2 1 1 2* Denotes new jurisdictionSource: BPS 2010Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 121

Appendix A: Table 3.4 Life expectancyin Aceh 2002, 2005 and 2008 (years)Chapter ThreeRegion/District 2002 2005 2008Change2002-2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)69.3 69.4 69.7 0.9Aceh Besar 69.5 70.0 70.5 1.0Aceh Timur 67.9 69.1 69.5 1.6Kota Langsa* 68.9 70.1Aceh Tamiang* 67.8 68.2Aceh Utara 68.9 69.1 69.5 0.6Kota Lhokseumawe* 68.4 70.0Bireuen 72.7 72.2 72.3 -0.4Pidie 67.7 68.4 69.1 1.4Pidie Jaya* 69.0Kota Banda Aceh 68.5 68.7 70.2 1.7Kota Sabang 68.8 69.6 70.4 1.6Western and Southern Aceh(average excl cities)64.5 66.0 66.8 1.4Aceh Barat 68.4 68.9 69.8 1.4Aceh Jaya* 67.0 67.9Nagan Raya* 69.1 69.4Simeulue 62.2 62.5 62.8 0.6Aceh Selatan 64.7 65.7 66.7 2.0Aceh Barat Daya* 65.4 66.5Aceh Singkil 62.7 63.2 64.5 1.8Subulussalam* 65.5Aceh Hinterland (average) 67.7 67.7 68.2 1.6Aceh Tengah 67.1 69.1 69.4 2.3Bener Meriah* 66.4 67.4Aceh Tenggara 68.3 68.9 69.2 0.9Gayo Lues* 66.2 66.8Aceh 67.7 68.0 68.5 0.8Average cities 68.7 68.9 69.3 0.6Average original districts 67.3 67.9 68.5 1.2Average new districts 67.0 67.9Note: * Denotes new jurisdictionSource: BPS122Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 3.5 Indicators of people’s healthby jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008Chapter ThreeRegion/DistrictInfantmortalityrate(per 1000)Populationwith healthproblems%Morbidityrate%Averagedurationof illness(days)Undernourishedchildren

Appendix A: Table 3.6 Indicators for health servicesby jurisdiction in Aceh, 2008Chapter ThreeRegion/DistrictPopulationper healthcentreDoctorsper 10.000populationHospital bedsper 10.000population% BirthDeliveryAssisted byMedicalPersonnel% PopulationWithout Accessto HealthFacilitiesCompositeRank2008 2008 2008 2008 2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)17.731 1.1 2.6 87.6 12.8 11.9Aceh Besar 12.404 0.8 1.6 91.4 7.1 11Aceh Timur 15.853 0.7 1.2 82.7 21.9 22Kota Langsa* 35.067 4.1 30.2 96.4 0.0 3Aceh Tamiang* 23.990 0.9 4.2 87.9 18.8 17Aceh Utara 23.534 1.6 2.6 79.1 18.3 16Kota Lhokseumawe* 31.752 1.6 11.4 96.3 4.4 5Bireuen 21.033 1.3 2.8 83.0 11.0 14Pidie 11.527 1.4 4.5 92.8 2.6 4Pidie Jaya* 87.3 5.4 6Kota Banda Aceh 21.792 9.9 43.0 100.0 0.0 2Kota Sabang 4.870 4.4 10.3 94.6 5.6 1Western and Southern Aceh(average excluding cities)10.465 1.2 3.8 68.7 13.4 13.3Aceh Barat 12.783 1.6 6.5 59.9 22.8 15Aceh Jaya* 9.450 1.1 0.0 72.8 25.1 20Nagan Raya* 12.434 0.6 3.2 81.6 15.2 17Simeulue 10.224 0.9 9.2 56.4 1.4 7Aceh Selatan 11.673 1.2 3.9 68.0 12.5 13Aceh Barat Daya* 12.310 1.0 2.2 72.6 2.3 11Aceh Singkil 5.898 1.9 1.0 69.5 12.8 10Subulussalam* 65.2 31.1 23Aceh Hinterland (average) 11.362 1.3 3.4 76.9 14.7 13.5Aceh Tengah 14.041 1.5 4.7 87.6 13.3 7Bener Meriah* 12.505 0.4 0.0 90.9 22.4 21Aceh Tenggara 12.536 1.5 4.3 74.5 7.0 9Gayo Lues* 6.233 1.5 2.9 54.8 24.3 17Aceh 10.347 2.1 7.5 83.1 12.9Average cities 21.847 5.7 28.8 96.9 4.7 6.8Average original districts 14.012 1.3 3.3 76.8 12.5 11.6Average new districts 14.935 0.7 2.1 76.6 15.5 15.6Note: The calculation of doctors and hospital beds included only facilities open to the general public and excluded those intendedfor the TNI, police and government servants.* Denotes new jurisdictionSource: BPS, Aceh in Figures 2009124Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 4.1 GRDP and expenditure per capitaper month by jurisdictions in Aceh (Rp 000s)Chapter FourRegion/District(Rp current000s 2007)Non oil GRDPper capitaRank(Rp current000s 2008)Expenditureper capitaRankDifferencein ranksFood(% of total)Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)703 11.9 401 13.9 2.0 63.9Aceh Besar 811 6 514 4 -2 58.0Aceh Timur 607 17 403 15 -2 62.5Kota Langsa* 715 12 471 5 -7 59.2Aceh Tamiang* 792 7 370 18 11 62.9Aceh Utara 629 15 338 21 6 66.8Kota Lhokseumawe* 1,487 1 419 12 11 57.3Bireuen 732 11 380 17 6 64.0Pidie 442 20 420 11 -9 71.5Pidie Jaya* 512 18 412 13 -5 68.0Kota Banda Aceh 1,028 4 889 1 -3 41.1Kota Sabang 693 14 652 2 -12 60.1Western and Southern Aceh(average excluding cities)815 12.0 441 10.7 -1.3 63.5Aceh Barat 1,205 3 573 3 0 55.7Aceh Jaya* 628 16 470 6 -10 66.5Nagan Raya* 1,255 2 466 7 5 64.0Simeulue 339 23 439 10 -13 66.5Aceh Selatan 738 9 381 16 7 63.3Aceh Barat Daya* 733 10 363 19 9 66.1Aceh Singkil 435 21 407 14 -7 62.4Subulussalam* 480 19 331 22 3 67.5Aceh Hinterland (average) 658 12.0 399 15.0 3.0 65.5Aceh Tengah 703 5 401 8 3 58.0Bener Meriah* 811 8 514 9 1 64.8Aceh Tenggara 607 22 403 23 1 69.4Gayo Lues* 715 13 471 20 7 69.6Aceh 703 5 401 8 3 58.0Average cities 880.6 10.0 552.3 8.4 -1.6 57.0Average original districts 651.7 13.8 422.4 12.9 -0.9 63.4Average new districts 770.1 10.6 411.0 13.1 2.6 66.0Notes: * Denotes new jurisdiction. # Denotes non-oil GRDP.Source: GDRPdata is derived from BPS. Expenditure data is from Susenas survey.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 125

Appendix A: Table 4.2 Employment indicatorsby jurisdictions in Aceh, 2008Chapter FourRegion/DistrictLabor ForceParticipationRate%InformalSector Employment%OpenUnemployment%Labor ForceParticipationrankInformalSectorEmploymentrankOpenUnemploymentrankOverallrankNothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)60.0 62.2 10.4 11.6 12.4 14.3 13.9Aceh Besar 55.9 49.1 12.1 19 3 20 18Aceh Timur 61.4 61.3 11.7 10 11 19 17Kota Langsa* 57.0 53.6 11.3 17 4 16 15Aceh Tamiang* 62.2 60.0 11.2 7 9 15 8Aceh Utara 55.0 62.3 14.0 20 13 22 23Kota Lhokseumawe* 52.3 54.3 14.4 23 5 23 20Bireuen 61.1 65.6 7.5 11 15 7 10Pidie 62.5 67.5 7.9 6 17 8 8Pidie Jaya* 61.8 69.3 8.5 8 19 9 13Kota Banda Aceh 63.0 24.4 11.4 5 1 18 1Kota Sabang 61.8 48.8 11.4 9 2 17 6Western and Southern Aceh(average excluding cities)59.4 60.1 8.0 13.9 10.7 9.0 10.6Aceh Barat 56.4 62.4 7.2 18 14 6 16Aceh Jaya* 59.4 55.9 10.4 14 8 14 13Nagan Raya* 65.6 68.6 5.0 3 18 4 2Simeulue 54.9 61.8 8.6 21 12 10 19Aceh Selatan 60.9 60.2 8.8 12 10 11 10Aceh Barat Daya* 60.2 55.9 5.5 13 7 5 2Aceh Singkil 58.7 55.8 10.2 16 6 13 12Subulussalam* 58.7 65.6 12.2 15 16 21 21Aceh Hinterland (average) 66.8 80.7 5.6 7.3 21.5 4.5 8.8Aceh Tengah 77.6 80.0 4.9 1 21 3 2Bener Meriah* 72.2 84.7 3.4 2 23 1 5Aceh Tenggara 54.3 77.7 9.6 22 20 12 22Gayo Lues* 63.2 80.5 4.3 4 22 2 6Aceh 60.3 61.8 9.6Indonesia 67.2 61.3 8.4Average cities 58.6 49.3 12.1 13.8 5.6 19.0 12.6Average original districts 59.9 64.0 9.3 14.2 12.9 11.9 14.3Average new districts 63.5 67.8 6.9 7.3 15.1 7.1 7.0Notes: * Denotes new jurisdiction.Source: BPS Statistics, Indonesia, 2008.126Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 4.3: Labour force participationby gender in Aceh 1998-2008Chapter FourYear Males Females Total%Males%Females%growth total1998 1020 612 1631 62.5 37.51999 1045 635 1680 62.2 37.8 2.5%2000 1071 660 1731 61.9 38.1 2.5%2001 1125 693 1818 61.9 38.1 5.0%2002 1101 727 1828 60.2 39.8 -2.1%2003 1335 867 2202 60.6 39.4 21.3%2004 1074 545 1619 66.3 33.7 -19.5%2005 1082 681 1762 61.4 38.6 0.7%2006 1126 688 1814 62.1 37.9 4.1%2007 1121 621 1742 64.3 35.7 -0.4%2008 1154 640 1793 64.3 35.7 2.9%Source : BPS-Statistics of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province 2009Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 127

Appendix A: Table 5.1 Participation of women in parliament and leadershippositions by jurisdictions in Aceh, 1999 - 2008 (%)Chapter FiveRegion/DistrictParticipation ofWomen in Parliament(%)Females inSenior Official, Managerialand Technical Staff Positions(%)1999 2002 2008Rank20081999 2002 2008Rank2008Nothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)7.7 12.1 7.3Aceh Besar 0 0 1.0 19 59.3 60 53.3 7Aceh Timur 2.2 0 6.7 13 57.9 36.8 55.2 4Kota Langsa* 16.7 2 44.3 17Aceh Tamiang* 6.7 15 53.1 8Aceh Utara 8.9 4.4 12.5 5 62.6 44.4 42.0 19Kota Lhokseumawe* 1.0 23 29.1 23Bireuen 0 8.6 12 56 60.3 2Pidie 0 5.0 9.1 10 47.5 56.5 55.2 5Pidie Jaya* 9.1 11 54.5 6Kota Banda Aceh 0 0 13.3 4 53.3 55.4 49.6 14Kota Sabang 5.0 5.0 1.0 22 58.5 35.9 51.5 10Western and Southern Aceh(average excluding cities)7.5 12.1 13.6Aceh Barat 2.6 2.5 6.7 14 37.3 39.3 32.7 22Aceh Jaya* 15.0 3 50.6 13Nagan Raya* 4.0 17 65.3 1Simeulue 0 10.0 9 19 45.0 16Aceh Selatan 0 0 4.0 16 47.8 62.5 50.8 12Aceh Barat Daya* 1.0 20 51.0 11Aceh Singkil 0 12.0 6 26.9 41.1 20Subulussalam* 12.0 8 49.6 15Aceh Hinterland (average) 13.0 11.8 12.8Aceh Tengah 0 0 1.0 18 54.5 50 59.3 3Bener Meriah* 38.1 1 52.4 9Aceh Tenggara 3.3 0 12.0 7 41.8 30.4 40.8 21Gayo Lues* 1.0 21 42.0 18Aceh DPRA 8.3 9.1 5.8 54.5 45.3 49.6Average cities 2.5 2.5 8.8 11.8 55.9 45.7 44.8 15.8Average original districts 2.1 1.1 7.6 11.7 51.1 43.8 48.7 11.9Average new districts 10.7 12.6 52.7 9.4Notes: * Denotes new jurisdiction.Source: Laporan Kesenjangan Kesejahteran Masyarakat Antar Daerah for 1999,2002. BPS for 2008.128Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix A: Table 6.1 HDI and per capita fiscal revenueby jurisdiction in Aceh, 2007Chapter SixRegion/DistrictHDI 2007Per capita fiscalrevenue 2007Index Rank Rp RankNothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)71.3 1,611Aceh Besar 72.7 4 1,574 18Aceh Timur 69.4 12 1,608 17Kota Langsa* 72.2 6 2,201 13Aceh Tamiang* 69.2 14 1,624 16Aceh Utara 71.4 8 1,462 20Kota Lhokseumawe* 74.7 2 2,211 12Bireuen 72.5 5 1,493 19Pidie 70.8 10 1,308 21Kota Banda Aceh 76.3 1 2,641 9Kota Sabang 74.5 3 9,233 1Western and Southern Aceh(average rank)68.3 3,010Aceh Barat 69.3 13 2,646 8Aceh Jaya* 68.2 19 5,016 2Nagan Raya* 67.6 22 3,008 5Simeulue 68.0 20 3,391 4Aceh Selatan 68.9 15 2,050 15Aceh Barat Daya* 68.4 17 2,821 6Aceh Singkil 68.0 20 2,138 14Aceh Hinterland (average rank) 69.8 2,870Aceh Tengah 72.1 7 2,439 10Bener Meriah* 68.9 15 2,774 7Aceh Tenggara 71.0 9 2,260 11Gayo Lues* 67.1 23 4,006 3Median 69.4 2,260Average cities 71.8 8.0 2,351 15.3Average original districts 70.2 12.4 2,034 10.9Average new districts 70.1 12.4 3,208 11.8Source: HDI ranking is based on data from BPS; Per capita revenue ranking is based on data from World Bank (2008) “AcehPublic Expenditure Analysis”.* Denotes new jurisdiction.Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 129

Appendix A: Table 6.2 Average per capita spending by jurisdictions in Aceh2006-07 (Rp 000s constant 2006)Chapter SixRegion/District Health EducationInfrastructurestructureSub-totalPercentof totalTotalall sectorsNothern and Eastern Aceh(average excluding cities)1.825Aceh Besar 139 545 156 840 55% 1.519Aceh Timur 104 346 206 656 46% 1.434Kota Langsa* 238 553 230 1.021 48% 2.134Aceh Tamiang* 181 545 472 1.198 57% 2.086Aceh Utara 134 453 732 1.319 60% 2.198Kota Lhokseumawe* 124 601 319 1.045 48% 2.180Bireuen 135 498 264 898 63% 1.429Pidie 96 452 116 664 52% 1.277Kota Banda Aceh 138 802 268 1.208 49% 2.479Kota Sabang 1.171 1.637 1.061 3.870 43% 8.983Western and Southern Aceh(average)2.804Aceh Barat 237 639 601 1.478 53% 2.804Aceh Jaya* 289 870 1.918 3.077 54% 5.739Nagan Raya* 203 656 606 1.464 55% 2.670Simeulue 177 289 294 760 29% 2.653Aceh Selatan 136 480 147 763 45% 1.704Aceh Barat Daya* 235 649 507 1.392 53% 2.645Aceh Singkil 183 421 211 815 38% 2.151Aceh Hinterland (average) 2.580Aceh Tengah 195 580 318 1.093 47% 2.314Bener Meriah* 176 561 383 1.120 46% 2.423Aceh Tenggara 128 443 243 814 41% 1.967Gayo Lues* 147 589 504 1.241 34% 3.617Median for Aceh 176 549 306 1.069 2.189Average as % total 8% 22% 17% 47% 100%Average cities 418 898 469 1.786 48% 3.944Average original districts 151 468 299 918 48% 1.950Average new districts 205 645 732 1.582 50% 3.196Note: Derived from World Bank, Aceh public expenditure analysis update 2008, Jakarta, World Bank, 2008; tables C.8.* Denotes new jurisdiction.130Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 1. Human Development Index (HDI)By Province, 2008ProvinceLifeExpectancy(Years)AdultLiteracyRate(%)MeansYears ofSchooling(Years)AdjustedReal per CapitaExpenditure(ThousandRupiah)HDIHDIRank2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 200811. Nangroe Aceh D 68.5 95.9 8.6 559.1 67.1 2912. Sumatera Utara 69.2 97.0 8.6 615.8 72.0 813. Sumatera Barat 69.0 96.6 8.3 620.0 71.9 914. Riau 71.1 97.8 8.6 618.9 73.4 415. Jambi 68.8 95.3 7.7 623.4 71.3 1316. Sumatera Selatan 69.2 97.0 7.7 619.0 71.6 1017. Bengkulu 69.4 94.5 8.1 621.1 71.5 1118. Lampung 69.0 93.5 7.3 623.6 70.7 1719. Bangka Belitung 68.6 95.3 7.5 628.3 71.3 1221. Kepulauan Riau 69.7 94.8 8.2 625.0 72.1 731. DKI Jakarta 72.9 98.7 10.7 625.8 76.7 132. Jawa Barat 67.8 95.5 7.5 625.9 70.8 1633. Jawa Tengah 71.1 89.1 7.0 627.6 71.0 1534. D. I. Yogyakarta 73.1 89.5 8.9 630.3 73.8 335. Jawa Timur 69.1 87.5 7.1 626.3 69.5 2036. Banten 64.6 95.2 8.2 628.7 69.7 1951. Bali 70.6 87.1 7.9 627.9 71.0 1452. Nusa Tenggara Barat 61.5 79.4 6.8 623.0 63.0 3253. Nusa Tenggara Timur 67.0 87.3 6.6 586.7 64.9 3161. Kalimantan Barat 66.3 88.3 6.8 615.2 67.1 3062. Kalimantan Tengah 71.0 97.2 8.0 619.8 72.9 663. Kalimantan Selatan 63.1 95.0 7.5 625.5 68.0 2564. Kalimantan Timur 70.8 96.2 8.9 620.5 73.2 571. Sulawesi Utara 72.0 99.1 9.0 620.0 74.6 272. Sulawesi Tengah 66.1 95.3 8.0 615.7 69.4 2173. Sulawesi Selatan 69.6 86.0 7.2 621.3 69.1 2274. Sulawesi Tenggara 67.4 90.9 7.9 610.1 68.6 2375. Gorontalo 66.2 95.2 7.1 614.1 68.6 2476. Sulawesi Barat 1) 67.4 87.0 7.1 614.7 67.5 2881. Maluku 67.0 97.3 8.6 609.8 70.4 1882. Maluku Utara 65.4 95.5 8.6 592.5 67.7 2791. Papua Barat 2) 67.9 90.8 7.9 595.7 67.8 2694. Papua 68.1 73.0 6.4 503.2 55.8 33Indonesia 69.0 92.1 7.6 634.4 71.5Note:1 Subdivided from South Sulawesi Province in 20042 Subdivided from Papua Province in 2001- The number before each province is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 131

Appendix B: Table 2. Gender-related Development Index (GDI)By Province, 2008ProvinceProportionof Population(% of Total)LifeExpectancy(Years)AdultLiteracy Rate(%)Mean Yearsof Schooling(Years)WageContribution(%) GDIGDIRankF M F M F M F M F M11. Nangroe Aceh D 50.3 49.7 70.5 66.6 94.2 97.6 8.2 9.0 32.2 67.8 61.4 2712. Sumatera Utara 50.2 49.8 71.2 67.3 95.4 98.6 8.2 9.0 35.8 64.2 68.1 813. Sumatera Barat 50.7 49.3 71.0 67.1 95.4 98.0 8.2 8.4 37.8 62.2 68.7 414. Riau 47.3 52.7 73.1 69.2 96.5 99.0 8.3 8.9 21.4 78.6 60.1 3015. Jambi 49.0 51.0 70.8 66.9 92.7 97.9 7.2 8.2 30.0 70.0 64.3 1716. Sumatera Selatan 49.5 50.5 71.2 67.3 95.7 98.3 7.4 8.1 32.3 68 66.0 1117. Bengkulu 49.1 50.9 71.4 67.5 92.1 96.9 7.7 8.4 36.4 63.6 68.4 518. Lampung 49.0 51.0 71.0 67.1 90.3 96.5 7.0 7.6 31.3 68.7 64.7 1619. Bangka Belitung 47.2 52.8 70.6 66.7 93.1 97.3 7.1 7.8 23.7 76.3 60.1 2921. Kepulauan Riau 51.2 48.8 71.7 67.8 93.2 96.4 8.2 8.2 31.9 68.1 65.2 1431. DKI Jakarta 50.9 49.1 74.9 71.1 97.9 99.5 10.3 11.1 33.0 67.0 70.7 232. Jawa Barat 49.6 50.4 69.8 65.9 93.4 97.7 7.1 8.0 29.0 71.0 62.7 2433. Jawa Tengah 50.4 49.6 73.1 69.2 84.8 93.7 6.5 7.5 34.2 65.8 65.9 1234. D. I. Yogyakarta 49.8 50.2 75.1 71.3 84.7 94.5 8.3 9.5 40.4 59.6 72.0 135. Jawa Timur 50.4 49.6 71.1 67.2 83.0 92.5 6.5 7.7 35.0 65.0 65.0 1536. Banten 49.5 50.5 66.6 62.7 92.8 97.6 7.7 8.7 32.6 67.4 64.2 1851. Bali 49.6 50.4 72.6 68.7 81.4 92.8 7.2 8.7 37.7 62.3 68.2 752. Nusa Tenggara Barat 52.2 47.8 63.4 59.7 73.0 87.0 6.2 7.5 35.2 64.8 57.5 3253. Nusa Tenggara Timur 50.2 49.8 69.0 65.1 85.3 89.4 6.4 6.9 42.7 57.3 63.9 1961. Kalimantan Barat 49.5 50.5 68.3 64.4 83.3 93.2 6.4 7.2 36.0 64.0 63.5 2062. Kalimantan Tengah 47.8 52.2 73.0 69.1 96.0 98.2 7.7 8.3 32.4 67.6 68.3 663. Kalimantan Selatan 49.9 50.1 65.0 61.3 92.6 97.4 7.1 8.0 33.1 66.9 62.7 2564. Kalimantan Timur 47.7 52.3 72.8 68.9 94.6 97.7 8.4 9.3 21.2 78.8 59.3 3171. Sulawesi Utara 49.1 50.9 74.0 70.1 98.9 99.4 9.0 8.9 31.9 68.1 69.0 372. Sulawesi Tengah 49.1 50.9 68.1 64.2 93.5 97.0 7.7 8.2 35.9 64.1 66.1 1073. Sulawesi Selatan 51.8 48.2 71.6 67.7 83.5 88.7 7.0 7.5 33.6 66.4 63.1 2274. Sulawesi Tenggara 50.7 49.3 69.4 65.5 87.6 94.5 7.4 8.4 37.1 62.9 65.2 1375. Gorontalo 49.4 50.6 68.2 64.3 94.9 95.4 7.3 6.8 31.9 68.1 62.9 2376. Sulawesi Barat 1) 49.4 50.6 69.4 65.5 84.1 90.0 6.7 7.4 34.6 65.4 63.4 2181. Maluku 49.3 50.7 69.0 65.1 96.3 98.3 8.4 8.9 34.3 65.7 66.2 982. Maluku Utara 49.4 50.6 67.4 63.5 93.4 97.6 8.3 8.9 32.5 67.5 62.6 2691. Papua Barat 2) 47.5 52.5 69.9 66.0 88.3 93.0 7.4 8.4 28.4 71.6 60.9 2894. Papua 48.1 51.9 70.1 66.2 67.1 78.4 5.5 7.2 36.2 63.8 53.4 33Indonesia 49.9 50.1 71.0 67.1 89.1 95.3 7.2 8.1 33.0 67.0 65.9Note:1 Subdivided from South Sulawesi Province in 20042 Subdivided from Papua Province in 2001- The number before each province is the official area codeSource: BPS Special Tabulation132Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 3. Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)By Province, 2008ProvinceWomenin theParliament(% of Total)Females inSenior Official,Managerial, andTechnical Staff Positions(% of Total)Females in theLabour Force(% of Total)AverageNon-Agricultural Wage(Rupiah)GEMGEMRank2008 2008 2008 F M 2008 200811. Nangroe Aceh D 5.8 49.6 35.7 1 221 603 1 427 396 50.2 2912. Sumatera Utara 7.1 43.0 40.8 931 833 1 154 245 56.9 2013. Sumatera Barat 9.1 49.7 39.8 1 121 399 1 220 368 60.9 1414. Riau 7.3 42.5 28.4 1 075 122 1 566 738 48.6 3115. Jambi 13.3 42.5 35.2 933 816 1 182 983 61.4 1116. Sumatera Selatan 18.5 49.5 38.5 960 468 1 262 305 67.7 317. Bengkulu 20.5 45.2 39.0 1 153 219 1 288 118 71.8 118. Lampung 20.0 35.5 35.8 757 904 927 724 66.3 419. Bangka Belitung 2.9 40.4 29.9 866 195 1 192 230 45.6 3221. Kepulauan Riau 6.7 30.2 37.1 1 478 773 1 864 917 49.3 3031. DKI Jakarta 14.7 35.4 40.2 1 320 438 1 796 428 61.0 1332. Jawa Barat 10.0 32.7 33.5 929 919 1 147 989 53.6 2733. Jawa Tengah 15.0 44.6 41.1 650 466 875 415 65.2 634. D. I. Yogyakarta 12.7 40.8 43.8 912 222 1 049 631 65.9 535. Jawa Timur 14.9 42.9 40.0 771 776 953 242 65.2 736. Banten 6.7 36.6 35.4 1 107 859 1 254 907 54.4 2651. Bali 7.3 34.7 44.8 972 173 1 305 557 57.0 1952. Nusa Tenggara Barat 9.1 38.6 44.0 678 251 981 039 56.6 2153. Nusa Tenggara Timur 10.9 40.0 42.8 1 185 166 1 189 415 61.1 1261. Kalimantan Barat 5.5 41.2 41.0 1 034 076 1 278 576 55.3 2462. Kalimantan Tengah 20.0 41.6 35.3 1 110 168 1 267 031 69.7 263. Kalimantan Selatan 10.9 41.1 40.0 893 163 1 203 722 60.1 1664. Kalimantan Timur 22.2 33.4 30.7 1 181 421 1 943 835 59.6 1771. Sulawesi Utara 12.8 46.0 31.1 1 238 793 1 193 590 62.4 972. Sulawesi Tengah 13.3 45.0 36.8 1 081 556 1 124 339 64.9 873. Sulawesi Selatan 8.0 44.1 37.7 1 038 635 1 241 938 56.1 2274. Sulawesi Tenggara 8.9 38.4 41.6 987 719 1 192 334 57.8 1875. Gorontalo 11.4 48.8 32.7 866 772 898 006 60.5 1576. Sulawesi Barat 1) 11.4 48.5 37.4 1 085 119 1 223 787 62.2 1081. Maluku 4.4 36.7 36.4 1 211 524 1 325 010 51.7 2882. Maluku Utara 1.0 36.0 38.0 1 065 906 1 354 556 44.7 3391. Papua Barat 2) 11.8 32.5 34.8 1 327 453 1 790 456 55.2 2594. Papua 14.3 39.8 41.0 1 822 289 2 233 949 55.8 23Indonesia 11.3 39.8 38.2 934 773 1 174 597 60.5Note:1 Subdivided from South Sulawesi Province in 20042. Subdivided from Papua Province in 2001- The number before each province is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 133

Appendix B: Table 4. Human Poverty Index (HPI)By Province, 2008ProvincePeople NotExpected toSurviveAge 40(%)AdultIlliteracyRate(%)PopulationWithoutAccess toSafe Water(%)PopulationWithoutAccess toHealth Facilities(%)Under NourishedChildren UnderAge Five (*=NHCS,**=WHO Standards)(%)HPI(*=NHCS, **=WHOStandards)HPI Rank(*=NHCS, **=WHOStandards)2008 2008 2008 2008 2008* 2008** 2008* 2008** 2008* 2008**11. Nangroe Aceh D 8.8 4.1 25.7 12.9 31.5 26.5 16.5 15.4 17 1512. Sumatera Utara 8.1 3.0 23.7 20.1 28.4 22.7 16.9 15.6 20 1713. Sumatera Barat 8.3 3.4 26.1 4.9 25.6 20.2 13.5 12.3 10 714. Riau 6.3 2.2 39.6 15.3 25.8 21.4 18.7 17.7 24 2215. Jambi 8.5 4.7 40.7 9.3 24.1 18.9 17.4 16.2 21 1816. Sumatera Selatan 8.1 3.0 34.4 24.7 21.6 18.2 18.8 18.0 25 2417. Bengkulu 7.9 5.5 52.0 10.4 20.7 16.7 19.4 18.5 26 2618. Lampung 8.3 6.5 32.3 13.0 22.5 17.5 16.0 15.0 14 1319. Bangka Belitung 8.7 4.7 20.4 15.7 24.8 18.3 14.5 13.1 12 1121. Kepulauan Riau 7.6 5.2 22.3 7.4 16.4 12.4 11.2 10.4 5 631. DKI Jakarta 4.7 1.3 0.9 0.0 17.0 12.9 4.7 4.1 1 132. Jawa Barat 9.5 4.5 14.1 6.1 20.6 15.0 10.5 9.5 3 333. Jawa Tengah 6.3 10.9 12.1 5.4 20.7 16.0 10.6 9.9 4 434. D. I. Yogyakarta 4.6 10.5 13.3 0.0 14.9 10.9 9.1 8.4 2 235. Jawa Timur 8.2 12.5 8.2 6.0 21.9 17.4 11.3 10.7 7 536. Banten 13.3 4.8 12.9 11.5 22.3 16.6 12.8 11.9 9 851. Bali 6.7 12.9 10.8 1.1 15.4 11.4 11.3 9.9 6 1052. Nusa Tenggara Barat 17.1 20.6 15.0 3.2 31.6 24.8 16.9 17.7 19 2153. Nusa Tenggara Timur 10.5 12.7 33.7 20.7 39.6 33.6 22.5 21.2 29 2861. Kalimantan Barat 11.3 11.7 75.5 29.2 28.0 22.5 31.0 29.8 32 3262. Kalimantan Tengah 6.4 2.8 51.1 23.8 28.2 24.2 23.9 23.0 30 2963. Kalimantan Selatan 15.1 5.0 36.3 13.9 33.0 26.6 20.3 18.9 27 2064. Kalimantan Timur 6.6 3.8 27.1 18.7 23.9 19.3 16.3 15.2 16 1971. Sulawesi Utara 5.5 0.9 13.9 14.0 21.2 15.8 11.5 10.3 8 972. Sulawesi Tengah 11.5 4.7 21.0 13.5 32.4 27.6 16.2 15.2 15 1473. Sulawesi Selatan 7.7 14.0 22.4 9.7 23.4 17.6 14.8 13.7 13 1674. Sulawesi Tenggara 10.0 9.1 21.6 18.5 28.8 22.7 16.7 15.4 18 2375. Gorontalo 11.4 4.8 16.3 6.2 32.5 25.4 13.7 12.4 11 1276. Sulawesi Barat 1) 10.0 13.0 31.1 11.6 31.1 25.4 18.2 17.1 23 2581. Maluku 10.5 2.7 20.4 24.4 31.9 27.8 18.1 17.2 22 2782. Maluku Utara 12.3 4.5 31.6 34.1 27.7 22.8 22.0 20.9 28 3091. Papua Barat 2) 9.4 9.2 55.5 37.8 28.1 23.2 28.3 27.2 31 3194. Papua 9.2 27.0 59.3 50.1 26.2 21.2 33.0 32.5 33 33Indonesia 8.3 7.8 19.4 14.7 23.5 18.4 14.0 12.9Note:1 Subdivided from South Sulawesi Province in 20042. Subdivided from Papua Province in 2001- The number before each province is the official area codeSource: BPS Special Tabulation134Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 5. Human Development Index (HDI)By District, 2008ProvinceDistrictLifeExpectancy(Years)AdultLiteracyRate(%)Means Yearsof Schooling(Years)Adjusted Realper Capita Expenditure(ThousandRupiah)HDIHDI Rank2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 200811. Nangroe Aceh D 68.5 95.9 8.6 559.1 67.1 2901. Simeulue 62.8 98.0 8.5 568.3 65.2 40102. Aceh Singkil 64.5 90.4 8.3 572.5 64.5 41503. Aceh Selatan 66.7 93.4 8.3 579.3 67.0 36104. Aceh Tenggara 69.2 97.1 9.4 569.5 69.2 26405. Aceh Timur 69.5 97.1 8.4 576.4 69.2 26506. Aceh Tengah 69.4 97.7 9.2 578.6 70.1 21407. Aceh Barat 69.8 92.8 8.3 574.9 68.2 31308. Aceh Besar 70.5 96.2 9.9 573.9 70.5 19309. Pidie 69.1 95.4 8.6 572.5 68.5 30010. Bireuen 72.3 98.1 9.2 570.0 71.1 16311. Aceh Utara 69.5 95.1 9.1 552.0 67.4 34512. Aceh Barat Daya 66.5 95.7 7.5 557.9 65.1 40213. Gayo Lues 66.8 83.5 8.7 553.5 63.2 42414. Aceh Tamiang 68.2 97.7 8.4 562.1 67.5 34115. Nagan Raya 69.4 88.4 7.4 566.2 65.7 39116. Aceh Jaya 67.9 93.1 8.8 574.8 67.6 33517. Bener Meriah 67.4 97.0 8.1 562.2 66.7 36818. Pidie Jaya 69.0 93.5 7.6 574.3 67.4 34471. Banda Aceh 70.2 99.0 12.0 573.0 72.4 9972. Sabang 70.4 98.1 10.5 574.9 71.4 14273. Langsa 70.1 98.6 10.0 578.6 71.3 14874. Lhokseumawe 70.0 98.8 10.0 578.5 71.2 15075. Subulussalam 65.5 90.7 7.6 554.4 63.3 420Indonesia 69.0 92.1 7.6 634.4 71.5- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 135

Appendix B: Table 6. Gender-related Development Index (GDI)By District, 2008ProvinceDistrictProportionof Population(% of Total)LifeExpectancy(Years)AdultLiteracy Rate(%)Mean Yearsof Schooling(Years)WageContribution(%) GDIGDIRankF M F M F M F M F M11. Nangroe Aceh D 50.3 49.7 70.5 66.6 94.2 97.6 8.2 9.0 32.2 67.8 61.4 2701. Simeulue 47.9 52.1 64.8 61.0 97.1 99.0 8.0 9.1 24.3 75.7 54.6 41902. Aceh Singkil 49.8 50.2 66.4 62.6 85.6 95.1 7.6 9.0 24.6 75.4 55.3 41303. Aceh Selatan 50.2 49.8 68.7 64.8 91.2 95.9 7.9 8.7 32.3 67.7 60.7 33804. Aceh Tenggara 50.2 49.8 71.2 67.2 95.0 99.4 8.8 10.0 34.4 65.6 63.0 26405. Aceh Timur 50.0 50.0 71.6 67.6 96.0 98.3 8.3 8.5 34.1 65.9 64.9 19106. Aceh Tengah 51.2 48.8 71.5 67.5 97.0 98.4 9.1 9.3 40.7 59.3 67.5 10607. Aceh Barat 47.9 52.1 71.8 67.9 89.9 95.9 7.8 8.8 25.0 75.0 58.3 38408. Aceh Besar 50.8 49.2 72.6 68.6 95.5 96.9 9.6 10.1 32.7 67.3 64.6 21409. Pidie 52.4 47.6 71.1 67.2 92.9 98.1 8.2 9.1 34.6 65.4 64.0 23510. Bireuen 50.2 49.8 74.3 70.4 97.4 98.9 9.2 9.3 35.0 65.0 67.3 11611. Aceh Utara 51.2 48.8 71.6 67.6 93.7 96.6 9.1 9.1 33.3 66.7 61.3 31812. Aceh Barat Daya 51.0 49.0 68.5 64.6 93.4 98.1 7.2 7.8 30.8 69.2 58.3 38613. Gayo Lues 49.5 50.5 68.9 64.9 76.1 90.9 8.3 9.1 38.8 61.2 60.9 33114. Aceh Tamiang 49.6 50.4 70.2 66.3 96.8 98.6 8.1 8.7 26.6 73.4 57.8 39215. Nagan Raya 49.8 50.2 71.5 67.5 84.4 92.6 6.8 8.0 35.9 64.1 61.7 30716. Aceh Jaya 47.3 52.7 70.0 66.0 89.8 96.5 8.8 8.8 25.6 74.4 58.8 37517. Bener Meriah 49.1 50.9 69.4 65.5 95.3 98.8 7.8 8.4 42.5 57.5 65.6 16318. Pidie Jaya 50.9 49.1 71.1 67.1 91.0 96.6 7.2 8.1 28.8 71.2 57.9 39171. Banda Aceh 48.9 51.1 72.3 68.3 98.6 99.3 11.7 12.3 29.7 70.3 65.7 15772. Sabang 50.8 49.2 72.4 68.4 97.3 98.9 10.4 10.7 29.3 70.7 63.1 26173. Langsa 49.5 50.5 72.2 68.2 97.8 99.3 9.8 10.3 24.8 75.2 62.1 29474. Lhokseumawe 50.0 50.0 72.0 68.1 98.6 99.0 9.7 10.3 22.2 77.8 57.2 40075. Subulussalam 49.4 50.6 67.5 63.7 84.4 97.2 7.0 8.3 32.1 67.9 57.6 395Indonesia 49.9 50.1 71.0 67.1 89.1 95.3 7.2 8.1 33.0 67.0 64.8 65.9- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special Tabulation136Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 7. Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)By District, 2008ProvinceDistrictWomenin theParliament(% of Total)Females inSenior Official,Managerial, andTechnical StaffPositions(% of Total)Females inthe LabourForce(% of Total)FemalePopulation(% of Total)AverageNon-Agricultural Wage(Rupiah)FMGEMGEMRank11. Nangroe Aceh D 5.8 49.6 35.7 50.3 1.221.603 1.427.396 50.2 2901. Simeulue 10.0 45.0 27.9 47.9 967.979 1.164.714 51.0 31802. Aceh Singkil 12.0 41.1 29.7 49.8 1.095.169 1.413.832 53.6 26003. Aceh Selatan 4.0 50.8 37.0 50.2 1.013.935 1.247.553 49.0 35304. Aceh Tenggara 12.0 40.8 33.8 50.2 1.555.393 1.514.889 56.1 19705. Aceh Timur 6.7 55.2 33.7 50.0 1.105.230 1.084.673 53.6 25906. Aceh Tengah 1.0 59.3 43.4 51.2 1.110.296 1.244.278 47.9 37107. Aceh Barat 6.7 32.7 30.0 47.9 1.234.798 1.582.444 45.0 40308. Aceh Besar 1.0 53.3 33.0 50.8 1.499.221 1.515.506 45.1 40109. Pidie 9.1 55.2 42.1 52.4 1.092.974 1.500.082 55.6 21110. Bireuen 8.6 60.3 39.6 50.2 926.756 1.125.980 54.7 23111. Aceh Utara 12.5 42.0 33.9 51.2 1.111.725 1.141.370 55.4 21712. Aceh Barat Daya 1.0 51.0 35.8 51.0 931.736 1.168.513 43.0 41813. Gayo Lues 1.0 42.0 39.3 49.5 1.468.570 1.497.807 46.7 39014. Aceh Tamiang 6.7 53.1 33.0 49.6 917.593 1.244.815 47.4 38115. Nagan Raya 4.0 65.3 39.8 49.8 1.482.778 1.752.452 47.2 38416. Aceh Jaya 15.0 50.6 29.2 47.3 1.248.056 1.490.324 58.6 14217. Bener Meriah 38.1 52.4 42.4 49.1 1.396.903 1.390.212 79.3 118. Pidie Jaya 9.1 54.5 43.1 50.9 750.086 1.406.204 50.9 32071. Banda Aceh 13.3 49.6 32.1 48.9 1.843.931 2.061.905 58.7 14172. Sabang 1.0 51.5 30.7 50.8 1.453.601 1.554.407 42.9 41973. Langsa 16.7 44.3 28.8 49.5 815.799 1.001.424 59.2 13174. Lhokseumawe 1.0 29.1 28.8 50.0 1.242.094 1.758.778 31.6 44675. Subulussalam 12.0 49.6 31.2 49.4 1.016.237 971.742 56.9 178Indonesia 11.3 39.8 38.2 49.9 934.773 1.174.597 60.5- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 137

Appendix B: Table 8. Human Poverty Index (HPI)By District,2008ProvinceDistrictPeople NotExpected toSurviveAge 40(%)AdultIlliteracyRate(%)PopulationWithoutAccess toSafe Water(%)Population Under NourishedWithout Access Children Underto Health Age Five (*=NHCS,Facilities **=WHO Standards)(%)(%)HPI(*=NHCS, **=WHOStandards)HPI Rank(*=NHCS, **=WHOStandards)2008 2008 2008 2008 2008* 2008** 2008* 2008** 2008* 2008**11. Nangroe Aceh D 8.8 4.1 25.7 12.9 31.5 26.5 16.5 15.4 17 1501. Simeulue 15.4 2.0 71.7 1.4 47.0 39.7 28.3 26.7 410 38802. Aceh Singkil 13.5 9.6 41.6 12.8 25.7 21.0 19.6 18.6 304 30003. Aceh Selatan 10.8 6.6 20.3 12.5 33.8 24.9 16.1 14.2 236 18204. Aceh Tenggara 8.2 2.9 30.5 7.0 48.7 48.7 20.1 20.1 321 27605. Aceh Timur 7.8 2.9 42.0 21.9 21.8 21.7 19.9 19.9 318 33506. Aceh Tengah 7.9 2.3 40.6 13.3 19.8 15.1 17.2 16.2 260 25307. Aceh Barat 7.5 7.2 34.6 22.8 34.2 29.9 21.4 20.4 342 28108. Aceh Besar 6.8 3.8 16.0 7.1 24.1 20.0 11.2 10.4 131 12409. Pidie 8.2 4.6 17.2 2.6 30.1 23.6 12.1 10.7 145 7110. Bireuen 5.3 1.9 16.3 11.0 38.7 32.8 15.3 14.0 217 16211. Aceh Utara 7.8 4.9 33.3 18.3 38.8 35.5 21.0 20.3 335 35512. Aceh Barat Daya 11.1 4.3 31.6 2.3 43.2 39.1 18.3 17.4 289 19613. Gayo Lues 10.7 16.5 50.6 24.3 30.3 19.5 25.4 23.1 387 35814. Aceh Tamiang 9.1 2.3 30.3 18.8 26.5 21.4 17.8 16.6 272 30115. Nagan Raya 7.9 11.6 31.4 15.2 40.4 36.1 20.7 19.7 332 25816. Aceh Jaya 9.4 6.9 17.0 25.1 35.2 29.0 18.3 16.9 287 24617. Bener Meriah 10.0 3.0 38.3 22.4 24.5 13.7 20.0 17.6 320 26518. Pidie Jaya 8.3 6.5 23.1 5.4 30.1 14.0 10.8 182 10071. Banda Aceh 7.1 1.0 1.1 0.0 21.0 15.5 6.3 5.6 32 3672. Sabang 7.0 1.9 2.6 5.6 22.8 14.6 7.8 6.4 60 3173. Langsa 7.2 1.4 5.9 0.0 31.9 27.1 9.3 8.3 89 5574. Lhokseumawe 7.3 1.2 1.9 4.4 28.8 24.0 8.7 7.8 75 7875. Subulussalam 12.2 9.3 55.5 31.1 25.7 26.4 30.3 398 379Indonesia 8.3 7.8 19.4 14.7 23.5 18.4 14.0 12.9- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special Tabulation138Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 9. Health conditionsBy District, 2008ProvinceDistrictInfantMortalityRate(per 1.000)Populationwith HealthProblem(%)MorbidityRate(%)AverageDurationof Illness(Days)PopulationSelf-Medicating(%)BirthDeliveryAssisted byMedicalPersonnel(%)11. Nangroe Aceh D 34.1 36.6 21.5 5.4 67.1 83.101. Simeulue 57.6 24.7 15.9 5.1 89.2 56.402. Aceh Singkil 50.7 31.3 16.7 5.9 72.1 69.503. Aceh Selatan 41.3 37.5 25.6 7.7 77.5 68.004. Aceh Tenggara 31.6 25.7 17.7 6.2 77.8 74.505. Aceh Timur 30.3 36.6 26.8 3.9 69.3 82.706. Aceh Tengah 30.7 37.6 27.3 5.2 75.4 87.607. Aceh Barat 29.3 32.6 22.1 6.2 71.1 59.908. Aceh Besar 26.6 38.2 13.8 6.5 44.3 91.409. Pidie 31.8 43.2 21.0 5.9 63.6 92.810. Bireuen 20.9 43.2 28.4 4.5 72.3 83.011. Aceh Utara 30.3 40.8 21.3 4.9 59.6 79.112. Aceh Barat Daya 42.2 31.6 24.9 7.0 73.2 72.613. Gayo Lues 40.7 38.1 16.8 6.9 76.9 54.814. Aceh Tamiang 35.2 34.5 19.6 5.1 66.4 87.915. Nagan Raya 30.7 31.8 21.9 6.2 79.3 81.616. Aceh Jaya 36.2 41.0 26.6 4.3 66.5 72.817. Bener Meriah 38.3 44.7 29.4 5.8 80.3 90.918. Pidie Jaya 32.1 42.3 26.2 5.5 51.4 87.371. Banda Aceh 27.7 24.6 13.9 6.3 56.1 100.072. Sabang 27.2 20.9 8.6 6.7 65.8 94.673. Langsa 28.0 31.2 16.4 5.7 77.5 96.474. Lhokseumawe 28.5 41.8 21.8 3.3 71.3 96.375. Subulussalam 46.2 33.5 19.3 4.7 79.1 65.2Indonesia 32.2 33.3 17.2 6.1 65.5 75.2- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 139

Appendix B: Table 10. School Attendanceby District, 2008ProvinceDistrictSchool Participation RateSchool Drop Out RateAge 7-12 Age 13-15 Age 16-18 Age 19-24 Age 7-15 Age 16-18 Age 19-2411. Nangroe Aceh D 99.0 94.1 72.4 22.4 1.0 6.1 13.601. Simeulue 98.7 93.9 83.3 12.6 0.9 3.4 20.502. Aceh Singkil 98.9 93.0 69.0 13.6 1.0 9.4 16.803. Aceh Selatan 99.4 97.4 74.4 17.1 0.4 5.1 8.804. Aceh Tenggara 99.4 96.6 69.6 16.1 1.0 10.4 9.005. Aceh Timur 98.9 89.3 58.9 14.6 0.9 8.5 11.806. Aceh Tengah 99.2 98.5 71.5 14.0 0.0 4.6 20.107. Aceh Barat 98.5 95.2 78.2 15.8 1.9 3.8 21.908. Aceh Besar 99.1 94.4 76.8 30.5 1.2 2.9 8.809. Pidie 98.8 97.1 72.0 22.0 0.8 4.7 7.210. Bireuen 99.3 92.5 74.6 33.8 1.5 4.8 7.011. Aceh Utara 99.5 90.4 70.5 13.7 1.2 6.7 20.512. Aceh Barat Daya 98.9 95.2 72.7 20.8 1.2 2.9 21.413. Gayo Lues 97.5 88.8 61.4 14.1 2.9 15.0 23.414. Aceh Tamiang 99.2 93.6 64.7 13.9 0.7 9.5 10.415. Nagan Raya 99.0 92.9 79.5 17.5 1.4 2.2 12.416. Aceh Jaya 97.3 93.8 62.1 8.3 1.3 9.3 9.917. Bener Meriah 99.4 97.3 75.7 18.9 0.2 3.5 8.618. Pidie Jaya 98.9 98.2 68.9 14.2 0.7 11.6 11.771. Banda Aceh 98.7 97.7 86.8 42.0 0.8 0.0 19.072. Sabang 98.9 94.6 70.4 9.3 1.6 4.5 15.073. Langsa 99.0 94.3 76.2 27.4 1.0 5.1 12.774. Lhokseumawe 99.4 95.2 79.6 31.8 1.1 5.6 5.175. Subulussalam 97.6 91.6 73.3 15.9 2.1 19.0 38.3Indonesia 97.8 84.4 54.7 12.4 2.3 11.0 14.1- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special Tabulation140Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 11. Housing conditionBy District, 2008ProvinceDistrictHouseholdswith Access to Safe Water(%)Householdswith Dirt Floor(%)Householdswithout Accessto Sanitation(%)2008 *) 2008 **) 2008 200811. Nangroe Aceh D 41.2 73.4 10.6 36.301. Simeulue 11.9 26.0 4.4 43.102. Aceh Singkil 42.3 56.0 8.4 18.303. Aceh Selatan 27.7 79.6 5.5 48.904. Aceh Tenggara 24.9 70.3 9.0 56.605. Aceh Timur 30.4 58.1 21.1 30.406. Aceh Tengah 40.7 58.5 13.4 33.207. Aceh Barat 29.3 62.2 8.5 51.608. Aceh Besar 53.3 83.4 3.7 24.409. Aceh Besar 28.3 81.2 7.7 70.710. Bireuen 37.1 83.2 9.2 22.411. Aceh Utara 29.3 66.3 20.2 42.112. Aceh Barat Daya 31.0 68.6 6.6 66.213. Gayo Lues 35.8 47.9 6.7 73.814. Aceh Tamiang 51.7 69.8 12.4 9.015. Nagan Raya 23.5 67.2 14.6 47.916. Aceh Jaya 42.8 82.1 8.9 35.417. Bener Meriah 39.5 60.4 21.4 27.018. Pidie Jaya 38.8 76.1 13.4 65.671. Kota Banda Aceh 94.3 98.9 1.5 1.572. Kota Sabang 89.9 97.0 3.9 22.573. Kota Langsa 65.7 93.9 3.9 8.974. Kota Lhokseumawe 78.5 97.2 6.7 18.775. Sabulussalam 24.3 44.3 10.9 18.2Indonesia 54.1 79.8 13.0 26.1Note:*) Access to clean water with distant control to the nearest septic tank**) Access to clean water without distant control to the nearest septic tank- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 141

Appendix B: Table 12A. Economic performanceDistrict, 2005-2007ProvinceDistrictPer Capita GRDP in 2005(Thousand Rupiah)WithOil and GasWithoutOil and GasPer Capita GRDP in 2006*(Thousand Rupiah)WithOil and GasWithoutOil and GasPer Capita GRDP in 2007*(Thousand Rupiah)WithOil and GasWithoutOil and Gas11. Nangroe Aceh D 14.126.34 8.792.89 17.380.60 11.024.31 17.329.35 12.268.7301. Simeulue 3.410.98 3.410.98 3.671.36 3.671.36 4.063.97 4.063.9702. Aceh Singkil 4.779.32 4.779.32 4.848.83 4.848.83 5.217.00 5.217.0003. Aceh Selatan 7.786.01 7.786.01 8.436.24 8.436.24 8.857.37 8.857.3704. Aceh Tenggara 3.841.49 3.841.49 4.367.06 4.367.06 4.664.72 4.664.7205. Aceh Timur 18.461.01 6.205.80 25.782.92 6.726.57 29.706.48 7.285.4306. Aceh Tengah 8.108.53 8.108.53 9.086.87 9.086.87 10.099.57 10.099.5707. Aceh Barat 8.755.52 8.755.52 10.962.98 10.962.98 14.458.63 14.458.6308. Aceh Besar 8.834.45 8.834.45 9.340.38 9.340.38 9.733.60 9.733.6009. Pidie 4.822.50 4.822.50 5.083.89 5.083.89 5.299.03 5.299.0310. Bireuen 7.352.31 7.352.31 7.903.44 7.903.44 8.786.41 8.786.4111. Aceh Utara 21.955.79 6.218.07 29.237.52 6.881.28 23.786.78 7.552.4412. Aceh Barat Daya 6.866.28 6.866.28 7.479.79 7.479.79 8.794.81 8.794.8113. Gayo Lues 6.063.33 6.063.33 6.842.32 6.842.32 8.352.79 8.352.7914. Aceh Tamiang 11.366.47 5.792.87 11.539.90 7.643.99 10.714.36 9.505.6515. Nagan Raya 10.168.57 10.168.57 12.410.95 12.410.95 15.064.47 15.064.4716. Aceh Jaya 5.914.32 5.914.32 6.999.34 6.999.34 7.538.90 7.538.9017. Bener Meriah 7.990.87 7.990.87 8.633.77 8.633.77 9.294.69 9.294.6918. Pidie Jaya - - 5.751.71 5.751.71 6.139.76 6.139.7671. Banda Aceh 10.757.24 10.757.24 12.918.11 12.918.11 12.340.85 12.340.8572. Sabang 6.948.82 6.948.82 7.523.36 7.523.36 8.310.19 8.310.1973. Langsa 7.279.37 7.279.37 7.931.94 7.931.94 8.582.30 8.582.3074. Lhokseumawe 15.207.41 15.207.41 16.037.35 16.037.35 17.839.30 17.839.3075. Subulussalam - - 5.392.29 5.392.29 5.761.80 5.761.80Indonesia 2.774.281.10 2.458.234.30 3.339.479.60 2.967.303.10 3.957.403.90 3.540.950.10Note:* preliminary figures** very preliminary figures- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special Tabulation142Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Appendix B: Table 12B. Economic performanceDistrict, 2005-2007Annual Growth in Real Per Capita GRDPProvinceDistrict2005-2006 2006-2007WithOil and GasWithoutOil and GasWithOil and GasWithoutOil and Gas11. Nangroe Aceh D 23.04 25.38 -0.29 11.2901. Simeulue 7.63 7.63 10.69 10.6902. Aceh Singkil 1.45 1.45 7.59 7.5903. Aceh Selatan 8.35 8.35 4.99 4.9904. Aceh Tenggara 13.68 13.68 6.82 6.8205. Aceh Timur 39.66 8.39 15.22 8.3106. Aceh Tengah 12.07 12.07 11.14 11.1407. Aceh Barat 25.21 25.21 31.89 31.8908. Aceh Besar 5.73 5.73 4.21 4.2109. Pidie 5.42 5.42 4.23 4.2310. Bireuen 7.50 7.50 11.17 11.1711. Aceh Utara 33.17 10.67 -18.64 9.7512. Aceh Barat Daya 8.94 8.94 17.58 17.5813. Gayo Lues 12.85 12.85 22.08 22.0814. Aceh Tamiang 1.53 31.96 -7.15 24.3515. Nagan Raya 22.05 22.05 21.38 21.3816. Aceh Jaya 18.35 18.35 7.71 7.7117. Bener Meriah 8.05 8.05 7.66 7.6618. Pidie Jaya - - 6.75 6.7571. Banda Aceh 20.09 20.09 -4.47 -4.4772. Sabang 8.27 8.27 10.46 10.4673. Langsa 8.96 8.96 8.20 8.2074. Lhokseumawe 5.46 5.46 11.24 11.2475. Subulussalam - - 6.85 6.85Indonesia 20.37 20.71 18.50 19.33Note:- The number before province and each district is the official area codeSource: BPS Special TabulationProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 143

Appendix B: Table 13. Labour force and poverty conditionby District, 2008ProvinceDistrictLabourForce ParticipationRate(%)OpenUnemployment(%)EmployeeWorking

References1 Quoted from Sejahtera and Suleeman, Inong Aceh DiBentala Nusantara, 94. xv2 Arnstein, Sherry R., 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation.43 For this report, the four indicators just mentioned werecomputed by the Central Bureau of Statistics (BadanPusat Statistik), based on data collected from severalsources. 54 Aris Ananta, Lee Poh Onn, Aceh: A New Dawn (Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007), 55. 125 The HDI for Aceh was recently revised downwards by BPSafter recalculating components of the index, particularlyadjusted real per capita expenditure. See chapter 1 for anexplanation of the factors included in various indices. 146 See Serambi Newspaper on 26 August 2010: “Aceh PeringkatTujuh Termiskin”. 167 Cities in Aceh include: Banda Aceh, Lhokseumawe, Langsa,Sabang and Subulussalam. 178 Sidney Jones, “Keeping the Peace: Security in Aceh”,Accord, 20, 2008, 75. 229 “The Multi stakeholder Review”, Draft December 2009,p xv. 2310 World Bank (2009), “Aceh Growth Diagnostic”, p18 2311 Jakarta Post, 18 August 2008: “Reintegration after threeyears of the Helsinki accord”. 2312 UNFPA, Gender-Based Violence in Aceh, Indonesia: A CaseStudy, October 2005. 2413 Data from the Aceh provincial department of roads andpublic works, 2010. 3214 Poverty Assessment Report (2008), p 45. 3615 Data on school participation rates are based on theproportion of children of different age groups that areattending school. Aceh, like the rest of Indonesia, hasthree levels of schools known as primary schools (SD/MI)for ages 7-12, junior secondary schools (SMP/MT) forages 13-15 and senior secondary schools (SMA/MA/SMK)normally for ages 16-17. In practice, a student of a givenage may be attending a school for a lower or higher agegroup. 3616 Education Policy, Strategic Plan and Financing Framework,NAD Strategic Plan (NADESP) 2007-11. January 2007. 3917 A highly successful example of such an arrangementmay be found in the city of Santa Cruz in Bolivia, wherethe local chamber of commerce took over a derelictgovernment training facility. 4018 AVSO and proMENTE, The Impact of Long-term VoluntaryService in Europe (2007), p. 33. 4019 The clear inverse relationship between these variables isone of the reasons for using life expectancy at birth as akey indicator in computing HDIs. 4220 This section is drawn from the recent UNDP report “Accessto Justice in Aceh: Making the Transition to SustainablePeace and Development”, published by UNDP in October2006. 4821 Source AJP Programme Final Progress Report 2010 4922 Fadlullah Wilmot, “Shari’a in Aceh: panacea or blight?”,Accord, 20, 2008, 77. 5023 International Crisis Group, “Islamic Law and CriminalJustice in Aceh”, 31 July 2006, 9. 5124 Ibid. 5125 Wilmot, “Shari’a in Aceh: panacea or blight?”, 79. 5126 Fitzpatrick, Women’s Rights to Land and Housing in Tsunami-AffectedAceh, Indonesia, 2008, 23. 5127 UNORC, Tsunami Recovery Indicators Package (TRIP):The Third Report For Aceh and Nias, 36. 5128 Ibid. 5129 This data is taken from Asian Development Bank, Indonesia:Country Gender Assessment, July, 2006, 17. 5230 Quoted from Sejahtera and Suleeman, Inong Aceh DiBentala Nusantara, 94. 5231 The term “adjusted” means raw data adjusted to accountfor inflation to arrive at constant prices that allow moreaccurate comparisons across time and regions. Inflationvaries from province to province and was much higher inAceh during the years immediately after the tsunami. 5232 “Aceh’s Growth Diagnostic”, World Bank, 2009 5933 Differences arise from many factors. GRDP may becalculated in several ways, one of which includeshousehold consumption, but also investment and publicspending. Expenditures are used as a proxy for income,Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 145

since information from respondents on spending hasproven to be more reliable than income. 6034 The Susunas figures shown in Table 4.5 differ from theadjusted per capita expenditure figures mentionedelsewhere in this report, since they are computeddifferently. 6035 These estimates of GRDP for smaller regions should betreated with caution, since they are notoriously difficultto compute for lack of detailed data. This makes itnecessary to adopt assumptions that may not be validor which introduce bias and errors. 6136 The labor force participation rate is the percentage of theworking age population already employed or activelyseeking employment. In Indonesia, the working agepopulation comprises males and females between theages of 15 and 60. 6437 Open unemployment is defined as the percentage ofthose employed and seeking work that claim not to havea job, in other words still seeking work. 6438 The definition of informal sector employment is lessprecise, based mainly on a negative list, generally takento mean people who are not working in government,public agencies or licensed private businesses and otherregistered organisations. It includes most household enterprisessuch as farming, fishing and shopkeeping. 6539 The Multi-Stakeholder Review of Post-Conflict Programming”(MSR), draft, December 2009. 6840 World Bank, 2008. The Impact of the Conflict, theTsunami and Reconstruction on Poverty in Aceh: AcehPoverty Assessment 2008. Jakarta: The World Bank OfficeJakarta. 7041 World Bank, 2009. Aceh Growth Diagnostic: Identifying theBinding Constraints to Growth in a Post-Conflict and Post-Disaster Environment. Jakarta: World Bank Office. 7042 A detailed account of the Coffee Forum and the APEDproject maybe found in UNDP, Aceh Partnerships forEconomic Development (APED): Annual Progress Report2009. Prepared for the Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery (BCPR). February 2010. 7243 See the website for the Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU):http://mediacenter.kpu.go.id/hasil-pemilu-2009.html. 7844 The survey covered 5,698 villages, 221 sub-districts (kecamatan)and 18 districts (17 kabupaten and 1 kota). 7945 The Multi-Stakeholder Review of Post-Conflict Programming”(MSR), draft, December 2009. 8046 MSR 2009, p xvii. 8047 Julie van Dassen (July 2010) Support to Strengthen theCapacity and Role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)in the Recovery of Communities in Aceh and Nias:Lessons Learned Report. Prepared for UNDP IndonesiaCrisis Prevention and Recovery Unit. 8248 Aaron Wildavsky with Naomi Caiden, 2001. Planning andBudgeting in Poor Countries. Wiley. 8949 Data used in this chapter comes from the World Bank,Aceh public expenditure analysis update 2008, Jakarta,World Bank, 2008. 9050 Some estimates of the total value of assistance received byAceh for post-tsunami recovery and reconstruction go ashigh as US 9.0 billion, but the actual amount is more likelyin the region of US 7.0 billion, of which US 2.1 billion(Rp 21 trillion) came from the central government duringthe period 2005 to 2009. 9051 Blane Lewis (2002). “Indonesia”, Ch5 in IntergovernmentalFiscal Transfers in Asia: Current Practice and Challenges forthe Future. Edited by: Paul Smoke and Yun-Hwan Kim.Manila: Asian Development Bank, December 2002. 9052 Source Qanun No. 11/2006 on Aceh Special Autonomygranted Aceh a new special autonomy fund — anadditional transfer from central government to theprovince equivalent to 2 percent of national DAU for 15years and 1 percent for the remaining five years —starting in 2008. This is in addition of 70 percent of theoil and gas revenue-sharing that Aceh has beenreceiving since 2002. Law No. 11/2006 has changedthe definition of the SAF. The SAF is now referred toonly for funds received from the 2 percent allocation ofthe national DAU funds. The name of the former“special autonomy fund” from additional revenuesharingoil and gas has changed to “additionalrevenue-sharing oil and gas”. 9253 Source Qanun No. 2/2008 about procedure for allocationof additional funds results for oil and gas and use specialautonomy. According to the law, 60 percent of SAF will beallocated to finance district/city government developmentprograms (e.g., education, health, and infrastructure)through a joint program between the province and district/city government, and the remaining 40 percent will beused to finance provincial programs (also through a jointprogram), which could potentially be implemented indistrict/city governments as well. 9254 Source Qanun No. 2/2008 Organizational Structure andWorking Procedure of Government’s Secretariat andDPRA’s Secretariat of Nanggroe Aceh DarussalamProvince. 9255 Hugh Emrys Evans (2007). Functions and fiscal resourcesfor local councils in the Maldives. Government of theMaldives, Ministry of Atolls Development, Department ofPlanning and Coordination. 9356 As explained in the World Bank report referred to inthis chapter, due to data constraints, the analysis onexpenditures uses a mix of planned (9) and realized(11) APBD (district/city government budgets) for 2006and planned APBD for 2007. 93BibliographyBrown, Graham (2005). Horizontal Inequalities, EthnicSeparatism, and Violent Conflict: The Case of Aceh, Indonesia,Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper, UNDP,New York.Sidney Jones, “Keeping the Peace: Security in Aceh”, Accord,20, 2008, 75.Palmer, Robin, 2007. Donor and NGO Involvement in Land Issues– Some Further Reflections. Faculty of Law, University of Leiden.Pennells, Linda, Mission Report: Gender Outcomes andReflections – Aceh, OCHA – Indonesia, August-September2008.146Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Technical NotesCalculating the Human Development IndicesThe diagram here offers an overview of how the four human development indices used in the IndonesiaHuman Development Report are constructed, highlighting both their similarities and differences.HDIDIMENSIONA longhealthy lifeKnowledgeA decent standardof livingINDICATORLife expectancyat birthAdult literacy rate (Lit)Mean years of schooling(MYS)Adjusted real per capitaexpenditure (PPP rupiah)Lit IndexMYS IndexDIMENSIONINDEXLife expectancy indexEducation IndexIncome IndexHuman Development Index(HDI)HPIDIMENSIONA longhealthy lifeKnowledgeA decent standard of livingINDICATORLife expectancyat birthAdult literacyrate (Lit)Percentage ofpopulation with accessto safe waterPercentage ofpopulation without accessto health facilitiesPercentage ofundernourished childrenunder age fi veDeprivation ina decent standardof livingHuman Poverty Indexfor Developing Countries(HPI)GDIDIMENSIONINDICATORA long healthy life Knowledge A decent standard of livingFemale lifeexpectancyat birthMale lifeexpectancyat birthFemaleadult literacyrate (Lit)FemaleMYSMaleadult literacyrate (Lit)MaleMYSFemaleestimatedearned incomeMaleestimatedearned incomeDIMENSIONINDEXFemale lifeexpectancyindexMale lifeexpectancyindexFemaleeducationindexMaleeducationindexFemaleincomeindexMaleincomeindexEQUALLYDISTRIBUTEDINDEXEquallydistributed lifeexpectancyindexEqually distributededucation indexEqually distributedincome indexGender RelatedDevelopment Index(GDI)GEMDIMENSIONPoliticalParticipationEconomic participationand decision makingPower over economicresourcesINDICATORFemale and male sharesof parliamentary seatsFemale and male share of jobsas senior offi cials, managers, professionaland technical positionsFemale and male estimatedearned incomeEQUALLYDISTRIBUTEDEQUIVALENTPERCENTAGE(EDEP)EDEP forparliamentaryrepresentationEDEP for participationand decision makingEDEP forincomeGender RelatedEmpowerment Measure(GEM)Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 147

148Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

MethodologyComputing the indicesThe Human Development Index (HDI)The HDI is based on three components: longevity,as measured by life expectancy at birth;educational attainment, as measured by thecombination of adult literacy rate (two-thirdsweight) and mean years of schooling (one-thirdweight); and standard of living, as measured byadjusted per capita expenditure (PPP Rupiah).The index is defined as the simple average ofthe indices of those three components:HDI = 1/3 (Index X 1 + Index X 2 + Index X 3 )Where X 1 , X 2 and X 3 are longevity, educationalattainment and standard of livingrespectively.For any component of the HDI, an individualindex can be computed according to the generalformula:Index X (i,j) = (X (i,j) - X (i-min) ) / (X (i-max) - X (i-min) )Where :X (i,j) : Indicator ith for region jX (i-min) : Minimum value of XiX (i-max) : Maximum value of XiLongevityLongevity is measured by using the indicatorof life expectancy at birth (e 0 ). The e 0 presentedin this report is based on the extrapolation ofthe e 0 figure based on end-1996 and end-1999situation as the correspondence of the infantmortality rate (IMR) for the same period. Forthis publication, the estimation of IMR atprovincial level is calculated based on data seriesfrom 1971 census, 1980 census, 1990 census,and the pooled data of 1995 survey betweencensus (SUPAS) and 1996 socio-economicsurvey (SUSENAS). The numbers resultedfrom 2000 census also used to extrapolate e 0 andIMR of the year 2002. The calculation methodfollows the indirect technique based on twobasic data - i.e. the average number of live birthsand the average number of children still livingreported from each five-year class of motherages between 15 - 49 years old. By applying thistechnique, there will be seven estimation pointsfor each time reference from each data source. Asa result there are 28 IMR estimations for all timereferences from which the estimation of IMR iscalculated. It is done after the omission of anyunreliable figures reported by the eldest and theyoungest maternal groups.Table 1HDIComponentMaximumValueMinimumValueNotesLife Expectancy 85 25 UNDPStandardLiteracy Rate 100 0 UNDPStandardMean Years ofSchoolingPurchasingPowerMaximum and Minimum Valueof Each HDI Indicator15 0 UNDP usescombinedgross enrolmentratio737,720a) 300,000(1996)360,000(1999) b)UNDP usesadjustedreal percapita GNPNotes:a) Projection of the highest purchasing power for Jakarta in 2018 the end of thesecond long term development period) after adjusted with Atkinson formula.This projection is based on the assumption 6.5 percent growth in purchasingpower during the period of 1993-2018.b) Equal to two times the poverty line of the province with the lowest per capitaconsumption in 1990 (rural area of South Sulawesi). For 1999, the minimumvalue was adjusted to Rp. 360,000. This adjustment is necessary, as theeconomic crisis has drastically reduced the purchasing power of the people. Itis reflected by the increase in poverty level and the decrease in the realwages. The additional Rp. 60,000 is based on the difference between the “oldpoverty line” and the “new poverty line” that is amounts to around Rp. 5,000per month (= Rp. 60,000 per year).The estimation of IMR at regency/city levelis based on the pooled data from SUPAS 1995and SUSENAS 1996. This pooled data is con-Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 149

sidered to be a reliable data source because itcovers around 416,000 households. Howeverthe indirect technique used in this estimationproduces the estimate of four years before thesurvey time. To calculate the estimate pointsfor 1999, the estimate figure based on thepooled SUPAS 1995 and SUSENAS 1996data is projected after taking into account theprovincial trend of the respective region andthe inter regencies/cities variation within eachrespective province. Meanwhile, for the year2002, the results of 2000 census are used at theregion/city level.Educational attainmentThe component of educational attainmentin this publication is measured by using twoindicators – literacy rate and mean years ofschooling. The literacy rate is defined as theproportion of population aged 15 years andover who are able to read and write in Latinscript or in other script as a percentage of thisage group. This indicator is given a weight oftwo-thirds. Another onethird weight is given tothe indicator of mean years of schooling that isdefined as the average years of formal schoolingattended among the population aged 15 yearsand over. This indicator is calculated based onthe variables of the current or achieved gradeand the attainment of education level in theSUSENAS core questionnaire. Table 2 presentsthe conversion factor of the year of schoolingTable 2Level of education complatedfor each level of education being completed. Forsomeone who has not completed a certain levelof education or drop out from school, the year of150The conversion years for the highestlevel of education being completedConversion factor1. Never attend school 02. Primary School 63. Junior High School 94. Senior High School 125. Diploma I 136. Diploma II 147. Academy/Diploma III 158. Diploma IV/Sarjana 169. Master (S2) 1810. PhD (S3) 21schooling (YS) is calculated using the followingformula:YS = Conversion years + the current/achieved grade-1For example, someone who drops out from the2nd year of Senior High School:YS = 9 + 2 - 1 = 10 (years)Standard of livingThis report is using the adjusted real per capitaexpenditure as the proxy for standard of living.In order to ensure inter-regional and timeseries comparability, the following procedure isapplied:1. Calculating the annual per capita expenditurefrom SUSENAS module data [=Y];2. Mark up the Y with a factor of 20% [=Y1], asvarious studies suggest that the SUSENASfigure underestimates by about 20%;3. Calculating the real Y1 by deflating Y1 withthe consumer price index (CPI) [=Y2];4. Calculating the Purchasing Power Parity(PPP) for each region as the relative price ofa certain bundle of commodities, with theprices in South Jakarta as the standard;5. Dividing Y2 with PPP to obtained astandardized Rupiah value [=Y3];6. Discounting the Y3 using the Atkinson formulato get the purchasing power estimate[=Y4]. This step is applied to accommodatethe rule of decreasing marginal utility ofincome, because achieving a respectable levelof human development does not .Consumer Price IndexIn Indonesia, the CPI figure is available only for54 cities. The calculation of purchasing powerat regency/city level calculated by is using theCPI of the respective regency/city wheneverthe figure is available. For cities other than the54 where the CPI data is available, the provincialCPI - i.e. the average of CPIs figures available ineach province – is used.Purchasing Power ParityThe calculation of PPP basically applies the samemethod used by the International ComparisonProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

Project in standardizing GDP for internationalcomparison. The calculation is based on pricesand quantities of selected commodities basket(27 items) available in SUSENAS consumptionmodule. The prices in South Jakarta are used asthe basic price. The formula for PPP calculationis:Where:E (i,j) : expenditure for commodity jin the province iP (9,j) : the price of commodity jin South JakartaQ (i,j) : volume of commodity j (unit)consumed in the province iThe housing unit is calculated based on thehousing quality index that consists of seven housingquality components in SUSENAS module.The score of each component is:1) Floor: ceramic, marble, or granite =1,others = 02) Per capita floor width > 10 m2 = 1,others= 03) Wall: cemented=1, others= 04) Roof: wood/single, cemented =1, others = 05) Lighting facility: electric=1, others= 06) Drinking water facility: piping=1, others= 07) Sanitation: private ownership=1, others= 08) Initial score for every house=1Table 3List of the bundle of commoditiesused in the calculation of PPPCommodityUnitProportion fromtotal consumption(%)1. Local Rice Kg 7.252. Flour Kg 0.103. Cassava Kg 0.224. Tuna/Cakalang Kg 0.505. Anchovy Ounce 0.326. Beef Kg 0.787. Chicken Kg 0.658. Egg Piece 1.489. Sweetened milk 397 grams 0.4810. Spinach Kg 0.3011. Snake been Kg 0.3212. Peanut Kg 0.2213. Tempe (soybean cake Kg 0.7914. Orange Kg 0.39CommodityUnitProportion fromtotal consumption(%)15. Papaya Kg 0.1816. Coconut Piece 0.5617. Sugar Ounce 1.6118. Coffee Ounce 0.6019. Salt Ounce 0.1520. Pepper Ounce 0.1321. Instant noodle 80 grams 0.7922. Clove cigarette 10 pieces 2.8623. Electricity KWh 2.0624. Drinking water M 3 0.4625. Gasoline Liter 1.0226. Gasoline Liter 1.7427. Housing rent Unit 11.56Total 37.52The housing quality index is the sum ofall scores with a range of 1 to 8. The quality ofhouse consumed by a household is equal to thehousing quality index divided by 8. For example,if a house has a housing quality index of 6, thenthe quality of house consumed by the householdis 6/8 or 0.75 unit.Atkinson FormulaThe Atkinson formula used to discount the Y3can be defined as:C(I)*= C (i)if C (i) < Z= Z + 2(C (i) - Z) (1/2) if Z < C (i) < 2Z= Z +2(Z) (1/2) + 3(C (i) - 2Z) (1/3) if 2Z< C (i)

Mean years of schooling 8.5Adjusted real per capita expenditure(Thousand Rupiah) 615.8Life expectancy index(71.7 – 25) / (85 - 25) = 0.78 = 78%Adult literacy index(97.0 - 0) / (100 - 0) = 0.97 = 97%Mean years of schooling index(8.5 - 0) / (15 - 0) = 0.56 = 56%Educational attainment index(2/3 x 97) + (1/3 x 56) = 0.83 = 83%Income index(615.8 - 360) / (732.72 - 300) = 0.59 = 59%Human development indexHDI = (78+83+59) / 3 = 73.3Shortfall ReductionThe differences on the rate of change of any HDIscore during a certain period can be measured bythe annual rate of reduction in shortfall. Thisshortfall value measures the achievement ratioin terms of the gap between the ‘achieved’ and‘to be achieved’ distance toward the optimumcondition. The ideal condition to be achievedis defined as the HDI equal to 100. Thehigher the reduction in shortfall, the faster theHDI increases. This measure is based on theassumption that the growth of HDI is not linear.It is assumed to be diminishing as the HDI levelis approaching the ideal point. The calculation ofreduction shortfall is as follows:where:HDI (t) : is the HDI for the t th yearHDI (ideal) : is 100n : yearThe reduction shortfall could also be measuredfor each HDI component.The Gender-related Development Index(GDI)In principle, the GDI uses the same variables asthe HDI. The difference is that the GDI adjustthe average achievement of each region in life152expectancy, educational attainment and incomein accordance with the disparity in achievementbetween women and men. The parameter εis incorporated into the equation to take intoaccount the inequality aversion that reflects themarginal elasticity of social valuation toward acertain achievement across gender. To express amoderate aversion to inequality, the parameterε is set equal to 2.To calculate GDI, one needs to first calculatethe equally distributed equivalent achievement[Xede] using the following formula:X ede = (P f X f(1-ε)+ Pm Xm (1-ε) ) 1/(1-ε)where:X f : female achievementX m : male achievementP f : proportion of female populationP m : proportion of male populationε : inequality aversion parameter (=2)The calculation of income distributioncomponent is fairly complex. Based on wagedata collected in the National Socio-EconomicSurvey (SUSENAS) 2008, the calculationfollows the steps below:1) Calculating the ratio of female to male nonagriculturalwage [W f ];2) Calculating the average wage (W) using thefollowing formula:W = (Aec f x W f ) + (Aec m x 1)where:Aec f : proportion of women in the labourforce (who are economically active)Aec m : proportion of males in the labourforce (who are economically active)W f : ratio of female wage in nonagriculturalsector3) Calculating the ratio between each gendergroup from the average wage above [=R];For Female :For Male :Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

4) Calculating the income contributed by eachgender group [=IncC], where:For Female : IncC f = Aec f x R fFor Male : IncC m = Aec m x R m5) Calculating the proportion of income contributedby each gender group [% IncC]using the following formula:For Female : %IncC f = IncC f / P fFor Male : %IncC m = IncC m / P m6) Calculating7) Calculating the index of income distribution[= I Inc-dis ]I Inc-dis = [(X ede (Inc) x PPP) – PPP min ] / [PPPmax – PPP min ]The calculation of GDI follows the stepsbelow:1) Each index of the GDI component is computedusing the formula described above withthe maximum and minimum thresholds asstated in Table 4;2) Calculating the Xede from each index;3) Calculating the GDI using the followingformula:GDI = 1/3 [(X ede(1) + X ede(2) + I Inc-dis )]where:X ede(1) : Xede for life expectancyX ede(2) : Xede for educationI Inc-dis : Index of income distributionTable 4MaximumMinimumMale Female Male FemaleLife Expectancy 82.5 87.5 22.5 27.5Litteracy Rate 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0Mean Years ofSchoolingPer capitaConsumptionThe maximum and minimumthresholds of GDI components15.0 15.0 0.0 0.0732.720 300.000Most data for computing GDI are from thesame source as the data for computing HDI.Only wage data for computing GDI andGender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is fromSUSENAS (National Socio-Economic Survey)2008.The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)The GEM consists of three components: i.e. parliamentaryrepresentation, decision-making andincome distribution. In calculating GEM oneshould first calculate the EDEP (the index ofeach component based on ‘Equally DistributedEquivalent Percentage’). The calculation of incomeshare for GEM is the same as the calculationof income share for GDI calculation describedabove. Then, the index of each component isthe EDEP of each component divided by 50.50 percent is considered to be an ideal share ofeach gender group for all GEM components inan ideal society with equal empowerment of thesexes.The decision making component consists oftwo indicators: managerial and administrationjob, and professional and technical staff. Fornational figure, the index of decision-making isthe average of the indices of these two indicators.This combination is necessary to avoid anymisperceptions of the respondents in choosingbetween these two occupational categories.Data for decision-making component is fromSUSENAS 2008. Data for parliamentaryrepresentation is from “Lembaga PemilihanUmum” (General Election Institute) and theparliaments at provincial and regency/city level.The GEM is calculated as:GEM = 1/3 [I par + I DM + I Inc-dis ]where:I par : Parliamentary representation indexI DM : Decision making indexI Inc-dis : Income distribution indexCalculating the GDIAs an example, the calculation of GDI for the provinceof DKI Jakarta 2008 is as follow:Component Female MaleProportion of population 0.509 0.491Life expectancy (%) 74.9 71.1Literacy rate (%) 97.9 99.5Mean years of schooling(MYS)10.3 11.1Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 153

Component Female MalePercentage of theeconomically activepopulation (Proportion40.2 59.8of Labour Force)Non-agricultural wage(Rp)1.320.438 1.796.428PPP (Rp 000) 625.8Calculating life expectancy and educational indicesLife expectancy index:• Female : (74.9 - 27.5)/(87.5 - 27.5) = 0.79• Male : (71.1 - 22.5)/(87.5 - 22.5) = 0.73If = 2 then:X ede (1) = [(0.509)(0.79) -1 + (0.491)(0.73) -1 ] -1 = 0.77Literacy rate index:• Female : (97.9 – 0)/(100 – 0) = 0.979• Male : (99.5 – 0)/(100 – 0) = 0.995Mean years of schooling index:• Female : (10.3 – 0)/(15 – 0) = 0.687• Male : (11.1 – 0)/(15 – 0) = 0.740Educational attainment index:• Female : 2/3(0.979) + 1/3(0.687) = 0.882• Male : 2/3(0.995) + 1/3(0.740) = 0.910If = 2 then:X ede (2) = [(0.509)(0.882) -1 + (0.491)(0.910) -1 ] -1 = 0.90Calculating income distribution index Ratio to malenon-agricultural wage:• Female : 1.320.438/1.796.428 = 0.735• Male : 1Average wage:(0.402)(0.735) + (0.598)(1.000) = 0.893Ratio to average wage:• Female : 0.735/0.893 = 0.823• Male : 1.000/0.893 = 1.119Share of earned income:• Female : (0.823)(0.402) = 0.331• Male : 1.119)(0.598) = 0.669Proportional income shares:• Female : 0.331/0.509 = 0.650• Male : 0.669/0.491 = 1.363If = 2 then:X ede (Inc) =[(0.509)(0.650) -1 + (0.491)(1.363) -1 ] -1 = 0.874The income distribution index (I Inc-dis ) isI Inc-dis = [(0.874)(625.8) – 360]/[732.72 – 300] = 0.433Gender Development IndexGDI = (0.77 + 0.90 + 0.433)/3 = 0.70 = 70%154Calculating the GEMUsing the case of West Java province in 2008, thecalculation of GEM is as follows:Component Female MaleProportion of population 0.496 0.504Parliamentaryrepresentation (%)10.0 90.0Proportion of manager,administration staff,professional andtechnical staff (%)32.7 67.3Percentage of theeconomically activepopulation (Proportionof Labour Force)Calculating the parliamentary representation indexand decision-making index with = 2.Parliamentary representation index (Ipar)EDEP (par) = [(0.496)(10.0) -1 + (0.504)(90.0) -1 ] -1 = 18.12I par = 18.12/50 = 0.362Decision-making index (IDM)EDEP (DM) = [(0.496)(32.7) -1 + (0.504)(67.3) -1 ] -1 = 44.14I DM = 44.14/50 = 0.883Calculating income distribution index Following thecalculation of income distribution Index for GDIabove, the I inc-dis = 0363Gender empowerment measure:GEM = 1/3 (I par + I DM + I inc-dis )= (0.362 + 0.883 + 0.363)/3 = 0.536 = 53.6%The Human Poverty Index (HPI)33.5 66.5Non-agricultural wage 929.919 1.147.989PPP (Rp 000) 625.9The HPI combines several dimensions of humanpoverty that are considered as the most basicindicators of human deprivation. It consists ofthree indicators: people expected not having along live, deprivation on educational attainmentand inadequacy in access to basic services. Thefirst indicator is measured by the probability ofthe population not expected to survive to age 40(P1). The calculation of this indicator followsthe method of calculating life expectancy forHDI measurement. The second indicator ismeasured by adult illiteracy rate (P2). This iscalculated based on SUSENAS 2008 data andcovers population age 15 and above. Whilethe limitation on access to basic services (P3)consists of the following variables:• Percentage of population without access toProvincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010

clean water (=P 31 ). P 31 is defined as the percentageof household using water sourceother tap water, water pump and wheel thatis located 10 meters or more from sewagedisposal. This data is collected fromSUSENAS 2008.• Percentage of population without access tohealth services (=P 32 ). P 32 is defined as thepercentage of population lives in the location5 km or more from health facilities. This datais collected from SUSENAS 2008.• Percentage of children under five years oldwith low nutritional status (=P 33 ). P 33 isdefined as the percentage of children lessthan five years old belong to the category oflow and medium nutritional status.as presented in this report, is estimated byassuming that the past speed of improvement inthose indicators as being constant in the future.The speed of improvement here indicates theabsolute changes, as referred to a simple averageof annual increase (or decline), expressed in years.By comparing data in 1999 (I 99 ), 2002 (I 02 ) and2005 (I 05 ), 2008 (I 08 ), thus, the annual speed ofimprovement (s) is given as:s = [(I 02 – I 99 )/3 + (I 05 – I 02 )/3 + (I 08 – I 05 )/3]/3Then, the estimated time (T) to reachparticular target or goal in human developmentindicators (G) can be simply calculated asfollows:Calculating the HPIT = (G – I 08 )/sAs an illustration, the following equation shows thecalculation of the HPI for Aceh Province in 1999:Probability of people not expected tosurvive to age 40 - P 1 (%)9.5Adult illiteracy rate - P 2 (%) 4.5Population without access to safewater - P 31 (%)Population without access to healthservices - P 32 (%)Undernourished children under age5 - P 33 (%)48.66.115.0The composite of deprivation variablesP 3 =1/3 (48.6 + 6.1 + 15.0) = 23.2Human Poverty IndexHPI= [1/3 (9.5 3 + 4.5 3 + 23.2 3 )] 1/3 = 16.5For this publication, the calculation of HPIfollows the HDR 1997 published by UNDP:HPI = [1/3 (P 13+ P 23+ P 3 3 )] 1/3WhereP3 = 1/3 (P 31 + P 32 + P 33 )Procedures for estimating time requiredto reach particular targetsThe time required to reach particular targetsin several human development indicators,Provincial Human Development Report Aceh 2010 155