Efforts to increase accountability for the use of village funds require true and active participation of the community in monitoring for the effectiveness of village funds to achieve the expected goals.
By
SIWI NUGRAHENI
·5 minutes read
SALOMO TOBING
Siwi Nugraheni
Village funds are one of the important financial sources in developing rural areas. Until 2022, the government has disbursed village funds amounting to Rp 468 trillion (about US$30 billion). In 2023, the government plans to allocate Rp 70 trillion in village funds.
Since its launch in 2015, village funds have been used to build various infrastructure facilities, such as village roads, bridges, irrigation canals, clean-water facilities and reservoirs. The village funds are disbursed to reduce the number of poor people in rural areas. In 2015 there were 17.94 million people in rural areas who were categorized as poor. Data from the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) in March 2022 showed the number had fallen to 14.34 million people.
Regardless of the benefits for improving the welfare of village communities, the use of village funds is prone to fraud. As of this year, a lot of news of the misuse of village funds is still being reported in the mass media.
The Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) has reported that from year to year the number of cases of misappropriation of village funds continues to increase (it decreased in 2019, but increased again in 2020 and 2021). In 2015 there were 17 cases recorded, with total state losses of Rp 9.12 billion. In 2021 there were 154 cases with the state losses amounting to Rp 233 billion. The figure for the state losses in 2021 more than doubled the previous year's loss of Rp 111 billion in 129 cases.
The number of cases and financial losses cannot be used as an indicator of the intensity of the corruption. This is because these figures are influenced by various factors, for example the expertise of supervisors and perpetrators.
However, the existence of the corruption cases indicates that misappropriation of the village funds still occurs. ICW's records have also showed that most of the perpetrators were government officials at the village level.
The number of cases and financial losses cannot be used as an indicator of the intensity of the corruption.
Actually, there is nothing new in the forms and methods of the misappropriation of the village funds. The methods range from markups of the prices and quantities of goods and services. Fictitious spending and activities of the village funds for personal or group needs can occur because of the absence of accountability reports.
These forms of misappropriation of funds have been anticipated with supervision from various parties. They range from the government's Internal Supervisory Apparatus at the provincial and district levels, the Supreme Audit Agency and the Corruption Eradication Commission to professional assistants, who are also expected to oversee the use of village funds. Another party whose role in supervision needs to be highlighted is the Village Consultative Body (BPD).
The role of BPD
As a representative of the village community, the supervisory function of the BPD is very strategic. The aim of village funds is to improve the welfare of the villagers, and the BPD is expected to represent their interests. The BPD acts as a bridge between the government as the user of village funds and its "master", namely the villagers.
Unfortunately, the supervisory function of BPD is not yet optimal. Limited human-resource capacity is one of the causes. Another reason is that BPD members are often unaware of their functions and responsibilities as supervisors. They consider their duties as members of the BPD are only a formality. Community aspirations are discussed internally, instead of being deliberated transparently and seriously with the community.
The supervisory role of BPD is not yet optimal and this is not solely the fault of the BPD members, but also because the community does not yet have awareness of their rights in determining and supervising village funds. They do not feel the need to provide input or criticism on programs in their villages, including the use of the state funds.
What's more, in a society that is not egalitarian (due to differences in economic status, social status and level of education, for example), their participation is only superficial. It happens because they do not have the courage to express their opinion.
Community participation can be improved not only by increasing the awareness of BPD members and the community about their role as supervisors, but also through information disclosure from the village leaders in terms of budgets and programs. Transparency of information and ease of access to the spending plan can prevent the practice of marking up spending and making fictitious projects.
Transparency of information and ease of access to the spending plan can prevent the practice of marking up spending and making fictitious projects.
For seven years, village funds have been the main source of funds in developing rural areas. Various infrastructures have been successfully built and the poverty of the villagers has also been reduced. The important role of village funds in improving the welfare of the community requires responsible management, from planning and implementation to reporting.
Efforts to increase accountability for the use of village funds require true and active participation of the community in monitoring for the effectiveness of village funds to achieve the expected goals.
SIWI NUGRAHENI, lecturer at the School of Economics, Parahyangan Catholic University
This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi.
