Capacity Building / Workshop

Published: 14/06/2006

Executive Summary

Gender budgeting is always started by asking a simple question: have the needs and interests of women been included in the budgeting process? Women Research Institute uses the term Gender Budget because of several considerations. One of the considerations is related to the aim to always remind us all, including the planners and decision makers, to consider the value of justice and equality based on non-discriminative relationship related to social class, religion, cultural group, ethnic group, and sex.


During these five years, budget analysis utilizing gender perspective which is the basis for gender budget has attracted the attention of many parties. Several attempts have been done by the NGOs in Indonesia in order to support the role of the local government (inclusive local governance) and citizen engagement to improve the welfare of the marginalized groups especially women. The goal is to fight and resolve the social injustice in Indonesia. One of the attempts deemed as a strategic attempt is conducting advocacy of gender budget to encourage the implementation of gender budget in national and local level.


WRI with the financial support from the European Union (EU) through the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia (Partnership) had conducted a research and focus group discussion on “The Evaluation of the Capacity and Impact of Gender Advocacy” from February to May 2006. The activity was conducted in six research areas which included Surakarta (Jawa Tengah), Yogyakarta including Gunung Kidul (the Yogyakarta Special Province), Surabaya and Lamongan (Jawa timur), Mataram (Nusa Tenggara Barat), Makassar (Sulawesi Selatan), and Kupang (Nusa Tenggara Timur). The information explained was highly related to the events that occured in the research areas. As a result, the data and information gained could only illustrate the specific situation of the six research areas. On the other hand, we also realize that the advocacy of gender budget is also conducted in different areas in Indonesia which might contribute different illustration when compared to the findings of WRI. Therefore, the data and information explained in WRI’s report could only be considered as the specific representation of the situation in the six research areas.

The national workshop was held in Sanur-Bali from 5 to 8 June 2006 with the hope that this workshop could be the meeting point for the executive and legislative members and NGO workers from the 6 districts. This workshop was expected to be the place where the participants could share their experience as a learning process for the other districts to implement gender budget. This workshop was also expected to result in the commitment of the involved participants. WRI hopes that its research results could contribute to and promote discussion for the people who are involved in gender budget advocacy, not only in substantial level but also in the level of institution and policy, so that the welfare for the marginalized people especially women can be realized.

The venue for the workshop was initially planned to be in Yogyakarta. However, because of the earthquake in Yogyakarta, WRI moved the national workshop to Bali which was a strategic place to gather the participants from the six districts. The participants of the national workshop were 38 people which were comprised of 27 women and 11 men. The participants were the representatives from the executive, legislative, and NGOs which conduct gender budget advocacy in the 6 WRI’s research areas. We also invited participants from Bali even though Bali was not researched by WRI. The reason behind this is the consideration that it is very important to also develop gender budget in Bali. This workshop was also attended by several observers from Partnership and LGSP (Local and Governance Support Program).

During the four days of the National Workshop, all the participants fully participated and gave a lot of inputs on the implementation of activity program especially on the substance of the workshop material. The participants also made a follow-up plan of the national workshop as a joint agreement for the sustainability and network in implementing gender budget advocacy. In this workshop, the process of realizing the aims and outcomes of the workshop was based on several methods which were divided into several sessions each day.

The first day was divided into 4 sessions which discussed Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Analysis in Planning, Identification of Gender Problems in the 6 districts, Program Planning and Gender-Responsive Policy in the 6 districts, and Gender Budget Analysis. The activity on the first day resulted in several agreements which include a follow-up plan to formulate Stakeholder Assessment Indicators whose one of the variables is the assessment of gender gap so that the sensitivity of the issue could be raised. This was motivated by the fact that the issue raised by the NGO based on their findings is not necessarily considered as an issue by the government. Another reason was that a specific issue in one particular region might not be a big issue in the other regions. The follow-up plan which was going to be discussed next was the identification of the needs and products that are in the society as the causes of gender gap.

The second day was divided into three sessions. For the two sessions, WRI invited 6 (six) speakers from State Ministry for Women’s Empowerment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ford Foundation, LGSP, State Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas), and WRI. All the speakers from Jakarta are decisions makers and experts at gender budget. On the second day, the first session discussed (1) The Legal Basis and the Mechanism for Gender Mainstreaming (KPP; (2) Local Mechanism in the Making of Gender-responsive RPJMD (Ministry of Home Affairs); and (3) Gender Budget through budget reallocation (Ford Foundation).

In the presentations, the speakers proposed an idea to conduct a pilot project in several regions only. They also proposed that gender analysis is not only applied to analyze expenditure allocation but also revenue allocation.

The second session discussed (1) Experiences and Strategies in Citizen Participation (LGSP). We have to start the participative process with a new paradigm. Civil society as a concept should be the partner of the government in the budgeting process and participate in its process such as through Musrenbang and etc; (2) Development of Capacity and Strategy on Planning and Gender Budgeting for NGOs, Local Governments, and Local Parliaments (DRPD) (Women Research Institute). There has been a lot of improvement in the budgeting system; however, there are still many problems arose. There are still gaps in all sectors such as economic, social, and political sector; (3) Gender-responsive Planning and Budgeting (Bappenas). During the third session on the same day, plenary and group discussions on The Model of Gender Budget Advocacy Development were held. In this session, the participants gave their inputs on mechanism, strategy, and advocacy indicators for gender budget which have been found in the 6 research areas.

Generally, there were three main points which needed to be used as a reference during the discussions on the first and second sessions of the second day. The three points were the inputs from the speakers on gender mainstreaming, legal basis of gender mainstreaming, and the mechanism which then be used in RPJMD mechanism on participative program planning. There were also several things related to strategy and mechanism. One of which was the sharing of experience by one participant on the counter-Musrenbang because the formal Musrenbang did not work effectively. This counter-Musrenbang was then called as a counter-system. In terms of its success, this counter-Musrenbang was more effective and successful in its implementation compared to the formal Musrenbang. In the context of program planning, participative planning was an affirmative action for 30% of women involvement in development planning. Regarding the indicators that were discussed on the first day, there were several opinions which also included pre-condition (analysis of classified data which show that there are gap, priority program, and the need to answer the needs). In the program planning, mechanism and supporting policy were needed.

The third day was a Follow-up Plan which discussed Follow-up Plan and Implementation Strategy as well as Joint Advocacy Agreement. Several steps taken related to follow-up plan were (1) Inviting colleagues (who are in Jakarta) to formulate the concepts that will be sent to the other colleagues (who are outside of Jakarta); (2) inviting related officials. As for the local follow-up plan of each region, it included (1) directly conducting the programs and mechanism designed before and (2) formulating concept as a guideline. ***

Proses Lokakarya Nasional Anggaran Berkeadilan Gender – Bali, 2006