74%of the PNPM-RESPEK infrastructure projects surveyed were very good (21%), good (34%) or of adequate quality (19%). The remaining 26% are of poor quality or insufficient. Failures occurred for a variety of reasons, including: lack of detail in the initial survey; designs that do not match the location; the minimum distance between various infrastructure components does not meet SNI; raw material prices; availability of water sources; accessibility; lack of supervision and quality of facilitation; lack of human resources including TPKK and masons; disputed land; and conflict.
Barefoot Engineers are part of PNPM and RESPEK. BE is a project to train high school and diploma graduates to become PNPM technical facilitators in the provinces of Papua and West Papua, in improving the quality of small-scale infrastructure development in the land of Papua. This project was motivated by the problem of a shortage of skilled workers in the construction sector who can work in the context of the land of Papua (Papua and West Papua Provinces).
The evaluation study conducted by AKATIGA aims to assess the achievements of round III BE graduates. This assessment was carried out through a review of PNPM Rural and RESPEK infrastructure that was built, operated and maintained, and the infrastructure selection/determination process. The evaluation is carried out in three different categories consisting of (1) quality of infrastructure, namely factors that impede its quality and functional aspects; (2) operation and maintenance; and (3) environmental/social impacts of existing infrastructure.
The study found that 74% of the PNPM-RESPEK infrastructure projects surveyed were very good (21%), good (34%) or of adequate quality (19%). The remaining 26% are of poor quality or insufficient. Failures occurred for a variety of reasons, including: lack of detail in the initial survey; designs that do not match the location; the minimum distance between various infrastructure components does not meet SNI; raw material prices; availability of water sources; accessibility; lack of supervision and quality of facilitation; lack of human resources including TPKK and masons; disputed land; and conflict.
This study shows that there is no significant difference in the quality of infrastructure between sub-districts assisted by BEIII technical facilitators, regular technical facilitators, or no technical facilitators. In almost all conditions, the proportion of infrastructure with acceptable quality (Enough, Good, and Very Good) is higher than that of unacceptable quality (Slightly Poor, Poor). In sub-districts with BEIII technical facilitators, there is a higher proportion of infrastructure that is of prime quality when compared to sub-districts with regular technical facilitators. Even sub-districts without technical facilitators are still able to produce infrastructure of acceptable quality.
The project succeeded in producing skilled technical facilitators who reduced the human resource gap in the provinces. However, BEIII facilitation still requires special attention, especially at the implementation monitoring stage where many problems arise, including local conflicts and/or design changes made by the Village Activity Implementation Team or craftsmen. At this stage, regular monitoring and follow-up facilitation should be carried out to keep problems resolved. The quality of facilitation at this stage needs to be emphasized during specific training.
Although this research found that the majority of the Village Activity Implementation Teams were of good quality, they and the workers often encountered (or sometimes created) problems. The heavy workload, the administration of facilitating the allocation of projects from two funding streams each fiscal year, completing and reporting on projects, traveling to distant mandatory meetings, left the TPKK with no time to perform additional tasks, such as conflict management.
