Problem overview:
Framework for coordination: With the multidimensional crisis that has occurred in the last four years (1997), one of the solutions suggested to solve the crisis is the implementation of local autonomy policies decentralizing many government authorities from central government to local governments. The example below will discuss briefly problems in integrating environmental consideration into the development programs in the local level.
Background in summary:
Efforts of the government to decentralize power for systematic environmental development: Prior to the financial crisis in 1997, Indonesia tended to have a centrally managed system and control in most development sectors. Until January 2001, the government tried to implement new political systems by decentralizing policies and authorities to the local level to enable more systematic considerations of the environmental development.
Obstacles to the change are old-fashioned style of governance: However, Indonesia has not made significant changes in the institutional structures because the government is still used to adopting command and control approach in dealing with development programs.
And sectoral disintegration of considerations: Also, sectoral environmental programmes tend to be separated from other development programs (economy, infrastructure, etc). Hence, when policies are made on economic, social, fiscal, energy, agriculture, transportation, trade and other policies, environmental issues are not as equally considered.
Recommendations: are that a good system to integrate environmental development as a part of development programs as a whole needs to urgently be developed and put into use.
See document in full
Good practice rating:
(1 for the best, 5 for the lowest score) |
|
Sustainability
|
Efficiency
|
| 3 |
 Improvement in either the environment of economic condition with no harm to the other. |
- |
Cost efficient. |
| 3 |
Sustainable over time (not one-off) |
Process |
| Adaptability |
- |
Participation of the community |
| 2 |
Location adaptability (can the project be done in other places?) |
- |
Participation of resource owners/users |
| 2 |
Socio-cultural adaptability. |
- |
Partnerships between various actors (Governments, NGO, Academia, Private) |
| 2 |
Level of development adaptability. |
3 |
Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments. |
| 2 |
Style of government adaptability. |
3 |
Ability to attract political interest/support |
| 2 |
Degree of decentralization adaptability. |
3 |
Procedures for feedback and review. |
Comments on this example:
|
Sustainability of the project:
|
Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments: The idea of reforming the government structure in order to enable the integration of environmental considerations in every government level is very creative and sustainable idea. It shows the countrys awareness towards sustainable development. However, when it comes to implementation of concept, many complications occur as in the case of Indonesia where there is a low degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments.
Unless the government is able to manage coordination problems, the good concept would still remain a concept, not an action.
|
Adaptability of the project to other situations:
|
Indonesia's case reflects a problem that is occurring similarly elsewhere in the ESCAP region, however, no solutions to solving this problem is clearly represented.
| Process of decision making and implementation: |
Framework for coordination: Following the implementation of decentralization policies, questions emerge namely: What the effects of those policies on the environmental development in local level? Could the local governments integrate environmental development programs into other development programs? These questions are difficult to be answered. Now Indonesia has 30 provinces and more than 360 municipalities/cities. Those local governments have their own priorities and problems. They may have no significant concern on environmental issues.
Decentralized authority still has not clear boarder especially in terms of financial management in which part should be managed by central government or by local government and what kind of tax should be implemented by central or local government. Natural resources management has become important issue because directly affecting in local government income and achieving better living standard for local community. Municipals/cities governments that have adequate natural resources tend to manage their own area without considering other areas that don't have enough natural resources. Meanwhile, environment issue has to be integrating in the same package in sustainable development programs as a whole.
In general, local governments are not aware thinking about managing environment efficiency. Therefore the role of government together with private sectors, NGOs, and community is needed to maintain natural resources with precarious principle. Decentralization policy needs transparent and clear technical implementation regulations.
|
Documentation: |
|
Source of Information: |
|
Contacts: |
|
Submitted by: |
Ratna Sri Mawarti Mustikaningsih, MA
Bureau for Balance of Payments and International Economic Relation
National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas)
Jalan Taman Suropati No. 2 Jakarta 10310
Indonesia
Tel: (62-21) 334267
Fax: (6- 21) 334267
Email: ratna_sm@bappenas.go.id
|
|
