Does Indonesian decentralization improve environmental management?
Does Indonesian decentralization improve environmental management?
Mochamad Indrawan and Anders Danielson, Jakarta
A recent article in The Jakarta Post presented an
interesting and valuable analysis, starting with the commitment
by the current government to systematically address the country's
key environmental issues, particularly improved water and
sanitation facilities, renewable energy, illegal logging and
illegal fishing.
Indonesia's 2004 Progress Report on the Millennium Development
Goals, which identifies key determinants for sustainable
development -- namely the economic crisis and reform,
decentralization, globalization, and governance -- was properly
addressed. The notion that reciprocal relations between the
environment and poverty need to be reformed also rang true.
Both benefits and risks of de facto decentralization carry
considerable importance, particularly as decentralization has
often led to over-harvesting, the direction of benefits to
powerful figures and decentralized corruption. However, further
deliberations on the outlook for decentralization and potential
impacts may be useful.
On the one hand, it is very true that decentralization has
posed real threats, since resource access and power relations are
being strongly contested by certain private companies,
individuals and government agencies, whereas many districts in
acute need of funds have turned to overexploiting the forest and
marine resources. However, Indonesian decentralization should be
viewed from a historical perspective as well.
After all, Indonesian decentralization has historically been
more of an ad hoc series of events, to prevent the country from
breaking up. While it is true that environmental pressures are
increasing, the alternative scenario is not necessarily more
compelling. Without legal decentralization, a centralistic regime
is not likely to maintain the rule of law either.
It is true that there is a need to rise beyond political
procceses, and be oriented toward the commonly agreed objectives,
and true, that we can not afford time nor space for ideologies
that do not deliver. As a process, decentralization should be
well-managed and not easily dismissed just because it is a long-
winding one.
Decentralization becomes an ideology only when we allow it to
be, but the heart of the matter is how to manage changes. As a
matter of course, increased threats do not necessarily mean total
failure. Even threats are essentially part of changes, and to be
successful, we must set our paradigms toward managing these
changes. The United Nations Development Program, for instance,
recognizes that horizontal and vertical conflicts could be seen
as an opportunity for governance reform.
It is true that decentralization harbors the risk of
decentralized corruption and weakened local capacities to meeting
new responsibilities for sustainable environmental management.
However, the heart of decentralization is geared to effective
service delivery as much as democratization. A holistic view will
recognize that public participation is a part of decentralization
that should be endeavored, not the least to exert social control
over the "kings" and the local legislature.
Environmental management should not be assumed to be the
"responsibilities" and jurisdictions of local government agencies
alone. It is true that local government may lack the required
capacities to manage local resources, but it is only so when we
allow them to be. The relevant stakeholder groups, including the
general public, should therefore be facilitated to negotiate
longer term and sustainable management.
One point to make is that decentralization will bring the
costs of the wrong decisions closer to the stakeholders, so the
importance of making correct and timely decisions will become
more apparent if decisions are moved downstream.
It is true that democracy without efficient regulations that
are extensively and consistently enforced is not a true
democracy. Democracy should be supported by efficient law and
policymaking. A holistic view of law enforcement is that the law
and policy should accommodate public participation before the law
can be effectively enforced.
In practice, the laws and policies are yet to effectively
capture public aspirations, which in turn constrains the
development of effective public support. Here again,
decentralization remain a highly relevant scenario.
Understandably, some environmentalists may not be so
optimistic about decentralization. Again, a holistic and longer
term outlook might be more encouraging. Indonesia's environment
has long suffered from sectoral type of approaches without
adequate recognition of the importance of governance.
In the long term, there can hardly be effective environmental
management without a framework for good governance. While
appreciating the highly complicated (and risky) nature of
decentralization, we must still complete our journey, whether we
like it or not, distance has to become a relativity.
International experience has showed us that decentralization
is "a thing in the air", but one worth attempting (A. Danielson.
2002. Some international experiences in decentralization). Large
doses of optimism are needed, particularly when one resides and
hold stakes in the country, and is here for the long-term, or
perhaps even a life time.
Mochamad Indrawan (tropbiod@pacific.net.id) is an Assistant
Editor of the Tropical Biodiversity Journal. Anders Danielson
(anders.danielson@nek.lu.se) is Professor of Economics at Lund
University, Sweden.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their
respective organizations.