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.