Nine ODOL Action Plans Remain Unimplemented, Law Enforcement Still the Primary Focus

After more than two decades as a national issue, Over Dimension Overloading (ODOL) remains a major challenge in the operation of freight transport in Indonesia. Various enforcement operations have been conducted, weighbridges reactivated, regulations continuously added, and law enforcement consistently strengthened. The government has even established nine ODOL Handling Action Plans as a strategic step towards Zero ODOL by 2027. This commitment deserves appreciation as it demonstrates the government’s seriousness in improving traffic safety, protecting road infrastructure, and enhancing national logistics efficiency. However, a fundamental question needs answering: why do ODOL practices persist despite years of policy and law enforcement? If the primary cause were merely low compliance, ODOL practices should have decreased significantly. The fact that the problem continues to this day indicates that the ODOL issue is more complex than simply a violation of vehicle dimension and load regulations.

Thus far, ODOL has largely been viewed from a legal perspective, as a violation to be resolved through supervision and prosecution. This approach remains important, as without law enforcement there can be no certainty or justice. However, from a public policy perspective, ODOL is actually an indicator that the national transport and logistics system is not yet operating efficiently, in an integrated manner, or competitively. ODOL practices do not emerge in isolation. They result from the interaction of high logistics costs, the dominance of road transport, limited multimodal transport options, the lack of integration between spatial planning and transport networks, and the absence of a national transport system capable of uniting all modes in an efficient distribution network. Under these conditions, some business operators still view ODOL as a more profitable economic choice than complying with regulations.

Therefore, resolving ODOL cannot be achieved through law enforcement alone. Law enforcement must remain a consistent instrument, but it must run in parallel with fixing the system that gives rise to these practices. In other words, ODOL is not the root problem but a symptom that the national transport and logistics system still requires improvement. This awareness is a crucial starting point for assessing the direction of ODOL handling policy. The question is no longer whether law enforcement is necessary, but whether the reforms being built have touched the root of the problem or still focus on managing its symptoms. This remains unanswered to date.

Before the establishment of the nine ODOL Handling Action Plans, government policy was generally dominated by a law enforcement paradigm. Various efforts were made through supervision at weighbridges, cross-agency joint operations, vehicle inspections on roads, normalisation of over-dimension vehicles, and the application of administrative and criminal sanctions. This approach was based on the assumption that ODOL practices were primarily caused by low compliance among business operators with statutory regulations. This approach can indeed improve discipline during certain periods and remains an inseparable part of road transport administration. However, years of experience show that such handling has not been able to eliminate ODOL practices sustainably. When supervision intensity decreases, violations rise again. This condition provides an important lesson that law enforcement, although absolutely necessary, is insufficient if not accompanied by rectifying the factors that encourage violations.

Thus, past experience sends a clear message that law enforcement is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. To achieve Zero ODOL sustainably, policy must move from merely controlling violations to building a transport and logistics system that makes violations no longer a rational choice. Based on these experiences, the government then established the nine ODOL Handling Action Plans as a national strategy towards the Zero ODOL 2027 target. The presence of this action plan is commendable as it shows a shift in the government’s perspective. ODOL handling is no longer solely reliant on law enforcement but is directed towards comprehensive governance reform of freight transport. Upon closer examination, the nine action plans can essentially be grouped into four major agendas: strengthening governance through data integration, regulatory harmonisation, enhanced inter-ministerial coordination, and institutional improvement; increasing compliance through more effective supervision, consistent law enforcement, and the application of incentives and disincentives for business operators; improving logistics efficiency through multimodal transport development, road class arrangement, and various studies to reduce the economic impact of implementing the Zero ODOL policy; and providing protection for drivers, so that responsibility is not solely borne by those at the end of the distribution chain. Compared to previous approaches, this change represents a commendable step forward. The government is beginning to position ODOL as a transport and logistics governance issue, not merely a legal violation.