Water Resources Governance in Indonesia Towards Environmental Sustainability Along with Social and Economic Development

Abstract

Indonesia’s water resources governance aims at delivering the basic needs of a growing population whilst being constrained by ecosystems’ carrying capacity. The main causes of regulatory overlaps and prevalent “silo mentality” in water governance are sought by analysing laws, regulations, and policies. Over time, water resources governance has aimed to address food, water, and energy needs through infrastructural approaches, forest and land rehabilitation, and community participation. It is anchored in the river basin territory and watershed concepts. Public decision-making, however, puts anthropogenic considerations at its core rather than hydrological aspects, leading to misfits between institutions and ecosystem functioning. Ineffective legal instruments and policies are essentially due to institutional constraints. A synthesis of the three major water regulations—Government Regulation 37/2012 concerning Watershed Management, Law 17/2019 concerning Water Resources, and Government Regulation 26/2008 concerning National Spatial Plan—reveals little ownership of watershed management with regional/local governments since responsibilities are delegated by the central government to a technical agency; limited focus on green water (social and ecological) governance approaches compared with blue water (hard infrastructural) ones; and weak law enforcement and formulation of strategies for maintaining ecosystem functioning. Our recommendations include an ecoregional water governance with a thoroughly designed performance and target indicators; continuation of development plans built on previous plans and outcomes; continuity in water resources monitoring and evaluation; society-wide participation; and synchronisation of regulatory processes of all administrative levels led by the President in collaboration with Parliament using “carrot and stick” modes.

1 Introduction

Water governance in Indonesia is greatly challenged by a misalignment of environmental sustainability and social and economic development objectives. It is weakly apt for the deliverance of the basic needs of a growing population whilst being constrained by ecosystem’s carrying capacity. The country’s increasing population (Pambudi, 2020) means increased demands on water sources for meeting basic human needs (Bellfield et al., 2016). Furthermore, growing demands on raw water have been due to recent acceleration in economic growth driven by increased industrial, service and urban activities (Maheshwari et al., 2016; Bappenas, 2015; Fulazzaky, 2014). This has manifested itself in the doubling to tripling of water demands and prioritisation of water security in Indonesia’s development agenda. The water security challenge is expected to continue until at least 2045.¹ Another challenge concerns a water quality decline that has occurred since 2015 (Bappenas, 2019).

Major water governance issues are often connected to the conservation, utilisation and/or quality of water. Water conservation, particularly, is central for achieving sustainable development and supporting related sectors (Pambudi, 2019). Water conservation policies are often applied to watersheds and their ecosystems and have therefore a hydrological perspective in supporting socio-economic activities in rural and urban areas (Pambudi, 2019; Lubis et al., 2018; Maheshwari et al., 2016). These policies—covering the protection and preservation of water resources, as well as the management and control of water quality—are usually integrated with other development sectors including forestry, environment, public works, agriculture, and plantations. Hence, policies in these areas can significantly affect watershed functioning.

Indonesia’s National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2020–2024 accommodates the integration of above-mentioned policy areas through the three pillars of infrastructure, ecosystems, and social institutions:

• 1. Infrastructures are facilitated through the construction and rehabilitation of water reservoirs, ponds, reservoirs, and lakes.²

• 2. Ecosystems are addressed through measures that improve watershed ecosystems and through forest and land rehabilitation and spatial planning initiatives that engage communities. These measures and initiatives include the advancement of availability and quality of water resources.

• 3. Social institutions are involved through measures that facilitate community participation in watershed management, particularly by coordinating between sectors and action plans contained in regional and local spatial plans (RTRW), watershed management plans (RPDAS), and water resources schemes (Pola SDA) (Bappenas, 2015).

Despite national policies that are intended to integrate policy areas, watersheds continue to experience damage and decline in quality.³ Although issues related to ecology, hydrology, economics, and other relevant disciplines are interconnected, policies developed to address these are fragmented and fall under distinct sectoral—hence jurisdictional—regulations and responsibilities. We refer to this phenomenon as sectoral egoism or sectoral silo mentality, that is whereby distinct sectors and institutions function as if they protect their own sectoral interests. Policy fragmentation can also result from overlaps of or gaps in sectoral mandates for formulating regulations and action plans. The regulatory context of water resources is characterised by a vast plethora of legal instruments that cover many aspects of human activity. Such a context can stimulate overlaps of and contradictions between different regulations.

This chapter seeks to identify the root causes of prevalent silo mentality in Indonesian water resources governance and what implications these entail from environmental, social and economic perspectives. As main method we analyse relevant Indonesian water resources laws, regulations and policies, which is supported by insights found in the literature and official documents.⁴ In the sections that follow, the chapter starts with an overview of the history, foundational concepts, and legal and institutional measures of Indonesian water resources governance (Sect. 16.2). A synthesis follows of its major regulations, policies, and planning aspects as well as the challenges confronting these (Sect. 16.3). “A way forward” concludes with suggestions and recommendations for addressing the challenges discussed (Sect. 16.4).

2 Overview: History, Concepts, and Legal and Institutional Measures

2.1 Water Governance Policies Over Time

Since colonial times until the 1980s, Indonesian water governance policies had emphasised the protection of water resources by applying technical, civil engineering approaches. The central aim had been to increase food production and address food shortages. Reservoirs, dams and weirs were constructed and expanded to ensure water availability for agricultural irrigation (Bappenas, 2019). Under Sukarno (1945–1967), water conservation facilities were developed in swampy areas of Kalimantan deploying the Dutch polder⁵ system, besides the construction of major dams on Java.⁶ Also Suharto (1967–1998) constructed large dams and reservoirs, namely to achieve food self-sufficiency. Suharto even intensified infrastructural development supported by foreign loans. In the post-Suharto period, infrastructural development continued and by 2000 more than 36,500 dams and 219 reservoirs had been developed for ensuring water supply for settlements, agriculture, industry and other purposes (Sutardi, 2002). Incumbent President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) sees infrastructural development as strategy to meet the country’s food needs.

Under Sukarno’s presidency through the post-Suharto period, water governance policies had also entailed the rehabilitation of degraded land, besides infrastructural development. These included the planting of perennials—referred to as vegetative approach—in state forest areas and on community-owned land (Bappenas, 2019). Over time, an area of approximately 110,000 hectares of degraded land was reforested (Chen et al., 2016). The approach aimed to maintain optimal levels of soil fertility and improve the hydrological cycle of watersheds. The vegetative approach was incorporated by Suharto in Indonesia’s five-year development plans, also known as REPELITAs. The fifth REPELITA expanded forest and land rehabilitation programmes to include also rehabilitation initiatives conducted by communities, including the involvement of women and youth (Nawir et al., 2008). In the decentralised post-Suharto period, regional/local governments played an increasingly important role in forest and land rehabilitation,⁷ addressing critical land in state forest and on privately owned land.⁸

The development of infrastructural works and facilities for water resources conservation with a technical, civil engineering approach was the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MoPWH). To a lesser extent, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) was also involved in similar civil engineering projects.⁹

2.2 Conceptual Foundations: River Basin Territory and Watershed

Indonesian laws, regulations and policies pertaining to water resources are conceptually based on the categorisation into water zones according to particular scientific disciplines. The determination of water zones uses either a morphological (hydraulic), ecological, or anthropogenic—associated with the role and involvement of humans—perspective. A combination of one or more perspectives—e.g., eco-hydraulic—can also be applied. The latter categorisation is less common.

Before the 1980s, water resources governance predominantly referred to the concept of river basin territory (RBT). The categorisation to RBTs is based on morphology and thus follows a hydraulic perspective, as well as designates rivers as blue water (Chen et al., 2016). Water from this perspective runs off along streams and rivers or percolates into groundwater aquifers. River water areas can be distinguished into zones consisting of still water areas and dynamic water areas.¹⁰

Since the 1980s, due to evolving scientific and operational knowledge, different perspectives may more or less be integrated. The eco-hydraulic perspective, for example, considers besides the physical-hydraulic aspects also the ecological perspective. From an ecological viewpoint, the concept of RBT cannot be viewed apart from the watershed idea. Watersheds include rivers and their tributaries as well as the land around them as one entity (Fig. 16.1). This land surface contains, stores, and directs the flow of water derived from precipitation into lakes or seas without human intervention. The watershed concept embraces the green water idea. Differently from blue water, green water is the portion stored in soil and is potentially available for uptake by plants (Chen et al., 2016). A watershed can consist of more than one sub-watershed. An RBT can contain more than one watershed and/or small islands surrounded by water (Fig. 16.2).¹¹ Changes to a watershed will affect the RBT of which it is part. The watershed area contains all water flows that enter the watershed zone due to rainfall and according to the hydrological cycle. The different parts of a watershed form an energy chain in the ecosystem from upstream to middle and downstream areas. It is therefore crucial that the governance of water resources considers all parts of a watershed as interconnected parts of the entire watershed. Indonesia’s water governance, however, puts anthropogenic considerations at the core of decision-making, rather than the hydrological aspects. A watershed is often viewed as an administrative unit for watershed management. This can create problematic situations at the implementation level.

Fig. 16.1

Simplified illustration of a watershed. (Based on Government Regulation 37 of 2012, Law 23 of 2014, Law 37 of 2014, and Law 17 of 2019)

Fig. 16.2

Simplified illustration of a River Basin Territory (RBT or Wilayah Sungai). (Based on Government Regulation 37 of 2012, Law 23 of 2014, Law 37 of 2014, and Law 17 of 2019)

The RBT concept is the major foundation of Law 17/2019 concerning Water Resources while the watershed idea is foundational for Law 37/2014 concerning Soil and Water Conservation (Table 16.1). Hence, the distinction between blue water and green water is in essence the basis of two different water governance approaches that are enshrined in either the one or the other Law. This distinction presents itself further in the regulations and policies derived from the two Laws. This is also obvious at the planning and implementation level: Law 17/2019 is the legal basis of action plans with a predominantly infrastructural approach, whereas Law 37/2014 of those with a largely vegetative and social-ecological approach.

Table 16.1 Water resources regulations with river basin territory and watershed as conceptual foundations

In Indonesia there are 17,076 watersheds¹² and 128 RBTs¹³. Conform to Law 17/2019, the distribution of water resources authority between the central, provincial, and district/city governments should be based on the RBT concept. The Law instructs the government to make available guidelines to synchronising the various levels that can be used by stakeholders. The guidelines can be in the form of a Schemes for Water Resources Management document (Pola Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air) providing guidance for a simultaneous factoring in of surface water and groundwater. The document can serve as a master plan for facilitating the conservation, utilisation and control of water’s destructive characteristics (e.g., erosivity) while also taking account of the contextual factors affecting water resources.¹⁴ The guidelines as envisioned by the Law should be prepared by a high-level team of relevant agencies and further elaborated by institutions that are responsible for the formulation of implementation plans.

That with the significant variability of the many factors affecting RBTs, the management of RBTs cannot be conducted in a generic way is obvious. This is more necessary in case an RBT consists of watersheds with complex interconnections. An RBT typology is urgently needed that captures and anticipates potential complexities. Another need is the availability of guidelines for regional/local planners and implementors for prioritising RBT activities and developing action plans using accurate data. Up to now, only national-level guidelines exist in the form of two regulations: River Basin Territory Water Resources Management Scheme (Pola PSDA-WS) and Integrated Watershed Management Plan (RPDAS-Terpadu).

2.3 Legal and Institutional Measures

The effectiveness of water resources governance in Indonesia is the result of external and/or internal factors. Internal factors are associated with the legal and institutional measures that are applied in water resources governance, which is the focus of the present section. External factors are, for instance, population growth affecting land use change or climate change shaping extreme climatological conditions, in turn affecting hydrological cycles (Maheshwari et al., 2016; Bappenas, 2015; Fulazzaky, 2014; Reddy et al., 2017).

Legal Measures

Water resources governance in Indonesia applies various legal measures. We discuss two principal legal measures: (i) the provision of community rights; and (ii) financial support for the implementation of regulations. The first is exemplified by Law 41/1999 on Forestry and its predecessor Law 5/1967. Our review reveals that the latter provided insufficient space for community rights and placed the State in a dominant position. The superseded 1967 Forestry Law views the State indeed as the core power-holder in the planning, administration, exploitation and protection of state forest. The promulgation of Forestry Law No. 41/1999 has shaped more space for the involvement of local and indigenous communities in forest management. For instance, the Law includes a provision that gives indigenous people the rights to manage their customary forest (Pambudi, 2020) and creates thereby a legal entry point for the empowerment of local and customary communities and stakeholders in officially supported initiatives (Kusumanto, 2006, 2007) (Yuliani et al., 2023, in press)^.15 At the same time, it legitimises the State to maintain its central role in efforts of sustainable forest management (Pambudi, 2020). Furthermore, with the Law, the importance of local knowledge is acknowledged and provides local and indigenous communities with incentives to contribute to sustainable development through forestry (Rakatama & Pandit, 2020).

Financial support is the other major legal measure to enable implementation of laws and regulations. It should be noted that water resources policies that have been implemented since independence have significantly consumed budgetary resources. This is especially the case for financing forest and land rehabilitation and dam construction, resulting in more than 219 water reservoirs and more than 36,500 dams. Nevertheless, a closer examination reveals that these initiatives have a suboptimal effect from a water resources conservation view. Despite an increase in forest cover area, they have not resulted in a significant reduction of annual sedimentation levels.

Institutional Measures in Indonesia

We discuss the following measures along with the constraints that confront each of them: coordination and communication, mandates, institutional budgets, time factor, law enforcement, planning and technical guidelines, and institutional duties and roles. We assert that ineffectiveness of legal measures as previously discussed is essentially due to institutional constraints.

Discrepancies between expected and achieved outcomes—sometimes referred to as achievement gap—of water resources policies and programmes can largely be attributed to the limited efficacy of existing management systems of public institutions (Lubis et al., 2018). Identifying the root causes of these discrepancies is difficult because a large number of agencies play a role in water resources governance. In addition, the public agencies involved operates each at their specific government level—central, regional or local level—and a well-functioning communication across levels is often lacking. The fact that public agencies may be linked with an array of private and community organisations complicates this situation.

• 1. Coordination and Communication

There is no doubt that for watershed-based water resources management to be effective, implementation should be across jurisdictional, sectoral, and institutional boundaries. An ecoregional approach would thereby be the ideal for which high-level coordination and communication are key. Literature shows that failures to address weak coordination in management are the most significant challenges confronting water resources governance (Pambudi et al., 2020). Proper implementation of action plans contained in the Integrated Watershed Management Plan and Water Resources Management Schemes can often not be carried out, especially at the local government level. This is largely due to weak communication between implementing agencies as well as the weak role of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) in leading development planning processes (Lubis et al., 2018).

• 2. Institutional Mandates

Quite a number of laws are weak in giving directions for translating institutional mandates to implementation plans at operational level. They include Law 17/2019 concerning Water Resources, Law 41/1999 concerning Forestry, Law 37/2014 concerning Soil and Water Conservation, Law 26/2007 concerning Spatial Planning, Law 18/2003 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Damage, Law 32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management, Law 23/2014 concerning Regional Government, Government Regulation 37/2012 concerning Watershed Management, Government Regulation 26/2008 concerning National Spatial Planning, Forestry Ministerial Regulation P.39/Menhut-II/2009 concerning Guidelines for Formulating Integrated Watershed Management Plans, and Forestry Ministerial Regulation P. 61/Menhut-II/2013 concerning Watershed Management Coordination Forums.

Among these regulations, three Laws show considerable mandate failures, namely Law 41/1999, Law 26/2007, and Law 37/2014 (Table 16.2). The first two Laws mandate that a minimum of 30% of forest cover within watershed landscapes should be maintained. Law 37/2014 encounters challenges at the operational level whereby land owners, land rights holders, and permit holders fail to conduct activities conform to principles of good soil and water conservation. Another mandate that has been poorly acted upon also relates to this Law. It mandates the provision of payments for environmental services to the organisers of conservation initiatives. Article 36 of Law 37/2014 also mandates government agencies to provide assistance, compensation, and incentives to all those that are involved in soil and water conservation. Both mandates have been poorly implemented and the conversion of protected and primary forest has continued unabated, affecting hydrological cycles and watershed functioning.

Table 16.2 Water resources laws with poorly implemented mandates

• 3. Institutional Budgets

The application of legal measures is greatly challenged by the budgetary setting of the associated water resources sector, institution, or government level. Among the main reasons why some legal measures have not been effective is a lack of budgetary support.

• 4. Timely Availability of Implementation Regulations

The efficacy of legal measures also depends on the timely availability of implementation regulations. A serious time-delay, for instance, concerns Law 37/2014 concerning Soil and Water Conservation. Its implementation regulations are still being drafted at the time of writing—i.e., seven years after enactment of the Law. Such a serious time delay clearly hinders a timely implementation of the Law, both in legal terms and technically.

• 5. Law Enforcement

A weak law enforcement by public institutions is another factor that influences the efficacy of legal measures. Law 37/2014 concerning Soil and Water Conservation mandates the sanctioning of smallholders, individuals and businesses that violate soil and water conservation regulations by way of fines or imprisonment. In practice this mandate has hardly been enforced. Under the same Law, a weak enforcement is connected to the designation of open green space. While the Law requires that this should be at least 30% of the total area, a number of provinces, districts and cities have not met with this requirement. Yet, no sanctions have been put on them. The Law provides a legal basis for sanctioning individuals, institutions, and corporates that do not use land in accordance with the Law’s spatial plans. Also here law enforcement has been lacking. Moreover, while Government Regulation 26/2008 concerning National Spatial Plan provides spatial planning permits, these are hardly followed or have limitedly taken account of the regulation’s spatial plan (Lubis et al., 2018). Law 18/2013 stipulates that individuals, institutions, and businesses who conduct plantation activities without permits or carry out illegal activities may be imprisoned or fined. In practice, such activities have hardly been controlled and the Law has been seriously violated.

• 6. Planning and Technical Guidelines

Law 32/2009 on Environmental Protection and Management states that the central and regional/local governments are obliged to prepare and implement a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The assessment should serve as a reference for regional development policies and plans, including for the formulation and preparation of development and regional spatial plans (RPJP, RPJM, RTRW and other planning documents). SEAs have not been used effectively. In addition, Article 17 of Law 32/2009 includes a clause stipulating that if SEA assesses that proposed activities exceed the environmental carrying capacity of a given area, they should be adjusted as directed by the SEA. In reality, SEA has been weak as an instrument for managing environmental carrying capacity and addressing impacts on the sustainability of watersheds.

• 7. Institutional Duties and Roles¹⁶

Institutional duties and roles in the management of water resources have often led to so-called “cannibalism” of programmes or activities. For example, a technical agency plants trees by the banks of a river in order to conserve water resources. However, not long afterwards, another agency starts dredging the river and disposes sedimentation by the same riverbanks where the trees have been planted. This points to two particular issues: a lack of coordination and a tendency of these agencies to focus narrowly on their institutional duties and roles.

3 Regulations, Policies, Planning, and Challenges: A Synthesis

3.1 Regulations

This section synthesises water resources regulations that are currently applied in Indonesia and discusses their challenges. Our core focus is on regulations that apply under incumbent President Jokowi. The synthesis should be put against a background with the history, conceptual foundations, and main issues of water resources governance as discussed in the previous sections. Table 16.3 shares the three major water resources regulations and their relevance for governance.

Table 16.3 Water resources regulations and relevance for governance

Government Regulation 37/2012 concerning Watershed Management mandates the formulation of Watershed Management Plans (RPDAS) to:

• The central government/minister at the national and interprovincial levels.

• Provincial governors and their agencies at provincial, inter-district, and intercity levels.

• District heads and mayors at district and city levels.

Despite the above mandate, the formulation of RPDAS is often delegated to the Watershed Management and Protection Forest Agency (Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai dan Hutan Lindung, BPDAS-HL). This is a technical unit of MoEF at central level or an agency under the ministry at lower government levels. Regional/local heads of government are only expected to officially issue the plans. Budgets for formulating the RPDAS are allocated to BPDAS-HL with a result that regional/local governments show little ownership. Remarkably, the Regulation does not prescribe to put in place institutional measures for allocating budgets to regional/local governments to formulate the RPDAS.

Furthermore, the Regulation mandates the conduct of watershed management to relevant government levels. It includes a provision for the central government to intervene if the regional/local government were unable to fulfil its mandate. However, this provision is rarely used and BPDAS-HL has remained the core responsible agency. Similarly, while section 50 of the Regulation mandates monitoring and evaluation to the relevant government levels, activities are often implemented by the BPDAS-HL.

Government Regulation 37/2012 also states that RPDAS should serve as technical guidance for sectoral and regional development in each province, district and city (Pambudi, 2019). In reality, incorporating RPDAS in regional/local plans (RTRW/RPJPD) is extremely difficult because many action plans in the RPDAS are either not operational or not implementable by regional/local governments.

Another challenge that confronts an effective implementation of the Regulation is the promulgation of Law 23/2014 on Regional Government. This Law states that the mandate for watershed management at district or city level rests at the provincial government (Pambudi, 2019). There is thus a mismatch between the two regulations.

Law 17/2019 concerning Water Resources regulates the conservation and utilisation of water resources and control of water’s destructive characteristics (e.g., erosivity). It also instructs that water resources and community participation be incorporated in planning and a water resources information system database be put in place. The Law, nonetheless, does not connect its provisions with the vegetative, agronomy and social (participatory) aspects of water resources governance. This link with the green water perspective is a main flaw of this Law. As legal basis for these aspects it refers instead to Law 37/2014 concerning Soil and Water Conservation.

Government Regulation 26/2008 concerning the National Spatial Plan requires that at least 30% of the land area of a given island should be designated as a protected area. It is also required that the designation of land use zones should reflect the distribution of the island’s ecosystems. Discrepancies between stated aims of the Regulation and actual outcomes are due to failures to meet these requirements.

The Regulation provides guidance on measures for ensuring ecosystem resilience by addressing internal and external changes and shocks that can be detrimental to ecosystems. It has been difficult in practice to effectively control the protective function of land areas intended for that purpose (Pambudi, 2019). The Regulation also requires measures to restore and improve the functioning of protective zones where land degradation occurs due to adverse plantation and agricultural activities. Policies and action plans should focus on the development and maintenance of balanced ecosystems at regional scales. In reality, in many protective areas within and outside state forests inadequate measures are applied to assure that they are utilised for their intended purposes. Nor are activities conducted to effectively restore and improve their protective functions.

Policies-outcomes discrepancies of the Regulation are largely due to a lack of oversight and weak law enforcement of plantation activities, necessary to ensure that environmental carrying capacities not be exceeded. Many plantations largely negate this aspect. More broadly, the development of plantations is flawed because hardly any control mechanism is put in place for addressing or anticipating disasters in watersheds.

The Regulation includes provisions that aim at resilient ecosystems, significant biodiversity levels, and well-functioning protective zones and nature reserves. Protected zones are often situated in upstream areas of watersheds. Despite government efforts to communicate these objectives, substantive land areas are converted for which no permits are granted. Another challenge is the weak formulation of strategies for maintaining improved ecosystem functioning.

3.2 Policies

Under President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono (2004–2014) respectively Jokowi (2014-present) water resources have been governed through the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas). Three consecutive medium-term national development plans (RPJMN) underline the role of water resources in development. Under RPJMN 2010–2014, Presidential Regulation 5/2010 prioritised the conservation and management of water resources and mandated implementation to four ministries, i.e., MoPWH, MoEF, MoA, and Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MoEMR).

MoPWH was mandated to enhance the development and rehabilitation of water reservoirs in aiming at increasing water supply capacities and attaining the sustainability of water resources.¹⁷ Rehabilitation of reservoirs and dams included those for flood risk reduction.¹⁸ The plan also sets targets for improving the quality of infrastructure services of raw water and the development of management systems for irrigation management, swamps, and water networks under the responsibility of MoPWH.

RPJMN 2010–2014 underscored the role of MoEF in facilitating forest rehabilitation and other relevant land use to support water resources conservation through a vegetative approach. It also covered among other matters the rehabilitation of non-forest areas, land reclamation in priority watershed areas, and establishment of seed banks for land rehabilitation initiatives, together with measures to improve watershed management through the formulation of integrated RPDAS in 108 priority watershed areas.

In the same period, the MoA focused on the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructures, besides some engagement in watershed conservation. It also enhanced water supply for agricultural irrigation through development of small-scale water sources,¹⁹ water resources conservation through the development of dams, check dams, and absorption wells, and measures to improve the resilience of watersheds to climate change, covering 160,000 hectares.

In this period, MoEMR was mandated to implement policies related to the conservation of water resources, including providing guidance to private sector operators involved in the sale and distribution of groundwater through an inventory of groundwater taxes; the establishment of groundwater utilisation zones; and the facilitation of research and geological and groundwater mapping in order to identify the number of clean water bores that serve the needs of communities in remote and disadvantaged areas, particularly those with limited access to water supplies. MoEMR also provided recommendations on protected geological zones and water resources, based on hydrological maps with 1:250,000 scale; submerged groundwater maps with 1:100,000 scale; water conservation maps; and data related to groundwater utilisation based on water taxes in 33 provinces. It also conducted an investment inventory related to the industrial production of drinking products derived from groundwater.

During Jokowi’s administration, Presidential Regulation 2/2015 concerning National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015–2019 was promulgated with three policy priorities, namely aiming at water security, food security and energy.

MoPWH was mandated under this RPJMN to develop and rehabilitate water reservoirs,²⁰ as well as to improve water absorption and natural carrying capacity through the rehabilitation of rivers, lakes and swamps; protect natural water sources; improve water quality; expand the irrigation network; and develop and rehabilitate groundwater infrastructure.

Under RPJMN 2015–2019, MoEF was given mandate to focus on the rehabilitation of forests and other land uses as a means to achieve water conservation objectives. The Ministry adopted thereby small to medium scales vegetative and/or civil technical approaches. Initiatives during this period included the restoration of the health of 15 prioritised watershed areas; implemented 108 RPDAS formulated for regional/local levels (RTRW); intensified the rehabilitation and conservation of land and water resources as a means to reduce the area of critical land and thereby improve the health of watersheds and water sources.

Under RPJMN 2015–2019, MoA was tasked to rehabilitate agricultural infrastructures and irrigation facilities. The Ministry conducted initiatives and activities to improve the supply of irrigation water and to support agricultural production through the development of irrigation facilities, reservoirs, dams, and small-scale alternative water sources, and to strengthen farmer organisations, improve irrigation water system management, and improve three million hectares of degraded irrigated land.

In RPJMN 2015–2019 period, the MoEMR applied a number of policies on water resources utilisation and conservation, including to enhance the utilisation of hydrological energy production;²¹ establish a management system for hydrological energy; improve clean water supply through groundwater bores; and improve the quality of data, information, and recommendations for groundwater management.

Water resources policies under National Medium-Term Development Plan 2020–2024 are geared to balance water conservation and utilisation, upstream and downstream, utilisation of surface water and ground water; water demand and supply, and short-term and long-term interests. Control of water’s destructive character, particularly related to flooding, is carried out through water conservation and watershed management measures in accordance with spatial plans. Furthermore, policies for addressing the adverse impacts of water are focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation including for dealing with floods, droughts, and sea level rise.

3.3 Planning

In many aspects of life, water resources are indispensable as a source of living for humans and non-humans alike. The 1945 State Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia entitles every citizen to have access to clean, safe and sufficient water to lead a healthy, prosperous, and productive life. Nonetheless, the planning for a fair and sustainable utilisation of water resources is challenged by conflicts of interest.

A main challenge is the need to synchronise the many regulations on water resources in meeting the country’s water security targets by 2045. It is expected that next to public agencies and parastatal corporates the private sector takes responsibility for water supply facilities and operations to ensure that water demands of consumers and the businesses can be met in sustainable ways.

A financial shortage exists at present to cover the investments that were made in meeting demands in 2015–2019, amounting to 274.8 trillion Indonesian Rupiahs. In order to resolve this investment gap, alternative financial sources, including foreign and private sources, are needed. In aiming at sustainable financing and ensuring that operations proceed legally, it is crucial that the necessary regulations and control mechanisms are put in place.

The governance of water resources should also be focused on shaping collaboration and synergy between regions, sectors, and generations. A main challenge is the coordination of water resources management, the use of land and other natural resources for attaining a balanced social, environmental and economic functioning of water resources.

4 A Way Forward

Those engaged in the environment, forestry and/or water management and infrastructure in Indonesia may know all too well that the country’s water resources governance has a dual character to some extent. This manifests itself in a regulatory framework with an environment and forestry perspective besides a water infrastructural angle. Yet both have one and the same goal: water security for the people. Interestingly, this dual character seems to have been adopted by the State—represented by the government—as a way to address “silo thinking”. This dual strategy is perceived as an effective means for engaging relevant stakeholders whilst simultaneously governing water resources processes in attaining a shared goal. The strategy could have worked, if institutional coordination were strong. Our investigation reveals that this has been immensely challenged by ways in which public institutions are organised and operate.

Despite prevalent institutional challenges, a window of opportunity becomes obvious: sectoral “silo thinking” goes hand in hand with a tendency of institutions to integrate programmes or approaches, such as in integrated watershed management or integrated water resources management. This indicates a need for collaboration across institutional and sectoral boundaries and a seed is planted for collaboration that can be promoted and expanded in the future. Our review makes obvious that water governance is inherently a transboundary endeavour and necessitates an ecoregional approach. However, for efforts to be successful, they will depend on political will, institutional support and societal acceptance. It will also need a society-wide awareness that the aim of water resources governance is to meet water security in an environmentally sustainable way, rather than meeting institutional duties and roles.

Changing existing structures and processes of water resources governance cannot happen overnight. It necessitates an enhanced knowledge of consumers and society at large about adaptations in water services and institutions. Importantly, it will also need government’s acknowledgement to remove entrenched detrimental “ego-sectoral” and “ego-regional” attitudes.

Learning from Indonesia’s national medium-term development plan of 2015–2019 and 2020–2024, which have delivered poor development outcomes, we recommend the below three guiding points for future action:

• 1. Future national five-year development plans should use performance and target indicators that are thoroughly and comprehensively designed for application by public, private, and community institutions.

• 2. Development plans should be based on a thorough evaluation of the previous plan and build on achieved outcomes and adapt to changing needs, environmentally, socially, and economically. Continuation of previous plans will nonetheless be challenged by political aspirations of incumbent or candidate political leaders of a given period. Only an open public discourse can help in resolving conflicts.

• 3. Water governance targets should not only be set for a given sector, ministry or institution, but be part of a comprehensive governance system that facilitates and synchronise sectors, ministries, institutions, communities and the private sector at the necessary levels and scales.

In order to effectively synchronise central and regional/local water regulations, we recommend that the President as political leader and as institution cooperate with Parliament to lead processes. The use of a “carrot and stick” approach²² is encouraged that aim at unambiguous national objectives of water resources planning, conservation, and management. We urge President and Parliament to issue regulations that enable synchronisation processes from the central through regional/local public administrative levels.

We also recommend a thoroughly designed society-wide participation including disadvantaged groups such as women, the elderly, the young, and the disabled. It is of utmost importance to mainstream a gender-responsive approach in water resources governance.

Furthermore, our recommendation concerns the need for continuity in water resources monitoring and evaluation. Public institutions that are mandated with the duties and roles for monitoring and evaluation should effectively coordinate and facilitate all relevant stakeholders in the process. Institutional checks and balances should be put in place in case water regulations of a given sector compete with, contradict, or side-line water regulations of other sectors or institutions.

Water resources governance has not occurred comprehensively at regulation, planning, and implementation levels. We recommend the development of water resources governance with an ecoregional perspective, whereby the boundaries of an ecoregion are determined by its hydrological cycle. An ecoregional governance system is essentially polycentric and addresses power asymmetries between different jurisdictions at upstream, middle and downstream levels of watersheds. New institutions can be established or existing institutions be enhanced to deliver strong basin-wide coordination and ecoregional functioning. It also is crucial to effectively engage regional/local governments because most water-related interventions can only be successful if conducted at these levels.

Time is long overdue to view water resources governance as a core pillar of Indonesia’s water security, rather than as a means to promote and protect the own sectoral, institutional, or political interests. At the end of the day the latter can be detrimental to the country, its people, and the environment.

Annexes

1.1 Annex 16.1: Laws and Regulations Reviewed (in Chronological Order of Enactment)

• Law 11 of 1974 concerning Irrigation (Undang-undang Nomor 11 Tahun 1974 tentang Pengairan).

• Law 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry (Undang-undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan).

• Law 25 of 2007 concerning Spatial Planning (Undang-undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang).

• Government Regulation 26 of 2008 concerning National Spatial Plan (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 26 Tahun 2008 tentang Rancana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional).

• Law 32 of 2009 concerning Protection and Management of the Environment (Undang-undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup).

• Government Regulation 37 of 2012 concerning Watershed Management (Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 37 Tahun 2012 tentang Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai).

• Law 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction (Undang-undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Kerusakan Hutan).

• Ministerial Regulation Ministry of Forestry P.61/Menhut-II/2013 concerning Watershed Management Coordination Forum (Permenhut P.61/Menhut-II/2013 tentang Forum Koordinasi Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai).

• Presidential Regulation 2 of 2015 concerning National Medium-Term Development Planning 2015–2019 (Peraturan Presiden Nomor 2 Tahun 2020 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional Tahun 2015–2019).

• Law 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government (Undang-undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah).

• Law 37 of 2014 concerning Soil and Water Conservation (Undang-undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2014 tentang Konservasi Tanah dan Air).

• Ministerial Regulation of the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing 04/PRT/M/2015 concerning Criteria and Determination of River Basin Territories (Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Umum Nomor 04/PRT/M/2015 Tentang Kriteria dan Penetapan Wilayah Sungai).

• Law 17 of 2019 concerning Water Resources (Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2019 tentang Sumber Daya Air).

• Presidential Regulation 18 of 2020 concerning National Medium-Term Development Planning 2020–2024 (Peraturan Presiden Nomor 18 Tahun 2020 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional Tahun 2020–2024).

• Decree of Director General of Watershed Control and Protected Forest SK.30/PDASHL/SET/REN 0/9/2020 concerning Strategic Plan of Directorate General of Watershed Control and Protected Forest 2020–2024 (Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Pengendalian dan Perlindungan Hutan Nomor SK.30/PDASHL/SET/REN tentang Rencana Strategis Direktorat Jenderal Pengendalian Daerah Aliran Sungai Dan Hutan Lindung).

1.2 Annex 16.2: Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation/acronym	Indonesian	English equivalent
Bappeda	Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah	Regional Development Planning Agency
Bappenas	Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional	National Development Planning Agency
BPDAS-HL	Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai dan Hutan Lindung	Watershed Management and Protection Forest Agency
DAK	Dana Alokasi Khusus	Special Allocation Funds
GERHAN	Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan	National Movement for Forest and Land Rehabilitation Programme
KLHS	Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis	Strategic Environmental Assessment
MoA	Kementerian Pertanian	Ministry of Agriculture
MoEF	Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan	Ministry of Environment and Forestry
MoEMR	Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral	Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
MoPWH	Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat	Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing
Pola PSDA	Pola Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air	Scheme for Water Resources Management
Pola PSDA-WS	Pola Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air Wilayah Sungai	Scheme for Water Resources Management of River Basin Territory
RBT	Wilayah Sungai	River Basin Territory
REPELITA	Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun	Five-Year Development Plan
RPDAS	Rencana Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai	Watershed Management Plan
RPJMD	Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah	Regional Medium-Term Development Plan
RPJMN	Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional	National Medium-Term Development Plan
RPJP	Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang	Long-Term Development Plan
RPJPD	Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Dearah	Regional Long-Term Development Plan
RTRW	Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah	Regional Spatial Plan