Climate Action in a Far-Flung Archipelagic Nation: Outlining Challenges in Capacity-Building

Abstract

This climate action study illustrates the issues of capacity-building in the highly complex governance setting of Indonesia’s more than 500 districts, each with their specific issues around mitigation and adaptation that pose challenges for both top-down and, equally important, bottom-up approaches. Some regions have made commendable progress; however, there is benefit in ensuring that the progress in one region is sufficient to establish it as a benchmark for others. Institutionalization of capacity-building is key in highlighting the role of civil society networks—especially those that can reach the far-flung districts of Indonesia—in creating trust in the regions where they are distributed.

1 Introduction

Strengthening the capacity and ability of developing countries and those with economies in transition to undertake effective climate responses has received increased attention since 2001. Two frameworks provided initial guidance for capacity-building (Decisions 2/CP.7 and 3/CP.7 of the Conference of Parties 7, Annex). In 2009, capacity-building became part of the ad hoc negotiation of the Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and later served as a basis for the establishment of the Durban Forum on Capacity-building at the Conference of Parties 17 (Karuniasa, 2018a, b).

The importance of capacity-building activities is further substantiated by Article 11 of the Paris Agreement (CP.21). Attention is called to relevant measures such as facilitating technology development, dissemination and deployment, access to climate finance, relevant aspects of education, training and public awareness, and the transparent, timely, and accurate communication of information. Article 11 further stipulates that for the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement, developed countries should enhance the support for capacity-building actions in developing countries.

Further, as stipulated by decision 16/CP.22, capacity-building serves as an effective means to facilitate the implementation of undertakings of the convention and Paris Agreement by developing countries. The key to effective implementation is the development of a suitable road map for capacity-building.

Capacity-building can be viewed as enhancing the ability of individuals, organizations, and institutions in developing countries to identify, plan, and implement ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change (Brinkerhoff & Morgan, 2010; Le et al., 2017; UNFCCC, n.d.). Under the United Nations regime, three levels of capacity-building are recognized: (1) establishment of education, training, and awareness activities; (2) fostering the development of organizations and institutions to encompass their mandate, mission, culture, structure, competence, human resources, and finances, as well as cooperation between organizations, institutions, and sectors; and (3) the creation of enabling environments through economic policies, regulations, and accountability frameworks through which organizations and individuals operate (UNDP, 2009).

The complexity of capacity-building issues is exemplified by Indonesia, with its 35 provinces and 514 districts. Indonesia’s decentralization—or devolution of governing powers to districts—since 1999 (Leitmann et al., 2009)¹ has been challenged for the lack of harmonization between the speed at which the central government carried out the devolution of governing powers and the ability of subnational levels to progress with limited available guidance.

Indonesia’s drive to implement its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)—which aims to contribute to the concerted efforts preventing a 2 °C increase in global average temperature and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels—called for serious capacity-building tasks across all levels and sectors. Indonesia’s first NDC (RI, 2016), submitted to the UNFCCC in November 2016, served to establish the transparency framework required by the Paris Agreement and outlined enhanced actions and the necessary enabling environment during 2015–2019 that formed the foundation for more ambitious goals beyond 2020. Indonesia’s First NDC submission was, however, not yet accompanied by a road map for capacity-building. In 2021, Indonesia submitted Updated NDC² together with Long Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience (LTS-LCCR).³

To date, capacity-building objectives have been incorporated into the components of the nation’s NDC implementation, namely, mitigation (including the mainstreaming of national and subnational mitigation action plans), adaptation and loss and damage (including mainstreaming of adaptation action plans), means of implementation, and a transparency framework (including measurement, reporting, verification—MRV and the national communications). Further, as part of the mitigation actions, market-based mechanisms have become increasingly instrumental and engaged.

This study explores capacity-building issues from both the national and subnational perspectives. The rationale for this study is that capacity-building and coordination should function together both vertically and horizontally (cross-sectoral dimensions); thus, both should be explored. To be integrative and holistic, further policy reforms and institutionalization are needed. The main question is the extent of these measures, including challenges and opportunities, and especially to consider how necessary progress may be implemented on the ground, and how to induce the national and subnational integration toward more effective capacity-building. This study aims to present a synthesis of relevant capacity-building measures to date, and extract the lessons learned, especially concerning institutionalization. The novelty of this study rests on navigating through multisectoral and multilayered bureaucracy and ultimately reflecting on the institutionalization of mechanisms to deliver sustainable solutions.

2 Methods

This study reviews both published and unpublished documents. The latter includes the authors’ collective experiences in delivering capacity-building and knowledge management concerning climate change, disaster risk reduction, forestry, landscape approaches, natural resources management, sustainable financing, and both policy and institutional arrangements.

Capacity-building as a positive aspect of Indonesia’s NDC implementation strategies is first introduced, followed by the delineation of gaps analyzed, including mitigation and adaptation priorities. The existing policy and institutional framework at the national and subnational levels are synthesized, with examples from the relatively progressive subnational NDC implementation strategy of Maluku province. Examples of sporadic capacity-building activities that indicate inadequate integration are explored. Basic challenges for policymakers and institutions are outlined, followed by opportunities, especially as they relate to climate finance. Notable capacity-building issues at the subnational level are explored. The role of international cooperation is also considered in light of the potentials for fostering capacity-building. The discussion summarizes these issues by considering the importance of integration and institutionalization.

3 Results

3.1 Capacity-Building as Part of Indonesia’s NDC Implementation Strategies

Indonesia has delineated nine implementation strategies pertaining to national policy directives, (see Table 20.1). Capacity building stands as its own thread, and prioritizes the synergizing of NDC with development and spatial planning.

Table 20.1 Indonesia’s NDC Implementation Strategies (DJ PPI, 2016; RI, 2017)

3.2 Gaps to Be Analyzed

Capacity gaps and capacity-building needs can be analyzed at two levels—systems and institutions—with two pillars of NDC providing solid bases: (i) the implementation strategy of Indonesia’s NDC, and (ii) the key components of the NDC implementation concept. The capacity gap at the system level is harnessed by development planning, which primarily challenged unaligned political processes (Fig. 20.1). At the institutional level, the main challenge was unaligned sectoral interest and agenda (Fig. 20.2).

Fig. 20.1

Capacity issues at the system level (Karuniasa, unpublished)

Fig. 20.2

Capacity issues at the institutional level (Karuniasa, unpublished)

Both systems and institutions remain in their early development stages. An assessment of gaps suggests that the mainstreaming of climate change issues into the system is still in the planning phase with the focus limited to institutions under MoEF. Limited ownership by institutions outside the MoEF causes weak connectivity, commitments, and coordination crucial for building comprehensive measures to respond to climate change. Political will and support from the executive and legislative divisions are indispensable to realizing programs. To enhance connectivity coordination across sectors, the roles of coordinating ministries must be enhanced (Karuniasa, 2018a, b).

3.3 Identified Gaps

The gap analysis for each sector naturally needs to relate to Indonesia’s NDC to 2030, and more recently, the National Adaptation Plans. Initially, capacity gaps on mitigation can primarily be deduced from data recording of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, emission modeling, business-as-usual projections, and expected trends versus targets. The key to the development of an emission database is a single data policy, together with an agreement on annual emissions at business-as-usual projections. Further, the gap in mitigation capacity can be identified from existing national and/or sectoral emissions by comparing actual performance versus business-as-usual.

At the national level, gaps have been provisionally identified (Table 20.2). Specific local approaches are also needed, whereby provinces’ development requirements and strategies differ.

Table 20.2 Initial gap identification (Karuniasa, 2018a, b)

3.4 Capacity-Building Priorities

In following the country’s NDC, Indonesia’s capacity-building is geared to tackle key sectors of adaptation, such as climate risk and vulnerability assessment, disaster preparedness, gender-responsive budgeting; and mitigation focusing on five key sectors: energy, land, agriculture, waste, and industrial processes and product use (IPPU).

The Republic of Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), in cooperation with the European Union, has formulated an analysis for capacity-building and technology needs for climate change actions (EU and Republic of Indonesia, 2018). The five steps promoted by the UNDP (Capacity Development Group) in 2009 are also central to the consideration: (1) engage stakeholders in capacity development; (2) assess capacity assets and needs; (3) formulate a capacity development response; (4) implement a capacity development response; and (5) evaluate capacity development. Further, the analysis is applied to both levels of the nine strategies and the five means of implementation.

3.5 Existing Policy and Institutional Framework at the National Level

The strengthened capacity of sectors and local government is central to the aims of the National GHG Inventory System (SIGN-SMART) as part of the National Registry System (SRN). The National GHG Inventory System lists the following factors:

• 1. Improvement of methodologies, activity data, and emission factors.

• 2. Strengthening institutional arrangements, their functions, and operations for archiving, updating, and managing greenhouse gas inventories.

• 3. Increasing the awareness of local governments on the importance of the National GHG Inventory for developing mitigation strategies.

• 4. Increasing the capacity of designated personnel for developing and managing each sector of the GHG Inventory.

Although the provincial level action plan for GHG mitigation (RAD GRK) has been set to follow the mandate outlined by the National Level Action Plan (RAN-GRK) of 2011,⁴ not all sectors and subnational entities have used the National GHG Inventory system, making this a priority capacity-building issue. The urgency is heightened by the need to harmonize plans across sectors and layers. Fortunately, provincial-level climate action plans are required to harmonize with the province’s medium-term planning; thus, although the provincial level GHG action plan does not always present capacity-building pathways, there are opportunities to do so through the medium-term planning processes (WWF Indonesia, 2017).

As for adaptation, capacity-building may be provided through the framework of the National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation (RAN-API), which is supported by climate data (from the Meteorology, Climatic, and Geophysical Agency) and Vulnerability Information System and Index Data (SIDIK). SIDIK is an online tool that provides (biophysical, social, and economic) vulnerability data at the subnational level and an interface for local governments to undertake self-assessments and responses.

For NDC preparation and implementation, five priorities have been identified that relate to strengthening capacity at the institutional and individual levels: (1) calculation of sector−/areal-based emissions, (2) development of sectoral−/areal-based NDC model for the projection of BAU emissions, with conditional and unconditional scenarios, (3) establishment of sectoral−/areal-based NDC implementation plans, (4) review of the implementation or MRV for the NDC, and (5) integration of the NDC implementation plans to the national and subnational development plans (DJ PPI, 2016).

Meanwhile, mechanisms for green budgeting and budget tagging as well as innovative financing schemes, such as green bonds, blended finance, and private green financing from the Financial Authority Board, are also advancing. The ecological transfer mechanism is finding good traction with progressive climate change policymaking in Indonesia (Putra et al., 2019).

3.6 Existing Policy and Institutional Framework at the Subnational Level

Currently, legal frameworks for climate financing of subnational entities are yet to be adequately developed (Tänzler & Maulidia, 2013). For instance, special allocation funds and revenue sharing mechanisms may be useful for climate financing, but only on the condition that national-subnational fiscal transfer policies are reformed (Imelda et al., 2017). The plan to establish a subnational incentive funds (DID) policy to incentivize low carbon development in the districts and municipalities is a promising move.

At the subnational level, a road map for mitigation and adaptation, which includes a capacity building and technology needs assessment (CBTNA, Fig. 20.3), is needed. The Maluku province was the first to develop a CBTNA, although the pathways are not yet detailed. Subnational CBTNA from Maluku therefore was taken as a case study.

Fig. 20.3

General workflow for national and subnational CBTNA (Source: Karuniasa, 2018a, b)

Maluku’s climate policy process was launched when the planning board of Maluku Province issued its subnational scheme (RAD GRK) in 2012 while translating the National Action Plan for GHG Mitigation (RAN-GRK). A disaster risk analysis was conducted in 2015 with the assistance of the Disaster Management Agency (BNPB). In the same year, a master plan for the development of priority island-based commodities was developed. In 2016, the Maluku Governor issued decree 46/2016, which established the province’s forum for disaster risk mitigation. In 2017, with the help of the USAID APIK Programme, a climate risk and vulnerability analysis was completed. The province is currently finalizing local legislation for disaster risk reduction and mitigation.

In its roadmap, the Maluku province has also identified key issues. For adaptation, the strategic issues encompass fisheries, tourism, clean water, agriculture, forestry, marine transportation, and disaster risk reduction. For mitigation, five key focus sectors were identified (Table 20.3).

Table 20.3 The five NDC sectors for mitigation in Maluku province (Karuniasa, 2018a, b)

For the subnational NDC of Maluku province, the implementation strategy was formulated (Table 20.4) concerning the NDC Implementation concept as outlined by UNFCCC’s mandate and guidance, with quick wins geared from 2017 to 2020.

Table 20.4 Subnational NDC Implementation strategy for Maluku province

3.7 Nationwide Capacity-Building Measures Implemented

Initial capacity-building was designated mostly at the national level; between 2000 and 2008, at least 91 activities were recorded on the ground. These were national initiatives supported by development partners, including Japan, Germany, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, other EU countries, Australia, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the United Nations Development Programme (RI, 2017).

Over the following 10 years, through the implementation of market-based mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Credit Mechanism, hundreds of capacity-building actions were carried out at both national and subnational levels. A road map study undertaken for KLHK and GIZ between 10 December 2018 and 10 December 2019, on NDC implementation capacity-building, listed no less than 693 activities (Bassar & Impron, 2019). These included the energy sector (354), forestry (142), waste (112), agriculture (67), and industrial process and production use (18) (Bassar & Impron, op cit.).

Capacity-building thereby involved state and nonparty stakeholders alike (refer to Table 20.5). A diversity of policy stakeholders was targeted, including civil servants, academia, youth, women, religious leaders, journalists, and vulnerable groups (RI, 2017). Between 2011 and 2017, capacity-building in Indonesia encompassed a wide range of development sectors, including energy, forestry, agriculture, cities, health, water resources, and tourism. Subnational capacity-building for climate change adaptation, including practical examples, has also been analyzed (Yoseph-Paulus & Hindmarsh, 2018). In an urban setting, strengthened capacity for spatial planning was deemed to be a strategic measure to realize low carbon and resilient cities.

Table 20.5 Notable capacity-building activities in Indonesia 2010–2017, mainly at the subnational level (inexhaustive list; Bassar & Impron, 2019)

Despite the notion that capacity-building measures in Indonesia have progressed from the national to subnational level, the experience and expertise are currently scattered and distributed among various ministries/agencies, the private sector, and CSO entities. A key necessity is to commission an appropriate proper gap analysis of the required capacities. Current initiatives have focused on needs assessments, but hard data needed for MRV are lacking. The dissemination of governance and coordination measures are yet to be increased, with logical implications for the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to take the lead in cooperation with the Paris Committee on Capacity-building.

3.8 Challenges and Opportunities

Capacity-building faced challenges such as policy and institution, and implementation of capacity building at the subnational level. There are also opportunities such as from climate finance, international cooperation.

3.9 Policy and Institutional Challenges

Effective policies and institutions were instrumental in building capacity on the ground. Consistency and effectiveness of regulations and fiscal transfer policies are essential for both national and subnational interventions. Rigid governance and the state financial system were among the main challenges. Policies, plans, and programs remain inflexible and nonresponsive in accommodating corrective actions to the process (Karuniasa, 2018a, b).

Changing energy policies indicate the challenge of establishing effective incentives. Energy purchasing tariffs and pricing, which were potential incentives, changed haphazardly and acted instead as a deterrent (Tilburg et al., 2016). By 2017, the feed-in tariffs for renewable energy were once again challenged when the government issued a policy (Energy and Mineral Resources Ministerial Regulation No. 50/2017 on renewable energy for electricity), which set the electricity price generated by renewable energy based on 85% of the local power generation cost. With a maximum price ceiling set at only 85% of the area’s electricity supply cost (BPP), renewable energy project proponents found it difficult to apply for bank loans.

Capacity-building is also influenced by a combination of factors such as institutional arrangements and fiduciary standards. The two key policymakers, the Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Finance, are yet to synchronize and synergize policies and activities. Further, access to international climate finance such as Green Climate Funds (e.g., Maulidia & Halimanjaya, 2014) was constrained by different fiduciary standards.⁵

Indonesia’s nationally designated authority for the GCF, however, is gradually becoming operational. It took almost 3 years from the Minister of Finance’s letter (nomor S-882/MK.01/2015) appointing the Chairman of the Fiscal Policy Agency (BKF) as the National Designated Authority (NDA) for the GCF, and the Director of the Center for Climate Change Financing and Multilateral Policy (PKPPIM) as the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat for the National Designated Authority, to issue a decree (KMK 756/2017), establishing the BKF as the NDA.

NDA capacity is being built and some of its functions are progressing:

• 1. Technical guidelines for accessing GCF funds are now available.

• 2. Interim draft standard operational procedures for the establishment of a No Objection Letter (NoL) have been issued.

• 3. NoLs have been issued for two project preparation facilities.

• 4. Information dissemination in the form of a website and roadshow has commenced.

• 5. A country-wide program to coordinate stakeholders has commenced.

3.10 Climate Finance Opportunities

For climate finance, there are four prerequisites: planning capabilities, access to financing, good governance, and cooperation with the private sector (Tänzler & Maulidia, 2013). Further, at the subnational level, considering the dynamics of the political economy and especially the formulation of subnational budgets (APBD), harmonization with medium-term planning is crucial to ensuring the progression of healthy fiscal transfers.

Capacity-building should be linked to the building of commitment and ownership. The latter is oriented toward practicalities such as greening investment plans. The Financial Services Authority has passed several policies and incentives such as regulations (P.51/2017 regarding sustainable financing), guidelines (green lending), training (for environmental auditors), and information dissemination (seminars and workshops including a Sustainable Banking Network Annual Meeting 2016 in Bali). Further, subject to approval by the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Services Authority,⁶ commercial banks and the Government Services Agency (BLU) are encouraged to provide soft loans (e.g., for green buildings).⁷ For example, Bank Negara Indonesia has gradually incorporated environmental conservation and rehabilitation into its soft loans for SMEs.⁸

There are also opportunities for investments and capacity-building. In the energy sector, national and provincial energy plans (RUED) can be reconciled. In the forestry sector— specifically the forest management unit—land and forest tenurial reforms increase the chances for sustainable forest management, ecosystem restoration, development of social forestry, and REDD+ at the subnational scale. An increase in the amount of blue carbon through restoration and conservation of mangroves and seagrasses (Alongi et al., 2015) is being considered, though it is yet to be captured at the subnational level.

Subject to the development of supportive regulations, there is also scope for enhancing the role of microfinance and insurance. Together with capacity development, they can support farmers’ adaptations by providing high-quality products specifically targeted at the private sector (Budiman et al., 2013).

3.11 Subnational Level Capacity-Building Issues

It would be beneficial for at least one province to succeed in their capacity-building initiatives so that they could be an example to the other 34 provinces. Exemplary concepts from Maluku were to develop a bio-ecoregional approach to help conserve local biodiversity, and a community college to support local sustainable development with indigenous knowledge. These initiatives must be assessed for the potential larger-scale scenario⁹ in Maluku Province and can be replicated in other provinces or circumstances after fine-tuning.

At the subnational level, certain local districts and municipalities are yet to develop an agenda and strategy for mitigation and adaptation. In one instance, Kupang, the capital of East Nusa Tenggara province, already has an inventory of its GHG emissions due to the national inventory system (SIGN-SMART), but the city is yet to produce development plans that are low-carbon and climate-resilient plans (Citraningrum, 2017; Ridwansyah et al., this volume).

The actual (and potential) roles of provincial banks are highly promising, especially since they have corporate social responsibility allocations that must be spent (IESR (Institute for Essential Services Reform), 2015; Imelda et al., 2017). The key issue is to support both banks and civil society in developing “bankable projects,” including examples such as community investment for micro-hydro and biogas as part of renewables.

In practice, the support of subnational institutions may be enhanced by hands-on guidance from the central government. For instance, when the Director-General of Climate Change deployed experts to support REDD+ in the province of West Kalimantan, rules and regulations were effectively disseminated with the resultant gain in confidence by the local REDD+ working group. Similarly, the involvement of districts and villages from the planning stages was key to translating the REDD+ framework (including FREL/MRV and Safeguards REDD) in the field.

The integration of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into subnational development plans is necessary and has been achieved by Maluku Province. This was part of the province’s stated mission of implementing mitigation and adaptation plans to increase national and subnational development synergies to decrease GHG emissions and the disaster risk index. Neighboring southeast Asian countries have also suggested the integration of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction plans and policies (e.g., Baybay & Hindmarsh, 2019; Forino et al., 2015; Lassa & Sembiring, 2017).

Of the many adaptation lessons, a common thread was the strategic potential of multistakeholder forums at subnational levels. In Kupang, the disaster risk reduction forum was deemed effective, and local actors now believe that a corporate social responsibility forum could go a long way in forging public–private partnerships (Conny Tiluata, personal communication).

Ultimately, participation is key to planning and implementation. Sufficient attention still needs to be paid to human rights, gender inclusiveness, and indigenous knowledge, which are crucial in maintaining justice through mitigation efforts (Haque et al., 2017).

3.12 International Cooperation and Tools

International technical cooperation is highly effective for capacity-building. For instance, key ministries have, with the help of development partners, voluntarily formulated and implemented a budget tagging system.¹⁰ Budget tagging began in 2015 and was initially directed toward mitigation actions. For the period 2016–17, six key ministries (Environment and Forestry, Agriculture, Energy and Mineral Resources, Transport, Industry and Public Works, and Housing) tagged all outputs that contributed to (1) the reduction of GHG emissions, (2) the improvement in capacity to reduce GHG emissions, and (3) the stabilization and the conservation of carbon stocks. In 2018, budget tagging was extended to adaptation issues, thereby involving 17 ministries and agencies. Similarly, high-quality emission factors were calculated due to sound technical consensus reached concerning its format and data. The latter resulted from multistakeholder collaboration between the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and development partners (such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency, GIZ, and Flora Fauna International).

Indonesia’s low carbon and resilient development plans are yet to accommodate proactive measures in using available toolkits and to translate these into the national language as needed. Many toolkits are available such as the Planning for NDC implementation: A Quick-Start Guide (CDKN, 2016); A guiding toolkit for climate change resilience (IUCN, 2014); and Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihood (CIFOR, 2013). Best practices are also regularly revisited and it is now a foregone conclusion that web-based tools can assist with capacity-building (Khan, 2017).

4 Discussion

Capacity-building in Indonesia has begun to proliferate throughout many sectors, mostly at the national level. The synthesis of NDC implementation capabilities across the five mitigation sectors (energy, land, agriculture, waste, and IPPU) conducted by KLHK and GIZ (Bassar & Impron, 2019) provided a comprehensive baseline: (1) the geographic scope was mostly national; (2) service providers were predominately state institutions (instead of nonparty stakeholders); (3) capacity-building topics on the five sectors are deemed to already be oriented toward NDC; (4) the most frequent modalities for capacity-building are training, education, and technical guidance by national agencies; and (5) targeted groups and topics were aligned to appropriate sectors.

Initial observations suggested that capacity-building activities were driven mainly by international stakeholders, thereby appearing more political than practical (e.g., Putrawidjaja, 2008; Uy & Shaw, 2010; Yoseph-Paulus & Hindmarsh, 2018). However, this trend has gradually reversed in recent years (see Table 20.1 and Bassar & Impron, 2019).

Current activities span individual and organizational levels but are not yet been fully streamlined. For capacity-building to be transformational, effective enabling policies, economic incentives (and disincentives), and an accountability framework in which individuals, organizations, and systems operate, are required (Fig. 20.4).

Fig. 20.4

Governing capacity-building

Sporadic capacity-building activities are yet to be accurately measured. Although Indonesia already has its own National Registry System, it has ineffectively captured these activities and their impacts. These uncoordinated and unlisted activities, therefore, have failed to effectively contribute to the common (capacity-building) goal.

Capacity-building should take many forms, including technology, finance, MRV, institutional arrangements, and regulatory frameworks (extending as far as reformed fiduciary standards). Under institutional arrangements, which agency should lead capacity-building at the national level is yet to be determined. Thus far, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources have delivered the most initiatives. Policy documents can also refer to best practices from other localities and even internationally.

Subnational NDCs require sound practice and, therefore, for a single province to succeed, benchmarking against a successful region would also greatly benefit the building of capabilities in other provinces. This applies to the case of Maluku province, which established the first provincial-level road map for mitigation and adaptation, including CBTNA, although without detailing the framework to guide the delivery of capacity-building and practical responses.

Capacities must also be geared to investment plans. Climate financing support may originate from national, international, and (at least in theory) subnational level resources. However, currently, much of the climate finance depends on national block grants (DAU), special allocation funds (DAK), and revenue sharing. Mobilization of the crucial private sector will be enhanced should there be training on formulating bankable projects; for example, how to accurately calculate the costs and benefits of environmental services.

This study recommends a holistic and inclusive approach to the development of a roadmap, which must consider key mitigation and adaptation actions within multilayered governance, including the devolution of authorities and initiatives nationally, provincially, and by district or individual municipality. All these require effective needs assessments and mapping of progress. The key to meeting the common objective is to map out who is doing what and to ensure that GHG inventories are comprehensively and independently undertaken by each stakeholder. Therefore, in practice, commendable NPS initiatives that are implemented must be accompanied by standardized methods for taking GHG inventories. Subnational entities must also identify their specific objectives—such as the harmonization of provincial energy plans with an inventory of IPPU mitigation targets—and achievements at the national and subnational levels.

The time is ripe for institutionalizing capacity-building initiatives in Indonesia. With several agencies and organizations operating across different sectors, the required change-agents may emerge from a more dynamic civil society. For instance, Indonesia has the APIK Indonesia Network (National Association of Forestry and Climate Change Experts, with at least 168 member academics from all over the country). Assuming that local governments are more likely to heed the advice of their local universities and think-tanks, APIK with less bureaucracy has an effective span of influence. Therefore, institutions with the potential to exert effective decentralized influence are strong prospects to drive the required changes in national and subnational integration.