Indonesia - OECD Open Government Review 2016

OECD Public Governance Reviews

Open Government in Indonesia

OECD Public Governance Reviews

Open Government in Indonesia

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Photo credits: Cover Š Maksim Kabakou-Fotolia.com.

FOREWORD – 3

Foreword Over the last two decades, Indonesia has shown a strong commitment to applying the principles of good governance to become a modern democratic state that delivers efficient and effective services to citizens. Indonesia has also recognised the value of open government principles to generating inclusive growth by promoting transparency, accountability and stakeholder engagement.

As a founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011 and a member of the OGP Steering Committee continuously since the OGP’s launch, Indonesia has shown strong interest in disseminating open government principles and practices across Southeast Asia and worldwide.

Furthermore, Indonesia’s contribution to the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, and its commitment to the priorities expressed therein, reflect its unique perspective on how to connect national open government reforms to the country’s complementary multi-lateral reform agendas.

In the context of its ongoing efforts to broaden and deepen the impact of its government reform initiatives, Indonesia requested that the OECD conduct an Open Government Review to highlight its achievements in these areas and identify potential improvements. This review, implemented thanks to the financial contribution of USAID (US Agency for International Development) Indonesia, provides a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of Indonesia’s open government reforms. It was prepared within the framework of the OECD Open Government Project, which supports countries in designing and implementing open government reforms in co-operation with citizens and non-governmental organisations. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. The review features a comprehensive assessment of open government reforms in Indonesia, with a focus on co-ordination, citizen engagement, integrity, digital government, budget transparency and innovation in the public sector. It also looks at how these elements are linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It analyses Indonesia’s OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4 – FOREWORD institutions, legal framework and policies, and highlights achievements and provides recommendations on how to overcome bottlenecks. The review’s recommendations will help guide Indonesia’s efforts to apply the principles of open government both horizontally across its national ministries and vertically to subnational governments.

The review’s key finding is that Indonesia’s policy and legal frameworks offer sound support for open government, though challenges remain to ensure that the various ongoing initiatives are implemented completely and effectively. To build a truly transparent and participative public administration, Indonesia will need to continue to promote a greater understanding of the value and importance of open government reforms within the public administration. It will also need to ensure that public officials have the necessary capacity to implement the reforms, both at national and local levels of government. For Indonesia to be successful in these efforts, it will have to rely more on its well-established civil society and encourage the emergence of more non-governmental actors capable of playing a positive role in the country’s open government agenda. Finally, Indonesia must continue to support the links between its open government reform efforts and other multilateral reform efforts, such as the SDGs, to ensure that the various initiatives are mainstreamed into the country’s national development processes.

The OECD’s Open Government Reviews contribute to the work on public administration and management reform conducted by the OECD Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate. The Directorate’s mission is to help government at all levels design and implement strategic, evidence-based and innovative policies to strengthen public governance, respond effectively to diverse and disruptive economic, social and environmental challenges and deliver on government’s commitments to citizens.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS – 5

Acknowledgements The OECD Secretariat wishes to express its gratitude to all those who made this report possible, starting with the Indonesian government, which has shown great commitment to this project. In particular, the OECD would like to thank Yanuar Nugroho, Deputy Chief of Staff, Executive Office of the President and his team, as well as Raden Siliwanti, Director for State Apparatus, Ministry of National Development Planning and her team for their continuous support.

The OECD would also like to thank representatives from the Indonesian civil society organisations, who have shared their insights and enthusiasm, as well as the following public officials who acted as peer reviewers: Otávio Moreira de Castro Neves (Co-ordinator for Open Government and Transparency, Corruption Prevention and Transparency Secretariat, Office of the Comptroller General, Federative Republic of Brazil); Pepe Tonin (Finance and Control Analyst, Office of the Comptroller General, Federative Republic of Brazil); YS Lee (Executive Principal, National Information Society Agency, Republic of Korea); and Chul Jeong (Deputy Director, Public Data Policy Division, Ministry of the Interior, Republic of Korea).

The OECD team also wishes to acknowledge the significant contributions made by the representatives of the Government of Indonesia, in particular Tara Hidayat, Fithya Findie, Husni Rohman and Muhammad Daud, who have been instrumental in the production of the review, including defining its scope, mobilising all relevant stakeholders and providing their feedback.

The OECD is also grateful for their help in organising the missions of OECD staff and experts and facilitating data collection.

This Review was prepared by the Public Governance and Territorial Development (GOV) Directorate of the OECD, headed by Rolf Alter. It is part of the series of Open Government Reviews developed by the Governance Reviews and Partnerships Division, under the responsibility of Martin Forst. Alessandro Bellantoni, Co-ordinator of the OECD Open Government Project, led the review and drafting process, provided extensive comments on all chapters, and harmonised the narrative. Craig Matasick provided support throughout the review process and drafted the Introduction, Chapter 3 (Citizen participation) and Chapter 8 (on the link OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6 – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS between open government and the UN Sustainable Development Goals) in collaboration with Alessandro Bellantoni. The Review was written by a team comprised of: Eva Beuselinck (Chapter 2 on Centre of government coordination), Jeroen Michels (Chapter 4 on Public sector integrity), Barbara Ubaldi and Rodrigo Mejia Ricart (Chapter 5 on Digital government), Ronnie Downes and Annamaria Tuske (Chapter 6 on Budget transparency) and Marco Daglio (Chapter 7 on Public sector innovation).

Sarah Puppini-Zaft and Nadjad Bacar provided administrative support.

Editorial work and quality control were provided by Will Bromberg, Julie Harris and Ciara Muller, who prepared the manuscript for publication.

The United States Agency for International Development funded the Indonesia Open Government Review. The OECD wishes to thank Miles Toder, Zeric Smith, David Hoffman and Diah Januarti for their generous support.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 7

Table of contents Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................... 12 Executive summary..................................................................................................... 15 Assessment and recommendations ............................................................................ 19 Chapter 1. Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia......................... 45 Cultural, historical, and political context .................................................................. 46 Economic context...................................................................................................... 48 Perceptions of public institutions and the space for open government ..................... 51 The principles of open government........................................................................... 58 Legal, policy, and strategic framework for open government in Indonesia .............. 61 Beyond open government ......................................................................................... 66 Organisation of the open government review ........................................................... 69 Notes ......................................................................................................................... 70 References ................................................................................................................. 71 Chapter 2. Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices in Indonesia ................................................................................................. 73 The centre of government as a strategic player ......................................................... 74 Centre of government and public administration reform in Indonesia...................... 80 The open government agenda ................................................................................... 90 Opportunities to strengthen open government through the centre of government .. 101 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 106 Notes ....................................................................................................................... 107 References ............................................................................................................... 108 Chapter 3. Citizen engagement in Indonesia .......................................................... 111 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 112 OECD approach to citizen engagement .................................................................. 112 Status of civil society in Indonesia.......................................................................... 117 Legal framework of citizen engagement in Indonesia ............................................ 120 Citizen engagement in practice ............................................................................... 127 Towards a strategic approach to civic engagement in Indonesia ............................ 143 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 146 OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

8 – TABLE OF CONTENTS Notes ....................................................................................................................... 149 References ............................................................................................................... 150 Annex 3.A1 Primary CSO partners on open government activities in Indonesia ............................................................................................................. 153 Chapter 4. From transparency and participation to integrity in Indonesia.................................................................................................................... 155 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 156 Participation in the policy cycle .............................................................................. 158 Strengthening the watchdog: Towards effective accountability mechanisms for citizens .......................................................................................... 168 Awareness raising and citizen education ................................................................ 178 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 180 References ............................................................................................................... 182 Chapter 5. Digital government as an enabler for open government in Indonesia .............................................................................................................. 187 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 188 Assessing the digital context of Indonesia .............................................................. 191 Scaling up existing initiatives that use ICTs to support an open, transparent and participatory government ............................................................... 195 Achieving a whole-of-government approach in government use of ICTs in support of open government....................................................................... 200 Adopting a strategic approach to alternative ICT channels to maximise the outreach of government in a cost-effective way ..................................................... 212 One Data for Sustainable Development .................................................................. 218 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 228 Notes ....................................................................................................................... 231 References ............................................................................................................... 231 Chapter 6. Open, transparent and inclusive budgeting in Indonesia ................... 235 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 236 OECD principles for open, transparent and inclusive budgeting ............................ 238 Budget transparency in Indonesia ........................................................................... 242 Public participation in budgeting in Indonesia ........................................................ 254 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 265 Notes ....................................................................................................................... 267 References ............................................................................................................... 267 Chapter 7. Public-sector innovation in Indonesia .................................................. 271 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 272 Institutional framework to support innovation in Indonesia ................................... 274 Barriers to public-sector innovation ........................................................................ 278 OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 9

The role of networks of innovators ......................................................................... 281 Successful practices in public-sector innovation in Indonesia ................................ 282 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 286 Notes ....................................................................................................................... 287 References ............................................................................................................... 287 Chapter 8. Open government in Indonesia and the link with the UN Sustainable Development Goals ........................................................................ 289 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 290 Current thinking on the connection between the SDGs and broader governance reform efforts ....................................................................................... 294 The substantive link between open government principles and the SDGs.............. 295 Open government support for the process of implementing the SDGs ................... 304 Examples from Indonesia ........................................................................................ 311 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 315 References ............................................................................................................... 317 Annex 8A.1 SDG targets clearly informed and supported by open government policies and principles ............................................................................................. 319

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

10 – TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables

Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia................................63 Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia (continued) ............64 Table 3.1. Number of PPID offices established within public institutions ............134 Table 5.1. Roles and responsibilities for digital government in Indonesia ............202 Table 6.1. Legal framework for budget transparency and public participation......242 Table 6.2. Legal framework for gender budgeting and participation in Indonesia ........................................................................................................260 Table 6.3. Key local government budgetary documentation ..................................263 Figures

Figure 1.1. Level of real GDP in selected ASEAN countries ..................................49 Figure 1.2. Absolute poverty rate (%), 2000-14 .......................................................49 Figure 1.3. Indonesia growth rates (2011-14) ..........................................................50 Figure 1.4. Unemployment rates in Indonesia and selected countries .....................51 Figure 1.5. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and ASEAN countries (2014) .52 Figure 1.6. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014) ...53 Figure 1.7. Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country, or not? (2015) .....................................................................................53 Figure 1.8. Do you have confidence in the national government? (2015) ...............54 Figure 1.9. Correlation between confidence in national government and perception of government corruption (2015) ...................................................55 Figure 1.10. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and ASEAN countries (2014) ................................................................................................56 Figure 1.11. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014) ................................................................................................57 Figure 1.12. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia (2003-14) ............57 Figure 1.13. OECD open government theory of change ..........................................59 Figure 2.1. Focus of the centre of government .........................................................75 Figure 2.2. National Open Government Secretariat: Organisational chart...............92 Figure 2.3. Monitoring of open government initiatives across OECD countries ...105 Figure 2.4. Impact evaluation of open government initiatives across OECD countries .............................................................................................106 Figure 3.1. Defining information, consultation, and active participation...............113 Figure 3.2. Reasons for partnering with citizens and CSOs for public service delivery ...........................................................................................................114 Figure 3.3. Number of OECD countries with law on access to information ..........121 Figure 3.4. Number of OECD countries with laws on ombudsman institutions (1960-08) .....................................................................................126 Figure 3.5. Number of complaints received by the ORI 2009-15 ..........................127 OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 11

Figure 4.1. Interplay between citizens and the public sector for integrity .............157 Figure 4.2. Countries having adopted regulatory practices for lobbying ...............168 Figure 5.1. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Digital Government Strategies ........................................................................................................191 Figure 5.2. Internet users per 100 people in Indonesia...........................................192 Figure 5.3. Mobile cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in Indonesia .............192 Figure 5.4. Internet users as percentage of the entire population in selected countries .........................................................................................................193 Figure 5.5. Per capita gross regional domestic product without oil and gas at 2000 constant market prices by province (thousand rupiahs), 2013 ..............194 Figure 5.6. E-Participation Index ...........................................................................196 Figure 5.7. Online Service Index............................................................................196 Figure 5.8. UN e-Government Index ......................................................................201 Figure 5.9. ICT governance structures across the OECD.......................................203 Figure 5.10. Levers of ICT governance across OECD countries ...........................205 Figure 5.11. Selected central government Twitter accounts ..................................216 Figure 5.12. Indonesian institutional accounts on Facebook..................................216 Figure 5.13. OURdata Index: Open, useful and reusable government data, 2014 .......................................................................................................228 Figure 6.1. OECD flowchart of budget transparency .............................................240 Figure 6.2. OECD flowchart of openness, inclusiveness and participation in budgeting ........................................................................................................241 Figure 6.3. Links between government developmental planning and budgeting ...244 Figure 6.4. Annual budget cycle of Indonesia1 ......................................................248 Figure 6.5. Format of the budget ............................................................................250 Figure 6.6. Use of citizens’ budgets in OECD countries in 2012 ..........................252 Figure 6.7. Institutionalisation of participatory planning .......................................255 Figure 6.8. Transfers to regional development and village funds, 2005-16 ...........256 Figure 6.9. Land and forest governance index in selected districts 2012 ...............262 Figure 6.10. Composition of revenue on subnational levels of government, 2008-12......................................................................................264 Figure 6.11. Composition of expenditure on subnational levels of government, 2008-12......................................................................................264 Figure 7.1. East Java Province Public Sector Innovation Network ........................282 Figure 8.1. Percentage of countries involved in various types of public engagement .....................................................................................................299 Figure 8.2. Stages of the policy cycle.....................................................................308 Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

12 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms and abbreviations

ASEAN ATI Bappenas BPKP BPK RI CIO CoG CPI CSO DPD DPR DPRD EITI FOI GIZ GOI GRB ICEL ICT ICW INFID IPC IRM KemenPAN KOPEL KPK

Association of South-East Asian Nations Access to Information Ministry of National Development Planning (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional) Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (Sejarah Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan) Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia Chief Information Officer Centre of Government Corruption Perception Index Civil Society Organisation Regional Representatives Council House of Representatives Regional House of Representatives Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Freedom of Information German Society for International Co-operation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) Government of Indonesia Gender Responsive Budget Indonesia Centre for Environmental Law Information and Communication Technologies Indonesia Corruption Watch International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development Indonesian Parliamentary Centre Independent Reporting Mechanism Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara) Komite Pemantau Legislatif Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi)

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS – 13

LAN MaPPI MoF MTEF MPR NIS OG OGD OGI OGP OGR OPSI ORI PATTIRO PPID RPJMN RPJPN SAI SDGs SISKOHAT Stranas PPK TI TI-I UKP4 UNCAC USAID WHO YAPPIKA

Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga Administrasi Negara) Indonesian Court Monitoring Society (Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia) Ministry of Finance Medium-Term Expenditure Framework People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat) National Integrity System Open Government Open Government Data Open Government Indonesia Open Government Partnership Open Government Review OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia) Centre for Regional Information and Studies (Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional) Documentation and Information Management Offices (Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi) Medium-Term Development Plans National Long-Term Development Plan Supreme Audit Institutions Sustainable Development Goals Hajj Integrated Information and Computerised System National Anti-Corruption Strategy (Strategi Nasional Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Korupsi) Transparency International Transparency International Indonesia Presidential Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan) United Nation Convention against Corruption United States Agency for International Development World Health Organization Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi, Inisiatif dan Kemitraan Masyarakat Indonesia

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 15

Executive summary Indonesia has made continuous progress in promoting transparent and inclusive policy making since its democratic reforms began in 1998. As a founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and a leading member and the largest economy in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Indonesia has played a key role in disseminating open government principles and practices. The administration of President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) has reinforced Indonesia’s commitment to open government and has maintained Indonesia’s leadership within the OGP and in the design and drafting of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Indonesia must build on its legal, policy and institutional foundations to address the challenges of aligning national and local reform priorities by pursuing a whole-of-government “open state” approach. It should also seek to ensure that its open government reforms support inclusive growth and other multilateral reform initiatives, such as SDG implementation.

Steering and co-ordinating open government policies and practices The centre of government plays an important role in policy development and co-ordination, strategic planning, leading cross-departmental policy initiatives and monitoring progress and outcomes. Since 1998, Indonesia has sought to embed open government principles in its centre of government and public administration reform activities. Throughout Indonesia’s public administration reform efforts, strategic planning and performance management activities, the principles of transparency and accountability are gaining visibility and provide promising areas for expanding open government activities. Indonesia’s centre of government should therefore focus on helping to build capacity in the public administration to link open government activities to its other public-sector reform priorities and on ensuring that open government principles are reflected throughout the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting and feedback of public policies.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

16 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Citizen engagement in Indonesia Decentralisation reforms and various laws allowing for increased freedom of association and access to information have provided citizens with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels and to participate in policy making and service delivery. The government has supported participation through, for example, Public Information Offices, legal protections for whistleblowers, public involvement in service monitoring, participatory forums for national and local development planning, and civil society involvement in developing the OGP Action Plan.

The government will need to respond more effectively to public inputs and ensure that citizen engagement processes succeed in expanding public involvement. Indonesia should also develop a more structured whole-ofgovernment strategy for civic engagement, clarify and consolidate guidelines for citizen participation, continue to promote public access to information and evaluate the impact of citizen engagement efforts more systematically.

Open government, integrity and anti-corruption in Indonesia The government of Indonesia is committed to tackling corruption and building a culture of integrity in the public sector. In addition to the Corruption Eradication Commission, several other citizen feedback channels and complaint services (such as LAPOR) have been developed to encourage government accountability. In several areas, however, Indonesia will need to ensure that relevant laws are implemented effectively and that transparency measures lead to real accountability. Indonesia should also improve the connections between its reporting channels, provide better protection for whistleblowers and enhance asset declaration regulations. Opportunities also exist to further connect the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda with international best practices, instruments and objectives.

Open and digital government The digital transformations that have changed how people work, access information and share data present opportunities and challenges for Indonesia. Connected and informed constituencies are demanding more tailored and agile interactions with governments, more effective policies and improved public-sector performance. In addition to responding to these demands, budgetary pressures and the search for efficiency gains have prompted Indonesia to expand digitisation efforts, such as through the online Hajj pilgrimage management tool and the central open data portal, which is designed to provide access to key datasets and improve the transparency of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 17

public-sector activities. Indonesia will also need to address the digital divide, where urban, relatively wealthy and younger citizens have much higher Internet and mobile connections rates. Indonesia must therefore develop multi-channel service delivery models to support its digital tools and expand citizen engagement. Indonesia must also build government capacity and develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies to reap the full benefits offered by the information and communications technology tools already in place.

Public financial management: Budget transparency and citizen participation Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how governments plan budgetary policy and raise and use financial resources.

While Indonesia’s budget process has generally reflected its movement toward open government by formalising citizen engagement processes in the development of the budget priorities, the later phases of the budget cycle, particularly during the parliamentary budget review and approval processes, have not yet fully integrated the principles of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness. This could be improved by mandating the publication of meeting minutes, data and decisions. Furthermore, Indonesia’s diverse institutional landscape and strong subnational governments pose challenges to ensuring the uniform implementation of national laws such as those on budget information transparency and to disseminating good practices throughout the public administration.

Innovation in the public sector Indonesia is strengthening the institutional capacity of its public sector to develop innovative solutions to drive change and increase government openness. Open government principles can likewise promote innovation by enhancing public involvement to collect information, share best practices and generate ideas. Like many OECD countries, Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government policy on fostering innovation in the public sector and lacks clear technical guidance, standard operating procedures and a comprehensive incentive system to motivate public officials to innovate. Nevertheless, Indonesia exhibits a number of important examples of public-sector innovation at all government levels, touching on areas including health, education, business licensing, access to services, etc.

Indonesia would benefit from scaling up relevant initiatives and strengthening cross-government co-ordination to avoid duplication and to help streamline efforts.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

18 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Open government and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda Linking the broad themes of improved governance, transparency and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is particularly relevant for Indonesia, as the country played a leading role in establishing the OGP and designing the SDGs. Open government practices contribute to the substantive targets of the SDGs primarily through Goal 16, though the principles of engagement, transparency and accountability also support the implementation of all SDG targets that seek to enhance social, economic, and political inclusion, expand community engagement, and increase access to information. Importantly, furthermore, open government principles can also support the process that leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of the SDGs. Through its establishment of an SDG Secretariat to co-ordinate the government’s response, Indonesia has recognised the importance of acting strategically in pursuing the SDGs. Continuing to develop the linkages between Indonesia’s open government activities, such as the OGP National Action Plan development process, and the design and implementation process for the SDGs, will also help ensure that the government’s open government agenda simultaneously supports the SDGs.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 19

Assessment and recommendations The Government of Indonesia (GOI) has asked the OECD to assess how open government policies and principles are integrated in and contribute to Indonesia’s broader public governance reforms and to provide recommendations based on OECD good practices, principles and instruments. The present OECD Open Government Review (henceforth the review) covers the following areas: open government context and drivers, steering and co-ordination of open government policies and initiatives, citizen participation, integrity and anti-corruption, ICTs and open data, budget transparency, and innovation in the public sector. A final chapter is dedicated to the links between open government and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Given the country’s impressive though unfinished liberalisation process, which started in 1998, the question identified by the current administration is how open government principles and practices can help the country expand on the successes made to date and how to address the areas still left for improvement. While Indonesia’s focus on implementing open government reforms dates back to 2011, the recent approval, in September 2015, of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides an opportunity to explore the links between the principles of transparency, accountability and citizen participation with the national development agenda, as explicitly requested by Indonesia.

Indonesia’s efforts to implement open government initiatives are an extension and continuation of the country’s broader reform efforts. The fall of President Suharto in 1998 initiated the Reformasi period, in which the country pursued more open and liberal policies by, inter alia, providing for greater freedom of speech and an enhanced role for civic participation. This era of reform also led to broad decentralisation, whereby sub-national governments have started to play a fundamental role in the provision of government services.

Despite these efforts, however, Indonesia’s governance indicators show a complex picture and suggest that the reform efforts are not yet complete.

On the one hand, citizen confidence in the government and the country’s relative good performance within Southeast Asia regarding perceptions of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

20 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS freedoms of expression, association and media suggest that Indonesia is well positioned to continue to use open government reforms to build on these achievements. Conversely, the citizens’ perception of high corruption and relative low government effectiveness call to attention pressing governance challenges.

These challenges are particularly important to tackle given that many of the development challenges the country faces – including more and better infrastructure, improving health and education outcomes, strengthening the social safety net and fighting poverty and inequality, and responding to the diverse needs of various ethno-cultural and regionally based groups – have significant governance implications. Good governance, including the government’s ability to set, co-ordinate, implement and monitor publicsector reforms, is therefore key to ensuring that policy objectives can be achieved efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2013).

Since the start of Indonesia’s democratisation process, the number of civil society groups and the prominence of their role has grown due to increasingly favourable policy and legal frameworks at the central level, as well as to the de-centralisation process that has created new opportunities for the public to engage in policy design and service delivery at the subnational level. Indonesia’s civil society organisations have played – and continue to play – a crucial role in promoting and implementing open government activities in the country.

The first dedicated push toward implementing specific open government policies came during the administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. It was under President Yudhoyono that the country helped found the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in September 2011 and became compliant with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in October 2014. The Yudhoyono administration also established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (UKP4), which was tasked with supervising, co-ordinating and helping to ensure the successful implementation of open government initiatives.

During the election campaign of 2014, President Jokowi pledged to bring a more inclusive style of politics to the office of the president, and he has maintained the administration’s focus on implementing open government principles. Despite the continuity between administrations in their support for open government policies, the transition between administrations was disruptive nonetheless. With the change of government at the end of 2014, the UKP4 was dissolved, and the new government did not establish arrangements for the management of open government initiatives until 2015. Importantly, however, many of the open government programmes implemented under President Yudhoyono have remained, and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 21

many of UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas) and the Executive Office of the President, which together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now form the National Open Government Secretariat that has the mandate to co-ordinate the national and international open government agenda. Furthermore, the country’s election to the OGP Support Unit Steering Committee for 2015-18 and the Jokowi administration’s commitment to serve as co-chair of the OECD’s Network for Open and Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, which was launched in Jakarta in March 2015, both highlight Indonesia’s dedication to promoting open government globally.

Nevertheless, Indonesia is faced with the challenges of translating its broad strategy into specific goals, synchronising its work with the local level, and ensuring buy-in for the reform process across national ministries and agencies. These challenges suggest that the Government of Indonesia should seek to develop an “open state” that would formalise collaboration of open government issues across the executive, legislative and judicial branches to promote a whole-of-government approach. This OECD Open Government Review will look at how Indonesia can respond to these challenges and develop a comprehensive policy to streamline open government and civic engagement.

Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices Broadly, the institutions at the centre of government (CoG) – namely, those institutions that provide direct support and advice to the head of government – primarily direct the steering and co-ordination of Indonesia’s open government policies and reforms at the national level. Indonesia finds itself in a strong position to foster open government policies and practices.

First, being a co-founder of the OGP and having a tradition of national institutional structures promoting the open government agenda, such as UKP4 and more recently the National Open Government Secretariat, has helped provide the institutional infrastructure to support open government.

Furthermore, Indonesia’s legal and regulatory framework on open government generally supports transparency and accountability via the Constitution, Freedom of Information Law of 2008, etc., and the country’s key strategic policy documents such as the Presidential Priorities and the Medium-Term National Development Plan 2015-19 all reflect open government priorities.

Since the Reformasi era’s democratisation push, Indonesia has identified openness in government as a tool to achieve its goals of providing better access to and quality of public services. In addition to the country’s specific focus on open government, three broad reform areas affect the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

22 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS implementation of the country’s open government reforms: the bureaucratic reform agenda, the country’s decentralisation and its strategic planning process. Each of these three reform areas can be linked with specific open government priorities and goals, such as increased transparency or increased consultation and participation.

The country’s bureaucratic reform efforts show how open government priorities such as transparency and accountability are part of the broader public administration reform agenda. For example, the current 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap provides detailed plans to evolve toward a bureaucracy that is clean, accountable, effective and efficient. Through its leadership in the current Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN) plays an important role as a CoG actor.

Second, Indonesia’s de-centralisation push since the turn of the 21st century has changed the structure of the public administration, as well as the state-citizen relationship, and as the decision-making process came (physically) much closer to citizens, new opportunities for public consultation and participation arose. Despite this shift, there have been concerns about the lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government as well as the relationships between them.

Moving forward, the challenge will be to grant both administrative and financial autonomy to local governments while ensuring that central coordination is performed in a way and to an extent that is locally acceptable and that the central government’s national priorities are met. The country’s CoG actors will play an important role in enabling open government and in managing the complexity, size and different levels of capacity that affect the multi-level governance dynamics.

Finally, the country’s strategic planning process and increased attention to performance management offer possible entry points to anchor the open government agenda. In response to Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development Planning System, the Government of Indonesia is required to draft National Long-Term Development Plans (RPJPN) every 20 years.

Within the long-term development plan cycle, the government is required to draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMN) every five years. These five-year cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the National Long-Term Development Plan.

The goal of the current National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-19 with respect to public governance is to build a government that is “clean, effective, democratic and reliable.” Importantly, the plan’s strategies regarding public administration and open government reforms also support OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 23

the Jokowi administration’s National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita), which synthesises the nine presidential policy priorities for the 2014-19 period and incorporates a clear reference to open government. The RPJMN also informs the annual strategic planning process. Through this system, Bappenas has established itself as a key CoG actor to foster strategic coherence throughout the public sector.

By fostering its open government agenda at the international, national and local level, the country’s multi-level approach to open government is ambitious, although it also presents some challenges. In particular, there is a risk that efforts to promote open government are somewhat scattered and disconnected. The newly created National Open Government Secretariat, staffed by personnel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas and the Executive Office of the President (KSP) was designed in part to mitigate that risk.

The government envisions six major functions for the National Open Government Secretariat: public policy and co-ordination; open data and IT platforms; capacity development; monitoring, evaluation and knowledge management; public outreach and communication; and finance and administration. The National Open Government Secretariat will also play a co-ordinating role for provincial and district/municipality-level open government efforts. Given the country’s de-centralisation process and, hence, the fact that open government is to a large extent is expected to be delivered at the sub-national level, the catalyst role of such sub-national secretariats will be important.

The GOI has made important progress in developing the legal, policy and institutional framework supporting open government. Moving forward, the GOI must continue to focus on ensuring that these developments are reflected throughout the policy cycle. Strong leadership from the CoG will continue to be critical in guaranteeing that the government is able to implement its open government priorities. The OECD recommends the following proposals to support Indonesia’s centre of government coordination efforts:

•

Strengthen the connections across, and mutual reinforcement of, different governance agendas, including the Presidential Priorities; Annual, Medium- and Long-term National Development Plans; OGP Action Plans; and other reform agendas such as the Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap. This suggests, among other implications, that the CoG should develop a coherent strategic approach, carefully consider complementarity across initiatives and identify multiplier effects.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

24 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS •

Improve co-ordination horizontally (between the CoG and line ministries) and vertically (between central government and decentralised levels of government) to help maintain broad ownership of the open government agenda. Indonesia is characterised by a high level of complexity when dealing with governance issues, both because of its size and its de-centralised governance structure. The GOI should pursue the active involvement of both line ministries and de-centralised governmental structures throughout the policy cycle, as well as the development of appropriate incentives to deliver the open government agenda.

•

Connect the planning process for open government initiatives with strategic follow-up of deliverables, particularly by providing sufficient resources for the monitoring and evaluation of results. Specifically, the CoG should ensure that the OGP Action Plan cycle is linked to the national planning and budget cycle to make sure that open government activities have a secured budget and are part of the national monitoring system. A major task – or challenge – of the National Open Government Secretariat is, next to the promotion of the open government agenda, to link the country’s efforts under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with its ongoing public service reform efforts and to help ensure that the SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and initiatives.

•

Build local capacity and foster a culture among civil servants that supports open government principles, so that understanding of and support for open government reforms are central to the public sector’s activities.

Citizen engagement in Indonesia The role of citizens and civil society groups in public governance has continued to grow in importance since the democratic reforms that began in 1998. This has been due to the dual effects of laws that have allowed for increased freedom of association and access to information, as well as the country’s de-centralisation process. Together, these reforms have provided citizens with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels, as well as to participate in policy making and service delivery.

Good information on the make-up of the Indonesian civil society sector is limited. While a detailed review of the sector in 2012 estimated that there were roughly 2,300 active and viable civil service organisations (CSOs) throughout Indonesia, the lack of details creates difficulties for other CSOs, donors and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to identify where the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 25

organisations are operating, what they are working on and how to contact them. The report also noted that most CSOs active in the field of open government in Indonesia are located disproportionately in Jakarta, and they generally focus on service delivery or organising communities for self-help rather than on macro-level changes (AusAID, 2012) or on advocacy on specific policy issues.

Despite the progress made by civil society organisations since Indonesia’s democratisation, the legacy of the country’s political control prevented the growth of a vibrant public sector, and it has only been over the past two decades that CSOs have been able to play a key role in identifying solutions. Another legacy of the country’s past repression of civil society groups is that government officials have often considered the design and delivery of public services as their domain and view citizens only as end users, not as stakeholders. While this attitude is clearly changing, the capacity of CSOs and the government to translate citizen preferences into policies does not have deep roots in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010) and would benefit from greater support both by the government and by the international community.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the country’s legal framework, beginning with the 1945 Constitution and including subsequent laws, regulations and presidential decrees, provides a sound foundation for openness and citizen engagement. Namely, it recognises the public’s right to participation, guarantees access to information and provides the mechanisms through which information is disseminated, and establishes various independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms.

The public right to information is broadly acknowledged in the 1945 Constitution and in Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information. These legal instruments guarantee access to information (ATI) and require proactive publication by most public bodies (with the exception of some law enforcement and judiciary offices) when part or all of their funds originate from a government budget. Importantly, Indonesian law guarantees the government’s obligation to provide information as well as the citizens’ right to know. It also requires that public agencies establish an information and documentation system to manage public information properly and efficiently in order to ensure accessibility.

The mechanism through which government offices disseminate information in Indonesia is primarily the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) offices. The law also establishes the support mechanisms to decide on implementing procedures, settle disputes brought by requesters of information and report on the implementation of the law to the president and the parliament. Regarding the PPID offices, even though OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

26 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS the government implemented Law 14/2008 in 2010, as of March 2015, less than 50% of the PPID units have been established across all levels of government. Without PPID offices, the public’s access to information is limited, as there is no other designated government unit designed to handle requests for information.

One factor that has held back the institution of PPID offices has been the extent to which the implementation depends on local governments that have varying degrees of interest and capacity. Furthermore, many offices have not faced much public pressure for improved access to public information and thus have not prioritised the law’s implementation. The GOI’s approach is therefore to enhance both the “supply” of information (the ability for the government to provide information) and the “demand” for information (the desire of the public to obtain information). Establishing PPID offices is a critical step in supporting the supply of information and ensuring that the law functions as intended.

The 1945 Constitution also recognises explicitly the right to associate, assemble and express opinions. Subsequent laws and other legal instruments have further ensured and delineated the rights of civil society organisations, as well as the public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and participate in policy planning and evaluation. The country’s legal and policy framework also provides support for the protection of whistleblowers and establishes the foundation for public participation in the overview of public service provision, including via the creation of the National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or ORI) and through platforms such as LAPOR, which serves as a public online platform that provides a complaint-handling service at the national and sub-national levels.

The primary legal vehicle that supports citizen participation is Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimise public participation” and delineates the public’s ability to participate formally in government activities via the Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Forum for Development Planning process (Musyawarah Rencana Pembangunan, or Musrenbang). While the Musrenbang process is an important formal opportunity to involve the public in determining development priorities across all levels of government, both government and CSO representatives noted its limitations, primarily involving identifying the correct CSO partners, ensuring that public inputs are taken into account, and reporting on their impact to citizens and civil society to avoid consultation fatigue or – worse – mistrust and lack of participation in future consultations.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 27

The government’s explicit intention of improving its relationship with citizens is also evidenced in the relevance of this topic in its National Annual, Mid- and Long-Term Development Plans and the administration’s governing platform, Nawa Cita. The mutually reinforcing nature of these strategies signals the country’s formal recognition of the public’s essential role in setting and monitoring policies and services. Because of this, CSOs expressed the hope that the administration will pursue the open government priorities expressed in the long-term and medium-term strategies by, for example, ensuring that the National Open Government Secretariat is made permanent, thereby giving a sign of stability and, in the future, helping to smooth the transition between administrations.

The OECD has developed a number of recommendations based on the analysis of current civil engagement practices and strategic opportunities in Indonesia:

•

Develop a more structured and consistent whole-of-government policy to streamline open government and civic engagement.

Although open government and civil engagement priorities are included in the country’s development strategies, Indonesia should focus on translating its national vision on open government into specific actions, including timelines, lead agencies and actors, etc.

•

Clarify the guidelines for citizen participation. Establishing a structured, systematic and transparent mechanism for citizen engagement would help foster the involvement of a larger share of the population. For example, the government could develop a Code of Practice on Citizen Consultation to delineate the role of public consultation in the law-making process, specify the opportunities for public engagement and create mechanisms for government reviews on how consultation processes influence policy.

•

Promote a culture of civic engagement by communicating outcomes and success stories with the public and civil servants. Investing in outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines for public communication and training for government officials – is essential to promoting effective engagement, as it helps give citizens the sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication, especially regarding success stories, can also help build support for open government initiatives throughout the government.

•

Support the capacity of the country’s civil society organisations to engage actively in public governance activities. Despite the deepening of the relationship between the public and the government in Indonesia,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

28 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS there is still scope to increase the role of CSOs. To this end, the GOI can:

− Provide tools and training opportunities for civil society representatives and the public to help support the planning, implementation and evaluation of government policies and to secure their position as partners in the provision of government services.

Building CSOs’ capacity to advocate for the public and to take full advantage of enhanced engagement mechanisms will be critical in improving citizen engagement in Indonesia, particularly outside of Jakarta. − Identify opportunities to engage with the public in the co-delivery of public services.

•

Promote public access to information. Despite Indonesia’s legal framework supporting ATI, the government could do more to ensure freedom of information by helping to ensure the anonymity of information requests and promoting access to information. Improving sensitisation efforts to build knowledge of the FOI law and building human resources capacity would also help facilitate the establishment of PPID offices.

•

Increase the country’s capacity to evaluate the impact of citizen engagement efforts. For example, this could include enhanced tracking of statistics and information on the number and results of public consultations, as well as more consistent data collection of such interactions at the local level. The national government could also facilitate co-ordination across the public engagement tools that are already in place and deepen its analysis of the value-added of public consultations. Importantly, the GOI should also focus on building the capacity of public officials to process information received during consultations, such as the Musrenbang, and to report government decisions back to the public. Together, these efforts will help ensure the quality and effectiveness of public engagement and highlight the public’s impact on public policy.

Open government, integrity and anti-corruption Indonesia Tackling corruption, in all its forms, remains a priority in Indonesia, and the government is committed to building a culture of integrity, in collaboration with public officials at all levels, CSOs, the private sector and ordinary citizens. From an open government perspective, citizens play a prominent role in promoting a culture of integrity across three broad areas: OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 29

participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability, and awareness raising.

The Government of Indonesia has shown its commitment to collaborating with citizens and CSOs in promoting a culture of integrity through consultation initiatives in the development of its anti-corruption policies, the use of citizen feedback in monitoring anti-corruption progress and by implementing joint awareness-raising activities. For example, in addition to the corruption-specific whistleblower channel operated by the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), several channels exist, such as LAPOR, the Ombudsman Offices, and complaint services within line ministries and at the sub-national level. Together, these contribute to improving government systems and corruption eradication.

Despite these multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional arrangements, challenges arise in terms of processing capacity, willingness to adopt structural changes and overlapping reporting channels, all of which may further exacerbate capacity constraints. Moreover, with different institutions and channels involved, issues of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs may pose important integrity issues in their own right.

Another avenue through which citizens can strengthen the demand for integrity in the public sector and in society as a whole is through their role as watchdogs, helped by CSOs, media and public institutions. In addition to the KPK, relevant public integrity institutions include the two public audit institutions, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), although these have not yet been at the forefront in engaging with citizens.

In order to play this oversight and accountability role, ensuring the availability of reporting channels, providing assurances of follow-up on the part of the government and protecting whistleblowers are key conditions that need to be in place. Effective protection of whistleblowers is particularly important to help instil a culture of integrity, as it enables citizens to report corruption, as well as to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public institutions more generally. Notably, Indonesia has established legal and institutional provisions for the protection of whistleblowers through several laws, though these laws could be strengthened, as they do not yet provide comprehensive protection against discriminatory or retaliatory action.

Asset disclosure is another key element of any public-sector integrity framework, as it is an important tool for transparency and oversight of public officials. The asset disclosure system in Indonesia covers a wide range of public officials, and compliance with administrative and bureaucratic procedures is increasing as more data become available online.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

30 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Nevertheless, Indonesia’s asset declaration system faces several challenges, including that it does not stipulate clear-cut provisions on verification and on administrative and criminal penalties. Moreover, the KPK may not have sufficient resources to verify all asset reports and analyse them to detect corruption.

Finally, in order to foster a culture of integrity across all levels of society, the government should pursue awareness-raising activities, such as citizen education initiatives, communication campaigns and information exchanges. Notably, the KPK has implemented various awareness-raising, public information and broadcast activities. As some of these activities are carried out in partnership with CSOs, the KPK could use the OGP National Action Plan development process to explore synergies with CSOs in civic education and anti-corruption awareness raising.

Opportunities exist to further link the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda with OECD and international standards, instruments and objectives, including the United Nations 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals.

In several anti-corruption areas, including reporting channels, whistleblower protection and asset declaration, Indonesia has made significant efforts in recent years to increase transparency and accountability, as well as to engage with citizens and CSOs. In order to build on the country’s efforts to improve transparency in its anti-corruption efforts, the OECD has developed the following recommendations designed to strengthen the three interrelated roles of public participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability, and awareness raising:

•

Continue to involve CSOs throughout the anti-corruption policy cycle, including in agenda setting, the policy development process, and monitoring and evaluation activities. Specifically, further explore synergies between the KPK and CSOs in civic education and anticorruption awareness raising. The GOI should also look to strengthen co-operation between citizens and the two public audit institutions in Indonesia – the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) – to promote a culture of integrity.

•

Explore how the multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional arrangements can be more effective and efficient in producing structural changes for good governance. This may require a thorough assessment of processing capacity, analysis of gaps and overlap, and examination of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs throughout the complaint-handling cycle.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 31

•

Examine the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory framework.

Namely, review the whistleblower protection regime and examine how to make improvements, for example by including legislation that stipulates disciplinary action, placing the burden of proof on the employer to prove that any action taken against an employee is unrelated to his or her whistleblowing, etc.

•

Consider establishing a regulatory framework for lobbying, aiming to enable public scrutiny and to further protect the policy cycle from capture.

•

Strengthen the effectiveness of the asset disclosure system for corruption prevention and prosecution through setting priorities based on a risk assessment and an evaluation of the processing capacity.

Open government, ICTs, social media and open data The digital transformations that have changed how people work, access information and share data present both opportunities and challenges for the Government of Indonesia. More connected and informed constituencies are demanding more tailored and agile interactions with the public administration, more effective policies and improved public-sector performance. In Indonesia, as is common globally, budgetary pressures and the search for efficiency gains have also encouraged the government to improve and scale up its digitisation efforts.

The use of ICTs to support open government and to satisfy the demands of more transparent and participatory governance relies on infrastructural enablers of digital government, such as access to the Internet. Although Indonesia has benefited from sustained growth in the number of Internet users and mobile subscriptions, the growth rate of Internet users has been modest compared with regional peers or other countries facing similar demographic or geographic challenges, with Internet users in Indonesia representing merely 17.14% of the population. The GOI will also need to respond to challenges presented by a digital divide across regions and income levels. If not addressed, existing digital divides are likely to aggravate regional inequalities as the country transitions toward a more digital-intensive economy. Besides regional disparities, even in the bestequipped urban areas, digital divides are still determined significantly by gender, age and education levels (Sujarwoto and Tampubolom, 2013; Utomo et al, 2013). This context hinders the impact of digitally enabled participation, transparency and service delivery.

Addressing the existing digital divide requires significant levels of investment. Ensuring the expected returns on investment, however, also OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

32 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS makes it necessary for the government to look at the demand for ICT use. In certain regions, both public officials and citizens lack the knowledge and skills to take advantage of the benefits of having access to the Internet, highlighting that overcoming the divide depends on more than just access to infrastructure and the affordability of technological devices. Despite the limited access to ICTs for certain segments of the population, it is important to note that Indonesian urban and tech-savvy youth have grasped the opportunities provided by digital technologies. Broadly, Indonesian Internet users are overwhelmingly young and very active on social media.

The Government of Indonesia has been able to produce digital public services that represent an important step in the design of more citizenoriented services, supporting greater transparency and citizen engagement.

For instance, the Ministry of Religious Affairs developed SISKOHAT, an innovative application that is helping Indonesian citizens monitor their status in the queue for the Hajj pilgrimage.

Moreover, the Indonesian public sector is increasingly interested in leveraging the creativity, skills and ideas for innovation existing outside of the public sector to solve persisting problems while easing the financial burdens of public authorities. These initiatives pursue a more citizen-driven approach in the development of solutions and services, recognising citizens as partners and giving them the opportunity to determine service priorities.

For instance, increasing awareness about the potential of user-driven approaches has been the driving force for the organisation of thematic hackathons, particularly at the local level. Such local-level initiatives empower Indonesian citizens and developers to propose innovative solutions to improve healthcare and education, fight corruption, manage disasters or support small farmers. These activities have also provided local governments with the opportunity to engage with service users and better understand their needs.

These initiatives operate as small pockets of innovation and have not yet benefited from the necessary co-ordination and scaling-up mechanisms.

Insufficient levels of interoperability of government information systems have hindered the public sector’s ability to deliver transactional and integrated services that encourage the use and uptake of online channels and improve the quality of services and the management of its data. Scaling up these initiatives to achieve systemic changes in digital service design and delivery would require the development of governance frameworks, standards and guidelines that can help civil servants design, prototype, test and deploy services in more effective and participatory ways.

Furthermore, the Government of Indonesia has recognised the potential represented by Open Government Data (OGD) – namely, the release of data OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 33

collected and produced by public organisations while performing their tasks or of data commissioned with public funds – to enhance the transparency, accountability, integrity and performance of the public sector. Indonesia’s central open data portal, which is designed to provide easy access to key datasets and improve the transparency of key public-sector activities, is signalled as one of the country’s current OGP commitments, and the use of open government data for anti-corruption is part of the country’s National Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Eradication. Moreover, Indonesia was an active contributor in the elaboration and adoption of the International Open Data Charter and in the development and adoption of the G20 Open Data Principles for Anti-Corruption. These engagements illustrate Indonesia’s commitment and support for OGD as a tool to implement open government reforms.

Reaping the full benefits and efficiency gains offered by ICTs requires that Indonesia develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies across levels of government despite significant levels of de-centralisation.

The Government of Indonesia will need to take steps toward creating more transparent and inclusive decision-making processes and public-sector activities in line with the “OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies” and outlined below:

•

To unlock the transformative potential of technologies in the context of changing government-society dynamics, the Government of Indonesia should make substantive efforts to achieve scale on its key initiatives. Participatory platforms should be expanded to achieve a critical mass of users, and other potentially high-impact initiatives should be strengthened and streamlined for the government to be able to reap its full benefits (e.g. LAPOR, public dialogues, hackathons, service design standards, etc.). This will require additional resources and plans to develop institutional capacities, regulatory frameworks such as standards for service design, robust co-ordination and peer-learning mechanisms.

•

The use of digital technologies should be framed by an overarching policy to help ensure strategic coherence across the administration.

This policy should be aligned with broader policy objectives – such as those on open government and sustainable development – and with public-sector reform strategies and action plans. The policy should provide coherent incentives to create a culture that strengthens the use of technology for more open, innovative and participatory service design and delivery. Involving the relevant stakeholders in the development of the digital government policy will help ensure that the resulting strategies appropriately reflect the different views. This will also help to

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

34 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS develop a common vision and align objectives with the required levels of ownership for successful implementation and to deliver impact.

•

The development of the policy with contributions from all stakeholders also provides the opportunity to design sound institutional frameworks with desirable levels of accountability, control and transparency. This should include strong co-ordination mechanisms at the strategic and operational levels to ensure alignment with the government’s ambitions and institutional mechanisms. Institutional arrangements should clarify roles and responsibilities in digital government policy making, particularly between the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. The Government of Indonesia would also benefit from a Chief Digital Officer under the National Chief Information Officer that can support the digital transformation, making government digital by design.

•

The Government of Indonesia should align incentives for public institutions and civil servants to respond to national policy objectives and facilitate a fundamental cultural shift across the government toward more open, inclusive and citizen-driven processes and toward the development of ICT and data skills. To achieve this, the governance frameworks of digital government should equip the coordinating unit with the adequate mix of policy levers (“carrots” and “sticks”) to be able to induce the expected behavioural change across public institutions.

•

The development of the National E-Government Master Plan should be complemented with the establishment of a business case methodology and an ICT project management model that can help public institutions better plan and structure their ICT investments.

These management tools would allow public institutions to clearly identify expected benefits, manage risks, monitor the implementation of ICT projects, identify drivers of failure and success, and make adjustments as required. The creation of such a tool would allow the Government of Indonesia to monitor and evaluate ICT initiatives both at a micro and macro level more effectively.

•

The Government of Indonesia should develop a strategic approach to the use of alternative channels for public engagement and service delivery, such as social media platforms and mobile phones. This new approach should recognise the potential of social media and mobile devices as sources of data, allowing the Government of Indonesia to use predictive analytics to spot trends, analyse social interactions and determine service users’ needs. A strategic approach in the use of this OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 35

channel can help the Government of Indonesia increase its outreach for service delivery to vulnerable or excluded segments of the population living in remote areas (e.g. m-services).

•

The Government of Indonesia should recognise data as a strategic asset and develop governance frameworks, infrastructure and institutional capacities to support the strategic use of government data for decision making. To avoid missing the opportunities of government data and of the digital era more broadly, the Government of Indonesia must create a vigorous broadband ecosystem that includes an enabling legal and regulatory environment, as well as appropriate market conditions supporting high-quality services.

•

Make efforts to develop a dynamic open government data ecosystem, which will require addressing legal and regulatory challenges and limitations, raising awareness and ownership, developing data skills across society, and actively engaging with data producers, providers and users to identify valuable datasets and foster reuse that can deliver social, economic and good governance value.

Public financial management with a focus on budget transparency and citizen participation Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how governments plan, raise and use financial resources, in the process underpinning sound public financial management. It has therefore become a broadly accepted principle of public financial management over the past two decades and a cornerstone of public governance themes such as open government, civic participation and public-sector performance.

Indonesia’s political democratisation process and movement toward transparency, in addition to the advent of the inclusive national strategic planning development process, have affected budgeting and public financial management. In broad terms, Indonesia’s developmental planning framework has some advanced and innovative features. These aspects of the policy-development framework are compatible with the OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance, which explicitly calls on governments to “ensure that budget documents and data are open, transparent and accessible” and to “provide for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices”. However, the later phases of the budget cycle and other domains of public financial management have not yet integrated transparency, openness and inclusiveness into their systems to the same extent.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

36 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the review looks at public financial management with a focus on both budget transparency and citizen participation. The key challenges faced by Indonesia in these areas primarily relate to the management of a diverse institutional landscape across multiple levels of government. Notably, this diversity leads to difficulties in ensuring the uniform implementation of national laws (in particular those relating to budget information transparency) and disseminating good practices throughout the public administration.

Regarding budget transparency, the legal framework for budgeting and public financial management that emerged following the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the transition to democracy in 1998 comprises relevant laws in the areas of development planning, budgeting, regional governance, state auditing, fiscal balance and disclosure of public information. The enactment of the laws related to the budget process were part of a broader reform agenda moving away from the budget being conducted predominantly by the centre of government toward a system in which the parliament is more deeply involved in budget formulation, scrutiny, approval and oversight. Recent reforms have refocused the parliament’s role on the budgeting process, allowing the parliament a greater degree of strategic input as opposed to its prior function of providing detailed budget scrutiny.

Linking the national developmental planning and budgeting process at every level of government is important to provide a solid foundation for budget transparency. Together with involving all relevant stakeholders and ensuring access to information, this integrated approach can help ensure that the government achieves the best possible outcomes. Ensuring transparency in the legislative, execution and auditing phases of the budgetary process can support anti-corruption efforts, as well as evidence-based policy making in priority areas such as social inclusion, education or healthcare.

While the Ministry of Finance has provided access to aggregated budget data on their website, other public agencies, such as line ministries, committees and local governments, decide independently whether to follow this practice, and the practice is not yet universal. Nevertheless, several subnational governments have developed transparency initiatives that may provide models for future expansion.

Regarding public participation in budgeting, while Indonesia’s public finances include elements of participation, public involvement is more advanced in national development planning than it is for the budget cycle.

Parliamentary engagement in budget deliberations is in line with the OECD recommendations, although public involvement is limited. The situation is similar concerning public participation in the budget’s implementation and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 37

auditing phases. There is therefore scope to increase the inclusiveness of already existing public participation initiatives, including the Musrenbang meetings and the village funding mechanisms. One important goal would be to eliminate obstacles facing certain sub-groups and to provide greater openness to the views of local representatives on how resources are applied in their areas.

Good practices for participative budgeting also exist throughout the public administration, which may be applied more broadly after adapting them to local needs and circumstances. Nationally, the Ministry of Finance holds occasional public hearings on the budget prior to approval by the legislature; building on this, the centre of government could look into lessons to be derived from executive-led participation processes.

Finally, over the past 15 years, the GOI has increasingly integrated a gender perspective into policy planning and implementation, and civic engagement has been strengthened via an increasing focus on thematic issues such as gender. During this period, the government introduced gender-responsive budgets, which allocate funds to meet gender-responsive objectives, as well as the National Program on Citizen’s Empowerment (PNPM). Key priorities and achievements of these initiatives include introducing gender mainstreaming in leadership training exercises, ensuring equal treatment for training and scholarships, and offering maternity leave, although it is unclear to what extent these initiatives have been mainstreamed across the public sector.

Based on this review, the OECD has developed the following key recommendations:

•

Improve the quality and quantity of data and information accessible for the public throughout the budget cycle. In part, this suggests that the GOI should continue joint efforts of the Ministry of Finance and CSOs to develop web-based solutions that provide open budget data at both the central and local government levels using an integrated platform. The GOI should also look to improve access to information about indicative budget ceilings and programme priorities, including via the Musrenbang process. Furthermore, during the budget approval process, parliament could make the working sessions of the committees more open, including by publishing minutes of meetings, data and decisions.

•

Improve the content and the timing of the budget documents. The GOI should make available the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal.

This would facilitate stakeholders in engaging in a realistic and

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

38 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS constructive debate. The government should also publish the Citizens’ Budget as early as possible so that it can engage more citizens throughout the process, potentially leading to greater inclusiveness of budgetary priority setting. The GOI could also open the audit process to public engagement through regular reporting of audit results and soliciting the views of stakeholders on the quality and impacts of public spending. This would enhance confidence in the integrity and efficacy of public financial management.

•

Strengthen public participation in the budget cycle. This could include increasing the co-operation between the parliamentary budget office and civil society organisations, for example by providing opportunities to comment on the economic forecasts; improving the inclusiveness of the Musrenbang meetings; granting public access to the proposal of the budget and other budget-related meetings of the parliament; and allowing, through a regulated mechanism, for accredited/pre-selected CSOs to submit alternative suggestions to the budget.

•

Strengthen the monitoring of local governments by building their capacity and encouraging the participation of local stakeholders.

This could include continuing efforts to implement participative gender budgeting and other thematic approaches to budget monitoring.

•

Deeper impact could be achieved through targeted training for local officials and citizens, leading to proposals that fit local needs better and complement national development programmes. Assisting certain subgroups of the society (such as and citizens with disabilities) that face difficulties in attending meetings would promote the representative quality of the budgeting process. Improving Internet access in rural areas and applying web-based solutions would also contribute to more active participation and inclusiveness.

Innovation in the public sector In instituting its reform agenda, Indonesia is focused on strengthening the institutional capacity of its public-sector organisations to learn from and replicate international good practice while at the same time developing its own innovative solutions. This section focuses on how innovation, while often associated with other public-sector reform agendas, can also support open government principles, the impact of policy reforms and the reach of government initiatives. Similar to many OECD countries, however, Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government policy on fostering innovation in the public sector. Furthermore, Indonesia may also OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 39

need to continue to develop a common understanding of what constitutes public-sector innovation across the national government.

The enabling framework supporting innovation in Indonesia encompasses both the legal provisions and strategic plans that reinforce the development of innovative solutions in government. Notably, Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Services and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the Civil Service provide a context for government action to increase the quality of public services and enhance the flexibility and transparency of the civil service.

Additionally, Law No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government supports innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators in case of failure. Furthermore, the National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-19 indicates public innovation as instrumental to improving the quality of public services, and the OGP 2014-15 Action Plan recognises the contribution of innovation to “unlock Indonesia’s potential in the economy, public services and innovation”. The OGP Action Plan also notes specifically that one of the plan’s goals of increasing the availability of open data will improve innovation, in addition to public services and economic growth.

While there are several initiatives that identify and acknowledge publicsector innovation at the central government level in Indonesia, these efforts appear to be isolated, and formal structures for ensuring co-ordination of innovation from a central government perspective are not yet in place.

Notably, the GOI lacks a comprehensive incentive system to motivate public officials to innovate; the lack of technical guidance and standard operating procedures has also been flagged as a barrier facing government innovators at the local level. The Ministry of Interior is looking into developing partnership models to encourage government, community groups and the private sector to come together to provide technical assistance and funding mechanisms.

Nevertheless, Indonesia exhibits a number of important examples of public-sector innovation at the national and local level, as well as those that focus on service delivery for improved social outcomes. It is important to recognise these examples, as experience from OECD member countries has shown that using a variety of innovative approaches to increase the transparency and the performance of public services can maximise impact.

The review has identified the following key recommendations regarding the development of innovation in the public sector in Indonesia:

•

Innovation happens across the country, and the GOI recognises and rewards innovation efforts. The government has not, however, implemented the systems and procedures to ensure that innovation sticks, nor has it developed mechanisms for the systematic exchange

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

40 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS across the public sector of good experiences. The GOI should consider taking a co-ordinated approach to identifying and tackling the barriers to innovation creation and diffusion in the public sector.

Detailing a vision and plan of action with interventions could create momentum to support a change agenda, as well as ensure buy-in and support of responsible entities during implementation.

•

Innovation needs to be insulated from changes in the policy cycle by, for example, identifying formal structures for ensuring coordination at the central government level. Indonesia might want to consider approaches to innovation co-ordination and promotion emerging from the experience of other countries (e.g. innovation units, inter-agency committees and innovation strategies) while concurrently examining adjustments to streamline administrative complexity.

•

Indonesia might want to reflect on possible approaches to replicating experience from the local to the national level, looking at the drivers for scaling and potential benefits for diffusion of successful initiatives.

Similarly, roles should be clarified for government institutions that provide capacity building at the local level for public-sector innovation.

•

Within the overall context of its commitment to open government reforms and its membership in the OGP, Indonesia could consider prioritising the inclusion of innovative open government practices in its OGP Action Plans. By doing so, the government could build on the considerable momentum for open government initiatives to promote innovation more effectively across the public sector.

Open government and the link with the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda Linking open government reforms and initiatives related to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is particularly relevant for Indonesia, as the country played a leading role both in designing the Post-2015 Development Agenda and in establishing the OGP. The broad themes of improved governance and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides an opportunity to connect open government practices and approaches to the ambitions represented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Through its endorsement of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015, Indonesia has already recognised the potential value of linking these two initiatives. Specifically, the declaration notes the “importance of harnessing [countries’] efforts and championing OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 41

the principles of transparency and open government as crucial tools for ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

Open government principles, policies and practices contribute directly to both the substantive targets of the SDGs (specifically through Goal 16, which aims to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”), as well as to the process that leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of all the SDGs. Notably, by making the policy cycle that underpins the SDG-related activities inclusive and better tailored to the needs of the citizens, open government contributes to and supports the achievement of the various targets of each SDG (i.e. economic development, gender equality, infrastructure development, etc.).

As evidenced by the public-sector reforms described throughout the review, Indonesia has already made important progress in pursuing the kind of initiatives necessary to realise the governance targets laid out under Goal 16 as well as support the process for inclusive design, implementation and monitoring of all SDGs. Given that meeting these targets will simultaneously support the country’s efforts to implement the universe of goals laid out in the 2030 Agenda by promoting transparent, accountable and inclusive government, it is important to take stock of the ongoing initiatives that can help Indonesia reach its targets. The following projects, initiatives and offices are already in place in Indonesia and are well placed to exploit the synergies between open government policies and SDGs:

•

The National SDG Secretariat, which was established in 2016 with support from UNDP, is designed to co-ordinate the country’s SDG implementation. The Secretariat is tasked with laying the groundwork for the implementation and mainstreaming of the SDGs into development planning at the national and sub-national level. Similar to the National Open Government Secretariat, Bappenas provides general oversight of the SDG Secretariat, thereby facilitating the linkages between the two secretariats. The SDG Secretariat is professionally staffed and will collect best practices, facilitate communications and provide government-wide support to help oversee, facilitate, and monitor the implementation of the SDGs.

•

The National Open Government Secretariat has helped to formalise the government’s relationship with CSOs and co-ordinate open government horizontally across agencies and vertically across levels of government.

This office provides a model and useful template for how the centre of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

42 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS government can reinforce inclusivity and accountability for transversal agendas.

•

The legal framework for transparency and access to information clearly supports Target 16.10 of the 2030 Agenda (“Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements”).

•

The legal and policy framework supporting citizen participation, integrity and whistleblower protections, in combination with the work of Indonesia’s oversight bodies, supports several governance targets of the 2030 Agenda, such as Targets 16.6 and 16.7, as well as those targets that seek specifically to promote the rule of law and to reduce corruption and bribery, such as Targets 16.3 and 16.5. Additionally, complaint-handling services (such as LAPOR) and citizen engagement mechanisms (such as the Musrenbang) highlight how the country has made tangible progress in promoting accountable, inclusive and transparent government, which responds to the implementation of all SDGs.

•

Indonesia has launched a number of digital government tools that support a wide range of SDGs. For example, through its technically advanced and user-friendly central data portal, the central government is striving to provide easy access to key datasets that will improve transparency of key public-sector activities.

Given the recent adoption of the SDGs, governments are still in the process of determining how their current initiatives and priorities will fit with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Nevertheless, the OECD sees a number of steps the GOI can take to ensure that it takes full advantage of the link between its open government agenda and the SDGs so that both priorities are implemented as coherently, systematically and completely as possible.

•

Continue to develop the links between open government reform efforts and the design and implementation of the SDGs to help ensure that the government’s open government agenda supports the SDGs. This will include supporting institutional collaboration between the National SDG Secretariat and National Open Government Secretariat, as well as:

− Explicitly linking the OGP National Action Plan development process with the design and implementation process for the SDGs. This could include discussing the SDGs in the context of the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 43

development of the OGP National Action Plans and linking each objective with relevant SDG goals or targets. This will help ensure coherence between the two initiatives and will facilitate joint monitoring of the progress and results of the two processes.

− Promoting the use of open data for reporting on SDG achievements (see, for example, Mexico’s open data portal designed to track the SDGs). This would not only support the role of CSOs as watchdogs, but it would foster the reuse of public-sector information in such a way that is specifically relevant for the implementation of the SDGs. − Developing a formal mechanism for capacity building and sharing lessons to increase the staff that is familiar with both the SDGs and the country’s open government priorities. − Increasing the involvement of citizens in the policy cycle of each SDG-related initiative to ensure that the initiatives are inclusive and that they fully reflect public needs. This could be achieved by ensuring that CSO actors and government representatives familiar with the country’s open government activities and OGP reporting cycles play a role in the design of the national SDG strategy, as well as in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the activities.

•

Leverage existing regional and international platforms and networks for policy dialogue, such as the OECD Network on Open and Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, to identify good practices and lessons from OECD and non-OECD members alike on how to link open government agendas with SDG implementation activities.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 45

Chapter 1 Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia

This chapter provides an overview of the context and drivers of publicsector reforms in Indonesia, including information on the cultural, historical, political and economic contexts, as well as current perceptions of public governance. It also introduces the concept of open government, which the OECD defines as the transparency of government actions, the accessibility of government services and information, and the responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands and needs. It goes on to discuss the key actors and the initiatives in which open government policies are being developed and implemented.

Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

46 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Cultural, historical, and political context Indonesia is a sprawling and diverse nation of roughly 255 million people – making it the world’s fourth largest nation, third largest democracy, and largest Muslim-majority country – with over 200 major cultural and language groups. The population inhabits over 6 000 islands, although Java is the most populous and is home to over 100 million people, 15 million of them residing in the national capital, Jakarta (Vickers, 2005).

Indonesia’s cultural and geographic complexity is made more challenging by the country’s exposure to natural disasters, as evidenced powerfully by the 2004 tsunami.

The first regular contact between Europeans and the peoples of Indonesia began in 1512, when Portuguese traders sought to trade in the region. The physical boundaries of Indonesia were largely established by the Netherlands, however, through their administration of the islands, first under the Dutch East India Company, established in 1602, and later as the dominant European power through the administration of the Dutch East Indies (Ricklefs, 1991).

In 1942, Dutch rule effectively ended with the Japanese invasion of Indonesia. The Japanese replaced much of the Dutch-created economic, administrative and political infrastructure, and they actively encouraged nationalist sentiment. Their involvement led to the creation of new Indonesian institutions (including local neighbourhood organisations) and elevated political leaders such as Sukarno, a leader of Indonesia’s nationalist movement from the pre-war era. Two days after Japan’s surrender in World War II, on 17 August 1945, Sukarno declared Indonesia’s independence. He was appointed President, and went on to lead the four-year Indonesian Revolution, culminating in the formal recognition of Indonesian independence by the Dutch on 27 December 1949 (Vickers, 2005).

Under Sukarno, who served until 1967, Indonesia moved steadily towards authoritarianism and close association with communist countries.

Public frustration at economic stagnation and tensions within the army and society between left and right wing political factions culminated in an attempted coup on 30 September 1965. The corresponding anti-communist purge, led by anti-communist factions of the army and local vigilantes, led to the killing of an estimated 500 000 people between late 1965 and early 1966 and to the destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party (Cribb, 2002).

This destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party, which had supported Sukarno, helped lead to the rise of General Suharto, who was named Acting President in March 1967 and formally appointed one year OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 47

later. His “New Order” stabilised the economy and brought the country closer to Western powers, but his regime continued the previous administration’s focus on personalism, which came at the cost of institutionbuilding (Elson, 2008). The corruption of his administration – Suharto, in fact, was named on a list of heads of state that had extorted the most personal wealth (Vickers, 2005) – ultimately fed discontent and increased the country’s vulnerably to the Asian financial crisis. On 21 May 1998, after popular protests in response to the financial crisis, Suharto announced his resignation, upon which vice-president Habibie assumed the presidency.

The fall of President Suharto initiated the Reformasi period, in which the country pursued more open and liberal policies in the form of greater autonomy for sub-national governments, greater freedom of speech, and an enhanced role for civic participation. The first two post-Suharto administrations, under presidents Habibie (1998-99) and Wahid (19992001), loosened controls on the press and pursued an ambitious programme of decentralisation.1 The country’s first free and fair general elections were held in 1999, and direct elections of mayors and governors took place for the first time in 2005 (Antlöv et al, 2010). Among the most notable achievements during the Reformasi period were the reforms made to the Constitution between 1999 and 2002. These reforms were designed to respond to the problems that arose under the original constitution that had allowed both Sukarno and Suharto to appropriate increasingly authoritarian powers for themselves. Notably, they limited the powers of the president, allowed for direct election of presidents and removed military seats from parliament. The reforms also removed restrictions on civil society and citizen participation, and allowed new political parties, labour unions, and other civil society organisations to form (Elson, 2008).2 President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) was inaugurated on 20 October 2014, with Jusuf Kalla serving as his Vice President. As Indonesia is a presidential representative democratic republic, President Jokowi serves as both chief of state and head of government, and was directly elected for a five-year term, renewable once. His government exercises executive power, while the legislative power is vested in the bicameral People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, or MPR), which consists of the Regional Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah) of 132 seats and the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) of 560 seats. The Government of Indonesia has 34 ministries.

Under the current arrangement, the state structure includes four levels: 34 Provinces (headed by a governor); regencies (415) and cities (93), which constitute the municipal level;3 districts; and villages. The regencies and cities are situated at the same administrative level and each has its own local government and legislative body (a regency is headed by a regent, while a OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

48 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA city is governed by a mayor). Both regencies and cities are further divided into districts and sub-districts depending on the province.

Following the country’s decentralisation process, regencies and municipalities have taken on the primary responsibility for providing most government services. The municipal level in particular plays a key role in the provision of services and the interaction with citizens and businesses, as local leaders have the power to propose bills, oversee the regional budget process and plan local infrastructure.

Despite the trend toward administrative decentralisation, the vast majority of revenue is raised at the central government level, rather than by provincial or municipal governments. Nevertheless, the budget is small, even by the standards of comparable countries. Central tax revenue (excluding non-tax resource revenue) is around 12% of GDP, where it has remained for the past decade (OECD, 2015).

Economic context In addition to the political evolution in Indonesia since the Reformasi period, the country has also successfully maintained its general good economic performance since the disruptions of the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Indonesia’s economy grew in the decade following that crisis thanks to a prudent macroeconomic framework and policy reforms. Furthermore, and contrary to its experience during the 1990s, Indonesia was one of only three G20 countries to post economic growth during the global economic turmoil that began in 2008, an achievement that also allowed the country to outperform its ASEAN peers over that period (see Figure 1.1). This can be attributed to both a robust consumer base and to sound macroeconomic policies, such as inflation targeting and fiscal prudence (OECD, 2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 49

Figure 1.1. Level of real GDP in selected ASEAN countries 145

145 Indonesia

135

135

Malaysia Philippines

125

125

Singapore 115

115

Thailand

105

105

95

95

85

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

85

OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

The economic gains and targeted government measures have also been instrumental in reducing poverty (See Figure 1.2), which allowed the country to have a strong poverty reduction record, posting a reduction by half over the past two decades. Nevertheless, almost 30 million people still live below the national poverty line, mostly in rural areas and in certain provinces (Vujanovic, 2015).

Figure 1.2. Absolute poverty rate (%), 2000-14 25 20 15 10 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

50 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Despite the gains in poverty reduction statistics, income inequality is high and rose over the past decade. As measured by the Gini coefficient, income inequality increased from 0.36 to 0.41 (compared to an OECD average of 0.31), suggesting that the current mix of social programmes, including cash transfers conditioned on school attendance and a subsidised rice programme, are not targeted well-enough (OECD, 2015). In addition, since 2011, the country’s growth rate has slowed (see Figure 1.3), reflecting weaker international demand and slow investment growth due to lower commodity prices, heightened regulatory uncertainty and infrastructure bottlenecks (OECD, 2015).

Figure 1.3. Indonesia growth rates (2011-14) 7 6

Growth rate

5 4

GDP growth rate (real)

3

GDP growth rate (real, in per capita terms)

2 1 0 2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

Broadly, Indonesia still struggles with poverty and unemployment – which remains relatively high compared to neighbouring countries, as shown in Figure 1.4 – inadequate infrastructure, corruption, a complex regulatory environment, and unequal geographic resource distribution.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 51

Figure 1.4. Unemployment rates in Indonesia and selected countries 14

Unemployment rate

12 10 Indonesia 8 6

Malaysia Philippines Singapore

4

Vietnam

2 0

Source: OECD work based on Asian Development Bank's Statistical Database System (SDBS) and national sources.

Ensuring continued increases in living standards for all Indonesians will require maintaining macroeconomic stability, adopting a broad range of structural reforms, and creating fiscal space to expand government expenditures in priority areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation and infrastructure. The removal of most fuel subsidies at the beginning of 2015 was a laudable step in this direction. There is also room to improve the efficiency and targeting of public spending at both central and sub-national levels (OECD, 2015).

Perceptions of public institutions and the space for open government Similar to the important economic reforms of the Reformasi era that led to the country’s economic success, political reforms in the country have also been far-reaching. Despite the significant efforts carried out during the Reformasi era, however, Indonesia’s public governance continues to face persistent challenges. For example, Indonesia ranks in the bottom half among its ASEAN peers (see Figure 1.5) in the World Bank Government Effectiveness Indicator.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

52 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Government effectiveness rank

Figure 1.5. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and ASEAN countries (2014) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of ASEAN countries (ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.

Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

Likewise, Indonesia does not perform favourably on this score when compared to OECD member countries (see Figure 1.6). Furthermore, the perception of corruption in Indonesia (more than 80%) is higher than in most OECD and most ASEAN countries (see Figure 1.7).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 53

Figure 1.6. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014) 100 90

Government effectiveness rank

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Indonesia Mexico Italy Turkey Greece Latvia Hungary Poland Slovak Republic Slovenia Portugal Czech Republic Estonia Chile Spain Israel OECD average Korea Belgium France United States Iceland Austria Australia Ireland United Kingdom Luxembourg Germany Canada Sweden Denmark Norway Japan Netherlands New Zealand Finland Switzerland

0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of OECD countries and Indonesia (ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

Figure 1.7. Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country, or not? (2015) 100% 90% 80%

Perception of corruption

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Notes: ASEAN data not shown.

Source: Gallup World Poll 2015.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

54 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Nevertheless, per the 2015 Gallup World Poll, 65% of Indonesian’s have confidence in the national government, higher than the OECD average of 43% (see Figure 1.8), and similar to rates from Thailand (66%) and the Philippines (67%) (Gallup World Poll, 2015).

Figure 1.8. Do you have confidence in the national government? (2015) 90% 80%

Confidence in national government

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Source: Gallup World Poll 2015.

While the perception of corruption has apparently not had a marked impact on the country’s confidence in its government, the potential for a decrease in the population’s confidence is notable given the extent to which Indonesia is an outlier as compared to OECD countries in terms of the relationship between confidence in the government and corruption perceptions (see Figure 1.9).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 55

Figure 1.9. Correlation between confidence in national government and perception of government corruption (2015) 100% 90%

R² = 0.5766

ITA PRT SVN ESP

80%

MEX

Government corruption

70%

POL

IND

SVK CHL

KOR HUN

CZE USA

LAT

GRC ISL

60% JPN

50%

EST 40% 30%

ISR

FRA

OECD AUT

TUR

GBR AUS

IRL NLD

CAN DEU

BEL

20% SWE

FIN NOR DNK

LUX

NZL

CHE

10% 0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40% 50% Confidence in national government

60%

70%

80%

Source: Gallup World Poll 2015.

Additionally, it does not appear to be the case that Indonesia’s World Bank Voice and Accountability score, which reflects perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and media freedom, can explain Indonesia’s high degree of confidence level in its government. While Indonesia scores higher than any of its ASEAN peers, it scores toward the bottom as compared to OECD countries (see Figures 1.10 and 1.11, respectively).

The gap between Indonesia and most OECD member countries suggests that Indonesia’s ongoing efforts to pursue open government reforms and increase citizen voice are well-targeted and could build on the country’s progress over the past 10 years (see Figure 1.12).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

90%

56 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Figure 1.10. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and ASEAN countries (2014)

Voice and accountability rank

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of ASEAN countries (ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.

Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 57

Figure 1.11. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014) 100 90 80

Voice and accountability rank

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of OECD countries and Indonesia (ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.

Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

Figure 1.12. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia (2003-14) 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

58 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Taken as a whole, Indonesia’s governance indicators paint a complex picture. On the one hand, citizen confidence in the government and the country’s strength in comparison with the rest of the region in terms of its Voice and Accountability score both suggest that it is well-positioned to continue to use open government reforms to build on its success.

Conversely, the scores for corruption perception and government effectiveness call attention to the pressing governance challenges the country faces.

Many development challenges – the need for more and better infrastructure, improvements in health and education outcomes, the strengthening of the social safety net and fighting poverty and inequality, and a response to the diverse needs of various ethno-cultural and regionallybased groups – have significant governance implications. Good governance, including the state’s ability to set, co-ordinate, implement and monitor public-sector reforms, is therefore key to ensuring that the government can achieve its policy objectives efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2013).

The principles of open government The OECD has been at the forefront of international efforts to promote and disseminate open government policies and practices for more than ten years. Since 2001, the OECD has collected and analysed data and information demonstrating the importance of citizens’ participation in the design and implementation of better public policies and the delivery of public services.

The implementation of the open government policy principles, namely citizen engagement, transparency, accountability and integrity, has led to outcomes including better policies and services, and ultimately to improved social well-being, quality of democracy and economic growth. These improvements are likely to happen through the use of specific policy instruments and catalysts that drive change and foster innovative processes.

Figure 1.13 illustrates the OECD’s theory of change, which it uses to frame its analysis of open government reforms.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 59

Figure 1.13. OECD open government theory of change

Policy principles Citizen engagement Transparency Accountability Integrity

Policy catalysts Change management Innovation ICTs

Policy outcomes

Multiple levels

Intermediate: - Quality of public services Long-term: - Quality of democracy - Inclusive growth - Trust in government - Rule of law

Cross sector/ministry

OECD countries currently employ open government practices to reach a variety of goals, including greater transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. These outcomes can promote inclusive growth, improve social cohesion and increase citizen compliance with the law (OECD, 2009b).

Indonesia’s commitment to implementing open government reforms to improve transparency and increasingly engage citizens could similarly foster public scrutiny, with a direct impact on the fight against corruption, while inclusive policy making may lead to innovative and locally relevant policy solutions that better use the opportunities presented by Indonesia’s political decentralisation. In collaboration with senior public officials from member countries committed to improve government-citizen relations, the OECD developed a set of principles to guide the implementation of open government policies and ensure their success (OECD, 2001; 2009b), shown in Box 1.1.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

60 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 1.1. Guiding principles for open and inclusive policy making 1.

Commitment: Leadership and strong commitment to open and inclusive policy making is needed at all levels – politicians, senior managers and public officials.

2. Rights: Citizens’ rights to information, consultation and public participation in policy making and service delivery must be firmly grounded in law or policy. Government obligations to respond to citizens must be clearly stated. Independent oversight arrangements are essential to enforcing these rights.

3. Clarity: Objectives for, and limits to, information, consultation and public participation should be well defined from the outset. The roles and responsibilities of all parties must be clear. Government information should be complete, objective, reliable, relevant and easy to find and understand.

4. Time: Public engagement should be undertaken as early in the policy process as possible to allow a greater range of solutions and to raise the chances of successful implementation. Adequate time must be available for consultation and participation to be effective.

5. Inclusion: All citizens should have equal opportunities and multiple channels to access information, be consulted and participate. Every reasonable effort should be made to engage with as wide a variety of people as possible.

6. Resources: Adequate financial, human and technical resources are needed for effective public information, consultation and participation. Government officials must have access to appropriate skills, guidance and training as well as an organisational culture that supports both traditional and online tools.

7. Co-ordination: Initiatives to inform, consult and engage civil society should be coordinated within and across levels of government to ensure policy coherence, avoid duplication and reduce the risk of “consultation fatigue.” Co-ordination efforts should not stifle initiative and innovation but should leverage the power of knowledge networks and communities of practice within and beyond government.

8. Accountability: Governments have an obligation to inform participants how they use inputs received through public consultation and participation. Measures to ensure that the policy-making process is open, transparent and amenable to external scrutiny can help increase accountability of, and trust in, government.

9. Evaluation: Governments need to evaluate their own performance. To do so effectively will require efforts to build the demand, capacity, culture and tools for evaluating public participation.

10. Active citizenship: Societies benefit from dynamic civil society, and governments can facilitate access to information, encourage participation, raise awareness, strengthen citizens’ civic education and skills, as well as to support capacity building among civil society organisations (CSOs). Governments need to explore new roles to effectively support autonomous problem-solving by citizens, CSOs and businesses.

Source: OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners; updated in OECD (2009), Focus on Citizens Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 61

Legal, policy, and strategic framework for open government in Indonesia Since the start of the country’s democratisation process, which began with the fall of Suharto in 1998, Indonesia’s official development strategies, interactions with the public and legal foundation have moved increasingly toward openness and transparency. Importantly, the country’s official development strategies, as discussed in Box 1.2, have officially established the general strategic foundation for open government.

These documents highlight how Indonesia has explicitly identified openness as a tool it can employ to improve the quality of public service delivery, reduce corruption, and improve its responsiveness to public demands. Donor agencies and local CSOs have also maintained the pressure on public institutions at all levels of government to allow them increased access. As a result, since the early 2000s several local governments have independently formulated regulations on openness and participation that complement and build on the national government’s initiatives.

In addition, since the 1998 democratic reforms, the number and importance of civil society groups in Indonesia has grown. This has in part been due to laws that have allowed for access to information, as well as to the decentralisation process, which has created new opportunities for the public to engage in policy design and service delivery. Indonesia’s civil society organisations have played an active role in open government activities, and are familiar with the open government trends and actors in the country.

The country’s move toward openness has also been reflected in its legal framework. Indonesia boasts a solid legal foundation for access to information (ATI), which is enshrined both in the 1945 Constitution (Article 28F) and in Law No. 14 of 2008 on Freedom of Information (FOI).

The FOI law in particular requires proactive publication by all public bodies, political parties, state-owned enterprises and CSOs. The 1945 Constitution also recognises the right to associate, assemble, and express opinions (Article 28); subsequent laws have further clarified and delineated the public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and participate in policy planning and evaluation (notably Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Development Planning). The legal and strategic framework for open government in Indonesia has been further articulated in the government’s strategy documents (see Box 1.2) and codified via a number of laws, regulations, presidential decrees and ministerial regulations (as shown in Table 1.1).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

62 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 1.2. Primary government strategy documents outlining open government priorities The following documents lay the foundation for the government’s long- and medium-term strategic planning priorities, and include the key elements of the country’s public-sector reform initiatives.

2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan The GOI is required to draft national long-term development plans (abbreviated RPJPN) every twenty years. Specific topics related open government in the RPJPN include the acknowledgement of the importance of civil society, openness, and public access to information, as well as the importance of promoting citizen engagement in public life by linking citizen engagement to broader good governance goals.

2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) Within the long-term development plan cycle, the GOI is also required to draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five-year cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the National Long-Term Development Plan. The 2015-19 RPJMN includes two targets specifically related to increasing citizen engagement in public life, including targets on e-government, increasing access to information, and providing space for public participation in formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policies.

Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform – Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap In response to the 2015-19 RPJMN, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform developed a Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in 2015. Regarding open government, it highlights the role of e-government in supporting development priorities; the importance of increasing access to public information transparency by, for example, supporting public information offices and publishing all planning and budgeting documents on ministry websites; and the importance of providing opportunities for the public to participate in drafting public policies and monitoring their implementation.

President’s Jokowi’s government programme (Nawa Cita) This document forms the basis of the current administration’s governing agenda. There are 9 agenda items that comprise the Nawa Cita document that serve as guidelines for the annual national priorities. Specifically, agenda number 2 emphasizes “the presence of government through implementation of clean, effective and democratic governance”. Furthermore, two subagenda seek to booster open government by seeking to build transparent and accountable government performance and improve public participation in the policy making processes.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 63

Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia Law Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances

Law No. 15 of 2004 on the State Audit

Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Development Planning

Law No. 13 of 2006 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims President Regulation No. 1 of 2007 on the Approval, Promulgation and Distribution of Laws and Regulations Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure

Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman

Key points This law updates Indonesia’s previous anti-corruption laws (namely, Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption and Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Changes in Law No. 31 of 1999). This law also formed the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

This law details the milestones and dates for the budget process, specifies general principles and authorities for the management and accountability of state finances, and establishes the financial relationship between the central government and other institutions. This law is the basis for government regulations that inform budget transparency throughout the budget cycle.

This law outlines the operational framework of the Supreme Audit Institution of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK), and mandates it as a professional and independent institution required to submit its reports to Parliament.

This law seeks to “optimise public participation,” and lays out the process by which the public can participate in the creation of the country’s development plans. It also institutionalises the creation of multistakeholder consultation forums (Musrenbang) at all levels of government for the long-term, medium- term and annual development plans.

This law is an essential component of the country’s protection of whistleblowers and sets out regulations to help provide for the safety of victims of and witnesses to crimes.

This law requires that government regulations be published and disseminated to ensure that the general public understands and comprehends the contents of the laws and regulations (OECD, 2012).

This law guarantees citizens’ right to information: Every interested person who applies to obtain public information “shall be able to obtain Public Information fast and promptly at low cost and in a simple manner (Chapter 1, Article 2)”. Specifically, it: Mandates the creation of public information provision system, named the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID): Public agencies “shall establish and develop an information and documentation system to manage the Public Information properly and efficiently, so that it is easily accessible (Part 4, Article 7)”; Encourages public participation in decision-making processes; Promotes transparent, accountable, effective and efficient governance.

The aims of the Ombudsman are to: Contribute to a democratic, just and wealthy state, based on the rule of law; Improve the quality of government services in all sectors; Improve the legal culture and awareness of the population The functions of the Ombudsman are to: Receive and investigate grievances concerning the maladministration of public services; Follow up on the grievances under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman; Co-ordinate and collaborate with other government institutions or public agencies as well as with non-governmental organisations and individuals.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

64 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia (continued) Law Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service Provision

Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Regulatory Legislation Law No. 17 of 2013 on Societal Organizations Law No. 5 of 2014 on Civil Administrative State Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governance

Presidential Instruction No. 5 of 2015 on Public Communication Management Presidential Regulation No. 5 of 2015 on Medium Term Development Plan 2015-19

Key points The law is designed to improve the quality of public services by: Establishing clear responsibilities and obligations of all parties related to the provision of public services; Ensuring the public services provided comply with the prevailing laws; Giving legal protection and legal certainty to the public on the provision of public services Preparing and establishing service standards that take into account the ability of the provider, public needs and environmental conditions.4 This law makes openness one of the principles to be applied in the formation of good legislation by requiring the government (via the Minister of Law and Human Rights) to publish laws, government regulations, presidential regulations, and programmes.

This law replaces Law No. 8 of 1985 on Societal Organizations, and sets out the obligations and restrictions for societal organisations.

This law requires openness in civil service management and hiring practices.

This law updates previous laws on regional governance, including Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Governance and Law No. 12 of 2008, and moves some power back to the central government. Notably, this law is supportive of innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators.

This regulation instructs all ministerial level officers, governors, and mayors to support the dissemination of government policies and programmes co-ordinated by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics.

This regulation elaborated the government’s five year vision, missions and programmes, including national development strategies, general policies, line ministry programmes and the macro economic framework.

The country’s first dedicated push toward implementing specific open government policies came during the administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. It was under President Yudhoyono that the country joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in September 2011 and attained full compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in October 2014. The Yudhoyono administration also established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (UKP4), which was tasked with supervising and coordinating open government initiatives and with helping to ensure their successful implementation.

The Government of Indonesia signed the OGP Declaration in September 2011 as a co-founder of the organisation, and in September 2012 Indonesia and the United Kingdom became co-chairs of the OGP. Starting 31 October 2013, Indonesia served as the lead chair of OGP and co-ordinated the direction of this worldwide initiative for its year-long term. During its chairmanship of the OGP, Indonesia launched Open Government Indonesia (OGI), which was a unit developed as the fruit of a collaboration between government agencies, civil society organisations, and donors. The OGI OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 65

primarily served to advocate for and monitor open government activities; through its OGI Forum, it also provided a venue for public sector and civil society representatives to translate policies into specific activities. Seven government ministries and seven civil society organisations (CSOs) comprised the OGI’s Core Team,5 which was led by the Presidential Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4).

The formal participation of CSOs in the OGI is particularly notable given that Indonesia’s political history to a large degree marginalised the role of civil society and the public in the design and delivery of public policies and services. As evidenced by the country’s recent open government progress, however, the country’s CSOs now play a prominent role in helping to set open government priorities and are welcomed by the relevant policy makers. As discussed further in Chapter 3, there remains scope for increasing the involvement of CSOs, as they are disproportionately located in Jakarta and are often focused on service delivery or organising communities for self-help rather than on macro-level changes (AusAID, 2012). Nevertheless, their inclusion in the national government’s formal oversight of open government activities and involvement in specific projects at the subnational level highlight their integral role in pursuing open government in Indonesia.

During the election campaign of 2014, President Jokowi pledged to bring a more inclusive style of politics to the office of the president.

President Jokowi and his Vice President Jusuf Kalla ran on an agenda called “Nawa Cita” (referenced in Box 1.2). This document detailed the candidate’s analysis of the main challenges facing Indonesia, as well as the administration’s planned response. Of the plan’s nine priorities, the proposals directly related to open government reforms were the following: promote clean, effective, democratic, and reliable governance; reform the justice system and create corruption-free and reliable law enforcement institutions; and strengthen diversity and social restoration of Indonesia by creating spaces of dialogue among citizens.

Despite the continuity between administrations in their support for open government policies, the transition between them was nonetheless disruptive. With the change of government at the end of 2014, the UKP4 was dissolved and new government did not clarify the management arrangement of open government initiatives until well into 2015.

Importantly, however, many of the open government programmes implemented under President Yudhoyono have remained, and many of UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas) and the Executive Office of the President. Furthermore, the Jokowi administration confirmed the country’s commitment to serve as co-chair of the OECD’s Network for Open and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

66 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, which was launched in Jakarta in March 2015, highlighting Indonesia’s dedication to promoting open government regionally.

In 2015, a new National Open Government Secretariat was established to oversee open government implementation and was staffed by personnel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas, and the Executive Office of the President. This secretariat will lead the government’s open government initiatives and foster interaction between the different ministries and agencies of the GOI, civil society, academics and the private sector. It will be an independent and autonomous entity, funded through the national budget.

In interviews with the OECD, the Executive Office of the President expressed that the primary mechanisms to support open government reforms moving forward will be: 1) ensuring high-level commitment to open government initiatives; 2) supporting the implementation of the open government national plan at the subnational level; and 3) identifying champions of reform to showcase successful implementation of reforms.

These bureaucratic reform goals coincide with and reinforce the goals of enhancing public engagement, facilitating access to information and reducing corruption through increased transparency, as outlined in the country’s strategic development documents (see Chapter 2 for a description of how these documents frame the country’s open government reform efforts).

Beyond open government A major focus of the GOI as it pursues open government initiatives will be to link the country’s open government programmes to its public service reform efforts (further explored in Chapter 2) and to facilitate the collaboration between government branches and institutions to create a government-wide open state policy. For example, this will include forging connections between open government initiatives and principles on the one hand and the implementation of the broad-based UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on the other. This will help ensure that the SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and key government initiatives. To cite some examples, the targets specifically related to the country’s open government reform efforts include:

•

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels;

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 67

•

Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status;

•

Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels;

•

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, representative decision-making at all levels;

•

Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

participatory

and

In addition to exploring how open government can contribute directly to the targets listed above, this review will examine how open government principles, policies and practices can also contribute to and support the substantive achievement of all of the targets, as well as to the process that leads to the identification and implementation of the SDGs (see Chapter 8).

The opportunity presented by binding together the country’s openness, transparency, bureaucratic reform, and anti-corruption objectives and the global SDG goals suggest that the time is ripe to expand the push for open government reforms. While Indonesia’s focus on implementing open government reforms has been relatively recent when compared to other international leaders in the field of open government, the country has nonetheless shown steady progress. The extent of its economic and political reforms since 1998 and its global leadership in moving the open government agenda forward – as recently illustrated by the country’s re-election to the OGP Support Unit Steering Committee for 2015-18 – show the country’s commitment to reform.

Though the country has a solid legal and strategic foundation, the national government is faced with the challenges of synchronising its work with the local level, translating its broad strategy into specific goals, and ensuring that national ministries and agencies buy into the reform process.

Moreover, the inclusion of the legislative and judicial branches in the national open government reform process has been so far limited. These challenges suggest that the Government of Indonesia should seek to develop an “open-state”. Specifically, this would formalise collaboration of open government issues across the executive, legislative and judicial branches to promote a whole-of-society approach to open government initiatives.

At the technical level, Indonesia could create open government contact points or liaisons with the National Open Government Secretariat and the Centre of Government in key government ministries, the Judiciary, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

68 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Parliament, the Ombudsman and other independent agencies, and with subnational governments. Together, these actors could work with the National Open Government Secretariat and with civil society to create a national open government and citizen engagement strategy. Similar to the approach taken in Costa Rica (see Box 1.3), these actions would help Indonesia move toward a holistic and integrated approach that includes all branches of the national government, local governments, independent institutions, civil society organisations, the business sector, media and academia to build an open state.

Box 1.3. Declaration: Towards an open state (Costa Rica) Consistent with the idea of building an Open State in Costa Rica, on 25 November 2015 the President of the Republic, the President of the Legislative Assembly, the President of the Supreme Court and the President of the Electoral Tribunal signed a declaration to promote transparency, fight corruption, increase citizen participation in public affairs and improve access to information for people through innovation in new technologies.

The document recognises that the principles of publicity, transparency, accountability, access to information and citizen participation are fundamental to the rule of law and for the daily work of the public branches. It acknowledges that public information should be governed by the principles of openness and proactive disclosure, only subject to a limited regime of exceptions, thereby enabling the people, public opinion and mass media to have access to and knowledge of what is discussed and agreed.

In the document, the Government of Costa Rica commits to:

• Promoting a policy of openness, transparency, accountability, participation and innovation for all citizens.

• Building a plan of priority actions for open government, which will be included in the institutional strategic plans of each branch.

• Instructing the administration to report annually to the President of each branch the assessments and evaluations that demonstrate the fulfilment of the plan.

• Promoting various forums for transparency and access to public information.

• Strengthening and developing mechanisms for citizen participation that contribute to a closer relation between civil society and the State, as well as innovating with new technologies the access and participation of citizens in public matters.

Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 69

Organisation of the open government review The review begins with a discussion of the steering and co-ordination of open government policies at the centre of government (Chapter 2). It then features a sector by sector analysis of Indonesia’s open government policy goals, with chapters on: citizen participation in policy making and service delivery (Chapter 3); the link between open government, integrity and anticorruption (Chapter 4); the role of digital government and open data in supporting transparent government (Chapter 5); budget transparency (Chapter 6); and the role of innovation in the public sector and its support of open government (Chapter 7). The review concludes with a chapter on the link between open government and the country’s efforts to design and implement a comprehensive response to the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (Chapter 8).

Each of the chapters in the review provides a summary of how the specific policy area contributes to fostering open government, including a description of the relevant instruments and practices developed by the OECD and its members. Each chapter will also provide an overview of the institutional framework in Indonesia that supports the design, implementation and oversight of open government policies, the legal and policy framework supporting open government and the alignment and coherence of these policies with the broader public-sector reform agendas.

The chapters will also make an effort to document and evaluate measurable results from open government initiatives in terms of outcomes such as: better public services; higher citizen satisfaction; increased transparency of the public sector; cost reductions; innovation led savings; etc.

A final section brings together the proposals made in each of the chapters, presenting them in the form of proposals to be considered by the national government, local governments, or specific ministries. These proposals can help inform future iterations of the country’s OGP National Action Plans, as well as the government’s public-sector reform efforts more broadly.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

70 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Notes

1.

The institutional framework for decentralisation was consolidated in Laws No. 22/1999 on Subnational Government and No. 25/1999 on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. In 2014, parliament passed the Law No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government which aims to re-arrange relationship between central and local government.

2.

The reform process started by President Habibie (1998-99) has been expanded upon by the presidents Abdurrahman Wahid (1999–2001), Megawati Soekarnoputri (2001–2004), Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004–2014) and Joko Widodo (October 2014–present).

3.

Information provided by the Indonesia Ministry of Home Affairs, April 2016.

4.

World Services Group, “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”; Makarin & Taira S., October 2009.

5.

This forum included representatives from government, academia and civil society. The forum contained 14 members, split evenly between government representatives (UKP4, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kemkominfo, Bappenas, KIP, MOHA, KemPAN RB) and CSOs (TI-I, Secretariat Fitra, Pattiro, ICEL, Motion Aceh, Indonesia JARI, KOPEL Makassar) (OGI, 2012).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 71

References Antlöv, H., Brinkerhoff, D. and Rapp, E. (2010) Civil Society Capacity Building for Democratic Reform: Experience and Lessons from Indonesia; Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 417-439.

AusAID (2012), NGO Sector Review: Phase I Findings, https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks15-ngosector-review-phase1.pdf.

Cribb, R. (2002), "Unresolved Problems in the Indonesian Killings of 1965– 1966", Asian Survey 42 (4) July/August.

Elson, R.E. (2008), The Idea of Indonesia: A History, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Gallup World Poll (2015), www.gallup.com/services/170945/worldpoll.aspx.

Ministry of National Development Planning (2014), “Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019”, (Indonesian), National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go.id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968.

OECD (forthcoming), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

OECD (2013), Colombia: Implementing Good Governance, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202177-en.

OECD (2012), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia, Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation, www.oecd.org/indonesia/chap%202.%20Capacity%20for%20High%20 Quality%20Regulation%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.

OECD (2009a), Budgeting in Indonesia, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 2009/2, www.oecd.org/indonesia/45362389.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

72 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

OECD (2009b), Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.

OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en.

OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

Policies for Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Indonesia: Economics Department Working Papers No. 1246, OECD, Petar Vujanovic.

Ricklefs, M. C. (1991) A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1300, Second Edition. MacMillan.

Transparency International Indonesia (2014), “Scorecard Report: Law and Policy of Open Governance in Indonesia”, March.

Vickers, A. (2005), A History of Modern Indonesia, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Vujanovic, P. (2015), "Policies for inclusive and sustainable growth in Indonesia", OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1246, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxqbh40r35-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Chapter 2 Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices in Indonesia

This chapter looks at the capacity of the centre of government to design, steer and support the implementation of open government policies. It explores current policies and practices and provides guidance to frame the response to pending challenges. Indonesia has been a frontrunner in fostering the international agenda on open government. At the national level, open government is incorporated in the Presidential Priorities and some key policy documents, which helps to promote the issue’s visibility and provides greater leverage for action. The country also has proven experience in developing and implementing OGP Action Plans, having now reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan. In addition, in the context of the country’s ongoing process of decentralisation, open government objectives are increasingly linked to the idea of better service delivery situated at the local level.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

73

74 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

The centre of government as a strategic player1 From administrative support to policy co-ordination The centre of government (CoG) is the body or group of bodies that provides direct support and advice to the head of government and the Council of Ministers. The CoG is known by different labels in different countries, such as Chancellery, Cabinet Office, Office of the President, Office of the Government, etc. Having moved beyond its traditional role of serving the executive from an administrative perspective, the CoG is now playing a more active role in policy development and co-ordination across OECD countries. The centre in many countries now provides services that range from strategic planning to real-time policy advice and intelligence, and from leading major cross-departmental policy initiatives to monitoring progress and outcomes (OECD, 2014b).

In a broad sense, the CoG not only refers to the Presidency or its equivalent, but also comprises key strategic partners, such as the Ministry of Finance (where policy priorities are matched with resources) and the Ministry of Planning (with an important role in designing policy priorities across the administration and the way these contribute to an overall strategic plan). As such, and depending on the particular situation of a country in terms of its institutional constellation, several actors can play a significant role in CoG co-ordination. Additionally, central agencies responsible for coherent human resources (HR), e-government, regulatory and open government policies, etc. across different departments also contribute to reinforcing cross-governmental co-ordination.

Despite playing a decisive role in key areas of public policy, the CoG in most countries is relatively small. The apparent disconnect between the centre’s broad responsibilities and its limited budget and human resources is at least partly explained by the fact that almost all the resources and most of the formal powers that are needed to design and implement (sector) policies lie elsewhere in the public administration, outside the CoG. In most of its activities, the centre is working with partner organisations that are much larger and that are responsible and accountable for most, if not all, spending on those activities. Generally speaking – i.e. across presidential, parliamentary and other systems – the three key roles of the centre are: 1) supporting quality decision-making by the head of government; 2) policy co-ordination across government; and 3) monitoring of the implementation of government policies. With its ambition to mobilise and influence (very often) larger budget-holding departments across government, the CoG’s success depends not only on formal powers or structures but also, to a large extent, on its capacity to lead and motivate.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

75

As the role of the CoG can comprise different aspects, Figure 2.1 presents an overview of the primary focus of CoG institutions across OECD countries. While it points to a certain degree of diversity across countries, it also shows the extent of consensus as to the CoG’s core functions, such as providing support to the head of government.

Figure 2.1. Focus of the centre of government International development and aid Relations with sub-national levels of government Policy analysis Supranational co-ordination/supranational policy issues (including relations with EU, G20, etc.)

Human resources strategy for the public administration as a whole Risk anticipation and management/strategic foresight for the whole of government Regulatory quality and coherence Relations with parliament/legislature Designing and implementing reform of the public administration Communicating government messages to the public and to other parts of the public…

Monitoring the implementation of government policy Preparation of the government programme Strategic planning for the whole of government Policy co-ordination across government Co-ordinating preparation of Cabinet meetings 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: OECD (2014b), “Centre stage: Driving better policies from the centre of government”, GOV/PGC/MPM(2014)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf.

The OECD Survey of centres of government (OECD, 2013) also shows that a majority of countries (59%) confirms that the number of crossministerial policy initiatives has increased recently (2008-12), and almost all respondents reported that leading policy co-ordination has now become one of the priority tasks of the centre. The centre can lead such cross-ministerial co-ordination by: 1) integrating cross-disciplinary perspectives (including its own perspective – the centre is not “policy neutral”) into policy advice for the head of government and/or Cabinet; 2) leading policy co-ordination via both traditional committee architectures and more innovative and informal channels; 3) facilitating resource sharing through a closer partnership with ministries of finance; and 4) supporting experimentation and testing of new delivery systems, many of which are based on shared service models.

Leading strategic initiatives is a delicate undertaking, particularly in countries in which authority is highly decentralised. It is essential to offer both short- and long-term gains to senior public officials as incentives to cooperate in complex initiatives that involve sharing of risk, resources and accountability. For example, the long-term gains of achieving cultural OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

76 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA change among senior civil servants in the area of collaboration should be matched with short-term “rewards” for changing their behaviour and investing time in new practices.

From vision, leadership and innovation to effective delivery The OECD’s work on centres of government explores how governments can adapt the institutions at the centre in order to play an expanded and more outward-looking role (see Box 2.1). In spite of its prominent role in diverse parts of the policy process, the precise nature of the work of the CoG is not yet fully understood. International comparisons of centres of government are rare, despite the potential “governance premium” that effective management of policy from the centre can generate. The crisis of 2008 has, however, helped to turn the spotlight onto the crucial role that the centre plays in effective, decisive government. The widespread international decline in public trust in government in the aftermath of the crisis (Gallup World Poll, 2013) has made the CoG’s leadership and innovative decision-making capacity more decisive than ever before. Governments need to prove that they have a clear vision for the future, are capable of engaging in dialogue with the administration and citizens on this vision, and manage to deliver results, which can further foster sustainable long-term growth and wellbeing.

Box 2.1. The OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government The OECD created a network of CoG senior officials in the 1980s, and it was consolidated into an annual event in the 1990s. The network acts as a forum for informal discussion and remains one of the OECD’s highest-level policy networks.

The network serves three main purposes:

• To review issues of how to make the centre of national government work more effectively;

• To achieve a more in-depth understanding of decision and policymaking systems in the host country; and

• To work on broad governance issues fundamental to achieving economic and social public policy objectives.

Recent topics of discussion included, among others, the promotion of inclusive growth, how to foster vision, leadership and innovation and how to recover public trust.

Source: www.oecd.org/gov/cog.htm.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

77

Box 2.2 provides a more detailed overview of how vision, leadership and innovation are central to the CoG’s daily business. Across these three areas of vision, leadership and innovation, the capacity to bridge the (potential) gap between political staff (ministries, state secretaries, political advisors and senior civil servants in certain cases) and the civil service is one of the challenges of incoming governments.

Box 2.2. Centre of government – observations and trends The success of a government rests on its ability to define a vision for the country that reflects an electoral mandate and that is typically designed to increase well-being, prosperity and international competitiveness. In the years following the economic crisis, concern with budgets dominated in most countries, crowding out any other vision. However, those days appear to be over, and governments are seeking to be more forward-looking and strategic. Most OECD countries have some sort of vision document these days. This vision has different, interlinked dimensions, including a long-term vision for the nation, usually going beyond growth objectives to embrace well-being and sustainability goals, and a vision for what the government of the day wants to achieve.

The government no longer has a monopoly on defining the vision. While efforts to gather citizens’ views could risk raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled, such bottom-up visions can help validate and legitimise government policy. Vision depends on two crucial factors: trust and communication. If citizens do not trust the government, they will not trust its vision. Taking steps to strengthen trust in government more generally will help to ensure greater buy-in on more strategic goals. Communication and ownership are also important. If the vision has a strong narrative, connects to citizens’ lives and is well communicated, then it can help generate support for difficult reforms. A particular problem faced by policy makers is that the reform process and its translation into real benefits for citizens are often too slow, undermining confidence and enthusiasm for longer term visions.

Leadership is crucial to drive policies that contribute to a strategic vision. In a complex and challenging policy environment, characterised by low levels of trust in government, leadership is an essential attribute of effective government. Room for manoeuvre of governments has probably diminished at both the national level, because of budgetary pressure, and at the international level, because of globalisation. Nevertheless, the centre guides in terms of substance and helps departments understand how to align policies with broader objectives. The centre also has a role to play in leading by example, promoting efficiency and good policy management by departments. A key issue is to ensure that the civil service and the political staff do not become disconnected, working as separate entities at the Centre.

Many centres of government actively promote innovation in their public services, with an emphasis on encouraging a culture of innovation in public services and providing a stable frame for policy innovation and creativity. The Centre can provide an impetus – particularly when it partners with specialist agencies that can identify talented people, good ideas and “roll-out” techniques.

Some countries have successfully used innovation focal points or dedicated units to drive publicsector innovation; at the same time, being the innovation leader requires appropriate financial and HR resources.

Source: OECD (2014a), “Vision, leadership, innovation: Driving public policy performance”, 33rd Meeting of Senior Officials from centres of government, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/summary.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

78 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA In addition to the CoG’s responsibility to display vision, leadership and innovative capacity, previous OECD Public Governance Reviews (OECD, 2014c) have shown that an effective CoG is also critical for:

•

Accountability. The CoG is the steward of strategic vision. It is accountable for overall results and oversight of the delegated responsibilities. It is important, however, to avoid overly rigid “command and control” structures and micromanagement, but to work instead towards a system where the CoG can exert effective oversight and clarify lines of accountability. Line ministries need to exercise leadership for the actions and policies for which they are responsible, within the overall framework of a shared collective commitment.

•

Strategic planning, policy coherence and collective commitment. The CoG needs the capacity to give a specific shape to its strategic vision, to secure its coherence and to make it operational. A starting point is likely to be the government programme or equivalent, putting into practice the political manifesto of the party or parties in power. Making the strategic vision operational is key. Otherwise, the vision has no value. The doctrine of collective responsibility is crucial to bind both line ministries and the CoG to a course of action. It is crucial for collective commitment to be built, developed, discussed and agreed upon by the whole range of actors that are engaged in public policy making, implementation and service delivery.

•

Communication. The CoG needs the capacity to communicate its strategic vision, how it is being taken forward and how it is implemented. Transparency and openness help to promote a sense of purpose that is shared among stakeholders both outside and inside the government. Clarity of communication within the administration is important so that decentralised institutions can understand the vision and share in its construction. In this way all parts of the public sector can understand their role, responsibility and accountability for results.

Given its comprehensive set of responsibilities, the CoG also requires continuity across political cycles (OECD, 2014c). CoG institutions are best constructed, as far as possible, to withstand the vagaries of the political cycle. To be sustainable over time, it is important to implement long-term strategies. Stability of core functions and structures will boost confidence that the strategic vision is taken seriously and that the country will have the institutional capacity to carry out the vision over time.

The most recent work on CoG (OECD, 2015) also highlights a (renewed) pressure for actual delivery, i.e. going beyond strengthened vision and leadership. While many countries are still dealing with the legacy of the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

79

crisis (e.g. low growth and persistent unemployment), governments are also facing new, emerging challenges like large-scale migration and climate change. In addition, global agendas such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Climate Change (COP21) require new efforts from governments. These agendas are characterised by some shared features, notably multidimensionality, high stakes, complex metrics, and uncertainty. Citizens are increasingly aware of the scale of the challenges, and they expect governments to look beyond political timetables or ideological affiliations to find durable solutions and generate real change in people’s lives. Box 2.3 provides some reflections on key elements to further strengthen the CoG’s capacity to deliver on complex agendas.

Box 2.3. Centre of government – delivering on complex agendas At the 2015 meeting of the OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government, participants reflected on key aspects to further strengthen the CoG’s capacity to deliver on complex agendas:

• the importance of setting clear goals and objectives from the outset, with mention made of

the welcome and trend towards more focused government programmes structured around fewer but more strategic priorities;

• the relevance of efforts to reduce the number of participants around the table - while formal Cabinet or government-wide deliberation and decision-making remain important, priority initiatives can be more effectively driven by smaller ministerial teams;

• the common agenda should, where possible, be built around high-profile outcomes that offer tangible rewards in terms of business or citizen impact for participating ministries;

• citizen input can be leveraged to generate momentum and overcome resistance either within

government or from other vested interests; for that purpose, the centre needs to better communicate to citizens the goals of priority initiatives, particularly those with longer-term impacts;

• mastering knowledge and evidence is crucial to many different aspects of the centre’s work,

and clear objectives need to be set at the planning stage, as without realistic and agreed upon objectives, targets are meaningless and can waste effort and drain enthusiasm;

• a particular challenge regards the translation of data collected at national level into usable advice for subnational governments, which are often the principal providers of public services and to have evidence systems that provide the right data at the right time;

• to be effective, the centre needs to have a good understanding of the ‘organigram’ of

delivery; in other words, to grasp the relationships that have an impact on the delivery of policies and how the centre can support these relationships; at the same time, the centre needs to explore how to facilitate leadership by specialist line ministries so that the centre is not the default option and to ensure that key policies are not “orphaned” or dumped on the centre.

Source: OECD (2015), “Meeting summary - 2015 meeting in Helsinki (Finland) of the OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government on Promoting Inclusive Growth: A New Challenge for the Centre of Government”, www.oecd.org/gov/cog.htm.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

80 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Centre of government and public administration reform in Indonesia Key actors and mandate Among the 34 ministries in the Government of Indonesia, Box 2.4 lists the selected ministries which have a pivotal role as centre of government actor and provides an overview of their key responsibilities.

Box 2.4. Centre of government actors Ministry/Office President’s Office

Centre of government responsibility It co-ordinates the executive’s delivery and strategy.

This office assists the administration to identify strategic issues, as well as directs the executive branch’s public communications.

Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas)

The Ministry is charged with formulating, coordinating, and synchronising national planning in all sectors, including economic, regional, and infrastructure development, as well as data and information planning.2 Bappenas, in partnership with the Ministry of Finance, helps draft the annual budget. The staff of Bappenas maintains close substantive relationships with the various sectoral ministries.3

Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN)

This ministry assists the President in formulating policies and co-ordinating policy implementation related to Bureaucratic Reform activities, including those related to public services, human resources, and business processes.4 The vision of the ministry is to create a “professional and reliable state apparatus that is conducive to good public governance.” 5 The Ministry is also responsible for the supervision, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of all civil service matters, including supervision and coordination of the National Civil Service Agency and the National Institute of Public Administration.

Ministry of Finance

Responsible for managing financial and state assets.

The Ministry of Finance is in charge of drafting the budget and providing technical guidance and evaluation of revenues, expenditures, and financial estimates; this ministry is also in charge of managing the posting of budget data and representing the government, along with Bappenas, during Parliamentary oversight of budget discussions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Centre of government in a changing context: public administration reform in Indonesia (1945-present) The history of public administration reform in Indonesia goes back to Sukarno’s presidency (1945-67), following the country’s independence in 1945. Sukarno’s reform attempts were intended to reduce corruption in the public sector and improve the ability of the state to respond to the many social and economic challenges facing the country. These attempts, however, proved insufficient and the fragile political situation of the time made these efforts difficult (Budiarso, 2014). A subsequent phase occurred during Suharto’s rule (1967-98) known as the ‘New Order Era’. The difficult economic situation of the time, characterised by an inflation rate of 600%, stagnant economic production and trade and poor infrastructure precipitated Suharto’s centralised policies which were intended to restore and maintain economic stability. Under such circumstances public administration reform received little attention. Strict loyalty was demanded of civil servants and there was little room in the public administration for introducing new ideas.

After Suharto stepped down in 1998 there was new impetus for public administration reform as part of Indonesia’s broad reform programme known as the Reformasi. It was acknowledged that the public sector in general and public administration in particular had to play an important role in supporting Indonesia’s economic and social development. Government underperformance was found to be one of the main factors that hindered development, and therefore creating competent public-sector institutions was one of the main goals of the reform plan. The central idea underlying the reforms, one that had a direct bearing on public administration reform, was to create a democratic state and address systemic problems, which were identified to be corruption, collusion, and nepotism (Korupsi Kolusi Nepotisme or KKN).

In response to these challenges, the Reformasi leaders initiated a largescale, so-called “big bang” decentralisation process and took the first significant steps to reform the civil service, thus paving the way for future public administration reform. To create the basic systems and processes of the newly-democratic state in the context of decentralisation, it was key to put in place sound public financial management principles and practices.

Therefore, public financial management reform was and has remained a key policy area on Indonesia’s reform agenda. The Ministry of Finance assumed a leading role in developing financial management reform, along with tax and customs reform. The Government introduced three bills in Parliament in 2000 to establish general principles of public finance and expenditure management. The next phase of reforms of the public financial management OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

81

82 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA followed in 2003-05 with the adoption of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances, Law No. 1 of 2004 on the State Treasury and Law No. 15 of 2004 on Auditing Management and Accountability in the State Finances. These three laws replaced colonial laws that had operated for more than five decades in Indonesia (Budiarso, 2014).

In 2002, reforms aimed at improving the organisation, staffing and career management of civil servants were introduced, while in 2004 significant steps were taken to improve strategic planning through the adoption of Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development Planning System. This law was further strengthened by Presidential Regulation 7 of 2005 on the 2004-09 Medium Term Development Plan. In addition, Law No.17 of 2007 on the 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan was issued to ensure policy consistency between administrations.

As a result of these legislative changes, government institutions, both central and local, were mandated to report on their performance and make use of the existing performance management system, SAKIP, with the aim of improving performance, transparency, and accountability in the short, medium and long term. These goals were to be achieved through the definition of visions, missions and clear goals and objectives. However, mixed results were observed in terms of the implementation of the system during those initial phases, which underlined the need for top leadership involvement, strategic alignment between financial and operational management and for a whole-of-government performance management system (Budiarso, 2014; Jurnali and Siti-Nabiha, 2015).

Against the backdrop of these long-term public administration reform efforts, three reform areas particularly affect the role of the centre of government: the bureaucratic reform agenda, the strategic planning process and the decentralisation process. Each of these three reform areas can be linked to specific open government priorities and goals, such as increased transparency or increased consultation and participation.

Bureaucratic reform Public administration reform has become increasingly visible with the adoption of the bureaucracy reform (reformasi birokrasi). The initiative was introduced in 2006 by Sri Mulyani Indrawati, then Indonesia’s Minister of Finance under President Yudhoyono, with the aim of supporting the ongoing public financial management reform process. The focus, as originally envisaged, was on reforming organisational structures and procedures, HR policies and practices, as well as carrying out a modernisation programme that included widespread organisational reforms and introducing information and communication technologies (ICTs). It championed a OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

whole-of-government approach to public administration reform. The reform was first piloted in three organisations in 2007, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, the State Audit Office (BPK) and the National Supreme Court Office, followed by implementation on a larger scale. The reform reflected the President’s programme in the National Medium Term Development Plan 2004-09, which targeted good governance, improved supervision and accountability, restructuring and better institutional management, improved public service and HR management, and public service quality improvement (Budiarso, 2014).

Until 2009, the reform fell under the Central Bureaucratic Reform Team (TRBP). Subsequently, starting in 2010, implementation was primarily coordinated by the Bureaucratic Reform Co-ordination Forum (FKRB) of the Ministry of Finance. In addition, the reform fell under the mandate of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Regulation 20 of 2010 concerning the roadmap for the bureaucratic reform 2010-14).

The current 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap is firmly anchored in the country’s Medium and Long Term National Development Plans and provides detailed roadmaps (with quantified indicators, but not necessarily the identification of institutional responsibilities) to guide future action towards:

•

A clean and accountable bureaucracy (e.g. through commitment from the leadership at central and local levels to prevent and eradicate corruption and enhance transparency and integrity).

•

An effective and efficient bureaucracy.

•

A bureaucracy that exhibits qualities defining highly efficient and functioning public services.

Through its leadership in the current Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN) has an important formal role to play as a CoG actor. In addition, the priorities of the Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap illustrate that open government priorities such as transparency and accountability are part and parcel of the broader public administration reform agenda.

Decentralisation and regional autonomy Indonesia comprises 34 provinces, five of which have special status.6 Each province has its own legislative body and governor. The provinces are subdivided into regencies (kabupaten) and cities (kota) both of which are further subdivided into districts (kecamatan or distrik in Papua and West Papua), and further into villages, which represent the lowest level of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

83

84 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA governmental administration (either desa, kelurahan, kampung, nagari in West Sumatra, or gampong in Aceh). A village is further divided into several community and neighbourhood groups.

The fall of Suharto’s New Order regime gave rise to a political climate that was supportive of democratisation and subnational political and administrative decentralisation. Two decentralisation laws were passed in 1999, Law No. 22 of 1999 on Regional Autonomy and Law No. 25 of 1999 on the Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and the Regions, both of which went into effect in 2001. These laws transformed the structure of public administration and introduced significant change in intergovernmental relations in Indonesia, including the following (Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation, 2010):

•

The responsibility for the delivery of key public services was devolved directly to local (district and municipal) governments. The exceptions (retained at the central level) were for such functions as security, foreign affairs, monetary and fiscal policy, judiciary and religious affairs;

•

The hierarchical relationship between local governments and provincial governments was eliminated, making districts fully autonomous. The district head (bupati) and head of municipality (walikota) were no longer required to report to the provincial governor, but rather to the locally elected district parliament (DPRD). In contrast, provinces retained a hierarchical relationship with central government;

•

Substantial parts of the national budget were allocated to provincial and local governments, and they were given effective budgetary and financial autonomy. For example, on average 30% of the national budget (APBN) is now being channelled each year to provincial and local governments, up from 12% in the mid-1990s.

These laws not only changed the structure of the public administration, but they also had the potential to change the state-citizen relationship: as the policy decision-making progress came (physically) much closer to citizens, new opportunities for citizen consultation and participation were likely to arise. However, these laws were later amended by Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Administration and Law No. 33 of 2004 on the Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and the Regional Governments, which reconfigured the autonomy between the central, provincial and district level.

Some authority was given back to provincial governments in areas such as supervision of local governments, capacity building, budget preparation and local taxation. These changes also decreased to some extent the autonomy of DPRDs locally, and their role started to be one of co-ordination based on partnership rather than hierarchical supervision and control.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Despite this legislation, there have been concerns about the lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government as well as the relationships between them. A subsequent regulation, Government Regulation on Division of Authorities among Different Levels of Government (GR 38 of 2007) was issued in 2007 to address these concerns, but this change does not seem to have had a significant impact (Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation, 2010). There have also been questions concerning the different types of autonomy that local governments enjoy in reality. While by law they are entrusted with significant administrative discretion, in reality they can only make use of it as long as they possess an adequate degree of financial autonomy supported by sufficient administrative capacity. By law local governments have substantial financial autonomy, but in practice most of their revenue is still earmarked to centrally determined priorities. The challenge therefore is to grant both administrative and financial autonomy to local governments, while ensuring that both the degree of central co-ordination and the form it takes are locally acceptable. At the same time, this co-ordination must allow for the central government’s national priorities to be met.

A number of government regulations were intended to create the framework for the central government to evaluate the performance of subnational governments. They include GR 78 of 2007 concerning the guidelines for the formation, eradication, and merging of autonomous regions, followed by GR 6 of 2008 on the evaluation of subnational government performance and GR 8 of 2008 regarding the formulation, monitoring, and evaluation of subnational development plans. Box 2.5 provides an overview of the primary roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government. The box also illustrates how the CoG at the national level has an important role to play in overall co-ordination, keeping in mind that for many policy areas, its counterparts are not (only) sector ministries at national level, but to a very large extent also subnational governments.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

85

86 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Box 2.5. Multilevel governance in Indonesia Level of government National government

Provincial governments District governments Village governments

Main responsibilities Ministry of Home Affairs, Bappenas and the Ministry of Finance are the key central institutions concerned with decentralisation and resource allocation; Allocation of most financial resources to provincial and local governments Legislative and regulatory power nationally; Control over government staffing and performance incentives.

Capacity building and supervision functions; Close links to the national government as the deconcentrated bodies of the national government.

Primary responsibility for the provision of key public services such as health, education and infrastructure.

Use financial resources from both district and provincial governments’ budgets and from national programmes: Do not have a formal responsibility in public service delivery.

Source: Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation (2010).

In 2014, Indonesia passed Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government to replace the previous regulation. This law sought to clarify the division of authorities between central and local government, and promoted public participation and innovation at the local government.

Strategic planning and performance management Under the terms of Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development Planning System, the Government of Indonesia is required to draft national long-term development plans (abbreviated RPJPN) every twenty years. The vision and mission of the current RPJPN 2005‐2025 is to establish a country that is “developed and self-reliant, just and democratic, and peaceful and united.” Specifically, the plan aims to encourage development that: 1) ensures the widest possible equality in the country, supported by quality human resources and infrastructure; 2) ensures the rule of law is applied fairly and consistently and serves the public interest; and 3) provides security and peace among all people.

Within the long-term development plan cycle, the Government of Indonesia is additionally required to draft National Medium-Term OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five year cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the presidential administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the national longterm development plan.

The goal of the current National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-19 with respect to public governance is to build a government that is “clean, effective, democratic and reliable.” The plan’s strategies regarding public administration and open government reforms are comprised of the following five areas:

•

Continuing to consolidate democratic institutions to regain public trust, for example by encouraging stronger partnerships between government, the private sector and civil society, and by strengthening and empowering civil society organisations to support their ability to work with the government, media, and the public;

•

Enhancing the role of female representation in politics and development, for example by increasing the commitment of development actors to integrate gender perspectives in development planning at the national and regional level, as well as incorporating gender responsive budgeting procedures in development planning;

•

Building transparent and accountable government performance, for example by creating a performance reporting system and increasing public access to information about the performance of government agencies. This strategy also seeks to implement more effective egovernment systems by strengthening e-government policies, infrastructure systems and electronic procurement systems. Furthermore, this area seeks to increase the implementation of open government practices and informational transparency in all government agencies by establishing PPID offices in every state public body; increasing public awareness about job openings; publishing budget and budget implementation reports; and providing space for public participation in formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policy;

•

Enhancing the quality of implementation of bureaucratic reform by, for example, improving the management capacity of the civil service and by fully implementing Law No. 25 of 2009 on the Public Service;

•

Deepening public participation in the policy-making process, for example by increasing the openness of and access to public information (through the development of communication and information policies, including public disclosure, management and dissemination of public information, particularly through the establishment of PPID offices), as well as by strengthening partnerships with local governments, civil

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

87

88 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA society organisations, the private sector and the media to educate the public about the importance of public information and participate in the process of preparing and monitoring policies.7 Through an extensive annual planning system, including at the subnational level (see description in Chapter 3 on the Development Planning Forum or Musrenbang), Bappenas has established itself as a key CoG actor to foster strategy and coherence throughout the public sector. In line with the broader public administration reform agenda, strategic planning and performance management (as part of the government’s effort to ensure the implementation its strategies) have increasingly gained prominence and have evolved through various stages and adaptations, as part of the wholeof-government efforts to improve performance, as called for in the bureaucracy reform. Before 1999, the main focus of the performance system was to ensure the financial accountability of governmental agencies, but this understanding has expanded to encompass non-financial in addition to financial performance (Jurnali and Siti-Nabiha, 2015). Instrumental to this gradual change was Presidential Instruction 7 of 1999, which mandated that all government agencies implement a performance accountability system (SAKIP) and issue an annual performance accountability report (LAKIP).

The main purpose of the regulation was to create the needed framework with the ultimate aim to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of government institutions. This piece of legislation was further developed in the operational guidelines for the performance accountability system and reporting as regulated in Public Administration Agency Decree 589/IX/6/Y/1999, and later on amended by Decree 239/IX/6/8/2003. This legislation further required government institutions to develop strategic planning and performance management to fulfil and meet the vision, mission and objectives of the organisation. It also mandated that government institutions prepare well-defined performance targets, measurement indicators and data collection systems, and it offered guidance on the implementation and evaluation of public programmes (Jurnali and SitiNabiha, 2015).

Furthermore, according to Regulation 9 of 2007 of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform, local governments must develop key performance indicators based on the guidelines provided in Regulation 9 of 2007. Local governments are required to develop SMART outcome-based indicators that reflect their strategic plans. Reporting on local governments’ performance was further elaborated in Regulation No. 9 of 2010 of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform. The performance accountability report must be sent no more than three months after the end of the fiscal year and needs to include both financial and non-financial information on the performance of local governments. The report is based OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

on self-assessments by local governments themselves (Jurnali and SitiNabiha, 2015).

The bureaucracy reform introduced further changes to the performance management system. On the one hand, more emphasis has been placed on whole-of-government performance and improved co-ordination across organisations and levels of government. Elsewhere, with the support of the Ministry of Finance, the balanced scorecard (BSC) has been taken into account since 2007 and was adopted in 2009 as a strategic performance measurement and management tool to support the goals of the bureaucracy reform agenda. Based on the experience with the implementation of BSC in the Ministry of Finance, the following main lessons have been drawn: the need to maintain the commitment on the part of leadership to cascade the BSC down to the individual level, while developing capacity for managing strategy and dealing with the whole of the Indonesian bureaucracy (Budiarso, 2014).

The centre of government and public administration reform as enablers for open government Indonesia’s open government efforts are embedded in a broader public administration reform process and in a CoG reality that have complex influences on the government’s ability to affect change. For example:

•

The country has a set of CoG actors that play an important role in enabling open government, though the complexity, size and different waves of de- and recentralisation that have affected the multilevel governance dynamics of the country are likely to multiply the challenges;

•

Indonesia’s bureaucratic reform agenda has obtained a fairly prominent place in the overall reform agenda over the last ten years (e.g. the explicit link with the country’s national development plans) and open government related principles such as transparency and accountability are gaining increased visibility;

•

The strong tradition of strategic planning and increased attention to performance management offer possible entry points to anchor the open government agenda.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

89

90 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

The open government agenda The institutional anchorage of open government Since the Reformasi era’s democratisation push, the public has demanded better access to public services and improved government performance. Indonesia has identified openness in government as a tool to achieve those goals. President Yudhoyono, who was inaugurated in 2004, displayed a political commitment to instituting both an anti-corruption agenda and a broad open government agenda. The Yudhoyono administration also established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (Presidential Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight, UKP4), which was tasked with supervising, co-ordinating, and helping to ensure the successful implementation of the open government initiatives. The Government of Indonesia signed the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Declaration in September 2011 as a co-founder of the organisation, and in September 2012 Indonesia and the United Kingdom became co-chairs of the OGP. Starting on 31 October 2013, Indonesia served as the lead chair of OGP and coordinated the direction of this worldwide initiative for its year-long term.

During its chairmanship of the OGP, Indonesia launched the Open Government Initiative (OGI) at the national level. The OGI Core Team comprised seven government ministries and seven CSOs, led by UKP4 and primarily served to advocate for, and monitor, open government activities, and through the OGI forum provided a venue for public sector and civil society representatives to translate policies into specific activities.

When President Jokowi took office in 2014, UKP4 was dissolved and replaced by the Executive Office of the President. During this transition period, Bappenas, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Office of the President primarily took over the open government portfolio. These three institutions divided the management of open government, where Bappenas focused on linking the open government priorities with other national priority agendas, the Executive Office of the President ensured the support and involvement of the national leadership and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs handled diplomatic matters related open government.

The administration soon announced that the oversight and management of its open government reforms would be managed by a newly created National Open Government Secretariat, staffed by representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas, and the Executive Office of the President (KSP). By the end of 2015, the National Open Government Secretariat was established, while staff of Bappenas, MoFA and the Executive Office of the President ensured follow-up of the open government OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

agenda during the transition period in 2014-5. A major task – or challenge – of the National Open Government Secretariat is, along with the promotion of the open government agenda, to link the country’s efforts under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with its ongoing open government reform efforts and to help ensure that the SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and initiatives.

A background document on the institutional set-up of the National Open Government Secretariat (Ministry of National Development Planning, 2015) identifies six major functions for the Secretariat: public policy and coordination; open data and IT platforms; capacity development; monitoring, evaluation and knowledge management; public outreach and communication; and finance and administration (see Figure 2.2 for the organisational chart of the National Open Government Secretariat). It also outlines the involvement of civil society organisations in the management of the organisations and the formal process of their selection via elections through the Civil Society Consultative Meeting. In addition, the same document makes reference to the relevance of a subnational co-ordinating role for the National Open Government Secretariat, and provincial and district/ municipality-level districts (to be funded by their respective governments). Given the country’s decentralisation process and, hence, the fact that open government is to a large extent expected to be delivered at the subnational level, the role of such subnational secretariats as catalysts is considered essential, and the development of subnational open government action plans is posed as an option in the medium term. See Box 2.6 for a relevant example of how Brazil has organized its co-ordinating body to manage its open government strategy.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

91

92 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA Figure 2.2. National Open Government Secretariat: Organisational chart

Box 2.6. Co-ordination of open government in Brazil Brazil has established an inter-ministerial Committee for Open Government (Comitê Interministerial Governo Aberto – CIGA) to manage its open government strategy. Formed by 18 public organisations, CIGA’s mission is to ensure that policies related to transparency, accountability, integrity and social participation evolve transversally. CIGA has an Executive Group (Grupo Executivo - GE), formed by seven ministries to manage its operation. The Executive Group has a working group (CSO-WG) of seven civil society organisations that advises them.

Broadly, the committee seeks to develop an open government culture within the government and to foster dialogue with civil society. To do so, the GE organizes workshops with public servants to illustrate the importance of open government and promote new initiatives, holds events to share good practices and organizes meetings with high-level authorities to build political support. Partly as a result, 22 agencies proposed commitments to the country’s second OGP action plan.

The Executive Group also works with the CSO-WG to expand CSO involvement and promote dialogue. Together, the two groups developed the methodology for creating and monitoring Brazil’s third OGP action plan. The GE also monitors the execution of the national action plans, maintains regular dialogue with people responsible for meeting commitments and updates the status of those commitments through a public website.

Finally, the Executive Group has approached the Legislature and the Judiciary to promote their involvement in open government initiatives and has prioritized actions to improve dialogue with subnational governments to foster local level policies on open government. CIGA, its Executive Group and the CSO Working Group were all legally established by formal regulations.

Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

The constitutional and legal basis for open government While the Constitution, as ratified in 1945, does not explicitly refer to open government as such, it does provide the legal foundation for the principles of transparency and participation in general. Article 28F guarantees the rights of citizens to communicate freely and obtain information, as it states that “Every person shall have the right to communicate and to obtain information for the purpose of the development of his/her self and social environment, and shall have the right to seek, obtain, possess, store, process and convey information by employing all available types of channels.” Article 23(1), furthermore, stipulates that “the State Budget as the basis of the management of state funds shall be determined annually by law and shall be implemented in an open and accountable manner.”

The legal framework supporting open government has been further codified via a number of laws, presidential decrees, and ministerial regulations, as shown in Box 2.7. Through these laws, Indonesia’s legal framework provides explicit recognition of citizens’ rights to access information and to participate in public affairs. Most notably, Law No. 14 of 2008, which guarantees freedom of information and mandated the formation of the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) units responsible for storing, documenting, and providing government information to the public, provides a formal basis for promoting transparency in government affairs.

Prior to the national government’s passing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information, some subnational governments had already issued regional regulations to guarantee access to government information and encourage community participation in development planning and budgeting.

Examples of such laws include:

•

West Kalimantan Provincial Law No. 4 of 2005 on Government Transparency, which mandates that every public body be transparent in its provision of information, its procedures, and its policy-making and implementation processes.

•

Bulukumba District Regulation No. 5 of 2005, which provides a similar set of guidelines and regulations to that of the national Freedom of Information Law.

•

Palopo Regulation No. 5 of 2008, Garut Regional Regulation No. 17 of 2008, and West Java Provincial Regulation No. 11 of 2011, which regulate transparency in governance affairs.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

93

94 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA Box 2.7. Legal framework for open government in Indonesia Law Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Development Planning System President Regulation No. 1 of 2007 on the Approval, Promulgation and Distribution of Laws and Regulations Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure

Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman

Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service Provision

Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Regulatory Legislation

Act No. 5 of 2014 on Civil Administrative State

Key points Encourages public participation in the formulation of the national and local development plan.

Requires that government regulations are published and disseminated to ensure that the general public understands and comprehends the contents of the laws and regulations.8 Guarantees citizens’ right to information: every interested person who applies to obtain public information “shall be able to obtain Public Information fast and promptly at low cost and in a simple manner” (Chapter 1, Article 2). Specifically, it: • mandates the creation of the public information provision system, named the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID): Public agencies “shall establish and develop an information and documentation system to manage Public Information properly and efficiently, so that it is easily accessible” (Part 4, Article 7); • encourages public participation in decision-making processes; • promotes transparent, accountable, effective and efficient governance.

The aims of the Ombudsman are to: • contribute to a democratic, just and wealthy state, based on the rule of law; • improve the quality of government services in all sectors; • improve the legal culture and awareness of the population The functions of the Ombudsman are to: • receive and investigate grievances concerning the maladministration of public services; • follow up on the grievances under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman; • co-ordinate and collaborate with other government institutions or public agencies as well as with nongovernmental organisations and individuals.

Designed to improve the quality of public services by: • establishing clear responsibilities and obligations of all parties related to the provision of public services; • ensuring the public services provided comply with the prevailing laws; • giving legal protection and legal certainty to the public on the provision of public services • preparing and establishing service standards taking into account the ability of the provider, public needs and environmental conditions.9 Makes openness one of the principles to be applied in the development of new legislation by: • requiring the government (via the Minister of Law and Human Rights) to publish laws, government regulations, presidential regulations, and programmes.

• requiring the national government to establish a five-year National Legislative Program (Prolegnas).10 Requires openness in civil service management and hiring practices.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

The inclusion of open government in strategic policy documents The National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita) synthesises the nine presidential policy priorities for the 2014-19 period and incorporates a clear reference to open government. In particular priority number 2 (focussing on clean, effective, democratic, and reliable governance by placing a priority and dedicating efforts to the restoration of public confidence in democratic institutions) and also priority number 4 (emphasising reforming the state through corruption-free, dignified, and reliable law enforcement) reflect the presidential interest in addressing open government issues.

In addition, a set of key policy documents incorporate a reference to open government principles. These include Indonesia’s 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN), the 2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), and the Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap.

The 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) has as its objectives 1) to support the co-ordination among actors involved in development in achieving national goals, 2) to ensure the integration, synchronisation, and good synergy between the different functions within the central and regional administration, 3) to ensure relevance and consistency between planning, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring, 4) to ensure efficient, effective, just, and sustainable use of resources, and 5) to optimize the society’s participation. Eight National Development Goals have been identified and civil society participation (as an example of open government) is a recurring theme among them, with the plan underlining for instance that “society’s participation in Indonesia’s governance and administration, particularly in monitoring the bureaucratic system, needs to continue and increase in order to further improve the quality of governance” (Republic of Indonesia, 2007). At the same, substantial limitations of the civil society are identified, stating that “the civil society […] still lacks economic and educational prowess” (idem).

The 2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), which was developed under the umbrella of the Long-Term Development Plan, has nine National Development Agenda points, including the objective to “build clean, effective, democratic and reliable governance”. This objective is further broken down into a number of targets, including, among others, target 6.2.3, which declares an intention to “build transparency and accountability in government performance” and target 6.2.5, which calls on the government to “increase public participation in the public policy making process” (Republic of Indonesia, 2015).

Finally, the 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, which includes references to the Nawa Cita, RPJPN and RPJMN, refers to the relevance of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

95

96 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA applying open government ideas in order to increase the transparency and accountability of government performance through:

•

Establishing and appointing Information and Documentation Managing Officers (PPID).

•

Increasing public awareness of public information transparency

•

Publishing all planning, budgeting and budget implementation processes on the websites of all ministries/agencies.

•

Providing opportunities for the general public to participate in the of drafting public policies and monitoring of their subsequent implementation.

•

Developing a proactive and interactive information publication system that is accessible to the public.

•

Improving the management of the National Archive Information Network and System.

Together, the Long-Term National Development Plan, the MediumTerm National Development Plan and the Bureaucratic Roadmap provide a high-level policy framework to promote open government policies and practices across the public sector.

The OGP Action Plans As a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011, Indonesia has been a frontrunner in fostering the international agenda on open government. The country also has proven experience in working on open government at the national level under the OGP umbrella: it has now reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan.

Indonesia is currently implementing its third action plan, which was designed to accelerate three out of the five transformative priorities as identified by OGP (see Box 2.8), namely: improving public services; improving the integrity of the government apparatus; and managing public resources more effectively and transparently. These three priorities have been targeted by the Government of Indonesia ever since the country joined OGP in 2011.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Box 2.8. OGP Action Plans: Transformative open government reform priorities Open government commitments assumed under OGP membership need to address at least two of the five following objectives (OGP, n.d.):

• improving public services • increasing public integrity • managing public resources more effectively • creating safer communities • increasing corporate accountability.

According to the OGP guidelines, an action plan needs to define a list of the most transformative open government reform priorities based on the following three criteria (OGP, 2015):

• ambitious: aiming to extend beyond existing reforms • relevant: advancing transparency, accountability, participation and/or technology and innovation

• SMART: specific, measurable, answerable, relevant and time-bound.

Sources: OGP (n.d.), “OGP national action plan guidance note”, Open Government Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_ actionplan_guide%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015); OGP (2015a), “How it works: Action plans”, Open Government Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/howit-works/action-plans (accessed 24 September 2015).

The first action plan, issued in 2012, was developed on the basis of the so-called Triple Track Strategy. Each initiative was integrated into one of the following three tracks:

•

Track I: provides context to strengthen and accelerate implementation of existing open government programmes and initiatives; these initiatives are derived from recent presidential instructions and directives.

•

Track II: focuses on establishing a common portal for public services, public participation and public institution openness programmes.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

97

98 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA •

Track III: accommodates new innovations in open government both from the central and regional government, with pilot locations selected at the regional, city and district level.

Specific actions taken under the first action plan included the promotion of transparency, accountability and public participation in areas as diverse as the following: the government’s poverty reduction programmes; the allocation of subsidies to elementary and junior high schools; the health sector; the police and public prosecution service; Tax Court, Immigration, Custom and Land Administration offices; civil service recruitment in central and regional governments; the national budget; budget information at district level; public procurement activities; forestry and other natural resources, environment and spatial data management (OGP, 2011).

Most initiatives fell under Track I or II, with the exception of promoting transparency, accountability and public participation in decisions involving natural resources, the environment and spatial data management, all which were seen as representing innovation in open government at different levels of government. The goals were time-bound, specific and relevant and thus satisfied the OGP criteria (see Box 2.8). The extent to which they are ambitious enough (according to OGP criteria) merits further discussion, considering that only a minority were seen as innovative while the rest sought to strengthen existing programmes and initiatives. On the one hand, this is legitimate given the need to ensure implementation of alreadyexisting initiatives, which is especially important in an environment characterised by scarce resources. On the other hand, bold, innovative and transformative steps in carrying out the OGP actions plans would provide greater leverage through the OGP membership both domestically and in the wider region.

The Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) assessing Indonesia’s progress in implementing its first action plan indicated that the enforcement of the Law on Freedom of Information was less effective than expected, with less than a third of government bodies at different administrative levels having established an information and documentation service unit (PPID).

Provincial information commissions were instituted in 20 out of the 34 provinces, indicating uneven implementation of the legal provisions territorially (TIFA Foundation, 2013). Enforcement of the disclosure of information also depended on the specific policy area and institution, with some lagging behind, for example, the Indonesian National Police and certain provincial administrations.

Similar implementation gaps were found in the other priority areas.

LAPOR, for example, which was designed as an integrated complaint mechanism to support improvements in public services, enjoyed only partial OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

success due to limited coverage and functionality. The IRM recommended intensifying the enforcement of the Law on Freedom of Information and the Law on Public Services, which could in turn improve implementation of the more specific initiatives in the three OGP Action Plan priority areas.

Overall, five out of the 12 total action plan commitments were fully met, while the remaining seven were in progress, though work had started on all of them (OGP, 2014). The IRM recommended:

•

improving OGI as an instrument of the strong transparency framework that Indonesia has instituted with its Freedom of Information Law

•

selecting a strategic but ambitious scope for the next action plan

•

deepening system transparency by strengthening structural incentives and disincentives, rather than only by highlighting best practices

•

strengthening the lead institution to enforce OGP implementation

•

improving governance of the Core Team as a leading institution of OGI.

Despite these weaknesses, Indonesia made significant progress in creating more overall visibility for open government within the framework of the first action plan.

The second OGP Action Plan, issued in 2013, built on the first OGP Action Plan to drive its further implementation and emphasised the need to continue building the infrastructure for open government across the country, thus seeking to address gaps identified in the course of the implementation of the first OGP Action Plan. The second OGP Action Plan included responsible institutions, achievement criteria and measures as well as targeted deliverables.

To assess progress of the second action plan, the IRM released a Special Accountability Report, prompted by the early release of the third action plan and the change in administration during the period of evaluation. The Special Accountability Report found that only two out of a total of 15 commitments were completed by the time of the drafting of the report.

On five commitments substantial progress had been made, whereas most commitments had seen only limited implementation (OGP, 2015b).

Available evidence also suggests that in the case of most commitments (with some notable exceptions) the involvement of civil society in the execution of action plans for monitoring, evaluation and advocacy purposes was limited (OGP, 2015b). Progress in this area was, however, made with the creation of working groups in several fields by the CSO Coalition on Open Government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

99

100 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA A third OGP Action Plan with commitments for 2014-15 was released in September 2014, one year ahead of schedule, and preserved the three grand challenges identified at the outset. The action plan set out to strengthen the Triple Track Strategy, align the action plan with Indonesia’s OGP Lead Chairmanship theme of promoting public participation, reemphasise implementation of commitments in provinces and cities, and further push the implementation of the Law on Freedom of Information (Open Government Indonesia, 2014). Compared with the previous iterations, the third action plan includes more detailed information on the action’s plan development process, emphasising the role and mechanisms of public participation. To this end, a crowdsourcing platform (SOLUSIMU) was created to gather ideas that would then be incorporated into the action plan itself. Via the OGI website, the public was encouraged to provide ideas, and youth in particular were encouraged to participate. Furthermore, Indonesian CSOs initiated a national forum to develop recommendations coming from the wider civil society, thus going beyond the specific CSOs that were already members of the core OGI team. Most of the initiatives are new, while only three remain from the previous action plans (Open Government Indonesia, 2014). The action plan included four main groups of commitments:

•

strengthen open governance infrastructure to support better public services

•

improve quality of openness in basic public services (i.e. education and health)

•

accelerate open and good governance practices in corruption-prone areas

•

improve quality of openness in common public interest areas.

The commitments generally conform to OGP guidelines (but unlike in the previous action plans they are not time-bound) and hold the potential to be transformative. The governance process was strengthened by the creation of clearer monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, both internal and external. Responsible institutions were established for each commitment, but issues remained concerning both the availability of the financial and human resources necessary to make good on these new commitments and the way to ensure actual enforcement and implementation given that no penalties are specified in case of lack of compliance.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Opportunities to strengthen open government through the centre of government Indonesia has a fairly strong starting position to foster open government policies and practices:

•

It is a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and signed the OGP declaration in September 2011.

•

It has a well-developed legal and regulatory framework on open government (e.g. references to transparency and accountability in the Constitution; Freedom of Information Law of 2008; etc.).

•

It has reflected open government ideas in key strategic policy documents like the Presidential Priorities and the Medium-Term National Development Plan 2015-19.

•

It has a tradition of institutional structures promoting the open government agenda, such as UKP4 under the Yudhoyono administration, and more recently the Open Government Indonesia National Secretariat.

By fostering its open government agenda at the international, national and local level, the country’s multilevel approach to open government is ambitious and inspiring, although it also faces some challenges. In particular, there is a risk that efforts to promote open government are somewhat scattered and poorly connected. These efforts could be improved by enhanced formalisation and communication. In a context of limited human and financial resources, it is important that open government initiatives at different governmental levels are mutually reinforcing. This implies, among other things, that the CoG should act to develop a coherent strategic approach, carefully consider complementarity across initiatives and identify multiplier effects.

Connecting different governance agendas Whereas the importance of the open government agenda is generally acknowledged and promoted by the CoG actors, other transversal agendas (such as anti-corruption and bureaucratic reform) also require substantial time and energy of those same CoG actors. This results in a situation where some CoG actors are more actively involved in the open government agenda than others (e.g. Bappenas versus KemenPAN) and it may also result in a situation where opportunities are missed to connect these transversal reform agendas more explicitly. If it gains a better grasp of the connections and possible mutual reinforcement at play in these policy areas, the CoG might OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

101

102 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA avoid missing out on opportunities or even working at cross purposes in implementing these reforms.

In a similar vein, different instruments exist in parallel to promote connected policy priorities across government. The existence of the planning (and monitoring) of Presidential Priorities, short-, medium- and long-term NDP goals, and an OGP Action Plan can become overwhelming and can create substantial transaction costs. In addition, the status of less visible reform agendas (e.g. bureaucratic reform) is somewhat unclear, and opportunities to foster an integrated governance reform approach with a limited set of mutually reinforcing objectives are likely to be missed.

The connection between different governance agendas could also be strengthened at the institutional level. Whereas there are some initiatives for institutional collaboration in the area of open government – such as the LAPOR initiative where four institutions collaborate through a formal MoU – it appears that a good share of the potential for more proactive collaboration remains untapped and could be encouraged through measures such as involving the Ministries of Home Affairs or Bureaucratic Reform more closely in the design, implementation and monitoring of open government initiatives.

Connecting horizontal (CoG and line ministries) and vertical (central and subnational level) co-ordination Indonesia is characterised by a high level of complexity when dealing with governance issues, both because of its size and its decentralized governance structure. This makes the ownership of transversal agendas like open government across levels of government an even bigger challenge. For that reason, the CoG should be particularly attentive to fostering the coherence of the open government both horizontally and vertically:

•

horizontally, i.e. between the CoG on the one hand, and line ministries on the other

•

vertically, i.e. between central government on the one hand, and decentralised levels of government, on the other.

Whereas strong open government leadership by the CoG is valuable – which was the case under UKP4 and thanks to the current role of the National Open Government Secretariat – there is also a risk of disconnection between the understanding and promotion of open government by the central co-ordinating body and the ownership of the open government agenda by the other governmental actors. In that sense, a balanced involvement of both line ministries and decentralised governmental structures in open government (throughout the policy cycle, i.e. planning, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

103

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of open government initiatives) and the development of appropriate incentives to deliver upon the open government agenda are all essential. This also suggests the opportunity for the government to pursue an open state approach to more systematically connect government bodies to open government principles. Box 2.9 outlines how the Government of New Zealand has sought to clarify and structure how ministries work together, and there may be lessons here to apply to Indonesia’s centre of government co-ordination efforts, including those for open government.

Box 2.9. Fostering collective commitment: The case New Zealand New Zealand’s Crown entity system is a principles-based framework designed to help Ministers, statutory entities and monitoring departments improve the way they work together to achieve better results. Crown entities supply many of the services provided to New Zealanders, and so delivering services better requires the government and Crown entities to work well together.

To get the best results from government investment in Crown entities, all parties in the engagement process need to understand the system as a whole and where they fit within it. The operating expectations framework sets out in one place how the respective roles and responsibilities underpinning those relationships are aligned. It is a tool for Ministers, statutory entity board members and staff, and monitoring departments to foster collective commitment.

The expectations are aligned horizontally so that each of the three parties is aware of what is expected of the other parties. Statutory Crown entities operate with three sets of expectations:

• The Enduring Letter of Expectations from the Ministers of Finance and State Services.

• Ministerial expectations, which inform entities’ strategic direction over the next four years (set out in their statements of intent) and priorities for the coming year (set out in their statements of performance expectations).

• Operating expectations, which guide engagement between the statutory entity, its responsible minister and the monitoring department. These are intended to help the parties achieve trusting, productive relationships.

The following four principles guide the expectations’ framework:

• clear roles and responsibilities; • strategic alignment; • efficient and effective monitoring; and • trusted engagement.

Source: Ministry for Culture and Heritage of New Zealand (2014), Statutory Crown Entities – It Takes Three: Operating Expectations Framework, Crown Copyright, www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/it-takesthree-operating-expectations-framework.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

104 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA More active involvement of line ministries in the development of the OGP Action Plan (as a consensus-building exercise to identify open government priorities and as a feasibility check of deliverables requested from line ministries), as well as ensuring the existence of sufficient institutional capacity both within line ministries and at the level of decentralised governmental actors (promoted and supported by the CoG) are critical enablers of this horizontal and vertical co-ordination.

Connecting planning with implementation and strategic follow-up Connecting an appropriate legal and regulatory framework for open government initiatives with actual implementation capacity and a strategic follow-up of deliverables remains a challenge for many countries, including Indonesia. As phrased by one of the interviewees, “a lot of time is spent on designing, printing and socialising, but not implementation”. Broadly, this suggests that for the future open government agenda, the CoG should more explicitly connect, and rebalance where necessary, the work on policy development and policy implementation, as well as provide sufficient resources for monitoring and evaluation of results. Therefore, the CoG should also emphasize the roll-out and follow-up of open governmentrelated activities, rather than primarily focusing on legal and regulatory framework, policy design, etc. It is important to set up mechanisms and establish implementation details to guide technical operations. The government needs to strengthen the OGP Action Plans to help guide the government’s open government efforts, as well as ensure that all elements of the Freedom of Information Law are followed.

In addition, it is advisable to further foster the efforts aimed at finetuning the OGP Action Plan planning cycle with the national planning and budget cycle, to make sure that open government activities have a secured budget and are part of the national monitoring system. Moreover, as the country has now reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan, it is also important to push for further mainstreaming of open government policies and practices and to promote the sharing of success stories and occasional failure.

In order to assure strategic follow-up of open government efforts, it is important to invest in appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. A recent OECD survey on open government shows that almost all of the respondents confirm the use of monitoring instruments for their open government initiatives. As shown in Figure 2.3, furthermore, the mechanisms most commonly used by OECD countries include using normal monitoring activities of relevant public institutions; OGP assessments; and specific offices tasked with monitoring open government initiatives.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

105

Figure 2.3. Monitoring of open government initiatives across OECD countries 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 10%

0%

Through a single institution/office in charge of monitoring all open government initiatives of the Government.

Through an ad hoc monitoring mechanism.

Through the normal monitoring Through OGP assessments (selfactivities of each public institution assessment and IRM, if your country is involved in open government initiatives part of OGP)

Note: 1. Only countries which answered to monitor open government initiatives were asked this question (n=OECD 30).

Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Beyond monitoring activities, nearly half of OECD countries confirm that the government also assesses the impact of open government initiatives.

Figure 2.4 shows that the most common instruments to measure impact among those OECD countries that monitor open government initiatives include via the normal activities of relevant public institutions; the OGP assessment process; surveys of citizens and stakeholders; and independent assessments conducted by NGOs.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

106 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA Figure 2.4. Impact evaluation of open government initiatives across OECD countries 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Through an ad hoc evaluation mechanism focusing on impacts

Through surveys Through government Through independent Through independent Through the OGP Through the normal Through surveys assessments (selfassessments assessments evaluation activities of among citizens and among public officials conducted studies on stakeholders the impact of open conducted by NGOs conducted by private assessment and IRM) each public institution companies government initiatives involved in the Open in specific areas Government Strategy

Note: 1. Only countries which answered to evaluate open government initiatives were asked this question (n=OECD17).

Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Connecting strategies with attitudes and practices Open government reforms have as much to do with instituting a shared culture and developing shared competences as they do with the mere formulation of open government-related policy priorities. Some scepticism appears to exist on the part of both civil service and civil society representatives concerning the government’s ability to deliver on its open government activities. Primarily, these concerns were related to challenges posed by the country’s history and scale, and to specific concerns regarding local capacity, bureaucratic culture, etc. This scepticism might be rooted in observed reality, but aspects such as capacity and culture also lie at the heart of genuine open government innovations. Therefore, a focus on soft issues and skills like culture, debate and exchange, and building competencies, etc. are essential to fostering both the supply of, and the demand for, open government reforms.

Recommendations The GOI has made important progress in developing the legal, policy and institutional framework needed to support open government. Moving forward, the GOI must continue to focus on ensuring these changes are reflected throughout the policy cycle. Strong leadership from the CoG will OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

continue to be critical in guaranteeing that the government’s open government priorities are implemented by the whole range of government actors. Additionally, the OECD recommends that the GOI:

•

Further strengthen the connections between, and mutual reinforcement of, different governance-related agendas, including the Presidential Priorities, short-, medium- and long-term NDP goals, OGP Action Plans, and other reform agendas such as the bureaucratic reform roadmap.

•

Improve horizontal and vertical co-ordination to help maintain broad ownership of the open government agenda. This suggests the GOI should pursue the active involvement of both line ministries and decentralised governmental structures throughout the policy cycle, as well as the development of appropriate incentives to deliver the open government agenda.

•

Better connect the policy planning process with actual implementation and strategic follow-up, particularly by providing sufficient resources for monitoring and evaluation of results. Specifically, the CoG should ensure that the OGP Action Plan cycle is linked to the national planning and budget cycle to make sure that open government activities have a secured budget and are part of the national monitoring system. A major task – or challenge – of the National Open Government Secretariat is, next to the promotion of the open government agenda, to link the country’s efforts under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with its ongoing public service reform efforts and to help ensure that the SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and initiatives.

•

Focus on building local capacity and fostering a culture among civil servants that supports open government principles so that understanding of, and support for, open government reforms is central to the public sector’s activities.

Notes

1.

This section is based on OECD (2015), complemented with information from the 2015 meeting in Helsinki (Finland) of the OECD Network of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

107

108 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Senior Officials from Centres of Government on “Promoting Inclusive Growth: A New Challenge for the Centre of Government”.

2.

Presidential Regulation No. 66 of 2015 on Ministry of National Development Planning.

3.

Blöndal et al., 2009.

4.

Presidential Regulation No.47 of 2015 on Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform.

5.

Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform www.indonesia.go.id/en/ministries/ministers/state-minister-for-theempowerment-of-stat apparaturs/1645-profile/269-kementerian-negarapendayagunaan-aparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi (accessed 24 June 2015).

6.

The provinces of Aceh, Jakarta, Yogyakarta and West Papua have a greater degree of legislative and executive autonomy from the central government than the other provinces.

7.

Ministry of National Development Planning, 2014; “Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019”. Access to the Medium-Term Development Plan and the 2015 Annual Plan can be found here: www.bappenas.go.id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968.

8.

OECD, 2012.

9.

World Services Group, “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”, Makarin & Taira S., October 2009, www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=305 8.

10.

OECD, 2012.

References Australia Indonesia Partnership for Indonesia (2010), “Delivery Strategy 2010-2015”, Australian Aid, http://dfat.gov.au/aboutus/publications/Documents/AIPD-delivery-strategy.pdf (accessed 8 July 2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Budiarso, A. (2014), Improving Government Performance in Indonesia: The Experience of Balanced Scorecard in the Ministry of Finance, PhD Thesis, University of Canberra, May. Jón R. Blöndal, Ian Hawkesworth and Hyun Deok Choi (2009), "Budgeting in Indonesia", OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 9/2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/budget-9-5ks72wv89p48.

Jurnali, T. and Siti-Nabiha, A.K. (2015), “Performance Management System for Local Government: The Indonesian Experience”, Global Business Review, 16(3): 351-363.

Gallup (n.d.), “Gallup World Poll”, www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx.

Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (n.d.), 2015-2019 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, www.indonesia.go.id/en/ ministries/ministers/state-minister-for-the-empowerment-of-stateapparaturs/1645-profile/269-kementerian-negara-pendayagunaanaparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi (accessed 15 June 2015).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2007), Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional Tahun 2005-2025 (Indonesian), National Long-Term Development Plan 2005-2025, http://bappeda.ntbprov. go.id/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/naskah-ruu-rpjpn-tahun-20052025.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2015), “Design of the National Secretariat of Open Government Indonesia (OGI).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2014), Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019 (Indonesian), National MediumTerm Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go. id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968 (accessed 15 July 2015).

OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2015), Lithuania: Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235762-en.

OECD (2014a), “Vision, leadership, innovation: Driving public policy performance”, 33rd Meeting of Senior Officials from centres of government, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/summary.pdf.

OECD (2014b), “Centre stage: Driving better policies from the centre of government”, GOV/PGC/MPM(2014)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

109

110 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA OECD (2014c), Kazakhstan: Review of the Central Administration, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264224605-en.

OECD (2013), “Survey of centres of government”, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2012), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia 2012: Strengthening Co-ordination and Connecting Markets, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264173637-en.

Open Government Indonesia (2014), “Indonesia 2014-2015, OGP Action Plan”, Open Government Indonesia.

OGP (n.d.), “OGP national action plan guidance note”, Open Government Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_action plan_guide%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015).

OGP (2015a), “How it works: Action plans”, Open Government Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/action-plans (accessed 24 September 2015).

OGP (2015b), “Indonesia, Special Accountability Report”, Open Government Partnership and Centre for Regulation Policy and Governance.

OGP (2014a), “Indonesia Progress Report 2011-2013”, Independent Reporting Mechanism, Open Government Partnership.

OGP (2011), “Indonesia, Open Government Partnership”, www.opengovpartnership.org/country/indonesia (accessed 24 September 2015).

TIFA Foundation (2013), “Implementation of Open Government Partnership in Indonesia 2012-2013, Independent Report Monitoring”, TIFA Foundation, Indonesia.

World Services Group (2009), “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”, Makarin and Taira S., October, www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp ?action=article&artid=3058 (accessed 15 July 2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 111

Chapter 3 Citizen engagement in Indonesia

This chapter will examine the strategic leverage points and the best approaches to promote citizen engagement across the Government of Indonesia. It will first lay out the OECD approach to citizen engagement, including definitions, key factors to consider and general best practices. It will then provide an overview of Indonesia’s civil society sector, legal foundation and policy framework for public engagement and access to information, as well as a review of the key mechanisms for civic engagement being employed by the government. The chapter will conclude with a review of strategic approaches to instituting civic engagement practices in the country and specific recommendations.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

112 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Introduction Enhancing citizen engagement and ensuring public involvement both in shaping government decision-making and in the design, monitoring, and delivery of public services are fundamental aspects of open government. As one of eight founding members of the Open Government Partnership, these are principles that Indonesia has committed to pursuing and in which the country has made significant progress. However, as noted earlier, particular challenges faced by Indonesia include managing geographic and cultural diversity across the country’s islands and co-ordinating reform efforts across multiple ministries and levels of government.

This chapter will therefore begin with a review of OECD principles of citizen participation before turning to a discussion of the legal, policy, and institutional framework in this area. It will also provide an overview of how the country’s current citizen engagement initiatives can be supported, expanded and linked to develop a more strategic approach to citizen engagement.

OECD approach to citizen engagement In an effort to promote open government reforms, the OECD, together with its member countries, has identified key principles and good practices regarding citizen engagement that will guide the analysis of the efforts of the GOI to involve citizens in public governance. Specifically, this work is built on the belief that governments, in order to benefit fully from active interaction with their population, should inform, consult and engage with them not merely as subjects, but as partners in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies and services. The OECD therefore defines the relationships between citizens and public administrations in increasing levels of engagement, as described below (see also Figure 3.1):

•

Information provision is a one-way relationship in which the government produces and delivers information to be used by citizens. It covers both “passive” access to information upon citizens’ demands and “active” measures by government to disseminate information. Examples include: allowing access to public records and developing government websites.

•

Consultation is a two-way relationship in which citizens provide feedback to the government. While this step requires access to information and depends on citizen participation, governments still define the issues for consultation, set the questions and manage the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 113

consultative process. Examples include: disseminating public opinion surveys and seeking comments on draft legislation.

•

Active participation is a relationship based on partnership with the government, in which citizens engage in defining the process and content of policy making. Active participation acknowledges equal standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing policy options and shaping the policy dialogue, though the responsibility for the final decision or policy formulation rests with the government. Examples include: hosting consensus conferences and citizens’ juries (OECD, 2001).

Figure 3.1. Defining information, consultation, and active participation

Source: OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

Generally, when governments encourage public consultation and engagement, they are able to receive new ideas and feedback from citizens on policies and services, thereby enhancing both their quality and compliance with them. Broadly, citizen engagement (i.e. the combination of information, consultation and active participation initiatives) has positive effects on the quality of a country’s democratic life and has the potential to promote socio-economic development and generate the conditions for inclusive growth.

Another element of citizen engagement is the concept of “coproduction” of policies and services, or those collaborative approaches whereby citizens engage in partnerships with service professionals in the design and delivery of a public service (OECD, 2011b). Co-production is seen primarily as contributing to greater user involvement and improved OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

114 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA service outputs and outcomes, with less emphasis on cost cutting. Survey results (see Figure 3.2) indicate that in the large majority of cases (69%) reported by countries across all service categories, the reason for engaging in co-producing is to achieve stronger user and citizen engagement (OECD, 2011b).

Figure 3.2. Reasons for partnering with citizens and CSOs for public service delivery As a % of cases reported by countries across all service categories 80% 69%

70% 57%

60% 49%

50% 40%

40% 30%

61%

28%

20% 10% 0% To cut budget expenditures and costs

To increase productivity

To build citizen's trust and confidence in governments

To improve effectiveness, outcomes and achieve greater value for money

To improve service quality

To increase the involvement of users or citizens

Source: OECD survey on “Innovation in Public Services: Working Together with Citizens for Better Outcomes”, 2010; 22 OECD countries, Brazil, Egypt, Russia and Ukraine responded to the survey.

The OECD has found that the three most commonly cited factors for successful co-production activities include top-level commitment and leadership; government willingness and capacity at all levels to engage; and clarity of strategies and objectives. Successful implementation of coproduction, furthermore, can help make better use of resources and contain costs; increase effectiveness; help identify solutions to complex problems and contribute to enhancing societal, as well as individual, well-being; and can improve democratic governance and build public trust (OECD, 2011b).

Nevertheless, for co-production (and citizen engagement more broadly) to achieve these outcomes, it is important that citizen engagement is conducted following certain criteria. The OECD Principles for Open and Inclusive Policy Making (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) support countries in designing and implementing an effective framework for citizen engagement and are based on good practices implemented by OECD member countries.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 115

In particular, the principles first highlight the importance of co-ordination of engagement initiatives across the whole of government in order to avoid consultation fatigue and to create a coherent and systematic approach.

Second, the principles stress the key role of accountability mechanisms, which implies reporting back to citizens about the impact of their inputs.

Third, the role of monitoring and evaluation of participation initiatives to capture their effectiveness and outcomes is also underlined and, lastly, the principles emphasise the relevance of promoting an active citizenship that is capable of engaging with the government.

To manage consultation and co-operation in an effective manner, it is essential that government, CSOs, and other stakeholders establish and use a set of consistent guidelines that translate the principles into practical procedures. Box 3.1 presents a number of factors that should be considered when designing a specific consultation and tailoring the overall guidelines to the needs of a particular case.

Box 3.1. Understanding key factors in citizen participation Citizen participation can take a wide variety of forms depending on the following key factors:

• Size. Size of process can range from a few participants to hundreds or thousands, and online processes potentially involve millions.

• Purpose. Processes are used for many reasons: to explore an issue and generate understanding, to resolve disagreements, to foster collaborative action, or to help make decisions, among others (NCDD, 2008).

• Goals. Objectives can include informing participants, generating ideas, collecting data, gathering feedback, identifying problems, or making decisions, among others.

• Participants. Some processes involve only expert administrators or professional or lay stakeholders, while others involve selected or diffuse members of the public.

•

Participant recruitment. Processes may use self-selection, random selection, targeted recruitment, and incentives to bring people to the table.

• Communication mode. Processes may use one-way, two-way, and/or deliberative communication.

• Participation mechanisms. Processes may occur face-to-face, online, and/or remotely.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

116 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 3.1. Understanding key factors in citizen participation (continued)

• Named methodology. Some processes have official names and may even be trademarked; others do not employ named methodologies.

• Locus of action. Some processes are conducted with intended actions or outcomes at the organisational or network level, whereas others seek actions and outcomes at the neighbourhood or community level, the municipal, state and national levels, or even the international level.

• Connection to policy process. Some processes are designed with explicit connections to policy and decision-makers (at any of the loci listed above), while others have little or no connection to policy and decision-makers, seeking instead to invoke individual or group action or change.

Source: Nabatchi, T. (2012), A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation, IBM Center for Business of Government, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan048340.pdf.

Ultimately, the extent to which shifts toward public engagement contribute to improved policies and development outcomes depends on the degree to which the changes are able to overcome existing power structures resistant to such changes, such as an entrenched bureaucracy, a culture of entitlement among officials or patronage networks. Where these hurdles exist, methods should be sought to identify civil society organisations and innovative or pro-reform government officials to reinforce their efforts to challenge existing power structures (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011).

Based on more than a decade of data collection and policy analysis, OECD member countries have shown that open government policies can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, as well as increase the transparency and accountability of the public sector. The focus of the remainder of this chapter will therefore be on how to make government decision-making and service provision more transparent and participative in Indonesia and how to empower citizens individually and civil society organisations collectively in such a way as to improve good governance and democracy, enhance citizens’ trust, and ultimately generate inclusive growth.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 117

Status of civil society in Indonesia1 Though civil society organisations have seen their roles expand and change in critical ways since the democratic reforms of 1998, the beginnings of civil society activity, marked by organised and relatively independent community groups focused on education, social issues, religion, economics and even politics, can be traced back to the time of Dutch colonialism in the beginning of the 20th century (Ibrahim, 2006). Throughout most of Indonesia’s history, however, civil society organisations have not had the scope to be involved in the political process. This was particularly notable during the New Order regime under President Suharto (1966-98), when the political system was designed to exert strict control over civil society though the prohibition of freedom of association and expression (Ibrahim, 2006).

Toward the end of the Suharto era, several organisations focused on human rights advocacy and democracy were established in Indonesia, in line with the growing global focus, and funding prioritisation, of these issues (Ibrahim, 2006). Since 1998, the growth of civil society groups, from the national to the local level, has also been supported by donor programming for democratisation and governance reforms, with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID, 2007) providing significant assistance to Indonesian CSOs. To date, funding and support from international donors remain essential for CSOs in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010).

As a direct consequence of the 1998 democratic reforms, the role of civil society groups in Indonesia has grown in importance. Notably, CSOs have moved from their previous stance in opposition to the state to more constructive relationships with state institutions in conducting institutional reform projects (ICNL, 2015). This has been due to the dual effects of laws that have allowed for increased freedoms of association and access to information, as well as to the country’s decentralisation process. Together, these reforms have provided citizens with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels, as well as to participate in policy-making and service delivery. Although within the public sector there remain pockets of suspicion of civil society, a 2012 report by AusAID noted that space for cooperation between CSOs and the government continues to expand, and civil society representatives “rarely experience violence or legal restrictions.” In fact, CSO leaders are joining political parties and the government at a rate that would have been impossible under Suharto (AusAID, 2012).

It should also be noted that while labour unions have grown in number and importance since the fall of Suharto,2 they are not closely linked with open government activities in the country. Until the end of the Suharto regime, only one labour organisation was acknowledged by the government, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

118 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA while others were often persecuted or accused of communist links. Many organisations were only formed after Law No. 21/2000 Concerning Trade Unions/Labour Unions was passed.3 For the most part, labour associations are principally involved in issues related to social security and do not participate in the national development planning or budgetary planning process. They are also not involved in the OGP National Action Plan development process.4 Despite its relatively recent liberalisation, Indonesia is nonetheless ranked 49 out of 167 in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2014 Democracy Index. Indonesia’s highest scores were for its civil liberties (7.35/10) and electoral process and pluralism (7.33/10), while the country’s scores for political participation (6.67/10) and political culture (6.25/10) were lower.

The lack of wide variation in Indonesia’s scores in the Democracy Index’s categories highlights that there is ample room for the strengthening of the country’s democratic underpinnings. The report noted the importance of the victory of Joko Widodo in Indonesia’s presidential election in July 2014, however, as it broke the grip on power of a small political elite (EIU Democracy Index, 2014).

Good information on the make-up of the Indonesian civil society sector is limited. While a detailed review of the sector in 2012 estimated that there were roughly 2 300 active and viable CSOs throughout Indonesia, the lack of details creates difficulties for other CSOs, donors, or the GOI, to identify where the organisations are operating, what they are working on and how to contact them. The report also noted that most CSOs in Indonesia are disproportionately located in Jakarta, and are focused on service delivery or organising communities for self-help rather than focusing on macro-level changes (AusAID, 2012).

Challenges faced by civil society in Indonesia Despite the progress made by civil society since the country’s democratisation, the legacy of the country’s political control has had a considerable impact on it, as for more than three decades they were treated as “part of problem” (Ibrahim, 2006) rather than as key actors in the identification of solutions. Since some public officials still question the legitimacy of CSOs’ role as a watchdog, there remain communication barriers even when organisations have valid critiques. As also noted by AusAID, these barriers are more evident in some regions and can be more prominent when dealing with land or labour issues or with culturally sensitive issues like gender or LGBT rights (AusAID, 2012).

Another legacy of the country’s past repression of civil society groups is that government officials have often considered the design and delivery of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 119

public services as their exclusive domain and view citizens only as end users, not as stakeholders. While this attitude is clearly changing rapidly, CSO capacity to aggregate citizens’ interests and translate preferences to policy makers does not have deep roots in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010).

Building CSO capacity to effectively advocate for the public and to take full advantage of enhanced engagement mechanisms will be critical in improving citizen engagement in Indonesia, particularly outside of Jakarta.

Financial and operational issues also continue to present challenges to the CSO sector in Indonesia. Operational obstacles include the quality of the Indonesian education system and a lack of mentorship and capacity building opportunities (AusAID, 2012). There is also a gender component to staffing issues, as men make up the majority of CSO employees, whether on a voluntary, semi-voluntary or salaried basis (Suryadarma et al, 2011).

Furthermore, many CSOs operate on short-term, project-based funding cycles. Many lack money for operational costs and access to Indonesianlanguage training and information, and few organisations request support from donors for such matters. Subnational organisations also shared their perception that donors favoured Jakarta/Java-based organisations even when strong organisations exist locally (AusAID, 2012).

Specifically regarding citizen engagement, some CSOs noted that the link between the national planning and budgeting process remains obscure.

Since the budgeting process is less open to external participation than the planning process, CSOs expressed their concern that they have limited access and information on which to base their analysis. CSOs also noted that the planning and budgeting process is not accessible enough to women and minorities, a problem that is particularly notable in more rural regions.

Gender impact assessments (GIAs) are one type of tool that policy makers can use to assess the impact that new legislation or policies may have on women. Building awareness and understanding among policy makers of the potentially different effects of policy choices on men and women is key to inclusive policy making. According to the OECD Survey on Gender, Public Policies and Leadership, of the OECD responding countries, 84% (16 countries) reported having requirements for ex ante (e.g. before the proposed law or policy has been approved or gone into effect) GIAs on primary legislation compared to 37% (7 countries) for ex post (e.g. following implementation). In general, however, it seems the majority of responding countries reserve GIAs for primary and secondary legislation rather than for policies and programmes (OECD, 2013). Expanding the use of such a tool would prove useful to Indonesia in helping it to gather additional information on the potential effects of public policies, data that would help inform discussions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

120 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA Civil society representatives have also expressed their desire to clarify their relationship with the government and advance the conversation on how to increase citizen engagement. The protracted transition between different administrations’ management of open government in Indonesia and the change in formal governance mechanisms with the dissolution of UKP4 and OGI in December 2014 made it difficult for CSOs to consolidate and coordinate their approach. The establishment of the National Open Government Secretariat in November 2015 will provide clarity and facilitate the engagement of civil society at the national level.

Legal framework of citizen engagement in Indonesia Overview The 1945 Constitution, and subsequent laws, regulations and presidential decrees provide a sound foundation for citizen engagement.

Together, the country’s legal framework recognizes the public’s right to participation, guarantees access to information and establishes the mechanisms through which information is disseminated, and provides various independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms.

Nevertheless, despite this supportive legal framework and the political commitment placed on open government in Indonesia, in practice public institutions do not automatically operate openly, nor do they provide consistent access to citizens. This is partly a legacy of the more than three decades of authoritarian rule, which prevented citizen access to or involvement in government affairs (Transparency International-Indonesia, 2014), but it is also due to a generalised lack of awareness of and capacity to implement open government initiatives in public institutions at central as well as local levels.

Access to information As noted by Transparency International, Indonesia is “very advanced” in regulating transparency. The right to information is broadly acknowledged in the 1945 Constitution (Article 28F) as well as in Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information (Transparency International-Indonesia, 2014), and further supported by Government Regulation No. 61/2010, which sought to clarify and speed up the implementation of the public provision of information. Together, these legal instruments guarantee access to information (ATI) and require proactive publication by most public bodies (with the exception of some law enforcement and judiciary offices) that receive part or all of their funds from a government budget. Law No. 14/2008 is the primary vehicle through which the public is given the right to access information. The law, which came into effect in May 2010, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 121

recognizes that “the right to obtain information is a human right and transparency of public information is a significant characteristic of a democratic state that holds the sovereignty of the people in high esteem;” the law also recognizes the role of information to “materialize good state management”. (See Figure 3.3 for an illustration of how ATI laws have grown within OECD countries.)

Figure 3.3. Number of OECD countries with law on access to information 2001-2008

29

1991-2000

24

1981-1990

13

1971-1980

7

1961-1970

5

Before 1960

2 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Source: OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264075061-en.

Importantly, Indonesia’s law guarantees both the government’s obligation to provide information and the citizens’ right to know. It requires that public agencies establish an information and documentation system to manage public information properly and efficiently in order to ensure accessibility. This is primarily achieved through the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) offices (see below for additional information). The law also establishes the Information Committee, which consists of a Central Committee, Provincial Information Committees and District/Municipal Information Committees. Collectively, their role is to decide on implementing procedures, settle disputes brought by requesters of information and report on the implementation of the law to the President and the Parliament.

The law requires that public information applicants be Indonesian citizens or Indonesian corporations; in 71% of OECD countries, conversely, there are no restrictions on who can file a request (OECD, 2011a).

Applicants in Indonesia must also show identification and provide their name, address and subject of the information, and CSOs must provide their registration information. Together, these requirements prevent anonymity.

The law also does not require public institutions to transfer information OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

122 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA requests to other offices if they do not have the information, nor does it guarantee access for court decisions or provisions and funding information regarding law enforcement bodies (Transparency International-Indonesia, 2014). Other limits on information provision include information that could obstruct the process of law enforcement; information relating to protection of businesses from unhealthy competition; information relating to personal medical, financial, or family situations; and information that may be hazardous to the defence and security of the state, as well as to the national economic security of the country. Furthermore, while the country has passed a code of conduct that obliges all public officials, including legislators and judges and their families, to file a financial disclosure form at least once a year, the law does not explicitly require that interest declaration forms be made public (Law No. 5/2014 on Civil Administrative Servants, articles 3 and 4).

Law No. 14/2008 does, however, provide for the proactive publication of certain types of information, including information on the financial performance of public agencies and any information that may threaten the life of the people and public order. This practice compares favourably with OECD countries, 94% of which also proactively disclose budget documents (OECD, 2011a). The public agency that receives the information request is obliged to respond within ten days (with a seven day extension, if needed), which is in line with most OECD countries, almost all of which have established standards for timely responses, usually within 20 working days or less (OECD, 2011a). Any refusal to provide information must be justified in writing within the ten day window; refused applicants can appeal to the Information Committee for adjudication. Box 3.2 describes Brazil’s access to information law and procedures, as well as potential lessons concerning the institutional operation and monitoring of the law’s implementation.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 123

Box 3.2. Co-ordination for the implementation of the Law on Access to Information in the Federal Government of Brazil Brazil’s Law on Access to Information (Law 12 527/2011) regulates the constitutional right that allows citizens to obtain information from the government freely, similar to Indonesia’s Law No. 14 of 2008. Brazil’s ATI law states that government information is public by default and can only be denied to citizens for specific purposes, such as the protection of taxpayers’ information or to preserve national security. The law was passed in 2011 and was implemented in May 2012.

By the end of 2015, more than 300 public organisations (including companies) had made information available for request through an online platform and through bureaus created in each of the organisations. More than 334 000 requests have been made and more than 99% of the requests have been answered. It takes an average of 11 days to answer a request and information is denied less than 10% of the time.

The implementation of Brazil’s ATI law provides potential lessons regarding both freedom of information in Indonesia and for other transversal policies that involve co-ordination of multiple government organisations.

Design: In order to help ensure widespread buy-in, the ATI law was designed with the involvement of CoG organisations, as well as with agencies that hold a large amount of confidential documents and those that could expect the bulk of the requests.

Planning: Each public organisation was required to prepare a roadmap to facilitate the implementation of the law. The roadmaps established deadlines for tasks, such as nominating the responsible representatives, organising information within the agency, creating internal processes to answer to requests, etc.

Co-ordination and Monitoring: The Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) is charged with co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of the law and sharing good practices. The CGU gathers data on the performance of each organisation and tracks the number of requests and answers, the profile of the requesters, popular topics and other relevant information. Reports on the performance of each organisation are available publicly.

Training: Agencies and public companies offered staff training. Courses offered by the CGU included procedures, how to use the web platform and legal issues.

Procedures: The procedures to make and respond to information requests and appeals are detailed in regulations put forth by the federal government. Similar to the PPID’s role in Indonesia, each government unit was obligated to create a Service of Information to Citizens Office (Serviço de Informação ao Cidadão, or SICs) to manage requests and provide support to citizens. An online platform called e-SIC (sic.gov.br) allows citizens to make information requests to any agency.

Citizens can use the platform to make requests and receive answers, make appeals, save their requests and access the database with questions and answers made by others. In part due to the flexibility provided by e-SIC, 85% of Brazil’s 5 570 municipalities have at least one active requester.

Sponsorship: The ATI law states that each organisation must appoint a high-level official to oversee the compliance of the law.

Networking: The CGU organized a network of SICs to exchange experiences and provide continuous training. The CGU also works with civil society organisations to improve its monitoring the law and encourages third party assessments of its performance.

Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

124 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Citizen involvement in policy making and accountability The 1945 Constitution explicitly recognizes the right to associate, assemble, and express opinions (Chapter X, Article 28). Subsequent laws and other instruments have further guaranteed and delineated the rights of civil society organisations, as well as the public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and participate in policy planning and evaluation.

Indonesia’s constitutional amendments in 1999-02 codified a set of human rights provisions mirroring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Indonesia also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2006, which provides protection of fundamental freedoms, such as expression and assembly. Law No. 17 of 2013 on Societal Organizations (which replaced Law No. 8 of 1985 on Societal Organizations, a measure that had given the Suharto administration broad controls over the civil society sector) regulates the oversight of CSOs in the country and builds upon the legal framework that guarantees freedom of association and expression (ICNL, 2015).

Regarding the country’s decentralisation process, as discussed in Chapter 2, one of the factors motivating the country’s decentralisation was a desire to bring government closer to the public and, as expressed by President Yudhoyono when presenting the regional development policy, allow the government to “provide better services and satisfy community needs in better, faster and more appropriate ways (USAID, 2007).” Notably, Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Governance devolves authority over a number of sectors to regional governments, and it makes public participation a primary means to address community welfare objectives. The law is meant to create a sense of public ownership of local governance, ensure greater transparency and accountability, and facilitate the ability to transform community aspirations into tangible programmes and services (USAID, 2007).

The primary legal vehicle that supports citizen participation is Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimize public participation (Article 2),” and lays out the process by which the public can participate in the creation of the country’s development plan.

Law No. 25/2004 also institutionalizes the creation of multi-stakeholder consultation forums (Musrenbang) (Articles 1, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24) at all levels of government for the long-term, medium- term and annual development plans.

Law No. 25/2009 on Public Services provides additional clarity to the relationship between the public and the government (Articles 1, 18, 20).

This law states that the public must be involved in organising public services and that society is entitled to oversee the implementation and setting of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 125

service standards, as well as to receive responses to complaints filed. This law provides the regulatory framework for public participation in the delivery of public services, including mechanisms to participate in their implementation, mechanisms for joint public / private provision of public services and for citizen and community monitoring (Article 39).5 Furthermore, Law No. 12/2011 on the Establishment of Legislation (Article 96) sets out a general requirement mandating that government agencies at the national, local, and service delivery levels consult with citizens and stakeholders in their decision-making processes. It should be noted, however, that the legal framework does not consider citizen participation in the budget process.

In addition to ensuring the public’s right to express opinions and to participate in the creation of public policy, the country’s legal framework also creates specific mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of laws and government activities. Indonesia has established numerous independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms, including the Supreme Audit Institution, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the National Public Procurement Agency (LKPP), and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), and has established a code of conduct and financial disclosure requirements for state administrators. These will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Similarly to most OECD members,6 the country’s legal framework also provides for the protection of whistleblowers, as well as for formal mechanisms for the public to file complaints. The whistleblower protection legislation (including Law No. 31/1999 and Law No. 20/2001 on the Eradication of Corruption; Law No. 30/2002 on the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption [Article 15]; and Law No. 13/2006 on Witness and Victim Protection) broadly protects citizens who reveal wrongdoing. The legal framework protects public and private employees who report corruption and bribery cases, and it provides mechanisms through which citizens and public officials can report corruption, graft, and abuse of power or resources (Transparency International-Indonesia, 2014). Note that these laws are explained in more detail in Chapter 4.

The country has also laid a legal foundation for public participation in the oversight of public service provision, including via the creation of the National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or ORI). The ORI was established in 2000 by Presidential Decree Number 44/2000 to fight corruption, process complaints and initiate investigations into irregularities in the public sector; Law No. 37/2008 on the Ombudsman strengthened the legal basis for the ORI by making it an official state institution. Among other goals, one of the Ombudsman’s primary objectives OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

126 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA is to “encourage government and public administration which is free from corruption, collusion, nepotism; clean, open, fair, effective and efficient (Article 4).” (See Figure 3.4 for an illustration of how laws related to ombudsman institutions have grown within OECD countries.)

Figure 3.4. Number of OECD countries with laws on ombudsman institutions (1960-08) 2001-2008

27

1991-2000

24

1981-1990

19

1971-1980

13

1961-1970

7

Before 1960

3 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Source: OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075061-en.

The ORI is an independent institution and is free from the intervention of other authorities (Article 2); it also publishes its yearly reports on its website. As noted in the law, any Indonesian citizen or resident is entitled to file a grievance to the Ombudsman free of charge (Article 23), and since its inception in 2000, the Ombudsman has received more than 17 000 complaints, with particularly impressive growth coming more recently, as shown in Figure 3.5.

The legislation discussed above provides essential guarantees for public participation in creating government policy and in monitoring its implementation. Despite this supportive legal framework for citizen engagement in Indonesia, however, the country faces a number of challenges in ensuring effective implementation of the laws. As discussed in more detail below, inconsistent implementation of the country’s laws is especially problematic for laws that depend on local implementation and that allow for some discretion in their implementation (for example, the freedom of information law allows public institutions to determine what documents are secret and leaves it up to local offices to staff the PPID).

Moving forward, the GOI should look to ensure more consistent oversight of the implementation of these laws.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 127

Figure 3.5. Number of complaints received by the ORI 2009-15 8 000 6 677

7 000

6 859

6 000 5 173

5 000 4 000 3 000 2 209

2 000 1 000

1 867 1 237

1 137

0 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: OECD work based on 2015 Ombudsman Annual Report, www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/laporan/laporan-tahunan.html.

Citizen engagement in practice Despite the relatively recent opening of the country with the end of the Suharto administration, Indonesia has made rapid advancements in its ability to engage civil society in public affairs. The government at all levels has widely, though not uniformly, recognised the importance of public involvement in policy design and in the monitoring and provision of public services, and has embraced reforms that have provided avenues for citizen engagement, though work remains to be done to improve effectiveness.

Citizen participation in policy and strategic framework documents National Development Strategies The primary vehicles through which the Government of Indonesia lays out its strategic and policy direction are its overlapping Long-Term and Medium-Term Development Plans, along with each presidential administration’s government programmes, such as current President Jokowi’s Nawa Cita agenda. In addition to its role in supporting open government reforms, Bappenas is also in charge of developing the planning documents. The role that Bappenas and these documents play in setting the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

128 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA country’s strategic direction is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2; their importance to citizen engagement, however, is reflected in both the open government principles and initiatives they promote as well as in the method by which the documents are drafted.

The current National Long-Term Development Plan covers the years 2005-25. Within the long-term development plan cycle, the GOI is also required to draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five year cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the each administration’s plans align with the vision of the national long-term development plan. At the time of publication, the GOI is working under RPJMN 2015-19.

The goals of the 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan refer generally to the importance of civil society, openness, and public access to information. One of the eight National Development Priorities that laid the groundwork for the subsequent medium-term development plans is to “establish more solid democratic institutions; strengthen the role of civil society… (and) ensure the development of the media and freedom of the media.” The RPJPN also refers to the importance of citizen engagement in public life by noting that, “The progress of democracy has also seen the development of consciousness of the rights of people in political life, which…is expected to further stimulate people to more actively participate in…the management of public affairs. Progress cannot be separated from the development of the role of political parties, non-governmental organisations and other civil society organisations.”

The RPJPN also explicitly links citizen engagement to broader good governance goals. For example, it states that, “public access to information that is free and open…will further facilitate the control over the fulfilment of the public interest. The role of free media is crucial in the process of discovering, preventing and publishing various forms of abuse of power and corruption.” The RPJPN also notes that strengthening the role of civil society is a key component of achieving a “fair and democratic Indonesia.”

Given that the RPJPN provides the primary strategic context for the country through 2025, its recognition of the role of open government and the value of citizen engagement both as a means to ensure good governance and as a valuable goal in and of itself is noteworthy.

The Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMN) of 2010-14 and 201519 have further outlined the framework establishing the importance of citizen engagement in public life outlined by the RPJPN. For example, the RPJMN of 2010-14 described as one of its priorities the importance of strengthening the role of civil society in national life. More explicitly, the Medium-Term Development Plan of 2015-19 has identified a number of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 129

targets that directly relate to increasing citizen engagement. One of its nine National Development Agenda points is to “Build Clean, Effective Democratic and Reliable Governance,” which includes two targets directly related to increasing citizen engagement in public life. First, Target 6.2.3 seeks to “Build Transparency and Accountability in Government Performance,” which includes efforts to “establish PPID offices; and provide space for public participation in formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policies.” Additionally, Target 6.2.5 specifically seeks to “Increase Public Participation in Public Policy-Making Process.”

Part of the strategy to achieve this target, which includes “increasing implementation of open government in all government agencies,” is to “strengthen partnerships with local governments, civil society organisations, the private sector and the media to educate the public about the importance of public information and participate in the process of preparing and monitoring policy.” This target also seeks to “strengthen the role of the PPID role in managing and providing quality information services and encourage local governments to increase public participation in the making of public policy, public policy programmes, and public decision-making processes.”

Based on the publication of the Medium-Term Development Plan for 2015-19, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform developed a Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in 2015 that establishes the role that bureaucratic reform will play in supporting the country’s national development priorities. Regarding open government and citizen engagement, the Roadmap notes that the “principles of good governance are not fully applied and that the government is not yet fully able to open their space and encourage involvement of the general public in their operations and development.” It also lists citizen engagement as a key element to improving the functioning of the government, and it seeks to improve the quality of the national bureaucracy by moving to meet the 2015-19 RPJMN’s goals of: establishing and appointing PPID offices; increasing public awareness on public information transparency; publishing all planning, budgeting and budget implementation processes on ministry websites; providing opportunities for the public to participate in the drafting of public policies and monitoring their subsequent implementation; and developing a proactive, interactive, and accessible information publication system.

Notably, the RPJMN for 2015-19 reflects President’s Jokowi’s government programme, or Nawa Cita. Specifically, it links to Nawa Cita agenda item two, which seeks to realize “a sustainable society and developed democratic state based on the rule of law (by) encouraging public

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

130 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA participation in the process of public policy and to improve people's active participation in public policy-making.”

The mutually reinforcing nature of the country’s development strategies, reform efforts and government programme in the areas of open government and citizen engagement signals the country’s formal recognition of the public’s essential role in setting and monitoring policies and services. CSOs have noted that if they are unable to link their work to Nawa Cita, it is difficult to for them obtain government support for their agenda. Given the Jokowi administration’s explicit support for improving public participation, CSOs have expressed the hope that the administration will actively pursue the open government priorities expressed in the long-term and medium-term strategies. They noted, for example, that such support could take the form of ensuring that the national open government secretariat is made permanent, thereby helping to smooth the transition between presidential administrations moving forward.

Open Government Partnership In addition to Indonesia’s national strategies and the Jokowi administration’s governing programme, Indonesia’s membership in – and leadership of – the OGP provides a valuable opportunity to increase and deepen citizen engagement. As regards community engagement, however, the country’s experience in implementing its three National Action Plans has to date produced mixed results.

In the country’s first Action Plan (2011-13), the stakeholders accepted that the development of the action plan would help establish OGI and provide an opportunity for the government to focus on building the process and institutions of open government. The first Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM), which are progress reports issued by external experts on each country participating in OGP that assess the development and implementation of OGP action plans, commended the government for ensuring that the process and timeline for public consultation was available online prior to beginning consultations. Unfortunately, CSO representation was heavily skewed to those based in Jakarta and the surrounding areas, although the CSOs that participated did represent a diverse range of sectors and issues. CSO representatives also raised concerns that the selection process for CSOs was not participative, though the IRM noted that considering Indonesia’s diversity, it would be difficult to reach out to all relevant stakeholders. Ultimately, the IRM concluded that the consultation was meaningful in the sense that the government provided a space for stakeholders to make recommendations on the government’s action plan.

The downside to this strategy, however, was that it led to a plan that was too large for government to be able to deliver on it (IRM 1).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 131

The IRM produced after the second OGP NAP noted that the consultation process “did not conform to OGP guidelines,” as neither the timeline nor the schedules of the consultations were available to the public prior to the stakeholder consultation events. The consultation group also relied heavily on CSO Core Team members. Nevertheless, the IRM noted that the CSOs that were involved in the NAP development process had a stronger and clearer relationship with the government than those that had participated in the first NAP process, and that this led to more active participation and ultimately more success in including their priorities in the final version of the Action Plan (IRM 2).

The third IRM report noted that progress had been made in increasing public participation, but it suggested that more outreach was needed to align citizen-driven demands with available open government solutions.

Specifically, the development of the third National Action Plan sought to address criticism from previous IRM reports. The most notable change was the creation of a public contest wherein citizens could submit ideas for improving public services for inclusion in the Action Plan. However, the “lack of advance notice, lack of evidence of consultation events, and lack of clarity on the incorporation of citizen-generated ideas in the action plan undermined the government’s increased public participation efforts (IRM 3).”

The lessons from the country’s previous National Action Plans suggests that the consultative process that Indonesia has undertaken as part of its OGP related activities could be improved, both in terms of ensuring a sufficient and representative sample of citizens’ voices, as well as in clarifying when and under what circumstances public input is included in the National Action Plans. A formalized OGI structure will also help provide a consistent platform for citizen engagement and help insulate action plan implementation from political changes (IRM 3).

Formal mechanisms for citizen engagement Musrenbang As directed by Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning, the Government of Indonesia has instituted the Musrenbang (Musyawarah Rencana Pembangunan, or Multi Stakeholder Consultation Forum for Development Planning), which are multi-stakeholder fora that seek to identify and prioritize community development policies. The meetings are held during the first half of the calendar year and the priorities put forward are made public.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

132 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA Musrenbang held at the community level serve to define programme priorities of local government departments to be funded from the local annual budget and village allocation funds. Representatives selected from the community level Musrenbang attend the meetings at sub-district level and district level, where the function of the Musrenbang is to agree on the final draft of the Annual Local Government Work Plan and Budget. As noted in interviews with the OECD, furthermore, some local and regional governments have embraced the potential of the Musrenbang to expand their citizen engagement activities beyond the requirements of the law. For example, Bandung has set a formal target via local regulation and its strategic plan to allocate more than 30% of its local budget to be used to facilitate Musrenbang priorities. Furthermore, Bandung, along with other subnational governments such as Jakarta, have instituted online (or eMusrenbang) platforms to expand the reach of the fora and facilitate the link between the Musrenbang and complaint management systems.

While the Musrenbang process is an important formal opportunity to involve the public in determining development priorities, both government and CSO representatives noted their limitations. For example, as noted in interviews conducted by the OECD, many of the fora have seen a decline in the number of participating CSOs, leading to claims that the Musrenbang are not participatory or representative. Some government representatives have also noted that enthusiasm from CSOs is decreasing, primarily because CSOs have said it is not clear whether their inputs are taken into account.

Government representatives noted that it is often difficult to identify the correct CSO partners, and many local governments do not have a history of working with CSOs, so their relationship with them is still developing7. For their part, CSOs at the local level often display limitations in their understanding of the planning process and their ability to push for greater transparency or participation (AntlĂśv and Wetterberg, 2011). Nevertheless, the government has stressed that several steps have been taken to improve the quality of the Musrenbang, such as socialisation to try to build a culture of participation and engagement, as well as measures to ensure concrete follow-ups (Siliwanti, 2014). Increasing the transparency of the process by which citizen feedback is included and illustrating to the public the importance of their participation could be other ways to provide more credibility to the process. Continuing to pursue these activities will be essential to help this avenue of citizen engagement to achieve its potential.

Access to information Given the critical role that information and data have in ensuring that citizens can play an active role in the design and oversight of public policies, continuing the push to enhance access to information should remain one of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 133

the GOI’s primary goals. Backed by information, civil society groups can sit down with government agencies and discuss public service improvements.

Data on staffing and service quality, for example, can give citizens’ groups the information that they need to hold public agencies accountable for their actions, granting citizens the necessary resources to become political actors in their own right. Generally speaking, improved data gathering has become a powerful tool for community empowerment that can lead to changes in government policy and practices (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011).

In addition to providing the legal basis for public access to information, Law No. 14/2008 on Public Information Disclosure also mandated the creation of the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (Documentation and Information Management Offices, or PPID) responsible for storing, documenting, and providing government information to the public. Institutions such as the PPID and the Information Committee that help co-ordinate and implement access to information also play an important role in OECD countries.

The establishment of these offices is a critical step toward increasing the transparency of national and local governments, and remains a clear priority for the government. With the presence of other initiatives such as the House of Representatives’ Alun-Alun Demokrasi platform, described in interviews with the OECD as an information system designed to allow people to track legislation, allow comments, and ultimately improve the relationship between the public and the Members of Parliament, Indonesia has a number of initiatives that could significantly broaden the public’s range of opportunities to access information.

Regarding the PPID offices, even though Law 14/2008 was implemented in 2010, as Table 3.1 shows, as of March 2015, less than 50% of the PPID units have been established across all levels of government as of 2015. Without PPID offices, the public’s access to information is limited, as there is no other designated government unit to uniformly handle requests for information.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

134 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA Table 3.1. Number of PPID offices established within public institutions Institution

Number #

Ministerial Central agencies Provincial govt District govt City govt Total

34 129 34 399 98 694

Year 2014

2013 34 36 23 98 38 227

% 100% 27.91% 69.70% 24.56% 38.77% 32.76%

# 34 41 30 168 60 333

% 100% 31.78% 88.24% 42.11% 61.22% 47.98%

2015 # 34 43 30 174 60 341

% 100% 33.33% 88.24% 43.61% 61.22% 49.14%

Source: PPID Kemkominfo, http://ppid.kominfo.go.id/regulasi/konsultasi-publik/r-p-m/fk-ppid/ (accessed 21 March 2016).

One factor that has held back the creation of PPID offices has been the extent to which the implementation depends on local governments that have varying degrees of interest and capacity. Some entities, especially at the local level, have had the perception that establishing and supporting PPID offices is a distraction from their day-to-day work. It was noted in interviews with the OECD that this perception has been exacerbated by the practice of some citizens who have used their rights to effectively blackmail public bodies into offering them jobs or contracts by threatening them with unmanageably large information requests, thereby distracting public officials from their tasks, though the extent of this tactic remains unclear.

Another factor that has held back the implementation of PPID offices has been a perception among some government agencies that only general information should be published. Efforts to raise awareness and expand knowledge of the FOI law and to build human resources capacity would also help facilitate the establishment of PPID offices. Finally, many offices, particularly at the local level, have not faced much public pressure for improved access to public information, so they have not prioritized the law’s implementation.

Garnering support for establishing PPID offices and improving access information more generally will require a concerted response to develop understanding and capacity at the national level, but also at the local level, which is where much of the actual implementation will take place. Before it was dissolved, UKP4 was in charge of facilitating the establishment of PPID offices. Due to the initial slow progress once the law came into effect in 2010, the Yudhoyono administration issued Government Regulation No. 61/2010, which sought to clarify the role of public offices in providing information and to ensure that all PPID offices would be established by 2011.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 135

Since local governments do not face sanctions for failing to set up PPID offices and often may not see the incentive to open data, the Jokowi administration has focused on building understanding within the government and encouraging public demand for information as a means to increase access. The Executive Office of the President continues to monitor implementation based on the reports of the Information Commission, an independent institute that monitors and supports the implementation of the law by providing technical directives and settling disputes that arise from information requests. The Ministry of Home Affairs supports the establishment of PPID offices at the local level, while the Ministry of Communication and Informatics has helped establish standard operating procedures and oversees their implementation at the national level. As noted in interviews with the OECD, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics also provides capacity building support to PPID offices in government agencies, though it focuses less on assisting PPID offices in non-governmental organisations. In 2015, The Ministry of Communication and Informatics also helped found the Forum for PPID (FKPPID), whose aim is to help share good practices, build capacity and help PPID offices coordinate and respond to information demands. The Forum is currently only working with PPID officers based in Jakarta, but plans to expand to the provincial level.

Broadly, the GOI’s approach is to boost both the “supply” of information (the government’s ability to provide information) and the “demand” for information (the public’s desire to obtain information).

Establishing PPID offices is therefore the first step in supporting the supply of information and ensuring the law functions as intended. The GOI understands, however, that the publication of the data on its own will not necessarily lead to increased awareness, involvement, or participation. To create public participation, in addition to having access to information, citizens need to understand their rights and take the initiative to access and use the data.

For those institutions that have not yet established a PPID office, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics is therefore also pushing to increase the demand for information from citizens to make the case for the creation of PPID offices. In 2013, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics launched its “Let’s Ask; Let’s Open” campaign, which highlighted both the public’s right to know and the government’s obligation to allow access to information. In order to educate the public on how to use their rights correctly, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics has instituted a “Right to Know Day” (28 September), which is used to inform the public about the use of the law. While the limited budget for this activity has to-date precluded its expansion beyond Jakarta, this is an important OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

136 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA effort to broaden the public’s understanding and appreciation of their right to access information.

A primary challenge in implementing access to information initiatives in Indonesia has been ensuring consistency across the government. The GOI will need to increase its focus on providing consistent guidance and support to the offices in charge of providing public information and serving as platforms for citizen engagement. This is especially true in light of the abuse of the PPID offices discussed above, which will require a co-ordinated response and support from the national government to those offices that may be unwilling or unable to cope with such demands. In addition to continued efforts on the part of the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, the Information Commission, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Executive Office of the President, the GOI could take concrete steps to enhance ATI by, for example, reintroducing a focus on access to information in the OGP National Action Plans. The government could also ensure consistent and clear budgetary support for ATI capacity building efforts, such as for PPID offices, and awareness building among both the government and public on the importance of promoting access to information.

Civil society organisations have noted the importance of using data in their efforts to support public involvement in the national development planning processes. Budget information in particular can be difficult to obtain; the lack of data can lead the public to make uninformed requests, which results in those requests being dismissed (CSO meeting). Bappenas recognizes the importance of CSO engagement and the role that data plays in bringing the public into the national planning process, though it acknowledges that often citizens are not yet treated as full partners in the law-making and strategy-setting processes. Identifying ways to involve a wider range of stakeholders, and helping to ensure they have the information to meaningfully contribute to policy making and strategic decisions, could increase the positive impact of open government policies and ultimately the country’s socio-economic development.

Another challenge faced by Indonesia regarding promoting access to information is responding to the digital divide in the country, especially outside of Java. Even as government ministries and local governments have moved more information online, if it is not posted via other formats as well, the digital gap will inhibit access (see Chapter 5 for further discussion of this topic). Other access points, including the PPID offices, therefore play a critical role in expanding access to information, especially for people who do not have access to electronic files.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 137

Ombudsman Generally, ombudsman offices establish a point of contact for citizen complaints, appeals and petitions for redress in their dealings with public organisations. Almost all OECD member countries have an ombudsman office, although their functions, roles and independence vary in accordance with each country’s political-administrative system (OECD, 2012). In Indonesia, as noted above, the ORI is an independent institution that reports to Parliament. Founded in 2000, the office has 32 provincial offices in Indonesia (out of 34 provinces), with a staff of roughly 500. Notably, the ORI’s budget was doubled by the Jokowi administration in 2015, to USD 10 million. The Ombudsman has two primary functions: prevention of corrupt and poor government administrative practices (referred to as maladministration) and complaint handling. The ORI sees the prevention of maladministration, including corruption and poor or unfair service provision, as the key to improving government services. In addition to its primary activities, the ORI therefore also produces an annual survey to measure how well government institutions follow Law No.25 of 2009 on Public Service, publishes manuals to educate public officials on how to handle and prevent maladministration, and it provides trainers to the Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga Administrasi Negara, or LAN) to disseminate its principles.

Their second goal, that of responding to complaints, has grown as the public has focused more on public service provision. Moving forward, the Ombudsman will allow people to check the progress of their complaints online. Per the Ombudsman’s office, public complaints have been increasing rapidly - rising from 1137 reports in 2010 to 6859 in 2015 (ORI, 2015) – and are forecasted to continue to do so. The ORI’s annual reports are public (the most recent statistical update is from 2015), and provide a good overview of the primary public complaints. For example, in 2014, the complaints were directed primarily at local governments (42% of the cases, or 2853), whereas almost 12% (806) were directed at police departments, and 10% (663) were directed at Ministries or Agencies. These figures were very similar to those of the previous year.

Per the ORI’s 2014 Annual Report, 25% of the complaints (1712) were related to delays in services. Examples included licensing procedures not being resolved in a timely manner, petitions for land certificates not being resolved quickly enough and court rulings not being carried out. Other leading sources of complaints were lack of services (14%) and abuse of authority (12%) (ORI, 2014). Again, these results were very similar to those of 2013.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

138 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA Ombudsman representatives highlighted a number of changes that would facilitate their efforts. For example, they recommended that they be given the ability to advise officials on relevant fines and punishments; as of now they can only report to Parliament and the media, but they have no enforcement or sanctioning power. Increased involvement in the penalty process would allow them to keep their autonomy while simultaneously giving them more power. The ORI representatives also noted their desire for additional institution building, particularly around how to expand their use of ICT.

LAPOR In addition to the ORI, one of the GOI’s primary means of increasing citizen participation in overseeing public service provision is the People’s Online Services and Complaints Aspiration System (more commonly referred to as LAPOR; its acronym in Indonesian, means “report”), which is an online platform that provides a complaint-handling service for the public at the national and subnational levels. Launched in November 2011, this was one of the most notable citizen engagement projects implemented by the Yudhoyono administration (http://lapor.go.id/).

The system includes a Web and SMS-accessible platform and allows citizens to monitor and verify the delivery of government services in real time. Submitted reports are verified by LAPOR for clarity and completeness and subsequently forwarded to the related ministry or office no later than three business days after the reporting is verified. The relevant ministry or office subsequently has five business days to respond. In addition to bringing complaints to light, the government also uses this information to improve its allocation of public resources in areas ranging from education and health to energy and defence (McKinsey and Company, 2012).

If a citizen does not receive a response to their complaint within five working days, LAPOR officials contact the agency’s liaison officer, after which they send a report to the relevant senior official. If LAPOR still does not receive a response, the agency can be reported to the ORI, which will investigate the case and issue a binding order to the agency (GovInsider, 2015). The system assigns unique numbers to each case to facilitate tracking and searching on the platform. Each report can also be labelled with the geographic location, topic, status reports, and the relevant institutions so that the government and the public can monitor the issue visually. This functionality was used to good effect during flooding in Jakarta in 2012 and 2014 as a reference tool to assist in the distribution of aid. The platform also allows for anonymity, and reports can be restricted for use by only the relevant agency, measures which the designers hope will encourage the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 139

reporting of sensitive or private issues. LAPOR was shortlisted for a Bright Spot Award and presented at the 2013 OGP Summit in London.

As of September 2015, LAPOR has had over 300 000 users, and it receives 800 reports per day.8 LAPOR has been integrated with 81 Ministries/Agencies, six local governments, and 44 state-owned companies in Indonesia (LAPOR website). The platform plans to increase its integration with government offices and expand its ability to facilitate community involvement with government authorities. LAPOR’s management team is piloting in provinces first to expand as quickly as possible, at which point the province will invite its cities and regencies to connect (GovInsider, 2015). By allowing for co-ordination between agencies as well as between the centre and subnational levels of government, LAPOR provides a useful tool to improve citizen participation in the provision of public services. Its primary drawback, however, is that it has yet to provide a truly government-wide system, thereby limiting its utility and potentially creating unreasonable public expectations of improvements to government services.

Examples from local level Given Indonesia’s size and political decentralisation, subnational level governments play a critical role in providing channels for citizens to engage in policy making and service delivery. The rule-making power given to subnational governments through regulations (peraturan) and decisions (keputusan) passed by heads of local governments - or by local laws enacted by provincial, district, or municipal legislatures (perda) - provide opportunities for local governments to promote transparency and deepen consultative approaches. Decentralisation can provide the political space to encourage legislative experimentation, while online and social media tools give local governments and citizens additional avenues to identify new ways to participate and interact (see Chapter 5).

Indonesia’s relatively recent decentralisation, however, raises the risk that campaigns to enhance citizen engagement mechanisms will be inhibited by capacity constraints and political barriers at the local level. Prior to the country’s democratisation, local governments channelled programmes designed by the central government, which made them dependent on central planning and actively hampered local creativity and innovation. Under this system, the Indonesian civil service was oriented towards responding to higher levels of authority rather than to input from citizens (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011). A major challenge to building citizen engagement in Indonesia thus lies in ensuring the government at all levels fully appreciates the role of the public and the opportunities that can derive from their greater participation in the policy-making cycle.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

140 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA At the same time, decentralisation can serve to expand the arenas for policy dialogue and decision-making. Furthermore, a critical determinant of CSO capacity to interact with government and advocate effectively on behalf of citizens is the degree of operational and political space these organisations are afforded by a country’s politics, governance, laws, and public administration. (Antlöv et al, 2010). To this end, the central government, under both the Yudhoyono administration and the Jokowi administration, has facilitated the implementation of open government pilot projects throughout the country, initiatives that illustrate how subnational governments are seeking to enhance citizen engagement in their particular contexts. For example, in Ambon, the regional administration is focused on improving the transparency of its budget (one result of this programme is the publication of the Ambon province financial report on its website); in Kalimatan Tengah (Central Borneo), the government is publishing school performance data; and in Indragiri Hulu, the government is publishing data on the health budget and results. The Jakarta Provincial Government has implemented a Smart City website that is designed to allow citizens to report problems in real-time as well as give the government the ability to monitor officials and track how quickly and effectively they follow up on complaints.

In Bojonegoro Regency, the government implemented a Public Dialogue and Open Public Information programme in 2008. This is a public forum held every Friday, attended by high-level officials who take note of and respond to issues raised by the audience. Approximately 175 people attend the dialogue weekly, and the events are broadcast on two local radio stations, allowing most of Bojonegoro Regency to hear the discussion.

Furthermore, the questions and complaints addressed in the dialogue are published on the website of Department for Communication and Informatics of Bojonegoro Regency. The Regency’s commitment to open information and data predates the implementation of Law Number 14/2008. As the government has found, providing both a forum for consistent communication as well as reliable and up-to-date information can encourage participation from communities and their involvement in supporting decision making. See Box 3.3 for an additional example of a programme in Indonesia that is using enhanced data sharing and transparency to improve public services at the local level, and Box 3.4 for an example of how the Government of Brazil has partnered with CSOs and the public to improve the provision of healthcare services at the national and local level.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 141

Box 3.3. Case Study: Nusantara Sehat, Indonesian Ministry of Health The Nusantara Sehat programme is a nationwide effort led by the Indonesian Ministry of Health to improve medical care via community-based teams consisting of five to nine health professionals (including doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, community health workers, environmental health personnel and nutrition and pharmacy personnel). In addition to promoting access and quality of basic health services, the programme seeks to maintain the sustainability of such services by improving the retention of health workers, to mobilize community development and to provide integrated care. Nusantara Sehat also focuses on preventive care, particularly in poor and rural regions in accordance with Nawa Cita, which expresses a commitment to implementing policies to improve health outcomes for people in remote areas (website).

Regarding citizen engagement, the Ministry of Health, particularly under the Jokowi administration, has focused on obtaining and publishing better community health data, including the location of the nearest health centres, the number of staff on hand, the number of beds available, etc.

Internally, the Ministry of Health has also prioritized the transparency of the programme’s processes and has integrated its planning and budgeting procedures. Moving forward, and in partnership with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the programme will focus on improving its efforts to share information with subnational governments and with professional and civil society organisations.

The programme’s data transparency efforts have faced challenges, including resistance to making research data public and capacity issues, within the Ministry and by CSOs that are not trained to use the data. Currently, the Ministry’s website is the primary tool to dispense data. While each hospital has its own website, relevant information is often difficult to identify and locate, and the IT management is not centralized, which can pose a problem given that IT infrastructure is often lacking in rural areas. The programme’s focus will be on identifying ways to more clearly communicate and present data to the public. Nevertheless, Nusantara Sehat’s efforts to provide community-based care and increase access to local health data, and to go about this in a transparent manner, are important.

Sources: Nusantara Sehat website; Interview with Diah Saminarsih, Ministry of Health.

Box 3.4. Health Councils – a history of engagement with civil society in Brazil Brazil established its first National Health Council in the 1930s aiming to fight countrywide epidemics. Formed by researchers and government representatives, the Council organized national conferences to debate health issues throughout the country. After the transition to democracy in the 1980s, the Council began including civil society organisations and users of the health services in its activities.

This experience allowed for the discussion of local realities, which led to the establishment of local health councils focused on issues related specifically to states and municipalities.

Currently, Health Councils and conferences play a prominent role in planning and monitoring health-related budgets and programmes. For example, local councils are empowered to oversee spending and transfers made by the federal level to the local governments to help ensure that the money is spent as assigned.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

142 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 3.4. Health Councils – a history of engagement with civil society in Brazil (continued) The National Council supports the creation of the country’s overall healthcare strategy and also focuses on:

• Helping to define the methodology used to identify priorities to allocate budgets in subnational governments

• Supporting the assessment and monitoring of local councils • Advising the legislature on its oversight role of government resources • Participating in the definition of strategies for the Health Sector The stability and representation of health councils is also supported by their permanent legal status and in that their member ship includes health professionals, government officials, service providers and users of public health services. In this way, the councils help to both promote inclusiveness and transparency, while at the same time improving public service provision.

Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

OECD countries also provide relevant examples of citizen engagement initiatives that help ensure that input from local governments and citizens is taken into consideration. For example, the Civil Evaluation Initiative in Italy shows how collaborative approaches can be carried out to promote both greater participation and more inclusive service delivery (see Box 3.6).

The central government, specifically the Office of the President and Bappenas, place great importance on the role they play in highlighting the success of exemplary citizen engagement policies in order to encourage greater implementation of such initiatives. Publicising and sharing the lessons from such cases will help build consensus across governments and civil society as to how best to carry this process forward.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 143

Box 3.6. Civic Evaluation Initiative (Italy) The Civic Evaluation Initiative was launched in 2008 as a pilot by the Department of Public Administration in partnership with Cittadinanzattiva (national civic association). The general aim of the project is to promote collaboration between the public administration and citizens (users) in assessing public services. The initiative adopts a user-oriented perspective to build evaluation tools and methodologies, which are then applied to real cases. It is not meant to provide a structured assessment (like an inspection), but to engage citizens in a shared evaluation in partnership with the administrations and civic associations.

In the first phase of the project, citizens in selected municipalities were involved in evaluating school and front-office services (e.g., general information, tax payment, demographic services). The second phase of the project started in 2009 and focused on “urban quality”, aiming at evaluating services in urban areas of local municipalities (road maintenance, street lighting, urban waste, state of public buildings). The dimensions of the indicators applied within the citizens’ special monitoring were chosen following a participative approach involving experts, representatives of administrations and of non-governmental associations, and citizens.

The dimensions selected included: security, access and reliability, information, sociability, transport and traffic, cleanliness, waste management and maintenance.

An evaluation of the preliminary results of the Initiative conducted in July 2010 indicates that positive results are being achieved. The programme has facilitated the collection of an evidence-base for decision making, fosters networking and social communications, and increases public understanding of the problems faced daily by local administrations. The initiative will be further expanded to make it widely available as a civic and participative tool for improving administrations’ services and performance.

Source: OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.

Towards a strategic approach to civic engagement in Indonesia Indonesia’s role as a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership and an initial signatory of the OGP Declaration in September 2011 illustrate the country’s commitment to the open government and citizens’ participation. As noted by the OGP, openness in Indonesia has been gaining momentum in parallel with the country’s democratic transition since 1998 (OGP website). Under the Yudhoyono administration, Indonesia’s open government activities were driven by the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (UKP4). This signalled the administration’s prioritisation of open government, but the centralized OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

144 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA management structure did not ensure that other ministries and local governments would fully buy in to the initiatives. This top-down approach taken by the Yudhoyono administration did not consistently achieve the same degree of acceptance outside of the executive branch. The Jokowi administration has instead pursued open government as a tool to pursue its anti-corruption and citizen engagement priorities; as the country’s reelection to the OGP Steering Committee shows, however, Indonesia is still very much engaged in the international support structures of open government.

While it is true that the Jokowi administration has maintained the commitment to the underlying principles of open government, the transition between administrations in October 2014 nevertheless disrupted the implementation of open government initiatives. Despite the support for open government in the national strategy documents and the co-ordinating impetus provided by the OGP, the government transition hindered the provision of central strategic direction and led to fragmented implementation. The current administration has viewed open government through the lens of identifying how such policies can tangibly benefit the people and how they can be linked even more closely to the national development plan.

As noted in Chapter 1, the key priorities outlined by the Office of the President in terms of open government are to: 1) ensure high-level commitment to open government initiatives; 2) ensure the national agenda for such reforms is implemented at the subnational level; and 3) identify champions to showcase successful implementation of reforms. The section below discusses the elements the GOI should focus on as it pursues these priorities and implements a more consistent strategic approach to citizen engagement.

Communication A foundational component of providing a more integrated and coordinated approach to enhancing citizen engagement will consist of efforts to guarantee that the broad definition, objectives, and importance of open government are clearly communicated, both within the government and between the government and its citizens. A key internal challenge for the government is to clarify what exactly it means by citizen engagement across all levels of the public administration. By providing a clear definition of what they hope to achieve through increasing the involvement of citizens, the GOI will be able to increase understanding and ownership of the concept throughout the government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 145

This remains a particularly important step in Indonesia, as these policies were actively discouraged in the era prior to the democratic transition. Even under the Yudhoyono administration, officials acknowledged in interviews with the OECD that the government’s reform efforts would have been aided by a greater focus on ensuring more comprehensive buy-in across ministries and levels. While a number of government agencies and ministries had frequent and valuable collaboration with relevant civil society partners, these agencies often lacked a broader understanding of open government principles, and they did not have a clear sense of how their interactions with the public fit into the country’s larger open government priorities.

Additionally, the GOI would benefit from improving its communication with citizens regarding its open government priorities and successes. A first step will be to help build the capacity of public officials to process information gathered during consultations, such as the Musrenbang, and to report government decisions back to the public. In addition, investing in outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines, tools and training opportunities to civil servants – is also essential to promoting open government and effective citizen engagement, as it gives citizens the sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication can therefore help build broader support for open government initiatives.

Expanding the public’s role in designing and monitoring public services As Indonesia implements its citizen engagement strategy, it will need to consider how best to move along the spectrum from the one-way, information provision relationship with the public to more comprehensive forms of interaction, including co-production of public services. Enhancing the role of citizens and CSOs in public decisions and actions broadens the role of citizens beyond that of being objects of state policy or recipients of government funding to a role in which the public assumes greater responsibility. Providing avenues for citizens and their elected officials to work together to design better public governance can therefore improve the quality of democracy, both at the local and national levels (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011), as well as support CSOs directly through providing opportunities to identify funding, as well as collaborate and engage with government and other like-minded organisations.

Moving beyond the traditional view of the public as consumers or clients of public services – as people who receive the services delivered to them – requires an understanding that in many areas of government activity, the public may indeed play a necessary role in producing the services (OECD, 2011b). To that end, the GOI should use its implementation of open OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

146 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA government initiatives to look for opportunities to co-deliver and co-produce government services with the help of citizens, and in some cases this is already happening. For example, one of the country’s more active CSOs in this arena has worked with local governments in Indonesia to co-deliver health care services. The Centre for Regional Information and Studies (PATTIRO) is partnering with local governments to develop an SMS-based platform for health promotion texts, emergency notifications and maternal health information, and it is helping to provide access to information for disabled citizens. PATTIRO is also helping local governments manage data more efficiently (CSO Meeting). As these cases continue to proliferate, the government will need to focus on identifying and spreading any lessons to facilitate more widespread and effective implementation.

Open government link with the SDGs Ultimately, Indonesia’s ability to link open government policies with its other development priorities will be a critical factor in determining the extent to which open government policies are implemented throughout the government. While the Jokowi administration has made linking open government to its national development plans a priority, the approval in September 2015 of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides the administration with another avenue to help ensure that its open government priorities are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and initiatives.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that came out of the 2030 Agenda seek to be transformative and inclusive, as well as to integrate actions in different parts of the government. Citizen engagement will therefore play a critical role in supporting the government’s efforts to ensure the SDGs are representative of and responsive to the public. This may take the form of civil society advocacy in favour of the inclusion both of SDGrelated goals within the country’s OGP NAP and of the principles of transparency, accountability and participation in the SDG-related policy cycle (i.e. the identification, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the SGDs). See Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion of the role of citizen engagement in implementing the SDGs.

Recommendations The OECD has developed a number of recommendations based on the analysis of current civic engagement practices and the strategic opportunities presented in this chapter. Open government reforms are part of a larger process; the recommendations below provide broad goals for the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 147

GOI, with specific actions that can be taken to help move the process forward.

•

Develop more structured and consistent whole-of government policies for open government and for civic engagement. Although open government and civic engagement priorities are included in the country’s development strategies, developing such policies will support open government reforms and streamline civic engagement within current public-sector reform processes by translating the national vision on open government into specific actions, including timelines, lead agencies and actors, etc.

•

Clarify the guidelines for citizen participation. Establishing a structured, systematic and transparent mechanism for citizen engagement would help foster the involvement of a larger share of the population. For example, the government could develop a Code of Practice on Citizen Consultation (potentially based on UK, Finland, and other examples, see OECD Focus on Citizens) to delineate the role of public consultation in the law-making process, specify the opportunities for public engagement and create mechanisms for government reviews on how consultation processes influence policy. Using IRM guidance based on the development of the country’s OGP National Action Plans would be a useful starting point to promote citizen participation.

•

Promote a culture of civic engagement by communicating outcomes and success stories to the public and civil servants. Investing in outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines for public communication and training to government officials – is essential to promoting effective citizen engagement, as it helps give citizens the sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication, especially regarding success stories, can also help build support for open government initiatives throughout the government.

This is essential to building high-level support and is also useful in gaining the support of mid-level reformers whose technical expertise is often required to carry out reforms (Brockmyer and Fox, 2015).

•

Support the capacity of the country’s civil society organisations to engage actively in public governance activities. Despite the deepening of the relationship between the public and the government in Indonesia since the country’s democratisation, there is still room to increase the role of CSOs. One of the critical drivers of success for multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as open government reforms, is the participation of influential and capable representatives who have the access, influence, and ability to deliver results (Brockmyer and Fox, 2015). To this end, the GOI can:

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

148 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA − Provide tools and training opportunities for civil society representatives and the public to help support the planning, implementation and evaluation of government policies and to secure their position as partners in the provision of government services. − Identify opportunities to engage with the public in the co-delivery of public services.

•

Promote public access to information. Despite Indonesia’s strong ATI guarantees, the government could do more to ensure freedom of information. For example, the requirements to show personal identification or organisational registration information, as well as to provide a rationale for requests for information, could be removed. This would help ensure the anonymity of information requests and promote access to information. The Government should also continue to support the PPID offices and the Information Commission to ensure that there is an effective and accountable structure for the provision of public information.

•

Build the country’s capacity to evaluate the impact of citizen engagement efforts. For example, this could include enhanced tracking of statistics and information on the number and results of public consultations, and more consistent data collection on such interactions at the local level. The national government could also facilitate coordination among the various public engagement tools already in place, and deepen its analysis of the added value of public consultations.

Importantly, the GOI should also focus on building the capacity of public officials to process information received during consultations such as the Musrenbang and to report government decisions back to the public. Together, these efforts will help ensure the quality and effectiveness of public engagement and highlight the public’s impact on public policy.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 149

Notes

1.

The organisations listed in Annex 8A.1 are some of the primary civil society organisation partners regarding open government issues in Indonesia; most of the organisations were members of the Open Government Indonesia (OGI) Core Team.

2.

The reform era for labour unions largely began under President Habibi, when Indonesia ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) convention on freedom of association and passed Law No. 21/2000 on labour organisations.

3.

This legislation extended the rights of freedom of association and organisation and provided every worker with the right to form or become a union member, as well as provided for unions’ rights to negotiate collective agreements, represent workers in industrial dispute settlements, and to defend members.

4.

Per information gathered by the OECD during a meeting with the Confederation of Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (KSBSI).

5.

See also Government Regulation No. 96/2012, articles 41-47).

6.

As of 2015, 88% of OECD countries surveyed have a whistleblower protection law or legal provision that calls for the protection of whistleblowers (OECD, 2015).

7.

Meeting with Bappenas Communications.

8.

Dr. Raden Siliwanti; 7 September 2015.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

–

Director

of

Political

Affairs

and

150 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

References Antlöv, H. and Wetterberg, A. (2011), Citizen Engagement, Deliberative Spaces and the Consolidation of a Post-Authoritarian Democracy: The Case of Indonesia; Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy, Working Paper No. 8, April, Visby, Sweden.

Antlöv, H. et al. (2010), Civil Society Capacity Building for Democratic Reform: Experience and Lessons from Indonesia; Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 3, September, pp. 417-439.

AusAID (2012), NGO Sector Review: Phase I Findings, https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks15-ngosector-review-phase1.pdf.

Brockmyer, B. and Fox, J. (2015), Assessing the Evidence: The Effectiveness and Impact of Public Governance-Oriented MultiStakeholder Initiatives, September, Transparency and Accountability Initiative.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2014), Democracy Index 2014, Economist Intelligence Unit, www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313ad58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.

EIU Democracy Index (n.d.), www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b242504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.

GovInsider (2015), “Inside LAPOR, Indonesia’s complaints unit”, Medha Basu, https://govinsider.asia/innovation/inside-lapor-indonesiascomplaints-unit/.

IBC (n.d.), http://ipc.or.id/.

Ibrahim, R. (2006), Indonesian Civil Society 2006: A Long Journey to a Civil Society; CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), Indonesia Progress Report, 2011– 2013, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/178320622Indonesia-IRM-Report.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 151

Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), 2013 Special Accountability Report: Indonesia, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia_ Special_Acc_Report_Public.pdf.

Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), Indonesia Progress Report, 20132014, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia%20Special%2 0Report%20Draft%20for%20Public%20Release_bahasa_final.pdf.

International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) (2015), “NGO Law Monitor: Indonesia,” 16 November, www.icnl.org/research/monitor/indonesia.html (accessed 22 March 2015).

Kemitraan (n.d.), www.kemitraan.or.id/indonesia-governance-index.

KOPEL (n.d.), http://kopel-online.or.id/profil-kopel.

LAPOR (n.d.), www.lapor.go.id/.

McKinsey and Company (2012), “Innovation in government: Indonesia and Colombia,”www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/ourinsights/innovation-in-government-indonesia-and-colombia.

MaPPI (n.d.), http://mappifhui.org/.

MediaLink (n.d.), http://medialink.or.id/tentang-medialink-or-id/.

Nabatchi, T. (2012), A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation, IBM Center for Business of Government, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/undpadm/unpan048340.pdf.

NCDD (2008), Engagement Streams Framework, National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, www.thataway.org/?page-id=1487 .

OECD (2015), Government at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-en.

OECD (2013), Government at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-en.

OECD (2012), OECD Integrity Review of Brazil: Managing Risks for a Cleaner Public Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119321-en.

OECD (2011a), Government at a Glance 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2011-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

152 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA OECD (2011b), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.

OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075061-en.

OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en.

OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

OGP (n.d.), www.opengovpartnership.org/country/indonesia.

Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) (2015), Statistical Report 2015, www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/publikasi/laporan.html.

Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) (2014), Annual Report 2014, www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/publikasi/laporan.html.

PATTIRO (n.d.), http://pattiro.org/?page_id=357&lang=en.

Seknas Fitra (n.d.), http://seknasfitra.org/perihal/?lang=en.

Siliwanti (2014), “Measuring Civic Engagement for Better Open Government Policies and Services,” OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference, May. Suryadarma, D., Pomeroy, J. and Tanuwidjaja, S., (2011). Economic Factors Underpinning Constraints in Indonesia's Knowledge Sector.

Indonesia: AusAID Publications.

Transparency International-Indonesia (2014), Scorecard Report Law and Policy of Open Governance in Indonesia, Jakarta.

Transparency International-Indonesia (n.d.), www.ti.or.id/index.php/profile/ti-indonesia.

USAID (2007), Good Governance Brief: Musrenbang as a Key Driver in Effective Participatory Budgeting, Key Issues and Perspectives for Improvements; Volume 1, June.

YAPPIKA (n.d.), www.yappika.or.id/tentang-kami/visi-misi/.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 153

Annex 3.A1 Primary CSO partners on open government activities in Indonesia

Organisation Indonesia Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL) http://icel.or.id/ Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) http://antikorupsi.info/id

International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) www.infid.org/

Indonesian Parliamentary Centre (IPC) http://ipc.or.id/ Kemitraan www.kemitraan.or.id/

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Description ICEL specializes in research, capacity building, advocacy and community empowerment, particularly regarding the public’s rights with respect to the environment and natural resources.

The ICW’s mission is to fight corruption and strengthen citizen participation in the policy-making and oversight process. ICW seeks to: Encourage public awareness of corruption issues; Build the capacity of the public to be involved in policy making and oversight; Encourage public reporting of corruption; Mobilize public campaigns to press for corruption eradication reforms.

INFID is a network of Indonesian NGOs that aims to ensure that the formulation and implementation of policies regarding development, investment and trade are made with consideration of the poor and disadvantaged. It also aims to strengthen democracy through the expansion of public participation.

IPC specializes in parliamentary capacity building and the promotion of political reform for improved democracy and parliamentary accountability (IPC website).

Promoting open governance is a key area of focus for Kemitraan. Their goals, per their 2012-16 Strategic Plan, are to: strengthen the political participation of citizens in elections; promote the capacity of citizens to participate in the process of planning and implementing development and enhance the complaints management mechanisms and community oversight.

Kemitraan also developed the Indonesia Governance Index, which is the first comprehensive governance database in Indonesia. The database provides rankings of all provinces and data related to the Gender Balance Index, as well as statistics on health, education, and poverty allocation information (Kemitraan website).

154 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA Organisation Komite Pemantau Legislatif (KOPEL) http://kopel-online.or.id/

Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (MaPPI) http://mappifhui.org/ Perkumpulan Media Lintas Komunitas (MediaLink) http://medialink.or.id/

Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (PATTIRO) http://pattiro.org/

Sekretariat Nasional Forum Indonesia untuk Transparansi Anggaran (Seknas Fitra) www.seknasfitra.org

Transparency International Indonesia (TII) www.ti.or.id/

Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi, Inisiatif dan Kemitraan Masyarakat Indonesia (YAPPIKA) www.yappika.or.id/

Description Founded in 2000, KOPEL’s goal is to promote dialogue between the legislature and the community. Specifically, KOPEL aims to: Support Parliament and civil society in promoting government accountability; Strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations to monitor the Parliament to encourage responsiveness and trustworthiness; Advocate for and assist in that formulation of government policy that is pro-poor and gender-responsive (KOPEL website).

The goal of the Indonesian Court Monitoring Society is to expand public participation and policy reform in the judicial system, as well as to monitor policies, systems, and judicial practice in Indonesia (MaPPI website).

MediaLink is a non-governmental organisation focused on issues of media freedom and democratisation of information. Founded in 2010, MediaLink aims to strengthen democracy by promoting the open and equitable flow of information (MediaLink website).

PATTIRO (the Centre for Regional Information and Studies), was established in 1999 as a research and advocacy institution. It focuses on three main sectors: public service improvement; improvement in public finance management; and the reform of public policy (PATTIRO website).

FITRA is a budget advocacy organisation that provides data on state budgets; analyses budget priorities and expenditures; raises public awareness regarding the need to promote budget transparency; and promotes the dissemination of budget information (Seknas Fitra website).

Transparency International Indonesia (TII) is the local chapter of Transparency International, a global network of anti-corruption NGOs that promote transparency and accountability on the part of state institutions, political parties, businesses, and civil society (TII website).

YAPPIKA aims to strengthen the capacities of civil society organisations to advocate for policies that meet people's basic rights, that encourage the development of a healthy civil society, and that promote the development of synergies between civil society organisations in order to fight for democracy and basic rights (YAPPIKA website).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 155

Chapter 4 From transparency and participation to integrity in Indonesia

Integrity and the fight against corruption remain important issues in Indonesia. This chapter will review the country’s integrity framework and the interplay between the public sector and citizens in fostering a culture of integrity. Specifically, it will look at the areas of participation in the policy cycle, civic oversight and awareness raising. While Indonesia has taken significant steps to prevent corruption through transparency and open government measures, the main challenge remains building a culture of integrity in the public sector and throughout all levels of society.

Accordingly, the chapter will provide recommendations discussing how Indonesia can further improve upon the implementation, effectiveness and compliance of its good policies and practices already in place.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

156 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Introduction Corruption, in all its forms, remains a widely recognised problem in Indonesia. Transparency International ranked Indonesia 88th out of 168 countries in its 2015 index measuring how corrupt countries’ public sectors are considered to be. That places the country below India, China and four of the ten countries belonging to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Transparency International, 2016). Indonesians consistently complain about paying bribes to public officials or police officers. The issue of political corruption continues to make daily headlines in the Indonesian media, and business analysts point out that foreign and domestic businesses in Indonesia regard corruption and ineffective rule of law as “serious problems”.

Street protests as well as voting behaviour show citizens’ discontent with corrupt practices. Indonesians, and especially younger generations, however, are reportedly relatively permissive towards fraudulent behaviour (Transparency International Indonesia, 2014). Bending the rules seems to be deemed acceptable when helping a family member, settling traffic violations or seeking public employment (Transparency International Indonesia, 2014).

Moreover, many Indonesians appear to doubt whether they should report instances of corruption. Some do not know to whom they must report corruption or how to report it, or they fear the consequences of reporting.

There is also a large degree of public mistrust in the ability and willingness of the institutions that receive the complaint to follow up on the matter (Transparency International, 2013a).

Against this backdrop, the government of Indonesia is committed to building a culture of integrity, and to doing so in collaboration with public officials at all levels, civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector and ordinary citizens. From an open government perspective, three interrelated mechanisms or roles emerge as prominent in the interplay between the public sector and citizens in fostering a culture of integrity (Figure 4.1):

•

Participation in the policy cycle: Citizens can contribute at every stage of the anti-corruption policy cycle, for example via CSO consultation in the development of anti-corruption policies, or via measuring progress through citizen feedback indicators and mechanisms. In addition, citizens can contribute to good governance in policy implementation and public-sector service delivery in various sectors, through reporting channels such as ombudsman services.

•

Oversight and accountability: This is the classic “watchdog” role of citizens, where public involvement strengthens the demand for integrity OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 157

in the public sector and in society as a whole and is supported by CSOs, the media and relevant public institutions, such as supreme audit institutions.

•

Awareness raising: This includes citizen education initiatives, communication campaigns and information exchange with the aim of improving mutual understanding and bringing about change in attitudes and behaviour in the areas of integrity and anti-corruption.

Figure 4.1. Interplay between citizens and the public sector for integrity

One important caveat needs specific attention: open government and transparency in public service are indeed strongly related with integrity and anti-corruption, but this relationship is not automatic. Several conditions need to be in place. First, when governments call upon citizens and civil society to contribute to policy development, appropriate channels need to be available, effective and reliable. Moreover, civil society organisations (CSO) require sufficient resources and leeway to participate effectively.

Second, in order for citizens and civil society organisations to fulfil an oversight role, as a so-called watchdog, data availability needs to be paired with data quality, processing capacity, effective whistleblower protection, and freedom of the press. Third, governments and CSOs must tailor awareness raising initiatives that promote integrity both in the public sector and in society at large to specific target groups in order to yield results.

Moreover, the best awareness raising campaign in the long run is often a fair, efficient and consistent rule of law system.

The legal framework for integrity and anti-corruption (see Box 4.1) that has developed since 1998 provides the government’s definition of corruption and bribery, establishes the institutional anti-corruption framework and outlines the public’s rights and responsibilities to collaborate in the fight against corruption.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

158 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Box 4.1. Indonesia’s legal anti-corruption framework The primary laws related to anti-corruption in Indonesia include:

• Law Number 31 of 1999 on The Eradication of Corruption and its amendment Law Number 20 of 2001. Together, these laws provide a definition of corruption and specify the maximum punishments.

Indonesia’s main bribery offences are listed under Articles 5-12 and 12B of Law Number 31 of 1999 and Law Number 20 of 2001. Notably, Law Number 31 of 1999 acknowledges the role and rights of the public in the fight against corruption.

• Government Regulation Number 71 of 2000 on Procedures for Implementation of Public Participation and Provision of Appreciation in the Prevention and Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption gives certain rights to the public to obtain responses from the authorities regarding complaints or information provided to the authorities. It also tries to provide protection to members of the public who offer information.

• Law Number 30 of 2002 on The Corruption Eradication Commission and Law Number 46 of 2009 on Corruption Criminal Court clarify the institutional mechanisms to fight corruption.

There are also several Presidential Regulations that relate to corruption eradication, such as Presidential Regulation Number 55 of 2012 and Presidential instruction (Inpres) No. 7 of 2015. These regulations require all ministries and government institutions to co-ordinate with Bappenas in the fight against graft, and oblige local administrations to co-ordinate with the Home Ministry, with the support of Bappenas, in their anti-corruption efforts.

This chapter discusses the dimensions of civic participation in the policy cycle and the mechanisms of oversight and accountability and awareness raising in the context of Indonesia, and it concludes with a consideration of opportunities to further strengthen a culture of integrity through open government practices and finally with a set of policy recommendations.

Participation in the policy cycle Citizen participation in the policy cycle can lead to increased integrity in the public sector and in society as a whole in several ways. First, citizens can contribute to the development and monitoring of the anti-corruption policy cycle. Civil society organisations specialising in good governance can function, through formal and informal consultation processes, as expert voices in the development and adjustment of anti-corruption strategies and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 159

work plans. Citizens can also monitor and evaluate the implementation of anti-corruption plans, for example through perception surveys or social audit mechanisms.

Second, citizens can also contribute to good governance in policy implementation and public-sector service delivery, for example in health, education or public administration, through reporting and feedback mechanisms, such as ombudsman services. The reports and complaints received from citizens can not only address individual cases of unfair treatment, administrative mismanagement or even abuse, but can also improve public-sector management in a structural way, through fine-tuning processes of service delivery and closing administrative loopholes, thus preventing leakage of funds and fraud.

In addition, although citizen consultation is in principle a positive element of policy making in line with open government principles, the integrity of public policies can also be affected by policy capture through undue lobbying activities. Given that policy makers need information and insights from citizens, interest groups and companies to make informed, fair and balanced policy decisions, public participation in the policy cycle should be encouraged in principle. Nevertheless, the risk exists that narrow, private interests can capture the policy-making process to serve their interests rather than the public good. Therefore, promoting responsible lobbying is also important in fostering integrity and transparency in public policy making.

This section will examine these three aspects of integrity as they affect citizen participation in the policy cycle in Indonesia, and will provide suggestions for improvements as well as refer to international good practices.

Citizen participation in shaping and monitoring the anti-corruption strategy The Government of Indonesia has shown its commitment to partner with citizens and CSOs in promoting a culture of integrity in different ways, among them the role of consultation initiatives in the development of its anti-corruption policies, the use of citizen feedback in monitoring anticorruption progress and the implementation of joint awareness-raising activities.

Over the years, Indonesia has consulted CSOs during the development process of anti-corruption strategies and assessments, including the UNCAC Gap Analysis in 2006 and the National Strategies and Action Plans on Corruption Eradication 2010-25. Prior to the ratification of UNCAC in 2006 OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

160 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA and to the establishment of the UNCAC Review Mechanism, an UNCAC Compliance Review and Gap Analysis (UNCAC Gap Analysis) was conducted in Indonesia, which entailed a participatory process and consultations with CSOs (Box 4.2). Domestically, the relevance of the Gap Analysis is demonstrated by its long-term impact on the Indonesian national anti-corruption framework. Indeed, the findings from the 2006 Gap Analysis have been a critical source of information for the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (Strategi Nasional Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Korupsi, or “Stranas PPK”, discussed below).

Box 4.2. Indonesia’s UNCAC Gap Analysis experience In 2006, Indonesia became the first country to conduct a comprehensive and voluntary self-assessment of its compliance with the UNCAC as part of its commitment to fight corruption and implement UNCAC. Unlike most other State parties, Indonesia initiated this “Gap Analysis” prior to ratifying the Convention.

With no formal guidance for this process available then, Indonesia devised its own methodology. While not as comprehensive as the checklists developed by the UNCAC Conference of State Parties, the matrix used had a similar intent and content.

The Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) assigned the Gap Analysis to a team of Indonesian academics and foreign experts supported by the German Development Agency GTZ (now GIZ). The local team of experts was responsible for the initial gathering and analysis of information on relevant laws, institutions and processes. These findings were then jointly analysed by the local and foreign experts and completed through broad consultation with key government agencies and relevant actors from civil society, the private sector and academia. A final multi- stakeholder workshop served to verify and generate broad buy-in for the key findings and recommendations. Indeed, that the Gap Analysis has enjoyed a high degree of national ownership and widespread acceptance is largely attributable to the use of this inclusive process.

The findings of the Gap Analysis have provided relevant stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of key weaknesses and gaps in the Indonesian legal and institutional framework’s ability to combat corruption, and with an overview of the country’s overall level of compliance with the standards set by UNCAC. As such, and in combination with findings from the pilot self-assessment and peer review process, in which Indonesia participated between 2007 and 2009, they provided a solid basis for Indonesia to participate in the official UNCAC review mechanism in 2010.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 161

Box 4.2. Indonesia’s UNCAC Gap Analysis experience (continued) The findings from the gap analysis were widely disseminated (in English and Bahasa Indonesia) domestically and internationally. As such, all stakeholders at the national and international level were informed about the recommendation and about Indonesia’s efforts in implementing UNCAC. Finally, Indonesia’s pioneering efforts to review its compliance with UNCAC led other countries to undertake similar efforts; due to these efforts, a network of likeminded countries who regularly share experience in these matters has evolved.

Indonesia’s experience exemplifies that with a domestically endorsed participatory approach to understanding, reviewing and implementing UNCAC, it is possible to enable substantial endorsement of international standards at the national level and hence improve quality, focus, effectiveness and co-ordination of national anti-corruption reforms.

Source: UNDP (2010) Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments.

The UNCAC Peer Review of Indonesia was subsequently undertaken by Uzbekistan and the United Kingdom and the executive summary of the report was published in 2012 (Box 4.3). As one of its conclusions, the UNCAC Peer Review pointed to the consultation process undertaken by the Gap Analysis as a good practice. Unfortunately, the full report UNCAC Peer Review of Indonesia has to date not been made public, thereby preventing the analysis and recommendations from being available for domestic and international stakeholders.

Box 4.3. UNCAC Review: Overall findings (2012) Since democracy was restored to the country in 1999, Indonesia has made a forceful start on tackling corruption, through both legislation and the creation of the KPK with its investigative and prosecutorial powers. There is a high degree of political commitment to the eradication of corruption in both the public and private sectors. The National Strategies and the Action Plans on Corruption Eradication 2010-25, developed by the government in consultation with civil society representatives, identify strategic efforts in the framework of accelerating corruption eradication, including steps to implement the Convention in Indonesia.

The need to amend relevant existing laws regulating these subjects is justified or clarified by the review’s findings.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

162 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Box 4.3. UNCAC Review: Overall findings (2012) (continued) Good practices The KPK and the Court of Corruption were considered good practices with regard to their capacity, mandate and the positive results of their work.

Established in 2002, the KPK is a special independent government body that deals with top-level cases of corruption. The KPK appears to have the necessary independence and is endowed with considerable powers under Law No. 30/2002 on the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. It has brought cases against former Ministers, Members of Parliament, senior officials, mayors, company directors and one of its own staff. The KPK is widely trusted by the public and is respected by international law enforcers and NGOs. The reviewers recommended that any legislative changes that take place on eradication of corruption not result in any changes to the current legal mandate of the KPK to investigate and prosecute the cases of corruption that fall within its mandate.

The Court of Corruption has proved an effective partner for the KPK in handling corruption cases. The first Court of Corruption was established by Law No. 30/2002 and was based in Jakarta and granted jurisdiction over cases brought by the KPK. Since 2010, the country has established other Courts of Corruption throughout the country, with 33 Courts of Corruption having been set up by 2012.

The reviewers fully supported the Government’s plan to expand the number of such courts so that they could handle all corruption cases, and not only the KPK’s.

Challenges The reviewers concluded that the main challenge in implementation lies in enhancing co-operation between enforcement agencies — the KPK, the Attorney General's office and the Police. The reviewers welcomed the heightened awareness within all these agencies of the challenge posed by the lack of cooperation and co-ordination, and their willingness to deal constructively with these challenges and overcome them. Additional steps to improve and strengthen co-operation and co-ordination are essential.

The reviewers stressed that co-operation would be enhanced by a comprehensive analysis of the state of corruption, its structure, dynamics and trends, as well as analysis of the activity on detection and prevention of crime in order to identify the main future directions for countering corruption. To this end, the centralised collection of statistics, unified reporting on corruption cases and consolidation of the reports by a single body, and regularly convened coordination councils of the law enforcement and supervising bodies are needed.

Source: Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2012), Executive summaries.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 163

CSOs have also been consulted throughout the development process of National Anti-Corruption Strategies (Stranas PPK and its predecessors) and its related instruments, as well as for the 2012 baseline study “Zero tolerance for Corruption”, led by Bappenas, which measured corruption perceptions in Indonesia.

The Bappenas Directorate for Analysis of Law and Regulation coordinated the creation of the 2012-25 National Strategy to Eradicate Corruption, or “Stranas PPK”. The Stranas PPK is composed of six substrategies, namely:

•

prevention

•

law enforcement

•

harmonising rules and regulations

•

international co-operation and asset recovery

•

anti-corruption education and culture

•

reporting mechanisms.

Taking a longer-term view compared to its predecessors, the Stranas PPK is to be rolled out gradually over 13 years, in accordance with Presidential Regulation No. 55 of 2012 on the Stranas PPK (the “Stranas PPK Perpres”). The first major national anti-corruption strategy, the National Action Plan for Corruption Eradication 2004-09, was implemented per Presidential Instruction Number 5 of 2004. This was followed by the issuance of Presidential Instruction Number 9 of 2011 (on the Action Plan for Corruption Prevention and Eradication, 2011) and Presidential Instruction Number 17 of 2011 (on the National Action Plan for Corruption Prevention and Eradication, 2012). The Indonesian President regulated several strategic steps with Presidential Regulation Number 55 of 2012 on the Long-Term (2012-25) and Medium-Term (2012-14) National Strategies on Prevention and Eradication of Corruption.

Indeed, the Long-Term Strategy is underpinned by medium-term strategies and a roadmap with specific objectives connected with three key indicators: (1) improving the national score on corruption perception, reflected in (the national equivalent of) the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International; (2) full transposition of the UNCAC provisions into national legislation and regulations; and (3) development of a National Integrity System.

It is relevant to observe that the open government principles of transparency and citizen participation are linked with the goals of Stranas PPK in at least 3 areas: prevention, anti-corruption education and culture, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

164 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA and reporting mechanisms. Moreover, the use of perception indicators to measure the success of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy demonstrates the government’s willingness to change the lives of citizens and to enhance the public image of the government and its institutions, as well as to boost the reputation of Indonesia internationally.

Transparency International Indonesia (TI-I), the national chapter of the international anti-corruption CSO Transparency International (TI), conducts an annual survey and publishes the Corruption Perception Index for Indonesia, based on TI’s methodology of the International Corruption Perception Index (CPI). The Indonesia CPI is one of the official key indicators for the Long-Term 2012-25 National Strategy on Prevention and Eradication Corruption, and has therefore become one of the most important governance indicators used by policy makers and the private sector in Indonesia to inform their decisions. Citizen-action groups and the media also use the index to measure the progress of anti-corruption efforts in Indonesia.

Nevertheless, perception indicators are often criticized because of methodological limitations. Indeed, increased media attention or effective uncovering of corruption can affect the perception measurement negatively while possibly signalling in reality increased integrity awareness, greater press freedom or successful prosecution efforts.

CSOs are also active in other areas of the Stranas PPK, and they are essential partners for integrity in Indonesia. A group of civil society organisations has actively monitored the progress of the fight against corruption in Indonesia, resulting in an Independent Report by Indonesian civil society organisations on the Implementation of the UNCAC (the “Independent Report”). This Report is intended to act as a companion and comparison piece to the Indonesian Government’s Formal Report, as well as to the Independent Review Mechanism Reports on Indonesia prepared by appointed Member States.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW, http://antikorupsi.info/id) has as its mission the fight against corruption and the strengthening of citizen participation in the policy-making and oversight processes. ICW seeks to: 1) encourage public awareness of corruption issues; 2) build the capacity of the public to be involved in policy making and oversight; 3) encourage public reporting of corruption; and 4) mobilize public campaigns to press for corruption eradication reforms.

Transparency International-Indonesia (TI-I, www.ti.or.id/) combines the work of a think tank and a social movement organisation. As a think tank, TI-I conducts policy reviews and drafts policy and legislation and it takes part in policy reforms within government and law enforcement agencies. In OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 165

addition to studies like the Youth Integrity Survey (YIS), TI-I’s main activities in this area relate to the operationalisation of anti-corruption approaches and tools in policy areas such as procurement, transparency in public budgets and participatory budgeting. Moreover, Transparency International-Indonesia is also implementing the Open Government Scorecard, a baseline assessment of open government in Indonesia.

Kemitraan (www.kemitraan.or.id/) has been taking part in the consultation process related to the National Strategy on the Prevention and Eradication of Corruption. Kemitraan’s focus is to strengthen the political participation of citizens in elections; promote the capacity of citizens to participate in the process of planning and implementing development; and enhance the complaints management mechanisms and community oversight.

Kemitraan also developed the Indonesia Governance Index, which is the first comprehensive governance database in Indonesia. The database provides rankings of all provinces and data related to the Gender Balance Index, as well as statistics on health, education, and poverty allocation information.

Other CSOs have a more direct focus on democratic institution building and parliamentary oversight. For its part, the Indonesian Parliamentary Centre (IPC) (http://ipc.or.id/) specialises in parliamentary capacity building and the promotion of political reform for improved democracy and parliamentary accountability. The Komite Pemantau Legislatif (KOPEL, http://kopel-online.or.id/) promotes dialogue between the legislature and the community. Specifically, KOPEL aims to: (1) support Parliament and civil society in promoting government accountability; (2) strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations to monitor the Parliament to encourage responsiveness and trustworthiness; and (3) advocate for and contribute to government pro-poor and gender-responsive policies.

In addition, the Indonesian Court Monitoring Society or Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (MaPPI, http://mappifhui.org/) aims to expand public participation and policy reform in the judicial system, as well as to monitor policies, systems and judicial practice in Indonesia. As a voice of the demand side of justice, MaPPI thereby contributes to the further development of a fair, efficient and consistent rule of law system, a cornerstone of integrity in society.

Feedback channels to close loopholes and address mismanagement The development of various reporting and feedback channels in the public sector demonstrates the efforts of the government of Indonesia to increase responsiveness; however, it is important that these efforts be matched with efficient complaint handling mechanisms, adequate processing OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

166 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA capacity and effective protection of those who report. Individual reports from any of the country’s feedback channels can rectify individual instances of administrative mismanagement, thereby contributing to the perception of fairness and trust in public institutions. Moreover, reports may also lead to structural improvements in public service processes, thereby improving management systems and identifying leakages, nepotism and corruption.

This section will discuss general reporting channels; specific reporting mechanisms for corruption and fraud will be addressed in in the next section as part of the discussion the oversight and watchdog roles.

Complementary to the corruption-specific whistleblower channel operated by the KPK (discussed below), several other channels exist, including LAPOR (a public complaint management system, discussed in more detail in Chapter 3), the Ombudsman Offices and complaint services within line Ministries and at the subnational level, all of which contribute to varying degrees to improving government systems and bringing about corruption eradication.

The National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or ORI) was established in 2000 by a presidential regulation to fight corruption, process complaints and initiate investigations of irregularities in the public sector. As noted in Chapter 3, Law No. 37/2008 on the Ombudsman has strengthened the legal basis for the ORI by making it an official state institution. The ORI publishes its yearly reports, accessible on its website, and has no threshold for complaints and accepts all cases. However, in order to ensure individual follow-up and response, the ORI does not accept anonymous complaints; it nevertheless guarantees confidentiality. A Memorandum of Understanding between ORI and KPK addresses the treatment of corruption cases and their handover to KPK. An agreement is also in place with LAPOR, stipulating that any complaints received through LAPOR left unaddressed for 30 days will automatically be transferred to the ORI. Unlike the KPK, the responsibility to act upon the ORI’s findings lies with the Indonesian police and judiciary. As a result of the case handling, the ORI issues non-binding recommendations to the respective public service and publishes anonymised overviews of these recommendations in its annual report.

ORI has made significant efforts to ensure its accessibility throughout the country. ORI has 32 regional offices, covering the entire country of Indonesia, and it operates a web portal. In addition, a network of partner CSOs called “Friends of the Ombudsman” undertakes sensitisation campaigns around the country and facilitates the collection of complaints.

As a result, the number of registered complaints has risen from 1867 in 2011 to 6679 in 2014. In order to support ORI in its role for good governance and citizen participation, the Government of Indonesia has recently (July 2015) OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 167

decided to more than double the annual budget of ORI to IDR 140 billion per year.

Despite these multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional arrangements, challenges arise in terms of processing capacity, willingness to adopt structural changes and overlapping reporting channels, all of which may further exacerbate capacity constraints. Moreover, with different institutions and channels involved, issues of data security and the privacy rights of plaintiffs may pose important integrity issues in their own right.

Regulating lobbying: An opportunity to prevent policy capture A sensitive area in the interplay between citizens and policy makers is lobbying, and Indonesia could do better in reflecting OECD and international good practices in this policy area by adopting regulatory practices for lobbying. Indeed, there are currently no specific regulations in place related to this issue in the country.

One common and potentially effective way to manage lobbying activity is through self-regulation, where lobbyists come together in professional groups to police their activities, mostly voluntarily, through the creation of: (i) a code of conduct; (ii) a registry; and/or (iii) a monitoring and enforcement system. In general, self-regulation focuses more on codes of conduct and registers than on monitoring and enforcement. Self-regulation alone is sometimes insufficient to alleviate influence peddling by private donors, however; ultimately, the responsibility for safeguarding the public interest and rejecting undue influence lies with public officials.

According to the 2013 OECD Survey on Lobbying, as many as 84% of surveyed legislators and 64% of lobbyists are of the opinion that information on the contributions lobbyists make to political campaigns should be made publicly available through, for example, a register. However, out of the surveyed OECD Member countries with lobbyist registers of, only Slovenia and the United States disclose information on lobbyists’ contributions to political campaigns. In Slovenia, lobbyists must report the type and value of donations made to political parties and the organisers of electoral and referendum campaigns. Total contributions per year to political parties are not allowed to exceed ten times the average monthly wage in Slovenia.

Elsewhere, the UK enacted the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act in the UK in 2014.

While the bill does not directly require lobbyists to disclose their political contributions, it increases transparency in relation to spending by some nonparty campaigners/third party campaigners by requiring them to publish and record more information about their spending, donations, accounts and board members.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

168 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA Since 2010, the number of countries regulating lobbying practices has almost doubled (Figure 4.2). Indonesia could set an example by implementing a regulatory framework for lobbying, aiming to further protect the policy cycle from capture. Through increased transparency on lobbying activities, citizens and CSOs can contribute to improving integrity standards to prevent policy capture.

Figure 4.2. Countries having adopted regulatory practices for lobbying

Source: OECD (2015a), “Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture”, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Strengthening the watchdog: Towards effective accountability mechanisms for citizens Citizens can strengthen the demand for integrity in the public sector and in society as a whole through their role as watchdogs with the help of CSOs, the media and the relevant public institutions, such as supreme audit institutions. In order for citizens to play this oversight role and demand accountability, a number of conditions need to be in place, including the availability of reporting channels, assurances of follow-up on the part of the government and protection for whistleblowers. Relevant public-sector information, such as assets of senior public officials and government spending and revenue information should also be transparent and open to public consultation. See Box 4.4 for a description of Brazil’s Transparency Portal, which allows the public to track relevant information and play a more active role in the country’s anti-corruption efforts.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 169

Box 4.4. Brazil’s Transparency Portal: Fighting corruption with transparency Brazil’s flagship effort to fight corruption is its Transparency Portal (www.transparencia.gov.br), a website that allows citizens to track how the government is spending money and to whom and where it is sent. Launched in 2004, the portal surpassed 16 million visits in 2015. By providing a broader view of government spending – as opposed to each agency publishing their own data – the Transparency Portal provides an opportunity to understand spending across sectors and agencies. The Portal provides information on: Spending and Income: Citizens can track spending by government agency, programme or area (such as health). One of the Portal’s main attractions – which could be relevant to Indonesia’s decentralisation policies – is the information provided on transfers from the federal government to subnational governments. Through the Portal, citizens can follow up on agreements made between levels of government and track how much money was committed from each part and how much was actually sent. This allows citizens to monitor the implementation of specific projects and report when money was transferred but not spent.

Information is also provided on specific programmes. For example, it is possible to identify beneficiaries of federal government social programmes, such as those that transfer money for citizens in extreme poverty conditions. This allows other citizens to note when the resources of those programmes are being misused (if, for example, public servants or politicians receive money). The transparency of spending data allows for a more complete understanding of what kinds of expenses the government prioritises and the type of organisations that receive money, and can therefore help fight embezzlement, collusion and misuse of public money. The Portal also allows the public to track the origins of government income, thereby allowing citizens to understand how the government obtains money to finance its actions.

Public servants: The Portal provides information on who works for the government, their positions, roles and salaries. Information on public servants is used to fight conflicts of interest, nepotism and other issues.

Debarment lists: The Portal provides lists of organisations and individuals prevented from contracting with the government due to prior misconduct. This list also includes information on public servants that have been expelled from the government.

Other information: The Portal also provides information on government properties used by public servants, government credit cards, emergency response funds and other datasets.

The Transparency Portal was designed with features to help citizens understand the information and navigate easily. Using glossaries, FAQs and clear language, the Portal seeks to increase citizen involvement in overseeing the spending of public money – especially in local governments to whom the federal government sends resources but cannot monitor as thoroughly.

The Office of the Comptroller General maintains the Transparency Portal and is managing a restructuring project focused on: improving the user experience; providing more interaction with users; improving the quality of open data formats; integrating additional databases; creating new search and sorting functions; and developing a larger network of government information.

Source: Office of the Comptroller General, Brazil.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

170 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Reporting of corruption cases In addition to the more general reporting mechanisms discussed above, the KPK operates a hotline specifically for the purposes of taking reports on corruption, supported by a web portal (https://kws.kpk.go.id/), which guarantees confidentiality to the person reporting the case. The criteria that must be met for the KPK to take on a case are set out in the provisions of Article 11 of Law No. 30/2002: the case needs to involve law enforcement officers, state officials, and possibly others in connection with criminal acts of corruption committed by law enforcement officers or state officials.

There also needs to be a degree of harm to society and/or the case must concern state losses of at least IDR 1 000 000 000. Furthermore, plaintiffs are expected to clearly state the details of the situation (who did what, when, where, why and how) and present preliminary evidence (data, documents, images and recordings) pointing towards an act of corruption. If the complaint meets the requirements, a Commission officer will process it further.

In 2014, the KPK received and processed 9 432 public complaints, which is an increase of about 50% compared to 2010, and about half of them (4 587) contained indications of corrupt practices. The KPK annual report publishes detailed statistics on the complaints, including breakdowns in terms of regions and topics (KPK, 2015b). In order to promote the hotline across the population, the KPK has set up a communication strategy, including broadcasts via radio and TV. Moreover, information on the hotline is also provided through awareness raising activities such as public celebrations on Anti-Corruption Day, the Anti-Corruption Film Festival, anti-corruption education programmes and outreach activities for the business sector.

Despite KPK’s efforts to promote the hotline across the central government, civil society organisations in Indonesia still report a deeprooted reluctance among citizens to report cases of corruption. Some people are unaware of the appropriate reporting channels or methods and of the rights they would enjoy as whistleblowers, or they fear possible consequences of reporting. More generally, the reluctance to report can point to a profound distrust in public institutions (Transparency International, 2013a). Therefore, it may be useful to explore how the information and confidence gap could be bridged. Partnerships with civil society organisations could be fruitful in this respect.

According to KPK reports (KPK, 2015b), the human and budgetary resources have not followed a similar increase, which may lead to questions of processing capacity of the KPK, especially if the increase continues (Wolfe et al., 2014). A capacity assessment and review of relevant OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 171

procedures could shed more light on possible limitations of the effectiveness of the whistleblower system. Moreover, citizens may also report corruption cases to the police, but it is unclear how the co-operation between KPK and the police functions in practice when it comes to corruption complaints and whistleblower protection. The institutional arrangements may need to be analysed in detail, with a focus on coherence, co-ordination and efficiency, in order to ensure an optimal system for citizens.

Towards improved effectiveness of whistleblower protection Effective protection of whistleblowers is a cornerstone of a culture of integrity, not only enabling citizens to report corruption, but also instilling confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public institutions more generally. While Indonesia has established legal and institutional provisions for the protection of whistleblowers through several laws (including Law No. 13/2006 on the Protection of Witness and Victim; Law No. 31/1999 on Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption), a number of weaknesses can be identified, which taken together point to a need for a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of the whistleblower protection regime and for structural improvements concerning both the legal framework and the institutional setup.

Article 15 of Law No.30/2002, establishing the KPK, obligates the KPK to protect witnesses and whistleblowers, namely by ensuring their security through measures such as police protection or a new identity and guaranteeing them legal protection. The KPK is therefore responsible for the protection of witnesses and victims in corruption investigations. The KPK has established an internal reporting mechanism in the form of an online platform and a whistleblower hotline enabling anonymous reporting of corruption cases. Based on these reports, the KPK can initiate investigations of cases of corruption, if they consider the whistleblower reliable. The KPK has also been promoting the protection of whistleblowers in the workplace within government ministries and state-owned enterprises (OECDb, 2012).

As a result, several ministries, for example health, public works, home, forestry, national education, agriculture and finance, have joined the KPK whistleblower system (The Jakarta Post, 2010).

Although various laws address aspects of whistleblower protection, the current Indonesian framework lacks a precise definition of the term whistleblower, and the legal framework does not clarify what constitutes a threat or protection. Therefore, Indonesia could consider reviewing the legal framework and introducing a whistleblower protection law that clearly defines the guaranteed protections. For example, the Korean Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers specifies actions that are OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

172 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA understood as disadvantageous measures against which whistleblowers should be protected (Box 4.5).

Box 4.5. Comprehensive whistleblower protection in Korea Korea’s Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers defines the items against which protection is provided. “The term “disadvantageous measures” means an action that falls under any of the following items: a)

Removal from office, release from office, dismissal or any other unfavorable personnel action equivalent to the loss of status at work.

b)

Disciplinary action, suspension from office, reduction in pay, demotion, restriction on promotion and any other unfair personnel actions.

c)

Work reassignment, transfer, denial of duties, rearrangement of duties or any other personnel actions that are against the whistleblower’s will.

d)

Discrimination in the performance evaluation, peer review, etc. and subsequent discrimination in the payment of wages, bonuses, etc.

e)

The cancellation of education, training or other self-development opportunities; the restriction or removal of budget, work force or other available resources, the suspension of access to security information or classified information; the cancellation of authorisation to handle security information or classified information; or any other discrimination or measure detrimental to the working conditions of the whistleblower.

f)

Putting the whistleblower’s name on a black list as well as the release such a blacklist, bullying, the use of violence and abusive language toward the whistleblower, or any other action that causes psychological or physical harm to the whistleblower.

g)

Unfair audit or inspection of the whistleblower’s work as well as the disclosure of the results of such an audit or inspection.

h)

The cancellation of a license or permit, or any other action that causes administrative disadvantages to the whistleblower”.

Source: Korea’s Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers (2011), Act No. 10472, 29 March, Article 2 (6).

Moreover, whistleblowers face a risk of retaliation, often in the form of disciplinary actions or workplace harassment. Whistleblower protection laws should therefore provide comprehensive protection against discriminatory or retaliatory personnel action. The majority of OECD OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 173

countries have penalties in place for retaliating against a whistleblower in the public sector (OECD, forthcoming). The whistleblower protection framework in Indonesia does not protect whistleblowers from retribution. To strengthen the protection of whistleblowers, Indonesia could introduce legislation that stipulates disciplinary action, including placing the burden of proof on the employer to prove that any conduct taken against the employee is unrelated to his or her whistleblowing.

Asset disclosure and its role in strengthening integrity Asset disclosure is a key element of any public-sector integrity framework, as it is an important tool for transparency concerning the assets of public officials. The disclosure of all assets, including property, valuables, financial portfolios, liabilities such as debts and mortgages, and all sources of income, such as directorships, investments, and consulting contracts, provides a complete picture of a public official’s financial situation. Therefore, asset declaration systems promote accountability among public officials (OECD, 2011). In addition, asset disclosure holds the potential to boost public confidence in the integrity of the government because it ensures that public officials are subject to public scrutiny.

The asset disclosure system in Indonesia has certain merits, such as its breadth; however, its effectiveness may be improved by setting priorities based on a risk assessment. The Department for the Wealth Reports of State Officers within the Prevention Division of the KPK manages Indonesia’s income and asset declaration system. Since the system’s inception in 2001, the KPK has focused on establishing the mechanisms and the capacity for managing its wealth-reporting system and on building compliance among the officials required to submit a declaration. The scope of the system is very broad and encompasses all elected and non-elected public officials, regardless of function or rank. Under this regime, 148 355 people declared their assets in 2014, representing the executive, legislative and judiciary branches as well as Central Government-owned companies (Badan Usaha Milik Negara - BUMN) and Regional Government-owned companies (Badan Usaha Milik Daerah - BUMD).

Although compliance with administrative and bureaucratic procedures is increasing and data are available online, Indonesia’s asset declaration system faces several challenges: the asset declaration regulation does not stipulate clear-cut provisions on verification and on administrative and criminal penalties, which weakens the system. Moreover, the KPK may not have sufficient resources to verify all asset reports and analyse them to detect corruption. Furthermore, issues of data security and privacy rights may pose their own important integrity issues. Finally, the publication of wealth data for low-ranking officials adds to the processing capacity and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

174 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA verification problems. Therefore, priority setting, based on a risk assessment and an evaluation of processing capacity, may be a useful exercise. In Sweden, the focus of asset disclosure is on high-ranking public officials (Box 4.6), and some OECD countries focus on the executive and legislative branches, rather than on the judiciary (Box 4.7).

Box 4.6. Asset declaration in Sweden In Sweden, asset declaration requirements put emphasis on senior public executives. The content of statements disclosing personal financial interest includes information on assets and liabilities, loans, sources and levels of income, additional employment, gifts, and employment history. The reports filled by elected officials and senior public servants are available online.

There are no legal sanctions and no strictly defined legal consequences for violations of the requirements but rather soft measures to achieve compliance. In this sense, if a member of parliament, for example, fails to submit information to the register, this compliance failure is announced at the plenary meeting.

Source: OECD (2011), “Asset Declaration for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent Corruption”, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Box 4.7. OECD data on asset disclosure Experience has shown that asset and private interest disclosure by decision makers continues to be an essential tool for managing conflicts of interest.

Although it continues to be common practice in OECD countries, there are different levels of disclosure in the three branches of government. Disclosure practices are considerably higher in the executive and legislative branches than in the judiciary. For example, disclosure is not required for judges and prosecutors in the Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg and New Zealand. In Luxembourg, there are no disclosure requirements for decision makers in any of the three branches of government. Of the private interests covered, countries give the highest attention to paid outside positions as well as the receipt of gifts, by either prohibiting these or by requesting their disclosure.

From those OECD countries that have disclosure requirements in place, over 80% verify that disclosure forms are submitted. However, less than half perform internal audits of the submitted information for accuracy. Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and Turkey take no action following the collection of the disclosure forms. However, in Ireland and Italy, most of the disclosed information is available to the public, allowing citizens themselves to scrutinise the information submitted.

Source: OECD (2014), “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”, in OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 175

OGP Action Plans, which have to date focused on anti-corruption issues related to service provision, such as business licensing, might also focus on identifying how the public can be involved in a systematic and thorough risk assessment process to help to set priorities. This could include discussions about which officials should be covered (depending on function and rank), about what data should be made publicly available and about which data should be verified and how this could be done.

Public audit institutions in Indonesia: New allies for citizen oversight?

Despite good examples from other countries in the region and across the globe, the two public audit institutions in Indonesia, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), have not yet been at the forefront in engaging with citizens. BPKP operates a whistleblower system, allowing citizens to report wrongdoings of BPKP staff. Beyond this, however, additional opportunities exist to promote citizen oversight and a culture of integrity more generally through public engagement. The BPK RI and BPKP may therefore want to explore how public engagement can contribute to promoting citizen oversight (through, for example, public involvement in risk assessments and audits) and a culture of integrity more generally.

Globally, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) are slowly but steadily moving beyond their traditional role of verifier of public accounts, in light of the broader transformations in government roles and increased interaction with citizens. Based on evidence from both individual audit reports and multi-year strategic reviews, SAIs increasingly contribute to the policy cycle as providers of insight and foresight information to policy makers (OECD, 2015c).

SAIs have become increasingly aware of the potentially powerful role citizens can play as watchdogs, with a shared goal of increasing the accountability and quality of governance from within (SAIs) and outside the government (citizens) respectively. One notable example is the irregularities found by the Indonesia's Supreme Audit Agency in the use of Post-Tsunami Emergency Funds (2006, irregularities estimated at USD 650 million, www.worldwatch.org/node/4196). Both citizens and SAIs use and depend on good quality information to expose problems and identify areas for improvement. Moreover, SAIs are citizens’ agents entrusted with keeping the government and governance process accountable. As the ultimate beneficiaries of a better use of public funds, citizens are the most important stakeholders of supreme audit institutions. A regional example includes the Philippines (Box 4.8).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

176 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Box 4.8. SAI-CSO Co-operation in the Philippines Conducting participatory audits as a joint undertaking In the Philippines, the government's SAI, the National Commission on Audit (COA), co-operates with a non-governmental organisation called the Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government (CCAGG) to conduct participatory audits as a joint undertaking. CCAGG monitors infrastructure projects within its province and uses the assistance of local monitors and volunteers drawn from the area to verify whether government projects are executed as per contract norms.

This exercise is focused on performance audits, which assess the impact of the audited government programme or project to determine whether it has achieved its anticipated results. Audit teams include members from COA and nongovernmental organisations. The teams receive joint training on conducting participatory audits before conducting audits.

Providing CSOs access to agency documents and seeking their assistance Officials of COA also co-operate with a CSO called Procurement Watch, Inc. to test a tool that measures corruption and inefficiency in public procurement. To do this, the COA is providing Procurement Watch, Inc. access to procurement documents of agencies that it is auditing. Procurement Watch, Inc. specialises in building systems of transparency and accountability into government contracting and procurement practices. This tool seeks to determine the real (fair-market) cost of a publicly procured good or service, and then compares that to the cost that was paid for the good or service; when actual payments are higher than the items' fair-market value, the difference can be attributed to corruption or inefficiency.

Source: International Journal of Government Auditing (2014), Engaging Civil Service Organizations in SAI Audit.

In practice, SAIs and citizens can strengthen one another through cooperation in two directions. On the one hand, SAIs have an important role in providing assurance that the information on financial management and policy implementation delivered by government is complete, objective, reliable, relevant, and understandable. In addition to their quality assurance role, SAIs can also publish their reports, findings and recommendations.

Both practices are relevant for strengthening the watchdog role of citizens and CSOs, and can increase the impact and visibility of the work of SAIs. Indeed, SAIs can strengthen the impact of audit reports by building ongoing relationships with auditees and other key stakeholders like media, CSOs, citizens, and their legislative representatives who can support the SAI’s OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 177

work by pressing for needed change, introducing new laws, implementing change and monitoring implementation of recommendations.

On the other hand, SAIs can benefit from citizens’ participation and information to fulfil their mandate. For example, CSOs, through social audits and other such processes can provide information that can complement and augment the work of the SAI. Such specific information, as well as the general feedback received by SAIs from the public on their audit findings, can help SAIs focus their future audits on areas of great concern to citizens. Reacting to citizens’ complaints in the course of the audit process may give the SAI an indication of suspected fraud and high-risk areas, and can make SAI audits more responsive and targeted.

In Indonesia, the two public audit institutions, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), have yet to take their first significant steps in engaging with citizens to promote accountability and integrity. BPK RI, first established in 1946, has the mandate to conduct audits related to the management of state finances and responsibilities undertaken by the central government, local government and other state institutions, Bank Indonesia, State-Owned Enterprises, the Public Service Board, the Regional Owned Enterprises and institutions or other agencies that manage state finances.

BPK RI submits the results of its examinations to the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) according to their respective authority. To build its relationships with the key stakeholders, the BPK RI established the “Forum BPK Mendengar” (BPK Listening Forum) to promote effective communication, collect inputs, thoughts and advise from the public and strengthen the co-operation among stakeholders. This forum is held regularly with the active participation from CSO representatives, elected officials, media, and representatives from local governments and national ministries.

The Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (Sejarah Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan, or BPKP) was formed in 2006 after having been reorganised based on a previous audit institution.

Presidential Decree No. 192/2014 made BPKP responsible to the President and gave the office the task of financial control and supervision over national development. The BPKP is also tasked with increasing state revenue and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of budgetary spending by the national and regional governments. Its activities include conducting audits and evaluations on the collection and management of tax revenues, non-tax state revenues, regional revenue streams and national development. Furthermore, it is tasked with evaluating the application of the system of internal controls in order to detect and deter corruption, as well as OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

178 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA with investigating financial irregularities. It receives regular funding and is professionally staffed. However, efforts to build relationships directly with citizens have been minimal to date.

Media as information channel and reporting platform The media can inform citizens about integrity-related issues and can serve as a last-resort corruption-reporting platform, thereby holding public officials accountable for public financial management. A precondition for this is press freedom and independence. In Indonesia, the constitution and subsequent legal provisions guarantee the freedom of press, and the media and press are diverse and relatively free. However, as reported by the human rights organisation Article 19, many journalists are self-censoring due to acts of intimidation, threats (or worse) to journalists by both state and nonstate actors. The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) reported that the number of incidents of violence against the press remained steady in 2014, with 41 cases reported. Many of the 2014 cases involved harassment and assaults on reporters as they attempted to cover sensitive news stories related to corruption or protests.

Moreover, the media and political landscape are highly interwoven, with the possible risk of media bias, news filtering and political interference.

According to a 2011 study conducted by the non-profit groups Hivos Southeast Asia and the Center for Innovation, Policy, and Governance, nearly all of the 12 most prominent media companies have ties to political parties in some respect. These 12 companies also own the country’s 10 major national television stations and five of the six major newspapers.

This may raise concerns for citizens who depend on media for news gathering or for potential whistleblowers who may rely on the media as a last-resort reporting channel.

Awareness raising and citizen education In order to foster a culture of integrity across all levels of society, awareness raising campaigns and citizen education activities run by government bodies, civil society or both can help, especially if the programmes are tailored to a specific sector or target group. As such, awareness raising campaigns complement the preventive effect of a wellfunctioning justice system and of information campaigns promoting reporting mechanisms.

In addition to the communication activities described above, and in line with its formal mandate and the Stranas PPK roadmap, the KPK has implemented various awareness raising and public information activities, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 179

from public celebrations on Anti-Corruption Day to an Anti-Corruption Film Festival, the development of anti-corruption education programmes in schools (Box 4.9) and outreach activities to the business sector (KPK, 2015b). Moreover, KPK also operates a broadcasting service over radio and TV in order to raise awareness on integrity and anti-corruption issues (Box 4.10). As some of these activities are carried out in partnership with CSOs, KPK could use the OGP NAP development process to further explore synergies with CSOs in civic education and anti-corruption awareness raising, for example in the development, implementation and evaluation of activities, programmes and campaigns.

Box 4.9. KPK’s efforts to promote anti-corruption education in schools In 2014, the KPK reached out to school teachers through the Competition on AntiCorruption Learning Model Innovation (Ide BerAksi). The objective was threefold: first, to foster the creativity of teachers at various levels of education on anti-corruption teaching.

Second, to produce effective anti-corruption learning models to be used at schools. Third, to roll out the anti-corruption learning models across a range of schools and regions.

“The role of the teacher in anti-corruption education is huge. Teachers are not only expected to master the learning material, but to present students with attractive patterns and methods.

Otherwise students would be bored and the goal of education would not be achieved.”

The competition resulted in various model courses for different age groups. The model courses are currently being piloted in various educational programmes in Indonesia. When proven successful, model courses will be scaled up and expanded to more schools to reach more students.

Source: KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.

Box 4.10. Anti-Corruption TV broadcasting by KPK As KPK’s latest tool to complement existing communication media, including KanalKPK Radio, Integrito magazine and various social media channels, KanalKPK TV was launched on Aug. 17, 2014, amid the commemoration of the 69th Independence Day, in order to reach out to the population of Indonesia to promote the Commission’s anti-corruption efforts.

“KanalKPK TV is not competing against mainstream media, whether print, electronic or online media. The channel has its own missions that are entirely different from the mainstream media. It serves as a reference on KPK’s works and to disseminate anti-corruption messages to prevent corruption. In this context, KanalKPK TV complements the approach of other media, which mostly prioritise information on enforcement.”

KanalKPK TV, a streaming-based television channel, can be accessed at www.kpk.go.id/kanalKPK, and it is considered KPK’s answer to the younger generation who make electronics an important part of their communication. To enrich its content, KanalKPK TV accepts materials and creative contributions from anti-corruption CSOs. Source: KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

180 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Recommendations While Indonesia has taken important steps to prevent corruption through transparency and open government measures, the main challenge remains to build a culture of integrity in the public sector and throughout all levels of society. A number of good policies and practices are in place, but implementation, effectiveness and compliance can be further improved. This chapter has examined how Indonesia can accelerate its progress towards greater integrity and suppression of corruption by fostering the collaboration between the public sector and citizens, notably in the areas of participation in the policy cycle, civic oversight and awareness raising.

Recommendations, some pointing towards increased effectiveness and coordination of ongoing reforms and others towards measures for curbing policy capture, can be made to further strengthen integrity in Indonesia in line with open government principles.

The open government agenda and the anti-corruption framework in Indonesia are intertwined, both strategically and in terms of organisations.

First, as was also the case in its previous versions, the current National AntiCorruption Strategy of Indonesia explicitly mentions open-governmentrelated objectives, activities and monitoring practices. Moreover, the GOI developed the Strategy in consultation with civil society organisations.

Second, anti-corruption organisations support the open government agenda through their own respective focus on transparency, accountability and citizen participation, often in partnership with the government. This organisational connection is exemplified by the fact that Transparency International – Indonesia, an anti-corruption outfit, is implementing the Open Government Scorecard, a baseline assessment of open government.

Opportunities have arisen to further link the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda with OECD and international standards, instruments and objectives, including the Sustainable Development Goals (see Chapter 8). The National Anti-Corruption Strategy already uses the UNCAC and CPI as the model for its objectives and monitoring framework, thereby aligning the Strategy with international integrity standards and emphasising the value of citizen perceptions. The recently adopted Goal 16 on peace and justice sets targets on the reduction of corruption, institutional effectiveness, accountability and transparency, and open decision-making processes. Indonesia’s efforts to meet these targets present an opportunity to further align the national anticorruption efforts with the international development framework.

Furthermore, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy refers to the implementation of a National Integrity System (NIS), an internationally recognised practice. Although progress has been limited in this field to date, increased efforts, including during the OGP Action Plan development OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 181

process, could have positive consequences in the international anticorruption arena, making Indonesia a regional example in the implementation of the NIS. In several anti-corruption areas, including reporting channels, whistleblower protection and asset declaration, Indonesia has made significant efforts in recent years to increase transparency and accountability, and to engage with citizens and CSOs. In order to build on the country’s efforts to improve transparency in its anti-corruption efforts, the GOI should adjust its anti-corruption instruments to leverage their impact on integrity, by focussing on implementation, effectiveness and riskbased priorities. This may require a more profound assessment of specific laws and measures and their desired and undesired effects, in order to gain a better understanding of how they contribute to integrity. For instance, such a review could seek to investigate:

•

How the asset disclosure system could yield more of an impact on corruption prevention and prosecution.

•

How to make whistleblower protections more effective so citizens feel more confident reporting wrongdoing. This could also entail exploring new partnerships and moving into new anti-corruption areas to prevent policy capture.

More specifically, the Government of Indonesia could consider the following integrity-related recommendations, aimed at strengthening the three interrelated roles of participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability and awareness raising in the interplay between citizens and public-sector institutions:

•

Continue to involve CSOs throughout the anti-corruption policy cycle, including in agenda setting, the policy development process and monitoring and evaluation activities. Specifically, further explore synergies between the KPK and CSOs in civic education and anticorruption awareness raising.

•

Explore how the multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional arrangements can be made more effective and efficient in producing structural changes for good governance. This may require a thorough assessment of processing capacity, analysis of gaps and overlap, and examination of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs throughout the complaint handling cycle.

•

Examine the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory framework.

Namely, review the whistleblower protection regime, with the aim of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

182 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA contributing to structural improvements in the legal framework, for example by including disciplinary action, and the institutional setup.

•

Strengthen the effectiveness of the asset disclosure system for corruption prevention and prosecution, through setting priorities based on a risk assessment and an evaluation of processing capacity.

•

Consider establishing a regulatory framework for lobbying, with the aim of enabling public scrutiny and further insulating the policy cycle from capture by private or narrow interests.

•

Strengthen co-operation between citizens and the two public audit institutions in Indonesia, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), to jointly promote a culture of integrity.

•

Disclose the full UNCAC Peer Review Report on Indonesia, in order to share the insights with citizens and anti-corruption partners, both domestically and internationally, and to enable scrutiny by citizens and CSOs.

References Article 19 (2014), Indonesia: Press Freedom, Free Expression Still Under Threat, www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37807/en/ indonesia:-press-freedom,-free-expression-still-under-threat.

Baimyrzaeva M. and H. O. Kose (2014), The Role of Supreme Audit Institutions in Improving Citizen Participation in Governance International Public Management Review Vol. 15, Iss. 2, www.ipmr.net.

Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2012), Executive summaries.

Freedom House (2015), Freedom of Press: Indonesia, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/indonesia.

G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (2010), Anti-Corruption Action Plan G20 Agenda for Action on Combating Corruption - Promoting Market Integrity, and Supporting a Clean Business Environment, G20, Seoul.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 183

G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (2014), Accountability Report Questionnaire 2014 Indonesia, G20, Australia.

Government of Indonesia (2012), Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy of Corruption Prevention and Eradication Long Term (2012-2025) and Medium Term (2012-2014), Government of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Hendradi, T. (n.d.), Securing Protection And Co-operation Of Witnesses And Whistle-Blowers, www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_GG4_Seminar/Fourth_GGSeminar_ P68-75.pdf.

International Journal of Government Auditing (2014), Engaging Civil Service Organizations in SAI Audit.

KPK (2006), Gap Analysis Study Report, Identification of Baps between Law/Regulations of the Republic of Indonesia and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

KPK (2015a), Whistleblower System, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia, http://kws.kpk.go.id/.

KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.

Nurhayati, D. (2014), Agency to be established to protect crime witnesses, victims, The Jakarta Post, 14 November, www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/14/agency-be-establishedprotect-crime-witnesses-victims.html.

OECD (forthcoming), Committing to Effective Whistleblower Protection, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2015a), Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264249455-en.

OECD (2015b), Open Government in Morocco, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226685-en.

OECD (2015c), Supreme Audit Institutions and good governance: Oversight, insight and foresight, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264263871-en.

OECD (2014), “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”, in OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

184 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA OECD (2012a), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia 2012: Strengthening Co-ordination and Connecting Markets, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264173637-en.

OECD (2012b), Study on G20 Whistleblower Protection. Frameworks, Compendium of Best Practices and Guiding. Principles for Legislation, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2011), Asset Declaration for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent Corruption. OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095281-en.

OECD (2009), “Towards a Sound Integrity Framework: Instruments, Processes, Structures and Conditions for Implementation”, GOV/PGC/GF(2009)1, OECD, Paris.

OECD (1998), “Recommendation of the Council on Improving Ethical Conduct in the Public Service Including Principles for Managing Ethics in the Public Service”, OECD, Paris.

International Budget Partnership (2010), Open Budget Survey.

Republic of Indonesia (1999), UU RI No. 31/1999 Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Republic of Indonesia (2002), UU RI No. 30/2002 Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Republic of Indonesia (2006), Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 13 of 2006 Concerning Protection of Witness and Victim, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.

The Economist (2015), A damnable scourge. Jokowi’s arduous task in cleaning up the government (accessed 6 June 2015).

The Jakarta Post (2015) “Where’s the resource governance” (accessed 19 October 2015).

The Jakarta Post (2010), Ministries get KPK whistle-blower system, The Jakarta Post, 26 August, www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/26/ministries-get-kpkwhistleblower-system.html.

Transparency International (2013a), Global Corruption Barometer.

Transparency International (2013b), International whistleblower legislation, Transparency International.

Principles

for

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 185

Transparency International Indonesia (2014), Integrity and Corruption in Rural Areas of Indonesia: Results of the 2013 Youth Integrity Survey.

Transparency International (2016), Corruption Perceptions Index 2015 www.transparency.org/cpi2015/#results-table.

UNDP (2010), Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004), United Nations Convention Against Corruption, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, New York.

Wolfe S. et al. (n.d.), Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries.

Priorities for Action, Blueprint for Free Speech et. al.

World Bank Institute (2010), Access to Public Information and Citizen Participation in Supreme Audit Institutions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 187

Chapter 5 Digital government as an enabler for open government in Indonesia

The changes brought about by more connected and informed citizens, as well as the desire by the government of Indonesia to increase efficiency and live up to its open government commitments, have encouraged the country to expand its digital government efforts. This chapter reviews the digital government policies and practices used in Indonesia to support the open government agenda, as well as key programmes and initiatives. It also discusses how the government can scale up existing ICT initiatives and how it can pursue a whole-of-government approach to utilising ICTs in support of open government. A set of recommendations provides Indonesia with ideas on how to implement more strategic uses of ICTs and open government data to achieve its public-sector reform priorities.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

188 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Introduction The digital transformation is changing how people relate with one another, how they access and share information and how they work, think and solve problems. Digital technologies are changing the economy and the way in which private sector firms operate, as well as affecting social interactions, policy making and service delivery. This wave of change has implications in the form of opportunities but also challenges that the Government of Indonesia should assess to make decisions that maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of its public administration, the well-being of citizens and the competitiveness of its business environment. This chapter will concentrate on how the use of digital technologies in the Indonesian public sector can support its open government and broader government reform agendas.

While public institutions in Indonesia have been slow to adapt to the digital era, societal changes are leading them to revise their functioning and make readjustments. More connected and informed constituencies are demanding more tailored and agile interactions with the public administration, more effective policies and improved public-sector performance. Moreover, budgetary pressures, the search for efficiency gains and Open Government Partnership (OGP) commitments have also encouraged the Government of Indonesia to improve and scale up its digitisation efforts.

When used strategically, digital technologies can be a powerful tool to support substantial change in the government’s relationship with the public and can help achieve open government goals. In particular, digital technologies can help increase transparency and accountability, improve access to and quality of public information and services and facilitate decision-making processes that are more inclusive, which can ultimately lead to greater trust in governments. Digital technologies can also help enhance public-sector intelligence1 through better data management and use, thus allowing for improved policy-making and smarter organisational and operational arrangements. This can have an impact on public-sector productivity and create institutions that are more competitive. Hence, digital government strategies have become critical to overcoming power imbalances and creating more participatory governance models to drive inclusive growth and reduce productivity gaps between less and more advanced economies.

The OGP Open Government Declaration explicitly recognises the opportunity offered by new technologies as cross-cutting tools to foster openness and accountability by providing new ways for information dissemination, government-society collaboration, and alternative and more OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 189

efficient forms of civic engagement and participation (see Box 5.1).

Furthermore, Shim and Eom (2008) show that the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) can effectively improve the internal and managerial control of government operations, in the process significantly reducing space for corrupt behaviour and improving transparency and accountability.

Box 5.1. The Open Government Partnership recognises the role of ICTs in supporting the open government agenda The Open Government Declaration of 2011 reads: “Increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability: New technologies offer opportunities for information sharing, public participation, and collaboration. We intend to harness these technologies to make more information public in ways that enable people to both understand what their governments do and to influence decisions. We commit to developing accessible and secure online spaces as platforms for delivering services, engaging the public, and sharing information and ideas. We recognise that equitable and affordable access to technology is a challenge, and commit to seeking increased online and mobile connectivity, while also identifying and promoting the use of alternative mechanisms for civic engagement. We commit to engaging civil society and the business community to identify effective practices and innovative approaches for leveraging new technologies to empower people and promote transparency in government. We also recognise that increasing access to technology entails supporting the ability of governments and citizens to use it. We commit to supporting and developing the use of technological innovations by government employees and citizens alike. We also understand that technology is a complement, not a substitute, for clear, useable, and useful information.

We acknowledge that open government is a process that requires ongoing and sustained commitment. We commit to reporting publicly on actions undertaken to realise these principles, to consulting with the public on their implementation, and to updating our commitments in light of new challenges and opportunities.

We pledge to lead by example and contribute to advancing open government in other countries by sharing best practices and expertise and by undertaking the commitments expressed in this declaration on a non-binding, voluntary basis. Our goal is to foster innovation and spur progress, and not to define standards to be used as a precondition for co-operation or assistance or to rank countries. We stress the importance to the promotion of openness of a comprehensive approach and the availability of technical assistance to support capacity- and institution-building.

We commit to espouse these principles in our international engagement, and work to foster a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the ideals of open and participatory 21st century government.”

Source: Open Government Declaration (2011) www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-governmentdeclaration (accessed on 19 December 2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

190 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA This is consistent with the OECD approach to the use of digital government to promote open, innovative and participatory governments to foster more inclusive and effective governance. On 15 July 2014, the OECD Council adopted its “Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies” as the first international policy instrument in the field of digital government.

The Recommendation seeks to provide policy guidance to support governments’ efforts in moving from e-government to the more advanced stage of digital government.

For the OECD, e-government “refers to the use by the governments of information and communication technologies (ICTs), and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government” (OECD, 2014), whereas digital government “refers to the use of digital technologies, as an integrated part of governments’ modernisation strategies, to create public value. It relies on a digital government ecosystem comprised of government actors, non-governmental organisations, businesses, citizens’ associations and individuals which supports the production of and access to data, services and content through interactions with the government” (OECD, 2014).

The OECD Recommendation consists of twelve principles structured around three pillars that seek to bring governments closer to citizens and businesses. The first pillar is dedicated to the use of digital technologies to support government openness and the engagement of citizens and businesses in finding innovative digital solutions to outstanding social problems (Figure 5.1). This pillar emphasises the relevance of coherent and responsible data management in using technology to enable open government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 191

Figure 5.1. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Digital Government Strategies Openness and engagement 1) Openness, transparency and inclusiveness 2) Engagement and participation in a multi-actor context in policy making and service delivery 3) Creation of a data-driven culture 4) Protecting privacy and ensuring security

Governance and coordination 5) Leadership and political commitment 6) Coherent use of digital technology across policy areas 7) Effective organizational and governance frameworks to coordinate 8) Strengthen international cooperation with other governments

Capacities to support implementation 9) Development of clear business cases 10) Reinforced institutional capacities 11) Procurement of digital technologies 12) Legal and regulatory framework

Creating value through the use of ICT

Source: OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies, 2014.

Assessing the digital context of Indonesia The use of ICTs to support open government and to achieve more transparent and participatory forms of governance relies on certain infrastructural enablers of digital government, such as access to the Internet.

Indonesians have benefited from the global trend toward increased connectivity, showing sustained growth in the number of Internet users (Figure 5.2) and mobile subscriptions (Figure 5.3). The Indonesian population is also particularly young, with 46.03% of the population under 25 years old, and increasingly urban, with 50% living in urban areas (2010 national census).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

192 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Figure 5.2. Internet users per 100 people in Indonesia 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2001

2003

2005

2008

2010

2012

2014

Source: World Development Indicators.

Figure 5.3. Mobile cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in Indonesia 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2001

2003

2005

2008

2010

2012

2014

Source: World Development Indicators.

Despite this steady progress, the growth rate of Internet users in Indonesia has been modest compared with regional peers or other countries facing similar demographic or geographic challenges, with Internet users representing merely 17.14% of the Indonesian population (Figure 5.4), although this still equates to 42.85 million people. To avoid missing out on the opportunities of the digital era for the creation of an open government OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 193

and to support sustainable development, the Government of Indonesia must create a vigorous broadband ecosystem, which includes establishing an enabling legal and regulatory environment, appropriate market conditions that support competition and high-quality services, and initiatives to increase demand for quality Internet services, among other factors.

Figure 5.4. Internet users as percentage of the entire population in selected countries 100 80 60 40 20 0 2001

2003

2005

2008

2010

2012

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Thailand

Viet Nam

Brazil

Korea

Mexico

2014

Source: World Development Indicators.

With an adult literacy rate standing at 93.88%, Indonesia has made extraordinary progress in the area of education (UNESCO). Notwithstanding this progress, productivity and access to economic opportunities remain unequally distributed across the territory (Figure 5.5). If these issues are not addressed, existing digital divides are likely to aggravate regional inequalities as the country transitions toward a more digital-intensive economy. In addition to regional disparities, even in the best-equipped urban areas, digital divides are still significantly determined by gender, age and education levels (Sujarwoto and Tampubolom, 2013; Utomo et al, 2013).

This context substantially hinders the impact of digitally enabled participation, transparency and service delivery.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

194 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

Aceh Sumatera Utara Sumatera Barat Riau Jambi Sumatera Selatan Bengkulu Lampung Kep. Bangka…

Kepulauan Riau DKI Jakarta Jawa Barat Jawa Tengah DI Yogyakarta Jawa Timur Banten Bali Nusa Tenggara…

Nusa Tenggara…

Kalimantan Barat Kalimantan Tengah Kalimantan Selatan Kalimantan Timur Sulawesi Utara Sulawesi Tengah Sulawesi Selatan Sulawesi Tenggara Gorontalo Sulawesi Barat Maluku Maluku Utara Papua Barat Papua

Figure 5.5. Per capita gross regional domestic product without oil and gas at 2000 constant market prices by province (thousand rupiahs), 2013

Source: OECD work based on Badan Pusat Statistik (Statistics Indonesia).

Addressing the existing digital divide in terms of access to high-quality Internet and broadband requires significant levels of investment. Ensuring the expected returns on investment, however, also requires the government to consider the demand side. In certain regions, public officials and citizens frequently lack the knowledge and skills necessary to reap the profits of having access to the web, highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of the digital divide and reinforcing the notion that overcoming the divide depends on more than simple access to infrastructure and the affordability of technological devices. Programmes to reduce the existing forms of the digital divide also call for continuity and sustainability, overcoming the potential instability of political cycles and agendas (Mariscal et al., 2012). In 2014, the Government of Indonesia unveiled its new five-year plan for ICT development (2015-19). This plan is consistent with the previous one (201014), but it places a greater emphasis on the expected benefits of connectivity for digital government and economic growth. The plan focuses on broadband development and aims to connect 71% of households and 100% of public institutions by the end of the period. For this purpose, the Government of Indonesia has allocated IDR 278 trillion. It also aims to connect all public schools and, through them, develop a programme for ICT skills development. It is still too early to assess the results of the plan in addressing the digital divide.

Despite the limited access to ICT for important segments of the population, urban and tech-savvy youth in Indonesia have quickly grasped the opportunities provided by digital technologies and changed their social habits. Indonesian Internet users are overwhelmingly young and very active OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 195

on social media. According to the Internet User Profile Survey of 2014 produced by the Indonesian Internet Service Provider Association, 49% of Internet users are between 18 and 25 years old (APJII, 2014). According to Semiocast, a social media analytics firm, Jakarta produced the most tweets of any city in the world in June 2012, and Indonesia produced 7.5% of the world’s tweets in the same month. Similarly, eMarketer, a market research firm, estimates that 94.2% of Internet users in Indonesia are Facebook users, making Indonesia the fourth-ranked country in the world in terms of the overall number of users of the popular social network (eMarketer, 2012).

The Indonesian tech sector is also experiencing profound changes. With the number of Indonesian middle-class and affluent consumers expected to double by 2020 (BCG, 2013), large companies in the tech sector have manifested growing interest in the country’s perspectives both as a growing market and as an investment location, while the local start-up scene is rapidly developing. For instance, Tokopedia, a local e-commerce start-up, recently received investments of USD 100 million from SoftBank and Sequoia Capital2. Similarly, large global companies in the tech sector, such as Twitter, Facebook and Uber, are opening offices in Indonesia. These stakeholders provide the Government of Indonesia with a wide range of partners with whom to co-create an ICT-enabled open government ecosystem and co-produce data, policies and innovative services.

Scaling up existing initiatives that use ICTs to support an open, transparent and participatory government Reaping the full benefits and efficiency gains offered by ICTs requires that Indonesia develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies across levels of government despite significant levels of de-centralisation.

The Government of Indonesia will also need to take decisive steps toward the creation of more transparent and inclusive decision-making processes and public-sector activities. The Republic of Indonesia still has room for progress in ICT-enabled participation and service delivery. This section will highlight trends and good practices in the use of ICT by the public sector to support open government in the country and to meet the challenges associated with achieving sufficient scale.

In relation with countries that share similar demographic, geographic and developmental challenges, the Republic of Indonesia still has room for progress in ICT-enabled participation (Figure 5.6) and service delivery (Figure 5.7).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

196 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Figure 5.6. E-Participation Index 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Brazil

Indonesia Malaysia Mexico Philippines Korea

Thailand Viet Nam

Source: UN e-Government Index.

Figure 5.7. Online Service Index 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Brazil

Indonesia Malaysia Mexico Philippines Korea

Thailand Viet Nam

Source: UN e-Government Index.

ICTs can provide a transparent and cost-effective channel to support the engagement of citizens in actively defining the process and content of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 197

decisions, service design and policy making, acknowledging equal standing for citizens in setting political agendas, in proposing policy options, in shaping the policy dialogue and in co-producing public services. In a broad sense, one of the main challenges for online service delivery in the public sector is to complete the transition from government-centred use of technologies to citizen-centred use and finally to a predominantly citizendriven approach to service design and delivery. This paradigm change supports usability and overall convenience of digital public services for its target users. A citizen-driven approach contributes to citizen empowerment and can help redress inequitable resource and power distribution that lead to inequality, poverty and social stress.

The Government of Indonesia has been able to produce some groundbreaking digital public services that represent an important step in the design of more citizen-oriented services, supporting greater transparency and citizen engagement. For instance, SISKOHAT (see Box 5.2), an innovative app developed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, is helping Indonesian citizens monitor their status on the waiting list for the Hajj pilgrimage organised by the Ministry (see Chapter 7 for more information). This app significantly improves the transparency and convenience of the Hajj application process. The design of the app respects high technical standards and has a strong focus on the administration’s perception of user needs.

Box 5.2. SISKOHAT: Promoting transparency in Hajj The Hajj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to the Mecca and one of the five pillars of Islam. Muslims must complete this pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime if they are physically and financially capable of doing so. Demand for participation in the pilgrimage is extremely high, which led to the establishment of a quota system. The Ministry of Religious Affairs of Indonesia is in charge of organising the pilgrimage for Indonesian citizens, managing the applications and the waiting list for the religious journey. Being incorporated into the waiting list may be costly (fees are determined by a presidential decree and vary depending on departure location), and the waiting period can take several years.

To enhance the transparency of the process, the Ministry of Religious Affairs developed the Hajj Integrated Information and Computerised System (SISKOHAT) with a complementary android-based app that allows applicants to monitor the queue and check their status on the waiting list. The platform provides the candidates with relevant practical and logistical information to prepare their travel arrangements and once they are on location. The system is interoperable with payment systems, allowing for real-time follow-up of payments, and it utilises a secure electronic authentication mechanism.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

198 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Moreover, the Indonesian public sector is increasingly interested in leveraging the creativity, skills and ideas for innovation existing outside of the public sector to solve persisting problems while easing the financial burdens of public authorities. These initiatives pursue a more citizen-driven approach in the development of solutions and services, recognising citizens as partners and giving them the opportunity to determine service priorities.

Increasing awareness about the potential of user-driven approaches has been the driving force for the organisation of thematic hackathons, particularly at the local level. Initiatives such as the Bandung Data Summit, HackJak and Hackathon Merdeka seek to empower Indonesian citizens and developers, allowing them to propose innovative solutions to improve healthcare and education, fight corruption, manage disasters or support small farmers.

These activities have also provided local governments with the opportunity to engage with service users and better understand their changing needs.

Their scale, however, limits these powerful initiatives. They currently operate as small pockets of innovation, but the necessary co-ordination and scaling-up mechanisms seem to be absent. Digital services are still developed with a greater focus on the priorities of the public administration, leading to services that are less user oriented. Insufficient levels of interoperability of government information systems hinder the public sector’s ability to deliver transactional and integrated services that can favour the use and uptake of online channels and improve the quality of services and the management of data.

Scaling up these initiatives to achieve systemic changes in digital service design and delivery would require the development of governance frameworks, standards and guidelines that can help civil servants design, prototype, test and deploy services in more effective and participatory ways.

These should be complemented with the policy levers, co-ordination mechanisms and institutional capacities required for the implementation of strategies and policies. Opening up the service design process would necessitate that the public sector be equipped with the right skills, tools and incentives to facilitate and promote the engagement of relevant stakeholders in a more systematic way, thus progressively building a whole-ofgovernment approach in using ICTs for open government.

LAPOR (see Chapter 3 for more information) is another digitally enabled practice that can support open government. It is a multi-channel reporting mechanism that helps the administration collect, monitor, process and provide a solution or answer to citizen aspirations and complaints. The platform seeks to empower citizens by allowing them to report misconduct or malfunctioning public services, policies or programmes through a website, email, mobile app or text message. Citizens are able to enclose pictures or videos as evidence to support their complaint. The administration OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 199

validates the report’s accuracy within three working days and then transfers the complaint to the responsible ministry or agency. This initiative has attracted international attention for its potential to bring the government closer to citizens and their demands.

Similarly, some initiatives are promoting more direct and responsive relations between citizens and local governments. For instance, the Regency of Bojonegoro has put in place weekly public dialogues (see Box 5.3). All citizens interested in participating are invited to join the dialogue in person or listen to it on the radio. This practice allows citizens to ask questions to local government representatives in person or through SMS and provides the opportunity for public officials to explain their policies and disseminate information and data.

Box 5.3. Public dialogue and public information in Bojonegoro Launched in March 2008, the Public Dialogue and Information programme in the Bojonegoro Regency takes place every Friday and is presided over by the Regent of Bojonegoro. The initiative gives the citizens of the regency the opportunity to interact directly with representatives of the local government to address governance or public services issues. The dialogue is open to the public, has an average attendance of 175 people and is simultaneously radio broadcasted.

Citizens can also engage in the process through text messages to which the local government will respond. The Regency of Bojonegoro participates in the LAPOR platform and has its own open data portal. The Regency of Bojonegoro benefits from these weekly meetings to socialise open data on a diversity of issues, especially using simple visualisation to make data more accessible to citizens lacking data skills.

If they were applied on an adequate scale, these initiatives would be able to positively change government-society dynamics, improve the quality of public services and, if the Government of Indonesia is able to be sustainably and effectively responsive, could contribute to citizen trust in the government. However, unlocking the full potential of such initiatives can be challenging. For instance, the lack of participation in the programme by most subnational governments (key players in the delivery of public services) hinders LAPOR’s potential and reduces awareness of the platform.

Streamlining and scaling up LAPOR, and consequently increasing its institutional capacity and enabling the Government of Indonesia to continue to respond effectively and efficiently, would help maximise the benefits of the initiative.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

200 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA These and several other digitally enabled open government initiatives have great transformative potential. The Government of Indonesia should now focus on the creation of institutional frameworks and capacities that help scale up these initiatives and achieve a whole-of-government approach in the use of ICTs for open government.

Achieving a whole-of-government approach in government use of ICTs in support of open government As with many other governments around the world, the Government of Indonesia has encountered substantial challenges in keeping pace with technological change. While several interesting and potentially transformative digital government initiatives exist within the central government, the Government of Indonesia would benefit from scaling up these initiatives and strengthening cross-government co-ordination to avoid duplication and to help streamline efforts. The establishment of peerlearning and knowledge-transfer mechanisms would also help rapidly spread good practices in the use of ICTs in the public sector and share lessons learned, which would in turn help build capacities across government institutions. To achieve this, public authorities must take action to strengthen the networks of digital government practitioners within and across levels of government.

As governments evolve and achieve new levels of maturity in the use of ICTs, they can achieve consistent progress only through a structured approach, supported by a strategy that sets clear goals and establishes clear and effective governance frameworks for the oversight and management of ICT policies that align with national policy objectives. This is a challenging task for any government, and even more so for a country with the size, geography and social and ethnic realities of Indonesia. It is, nevertheless, a necessity if the government wants to move forward to the next stage of its open government agenda supported by the use of ICTs. The lack of such an approach may be a strong explanatory factor for the inconsistent progress made by Indonesia in the UN’s e-Government Index (Figure 5.8) compared with most governments in Southeast Asia.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 201

Figure 5.8. UN e-Government Index 1 0.9 0.8

Brunei Darussalam Cambodia

0.7

Indonesia 0.6

Lao People's Democratic Republic Malaysia

0.5

Myanmar Philippines

0.4

Singapore Thailand

0.3

Timor-Leste 0.2

Viet Nam

0.1 0 2003

2004

2005

2008

2010

2012

2014

Source: UN e-Government Survey.

Developing institutional frameworks to support the strategic use of digital technologies The Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform for 2015-19 identifies digital government as an essential tool to achieve a more efficient, transparent and open government that supports sustainable development in Indonesia. Similarly, the ICT White Paper elaborated by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics recognises the central role of government as an enabler and catalyst of the information society, recognising digital government as a key element of the ecosystem of the digital economy. These objectives are clearly synergetic and require a strong alignment to ensure the coherent and consistent progress of Indonesia’s digital agenda. However, the country’s institutional design and its allocation of responsibilities do not necessarily facilitate such coordination. The Deputy Minister for Institutions and Governance from the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (MENPAN) oversees the work of the Deputy Assistant for the Co-ordination of e-Government OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

202 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Policy Formulation. This policy-making authority co-exists with the Director General of ICT Application in the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, which is responsible for governance and policy formulation and implementation in the field of e-government in accordance with Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2015 concerning the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.

While the Ministry of Communications and Informatics has taken the lead in the implementation of e-government policies as well as on publicsector infrastructure for ICTs, its role is less evident when it comes to establishing policies, standards or guidelines (see Table 5.1). The absence of clarity in the distribution of roles and responsibilities increases the risk for redundancy, as well as the lack of collaboration and co-operation, and increases the chances of incoherence in the policy framework. Overlapping scopes of responsibilities also diminish the clarity of institutional design and the accountability of public authorities, leading to inefficient and ineffective government operations.

Table 5.1. Roles and responsibilities for digital government in Indonesia Deputy Minister for Institutions and Governance, Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Formulate digital government policy Co-ordinate and synchronise the implementation of digital government Monitor and evaluate the implementation of digital government

Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of Communications and Informatics Prepare norms, standards, procedures and criteria Provide technical guidance and supervision Monitor, evaluate and report on digital government

Sources: Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform 2015-2019; Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2015. on Ministry of Communication and Informatics; Presidential Regulation No.47 of 2015 on Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform.

The Government of Indonesia has identified the need to strengthen its governance framework as part of the digital government policy that is currently being prepared (Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform, 2015-19). The new institutional framework should provide the Government of Indonesia with tools and mechanisms to ensure greater coherence in the use of ICTs in the public sector. OECD countries have explored a wide range of structures and institutional set-ups to achieve effective governance of the public sector’s use of digital technologies. The figure of the Central/Federal Government Chief Information Officer (CIO) or equivalent position has become the most common form of co-ordinating an entity for digital government activities. In some cases, institutions or units that are more experimental complement the CIO’s role depending on governments’ priorities and efforts (see Figure 5.9).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 203

Figure 5.9. ICT governance structures across the OECD 1 0.9

0.8824

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3529

0.4

0.3529

0.3 0.2

0.1818

0.1765

0.1765

Chief Data Officer

Chief Innovation Officer

Chief Digital Officer

0.1 0 Chief Information Officer

Chief Information Security Officer

Chief Technology Officer

Source: 2014 OECD Survey on Open Government Data and Desk Research.

Traditionally, the role of the CIO has focused on supporting the strategic use of technology by government in order to achieve its goals, frequently driven by efficiency gains and the administration’s own priorities. However, following recent trends, these governing bodies have increasingly moved toward more user-centred and user-driven approaches. As governments seek to improve digital public services and public-sector intelligence, CIOs across the OECD have developed units with the mission of improving user engagement, service design and delivery, and data management. Some other countries have opted for a model that includes a Chief Digital Officer, either reporting to the CIO (as is the case in New Zealand or the United States), as a separate structure (as in Australia) or accumulating the functions of the CIO (as in the United Kingdom). To date, these Chief Digital Officers have been more disruptive in nature than the traditional CIO, breaking down silos, introducing ways of working that parallel start-ups (such as agile methodologies) and maintaining a strong focus on service delivery and citizen participation. In the case of Indonesia, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology seems to rely on its technical

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

204 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA expertise and policy development authority to play the role of a traditional national government CIO. Nevertheless, in strengthening the use of digital technologies to foster an open government, the government should consider the addition of a Chief Digital Officer reporting to the national government CIO. The role of such an authority would include making government operations and services digital by design, instead of simply putting forms online. This includes the transformation of back-office operations and setting digital service standards. The Chief Digital Officer is expected to identify quick wins in digital service delivery, use innovative service design and technology deployment techniques and foster user engagement and participation.

The mandate and responsibilities of the units or bodies leading digital government activities vary greatly across the OECD, as do the policy levers at their disposal to ensure compliance with digital government rules and regulations. Certain successful countries have opted for more coercive levers, such as New Zealand, while others rely mostly on soft levers, such as Denmark and Sweden (see Figure 5.10), suggesting that there is no one-sizefits all model. Governments should make sure, however, that the tools provided are coherent with the overall public governance ecosystem and adapted to existing co-ordination mechanisms, institutional capacities, legal and regulatory frameworks, and the political and administrative cultures in the public sector.

The ultimate role of the unit co-ordinating digital government is to provide an incentive structure that can foster change and accelerate the digital transformation of government. While more coercive levers, if appropriately used and implemented, can provide the co-ordinating body with significant leverage to ensure coherence, this authority and the overall institutional arrangement should provide positive incentives (“carrots”) to promote cultural change and limit resistance among public institutions. For instance, countries like Estonia, Portugal and Uruguay are not only able to review, approve or stop ICT projects, but they have also put in place funds dedicated to digital government. The objective of these funds is to finance high-impact digital government projects that are in alignment with the overarching digital government strategy. Public institutions have incentives to access these funds and save resources from their own budgets. All projects financed through these centralised funds must comply with government regulations in the field of digital government and be in alignment with all relevant public-sector strategies.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 205

Figure 5.10. Levers of ICT governance across OECD countries What are the main responsibilities of the unit/body leading and co-ordinating ICT deployment in the central government?

Percent of responding countries 0%

20%

40%

60%

Advising strategy development Monitoring strategy implementation Reviewing ICT projects across the government as needed Prioritisation of ICT projects across the government Approve - or stop - ICT projects across the government as needed Mandating external reviews of ICT projects across the government

80%

100%

“Soft” levers are in place in the majority of central coordination Coercive levers are less common

Other

Source: OECD Survey on Digital Government Performance, 2014.

Building institutional capacities for implementation The ability to steer the use of digital technologies in the public sector to support broader policy objectives does not exclusively rely on institutional design and governance frameworks. Governments should be able to have clear visibility of existing assets, ICT projects and contracts as well as previous ICT supplier performance in order to make strategic investment decisions. Moreover, the management of ICT projects has become increasingly complex in terms of budget, the stakeholders involved and the choice of technologies available. The Government of Indonesia should work on developing its ability to structure investments and manage the associated risks, ensure efficiency in project implementation, and monitor the realisation of the expected returns.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

206 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA The Strategic Plan of the Ministry for Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform for 2015-19 proposes the development of E-Government Master Plans for the entire government, which may be included in the new digital government policy currently being drafted. Such Master Plans would be developed in collaboration with Bappenas and require each public institution to develop an ICT or e-government plan that includes ICT projects, their timelines, KPI and funding in agreement with national strategic planning mechanisms and annual budgeting. These plans would then be validated and aggregated into a National E-Government Master Plan.

These planning mechanisms would considerably strengthen the ability of the Government of Indonesia to plan and monitor ICT activities and investments in the public sector. However, this system would not ensure that individual ICT projects – which would be planned separately and then aggregated – are being adequately conceived, that their resources are being rationally allocated and shared across the administration or that project managers have the tools they need to identify drivers of failure or success and make the necessary adjustments throughout the implementation phase.

The experience across OECD countries has shown that sound business case or similar value proposition methodologies can help public institutions better structure and monitor specific ICT investments (Principle 9 of the OECD Recommendation).

Adopting a mandatory business case methodology (or similar value proposition approach) for ICT projects would support strategic planning and strengthen the capacity to define return on investment and monitor implementation (see Box 5.4 for an example). It would also enable the institution responsible for co-ordinating digital government to capture information on previous successes and failures in project implementation that can strengthen institutional knowledge.

Similarly, the use of standardised and mandatory ICT project management models for structuring costly or complex projects can support project managers and help clarify roles and responsibilities, times of intervention and assessment, thus reducing the risk of failure (Principle 10 of the OECD Recommendation). These tools would represent a significant contribution to the ability of the government of Indonesia to strategically plan and implement ICT projects that support its efforts to make government more open, transparent, efficient and effective.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 207

Box 5.4. Ensuring efficiency of ICT projects: Danish business case methodology The Danish Digitisation Agency is responsible for developing the business case methodology for ICT projects in the public sector. The methodology helps project managers analyse the costs, expected benefits and risks associated with ICT investments in the public sector. It helps the Government of Denmark decide on the implementation of ICT projects based on different possible scenarios of implementation and non-implementation of the project, including the impact on operating costs. The methodology helps calculate the expected value from the project and monitor its implementation and success.

A standardised project management model complements the Danish business case methodology. The Danish ICT Project Model provides a standardised way of managing ICT projects across the government administration. With clear reference to the UK ICT project model Prince2, it provides guidelines for how to organise and manage ICT projects and delivers concrete templates for all generic products in the process. The overall phases covering all projects are illustrated below:

Idea

Analysis

Acquisition

Completion

Management phases

Specification > Tenders

Management phases

Realisation

The Ministry of Finance has created a unit establishing good practices on e-government projects, including both mandatory and recommended elements. The model has enabled the establishment of a specific governance structure, for example requiring approvals of welldeveloped business cases, as well as ongoing approvals – so called “stop-go” decisions – each time a project passes from one phase to the next.

Sources: www.digst.dk/Styring/Business-case-model ; www.digst.dk/Styring/Projektmodel.

Finally, the digital transformation puts pressure on all levels of government to develop the necessary human resources. This means not only developing strategies to attract, develop and retain the required ICT skills in the public sector but also developing the necessary skills to engage effectively with external stakeholders. Developing skills for engagement and overcoming the traditional administrative culture is a challenging yet essential task for the use of ICTs for open government.

Achieving coherence within and across levels of government The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform has identified the need to improve the co-ordination between national and subnational governments in the field of digital government in order to deliver the expected results (Strategic Plan, 2015-19).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

208 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA A whole-of-government approach is built on political commitment to a shared vision. This is crystallised in an overarching strategy or policy instrument and supported by adequate governance frameworks, thereby enabling policy alignment and co-ordination at the strategic and operational levels. Experiences across the OECD highlight the crucial role of strategic prioritisation of digital government in achieving a shared vision of publicsector modernisation. Securing political support for the digital transformation agenda is an additional critical factor of success. In that sense, the process of developing a digital government policy provides a valuable opportunity to leverage the efforts and investments already made to spur ICT use within the public sector, which the Government of Indonesia should not miss.

The development of the digital government policy also provides the opportunity for governments to embed a vision and rationale for using digital government as an enabling tool for broader policy outcomes by all relevant stakeholders. This stage provides the Government of Indonesia with a unique opportunity to build a shared vision of how governments can use ICTs to improve open government, sustainable development and societal well-being, as well as develop a common understanding of the role of digital technologies in a modern public sector.

Achieving a coherent use of digital technologies across levels of government in Indonesia requires integrating the views and interests of the different stakeholders in the development of the strategy and the establishment of the appropriate co-ordination mechanisms. If it is supported by an effective communication strategy, this can allow the government to build a strong consensus and sense of ownership, as well as to gain support for the digital transformation agenda within the public sector and the society as a whole. Moreover, experience shows that the best results come when the vision statement embedded in the digital government strategy links to higher-level policy objectives, as this can help secure the commitment of the political leadership. Such a commitment is necessary for the government to be able to bring down existing political and cultural barriers to change and implement cross-cutting public-sector reform efforts.

Co-ordination is an equally essential element of achieving a whole-ofgovernment approach (see Box 5.5 for an example). The unequal progress in the use of digital technologies for open government across policy areas and levels of government as well as the duplication of efforts and initiatives suggests that there is substantial room for improvement of co-ordination mechanisms. This is particularly challenging in Indonesia given both the administrative structure (strong de-centralisation) and the size of the country (in geographic and demographic terms).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 209

Box 5.5. Denmark: Achieving coherence in a context of decentralisation Denmark has found an original and sustainable mechanism for achieving coordination and commitment to the national strategy across the public sector. The Steering Committee for Cross-Government Co-operation – Styregruppen for Tværoffentlige Samarbejder (STS) was set up as a result of an agreement between the Government, Danish regions and local governments in Denmark in 2005.

The STS is a cross-government co-ordination body aiming at creating common ground in the work on digital government. The overall framework for the coordination is confirmed in the annual negotiations on the coming year’s budgets between the Government and the representatives for the regions as well as for the municipalities. The STS consists of high-level representatives (on the level of permanent secretaries/managing directors) from the five most important ministries for e-government implementation from the central government and the associations representing the municipalities and the regions. STS is responsible for determining overarching principles and coherent framework conditions for digital government, co-ordinating initiatives in order to use public resources more efficiently, deciding on resource allocation and determining models for digital government operations and project maintenance.

Source: OECD (2010), Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smarter Public Service Delivery.

The co-ordination mechanisms for digital government should have at least two levels of articulation to ensure adequate performance and coherent use of digital technologies within and across levels of government:

•

High-level strategic co-ordination: This level should serve as the highlevel political governance mechanism. This co-ordination level should include relevant stakeholders for decision making, such as those at the highest level of responsibility for digital government, as well as those responsible for the reform of the public sector (Centre of Government or co-ordinating ministry), finance, open government co-ordination, ICT infrastructure and subnational governments. In Indonesia, the National ICT Council, chaired by the President of Indonesia, plays this role.

•

Operational co-ordination: This level should deal with implementation challenges and bottlenecks and involve all relevant actors for the specific ICT projects. Digital government authorities and the CIOs of public institutions involved in relevant projects should serve as chairs

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

210 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA (e.g. CIO Councils). This level should include institutional mechanisms of knowledge sharing and peer learning to facilitate capacity building.

The National ICT Council is a multi-stakeholder institution in the field of ICT created by Presidential Decree No. 01 of 2014. It is responsible for providing the general policy and strategic direction for the development of ICTs to support national development efforts. The National ICT Council is a broad co-ordinating body that brings together relevant stakeholders, including public authorities, state-owned enterprises, private sector representatives and academics to build consensus around key strategic issues in the development of ICTs in the country. The National ICT Council is subsequently divided in sub-bodies that cover ICT infrastructure, ICT for government (digital government), ICT for health, ICT for education, the digital economy, the ICT industry and the Meaningful Broadband City Initiative.

Chaired by the President, this body has the potential to provide ICT initiatives with the required visibility and political support. Moreover, the number of actors that participate in the council can help build ownership of the efforts on this front. However, subnational governments seem to lack adequate representation, thus hindering the potential of the council to foster coherent approaches across levels of government3.

The Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for overseeing the implementation of national legislation at the local level. It has an important role to play in ensuring that all national digital government norms applicable to the subnational level are effectively implemented. For this reason, it seems important to consider its participation in existing co-ordination mechanisms such as the National ICT Council, in which it is not currently included.

At the operational level, a dynamic CIO Council would provide a good forum to address implementation challenges. This type of council could operate at both the national and regional level. For such mechanisms to deliver the expected results, however, all public institutions should have a CIO in place that would be responsible for following up with the work of the CIO Council. To complement these formal co-ordination mechanisms, national and subnational governments should also take action to foster informal networks and communities of practice, both offline and online, enabling public institutions and practitioners to share data, information, knowledge and experiences in tackling common challenges (see Box 5.6 for examples). Such mechanisms contribute to mitigate the uneven distribution of ICT and project management skills across the territory, bridging regional divides. The government of Canada, for instance, has developed internal social media that allow civil servants to collaborate more effectively. Such a OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 211

resource could help Indonesian civil servants spread across a vast territory to be in touch and share experiences in a more agile way.

Box 5.6. Co-ordination mechanisms in selected countries Australia There is a strategic-level committee, the Digital Transformation Committee of Cabinet, which sits under the Cabinet and is chaired by the Prime Minister.

Service Delivery Leaders is a steering committee comprising senior public servants from major government departments. Service Delivery Leaders is an early consultation point for Digital Transformation Office activities with a whole-of-government impact, including advice on strategy and co-ordinated service delivery activity throughout the government. Service Delivery Leaders may also create subordinate boards, working groups or other bodies to undertake specific work.

Portugal The Agency for Administrative Modernisation (AMA, for its Portuguese name) chairs the “E-Government Network” that meets regularly to monitor the implementation of the EGovernment Action Plan by public institutions. The AMA is responsible for the approval of ICT projects over EUR 10 000, in observance of the norms and guidelines defined by the network. The network gathers relevant stakeholders, such as the AMA and the ICT Shared Service Centre, and functions at both the high political level and the operational level.

Moreover, the AMA follows a Programme Management Officer (PMO) Structure led by the Director of E-Government. This team is in continuous contact with focal points at institutions relevant for the implementation of digital government projects to follow up on the implementation, and it prepares E-Government Network meetings and organises specific workshops to discuss trending topics or issues in the area of e-government.

Spain The ICT Strategy Commission (CETIC) – the inter-ministerial body at the highest political level comprising senior officials from all ministries – defines the strategy that, once approved, goes to the Council of Ministries. The CETIC also defines the services to be shared, determines the priorities for investment, and reports on draft laws, regulations and other general standards with the purpose of regulating ICT matters for the General State Administration. Furthermore, the CETIC promotes collaboration with the autonomous regions and local authorities for the implementation of integrated inter-administrative services.

The Committee of the Directorate for Information Technologies and Communication includes 25 CIOs of the different ministries (13) and agencies (12), as well as the deputy directors for ICT of all ministries, and the unit leads the co-ordination of the implementation of ICT projects.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

212 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 5.6. Co-ordination mechanisms in selected countries (continued) Uruguay The Honorary Directive Board is distinctive in terms of the regularity of its meetings (once a week) and in that it is responsible for virtually all high-level decisions of the Agency of EGovernment and Information Society (AGESIC). It is composed of five members, including the delegate of the president (formally the Pro-Secretary of the Presidency, in practice the Director General of the Presidency by delegation) and representatives from the private sector, academia and the technical community and the CEO of the agency. A complementary advisory board includes the CIOs of the different public institutions.

The AGESIC has a division dedicated to government bodies and processes (“organismos y procesos”) that is in charge of managing relationships with other public institutions and seeks to monitor and support the implementation of digital government policies, co-ordinate crosscutting projects and perform change management. AGESIC also has a strong PMO structure, providing a centralised follow-up and support mechanism for digital government project implementation.

Sources: OECD, 2016; OECD 2010; Desk research; Phone interviews.

Adopting a strategic approach to alternative ICT channels to maximise the outreach of government in a cost-effective way Despite the steady progress concerning Internet access in Indonesia (19.16% Internet user growth per year since 2001), the number of Internet users remains limited to 17.14% of the total population (WDI). Given this reality, it seems necessary for the government to adopt strategies that ensure inclusiveness and cost-effectiveness in service design and delivery, in order to avoid risking new inequalities and digital divides. This suggests that the Government of Indonesia needs to develop a sound and more structured multi-channel service delivery approach that includes experimentation with new channels for engagement in the design and delivery of services. Such an approach has proven successful in the case of Chile (Box 5.7). Using different platforms and delivery systems that reach out to a broader segment of the population should be commended and encouraged.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 213

Box 5.7. ChileAtiende “ChileAtiende” offers a national multi-channel one-stop shop for citizens to carry out their business with government. It has a national network of more than 200 offices, a national call centre and a digital platform (web and social networks), as well as ChileAtiende vans that can cover remote rural areas, through which citizens can access multiple services and benefits without having to contact multiple government offices. Previously, citizens needing to complete a procedure with the state had to identify which institution delivered the service, where its offices were located and contact it directly to find out the requirements to access the service. This was costly in terms of time and money.

The project was evaluated in 2014 by an external consultancy. The conclusions indicated that the service had saved Chilean citizens up to 2 165 193 hours of their time and CLP 10 600 million (Chilean pesos) or USD 14.9 million between 2012 and 2014.

Source: www.oecd.org/gov/chile-chileatiende.pdf.

For instance, by 2002, the Department of International Development of the United Kingdom (DFID) realised that, in countries like Botswana, Ghana and Uganda, mobile airtime, which was easily transferable, was been used as a proxy currency. It later found the same pattern in Kenya and Tanzania as well. Vodafone developed a mobile payments platform, M-Pesa (literally mobile money), for Kenya and Tanzania, providing government, companies, NGOs and citizens with an efficient, fast, secure and transparent way to make cash transfers. The government and the central bank of Kenya worked along with Vodafone to develop an appropriate regulatory framework for mobile payments that respected security standards. Several stakeholders and specialists were consulted, including the DFID, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the payment card industry, to understand how best to adapt the Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements for payment regulations. Regulators provided a special licence allowing the new system to operate through branchless banking to reduce costs and foster financial inclusion with success. Today, Kenyans are able to complete a wide variety of transactions using their phones, including paying for public transportation4. This service does not require a data plan, and account fees are very low, which helps include the poorest section of the population. Beyond specific mobile platforms for providing public services, some governments have sought to implement broader mobile government programmes within their digital government strategies, such as in the case of Singapore (Box 5.8).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

214 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 5.8. Singapore: Mobile Government Programme The Mobile Government Programme is part of Singapore’s broader digital government strategy and has three key objectives for the 2011-15 fiscal years:

• Support and guide agencies to deliver feature-rich government mobile services (m-Services) to enhance customer experience and satisfaction;

• Aggregate demand for mobile research, tools and services that help agencies in the efficient and consistent implementation of mobile services; and

• Improve or maintain Singapore’s standing in international rankings, through the delivery of high-quality services via the mobile channel.

Today, more than 300 mobile government information sources and services are available. “M-Gov” also established a whole-of-government central shortmessaging-service platform, known as OneSMS, to facilitate the development of m-services by government agencies through demand aggregation. The programme was co-developed by the Ministry of Finance and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore as part of the Integrated Government 2010 (“iGov2010”) e-government master plan for the years 2005-10, motivated by the increasing penetration rate of mobile phones, especially smartphones, and the increasing number of transactions through mobile phones, either through mobile browsers or native mobile applications.

Sources: www.ida.gov.sg/Programmes-Partnership/Store/M-Government; www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2013/ict/KarenTan.pdf.

The limited access to fixed broadband and rapid uptake of mobile technologies in Indonesia, which counts over 120 mobile phone subscriptions per 100 people, provides the Government of Indonesia with an additional channel to deliver and improve its services (OECD/ITU, 2011).

The massive adoption of mobile communications not only provides citizens with a convenient way of communicating with each other and accessing information and services but also allows governments to reach out to a greater number of people than ever before, even in remote and inaccessible regions. Governments increasingly use mobile technologies to provide information, exchange data and deliver services. M-Government refers to the use of mobile technologies to support public-sector operations and service delivery for improved public-sector performance. However, these programmes should not put the emphasis on the use of mobile technologies but rather on the needs of end users and the public sector (OECD/ITU, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 215

2011). Such an approach can help the Government of Indonesia provide more convenient access to existing services as well as enable the design and delivery of new services (e.g. m-health and telemedicine; see Box 5.9).

Box 5.9. Denmark: Digital welfare – Tele-medical ulcer assessment Municipal nurses used to care for ulcers in the home of the patient.

Traditionally, when in doubt or if the ulcer was deteriorating, the nurse had to send the patient to the hospital for assessment. After the implementation of the tele-medical ulcer assessment programme, municipal nurses still care for ulcers at the home of the patient; now, however, they communicate directly with the hospital through a web journal from their cell phones or tablets. They also upload photos to the online platform containing the journal of the ulcers. In most cases, this enables hospital experts to assess the ulcer without seeing the patient, providing financial benefits for regions and municipalities and convenience benefits for patients, who no longer need to travel to the hospital as often.

The use of social media allows citizens to express their views, politicians to frame their opinions and governments to better understand social interactions, public opinion and human behaviour, as well as encourage collaboration and leverage ideas (Mickoleit, 2014). Regardless of the dynamic use of social media by the urban youth mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Government of Indonesia has not been able to develop a significant online or social media relationship with the public. Despite the dynamism of young users in the social media scene, the outreach capacity of institutional accounts remains low on both Twitter and Facebook, two of the most popular social platforms available (see Figures 5.11 and 5.12). The Government would benefit from a structured and strategic approach to social media use that helps increase its outreach, engage with stakeholders, crowdsource ideas, deliver services, monitor impact, analyse data and identify social trends.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

216 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Figure 5.11. Selected central government Twitter accounts Number of followers as percentage of the domestic population as of March 2015

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Presidencia_Ec | Ecuador

0.07

0.06

Number10gov | United Kingdom

0.048

tcbestepe | Turkey

0.028

WhiteHouse | United States

0.019

PresidenciaMX | Mexico

0.0107

bluehousekorea | Korea

0.0036

IstanaRakyat | Indonesia

0.0013

Source: Twiplomacy 2015; World Development Indicators, 2014.

Figure 5.12. Indonesian institutional accounts on Facebook Likes as % of the total population

Engagements per follower

Singapore Ecuador United States Korea Philippines Colombia United Kingdom Brazil France Germany India Indonesia

Ecuador France United States Philippines Germany Brazil Indonesia India Singapore Colombia United Kingdom Korea 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Only institutional accounts for the head of state or the head of government are considered. Likes, comments and shares of posts are considered forms of engagement. Likes as % of the total population considers the number of people that like/follow the official page of the institution.

Source: World Leaders on Facebook 2016, World Development Indicators, 2014.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 217

The OECD has noticed that, while governments are increasingly present on social media, they still primarily use this channel as a traditional communications tool rather than for opening up policy processes or for innovative ways of delivering public services. Only 50% of the countries responding to the OECD Survey on Social Media use by Governments (2013) have a strategy or clearly identified objectives, and only 19% are using metrics to assess the impact of their social media usage.

The strategic use of social media can help the Government of Indonesia promote political inclusion and participation of younger segments of the population through channels that are better adapted to their preferences. To achieve this, however, the GOI must adapt its approach to ensure that the language it uses and its responsiveness is in tune with the public’s expectations.

Moreover, crowdsourcing ideas and increasing participation in the design of policies and services through social media or alternative channels would require dedicating substantial resources to participative development and follow-up procedures to ensure responsiveness. The GOI may therefore consider exploiting synergies with existing initiatives to maximise impact.

There seems to be substantial room for collaboration and resource sharing in the public consultation forums, such as LAPOR, which may produce economies of scale and facilitate more coherent and efficient management and monitoring of citizen feedback.

While most governments are still at the very early stages in their use of social media, some countries are already making substantial progress in this area, paving the way for a new level of maturity in the area of social media policy. For instance, in Australia, the structured monitoring and analysis of social media activity led to the realisation that there was space for the government to provide information for young people about the financial support available to help them study (OECD, 2014). In Spain, the national police have developed an approach to social media use that seeks to support its mission and deliver better services to citizens (see Box 5.10).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

218 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 5.10. @Policia – Purpose-oriented social media use by the Spanish national police Policing depends heavily on people’s confidence and co-operation to deliver an effective public service. The Spanish national police force (Cuerpo Nacional de Policía de España) identified the potential of social media early on. In 2009, it committed to using social media as an additional lever to improve its services.

The commitment was backed up with financial and human resources, notably the recruitment of a social media expert, Carlos Fernandez, to lead the effort. Today, a dedicated team of ten people interacts on various social media platforms to prevent, dissuade and combat crime.

The Spanish police’s constant and genuine engagement is catching on with the public. At the time of writing, the @Policia Twitter account has over 1.25 million followers (@Policia), its Facebook page has over 220 000 fans (PoliciaNacional) and the videos on its YouTube channel were viewed over 5.6 million times (Policia).

A large part of this social media success is due to a deliberate choice of topics and style. Unlike many other government institutions, the Spanish police force does not use social media for “corporate” communications such as relaying the agendas of its leadership or to issue traditional press releases. Instead, it uses social networks to support the police’s primary mission by sending content-rich messages that use “plain” language, often humorous or provocative, in order to attract a large audience.

Such genuine community interaction has led to several mission-critical successes. One of those was the recent arrest of a murderer who had been on the loose for months after his conviction in 2013. On 14 January 2014, the Spanish national police launched a co-ordinated media campaign with heavy use of social media to diffuse photos and information about the wanted individual. The posts went viral, i.e. they were replicated and diffused by a very large number of social media users, and triggered several citizen reports leading to the arrest of the convict in less than one day

One Data for Sustainable Development The use of ICTs can also have a substantial impact on the public sector’s ability to make decisions based on evidence, thereby improving the transparency and accountability of such decisions and leading to enhanced public-sector performance in the form of better policies, services and communication with citizens and businesses. To this end, the Government of Indonesia must recognise the value of public-sector data as a strategic asset.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 219

The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Religious Affairs have separately looked to enhance data management inside their ministries through the development of guidelines and draft ministerial decrees. These and other intra-institutional initiatives to improve data quality, governance and handling signal that the current level of institutional development calls for an overarching policy focused specifically on providing a governmentwide framework for data management and governance. The Executive Office of the President has already identified this need and in 2014 launched the “One Data for Sustainable Development” initiative. It has two main objectives: 1) enhance data management across the public administration to support evidence-based decision-making; and 2) support open government data efforts.

Improving public-sector intelligence through enhanced data management As noted in interviews with the OECD by the Executive Office of the President, the “One Data” initiative is currently working on a data policy and guidelines for public institutions. These would provide a common framework to limit redundant efforts and improve the quality, management, interoperability and integration of government data and metadata, and foster a data-driven public sector (Principle 3 of the OECD Recommendation) to support openness, transparency and sustainable development. The objectives of such a policy should include: 1) better exploiting digital technologies and data analysis to understand societal problems; 2) embedding data use throughout the policy cycle; and 3) putting in place governance arrangements to ensure responsible and coherent use of data that benefits citizens and strengthens public trust.

Making this policy successful will require considering the structural enablers for its success, such as infrastructure, knowledge and skills, as well as the overall incentive structure that will lead to the digital and data-driven transformation of the public administration in support of openness and sustainable development.

The development of this essential policy tool will also offer the Government of Indonesia a favourable occasion to determine a strategic approach that will enable it to seize the opportunities provided by big data analytics (see Box 5.11 for how Pulse Lab Jakarta is using analysis of social media to understand public perceptions of immunisation). The digitisation of society has exponentially accelerated the production of data. The increasing availability and accessibility of data is a result of the increased use of digital devices such as computers, mobile phones and tablets. The increase in data production has also been driven by the development of the Internet of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

220 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Things,5 the growing use of digital cameras and recorders and the digitisation of books, records and archives. The digital era has made available a massive amount of data and an equally diverse number of data storage possibilities.

Box 5.11. Understanding public perceptions of immunisations using social media This project examined how the use of social media data and big data analytics could be used to understand public perceptions of immunisation. In collaboration with the Ministry of Development Planning (Bappenas), the Ministry of Health, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Indonesia, Pulse Lab Jakarta filtered tweets for relevant conversations about vaccines and immunisation. Findings included the identification of perception trends, including concerns around religious issues, disease outbreaks, side effects and the launch of a new vaccine. The results built on Global Pulse’s previous explorations in this field, confirming that real-time information derived from social media conversations could complement existing knowledge of public opinion and lead to faster and more effective response to misinformation, since rumours often spread through social networks.

Source: www.unglobalpulse.org/immunisation-parent-perceptions.

Big data analytics refers to the data processing techniques for analysing these new data sources that are available in high volume, highlighting patterns and trends, uncovering unfamiliar correlations and other valuable information for sound decision making. The availability of these data and data processing techniques is having a particularly strong impact in the field of public policy and social sciences and significantly improving the understanding of human behaviour. The distinctive features of today’s big data in terms of velocity, volume and variety of data have been enabled by “recent exponential increases in telecommunication bandwidth that connects a network of centralised and decentralised data storage systems, which are processed thanks to digital computational capacities” (Hilbert, 2016).

The amount of data produced by digital behaviour can often become an efficient alternative to traditional data sources, such as surveys. Big data analytics can, for instance, successfully predict the spread of diseases and accurately estimate unemployment with real-time data. Big data can provide powerful insights in the areas of economic activity, healthcare, public transportation and urban planning (Box 5.12), disaster and risk management, service design and delivery and policy-making in general, ultimately OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 221

enhancing public-sector performance and productivity. This new data processing technique is opening up a broad range of opportunities for both the private and the public sector. Not taking a strategic approach in this domain could lead to accentuated digital divides within and across countries, as well as loss of productivity and competitiveness for an emerging economy such as Indonesia.

Box 5.12. Singapore: Using open data and big data analytics for better urban transport Like other metropolitan hubs, Singapore has faced the inevitable problem of heavy congestion at peak hours. However, significant improvements have been made thanks to the use of data from the smart travel cards and GPS data.

These data provided the opportunity to develop detailed models for how bus users move through the city, helping the government understand traffic patterns, how citizens use the urban transport system and key problems with the existing bus routes.

Using these data, developers based in California created an analytical platform that is able to identify traffic patterns and provide authorities with precise information mapping active trains and buses, with meters letting them know how full each one is, as well as how many commuters are at each station and what the estimated waiting times are. The analysis of this information helps the authorities decide where more buses and trains are needed or how to provide incentives for users to take different routes. The system produced a 13% drop in peak time travel. This experience has since been replicated in Bangalore and SĂŁo Paulo to improve public transport.

Since 2012, Indonesia has benefited from a pilot project of the UN Global Pulse that seeks to create capacity and promote data innovation for policy making. This initiative, called Pulse Lab Jakarta, includes UN staff, the Ministry of National Development and Planning (Bappenas), the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics. The Pulse Lab Jakarta regularly organises thematic data innovation days with civil servants to highlight the potential of using big data and other innovative data sources and techniques that can support evidence-based policy making (Box 5.13). The initiative holds great potential for building capacity at the central government and would benefit from the strategic and financial support of the Centre of Government to maximise the impact of the initiative, as the period of financial support from the UN Global Pulse is approaching its end. Providing stability to this initiative could ensure a sense of ownership by the Indonesian public sector.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

222 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 5.13. Pulse Lab Jakarta: Mining citizen feedback data for enhanced local government decision making The Pulse Lab Jakarta performed a feasibility study on the use of crowdsourcing as a tool to provide real-time data to local governments to support decision making. The UN Global Pulse summarises the project: “This feasibility study used crowdsourcing to track commodity prices in near real-time in areas where the availability of other data sources was limited. Highresolution and high-frequency food price trends were derived from reports generated by ‘citizen reporters’. The study was conducted in Nusa Tenggara Barat, one of Indonesia’s poorest provinces, comprised almost exclusively of informal, cash-only markets and stalls. The study involved recruiting a trusted network of local citizen reporters to submit food price reports via a customised mobile phone application. The tested crowdsourcing method could be improved by developing a standardised approach to the ‘bunch measurement’ of staples so that it could be effectively deployed in locations where standardised weights and measures are absent. Crowdsourcing technologies, which capture high-frequency data on local trends, are best deployed in areas where traditional data collection methods are difficult or costly due to a lack of geographic proximity, high insecurity or high food price volatility.”

Source: www.unglobalpulse.org/projects/feasibility-study-crowdsourcing-high-frequencyfood-price-data-rural-indonesia.

Building an Open Government Data ecosystem A growing number of governments have developed policies and initiatives to design and implement Open Government Data (OGD) within the broader strategic frameworks for digital government. OGD refers to the release of data collected and produced by public organisations while performing their tasks or to data commissioned with public funds. The goal is that OGD is released in open formats that allow for their free use, re-use and distribution by anyone, subject only to (at the most) the requirement that users attribute the data and that they make their work available to be shared as well (Ubaldi, 2013). Box 5.14 provides a description of the legal and institutional infrastructure for open government data in Korea, as well as examples of how the data has been utilised to provide applications that have enhanced service provision.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 223

Box 5.14. Open Data in Korea Korea’s Open Data Law and institutional framework Korea's Open Data Law provides the legal basis for access to data and for its commercial usage. The Law also lays out the open data governance framework, which is led by a highlevel council co-chaired by the Prime Minister and a private sector representative. The council also includes central and local government representatives as well as civil society organisations. This framework facilitates cross-government co-ordination and public-private sector co-operation.

The Ministry of Interior leads open data management and the Open Data Centre at the National Information Society Agency provides policy and technical support, including the operation of the open data portal, data.go.kr. In addition to the governance framework, the Law provides a mechanism for dispute resolution between citizens and public-sector organisations through the creation of the Open Data Mediation Committee.

Notably, the legal basis for open government data is different from the laws and processes concerning access to information (governed through the Information Disclosure Act and housed at open.go.kr). The legal foundation provided by the open data law helps to ensure the stability of open data policy in Korea and provides a focus on creating economic and social value.

Case studies of open data applications in Korea The growth of open data in Korea is reflected in by part by the number of applications registered on the Open Data Portal (data.go.kr), which increased from 42 at the end of 2013 to over 800 in April 2016. Some notable examples include: Bus information applications (e.g. Seoul Bus App), which use bus data from local and central governments to provide real time information on bus arrivals. Parking information applications (e.g. Moduparking, ParkingPark) use parking data from local governments to allow drivers to search and compare nearby parking spaces (from both public and private lots) and relevant information such as operating hours, prices, capacity, etc.

In healthcare, hospital information applications (e.g. Medilatte, Hidoc, Goodoc) use hospital data from the Ministry of Health and Welfare and related agencies to allow citizens to search and compare nearby hospitals and clinics and relevant information such as services provided, doctors, prices, operating hours, etc. This provides citizens with a tool to find health services that suit their needs.

Source: Government of Korea.

The Government of Indonesia has recognised on several occasions the potential OGD could have in enhancing the transparency, accountability, integrity and performance of the public sector. Its central open data portal is OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

224 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA one of Indonesia’s current Open Government Partnership commitments, and the use of OGD for anti-corruption is part of the country’s National Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Eradication. Moreover, Indonesia was an active contributor in the elaboration and adoption of the International Open Data Charter, to the development and adoption of the G20 Open Data Principles for Anti-Corruption and has published data related to its extractive industries collected through its membership in the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Box 5.15). All of these engagements prove Indonesia’s commitment and support for OGD as tool to foster an open government.

In line with these commitments and policy objectives, the Government of Indonesia has taken decisive steps to develop a technically advanced and user-friendly central data portal, which it launched in May 2014. The central government has made significant efforts in providing easy access to key datasets to improve transparency of key public-sector activities. However, these efforts have encountered significant challenges in maximising the impact of the government’s Open Data initiative. First, while the existing Public Information Disclosure Act of 2008 (FOI) serves as a foundation for Open Data, it does not mention that the disclosure of data must be done in open formats, leading public authorities to feel that providing data in open formats is optional, thus creating barriers to data re-use. Furthermore, over a year and a half since its launch, the central government open data portal still offers only 1 042 datasets from 27 government institutions and 3 subnational governments, showing the lack of awareness of the relevance of opening up government data and the lack of ownership of the OGD agenda across the public sector. Finally, the overall lack of data skills across society is currently undermining the government’s ability to provide high-quality datasets and the society’s ability to re-use the data to create public value.

These challenges suggest that there is a need to revise the existing legal and regulatory frameworks to set an “open by default” standard, to which Indonesia has already committed internationally6, to develop a coherent national OGD strategy with strong ownership across levels of government and a sense of collective commitment among civil servants. Indonesia should also develop a plan to enhance ICT and data skills across society to reduce existing forms of the digital divide that tend to reinforce inequality and political and social exclusion.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 225

Box 5.15. Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative: Indonesia The Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a global standard for transparency in government revenues from extractive industries that was launched in 2002. The initiative requires governments to report their revenue from the extractive sector and for companies within the same sector to report their payments to government in the form of taxes, royalties or payments in kind. An independent auditor assesses these two reports, published online. A multi-stakeholder group composed of government institutions, extractive industry private sector firms and civil society organisations governs the Indonesian chapter of EITI. Indonesia became an EITI candidate in 2010 and was declared compliant by the EITI International Board on 15 October 2015.

EITI Indonesia has amassed a considerable amount of valuable data concerning the country’s extractive industries. To improve transparency and accountability, the initiative has been working to open up its data through the national Open Data Portal. The national chapter is currently developing a new data portal, allowing the initiative to publish data in open formats.

Through this portal, Indonesian citizens will be able to produce visualisations of the data. This tool is expected to improve the understanding of the data in a context of limited data skills.

Sources: http://data.go.id/organization/about/eiti-indonesia; http://eiti.org; Interview.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that, while the OGD agenda can help make progress in public-sector transparency, accountability, integrity and performance, opening up valuable datasets in a dynamic OGD ecosystem can help societies find innovative ways to solve social problems, creating substantial social and economic value. For instance, Mexico City was able to find a smart solution to the increasing insecurity related to fake taxis robbing customers using open government data (see Box 5.16). In Denmark, HusetsWeb, a start-up, uses open government data to develop technological solutions that provide households useful information on their energy consumption patterns and tips for energy optimisation.

Box 5.16. Hacking insecurity in Mexico City Using taxis in Mexico City entails incurring security risks. Criminals often use vehicles camouflaged to look like licenced taxis to rob customers, with as many as 400 taxi robberies reported in 2013. This phenomenon has been driving users to avoid taxis and opt for more expensive transportation services. Mexico City’s innovation lab, Laboratorio para la Ciudad, has developed an innovative app using open government data to help tackle the security concerns of taxi users. This app allows users to enter the licence number on the side of the car or snap a photo of the cab’s licence plate. The app will then cross-reference this information with city data to determine if it is a registered taxi. The app also includes a button that automatically alerts the police department in case the user runs into trouble.

Source: http://citiscope.org/story/2014/mexico-city-experimental-think-tank-city-and-its-government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

226 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA To achieve such a level of maturity, the government must also take decisive steps to support the development of an ecosystem that is able to realise the full potential of OGD, including fostering innovation. Taking OGD to the next level requires that data be seen as a strategic asset, which has implications for the public sector in terms of governance to support the whole data and information value chain, including skill requirements and investments in data infrastructure. To foster innovation by using data, the Government of Indonesia should systematically promote the engagement of and collaboration with the communities of data producers, providers and users to identify and release valuable datasets. The effective re-use of government data – which is an essential condition to deliver value – entails that open data is relevant, easily accessible and re-usable by all.

Governments can use different tools to stimulate the use of OGD for value creation. Good practices include the development of one-stop-shop portals for open government data that serve as a single window/point of access for data users to access available datasets in open formats, ideally having undergone a process of quality assurance and being complemented with useful metadata (see Box 5.17 for the example of the Jakarta Smart City Portal). Furthermore, strategic use of hackathons, awards, grants and other pro-active approaches to promoting data re-use can play a decisive role in fostering innovation and value creation.

To assist governments measuring the impact of their OGD initiatives, the OECD has developed the OURdata Index (Open, Useful and Re-usable data index), launched in the OECD publication “Government at a glance 2015”. This index assesses governments’ efforts in relation to three fronts: 1) increasing data availability on the national portal; 2) increasing data accessibility on the national portal; and 3) providing active support for the re-use of data.

Box 5.17. Jakarta Smart City Portal To support Jakarta’s transformation into a smart city, the government of the City of Jakarta has launched a Smart City Portal. The portal allows citizens to understand the components of a smart city, access the map of the city, and access and request information. The website links to the city portal, which allows citizens to make public complaints, access public services and open data, as well as use the apps developed with open data of the government of Jakarta. If complemented with the right innovation ecosystem, this portal may serve as a tool that contributes to the transformation of Jakarta into a smart urban agglomeration characterised by large economies of scale, an innovative economy, a highly skilled workforce, smart urban and transport arrangements, lower environmental impact and high living standards.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 227

Data accessibility and availability are necessary, but insufficient conditions to ensure the re-use of data can limit the capturing of OGD benefits from a social, economic and good governance perspective (e.g. transparency, integrity, accountability). Re-use of data by the public sector, civil society organisations, the private sector and a host of other actors is a sine qua non condition to delivering the benefits of open data. In this sense, the OURdata Index aims to help strengthen governments’ focus on effective outcomes and keep the focus on the overall objective of actively fostering stakeholders' engagement in data re-use. The OURdata Index is based on the OECD methodology for measuring Open Government Data (Ubaldi, 2013) and on the G8 Open Data Charter, encapsulating the first internationally agreed-upon set of principles on open data. This is essential, as the OURdata Index is also intended to help governments monitor their progress in implementing their international OGD commitments. Ultimately, the OURdata Index aims to support governments in designing and implementing OGD strategies that deliver value to the public.

The OECD assessment (Figure 5.13) shows that the Government of Indonesia has made considerable progress in its OGD agenda in the fields of data availability and accessibility, comparable to the highest OECD standards. However, considerable progress can still be made in the promotion of the re-use of OGD. While the Government of Indonesia has certainly started making efforts in this front, with, for example, the organisation of hackathons, these initiatives would benefit from being more systematic and structured. Based on the objective of the hackathon or event, public authorities should identify audiences. NGOs, start-ups and civic developers have different priorities and datasets of preference when working with open data. Moreover, depending on their stage of development, these different stakeholders may be looking for datasets with distinctive characteristics or levels of sophistication.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

228 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Figure 5.13. OURdata Index: Open, useful and reusable government data, 2014 Composite index from 0 lowest to 1 highest

1.

Data for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Israel and Luxembourg are not available. Data for Indonesia are for 2015.

Source: 2014 OECD Survey on Open Government Data.

Hackathons also offer an opportunity to engage with users, strengthen bonds within the data-user communities and listen to their needs. Creating and strengthening feedback loops can help governments better understand the needs of the different audiences and groups of data users to respond better to their data needs.

Recommendations •

To unlock the transformative potential of technologies in changing government-society dynamics, the Government of Indonesia should make substantive efforts to achieve scale for its key initiatives. Participatory platforms should be expanded to achieve a critical mass of users, and other initiatives of potentially high impact should be strengthened and streamlined for the government to be able to reap its full benefits (e.g. “LAPOR”, public dialogues, hackathons, service design standards). This will require additional resources and plans to develop institutional capacities, regulatory

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 229

frameworks – e.g. standards for service design – robust coordination and peer-learning mechanisms.

•

The use of digital technologies should be framed by an overarching policy to help ensure strategic coherence across the administration. This policy should be aligned with broader policy objectives – such as those on open government and sustainable development – and with public-sector reform strategies and action plans. A successful policy would provide coherent incentives to create a culture that strengthens the use of technology for more open, innovative and participatory service design and delivery.

Involving the relevant stakeholders in the development of the digital government policy will help ensure that the resulting strategies appropriately reflect the different views. This will also promote the development of a common vision and align objectives with the required levels of ownership for successful implementation and to deliver impact.

•

The development of the policy with contributions from all stakeholders also provides the opportunity to design sound institutional frameworks with desirable levels of accountability, control and transparency that should include strong co-ordination mechanisms at the strategic and operational levels, ensuring alignment with the government’s ambitions and institutional mechanisms to facilitate its implementation. Institutional arrangements should clarify roles and responsibilities in digital government policy making, particularly between the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. The Government of Indonesia would also benefit from a Chief Digital Officer under the National Chief Information Officer that can support the digital transformation, making government digital by design.

•

The Government of Indonesia should align incentives for public institutions and civil servants to respond to national policy objectives and facilitate a fundamental cultural shift across the government toward more open, inclusive and citizen-driven processes and toward the development of ICT and data skills. To achieve this, the governance frameworks of digital government should equip the co-ordinating unit with the adequate mix of policy levers (“carrots” and “sticks”) to be able to induce the expected behavioural change across public institutions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

230 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA •

The development of the National E-Government Master Plan should be complemented with the establishment of a business case methodology and an ICT project management model that can help public institutions better plan and structure their ICT investments (Principles 9 and 10 of the OECD Recommendation).

These management tools would allow public institutions to clearly identify expected benefits, manage risks, monitor the implementation of ICT projects, identify drivers of failure and success and make adjustments as required. The combination of the tool would allow the Government of Indonesia more effectively to monitor and evaluate ICT initiatives at both a micro and macro level.

•

The Government of Indonesia should develop a strategic approach to the use of alternative channels for public engagement and service delivery, such as social media platforms and mobile phones.

This new approach should recognise the potential of social media and mobile devices as sources of data, allowing the Government of Indonesia to use predictive analytics to spot trends, analyse social interactions and determine service users’ needs. A strategic approach in the use of this channel can help the Government of Indonesia increase its outreach for service delivery to vulnerable or excluded segments of the population living in remote areas (e.g. mservices).

•

The Government of Indonesia should recognise data as a strategic asset and accordingly develop governance frameworks, infrastructure and institutional capacities to support the strategic use of government data for decision making (Principle 3 of the OECD Recommendation). Aside from the development and implementation, an initial step in building capacities could be supporting the expansion, sustainability and streamlining of the UNsponsored Pulse Lab Jakarta to build data analytics capacity in the public sector.

•

Indonesia should make efforts to develop a dynamic open government data ecosystem, which will require addressing legal and regulatory challenges and limitations, raising awareness and ownership, developing data skills across society, and actively engaging with data producers, providers and users to identify valuable datasets and foster re-use that can deliver social, economic and good governance value.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 231

Notes

1.

Referring to the ability of the public sector to collect, process and interpret data to inform public action and decision making.

2.

“Investors set their sights on Indonesia’s tech sector” in Financial Times, 7 December 2014, www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4fd5286e-7c32-11e4-a69500144feabdc0.html#axzz3wHg3HHYr (accessed 18 December 2015).

3.

www.detiknas.go.id/profil/.

4.

www.betterthancash.org/news/blogs-stories/the-better-than-cash-journeykenya-and-rwanda.

5.

The Internet of Things refers to the network of physical objects embedded with software, sensors and network connectivity allowing these objects to collect and exchange data. Principle 1 of the G20 International Open Data Charter: “Open by default”.

References APJJI (2014), Profil Pengguna Internet Indonesia, www.slideshare.net/internetsehat/profil-pengguna-internet-indonesia2014-riset-oleh-apjii-dan-puskakom-ui (accessed 22 January 2016).

Boston Consulting Group (2013), Asia’s Next Big Opportunity: Indonesia’s Rising Middle-Class and Affluent Consumers. BCG Perspectives. www.bcg.fr/documents/file128797.pdf (accessed 22 January 2016).

Government of Indonesia (2012), National Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Eradication (2012-2025).

Hilbert, M. (2016), “Big Data for Development: A Review of Promises and Challenges” in Development Policy Review, 34 (1): 135-174.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

232 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Mariscal, J. and Bambrilla, C. (2012), “Conectividad institucional: El caso de México” in Information technologies and international development journal, Vol 8, Issue 4 Winter (Special Bilingual Issue: Research on ICT4D from Latin America).

Mickoleit, A. (2014), "Social Media Use by Governments: A Policy Primer to Discuss Trends, Identify Policy Opportunities and Guide Decision Makers", OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmghmk0s-en.

OECD (forthcoming), OECD Public Governance Review of Spain.

OECD (2015), Government at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-en.

OECD (2015), Digital Government Toolkit.

OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. www.oecd.org/gov/public-innovation/Recommendationdigital-government-strategies.pdf (accessed 22 January 2016).

OECD/ITU (2011), M-Government: Mobile Technologies for Responsive Governments and Connected Societies, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118706-en.

OECD (2010), Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smarter Public Service Delivery, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087118-en.

Open Government Partnership (2015), Independent Reporting Mechanism Report: Indonesia, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia_Special_Acc_ Report_Public.pdf (accessed 18 December 2015).

Shim, D.C. and Eon, T.H. (2008), “E-Government and Anti-Corruption: Empirical Analysis of International Data” in International Journal of Public Administration, February, 31(3):298-316, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900690701590553.

Sujarwoto and Tampubolon G. (2013), “Deepening Digital Divide and Widening Spacial Gaps in Indonesia 2005-2009”, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348729 (accessed 23 December).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 233

Ubaldi, B. (2013), "Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives", OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en.

Utomo, A. et al.. (2013), “Digital inequalities and Young Adults in Greater Jakarta: a Socio-Demographic Perspective” in International Journal of Indonesian Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 79-109.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 235

Chapter 6 Open, transparent and inclusive budgeting in Indonesia

Applying open government principles to the budget process is an important component of instituting open, transparent and inclusive government. The OECD has developed principles for budgetary governance and has highlighted best practices for budget transparency. This chapter assesses public financial management in Indonesia against these principles and standards, starting with an outline of principles, followed by an overview of the situation in Indonesia. This chapter covers budget transparency, public participation in budgeting and good practices in Indonesia; it also surveys gender budgeting in Indonesia and assesses linkages between women’s participation in budgeting and environmental sustainability. The recommendations point to approaches and actions that could provide for sound public financial management, strengthening budget transparency and inclusiveness in Indonesia.

Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

236 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA

Introduction Budget transparency has become a broadly accepted principle of public financial management over the past two decades. Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how financial resources are planned, raised and used by governments. The principle of budget transparency underpins sound public financial management and has in turn become a cornerstone of public governance themes such as open government, civic participation and public-sector performance.

Open, transparent and inclusive budgetary practices strengthen the integrity, accountability and strategic focus of overall public governance. A more transparent budget process promotes responsive and evidence-based policy making, which in turn supports accountability for how public resources are allocated and used. Although the budgeting process can often be opaque and technical, proactive engagement between public bodies and citizens can lead to more transparency.

The framework of how to promote these principles has been laid out in two OECD publications. The OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency (2002) covers the preparation of the national budget and other budget reports; specific disclosures and accounting practices for the budget; and practices to promote integrity, control and accountability in budgeting.

In 2015, the OECD introduced the Recommendation on Budgetary Governance, which broadens the traditional concept of fiscal transparency to encompass civic engagement while making explicit the links with open data, integrity and anti-corruption policy. The drive toward greater openness and transparency in budgeting also supports broader OECD-wide priorities for trust in government and for inclusive growth.

With regard to Indonesia, since 1998, the country has undergone an extensive democratisation process that has led to fundamental changes in the constitution and the legal framework to support transparency, participation and accountability. As part of a broader reform agenda, the current National Development Planning System1 and the de-centralisation process have affected budgeting and public financial management. Specifically, within the budgeting process, the House of Representatives (DPR, herein referred to as Parliament) has become more closely involved in budget formulation, approval and oversight.

As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, Indonesia’s system of national development planning includes a long-term, medium-term and annual strategic planning process, the latter directly feeding into the budgeting process. This National Development Planning System encourages a transparent and participatory approach and helps to foster linkages with OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 237

national and international strategic frameworks through, for example, the OGP National Action Plan and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In broad terms, Indonesia’s developmental planning framework has some advanced and innovative features. These aspects of the policydevelopment framework may be characterised as broadly compatible with the OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance, which explicitly calls on governments to “ensure that budget documents and data are open, transparent and accessible” and to “provide for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices”. The later phases of the budget cycle and other domains of public financial management in Indonesia, however, have not yet integrated transparency, openness and inclusiveness into their systems to the same extent.

The key challenges faced by Indonesia in the area of budget transparency and public financial management relate to the management of a diverse, fragmented institutional landscape, also including the various levels of government. This fragmentation leads to specific challenges in the area of budget transparency: 1) uniform implementation of national laws, in particular those relating to information transparency, regarding budget data at every level of government and budget documents at every stage of the budgeting process; and 2) the dissemination of good practices throughout all reaches of public administration.

Furthermore, to ensure the best use of public funds, budget allocations should reflect public needs, priorities and risks. Transparent and participative practices can help promote such an alignment. To improve these aspects of budgetary formulation in Indonesia, the government could develop stronger structures to improve the engagement of the general public, civil society and experts across the various phases of the budget cycle.

Indonesia’s strengths in terms of geographical and societal outreach could also be leveraged further to promote equal opportunities of engagement for the wider public.

The de-centralisation process in Indonesia started after 1998, and it continues today. Multi-level budgetary governance poses challenges in many countries, and given Indonesia’s geographical diversity, such challenges are particularly acute in this country. Addressing these challenges will involve: 1) finding the optimal balance for the provision of public services and goods and responsibilities between the central and local level, including enhanced co-ordination between the levels; 2) adopting a culture of transparency, responsiveness and co-operation with local stakeholders at each level of government; and 3) establishing efficient oversight mechanisms linked to the increased responsibilities of the local government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

238 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA

OECD principles for open, transparent and inclusive budgeting The 2015 OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance identifies transparency, openness, participation, integrity and accountability as pillars of modern budgetary governance. This section briefly presents outlines how these principles should be assessed in practice, before applying them to the case of Indonesia.

Budget documents should be open, transparent and accessible Clear and factual budget reports as well as audit reports are needed to inform key stages of the budget process such as policy formulation, consideration and debate as well as implementation and review. Information quality can be improved by focusing on relevance, accuracy, objectivity, machine readability (open data) and reliability. The presentation of budgetary information in a consistent format at key stages of the budget process promotes effective decision making, accountability and oversight.

Citizens, civil society organisations and other stakeholders should be able to routinely access full budget reports in a timely manner. The impact of budget measures should be presented in a standard and user-friendly format, which can be achieved by using a budget summary or a Citizen’s Budget.

Budget data should be designed and used in a way that facilitates other important government objectives such as open government, integrity, programme evaluation and policy co-ordination across national and subnational levels of government.

Active management, monitoring and audit of the implementation of the budget Budget allocations should be implemented fully and faithfully by public bodies, with oversight throughout the year by the Central Budget Authority and line ministries as appropriate. Special-purpose funds and ear-marking of revenues for particular purposes should be kept to a minimum. Ministries and agencies should be allowed some limited flexibility, within the scope of parliamentary authorisations, to re-allocate funds throughout the year in the interest of effectiveness. Well-planned and well-designed budget execution reports, including in-year and audited year-end reports, can inform future budget allocations and contribute to accountability. The supreme audit institution should be supported in its role of dealing authoritatively with all aspects of financial accountability, including the publication of its audit reports in a manner that is timely and relevant for the budgetary cycle.

Internal and external systems of audit and control should focus on the costeffectiveness of individual programmes, as well as assessing the quality of performance accountability and governance frameworks more generally.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 239

Figure 6.1 highlights good practices in the three main aspects of the transparent budget process, beginning at the bottom with the foundational requirement for clearly defined roles and responsibilities, adequate resourcing of the various actors and use of tools that support openness, such as Citizens’ Guides. A transparent budget process produces high-quality information for decision making and meets the quality standards for the process itself.

Providing for an inclusive, participative and realistic dialogue throughout the budget process and in particular on budgetary choices The parliament and its committees should be offered opportunities to engage with the budget process using a strategic approach at key stages of the budget cycle, both ex ante and ex post, as appropriate. All important stakeholders – beginning with the parliament but also including citizens and civil society organisations – should be engaged in order to pursue a realistic debate about key priorities, trade-offs, opportunity costs and value for money. Information on performance, outputs and impacts can help parliament and citizens to understand not just what is being spent but also what is being bought on behalf of citizens – i.e. what public services are actually being delivered, to what standards of quality and with what levels of efficiency. After the careful consideration of budgetary choices, all major decisions should be handled within the context of the budget process.

Figure 6.2 highlights good practices in the three main aspects of an open and inclusive budget process, beginning at the bottom with framework conditions for clearly defined roles, scopes and objectives, adequate resourcing of the various actors and use of tools that support participation in budgeting, such as Citizens’ Guides. Similar to the progressive interaction between government and citizens outlined in Chapter 3, citizen participation in the budget process includes a range of degrees of interaction. For example, a transparent budget process is one in which citizens’ access to budgetary information is granted. Consultation goes one step further by establishing a two-way relationship with citizens, who can provide feedback to the public body soliciting input from them. Finally, active participation refers to the case when citizens actively engage in a dialogue with a public body, which does not necessarily have to initiate the process. A system of active participation establishes a productive and respectful partnership between the different parties, although the responsibility for the final decision rests with the public body involved in the process. In the right conditions and with proper supports, an inclusive and participative budget process can produce high-quality outputs for budgeting, thus strengthening social inclusion, accountability and trust.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

240 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Figure 6.1. OECD flowchart of budget transparency

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 241

Figure 6.2. OECD flowchart of openness, inclusiveness and participation in budgeting

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

242 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA

Budget transparency in Indonesia Legal framework The legal framework for budgeting and public financial management that emerged following the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the transition to democracy in 1998 comprises relevant laws in the areas of development planning, budgeting, regional governance, state auditing, fiscal balance and disclosure of public information. In addition to laws that deal with citizen engagement and strategic planning more generally (such as Law No. 25/2004 on State Planning, Law No. 23/2014 on Regional Governance and Law No. 14/2008 on Public Information Openness), the primary legal documents that govern the budgeting and financial system in Indonesia, as shown in Table 6.1, include: Table 6.1. Legal framework for budget transparency and public participation Law/Regulation Law No. 17/2003 on State Finances

Minister of Home Affairs regulation No. 13/2006 on Guidelines for Management of Local Finances Law No. 1/2004 on the State Treasury Law No. 33/2004 on the Fiscal Balance Law No. 15/2004 on the State Audit Law No. 6/2014 – The Village Law (January 2014) and Government Regulation No. 43/2014 on the Implementation of the Village Law (June 2014) Government Regulation No. 60/2014 on Village Grants (July 2014) and Government Regulation No. 22/2015 (May 2015) Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governance and Government Regulation 38/2007

Relevance for gender budgeting This law details the constitutional provisions of the budget process, mandates specific milestones and dates for the preparation and adoption of the budget, specifies general principles and authorities for the management and accountability of state finances and establishes the financial relationship between the central government and other institutions. As such, this law is the basis for government regulations that qualify as part of budget transparency across the budget cycle or during the public finance process.

Together with other ministerial edicts, these guidelines regulate the budget formulation and adoption of local governments.

This law outlines the responsibilities of the Treasury and articulates the creation of treasurers in government ministries and agencies, together with general principles on the management and accountability of public funds.

This law outlines the responsibility of regional governments for managing their own public finances, their revenue-raising authority and the system of transfers from the national government. It replaced an earlier law from 1999.

This law outlines the operational framework of the Supreme Audit Institution of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) and mandates the BPK as a professional and independent institution required to submit its reports to Parliament.

These regulations change the legal status of villages by increasing their authority and responsibility, establishing a new institutional set-up for community development in villages. The law increases direct transfers to the villages – districts have to transfer 10% of fiscal balance funds to villages, complemented by an additional 10% arriving from the central government.

These regulations cover the scheme, prioritisation and reporting of funds received from the national budget.

This law and regulation outline how governance authority is shared between the central and local governments.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 243

Along with the democratisation process, 2008 marked the adoption of the Public Information Disclosure Act, which became effective in 2010, providing a solid basis for budget transparency and paving the way for public participation in the budgeting process.

The role of Parliament The enactment of the laws related to the budgetary process were part of a broader reform agenda, moving away from the budget process being conducted predominantly by the government toward a system in which the Parliament is more deeply involved in budget formulation, scrutiny, approval and oversight. Since these reforms led to the excessive use of parliamentary time in the detailed scrutiny of the budget, in 2014, the Constitutional Court withdrew the Parliament’s authority to scrutinise the budget proposal in such detail, in order to strengthen the strategic input of the Parliament’s feedback and amendments during the legislative phase of the budget process. As a result, the role of Parliament in the budgetary process is evolving, allowing for improved quality outputs and strategic oversight of the budget.

Linked to the Parliament, the Bureau for Analysis of State Budget and Annual Budget Implementation (a form of “parliamentary budget office” or PBO), with a capacity of around 40 people, strengthens the independent input to macroeconomic forecasts and analysis, and more generally, it supports the role of the Parliament in the budgeting process. The bureau’s activities comprise conducting research and producing reports and analyses that can be requested by the Budget Committee, other committees, members of Parliament and by the PBO itself on its own initiative. The reports and analyses produced by the PBO include economic forecasts, baseline estimates, analysis of the executive’s budget proposals, cost estimates of proposed policies or legislation, budget options resulting from changes in spending and taxation, economic impact analysis of regulation, more extensive economic analysis, tax analysis, policy briefs and medium-term analysis. The impact of the PBO could be improved by: 1) increasing the skill profile of experts available to the PBO who can focus effectively on each area; 2) including long-term sustainability analysis as a distinct function; and 3) making most of the reports (e.g. those that are requested by committees and the PBO’s own reports) available to the public.

Aligning budgeting with national planning Indonesia’s planning framework provides a strong input in strategic planning and essential background to the budget cycle. The National Development Planning System (SPPN) has three elements. The National OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

244 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN, the current one running 2005-25) and the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN, currently running 2015-19) both lay out the basis for the annual developmental planning. The annual developmental planning process starts with a first draft derived from the RPJMN. The National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), which is responsible for strategic planning, prepares a draft annual plan at the beginning of the annual process and makes it available for the Musrenbang (the Regional Development Planning Consultation, a multi-stakeholder consultation forum for development planning). Aligning the medium and annual development plan with the budget policies and the budget draft is a complex process (depicted in Figure 6.3). Bappenas, the Ministry of Finance, the different levels of Musrenbang and various stakeholders of the Regional Level Working Unit (SKPD) forum participate in it. This forum takes place between the sub-district and local level Musrenbang, with the participation of all government institutions, including line ministries, civil society organisations (CSOs) and the delegations elected by sub-district level of Musrenbang, in order to reach a consensus about the sectoral priorities and suggestions to be included in the draft annual plan.

Figure 6.3. Links between government developmental planning and budgeting

Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 245

Linking the national developmental planning and budgeting process at every level of government is important to provide a solid foundation for budget transparency. Together with involving all relevant stakeholders and ensuring access to information, this integrated approach can help ensure that the government achieves the best possible outcomes.

Budget formulation Government policy affecting public expenditure and taxation originates in the executive branch of government, i.e. the president, prime minister and cabinet, whereas proposals for new programmes and changes to existing departmental programmes usually come from ministers. Supporting the formulation of the budget, models and methodology of macro and fiscal projections are prepared by the Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) of the MoF with inputs from Bappenas, central bank, statistics bureau and the Ministry of Energy. Long-term macroeconomic and fiscal projections span up to five years and are updated every year. Long-term fiscal projections include economic growth rate, short-term and long-term interest rates on government debt, exchange rate, fiscal gap projections, effects of significant policy reforms (e.g. pensions, health), civil servants’ pension obligations and unfunded pension liabilities.

Two fiscal rules limit fiscal policy: a budget balance and a debt rule.

The debt rule prescribes that the gross government debt ratio must not exceed 60%, consistent with the Maastricht Treaty. The total budget deficit (both central and subnational government) must not exceed 3% of GDP. Currently, none of the fiscal rules are binding, and according to the longterm fiscal projection, the goal is to reduce the budget deficit to 1% of GDP and to reduce the debt to 24% of GDP, with a tax ratio of 16% of GDP by 2019.

Indonesia has a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) in place, with MTEF ceilings set for overall expenditures, for programmes and at the organisational level. The MTEF ceilings have a four-year timespan, revised annually on a rolling basis. However, there are no commitments made to guarantee that the MTEF is applied in the budget for the following years; rather, the MTEF is used as a basis for the indicative budget. According to the new MTEF instructions effective as of 2017, top-down planning replaces bottom-up budget planning; i.e. instead of assigning money to functions, money will be assigned to programmes, allowing for more realistic threeyear forward estimates.

The government imposes budget ceilings on the initial overall spending requests of the line ministries. The budget circular serves as a guideline for line ministries’ preparations of budget estimates. It contains a set of rules for OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

246 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA the budget process and the main forms to be used in the submission of estimates, the macroeconomic assumptions to be used in the budgetary process, information on government priorities and spending ceilings or targets. Line ministries’ capital and operating budget requests are integrated.

In case of multi-year capital projects, the budget requests are funded incrementally each year until the project is completed.

The Judiciary, the Supreme Audit Institute (SAI) and the Legislature budgets are subject to the same procedures as any other governmental organisation included in the government’s budget proposal, although they have more flexibility regarding budget implementation, with more discretion on allocations and standard costs depending on the nature of the work in each branch. Loan guarantees, pending lawsuits and unfunded pension liabilities are considered as contingent liabilities, requiring legislative authorisation. The produced reports are sometimes publicly available or available upon request.

Supported by good practices across OECD countries, macro and fiscal projections are shown to be less biased if produced by independent bodies, e.g. PBOs or Independent Fiscal Institutions. To improve the information base of the budget, long-term fiscal projections could cover also migration flows, demographic changes, health care costs and inter-generational accounting. Similarly, risks and shocks could be taken into account for entitlement spending such as personal salaries, health insurance, pension obligations, office operation, interest repayment and arrears. To ensure the separation and independence of powers, in many countries, the preparation of the budget of the Judiciary, SAI and Legislature is not subject to the same procedures and policies as other governmental bodies and their independence is granted through the provision of a solid budgetary background.

Budget cycle Extending transparency in the legislative phase of the budgetary process, during budget execution and during auditing can support anti-corruption efforts, as well as promote evidence-based policy making in priority areas such as social inclusion, education or health care. Greater transparency improves public accountability and enhances effectiveness and efficiency throughout the budget cycle.

Figure 6.4 outlines the budget cycle, encompassing one fiscal year, from January until December. The process includes planning, drafting, discussing and adopting a budget at the national level. The fiscal year starts in January.

During the second week of January, the MoF starts preparing macroeconomic estimates and projections of tax, non-tax, grant and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 247

expenditures categories. The resource envelope/fiscal capacity is discussed with the line ministries during the second week of February. As mentioned above, Musrenbang takes place parallel to the budgeting process, from January until April of the planning year, feeding into the draft annual plan and then into the budget proposal. In April, indicative budget ceilings are communicated to line ministries and the line ministries submit draft annual work plans and budget proposals to the MoF. The government’s work plan is sent to Parliament for preliminary discussion in May. In June, the Parliament’s Budget Committee and government officials form working groups, and this is followed by discussions involving Parliament’s 11 sectorial commissions. These commissions hold meetings with the representatives of ministries corresponding to their sector, and at the end of the preliminary discussions, the Budget Committee takes over to discuss further the budgetary outline. July marks the issuance of the decree of the Minister of Finance on the budget ceiling, which is followed by the submission of the proposed budget and the supporting documentation to the Parliament in mid-August, when the President delivers his budgetary speech before the Parliament. From August until October, plenary sessions are held in the Parliament, and then the budget law is enacted in October/November.

The Citizens’ Budget is published in November. The checklists of budget implementation (DIPA) for each ministry/public agency are prepared and sent in December, leading up to the implementation of the budget, which starts the following year as of 1 January.

During the budget cycle, the MoF is responsible for developing the Executive Budget Proposal, authorising line ministries’ outlays, producing supplemental budgets and producing mid-year reports.

The consolidated Mid-Year report is issued in July, and End-Year reports of public-sector entities are issued in February of the following year.

In April of the following year, the consolidated, central government EndYear report is issued. The SAI publishes its End-Year audit report in June of the following year. Parliamentary discussions of End-Year reports begin in July of the following year.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

248 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Figure 6.4. Annual budget cycle of Indonesia1 Jan-Mar

• Preparation of fiscal capacity

Apr

• Indicative ceiling set by Ministry of Finance and Bappenas

May

• Submission of Macroeconomic Framework and Fiscal Policy Principles to the House of Representatives

May-Jul

• Discussion of preliminary draft budget

Jul

• Decree of the Minister of Finance on budget ceiling

Aug

• Speech of President of Finance and submission of proposed budget memorandum

Aug-Oct

Oct

Nov

• Discussions with Parliament • Plenary session establishment - draft state budget • State budget enacted into law

Nov

• Presidential regulation - details of the budget

Dec

• Submission of list of budget implementation

• Implementation of the budget • Ministry of Home Affairs regulation Next Year appears 1. Not including items and events due in year n+1, e.g. the audit of the budget.

Source: OECD work based on Budget Brief 2016, www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-2016.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 249

Budget deliberation As part of the budget approval process, the Budget Committee formally considers budget aggregates and sectoral committees review spending for sector-specific appropriations. There is a formal debate on overall budgetary policy following the introduction of the Executive’s budget proposal. The budget proposal includes the following elements:

•

fiscal policy objectives for the medium term

•

macroeconomic assumptions

•

budget priorities

•

comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and expenditures, including off-budget expenditures and extra-budgetary funds

•

comprehensive table of tax expenditures (exemptions, deductions and credits)

•

non-financial performance targets for programmes and/or agencies

•

medium-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (possibly in the form of a medium-term expenditure framework)

•

linkage of appropriations to administrative units (e.g. ministry, agency)

•

text of legislation for policies proposed in the budget.

The Budget Proposal is comprehensive and is broadly in line with the OECD recommendations. However, the compliance with the recommendations could be improved by including some additional budgetary documents in the Budget Proposal, such as:

•

comprehensive annual financial plans encompassing revenues and expenditures for all levels of government (including regional and local)

•

long-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (10 or more years)

•

clearly defined appropriations to be voted by the Legislature.

The Legislature votes first on the total expenditure and holds subsequent votes on specific appropriations. It may make amendments that do not change the total deficit/surplus proposed by the Executive; the Parliament approved 98.8% of spending proposed by the Government of Indonesia for the financial year 2016. The Parliament has the right to approve the budget; the GOI does not have the power to veto the approved budget.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

250 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA

Transparency in budget documentation In the annual budget documentation presented to the Legislature, new revenue-raising measures and new policies are distinguished from current commitments (see Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5. Format of the budget Budget in I format Revenue 1. Tax revenue 2. Non-tax revenue 3. Grant Expenditure 1. Central government ministry 2. Non-line ministry 3. Transfer to the regions 4. Village fund Primary balance Surplus/deficit budget Financing 1. Domestic financing a. Banking b. Non-banking 2. Foreign financing a. Gross loan withdrawal b. On-lending (SLA) Debt repayment Source: http://info-anggaran.com/.

Financial liabilities, state and municipal transfers and tax expenditure with estimates of revenue foregone are part of the budget documentation approved by the Legislature.

In Indonesia, the following budgetary information is publicly available through the MoF’s website and through government communiqué:

•

methodology and assumptions for establishing fiscal projections used in the budget

•

sensitivity analyses of fiscal and/or macroeconomic models

•

budget circular

•

executive budget proposal submitted to the Legislature

•

fiscal policy objectives for the medium term

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 251

•

comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and expenditures, including off-budget expenditures and extra-budgetary funds

•

medium-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (possibly in the form of a medium-term expenditure framework)

•

budget approved by the Legislature

•

citizens’ budget and guide (explaining the budgetary process and actors involved).

Notably, the Citizens’ Budget and other citizens’ guides such as the Citizen’s Audit Report play a key role in informing the public about what can often be opaque and technical topics.

In 2012, 16 OECD members reported preparing citizens’ budgets (see Figure 6.6). Indonesia has produced informative, reliable and understandable citizens’ budget documents in recent years as well. It is important to note that timeliness is a crucial element of publishing citizens’ guides and budgets, as publishing them early enough in the budget cycle can help enable citizens to develop informed opinions. In turn, this can engage more citizens throughout the budgeting process, potentially leading to greater inclusiveness.

Budgetary information encompasses a large number of areas in Indonesia. The content and the timing of some budget documents and other specific disclosures could be improved. The GOI could also increase budget transparency by providing:

•

independent assumptions

•

underlying data and methodology related to the (macro) economic assumptions

•

Pre-Budget Report to the Legislature

•

the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal

•

comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and expenditures for all levels of government (including regional and local)

•

the long-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (10 or more years).

reviews/analysis

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

of

macroeconomic

and/or

fiscal

252 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Figure 6.6. Use of citizens’ budgets in OECD countries in 2012

Countries without citizens' budgets (18)

United Kingdom

Countries with citizens' budgets (16)

Source: 2012 OECD Survey on Budgeting Practices and Procedures.

In 2015, a new financial management information system (SPAN) was launched by the Ministry of Finance of Indonesia with the goal of improving transparency, efficiency and accountability. The system serves as a centralised and integrated database of government financial transactions, providing accounting and reporting systems for budget execution in real time. As a tool for budget execution, it is appropriate for managing budget allocations, expenditure commitments and spending limits, i.e. providing comprehensive and timely information on the government’s financial position. With the improvement of public financial management, planning, decision making and resource allocation can all become more efficient.

Aggregated budget data provide useful information on budget allocations, realisation of expenditures per financial sector unit, transfers from central to local levels of government, etc. However, detailed information on each of these areas (concerning the recipients, where and how exactly budget allocations are spent, etc.) is not available. Publishing relevant, detailed and timely budget data on a single website of the Ministry of Finance would improve the quality and quantity of data and information OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 253

accessible to the public throughout the budget cycle. Continuing joint efforts of the MoF and CSOs regarding open budget data would involve developing an improved web-based solution to publish budget data in machine-readable and user-friendly format on both central and local government levels.

While the Ministry of Finance has decided to make aggregated budget data accessible at its official website2, other public agencies, such as line ministries, committees or local governments, decide independently whether to follow this practice. These public bodies are themselves users of budget and other financial management data through the SPAN system, and in some cases, detailed data are accessible through their websites. During the parliamentary budget approval process, access to information could be improved by introducing mandatory publication of minutes of meetings in committees and making the decisions taken at the meetings available to the public.

On the other hand, several good solutions are taking shape across Indonesia, and among these local initiatives, we find good practices that are potentially scalable. In Jakarta Province and Bojonegoro District, for example, the local governments have initiated the establishment of open budget data portals that link and use budget data as well as financial data of the Ministry of Finance (see Box. 6.1).

Executive-led participation The MoF holds public consultations and hearings on the budget prior to approval by the Legislature, while line ministries do not hold public consultations. The call for public hearings is published on the government’s website, in social media and by direct invitation. Making public consultations and public hearings a regular and recurring part of the budget formulation and approval processes would support a realistic debate on the trade-offs of the budget, and it has the potential to increase the credibility and trust in government.

Budget execution and re-allocations Limited re-allocation of funds is possible within the same programme/activity without compromising the output target of a line ministry, although line ministers need ex-ante approval of both the MoF and Parliament to re-allocate funds within or between activities/programmes.

Borrowing against future appropriations is not possible (i.e. line ministries and agencies cannot overspend in one year to cover operating and investment expenditures and compensate for it in the next year).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

254 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA In Indonesia, budget appropriations are often not exhausted by the of the financial year. Together with the application of a programme performance-based approach, this suggests the need for increasing flexibility of re-allocating funds within or between activities programmes.

end and the and

Public participation in budgeting in Indonesia Indonesia’s public finances include elements of public participation, although participation in national development planning is at a more advanced stage than participation in the budget cycle. Parliamentary engagement in budget deliberations is in line with the OECD recommendations, although public involvement is limited. The situation is similar concerning public participation in budget implementation and auditing.

This section first discusses the Musrenbang regional public consultation forum for development planning, an existing form of public participation in Indonesia that is related to the annual development planning process. In connection with the newly enacted Village Law, this section then presents the nascent system of participatory village planning, implementation and oversight. This is followed by a case study of a district government successfully implementing open and participative budgeting, as well as the participative elements of Indonesia’s Gender Budgeting framework.

Thereafter, the section touches on budget phases lacking a significant level of public involvement and presents good practices distilled mostly from other countries’ experiences. The section concludes with a few suggestions on how to increase citizen involvement throughout the budgeting process.

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN, the current one running 2005-25) and the National MediumTerm Development Plan (RPJMN, currently running 2015-19) both lay out the basis for the annual developmental planning and provide essential background to the budget process.

The annual developmental planning process starts with a first draft derived from the RPJMN. Bappenas, which is responsible for the strategic planning, prepares a draft annual plan at the beginning of the annual process and makes it available for the Musrenbang (the multi-stakeholder consultation for development planning). The Musrenbang process has a long track record, although it still has the potential to further increase civic involvement and social inclusiveness. Every year, from January until March (parallel to the start of the budgeting process), Musrenbang meetings take place, starting on the village level, continuing on the sub-district then on the local level (see Figure 6.7). The top row of the figure identifies the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 255

participants of the corresponding level of Musrenbang/forum, whereas the bottom row outlines the results and outputs of the actions taken.

Figure 6.7. Institutionalisation of participatory planning

Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.

After a reform on village funds implemented nationwide in 2015, the decision to prioritise and spend village-level budget appropriations is directly in the hands of the village assemblies (Musyarawarah Desa). The Village Law is mainstreaming the National Program on Citizen’s Empowerment (PNPM), a successful national programme for community empowerment run for 15 years that combined poverty reduction efforts with social accountability mechanisms. The Village Law re-allocated expenditures so that direct transfers received by the villages will be composed of 10% of districts’ fiscal balance funds, complemented by an additional 10% from the central government. The 10% transferred from the districts will be reached gradually over three years by 2017, increasing by three percentage points each year (see 2015 and 2016 in Figure 6.8.).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

256 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Figure 6.8. Transfers to regional development and village funds, 2005-16 Balance fund

Special Autonomy Fund

Other Transfer Funds

Dana Privileges DIY

Village fund

Regional Incentive Fund

Trillion IDR 800

700.4

700 600 500

411.3

400 300 200 100 0

430.4

222.1

278.7

244

287.3

316.7

477.1

347.2

143.2 1.8 5.5

3.5 0.6

4 5.3

7.5 6.2

9.5 11.8

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

9.1 18.9 10.4

2010

516.4

53.7

2011

12

57.4

2012

69.3 13.40.1

80.1 16.10.4

2013

2014

104.4 47 17.1 20.8 17.20.5 5 0.5

APBNP APBN 2015 2016

Note: 2015 and 2016 values are estimates taken from the corresponding budget documents.

Sources: OECD work based on Budget Brief 2016, www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn2016.

The village planning and budgeting process has to reflect the diversity of the local community and include representatives of marginalised people, women’s groups, religious leaders, farmers and fishermen. In order to strengthen inclusive governance for marginalised groups (such as people with disabilities, religious minorities and vulnerable youth), a group of facilitators runs a social inclusion initiative. In this programme, local CSO representatives receive training on how to bring the needs of marginalised groups from the village to the district level as well as how to identify their needs.

There is great potential in the village funds initiative with respect to inclusive and participative budgeting. However, since the Village Law does not regulate village financial management as a whole, it must be complemented by arrangements to ensure accountability, including the increase of local government oversight and co-ordination capacities. In the first years of implementation, it is crucial to monitor and analyse outcomes and include corrective mechanisms wherever necessary. Assistance provided by village facilitators, socialisation and training are critical to building up the necessary skills and good practices at the village level.

There is scope to increase further the inclusiveness of both the Musrenbang and the village funding mechanisms by eliminating obstacles facing certain sub-groups that may impede their participation in the public consultation. Work is already under way within the GOI and the Parliament OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 257

to address perceived issues in the national consultative framework. These initiatives include greater openness to the views of local representatives on how resources are applied in their areas. A deeper impact could be achieved through targeted training for local officials and citizens, leading to proposals that fit local needs better and complement national development programmes. Assisting certain sub-groups of the society (such as parents at home and citizens with disabilities) that face difficulties in attending meetings would promote the representative quality. Improving Internet access in rural areas as well as applying web-based solutions would also contribute to more active participation and inclusiveness.

Participation throughout the stages of the budgeting cycle is more limited than during the development planning process. Good practices for participative budgeting exist on the local level in Indonesia (see Box 6.1), which may be applied more broadly after adapting them to local needs and circumstances. In Indonesia, the Ministry of Finance sometimes holds public hearings on the budget prior to approval by the Legislature. Building on the leading role of the Indonesian MoF regarding budget transparency efforts, Executive-led participation processes could be an option to consider for budget implementation.

Box 6.1. Interaction of open and active participative budgeting in Bojonegoro District The Bojonegoro District government is among the pioneers in developing both open budget data as well as ongoing, active public participation practices in policy making, budgeting and public finance management. In order to implement the agenda of public dialogue and to provide access to information in budgeting, Bojonegoro District has applied a multi-faceted approach.

Specifically, the approach is to provide open budget information on multiple websites in areas such as budget management and disbursement orders, and to combine budget data from the national, province and local level to facilitate analysis and to encourage involvement of the stakeholders throughout the district.

Public engagement on budgetary issues is fostered by the use of a direct and in-person consultation opportunity every week at the Malowopati pavilion, as well as via the submission of ideas or complaints using one of the numerous facilities integrated with the LAPOR online service (including text messages to the Malowopati radio programme, complaint boxes, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc.). To ensure availability for people living in particularly remote or difficult-to-access areas, off-road motorbikes are used to visit these villages and listen to public opinion.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

258 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA

Box 6.1. Interaction of open and active participative budgeting in Bojonegoro District (continued) Apart from providing information, open budgeting and open information on policy making have various positive impacts. Reliable and up-to-date information on budgets can help encourage active participation in decision making and increase trust in governance. It may also lead to fewer mass demonstrations, more efficient and effective local governance, and increased user satisfaction.

During the implementation of public participation in budgeting, Bojonegoro District overcame a number of challenges, which may provide lessons for similar programmes across the country, including: 1) geographic conditions, i.e. mountainous regions that make it difficult to provide Internet access; 2) limited human resources with IT skills; and 3) coping with changes for public servants.

Source: OECD Questionnaire on Good practices in Public financial management with a focus on budget transparency submitted by Regency of Bojonegoro.

International examples demonstrate participative budgeting practices at different entry points of the budget cycle. Notably, in a number of countries, parliaments use their functions of passing legislation and providing oversight to engage citizens in the corresponding phases of the budgeting cycle. Key mechanisms include public committee hearings and asking for public input. Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom issue press releases to invite citizens to contribute. CSOs use additional tools such as focus groups, consultations and web-based outreach to expand public input.

The Korean Special Committee on Budgets (SCB) invites a pre-selected group of specialists (to ensure diversity of expertise) to a publicly broadcasted hearing, evaluating economic and tax forecasts, fiscal position and expenditure programmes. If necessary, the SCB then requests a query session with the government to make adjustments. One of the benefits of this system is its ability to disaggregate the budget and to focus on its key elements separately. Similarly, Indonesia could strengthen public participation by involving both the PBO and civil society in the legislative phase.

Civil society could also have an enhanced role in the legislative phase by having the right to submit alternatives to the proposed budget. In the Philippines, for example, accredited CSOs are involved as an intermediary in the legislative phase. Apart from being notified regarding hearings, consultations and calls for written submissions, accredited CSOs can submit budget proposals and alternatives to the proposed budget. They also have OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 259

access to data from the parliament, national government offices and local government units.

In the implementation phase, CSOs can provide citizen monitoring of ministries. One way of doing that is by having CSOs submit their reports to parliamentary committees that can question policy decisions on a real-time basis. If necessary, implementation can be adjusted mid-course in order to meet the objectives of the budget.

Executive-led participatory processes can also play an important role.

To ensure value for money in budgeting in Indonesia, the government could use LAPOR to collect suggestions and complaints related to the budget process. For its part, the Korean government created a Budget Waste Reporting Centre to allow citizens to report on inefficiencies experienced during budget implementation. This centre has high a capacity since its staff consists of retired budget officials who can send waste cases to relevant units and otherwise respond to calls efficiently. Also, the Korean Budget Office held a pilot competition on project ideas in 2012 that was publicised nationwide. Suggestions were transferred to the related agencies and checked for feasibility and the best ones were selected to be included in the budget.

Gender budgeting The gender perspective has become increasingly integrated into policy planning and implementation starting from the 2000s in Indonesia (see Table 6.2 for the primary legal documents related to budgeting). During this period, the Gender Responsive Budget (GRB) and the National Programme on Citizens’ Empowerment (PNPM) were introduced. GRB focuses on the output of its activities that are incorporated into the budgeting system.

Budgets are allocated to meet gender-responsive objectives, not as earmarked allocations for women and men separately.

The Indonesian Gender Mainstreaming Programme refers to: 1) consulting and training for the improvement of women’s position in health, education, politics, leadership and poverty, as well as for the reduction of violence against women; and 2) capacity building and skills enhancement on in women empowerment. The idea is to involve key stakeholders such as civil society, labour unions, academics and government representatives from all levels to build co-operation, management and accounting skills. This programme has been implemented in seven line ministries as pilot projects since 2009, including the Ministry of Finance.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

260 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Table 6.2. Legal framework for gender budgeting and participation in Indonesia Law/Regulation Presidential Instruction 9/2000 Law 17/2003 on National Public Finance Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governance Government Regulation 38/2007 on Division of Functions between national and subnational governments Presidential Regulation 5/2010 on Mid-term National Development Planning (RPJMN 2010-14) Ministry of Finance Decree on Guidance for Annual Working Plan and Budget since 2009 (the latest: #93/2011)

Relevance for gender budgeting Gender mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation for national and subnational governments Performance-based budgeting Empowerment of women is one of the obligatory functions for subnational governments Empowerment of women is one of the obligatory functions for subnational governments Gender mainstreaming is one of the instruments in development policy Implementation of gender mainstreaming via gender-based budgeting

The MoF has started implementation with a pilot programme within the ministry. Key priorities and achievements include introducing gender mainstreaming among the topics of leadership training; the improvement of facilities, including nursery rooms and childcare facilities; ensuring equal treatment on training and scholarships; and offering maternity leave.

Indonesia has also integrated the gender perspective into both developmental planning and budgeting. Gender Responsive Planning (GRP) feeds into GRB, in which allocations for programme activities are determined. Gender policies feature in long-term, mid-term and annual developmental planning, followed by the annual working plan and the budget.

Gender participation in budgeting is critical to cope with the challenges posed by the diverse cultural and traditional backgrounds in different regions. In Indonesia, CSOs are therefore actively promoting gender equality on both the national and local level. Nevertheless, gender participation depends on a regulatory framework and the implementation of mainstreaming to build on the active involvement of stakeholders. The primary issues raised are the provision of job opportunities, as well as equal access to education and health services. Female labour force participation is still low, albeit increasing, and the female share of formal employment is still lower than that of males.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 261

Women’s participation in land and forest governance Women in Indonesia are often more adversely affected by de-forestation and extractive industry expansion, yet women’s participation is very low in forest and land governance. Their traditional role within the community cannot be sustained with the deterioration of farming conditions due to displacement, loss of land and environmental impacts that result in increased dependence on men and the undermining of women’s productive and leadership roles. Women’s advocacy and participation in decision making and budgeting can mitigate these effects; however, complex solutions are needed that take into account ethnic diversity, offer training and formal employment, and allow for the sustainable production of non-timber forest products.

Enhancing women’s participation in decision-making committees in community forest institutions improves forest and land resource governance and resource allocation, with a positive impact also on the sustainability of forest and land resources (Agarwal, 2009). Additionally, Manfre and Rubin (2012) demonstrate that, during the de-centralisation process, women’s participation in forest governance mitigated the elites’ capability of capturing benefits and lead to improved access to budgeting processes on the district level. These findings point out that both budget transparency and public participation in budgeting can be promoted by increasing women’s participation in decision-making processes and natural resource management, in particular on the local level.

Compared with other sectors such as health, education or infrastructure, land and forest governance scores poorly regarding performance. A case study of nine districts (Land and Forest Governance Index, 2013) has found that the transparency of and participation in land and forest governance (including budget planning) are poor, with considerable dispersion (see Figure 6.9). It is clear from such results that participation in general is very poor, let alone women’s participation.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

262 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Figure 6.9. Land and forest governance index in selected districts 2012 Transparency Index North Kayong

Participation Index Berau

2.1

Berau

7.07

Bulungan

Paser

7.68

North Kayong

Sintang

11.4

Banyuasin

11.7

Kubu Raya

14.34

Muba

13.9

Kubu Raya

20.1 21.8

14.67

Mura

16.01

Banyuasin

Muba

17.17

Paser 40

60

80

100 Index

9.2 12.6

Mura

20

6.7

Sintang

Bulungan

0

5

23.9 26.6 0

20

40

60

80

100 Index

Source: OECD work based on Land and Forest Governance Index - The Performance of District Governments in Land and Forest Governance in Indonesia, 2013.

In Indonesia, environmental CSOs play an important role in addressing gendered impacts and injustice, and these organisations are necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable actors will benefit from forest and land governance. Various tools are used for understanding gendered impacts of land-based industry developments such as gender impact assessment and collection of sex disaggregated data, which in turn are combined with ethnographic research approaches and social analysis.

Strengthening the capacity of campaigners is crucial for the improvement of women’s access and participation in local decision-making processes, which can ensure the resolution of conflicts falling under the themes of gender budgeting and environmental sustainability in forest governance. Building on inter-sectoral interests, cross-sectoral co-ordination mechanisms could be strengthened, along with the capacity building and the improvement of access to information and the provision of opportunities for community participation.

Budgeting at subnational levels of government Currently, the central government, provinces, district/city governments and villages all have budget authority, and Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 13/2006 concerning “Guidelines for Management of Local Finances” establishes the procedures for formulating and adopting local government budgets (see Table 6.3 for the key local government budget documents).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 263

Table 6.3. Key local government budgetary documentation Planning phase

o o

Local government work plans (RKPD) Sectoral work plans of local government working units/departments (SKPDs) – three sectors: health, education, public works

Discussion phase

o

o

General Budget Policies (KUA) and provisional budget priorities and ceilings (PPAS) Budget and work plans of each local SKPD

Implementation phase

o o

o

o

o

o

Local regulation adopting local budget (APBD) Local head of government (HoG) regulation outlining details of APBD Budget implementation checklist (DPA) for each local SKPD Sectoral Budget Implementation Document (three sectors: health, education and public works) Local government regulation adopting revised local budget (APBD-P) Local HoG regulation providing details of APBD-P

Accountability phase

o

o

o

o

o

Report on first semester budget outcomes Local regulation on accountability of APBD implementation Information on report on implementation of local governance (ILPPD) Reports on implementation of local governance (LPPD) Local government accountability report (LKPJ)

Source: Fitra.

Processes at the local level mirror budget processes on the state level.

Most of the budget documents are not available for the public automatically, although data requests can be submitted. Ensuring that the implementation of the budget is followed by the various stakeholders and that their oversight is granted by using open budget data at the local and national level could strengthen social accountability and complement the oversight provided by the corresponding levels of government.

Indonesia faces distinct and far-reaching challenges in public governance arising from the geographical and cultural diversity of the country. In meeting these challenges, the GOI has pursued a policy of decentralisation and de-concentration. The budgetary aspects of this approach are still in development.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

264 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA On average, 80% of the budget of districts comes as transfer (Figure 6.10). Provinces have bigger taxing power than districts/cities. At the same time, most of human resources are employed at the state and district level, so this leads to using more than 70% of fiscal transfers for personnel expenditures (Figure 6.11). Fiscal transfers take into account regional imbalances, although per capita imbalances are significant.

Figure 6.10. Composition of revenue on subnational levels of government, 2008-12 % 100 90

Own source revenue 9

11

14

13

11

Fiscal transfer 12

14

18

16

Other revenue

16

10

11

10

10

44

43

42

40

46

46

49

20

80 70

34

60 50

85

83

40

80

80

82

77

74

69

67

66

30 20 10 0

6 2008

6 2009

7 7 6 2010 2011 2012 District Average

12

12

2008

2009

13

17

2010 2011 City Average

50

46

18 2012

2008

2009 2010 2011 Provincial Average

2012

Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.

Figure 6.11. Composition of expenditure on subnational levels of government, 2008-12 % 100 90 80 70

Personnel 9 29

26

17

18

60 50

9

10

8

Good and Services 8

7

Capital

4

7

7

5

19

20

21

19

20

21

21

23

24

25

24

16

18

18

19

22

40 30 20

45

47

53

51

51

49

49

55

53

2008

2009

2010 2011 2012 District Average

2008

2009

2010 2011 City Average

32

21

26

29

28

24

23

21

2012

21

26

24

26

25

24

24

25

2008

37

18

52

10 0

Other

2009 2010 2011 Provincial Average

24

20 2012

Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 265

The Musrenbang process could also be improved by providing access to information about indicative ceilings and programme priorities in a timely manner to inform stakeholders. The central government could also contribute to capacity development of district governments to support their oversight capacity to monitor the implementation of village funds.

Recommendations •

Improve the quality and quantity of data and information accessible to the public throughout the budget cycle.

− Continue joint efforts of the MoF and CSOs in building on earlier initiatives regarding the accessibility of budget data, in line with the plan of the GOI to apply open data principles to budgeting. The improved web-based solution aims to provide open budget data on both central and local government levels using one platform, meeting the needs of the various stakeholders. − Improve access to information about indicative ceilings and programme priorities in a timely manner to inform stakeholders of the Musrenbang process. − During the parliamentary budget approval process, make the working sessions of the committees transparent, including the mandatory publication of minutes of meetings, data and decisions taken.

•

Strengthen public participation in the budget cycle.

− Increase the co-operation between the PBO and civil society organisations, for example by providing opportunities to comment on the economic forecasts. − Improve the representativeness and inclusiveness of Musrenbang. − Make public consultations and public hearings a regular and recurring part of the budget formulation and approval processes.

Specifically, this could include granting public access to the submission of budget and other budget-related meetings of the Parliament. − Invite external stakeholders to participate in the discussions of the Budget Committee by allowing them to contribute to the draft of the budget proposal at each stage and otherwise comment on the records of the proceedings.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

266 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA − Allow, through a regulated mechanism, for accredited/pre-selected CSOs to submit alternative suggestions to the budget. − During the parliamentary budget approval process, make the sessions of the committees open to the public.

•

Improve the content and the timing of the budget documents.

− Make available the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal. This would facilitate stakeholders in engaging in a realistic and constructive debate. − Publish the Citizens’ Budget as early as possible so that it can engage more citizens throughout the budgeting process, potentially leading to greater inclusiveness in determining budget priorities.

•

Improve the monitoring and oversight of village funds, involving social monitoring as well as district-level oversight mechanisms.

•

Open the audit process to public engagement through regular reporting of audit results and soliciting the views of stakeholders on the quality and impacts of public spending. This would enhance confidence in the integrity and efficacy of public financial management.

•

Use the momentum of trust in local governments and their adaptability for speeding up the transition toward open budgeting and governance.

− Promote the development of a standardised framework of solutions facilitating and enabling the dissemination of innovations and best practices. − Strengthen the monitoring of local government by encouraging the participation of local stakeholders.

•

Promote the internalisation of certain principles for public servants.

Instead of minimising risk-taking by, for example, not spending budget appropriations, governments should adopt a practice of gradual experimentation with a view to arriving at optimal solutions.

•

Continue efforts to implement participative gender budgeting and other thematic approaches to the budget.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 267

Notes

1.

See Law number 25 of 2004.

2.

www.kemenkeu.go.id.

References Agarwal, B (2009), ‘Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance’, Ecological Economics vol. 68, pp. 2785–2799.

Anggriani, N. (2016), Indonesia’s Village Law: A Step Toward Inclusive Governance, 17 February, Asia Foundation, http://asiafoundation.org/inasia/2016/02/17/indonesias-village-law-a-step-toward-inclusivegovernance/.

The Asia Foundation (2012), Gender in Indonesia, https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/IDgender.pdf.

Australian Aid (2012), Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-poor Policy: The Knowledge Sector Initiative, Design Document, https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks-design.pdf.

Blöndal, J. et al. (2009), “Budgeting in Indonesia”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2009/2, www.oecd.org/indonesia/45362389.pdf.

Farhan, Y. (2013), Participatory Planning and Budgeting in Indonesia, Bonn Symposium, 28-29 November, www.sefbonn.org/fileadmin/Die_SEF/Veranstaltungen/BoSy/2013_bosy_farhan_ presentation_en.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

268 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA Hadi, S. (2015), The Role of CDD and Village Law in Promoting Village Development and Community Empowerment in Indonesia: Best-Practice, Mainstreaming, Implications, Implementation, and Challenges, Asia Regional Conference on Community Driven Development Cebu, Philippines, 25 March.

House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), www.dpr.go.id/en/akd/komisi.

IMF (2010), Indonesia: Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes – Fiscal Transparency Module – Update, IMF Country Report No. 10/342, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10342.pdf.

Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (2014-2015), Website Development: (info-budget.com), http://info-anggaran.com/, www.seatti.org/index.php/partner/68-sekretariat-nasional-forumindonesia-untuk-transparansi-anggaran-indonesian-forum-for-budgettransparency.html.

H.E. Muhammad Jusuf Kalla (2015), Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia, Global Leaders’ Meeting on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A Commitment to Action, New York, 27 September, www2.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/initiatives/ stepitup/commitments-speeches/indonesia-stepitup-commitmentspeech201509-en.pdf?v=1&d=20150928T213346.

Manfre, C. and Rubin, D. (2012), Integrating gender into forestry research: a guide for CIFOR scientists and programme administrators, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Marchessault, L. (2015), Public participation and the budget cycle: lessons from country examples, Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency, www.fiscaltransparency.net/resourcesfiles/files/20151116137.pdf.

Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), Launch of Treasury System and the State Budget (SPAN) and Guidance to the declaration of taxpayer (2015), www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/node/45607.

Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (2016), Budget Brief 2016, www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-2016.

Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), Budget data, www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/katalogdata.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 269

OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/ Recommendation-of-the-Council-on-Budgetary-Governance.pdf.

OECD (2012), Budget Practices and Procedures Survey for Asian Countries.

OECD (2005), Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/ 4205101e.pdf.

OECD (2002), OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Best%20Practices%20Budget%20Transpa rency%20-%20complete%20with%20cover%20page.pdf.

OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners : OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

Petrie, M. and Shields, J. (2010), “Producing a Citizens’ Guide to the Budget: Why, What and How?” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2010/2.

Rahman, Y. et al, The Asia Foundation (2014), Land and Forest Governance Index: The Performance of Local Governments in Land and Forest Governance in Indonesia, https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/LandandForestGovernanceInde x.pdf.

Regency of Bojonegoro, Province of East Java (2015), Implementation of Public Dialogue and Open Public Information; Integrated Public Aspiration System with Online Public Aspiration Service, (mimeo).

Sinergantara (2014), Open Data Initiative of Ministry of Finance – on National Budget Transparency in Indonesia, www.opendataresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/Open%20Data %20Initiative%20of%20Ministry%20of%20Finance%20on%20National %20Budget%20Transparency%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.

World Bank (2015), Indonesia: Centralized Database of Government Financial Transactions Improves Budget Spending and Accountability, Press Release, www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2015/11/11/indonesia-centralized-database-of-governmentfinancial-transactions-improves-budget-spending-and-accountability.

World Bank (2015), Indonesia: New financial management information system at Finance Ministry to improve transparency, efficiency and OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

270 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA accountability, Press Release, www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2015/04/29/new-financial-management-information-system-atfinance-ministry-to-improve-transparency-efficiency-and-accountability.

World Bank (n.d.), A1.35. Working with the Legislature to Promote Budget Transparency, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1193949504055/43480351380737852287/EAP.pdf.

World Bank (n.d.), A1.36. Using Budgets to Advocate for Expanding Health Security for the Disabled, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/2443621193949504055/4348035-1380737852287/EAP.pdf.

World Bank (n.d.), A1.37. Improving Websites of Targeted Ministries to Increase Public Knowledge of Government Spending, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Reso urces/244362-1193949504055/4348035-1380737852287/EAP.pdf.

World Bank Group (2015), Indonesia Country Summary Brief – Village Law, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCDD/Resources/4301601435154813801/Indonesia_Country_Brief.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 271

Chapter 7 Public-sector innovation in Indonesia

This chapter provides an overview of how the Government of Indonesia has used innovative approaches and tools to help drive open government reforms. It broadly defines public-sector innovation and lays out some of the challenges and barriers facing governments in their efforts to pursue innovation. The chapter also discusses the institutional framework that supports innovation in Indonesia, provides an overview of successful publicsector innovation practices in Indonesia and suggests how the country might build on them as it expands its open government reforms.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

272 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA

Introduction Innovation in the public sector is about getting the most out of the resources and capacities invested in the public sector in order to deliver on the promise of better outcomes for all. It goes beyond just improving the direct performance or output of the organisation itself, and includes actions to strengthen the capacity of citizens, businesses and other public-sector institutions to become agents of change. Innovating means finding ways to enhance trust in government and confidence in public services in an effort to attain wider legitimacy of policy results by involving citizens and the third sector in the innovation process, and these core principles of innovation are supported by the Open Government Partnership.

The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) has been engaged in systematic collection of data and analysis of government innovation in order to better understand the role of innovation in promoting transparency and reforms, making governments more inclusive and open and restoring citizen trust in governments and market institutions (Box 7.1).

Beyond collecting instances of innovations, the Observatory has fostered the creation of a community of practice of innovators who gather together, exchange ideas and discuss how to work differently.

Box 7.1. The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) Launched in 2014, the OPSI platform (www.oecd.org/governance/ observatory-public-sector-innovation/home/) includes a database of 282 innovations from 37 countries, including Indonesia.

The database of innovations includes a description of the innovation, the results, the development process, and lessons learned. By providing a consistent and clear structure for presenting innovations, the database provides a useful platform for comparisons and knowledge sharing. Cases can also be sorted by, among other variables, level of government; sector; year of launch; type of innovation (including digital, organisational design, etc.); and implementation and development partners.

In addition to the case list, the OPSI also provides a library with relevant research on public-sector innovation from a range of sources, including the OECD, national governments, academia and research institutions, as well as information on upcoming events and articles posted by internationally recognised experts.

Source: OPSI.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 273

While there is not an established definition of public-sector innovation, the work of the Observatory has identified common elements that help clarify some of its key characteristics: 1.

Novelty – an innovation must be either new to the organisation or a significant improvement on an existing practice.

2.

Implementation – an innovation must be implemented and not just an idea.

3.

Impact – an innovation must specifically aim to improve public results, such as efficiency, effectiveness, or user or employee satisfaction.

Innovation is widespread within and across levels of government; however, the policy framework supporting public-sector innovation is still fragmented. The OECD has recognised the instrumental role that effective co-ordination of public-sector innovation efforts play in overcoming fragmentation and “silos”; ensuring replicability and transferability of experience across departments and agencies; and enabling top-down and bottom-up dissemination of innovative ideas – not least from frontline staff.

In OECD countries, there is no single model for co-ordinating and supporting public-sector innovation efforts. Countries have adopted different solutions depending on their institutional circumstances, degree of decentralisation of governing functions and formal allocation of publicsector reform portfolios.

Regarding the link between innovation and open government, it is important to note that the OGP Open Government Declaration commits countries to “engaging civil society and the business community to identify effective practices and innovative approaches,” as well as to “fostering innovation and spurring progress.”1 Furthermore, as noted in the OECD’s theory of change, used to frame its analysis of open government reforms (see Figure 1.13 in Chapter 1), innovation is one of the policy catalysts that help drive successful change. If appropriately applied, innovation can increase the openness of government, the impact of policy reforms and the reach of government initiatives. By enhancing the involvement on the part of citizens, businesses, public officials and civil society, innovation can directly support open government principles.

This chapter explores how the Government of Indonesia has developed innovative approaches and tools with a focus on enhancing transparency and quality of public service delivery. It will provide examples of innovative solutions in the Indonesian public sector and discuss the policy and legal environment supporting innovation efforts in the country. The chapter will place these efforts in the context of past and current administrative reforms OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

274 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA in the country and of current public-sector innovation trends in OECD countries.

Institutional framework to support innovation in Indonesia In many countries, innovations in service delivery have targeted efforts to increase the access, quality and transparency of services, and to strengthen new forms of collaboration with actors from across society in the co-design and co-creation of innovative solutions. Similar to other countries, these efforts in Indonesia have been the fruit of a combined process of gradual adaptation and of accelerated development of new solutions tailored to the country’s administrative context and needs. While progressing in its reform agenda, Indonesia is facing the challenge of strengthening the institutional capacity of public-sector organisations to learn from and replicate international good practice while developing their own innovative solutions based on their own needs.

Interviews held during the peer review mission indicated that there is not a common understanding as to what constitutes public-sector innovation across the various parts of the national government. The notion of an innovation policy is often associated with other public-sector reform agendas (e.g. see Chapter 5 on digital government). Similar to many OECD countries, Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government policy on fostering innovation in the public sector. This is consistent with OECD country practices, where few countries have developed overarching strategies for innovation in the public sector or provided details on co-ordinated action to generate and sustain innovation (see Box 7.2 for examples from OECD countries of governments that have thought strategically about their support for public-sector innovation). Public-sector innovation tends to exist as part of the body of practice of governments, often with a low degree of institutionalisation within budget plans and procedures.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 275

Box 7.2. Examples of dedicated strategies to support innovation The following cases highlight examples from OECD countries of efforts made to develop policies and frameworks for supporting public-sector innovation.

Finland has long taken a strategic approach to innovation, focusing on the private sector and on new technology, to build economic capacity and growth. In 2008, it developed a national innovation strategy that moves beyond existing technological models of innovation and gives greater importance to the role of the public sector itself as an innovator. The strategy identified the need to enhance the innovation capacity of the public sector and to incentivise significant change and promote risk taking.

In Australia, the public-sector innovation policy landscape builds on longstanding efforts undertaken by the Australian government to build a framework for embedding innovation in its work and achieving better outcomes.

In 2009, the report Empowering Change: Fostering Innovation in the Australian Public Service looked at the ‘state of play’ for innovation in Australia and identified barriers that public servants face when innovating. The report looked at the sources of innovation and at the actors who can help design, implement and deliver change. It outlines what agencies, team, and individuals can do to foster innovation. The report made twelve recommendations grouped into the following five themes: strategy and culture; leadership; systemic/structural issues; resourcing and managing innovation in the Australian Public Service (APS); and recognition, sharing and learning. More broadly, the annual Australian Innovation System Reports explore the impact of innovation and related activities on business, industry and national performance and build on the commitment by the Australian Government in Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century. The APS Innovation Action Plan 2011 was endorsed at the highest levels of the APS, and in it can be found the principles and actions to be taken to achieve a more innovative public sector built around citizen engagement and new methods for service delivery. In July 2015, Departmental Secretaries endorsed a public-sector innovation agenda which strongly emphasises connecting public servants to one another to share ideas and experiences, and at the same time it fosters initiatives to share, develop, test and grow good ideas.

Source: OECD.

The framework enabling innovation in Indonesia encompasses both the legal provisions and strategic plans that reinforce the development of innovative solutions in government:

•

Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Services and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the Civil Service provide a context for government action to increase the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

276 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA quality of public services and enhance the flexibility and transparency of the civil service. Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government promotes decentralisation and provides a framework to guide innovation-oriented actions by regional governments. The country’s movement away from centralised management has allowed motivated and capable local governments, especially those with a strong commitment from regional leaders, to develop and pursue successful public-sector innovations (Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi, 2014).

More recently, Law No. 23 of 2014 on local government offered further support for innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators in case of failure.

•

The country’s strategy documents reference innovation as central to the government’s efforts to reform the public sector and instrumental to achieve its broader transparency goals. Notably, the National MediumTerm Development Plan 2015-19 highlights public innovation as instrumental to improving the quality of public services and moving towards greater transparency and enhanced accountability. The plan’s provisions regarding public administration and open government reforms place emphasis on efforts to identify new ways to provide information to the public, on the development of e-government systems, and on the strengthening of public participation in formulating public policy. The current administration’s government programme (Nawa Cita), also commits the government to encouraging innovation and the development of information and communication technology.

•

In addition, the OGP 2014-15 Action Plan recognises the contribution of innovation to help “unlock Indonesia’s potential in the economy, public services and innovation”. The OGP Action Plan also specifically notes that one of the plan’s goals, to increase the availability of open data, will encourage innovation, in addition to enhancing public services and fostering economic growth.

While there are several initiatives that identify and acknowledge publicsector innovation at the central government level in Indonesia, these efforts appear to be isolated, and formal structures for ensuring the co-ordination of innovation from a central government perspective are not yet in place. A number of actors play a role in this space:

•

The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemPAN) has a central role in providing incentive programmes for innovations and facilitates knowledge sharing. The Ministry has launched Public Service Innovation competitions for public-sector organisations with the goal of collecting, disseminating and enhancing the replicability of innovative OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 277

solutions (see Box 7.3 for a description of additional examples of innovation competitions). The One Agency One Innovation Initiative – developed in collaboration with Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) – supports national and local institutions in documenting and sharing their best practices.

Box 7.3. Public-sector innovation awards – selected examples A common means of promoting the spread of best practices is the use of innovation awards to promote innovation in the public administration and other sectors. The use of awards can also influence staff motivation and shape organisational culture. There are a number of such awards that bring together and share examples of innovation, including:

• The Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Sector Management, which aim to encourage and recognise better practices and innovation at all levels of the government in Australia, and are designed to honour the achievements of public-sector work groups, units or teams rather than individuals. The awards – administered by the Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA) and facilitated by the ACT Division, focus on specific initiatives that are the result of methodical and sustainable approaches to improving an organisation's practices in client satisfaction, leadership, people management, change management, planning, governance and innovation. In 2016, the IPAA will also separately present its annual Australia Public Service Awards to recognise innovations being implemented.

• The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) Award for Innovative Management recognises innovators in the public service in Canada. Sponsored by IBM, the IPAC Award for Innovative Management recognises government organisations whose innovations address the wide variety of issues in society. The award also encourages innovation across all levels of government, and provides employees the opportunity to share ideas with each other. The award focuses on innovations that advance knowledge management systems and structures, enhance the use and management of public funds, improve transparency, accountability and responsiveness, and increase public participation.

Discussions among innovation award leaders at the OPSI conference in November 2014 indicated that to realise the potential benefits of innovation awards, it is important to consider what sort of incentives all entrants (both winners and losers) to innovation award schemes should receive. This includes training to improve and expand projects, feedback, coaching and visibility.

Rewarding the replication of existing innovations in new sectors and contexts could also help inspire others and promote better learning across the public sector.

Source: OECD.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

278 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA •

The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the local government development and, through the National Institute of Public Administration (LAN), for training civil servants. The ministry prepares legislation concerning local government affairs. A draft regulation on local innovation is currently being prepared, touching on issues related to public services and community empowerment. Discussions with officials in the ministry highlighted that central government representatives understand the challenges involved in promoting innovation at the local level, though they noted that the clarity of the structure for co-ordinating interventions among different institutions and supporting capacities of local entities are two major areas where improvements are needed.

•

As the training centre for civil servants, LAN is responsible for conducting capacity development programmes for newly recruited public servants (up to the Director General level) and for trainers.

Presidential Regulation 57 also gives LAN an additional role in the promotion of an innovation culture in the public administration.

Recently, LAN has developed new programmes (“Innovation Laboratories”) aimed at supporting local government in its efforts to become more innovative. The Lab uses a five-step methodology to “drum up, diagnose, design, deliver, display” innovations to train local government civil servants to innovate. The programme started in 2014 and so far has been rolled out to five provinces. LAN has also developed and maintains a database of innovations in local governments (currently with 160 entries) and organises a gathering for “innovation champions” each year.

•

The Executive Office of the President has a broad role in co-ordinating and ensuring the harmony of policies in a range of policy areas included in the government agenda. It was suggested that a stronger co-ordination role in this area could help provide policy guidance to other organisations to foster innovation and its diffusion as well as develop innovation in the policy-making process (Ministry of National Development Planning, 2014).

Barriers to public-sector innovation As discussed above, Indonesia has a general framework of laws and institutions that support innovation, though without the systematic or strategic approach that is most clearly associated with government-wide innovation initiatives. In large part, the same barriers to innovation that confront public administrations globally also encumber the GOI;

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 279

specifically, these barriers to innovation can be broken down according to the environment in which they operate:

•

Barriers that arise from within the bureaucracy/organisation: These take the form of a lack of sufficient human or financial resources, lack of management support, a risk-averse culture within the organisation, staff resistance, and a lack of incentives to innovate in the organisation as a whole or for individual staff members. Obstacles may also be of an inter-organisational nature, stemming from difficulties in co-ordinating organisations, potentially due to turf wars and “silos”.

•

Barriers that arise primarily in the political environment: These include inadequate funding/resources, budgetary rules, legislative or regulatory constraints, a lack of incentives for organisations to innovate and political opposition as well as a lack of political commitment.

•

Barriers that exist in the external environment: This refers to uncertainty in terms of which innovations will be accepted and the prospect of general public scepticism or even opposition. Being subject to media scrutiny might also curb the willingness to take chances, as might conflicting external interests and difficulties in reaching the programme’s target group.

To overcome these barriers, OECD research points to four main dimensions that constitute an operating framework to support innovation in the public sector. It is toward these dimensions that efforts should be directed to strengthen organisations’ capacities to innovate (OECD, 2015):

•

People: How civil servants are motivated within an organisational setting to explore new ideas and experiment with new approaches, and how this affects their propensity to innovate. Leadership and the way staff are selected, rewarded, socialised and managed also shapes an organisation’s innovative capacity.

•

Data, information and knowledge: These elements are essential to innovation, and the way they are managed can support or hinder innovation. The challenge is to build the capacity to pool available knowledge to improve public decisions about innovative solutions and to share knowledge to encourage social innovation.

•

Organisational design: The way work is structured within and across organisations may have an impact on innovation in the public sector.

This includes the development of spaces and innovative methods to structure teams, break down silos and work in partnerships across organisations and even sectors.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

280 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA •

Rules and processes: Formal and informal rules, processes and procedures that guide the daily operations of public agencies may provide an architecture that either creates a flexible environment for innovation, or one that results in a web of complexity, hindering the capacity to innovate.

In each of these areas, governments can use a mix of different polices and tools to lower barriers that exist at all government levels, from the top of the policy-making hierarchy down to service delivery. An aspect of this is incentive structures, both for individuals and the organisation itself. It has been argued that there is a prevalent tradition of higher penalties for failed innovations than rewards for successful ones in the public sector. As discussed in Box 7.4, motivating professional public servants to be innovative requires careful consideration of the range of incentives and disincentives that operate simultaneously within an organisation.

Box 7.4. Factors related to employee motivation Many central governments face significant challenges in motivating innovative behaviour from their employees. Some of these challenges are rooted in the bureaucratic nature of public-sector organisations. For example, multiple levels of hierarchy often separate staff from the decision-making level, and the administrative nature of many of the jobs can result in a feeling of removal from the impact of their work. Some of these challenges result from the public and political nature of the work. Other examples of factors that can influence employee incentives include:

• Extrinsic factors: These factors can include the way that pay is structured; the way promotions are granted; the quality of relationships among staff and management; the way teamwork is used; and the way effort is recognised.

• Intrinsic factors: Motivation can be affected by, for example, the way that staff are made aware of the impact of their work; how close they are to the beneficiaries of the policies that they develop; and how they see value created as a result of their ideas and their labour.

Source: OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative in the Public Sector: Setting an Agenda for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236561-en.

Interviews with government officials in Indonesia’s central government indicated that the lack of an incentive system to motivate public officials to innovate, the lack of co-ordination among different parts of the government, OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 281

and limited integration with other policies are the main barriers to innovation. A lack of technical guidance and of accepted standard operating procedures has also been flagged as a barrier facing government innovators at the local government level. Mechanisms that allow governments to pool resources to fund innovations (e.g. central innovation funds) were said to be missing, as well. The Ministry of Interior is looking into developing partnership models to encourage government, community groups and the private sector to come together to provide technical assistance and funding mechanisms. For example, the law on companies’ social responsibility already provides such a legal framework, but its application to innovation financing has not yet been fully examined.

The role of networks of innovators Spreading information across organisations and units is an important part of increasing their innovative potential and helping identify ideas and promising practices for common learning. Systems to spread innovative ideas are often linked to the practice of innovation awards (see above) but can also be formalised in knowledge management systems.

In Indonesia, networks of innovators bringing together different entities have emerged over the last few years in an effort to increase knowledge sharing and exchange of experiences to overcome a siloed mentality, recognise and reward positive behaviours and foster a culture of participation and innovation in public service delivery. The Ministry of Interior has fostered the creation of informal networks to support the interaction of local public officials, with the participation of private sector and CSOs. Given that public servants often do not have experience talking to the private sector or community representatives because of established norms and rules, informal mechanisms outside the Ministry have been established to work around these bottlenecks. The network encompasses 220 periphery locations which provide support (training, capacity building, and use of IT) to local innovators and support documentation of their innovation experience. Networks across public entities have also emerged. For example, KEMPAN, LAN, the Ministry of Home Affairs, BBPT (Technology application and research and development agency), LP3AI (Independent body to promote innovation in economy) and GiZ are working together to develop an innovation hub that is expected to help foster the harmonisation of regulations and policies in the area of innovations.

Furthermore, many efforts to develop networks for the sharing of good practices and learning have emerged from the co-operation between Indonesia and the donor community. Through its Transformasi programme, GiZ has been working to build public service innovation networks in OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

282 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA selected regions to improve frontline services by fostering joint learning from innovations and providing stakeholders with new tools to innovate.

The network in East Java, for instance, includes ministries, the provincial government and development partners in the promotion of learning from the local to the national level and works to strengthen evidence-based policy making. The network seeks to foster teamwork, experimentation, evidencebased decisions and user-centred design (see Figure 7.1 below).

Figure 7.1. East Java Province Public Sector Innovation Network

Further analysis will need to be conducted to better assess the barriers to innovation in the public sector.

Successful practices in public-sector innovation in Indonesia Innovation can help countries achieve many of the key objectives related to building an open and inclusive government, including increasing the availability of information about governmental activities; fostering civic participation; and harnessing the potential of new technology for greater accountability.

OECD member countries have taken a variety of approaches to the use of innovation to increase the transparency and the performance of their OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 283

public services, ranging from service integration and user tailoring to participatory design and electronic delivery. Many innovations use a mix of tools for maximum impact. For example, digital technology tools are often used as part of a partnership in delivery with citizens or service users.

Innovation at the national level In Indonesia, the OECD identified numerous efforts across the public sector to use innovation to enhance the transparency and availability of public information. An example of this is the “hajj” application system, which manages citizen requests for pilgrimages to Mecca. The app – developed by the Ministry of Religion - helps citizens to manage the online application process and provides information related to prayers, religious performances and locations, buildings, hotels, transportation and medical services (see the chapter 5 on digital government).

Another example of increased transparency through innovation is the Ministry of Trade’s monitoring of commodity prices. The system allows the government to produce constant and real-time information on the prices of basic commodities. The data input on prices is not fully automated, as it still requires human input, but this already represents a step forward by linking policy making to real-time data collection.

The use of ICTs to modernise traditionally front-line bureaucratic processes in government service delivery is one key feature of the innovation landscape in Indonesia. With about 70% of the country’s Ministry of Public Works funds for central and regional projects awarded via tenders, and with the geographical difficulties the country faces due to its archipelagic nature, the e-procurement system – Data Management Centre – has helped to address issues of accessibility, transparency, and effectiveness, particularly in remote regions. A more simplified and transparent online procurement process has reduced transportation and processing costs, opening up the system to allow a wider range of potential bidders to take part in official tenders.

Innovation at the local level While the examples below do not provide general lessons regarding the systematic role of innovation across the Indonesian government, they do highlight the types of programmes the government and citizens prioritise.

Additionally, a number of innovations at the subnational level focus on providing more effective responses to public needs and to rising expectations. The practices in these examples aim to draw in both the citizens and the market dynamics that can sometimes fall outside the reach of government service systems through better accessibility and improved OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

284 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA and more transparent service delivery. Transparency and a reduction in bureaucracy have also been improved using ICTs in five examples affecting citizens and business directly: an Internet-connected mobile land permit unit; an online passport simplification and modernisation application process; a licensing services programme for businesses; a programme to encourage birth certificate ownership for children; and a local government public information and complaint service.

•

The land permitting process in Karanganyar Regency in Central Java Province was inconvenient and difficult to access given the regency’s large geographical distances, poor transportation infrastructure and lengthy bureaucratic processes. This made it difficult for citizens to access any centralised service, resulting in a low rate of certification of land ownership. The regency created a mobile land office housed in sports utility vehicles or vans offering services that were previously only offered on-site in the Karanganyar Land Office, in order to bring frontline services directly to citizens. Called LARASITA, these mobile units reduced the difficulty and number of visits required by citizens to obtain land permits by visiting villages on pre-announced dates, and by accessing and processing information in real time through the physical land registry’s ICT system. This resulted in an increase in productivity in issuing documents and an increase in the number of end users, as well as an increase in accessibility through direct contact with applicants.

•

The South Jakarta immigration office initiated and promoted an online passport simplification and modernisation process, improving a citizen service that was often slow, unpredictable, cumbersome and prone to corruption by middlemen. By implementing a first-come firstserve policy through an electronic queueing system, the online passport applications and payment process became more reliable and predictable, resulting in an increase of 10 000 citizens using the service from 2012 to 2013, and a 5% increase in public satisfaction.

•

Licensing services for businesses in Barru, a rural district in South Sulawesi, involved a long and complex process, until the local government transferred and consolidated licensing authority for 129 types of permits from 14 different government departments in a One Stop Shop. By streamlining and deregulating business licensing services while bringing standards up to the national level, the number of valid business permits increased from 26% to 45% in 2011 to 2013. With a reduction of 70% in the types of required business licenses and the implementation of the One Stop Shop, the licensing process time was reduced by 50%. Surveys also indicated an increase in customer satisfaction from 77.3% in 2012 to 82% in 2013.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 285

•

The Children Incentive Card in Surakarta City encourages birth certificate ownership among children under the age of 17 from vulnerable economic backgrounds by providing access to targeted public and private services including health insurance and scholarships. The improved online and in-person application has led to a 40% increase in the number of users from 2009 to 2013, and to a decrease in the length of time needed to receive a card from 30 to five days.

•

A public information and complaint service unit in the City of Yogyakarta was created through an ICT-driven feedback mechanism and management instrument to allow citizens to ask for information or submit a complaint online, by SMS, phone, or letter. With the dramatic growth of mobile phone penetration, online and text message services have become increasingly important for service delivery and citizen engagement. The city government receives 10-15 complaints or requests daily and responds within 2-6 working days. A Community Satisfaction Index survey has shown that this improved process has resulted in nearly 97% citizens viewing the tool as easy or very easy to access.

Innovation for social outcomes The review has also identified innovations in service delivery for improved social outcomes. These innovations have been effective in addressing the needs of economically deprived youth through leveraging local inputs, as well as through the use of co-production schemes and the involvement of service users in delivering outcomes. For example:

•

The district administration of Luwu Utara uses a participatory approach to address uneven teacher distribution between urban and rural areas, which resulted in inequitable education services. A lack of data regarding the impact of teacher shortages and a corresponding lack of political will or public support for the redistribution of teachers prevented the government from addressing the issue. By conducting an in-depth analysis of teacher distribution and forming a multi-stakeholder forum between government, communities, and NGOs, a pilot programme to reassign 165 primary and secondary school teachers was made possible through engagement, promotion, and public oversight of the issue.

•

Maternal and infant mortality rates were improved in Aceh Singkil through a pilot partnership programme involving local Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) and medically-trained midwives. The initiative aimed to connect the well-respected and trusted TBAs to the midwives who were often considered too young and inexperienced or were unable to speak the local language, particularly in cases where complications

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

286 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA put the mother or infant’s health at risk. The number of births attended by both a midwife and a TBA increased from 5% to 27% in three Aceh Singkil villages from 2012 to 2014, making professional healthcare services accessible to women and babies in the region.

The innovations listed above provide a good start and help identify a path forward for building on innovation in Indonesia. The diversity of sectors represented by the programmes and the numerous examples from subnational governments, furthermore, may help enable the government to benefit from continuous learning and may allow ideas to be developed and re-developed to ensure a good fit more broadly.

Recommendations This review has identified the following as key recommendations regarding development of innovation in the public sector in Indonesia:

•

Innovation happens across the country and innovation efforts are being recognised and rewarded. However, the government has not implemented systems and procedures to ensure that this innovation takes a more permanent hold, nor are there mechanisms to systematically exchange good experiences across the public sector. The GOI should consider taking a structured approach to identifying and tackling the barriers to innovation and its diffusion in the public sector. Detailing a vision and plan of action with interventions could create momentum to support a change agenda and ensure buy-in and support of responsible entities during implementation.

•

The predominant rule-based administrative culture in Indonesia works against experimentation and risk-taking, both of which are core elements of innovation. Innovation needs to be insulated from changes in the policy cycle by, for example, identifying formal structures for ensuring co-ordination at the central government level. Indonesia might want to consider approaches to innovation co-ordination and promotion emerging from the experience of other countries (e.g. innovation units, inter-agency committees, and innovation strategies) while considering appropriate adjustments to fit the administrative complexity and challenges of the country.

•

The potential to expand the successful experiences with networks of service delivery units (e.g. Ministry of Health’s network of primary carers) from the local to national level could be further examined.

Indonesia might want to reflect on possible approaches to replicating experiences from the local level on the national level, looking at the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 287

drivers for scaling and potential benefits for diffusion of successful initiatives at the national level.

•

The role of institutions such as LAN in building capacity at the local level for public-sector innovation should be clarified.

•

Within the overall context of its commitment to open government reforms and its membership in the OGP, Indonesia could consider prioritising the inclusion of innovative open government practices in its OGP Action Plans. By doing so, the government could build on the considerable momentum for open government initiatives to better streamline innovation across the public sector.

Notes

1.

See www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration.

References The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi (2014), Study on Sustainable Innovations and Good Practices of District/City Governments Winning Autonomy Awards in East Java (2004-2013).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2014), Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019, (Indonesian), National MediumTerm Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go.id/ index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968 (accessed 25 February 2016).

OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative in the Public Sector: Setting an Agenda for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264236561-en.

Open Government Indonesia (2014), “Indonesia 2014-2015, OGP Action Plan”, Open Government Indonesia.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

Chapter 8 Open government in Indonesia and the link with the UN Sustainable Development Goals

This chapter provides a general overview of how open government links with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It discusses how open government can support the substance (by directly contributing to the achievement of policy outcomes) of SDG implementation as well as the process by which Indonesia can pursue its SDGs and targets throughout the policy cycle (namely, during the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the SDGs). It also reviews practices and programmes already in place in Indonesia that will support the link between the country’s open government agenda and its SDG implementation; finally, it provides recommendations for how to expand and build on the link.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

289

290 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Introduction The approval of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015 provides a useful occasion to look into how open government reform priorities can inform and help define the steps countries will take to respond to the global ambitions put forward in the Agenda.

Linking open government reforms and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined in the 2030 Agenda priorities is particularly relevant for Indonesia, as the country played a leading role both in designing the Agenda and in establishing the Open Government Partnership (OGP).

The 17 SDGs will help shape the priorities for public governance reform in the coming years. Furthermore, the broad themes of improved governance and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the SDGs provides an opportunity to connect open government practices and approaches to the ambitions represented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The SDGs deepen and expand upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were less interrelated and complex. For their part, the SDGs set out an ambitious agenda that aspires to be:

•

Universal: Goals will be applicable to all countries regardless of their level of development. The framework will cover most policy areas and address global public goods, development challenges and framework conditions. The universal nature of the SDGs will have implications for all governments, which should set their own national targets according to differing national circumstances, capacities and priorities.

•

Integrated: The SDGs will integrate the three core dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental), which implies a more holistic view of development, focusing on the overall outcomes for people, societies and the planet.

•

Transformational: Delivering on the vision of the SDGs will require fundamental change in the way economies and societies interact. It also means mobilising a wide range of key stakeholders at different levels, including civil society organisations and the private sector (SG Note, 2015).

The 17 SDGs (see Box 8.1) are further supported by 169 targets that help delineate specific objectives; based on these targets, countries will measure their performance in achieving the goals set out in the 2030 Agenda.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

Box 8.1. 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation.

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.

Source: UNDP (n.d.), www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-developmentgoals.html (accessed 15 April 2016).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

291

292 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS As this chapter will illustrate, open government principles, policies and practices contribute directly to both the substantive targets of the SDGs (specifically through Goal 16) as well as to the process that leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of all the SDGs. Specifically, open government principles can inform countries’ efforts to implement the SDG priorities by helping them respond to a wide range of public and private actors, reinforce transparency and accountability, and facilitate co-ordination horizontally across line ministries and vertically between national and subnational governments. Ultimately, utilising tools and strategies informed by open government principles will help the actors in charge of implementing the 2030 Agenda in their respective countries meet the broad range of targets presented by the SDGs. Indonesia’s involvement in the development of the SDGs began with its appointment as the Co-Chair of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons by the UN Secretary General. Indonesia also served as the Co-Chair for the Global Partnership Draft Concept framework document for the Post-2015 Agenda, and it was one of the 30 nations that served on the Open Working Group on the SDGs. As a founder of the OGP as well, Indonesia is well suited to take the lead in exploring how the two agendas can complement and reinforce each other.

Through its endorsement of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open Government (see Box 8.2) for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015, Indonesia has already recognised the potential value of linking these two initiatives. Specifically, the declaration notes the “importance of harnessing [countries’] efforts and championing the principles of transparency and open government as crucial tools for ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

Box 8.2. Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development As participants in the Open Government Partnership, committed to the principles enshrined in the Open Government Declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and other relevant international instruments related to effective and inclusive institutions and human rights, we:

• Recognise the importance of harnessing our efforts and championing the principles of transparency and open government as crucial tools for ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

293

Box 8.2. Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (continued)

• Acknowledge this is an ambitious global plan of action for achieving inclusive sustainable development in its economic, political, social and environmental dimensions, in a balanced and integrated manner to end poverty and combat inequality within and among countries.

• Welcome the inclusion in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of goals and targets related to transparency, accountability, integrity and citizen participation. They are essential for promoting the rule of law, reducing corruption, and promoting public access to information and the development of effective and accountable institutions.

• Applaud the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for recognising that peaceful and inclusive societies are vital components of sustainable development.

• Value and welcome the participation of civil society organisations in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

• Promote the Open Government Partnership as a platform for voluntary co-operation and peer exchange and learning. The experience of its participating governments and civil society organisations can be drawn on to encourage transparent, accountable, participatory and technology-enabled implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Together, we declare our commitment to: 1.

Promote the rule of law consistent with international standards at the national, regional and international level through transparency, openness, accountability, access to justice and effective and inclusive institutions. This is consistent with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

2.

Promote public access to timely and disaggregated information and open data on government activities related to the implementation and financing of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in line with national legislation and international commitments.

We support development of the International Open Data Charter and intend to explore its implementation in our countries.

3.

Support citizen participation in the implementation of all the goals and targets in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including decision-making, policy formulation, follow-up and evaluation processes.

4.

Uphold the principles of open government, as described in the Open Government Declaration, when defining international, regional and national indicators for measuring the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, taking into account national circumstances and development priorities. We will identify and share lessons learned and good practices to strengthen country capacity for implementation.

5.

Use our Open Government Partnership National Action Plans to adopt commitments that serve as effective tools to promote transparent and accountable implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Source: www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_declaration.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

294 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS This chapter will provide an overview of some of the current analysis on the link between the SDGs and open government, an overview of the ways in which open government principles can support both the substance of the SDGs as well as the process of their implementation, examples from Indonesia that illustrate how open government principles support efforts to achieve the SDG targets, and will conclude with recommendations on how to strengthen the bond between open government principles and the SDGs.

Current thinking on the connection between the SDGs and broader governance reform efforts Despite the relatively recent adoption of the SDGs, international organisations have already begun to think critically about how public-sector reform initiatives and priorities can link with the SDGs. For its part, the OECD has discussed broadly how the SDGs may affect policy making, as well as specific recommendations on the next steps in two Notes of the Secretary General, Towards an OECD Strategic Response to the Sustainable Development Goals (2016) and Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development: The Role of the OECD and its Members (2015).

The OECD has noted that non-state actors, including civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector and the academic world, will all play key roles in the realisation of the SDGs (OECD, 2015).

The OECD has also highlighted that principal issues for governments with respect to the SDGs will be how to align their policies to respond to the breadth and complexity of the Goals; improve upon the mixed track record of most governments in working horizontally; and respond to the need to include a wide range of public and private actors in both policy formulation and implementation (OECD, 2016b). As will be discussed in more detail below, open government principles provide important guidance on how to include and incorporate a broad range of participants in order to align policies across broad and complex areas. The OECD has also discussed the role of the centre of government in supporting the SDG agenda, for example through its convening power and ability to pressure departments and ministries to enact its policies. The centre of government will need to help co-ordinate initiatives across line ministries, as technical offices may have little experience in driving cross-disciplinary policies (OECD, 2016b).

Furthermore, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) considered how transparency and accountability could lead to smarter policy decisions. Specifically, given that increasing citizen engagement can promote government efficiency and effectiveness, the UNDP pointed to the importance of using open government data and citizen involvement in

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

monitoring and reporting to ensure more accurate and inclusive implementation of the SDGs (UNDP, 2015).

The Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation also highlighted the link between the SDGs and open government and citizen engagement principles. Their report noted that the United Nations responded to the perception of lack of opportunities for participation during the conception of the MDGs by conducting the largest consultation exercise in its history to ensure wide ownership of the goals (Kroll, 2015). For its part, the OGP has also explored how governments can use open government principles – and the OGP tools in particular – to implement the SDGs. It has been noted that the 2030 Agenda and the OGP reinforce similar messages about the importance of giving greater visibility to the role of transparency, civic participation, public-sector accountability and technological innovation as enablers of sustainable development for just and peaceful societies (Lagunes and Bapna, 2015). Notably, the OGP has focused on how an open government approach can spur progress across the 17 SDGs, including in improving public services. Many OGP countries are already tackling these challenges by promoting transparency and accountability, empowering citizens and civil society, fighting corruption, and harnessing new technologies in their national action plans (Transparency and Accountability Initiative, 2015).

The mutually reinforcing focus areas of both the SDGs and open government reform efforts therefore suggest an opportunity for linkages between the two initiatives.

Finally, the OGP Joint Declaration on Open Government calls for the endorsing countries to promote the OGP Partnership as a platform for voluntary co-operation and peer exchange and learning, as well as to draw on the experience of its participating governments and civil society organisations to encourage transparent, accountable, participatory and technology-enabled implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It also commits signatories to use OGP National Action Plans to adopt commitments that serve as effective tools to promote transparent and accountable implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Joint Declaration on Open Government).

The substantive link between open government principles and the SDGs The aims of Goal 16 to build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions align clearly with the open government goals of enhancing transparency, accessibility and accountability (see OECD’s definition of open government). Notably, Commitment 1 of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open Government specifically refers to Goal 16 and commits the signatories OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

295

296 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS to “Promote the rule of law consistent with international standards at the national, regional and international level through transparency, openness, accountability, access to justice and effective and inclusive institutions. This is consistent with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Additionally, Goal 16 contains three targets that correspond directly to the broad goals of open government. The section below discusses each of those targets and provides an overview of the practical open government implications.

Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels Open government principles support the three objectives of Target 16.6.

For instance, encouraging citizens to spend time and effort on public issues, both in the design and monitoring of public policies and services, can lead to more effective policy outcomes, as the information and insights that the public provides the government translate into a stronger basis for policy making and ultimately lead to more effective governance (OECD, 2001).

Similarly, the public’s provision of feedback, consultation or active participation helps ensure that governments are held accountable. To increase this accountability, administrations need to facilitate an open and transparent policy-making process amenable to external scrutiny and review (OECD, 2001). Furthermore, the active involvement of citizens in government activities increases transparency by highlighting the link between citizen inputs and government actions. By exposing information, activities, and monitoring and provision of services to public scrutiny, open government policies clearly support Target 16.6.

For their part, OECD member countries have recognised the importance of the components of Target 16.6. For example, over half of the OECD countries have indicated that open and inclusive policy making is “important” or “very important” in helping to improve government transparency and accountability (61%), with a smaller share recognising the impact of open government on effectiveness (43%). Additionally, over half of the OECD countries noted that they sought to implement open and inclusive policy making in an effort to improve transparency and accountability (52%), as well as effectiveness and efficiency (39% each) (OECD, 2009).

Broadly, the objective is to inform, communicate with and involve citizens at all stages of the decision-making process to secure real interest and commitment, and to avoid engaging citizens too late and creating a sense of meaningless participation (OECD, 2009). Examples of specific

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

policies that may support this target, including some already in place in Indonesia, include:

•

Applying open government policies to promote public-sector integrity; for example, administrations can open data on procurements and involve the public in audits of procurement procedures and infrastructure projects, promote asset declarations, and facilitate public consultation in the development of the anti-corruption policies (see Chapter 4).

•

Establishing a legal framework that supports the public’s ability to hold the government accountable by, for example, providing accessible procedures for reporting misconduct and sufficient protection for whistleblowers. Such a framework enables citizens to report corruption and to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public institutions more generally. Therefore, effective whistleblower protection is vital not only for investigation and prosecution but also for the prevention of corruption. As discussed in Chapter 4, while Indonesia has passed various laws to address aspects of whistleblower protection, the government could improve the current framework by providing clearer definitions of whistleblowers, what constitutes a threat and forms of protection.

•

Using citizen feedback indicators to measure progress and policy implementation, including through complaint management systems such as LAPOR (see Chapter 3).

•

Investing in digital government tools to increase transparency and accountability, improve access to, and quality of, public services and facilitate more inclusive decision-making processes, for example through more comprehensive open government data policies and ensuring the free use, reuse and distribution of government data.

Indonesia has made important steps in this direction; however, as noted in Chapter 5, the country may consider efforts to address legal and regulatory challenges and limitations, raise awareness and ownership, and develop data skills and relationships across levels of government and with data producers. A strategic approach to digital technologies can be a powerful tool to support a substantial change in government-society relations by amplifying the reach and effects of democratic and good governance principles such as transparency, accountability and public participation.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

297

298 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making at all levels Open government policies also directly support Target 16.7. While open government policies can help contribute to the goals outlined in this target at all levels of government, it is also helpful to consider the range of approaches and activities administrations can pursue to ensure responsiveness, inclusiveness, participation and representation. This ranges from government provision of information (e.g. websites) to consultation (e.g. seeking citizens’ views or feedback) to participation (e.g. citizens contributing to resource and policy decisions through online networks or community meetings) (OECD, 2009). Furthermore, the OECD Guiding Principles for Open and Inclusive Policy Making (Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) are built on the premise that governments, in order to benefit fully from active interaction with their population, should inform, consult and engage with them as partners in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies and services. This speaks directly to Target 16.7.

The OECD Open Government Survey has shown that OECD countries principally engage with citizens via consultation (Figure 8.1), which provides governments with feedback and new ideas and allows stakeholders to offer inputs, thereby enhancing both the quality and capacity of policies to achieve the intended outcome. As countries move beyond consultation toward more advanced forms of participation, citizens and businesses have the opportunity to be involved in the co-design and co-delivery of public services, as exhibited by the Musrenbang development planning process in Indonesia. These practices all improve the responsiveness, inclusiveness and participatory nature of public-sector activities.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

299

Figure 8.1. Percentage of countries involved in various types of public engagement 100% 80%

60% 40%

20% 0%

Citizens’ consultation

Citizen Participation in Policymaking

Citizen Participation in Service Design

Citizen participation in Service Delivery

Note: 1. n=OECD 35 Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Examples of open government policies, both from Indonesia and more broadly, that can support efforts to meet Target 16.7 include:

•

Creating a supportive legal and policy framework for inclusive and participatory decision making. For example, through public information or priority-setting fora, such as the Musrenbang, governments can develop partnerships with civil society and provide regular opportunities for dialogue, for instance under a jointly defined framework for government-civil society interactions. As noted by Bappenas, the finalisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development occurred concurrently with development of Indonesia’s National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-19, which allowed the government to align the SDGs and the priorities reflected in the RPJMN.

•

Implementing participatory budgeting activities, which grant citizens the right to participate in the decision-making and budgeting processes. This form of involvement can help promote the representation of citizen needs and desires in the institutional budgeting and implementation process. This is a promising avenue for Indonesia to explore.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

300 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS •

Pursuing co-production of policies and services. By involving citizens in their production, policies and services become by their nature more inclusive and participatory, which can help guarantee their responsiveness to public needs and desires.

Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements Public access to information is a fundamental pillar of open government, and ensuring access to information is a condition for strengthening government-citizen relations. Much of the supporting legal and policy framework for open government concerns freedom of information, although countries vary greatly in terms of laws on citizens’ access to information (often called freedom of information laws – or FOI laws). Importantly, OECD countries have broadly recognized the important role that open government plays in supporting transparency, and by extension Target 16.10, as 86% of OECD countries claimed that one of the key objectives they hope to achieve by implementing open government initiatives is to improve the transparency of the public sector (OECD, forthcoming).

As countries move to implement Target 16.10, they will have to take into account the specific considerations implicit in providing increased access to information. For instance, effective access to information laws outline the exemptions to accessing information, determining which levels of government or offices are in charge of managing requests, in what form the information will be presented, and the process for requesting information. It is also important to consider digital government tools when designing access to information activities, as these can allow for cheaper, easier and faster public access. Ultimately, meeting this target will require that countries focus on a number of parallel approaches: ensuring that the legal framework supports access to information, providing the structure and resources to ensure wide access to information, and ensuring that the public understands their rights and that civil society organisations can utilise the information. The primary tools and good practices for countries to focus on in providing access to information include:

•

Interfaces to allow citizens to access official documents. This is achieved by establishing both physical and electronic access points within relevant offices, such as the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID), to provide the information directly and designing systems to ensure that the broadest segment of the population can benefit from the provision of information.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

•

Internal information management to facilitate governments’ ability to identify and locate the documents citizens are looking for, such as the Information Committee in Indonesia that supports the PPID by deciding on implementing procedures, settling disputes brought by requesters of information and reporting on the application of the law. It is important to use a single set of rules for this and to apply them throughout the administration. Governments must also catalogue and index the relevant documents and data sets in order to ensure accessibility (OECD, 2001).

•

A focus on ensuring that governments have the necessary human and financial resources to implement access to information initiatives and monitor the use of the opportunities provided.

•

Partnerships with CSOs to promote the dissemination of information about the access to information opportunities and to ensure their support of the opportunities to build broader public buy-in.

Beyond Goal 16: How open government principles can support a wide range of SDG targets Ultimately, good governance is an intrinsic component to ensuring that countries can meet the SDGs; to the extent that open government policies support this, they will play a role across the full range of targets (see a list of the most relevant targets for open government in Annex 8A.1). This section will review how the open government principles of public engagement, transparency and accountability can support the entire range of SDGs, given that implementing many of the SDGs will require applying these open government principles.

Engagement Many OECD countries have developed approaches to engage with citizens and users of public services, ranging from interaction (e.g. provision of information and feedback on service quality) to active consultation in decision making, to co-production. The principle of engagement appears across a number of SDG targets, and Commitment 3 of the OGP’s Joint Declaration on Open Government recognises the relevance of engagement for the implementation of the SDGs by noting the signatories’ commitment to “support citizen participation in the implementation of all the goals and targets in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The importance of this principle can also be seen in a number of specific targets, including:

•

Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making in political, economic and public life.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

301

302 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS •

Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.

•

Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all.

•

Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.

•

Target 15.c: Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.

•

Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, publicprivate and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

Transparency Ensuring transparency and access to public-sector information, and that the public is able to use it effectively, is a cornerstone of open government, as noted earlier in this chapter. This principle has implications for both the public and the private sector, as well as for citizens, as transparency relates to the availability of information (what governments make accessible, how easy it is to access, etc.), to its usability (whether the information helps citizens make the government accountable, whether the formats allow for data reuse, etc.), and to the public’s knowledge of their rights.

Commitment 2 of the OGP’s Joint Declaration on Open Government also recognises the role of transparency in the SDG process, by confirming signatories’ commitment to “promote public access to timely and disaggregated information and open data on government activities related to the implementation and financing of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Beyond the explicit support of transparency and access to information in Target 16.6 and 16.10, the following targets also overtly reference this principle:

•

Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology.

•

Target 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development.

•

Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.

The inclusion of access to information as a priority across these diverse goals highlights the important role that information and data play in current public administration reforms. Additionally, Target 17.18 shows the important role that access to data and information plays for governments and policy makers more generally to improve the quality of policies, the relevance of policies for citizens and the chances of policies to achieve their intended goals. In order for citizens and civil society organisations to benefit fully from transparency, however, data availability needs to be paired with data quality, processing capacity, effective whistleblower protection and freedom of the press. By stressing the importance of the ability of the public to understand their rights and to use the data provided, the open government principles related to transparency are even more comprehensive than the targets laid out by the SDGs.

Accountability Open and inclusive policy making supports accountability by broadening citizens’ influence on decisions and helping to prevent countries from concealing their activities and decision-making processes. This helps ensure that policies reflect public needs and helps guarantee that governments use resources appropriately. For example, involving citizens in aligning financial incentives and monitoring financial flows can improve efficiency and accountability, especially in the case of services designed and delivered by users themselves (OECD, 2011).

This role is particularly relevant, for example, in infrastructure and procurement activities, such as those reflected in Goal 9, which seek to “build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation.” Applying open government principles to prioritise infrastructure projects and help to oversee procurement is an effective approach to delivering well-planned infrastructure that responds to public needs, as well as helping to prevent corruption by increasing transparency and accountability.

In addition to procurement, open and inclusive government policies help ensure that the public sector responds to the needs of potentially marginalised or ignored communities. By bringing these populations into the policy-making cycle and ensuring that their needs are responded to, the following targets highlight how open government policies can lead to more inclusive public governance for all segments of society:

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

303

304 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS •

Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.

•

Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions.

•

Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.

Together, these examples illustrate the extent to which the open government principles of engagement, transparency and accountability are embedded in the 2030 Agenda. These examples likewise highlight how implementing successful open government reforms can support successful implementation of the SDGs.

Open government support for the process of implementing the SDGs In addition to supporting the communication, design and implementation of the policy response to the specific SDGs and targets, open government principles and initiatives support the broader process of SDG implementation. This section identifies how open government policies can support the implementation, reporting and evaluation of the SDGs, as well as discusses efforts by the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to support SDG implementation and the potential links with the country’s open government reform efforts.

The role of national government co-ordination in supporting the SDGs The breadth of Agenda 2030 and the interconnected nature of the issues it addresses demand a high degree of policy co-ordination and coherence horizontally (across ministries and agencies), as well as vertically (across levels of government). The complexity and integrated nature of the SDGs also complicates the decision of where to assign responsibility for action, both across ministries at the national government level and between national and subnational levels. Horizontal coherence in target-setting, policy and action between sectors and ministries will be needed to ensure that tradeoffs are dealt with and synergies are exploited (Nilsson et al., 2012).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

It is important to note that countries will be expected to set their own paths for realising the SDGs in response to national conditions and capabilities. Therefore, no meaningful national implementation plan can be developed without an inclusive, government-led process to interpret the SDGs. Interpreting the SDGs at the national level will therefore require the full engagement of politicians, ministers and the public (Weitz et al, 2015).

In these conditions, the centre of government is best placed to play this role, as it is often responsible for setting standards, providing guidance to departments and agencies, and monitoring and evaluating outcomes and levels of compliance (OECD, 2016b). The centre of government is therefore also well placed to apply the capabilities built by its implementation of other multi-dimensional initiatives in the service of SDG implementation.

Notably, many of the policies and activities that national governments pursue to promote open government will also support the implementation of the SDGs both directly and indirectly. For example, 77% of OECD countries have established an office responsible for horizontal coordination of open government initiatives (OECD, forthcoming), suggesting that the methods countries pursue to implement their open government programs are also relevant for the SDGs. Furthermore, ensuring broad public buy-in for the design, monitoring and implementation of the SDGs; supporting national co-ordinating bodies; helping to design clear strategies; and appropriately aligning incentives across ministries and subnational governments are all important components of a country’s efforts to promote open government, and all have a role to play in implementing the SDGs. In particular, the UNDP highlighted the role that countries played in monitoring the MDGs as a key component to integrating the goals into their own national priorities and development strategies. By improving co-ordination within the national statistical system and linking with community-based monitoring systems, countries were able to build on national efforts to support vertical integration of best practices across the range of MDG priorities (UNDP, 2015). A similar process could play out with the SDGs. Box 8.3 uses the example of digital government and open government data to show how ongoing activities can also support the SDGs.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

305

306 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Box 8.3. The cross-cutting nature of open government: The case of digital government Looking at the example of digital government and open government data, it becomes clear how open government programmes and principles can provide support across the SDGs. Digital technologies provide useful tools to link the two agendas, maximising synergies and impact. Furthermore, open government data can improve transparency and accountability and support citizen participation, which may lead to improved public-sector performance. Applying the use of technologies in the public sector can support efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda by:

• Enhancing productivity and economic growth: By helping to increase public-sector productivity and effectiveness, digital government can improve the productivity and economic growth of a country more widely. For example, portals that provide information and services, such as filling out and submitting administrative forms electronically (e.g. tax declarations), have considerably altered the way individuals and businesses interact with their government (OECD, 2015). Such benefits help empower and promote social, economic and political inclusion (Target 10.2). Government support for ICTs also directly supports the growth of resilient infrastructure to promote inclusive growth and foster innovation (Goal 9). ICTs can also help enhance public-sector intelligence, thus allowing for improved decision making and better policies and services, thereby leading to reduced poverty (Goal 1), inclusive and sustainable economic growth (Goal 8), and reduced inequalities (Goal 10).

• Taking advantage of opportunities provided by open government data: The public sector produces and collects a wealth of data in its day-to-day activities. By making these data available, easily accessible and reusable by citizens and businesses, governments can improve accountability and transparency, create new business opportunities and better inform both citizen engagement and their own decision making (OECD, 2015). As discussed in Box 8.5, citizens can further increase the value of open data through their collaboration in providing and co-creating data sets. The use of open data and analytics in the public sector can help identify trends and future challenges and encourage strategic, inclusive and evidence-based decision making. As such, open government d7ata is a powerful tool enabling societies to find innovative solutions to persistent social problems, as is recognised by Target 17.18, which seeks to “increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data.” Another pertinent example of the value of open government data relates to cities, whose governments will have to rely increasingly on data analytics and digital technologies to improve their understanding of human behaviour for urban planning and organisation, as well as for the creation of competitive and innovative economies with more accountable and participatory local governments (Goal 11). Taking advantage of the opportunities presented by open government data also corresponds to Principle 3 of the OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (as discussed in Chapter 5).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

307

Box 8.3. The cross-cutting nature of open government: The case of digital government (continued)

• Building digital welfare services: Digital technologies provide the opportunity to redesign public services in the welfare area to improve their efficiency and delivery channels and make them better targeted and tailored to user needs. This is particularly relevant for public-facing services, such as healthcare (Goal 3) and education (Goal 4), which ultimately play a large role in ending poverty (Goal 1).

• Strengthening international co-operation: New technologies offer global leaders the opportunity to collect, use and share data to better understand global problems and challenges such as global warming, clandestine financial flows, tax base erosion, migration, international value chains, income distribution across countries, armed conflicts and transnational crime, among others, which respond to the SDGs’ objectives to strengthen the means of implementation and promote international co-operation (Goal 17). This also supports Principle 8 of the OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies.

As countries implement the SDGs, it will be important for them to think strategically about how other public-sector reform priorities in which open government can play an important role, such as service provision, human resources management, integrity and anti-corruption, budgeting, etc., can simultaneously support the SDGs.

Open government support of the SDGs throughout the policy cycle More broadly, open government principles and practices can inform the entire policy cycle of design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting and feedback of each of the 169 targets (Figure 8.2).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

308 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Figure 8.2. Stages of the policy cycle

Design

Reporting and feedback

Implementation

Monitoring and evalutation

As has been noted elsewhere in this review, engaging citizens, civil society organisations and the private sector as partners in the policy cycle leads to higher user satisfaction and, potentially, cost reductions, and collaborating with citizens at every stage of service planning and delivery is key to ensuring sustainable service quality improvements. Given the problems arising from poorly designed and implemented policies and the relatively short timeframe to achieve the broad and ambitious goals laid out by the SDGs, governments should keep in mind that not engaging with citizens can create higher costs through policy failure in the short term, as well as loss of trust, legitimacy and policy effectiveness in the long term (OECD, 2001).

The OGP’s Joint Declaration on Open Government also notes the value of linking open government principles to the policy cycle of SDG implementation in Commitment 3, which supports citizen participation in the “decision-making, policy formulation, follow up and evaluation processes.” To be successful, these elements must be applied at all stages of the policy cycle. This section will look at how governments can make the process of implementing the SDGs inclusive and better tailored to the needs of the citizens by analysing each stage of the cycle.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

Engaging citizens and civil society organisations as partners in the design, implementation and monitoring of services allows for a shift in power between service providers and users. This can challenge existing organisational values and practices in the public sector. Preparing publicsector staff for new professional roles – as advisers rather than producers – requires the full involvement of the human resources offices to develop new knowledge and skills and deliver ad hoc capacity-building and dissemination initiatives (OECD, 2011). This will be the case in any situation in which the government is bringing new communities into the policy-making cycle, for example via gender-sensitive budgeting and policy making. As with open government initiatives, therefore, governments will need to think through the implications of expanding the involvement and inclusion of broader segments of society as envisioned in the SDGs. By designing policy measures on the basis of better knowledge of citizens’ evolving needs, making policy in a more open and inclusive way can contribute to raising the quality of policy outcomes and can ensure the better use of public funds (OECD, 2009). As noted in previous OECD publications, public services work better when designed in partnership with citizens to harness their interest, energies, expertise and ambitions (OECD, 2011). Involving people who will be affected by policies in the design phase can also help identify cross-sectoral issues, as well as build complementarities across levels of government to ensure that policies are widely relevant across a range of income levels, educational levels, cultural backgrounds, etc., as conditions can vary considerably even within the same country. Following open government good practices will be particularly important for countries as they implement the SDGs, as governments will not be able to design effective and inclusive policies without the input, ideas and insights of a wide variety of citizens’ voices. From a practical perspective, involving citizens and CSOs in the design of the SDGs will include participation not just in the design of the policies to be implemented but also in the decision of which targets to prioritise and how to ensure that a wide range of participants are involved in a consistent and sustainable manner.

Beyond the design and adoption of policies, citizens are also an essential component in the implementation of public policies, which cannot be done effectively without public understanding and support. The implementation of the SDGs will require the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. In large part, this is because the universality of the SDGs will necessitate approaches and tools tailored to the different needs of countries at different levels of development (SG Note, 2015), which citizens are uniquely prepared to provide. This is where processes such as co-production, in which citizens engage in partnerships with service professionals in the OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

309

310 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS design and delivery of a public service, can be particularly useful. One example of this is through infrastructure projects, in which increased transparency and openness allow citizens to track data and budgets at each stage of an infrastructure project and mobilised citizens can use their engagement to ensure programme relevance and to drive the process from the bottom up (Hawkins and Samuels, 2015).

Finally, the monitoring, evaluation and reporting phases allow governments to understand the extent to which their policies were successful, thereby helping to create new policies or redesign existing activities. A key element is deciding on how best to involve citizens, such as directly (for example through participation in review boards) or indirectly (through surveys) (OECD, 2001). The SDGs will require significant investment in statistical capacity, new types of data measurement and reporting instruments and closer co-ordination between governments and citizens to ensure data relevance. Collected data and monitoring instruments should also be available for public access and to all stakeholders (SG Note, 2015). Along those lines, Mexico provides useful examples of how countries’ monitoring and evaluation activities, application of open government data and the SDG initiatives can be linked in a useful and inventive way (See Box 8.4).

Box 8.4. How Mexico is using monitoring and evaluation and open data tools to track the SDGs In September 2015, Mexico announced the launch of its Sustainable Development Data Tool (http://agenda2030.datos.gob.mx/), which serves as a resource for the public to monitor and measure the country’s progress on implementing the SDGs. This tool, developed jointly with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation (AMEXCID), encourages open data as a resource for supporting the transparent implementation of the SDGs and allows the public to view, explore and compare relevant indicators. The data is separated by goal and indicator and is disaggregated by states. The portal also includes visual representations of over 100 of the indicators (via maps, graphs, etc.).

This portal is linked to the national OGD portal managed by the Office of the President (http://datos.gob.mx), which was created to ensure that open data can be used as a collaborative mechanism to achieve priority development goals. While this national OGD portal is not disaggregated by SDG goal or indicator, it contains information from a wide range of national and local government sources.

This allows the public and civil society organisations to access, visualise, download and reuse data on many of the topics covered under the UN Agenda 2030.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

Box 8.4. How Mexico is using monitoring and evaluation and open data tools to track the SDGs (continued) Additionally, as part of its effort to monitor its OGP commitments, Mexico created an Open Government Dashboard to visualise the advances and remaining challenges of each of the OGP National Action Plan commitments, allow citizens to track the progress made on the open government commitments and link to the government bodies in charge of the implementation. Mexico is further refining the dashboard to align it with the SDGs, following the efforts of the upcoming 2016-18 OGP National Action Plan to connect the country’s open data initiatives with the SDGs. Together, these efforts are consistent with and reinforce Mexico’s role as a founding member of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, which aims to spur the use of open data as a mechanism contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. Sources: OECD (2016), Open Government Data Review of Mexico: Data Reuse for Public Sector Impact and Innovation, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259270-en ; Presidencia de la Republica (2015), Data tool launched for sustainable development objectives, 2 December, www.gob.mx/ presidencia/articulos/data-tool-launched-for-sustainable-development-objectives?idiom=es.

In addition to monitoring and assessing specific policies or programmes, evaluation can also support a country’s citizen engagement and social accountability activities more widely. These activities seek to build accountability through civic engagement, in which citizens and civil society organisations participate directly or indirectly in promoting accountability.

The aim of such civic engagement activities is to stimulate demand from citizens and put pressure on the state to meet their obligations to provide quality services (Malena et al, 2004).

Examples from Indonesia As evidenced by the public-sector reforms described throughout this review, Indonesia has already made important progress in pursuing the kind of initiatives necessary to realise the governance targets laid out in Goal 16 as well as support the process for inclusive design, implementation and monitoring of all SDGs. Given that meeting these targets will also support the country’s efforts to implement the universe of goals laid out in the 2030 Agenda by promoting transparent, accountable and inclusive government, it is important to take stock of the ongoing initiatives that can help Indonesia reach its targets. The following projects, initiatives and offices are already in place in Indonesia and are well placed to exploit the synergies between open government policies and SDGs:

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

311

312 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS •

The National SDG Secretariat: In 2016, and with support from UNDP, the GOI established a national secretariat to co-ordinate the country’s SDG implementation. The Secretariat is tasked with laying the groundwork for the implementation and mainstreaming of the SDGs into development planning at the national and subnational level. Similar to the National Open Government Secretariat, Bappenas provides general oversight of the SDG Secretariat, thereby facilitating the linkages between the two secretariats. The SDG Secretariat is professionally staffed and will collect best practices, facilitate communications and provide government-wide support to help oversee, facilitate, and monitor the implementation of the SDGs.

•

The National Open Government Secretariat: The secretariat’s role in formalising the government’s relationship with CSOs and in co-ordinating open government horizontally across agencies and vertically across levels of government provides a good example and useful template for how the centre of government can reinforce inclusivity and accountability. This office was established at the end of 2015, so it is too early to determine its effectiveness. Nevertheless, by co-ordinating public policy, supporting open data and ICT platforms, co-ordinating monitoring, evaluation and knowledge management, and conducting public outreach and communication, the National Open Government Secretariat is well placed to help Indonesia respond to the SDG goals of developing effective institutions (Target 16.6) and ensuring responsive, inclusive and participatory decision making (Target 16.7). Furthermore, taking advantage of the shared leadership structure of the two secretariats under Bappenas will have additional positive impacts across the 2030 Agenda goals.

•

Integrity and anti-corruption framework: The legal framework on anti-corruption and whistleblower protection, in combination with the work of Indonesia’s oversight bodies (the Ombudsman, the Corruption Eradication Commission, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency, discussed in Chapter 4) supports Targets 16.6, 16.7 and 16.10. While this review has made recommendations for improving the country’s anti-corruption and integrity framework, particularly regarding protecting whistleblowers from retribution, the current framework will nevertheless help the country meet the targets that seek to promote the rule of law (Target 16.3) and to reduce corruption and bribery (Target 16.5). Open government reforms and the SDGs will jointly help inform the country’s efforts to build and support these offices.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

•

Legal framework for citizen participation: The main law that supports citizen participation is Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimise public participation (Article 2),” and lays out the process by which the public can participate in the creation of the country’s development plan. Law No. 25/2004 also institutionalises the creation of multi-stakeholder consultation forums called Musrenbang (see Chapter 3 for further discussion on the legal foundation of citizen participation). As noted previously in the review, the government and civil society organisations alike are focused on expanding involvement in these fora and ensuring that issues advocated for by the public are reflected in the country’s development plans more consistently. The Musrenbang nonetheless provide an important formal opportunity to involve the public in determining development priorities and mainstreaming the SDGs into the development planning process, which the government strove to accomplish during the creation of the 2015-19 National Medium-Term Development Plan. This is a critical element to ensuring that the open government principles of engagement, transparency and accountability – and the attendant role these principles play in supporting the SDGs – are followed.

•

Legal framework for transparency and access to information: As noted in Chapter 3, the 1945 Constitution (Article 28F) broadly acknowledges the right to information, as does Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information. This law also established the PPID, which is responsible for storing, documenting and providing government information to the public. Indonesia, via its legal framework and the steady growth and expansion of the PPID offices, has already made important progress in meeting Target 16.10, as well as the other targets in which transparency is an overt consideration.

•

Accountability mechanisms: One of the GOI’s primary means of increasing citizen participation in overseeing public service provision is the LAPOR tool, which serves as an online platform that provides a complaint-handling service for the public (discussed in Chapter 3).

Furthermore, the country’s whistleblower protection legislation (discussed in Chapter 4) broadly protects citizens who reveal wrongdoing, although it is not without opportunities for improvement, as noted above. As Indonesia continues to expand the reach and effectiveness of these examples, the country will increasingly be able to promote accountable, inclusive and transparent government, which responds clearly to the implementation of the SDGs.

•

Digital government and open data: As discussed in Chapter 5, in addition to national online complaint-management systems, Indonesia

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

313

314 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS has launched a number of digital government tools that will support a wide range of SDGs. For example, through a technically advanced and user-friendly central data portal, the central government is striving to provide easy access to key datasets that will improve the transparency of key public-sector activities. This tool is expected to improve the understanding of the data in a context of limited data skills (Target 5.b, Target 16.10). The government of the City of Jakarta has launched a Smart City Portal that allows citizens to make public complaints, as well as access public services and open data (Goal 11). In addition, the Pulse Lab Jakarta Initiative provided real-time data to local governments and has already shown its potential for public health benefits (Goal 3) and for tracking commodity and food price trends (Target 2.c). The value of open data portals can be enhanced through expanded public collaboration and co-creation of data; Finland and France are examples of OECD countries that have designed their national open data portals as platforms for collaboration and data co-creation (see Box 8.5). Similarly developing these tools in Indonesia will facilitate their public utility and thus their ability to support a wide range of SDG priorities.

Box 8.5. Enabling central open data portals as collaboration and data co-creation platforms: The cases of France and Finland France The French national open data portal (www.data.gouv.fr/fr) enables data prosumers to contribute new datasets to the portal, publish and showcase examples of open data reuse and to monitor the use of datasets. The French government used the portal to launch the Base Adresse Nationale project, which is a collaboration initiative aiming to crowdsource a national address database fed by the data contributions from private, public and non-profit organisations.

Finland In Finland, the national open data portal (www.avoindata.fi) has been enabled as a platform where citizens can publish open data and interoperability tools (i.e. guidelines to ease the interaction between datasets or platforms). As in France, uploading data on the Finnish portal requires filling in an online form where users provide a description concerning information on the data’s licensing model, data validity timeframe, etc. Users can also browse the profiles of other users and provides users with the possibility of subscribing to specific organisations in order to receive updates on new datasets, comments, etc.

Source: OECD (2016), Open Government Data Review of Mexico: Data Reuse for Public Sector Impact and Innovation, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259270-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

Recommendations Given the recent adoption of the SDGs, governments are still determining how their current initiatives and priorities will fit with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Nevertheless, the OECD sees a number of steps the GOI can pursue to ensure that it takes full advantage of the link between its open government agenda and the SDGs so that both priorities are implemented as coherently, systematically and completely as possible.

•

Continue to develop the links between open government reform efforts and the design and implementation of the SDGs to help ensure that the government’s open government agenda supports the SDGs. This will include supporting institutional collaboration between the National SDG Secretariat and National Open Government Secretariat, as well as:

− Explicitly linking the OGP National Action Plan development process with the design and implementation process for the SDGs. This could include discussing the SDGs in the context of the development of the OGP National Action Plans and linking each objective with relevant SDG goals or targets. This will help ensure coherence between the two initiatives and will facilitate joint monitoring of the progress and results of the two processes. − Promoting the use of open data for reporting on SDG achievements (see, for example, Mexico’s open data portal designed to track the SDGs). This would not only support the role of CSOs as watchdogs, but it would foster the reuse of public-sector information in a way that is specifically relevant for the implementation of the SDGs. − Developing a formal mechanism for capacity building and sharing lessons to increase the staff that is knowledgeable of both the SDGs and the country’s open government priorities. − Increasing the involvement of citizens in the policy cycle of the SDGs to ensure that the initiatives are inclusive and that they fully reflect public needs. This could be achieved by ensuring that CSO actors and government representatives familiar with the country’s open government activities and OGP reporting cycles play a role in the design of the national SDG strategy, as well as in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the activities.

•

Leverage existing regional and international platforms and networks for policy dialogue, such as the OECD Network on Open and Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, to identify good practices identify lessons from OECD and non-OECD members alike regarding

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

315

316 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS how to link their open government agendas with their SDG implementation activities.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

References Abad, F. (2016), Open Government Partnership Public Forum on the OGPIndependent Reporting Mechanism (OGP-IRM), 5 February, Cubao, Quezon City, www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/florencio-babad/2016/02/22/speech-secretary-florencio-b-abad-open-governmentpartnership#sthash.7GRW1WXD.dpuf.

Hawkins, J. and Samuels L. (2015), Open Government is essential to delivering better value from resilient infrastructure, 9 November, www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/blog-editor/2015/11/09/open-govern ment-essential-delivering-better-value-resilient#sthash.euIr404h.dpuf.

Kroll, C. (2015), Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready?, Bertelsmann Stiftung, September.

Lagunes, Alejandra; Bapna, Manish (2015), How Can Open Government Promote the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, 27 September, www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/alejandra-lagunes-andmanish-bapna/2015/09/27/how-can-open-government-promoteimplementation#sthash.GUVmDIsi.dpuf.

Malena, C. et al. (2004), Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice; The World Bank Social Development Papers: Participation and Civic Engagement, Paper No. 76, December.

Nilsson, M. et al. (2012), Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the EU, Environmental Policy and Governance, in press, 10.1002/eet.1589.

OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2016a), Open Government Data Review of Mexico: Data Reuse for Public Sector Impact and Innovation, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259270-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

317

318 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS OECD (2016b), Towards an OECD Strategic Response to the Sustainable Development Goals, Note by the Secretary-General, C(2006)4, 12 January.

OECD (2015), Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development: The Role of the OECD and its Members, Note by the Secretary-General, C(2015)49/REV1.

OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.

OECD (2009), Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en.

OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

OGP (2015a), Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; September 2015, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/ default/files/attachments/OGP_declaration.pdf (accessed 13 April 2016).

OGP (2015b), Third Open Government Action Plan for the United States of America, 27 October 2015, www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/microsites/ostp/final_us_open_government_national_action_plan_3 _0.pdf.

Transparency and Accountability Initiative (n.d.), The Open Government Guide Special Edition: Implementing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, www.opengovguide.com/development-goals/ (accessed 11 March 2016).

UNDP (2015), The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, United Nations.

Weitz, N. et al. (2015), Sustainable Development Goals for Sweden: Insights on Setting a National Agenda, Stockholm Environment Institute Working Paper NO. 2015-10, Sandra, 2015, Stockholm.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –

319

Annex 8A.1 SDG targets clearly informed and supported by open government policies and principles

Goal Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation.

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Target Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.

Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gendersensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions.

Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.

Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.

Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.

Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.

Target 9.2: Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation.

Target 9.b: Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries.

Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology.

Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all.

Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, to progressively achieve greater equality.

320 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Goal Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.

Target Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.

Target: 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development.

Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts Target 15.c: Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilise and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, publicprivate and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA Š OECD 2016