Indonesia Mid-Term Report 2016-2017

Indonesia’s fourth action plan focused on improving public participation, complaints-handling, public information disclosure, and data governance. While the action plan touched on major open government themes for Indonesia, many commitments involved internal performance indicators. Moving forward, Indonesia should more closely follow OGP’s co-creation standards in developing the next action plan by prioritizing fewer, more impactful commitments and institutionalizing the multistakeholder forum. Indonesia should also develop a clear strategy to more effectively incorporate subnational units into the national action plan.

Commitment	Overview	Well-Designed? *
4. Enhanced public participation in improving geospatial information management	Develop and disseminate a standard reference for public participation in gathering geospatial information as part of the “One Map Policy.”	No
15. Improved quality of public complaints-handling in the environment and forestry sector	Develop a new complaints-handling system for the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and integrate it into the national LAPOR! system.	No
16. Strengthened village governance in transparency, participation, and responsiveness	Implement pilot projects in select villages on participatory and transparent development planning, and publish village development plans and budgets in public spaces.	No

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact

The Open Government Indonesia Secretariat (OGI) determined the major thematic focus of the action plan prior to the start of the action plan’s development. The plan’s creation involved in-person meetings with invited stakeholders, focus group discussions, and online questionnaires. However, OGI did raise awareness among the public to participate in the co-creation, and the multistakeholder group only met once at the end of the action plan period.

Did Not act contrary to OGP process A country is considered to have acted contrary to process if one or more of the following occurs: The National Action Plan was developed with neither online or offline engagements with citizens and civil society; The government fails to engage with the IRM researchers in charge of the country’s Year 1 and Year 2 reports; or The IRM report establishes that there was no progress made on implementing any of the commitments in the country’s action plan.

Mostly “governance” civil society Significant involvement of line ministries and agencies

Indonesia’s fourth action plan contained 22 national and 28 subnational commitments, focusing on a variety of themes. While several commitments saw high levels of implementation, the one-year timeline for the action plan limited their potential to open up government practice. Future action plans should adopt a two-year implementation period (as recommended by OGP), and better integrate subnational commitments into the national context.

(For a full report on these commitments, see https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Indonesia_Mid-Term_Report_2016-2017_EN.pdf or https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Indonesia_Mid-Term_Report_2016-2017_IN.pdf)

Commitment Title	Well-designed*	Complete	Overview
1. Formulation of Open Government Strategic Plan and Roadmap	No	No	The OGI Secretariat published the first draft of the Strategic Plan in June 2017, but had not finalized it by the end of the action plan cycle. The OGI Secretariat also published a draft Roadmap and held several focus group discussions on the draft.
2. Guidelines to regularly conduct public consultations	No	No	The Ministry of State Apparatus and Civil Service Reform published a circular (newsletter) in April 2017 on the obligations of government agencies to conduct public consultations, and developed technical procedures that mandates all public service delivery units conduct a public consultation forum.
3. Good governance manual and public consultation forum for SDGs	No	No	Bappenas issued a Presidential Decree on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and public participation guidelines in July and August 2017, respectively. However, the IRM was unable to verify the level of civil society and public involvement in the government’s decision-making process regarding SDGs.
4. Enhanced public participation in improving geospatial information management	No	No	The Geospatial Information Agency committed to develop and disseminate a standardized reference for conducting public participation in the One Map Policy. The broad scope of public participation issues in geospatial mapping (including land rights of indigenous communities) have delayed the drafting of this reference.
5. Enhanced capacity of Ombudsman to monitor public services	No	Yes	The Ombudsman developed an online complaints-tracking system, allowing citizens to track the status of their complaints.
6. Enhanced credibility of Ombudsman to oversee public service quality	No	Yes	The Ombudsman has published a complaint-handling analysis on its library page, as well as quarterly reports on public satisfaction with the Ombudsman’s services for 2017.
7. Improved compliance with Law No. 25/ 2009 on Public Services at the Ministry of Education and Culture	No	No	In 2017, the Ombudsman gave the Ministry of Education and Culture a score of 93.10 out of 100 in compliance with public services, which qualifies it as meeting the “green zone” indicator. However, the Ministry of Education and Culture’s compliance with the specific services listed in this commitment is unclear.
8. Improved compliance with Law No. 25/ 2009 on Public Services at the Ministry of Religious Affairs	No	No	In 2017, the Ombudsman gave the Ministry of Religious Affairs a public services compliancy score of 72 out of 100. However, the Ombudsman’s report does not specifically analyze the nine services that are part of this commitment.
9. Online LAPOR!-SP4N	No	No	This commitment calls for the integration of the LAPOR! and SP4N public complaint channels. While the Ministry of State Apparatus and Civil Service Reform developed a LAPOR!-SP4N Transition Team Work Plan, the progress of this transition is not yet publically available at the end of the action plan period.
10. Minister of State Apparatus and Civil Service Reform developed into LAPOR-SP4N	No	No	By the end of the action plan, the process of integrating non-structural institutions has been initiated, but did not meet the targeted numbers set by the commitment.
11. Utilize LAPOR!-SP4N as citizen complaints platform	No	No	The Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform, Ombudsman, and President’s Executive Office signed an MoU that stipulates LAPOR!-SP4N as the online citizen aspiration and complaints platform in 2016.
12. Greater dissemination of LAPOR!	No	No	The government carried out several activities in 2016 and 2017 to increase usage of LAPOR!-SP4N across the country and across government institutions. The number of public complaints received by LAPOR!-SP4N has continually increased.
13. Improved responsiveness to public complaints and enhanced accountability of LAPOR!	No	No	The Ministry of State Apparatus and Civil Service Reform created a team to forward complaints to relevant government ministries or agencies, and to follow up and monitor the responses received. However, there have been obstacles to affectively monitor complaints resolution.
14. Increased interconnectivity of SOEs to LAPOR	No	No	By September 2017, the Ministry of State Owned Enterprises fully integrated all 118 Indonesian SOEs into the LAPOR!-SP4N system, and continues to follow up on the complaints it receives through LAPOR!-SP4N.
15. Improved quality of public complaints handling in the environment and forestry sector	No	No	The Ministry of Environment and Forests planned to develop and administer a new complaints system, and integrate this system into the LAPOR!-SP4N. Due to the nature of the complaints received, the Ministry decided not to fully integrate its independent complaints system into LAPOR!-SP4N. Citizens can now file complains using either system.
16. Strengthened village governance in transparency, participation and responsiveness	No	No	The Ministry of Home Affairs committed to design and implement pilot projects in 30 selected villages, including guidance for participatory and transparent development planning, and publishing budgets at various public facility. While the projects have begun, technical obstacles have hindered the publication of budgetary information in public spaces in many villages.
17. Enhance public information disclosure by the Ministry of Health	No	No	The Ministry of Health aimed to improve information disclosure to the public. By the end of the reporting period, the Ministry had developed a digital communications strategy and increased the number of website visitors and social media page followers.
18. Enhance public information disclosure by the Ministry of Education and Culture	No	No	The Ministry of Education and Culture committed to improve its public information disclosure. By the end of the reporting period, the Ministry fully implemented its digital communications strategy and surpassed its benchmarks for increasing webpage visitors and social media followers.
19. Enhance public information disclosure through pilot projects	No	No	The Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education developed Public Information Lists for 14 delivery units, but it is unclear if the number of website visitors and social media followers increased during the reporting period.
20. Public information disclosure at higher education institutions	No	No	The Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education piloted the Ministerial Regulation on Public Information Management at six public universities. However, the Ministry did not provide additional information on the percentage of public universities that have implemented this regulation.
21. Enhancing budget transparency information system	No	No	While the Ministry of Finance launched a budget data portal in 2016, the available data is not yet integrated with the budget implementation data from each ministry, government agency, and local government.
22. Strengthening of inter- government agency data governance	No	No	The seven pilot projects envisioned for this commitment as part of the One Data Policy were cancelled due to disparate degrees of commitment among the ministries and government agencies involved.
City Government of Banda Aceh
23. Open Data implementation	No	Yes	All 41 Work Units in Banda Aceh integrated their data into the open data portal by 2017.
24. Strengthening of public complaints channels	No	No	All Work Units are now required to have an administrator responsible for following up on complaints received. However, integration of the two Banda Aceh complaints-handling channels into LAPOR! was delayed.
25. Enhanced information disclosure at village levels (Gampong (desa))	No	No	According to the city government, all village governments have posted their budgets in public spaces. Additionally, 62 of 90 village governments had developed official websites by the end of the action plan period.
City Government of Bandung
26. Increase in the number of open data	No	No	By the end of the action plan period, the City Government uploaded 1,046 datasets to the data portal, but fell short of its goal 1500 datasets. Additionally, users are required to submit detailed personal information in order to use the portal.
27. Improve public services	No	No	By the end of the reporting period, many Work Units had not provided their service standard information and it is unclear what percentage of Work Units have been awarded “green zone” service indicator status.
28. Transparency in the Regional Government Budget System	No	No	While the City Government published its 2016 and 2017 budgets online, the 2016 budgets for two Work Units were unavailable. Also, the goals and objectives of grants, as well as the e-budgeting applications, are not available.
29. Transparency in the Regional Government Budget System	No	No	The City Government began to integrate the Bandung Integrated Resource Management (BIRMS) with the National Procurement Office’s General Procurement Plan System, and began to incorporate e-contracting into BIRMS.
30. Enhanced LAPOR! application	No	No	All of Bandung’s public complaint channels have been integrated into the national LAPOR! system, including 151 rural government complaint channels. While the LAPOR! dashboard was developed, it was not fully operational at the end of the reporting period.
31. Increased public satisfaction of complaints handling services	No	Yes	The City Government carried out a survey to determine the causes for delayed responses in LAPOR! complaint handling, assessing the difficulty of complaint responses and the low performance of relevant Work Units addressing the complaint.
32. Enhanced disclosure of citizen proposals to Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) Members	No	Yes	Information on citizen proposals made during recesses of the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) between 2015 to 2018 is available on the Bandung open data portal, including the member of the DPRD who received the proposal, the relevant Work Units, the place of the program, the proposed budget, and the status of the proposal.
33. Greater public participation in disseminating development information	No	No	PPID Sub-Pembantu (information desks) are now operational at 53 junior high schools in Bandung. However, there is no information on how many PPID Sub-Pembantu were developed at elementary schools. The City Government organized several workshops aimed at improving public information disclosure at schools.
City Government of Semarang
34. Regulation on data governance to align with “One Data Indonesia” agenda	No	Yes	The City Government of Semarang completed its assessment of data governance conditions in the five pilot Work Units in 2016 and enacted Mayor Regulation on Data Governance (No. 40/ 2017) in 2017.
35. One data basis for the City Government of Semarang	No	No	The City Government increased data manager capacity for all Work Units and created a “Situation Room” to monitor government applications. Data integration between Semarang and the national “One Data” portal did not occur, as the national data policy was not formalized.
36. Enhanced public information disclosure	No	Yes	The City Government conducted a study to revise Perwal No. 26/ 2012 (on Information Service Desks- PPIDs), which was officially revised by Perwal No. 35/ 2017. A Public Information List was published on the official PPID website for Semarang.
37. Promote public participation in monitoring quality of services	No	No	By the end of the reporting period, one of two Semarang complaints systems (LaporHend) had been integrated into the national LAPOR!-SP4N system. The IRM consultant was unable to confirm if Work Units have followed up on all complaints received.
38. Improved access to information on DPRD institutions and activities	No	No	By the end of the reporting period, most of the relevant data on the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD)’s legislative functions have not been made available.
39. Improved governance of data and information under the authority of DPRD	No	No	While institutional data on the DPRD has been published to its website (such as profiles of the DPRD members and schedules of DPRD activities) the outcomes of DPRD activities regarding budgeting, oversight, and legislations have not been published.
Provincial Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta
45. Strengthen infrastructure for public information disclosure	No	Yes	The Provincial Information Service desk (PPID) in DKI Jakarta developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and an official website that consolidates information on public services.
46. Enhanced utilization of public information through communications strategy	No	No	The development of the draft communication and dissemination strategy for services of DKI Jakarta Work Units is delayed.
47. Enhanced utilization of public information through Jakarta.go.id portal	No	No	The Provincial Government linked the DKI Jakarta open data portal to the websites of most Work Units, though some public information features (such as e-budgeting and e-development) have not been integrated into the portal.
48. Strengthened public services complaints channels	No	No	The Provincial Government began to integrate DKI Jakarta’s public complaints-handling systems, but the IRM consultant was unable to confirm the percentage of effective follow-up to public complaints.
49. Strengthen data governance	No	Yes	As of July 2017, 1,573 datasets have been made publically available on Jakarta’s open data portal, and there are 114 Work Units producing data for the portal.
50. Public participation in development planning	No	No	Citizens can now submit and monitor development proposals online through the e-Musrenbang website during neighbourhood association meetings. This represents a an improvement to transparency and public participation in development planning.

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact

 

• Closely follow OGP guidelines for action plan creation, development, and monitoring.
• Develop a strategy for localizing open government in Indonesia.
• Institutionalize the multistakeholder forum through government decree.
• Include strategic government plans and priorities in the OGP national action plan.
• Create an open online beneficial ownership registry.

All OGP-participating governments develop OGP action plans that include concrete commitments over a two-year period. Governments begin their OGP action plans by sharing existing efforts related to open government, including specific strategies and ongoing programs.

Commitments should be appropriate to each country’s unique circumstances and challenges. OGP commitments should also be relevant to OGP values laid out in the OGP Articles of Governance and Open Government Declaration signed by all OGP-participating countries.[Note19: Open Government Partnership: Articles of Governance, June 2012 (Updated March 2014 and April 2015), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/OGP_Articles-Gov_Apr-21-2015.pdf.%5D

What Makes a Good Commitment?

Recognizing that achieving open government commitments often involves a multiyear process, governments should attach time frames and benchmarks to their commitments that indicate what is to be accomplished each year, whenever possible. This report details each of the commitments the country included in its action plan and analyzes the first year of their implementation.

The indicators used by the IRM to evaluate commitments are as follows:

·       Specificity: This variable assesses the level of specificity and measurability of each commitment. The options are:

o   High: Commitment language provides clear, verifiable activities and measurable deliverables for achievement of the commitment’s objective.

o   Medium: Commitment language describes activity that is objectively verifiable and includes deliverables, but these deliverables are not clearly measurable or relevant to the achievement of the commitment’s objective.

o   Low: Commitment language describes activity that can be construed as verifiable but requires some interpretation on the part of the reader to identify what the activity sets out to do and determine what the deliverables would be.

o   None: Commitment language contains no measurable activity, deliverables, or milestones.

·       Relevance: This variable evaluates the commitment’s relevance to OGP values. Based on a close reading of the commitment text as stated in the action plan, the guiding questions to determine the relevance are:

o   Access to Information: Will the government disclose more information or improve the quality of the information disclosed to the public?

o   Civic Participation: Will the government create or improve opportunities or capabilities for the public to inform or influence decisions?

o   Public Accountability: Will the government create or improve opportunities to hold officials answerable for their actions?

o   Technology & Innovation for Transparency and Accountability: Will technological innovation be used in conjunction with one of the other three OGP values to advance either transparency or accountability?[Note20: IRM Procedures Manual. Available at: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/IRM-Procedures-Manual-v3_July-2016.docx.%5D

·       Potential impact: This variable assesses the potential impact of the commitment, if completed as written. The IRM researcher uses the text from the action plan to:

o   Identify the social, economic, political, or environmental problem;

o   Establish the status quo at the outset of the action plan; and

o   Assess the degree to which the commitment, if implemented, would impact performance and tackle the problem.

Starred commitments are considered exemplary OGP commitments. In order to receive a star, a commitment must meet several criteria:

·       Starred commitments will have “medium” or “high” specificity. A commitment must lay out clearly defined activities and steps to make a judgement about its potential impact.

·       The commitment’s language should make clear its relevance to opening government. Specifically, it must relate to at least one of the OGP values of Access to Information, Civic Participation, or Public Accountability.

·       The commitment would have a “transformative” potential impact if completely implemented.[Note21: The International Experts Panel changed this criterion in 2015. For more information visit: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/node/5919. %5D

·       The government must make significant progress on this commitment during the action plan implementation period, receiving an assessment of “substantial” or “complete” implementation.

Based on these criteria, Indonesia’s action plan did not contain any starred commitments.

Finally, the tables in this section present an excerpt of the wealth of data the IRM collects during its progress reporting process. For the full dataset for Indonesia and all OGP-participating countries, see the OGP Explorer.[Note22: OGP Explorer: bit.ly/1KE2Wil.]

General Overview of the Commitments

Indonesia’s fourth action plan includes 50 total commitments: 22 national level commitments and 28 subnational commitments.

The 28 subnational commitments are divided between five subnational governments:

·       The City Government of Banda Aceh (three commitments);

·       The City Government of Bandung (eight commitments);

·       The City Government of Semarang (six commitments);

·       The Regency Government of Bojonegoro (five commitments); and

·       The Provincial Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (six commitments).

This IRM report retained the original numbering of these subnational commitments from the action plan’s annex.[Note23: For the action plan’s annex, see: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Indonesia_Annex-I_NAP_2016-2017_ENG_1.pdf.%5D However, it should be noted that Bojonegoro’s five commitments (commitments 40–44) are not included in this IRM report due to Bojonegoro’s participation in the OGP Local Program. The Bojonegoro commitments will be assessed in a separate IRM report.

Themes

The IRM divided the 22 national-level commitments in Indonesia’s fourth action plan under the following six thematic areas without changing the original numbering in the action plan:

1. Enhanced public participation (Commitments 1–4);

2. Ombudsman capacity building (Commitments 5–8);

3. LAPOR-SP4N integration (Commitments 9–15);

4. Village governance (Commitment 16);

5. Public information disclosure (Commitments 17–20); and

6. Data governance (Commitments 21 and 22).

The action plan lists the 28 subnational commitments by their responsible government, and not by thematic area. However, general thematic areas for the subnational commitments include open data, improving public participation, and improving public service delivery and public complaint mechanisms.

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is an international multistakeholder initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to their citizenry to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. OGP provides an international forum for dialogue and sharing among governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, all of which contribute to a common pursuit of open government.

Indonesia was one of eight founding member-states of OGP in September 2011, when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono formally launched the initiative along with seven other heads of state and ministers in New York City.[Note1: See: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/about-ogp.%5D

In order to participate in OGP, governments must exhibit a demonstrated commitment to open government by meeting a set of (minimum) performance criteria. Objective, third-party indicators are used to determine the extent of country progress on each of the criteria: fiscal transparency, public official’s asset disclosure, citizen engagement, and access to information. See Section VII: Eligibility Requirements for more details.

All OGP-participating governments develop OGP action plans that elaborate concrete commitments with the aim of changing practice beyond the status quo over a two-year period. The commitments may build on existing efforts, identify new steps to complete ongoing reforms, or initiate action in an entirely new area.

Indonesia developed its fourth national action plan from November 2015 to October 2016. The official implementation period for the action plan was 30 October 2016 through 31 December 2017. This report covers the period from the final month of the plan’s development (October 2016) through July 2017). Any activities or progress occurring between August 2017 and the end of the action plan’s implementation period (December 2017) will be covered in the upcoming IRM End of Term report. The government published its self-assessment in August 2017. However, the self-assessment report was not made available in English and did not include the specific activities that it carried out to implement the individual commitments.

In order to meet OGP requirements, the staff of the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) of OGP carried out this evaluation of the development and implementation of Indonesia’s fourth action plan. To gather the voices of multiple stakeholders, the IRM consulted with two independent researchers in Indonesia, Ravio Patra and Muhammad Maulana, who held interviews with members of Open Government Indonesia (OGI) involved in the development of the action plan, as well as representatives from responsible government institutions and relevant civil society organizations. The IRM aims to inform ongoing dialogue around development and implementation of future commitments. Methods and sources are dealt with in Section VI of this report (Methodology and Sources).

Indonesia’s fourth action plan generally continued to build on the major themes of the previous action plans, such as e-government, village governance, increasing access to information, and improving public service delivery. While the action plan covered a broad range of issues, most of its activities were internal government metrics for success. While several stakeholder priorities were incorporated, the overall scope of these commitments was mostly limited.

2.1 Background

The Republic of Indonesia is an archipelago in Southeast Asia with a population of roughly 260 million people and a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of over 1 trillion USD.[Note2: International Monetary Fund, “5. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects” (Oct. 2017), http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=34&pr.y=15&sy=2018&ey=2022&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=536&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a.%5D Indonesia joined OGP in 2011 as one of eight founding member-states, served as co-chair from 2012 to 2014, and has since developed four national action plans as part of the initiative.[Note3: The other seven founding members of OGP are Brazil, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.] The country’s previous action plans have focused on a range of issues pertaining to e-government, natural resources, and public service delivery. However, the previous action plans generally saw low levels of completion due in part to the limited time allocated for implementation (usually lasting one fiscal year, as opposed to the two-year action plan cycle recommended for OGP action plans). The 2016–2017 plan represents the country’s first under the presidential administration of Joko Widodo, who assumed office in October 2014, though the major thematic areas covered in the plan remain largely the same as previous plans.

After decades of authoritarian rule, Indonesia began to transition to democracy and a more open political environment starting in the late 1990s. The Reformasi (“reform” in English) period saw a significant shift of political autonomy to the country’s many regional and local governments. This period also saw the continuation of separatist conflicts in the provinces of Aceh and Papua. A formal political settlement to the Aceh conflict was reached between the separatists (the Free Aceh Movement) and the central government in 2005 following the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean in 2004.

The Indonesian archipelago is home to an abundance of natural resources, and extractive industries (particularly petroleum and precious metals) have contributed to Indonesia’s recent transition from a developing economy to a middle-income economy. However, environmental and socio-political issues have also emerged. The decentralization policy of the 2000s afforded resource-rich regions with greater decision-making power over their resources. Notably, the 2009 Mining Law (Law No.4/ 2009) allowed district governments to independently issue licenses to foreign companies to extract resources within their jurisdictions. However, local conflicts over land rights persist.

Notably, the Geospatial Information Agency has continued to develop the One Map Policy (begun in 2010) which will consolidate the government’s disparate geospatial data on land use into a single, nationwide map, with the hope that this map will reduce overlapping land licenses and improve the overall governance of natural resources.[Note4: Anna Wellenstein, “One Map: accelerating unified land administration for Indonesia” (The World Bank, 1 Sept. 2017),

 http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/one-map-accelerating-unified-land-administration-indonesia.] However, while the government hopes to have the entire country mapped by 2019, the ambitious project has faced difficulties at the local level, particularly in regards to mapping land that legally belongs to indigenous groups.

Indonesia has continued to implement the 2014 Village Law (Law No.6/ 2014), which requires the central government allocate a specific amount of funding to Indonesia’s villages to help villages finance development based on their own priorities.[Note5: Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 6/2014 About Village, available at:

 http://www.indolaw.org/UU/Law%20No.%206%20of%202014%20on%20Villages.pdf.] The amount of funding that individual villages receive is determined by a formula which considers population size, poverty rate, village size, and its degree of geographic isolation. While the Village Law stipulates that budgetary planning must involve consultations with village representatives (e.g. religious leaders, farmers, fishermen, women groups, and marginalized people), many villages have struggled to adequately incorporate the concerns of such groups into their budget plans.[Note6: Novi Anggriani, “Indonesia’s Village Law: A Step Toward Inclusive Governance” (The Asia Foundation, 17 Feb. 2016), https://asiafoundation.org/2016/02/17/indonesias-village-law-a-step-toward-inclusive-governance/.%5D Moreover, since the enactment of the Village Law, there have been instances of national government agencies trying to influence the allocation of village funds.[Note7: Jacqueline Vel and Yando Zakaria, “New law, old bureaucracy” (Inside Indonesia, 9 May 2017), http://www.insideindonesia.org/new-law-old-bureaucracy-2.%5D For example, the Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration issued a “one village, one product” policy in 2016, which prioritizes funding particular enterprises, and could restrict the ability of villagers to decide priority areas for themselves.[Note8: EduNews, “Menteri Desa : Dana Desa Mesti Lahirkan Satu Desa Satu Produk” (19 Oct. 2016), https://www.edunews.id/news/nasional/menteri-desa-dana-desa-mesti-lahirkan-satu-desa-satu-produk/.%5D

Indonesia is also in the process of implementing major health care reforms (launched in January 2014), with the aim of achieving universal coverage by 2019.[Note9: Jack Hewson, “Indonesia’s innovative healthcare scheme” (Al Jazeera, 16 Jan. 2014), https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/indonesia-innovative-healthcare-scheme-201411485331598453.html.%5D While the reforms have expanded health care coverage, health clinics across the country have faced difficulty in keeping up with the increased demand, and revenue from the new system has been relatively low.[Note10: Jon Emont, “A country of a quarter-billion people is trying to provide health care for all” (The Washington Post, 19 May 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/a-country-of-a-quarter-billion-people-seeks-to-provide-free-health-care-for-all/2016/05/18/f36bf7b2-1b93-11e6-82c2-a7dcb313287d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d0bea8c8f38e.%5D As the government continues to implement the reforms, transparency in health care pricing and coverage remain an issue.

2.2 Scope of Action Plan in Relation to National Context

Although Indonesia’s fourth action plan covers a wide variety of relevant open government issues in the country, many commitments are relatively limited in scope compared to the issues they try to address. Several stakeholder priorities from the previous action plan were not incorporated into the 2016–17 plan, such as transparency of the fishery and marine sector, and transparency in the criminal justice system (part of the IRM key recommendations from the previous action plan). Commitment 4 involves the country’s nationwide One Map Policy by seeking to provide a standard reference for public participation in geospatial mapping. The One Map Policy is a major project designed to address local conflicts over land rights and overlapping land licenses. However, while this commitment could improve public participation in developing a unified map, it does not address the difficulties in consulting indigenous communities who are often most affected by overlapping land licenses.

Commitment 16 could improve access to budgetary information in select villages, however, it is unclear how the commitment would improve public participation and accountability in the development of village needs and priorities. Additionally, Commitment 17 aims to increase the number of followers for the Ministry of Health’s social media accounts and develop a communications strategy for the Ministry. While improving communication between the government and the public could raise awareness of information pertaining to a key public service (health), this commitment does not directly address the quality or accessibility of information provided by the Ministry of Health.

Transparency, participation, and accountability in natural resource management are vital given the importance of natural resources to Indonesia’s economy and citizens. The fourth action plan contains a commitment to integrate the Ministry of Environment and Forestry complaints systems into the national LAPOR!-SP4N system, which could lead to an increase in public reporting and government response to environmental complaints in Indonesia. However, the action plan does not include commitments that directly involve the correlation between open government and the extractives sector, such as Indonesia’s implementation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Standard. EITI compliance includes several technical requirements (such as the establishment of a multistakeholder group to oversee the country’s compliance), and the inclusion of such initiatives into OGP action plans can provide valuable support.

Consultation in the development of Indonesia’s fourth action plan was limited to a handful of CSOs that are involved in OGI, and a select number of ministries and government agencies that were chosen ahead of time. OGI did not raise public awareness, and the multistakeholder group only met once at the end of the action plan period. Although OGI submitted a self-assessment report, the report was not available in English, and did not include evidence of implementation activities carried out for the commitments.

3.1 Leadership

This subsection describes the OGP leadership and institutional context for OGP in Indonesia. Table 3.1 summarizes this structure while the narrative section (below) provides additional detail.

Table 3.1: OGP Leadership

1. Structure	Yes	No
Is there a clearly designated Point of Contact for OGP (individual)?	X
	Shared	Single
Is there a single lead agency on OGP efforts?	X
	Yes	No
Is the head of government leading the OGP initiative?		X
2. Legal Mandate	Yes	No
Is the government’s commitment to OGP established through an official, publicly released mandate?	X
Is the government’s commitment to OGP established through a legally binding mandate?		X
3. Continuity and Instability	Yes	No
Was there a change in the organization(s) leading or involved with the OGP initiatives during the action plan implementation cycle?	X
Was there a change in the executive leader during the duration of the OGP action plan cycle?		X

 

Indonesia is a presidential republic with the President serving as the head of state and the head of government. The Open Government Indonesia Secretariat (OGI) is the lead coalition responsible for overseeing the daily activities for OGP in Indonesia, including the development and implementation of the fourth action plan. OGI consists of a Steering Committee that is co-led by the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), the Presidential Staff Office (KSP), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Table 3.1 on the leadership and mandate of OGP in Indonesia.

Initially, the OGP process in Indonesia was coordinated by the KSP through the President’s Delivery Unit for Development Supervision and Control (UKP4), whose role was later taken over by Bappenas. During the implementation period for the previous action plan, OGI was led by UKP4, which coordinated civil society and government stakeholders through an assembly called the Core Team. However, following the 2014 General Election (in which Joko Widodo assumed the presidency), responsibility for OGI was moved permanently from KSP to Bappenas. This move from KSP to Bappenas was meant to improve OGI’s viability in three major ways:

1)    Unlike KSP, Bappenas has an institutional mandate that allows it to enforce policy changes on other government agencies. This mandate improves OGI’s ability to coordinate OGP activities by enabling OGI to compel ministries and agencies to implement their OGP commitments. In this way, OGI can better streamline the OGP process in Indonesia.

2)    The move to Bappenas helps ensure OGI’s institutional continuity during future political transitions. This is important because KSP staff usually undergo wholescale changes during political transitions. By becoming the purview of Bappenas, OGI is better insulated during these periods of political transition.

3)    The shift to Bappenas also ensures that the OGI initiative and the OGP process remain politically neutral. The priorities and composition of KSP are based largely on the President’s own policy preferences, which could compromise the political neutrality of OGI. By decoupling OGI from the KSP, the intent is to prevent OGI from becoming too dependent on one particular political leader or party.

Initially, KSP allocated four staff to manage daily operations of the OGI Secretariat, and according to Presidential Decree Number 13 in 2014, OGP-related funding was sourced from APBN (the State’s Income and Expenditure Budget). OGI staffing remained small following the transfer to Bappenas, and those who work on OGP activities also work on other open government policy areas. It is important to note that in January 2018, shortly following the conclusion of the fourth action plan’s implementation period, the entire OGI Secretariat staff (including high level and administrative staff) ended their contracts with OGI. At the time of this report (April 2018), the OGI Secretariat remains unstaffed, and there is no core team responsible for monitoring commitment implementation. However, the IRM consultant was able to reach out to the former Head of the OGI Secretariat and a few former staff members at OGI and Bappenas to discuss the activities conducted during the implementation period. For more information, see Section IV: Methodology and Sources.

Finally, Indonesia has a highly decentralized government system with significant levels of autonomy for provinces, regencies, and cities. Therefore, national commitments require significant approval from the subnational governments. The fourth action plan includes 28 commitments from five subnational governments: the city governments of Banda Aceh, Bandung, Semarang, the Regency Government of Bojonegoro, and the Provincial Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta. Bojonegoro Regency joined the OGP Subnational Government Pilot Program (renamed the OGP Local Program[Note11: For more information on Open Government Indonesia (OGI), see: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/local.%5D) in 2016, and its five commitments will be assessed in a separate IRM report.[Note12: For the Bojonegoro action plan, see: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Bojonegoro_Subnational_Action-Plan_2016-17_ENG_0.pdf.%5D

3.2 Intragovernmental Participation

This subsection describes which government institutions were involved at various stages in OGP. The next section will describe which nongovernmental organizations were involved in OGP.

Table 3.2: Participation in OGP by Government Institutions

How did institutions participate?	Ministries, Departments, and Agencies	Legislative	Judiciary (including quasi-judicial agencies)	Other (including constitutional independent or autonomous bodies)	Subnational Governments
Consult: These institutions observed or were invited to observe the action plan but may not be responsible for commitments in the action plan.	Open Government Indonesia	0	0	0	5[Note13: The City Government of Banda Aceh, the City Government of Bandung, the City Government of Semarang, the Regency Government of Bojonegoro, and the Provincial Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.]
Propose: These institutions proposed commitments for inclusion in the action plan.	Open Government Indonesia	0	0	0	5
Implement:  These institutions are responsible for implementing commitments in the action plan whether or not they proposed the commitments.	13[Note14: Bappenas, the Geospatial Information Agency, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Civil Service Reform, the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of State Owned Enterprises, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ombudsman.]	0	0	0	5

 

The OGI Secretariat selected ministries and government agencies that it deemed relevant to the open government priority areas that would be covered in the action plan. OGI notified these government institutions after the action plan’s priority areas were determined, therefore these institutions were not able to shape the action plan development. Government institutions were appointed by OGI to coordinate commitment implementation according to institutions’ purview. For example, the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, and the Ministry of Health were determined to be important for the theme of public service reform, and thus each of these ministries are responsible for individual commitments in the action plan. Table 3.2 above details which institutions were involved in OGP.

OGI also reached out to subnational governments to include commitments in the national action plan. However, Indonesia’s deeply federalized government system poses challenges for the national government to unilaterally compel subnational governments to adopt country-wide, top-down policies. The national government requested that the five above-mentioned subnational governments provide a list of commitments for their city or regency that they wanted included in the national action plan and that were based on the pre-determined priority areas. These subnational commitments were then added to Indonesia’s national action plan separately, but without serious coordination for common areas of interest shared between the national and subnational governments, nor was there discussion over potential technical or knowledge expertise that might be shared between governments. This lack of coordination essentially resulted in six separate action plans being combined into one (i.e. five subnational plans, plus the national plan).

If subnational governments are to be included in future national action plans, the national government should use a bottom-up approach that accounts for the decentralization and adheres to OGP co-creation standards. Given that subnational governments often have a greater impact on the daily lives of many Indonesian citizens, subnational commitments could positively impact open government in Indonesia. However, the national government should better integrate them into the action plan as opposed to simply adding them without the proper scrutiny. For example, if subnational commitments are based on national priority areas, the national government should provide sufficient resources and expertise to the subnational governments for their implementation. The national government should also ensure that development of these subnational commitments meets OGP standards for co-creation (i.e. through stakeholder consultations).

3.3 Civil Society Engagement

Countries participating in OGP follow a set of requirements for consultation during development, implementation, and review of their OGP action plan. Table 3.3 summarizes the performance of Indonesia during the 2016-2017 action plan.

Table 3.3: National OGP Process

Key Steps Followed: 4 of 7
Before	1. Timeline Process & Availability				2. Advance Notice
	Timeline and process available online prior to consultation	Yes	No		Advance notice of consultation	Yes		No
		✔				✔
	3. Awareness Raising				4. Multiple Channels
	Government carried out awareness-raising activities	Yes		No	4a. Online consultations:	Yes	No
				X		✔
					4b. In-person consultations:	Yes	No
						✔
	5. Documentation & Feedback
	Summary of comments provided					Yes	No
							X
During	6. Regular Multistakeholder Forum
	6a. Did a forum exist?	Yes	No		6b. Did it meet regularly?	Yes		No
		✔						X
After	7. Government Self-Assessment Report
	7a. Annual self-assessment report published?	Yes		No	7b. Report available in English and administrative language?	Yes	No
		✔					X
	7c. Two-week public comment period on report?	Yes		No	7d. Report responds to key IRM recommendations?	Yes	No
		✔				✔

 

Seven civil society organizations (CSOs) are formally involved in the OGI coalition, and civil society engagement was mostly limited to these seven organizations during the development of the action plan. While civil society was able to participate, the government made little effort to elicit their feedback. Thus, while the procedural aspects of co-creation were achieved through including a select number of CSOs, civil society did not set the agenda during the plan’s development.

OGI began the plan’s co-creation by identifying the primary challenges faced by Indonesia in achieving open and accountable government. From a larger list of challenges, OGI identified the following three to be addressed in the action plan:

1)    Encouraging utilization of disclosed information,

2)    Promoting public participation in government administration systems, and

3)    Enhancing government’s responsiveness to citizens’ needs and aspirations.

These three thematic areas were determined by the government prior to the start of the co-creation process, and civil society did not have an opportunity to influence this decision. OGI invited CSOs to participate in the development consultations one week prior to their start, but did not otherwise raise awareness of the process. Meeting schedules were available in advance on the OGI website, as were the minutes and materials from past meetings. In-person consultations included focus group discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders at the national and subnational levels, and the dissemination of questionnaires. OGI also posted questionnaires on its website and social media pages (Facebook and Twitter). There is no evidence to suggest that OGI provided participating stakeholders with explanations on how their feedback was incorporated (if at all) into the final wording of the commitments.

As mentioned in Section 3.2, OGI identified five subnational governments to submit commitments for Indonesia’s national action plan. The action plan lists the Provincial Government of Aceh, the Bojonegoro Regency, and City of Makasar as the three “regions” selected to participate. According to the action plan, these three governments were chosen to represent the western, central, and eastern regions of the country, as well as the three levels of subnational government administration. However, the exact process to include these subnational governments is unclear, and the final number of participating subnational governments was five (see Section 3.1). Commitment proposals came from the national government, the subnational governments, and civil society. Examples of civil society proposals that were included in the action plan as subnational commitments were Banda Aceh’s open data integration program (Commitment 23) and improving information disclosure for Semarang’s city legislature (Commitment 38).

The action plan was finalized on 7 November 2016 through an enactment letter signed by the Deputy of Politics, Law, Defense and Security of Bappenas.[Note15: The letter was shared by the OGI Secretariat with the IRM upon the IRM consultant’s request.] This letter stipulates that the action plan’s implementation period would correspond to the government’s fiscal year from January to December 2017. The alignment with the fiscal year is helpful in terms of providing sufficient funding for implementation. However, it should be noted that the subsequent one year implementation period (December 2016 to December 2017) is likely insufficient time to enact major, nationwide reforms. This is reflected in the content of the action, which includes several commitments that improve upon performance indicators (such as increasing the number of datasets in open data portals and the response rate of complaint channels), as opposed to the enactment of more comprehensive reforms.

Table 3.4: Level of Public Influence

The IRM has adapted the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) “Spectrum of Participation” to apply to OGP.[Note16: For more information on the IAP2 Spectrum, see: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf.%5D This spectrum shows the potential level of public influence on the contents of the action plan. In the spirit of OGP, most countries should aspire for “collaborative.”

 

Level of public influence		During development of action plan	During implementation of action plan
Empower	The government handed decision-making power to members of the public.
Collaborate	There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda.
Involve	The government gave feedback on how public inputs were considered.
Consult	The public could give inputs.	X
Inform	The government provided the public with information on the action plan.		X
No Consultation	No consultation

3.4 Consultation During Implementation

As part of their participation in OGP, governments commit to identify a forum to enable regular multistakeholder consultation on OGP implementation. This can be an existing entity or a new one. This section summarizes that information.

Although OGI technically maintained a forum during the implementation period, it only met once at the end of the year to review the government’s progress. Similar to the action plan’s development, this forum was limited to the seven CSOs who were involved in OGI. The government did not invite other CSOs or the public to participate, and there was no breakdown of implementation activities by commitment. Additionally, there was no way for civil society or the public to independently verify the government’s progress toward implementation, as the progress was tracked internally. While OGI provided the IRM consultant with its tracking documents upon request, the internal nature of the tracking is problematic as many commitments involved metrics that the government set for itself. Moving forward, the government should develop a public repository of tracking documents so that the IRM and others may better track implementation, as per the new OGP co-creation standards.

3.5 Self-Assessment

The OGP Articles of Governance require that participating countries publish a self-assessment report three months after the end of the first year of implementation. The self-assessment report must be made available for public comments for a two-week period. This section assesses compliance with these requirements and the quality of the report.

OGI published its self-assessment report for the 2016–17 action plan in August 2017.[Note17: The assessment is available at: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Indonesia_Mid-Term_Self-Assessment_2016-2017.pdf.%5D The draft self-assessment was made available for public comment on the OGI website and WhatsApp group from 14 August to 28 August 2017. However, OGI has not published the feedback it received during the preparation of the final version of the action plan. The report was available in Bahasa only.

Overall, OGI’s submission does not meet the basic OGP standards for self-assessment reports. Apart from the lack of an English-language version, the self-assessment report did not provide any descriptions of the baseline activities that were carried out to implement the individual commitments. Additionally, it did not include any supporting documents of implementation (e.g. participant lists or links to relevant webpages). Instead, the self-assessment contains broad summaries of action plan achievements, (e.g. improving the LAPOR! complaints system and implementing the One Data Policy) without explicitly linking these successes with the specific activities listed in the action plan’s annex. The self-assessment report states that 35 commitments (70%) were completed; however, the report contains no supporting evidence for IRM confirmation, nor did it provide the next steps that the government intends to take to implement remaining commitments or which commitments will be carried forward.

Going forward, future self-assessment reports should include:

1)    Implementation levels for each commitment (“complete,” “substantial,” “limited,” or “not started”), including those articulated in relevant annexes.

2)    Documentation of the corresponding evidence to support these levels of implementation. The provision of such documentation will be required in OGP’s updated co-creation guidelines, which stipulate that governments should develop a repository of documents that are relevant to action plan implementation. This is especially important for the commitments in Indonesia’s fourth action plan, which includes numerous “indicators” of success that are internal government activities, and not always publically accessible (such as increasing in webpage views and increasing the response percentage of public complaints).

3)    The specific “next steps” that the government plans to take for each commitment, which should be based on the implementation levels for the current action plan and the preliminary result of implementation.

3.6 Response to Previous IRM Recommendations

Table 3.5: Previous IRM Report Key Recommendations

Recommendation		Addressed?	Integrated into Action Plan?
1	The fourth action plan should include fewer, more ambitious commitments and focus on increasing ownership of the commitments among implementing agencies and CSO partners.	✔	X
2	When developing the fourth national action plan, Open Government Indonesia should reflect stakeholder priorities by including commitments that provide open government solutions to the following policy areas: • One Map Policy and the recognition of indigenous land rights, including their utilization in regional development plans; • Implementation of the Village Law; • Implementation of the National Health System; • Transparency of the fishery and marine sector; • Privacy and protection of personal data; • Fiscal transparency; • Transparency in each stage of criminal justice system (the police, the prosecutor’s office, court sessions and remission); • Transparency of procurement, by publishing government contracts; and • Transparency of extractive industries.	✔	X
3	An online platform should be developed to enable the public to track progress on and participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of commitments in OGP action plans.	✔	X
4	In order to increase public participation and enhance transparency in action plan implementation, the OGI National Secretariat should develop and enact “Rules of Procedure” for CSO and public participation in the Secretariat.	✔	X
5	The government should immediately approve the draft OGI Secretariat structure to ensure that action plan implementation and the day-to-day workings of the OGI Secretariat is insulated against regime changes.	✔	✔

 

While OGI’s self-assessment report addresses the IRM’s five key recommendations form the third action plan, the actual integration of these recommendations into the fourth action plan is dubious. For Recommendation 1, the fourth action plan contains significantly more commitments than the third plan (19 in the third, 50 in the fourth). Additionally, many commitments in the fourth action plan lack ambition, particularly those that focus on increasing the number of web visits and social media account followers, while others lack clear relevance to OGP values (such as commitments on the integration of the LAPOR!-SP4N public complaint systems).

For Recommendation 2, only some of the stakeholder priority areas from the third action plan were incorporated into the fourth. The fourth plan contains commitments such as the One Map Policy (Commitment 4, though this commitment does not address indigenous land rights), village governance (Commitment 16), fiscal transparency (Commitment 21), and procurement transparency (Commitment 29 for Bandung). However, other stakeholder priorities were not addressed, such as transparency in the marine and extractives sectors, transparency in the criminal justice system, and the protection of personal data. Additionally, while Commitment 15 deals with the forestry and environmental sector, it does not involve improving transparency, and while Commitment 17 involves the Ministry of Health, it is focused on the development of a communications strategy, not the implementation of the National Health System. 

For Recommendation 3, OGI did not develop a publicly available online system for tracking progress toward implementing commitments. Although OGI maintains a repository for data and information pertaining to OGP commitments, this repository is internal within OGI and is only available by an in-person request at the Bappennas office. Going forward, OGP’s new co-creation standards will require participating countries to develop a dashboard (real-time tracker) on the national OGP webpage that “provides up to date information on the status of all commitments in an accessible and easy-to-understand format for an average citizen.”[Note18: For more information, see the OGP Participation & Co-creation Standards, available at:

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards

Regarding Recommendation 4, the OGI Secretariat did not create Rules of Procedure for CSO and public participation in the OGI Secretariat. Additionally, OGI’s Strategic Plan does not explicitly mention procedures for civil society and public participation in the OGI Secretariat.

Recommendation 5 was incorporated into the action plan through Commitment 1 (the formation of a Strategic Plan and corresponding Roadmap for the OGI Secretariat). The Strategic Plan and Roadmap are important documents for OGI as it transitions from the Presidential Staff Office (KSP) to Bappenas as they provide a long-term vision that is politically neutral, and ensure that OGI continues to function amidst future political changes. 

Although Indonesia’s fourth action plan addressed major issues, the scope was limited due to the emphasis on internal, e-government indicators, as opposed to opening up government practice. It is important that future plans more closely follow OGP guidelines for co-creation and implementation, and that Indonesia prioritizes fewer, more impactful commitments around major open government issues in the country (such as sustainable development goals), and develop a strategy to more effectively incorporate subnational initiatives into the action plan.

This section aims to inform development of the next action plan and guide completion of the current action plan. It is divided into two sections: 1) those civil society and government priorities identified while elaborating this report and 2) the recommendations of the IRM.

5.1 Stakeholder Priorities

While Indonesia’s fourth action plan addresses several open government issues such as the One Map Policy, environmental protection, village governance, and health sector information disclosure, the actual scope of these commitments was limited. Additionally, several stakeholder priorities that were recommended from the previous action plan were not included, such transparency in the fishery and marine sector, and transparency in the criminal justice system.

Moving forward, the next action could include commitments that directly incorporate Indonesia’s sustainable development goals (SDGs), with an emphasis on using OGP to reinforce these initiatives by making them more open and inclusive. Establishing a beneficial ownership registry (discussed in greater detail below) could also be an important priority area to include in the next action plan, particularly given the recent approval Presidential Regulation No. 13/ 2018.

5.2 IRM Recommendations

Closely follow OGP guidelines for the action plan co-creation, development, and monitoring

Moving forward, it is imperative that Indonesia ensure that the next action plan co-creation process closely follows the minimum standards set by the OGP Steering Committee. These should include:

Adopting two-year implementation periods for action plans

Indonesia should adopt the standard two-year implementation period for its future action plans. Indonesia’s four action plans have all been one-year initiatives, including the most recent plan (July 2016–December 2017). While this timeline is designed to align the action plan with the country’s fiscal year so that commitments receive sufficient funding, it inhibits the inclusion of longer-term and more impactful nationwide reforms. This is largely evident in the content of the fourth action plan, While the fourth action plan includes commitments that are connected to long-term reform efforts, many of the activities are internal government indicators of success.[Note214: For more information on the effect of the one-year timeframe on the action plan, see Section 3.3: Civil Society Engagement.] Two-year action plans will allow the government to incorporate more ambitious commitments that are part of deeper structural reforms.

Prioritizing fewer, more impactful commitments

Despite a recommendation from the previous IRM report to include fewer, more ambitious commitments, Indonesia’s fourth action plan included a total of 50 commitments (22 national and 28 subnational), Therefore, the IRM again recommends that Indonesia limit the number of commitments in future action plans, and consider capping the number of commitments to 20 total, as suggested by the OGP Steering Committee during its September 2017 meeting.[Note215: OGP Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, (OGP, 20 Sept. 2017), 5, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/SC-Meeting-Minutes_September2017.pdf,.] Many commitments in the fourth action plan lacked ambition compared to the status quo or problem they addressed. For example, commitments 17–20 mostly include internal performance indicators (KPIs) as measurements of successful implementation, namely increasing the number of followers of government ministries’ social media webpages, and developing a “digital communication strategy.” In reducing the number of commitments, the government should move away from internal e-government metrics and the integration of platforms (like LAPOR!-SP4N), and move toward initiatives that more directly affect decision-making, create additional feedback mechanisms, and address the government’s major reform priority areas (mentioned in Recommendation 4).

Creating an online repository for key documents related to the action plan

The government should create an online repository with documentation that is relevant to the action plan development and implementation. As mentioned earlier in Section 3.6, documentation on commitment progress was mostly internal within OGI, and only available through in-person requests at the Bappenas office. In order to ensure that Indonesia meets the minimum co-creation requirements according to the updated OGP Participation and Co-creation Standards, OGI should develop a document repository that is 1) available online (on the OGI website) without any barriers to access, 2) updated in real-time or regularly, and 3) includes relevant evidence for progress and completion of commitments, as well as evidence for consultations and multi-stakeholder forums.[Note216: “The OGP Participation and Co-Creation Toolkit” (OGP), 30, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/OGP-Participation-Co-Creation-Toolkit.pdf In general, the online repository should provide a historical record and access to all documents related to the OGP process, including (but not limited to) consultation documents, action plans, government self-assessments, IRM reports, and supporting documentation of commitment implementation.

Develop a clear strategy for localizing open government in Indonesia

A key component in prioritizing fewer, more impactful commitments is for the national government to reconsider how it incorporates subnational government units in the action plan. The fourth action plan includes 28 commitments from five subnational entities, but their inclusion generally did not meet OGP criteria for co-creation. Given the high levels of decentralization in Indonesia, subnational involvement in OGP is important toward ensuring that commitments meet the needs of citizens. However, as mentioned in Section 3 of this report, there were limited consultations with civil society and the public regarding the scale and scope of these subnational commitments, thus making the reasoning for their inclusion in the national plan unclear. Additionally, while local government is important in Indonesia’s highly decentralized system, the country’s national action plan should focus on commitments that are impactful at a national level. Currently, subnational commitments in the fourth action plan are piecemeal initiatives, and serve largely as “mini” action plans with no discernible impact at the national level.

With this in mind, if the national government includes commitments at the local level into future national action plan, the IRM recommends that these commitments be designed and implemented in a way that could have a positive impact on open government in Indonesia as a whole. For example, national action plans could include one or two signature commitments that are implemented across several levels of government. Also, local level commitments in future national action plans could be designed and implemented so that they can serve as pilot projects that assess their general effectiveness and broader replicability at the national level. Beyond the commitments themselves, the national government could also provide technical guidance and support for subnational initiatives when needed. This could involve providing guidelines on co-creation, monitoring and assessment for local government reforms, and localizing initiatives at the national level (such as the major priority reform areas mentioned under Recommendation 4).

 

Institutionalize the multistakeholder forum through government decree

Civil society and public involvement in monitoring the fourth action plan was highly limited, and OGI’s multistakeholder forum met only once at the end of the implementation period. Moving forward, it is important that Indonesia institutionalize it’s multistakeholder forum through an official government mandate. An official government mandate could:

1. Help guarantee greater government participation in the forum (and in the action plan development and implementation) beyond the institutions that are directly involved in OGI (e.g. Bappenas, KSP, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
2. Establish clear regulations that formalize the forum’s activities and schedule (i.e. provide a clear timeline for regular meetings and rules for participation).
3. Develop buy-in from government and civil society participants on their respective roles, particularly during action plan implementation.

When writing the mandate, the government should strive to meet the general principles as recommended by OGP regarding the development, creation, and role of the forum during action plan development and implementation monitoring.[Note217: “Designing and Managing an OGP Multistakeholder Forum: A Practical Handbook with Guidance and Ideas” (OGP), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Multistakeholder%20Forum%20Handbook.pdf.%5D

 

Include strategic government plans and priorities (particularly those led by Bappenas) in the national action plan

While certain commitments in Indonesia’s fourth action plan do address government priority areas mentioned in Section 2: Country Context, many of these commitments are relatively minor reforms. For example, commitments that aim to increase the number of people viewing government webpages and social media pages, increase the number of LAPOR! users, and integrate other complaint-handling systems into LAPOR!-SP4N, though positive initiatives, do not necessarily measure citizen engagement in decision-making processes, or provide citizens with additional means of holding the government accountable.

Moving forward, the government should better integrate its existing strategic reforms into future action plans by leveraging OGP’s technical expertise and by using OGP as a separate platform to further reinforce these reforms. OGP possesses a wealth of knowledge and experience in helping governments develop technical solutions that make decision-making processes more inclusive and open, and that close the feedback loops between the government and the public. With this in mind, existing government reforms should be incorporated into future OGP action plans in a way that adds value to these reforms.

Notably, as the lead government institution for OGP in Indonesia, Bappenas is well-positioned to harness Indonesia’s participation in OGP to improve upon its reform initiatives. Bappenas is currently heavily involved in the implementation of Indonesia’s 2030 sustainable development goals (SDGs) with the United Nations Development Group.[Note218: “Indonesia: Promoting Inclusive Approaches to Localize the SDGS” (United Nations Development Group), https://undg.org/indonesia-promoting-inclusive-approaches-to-localize-the-sdgs/.%5D Therefore, Indonesia’s future action plans could include commitments that address of overlap between Bappenas, civil society stakeholders, and Indonesia’s SDGs. Specific examples include healthcare provision, environmental governance, and gender equality.

Healthcare provision

Good health and well-being is one of Indonesia’s SDGs (Goal 3), and Indonesia is currently implementing major healthcare reforms that aim to achieve universal health coverage by 2019. The reforms also seek to address regional disparities in service quality and accessibility. Future OGP action plans could include specific commitments that help implement this program by including public consultations on healthcare reforms and focusing on consultations with rural communities with less access to quality services. Bappenas and the Ministry of Health could increase engagement in this sector by identifying key health issues with citizens and stakeholders, release more government-held information on health, and spread information on disease prevention and access to healthcare (hospitals, doctors, etc.). Other possible commitments in this area could involve the creation of a mechanism for citizens to report corruption in the health sector or report long lines and undersupplied facilities (i.e. lack of medicine).

 

Environmental governance

Environmental governance is one of the four SDG pillars for Indonesia. Bappenas’ SDG integration program includes six environmental priority areas:

1) Water security;

2) Housing and residential development;

3) Climate change adaptation and mitigation;

4) Development of the marine-based economy;

5) Protection of natural resources, environment and disaster management; and

6) Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.[Note219: Gellwynn Yusuf, “Integrating SDGs to Development Plan” (Ministry of National Development/Bappenas, Republic of Indonesia, 24–25 Oct. 2016), http://www.asia-pacific.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/meetTheSDGs/Opening%20-%20Country%20Reflections%20-%20Indonesia%20(by%20Mr.%20Jusuf).pdf.]

Future action plans could include commitments that incorporate these environmental governance issues. For example, Bappenas can work with the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to hold consultations with rural communities in developing and implementing climate change mitigation policy.

Gender equality

Gender equality is currently both a goal of Indonesia’s SDGs (Goal 3) and an important priority area for OGP.[Note220: See: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/theme/gender.%5D Indonesia can leverage future action plans to address issues that affect women, particularly in rural communities. Gender-based commitments could be tied to the incorporation of subnational governments into the national action plan (as mentioned above) by testing pilot projects for replicability. For example, the national government could adopt a similar commitment to Bojonegoro Regency’s commitment and regularly survey public service delivery, which is an initiative that could potentially be replicated on a national scale.[Note221: “Open Government Sub-national Action Plan Bojonegoro Regency Government Year 2016-2017” (OGP, 2017), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Bojonegoro_Subnational_Action-Plan_2016-17_ENG_0.pdf.%5D

Create an open online beneficial ownership registry

Overall, the theme of anti-corruption was largely absent from the commitments in Indonesia’s fourth action plan. Moving forward, Indonesia should use its participation in OGP to advance anti-corruption reforms, particularly in the areas of beneficial ownership and open contracting. Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018 (which came into effect on 1 March 2018) requires corporations to disclose information on beneficial owners to the government.[Note222: Presidential Regulation No. 13 2018, available for download (in Bahasa) here: http://eiti.ekon.go.id/en/perpres-13-2018/.%5D To ensure transparency, the IRM recommends that Indonesia develop an open, publically available register for information on beneficial ownership that is in line with both the Presidential Regulation No. 13 and with international best practices. Examples of beneficial ownership registries that Indonesia could copy include those from the UK[Note223: For more information on the UK’s beneficial ownership registry, see: Robert Palmer, Sam Leon, “What Does the UK Beneficial Ownership Data Show Us?” (OGP, 24 Nov. 2016), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/what-does-uk-beneficial-ownership-data-show-us.%5D and the Ukraine.[Note224: For more information on Ukraine’s beneficial ownership registry, see: Zosia Sztykowski, “Ukraine opened up its beneficial ownership data: why it matters and how your country can be next” (OGP, 8 Jun. 2017), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/ukraine-opened-its-beneficial-ownership-data-why-it-matters-and-how-your-country-can-be-next.%5D Indonesia could also use future OGP action plans to improve transparency around open contracting, where the country has been slow to follow emerging trends.

Notably, Indonesia hosted the 2017 EITI Beneficial Ownership Transparency Conference.[Note225: For more information on the 2017 Beneficial Ownership Transparency Conference, see: https://eiti.org/eitibo2017.%5D To ensure its compliance with EITI, Indonesia has developed a beneficial ownership transparency roadmap that will be implemented by the end of 2019.[Note226: Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, EITI Indonesia, “Final Report: A Roadmap of beneficial Ownership Transparency in the Extractive Industries in Indonesia,”  https://eiti.org/sites/default/files/documents/final-bo_roadmap_eiti_indonesia.pdf.%5D Future OGP action plans can include commitments for beneficial ownership disclosure that align with the EITI roadmap, such as the activities envisioned under the 2018 Strategy Stage II, “Developing Institutional and Regulatory Framework of Beneficial Ownership Transparency.”

Table 5.1: Five Key Recommendations

 

1	Closely follow OGP guidelines for action plan co-creation, development, and monitoring
2	Develop a strategy for localizing open government in Indonesia
3	Institutionalize the multistakeholder forum through government decree
4	Include strategic government plans and priorities in the OGP national action plan
5	Create an open online beneficial ownership registry

 

The IRM progress report is written by researchers based in each OGP-participating country. All IRM reports undergo a process of quality control to ensure that the highest standards of research and due diligence have been applied.

Analysis of progress on OGP action plans is a combination of interviews, desk research, and feedback from nongovernmental stakeholder meetings. The IRM report builds on the findings of the government’s own self-assessment report and any other assessments of progress put out by civil society, the private sector, or international organizations.

Each IRM researcher carries out stakeholder meetings to ensure an accurate portrayal of events. Given budgetary and calendar constraints, the IRM cannot consult all interested or affected parties. Consequently, the IRM strives for methodological transparency and therefore, where possible, makes public the process of stakeholder engagement in research (detailed later in this section.) Some contexts require anonymity of interviewees and the IRM reviews the right to remove personal identifying information of these participants. Due to the necessary limitations of the method, the IRM strongly encourages commentary on public drafts of each report.

Each report undergoes a four-step review and quality-control process:

1.     Staff review: IRM staff reviews the report for grammar, readability, content, and adherence to IRM methodology.

2.     International Experts Panel (IEP) review: IEP reviews the content of the report for rigorous evidence to support findings, evaluates the extent to which the action plan applies OGP values, and provides technical recommendations for improving the implementation of commitments and realization of OGP values through the action plan as a whole. (See below for IEP membership.)

3.     Prepublication review: Government and select civil society organizations are invited to provide comments on content of the draft IRM report.

4.     Public comment period: The public is invited to provide comments on the content of the draft IRM report.

This review process, including the procedure for incorporating comments received, is outlined in greater detail in Section III of the Procedures Manual.[Note227: IRM Procedures Manual, V.3: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/irm-procedures-manual.%5D

Interviews and Focus Groups

Each IRM researcher is required to hold at least one public information-gathering event. Researchers should make a genuine effort to invite stakeholders outside of the “usual suspects” list of invitees already participating in existing processes. Supplementary means may be needed to gather the inputs of stakeholders in a more meaningful way (e.g., online surveys, written responses, follow-up interviews). Additionally, researchers perform specific interviews with responsible agencies when the commitments require more information than is provided in the self-assessment or is accessible online.

IRM staff wrote this report under the guidance of the IEP and in consultation with Ravio Patra and Muhammad Maulana, two independent researchers based in Indonesia, who conducted interviews with the responsible government institutions and relevant civil society stakeholders. It should be noted that following the end of the action plan period (December 2017), the Open Government Indonesia (OGI) Secretariat became unstaffed. This limited the number of interviews that the IRM consultants were able to conduct since the OGI Secretariat could not assist in liaising between the consultants and the responsible ministries and government agencies.

In addition to relevant interviews, the IRM consultant for the national-level commitments was able to provide the IRM with copies of documents on commitment implementation that were provided from in-person visits to the Bappenas office. These documents were important in assessing the accurate level of completion of many commitments, since many commitment indicators were internal and because the OGI self-assessment report did not describe the specific implementation activities. IRM staff also verified the information provided from these interviews with desk research.

To gather information on the implementation of the national-level commitments, the IRM consultant Ravio Patra conducted the following interviews from December 2017 to March 2018 (listed in chronological order):

·       20 December 2017, Lukman Oesman, Communication Specialist and Tasha Nastiti Waris, Staff at the OGI National Secretariat

·       28 December 2017, Fithya Findie, Former Head of the OGI National Secretariat

·       3 January 2018, Fithya Findie, Former Head of the OGI National Secretariat

·       10 January 2018, Fithya Findie, Former Head of the OGI National Secretariat

·       22 January 2018, Fithya Findie, Former Head of the OGI National Secretariat

·       31 January 2018, Agung Hikmat, Associate Director at the President’s Executive Office/Focal Point with the OGI National Secretariat

·       2 February 2018, Fithya Findie, Former Head of the OGI National Secretariat

·       7 February 2018, Husni Rohman, State Apparatus Deputy Staff at Bappenas/Focal Point with the OGI National Secretariat

To gather information on the subnational commitments, the IRM consultant Muhammad Maualana conducted interviews with the following individuals:

City of Banda Aceh

·       Askhlani , Director of Gerak Aceh

·       Arliadi, Staff at Community Empowerment Agency (BPMD)

·       Ambia, Government Secretariat

·       Kadafi, Dishubkominfo

·       Apri, Bappeda

·       Taufik Maulidyansyah, Head of Bidang PSI, Dishubkominfo (January – September 2017)

·       Dwi, IT Consultant

City of Bandung

·       Widi Nugroho, Director of Pattiro Semarang

·       Purnomo, Head of Public Relation in DPRD Secretariat

·       Nana Storada, Head of Diskominfo

·       Diah, Head of Division Information Management & Public Communication Channel, Department of Communication and Information

·       Taufik , Head of Division of E-Government, Department of Communication and Information

·       Wilar Haruman, Head of Division Statistics, Department of Communication and Information

·       Wahyudin , Head of the Economics, Statistics and Development Section, Department of Communication and Information

City of Semarang

·       Widi Nugroho , Director of Pattiro Semarang

·       Purnomo , Head of Public Relations for the DPRD Secretariat

·       Nana Storada, Head of Diskominfo

·       Diah, Head of Division Information Management & Public Communication Channel, Department of Communication and Information

·       Taufik , Head of Division of E-Government, Department of Communication and Information

·       Wilar Haruman, Head of Division Statistics, Department of Communication and Information

·       Wahyudin, Head of Section Economy Statistic and Development, Department of Communication and Information

DKI Jakarta

·       Harry Sanjaya, Head of Section of Data, information, communication, and statistic

·       Fauzi Akbar, Staff of Section of Data, information, communication, and statistic

·       Setiaji, Head of UPT Jakarta Smart City

·       Andy Susanto, Staff UPT Jakarta Smart City

·       Ira Utami Agusputri, Staff UPT Jakarta Smart City

About the Independent Reporting Mechanism

The IRM is a key means by which government, civil society, and the private sector can track government development and implementation of OGP action plans on an annual basis. The design of research and quality control of such reports is carried out by the International Experts Panel, comprised of experts in transparency, participation, accountability, and social science research methods.

The current membership of the International Experts Panel is:

·       César Cruz-Rubio

·       Mary Francoli

·       Brendan Halloran

·       Jeff Lovitt

·       Fredline M’Cormack-Hale

·       Showers Mawowa

·       Juanita Olaya

·       Quentin Reed

·       Rick Snell

·       Jean-Patrick Villeneuve

A small staff based in Washington, DC, shepherds reports through the IRM process in close coordination with the researchers. Questions and comments about this report can be directed to the staff at irm@opengovpartnership.org.