| Summary | This group includes a wide variety of civil society organizations, including national and international NGOs, which have been engaged in political activities related to Indonesian forest governance, particularly since the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998. Since then, civil society has experimented a tremendous growth (Antlov et al 2005) |
|---|
| Project | SESMAD |
|---|
| Subtype | NGO |
|---|
| Sector | Forests |
|---|
| Interest Heterogeneity | |
|---|
| Explanation | ? See Peluso 2008 article |
|---|
| Costs Of Exit | |
|---|
| Explanation | Missing in case |
|---|
| Proportionality (Of Costs And Benefits) | |
|---|
| Explanation | Missing in case |
|---|
| Actor Group Coordination | Both formal and informal |
|---|
| Explanation | Coordination within civil society organizations is structured by written internal rules. Coordination between different civil society organizations is done formally and informally, as with YAPPIKA at the national level. |
|---|
| Leadership | |
|---|
| Explanation | ? |
|---|
| Leadership Accountability | Low (1) |
|---|
| Explanation | During the Suharto regime, civil society organizations were limited and controlled by the government (Antlove et al. 2005); thus, they had very limited accountability, to Suharto and his allies. Moreover, most of the organizations were NGOs supported by donors which, as stated by advocacy-oriented activists in a motion of no-confidence motion in a 1995 meeting, "had merely become the extended arm and implementing agencies of the authoritarian government and had lost its commitment towards change." (Antlove et al. 2005) They were criticized for hierarchy, bureaucracy, co-optation and lack of internal accountability (ibid). After the fall of Suharto, there has been a significant growth in civil society and its organizations. Antlove et al note that the effects of the Suharto period are felt today in the form of elitism and little effective grassroots participation among NGOs, but that there is an increasing call for accountability from citizens to these organizations. "Right at the moment when there is a lack of confidence among civil actors about what they are actually able to achieve and how to achieve it, both the internal governance of CSOs [civil society organizations] as well as their external performance in the public domain are becoming subject of greater scrutiny....The general public, the media as well as state actors, are increasingly complaining about the lack of accountability of NGOs and other civil society organizations....There have been newspaper articles about the “Billion rupiah business of NGO” (Bisnin Milyaran LSM) and allegations of corruption and misuse. " At the same time, the authors point out that beginning in the 2000s there have been a number of initiatives to improve CSO governance (e.g. transparency and accountability), which are beginning to solidify. This includes a 2001 law (Law 16/2001) which was a breakthrough for good governance of the non-profit sector in Indonesia, " as it provided assurance and legal certainty, as well as restored the yayasan’s [foundations'] function as a non-profit institution with social, religious and humanitarian goals." So we could say accountability is low but increasing. |
|---|
| Leadership Authority | |
|---|
| Explanation | ? |
|---|
| Actor Group Trust | |
|---|
| Explanation | ? |
|---|
| Past Collaboration | Medium (2) |
|---|
| Explanation | Lack of coordination between NGOs from different sectors has been noted as one of the weaknesses of these organizations, characterized as sectoral and fragmented (Antlove et al. 2005) At the same time, there are some incipient collaboration efforts between NGOs formalized in organizations at regional and national levels. At the national level there is YAPPIKA, a national NGO alliance for civil society and democracy. YAPPIKA "implemented a program starting in 2000 to assess the health of Indonesian civil society using the CIVICUS Index on Civil Society. The objectives of the assessment included increasing the knowledge and understanding of the status of civil society in Indonesia, empowering civil society stakeholders through dialog and networking, and providing civil society with tools to analyze sector-wide strengths and weaknesses, as well as to develop strategies to foster positive social change." (Antlove et al. 2005). Among other things, they have held participatory dialogues with more than 400 civil society organizations. At the regional level, there are examples such as the Consortium for the Development of Civil Society (KPMM), created in 2000 in West Sumatra by twelve NGOs to try to address the lack of accountability among civil society organizations in the province. To do so, KPMM developed a code of ethics and standard operational procedures for its membership organizations. However, as of 2005, three of the initial twelve NGOs had left the organization because they felt that the code of ethics was too strict. So, overall, we could say past collaboration was initially low but has been growing over the years. |
|---|
| Personal Communication | |
|---|
| Explanation | ? |
|---|
| Remote Communication | |
|---|
| Explanation | ? |
|---|
