effective and accountable regional government to contribute to the achievement of the people’s
welfare. This study focuses on functional assignment because this issue has profound implications
for various aspects of regional governance. As widely documented, the regional autonomy implementation in Indonesia has given rise to many problems related to functional assignment
between central government and provincial and district governments Ferrazzi, 2008; Ministry of Home Affairs, 2009. Functional assignment remains opaque, biased and, in many cases,
overlapping. This often results in conflicts among levels of government. The DBOD is designed to clarify functional assignment among such levels of government and formulate a roadmap for its
revision.
This paper describes various findings from the study conducted in the three provinces. The purpose of this paper is to identify problems and obstacles to functional assignment, actions taken
by provincial and district governments in response to various issues of their function management and recommendations for actions to be taken to reform functional assignment between government
levels. This paper is expected to provide input for the government to formulate the DBOD and to revise Law No. 322004.
II. DISCUSSION
II.1 Distortion in implementation of regional governance principles
Clashing regulations; sectoral versus “regional government” streams Law No. 322004 stipulates three regional governance principles: deconcentration,
decentralization and co-administration. In implementing the decentralization principle, the law assigns governmental functions to regions, except for functions relating to foreign affairs, security
and defense, monetary management, justice and religion. Government Regulation No. 382007 has distributed specific governmental functions among national, provincial and regencycity
governments.
The above architecture however is challenged by the persistence of sectoral laws and regulations that continue to be used by Ministries in particular. Stakeholders complain about the
inconsistent implementation of regional autonomy, in land and forest functions for instance. In the matter of land, some resource persons complain about difficulty in consolidating land for regional
development because land function is still held by the national government although Government Regulation No. 382007 has decentralized the function. Regions often encounter difficulty in
enforcing regional regulations on regional spatial planning because land and spatial functions are taken care of and regulated by different levels of government. In the matter of forest, inconsistency
occurs due to disharmony between Law No. 41 Year 1999 on Forestry and Law No. 322004 and Government Regulation No. 382007. The forestry law stipulates that a forest area use license for
mining shall be issued by the Ministry of Forestry while Government Regulation No. 382007 assigns the function to regional heads. This case indicates inconsistency between the sectoral law
and the regional governance law and regulation. Vague assignment between regional levels
One of the obstacles to the effective use of this regulation is that some functions are assigned to two or all three governmental levels with the similar language, with only a vague
differentiation. This is particularly felt at regional level, where a function is asid to be carried out
by the district if it is of the “scale” of the district, and by the province if of the “scale” of the province. In many cases where this is done, there is not a standardized understanding of the link
between the function and the respective scale related to size or technology for instance. This formulation can lead to levels of government not taking the needed action, or tensions between the
levels as the boundaries and linkages are not delineated.
In some cases, the poorly defined functions between provinces and districts also can lead to the opposite result, where the provincial government foregoes activity in the field, vacating it in
favour of the districts, but at the cost of playing a needed role suited to its capacity and interests. The difficulty in defining the provincial “scale” in contrast to the district scale in the surveillance
and control of communicable diseases is one such example. The role of the provincial government has been left undeveloped, and ineffective. Although in implementing these functions the
province’s role is limited to coordination, supervision andor takeover when districts are no longer capable,
the province’s role should be formulated clearly, as it can still be a critical role in certain circumstances.
II.2 Use of deconcentration to override weak functional construction at regional level
To possibly counter or take advantage of the vague regional level formulation of functions, some Ministries are tasking vertical agencies with the responsibility to act in the field
in question. One example of this approach is in the function to prevent narcotic abuse. Key informants stated that the government had initially encouraged provincial and district governments
to set up a Local Narcotics Agency, but had later decided to set up its own deconcentrated units to lead the effort, under the cover of Law No. 35 Year 2009.
Some provinces and districts such as Provinces of NTT, West Kalimantan and West Java and some districts in these provinces that have already established local narcotics agencies are now
unsure of the fate of their anti-narcotics agencies. They had hoped that the provision in Government Regulation No. 382007, though weak, would suffice to justify their initiatives. Their
roles are listed vaguely; with unclear roles between the regional levels in the sub-sector of adolescent reproductive health, the establishment of policies, objectives; support and prevention
of drugs abuse at the scale of the district is the function of districts; on the provincial scale, it is the function of provincial governments. But this construction appear to not have protected the
regions from central government incursion.
The unclear assignment between the district and provincial levels in the prevention of drug abuse seemingly invites the State National Government and Legislature to give the function
greater clarity by recasting it a central level functions. There are too many such vague constructions in Government Regulation 38 Year 2007, where the functional assignment between
district and provincial level is only differentiated by the vague reference to “scale,” increasing the likelihood that sectoral Ministries will push for laws or other legal instruments that will give more
certainty; by giving the function to the central level. It is difficult for the regions to protest, when they are not sure in the first place what their role is truly meant to be. The recentralization punishes
those regions that have taken the initiative to prevent drug abuse in their jurisdictions, by establishing units with tasks related to that general aim. Creating uncertainty in the legality of
these units undermines the regional efforts. These units may ultimately dissolve, yielding the field to the central government. Such examples will make regions reluctant to use their discretion to
respond to problems occurring in their jurisdictions if their functions are poorly spelled out in Government Regulation 382007.
II.3 Central government overriding existing and clear assignment
