The University of Melbourne

Policy Design Strategy Paper:

Introducing Green Growth Policy in Indonesia

AULIA RAHIM
667208

POLICY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 2015

MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
Introduction
Indonesia’s forty year old journey to become a G‐20 nation has been a fast one; so has been its
way to become one of middle‐income countries. The rapid economic development has come at
the expense of natural resources and resulted in unequal distribution of benefits not only among
societies but also within multiple states in the country. In lieu of the harmful effects, the
government of Indonesia (GoI) plans to independently cut national greenhouse gas emissions by
26% against business as usual by 2020 whereas a 41% reduction with international cooperation
(Corbera et al., 2010). With the ambitious target of 7% GDP growth annually (Jafari et al., 2012),
Indonesia has sets their self to become one of most rapidly advancing nation in the region and
world in the upcoming years. Presently, the growth patterns indicate a great reliance on the
extractive industries and continuous infrastructure development which are deemed to produce
harmful environmental and social impacts if business is carried out as usual. The Indonesian
government recently has been aware that in order to translate its dream of pro‐growth, pro‐
jobs, pro‐poor and pro‐environment development in to reality, it needed to come up with a
sustainable growth model (Obidzinski and Dermawan, 2012), hence, the green growth strategy
appears to be a prominent means in this regard. This strategic paper aims to outline a
comprehensive strategy for green growth policy implementation in Indonesia, taking into
account Indonesia’s political climate in order to make the green growth issue as priority into the
country’s agenda, and evaluation procedures of the strategy. The Structure of the paper outlines
as follow, the first section provides brief information about green growth in general term.
Applying Kingdon’s policy streams, section two analyses the agenda setting within the country,
followed by the evidence‐based consideration through the international context in section three.
The next section explores the importance of bottom‐up approach in favour the implementation
strategy of the proposal. The fifth section examines evaluation methods and strategies for the
green growth policy in Indonesia. The last section discusses the importance of collaboration
through building stakeholder engagement and communication among actors involved.
Section 1: What is Green Growth?

Green growth is a model that encompasses achieving several objectives at the same time to help
us establish in essence an ideal sustainable development: shunning and ultimately stopping
greenhouse gas emissions, developing resistance to extreme climate and enduring changes,
smart use of reserves, ensuring balanced and just distribution in GDP and living conditions,
estimating the worth of more economically hidden natural resources that have often formed the
foundation of economic triumphs in the past (Jänicke, 2012). Presently, the concept of green
growth is dynamic since it is a collection of experiences of multiple countries to establish which
practices succeed and fail and, hence, in turn evolving the definition. The underlying intention of
such a policy is to show how economic growth of a country can be sustained while simultaneously
reducing poverty and social disparity, increasing the value of sustainable ecosystem, decreasing
GHG emissions, and making resilient economic, communities, and the environment to economic
crisis as well as climate change effect (Ekins, 2002).

Attaining all the goals of green growth in Indonesia will naturally be time‐consuming and it is vital
to note that entire green growth planning cannot be done in one phase. There are various
available criteria and unseen issues that come into play when developing a perfect model of
green growth planning and assessment, for instance prioritizing green growth agenda, identifying
appropriate sources for data capture and analysis, choosing most critical key performance
indicators, and implementing the most accurate economic modelling devices. Before moving to
implementation phase, it is absolutely vital to have the theoretical agenda and procedure to
outline the required steps and correct methodology in creating a framework for Indonesia’s
green growth policy.

Section 2: Agenda Setting

A multiple‐streams framework having its foundation in the works of Cohen, March, and Olsen’s
‘garbage can’ model (1972) was presented by Kingdon (1995). The ‘garbage can” model brought
to light the fact that organizations had uncertain, vague and inconsistent objectives: the usual
practice was to employ “trial and error” and “learning from experience” techniques which did
not involve prior assessment for other options; and finally, the decision‐making process involves
the “fluid participation” of many individuals, formal and informal (Cohen et al.,1972, p.84). The
garbage can model was modified by Kingdon to record how these people work across the
boundaries to identify scenarios as problems demanding a solution, and their ability to come up
with feasible substitutes.

As opposed to the conventional way of decision‐making, the compounded streams model has its
own way of performing tasks and responding according to their own judgment which makes the
entire decision‐making process flexible and dynamic. Progress and timing of the policy action are
the prime focus of this model as they provide a better insight about the intricacies of the
policymaking process compared to following the sequential steps of policymaking as instructed
in the conventional policymaking approach. Kingdon argues that public policymaking comprises
of a ‘set of processes, including at least (1) the setting of an agenda, (2) the specification of
alternatives from which a choice is to be made, (3) an authoritative choice among those specified
alternatives...and (4) the implementation of a decision’ (Kingdon, 1984, p.3) . Three separate but
balancing methods (or streams) were highlighted by him which he considered to be functioning
autonomously and crucial in the policymaking process.

The three streams were defined by Kingdon (1995) as the problem stream, the policy stream, and
the politics stream. Problem stream incorporate disputes that are the concern of both public and
government. The policy stream can be considered as a rigorous process (policy primeval soup)
(Kingdon, 1995, p.116) that churns out policy ideas and solutions after much working, rejections
and final selection. Public judgements, election outcomes, and mandates of all interested parties
come under the umbrella of politics stream.

Kingdon was of the belief that coming together of all three streams at key moments would
provide a policy window. Kingdon (1995, p. 20) further clarified that opening up of this window
means that the problem will become a part of the policy agenda followed by the policymaking
steps. The amalgamation of three streams is facilitated by the existence of policy windows and
actions of policy entrepreneurs. Kingdon (1995) defined policy entrepreneurs as individuals who
rally and propagate their notions at multiple instances, putting in time and efforts to maximise
the probability of getting an idea placed on the policymaking agenda. These actors are operative
in both the problem stream and the policy stream, and quick action is required on their part when
the policy window opens otherwise this opportunity slips past them (Zahariadis, 2007).

Problem Stream
The complaints and issues demanding immediate attention and highlighted by the policy makers
or the public are classified as problems. Political solutions that can transform into possible
resolution of the problem and needs to be verified on a national level are termed as policies.
Politics paint issues as party philosophy or the public disposition. Elucidating policy change
requires one to have a thorough understanding of changes in individual streams in addition to
having knowledge of how the three streams interact and work together. The problem stream is
primarily composed of issues that are typically categorized as domestic (Kingdon, 1984).

In the Indonesian context, A direct output of international reports (e.g. Stern, IPCC) have pushed
climate change impacts and in particular sea‐level rise to new heights on the Indonesia political
agenda. Endorsement of the “National Development Planning: Indonesia Responses to Climate
Change” (2008) and the research by Dasgupta et al. (2007) on Indonesia’s vulnerability on
exposure to sea‐level rise are seen as immediate outcomes. Simultaneously, the global economic
crisis caused the economic growth to recede considerably and structural inefficiencies of the
Indonesia economy (including inadequacies of domestic industrial production, price controls, and
a high share of State‐owned enterprises) (Basri, 2013) became ever more recognized as hurdles
to economic development that could not be conquered easily owing to political economy factors.
The fact that domestic fossil energy resources are gradually decreasing and Indonesia remains a
net‐importer of fossil energy carriers added to the energy security woes at a time when a surge
in energy demand is expected. In parallel, a hike in budget deficits of up to 5% of Indonesia’s GDP
in 2010 (ADB 2011) laid extra burden on the high subsidies on fossil fuels. Additionally,
environmental degradation and air pollution have finally achieved the status of serious health
concerns. In addition, although the country achieved the lower middle income status in 2009,
Indonesia is still excessively reliant on official development assistance (ODA) (Watson, 2014) and
it is the need of time that policy makers dealt with phasing out of the “conventional” ODA.

Policy Stream
This stream is also called the solution stream as it consist of the creating, debating, reviewing and
enacting policy alternatives and solution proposals (Kingdon, 1984). Those involved in the
process, i.e. the mid‐level government officers and administrators, policy activists and academics,
prepare a small list comprising of solution proposals. Those proposals are most likely to be
successful that are technically and financial viable, attractive to the public, and attuned to the
values of the decision‐makers. The policy makers in Indonesia realized the severity of the
problems and reviewed the policy stream to discover possible solutions that are essentially linked
to factors generally considered to be external. Various ideas have been suggested by donors
backing the policy process in Indonesia. These ideas were subsequently analysed to determine
whether they were viable for the nation. In addition, the Green Growth that has been enforced
in certain countries (especially South Korea) in response to the worldwide economic recession
was examined by the policy makers in Indonesia (Anderson et al., 2015). Significant donors such
as UNDP and the World Bank serve as ‘policy entrepreneurs’ that present ‘no‐regret’ mitigation
possibilities and provide support to overwhelm obstacles. These kinds of support played a role in
the acceptance of Green Growth Strategy in Indonesia. Keeping this context in view, the
Indonesian government has recognized Green Growth as a possible policy that would deal with
various issues and at the same time resolve the trade‐off between economic progress and
environmental protection (Hwang and Yoo, 2014). In addition, few of the significant donors
decided to reform their assistance portfolios in the direction of mainstreaming environmental
and climatic variations, hence, the existing set of alternatives further moved in the direction of
greener solutions. Indonesian government became aware of the fact that concentrating on
adaptation in international consultations did not draw considerable funding from international
sources; therefore, the policy makers accepted the view that mitigation actions are more
favourable (Casson et al., 2015). That is, they believed that money was with mitigation and not
with adaptation. Without any doubt, this change in direction has gained pace with what is
believed to be the first mover advantage for possible receivers of climate finance.

Politic Stream
According to Kingdon (1984), there are three significant elements of the political stream: national
mood, structured political interest and the government. The policy outcomes are highly likely to
be affected by political events like elections, changes in government and administration, public
demonstrations, political environment and climate and expressions of supporters or opposition
groups. There can be changes in the agenda due to political events and because of this, certain
issues or policies can be included or eliminated from the agenda. There are distinct dynamics and
roles within any political stream (Kingdom, 1984). The favourable conditions in the politics stream
also played a role in the acceptance of climate change mitigation policies. The Indonesian
government was quite concerned that the public was become very dissatisfied because of the
economic environment, as well as the fact that the environment was degrading at a rapid pace
because of the effect of climate change. It is therefore the government pledged to decrease
emissions by 26%‐41% (compared to the business as usual) by 2020, and it was because of this
that Indonesia came to be recognized as the most rapidly developing nations with respect to its
dedication to bring about climate change mitigation (Ardiansyah et al., 2014). The Indonesian
government has been appreciated for its demonstration of strong resolve and implementation
of various steps in the last two years. The government took actions in mainstreaming climatic
change issues in the development planning quite comprehensively, which demonstrates the
political will and resolve of the government. The National Development Planning agency
(BAPPENAS) (2008) presented the “National Development Planning: Indonesia Responses to
Climate Change” in mid‐2008 which was supposed to serve as the guideline for including climate
change programs into national development process. The “Indonesian Climate Change Sectoral
Road Map” or ICCSR was subsequently released in March 2010 by the Indonesian National
Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS). This document is quite comprehensive and includes
vulnerability evaluations, prioritized actions like response methods and capacity‐enhancement.

Policy Window
It is apparent from the discussion presented above that a single motivational factor alone cannot
justify the policy changes in Indonesia. Instead, it appears that their interaction has led to the
opening of a ‘window of opportunity’ – a ‘policy window’, according to Kingdon – for making
changes in policy. Indonesian policy makers were becoming quite apprehensive about remaining
stuck in a middle‐income trap, excessive budget deficit, significant structural problems within the
economy, and excessive reliance on ODA and were also becoming increasingly aware of climatic
problems; hence, they were facing a lot of pressure to identify possible solutions. Hence, it is
possible that they believed green growth and climate change mitigation policies to help in
modernizing the economy and obtain access to funding, capacity enhancement and technology
from donors. There is a lot of potential for efficiency enhancements in the industry and power
sector; hence, it is conceivable that there are some negative‐cost mitigation alternatives that
would reduce emissions and also simultaneously improve economic output.

Section 3: Evidence-Based Consideration

There is a lack of evidence regarding how the instruments being examined are going to perform;
therefore, it would be useful to consider instances of similar policies that have been adopted in
other contexts (Rose, 2000). One can learn from other state or international examples, and also
those at even lower level of government. Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) argue that there are three
requirements for effectively implementing a policy from a different setting. First of all, it is
important to be adequately aware of the policy and the way in works in the original environment.
Secondly, it is imperative to transfer all the aspects that were involved in the success of the policy
in its original setting. Finally, it is important to take into account the variations in economic, social,
political and ideological settings in the original and new environment.
Lesson Learned
South Korea has aggressively turned into a leader in adopting green growth policies and outlining
an international agenda for green growth. It has a two‐tier strategy that involves a short‐term
reaction to the prevailing worldwide economic crisis and a long‐term shift towards a green
growth with the help of export‐centred green‐tech research and development (Moon, 2010).
Korea acted as a staunch first mover because of which it became exposed to risks as well as high
payoffs. In Korea, the policy makers are inclined towards transforming the economy and not
towards marginal adjustment as they want to shift from the existing heavy dependence on
energy‐intensive industries (that led to increasing the greenhouse gas emissions by twice during
the 1990s) and extensive energy imports (that constitute two‐thirds of imports) (Shim, 2010).

Korea integrates three objectives that are complementary and mutually reinforcing: showing
response to the economic crisis, decreasing the reliance of the country on energy, and
restructuring the economy to create a balance in green sectors in the long‐term. In 2009, Korea
implemented $30.7 billion stimulus package, which was the greenest for any country as 80% of
all the capital was allocated to environmental‐friendly projects (World Bank, 2010). Some of the
projects that were financed included: development of renewable sources of energy, energy‐
efficient buildings, and low‐carbon vehicles, extension of railways, and water and waste
management. In the beginning, investments were concentrated on infrastructure which was a
reaction to the crisis in the short‐term. There were basically three initiatives that were financed
by most of the green investment: river reinstatement, extension of mass transit and railroads,
and preservation on energy in villages and schools. It was expected that these three projects
would generate 500,000 jobs in all (Shim, 2010).

Several authors have criticized the existing strategy of South Korea that follows a top‐down
approach as this kind of approach does not get the approval of the general public (Rhee et al.,
2012, Moon, 2010, Mathews, 2012). Several green growth policies are actually being
implemented as a ‘top‐down approach’ that does not involve consultations with multi‐
stakeholders. The concept of ‘green growth’ integrates the two aspects of economic
development and environmental sustainability; however, it does not award a lot of significance
to social equity which is a critical component of sustainable development. In addition the Korean
government has adopted a route that does not involve the participatory principles of sustainable
development (Moon, 2010).

Section 4: Implementation
The failure of policies to meet their expectations generated focus towards the course of action
adopted for their implementation (Barrett, 2004). This resulted on the existence of two different
approaches in terms of policy implementation, namely the top down approach and the bottom
up approach. According to the top down approach all policy aims are set by central command
and implemented through the organization following the chain of command, starting from the
very top whereas in the bottom up approach, implementation of policies is considered to be a
daily task of ground level officials (Lipsky, 1979).

The top down approach takes on a logical model approach. It considers execution of policies as
a cross between identifying the aims and objectives and then taking up necessary steps to
realising them (Sabatier, 1986). In other words, execution means to determine proper practical
measures to guarantee that the policies are implemented as best as they can be. This can only
be possible if the execution is governed by an unbiased managerial process through which a
transparent set of roles and responsibilities and a chain of command is established, so that policy
formulation and execution can be easily be differentiated (Pulzl and Oliver, 2007).

The bottom up approach was born when the top down approach failed in defining the process of
execution of policies (Pulzl and Oliver, 2007). The bottom up approach details the entire workflow
of identifying a problem, drafting of policies and their execution, starting from the bottom and
then dispersing horizontally and vertically through the organization (Barret and Fudge, 1981). In
order to put ideas into action, the policies are acted upon. That is the bottom up approach
discards the notion of following the linear chain of command and takes the right of making logical
decisions from the central command and executives and hands it over to the workers and officials
at the very last rung of the hierarchal ladder (O'Toole, 2000). These workers are also called the
Street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980). They are all interconnected with each other because of
their common links with the same schools, welfare departments, health and safety organizations,
security agencies, courts, legal services offices, environmental agencies. The similarity between
these street level bureaucrats entails their ability to take decisions, their active role in
disbursement of profit or losses among general public and their role in implementation of
policies.

A lot of countries the world over have either adopted the methods of environment friendly
development or are in the process of it. This can shed some light on whether an idea is workable
or not, especially regarding gaining approval and support of different key players. Some examples
of policies which can help us understand the methods of environment friendly development are:
the EU scheme of emissions trading, Guyana’s efforts of preservation of biodiversity, Germany’s
Green tax reform, and South Korea’s textbook case of environment friendly development.
Nevertheless, copying the initiatives of other countries is not the best thing to do. All countries
have different regional environment, economy, organizations and growth levels. Therefore these
policies will be unique to each country.

Hence, the Green Growth policy for Indonesia should be drafted using bottom up approach. Like
all other development policies, these will also be reliant on Indonesia’s socio‐economic situation
and the ethics and prejudices of its citizens. The execution of green growth policies in Indonesia
will entail the use of various tools which may differ from other countries. These tools consist of
are monetary and statutory conditions like taxes and competition policies. New and improved
development policies are energy efficient and encourage low carbon technologies. They give way
to invention and ingenuity which are required to cautiously spend the natural resources. Certain
policy instruments are strongly needed, such as green taxes, emission trading systems (ETS), laws
that ensure efficient use of natural resources, and regulations that levies penalties on pollution
generation including GHG.
For this reason there is a need of creating a strong interaction between the so‐called “street level
bureaucrats” and the participation of non‐governmental key players. In other words, all
commercial and social communities should be involved from the beginning and the aims and
objectives of these policies should be made clear to them. In fact more and more business are
advancing in Green Growth by working in tandem with government, and insisting upon higher
policy predictability and demanding the policy makers to consider far‐fetched goals. However,
although many organizations cite their support for certainty and equal opportunity, many
organizations still indulge in creating power‐groups to gain exceptional benefits and immunity.
In that regard, it is advisable to build strong collaboration among actors through stakeholder
engagement and communication to support the effectiveness of the implementation as well as
the evaluation of the policy (will be discussed further in the last section).

Section 5: Evaluation
Evaluation is defined as: “The process of determining the merit, worth or value of something, or
the product of that process” (Scriven, 1991: p. 139). Evaluation is important when reporting
responses at transnational, countrywide, regional, and project levels, using methods and
statistics altered to a suitable degree according to the scale, inhabitants and zones concerned.
Simultaneously, different scales must be cross‐referenced with each other. Evaluation systems
are drafted based on the desired tactical aims and intermediary results, as established by the
theory of change of the intervention. Next, these dynamics establish the selection of indicator,
institutional arrangements, communication strategy and involvement and interaction with all key
players.

Green Growth M&E favours taking decisions on policies and initiatives that aim to attain both,
financial development as well as conservation of environment, simultaneously. Li and Li (2012)
argue that evaluation gives a medium to assess the efficacy of a policy or an initiative and to gain
practical knowledge (Li and Li, 2012).
The evaluation systems generally serve a three‐fold purpose:
 Transparency and accountability: they give proof of efficiency of policies and initiatives.
It also helps their leaders and executioners to take liability of their actions
 Adaptive management: they help in altering actions to increase efficacy
 Learning: suggesting the progress of future stages or the need of new intrusions by
creating a knowledge of misses and hits and the reasons behind them

The basic theory behind this study is that a successful evaluation at the end of the day
manipulates and updates the aims and policies of green growth (Lopez‐Acevedo et al., 2012). Its
adequate drafting and selection gives the decision makers information and statistics required for
successfully observation of development and achievement of these objectives.

The green growth indicators have three primary functions, as listed in the EU‐funded project of
Policy Use and Influence of Indicators (POINT). They are: (Bell et al., 2011)
 instrumental: to deal with issues pertaining to environment or make the environmental
conditions better
 conceptual: to form ideas in public discussions
 political: to bring policies and their initiators and implementers under the fold of law

M&E favours the influential role of indicators to take decisions, however the importance of the
conceptual and political roles cannot be denied especially in the case of reinforcing the public
support and communication of the green growth program.

In this aspect two corresponding approaches come into. They are: (GGKP, 2013)
 employing a little group of headline indicators (together with an overall composite
indicator) which can mix intricate environmental, economic, and social information into
statistics which can be easily conveyed to and used by policy makers
  employing sets of very comprehensive thematic indicators, which enable the study of
different basic alterations needed at the level of a division or across various divisions, in
order to attain green growth

Headline Indicators
For continuation of implementation of green growth, the Indonesian government requires a
modern group of indicators that complement the conservative economic indicators by giving data
for green job creation, utilisation of resources, natural wealth, pollution (together with
greenhouse gas emissions) and human welfare. A structure of headline indicators has been
drafted by the OECD by discussion and experimentation throughout various countries (OECD,
2011). This framework aims at the social and economic situation, salient features of
development, productivity of environment and resources, the reservoir of natural advantages
and the financial possibilities they present, and the reaction towards the policies.

On global level countries which have successfully formed green growth indicators by using the
OECD framework are Denmark, The Czech Republic, South Korea, Germany, and the Netherlands.
For instance Korea’s green growth monitoring strategy comprises of 23 indicators, disbursed
inside these four thematic areas. These indicators help in gauging the direction of the key trends,
to establish a country’s or a region’s relative, and to single out policy responses which can aid in
enhancing the performance. Copenhagen city is another example wherein the initial sector‐level
green indicators study has been carried out via the OECD Framework. It comprises of 21
indicators which form a ’dashboard’ and are employed to determine aspects which are
performing well, aspects which need further needed progress, and adequate reactions to policies
(Martinez‐Fernandez et al., 2013). It was identified that the Green skills need advancement,
following which a file of policy interventions, like nurturing green professional schooling, was
compiled.

The assessment of trends and patterns can be made possible by the application of common
themes across local and global levels. The usage of same indicator or metric varies from case to
case. Using the same indicator at all levels can be possible in some scenarios; however in many
cases indicators important for local level may be unimportant for the community level. For
instance, income is valuable at the local level while the GDP (gross domestic product) is important
at the national level. Experts can make a significant comparison between the national and local
trends, which is pertinent to national policy objectives and to communities. This can be done by
enabling communities or cities to choose indicators that are applicable to a theme, for example,
economic development.

Inclusion of no less than one overarching composite headline indicator is very helpful besides
such headline indicator sets. Resultantly, an even higher level of aggregation can be achieved.
One of the benefits we realize is that politicians receive a very clear message to communicate to
the citizens and media (OECD, 2011). For instance, a ‘Gross National Happiness’ Index was
developed by Bhutan, whereby experts have evaluated both green economy elements like
pollution and other factors for instance, political freedom that strengthens comfort and
happiness (Ura et al., 2012).

Sectoral and Thematic Indicators

The Indonesian government should also incorporate the sectoral and thematic indicators in the
M&E stages. The progress towards specific targets and key economic sectors are evaluated
through sectoral indicators. A framework demonstrating this approach is offered by UNEP’s
Green Economy. The areas, such as waste management and recycling, clean technologies,
renewable energy, public transport, energy‐efficient buildings, sustainable management of land,
forests, water, fisheries, and eco‐tourism are discovered by UNEP as the priority sectors for target
setting and allied indicators. A general example of this sector‐target approach is provided by
Denmark’s Green Energy Strategy, which entails numerous time bound targets, for example,
100% renewable energy across power, transportation and trade by 2050 (Lund, 1999).

Diverse techniques, supporting ideas and frameworks are available through which sectoral
performance and likely effects can be related (Rademaekers et al., 2012). The WAVES (Wealth
Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services) and the SEEA (System of Environmental
Economic Accounts)are the well‐known among all the methods. The headline indicators are
augmented by the sectoral and thematic indicators and they allow the examining of the several
fundamental changes that are required to accomplish the green evolution (GGKP, 2013).

The ‘green jobs’ is believed to be a prominent statistical indicator, since it can perhaps offer a
direct measure of something which is basically a key attribute of green evolution. The proxy
indicators are thought to be the other green growth indicators that can be used by the Indonesian
government. Application of green jobs indicators are really helpful because they can possibly
provide information on different parts of the economy, which are contributing towards green
growth altogether. For tracking green growth, administratively significant information is also
provided by them in order to support the financial case (GGKP, 2013).

Existing Indicators
It is not necessary that we should start from scratch, if we are to establish the green growth
indicators. The available literature can deliver many of the OECD indicators and by itself they are
a grouping and reformation of already used indicators; however they are setup in an organized
way so that the monitoring of green evolution could be tracked properly. The OECD green growth
indicators were tested in Germany, and it was seen that around 20 indicators could be produced
with the help of existing information (Lehr et al., 2012). As far as green growth is concerned,
many applicable indicators may already be found with sustainable growth and national
development goal indicators can be used by the Indonesian government in this regard:
1. MDGs and SDIs indicators
The key environmental, social and financial sides of development are covered by these
indicators and basically they can be organized regarding green growth such as by specifying
indicators concerning green growth priorities or targets. For evaluation of green growth, a
significant role would be played by these MDG and SDI indicators
2. National Development Goal Indicators:
 The national development goals and related indicators are specified by many developing
nations in order to monitor progress towards milestones. As compared to international goals
and indicators, the countrywide situations in many scenarios are more successfully
considered by these national goals and indicators, and they are also believed to be more
appropriate for the country. Hence, to consider the monitoring and evaluation of green
growth, framing the national development indicators is possible for Indonesian government.

Section 6: Stakeholder Engagement and Communication

A diverse range of stakeholders, for example, administrators from government, communities and
trades who will often have contrary practices, interests and viewpoints are required in the
implementation of green growth (UNCSD, 2007). At local levels, the onset can be assumed as the
communication and commitment with these stakeholders as part of the Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) process, for example, regarding a system or a specific project, or at a national
level e.g., regarding a plan or a national green growth policy.

The desirable and relevant results can be achieved through effective communication and
commitment including these diverse stakeholders and their priority matters (Schiller et al., 2001).
Moreover, the system becomes more productive owing to this approach since people at diverse
levels are enabled to work in a team for implementation of the system besides reviewing the
outcomes. Danielsen et al. (2010) found that the scope and speed of resultant decision‐making
has been strongly influenced by the participation level of local investors on environmental
monitoring. Less time was required between data acquisition and action, when locals were
involved in monitoring mechanism. As compared to macro‐level scientist‐executed monitoring,
3 to 9 times faster management decisions are observed by the involvement of more locally‐based
and participatory approaches (Danielsen et al., 2010). The data, methodology, and the issue
being addressed must be understood by the local stakeholders for the accomplishment of these
goals (Ura, 2012).
The communication turnaround time is also very important factor. The main objective is to timely
propagate and communicate the M&E outcomes to key stakeholders (UNDP, 2002). The process
can lack consistent and even adaptive management if the same (on‐time dissemination of results)
is not done and the desirable purpose of M&E cannot be met subsequently. It also holds great
significance that the lessons extracted have the ability to cater wide‐ranging application, and can
be allocated for sectoral learning. With reference to green growth, communicating the lessons
learnt and best practices is decisive for the institutionalization and combination of green growth
policies in Indonesia national development planning and development.

Targeting Communications
For declaring green growth in Indonesia, diversified stakeholder audiences can be successfully
engaged by choosing the proper techniques, channels and messengers. A wide range of options
are available in a progressively connected world from printed and online media, to face‐to‐face
public gatherings and SMS texting. Viewing from worldwide lens, For instance, after developing
environmental accounts, leaflets containing data and indicators regarding New Zealand’s
fisheries have been produced by Statistics New Zealand. The story was picked up by media, which
subsequently reached environmental managers in a provincial environmental authority. As
regards to detailed fish stock data, enquiries were made by them for their respective area. The
key groups of stakeholders can be mobilized and engaged by the participation of non‐
governmental and civil society organizations (Marcus and Geffen, 1998). Comprehensive
information is required by the interested stakeholders as with the case of New Zealand.
Moreover they may wish to examine green growth and allied data in a careful way than only
relying on news media. The must be communicated in layers and by many other ways to enable
this process (Stiglitz et al., 2010). The policy briefs, headline indicators and media releases are
believed to be at the top level and the summary reports are below these indicator sets, which
are supported by more comprehensive and investigative reports for those who desire to validate
the information. The role of the messenger also plays an important role and the attention of
decision makers must be attracted by M&E findings.
There should be practically suitable language, messengers, and communication channels for the
stakeholders. In order to call for public support and to raise public awareness, a helpful way is
visualizing or demonstrating adverse outcomes of ecological dilapidation within the Indonesian
citizens. In addition, another robust way to encourage positive changes and to raise people of
Indonesia’s awareness is economic assessment of potential gain (or losses) from likely green
growth plan (or failure to take action).

Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the green growth policy will be a key means to achieve
Indonesia’s vision and targets of the future sustainable economic development. It is imperative
to draw attention that the design and implementation of such a policy should be driven towards
the stakeholder and nationally owned perspective. By setting a bottom up approach which is
based on Indonesia’s national circumstances, political climate, and its economic condition, the
policy might therefore be a more representative and feasible to become a key means in tackling
both the present economic and environmental issues. Furthermore, decent collaboration and
strong engagement and communication among actors will underpin the successful
implementation of the policy. In achieving such goals, however, it is vital to establish strong M&E
framework and relevant process and performance indicators in order to measure the policy
performance and ensure the policy will be in line with the Indonesia’s initial targets.
 References

(OECD), O. F. E. C.‐O. D. 2011. Towards Green Growth: Monitoring Progress: OECD Indicators.
Paris: OECD.
ANDERSON, Z. R., KUSTERS, K., OBIDZINSKI, K. & MCCARTHY, J. 2015. Growing the Economy: Oil
palm and green growth in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.
ARDIANSYAH, F., GUNNINGHAM, N. & DRAHOS, P. 2014. Climate Change and Energy Security
Post‐Cancún: The Indonesia Perspective. Governments’ Responses to Climate Change:
Selected Examples From Asia Pacific. Springer.
BARRET, S. & FUDGE, C. 1981. Policy and action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy.
London:Methuen, 249‐278.
BARRETT, S. M. 2004. Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years
of implementation studies. Public administration, 82, 249‐262.
BASRI, M. C. 2013. A tale of two crises: Indonesia’s political economy.
CASSON, A., MULIASTRA, Y. & OBIDZINSKI, K. 2015. Land‐based investment and green
development in Indonesia: Lessons from Berau district, East Kalimantan. Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
CHAN, S. 2014. Breaking the middle income trap: challenges for Indonesia. Journal of Asian Public
Policy, 7, 306‐317.
COHEN, M. D., MARCH, J. G. & OLSEN, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative science quarterly, 1‐25.
CORBERA, E., ESTRADA, M. & BROWN, K. 2010. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions.
Climatic change, 100, 355‐388.
DANIELSEN, F., BURGESS, N. D., JENSEN, P. M. & PIRHOFER‐WALZL, K. 2010. Environmental
monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of
peoples involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 1166‐1168.
DASGUPTA, S., LAPLANTE, B., MEISNER, C. M., WHEELER, D. & JIANPING YAN, D. 2007. The impact
of sea level rise on developing countries: a comparative analysis. World Bank policy
research working paper.
DOLOWITZ, D. P. & MARSH, D. 2000. Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in
contemporary policy‐making. Governance, 13, 5‐23.
EKINS, P. 2002. Economic growth and environmental sustainability: the prospects for green
growth, Routledge.
GGKP 2013. Moving towards a common approach on green growth indicators. Green Growth
Knowledge Platform Scoping Paper.
HWANG, J.‐H. & YOO, S.‐H. 2014. Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth:
evidence from Indonesia. Quality & Quantity, 48, 63‐73.
JAFARI, Y., OTHMAN, J. & NOR, A. H. S. M. 2012. Energy consumption, economic growth and
environmental pollutants in Indonesia. Journal of Policy Modeling, 34, 879‐889.
JÄNICKE, M. 2012. “Green growth”: From a growing eco‐industry to economic sustainability.
Energy Policy, 48, 13‐21.
KINGDON, J. W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, Boston : Little, Brown, c1984.
KINGDON, J. W. & THURBER, J. A. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, Little, Brown
Boston.
LEHR, U., LUTZ, C. & EDLER, D. 2012. Green jobs? Economic impacts of renewable energy in
Germany. Energy Policy, 47, 358‐364.
LI, W. & LI, D. 2012. Environmental information transparency and implications for green growth
in China. Public Administration and Development, 32, 324‐334.
LIPSKY, M. 1979. Street level bureaucracy, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
LOPEZ‐ACEVEDO, G., KRAUSE, P. & MACKAY, K. 2012. Building better policies: The nuts and bolts
of monitoring and evaluation systems, World Bank Publications.
LUND, H. 1999. A green energy plan for Denmark. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14,
431‐440.
MARCUS, A. & GEFFEN, D. 1998. The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution prevention
in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1145‐1168.
MATHEWS, J. A. 2012. Green growth strategies—Korean initiatives. Futures, 44, 761‐769.
MOON, T. H. 2010. Green growth policy in the Republic of Korea: its promise and pitfalls. Korea
Observer, 41, 379.
O'TOOLE, L. 2000. Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects'. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 263‐288.
OBIDZINSKI, K. & DERMAWAN, A. 2012. Pulp industry and environment in Indonesia: is there
sustainable future? Regional Environmental Change, 12, 961‐966.
PULZL, H. & OLIVER, T. 2007. Implementing Public Policy. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis,
Theory, Politics and Methods. Florida: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
RHEE, S.‐K., JANG, D.‐C. & CHUNG, Y. 2012. A critical review and new policy framework of low‐
carbon, green‐growth strategy of Korea. Green growth: managing the transition to a
sustainable economy. Springer.
ROSE, R. 2000. What can we learn from abroad? Parliamentary Affairs, 53, 628‐643.
SABATIER, P. A. 1986. Top‐down and bottom‐up approaches to implementation research: a
critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of public policy, 6, 21‐48.
SCHILLER, A., HUNSAKER, C. T., KANE, M. A., WOLFE, A. K., DALE, V. H., SUTER, G. W., RUSSELL, C.
S., PION, G., JENSEN, M. H. & KONAR, V. C. 2001. Communicating ecological indicators to
decision makers and the public. Conservation Ecology, 5, 19.
SCRIVEN, M. 1991. Evaluation thesaurus, Sage.
SHIM, D. 2010. Green Growth–South Korea's Panacea. Korea, 165‐188.
STIGLITZ, J. E., SEN, A. & FITOUSSI, J.‐P. 2010. Report by the commission on the measurement of
economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress.
UNCSD 2007. Indicators of sustainable development : guidelines and methodologies, New York :
United Nations, 2007.

3rd ed.
URA, K. 2012. A short guide to gross national happiness index.
WATSON, I. 2014. Foreign aid and emerging powers: Asian perspectives on Official Development
Assistance, Routledge.
ZAHARIADIS, N. 2007. The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, prospects. I
Theories of the Policy Process, red. Paul A Sabatier,. Cambridge MA: Westview Press.