,

Direktori Putusan Komisi Informasi Pusat

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

CRPG memuat dokumen Putusan Komisi Informasi di tingkat Pusat dan beberapa daerah dalam situs wiki CRPG. Seluruh putusan telah melewati proses OCR (Optical Character Recognition). Setelah diindex oleh Google, putusan ini bisa dicari menggunakan mesin pencari Google Custom Search yang terdapat di web, blog dan wiki site CRPG.

Direktori putusan ini tersimpan dalam wiki CRPG yang artinya, setiap orang dapat mengunggah dokumen putusan setelah terlebih dahulu melakukan registrasi. Mesin wiki dipilih karena sifatnya yang terdesentralisasi. Sejauh ini terdapat 3 kategori:




 

, ,

Mekanisme Pelaporan Independen Open Government Partnership (Renaksi 2013) -- Masa Penjaringan Pendapat Publik

Saturday, January 24, 2015




Indonesia adalah salah satu dari 8 (delapan) negara pendiri Open Government Partnership, sebuah inisiatif multilateral yang bertujuan untuk menciptakan pemerintahan yang terbuka, akuntabel dan responsif. Open Government Partnership (OGP) diluncurkan pada tanggal 20 September 2011 dan saat ini beranggotakan 65 negara. Di Indonesia, inisiatif OGP mengambil nama Open Government Indonesia (OGI) yang -- pada masa pemerintahan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono -- dikoordinasikan oleh UKP4. 

Negara anggota OGP diharuskan untuk membuat rencana aksi yang sesuai dengan nilai nilai OGP dan tantangan tantangan OGP.

Nilai nilai OGP adalah sebagai berikut:
  1. Akses terhadap informasi
  2. Partisipasi Warga Negara
  3. Akuntabilitas Publik
  4. Teknologi dan Inovasi untuk Transparansi dan Akuntabilitas
Sementara itu, tantangan tantangan OGP adalah sebagai berikut:
  1. Meningkatkan kualitas layanan publik
  2. Meningkatkan integritas sektor publik
  3. Manajemen sumber daya publik yang lebih efektif
  4. Membuat masyarakat yang lebih aman
  5. Meningkatkan akuntabilitas korporasi
Salah satu mekanisme pengawasan atas pelaksanaan rencana aksi OGP adalah proses pembuatan Mekanisme Pelaporan Independen (Independent Reporting Mechanism atau IRM) di setiap negara. Untuk pelaksanaan rencana aksi OGP 2013 dan 2014-2015, saya ditunjuk untuk menjadi peneliti IRM untuk mengevaluasi pelaksanaan Rencana Aksi Indonesia. Penulisan laporan independen pelaksanaan OGP Renaksi 2013 didasarkan pada prosedur dan manual yang dibuat oleh IRM OGP.

Secara umum, tahapan Mekanisme Pelaporan Independen adalah sebagai berikut:
  1. Desk Study dan studi literatur atas Rencana Aksi (Renaksi) dan pelaksanaannya
  2. Evaluasi awal dan pembobotan renaksi 
  3. Serangkaian wawancara
  4. Penulisan Draft Pertama 
  5. Review Draft Pertama oleh IRM unit di Washington DC
  6. Perbaikan oleh IRM Researcher dan pembuatan Draft Kedua
  7. Review Draft Kedua oleh International Expert Panel
  8. Perbaikan Draft Kedua oleh IRM Researcher dan pembuatan Draft Ketiga
  9. Penjaringan Pendapat Publik (termasuk badan badan pemerintah yang terlibat)
  10. Perbaikan oleh IRM Researcher
  11. Review oleh IRM unit
  12. Peluncuran Laporan OGP
Untuk Renaksi 2013 ini, IRM unit telah memutuskan untuk membuat sebuah laporan pendek (short report) karena rentang waktu Renaksi 2013 sangat berdekatan dengan Renaksi 2014.

Saat ini, proses IRM telah mencapai tahapan penjaringan pendapat publik (termasuk lembaga pemerintah yang melaksanakan Renaksi OGP). Sebelumnya, rancangan laporan IRM ini telah melalui serangkaian proses penelaahan dan peninjauan oleh IRM support unit dan oleh Panel Pakar Internasional pada bulan November-Desember. 

Selama proses review berjenjang diatas berlangsung dari bulan November sampai awal Januari 2015, peneliti IRM tetap menerima berbagai masukan dari para pemangku kepentingan termasuk beberapa kementerian. Dengan demikian, berbagai masukan yang diterima sejak bulan November sampai sekarang belum dimasukkan kedalam versi laporan IRM saat ini. Masukan-masukan tersebut akan disatukan dengan masukan yang diterima selama masa penjaringan pendapat publik.


Untuk mengunduh rancangan laporan IRM, silahkan klik disini. 
Versi Bahasa Indonesia dari rancangan laporan IRM kini dalam proses penerjemahan.
Masa penjaringan pendapat: Januari 26, 2015 sampai dengan Februari 14, 2015
Pendapat bisa disampaikan lewat email mova(at)alafghani(dot)info 

Anda dapat juga mengirimkan masukan atas nama organisasi atau pribadi (dalam bentuk PDF) untuk dipublikasikan dalam halaman situs wiki CRPG OGP-IRM.

Lihat juga:

  

Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani, PhD
Peneliti IRM OGP 2013-2015

 

,

Regional autonomy principles restrict provinces in developing community based water and sanitation (?)

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

We had a little chat today with several officials involved in the development of community based water and sanitation in East Java. One of the main obstacles in intervening in the development of community-based water and sanitation (Air Minum Penyehatan Lingkungan Berbasis Masyarakat or AMPL-BM) are due to regional autonomy. 

According to our sources, provinces can no longer intervene in the development of community-based watsan in regencies/municipalities, since their authority in water provisions are limited to inter-municipality/inter-regencies initiatives or in areas regarded as "water scarce". Indeed, regional autonomy principles bars provinces from interfering in local (regency/municipality) affairs. Water provision is considered as local affairs. On the other hand, almost all of community-based watsan initiatives are conducted at local level.

Our sources told that Law 23 is quite strict in terms of restricting provincial involvement into inter regency/municipality initiatives whereas Government Regulation 38 provides permit some intervention for water scarce areas. For now, provincial governments can intervene through "belanja hibah" (provincial grants). However, this scheme is not entirely secure. The Ministry of Interior have conducted review of the province's regional budget and conclude that such grants mechanism is incompatible with regional autonomy principles. 

We will conduct a legal analysis of regional autonomy laws and recommend feasible solution to this problem. 

 

CEO water mandate RTWS Guidance

Monday, January 19, 2015


UN-Water’s 2015 Annual International Zaragoza Conference on “Water and Sustainable Development: From Vision to Action” launched a comprehensive guideline on right to water and sanitation. The document: Guidance For Companies on Respecting the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation: Bringing a Human Rights Lens to Corporate Water Stewardship can be downloaded here.


Posted via Blogaway

 

,

From the field: Water CBO Year End Report

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Here's a year-end presentation (in Bahasa Indonesia) that we obtained from a local Community Based Water and Sanitation Organization, HIPPAMS Tirto Agung, Tlanak Village, Lamongan Regency in East Java. The CBO is one of the best in East Java. The reporting, administrative and financial system is quite modern. They are equipped with accounting software. They have also implemented a progressive tariff. Obviously, there are challenges and rooms for improvement that we will highlight in our final report, but this is probably one of the best model of water CBO currently in existence. 





Download the above presentation in pdf format.

For further contact:

HIPPAMS Tirto Agung, Jl. A. Yani No. 01
Desa Tlanak, Kedungpring, Lamongan
Telepon:0852-3280-6295
Drs Panggeng Siswadi, M.Pd (Ketua)
e-mail: panggengs(at)yahoo.com

 

New Perspectives Paper: Coordinating Land and Water Governance

Friday, January 16, 2015





A new paper is available for download at the GWP website: New Perspectives Paper: Coordinating Land and Water Governance. 

Abstract:

They argue that we need to become better at thinking, planning, governing, and managing land and water, taking into account the inseparable and symbiotic nature of these resources.

Land and especially water are still subject to management practices that prioritize technocratic solutions (geared at increased yields, water productivity) within the boundaries of the resource in question.

These technocratic approaches ignore the unequal power relations surrounding land and water resources, at local and international level, which result from the uneven distribution of these resources and competition over them. The availability and quality of farmland and water are not only overlapping but also interconnected – the way land is managed affecting water use and quality and vice versa. In addition, food price increases and market volatility add to the growing uncertainty about whether and how the world will be able to feed itself in the future.

Download here.

 

,

The relationship between community based water services and regional water utility

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

One of the aspects we examine in our Indii-AIIRA research on the regulatory framework for community based water services is the relationship between local water utilities in CBO.

As we all know, the National Policy on Community Based Drinking Water and Environmental Health (Kebijakan Nasional AMPL BM) differentiates between community based versus non community based (the policy uses the term community versus "institution based" services. "Institution based" services includes PDAM. Our research looks at how these regimes interact.

One of the dominant view we observe in our research is that CB WS is perceived as a voluntary effort. CB initiatives are perceived as inherently temporary, until PDAM can expand its network to remote areas. We discovered cases where PDAM actually expands to regions where CBs are already present.

Some of the issues that we encounter are the following:

1. Health PDAMs can oftentimes provides water reliable quantity and quality and have the capacity to expand network to remote areas served by CB.

2. Villagers may opt for PDAM services, provided that they can ensure quality abd quantity as above, rather than CB services, if they have both the willingness and capability to pay.

3. However, PDAM services costs more than CB services, due to various treatment, technology and expertise employed there. Consumer may choose lower water quality provided by CB over PDAM. This is case where consumer preference prevails.

4. In times of drought, water sources used by CB depletes. Healthy PDAMs can be more reliable in terms of securing water supply as they have the technology and resources to treat surface water, whereas, most CB uses groundwater. In these cases, consumer preference plays no role. Consumer may tend to choose to switch to PDAM from CB.

5. The coordination between PDAM, CB and other initiatives are crucial. This must be reflected in RISPAM (water plan)  and informally in day to day activities.