Sukri 2019 IOP Conf. Ser. - Earth Environ. Sci. 343 012088
Sukri 2019 IOP Conf. Ser. - Earth Environ. Sci. 343 012088
Sukri 2019 IOP Conf. Ser. - Earth Environ. Sci. 343 012088
Email: sukripolitik@gmail.com
Abstract. This paper aims to examine development as part of decentralization agenda, which
challenges with environmental issues. Decentralization seeks to improve society as a top priority
and at the same time, it tends to produce a degraded environment as a negative impact of
exploration of natural resources to pursue community improvement. The rise of environmental
problems that arise at this time demands attention from the public and the government, but as long
local governments still prioritize economic interests, the implementation of decentralization will
always be in a dilemma of environmental conditions. This paper employs qualitative research with
cases study in two areas, namely Maros and Pangkajene Regencies in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.
1. Introduction
Since the 1960s environmental problems have become one of the concerns of the world community. The
world community began to seriously discuss the issue of environmental deterioration through a
commission formed by the United Nations to believe the Bruntland commission through an official forum
in Stockholm in 1972. These concerns were based on increasingly massive damage both in quality and
quantity of the environment that had a significant negative impact on human life. This fact is shown by
the increasing number of regions in the world that have experienced various disasters due to deteriorating
environmental conditions [1].
In the 1970s, Indonesia began to emerge various environmental care groups or nature lovers in various
schools and communities. The government itself takes a step further by forming an institution in the form
of an environmental ministry which is entrusted with the task of integrating various existing agreements
on the environment into various strategies for implementing development policies in Indonesia. In order
to do this the government made a series of policies to show its commitment to protect the environment
[2].
Further, at least there have been several laws specifically aimed at protecting the existence of the
environment. Among them are Law number 4 of 1982 concerning Basic Provisions for Environmental
Management to date, Law number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management.
Thus, on the constitutional side, there has been a commitment through the government's earnest efforts to
improve environmental conditions, as well as a sign of Indonesia's concern for ecological problems.
However, this seems to meet Constraints mainly related to the government's massive development policy
by maximizing the use of natural resources that are directly related to environmental exploitation.
The development process is understood as the movement of upward of the entire social system. This
system is related to economic and non-economic aspects. It includes every effort to meet human needs
and consumption related to his life needs. Human needs are not only related to food but also other things
1
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICROEST IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 343 (2019) 012088 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/343/1/012088
that can only be fulfilled through the process of natural resource exploitation [3]. In fact, the
environmental conditions in Indonesia still show something that is not encouraging. In an effort to carry
out development activities to meet people's needs, Indonesia seems to be faced with two dichotomous
sides between development for economic growth and maintaining environmental quality as an important
factor supporting the continuation of human life.
Indonesia's economic growth in the last decade has shown relatively good achievement compared to
other countries. The Central Statistics Agency (BPS) noted that the Indonesian economy grew by 5.78%
in 2013 [4]. However, the environmental quality index (IKLH), during the last three years, actually
showed a decline. The data shows that the IKLH in 2011 was 65.50 and increased 64.21 in 2012 and
lastly dumped to 63.1 in 2013. This condition is seen as one of the causes of the many natural disasters
that occur due to damage to nature.
Basically, the destruction of nature and indeed consists of two causes. The first is natural damage that
does not experience human interference. Second, damage arising from human behavior that does not
consider natural and environmental conditions properly. One aspect that is considered as the cause of
natural damage due to human intervention is development, especially in utilizing the land for the benefit
of meeting human needs. Development that is intended ideally for utilizing various natural resources turns
out to tend to cause natural resource damage problems which are considered excessive. Various activities
in the use of natural resources are carried out in order to obtain economic benefits and fulfill the needs of
humans. But on the other hand, these activities always go hand in hand with the damage that occurs to
natural conditions. This condition is also considered always to overshadow the implementation of the
decentralization principle implemented through the regional autonomy policy in Indonesia.
As a policy that is very focused on the desire to improve the welfare of the people in the regions, the
policy of regional autonomy tends to be seen as a justification for the people in the regions to carry out
various development activities. One of the important things that need to be understood in the context of
development in Indonesia is that the connection is always close to the use of natural resources.
The large value of natural resources owned by many local governments makes these resources as
important in supporting regional autonomy within the framework of regional autonomy. Thus, it is
expected that each region will get benefits that can be economically measurable through increasing the
own-source revenue or community welfare index. However, this condition then creates a dilemma
because every effort to improve the quality of life of the people in the area through the use of natural
resources will always coincide with the potential damage to nature and the environment in the region. The
community in the area seems to be faced with a difficult choice between wanting to meet needs on the
one hand and having to maintain environmental conditions on the other.
2. Methodology
This paper employs qualitative research with cases study in two areas, namely Maros and Pangkajene
Regencies in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. The research was focused on the dilemma of the regional
governments, which has autonomy rights to manage their area based on their objective interest. This
paper indicates that the rights and the obligation to keep the environmental has puts regional government
in to dillema situation, maximize development process under the economical purpose that potentially
harm environment condition or to keep the environmental condition that usually seen as the bottle neck of
the regional development. The study uses document study with local policies related to enviromental
issues.
2
ICROEST IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 343 (2019) 012088 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/343/1/012088
3
ICROEST IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 343 (2019) 012088 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/343/1/012088
improve the level of economic welfare of the community. So that it becomes natural when there are
currently various environmental problems that must be faced by the community.
Environmental problems that are increasingly prominent today include the destruction of the ozone
layer, endangered species, and tidal floods that threaten urban areas that have been touched by coastal
reclamation. Exploration of natural resources carried out to pursue economic growth only looks at aspects
of human interests which in environmental ethics are known as anthropocentric, this ethics places humans
in a superior position compared to other creatures on earth, through this view, the environmental
problems that occur are seen as problems that will be resolved by humans through the development of
their knowledge and technology. An anthropocentric view will always be faced with an ecocentric ethic
(deep ecology) that places humans in a position that is equivalent to other creatures (biotic and abiotic) on
earth[7]. Ecosentrist believes that the earth has limits which if humans are ignorant of it will have an
impact on human life itself, so that the ecocentric view requires humans to place themselves equally with
other entities and consider the continuity of other entities when utilizing existing natural resources. Until
now, supporters of each of these views still continue to argue.
However, out of the long debate between the two ethics, within the framework of decentralization
standards have been established to assess the success of regional governments in decentralization. The
implementation of regional autonomy in the framework of decentralization can be explored in the aspects
of output and outcomes, where each aspect has its own indicators to assess its success. Policy output can
be seen in 3 aspects, first, increasing community economic growth, second improving the quality of
public services, and thirdly the flexibility of development programs. From here, we can see that the
policies issued by the regional government in a decentralized framework place the economic growth of
the community in the first position.
Increasing the level of the people's economy as the most important indicator in the assessment of the
success of policies issued in the framework of decentralization shows that environmental conservation
efforts do not get a large space in the context of the current decentralization. This assessment standard is
certainly lame because the environmental carrying capacity should also be an important factor because it
will have an impact on people's lives in the area. The interest to protect the environment will be difficult
if faced with economic interests.
Regional autonomy implemented through decentralization is basically a good idea in the context of
efforts to improve the welfare of the community in economic aspects. But on the other hand, it creates a
dilemma position on environmental aspects because the environment will always be sacrificed when
regional governments make efforts to economic growth. Development that aims to improve community
welfare is assumed as economic growth will always be in line with efforts to preserve the environment. In
the Indonesian context, the welfare and success of the regional government will be assessed on the
economic aspects, how much own-source revenue the region has.
Basically, regional autonomy in Indonesia encountered some obstacles. Great enthusiasm for the
concept of decentralization that is prosperous turns out in practice to deal with difficult choices that have
the potential to be negative on the lives of people who want to be prospered. This condition shows that
decentralization ignores the condition of "community failures" [8], which is very likely to occur because
of the inaccuracy of the context with the ideas contained in the implementation of decentralization.
4. Conclusion
Decentralization is a concept that surfaced at the beginning of the reformation era provided a partial
transfer of authority from the central government to the regional government to take care of household
affairs in the area. Through decentralization, people hoped that community welfare can be guaranteed.
Regional governments are required to carry out development as much as possible to create community
welfare.
Development that should have been carried out thoroughly, by the regional government, was only
emphasized on the economic aspect as an important measure of the success of decentralization
implemented. The consequence of this economic-oriented development is that the environment will be
sacrificed. This is because efforts to pursue economic growth through the exploration of natural resources
4
ICROEST IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 343 (2019) 012088 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/343/1/012088
will clash with the interests of the environment to continue to be maintained. This is what until now
continues to be a debate over two environmental ethics, namely anthropocentric and ecocentric in looking
at local government policies in an effort to create public welfare. Community welfare achieved through
the development path is aimed at meeting the indicators of the success of decentralization that makes
economic prosperity a key indicator. Thus decentralization aimed at creating community welfare has had
a negative impact on the environment. In this case economic interests and environmental interests are
placed in binary opposition where the environment becomes an entity that must be sacrificed when
economic interests try to be pursued.
Reference
[1] Mata-Lima H, Alvino-Borba A, Pinheiro A, Mata-Lima A and Almeida J A 2013 Impacts of
natural disasters on environmental and socio-economic systems: What makes the difference?
Ambient. e Soc. 16 45–64
[2] Basalamah A S and Jermias J 2005 Social and Environmental Reporting and Auditing in
Indonesia: Maintaining Organizational Legitimacy? Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 7 109–27
[3] Myrdal G 1974 What Is Development? J. Econ. Issues 8 729–36
[4] Badan Pusat Statistik 2014 Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Indonesia 2013 Badan Pus. Statitistik
[5] Hammond G W and Tosun M S 2009 The Impact of Local Decentralization on The Impact of
Local Decentralization on Economic Growth : Evidence from U . S . Counties (Bonn)
[6] Simon D 2007 Progress in Development Studies Dilemmas of development and the environment
in a globalizing world : theory , policy and praxis Prog. Dev. Stud. 3 5–41
[7] Brennan A and Lo Y-S 2016 Environmental Ethics Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed E N
Zalta (Stanford: Stanford University)
[8] Bardhan P 2007 Decentralization of Governance and Development J. Econ. Perspect. 16 185–205