Consultation Process
Through years of implementing the goals of the Convention, Indonesia has encountered various challenges. Many of those challenges were echoed in the various consultations held throughout the drafting of this report and appear to be commonly reported by other State Parties.
In addition to identifying challenges, the consultations also yielded many suggestions on possible solutions to overcome those challenges. The majority of participants to the consultations were encouraged by the progress made and raised new optimism for future implementation of the goals of the Convention
The following is consultation process conducted in writing QPR, with the involvement of stakeholders of Convention 2005:
17th July 2019:
Dissemination, Coordination and Consultation Meeting in order to address issues, programmes, and policies based on Convention goals from participants. Participants were divided into four discussion groups, each group then identified and collected issues, programmes and policies based on each goal that relevant with their scope of duties or work field.
Approximately 53 participants attended the meeting as representative of government institutions, and civil society organizations. Among the participants, there were three speakers viz. Head of Culture Unit of UNESCO Office Jakarta presenting Introduction of Convention 2005, Representative of INCU/Indonesian National Commission for UNESCO presenting the roles of INCU in implementing the Convention and IFCD, representative of secretariat of Directorate General of Culture presenting policies and regulations on advancing the culture, also achievement of cultural programmes.
30 July to1st August 2019
Sub-Regional training of trainers and peer learning on participatory policy monitoring of the 2005 Convention
This training was held to provide capacity-building of national focal points of those countries in Asia which are expected to submit the QPR in April 2020 (postponed to 1st November 2020 due to pandemic situation) viz. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Timur Leste and VietNam.
The objectives of the training will serve to bring together the national counterparts of Parties to Convention from the Asian region with UNESCO HQ and FOs colleagues; present the format for quadrennial periodic reporting to national counterparts; discuss methodologies to support participatory policy monitoring processes at country level; share UNESCO’s tools and materials for the promotion and implementation of the 2005 Convention; inspire peer-to-peer cooperation mechanisms to promote mutual learning and expand South-South cooperation.
This training, attended by expert facility of the 2005 Convention: Anupama Sekhar and Bodibataar Jigjidsuren; UNESCO staffs from UNESCO Jakarta, Bangkok, Hanoi, and Paris Headquarter, also representatives of the nine countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philipines, Timor Leste, VietNam.
17th-19th September 2019
Training on Media Diversity
The 2005 Convention stipulates that Parties should adopt measures aimed at enhancing the diversity of media including through public service broadcasting, and more recently, public service media. This training workshop on media diversity and the diversity of cultural expressions was organized targeting both the officials of the institutions of culture as well as media professionals from Indonesia.
This training is to support the next Indonesia QPR submission in 2020, especially on media diversity issues where the previous reporting was weak, which typically falls outside the expertise of the Directorate General of Culture, the institution responsible for the follow-up of the 2005 Convention.
Purposes of the training are to raise awareness on the linkages between media diversity and the diversity of cultural expressions; to deliver knowledge on various dimensions of media diversity to guide the QPR preparation; to create a platform of exchange between institutions of culture and media professionals for better cooperation for the future QPR preparation on media diversity; to equip media professionals with the tools to advocate for the promotion of diverse cultural expressions in media.
15th Juni 2020
In this current pandemic situation, Directorate General of Culture organize the Public Review for Indonesia QPR in virtual conference, with the involvement of Convention 2005 stakeholders from representatives of government institution, Civil Society Organization and other agencies concerned with the protection of cultural expressions. Opening session of this conference, present the opening remarks by Director for Cultural Development and Utilization, continued with welcoming speech by Executive Chairman of INCU/Indonesian National Commission for UNESCO. The main session, present three speakers/resource person i.e. Director General for Culture; Prof. Aman Wirakartakusumah and Daryl Neng.
Public Review of Indonesia QPR was held effectively, suggestions and feedback were conveyed both orally and in writing. Those suggestions and feedback then discussed to improve the draft of QPR.
The main objectives and priorities of Indonesian policies to implement the 2005 Convention are primarily stated in the National Strategy for Culture. Based on the next 20-year vision for “a Happy Indonesia based on cultural diversity that educate, reconcile, and improve welfare”, the Strategy consists of the following seven strategic agendas, which are then further broken down into 20 sub agendas:
1. Provide space for the diversity of cultural expressions and encourage cultural interaction to strengthen the inclusiveness of culture.
• Protect the freedom for people to maintain and develop their cultural values and expressions
• Expand involvement from disabled and special needs persons in efforts to advance culture
• Encourage cultural interaction across groups and localities with the spirit of unity
2. Protect and develop values, expressions, and practices of traditional culture to enrich national culture.
• Improve protection for values, expressions, and practices of traditional culture
• Strengthen the position and empower institutions, communities, and societies that hold on to the values of tradition and local beliefs
• Promote values, expressions, and practices of traditional culture that contribute toward the enrichment of national culture
3. Develop and utilize cultural resources to strengthen the position of Indonesia internationally.
• Facilitate utilization of advancement of culture objects to strengthen the promotion of Indonesia on the international stage
• Improve and strengthen the cultural diplomacy of Indonesia
4. Utilize advancement of culture objects to improve people welfare.
• Implement long-term investments to advance culture in a comprehensive manner primarily through optimal use of information technology and communications
• Strengthen mechanisms to protect intellectual property, particularly those related to traditional arts, knowledge, and technologies
• Improve tourism based on utilization of museums, cultural heritage, advancement of culture objects that take into consideration the rules of preservation
5. Advancement of culture that protects biodiversity and strengthens ecosystems.
• Improve protection and development of cultural heritage to form fair and environmentally friendly space arrangements
• Protect and develop maritime cultural values and local genius that can be utilized in national development
• Improve understanding and awareness of traditional knowledge that are relevant in anticipating disasters
6. Institutional reform and culture budgeting to support the advancement of culture agenda.
• Institutional reform in the field of culture
• Optimal use of budget in the field of culture
• Harmonize between central and local policies for the advancement of culture
7. Strengthen the role of the government as facilitator in the advancement of culture.
• Develop an open access and credible Integrated Cultural Database System
• Guarantee expansion of and equally distributed public access to culture facilities and infrastructure
• Improve capacity of human resources in the field of culture
| Organization type | Organization | Website | |
|---|---|---|---|
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
| Koalisi Seni Indonesia (Indonesia Art Coalition)
| sekretariat@koalisiseni.or.id
| https://koalisiseni.or.id/
|
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
| Serikat Pekerja Media dan Industri Kreatif (Media and Creative Industry Workers Union)
| http://www.sindikasi.org
| |
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
| Asosiasi Seniman Tari Indonesia (Indonesian Dance Artists Association)
| asetiindonesia@gmail.com
| |
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
| Rumah Dokumenter (Documentary House)
| http://rumahdokumenter.com
| |
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
| PUSPIN (Perkumpulan Seni Pertunjukan Indonesia)
| indonesianperformingart@gmail.com
| |
Public Sector
| Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia
| https://kemlu.go.id/portal/id
| |
Public Sector
| Badan Pusat Statistik (Central Bureau for Statistics)
| https://www.bps.go.id/
| |
Public Sector
| Indonesian National Commission for UNESCO
| incu.moec@gmail.com
| https://kniu.kemdikbud.go.id/
|
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
| Ganara Art Foundation
| http://ganara.art/
|
N/A
N/A
On 25 June 2019, Koalisi Seni Indonesia launched a monitoring and evaluation publication on the implementation of Law 5 of 2017 on the Advancement of Culture. Monitoring and evaluation after two years of the implementation of the Law on the Advancement of Culture focused on four main issue clusters, namely: National Strategy for Culture and compliance with the mandate of the law in the formulation of the Regional Cultural White Papers in each region; the Formulation of the Cultural Master Plan; Development of the Cultural Data System; and the Formulation of the Cultural Endowment Fund. There are nine main findings from the Monitoring and Evaluation that have been carried out, including:
1. The first key finding is related to the drafting of implementing regulations by the government. Overall, the Advancement of Culture Law mandates that 21 substances need to be regulated further in the form of government regulations, presidential regulations, and ministerial regulations. For example, regulations concerning an integrated cultural database system or salvaging objects of the advancement of culture. Referring to Article 60 of the Law concerning the Advancement of Culture, the entire provision must be stipulated no later than 2 (two) years after the law is passed. However, within two years of its implementation, only one implementing regulation was successfully drafted by the government, namely Presidential Regulation 65 of 2018 on Procedures for the Formulation of the Regional Cultural White Papers and the National Strategy for Culture. Delay in implementing regulations must undoubtedly be noted as a finding of the implementation of the Law concerning the Advancement of Culture. However, this must be interpreted not only as a sign of a delay in the preparation of technical regulations but also related to the government's seriousness in maintaining public expectations and interest in this law. Furthermore, for the regions, the existence of implementing regulations is seen to add justification value in the drafting of regulations at the regional level, program planning, and have an impact on budget support for it.
2. The second main finding is related to the position of culture in development planning. To support the efforts to promote culture, the Advancement of Culture Law regulates the existence of 4 (four) planning documents, consisting of the Regency/Municipal Cultural White Papers, the Provincial Cultural White Papers, the National Strategy for Culture, and the Master Plan for the Advancement of Culture. Law of the Advancement of Culture further states that the four references are a series of documents formulated in stages. In these two years of implementation, the government's effort to encourage the preparation of Regional Cultural White Papers is practically going well. In total, 335 out of 416 municipalities/regencies (approx. 80 percent) and 34 provinces have submitted their Cultural White Papers to the government. While at the central government level, the Cultural White Papers have been followed up with the formulation of a National Strategy for Culture. At the end of 2018, the paper was finalized and officially submitted to President Joko Widodo. According to Article 13 paragraph (6) of the Advancement of Culture Law, the National Strategy for Culture document must be passed by the President. However, the enactment of the National Strategy for Culture has not been done until now. As a compiled and tiered document, the consequence is that the content and completeness of one reference document have a significant impact on another reference document. At this point, it is also important to realize that the National Strategy for Culture document will be the primary reference in the preparation of the Master Plan for the Advancement of Culture.
3. Furthermore, the Master Plan for the Advancement of Culture should be the substance of the development planning document in the form of the Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM) or the Long-Term Development Plan (RPJP). Thus, the government, both at the central and regional levels, must finish the formulation of cultural planning documents on time to be considered for the drafting of the development plan document. If not, the cultural issue or substance will miss the momentum and not have a technocratic reference for the next 5 (five) years.
4. The third main finding is related to public involvement in the implementation of the Advancement of Culture Law. Public participation becomes a prominent aspect in the process of implementing the Advancement of Culture Law. The findings from the perception survey and media analysis reinforce this, where public involvement is a positive record in the implementation of the Advancement of Culture Law. The highest form of public participation is participation in the formulation of Cultural White Papers and participation in the Culture Congress. Public participation is a positive point, but it always goes hand in hand with challenges to respond to stakeholder expectations. On the other hand, public involvement in the preparation of Cultural White Papers encountered a challenge due to the time constraint where its development was carried out near the end of the current budgeting year. Also, there is a promise of disbursement of the Special Allocation Funds for Culture, which has not been clear to date.
5. The fourth main finding is related to the institutional model and budgeting of cultural affairs at the regional level. For all resource persons at the local level, the establishment of a cultural office that is independent and independent of other matters is deemed parallel with the budget increase. However, the findings of this monitoring and evaluation stated differently. The establishment of a culture office is not the only contributing factor to the increase in budget. There are other issues such as regional vision and adequate budget support, especially from non-APBD or local government budget funding.
6. The fifth main finding is related to the mainstreaming of cultural issues by local governments. The existence of a stand-alone cultural office (Dinas) can ease the goal of mainstreaming cultural matters in local government work plans. For this purpose, at least the level of regional government organizations that handle cultural affairs must be at the Dinas level or higher. The room to maneuver for the mainstreaming is minimal if only controlled by a section head. Another advantage of the stand-alone cultural office is the ability to focus on carrying out cultural affairs. On a practical level, cultural issues are always inferior to other matters, such as education or tourism. Moreover, the logical consequence of mainstreaming this culture is the intersection or even clash of cultural issues with other issues.
7. The sixth main finding is related to alternative funding sources for local governments. In practice, APBD-based funding has not been able to drive the advancement of culture. APBD-based funding is only able to finance programs or routine activities. Besides, there is information that political costs in accommodating the funding need in the regional budget are expensive. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage open access to other funding sources. Some non-APBD funding sources are the aspiration fund of the House of Representatives, the village fund, and the collaborative funding mechanism among stakeholders. Besides, the monitoring and evaluation also noted that the central government still needs to clarify the promise of disbursing the Specific Allocation Funds for Culture (DAK) after the formulation of the Regional Cultural White Papers by the regional government.
8. The seventh key finding is related to the mandate of establishing a Cultural Endowment Fund. After two years of implementation, one crucial thing to note is the political commitment of President Joko Widodo to allocate a budget of Rp5 trillion for the Cultural Endowment Fund. Aside from the budget allocation matter in the media, there is no clear model of management of the Cultural Endowment Fund. Based on media analysis, there are at least two models that have emerged, namely the management model in the form of a public service agency, and the trust model based on Presidential Regulation 80 of 2011. Monitoring and evaluation found weaknesses in the management model under the Presidential Regulation 80 of 2011, which is by a task force that follows the rigid pattern of state budget execution. In contrast, the management by a public service agency has more leeway in its financial management, including sources of funds both from the state budget (APBN) and the private sector.
9. The eighth main finding is related to the integrated cultural database system. The creation of an integrated cultural database system in several regions is considered to be the Cultural White Papers formulation. Whereas, the development of an integrated cultural database system starts from a spirit of protection of the origin so that it is clear who owns the property rights and how to use them properly to revitalize the region's cultural ecosystem. For this reason, the central government needs to provide further explanation to the regional government, including clarification whether the compilation of the database system has an impact on the allocation of DAK or not as the experience of the previous Cultural White Papers formulation and the DAPODIK on the education sector.
10. The ninth main finding is related to the follow up of regulations at the regional level. When conducting monitoring and evaluation, each region response differently in the form of regional regulations after the enactment of the Advancement of Culture Law. Some regions have taken an active step in formulating regional implementing regulations after the enactment of the Advancement of Culture Law. However, some regions have drawn up regional regulations related to culture before the birth of the Advancement of Culture Law, and some regions are at the stage of drafting regional regulations. For these regions, the role of the central government is vital. For regions that have drawn up regulations before the birth of the Advancement of Culture Law, harmonization and synchronization need to be done. This step is essential, given the existing new paradigm and governance introduced in the Advancement of Culture Law. As for the regions that are drafting, the role of the central government is needed from assisting resources restructuring to selecting cultural priorities to be advanced.
The House of Representatives (DPR) of the Republic of Indonesia document regarding Harmonization of the Draft Law of the Republic of Indonesia related to Draft Law on Amendments to the Law 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting, which contains the evaluation of the Broadcasting Law as follows:
1. In terms of content, many of the articles in the Broadcasting Law have multiple interpretations, for example regarding the authority of KPI, licensing, networked broadcasting system, cross-ownership, LPS, and LPP; and
2. The Broadcasting Law is deemed not to have anticipated the development of broadcast technology which has developed from analogue technology to digital technology.
Based on evaluation results, the DPR proposes Broadcasting Law revision by expanding the scope of regulation to include:
1. implementation of broadcasting with digital technology; and
2. community participation.
Moreover, enriching the direction of the rules to participate in:
1. maintaining and enhancing morality and religious values and national identity;
2. improving the quality of human resources;
3. maintaining and strengthening national unity and integrity;
4. increasing awareness on obeying the national law and discipline;
5. channeling public opinion and encouraging the active role of the community in national and regional development;
6. preserving the environment;
7. preventing ownership monopolies and supporting fair business competition in the broadcasting field; and
8. adjusting to technological advances in broadcasting.
Besides, the draft amendments of the Law 32 of 2002 perpetuate the capital's monopoly on media content by stating that the Network Broadcast System (SSJ) is optional, not the obligation of the broadcasting institution. Democratizing broadcasting means an antonym for the word centralization. Therefore, the SSJ is an obligation, so that it is also in line with the vision of "Indonesia-Centric" and Nawacita, which means developing "public information" from the periphery and outermost regions.
The State Budget Revenue and Expenditure (APBN) finances the Central KPI.
Each province's Regional Budget Revenue and Expenditure (APBD) finances the Regional KPIs.
There is no comprehensive policy on convergence media. The fundamental problem of the new regulation will be the extent to which new laws (replacing or amending Law 32 of 2002) can accommodate the development of broadcast technology and organize a healthy, democratic, fair, progressive, and comprehensive Indonesian broadcasting industry. The new policies must regulate media ownership, cross-ownership, network media, media convergence, licensing, and broadcast content.
Nevertheless, the Law 32 of 2002 that regulates broadcasting has changed state control over the media into public-based control, and the law intends to prevent a monopoly on media ownership so that manipulation of information and public opinion will not occur. The establishment of KPI, an independent public-based institution as the official regulator of broadcasting in Indonesia, is the embodiment of the principle of diversity of ownership and diversity of broadcast content.
Meanwhile, the Law 11 of 2008 regarding Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE), which is a communication policy about interactive media, is too addressed to all resources contained on the internet, it has not touched on the substance of the communication. Only to the point of assisting those involved in e-commerce. The law should help regulate the new communication structure, which is marked by the fact that individuals control the traffic of information. Building a long-term comprehensive regulation in the context of the communication technology development that is rapidly increasing needs to be pursued.
Government has allocated approx. US$85,000 for TVRI in 2020 State Budget
Government has allocated approx. US$92,000 for RRI in 2020 State Budget
The eight principles of global public broadcasting indicators, according to UNESCO, if fulfilled, can strengthen the role of TVRI and RRI as Public Broadcasting Institutions. The principles are: public TV must be a part of all groups without discrimination (non-partisan); reflect plurality in structure, staff, and service modes; prioritizing program quality over quantity; editor-in-chief free from the intervention of the ruling political forces and destructive market economy; sources of funding from the public, not bound by the political agenda and economic of certain parties, aka independent. Also, public TV managers must work professionally and creatively; prioritizing accurate accountability; and lastly, having a tradition of strong or inclusive strategic collaboration.
The government is aware that some policies are no longer relevant and face several challenges. Then there are four new policies: data protection; cross border transactions; digital goods and services; and strengthening the competitiveness of local products and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Some policies take the form of outcomes that cannot be directly executed, such as the e-commerce curriculum. Presidential regulation mandates curriculum implementation, but curriculum development is facing a challenge, such as workforce qualifications are difficult to structure and lack of teaching staff.
Based on the evaluation, the Ministries and Agencies involved interpret the implementation of Presidential Regulation 74 of 2017 differently. As a result, it is difficult to make an agreement on the final form of output and to ensure that its implementation can proceed. Moreover, the Presidential Regulation is short term, in the form of a to-do list. There is no macro strategy, so there is no visible starting position, stages, and final destination. The government will issue new rules containing the four proposals. One of them is Draft Government Regulation (RPP) concerning e-commerce with three focus subjects. First, general provisions; the scope of regulation and principle; implementers; requirements; operational implementation; e-commerce business actors; and proof. Second, business processes that include electronic advertising; electronic offers, acceptance, and confirmation; electronic contract; protection of personal data; payment; delivery of goods and services; exchange and or cancellation of purchases. Finally, it contains other provisions such as dispute resolution; guidance and supervision; penalty; amendment and closing provisions.
The State Budget (APBN) allocation for Komnas Perempuan in 2019 was US$1,500,000.
The State Budget (APBN) allocation for Kemen PPPA in 2019 was US$35,000,000.
The State Budget (APBN) allocation for Kemenko PMK for coordination functions related to gender equality in 2018 was US$1,100,000.
US$107,000 for the Festival Bebas Batas 2019.
(approx.) 9.2 million
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Law of the Republic of Indonedia Number 5 of 2017 regarding Advancement of Culture | 555.14 KB |
| law_no._24_of_2019_on_creative_economy.pdf | 732.15 KB |
