How Do Configuration Shifts in Fragmented Energy Governance Affect Policy Output? A Case Study of Changing Biogas Regimes in Indonesia

Abstract

Biogas technology to support rural livelihoods and low-carbon development has been developed in different projects and programs in the Global South over the last few decades. However, the existence of multiple projects, actors and designs involved may lead to so-called fragmentation in governance. This research addresses the fragmented governance amongst the biogas programmes in Indonesia to study their impact on the implementation; the numbers of biodigesters disseminated and knowledge transferred. Drawing on concepts of fragmentation, regime effectiveness, and policy output, the research uses data from interviews with relevant actors, supplemented with documents review. Findings show that the governance architecture of biogas regime in Indonesia consists of different types of biogas programmes championed by different types of actors pursuing different objectives. There had been patterns and periodical shifts of configuration within the Indonesian biogas regime, i.e., from administrative fragmentation (2007–2009), to conflictive fragmentation (2010–2012), to cooperative fragmentation (2013–2016), and reduced fragmentation (2017). Shifting from administrative to cooperative fragmentation resonates with the increase of the number of biodigesters dissemination more than fourfold in ten years, from 800 in 2007, to 37,999 in 2016. The distribution of power within the governance architecture among government bodies, NGOs, and the private sector influenced the speed of implementation and innovation of the biogas programs. This suggests that a higher degree of distribution of power and cooperation within a governance architecture contribute to increasing policy output of the regime complex of renewable energy.

The Governance of Risk Management on Peatland: A Case Study of Restoration in South Sumatra, Indonesia

“…Prepare a robust network model of institutional arrangement to govern peatland restoration based on the PHU landscape. The institutional arrangement should have a consensus on resources allocation, division of tasks and responsibilities, and a coordination mechanism among actors (Budiman and Smits 2020;TRANSrisk 2017). Involving multiple actors in the decision-making process can integrate knowledge as well as the variability of values necessary to make effective, efficient, fair, and morally acceptable decisions about risk (Renn and Schweizer 2009).…”

The Role of Fixed-Dome and Floating Drum Biogas Digester for Energy Security in Indonesia

“…Since 2010, technological innovations for biodigester in Indonesia were somehow divided into two designs: 1) Fixed-dome digesters as a strong technology and proven in other developing countries, 2) Floating drum (fiberglass) digester type as more suitable design for Indonesia's earthquake-prone geography (Budiman & Smits, 2020). This study analyzes the effectiveness of these two-biogas technologies for energy security in the country.…”

“…In terms of cooking, the common dominant sources are liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and firewood ( Figure 1). About 17% of households still use firewood for cooking, 76% utilize LPG, and 1.24% utilize biogas digester (BPS, 2017;Budiman & Smits, 2020). During COVID-19 lockdown, the use of LPG even increased to 23% in some regions (IESR, 2020).…”

Complexity of Barriers to Biogas Digester Dissemination in Indonesia

“…Meanwhile, LPG is utilized by 63% of the population in rural areas and this starts to be a new source of greenhouse gas emissions in the countryside (Andadari, 2014;Thoday, 2018). To support energy transition to renewable energy, biogas is seen as a cleaner source of energy that can be developed further to tackle environmental and health problems caused by LPG and firewood use (Bedi, 2017;Budiman et al, 2020). In Indonesia, small-medium scale biogas with different technologies such as at the household level has been introduced formally since the 2000s (Andadari, 2014;Bedi, 2017).…”

“…In Indonesia, small-medium scale biogas with different technologies such as at the household level has been introduced formally since the 2000s (Andadari, 2014;Bedi, 2017). However, there is fragmentation within the governance of the small-medium scale biogas programs in Indonesia that has mixed impacts on the programs (Budiman et al, 2020;Transrisk, 2017). The problem of fragmented governance, with weak institutions, makes programs on technological dissemination/diffusion activities are vulnerable to issues that hinder transition pathways to low carbon energy through the biogas sector.…”