Gede Sandiasa |

Enjoy Your Life

 Detail Berita

Sabtu, 18 Juni 2016 | sandiasa | 1527 kali | Central for Election & Political Party UNIPAS
Inter-regional Cooperation of “Sarbagita”

  Strengthens the Regional Position in the Era of Autonomy
Dimensions of Administration Reform and Governance
By Gede Sandiasa*

*Lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Science in Panji Sakti University


Inter-regional cooperation is important in the implementation of regional autonomy in improving the implementation of development and public services which is transparent, accountable, effective and efficient. Various administrative barriers and resource management in the region are considered necessary to reform the regional administration and governance among others by improving the quality of human resources, improving and accomplishing local revenue as well as cross-sectoral cooperation among the regions, in order to be able to face the national pressure and to facilitate globalization stream.

 I.     Introduction

Collaborative approach is similarly intensified with the development trend of governance paradigm in general and specifically in the public service, which is marked by a shift in the concept of ‘government’ leading to the concept of ‘governance’. One important dimension emphasized in the concept of governance is the interaction between stakeholders as a reflection of the process of democratization. According to Dwiyanto, Et al, (2003), the process of democratization is demanding a wider public space for actors and stakeholders outside the government to be involved in public decision-making process.  This is necessary in order to generate public policy, both in the field of public services as well as in environmental management, in accordance with the demands of the development of society. The absence of interaction as defined in the concept of governance, obviously, results in the policy process which is less transparent and responsive to the public interest, which in turn will result in a policy that does not meet the criteria of responsibility and public accountability.

Sarbagita is an association among local governments in dealing with infrastructure development, namely the government of Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar and Tabanan, that is the commitment of each area to create a clean and beautiful region and to address the environmental development problems in the area of Sarbagita. Sarbagita government cooperation is realized in four sections infrastructure development covering infrastructure of waste management, wastewater treatment, clean water and the provision of regional transportation.

Hickman dan Silva further stated important issues that can be leverage to the new organization namely the interorganizational relationship building. The form of the leverage are: (1) Developing the capacity of networks by using every resource to be part of the networks management; (2) Developing partner competence resulting in optimum fit partners (good match) and inter-partners to be mutually compatible; (3) Developing a management competence, namely the mindset and skills of the partners as the foundation of networks (Limerick and Cunnington, 1993: 237-238). In cooperation cross Sarbagita which was founded since 2004, of the four infrastructures that are handled, those infrastructures which are successfully implemented include the Integrated Waste Treatment Mechanism (IWTM) that had been built in Suwung and Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure. These processes also involve the private sector, namely PT Navigat Organic Energy Indonesia (NOEI), which has been able to process waste into gas that is subsequently used as electrical energy in order to generate 2 megawatts from 10 megawatts planned (Sudikerta, 2010).

Development cooperation learning among neighbouring urbans is the right term to meet the needs of the people of Bali as a premier tourist destination of Indonesia, which demands Bali to remain clean, comfortable and free from environmental problems, traffic congestion and energy limitations. In the field of waste management is not a simple thing, from which the government faces three main issues, namely: 1) the problem of high operating costs, in which the local government sets the least budget for handling the waste; 2) the complexity and the restriction of landfills to put the waste; and 3) the lack of public participation in waste management (Anonymous, 2012). These three problems are resulting a widespread impact that is the amount of waste handled is getting more and more, for example in the area of Sarbagita produces approximately 3,000 m3 garbage or equivalent to 1,000 tons per month (Anonymous, 2010), this not only causes budget ballooning for dealing with waste, but also causes environmental and the seas damage around the landfill, as well as causes traffic jams due to the long queue of entry and exit of the garbage vehicles.

In waste management, the government has prepared Law Act No. 18 Year 2008 on Waste Management (WM), as well as local governments establish a shared decision among the governments of Sarbagita on July 24, 2004 which contains several main points, those are: Guidelines for Waste Management in the Regions of Sarbagita; Establishment of Regulatory and Control of Health, Health and Facilitation Agency; and Establishment of Health Management and the Supervisory Board in the area of Sarbagita; Procedures and Appointment of the Head of Regulatory and Control of Health and the Chief of BPKS in Sarbagita region and Charging Personnel of BPKS.

The implementation of the integrated program, in dealing with issues and community needs will succeed if the inter-governmental cooperation is based upon the perception and understanding towards the similar problem; formal and informal support from the Regent/ mayor; the involvement of private or professional agencies in the handling of a particular subject; among the leaders have a strong commitment; and in the long term, the program consistency is required by the next official. The next issue of intergovernmental collaboration is necessary and possible because of the development of globalized information and technology; there is a private interest to invest in community issues; and intergovernmental finance system. The strength of this partnership is also very necessary to resist and strengthen the local government from the pressures and the global expansion of the central government, as well as to improve the ability of local governments to meet the real needs of their communities, and to be able to compete with other areas.  

 II.  Administration and Governance Reform to Maintain the Cooperation Between Governments (Intergovernmental Relations)

Understanding modernization through the dominance of science and capitalism generates adverse impact on human development and management of the system of government. “Objectivity and positivism tend to make people and society as a machine engineered, the emergence of tribalism or mentality that favor certain tribe or group. This is in line with the statement, “this becomes a logical consequence of the survival law of the fittes and the use of coercive power” (Sugiharto, 1996: 30). Region understanding and exaltation creates a potential disintegrated regional nation, of which each region decides a different direction and purpose, while the central government is unable to do anything, either the control or intervention to the area. The position of the areas which are concerned with the interests of themselves, are free to set their own regions as it is called by Lankester (2004: 303) as “political freedom” which is not supported by the tough resource will weaken the ability of the region to realize the development programs, thus will be secluded from the ability to compete with other regions.

On the other hand, experience shows that the ability of self-development that has become the foundation of the regional autonomy is less attractive and has produced the lack of goal attainment builder. Many constraints faced by the local governments both with regard to the limitations of important natural resources, financial and human resources in the field of development. Noting at these limitations, in the era of regional autonomy, efforts need to be sought, in which strong local government support a pathetic local government, or the union of strength development occurs in certain areas. The union of two or more local governments can not be done easily because different qualities of human resources that are managed by the region often appear to be barriers to partnerships system among the local governments.

In terms of human resources, the demands of professionalism in managing the resources and distribution services to the community, “responsibility for the quality of services-provided” (Ichimura & Bahl, 2009: 2), becomes a great demand, that each region should undertake reforms in the field of human resources. Developing human resource capacity is becoming part of the administration reform, because by the quality of human resources which are capable of creating public services that are accountable, efficient and effective, will be able to create creativity and innovation that have an impact on public services and programs that are not monotonous, to meet the demands of the development of society (up to date), and to be able to facilitate globalization. As required by Ali Farazman that reform needs to be done in the field of structure and rules, and quality improvement of human resource development: “administrative capacity building; institution building and administrative reform, which facilitated the process of globalization “(Farazmand, 2002). In the field of human resources as well according to Ali Farazamand, that people who are involved in the implementation of government programs, particularly those involved in public service should have a good quality in which in each work shows that the relevant human resource has shown professionalism, transparency and meet the ethical criteria “the public service conducts its business professionally, transparently and ethically” (Farazmand, 2002: 180).

Resource management in the developing countries is still generally fragile. This is stated by Martinez and Vasquez (1997: 29) as follows:

The problem of low administrative capacity at the subnational in developing countries is a real one and the design of a decentralized system of intergovernmental relations needs to take account, especially when and if the central government administration is more capable and can deliver local services better” 

However, in practice of the governance management in developing countries, the central governments often face obstacles both on the budget and authority over the area where the development program is implemented. Claims jurisdiction often occur between central and local government, as an example when associated with large revenues (like airports, mines and other resources) has become the central and local debate. The same thing also happens due to the responsibility of development and public services, in which the central and local authorities become blurred and often overlooked. Therefore, in the context of governance, both central and local governments need to redefine to construct development programs which are fair, equal, and balance between regions. Thus, the central government has issued Law No. 25/2009 on Fiscal Balance between Central and Local. According to Ferranti, et. all (2009: 8) “Governance is the broadest of these concepts, representing the overall quality of the relationship between citizens and government, which includes responsiveness, efficiency, honesty, and equity”. Furthermore, the insistence of irreversible globalization, and greatly affects the performance of local governments, have led the area to reform all fields, in order to increase the capacity of local administration such as those disclosed below,

The impacts of globalization on administrative reform as illustrated by governments’ efforts to adapt to globalization while developing, maintaining, or enhancing their respective administrative capacities” (Killian & Eklund, 2008: 5).

Global competition and inter-regional strengthening have become Capacity Building (Matuvu, 2008; Widdowson, 2009, Kapucu et al, 2007) into the mainstream of local government requiring serious and consistent political will to fix every regional development planning. In accordance with the opinion of Conway Camber, there are five issues that need to be considered in building capacity refers to as the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), namely:
1) Financial capital, broadly including finance and financial resources to support in order to start the process of sustainable development;

2) Social capital, covering networks, relations, reciprocity and trust;
3) Natural capital, governance of natural resources, including land, water, minerals, and forestry;

4) Physical capital,including infrastructure (roads, buildings, bridges and other necessary); and

5) Human capital, including the aspects of health, education and skills (Matovu, 2008: v).

The management of the five issues should make the local government seriously implement consistent and comprehensive reform, where each note of the capital with respect to each other. So if there is a resistance factor in the field of administration and management of “governance”, the local government must undertake the reforms, in order to achieve a maximum performance of government.

III The importance of integration in the Development Program Planning

The local government is responsible and has the essential task, namely as the party serving and empowering people (Harris, 2007: 6). In the meantime, when the local government does not have sufficient capability to meet the demands and needs of the community, it must be able to perform new breakthroughs in cooperation with various parties, both private and local governments that are geographically close, and has a similar goal and development program.
There are a number of prerequisites that would be attempted when the government intends to carry out cooperation among regions, such as:

1) Any local government that will work should have a vision of development that is how to accelerate the achievement of public welfare and how to use resources effectively and efficiently;

2) Hold the same perceptions and views on the subject matter;

3) Leave the sense of provincialism, political, and party “reforms aimed at establishing a professionally competent and politically neutral government administration” (Killian & Eklund, 2008: iv);

4) Have committment to support the cooperation agreement, which can guarantee the implementation of effective and efficient cooperation, which can be seen from the efforts made by each local government, such as providing investment and a number of funding, ensure the harmony of communication between the cooperate parties, continuous socialization in the community to bring maximum participation and create security, conducive atmosphere; personalities and the number of units (Eclock, 2005: 9-10);

5) In certain areas of cooperation, local governments establish an independent agency to reduce the government’s direct role that can bring local governments on technical matters, who can disregard the other basic tasks, and

6) Strengthen the formalities through a cooperation agreement between areas, which can be known by the existing government on it. This cooperation goes well when both parties feel benefit both in terms of government and also for the community it serves. It really depends on the exchange process and complementary efforts of various local needs, strategies, personal relationships between officials and the amount of units involved, like what is proposed by Rhodes as follows: “the process of exchange is influenced by the resources of the participants, strategies, personalities and the number of units” (Eclock, 2005: 9-10).

In the Indonesian government, inter-regional cooperation is very possible considering has a legal law which is regulated by Government Regulation No. 38 Year 2007 on the Division of Government Affairs between the Government, Provincial Government and Regional Government of Regency /city, in particular Article 13 Paragraph 1 states “Implementation of government affairs which resulted in traffic impact area mutually managed by certain local” and the explanations related mentions “mutual management can be institutionalized in the form of inter-regional cooperation, facilitated by the government”. The mechanism is then reinforced by the Government Regulation No. 7 Year 2008 on Deconcentration and Co-enacted on February 4, 2008 (Anonymous, 2009: 19).
This now need to be emphasized is the readiness of local governments in building local capacity, so as to carry out the competition or cooperation with local governments. According to Morphet the capacity which needs to be built is related to five things, namely: “developing leadership capacity, developing the skills and capacity of the workforce, developing the organization, resourcing local government and pay and rewards” (Morphet, 2008: 61).

Development of local leadership capacity, the direct election system is also an important part of administrative reform and governance, in which through a model of direct democracy, it is expected that each component of the public recognizes the leadership capacity needed to lead the region, as well as the capacity of the person to be selected. Thus the feel of “public option” (Buchanan, 2003; Ekelund and Hébert, 2010; Reksulak, 2010; and Shughart II & McChesney, 2010) will be raised as a result of the implementation of the election, but many options are disappointing where elected leaders no longer be public servants, but as representatives of a group or party, which are obviously, always favoring policies and filled with political overtones.  Furthermore, leaders who do not have good quality, characterized by placing officers and employees under it is not based on professionalism in the field; it takes into account the assumption of personal political interests and the interests of the carrying capacity as a constituent. In such circumstances the performance of local government services will decline or at least not become stagnant, the end of what could of fragile governance system is, of course, will not be able to compete and the other side will not be able to cooperate in the “symbiotic mutualism”.

Reward and payment systems that are inadequate or not in accordance with the achievement, professionalism attach to a series of problems in the management of human resources in the area. However, if we consider the Law 32 Year 2004 on Local Government Article 133 states as follows: “Development of civil servants career considers the area of integrity and morality, education and training, rank, position mutation, mutations between regions, and competence” whereas in Article 134 describes the salaries of civil servants which when summed should be in accordance with local capabilities, years of service, expertise and level of positions that the employees have.

In the development of organizations, local governments have freedom in accordance with the needs of accelerating and spread evenly on public services in the area. Developing governmental organizations is different from that in private organizations, therefore the public organization has several characteristics, such as what is delivered by Tom Christensen (Christensen, 2007: 6-8) first, “public organization have leaders elected by popular vote; leadership of public organizations is chosen through an accountable democratic mechanisms, “publicly elected leadership is found in the local goverments of most democraties societies”. Second, “public organizations differ from many private-sector organizations in that they are multifunctional”; this means that public organizations consider things such as political multifunctional steering (political control), supervision field, representation and participation in the party, establishing and staffing, sensitivity vis-a-vis users, transparency, publicity and openness of the decision-making process, predictability, similarity of commitment, impartiality, neutrality, quality of service, professional independence, political loyalty, efficiency and effectiveness. Third, “they do not operate within a free and competitive market”; public organizations can not be separated from the influence of the market, in this case is related to the ability of public organizations to respond the demands of society and the environment surrounds them, including the need to think about the ability to compete with other public organizations

An important task for the government is to fix or resolve problems created by the market, or where the market is not able to handle. G. Rainey (Christensen, 2007: 8) distinguishes three groups of issues as follows:

1) Public goods and the free-rider problem; handling of “public goods” and the stowaway, who take excessive advantage of the market process.
2) Individual incompetence; individuals often have limitations in competence and information, thus the public or government organization is expected to be able to handle;

3) Externalities or spillover; excesses and externalities that can not be accounted for by the market can be handled by the public organization, such as environmental problems.

Noting the above characteristics of public organizations, where various issues handled, then the local government as a public organization should adjust itself with the existing characteristics.

Therefore, the integration of developmental planning needs to be done which includes infrastructure and superstructure, as well as the correlation to the cooperation effort with various parties (stakeholders), both governments, among governments, the private sector and the community which has become a significant part in the governance discourse.  “Governance is the process through which actors from the state, the civil society, and private sector articulate their interest, exercise their rights and obligations, and mediate their differences. It has three interrelated dimensions-political, economic, and social” (Cheema, 2005: ix)

Although it is not easy to do, taking into account the wide range of interests that play, and also the concept of autonomy is not only an opportunity for the region to achieve progress, but it also can be a challenge and a major obstacle, when the human resources in the area is inadequate. In addition, in terms of spatial economic development, Indonesia is still facing the problem of inequality among regions.  Inequality is often manifested in the form of inequality between the center and the regions, which is caused by a new order of economic growth model which tends to benefit the center. In the development of regional autonomy, the desire to control the potential local resources can contribute to local revenues. Making control of resources tend to encourage regions to be more expansive in exploring sources of income, so that the conflict between the central regions, and between regions, particularly the potential areas that are in the border area canbe solved. It is also apparent in the regional policy, in the form of legislation that contradicts a lot with the laws and regulations that exist in it, particularly with regard to the issue of user charges and local taxes. Bastian stated as follows:

Variation of regional autonomy understanding associated with the meaning of the origin of regional autonomy. Regional autonomy is the rights attached since the establishment of the area. This concept leads the area to uncontrolly act with no control at all from the center. This is in contrast to the understanding of meaning which stated that the area does not have autonomous rights because such rights actually appear until the central portion decentralize authority to the regions” (Bastian, 2006: 331).

In preventing seizure between the interests, the strengthening of the negotiations, persuasive and inter-regional dialogue is crucial, as where required on inter-regional cooperation. This opinion is supported by BC Smith (1985: 92), “Intergovermental relations are generally characterized more by negotiation, persuasion and dialogue than by the resolution of overt conflict by use of ultimate sanctions”.

III.     Local Government, Private Sector and Civil Society Participation as a Strategic Factor

 Although autonomy has been announced since the Law no. 5, 1974, until the present Law 32/2004 of local government, it is obviously seen that the local government management still faces many obstacles. It would be better to consider the statements in point b of Law 32 Year 2004 which states as follows:

“that the efficiency and effectiveness of the regional administration needs to be improved with more attention to aspects of the relationship among the composition of the government and among local government, the potency and diversity of the region, the opportunities and challenges of global competition by providing the broadest powers to the regions, along with the rights and obligations to hold regional autonomy in the unitary system of governance of the state”

 Thus, it has been outlined that in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the regional administration, local can use his freedom, so as to make cooperation, to meet the demands of local communities and to face the global challenges. According to Giddens, Held and McGrew, globalization can be perceived as a project of economy, ideology, politic and institution, which is facilitated and enabled through a technological revolution, a shift in ideology and policy, strengthening the role of international financial institutions and changes in the geopolitical landscape (Kennett, 2008: 4).  In the implementation of this autonomy appear a number of issues that have been widely reviewed above. Election made-up results also brings many problems in the area, among others: insensitivity of local official towards local issues “sense of public accountability” (Haris, 2007: 4), local officials do not have sufficient competence to manage the area, causing impaired ability of initiative and creativity of local government in solving problems and answering global challenges faced, which then come up with attitudes and actions that are the interests of the party and support groups, which contributes to the  more complex problems in the area. In such circumstances, the public interest is ruled out over the class and sectoral interests. The impact that then arises is the declining of public trust towards public officials, which can weaken the support and participation of the community. 

In Attachment II Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Number 21 Year 2009 on the Government Work Plan of 2010 mentioned issue in implementing regional autonomy is “there is still a big self-ego interests among institutions/ organizations and among regions”, the settlement of regional conflicts, improvement of linkages between regions, drafting models of inter-regional cooperation in the field of economy, public services and basic infrastructure; and inter-agency / institution with the area. Furthermore, in general this attachment mentions that the cooperation improvement program among local governments includes: (1) the establishment of inter-regional cooperation forums in the field of regional economic development and public services; (2) establishment of cooperation forums initiated by the provincial government for all districts /cities in its territory in order to coordinate the implementation of development; (3) the establishment of cooperation forums among districts / cities which are generally based on the use of Natural Resources collectively; (4) the establishment of cooperation forums with third parties, such as the Ministries / Institutions, Universities, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the private sector engaged in the related field.

The balance involvement of all stakeholders in the concept of governance, in managing local resources that can be exchanged in a working draft “networking” or collaboration among regions, which can be politically influenced and exchanged, resulting in an effectively and efficiently broad impact on community, this concept refers to the opinion of Compton as follows:

Resource exchange presupposes that the relevant resource is transferable. On the basis of this we can define a resource in the context of policy network theory as being anything that (1) is controlled by a political actor, (2) is desired by  another political actor, and (3) can be transferred or exchanged in some relevant sense (Compton, 2009: 19)

 The transfer of power could be from government to the private sector, government levels below the provincial level to the district, from sub-district to district, from sub-district to regency, from regency to village and even to the level of problems involving village communities in the implementation of development to ease the task of local governments. Through the participation of management, according to Widodo (2004: 3), ), it is possible that some things will occur: 1) the decreasing burden of government in terms of provision and services, 2) The government does not need to create large institutions so as to save the budget; allocation and distribution of the budget to be more evenly throughout the region thus it can be a stimulant for regional economic growth; and 3) as a vehicle to empower stakeholders functions which are involved that have been neglected. On the other hand, if we consider the opinion of Jerri Killian (Killian & Eklund, 2008: 49) as follows:

Participative management emphasizes decentralized structures and authority. In a societal context, decentralization refers to moving from a central bureaucratic decision-making center to subnational systems of governance. In this era of globalization, decentralization may also refer to the upward delegation of authority from the nation to transnational or supranational institutions”

Participatory management emphasizes decentralized structure and authority.
In the context of society, decentralization refers to move from the central bureaucracy decision-making for the government system underneath. In the era of globalization, decentralization can also refer to the delegation of the authority. Observing that opinion, there will be a transfer of authority and power, in which each stakeholder involved will have the empowerment to manage resources in the area. In certain sectors, society can directly hold system of public services both for themselves and for society surrounds them, such as electricity payment service, the payment of water, rural resource management to the environmental issues, particularly waste management which will be discussed next.

As what has been stated by Morse “to hear what people think … leverages

citizens’ common forms of participation” (Smith, 2010: 245). By listening to what the public thought and prospect needs of the community, it is possible for the emergence of a common participation of the community in managing the needs of the community. Furthermore, Stiver confirms that effective government is a government that runs in between the responsibility of public administrators and citizens, which clearly address as the following, “for a commonsense definition of effectiveness that encompasses “two-way mechanisms of responsiveness and accountability between public administrators and citizens” (Bingham, et all., 2005: 549).

 IV.    Sarbagita as an approach to Inter-regional Cooperation

Welfare discrepancy between regions, would make it difficult to apply the same approach to development program between regions, which are known and understood that each region has a variety of resources, both natural resources (the rich is not willing to help the poor and otherwise disadvantaged areas indicate an attitude of dependence, without efforts to improve the situation), which is no less important is the human resources in the area, in which it is understood that the quality of human resources is a determining factor of the regional progress. On the other hand, decentralization involves understanding that the financial balance between the local government and central government, as well as with other horizontally local governments that their respective governments are working together to share among each other as it is stated by Shinichi Ichimura, & Roy Bahl, 2009 the following:

“One might begin such an analysis by considering that intergovernmental transfers have two dimensions: the size of the divisible pool, and the distribution of this pool among eligible local government units. Some have referred to the divisible pool dimension as having to do with the vertical fiscal balance between the central and subnational governments, and the allocation dimension as having to do with horizontal fiscal balance. Both dimensions must be part of the policy design” (Ichimura, & Bahl, 2009: 11).

 However, decentralization does not automatically increase the resource base of local governments. In the beginning of implementing decentralization in the region, local governments have limited administrative capacity of local governments’ ability to overcome poverty and to increase income tax bases. This was clearly expressed by G. Shabbir Cheema as follows:

“The decentralization of fiscal authority does not automatically increase the resource base of local authorities. To begin with, the local governments with new authority might lack the administrative capacity to increase their resource base because of their inability to evaluate proverty and inprove collection from the tax base (Cheema, 2005: 131).

 “Discussions on many issues of decentralization like those related to urbanization, industrial location, and environmental problems (Ichimura, & Bahl, 2009: viii). Urbanization and industry become part of interest for government and private sector, on the one hand, the creation of business opportunities in urban areas will become a problem for the government and the private sector, where there will be mobility of population from rural to urban areas, or from an agrarian to an industrial population. Lucrative problem for private industry and local government, in which many local governments and private ATM put them selves in this sector, so then the question excesses of overcrowding due to urbanization should also be taken into account so as not to disrupt the industry.  

On the other hand, the environmental issues of the impact of a development policy will be ruled out, local governments always provide only a little budget in environmental management, as well as the private sector can always do violations relating to the structuring and responsibility of the company or industry on the environment. This inequality penetrated almost all local governments in which unconsciously realize that the destruction of the environment will reduce the quality of local governance, particularly in the tourism areas of Bali.

In detail, the development of environmental objectives are as follows: (1) controlling pollution and environmental damage in the streams, lakes, coastal and marine, and groundwater; (2) preserving the land, biodiversity and ecosystems; (3) improving clean and healthy air management, garbage and hazardous materials and toxic waste; (4) increasing the quality and integration of environmental management and natural resources within, including in terms of institutional quality, the quality of human resources, environmental data and information, harmonization of legislation and compliance levels of society (Law of Indonesia 21/2009: 23).

Environmental disruption in potential tourism development areas such as Sarbagita (Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar, Tabanan), where Denpasar as a shopping center, public services and industrial center; Badung provides Kuta, Nusa Dua, and Bali Ngurah Rai Airport; Gianyar has Sukawati Traditional Market, Ubud and industrial tourism centers, while Tabanan has Nature Lake of Beratan, Tanah Lot and Bedugul are becoming interesting topics among local governments and the private sector. Geographical proximity, topography and the use of natural resources like source of water that comes from Bedugul area that leads from Lake Beratan allow the four regions to cooperate. From the observation, it was found that it is not only the tourism sector which can be developed equally, but also industrial, transportation, education and health services. Each sector of tourism has advantages, which can be pursued for cooperation in terms of information and transportation management, which can impact on the whole area of tourism in all areas of Sarbagita by tourism actors.

Development of education, particularly higher education in Denpasar and Badung, there is urbanization of prospective students to the area. A shift in terms of college is needed to take to Tabanan and Gianyar region, so there is no density in Denpasar and Badung. Therefore, there is equitable income distribution in the regions of Sarbagita. Nowadays, in the field of health, especially cases in the field of inability health care of Tabanan, Gianyar and Badung Hospital are directed to Sanglah in Denpasar. This means that informal cooperation has been running in such a way, without giving effect to the progress of the four regions. In the future it needs to be clarified and it involves the question of “administrative and governance reform”

Local governments of Sarbagita have initiated Sarbagita cooperation since 2004, which covers waste management infrastructure; the infrastructure of wastewater process, water infrastructure and region transportation, however there are only two infrastructures which are successful namely waste management infrastructure, the infrastructure of wastewater process. Cooperation in terms of waste management has several objectives, such as: the existence of an efficient location for recycling waste on a regional scale which are representative in terms of technological, economic, social and environmental aspects; increasing the quantity and quality of cleaning services to the community; reducing the burden and the risk of local governments due to limited funding, human resources and technology; improving the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management through professional management; and fulfilling the electrical energy from the waste processing and liquid waste in the regions of Sarbagita.

However, along the way of this waste processing has not yet been done optimally, although it has involved the private sector, namely PT NOI (Navigat Organic energy Indonesia). Although there is an ease of waste management which has been guaranteed by Law No. 18/28 on Waste Management, which in addition regulates the procedures for dealing with waste management, implementation of the principles of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), EPR (extended producers responsibility), and also confirms the division of authority between the central government, provincial governments and the Government of regency/ city, as well as the public and business community participation in waste management. The division of authority and responsibility, both among fellow government agencies, and even between the government and elements of the community is actually needed, since in the legislation also contains provisions on sanctions for those who violate the provisions that have been defined. In addition to the distribution of authority, in the Law 18/2008 also confirms the division of types of waste which are classified into three types namely: a. household garbage; b, household-like waste; c. specific waste (waste requires special handling due to its nature and concentration) (Article 2). The purpose of this kind of division is to facilitate the handling of waste (sorting, collecting, transporting, managing and final processing).

Learning from waste management in the region of Sarbagita, various weaknesses of unsuccessful inter-regional cooperation, which can be listed, include: lack understanding of development cooperation programs; lack of commitment and support of the local government that resulted in a decrease of budget. It has been explained that governance in the disclosure requires in-depth knowledge integration, which is only possible through a relational mechanism involving strong bond between network participants or the cooperative network, this opinion refers to the opinion of Harry Scarbrough & Kenneth Amaeshi as follows “where open innovation processes do require the integration of tacit knowledge, this will only be possible through relational mechanisms involving strong ties between network participants” ( Foss & Michailova, 2009: 227); the absence of strong sanctions for parties doing violations to the agreement, the following table analyzes the implementation of the cooperation of Sarbagita.

Table of SWOT of Sarbagita Waste Management


Analysis Model




  • The existence of common problems among regions
  • The existence of common views and interest
  • The existence of formal and informal support of public officials
  • Geographical proximity and development programs
  • Sources of income from tourism sectors




  • Limitations of the funding source
  • The quality of human resources in terms of limited waste management
  • Restructuring the delivery and waste treatment system
  • Limited means, infrastructure and landfill
  • Low support of the public awareness
  • High operating costs




  • Powered by technologies that are environmentally supporting the waste management
  • Supported by  Law No. 18/28 of Waste Management
  • Investment support from private sector
  • The growing needs of farmers for organic fertilizer
  • The increased amount of waste in the region of Sarbagita held every year
  • The increasing needs of electrical energy




  • Low awareness of the community need to look for continuous dissemination efforts
  • Type and waste products generated requires the development of technology
  • The commitment of public officials is always changing in every shift of leadership
  • Leveraging private investment opportunities need to be improved
  • The involvement of large waste generating industries need to be involved


Source: observation and literature reviews

Conclusions and Recommendations

In order to face the challenges presented by globalization through the power of local autonomy, local governments are authorized to invent various potentials that need to be developed, in order to facilitate regional interests and globalization. Local governments can improve the performance by conducting cross-regional cooperation with the private sector and by encouraging public participation.

Inter-regional cooperation as an experience in the area of Sarbagita, is not easy, due to a number of issues, among others, the lack of commitment from the respective heads and private areas involved in cooperation issues, political power in the form of the cooperation agreement is not capable of binding and giving strict punishment to the parties involved, and community participation is still low in the areas of cooperation.

Recommendations made is related to repetitive discussion of the cooperation document, with details of the rights and responsibilities of the parties; the establishment of an independent agency to manage the cooperated areas of cooperation; giving strict sanctions on the parties which have less committment and ongoing socialization efforts in the community by involving mass media in order to obtain the maximum support of the people in the area.


Anonim, 2009. “Segera Batasi Pemakaian Plastik”. Media Lingkungan Serasi Edisi 01/2009. Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup RI.

Anonim, 2009. “Segera Batasi Pemakaian Plastik”. Media Lingkungan Serasi Edisi 01/2009. Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup RI.

Anonim, 2010. “Sarbagita Desak PT. NOEI, Tangani Penumpukan Sampah di TPA Mangupura”. Dalam Short URL:  http://metrobali. com/?p=4802

Anonim, 2010. Disain Kemitraan Pengelolaan TPA Regional SARBAGITA., 09 Juni 2010

Anonim, 2010. DPRD Panggil Badan Pengelola Kebersihan TPA Suwung

Anonim, 2012. Keberhasilan Penanganan Pembiayaan Sampah Sesuai Permasalahannya ttp://

Bastian, Indra, 2006. Akuntasi Sektor Publik: Suatu Pengantar. Erlangga, Surabaya

Bingham, et all., 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government” Public Administration Review • September/October 2005, Vol. 65, No. 5

Buchanan , James M. 2003.  “Public Choice: Politics Without Romance”. Dalam Policy, the quarterly review of The Centre for Independent Studies. Spring 2003

Cheema, G. Shabbir, 2005. Building Democratic Institutions: Governance Reform in Developing Countries. Kumarian Press. Bloofield USA

Christensen, Tom, et.all., 2007. Organization Theory and the Public Sector Instrument, culture and myth Routledge, New York

Compton, Hugh, 2009. Policy Networks and Policy Change. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Dwiyanto, Agus, et al. 2003. Reformasi Tata Pemerintahan dan Otonomi Daerah. Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan UGM. Yogjakarta

Ekelund Jr ,Robert B,&  Robert F. Hébert, 2010.  “Interest-group analysis in economic history and the history of economic thought”, dalam Jurnal Public Choice Public Choice (2010) 142: 471–480 Department of Economics, Auburn University, 404 Blake St., Auburn

Elcock, Howard, 2005. Local Government. Routledge, New York

Farazmand, Ali, ed., 2002. Administrative Reform in Developing Nations. Praeger, London

Ferranti, David de, et. all.,2009.  How To Improve Governance: A New ramework for Analysis and Action. brookings institution press Washington, D.C.

Foss, Nicolai J.  and Snejina Michailova, 2009.Knowledge Governance rocesses and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York

Haris, Syamsuddin, 2007. Desentralisasi & Otonomi Daerah: Desentralisasi, Demokratisasi & Akuntabilitas Pemerintahan Daerah. LIPI Press, Jakarta

Ichimura, Shinichi & Roy Bahl, 2009. Decentralization Policies in Asian development.  World Scientific Publishing, Singapore

Kapucu, Naim, et al., 2007. “Capacity Building for Community-Based Small Nonprofit  Minority Health Agencies in Centeral Florida”. In Journal of Volunteer Administration. Volume XXIV, Number 3

Kennett, Patricia, 2008.  Governance, Globalization and Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts 01060, USA

Killian, Jerri & Niklas Eklund, eds., 2008. Handbook of Administrative Reform An International Perspective. Auerbach Publications, Francis

Lampiran II Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 21 Tahun 2009 Tentang Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Tahun 2010

Lankester, 2004. “Asian Drama: The Purssuit of Modernization in India and Indonesia”. In Asian Affairs, vol. XXXV, No III, Nopember 2004

Limerick and Cunnington, 1993. Managing the New Organization; A Blueprint for Networks and Strategic Alliances, hlm. 6.

Martinez, Jorge & Vazquez, 1997.  Fiscal Decentralization, economic Growth and Democratic Governance. Economics Departemen and Policy Research Center  Georgia State University, Washington.

Matovu, George, 2008. “Participatory, Capacity Building, and The Political Will The Interface”. In Local Governance and Development Journal Volume 2, Number 2, Desember 2008

Morphet, Janice,  2008. Modern Local Government. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles

Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 38 Tahun 2007 tentang Pembagian Urusan Pemerintah antara Pemerintah, Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi dan Pemerintahan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota

Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 38 Tahun 2007 tentang Pembagian Urusan Pemerintah antara Pemerintah, Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi dan Pemerintahan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota

Reksulak, Michael, 2010. “Antitrust public choice(s)”. dalam Jurnal Public Choice (2010) 142: 385–406  School of Economic Development, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro

Shughart II , William F., & Fred S. McChesney, 2010. “Public choice theory and antitrust policy”. Dalam Public Choice (2010) 142: 385–406 Department of Economics, University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS

Smith, BC, 1985. Decentralization: The Theorial Dimension Of The State.  George Allen & Unwin (Publisher), London.

Smith, Neale, 2010. The Public Administrator As Collaborative Citizen: Three Conceptions. Paq Summer, 2010

Sudikerta, 2010. “Penanganan Sampah Harus Dilakukan Bersama”. Dalam Bali Post, 6 Mei 2010

Sugiharto, Bambang, 1996. Post Modernisme Tantangan bagi Filsafat. Kanisus, Yogyakarta.

Undang-Undang No 32/2004, tentang Pemerintahan daerah

Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2008 tentang Pengelolaan Sampah

Widdowson, 2009. “The Role of Capacity Building in Achieving consistent Application of International Instruments”. In World Custom Journal

Widodo W Utomo, 2004. “Pengembangan Kerjasama Pemerintahan Dengan Masyarakat dan Swasta dalam Pembangunan Daerah”.  Dalam Makalah Diklat Manajemen Pemerintahan” 24 Juni 2004.

Anonim, 2009. “Segera Batasi Pemakaian Plastik”. Media Lingkungan Serasi Edisi 01/2009. Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup RI.

Anonim, 2009. “Segera Batasi Pemakaian Plastik”. Media Lingkungan Serasi Edisi 01/2009. Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup RI.

Anonim, 2010. “Sarbagita Desak PT. NOEI, Tangani Penumpukan Sampah di TPA Mangupura”. Dalam Short URL:  http://metrobali. com/?p=4802

Anonim, 2010. Disain Kemitraan Pengelolaan TPA Regional SARBAGITA., 09 Juni 2010

Anonim, 2010. DPRD Panggil Badan Pengelola Kebersihan TPA Suwung

Anonim, 2012. Keberhasilan Penanganan Pembiayaan Sampah Sesuai Permasalahannya

Bastian, Indra, 2006. Akuntasi Sektor Publik: Suatu Pengantar. Erlangga, Surabaya

Bingham, et all., 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government” Public Administration Review • September/October 2005, Vol. 65, No. 5


  • Sosialisasi Pemilu
  • Inter-regional Cooperation of “Sarbagita”

  • Nama