Mova's Notes

Lake Governance Policy Network Analysis

5 min read

Lake Governance Policy Network Analysis

Overview

This comprehensive analysis examines the governance dynamics of lake management in Indonesia, revealing how governance failure rather than technical deficit lies at the heart of environmental crises in priority lakes.

Interactive Visualization

🌐 Policy-Network-Actor Diagram →

An interactive D3.js visualization showing the complex relationships between 18 institutional actors, 11 policies, and 10 governance paradoxes.

Features:

  • Tier Filtering: Toggle between National, Provincial, Local, and Community actors
  • Relationship Types: Filter by Coordination, Conflict, Budget, Information flows, and Gaps
  • Paradox Highlighting: Explore 10 documented governance failures
  • Theme Analysis: Filter by 10 analytical themes (A-J)
  • Bilingual: Full English and Bahasa Indonesia support
  • Search: Find specific actors or policies
  • Power Stratification: Visual representation of formal vs actual authority

Key Findings

10 Governance Paradoxes Identified

  1. Authority Without Legitimacy - National decree expands lake 67% without consultation, enforced by military
  2. Coordination Without Power - Coordination body cannot override national regulations
  3. 800ha Regulatory Black Hole - Unresolved spatial contradiction since 2023
  4. Institutional Orphaning - Watershed agency lost authority post-2017, no replacement
  5. 18,000 vs 1,000 Hectare Dilemma - Zero-sum water allocation conflict
  6. Knowledge Without Action - Monitoring without enforcement authority
  7. Community as Implementers - Excluded from decision-making
  8. Land Data Black Hole - Land agency excluded from coordination
  9. Regulatory Contradictions - Same space = lake + certified land + protected farmland
  10. Budget Allocation Injustice - 156B Rp to military, 0 Rp to displaced farmers

Four-Tier Power Structure

National Level (Power 6-9):

  • Ministry of Environment & Forestry
  • Ministry of Public Works
  • National Land Agency (Excluded from coordination)
  • Military (156 billion Rp contract)

Provincial Level (Power 5-6):

  • Lake Management Coordination Body (5-working group structure)
  • Provincial Secretariat
  • Provincial Agriculture Department
  • Provincial Environment Department
  • Watershed Management Agency (Authority reduced post-2017)

Local Level (Power 4-5):

  • District Head (Admitted “wrong study” under pressure)
  • District Secretariat
  • Local environmental agencies

Community Level (Power 2-3):

  • Farmers Forum (1,000+ members)
  • Community Elders (historical knowledge)
  • Upstream Farmers (1,000 ha)
  • Downstream Irrigation (18,000 ha)

Analytical Themes (A-J)

  • Theme A: Sedimentation & Lake Degradation (48 million m³ crisis)
  • Theme B: Multi-Stakeholder Coordination (170 institutions, fragmentation)
  • Theme C: Water Hyacinth Management (21 ha → 280 ha explosion)
  • Theme D: Agriculture, Farming, Livelihoods (2.5-year ban, zero compensation)
  • Theme E: Policy, Regulation, Legal Framework (decree resistance)
  • Theme F: Inter-Agency Gaps & Fragmentation (institutional orphaning, exclusion)
  • Theme G: Community Perspectives & Land Rights (certification contradictions)
  • Theme H: Budget, Financing, Resource Allocation (156B injustice)
  • Theme I: Monitoring, Data Systems, Information (29 stations, no enforcement)
  • Theme J: Recommendations & Future Directions

Environmental Justice Analysis

Three Dimensions of Injustice

Procedural Justice Violations:

  • Community excluded from coordination body decision-making
  • National decree issued without consultation
  • Decades of community knowledge ignored

Distributive Justice Violations:

  • 156 billion Rp to military contractors
  • 0 Rp compensation to displaced farmers
  • 2.5-year farming ban with continued taxation

Recognition Justice Violations:

  • “Policy makers are not us, we are just implementers”
  • Traditional ecological knowledge delegitimized
  • Community knowledge framed as “not expert enough”

Data Visualization Features

Interactive Diagram Components

Node Types:

  • National Actors (red circles) - Ministries and national agencies
  • Provincial Actors (blue circles) - Provincial government bodies
  • Local Actors (green circles) - District-level government
  • Community Actors (orange circles) - Farmers, community groups
  • Policies (gray squares) - Regulations and decrees

Relationship Types:

  • Coordination (black lines) - Official cooperation
  • Conflict (red lines) - Direct contradictions
  • Budget Flow (green lines) - Financial allocations
  • Information Flow (blue lines) - Data sharing
  • Gaps/Exclusions (gray lines) - Systematic exclusions

Power Stratification:

  • Node size represents influence level
  • Vertical position represents authority hierarchy
  • Higher placement = higher formal power

Methodology

Research Approach:

  • Multi-stakeholder interview analysis
  • Regulatory document review
  • Policy contradiction mapping
  • Power dynamics analysis

Data Collection:

  • Focus group discussions with government officials
  • Individual interviews with community representatives
  • Document analysis of 65+ regulations
  • Network relationship coding

Analysis Framework:

  • Environmental justice (procedural, distributive, recognition)
  • Power hierarchy mapping (7 tiers)
  • Paradox identification (10 institutional failures)
  • Theme-based coding (10 analytical themes A-J)

Technical Implementation

Visualization Technology

Framework: D3.js v7 force-directed graph Features:

  • Real-time filtering (tier, relationship type, themes)
  • Bilingual metadata (Indonesian/English)
  • Interactive node details
  • Zoom and pan controls
  • Search functionality
  • Paradox highlighting

Data Structure:

  • 18 institutional actors
  • 11 policies/regulations
  • 45 documented relationships
  • 10 governance paradoxes
  • 170+ coded evidence quotes

Central Finding

Lake environmental crises stem from governance failure, not technical deficit.

10 documented paradoxes reveal institutional pathologies: coordination fragmentation, regulatory contradictions, strategic ambiguity, and systematic environmental justice violations.

Key Insight: Technical knowledge exists. Monitoring systems function. The failure is institutional: power without accountability, coordination without authority, knowledge without action.

How to Navigate

  1. Start with the Interactive Visualization to explore relationships
  2. Use tier filters to focus on specific governance levels (National/Provincial/Local/Community)
  3. Click on paradoxes to understand governance failures
  4. Toggle relationship types to see coordination vs conflict patterns
  5. Search for actors to find specific institutional roles

Tip: The visualization works best on desktop browsers. Use zoom/pan for detailed exploration.

Research Context

Location: Indonesia - Priority Lake Management Program Focus: Governance dynamics and institutional relationships Scale: 170+ institutions across 4 governance tiers Timeframe: 2018-2025 policy analysis Evidence Base: 170+ coded quotes from stakeholder interviews

Last Updated: 2025-10-29 Status: Published Research Use: Academic and policy analysis

Acknowledgments

This analysis was developed through collaborative research examining lake governance challenges in Indonesia. All personal identifiers have been removed to protect participant confidentiality. Organizational roles and relationships are presented for analytical purposes.

Graph View