IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1358-d319926.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ibnu Budiman

    (Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Mattijs Smits

    (Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ibnu Budiman & Mattijs Smits, 2020. "How Do Configuration Shifts in Fragmented Energy Governance Affect Policy Output? A Case Study of Changing Biogas Regimes in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1358-:d:319926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1358/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1358/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    2. Lieberman, Evan S., 2011. "The perils of polycentric governance of infectious disease in South Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(5), pages 676-684, September.
    3. Rupf, Gloria V. & Bahri, Parisa A. & de Boer, Karne & McHenry, Mark P., 2015. "Barriers and opportunities of biogas dissemination in Sub-Saharan Africa and lessons learned from Rwanda, Tanzania, China, India, and Nepal," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 468-476.
    4. Fariborz Zelli & Harro van Asselt, 2013. "Introduction: The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg & Harro van Asselt & Fariborz Zelli, 2009. "The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 14-40, November.
    6. Adis Dzebo, 2019. "Effective governance of transnational adaptation initiatives," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 447-466, October.
    7. Oscar Widerberg & Philipp Pattberg, 2015. "International Cooperative Initiatives in Global Climate Governance: Raising the Ambition Level or Delegitimizing the UNFCCC?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 6(1), pages 45-56, February.
    8. Mattijs Smits, 2017. "The New (Fragmented) Geography of Carbon Market Mechanisms: Governance Challenges from Thailand and Vietnam," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(3), pages 69-90, August.
    9. Gu, Lei & Zhang, Yi-Xin & Wang, Jian-Zhou & Chen, Gina & Battye, Hugh, 2016. "Where is the future of China’s biogas? Review, forecast, and policy implications," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67274, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Marc A Jeuland & Subhrendu K Pattanayak, 2012. "Benefits and Costs of Improved Cookstoves: Assessing the Implications of Variability in Health, Forest and Climate Impacts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, February.
    11. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    12. Yan Zhang, 2019. "Governing the water commons in China: from historical oriental despotism to contemporary fragmented hydraulic state," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 1029-1047, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marco De Nigris & Francesca Giuliano, 2023. "The Role of Organised Civil Society in the Implementation of the Renewable Energy Transition and Renewable Energy Communities: A Qualitative Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-27, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexandre Gajevic Sayegh, 0. "Moral duties, compliance and polycentric climate governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    2. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    3. Alexandre Gajevic Sayegh, 2020. "Moral duties, compliance and polycentric climate governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 483-506, September.
    4. Joshua Philipp Elsässer & Thomas Hickmann & Sikina Jinnah & Sebastian Oberthür & Thijs Graaf, 2022. "Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 373-391, June.
    5. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    6. Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Integrative governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1341-1354, December.
    7. Galaz, Victor & Crona, Beatrice & Österblom, Henrik & Olsson, Per & Folke, Carl, 2012. "Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries — Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 21-32.
    8. Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    9. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    10. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    11. Melanie van Driel & Frank Biermann & Rakhyun E. Kim & Marjanneke J. Vijge, 2022. "International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 669-682, November.
    12. Arnold J. Bomans & Peter Roessingh, 2024. "Decision Change: The First Step to System Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Sander Chan & Wanja Amling, 2019. "Does orchestration in the Global Climate Action Agenda effectively prioritize and mobilize transnational climate adaptation action?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 429-446, October.
    14. Rakhyun Kim & Brendan Mackey, 2014. "International environmental law as a complex adaptive system," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 5-24, March.
    15. Michelle Betsill & Navroz K. Dubash & Matthew Paterson & Harro van Asselt & Antto Vihma & Harald Winkler, 2015. "Building Productive Links between the UNFCCC and the Broader Global Climate Governance Landscape," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, May.
    16. Lasse Folke Henriksen & Stefano Ponte, 2018. "Public orchestration, social networks, and transnational environmental governance: Lessons from the aviation industry," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 23-45, March.
    17. Marcel T. J. Kok & Kathrin Ludwig, 2022. "Understanding international non-state and subnational actors for biodiversity and their possible contributions to the post-2020 CBD global biodiversity framework: insights from six international coope," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-25, March.
    18. David Horan, 2021. "The SDGs as an Integrative Framework to Assess Coherence of Transnational Multistakeholder Partnerships for SIDS," Working Papers 202110, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    19. Hamish van der Ven & Steven Bernstein & Matthew Hoffmann, 2017. "Valuing the Contributions of Nonstate and Subnational Actors to Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, February.
    20. Laurence Delina, 2017. "Multilateral development banking in a fragmented climate system: shifting priorities in energy finance at the Asian Development Bank," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 73-88, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1358-:d:319926. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.