Specific policies that regulate the cultural and creative economy sector have been reported in Indonesia QPR (2016) are still valid, such as, Law 33 of 2009 on Film and Law 28 of 2014 on Copyright. In the past four years, several new policies relating to this matter have been established, including:
1. Law 5 of 2017 on the Advancement of Culture;
2. Law 24 of 2019 on Creative Economy; and
3. Law 13 of 2018 on Legal Deposit of Printed and Recorded Materials.
The most significant change after Indonesia submitted its Quadrennial Periodic Report (QPR) 2016 was the birth of two new laws, namely Law 5 of 2017 on the Advancement of Culture and Law 24 of 2019 on Creative Economy. Both of these laws are the foundation of Indonesia's policy in the cultural and creative economy sector, which so far only has Law 33 of 2009 on Film. Furthermore, Indonesia also has laws that support the development of the cultural and the creative economy sector, such as Law 28 of 2014 on Copyright and Law 13 of 2018 on Legal Deposit of Printed and Recorded Materials.
The Law on the Advancement of Culture was passed on 27 April 2017 after undergoing a 35-year discussion process. The law mandates three principal matters that are entirely new and which are not yet covered by other legal and regulatory frameworks of culture.
Firstly, the advancement of culture mandate. This mandate is a direct derivative of Article 32 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which states: "The state promotes Indonesia's national culture amid world civilization by guaranteeing the freedom of the community in maintaining and developing its cultural values." It is seen that the State has to "advance the Indonesian national culture". The agenda for the advancement of national culture is greater than mere cultural preservation. The general orientation of the advancement of culture is to create the future, not just preserve the past. Even though there are differences, between the agenda of cultural preservation and the agenda of the advancement of national culture, there is no fundamental conflict. In the context of the advancement of national culture, all cultural heritage shall be maintained within the framework of building a healthy national culture.
The Law on the Advancement of Culture stipulates that the Advancement of Culture effort is a series of interrelated and inseparable processes, starting from, protection, development, utilization of the Objects of the Advancement of Culture, and fostering Cultural Human Resources. The four are described as follows:
1. Protection consists of: (a) inventory, (b) security, (c) maintenance, (d) rescue, and (e) publication.
2. Development consists of (a) dissemination, (b) assessment, and (c) enrichment of diversity.
3. Utilization is intended to: (a) strengthen character and cultural resilience, (b) people's welfare, and (c) increase roles and influence internationally.
4. Capacity building consists of: (a) increasing the quality and number of human resources, (b) standardization and certification of human resources, and (c) improving the quality of governance.
The Law on the Advancement of Culture limits the scope of culture to ten Objects of the Advancement of Culture, including (1) oral traditions, (2) manuscripts, (3) customs and traditions, (4) rituals, (5) traditional knowledge, (6) traditional technology, (7) art, (8) language, (9) folk games and (10) traditional sports. The Objects of the Advancement of Culture referred to are not divided using the category logic but rather the plural register logic that allows one cultural expression to enter into several Objects of the Advancement of Culture at once.
Secondly, the development of an Integrated Cultural Database System (see Goal 1, Information Systems and Cultural Statistics Used in Policy Development) as a consolidation of culture-related data and information found in all culture-related Ministries/Institutions. This Integrated Cultural Database System serves as the primary reference in the advancement of culture.
Thirdly, the expansion of public participation in efforts to advance culture through setting the direction of advancement of culture that involves the people and stakeholders. The implementation of participation mechanism is through the preparations of the followings: the Regional Cultural White Papers(see Goal 1, Measures that Support CSO Participation in Policy Design) at the Regency/Municipal and Provincial level); the National Strategy for Culture (at the Central level); and the Master Plan for the Advancement of Culture (Government working documents). With the birth of the Law on the Advancement of Culture, Indonesia is hopeful that culture can become a guide of national development to increase the resilience of Indonesian culture and its contribution to the development of world civilization.
The Law on Creative Economy was passed on 26 September 2019. The followings are seven main benefits of the Creative Economy Law: (1) Regulating the Creative Economy from upstream to downstream; (2) Provision of incentives to Creative Economy Practitioners; (3) Capacity building of creative economy practitioners; (4) Establishment of a Public Service Agency in the Field of Creative Economy; (5) Protection of Intellectual Property; (6) Provision of Creative Economy Infrastructure; and (7) Creative Economy Masterplan.
The Film Law, which was promulgated in 2009, was reported by Indonesia in its 2016 QPR. In 2020, Indonesia plans to amend the Film Law, which has been more than a decade old to face challenges in the field and the development of film in the future.
The Copyright Law has also been reported previously in the 2016 QPR. The latest developments related to this policy are the progress associated with the operation of the National Collective Management Agency (LMKN). Further detailed discussion on LMKN can be seen in Goal 4, Policies and Measures that Prevent Piracy and Increase the Collection of Royalties from Cultural Intellectual Property.
The followings are the regulatory content of the Copyright Law:
1. The scope of the work is protected by copyright.
2. Copyright provisions and related rights between Creator, Copyright Holder, Performer, Phonogram Producer, and Broadcasting Agency
3. Provisions on granting licenses for work and royalty payments
4. The period of validity of the copyright and the terms of inheritance of copyright
5. Copyright provisions for anonymous works and traditional cultural expressions
6. Copyright registration provisions
7. Provisions for the National Collective Management Agency and Collective Management Agency (Collecting Society)
8. Copyright dispute resolution
9. Criminal provisions for infringement of copyright
With the guarantee of the legal protection of copyrights owned by artists and creative economic practitioners, it is hoped that they can encourage the birth of new works and drive up the economic value of these works.
We cannot deny that the need for references to previous works is essential in supporting creativity. Therefore, Indonesia will make an overall amendment to the previous Law concerning Legal Deposit of Printed and Recorded Materials in 2018. Based on the Law concerning Legal Deposit of Printed and Recorded Materials, all printed and recorded materials published in Indonesia, by Indonesians, and concerning Indonesia must be deposited with the National Library for archiving. The main objective of the provision is to create a national collection of all printed and recorded works as a result of Indonesian culture to support education, research, and development of science and technology. The national collection referred to is under the management of the National Library and the provincial library as a deposit library.
In general, specific policies regulating cultural and creative economy sectors are intended to contribute to the following achievements of the National Strategy for Culture (see Goal 1, Main Policies and Measures that Contain Strategies and Frameworks for the Development of the Integrated Cultural and Creative Economy Sector):
1. Provide space for the diversity of cultural expressions and encourage cultural interaction to strengthen the inclusiveness of culture (Agenda 1);
2. Protect and develop values, expressions, and practices of traditional culture to enrich national culture (Agenda 2);
3. Develop and utilize cultural resources to strengthen the position of Indonesia internationally (Agenda 3);
4. Utilize advancement of culture objects to improve people welfare (Agenda 4);
5. Advancement of culture that protects biodiversity and strengthens ecosystems (Agenda 5);
6. Institutional reform and culture budgeting to support the advancement of culture agenda (Agenda 6); and
7. Strengthen the role of the government as facilitator in the advancement of culture (Agenda 7).
|Name of partner||Type of entity|
Koalisi Seni Indonesia
Civil Society Organization (CSO)
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.