The World Bank - Environment and Social Framework: Expectations and Realities of Implementing Environmental and Social Safeguards in Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

The World Bank - Environment and Social Framework: Expectations and Realities of Implementing Environmental and Social Safeguards in Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

Dadang Mohamad Heru Bayuaji SanggoroIwan Rustendi Susatyo Adhi Pramono 

Department of Construction Engineering Education, Faculty of Technology and Vocational Education, the Indonesia Education University, West Java 40154, Indonesia

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Wijayakusuma University, Central Java 53152, Indonesia

Corresponding Author Email: 
bayu.sanggoro@unwiku.ac.id
Page: 
225-234
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170122
Received: 
18 December 2021
|
Revised: 
21 January 2022
|
Accepted: 
28 January 2022
|
Available online: 
28 February 2022
| Citation

© 2022 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Climate change is a result of the environmental degradation due to human activities and has the potential to become a climate disaster that threatens human life and causes social problems. Through the ESF, World Bank expect that infrastructure development can go hand in hand with environmental and social safeguards. To obtain information about the level of satisfaction of the performance of this ESF indicator, this study was conducted using the Importance Performance Analysis method to compare the expectations and the realities of the performance of the critical ESF indicators in Indonesia. The study involved 80 respondents of infrastructure project actors in Indonesia and found that 40% of the ESF indicators had performed well and met their expectations. Meanwhile, three indicators were inefficient or the performance exceeded the expectations, namely ESS6.3, ESS2.3 and ESS6.1. ESS7.2 and ESS8.1. This study is expected to contribute to developing a standardized and integrated ESF in Indonesia. Furthermore, the results of this study can be used as a consideration in further research, especially the use of the ESF variables as a moderator in modeling project social conflict.

Keywords: 

ESF, importance-performance analysis, project social conflict, climate disaster

1. Introduction

Climate change in recent years has prompted many countries to find solutions and "defence" against the dangers that threaten the future of the earth. Since 1994, the United Nations has initiated the leaders of countries in the world to reduce the impact of climate change due to human activities. The COP26 Climate Change Summit in Glasgow resulted in several important agreements related to climate change management, namely by halving greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities. Member countries also agreed that one of the concrete steps is to significantly reduce deforestation, including Indonesia (Figure 1).

The United Nations stated that the impact of climate change is a climate disaster that will disrupt human life and the earth's ecosystem in the future. This condition is related to the issue of environmental and social safeguards which has been reformed by the World Bank [1] in the form of the Environment and Social Framework (ESF). Jokubauskaite [2] stated that the ESF resulted from a process of discussion over the last six years and was the largest internal reform in the last decade. This ESF adopts several relevant international laws, such as protection of the environment, workers, and human rights. However, the implementation of the ESF as a new standard imposed by the World Bank is still a debate in the legitimacy of other organizations and international communities [3, 4]. According to Dann and Riegner [5], the World Bank's ESF is a reflection of the context of the latest developing geo-political conditions. The findings above reveal that the quality and capability of the ESF as a new evolution of environmental and social protection framework as well as a consequence of development must be tested based on the legal conditions of each country. This is important to obtain optimal results from the implementation of the most relevant protection framework to the socio-cultural conditions of each country.

Debates and differences in the framework and concept of protection also occur in the implementation of environmental and social safeguards in Indonesia. Siregar and Utomo [6] stated that the concept of protection in Indonesia is regulated through the mandatory implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or AMDAL ((Indonesian term for Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA). According to them, AMDAL/EIA has a fundamental difference with the ESIA concept, where AMDAL treats the affected community as the object of the resulting impact. Based on its history, Dhiksawan et al. [7] explained that the AMDAL concept in Indonesia began with the issuance of the Resolution of the People's Consultative Assembly No IV/1973 which included environmental considerations in national development. However, AMDAL only focuses on the environment specifically, while social impacts have not become an integral part of it. In fact, managing the social impacts of the development process can reduce community opposition and gain support from local communities, NGOs, and the government [8]. Obidzinski et al. [9] revealed that “development” will have negative and positive impacts on environmental and social aspects. The potential damage and impacts on the environment and society both need to be measured and mitigated so that the development process truly provides sustainable benefits for humans and the natural environment.

Figure 1. Conditions of social conflict due to development in Indonesia in 2020

Figure 2. Indonesia deforestation rates 1990-2019

Therefore, Mares [10] stated that the ESF concept is also an effort to avoid human rights violations as the “residual impact” of economic and development activities that intentionally ignore environmental and social impacts. This opinion is relevant to the condition of conflict in Indonesia which remains high based on data from the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA). Throughout 2020, there were 1,025 reported cases on human rights violations on welfare (mostly are infrastructure development impacts). This finding is also corroborated by the KPA report, where the infrastructure sector occupies the second highest position as a cause of social conflict with 52 out of 207 conflict cases in 2020 (Figure 2).

Previous studies have provided a wealth of information on the concepts of environmental and social safeguards in development in detail in many countries. However, a study on the effectiveness of the World Bank's EFS has not been conducted, particularly in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the results of the ESF performance evaluation are needed to determine development policies that are friendly to environmental and social impacts. In particular, as suggested by Sanggoro et al. [11], Indonesia does not even have an integrated standard in protecting the environmental and social impacts of development.

Therefore, this study is intended to examine the extent to which infrastructure project actors in Indonesia have implemented integrated environmental and social safeguards to reduce the potential impact of environmental and social conflicts with local communities based on the World Bank's ESF standards. In addition, this study also aims to measure the important attributes of the environmental and social safeguards framework that can help reduce the potential for project social conflict by using the Importance Performance Analysis method. The results of this study are hoped to provide an overview of the conditions of environmental and social impact management of infrastructure projects in Indonesia to be used as a basis for developing standards of an integrated environmental and social project management framework.

2. Literature Review

The World Bank's environmental and social framework is a strategic idea in protecting the world's sustainability in terms of its people and resources. The World Bank stated that these efforts include ensuring social inclusion and limiting the economic burden that will be passed on to future generations. These two things are the concept of sustainability which has become the main focus of development in the last few decades which emphasizes the importance of inclusive economic growth [1, 12]. The consequence of the concept of sustainability is a full commitment to environmental conservation efforts including stronger collective concrete actions in mitigating and adapting to climate change to reduce the impact on the existence of human populations and the economy in the most vulnerable communities. Another important consequence of the concept of sustainability is the aspect of development and social inclusion. Social inclusion should include empowering everyone to participate in and benefit from the development process [1, 13]. In simple terms, inclusion is a concept of equality and non-discrimination from all classes of society to gain access to services and benefits from development processes and outcomes [14].

Efforts to achieve sustainable development and inclusive growth require an integrated framework capable of synergizing growth and its environmental and social impacts. Through the new safeguard policy reform, the World Bank offers to look at environmental and social impacts in a new paradigm in the form of the ESF [5]. The ten clauses in the World Bank's environmental and social safeguards policy reform are:

(1) ESS1 Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts;

(2) ESS2 Labour and Working Conditions;

(3) ESS3 Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention and Management;

(4) ESS4 Community Health and Safety;

(5) ESS5 Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement;

(6) ESS6 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources;

(7) ESS7 Indigenous Peoples;

(8) ESS8 Cultural Heritage;

(9) ESS9 Financial Intermediaries; and

(10) ESS10 Stakeholder Engagement & Information Disclosure.

However, Jokubauskaite [2] also emphasized that the implementation of the ESF still triggers debate about the autonomous rights of borrowing countries. Good synergy between the ESF as an international law and the domestic law system is very much needed to achieve the goal of justice in development. Furthermore, Dan and Riegner [5] also stated that the ESF is the evolution of a new global order which is a compromise in international law within the aspects of global governance by civil society and a more competitive multilateralism. However, the comparison between “the old safeguards” and “the new safeguards” needs to be analyzed further in the context of development governance.

Based on the aforementioned opinions above, the condition in Indonesia is suitable to conducted further analysis of the EIA concept. The absence of an integrated and standardized environmental and social protection framework as well as several law systems that still refer to the regulations before the implementation of the World Bank's ESF are factual conditions that need further study [6, 11].

Referring to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia [15] and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia [16], efforts to minimize environmental and social impacts due to the development carried out by the Government of Indonesia are in line with the objectives of the World Bank's ESF. This can be seen from several laws and regulations that have been enacted by the Government of Indonesia, including:

(1) Law No. 32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management; No. 2/2012 concerning Public Land Acquisition; No. 7/2012 concerning Social Conflict Handling; No. 5/1990 concerning Conservation of Biological Resources and Their Ecosystems; No. 11/2010 concerning Cultural Conservation.

(2) Government Regulation No.6/1995 concerning Crop Protection; No. 27/2012 concerning Environmental Permits; No. 2/2015 concerning Social Conflict Handling; No. 37/2010 concerning Dams.

(3) Presidential Decree No. 71/2012 and No. 40/2014 concerning Land Acquisition for Public Interest; No. 56/2017 Social Community Impact Handling.

However, Indonesia's regulations are still sectoral and some were issued before the new ESF was launched by the World Bank. Thus, in order to test the effectiveness of ESF as a new concept of environmental protection in the world development governance, it is necessary to study its conformity with applicable domestic laws. Thus, the results of this study is expected to contribute to the evaluation of the effectiveness of the ESF as an evolution of the protection framework that is in line with the domestic legal system in Indonesia or vice versa in an effort to create development justice.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Identification of factors of environmental and social framework

The formulation of these variables was carried out in two stages, namely: (1) compiling critical indicators of the ESF variables in accordance with environmental and social laws and regulations in Indonesia, and (2) conducting an analysis of the important performance of the project's environmental and social framework based on the perceptions of infrastructure project actors in Indonesia. The identification of critical indicators in this study as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Variables and critical indicators of ESF

Variable

Relevant Indonesian regulation

Critical indicator

ESS1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts

1. UU No. 32/2009;

2. UU No. 7/2012;

3. PerMen LH No. 16/2012;

4. PerMen PU No.10/PRT/M/2008;

5. KepMen LH No. 45/2005

ESS1.1   AMDAL/EIA documents or the like

ESS1.2   Project commitment to environmental and social sustainability

ESS1.3   PIC on environmental & social risk management

ESS1.4   Procedures for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social risks and impacts

ESS2: Labour and Working Conditions

1. UU No. 7/2012;

2. UU No. 13/2003;

3. PP No. 35/2021

ESS2.1   Equal & non-discriminatory employment rules

ESS2.2   Employment rules on child labor, min. age, & forced labor

ESS2.3   Fair & equal employee complaint mechanism

ESS2.4   OHS policy procedures in accordance with the laws and regulations

ESS2.5   Staffing policy on engagement of local workers

ESS3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention and Management

1. UU No. 32/2009;

2. UU No. 5/1990;

3. PP No. 27/2012;

4. PerMen LH No. 16/2012;

5. PerMen PU No.10/PRT/M/2008

ESS3.1   Periodic testing of ambient air quality

ESS3.2   Procedures for handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous and non-hazardous waste

ESS3.3   Procedures for handling, storing, and using chemicals and hazardous materials

ESS3.4   Procedures for the use and management of pesticide or similar substances

ESS4: Community Health and Safety

1. UU No. 32/2009;

2. UU No. 7/2012;

3. PP No. 27/2012;

4. Perpres No. 56/2017;

5. PerMen LH No. 16/2012;

6. PerMen PU No.10/PRT/M/2008

ESS4.1   Occupational safety and health procedures (SOP, work instructions, and other OSH documents)

ESS4.2   Traffic Management document and other documents regarding traffic disturbance permit

ESS4.3   Procedures for handling health problems due to project activities such              as first level health facility or referral hospital

ESS4.4   Emergency response handling policies such as having a certified OHS organization

ESS4.5   Sufficient and certified security personnel

ESS5: Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement

1. UU No 2/2012;

2. UU No. 7/2012;

3. Perpres No. 40/2014;

4. Perpres No. 56/2017

ESS5.1   The process of land acquisition, access restrictions, and resettlement of project-affected settlements is carried out on a bipartite basis

ESS5.2   Identification of affected communities

ESS5.3   Humane relocation, with guaranteed continuity of livelihoods, ease of adaptation to economic & social access to new environments

ESS5.4   Initial mitigation of potential conflicts or grievances in affected communities

ESS5.5   Administrative & legal procedures of affected land

ESS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources

1. UU No. 32/2009;

2. UU No. 5/1990;

3. PP No.6/1995;

4. PP No. 27/2012

ESS6.1   Guidelines for preventing pollution and disturbance to surrounding ecosystems

ESS6.2   CSR including replanting activities of affected trees, breeding efforts of local endemic flora and fauna, etc.

ESS6.3   Project commitment to maintaining biodiversity in the project vicinity

ESS6.4   Procedures for the placement and use of project equipment that does not cause disturbance to the ecology and surrounding ecosystems

ESS7: Indigenous Peoples

1. UU No. 32/2009;

2. UU No. 6/2014

ESS7.1   Identification of the presence of indigenous and tribal peoples

ESS7.2   Respect for traditional symbols and ceremonies

ESS7.3   Procedure for transfer/use of customary rights and property

ESS7.4   Indigenous peoples' consent and permission

ESS8: Cultural Heritage

1. UU No. 5/1992;

2. UU No. 11/2010

ESS8.1   Identification of the presence of cultural heritage

ESS8.2   Procedures for finding objects of cultural heritage

ESS8.3   Procedures for securing and protecting the findings of objects that are suspected to be protected cultural heritage

ESS8.4   Policies for the preservation of intangible cultural heritage such as local traditional arts, etc.

ESS9: Financial Intermediaries

1. Perpres No. 12/2021

ESS9.1   Financing guarantee from a bank or legal financial institution

ESS9.2   Insurance against project failure, occupational accidents, health, and employment

ESS9.3   Company's financial capacity to finance the project

ESS9.4   Project payment system

ESS10: Stakeholder Engagement & Information Disclosure

1. UU No. 7/2012;

2. PP No. 2/2015;

3. Perpres No. 56/2017

ESS10.1 Community engagement policy that clearly covers the subject and object of engagement as well as the scope of engagement

ESS10.2 Communicative project information tools

ESS10.3 Qualified public relations officer

ESS10.4 Bipartite organization between project and stakeholders

Note: UU (Laws); PP (Government Regulation); Perpres (Presidential Decree); PerMen LH (Minister of Environment Regulation); PerMen PU (Minister of Public Work Regulation); KepMen LH (Minister of Environment Decree).

3.2 Data collection

The study used questionnaire data obtained from the respondents. To facilitate the analysis, the questionnaire used a Likert scale whose criteria were distinguished between relatively important aspects and the level of performance. According to Chang et al. [17], to evaluate the relatively important aspects, a scale of 1 to 5 is used with the criteria from "very unimportant" to "very important". Meanwhile, the level of performance is measured using the criteria of "very bad" to "very good" on the same scale (Table 2). Respondents in this study were project managers who had managed infrastructure projects in Indonesia from 2019 to 2021.

Table 2. Scale and measurement criteria

Likert scale

Relatively important aspect

Performance level

Scale 1

Very unimportant

Very bad

Scale 2

Unimportant

Bad

Scale 3

Neutral/fairly

Fairly good

Scale 4

Important

Good

Scale 5

Very important

Very good

3.3 Data analysis

This study breaks down critical indicators in the environmental and social management framework based on their level of performance and their importance in reducing the potential for project social conflict. By understanding the level of importance and the level of performance of each, project actors can determine the level of satisfaction that affects project conflict. Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) is an effective analytical method in identifying factors that require attention and improvement. IPA was first introduced by Martilla and James in 1977 which displays the results graphically in four quadrants. This method is useful for policy makers in determining where more resources need to be placed and where excess resources need to be streamlined [18]. As a result, IPA is the most suitable analytical method to be used in this study.

The data used in this analysis were the respondents' answers to the questionnaire submitted and compiled based on the World Bank's ESF variables. Each variable was compiled by critical indicators based on the prevailing laws and regulations in Indonesia and is relevant to the variables being reviewed (see Table 1). Each indicator was measured based on the question “how important is the indicator to environmental and social impacts?” (level of importance) and “how much is the level of performance the indicator in project implementation?” (level of performance) in accordance with the conditions of each project. Based on the analysis of the respondents' answers, each attribute or indicator was ranked in terms of "importance" and "performance" in their respective quadrants, which were taken into consideration in determining the appropriate treatment for each attribute (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Importance performance analysis matrix

(1) Quadrant 1 (Q1) – Concentrate here: describes the condition of the attribute that is considered a very important factor but its performance is still relatively low. More efforts are needed to increase the contribution of attributes to the overall target.

(2) Quadrant 2 (Q2) - Keep up the good work: the attributes in this quadrant are considered very important factors and have shown high performance efforts on this attribute. Thus, performance on these attributes must be maintained.

(3) Quadrant 3 (Q3) – Low priority: attributes in this quadrant are factors that are not too important and the management has also treated them as unimportant factors, indicated by relatively low attribute performance.

(4) Quadrant 4 (Q4) – Possible overkill: attributes in quadrant 4 are factors that are not important to the management, but get excessive effort in their performance. Therefore, the resulting performance for these attributes is inefficient and needs to be rationalized.

To determine the quadrant of each attribute, the average score of the "importance" and "performance" levels is used as the limit value/divisor of the diagram.

$\bar{X}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{i}}{n}$ and $\bar{Y}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i}}{n}$      (1)

where, Xi and Yi values as the scores of each attribute that determine the coordinates of the axis were calculated by the following formula:

$X_{i}=\frac{\sum X}{n}$ and $Y_{i}=\frac{\sum Y}{n}$     (2)

QSubsequently, the degree of conformity (CLi) and the gap were calculated using the following formula:

$C L_{i}=\frac{X_{i}}{Y_{i}} \times 100 \%$     (3)

$G a p=Y_{i}-X_{i}$      (4)

The degree of conformity was used to measure how satisfied project actors were with the performance of the existing environmental and social framework. Meanwhile, gap is the distance or range between expectations and the realities of the environmental and social framework in an effort to minimize impacts that trigger social conflicts between local communities and project entities.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Respondent demographics

This study used the data from 80 respondents who participated in filling out and submitting the questionnaires that were sent. The respondent statistics show the level of expertise that is in line with the expectations in this study as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Respondent demography

Respondent Characteristic

Freq.

Percent

Experience as Project Manager

5 - 10 years

15

18.75%

6 - 15 years

13

16.25%

16 - 20 years

11

13.75%

≥ 20 years

41

51.25%

Education degree

 

 

Diploma in Civil Engineer

2

2.50%

Bachelor in Civil Engineer

64

80.00%

Master

14

17.50%

Doctor

0

0.00%

Type of Project

 

 

Road and Bridge

47

58.75%

Building

11

13.75%

Airport and Harbor

0

0.00%

Dam and Water Resource

22

27.50%

4.2 Validity and reliability

In testing the validity of the data on the respondents' answers, there were four critical indicators that were declared invalid, namely the value of r-statistics < r-table (0.220).

The four critical indicators that did not meet the validity criteria above and must be removed from the model were ESS5.5 Administrative & legal procedures of affected land, ESS6.2 CSR, ESS7.3 Procedure for transfer/use of customary rights and property, and ESS10.4 Bipartite organization between project and stakeholders (Table 4).

After all indicators met the validity criteria, the instrument must be tested for reliability, namely Cronbach's Alpha > 0.7. Table 4 shows the results of the validity and reliability tests of the data.

4.3 Importance performance analysis matrix

IPA analysis began by looking at the score of each critical indicator for each category. Subsequently, the level of performance and its importance were calculated to determine the size of the gap between expectations and realities of the implementation of the environmental and social framework. The results of the respondents' data processing are shown in Table 5 and sorted by the best performance rating on each critical indicator.

Based on the analysis of the respondents' answers in Table 5, there is an indicator that performed very poorly and four indicators that performed poorly based on the conformity level and the ranking of the gap between expectations and performance of indicators in the project. Meanwhile, of the eight indicators with a conformity level above 90%, there are three indicators that had a performance level beyond expectations.

Table 4. Validity and reliability assessment

Indica-tors

R-statitic

Indica-tors

R-statitic

Perfor-mance

Impor-tance

Perfor-mance

Impor-tance

Validity Test

ESS1.1

0.882

0.777

ESS6.1

0.734

0.720

ESS1.2

0.891

0.739

ESS6.2

-0.020*)

0.786

ESS1.3

0.873

0.754

ESS6.3

0.602

0.799

ESS1.4

0.928

0.730

ESS6.4

0.427

0.774

ESS2.1

0.804

0.719

ESS7.1

0.685

0.823

ESS2.2

0.878

0.558

ESS7.2

0.570

0.709

ESS2.3

0.912

0.521

ESS7.3

-0.172*)

0.429

ESS2.4

0.927

0.446

ESS7.4

0.668

0.835

ESS2.5

0.881

0.670

ESS8.1

0.798

0.803

ESS3.1

0.866

0.717

ESS8.2

0.509

0.729

ESS3.2

0.442

0.717

ESS8.3

0.390

0.729

ESS3.3

0.459

0.767

ESS8.4

0.392

0.739

ESS3.4

0.838

0.788

ESS9.1

0.790

0.833

ESS4.1

0.792

0.636

ESS9.2

0.818

0.918

ESS4.2

0.910

0.770

ESS9.3

0.791

0.855

ESS4.3

0.851

0.790

ESS9.4

0.882

0.834

ESS4.4

0.912

0.772

ESS10.1

0.726

0.758

ESS4.5

0.872

0.809

ESS10.2

0.633

0.748

ESS5.1

0.898

0.703

ESS10.3

0.698

0.513

ESS5.2

0.931

0.710

ESS10.4

0.040*)

0.743

ESS5.3

0.912

0.752

 

 

 

ESS5.4

0.374

0.696

 

 

 

ESS5.5

-0.060*)

0.824

 

 

 

Reliability Test

Performance

Importance

Cronbach’s Alpha

 

0.895

 

0.953

Note: *) r-statistics < r-table invalid and removed

Table 5. Rank of performance satisfaction score

Critical Indicator

Perf. Score (ΣXi)

Import. Score (ΣYi)

Conformity Level (CL) (%)

Criteria

Perf. Level (Xi)

Import. Level (Yi)

Gap

Rank

ESS6.3

324

279

116.13

Very Good

4.05

3.49

-0.56

1

ESS2.1

325

312

104.17

Very Good

4.06

3.90

-0.16

2

ESS2.3

293

290

101.03

Very Good

3.66

3.63

-0.04

3

ESS1.3

299

300

99.67

Very Good

3.74

3.75

0.01

4

ESS6.4

302

308

98.05

Very Good

3.78

3.85

0.08

5

ESS1.1

291

300

97.00

Very Good

3.64

3.75

0.11

6

ESS7.4

296

305

97.05

Very Good

3.70

3.81

0.11

7

ESS6.1

263

288

91.32

Very Good

3.29

3.60

0.31

8

ESS5.4

257

286

89.86

Very Good

3.21

3.58

0.36

9

ESS5.2

245

276

88.77

Very Good

3.06

3.45

0.39

10

ESS4.3

251

293

85.67

Very Good

3.14

3.66

0.53

11

ESS2.5

259

301

86.05

Very Good

3.24

3.76

0.53

12

ESS8.4

258

301

85.71

Very Good

3.23

3.76

0.54

13

ESS9.4

254

298

85.23

Very Good

3.18

3.73

0.55

14

ESS1.4

241

291

82.82

Very Good

3.01

3.64

0.63

15

ESS1.2

249

302

82.45

Very Good

3.11

3.78

0.66

16

ESS8.2

249

303

82.18

Very Good

3.11

3.79

0.68

17

ESS9.2

245

301

81.40

Very Good

3.06

3.76

0.70

18

ESS4.2

251

313

80.19

Good

3.14

3.91

0.78

19

ESS5.3

254

316

80.38

Good

3.18

3.95

0.78

20

ESS4.5

224

287

78.05

Good

2.80

3.59

0.79

21

ESS2.4

231

301

76.74

Good

2.89

3.76

0.88

22

ESS4.4

242

317

76.34

Good

3.03

3.96

0.94

23

ESS3.1

223

300

74.33

Good

2.79

3.75

0.96

24

ESS3.4

235

312

75.32

Good

2.94

3.90

0.96

25

ESS9.3

223

301

74.09

Good

2.79

3.76

0.98

26

ESS2.2

224

308

72.73

Good

2.80

3.85

1.05

27

ESS4.1

201

289

69.55

Good

2.51

3.61

1.10

28

ESS5.1

231

320

72.19

Good

2.89

4.00

1.11

29

ESS10.1

208

302

68.87

Good

2.60

3.78

1.18

30

ESS10.3

185

282

65.60

Fairly Good

2.31

3.53

1.21

31

ESS7.1

190

296

64.19

Fairly Good

2.38

3.70

1.33

32

ESS10.2

177

292

60.62

Fairly Good

2.21

3.65

1.44

33

ESS3.2

175

309

56.63

Fairly Good

2.19

3.86

1.68

34

ESS9.1

140

291

48.11

Bad

1.75

3.64

1.89

35

ESS7.2

156

308

50.65

Bad

1.95

3.85

1.90

36

ESS8.3

128

283

45.23

Bad

1.60

3.54

1.94

37

ESS8.1

113

299

37.79

Bad

1.41

3.74

2.33

38

ESS3.3

86

292

29.45

Very Bad

1.08

3.65

2.58

39

Total

8,998

11,652

   

2.88

3.73

   

The following analysis used the Performance-Importance Matrix generated from the Performance Level and Importance Level of each indicator in Table 5. The performance level was used as the X-axis coordinate and the importance level was the Y-axis coordinate. Meanwhile, the quadrant boundary line was determined from the average performance level value as the X-axis limit and the average importance level value as the Y-axis limit. The Performance Importance Matrix can be seen in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Importance performance analysis matrix result

4.4 The level of satisfaction of environmental and social protection indicator performance

The results of the IPA Matrix (Figure 4) and Table analysis (Table 5) indicate the level of satisfaction of indicator performance on infrastructure projects in Indonesia. Sixteen ESF indicators measured based on Indonesian legal products demonstrate satisfactory performance (quadrant 2). However, there are still indicators that need special attention, namely indicators with low performance (quadrant 1) and indicators with less efficient performance (quadrant 4). The following is a performance evaluation based on the IPA analysis.

(1) The performance of collaboration between the government and projects

Indonesian legal products that were used as references in the preparation of project policies demonstrated success in their implementation. The obligation to fulfill the EIA in the project through the enactment of the Environmental Law successfully met the expectations in reducing the project's impact on the environment (ESS1.1). On the employee aspect, Equal & non-discriminatory employment rules (ESS2.1) and Staffing policy on engagement of local workers (ESS2.5) proved that the application of the Labour Law was able to meet the expectations of the affected communities in the context of equality and composition of the local workforce. Protection of community rights was also well implemented in the aspects of land acquisition for development (ESS5.1) and relocation of project-affected communities (ESS5.3). These findings support Brunori [19] dan Ortiz et al. [20] who stated that ESF is an effort to protect human rights in terms of land tenure, protection of indigenous peoples, and livelihood opportunities for affected communities.

However, the issue of child labor (ESS2.2) and the policy of community involvement in the project (ESS10.1) still require increased efforts. This condition is in line with the Central Bureau of Statistics data which state that child labors aged 10-17 years have shown an increase from 2.61% in 2018 to 3.25% in 2020. The data on conflict which tend to increase in the infrastructure development sector (Figure 1) also proved its relevance to the weak performance of community involvement policies in projects. Strengthening the legal system and technical regulations in this attribute requires joint hard work between the government and the construction industry in its implementation and surveillance. Therefore, the community's role in environmental and cultural preservation efforts is still limited, its need an improvement through engage the other stakeholder [21, 22]. Regulatory support from the government encourages project performance to meet terms and conditions resulting in a good level of satisfaction [23].

(2) Environmental protection

The project's performance on environmental protection was very good on the policy indicator that supports environmental sustainability (ESS1.2) which was supported by a high commitment to the provision of competent personnel (ESS1.3). Likewise, the project's capability to manage the use of pesticides (ESS3.4) and the placement of project equipment that is at risk of environmental disturbance (ESS6.4) demonstrated satisfactory performance. Attention to environmental protection aspects can also be seen from the high level of performance in environmental and social risk monitoring and reporting procedures (ESS1.4), efforts to prevent pollution and ecosystem disturbances (ESS6.1), and commitments to protect biodiversity (ESS6.3). Even though the three indicators indicated inefficient performance (quadrant 4), they showed strong support from the project for environmental protection.

Meanwhile, the project performed less satisfactorily (quadrant 1) in air quality testing (ESS3.1) and hazardous and non-hazardous waste handling and management (ESS3.2) [24]. Project actors should work earnestly in increasing satisfaction with these indicators. This is because as many as 88.43% of Indonesians depend on the agricultural sector (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020). Therefore, environmental damage has the potential to trigger project social conflicts [25]. Conflict is one of the community's efforts to save the environment from damage that results in disruption of livelihoods [26].

(3) Social and cultural protection

The diversity of customs and cultures in Indonesia is a serious challenge and affects the success of infrastructure development. The respect of local communities for ancestral customs still dominates and has a strong influence on aspects of social life [27]. Indigenous peoples' consent and permission (ESS7.4) are important parts that must be fulfilled by the project and determine the attitude of the community towards the project. Respect for indigenous people is also represented in an attitude of respect for intangible cultural heritage through support for the preservation of local arts (ESS8.4). And so is the treatment of cultural heritage objects which some people consider sacred (ESS8.2). All three demonstrated a satisfactory level of performance and became indicators that were optimally pursued in environmental and social protection.

Performance dissatisfaction was indicated by respect for traditional symbols and ceremonies (ESS7.2) and identification of the existence of cultural heritage (ESS8.1). Performance on these two indicators needs to be improved to meet expectations. In addition, the project's financial capacity (ESS9.3) was also considered unsatisfactory to convince the community about the company's capability to fulfill the financial rights of affected communities and local workers [28]. This is interesting because financial capacity (ESS9.3) is considered more important in environmental and social safeguards compared to offering financial guarantees from banks or other financial institutions (ESS9.1). For the community, the company's financial capacity is better able to provide welfare guarantees as compensation for the project.

This study also reveals that conventional communication patterns were no longer a priority in the project. Project information tools (ESS10.2) such as project information boards and the appointment of a Public Relation Officer (ESS10.3) were considered unimportant for the success of environmental and social safeguards. This paradigm shift is strongly influenced by the increasing openness of information. The Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 74.5% of Indonesia's population was connected to the internet in 2020. Therefore, it is easier for the community to get project information through digital sources via an internet connection.

(4) Safety and health protection

The seriousness of the project in creating a safe and healthy work environment deserves appreciation. Performance indicators in this aspect are dominated by quadrant 2, where the level of performance meets the level of expectations. In the aspect of OHS procedures, the OHS policy indicators (ESS2.4) achieved the expected level of satisfaction, even though the OHS document compliance indicator (ESS4.1) was not considered an important priority (quadrant 3) in the protection framework. Furthermore, other indicators with satisfactory performance levels are traffic management (ESS4.2), emergency response handling policies (ESS4.4), and insurance against project failure, occupational accidents, health, and employment (ESS9.2).

In this aspect, none of the indicators are in quadrant 1 or their performance is below the level of importance. In addition to quadrant 2 as described above, indicators in this aspect occupy quadrants 3 and 4. Compliance with OHS documents (ESS4.1) and sufficient and certified security personnel (ESS4.5) are in quadrant 3, which is not included as an important priority in the concept of environmental and social protection in Indonesia. Meanwhile, procedures for handling health problems (ESS4.3) are in quadrant 4, which is an indicator whose performance exceeds its importance level, resulting in inefficient performance. This indicator needs to be reviewed in its implementation by reducing excessive effort, so that effective and efficient performance is obtained.

5. Conclusions

Efforts to minimize project social conflict still need improvement on several critical indicators in the context of environmental and social safeguards. It can be concluded that in general, the level of satisfaction of the performance indicators has been able to meet the expected level of importance. Sixteen critical indicators (43.24%) are in quadrant 2 which shows the strong commitment of the project in efforts to minimize project impacts through the application of environmental and social protection frameworks. Meanwhile, eight other critical indicators (21.62%) are in quadrant 4 which indicates inefficient indicator performance. Even though the indicators in quadrant 4 show an excessive fear of the project about the consequences of neglecting the performance of these indicators, on the other hand, it shows a serious concern from the project to make maximum efforts towards environmental and social protection commitments. Efficiency is needed in this quadrant 4, namely by reducing excessive indicator performance. Extra effort is actually needed to encourage indicators that are low-performing and below the level of importance (quadrant 1). There are six critical indicators (16.22%) that need serious attention to improve their performance because these indicators are atributs that have a low level of performance satisfaction, so they have great potential in triggering project social conflicts. Finally, there are seven indicators (18.92%) in quadrant 3 which are indicators with a low level of importance and performance. These indicators can be classified as low priority and less important indicators of environmental and social safeguards performance.

Based on the results of this study, it is hoped that project actors in Indonesia can map out the appropriate indicators that are important in environmental and social safeguards that can minimize the potential for social conflicts in the project. In addition, the results of this study are expected to be used as a basis for further research to determine the effect of the ESF variable in the conflict of interest prediction model. Furthermore, the results of this study are expected to contribute to the preparation of a standardized and integrated ESF in Indonesia. To get the proper ESF requires strengthening legal system support on several aspects of child labor and inclusive community involvement policies. As an evaluation, this study proves that the implementation of ESF as international law requires commensurate support from applicable local laws to strengthen its legitimacy as a new world development governance framework in achieving sustainable development goals [14].

  References

[1] International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, the WORLD BANK: Environmental and Social Framework. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2017. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/837721522762050108-0290022018/original/ESFFramework.pdf, accessed on Dec. 14, 2021.

[2] Jokubauskaite, G. (2019). The world bank environmental and social framework in a wider realm of public international law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3): 457-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S092215651900027X

[3] Ormaza, M.V.C., Ebert, F.C. (2019). The World Bank, human rights, and organizational legitimacy strategies: The case of the 2016 Environmental and Social Framework. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3): 483-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000268

[4] Rocha, C.F., Ramos, T.B., Fonseca, A. (2019). Manufacturing pre-decisions: A comparative analysis of environmental impact statement (EIS) reviews in Brazil and Portugal. Sustainability, 11(12): 3235. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123235

[5] Dann, P., Riegner, M. (2019). The world bank’s environmental and social safeguards and the evolution of global order. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3): 537-559. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000293

[6] Siregar, M.A., Utomo, S.W. (2019). Environmental impact assessment as a regulation and equator principles as an initiative. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 012081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/399/1/012081

[7] Dhiksawan, F.S., Hadi, S.P., Samekto, A., Sasongko, D.P. (2018). History of environmental impact assesment in Indonesia. Jurnal Pengelolaan Lingkungan Berkelanjutan (Journal of Environmental Sustainability Management), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.36813/jplb.2.1.55-68

[8] Asmorowati, S. (2008). Social impact assessment: Can and should it empower community? Masyarakat, Kebudayaan dan Politik, 21(4): 298-305. http://journal.unair.ac.id/MKP@social-impact-assessment-article-2608-media-15-category-.html.

[9] Obidzinski, K., Andriani, R., Komarudin, H., Andrianto, A. (2012). Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 17(1): art25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04775-170125

[10] Mares, R. (2019). Securing human rights through risk-management methods: Breakthrough or misalignment? Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3): 517-535. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000244

[11] Sanggoro, H.B., Alisjahbana, S.W., Mohamad, D. (2021). Soft system methodology: Project vs local community interests in project social conflict. International Journal of Engineering, 34(9): 2107-2115. https://dx.doi.org/10.5829/ije.2021.34.09c.08

[12] Illankoon, I.C.S., Tam, V.W., Le, K.N. (2017). Environmental, economic, and social parameters in international green building rating tools. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(2): 05016010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000313

[13] Omenge, P.M., Obwoyere, G.O., Eshiamwata, G.W., Makindi, S.M., Nathwani, J. (2020). Environmental and social impact assessment procedural steps that underpin conflict identification: Reference to renewable energy resource development in Kenya. International Journal of Energy Production and Management, 5(2): 157-174. http://www.witpress.com/doi/journals/EQ-V5-N2-157-174.

[14] Houghton, R. (2019). Looking at the World Bank’s safeguard reform through the lens of deliberative democracy. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3): 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000281

[15] Ministry of Finance of The Republic of Indonesia, “The Indonesia Infrastructure Finance Development Trust Fund (IIFD-TF). Environmental and Social Management Framework,” Jakarta, 2016. https://www.djppr.kemenkeu.go.id/page/loadViewer?idViewer=5860&action=download.

[16] Ministry of Forestry and Environment of The Republic of Indonesia, “Government of Indonesia and The World Bank Project for Strengthening Social Forestry (SSF) in Indonesia with Funding from Global Environment Facility. Environment and Social Management Framework,” Jakarta, 2019. https://www.menlhk.go.id/uploads/site/post/1632129290.pdf.

[17] Chang, R.D., Zuo, J., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z.Y., Zillante, G., Gan, X.L. (2017). Discovering the transition pathways toward sustainability for construction enterprises: Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(6): 04017013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001295

[18] Birendra, K.C., Paudyal, R., Neupane, S.S. (2018). Residents’ perspectives of a newly developed ecotourism project: An assessment of effectiveness through the lens of an importance–performance analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(6): 560-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1467938

[19] Brunori, M. (2019). Protecting access to land for indigenous and non-indigenous communities: A new page for the World Bank? Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3): 501-516. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000232

[20] Ortiz, G., Domínguez-Gómez, J.A., Aledo, A., Urgeghe, A.M. (2018). Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis for prioritizing impacts in environmental and social impact assessments. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 14(1): 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2018.1510237

[21] Morley, J., Buchanan, G., Mitchard, E.T., Keane, A. (2021). Implications of the World Bank's environmental and social framework for biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 14(1): e12759. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12759

[22] Liu, B., Hu, Y., Wang, A., Yu, Z., Yu, J., Wu, X. (2018). Critical factors of effective public participation in sustainable energy projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(5): 04018029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000635

[23] Wilson, J., Hinz, S., Coston-Guarini, J., Mazé, C., Guarini, J.M., Chauvaud, L. (2017). System-based assessments—Improving the confidence in the EIA process. Environments, 4(4): 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4040095

[24] Lu, W., Ye, M., Flanagan, R., Ye, K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility disclosures in international construction business: trends and prospects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(1): 04015053. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001034

[25] Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Marques, A., Theurl, M.C., Pereira, H.M., Tukker, A. (2016). Towards a conceptual framework for social-ecological systems integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services with resource efficiency indicators. Sustainability, 8(3): 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030201

[26] Camisani, P.B. (2018). Sri Lanka: A political ecology of socio-environmental conflicts and development projects. Sustainability Science, 13(3): 693-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0544-7

[27] Sanggoro, H.B., Widyaningsih, N., Bintoro, B.P. (2020). Analysis influence factors of domination, competency and interpersonal skill in the stakeholder interaction to infrastructure project success. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 9(1): 164-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v9i1.30153

[28] Lim, H.W., Zhang, F., Fang, D., Peña-Mora, F., Liao, P.C. (2021). Corporate social responsibility on disaster resilience issues by international contractors. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(1): 04020089. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000861