![Environmental setup for localizing SDGs [28].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386062494/figure/fig2/AS:11431281390247465@1745255536737/Environmental-setup-for-localizing-SDGs-28_Q320.jpg)
Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Putra, A.A.; Hasibuan, H.S.;
Tambunan, R.P.; Lautetu, L.M.
Integration of the Sustainable
Development Goals into a Regional
Development Plan in Indonesia.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su162310235
Received: 16 September 2024
Revised: 13 November 2024
Accepted: 19 November 2024
Published: 22 November 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into a
Regional Development Plan in Indonesia
Anggi Aran Putra, Hayati Sari Hasibuan * , Rudy Parluhutan Tambunan and Lisa Meidiyanti Lautetu
School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta 10430, Indonesia;
anggi.aran@ui.ac.id (A.A.P.); rudy.tambunan@ui.ac.id (R.P.T.); lisa.meidiyanti@ui.ac.id (L.M.L.)
*Correspondence: hayati.hasibuan@ui.ac.id
Abstract: This study is about understanding how the values of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) are integrated into regional development strategies in Indonesia. The aim of this research is
to analyze the connection between the principles of the SDGs and elements of regional development.
Data collection was conducted using the secondary data of SDG success indicators from 17 provinces
in Indonesia, which were combined with the vision, mission, and regional development programs
in the Regional Development Plan (RDP). We applied a content analysis of political, legal, fiscal,
and administrative arrangements in the concept of localizing the SDGs. As a country that upholds
the principle of autonomy and has committed to localizing the SDGs, Indonesia appears unable
to promote sustainable development in the context of regional development strategies. Economic
elements and governance remain the main paradigms of regional development. The very broad
dimensions of sustainable development with limited resources mean that the regional development’s
focus can only cover a small part of the SDGs. Therefore, multiparty support is crucial to strengthening
the nuances of the SDGs in regional development strategies and localizing the norm of the SDGs is
very important to strengthening the achievement of the SDGs in regional development.
Keywords: sustainable development; localizing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); Regional
Development Plan; local government; regional strategy
1. Introduction
In a report from the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED)
entitled Our Common Future, sustainable development is presented as a pivotal concept
for the direction of global development [
1
]. In 2005, the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) were established as a measurement tool for the implementation of sustainable
development, with a focus on eradicating poverty, hunger, and environmental issues [
2
].
However, this commitment could have been more effective, as it primarily targeted devel-
oping countries [
3
]. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)
in 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, saw participating countries form a set of policies aimed
at achieving more inclusive and universal sustainable development goals [
4
]. The 2012
agreement led to the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, which
encompassed 17 goals for 2015–2030, with a profound global impact.
Conceptually, the MDGs and SDGs translate values in sustainable development in
an attempt to disseminate them globally. In the minutes of the Brundtland Commission
report [
5
], it was stated that the idea of sustainable development is closely related to the
fulfillment of basic needs for all through consideration of the limits of ecological capabilities;
sustainable development is part of an effort to develop human life safely and inclusively
and is interconnected in terms of ecology, society, and economy [
6
]. This is what the MDGs
and SDGs try to facilitate in each of the goals to be achieved.
The SDGs themselves are packaged with an approach that is considered more inclusive
in an effort to increase the participation of all parties. Several experts consider that the SDGs
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310235 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 2 of 21
provide a greater focus on local values in their implementation by paying more attention
to the development of individuals and local groups than the national average
[7–11]
. This
opinion is considered relevant because achieving SDG goals globally is an integral part
of the results achieved by local authorities [
12
]. Therefore, this principle requires the
involvement of all parties at the global, national, and local levels in the implementation of
the SDGs.
The report from the Global Task Force on SDGs explains that all targets mandated in
the SDGs have a direct relationship with local actors [
13
], especially local governments, as
they have an important role in fulfilling the basic needs of the community, which is the
focus of the implementation of the SDGs [
13
,
14
]. In addition, local governments play a
crucial role as the main implementers of basic services in many countries, and they play a
very crucial role in implementing the SDGs [
15
–
18
]. They are responsible for translating
the global goals into local actions, ensuring that the needs of their communities are met.
Another role that cannot be separated from actors at the sub-national level is data support,
which is the basis for assessing the SDGs [
18
]. Therefore, in the campaign on localizing the
SDGs, it is important to ensure this at the local level.
The meaning of localizing itself is that it is a form of mainstreaming the SDGs at
the local level by implementing policies that influence and affect SDG achievements [
13
].
Several experts consider that the SDGs provide a greater focus on local values in their
implementation by paying more attention to the development of local individuals and
groups than the national average [
7
–
11
]. This opinion is considered relevant to the fact that
the achievement of the SDGs globally is an integral part of the results achieved by local
authorities [12].
Conceptually, previous studies have explained the power of the SDGs in strength-
ening development strategies up to the regional level. However, the trade-offs and lim-
itations in allocating available resources are usually not fully described. In general, the
approach to these trade-offs is viewed more from the perspective of the interactions be-
tween SDGs
[19–21]
. At the local level, there is often consensus on both aspects of norm
compliance and priority decisions in the implementation of development [22,23].
In Indonesia, the adoption of the SDGs has been ongoing since 2016, and the country
has shown significant improvement in the SDG Index, reaching a ranking of 82 in 2022 [
24
].
The authors of [
23
] indicated that Indonesia possesses a more structured governance sys-
tem for the SDGs than Japan due to its well-established assessment, strategic, monitoring,
evaluation, and regulatory framework. However, Indonesia still faces challenges in im-
plementation, particularly due to the lack of stakeholder engagement, especially when
building trust at the local level [
23
–
25
]. Therefore, the localization of the SDGs is crucial, as
the initiative has largely remained national in focus [
26
–
28
]. In practice, local governments
play a key role in realizing sustainable development [29].
In terms of policy, Indonesia has implemented the concept of the SDGs in its policies
through Presidential Regulation Number 59 of 2017, which adopted the 17 SDGs in one
national policy. Previously, an agreement had been made to implement the MDGs in
2000. However, by the end of the year, the implementation of MDG achievements in
Indonesia was considered to have yet to meet the target. Only a few local actors were
involved in the implementation [
30
,
31
]. Therefore, the implementation of the SDGs is
mandated to be carried out in stages and comprehensively by the regional government
through the preparation of the Regional Action Plan (RAP), which contains strategies that
the government will implement to enact the SDGs.
In ensuring the comprehensive implementation of the SDGs, regulations that inte-
grated SDGs into development planning documents, namely, from the Ministry of Home
Affairs, which also stipulated the Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 7
of 2018, were issued. This policy focuses on the integration of the SDGs with regional de-
velopment planning through the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The targeted
Regional Development Plan (RDP) document is a medium-term document that includes
the direction of development and its budget allocation. In addition, this medium-term doc-
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 3 of 21
ument includes the political context of regional leaders, as stated in the vision and mission
of regional development. In addition, efforts have been made to incorporate the SDGs into
the financing process, which is considered good enough to improve the integration of the
SDGs at the local level [32,33].
Based on the SDG implementation regulations in Indonesia, the development plan is
the main instrument used to integrate the SDGs nationally. The development plan is a norm
because it has gone through a political process and become an agreement to implement
development. It is important to implement annual and long-term development [26,27].
As a result of a series of policies for regional governments, in Figure 1, it can be seen
that Indonesia has succeeded in pushing its performance in national SDG implementation
to rank 75, with a positive trend occurring in each goal [
25
]. Inter-annual data also show
a positive trend in Indonesia’s SDG achievement values, particularly since 2014. This
achievement cannot be separated from the encouragement of each region in implementing
the SDG implementation strategy, and this shows that the implementation of SDGs in
development planning at the regional level positively affects the achievement of the SDGs
on the national level. However, more is needed to guarantee that the SDGs have been
integrated into the RDP.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22
targeted Regional Development Plan (RDP) document is a medium-term document that
includes the direction of development and its budget allocation. In addition, this medium-
term document includes the political context of regional leaders, as stated in the vision
and mission of regional development. In addition, efforts have been made to incorporate
the SDGs into the financing process, which is considered good enough to improve the
integration of the SDGs at the local level [32,33].
Based on the SDG implementation regulations in Indonesia, the development plan is
the main instrument used to integrate the SDGs nationally. The development plan is a
norm because it has gone through a political process and become an agreement to imple-
ment development. It is important to implement annual and long-term development
[26,27].
As a result of a series of policies for regional governments, in Figure 1, it can be seen
that Indonesia has succeeded in pushing its performance in national SDG implementation
to rank 75, with a positive trend occurring in each goal [25]. Inter-annual data also show
a positive trend in Indonesia’s SDG achievement values, particularly since 2014. This
achievement cannot be separated from the encouragement of each region in implementing
the SDG implementation strategy, and this shows that the implementation of SDGs in
development planning at the regional level positively affects the achievement of the SDGs
on the national level. However, more is needed to guarantee that the SDGs have been
integrated into the RDP.
Figure 1. Indonesia’s SDGs performance in 2022.
This study looks at how much Indonesia’s regional development strategies, as de-
scribed in the RDP, can be guided by the SDGs. The primary focus of this discussion will
be the interplay between autonomous governance structures and global norms, which has
not received enough aention in the field of sustainable development research [34,35].
Discussions at the regional level will also be more engaging due to the significant gap
between local and global norm implementation [36].
The study is structured as follows: Section 2 will provide a review of the relevant
literature and identify the gaps that exist in the current body of research. Section 3 will
provide a detailed explanation of the study area, materials, and methods used to analyze
the localization of the SDGs in Indonesia, as well as the interaction of each dimension
within the local norms, as represented by the RDP. Additionally, Section 4 will offer an
in-depth discussion of the RDP, including a factual analysis of the opportunities and chal-
lenges Indonesia faces in localizing the SDGs. The results of this analysis will lead to the
conclusion in Section 5.
Figure 1. Indonesia’s SDGs performance in 2022.
This study looks at how much Indonesia’s regional development strategies, as de-
scribed in the RDP, can be guided by the SDGs. The primary focus of this discussion will
be the interplay between autonomous governance structures and global norms, which
has not received enough attention in the field of sustainable development research [
34
,
35
].
Discussions at the regional level will also be more engaging due to the significant gap
between local and global norm implementation [36].
The study is structured as follows: Section 2will provide a review of the relevant
literature and identify the gaps that exist in the current body of research. Section 3will
provide a detailed explanation of the study area, materials, and methods used to analyze
the localization of the SDGs in Indonesia, as well as the interaction of each dimension
within the local norms, as represented by the RDP. Additionally, Section 4will offer an
in-depth discussion of the RDP, including a factual analysis of the opportunities and
challenges Indonesia faces in localizing the SDGs. The results of this analysis will lead to
the conclusion in Section 5.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 4 of 21
2. Literature Review
2.1. Localizing SDGs
Sustainability functions as a mechanism to balance human and environmental needs
for future generations. It is an inseparable concept from development [
31
]. Therefore, sus-
tainability and development are viewed as an interconnected concept known as sustainable
development, which is not only seen as a development approach but also as a globally
shared goal.
In 1992, the launch of a major agenda focused on environmental sustainability and
development, known as the Earth Summit, resulted in the creation of Agenda 21. This doc-
ument laid a strategic foundation for the global community to implement sustainable devel-
opment actions by integrating environmental policies with developmental goals [
32
,
33
,
37
].
The SDGs represent a commitment to implementing the 2030 Agenda through sustainable
and inclusive economic growth and decent work for all [
13
]. They were established as a
response to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were criticized for not
addressing the root causes of poverty and for inadequately strengthening human rights [
34
].
One main critique of the MDGs was the oversimplification of development goals, especially
in developing countries, where the focus was limited to basic needs [
9
,
11
,
36
]. As a globally
adopted development agenda, the SDGs have become an international norm adopted
by many nations, promoting a comprehensive integration of sustainable development
dimensions. The core goal of the SDGs is to achieve universal well-being while considering
ecological capabilities and social acceptance.
The term “localizing” is widely discussed in the context of norm diffusion [
36
]. Local-
izing refers to the active process by which local actors adopt and adapt external cultural
norms through framing, grafting, and selective integration, a term first introduced in norm
diffusion literature by Acharya [
38
]. According to Acharya, norm localization occurs when
local actors recognize the benefits of adopting global norms, possess pre-existing, robust
local norms to support the localization process, and have credible actors to implement these
global norms. In a narrower framework, Acharya’s idea was modified by Okitasari and
Katramiz [
26
], who broke down the process into three stages: contestation, framing, and
adaptation. Localization thus involves not only the internalization of external norms but
also the preservation of existing local values. Localization fundamentally entails borrowing
external ideas deemed compatible with local values [39].
The Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments defines “localizing the SDGs”
as a process that engages sub-national actors in achieving the targets of the 2030 Agenda,
from goal-setting and target definition to recommendations and indicators for measuring
outcomes [
13
]. In practice, effective SDG localization typically requires 5–7 years [
40
]. The
concept is also translated more narrowly as local actors’ participatory involvement in SDG
implementation. Nevertheless, localization of the SDGs extends beyond participation,
allowing local actors the freedom to interpret the SDGs in alignment with their values.
Although global organizations emphasize the inclusive engagement of local actors as a
representation of universality, the Global Taskforce offers an operational roadmap for SDG
localization that accounts for political, legal, fiscal, and administrative frameworks that
enable local governments to contribute to SDG implementation (Figure 2).
To date, stakeholders have shown limited attention to SDG localization [
41
]. Yet
localization is crucial, as government services directly impact SDG indicators by ensuring
that local needs are understood and inclusively addressed [
42
]. This finding aligns with
research by Sarkar et al., which highlights the critical role of local governments in SDG
implementation due to their deeper understanding of local issues [43].
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 5 of 21
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22
Figure 2. Environmental setup for localizing SDGs [28].
2.2. Integration of SDGs in Development Planning
Development planning can be described briefly as a project plan to achieve a specific
condition within a set time, while a strategic plan is a larger framework involving various
parties to achieve goals [44]. The Brundtland Commission report highlighted policy trade-
offs embedded within sustainable development planning [5]. Thus, integrating the three
main pillars of sustainable development into planning is essential [45].
Given the SDGs’ strategic position in development plans, Katramiz and Okitasari
propose the following integration recommendations: (a) leveraging SDG opportunities in
development goal-seing; (b) using SDG flexibility as a platform to support sustainable
development; (c) strengthening development plans with SDG-relevant approaches; (d)
mainstreaming SDGs comprehensively to balance social, economic, environmental, and
institutional aspects; and (e) ensuring inclusive participation and effective stakeholder en-
gagement. Thus, the SDGs serve as a binding instrument for governments in strategic
planning, as they influence development planning and policy-making [28,46,47]. The
alignment between development planning instruments and SDG values is summarized in
Table 1 .
Table 1. Integrating SDGs into the Regional Development Plan.
Integration of SDGs into Planning Documents Development Plan Contents
Adoption of core SDG elements Structure of development plan reflecting key SDG elements
Flexibility in SDG implementation Formulation of a development vision aligned with SDG flexibility
Alignment of social, economic, environmental, and insti-
tutional aspects
Alignment with SDG goals representing social, economic, environmental,
and institutional priorities
Internalization of relevant SDG approaches Use of SDG gap analysis to guide priority development goals
The integration of SDG principles into development planning is anticipated to shape
strategic directions. As a normative framework embodying transformative values, the
SDGs enhance the substance of planning. Localizing SDGs within regional development
planning entails deeply internalizing SDG indicators into development strategies [48]. The
SDGs offer a framework for addressing local contexts and conditions, yet they are also a
forum for debate and are sometimes seen as a “marketplace metaphor” [49] due to the
Figure 2. Environmental setup for localizing SDGs [28].
2.2. Integration of SDGs in Development Planning
Development planning can be described briefly as a project plan to achieve a specific
condition within a set time, while a strategic plan is a larger framework involving various
parties to achieve goals [
44
]. The Brundtland Commission report highlighted policy trade-
offs embedded within sustainable development planning [
5
]. Thus, integrating the three
main pillars of sustainable development into planning is essential [45].
Given the SDGs’ strategic position in development plans, Katramiz and Okitasari propose
the following integration recommendations: (a) leveraging SDG opportunities in development
goal-setting; (b) using SDG flexibility as a platform to support sustainable development;
(c) strengthening development plans with SDG-relevant approaches; (d) mainstreaming
SDGs comprehensively to balance social, economic, environmental, and institutional aspects;
and (e) ensuring inclusive participation and effective stakeholder engagement. Thus, the
SDGs serve as a binding instrument for governments in strategic planning, as they influence
development planning and policy-making [
28
,
46
,
47
]. The alignment between development
planning instruments and SDG values is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Integrating SDGs into the Regional Development Plan.
Integration of SDGs into Planning Documents Development Plan Contents
Adoption of core SDG elements Structure of development plan reflecting key SDG elements
Flexibility in SDG implementation Formulation of a development vision aligned with SDG flexibility
Alignment of social, economic, environmental, and
institutional aspects
Alignment with SDG goals representing social, economic, environmental,
and institutional priorities
Internalization of relevant SDG approaches Use of SDG gap analysis to guide priority development goals
The integration of SDG principles into development planning is anticipated to shape
strategic directions. As a normative framework embodying transformative values, the SDGs
enhance the substance of planning. Localizing SDGs within regional development planning
entails deeply internalizing SDG indicators into development strategies [
48
]. The SDGs
offer a framework for addressing local contexts and conditions, yet they are also a forum for
debate and are sometimes seen as a “marketplace metaphor” [
49
] due to the complexity of
integration, political support requirements, and cross-sectoral coordination [
50
]. Therefore,
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 6 of 21
integrating SDGs into planning documents is expected to serve as both a solution and a clear
guideline for local-level development, enabling dynamic and adaptive local plans. SDG
principles also strengthen planning through data-driven and evidence-based approaches,
ensuring alignment with sustainable development values in priority development agendas.
While there are a variety of theoretical frameworks that guide the implementation of
the SDGs globally [
51
], there remains a gap in the localization of SDGs, i.e., the adaptation
and implementation of these global goals at the national, regional, and local levels [
52
].
Some of the literature points to the difficulties in bridging the gap between global com-
mitments (SDGs) and local actions [
53
], while other studies highlight the importance of
contextualizing the SDGs to ensure they are relevant to local realities, resources, and chal-
lenges [
54
]. Overall, this study contributes to the existing literature by examining how the
localization of global SDGs is integrated into regional development planning (RDP) at the
provincial level within Indonesia’s highly diverse archipelago. It fills a gap in the localizing
SDGs literature regarding the lack of a comprehensive social, economic, and environmental
aspects study.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Case Study Area
Our research was conducted at the provincial scale in Indonesia. We chose provincial
governments for our case study due to their unique role, as they have a primary responsi-
bility in ensuring the needs of local communities [
28
]. This aligns with [
43
], which stated
that to achieve sustainable development at the local level, the local government plays a key
role because it can mobilize stakeholders and local resources. In Indonesia, the provincial
governments not only have the mandate to formulate SDG implementation strategies in
the regions through the RAP, but they also play a crucial role as a direct implementer and
supervisor of affairs carried out by the district/city governments through the Governor
as Representative of the Central Government scheme. This dual role underscores the
provincial governments’ crucial position in the SDG implementation process, even though
the district/city governments still support assessments.
In addition, this study covers all 34 provinces, specifically focusing on the regionaliza-
tion of four development areas, especially in the Main Development Area (MDA), which is
divided into ten regions. Unlike previous research, which only focused on SDG localization
on the island of Java [
49
], this study attempts to provide a broader and more comprehensive
view by involving various major provinces across each island in Indonesia. Each region has
one main city serving as the regional growth center. This comprehensive assessment allows
us to gain a holistic understanding of the SDG implementation landscape in Indonesia
(Figure 3).
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
Figure 3. Study areas.
The division of regions was adopted from the policy in the national development
plan of the 1980s, which used an approach involving the potential and characteristics of
each province in Indonesia. This policy was significant, as it provided a framework for
regional development based on the unique aributes of each province. Specifically, we
took more samples for MDA IV because it is the center of national activities. This decision
ensured a more comprehensive understanding of the SDG implementation in this crucial
region.
3.2. Data Analysis
To address our research objectives, we employed a rigorous data analysis approach.
We used secondary data collection methods for the following: (1) SDG indicators, (2) lo-
cal/regional visions and missions, (3) descriptions of regional policy strategies and direc-
tions, and (4) indications of government programs.
A qualitative approach was used to examine the fit between the SDG standards and
their integration into the RDP. Numerical data were used to quantify the fit of the SDGs
with the local norms mentioned in the RDP. In addition, the SDG achievement data in
SEA and RAP are used as inputs for the analysis of the fit between the issues raised and
the development strategies formulated in the RDP. However, the verification of perfor-
mance data was not the primary focus, as the purpose of this data verification was to as-
sess the consistency of the issues raised in the RDP as a form of norm localization. The
research stages can be seen in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Study areas.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 7 of 21
The division of regions was adopted from the policy in the national development plan
of the 1980s, which used an approach involving the potential and characteristics of each
province in Indonesia. This policy was significant, as it provided a framework for regional
development based on the unique attributes of each province. Specifically, we took more
samples for MDA IV because it is the center of national activities. This decision ensured a
more comprehensive understanding of the SDG implementation in this crucial region.
3.2. Data Analysis
To address our research objectives, we employed a rigorous data analysis approach.
We used secondary data collection methods for the following: (1) SDG indicators, (2) lo-
cal/regional visions and missions, (3) descriptions of regional policy strategies and direc-
tions, and (4) indications of government programs.
A qualitative approach was used to examine the fit between the SDG standards and
their integration into the RDP. Numerical data were used to quantify the fit of the SDGs
with the local norms mentioned in the RDP. In addition, the SDG achievement data in SEA
and RAP are used as inputs for the analysis of the fit between the issues raised and the
development strategies formulated in the RDP. However, the verification of performance
data was not the primary focus, as the purpose of this data verification was to assess the
consistency of the issues raised in the RDP as a form of norm localization. The research
stages can be seen in Figure 4.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
Figure 4. Framework of the stages of analysis in this research.
Content Analysis
Before conducting an in-depth analysis of the integration of the SDG norms, a study
was first carried out on the suitability of the localization principle for the existing system
in Indonesia. According to [28], the concept of localizing SDGs must be formulated and
defined through the study of political, legal, fiscal, and administrative arrangements that
enable local governments to contribute to the implementation of the SDGs. Specifically,
these aspects consist of (1) the clarity of the mandate and function, namely, the existence
of a clear division of roles between the government at the national level and the govern-
ment at the subnational level, (2) contributions at the political level, particularly to the
existence of a real role of the regional government in the institutional structure in the im-
plementation of the SDGs, (3) alignment of planning and financing, as evidenced by the
alignment of the SDGs in development plans and regional budgets, and (4) systems, data
collection, and monitoring to enable local governments to formulate evidence-based pol-
icies.
The localization conditions of the SDG norms were then examined based on the con-
tent in the RDP, which could be equated to a local norm because it included elements of
agreement on future goals measured in planning time units in its preparation [55]. This
policy content analysis referred to previous research, where the policy content was ana-
lyzed in a directed manner according to the context being studied. The analysis was car-
ried out through a deductive or systematic in-depth study of the policies under examina-
tion [55,56] .In detail, this study assessed the regional development mission and a long list
of regional development strategies for the next five years. Translations of missions, strat-
egies, and notes from regional government programs can be representatively linked with
their tendencies towards the dimensions and goals of the SDGs. A comparison between
the dimensions of the SDGs and their goals is explained in Table 2. The results of mapping
the suitability of the SDG dimensions and targets were then identified based on the num-
ber that were deemed relevant and are presented in the form of a distribution diagram.
Table 2. Analysis of policy contents.
SDG Aspects RDP Content Explanation
SDG dimensions: Presentation of the social,
economic, environmental, and governance di-
mensions
Details of the regional development
missions mentioned in the RDP in ac-
cordance with the translation of the
regional governments
Grouping of translations of regional devel-
opment missions with dimensions of sus-
tainable development
Figure 4. Framework of the stages of analysis in this research.
Content Analysis
Before conducting an in-depth analysis of the integration of the SDG norms, a study
was first carried out on the suitability of the localization principle for the existing system
in Indonesia. According to [
28
], the concept of localizing SDGs must be formulated and
defined through the study of political, legal, fiscal, and administrative arrangements that
enable local governments to contribute to the implementation of the SDGs. Specifically,
these aspects consist of (1) the clarity of the mandate and function, namely, the existence of
a clear division of roles between the government at the national level and the government
at the subnational level, (2) contributions at the political level, particularly to the existence
of a real role of the regional government in the institutional structure in the implementation
of the SDGs, (3) alignment of planning and financing, as evidenced by the alignment of the
SDGs in development plans and regional budgets, and (4) systems, data collection, and
monitoring to enable local governments to formulate evidence-based policies.
The localization conditions of the SDG norms were then examined based on the
content in the RDP, which could be equated to a local norm because it included elements of
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 8 of 21
agreement on future goals measured in planning time units in its preparation [
55
]. This
policy content analysis referred to previous research, where the policy content was analyzed
in a directed manner according to the context being studied. The analysis was carried out
through a deductive or systematic in-depth study of the policies under examination [
55
,
56
].
In detail, this study assessed the regional development mission and a long list of regional
development strategies for the next five years. Translations of missions, strategies, and notes
from regional government programs can be representatively linked with their tendencies
towards the dimensions and goals of the SDGs. A comparison between the dimensions
of the SDGs and their goals is explained in Table 2. The results of mapping the suitability
of the SDG dimensions and targets were then identified based on the number that were
deemed relevant and are presented in the form of a distribution diagram.
Table 2. Analysis of policy contents.
SDG Aspects RDP Content Explanation
SDG dimensions: Presentation of the
social, economic, environmental, and
governance dimensions
Details of the regional development missions
mentioned in the RDP in accordance with the
translation of the regional governments
Grouping of translations of regional
development missions with dimensions
of sustainable development
SDG goals: Presentation of the
17 SDG goals
Goals and references to regional
development programs set in the RDP
Grouping of development strategies and
program indications created with the
respective SDGs
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Localization of SGDs in Indonesia
Before recognizing the SDGs as a policy norm, Indonesia had experience in main-
streaming sustainable development through the MDGs. The main instruments for this
mainstreaming were development planning documents at both the national and regional
levels [
57
]. The Indonesian government initiated these mainstreaming efforts by incorpo-
rating human development goals outlined in the eight MDGs into the 2004–2009 National
Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN). Consequently, by 2010, Indonesia was eval-
uated as having achieved three targets of the MDGs [
58
]. Subsequently, the Indonesian
government issued Presidential Instruction No. 3 of 2010 regarding the Equitable Devel-
opment Program, which included a Roadmap for Accelerating MDG Achievement and
an action plan for provincial governments. Specifically, the Minister of National Develop-
ment Planning/Bappenas and the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a circular mandating
local governments to formulate programs and activities aligned with the MDG Action
Plan (RAD MDGs). Indonesia also developed several collaborative efforts, both through
government-to-government (G-to-G) schemes and partnerships with non-governmental
entities, aimed at achieving MDG objectives [59].
By the end of the MDG implementation period in 2015, it was challenging to categorize
Indonesia’s success in executing the MDGs. However, it is notable that the Indonesian gov-
ernment demonstrated the ability to take steps toward internalizing global norms, such as
the MDGs, in national and regional policies. Reflecting on the global norm implementation
patterns developed, Indonesia essentially internalized the MDGs, integrating them into
development plans at every governmental level [
35
]. Nevertheless, Indonesia struggled
to establish systematic policies at the grassroots level [
60
]. Government involvement at
the sub-district and village levels was not evident in the regulations formulated by the
government. Additionally, the MDG implementation was predominantly focused on the
central government, as indicated by the absence of National Standards for Policy and
Guidelines that elucidate mechanisms for integrating local policies to support MDG imple-
mentation. Government collaborations supporting the MDGs generally treated localities as
program objects, lacking direct support accessible to local governments for achieving the
MDG targets.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 9 of 21
The implementation of global norms in the form of SDGs and MDGs in Indonesia must
be distinct from the norm integration scenario used by the central government. In general,
the scenario used by the government is still the same for both SDGs and MDGs—key
development plan documents—so these norms can be internalized. The approach has
remained relatively the same, especially for the main stakeholders, namely, the Ministry of
National Development Planning. However, integrating SDGs into the SEA of the Regional
Medium-Term Development Plan makes the implementation mechanism much more
complete than that of the MDGs.
While both the MDGs and SDGs are policy-oriented commitments in sustainable
development, the latter is considered more open to multidimensional stakeholder [
61
].
According to norms, the SDGs are even more effective in implementing and influencing
priorities in various countries [
26
]. Furthermore, the SDGs have a comprehensive policy
package through guidelines, standards, and criteria that accommodate the term “localizing”
as a standard procedure for implementing them. These various instruments provide a
way for every actor at the domestic level to be discursively involved in implementing the
policies offered by the SDGs. This comprehensive approach makes the SDGs stronger in
the implementation process in various countries.
The failure of the MDGs to be internalized at the site level is not a consideration for
the government. The existence of the SDGs has kept the implementation scenario the same
while moving from a top-down scheme to a more balanced one. The localizing approach,
which should provide a larger portion for each local actor in implementing the SDGs,
remains the same. Acharya, the originator of the localizing approach, emphasized the
process as a form of active construction [
38
]. It is practically invisible in the implementation
of the SDGs in Indonesia. General criticism of the SDGs and MDGs, which focus too much
on value quantification, can also be seen in the conditions in Indonesia. The original mean-
ing of these two policies—sustainability and inclusion—must be clarified by measuring
achievement values. This shows that Indonesia is only trying to avoid the ‘boomerang
effect’ of global commitments, where the pressure to meet international standards can lead
to unintended consequences and criticism.
Overall, each aspect has a different pattern of suitability in an environmental assembly
related to the localization of the SDGs in Indonesia. The suitability of each aspect must
be explained; an approach to linking the SDGs to the relevant context in Indonesia was
developed [
62
]. A description of the relationship between each aspect and the political
context in Indonesia is provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Interrelationship of the localization aspects of the SDGs in Indonesia.
Aspects of SDG
Localization Relation to Context in Indonesia
Clarity of the
mandate and function
The clarity of the role and function of regional government was regulated in the Regional Autonomy Law, with details
regarding regional roles. In support of this, the SDGs were also regulated in Presidential Decree 59 of 2017 [
63
]. However,
some limitations are too rigid to create coherence between sectors in Indonesia, which urgently necessitates a more
adaptive coordination pattern to ensure effective SDG implementation.
Contribution at the
policy level
Regional governments have become a crucial and valued part of Indonesia’s formal structure for implementing the SDGs.
They have been given a clear mandate to prepare regional action plans for implementing the SDGs and submit the results
of the preparation to the central government. This empowerment of regional governments is a significant step towards
achieving the SDGs, underscoring their integral role. However, the implementation of the SDGs still needs to be more
centralized, placing regional governments only as policy implementers.
Planning alignment
and funding
Regional governments have become a crucial and valued part of Indonesia’s formal structure for implementing the SDGs.
They have been given a clear mandate to prepare regional action plans for implementing the SDGs and submit the results
of the preparation to the central government. This empowerment of regional governments is a significant step towards
achieving the SDGs, underscoring their integral role. However, the implementation of the SDGs still needs to be more
centralized, placing regional governments only as policy implementers.
Systems, collection,
and data monitoring
The regional action plans and VSR that have been successfully prepared show that regions have collected data on
implementing the SDGs in these regions. However, this condition is not evenly distributed across all indicators because
the reference for regional data collection using metadata on the SDGs still needs to provide a clear picture of the relevant
data that regions can provide.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 10 of 21
Of the four aspects, the planning and funding aspect is the most established, because
various regulations in Indonesia support it. The planning and budgeting system that is
currently integrated also means that local governments can better integrate the SDGs [
64
].
Meanwhile, for other aspects, the central government needs a mechanism that can better
accommodate the conditions of regional governments. The government needs to pay
attention to the coordination structure, so that the implementation of the SDGs at the local
level can run better, emphasizing the necessity of government action in this area.
In formulating the development vision, regional heads tend to pay great attention to
improving community welfare, which is directly used by seven provincial regional heads:
Banten, Jawa Tengah, Jawa Timur, Kalimantan Selatan, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Papua, and
Sulawesi Utara. This shows that issues related to community welfare are still a concern,
and this provides political attraction for regional heads. Apart from that, aspects of regional
competitiveness are also the language commonly used by regional heads in formulating
their visions. Regional heads also raise terms such as independence, competitiveness,
sovereignty, and civil society as regional development visions. This is also in line with local
governments’ efforts to improve community welfare.
4.2. Adoption of the Main Elements of the SDGs in the RDP
This section looks at how the main elements of the SDGs are adopted by integrating
the existing goals, targets, and principles of universality with the planning process [
26
]. In
this analysis, these principles are directed at assessing the integration of the SDGs into the
planning products being prepared. Planning processes that have adopted elements of the
SDGs should ideally describe the urgency of the SDGs as a norm in regional development
plans. The internalization of the SDGs in regional planning documents also indicates
that the government has gone through a period of consensus regarding SDG values in
formulating norms in regional areas.
Compared with the vision in the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan for the
period before the SDGs were established, the developmental focus stated in the regional
head’s vision tended to stay the same. The main values raised by the regional governments
still prioritized the same aspects, namely, regional prosperity and competitiveness. How-
ever, significant changes could only be seen in the development vision for East Kalimantan
Province, where they previously developed a thematic development direction by paying
attention to environmentally friendly energy transformation. This shift in focus towards
sustainable energy aligns with the SDGs and demonstrates the potential impact of the
SDGs on regional development planning.
Based on the description of the conditions in question, the meaning of flexibility in
the SDGs has little impact on the regional development vision. Even though 6 of the
17 provinces have accommodated sustainable development dimensions in their vision
translations, the development vision that they offer needs to show an expansion of the
issue. The direction of development, which should support the implementation of the
SDGs more thematically, stayed the same after the SDGs were established. Even though
prosperity remains the main goal to be achieved in the SDGs, the ecological boundaries that
should be considered have yet to be considered by every regional head. The example of
East Kalimantan, which has accommodated a more thematic development direction, shows
that the SDGs still need to be a regional development direction that can be integrated with
global issues.
The same pattern is also seen in the details of regional development missions; develop-
ment in each region tends to focus on economic growth. The nomenclature of the mission is
related to the economic aspect, followed by a development focus on improving community
welfare, especially through poverty alleviation. Along with this aspect, local governments
also focus on improving governance. This aspect has always been the dominant mission of
each local government, with the percentage of missions related to the economic dimension
reaching 39% (see Figure 5). Another focus expressed by most provincial governments is
the development of education and health, as part of the social dimension. The nomencla-
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 11 of 21
ture related to these two aspects is generally wrapped in the language of improving the
quality of life of the community. Meanwhile, the environment, sustainability, and ecology
have found their respective places in each provincial government. The environmental
aspect has always been at least one of the missions of the local government in its Regional
Medium-Term Development Plan document.
Figure 5. Mapping of sustainable development dimensions in regional development mission.
Furthermore, the addition of SDG content to the RDP indicates the existence of regional
voluntarism in integrating the SDGs into the development plans being prepared. It must be
noted that the Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 86 of 2017 [
65
], the basis
for preparing regional development planning documents, does not directly mandate SDG
content in regional development planning documents [
66
]. A review of planning docu-
ments in 17 provinces found that the integration of SDGs in regional planning documents is
divided into two main forms, namely, (1) SDGs as a policy analysis instrument and (2) SDGs
as a global strategic issue. The two patterns are explained in detail in the following.
1. SDGs as a policy analysis instrument
Regions that integrate the SDGs as a policy analysis instrument detail the elements
of the SDGs in companion with the policies prepared in the Regional Medium-Term De-
velopment Plan document. The elements include the goals, targets, and indicators for
implementing SDGs in the regions. This mechanism provides an overview of SDG achieve-
ments in describing regional development conditions, formulating regional development
issues and problems, and integrating them into the formulation of regional missions and
policy directions. Provinces such as Sumatera Utara, Sumatera Barat, Sumatera Selatan,
Sulawesi Selatan, Jawa Timur, and Nusa Tenggara Timur are regions that directly integrate
regional SDG achievements as considerations in formulating regional issues and problems.
Several regions that fall into this category also use SDG content to map the suitability
of missions and regional development indicators with the goals of the SDGs. The vision is
integrated into the Nusa Tenggara Timur Province, where the mission prepared is based on
the SDGs’ targets. Meanwhile, the province of Sumatera Utara also marked its regional
performance indicators with SDG indicators. In its planning documents, Sumatera Utara
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 12 of 21
Province states that the SDGs and their achievement targets are used as a reference in
preparing regional development targets.
2. SDGs as a global strategic issue
A different pattern is shown by several regions that view the SDGs as a unified
whole of norms without detailing the targets and indicators. SDG provisions are still
discussed in regional planning but as a global strategic issue; they are seen as norms that
influence regional development. This integration pattern requires an explanation of the
considerations made by regions after the SDGs were established [
67
]. However, regions
with this integration pattern do not limit the integrated SDG values, such as the use of the
term “universality” in service development, which is synthesized from SDG considerations.
The provinces of Bali, DKI Jakarta, West Java, and Central Java are regions for which
the analysis of SDG achievements in the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan docu-
ments that have been prepared must be explained. However, these regions have considered
SDG norms. The explanation of the SDGs in the Regional Medium-Term Development
Plan shows that the regional government has paid attention to the global commitment
in question.
Based on the findings on the two integration models, the conditions for regional
integration can be explained as follows:
(1)
Regional governments have understood that there is a global agreement regarding the
SDGs, so content regarding the SDGs has been included in all regional planning documents.
(2)
The existence of central policy instruments, such as regional action plans and the SEA
of the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan, does not make the integration of
the SDGs in regional planning documents uniform.
(3) Provisions regarding mechanisms for integrating the SDGs have not been regulated in
the technical provisions for regional planning, namely, the Regulation of the Minister
of Home Affairs Number 86 of 2017 [
65
], so the internalization of the existing SDGs is
still voluntary.
(4)
Using the SDGs as a policy analysis instrument does not change the pattern of affairs-
based policy formulation. Issues and problems that are holistic in the SDGs are again
separated by regions based on the division of affairs.
4.3. Integration of Social, Economic, Environmental, and Institutional Aspects in the RDP
In integrating the SDGs into regional development planning documents, placing
each development dimension in the same position is important [
26
]. The alignment of
each development dimension will have real implications for stakeholder alignment when
formulating policies in each development dimension. To assess this, regional development
goals and targets are considered appropriate to represent the position of each dimension in
the development plan. This is considered because regional development goals and targets
are prepared more precisely to describe the conditions that will be achieved during five
years of regional development. The analysis of the integration of the SDGs in regional
development will be interpreted in more detail when formulating goals and targets because
both goals and targets have measurable indicators for their achievement.
As part of a detailed explanation of the regional heads’ vision and mission formu-
lations, the analysis of regional goals and targets also shows that elements of regional
welfare and competitiveness are still the main concerns of the regions. Development in
the economic dimension of development is given great attention by the regions, especially
development targets related to SDG 8. Development targets related to sectoral economic
improvement are the main representatives of this aspect. This is followed by regional
efforts to reduce the unemployment rate in the region, which is also generally targeted
in regional development within five years. SDG 8 is an appropriate example to show the
dominance of the visions and missions of regional heads, who tend to target improving
community welfare and regional competitiveness.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 13 of 21
The main representative of the social dimension of the SDGs in regional development
planning documents is improving education and health services. This aspect is one of the
focuses that is always present in development targets in each region. Even though it is part
of the basic service aspect in a region, the development targets related to Goals 4 and 3
are relatively lower when compared with other goals related to the economic dimension.
This is closely related to the variations in indicators used by local governments when
assessing targets related to these two aspects and can be seen in four regions that use the
education and health indexes as target indicators. Hence, they need to be described in more
detail. However, the target indicators are also uniform, with average years of schooling
and educational participation rates being the main benchmarks.
To show regional commitment to improving services for the community, regional
governments also pay great attention to accountability and transparency in regional perfor-
mance. This is a representation of the targets of SDG 16, which represents the institutional
dimension. The main translation of this goal into the targets established by regional govern-
ments is improving the governance system through benchmarks in the form of bureaucratic
reform and increasing the transparency of government institutions. Freedom of expression
through the democracy index is also one of the benchmarks commonly used by regional
governments to formulate targets. Apart from that, this goal represents security for the
entire community through goals aimed at increasing order and security and protecting
children. In line with the previous goal, Goal 16 was also chosen by all provinces as part of
the benchmark for achieving regional development goals (Figure 6).
Based on the graph of the conformity of the regional development goals and targets
with the SDGs, it can be seen that, apart from SDGs 8 and 16, the goals tend to be spread
over the same number range, especially for SDGs related to the social dimension. The
main representation of the social dimension of the SDGs in regional development planning
documents is dominated by improving education and health services. This aspect is one
of the focuses that is always present in development targets in each region. Even though
it is part of the basic service aspect in a region, the development targets related to Goals
4 and 3 are relatively lower than those of other goals related to the economic dimension.
This is closely related to the variations in indicators used by local governments when
assessing targets related to these two aspects. This can be seen in four regions that use the
education and health indexes as target indicators, so they need to be described in more
detail. However, the target indicators are also uniform, with average years of schooling
and educational participation rates being the main benchmarks.
Food, nutrition, and sustainable agriculture are other goals that represent the social
dimension. The main description of these goals in regional planning documents is formu-
lated in terms of targets related to food supply and improving the welfare of workers in the
agricultural sector. A total of 7% of the targets prepared by local governments are identical
to the indicators in SDG 2. This target is represented by 15 provinces, including Jakarta
Province, which is dominated by urban activities. Apart from that, indicators related to ful-
filling children’s nutrition, such as indicators of stunting, wasting, and being underweight,
are also of regional concern but have yet to be used uniformly by regional governments.
In the environmental dimension, Goal 6 is predominantly used to describe devel-
opment targets by local governments. The goals related to improving the quality of the
environment and providing basic services for the community are the main goals related
to providing clean water and sustainable sanitation. The environmental quality index,
measured according to the increase in water quality values, is commonly used by local gov-
ernments to translate visions related to environmental aspects. It is very relevant to several
indicators in Goal 6 (Figure 7). Regional governments also target improving communities’
clean water and adequate sanitation services to fulfill minimum service standards. This
condition means that Goal 6 is used by 6% of local governments in target discussions. This
is the general trend in the formulation of development targets.
Overall, the development plans prepared by the regional government, from the vision
to the development targets, have not shown any increase in priority on the environmental
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 14 of 21
dimension in development. Almost all provinces showed a preference of no more than 25%
for the environmental dimension in the RDP. This is a significant value when compared
to the preferences of 8 provinces that gave more than 30% attention to the environmental
dimension (Figure 8). These dimensions are ideally the main foundation for achieving
welfare goals. Generally, targets in the environmental dimension are only indicated by
improving environmental quality as detailed through the quality index of water, air, land,
and seawater. Other targets in the environmental dimension such as handling climate
change, marine ecosystems, and land ecosystems have not received much attention in the
RDP. Furthermore, increasing regional focus on developing the environmental dimension
after the implementation of the SDGs still needs to be reflected directly in the RDP.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
Figure 6. Alignment mapping of development goals and the SDGs.
In the environmental dimension, Goal 6 is predominantly used to describe develop-
ment targets by local governments. The goals related to improving the quality of the en-
vironment and providing basic services for the community are the main goals related to
providing clean water and sustainable sanitation. The environmental quality index, meas-
ured according to the increase in water quality values, is commonly used by local govern-
ments to translate visions related to environmental aspects. It is very relevant to several
indicators in Goal 6 (Figure 7). Regional governments also target improving communities’
clean water and adequate sanitation services to fulfill minimum service standards. This
Figure 6. Alignment mapping of development goals and the SDGs.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 15 of 21
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22
condition means that Goal 6 is used by 6% of local governments in target discussions. This
is the general trend in the formulation of development targets.
Figure 7. SDG preferences in the RDP.
Overall, the development plans prepared by the regional government, from the vi-
sion to the development targets, have not shown any increase in priority on the environ-
mental dimension in development. Almost all provinces showed a preference of no more
than 25% for the environmental dimension in the RDP. This is a significant value when
compared to the preferences of 8 provinces that gave more than 30% aention to the en-
vironmental dimension (Figure 8). These dimensions are ideally the main foundation for
achieving welfare goals. Generally, targets in the environmental dimension are only indi-
cated by improving environmental quality as detailed through the quality index of water,
air, land, and seawater. Other targets in the environmental dimension such as handling
climate change, marine ecosystems, and land ecosystems have not received much aen-
tion in the RDP. Furthermore, increasing regional focus on developing the environmental
dimension after the implementation of the SDGs still needs to be reflected directly in the
RDP.
Figure 8. Sustainable development preferences of each province.
Due to the great potential of the development of the SDGs in Indonesia, we see the
involvement of many local actors other than the government as very important, especially
Figure 7. SDG preferences in the RDP.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22
condition means that Goal 6 is used by 6% of local governments in target discussions. This
is the general trend in the formulation of development targets.
Figure 7. SDG preferences in the RDP.
Overall, the development plans prepared by the regional government, from the vi-
sion to the development targets, have not shown any increase in priority on the environ-
mental dimension in development. Almost all provinces showed a preference of no more
than 25% for the environmental dimension in the RDP. This is a significant value when
compared to the preferences of 8 provinces that gave more than 30% aention to the en-
vironmental dimension (Figure 8). These dimensions are ideally the main foundation for
achieving welfare goals. Generally, targets in the environmental dimension are only indi-
cated by improving environmental quality as detailed through the quality index of water,
air, land, and seawater. Other targets in the environmental dimension such as handling
climate change, marine ecosystems, and land ecosystems have not received much aen-
tion in the RDP. Furthermore, increasing regional focus on developing the environmental
dimension after the implementation of the SDGs still needs to be reflected directly in the
RDP.
Figure 8. Sustainable development preferences of each province.
Due to the great potential of the development of the SDGs in Indonesia, we see the
involvement of many local actors other than the government as very important, especially
Figure 8. Sustainable development preferences of each province.
Due to the great potential of the development of the SDGs in Indonesia, we see the
involvement of many local actors other than the government as very important, espe-
cially to accommodate sustainable development commitments that are not included in
mandatory spending for local governments. Dependence on central government policies
and instructions can also be seen as an opportunity to encourage local governments to
implement the SDGs in regional development. Although local governments have received
a portion of the development through regional autonomy, local governments in Indonesia
have not been able to fully independently implement sustainable development policies,
especially the SDGs. Limited resources in the regions and high dependence on regulations
governing what local governments can and cannot do mean that local governments still
need support from many parties to be able to implement all of the values in the SDGs. This
is the basis for the implementation of “No One Left Behind” for the implementation of the
SDGs by local governments.
In general, the values of the SDGs in regional development planning still seem to
be very low. As already mentioned, the SDGs serve only as a tool for regional govern-
ments to fulfill their obligations as mandated by the central government. Specifically,
from the level of vision to the mission and to the formulation of programs and activities
that have been prepared, the policies have not shown any change in the balance of the
dimensions of sustainable development. Partnership support, which is an important asset
in the implementation of the SDGs, is also not explicitly reflected in the formulation of
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 16 of 21
regional development planning policies. Another inhibiting factor is the role of the central
government, which is not yet involved in the supervision of the regional governments.
To improve progress across the dimensions of SDG implementation, the following is a
list of concrete actions.
1.
Integrating the role of non-government partners listed in the regional action plan into
the regional development plan that has been prepared.
2.
Integrating SDG achievement targets with targets in regional development plans
through instruments facilitated by the central government.
3.
Formulating regional incentive policies based on the results of achieving the SDGs in
different regions.
4.
Integrating strategies in the Regional Action Plan and the roles of development
partners that have been mapped out in the regional development plan document.
4.4. Norm Localization in the RDP
The integration of SDG norms in regional development plans can be a description
of the localization of SDG norms in regional development practices while specifically us-
ing policies in development plans as local norms [
26
,
38
]. The translation of the terms in
question has been expanded to accommodate various development agendas, including
sustainable development. However, in practice, the translation of sustainable development
is not clearly implemented in regional development planning documents. This can be
observed through the restricted integration of the ecological dimension in regional develop-
ment plans. Aspects related to ecology and environmental sustainability are not adequately
prioritized in the formulation of development issues and problems. This lack of empha-
sis on these critical areas may hinder long-term progress and exacerbate environmental
degradation. At the level of development goals and targets, the issues in question seem
to be relegated. The contestation portrayed here is now viewed not as a discrepancy in
values but as a modified interpretation, serving as a regional form of conformity to endorse
national governmental policies.
In the regional development plan, framing is achieved through adjustments to policies
that are aligned with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
In this instance, the interpretation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) appears
to be restricted to the framework of the 17 specific objectives established by them. The
regional government is currently endeavoring to align its formulated plans with the over-
arching goals outlined in the SDGs. Hence, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
are regarded as a tool that has the potential to enhance the validity of local values within
planning documents.
The reconstruction of global norms has not been reflected in the development plans
that have been prepared. This lack of alignment raises concerns about the efficacy of these
plans in addressing the evolving needs and priorities of the international community. The
definition of norms adopted by regions has not been based on regional initiatives but is
entirely dependent on the definition made by the central government.
Hence, in order to promote the convergence of regional development planning with
sustainable development principles and the vision of the SDGs, various strategic frame-
works have been devised. These frameworks can be implemented by the government at
both the central and regional levels. The strategies devised by the central government are
typically focused on translating regulations into more practical operational guidelines. This
is exemplified by the notable level of adherence to regulations established by the central
government within the various regions. It is, therefore, imperative to implement policies
that ensure the quality and sustainability of these measures through effective operationaliza-
tion by the regional government. This strategy is primarily focused on making adjustments
or modifications without the need to create a new regulation. However, the most critical
aspect is enhancing coordination among institutions at the central level in order to provide
regional governments with the assurance that they need regarding the policies they will be
required to implement. Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting instruments must be agreed
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 17 of 21
upon between institutions at the central level. Similarly, the control mechanism for the
feedback provided by the regional government should be considered. This enhancement
must be implemented comprehensively, encompassing the preparation of strategies in the
RAP as well as their integration into regional development planning documents.
For regional governments, strengthening partnerships is a strategy that must be
prioritized in implementing the SDGs at the local level. The constraints of SDG values
in regional development planning documents are intrinsically linked to the normative
constraints encountered by local governments. Development priorities that are unable
to address all sustainable development issues require assistance from non-governmental
partners at both the global and regional levels. This is also necessary in order to decrease
the reliance of local governments on the central government for budgetary support.
The policy implications from this study suggest several keyways in which regional
development plans (RDPs) can be effectively aligned with the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) to create meaningful, context-sensitive policies. First, policy makers could
implement localization of SDGs to the regional context by adopting local values, social
dynamics, and environmental conditions, to make regional policies both relevant and
actionable. Second, decision makers could integrate SDGs into long-term planning, rather
than focusing on immediate or short-term gains (only to gain political benefit in their term
of governance), so the policies become more strategic, with forward-looking planning
that addresses environmental, social, and economic issues. Third, decision makers should
engage citizens, local businesses, and civil society organizations in the design, implementa-
tion, and monitoring of regional development plans. This participatory approach not only
strengthens the relevance and effectiveness of policies but also fosters a sense of shared
responsibility for achieving sustainability goals at the local level.
5. Conclusions
The localization of the SDGs in Indonesia has made significant strides, entering the
amplification stage, where adjustments are made to apply the SDGs to the unique conditions
in Indonesia. The Indonesian government has played a pivotal role in facilitating the
implementation of the SDGs through the preparation of the National Action Plan of the
SDGs and the Regional Action Plan of the SDGs, as well as the implementation of the
SEA of the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan as an instrument for implementing
the SDGs down to the regional level. However, there is room for improvement in norm
localization, which is generally seen as mainstreaming the SDGs into government policy
through goals, targets, and indicators. The representation of the SDG adjustments to
governance developed through the 5P principles (people, prosperity, planet, peace, and
partnership) still needs to be directly reflected in the mandate for implementing the SDGs
in Indonesia, but the progress is promising.
The integration of the SDGs into the RDP has yet to fully influence the structure of
regional development priorities. The environmental dimension, which is the cornerstone of
sustainable development, is lagging compared with the economic and social dimensions in
terms of regional attention. The need for a shift in regional development priorities that gives
more weight to the environmental dimension is urgent, especially after the establishment
of the SDGs by the national government. This urgency underscores the need for immediate
action in shifting regional development priorities. It is reflected in the formulation of local
governments’ vision, goals, objectives, and budget allocations, which currently tend to set
environmental goals at a low priority.
The strategy for increasing the integration of the SDGs into the RDP is closely tied
to the policies taken by the central government. Regulations prepared by the central
government must be operational and comprehensive, covering all aspects of development,
from the planning, implementation, and evaluation stages to reviewing the plan’s suitability
using the evaluation results. Equally important is the need for increased partnerships
in implementing regional development. This collective action is vital for successfully
integrating the SDGs into the RDP.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 18 of 21
The term “localizing” in the process of integrating the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) cannot be applied straightforwardly. The scheme of autonomy plays a crucial
role in practice. Dependence on central government policies continues to influence the
governmental structure of Indonesia. In addition, the intervention of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) as a global agreement is deemed insufficient in its capacity
to sway the political perspectives of regional leaders towards incorporating more robust
ecological considerations into the development strategy that has been devised.
This study acknowledges several limitations that may affect the generalizability of its
findings. Primarily, the focus on Indonesia limits the applicability of the results to other
contexts with varying governance structures and development frameworks. Moreover, the
emphasis on governmental actions may underrepresent the contributions of non-state actors
and local communities in the SDG localization process. Lastly, while this study assesses
the integration of the SDGs into the plan, policy, and program, it does not longitudinally
evaluate the outcomes of this integration, which would provide a more comprehensive
understanding of its efficacy.
Future research should consider comparative analyses across diverse regions within
Indonesia and internationally to identify effective localization strategies and best practices
for SDG integration. Additionally, investigations of the roles of local stakeholders and
non-governmental organizations in the localization process could yield important insights.
The findings indicate that, while the localization of the SDGs in Indonesia is progress-
ing, similar challenges are likely to be faced by other regions, particularly in balancing
environmental considerations with economic and social priorities. It is imperative for
local governments to prioritize environmental objectives and ensure that regulations from
the central government are comprehensive and operational. The necessity for enhanced
partnerships and collaborative efforts remains vital across various contexts to successfully
integrate the SDGs into regional development strategies.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.P., H.S.H. and R.P.T.; methodology, A.A.P.; software,
A.A.P.; validation, A.A.P., H.S.H. and R.P.T.; formal analysis, A.A.P.; investigation, A.A.P.; resources,
A.A.P. and H.S.H.; data curation, A.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.P. and L.M.L.;
writing—review and editing, L.M.L.; visualization, A.A.P. and L.M.L. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by School of Environmental Science Universitas Indonesia, grant
numbers PKS-0010/UN2.F13.D1/PPM.01.04/2023.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data have been provided in the manuscript.
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the support from The Ministry of Home Affairs Republic of
Indonesia in our data collection, and the local government officer cooperation into this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Kates, R.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment
2005,47, 8–21. [CrossRef]
2. Khoo, S. The Millennium Development Goals: A Critical Discussion. Trócaire Dev. Rev. 2005,7, 43–56.
3.
Meyer-Ohlendorf, N.; Görlach, B.; McFarland, K. Towards Sustainable Development Goals: Working Paper; Umweltbundesamt:
Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2014; 34p.
4.
UN. The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals an Opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean Thank You for Your
Interest in This ECLAC Publication; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 9789211220117.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 19 of 21
5.
Brundtland Commission. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
6.
Gladwin, T.N.; Kennelly, J.J.; Krause, T.-S. Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory
and Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995,20, 874–907. [CrossRef]
7.
Battersby, J. MDGs to SDGs–new goals, same gaps: The continued absence of urban food security in the post-2015 global
development agenda. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2017,36, 115–129. [CrossRef]
8.
Biermann, F.; Kanie, N.; Kim, R.E. Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017,26–27, 26–31. [CrossRef]
9.
de Jong, E.; Vijge, M.J. From Millennium to Sustainable Development Goals: Evolving discourses and their reflection in policy
coherence for development. Earth Syst. Gov. 2021,7, 100087. [CrossRef]
10.
Fukuda-Parr, S.; Yamin, A.E.; Greenstein, J. The Power of Numbers: A Critical Review of Millennium Development Goal Targets
for Human Development and Human Rights. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 2014,15, 105–117. [CrossRef]
11. Vandemoortele, J. The MDG Story: Intention Denied. Dev. Chang. 2011,42, 1–21. [CrossRef]
12. OECD. Survey Results Note the Key Contribution of Regions and Cities to Sustainable Development; OECD: Paris, France, 2018.
13.
Global Taskforce. Roadmap for Localizing the SDGs: Implementation and Monitoring at Subnational Level; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya,
2016; p. 44. Available online: https://www.local2030.org/library/view/55 (accessed on 15 September 2024).
14.
Balaton Group. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory,
Method, a Report to the Balaton Group; Balaton Group: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1999.
15.
Almeida, A.C.L. Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to build indicators and localize sustainable development
goal 11 in Brazilian municipalities. Heliyon 2019,5, e02128. [CrossRef]
16. Corburn, J.; Sverdlik, A. Slum upgrading and health equity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 342. [CrossRef]
17.
Gundogdu, A.S. An Inquiry into Islamic Finance from the Perspective of Sustainable Development Goals. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev.
2018,7, 381–390. [CrossRef]
18.
Oosterhof, P.D. Localizing the SDGs to Accelerate Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Asian Dev.
Bank 2018,33, 1–14.
19.
Bandari, R.; Moallemi, E.A.; Lester, R.E.; Downie, D.; Bryan, B.A. Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals, characterising
interactions, and identifying solutions for local sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022,127, 325–336. [CrossRef]
20. Pham-Truffert, M.; Metz, F.; Fischer, M.; Rueff, H.; Messerli, P. Interactions among Sustainable Development Goals: Knowledge
for identifying multipliers and virtuous cycles. Sustain. Dev. 2020,28, 1236–1250. [CrossRef]
21.
Zhao, W.; Yin, C.; Hua, T.; Meadows, M.E.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Cherubini, F.; Pereira, P.; Fu, B. Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals in the post-pandemic era. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022,9, 258. [CrossRef]
22. Bappenas. Republik Indonesia Pembangunan Milenium Indonesia 2010; Bappenas: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2010.
23.
INFID. Mari Bicara Fakta: Catatan Masyarakat Sipil Atas Satu Dekade Pelaksanaan MDGs di Indonesia; Elex Media Komputindo:
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015.
24.
Halimatussadiah, A. Macroeconomic Policy and Financing for Development Division Mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals
into National Planning, Budgetary and Financing Processes: Indonesian Experience; United Nations Economic and Social Commission
for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP): Bangkok, Thailand, 2020.
25.
Sachs, J.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. Sustainable Development Report 2022; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2022.
26.
Okitasari, M.; Katramiz, T. The National Development Plans after The SDGs: Steering Implications of The Global Goals towards
National Development Planning. Earth Syst. Gov. 2022,12, 100136. [CrossRef]
27.
van’t Land, G. Subnational planning and budgeting in Asia and the Pacific. In Decentralization, Local Governance, and Localizing the
Sustainable Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 72–103. [CrossRef]
28.
Rohdewohld, R. Localizing the sustainable development goals in Asia and the Pacific. In Decentralization, Local Governance, and
Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 159–191. [CrossRef]
29.
Ferrazzi, G. Decentralization local governance and localizing the sustainable development goals in Indonesia. In Decentralization,
Local Governance, and Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 253–274.
[CrossRef]
30.
Duah, E.F.; Ahenkan, A.; Larbi, D. Mainstreaming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Local Development Planning:
Lessons from Adentan Municipal Assembly in Ghana. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020,13, 79. [CrossRef]
31.
Petersen, W.; Sachs, W. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1992,18, 194. [CrossRef]
32.
Callicott, J.B.; Frodeman, R. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 49,
ISBN 9780028661377.
33. Jibril, A. The Concept and Principles of Sustainable Development. SSRN Electron. J. 2018, 1–12. [CrossRef]
34.
ANPED. Regional NGO Position Paper Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA) FOR THE SDG Post 2015—FRAMEWORK;
UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 15–16.
35.
Fukuda-parr, S.; Hulme, D. Development Goals (MDGs) BWPI Working Paper 96; Manchester University: Manchester, UK, 2009;
ISBN 9781906518950.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 20 of 21
36. Zimmermann, L. To Socialize or to Localize? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 9781316771341.
37. Whitfield, K. Quick Guide to Sustainable Development: History and Concepts; Institute of Welsh Affairs: Cardiff, UK, 2015; pp. 1–5.
38.
Acharya, A. How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. Glob.
Gov. 2017,58, 483–519. [CrossRef]
39.
Amitav, A. Constructing Global Order: Agency and Chang in World Politics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018;
ISBN 9781107170711.
40.
Ayers, J.; Huq, S.; Wright, H.; Faisal, A.M.; Hussain, S.T. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development in
Bangladesh. Clim. Dev. 2014,6, 293–305. [CrossRef]
41.
Jönsson, K.; Bexell, M. Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals: The case of Tanzania. Dev. Policy Rev. 2021,39, 181–196.
[CrossRef]
42.
Annan-Aggrey, E.; Bandauko, E.; Arku, G. Localising the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa: Implementation challenges
and opportunities. Commonw. J. Local Gov. 2021,24, 4–23. [CrossRef]
43.
Sarkar, M.S.K.; Okitasari, M.; Ahsan, M.R.; Al-Amin, A.Q. Localisation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Bangladesh:
An Inclusive Framework under Local Governments. Sustainability 2022,14, 817. [CrossRef]
44. Faludi, A. The performance of spatial planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2000,15, 299–318. [CrossRef]
45.
Chimhowu, A.O.; Hulme, D.; Munro, L.T. The ‘New’ national development planning and global development goals: Processes
and partnerships. World Dev. 2019,120, 76–89. [CrossRef]
46.
Katramiz, T.; Okitasari, M. Accelerating 2030 Agenda Integration: Aligning National Development Plans with the Sustainable Development
Goals; United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability: Shibuya, Japan, 2021.
47.
Guarini, E.; Mori, E.; Zuffada, E. New development: Embedding the SDGs in city strategic planning and management. Public
Money Manag. 2021,41, 494–497. [CrossRef]
48.
Noviansyah, A.; Sutriadi, R. Communicating Sustainability in Communicative City: Problems on Implementing SDGs in
Indonesia. In Proceedings of the ICH 2019—International Conference on Humanities European, Penang, Malaysia, 30–31 October
2019; Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Science (EpSBS). European Publisher: London, UK, 2020; pp. 127–138. [CrossRef]
49. Amirudin, A. Policy to Localize SDGs as Cultural Agent in Central Java. E3S Web Conf. 2021,317, 01035. [CrossRef]
50.
Krantz, V.; Gustafsson, S. Localizing the sustainable development goals through an integrated approach in municipalities: Early
experiences from a Swedish forerunner. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021,64, 2641–2660. [CrossRef]
51.
Reddy, P.S. Localising the sustainable development goals (SDGs): The role of Local Government in context. Afr. J. Public Aff. 2016,
9, 2641–2660.
52. Messias, R. Localizing the SDGs: Regional Governments Paving the Way; nrg4SD: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
53.
Ansell, C.; Sørensen, E.; Torfing, J. The Key Role of Local Governance in Achieving the SDGs. In Co-Creation for Sustainability;
Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2022; pp. 9–22, ISBN 9781800437982.
54.
Salvador, M.; Sancho, D. The role of local government in the drive for sustainable development public policies. An analytical
framework based on institutional capacities. Sustainability 2021,13, 5978. [CrossRef]
55.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Work Plan (Renja) of the Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas
for 2008; Bappenas: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2008.
56.
Hall, D.M.; Steiner, R. Policy content analysis: Qualitative method for analyzing sub-national insect pollinator legislation.
MethodsX 2020,7, 100787. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Bengtsson, M. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2016,2, 8–14. [CrossRef]
58.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Laporan Pencapaian Tujuan Pembangunan Milenium Indonesia 2010;
Bappenas: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2010.
59.
Sanjoyo, M.; Atmawikarta, A. Indonesia: Indonesia Perspectives on Post–2015 Development Agenda. In Asian Perspectives on the
Post-2015 Development Agenda; Korea Development Institute: Sejong-si, Republic of Korea, 2011; pp. 31–38.
60.
Simangunsong, F. Pencapaian Perkembangan Milenium Development Goals (MDGS) Di Kabupaten Asmat. JIPSi 2019,3, 196–289.
61.
Chiba, M.; Katsuma, Y. The sustainable development goals (SDGs) as international norms. In The Sustainable Development Goals:
Diffusion and Contestation in Asia and Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 3–12.
62. Sihombing, L. Pencapaian Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). Politica 2013,4, 129–156.
63.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 59 Tahun 2017 tentang Pelaksanaan Pencapaian Tujuan
Pembangunan Berkelanjutan; Pemerintah Republik Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015.
64.
Cangara, A.R. The UN MDGs in Indonesia: Analyzing Its Failure in Eradicating Poverty in Indonesia. J. Soc. Polit. Sci. 2022,5,
117–126. [CrossRef]
65.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Republik Indonesia Nomor 86 Tahun 2017 Tentang Tata Cara
Perencanaan, Pengedanlian dan Evaluasi Pembangunan Daerah, Tata Cara Evaluasi Rancangan Peraturan Daerah Tentang Rencana Pem-
bangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah dan Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah, Serta Tata Cara Perubahan Rencana Pembangunan
Jangka Panjang Daerah, Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah, dan Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah; Pemerintah Republik
Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10235 21 of 21
66.
Souza, T.F.; Bacon, P. Adapting and applying the “spiral model” to the diffusion of the sdgs. In The Sustainable Development Goals:
Diffusion and Contestation in Asia and Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 13–29.
67.
Buyana, K.; Walubwa, J.J.A.; Mukwaya, P.; Sseviiri, H.; Byarugaba, D.; Nakyagaba, G.N. Global Norms, African Contexts: A
Framework for Localizing SDGs in Cities. In Localizing the SDGs in African Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 31–45.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
