Indonesia's Water Resources Policy

On July 19, 2005, the Constitusional Court of the Republic of Indonesia rejected a petition from a number of NGOs and individuals to annul and/or drop some articles in Law No. 7/2004 on Water Resources. One of the Law's articles was considered by the petitioner highly tution, i.e. article 7 paragraph (1) regarding water concession which was derived from article 6 paraghraph (4) regarding water utilization right.Other articles of the water Resources Law that would encourage privatization were also seen as conflicting with article 33 (3) of the Constitution, and these included articles 9, 10, 26, 45, 46 and 80.

The Law, wich was approved by the Indonesian Parliement in February 2004, have been a controversial issue, debated by many parties, ever since it was drafted and especially when the draft Law discussed by the parliement to be legalized. those who were in opposition to the water law, contending that it is essentially pointing towards privatization of water resourches where water is considered as tradable goods with economic value, this could lead to a domination of water market by the private sector, wich will lead to higher prices that limit the people's access to water. while those who are in support to privatization argue that public water utilities and/or governments are inefficient and unable to provide adequate supply of water to the people.

Moreover, oppositions took place because the need for a new comprehensive law on water resurces for Indonesia, was triggered by a loan package program from the World Bank, known as WATSAL (Water Resources Sector Adjustment Loan). thus, the US$ 300 million loan to restructure Indonesia's water sector meant the country must legislate private sector involvement in water management and water supply. this of course,can harm the Indonesian People and make it even harder for the poor to be able to access water for their daily needs.

basically, the perception of the Constitutional Court to water resources is not very different with the perception of the petitioner, which is, water is a social commodity, no individual/group can control it, and it is considered a human right. this is raffirmed by the relation of the state should respect, protect, and fulfil the right to water. However, according to the Constitutional Court, control over water can be conducted by anyone, including the private sector. Here it seems that the private sector is perceived as an entity that will consider the interest of many people and prioritize its social function rather than its economic function. this is in spite of the fact that the private sector is a business entity and it will certainly prioritised profits.

(Reference: Nadia Hadad-Campainer for INFID)