INTRODUCTION

This chapter gives further insights on how interdependencies and alliances at the central government ministries contested ideas and contradictions in Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT), as incorporated in the Water Sector Adjustment Loan (WATSAL) IMT programme.

This chapter, organized into ten sections, analyses the political wranglings in chronological order and maps the evolution of coalitions in the overall promulgation process of the new Water Act. Section I analyses the conflicting policy frames in Indonesian irrigation development. The prelude to the IMT policy struggles on the principles of management transfer is examined in Section II. Kimpraswil's controversial revised clauses of the new Water Act, from those originally formulated by Working Team IV in the WATSAL Task Force (WTF), are discussed in Section III, while Section IV details both Kimpraswil's moratorium and its relationship with the other ministries. In Section V, I show how Kimpraswil and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) each designed specific actions to legitimize their positions on the WATSAL IMT programme. The parliamentary network and networking at each stage of the Water Act promulgation process are then discussed: Section VI covers the emergence of a Kimpraswil–PDI-P (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia–Perjuangan) coalition that wanted to retain power over the IMT process; Section VII covers the emergence of a counter-alliance that sought to give the farmers and Water Users Associations (WUAs) more control; and Section VIII discusses the reoccurrence of bureaucratic conflicts between the National Development Planning Agency (NDPA) and Kimpraswil. Section IX discusses actions various actors took after the draft Water Act was returned to parliament, and Section X rounds out the chapter with an analysis of the Kimpraswil–World Bank relationship.

SECTION I: CONFLICTING POLICY FRAMES IN INDONESIAN IMT

IMT policy renewal under WATSAL symbolized the attempt of the new Indonesian government (or some segments of it) to reform irrigation sector development as part of the country's 1998 political reform. In the early 2000s, however, the national government's position towards political reform was divided between those who wanted the reform to continue and those who did not. In the irrigation sector, these political differences became the battleground of various ministries fighting for decision-making power and control of the budget.