Climate change education in Indonesia's formal education: a policy analysis

Climate change poses a global threat, underscoring the crucial role of education in fostering awareness and action. CCE, gaining traction since the 1992 Rio Summit, aims to empower communities with knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes to make informed decisions regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation. While research has explored various aspects of CCE (curriculum, pedagogy), a gap remains in understanding its integration within broader policy frameworks, especially in formal education settings. Effective CCE policy necessitates synergy between climate change and education policies. Limited studies exist on CCE policy integration in developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia. This study addresses this gap by focusing on Indonesia, a large archipelago facing significant climate change vulnerabilities and a substantial contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Indonesia's commitment to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as reflected in its revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement, makes understanding CCE's integration within its policy landscape crucial. The study investigates how CCE is perceived, integrated, and prioritized within both climate change and education policies in Indonesia and assesses the congruency and incongruency in the conceptualization of CCE within these domains.

Existing literature on CCE predominantly focuses on developed countries like the US, UK, and Canada, highlighting issues such as insufficient attention to CCE, weak enforcement mechanisms, and a lack of synergy between climate change and education policies. A systematic literature review by Aikens et al. on sustainability education policy revealed a similar trend. Studies in the UK have identified attempts to depoliticize environmental education, prioritizing economic concerns over environmental ambition. Research in Canada has shown an incongruence between climate change and education policies, with limited integration of climate change in education policy. In contrast, limited studies examine CCE policy integration in developing nations, particularly within the Southeast Asian context. One existing study on Indonesia focused solely on the integration of climate change into upper-secondary geography curricula, finding inadequate support and an overemphasis on cognitive learning. Previous research on environmental education in Indonesia also indicated limited implementation and a lack of political will.

This study employed thematic analysis on a mix of policy documents and expert interviews. Twenty climate change policy texts (1999-2022), twelve K-12 education policy texts (2003-2022), and seventeen expert interview transcripts were analyzed. The climate change policy documents included national action plans, NDCs, roadmaps, and reports to the UNFCCC, primarily sourced from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF). Education policy documents encompassed educational laws, strategic plans, curriculum regulations, and guidelines from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (MoECRT). Expert interviews were conducted with officials from national and local governments. Data analysis was performed using NVivo 14. Climate change and education policy documents were analyzed separately using inductive coding to create distinct codebooks. Thematic analysis was then used to identify patterns and assess the congruency of CCE concepts across both policy domains. The analysis workflow involved inductive coding for each dataset, leading to the development of separate codebooks and the subsequent identification of distinct sets of themes.

The analysis revealed four key themes: 1. **Marginalization of CCE:** CCE is marginalized in both policy domains. In climate change policy, the term 'education' appeared infrequently, while 'capacity building' was more prevalent, focusing primarily on technical skills for stakeholders in strategic climate sectors (energy, waste, industry, agriculture, forestry). Capacity building initiatives often excluded community members, particularly children, despite the importance of fostering climate literacy among young people. Similarly, education policy showed limited references to climate change and sustainability, with other educational priorities (diversity, civic education, religious education) taking precedence. While the Merdeka Curriculum introduced in 2022 included sustainability and climate change references, their integration remained limited and predominantly within science subjects. 2. **Lack of synergies between relevant policies and stakeholders:** Different terminologies were used for CCE in climate change ('capacity building') and education policies ('education'), highlighting a lack of coordination and understanding. The objectives, while overlapping, were pursued in a siloed manner within respective ministries with minimal inter-ministerial collaboration. This lack of coordination was also reflected in the jurisdictional ambiguity and perceived responsibility shifts between the MoEF and MoECRT, hindering the effective implementation of CCE. This issue was compounded by Indonesia's complex bureaucracy and silo mentality, often leading to slow decision-making processes. 3. **Predominant economic values:** Economic values dominated both climate change and education policies. Climate change policy emphasized economic development alongside mitigation and adaptation, highlighting the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle. Capacity-building initiatives focused on creating a skilled workforce for emerging climate-related industries, prioritizing economic opportunities over broader environmental goals. Education policy also prioritized economic growth and human resource development, aiming to produce a skilled workforce to drive economic expansion. This emphasis on economic growth sometimes overshadowed environmental concerns and the urgency of climate change, potentially rendering CCE initiatives as 'placebo policies'. 4. **Optimistic future outlook:** Despite the challenges, a positive outlook for CCE exists due to several factors. The Merdeka Curriculum offers flexibility to integrate CCE. The Pancasila Student Profile Strengthening Project (P5) can accommodate CCE through project-based learning and themes based on the SDGs. The Minister of Education's growing concern for climate change and plans to develop a dedicated CCE curriculum for formal education, along with pilot programs, are promising developments. The Adiwiyata green schools award program also incentivizes schools to implement environmentally friendly practices and raise climate awareness.

The findings reveal a complex interplay of factors influencing CCE in Indonesia, mirroring trends observed in developed countries. The marginalization of CCE and lack of synergy between policy domains highlight the need for a more integrated approach. The emphasis on economic values requires a balanced approach to ensure environmental sustainability. However, the initiatives under the Merdeka Curriculum offer an opportunity to effectively mainstream CCE into formal education. The study underscores the importance of addressing jurisdictional ambiguities and bureaucratic challenges to facilitate effective collaboration between relevant ministries and agencies. The optimistic outlook for CCE's future integration requires sustained effort and effective policy coordination.

This study demonstrates that while CCE is marginalized in Indonesia's climate change and education policies, an optimistic path toward improved integration is emerging with the Merdeka Curriculum. The findings emphasize the need for stronger inter-ministerial coordination, a shift from predominantly economic values to a more balanced approach prioritizing environmental sustainability, and a dedicated focus on incorporating CCE into formal education across all grade levels. Future research could focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the new CCE initiatives under the Merdeka Curriculum and investigating the role of local contexts and community participation in enhancing CCE implementation.

The study's findings are based on a specific set of policy documents and expert interviews, limiting the generalizability of the results. The reliance on self-reported data from policy documents and interviews may have introduced biases. Further research with a larger, more diverse sample of stakeholders, including teachers and students, would strengthen the findings. The study primarily focused on policy analysis; future research should examine CCE implementation at the school level.