Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Barr, C. et al. 89 issuance of Regulation 6/1999 in January 1999, the central government authorized district governments to allocate Forest Product Extraction Permits (Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan, HPHH) in areas classified as Forest Estate. The implementing regulations related to HPHHs were detailed in a series of decrees from the Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops in May 1999, the most significant of which included Ministerial Decree 310/1999 and Ministerial Decree 317/1999. Ministerial Decree 310/1999 stipulated that district governments could issue HPHHs for areas up to 100 ha for the extraction of timber within sites classified as Conversion Forest or in Production Forest areas “that are going to be converted or reclassified.” 1 Decree 310/1999, moreover, stated that HPHHs for the extraction of timber could not be issued for areas that were already encumbered with a HPH timber concession license or an IPK wood utilization permit. However, a subsequent decree, Ministerial Decree 317/1999, outlined a process through which adat communities could obtain HPHHs to extract both timber and non-timber forest products from Production Forest areas that have already been assigned to HPH concessionaires. 2 Together with Indonesia’s regional autonomy law, these decrees provided the legal framework for district governments to issue legislation allowing Bupatis to allocate small-scale logging and forest conversion permits. In most cases, these permits shared several essential characteristics: they were usually applied to relatively small areas (often 100-1,000 ha); were short in duration (typically 1-2 years); and frequently required the involvement of community groups or cooperatives. The names and specific terms attached to these permits varied, however, from one region to another. They included, for instance, the following: Forest Product Collection Licenses (HPHH) in West and Central Kalimantan; Timber Extraction and Utilization Permits (IPPK) in East Kalimantan; Community Timber Extraction Permits (Ijin Pemungutan Kayu Rakyat, IPKR) in Jambi; and Customary Community Forest Product Extraction Licenses (Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan Masyarakat Adat, HPHHMA) and Customary Community Timber Extraction Permits (Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu Masyarakat Adat, IPKMA) in Papua. A series of district-level case studies conducted by CIFOR and partners during the early phase of decentralization highlighted the widespread proliferation of smallscale logging and forest conversion permits that occurred during 1999-2000. In East Kalimantan, for instance, Berau’s district government issued 33 IPPK permits covering 11,396 ha between March 1999 and January 2000 (Obidzinski and Barr 2003). Bulungan district began issuing small-scale forest conversion permits in August 1999, and by the end of 2000, the district had allocated 585 IPPK permits covering 58,444 ha (Samsu et al. 2005). Between April 2000 and February 2001, Malinau’s district government issued 39 IPPK permits covering 56,000 ha (Barr et al. 2001). In Central Kalimantan, some 60 HPHH permits were issued in Kapuas district between September 1999 and July 2000 (McCarthy 2001b); and 223 permits were issued in Kutai Barat district by August 2000 (Casson 2001a). In West Kalimantan’s Sintang district, 102 HPHH 100-ha permits were issued by the end of 2000 (Yasmi et al. 2005).
90 Decentralization’s Effects on Forest Concessions and Timber Production Recognizing the potential threat that the district-level timber permits posed to its members’ operations, the Association of Indonesian Forest Concession Holders (Asosiasi Pengusaha Hutan Indonesia, APHI) lobbied intensively at both the national and provincial levels to halt the widespread allocation of small-scale logging permits issued by district governments (Barr et al. 2001). By September 1999, APHI had succeeded in persuading the Director General of Production Forestry to send letters to governors in each of the country’s major timber-producing provinces, requesting their assistance in suspending the issuance of further small-scale timber extraction and forest conversion permits by district governments. The Director General explained that the implementing regulations for the central government’s transfer of forest administration responsibilities to the regions (daerah) had not yet been finalized, and therefore, it was imperative to “avoid the possibility of overlapping timber extraction permits that could confuse the populace (membingungkan masyarakat).” While some governors appear to have shared the Director General’s concerns, provincial governments had very limited power during the early months of Indonesia’s regional autonomy process to stop the allocation of HPHH and IPPK permits (and other forms of small-scale logging licenses) by district governments. In East Kalimantan, for instance, several Bupatis stated publicly that they no longer had to answer to the governor, as Law 22/1999 on regional governance had dissolved the subordinate status of district governments in relation to the provincial government. However, one channel through which governors were still able to exert some degree of influence over district governments during this time, albeit temporarily, was through the branch offices of the Provincial Forestry Service (Cabang Dinas Kehutanan, CDK). In many districts, the allocation of HPHH and IPPK permits required approval not only from the Bupati but also from the head of the CDK (at least until the CDK were abolished in 2001). As these branch offices of the Provincial Forest Service had theretofore reported to the provincial government, the heads of CDK through much of 2000 were often still reluctant to actively oppose directives from the governor, and some refused to approve HPHH and IPPK proposals (Barr et al. 2001). Within this context, some Bupatis took steps to create alternate channels for issuing district timber permits, at least until they were able to establish a District Forestry Service (Dinas Kehutanan Kabupaten) under the direct administrative authority of the kabupaten government. In mid-2000, for example, the government of Kapuas district in Central Kalimantan transferred technical authority over the issuance of HPHH permits to what had, until then, been a relatively minor district government agency, the Office for Reforestation and Land Conservation (Dinas Perhutanan dan Konservasi Tanah, PKT), which was directly responsible to the Bupati (McCarthy 2001b). McCarthy (2001b) describes this process, as it occurred in July 2000: PKT’s mandate is to further the reforestation and regeneration of ‘critical lands’ outside the state-controlled Forest Estate (Kawasan Hutan). But, in the absence of a district Dinas Kehutanan able to do the bidding of the Bupati and aid efforts to increase district incomes, PKT has now become involved in regulating the extraction of timber within the district’s Forest Estate. According to its head, PKT is able to be ‘more autonomous’ and is therefore
Page 1 and 2:
Decentralization of Forest Administ
Page 3 and 4:
National Library of Indonesia Catal
Page 5 and 6:
iv 4.5 Forest Revenue Sharing 69 4.
Page 7 and 8:
Preface Indonesia is currently ente
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements This study is base
Page 11 and 12:
Abbreviations AAC ACIAR ADEKSI APBD
Page 13 and 14:
IPHHBK IPHHK IPJL IPK IPKR IPKMA IP
Page 15 and 16:
Glossary Adat, customary or traditi
Page 17 and 18:
Forests and Decentralization in Ind
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
10 Forests and Decentralization in
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 2 Forest Administration and
Page 35 and 36:
20 Forest Administration and Forest
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
32 Origins and Scope of Indonesia
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54: 38 Origins and Scope of Indonesia
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 4 Fiscal Balancing and the
Page 75 and 76: 60 Fiscal Balancing and the Redistr
Page 103: 88 Decentralization’s Effects on
Page 107 and 108: 92 Decentralization’s Effects on
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 6 The Impacts of Decentrali
Page 125 and 126: 110 The Impacts of Decentralization
Page 137 and 138: 122 Decentralization and Recentrali
Page 149 and 150: References Agrawal, A., Ostrom, E.
Page 151 and 152: 136 References Casson, A. 2001a. De
Page 153 and 154: 138 References GFW/FWI. 2002. The S
Page 155 and 156:
140 References Manurung, E. G. T.,
Page 157 and 158:
142 References Ribot, J. C. 2002. L
Page 159 and 160:
144 References Van Zorge Report. 20
Page 161 and 162:
146 Annex 1. Timeline of events tha
Page 163 and 164:
148 Annex 1. Timeline of events tha
Page 165 and 166:
Annex 2 Indonesian Laws and Regulat
Page 167 and 168:
152 Annex 2. Indonesian Legislation
Page 169 and 170:
154 Annex 2. Indonesian Legislation
Page 171 and 172:
156 Annex 3. Distribution of Shared
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195:
Since the collapse of Soeharto’s
show all

Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?