Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Barr, C. et al. 91 more able to take the initiative; ‘to prepare for regional autonomy’, the PKT has continued to administer the HPHHs issued before the suspension of the initiative by the Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops. After formation of Dinas Kehutanan (District Forest Service) in Kapuas in 2001, the new dinas took over this role. In April 2000, reacting to the wide proliferation of small-scale district logging licenses, the Minister of Forestry announced that he was thereby ‘postponing’ (menangguhkan) Ministerial Decree 310/1999. On May 22, 2000, Minister Nur Mahmudi Ismail also sent a letter to all of Indonesia’s Governors and Bupatis calling for a complete halt on conversion of areas within the Forest Estate. 3 Specifically, he called on the Governors and Bupatis to stop allocating forest conversion permits and to push companies that had obtained conversion permits for areas already released from the Forest Estate to replant those areas immediately. In this letter, the Minister noted that the Government of Indonesia had made a commitment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to stop forest conversion, implying that the country’s financial recovery could be jeopardized by the allocation of new IPPK permits (Barr et al. 2001). The strong stance taken by the national government led many districts to suspend the allocation of HPHH and IPPK permits, and other types of small-scale logging permits, for several months during mid-2000 (Soetarto et al. 2003; Barr et al. 2001; Casson 2001a; McCarthy 2001a, 2001b). In most cases, however, these suspensions proved to be only temporary, as the Bupatis apparently recognized that the national government had little capacity at that time to block the allocation of new permits by district governments. Some Bupatis opposed MoF’s efforts outright, arguing that Law 22/1999 on Regional Governance authorized district governments to exercise primary administrative control over the natural resources in their jurisdictions. They claimed, moreover, that as a national law that applied broadly across sectors, Law 22/1999 could not be revoked by ministerial decrees, nor should it be constrained by sectoral laws, such as Law 41/1999 on Forestry. Many district governments also strategically adapted their own regulations and policies in order to circumvent the Ministry’s efforts to limit their authority to allocate logging and forest conversion permits. In Berau district of East Kalimantan, for instance, the kabupaten government created a new type of district logging permit, known as License to Extract Timber from Private Land (Izin Pemungutan Kayu Tanah Milik, IPKTM) (Obidzinski and Barr 2003). In most practical aspects, IPKTM were similar in function to the IPPK permits. However, IPKTM permits authorized timber extraction from privatelyowned lands located explicitly outside the official boundaries of the Forest Estate. With this shift, the district government began taking steps in late-2000 to assist local communities in securing title to forested areas through the National Land Agency (Badan Pertanahan Nasional, BPN) or as participants in the national government’s transmigration program. Once titles were issued, these areas were considered to be private property (tanah milik), and the district government was able to circumvent the Provincial Forestry Service in issuing HPHH and IPPK permits for the extraction of
92 Decentralization’s Effects on Forest Concessions and Timber Production timber. In addition, many IPKTM permits were issued to groups able to negotiate the release of forested areas from HPH concession-holders, ostensibly for community use (Obidzinski and Barr 2003). In such cases, the IPKTM application was often supported not by legal title to privately-owned land but, instead, by a letter of release (surat pelepasan) from the HPH-holder. By late-2000, district governments were once again allocating large numbers of small-scale timber and forest conversion permits. This led the MoF to redouble its efforts to ensure that such permits were not being allocated in areas that had already been distributed to HPH concession-holders or other license-holders by the central government. In October of that year, the Ministry’s Secretary General made national headlines by threatening to sue the Bupati of several districts in East Kalimantan and other timber-producing regions for violating national law in issuing HPHH and IPPK permits for areas that fell within the Forest Estate (Jakarta Post, October 4, 2000). However, his threats never went beyond the level of rhetoric. In November 2000, MoF sought to clarify the distribution of legal authority among the central, provincial, and district governments with respect to issuing commercial forestry permits – and arguably, to reassert the Ministry’s own authority within the political context of regional autonomy – when it issued Ministerial Decree 05.1/Kpts-II/2000. 4 This decree detailed the criteria and standards to be used by governments at each level when issuing the following new types of licenses and permits for the harvest of timber and non-timber forest products, as specified in Law 41/1999 on Forestry: • Commercial Timber Utilization Permit (Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu, IUPHHK); • Commercial Non-Timber Forest Product Utilization Permit (Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Bukan Kayu, IUPHHBK); • Timber Extraction Permit (Izin Pemungutan Hasil Hutan Kayu, IPHHK); • Non-Timber Forest Product Extraction Permit (Izin Pemungutan Hasil Hutan Bukan Kayu, IPHHBK). In some significant respects, Decree 05.1/Kpts-II/2000 acknowledged and reaffirmed the expanded authority of district and provincial governments following Indonesia’s regional autonomy process. In detailing the procedures for allocating IUPHHK licenses – which effectively replaced the HPH as the principal license for large-scale timber concessions – the decree authorized district governments to issue licenses for areas up to 50,000 ha that are located within a single district. Provincial governments were authorized to issue licenses for areas that extend beyond a single district; and MoF was authorized to issue licenses for areas that extend beyond a single province. The decree also authorized district governments to issue IPHHK permits for small-scale timber production in areas of up to 100 ha, located within sites classified as Production Forest, Limited Production Forest, or Conversion Forest. At the same time, Decree 05.1/Kpts-II/2000 stated that Governors, Bupatis, and Mayors are expressly prohibited from issuing any of these permits in areas that have already been allocated to HPH timber concession-holders. Moreover, the decree stipulated that HPH concessions that had already been issued and/or recommended for in-principle approval by December 31, 2000 would remain in force until their
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:
Page 55 and 56: 40 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 and 104: 88 Decentralization’s Effects on
Page 105: 90 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?