Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

104
Decentralization’s Effects on Forest Concessions and Timber Production
licenses for periods of up to 55 years for concession areas where timber extraction
will occur in natural forests, and up to 100 years for areas where timber will be
harvested from plantations. During the licensing process, Governors and Bupatis
from the regions in which the concession is to be allocated are allowed to provide
recommendations for the Minister’s consideration. There is no indication that the
Minister is required to abide by these recommendations, however, clearly marking
a significant reduction in the respective authority of Governors and Bupatis in the
allocation of IUPHHK licenses.
With the introduction of Regulation 34/2002, the MoF also took steps to
sharply reduce the authority of district governments to issue small-scale logging
permits. Under Ministerial Decree 05.1/2000 issued in November 2000, Bupatis had
been given the authority to issue IPHHK timber exploitation permits for areas up
to 100 ha located within sites classified as Production Forest, Limited Production
Forest, or Conversion Forest. Moreover, Bupatis were allowed to assign up to five
such permits (for a maximum of 500 ha) to any single license-holder within a single
district. In Regulation 34/2002, the terms of the IPHHK permit were modified quite
substantially: no area limit is specified; but the license only allows for a maximum
harvest of 20 m 3 , and it expires after one year. Similarly, the IPHHBK permit for the
collection of non-timber forest products was limited to a maximal volume of 20 tons
and one year duration.
The MoF outlined the guidelines and procedures for issuing Forest Product
Extraction Permits (Ijin Pemungutan Hasil Hutan, IPHH) in Production Forests in
Ministerial Decree 6886/2002, issued on July 12, 2002. Significantly, this decree also
revoked Minsterial Decree 310/1999 which had earlier given Bupatis the authority to
issue 100-ha HPHH logging permits. Collectively, these changes removed much of
the legal basis for district governments to issue timber extraction or forest conversion
permits of practically any size.
Many district leaders openly disagreed with the Ministry’s efforts to recentralize
authority over timber extraction, and some initially refused to revise their districts’
regulations (Yasmi et al. 2006; Sudirman and Herlina 2004). In some cases, Bupatis
continued to issue IUPHHK timber concessions and/or HPHH permits for several
months after Regulation 34/2002 was introduced (Anshari et al. 2004). In other cases,
districts stopped issuing new timber permits, but continued to renew and/or extend
existing permits that had been issued prior to Regulation 34/2002. By mid-2003,
however, the distribution by district governments of large, medium, and small-scale
logging licenses within the Forest Estate had largely come to a halt. It is possible,
of course, that in some regions district government support for timber extraction has
continued, albeit informally.
It is not entirely clear why most district governments have chosen to adhere
to the regulatory changes introduced by the MoF since 2002, in spite of their oftenvocal
opposition to these. It is likely that several factors have influenced this trend.
One important factor has been the fact that the MoF has made eradication of illegal
logging one of its top policy priorities in recent years. Within this context, the
Ministry has shown a willingness to prosecute district officials who are found to be
issuing illicit timber permits or otherwise participating in activities associated with