Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

132
Decentralization and Recentralization in Indonesia’s Forestry Sector
harvested. In many cases, the limited cash incomes generated by small-scale logging
operations have not significantly improved the lives of the poor who, due to their lack of
capital, access to machinery, or knowledge of the law, have generally remained in a weak
position when negotiating benefits with brokers and timber companies.
Overall, it would appear that decentralization temporarily resulted in increased
incomes for rural communities living in and around forests in timber-rich regions.
However, the benefits distributed among local peoples were often quite limited compared
to the total value of the wood harvested, inequitably distributed among community
members, and short-term in nature, as they were often based on clearing of natural forests.
To a significant degree, these increased incomes have declined sharply or disappeared
altogether since the Ministry of Forestry issued Regulation 34/2002, which revoked the
authority of districts to issue small-scale timber and forest conversion permits.
7.7 Recommendations for Policymakers
There is currently an urgent need to strengthen the administrative and legal-regulatory
framework for the administration of forests in Indonesia. The experience from the
last several years suggests that neither a highly decentralized nor a highly centralized
administrative structure is likely to provide the most optimal outcomes in terms of
forest sustainability, economic development, and local livelihood security. Instead, it
has become increasingly clear that government agencies at the central, provincial, and
district levels will need to find ways to work together effectively in pursuit of shared
goals and objectives.
Within this context, it will be important for national stakeholders to recognize that
the decentralization of some aspects of forest administration does not necessarily mean
a weakening of the center. Decentralization requires a strong central government that is
capable of setting up and running governance structures for supervising, monitoring and
negotiating and, where necessary, ensuring compliance with broad policy guidelines. A
change in culture and orientation in central government operations is required to shift to
working in this new fashion. At the same time, for effective decentralization, provincial
and district governments need to have clear rights and responsibilities, strong systems of
governance, and to be guided by processes that ensure accountability and representation
downwards to local constituencies. This also requires a new way of working.
By the same token, it is essential for regionally-based stakeholders to recognize
that there are many important and legitimate functions for the central government to
play. These include, for instance, the provision of policy and legal-regulatory guidelines,
technical assistance and capacity building, forest protection and rehabilitation, as well as
key aspects of forest monitoring, supervision, and law enforcement.
For stakeholders at all levels, to avoid the prospect of this “tragedy of the
commons”, it will be critical to move beyond the ongoing struggle over the economic
rents associated with timber production. For many years now, it has been apparent
that Indonesia’s commercial resource base is rapidly diminishing, and that the nation’s
forests will not be able to support the level of intensive logging that they have in the
past. Looking ahead, government officials at all levels need to be planning actively for
how best to manage Indonesia’s remaining forest landscapes, many of which are highly