Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

12
Forests and Decentralization in Indonesia: an Overview
logging and forest conversion permits, something they had not been able to do since
the early years of the New Order regime. These permits were often issued in areas
that directly overlapped with timber concessions that had earlier been allocated by
the central government, or within the boundaries of national parks and protected
areas. District governments – and, to a lesser extent, provincial governments – also
adopted regulations requiring timber companies and wood processing industries to
pay a variety of new taxes and fees, in addition to those required by the national
government. Many districts and provinces also entered into a very public and often
acrimonious dialogue with national policymakers over how the country’s Reforestation
Fund and other forestry-related fees should be shared among the different levels of
government.
In part, these efforts were driven by the fact that Indonesia’s new laws on
regional governance and fiscal balancing created expectations (perhaps overstated)
that district governments would need to generate a larger share of their own revenues
in order to replace fiscal allocations that had previously come from the center. More
significantly, perhaps, many district governments were motivated by a desire to
establish district revenue flows that are independent of Jakarta (World Bank 2003).
This desire was particularly strong in relation to timber and other natural resources. As
the fervor of regional autonomy spread, district officials expressed indignation over
the fact that most of the benefits from Indonesia’s forests had been appropriated by
national stakeholders during the Soeharto era; and they argued that their own efforts
to redirect those benefits to district stakeholders was simply a long-overdue effort to
rectify this historical injustice. On a more personal level, many district officials also
clearly seized the opportunity to secure substantial informal profits from forestry and
plantation companies – an opportunity that was largely denied to them during the
New Order period.
The assertion of administrative control over forests by district governments
has been accompanied by a sharp resurgence of tenure claims by people living in
and around forested areas. Such claims have been made by a wide variety of actors,
ranging from single households and farmer cooperatives to whole villages and, in
some cases, individuals or organizations claiming to represent entire ethnic groups.
The types of claims, and the basis on which they have been articulated, has been
equally varied. In most cases, however, they have involved some reference to adat,
or customary law. Since 1999, many claims of this sort have been made by local
actors, with varying degrees of legitimacy, in order to secure logging and/or forest
conversion permits issued by district governments. Indeed, district regulations have
frequently required timber companies to collaborate with local communities (or, at
the very least, with actors claiming to represent those communities) in order to obtain
such permits. In many parts of the country, forest communities have also asserted
tenure claims by taking direct action against timber or plantation companies operating
in their areas. Most often they have done so by blocking logging roads and seizing
heavy equipment, although at times such actions have led to violent conflicts.
Through their involvement in small-scale logging and forest conversion
activities carried out under district permits, many local communities have obtained
substantial benefits from forests that were never available to them during the Soeharto