Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

Christopher Barr 29
lowland forest loss in once heavily-forested parts of Indonesia. Within this context, the
nation’s wood processing industries are facing growing short-falls of raw materials,
and it has become clear that a process of industrial restructuring and downsizing
– whether carried out in a planned or unplanned manner – is inevitable.
From a chronological perspective, it is salient to note that Indonesia’s forestry
crisis was well underway during the mid-1990s, while Soeharto was still in power.
Indeed, many aspects of the crisis have been a direct outcome of the New Order
regime’s policies of large-scale timber extraction and industrial development,
with relatively little commitment to sustainable forest management. Widespread
corruption and ineffective law enforcement have also contributed significantly to the
problems in the forestry sector. While it may be true that forest degradation and loss
have accelerated in some parts of Indonesia since the onset of decentralization, there
can be little basis for claiming – as some Jakarta-based stakeholders have done --
that the nation’s forestry crisis is principally a result of regional autonomy. Rather,
as they following chapters will demonstrate, Indonesia’s regional autonomy and
decentralization processes have added new dimensions to the pre-existing forestry
crisis, as well as new opportunities for managing the country’s forests more equitably
and sustainably.
Endnotes
1
Much of this chapter is extracted from Barr (1999) and Barr (2001). Readers are encouraged
to consult these sources for additional details on the processes described here.
2
The term ‘Outer Islands’ is used to refer to all islands in the Indonesian archipelago other
than the densely populated islands of Java, Bali, and Madura.
3
For instance, in 1934, the colonial government banned the use of opkoop (or ‘buy-up’)
logging schemes in Southeast Borneo (an area that now includes the provinces of East and
South Kalimantan). At that time, the Dutch administration prohibited logging companies from
operating under arrangements made with the local sultan, and instead required all logging
enterprises to obtain official concession licenses. This effectively curtailed the role of the
local sultanates in timber production and shifted authority to the Dutch forest administration,
which then issued concessions covering over 750,000 ha (Obidzinski 2005).
4
Government Regulation 64/1957 on the Granting of Some of Central Government’s Authority
over Matters Concerning Coastal Fisheries, Forestry, and Community Rubber Sectors to
First-level Regional Governments (Peraturan Pemerintah No. 64/1957 tentang Penyerahan
Sebagian dari Urusan Pemerintah Pusat Dilapangan Perikanan Laut, Kehutanan dan Karet
Rakyat kepada Daerah-daerah Swatantra Tingkat I), issued December 18, 1957.
5
At the national level, Indonesia’s forest resources were administered by the Directorate
General of Forestry in the Ministry of Agriculture until 1964, when the Forestry Department
was given Ministerial status. In 1967, following the emergence of the New Order regime, the
Forestry Department was again downgraded to Directorate in the Ministry of Agriculture.
It retained this status until Presidential Decree 45/1983 placed the forestry bureaucracy
under its own Ministry, which was assigned cabinet-level status in the Fourth Development
Cabinet.
6
As noted in Chapter 1, the term ‘deconcentration’, also known as administrative
decentralization, refers to the transfer of administrative responsibilities from a central
government to lower level agencies which are upwardly accountable.
7
Decree of People’s Consultative Assembly No. II/MPRS/1960 on Guidelines of State