Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, Christopher Barr, Ahmad Dermawan, and John McCarthy 77 Bawasda) to carry out investigations into ‘problem’ districts. 26 As a result, by mid- 2004 at least a portion of the outstanding payments had reportedly started to flow into the central government’s accounts. For district governments that have sought to follow the national guidelines and provincial directives framing the distribution of DAK-DR, significant administrative challenges remain. For example, Regulation 35/2002 stipulates that districts can only use DAK-DR to finance forest and land rehabilitation projects; it explicitly prohibits district governments from using DAK-DR to finance ‘supporting activities’ for those projects. This means that financing ‘supporting activities’ for forest and land rehabilitation projects must be provided from non-DAK-DR sources in the district budget. The most important of these ‘supporting activities’ include 1) socialization (sosialisasi) of the project (that is, dissemination of information about a project’s objectives, structure and administrative processes to participating communities); 2) the provision of extension or technical guidance to local communities, and 3) monitoring of project activities and outcomes. District forestry officials have identified the lack of funding for such activities as being a significant obstacle to the successful implementation of DAK-DR funded forest and land rehabilitation activities. In two districts in Kalimantan, for instance, the amount of the supporting funds allocated by two districts where case study research was conducted is small compared to the amount of funds allocated for the core rehabilitation activities funded by DAK-DR. 27 The amounts provided by one district to finance the related supporting activities were only 3.6%, 6.0% and 1.6% of the amount available for the rehabilitation activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. The other district dug into its budget to provide only 2.0% and 3.4% of the total amount allocated for the core activities for 2003 and 2004, respectively. At the same time, these two districts used DAK-DR to finance forest and land rehabilitation projects that place heavy emphasis on the involvement and active participation of local communities. It would seem that the involvement of these communities would make the dissemination of information, the provision of technical guidance, and monitoring of project activities critical to the success of such projects. Indeed, participating villages are widely dispersed across the districts and many are located in remote areas where transportation infrastructure is still quite basic. As such, dissemination of project information and technical guidance is quite costly, as are monitoring activities related to the forest and land rehabilitation projects. For many district governments, the substantial value of the DAK-DR transferred from the central government poses a challenge in itself. This has been particularly true in the two case study districts noted above, where district officials have reported finding it challenging to administer – and to spend – the funds in accordance with the central government guidelines. In particular, district governments with limited personnel have often found it difficult to channel billions of rupiah through community-run forest and land rehabilitation activities. For example, one district in Kalimantan could only spend a fraction of the entire amount of DAK-DR allocation for 2002 (implemented in 2003). By early 2004, the district had accumulated Rp. 55 billion of unspent funds in its DAK-DR account (Resosudarmo 2004b). 28
78 Fiscal Balancing and the Redistribution of Forest Revenues The process of actually implementing the forest and land rehabilitation activities funded by the DAK-DR has also been challenging for many district governments. In some districts, this is due to the program’s heavy emphasis on community involvement and on generating tangible benefits for participating communities. At times, the objective of rehabilitating critical lands appears to be only a secondary consideration, as some districts have prioritized planting and rehabilitation activities in areas with a high potential for project ‘success’. This frequently means that rehabilitation activities are carried out in the most accessible areas and on lands that have relatively clear ownership status and are not associated with tenure conflicts, rather than those areas that are the most degraded. In the two case study districts in Kalimantan, for instance, much of these rehabilitation activities are carried out on community-owned lands, such as community gardens. Only a very small portion of the area planted is within the government-controlled Forest Estate. Although the uses of DAK-DR are restricted to forest and land rehabilitation purposes, the funds are generally included in the district budget once they are (re)distributed to the districts. In spite of the restrictions elaborated in Regulation 35/2002, district governments are able to exercise significant control over how the DAK-DR are used. The Bupati has ultimate responsibility to ensure the overall success of the forest and land rehabilitation projects and that the funds are used for the intended purposes. The formal control mechanism is the Bupati’s annual accountability report to the district legislature, the DPRD. This report covers a wide range of issues related to the performance of the executive branch of the district government, and is not only specifically related to DAK-DR. The provincial government, through the Provincial Forestry Service, the Watershed Management Agency (Badan Pengelola Daerah Aliran Sungai, BPDAS), the Provincial Monitoring Agency (Badan Pengawas Propinsi, Bawasprop) and the Provincial Agency for Monitoring Finance and Development (Badan Pengawas Keuangan dan Pembangunan Propinsi), has monitoring and supervisory responsibilities to ensure that the DAK-DR are properly used by the district governments. At least in some districts, it would appear that the DPRD has not rigorously assessed the performance of the Bupati in overseeing implementation of DAK-DR funded forest and land rehabilitation projects over the past three years. For instance, the 2004 accountability report of one Bupati in Kalimantan (i.e. for governing year 2003) reported that the success rate of DAK-DR funded rehabilitation projects in his district was above “the general standard of 55%” (Resosudarmo 2004b). It is not clear, however, what criteria were used to arrive at this figure or what it means in terms of practical outcomes on the ground. Unfortunately, this portion of the Bupati’s accountability report largely went unquestioned by members of the DPRD. Anecdotal reports have circulated about local governments using DAK-DR for purposes other than forest and land rehabilitation. 29 In some cases, these reports have included allegations of district officials over-reporting the areas planted or rehabilitated with DAK-DR in order to embezzle portions of the funds that had been allocated for these activities (Kaltim Post, October 29, 2003). By mid-2004, both of the project leaders responsible for the implementation of the 2001 DAK-DR funded forest and land rehabilitation projects in two case study districts of Kalimantan
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: 26 Forest Administration and Forest
Page 47 and 48: 32 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 91: 76 Fiscal Balancing and the Redistr
Page 103 and 104: 88 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 143 and 144:
128 Decentralization and Recentrali
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
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?