Local policy-making mechanisms - Forest Climate Center

Sudirman, Dede Wiliam and Nely HerlinaLocal communities living closest to theseconcessions have not seen a share of benefitsfrom logging under these permits. The VillageHead of Lubuk Bernai in Merlung Subdistrictcomplained about how difficult and confusingit is to obtain an IPHHKR permit.Local people are turned into merespectators; it is outsiders (mostly affluentpeople or officials from the district capital oreven from other cities) who exploit the richesof their forests. The IPHH policy has facilitatedthe exploitation of the remaining local naturalforest outside the production forest area inTanjabbar, but the largest benefits are enjoyedby certain powerful and educated players.The right to issue small-scale concessionswas devolved to local governments with theexplicit intention of giving local communitiesa share of the benefits from logging in theirareas. This has not happened in the fourvillages we studied in Tanjabbar. One reasonfor this elite capture of the benefits is that thepermit allocation system is centralized at thedistrict level. Village authorities (village heador Village Representative Body, BPD) are notinvolved in any decision-making processes,either in formulating district policies orreviewing permit applications. The villageauthorities are left out of the loop and thereforehave no power. They are not involved inmonitoring applications, and have no role inmonitoring operations. For example, the headsof two villages (Lubuk Kambing and LubukBernai) indicated that some permit holdersoperate beyond the designated area, but theyare powerless to do anything about it.4.2.3 Public participation in districtpolicy makingPublic participation in policy making was highon the decentralization agenda, enshrined inseveral national laws and regulations 52 . Intheory this means that the law should guaranteepublic participation. Positive results shouldinclude:1. Local regulations are strongly basedon local people’s interests and needs.The regulations will be more suited toconditions on the ground, and more likelyto meet local needs and expectations.2. Local people are encouraged to be morelaw-abiding and socially responsible.Local stakeholders are more likely tocomply with regulations if they haveactively participated in creating them.3. Local governments are empowered todemocratize the policy-making process,and become more accountable to theirconstituents. Open consultation withstakeholders, such as universities, NGOs,the general public and local communities,allows ‘checks and balances’ to come intoplay.Our research with local stakeholdersindicated that public participation in Tanjabbarcould be improved in the following ways:1. A regulation should be developed thatwill standardize and legalize mechanismsfor public participation. It can be used toguide local government in making localregulations and will also strengthen publictrust and compliance.2. Sufficient human and financial resourcesshould be provided. It is also importantthat the regional government supportsthe ‘public participation fund’ (DanaPartisipasi Masyarakat, DPM) from theregional budget, based the district’s existingplan for formulating local regulations.Public participation could be achievedthrough:1. Policy research and formal academicrecommendations (naskah akademik);2. Open discussions such as seminars andworkshops;3. Policy memos or policy briefs – developedwith local stakeholders and widelydistributed;4. Publication of local policies in print andelectronic media;5. Public hearings in local parliament; and6. Distribution of draft regulations to variousstakeholders, asking for and using feedbackto formulate final regulations.27