The Community Interest Study

The Community Interest Study

In terms of current forest management, it must be directed at the greatest possible prosperity of the communities in accordance with the spirit of Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, where the State controls natural resources including forests which are utilized for the prosperity of the communities. For forest management it must involve all stakeholders, namely the government, society and the private sector or the business world, these components interact with each other and carry out their respective functions in mutual cooperation. The government creates a conducive and transparent political and legal environment as well as policies, the private sector creates jobs and income while the community plays a positive role in social, economic interactions and politics, especially in supporting forestry development programs.

In terminology, community participation can be defined as a way of interacting between two groups that have not been included in the decision-making process, which is dominated by the government. A more specific meaning is that participation is actually a moral incentive that empowers groups that have the potential to spearhead forest protection to take part in negotiating forest management policies. In other words, the moral incentives serve as their participation to influence the higher macro spheres related to decision making that greatly shape their well-being. Regarding community participation in eradicating illegal logging or illegal logging, it is regulated in several laws and regulations, including: 1. Constitution no. 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, Article CHAPTER VI Community Participation is explained as many as 6 Articles (58 – 63) on how the involvement and participation of the community in eradicating illegal logging 2. The SVLK regulation which was first enacted through Minister of Forestry Regulations No 38/2009 which then underwent several refinements with the issuance of Minister of Forestry Regulations No 68/2011, Minister of Forestry Regulations No 45/2012, Minister of Forestry Regulations

No 42/2013, Minister of Forestry Regulations No 43/2014, Ministerial regulation of Environmental and Forestry (LHK) No 95/2014, 30/2016 and finally the issuance of PP. 23 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of Forestry, the SVLK Regulation is refined again through Ministerial regulation of Environmental and Forestry (LHK) No 8/2021 concerning Forest Management and the Preparation of Forest Management Plans, as well as Forest Utilization in Protection Forests and Production Forests.

The process of community involvement both in the management and prevention of forest destruction and illegal logging basically has very clear rules but in its implementation not all community reports can be accepted and followed up by the authorized law enforcement officers and illegal logging is still rampant in various regions.

In its development, the Independent Monitor as part of the SVLK is expected to be able to support the credibility of forestry business governance by monitoring forestry violations and the implementation of the SVLK has not been able to fully carry out its functions. This is due to many things, including the openness of the Forest Product Administration Information System (SIPUHH) system, which until now access to the openness of Forest RKU/RKT data and wood supply chain data has not been accessed by PI even though independent monitors have followed the applicable data and information request procedures. Another weakness found by observers from elements of the community as well as observers who have joined the monitoring network institutions, often experience problems limited knowledge, understanding of forest governance, reporting flows and processes coupled with limited funding. Often in monitoring activities, the distance is quite far so that the costs for transportation and accommodation are not small. There is one obstacle in monitoring activities.

Some of these obstacles lead to the problem of the knowledge system which is the basis for making SVLK policies that use a scientific forestry approach and formal legality, as well as not considering the existing knowledge of local/indigenous communities as important to be involved. Another estuary is that this system does not view

local/indigenous communities as having a high interest in the forest on the one hand, and has a direct and significant impact on forest and environmental damage on the other. From a series of changes in the SVLK policy since it was first published in 2009 until now, the knowledge base and interests of local/indigenous communities have unfortunately not been optimally accommodated. So, the obstacles mentioned above can still be found today. The following is the result of our analysis of the interest base of the SVLK actors: 1. The government as a regulator and representative of the state has an interest in providing institutions, organizations, and policies for better forest governance; 2. The certification body has an interest in obtaining certification clients from the forest or timber concession industry, wood processing and exporting industries from Indonesia; 3. Sellers and buyers of legally certified timber have business interests, and environmentalists have interests in nature conservation. 4. Environmentalists are usually in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that carry out independent monitoring.

Indigenous people/local communities have an interest in the sustainability of living spaces in the form of forests and a clean and healthy environment. Therefore, based on the experience of SVLK monitoring in five provinces conducted by local/indigenous communities, we formulate a future SVLK monitoring transformation scheme in the following table:

Table 3. The Transformation of SVLK Monitoring

Problem Level Currently Future

Superstructure • The SVLK actor’s interest base currently used does not guarantee the massification of the monitoring movement and its continuity. • The basis of the interests of saving the living space of local/indigenous communities (economic, social, ecological) which ensures the massification of the monitoring movement and its continuity • he knowledge base used in the

SVLK system and implementation is still dominated by scientific and technocratic forestry, and ignoring public knowledge • Require the community’s

Knowledge Base to be accommodated in the SVLK system & implementation.

Struktur • SVLK regulations formulated in a technocratic and procedural manner • Complexity of monitoring procedures and complaints that are not accessible to community monitors • Partial and limited monitoring of one step back wood mutation traceability

Infrastruktur • The number of monitors and law enforcers is not proportional to the number of business units being monitored • Limited resources (funds, facilities) • SVLK regulations and monitoring procedures are simple and accommodate the interests and knowledge of the community. • Upstreamdownstream monitoring through networking with and between indigenous/ indigenous communities in other places. • Indigenous communities as many as the monitored business units • Proximity and affordability of monitoring locations which results in low funding and facility requirements.