POLICY BRIEF PERHUTANAN SOSIAL_EN

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS Policy Brief

SUMMARY In support of the Government's efforts to achieve the target of allocating 12.7 million ha of forest lands into Social Forestry scheme, it is necessary to change the paradigm of policy makers so as to make the community a subject, instead of an object. One of the first steps to take is evaluating numerous social forestry related policies which are effective both at national and regional levels. The Government needs to provide certainty regarding utilisation area to the people who live in and around state forest lands in order to ensure their livelihood. This requires mainstreaming of villages and village structures into the subjects of social forestry policies. It is suggested that the Government adopts a Forest Management Unit (FMU) scheme in making efforts to ensure allocation of people's utilisation area within state forests. FMU can play an important role to support such efforts because of its site-based institutional establishment, and it is simultaneously integrated into the structures of policy and planning from the local to the national level in addition to a mandate of state forest management under the applicable legislation. Consequently, it is necessary to make several efforts to reform and strengthen the capacity of FMU so it can play an effective role in ensuring public access to state forests through socio-economic mapping, integration of activities in developing and protecting the presence of people's utilisation areas and FMUs developed together with the community, as well as facilitation of community institutions and licensing processes for ensuring public access to forest resources.

1

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS

Introduction At the moment, one of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia's priority programmes is to achieve economic independence by promoting strategic sectors of the domestic economy into a priority agenda. In relation to that, in the National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) of 2015-2019 the Government has committed to allocate at least 12.7 million ha of forest lands for development of various Social Forestry schemes such as the Community Timber Plantation (HTR), Community Forest (HKm), Village Forest (HD) and Farm Forest (HR) as well as Traditional Forest and others.

With the above target, the total area of forest lands that people manage will increase dramatically to approximately 14-fold compared to that of the previous regime. (Data for the Period 2009-2013: 892,636 ha, Data for the Period 2015-2019: 12,700,000 ha).

2015-2019: 12.700.000 HA

2009-2013: 892.636 HA

(Source: Data and Information on Forest Use in 2013, Directorate General of Forest Planning)

Such ambition will not come to fruition in the absence of a new working strategy. This strategy requires the need for a fundamental change in the framework for thinking and the way the Government works in the context of ensuring that access to forest utilisation is provided to the community. This strategy needs to be carefully devised so that: i) the people living in and around forest lands enjoy the benefits of the programme significantly; ii) public accessibility is ensured with the aim of avoiding exacerbated damages to ecological functions of forest area and its surroundings; iii) there is an assurance that the provision of access to and control over forests and lands to the people living in and around the forests, including women, the poor and vulnerable groups whose livelihood depends on lands and forest resources, emphasises the principle of even and more equitable distribution of benefits; and iv) significant contribution to improved forest management guarantees the principles of sustainability in the social, economic and ecological contexts, not just for today but also for future generations.

The question is how to answer these difficult challenges so the mandates of RPJMN can be fulfilled? What employment strategies to select? What are the changes required as a consequence of the RPJMN implementation?

This brief offers strategies that the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) should take in accelerating expansion of public's access to forest utilisation, especially in areas classified as State Forest outside the areas of Traditional Forest.i This strategy requires all parties to be open to new ideas. The strategic measures proposed are described below:

Changing Mindset on the Subject of Programmes and Policies The Government's target to allocate at least 12.7 million ha of State Forest lands to the people cannot be achieved without making changes in the way of thinking on the subject of this policy.

So far, there are three main doctrines dominating forestry policy as follows: firstly, the doctrine that promotes timber as the main element (timber primacy); secondly, the "the long term" doctrine influenced by the growing period of trees; and thirdly the "absolute standard".ii These principles originally came from Europe's forestry scholars (in this case Germany), which was 2

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS

later adopted in North America before spreading to the rest of the world. The three doctrines form the basic framework for establishing forestry education curriculum and providing legal basis for forestry policies applicable in many countries, including Indonesia.

The timber primacy doctrine underlines that timber is the only primary forest product; thus, only timber-derived goods and services are regarded as the primary product that ranks higher in the priority list of forest management. This doctrine does not allow alternatives in respect of non-timber forest utilisation as well as other paradigms in forest management practices.

Further, this doctrine dismisses the fact that there are numerous actors with different interests and objectives in forest management and utilisation.

Timber-focused forestry doctrine urges the need for the long term management practices. As a consequence, forestry approaches are made in a strict (and likely less dynamic) manner and with reluctance to accommodate other social interests associated with the forest. Forestry scholars wish to have social conditions which are stable and assured by strong social and state authority which tend to criminalise anyone who opposes such objective.iii One of other conservative attitudes that forestry experts show is their critical look at democracy and libertarianism as well as the tendency of not believing in the pluralism nature of interests.

Forestry experts also tend to maintain a capitalistic approach in forest management.iv The absolute standard doctrine proposes the idea that forest sciences represent the only source of information that forest management should refer to. Forestry experts -- who consider themselves as authoritative sources of knowledge on forestry -- take the position of mediator between community and the forest. Management of forest utilisation puts more emphasis on creating classifications of forest functions that follow the doctrines mentioned above without taking into account that the public has different interests in the forests.v As a consequence, forestry policy tends to diminish to silviculture (planting and cultivating forest trees) and the state is expected to use such knowledge base as a framework for enacting legislation. One forestry expert, for example, said: "Silviculture must be laid down as a legal basis."vi Therefore, there is always a gap between what In reference to Minister of Forestry Regulation is achieved under government No. P.37/Menhut-II/2007 in conjunction with programmes/activities and what the society P.18/Menhut-II/2009 on Community Forest, needs. Such situation has been going on from No. P.49/Menhut-II/2009 on Village Forest and year to year. This is evident from the No.P.55/Menhut-II/2011 on Procedures for implementation of policies and legislation Application of IUPHHK-HTR for Plantation which is more reliant on the logic of right and Forest, the management of HKm, HD and HTR shall be based on the initiatives of local wrong based on those three doctrines above, community. regardless of the perspective and interests of the community. The most current example is The Government, especially the central government, tends to play passive roles the designation of state forests of about 60% because it only makes a move when the in 2014, compared to only 18% in 2001. public submits a proposal. Expecting the Nevertheless, this achievement does not initiative of the community has proven resolve claims/conflicts over forest areas. By ineffective in achieving the targets that had not placing the community as a subject, what been set up beforehand. happened is the standards for establishing policies and procedures on delivering public service are set up in the same manner with the policies and procedures intended for large businesses/industries. The Government also does not feel the need of acting proactively, opting to just await the application to come its way. This has contributed to a serious imbalance in allocation of forest use of which 97% are enjoyed by large enterprises while the people only control the rest 3% (see the Table below). The low response from the community to meeting government-set procedures is even regarded as an obstacle by the Government. This should 3

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS

be seen as an otherwise issue that needs to be addressed by finding and developing new ways that better suit the characteristics of the community. This is a responsibility that the Government must assume in order to meet its obligations for providing public services.

Forest Use in Production Forest Area for 2013 Type of Use

Unit/Location

Ha

%

a. IUPHHK-HA

287

22.760.622

66,63

b. IUPHHK-HTI

254

10.106.540

29,59

c. IUPHHK-RE

9

397.878

1,17

Total proportion of Large Enterprises and Public Interest

550

33.265.040

97,39

a. HTR Reserves

121

702.519

2,06

b. Village Forest

104

108.642

0,31

c. Community Forest

90

81.475

0,24

Total proportion of Small Enterprises and Local/Traditional Community

315

892.636

2,61

1. For Large Enterprises & Public Interest

2. For Small Enterprises and Local/Traditional Community

Total

34.157.677,21 100,00

Source: Data and Information on Forest Use in 2013, Directorate General of Forest Planning

Therefore, the Government's target of allocating at least 12.7 million ha of state forest lands to the people will be difficult to achieve without a fundamental change in its mindset. This refers to the way of thinking which from the outset positions the public as the subject of programmes and policies implemented by KLHK, rather than a mere object. Accordingly, the Government is currently facing difficult challenges in terms of structures of the existing policies, programmes, activities and budgets, rules of the game as well as working procedures in order to reach a point where the community is placed as the subject.

Putting Villages as the Subject As a logical consequence of the paradigm shift mentioned in the first step, the work programme of the KLHK is to give certainty concerning the people's utilisation area for those living in and around state forests in order to ensure food security and livelihood of their families. Areas across Indonesia that the Government designates as state forest are not free of human settlements. The government's official data shows there are at least 18,718 villages within, at the boundaries and around areas of state forests.vii It is thus undeniable that in order to accelerate social forestry development, it is necessary to put villages at the core of the KLHK's work strategy going forward.

In terms of the laws and regulations, it also means that the KLHK's work strategy in time to come should refer to the various provisions stipulated in the Villages Law which was enacted in 2014.

Under this Law, a village is defined as: “a community unit by the rule of law which lives in an area with certain boundaries and possesses the authority to regulate and manage governmental affairs and the interests of local communities based on community initiatives, the right of origin and/or traditional rights recognised and respected in the administration system of the Republic of Indonesia” (Article 1).

In this context, forest is classified as a village asset which is also regulated by the Village Law (article 76, paragraph 1). As a result, in the upcoming future, forest management schemes which are implemented to give people certainty over their utilisation area should no longer be limited to the HD, HKM and HTR. In fact, there are other possible schemes in line with local potentials present in a village.

4

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS

This represents an important step to take in ensuring certainty over the people's utilisation area and ensuring the communities as lawful citizens of Indonesia can also fairly benefit from utilisation of forest lands in their areas.

Bringing the State to Site Level By putting communities and villages as a subject under the KLHK's wing, there needs to be clarity regarding forest management agencies at local level that are capable of ensuring the state is there to serve the public. The presence of such agencies is necessary to enable changes toward a more pro-active stance the KLHK adopts in doing its work, which in the past was more inclined to the passive side. To enable work to be performed pro-actively, local level agencies whose role is to facilitate activities in collection of social and economic data as well as to resolve other issues related to the community and forest management are needed. Besides ensuring the work programmes of the KLHK meet the community's needs, such agencies are tasked with ensuring that efforts to build the public's capacity are made properly. Their tasks will also include ensuring that forest services can be maintained and sustainable methods for use of natural resources can be implemented. These agencies should be instrumental too in making sure permit application process can be completed in a transparent and effective manner, ensuring appropriate advocacy to the public after permit has been secured. These agencies should not be ad hoc bodies, and have a clear structure both with the KLHK at central level and with local governments in the region. Furthermore, these agencies should be incorporated into the structure of institutional planning already existing at both central and regional levels to ensure its funding sources and competencies comply with the applicable laws and regulations so the viability of their roles is assured; such agencies are also to be recognised in the government's planning documents such as RPJMN and RPJMD. Based on the reasons above, the FMU is worth considering as an institution at regional level which makes sure that the state is present to serve members of the community in and around the forests. From regulatory aspects, pursuant to Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry, an FMU refers to a unit responsible for forest management at the district and provincial levels (article 17).

Moreover, in terms of budgeting and programme, institutional development of infrastructures for an FMU has been included as one of the programmes under the RPJMN. Until 2014, as many as 80 FMUs for Production Forest, 40 Protected Forest FMUs and 50 for Conservation Forest had been formed. Looking ahead, in line with the 2015-2019 RPJMN a total of 600 FMUs will be established throughout Indonesia. FMU will carry out all functions of forest management from the planning stage to activities conducted in forest utilisation, rehabilitation, protection and conservation, including the function of public services through use of forest resources.

Therefore, it does not seem excessive to put FMU as one of the competent agencies in this matter so the people in the area managed by an FMU could have reasonable certainty and gain sufficient access to forest utilisation area around them for purposes as diverse as foodstuff, agroforestry and other environmental services. Not all the community's activities are to be directed toward partnership with other parties.

In other words, as an attempt to bring the state down to the site level an FMU needs to serve its function of allocating spaces more accurately and in line with the potentials and social as well as cultural conditions in the field. FMU as an agency at the site level should also play a role in facilitating and providing services to local communities to ensure they have the definite and sufficient right to managing and utilising forest resources. In addition, it should play the role of a mediator in resolving tenurial conflicts so that various issues on the ground can be immediately addressed by the Government, and prolonged omission of such issues resulting in increasingly complex and pervasive unsolved problems can be averted. Representing the Government, an FMU should be present in person for the people. Priority to make investments should be given to the people who live in and around the forests. In certain contexts, FMU may

5

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS

also facilitate the marketing of local products. To that end, FMU must be supported by the availability of skilled personnel including reliable extension officers. In carrying out this function, there should be an opportunity for FMU to partner with NGOs that have the capacity in the relevant field and universities as well.

However, such FMU that has the above vision and mission as well as clear programmes for serving the public has not been present yet. Mainstreaming of ideas on FMU development until now has yet to progress to the expected direction. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct evaluation and make a fundamental revision to institutional development of FMU in order to have clear-cut work programmes and paradigms in serving the public. When FMU comes up with a clear mission to serve the people, they will feel the presence of the state among them.

Therefore, it can be concluded that placing the community as the subject/main actor on a village administrative basis within an FMU-based framework as a unit of forest management present in the field is an option that needs to be seriously taken into consideration. With this strategy, it is expected that the Government programme to increase the allocation of at least 12.7 ha of forest lands for the people's utilisation area can hit the target.

Recommendation 1.

There is a need to constantly promote changes to the point of view and working procedure adopted by various levels of leadership in the KLHK.

2.

New performance measures that incorporate the people's needs and satisfaction into them need to be determined and put in place.

3.

Accurate information regarding the conditions and characteristics of the people in the villages in and around forest lands needs to be collected and integrated into forestry statistics at central and local levels, in order to visualise community as a subject and gain understanding of the changes to its conditions from time to time.

4.

Since perfect laws and regulations are non-existent, and given the conditions in the field, it is necessary to formulate a new work strategy in which street level bureaucracy at a certain level is allowed to adapt activities to the local situations (discretion), with strong support of data and field analysis as a benchmark on which their accuracy is based.

5.

Past practices and policies on the relationships between the KLHK and local governments as well as other Ministries shall be reviewed to diagnose the root causes.

These results are needed to formulate strategic steps and breakthroughs to build a strategy for effective and feasible collaboration and coordination that are not merely present on paper or at meeting table.

6.

Various local potentials also need to be factored in when formulating a strategy to improve the people's access to utilisation area. Therefore, the schemes shall not be limited to just HKM, HD and HTR.

7.

There is a need to revise a number of policies, such as Law No. 23/2014, to ensure that the centre for public services is located nearby community members.

8.

FMU is in need of a fundamental reform in order to make sure that it runs various programmes and activities as follows: a. Giving the public access to forest areas as incorporated into the processes of forest management planning by FMU in line with Government Regulation No. 6/2007 in conjunction with Government Regulation No. 3/2008. b. Ensuring the allocation of public access by FMU as contained in the FMU Management Plan required by Government Regulation No. 6/2007 in conjunction with Government Regulation No. 3/2008, Article 83.

6

STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO UTILISATION OF STATE FORESTS

c. Taking inventory of socio-economic and cultural items along with the community in order to identify publicly accessible areas through zoning mechanisms/development blocks that FMU carries out through licensing schemes of HD, HKM, HTR and Partnership with FMU as well as other schemes according to local potentials. d. Revising regulations on the norms, standards, procedures and criteria (NSPK) of forest management at Production Forest FMUs and Protection Forest FMUs that explicitly specify allocation of public access to forest management by FMU. e. Mapping the people's utilisation area together with the related stakeholders in forest management planning to ensure certainty of public access to forest management by FMU. f.

Developing plan and undertaking forest management by involving the stakeholders of FMU, especially local communities and indigenous people.

g. Facilitating the strengthening of public institutions as outlined in the FMU management plan. h. Opening market access to the products generated from use of forest areas by the communities. i.

Providing assistance in the licensing process to ensure certainty of access to forest lands by the public.

Bibliography Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan. 2014. Data dan Informasi Pemanfaatan Hutan Tahun 2013. Jakarta: Kementerian Kehutanan.

Glück, P. 1987. Social Values in Forestry, Ambio 16 92/3): 158-160 Kementerian Kehutanan dan Badan Pusat Statistik. 2013. Identifikasi Desa di Dalam dan Sekitar Kawasan Hutan dalam rangka Survei Kehutanan (SKH). Jakarta: Kementerian Kehutanan dan BPS. BAPPENAS, 2015. Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019. Jakarta: Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas) Laporan Satgas IX. 24 Februari 2015. Laporan Satgas IX Pengembangan Akses Masyarakat dalam Format Hutan Kemasyarakatan, Hutan Desa, dan Hutan Tanaman Rakyat. Satgas IX Keputusan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan No 919/Menhut-II/2014 tanggal 29 Desember 2014.

This needs to be verified from the beginning considering that the definition of Traditional Forest cannot be separated from the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 35/PUU-X/2012, which sets out that Traditional Forest is no longer part of a state forest.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is until now still using Regional Regulations (Perda) as an instrument to recognise the presence Traditional Forest. It remains an on-going debate given the political interests in the region share similar traits with those at the central level, i.e. more concerned with providing licensing services to large enterprises than ensuring the people's space for living. As a consequence, it is necessary to write a separate article that offers strategies related to the expansion of people's access to forest utilisation in the context of Traditional Forest. [ii] Glück, P. 1987. Social values in forestry. Ambio, 16(2/3):pp. 158-160. [iii] Kalaora, B. 1981 dan Pleschberger, W. 1981 dalam Gluck 1987. [iv] Pleschberger, W. 1981 dalam Gluck 1987. [v] Gluck 1983 dalam Gluck 1987. [vi] Kalaora, B. 1981 dalam Gluck 1987. [vii] Kementerian Kehutanan dan BPS, 2013. Identifikasi Desa di Dalam dan Sekitar Kawasan Hutan dalam rangka Survei Kehutanan (SKH) 2014. Jakarta: Kementerian Kehutanan dan BPS [i]

7