Can decentralisation work for forests and the poor? Policy research to promote sustainable forest management, equitable economic development, and secure local livelihoods in Indonesia

Indonesia

Ms Doris Capistrano
Phone: 62 251 622 622
Fax: 62 251 622 100
Email: d.capistrano@cgiar.org

• Murdoch University, Australia
• Center for the Study of Law and Regional Autonomy, Indonesia
• Tanjungpura University, Indonesia
• University of Hassanudin, Indonesia
• University of Papua, Indonesia
• Yayasan Pioner, Indonesia
• Australian National University, Australia

$640,794

01/01/2003 - 30/09/2004

01/07/2007 - 31/08/2007

Dr Russell Haines

Laws enacted in Indonesia in 1999 aimed to decentralise administrative and regulatory authority over large segments of the country's economy, including the forestry sector. But poor coordination between the different levels of government, lack of clarity of new regulations, inadequate preparation and little institutional capacity to deal with the new responsibilities in district agencies have all impeded the decentralisation process. This project assisted Indonesia to assess and monitor progress in decentralisation and to implement, where necessary, corrective measures to meet the decentralisation objectives. Researchers documented the impacts of decentralisation on forests and forest communities and provided policy makers with timely analyses of these impacts. They identified strategic interventions to promote sustainable forest management, equitable development and secure local livelihoods. They also sought to strengthen policy dialogues and build Indonesia's capacity to carry out policy-responsive research.

The project employed action research methods (PAR, policy dialogues, focus group discussions and interactive workshops). The work was divided into three main parts: observation on changes in forestry policy at district level and consequences at village level with consultations at provincial level; observation on changes in the fiscal governance system at district and province; and observations and interviews at national level on changes in forest and land related policies. In South Sulawesi, information was gathered mainly through several focus group discussions (one at the province, four at the district and six at the villages). In addition the team conducted numerous informal discussions and interviews and studied various official planning documents, mainly those from the forestry sector.
At one case study site, Luwu Utara, the researchers analysed the consequences of the shift in decentralisation policies. They found that: Law 32, 2004 which replaced the earlier regional autonomy law of 1999 was an attempt to improve performance and accountability. The role of the province was re-instated and includes, among others, the authority to evaluate the districts budgets and spatial planning. The province also has the authority to recommend cancelling policies deemed contradictory to the public interest and higher level regulations. Forest policy at provincial level, however, is barely affected by the new law. Law 32 does not specify explicitly how authority over forest is arranged and Law 41, 1999 is accepted as regulating forestry affairs. A new regulation issued in January 2007 reaffirms central government control over forests and leaves little decision-making power to districts. Even the coordination role of the province (according to Law 32) is still kept in the hands of the Ministry of Forestry's implementation units placed in the provinces.
At district level, no real progress is seen with regard to better forest and resource management. In Luwu Utara the fragmentation of the district has reduced the forest area drastically and left the district mainly with protection forest and almost no production forest. As a result, forestry has become a cost centre with an annual deficit of almost 4 billion rupiah. While expressing continued commitment to sustain forests, the government of Luwu Utara is incapable of combating illegal logging and encroachment by local people, and managing rehabilitation efforts within its mandate. With no incentives from the central government, it will be more and more difficult for the districts to maintain their forests.
It was hoped to improve forest management through better coordination of spatial planning among districts. While provincial and district planning is now better coordinated, substantively it is still weak. Spatial plans often ignore the earlier forest designation. In Luwu Utara, for example, the spatial plan assigns use categories without real consideration to land suitability or actual use in the field. Spatial plans are seldom used for development planning and are still largely paper exercises. There is no real incentive to do it right.
In the mean time, customary rights remain an issue. The government of Luwu Utara does recognise the existence of customary communities but hesitates to recognise customary rights to land. Discussions continue on whether communal rights exist or not and what customary rights actually mean.
To improve the general performance of the district, the national government introduced a performance-based budget system. This system would allow better long-term planning and would provide incentives for a more efficient running of government activities. However, people are too rooted in working by project. As well, the different teams in charge of supervision and monitoring have no clear job description and tend to overlap with each other.
The project team continued to enhance the capacity of local people to get better access to forest resources (particularly, non timber forest products such as rattan) and market, and to improve their bargaining power vis-a-vis external actors. This included a film on rattan and smallholder's access to market, as part of attempts to increase stakeholders' awareness of the need to achieve equitable market and sustainable management of resources.