Institutional Obstacles on the Development of Forest Management Unit: The Case of Indonesian Tasik Besar Serkap

Eno Suwarno^1, , Hariadi Kartodihardjo², Lala M Kolopaking³ and Sudarsono Soedomo²

¹Graduate School of Bogor Agricultural University, Dramaga Main Road, IPB Dramaga Campus, Bogor, Indonesia

²Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University, Academic Ring Road, Campus IPB Dramaga, Bogor, Indonesia

³Department of Communication of Rural and Agricultural Development, Faculty of Human Ecology, Bogor Agricultural University, Academic Ring Road, IPB Dramaga Campus, Bogor, Indonesia

Cite this paper:
Eno Suwarno, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Lala M Kolopaking and Sudarsono Soedomo. Institutional Obstacles on the Development of Forest Management Unit: The Case of Indonesian Tasik Besar Serkap. American Journal of Environmental Protection. 2014; 2(2):41-50. doi: 10.12691/env-2-2-3

Abstract

Three years since its establishment in 2010, the forest management unit (Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan, KPH)-Tasik Besar Serkap (KPH-TBS) in Riau Province–Indonesia has not been operated yet due to institutional problem. Therefore, the review on the institutional handicap is necessary. This study uses the Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework to analyze the policy implementation of KPH-TBS development. Analysis was conducted to describe the conditions of exogenous factors and the action arena that obstructing the policy implementation by Riau provincial government (RPG). Conceptually, the policy of KPHs development is institutional changing processes, which are changes in the value system and forest governance. The research found problems that became disincentives on biophysical conditions, such as problems on paradigm, forestry bureaucracy culture and several weaknesses in the rules in use. In addition, structural approach and physical assistance were mostly used by national government for its provincial government. In contrast, knowledge dissemination, communication and mutual trust building were still limitedly used. Former approaches do not address the needs of RPG for information and understanding regarding to the development of KPH. RPG responded to this situation slowly and lack of willingness to cooperate. They took the policy of KPHs development as a mere obligation, and did not get motivated to move by themselves. In addition, the reluctance to cooperate was also caused by the presence of conflict of interest in several government officials. Based on this research, national government need to changes the way of thinking that regulation is not the only instrument to guide the behavior of local participants. Although still needs to be repaired, it must be accompanied by improving of knowledge dissemination, communication and mutual trust building. These actions are highly required not only for resistance solution, but also for controling the paradigms transformation process and cultur of local participants in line with composed new values in the KPH concept.

Keywords:
IAD framework Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Riau provincial government forestry policy implementation.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	[ICCON] Information and Communication Center on Nusa Tenggara. Masyarakat Adat dan Pembangunan Kehutanan, Information and Communication Center on Nusa Tenggara, 2006, [Online]. Availble: http://www.infonusra.org/html/Berita/Masyarakat Adat dan Pembangunan Kehutanan.htm. [Accessed Des.19, 2012]
[2]	Kartodihardjo, H., and Suwarno, E, Pengarus-utamaan KPH ke dalam kebijakan dan pelaksanaan perizinan kehutanan, GTZ Project Report on Forests and Climate Change Programme-FORCLIME, 2014.
[3]	Kartodihardjo, H, Kerangka Hubungan Kerja Antar Lembaga Sebelum dan Setelah Adanya KPH, GTZ project report on strengthening the management capacities in the Ministry of Forestry (SMCF), 2008.
[4]	Ostrom, E, Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005.
[5]	Castañeda., F, “Why national and forest management unit level criteria and indicator for sustainable management of the dry forest in Asia?”, in Cheng, T.L., and Durst, P.B, (Editors), Development of national-level criteria and indicator for sustainable management of the dry forest in Asia: background paper, Rap Publication, Bangkok, Thailand, 1-22. June 2000.
[6]	[Dir WP3H] Direktorat Wilayah Pengelolaan dan Penyiapan Areal Pemanfaatan Kawasan Hutan, Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan, Kementerian Kehutanan, Data dan Informasi Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (KPH) Tahun 2012, Direktorat Wilayah Pengelolaan dan Penyiapan Areal Pemanfaatan Kawasan Hutan, Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan, Jakarta. Dec. 2012.
[7]	Polski, M.M., and Ostrom, E, An institusional framework for policy analysis and design, Paper on Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis Departmen of Political Science, Indiana University, 1999. [Online]. http://mason.gmu.edu/~mpolski/documents/PolskiOstromIAD.pdf [Accessed July 15, 2010]
[8]	Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., and Walker, J, Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2006.
[9]	Bungin, M.B, Penelitian Kualitatif, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta, 2010.
[10]	[KPHP TBS] Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Model Tasik Besar Serkap, Rencana pengelolaan hutan jangka panjang KPHP Model Tasik Besar Serkap. KPHP Model Tasik Besar Serkap, Pekanbaru, 2013.
[11]	Tucker, C.M, Learning on governance in forest ecosystems: lessons from recent research. International Journal of the Commons 4 (2). 687-706. 2010.
[12]	Mehring et al., Local institutions: regulation and valuation of forest use—evidence from Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, Land Use Policy 28: 736-747. Oct. 2011.
[13]	Andersson, K.P. and Ostrom, E, Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective, Policy Science 41. 71-93. March 2008.
[14]	Kolstad, I., and Søreide, T, Corruption in natural resource management: implications for policy makers, Resources Policy 34: 214-226. Dec. 2009.
[15]	Amacher, G.S., Ollikainen, M. and Koskela, E, Corruption and forest concessions, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63 (1). 92-104. Jan. 2012.
[16]	Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W.M, Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2002.
[17]	Kimmerle et al. Knowledge construction in an outsider community: extending the communities of practice concept, Computers in Human Behavior 29. 1078-1090. May 2013.
[18]	Schlüter, A, Institutional change in the forestry sector—the explanatory potential of new institutional economics, Forest Policy and Economics 9. 1090-1099. May. 2007.
[19]	Hidayat, H, Politik Lingkungan: Pengelolaan Hutan Orde Baru dan Orde Reformasi, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta, 2008.
[20]	Simon, H, Aspek Sosio-Teknis Pengelolaan Hutan Jati di Jawa, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta, 2004.
[21]	Cheung, A.B.L, The politics of administrative reforms in Asia: paradigms and legacies, paths and diversities, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 18 (2). 257-282. March 2005.
[22]	Yılmaz, D., and Kılıçoğlu, G, Resistance to change and ways of reducing resistance in educational organizations. European Journal of Research on Education 1 (1). 14-21. 2013.
[23]	Jaatinen, M., and Lavikka, R, Common understanding as a basis for coordination, Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13 (2). 147-167. 2008.
[24]	Lee, B.P.H,. Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs: their roles in establishing common ground, Journal of Pragmatics 33: 21-44. Jan. 2001.
[25]	Blanco, M., Engelmann, D. and Normann H.T, A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences, Games and Economic Behavior 72. 321-338. Jun. 2011.
[26]	Kitsing, M., and Schweik, C.M, Applying Elinor Ostrom’s rule classification framework to the analysis of open source software commons, Transnational Corporations Review 2 (1). 13-26. March 2010.
[27]	[DGFP] Directorate General of Forestry Planing, Ministry of Forestry, Data KPH Update Sampai September 2013, Directorate General of Forestry Planing, Ministry of Forestry, [Online]. Available:http://www.kph.dephut.go.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=275:perkembangan-kph-sd-september-2013&catid=1:berita-kph. [Accessed Feb. 22, 2013]
[28]	Ostrom, E, Background on the institutional analysis and development framework, The Policy Studies Journal 39 (1). 7-27. Feb. 2011.
[29]	Kartodihardjo, H., Nugroho, B., Suharjito, D., and Dermawan, A,. Development of small holder plantation forest: an analysis from policy process perspective, Jurnal Manajemen Hutan 19 (2). 111-118. Aug. 2013.
[30]	Yang, L., and Wu J, Knowledge-driven institutional change: an empirical study on combating desertification in northern China from 1949 to 2004, Journal of Environmental Management 110. 254-266. Nov. 2012.
[31]	Gezelius, S.S., and Refsgaard K, Barriers to rational decision-making in environmental planning, Land Use Policy 24. 338-348. April 2007.