The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Case Studies on Decentralization and Forests in Indonesia case study 11

The History, Realities and Challenges of Decentralized Governance

Putu Oka Ngakan Amran Achmad Dede Wiliam Kahar Lahae Ahmad Tako

CIFOR REPORTS ON DECENTRALIZATION AND FORESTS IN INDONESIA

District and Provincial Case Studies

Case Study 1. McCarthy, J.F. 2001. Decentralisation, local communities and forest management in Barito Selatan District, Central Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 2. McCarthy, J.F. 2001. Decentralisation and forest management in Kapuas District, Central Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 3. Barr, C., Wollenberg, E., Limberg, G., Anau, N., Iwan, R., Sudana, I.M., Moeliono, M., and Djogo, T. 2001. The impacts of decentralisation on forests and forest-dependent communities in Malinau District, East Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 4. Casson, A. 2001. Decentralisation of policies affecting forests and estate crops in Kutai Barat District, East Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 5. Casson, A. 2001. Decentralisation of policymaking and administration of policies affecting forests and estate crops in Kotawaringin Timur District. Central Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Studies 6 and 7. Potter, L. and Badcock, S. 2001. The effects of Indonesia’s decentralisation on forests and estate crops in Riau Province: Case studies of the original districts of Kampar and Indragiri Hulu. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 8. Soetarto, E., Sitorus, MTF and Napiri, MY. 2001. Decentralisation of administration, policy making and forest management in Ketapang District, West Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 9. Obidzinski, K. and Barr, C. 2003. The effects of decentralisation on forests and forest Industries in Berau District, East Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 10. Yasmi, Y., Anshari, G.Z., Alqadrie S., Budiarto, T., Ngusmanto, Abidin, E., Komarudin, H., McGrath, S., Zulkiﬂ i and Aﬁ fudin. 2005. The Complexities of Managing Forest Resources in Post-decentralization Indonesia: A Case Study from Sintang District, West Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 10b. Yasmi, Y., Anshari, G.Z., Alqadrie S., Budiarto, T., Ngusmanto, Abidin, E., Komarudin, H., McGrath, S., Zulkiﬂ i and Aﬁ fudin. 2005. Kompleksitas Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Hutan di Era Otonomi Daerah: Studi Kasus di Kabupaten Sintang, Kalimantan Barat. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 11. Ngakan, P.O., Achmad, A., Wiliam, D., Lahae, K. and Tako, A., 2005. The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi: The History, Realities and Challenges of Decentralized Governance. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 11b. Ngakan, P.O., Achmad, A., Wiliam, D., Lahae, K. and Tako, A., 2005. Dinamika Proses Desentralisasi Sektor Kehutanan di Sulawesi Selatan: Sejarah, Realitas dan Tantangan Menuju Pemerintahan Otonomi Yang Mandiri. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 12. Samsu, Suramenggala, I., Komarudin, H., Ngau, Y., 2005. The Impacts of Forestry Decentralization on District Finances, Local Community and Spatial planning: A Case Study in Bulungan District, East Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 12b. Samsu, Suramenggala, I., Komarudin, H., Ngau, Y., 2005. Dampak Desentralisasi Kehutanan terhadap Keuangan Daerah, Masyarakat Setempat dan Penataan Ruang: Studi Kasus di Kabupaten Bulungan, Kalimantan Timur. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 13. Tokede, M.J., Wiliam, D., Widodo, Gandhi, G., Imburi, C., Patriahadi, Marwa, J. and Yufuai, M.C., 2005. The Impacts of Special Autonomy in Papua’s Forestry Sector: Empowering Customary Cummunities (Masyarakat Adat) in Decentralized Forestry Development in Manokwari District. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 13b. Tokede, M.J., Wiliam, D., Widodo, Gandhi, G., Imburi, C., Patriahadi, Marwa, J. and Yufuai, M.C., 2005. Dampak Otonomi Khusus di Sektor Kehutanan Papua: Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Hukum Adat dalam Pengusahaan Hutan di Kabupaten Manokwari. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 14. Sudirman, William, D. and Herlina, H., 2005. Local Policy-making Mechanisms: Processes, Implementation and Impacts of the Decentalized Forest Management System in Tanjung Jabung Barat District, Jambi. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Case Study 14b. Sudirman, William, D. and Herlina, H., 2005. Mekanisme Pengambilan Kebijakan Daerah di Bidang Kehutanan: Proses, Implementasi dan Dampak Desentralisasi pada Sektor Kehutanan di Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

The History, Realities and Challenges of Decentralized Governance

Putu Oka Ngakan Amran Achmad Dede Wiliam Kahar Lahae Ahmad Tako

ISBN 979-3361-94-8

Published by Center for International Forestry Research Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia Tel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org Contents

Glossary vi Preface viii Abstract x 1. Introduction 1 2. Reaserch methodology 3 3. Proﬁ le: Luwu Utara District 5 3.1. Geography and ecology 5 3.2. Administration, population and socio-economics 5 3.3. Land use and natural resource potential 7 4. A review of forest management policies, allocation of forestry revenues and customary property rights issues under decentralization 10 4.1. Forestry sector policies prior to decentralization 10 4.2. Post-decentralization forestry sector policies 10 4.3. Reforestation fund policy 11 4.4. Community forest and land policies 12 5. Decentralization of policy administration in the forestry sector 17 5.1. Institutional and legal issues: the new duties and functions of district and provincial Forestry and Estate Crops Ofﬁ ces 17 5.2. District Own-source Revenue (PAD) from the forestry sector 18 5.3. District forestry sector expenditure 20 5.4. The Equalization Fund for forestry revenues 6. Public participation in decision-making mechanisms in the decentralization era 28 6.1. Vertical coordination between the district and provincial governments 28 6.2. Horizontal coordination between district institutions in South Sulawesi and public participation in policy-making processes 32 6.3. Stakeholder participation in local policy-making 34 7. Forest concessions in the decentralization era 37 7.1. Forestry administration in the District 39 7.2. HPHs versus communities 39 7.3 Local government roles in forestry business development 40 8. Community access to forest resources in the decentralization era 41 8.1. Rattan collection permits 41 8.2. The rattan gathering community in Pampli, Sepakat village, Luwu Utara District 42 8.3. The logging community in Pulao hamlet, Sassa village, Luwu Utara District 46 9. Local community claims over customary forests and lands 52 9.1. Community perceptions of customary lands and forests 53 9.2. The To’makaka Masapi’s customary land claim 54 9.3. The Balaelo Sassa’s customary forest claim 56 9.4. Recommendations for solving claims over forest areas 58 10. District forestry spatial planning 61 10.1. Spatial planning mechanisms and processes in Luwu Utara 62 10.2. Forest products utilization permits 63 11. Conclusion 64 12. Endnotes 66 13. References 71

Tables and Figures

Tables Table 1. Land use area and percentages in Luwu Utara District 7 Table 2. Central and district government shares of revenues generated from the forestry sector 12 Table 3. Types and amounts of district taxes on forest products in Luwu Utara and Mamuju Districts (2002) 19 Table 4. Luwu Utara District revenue sources, 2000 and 2001 20 Table 5. Forestry projects and budget allocation for Luwu Utara District in 2001 21 Table 6. The allocation of IHPH and PSDH funds received by Luwu Utara and Mamuju districts in 2001 and 2002 21 Table 7. DAK-DR allocated to districts/municipalities in South Sulawesi Province in 2001 22 Table 8. DR allocations to the provincial and district governments in South Sulawesi in 2002 (US$) 23 Table 9. Twenty-four of the 41 business licence applications inside and outside state-owned forests in Luwu Utara District requiring re-categorization of forest utilization 38 Table 10. Levels of education in Pampli hamlet, Sepakat village 42 Table 11. Prices at farmer level for different types and qualities of rattan 43 Table 12. Level of education of Pulao villagers 47 Table 13. Potential non-timber commodities in Pulao (based on examples from Camba village) 48 Table 14. Distribution of daily earnings in one logging group 49 Table 15. Types and prices of timber taken by loggers from Pulao 50

iv Figures Figure 1. Luwu Utara District administrative map 6 Figure 2. Forest use in Luwu Utara 8 Figure 3. Flow chart showing working relations between licensed business owner investors, merchant collectors or village middlemen, and rattan gatherer groups 44 Figure 4. Relations between stakeholders involved in clearing and claiming statforests in Luwu Utara District 53 Figure 5. The area of customary land claimed by the To’makaka Masapi on the borderof Sepakat and Pincara villages, Luwu Utara District 57 Figure 6. Area claimed as customary forest by the Sassa customary community 59 Figure 7. Forestry planning mechanisms in Luwu Utara District 62 Figure 8. Flow chart showing application processes for Forest Products Utilization Permits (IHPHH, IPKTM) in Luwu Utara and Mamuju Districts 63

v Glossary

Adat Customary APBD Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Daerah, District Budget APL Areal Penggunaan Lain, a non-forestry utilization area controlled by district government Asmindo Asosiasi Pengusaha Meubel dan Kerajinan Indonesia, Indonesian Furniture and Handicraft Association Bappeda Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah, Regional Development Planning Board BPDAS Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai, Provincial-level Watershed Management Bureau BPKH Balai Pemantapan Kawsan Hutan, Forest Area Designation Bureau BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional, National Land Agency BPS Balai Pusat Statistik, Central Statistics Bureau Bupati District Head CDK Cabang Dinas Kehutanan, District-based Forestry Offi ce, accountable to the Provincial Forestry Offi ce CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research DAK Dana Alokasi Khusus, Special Allocation Fund DAU Dana Alokasi Umum, General Allocation Fund Dinas Hutbun Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan, Regional Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce Dispenda Dinas Pendapatan Daerah, District Revenue Offi ce DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah, District Legislative Assembly DR Dana Reboisasi, Reforestation Funds FGD Focus Group Discussion FKKSS Forum Komunikasi Kehutanan Sulawesi Selatan, South Sulawesi Forestry Communication Forum FORDA Forestry Research and Development Agency GN-RHL Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan, National Programme for Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation HK Hutan Konversi, Conversion Forest HL Hutan Lindung, Protected Forest HPH Hak Pengusahaan Hutan, Large-scale Commercial Forestry Concession HPHH Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan, Small-scale Forest Product Harvest Concession HPT Hutan Produksi Terbatas, Limited Production Forest HTI Hutan Tanaman Industri, Industrial Timber Plantation IHPH Iuran Hak Pengusahaan Hutan, Forest Concession Licence Fee

vi IPK Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu, Timber Clearance Permit for Convertible Forest Areas IPKTM Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu Tanah Milik, Timber Clearance Permit for Privately-Owned Land IPKPJ Ijin Pemanfaatan kayu Pembangunan Jalan, Timber Clearance permit for Road Construction IPKR Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu Rakyat, Timber Clearance Permit for Community Forests Kanwil Kehutanan Kantor Wilayah Kehutanan, District Forestry Ofﬁ ce, accountable to the central government Kawasan Hutan State Forest Area controlled by the central government Kecamatan Sub-district LAG Local Advisory Group, a research advisory group working with CIFOR in the region NGO Non-governmental Organization NIT Negara Indonesia Timur, Eastern Indonesian Nation NTFP Non-timber Forest Product Otonomi Daerah Regional Autonomy – the beginning of decentralization in Indonesia PAD Pendapatan Asli Daerah, District Own-source Revenue PAR Participatory Action Research Perda Peraturan Daerah, District Regulation PP Peraturan Pemerintah, Law PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PSDH Provisi Sumber Daya Hutan, Forest Resources Rent Provision Rakorbang Rapat Koordinasi Pembangunan, Development Coordination Meeting RHL Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan, Forest and Land Rehabilitation RKPH Rencana Kerja Pengusahaan Hutan, Company Logging Schedule RKT Rencana Kerja Tahunan, Annual Logging Schedule SKT Surat Keterangan Tanah, Land status certiﬁ cates issued by village heads SP3 Sumbangan Pihak Ketiga, Third-party Contribution TNI Tentara Nasional Indonesia, Indonesian Armed Forces UNHAS Universitas Hasanuddin, Hasanuddin University in South Sulawesi UPT Unit Pelaksana Teknis, Technical Executive Unit UUPK Undang-Undang Pokok Kehutanan, Basic Forestry Law YBS Yayasan Bumi Sariwegading, a local NGO based in Luwu District

vii Preface

This case study is part of a series describing set of forestry policies attempting to limit the impacts of decentralization in the forestry forest degradation, mainly by curbing district sector in Indonesia. Over the last two years authority. At about the same time, many district (2002–2004), a team of researchers from governments and local stakeholders started to regional universities, NGOs and CIFOR realize that their level of timber exploitation worked on a policy action research project: was not sustainable. In these districts, a process ‘Can Decentralization Work for Forests and the of policy learning led to new, more carefully Poor?, intended to help inform policy decision considered district forestry policies. However, making. The research has involved working their potential was limited as the central with multi-stakeholder networks in fi ve government had already taken back much of provinces across Indonesia (South Sulawesi, the district’s authority for forestry. East Kalimantan, Jambi, West Kalimantan and Under the New Order regime, the forest Papua) in gathering and sharing detailed socio- governance system had created an unsustainable legal, economic and ecological analyses of the timber extraction regime. It has also been impacts of decentralization on forestry and the described as a ‘poverty-creating’ model of poor. forest management (DFID 1999)1. So far, The foundations for decentralizing decentralization in Indonesia has not magically Indonesia’s highly centralized governance solved the problems built up over decades system were laid out in Law No. 22/1999 on of over-exploitation and under-investment Regional Governance and Law No. 25/1999 in natural resource-based development. on Fiscal Balancing between the Central and Decentralization has undoubtedly brought Regional Governments. Decentralization has short-term economic windfalls to some forest- provided district governments with considerable dependent communities, and brought decision- opportunities to reform their governance, making closer to local stakeholders. However, if development and public service delivery. The forest and eco-system management at the local most tangible manifestation of decentralization level is to be sustainable, all the stakeholders in the forestry sector was that district heads who will be impacted by government policies were given authority to grant small-scale forest in this area need still greater involvement. concessions for the fi rst time. Their input should help to ensure that fi nal The fi rst two years of decentralization in policies provide them with real opportunities Indonesia represented a time of transition and to improve their livelihoods and the natural adjustment. Forest-rich districts celebrated this environment within a framework of sustainable new freedom to gain direct economic benefi ts natural resource management. by establishing district timber regimes. As a CIFOR gratefully acknowledges the result there was a boom in small-scale logging. fi nancial support of ACIAR and DFID as The national government reacted with a new well as the important role played by partners

viii in the ﬁ ve locations: Hasanuddin University like to thank the district governments, village (UNHAS), Tanjungpura University (UNTAN), communities and other local stakeholders in Papua University (UNIPA), the Study Center the areas where the research was conducted. for Regional Autonomy Law and Policy Special thanks go to the Indonesian Ministry (PSHK-ODA), Yayasan Konservasi Borneo of Forestry’s Agency for Forestry Research and Yayasan Pionir Bulungan. We would also and Development, FORDA.

Bogor, Indonesia

Siân McGrath Project Coordinator

ix Abstract

Having broken away from Luwu District in 2001, the Luwu Utara District Government has faced many problems in its three years of implementing decentralization. The obstacles to implementing decentralization were due mainly to the inconsistency of national laws and regulations, unclear division of responsibility and authority between district, provincial and central governments, an unfair balancing mechanism for reforestation funds between producing and non-producing districts, increased claims of tenure by local communities, low levels of public participation in decision-making processes and a lack of spatial planning at the district level. This study found that at the beginning of decentralization the district government was not very well prepared and lacked adequate human resources and facilities for taking over the management of its forests. As time progressed, the Luwu Utara District Government, especially the Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce, strove continuously to improve its forest management capacity. However, due to a lack of resources and uncertain division of authority, many aspects of forest management are still not handled properly. By using an inclusive decision-making process for the research process, this study helped the district government and local communities to look at underlying causes of problems in implementing forestry sector decentralization in their areas and to fi nd alternative solutions to these problems. As a result, the district Forestry Offi ce has undertaken many activities in direct response to the outcomes of this research project, such as a social forestry programme for local forest-dependent communities and the adoption of more inclusive processes for district forestry planning. There have also been changes in attitudes to customary rights over natural resources, and the provision of technical assistance and capacity building for rural forest- dependent farmers. The study concludes that the framework for forestry decentralization needs to be reformed to promote better and more accountable forest management, at the regional and central levels, and to give the district governments more room to manage their own resources in the interests of the poorest forest-dependent people in their areas.

x 1 INTRODUCTION

The intention behind regional autonomy at the same area, thus allowing more intensive (Otonomi Daerah), or decentralization, was formal and informal interaction. to bring decision-making processes closer to As well as investigating how well the public, to make public policy more accept- decentralization delivered benefi ts, this study able and productive, and to fulfi l demands for also assumed that decentralization could impact justice at the grassroots level (Resosudarmo negatively on district development when: (a) 2004). Through the decentralized system of central government did not properly prepare government, districts have been given greater district and provincial governments, thereby opportunities to develop their own policies ac- failing to help build the capacity they needed cording to local social and cultural character- to carry out their shared responsibilities; istics, economies and needs. As it has brought (b) with the nation-wide, even world-wide, decision-making processes closer to the grass- benefi ts provided by their forests (e.g. carbon roots, the new system can be considered far sequestration, timber supply, etc.), the districts more democratic than the centralized system were entitled to only small incentives for of government in place under Soeharto’s New maintaining forest resources sustainability; Order regime. and (c) local elites had strong positions, and Since the collapse of the New Order decentralization could strengthen the pre- regime in 1998, decentralization has also existing power relations in districts, instead of created opportunities for better and wiser pushing them towards democracy. forest management in the districts. Based on In April 2001, the Forestry Department preliminary assessments of decentralization at the University of Hasanuddin (UNHAS), in literature, this study investigates several cooperation with the Center for International hypotheses about benefi ts that were expected Forestry Research (CIFOR), embarked on following forestry decentralization in a collaborative research project to look at South Sulawesi. These benefi ts were: (a) the processes, problems and impacts of decentralization would provide a basis for decentralization in the forestry sector in better distribution of income because most of South Sulawesi Province. Research in South the benefi ts gained from the forests would go Sulawesi was conducted in three phases: to the local people; (b) there would be potential Phase I (2001/2002), Phase II (2002/2003) and for more transparent policy making at the Phase III (2003/2004). Each phase adopted a district level; (c) districts that benefi t directly different theme and focus2. The research was from forest management would be more designed to be participatory, and UNHAS motivated to control forest exploitation, thus and CIFOR involved local stakeholders, i.e., enabling more appropriate monitoring; and community representatives, customary leaders, (d) decentralization would encourage better entrepreneurs, the local media, academics, non- coordination between local institutions located governmental organizations and offi cials from

1 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi local institutions working in the development This report is a summary of all three phases. of the forestry sector in South Sulawesi3. The report opens with a context-setting review The fi rst and second rounds of research of the various laws and regulations related to successfully identifi ed various positive and forest sector decentralization and a section negative impacts of decentralization. Findings giving a brief overview of the research sites. from these rounds highlighted key constraints The following sections describe and discuss and issues arising from the implementation issues concerning the processes and effects of of decentralization in the forestry sector. decentralization on local forest management, The research revealed that obstacles to the forestry institutions, fi scal balancing and local implementation of decentralization in South people’s livelihoods. Each section provides Sulawesi in the early years (2001–2002) were recommendations for possible problem-solving due mainly to the following: inconsistent mechanisms. As it broke away from Luwu national laws and regulations (see Section District as recently as 2001, it is not surprising 4); unclear division of responsibility and that the Luwu Utara District Government has authority between district, provincial and faced many problems in its three years of central governments; an unfair balancing implementing decentralization. The Luwu Utara mechanism for reforestation funds (Dana District Forestry and Estate Crops offi ce (Dinas Reboisasi, DR) between producing and non- Kehutanan dan Perkebunan, Dinas Hutbun) producing districts; increased claims of tenure is striving continuously to improve its forest by local communities; low levels of public management capacity. Many recent projects participation in decision-making processes introduced by the district have been undertaken and a lack of special planning capacity at the as direct responses to earlier fi ndings. The district level. The third phase in this research district government has been extremely willing used a series of Participatory Action Research to follow up on policy recommendations (PAR) methods, which enabled us to devise facilitated through this research project, such alternative solutions and recommendations as a social forestry programme for local based on local stakeholders’ inputs and our forest-dependent communities, renewal of the analysis of the results of our fi rst two rounds district’s Forestry Spatial Plan, and providing of research. technical assistance and capacity building for rural forest-dependent farmers.

2 2 REASERCH METHODOLOGY

As the different phases of this study had questionnaires on the issue were distributed to different focuses and emphases, different all District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ces methodologies were used for each. in South Sulawesi during this phase of the research. The questionnaires were used to The fi rst phase of the study focused on district collect district opinions on the prevailing DR forestry sector decentralization mechanisms balancing system and to discover the proportion and implementation processes, and used a more of DR allocation received by contributing and conventional extractive methodology, mainly non-contributing regions. Data was triangulated via open or structured interviews. Interviews with information received from the provincial involved district and provincial stakeholders and central governments. from institutions in Luwu Utara and South Sulawesi working in the forestry sector4, The third and last phase of research looked at non-governmental organizations, forestry underlying causes of problems in implementing entrepreneurs, and local people from the three forestry sector decentralization at the district villages of Sepakat, Cendana and Seko living level, particularly coordination between district in or around the forest5. and provincial governments. The research also aimed to fi nd alternative solutions to these The second phase of the study was aimed problems by using an inclusive decision-making at observing the district administration’s process for the research process. An action forestry sector decentralization policies, and research methodology was applied during this obtaining community responses towards phase to involve local stakeholders in a more the implementation of decentralization. participatory manner from planning up until Comparative data was also collected from the end of the research project. Stakeholders Mamuju District, which was selected because were also included through a Local Advisory its level of fairly extensive forest cover makes it Group (LAG). This was a research advisory similar to Luwu Utara. The same conventional group convened to work with CIFOR and the methodology was using during this phase. University of Hasanuddin (UNHAS). LAG Interviews involved a more varied group of members included individuals, government stakeholders6, including forest concessionaires and non-governmental institutions at every and sawmill owners from Luwu Utara District, level. They met periodically to give input, Mamuju District and Makassar Municipality, criticism and feedback on research activities, in order to determine how far decentralization so the individuals and/or the institutions they had affected forestry enterprises. In response represented would have a sense of involvement to demands from district stakeholders for more in the processes and outcomes of the research. information on the balancing mechanism for Ongoing results were evaluated at every LAG Reforestation Funds (Dana Reboisasi, DR), meeting, in order that the research team and

3 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi stakeholders could formulate the next action were held at the provincial level with district plan together in an inclusive manner. government offi cials from Gowa, Maros, Several methodological tools such as Wajo, Polmas, Barru and Luwu Utara. These Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA), Focus helped give examples and possible solutions Group Discussions (FGD), workshop/seminars, to the coordination problems between the participant observation and interviews with district and provincial governments in South key informants were used. Two customary Sulawesi. A workshop held jointly by the communities, one making a claim over a research team and the South Sulawesi Forestry customary forest (Pulao, Sassa village) and Communication Forum (Forum Komunikasi another with claims over customary land Kehutanan Sulawesi Selatan (FKKSS)8 was (Pampli, Sepakat village), were selected for the aimed at promoting synergy and coordination study. Data was triangulated through FGDs and in district and provincial level forestry sector village workshops. The PRA method proved programmes. effective for gathering information on the claims At the end of every research phase, of customary forest/land and the communities’ workshops were held to invite consultation access to forest benefi ts. Stakeholders used and to formulate research recommendations the fi ndings (during workshops or FGDs) together with all district and province-level to formulate recommendations for solving stakeholders9. Recommendations were intended problems that were adaptable to conditions in for all levels of government (central, provincial their local communities. and district). The public was informed In-depth analyses of district policy- of workshop outcomes through the local making processes were made from three newspapers (Palopo Post and Fajar dailies). FGDs in the district7. Unfortunately, although Participants also expressed their commitment they received invitations, the police never to formulate action plans to follow up on these joined any of these discussions. Similar FGDs research fi ndings.

4 3 PROFILE : LUWU UTARA DISTRICT

3.1. Geography and ecology timber forest product (NTFP) collection, timber Sulawesi’s unique biodiversity was fi rst production, eco-tourism etc. recorded when the British explorer and naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace travelled 3.2. Administration, population throughout the Indonesian archipelago in the and socio-economics 1850s. Due to their bio-geographical isolation in Luwu Utara is a new district formed in 2001. the ancient past, Sulawesi’s forests have a very In 2003 most of its eastern area separated to high number of endemic species (i.e., species form yet another new district, Luwu Timur found nowhere else in the world). Sulawesi’s (or East Luwu). Until the middle of 2004, the unique biodiversity has been the subject of government affairs of both districts continued great concern among world scientists keen to to be managed jointly. Luwu Utara consists of promote the conservation and sustainable use 19 subdistricts (kecamatan) with 271 villages of the island’s biodiversity (Whitmore et al. (Fig. 1). The total population is around 452 1989). 498, with a 2.47% growth rate (BPS Kabupaten Luwu Utara is the largest district in South Luwu Utara 2002). Sulawesi, covering almost a quarter of the Since the 1960s, this area has been targeted landmass of the province10. Most of the area by various transmigration programmes. Some is mountainous, but fl at topography spreads people have moved in from other islands, along the Bone Gulf (on the eastern coast). The such as Java, Bali and Lombok, while others, district is covered mainly by tropical rainforest. particularly Buginese, have come from other Several high-value commercial timber species11 areas in South Sulawesi. The indigenous people such as Diospyros celebica (local name: kayu of Luwu Utara generally live close to forest areas hitam) and Kalappia celebica (local name: and gather forest produce (rattan or timber) to kalapi), the two most valuable tree species support their livelihoods. Most people are now endemic to Sulawesi, are found in the district. also farming rice or planting cacao, oil palm or Local forest farmers classify these tree species oranges. Almost all the indigenous people own as Class 1 timber. Dipterocarpaceae12 timber fruit plantations (durian, langsat, rambutan species, e.g., Anisoptera thurifera and Shorea etc), which provide additional incomes during assamica, are commonly found in natural the fruit harvesting season from November forests in Luwu Utara. The district is home not to May. For one entire season, a farmer’s only to wet tropical forests but also to swamp- income from fruit harvests may vary between forest ecosystems, dominated by sago13 trees, US$ 16.70 and US$ 55.60 (1 US$ = Rp. as well as to rare mangrove, karst, lake and 9000), depending on harvest quantities. The limestone ecosystems. These unique and predominantly Javanese migrants had more diverse ecosystems provide valuable ecological advanced farming techniques (e.g., drainage and fi nancial services to local communities, and pest control systems), which enabled them including water source preservation, non- to benefi t from larger yields (rice, vegetables

5 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

ADMINISTRATIVE MAP OF LUWU UTARA DISTRICT SOUTH SULAWESI PROVINCE N

CENTRAL SULAWESI PROVINCE Scale 1 : 1.000.000 20 0 20 40 KM

Masamba

LUWU DISTRICT

SOUTH EAST SULAWESI PROVINCE

Legends: Map of South Sulawesi Province Baebunta subdistrict Malangke subdistrict Road Limbong subdistrict West Malangke subdistrict Masamba subdistrict Malili subdistrict Rampi subdistrict Mangkutana subdistrict Sabbang subdistrict Mappadeceng subdistrict Seko subdistrict Nuha subdistrict Wotu subdistrict Sukamaju subdistrict Angkona subdistrict Tomoni subdistrict Bone-bone subdistrict Towuti subdistrict Burau subdistrict Lake Luwu Utara district Lake

Corporation between Department of Forestry Faculty of Agriculture, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar and CIFOR, Indonesia

Figure 1. Luwu Utara District administrative map

6 Ngakan, P.O. et al. etc.) than the original inhabitants had managed. relied on by local communities for their daily The transmigrants also purchased land from livelihoods needs. indigenous communities. Many local people Of around 1 045 273 ha of forest in Luwu later copied the farming techniques introduced Utara District, 55% is classifi ed as protected by migrants, but they were less successful forest (Hutan Lindung, HL), 15% as nature as they did not invest the same level of time reserves (Cagar Alam) and the remaining 30% in agricultural activities because they were as Limited Production Forest (Hutan Produksi still busy with other activities in the forests. Terbatas, HPT). Production potential (the Adult men from local communities usually total harvest available in the district) for forest leave their fi elds after the planting season and products is 29 044 000 m3 of round wood, instead collect forest products for ready cash. 21 539 900 m3 of sawn timber, 15 000 m3 of More than 31% of the population lives below veneer, 25 000 tons of damar (resin) and 30 the poverty line, which is twice the average for 000 000 tons of rattan (Dinas Kehutanan dan other districts in this province (BPS Kabupaten Perkebunan Kabupaten Luwu Utara, 2001a). Luwu Utara 2002). The poorest people are those Until 1997, there were seven Large- living in or around forests. Forestland use is scale Commercial Forestry Concessions fi nancially and ecologically vital to them. Of all (Hak Pengusahaan Hutan, HPH) companies the stakeholders, they are the most dependent operating in the district with concessions on the district’s forests. This issue will be covering 354 525 ha14. By 2001, only one discussed in more detail from Section 8. HPH – PT. Panply – was still operating, and it reportedly ceased operations in mid-2002. 3.3. Land use and natural Research fi ndings showed four main factors resource potential driving the HPH companies pulling out of the Luwu Utara has more forest cover than any district. First, commercial timber stocks in other district in South Sulawesi. Its forests cover the forests of Luwu Utara were too small for more than two-thirds (72.86%) of its area, and HPHs to profi t from their logging activities. they are the most ecologically and economically Interviews with an employee of PT. Matano, a important natural resource in the district (Table new HPH company coming into the district in 1). In 2000, 26.27% of total district revenue 2003, indicated that commercial timber stands (US$ 89 470 of US$ 340 560.60, at US$ 1 in the forest areas were no longer suffi cient to = Rp. 9000) came from the forestry sector meet the company’s production targets. For (Reforestation Fund (DR) funds excluded). its business to survive, PT. Matano had to buy Moreover, local forest products, especially logs extracted from privately owned forests by rattan and timber, are a staple resource, heavily local communities.

Table 1. Land use area and percentages in Luwu Utara District

Land Use Area (ha) % Use

1. Crops and rice ﬁ elds 196 052 13.66 2. Plantations 75 415 5.26 3. Forests 1 045 273 72.86 4. Mangroves 2 882 0.21 5. Grasslands 27 305 1.90 6. Garden, housing 13 580 0.95 7. Fisheries 15 892 1.10 8. Rivers, lakes, etc. 58 367 4.06

Total 1 434 766 100.00

Source: Bappeda Kabupaten Luwu Utara (2001). 7 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Second, HPH companies received obliged to pay additional administrative and increasing numbers of complaints and operational costs such as local taxes and levies, claims from local communities over their Third-party Contributions (Sumbangan Pihak concession areas. With the onset of reformasi Ketiga, SP3) etc. to the district government following the fall of Soeharto, rises in local after forest sector decentralization. Fourth, communities’ complaints and claims over HPH with decentralization, the district government concession areas were reported in most parts gained more authority over HPH activities in of the country. Third, HPH companies were its area and subsequently used this inﬂ uence

FOREST LAND USE MAP IN LUWU UTARA DISTRICT SOUTH SULAWESI PROVINCE N

CENTRAL SULAWESI PROVINCE

Scale 1 : 1.000.000 20 0 20 40 KM

Masamba

LUWU DISTRICT

SOUTH EAST SULAWESI PROVINCE

Legends: Map of South Sulawesi Province Non-forestry use areas Nature Reserve Protection Forest Coastal Protection Forest Production Forest Convertible Production Forest Limited Production Forest Nature Recreation Park Lake Luwu Utara district Lake

Corporation between Departement of Forestry Faculty of Agriculture, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar and CIFOR, Indonesia

Figure 2. Forest use in Luwu Utara

8 Ngakan, P.O. et al. to limit their activities. An interview with downstream farming land. Local communities the Head of the Luwu Utara District Forestry realize that the forests also prevent fl ooding and Estate Crops Offi ce revealed that some and soil erosion. In 2001, local communities HPH companies had paid neither their central complained to PT. Kendari Tunggal, an HPH forestry taxes (DR and Forest Resources concessionaire operating in Seko village, Rent Provision (Provisi Sumber Daya Hutan, asking it to stop its logging operations because PSDH)) nor their local taxes. Consequently, it was causing severe fl ooding downstream in the district government decided to hold back Malangke. Many farmers lost their plantations on issuing recommendations for HPH permit in the fl oods. extensions in the area. HPH companies require It is clear from these experiences and recommendations from District Forestry and evidence from the fi eld that forest resources Estate Crops Offi ces to secure logging permits provide great ecological and socio-economic from the Ministry of Forestry and Estate services to local people in Luwu Utara. Since Crops there are no large-scale concessions operating Our research found that the economic in Luwu Utara District, and the district has not returns from environmental services of the used its new authority under decentralization forests in Luwu Utara were often higher than to issue any Small-scale Forest Product the potential returns from NTFPs and timber Harvest Concessions (Hak Pemungutan Hasil exploitation put together. For example, the forest Hutan, HPHHs), the idea of promoting the around the Larona watershed area preserves environmental value of forest areas could the water supply for Lake Towuti, which is be a win–win solution for preserving forest used to power a hydroelectric generating plant. resources and supporting the sustainable In 2001, the PT. INCO mining company paid management of watersheds while maintaining billions of Rupiah (around US$ 524 909.3 at that forests as long-term income generating sources time) in water levies to the district government for local communities and the district treasury. for using this resource. Rongkong, another Besides its forest resources, Luwu Utara watershed area in Luwu Utara, is a commercial District also has many potential mineral tourist area well known for rafting and water resources, such as 3.1 billion m3 of marble, sports, with national competitions often held 13.7 billion tons of granite, 2.4 billion barrels in the area. The district’s proximity to Tana of oil, 1 million tons of nickel, 500 million Toraja15 also makes its forests potential sites tons of iron, 750 000 tons of quartz sand, 200 for ecotourism. Experiences in other districts million m3 of karst, 400 million m3 of kaolin with forest conditions similar to those in Luwu and gold (Sekretariat Daerah Pemerintah Utara (e.g., Bantimurung Forest in Maros Kabupaten Luwu Utara 2004). However, only District or Malino Forest in Gowa District) and nickel has been exploited commercially, by PT. other countries (e.g., Nepal and Bhutan) have INCO (International Nickel Indonesia). The proved that the commercial value of ecotourism Luwu Utara District Government has often to local governments and communities living tried to promote its other potential mineral near forests is far higher than that from mere resources, by lobbying donors, investors and timber extraction. central government, and through exhibitions As agriculture (rice fi elds and plantation and presentations in Jakarta. However, to date, crops) is also a major land use in Luwu investors have yet to exploit these mining Utara District (see Table 1), forests are also resources. important for maintaining water supplies for

9 A REVIEW OF FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICIES, ALLOCATION OF FORESTRY REVENUES AND CUSTOMARY PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES 4 UNDER DECENTRALIZATION

4.1. Forestry sector policies production and collect all forestry-generated prior to decentralization revenue. Throughout the New Order era, pre- decentralization forestry policies in Indonesia 4.2. Post-decentralization were founded on Basic Forestry Law No. 5/1967 forestry sector policies (BFL 1967). A year after this law was passed, After 30 years of highly centralized the central government issued Regulation (PP) forest management, Law No.22/1999 (the No. 6/196816, withdrawing control from district Decentralization Law) gave district governments governments and granting control over forestry broader authority and responsibility for natural instead to provincial governments in the former resource management. With this new law, Eastern Indonesian Nation (Negara Indonesia districts became autonomous, with the right to Timur (NIT)17. Prior to the New Order regime, elect their own district parliaments. Meanwhile, forest sector management in these regions was Jakarta retained control over provincial-level fully decentralized, managed at the district governance. level in the former NIT and delegated to the The following year, the Ministry provincial level in other parts of Indonesia18. of Forestry drafted Law No. 25/200020. Between the introduction of BFL 1967 Ostensibly this law was supposed to clarify and the mid-1980s, more than 150 pieces of the new division of responsibilities between national forestry legislation were passed, but the districts, provinces and central government none decentralized any authority to the districts. under decentralization. However, the law It was only in the midst of mounting concern simply negated the authority transferred to the about the state of Indonesia’s forests that the districts under the Decentralization Law. For Minister of Forestry issued Decree No.86/ example, Articles 2 and 3 of this law simply Kpts-II/199419 on the Delegation of Some reiterated the central and provincial level Central Government Forestry Affairs to the government’s authority over the forestry sector. Districts. The delegated forestry affairs were The logic was that any remaining authority not limited to non-commercial forestry uses, such speciﬁ cally mentioned in the new law was as reforestation, land and water conservation, delegated to district governments. However, natural silk production, beekeeping, community the law made no clear statements about what forestry and community forestry facilitation aspects of forest management fell under the outside state forest areas. This list indicates districts’ authority. This led to confusion and that central government only delegated duties different interpretations across Indonesia. and responsibilities to district governments; The Decentralization Law emphasized21 it did not give them any rights to determine that district governments had authority over how forests should be managed, nor did it give natural resource management in their district. them any share of forestry sector beneﬁ ts. The However, in the same year, the central Ministry central government continued to manage forest of Forestry also issued Basic Forestry Law

10 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

No.41/1999 (BFL 1999). As with Law 25, which highlighted the need for a regulation the new BFL simply strengthened central to encourage and set standards for forestry government (Ministry of Forestry) authority. conservation. The district governments complained that it was inconsistent with the Decentralization Law, and 4.3. Reforestation fund policy demonstrated the central government’s lack of commitment to the decentralization process as 4.3.1 The history of Reforestation a whole. Funds (Dana Reboisasi, DR) Nonetheless, by December 2001 Luwu Reforestation Funds (DR) were introduced Utara District Government had issued 89 under a Presidential Decree (No. 35/1980)23, district regulations (Perda)22 under its new requiring Hak Pengusahaan Hutan, Large- authority, most of which regulated new local scale Commercial Forestry Concession (HPH) taxes and business permits. None of these concessionaires to pay towards the reforestation Perda dealt with the sustainable management and regeneration of logged-out concessions. of natural resources. This creates the impression DR rates were based on the volume of that the district government’s pressure for logs (including fi rewood) harvested from a regional autonomy to be endorsed by the concession. In theory, the funds were simply a central administration was driven fi rst and deposit, or a guarantee to ensure reforestation foremost by the desire to increase its district and regeneration of degraded forest land; the own-source revenue (Pendapatan Asli Daerah, funds should have been returned to the HPH PAD). Indeed, Luwu Utara’s PAD did rise concessionaires once they had satisfi ed the sharply after decentralization. This is due to an central administration that reforestation and/ increase in taxes and water levies. Previously, or regeneration was complete. If companies water levies had been paid directly to the failed to re-plant their logged out concessions, central government (see Section 5.2). This is the central government (Directorate General of interesting as Luwu Utara’s PAD differs from Forestry) then had the right to use the funds to that of other districts across Indonesia whose carry out reforestation itself. However, in reality PAD did not show any sustained increase after neither the forestry department nor the HPH decentralization, with most districts still relying holders made much effort at reforestation. The heavily on central fund transfers (Dermawan in reforestation funds were notoriously abused. press). In Luwu Utara, however, 97% of PAD Four years later, the Ministry of Forestry issued came from district water levies. This might a ministerial decree24 allowing concessionaires explain why Luwu Utara has put less pressure to use DR to develop Industrial Timber Estates on its forests to source development funds (Hutan Tanaman Industri, HTI) instead than other districts with similar profi les have. ofreforesting or regenerating degradedareas. For example, Jambi and East Kalimantan are In 1989, a new presidential decree25 on both similarly rich in natural resources with DR was introduced. The new policy stated above-average levels of poverty and poor that DR was an obligatory fund paid by infrastructure and service provision, but Luwu large concession holders (HPH), small-scale Utara has put signifi cantly less pressure than concession holders (HPHH), and Timber these provinces have on its natural resource Utilization Permit (Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu, stock to fund district development from its IPK) holders. This time, DR were to be used by independent budget, PAD. the Ministry to fi nance reforestation activities Our research also found that the Luwu Utara outside forest concession areas, HTI and land District Government has a very open-minded rehabilitation in several other areas designated approach to reform, and has consistently tried by the Ministry of Forestry. However, paying to improve its existing Perda. For example, on DR did not diminish forest concessionaires’ June 28th 2002, it issued District Regulation obligation to maintain and regenerate forests in No.7/2002 on Forest Resource Preservation as their concession areas. a direct result of inputs from the research team,

11 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

DR were also collected from timber with 40% going to the contributing region and processing companies26, with rates set at US$ 60% to the central government. The law on 7/m3 of logs and US$ 1/m3 of wood chips. A fi scal balancing also determined that 20% of year later, rates rose to US$ 10 and US$ 1.50 revenue generated from IHPH and PSDH taxes per m3 respectively27. DR payments increased on timber harvesting would go to the central further in 1993 and 199728, with differentiation government, and 80% to the ‘contributing between timber species and place of origin. In region’33 (daerah penghasil)34. Meanwhile, 1998, as a result of the monetary crisis, DR 60% of DR would go to the central government was paid in Rupiah rather than US dollars. For and 40% to the contributing region35 (see Table Sulawesi, DR was set at US$ 7.80/m3 (US$ 1 2). Of the 24 districts in South Sulawesi, only = Rp. 9000) for meranti wood, US$ 6.7/m3 for two (Luwu Utara and Mamuju) are categorized mixed woods, and US$ 11.10/ m3 for ebony as contributing regions, which means they (the best quality wood in Sulawesi)29. It was provide DR revenue for the entire province considered easier for permit holders to pay of South Sulawesi. The allocation and uses of DR in Rupiah, as it fl uctuated less in value. DR in Luwu Utara will be discussed further in However, in practice, few HPH holders paid Section 5.4. their DR contributions during the crisis. 4.4. Community forest and land 4.3.2 The balancing mechanism for policies in reforestation funds Article 2 of BFL 1967 groups forests into 2001, the central government set out new two categories according to ownership status: mechanisms for sharing the revenues from (a) state forests (hutan negara) are forest various sectors to help fi nance decentralized areas and timber stands growing on land not governance and development in the districts. subject to any individual property rights; and Under Law No. 25/1999 on fi scal balancing30, (b) privately-owned forests (hutan milik) are there were three forms of balancing funds: forests growing on land subject to proprietary (a) General Allocation Funds (Dana Alokasi property rights. However, Article 5 of the Umum, DAU)31, Special Allocation Funds same law further stated that all forests within (Dana Alokasi Khusus, DAK)32, and shared the Republic of Indonesia, and the natural revenues from land and natural resource taxes. resources they contain, are controlled by the The law determined sharing mechanisms state36. Meanwhile, communities’ rights to for Forest Concession License Fees (Iuran benefi t from forests were further limited by Hak Pengusahaan Hutan, IHPH) and Forest Article 17, which stated that, ‘The application Resource Rent Provision (PSDH), which were of community rights, customary law and allocated in the form of DAU, as well as DR, individual rights to gain benefi t from a forest, allocated in the form of DAK-DR funds allocated …etc., may not upset the achievement of specifi cally for forest and land rehabilitation, objectives laid down within this law’. This

Table 2. Central and district government shares of revenues generated from the forestry sector Forms of shared funds Central Timber District government producer Contributing Non-contributing (%) province (%) (%) (%) IHPH (Forest Concession 20 16 64 0 Licence Fees)

PSDH (Forest Resource 20 16 32 32 Rent Provision) DR (%) 60 40

12 Ngakan, P.O. et al. clearly shows that local community rights established by their genealogic and territorial had very little priority or recognition prior to history. This collective right came about decentralization. naturally, at the time the customary community was established, hence the existence of a 4.4.1 Legal defi nitions of state collective right depends wholly on the existence forests, customary forests and of the community itself. Therefore, in theory, customary communities collectively owned land or forest cannot be According to Sumardjono (1996), under owned or claimed by an individual. customary (adat) law, ownership of standing By having control over a certain forest, trees cannot be separated from ownership of a customary community also has rights and the land they grow on. Therefore, according responsibility for managing its resources. to adat law, land and forests may be owned However, there is no generic law in Indonesia or controlled privately (privaatrechtelijk) or specifi cally dealing with natural resource collectively by the community (publiekrectelijk) management by adat communities. There are, (Sjariffudin et al. 2003). He explained that a however, some provisions for recognizing privately owned forest (hutan milik) is a forest customary rights to natural resources across growing on private land controlled by an various different national laws and regulations. individual or a community group. This forest According to Article 67 of BFL No. 41/1999, may be acquired by growing plants or trees for customary community rights to use forests a number of years on the privately owned land are limited to subsistence use. Communities until it becomes a forest. Sjariffudin further are prohibited from any commercial or profi t- explained that, in principle, the differences making activities. However, this contradicts between individual and collective ownership Article 37 of the same law, which indicates that of land are as follows: adat communities have the right to use forests First. Individually owned land (tanah for commercial purposes, so long as they have milik) is acquired by converting a forest the relevant permit38. With these contradictory for agricultural use and then cultivating it provisions, it is diffi cult to determine and continuously from generation to generation. recognize adat community rights over forests. On this type of land, owners are considered to However, local adat communities are have a symbiotic and spiritual connection with also part of the global community. They will their land. Under the Agrarian Law, individuals have to take part in the mainstream economy if can apply for statutory acknowledgement of they are going to earn a sustainable livelihood. individual ownership rights37, with formal land Commercialization is one alternative to the registration from the district-level offi ce of the subsistence lifestyles of the past. National National Land Agency (BPN). However, if the law therefore has to provide clear guidelines land remains unused for a long time, becoming on recognizing and upholding local adat unproductive or reforested, it falls under the communities’ rights to manage forest resources category of ‘abandoned land’. At this point it for profi t rather than limiting their rights reverts back to state land or state forest or to the to subsistence. Clarifying and recognizing control of the existing customary community local communities’ property rights will be or institution. This is provided for in Article a fi rst step towards supporting access to the 27, paragraph 3, of the Basic Agrarian Law global mainstream economy, together with (BAL). developing their capacities for natural resource Second. Collectively owned land (tanah management, and increasing their access to ulayat/beschikkingsrecht) is land controlled relevant information and decision-making jointly by a customary community, used for the processes. livelihood of the community and managed by In the past, many adat governance systems adat leaders. operated under strict principles of sustainable A customary, or adat, community is a and long-term management of forests and group with a collective right over a certain area, natural resources to provide livelihoods for

13 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi customary community members (Sjariffudin A customary community must meet all et al. 2003). The duty of community members three of these interrelated criteria before it can was to preserve the forest, maintaining its value gain formal recognition of its property rights. for future generations. Anyone who violated The BAL also indicates that the existence of this principle could be punished in accordance adat community rights has to be clarifi ed with the adat rules followed by their customary by local government (village – district) and community. However, where pressures on supported by thorough research involving local resources have been very high the old adat experts on adat law, customary leaders and rules have not been able to accommodate representatives, NGOs, relevant government the pressure for economic opportunities for institutions and all other stakeholders. An customary communities whilst also preserving adat community that meets all these criteria is the communities’ resources. This has been the formally recognized as a customary group under case where market demand has been very high or a Perda. Once it has achieved recognition, a where HPH concessions have logged out local customary community will formally be given communities’ ancestral lands, and where high rights to: levels of poverty and forest dependence have a. Collect forest products for the subsistence increased local communities’ need to convert needs of the community; forests to trade in the cash economy. The new b. manage its forest in accordance with challenge is to fi nd new ways of applying adat prevailing customary laws, as long as they principles that can promote forest-dependent do not contravene national laws; and communities’ wellbeing in today’s socio- c. be empowered to improve the welfare of economic and ecological conditions. members of the community. As all land offi cially gazetted as state forest is legally owned by the state of Indonesia, 4.4.2 Procedures for land or forest communities have limited rights to use forests ownership for their livelihoods, and their property rights The number of cases involving local people are not recognized. Therefore, using the concept making customary land claims rose dramatically of state control over the Indonesian forest immediately after the fall of the New Order estate as its legal basis, adat community rights regime in 1998. More claims were triggered with to benefi t from forestry cannot automatically the introduction of decentralization in 1999. generate property rights. Parallel to the formal Claims often caused a furore because of the principles laid out in the Basic Forestry Law ambiguous legal procedures involved, and the on adat communities39, the Basic Agrarian legal uncertainty over the basis for legitimizing Law (BAL) and a BPN decree40, both state that claims. The prevailing law41 on land registration the following criteria must be met before adat states that claims can be legitimized only on communities and their property rights can be the basis of evidence of legal ownership. For formally recognized: individually owned land or forest (outside state 1. The community in question lives as a forest), this might be written evidence (e.g., collective group which is still bound by tax bills, land transaction documents, papers), customary rules and is exercising those witness testimonies and/or relevant statements customary rules in their daily lives; that are judged to be reliable and truthful. 2. The community has a clear area of customary Physical evidence, such as natural borders land (lahan adat) where its members live or community graves or shrines, can also be and from where they draw resources to fulfi l used if written evidence either does not exist their livelihoods needs; and or cannot be found. Physical evidence may be 3. There are prevailing customary rules and recognized if it has existed for a minimum of an institution governing the management, 20 consecutive years or has been known by the ownership and utilization of customary land village head from generation to generation42. and resources, and all community members In many districts in South Sulawesi, adhere to these rules. including Luwu Utara, village heads often

14 Ngakan, P.O. et al. abuse their authority to issue local proof of land has the authority to formulate its own policy ownership letters (Surat Keterangan Tanah, and regulations in order to control and manage SKT) for land that has recently been opened up the utilization of resources in the district. This for agricultural use at the edge of a forest. On has provided the opportunity for Luwu Utara the basis of a certifi cate issued by a village head, District to accept input from local communities and subsequently authorized by a subdistrict and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) head (Camat), the district-level offi ce of the concerning customary community and land BPN can issue a land certifi cate. As stated in property rights. the BAL, if written proof or physical evidence The Head of the District Forestry and is provided, a request for formal registration of Estate Crops Offi ce stated that following the land may be made providing the following decentralization local adat communities have conditions are met (Kansil 2002): more rights to express their opinions and more 1. Proof exists that the land has been maintained opportunities to obtain formal recognition and remained productive for 20 consecutive of their property rights and status as an adat years or more. community. The district government involves 2. There is acknowledgement from other local representatives more in decision-making community members that the land belongs processes and is currently re-mapping areas to the claimant or his family, and has never where adat communities live, both inside been subject to ownership disputes with and outside forest areas. However, since the other community members or people from state forest areas are still under Ministry of adjacent villages. Forestry jurisdiction, the local government 3. A claim is endorsed by the testimony of cannot make adjustments to them without the reliable people such as religious leaders. Minister of Forestry’s approval. The Head of 4. A claim must be announced publicly the District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce providing the opportunity for any objections went on to complain about how slow the central to be raised (Based on Article 26 of Law government was in responding to proposals for No. 24/1997). the reclassifi cation of forest areas, customary 5. Research is conducted to determine the community settlements and farming areas in validity of a claim the district. Local communities have settled these areas for centuries, but they are still Finally, after these procedures have been classifi ed as state forests on district maps followed, the land and its ownership status (Luwu Utara District Forestry Offi ce personal can be registered formally at the district-level communication. The Ministry of Forestry has offi ce of the BPN or through a self-funded yet to respond to proposals. or subsidized land registration (National YBS (Yayasan Bumi Sariwegading), a Programme for Land Registration). local NGO working with communities in Seko Considering all the requirements and Subdistrict, took the opportunity to submit a conditions involved, it is not an easy task for claim over a customary forest on their behalf. a local customary community to meet all the It did this by drafting a proposal for a district criteria necessary for formal recognition. To regulation on Seko Customary Community date, there are no standard procedures for Rights over Forest Areas. It spent three years legitimizing adat property rights stating how preparing the draft and fi nally submitted a an adat community can submit a proposal, request for the District Head to authorize the or who will fund the research to prove their draft formally at a workshop in Masamba on existing customary property rights. Before 8–9 March 2004. When invited to give an decentralization, it was even more diffi cult opening address at the workshop, the District for the district government to accommodate Head refused to sign the draft, stating there were customary communities’ aspirations, as they formal procedures for approving or authorizing had to follow central policy or instructions. draft district regulations. He also refused to With decentralization, the district government offi cially acknowledge the Seko communities’

15 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi rights over the forest at the workshop, explaining including NGOs. As a principle, any public that draft regulations must undergo a process of policy-making must involve the participation consultation with other related institutions and of a wider range of stakeholders, not just could only be passed by the elected District the community submitting the draft, but also Legislative Assembly (DPRD). The local NGO neighbouring communities who have rights was disappointed with this outcome. over forest resources, as well as the relevant Although its intentions were noble and district government offi ces. The DPRD should helpful to the local community, the NGO also deliberate any draft regulation, and other would have been more successful if it had stakeholders should be consulted and informed acknowledged and involved other stakeholders to ensure that the regulation will not benefi t in the district, i.e., other adat communities only one party, NGO, community or the near Seko who have similar rights to make district government. This is especially true claims over the same customary forest areas, when a claim concerns the utilization of natural as well as local migrants, smallholder farmers, resources. As these activities can impact upon village administrations etc., who should also be society at large, they require legal provisions consulted and involved in any policy-making to ensure that they are sustainable in the longer processes or district regulations concerning term. adat rights. The illustration above gives us a basis for In our discussions with him, the District analyzing land tenure issues in Luwu Utara Head clarifi ed his reason for refusing to District, and shows how property rights have give instant approval to the draft proposal. a profound affect on the natural environment He stated that any draft regulation had to and the long-term generation of local income. follow legal drafting procedures, including This will be discussed further in Section IX. deliberation and negotiation through plenary The review of various policies relating to the sessions in the DPRD. A draft also has to pass forestry sector that has been made in Section a public consultation process before it can be IV is intended to demonstrate how policies can approved. affect forest management in general, and will It seems that it is necessary to build be the basis for formulating conclusions and mutual understanding about policy processes recommendations from the research conducted between various parties in the district — in Luwu Utara.

16 DECENTRALIZATION OF POLICY ADMINISTRATION 5 IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR

5.1. Institutional and legal Commercial Forestry Concessions (HPHs) issues: the new duties and had already consumed vast areas of natural functions of district and forest, well before the HPHH policy arrived. provincial Forestry and Therefore, the remaining commercial timber Estate Crops Offi ces forest stocks in Luwu Utara were no longer (Dinas Kehutanan) considered suffi cient for HPHH permits. With the rapid transfer of authority to During the New Order era, South autonomous district Forestry and Estate Sulawesi’s forests were managed by district- Crops Offi ces, many commentators based forestry offi ces (Kantor Wilayah, (politicians, scientists, non-governmental Kanwil Kehutanan), which were accountable organizations (NGOs) etc.) raised concerns directly to the Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta. that decentralization would make it easier Their job was to provide technical assistance to convert forests for non-forestry purposes and implement domestic forestry affairs as such as commercial plantations, farming land assigned by the Minister of Forestry. When etc. (see Casson 2001; Potter and Badcock the Decentralization Law transferred authority 2001). Prior to the offi cial implementation of for forest management to the districts, the decentralization in 2001, Luwu Utara District former Kanwil Kehutanan were merged Government had already established its own with the Provincial Forestry Offi ce (Dinas District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce. Kehutanan), which is still accountable to the However, in Luwu Utara the reality was Ministry of Forestry. Their new responsibilities quite different. Any change of status in a were given an extremely broad defi nition: forest area (state forest classifi cation) should (a) implementing the decentralization and be authorized by the Minister of Forestry43. deconcentration of authority; and (b) supporting In Luwu Utara District almost all forests are forestry in the districts. Nonetheless, the shift classifi ed as kawasan hutan (state-owned in responsibilities led automatically to a new forests). The District Government, like many organizational structure. Several new positions others with large areas of kawasan hutan, were created for high-ranking offi cials who could do little to change the way its forests had lost their district positions subsequent were used (see Section 2.2. on forest resources to the merger. Many of the newly created in the district). While other districts across positions in the Functional Position Group Indonesia enthusiastically issued small-scale (Kelompok Jabatan Fungsional) had no clear 100-ha concession permits (HPHH), the Luwu job description, and no clear mechanisms or Utara District Government chose to benefi t lines of accountability. from its forests in different ways, through Under decentralization, the provincial district forestry taxation and water levies. One forestry offi ces were tasked with disbanding possible reason why HPHH permits were never their district branch offi ces (formerly known issued in Luwu Utara is because Large-scale as Cabang Dinas Kehutanan, (CDK)44. CDK

17 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi duties and functions have now been taken continued to issue permits until 8 November over by the District Forestry and Estate Crops 2001. The Provincial Forestry offi cials Offi ce. The CDKs handed over responsibility argued that some district governments were for processing applications for HPHH permits not ready to implement the decentralization before passing them to the provincial Forestry policy; it did not specify in which districts. Offi ce for approval. Today applications can be In the meantime, the districts had also started submitted to the District Forestry Offi ce for the to issue HPHH Rattan permits. To add to the District Head’s approval. confusion, the central administration was also A certain amount of authority has been inconsistent and very unclear when it came to transferred from the provincial to the district defi ning its own remit and responsibilities for government. However, one barrier to effective forestry activities at the local level following district-level management of resources is decentralization. The Ministry of Forestry’s the disparity between the capacity of human law on the division of responsibilities under resources at the provincial and district levels. On decentralization46 referred solely to central the one hand, the districts (particularly the new government authority. It failed to outline districts resulting from the division of districts) whether that authority included carrying out suffer from a lack of skilled professionals. On technical activities in the fi eld. This has created the other, there is a concentration of skilled high potential for overlaps and uncoordinated offi cials at the provincial level. Theoretically, activities by ministry, district and provincial this disparity could be resolved simply by government staff. relocating provincial-level professionals to The South Sulawesi Watershed the districts. However, in reality this would Management Bureau (BPDAS)47 provides a be awkward for both levels: higher ranking good illustration of the scope for improving professionals from the provincial offi ce are not the defi nitions of the duties and jurisdiction keen to take positions in district offi ces, which of central, provincial and district governments would put them under the supervision of district in prevailing decentralization policies. The Forestry Offi ce heads who previously would BPDAS is accountable to the Ministry of have held a lower rank than they themselves Forestry. It has been undertaking forest land held. They would also be entitled to fewer rehabilitation activities in some districts, and lower-quality facilities. Furthermore, in without coordinating with district Forestry spite of the provision in the Decentralization Offi ces, which have been carrying out their Law abolishing the hierarchy between district own activities. Meanwhile, the provincial and province, there is still a very hierarchical Forestry Offi ce is also involved in similar relationship between the two. efforts. Given their parallel but unconnected In addition to the problems related to activities, it is unsurprising that each level of bringing in skilled professionals to the new government offered the study team different district offi ces, there is also a serious lack of interpretations of how forestry decentralization clarity over the precise division of roles and should be implemented in the fi eld. responsibilities between the district forestry offi ces and the provincial forestry offi ce 5.2. District Own-source (which remains accountable to the central Revenue (PAD) from government). This ambiguity has led to the forestry sector gaps, overlaps and duplicated functions and The Luwu Utara District balance sheet for responsibilities between institutions at various District Own-source Revenue (PAD) in 2000 levels of government. The confusion regarding (pre-decentralization) did not specify separate Rattan Harvest Permits (HPHH Rattan) gives revenue from the forestry sector. This revenue a very clear illustration. Although national law stream was integrated with returns from the clearly handed responsibility for issuing HPHH agricultural sector as a whole. According to Rattan permits to the district level in 200045, the Head of the District Revenue Offi ce (Dinas the Provincial Forestry Offi ce in Makassar Pendapatan Daerah (Dispenda)), revenue

18 Ngakan, P.O. et al. received from the forestry sector in 2000 was Government, the District Legislative Assembly 26.27% of the district total (US$ 89 470.03 of (DPRD) and HPH concession holders in the a total PAD of US$ 340 560.57). The forestry district agreed on a charge of US$ 1.10/m3 for sector contributed more to the district treasury logs extracted from state forests in the district than did any other sectors in the agricultural (Mamuju District Forestry Offi ce personal sector. communication). HPH holders confi rmed that Under decentralization, the Luwu the provision was based on an agreement with Utara District Government levies taxes on local business owners. However, in interviews, commercial forestry business permits and business owners in Mamuju gave the impression the distribution and transportation of forest that they felt forced to agree with the amount products (timber and non-timber). Information proposed, as the District Government had from the District Forestry Offi ce shows that control over issuing their permits.In 2000, the the district government charges between US$ Luwu Utara District Government received US$ 11.10 and US$ 16.70 (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) 1 641.67 by levying taxes on the use of water in administration fees for issuing permits. resources and US$ 715 582.50 from water However, according to local business owners, levies (Table 4). The water levy revenue was the cost can be signifi cantly higher. Permit raised from PT. INCO as a charge for using holders are also obliged to pay a local forestry water from the Larona River for its power tax of US$ 4.40 for every cubic metre of plant and operations. Before decentralization, processed timber of any type, and US$ 2.20 for the water levy was included in the district every ton of wet rattan collected from forests. revenue balance sheet in the form of a ‘revenue In South Sulawesi Province, the types from the central government and/or higher and amount of payments vary from district to institution’, which meant that PT INCO did district. For example, Mamuju District enforces not pay the water levy directly to the district, a local tax for processed wood products based but to the provincial government. Following on wood types (Table 3). In addition to the local decentralization in 2001, the district directly tax, Mamuju District Government also imposes collected water levies amounting to US$ 524 a charge on transporting logs, known locally 093.18 (Table 4). However, some offi cials as a ‘third-party contribution’ (Sumbangan from the District Revenue Offi ce and District Pihak Ketiga, SP3). The Mamuju District Planning Development Offi ce (Bappeda) stated

Table 3. Types and amounts of district taxes on forest products in Luwu Utara and Mamuju Districts (2002) Type of tax/charge Type of wood Amount charged by the district (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) Luwu Utara (US$) Mamuju (US$) Local tax for forest products Meranti/m3 4.40 2.20 harvested from state and Other forest woods/m3 4.40 1.70 private forests in the district Teak/m 3 4.40 2.80 Ebony/m3 - 5.60

Rattan/ton 2.20 2.20 Third-party Contributions Logs taken from state forests 0* 1.10 (SP3) charged to HPH in the district holders Logs taken from other districts 0 0.60 but the log pool is located within the district

Source: Luwu Utara District Forestry and Estate Crops Ofﬁ ce and Mamuju District Forestry Ofﬁ ce * There are no longer any active HPH concessions in Luwu Utara District

19 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Table 4. Luwu Utara District revenue sources, 2000 and 2001 Source of revenue Total (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) 2000 2001 (US$) (US$)

A. District Revenue (PAD) 1. Trading tax on timber and non-timber forest products 89 471.03 116 469.78 3. Local tax on water resources usage 1 641.67 3 635.33 4. Water levy 524 093.18

B. Intergovernmental Transfer Funds (a) PSDH (Forest Resource Rent Provision) (b) IHPH (Forest Concession Licence Fees) 31 864.80 37 555.56 (c) Water levy 715 582.50 Total 838 560.00 5 406 753.85 Source: Luwu Utara District Revenue and District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ces that the district and the provincial governments Even though Luwu Utara is categorized are still at loggerheads over the mechanisms for as a contributing (timber-producing) district, it collecting and allocating water levy revenue. received only around half of the share of DR Several interviews with offi cials from that it had claimed from Jakarta (Table 5). This the District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce curtailed reforestation efforts in its two major revealed that none of them were aware of the watersheds (Rongkong and Larona). water levy revenue allocation problem, as it had never been categorized as a form of forestry 5.4. The Equalization Fund revenue. This indicates a lack of understanding (Dana Perimbangan) for that the water levy, which generates more forestry revenues48 revenue than timber exploitation, is an indirect As explained earlier (see Section 4.3), the Fiscal fi nancial benefi t accrued from preserving Balancing Law regulated a sharing mechanism forest resources to maintain the watershed. The for Forest Concession Licence Fees (Iuran Hak continued availability of water in the Larona Pengusahaan Hutan, IHPH), Forest Resources River is only made possible by the presence of Rent Provision (Provisi Sumber Daya Hutan, intact standing forests at the upper reaches of PSDH) and DR. It stipulated that 20% of the the river. revenue generated from IHPH and PSDH49 be allocated to the central government, while 5.3. District forestry sector the remaining 80% went to the contributing expenditure region (daerah penghasil)50. With DR, a 40% Perhaps because the District Forestry and Estate share is available for fi nancing reforestation Crops Offi ce was not fully set up by 2000, activities in the contributing region, and the there were no funds in the 2000 district budget remaining 60% share is allocated to the central allocated to forestry sector development. The government and used to fi nance national forest District Government allocated a total budget of and land rehabilitation activities. Luwu Utara US$ 219 736.78 for forestry activities in the and Mamuju Districts are the only contributing 2001 fi scal year. However, the actual budget regions in South Sulawesi. According to the was less than planned as Luwu Utara received Head of the Provincial Forestry and Estate Crops less in DR from Jakarta than initially proposed. Offi ce, the central government gives the funds As a result, the District Forestry and Estate allocated from IHPH and PSDH directly to the Crops Offi ce could carry out only 63% of its provincial and district governments entitled planned activities. to receive them. Table 6 shows the allocation

20 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Table 5. Forestry projects and budget allocation for Luwu Utara District in 2001 Project activity Budget (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) Planned (US$) Actual (US$) Percentage Development of plantation/estate crops 75 649.44 50 490.89 66.74

Development of Rongkong and Larona watersheds, including surrounding areas 83 333.33 42 311.78 50.77

Human resource capacity and infrastructure development 60 754.00 46 298.17 76.21

Total 219 736.78 139 100.83 63.30 Source: Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Luwu Utara (2001b)

Table 6. The allocation of IHPH and PSDH funds received by Luwu Utara and Mamuju districts in 2001 and 2002 Fund allocated Luwu Utara District (US$) Mamuju District (US$) 2001 2002 2001 2002 IHPH - 14 075.00 - 66 213.30 PSDH 5 039.40 50 664.40 27 141.90 79 135.80 Total 5 039.40 64 739.40 27 141.90 145 349.10 Source: Luwu Utara District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce, Mamuju District Forestry Offi ce of IHPH and PSDH funds received by Luwu rehabilitation activities that had started in the Utara and Mamuju District Governments in previous year (2000). The remaining funds 2001 and 2002. were redistributed to the districts through a Every year, the provincial government scoring system52. In accordance with the initial coordinates reforestation and land rehabilitation proposal for DAK-DR use, the funds were then (Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan, RHL) distributed to all districts under the following proposals from all the districts and submits a scoring system: proposal to the Ministry of Forestry in order a. Projection of DR revenue (score 30), to attain the 40% share of DR51. Based on the b. the extent of critical lands and degraded proposal, the central government transfers forest areas (score 25), DR to the provincial government in the form c. the critical level of watersheds, and the of Special Allocation Funds (Dana Alokasi inter-connection between upstream and Khusus, DAK-DR). The DR is allocated downstream areas within the watershed to every district in the province based on an (score 30), and assessment by a special team formed by the d. institutional capacity (score 15). provincial government specifi cally for this purpose. The team is made up of members from Based on this scoring system, Luwu Utara fi ve institutions: the Provincial Forestry Offi ce, and Mamuju districts, as the only contributing the Environmental Impact Assessment Agency regions in the province, received relatively (Bapedalda), the Watershed Management small shares in comparison with the non- Bureau, the Directorate-General of Regional contributing regions. Table 7 shows DR share Budgeting (Dirjen Anggaran) and FORDA allocated to district governments in South (Forestry Research and Development Agency Sulawesi in 2001. As the sole contributing at the provincial level). In 2001, each district in regions, Luwu Utara and Mamuju questioned South Sulawesi received US$ 11 111.10, as its the criteria and the scoring system for DR share of the total DR allocated to the province. allocation set by the central government. Their Some of the DR allocated by central government greatest problem with the scoring system was was used to fi nance the continuation of land that it regarded environmental degradation as a

21 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Table 7. DAK-DR allocated to districts/municipalities in South Sulawesi Province in 2001 No. District Forest area DAK-DR allocation Percentage (ha) (US$) (%)

1. Makassar Municipality - 15 894.67 1.46 2. Gowa District 63 099 60 639.22 5.57 3. Maros District 68 509 36 688.33 3.37 4. Takalar District 8 264 23 733.11 2.18 5. Jeneponto District 9 189 36 361.78 3.34 6. Bantaeng District 6 222 29 176.44 2.68 7. Bulukumba District 8 453 37 885.78 3.48 8. Selayar District 21 797 26 781.44 2.45 9. Sinjai District 18 894 35 708.56 3.28 10. Bone District 145 053 52 147.56 4.79 11. Soppeng District 46 205 54 651.44 5.02 12. Pangkep District 82 503 30 265.11 2.78 13. Barru District 65 185 31 136.11 2.86 14. Pare-Pare District 1 407 30 918.33 2.84 15. Sidrap District 71 177 43 002.67 3.95 16. Wajo District 19 691 43 329.22 3.98 17. Pinrang District 72 831 45 180.00 4.15 18. Polewali Mamasa District 237 805 56 175.67 5.16 19. Majene District 58 889 39 083.44 3.95 20. Enrekang District 87 352 60 312.56 5.54 21. Tana Toraja District 156 906 70 981.56 6.52 22. Luwu District 160 898 53 780.56 4.95 23. Luwu Utara District 1 058 349 82 412.67 7.57 24. Mamuju District 835 214 92 428.44 8.49 Total 1 088 674.67 100 Source: Ditjen Perimbangan Keuangan Pusat dan Daerah Departemen Keuangan RI (2002) criterion for requesting (and receiving) a larger (the remaining 60% central government share share of DR. The scoring system determined amounting to US$ 1 914 903.70) directly to the that a district with larger areas of critical land, South Sulawesi Provincial Government and degraded forest and watersheds would score the governments of the 22 non-contributing more highly and thus receive a larger allocation regions in the province. These funds were of DR. Non-contributing regions with large allocated for ﬁ nancing National Reforestation areas without forest cover therefore score and Land Rehabilitation Programme (RHL) higher than contributing regions. activities in the area. Luwu Utara and Mamuju A year later, in 2002, the central government did not receive any allocation, as they were allocated US$ 112 375.6 in DR (40% of DAK- categorized by the central government DR) to South Sulawesi Province. This time, as ‘contributing regions’. Through this Luwu Utara and Mamuju, as contributing distribution system, most non-contributing regions, received larger shares than the non- regions received larger DR shares than the contributing regions. In the same year, the contributing regions where DR revenues were central government distributed its DR share originally generated (Table 8).

22 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Table 8. DR allocations to the provincial and district governments in South Sulawesi in 2002 (US$) No. District/ DR allocated from the DR allocated from Total DR received in Municipality central government’s the regions’ share 2002 share (60%) (DAK-DR 40%) 1. Makassar 0 1 312.56 1 312.56 2. Gowa 195 105.56 3 755.56 198 861.11 3. Maros 71 083.33 3 219.00 74 302.33 4. Takalar 60 513.78 2 082.33 62 596.11 5. Jeneponto 52 630.56 3 190.33 55 820.89 6. Bantaeng 33 208.89 2 559.89 35 768.78 7. Bulukumba 174 695.44 2 346.44 177 041.89 8. Selayar 27 490.00 2 349.78 29 839.78 9. Sinjai 74 803.89 3 133.00 77 936.89 10. Bone 76 354.44 4 037.11 81 391.56 11. Soppeng 86 006.67 4 230.89 90 237.56 12. Pangkep 49 577.78 2 655.44 52 233.22 13. Barru 80 695.56 2 731.89 83 427.44 14. Pare-Pare 0 3 191.44 3 191.44 15. Sidrap 135 965.56 2 663.33 138 628.89 16. Wajo 167 877.78 2 683.56 170 561.33 17. Pinrang 66 335.56 3 497.67 69 833.22 18. Polmas 124 004.44 3 479.11 127 483.56 19. Majene 49 096.11 3 429.11 52 525.22 20. Enrekang 80 392.78 4 669.22 85 062.00 21. Tana Toraja 100 498.33 5 495.11 105 993.44 22. Luwu 76 226.67 4 163.56 80 390.22 23. Luwu Utara 0 19 060.11 19 060.11 24. Mamuju 0 22 439.11 22 439.11 Provincial Forestry Ofﬁ ce 132 340.56 0 132 340.56 Total 1 914 903.67 112 375.56 2 027 279.22 Source: Ditjen Perimbangan Keuangan Pusat dan Daerah Departemen Keuangan RI. 2002 (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000)

5.4.1. What counts as a ‘contributing contributing districts receive a share (see Table 8). region’? However, the defi nition of a contributing region From the DAK-DR balancing mechanism changes when the central government allocates explained above, it is clear there is confusion the remaining 60% share of DR. A contributing in central policies53 when classifying a region is now defi ned as a contributing district, contributing region (daerah penghasil) as the not a contributing province. Consequently, word ‘daerah’ (region) can be interpreted timber-producing districts such as Luwu Utara either as district or as a province. In practice, and Mamuju receive no share of the 60% DR, when the regions’ 40% DR share is distributed, as the central government distributes them the provincial government is classifi ed as a directly to the non-contributing districts only. contributing region, and therefore coordinates This double standard applied in defi ning DR allocation for the districts. As a result, a contributing region clearly disadvantages not only contributing districts but also non- contributing districts, which work hard to

23 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi generate DR revenue but ultimately receive These offi cials were very much in favour of the little benefi t. Staff from the District Forestry existing DR allocation system. They argued Offi ces in Mamuju and Luwu Utara complained that contributing districts such as Luwu Utara about this in the workshop held in Makassar and Mamuju do not have large tracts of barren in 2003. They felt that as contributing districts land or degraded watershed areas to reforest they were greatly disadvantaged: they had and rehabilitate, and, therefore, do not need a more reforestation activities to think about as larger share of DR. They also considered DR their forests were being exploited, but received to be compensation for the past degradation a smaller DR share than non-contributing of their forest areas caused by transmigration districts to fund those activities. and large-scale commercial concessions under The Head of the Luwu Utara District the New Order. These discussions left a strong Forestry Offi ce stated in an interview that he impression that forests are for logging and DR wanted to submit a request for the annulment are for rehabilitating barren land – rather than of the district’s contributing region status, to a more sustainable approach to continuous increase its share of DR and PSDH allocations. forest management. Although they have With its limited share of DR, the district was received larger shares of DR allocation, to date unable to reforest logged areas appropriately the results of rehabilitation activities in these (see Table 8, above). As a contributing district, districts have been poor or unsuccessful. Luwu Utara was also responsible for collecting The scoring system used for redistributing DR payments from permit holders. Sometimes, DAK-DR to district governments in South it had to allocate money from the district budget Sulawesi Province may have been subject to to reforest the logged areas, as DR shares in-depth analyses and thorough discussions alone were insuffi cient. However, fi ndings between provincial decision-makers, but our from the Focus Group Discussion (FGD), research revealed a number of weaknesses held in Makassar in February 2004, showed in the system. Two of the four assessment that a district’s fi nal DR allocation was greatly factors (see Section 5.4.1) used to determine infl uenced by the district’s ability to lobby top- the total score give high scores totalling 55 level offi cials in the Ministry of Forestry and for degraded forestland and watershed areas. Estate Crops in Jakarta. Based on observations in several districts in For a long time, the issue of accountability South Sulawesi, post-fi re areas, categorized as has been a critical problem in the allocation degraded lands, have increased in recent years. of DR. Many local stakeholders have made Could this be an indication that districts are less it clear that inappropriate criteria and scoring concerned about forest fi res nowadays because systems, as well as the ambiguities in the they can secure a higher share of DAK-DR if defi nition of contributing districts and regions, they have a greater area of degraded lands? have led to unfair policy implementation on Research has yet to uncover concrete evidence the ground. This inappropriate policy might, of a correlation between the DR scoring system in the long run, also lead to bigger problems and forest fi res. Nevertheless, we should with environmental protection. With non- be aware of indications that environmental contributing districts benefi ting more from DR, protection is not promoted under the current would it be surprising if contributing district design and implementation of fi scal balancing governments feel there is little incentive to measures. manage their forests sustainably? The more Stakeholders in Luwu and Mamuju pointed forest they lose the higher the share of DR out that forest management is about more than they will receive. Local governments are more replanting logged out areas or rehabilitating likely to maintain their forests when they have degraded forestland. It also involves continued sound incentives to do so. investment in forest security, forest inventories, Our research team also sought to include the protection and development of resources, as the views of offi cials from non-contributing well as monitoring of the distribution of forest districts, such as Wajo, Majene and Sidrap. products. All of these activities – and many

24 Ngakan, P.O. et al. more – are necessary to ensure sustainable In reality, district governments can use forest management and wider benefi ts for the DR only for technical implementation in the future. In our analysis, contributing districts fi eld. The DR allocation is not transferred as also need funds to maintain the sustainability of cash for use by the district government but as the remaining forests in their areas. However, funding for set project activities. For a district there is no central government funding allocated government to receive its DR allocation, it to contributing districts for this purpose. also has to provide Matching Funds (dana Should a contributing district have to pendamping)59 from its own budget (Anggaran provide a special budget, using local revenue Pendapatan Belanja Daerah, APBD) of up to from other sectors, to fi nance its forest 10% of the total DR it receives. Moreover, this management efforts? Is it wise that there is obligation contradicts provisions regulating effectively little incentive for sustainable forest Special Allocation Funds (DAK) in Law No. management? Herein lies the importance of 25/1999, which clearly state that regions are designing and applying appropriate economic exempt from providing matching funds for incentives (and disincentives) to fi scal reforestation activities60. In practice, similar legislation for the forestry sector. limitations on DR use apply to the provincial government. However, the province is not 5.4.2. Use of Reforestation Funds obliged to provide matching funds. (DR) Very different levels of fl exibility apply between 5.4.3. Responses from contributing the way central government and contributing districts regarding DR district governments may use DR funds. Law allocation No. 25/199954 and Law No. 35/200255 limit As the only contributing districts in South district governments’ use of DAK-DR. These Sulawesi province, Luwu Utara and Mamuju laws state that the 40% of DR (DAK-DR) used District Governments feel that central in the regions may be used only for fi nancing government allocation of forestry revenue reforestation and rehabilitation activities. In an (DR, IHPH and PSDH) is unfair and far from apparent contradiction, these laws also state transparent. The Head of the Luwu Utara that district governments can use DR to fi nance District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce stated supporting activities in the local reforestation that in 2001 Luwu Utara anticipated IHPH and programme. The law regulating the PSDH receipts of US$ 27 141.90 (based on implementation of this provision56 then goes on data on IHPH/PSDH collected by the district). to state that regional use of DAK-DR does not However, the actual amount received from the include fi nancing of supporting activities, such central government was only US$ 5 039.40; as project administration, project preparation, there was a similar problem with DR allocation research, training, facilitation activities, duty in 2001. Based on data regarding DR revenue trips and other general expenses. generated in Luwu Utara, the district expected Meanwhile, the same laws allow the to receive a DR share of US$ 278 805.60. In central government far more fl exibility in fact it only received a total of US$ 82 412.70. In using its 60% share of DR57. The Head of the the same year, Mamuju District also received a Luwu Utara District Forestry and Estate Crops much smaller DR share: US$ 92 428.40 rather Offi ce (personal communication) explained than the expected US$ 312 611.10. District that the central government uses DR not only governments also raised the issue of central for land rehabilitation but also for fi nancing government transparency in redistributing DR the operational costs of its Technical Executive at the provincial workshop in Makassar, in Unit (Unit Pelaksana Teknis, UPT)58, such as 2003. research activities, publications, supporting a PSDH is allocated in the same year that forestry diploma course, hiring temporary staff, it is collected, making it diffi cult to set a and even for procuring offi ce vehicles. fair sharing mechanism. PSDH allocation is redistributed to districts based on the targets

25 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi they set for PSDH collections from permit revenue generated from Mamuju District alone holders. In reality, these targets are rarely the would have been US$ 1 240 179.72. This is same as the actual amounts collected (Head of signifi cantly higher than the total of US$ 278 Luwu Utara District Forestry and Estate Crops 161.10, indicated by the level of funds actually Offi ce personal communication). It is possible returned by the central government. In short, for districts to project a much higher PSDH South Sulawesi received a much smaller amount revenue target than their forests could possible of DR allocation than it should have done. provide, and thus secure a larger allocation. Interviews with several timber business Some districts also charge PSDH on logs taken owners and a number of offi cials from the from other districts, citing it as PSDH revenue District Forestry Offi ce and other related originally collected from their own forests. institutions outlined several factors behind the This explains the discrepancies between PSDH DR allocation discrepancies61. records and actual volumes of timber removed Legal provisions and rules on DR payment from forests in certain districts. mechanisms are unclear. Business owners There is a clear need for the central usually pay DR after their logs have been sold. government to reformulate its assessment Furthermore, they often pay DR directly to the apparatus and distribution system for PSDH central government account without stating the allocation. One suggestion we came across origin of the timber or informing the district was that the allocation system could be fairer government. As a result, the central government if PSDH were distributed according to the has diffi culties redistributing DR back to the size and resource potential of the forests in the districts where the revenue was generated. district. Field observations also indicated In 2002, South Sulawesi Province’s 40% that district forestry offi ces do not have share of the DR amounted to US$ 111 264.40 comprehensive and effective systems for for re-distribution to the districts. From this updating data on DR and PSDH revenues sum, it can be calculated that South Sulawesi sent to central government. Without complete Province sent DR revenues of US$ 278 161.10 and accurate data, district governments will to the central government. If the assumption fi nd it hard to raise objections or complaints is that South Sulawesi’s forests produced only when they receive the wrong DR or PSDH ‘mixed species’ with a DR tariff set at US$ 12/ allocations. The districts need infrastructure m3, then South Sulawesi produced only about support (computers, database software, etc.); 25 287.37 m3 of logs. Looking at these fi gures, they also need to improve their capacity to we had to question whether this represented the provide more fi nancial record-keeping. actual amount of timber harvested in Mamuju The forestry offi ces and other relevant and Luwu Utara Districts. agencies in the districts take a relatively half- To try to answer this question, we looked hearted approach to collecting PSDH and DR at the fi gures from Mamuju District alone. The payments. This is because they feel that revenue Mamuju District Government charges SP3 tends to benefi t the central government more fees of US$ 1.10/m3 of logs harvested from its than it benefi ts the districts. Consequently, forests. In 2002, Mamuju District Government many HPH holders and timber business owners received US$ 114 831.50 in SP3 payments. are able to defer DR and PSDH payments Using this fi gure, we calculated that total In an alternative move, the Mamuju District timber production from Mamuju District was Head (Bupati) expressed his dissatisfaction 103 348.31 m3. This is almost four times the with the unfair allocation of DR by issuing total timber production quoted for the entire an offi cial letter62 requesting that the District province. It is also clear that in 2002 central Forestry Offi ce arrange for permit holders to government re-allocated far less DR back to pay all forestry taxes directly into the District the province than it should have done. If one Government’s bank account. The District Head assumes that Mamuju produced only the lowest wrote: quality timber (DR tariff = US$ 12/m3), the DR

26 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

- For every large-scale commercial or non- bank account. The District Head reasoned that commercial timber concession permit the decision was made to anticipate the delay in (IUPHHK/IUPHHBK)63, or timber DAK-DR transfer from the central government, utilization permit for privately owned land which had happened almost every year. (IPKTM) issued, an administrative fee will Indeed, almost all district governments in be charged in accordance with prevailing South Sulawesi complained about delays in regulations. DR fund transfer from the central government. - Permit-holders should be directed to pay For example, in 2001 Luwu Utara District IHPH, PSDH and DR through the Mamuju Government received its DAK-DR transfer District Government’s bank account for in December; the last month of the fi scal distribution to the central government and year. Because of this delay, the District provincial government in accordance with Forestry Offi ce could not carry out its planned prevailing regulations. reforestation activities on schedule. In the meantime, several local NGOs and local Acting on these directions, the Head communities accused the District Forestry of Mamuju District Forestry Offi ce sent Offi ce of postponing reforestation activities an offi cial letter64 to all permit-holders and in their areas and reported it to the DPRD and forestry business owners, informing them of the District Attorney. In the end, reforestation their obligation to pay IHPH, PSDH and DR activities took place in the following year, directly into the Mamuju District Government’s 2002.

27 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING 6 MECHANISMS IN THE DECENTRALIZATION ERA

This section outlines the decision-making was able to implement policies more coherently, processes used for district policy-making but Jakarta’s lack of capacity to monitor all during the decentralization era. It covers vertical the districts also led to policy failure and the coordination between district, provincial and failures of law and order in the past. In the central governments, horizontal coordination decentralization era Development Coordination between government institutions in the district, Meetings (Rakorbang, Rapat Koordinasi and the involvement of local stakeholders in Pembangunan66) are still held to coordinate decision-making processes. district development. However, these meetings only discuss the general direction of development 6.1. Vertical coordination in the district or province. There is little room between the district and for negotiation, or thorough discussion of provincial governments specifi c tasks or problems. Although sectors such as forestry and transmigration have clear 6.1.1. Interests and vertical administrative overlaps, there is little attention coordination paid to cross-sectoral issues. Although there Decentralization Law No. 22/199965 explains are representatives from all the different that autonomous regions (provinces, districts government agencies at these meetings, this and municipalities) are independent and have does not guarantee effective coordination and no hierarchical relationships. Nevertheless, participation. The meetings also provide little it also states, in the explanatory section, that or no room for public involvement. provincial governments have the role of Coordination between different agencies facilitating and monitoring districts. Findings and sectors will be critical to successful forestry from the fi rst phase of this research in 2001 and eco-system management and poverty showed that the district and provincial alleviation objectives in South Sulawesi, governments’ interpretations of autonomy are therefore our research team initiated a Focus often different, as they tend to prioritize their Group Discussion (FGD) to help identify own interests. Confusion has also been rooted opportunities and challenges for improving in the unclear policy framework. In the long run coordination, specifi cally aimed at achieving it has been almost impossible for the district sustainable forest management in South to comply with the prevailing national legal Sulawesi. framework for implementing decentralization. At the FGD, attended by representatives Almost every relevant law or policy is full of from the district and provincial forestry offi ces, ambiguity, confusion and self-contradiction. all the participants agreed that coordination The situation is further muddled when between the district and provincial governments districts try to make sense of the prevailing must improve to delivery better synergy in regulations as a collective framework. Prior to forestry-sector development in South Sulawesi. decentralization, a strong-armed government The research team put forward the following

28 Ngakan, P.O. et al. four hypotheses to stimulate discussion among had no intention of controlling districts the participants: by ‘misusing coordination jargon’. The a. The transfer of authority to the district provincial government is accountable to the governments and their elected parliaments, central government and has an obligation to together with the abolition of the former supervise and facilitate the districts. However, hierarchy between district and province, it often feels that district governments are too has led the district governments to feel they suspicious of its function as a representative of have full authority over natural resource the central government. To illustrate this, the management in their area. As a result they provincial forestry offi cials cited the fact that feel they have no obligation to consult the district Forestry Offi ces often fail to report provincial government. on how they have used their DR allocation, b. In the absence of any authority or control, or fail to provide vital data on potential forest the provincial government will try to use its resources in their districts. However, they remit to oversee coordination between the argued, the provincial government needs this district governments to achieve synergy in information to develop a database for setting up forestry sector development for the province a fair DR allocation system, or to support other as a way to regain some power. stakeholders, such as the central government, c. Coordination between district and provincial businesspeople, donors, non-governmental governments will not be effective if only organizations (NGOs), universities and other one party benefi ts. institutions that have interests in forestry d. As a neutral party, a university could development in South Sulawesi. facilitate coordination meetings between Meanwhile, district offi cials complained the district and provincial governments. that the provincial government’s commitment to coordination seemed to depend on the These hypotheses initiated some interesting potential it had to profi t from the distribution discussions. The fi rst hypothesis prompted clear of fi nancially profi table forests. They also indications of the district governments’ desire to complained that the provincial Forestry Offi ce manage their forests without interference from continued to implement activities in the the provincial and/or central government. Most districts without prior communication with district governments objected strongly to Law the district governments. This was the case, No. 34/200267, which revoked their authority for instance, when it drafted a management over certain aspects of forest management. plan for over-logged Large-scale Commercial None of the participants rejected the second Forestry Concessions (Hak Pengusahaan hypothesis: everyone agreed that developing Hutan, HPH) areas in 2001, without consulting more synergy between districts will be essential the districts. The only exception was the Luwu in the forestry sector under decentralization. Utara District Forestry Offi ce, as this offi ce had Participants agreed that even if a district has consistently tried to coordinate its activities and huge resources for its own-source revenue informed the Provincial Forestry Offi ce and the (PAD), it will not only infl uence but also be Technical Executive Unit (UPT) in Makassar affected by forestry policies in other districts. about all plans relating to forest use, such as Participants from upstream areas were very establishing enclave areas for local settlements concerned about watershed management and or developing community forestry. environmental impacts in the upper and lower Clearly, forestry sector coordination is reaches. They felt that improved coordination not optimal when forests are seen merely between district and provincial governments, as resources for economic exploitation. The and between districts in the same watershed predominant view of forests as fi nancially area, would be vital for maintaining the valuable rather than environmentally and sustainability of forests in upstream areas. socio-economically valuable dictates which The Head of the Provincial Forestry Offi ce agencies are involved in any coordination. explained that the provincial government All participants in the discussion agreed

29 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi that the university could act as a neutral key implementation activities, particularly facilitator. A Forestry Communication Forum those relating to fi nancial matters. The central (FKKSS)68 already exists, with the aim of government, for example, did not involve promoting coordination among forestry the Provincial Forestry Offi ce in determining sector stakeholders. However, it has trouble the priority degraded watershed areas in the maintaining intensive communication, mainly province. The offi cials were also upset that due to fi nancial constraints. With fi nancial they had not been involved in procuring tree support from the Center for International seedlings, which gave programme managers the Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the central opportunity to engage in fi nancial negotiations government-funded National Programme for with contractors or individuals providing Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation (GN- services. This clearly demonstrates that RHL)69, the Hasanuddin University in South competition for potential revenues and control Sulawesi (UNHAS) research team facilitated drives relationships between government a workshop to promote provincial–district agencies (the UPT, the provincial and district coordination in forestry sector development70. Forestry Offi ces), more than the desire to work It attracted representatives from the Indonesian together to deliver sustainable forestry and Furniture and Handicraft Association economic development. (Asmindo), the Provincial Forestry Offi ce, the At the workshop, the heads of the Sinjai Environmental Impact Assessment Agency District Forestry Offi ce and other district offi ces (Bapedalda), the Makassar Technical Executive questioned the role of the Indonesian Armed Unit, UNHAS, and several offi cials from Forces (TNI) in the GN-RHL programme. In the district government offi ces. The workshop fi eld, the TNI is vying to be the executive body, shed light on challenges with implementing overseeing implementation and developing the National Social Forestry and the GN-RHL strategic plans, in line with orders from TNI programmes in South Sulawesi. The research Headquarters in Jakarta (Markas besar TNI). team facilitated discussions about how the These complex overlaps added to the districts’ district and provincial governments could work confusion over the central government’s together to implement these programmes more obscure policies on roles and responsibilities. effectively across districts. To most people at the workshop it seemed Participants from non-governmental quite obvious that reforestation and land offi ces, such as Asmindo, NGOs and UNHAS, rehabilitation were not matters of national voiced the hope that public funds, i.e., DR, security requiring full military involvement. channelled to these programmes would not The decision to involve the military in the GN- be wasted. They also suggested that more RHL programme was seen as symptomatic of could be done to involve local people and competition between various vested interests NGOs in implementing and monitoring both in the central government arena. Participants programmes. also had the impression that coordination was The Head of the Administrative Section limited by inter-sectoral power struggles in of the Provincial Forestry Offi ce shared central government, and that central government his dissatisfaction over his offi ce’s lack of did not fully trust the provincial government to involvement in the GN-RHL programme. implement the GN-RHL programme in its own At the planning stage, central government province. In this light, central government’s coordinated extensively with its UPT, but very understanding of, and commitment to, the little with the Provincial Forestry Offi ce. The devolution and deconcentration of authority Provincial Forestry Offi ce had assisted the UPT were openly questioned by many at the in selecting suitable areas for the GN-RHL workshop. programme in each district, and with contracting One – if not the main – reason for the a team to evaluate vegetative growth during the confusion over which agency was supposed to monitoring phase. Beyond this, the Provincial implement the GN-RHL programme was that Forestry Offi ce had not been involved in any different parties were competing for greater

30 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

fi nancial advantage from their involvement. were generally more highly educated, seemed This caused problems in communication and to dominate the fl ow of discussions. As a coordination that compromised the social multiparty forum, FKKSS is still in a learning forestry and GN-RHL programmes. Power phase. It needs to improve its facilitation struggles diverted energy from ensuring that the techniques and methods for multiparty programmes were targeted to benefi t the most communication and participatory discussions. vulnerable stakeholders (the forest-dependent FKKSS also needs to clarify and prove its poor), or to support general environmental commitment to giving equal positions to all development and sustainability. Participants its members’ rights to infl uence the outcome felt that good watershed management was of discussions. FKKSS needs to improve its an obvious casualty. Policies are determined capacity and willingness to act as a facilitator by central government, and the province rather than steering the agenda and format of and districts have no choice but to agree. meetings concerning forestry issues in South They are dependent on centrally controlled Sulawesi Province. funding for staff salaries (from DAU), reforestation activities (from DAK-DR) and 6.1.2. Improving coordination land rehabilitation activities (from the 60% between districts and the DR share). In the end, local governments province found themselves having to implement central Five key recommendations for improving policies, even if these contradicted their own forestry development coordination between policies or made no sense in relation to local the districts and the province arose from conditions on the ground. Consequently, the stakeholders’ suggestions during a series of GN-RHL programme has not been implemented district and provincial FGDs, Local Advisory effectively and has failed to provide any Group meetings and workshops: solutions for local challenges and problems in a. A unifi ed perception of decentralization is the forestry sector. required. District, provincial and central During the discussion process, it was stakeholders all have different interests diffi cult to assess whether FKKSS was in and separate understandings of the truly committed to acting as a medium for devolution of authority over forestry communication and coordination that allowed affairs. Consequently, in any programme equal positions for all its members. This it is diffi cult to maintain communication, forum appeared to be dominated by provincial coordination and synergy. representatives. Paternalistic attitudes seemed b. Clearer national decentralization legislation to be strong. High-ranking offi cials dominated is required to facilitate coordination. There the discussion and the decision-making are many new laws and policies, but none process. For example, the founder and chair of are adequately followed up with clear FKKSS, who is also the Head of the Provincial directives on implementation; some are Forestry Offi ce, insisted on having a plenary clearly contradictory. In the end, each party discussion, although the majority of workshop interprets and implements policies to suit participants clearly requested small, group its own interests. discussions. District representatives stated c. Each stakeholder must be included in that is would be easier for them to discuss an effort to clearly defi ne roles and and express their opinions in small groups. In responsibilities. To improve coordination, the end, they agreed to change the workshop each has to fulfi l their functions and tasks format in line with the Head of the Provincial while understanding and appreciating other Forestry Offi ce’s demand. parties’ functions and positions. Vying for Our fi nal observation was that it is not easy authority, as is often the case, ruins any to promote coordination between stakeholders coordination process. with different backgrounds and interests. d. Coordination can work if each party positions Participants from provincial offi ces, who itself as a partner, not as a superior or

31 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

subordinate. All parties must treat each other with the District Forestry Offi ce is essential equally – because, in the decentralization because the Transmigration Offi ce needs to era, hierarchical relationships between the clarify that the sites it selects are not located district, provincial and central governments inside state forests (District Transmigration should no longer exist. Coordination should offi cial personal communication). not be interpreted as a ‘chain of command’ Having said this, our interviews revealed whereby central government dictates to that the District Forestry and Estate Crops provincial governments, and the provincial Offi ce felt that its current relationship with governments control the districts. the Transmigration Offi ce could be improved. e. Forests should not be seen solely as easily Following decentralization, the authority to exploited cash resources, but as life support develop transmigration areas was transferred systems. In this way, coordination will to the provincial government. Coordination be orientated towards sustainable forest was limited to meetings during the planning resource management and not towards the phase. During the implementation stage, the distribution of benefi ts (linked to tenure), Transmigration Offi ce hired consultants for which can disrupt coordination processes. project implementation (establishing new transmigration areas), rarely coordinating 6.2. Horizontal coordination with the Forestry Offi ce. As a result, new between district resettlement sites sometimes encroached institutions in South on state forests. This was the case in the Sulawesi and public new transmigration site in the Puncak Indah participation in policy- region. A similar problem occurred in Malili making processes Subdistrict, where 300 ha of forest classifi ed as So far, formal coordination between the Limited Production Forest (HPT) were cleared District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce and for a new settlement, without any coordination other district governmental institutions in with the District Forestry Offi ce. Luwu Utara has been fairly good. The process However, the Forestry and Estate Crops of drafting district regulations on forestry Offi ce also confi rmed that its staff had worked demonstrated good coordination between the together with the Transmigration Offi ce on a District Forestry Offi ce and the newly created few community development programmes District Legislative Assembly (DPRD), elected for transmigrants. They had supported these by local people. There are two processes communities with the establishment of cacao involved in drafting a district regulation: First, and oil palm plantations. Effective coordination the District Forestry Offi ce prepares the bill and between these two offi ces is important in the presents it to the DPRD on behalf of the District district. Together they are responsible for the Head (Bupati). The DPRD assesses, discusses property rights system and support natural and passes the bill if approved; Second, the resource based development by helping raise DPRD drafts a bill and presents it to the District the revenue needed to fuel development Government to be passed. However, at least from land-use permits and forest resource under the end of 2002 only the fi rst process extraction. Meanwhile, coordination between was used for forestry regulations. the District Forestry Offi ce and the District The District Forestry Offi ce also seemed Agricultural Offi ce is limited to implementing to get along well with the Transmigration the community development programme for Offi ce (Dinas Transmigrasi), though they do forest farmers. Agricultural offi cials said they not often work together. The Transmigration looked forward to improving cooperation with Offi ce usually establishes transmigration the Forestry Offi ce to empower forest farmer sites in non-forestry areas (APL) outside communities and develop agro-forestry. state forests, and should coordinate with the Interviews with District Mining Offi ce staff, District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce when on the other hand, revealed that they felt that selecting transmigration sites. Coordination there was currently no need to coordinate with

32 Ngakan, P.O. et al. the District Forestry Offi ce. The District Mining Research revealed that individual and Offi ce has only ever issued small-scale mining sectoral interests clearly infl uence policy licences, i.e., licences for class C excavations implementation by different institutions. For (river sand, stones, rocks etc.), all of which are example, Transmigration Offi ce offi cials often outside forest areas. According to staff from the paid local people to identify new transmigration planning division, the District Mining Offi ce sites, regardless of whether they were inside would coordinate with the Forestry Offi ce if or outside state forest areas, the aim being to there were plans for mining activities either obtain prices lower than the funds budgeted so inside or bordering on forest areas. that offi cials can pocket the difference. Another Ensuring the security of the forest is example is village and subdistrict heads abusing usually the job of forest rangers (Jagawana) their authority to issue local proof of land from the District Forestry Offi ce, who work in ownership letters (called Surat Keterangan cooperation with the police. The forest rangers Tanah (SKT)72. These local offi cials issue SKT consult and coordinate with the police to letters for administering newly opened forest conduct security operations and investigations. areas, regardless of the fact that they should be However, in the provincial workshop held issued only for land that has been farmed or on 28 May 2003, the Head of the District managed for many years by the owner. As a Forestry Offi ce stated that they had caught result, many areas inside state forests will be several illegal loggers and handed them over administered as private land, as the local BPN to the police. He was disappointed as these issues land certifi cates based on SKT letters. cases were never brought to court; instead the Despite these diffi culties, when compared to police freed the suspects for no clear reason. the situation during the New Order, coordination Low capacity for law enforcement to combat between institutions in Luwu Utara District has illegal forest activities was identifi ed as an improved considerably with decentralization. extremely urgent issue in the district. The It has provided more room for negotiation police were reluctant to clarify, or comment and coordination among district government on, the problem, despite being contacted and institutions, and made it easier to solve any invited repeatedly to various meetings with problems that arise. One reason is that local other stakeholders. One possible reason for institutions – except the military, the police, the their absence at meetings in the district could attorneys and the judiciary73 – are appointed be that the police are not accountable to the by, and accountable to, the District Head. The District Head (unlike the other district offi cials District Head can immediately call confl icting who attended the meetings), but to the Central parties together and facilitate discussion. If Police Headquarters in Jakarta. necessary, he can exert his authority and take The District Industrial Offi ce is responsible fi nal decisions. For example, when the location for issuing licences to companies for small-scale of a new transmigration site within the state forest product processes such as sawmills. Under forest sparked a confl ict between the District national regulations71, this offi ce is obliged Forestry and Transmigration Offi ces, the to take account of recommendations by the District Head summoned the heads of both District Forestry Offi ce. However, in practice, offi ces and mediated discussions immediately. the District Industrial Offi ce never consults In the end, the District Head decided that the the District Forestry Offi ce about permits for Transmigration Offi ce had to locate its new local sawmill owners. The consequence is that resettlement project outside the forest estate. demand from the growing number of local This is in stark contrast to the situation before sawmills now exceeds the carrying capacity of decentralization, when local institutions were local forest resources. As they cannot obtain accountable to and obliged to consult with their suffi cient supplies from local forests, sawmill superiors in Jakarta over every local issue. This owners transport logs from other districts and made problem solving a very time-consuming regularly accept illegally felled logs from local process. farmers or timber merchants.

33 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

6.3. Stakeholder participation benefi ts and swing decisions in their favour in local policy-making was also very apparent in Luwu Utara. Interviews with local government offi cials, Customary leaders admitted they knew village administrators, forestry businessmen nothing about having rights and obligations and community leaders revealed that the word to participate in district policy-making. They ‘decentralization’ was very familiar to the were unaware that they could provide input people of Luwu Utara. Local stakeholders saw to the District Forestry Offi ce or other local decentralization as the fi rst opportunity for institutions on forest management policies in them to benefi t from the resources that were their areas. During a series of FGDs, facilitated reserved for large companies and the central by the CIFOR/UNHAS team, district forestry administration in the past. Decentralization offi cials explained that local people could tended to be interpreted as meaning ‘total participate in district forestry policy-drafting freedom’ to utilize local natural resources, a processes through their representatives/leaders. right that every stakeholder felt that he or she They also told local people that one way to possessed. become involved in decision-making was Despite the confi dence fostered by through annual village coordination meetings decentralization, lack of public participation (Rakordes, Rapat Koordinasi Desa74). The in local policy and decision-making processes outcomes of these meetings would be used was still identifi ed as a problem during the by the district government to help determine second phase of research in 2002. More priorities for the district development agenda thorough research into the extent and reasons (coordinated by Bappeda). for the low participation of local stakeholders Unfortunately, the Village Heads of was conducted in the third phase in 2003. Sepakat and Sassa, the two villages selected for One important objective of the our research, let us know that in reality village decentralized system is to foster a democratic coordination meetings were not functioning as climate in which local stakeholders can be a medium for local communities to voice their more involved in decision-making processes. aspirations because they had never been invited The expectation is that with local people’s to share their ideas. Local NGOs explained that acceptance and support, the government can the recommendation forms for these meetings, carry out public policies more effectively and which were supposed to list villagers’ views on effi ciently. development priorities and be completed by Research demonstrated that not only village representatives, were usually completed the ordinary people but also the government by subdistrict offi cials, who did not consult offi cials who made the policies seemed to lack with village heads or the local people. understanding about how this objective could Customary leaders, village heads and actually be achieved. On the ground, poor village representatives responded positively farmers still experienced obstacles in gaining to the FGDs, which gave them the opportunity benefi ts from forest resources or access to to sit together to discuss important issues with decision-making; they were inexperienced and local decision-makers. During the discussions, ill-equipped when faced with local bureaucratic the Head of Sassa village immediately made issues. This created problems for local people two suggestions: who wanted to communicate and negotiate a. Customary leaders/community representa- with local government offi cials. They felt tives should be involved in forest manage- that decentralization had created more local ment practices, therefore they could also government bureaucracy, but little had changed revive local customary rules, which in the for them in terms of fi nancial advantage and past had proved effective in managing for- access to resources and important decisions ests in a sustainable manner, that would affect their livelihoods. They were b. Local forest dependants should be provided yet to feel empowered. with assistance in improving farming The ability of local elites to capture systems and techniques, and supplied

34 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

with basic materials such as seedlings sceptical attitude in any policy-making process and fertilizers, so they can develop more had often resulted in additional time and intensive and profi table farming practices, funds being spent. Some local NGOs also which would reduce the pressure they are had dubious agendas: they supported local under to log the forests. business owners’ enquiries about permits for trading forest products, without having any We also identifi ed some internal barriers reasonable arguments as to how this would within the Luwu Utara District Government, help local people or overcome the problem of which make local stakeholder involvement elite capture of forestry resources. diffi cult: Unfortunately, in every FGD, the issue a. Time constraints. When central government of improving public participation in decision- decided to apply ‘sudden’ decentralization making received little direct attention from policies, the district government had not village or community group members and their had suffi cient time to prepare itself. For representatives. They were more interested in example, several local regulations were discussing the excessive pressure related to land revised less than a year after issuance, giving claims over forest areas, or logging activities the impression that they were initially made in the forests. This was possibly because they in haste. This also demonstrates that the had no outlet for their views on these issues, district government is fairly adaptable and so the FGDs were used as an opportunity for open to discussion and input from other ‘participating’ by highlighting their problems. parties. However, it is aware that involving Nevertheless, a number of stakeholders, stakeholders fully will take more time, including the Village Heads and customary effort and expertise. leaders of Sassa and Sepakat villages, the b. Funding limitations. Involving many parties Head of the Forestry Offi ce, members of the in policy-making requires regular meetings DPRD and local entrepreneurs made some to keep all stakeholders updated on progress very relevant recommendations for improving made in policy-making processes. This stakeholder involvement in policy-making will involve budget planning and funding processes: decisions. As it is a new district, the a. All parties need to understand the history Government of Luwu Utara does not have of, and background to, decentralization. It suffi cient funds to cover such meetings. was initiated as a political reform driven During the third phase of research more demands for greater democracy by the than four FGDs were needed to gather people oppressed during the New Order information and outline recommendations era. One essence of decentralization is the for district-level policies. Each FGD reinforcement of democracy by bringing required a substantial amount of funding: policy-making processes closer to the one FGD could cost around US$ 50. This people at the grassroots of society so they should be considered thoroughly, making can become involved in those processes, sure not to spend too much time or money thus enabling policies to fulfi l the people’s on meetings, thus leaving insuffi cient sense of justice. funds to implement and monitor policies. b. Local people should be more proactive. Another important consideration would Because of various constraints, e.g., time be the allocation of funds for training and and funding, it is impossible to expect the provision of good facilitation. district government to completely facilitate public involvement in policy-making Local NGOs tend to position themselves through seminars, workshops or FGDs. in opposition. Feeling disadvantaged also led The people can proactively channel their to antipathy towards the district government, aspirations through their representatives, which added to the diffi culties of involving either in village administrations or in the stakeholders in district policy-making. A DPRD, and by attending offi cial meetings.

35 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi c. The DPRD needs to fi nd better ways to all, but it is important to maintain fl ows of inform itself about local people’s needs and communication between all parties with a aspirations. People feel ignored when no stake in forestry and related policies. DPRD members ever visit their villages. It e. NGOs must be competent, objective and is true that the DPRD has countless tasks to dedicated to local people’s aspirations. They undertake, but this does not mean that visits should not simply criticize the government’s to villages, which would give it insight as to mistakes, and they should take care that they the real conditions on the ground, could not are not doing so just to promote a certain be made a priority. individual’s or an elite group’s narrow d. The district government needs to be more interests. NGOs should provide alternatives open. People are often not aware that they or real input for addressing the problems have rights and responsibilities in policy- they identify, therefore NGOs need to be making processes. The district government more objective, more professional and show should inform the people of those rights genuine competence in their respective more frequently and should accommodate fi elds. They also have to demonstrate that the people’s aspirations openly. Aspirations what they are advocating truly represents might be very diverse. Of course the district local people’s interests. government cannot accommodate them

36 FOREST CONCESSIONS IN 7 THE DECENTRALIZATION ERA

In some aspects, decentralization provides sawmills. Their timber demand far outstrips the district governments with greater authority production allowed under these three permits. for managing their forests. However, many The majority of sawmills are located in the important policies with a major impact on neighbouring area of Timampu village, Malili forestry development, such as forest area District, adjacent to the forests at the mouth of designation, zoning, forestland conversion the Larona River. Luwu Utara District receives and granting permits for large commercial its sizeable water levies from this area. concessions, are still in the hands of central The Luwu Utara District Government government. District government authority is has also issued licences to open and expand limited to issuing small-scale concessions and new plantations by converting non-forestry commercial permits such as Timber Utilization utilization areas (APL) outside the offi cial Permits for Privately-owned Land (Ijin forest estate. These licences are handled by the Pemanfaatan Kayu Tanah Milik, IPKTM), District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce. The Timber Utilization Permits for Community district government can directly issue permits Forest (Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu Rakyat, IPKR) to establish plantations in APL areas because and permits for harvesting non-timber forest they do not require approval from the Ministry products (NTFPs). of Forestry to change the status of APL areas to Under District Regulation No. 5/2001 enable logging or other activities. concerning permits to utilize forest resources, Of the permits shown in Table 9 below, Luwu Utara District Government granted 13 seven are defi ned by the District Government out of the 41 permit applications submitted by as ‘community forest’ areas, although they are cooperatives or the private sector. These 13 located in the offi cial state forest estate. These permits included 10 Rattan Collection Permits, permits were issued to fi ve cooperatives or 2 IPKTM permits for harvesting timber on local groups, and two private companies. It is privately owned land and 1 permit for utilizing interesting to note that the private company’s timber for road construction (IPKPJ). Other permits cover 17 500 ha, and those utilized by permit applications are still under district cooperatives, of which there are fi ve, cover government review, or pending approval from only 10 000 ha. the Minister of Forestry and Estate Crops. The The forestry sector has become an important applications submitted for central government source of district revenue and the profi le of approval are mostly from companies applying those awarded access to the benefi ts of these for Timber Utilization Permits (IPK) and resources via the permit system has changed for establishing commercial plantation sites dramatically following decentralization. The in state-owned forest areas (protected and increase in district own-source revenue (PAD) production zones) (see Table 9). derived from the forestry sector demonstrates Whilst the district government has only the district government’s increasing access to issued 3 legal permits for timber extraction, its forest resources in this new era of regional Luwu Utara District is host to 30 active autonomy, however local communities and

37 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Table 9. Twenty-four of the 41 business licence applications inside and outside state-owned forests in Luwu Utara District requiring re-categorization of forest utilization No. Location Forest Area Proposed utilization Company name (District) status (ha) PERMITS FOR MIXED AREAS – INSIDE AND OUTSIDE STATE FOREST ESTATE 1. Masamba, APL and HL 200 Construction of new road from PT. Nelly Jaya Rampi Masamba to Rampi Pratama 2. Malili APL and HPT 700 Estate crops area managed by a CV. Sinar Wahyu local company OUTSIDE STATE FOREST ESTATE Non Forest Land 1. Towuti APL 200 Estate crops area managed by a UD. Nurul Fariska Putri local company 2. Mapadeceng APL 1 400 Plantation area managed by a PT. Panply large plantation company 3. Mangkutana APL 600 Estate crops managed by Kopekra Karya cooperative Bersama 4. Masamba APL 3 000 Estate crops area managed by a PT. Matano Agro large plantation company Utama INSIDE STATE FOREST ESTATE Limited Production Forest (HPT) and Protected Forest (HL) 1. Rampi HPT and HL 2 000 Cacao plantation area PT. Rampi Sinar Sulawesi 2. Malili HPT 300 Settlement and estate crops for KSU. Lampia Indah transmigrants 3. Bone-Bone HPT 700 Settlement and estate crops for CV. Dirham transmigrants 4. Malili HPT 11 600 Oil palm plantation PT. Lolo Persada 5. Malili HPT 1 500 Oil palm and white teak plantation PT. Duta Sulawesi Agro for transmigrants 6. Mangkutana HPT 49 000 Industrial timber plantation PT. Mija Raya Sembada 7. Malili HPT 17 500 Community forest managed by PT. Tiar Bungin local business Elok 8. Angkona HPT 750 Damar (Agathis sp.) forest UD. Sama Karya managed by local company 9. Seko HPT 975 Timber utilization PT. Seko Pajar Plantation 10. Nuha HPT 2 000 Community forest managed by Koperasi Perkebunan cooperative Mega Lestari 11. Mangkutana HL 500 Community forest managed by Koperasi HKM Manceka cooperative members Jaya 12. Nuha HL 500 Community forest managed by Koperasi Tani cooperative members Nuha Mekar 13. Towuti HL 306 Estate crops area managed by a UD. Usaha Tani local company 14. Nuha HL 600 Timber extraction by a local CV. Setara Global company 15. Mangkutana HL 800 Timber extraction by local UD. Karya Mandiri business/ new land opening 16. Malili dan HL 17 500 Estate crops managed by local PT. Tomega Tiar Nuha company Sembada 17. Mangkutana HL 50 00 Community forest managed by KUD. Bumi Jaya cooperative Conservation Forest Area (HK) 1 Mangkutana HK 2 000 Community forest managed by KSU. Basnar cooperative Sungai Welanti Source: Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Luwu Utara (2001b), Notes: APL = Area for non-forestry utilization; HPT = Limited Production Forest; HL = Protected Forest HK = Conservation Forest.

38 Ngakan, P.O. et al. villagers have yet to gain access to an equitable forest product originating from natural forests share of the direct benefi ts via the permit is already subject to central Forest Resources system. Rent Provision (Provisi Sumber Daya Hutan, PSDH) and Reforestation Fund (Dana Reboisasi, 7.1. Forestry administration in DR) payments, therefore permit holders feel the District that they are subject to double taxation. Some Under decentralization, permits for large- permit holders interviewed in Mamuju District scale commercial forest concessions (HPH) considered these taxes reasonable, but the are still central government business. HPH majority of small-scale holders in Luwu Utara holders need to seek approval from central District (including cooperatives and local government for their overall logging schedules businessmen) felt burdened by the new taxes. (Rencana Kerja Pengusahaan Hutan, RKPH). They expressed reservations and questioned However, they also need the approval of the the necessity and purpose of the taxes during District Forestry Offi ce for their annual logging a district workshop held on 29 April 2003 in schedules (Rencana Kerja Tahunan, RKT). Masamba, Luwu Utara. For example, PT. Panply, a concession holder in Luwu Utara, could not obtain approval 7.2. HPHs versus communities from central government because the District Local communities often interpreted regional Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce did not autonomy as an opportunity to demand provide a recommendation for the extension. unlimited rights. The fall of the New Order and The District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce subsequent reformasi euphoria gave them a said an assessment showed that PT. Panply did sense that they now had the rights they had been not meet the standards set out in the regulations denied for so long. It is perhaps not surprising concerning their environmental obligations in that they are now trying to obtain as much as rehabilitating forests, and had not paid its taxes they can from the changes in governance. In in the past. Mamuju District, local community members Decentralization has brought a shorter divided up former HPH logging blocks. With chain of bureaucracy, saving companies from the support of the Village Head, the community spending too much time and money following began planting cacao on HPH concession areas long ‘public services’ procedures – offi cial belonging to PT. Hayam Wuruk and PT. Rante or otherwise. For example, some of the HPH Mario. Some blocks (generally around 2 ha in companies interviewed, among them PT. Hayam size) were also sold to new settlers coming in Wuruk and PT. Inhutani I in Mamuju District from other districts. Forests were cleared for (Company personnel personal communication) new farming lands, not only in concession said that during the New Order era it might take areas but also in protected forest areas. This weeks for the provincial government to process kind of activity is not new, but it has increased the necessary administration for transporting sharply since 1998, after the fall of Soeharto. logs. This delayed shipment. The situation was similar in Luwu Utara (Heads On the other hand, district governments of Forestry Offi ces, Luwu Utara and Mamuju, have more responsibility for providing enough personal communication). A local employee at funding for development. This means they have a large HPH concession in Mamuju suggested to increase their PAD. Most districts, including that the problem could be solved by a re- Luwu Utara, do so partly by taxing concession classifi cation of the District Spatial Plan, in holders on their utilization of natural resources order to provide clarity to all stakeholders as to in their area, e.g., district forestry taxes for where they could and could not work. timber utilization or water levies (prior to HPH holders not only complained about decentralization, water levies were paid through communities opening up new land in former the provincial government to the central logging areas but also about many community government). These new taxes were imposed members demanding to be involved in the under District Regulation No. 5/2001. Every production process and receiving shares of

39 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi logging profi ts. They felt that this complicated sector business owners, and travelled to major their activities, as they had to meet cities on Java to promote Luwu Utara’s forestry predetermined production targets. According sector. A business trip in September 2002 was to the public relations desk at PT. Panply led by the Head of the District Forestry Offi ce, (Company personnel personal communication), involved dozens of forestry business owners the company (when it was still operating) had from Luwu Utara District, and lasted for two been told by a group claiming to represent a weeks. customary community in Luwu Utara to pay However, the district government’s plans US$ 0.60/m3 on logs that had been extracted and efforts to develop forestry sector business from forests they claimed were customary in its area turned out to be meaningless. Central forests. It is not impossible that the concession government issued a joint communiqué areas were located on customary lands. Could between the Minister for Forestry, the Minister it be possible that such claims were made for Transportation and the Minister for Trade as a result of these companies’ inability to and Industry requiring inter-island traders accommodate the communities surrounding of forest products to acquire a licence from their concession areas in the past? Under the the Department of Trade and Industry. This New Order, permits had been granted by central obliged business owners to obtain permits for government regardless of who lived there, transporting forest products to Jakarta, as was how dependent they were on the land and its the case in the days before decentralization. resources for their livelihoods, or what ancient Before they could trade forest products from claim they may have had on the land; therefore Sulawesi business owners had to obtain the it is not surprising that local communities felt approval of the Department of Trade and they needed to assert their property rights over Industry. The district government was unable their land. follow up on the contracts and agreements made during the business trip because it 7.3 Local government roles was not easy to secure inter-island trading in forestry business permits from Jakarta. Central government has development sometimes been accused of being half-hearted In their desire to boost economic development in its decentralization efforts in regard to this district forestry offi cials have held discussions situation. and business meetings with local forestry

40 COMMUNITY ACCESS TO FOREST RESOURCES IN 8 THE DECENTRALIZATION ERA

8.1. Rattan collection permits their permitted areas. The District Forestry Sulawesi supplies about 89% of the rattan and Estate Crops Offi ce confi rmed that they produced by Indonesia. Business owners lack the resources to monitor and enforce this (investors) feel that decentralization has made requirement. Interviews with communities it much easier to obtain rattan collection revealed they felt it unnecessary to establish permits (IHPHH Rattan)75. Instead of having to rattan nurseries or plantations, or to carry out travel to the provincial capital, they can now any rattan rehabilitation, as the natural rattan submit applications at the district level. As supply (taken from surrounding forests) was was the case in the past, business owners must still more than suffi cient, however they did start cooperatives of rattan gatherers located admit that they have to go a little further into in the area where the licence will be used. the forests to fi nd rattan these days. This issue This requirement is aimed at ensuring rattan came up during the provincial workshop held gatherers benefi t more fully from the forests in Makassar in May 2004. Participants agreed surrounding their villages. that it was necessary to raise awareness among Rattan licences cover areas of 500 ha communities and licence holders and merchant and are valid for 6 months. If after this time collectors about the sustainability of rattan the area is still producing rattan the company/ supplies from natural forests. Through effective cooperative may request an extension. Licence facilitation and technical assistance, it might holders are obliged to pay a tax of US$ 2.22 be possible to introduce rattan plantations in to the local government, and Forest Resources farmers’ fi elds. This has proved successful in Rent Provision (PSDH) ranging between US$ other areas of Indonesia, such as Kalimantan 77.80 and US$ 155.60 for every ton of rattan and Jambi Provinces, where farmers grow collected. To ensure that permit holders pay rattan in rubber agro-forestry areas (Widianto their tax, the district government also obliges et al.. 2003). them to leave US$ 4 444.40 with the district Communities are generally unaware of offi ce as a deposit (licence holder personal the regulations concerning levies on rattan. communication). They are also required Villagers never see the business owners face to to establish rattan nurseries and regenerate face, much less take part in the cooperatives exploited areas. they have supposedly set up. Communities Our trips to the fi eld and the District gathering rattan are generally unaffected Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce revealed by decentralization, apart from its effects that the cooperatives set up by business on the price of rattan. The Village Head of owners were mostly fi ctitious. The areas Sepakat, who himself gathers rattan, stated for exploitation were just drawn on a map, that rattan prices before decentralization had and no licence holders were reported to be been relatively good and had peaked when rehabilitating rattan collection areas. In reality, the monetary crisis struck in 1998. However, these business owners look for rattan outside they had begun to decline in recent years as

41 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi the monetary crisis has eased. During the cacao). When prices rise again, the men usually workshop held in Makassar on 13 May 2004, leave their farmlands, even during the harvest, the representative of the Indonesian Furniture to collect rattan. At this time, the village women and Handicrafts Association (Asmindo) work the plantations and rice fi elds. contended that rattan prices were affected The majority of respondents76 stated that more by changes in central government export collecting rattan generates more income than any policies than by decentralization. other activity, including harvesting plantations and rice fi elds. Not only do they gain a higher 8.2. The rattan gathering income from collecting rattan, but villagers in community in Pampli, this area have traditionally favoured work that Sepakat village, Luwu earns ready cash. This is another reason why Utara District gathering rattan is more popular than working Pampli hamlet is located adjacent to the forest, full time in the plantations or rice fi elds. The 12 km outside the district capital of Masamba. rice they plant takes four months to harvest, and The only access to this hamlet is an old, rocky because they lack farming knowledge and do road built by concessionaires, which has yet to not prioritize tending their crops harvest yields be asphalted. It can be reached by motorcycle are poor. Pampli villagers are not accustomed or car in 30 minutes if it is not raining. The to using fertilizers, whether organic or village has 141 inhabitants (36 families), most chemical. According to one community fi gure, of whom have only received an elementary one hectare of rice fi elds will produce less than school education (Table 10). a ton of unhulled paddy. As with their rice The rattan industry has been a fairly stable fi elds, the yield from their plantations, such source of employment and income in this area as cacao, durian, cempedak and lansium, is for centuries. Gathering rattan is the primary also low. Pampli villagers cannot rely on rice occupation of 90% of community members. or traditional plantation harvests to provide Work in the plantation and rice fi eld areas is enough income for their households. secondary, and takes place only when the market The villagers told us that no agriculture value for rattan drops very low. Therefore, low offi cials had ever given any assistance or rattan prices may place an additional burden on consultation in their area, either before or the surrounding natural resources by increasing since decentralization. A farming offi cial once the demand for land for plantations (generally came to Pampli bringing fertilizer as aid from

Table 10. Levels of education in Pampli hamlet, Sepakat village Level of education Total Remarks Persons %

No schooling 0 0 Still below school age Studying in 62 69 elementary school Graduated from 14 15.5 The elementary school in Sepakat village provides elementary school education only up to the 5th grade (age 10); higher graders must transfer to the elementary school in the neighbouring village of Pincara. Graduated from junior 7 7.8 In Masamba high school Graduated from 5 5.5 In Masamba senior high school College/academy 2 2.2 No colleges in Masamba

42 Ngakan, P.O. et al. the government. They said their crops had fees. However, the villagers were never given improved dramatically, but even though they proper receipts for these payments. Compared realized that fertilizer increased their harvest to gathering rattan, illegal logging is a far more they did not use any the following season lucrative source of income, however the risk of because the government did not provide them being caught is also very high. In Pampli some with any. Recently, migrants from Java have villagers still log without permits in forests married local women and opened rice mills. near their homes. Because there are no longer Could the presence of these migrants, who come any Class 177 trees left, they generally cut down from different cultures, bring about changes in sinangkala and kondongio trees, considered local cultivation culture? The answer will only less commercially valuable at US$ 66.7/m3. become clear as time passes. The fee for transporting an 8 x 12 x 400 cm In fact, similar types of knowledge transfer log from the forest to the village is US$ 0.67. have happened elsewhere. Introducing new Villagers sell the logs to local wood mills or to technology with no practical follow up, as in timber buyers who come to the village. the example of the government fertilizer aid, makes it diffi cult for local people to understand 8.2.1. Distribution of income derived what improvements can be made. Local people from gathering rattan are more interested in adopting knowledge Villagers usually gather rattan in groups. Each from migrants, as they can see for themselves group consists of 7 to 15 people and is usually what changes or improvements have been made up of family members and neighbours. made by applying their new technologies Activities begin with an order from a business or practices. This offers a good opportunity owner with a rattan production licence. Business to work together with local farmer groups owners contact villager groups through a local through intensive community facilitation. merchant or middleman in the village, telling Building community capacity for effi cient them that the market value of rattan is currently crop production will increase their livelihoods, high. Rattan gatherers are only prepared to and decrease pressure on forests, by providing enter the forests if these merchants are willing more stable incomes in the future. to pay US$ 0.8/kg for wet rattan (Table 11). In a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Figure 3 shows working relations between involving the villagers it transpired that several business owners, merchant collectors and of them worked as illegal loggers and often rattan gatherers. got caught. Sometimes, police or other local A merchant collector is usually hired by offi cials (not from the Forestry and Estate an investor to buy rattan in each village. He Crops Offi ce) would order them to pay fi nes approaches farmers in the villages, offering of US$ 33.3/m3. They would tell the villagers them down-payments for collecting rattan that the payments were local PSDH and in the forest. Down- payments range from Reforestation Fund (Dana Reboisasi, DR) taxation US$ 27.80 to US$ 44.40 per villager. This

Table 11. Prices at farmer level for different types and qualities of rattan Rattan name Quality Local price (US$/kg)* Local Latin Rotan batang Daemonorops robustus Special 0.12

Class 1 0.10

Rotan lambang Calamus koordersianus Class 2 0.08

Tohiti Calamus inops All classes 0.08 Other types (mixed) Calamus spp. All classes 0.07

43 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Business owner (Investor, licence holder) Down-payment

Merchant collector Rattan harvest (Wet rattan buyer)

Farmer groupFarmer group Farmer group

Figure 3. Flow chart showing working relations between licensed business owner investors, merchant collectors or village middlemen, and rattan gatherer groups

will later be deducted from the total received the rice fi elds or fruit plantations, rattan by the farmer. Collectors offer larger down- gatherers only gather rattan from the forest payments to strong, young, healthy farmers, near their village. They usually work alone to on the assumption that they will bring in give them more fl exibility to divide their time more rattan. From the down-payments, rattan between the fi elds and collecting rattan. They collectors will spend an average of US$ 16.70 leave at 07:00 and return at 11:00 or 12:00, on buying food and provisions to take to the bringing back 70–125 kg of mixed rattan78. forest. Those with families leave the rest of the Villagers told the study team that rattan from money with their wives to cover basic needs nearby forests is lower in quality and quantity; while they are away. This down-payment this is because the people do not replant or system may well make rattan gatherers less allow rattan to regenerate locally. In the past likely to complain when they return to fi nd that they would leave a harvested area to regrow collectors have unilaterally lowered the price naturally. As the local population has increased, agreed at the beginning. The down-payments so has the number of people collecting rattan. make it fi nancially easier for the gatherers to There is now a tendency to over-harvest. leave their families and collect rattan, but they Rattan gatherers also complained that if also weaken the gatherers’ bargaining power. they cannot agree a price, or demand is very During a 2–3 week trip gatherers can high, merchant collectors often bring rattan collect at least a ton of wet rattan. If the price gatherers from outside to collect rattan from the of wet rattan is US$ 0.08/kg (it can reach forests around their village. Outside gatherers US$ 0.12 for Rotan batang), the average net reduce rattan stocks in the forest surrounding earnings of one group member (after deducting Pampli. The people of Pampli told us that expenses) are at least US$ 61.10. Interviews rattan supplies in their forest are decreasing. In revealed that younger men (aged 27–40) can the past they could gather what they needed in earn between US$ 72.20 and US$ 111.10, less just one day; now they it takes many days and down payment deductions (around US$ 33.30) nights in the forest to gather the same amount. for one trip. More family members in the group They also blame destruction caused by logging (father and children) mean more money for a concession holders for their declining rattan single household. stocks. When the husband is needed for heavy Certain harvesting practices can also kill work such as preparing the land or harvesting young rattan plants, further reducing the stock.

44 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Rattan generally grows in clumps. Traditional price of rattan in Makassar is always relatively gathering practices – cutting young rattan – high and stable (Head of Luwu Utara District may exterminate existing clumps and limit the Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce personal chance of natural regeneration. These harvesting communication). techniques threaten the sustainability of rattan One merchant collector told us that he sells species, especially batang and tohiti, which are raw rattan to rattan permit holders. He earns the most expensive types and are now almost US$ 0.10–0.20 per kilogramme in commission. extinct. Sixteen local rattan gatherers told us A group will take back 10 tons of rattan in an it might be possible to grow rattan in their average trip, and the merchant can earn US$ fi elds, but only one had ever tried doing so. 111.1 from each group. There are 15 groups When asked, ‘Would you grow rattan in your in Sepakat village selling to one merchant fi elds if you were given free rattan seedlings?’ collector. Everyone (including the Village Head) said In the fi nal analysis, rattan collecting offers they would if they were paid to do so. the best income. However, local villagers have They do not think that it is necessary to no legal tenure of the forests around their area. grow rattan in their fi elds at the moment, This means that outsiders with permits access as they can still go to forest to collect free, the bulk of profi ts from local rattan. Collectors naturally growing rattan. However, if they also make a hefty profi t by squeezing the local are to maintain rattan supplies as a source of farmers, whose bargaining position is weakened income they will need to adopt more sustainable because they lack the necessary knowledge and techniques, e.g., selective harvesting, rattan capital, and do not have the tenure rights that plantation, regeneration etc. It seems that more could give them leverage with the collectors. time will be needed to raise awareness of forest resource preservation, and how important it is 8.2.3. Alternative solutions to for providing sustainable livelihoods for the problems facing the rattan community in the future. farmer community During a workshop held by the Hasanuddin 8.2.2. Obstacles facing rattan University in South Sulawesi (UNHAS) and gathering communities Center for International Forestry Research During Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (CIFOR) on 13 May 2004 in Makassar, exercises, FGDs and various workshops, it participants came up with several solutions was obvious that the greatest obstacle to rattan for rattan farming communities. The meeting gatherers is unstable local prices for wet rattan. attracted rattan farmers and Village Heads They cannot profi t when the price of wet rattan from Sepakat and Sassa villages in Luwu is less than US$ 0.08/kg. Villagers do not have Utara, NGOs, the Head of Forest Concessions the equipment or skills to aerate rattan, and and Conservation from the Provincial Forestry this puts them in a weak position when dealing Offi ce, offi cials from the District Forestry and with merchant collectors. Before the gatherers Estate Crops Offi ce in Luwu Utara, an expert go into the forest, the merchant collector on policy and forest entrepreneurship from usually tells them that rattan prices are high, UNHAS, and representatives from FKKSS e.g., US$ 0.11/kg, which makes them keen – a forestry communication forum. They to go collecting for him. However, once they formulated the following recommendations: bring the rattan back, they have to settle for any a. Rattan gatherers who want to become local price fi xed by the collector (e.g., US$ 0.08/kg businessmen or merchant collectors must or less). This is because the rattan will rot if it be empowered, encouraged and supported is not disposed of quickly. Knowing that rattan so they can mobilize rattan gatherers and gatherers are commonly cheated, the Head of help get a better bargaining position with the District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce middlemen (rattan permit holders) and investigated real rattan prices with furniture larger rattan manufacturers in Makassar. makers in Makassar. He discovered that the This recommendation was based on the

45 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

rattan gatherers’ complaints about merchant Recognized tenure agreements over forest collectors coming from other villages or land may help farmers here. towns and manipulating prices. If there h. A collectively managed forest area should were more local business owners, the chain be established so that communities can of trade between farmers and buyers in the implement a sustainable rattan management city would be shorter. With fewer middle system, perhaps by applying agro-forestry men, rattan gatherers’ incomes would rise. or community-based forest management b. Every permit request to the District Forestry principles. Restrictions should be imposed and Estate Crops Offi ce must include a on extracting timber from this type of forest Memorandum of Understanding between so people could only take rattan or other the business owner and farmer group. This non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in order could promote cooperation and a fairer deal to preserve the long-term sustainability of between the permit holders and local rattan the area. gatherers. c. A standard for sustainable rattan 8.3. The logging community management should be introduced; it should in Pulao hamlet, Sassa include standards for planting, harvesting village, Luwu Utara District and processing up to distribution. Pulao is 27 km from the town of Masamba. d. Artifi cial regeneration efforts should be The road is asphalted as far as Sassa, but prioritized, especially for tokoi, a unique deteriorates for the fi nal 3.5 km to the village. and valuable species of rattan; it grows When it is not raining, trucks can reach as a single plant and is very diffi cult to Pulao. The only regular means of transport to regenerate. It will become extinct very soon and from the village is by ojek – motorcycle if no efforts are made to aid its regeneration. taxi; the journey takes less than an hour from Rattan cultivation in farmers’ fi elds might Masamba. However, due to high fares (a return be considered as an option. trip to Masamba = US$ 3.8/person), and few e. External support from donor agencies is people travelling out of the village, Pulao is needed to assist the District Forestry and considered an isolated community. Estate Crops Offi ce to work together with The population of Pulao is 249, with 59 communities and promote sustainable of the households made up of migrants from rattan harvesting techniques. The local Rampi (another village in Luwu Utara). As government currently lacks the human and settlers, the migrants’ social status and rights fi nancial resources to handle many of the are not considered equal to those of the natives problems in the district forestry sector. of Sassa village. Often, when land disputes f. Asmindo should also contribute to capacity arise between inhabitants of Pulao and Sassa, building for rattan gatherers in the villages. the former usually back down. For example, As an association of rattan business owners, Solihin, an inhabitant of Pulao, cleared 1 ha who profi t from the hard work of rattan of forest and planted 500 cacao trees. After gatherers, this institution should provide the trees began to produce, an inhabitant of support and guidance to improve rattan Sassa claimed that the land belonged to his farmers’ livelihoods. ancestors; by paying the meagre sum of US$ g. Cooperation should be promoted between 33.30 he managed to take over Solihin’s cacao local cooperatives or farmer groups and plantation. banks that could provide capital through A survey showed that most of the people soft loans. Lack of capital is one obstacle in Pulao (95% of the total work force) have a to developing community capacity and relatively low level of education (Table 12). improving the poorest people’s bargaining Their main source of income is from taking power. However, it is not easy for banks to wood from forests (as loggers or transporters). provide credit, as they require collateral, The only villagers who have fi nished which might be diffi cult to source. junior high school are those who have lived

46 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Table 12. Level of education of Pulao villagers

Level of education Total (Persons) Remarks Did not ﬁ nish elementary school 178

Have no schooling 41 Still under school age Studying in elementary school 15 School located 2 km away Graduated from elementary school 7 School located 3.5 km away Graduated from junior high school 3 School located 11 km away Graduated from senior high school 0 School located 11 km away College 1 Lived outside the area since childhood outside Pulao. The nearest elementary school to cultivating plantations and fi elds, which they is 2 km away; children have to cross a river visit only at harvest time. and hills on foot to get there. In 2002, none An abundance of sugar palm (Arenga of the children fi nished elementary school: pinnata) and candlenut trees (Aleurites their parents told us that the fees were too moluccana) grow at the edge of the forest and high. Children and parents said that rather beside the river; both species have commercial than paying a large amount of money and value. Sap from the sugar palm trees is the basic walking a long way to school every day, they ingredient for red sugar, however no one there preferred to work as labourers. Children either has ever tried to extract it, nor do they harvest cut down trees or transport logs from the the candlenut trees. Local people usually use forest to the village. The people of Pulao do the sap for making tuak, a local alcoholic not prioritize education. During site visits to drink that the men consume at gatherings or on the forest, researchers witnessed children aged special occasions. 6–8 working as transport labourers. One boy The species of cacao growing in Pulao is was hauling logs measuring 2 x 25 x 400 cm not tolerant to direct sunlight; it needs shade up and down hills. He received US$ 1.90 for trees for protection. Residents often leave trees each log he carried. Interviews with villagers of no economic value to grow and provide showed that many boys of the same age did the necessary shade. In some areas, many similar jobs. For the same work, an adult can cacao plantations are unproductive because earn up to US$ 5.60 per day. Most of the adults the shade trees have not been managed; they working at the site (109 persons) come from become overgrown and completely block out other villages, and some even arrive from light from the plantations. Another UNHAS town. People in Pulao only start working again research project in Camba80, a village in Maros when money earned from the previous job has district (similar in many ways to Pulao), found run out. Saving money for the future is almost that the local people there planted commercial unheard of. fruit trees to shade their cacao plants. These trees included durian, sugar palm (aren) and 8.3.1. Non-timber resources potential candlenut (kemiri), so they could make money and their management in from the shade trees at harvest time. During Pulao the durian season, one tree could produce There are around 32 ha of plantation land and US$ 27.80 worth of fruit (Table 13) – a good 8 ha of rice fi elds79 in Pulao. Fifteen of the alternative source of income. Camba villagers villagers told us they have 0.5–1 ha plantations earn a decent living and commonly save money or rice fi elds. As in the village of Sepakat, crop from their profi ts. yields in Pulao are low. Farmers prefer going to An FGD in Pulao revealed that villagers the forest and cutting down trees for ready cash were unhappy with their current situation. They

47 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Table 13. Potential non-timber commodities in Pulao (based on examples from Camba village) Type of commodity Product Economic value (in Masamba) (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) Durian Fruit US$ 27.80/tree per year * Candlenut Seed US$ 0.90/kg, 1 tree + 40 kg/year** Sugar Palm Red sugar US$ 0.40/kg, 1 tree + 1.25 kg/year** Cocoa Seed US$ 1.10/kg, 1 tree + 5 kg/year**

* In other villages the price may reach more than US$ 55.60 per tree ** The annual or daily production for each tree varies depending on the age, size and fertility of the tree, where it is grown, and the season. did not like relying on logging, but they had no relocated elsewhere. As forest loggers, they other work and needed help to fi nd alternative realize that the production potential of their livelihood options. During the provincial forests has decreased. They rarely fi nd good workshop in Makassar, the Head of the District commercial trees such as kalapi (Kalappia Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce said he might celebica) in the forest these days. However, be able to assist them under the ongoing social relocating all these people to another area might forestry programme. There was a chance that not be the best solution. Our team found plenty the Forestry Offi ce could facilitate them to fi nd of scope for capacity building for local people alternatives to felling trees. However, he also to develop their own skills and make better use added that he needed the word of local farmers of the alternative resources surrounding their and leaders that they would be committed area. helping identify suitable new initiatives, which the programme could then support. They would 8.3.2. Distribution of income derived also have to maintain forest resources, and not from logging convert any more forest areas, because the Logging operations usually consist of a forests in Pulao are also vital for areas further chainsaw operator, two helpers, a cook and downstream. labourers to transport logs. In one day, a logging Interviews showed that villagers in Pulao group can fell 0.5 m3 of logs. If the wood they were aware that besides timber there are also collect is kalapi, they can sell it for US$ 52.80 valuable non-timber products such as rattan per log or US$ 105.60/m3. They divide their and resin in their forests. They told us that earnings between them, as shown in Table 14. the neighbouring villagers from Limbong and Adult villagers who transport logs usually Rampi earned more stable livelihoods as rattan leave home at 07:00 and return at 16:00. gatherers. One of the leaders said the people Depending on their strength, they will bring of Pulao originally gathered rattan, but with back 2–4 logs measuring 8 x 12 x 400 cm, the introduction of chainsaws they had turned at a fee of US$ 1.90/log or US$ 50/m3. If a to illegal logging as it provided more ready person can carry four logs per day, he can earn money in the short term, even though it was US$ 7.80. After deducting the other salaries more risky and considered illegal. Our research (helpers, cook and transport labourers), the team saw no fewer than seven chainsaws in chainsaw operator may earn up to US$ 13.90 Pulao. Chainsaw owners either operate them a day. From that amount he must also pay for themselves or hired them out for a fee of US$ fuel and oil. If the operator owns the chainsaw 11.10/m3 of wood felled. This is almost as he can earn more (US$ 19.40 per day) as he much as a chainsaw operator is paid for using does not have to pay chainsaw rental. the machine. Income from logging is substantially higher Due to their current living conditions, than from rattan collection. However, it is not Pulao villagers have recently demanded to be a sustainable source of income. Unsustainable

48 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Table 14. Distribution of daily earnings in one logging group No. Item Price/fee (US$)* (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) 1. Transport fee for logs from forest to village 25.00 2. Salary of two helpers per day 6.70 3. 4. Salary of one cook per day 1.70 5. Rental of chainsaw per 0.5 m3 5.60 Chainsaw operator per day 13.90 Total (price of log per 0.5 m3) 52.80 * All prices are for kalapi (Class 1 wood). For Class 3 woods transport fees are lower because they can be found nearer the village. logging will ultimately affect the community’s Several merchant collectors (timber or livelihoods. If they continue to cut down trees rattan buyers in the village) felt that local without any rehabilitation or regeneration police and military were now easier to bribe. efforts, there will be no valuable tree species After decentralization, the District Forestry left for the next generation. Villagers admitted and Estate Crops Offi ce was granted more that kalapi, the highest priced timber species, authority to monitor forest activities; this has become scarce because of uncontrolled makes it harder for those involved in illegal logging. As none of them has a logging permit, forest activities (loggers and timber buyers) no one person can stop the others from cutting to continue with their work. However, it also down trees in the forest. Under the law, their creates the opportunity for corrupt offi cials to activities are considered illegal. Table 15 ask for more money from illegal loggers or shows types of timber collected from the forest buyers who need their ‘special protection’. in Pulao. The Head of the District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce claimed to have conducted 8.3.3. The intricacies of the trade in several joint forest security inspections, illegal logs involving local police. The aim was to prevent Timber buyers come to Pulao to buy logs, logging and transportation of logs without which they then transport to Masamba and permits. However, they have had no success: for sale to retail traders. The journey takes those involved always seemed to know in them past the district police station and the advance when and where the inspections would Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce. The logs be – they halted all activities just before the pass freely even though they are not supported inspection team arrived. The Head suspected by offi cial documents. Loggers from Pulao that corrupt offi cials, either in his offi ce or in who participated in the FGD held in the village the police, were tipping off the loggers and complained that they were regularly obliged to timber buyers. Even if illegal operators are pay US$ 55.6081 a month in ‘protection money’ arrested, their cases are generally settled in the to corrupt local security offi cials for safe police station. They are never brought to court. passage from Pulao to Masamba. Others said Faced with such diffi culties coordinating with they also gave money to the Village Head to the local police, one District Forestry and Estate gain his support. This could be why the Village Crops offi cial felt that they were just wasting Head of Sassa always defends the members of money and effort with these inspections. Their his village involved in illegal logging. During efforts only created greater opportunities for workshops, the Village Head said he would corrupt local police offi cers and other offi cials. protect his community members from police The research team had trouble confi rming this or offi cials who accused them of being illegal with local police offi cers. They were always loggers because he believed his people had no reluctant to provide any information or respond survival options other than logging. to any of our invitations to local stakeholder meetings.

49 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Realizing the urgency of fi nding a more This might be done through intensive practical approach to the problem of illegal community facilitation to develop their logging, the district government has applied capacity. Examples include introducing a ‘downstream policy’. It now inspects local informal schooling to provide education retailers and timber contractors’ (middlemen) for children who cannot fi nish elementary log transport permits. These middlemen must school, or introducing better farming be able to prove that their products are legal skills and some simple and cheap farming and they have paid the relevant taxes on them techniques. However, new initiatives must (PSDH and DR). The local government also come from the community itself. Participants requires similar proof from building contractors, felt strongly that if the initiative did not so they can only use legally acquired timber for come from the villagers it would never be construction. The hope is that illegal logging sustainable or inspire their commitment. will decrease because it will no longer bring b. If the local community is committed to in so much profi t. This may be one example of taking part in development programmes more effective policing under decentralization. that they themselves have initiated, the local The illegal timber trade is not a new issue in government should support their efforts and this district. This approach to stopping it could help them through the social forestry or never have been taken in the past because the agro-forestry programmes of the District district government had no authority over the Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce and the local forestry sector. For short periods, this Agriculture Offi ce. Pulao has suffi cient policy has worked quite well. However, the farming land and many types of plants that district government cannot stop the timber could be cultivated in the fi elds (sugar palm, trading mafi a coming in with timber from candlenut, cacao, vanilla and medicinal surrounding districts. plants). c. A pilot project to develop locally adjusted 8.3.4. Recommendations for the community-based forest management in Pulao community Pulao must be developed. This might be The Pulao community members who joined done through demonstration plot models our workshop in Makassar explained that that provide practical and simple guidance they found it diffi cult to increase their limited on conservation and farming practices, such livelihood options, as they are very much as organic farming or terrace building. dependent on the forests. However, several d. Transportation must be improved and useful recommendations came from the other public facilities such as a school workshop discussions, as follows: and a health centre must be built in order a. Community-level capacity building is to accelerate development in this remote needed. Community members can stop area. Participants felt that the quality of life earning money from illegal logging for the Pulao community could improve activities if they have other income options. automatically if they had better access to

Table 15. Types and prices of timber taken by loggers from Pulao Local name Scientiﬁ c name Family Quality* Price per m3 (US$)* * (US$ 1 = Rp. 9000) Kalapi Kalappia celebica Fabaceae Class 1 55.60 Uru Elmerillia sp. Magnoliaceae Class 2 77.80 Kondongio Cryptocarya spp. Lauraceae Class 3 66.70 Sinangkala - - Class 3 66.70 Ponto Litsea ﬁ rma Lauraceae Class 3 66.70 Tapi-tapi Santiria laevigata Burceraceae Class 3 66.70 * Quality standards applied in Luwu Utara District ** Selling price from logger to timber buyer in Pulao

50 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

the outside world. Participants agreed to map, the community members could clarify discuss this issue further with the District their ownership or rights to use and cultivate Legislative Assembly, Bappeda (District land with the relevant district offi ces (Bappeda, Planning Development Board) and the the Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce and the Public Works Offi ce (kantor PU). District Land Agency (BPN)). The process of identifying the most sustainable alternative Finally, participants felt that it would be land uses would need communication and benefi cial to assess land allocation in Pulao, coordination between the community and based on the location, area and productive the district offi ces. Participants agreed that potential of the village fi elds. This should be this should be facilitated by a neutral party done via community mapping involving local (a reliable non-governmental organization or people to help them map out their area and university plan optimal use of their land. Based on this

51 LOCAL COMMUNITY CLAIMS OVER CUSTOMARY 9 FORESTS AND LANDS

Among traditional communities in Luwu Utara, Figure 4, drawn by participants at our owning large areas of land is a matter of great second district Focus Group Discussion (FGD), pride. Even if the land produces very little, it shows a pictorial representation of relations is considered preferable to owning a relatively between stakeholders involved in clearing and small but more productive piece of land. The claiming forests. size of the land a person owns symbolizes his In this district, as with all others across or her social status: the bigger the area, the Indonesia, different members of society more respect he/she commands. This mindset have interpreted decentralization in different encourages people to obtain as much land as ways. For local communities in Luwu Utara, possible – usually much more than they can decentralization has provided them with an manage productively. Consequently, many opportunity to submit ownership claims for farms and paddy fi elds are unused. The local forest land. They claim ownership on the term for these fi elds is tanah ongko – useless basis that they are customary forests (hutan land. We found that sample families living in adat) or customary lands (tanah adat). In one Sepakat village have 5–20 hectares of tanah example, a group of people from Limbong ongko, in addition to the land they actually village in the northern part of Luwu Utara manage productively. District demanded that the status of an area of In the other parts of the community, people conservation forest should be changed so that have more materialistic attitudes and lifestyles they could settle there. The area was forested (usually those who have experienced life in with damar trees (Agathis sp.). With the the city). Interviews revealed they are usually support of the Village Head, District Head and far less concerned with conserving forests. a member of the District Legislative Assembly They often cooperate with migrants from other (DPRD), villagers from Limbong laid claim districts (usually Buginese) to clear forests over this damar forest, saying it had belonged and claim the land. They later sell the land to to their ancestors. However, their claim has yet buy consumer goods such as VCD players, to be formally recognized by the Ministry of televisions, motorbikes, cars etc. Well connected Forestry. Research in 2003 identifi ed nine local local businessmen also take part in this forest communities in Luwu Utara who had claims land trade. They use personal associations over customary forests. The most common with government offi cials in the District Land reason given for making a claim was that Agency (BPN), the Transmigration Offi ce, and villagers were dependent on the forest to fulfi l with individuals from village heads all the way their daily needs up to legislative assembly members. The Head Aside from forest dependence, other of the District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce reasons commonly cited for making claims dubbed them ‘local realtor groups’. are: (a) the customary community having a long history of utilizing the forest; (b) the

52 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Mining and Environment Forestry and Ofﬁ ce Estate Crops Ofﬁ ce Distrct Land Police and Military Agency (BPN)

Community FOREST Transmigration Ofﬁ ce

District Subdistrct Businessman Planning Village Head NGO Agency Head

Business Legalization of ownership

Monitoring Partnership

Figure 4. Relations between stakeholders involved in clearing and claiming statforests in Luwu Utara District existence of a customary rule regulating the land once farmed by their ancestors, regardless local community’s use of the forest; (c) the of its current use. Local communities also existence of borders between customary forests defi ne customary land as land once belonging established long ago by customary institutions; to their ancient traditional kingdom (Kingdom (d) evidence of the claimants’ ancestral legacy of Luwu). The local belief is that they can use in the forest, usually in the form of ancient customary land in whichever way they choose, burial sites or planted trees such as durian or including selling it or giving it away to people coconut. Nowadays, due to their low earnings, outside their community. Research revealed and forest land being their only possible source that this assumption has worried the district of income, most villagers prefer either to cut government, making it reluctant to formally down their trees and convert the forest into recognize customary forests. farmland, or to sell it to other parties outside The local government has a different their communities. perception of customary property, based on a From a number of forest claims recorded, number of formal laws. Article 5 of Forestry two were selected for further examination Law No. 41/1999 states that a customary during the third and fi nal phase of this research. forest is a state forest managed by a customary These were customary land claims made by community (rechtsgemeenschap). As a state the To’makaka Masapi and the Balaelo Sassa, forest, its management and use cannot depart the customary leaders of Sepakat and Sassa from its designated status (as a conservation villages. forest, for example). Nor does the community have the right to sell it. This law also 9.1. Community perceptions acknowledges privately owned forest land of customary lands and (hutan hak), defi ned as a forest growing on forests privately owned land. Unlike the owner of a Initially, communities making claims were customary forest, the owner of an individually confused about the defi nitions of customary owned forest has the rights to convert its use land and customary forest. They assumed, and sell it. logically, that forests growing on customary Article 22 of Law No. 5/1960 on Basic land areas must automatically be customary Land Provision acknowledges ownership of forests. Their defi nition of customary land is property under customary law. Furthermore,

53 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi the Minister of Land and National Land Agency and responsibilities in managing local forest Head’s Regulation No. 5/1999 on Guidelines for or land. For example, the To’makaka Masapi Solving Problems of Customary Community (customary leader) and other representatives Rights also acknowledges customary rights of Sepakat village stressed that what they had of ownership over certain land areas. These claimed as customary forest was different regulations make the defi nition of ‘customary from defi nitions in national laws. The forest forest’ ambiguous. Communities assume that area was actually individually owned forest forest growing on customary land qualifi es inherited from ancestors who had worked for as customary forest. This implies a legal the King of Luwu. An offi cial from the District restriction on selling land or using the forest for Land Agency suggested that if the To’makakapi commercial purposes. Based on closer research Masapi or his family could provide proof, or with local communities, it would be more show the natural borders of the claimed areas, benefi cial for them to try to have their forest they could obtain offi cial acknowledgement lands offi cially acknowledged as individually of individual land ownership. Meanwhile, the or collectively owned (hutan hak milik); this Balaelo Sassa of Sassa village also made a would allow them to manage the forests for claim for customary forest. He demanded the either subsistence or commercial purposes. right to manage forest land lying within the Local people frequently told us that they borders of land under his ancestors’ rule during thought it was unfair that they had to follow the era of the Kingdom of Luwu. formal property rights laws, about which they were never consulted or even informed. For 9.2. The To’makaka Masapi’s example, the people of Sukamaju village in the customary land claim western part of the district said that state forest boundaries were drawn up and new categories 9.2.1. The history of the To’makaka of forest designated without consultation with Masapi’s governance the local communities. They have never been In the past, the communities in Masamba82 sure where the offi cial state forest boundaries did not recognize customary regulations actually lie. There is no formal law that provides or any system of government. This led to a strong and fair framework for allocating many disputes between them. Realizing the forest property rights to the poor. It is little importance of peace and unity between these surprise therefore that these communities revert communities, the leaders of each community to their traditional perceptions of property went to the Datu (King) of Luwu in Palopo83. rights. They believe they have an inalienable The meeting with the King resulted in an idea right over some areas of land. In their eyes, it to form a customary governance system led by is the state whose ownership claims are false, a To’makaka. not theirs. Research found an urgent need The formation of the To’makaka Masapi to facilitate both parties (government and began with the division of the central area of local communities), to promote more active jurisdiction of the To’makaka into three new consultation and collaboration on setting up To’makaka areas, each one given to one of the a property rights regime for the future. In this To’makaka’s three sons. The area was divided way the two parties can work together to fi nd between the three sons as follows: the best way to accommodate their different I. The To’makaka Masapi governed 7 needs and interests fairly. Kombongs (a level of governance under During several FGDs and workshops the To’makaka), in the mountainous area involving customary community leaders in around Dotte village, now located between the area, local stakeholders were beginning to Sepakat and Pincara villages. attach great importance to developing a shared II. The To’makaka Uraso governed 5 understanding of terms like customary land, Kombongs, centred in Uraso village in customary forest, individually or collectively Mappedeceng. owned lands etc. This would clarify their rights III. The To’makaka Masamba (Bone) governed

54 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

9 Kombongs, centered in the town of forests) collectively owned by community Masamba. members or used by the whole community as a livelihood source. The claims on lands The organizational structure of the and forests are made either for individually Masapi customary group consisted of three owned or family land (a number of customary leaders i.e. the To’makaka and his individuals from the same family). This two assistants: explains why the claim in Sepakat village (1) To’makaka had the role of solving disputes was made by the To’makaka and his family between communities and gathering all alone, and not by the Sepakat community as customary community leaders in the area a whole. under his rule together to form binding c. Even though there is still a known set of rules and regulations. customary laws on the use of the forest, it is (2) To’minawa had the role of assisting the no longer obeyed. Customary sanctions are To’makaka in all matters. Should the imposed only on people who steal individual To’makaka pass away or violate the sacred property. Beyond this, if the victim reports customary oath, he would become the new the theft to police formal law is applied and To’makaka. the thief can be sent to prison. (3) Baliara had the role of assisting the To’makaka in customary disputes such as 9.2.2. The status of the To’makaka those involving community members’ use Masapi’s claim of the forests. The Baliara would try to The To’makaka Masapi and his family had resolve any disputes fi rst before handing made a claim for 500 ha of land. At the time over to the To’makaka. when To’makakas ruled (during the era of the Luwu Kingdom), the land had belonged to their Nowadays, customary systems and ancestors. When participatory mapping took community structures have changed in many place on 27 February 2004, the To’makaka ways. The central government divided areas Masapi immediately pointed out the site where into small hamlets and villages to be led by a his parents’ house once stood and the site government-appointed village head, modelled where the village he grew up in once was. The on the Javanese system of village-level local community calls the area the Kampung governance. As a result, the To’makaka’s roles Tua (ancient settlement) of Dotte, even though are now limited to overseeing social ceremonies there is not a single house left standing. The i.e. traditional marriages, religious occasions, area is now a secondary forest where well etc. Today, the To’makaka Masapi no longer managed durian plantations, cacao trees and has the authority to regulate the use of the other timber species have been planted. When forests in this area (Sepakat village). All forests the trees bear fruit, the To’makaka Masapi’s are governed by the state, i.e., the Forestry and family harvests them. All this shows that the Estate Crops Offi ce. All in all, we observed the To’makaka’s family members still use and following shifting paradigms in community manage the area for production. However, customary practices in Sepakat village: the land is family property (the To’makaka’s a. Communities no longer share a strong family), not community (collective) property. customary identity, and today follow formal Therefore, community members (Sepakat regulations administered by the Village Head villagers) cannot benefi t from the land. (Kepala Desa). Community members have Prior to this research, the To’makaka had left behind most of their customary forest never measured the actual size of the claimed management practices and regulations. In area. When the team carried out participatory daily practice, the customary leader (the mapping together with local people, the To’makaka) no longer has any authority to To’makaka Masapi pointed out some natural govern forest use. borders (rivers and hills) as the borders of the b. There are no customary areas (lands or claimed area. The coordinates of these natural

55 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi borders were recorded using a Global Positioning According to the current Balaelo of Sassa, System (GPS). The map of the customary land the Sassa community has always owned an claim for the Dotte village area is shown in area of customary land. This land has clearly Figure 5. The map shows us that the total area defi ned borders: Takudi to the north, the Meli that the To’makaka Masapi is claiming is only River to the east, the Binua River to the west and 232 ha. Based on the government map of Luwu Baebunta to the south. In relation to rights over Utara District, the claimed land is categorized lands and forests, customary law recognizes by the state as a non-forestry utilization area what is called Tana Balaelo, meaning land (Areal Penggunaan Lain (APL)). owned collectively by the customary people We also involved some people from of Sassa, and Tanana Balaelo, which is adjacent villages to obtain more information land owned personally by the Balaelo or his for the mapping process. Neighbours confi rmed family. the To’makaka Masapi family’s ownership of Sassa society had a customary law the claimed area. The next problem for them governing the use of their forests. Before a was they were not aware of any regulation group of people from the community could allowing a person to claim personal ownership enter the forest they had to follow a traditional of a 232-ha forest. At the last workshop we ritual; this started by sending cattle into the held in Makassar, the District Land Agency area of the forest where they were going explained that an individual claim over an area to work. The community also had rituals is recognized by law, providing that strong recognizing their ownership rights. According proof of previous ownership can be shown, to the Sassa Village Head, in the 1960s and the claim is acknowledged by other people villagers from Rampli, a more populated area living in, and around the area (see Section 3.3 in the same district, were relocated to Pulao on customary land and forest policy). village in the Sassa region. At this time the incomers and original residents conducted an 9.3. The Balaelo Sassa’s ancient ceremony and made compensation. customary forest claim The incomers presented a roll of white fabric and an amount of money in return for rights to 9.3.1. The history the Balaelo use the Sassa land and forest resources. Sassa’s governance Today, the Balaelo no longer has full Local history tells of To’manurung, a woman authority over the use and management of the sent to earth by God and born of a bamboo forest in Sassa. Interviews with local people, tree. The Limolang tribe, who live in Sassa who are fully dependant of forest products, village, believe they are direct descendants of revealed that community members do not ask To’manurung. They speak the To’manurung for permission from the Balaelo to take timber language, which functions as a spoken history or other products from the forest. Instead, they passed from generation to generation in Sassa ask the District Forestry Offi ce (unless they communities. Balaelo is the term used in Sassa are logging without a permit). This is because for the leader of a Limolang tribe. people can only sell timber and other forest Similar to the situation in Masapi, the products to support their daily needs if they organizational structure of the Limolang have offi cial permits from the Forestry and customary system involved three customary Estate Crops Offi ce. In this way, customary leaders: laws have been eroded and replaced by formal a. Balaelo. The customary chief who oversaw laws. Community members no longer feel they the implementation of customary laws and have to follow customary laws, as the formal regulations. ones have replaced them in daily practice. One b. To’minawa. The spokesperson for the principle of customary law is that customary Balaelo for all customary affairs. leaders take their authority from their people, c. Wolang. The security advisor to all not from the government; therefore a customary customary community members. communities’ existence is self-determined.

56 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

CLAIMED AREAS OF DOTTE CUSTOMARY LAND/FOREST, SEPAKAT VILLAGE MASAMBA SUBDISTRICT LUWU UTARA DISTRICT Scale 1 : 15.000 N

Legends: Dense Forest Cultivated Areas Ex-Old Villages River Claimed Customary land/forest border

Figure 5. The area of customary land claimed by the To’makaka Masapi on the border of Sepakat and Pincara villages, Luwu Utara District

57 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

However, a formal national regulation84 states 9.4. Recommendations for that the existence of a customary community solving claims over forest is not legally recognized by the state until it areas is confi rmed through research conducted by The following recommendations for handling the local government together with customary ownership claims over forest areas were drawn communities, and involving experts on up in a participatory group discussion during customary practices, non-governmental a Center for International Forestry Research organizations and other stakeholders dealing (CIFOR)–UNHAS workshop on 13 May 2004 with natural resource management. Therefore, in Makassar. The group consisted of the Head an adjustment and integration of customary of Bappeda, members of the DPRD, the Head norms and the statutory system (formal national of BPN, the Head of the District Forestry and laws, district regulations etc.) is needed. Local Estate Crops Offi ce, an expert on customary experience demonstrated that the best outcomes systems and practices from the Faculty of are achieved if this is facilitated through an Law at UNHAS, the Head of the Forest Area inclusive decision-making process. Designation Bureau (BPKH), customary leaders (the To’makaka Masapi and Balaelo 9.3.2. The status of the Balaelo Sassa) and Lestari NGO. Sassa’s claim a. Claiming land as personal property: Only On behalf of the customary community in land outside the state forest estate can be Sassa, the Balaelo made a claim for the forest claimed. Lands outside forest areas in the where his people make a living, claiming it district are outside the jurisdiction of the as customary forest. The claim had the full District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce, support of the Village Head of Sassa. The so claims can be submitted directly to the Balaelo also stated that the claimed forest area BPN. According to the Head of BPN, such had very clear natural borders. In early June claims can go hand in hand with a land 2004 the Hasanuddin University (UNHAS) registration in order to secure ownership team conducted a participatory mapping rights. It should be noted that there are survey of the claimed forest area using GPS regulations limiting the amount of land that and satellite imagery (See Figure 6). Analysis may be owned by an individual. of the resulting map shows that the claimed b. Customary land or forests inside the state area is about 8,935 ha in size, covering 3,935 forest. The District Forestry and Estate ha of conservation forest and 5,400 ha of APL Crops Offi ce can process claims over (land offi cially classifi ed as non-forest). customary land/forest inside the state forest However, in accordance with National estate. Under some circumstances, a claim Land Regulation No. 5/1999, the Sassa claim can be made for the acknowledgement of requires further research before ownership can a customary forest; once it is recognized be legitimized. The Balaelo Sassa stated that its management will have to follow the his people would manage the claimed forest government’s social forestry model in according to its state-designated function and consultation with neighbouring local would not sell the area under any circumstances. communities. In theory, this management The Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce promised model can fi t in with local communities’ to facilitate the Sassa community’s claim objectives and needs, and help them realize in cooperation with other institutions in the their rights or aspirations. This option does local government (Makassar, 13 May 2004). not recognize the community’s ownership However, other offi cials from the District rights: it simply confers management rights Legislative Assembly (DPRD), the District and on them (if they follow the prescribed social Provincial Planning Agency (Bappeda) and the forestry model). There is one other thing that Mining Offi ce, expressed their concerns over makes this recommendation problematic: the possibility of sparking mass claims from national regulations state that customary other villages in Luwu Utara.

58 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

150-10 150-12 150-14 150-16 CLAIMED LAND/FOREST AREAS BY SASSA COMMUNITIES LUWU UTARA DISTRICT 0 0 8 8 - - N 2 2

a s 1 0 1 2 KM e a M . S

Legends: Dense Forest Secondary Forest, Cultivated Lands 5 5 8 8 - - 2 2 Protection Forest Areas Pulau S . Non-Forestry Use Areas

P e k Road u r in River g a n Location of community activities

Sassa Source map S. 4 4 Binu 8 an 8 2002 Landsat Imagery - - g 2 2 Topographic Map a tab alu . S S. Sassa S

ng ngko Uri 3 3 . Ro 8 8 S - - 2 2

Department of Forestry UNHAS and CIFOR 150-10 150-12 150-14 150-16

Figure 6. Area claimed as customary forest by the Sassa customary community

communities can be declared extinct. This for instance), it does not mean that there happens if the customary community no is no hope left for the community to gain longer practises its customary laws, norms the right to manage the forest. According and regulations, where its members no to the law, there are other forms of forest longer comply with customary institutions/ management rights for communities. These leaders, or it is deemed to be extinct by include establishing a village forest or a the local administration or its neighbours. community forest (CIFOR 2002). It should Once a community is deemed to be ‘extinct’ be noted that the mechanism for obtaining it cannot be revived as a newly formed rights over a village forest or a community customary community. forest are similar to those for a customary c. A special team is required to identify and forest. The land cannot be owned by the assess the traditional organization, structure community, and the management system is and the customary area of the community also fairly similar for all three categories of making a claim. The Head of District forest. Forestry and Estate Crops Ofﬁ ce can e. People from neighbouring villages should later facilitate the claim to the customary be involved in determining the extent of forest to ensure that the claim does not the community’s customary forest land. contravene the principles of sustainable For example, some of Sassa’s customary forest management, and that the forest will area covers parts of the neighbouring be used for the welfare of the community. villages. It is often the case that claimed d. Even if it turns out that the Sassa areas may overlap with land in surrounding community claim is not accepted (if the villages, therefore a participatory mapping customary community is declared extinct, survey should be undertaken, involving the

59 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

neighbouring villages, to prevent potential conducted, particularly of those customary land confl icts in the future. communities whose status is well f. Integrated research into the customary recognized by neighbouring communities governance systems in the whole of Luwu and who still practise customary norms Utara District is necessary. This should in their daily lives. The criteria set out in involve experts on customary governance formal regulations (Basic Agrarian Law systems, customary leaders and fi gures, (BAL) and Basic Forestry Law (BFL)) NGOs, DPRD), BPN, Forestry and Estate must be integrated with prevailing norms Crops offi cials, the district and provincial and customary laws in the area. This government, BPKH, research centres survey also needs to take into account and universities. These institutions could communities who do not have such strong also be involved in developing a district ancestral claims over land. What will regulation (Perda) on customary property happen to them? How can their rights to a rights. There is growing concern from local livelihood be protected? Another possibility government that if the To’makaka Masapi is to develop a new and inclusive defi nition and the Sassa community’s claims are of ‘customary community’ through accepted, other communities will submit participatory approaches facilitated by a mass of never-ending claims. Therefore, action research methods. This would form a thorough assessment of customary a good basis for handling future claims. communities in Luwu Utara should be

60 10 DISTRICT FORESTRY SPATIAL PLANNING

In the early years of decentralization, the Planning Development Agency (Bappeda) Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce in Luwu Utara as base maps to plan out the forest areas; District faced diffi culties because of the lack of however, there was no coordination between qualifi ed and professional staff in the district. the two offi ces. This research project tried to To overcome the problem, the District Forestry develop better mechanisms for coordination Offi ce hired consultants from the Watershed and communication between local offi ces. Management Bureau (BPDAS) and the Forest Through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Mapping Agency (Balai Pemantapan Kawasan several meetings facilitated by the Hasanuddin Hutan, BPKH)85, both based in Makassar, a 12- University (UNHAS) – Center for International hour drive away. The consultant from BPDAS Forestry Research (CIFOR) research team, the helped the Forestry Offi ce to measure and District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce has map locations for reforestation. Meanwhile, increased its contact with Bappeda and other the BKPH offi cial helped develop forest area related offi ces. As a result, it now coordinates designations and utilization plans. These more regularly and had developed an integrated consultancies stopped in August 2002, when District Forestry Spatial Plan using maps the Forestry Offi ce hired its own Geographic developed by Bappeda and the Transmigration Information Systems (GIS) expert. and Agriculture Offi ces. Unfortunately, due Lack of suffi cient GIS tools and to limited funds available for duplicating equipment also added to the diffi culties in the maps, copies are available only from the developing district spatial plans. In 2002 the Bappeda offi ce. offi ce acquired an old drawing table donated In 2003, as part of this research’s contribution by a private consultant. The District Forestry to the development of a district spatial plan, the and Estate Crops Offi ce fi nally bought a set of UNHAS-CIFOR team developed an integrated second-hand drawing tables, but still lacked administrative map of Luwu Utara, which necessary equipment. To develop the District included forest delineation. Forest delineation Forestry Spatial Plan, they used a very basic was one of the greatest challenges for the map of Indonesia (Peta Rupabumi) supported Luwu Utara Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce by fi eld survey data gathered manually using when it came to developing their new district compasses and a Global Positioning System plan. Prior to decentralization, actual borders (GPS). They produced a number of standard and physical markers on the ground differed maps, three re-settlement maps, two location from those marked on maps. Technically, the maps for damar and rattan extraction permits, maps should have been accurate because fi eld two maps for timber clearance permits for technicians from the Regional Forest Inventory privately owned land (IPKTM), and one map and Mapping Agency (provincial offi cials for the District Reforestation Plan. accountable to the Ministry of Forestry) visited The Forestry Offi ce could, in fact, have local areas. However, local people living in used maps already developed by the District areas close to, or inside, forests complained

61 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi that boundary markers were placed on their 10.1. Spatial planning land simply because the fi eld technicians were mechanisms and reluctant to take long walks to reach the real processes in Luwu Utara forest borders. A workshop held in the fi rst In theory, Luwu Utara District’s Forestry year of this research project revealed that a Plan (Figure 7) provides room for public Sukamaju villager once saw a fi eld technician participation. It should be possible for local put a border marker in his backyard. He people to participate in the development of complained to him and managed to ‘save’ his strategic plans for forest management, if not in land from the state. This indicates that perfect technical planning processes. To measure the maps on paper mean nothing if there is not degree to which people participated in forestry adequate supervision and resources to oversee programmes, UNHAS visited Karawa and implementation on the ground. Lantang Tallang villages, where the District It was clear from the results of Phases I Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce has developed and II of this study that the district government village nurseries (Kebun Bibit Desa (KBD), required capacity building support to improve as part of its Community Forest Management its mapping and planning skills. UNHAS and Planning process. Villagers’ participation in the CIFOR held training sessions on GIS and technical planning process was non-existent. spatial planning in January 2004, in Makassar. Fifteen villagers randomly selected said they The activity involved GIS experts from the were not involved in any decision-making Provincial Forest Inventory and Mapping processes. The District Forestry and Estate Agency and UNHAS. Representatives from Crops Offi ce alone determined what timber various agencies in Luwu Utara District species villagers had to grow on their lands, participated in the training. These included how selected species would be distributed, and offi cials from the Forestry and Estate Crops, the exact locations for planting the seedlings. Mining, Bappeda and Agriculture Offi ces. Thirteen of the fi fteen villagers said that if they The heads of these district government offi ces had been asked about what species to plant, followed up by procuring computers for the they would have preferred fruit trees such as people who had taken part in the training rambutan and durian, or timber species like uru and assigning them the task of continuing to (Elmerillia sp.) and bitti (Vitex coffasus) to the coordinate with other offi ces whilst developing white teak (Gmelina arborea) selected by the sectoral spatial plans for their agencies. Forestry Offi ce.

District Spatial Plan

Field Technician’s District Forestry’s input District Forestry technical planning Spatial Plant

Subdistrict

Community input

Figure 7. Forestry planning mechanisms in Luwu Utara District

62 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Of a total of 128 villagers interviewed in 10.2. Forest products utilization 2002, 91 claimed they were never involved permits in any planning processes for the District The District Government of Luwu Utara Forestry Plan – be they strategic or technical. has already established a standard operating The villagers all said that they did not have procedure to deal with applications for forest enough access to forest management planning utilization permits. These include permits or decision-making processes. We followed up for collecting rattan (IHPHH Rattan), timber on this complaint by facilitating participatory (IPK), and timber from privately owned land decision-making exercises in collaboration (IPKTM). All applicants have to attach maps with a local non-governmental organization of the areas concerned to their application. and the District Forestry and Estate Crops However, maps submitted do not show location Offi ce. Several FGDs and village meetings coordinates, which can result in overlaps. were held to gather input from communities Without coordinates it is very diffi cult for and provide them with information regarding offi cials to carry out checks on the ground forest management. This also gave them the and conduct area mapping using overlay opportunity to meet with Forestry Offi ce techniques. offi cials, sometimes for the fi rst time. Some Figure 8 illustrates the process for villagers told us that these introductions had assessing applications. It shows that the been enough to build their confi dence, so now District Head (Bupati) issues permits based on they just go straight to the forestry offi ces when recommendations from the District Forestry and they have ideas or complaints. Estate Crops Offi ce concerning the suitability of proposed locations.

Application for a permit Mamuju District Forestry Offi ce (a regional offi ce of the central Ministry of Forestry) District Head’s Offi ce

District Forestry and Estate Crops Ofﬁ ce 1. Assesses recommendations from Econom Dept. 2. Gound check and feasibility assessment 3. Submits recommendation to District Head

Luwu Utara District Hard copy District Head - Governor Issues Permit - Provincial Forestry Ofﬁ ce - District Legislative Assembly - District Forestry Ofﬁ ce Applicant

Figure 8. Flow chart showing application processes for Forest Products Utilization Permits (IHPHH, IPKTM) in Luwu Utara and Mamuju Districts

63 11 CONCLUSION

In many countries that have moved to properly. One thing that stood out was how decentralize their governance system, forests little attention the district government paid to are always subject to the most scrutiny and empowering forest communities, despite the dispute of all natural resources (Kaimowitz forests’ sustainability depending so heavily on et al. 1998). This is possibly because forest them. resources can be exploited quickly and cheaply, This lack of attention to the forest and with relatively little investment. communities of Luwu Utara was partly due to Following decentralization, many districts limited funds: it was also due to the minimal in Indonesia now count very heavily on their amount of information that the government had forests for income. Unfortunately, the central on the lives or needs of villagers. The Forestry Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta still expects large Offi ce did not have suffi cient personnel to returns from forest resources in the districts. go into the fi eld and deal directly with local This has led to clashes of interest. Inconsistent villagers. On the other hand, communities and contradictory laws and regulations from never proactively approached the Forestry central and district governments have confused Offi ce to discuss their circumstances. This was the situation even more (Resosudarmo, 2004). due primarily to their lack of awareness of their This has resulted in forest resources becoming new rights to be involved in forest management increasing threatened. This three-phase research and planning. has identifi ed the positives and negatives of the Many of the District Forestry Offi ce’s decentralization process in the forestry sector annual activities have been established in during the fi rst three years of decentralization direct response to the outcomes of this research in two districts in South Sulawesi. project, which simply worked on the basis As discussed by Alm et al. (2001), of introducing stakeholders to each other to decentralization in Indonesia was pushed share and fi nd solutions to their problems. The through too quickly and without adequate Forestry Offi ce has adopted more inclusive planning. This study found that at the outset processes for district forestry planning, and has of decentralization the Government of Luwu changed its attitude to customary rights over Utara District was not very well prepared, and natural resources in Luwu Utara. The District lacked adequate human resources and facilities Forestry Offi ce has also used fi ndings from for taking over the management of its forests. the second phase of this research, concerning As time progressed, the government, especially fi scal balancing of forestry revenues, to lobby the Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce, tried to and negotiate with the provincial and central improve its capacity for forest management. government. This has resulted in an increased However, due to a lack of resources and Reforestation Funds (DR) allocation for Luwu uncertain division of authority, many aspects Utara. of forest management are still not handled

64 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

Nevertheless, three years of research have consulted before these decisions were made. only succeeded in defi ning and analyzing a Central government – in this case the Ministry fraction of the challenges facing the district’s of Forestry – should review and re-evaluate its forestry sector. The Forestry and Estate Crops inaccurate and unsuitable delineation policy, Offi ce still requires a great deal of support with as one example amongst many of its policies, action research that it can use as the basis for which district governments deem to be too far improving its management of the district’s removed from reality to ever be practical in forests. the fi eld. District governments also feel that This study has shown that policies made these policies are too centralistic, i.e., leaving in Jakarta are being implemented ‘by force’ local government out of decision-making in the district, since they do not accommodate processes and allowing it only a technical the district’s needs and situation. For example, implementation role. The framework for central government, through the Provincial forestry decentralization needs to be reformed Forest Inventory and Mapping Agency (now to promote better and more accountable forest BPKH), designated certain forests as state management, at both regional and central forests while the district government and local levels, and to give the district governments people believes that the areas are more suitable more room to manage their own resources in as agricultural settlement areas. Neither the local the interests of the poorest forest-dependent people – living there before the days of forest people in their areas. delineation – nor the district government was

65 12 ENDNOTES

1 DFID, 1999. Indonesia: Towards 7 FGDs involved institutions concerned Sustainable Forest Management, Final Report with forestry, i.e., the Forestry and Estate of the Senior Management Advisory Team Crops Offi ce, Bappeda, Transmigration Offi ce, and the Provincial Level Forest Management National Land Agency (BPN), Agriculture Project, 2 Vols., Department for International Offi ce, Mining and Environment Offi ce, and Development (UK) and Department of Forestry, members of the District Legislative Assembly Jakarta. (DPRD), village heads, non-governmental 2 The research theme for Phase I was organizations (NGOs), and community District Institutions, Resources and Planning representatives familiar with tenure issues in in the Decentralization Process; Phase II the fi eld. was The Implementation of Decentralization 8 The South Sulawesi Forestry in Policy Administration in the Forestry Communication Forum (FKKSS) is a forum Sector and Community Response; and Phase of forest observers in South Sulawesi. Its III was Underlying Causes of Problems in members comprise government institutions Implementing Decentralization on Policy such as district and provincial forestry offi ces Making in the Forestry Sector and Using a as well as other related institutions, universities, Participatory Approach to Problem Solving. NGOs, local community representatives, 3 CIFOR also carried out similar research journalists and forestry entrepreneurs in South in other regions (see: McCarthy 2001a, b; Sulawesi. The objective of the forum is to Casson 2001; Soetarto et al. 2001) support sustainable forest management that 4 The District and Provincial Forestry contributes to community livelihoods through and Estate Offi ce, Transmigration Offi ce, better communication and effective networking Agriculture Offi ce, Mining Offi ce, Trade systems. and Industry Offi ce, Regional Revenue 9 District Workshop I: 30 January 2002 Offi ce, Regional Finance Division, Bappeda, in Sukamaju, Luwu Utara District, theme: DPRD (District Legislative Assembly) and ‘Decentralization Mechanisms and Processes some Technical Executive Units (UPT) of in the Forestry Sector’, District Workshop the Ministry of Forestry in South Sulawesi II: 29 April 2003 in Masamba, Luwu Utara Province. District, theme: ‘The Implementation of 5 The fi rst round of research involved Decentralization in the Forestry Sector’, 25 respondents from each village, consisting Provincial Workshop II: 28 May 2003 in of customary leaders, village heads, village Makassar, theme: ‘Decentralization of Policy offi cials and members of the public. Making in the Forestry Sector’, and Provincial 6 The number of respondents increased Workshop III: 13 May 2004 in Makassar, theme: substantially to 255 from provincial, district and ‘Participatory Approaches to Problem Solving village levels and included local people from in the Forestry Sector in the Decentralization both districts and Makassar Municipality. Era’.

66 Ngakan, P.O. et al.

10 Luwu Utara District covers an area of government regulation’, in practice all forestry 14 347.66 km2, or 23.17% of the province. decision-making processes were the remit of 11 The other commercial timber species central government (e.g. forest allocation for commonly found are Callophylum spp. large commercial HPH concessions, forest area (Cluciaceae), Campnosperma auriculata delineation, etc). (Anacardiaceae), Litsea fi rma (Lauraceae), 19 This Ministerial Decree was fi nally Micromalum celebica (Rutaceae), Palaquium endorsed as Law (Peraturan Pemerintah, PP) spp. (Sapotaceae), Pometia pinnata No.62/1998 on the Delegation of Forestry (Sapindaceae), Santiria celebica (Burceraceae), Governance to Regional Governments. and Toona sureni (Meliaceae). Commercial According to this decree, provincial timber tree species of the Dipterocarpaceae governments are responsible for: (a) the family, such as Anisoptera thurifera and Shorea management of Grand Forest Parks, and (b) assamica, also grow in Luwu Utara’s natural Forest Delineation. While forestry affairs forests. delegated to the district are: (a) reforestation 12 Members of the Dipterocarpaceae are and land and water conservation, (b) natural silk the most common commercial timber species production, (c) beekeeping, (d) the management found in the rainforests of Indonesia. However, of privately owned forests/community forests, these species are not dominant in the rainforests (e) the management of protected forest areas, of Luwu Utara. (f) community facilitation in forest activities 13 Sago is the staple food of indigenous (g) the management of non-timber forest communities in Luwu Utara District. products (h) traditional hunting of unprotected 14 HPHs in Luwu Utara operated in wild animals in Game Reserve Areas, (i) forest Production Forests (Hutan Produksi) and Non- preservation, and (j) forestry training for local Forestry Use Areas (APL). communities. 15 Tana Toraja is a world-renowned tourist 20 Law No. 25/2000 on The Authority of area on the border of Luwu Utara District and the Government and Provincial Administrations Central Sulawesi. in Autonomous Regions. 16 Law No.6/1968 on Withdrawing 21 Article 10, paragraph 1, stated that Control over Forestry Matters from District districts had the authority to manage the and Provincial Governments in Eastern natural resources available in their regions, Indonesia. This law revoked Article 8 of and were responsible for maintaining their Law No. 64/1957, paragraph 1, which stated sustainability. that forest management was entrusted to 22 One district regulation was issued in provincial government, with the exception of 1999, 58 in 2000 and 30 in 2001. Twenty- the former NIT (Eastern Indonesian Nation), four were regulations on tax and trading where forestry affairs were the responsibility permits; 28 on the establishment of district of district administrations. The following government institutions; 22 on the revisions to paragraph, paragraph 2, explained that for and changes in prevailing regulations (issued areas in the former NIT, district governments less than a year before); and the remainder would conduct forestry affairs but the duties of were on other miscellaneous matters. In the coordination and monitoring were entrusted to forestry sector, three district regulations were the provincial governments. issued concerning: The Establishment of the 17 The Eastern Indonesian Nation (NIT) Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce, Forestry included areas in the eastern part of Indonesia, and Estate Business Permits, and a revision i.e., Sulawesi, Maluku and Irian Jaya. to the regulation on The Establishment of the 18 Although Article 12 of the Basic Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce, which had Forestry Law (Undang-Undang Pokok been endorsed only a few months earlier. Kehutanan, UUPK) stated that: ‘The Central 23 Presidential Decree No. 35/1980 on Government may entrust some of its forestry Funds for Reforestation and Regeneration of sector authority to local governments through Commercial Forest Concession Areas.

67 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

24 Ministerial Decree No. 142/Kpts- community concerned, in accordance with II/1984 on The Development of Industrial the forest’s designated function. It goes on to Timber Plantations (HTI) using Reforestation explain that these communities have similar Funds. This was followed by other decrees obligations and responsibilities to other parties related to the use of DR for HTI i.e. No. 162/ if they use forests for commercial interests, Kpts-II/1984, No. 223/Kpts-II/1985 and No. e.g., tax payments, reforestation etc. 224/Kpts-II/1985. 39 See Article 67, paragraph 1. 25 Presidential Decree No. 31/1989 on 40 Article 2 of Head of BPN Decree No. Reforestation Funds (DR) replaced Presidential 5/1999 on Guidelines for Solving Problems Decree No. 35/1980. with Customary Community Rights. 26 According to Article 1 of Presidential 41 Law No. 24/1997 on Land Decree No. 29/1990. Registration. 27 According to Presidential Decree No. 42 Article 24, paragraph 2, of Law No. 28/1991. 24/1997. 28 According to Presidential Decrees No. 43 Article 2 (3), paragraph 4c, of Law No. 40/1993, No. 24/1997 and No. 53/1997. 25/2000 on The Authority of the Government 29 Based on Presidential Decree No and the Provinces as Autonomous Regions. 32/1998. 44 During the New Order era, the 30 Fiscal Balancing Law No. 25/1999, provincial forestry offi ce had branch offi ces issued together with Decentralization Law in each district, called Forestry Branch Offi ces No. 22/1999, provides a general framework (Cabang Dinas Kehutanan, CDK). These for revenue distributions between central and functioned as technical executive agencies for regional governments. domestic forestry affairs at the district level. 31 DAU are the funds originating from 45 Law No. 34/2002 Articles 38, 40 and APBN (National Budget), allocated to regions 41. in order to fi nance their expenditures within the 46 Article 2 (3) of Law No. 25/2000 on framework of implementing decentralization. The Authority of the Government and the 32 DAK are the funds originating from Provinces as Autonomous Regions. the central government budget and allocated to 47 BPDAS is responsible for managing regional governments to fi nance special needs. watershed areas in the region, including land 33 According to the Decentralization Law, classifi cation mapping. It plays an important ‘Region’ is defi ned as a province, district or role in selecting areas for the GN-RHL municipality. programme (a national reforestation and land 34 Article 6, paragraph 5, Law No. rehabilitation programme). 25/1999. 48 This has been already published in a 35 This allotment is provided for in Article Decentralization Brief (see: Oka and William 8, paragraph 4, of the Fiscal Balancing Law. 2004). 36 The State’s right to control forests bestows 49 Article 6, paragraph 5, and Article the authority on the state: (1) to determine and 8, paragraph 4, of Fiscal Balancing Law regulate the planning, allocation, provision and No.25/1999. utilization of the forest in accordance with its 50 The region in which DR revenues were function in providing benefi ts to the people and generated. the state; (2) to regulate forest management in 51 Article 11 of Law No. 35/2002 on a broader context; 3) to determine and regulate Reforestation Funds. the legal relations between an individual or 52 A joint circular from the Ministry of legal entity and the forest, and to regulate legal Finance, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of actions concerning the forest. Forestry and Head of the National Development 37 Basic Agrarian Law No.5/1960. Planning Agency (Bappenas) No. SE-59/ 38 Clause 1 states that utilisation of ‘adat’ A/2001, SE-720/MENHUT-II/2001, 2035/ forest shall be undertaken by the customary D.IV/05/2001, and SE-522.4/947/V/BANGDA

68 Ngakan, P.O. et al. on ‘The Management of DAK-DR for their capacities.’ Implementing Forest and Land Rehabilitation 61 See also Srihardiono 2004. in 2001’ stipulated that provincial governments 62 No. 188.342/595/IX/2002/SET dated should set up scoring systems for allocating DR 20 September 2002. in accordance with criteria set by the central 63 New names for HPH large-scale forest government. concession permits. 53 Article 8, paragraph 4, of Law No. 64 No. 522.4/294/IX/2002/KANHUT. 25/1999 on Fiscal Balancing; also, Law No. 65 Article 4, paragraph 2. 35/2002 on Reforestation Funds. 66 Rakorbang are development 54 Provisions in Article 8, paragraph 4a, of coordination meetings held to provide local Law No. 25/1999 state that ‘In a contributing input for district development plans and plan region, reforestation funds shall only be used the annual district budget (APBD). All district to fi nance reforestation and rehabilitation government institutions are involved in the activities’. meetings, which discuss priority agendas in 55 Article 16, paragraph 1, of Law No. 35/ district development plans. 2002 states that ‘Reforestation Funds shall only 67 Law No.34/2002 on Forest Management be used to fi nance reforestation, rehabilitation and the Development of Forest Management and supporting activities’. Plans, Forest Concessions and the Utilization 56 A joint circular from the Ministers of State Forest Areas replaced Law No. 6/1999 of Finance, Forestry, Domestic Affairs and on Forest Concessions and Forest Product Regional Autonomy and the Head of the Utilization in Production Forest Areas. National Development Planning Agency 68 The South Sulawesi Forestry (BAPPENAS) No. SE-59/A/2001, SE-720/ Communication Forum (FKKSS) is a forum MENHUT-II/2001, 2035/D.IV/ 05/2001 of forest observers, supporting sustainable and SE-522.4/947/V/BANGDA on The forest management to improve community Management of DAK-DR. livelihoods, through better communication and 57 Article 16, paragraph 2, of Law No. an effective networking system. 35/ 2002 states that ‘The use of the central 69 GN-RHL (Gerakan National government’s DR share is prioritised for Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan) is a national reforestation and land rehabilitation activities programme on forest and land rehabilitation in non-contributing regions’. Whilst provisions carried out in several provinces that have in Article 8, paragraph 4b, of Law No. 25/199 large degraded areas. The central government state that ‘Reforestation funds are used to allocated DR funds for fi nancing this activity fi nance the national reforestation program in the region. carried out by the central government’. 70 The workshop’s theme was ‘Promoting 58 The Technical Executive Unit (UPT) Synergy Among Forestry Programmes and is accountable to the Ministry of Forestry. District–Provincial Coordination in Forestry Under the decentralization system, many UPT Policy-making.’ functions no longer apply, as District Forestry 71 The national regulation of the Director- Offi ces have taken over the responsibility of General of Forest Concessions. implementing domestic forestry affairs. 72 SKTs are issued only for land that has 59 A provision in Sub-Section IX of the been cultivated or managed continuously for joint circular states that ‘District governments more than 20 years, either by individuals or a are obliged to provide funds for supporting community. They are proof of local ownership activities not fi nanced by DAK-DR’. and can be used as recommendations for 60 Article 8, paragraph 5, of Law No. securing land certifi cates from the local land 25/1999 states that ‘With the exception of agency (BPN offi ce). reforestation activities, regions receiving 73 The military is accountable to TNI Special Allocation Funds shall provide matching headquarters in Jakarta, while the judiciary funds from district budgets in accordance with is supposedly independent. Law No. 22/1999

69 does not regulate national security, military or 79 Plantation areas are fi elds planted with judicial matters. annual plants such as cacao, durian, langsat 74 Rakordes are village coordination and rambutan. Fields are usually planted meetings for discussing local priority issues and with seasonal crops such as rice, corn, sweet needs for government support. The meetings potatoes, beans etc. involve local leaders and representatives from 80 Entrepreneurship Laboratory of the each hamlet (dusun), community groups, Forestry Faculty at Hasanudin University 2002. village administrators and other members of Internal Report. Unpublished. the village community. The results of these 81 Statements of this sort were the hardest meetings are brought to similar meetings information to acquire during this research. held at the subdistrict level, at which selected Such information was only given after much proposals from villages are brought to district time spent building the trust of the community. meetings. The information given may actually jeopardize 75 Ijin Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan the respondents’ safety if confi rmed with the Rotan (IHPHH Rattan) are permits issued by local authorities. the District Forestry and Estate Crops Offi ce 82 Capital of Luwu Utara District. for rattan harvesting activities in state-owned 83 Capital of Luwu District. forests. 84 Head of National Land Agency 76 Twelve of 16 respondents. Implementing Regulation No.5/1999. 77 Based on local timber market prices 85 The Forest Mapping Agency. In in Luwu Utara, local people categorize kalapi some areas, this is still called the Regional as a Class 1 wood and the others such as Forest Inventory and Mapping Agency (Balai kondongio, ponto, tapi-tapi and sinangkala as Inventarisasi dan Perpetaan Hutan (BIPHut). Class 3 woods. BPKH is accountable to The Directorate- 78 Rattan types growing in forests near General of Forest Inventory and Landuse villages are usually younger, smaller in size (INTAG). This offi ce is responsible for forest and of lower quality. mapping and inventory in the region.

70 13 REFERENCES

Alm, J., Aten, R.H. and Bahl, R. 2001 Can Kabupaten Luwu Utara, Sulawesi Selatan, Indonesian Decentralize Successfully? Indonesia. Plans, Problems, and Prospects. Bulletin Ditjen Perimbangan Keuangan Pusat dan of Indonesian Economic Studies 37(1): Daerah Departemen Keuangan RI. 2002 83-102. Dana Pengalokasian Dana Alokasi Khusus Bappeda Kabupaten Luwu Utara. 2001. – Dana Reboisasi Tahun 2001. http://www. Rencana Umum Tata Ruang Wilayah djpkpd.go.id/dak/sulsel.htm (Accessed 11 Kabupaten Luwu Utara. Masamba, July 2002.) Kabupaten Luwu Utara, Sulawesi Selatan, Kaimowitz, D., Vallejos, C., Pacheco, P. and Indonesia.. Lopez, R. 1998. Municipal Government BPS Kabupaten Luwu Utara. 2002 Luwu Utara and Forest Management in Lowland Dalam Angka. Masamba, Kabupaten Bolivia. Journal of Environment and Luwu Utara. Development 7(1): 45-59. Casson, A. 2001 Decentralization of Policies Kansil, C.S.T. 2002 Kitab Undang-Undang Affecting Forest and Estate Crops in Kutai Hukum Agraria: Undang-Undang No. 5 Barat District, East Kalimantan. Center for Tahun 1960 dan Peraturan Pelaksanaan. International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Sinar Graﬁ ka, Jakarta, Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia. McCarthy, J.F. 2001a Decentralization, Local CIFOR. 2002 Hutan Adat. Warta Kebijakan Communities and Forest Management in CIFOR No. 3, Februari 2002. Bogor, Barito Selatan District, Central Kalimantan. Indonesia Center for International Forestry Research Dermawan, A. Implications of Indonesia’s (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. Decentralization on Forest and Local McCarthy, J.F. 2001b Decentralization Economic Development: A Contribution to and Forest Management in Kapuas Synthesis of CIFOR’s Research. In press. District, Central Kalimantan. Center for Center for International Forestry Research International Forestry Research (CIFOR), (CIFOR), Bogor. Bogor, Indonesia. Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Oka, N.P. and Wiliam, D. 2004 The Policy Luwu Utara. 2001a Visi, Misi, Program, Dilemma for Balancing Reforestation dan Kegiatan Strategis Dinas Kehutanan Funds. Decentralization Brief. Center for dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Luwu Utara. International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Masamba, Kabupaten Luwu Utara, Bogor, Indonesia. Sulawesi Selatan, Indonesia. Potter, L. and Badcock, S. 2001 The Effects Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten of Indonesia’s Decentralization on Forest Luwu Utara. 2001b Laporan Akuntabilitas and Estate Crops in Riau Province: Kinerja Tahun Anggaran 2001. Masamba, Case Studies of the Original Districts of

71 The Dynamics of Decentralization in the Forestry Sector in South Sulawesi

Kampar and Indragiri Hulu. Center for Policy Making and Forest Management International Forestry Research (CIFOR), in Ketapang District, West Kalimantan. Bogor, Indonesia. Center for International Forestry Research Resosudarmo, I.A.P. 2004 Closer to People (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. and Trees: Will Decentralization Work for Srihadiono, U.I. 2004 Modiﬁ kasi Dana the People and the Forests of Indonesia? Reboisasi. Hutan Indonesia Edisi 28, European Journal of Development Tahun VI: p. 24-25. Research 16(1):110-132. Sumardjono, M.S.W. 1996 Dampak Sekretariat Daerah Pemerintah Kabupaten Permasalahan Koordinasi Terhadap Luwu Utara. 2004 Potensi Daerah. Luwu Kepastian Hukum Pemegang Hak Atas Utara Online. http://www.luwuutara.go.id. Tanah. Proceeding Seminar Nasional (Accessed 25 September 2004.) dengan tema ‘Meningkatkan Koordinasi Sjariffudin, A., Saleng, A. and Lahae, K. Lintas Sektoral dalam Penanganan Konﬂ ik 2003 Penguasaan Tanah Adat dan Hak Pertanahan. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Ulayat Masyarakat Adat di Kabupaten Widianto, K.H., Sardjito, D. and Sardjono, Nunukan. Kerjasama Pusat Kajian Hukum M.A. 2003 Fungsi dan Peran Agroforestry. Agraria dan Sumberdaya Alam Lembaga ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia. Penelitian Unhas dengan Pemerintah Whitmore, T.C., Tantra, I.G.M. and Sutisna, U. Kabupten Nunukan. Makassar, Sulawesi 1989 Tree Flora of Indonesia: Checklist Selatan, Indonesia. for Sulawesi. Ministry of Forestry, Agency Soetarto, E., Sitorus, M.T.F. and Yusuf Napiri, M. for Forestry Research & Development, 2001 Decentralization of Administration, Bogor, Indonesia.

72 The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is a leading international forestry research organization established in 1993 in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR is dedicated to developing policies and technologies for sustainable use and management of forests, and for enhancing the well-being of people in developing countries who rely on tropical forests for their livelihoods. CIFOR is one of the 15 Future Harvest centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). With headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR has regional ofﬁ ces in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Zimbabwe, and it works in over 30 other countries around the world.

Donors The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) receives its major funding from governments, international development organizations, private foundations and regional organizations. In 2004, CIFOR received ﬁ nancial support from Australia, African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Carrefour, China, CIRAD, Conservation International Foundation (CIF), European Commission, Finland, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Ford Foundation, France, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Indonesia, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Innovative Resource Management (IRM), International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Organisation Africaine du Bois (OAB), Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Peruvian Institute for Natural Renewable Resources (INRENA), Philippines, Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Switzerland, The Overbrook Foundation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Tropical Forest Foundation, United States, United Kingdom, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Waseda University, World Bank, World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).