Policy Implementation Analysis Of Forest Co Management Program


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Policy Implementation Analysis Of Forest Co Management Program

  1. 1. Policy Implementation Analysis of Forest Co-Management Program in Banyumas, Central Java Slamet Rosyadi Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Soedirman, Purwokerto Banyumas
  2. 2. Why use policy implementation approach? <ul><li>PROBLEM OF IMPLEMENTATION – POLICY GAP. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Imperfect Correspondence between policies adopted and services actually delivered (van Metter & van Horn, 1975)”. </li></ul><ul><li>Focus of study: the influences of content and context variables in policy implementation (Grindle, 1980). </li></ul><ul><li>Questions: “How and why content and contextual variables intervene in the implementation process of PHBM Program in Banyumas? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Forest Co-Management (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat/PHBM) Policy/Program <ul><li>In response to the forestry crisis particularly in Java, the head of surveillance board of SFC issued a policy on forest co-management (PHBM) in April 2001. The objectives of the policy were as follows (SFC 2000): </li></ul><ul><li>To increase the responsibility of SFC, local forest communities and related-parties towards sustainability of forest resource benefit and function, </li></ul><ul><li>To improve the role of SFC, forest community and related-parties in forest resource management, </li></ul><ul><li>To integrate forest resource management activities into regional development fitting social and dynamic conditions of forest community, </li></ul><ul><li>To improve the quality of forest resources based on regional characteristics, </li></ul><ul><li>To increase the incomes of SFC, forest community and related-parties simultaneously </li></ul>
  4. 4. … forest co-management <ul><li>Basically, PHBM policy is oriented to improving economic development of forest villagers on the basis of the principles of mutual benefit, reinforcing and support. In achieving this aim, forest villagers are entitled to plan PHBM activities together with SFC and other stakeholders. Investors may also be invited to invest their capital together with villagers’ and SFC’s capital in PHBM activities (SFC, 2001). Thus, PHBM activities are expected to generate more benefits particularly for improving forest villagers’ economy. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Map of Banyumas District   <ul><li>Population : 1.603.000 (2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Population density: 1.206 jiwa/km² </li></ul><ul><li>region size: 82, 7 thousand ha </li></ul><ul><li>80 % of forest rural area </li></ul>
  6. 6. Number of Forest Villages in Banyumas Source: Perhutani Branch Office in Banyumas (2006)
  7. 7. Number of lost forest trees in Banyumas Source: Perhutani Branch Office in Banyumas (2006) Before PHBM After PHBM <ul><li>Remarks: </li></ul><ul><li>1994-2000  increased </li></ul><ul><li>rate of lost teak trees. </li></ul><ul><li>2000-2001  decrease </li></ul><ul><li>due to “security opera- </li></ul><ul><li>tion” (Wanacandi). </li></ul><ul><li>2001-2002  no more </li></ul><ul><li>security operation led to </li></ul><ul><li>increased rate of lost </li></ul><ul><li>forest trees. </li></ul><ul><li>4. 2002-2005  decreased </li></ul><ul><li>rate of lost forest trees </li></ul><ul><li>due to PHBM ? </li></ul>
  8. 8. Analysis of Content Variables <ul><li>Interest Affected </li></ul><ul><li>Forest Community  landless people support PHBM program due to economic benefits offered by the program (land cultivation, sharing of tree harvest revenue). </li></ul><ul><li>But, forest farmer association opposed the program since they see “the sharing formula” is more beneficial for Perhutani side than forest farmers (75:25). </li></ul><ul><li>In addition, the sharing formula was created by Perhutani alone without community participation. </li></ul>
  9. 9. … content <ul><li>Type of Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>The sharing will only be enjoyed by forest community living in the area of production forest. Those who live in the area of protection forest (around Slamet Mountain) could not enjoy the right to get sharing. </li></ul><ul><li>Meanwhile, there is no incentive mechanism for compensating those who live in the area of protection forest. </li></ul>
  10. 10. … content <ul><li>Extent of Change Envisioned </li></ul><ul><li>Behavioral adaptation and participation will be high since PHBM demands for broad participation in forest management. </li></ul><ul><li>Long run objective  daily economic needs of people will compete with conservation need. </li></ul><ul><li>Site of decision making </li></ul><ul><li>KPH (District Perhutani Office) Administrator still plays as the main decision maker rather than the head of RPH (local Perhutani Office). This becomes a problem when forest farmers face difficulties to interpret PHBM into practices. </li></ul>
  11. 11. … content <ul><li>Program implementators </li></ul><ul><li>The main actor is Perhutani, & the second actor is Local Government (Kabupaten, Kecamatan, & Desa) unified in Communication Forum of PHBM (FK-PHBM). This has been formalized by Central Java Governor Decree (Top-Down)  FK PHBM is no effective work </li></ul><ul><li>Resource Committed </li></ul><ul><li>No resource allocation provided by local government for PHBM implementation. They argue that Perhutani is the most responsible agent for providing resource. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Analysis of Context Variables <ul><li>Power, interests, & strategies of actors involved </li></ul><ul><li>Power capability of forest people supported by local NGOs has increased, while that of forest rangers has decreased. But this becomes counterproductive in the case of illegal logging. NGO protects local people involved in forest tree theft due to only fulfilling their economic needs. </li></ul><ul><li>As consequence, forests are now under pressure. The policy of increasing BBM price put more tremendous pressure against forests. </li></ul>
  13. 13. … context <ul><li>Institution & regime characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Despite Perhutani lies at weak position, they keep developing persuasive approaches through dialogues with forest people. They are more aware of their local staffs that are still need of learning to change their role (from rowing to steering). </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance & Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of coordination between district Perhutani and its Local agencies has led to lack of understanding of PHBM policy/program. Local agencies often can not play as a facilitator in guiding the program implementation. Consequently, conflicts still occurs. </li></ul>
  14. 14. … context <ul><li>… compliance & responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Mantris (heads of local perhutani agency) have lack of knowledge on PHBM and often make social communication gap with forest people. They tend to be busy in administrative and supervision activities rather than building cooperative with forest people. </li></ul><ul><li>As consequence, local Perhutani agencies are not responsive to the needs of people and to serve them most adequately. </li></ul><ul><li>At local people level, they also do not comply to watch the forests from human destruction since they perceive this is not part of their responsibility. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Conclusion <ul><li>PHBM policy should be operationalized with consideration of local content and public participation in formulating the rule of game. </li></ul><ul><li>The emphasize of PHBM at community level is still not effective to put clear boundary of responsibility area. Local people are not powerful to prevent other people from other forest villages destructing the forest in the vicinity of their living area. </li></ul><ul><li>Local government commitment was found to be low in forest management. This is because of their perception that Perhutani is the single mandated agent for managing the forest in Java. </li></ul>