Policy Implementation Analysis of Forest Co Management Program in Banyumas, Central Java, Indonesia
Policy Implementation Analysis
of Forest Co-Management
Program in Banyumas, Central
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
University of Soedirman, Purwokerto
Why use policy
PROBLEM OF IMPLEMENTATION – POLICY
“Imperfect Correspondence between policies
adopted and services actually delivered (van
Metter & van Horn, 1975)”.
Focus of study: the influences of content and
context variables in policy implementation (Grindle,
Questions: “How and why content and contextual
variables intervene in the implementation process
of PHBM Program in Banyumas?
Forest Co-Management (Pengelolaan
Hutan Bersama Masyarakat/PHBM)
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):
1. To increase the responsibility of SFC, local forest
communities and related-parties towards sustainability
of forest resource benefit and function,
2. To improve the role of SFC, forest community and
related-parties in forest resource management,
3. To integrate forest resource management activities into
regional development fitting social and dynamic
conditions of forest community,
4. To improve the quality of forest resources based on
5. To increase the incomes of SFC, forest community and
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.
Map of Banyumas District
• Population : 1.603.000
• region size: 82, 7
• 80 % of forest rural area
Number of Forest Villages
Source: Perhutani Branch Office in Banyumas (2006)
Number of lost forest trees
number of forest tree losses
1. 1994-2000 increased
20000 rate of lost teak trees.
2. 2000-2001 decrease
due to “security opera-
3. 2001-2002 no more
10000 security operation led to
increased rate of lost
4. 2002-2005 decreased
rate of lost forest trees
0 due to PHBM ?
1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Before PHBM After PHBM
Source: Perhutani Branch Office in Banyumas (2006)
Analysis of Content Variables
Forest Community landless people support
PHBM program due to economic benefits
offered by the program (land cultivation,
sharing of tree harvest revenue).
But, forest farmer association opposed the
program since they see “the sharing formula” is
more beneficial for Perhutani side than forest
In addition, the sharing formula was created by
Perhutani alone without community
Type of Benefits
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.
Meanwhile, there is no incentive mechanism
for compensating those who live in the area of
Extent of Change Envisioned
Behavioral adaptation and participation will be
high since PHBM demands for broad
participation in forest management.
Long run objective daily economic needs of
people will compete with conservation need.
Site of decision making
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.
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
No resource allocation provided by local
government for PHBM implementation. They
argue that Perhutani is the most responsible
agent for providing resource.
Analysis of Context Variables
Power, interests, & strategies of actors
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
As consequence, forests are now under
pressure. The policy of increasing BBM price
put more tremendous pressure against forests.
Institution & regime characteristics
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).
Compliance & Responsiveness
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.
…compliance & responsiveness
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.
As consequence, local Perhutani agencies are not
responsive to the needs of people and to serve
them most adequately.
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.
PHBM policy should be operationalized with
consideration of local content and public
participation in formulating the rule of game.
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.
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.