Institutional analysis of forest governance after the implementation of Law Number 23/2014 in North Sumatra Province, Indonesia

Abstract

After the implementation of Law Number 23/2014 on Regional Government in Indonesia, the authority for forest management rests with the central and provincial governments. This study aims to (1) assess forest governance performance after the implementation of this law, (2) analyse the institutional aspects of forest governance after the implementation of this law and (3) formulate strategies to strengthen forest governance institutions. This study finds that although Law Number 23/2014 has been implemented in North Sumatra Province, the forestry sector remains centralistic; the characteristics of forest resources have not changed (these continue to be common pool resources) and the behaviour of the actors lacks synergy. In this scenario, the performance of forest governance has not improved significantly, as indicated by the incomplete designation of forest areas; the number of Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan that have not implemented the Badan Layanan Umum Daerah scheme; the low rights of access and low forest utilisation by the community; and the slow service process for permits; however, the costs for obtaining permits are according to regulations. This is in line with the results of this study’s institutional analysis, which show that (1) the provincial jurisdiction boundaries have narrowed, given that only the central government has authority over the forestry planning sub-function and forestry supervision; (2) many central government regulations continue to be used in forest management, characterising the low aspect of provincial regional representation rules; and (3) despite clear forest ownership rights, there are claims from other stakeholders, which indicates the low legitimacy of the parties. This study suggests that forest governance performance can be improved by expanding the jurisdiction boundaries through the assistance task mechanism to the provincial government; ensuring provincial government participation in formulating forest policies; and increasing the status of forest permit holders and managers from claimants to proprietors.

Riau Province’s land and forest governance: The tendency of budget information transparency among Riau’s 12 regencies

“…Such a minimum of information given to the public is hindering the efforts of concerned parties in Riau province and regions efforts to maintain the land and forest (Rahman et al, 2013). It is especially urgent considering that Riau Province is recorded in 2018 to have the highest-by a far margin-land conflicts out of other provinces in Indonesia (Affandi et al, 2021;Handayani et al, 2019). Findings from the FGD echoed Rahman and Prihatini (2019) who stated that political parties and public bodies have not achieved their maximum potential in using digital media to disseminate information despite the fact that half of Indonesian national population using the Internet.…”

Today's Shifting Cultivation and its Impact on Forest and Environmental Damage in Routa, Konawe, Southeast Sulawesi

“…These environmentally friendly qualities include: First, there is the concept of mohoto owuta, namely a ceremony to ask permission from the forest authority (sangiano andoolo) to avoid disasters, field crops not being attacked by pests, and the forest can immediately be reforested if it is abandoned in the future. Sangiano andoolo is currently roughly equivalent to the Ministry of Forestry or Forestry Service-the forest authority institution with the authority to grant permits for forest processing and utilization (Affandi et al, 2021).…”

A Chronicle of Indonesia’s Forest Management: A Long Step towards Environmental Sustainability and Community Welfare

“…Basically, the central government, together with provincial and district/city governments, has been playing the major role in implementing the rehabilitation programs, while the implementation of forest and land rehabilitation in areas with permits/rights is carried out by the holders of permits/rights [16]. At the implementation scale on the site, various non-governmental stakeholders have also been engaging, including the village/local community [97], non-profit organizations [98], formal religious school groups [99], and the coastal community [100].…”