Abstract
Decentralization is a popular technical term in social science. However, some problems have occurred in formulating an appropriate definition of decentralization, because some branches of social science have only adopted the terminology and therefore defined within the context and interests of these branches (Conyers, Public Adm Dev 4:187, 1984). This discussion focuses on two main perspectives, namely the political and administrative. Therefore, the term decentralization used in this chapter refers to any transfer of the authority to plan, make decisions, and manage public functions from the national level to any organization or agency at the subnational level (For a further information regarding the term decentralization see Diana Conyers, Public Adm Dev 3:101–102, 1983). This is consistent with the way in which the term is used by the government departments involved in decentralization programs examined herein. In line with “political perspective,” Smith (Decentralization: the territorial dimension of the state. G. Allen & Unwin, London/Boston, 1985) defines decentralization as “The transfer of power, from top level to lower levels, in a territorial hierarchy, which could be one of government within a state or offices within a large organization.” According to Smith, therefore, “devolution of power” is the main substance of decentralization and is not just limited to governmental structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a further information regarding the term decentralization see Diana Conyers (1983) ‘Decentralization : the latest fashion in development administration’ in Public Administration and Development, Vol. 3, pp. 101–102.
- 2.
“Decentralization ” in the Reformation Era; see Syarif Hidayat and Bhenyamin Hoessein (2001) “Desentralisasi dan Otonomi Daerah,” in Syamsuddin Haris, Paradigma Baru Otonomi Daerah, LIPI. PoPoliticPoliticalStudies. Studies, pp. 27–35.
- 3.
Kartodihardjo Hariadi, ‘Masalah Struktural dalam Implementasi Kebijakan Baru Kehutanan’ (Structural Problem on Forestry Policy Implementation), in Resosudarmo et al. (ed.) Ke Mana Harus Melangkah: Masyarakat, Hutan, dan Perumusan Kebijakan Hutan di Indonesia (Which Way Forward?: People, Forests, and Policy Making in Indonesia), Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Press, 2002, pp. 188.
- 4.
Ryaas Rasyid, “Regional autonomy and local politics in Indonesia,” in Aspinall, Edward & Greg, Fealy (Eds.), Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralization & Democratization , Singapore : ISEAS & CSIS, 2003, pp. 64–65.
- 5.
For further information on Regional Autonomy Act No.22/1999, see Undang-Undang Otonomi Daerah 1999 dan Juklak, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2000.
- 6.
Nurjaya, I Nyoman, “Pengelolaan Hutan dalam Perspektif Otonomi Daerah; Wacana Ilmu Hukum” (Forest Management in Regional Autonomy Perspective: Law Discourse), in Duta Rimba, February, 2001, pp. 14.
- 7.
In the case of royalties (IHPH ), the province will receive 16 % and the producing districts 32 %. The remaining 32 % will be distributed equally among the other districts within the province. Previously, royalty revenue was divided as follows: 30 % to the provincial government, 15 % to the district, 40 % to national forestry development, and 15 % to regional forestry development (Presidential Decree No. 67/1998).
- 8.
Hutabarat Silver,“Forestry developments with regional to decentralization ” in The Indonesian Quarterly, Jakarta: CSIS, Vol. XXIX, No. 2, 2001, pp. 155–156.
- 9.
Haris, Syamsuddin et al. Paradigma Baru Otonomi Daerah (A New Paradigm of Local Autonomy), LIPI: P2P, 2001, pp. 183.
- 10.
See Jatmiko, Tejo Wahyudi, 2000. Pengelolaan Hutan Berkelanjutan dalam Desentralisasi’ (Sustainable Forest Management in Decentralization ) in Berita Bumi Edisi No. 67.
- 11.
Further discussion on “customary communities” on forestry access, see Obstacles and Possibilities: The Application of Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) Principle 2 & 3 in Indonesia, Jakarta:Walhi , DFID, GTZ, 2003, pp. 251–252.
- 12.
Cf Resosudarmo et al., Loc Cit, pp. 412. See Potter, L and Badrock, The Effect of Indonesia’s Decentralization on Forest and Estate Crops: A Case Stud of Riau Province, The Original Districts of Kampar and Indragiri Hulu, Internal draft, CIFOR, Bogor, 2000.
- 13.
Resosudarmo, Ida Ayu P (2003),“Shifting power to the periphery: The impact of decentralization on forest and forest people,” in Aspinall, Edward and Fealy, Greg, Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralization and Democratization , Singapore : ISEAS and CSIS, pp. 233.
- 14.
The terms HPHH and IPPK have indeed the same meaning. These terms refer to wood-cutting permission, around 100 ha, that are available for the cooperative sector and individuals as well. The term IPPK is familiarly used in Malinau, Nunukan, and Bulungan. Meanwhile, IPHH is used more in West Kutai , Kutai Kertanegara, and East Kalimantan .
- 15.
The price of HPHH and IPKK’s concession costs per unit are around Rp. 20–25 million in East Kalimantan (Interview July 31, 2003, with head of regional forestry, in West Kutai ).
- 16.
Cukong is a Chinese word referring to a rich trader especially for timber traders. This word is familiarly used in timber trading. For example, local Cukong in Tarakan, Bulungan, and Malinao come from Chinese ethnics working together with Cukong Malaysia in facilitating money and marketing of wood (Interview with staff of Regional Forestry in Nunukan in May 2003).
- 17.
See Suparna, Nana (2003) “Forest management in the regional autonomy era,” The Indonesian Quarterly, Jakarta: CSIS, Vol. XXIX, No. 2, pp. 165.
References
Aspinall E, Fealy G (eds) (2003) Local power and politics in Indonesia: decentralization and democratization. ISEAS and CSIS, Singapore
Haris S (ed) (2001) Paradigma Baru Otonomi Daerah [A new paradigm of regional autonomy]. Center for Political Studies, LIPI, Jakarta
Kartodihardjo H (2002) Masalah Struktural dalam Implementasi Kebijakan Baru Kehutanan [Structural problem on implementation of new Forest Policy]. In: Ayu I, Colfer JP (eds) Ke Mana Harus Melangkah: Masyarakat, Hutan, dan Permusan Kebijakan di Indonesia [Which way forward? People, forests, and policy making in Indonesia]. Obor Press, Jakarta
Laski H (1931) A grammar of politics. Allen & Unwin Press, London
Maddick H (1963) Democracy, decentralization and development. Asia Publishing House, London
Rasyid R (2003) Regional autonomy and local politics in Indonesia. In: Aspinall E, Greg F (eds) Local power and politics in Indonesia: decentralization and democratization. ISEAS & CSIS, Singapore, pp 64–65
Resosudarmo IAP (2003) Shifting power to the periphery: the impact of decentralization on forest and forest people. In: Aspinal E, Fealy G (eds) Local power and politics in Indonesia: decentralization and democratization. ISEAS and CSIS, Singapore
Resosudarmo IAP, Colfer CP (eds) (2003) Ke Mana Harus Melangkah?: Masyarakat, Hutan, dan Perumusan Kebijakan di Indonesia (Indonesian translation). [Which way forward? People, forests, and policy making in Indonesia]. Obor Press, Jakarta
Resosudarmo IAP et al (2003) Shifting power to the periphery: the impact of decentralization on forest and forest people. In: Aspinall E, Fealy G (eds) Local power and politics in Indonesia: decentralization and democratization. ISEAS & CSIS, Singapore, p 233
Rondinelli D, Cheema G (1983) Decentralization in developing countries: a review of recent experience. The World Bank, Washington
Yluisker P (1959) Some criteria for a proper aerial division of government power. In: Maas A (ed) Aerial power: a theory of local government. The Free Press, New York
Conyers D (1983) Decentralization: the latest fashion in development administration. Public Adm Dev 3:101–102
Conyers D (1984) Decentralization and development: a review of the literature. Public Adm Dev 4:187
Forum Keadilan (2001) No. 1, 8 April
Hutabarat, S (2001) Forest developments with regional to decentralization. The Indonesian Quarterly, CSIS XXIX(2)
Jatmiko TW (2000) Pengelolaan Hutan Berkelanjutan dalam Desentralisai [A sustainable forest management in decentralization]. Berita Bumi. Edition No 67/March
Nurjaya, IN (2001) Pengelolaan Hutan dalam Perspektif Otonomi Daerah: Wacana Ilmu Hukum [Forest management in regional autonomy perspectives: from law science discourses] in Duta Rimba, February
Obstacles and possibilities: the application of Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) principle 2 & 3 in Indonesia (2003) Walhi/DFID/GTZ, Jakarta
Smith B (1985) Decentralization: the territorial dimension of the state. G. Allen & Unwin, London/Boston
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hidayat, H. (2016). Decentralization on the Forestry Sector. In: Forest Resources Management in Indonesia (1968-2004). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-745-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-745-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-744-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-745-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)