Community forestry (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm) Program

Implementation and Local Community Participation on

Protection Forest Management in Decentralization Era:
The Case of Lampung Province, Indonesia
by
Hari Kaskoyo & Prof. Makoto INOUE

IASC 2013 Kitafuji, Japan

1

Background information about Indonesia forest governance

Indonesia Forest
(Forest Act no. 41/1999)
Government Regulation
no. 6/2007
Community
Empowerment

Village Forest
(Hutan Desa)
Community Forest
(Hutan Kemasyarakatan)
Collaboration Forest
(Hutan Kemitraan)
Community Forest Plantation
(Hutan Tanaman Rakyat)

Classification based on
status
State Forest
Classification
based on function
Production Forest
(Hutan Produksi)
Protection Forest
(Hutan Lindung)
Conservation Forest
(Hutan Konservasi)

Forest under the

Right

Customary Forest
(Hutan Adat)
Special Purposes
Forest
Urban Forest
(Hutan Kota)

Private Forest
(Hutan Rakyat

Introduction
Hutan Kemasyarakatan (HKm) Program has been implemented in

protection forest of Indonesia since 1995 by involving

communities in forest management in collaboration with forestry
companies (Colchester 2001; Fay and de Foresta 1998).
The program has continued after the 1998 reform that gave
pivotal role for decentralization policy. The objectives of the
program are to improve the protection forest, develop local
government capacity and increase community participation in
forest management.
Protection forests are those which have a strategic value because in
addition to protecting life-support systems, they are a source of
livelihood for the nearby communities. These forests are managed
by provincial and district governments.
3

Introduction
Protection forest in Lampung Province covers about 317.615 ha

(31.61% of the total forest area in Lampung).

Despite being vital for its shield for the life supporting systems as
well as livelihoods of local people, until 2010 the level of
deforestation and degradation of this protection forest in Lampung
province is very high (82.05 %).
In 2011, HKm program has been implemented in 5 district and
the total area is 35,718.61 ha.
Although community forestry has been studied under production
and conservation forest, there are still scarce works in protection
forest in general, in Indonesia in particular.
4

Research Objective
To investigates the implementation process of HKm by

the local government and communities participation in

protection forest.

Methodology
.
Bina Wana and Jaya Lestari HKm farmers groups areas were

purposively selected after preliminary discussions with Lampung

Province Forestry officers as well as both areas had high levels of
deforestation and forest degradation since the fall of the Suharto
government. Both study sites are in the Way Besay catchment
area, which is useful for hydroelectric power and as an irrigation
water source for five lower-lying districts.

Methodology
Primmary data was collected by open ended interview with

selected key informant and semi structured questionnaire

interview with 10 % (108 farmers households). Literature
and relevant document review was used as secondary data.
The questionnaire aimed at collecting information regarding
farmers' socioeconomic condition, farming institutions,
vegetation on the HKm farmer's land, the reasons of their
participation, and HKm management systems. The data on
vegetation was also confirmed by direct observation of the
HKm field.
The data was analyzed qualitatively and using descriptive
statistics.
7

Map of
Study site
Site A
Register 45b Bukit

Rigis (8,295 ha),West

Lampung District
HKm farmer group:
Bina Wana
Site B
Register 24 Bukit
Punggur (20,851
ha),Way Kanan District
HKm farmer group:
Jaya Lestari
8

Description of the study Hkms

Site A
HKm Farmer Group

Bina Wana

Jaya Lestari

District

West Lampung

Way Kanan

Sub District

Kebun Tebu

Banjit

Village

Tribudisyukur, Tribudi
makmur

Menangajaya

Register

45 B Bukit Rigis

24 Bukit Punggur

HKm Area, Total (ha)

645

1,295.0

Cultivation Block (ha)

470

1,003.5

Protection Block (ha)

175

291.5

Number of Subgroup

15

478

600

Number of Farmer
Household
9

Site B

Results and Discussions

Poor local people capacity & priority
Name of HKm farmer group

Site A

Site B

Bina Wana

Jaya Lestari

HKm management (demarcating

Most of them by
working-area boundaries, preparing HKm farmer
a work plan, planting, maintenance group
and security, paying forest resources
royalties, and submitting yearly
reports to the district government
head.

Some by HKm
farmer group,
some by a
consultant and
local governance

Management Cost

Rp 25,000
( 250)

Rp 650,000
( 6500)

Protection Block

Many of them
Only administrator
know and protect group know and
protect

10

Poor staffing and budgeting for implementation

of the policy
Site A
Protection Forest Area (ha)
No of HKm farmer groups :
- definit (already permitted)
- in verification process
- in group process
No of HKM section Staff
Average Yearly Budget

11

Site B
48,923.37

22,289.10

26
0
24

1
4
8

Rp 100,000,000
( 1,000,000)

Rp 32,500,000
( 325,000)

frequent change of regulation by central government

No

Year Law
Number

1.

1995 622/KPTS Decision of

-II/1995
Forestry
Ministry

2.

1998 677/KptsII/1998

12

Type of
Law

Title

Change on

Community
Forest
Guidance

Decision of Community
Plantation
Forest
and Forestry
Ministry

Protection, production and

particular zones of
Conservation forests,
institutional cooperation,
Master Plan, Five-Year
Plan, and an Annual Plan,
within 35 years, traditional
forest management

frequent change in regulation cont,,,,

No

Year Law
Number

Type of
Law

3.

1999 865/KptsII/1999

Decision of Community
Plantation
Forest
and Forestry
Ministry

4.

2001 31/KptsII/2001

Decision of
Forestry
Ministry

13

Title

Change on
right to optimally use of
state forest for social &
econ. benefits jeopardizing
the Environment

Community only in protection and

Forest
production forests, 5 years
Management temporary permits (farmer
group) and 25 years
permanent permits
(cooperative)

frequent change in regulation cont,,,,

No

Year Law
Number

Type of
Law

Title

Change on

5.

2007 P.37/Menh
ut-II/2007

Regulation
of Forestry
Ministry

Community
Forest

In production forests,
communities are allowed to
harvest timber; no
temporary permits;
unnecessary make
cooperative, more detailed
provisions for HKm
activities; agroforestry; no
block divisions; master
plans (35-year) and
operational plans (each
one-year periods)

14

frequent change in regulation cont,,,,

No

Year Law
Number

6.

Title

Change on

2009 P.18/Menh Regulation

ut-II/2009 of Forestry
Ministry

The 1st
Change of
P.37/Menhut
-II/2007

coordinator of verification
team, scope of verification,
more detailed explanation
of the rights that HKm
participants have.

7.

2010 P.13/Menh Regulation

ut-II/2010 of Forestry
Ministry

The 2nd
Change of
P.37/Menhut
-II/2007

areas other than those

proposed by the district
may file as a candidate
location HKm

8.

2011

The 3rd
additional prerequisite in
Change of
HKm proposals
P.37/Menhut
-II/2007

15

Type of
Law

P.52/Menh Regulation
ut-II/2011 of Forestry
Ministry

different interpretation of central

regulations by local governmemts

goverments

Regulation

In respect to

Local
government in
site A

Local
government in
site B

677/Kpts-II/1998;
865/Kpts-II/1999;
31/Kpts-II/2001

HKm program
begins

1999

2007

P.37/Menhut-II/2007;
P.18/Menhut-II/2009;
P.13/Menhut-II/2010;
P.52/Menhut-II/2011

Limitation of
HKm Area of
each farmer

no

yes

Forest resource
royalti (PSDH)

Not yet

Already

HKm farmer
organization

HKm farmer
group

HKm farmer
group and
cooperative

16

 community preference for economic benefits over the

environment and social

Plant

Site A

Site B

Timber Species No of species

14
17
No of stem
112,393
38,568
Non timber
No of species
20
7
species (include No of stem
925,376 2,363,401
Coffee and
Rubber)
Coffee Stem
888,572 1,314,060
% of the total NT stems
85.6
54.7
Rubber Stem
0 876,040
% of the total NT stems
0
36.4
Total
Species
34
14
Stem
1,037,769 2,401,969

17

Conclusions and Policy implications

The program was found to lag in achieving it objective for

the following reasons:

frequent change in regulation by central government;
different interpretation of regulation by local
government;
poor staffing and budgeting;
community preference for economic benefits over the
environment and social.
The implementation of the policy can be improved by
optimizing forest management unit, local community
institutions and extension officer in local government
administration.
18

Conclusions and Policy implications

Facilitation of local community institutions,

comprehension of the economic value calculation

of environmental services and implementation of
its trading such as water and carbon should give
due emphasis for balanced economic as well as
social and environmental issues.

19

20