Poor science meets political neglect: Land use changes of high conservation value forests in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i2.13451Keywords:
science-policy interface, forest policy, land use change, interest, power, IndonesiaAbstract
Forest land allocation and use in Indonesia have been politically contested and characterized by poor data and competing interests of different institutions. This study analyzes the process of integrating scientific findings in policymaking about land use and changes. The focus is on the processes related to the changes of Highly Important Forest Zones with Strategic Values (Dampak Penting Cakupan Luas dan bernilai Strategis/DPCLS). DPCLS forests are unique as any changes require approval from the parliament to complement the processes at the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and must be based on rigorous scientific evaluation. This study uses the case of Riau Islands (Kepri) Province, previously part of Riau Province, which to date is one of only two Indonesian provinces yet to accept the forest zonings of the Ministry. The province’s strategic positions as exclusive economic and free trade zones make it further interesting in terms of land allocation as land becomes increasingly valuable for other uses. This paper specifically asks how the scientific investigation on the potential land use changes were conducted, how reliable the discoveries are, and how they were utilized in multiple steps at different institutions from the proposal evaluations to the approval stages. Our research indicates that scientific findings have rarely been integrated in policy making regarding DPCLS forests in Kepri Province. In addition, the scientific findings are weak; the institution producing them is heavily dominated by government officials and paid consultants/ experts. The scientific body was only established to fulfill the formal processes required by the regulatory frameworks. Proposals and decisions on the changes of DPCLS forests in Kepri Province are more characterized by political considerations. The “scientific findings” of the current land use in Kepri Province is used as a political commodity (or commodities) to support the interests of actors.
References
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah [Bappeda] Provinsi Kepulauan Riau (2009). Paparan Isu Strategis, Permasalahan dan Arah Pembangunan RPJMD 2010–2015.
Böcher, M. (2016). How Does Science-Based Policy Advice Matter in Policy Making? The RIU Model as a Framework for Analyzing and Explaining Processes of Scientific Knowledge Transfer. Forest Policy and Economics, 68, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.001
Böcher, M., and Krott, M. (2014). The RIU Model as an Analytical Framework for Scientific Knowledge Transfer: The Case of the ‘‘Decision Support System Forest and Climate Change’’. Biodiversity Conservation, 23, 3641–3656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5
Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., and Luttrell, C.
(2012). An Overview of Forest and Land Allocation Policies in Indonesia: Is the Current Framework Sufficient to Meet the Needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.004
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat/ DPR. (2014a). Kronologis Proses Pembahasan Panja Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Provinsi Kepulauan Riau. Materi Presentasi Dirjen Planologi Kementerian Kehutanan.
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat/ DPR. (2014b). Kronologi Proses Pembahasan Panja Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Provinsi Kepulauan Riau. Jakarta
Dharmawan, B., Böcher, M., and Krott, M. (2017). Endangered Mangroves in Segara Anakan, Indonesia: Effective and Failed Problem-Solving Policy Advice. Environmental Management, 60, 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0868-6
Do, T.H., Krott, M., Juerges, N., and Böcher, M. (2018). Red lists in conservation science-policy interfaces: A case study from Vietnam. Biological Conservation, 226, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.016
Do, T. H., Juerges, N., Krott, M., & Böcher, M. (2019). Can landscape planning solve scale mismatches in environmental governance? A case study from Vietnam. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2(1), 150-177. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2514848618822510
Fatem, S. M., Awang, S. A., Pudyatmoko, S., Sahide, M. A. K., Pratama, A. A., and Maryudi, A. (2018). Camouflaging Economic Development Agendas with Forest Conservation Narratives: A Strategy of Lower Governments for Gaining Authority in the Re-centralising Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 78, 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.018
Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. Routledge, London
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016224390102600401
Heim, J., and Bocher, M. (2016). CITES and Science: Using the RIU Model to Analyze Institutionalized Scientific Policy Advice in Germany for the Case of Ivory Trade. International Wildlife Law & Policy, 19(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2016.1167475
Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge University Press. UK.
International Association for Impact Assessment. (2002). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Performance Criteria. Special Publication Series No. 1, January 2002
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
Kementerian Kehutanan [Kemenhut]. (2012). Laporan Hasil Penelitian Terpadu Perubahan kawasan Hutan dalam Usulan Paduserasi TGHK dengan RTRW Provinsi Kepri.
Krott, M., and Hasanagas, N.D. (2006). Measuring bridges between sectors: Causative evaluation of cross-sectorality. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.004
Krott, M., Bader, A., Schusser, C., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Giessen, L., and Aurenhammer, H. (2014). Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community-based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012
Krott, M. (2005). Forest Policy Analysis. Netherlands: Springer.
Laraswati, D., Rahayu, S., Pratama, A. A., Soraya, E., Sahide, M. A. K., and Maryudi, A. (2020). Problem-Method Fit in Forest Policy Analysis: Empirical Pre-Orientation for Selecting Tested or Innovative Social-Qualitative Methods. MethodsX, 7, 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100794
Maryudi, A., and Fisher, M. (2020). The Power in the Interview: A Practical Guide for Identifying the Critical Role of Actor Interests in Environment Research. Forest and Society, 4 (1), 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v4i1.9132
Maryudi, A., and Sahide, M. A. K. (2017). Research Trend: Power Analyses in Polycentric and Multi-level Forest Governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 81, 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.003
Myers, R., Intarini, D., Sirait, M. T., and Maryudi, A. (2017). Claiming the Forest: Inclusions and Exclusions Under Indonesia's ‘New’ Forest Policies on Customary Forests. Land Use Policy, 66, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.039
Nagasaka, K., Böcher, M., and Krott, M. (2016). Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes. Forest Policy and Economics, 70, 147-154
Polsby, N.W. (1984). Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Prabowo, D., Maryudi, A, Senawi; Imron, M.A. (2017). Conversion of forests into oil palm plantations in West Kalimantan, Indonesia: Insights from actors' power and its dynamics. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.004
Rahayu, S., Laraswati, D., Pratama, A. A., Permadi, D. B., Sahide, M. A. K., and Maryudi, A. (2019). Research Trend: Hidden Diamonds–The Values and Risks of Online Repository Documents for Forest Policy and Governance Analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 100, 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.009
Sahide, M. A. K., and Giessen, L. (2015). The Fragmented Land Use Administration in Indonesia–Analysing Bureaucratic Responsibilities Influencing Tropical Rainforest Transformation Systems. Land Use Policy, 43, 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.005
Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Maryudi, A., Dhiaulhaq, A., Wulandari, C., Kim, Y. S., and Giessen, L. (2018). Deadlock Opportunism in Contesting Conservation Areas in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 77, 412–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.020
Setiawan, E. N., Maryudi, A., Purwanto, R. H., and Lele, G. (2016). Opposing Interests in the Legalization of Non-Procedural Forest Conversion to Oil Palm in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 58, 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.003
Stevanov, M., Böcher, M., Krott, M., Krajter, S., Vuletic, D., and Orlovic, S. (2013). The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) Model as an Analytical Framework for the Professionalization of Departmental Research Organizations: Case Studies of Publicly Funded Forest Research Institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.03.006
Sudarwanto, A.S. (2010). Metode Cepat Pelaksanaan Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis (KLHS) dalam RTRW dan RPJMD Propinsi Kabupaten/ Kota. Jurnal Ekosains, 2(3), 21-27
Syahadat, E., and Subarudi. (2012). Problems on Forest and Land Use System for Revision of Provincial Land Use System. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 9(2)
Tacconi, L., Rodrigues, R.J., and Maryudi, A. (2019). Law enforcement and deforestation: Lessons for Indonesia from Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 108, 101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.029
Widodo, B., Ribut, L., and Donan, W. (2012). KLHS untuk Pembangunan Daerah Berkelanjutan. Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi Lingkungan, 4(1), 43–54
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Forest and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice
