Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia

Pernando Sinabutar; Bramasto Nugroho; Hariadi Kartodihardjo; Dudung Darusman

doi:doi:10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

| Peer-Reviewed

Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia

Pernando Sinabutar, Bramasto Nugroho, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Dudung Darusman

Published in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 3, Issue 4)

Received: 15 August 2014 Accepted: 29 August 2014 Published: 20 September 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Forest area gazettment in Indonesia is done through the appointment process, boundary demarcation, mapping and determination of forest area. The process was organized by the Committee Boundary (PTB) with the involvement of several agencies in the area are coordinated by Forest Center for area stabilization (BPKH). This study analyzed the interaction of PTB in decision making and the effectiveness of the rules in-use the formation of PTB. Data were collected through in depth interviews, participant observation and document review, and then analyzed by using content analysis based IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) Framework. The results show there has been a disparity in the interaction. Types of rules in-use the formation of PTB among others position rules, boundary rules, authority rules, agregation rules, information rules, scope rules, and pay-off rules have not been able to direct of interaction. The formation of PTB has not noticed the involvement of agencies setting, the setting position and authority, setting rights and obligations, and accountability arrangements. For improvements, the configuration of the seven types of rules that can be used because the results of the analysis showed that the seven types of rules that have found substantial weaknesses in the formation of PTB.

Published in	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 3, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
Page(s)	299-306
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Forest Area Gazettment, PTB, Rules In-Use, Interaction

References

[1]	Afiff ,S. Tinjauan atas konsep ”tenure security”, dengan beberapa rujukan pada kasus-kasus di Indonesia. J Ilmu Sosial Transformatif, 20, pp, 227-249, 2005.
[2]	A.K. Dev Roy, K. Alam, J. Gow. A Review of the role of property rights and forest policies in the management of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest in Bangladesh. J. Forest Policy and Economics, 15, pp, 46–53, 2011. doi : 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.009.
[3]	A.N, Ansoms, I. Wagemakers, M. Walker, M., and J. Murison. Land contestation at the micro scale: struggles for spacein the African Marshes. J. World Development, 54, pp, 243-252. doi : 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.08.010, 2014
[4]	A. Nugraha. Mengakhiri rezim konflik kehutanan: Momentum pasca keputusan MK. Dalam: Darurat hutan Indonesia. Mewujudkan arsitektur kehutanan Indonesia. Banten: Wana Aksara, 2013.
[5]	A. Sarker, T. Itoh, R. Kada, T. Abe, M. Nakashima, G. Herath. User self-governance in a complex policy design for managing water commons in Japan. Journal of Hydrology, 510, pp, 246-258, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.034.
[6]	B. Nugroho. Land Rights of Community Forest Plantation Policy: Analysis from an Institutional Perspective. J Management Hutan Tropika, 17(3), pp, 111-118, 2011.
[7]	B. Nugroho. Reformasi institusi dan tata kepemerintahan: faktor pemungkin menuju tata kelola kehutanan yang baik. Dalam: Kartodihardjo H, editor. Kembali ke Jalan Lurus: Kritik Penggunaan Ilmu dan Praktek Kehutanan Indonesia. Yogyakarta (ID): Nailil Printika, 2013.
[8]	B. Voltan, P. Sebastian, F. Markus. Analysis Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms?. J. Ecological Economics, 95, pp, 51-62, 2013. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.010
[9]	C.C. Gibson, J.T. Williams, E. Ostrom. Local Enforcement and Better Forests. J. World Development, 33(2), pp, 273-284, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013.
[10]	Contreras-Hermosilla, A. and C. Fay. Strengthening forest management in Indonesia through land tenure reform: issues and framework for action. Bogor: Bogor World Agroforestry Center dan Forest Trends, 2006
[11]	Creswell, J. W. Research Design Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications, Inc, 1994.
[12]	Denzin, N.K. Intervretive Biography: Qualitatif Research Method. Series 17. Sage Publication, 1989.
[13]	Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan. Peraturan Direktur Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan Nomor: P.6/VII-KUH/2011 tentang petunjuk teknis pengukuhan kawasan hutan, 2011.
[14]	E. Effendi. Rationalizing the facts: Forest zone rationalization in the context of local spatial planning and development programs. Indonesia: Paper for the world bank, 2002.
[15]	E. Ostrom, and E. Schlager The Formation of Property Right. Di dalam : Hanna S, Folke C, dan Maler KG. 1996, editor: Rights to Nature. Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Washington DC: Island Press, 1996.
[16]	E. Ostrom. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. J Policy Studies, 39(1), pp, 7-27, 2011.
[17]	E. Ostrom. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton and Oxford: Princenton University Press, 2005.
[18]	Haryatmoko. Etika Politik dan Kekuasaan. Cetakan ketiga Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas, 2014.
[19]	H. Kartodihardjo. Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (KPH) dalam politik pembaruan kebijakan. Jakarta: Bahan diskusi koalisi pembaruan kebijakan kehutanan (KPKK), 2007.
[20]	J.W, Creswell. Research Design Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications, Inc, 1994.
[21]	Kementerian Kehutanan. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor: P. 47/Menhut-II/2010 tentang pembentukan Panitia Tata Batas (PTB), 2010.
[22]	Kementerian Kehutanan. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor: P. 44/Menhut-II/2012 jo. P.62/Menhut-II/2013 tentang pengukuhan kawasan hutan, 2012.
[23]	K. Kitamura, and R.A. Clapp. Common property protected areas: community control in forest conservation. J. Land Use Policy, 34, pp, 204-212, 2013. doi : 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.008.
[24]	Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK). Pendekatan klaim verifikasi untuk percepatan penetapan kawasan hutan secara definitif. Jakarta: Unit Kerja Presiden Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (UKP4), 2013.
[25]	M.A. Safitri. Keadilan agraria di kawasan hutan: menafsirkan tanggung jawab negara terhadap reforma agraria. Dalam: Hakim I dan Wibowo L R, editor. Jalan terjal reforma agraria di sektor kehutanan. Bogor: Puspijak Kementerian Kehutanan, 2013.
[26]	M.D. McGinnis. An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. J Policy Studies, 39(1), pp, 169-183, 2011a.
[27]	M.D. McGinnis. Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. J Policy Studies, 39(1), pp, 51-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00396.x, 2011b
[28]	M.J. Mutenje, G.F. Ortmann, S.R.D. Ferrer. Management of non-timber forestry products extraction: Local institutions, ecological knowledge and market structure in South-Eastern Zimbabwe. J. Ecological Economics, 70(3), pp, 454-461, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.036.
[29]	M. Sirat, L. Situmorang, G. Galudra, C. Fay, G. Pasya. Kebijakan pengukuhan kawasan hutan dan realisasinya. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroferestry Centre, 2014.
[30]	M.S. Reed, A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, C.H. Quinn, L.C. Stringer. Who’s In And Why? A Typology Of Stakeholder Analysis Methods For Natural Resource Management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, pp, 1933–1949, 2009.
[31]	Pemerintah Provinsi Riau. Keputusan Gubernur Provinsi Riau Nomor: Kpts.662/v/2011 tentang pembentukan PTB kawasan hutan kabupaten/kota di wilayah Provinsi Riau, 2011.
[32]	Republik Indonesia. Undang-undang Nomor 41 tahun 1999 tentang kehutanan, 1999.
[33]	Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 44 tahun 2004 tentang perencanaan kehutanan, 2004.
[34]	R.K. Yin. Studi kasus, desain & metode. Terjemahan dari: Case Study Research: Desain and Methods. Jakarta, Indonesia: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2014.
[35]	R.J. Oekarson, and R.B. Parks. The Study of Local Public Economies: Multi-organizational, multi-level institutional analysis and development. J Policy Studies, 39(1), pp, 147-167, 2011.
[36]	Sugiyono. Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung (ID): Alfabeta, 2010.
[37]	U.J. Frey, and H. Rusch. Modeling Ecological Success of Common Pool Resource Systems Using Large Datasets. J. World Development, 59, pp, 93–103, 2014. doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.034.
[38]	V. Sivalai., Khantachavana, C.G. Turvey, R. Kong, X. Xia. On the Transaction Values of Land Use Rights in Rural China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 41, pp, 863–878, 2012. doi : 10.1016/j.jce.2012.11.003.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Pernando Sinabutar, Bramasto Nugroho, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Dudung Darusman. (2014). Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3(4), 299-306. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Pernando Sinabutar; Bramasto Nugroho; Hariadi Kartodihardjo; Dudung Darusman. Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia. Agric. For. Fish. 2014, 3(4), 299-306. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Pernando Sinabutar, Bramasto Nugroho, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Dudung Darusman. Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia. Agric For Fish. 2014;3(4):299-306. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22,
  author = {Pernando Sinabutar and Bramasto Nugroho and Hariadi Kartodihardjo and Dudung Darusman},
  title = {Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {3},
  number = {4},
  pages = {299-306},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20140304.22},
  abstract = {Forest area gazettment in Indonesia is done through the appointment process, boundary demarcation, mapping and determination of forest area. The process was organized by the Committee Boundary (PTB) with the involvement of several agencies in the area are coordinated by Forest Center for area stabilization (BPKH). This study analyzed the interaction of PTB in decision making and the effectiveness of the rules in-use the formation of PTB. Data were collected through in depth interviews, participant observation and document review, and then analyzed by using content analysis based IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) Framework. The results show there has been a disparity in the interaction. Types of rules in-use the formation of PTB among others position rules, boundary rules, authority rules, agregation rules, information rules, scope rules, and pay-off rules have not been able to direct of interaction. The formation of PTB has not noticed the involvement of agencies setting, the setting position and authority, setting rights and obligations, and accountability arrangements. For improvements, the configuration of the seven types of rules that can be used because the results of the analysis showed that the seven types of rules that have found substantial weaknesses in the formation of PTB.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia
AU  - Pernando Sinabutar
AU  - Bramasto Nugroho
AU  - Hariadi Kartodihardjo
AU  - Dudung Darusman
Y1  - 2014/09/20
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
DO  - 10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
T2  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP  - 299
EP  - 306
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5648
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
AB  - Forest area gazettment in Indonesia is done through the appointment process, boundary demarcation, mapping and determination of forest area. The process was organized by the Committee Boundary (PTB) with the involvement of several agencies in the area are coordinated by Forest Center for area stabilization (BPKH). This study analyzed the interaction of PTB in decision making and the effectiveness of the rules in-use the formation of PTB. Data were collected through in depth interviews, participant observation and document review, and then analyzed by using content analysis based IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) Framework. The results show there has been a disparity in the interaction. Types of rules in-use the formation of PTB among others position rules, boundary rules, authority rules, agregation rules, information rules, scope rules, and pay-off rules have not been able to direct of interaction. The formation of PTB has not noticed the involvement of agencies setting, the setting position and authority, setting rights and obligations, and accountability arrangements. For improvements, the configuration of the seven types of rules that can be used because the results of the analysis showed that the seven types of rules that have found substantial weaknesses in the formation of PTB.
VL  - 3
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Pernando Sinabutar

Forest Center for Area Stabilization Region XII, Tanjungpinang, Indonesia
Bramasto Nugroho

Forest Management Department, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia
Hariadi Kartodihardjo

Forest Management Department, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia
Dudung Darusman

Forest Management Department, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Pernando Sinabutar, Bramasto Nugroho, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Dudung Darusman. (2014). Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3(4), 299-306. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Pernando Sinabutar; Bramasto Nugroho; Hariadi Kartodihardjo; Dudung Darusman. Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia. Agric. For. Fish. 2014, 3(4), 299-306. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Pernando Sinabutar, Bramasto Nugroho, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Dudung Darusman. Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia. Agric For Fish. 2014;3(4):299-306. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22,
  author = {Pernando Sinabutar and Bramasto Nugroho and Hariadi Kartodihardjo and Dudung Darusman},
  title = {Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {3},
  number = {4},
  pages = {299-306},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20140304.22},
  abstract = {Forest area gazettment in Indonesia is done through the appointment process, boundary demarcation, mapping and determination of forest area. The process was organized by the Committee Boundary (PTB) with the involvement of several agencies in the area are coordinated by Forest Center for area stabilization (BPKH). This study analyzed the interaction of PTB in decision making and the effectiveness of the rules in-use the formation of PTB. Data were collected through in depth interviews, participant observation and document review, and then analyzed by using content analysis based IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) Framework. The results show there has been a disparity in the interaction. Types of rules in-use the formation of PTB among others position rules, boundary rules, authority rules, agregation rules, information rules, scope rules, and pay-off rules have not been able to direct of interaction. The formation of PTB has not noticed the involvement of agencies setting, the setting position and authority, setting rights and obligations, and accountability arrangements. For improvements, the configuration of the seven types of rules that can be used because the results of the analysis showed that the seven types of rules that have found substantial weaknesses in the formation of PTB.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Analysis of Rules in Use the Formation of Committee Boundary (PTB) State Forest Area in Indonesia
AU  - Pernando Sinabutar
AU  - Bramasto Nugroho
AU  - Hariadi Kartodihardjo
AU  - Dudung Darusman
Y1  - 2014/09/20
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
DO  - 10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
T2  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP  - 299
EP  - 306
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5648
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140304.22
AB  - Forest area gazettment in Indonesia is done through the appointment process, boundary demarcation, mapping and determination of forest area. The process was organized by the Committee Boundary (PTB) with the involvement of several agencies in the area are coordinated by Forest Center for area stabilization (BPKH). This study analyzed the interaction of PTB in decision making and the effectiveness of the rules in-use the formation of PTB. Data were collected through in depth interviews, participant observation and document review, and then analyzed by using content analysis based IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) Framework. The results show there has been a disparity in the interaction. Types of rules in-use the formation of PTB among others position rules, boundary rules, authority rules, agregation rules, information rules, scope rules, and pay-off rules have not been able to direct of interaction. The formation of PTB has not noticed the involvement of agencies setting, the setting position and authority, setting rights and obligations, and accountability arrangements. For improvements, the configuration of the seven types of rules that can be used because the results of the analysis showed that the seven types of rules that have found substantial weaknesses in the formation of PTB.
VL  - 3
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download