As responses to local forests management problems in Indonesia, the Government through PP.06 2007 About Forests Regulation has seriously push Forest Management Units (KPH) as option to localizing forest management concept and develop an management unit for forests. This is aiming to enhances a good forests governance, control and monitoring to forests resources and participation of all forestry actors include local community. In concept the KPH will responsible to 5 main duties they are: (1) forests designation, (2) forests management plan, (3) rehabilitation of the critical forests, (4) preserve forests conservation and monitoring and control to the use of forests resources. As addition the KPH is ordered to support local economic development and reduces tenure conflicts in forests areas.
In Papua, referred to the Special Autonomy Law No 21 of 2001, the government are then released Special Province Regulation No.21 of 2008 about Sustainable Forests Management in Papua. The regulation in concepts was developed in line with legal space provided to local indigenous Papua to manage their forests resources inside their customary boundary. The KPH was formulated as business body belong to local government that works under jurisdiction from National to local. They are urgently required to established to reduce the complexity of forestry problems in Papua such as illegal longing, conflict and gaps of benefits to local community. The law 21 of 2001 has emphasize that forestry development in Papua should cultural oriented but maintain its function and adopting sustainable approaches.
Since the concepts and action plan were established on 2009 about 76 KPHs were designed - 56 are in Papua Province and 21 are in West Papua. Until the end of 2013 about 8 of which had legally established through ministry of forestry Decree and operational with managers, office and staff. This 8 KPHs are acknowledged as Model - 5 in Papua Provinces and 3 in West Papua Provinces.
Initial Challenges
Eventhough conceptually the KPH in Papua are ready to works but most parties realized and confused to stimulated the ideas of how the action plans should be started. Some parties even doubting whether the FMU will stay longer or not. During a year putting attention to this issue I learn that some biggest challenges need to be answered before moving advances are highlighted bellow:
- Bureaucracy vs Pure professional forester business oriented. When KPH is developed on political frame it will difficult to enhance good forests government as it was be though. Ministry of Internal affair Regulation no 61 of 2010 about KPH institution has erased the pure concept of professional KPH. The fact that all KPH was led by Bureaucrat has swift the slowly the moves of KPH do to the manager still put his/her position as government officer. On the other side this regulation has limited the space of professional forester to joint in KPH Works.
- Gap capacity. Most of KPH in Papua consist of low capacity people. In cases like Biak about 90% of KPH staff are young people with limited capacity and minim of experiences in professional forestry works. The stakeholder mapping Assessment conducted by Mr. Jansen Tangketasik shown that there is big gaps of knowledge and understanding about KPH between KPH Manager and it staff. It also shown that with current capacity in KPH, will make this works as 'mission of impossible'.
- Poor local accurate data and information to develop a good plans and strategy of forests management Plan. Currently all KPH are requested to accomplish their long term management plan (RPHJP). This plan should consist of 4 main pole they are: (a) forests stock, delineation (block and plots), social economic and all local basic informatiom (b) proportion of forests functions and overlap with other licenses, (c) enabling condition or challenges and obstacles of KPH works and (d) forests products option and feasibility study to move into detail business. The problem I found that most of the RPHJP are developed with poor data and information. In some cases the RPHJP is developed by those not part of KPH and never interact with forests or conditions at KPH area.
- Dual concept of KPH in Papua. Regarding to PERDASUS 21 of 2008, KPH are established to addressed local Papua Issues such as customary rights on forests and land. As acknowledged by most of forestry actors that 'strong claim to forests and land right by indigenous papuan are very often postponed the forestry development'. This claim was raised because their right over forests and land are not respected by state regulation/law. The trend in KPH now is adopting National concepts that not emphasized the quality of consultation and participation of adat community
- Funding support to KPH Works. Most of the government leader at district level seen KPH as a new burden to Districts annual budget so they not serious put funding support to KPH field works. In case like Biak and Yapen as a model for Papua the funding are mostly came from national government but from local/district government are limited. The bigger portion of the government fund are for physic projects and limited on field activity.
Find a way Forward
To answer the above challenges series of activities were conducted under the partnership of Samdhana Institute and KPHL Biak Numfor. The works are run on the frame of 'integration local law into forestry policy and regulation using KPH' aimed to identify and formulate concrete recommendation of enabling condition and preliminary activities each KPH in Papua must take.
Institutional Analysis: The works were began with a series of discussion internally in KPH, understand KPH, strength and weakness of current institutional status, inventory the needs and measure capacity of KPH. Samdhana together with KPH founds that there a lots of lacking that needs to be completed in KPH to strengthen KPH as a new institution eventhough KPHL Biak has legally approved as new government unit that responsible directly to head of the districts. As a result of this analysis, some concrete recommendation has been formulated and included into the next 2 years works under this partnership.
Stakeholder assessment: Pak Jansen Tangketasik, Samdhana consultant conducted 2 month stakeholder assessment. He has mapped all connected stakeholder and potentially to connected stakeholder to enhance the improvement of KPH Works in Biak. Each stakeholder and their capacity and resources to be potential partners of KPH. The reports are also provides a good pictures and design to KPH to build communication and join work with different stakeholder surrounding KPH.
Multilevel communication/FPIC : A series of meeting and discussion at National, Province, Districts until community level were conducted. All stakeholder identified on stakeholder maps assessment were participated on one day discussion about KPH. At the community level the discussion were conducted more that 2 times either at sub district level and village level. Discussion and communication were also built with keys elders on the pilot sites of KPH. Communication were also be built with Faculty of Forestry - Papua State University. This has succeed develop
Forestry Problem Analysis at Resort Unit (model): understanding local forestry problems at plot level is needed by KPH before stepping ahead into join works with community. List of the problem, challenges, opportunity are required for detail plans for project intervention. This analysis will help KPH to arrange strategy and limitation of their intervention on pilot plot and develop program that also become a solution to local problems.
Field data collection: a series of full field accurate data are needed to develop a good plans. The data and information includes: bio-physic, forests covers, forests product potency, topography and social economic of the community. A full forests inventory are the title of this activity. Cartographer training and forests inventory training were also conducted to prepare KPH staff capacity so they are able to do field data collection.
Customary boundary maps: as part of the local based conflict resolution and community participation tools, the customary boundary mapping is conducted. But physic maps is not the main target but consolidation among community to agree the boundary or agree to manage the areas together using customary agreement among them.
