IMPACT OF GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE ON THE INDONESIAN MAP STANDARIDISING PROCESS

*Nabiha Zain Muhamad  -  Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia
Raldi Hendro Koestoer  -  Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia
Received: 2 Aug 2017; Published: 25 Apr 2018.
Open Access License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Citation Format:
Abstract
The lack of standardized thematic maps in Indonesia has led to many land ownerships conflicts on the ground. The problem began since Indonesia started to exploit its natural resources by giving up its management to the market in the early 1960s. Concessions to exploit natural resources were given out without adequate assessment to real potential value of the resources. Mapping of concession areas by respective ministries without any standardized method or reference lead to the production of multiple official maps that conflict one another. Efforts to standardize the conflicting maps were initiated in 2011 and is currently still ongoing. This study aims to derive governance performance indices that directly or indirectly affect the map standardizing process. This study interviewed sources related to either the policy making process at the national level; government officials executing the policy at the provincial level and those affected by the conflict and other stakeholders advocating their rights. Interviewees include a number of officials in the central government both current and when the initiative were launched, provincial government and at the village level. To achieve sustainable development in environmental management, good governance is a prerequisite. However, the study found that sectoral ego and low government performance including, among others, corruption played a big role in hindering the process. By adding governance performance indices along with natural and economic variables to a forecast model, it can be predicted when Indonesia will likely to achieve its ideal level of harmonized maps.
Keywords: thematic maps; land rights; land conlflict; sustainable development

Article Metrics:

  1. Deddy, K. (2006). Community Mapping, Tenurial Rights and Conflict Resolution in Kalimantan. In State, Communities and Forests In Contemporary Borneo. Press [https://doi.org/10.22459/scfcb.07.2006.05">Crossref

  2. Duchelle, A. E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M. F., Guerra, R., Melo, T., Larson, A., … Sunderlin, W. D. (2014). Linking Forest Tenure Reform, Environmental Compliance, and Incentives: Lessons from REDD in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 55, 53–67 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.014">Crossref]

  3. FWI. (2013). FWI’s Portrait of Indonesia’s Forest.

  4. Harahap, F., Silveira, S., & Khatiwada, D. (2017). Land allocation to meet sectoral goals in Indonesia-An analysis of policy coherence. Land Use Policy, 61, 451–465. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.033">Crossref]

  5. Kartodihardjo, H. (2015). Forest and Land Fires: Adverse Impacts of Licensing Governance.

  6. KPA. (2014). Catatan Akhir Tahun Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria 2014. “Membenahi Masalah Agraria: Prioritas Kerja Jokowi-JK Pada 2015.”

  7. Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Atmadja, S., Ekaputri, A. D., Intarini, D. Y., Indriatmoko, Y., & Astri, P. (2014). Does Tenure Security Lead to REDD+ Project Effectiveness? Reflections from Five Emerging Sites in Indonesia. World Development, 55, 68–83. 5 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.014">Crossref]

  8. Riggs, R. A., Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A. K., Langston, J. D., & Sutanto, H. (2016). Forest tenure and conflict in Indonesia: Contested rights in Rempek Village, Lombok. Land Use Policy, 57, 241–249. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.002">Crossref]

  9. Sloan, S. (2014). Indonesia’s moratorium on new forest licenses: An update. Land Use Policy, 38, 37–40 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.018">Crossref]

  10. Sunderlin, W. D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Huynh, T. B., Awono, A., & Dokken, T. (2014). How are REDD Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development, 55, 37–52. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.013">Crossref]

  11. Tsujino, R., Yumoto, T., Kitamura, S., Djamaluddin, I., & Darnaedi, D. (2016). History of forest loss and degradation in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 57, 335–347. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.034">Crossref]

  12. UKP4. (2013). Laporan Pemantauan Instruksi Presiden No. 10/2011: Hasil Capaian dan Tindak Lanjut.

  13. Wibowo, A., & Giessen, L. (2015). Absolute and relative power gains among state agencies in forest-related land use politics: The Ministry of Forestry and its competitors in the REDD+Programme and the One Map Policy in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 49, 131–141. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.018">Crossref]

  14. Wicke, B., Sikkema, R., Dornburg, V., & Faaij, A. (2011). Exploring land use changes and the role of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 193–206. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.001">Crossref]

  15. Yusran, Y., Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Sabar, A., Krott, M., & Giessen, L. (2017). The empirical visibility of land use conflicts: From latent to manifest conflict through law enforcement in a national park in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 62, 302–315. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.033">Crossref]

  16.  


Last update: 2021-03-08 01:26:02

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-03-08 01:26:02

No citation recorded.