To Minimise Deforestation, Forest Resource Management Planning System Needs to be Changed
The drafting of forest preservation regulations to be made the operational guide in the management of forests in Java by Perhutani (Forestry Agency) has not shown substantial change as an integral system of forest resource planning. This is seen in the exclusion of community in forest management
Lecturer of Merdeka University of Madiun, Ir. H. Rahmanta Setiahadi, M.P., said that the role of community and regional government in the drafting of the regulation has been negated by the policy of Forestry Minister No. P.60/Menhut-II/2001. Community involvement in forest management is set forth only as a ‘fire-extinghuisher’ in settling conflicts and deforestation, not becoming part of planning system of forest resources in Javaon the whole.
“Current planning is rigid, only to manage timber resource without involving communities. Social aspect is made as an addendum, not part of forest management planning. This should have been included as part of forest development system run by Perhutani and is put into Forest Preservation Draft,” he explained in an open examination of his Doctoral program in Forestry Faculty on Monday (30/1) at the Auditorium of the Faculty.
In his dissertation entitled “Social Capital in Forest Development”, Rahmanta said the state domination, i.e. Perum Perhutani, in forest resources has caused deforestation, conflict, distrust and poverty among community aroung the forest continue massively. Perhutani seems failing in adapting to social change to exercise their right as state mandatory. “Such failure is caused by the weak response to social change that is determined by the community’s social capital condition,” said the man born in Madiun on24 January 1961.
Rahmanta said several ways to resolve deforestation, conflict, distrust and poverty have been taken by Perhutani since 1972. Unfortunately, the programmes have not touched upon the root of the problems. Law 72/2010 will threaten the existence and implementation of PHBM programmes. Perhutani seems inconsistent in shift of paradigm that they havebuilt themselves in resolving current problems. “The change of model paradigm, Forest Timber Management into Forest Resource Management is only a slogan not followed by changes in forest development system that is run by Perhutani.”
In his opinion, PHBM is very much dependent on the efforts to elaborate social capital in forest development system. For that matter, community involvement and community institutions (LMDH) in forest management and industry cooperation should be protected by Perhutani.
“To protect the implementation of PHBM, there should be change in planning system of forest resouce management soon by Perhutani based on Permenhut No P.60/Menhut-II/2011,” said Rahmanta who graduated cum laude.