May 3, 2006

Forest Property Right in Indonesia: Discussion and Conclusion

It has been argue above that both approaches recognized state property right over forest resources but have different point of view. CBA view state property right enforces the process of social differentiation that leads to depeasantinization. As the result, CBA would see the workers as a social class, encounter the worst impact of capitalism in forestry sector compared to concession holders, capitalist class, who get much surplus. In the other hand, NIE has different view that property right is seen as a way to reduce transaction costs. State property right should be chosen because state can be external guarantor in order transfer and exchange is possible (Stein, 1994: 1834). NIE emphasizes the objective of property right is to improve market allocation. In terms of actor involved in forest management, CBA sees that only private sector involved in forest management because state acts to support capitalist interest. on the contrary, NIE would argue that no matter of parties involved in forest management whether big company or small company even community as long as such arrangement would reduce transaction cost. It also would have implication to whom property right be given. Since forest management consists of large capital, it explains in the eye of NIE that only big companies involved. The distinct feature of class-based analysis is an approach based on class as a result of different access to means of production. CBA also clarifies the process of class differentiation however in the case of explaining rural change in forestry sector, it comes slightly different from what CBA argued. In the context of forestry sector, indigenous people never move toward rich farmers nor capitalist agriculture. They would even become landlessness. The transformation of rich peasant to capitalist agriculture, as Lenin said, does not happened. In terms of differentiation based on economic wealth, it happened when some inhabitants works in companies and able to improve their well-being compared to medium or poor peasants. One strength of NIE that it explains the significance of non-market mechanism by acknowledging transaction costs (anon, 2005). Therefore transaction cost becomes one of important feature that should be reduced in order to improve imperfect market. Compared to the other approach from which NIE derived, neo-classical approach, NIE offers more realistic, historical and social in its approach. The central objective of NIE is to reduce transaction costs therefore in the case of property right, it opens opportunity to the other property right regimes such as community-based property right. Moreover, NIE does not have any opposition whether community, private or state property right as long as transaction costs is reduced then it would be acceptable. In some cases that most players are locally based and transaction cost can be reduced so that applying state property right would somewhat increase transaction cost instead of reduced it. To the question of resource degradation, NIE left confusing explanation that as institution develops it assumed transaction costs would be minimized. In the other hand, moral hazard, derived from asymmetric information, sharply have impact to forest degradation. In other words to say that in the reality of forest management, although property right has been set up moral hazard still also happened in parallel. Thus, institution failed to explain how to overcomes this problem. In that sense, weak state might be explanation why environmental degradation happened in the settled institution (Bromley, 1997). CBA obviously is not a perfect approach. The approach has been developed in the context of agrarian society however in the contemporary world differentiation based on agrarian criteria is not really useful. Other basis for differentiation like demographic (anon 2005) and economic wealth might relevant to consider in the context of some wage labors are able to improve their livelihood. Capitalist class nowadays doesn’t only constitute in farmers society but also industrious capitalist who own financial capital. Apart from class approach, it doesn’t consider gender relation, which to some extent produce similar inequality to means of production (anon, 2005).
To conclude the discussion above and answer central question in which approach is the most suitable to explain agrarian change in forestry sectors in Indonesia, it is the class-based approach which clarify some points related to the process of rural change. The approach perceived the underlying problems in inequality of access to means of production therefore the process of differentiation become inevitable. As the result, indigenous people forced out from their land and often conflicts took place struggling to get their access back over the land. Some of them might have permanent lost their access to land becoming landlessness. For peasants, the only choice is dissolving into wage laborer. In the context of state property right in forest management in Indonesia, class-based approach demonstrates that the notion of conflicts is persistence over time during the beginning of commercial forest management[5]. Indigenous people become resistance to capitalist pressure because they are the one who get the worst impact of forest exploitation in terms of abandoning their existence as well as their customary right. The approach also explain environmental degradation resulted from expropriated rent by concessionaires. However the approach has weaknesses that is, it doesn’t consider gender relation in which produce similar inequality and theory focuses in farming society but nowadays capitalist class has been developed covering non-landed capitalist such as financial capitalists and knowledge capitalists.

Reference:
Akram-Lodhi, Haroon (2005). Institutional Theories Of Agrarian Change, MAJ4109 session 12, 8 December 2005, Institute of Social Studies, Den Haag
Ankarloo, Daniel (2000). Capital and Class, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_200210/ai_n9105817 accessed on 18 December 2005 at 7.52 pm
Anonymous (2005). MAJ 109 Thinking About Rural Livelihoods: Theoritical Perspectives on Rural Change (Staff Version), handout distributed on 12 December 2005, Institute of Social Studies, Den Haag
Bromley, Daniel (1997). Environmental Problems in Southeast Asia: Property Regimes as Cause and Solution , http://www.idrc.org.sg/eepsea/ev-8768-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html accessed on 21 December 2005 at 2.33 am
Brown, David (1999). Addicted to Rent: Corporate and Spatial Distribution of Forest Resources in Indonesia; Implications for Forest Sustainability and Government Policy, http://www.geocities.com/davidbrown_id/Atr_main.html accessed on 23 December 2005 at 11.00 am
Ellis, Frank (1993). Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, Cambridge, UK
HP, Arimbi and Emmy Hafild (1999), Practising the Mandate of Article 33 of Basic Constitution 1945 (Membumikan Mandat Pasal 33 Uud 1945), Walhi, Indonesia, http://www.pacific.net.id/~dede_s/Membumikan.htm accessed on 23 December 2005 at 10.45 am
Kay, Cris (2005). Theorising Agrarian Change: The Class-Based Approach, MA Course 4109 Lecture 10, Institute of Social Studies, Den Haag
Lenin, V.I. (1982). The Diferentiation of The Peasantry, in J. Harris (ed.)(1982), Rural Development: Theories of Peasant Economy And Rural Change, London: Hutchinson, ch 5, pp. 130-138
Mauri, Michael (2005). High-grading in Massachusetts: Cause for Concern, http://www.massforesters.org/high-gra.htm accessed on 20 Desember 2005 at 11.01 pm
Magin, Georgina. (2001) Forests of Fear.The Abuse of Human Rights in Forest Conflicts, Fern, The Netherlands
McCarthy, John F. (2000a). The Changing Regime: Forest Property and Reformasi in Indonesia, in Martin Doornbos, Ashwani Saith, and Ben White (eds.)(2000). Forest: Nature, People, Power, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK, p. 89-127
--------- (2000b). Biodiversity Policy in Indonesia: A Case Study, Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Australia http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/publications/e_public/Case%20Studies_Asia/bioindon/03.htmaccessed on 14 December 2005 at 12.59 am
Ministry of Forestry, Basic Forestry Law (Undang-Undang Pokok Kehutanan) No.5/1967 http://www.theceli.com/dokumen/produk/1967/5-1967.htm accessed on 22 December 2005 at 21:05 pm
Peluso, Nancy Lee (1992). Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java, University of California Press, Berkeley
Peluso, Nancy Lee and Emily Harwell (2001). Territory, Custom and Cultural Politics of Ethics War In West Kalimantan, Indonesia in Nancy L Peluso and Michael Watts (eds.)(2001). Violent environments, Cornel University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp. 83-116
Romstad, Eirik (2001) Forestry and The Environment, Journal of Forest Economics 7(2): 2001 http://www.manuscript-submission.de/journals/files/jfe/2001/editorial.pdf accessed on 15 January 2006 at 11.30pm
Stein, Howard (1994). Theories of Institution and Economic Reform in Africa, World Development Vol.22, No.12, pp.1833-1849

end notes
[1] http://www.theceli.com/dokumen/produk/1967/5-1967.htm
[2] Peluso (1995) in John McCharty (2000a) The Changing Regime: Forest Property and Reformasi in Indonesia, in Martin Doornbos, Ashwani Saith, and Ben White (eds.)(2000). Forest: Nature, People, Power, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK, p. 91
[3] See http://www.massforesters.org/high-gra.htm
[4] Arimbi HP and Emmy Hafild, http://www.pacific.net.id/~dede_s/Membumikan.htm
[5] there has been many scholar wrote about conflict in forest in Indonesia, just to name some examples: Peluso (1992), Peluso and Harwell (2001), Magin (2001), McCarthy (2000)

No comments: