Kontestasi Aktor dalam Proses Revisi Rencana Tata Ruang Provinsi (RTRWP) di Indonesia (Studi Kasus: Revisi RTRW Provinsi Riau)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.6.3.%25p

Article Metrics: (Click on the Metric tab below to see the detail)

Riau Province is one of the provinces that have not completed the RTRWP until 2017. One of the things that caused it was the existence of various problems that existed in the drafting process, especially related to the conflict between the actors involved in it. Each actor will use the power they have to maintain their interests. This study aims to actors identify, measure the power of actors and obtain recommendations in resolving the issue of the revision of the Riau RTRWP. The method used in this research is the Actor-Centered Power (ACP) approach which is supported by Content Analysis of Riau's RTRWP document, related laws and regulations. The research findings show that there are at least 9 (nine) actors involved in the revision process of the Riau RTRWP, where the role of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is the most powerful followed by the role of the Riau Provincial Government. The research also shows the emergence of the role of Ombudsman, Private (company), and Non-Governmental Organization in the contestation of the revised Riau RTRWP. To accelerate the completion of the Riau RTRWP Regional Regulation Draft, coordination and integration between the actors involved, law enforcement against legal violations and comprehensive conflict management are needed.


actor contestation; state and non-state actor; revised RTRWP

  1. Suprapto Suprapto 
    Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
  2. San Afri Awang 
    Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
  3. Ahmad Maryudi  Orcid Scopus Sinta
    Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
  4. Wahyu Wardhana 
    Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
  1. Aminah, S. (2015). Konflik dan Kontestasi Penataan Ruang Kota Surabaya. MASYARAKAT: Jurnal Sosiologi, 59-79
  2. Antara Riau. (2016). Jikalahari Desak DPRD Riau Tolak Pembahasan Draft RTRW. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from https://www.antarariau.com/berita/82303/jikalahari-desak-dprd-riau-tolak-pembahasan-draft-rtrw
  3. Aurenhammer, P. K. (2013). Development Cooperation Policy in Forestry from an Analytical Perspective. Georg-August-University Göttingen.
  4. Barr, C., Resosudarmo, I. A. ., Dermawan, A., & Mccarthy, J. (2006). Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia: Implication for Forest Sustanaibility, Economic Development and Community Livelihoods. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
  5. Barrow, E., Clarke, J., Grundy, I., & Jones, K. (2002). Analysis of Stakeholder Power and Responsibilities in Community Involvement in Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa.
  6. Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., & Luttrell, C. (2012). An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia : Is the current framework suffi cient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.004
  7. Casson, A. (2000). The hesitant boom: Indonesia's oil palm sub-sector in an era of economic crisis and political change.
  8. Casson, A., Tacconi, L., & Deddy, K. (2007). Strategies to reduce carbon emissions from the oil palm sector in Indonesia. Indonesian Forest Climate Alliance. Jakarta, Indonesia.
  9. Clapham, A. (2016). Non-state actors.
  10. Colfer, C. J. P., Dahal, G. R., & Capistrano, D. (Eds.). (2009). Pelajaran dari desentralisasi kehutanan: mencari tata kelola yang baik dan berkeadilan di Asia-Pasifik. CIFOR.
  11. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 3.
  12. Disbun Riau. (2016). Data Perizinan Perusahaan Perkebunan Provinsi Riau. Pekanbaru, Riau: Dinas Perkebunan Provinsi Riau.
  13. Ditjen Perkebunan. (2017). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2015 - 2017 (Tree Crop Estate Statistic of Indonesia). (D. D. Hendaryati, Ed.). Jakarta: Setditjen Perkebunan, Ditjen Perkebunan.
  14. Ditjen Planologi dan TL. (2016). Data dan Informasi Ditjen Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan. Jakarta: Direktorat jenderal Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan.
  15. Ditjen Planologi Kehutanan. (2011). Review RTRWP dan Penggunaan Kawasan Hutan. Jakarta: Kementerian Kehutanan.
  16. Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research.
  17. Eyes on The Forest. (2016). Legalisasi perusahaan sawit melalui Perubahan Peruntukan Kawasan Hutan menjadi Bukan Kawasan Hutan di Provinsi Riau. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from https://www.eyesontheforest.or.id/uploads/default/report/Legalisasi_sawit_melalui_Perubahan_Peruntukan_Kawasan_Hutan_(Des_2016).pdf
  18. F A O. (2010). Developing effective forest policy: A Guide (No. 161). Rome.
  19. Giessen, L., & Krott, M. (2008). Forestry Joining Integrated Programmes? A question of willingness, ability and opportunities. Allg. Forst- U. J.-Ztg, 180(5/6), 94–100
  20. Horton, J., Macve, R., & Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative research: experiences in using semi-structured interviews. In The real life guide to accounting research (pp. 339-357).
  21. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitatif Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  22. Hubo, C., & Krott, M. (2013). Conflict camouflaging in public administration — A case study in nature conservation policy in Lower Saxony. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.008
  23. Jawapos. (2017). Ini Penjelasan Blak-blakan Menteri LHK Soal RTRW Riau. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://www.jawapos.com/read/2015/12/18/13840/ini-penjelasan-blak-blakan-menteri-lhk-soal-rtrw-riau
  24. Kartodiharjo, H. (2010). Upaya Penyelesaian Konflik Tata Ruang Terkait Dengan Kawasan Hutan Negara. Jakarta: Sub Direktorat Penataan Ruang Kawasan Hutan Wilayah I.
  25. Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content Analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. . Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403–407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  26. Krott, M., Bader, A., Schusser, C., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Giessen, L., & Aurenhammer, H. (2014). Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012
  27. Lele, G. (2016). Pengelolaan Konflik Dalam Kebijakan Publik. In A. Subarsosno (Ed.), Kebijakan Publik dan Pemerintahan Kolaboratif, Isu-isu Kontemporer (I). Yogyakarta: Gava Media.
  28. Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in geography, 117-132.
  29. Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. (1994). Collecting Data using a semi‐structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of advanced nursing, 19(2), 328-335.
  30. Maryudi, A. (2011). The contesting aspirations in the forests, Actors, Interest and Power in Community Forestry in Java, Indonesia. Universitatsverlag Gottingen.
  31. Maryudi, A. (2015). The political economy of forest land-use, the timber sector, and forest certification. In C. Romero, F. E. Putz, M. Guariguata, A.
  32. Maryudi, & Ruslandi (Eds.), The context of natural forest management and FSC certification in Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
  33. Mccarthy, J. F. (2000). The Changing Regime : Forest Property and Reformasi in Indonesia. Development and Change, 31, 91–129.
  34. Myers, R., & Ardiansyah, F. (2014). Who holds power in land-use decisions ? Implications for REDD + in Indonesia.
  35. Myers, R., & Ardiansyah, F. (2015). Siapa yang memegang kekuasaan dalam tata guna lahan? Dampaknya bagi REDD+ di Indonesia. Info Brief, (113), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005517
  36. Neuman, W. L., & Kreuger, L. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon.
  37. Niskanen, W. . (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. New Brunswick (USA) and London (U.K): Aldine Transaction.
  38. Opdenakker, R. (2006, September). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 7, No. 4).
  39. Peters, B. G. (2001). The Politics of Bureaucracy (Fifth Edit). London and New York: Rouledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  40. Prabowo, D., Maryudi, A., Senawi, & Imron, M. A. (2017). Conversion of forests into oil palm plantations in West Kalimantan, Indonesia : Insights from actors’ power and its dynamics. Forest Policy and Economics, 78,
  41. –39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.004
  42. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A Theory of Access. Rural Socioloyg, 68(2), 153–181.
  43. Robertson-snape, F. (1999). Corruption , collusion and nepotism in Indonesia. Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599913703
  44. Rukmana, D. (2015). The Change and Transformation of Indonesian Spatial Planning after Suharto’s New Order Regime : The Case of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. International Planning Studies, 20(4), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2015.1008723
  45. Santoso, H. (2003). Forest Area Rationalization in Indonesia: A Study on The Forest Resource Condition and Policy Reform. Bogor, Indonesia: ICRAFT.
  46. Schusser, C., Kroot, M., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Salla, M., & Movuh, M. C. Y. (2012). Sequence Design of Quantitative and Qualitative Surveys for Increasing Efficiency in Forest Policy Research. Allg.Forst-U. J.-Ztg, 183, 75–83.
  47. Setiawan, E. N., Maryudi, A., Purwanto, R. H., & Lele, G. (2016). Opposing interests in the legalization of non-procedural forest conversion to oil palm in Central Kalimantan,Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 58, 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.003
  48. Setiawan, E. N., Maryudi, A., Purwanto, R. H., & Lele, G. (2017). Konflik Tata Ruang Kehutanan Dengan Tata Ruang Wilayah (Studi Kasus Penggunaan Kawasan Hutan Tidak Prosedural untuk Perkebunan Sawit Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah). Bhumi, 3(26), 51–66
  49. Sinabutar, F. (2015). Penataan tenurial dan peran para pihak dalam mewujudkan legalitas dan legitimasi kawasan hutan negara. Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  50. Situmorang, A. W., & Kartodiharjo, H. (2016). Kajian Tata Kelola Hutan 2015. UNDP Indonesia
  51. Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kombinasi (Mixed Methods). (Sutopo, Ed.) (8th ed.). Bandung: Alfabeta.
  52. Susanti, A., & Maryudi, A. (2016). Development narratives, notions of forest crisis, and boom of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.009
  53. Syahadat, E., & Subarudi. (2012). Permasalahan Penataan Ruang Kawasan Hutan Dalam Rangka Revisi Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi (Problems on Forest and Land Use System for Revision of Provincial Land Use System). Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 9(2), 131–143
  54. Timdu. (2012). Laporan Hasil Kajian Tim Terpadu Usulan Perubahan Kawasan Hutan dalam Pemaduserasian TGHK dengan RTRWP Riau. Jakarta.
  55. 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