DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.6.3.193-214

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

*Suprapto Suprapto  -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
San Afri Awang scopus  -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Ahmad Maryudi orcid scopus  -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Wahyu Wardhana scopus  -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2018 Jurnal Wilayah dan Lingkungan under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Riau Province is one of the provinces which have not revised the RTRWP until 2017. One possible cause relates to the conflicts of interest among the participating actors. Each actor exercises the power influences to secure individual interests. This study aims to identify the participating actors, to measure the power influences exchanged between the actors and to recommend solutions for resolving the Riau’s RTRWP revision issue. The method used is Actor-Centered Power (ACP) approach, which is supported by Content Analysis of Riau's RTRWP document and related regulations. The research findings show that there are at least nine actors involved in the revision process of the Riau’s RTRWP, where the role of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is the most powerful then followed by the Riau Province Government. The research also shows the involvement of Ombudsman Agency, private corporations, and non-governmental organization (NGO) in the Riau’s RTRWP revision process. To accelerate the completion of the Riau’s RTRWP Regional Regulation Draft, coordination and integration between the participating actors are required as well as the law enforcement against legal violations and comprehensive conflict management.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: actor contestation; state and non-state actor; RTRWP revision

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : ID
Recent articles
Kontestasi Aktor dalam Proses Revisi Rencana Tata Ruang Provinsi (RTRWP) di Indonesia (Studi Kasus: Revisi RTRW Provinsi Riau) Keragaman Fungsi dan Bentuk Spasial Pertanian Kota (Studi Kasus: Pertanian Kota di Jakarta) Estimasi Daya Dukung Sumber Daya Air di Pulau Kecil (Studi Kasus Pulau Pari) More recent articles
  1. Aminah, S. (2015). Konflik dan kontestasi penataan ruang Kota Surabaya. Masyarakat: Jurnal Sosiologi, 20(1), 59–79. Retrieved from http://journal.ui.ac.id/index.php/mjs/article/view/4751
  2. Aurenhammer, P. K. (2013). Development cooperation policy in forestry from an analytical perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media
  3. Barr, C., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Dermawan, A., MacCarthy, J., Moeliono, M., & Setiono, B. (2006). Decentralization of forest administration in Indonesia in Implications: Implications for forest sustainability, economic development and community livelihoods. (C. Barr, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, A. Dermawan, & J
  4. McCarthy, Eds.). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Retrieved from https://www.cifor.org/library/2113/
  5. Barrow, E., Clarke, J., Grundy, I., Jones, K.-R., & Tessema, Y. (2002). Analysis of stakeholder power and responsibilities in community involvement in forest management in Eastern and Southern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/content/analysis-stakeholder-power-and-responsibilities-community-involvement-forest-management
  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 sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 30–37. doi: 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. Bogor, Indonesia. doi: 10.17528/cifor/000625
  8. Casson, A., Tacconi, L., & Deddy, K. (2007). Strategies to reduce carbon emissions from the oil palm sector in Indonesia. Bali
  9. Clapham, A. (2016). Non-state actors. In D. Moeckli, S. Shah, S. Sivakumaran, & D. Harris (Eds.), International Human Rights Law (3rd (Forth). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1626284
  10. Clunie, N., & Applegate, G. B. (1994). Functional categorisationfor sustainable forest management (No. 2). Jakarta
  11. Colfer, C. J. P., Dahal, G. ., & Capistrano, D. (2009). Pelajaran dari desentralisasi kehutanan: mencari tata kelola yang baik dan berkeadilan di Asia-Pasifik. Bogor, Indonesia. doi: 10.17528/cifor/002653
  12. Contreras-Hermosilla, A., & Fay, C. C. (2006). Memperkokoh pengelolaan hutan Indonesia melalui pembaruan penguasaan tanah: Permasalahan dan kerangka tindakan. Bogor, Indonesia: Bogor World Agroforestry Center dan
  13. Forest Trends. Retrieved from http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/memperkokoh-pengelolaan-hutan-indonesia-melalui-pembaruan-penguasaan-tanah-permasalahan
  14. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science: Journal of Society for General Systems Research, 2(3), 201–215. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830020303
  15. Dinas Perkebunan Provinsi Riau. (2016). Data perizinan perusahaan perkebunan Provinsi Riau. Riau: Dinas Perkebunan Provinsi Riau
  16. Direktorat Jenderal Penegakan Hukum Dirjen PHKA. (2011). Penggunaan kawasan hutan tidak prosedural. Jakarta
  17. Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan Kementerian Kehutanan Republik Indonesia. (2017). Statistik perkebunan Indonesia 2015-2017. Setditjen Perkebunan, Ditjen Perkebunan, Republik Indonesia
  18. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan. (2017a). Data perkembangan proses pelepasan KH melalui skema PP Nomor 60 Tahun 2012/Pasal 51 PP Nomor 104 Tahun 2015. Jakarta
  19. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan. (2017b). Rapat dengar pendapat (RDP) direktur jenderal planologi kehutanan dengan Komisi IV DPR RI. Jakarta
  20. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan Kementerian Kehutanan Republik Indonesia. (2016). Data dan informasi ditjen planologi kehutanan dan tata lingkungan. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan
  21. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan Kementerian Kehutanan Republik Indonesia. (2011). Review RTRWP dan penggunaan Kawasan Hutan. Kementerian Kehutanan
  22. Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill
  23. Eyes on the Forest. (2016). ‘Legalisasi’ perusahaan sawit melalui perubahan peruntukan kawasan hutan menjadi bukan kawasan hutan di Provinsi Riau (2). Retrieved October 17, 2017, from https://www.eyesontheforest.or.id/reports/legalisasi-perusahaan-sawit-melalui-perubahan-peruntukan-kawasan-hutan-menjadi-bukan-kawasan-hutan-di-provinsi-riau-2-maret-2018
  24. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2010). Developing effective forest policy - A guide (FAO Forestry Paper 161). Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1679e/i1679e00.htm
  25. Frislidia. (2017). Jikalahari Desak DPRD Riau tolak draft RTRW, ini alasannya. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from https://riau.antaranews.com/berita/86481/jikalahari-desak-dprd-riau-tolak-draft-rtrw-ini-alasannya
  26. Giessen, L., & Krott, M. (2009). Forestry Joining Integrated Programmes? A question of willingness, ability and opportunities. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung, 180(5/6), 94–100
  27. Gilang Fauzi. (2014). Zulkifli Hasan Dituding Serahkan Izin Langsung ke Riau
  28. Gubernur Riau. (2017). Rancangan Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Riau tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Riau 2017-2037
  29. Higgot, R. A., Underhill, G. R. D., & Bieler, A. (2000). Non-state actors and authority in the global system. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203279380
  30. 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). New York: Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/B978-008043972-3/50022-0
  31. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
  32. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.008
  33. Hudalah, D., & Woltjer, J. (2007). Spatial planning system in transitional Indonesia. International Planning Studies, 12(3), 291–303. doi: 10.1080/13563470701640176
  34. Hukrim. (2017). Jikalahari Desak DPRD Riau Hentikan Pembahasan Ranperda RTRWP Riau 2016-2035
  35. Kartodihardjo, H., & Supriono, A. (2000). The Impact of sectoral development on natural forest conversion and degradation: The case of timber and tree crop plantations in Indonesia (CIFOR Occasional Paper No.26(E)). Bogor, Indonesia. doi: 10.17528/cifor/000628
  36. Kartodiharjo, H. (2010). Upaya penyelesaian konflik tata ruang terkait dengan Kawasan Hutan Negara. Jakarta: Sub Direktorat Penataan Ruang Kawasan Hutan Wilayah I
  37. Kementerian ATR/BPN. (2016). Instrumen penataan ruang yang mendukung pembangunan. Jakarta
  38. Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 403–407). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226
  39. Krott, M. (2005). Forest policy analysis. Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3485-7
  40. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012
  41. Lele, G. (2016). Pengelolaan konflik dalam kebijakan publik. In A. Subarsosno (Ed.), Kebijakan Publik dan Pemerintahan Kolaboratif, Isu-Isu Kontemporer (I). Yogyakarta: Gava Media
  42. Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In N. Clifford & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key Methods in Geography (pp. 117–129). London: Sage Publications
  43. Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi‐structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 328–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x
  44. Lynch, O. J. (1999). Promoting legal recognition of community-based property rights, including the commons: some theoretical considerations. In Paper presented at a Symposium of the International Association for the Study of Common Property and the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Bloomington, Indiana
  45. Mahkamah Konstitusi. (2011). Putusan MK Nomor 45/PUU-IX/2011. Jakarta
  46. Maryudi, A. (2015). The political economy of forest land-use, the timber sector, and forest certification. In The Context of Natural Forest Management and FSC Certification in Indonesia (pp. 9–34). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research
  47. McCarthy, J. (2000). The changing regime: Forest property and reformasi in Indonesia. Development and Change, 31(1), 91–129. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00148
  48. Myers, R., & Ardiansyah, F. (2014). Siapa yang memegang kekuasaan dalam tata guna lahan? Dampaknya bagi REDD+ di Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia. doi: 10.17528/cifor/005517
  49. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. New Brunswick, USA and London UK: Aldine Transaction
  50. Ombudsman Republik Indonesia. (2016). Rekomendasi Ombudsman RI Nomor : 0002/REK/0361.2015/PBP-41/II/2016
  51. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 11. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604118
  52. Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
  53. Prabowo, D., Maryudi, A., Senawi, S., & 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, 32–39. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.004
  54. Resosudarmo, B. P., Nawir, A. A., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., & Subiman, N. (2012). Forest land use dynamics in Indonesia (Working Papers in Trade and Development no. 2012/01). Australia. Retrieved from https://www.cifor.org/library/3785/
  55. Riau Pos. (2014). Ada HGU-HPHTI di balik RTRW. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from http://riaupos.co/2073-spesial-ada-hgu-hphti-di-balik-rtrw.html#.XFoyQzAzbIV
  56. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x
  57. Riyan Novitra. (2016). Suap Alih Fungsi Lahan, KPK Periksa 9 Pejabat Riau
  58. Robertson-Snape, F. (1999). Corruption, collusion and nepotism in Indonesia. Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 589–602. doi: 10.1080/01436599913703
  59. 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. doi: 10.1080/13563475.2015.1008723
  60. Sahide, M. A. ., Maryudi, A., & Giessen, L. (2016). Decentralisation policy as recentralisation strategy: forest management units and community forestry in Indonesia. The International Forestry Review, 18(1), 78–95
  61. Sahide, M. A. K., & Giessen, L. (2015). The fragmented land use administration in Indonesia – Analysing bureaucratic responsibilities influencing tropical rainforest transformation systems. Land Use Policy, 43, 96–110. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.005
  62. Santoso, H. (2003). Forest area rationalization in Indonesia: A study on the forest resource condition and policy reform. Bogor, Indonesia: ICRAFT
  63. Schusser, C., Krott, M., Devkota, R., & Maryudi, A. (2013). Sequence design of quantitative and qualitative surveys for increasing efficiency in forest policy research. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung, 183(3), 75–83
  64. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.003
  65. 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: Jurnal Agraria Dan Pertanahan, 3(1), 51–66. Retrieved from http://jurnalbhumi.stpn.ac.id/index.php/JB/article/view/226
  66. Sève, J. (1999). A review of forestry sector policy issues in Indonesia (Technical Report No. OUT-PCE-I-806-96-00002-00). Jakarta
  67. Sinabutar, P. (2015). Penataan tenurial dan peran para pihak dalam mewujudkan legalitas dan legitimasi Kawasan Hutan Negara. Institut Pertanian Bogor
  68. Situmorang, A. W., & Kartodiharjo, H. (2016). Kajian tata kelola hutan 2015. UNDP Indonesia
  69. Steni, B. (2016). Membedah UU pemerintahan daerah yang baru. Retrieved from https://earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/INOBU-Report-Membedah-UU-Pemerintahan-Daerah-yang-Baru.pdf
  70. Sugiyono, S. (2016). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan kombinasi (Mixed Methods). (Sutopo, Ed.) (8th ed.). Bandung: CV Alfabeta
  71. Susanti, A., & Maryudi, A. (2016). Development narratives, notions of forest crisis, and boom of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Forest Policy and
  72. Economics, 73, 130–139. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.009
  73. Syahadat, E., & Subarudi, S. (2012). Permasalahan penataan ruang kawasan hutan dalam rangka revisi rencana tata ruang wilayah provinsi. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 9(2), 131–143. doi: 10.0.81.150/jakk.2012.9.2.131-143
  74. Tim Terpadu. (2012). Laporan hasil kajian tim terpadu usulan perubahan kawasan hutan dalam pemaduserasian TGHK dengan RTRWP Riau. Jakarta
  75. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.018

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.