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 -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Ahmad Maryudi -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Wahyu Wardhana -  Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Received: 2 Aug 2018; Published: 31 Dec 2018.
Open Access
Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Articles
Language: ID
Full Text:
Statistics: 207 175
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.
actor contestation; state and non-state actor; RTRWP revision

Article Metrics:

  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:
  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.