Eno Suwarno, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Lala M Kolopaking, Sudarsono Soedomo


Following  the establishment  of Forest Management Units (KPHL/KPHP) by the Indonesian  Ministry of Forestry, the next step that has to be done  is the  formation and operationalization of KPHL/KPHP organization by local  governments. In reality, implementation of the respective obligation is stagnated due to a number of obstacles such as the regulatory aspects that haveless trust and difficult to be implemented by local governments. In the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD Framework) from Elinor Ostrom, there is onecomponent, i.e. the rules-in-use concept that is possible to be applied as a tool  to analyze the relationship between the content of a certain regulation and the structure of action-situation formed due to implementationof regulation.This study aimsto test  effectiveness of  the  use  of the  concept  of  rules-in-use  to find  substantial  shortcomings  of  the  regulation  on  KPHL/KPHP formation at  provincial  level,as  a basisforimprovement. Accordingly,  analysis  was  performed  on  PP  No.6/2007  jo.  PPNo.3/2008,  Permendagri  No.61/2010  and  PP  No.41/2007by  making  analysis  of  regulation  contents and  feedback  from the implementation  process.  Based  on  the  results  of  this  study,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  use  of  Ostrom's  rules-in-use  concept  is adequately effective to find the shortcomings of KPHL/KPHP regulation content.


KPHL, KPHP, Ostrom’s rulesin use concept.

Full Text:



Birkland, T.A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Blomquist, W. (2006). The policy process and large-comparative studies. In Sabatier, P.A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cubbage, F., Harou, P., & Sills. R. (2007). Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 833-851.

Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan. (2013). Perkembangan wilayah KPHP dan KPHL model. Diakses dari http: // / index.php?option=com_content&view =category&layout=blog&id=73 &Itemid =222.(8 Pebruari 2014).

Dunn, W.N. (2000). Pengantar analisis kebijakan. (S. Wiwaha, Trans.). Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Gregersen, H. M., Hermosilla, A. C., White, A., & Philips, L. (2006). Tata kelola hutan dalam sistem federal: Sebuah tinjauan atas pengalaman dan implikasinya terhadap desentralisasi. In

Colfer, C.J.P., & Capistrano, D. (Eds.), Politik desentralisasi: hutan, kekuasaan dan rakyat, pengalaman di berbagai negara. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Hill, M. & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Kartodihardjo, H. (2008). Kerangka hubungan kerja antar lembaga sebelum dan setelah adanya KPH. (Laporan proyek GTZ). Strengthening the Management Capacities in the Ministry of Forestry (SMCF).

Kartodihardjo, H., Nugroho, B., & Putro, H.P. (2011). Pembangunan kesatuan pengelolaan hutan (KPH): konsep, peraturan perundangan dan implementasi. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan.

Meinzen-Dick, R., & Knox, A. (2001). Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: A conceptual framework. In Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A., & Gregorio, M.D. (Eds), Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ZEL.

Nurrochmat, D.R. & Hasan, M.F. (Eds.). Ekonomi politik kehutanan: Mengurai mitos dan fakta pengelolaan hutan. (Cetakan kedua, revisi). Jakarta: INDEF.

Nurrochmat, D.R. (2011). Review infrastructure framework and mechanism related to SFM as important option in reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. (MoFor-ITTO project report). Jakarta: MoFor-ITTO.

Ostrom, E. (1999). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princenton, New Jersey: Princenton University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 24-31. Ostrom, E. & Crawford, S. (2005). A grammar of institutions. In Ostrom, E. (Ed.), Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, G., & Walker, J. (2006). Rule, games & common-pool resources. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Sabatier, P.A., Leach, W., Lubell, M., & Pelkey, N. (2005). Theoretical frameworks explaining partnership success. In Sabatier, P. A., Lubell, M., & Focht, W. (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 3150.

Schweik, C.M., & Kitsing, M. (2010). Applying Elinor Ostrom's rule classification framework to the analysis of open source software commons. Transnational Corporation Review, 2(1), 13-26.


Copyright (c) 2015 Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan