scholarly journals KONSISTENSI NEGARA ATAS DOKTRIN WELFARE STATE DALAM PENGELOLAAN SUMBER DAYA HUTAN OLEH MASYARAKAT ADAT

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Wahyu Nugroho
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
State Authority ◽  
Indigenous Forest ◽  
Indigenous Forest Management

AbstrakKonstitusi hijau (green constitution) menempatkan Indonesia sebagai negara yang memiliki konsekuensi yuridis konstitusional di dalam UUD 1945 untuk menerapkan prinsip-prinsip ekokrasi, yakni setiap kebijaksanaan atau pembangunan di bidang perekonomian selalu memerhatikan lingkungan hidup di segala sektor, termasuk kehutanan. Hal ini bertujuan untuk menerapkan pilar-pilar pembangunan berkelanjutan (sustainable development) secara seimbang demi menyejahterakan rakyat. Objek kajian ini adalah putusan MK No. 35/PUU-X/2012 dengan subjek hukumnya masyarakat adat yang telah dilanggar hak konstitusionalnya. Masyarakat hukum adat memiliki kearifan lokal (local wisdom) tersendiri dalam upaya perlindungan dan pengelolaan lingkungan hidup atas sumber daya alam hutan adat, sehingga negara wajib melindungi dan bertindak sebagai fasilitator masyarakat hukum adat untuk mengelola hutan adatnya sendiri. Tujuan dari pengkajian ini adalah untuk menguji dan menganalisis konsistensi kewenangan negara atas doktrin welfare state atau negara kesejahteraan dalam pengelolaan hutan negara dengan kewenangan masyarakat adat dalam pengelolaan hutan adat berdasarkan kajian socio-legal atau hukum dalam fakta sosial atas putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penulis menggunakan metodologi berdasarkan pengkajian putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, dengan menelaah aspek socio-legal dalam putusan ini. Selain itu, bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder sebagai pijakan yuridis normatif dan studi kepustakaan sebagai kerangka teori. Hasil kajian ini terungkap bahwa terdapat hubungan antara hak menguasai negara dengan hutan negara, dan hak menguasai negara terhadap hutan adat. Terhadap hutan negara, negara mempunyai wewenang penuh untuk mengatur dan memutuskan persediaan, peruntukan, pemanfaatan, pengurusan serta hubungan-hubungan hukum yang terjadi di wilayah hutan negara. Adapun hutan adat, wewenang negara dibatasi sejauhmana isi wewenang yang tercakup dalam hutan adat. Hak pengelolaan hutan adat berada pada masyarakat hukum adat, namun jika dalam perkembangannya masyarakat hukum adat yang bersangkutan tidak ada lagi, maka hak pengelolaan hutan adat jatuh kepada Pemerintah. Kesimpulan yang diperoleh adalah hak menguasai negara dimaknai sebagai kewenangan dan kewajiban negara untuk mengelola sumber daya alam hutan dengan tujuan kesejahteraan masyarakat, termasuk masyarakat adat, sehingga negara berfungsi sebagai fasilitator.AbstractGreen constitution placed Indonesia as a country that has a constitutional juridical consequences constitution in 1945 to apply the principles of ecocracy, that is any wisdom or development in the field of economy always looking environment in all sectors, including forestry. It aims to implement the pillars of sustainable development in a balanced manner for the sake of welfare of the people (society). The study object is the Constitution Court decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 with indigenous people’s subject his constitutional rights. Indigenous and tribal peoples have local wisdoms of its own in the protection and management of natural resources of indigenous forest, so that the state shall protect and act as facilitators of indigenous communities to manage their own indigenous forests. The purpose of this study are to examine and analyze the consistency of state authority over the doctrine of welfare state in the management of state forest with indigenous authorities in the indigenous forest management based on socio-legal study of the Constitutional Court's decision. The author uses a methodology based on assessment of the Constitutional Court decision, by examining the socio-legal aspects of this decision. In addition, primary legal materials and secondary legal materials as a normative foundation and the study of literature as a theoretical framework. The results of this study revealed that is a relationship between the state is the state forest, and the state is customary forests. To the state forest, the state has full authority to organize and decide the inventory, allocation, utilization, management, and legal relations that occur in the forest region of the country. The indigenous forests, state authority is limited extent authorized content covered in indigenous forest. Indigenous forest management rights of indigenous communities, but if the development of indigenous communities in question no longer exists, then the rights of indigenous forest management falls to the Government. The conclusion is the state is interpreted as the authority and duty of the state to manage forest resources with the goal of public welfare, including indigenous peoples, so that the state serves as a facilitator. Unity traditional communities (indigenous peoples) are part of the eco-system of indigenous forest resource contains the values of local wisdom which has the right to manage indigenous forest, without the intervention of the state or private 

Indigenous Forest Management in 21st-Century New Zealand: Towards a ‘Postproductivist’ Indigenous Forest–Farmland Interface?

2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1493-1517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff A Wilson ◽  
P Ali Memon
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Social Constructionist ◽  
Social Regulation ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Indigenous Forest ◽  
Indigenous Forest Management

The critique of indigenous forest management in New Zealand in this paper contextualises the discussion in light of recent Eurocentric debates on the transition towards ‘postproductivist’ and ‘multifunctional’ agricultural and forestry regimes. The research findings confirm recent criticisms of Australian writers with regard to the direct transferability of the notion of a transition towards postproductivism developed by European researchers and also lend support to Holmes's (2002) notion of productivist and postproductivist occupance. Long-standing productivist demands continue to be made on New Zealand's indigenous forests, especially from economically marginalised stakeholder groups who depend on the continuation of logging for economic survival. We argue that the tension between the recent adoption of a ‘postproductivist’ conservation policy at government level and the continuing ‘productivist’ attitudes among some stakeholder groups explains why the protection of remaining indigenous forests continues to be contested. The New Zealand findings also provide further evidence for those persons criticising the implied linearity and dualism inherent in the Eurocentric postproductivist transition model. We argue that processes at the New Zealand forest–farmland interface support Wilson's (2001) notion of a territorialisation of productivist and postproductivist territories into a ‘multifunctional’ territory. From a social constructionist perspective, the results highlight the fact that a clear separation into productivist and postproductivist occupance may not be easy to conceptualise as our view of agricultural land as ‘productivist’ territory and unlogged or sustainably managed indigenous forest as ‘postproductivist’ territory is largely based on a Euro–American ‘deep green’ view of unaltered ‘nonhuman’ nature. This supports Mather's (2001) suggestion that postproductivism should be cast as part of a shifting mode of social regulation of forestry with particular stakeholder groups constructing images of nature according to their interests, and where western ideas of nature as a (postproductivist) wilderness embody cultural politics which arguably serve to marginalise the interests of indigenous communities.

scholarly journals Reconstruction of Indigenous Forests Planning Policy in Way Kanan Regency Following the Ruling of the Constitutional Court on Traditional Forest

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Erina Pane
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Forest Planning ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Planning Policy ◽  
Indigenous Forest

Constitutional Court Decision No.35/ PUU-X/2012 restored the function of indigenous forests to be managed by the indigenous peoples. The ruling establishes that indigenous forest is no longer a part of the state forest but part of the forest rights. Forest rights no longer only include forests on lands of the natural/legal entity but also are located in the area of indigenous peoples. The problem in this research is how the reconstruction of indigenous forest planning policy in Way Kanan regency after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35 / PUU-X / 2012 on Traditional Forest. The research used here is normative juridical-empirical. The data used is secondary data and primary data, and then is performed by juridical qualitative data analysis. Based on the research results, the arrangement of indigenous forests done by Way Kanan District Government is started with the assistance and mediator, data collection, research conduct and the confirmation of the existence of customary law communities along with indigenous areas, cooperating with the partnership between indigenous peoples and the concessionaires of Forest Management Rights (HPH), and accelerate the formation Regional Regulation on the Recognition of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous forest planning policy was blocked because Way Kanan Regional Regulation that specifically related to customary law communities has not been established, there is something confusing associated with the administration of indigenous forests and the intervention of interests of the party holding Forest Management Rights (HPH).  Keyword: Reconstruction, Regulation, Indigenous Forest

New Help or New Hegemony? The Transnational Indigenous Peoples' Movement and ‘Being Indian’ in El Salvador

2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
VIRGINIA Q. TILLEY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Indigenous Activism ◽  
Political Leverage

The transnational indigenous peoples' movement (TIPM) can convey important political leverage to local indigenous movements. Yet this study exposes a more problematic impact: the political authority gained by funding organisations who interpolate TIPM norms into new discourses regarding indigeneity, and deploy that discourse in local ethnic contests. In El Salvador the TIPM has encouraged the state to recognise the indigenous communities and has opened a political wedge for indigenous activism. Yet TIPM-inspired programmes by the European Union and UNESCO to support indigenous activism paradoxically weakened the Salvadorean movement by aggravating outside impressions that Salvadorean indigenous communities are ‘not truly Indian’.

From Individual to Collective Consent: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and undrip

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-269
Author(s):  
Richard Healey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
The State ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Sexual Ethics ◽  
The Third ◽  
Collective Decisions

Much of the debate around requirements for the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples has focused on enabling indigenous communities to participate in various forms of democratic decision-making alongside the state and other actors. Against this backdrop, this article sets out to defend three claims. The first two of these claims are conceptual in nature: (i) Giving (collective) consent and participating in the making of (collective) decisions are distinct activities; (ii) Despite some scepticism, there is a coherent conception of collective consent available to us, continuous with the notion of individual consent familiar from discussions in medical and sexual ethics. The third claim is normative: (iii) Participants in debates about free, prior, and informed consent must keep this distinction in view. That is because a group’s ability to give or withhold consent, and not only participate in making decisions, will play an important role in realising that collectives’ right to self-determination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document