This study examines the implementation of Reinventing Government principles in the management of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari and their contribution to sustainable forest governance. Drawing on the ten principles proposed by Osborne and Gaebler (1992), the study explores how public sector reform is translated into local forest management practices and how it influences organizational performance, community participation, and public value creation. A qualitative approach with the instrumental case study design was employed. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, field observations, and document analysis. Informants included the Head of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari, KPHP staff, Social Forestry Groups, Forest Farmer Groups, Social Forestry Business Groups, Community Fire Brigades, and indigenous community leaders. Data were analyzed using the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014), consisting of data collection, data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. The findings reveal that the implementation of Reinventing Government has fostered a gradual transformation of forest governance through stronger facilitative functions, increased indigenous community participation, expansion of social forestry programs, community-based service delivery, development of non-timber forest product enterprises, and improved forest protection efforts.
Forests constitute strategic public resources that simultaneously perform ecological, economic, and social functions. In the perspective of public administration, the management of natural resources is not merely a technical activity but a public responsibility through which the state creates public value, namely collective benefits that are socially meaningful and democratically legitimate (Moore, 1995; Benington & Moore, 2011). The success of forest governance, therefore, should not be measured solely by economic outputs or revenue generation but also by its capacity to maintain ecological sustainability, ensure equitable access to resources, and preserve intergenerational justice. Consequently, forest management represents a critical arena in which governments demonstrate their ability to balance economic development with environmental stewardship and social welfare.
The complexity of forest governance is closely associated with the characteristics of forests as common-pool resources. Such resources are highly vulnerable to overexploitation when governance mechanisms are weak, fragmented, or poorly coordinated (Ostrom, 1990). Environmental governance literature emphasizes that sustainable resource management requires effective institutions, transparency, stakeholder participation, accountability, and coordination among multiple actors operating across different levels of governance (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006; Biermann et al., 2012). In this regard, public organizations responsible for forest management play a central role in designing institutional arrangements and operational mechanisms capable of balancing resource utilization with conservation objectives.
To address these challenges, the Indonesian government established the Forest Management Unit (Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan/KPH) system as a territorial-based forest governance institution. According to Government Regulation No. 23 of 2021 concerning Forestry Administration and reinforced by the Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. 23 of 2025, KPH is defined as a forest management area organized according to its primary functions and intended to be managed efficiently, effectively, and sustainably. The establishment of KPH reflects a significant institutional shift from traditional forest administration toward professional forest management, emphasizing integrated planning, utilization, protection, and supervision of forest resources (Kartodihardjo & Suwarno, 2014). Through this arrangement, KPH is expected to become the frontline institution responsible for implementing sustainable forest management while accommodating economic, ecological, and social interests. One of the strategic forest management units established under this framework is the Production Forest Management Unit (KPHP) Unit II of South Manokwari Regency, located in West Papua Province. The region is characterized by extensive forest coverage and significant natural resource potential, making forest governance a crucial component of regional development. Based on the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry No. SK.113/MENLHK/SETJEN/PLA.2/2/2022, KPHP Unit II South Manokwari manages approximately 122,259 hectares of forest area comprising protected forests and various categories of production forests. The management area possesses considerable economic potential through timber forest products, non-timber forest products such as agarwood, nutmeg, sago, and massoi bark, as well as environmental services and nature-based tourism opportunities. At the same time, the area performs essential ecological functions, including watershed protection and biodiversity conservation.
The application of Reinventing Government principles within forest governance has the potential to strengthen institutional capacity by promoting managerial innovation, collaborative governance, evidence-based decision making, and performance-oriented organizational culture. For KPHP Unit II South Manokwari, these principles may contribute to improving the utilization of forest resources, enhancing stakeholder collaboration, strengthening accountability mechanisms, and increasing organizational responsiveness to emerging governance challenges. However, empirical evidence regarding the implementation of Reinventing Government within forest management institutions remains limited, particularly in the context of territorial forest management units in Indonesia. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the implementation of Reinventing Government principles in the management of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari Regency. By examining how organizational transformation is manifested in the management of production forests, this research seeks to contribute to the literature on public sector reform and environmental governance while providing practical insights for strengthening forest management institutions in Indonesia. The findings are expected to enrich understanding of how public organizations can create public value through more adaptive, innovative, accountable, and sustainable forest governance practices.
The concept of Reinventing Government has become one of the most influential paradigms in public sector reform, emphasizing the transformation of public organizations into more innovative, effective, and performance-oriented institutions. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) argue that governments should not merely function as bureaucratic service providers but as entrepreneurial organizations capable of creating public value and responding adaptively to societal needs. They propose ten core principles of entrepreneurial government, namely: (1) catalytic government (steering rather than rowing), (2) community- owned government (empowering rather than serving communities), (3) competitive government (injecting competition into service delivery), (4) mission-driven government (transforming rule-driven organizations), (5) results-oriented government (funding outcomes rather than inputs), (6) customer-driven government (meeting the needs of citizens), (7) enterprising government (earning rather than merely spending resources), (8) anticipatory government (preventing problems before they emerge), (9) decentralized government (promoting participation and teamwork), and (10) market-oriented government (leveraging market mechanisms to achieve public goals).
The application of Reinventing Government is particularly relevant in the forestry sector, where public organizations are required to manage complex ecological, social, and economic interests simultaneously. Forest governance is defined as the system of institutions, rules, processes, and actor interactions that determine how forest resources are managed, utilized, and protected (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006; Arts & Visseren-Hamakers, 2012). Effective forest governance requires transparency, accountability, stakeholder participation, and institutional capacity to balance conservation objectives with economic utilization. This perspective is reinforced by Common-Pool Resources (CPR) theory, which emphasizes that sustainable forest management depends on clearly defined rules, monitoring mechanisms, collective action, and institutional legitimacy (Ostrom, 1990). Consequently, the performance of Forest Management Units (FMUs) can be understood not only through technical forestry indicators but also through their ability to implement innovative and adaptive governance practices. Although previous studies have examined Forest Management Units from the perspectives of decentralization, forest governance, and institutional development (Kartodihardjo & Suwarno, 2014; Maryudi, Sahide, & Giessen, 2015), limited attention has been given to analyzing their performance through the lens of Reinventing Government. Existing research has primarily focused on regulatory frameworks, tenure conflicts, and governance arrangements, while issues related to organizational transformation, entrepreneurial capacity, innovation, and results-oriented management remain underexplored. Therefore, this study addresses this gap by investigating how the ten principles of Reinventing Government are implemented within KPHP Unit II South Manokwari and how these principles contribute to strengthening organizational performance and sustainable forest governance.
This study employed a qualitative approach with an instrumental case study design to explore the implementation of Reinventing Government principles in the management of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari, West Papua Province. A qualitative approach was selected because the study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of organizational practices, governance processes, stakeholder interactions, and institutional dynamics within their real-life context. Instrumental case study was considered appropriate because KPHP Unit II South Manokwari was not examined merely as a single organizational entity but as a case through which broader insights into the application of Reinventing Government in forest governance could be developed (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018). The study focused on understanding how entrepreneurial governance principles are translated into forest management practices and how they contribute to organizational effectiveness and sustainable forest governance.
Data were collected through in-depth interviews, field observations, and document analysis. Informants were selected using purposive sampling based on their direct involvement, knowledge, and experience in forest management activities. The informants consisted of government representatives, including the Head of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari and KPHP staff, as well as community- based stakeholders comprising Social Forestry Groups (Kelompok Perhutanan Sosial/KPS), Forest Farmer Groups (Kelompok Tani Hutan/KTH), Social Forestry Business Groups (Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Sosial/KUPS), Community Fire Brigades (Masyarakat Peduli Api/MPA), and indigenous community leaders or tribal chiefs. Documentary sources included long-term forest management plans, institutional reports, forestry regulations, policy documents, performance reports, and other records relevant to forest governance. The inclusion of multiple stakeholder groups and data sources enabled the study to capture diverse perspectives and obtain a comprehensive understanding of the governance processes within KPHP Unit II South Manokwari.
Data analysis followed the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014), consisting of data collection, data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. The analysis focused on three interrelated aspects: (1) the implementation of the ten principles of Reinventing Government proposed by Osborne and Gaebler (1992), namely catalytic government, community-owned government, competitive government, mission-driven government, results-oriented government, customer-driven government, enterprising government, anticipatory government, decentralized government, and market-oriented government; (2) the institutional, organizational, and contextual factors influencing their implementation; and (3) the development of a contextual governance model for strengthening sustainable forest management. To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, data were validated through source triangulation, methodological triangulation, and continuous verification of emerging themes throughout the research process.
The implementation of Reinventing Government in KPHP Unit II South Manokwari provides an important perspective for understanding how public sector reform principles are translated into forest governance practices at the local level. As a forest management unit operating within a complex socio- ecological environment, KPHP is expected not only to perform regulatory and administrative functions but also to facilitate stakeholder collaboration, promote community participation, enhance service delivery, and create public value through sustainable forest management. The findings reveal that the application of Reinventing Government principles has contributed to changes in organizational orientation, particularly in strengthening community engagement, expanding social forestry initiatives, improving forest protection efforts, and encouraging the development of forest-based economic activities. However, the extent to which these principles have been institutionalized varies across different dimensions of governance and remains influenced by organizational capacity, resource availability, policy arrangements, and local contextual factors. To provide a comprehensive understanding of this transformation, the discussion is organized according to the ten principles of Reinventing Government proposed by Osborne and Gaebler (1992), namely: (1) Catalytic Government, (2) Community-Owned Government, (3) Competitive Government, (4) Mission-Driven Government, (5) Results-Oriented Government, (6) Customer-Driven Government, (7) Enterprising Government, (8) Anticipatory Government, (9) Decentralized Government, and (10) Market- Oriented Government. Each principle is examined to assess how far the reform agenda has been implemented in practice and how it has influenced the effectiveness of forest governance in KPHP Unit II South Manokwari
The principle of Catalytic Government emphasizes that government should function primarily as a facilitator, coordinator, and enabler rather than as the sole executor of public programs. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) argue that effective public organizations should focus on steering rather than rowing, meaning that governments are expected to mobilize stakeholders, facilitate collaboration, and create favorable conditions for achieving public goals. In the context of forest governance, this principle is highly relevant because forest management involves multiple actors with different interests, including government agencies, indigenous communities, social forestry groups, and forest concession holders. Therefore, the success of forest management depends not only on administrative capacity but also on the ability of institutions to build collaboration and collective action among stakeholders (Rhodes, 1996; Osborne, 2006).
However, the study also found that the implementation of Catalytic Government remains incomplete. Despite its facilitative role, KPHP continues to perform many operational functions directly, including forest patrols, field verification, technical supervision, and intensive assistance to community groups. Furthermore, stakeholder collaboration is still largely informal and issue- based, with limited institutionalization of permanent multi-stakeholder forums. As a result, the organization simultaneously performs both steering and rowing functions. This condition suggests that the transition toward a fully catalytic governance model is still in progress and constrained by limited organizational capacity, geographical challenges, and the complexity of forest governance in Papua Barat. Similar challenges have been identified in previous studies, which emphasize that forest management units in Indonesia often face difficulties in establishing sustainable collaborative mechanisms due to institutional and capacity limitations (Karsudi, Soekmadi, & Kartodihardjo, 2010; Maryudi, 2016). Overall, the findings indicate that KPHP Unit II South Manokwari has made significant progress in implementing the Catalytic Government principle through facilitation, mediation, stakeholder coordination, and support for community-based forest management. Nevertheless, the organization has not yet fully achieved the ideal characteristics of a catalytic institution because operational responsibilities remain dominant and collaborative arrangements have not been fully institutionalized. Strengthening organizational capacity, formalizing multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanisms, and enhancing the autonomy of community-based forest organizations are therefore essential for advancing KPHP toward a more effective catalytic governance model capable of supporting sustainable forest management and long-term public value creation (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Ansell & Gash, 2008).
The findings reveal that performance management within KPHP Unit II South Manokwari has gradually evolved beyond routine administrative functions toward a more structured evaluation system. Internal assessments are conducted regularly through program monitoring, financial realization reviews, field activity reports, and comparisons of organizational achievements with other forestry technical units at the provincial level. According to several informants, benchmarking practices are increasingly used to compare physical and financial performance indicators among forestry organizations, allowing KPHP to identify gaps and improve operational effectiveness. In addition, the adoption of digital monitoring tools such as SmartPatrol demonstrates an effort to strengthen accountability and improve the quality of field supervision. These initiatives indicate that performance measurement has become an important component of organizational management within KPHP Unit II South Manokwari. Despite these developments, the evidence suggests that the current performance management system remains heavily influenced by administrative considerations. Most evaluations continue to focus on budget absorption, reporting compliance, completion of accountability documents, and achievement of physical activity targets. Indicators related to broader outcomes, such as reductions in forest degradation, improvements in ecosystem conditions, or enhancement of community livelihoods, are not yet systematically incorporated into organizational assessments. As a result, organizational success is often judged by the completion of planned activities rather than by the actual impacts generated through forest management interventions. Several field officers acknowledged that administrative requirements frequently consume a substantial proportion of organizational resources, leaving limited capacity for measuring long-term ecological and social outcomes.
A notable pattern emerging from this study is the gradual shift in how KPHP Unit II South Manokwari defines organizational success. Rather than relying exclusively on administrative indicators, the organization has begun to place greater emphasis on outcomes associated with forest protection, conflict reduction, and community welfare. This orientation is reflected in various initiatives, including social forestry programs, forest rehabilitation activities, non-timber forest product (NTFP) development, and community assistance programs designed to strengthen local livelihoods while maintaining forest sustainability. According to the Head of KPHP, organizational performance is increasingly assessed through indicators such as the reduction of tenure conflicts and the improvement of community income derived from forest-based economic activities, alongside the maintenance of ecological stability. Such an approach indicates an emerging awareness that the effectiveness of forest governance should be evaluated based on tangible changes experienced by both ecosystems and local communities rather than solely on the completion of planned activities. This finding reflects the central argument of Osborne and Gaebler (1992), who contend that public organizations should focus on results rather than procedures and measure success according to outcomes rather than inputs. Similarly, Hood (1991) argues that modern public management requires a transition from rule-based administration to performance-based governance. In the context of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari, the inclusion of ecological stability and community welfare as performance considerations suggests that organizational priorities are gradually expanding beyond conventional bureaucratic requirements. The emphasis on reducing tenure conflicts is particularly significant because land-use disputes remain one of the most persistent challenges in forest governance across Indonesia. By incorporating conflict reduction and community economic improvement into its management objectives, KPHP demonstrates an effort to align organizational performance with broader public interests and long-term sustainability goals. Field observations nevertheless reveal that the transition toward a genuinely results-oriented organization remains incomplete. Although the organization increasingly emphasizes substantive outcomes, most monitoring and reporting mechanisms continue to focus on physical outputs such as the number of patrols conducted, hectares rehabilitated, training activities completed, and reports submitted. Measurements of longer-term outcomes, including improvements in ecosystem health, community resilience, and livelihood sustainability, are not yet systematically integrated into the organizational evaluation framework. Consequently, evidence of success is often presented through activity completion rather than demonstrated environmental or socio-economic change. This situation reflects what Behn (2003) describes as a common challenge in public sector performance management, where organizations tend to measure what is easiest to quantify rather than what is most important to achieve.
One of the most distinctive characteristics of forest governance in KPHP Unit II South Manokwari is the organization's effort to bring public services closer to local communities through direct field engagement. Rather than relying primarily on office-based administrative procedures, KPHP has adopted a field- oriented approach in which officers regularly visit villages, conduct community consultations, facilitate social forestry groups, and provide technical assistance related to forest management and non-timber forest products (NTFPs). The study found that indigenous communities and residents living within and around forest areas are regarded as the primary beneficiaries of organizational services. Aspirations and complaints are commonly gathered through village visits and door-to-door interactions, allowing community members to communicate their needs more openly than through formal bureaucratic channels. This approach reflects an institutional recognition that effective forest governance depends not only on regulatory compliance but also on the quality of interactions between government agencies and local communities.
The entrepreneurial orientation of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari is reflected in its efforts to transform forest resources from merely protected assets into productive sources of community welfare. The study found that the organization has actively promoted the development of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), agroforestry initiatives, environmental services, and community-based forestry enterprises as alternative economic opportunities for local communities. Programs involving masohi bark, damar resin, nutmeg, patchouli (nilam), citronella (serai merah), and other forest-based commodities illustrate a strategic shift toward value-added economic activities rather than dependence on timber extraction alone. In several cases, KPHP facilitated the provision of production equipment, technical assistance, and product-processing initiatives to enable communities to move beyond the sale of raw materials and enter higher-value segments of the forest product value chain. These initiatives demonstrate an emerging effort to create economic opportunities while maintaining ecological sustainability.
The implementation of forest governance in KPHP Unit II South Manokwari demonstrates an increasing reliance on field-level actors to address the complexities of managing forest resources across a vast and socio-culturally diverse landscape. The study found that forestry police officers, extension workers, and technical personnel are frequently entrusted with making immediate operational decisions related to forest patrols, early conflict management, community assistance, and responses to disturbances within forest areas. Given the geographical challenges and limited accessibility of many forest villages, such flexibility is essential to ensure that management interventions remain responsive to local conditions. This arrangement indicates that decision- making is no longer concentrated exclusively at higher administrative levels but is increasingly delegated to personnel who possess direct knowledge of local realities and maintain regular interaction with indigenous communities and social forestry groups.
These findings reflect the core principles of Decentralized Government, which advocate bringing decision-making closer to the point where public problems emerge and where services are delivered (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). In the context of natural resource governance, decentralization is expected to improve responsiveness, strengthen local participation, and enable institutions to adapt policies to diverse socio-ecological conditions. The experience of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari illustrates how operational authority can enhance the organization's ability to respond more rapidly to local challenges than would be possible under a purely centralized administrative structure. This observation is consistent with Falleti’s (2005) argument that decentralization can improve policy effectiveness when authority is distributed to actors who possess a deeper understanding of local conditions. Similarly, Ostrom (1990) emphasizes that resource governance tends to become more effective when decision-making is dispersed across multiple centers of authority rather than concentrated within a single hierarchical structure.
The findings demonstrate that KPHP Unit II South Manokwari has gradually adopted a market-oriented approach to forest governance by facilitating community access to economic opportunities derived from forest resources while maintaining the principles of sustainable forest management. Rather than positioning itself solely as a regulatory institution, KPHP increasingly acts as a facilitator that connects local communities with markets, strengthens product legality, and supports the development of forest-based enterprises. Particular attention has been given to non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as masoi bark, nutmeg, damar resin, and other locally available commodities that possess commercial value. The organization has also encouraged partnerships between community groups and potential buyers (off- takers), recognizing that market access remains one of the most significant barriers to local economic development. These initiatives indicate a transition from a purely protection-oriented management model toward a governance approach that simultaneously pursues economic empowerment and forest conservation.
An important finding is that market development within KPHP is not limited to commodity production but also extends to the strengthening of institutional arrangements that support economic participation. The facilitation of product legality, assistance with administrative requirements, and support for community business groups illustrate how the organization attempts to reduce barriers that prevent local producers from entering wider markets. This approach aligns with studies highlighting the importance of institutional support in enhancing the competitiveness of NTFP-based livelihoods. Primaningtyas and Gheewala (2025), for example, argue that sustainable NTFP value chains can generate substantial economic benefits for forest-dependent communities when supported by effective governance structures and market access mechanisms. Similarly, Yanarita et al. (2025) emphasize that strengthening local value chains contributes not only to income generation but also to the broader goals of inclusive and sustainable rural development. The study also reveals that KPHP has begun exploring alternative market opportunities through the development of environmental services and nature- based tourism. The presence of mangrove ecosystems, rivers, waterfalls, hot springs, and mountain landscapes within the management area provides significant potential for ecotourism and conservation-based economic activities. From the perspective of ecological modernization, such initiatives illustrate how environmental protection and economic development can be pursued simultaneously through innovative governance arrangements. Rather than treating conservation and economic growth as competing objectives, KPHP seeks to integrate both dimensions by promoting forms of economic activity that depend upon the preservation of ecosystem integrity. This approach is consistent with contemporary discussions of green economy strategies, which emphasize sustainable resource utilization as a foundation for long-term prosperity (Tata et al., 2022).
The findings indicate that the implementation of Reinventing Government in the management of KPHP Unit II South Manokwari has contributed to a gradual transformation of forest governance through the strengthening of the organization's facilitative role, the involvement of indigenous communities, the expansion of social forestry programs, community-based field services, the development of non-timber forest product (NTFP)-based economic activities, and enhanced forest protection efforts. These developments reflect the adoption of the ten principles of Reinventing Government within local forest management practices, demonstrating a shift from a conventional administrative approach toward a more participatory, adaptive, and community-oriented governance model. Nevertheless, the implementation has not yet achieved an optimal level of effectiveness and sustainability. Its performance remains constrained by the persistence of administrative bureaucracy, limited institutional capacity, inadequate operational resources, weak multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the absence of comprehensive performance systems capable of measuring substantive social and ecological outcomes. Consequently, strengthening organizational capacity, collaborative governance arrangements, outcome-based performance management, and community empowerment mechanisms remains essential for advancing sustainable forest governance and enhancing the long- term contribution of KPHP to public value creation and community well-being.
Future research should focus on developing an integrated collaborative governance model that strengthens institutional capacity, stakeholder partnerships, and outcome-based performance evaluation within KPHP management. Further studies are also needed to examine the effectiveness of indigenous community participation and social forestry programs in improving forest sustainability and local livelihoods. Comparative research across different KPHP units and regions would provide broader insights into the contextual factors influencing the success of Reinventing Government implementation in forest governance. Additionally, future studies should explore the role of digital governance, innovation, and adaptive management approaches in enhancing transparency, accountability, and service delivery within forest management institutions. Longitudinal research is also recommended to evaluate the long- term social, economic, and ecological outcomes of governance reforms, thereby contributing to the development of more sustainable, resilient, and community- centered forest governance systems.