Research Report: June 2002

research report
June 2002

An Impact Evaluation of Systematic Land Titling
under the Land Administration Project (LAP)

Research Team:

Team Leader:
Sudarno Sumarto

Advisor:
Joan Hardjono

Field Research Team:
Sri Kusumastuti Rahayu, Bambang Sulaksono, Nina Toyamah, Hastuti, Sri Budiyati,
Akhmadi, Wawan Munawar, Ismah Afwan, Musriyadi Nabiu, Nadratuzzaman Hosen

Data Analysis Team:
Asep Suryahadi, Wenefrida Widyanti, Daniel Perwira

Supporting Team:
Bambang C. Hadi, Mona Sintia, Hesti Marsono, Supriyadi

Bahasa Indonesia

Download Full Report
(457 kbyte, PDF file)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study entitled "An Impact Evaluation of Systematic Land Titling" (IE-SLT) was undertaken at the request of the World Bank, and conducted between January and May 2002. The general objectives of the study are to assess: (i) the economic and social impacts of systematic land certification/titling under the LAP; (ii) the ways in which the process of implementation of certification has affected outcomes; and (iii) policy conclusions and implications for further policy development.
A quantitative survey that involved questionnaires and was supplemented by in-depth interviews with key informants was used in data collection. Fourteen districts and cities in which the LAP had been conducted were selected purposively for data collection. Within these areas, sub-districts (kecamatan) were chosen purposively based on the extent of urbanization (urban, rural and semi-urban characteristics), as were the specific kelurahan and desa¹ selected as research sites. In all, 1,596 respondent households were selected randomly from within the villages. These consisted of 1,004 households that received a land certificate under the LAP, 84 households that lived in the same area and who were eligible but did not participate in the LAP, and 508 households that could not obtain a certificate because the LAP was not carried out in their area. The third group was intended to be a control group.
Some 15% of the 84 non-participant respondents said that they did not have the opportunity to participate in the LAP because they could not submit adequate proof of their ownership claims. However, the most common reason given was they lacked money at the time. Other reasons for non-participation were conflicts over land boundaries, non-subdivision among heirs of inherited land, insufficient information, no advantages in having a certificate, absence from home at the time of adjudication and lateness in making an application.
The official charge per land parcel for LAP certification was Rp11,500 in urban and semi-urban areas and Rp2,500 in rural areas. Information from respondents, however, indicated that the average cost for the certificate itself was Rp13,204 and that actual expenditure on certification ranged from zero to Rp100,000 because of supplementary costs. The total average cost was Rp36,449 with the inclusion of other charges and was higher in urban and semi-urban areas than in rural areas.
The majority (94.7%) of respondents who participated in the LAP said that the time, effort and expenses taken to obtain a certificate were small by comparison with the usefulness of the certificate. More than half felt that the certificate would be very useful, while 39% mentioned the low cost and the easy process as benefits. In saying this, respondents were making comparisons with the trouble, money and time needed to obtain a certificate through the sporadic program. Approximately 70% of respondents believe that they now have greater security of tenure because a land certificate recognizes their ownership rights.
The majority of respondents (89.7%) said that there was no discrimination against women landholders during the LAP process. However, survey data reveal a strong tendency for the husband's name to be put on the certificate in cases where land has been purchased jointly by husband and wife after marriage. In 70.9% of cases the husband's name has been used, with only 16.9% in the wife's name and 3% in both names. The tendency is somewhat greater in urban areas than in rural areas. The reason given by the majority (86%) of respondents for this trend was that the decision about the name to go on the certificate was made by husband and wife together. BPN officials, however, stated that they used the name written on a deed of sale or a receipt in preparing LAP certificates for purchased land. Where land has been inherited from the wife's parents, the certificate was issued in the wife's name. In the case of land originating from the husband's side of the family, the certificate was in his name.
Information from key informants indicated that there are Indonesian citizens of Chinese ethnic origin in survey LAP areas and that they had been obliged to meet one additional requirement in the form of proof of citizenship when submitting LAP applications.
The proportion of the average number of land parcels certificated through the LAP in all quintiles of per capita household expenditures² is greater than 90%. This indicates that systematic land registration touched all socio-economic groups within the community.
With expansion in land titling through the LAP, there has been a net impact in the form of an average increase of 12.8% in the mortgaging of land with certificates as collateral. The highest impact was in rural areas (28.4%), followed by semi-urban (13.4%) and urban (2.5%). Analysis by monthly per capita household expenditure reveals a U-shaped pattern in the impact on the use of certificates to obtain credits. The highest impact (15.2%) occurs among respondents in Quintile 1 and the second highest is in Quintile 5 (14.7%), while the lowest is in Quintile 3 (9%).
The average net impact of LAP certification on investment in land improvements is estimated to be 5.3%. The highest impact (12.3%) was found in rural areas. Comparative figures for urban and semi-urban areas are both around 3.5%. Most of the improvements consisted of the building or repair of houses, but in a few cases they took the form of a change in land use, with rice-fields being replaced by a house.
Systematic land titling through the LAP has had a net impact of a 1.7% increase on the extent of land transactions in the survey locations. The type of land most commonly sold has been home-lots followed by non-irrigated land.
In the perception of respondents, the net impact of LAP certificates on the value of land was an average increase of 64.5% on land prices. The highest impact (133.2%) has occurred in urban areas. While in semi urban areas was 32.8% and in rural areas was 64.6%.
Survey data indicate that the LAP caused the PBB tax to rise by an average of 33.2%. The highest increase was in urban areas and the lowest in semi-urban locations. There were no increases in village levies and no new fees or charges were introduced.
Two aspects of the wider impact of the LAP were mentioned by key informants. The first is the establishment of new offices by notaries in sub-district towns where LAP land titling has taken place, which implies that there is now more demand for notarial services. The second is the decline that has occurred in village and sub-district revenues, since fewer land transactions are now handled at these levels.
One effect of the LAP on nearby villages has been increased awareness of the benefits of certification. There is, however, no indication that the LAP has encouraged an increase in sporadic land registration, the cost of which has always been very high. For that reason many communities are attempting to establish a swadaya ("self-help") system of land titling that would be somewhat more expensive than the LAP yet much cheaper than sporadic registration.
Some 94% of respondents said that the cost of LAP certification was no burden on household finances. The majority (78.9%) feel that, if the cost of the certificate has to be raised, it should be no more than Rp50,000, or Rp90,000 if supplementary charges are included. This is much lower than amounts quoted by certain control group respondents who, in planning for swadaya certification, have proposed Rp150,000 to Rp350,000 per parcel. Many feel that the cost of a certificate should be related to the size of the land parcel, while others suggest stratified charges that would reflect the size and location of the land, proximity to transport and the other factors.

¹A kelurahan is the administrative unit below a sub-district in an area officially classed as urban while a desa or village is the corresponding unit in a rural sub-district.
²Quintile 1 consists of households with the lowest monthly per capita expenditure, while Quintile 5 has the highest

LIST OF CONTENTS

I.	INTRODUCTION
	1.1 1.2 1.3	General background Research Aim Methodology
II.	CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEY SAMPLE
	2.1	Characteristics of respondents
		2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5	Categories of respondents Selection of respondent households Definition of respondents Location of respondents households Characteristics of sample households
	2.2	Characteristics of land parcels
		2.2.1 2.2.2	Area and land use Land parcels with LAP certification
III.	THE LAP CERTIFICATION PROCESS
	3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8	Choice of location for the LAP Socialization of the LAP Management of the LAP process Requirements to obtain a LAP certificate The handling of disputes The cost of LAP certification Length of time and errors on certificates Reasons for not participating in the LAP
IV.	THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE LAP
	4.1	Benefits according to respondents
		4.1.1	Advantages of a LAP certificate by comparison with expenditure
		4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4	Security of tenure Access to credit Increases in taxes and levies
	4.2	Differential social impacts
		4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3	Gender Distinctions between rich and poor Participation of ethnic groups
V.	WIDER SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE LAP
	5.1	Investments in land
		5.1.1	Land improvements
		5.1.2	Improvements to housing
		5.1.3	Improvements to agricultural land
	5.2	Changes in land markets
		5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5	Impact on the perceived value of land Sale and purchase of land Interest in buying and selling land Impacts on nearby areas Other impacts
	5.3	Encouragement of sporadic titling
VI.	CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Annex 1.1 Annex 1.2 Annex 1.3 Annex 2.1		Site selection Location of research sites Site descriptions An example of selection of respondent households

Evaluasi Dampak Pendaftaran Tanah Secara Sistematik Melalui PAP

Tim Peneliti:

Pemimpin Tim:
Sudarno Sumarto

Penasihat:
Joan Hardjono

Tim Peneliti Lapangan:
Sri Kusumastuti Rahayu, Bambang Sulaksono, Nina Toyamah, Hastuti, Sri Budiyati,
Akhmadi, Wawan Munawar, Ismah Afwan, Musriyadi Nabiu, Nadratuzzaman Hosen

Tim Analisis Data:
Asep Suryahadi, Wenefrida Widyanti, Daniel Perwira

Penerjemah:
Nuning Akhmadi, Rahmat Herutomo

Tim Pendukung:
Bambang C. Hadi, Mona Sintia, Hesti Marsono, Supriyadi

English Version

Download Laporan
(499 kbyte, PDF file)

RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF

Penelitian dengan judul "Evaluasi Dampak Pendaftaran Tanah Sistematik " atau "An Impact Evaluation of Systematic Land Titling" melalui PAP (IE-SLT) dilaksanakan antara Januari - Mei 2002 atas permintaan Bank Dunia. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk: (i) mengevaluasi dampak ekonomi dan sosial pendaftaran tanah sistematik melalui PAP; (ii) mengevaluasi proses pelaksanaan pendaftaran tanah sistematik yang mempengaruhi pencapaian hasil; dan (iii) merumuskan kebijakan dan implikasinya untuk pengembangan kebijakan selanjutnya.
Survei kuantitatif dengan menggunakan kuisioner dan didukung dengan wawancara mendalam terhadap informan kunci digunakan dalam pengumpulan data. Sebanyak 14 kabupaten/kota dipilih secara purposive. Di wilayah ini kemudian dipilih kecamatan dan desa/kelurahan secara purposive berdasarkan karakteristik perkotaan, perdesaan atau semi-perkotaan. Secara keseluruhan, 1.596 responden dipilih secara acak dari desa/kelurahan tersebut. Dari jumlah ini, 1.004 rumah tangga menerima sertipikat tanah melalui PAP, 84 rumah tangga yang tinggal di wilayah PAP tetapi tidak berpartisipasi dalam PAP sekalipun layak mendapat sertipikat PAP, dan 508 rumah tangga yang tidak dapat mengajukan sertipikat PAP karena PAP tidak menjangkau wilayah mereka. Kelompok ketiga ini dimaksudkan sebagai Kelompok Kontrol.
Sekitar 15% dari 84 responden non peserta PAP mengatakan bahwa mereka tidak memiliki kesempatan untuk ikut serta dalam PAP karena mereka tidak dapat melengkapi persyaratan bukti kepemilikan tanah. Meskipun demikian alasan paling umum yang dikemukakan kelompok non-peserta adalah karena pada saat itu tidak memiliki cukup uang. Alasan lainnya adalah adanya konflik batas tanah, tidak ada pembagian tanah warisan diantara ahli waris, kurangnya informasi, tidak ada manfaat dengan memiliki sertipikat, pada saat itu sedang tidak ada di rumah, atau terlambat mengajukan permohonan.
Biaya resmi sertipikat PAP per bidang tanah adalah Rp11.500 di wilayah perkotaan dan semi perkotaan dan Rp2.500 di wilayah perdesaan. Namun, informasi dari responden menunjukkan bahwa biaya rata-rata untuk sertipikat itu Rp13.204 dan biaya sertipikat yang kenyataannya dikeluarkan responden berkisar antara nol hingga Rp100.000 karena adanya biaya-biaya lainnya. Total rata-rata biaya sebesar Rp36.449 termasuk biaya lain-lain, lebih tinggi di wilayah perkotaan dan semi perkotaan daripada di wilayah perdesaan.
Mayoritas (94,7%) responden Peserta PAP mengatakan bahwa curahan waktu, tenaga, dan biaya yang dikeluarkan untuk mendapatkan sertipikat melalui PAP adalah kecil dibandingkan dengan kegunaan dari sertipikat tersebut. Lebih dari separuh responden merasa bahwa sertipikat tersebut akan sangat bermanfaat, sementara 39% menyatakan bahwa biaya murah dan proses yang mudah merupakan manfaat. Sekitar 70% responden percaya bahwa mereka sekarang memiliki kepastian kepemilikan yang lebih besar dengan memegang sebuah sertipikat tanah yang mengakui hak kepemilikan mereka.
Mayoritas responden (89,7%) menyatakan tidak ada diskriminasi terhadap pemilik tanah perempuan selama proses PAP berlangsung. Meskipun demikian data survei menunjukkan kecenderungan yang kuat untuk mencantumkan nama suami pada tanah yang dibeli bersama oleh suami istri setelah menikah. Nama suami dicantumkan sebanyak 70,9% kasus, sementara nama istri hanya 16,9%, dan 3% nama suami dan istri. Kecenderungan ini semakin besar di wilayah perkotaan dibandingkan di wilayah perdesaan. Alasan yang diberikan oleh mayoritas (86%) responden tentang kecenderungan ini adalah karena nama yang ditulis dalam sertipikat merupakan keputusan bersama antara suami dan istri. Akan tetapi para petugas BPN menyatakan bahwa mereka menggunakan nama yang tercantum dalam akte jual beli atau akte waris dalam menyiapkan sertipikat PAP untuk tanah yang dibeli.
Informasi dari informan kunci mengindikasikan bahwa terdapat WNI asal Tionghoa di wilayah survei PAP dan mereka diminta melengkapi syarat tambahan berupa surat bukti kewarganegaraan ketika menyerahkan aplikasi PAP.
Proporsi rata-rata jumlah persil tanah yang disertipikatkan melalui PAP pada semua kuintil pengeluran rata-rata rumah tangga per kapita adalah lebih besar dari 90%. Hal ini mengindikasikan bahwa pendaftaran tanah sistematik menyentuh semua lapisan masyarakat.
Dengan perluasan pendaftaran tanah melalui PAP, terjadi peningkatan kredit rata-rata 12,8% dengan agunan sertipikat PAP. Peningkatan tertinggi terjadi di wilayah perdesaan (28,4%), diikuti wilayah semi-perkotaan (13,4%) dan perkotaan (2,5%). Analisis berdasarkan pengeluaran bulanan per kapita per rumah tangga menunjukkan pola kurva U dalam penggunaan sertipikat PAP untuk mendapatkan kredit. Dampak tertinggi ditemui diantara responden dalam Kuintil 11 (15,2%) dan tertinggi kedua pada Kuintil 5 (14,7%), sedangkan yang terendah pada Kuintil 3 (9%).
Dampak sertipikasi PAP terhadap peningkatan/perbaikan tanah diperkirakan mencapai sekitar 5,3%. Dampak tertinggi (12,3%) ditemui di wilayah perdesaan. Sebagai perbandingan, peningkatan/perbaikan tanah baik di wilayah perkotaan maupun semi perkotaan sekitar 3,5%. Kebanyakan peningkatan/perbaikan tanah tersebut berupa pembangunan dan perbaikan rumah, namun dalam beberapa kasus juga terjadi perubahan dalam pemanfaatan tanah, misalnya dari areal sawah menjadi rumah.
Sertipikasi tanah secara sistematik melalui PAP telah berdampak pada kenaikan 1,7% jumlah transaksi tanah di lokasi penelitian. Jenis tanah yang paling sering dijual adalah pekarangan/rumah diikuti oleh tanah non-irigasi.
Menurut persepsi responden, dampak sertipikat PAP terhadap nilai/harga tanah rata-rata mencapai 64,5%. Kenaikan tertinggi (133,2%) terjadi di wilayah perkotaan. Sementara itu di wilayah semi perkotaan 32,8% dan di perdesaan 64,6%.
Data survei memperlihatkan bahwa PAP menyebabkan PBB naik rata-rata 33,2%. Kenaikan tertinggi terjadi di wilayah perkotaan dan terendah di wilayah semi perkotaan. Di desa tidak ada peningkatan retribusi dan tidak ada pungutan baru karena adanya sertipikat PAP.
Ada dua aspek tambahan dari dampak lebih luas sertipikasi PAP menurut beberapa informan kunci. Pertama, pendirian kantor-kantor notaris PPAT baru di kota kecamatan-kecamatan dimana sertipikasi PAP dilaksanakan yang memberikan gambaran bahwa kini kebutuhan adanya jasa pelayanan notarial semakin meningkat. Kedua, terjadi penurunan pemasukan pendapatan kecamatan dan desa sejak transaksi tanah yang ditangani kepala desa/lurah dan camat semakin sedikit.
Salah satu dampak dari pelaksanaan PAP terhadap desa-desa dan kelurahan di sekitar wilayah pelaksanaan PAP adalah timbulnya kesadaran masyarakat yang lebih tinggi mengenai manfaat sertipikasi. Namun, tidak ada indikasi bahwa PAP telah mendorong peningkatan pendaftaran tanah secara sporadic yang biayanya selalu sangat tinggi. Karena alasan tersebut banyak anggota masyarakat berusaha untuk membuat sistem pendaftaran tanah secara swadaya yang biayanya sedikit agak lebih mahal daripada jika melalui PAP, namun masih jauh lebih murah daripada jika melalui pendaftaran secara sporadis.
Sekitar 94% responden menyatakan bahwa biaya sertipikasi melalui PAP tidak membebani keuangan rumah tangga mereka. Sebagian besar (78,9%) merasa bahwa jika biaya sertipikasi harus dinaikkan, sebaiknya tidak lebih dari Rp50.000 atau total Rp90.000 bila telah termasuk biaya-biaya lainnya. Jumlah ini jauh lebih rendah daripada jumlah yang disebutkan oleh peserta kelompok kontrol yang akan melakukan sertipikasi swadaya dengan usulan biaya dari Rp150.000 sampai Rp350.000. Banyak yang merasa bahwa biaya sertipikasi seharusnya dikaitkan dengan luasnya persil tanah, sementara yang lain mengusulkan agar menetapkan biaya berdasarkan ukuran dan lokasi tanah, kedekatan dengan sarana transportasi, dan faktor-faktor lainnya.

¹ Kuintil 1= pengeluaran per kapita rumah tangga per bulan terendah dan Kuintil 5 = tertinggi.

DAFTAR ISI

I.	PENDAHULUAN
	1.1 1.2 1.3	Latar Belakang Tujuan Penelitian Metodologi
II.	KARAKTERISTIK SAMPEL
	2.1	arakteristik responden
		2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5	Kategori responden Pemilihan responden rumah tangga Definisi responden Lokasi responden rumah tangga Karakteristik rumah tangga sampel
	2.2	Karakteristik bidang tanah
		2.2.1 2.2.2	Wilayah dan penggunaan tanah Bidang tanah dengan sertipikat PAP
III.	PROSES SERTIPIKASI PAP
	3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8	Pemilihan lokasi PAP Sosialisasi PAP Pengelolaan proses PAP Persyaratan dalam sertipikat PAP Penanganan perselisihan Biaya sertipikasi PAP Waktu yang dibutuhkan dan kesalahan dalam sertipikat Alasan tidak berpartisipasi dalam PAP
IV.	DAMPAK SOSIAL DAN EKONOMI PAP
	4.1	Manfaat Menurut Responden
		4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4	Manfaat sertipikat PAP dibandingkan dengan biaya Keamanan kepemilikan Akses terhadap kredit Peningkatan pajak dan iuran
	4.2	Dampak sosial lainnya
		4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3	Jender Perbedaan antara kaya dan miskin Partisipasi kelompok keturunan
V.	DAMPAK SOSIAL EKONOMI YANG LEBIH LUAS DARI PAP
	5.1	Investasi pada tanah
		5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3	Peningkatan tanah Perbaikan perumahan Perbaikan tanah pertanian
	5.2	Perubahan dalam pasar tanah
		5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5	Dampak terhadap nilai tanah Jual beli tanah Minat menjual dan membeli tanah Dampak terhadap tanah sekitar Dampak lain
	5.3	Peningkatan pendaftaran tanah sporadis
VI.	KESIMPULAN DAN IMPLIKASI PADA KEBIJAKAN LEBIH LANJUT
Annex 1.1 Annex 1.2 Annex 1.3 Annex 2.1		Pemilihan wilayah penelitian Lokasi penelitian Deskripsi wilayah penelitian Satu contoh pemilihan responden rumah tangga