Implementation of Minister of Finance Regulation Number 137/PMK.01/2019 in Environmental Fund Management by the Indonesia Environmental Fund to Achieve Inclusivity in Environmental Fund Distribution

PMK Number 137/PMK.01/2019 mandates BPDLH to distribute environmental funds equitably and efficiently, empirical conditions reveal disparities in fund distribution due to limited access to information. The research problems identified are how the duties and functions of BPDLH are implemented in environmental fund management, and what obstacles arise in executing these duties and functions to achieve an inclusive distribution of funds. This study employs the theory of authority and the theory of justice as its analytical framework. The research method applied is empirical legal research using a descriptive-analytical approach, examining both primary and secondary data. The findings indicate that BPDLH's authority in managing environmental funds is a form of delegated authority granted by the Ministry of Finance. BPDLH is tasked with managing funds across various sectors, including forestry, energy, carbon trading, environmental services, industry, transportation, agriculture, as well as marine and fisheries. However, the actual implementation of these duties is currently limited to the forestry and energy sectors. This partial execution indicates that the exercise of authority is suboptimal and reflects injustice due to the unequal distribution of funds. There are four primary obstacles in implementing BPDLH’s duties and functions: inflexible fund management, limited human resources, disparities in community capacity, and the risk of failing to meet distribution targets through intermediary institutions. Rigid financial management and a lack of human resources within BPDLH are barriers that hinder the optimal execution of its delegated authority. Additionally, the risk of unmet distribution targets via intermediaries fails to satisfy the principle of distributive justice due to disproportionate funding allocations. Lastly, the capacity gap among beneficiaries restricts public access to funding, thereby contravening the concept of justice as fairness.