Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation?

M.R Fisher,J Judda,M Moeliono,A Mulyana,M.A.K Sahide,Kamaluddin Kamaluddin,E.L Yuliani,A Adriadi

doi:10.1505/146554818824063014

M.R Fisher, J Judda + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014

Copy DOI

Abstract

Indonesia is undergoing major policy changes, seeking to expand social forestry designations from less than 1% (1.1 million hectares) to over 10% (12.7 million hectares) of the Forest Estate. Expanding designations is at once a landmark reform and a call for caution, raising questions about policy intentions, and practical concerns about legal, technical, and implementation mechanisms. Social forestry literature highlights three key tenets, namely efforts that: confer rights to local communities, support livelihoods, and achieve conservation outcomes. This paper examines social forestry implementation from a cross-section of sites in South Sulawesi by reflecting on sustained action research between 2012–2016. The approach critically juxtaposes social forestry policy intent with implementation at three different sites. Findings indicate social forestry implementation suffers from historically problematic state enclosures and flawed land administration processes, entrenched politicaleconomic interests among local actors, and lack of institutional engagement beyond the permitting process. Shortcuts to addressing entrenched conflict will only heighten tensions or further marginalize the most vulnerable, without guarantees to conservation outcomes.

Highlights

According to FAO’s 40-year review of Community Based Forestry (CBF) published in 2016, Indonesia only has 0.84 million hectares of social forests (Gilmour 2016)
Less than 1% of formally recognized forests are under social forestry management
Background on Customary Forests From a national perspective, Customary forests, or Hutan Adat (HA), has received much more controversy and contentious legal interpretation over the designation process. This is because policy interests of rights recognition, suggests that designation equates to removal from the Forest Estate

Summary

Introduction

According to FAO’s 40-year review of Community Based Forestry (CBF) published in 2016, Indonesia only has 0.84 million hectares of social forests (Gilmour 2016). A series of legal decisions and policy efforts, constitutional court decision MK35/2012, and subsequent recognition of nine indigenous communities (Kajang included), as well as concerted efforts among activists to challenge adat community land rights involves a more complex political contestation embodied by recent social movements in Indonesia. It is not the intention of this research to discuss various aspects of policy interpretations, save for the approaches and implications from designation (for a more complete legal and policy discussion, see e.g. Davidson and Henley 2007, Butt 2014, Rachman and Siscawati 2016, Myers et al 2017). National government actors suggest that HA is one of the strategies to achieve the social forestry goal of 12.7 million hectares, and including a complementary site in this analysis provides further comparative potential on the various implications of social forestry schemes

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion