Abstract
As the priority forestry development programs in Indonesia in recent years, Social Forestry policies (SF) and Forest Management Units (FMU or KPH) still indicate low performance. The SF program in particular, is dependent on the role of the KPH as an institution in realizing its expected goals. Using the theory of bureaucratic politics, this article presents the implementation of the SF program under the KPH system and how both programs can mutually support or inhibit the development of the other. The research was conducted using policy content analysis in the implementation of SF and KPH programs by applying interview methods, questionnaires and field observations that are presented both qualitatively and descriptively. We find that the development of SF cannot be separated from the role of the KPH bureaucracy due to the absence of bureaucratic institutions at the site level. SF sites are located in KPH working areas and perform a central role in all aspects of SF management. However, SF programs are not clearly stated as one of the main tasks and functions of KPHs and the existence of KPH interests in realizing independence without special budget allocations for the development of SF are obstacles to its implementation. KPH also still face regulatory issues that have not fully supported KPH operations resulting in weak institutions and independence to governing hierarchies due to the strong influence of the bureaucracy at the central and provincial levels. On the other hand, the SF program is still perceived as a rival of KPHs in forest management areas and further suffer from rigid regulations that are difficult to apply, making it challenging for SF to support the objectives of KPH programming. Under these conditions, KPH tend to limit SF schemes, thus privileging specific different forestry partnership schemes that are anticipated to support the independence of the KPH.
Highlights
The high dependence of people on forest resources and limited access to forest management activities has resulted in an increase in the movement of people demanding access to state forests in Indonesia (Edmunds et al, 2003; Muhajir et al, 2011; Soepijanto et al, 2013; Maryudi et al, 2015)
The implementation of Social forestry (SF) programs in the field depends on KPH institutions as the only forestry institution at the site level
At the provincial level, there is the Provincial Forestry Service that plays a role in the formation and submission of KPH institutions to MOEF, providing budget allocation, human resources, facilities and infrastructure for KPHs
Summary
The high dependence of people on forest resources and limited access to forest management activities has resulted in an increase in the movement of people demanding access to state forests in Indonesia (Edmunds et al, 2003; Muhajir et al, 2011; Soepijanto et al, 2013; Maryudi et al, 2015). This has taken place alongside one of the most dramatic transformations in natural resource management policies in modern history with the emergence of devolution policies that allow some form of access for local communities (Edmunds et al, 2003). SF in Indonesian forest management takes shape in particular permitting schemes, including Community Forestry (HKm – Hutan Kemasyarakatan), Community Plantation Forest (HTR – Hutan Tanaman Rakyat), and Village Forest (HD – Hutan Desa) (Suharjito, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
