Holding social forestry hostage in Indonesia: Contested bureaucracy mandates and potential escape pathways

Abstract

The government of Indonesia continues to commit to social forestry as one of its cornerstone rural development policies. Social forestry mechanisms aim to grant legal rights/ permits to groups of local communities to manage previously inaccessible state forests, with the dual aims of improving the livelihoods of rural communities and encouraging participation in forest rehabilitation. Explicit policy targets include the allocation of 12.7 million hectares of state forests for local communities through a suite of social forestry project mechanisms. While the number of social forestry licenses have increased markedly over the past few years, current social forestry initiatives still fall short of meeting the ambitious land area targets. More importantly, increasing evidence points to social forestry policy outcomes only partially serving its initial intended promises. This paper helps to explain these partial outcomes and unmet promises from the perspective of social forestry bureaucracy structures and designs. We found that despite the core social forestry bureaucracy undergoing substantial expansion, several other bureaucracies also channeled their interests into the realm of social forestry policy. These other bureaucracies do not necessarily fit within the intended goals of social forestry policy. Indeed, several bureaucracies continue to hold social forestry policy implementation hostage through other forestry mandates, which results in an institutional chokehold on key social forestry interests. These other bureaucracies even introduced models to redirect social forestry initiatives by retrofitting mandates into their own policy priorities. To address these increasing roadblocks to achieving social forestry policy designs, this paper outlines and proposes a more simplified bureaucratic structure to assist in the implementation of a social forestry policy more in line with its intended goals. Specifically, tasks and responsibilities could be transferred to a single bureaucracy that has mechanisms more closely connected to local people, such as those already envisioned and established in the form of forest management units.