Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

Social Forestry Program (SFP), also known as Community – Based Forest Management has gained national priority in Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia has set a target of allocating 12.7 million hectares of land for SFP. The program focuses on sustainable forest management systems in state or non-state forest areas and grants permits with a validity of 35 years or more for local people or Indigenous communities to improve their economy, environmental balance, and social-cultural dynamics. It allows them to manage the existing forest resources and maximize the legal sharing of forest resource benefits. To fulfill the ambitious goal of expanding SFP in Indonesia, any climate finance project should implement SFP in their outcome. However, it is essential to critically assess whether these SFP schemes genuinely involve local communities as the primary actors in managing forests. Despite several climate finance projects attempting to involve local communities as the main actors, many have failed, leaving the communities struggling and excluding them from SFP initiatives.
This study investigates how the SFP addresses issues of community involvement, resource management, and equitable governance by applying Ostrom’s Design Principles ODPs as an analytical tool for assessing collective action. The results build on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with twelve stakeholders. The study focused on the Forest Investment Program 1 (FIP-1) as a case for the analysis because it is a climate finance project specifically aimed at SFP development in Indonesia and has already been completed.
The implementation of SFP showed deficiencies concerning definition of user groups and resource monitoring after the project ending (ODP 5). There were also insufficient integration of nested enterprises (ODP 8) due to disparity in conditions across Kapuas Hulu district and Sintang district. One particular district has been less favored by donors and NGOs after the project ended. The investigation into principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 revealed that SFP was sufficiently implemented under FIP-1. These include a clear definition of who can manage the forest, clearly delineating boundaries, community management plans, village meetings (collective choice agreement), and levying penalties (gradual sanctions). More importantly, some SFP holders are likely to struggle more in complying with SFP’s work plan due to a lack of assistance during the post-project period, when they have to manage the SFP initiatives independently. This is particularly difficult given a financial constraints and inadequate assistance from NGOs and other stakeholders. Each SFP holder faces challenges, which means a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible. Results suggest SFP policies should promote the SFP holder’s participation in monitoring activities, better empower the SFP holders, and establish robust linkages between SFP holders and other stakeholders during the pre-implementation of SFP. The findings from this study are useful for improving the planning and implementation of SFP across different regions in Indonesia. SFP would need to integrate or revise its system and standards to address the needs of all SFP holders.