Community preferences for social forestry facilitation programming in Lampung, Indonesia

Abstract

A number of studies have discussed the importance of facilitation for improving the outcomes of Social Forestry programs. However, more detailed studies about the SF stakeholders should be prioritized, particularly those related to the types of facilitation among those that work with community forest user groups. This paper aims to fill this gap by analyzing community perspectives on who should be prioritized to receive facilitation and what type of facilitation is needed. We conduct the study in Lampung Province in 2017, focusing on Community Forestry (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm), one of the first social forestry schemes implemented by the Indonesian Government. Based on an analysis of Analytic Hierarchy Process, this paper found that HKm participants have identified three top priorities for facilitation: individual members, community forestry groups, and other villagers (non-members of community forestry groups). Nevertheless, communities still see the importance of facilitation for external facilitators and government staff. The Analytic Hierarchy Process also shows that the most preferable type of facilitation for communities is based on entrepreneurship. These are particularly important for SF groups that have been established for more than ten years. This finding contrasts with previous studies arguing that the most needed facilitation in SF is strengthening community institutions.

Contribution of the Mutis Timau Protected Forest to Community Income in the Forest Management Unit of South Central Timor Regency, Timor Island, Indonesia

“…community to utilize the forest area, environmental services, and NTFPs collection through community empowerment (facilitation and assistance) activities with social forestry. Wulandari & Kurniasih (2019) state that facilitation most preferred by the community is based on entrepreneurship. The main priority of facilitation is individual group members, groups and other villagers, and external facilitators and government staff.…”

Condition of Community Forest Management in Ternate Isle

“…Therefore an increase in human resource capacity in managing forest products is needed. Increased skills to process forest products into higher value products and develop knowledge to manage and promote community-based ecotourism in protected forests managed by Community Forestry groups [6]. According to FAO, the concept of participatory forest management can create economic benefits for people who depend on forests and can create employment opportunities through forest farming groups [7].…”

The politics, economies, and ecologies of Indonesia’s third generation of social forestry: An introduction to the special section

“…The third generation of SF experienced rapid expansion as part of popular support for implementing large-scale government programming for rural community access to land. Formalizing rights as part of government programs presented new land management possibilities for communities in Indonesia's vast national forests (see Asmin et al, 2019;Fatem, 2019;Wulandari and Kurniasih, 2019 all part of this special section).…”

“…The second shifts the discussion to a key policy shortcoming that is increasingly identified with the frustration inherent in the rapid pace of "printing" SF permits: "Who is responsible for supporting the facilitation and implementation of successful SF?" Contributions by Galudra, 2019;Wulandari and Kurniasih, 2019;and by Tajuddin et al, 2019, offer important perspectives on these institutional issues. Third, recent years has also seen the emergence of specific policies related to adat in Tanah Papua, specifically around the question of who gets to decide how policy will unfold in Papuan forests (Cámara-Leret et al, 2019;Fatem, 2019).…”

“…In many ways, local knowledge of forest management is rarely transferable into the necessary paperwork, and in the worst of cases can even undermine the informal institutions that have been critical to effective resource management. Galudra (2019) and Wulandari and Kurniasih (2019) points to the challenges of coordinating between central and provincial governments, relationships with local communities, and involvement of private companies and NGOs. Galudra specifically shows that SF programs suffer from poor coordination, not just across institutions, but also within the Forestry Ministry.…”