Social Forestry - why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia

Abstract

Abstract:Community forestry or social forestry (henceforth referred collectively as SF) programs have become new modes of forest management empowering local managers and hence, allowing integration of diverse local practices and support of local livelihoods. Implementation of these initiatives, however, face multiple challenges. State-prescribed community programs, for example, will remain isolated efforts if changes in the overall economic and social governance frameworks, including the devolution of rights to local users is lacking. Financial sustainability of these measures remains often uncertain and equity issues inherent to groups and communities formed for SF, can be exacerbated. In this article, we pose the question: Whose interests do SF policies serve? The effectiveness of SF would depend on the motivations and aims for a decentralization of forest governance to the community. In order to understand the underlying motivations behind the governments' push for SF, we examine national policies in Vietnam and Indonesia, changes in their policies over time and the shift in discourses influencing how SF has evolved. Vietnam and Indonesia are at different sides of the spectrum in democratic ambitions and forest abundance, and present an intriguing comparison in the recent regional push towards SF in Southeast Asia. We discuss the different interpretations of SF in these two countries and how SF programs are implemented. Our results show that governments, influenced by global discourse, are attempting to regulate SF through formal definitions and regulations. Communities on the other hand, might resist by adopting, adapting or rejecting formal schemes. In this tension, SF, adopted to serve the interest of local people, in practice has not fulfilled its promise.

Mainstreaming community-based forest management in West Sumatra: Social forestry arguments, support, and implementation

“…Meanwhile, CBFM policy in developing countries does provide management rights over state forests to local communities, but the policy should provide clear rights and responsibilities allowing local community autonomy in the exercise of power (Moeliono et al, 2017). Table 4.…”

“…Arguments, support, and implementation of CBFM in some countries Countries Arguments Support Implementation Vietnam to increase forest cover and alleviate poverty (Sunderlin & Ba, 2005;Moeliono et al, 2017) part of forest land allocation program in the form of: (1) village forest management and (2) forest management by groups of households and individuals Moeliono et al, 2017) contract-based allocation of forest land to households and individuals (Tan & Sikor, 2011; Philippines to abate forest degradation, ensure equitable access, and manage limited resources (Pulhin et al, 2007;Rebugio et al, 2010) part of national strategy for sustainable forest management with three systems, i.e. central government initiated program, local government initiated program, and traditional forest management (Pulhin et al, 2007;Suharjito, 2009;Rebugio et al, 2010;Hlaing et al, 2013) Contract-based program for central government initiative, co-management agreement for local government initiative, and self-initiated for traditional forest management (Rebugio et al, 2010;Hlaing et al, 2013) Nepal to address local livelihoods and abate forest degradation (Gurung et al, 2011;Uprety et al, 2012;Pandey & Paudyall, 2015) part of national programs in the form of community forestry (CF), leasehold forest (LHF), collaborative forest management (CFM), buffer zone community forestry (BZCF), protected forest (PF) and religious forest (RF) (Pathak, Yi, & Bohara, 2017) operational co-operation between government and forest user groups for CF and BZCF (Wakiyama, 2004), lease to propoor households for LHF (Pathak et al, 2017), collaboration with local people, local government and Department of forests for CFM (Bampton et al, 2007;Pathak et al, 2017), council formation for PF and forests around temples or other sacred religious places for RF (Pathak et al, 2017) Bangladesh to conserve protected area, abate deforestation, and improve socio-economic condition of local people (Chowdhury et al, 2009;...…”

Forestry Decentralization in the Context of Global Carbon Priorities: New Challenges for Subnational Governments

“…Whereas, decentralization and participatory institutions have received much attention in research and practice, the relationships between forest dependent peoples and state forest management institutions have remained largely unaddressed (Moelino et al, 2017;Varsan et al, 2019). Carbon forestry projects seem to fuel existing tensions between country capitals and the periphery.…”

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

“…While formal SF schemes may help traditional communities gain relative security over tenure, they must accept it at the expense of their social institutions. That is, formulation of policies to devolve forest management through formal schemes often neglects the varied character of local institutions, resulting in homogenous and rigid policy instruments that undermine these existing arrangements (Fisher et al, 2018;Kamoto et al, 2013;Moeliono et al, 2017). The relative tenure security in formal SF schemes can also be problematic as it might result in the exclusion of some groups within a community.…”