Social Forestry Roles in Participatory Rural Development Indonesia

1. Social Forestry Roles in Participatory Rural Development Indonesia • An Intensive Lecture by Mustofa Agung Sardjono Professor of Social Forestry, Faculty of Forestry/ Director of the Center for Social Forestry Mulawarman University (Indonesia) The University of Tokyo (Japan), July 14 2007

2. Contents: • Introduction: Rural and Forest Areas in Indonesia • General Concepts of Social Forestry (SF), Participation and Rural Development • SF dynamics in Indonesia • Participatory Rural Development (PRD) in Indonesia • Contribution of SF to PRD • Closing Remarks: Future Perspective of SF in PRD

3. Introduction: Rural and Forest Areas in Indonesia Forest dependant people: • About 10 from 36 mill. poorest people in Indonesia are classified as forest dependants • The number is considered higher, since only in Java 21 mill. people need access to surrounding forests • Forest dependants? Those their basic needs depend directly and absolutely on forest area • Forest dependants consist of both indigenous communities and (permanent) migrants

4. Forest Dependants Java Island Outer Islands Land-Hunger Poor People Remote Areas TraditionalLife Figure: Some Factors Affecting Dependency of Local People on Forest Resource

5. What people get from forests? • Production. Direct benefits: timber and its derivates (incl. fire woods), various Non-Timber Forest Products, farm lands. Indirect benefits: cash income, traditional events and home-industries

6. Protection. Direct benefits: physical and chemical soil prop-erties, water balance, bio-diversity (flora, fauna and micro-organism. Indirect benefits: security of agricultural product-ion, community health and tra-ditional knowledge

7. Climate. Direct benefits: good micro climate, clean air, optimum sunshine, protection against air pollutions. Indirect benefits: healthy and peace atmosphere protection of direct impacts of natural disasters • Others. Direct benefits: area demarcation (right of occupation), protection of sacred places. Indirect benefits: conservation of traditional cultural identity and local ethics

8. What forests get from people? • Material. Direct benefits: artificial regeneration, ex-situ conservation, fertilizer and limes, etc. Indirect benefits: diversity of forest structure and composition, productivity and sustainability • Energy. Direct benefits: time and energy spent by million farmers. Indirect benefits: better environ-ment for better biological and ecological processes of the forest

9. ECOSYSTEM M + E + I Family Flora Groups Individual Fauna Mineral Infrastructure/ Setlement Climate FORESTS MASYARAKAT Micro-organism Culture Topography Economy Education M + E + I Soil Health • Information. Direct benefits: knowledge and skills (traditional knowledge and local wisdom). Indirect benefits: better ecosystem responses and adaptation under different circumstances COMMUNITIY Water

10. General Concepts: Social Forestry, Participation and Rural Development Social Forestry (SF) • Different definitions (since the end of the 60’s), e.g. “SF is a forestry which aims at producing flows of production and recreation benefits for the community” (Westoby; Commonwealth Forestry Congress at the end of the 60’s)

11. (Not only definitions) Different terms have been proposed at international level (and even in Indonesia), i.e. Community Forestry (CF) -----> What different? • Wiersum (1994): SF concerning more political aspects and CF dealing more with management aspects; but both have similar concept: how to optimize the interrelation between people and the forests

12. Key Points to Distinguish Social Forestry and Community Forestry (Based on Wiersum, 1994; modified) Policy Aspect Management Aspect Social Forestry Community Forestry External Intervention Internal Facilitation Top-Down Process Bottom-Up Process Optimizing Interaction and Interdependence between Forest and People

13. General Criteria for Forest Resource Management Forms Classified as SF (Sardjono, 2004) • People have right to manage (co-manage) the forest resource • People are actively involved (taken part) in forest management • People are ensured to get proportional (most of) benefits of forest management • People are free from any monetary or politically pressures of external parties

14. Social Forestry (Community Based Forest management) Access Max. Min. Benefits PMDH Agro CBFM Community Village Customary Private Forestry Perhutani Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Community Optimizing Interelation between Forest and Community SustainabilityProsperity Figure: Understanding Social Forestry Concept and Variances in Indonesia

15. Participation: • Various definitions and classifications, i.e. “Participation is actively involvement of internal and external parties in all decision making rela-ted to targets, objectives, activities, and in its implementation. The purpose of participation to encourage self reliance of community groups in order to achieve sustainable development” (David-Case, 1990; cited by Messerschmidt, 1995)

16. Some key points: • Active involvement of key parties (esp. community?) • In all (or at least some) aspects of project design and implementation • If also possible to make key project decision = the exercise of voice and choice= Empowerment

17. Types (IIED; in Sardjono, 2004): • Passive Participation • Participation in Information Giving • Participation by Consultation • Participation for Material Incentives • Functional Participation • Interactive Participation • Self Mobilization • Levels (Arstein, 1969): • Manipulation • Therapy • Informing • Consultation • Placation • Partnership • Delegated Power • Citizen Control Some Classifications of Participation • Initiatives (Meister, 1984): • Matter of Fact Participation • Instigated Participation • Voluntary Participation • Approaches (Inoue, 2003): • The participatory Top-Down Approach • The Professional-Guided Participatory Approach • The Endogenous Bottom-Up Approach

18. Rural Development • Definitions, i.e. “The process to work for betterment of rural (or non-urban) society” • Betterment = whatever as the aims of development, for instances: 1. Increasing living standard and impact positively on quality of life; 2. Expanding the range of economic and social choices available to individuals; 3. Reducing inequality and exclusion.

19. Sustainable Rural Development I N T EG R A TI O N Economic Efficiency Ecological Integrity Social Equity Cultural Identity Socio-Economic Forces Environmental Impact INTEGRATING IDEAS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT (Cuddy and Murray, 2003)

20. Rural development program (e.g. in Indonesia) is closed related to agricultural sector (in wider sense) because: 1. The general rural characters 2. Most of the population depend on agriculture • Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (FAO, 2007), essential goals: 1. Food security 2. Rural employment and income generation 3. Natural resource conservation and environmental protection

21. Why Participatory Rural Development?(Based on experiences in different countries – Korten, 1983) • Limited reach (of government funded and supervised professionals); • Lack of sustained local level action; • Limited adaptability to local circumstances; • The creation of dependency

22. SF Dynamics in Indonesia • SF in Indonesia (in term of political will to involve people in forestry activities) was started in 1978 in line with WFC VIII in Jakarta • Theme “Forest for People” based on FAO Program: “Forestry for Local Community Development” • However, “Prosperity Approach Program” of PERHUTANI (Java) has been implemented earlier • Term “Social Forestry was introduced 1984”

23. Inspiration to increase welfare of • Social Forestry experiences of India • Study Result “Rich Forest, Poor People” • World Forestry Congress VIII 1978 poor farmers live surround-ing the forests • Bina Swadaya (NGO): • Institutional development • HRD (capacity building) • Local NGO empowerment The Ford Foundation: Grant Social Forestry Program (1984/6) IPB (Rural Research Center): Development of Agroforestry Outer Islands Java • Perum PERHUTANI: • Space for SF trials • Field staffs SF (to be trained) • Other related facilities UNHAS: Study of Potentials and Prospects Of SF in outer islands of Java (Esp. Sulawesi + Kalimantan) INITIATION OF SOCIAL FORESTRY PROGRAM IN INDONESIA

24. The History of Social Forestry Movements andPolicies in Indonesia Global Agreement of Necessity “Forest for/from People” (SF/CF) (e.g. World Forestry Congress VIII/1978 in Jakarta) Since the mid of the 80’s, exploration and promotion of SF/CF (esp. existing traditional) have been done by academicians and NGOs Since the 90’s SF/CF networks and forums have been extended to strengthen its bargaining power Reformation and Regional Autonomy have been used to encourage and facilitate local governments to produce SF/CF policies and regulations MOVEMENTS Designing and Promoting certifications of different SF/CF practices/systems ? 1978 1990 1998 2004 Since the mid of the 80’s Agroforestry development policies: Taungya (plot-scale) in Java and Industrial Timber Plantation (HTI)-Transmigration/community in other outer islands (landscape scale) Since the mid of the 90’s the community development policy has been obligated to forest concession holders POLICIES Since the mid of the 90’s policies on community forest (HKm) have been issued Forestry Act No. 41/1999 created private-, urban-, village-, and customary-forests schemes (besides HKm) Implementation of Autonomy Act No. 22/1999 encouraged issues of local government regulations on SF/CF 2003: Social Forestry Policy

25. PRD Program in Indonesia • Rural development program had been implemented intensively since the beginning of the 70’s in the frame of Five Yearly Development Plan (PELITA) • PRD program has just been introduced two decades later under concept of P3MD (Participatory Planning of Rural Community Development) • Conceptually, P3MD is based on ‘bilateral-matching’ ( combining ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approaches)

26. National (Apr) Participatory Development Planning Process in Indonesia Province (Apr) Bottom-Up Process Top-down Approach District (Mar) Financial Back-Up Multi-stakeholders Sub-District (Feb) Village (Jan) P3MD

27. Factors Affecting Limited Achievements of P3MD Internal Factors • New method for villagers • Limited well-trained facilitator • Time constraints • Low capacity to calculate budget External Factors • Prioritized Programs at higher levels • Domination of official institutions at higher levels • Many ‘top-down’ projects of different sectors

28. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) • Definition: “ A concept that organizations, especially (but not only) corporations, have obligation to consider the interests of customers, employees, shareholders, communities, and ecological considerations in all aspects of their operations” (WIKIPEDIA, 2007)

29. Governments (especially local levels) demand (even obligate) big-scale corporations to support rural development program based on existing official development plan • Possible reasons of company reluctances: 1. Responsibility (own policy) to be obligation; 2. Officially institutionalized program more expensive but lesser success; 3. CSR = social mission and commercial message (company image)

30. SF Contributions to PRD Program • From its characters SF is more potentials than conventional forestry to support PRD program, i.e. covering management unit at micro level, implementing participatory approach, based on more democratic processes • People empowerment is the key point, but capitals at grass-root level are mostly limited (Notes: Financial, Human Resource, Physical, Institutional, Social, Political, and Natural Resource Capitals).

31. Tabel 3.Pergeseran Konseptual yang Diperlukan dari Kehutanan yang ‘State-Based’ ke ‘Community-Based’. Tabel 3.Pergeseran Konseptual yang Diperlukan dari Kehutanan yang ‘State-Based’ ke ‘Community-Based’. Table. Conceptual Shifts from Conventional (‘State-Based’) Forestry to Social ( ‘Community-Based’) Forestry Sumber: Campbell, 1997 (Dalam Suharjito, dkk. 2000. Pengelolaan Hutan Ber-basiskan Masyarakat). Sumber: Campbell, 1997 (Dalam Suharjito, dkk. 2000. Pengelolaan Hutan Ber-basiskan Masyarakat).

32. Source: Campbell, 1997 (In Suharjito, et al., 1999).

33. SF is an entry point to hand over authority to manage natural resource capital from govern-ment to local community Physical Capital Financial Capital National Political Will Political Capital Global PoliticalTrend Rural Community Human Capital Social Forestry intervention Natural Resource Capital Social Capital Institutional Capital Local Political Demand

34. Since RD program is targeted to population of the village, the most prospectus SF alternatives are Hutan Desa (Village Forest) or PHBM (Joint Forest Management) of PERHUTANI (in Java), under following reasons: 1. Relevant to devolution principle; 2. Lead to capacity building; and 3. Stronger bargaining position of the village; 4. Equality (role and benefits) among villagers; 5. Realistic compromise for customary claim; 6. Easily adapted to official procedures.

35. Opportunity and Threat Opportunities • Availability of legal basis (Forestry Act 41/1999 and Government Regulation 06/2007) • Both schemes are ‘village’ based program under back-up of central and local governments • Offer conflict resolutions and therefore potentially supported by private enterprises

36. Threats: • Non-definitive village boundaries in many places • Forest is not source of problems nor a key solution • Village administration is generally inferior to traditional institutions (esp. in outer islands)

37. Closing Remarks: Programs for Better Future SF in PRD • A popular statement among social foresters: “Forestry is not about trees, it is about people. And it is about trees only in so far as trees can serve the needs of the people” (Westoby, 1987; in Messerschmidt, 2000) • SF is actually revitalization of forestry for local community development. And in order to optimize its role for future PRD some programs are proposed, as follows:

38. Resource Aspect: • Participatory resource and • village mapping; • Identification of areas under • customary (or historical) • claims; • Access to utilize (co-manage) • local resources for local people. • Human Resource Aspect: • Forest based scholarship for • local villagers; • Opportunities joining training • and other forestry meeting • events; • Facilitation and extension • programs at grass-root level. • Economic Aspect: • Budget for ‘first-floor’ basic needs • Inventory of problems and needs of all segments • Exploring forest based economy • Joint forest management models (vertical/horizontal) • Local economic institution empowerment • Institutional Aspect: • Local (formal and informal) • institutions strengthening; • Institutional network among villages; • Involvement in legal drafting and policy formulation. Proposed SF Programs at Grass-Root Level

39. Policy and Regulation Government Facilitator and Field Workers Network and Information Non-Government Organizations International Organizations Social Forestry Facilities and Finance Local Community Corporations/ Company Academicians/ Researchers Resource and Labors Multi-stakeholders Collaborative Approach in Social Forestry Knowledge and Skills

40. Thank You Domo Arigato Gozaimashita Terima Kasih