Meet
Hangout Tulis
Selengkapnya
Kotak Masuk 1.405 Berbintang
Ditunda Terkirim
Draf 20
Rapat baru
Gabung ke rapat
Golar Baso
Tidak ada chat terbaru Mulai yang baru
Sustainability and Climate Change - Manuscript ID SCC-2022-0019 Kotak Masuk ×
<[email protected]> Sen, 28 Mar 00.57
kepada saya, hasrianimuis, akhbarkehutanan, Ardian_cak
Sustainability and Climate Change
Inggris Indonesia Terjemahkan pesan Nonaktifkan untuk: Inggris
27-Mar-2022 Dear Dr. golar:
Your manuscript entitled "What Happens to the ex-Forest Concession Right (HPH) in Indonesia?" has been successfully submitted online and is presently being given full consideration for publication in Sustainability and Climate Change.
Your manuscript ID is SCC-2022-0019.
Please mention the above manuscript ID in all future correspondence or when calling the office for questions. If there are any changes in your street address or e-mail address, please log in to Scholarone Manuscripts at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sustainability and edit your user information as appropriate.
You can also view the status of your manuscript at any time by checking your Author Center after logging in to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sustainability.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability and Climate Change.
Sincerely,
Sustainability and Climate Change Editorial Office
Balas Balas ke semua Teruskan
Meet
Hangout Tulis
Ciutkan
Kotak Masuk 1.405 Berbintang
Ditunda Terkirim
Draf 20
Penting Chat Terjadwal
Rapat baru
Gabung ke rapat
Golar Baso
Mencoba menyambungkan kembali...
Pelajari selengkapnya
Tidak ada chat terbaru
Sustainability and Climate Change - Account Created in Scholarone Manuscripts Kotak Masuk ×
<[email protected]> 28 Mar 2022 00.08
kepada saya
Sustainability and Climate Change
Inggris Indonesia Terjemahkan pesan Nonaktifkan untuk: Inggris
27-Mar-2022 Dear Dr. golar:
Welcome to the Sustainability and Climate Change - Scholarone Manuscripts site for online submission and review.
Your USER ID for your account at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sustainability is as follows:
USER ID: [email protected]
If you do not know your PASSWORD please go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sustainability?URL_MASK=5cebae328f504e0292fe89bd502f7c11 Please note that the single use link will expire on 30-Mar-2022 4:07:59 PM GMT / 30-Mar-2022 12:07:59 PM EDT. If the single use link has expired, you can generate a single use password by entering your email address into the Password Help function on your site log in page: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sustainability . This link will take you to a page that will allow you to set a new account
password.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Madhavi Venkatesan
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability and Climate Change [email protected]
Log in to Remove This Account
Balas Teruskan
Meet
Hangout Tulis
Selengkapnya
Kotak Masuk 1.405 Berbintang
Ditunda Terkirim
Draf 20
Rapat baru
Gabung ke rapat
Golar Baso
Tidak ada chat terbaru Mulai yang baru
Sustainability and Climate Change - SCC-2022-0019 has been unsubmitted Kotak Masuk ×
<[email protected]> Min, 3 Apr 01.33
kepada saya
Sustainability and Climate Change
Inggris Indonesia Terjemahkan pesan Nonaktifkan untuk: Inggris
02-Apr-2022 Dear Dr. Golar:
Your manuscript, SCC-2022-0019, entitled "What Happens to the ex-Forest Concession Right (HPH) in Indonesia?" has been unsubmitted to Sustainability and Climate Change. It may either have been unsubmitted at your request or because you did not complete all necessary parts of the submission.
1. Remove figures from the main document and place each in a separate, high resolution file;
2. Double-space the document;
3. This is a double-blinded journal. Remove all identifying information from the main document;
4. Add a Title Page with information as outlined in the author submission guidelines.
5. Please visit the instructions to authors to complete your submission and re-submit the manuscript for consideration of publication. You may contact the Editorial Office if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Madhavi Venkatesan
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability and Climate Change [email protected]
Sen, 4 Apr 15.12 Thank you for reviewed the manuscript. I wanna asking specifically regarding about: 1. Is an editor determining the table for separation or integration with the
Golar Baso
Sel, 5 Apr 05.32 The Editorial office is responsible for ensuring that authors follow Journal guidelines for submission. If you go to the Author Guidelines section of the websit
Vranic, Linda
<[email protected]> Sel, 5 Apr 05.42
Golar Baso
For Peer Review
What Happens to the ex-Forest Concession Right (HPH) in Indonesia?
Journal: Sustainability and Climate Change Manuscript ID SCC-2022-0019
Manuscript Type: Original Article Manuscript Keywords (Search
Terms): Forest Utilization, Forest degradation, Deforestation, Adaptations strategy
Abstract:
Most of the state-owned forests in Indonesia, especially those with production forests, have long been managed and utilized for economic purposes. Large, medium and small companies participate in concession rights. However, many companies have had their licenses terminated for many reasons. The problem is what will happen to the forest area after the license is terminated? Some facts show that illegal activities often cause forest degradation and deforestation in the ex-concession right areas. Our study shows a case of forest and land utilization illegally in two ex-forest concession rights in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Through an exploratory approach that involves participant observations, in-depth interviews combined with a spatial analysis were used in this study. The study found that forests in both locations had converted land functions to agricultural, forest gardens, and open land. Illegal logging and land clearing activities are often found too. Pressure on the forests comes from people far from the forest areas. However, they are collaborating with some local people in the logging process. The local people support it mainly because of the motivations to claim and expand land, especially in ex-logging locations. That activity is a form of adaptation strategy chosen to make it easier for local people to obtain the land in the state forest area. In addition, they hope that if the area has a high intensity of damage, the government will change the status of the state forests to a non-forest area that is easier for local people to access and claim in the future.
For Peer Review
Introduction
Forests utilization has been going in many regions, creating many forms of the dynamics of utilization (Golar et al., 2019; Melnykovych et al., 2018). The resulting transformations impact forest management, and some are thus likely to damage forest sustainability (Batunacun et al., 2019; Buntaine et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2020). The forms of utilization found mainly in tropical forest areas, with a rich biodiversity of flora and fauna, have much good potential for everyone to take advantage of timber, non-timber, and other forest products of economic value (Karki & Poudyal, 2021; Putraditama et al., 2021).
Some of the most extensive tropical forests in the world exist in Indonesia. It is in third place behind Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Gross et al., 2018; Humphries et al., 2020). However, forest conditions in Indonesia face a critical threat. Indonesia loses two million hectares of forest annually (Andoh & Lee, 2018; Ekawati et al., 2019). Although Indonesia's land area is only 1.3 percent of the earth's surface land area, its biodiversity is classified as high (Blicharska et al., 2020; Parisi et al., 2021), including 11 percent of the world's plant species, 10 percent of mammals, and 16 percent bird species.
Debates about the interaction between the forest and people are ongoing, mainly related to poverty and access affecting people's relationships (Hernández-Aguilar et al., 2021;
Putraditama et al., 2021). The concern with forest use for economic benefit remains that resource inadequacy can force people to degrade forest resources (Kibria et al., 2018).
Conflict over forest land and resources results from the effect of an outsider and resource competitions within communities (Endah Ambarwati et al., 2018). Among the factor that drives this problem are the growth of the market economy and commodification of local resources, local population growth, and deterioration of the quality and quantity of natural resources (Arsyad et al., 2020; Kamwi et al., 2020).
Central Sulawesi Province is part of the Indonesia region with a forest area of 3,964,840 hectares. Indonesia's largest forest concession permit in this province is active and expired.
Since 1974, more than 2,078,014 hectares of the forest area in Central Sulawesi have been managed by timber companies, namely Forest Concession Right (HPH). Of these, 761,245 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
hectares (33%) remains active and the rest, 1,316,769 hectares (67%) have inactive status.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ejRUSQiDldai3V0d11Yaql7kKqTzfssJ/view?usp=sharing) In 2022, through the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia No. SK.01 / MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/1/2022 on the Revocation of Forest Area Concession Permits, the government again revoked the permits of 192 businesses in forest areas. Some of the sectors affected include plantations, mines, HPH, Industrial Crop Forests (HTI), and some forest area-based business sectors. Some of the reasons came up, including 1,369,567 attempted but considered abandoned land and did not have a good work plan. The problem is what will happen to the location of the ex-concession right, especially after there is no more management in it.
Based on previous experience, the State again manages the inactive concession area through the Forest Management Unit (FMU). Hopefully, the region can be optimized for management to be productive again. However, the fact shows that most forest areas are experiencing high land and forest use, which is potentially damaging (Bos et al., 2020; Rieckmann et al., 2021).
Ex-forest concession right areas in Central Sulawesi are also vulnerable locations threatening forest damage. In addition to the open-access factor, forest areas intensity and land utilization are relatively high (Anugrahsari et al., 2020).
Scientific studies that reveal the phenomenon of forest destruction that continues to increase in the ex-HPH region have not been widely done, so the support of data and alternatives that will be used to reduce forest destruction becomes challenging. The results of our study take part in meeting the needs of data and scientific information about it, based on the interaction between people and forest perspective.
Theoretical Frameworks
This paper focuses on the interaction between people and nature by investigating the relationship between social and ecological elements, such as the people drivers of forest degradation or nature's benefits to people. The interaction between people and forest resources is inseparable from adaptation problems (Bennett, 1976; Morzillo et al., 2015a; Rao et al., 2020). Adaptation as people's adaptive behavior to the environmental changes conforms 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
to the dynamics of innovative, change-seeking, or conservative problems (Brancalion et al., 2020; Trædal & Vedeld, 2018). The environmental factors change, including market economic intervention, population pressure, and political influent. People in various forms responded to this change.
The influence of external factors such as market intervention leads to social change. This change encourages the community to adapt to the interaction patterns in the social system (Kibria et al., 2018; Morzillo et al., 2015). Such behavior is closely related to the needs for life, having gone through unavoidable circumstances, and then establishing strategies for dealing with the environmental dynamics. The main concepts in socio-cultural adaptation are adaptive behavior, strategic action, and adaptive design (Bennett, 1976).
Adaptive behavior adapts to achieving goals, achieving satisfaction, and making choices actively and passively. Strategic actions more specifically point to the dynamic behavior of specific activities designed to achieve goals. At the same time, adaptive strategies point to particular actions chosen in the decision-making process with predictable success rates. The inability to adapt to the environmental dynamics impacts the maladaptive behavior, resulting in damage to forest resources (Figure 1).
Materials and Methods
This research is carried out based on the Institute for Research and Community Service Number: 638.g/UN28.2/PL/2020. The study was conducted in Central Sulawesi Province. The forest area in Central Sulawesi in 2021 is 4,311.085 ha or 69,71% of the total area of Central Sulawesi, consisting of Protection Forest (1,282.210 ha); Sanctuary Reverse and Natural Conservation Area (990.958 ha); Limited Production Forest (1,410.524); Permanent Production Forest (412.080 ha); Convertible Production Forest (215.313 ha).
Our study focuses on two ex-forest concession rights in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, namely PT. Colano Tiga Dua (81/Kpts/Um/1974) in Parigi Moutong Regency and PT. Gunung Latimojong (509/Kpts/Um/8/74) in Poso Regency. In the current conditions, both of these forest areas have been occupied by people activities, in the form of illegal logging, land use, and non-timber forest products, especially in the function of production forests. (Figure 2).
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
This research focuses on people who live around the state-owned forest, intensively interacting with forest resources. Data consists of people's interaction with forests and adaptation strategies for their utilization. The data collection includes a history of land use by the community after the concession permit of the timber company ended; the form and purpose of forest resource utilization consist of land and forest use characteristics, including logging activities; and strategies for a transformation of forest resource utilization. In finding out the existing conditions of forest cover, spatial data on forest cover in 2000 and 2020 was also collected.
Before collecting data, all informants or participants obtaining consent involves informing the study subject. The consent consists of rights, the purpose and procedures to be undertaken, potential risks and benefits of participation, and the extent of confidentiality of personal identification and all pictures taken. The participation of subjects in the study is entirely voluntary.
The techniques of data collection used were in-depth interviews, direct observations, and other data sources relevant to the study. The in-depth interviews were conducted on the representation of the community groups and the people who have logging activities, selected by purposive sampling. The criteria used to determine the informant of this study were: (1) the informants are a villager who lived at least ten years in the sample village; (2) the informants are controlling land use and forest products activities; (3) be willing to be an informant in this study. The method used is snowball sampling. The interview was conducted personally and in groups using an open interview guide. The total number of informants is 30 people.
Field observations were conducted by visiting community-managed land in forest areas and looking for logging activities. In addition to the interviews and field observations, the researchers gathered information from the key informants at each site, namely the local governments and the representatives of the former permit holders for wood utilization.
The research data were analyzed descriptively-qualitatively, based on the empirical facts of the interview results and field observations by using an emic approach. Spatial data were analyzed using supervised classification methods.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Results
History of Managing Forest Products in Indonesia
After Indonesia's independence in 1945, during the New Order, called the “The New Order”
regime (1966-1998), forest resources became a primer for Indonesia's economic growth behind oil and gas. The New Order government policy towards utilizing forest resources was to make the most of primary natural forests. In addition to bringing the foreign exchange to the country, another impact was opening isolated areas.
By granting permits to Forest Timber Rights Holders (HPH), the government thoroughly exploited tropical natural forests slightly in 1968. It is estimated that until 2000 the number of HPH in Indonesia reached about 600 units with a total production forest of 64 million ha. In 1985, a deforestation rate of 600,000–1.2 million- per year (Golar et al., 2021; Leijten et al., 2021).
The long history of HPH-based forest management in Indonesia is tinged with deforestation problems. The history of deforestation occurred during Dutch colonization due to the policies that allowed logging for construction needs, making a ship, land clearing permits for agriculture, and converting forest land into sugarcane, coffee, and rubber plantations. After more than 200 years, the Dutch East Indies government massively exploited natural teak forests to supply raw materials for timber ship industries owned by Chinese and Dutch businessmen. Until the end of the 18th century, the condition of teak forests in Indonesia, especially in Java, suffered severe degradation. It threatened the survival of timber ship companies that rely on the supply of teak wood from the forest areas.
No forest rehabilitation efforts were undertaken during the Japanese colonial period, and forest degradation increased from 1942 to 1945. Much of the degradation in Japanese times was caused by the logging of teak forests and natural forests, as much as double the annual ratio of war, growing food crops to provide food for the Japanese army (Erb et al., 2005; McCarthy, 2000).
In early 1950, Indonesia's economic growth relied on exploiting natural resources with technology that was not affordable to most people. Trees were cut down with chainsaws and 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
tractors. Mineral mining uses the same unreachable technology. Not only tools, access, and opportunities to jointly utilize natural wealth are also closed to the community. Meanwhile, forest destruction continues without control. (Bos et al., 2020; Brancalion et al., 2020; Leijten et al., 2021)
The Indonesian government implemented various forest and land rehabilitation programs.
However, these efforts could not cover the rate of forest exploitation by HPH. The logging and conversion of forests are much higher than rehabilitation and recovery. Deforestation became a severe problem in the early 1970s. The governments' policy was to boost the national economy by issuing logging permits to entrepreneurs in the forests of Java Island. During the 1970s, Indonesia was the worlds' most significant exporter of tropical timber, exporting approximately 300 million m3 to international markets. The government allocated more than 60 million ha of forest to HPH companies for more than 30 years (Murray Li, 2007).
The Indonesian Reform Order era seeks to reform consensus, legislation, bureaucracy, and democracy. As a result of legislative reform, many new order product laws were replaced and adapted to the spirit of reform. One of them was the repeal of Law No. 5 of 1967 on The Basic Provisions of Forestry, which was replaced by Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry (Fisher et al., 2018).
During the beginning of the era of regional autonomy, the number of forest destruction increased from 1.87 million hectares to 2.83 million hectares. District governments are given wider opportunities to manage existing forests in their areas. In some regions, there is an explosion in granting small-scale concession permits resulting in an increasing rate of forest destruction. However, the government claims Indonesia reduced deforestation by 75.03% in 2019-2020, reaching 115.46 thousand ha. (https://www.menlhk.go.id- /site/single_post/3645/laju-deforestasi-indonesia-turun7503)
Existing Forest Business in Central Sulawesi
Forest business in Central Sulawesi has been going on for a long time, precisely since 1973.
The forest business is generally in HPH, spreading throughout districts and cities. There are 30 HPH, both who have a license and those who have expired their licenses. There are 26 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
permits for using logs and four for industrial plantation forests. In 2021, 13 HPH/HPHTI companies did not get an extension of management permits. It has started from 1997 to the present day. These companies can no longer carry out activities to use forest products, and the State again controls forest areas. The expiration period for each company can be seen in Table 1.
However, field facts show that ex-HPH lands in both locations generally suffer damage from forest encroachment activities and land changes. In addition to being caused no management activity, it is also caused by the many remaining timber potentials that the company has not utilized.
Existing Forest Concession Right (HPH) Ex-PT. Colano Tiga Dua
Based on the data from the Forest Service of Central Sulawesi Province, the concession area of PT. Colano Tiga Dua is an area of 79,000 ha. However, the total permits area is only 22,930.01 ha. The company began operations in 1974 and ended in 2002. It was two years faster than when the company submitted the permit that it did not manage again. Since then, the location of ex-HPH has become open access for the community and others to utilize the forest intensively. There have been illegal logging activities and land use inside the locations.
The parties from outside widely carry out illegal logging activities. Some of them are ex-field workers of HPH Colano Tiga Dua.
In the logging and transporting activities to the wooden shelter, they involve some villagers around the site. In addition to logging activities, community gardens are found in various sizes.
The land is planted with corn, beans, and vegetables combined with annual crops (cocoa, coffee, and hazelnut).
In 2010, this location was managed by Forest Management Unit (FMU), namely FMU Dampelas Tinombo, Parigi Moutong Regency. However, most locations experienced land degradation, so FMU worked hard to restore land through rehabilitation and reforestation.
Nevertheless, illegal logging activities continued, and the FMU overcame them (Figure 3).
Some of the communities that carry out illegal logging activities and land clearing in the area 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
have several reasons: ignorance, open access, economic, and the urgency of business land needs. Of the four main aspects, the underlying cause is that open access triggers illegal activity.
The absence of on-site management activities makes it easier to access forest areas to utilize timber and land. They rarely find forest security and management activities carried out by FMU. It makes it easier for them to enter the forest area to utilize the land and forest products still left since the cessation of HPH activities. In addition, some people who have worked on HPH have adequate information about the potential of wood and land contained in the forest area, so they are easy to access.
Forest areas experience the problem that the company has managed (Bager et al., 2021;
Clerici et al., 2020; Leblond, 2019), where some of its residents suffered land degradation due to illegal logging activities after business. However, some of them are quickly handled because they are managed well by the managing unit. The presence of forest management units at the field level is needed. Not only to show the existence of forest managers but also further implement forest management programs that can provide access and income-generating for the surrounding communities. This effort is part of community empowerment around the forest.
Ex-PT. Gunung Latimojong
The concession area of PT. Gunung Latimojong is 39.000 ha, but it is managed only 22,334.35 ha. The company was unable to complete management of its concession area due to limited people resources and low timber potential; as a result, not all managed locations that were planned were successfully managed until the company ended in 2002. After ten years since the end of the concession period, the area was handed over to FMU, namely Sintuwu Maroso.
Condition of forest area after management by FMU remains under pressure from illegal logging activities and forest land clearing. Illegal logging activities occur on almost every side of the forest area, even carried out on a large scale.
The pressure comes from the community around the forest area and the other places that deliberately do illegal logging. Similarly, the motivation that underlies illegal logging and land occupation activities are the potential of wood that is still large and also the desire to obtain 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
arable land. The wood is transported and stacked to the riverbank to be transported by truck.
Before being transported, they had divided the logs into wooden beams. The goal is to facilitate its strengthening. Using a truck, they usually go directly to the wood collection place on the riverbank during the dry season. The wood is raised on a truck to be immediately taken out of the wood-collecting site
In addition to logging activities, they also open land to be managed, especially in the log-over area. Activity has been going on for a long time and forms a pattern of dependency between the community and wood forest products. Economic motives encourage people and outsiders to carry out this activity.
Forest Cover Changes after Company Permit Expires
Pressure on the forest areas once managed by timber companies tends to cause damage, either due to forest encroachment or illegal logging from the outside parties taking advantage of open access (Endah Ambarwati et al., 2018; Tritsch et al., 2020; Villegas et al., 2021).
Based on the results of the analysis of land cover change, it is known that in 2020 the cover that experienced a decrease in the area of the secondary dry land area of 823.73 ha or 13.01%, secondary dryland forest area of 654.0 ha (4.49%) and dryland agriculture in 2000 covering an area of 31.91 ha but in 2020 no more cover was found.
While three covers have increased in the area, namely shrubs covering an area of 584.52ha (81.05%), agricultural dryland covering an area of 913.37 ha, and open land cover or abandoned land that was initially 2000 not classified but in 2020, it was found with an area of 11.76 ha (Table 2).
Ex-concession HPH PT. Gunung Latimojong decreased the cover area in primary and secondary dryland forests by 133.54 ha (11.08%) and 1,666.17 ha or 9.25%, which turned into shrubs open land mixed dryland agriculture. There was a significant increase in open land cover from 115.25 ha (in 2000) to 414.29 ha (in 2020) or 259.49% and bush cover. There was an increase of 1,141.53 ha (86.38%) and dryland agriculture of 359.13 ha (13.43%) (Table 3).
Generally, the broad changes in the three covers are sourced from secondary dryland forest cover. The land cover change can be seen in Figure 4. The analysis shows that there has 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
been a change in forest land cover to non-forest in the form of agricultural land, open land, and mixed dryland farming. The location of the former slash is converted into land use for community gardens. Interestingly, there is a tendency for these lands to be partly unmanaged and only used as reserve land because there is still land managed today.
Discussion
The study results show the dynamics of forest utilization that occurred in ex-forest concession right. The pattern formed exhibits the characteristics of land tenure-oriented utilization and illegal collection of timber forest products (Allen et al., 2020; Tritsch et al., 2020). The utilization of wood is carried out by individuals or groups who come far from the forest areas. Some of them are ex-field workers or part-time laborers in both HPH. Information about the potential of the remaining forests and the field experience possessed while working at the company is sufficient provision to carry out illegal logging activities.
Moreover, illegal logging is still running now because it is supported by people who live around the forest area. Even some of the local community participated in helping illegal logging activities as slashing workers and pointers of locations having the potential of wood to be utilized. The surrounding community is also active in clearing land in the forest areas. Usually, the land that is opened is the provision of the location of the slash, so they just clean the bush and the remains of the former slash stems.
Those who carry out illegal logging activities have the support of some people who live directly adjacent to forest areas. Unformal agreement related to support to obtain information on the presence of wood in the area by the local community, and on the other hand, the local community obtains the location of the ex-slash to be used as a garden. The conceptual community's land use characteristics and forest products near the forest in both research sites are a form of adaptive behavior driven by the target for the forest area conversions to the non- forest area (Bennett, 1976; Leblond, 2019). Thus, the people around the area get access to and claim these lands. The community carries out strategy action to achieve these targets by supporting illegal logging activities and clearing arable land in forest areas (adaptive design) (Bos et al., 2020; Leijten et al., 2021). Characteristics and adaptation patterns applied are 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
maladaptive, especially against deforestation rates and forest land degradation (Golar et al.,
2019; Sahide et al., 2015; Tritsch et al., 2020).
The FMU has made various efforts to overcome the problem of illegal logging and forest land clearing. They start with the extension activities, empowerment programs, community involvement in social forestry programs, and law enforcement actions by arresting illegal perpetrators. However, these efforts have not been effective enough to reduce the rate of degradation and deforestation at both research sites. The illegal logging activities are still running now.
As the representative State ownership and management of forest tenure, FMU should address this problem immediately before it has a far-reaching impact on degradation and deforestation.
A more diversified tenure system could improve forest management and local livelihoods (Mohan et al., 2021; Rijal et al., 2018; Soman & Anitha, 2020). Thus, FMU has the authority to carry out sustainable forest management functions for forests' degradation rate and deforestation in its managed regions. (Buntaine et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2020)
According to Aguilar-Støen (2018), Ali & Alharbi (2020), and Fisher et al. (2018), FMU can facilitate the communities around the forests by providing land use and forest products. The way to do that is by collaborating and managing partnerships on Social Forestry programs arranged by the Ministry of Forestry and Environmental of Indonesia (Golar, Muis, et al., 2021).
This program is expected to encourage equality of role among the communities involved so that contributions to household income can be increased (Ali & Alharbi, 2020; Djamhuri, 2012).
In this program, the ownership of the forest area remains with the State. However, the community or local organizations have been given the power to harvest non-timber forest products and land use by the agroforestry system to which it has the harvest and sale. The sale right primarily aims to raise income-generating and forest benefits for the communities around the forest area (Islam et al., 2019; Salvatori & Pallante, 2021; Talukdar et al., 2021).
Social Forestry is a model of forest management that needs to be continuously promoted to answer various forest resource management problems attached to the problem of degradation and deforestation, especially in ex-HPH forest areas. Of course, all improvements in policy 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
and approach are needed, even transformation in the theoretical and paradigmatic realm.
Along with the incessant penetration of the market economy into all hinterlands, including the development of information technology, social transformation is happening very quickly (Golar et al., 2021; Kim & Arnhold, 2018; Sahide et al., 2019).
The Indonesian government policies related to forest management through social forestry have been published, and this program is committed. It needs to be responded to very well by various parties, especially FMU. Although the function and role of FMU are more in the facilitation function, supporting forest sustainability is enormous. Therefore, the capacity- building process becomes a top priority in forest management (Bocci & Mishra, 2021).
Many ways can be done. We have to pay attention to the characteristics of the forest and the community. Forest characteristics are intended to the status of the function of the area and the pressure on the forest area (Clare et al., 2019; Riddell, 2013). For cases in both general study locations, the general study has a production function so that the empowerment scheme can optimize economic functions. However, integrated supervision becomes essential because both research sites are ex-HPH, with high land-use intensity and forest products utilization.
Conclusions
Land use and forests utilized illegally are a form of economic adaptation. This pattern impacts the formation of mal-adaptation to obtain arable land in forest areas illegally, as a portrait of the adaptation strategy chosen by the community around the forest. It is all about recognizing the right of ownership and utilization of logs over the area.
Generally, people's interaction with forest resources in ex-HPH areas damages forests. This study shows a concern for the threat of forest degradation and deforestation. Both areas of ex-HPH showed the same recklessness toward forest destruction—patterns of interaction, especially towards land use and forest products. Support of people living around forests against illegal land use and forest products is one of the reasons why illegal logging and land use continue to this day.
Data Availability Statement: - 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank to rector of Tadulako University, community of all colleagues from the Research Department of Forest Faculty who helped to implement the study and the experts involved in the Delphi study.
Authors’ Contributions
All authors have read and agree with the draft version of the manuscript.
Conceptualization, G.G., A.A and H.M.; methodology, G.G and H.M.; validation, G.G., C.A.K.
and A.A.; formal analysis, G.G. writing— original draft preparation, G.G. and H.H.; writing—
review and editing, G.G. and H.M.; visualization, C.A.K. and A.A.; supervision, A.A.; project administration, G.G.; funding acquisition, G.G. and H.M.
Funding Information
This research was funded by research programme of Tadulako University under grant agreement No. 4007/UN/KP/2020, May 13th 2020.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the study's design, collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the design to publish the publisher.
References
Aguilar-Støen, M. (2018). Social forestry movements and science-policy networks: The politics of the forestry incentives program in Guatemala. Geoforum, 90, 20–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.014
Ali, I., & Alharbi, O. M. L. (2020). COVID-19: Disease, management, treatment, and social impact. Science of The Total Environment, 728, 138861.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138861
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Verburg, P., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Inacio da Cunha, M., & Sanchez Santivañez, M. (2020). Delivering an enabling environment and multiple benefits for land degradation neutrality: Stakeholder perceptions and progress. Environmental Science &
Policy, 114, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.029
Andoh, J., & Lee, Y. (2018). Forest transition through reforestation policy integration: A comparative study between Ghana and the Republic of Korea. Forest Policy and Economics, 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
90, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.009
Anugrahsari, I., Sardjono, M. A., Fitriyah, N., & Golar, G. (2020). Social Contracts: Pillars of Community Conservation Partnerships in Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia. Forest and Society, 4(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v4i1.8682
Arsyad, M., Nuddin, A., Fahmid, I. M., Salman, D., Pulubuhu, D. A. T., Unde, A. A., Djufry, F.,
& Darwis. (2020). Agricultural development: Poverty, conflict and strategic programs in country border. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 575, 012091.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/575/1/012091
Bager, S. L., Persson, U. M., & dos Reis, T. N. P. (2021). Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation. One Earth, 4(2), 289–306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.011
Batunacun, Wieland, R., Lakes, T., Yunfeng, H., & Nendel, C. (2019). Identifying drivers of land degradation in Xilingol, China, between 1975 and 2015. Land Use Policy, 83, 543–559.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.013
Bennett, J. W. (1976). System, Ecosystem, and Social System. In The Ecological Transition (pp. 84–122). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-017867-7.50009-0
Blicharska, M., Angelstam, P., Giessen, L., Hilszczański, J., Hermanowicz, E., Holeksa, J., Jacobsen, J. B., Jaroszewicz, B., Konczal, A., Konieczny, A., Mikusiński, G., Mirek, Z., Mohren, F., Muys, B., Niedziałkowski, K., Sotirov, M., Stereńczak, K., Szwagrzyk, J., Winder, G. M., … Winkel, G. (2020). Between biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management – A multidisciplinary assessment of the emblematic Białowieża Forest case.
Biological Conservation, 248, 108614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108614
Bocci, C., & Mishra, K. (2021). Forest power: The impact of community forest management on
female empowerment. Ecological Economics, 187, 107105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107105
Bos, A. B., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A. E., Atmadja, S., de Bruin, S., Wunder, S., & Herold, M.
(2020). Integrated assessment of deforestation drivers and their alignment with subnational climate change mitigation efforts. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 352–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.002
Brancalion, P. H. S., Broadbent, E. N., de-Miguel, S., Cardil, A., Rosa, M. R., Almeida, C. T., Almeida, D. R. A., Chakravarty, S., Zhou, M., Gamarra, J. G. P., Liang, J., Crouzeilles, R., Hérault, B., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Silva, C. A., & Almeyda-Zambrano, A. M. (2020). Emerging threats linking tropical deforestation and the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 18(4), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.09.006
Buntaine, M. T., Hamilton, S. E., & Millones, M. (2015). Titling community land to prevent deforestation: An evaluation of a best-case program in Morona-Santiago, Ecuador. Global Environmental Change, 33, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.001
Clare, S. M., Ruiz-Jaen, M. C., & Hickey, G. M. (2019). Assessing the potential of community- based forestry programs in Panama. Forest Policy and Economics, 104, 81–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.004
Clerici, N., Armenteras, D., Kareiva, P., Botero, R., Ramírez-Delgado, J. P., Forero-Medina, 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
G., Ochoa, J., Pedraza, C., Schneider, L., Lora, C., Gómez, C., Linares, M., Hirashiki, C., &
Biggs, D. (2020). Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61861-y
Djamhuri, T. L. (2012). The effect of incentive structure to community participation in a social forestry program on state forest land in Blora District, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 25, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.02.004
Ekawati, S., Subarudi, Budiningsih, K., Sari, G. K., & Muttaqin, M. Z. (2019). Policies affecting the implementation of REDD+ in Indonesia (cases in Papua, Riau and Central Kalimantan).
Forest Policy and Economics, 108, 101939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.025 Endah Ambarwati, M., Sasongko, G., & M.A Therik, W. (2018a). Dynamics of The Tenurial Conflict in State Forest Area (Case in BKPH Tanggung KPH Semarang). Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.v6i2.23228
Endah Ambarwati, M., Sasongko, G., & M.A Therik, W. (2018b). Dynamics of The Tenurial Conflict in State Forest Area (Case in BKPH Tanggung KPH Semarang). Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.v6i2.23228
Erb, M., Sulistiyanto, P., & Faucher, C. (2005). Regionalism in post-Suharto Indonesia.
RoutledgeCurzon.
Fisher, M. R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., Yuliani, E. L., Adriadi, A., Kamaluddin, Judda, J., &
Sahide, M. A. K. (2018). Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: Recognition, livelihood and conservation? International Forestry Review, 20(3), 346–361.
https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014
Golar, G., Massiri, S. D., Rauf, R. A., Muis, H., & Paingi, S. (2021). PARTICIPATORY LAND USE CONFLICT RESOLUTION: EFFORTS TOWARDS COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT. AGROLAND The Agricultural Sciences Journal (e-Journal), 47–59.
https://doi.org/10.22487/agroland.v8i1.801
Golar, G., Muis, H., Massiri, S. D., Rahman, A., Maiwa, A., Pratama, F., Baharuddin, R. F., &
Simorangkir, W. S. (2021). Can Forest Management Units Improve Community Access to the Forest? International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 16(5), 565–571.
https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.160511
Golar, Mahfudz, Malik, A., Muis, H., Khairil, M., Ali, S. S. S., Razman, M. R., & Awang, A.
(2019). The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park. 24(4), 8.
Gross, A., Silva, A. C. da, Cruz, A. P., Kilca, R. de V., Nunes, A. da S., Duarte, E., Vefago, M.
B., Santos, G. N. dos, Lima, C. L., Salami, B., & Higuchi, P. (2018). Fragmentation as a key driver of tree community dynamics in mixed subtropical evergreen forests in Southern Brazil.
Forest Ecology and Management, 411, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.01.013 Hernández-Aguilar, J. A., Durán, E., de Jong, W., Velázquez, A., & Pérez-Verdín, G. (2021).
Understanding drivers of local forest transition in community forests in Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca,
Mexico. Forest Policy and Economics, 131, 102542.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102542
Humphries, S., Holmes, T., Andrade, D. F. C. de, McGrath, D., & Dantas, J. B. (2020).
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Searching for win-win forest outcomes: Learning-by-doing, financial viability, and income growth for a community-based forest management cooperative in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 125, 104336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.005
Islam, K., Nath, T. K., Jashimuddin, M., & Rahman, Md. F. (2019). Forest dependency, co- management and improvement of peoples’ livelihood capital: Evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environmental Development, 32, 100456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100456
Kamwi, J. M., Endjala, J., & Siyambango, N. (2020). Dependency of rural communities on non- timber forest products in the dry lands of southern Africa: A case of Mukwe Constituency, Kavango East Region, Namibia. Trees, Forests and People, 2, 100022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100022
Karki, A., & Poudyal, B. H. (2021). Access to community forest benefits: Need driven or interest driven? Research in Globalization, 3, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100041 Kibria, A. S. M. G., Costanza, R., Groves, C., & Behie, A. M. (2018). The interactions between livelihood capitals and access of local communities to the forest provisioning services of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh. Ecosystem Services, 32, 41–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.003
Kim, I., & Arnhold, S. (2018). Mapping environmental land use conflict potentials and ecosystem services in agricultural watersheds. Science of The Total Environment, 630, 827–
838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.176
Leblond, J.-P. (2019). Revisiting forest transition explanations: The role of “push” factors and adaptation strategies in forest expansion in northern Phetchabun, Thailand. Land Use Policy, 83, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.035
Leijten, F., Sim, S., King, H., & Verburg, P. H. (2021). Local deforestation spillovers induced by forest moratoria: Evidence from Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 109, 105690.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105690
McCarthy, J. (2000). The Changing Regime: Forest Property and Reformasi in Indonesia.
Development and Change, 31(1), 91–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00148
Melnykovych, M., Nijnik, M., Soloviy, I., Nijnik, A., Sarkki, S., & Bihun, Y. (2018). Social- ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world. Science of The Total Environment, 613–
614, 894–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.065
Mohan, M., Rue, H. A., Bajaj, S., Galgamuwa, G. A. P., Adrah, E., Aghai, M. M., Broadbent, E. N., Khadamkar, O., Sasmito, S. D., Roise, J., Doaemo, W., & Cardil, A. (2021).
Afforestation, reforestation and new challenges from COVID-19: Thirty-three recommendations to support civil society organizations (CSOs). Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112277
Morzillo, A. T., Colocousis, C. R., Munroe, D. K., Bell, K. P., Martinuzzi, S., Van Berkel, D. B., Lechowicz, M. J., Rayfield, B., & McGill, B. (2015a). “Communities in the middle”: Interactions between drivers of change and place-based characteristics in rural forest-based communities.
Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.007 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Morzillo, A. T., Colocousis, C. R., Munroe, D. K., Bell, K. P., Martinuzzi, S., Van Berkel, D. B., Lechowicz, M. J., Rayfield, B., & McGill, B. (2015b). “Communities in the middle”: Interactions between drivers of change and place-based characteristics in rural forest-based communities.
Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.007
Murray Li, T. (2007). Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society, 36(2), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701254308
Parisi, F., Innangi, M., Tognetti, R., Lombardi, F., Chirici, G., & Marchetti, M. (2021). Forest stand structure and coarse woody debris determine the biodiversity of beetle communities in Mediterranean mountain beech forests. Global Ecology and Conservation, 28, e01637.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01637
Putraditama, A., Kim, Y.-S., & Baral, H. (2021). Where to put community-based forestry?:
Reconciling conservation and livelihood in Lampung, Indonesia. Trees, Forests and People, 4, 100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100062
Rao, N., Singh, C., Solomon, D., Camfield, L., Sidiki, R., Angula, M., Poonacha, P., Sidibé, A.,
& Lawson, E. T. (2020). Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics:
Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World Development, 125, 104667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104667
Riddell, M. (2013). Assessing the Impacts of Conservation and Commercial Forestry on Livelihoods in Northern Republic of Congo. Conservation and Society, 11(3), 199.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.121002
Rieckmann, M., Hoff, H., & Bokop, K. (2021). Effective Community-Academic Partnerships on Climate Change Adaption and Mitigation: Results of a European Delphi Study. Sustainability and Climate Change, 14(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2020.0061
Rijal, B., Raulier, F., & Martell, D. L. (2018). A value-added forest management policy reduces the impact of fire on timber production in Canadian boreal forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 97, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.09.002
Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Maryudi, A., Wong, G. Y., Supratman, S., & Alam, S. (2019).
The bureaucratic politics of conservation in governing land conflict: A typology of capacities.
MethodsX, 6, 2536–2543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.022
Sahide, M. A. K., Nurrochmat, D. R., & Giessen, L. (2015). The regime complex for tropical rainforest transformation: Analysing the relevance of multiple global and regional land use
regimes in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 47, 408–425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.030
Salvatori, E., & Pallante, G. (2021). Forests as Nature-Based Solutions: Ecosystem Services, Multiple Benefits and Trade-Offs. Forests, 12(6), 800. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060800 Soman, D., & Anitha, V. (2020). Community dependence on the natural resources of Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Trees, Forests and People, 2, 100014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100014
Talukdar, N. R., Choudhury, P., Barbhuiya, R. A., & Singh, B. (2021). Importance of Non- Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in rural livelihood: A study in Patharia Hills Reserve Forest, northeast India. Trees, Forests and People, 3, 100042.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100042
Trædal, L. T., & Vedeld, P. (2018). Cultivating forests: The role of forest land in household livelihood adaptive strategies in the Bac Kan Province of northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 73, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.004
Tritsch, I., Le Velly, G., Mertens, B., Meyfroidt, P., Sannier, C., Makak, J.-S., & Houngbedji, K.
(2020). Do forest-management plans and FSC certification help avoid deforestation in the
Congo Basin? Ecological Economics, 175, 106660.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106660
Villegas, G., Coillie, F. V., Heredia-R, M., Ochoa, D., Cayambe, J., & Torres, B. (2021). 2 Analysis of forest cover change and its influence on sustaina- 3 bility indicators in Ecuadorian Amazon. 7.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Figure 1. The framework of adaptation and mal-adaptation on forest utilization 168x82mm (144 x 144 DPI)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
The Map of Study Locations 214x149mm (144 x 144 DPI)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Figure 3. (a) the timber from illegal logging activity; (b) (c) (d) the way the wood is transported out of the forest (Source: Golar 2020)
124x83mm (150 x 150 DPI)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Table 1. HPH and HPHTI that have expired their license
Source: Central Sulawesi Provincial Forest Service, 2021 License Number Area Locations
No. HPH/HPHTI
(Ha) (District)
Decision Letter
1 PT. Regasia Jaya Nusantara 267/Kpts/Um/5/1977 110.600 Tolitoli No. 9922/Kpts-II/2002
2 PT. Sinar Kaili 313/Kpts/Um/1974 48.000 Donggala No.10176/Kpts-II/2002
3 PT. Gunung Latimojong No Data 39.000 Poso No. 9925/Kpts-II/2002
4 PT. Colano Tiga Dua 81/Kpts/Um/2/1974 79.000 Parigi Moutong No. 9915/Kpts-II/2002 5 PT. Raslim Trading 09/Kpts/Um/1/1973 57.000 Donggala No. 9916/Kpts-II/2002 6 PT. Kartika Ronausaha Perkasa 837/Kpts-II/1991 89.000 Tojo Una-Una No. 43/Menhut-II/2006 7 PT. Radar Utama Timber 164/Kpts/UM//3/1979 77.000 Parigi Moutong No. 294/Kpts-II/1999 8 PT. Iradat Puri 227/Kpts/UM/4/1980 195.000 Donggala No. 344/Kpts-II/1997
9 PT. Kebun Sari 1091/Kpts-II/1992 61.670 Poso No Data
10 PT. Rimba Sulteng 573/Kpts/Um/7/1980 150.000 Buol No Data
11 PT. Handy Cahaya Timber 672/Kpts/UM/9/1980 125.000 Morowali No Data
12 PT. Kalhold 390/Kpts-II/1989 48.000 Toli-toli No Data
HPHTI
13 PT. Wanatani Lestari 721/Kpts-II/1996 10.041 Morowali No. 9978/Kpts-II/2002
Total 1.041.311
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Table 2. Land Cover Change on Ex Forest Concession Right PT. Colano Tiga Dua Changes Land Cover
Land Area Year 2000
(ha)
%
Land Area Year 2020
(ha)
% Land Area
(ha) %
Primary Forest 6.332,29 27,62 5.508,56 24,02 -823,73 -13,01
Secondary Forest 14.560,22 63,50 13.906,22 60,65 -654,00 - 4,49
Shrub 721,21 3,15 1.305,72 5,69 584,52 81,05
Open land - - 11,76 0,05 11,76
Dryland Farming 31,91 0,14 - - -31,91 -100,00
Mixed Dryland Farming 1.284,38 5,60 2.197,75 9,58 913,37 71,11
Total 22.930,01 22.930,01
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Table 3. Land Cover Change on Ex Forest Concession Right PT. Gunung Latimojong
Changes
Land Cover Land Area
Year 2000 (ha) %
Land Area Year 2020
(ha)
% Land Area
(ha) %
Primary Forest 1.205,29 5,17 1.071,75 4,59 -133,54 -11,08
Secondary Forest 18.017,99 77,22 16.351,82 70,08 -1.666,17 -9,25
Shrub 1.321,51 5,66 2.463,04 10,56 1.141,53 86,38
Open Land 115,25 0,49 414,29 1,78 299,05 259,49
Dryland Farming 2.674,32 11,46 3.033,45 13,00 359,13 13,43
Total 23.334,35 23.334,35
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
For Peer Review
Figure 4. Land Cover Changes in Ex Forest Concession Right at (a) PT. Colano Tiga Dua in 2000 and 2020;
(b) PT. Gunung Latimojong in 2000 and 2020 282x227mm (144 x 144 DPI)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
[LRH] Golar et al.
[RRF] Sustainability and Climate Change XXX
[LRF] XXX Sustainability and Climate Change MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. * Vol. 15 No. 3 * June 2022 * DOI: 10.1089.sus.2022.XXXXX.xxx
[CT] The Threat of Forest Degradation in ex-Forest Concession Right (HPH) in Indonesia
[CA] Golar Golar, Hasriani Muis, Akhbar Akhbar, and Cecep Khaeruddin
[AA] Tadulako University – ForestryFaculty of Forestry, Kampus Bumi, Tadulako, Tondo Palu Sulawesi Tengah Central Sulawesi, , Palu, Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia.
[ABS]
Production forests in Indonesia have long been managed and used economically to improve people's welfare and fund the government. As part of this process, large, medium, and small companies were granted concession rights, but for various reasons, many companies have had their licenses terminated. There is evidence of illegal activities after such terminations, often causing forest degradation and deforestation in the former concession-rights areas. This study describes a case of illegal forest and land utilization in two former concession-rights areas located in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. The assessment was over a seven-month period and used a qualitative approach to gather data, including participant observation and in-depth
Comment [LG1]: AQ- pls confirm that I inserted the commas in the right place for this (there were none). It should be Dept.
name, Institution name/City/Country.
Comment [GG2]: I already revision.
Thanks
open land after the concession rights had been terminated, but illegal logging and land- clearing activities were also reported.
Pressure to convert forest lands often comes from people who are not local to the forest area;
they often collaborate with local people by promising them expansion of their own lands into the former logging locations. Acceptance of this type of offer can be seen as a form of adap- tation strategy because the indigenous people adapt to the circumstances as they try to hold onto the land. Of interest in this process is that if an area becomes sufficiently damaged the government may change the status of the area from ―state forest‖ to ―non-forest,‖ a designa- tion that makes it easier for local people to access and claim the land in the future.
[K] adaptation strategies; deforestation; forest degradation
[H1] Introduction
[T] Forest utilization has been going on in many regions, creating many forms of the dynamics of utilization (Golar et al., 2019; Melnykovych et al., 2018). The resulting transformations impact forest management, and some are likely to damage forest
sustainability (Batunacun et al., 2019; Buntaine et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2020). Related to this, tropical forest areas in Indonesia lost 12.2 million hectares of tree cover in 2020 alone, 4.2 million hectares of which were in wet tropical forests, essential for carbon storage and
induced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which cause global warming and climate change problems (Bos et al., 2020; Resosudarmo et al., 2019).
Some of the most extensive tropical forests in the world exist in Indonesia. Third in size after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Gross et al., 2018; Humphries et al., 2020), these forests contain a rich biodiversity of flora and fauna and have the potential for common benefit related to their economic value in the form of timber, non-timber, and other forest products (Karki & Poudyal, 2021; Putraditama et al., 2021). However, forest
conditions in Indonesia face a critical threat—losses of 2 million hectares of forest have been recorded annually (Andoh & Lee, 2018; Ekawati et al., 2019). This is significant from a biodiversity perspective. Although Indonesia's land area is only 1.3 percent of the Earth's surface land area, its biodiversity is classified as ―high‖ (Blicharska et al., 2020; Parisi et al., 2021) as it includes 11 percent of the world's plant species, 16 percent of the world’s bird species, and 10 percent of mammals.
Ongoing debates about the interaction between the forest and people are mainly related to poverty (Hernández-Aguilar et al., 2021; Putraditama et al., 2021). As a source for economic growth, forest use can entice people to degrade forest resources (Kibria et al., 2018). Conflict over forest land and resources is a result of competition both within communities and from outsiders (Endah Ambarwati et al., 2018). Among the factors driving this problem are the
Comment [LG3]: AQ- See Ref section. Is this 2018a or b?
Comment [GG4]: It is the same Ref (just 2018). I already delete one of these in Ref section. Thanks
et al., 2020; Kamwi et al., 2020).
As measured in 2021, the forest area in Central Sulawesi was 4,311,085 hectares, or nearly 70 percent (69.71%) of the total area of Central Sulawesi, consisting of protected forest (1,282,210 ha); sanctuary reserve and natural conservation area (990,958 ha); limited production forest (1,410,524); permanent production forest (412,080 ha); and convertible production forest (215,313 ha). As a province with a large forest area, most people are highly dependent on forest resources. Since 1974, more than 2,078,014 hectares of the forest area in Central Sulawesi have been managed by timber companies, but mainly by Forest Concession Right (HPH). Of that total area, 761,245 hectares (33%) are still active and the rest,
1,316,769 hectares (67%), have inactive status.
In 2022, through the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, No. SK.01 / MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/1/2022 on the Revocation of Forest Area Concession Permits, the government revoked the permits of 192 businesses operating in forest areas. Affected parties include plantations, mines, and businesses like HPH and Industrial Crop Forests (HTI), as well as some forest area-based businesses. One of the reasons cited for the revocation was that 1,369,567 hectares of the land were considered abandoned and the license holders did not have a viable work plan for changing that status.
The problem posed by this circumstance was what to do with this tract of land once no one
