Transformation of forest governance: policy concepts and actor changes in social forestry program implementation in Indonesia

(1)

The International Forestry Review

Editor Chairman of the Editorial Board

Alan Pottinger

[email protected]

Jeff Sayer

University of British Columbia, Canada [email protected]

Editorial Board

Fred Babweteera

Budongo Conservation Field Station, Uganda Eberhard Bruenig

University of Hamburg, Germany Neil Byron

Independent, Australia José Joaquin Campos CATIE, Costa Rica Jim Carle

Independent, New Zealand Ebby Chagala

Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Nairobi, Kenya

Ben Chikamai

Executive Secretary, Network for Natural Gums and Resins in Africa (NGARA)

Mafa Chipeta Independent, Malawi Jonathan Cornelius

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Peru Julian Evans

Independent, UK Lukas Giessen

Technical University Dresden, Germany Verina Ingram

CIFOR, Indonesia and LEI Wageningen UR, The Netherlands

John Innes

University of British Columbia, Canada Peter Kanowski

Australian National University, Australia Roger Leakey

James Cook University, Australia Bill Mason

Forestry Research, UK John Palmer

University of British Columbia, Canada Gill Petrokofsky

University of Oxford, UK Jack Putz

University of Florida, USA Lee Su See

Forestry Research Institute Malaysia, Malaysia Changyou Sun

Mississippi State University, USA Terry Sunderland

University of British Columbia, Canada Jerome Vanclay

Southern Cross University, Australia Claire Williams

American University Dept of Environmental Sciences Washington DC, USA

Michael J. Wingfield

Forest and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), South Africa

Contact

The Editor, International Forestry Review, The Crib, Dinchope, Shropshire SY7 9JJ, UK Telephone: +44 (0)1588 672868

Email: [email protected], Web: www.cfa-international.org

Cover photo: Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and SilvaCarbon workshop: Mangrove Mapping and Monitoring, Field Data Collection, Chanthaburi, Thailand (Credit: SilvaCarbon Communications)

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

Please send the Summary of the paper to the Editor at [email protected].

If it is considered suitable for consideration you will be asked to send the complete manuscript.

Manuscripts submitted for consideration must conform to the following points. Any deviation will result in the manuscript being returned to the author.

COMPOSITION

• Contributions must be original* and not have been submitted for publication elsewhere.

(Note: Plagiarism is evaluated by use of electronic software. For more information on what constitutes plagiarism, and why it is important please click here).

• The text, excluding tables, references and appendices, should not exceed 7000 words, although exceptions may be permitted in special cases.

• A SUMMARY of not more than 150 words must be supplied, together with 5 keywords.

• All spelling must conform to UK/international English.

• The layout of the text and style of table and figure legends and references must conform to that of the International Forestry Review. This means:

o Main title in Arial, Text in Times New Roman

o The hierarchy of headings is: CAPITALS, bold lower case, italics lower case.

TEXT• Manuscripts should be produced in Microsoft Word, written in Times New Roman typeface (size 12 pt), with single row spacing, left justification and without hyphenation.

• The manuscript should be written in the passive voice, e.g. ‘The experiment was carried out’ is correct; ‘We carried out the experiment’ is incorrect.

• Manuscripts should be submitted with UK English spellings. Make sure that a spell check with UK English spellings is used prior to submission.

• Paragraphs should not be separated by any additional line spacing. The first paragraph in a section should not be indented. The first line of each subsequent paragraph should be indented to 1.27cm.

• Use quotation marks (“ “) only around quotations or titles. Do not use them to highlight or emphasise text.

• et al. is correct, et al is incorrect.

• The document should be saved as a Microsoft Word file with *.doc file extension.

TITLE

• The title and author’s details should be in the following format

Mutually beneficial company-community partnership in ensuring its long-term viability:

emerging lessons from Indonesia A.A. NAWIR and L. SANTOSO

Center for International Forestry Research, Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor 16680, Indonesia

Email: [email protected] and [email protected] TABLES

• Tables should clear and simple, with a maximum of 8 columns. (Note that tables have limited space in the final layout and therefore the reduction of font size to a minimum of 8 pt during typesetting should be taken into account when preparing tables).

• Headings and other texts in table cells should to be concise. Tables including captions, legends and footnotes should be written in Microsoft Word (in exceptional cases Microsoft Excel can be used following agreement of the Editor).

• Tables should be saved in a separate file (not as an integral part of manuscript) and the manuscript text should contain the reference to the position of the table (or figure) in brackets.

NUMBERS

• Numbers greater than 999 should be written with appropriate spaces and without commas, e.g 10 000 is correct, 10,000 and 10000 are incorrect

FOOTNOTES

• References to footnotes in the main text should be marked with arabic numerals in superscript form.

GRAPHS AND FIGURES

• Graphs, diagrams and other figures should be prepared in Microsoft Excel or in Microsoft PowerPoint and saved in separate files. Graphs and diagrams should be drawn in 2-D form (not in 3-D spatial form) and single columns or circle sectors (in case of pie diagrams) should be filled with graycscale colours (not with colour filling or by using of automatic hatching). The line weight of axes and other lines and also the size of used letters or numerals should be appropriate to the final size reduction of diagrams during layout of final magazine page (maximum width of finally reduced diagram is either 8 or 18 cm depending on whether it fits one or two columns).

• Complex images such as maps (drawn in line draw or grayscale format) should be prepared in one of the following: CorelDraw, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Freehand or similar in which he finished images can be saved as *.eps (Encapsulated PostScript) file format. B&W photographs should be submitted as *.tif image file format with a resolution of at least 300 dpi. Colour

photographs may be submitted only after agreement with the Editor. Colour images should be saved in CMYK colour format, as *tif file format and with a resolution of at least 300 dpi.

• Titles should be in the format: TABLE X Title of table SCIENTIFIC NAMES

• The complete scientific name (genus, species, authority and, where appropriate, cultivar) should be cited at the first occasion of its mention and written in italics (authority in normal type). If vernacular names are used, they must be accompanied by the correct scientific name at first use.

CITATIONS

• For text citations, papers should be referred to as (Smith 1998) and papers by the same author in the same year should be distinguished by lettering in sequence (1998a, 1998b, etc.). Where papers are written by a single author or two authors their names should be cited. If three or more authors are involved the first name should be listed followed by ‘et al.’, e.g. (Smith et al. 2002).

• Citations should be separated by a comma, not a semi-colon, i.e. (Johnstone 2003, Smith 2002, Smith et al. 2002).

• Multiple citations by different authors should be listed alphabetically, e.g. (Brown 2001, Jones 2003 and Smith 2002).

• Multiple citations by the same author should conform to the following format (Brown 2001, 2005, 2009).

QUOTATIONS

• Direct quotations from papers or books should be referenced in the format (Smith 1998: 23-24).

REFERENCES

• At the end of the paper, the list of references must be arranged in alphabetical ordering without serial numbering.

• References should be formatted with a ‚hanging‘ indent.

• There should be no additional line spacing between individual references.

• The following standard forms of citation must be used:

Author’s name, all authors’ initials to follow surname, journal and book titles in italics. Volume number in bold. Second and subsequent lines should not be indented. For example:

Journal paper

LÄHDE, E., LAIHO, O., NOROKORPI, Y. and SAKSA, T. 1999. Stand structure as the basis of diversity index. Forest Ecology and Management 115 (2/3): 213-220.

Paper or chapter in proceedings

SMITH, W.J. 2001. Selection of tree species for arid environments. In:

BLACKBURN, J.W. (ed.) Multipurpose trees and shrubs for fuelwood and agroforestry. CNRD Monograph No4. 366 pp.

Book

PHILIP, M.S. 1994. Measuring trees and forests. 2nd edition, CAB International, Wallingford, England. 310 pp.

• Unnecessary use of capitals should be avoided. For example

HOLMGREN, J., JOYCE, S., NILSSON, M. and OLSSON. H. 2000.

Estimating Stem Volume and Basal Area in Forest Compartments by Combining Satellite Image Data with Field Data. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 15: 103–111. Is incorrect.

HOLMGREN, J., JOYCE, S., NILSSON, M. and OLSSON. H. 2000.

Estimating stem volume and basal area in forest compartments by combining satellite image data with field data. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 15: 103–111. Is correct.

• Websites should only be quoted in isolation where hard copies are not available.

ACKNOWELDGEMENT

• It is necessary for authors to acknowledge suggestions made by referees with a simple statement such as ‘The valuable suggestions made by anonymous referees is gratefully acknowledged’.

SUBMISSION

• Manuscripts offered for publication should be submitted by email to [email protected]

REFEREEING

• Contributions will be referred to at least two expert referees. Authors will be consulted if the paper is considered suitable but alterations are thought desirable.

After alterations have been agreed and incorporated, the paper will be considered final.

ASSISTANCE WITH PUBLICATION

• For assistance with preparing manuscripts visit our Online guide to scientific writing at http://www.cfa-international.org/ONGSWintro.html

* Original means that the paper, or any close derivative of it, has not been published previously in any form, including on the internet.

(2)

Transformation of forest governance: policy concepts and actor changes in social forestry program implementation in Indonesia

R. RAMADHANâ, M. DHAVIOâ, R. HANAFIâ, M.H. DAULAY^b, and G.G. PRAKOSAâ

aDepartment of Forestry, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, Indonesia

bDepartment of Forestry, University of Riau, Riau, Indonesia

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

HIGHLIGHTS

• After the State Forestry Company/SFC failed to adopt a community-based forestry (CBF) governance model on its area, a governance transformation occurred in the implementation of social forestry in Indonesia.

• The establishment of two popular programs, namely the Social Forestry Utilization Permit (IPHPS) and the Strengthening and Protection of Forestry Partnerships (Kulin-KK) (partnership program), is the outcome of policy arrangements made by the relevant actors. Both programs are grounded in political dynamics and a related historical context.

• A coalition of government and non-government actors, such as civil society organizations, plays an important role in promoting the transition of forest management in the SFC region.

• The IPHPS program was developed as a result of dissatisfaction with the previous management by SFC, while Kulin-KK was mentioned as part of SFC’s efforts to maintain its existence.

• In locations where IPHPS is adopted, group facilitators become influential actors who are affiliated with established organizational networks.

SUMMARY

In Indonesia, particularly in Java, forest governance has been taking place since the State Forest Corporation (SFC) came to power. The emergence of the Social Forestry Forest Utilization Permit (IPHPS) and Strengthening and Protection-Forestry Partnership (Kulin-KK) programs in the SFC area marked the start of an essential phase of social forestry (SF), in which forest access and management were transferred to community groups. The 2017 regulatory policy regarding SF programs in the SFC region significantly impacts governance and actor relations in Java. This study examines the transformation that is taking place using the concept of policy arrangement and analysis of changes in actors at the program implementation level. We find that policy coalitions are formed by government actors and civil society groups using forest and socioeconomic condition-based discourse. The rules of the game that are formed cannot be divorced from the interests of the actors who desire change. The findings at IPHPS indicate that SFC actors have less impact than they do in the Kulin-KK program, where they remain powerful because this program is regarded as a continuation of the PHBM concept that SFC introduced. Community group facilitators are influential actors in a network of community groups in Java that are mainly involved in promoting social forestry programs. This study proposes expanding community participation in the program so that previously powerful actors’ interests do not exploit it.

Keywords: social forestry, Indonesia, Perhutani, IPHPS program, Kulin-KK program

Transformation de la gestion forestière: concepts de politique et changements des acteurs dans la mise en œuvre du programme de foresterie sociale en Indonésie

R. RAMADHAN, M. DHAVIO, R. HANAFI, M.H. DAULAY, et G.G. PRAKOSA

En Indonésie, et à Java en particulier, la gestion forestière a été opérée depuis que la Corporation de la Forêt d’Etat (SFC) est arrivée au pouvoir.

L’arrivée du Permis d’utilisation de forêt de la foresterie sociale (IPHPS) et de programmes de Partenariat forestier de protection (Kulin-KK) dans le domaine de la SFC ont marqué le début d’une phase essentielle de la Foresterie sociale (SF), dans laquelle l’accès à la forêt et sa gestion furent transférés aux groupes communautaires. La politique régulatoire de 2017 des programmes de SF dans la région de la SFC impacte fortement la gestion et les relations entre les acteurs à Java, le secteur forestier de l’Indonésie. Cette étude examine la transformation en cours, en utilisant le concept d’arrangement de politique et l’analyse des changements des acteurs au niveau de mise en œuvre du programme. Nous observons que des coalitions de politiques sont formées par les acteurs gouvernementaux et les groupes de de société civile, en utilisant un discours basé sur la condition forestière et socioéconomique. Les règles du jeu en formation ne peuvent pas être divorcées des intérêts des acteurs désireux de changement. Les résultats au IPHPS indiquent que les acteurs de la SFC ont moins d’impact que dans le programme

(4)

models which have provided opportunities for collaboration between SFC, rural community groups, and the local government. The emergence of new actors in forest management, such as village chiefs (lurah) and forest village community institutions (Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan / LMDH), does not affect their bargaining position regarding the alloca- tion of forest resource benefits. SFC has authority and control over the forest management system (Maryudi and Krott 2012).

Since 2017, the Directorate General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (Direktorat Jenderal Perhutanan Sosial dan Kemitraan Lingkungan / PSKL) has issued an SF program named the Permit for Utilization of Social Forestry Forestry or IPHPS and Strengthening and Protection-Forestry Partnership or Kulin-KK, in the SFC work area. Previously, the government did not include the SFC area in the SF plan since their forest area was managed specifically and was based on the monoculture forest concept and timber management paradigm. Therefore, the two initiatives’ political dynamics cannot be divorced from their historical context. It is claimed that the above program policy was created due to the failure of the Community-based Collaborative Forest Management program (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat / PHBM), which has been the basis of the SF form in Java by SFC (Maryudi 2012, Sahide et al. 2020, Setiahadi et al. 2017).

This study examines the policy process that led to the development of IPHPS and Kulin-KK programs in the SFC area. Using Arts and Tatenhove’s (2004) policy arrangements framework, this study examines the policy arrangements for two popular new programs in Indonesia; IPHPS and Kulin-KK.

Kulin-KK, au sein duquel ils demeurent puissants, ce programme étant considéré comme la continuation du concept PHMN introduit par la SFC. Les facilitateurs de groupes communautaires sont des acteurs influents dans un réseau de groupes communautaires à Java, principalement dévoués à la promotion de programmes de foresterie sociale. Cette étude propose d’élargir la participation de la communauté dans le programme, afin que les intérêts des acteurs autrefois puissants ne l’exploitent pas.

Transformación de la gobernanza forestal: conceptos políticos y cambios de los agentes en la aplicación del programa de silvicultura social en Indonesia

R. RAMADHAN, M. DHAVIO, R. HANAFI, M.H. DAULAY y G.G. PRAKOSA

En Indonesia, sobre todo en Java, la gobernanza forestal ha tenido lugar desde la llegada al poder de la Corporación Forestal Estatal (SFC, por sus siglas en inglés). La aparición de los programas Permiso de Utilización Forestal Social (IPHPS, por sus siglas en Bahasa) y de Asociación Forestal para el Fortalecimiento y Protección (Kulin-KK, por sus siglas en Bahasa) en la zona de la SFC marcó el inicio de una fase esencial de la Silvicultura Social (SS), en la que el acceso y la gestión de los bosques se transfirieron a grupos comunitarios. La política reguladora de 2017 relativa a los programas de SS en la región de la SFC afecta de forma significativa a la gobernanza y a las relaciones entre los agentes del sector forestal de Java (Indonesia). Este estudio explora la transformación que se está produciendo mediante el concepto de acuerdo político y el análisis de cambios en los agentes a nivel de la implementación del programa. Se descubrió que las coaliciones políticas están formadas por agentes gubernamentales y grupos de la sociedad civil que utilizan un discurso basado en las condiciones forestales y socioeconómicas. Las reglas del juego que se forman no se pueden desvincular de los intereses de los agentes que desean cambios. Los hallazgos en el IPHPS indican que los agentes de la SFC tienen menos impacto que en el programa Kulin-KK, donde siguen siendo poderosos porque este programa se considera una continuación del concepto de PHBM que introdujo la SFC. Los facilitadores de grupos comunitarios son agentes con influencia en una red de grupos comunitarios de Java que se dedican principalmente a promover programas de silvicultura social. Este estudio propone ampliar la participación de la comunidad en el programa para que sea explotado por los intereses de agentes previamente poderosos.

BACKGROUND

Community forestry continues a trend in forest management that emphasizes the role of local communities in the management and administration of forest resources (devolved forest management) (Gilmour 2016, RECOFTC 2013). Community forestry, which is frequently interpreted as social forestry (SF), continues to expand with broader goals, at least in terms of attempts to manage sustainable forests and mitigate climate change, as well as entrepreneurial potential (Moeliono et al.

2017). Indonesia started SF experiments in the mid-1980s, with support of a prominent donor, the Ford Foundation, with 13 pilot projects managed by the State Forest Company (SFC)/Perhutani¹ (Bratamihardja et al. 2005, Maryudi et al.

2022).

The evolution of SF in Indonesia continues to be influenced by political, social and economic dynamics. Fisher et al.

(2018) showed that the implementation of SF is hampered by historical, political and economic constraints rooted in actors’

interests. In Java’s forest management context, colonial-era forestry laws exercised control over land, trees and labor rights (Peluso 1992). Subsequently, foresters have adopted a timber management paradigm based on European scientists’

concept of ‘scientific forestry’ (Peluso and Vandergeest 2001).

The territory of SFC is located on Java², the most densely populated island in Indonesia, where intense pressure on forests has created social issues. However, SFC is gradually providing access to rural populations through various program

1 Perhutani is a state-owned forest corporation on the Indonesian island of Java that adopts a paradigm for timber management.

2 One of the Indonesian islands under the administration of SFC / Perhutani.

(5)

94 R. Ramadhan et al.

In policy-making, policy arrangements come from the interaction of contextual processes of political and social development, as outlined by Arts and Tatenhove (2004) who explain the policy arrangements framework in terms of four dimensions, including policy coalitions formed between actors and rules of the game that provide a set of regulations that guide or restrict actor action. In addition, the dimension of policy discourse refers to the interpretation of the policy agenda given to the policy domain and the dimension of resources related to the mobilization of actors, both of which are intrinsic to the concept of power.

In this research, policy and power are inextricably linked to explain the phenomenon of SF implementation. As pre- sented by Arts and Tatenhove (2004), the concept of power is centered on organizational capacity, which refers to the structural strength of the social and political system. In examining the topic of community forestry, Krott et al. (2014) present the second concept of power that focuses on the capacity of actors to influence policy using the actor’s position in a structure as a source of power. The importance of identifying actors lies in their influence and main interests (Devkota 2017, Krott et al. 2014, Schusser et al. 2013). Both ideas of power are interesting when attempting to understand how actor power is produced in applying SF policies. Thus, we offer a new perspective on a phenomenon by adopting a policy arrangements approach and focusing on the actors involved in implementing SF programs in the areas we observed.

Social Forestry in Indonesia entered a new phase from around 2016. According to Fisher et al. (2018), this is the third generation of SF, and some studies have examined its implementation since 2017 (Erbaugh 2019, Maryudi et al.

2022, Rakatama and Pandit 2020, Sahide et al. 2020). Recent research in SF requires a comprehensive analysis of the programs by further asking about who benefits and the formation of power relationships (Devkota 2017, Fisher et al. 2018, Moeliono et al. 2017, Schusser et al. 2013, Sikor 2006). This study contributes to understanding policy and power relations in implementing the SF program in Indonesia, specifically on the island of Java.

As the government reduced the SFC’s authority, the era of social forestry gave rise to various actors. The actor may be a member of a community group, a non-governmental organization or the private sector (Fisher et al. 2018, Rahayu et al.

2020). Changes to forest rights and access policies can gener- ate new areas of power struggles with significant actor relations. Regarding forest property, Sikor (2006) argued that there are a variety of actors, which is the underlying cause of the conflict involving local and larger political actors as out- siders. Different perspectives on devolution and implementation strategies exist among the relevant parties (Shackleton et al. 2016). This paper sees the importance of identifying actors and changes in actor relationships.

The second section provides an overview of the policy and power principles selected as a framework. In the third section, the research methods and framework structure are discussed.

Using the concept of policy arrangement, the fourth section examines the description and history of the emergence of IPHPS and the Kulin-KK program. In the fifth section, the

case studies of program implementation are analyzed with an emphasis on changing actor relations to identify powerful and less powerful actors.

The concept of policy and power

Arts and Tatenhove (2004) extended policy analysis by adopting a power-based approach. In one aspect of policy arrangement, named ‘resources’, power is directly correlated. Based on the structure, it is assumed that agent power can affect policy changes and the process of re-institutionalization. Fur- thermore, Giddens’s (1984) concept of power was adopted to define power as the organizational and discursive capacity of institutions in conflict or collaboration. The structural strength of social institutions primarily determines power. However, power analysis in forestry studies develops with the actor- based power introduced by (Krott et al. 2014) which reviews the answers of the most politically powerful actors in community forestry practices. This thinking is strongly influenced by the concept of actors introduced by (Weber 2000), which emphasizes the power source in actors rather than structures that cannot become their strengths. Several research studies on community forestry that focus on actor-based power analysis show that local actors gain influence over their forests, and local elite actors gain dominant influence for their interests (Schusser 2013, Schusser et al. 2015, Shackleton et al. 2016, Supriyanto et al. 2019).

This study aims to assess the concept of power using structuralist and actor-based approaches to explain the phenomena that occur (Table 1). It expands the analysis of the policy arrangement framework to use actor-based power as a lens by which to analyze the program at the implementation level. This concept of power uses actor-power analysis focused on two groups of actors (Schusser 2013). In addition, it emphasizes the importance of the power relations between established actors and affected by the structure’s capacity to influence policy. The idea of power in this context considers an individual agency as well as the power of institutions and organizations.

The arrangement in concern is based on the concept of Arts and Tatenhove (2004) which argued that the policy domain is formed, in terms of organization and substance, within a constrained space-time context. This can be used to analyze policy changes’ substance and structure. Policy arrangement can be investigated based on policy coalitions, rules of the game, policy discourse and resources. The policy coalition’s analysis unit identifies the objectives and actors who share resources as well as the interpretations of policy discourse within the context of the game’s rules. This is accomplished by considering the context of the game. There- fore, certain coalitions would favor a discourse or the game’s rules, while others may resist. In this viewpoint, institutions can be seen as sets of rules that guide and constrain the behavior of actors. This is referred to as the ‘rules of the game’ dimension. Examining the defined interests and the division of competence between actors and organizations can be conducted through the examination of the rules of the game. They define the limits of coalition policy by incorporating actors and

(6)

individuals who remain or exit the coalition. The term ‘policy discourse’ refers to the ideas, narratives, and concepts produced or reproduced due to the meanings assigned to the policy domain (Hajer and Versteeg 2005). This discourse analysis varies from the practice of looking for linguistic regularities found in discussions or debates. The last dimension is resources, closely related to power distributed between complete auton- omy and reliance between actors. This kind of power is dis- positional, defined by the laws and resources that mediate the actor’s position. The concept of actor-based power explains the relationship between resources and power which, according to the Arts and Tatenhove model (2004), is influenced by structures and rules. Therefore, the concept of policy arrangement and concept power was developed to examine the implementation of SF in the IPHPS and Kulin-KK programs.

METHODS

The SF programs currently implemented in the Perhutani area, IPHPS and Kulin-KK, are the subject of analysis due to competing interests and power relationships in their development. Therefore, two sites were selected with IPHPS permis- sions, namely Forest Farmers Group (Kelompok Tani Hutan / KTH Wana Makmur Lestari) and Forest Village Community Institutions (Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan / LMDH Maju Jaya), which have Kulin-KK permits. As shown in the preceding section, this policy study employed the concept of policy with four aspects, including the study of policy coalitions, rules or regulations enacted, discourse or policy narratives, and the dimensions of resources to which we relate power analysis. Arts et al. (2006) provide a more comprehensive explanation of the four dimensions as follows:

(a) Actors and coalitions involved in the policy domain.

(b) The division of influence and power between actors, where power refers to the mobilization, distribution, and influence over who determines policy outcomes and how.

(c) The rules of the game that apply, both in terms of actual rules for politics and other forms of interaction and formal procedures.

(d) Discourse and policy programs, where discourse refers to the perspectives and narratives of the involved actors. The four aspects of policy regulation are interrelated, such that a change in one dimension will

affect the other. Arts et al. (2006) discuss the relationship between each dimension represented by a tetrahedron, as shown in Figure 2.

Using the previously described dimensions analysis frame of reference, we examine the policy actor coalition developed in the program’s policy agenda. Policy coalitions may consist of state or non-state entities that have supported the development of the two programs thus far. Furthermore, we examine the game rules used by each actor who supports or opposes the policy objective. The rules of the game are intimately tied to the narrative of the policy, why in the end do some actors adopt different rules of the game and narratives to other actors? Policy narratives are understood to be interpretations developed by proponents and opponents, which may take the shape of interviews, mass media, or open discussions regarding the policy agenda.

Resources, the fourth dimension, are intimately tied to power (Artsand Vanhoten 2004). This study combines two approaches to the concept of power to examine the dimension of resources, notably the concept of Arts and Van Tatenhove 2004, which states that power is directly tied to organizational capabilities in the social and political system’s structure.

Furthermore, while (Krott et al. 2014) argues that power is centered on actors, the present network structure is an actor power source. Consequently, this paper examines the development of power relationships in both programs.

Changes in actors occurred in the IPHPS program against the background of previous problems and conflicts with SFC.

This can be understood by identifying the interests of each actor, the extent to which they are powerful, and the individual’s power to influence events. According to the findings of other studies (Fisher et al. 2019, Rahayu et al. 2020), the role of stakeholders appears to be growing, particularly in NGO networks. This study is expected to answer the questions on the perception of forest farmers with access to land for this new program.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out to uncover individual and institutional actors’ significant and frequently hidden characteristics (Maryudi and Fisher 2020). We interviewed national actors familiar with the policymaking process using the snowball sampling methods, including special staff at the Presidential Staff Office (kantor staf kepresidenan/

KSP), the Former Director General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (Perhutanan Sosial dan Kerjasama Lingkungan/PSKL), the Perhutani Supervisory Board, Perhu- tani Employees, Social Forestry Acceleration Working Group TABLE 1 Policy Arrangement Analysis Unit

Four dimensions Deskripsi

Policy coalition Coalitions of actors who promote or oppose policy discourse or game rules Rule of the game Part of the policy arrangement contains rules that indicate the interests of actors

Policy discourse Interpretation of policy concepts to narratives based on the perspectives and narratives of actors.

Resources (related to the concept of power Arts and Kroot)

Arts and Van Tatenhove (2004) assert that power is determined by the social and political system’s organizational capacity and structural strength.

Kroot (2014)- actor-centered power where the structural network as a source of actor power

(7)

FIGURE 1 Map of case study locations

(kelompok kerja Percepatan Perhutanan Sosial/ Pokja PPS, and partnered NGO activities. In addition, we participated in significant discussions regarding PS programs, one of which took place at Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and included academics, practitioners, and NGOs. At the level of the study location, actors such as the Forest Farmers Group Manage- ment (KTH), the SF Assistant, and the local Forestry Service were interviewed.

FIGURE 2 The tetrahedron as symbol for the connections between the dimensions of an arrangements (Arts et al. 2006)

The History of Social Forestry Programs: The IPHPS and Kulin-KK Initiatives

The IPHPS and Kulin-KK initiatives were developed from regulations issued by the Ministry of Environment and For- estry (MoEF) which is interesting because policies related to SF have been adequately addressed by a Decree issued by the SFC. This is the question as to why the MoEF currently regulates the SF policy in Java despite the working area in SFC. In this section, the path of SF in the SFC area and how each program failed to be implemented until the introduction of the next was examined. The study by Sahide et al. (2020) offered a comprehensive overview of the history of existing programs in the SFC area.

In the 1920s, the intercropping system, taungya, was introduced long before the existence of SF. This program’s objective was to utilize cheap labour for plantation growth, and it was not designed to alleviate poverty (Wiersum 1982).

In the 1970s, the demand for intercropping plots expanded with the expansion of illegal logging, which increased pressure on forests. The increase in intercropping plots indicated the need for a new forest management strategy. Concerns over the well-being of community forestry continued to mount and became a major government priority.

(8)

land through the SF program (MoEF 2020). After that, this targeted the Java forest managed by the SFC, which had not previously been an object of Social Forestry. IPHPS and Kulin-KK are the antithesis of the social forestry program managed by SFC.

The IPHPS program opened the way for a broader demo- cratic transition while being accompanied by political tensions between SFC and program-supporting community groups (Ota 2019). IPHPS provides more secure tenure rights, a higher degree of sharing with community members, and more decision-making authority (Ragandhi et al. 2021). However, community group members view the IPHPS program as unappealing due to the large initial investment cost, annual taxes, and taxes on harvested timber (Resosudarmo et al.

2019). These various forms of taxation are extremely burden- some for farmers, who depend on trees for their daily require- ments (Ragandhi et al. 2021). In contrast, the Kulin-KK program is considered an extension of the ongoing PHBM program. In their implementation, the two programs are contradictory, and when community group members apply for IPHPS, there is no longer collaboration with SFC, unlike Kulin-KK which will maintain the existing partnership. It has created tension in the field regarding designated areas where Perhutani assets still exist, such as teak forest stands. The sub section then outlines the objectives of the IPHPS and Kulin- KK programs by examining policy coalitions, emerging discourses, and rules of the game.

The role of external actors in policy coalitions

When P.39 of 2017 was first issued regarding IPHPS in the SFC work area, this policy was met with favorable and unfa- vorable criticism. Since the beginning of the social forestry program, community groups have become the main actor of forest management with more equitable profit sharing. Why was the IPHPS program eventually released, what was the program’s agenda, and what policy coalitions did the actors form? The SF policy in the SFC area has been managed by the SFC without interference from the government or the MoEF until now. Nevertheless, the Indonesian government has begun incorporating agrarian reform and social forestry initiatives into the national medium-term plan (Maryudi et al. 2022).

The Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 83 of 2016 includes the SFC area as a subject of SF, but only in the Protected Forest based on information we found from NGO activists partnering with the government. In 2017, Ministry of Forest Regulation No. 39 of 2017 was issued, putting all SFC land, including productive forests, subject to SF. The results of interviews with national-level actors, namely the National PPS Working Group and NGO activists partnering with the government, indicate that there is support from civil society groups for the government to target SFC lands. Interpretation of the discourse that emerged based on information from government actors, including from actors in KSP, NGOs, and open discussions by the Former Directorate General (DG) of Forest Planology and Environmental (Planologi Kehutanan dan Tata Lingkungan//PKTL, are the condition of forest cover, which continues to decline, the regular occurrence of land In 1972 the Prosperity Approach and Forest Village Com-

munity Development (PMDH) program emerged to improve the welfare of members through the development of agroforestry and the exploitation of all available opportunities in the village. The program relied on the Mantri and Lurah (MALU) approach, which is based on cooperation between local administrators (Mantri) and village chiefs (Lurah). Due to the limitations of facilitators and extension workers, the prosperity approach program has become an additional burden for SFC. Therefore, it does not exceed the range of the pilot project and is always executed on a small scale. The MALU strategy was conceived to consolidate authority over forest lands and reduce tensions between SFC and other village chiefs (Peluso 1992).

From 1980 to 1995, with funding from the Ford Foundation, Java’s forests began implementing social forestry programs extensively (Bratamihardja et al. 2005). The social forestry pilot program developed by the Ford Foundation in partnership with several universities in Java has produced positive outcomes. Before 1994, it was possible to deduce, among other things, that combining an innovative agroforestry system and a participatory approach successfully increased the benefits from state forest land to forest villages belonging to community organizations. Reducing timber theft and livestock grazing in areas where this program is implemented is an additional good outcome. This pilot project was formalized in 1989 as part of SFC routine forest management. Although the benefits of the Social Forestry program for community members of village community groups and SFC have been established, the program’s scope is insufficient to achieve significant results beyond a pilot study.

After the New Order administration collapsed in 1999 and reforms were enacted, the government reintroduced community-based programs with a forestry focus. The PHBM is an extension of the SF program, initiated in 2001 by SFC with Decree of the Board of Directors No. 136/KPTs/DIR/2001 and No.001/KPTS/2002 which promotes the participation and engagement of community group members in avoiding illegal logging and forest encroachment within the SFC area.

During the reform era in 1998, illegal logging and forest encroachment were common, damaging hundreds of thousands of hectares of Java’s forest (Sunderlin 2002). However, in implementation, PHBM encountered problems since it did not provide appropriate returns to community group members (Sahide et al. 2020), while reduced timber incentives limited their contribution to forest management and conservation (Djamhuri 2012). In addition to insufficient wood yield sharing, the study on PHBM revealed that no initiatives were taken to develop institutional capacity and partnership relations between members and SFC (Maryudi 2012, Nomura 2008).

Since 2014, the government has been determined to allow community groups access to asset legalization and forest management. Legalizing assets is achieved through agrarian reform (Tanah Objek Reforma Agraria, TORA), with 9 million hectares of land as the goal (Resosudarmo et al. 2019).

(Resosudarmo et al. 2019). The objective is to redistribute and restructure land ownership to benefit small or landless farmers. It legalizes access to 12.7 million hectares of state

(9)

conflicts, and the contribution of forests to members of community groups, which is still very minimal and has little impact on the economic value of members. SFC has the authority to manage all products and protected forest lands in East, Central, and West Java under Government Regulation (GR) No. 72 of 2010. The issuance of Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 39 of 2017 regarding the implementation of PS is a distinctive and different policy. The government issued this policy in response to the encouragement of external actors, specifically members of civil society groups. The forest management model has led to conflict and restricted land access.

The IPHPS policy arrangement is unique in that the coalition is built between the government and members of civil society groups to achieve larger goals and agendas by addressing the challenges of different actors.

Policy discourse and rules of the game in the IPHPS and Kulin-KK programs

This study’s definition of policy discourse is based on an interpretation of the concept and the narrative that gives meaning to the domain. This section focuses on the policy discourses and narratives of proponents and opponents where a narrative and context always accompany each policy. The narrative is observed when the policy has been issued legally and formally. Actors who are against the IPHPS and Kulin- KK programs are at a disadvantage because they cannot issue arguments during the discussion of policy drafts. Therefore, the established terms of the game cannot be renegotiated without legal action by the opposing party. Several people, and the SFC Employee Retirement Association who feel harmed, have filed a lawsuit against The Ministry of Forest Regulation No. 39 of 2017 in the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung). The discourse behind the policy development is not different from what has been discussed previously (Table 1).

First, the land tenure managed by SFC on an area of 2.4 million hectares is not optimally managed, particularly in providing food-producing land to small forest farmers. Second, the condition of forest stands in terms of land cover is decreasing by less than 10%. Third, the PHBM program, which was supposed to give access to forest-dwelling community groups, benefitted only a handful of elite actors in the sector (Maryudi 2012). It was not intended to implement the Community- Based Forest (CBF) idea, which prioritizes the role of community group members (Gilmour 2016), but manages conflicts with the members (Arupa 2014).

The counter narrative made by SFC argued that the published rules violate GR No. 6 of 2007 regulation in conjunction with GR No. 3 of 2008 regarding Forest Management and Preparation of Forest Management Plans, Forest Management Plans and Utilization Plans, and GR No.72 of 2010 concerning SFC. Furthermore, SFC stated that they were responsible for managing Java’s forest. According to the MoEF in GR No.

6 of 2007 and GR No. 3 of 2008, SFC execution of forest management does not include public authority. The public authority involves the issuance of permits for the use of forest areas by third parties. The same argument stated that IPHPS contradicts GR No. 72 of 2010.

Another discourse from interviews with actors who are also former SFC Supervisory Boards is that the SF program can potentially cause new horizontal conflicts in the field.

According to the MoEF, based on the government’s written response, the roles of LMDH and PHBM would then continue to stay the same despite the reorganization of cultivators and the adjustment of the Kulin-KK program to Ministerial Regulation No. 83 of 2016 on SF. In particular, community group members who apply for IPHPS should fit the criteria, including forest stands of less than or equal to 10% continu- ously for at least five years. IPHPS may be granted in open areas with a forest cover of 10% or more when social situa- tions require special handling. The following narrative in the context of legal standing describes a policy area in which a set of rules can regulate and restrict the conduct of institutional actors (Arts and Tatenhove 2004). The game’s rules are established as part of a policy arrangement that can reveal the interests of each participant. In the following section, the implementation of each program was captured focusing on the alteration of power relationships between actors.

RESULTS

Moving forward from the PHBM program: the Strengthening and Protecting Forestry Partnerships Program/ Kulin-KK at KTH Maju Jaya

In this section, the implementation of two distinct programs was examined in two different locations.The Kulin-KK program is located in North Banyuwangi, East Java, at KTH Maju Jaya. As described previously, it is a continuation of the PHBM program, which has evolved according to the current SF concepts and rules. The Kulin-KK policy was SFC’s effort to maintain existence during the IPHPS program. It is offered to areas with 10% or even more coverage and has no social or tenure conflicts. A 10% or higher proportion implies that SFC is not a failed project. Those with a positive relationship with SFC in the field will continue to use Kulin-KK with adjustments as SFC plays a significant role in the Kulin-KK program.

KTH Maju Jaya’s relationship with SFC has typically been characterized by the absence of social conflicts and a positive perception of the program. SFC and KTH had executed the Cooperation Agreement (NKK), which involves profit sharing for both parties. NKK is essential to KTH’s position since they were not equal partners during the PHBM era.

The profit-sharing proportion is only based on the price of the collected wood, therefore, the share of community group members is significantly lower (Sahide et al. 2020), which in turn affects their desire to contribute to natural forests (Djamhuri 2012).

Sahide et al. (2020) showed that Ngawi Regency in 2006 demonstrated the proportion of timber production allocated to the PHBM program. Profit sharing is broken down into activities, such as harvesting after the cycle, thinning outcomes based on age, and intercropping results. The percentage for SFC is significantly higher, at 75% for end-of-cycle logging

(10)

equitable area of cultivated land and optimal use of land to improve their economy.

Table 3 evaluates community members’ perceptions of the Kulin-KK program. The findings of social-aspect interviews revealed that most respondents thought this program enabled community group members to make their own decisions, particularly in selecting plant species. Several respondents who disagreed claimed that PHBM and Kulin-KK were compara- ble government programs. Community groups are permitted to grow as long as they do not conflict with the SFC’s main crops. In response to the second question, most respondents have a favorable perception because it offers opportunities to resolve social and tenure conflicts, enhances land tenure security, and assists in running the program, especially by forestry service and community group members (TPM).

Based on economic perceptions, on average, respondents agree and believe that this program provides access to business development, market access for their products, and fairer profit sharing than before. The government’s new strategy is the requirement to form a Social Forestry Business Group (KUPS) by defining the items to be produced. KTH Maju Jaya has six KUPS which range from wood to non-timber and thinning over 9 years of age (Madya Septiana et al. 2020,

Yokota et al. 2014). Members of community groups are entitled to 100% intercropping and 25% harvesting yields, in addition to thinning, between the ages of three and eight years.

We found no profit-sharing documents in the previous PHBM implementation at KTH Maju Jaya. The emergence of the Kulin-KK program rearranged the profit sharing outlined in the NKK document between KTH Maju Jaya and SFC, rearranging NKK with a more equitable profit sharing compared to still implementing PHBM (Table 2). Provisions for profit sharing take into account the existence of assets owned by SFC and assets owned by KTH. For crop yields which are SFC’s assets, KTH gets a percentage of 25%. This value is the same as that obtained by KTH when it was still implementing PHBM.

As indicated in Table 3, KTH receives a portion of profit sharing, particularly for crops under stands and Multi- Purpose Tree Species (MPTS). Community group members have not witnessed the technical implementation of this profit sharing. This should be considered in subsequent implementation studies. However, community group members considered the agreement text to be more organized, with a more

TABLE 2 Policy Discourse in the emergence of the IPHPS and Kulin-KK Programs

No Discourse by the government Rules used in policy discourse

1 Efforts to equalize the land tenure of poor farmers, which have an average of only 0.24 ha per household, thereby facilitating access to forest land.

• Law No. 41 of 1999 on forestry

• GR No. 6 of 2007 concerning Forest Management and Preparation of Forest

Management Plans and Forest Utilization Peraturan

• GR No. 72 of 2010 concerning SFC

• Minister of Forestry Regulation No. 83 of 2016 concerning SF

• Minister of Forestry Regulation No. 39 of 2017 concerning SF in SFC Areas 2 The condition of forest stands and cover is below 10%, hence, rehabilitation efforts are

needed.

3 The condition of forest stands and cover is less than 10%, requiring rehabilitation efforts.

4 In practice, the PHBM program for the welfare of community group members failed.

5 Grassroots economic initiative to promote food security for rural populations around a forest.

Discourse by the SFC Employee Retirement Association

1 Initiate horizontal disputes with SFC partners, specifically LMDH

2 IPHPS permit holders do not yet have special competence in forest management 3 Potential to increase the practice of reselling agricultural land

4 Overlapping of forest management obligations between SFC and IPHPS permit holders 5 The Minister of Forest Regulation P.39 of 2017 contradicts GR No. 6 of 2007 and GR.

No. 72 of 2010.

6. The implementation of SF is more damaging to forests than improves forest cover

TABLE 3 Provisions for Profit Sharing in the the Strengthening and Protecting Forestry Partnerships (Kulin-KK)

No Profit Sharing Terms SFC KTH Maju Jaya

1 Forest crops that SFC has invested 75% 25%

2 Forestry plants, from planning – harvesting activities, are funded by KTH. 30% 70%

3 Forest utilization business other than forestry plants funded by KTH:

a. Agricultural crop business in the former clear-cut location b. Crop business with the intercropping fund by KTH

c. Planting business with Land Use Under Stands (PLDT) and MPTS

a. 20%

b. 10%

c. 30%

a. 80%

b. 90%

c. 70%

(11)

products, including honey. Porang and corn annuals are promising prospects, but it appears exceedingly difficult to gain access to the market. This is because these commodities are still marketed through middlemen in the community.

Expanded land access and product development incentives have a significant impact on the perceptions of community group members. This is consistent with studies where PS’s economic performance has been strong (Rakatama and Pandit 2020). Nonetheless, in certain regions, a minority still offer thorough training (Erbaugh 2019, Galudra 2019). The business skills of local community group members become a crucial element of the local economy (Nawir 2013). Community group members concur that this program can strengthen the function of forest protection since it allows farmers to increase plant diversity without intervention. Crops and MPTS crops, such as avocado, durian, jackfruit, jengkol, petai, and candlenut, are produced in a polyculture system.

The Social Forestry Utilization Permit Program / IPHPS at KTH Wana Makmur Lestari

In contrast to the implementation of the Kulin-KK program in the preceding section, the implementation of the IPHPS at KTH Wana Makmur Lestari is based on a lack of cohesion in the historical relationship between community groups and

SFC. The IPHPS program allows community organizations to escape SFC’s management and administration. Members of the group reached this decision due to their dissatisfaction with SFC in the past for different reasons. Furthermore, PHBM does not improve the economic condition of community group members because the wages are low or even unrea- sonable. Employees stipulate that members of community groups who want to cultivate crops should plant SFC wood.

This requirement is applicable for two years due to the potential impact on the longevity of SFC timber plants. The harvesting fee is also quite low compared to the amount of timber harvested. A 25% share in the production of timber is not feasible. Compared to sharing timber products, this figure represents security sharing for community group members.

Due to difficulty differentiating between individual pieces, a community’s revenue will suffer when its members share wood. Groups initially responded with various words, but the SFC was authorized to define and interpret them (Sahide et al.

2020). The experience above shows that the partnerships established are not profitable for the community. They think that what has been done so far is only voluntary work.

The IPHPS program set the way for resolving the afore- mentioned problems. As management subjects, forest groups have considerable land and administrative authority. However, to qualify for the IPHPS program, the land should be in a TABLE 4 Community Perceptions and Implementation Issues in Study Sites

Scheme, District, Permit date

Forest

Category Business Group Perception: Aspects of Sosial (S);

Economy (E); Ecology (EK) Main Challenge IPHPS, Malang

Regency, KTH Wana Makmur Lestari, 2018

Production Forest and Protection Forest

Ecotourism and 22 other business groups (KUPS)

S: Good because it provides an opportunity for decision-making, conflict resolution, and external assistance.

E: Good, particularly in terms of legal access to land, economic benefits of timber and agriculture

EK: Allow the cultivation of crops using wood with no intervention in selecting plant species

Since receiving the decree in 2018, the KTH has not evaluated the boundary marking of work areas, which impacts land management, agricultural yields, continually changing program regulations and the public’s common understanding of their obligations.

Kulin-KK, Banyuwangi Regency, KTH Maju Jaya, 2019

Production Forest and Protection Forest

6 KUPS consists of; KUPS Agroforestry, KUPS Porang, and KUPS Madu. KUPS Fruits, KUPS Wood, KUPS Farm

S: Good because it has access to legality and land management, decision-making on arable land includes the sort of crop to be planted under the supervision of the SFC and the Forestry Service.

E: Better profit sharing percentage, infrastructure assistance availability, and business development access, including NTFPs.

EK: Combination of annual plants with woody plants, MPTS types are allowed.

Monitoring from SFC, Community Facilitators and Forestry Service

People’s mindsets have not ventured to shift from maize to other seasonal crops because the principle has been handed down through generations. Therefore, harvest yields have not been at their highest. Even though training and coaching programs are included in community empowerment support to strengthen their capacity for independence, the community orientation still wants all external aid.

Social Aspect (S) consists of decision-making, conflict resolution, and assistance. Economic Aspect (E) comprises raising revenue, business development, forest product market access, and business training. Meanwhile, Ecology (EK) consists of the diversity of forest products, the capacity to plant a range of perennials and crops (polyculture), and the absence of human intervention in selecting plant species.

(12)

critical condition, requiring 5 years of rehabilitation with a cover of less than 10%. Local organizations remain obligated to aid in the recovery process (Maryudi et al. 2012). In addition, IPHPS requires the inclusion of additional considerations, such as social conditions.

Since 2018, KTH Wana Makmur Lestari has held a land management permit covering approximately 114 hectares.

The government has not surveyed the work area’s boundaries, which affects community members who fear approaching their domain. In addition, the proposed area does not match the map verification results using the so-called Indicative Map of Social Forestry Areas (PIAPS). Some of the land that has been worked on is actually not included; for example, the coastal tourism area, which has been managed by the community so far, is not included in the IPHPS area. There are many inaccuracies and absences of field verification in PIAPS spatial data (Fisher et al. 2018, Resosudarmo et al. 2019, Tropenbos 2019). This becomes a problem at the beginning of the application process for a work area. Community groups should shoulder the land tax burden previously paid by the SFC.

However, field results indicate that the KTH has not yet paid the land tax because the boundary delineation is incomplete.

According to the interviews with community group members, they had a favorable opinion of the IPHPS program. The program can provide a wider range of benefits, beginning with the social side, which shows that it can perform a bigger role, settle social concerns, and give members a sense of ownership over the forest. Economically, the perspective of community group members is that this program increases income through KUPS’s access to business development.

Even though this burdens reforestation efforts, community involvement in land management and developing agroforestry cropping patterns are believed to protect the land.

DISCUSSION

This study examines the policy arrangement for IPHPS and Kulin-KK programs. Policy arrangements are investigated from the dimensions of policy coalitions, rules of the game, policy discourse, and resources. In this instance, the policy coalition shows how actors, such as the MoEF and civil society organizations, may support transformation of forest governance in Java. Policy discourse emphasizing SFC’s responsibility for forest management gives substance to the policy domain. Furthermore, a set of rules is formed by craft- ing a narrative against the arguments of opposing actors. The narrative battle is enhanced by the interpretation of each actor, as shown in Table 2.

It is difficult to separate the concept of policy arrangement established by Arts and Tatenhove (2004) from the power relations. The concept of power is not limited to those who work in institutions or organizations but includes those who influence a policy’s mechanism (Krott et al. 2014). It is utilized to analyze changes in SF actors and power relationships. The changes to the IPHPS and Kulin-KK programs’ policies were prompted by historical evidence of the exercise of power in forest governance. The SF program has come a long way by

seeking new forms but has been confined by its limited reach until the PHBM program was established. This program is longer and more comprehensive than most others. However, CBFM did not survive due to unchanged principles and concepts, specifically in the development of forest governance.

PHBM does not show forest governance that requires community participation (Larson et al. 2021). Besides that, social forest governance in the future requires giving more authority to the community through devolution of authority (Agrawal and Ribot 1999, Ribot 2002)

Changes in the policy coalition and the rules of the game imply a shift in the power relationships amongst actors in the study area. From the concept of power introduced by Arts and Tatenhove (2004) and Krott et al. (2014), which is used in the research, the power of actors is analyzed. Our findings on social forestry policies in the research locations indicate that the power of actors cannot be separated from the capacity of organizations outside the government (external actors) who, according to the definition of power, have the same interests as government actors in determining policy arrangements (Arts and Tatenhove 2004). The Social Forestry Community Movement Organization (Gema PS) is a non-governmental actor with the capacity to mobilize resources. It has a vast network spanning numerous Javan districts. Gema PS is an actor whose power network is structured, as described by (Arts and Tatenhove 2004). Gema PS has a vast network of approximately 104 community groups with social forestry decrees and Social Forestry group assistants. At the study area, Social Forestry group assistants in the IPHPS program become powerful, influential local actors who are affiliated with Gema PS. Although structurally associated with the GEMA PS, the strength of the supporting actor for the PS group derives from the actor’s individual capacity. The relevant actor’s capacity is that the accompanying actor is affiliated with one of the political parties. We assume that another source of power that local actor is influential, particularly in the political arena. This is what transforms the social forestry assistants into influential actors. Moreover, social forestry assistants have ties to the GEMA PS organizational network as a source of influence. Through their knowledge resources, these actors can supply community groups with information regarding the implementation of IPHPS in their localities.

Local groups consult social forestry assistants more frequently than SFC and the government, particularly when adopting the IPHPS program. A significant contribution of this research to the concept of power in the implementation of PS is that changes in actors and power cannot be separated from organizational capacity and the capacity of actors who obtain power sources from organizations with a power structure. Based on this research, the concept of power is able to describe what occurs in power relations at the study areas.

Table 4 summarizes the order of influential actors and their primary interests. The objectives of these actors are to promote social forestry in Java, particularly in the SFC area, and to facilitate forest farmers’ access to forest land. Other actors, such as the Forestry Service, only assist the community by reminding community groups of their commitments and assisting so that the community may implement the program

Transformation of forest governance: policy concepts and actor changes in social forestry program implementation in Indonesia

The International Forestry Review

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

Contents

Transformation of forest governance: policy concepts and actor changes in social forestry program implementation in Indonesia

Transformation de la gestion forestière: concepts de politique et changements des acteurs dans la mise en œuvre du programme de foresterie sociale en Indonésie

Transformación de la gobernanza forestal: conceptos políticos y cambios de los agentes en la aplicación del programa de silvicultura social en Indonesia