ABSTRACT

Although social forestry in Indonesia is envisioned as a policy for recognizing local practices to forest management, research is still limited. This research describes conditions of social forestry policy in West Sumatra Province as a form of mainstreaming community-based forest management. This paper provides the context of social forestry arguments, its support, and subsequent implementation. The research approach is qualitative, using a case study method. Data collection was conducted through unstructured interviews, field observations, and document studies. The analysis used categorization and coding, historical analysis, document analysis, and descriptive policy analysis. The findings revealed that the arguments for social forestry schemes were based on the persistence of state forest conflicts, forest degradation and deforestation threats, as well as human resource limitations of forestry officers. The Provincial government then initiated stakeholder support, mainly from non-governmental organizations. Social forestry implementation at the site in West Sumatra thus focused on providing development assistance programs after granting management rights to local people, as well as initiating similar schemes in other villages. Our discussions considered challenges that should be addressed, including the approach to granting management rights to secure a management area, the process of developing participatory institutions, synchronizing provincial government policies to overcome forest degradation and deforestation, and initiating activities for strengthening community solidarity and agency.

Local communities are frequently judged as the main driver of forest degradation and deforestation because of the weak recognition to local ecological knowledge (LEK) or traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). We assessed that it is important to elaborate the attributes of LEK and TEK as a way to describe why and how the local community clears the forest, as well as its relation to local practices, named parak and rimbo. Our research uses case study method to describe the local practices in Simancuang community, Alam Pauh Duo Village, South Solok District, West Sumatra Province. We conducted unstructured interviews, observations, and documents selection which were analyzed through categorization and codification as well as complemented with history analysis, spatial analysis, and related document analysis. The results showed that Simancuang community knowledge can describe the attributes of LEK and TEK as a unified whole of local knowledge for sustaining their livelihoods. Therefore, the forest clearing by Simancuang people is one of the livelihoods strategies, but they were not the main driver of forest degradation and deforestation in South Solok District.

No abstract

The topic of has been gaining many concerns from social researchers throughout the world, especially social capital in perspective the organizational activities of collective action . This study aimed to describe the local forest management practices parak and rimbo . The research method is () as a social capital in collective action perspective a case study of Koto Malintang and Simancuang people in West Sumat ra. Collecting data was conducted by e unstructured interviews, field observations, and document studies. Data analysis uses categorization and coding, document analysis, and historical analysis. Our findings were described in the context of decision making, resources management and mobilization, communication, and conflict resolution. Collective action for decision making involved the acquisition, allocation, and distribution mechanisms to divide land and forest product among local people. In the context of resources management and mobilization, they applied kinship relations among families, sub-clans, and clans to manage their resources. They then communicated their needs in any formal and informal meetings. When a conflict occurred in related to forest utilization, they applied an adat court to make a win-win solution. Nevertheless, the challenges of collective action are still about the resources availability, benefit equity, and external supports.