Commoning the State Forest: Crafting Commons through an Indonesian Social Forestry Program

Abstract

Studies of the commons grew out of responses to Hardin's bleak prediction of “tragedy of the commons,” that without state intervention or privatization, any commons will eventually be destroyed by allegedly self-interested users. As such, the commons studies traditionally tend to demonstrate cases where common pool resources (CPR) can be sustainably managed by groups of people beyond the state and market interventions. This paper shows a case from Sulawesi, Indonesia, where a state social forestry program can create a space for the program beneficiaries to build a commons. Through fieldwork that involves participant observation and in-depth interviews with program extension workers and beneficiaries in two social forestry farmer groups, this study found that the program can stimulate beneficiary groups to build collective action in managing the state forest plots admitted to them and that the two groups are the only successful ones among 14 neighboring groups that are involved in the same program. The study also shows that the management of the state-sponsored commons requires extension workers with deep knowledge about local people and landscape, economic incentives, and the flexibility of the local state agency in bending the rules based on bottom-up demands. Therefore, the case study shows that, on the one hand, the state program can actually stimulate the creation of the commons. On the other hand, commoning seems to be the only way to ensure a successful social forestry program.

Placing the Commoning First: Getting Beyond the Patronage Trap in Natural Resource Decentralization Policies

“…On the other hand, studies of the commons from an institutionalist perspective seem more optimistic about the role of the state. They contend that commoning may be able to work within rules set by the state, provided that the state has a degree of democratic decision-making at all levels, described as polycentrism (e.q., Herrawan et al, 2022;Meinzen-Dick et al, 2021;Ostrom, 2010). Meanwhile, studies from a more critical perspective, such as by critical institutionalists (Cleaver & de Koning, 2015;Jones, 2015) and political ecology (Apostolopoulou et al, 2022;Shaw, 2014) contend that commoning may push for and take advantage of different political spaces created by the state through diverse programs, cleavages or 'cracks' in formal rules of law (Ryan, 2013).…”

“…As a result, devolution policies designed to push back against inequality of resource control do not always achieve their goals. Often, local government institutions may lack resources to implement policies in complex socio-ecological contexts (Riggs et al, 2018), policies may be unsuitable to local ecological conditions (Herrawan et al, 2022), and local actors and informal institutions may contest or manipulate a project for their own interests (Annavarapu & Levenson, 2021;Hall et al, 2014;Moeliono et al, 2017;Saunders, 2014).…”

“…Commoning interactions with the state may be antagonistic, collaborative, an tactical alliance, etc., but also dynamics based on changing power relations (Apostolopoulou et al, 2022;Caffentzis, 2012;Fournier, 2013;Mosse, 2006;Ryan, 2013) Public resources are to be handed down to formalized "community" groups Commoning may create its own commons, stimulate and stimulated by state policy/programs, or take advantage of policies/programs (DeVore, 2017; Herrawan et al, 2022) (Apostolopoulou et al, 2022;Caffentzis, 2012;Fournier, 2013;Mosse, 2006;Ryan, 2013)…”

Injustice against Women in a Social Forestry Program: Case Studies from Two Indonesian Villages

“…In this phase, social forestry is aimed at improving forest areas that have been deforested through the involvement of local communities. Social forestry then developed from the issue of forest resource scarcity and deforestation, to become a socio-economic issue as well as an institutional issue for local communities (Dove, 1995;Fisher et al, 2019;Ragandhi et al, 2021;Batiran et al, 2021;Herrawan et al, 2022). The implementation of social forestry in this phase is aimed at increasing access to forest resources which has implications for improving the welfare of local communities.…”

Penilaian Kinerja Pengelolaan DAS Poleang di Sulawesi Tenggara Berdasarkan Indikator Kondisi Lahan

“…Selain itu, pertumbuhan penduduk yang tidak terkendali, hilangnya hutan, peningkatan erosi tanah, ketimpangan dari pola distribusi hujan, dan sering terjadinya banjir merupakan beberapa penyebab terjadinya kerusakan dan penurunan kualitas DAS di Indonesia (Jefrizon, 2021;Karamma, 2018;Riswal dan Sukri, 2020;Pambudi, 2019). Dampak lanjutan dari kerusakan DAS ini adalah nilai ekonomi lahan berkurang, pendapatan dan ekonomi masyarakat menurun (Arfan et al, 2021;Herrawan et al, 2022;Hidayat et al, 2020) sehingga daya dukung DAS terhadap lingkungan menurun bahkan sampai pada level kritis.…”