Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

Noordwijk, et al., (2003 in WB 2006) identified the main constraints as (i) definition of forests,
functions and land uses; (ii) lack of good-quality planting stocks; (iii) lack of smallholder management,
processing and marketing skills; (iv) over-regulation that limits market access or increases costs; and
(v) lack of reward mechanisms for generated environmental services. Large-scale plantations are often
prioritized, with government policy support and subsidies, over agroforestry systems.
Community forestry schemes. Some community forestry programs included poverty reduction
as part of their objectives, but with limited success. Effendi (2000 in Subarudi 2003) noted that the
implementation of the Prosperity Approach Program in Java led to benefits for the forestry institution but
not for the farmers, as farmers’ participation was limited. The Joint Forest Management with Communities
(Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat or PHBM), which was implemented by Perum Perhutani in
Java, was “highly conflictual” (CESS-ODI 2005) and failed to improve community involvement in forest
management (Subarudi 2003). Likewise, CESS-ODI (2005) noted that the Support to Forest Villages
Development Programme (Pembinaan Masyarakat Desa Hutan or PMDH), which was implemented
by logging concessions as a condition of licensing, also had very limited impact. The key objective
of the CBFM policies (such as the taungya or tumpang sari implemented in Java and Nusa Tenggara,
PMDH and government community forestry or hutan kemasyarakatan) has been to set up joint forest
management and charity programs, which were not related to providing security of tenure over forestland
that can contribute significantly to long-term improvement in the people’s livelihoods (Fey 2007).
Nonetheless, there have been community development programs for poverty reduction that were
successfully implemented in other parts of Indonesia (Subarudi 2003). According to Kusumanto, et.
al., (2005 in WB 2006), there are approaches that registered successes in improving both the forests and
people’s livelihoods, but the state and companies—not the communities—continue to wield effective
control over forest resources. The MoF notes that the “role of private or state-owned enterprises as
partners and the role of the government as a facilitator are not optimal”. (MoF 2009)
Forestry policies over the past decade have evolved state-sponsored CBFM schemes that allow
communities’ access to production and protection forests. However, these policies have not been
addressing poverty (Adrianto et. al. 2006). As noted above, these schemes mainly focus on benefitsharing
agreements with the government, with the latter generally setting the terms and determined
to get the highest possible share in the benefits (Contreras-Hermosilla and Fay 2005). Previous
experiences with parastatal corporations (Inhutani) and government offices were not beneficial for the
participating communities (Ibid.). The CFM schemes are different from one that grants legal ownership
to communities, which seeks to empower communities to be able to make the relevant decisions. The
changes in the regulatory frameworks over time have led to local people’s access to forest lands but also
to uncertainties and conflicts between the communities and state-owned or private companies, which
have been hindering the building of trust in and expansion of the application of these approaches.
Support from civil society organizations have been critical in providing various forms of assistance
for local communities, including livelihood programs (Fey 2007) through establishing credit facilities
that allow local people to have access to soft loans; developing rattan programs for rattan farmers and
handicraft-makers; developing food processing enterprises (some integrated with conservation and
food security); and producing NWFPs.
In 2003–2007, the MoF implemented the National Campaign for Forest and Land Rehabilitation
(Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan or GERHAN) project with the target of rehabilitating
three million ha of degraded forestlands inside (60%) and outside (40%) state forest areas within
five years. Its approach was to involve the communities in forest and land rehabilitation, such as in
planting and maintenance, and cash or seedlings were given to farmers as direct incentives to plant
trees on their farms (Nawir et. al. 2007). However, GERHAN failed to meet its goal of forest and land
rehabilitation, and the success of the project is difficult to ascertain. Sustainability of activities may
last while there is funding as there is no incentive to encourage a sense of ownership of the trees being
planted. Implementation in some areas lacked adequate community participation in the process and
results were not satisfactory (Ibid.).
151