Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality and Livelihoods in Indonesia • 95
areas, resettlements projects, large-scale plantations and mines, in a
negation of local people’s systems and rights (Colchester et al. 2003). At
the local levels, overlapping claims create a chaotic environment for forest
management decision making, essentially resulting in forests’ being treated
as open access. Decentralisation has made the policy context even more
complex (Box 4-1).
Box 4-1. Decentralisation: complicating forestry policy
Processes of decentralisation—beginning in late 1998 with the process of
reform following the Asian financial crisis—have exacerbated the complex
policy context. Competing claims on forest resources have now prompted
official rulemaking over resources and, hence, power plays. A tug-of-war about
where to position the locus of authority over forests has continued between
national and local governments and between neighbouring jurisdictions, such
as villages or regencies (Dermawan and Resosudarmo 2002; Syam et al. 2003;
Wollenberg et al. 2006; Komarudin and Moeliono 2007). Often, decentralisation
merely creates opportunities for the local elite to assert disproportionate
claims for strengthening their power base (Wollenberg et al. 2006).
For our present discussion we underscore two major factors. The first is the
multiple claims on forests by different actors with incompatible interests. It
is not rare, for example, that local people’s multiple-use linked to rotational
agriculture competes with large-scale commercial management for logging
or with government conservation projects on the same forest. Historically,
most conflicts have been settled by force, with the more powerful
stakeholders often supported by the government (Peluso 1992; Colfer and
Resosudarmo 2002). Even where negotiation has been tried, particularly
fostered by decentralisation, imbalances in power status usually make the
outcome preordained (Li 1999 cited in Edmunds and Wollenberg 2001; Fay
and Sirait 2002; Colchester et al. 2003). In addition, because of inadequate
state structures and regulations, competing claims and associated conflicts
are rarely managed successfully.
The second factor relates to the nature of the management systems. Most
management systems, whether practiced by the government or by local
people, lack the necessary structures and processes to deal effectively
with new challenges and demands, such as those brought about by liberal
market forces or public calls for a more balanced resource distribution.
Government management systems, favouring science-based, top-down