Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Chapter 4: Improv<strong>in</strong>g Forest Quality and Livelihoods <strong>in</strong> Indonesia • 95<br />
areas, resettlements projects, large-scale plantations and m<strong>in</strong>es, <strong>in</strong> a<br />
negation <strong>of</strong> local people’s systems and rights (Colchester et al. 2003). At<br />
the local levels, overlapp<strong>in</strong>g claims create a chaotic environment for forest<br />
<strong>management</strong> decision mak<strong>in</strong>g, essentially result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>forests</strong>’ be<strong>in</strong>g treated<br />
as open access. Decentralisation has made the policy context even more<br />
complex (Box 4-1).<br />
Box 4-1. Decentralisation: complicat<strong>in</strong>g forestry policy<br />
Processes <strong>of</strong> decentralisation—beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> late 1998 with the process <strong>of</strong><br />
reform follow<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>Asia</strong>n f<strong>in</strong>ancial crisis—have exacerbated the complex<br />
policy context. Compet<strong>in</strong>g claims on forest resources have now prompted<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial rulemak<strong>in</strong>g over resources and, hence, power plays. A tug-<strong>of</strong>-war about<br />
where to position the locus <strong>of</strong> authority over <strong>forests</strong> has cont<strong>in</strong>ued between<br />
national and local governments and between neighbour<strong>in</strong>g jurisdictions, such<br />
as villages or regencies (Dermawan and Resosudarmo 2002; Syam et al. 2003;<br />
Wollenberg et al. 2006; Komarud<strong>in</strong> and Moeliono 2007). Often, decentralisation<br />
merely creates opportunities for the local elite to assert disproportionate<br />
claims for strengthen<strong>in</strong>g their power base (Wollenberg et al. 2006).<br />
For our present discussion we underscore two major factors. The first is the<br />
multiple claims on <strong>forests</strong> by different actors with <strong>in</strong>compatible <strong>in</strong>terests. It<br />
is not rare, for example, that local people’s multiple-use l<strong>in</strong>ked to rotational<br />
agriculture competes with large-scale commercial <strong>management</strong> for logg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
or with government conservation projects on the same forest. Historically,<br />
most conflicts have been settled by force, with the more powerful<br />
stakeholders <strong>of</strong>ten supported by the government (Peluso 1992; Colfer and<br />
Resosudarmo 2002). Even where negotiation has been tried, particularly<br />
fostered by decentralisation, imbalances <strong>in</strong> power status usually make the<br />
outcome preorda<strong>in</strong>ed (Li 1999 cited <strong>in</strong> Edmunds and Wollenberg 2001; Fay<br />
and Sirait 2002; Colchester et al. 2003). In addition, because <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>adequate<br />
state structures and regulations, compet<strong>in</strong>g claims and associated conflicts<br />
are rarely managed successfully.<br />
The second factor relates to the nature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>management</strong> systems. Most<br />
<strong>management</strong> systems, whether practiced by the government or by local<br />
people, lack the necessary structures and processes to deal effectively<br />
with new challenges and demands, such as those brought about by liberal<br />
market forces or public calls for a more balanced resource distribution.<br />
Government <strong>management</strong> systems, favour<strong>in</strong>g science-based, top-down