not caused by a lack of knowledge of sustainable forest management, but by a lack of power or influence in local institutions, and a capacity to change it.
Empowering local institutions, including democratization of them, is a way to help local communities manage forests in an appropriate way.
5.2. Collaborative Forest Management
Collaborative Forest Management CFM is essentially a new management paradigm that seeks to draw on the experience and knowledge of
both professional foresters and local people in a partnership arrangement that may also involve other stakeholders Carter n.d.. Other terms related to CFM
are joint forest management JFM, shared forest management, co-management and participatory forest management. Co-management connotes a collaborative
institutional arrangement among diverse stakeholders for managing or using a natural resource Castro and Nielsen 2001. ‘Model forestry’ normally means
collaborative forest management Sukwong, 2000. ODA 1996 stated that shared forests management is not just about local communities. It is also about a
coalition of interested parties. Levels of participation in natural resource management vary considerably. Matching the degree of participation to local
circumstances is an essential strategy. ‘Full’ participation at community level may not always be appropriate – or even wanted.
Ghate 2000 stated that JFM in Buldhana, India, spread fast to many villages because of it demonstrated successful cooperation between the forest
department and local communities. Five factors important to the wide acceptance of JFM are: the taking up of activities to generate income in the short
term; the freedom given to locals to make decisions according to their priorities; coordination between various development agencies working in the area; and the
introduction of an element of flexibility and continuous learning. Castro and
Nielsen 2001 mentioned that the major justification for co-management is the belief that increased stakeholder participation will enhance the efficiency and
perhaps the equity of the intertwined common property resource management and social systems. A publication by the Food and Agriculture Organization
asserts: “The promotion of collaborative management is based on the assumption that effective management is more likely to occur when local
resource users have shared or exclusive rights to make decisions about and benefit from resource use” Ingles et al. 1999.
As far as decentralization enables local communities to have a greater voice in how resources are managed, delegating decision-making power to
district government could enable forest-dependent people to gain greater control over and enjoy more benefits from local resources. However, if regional
autonomy occurs without the emergence of democratic controls at the district level, it is possible that local elites will extend their control over local forest
resources. In other words, regional autonomy could improve the situation of local communities andor lead to greater control of resources by regional elites
McCarthy 2001 To make CFM work, it needs a transfer of rights from the central
government to local stakeholders. This what we call the decentralization or devolution process. Local stakeholders can do nothing if the rights, not
necessarily the ownership, still lies with the central government. Many argue that the transfer of forest resources to community ownership is a necessary
condition for success. However, this remains unproved. Sharing forest management is not necessarily about transferring ownership ODA 1996.
Sukwong 2000 said that model forestry has been discussed as one way to bring multiple stakeholders together, but if there are not supportive policies, scaling up
experiences will prove difficult and frustrating.
Indonesian production forests have been legally allotted to timber-logging companies. These companies have invested in the areas. This situation creates
a constraint against policymakers making new arrangements for forest management. Policymakers need to consider existing arrangements in order to
make a smooth change. Collaboration between forest logging companies and local communities is a possible recommendation. However, the arrangement of
this collaboration, including rights, responsibilities, returns and relations, should be as fair as possible. An inappropriate arrangement of collaboration can make
one stakeholder better off, but the others worse off. This scenario cannot be implemented in the field effortlessly. An appropriate collaboration scenario is
challenging. Basic similarities in stakeholders’ perception of criteria and indicators
provides a foundation for collaborative forest management with better outcomes expected. Specifying the details of collaboration might differ from site to site.
Each forest management unit FMU might have a different collaboration scheme or arrangement. Effective communication between stakeholders is an initial step
towards collaboration. Stakeholders must compare the benefits and costs of collaboration, in every possible collaborative arrangement. Collaboration does
not necessarily provide better outcomes in terms of forest sustainability, as shown in the research results. If the outcomes are greater then collaboration is
feasible. The benefits and costs might include tangible and intangible benefits. Stakeholders must be aware of the existence of different collaboration costs,
such as the costs of specifying the rights and obligations of each stakeholder; the costs of enforcing these rights, and the costs of monitoring collaboration. Ingles
at al. 1999 stated that collaborative management of natural resources refers to: the arrangement for management negotiated by multiple stakeholders and based
on a set of rights and privileges tenure recognized by the government and
widely accepted by resource users; the process of sharing power among stakeholders in making decisions and exercising control over resource use.
Since simulation is a robust way to determine the impact of a positive arrangement scenario Painch and Hinton 1998 then we propose to use it in the
implementation of collaborative forest management. Figure 5.2 shows the influences of any selected decentralization policy.
Selected decentralization
policy Related CFM
Right arrangement
scenario or hypothesis
Simulation
Revenue, costs, for
est sustain ability?
multi-stak eholder
reflection
Collective action Multi-stake
holder planning
Outcomes
yes no
Policy feedba
ck
CFM feedback
Figure 5.2. Influences of a selected decentralization policy
There are many possible ways to implement decentralization, relating to the level of its implementation, what rights are to be decentralized etc. Whatever
the selected scheme, it will affect the CFM arrangement. A multi-stakeholder process for seeking appropriate rights arrangements is needed. A simulation can
be used to determine the possible impact of its different scenarios. Plans and collective actions follow a selected scenario. The action outcomes provide
feedback to the decentralization option, as well as the CFM. To ensure forestry decentralization policy leads to better results, it should
be linked with CFM and its implementation. A simulation can facilitate the way CFM is implemented in the field by showing multi-stakeholders’ understandings
and commitments. A link between decentralization policies and CFM outcomes is necessary. The policymakers can use the outcomes to seek an appropriate
decentralization policy.
5.3. Adaptive Decentralization policy
