Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2022): APRIL

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

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

https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i1.10680
Haudec Herrawan
Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
Nurhady Sirimorok
Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4041-6396
Munajat Nursaputra
Forest and Society Research Group (FSRG), Forestry Faculty, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-5148
Emban Ibnurusyd Mas'ud
Forest and Society Research Group (FSRG), Forestry Faculty, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3120-6629
Fatwa Faturachmat
Forest and Society Research Group (FSRG), Forestry Faculty, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8174-8955
Andi Sadapotto
Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6893-2099
Supratman Supratman
Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1484-6598
Yusran Yusran
Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
Muhammad Alif K. Sahide
Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4908-0323

Corresponding Author(s) : Haudec Herrawan

bhh19m@student.unhas.ac.id

Forest and Society, Vol. 6 No. 1 (2022): APRIL

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.    

Keywords

Critical institutional analysis commoning design principles institutional bricolage Indonesia
Herrawan , H., Sirimorok, N. ., Nursaputra, M. ., Mas’ud, E. I., Faturachmat, F., Sadapotto, A. ., Supratman, S., Yusran, Y., & Sahide, M. A. K. (2022). Commoning the State Forest: Crafting Commons through an Indonesian Social Forestry Program. Forest and Society, 6(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i1.10680
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2
  2. Aspinall, E., & van Klinken, G. (Eds.). (2011). The state and illegality in Indonesia. KITLV Press.
  3. Baggio, J. A., Barnett, A. J., Perez-Ibarra, I., Brady, U., Ratajczyk, E., Rollins, N., Rubiños, C., Shin, H. C., Yu, D. J., Aggarwal, R., Anderies, J. M., & Janssen, M. A. (2016). Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom’s institutional design principles. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 417. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.634
  4. Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00534.x
  5. Bollier, D. (2014). The Commons as a Template for Transformation. The Great Transition Initiative. http://hdl.handle.net/10535/9300
  6. Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (Eds.). (2015). Patterns of Commoning. Commons Strategy Group and Off the Common Press.
  7. Chikozho, C., & Mapedza, E. (2017). In search of socio-ecological resilience and adaptive capacity: articulating the governance imperatives for improved canal management on the Barotse floodplain, Zambia. International Journal of the Commons, 11(1), 119–143. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.636
  8. Cleaver, F., & de Koning, J. (2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 1–18. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.605
  9. Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-03704-150438
  10. Douglas, S., Schillemans, T., ‘t Hart, P., Ansell, C., Bøgh Andersen, L., Flinders, M., Head, B., Moynihan, D., Nabatchi, T., O’Flynn, J., Peters, B. G., Raadschelders, J., Sancino, A., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Rising to Ostrom’s challenge: an invitation to walk on the bright side of public governance and public service. Policy Design and Practice, 4(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1972517
  11. Ellickson, R. (1991). Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Harvard University Press.
  12. Euler, J. (2018). Conceptualizing the Commons: Moving Beyond the Goods-based Definition by Introducing the Social Practices of Commoning as Vital Determinant. Ecological Economics: The Journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics, 143, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.020
  13. Fisher, J. B., & Nading, A. M. (2020). The end of the cooperative model (as we knew it): Commoning and co-becoming in two Nicaraguan cooperatives. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620901439
  14. Fisher, M. R., Dhiaulhaq, A., & Sahide, M. A. K. (2019). The politics, economies, and ecologies of Indonesia’s third generation of social forestry: An introduction to the special section. Forest and Society, 3(1), 152–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.6348
  15. Fournier, V. (2013). Commoning: on the social organisation of the commons. M@n@gement, 16(4), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.164.0433
  16. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x
  17. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons: The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
  18. Harvey, D. (2011). The Future of the Commons. Radical History Review, 109, 101–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2010-017
  19. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704040472
  20. Jones, S. D. (2015). Bridging political economy analysis and critical institutionalism: an approach to help analyse institutional change for rural water services. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 65–86. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.520
  21. Lee Peluso, N., Afiff, S., & Rachman, N. F. (2008). Claiming the grounds for reform: Agrarian and environmental movements in Indonesia. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2-3), 377–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2008.00174.x
  22. Li, T. M. (1999). Compromising power: Development, culture, and rule in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology: Journal of the Society for Cultural Anthropology, 14(3), 295–322. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1999.14.3.295
  23. Moeliono, M., Thuy, P. T., Bong, I. W., Wong, G. Y., & Brockhaus, M. (2017). Social Forestry - why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia. Forest and Society, 1(2), 78–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i2.2484
  24. Mosse, D. (2006). Collective Action, Common Property, and Social Capital in South India: An Anthropological Commentary. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(3), 695–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/500034
  25. Mudliar, P., & Koontz, T. M. (2021). Locating power in Ostrom’s design principles: Watershed management in India and the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 34(5), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1864535
  26. Nayak, P. K., & Berkes, F. (2021). Framing commons as a process: The rudiments of commonisation and decommonisation. In P. K. Nayak (Ed.), Making Commons Dynamic: Understanding Change Through Commonisation and Decommonisation (pp. 3–23). Routledge.
  27. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Peluso, N. L. (1992). Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. University of California Press.
  29. Ryan, A. B. (2013). The Transformative Capacity of the Commons and Commoning. Irish Journal of Sociology, 21(2), 90–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/IJS.21.2.7
  30. Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Erbaugh, J. T., Intarini, D., Dharmiasih, W., Makmur, M., Faturachmat, F., Verheijen, B., & Maryudi, A. (2020). The boom of social forestry policy and the bust of social forests in Indonesia: Developing and applying an access-exclusion framework to assess policy outcomes. Forest Policy and Economics, 120, 102290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102290
  31. Sandström, E., Ekman, A.-K., & Lindholm, K.-J. (2017). Commoning in the periphery – The role of the commons for understanding rural continuities and change. International Journal of the Commons, 11(1), 508–531. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.729
  32. Saunders, F. P. (2014). The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 636–656. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.477
  33. Scott, J. C. (1999). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
  34. Seixas, C. S., & Davy, B. (2007). Self-organization in integrated conservation and development initiatives. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 99–125. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.24
  35. Shaw, M. (2014). Learning From the Wealth of the Commons: A Review Essay. Community Development Journal, 49(suppl_1), i12–i20. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsu012
  36. Singleton, B. E. (2017). What’s missing from Ostrom? Combining design principles with the theory of sociocultural viability. Environmental Politics, 26(6), 994–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1364150
  37. Turner, M. D. (2017). Political ecology III: The commons and commoning. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 795–802. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0309132516664433
  38. van Schendel, W., & Abraham, I. (Eds.). (2005). Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization. Indiana University Press.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF