Commoning the State Forest: Crafting Commons through an Indonesian Social Forestry Program
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i1.10680Keywords:
Critical institutional analysis, commoning, design principles, institutional bricolage, IndonesiaAbstract
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.
References
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
Aspinall, E., & van Klinken, G. (Eds.). (2011). The state and illegality in Indonesia. KITLV Press.
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
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
Bollier, D. (2014). The Commons as a Template for Transformation. The Great Transition Initiative. http://hdl.handle.net/10535/9300
Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (Eds.). (2015). Patterns of Commoning. Commons Strategy Group and Off the Common Press.
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
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
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
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
Ellickson, R. (1991). Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Harvard University Press.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Harvey, D. (2011). The Future of the Commons. Radical History Review, 109, 101–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2010-017
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Peluso, N. L. (1992). Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. University of California Press.
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
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
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
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
Scott, J. C. (1999). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
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
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
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
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
van Schendel, W., & Abraham, I. (Eds.). (2005). Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization. Indiana University Press.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Forest and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice
