Search

Many tropical countries continue to devolve forest management to forest‐dwelling communities. The assumption is that local knowledge of forests and community engagement in forest management will attain multiple social and environmental co‐benefits, such as poverty alleviation and reduced deforestation and fires. Evidence for this, however, is scant, commonly hampered by data availability and a lack of technical capacity for implementing statistically robust impact evaluations. Based on a practice‐based review of policy implementation, impact evaluation of case studies and examples of counterfactual analyses from Indonesia, we demonstrate that it is increasingly feasible to determine the conditions under which community forest management will most likely achieve its social and environmental objectives. Adapting community forest management implementation based on feedback from accurate impact evaluation could lead to positive outcomes for people and environment in Indonesia, and across the tropical realm.

Participatory approaches to forest management have been promoted as a means of returning rights historically removed, and as a way of managing natural resources sustainably, fairly, and to improve livelihoods in communities. Top-down models of community-based forest management take the perspective that if people feel ownership over, have a voice in decisions about, and can benefit from surrounding ecosystems, then they will be motivated to maintain and protect them. However, even participatory approaches, such as community-based forest management, may not always result in clear positive outcomes for involvement in decision making and forest conservation. We examine whether an Indonesian government initiative for community-based forest management was positively associated with community members' participation in local decision making and support for conservation and sustainable management of forest resources, in the context of state-owned lands. We used household questionnaire data to compare villages with and without a community forest, and community forests over time in a case study region of West Kalimantan. Analyzing forest visitations, conservation support, and indicators of procedural equity, we found no consistent association between having a community forest and higher levels of participation in decision making or household support for forest conservation. However, well-being indicators were positively associated with more active participation. The level of support for forest conservation was also positively related to households' leadership in village institutions and higher levels of well-being, particularly subjective well-being, land tenure, and material wealth. These social-demographic factors are important considerations when designing and implementing community-based forest management, which strives for fair and just decision-making processes along with forest conservation. The findings highlight how existing socioeconomic contexts factor into local

Many tropical countries continue to devolve forest management to forest‐dwelling communities. The assumption is that local knowledge of forests and community engagement in forest management will attain multiple social and environmental co‐benefits, such as poverty alleviation and reduced deforestation and fires. Evidence for this, however, is scant, commonly hampered by data availability and a lack of technical capacity for implementing statistically robust impact evaluations. Based on a practice‐based review of policy implementation, impact evaluation of case studies and examples of counterfactual analyses from Indonesia, we demonstrate that it is increasingly feasible to determine the conditions under which community forest management will most likely achieve its social and environmental objectives. Adapting community forest management implementation based on feedback from accurate impact evaluation could lead to positive outcomes for people and environment in Indonesia, and across the tropical realm.

Community forestry is a participatory approach aiming to achieve sustainable forest management while also reducing poverty among rural communities. Yet, evidence of the impacts of community forestry programmes on both forest conservation and poverty alleviation is scarce, and there is limited understanding of impacts across different social and biophysical contexts. We applied a matching method to assess the extent to which deforestation has decreased and village well-being has improved as a result of Indonesia's community forestry scheme, Hutan Desa (Village Forest). We assessed five dimensions of well-being: basic (living conditions), physical (access to health and education), financial (income support), social (security and equity) and environmental (natural hazard prevention). We found that Hutan Desa was associated with reduced deforestation and poverty. ‘Win-win’ outcomes were found in 51% of cases, comprising (a) positive outcomes for both forests and poverty, (b) a positive outcome for one aspect and a negligible outcome for the other, or (c) a positive outcome for poverty in areas where natural forest had already been lacking prior to Hutan Desa tenure. Benefits to forests and people systematically differed depending on land-use zones, reflecting subtle interactions between anthropogenic pressures and community livelihood characteristics. In Watershed Protection Zones, which are dominated by subsistence-based forest livelihoods, community forestry provided mild conservation benefits, but resulted in the greatest improvements in well-being through improved land tenure. In Limited Production Zones, community forestry provided modest benefits for both conservation and well-being because restrictions on timber harvest due to Hutan Desa designation reduced the financial well-being of logging communities. The greatest conservation benefits were experienced in Permanent or Convertible Production Zones, but well-being improvements were minimal. Here, living cond

Human-orangutan conflict and hunting are thought to pose a serious threat to orangutan existence in Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo. No data existed prior to the present study to substantiate these threats. We investigated the rates, spatial distribution and causes of conflict and hunting through an interview-based survey in the orangutan's range in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Between April 2008 and September 2009, we interviewed 6983 respondents in 687 villages to obtain socio-economic information, assess knowledge of local wildlife in general and orangutan encounters specifically, and to query respondents about their knowledge on orangutan conflicts and killing, and relevant laws. This survey revealed estimated killing rates of between 750 and 1800 animals killed in the last year, and between 1950 and 3100 animals killed per year on average within the lifetime of the survey respondents. These killing rates are higher than previously thought and are high enough to pose a serious threat to the continued existence of orangutans in Kalimantan. Importantly, the study contributes to our understanding of the spatial variation in threats, and the underlying causes of those threats, which can be used to facilitate the development of targeted conservation management.