Threat of Forest Degradation in Ex-Forest Concession Right (HPH) in Indonesia

Abstract

Production forests in Indonesia have long been managed and used economically to improve people's welfare and fund the government. As part of this process, large, medium, and small companies were granted concession rights, but for various reasons, many companies have had their licenses terminated. There is evidence of illegal activities after such terminations, often causing forest degradation and deforestation in the former concession-rights areas. This study describes a case of illegal forest and land utilization in two former concession-rights areas located in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. The assessment was over a seven-month period and used a qualitative approach to gather data, including participant observation and in-depth interviews combined with geographical spatial analysis. The study found that forests in both locations were converted from natural land functions to agricultural use, forest gardens, and open land after the concession rights had been terminated, but illegal logging and land-clearing activities were also reported.

Pressure to convert forest lands often comes from people who are not local to the forest area; they often collaborate with local people by promising them expansion of their own lands into the former logging locations. Acceptance of this type of offer can be seen as a form of adaptation strategy because the indigenous people adapt to the circumstances as they try to hold onto the land. Of interest in this process is that if an area becomes sufficiently damaged, the government may change the status of the area from “state forest” to “non-forest,” a designation that makes it easier for local people to access and claim the land in the future.

Introduction

Forest utilization has been going on in many regions, creating many forms of the dynamics of utilization (Golar et al., 2019; Melnykovych et al., 2018). The resulting transformations impact forest management, and some are likely to damage forest sustainability (Batunacun et al., 2019; Buntaine et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2020). Related to this, tropical forest areas in Indonesia lost 12.2 million hectares of tree cover in 2020 alone, 4.2 million hectares of which were in wet tropical forests, essential for carbon storage and biodiversity (Derbile et al., 2022; Howarth & Viner, 2022). Primary forest loss results in carbon emissions (2.64 Gt CO2) that increase the concentration of anthropomorphically induced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which cause global warming and climate change problems (Bos et al., 2020; Resosudarmo et al., 2019).

Some of the most extensive tropical forests in the world exist in Indonesia. Third in size after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Gross et al., 2018; Humphries et al., 2020), these forests contain a rich biodiversity of flora and fauna and have the potential for common benefit related to their economic value in the form of timber, non-timber, and other forest products (Karki & Poudyal, 2021; Putraditama et al., 2021). However, forest conditions in Indonesia face a critical threat—losses of 2 million hectares of forest have been recorded annually (Andoh & Lee, 2018; Ekawati et al., 2019). This is significant from a biodiversity perspective. Although Indonesia's land area is only 1.3 percent of the Earth's surface land area, its biodiversity is classified as “high” (Blicharska et al., 2020; Parisi et al., 2021) as it includes 11 percent of the world's plant species, 16 percent of the world's bird species, and 10 percent of mammals.

Ongoing debates about the interaction between the forest and people are mainly related to poverty (Hernández-Aguilar et al., 2021; Putraditama et al., 2021). As a source for economic growth, forest use can entice people to degrade forest resources (Kibria et al., 2018). Conflict over forest land and resources is a result of competition both within communities and from outsiders (Ambarwati et al., 2018). Among the factors driving this problem are the growth of the market for forest products and commodification of local resources, local population growth, and deterioration of the quality and quantity of natural resources (Arsyad et al., 2020; Kamwi et al., 2020).

As measured in 2021, the forest area in Central Sulawesi was 4,311,085 hectares, or nearly 70 percent (69.71%) of the total area of Central Sulawesi, consisting of protected forest (1,282,210 ha); sanctuary reserve and natural conservation area (990,958 ha); limited production forest (1,410,524); permanent production forest (412,080 ha); and convertible production forest (215,313 ha). As a province with a large forest area, most people are highly dependent on forest resources. Since 1974, more than 2,078,014 hectares of the forest area in Central Sulawesi have been managed by timber companies, but mainly by Forest Concession Right (HPH). Of that total area, 761,245 hectares (33%) are still active and the rest, 1,316,769 hectares (67%), have inactive status.

In 2022, through the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, No. SK.01 / MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/1/2022 on the Revocation of Forest Area Concession Permits, the government revoked the permits of 192 businesses operating in forest areas. Affected parties include plantations, mines, and businesses like HPH and Industrial Crop Forests (HTI), as well as some forest area-based businesses. One of the reasons cited for the revocation was that 1,369,567 hectares of the land were considered abandoned and the license holders did not have a viable work plan for changing that status. The problem posed by this circumstance was what to do with this tract of land once no one was managing it. There were 30 HPH in Central Sulawesi. However, before the Ministry's new policy on permit revocation was issued, 13 HPH had had their licenses revoked. Since 1997, these companies have been prohibited from conducting business using forest products, and the State again controls those forest areas.

Based on previous experience, the State manages inactive concession areas through the Forest Management Unit (FMU) with the intent to enable future productivity. However, evidence supports that most forest areas experiencing high land and forest use, remain at risk for further damage (Bos et al., 2020; Rieckmann et al., 2021). Ex-forest concession right areas in Central Sulawesi, specifically the former Sinar Kaili HPH, appear to have experienced additional damage based on land-use needs from the local community (Golar, 2022).

There have been few scientific studies on the continuing increase in forest destruction in the ex-HPH region, so there is little supporting data. This makes suggestions for alternative ways to reduce forest destruction challenging. This study aims to help fill in the gaps of the sparse data and scientific information about the subject as seen through the lens of interactions between people and forest lands.

This study investigates the tension between social and ecological elements of interactions between people and their environment through observing people whose actions drive forest degradation and those who attempt to protect the natural environment. Some Indonesian communities have acted in ways that negatively impact the health of their forests, creating an imbalance between deforestation and forest regrowth. This imbalance disrupts the carbon cycle and affects forest recovery and succession trajectories that are also impacted by climate change (Poorter et al., 2016). Further, it should be noted that some forest ecosystems cannot recover naturally from disturbances like deforestation.

Theoretical Frameworks

All civilizations must adapt or they will cease to exist. The history of human societies can be seen as a progression of human development in building the capacity to adapt to changes in natural systems: climate, weather, and temperature. Adaptability is what allows a society to turn changes and surprises into opportunities (Folke et al., 2016). The interaction between people and forest resources is inseparable from adaptation problems (Bennett, 1976; Morzillo et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2020). Adaptation is an adjustment in ecological and socioeconomic systems in response to actual or expected climate stimuli and their impact (McCarthy, 2000). Adaptive behavior to environmental changes conforms to the dynamics of innovative, change-seeking, or conservation problems (Brancalion et al., 2020; Trædal & Vedeld, 2018), and is therefore essential for social-ecological resilience (Bennett, 1976). As the environmental factors change, including market economic intervention, population pressure, and political influent, people have, in various forms, responded to this change.

External factors such as market intervention can lead to social change that encourages adaptation within the community (Kibria et al., 2018; Morzillo et al., 2015). Such adaptive behavior is closely related to meeting basic human needs after environmental disruptions and then establishing strategies for coping with the changes going forward. Socio-cultural adaptation is comprised of adaptive behavior, strategic action, and adaptive design (Bennett, 1976).

Adaptive behavior includes achieving goals, achieving satisfaction, and making both active and passive choices. Strategic actions more specifically point to the dynamic behavior of specific activities designed to achieve goals. At the same time, adaptive strategies point to particular actions chosen in the decision-making process with predictable success rates. The inability to adapt to environmental dynamics impacts maladaptive behavior, resulting in damage to forest resources.

Materials and Methods

This research project was conducted from February to September 2021 in Central Sulawesi Province. The study focuses on two ex-forest concession rights areas in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia: PT. Colano Tiga Dua in Parigi Moutong Regency, and PT. Gunung Latimojong in Poso Regency. These locations were chosen because HPH was revoked for the two companies operating, each in a respective area in October 2002. Since that time, the former lands of two ex HPH have been taken over by people engaging in illegal logging, land use, and non-timber forest products.

The people who live around the state-owned forest frequently utilize its resources. To obtain information about their specific interactions with forests, this study addresses: a history of land use by the community after the concession permit of the timber company ended; an inquiry into the purpose of the community's land and forest use, including logging activities; and adaptive strategies utilized by the community that transformed forest resources. To determine the changed conditions of forest cover, spatial data on forest cover in 2000 and 2020 was also collected.

To obtain information about the community for primary data, the researchers selected 30 volunteers. To qualify, each participant had to be: 1.) a resident of the village for at least ten years, and 2.) directly involved in activities related to use of forest products. Before giving consent, all participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the procedures to be undertaken, the potential risks and benefits of participation, and the extent of confidentiality of personal identification including photographs. Participation was entirely voluntary.

Data collection included in-depth interviews, direct observation, and use of other data sources relevant to the research. Field observations were conducted by visiting community-managed land in forest areas and looking for logging activities. To obtain further information and increase the data treasury, the researchers also conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at each site, namely the local governments and the representatives of the former permit holders for wood utilization.

Interview data were analyzed both descriptively and qualitatively; field observations used an emic approach to the analysis. Spatial data were analyzed using supervised classification methods.

Results

Ex-PT. Colano Tiga Dua

Based on the data from the Forest Service of Central Sulawesi Province, the concession area of PT. Colano Tiga Dua is 79,000 hectares but the total permit area is only 22,930.01 hectares. The company operated from 1974 until 2002. Since then, the local community has had opened access to this land, stimulating intensive utilization including illegal logging activities and non-forest use of the land. Parties from outside the community are the biggest offenders of illegal logging activities; some are even former field workers for HPH Colano Tiga Dua.

In the logging and transporting activities, villagers have been involved. In addition to engaging in logging activities, local people have created community gardens of various sizes, with corn, beans, and vegetables combined with commodity crops (cocoa, coffee, and hazelnut).

In 2010, this location was managed by the Forest Management Unit (FMU) Dampelas Tinombo, Parigi Moutong Regency. Since most former concession lands had experienced land degradation, this FMU worked hard to restore land through rehabilitation and reforestation. Although illegal logging activities continued, the FMU was able to mitigate the impacts.

In evaluating the cause of degradation, communities that carry out illegal logging activities and land clearing in the area generally do so out of ignorance and economic necessity. Open access coupled with the absence of on-site management has enable the illegal activity. In addition, former HPH workers given their knowledge of logging were more likely to engage in illegal activities.

Although residents suffered land degradation when the land was managed because some illegal logging activities took place after business hours, for the most part the managing unit was able to quickly handle problems (Bager et al., 2021; Clerici et al., 2020; Leblond, 2019). This confirms that the presence of forest management units at the field level is needed. Besides their presence as a deterrent, forest management programs can provide access and income-generation for the surrounding communities. This effort is part of community empowerment around the forest.

Ex-PT. Gunung Latimojong

PT. Gunung Latimojong had been permitted 39,000 hectares of land of which the company was able to managed only 22,334.35 hectares. The unmanaged portion had a low potential for timber extraction and the company also lacked sufficient personnel to manage it. When their concession period ended in 2002, the area was handed over to the FMU Sintuwu Maroso. Widespread, illegal logging activities and land clearing occur on almost every side of the forest area, which FMU tries to counter. But the potential value of the wood to the community around the forest area and other profiteers is too enticing to prevent these activities. In addition, many are motivated by the desire to obtain arable land.

These types of illegal activities have been going on for a long time and form a pattern of dependency between the community and illegally extracted wood forest products, which ultimately destroys the forest and weakens their own ties to the land.

Forest Cover Changes after Company Permit Expires

Lack of oversight to protect the forest areas that were once managed by timber companies opens access to the land and encourages forest encroachment and illegal logging by outside parties (Ambarwati et al., 2018; Tritsch et al., 2020; Villegas et al., 2021). These activities have led to a decrease is land cover in the country's forest areas. Analysis of land cover change in the PT. Colano Tiga Dua in 2020 showed a decrease in primary dryland forest area of 823.73 ha or 13.01 percent and secondary dryland forest area of 654.0 ha (4.49%). Dryland agriculture in 2000 covered an area of 31.91 ha but by 2020, it had disappeared. On the other hand, shrub cover and dryland farming have increased in the area. Open land cover or abandoned land was not classified in 2000 but in 2020 measurements equated to an area of 11.76 ha.

Ex-concession HPH PT. Gunung Latimojong decreased the cover area in primary and secondary dryland forests by 133.54 hectares (11.08%) and 1,666.17 hectares or 9.25%, respectively. These lands were turned into shrub land, open land, and dryland farming. Between 2000 and 2020, there was a significant increase in open land cover from 115.25 to 414.29 hectares, or 259.49 percent; shrub land increased 1,141.53 hectares (86.38%), and dryland farming increased 359.13 hectares (13.43%). The land use change that occurred in the ex HPH was because the forest was no longer productive.

Discussion

The results of this study reveals the dynamics of forest utilization in lands where concession rights had been granted and were later rescinded. The aftermath was characterized by a pattern of illegal collection of timber forest products after the licenses expired and the lands were left without little or no management (Allen et al., 2020; Tritsch et al., 2020). The lure of profit from commercialization of wood brought individuals or groups from near and far to exploit the forest areas. Some of them were field workers or part-time laborers formerly employed by HPH who were able to use what they had learned on the job to continue logging activities even after it was no longer legal fir them to do so.

Illegal logging continues because it is generally supported by people who live around the forest area and some of the local community who often participate in these activities. In addition, the surrounding community is active in clearing land, usually open land where slash and burn remains can be cleared to prepare the land for farming and gardens.

The local community's response to the departure of managers of the forests can be seen as a form of adaptive behavior driven by their need for farmland for subsistence and the potential income from logging (Bennett, 1976; Leblond, 2019). Thus, the expiration of concession permits has provided an opportunity for local people to get access to and claim these lands. Their strategy to achieve this goal is through support for and often participation in illegal logging activities and clearing arable land in forest areas (adaptive design) (Bos et al., 2020; Leijten et al., 2021). However, since these adaptation patterns increase deforestation and forest land degradation, they are maladaptive (Golar et al., 2019; Sahide et al., 2015; Tritsch et al., 2020).

In an attempt to address this problem, the FMU has offered extension activities, empowerment programs, community involvement in social forestry programs, and law enforcement actions arresting illegal perpetrators. However, these efforts have not been effective enough to reduce the rate of degradation and deforestation at either site and the illegal logging activities continue.

As representative of the State, FMU needs to address this problem immediately before it further impacts degradation and deforestation. A more diversified tenure system could improve forest management and local livelihoods (Mohan et al., 2021; Rijal et al., 2018; Soman & Anitha, 2020). FMU has the authority to carry out sustainable forest management techniques that would improve the rate of forest degradation and deforestation in its managed regions (Buntaine et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2020).

FMU could help the communities around the forests by providing land use and forest products (Aguilar-Støen, 2018; Ali & Alharbi, 2020; Fisher et al., 2018). This could be achieved through collaboration and management of partnerships with social forestry programs arranged by the Ministry of Forestry and Environmental of Indonesia (Golar et al., 2021b). Such a program is expected to encourage equality among the communities involved and increase household income (Ali & Alharbi, 2020; Djamhuri, 2012).

In this program, the ownership of the forest area remains with the State. However, the community or local organizations are given permission to use the land and harvest non-timber forest products for sale. Sale of products would generate income and benefit the surrounding communities (Islam et al., 2019; Salvatori & Pallante, 2021; Talukdar et al., 2021).

Social forestry is a model for forest management that addresses various forest resource management problems related to degradation and deforestation, especially applicable to ex-HPH forest areas. Social forestry programs need to be continuously promoted, particularly given the attention paid to economics and market economies that don't consider long-term environmental problems (Golar et al., 2021a; Kim & Arnhold, 2018; Sahide et al., 2019).

The Indonesian government is committed to its policies related to social forestry as a means of forest management, and the response has been positive, especially by FMU. Although the function and role of FMU is more as facilitator, the need to support forest sustainability is enormous. Forest management needs to prioritize capacity-building to help achieve sustainability (Bocci & Mishra, 2021).

Conclusion

Illegal use of land and forests by local communities is a form of economic maladaptation. Efforts to obtain arable land in forest areas, though illegal, are understandable as survival strategies. In the long term, however, the resources needed for survival will be destroyed.

Generally, the interaction of people with forest resources in ex-HPH areas damaged the forests. This study examines the threat of forest degradation and deforestation in two areas of ex-HPH concession lands. Both areas showed the same recklessness toward forest destruction—patterns of interaction, especially toward land use and forest products. Support of illegal land use and forest products by people living around forests is one of the reasons illegal logging and land use continue. Social forestry, which is being promoted by the government, is one approach that could be used for solving problems in the two former HPH areas so that the community could receive income while maintaining the sustainability of the forest.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the rector of Tadulako University, the community of all colleagues from the Research Department of Forest Faculty who helped to implement the study, and the experts involved in the Delphi study.

Funding Information

This study was funded by the research program of Tadulako University under grant agreement No. 4007/UN/KP/2020, May 13th 2020.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors state no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the study's design, collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the design of the study.

References

Aguilar-Støen

(2018). Social forestry movements and science-policy networks: The politics of the forestry incentives program in Guatemala. Geoforum, 90, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.014

Ali

, & Alharbi

O. M. L

. (2020). COVID-19: Disease, management, treatment, and social impact. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138861

Allen

, Metternicht

, Verburg

, Akhtar-Schuster

, Inacio da Cunha

, et al. (2020). Delivering an enabling environment and multiple benefits for land degradation neutrality: Stakeholder perceptions and progress. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.029

Ambarwati

M. E

, Gatot

, & Wilson

M.A.T

. (2018). Dynamics of the tenurial conflict in state forest area (Case in BKPH Tanggung KPH Semarang). Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 6(2), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.v6i2.23228

Andoh

, & Lee

(2018). Forest transition through reforestation policy integration: A comparative study between Ghana and the Republic of Korea. Forest Policy and Economics, 90, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.009

Arsyad

, Nuddin

, Fahmid

I. M.

, Salman

, Pulubuhu

D. A. T.

, et al. (2020). Agricultural development: Poverty, conflict and strategic programs in country border. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 575, 012091. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/575/1/012091

Bager

S. L.

, Persson

U. M.

, & dos Reis

T. N. P

. (2021). Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation. One Earth, 4(2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.011

Batunacun

Wieland

, R., Lakes

, Yunfeng

, & Nendel

(2019). Identifying drivers of land degradation in Xilingol, China between 1975 and 2015. Land Use Policy, 83, 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.013

Bennett

J. W.

(1976). System, ecosystem, and social system. In The Ecological Transition (pp. 84–122). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-017867-7.50009-0

10.

Blicharska

, Angelstam

, Giessen

, Hilszczański

, Hermanowicz

, et al. (2020). Between biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management—A multidisciplinary assessment of the emblematic Białowieża Forest case. Biological Conservation, 248, 108614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108614

11.

Bocci

, & Mishra

(2021). Forest power: The impact of community forest management on female empowerment. Ecological Economics, 187, 107105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107105

12.

Bos

A. B.

, De Sy

, Duchelle

A. E.

, Atmadja

, de Bruin

, et al. (2020). Integrated assessment of deforestation drivers and their alignment with subnational climate change mitigation efforts. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.002

13.

Brancalion

P. H. S.

, Broadbent

E. N.

, de-Miguel

, Cardil

, Rosa

M. R.

, et al. (2020). Emerging threats linking tropical deforestation and the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 18(4), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.09.006

14.

Buntaine

M. T.

, Hamilton

S. E.

, & Millones

(2015). Titling community land to prevent deforestation: An evaluation of a best-case program in Morona-Santiago, Ecuador. Global Environmental Change, 33, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.001

15.

Clerici

, Armenteras

, Kareiva

, Botero

, Ramírez-Delgado

J. P.

, et al. (2020). Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61861-y

16.

Derbile

E. K.

, Bonye

S. Z.

, & Yiridomoh

G. Y

. (2022). Mapping vulnerability of smallholder agriculture in Africa: Vulnerability assessment of food crop farming and climate change adaptation in Ghana. Environmental Challenges, 8, 100537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100537

17.

Djamhuri

T. L.

(2012). The effect of incentive structure to community participation in a social forestry program on state forest land in Blora District, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 25, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.02.004

18.

Ekawati

, Subarudi

Budiningsih

, K., Sari

G. K.

, & Muttaqin

M. Z

. (2019). Policies affecting the implementation of REDD+ in Indonesia (cases in Papua, Riau and Central Kalimantan). Forest Policy and Economics, 108, 101939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.025

19.

Fisher

M. R.

, Moeliono

, Mulyana

, Yuliani

E. L.

, Adriadi

, et al. (2018). Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: Recognition, livelihood and conservation? International Forestry Review, 20(3), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014

20.

Folke

, Biggs

, Norström

A. V.

, Reyers

, & Rockström

(2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), art41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341

21.

Golar

(2022). Manajemen Risiko Potensi Konflik Tenurial. Kajian di Wilayah Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (Risk Management of Potential Tenurial Conflicts. Study in the Area of Forest Management Units). Bintang Semesta Media.

22.

Golar

, Mahfudz

Malik

, A., Muis

, Khairil

, Ali

S. S. S.

, et al. (2019). The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park. Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 25(4), 8.

23.

Golar

, Massiri

S. D.

, Rauf

R. A.

, Muis

, & Paingi

(2021a). Participatory land use conflict resolution: Efforts towards community collaborative management. Agroland: The Agricultural Sciences Journal (e-Journal), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.22487/agroland.v8i1.801

24.

Golar

, Muis

, Massiri

S. D.

, Rahman

, Maiwa

, et al. (2021b). Can Forest Management Units improve community access to the forest? International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 16(5), 565–571. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.160511

25.

Gross

, Silva

A. C.

da, Cruz

A. P.

, Kilca

. de

, Nunes

. da

, et al. (2018). Fragmentation as a key driver of tree community dynamics in mixed subtropical evergreen forests in Southern Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 411, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.01.013

26.

Hernández-Aguilar

J. A.

, Durán

, de Jong

, Velázquez

, & Pérez-Verdín

(2021). Understanding drivers of local forest transition in community forests in Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico. Forest Policy and Economics, 131, 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102542

27.

Howarth

, & Viner

(2022). Integrating adaptation practice in assessments of climate change science: The case of IPCC Working Group II reports. Environmental Science & Policy, 135, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.04.009

28.

Humphries

, Holmes

, Andrade

D. F. C

. de

McGrath

, D., & Dantas

J. B

. (2020). Searching for win-win forest outcomes: Learning-by-doing, financial viability, and income growth for a community-based forest management cooperative in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 125, 104336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.005

29.

Islam

, Nath

T. K.

, Jashimuddin

, & Rahman, Md

(2019). Forest dependency, co-management and improvement of peoples' livelihood capital: Evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environmental Development, 32, 100456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100456

30.

Kamwi

J. M.

, Endjala

, & Siyambango

(2020). Dependency of rural communities on non-timber forest products in the dry lands of southern Africa: A case of Mukwe Constituency, Kavango East Region, Namibia. Trees, Forests and People, 2, 100022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100022

31.

Karki

, & Poudyal

B. H

. (2021). Access to community forest benefits: Need driven or interest driven? Research in Globalization, 3, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100041

32.

Kibria

A. S. M

. G., Costanza

, Groves

, & Behie

A. M

. (2018). The interactions between livelihood capitals and access of local communities to the forest provisioning services of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh. Ecosystem Services, 32, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.003

33.

Kim

, & Arnhold

(2018). Mapping environmental land use conflict potentials and ecosystem services in agricultural watersheds. Science of the Total Environment, 630, 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.176

34.

Leblond

J.-P.

(2019). Revisiting forest transition explanations: The role of “push” factors and adaptation strategies in forest expansion in northern Phetchabun, Thailand. Land Use Policy, 83, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.035

35.

Leijten

, Sim

, King

, & Verburg

P. H

. (2021). Local deforestation spillovers induced by forest moratoria: Evidence from Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 109, 105690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105690

36.

McCarthy

(2000). The changing regime: Forest property and reforms in Indonesia. Development and Change, 31(1), 91–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00148

37.

Melnykovych

, Nijnik

, Soloviy

, Nijnik

, Sarkki

, et al. (2018). Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world. Science of the Total Environment, 613–614, 894–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.065

38.

Mohan

, Rue

H. A.

, Bajaj

, Galgamuwa

G. A. P.

, Adrah

, et al. (2021). Afforestation, reforestation and new challenges from COVID-19: Thirty-three recommendations to support civil society organizations (CSOs). Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112277

39.

Morzillo

A. T.

, Colocousis

C. R.

, Munroe

D. K.

, Bell

K. P.

, Martinuzzi

, et al. (2015). “Communities in the middle”: Interactions between drivers of change and place-based characteristics in rural forest-based communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.007

40.

Parisi

, Innangi

, Tognetti

, Lombardi

, Chirici

, et al. (2021). Forest stand structure and coarse woody debris determine the biodiversity of beetle communities in Mediterranean mountain beech forests. Global Ecology and Conservation, 28, e01637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01637

41.

Poorter

, Bongers

, Aide

T. M.

, Almeyda Zambrano

A. M.

, Balvanera

, et al. (2016). Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530(7589), 211–214. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16512

42.

Putraditama

, Kim

Y.-S.

, & Baral

(2021). Where to put community-based forestry? Reconciling conservation and livelihood in Lampung, Indonesia. Trees, Forests and People, 4, 100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100062

43.

Rao

, Singh

, Solomon

, Camfield

, Sidiki

, et al. (2020). Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World Development, 125, 104667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104667

44.

Resosudarmo

I. A. P.

, Tacconi

, Sloan

, Hamdani

F. A. U.

, Subarudi

Alviya

, I., et al. (2019). Indonesia's land reform: Implications for local livelihoods and climate change. Forest Policy and Economics, 108, 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.007

45.

Rieckmann

, Hoff

, & Bokop

(2021). Effective community-academic partnerships on climate change adaption and mitigation: Results of a European delphi study. Sustainability and Climate Change, 14(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2020.0061

46.

Rijal

, Raulier

, & Martell

D. L

. (2018). A value-added forest management policy reduces the impact of fire on timber production in Canadian boreal forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 97, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.09.002

47.

Sahide

M. A. K.

, Fisher

M. R.

, Maryudi

, Wong

G. Y.

, Supratman

, et al. (2019). The bureaucratic politics of conservation in governing land conflict: A typology of capacities. MethodsX, 6, 2536–2543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.022

48.

Sahide

M. A. K.

, Nurrochmat

D. R.

, & Giessen

(2015). The regime complex for tropical rainforest transformation: Analysing the relevance of multiple global and regional land use regimes in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 47, 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.030

49.

Salvatori

, & Pallante

(2021). Forests as nature-based solutions: Ecosystem services, multiple benefits and trade-offs. Forests, 12(6), 800. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060800

50.

Soman

, & Anitha

(2020). Community dependence on the natural resources of Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Trees, Forests and People, 2, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100014

51.

Talukdar

N. R.

, Choudhury

, Barbhuiya

R. A.

, & Singh

(2021). Importance of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in rural livelihood: A study in Patharia Hills Reserve Forest, northeast India. Trees, Forests and People, 3, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100042

52.

Trædal

L. T.

, & Vedeld

(2018). Cultivating forests: The role of forest land in household livelihood adaptive strategies in the Bac Kan Province of northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 73, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.004

53.

Tritsch

, Le Velly

, Mertens

, Meyfroidt

, Sannier

, et al. (2020). Do forest-management plans and FSC certification help avoid deforestation in the Congo Basin? Ecological Economics, 175, 106660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106660

54.

Villegas

, Van Coillie

, Heredia-R

, Ochoa

, Cayambe

, et al. (2021 September 1–15). Analysis of forest cover change and its influence on sustainability indicators in Ecuadorian Amazon. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Electronic Conference on Forests — Sustainable Forests: Ecology, Management, Products and Trade. Basel, Switzerland. doi:10.3390/IECF2021-10815