Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Jurnal

Social Forestry - why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia

Forest and Society · Vol. 1 No. 2 (2017) · pp. 78–97

DOI
10.24259/fs.v1i2.2484
ISSN
2549-4333, 2549-4724
Published
2017-11-27
Publisher
Forestry Faculty, Universitas Hasanuddin
Language
en
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Abstract

Community forestry or social forestry (henceforth referred collectively as SF) programs have become new modes of forest management empowering local managers and hence, allowing integration of diverse local practices and support of local livelihoods. Implementation of these initiatives, however, face multiple challenges. State-prescribed community programs, for example, will remain isolated efforts if changes in the overall economic and social governance frameworks, including the devolution of rights to local users is lacking. Financial sustainability of these measures remains often uncertain and equity issues inherent to groups and communities formed for SF, can be exacerbated. In this article, we pose the question: Whose interests do SF policies serve? The effectiveness of SF would depend on the motivations and aims for a decentralization of forest governance to the community. In order to understand the underlying motivations behind the governments’ push for SF, we examine national policies in Vietnam and Indonesia, changes in their policies over time and the shift in discourses influencing how SF has evolved. Vietnam and Indonesia are at different sides of the spectrum in democratic ambitions and forest abundance, and present an intriguing comparison in the recent regional push towards SF in Southeast Asia. We discuss the different interpretations of SF in these two countries and how SF programs are implemented. Our results show that governments, influenced by global discourse, are attempting to regulate SF through formal definitions and regulations. Communities on the other hand, might resist by adopting, adapting or rejecting formal schemes. In this tension, SF, in general adopted to serve the interest of local people, in practice SF has not fulfilled its promise.

Keywords

Collaboration network of the authors

22 authors · 67 co-authorship links

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Nam Can Tho University
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Indah Waty BongAffiliation unknown3
Mawa KarambiriAffiliation unknown2
Pham Thu ThuyAffiliation unknown2
Alizée VilleAffiliation unknown2
Tuan Long HoangAffiliation unknown2
Chi Dao Thi LinhAffiliation unknown2
Andrea DowningAffiliation unknown2
Amanda Jiménez-AceitunoAffiliation unknown2
Micah R. FisherAffiliation unknown1
Ngo Ha ChauAffiliation unknown1
Dao Thi Linh ChiAffiliation unknown1
Hoang Tuan LongAffiliation unknown1
Le Thi Thanh ThuyNam Can Tho University1
Phuoc DuongAffiliation unknown1
Alfi SyakilaAffiliation unknown1
Noverita Dian TakarinaAffiliation unknown1
Raldi Hendro KoestoerAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/fs/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 5 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Social Forestry - why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Moeliono, Moira</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Thuy, Pham Thu</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Waty Bong, Indah</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Wong, Grace Yee</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Brockhaus, Maria</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Community Forestry</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Social Forestry</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">empowerment</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">rights</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Indonesia</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Vietnam</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">Community forestry or social forestry (henceforth referred collectively as SF) programs have become new modes of forest management empowering local managers and hence, allowing integration of diverse local practices and support of local livelihoods.  Implementation of these initiatives, however, face multiple challenges. State-prescribed community programs, for example, will remain isolated efforts if changes in the overall economic and social governance frameworks, including the devolution of rights to local users is lacking. Financial sustainability of these measures remains often uncertain and equity issues inherent to groups and communities formed for SF, can be exacerbated. In this article, we pose the question: Whose interests do SF policies serve? The effectiveness of SF would depend on the motivations and aims for a decentralization of forest governance to the community. In order to understand the underlying motivations behind the governments’ push for SF, we examine national policies in Vietnam and Indonesia, changes in their policies over time and the shift in discourses influencing how SF has evolved. Vietnam and Indonesia are at different sides of the spectrum in democratic ambitions and forest abundance, and present an intriguing comparison in the recent regional push towards SF in Southeast Asia.  We discuss the different interpretations of SF in these two countries and how SF programs are implemented. Our results show that governments, influenced by global discourse, are attempting to regulate SF through formal definitions and regulations.  Communities on the other hand, might resist by adopting, adapting or rejecting formal schemes.  In this tension, SF, in general adopted to serve the interest of local people, in practice SF has not fulfilled its promise.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Forestry Faculty, Universitas Hasanuddin</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2017-11-27</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/fs/article/view/2484</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.24259/fs.v1i2.2484</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Forest and Society; Vol. 1 No. 2 (2017): NOVEMBER; 78-97</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2549-4333</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2549-4724</dc:source>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/fs/article/view/2484/5925</dc:relation>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/fs/article/view/2484/5742</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2019 Forest and Society</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>