Potential for conflict between stakeholders

Because Indonesia’s forests host a large number of stakeholders, it is nearly inevitable that interactions and conflict will arise between local communities and other stakeholders. How these communities perceive conflict, accompanied by the way authorities manage and negotiate with the parties involved, could make or break any negotiations towards a sustainable forest management plan.

While conflict may present disagreements that lead to stakeholders butting heads with one another, it also presents an avenue for them to de-escalate hostile feelings, encourage collaborative behaviours and proper definition of roles and responsibilities. The challenge in managing stakeholder dynamics to encourage local participation in forest management will be to recognise where on the spectrum do locals lies with regards to their perception of conflict. Subsequently, authorities can evaluate the most effective way to reconcile with forest communities to negotiate for sustainable solutions to land-use conflicts.

 Bape village: A case study in conflict perception

From 2004-2010, Bape village (Bungo district, Sumatra) was involved in a series of disputes with a local timber company over whether a patch of land was owned by the state or the community. The company insisted that the logging operation owned a proper concessions permit and occurred in state-owned land, which was legally permissible. However, the Bape villagers insisted that the company’s operations breached into community forests, which were an important source of forest resources to the village. As a result, the villagers strongly demanded compensation from the company, but to no avail.

Because there were no official delineations on the actual forest ground and the company was unwilling to disclose its copy of the concessions map, there were no clear solutions to the land boundary dispute and the company continued its operations until the situation escalated into violence and the company ceased operations.

Such a dispute is typical within Indonesia’s forest, where the boundaries between state and communal land have not been clearly marked and rigorously enforced. A study by Yasmi et al. (2009) compared how local communities and the timber company involved perceived the resulting conflict between Bape village and the logging company.

Despite the violent actions of the villagers, the locals did not perceive the conflict to be purely negative. One positive outcome perceived by the local community was the opportunity to participate in forest management and defend their land, which was a great shift compared to Suharto’s dictatorship back then. In addition, a small number of respondents perceived the conflict as a means to kickstart a negotiation process and a learning opportunity to handle future conflicts and decisions regarding forest management.

That being said, the majority of the villagers perceived purely negative dimensions arising from the conflict. In particular, the locals were embittered by the fact that the company refused to stop cutting down trees despite their initial stance and felt that their act of resistance only encouraged a retaliation of intensified logging. A timber company staff mirrored the locals’ negativity, citing that the locals’ resistance and demands for compensation were out of greed instead.

How do local communities perceive conflict?

The case study demonstrated two principles in the psychology of forest communities with regard to land-use conflicts. Firstly, when trust is not established at the initial stage, conflicts easily spiral out of control unless there is proper intervention by a mediator. In the early stages of the conflict, both sides suspected each other of ulterior motives and neither side made a move to clear that doubt. As a result, negative reciprocal behaviour on both sides led to rising tensions and fuelled an all-out conflict where everyone loses.

Secondly, in the midst of the conflict, villagers reported that they perceived a loss of control of their native forests, which were irreplaceable. This feeling of a loss of control was exacerbated by the company ignoring their demands and the nature of the region’s forest management regime, which was still transitioning from Suharto’s militaristic rule and lacked sufficient resources to aid the village and mediate the conflict.

In addition, local culture might enhance both of these psychological aspects. Local Indonesian forest communities tend to value harmony greatly without “rocking-the-boat”, as compared to their Brazilian counterparts. It is possible that such a culture may have skewed their perceptions negatively, which only bred further mistrust to escalate the conflict faster.

Both psychological aspects highlight the importance of the need to foster an inclusive environment for locals to participate and advance forest management policies. A top-down approach without consulting local communities is likely to lead to a loss of trust and perceived control among locals. Such an effect can irreversibly deteriorate relationships between stakeholders and prevent future cooperation, particularly in the case of Indonesia where conflict is generally perceived with disdain.