Heterogeneity in locals’ priorities

Even within Indonesian forests alone, there is considerable geographical and environmental heterogeneity, resulting in large variations in access to forest and man-made resources among forest communities. A study by Poffenberger (2006) estimated that up to 38% of the Indonesian population (~80 million) are still heavily forest-dependent in various ways.

Some communities may dwell deep in the forests in isolation, making it difficult to access roads to markets and other developmental areas, forcing them to rely more strongly on the natural environment for resources. Other communities may opt for wild food resources instead of adopting agricultural practices.

Several studies over the past decade have highlighted several ecosystem services from forests that locals prioritise. Most studies reported some form of economic concern when it comes to land-use conversion and forest management, either through timber and/or oil palm plantations. Other secondary concerns usually involve some form of provisional resources, such as fruit, construction materials and medicine. Even among the provisional services, there remain variations in the type of resources foraged by communities – ranging from boar meat (Sus barbatus), wild carp (Tor spp.) and fruits from native species.  

Locals do care more than about money and food

It is a common misconception that forest communities tend to be backwards, caring only about subsistence and income.

Delving deeper into these studies reveals many hidden values and priorities specific to several communities, many of which usually escape the public eye. For example, a study by Rachmatika et al. (2006) on the priorities of 7 communities in East Kalimantan highlighted other concerns among the locals, such as the loss of burial sites to timber concessions and the loss of habitats among cave swiftlets, which produces the highly prized edible Bird’s Nest.

Although economic needs often triumph other priorities, some communities have demonstrated other social responsibilities and priorities that go beyond earning one’s livelihood. Yuliani et al. (2018) covered two cases in West Kalimantan where villagers managed to stand their ground against looming pressure from timber and oil palm concessions.

In particular, one of the villages (the Iban Dayak Empakan) have displayed a rare form of resilience against the economic lure from these industries, citing environmental concerns such as regulatory ecosystem services and an obligation to God to steward the land appropriately for future generations. These priorities perhaps reflect a form of post-materialistic values that the villagers adopted, either through social learning from their predecessors, regular interactions with the wild and religious obligations.

Existing community capacities and past experiences moderate priorities

Local priorities are also affected by existing community and economical capacities, all of which dictate how forest communities balance between meeting current and future needs. In the case of Indonesia, decades of forest mismanagement accompanied by corruption among governmental and industrial elites has led to relative poverty amongst many forest communities. As a result, it is unsurprising that many of these communities would be enthusiastic about new economic prospects from cash crops and logging operations.

However, several fortunate communities have invested in other economic opportunities prior and are less keen on immediate financial prospects, choosing instead to focus on other eudaimonic motivations. A few others have been burnt previously by illegal logging operations, bribery and failure of companies to keep their promises for compensations. To respond to the perceived unfairness, these communities have demonstrated a community capacity to defend themselves against cheaters among the industrial stakeholders by warning each other of unscrupulous operators.

How do varying priorities influence forest management?

These case studies exemplified that broad generalisations of locals’ priorities only work to cover the general needs of forest communities (income, food, provisional resources). Beyond these priorities, locals’ needs can vary widely, depending on local culture, past experiences and community networks.

Policy-makers and intermediates should seek to be aware of these varying priorities within the locals they work with in order to craft out targeted forest management schemes that complement the needs of forest communities.

At the same time, while negotiating with local communities to agree on mandatory compensatory terms, forests industries should note that monetary benefits may not suffice as locals may have values and needs that go beyond economic motivations. Companies should remain sensitive to the needs of locals. Doing otherwise may risk a possible backlash and other negative consequences, including the tarnishing of a company’s reputation, as well as the risk of a violent response from the locals.