For forest communities to be willing participants in any forest management discussions with authorities, a good linking social capital is essential. Forging strong bonds with authorities, NGOs and planning authorities can improve how local communities perceive authorities and provide an inclusive environment for locals to engage in.

Changes in perception of authorities

Poor leadership and management in the 1980s have damaged the relationship between the state authorities and local communities. Across various studies, locals reported intimidation tactics employed by the former government, along with the corruption among elites – some of which still persist today. Even in recent years, incidents of illegal logging and inefficient bureaucracy have generated frustration and dented the trust locals have in authorities, leading to several communities taking matters into their own hands by inciting stages of protest and violence.

Fortunately, under the shift in management regime and advancements in forestry science, state authorities and scientists have come to appreciate the need to foster strong relationships with forest communities in order to achieve sustainable community forestry outcomes. Currently, there is a paradigm shift towards “participatory planning”, which involves better understanding the needs of forest communities and engaging these communities. Furthermore, including forest communities offers other potential benefits, such as the integration of current ecological knowledge and the wisdom of indigenous communities to improve current agricultural practices and land-use sharing agreements to work towards a proper sustainable forest management scheme for all stakeholders alike.

Despite the promising shift towards community forestry, it remains important to define exactly what “participation” should entail for forest communities. Remnants from the pre-democratisation political era continue linger in the current forest management scene, which occasionally results in politically powerful stakeholders superseding the inputs of the community representatives and souring relationships between forest communities and state authorities. Giving a false sense of inclusiveness is likely to deteriorate linking social capital in the long run, and could even be worse than not engaging local communities at all.

Future perceptions of state authorities

Have forest communities’ perceptions of authorities improved since Indonesia’s democratisation? It remains hard to tell, although the Indonesian government has taken some noteworthy steps to bridge the gap between authorities and locals, mainly through various social forestry programmes and the newly established Forest Management Units (Kesatuan Pengelolann Hutan), tasked to implement policies while serving as intermediates for forest communities in times of conflict.

While the government continues to weed out corrupt practices within the forest industry and instill stronger legislative measures, enforce industry regulations and define land-use boundaries, it remains to be seen how future conflicts and management decisions may influence local communities’ perception of authorities.