Golar Golar
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
The Climate Investment Funds are putting into action one of the strategic funding programs that deal with climate change. This program is called the Forest Investment Program (FIP) II in Indonesia, which exists in ten Forest Management Units (FMUs), including Dolago Tanggunung in Central Sulawesi. The program will entice investment in the FMU and terminate in 2022. This research will investigate the prospects for the program’s sustainability in the FMU of Dolago Tanggunung using a risk management approach and a literature review. The results of this study show that the FMU Manager will keep doing what funding has already done. Even though the budget isn’t massive, there are three priority programs: 1) KRC operationalization, 2) digital-based innovations, and 3) revision of the long-term forest management plan. But several programs will be added to Social Forestry to support the independent community empowerment that has already been done.
exit strategy, sustainable, forest, management
To expedite the distribution of access to community-based forest area utilization, the Indonesian government has passed an area management policy at the site level and established a Forest Management Unit (FMU) [1, 2]. The existence of FMU is regarded as the initial impetus for strengthening forest governance [3, 4]. As the smallest forest management unit at the site level, FMUs can manage their forest resources effectively and efficiently [5, 6]. FMUs are crucial in economic initiatives toward sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity protection [7-10].
Numerous FMUs in Indonesia have obtained cooperation plans with funding sources other than the Indonesia Government State Budget (APBN) for program financing assistance. The Forest Investment Program II (FIP II) is among the cooperation initiatives. This initiative receives funding and grants from the Climate Investment Funds (CIF). This program is intended to assist lower-middle countries in preparing to adopt the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) initiative. REDD+ stresses that every nation must contribute to combating climate change, which is already disrupting the activities of the Earth’s living organisms [11, 12].
The implementation of the FIP II activities is through.
1) provision of financing to improve infrastructure and institutional readiness to assist adaptation to the impacts of climate change on forests;
2) promote sustainable forest management, which reduces emissions and protects carbon stores;
3) contribute to increasing access to multiple benefits of forest resources that can be accessed in terms of reducing poverty, and increasing the welfare of rural communities.
In addition, gender-based natural resource management is also involved. The participatory context involving the community in efforts to utilize forests through community forestry is related to the involvement of men and women in increasing the community’s economy and income through forest area management [13-15]. That aligns with the global strategy to promote participatory principles with communities in forest management [16, 17].
This cooperation scheme has been established in one of the FMUs in Central Sulawesi, namely the FMU of Dolago Tanggunung. This FMU is one of 10 FMUs that have received support for activities and funding through the FIP II project from 2019 to 2022. It is intended to build local institutions and capacities to enhance partnerships with communities living in and around forests and improve sustainable forest management. Of course, to achieve the program’s success, a collaboration of the parties is needed.
The FIP II program at Dolago Tanggunung began in 2019 and will be ended in December 2022 following the program’s need to plan for the continuation of benefits conclusion; an exit strategy is required [18, 19] as a guide for the parties. Exit strategy contains a plan that describes the implementation of the wishes and the development of the desired objectives of a program to continue [20, 21]. Various expired forestry projects have also done this [22, 23]. In the Dolago Tanggunung, the exit strategy will include lessons learned from output alternatives and FIP II Project outcomes deemed essential for enhancing the operationalization of sustainable forest management at the site level. Therefore, this research will examine the program’s sustainability strategy in its working area.
This research uses an approach adapted from the implementation of the concept of risk management. It is enriched by a systematic literature review of documents related to activities carried out by the FMU of Dolago Tanggunung through the facilitation of the FP II [24-26]. This study’s informants were individuals helped and facilitated by FIP II and Dolago Tanggunung team member representatives. In addition, the FMU supporting unit (SU) responsible for program implementation is also involved.
The stages of systematic literature review consist of (1) identification of archives of the FIP II annual report; (2) screening of FIP II records or documentation; (3) mapping best practices of FIP II; and (4) the exit strategy based on the resource capacity of FMU and farmers group (Figure 1).
The exit strategy is considered successful if (1) the impacts/benefits of the project continue and expand or experience improvement after the end of the project; (2) the relevant activities continue in the same or modified format; and (3) the built system continues to function effectively. These three things are correlated with one another. The exit strategy will look at the capabilities of FMU of Dolago Tanggunung, including funding and human resources in continuing the programs that have been funded. So, not all programs can be continued.
Monitoring and evaluation are carried out to determine what is being carried out by monitoring the results/achievements achieved. If there are deviations from predetermined standards, then improvements are made immediately so that all the results can be according to plan.
The post-project monitoring and evaluation mechanism uses a risk management approach. Risk management activities, in essence, include a process mechanism in the context of monitoring and evaluating the achievements of activities in the FMU-managed area [27, 28]. Several stages of risk management in carrying out monitoring and evaluation efforts after the end of FIP II at Dolago Tanggunung consist of; (1) identification of exit strategy achievements that have been carried out; (2) risk-based achievement analysis; (3) risk evaluation; (4) risk treatment; (5) monitoring and review as well; (6) recording and reporting (Adaptation ISO 31000; 2018).
Figure 1. Systematic literature review
3.1 FIP II accomplishments
FIP II aims to strengthen the institutional capacity of FMUs and local communities in decentralized forest management, resulting in improved forest-based community livelihoods. In doing so, this project supports the decentralization of forest management and supports institutional and human resource capacity building in FMUs. The existence of FIP II at Dolago Tanggunung started in 2019. The outputs that have been produced include the following:
3.1.1 Institutional capacity building on FMU
One of the outputs of the FIP II is identifying the capability of individuals and organizations to enhance forest management services at the site level, in this case, with FMU. Consequently, in the program’s early years, institutional-based capacity building is conducted in FMUs. Future projects are positively affected by institutional capacity improvement [29-31]. The results found at least 8 (eight) core programs related to institutional capacity (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Variety of institutional capacity building in FMU
Within three years of the program running, institutional-based capacity building is carried out every year. Starting with a public consultation, the FIP II hopes for input and suggestions from various related parties to build capacity for just and sustainable forest management. Equitable forest management provides space for the community to utilize the Land to fulfill their daily needs [32-34], but also puts forward the principle of sustainability to the surrounding ecology [35-37].
Many areas are without wristbands [38-40]. Invasion is based on the economic need [41-43], expenditure on mining and timber [44-46], and the lack of monitoring and evaluation of the area. So many animals are hunted for sale illegally [47-49].
Asset and financial management aim to increase Dolago Tanggunung staff’s capacity to support the policies of the regional public service agency. Unfortunately, this program cannot be continued in line with the changes in the function of the FMU after the new policies were introduced. In line with that, the long-term forest management plan of Dolago Tanggunung needs to be revised according to the latest regulations, where FMU programs will be developed into various Social Forestry schemes.
In addition to these schemes to provide local populations with legal forest access rights, the government has also funded many supporting initiatives, including technical assistance, capacity building, and empowerment activities, as part of this initiative [1, 50], As well as connecting local communities with markets [51, 52]. Social forestry is not only supported by its bureaucracy, but the government is also encouraging the involvement of non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders closer to local communities. To support initiatives such as the Social Forestry Working Group, which aims to facilitate accelerated delivery of permits and assist in helping societies after permits are inaugurated [53-55].
Even though in the Dolago Tanggunung, area forest and land fires rarely occur. A socialization program regarding prevention management still needs to be carried out, likewise with the competence training of certified drone pilots for area managers. This program helps increase capacity in mapping work areas. To accommodate the program innovations, it is a need for intensive discussions between managers and beneficiaries of forest areas.
3.1.2 Community empowerment
After the capacity building has been given to the FMU, community empowerment around the forest area is needed to become independent at their economic level. FIP II also carries this out. In Dolago Tanggunung, ten villages were selected to become pilot projects.
Community empowerment is a concept that is widely used in efforts to resolve land tenure conflicts [5, 56, 57]. The community empowerment approach places the community as actors and beneficiaries in finding solutions [58-60]. There are nine variety of community empowerment by FIP II (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Variety of community empowerment by FIP II
Various activities have been carried out in the context of FIP II facilitation of community empowerment. Motivation, intensive giving, comparative studies, and exploring strategies for a successful franchise in other areas are then developed according to the potential of each village (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Community empowerment by FIP II (a) manufacture of ant sugar; (b) farmer-processed product packaging; (c) discussion about empowerment; (d) built nursery
However, these programs did not entirely run optimally according to the program’s initial objectives. The community has not been fully able to translate the outcome of the empowerment given. This situation can be seen from the lack of motivation in most forest farmer groups. People still want instant results, so when the produced products have not been sold, people start to lose motivation to make them.
3.2 FIP II sustainability strategy
While finding the optimal program to maximize the benefits for the community after the end of FIP II, Dolago Tanggunung hides the power position to continue the existing activities. But, in every program implemented, not all can be continued. Several considerations are needed, such as financing, resources, output, and the resulting outcome. On this basis, the parties involved in FIP II at Dolago Tanggunung provided their perspectives on the value of benefits and capabilities when the funding ends. Identifying the achievement of the exit strategy is carried out to emphasize the extent to which it is sustainable and the level of success in achieving it. The analysis results show that 3 (three) priority programs can be used as an exit strategy for the sustainability of FIP II at Dolago Tanggunung (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Exit strategy FIP II
After that, a risk-based achievement analysis was conducted to classify program sustainability achievements and map problems’ dynamics based on priority scales. It is necessary to evaluate the models and methods of solving the problem based on the functions and roles of the relevant institutions and stakeholders [61-63].
Therefore, treatment, monitoring, review, and recording must be determined immediately. The stages of risk-based achievement analysis are presented in the form of a table of the distribution of roles based on who is doing it (Responsible); Who makes decisions (Accountable); Who is consulted before the activity is carried out (Consulted), and who should be given information (Informed). Thus, the description of the Monitoring and Evaluation mechanism for the Exit Strategy can be seen as follows:
3.2.1 Knowledge research center (KRC) operationalization
The output of the KRC construction is expected to be that Dolago Tanggunung will become a knowledge center. It helps provide experience-sharing services and success stories, practical technical guidance methodologies, and online and offline counseling, especially to other FMUs in the regional area of the FMU concerned. The operationalization of the KRC will significantly contribute to the work carried out by itself (Figure 6).
3.2.2 Revision of the long-term forest management plan
In the period before project implementation, the long-term forest management tended to be unknown/understood by the community, and the management plan did not play the role of the community as forest managers. Hence, the community had little ownership of the forest management plan in the FMU. So that in FIP II activities, revisions to the long-term forest management plan of Dolago Tanggunung for the 2020-2029 period have been approved by the Minister of LHK with SK No.SK.6225/MENLHK-KPHL/PKPHL/DAS3/7/2017 date. July 10, 2019, the Proposed Revision) for the 2021-2030 period has been approved by the Minister of LHK with SKNo.SK.1864/MENLHK-LHK/PKPHP/HPL.0/3/3021 date. March 31, 2021.
Figure 6. KRC operationalization
Figure 7. Revision of the long-term forest management plan
The change in the function of the FMU in the national policy nomenclature has drastically changed the FMU institution itself. Thus, it that has been prepared must be adapted to the latest policies. The process of organizing must go through a consultation process with the parties (including the community and indigenous peoples/certain ethnic groups around the FMU). It is carried out iteratively (iterative process) for agreement so that the community feels they have (community ownership) of the long-term forest management plan in the Dolago Tanggunung (Figure 7).
Figure 8. Digital-based FMU innovation
3.2.3 Digital-based FMU innovation
FMU innovation to make the community self-sufficient is considered necessary, especially with its newest function as “facilitation.” With the various pieces of training that have been carried out by FIP II, it will be translated again with the presence of innovations carried out by Dolago Tanggunung (Figure 8), such as marketing of Non-Timber Forest Product (HHBK) products by assisted farmers group, which will be integrated at farmers group mart at Dolago Tanggunung; gender-based participatory mapping in social forestry agreements, and so on.
Among the FIP II programs carried out in the Dolago Tanggunung area, several programs are considered essential and deemed necessary to continue, even though the funding program carried out by FIP II ends in December 2022. These programs include 1) KRC Operationalization, 2) digital-based FMU innovation, and 3) revisions to the long-term forest management plan of Dolago Tanggunung. The three programs were selected based on the resource capacity, budget, and capacity of the FMU managers and the community members of the target group.
Community motivation and empowerment in optimizing the sustainable use of forest resources began to appear through the support of FP II. However, support for program sustainability is urgently needed to maintain the growing public trust in the FP II and FMU programs. Therefore, the active role of Dolago Tanggunung is required to program sustainability.
The author gratefully acknowledges FMU Dolago Tanggunung and Forest Investment Project II to support this research.
[1] Sahide, M.A.K., Maryudi, A., Supratman, S., Giessen, L. (2016). Is Indonesia utilising its international partners? The driving forces behind forest management units. Forest Policy and Economics, 69: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.002
[2] Yovi, E.Y., Nurrochmat, D.R. (2018). An occupational ergonomics in the Indonesian state mandatory sustainable forest management instrument: A review. Forest Policy and Economics, 91: 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.11.007
[3] Djajono, A., Sugiharto, (2016). Pembangunan Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan. 11(1): 9-21. https://www.forclime.org/documents/Books/Buku_Pembangunan_KPH_16_Des_2011.pdf.
[4] Fisher, L.A., Kim, Y.S., Latifah, S., Mukarom, M. (2017). Managing forest conflicts: Perspectives of Indonesia's forest management unit directors. Forest and Society, 1: 8-26. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i1.772
[5] Golar, G., Muis, H., Simorangkir, W.S. (2022). Conflict variety and the facilitation role of forest managemen unit (FMU) on resolution of tenurial conflict. Jurnal Wasian, 9(1): 30-47.
[6] Maryudi, A. (2016). Arah tata hubungan kelembagaan kesatuan pengelolaan hutan (KPH) di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan, 10(1): 57-64. https://doi.org/10.22146/jik.12632
[7] Golar, G., Muis, H., Massiri, S.D., Rahman, A., Maiwa, A., Pratama, F., Baharuddin, R.F., Simorangkir, W.S. (2021). 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
[8] Massiri, S.D., Malik, A., Golar, Hamzari, Nugroho, B. (2020). Institutional capacity of forest management unit in promoting sustainable community-based forest management. Case study of forest management unit in Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2): 169-169. https://doi.org/10.7226/JTFM.26.2.169
[9] Sylviani, S., Dwiprabowo, H., Suryandari, E.Y. (2014). Kajian kebijakan penguasaan lahan dalam kawasan kesatuan pengelolaan hutan (KPH) di Kabupaten Lampung Selatan. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 29274. https://doi.org/10.20886/jakk.2014.11.1.54-70
[10] Tumpach, C., Dwivedi, P., Izlar, R., Cook, C. (2018). Understanding perceptions of stakeholder groups about forestry best management practices in Georgia. Journal of Environmental Management, 213: 374-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.045
[11] Karpouzoglou, T., Dewulf, A., Clark, J. (2016). Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environmental Science & Policy, 57: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.011
[12] Sharma-Wallace, L., Velarde, S.J., Wreford, A. (2018). Adaptive governance good practice: Show me the evidence! Journal of Environmental Management, 222: 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.067
[13] Andersson, E., Johansson, M., Lidestav, G., Lindberg, M. (2018). Constituting gender and gender equality through policy: The political of gender mainstreaming in the Swedish forest industry. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(8): 763-779. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-10-2017-0208
[14] Asfaw, A., Lemenih, M., Kassa, H., Ewnetu, Z. (2013). Importance, determinants and gender dimensions of forest income in eastern highlands of Ethiopia: The case of communities around Jelo Afromontane forest. Forest Policy and Economics, 28: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.005
[15] Kristjanson, P. (2020). Closing gender gaps in forest landscape initiatives. International Forestry Review, 22(1): 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554820829523925
[16] Bisong, T.L., Ogbonna, K.I., Kyari, I.U. (2017). Effect of community participation in forest conservation in Ikom Agricultural Zone of Cross River State. Global Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 16(1): 31-35. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjass.v16i1.4
[17] Mertens, D., Klingenberger, L., Frère, E., Harder, D., Zureck, A. (2023). Management of environmental and social risks within sustainable project finance: Solving tensions to enable sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 18(3): 661-675. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180302
[18] Narutomo, T. (2014). Program penguatan sistem inovasi daerah (SIDA) sebagai exit strategy program nasional pemberdayaan masyarakat (PNPM). Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 6(2): 143-156. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.06.2014.143-156
[19] Schaffer, H. (2014). Will you ever need an exit strategy? IT Professional, 16(2): 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2014.25
[20] McGann, J.G., Noor, Z. (2021). Think tanks & pandemic policy advice (2020-21). Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), 9.
[21] Schroeter, R., Scheel, O., Renn, O., Schweizer, P.J. (2016). Testing the value of public participation in germany: theory, operationalization and a case study on the evaluation of participation. Energy Research & Social Science, 13: 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.013
[22] Madureira, R.C., Silva, C.S., Amorim, M., Ferreira Dias, M., Lins, B., Mello, G. (2022). Think twice to achieve a sustainable project management: From ecological sustainability towards the sustainable project management cube model. Sustainability, 14(6): 3436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063436
[23] Allahar, H. (2019). A management innovation approach to project planning. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(6): 4-13. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1245
[24] Bendtsen, E.B., Clausen, L.P.W., Hansen, S.F. (2021). A review of the state-of-the-art for stakeholder analysis with regard to environmental management and regulation. Journal of Environmental Management, 279: 111773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111773
[25] Gritten, D., Mola-Yudego, B., Delgado-Matas, C., Kortelainen, J. (2013). A quantitative review of the representation of forest conflicts across the world: Resource periphery and emerging patterns. Forest Policy and Economics, 33: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.008
[26] Kazama, V.S., Dalla Corte, A.P.D., Robert, R.C.G., Sanquetta, C.R., Arce, J.E., Oliveira-Nascimento, K.A., DeArmond, D. (2021). Global review on forest road optimization planning: Support for sustainable forest management in Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 492: 119159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119159
[27] Golar, G. (2022). Manajemen risiko potensi konflik tenurial, pertama. CV. Bintang Semesta Media.
[28] Thaler, T., Nordbeck, R., Löschner, L., Seher, W. (2020). Cooperation in flood risk management: Understanding the role of strategic planning in two Austrian policy instruments. Environmental Science & Policy, 114: 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.001
[29] Khan, M.R., Roberts, J.T., Huq, S., Hoffmeister, V. (2018). The Paris Framework for Climate Change Capacity Building. Routledge.
[30] Kumar, A.S., Camacho, S., Searby, N.D., Teuben, J., Balogh, W. (2020). Coordinated capacity development to maximize the contributions of space science, technology, and its applications in support of implementing global sustainable development agendas-a conceptual framework. Space Policy, 51: 101346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2019.101346
[31] Tewari, V.P., Kleinn, C. (2015). Considerations on capacity building for national forest assessments in developing countries-with a case study of India. International Forestry Review, 17(2): 244-254. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815815500633
[32] Ammer, C., Fichtner, A., Fischer, A., Gossner, M.M., Meyer, P., Seidl, R., Thomas, F.M., Annighöfer, P., Kreyling, J., Ohse, B., Berger, U., Feldmann, E., Häberle, K.H., Heer, K., Heinrichs, S., Huth, F., Krämer-Klement, K., Mölder, A., Müller, J., Mund, M., Opgenoorth, L., Schall, P., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Seidel, D., Vogt, J., Wagner, S. (2018). Key ecological research questions for Central European forests. Basic and Applied Ecology, 32: 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.07.006
[33] Golar, G., Malik, A., Muis, H., Herman, A., Nurudin, N., Lukman, L. (2020). The social-economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic: implications for potential forest degradation. Heliyon, 6(10): e05354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05354
[34] Juerges, N., Arts, B., Masiero, M., Hoogstra-Klein, M., Borges, J.G., Brodrechtova, Y., Brukas, V., Canadas, M.J, Carvalho, P.O., Corradini, G., Corrigan, E., Felton, A., Karahalil, U., Karakoc, U., Krott, M., van Laar, J., Lodin, I., Lundholm, A., Makrickienė, E., Marques, M., Mendes, A., Mozgeris, G., Novais, A., Pettenella, D., Pivoriūnas, N., Sarı, B. (2021). Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries. Ecosystem Services, 49: 101290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101290
[35] Crausbay, S.D., Betancourt, J., Bradford, J., Cartwright, J., Dennison, W.C., Dunham, J., Enquist, C.A.F., Frazier, A.G., Hall, K.R., Littell, J.S., Luce, C.H., Palmer, R., Ramirez, A.R., Rangwala, I., Thompson, L., Walsh, B.M., Carter, S. (2020). Unfamiliar territory: Emerging themes for ecological drought research and management. One Earth, 3(3): 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.019
[36] Jakob, M., Steckel, J.C. (2016). Implications of climate change mitigation for sustainable development. Environmental Research Letters, 11(10): 104010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104010
[37] Pathak, R., Verma, V., Agarwal, M. (2020). Impact of human activities on forest resources and wildlife population. Computational Ecology and Software, 11(2): 83-99. http://www.iaees.org/publications/journals/ces/articles/2021-11(2)/impact-of-human-activities-on-forest-resources.pdf.
[38] Curie, K.B., Mertens, K., Vranken, L. (2021). Tenure regimes and remoteness: When does forest income reduce poverty and inequality? A case study from the Peruvian Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics, 128: 102478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102478
[39] Golar, G., Mahfudz, Malik, A., Muis, H., Khairil, M., Sharif Ali, S.S., Sharif Ali, Razman, M.R., Awang, A. (2019). The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park. Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 25(4): 352-359.
[40] Riggs, R.A., Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A.K., Langston, J.D., Sutanto, H. (2016). Forest tenure and conflict in Indonesia: Contested rights in Rempek Village, Lombok. Land Use Policy, 57: 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.002
[41] Becek, K., Yong, G.Y.V., Sukri, R.S., Lai, D.T.C. (2022). Shorea albida sym does not regenerate in the Badas peat swamp forest, Brunei Darussalam-An assessment using remote sensing technology. Forest Ecology and Management, 504: 119816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119816
[42] Golar, G., Basir-Cyio, M., Isrun, I., Bakri, R., Rusydi, M., Bohari, B., Pratama, M.F. (2021). Recovery of agricultural areas affected by traditional gold mining: Sustainable food supply stability. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 16(2): 177-184. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.160207
[43] Ilham, Q.P., Purnomo, H., Nugroho, T. (2019). Model of multi-stakeholder forest management: A system study of protected forest management unit in Solok, Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing, 285(1): 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/285/1/012009
[44] Golar, G., Muis, H., Akhbar, A., Khaeruddin, C. (2022). Threat of forest degradation in ex-forest concession right (HPH) in Indonesia. Sustainability and Climate Change, 5(3): 216-223. https://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2022.0019
[45] Karan, S.K., Samadder, S.R., Maiti, S.K. (2016). Assessment of the capability of remote sensing and GIS techniques for monitoring reclamation success in coal mine degraded lands. Journal of Environmental Management, 182: 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.070
[46] Soler, R., Lorenzo, C., González, J., Carboni, L., Delgado, J., Díaz, M., Manríquez, M.D.R.T., Alejandro, H.H. (2021). The politics behind scientific knowledge: Sustainable forest management in Latin America. Forest Policy and Economics, 131: 102543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102543
[47] Bonsu, N.O., McMahon, B.J., Meijer, S., Young, J.C., Keane, A., Dhubháin, Á.N. (2019). Conservation conflict: Managing forestry versus hen harrier species under Europe's Birds Directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 252: 109676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109676
[48] Ehrhart, S., Schraml, U. (2018). Adaptive co-management of conservation conflicts-An interactional experiment in the context of German national parks. Heliyon, 4(10): e00890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00890
[49] Zentner, E., Kecinski, M., Letourneau, A., Davidson, D. (2019). Ignoring indigenous peoples-climate change, oil development, and indigenous rights clash in the arctic national wildlife refuge. Climatic Change, 155(4): 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02489-4
[50] Tacconi, L., Rodrigues, R.J., Maryudi, A. (2019). Law enforcement and deforestation: Lessons for Indonesia from Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 108: 101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.029
[51] De Royer, S., Van Noordwijk, M., Roshetko, J.M. (2018). Does community-based forest management in Indonesia devolve social justice or social costs? International Forestry Review, 20(2): 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818823767609
[52] Chomba, S.W., Nathan, I., Minang, P.A., Sinclair, F. (2015). Illusions of empowerment? Questioning policy and practice of community forestry in Kenya. Ecology and Society, 20(3): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07741-200302
[53] Rahayu, S., Laraswati, D., Pratama, A.A., Sahide, M.A.K., Permadi, D.B., Wibowo, W., Widyaningsih, T.S., Suprapto, E., Andayani, W., Maryudi, A. (2020). Bureaucratizing non-government organizations as governmental forest extension services in social forestry policy in Indonesia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 29(2): 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2020.1753585
[54] Maryudi, A., Sahide, M.A.K., Daulay, M.H., Yuniati, D., Syafitri, W., Sadiyo, S., Fisher, M.R. (2022). Holding social forestry hostage in Indonesia: Contested bureaucracy mandates and potential escape pathways. Environmental Science & Policy, 128: 142-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.11.013
[55] Sahide, M.A.K., Fisher, M.R., Supratman, S., Yusran, Y., Pratama, A.A., Maryudi, A., Runtubei, Y., Sabar, A., Verheijen, B., Wong, G.Y., Kim, Y.S. (2020). Prophets and profits in Indonesia's social forestry partnership schemes: Introducing a sequential power analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 115: 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102160
[56] Drasospolino, University of Indonesia. (2022). The influence of forest management policy on forest areas and community empowerment in Yogyarkarta. Journal of Legal Ethical & Regulatory Issues, 25(1): 1-14.
[57] Samperompon, A.M., Mahbub, A.S. (2021). Community empowerment strategy at KPHL unit VI (Minahasa Utara-Bitung-Manado) North Sulawesi. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing, 681(1): 012007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/681/1/012007
[58] Coy, D., Malekpour, S., Saeri, A.K. (2022). From little things, big things grow: Facilitating community empowerment in the energy transformation. Energy Research & Social Science, 84: 102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102353
[59] Fielding, D. (2022). Measuring the diversity dividend for community-level health and women's empowerment in Africa. SSM-Population Health, 20: 101294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101294
[60] Luisi, D., Hämel, K. (2021). Community participation and empowerment in primary health care in Emilia-Romagna: A document analysis study. Health Policy, 125(2): 177-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.11.007
[61] Mustika, I.Y., Kustanti, A., Hilmanto, R. (2017). Kepentingan dan peran aktor dalam pengelolaan hutan mangrove di desa Pulau Pahawang Kecamatan marga punduh kabupaten pesawaran. Jurnal Sylva Lestari (JSL), Archives, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.23960/jsl25113-127
[62] Nakazato, H., Izumi, R., Lim, S. (2022). Joining policy forums together to develop ki-no-eki, a community currency system for forest management in Japan: Dynamics of policy communication networks. Land, 11(10): 1811. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101811
[63] Kashina, E., Yanovskaya, G., Fedotkina, E., Tesalovsky, A., Vetrova, E., Shaimerdenova, A., Aitkazina, M. (2022). Impact of digital farming on sustainable development and planning in agriculture and increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural business. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(8): 2413-2420. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170808
