Different forest users often have very different opinions about how a forest should be managed. These differences make it hard for decision-makers to find workable long-term solutions. Indeed, sometimes their ‘solutions’ cause more problems than they solve, and even lead to conflict.

Forest users may know other users have different forest needs and thus different opinions, but how much do they truly understand each other’s motivations? And if they did understand each other, would this necessarily improve forest governance by encouraging more productive discussions and better decisions?

Answers to those questions might be found by looking at Indonesia’s recent and ongoing experiment with decentralising government authority. Decentralisation in Indonesia has provided a golden opportunity for local communities to have greater say in how their forests are managed. But this increased community involvement in forestry decisions hasn’t always strengthened relations between local communities and government agencies.

In Malinau, Kalimantan, local communities, sub-district heads, district officials and NGOs all have opinions on how forests should be managed. When CIFOR scientists surveyed each group’s opinions, the aim was to use the results to stimulate discussion and improve the way these different groups manage forests together.

Interestingly, the team found several points of agreement between the different groups as well as plenty of different ideas. As CIFOR scientist, Lini Wollenberg, says ‘it was fascinating to discover the many ideas about good governance these different groups have.’

Members of 19 villages in the Malinau district were surveyed, as well as government officials and NGO representatives. People were asked questions about land rights, conflicts and the best way to make agreements with companies. They were also asked for their opinions on how cash benefits and information should be shared.

The findings were compiled in a booklet called 'How decision about forests should be made according to the people of Malinau,' which CIFOR will use to facilitate discussion and help groups develop a shared set of principles for governing Malinau’s forests.

While there was never full agreement between any of the groups, the team was able to outline some broad trends. For instance, officials and villagers agreed that land rights, boundaries, forest management regulations and government forestry programmes should be clear and the information about them available to everyone. They also agreed the sub-district leader should be the main channel for communication between villages and the district and that villages deserve some income from forest use in their area.

Then the differences emerged. Villagers often wanted their forest lands to be shared communally, while officials pushed for individual rights. Villagers often preferred full community participation in important decisions, but officials thought participation by a few representatives was enough.

As well as areas of agreement and disagreement between the villagers and officials, the CIFOR team also noticed people had differing ideas on many topics like how conflict should be handled if informal negotiation fails, and who should sign agreements for forest use by companies.

The study admits it doesn’t offer clear solutions, but it may make finding them a lot less painful.

‘We are not trying to conclude what ought to be done in Malinau,’ stresses Wollenberg. ‘This study simply shows the abundance of ideas that exist on how forest governance could be approached and the need for better clarity and coordination about them.’

She says governance decisions should ultimately be up to the people of Malinau.

‘Finding workable, long-term solutions to forest governance will always be a challenge for decision-makers. We hope the booklet we have produced about decision making in forests will help stakeholders understand each other a little better,’ Wollenberg says.

The team believes the approach used in Malinau could be applied to communities in other countries facing similar governance issues. AF, EW

For a copy of How decision about the forest should be made according to the people of Malinau, email c.soeria@cgiar.org or d.hubudin@cgiar.org 

This research was conducted as part of the Multistakeholder Forestry Programme – Department for International Develop-ment (DfID UK) funded project ‘Making Decentralisation work for Local Communities’.