Scientists have been sifting through stacks of case studies trying to understand why — despite all good intentions — some partnerships between indigenous groups and private timber companies in Indonesia fail, while others flourish.

Krister Andersson, co-author of a Center for International Forestry Research report Towards more equitable terms of cooperation: Local people’s contribution to commercial timber concessions, said many factors come into play, including whether concessionaires are serious about incorporating local knowledge (what species are most likely to thrive in a given climate, for instance, or who the real players are in decision-making) and the challenges of hammering out agreements that are mutually beneficial.

But when it comes to failed collaborations in this archipelagic nation of 240 million, the biggest culprit continues to been overlapping land claims, which in the worst cases have led to violence, he said.

“Property rights are critical … [and] a necessary condition for effective partnerships,” Andersson added, emphasising that these rights need to be clear and secure.

At the turn of this century, democratisation in Indonesia prompted the central government to shift more powers to the regional, district and local level, giving them, for the first time, the ability to directly issue logging permits to timber companies. But the legal framework on which to manage these new policies was unclear. As result, some communities have clashed with concession holders over rights to the same plots of land.

“In the worst case, historical customary community rights are not recognized by either timber concessions or local authorities,” said Manuel Guariguata, a scientist with the Center for International Forestry Research and one of the authors of the report.

“Then, rural communities may feel they have no choice but to resort to obstruction or even sabotage of the concession.”

“At other times, for whatever reason, the local government does little to enforce customary land laws,” he said, “or timber concessions and community-claimed property overlap.”

That’s not to say decentralisation and “good forest governance” don’t go hand-in-hand.

When strong and downwardly accountable local governments are in place to help enforce existing contracts, decentralisation can have a positive influence, according to the authors, who analysed around 200 empirical studies in a wide variety of contexts across Asia, Latin America, North America and Africa to try to unravel the puzzle as to why outcomes have been so mixed.

Andersson, who is an associate professor at the University of Colorado, pointed to Bolivia.

For the complete article, please see FORESTS News.