1. Outcomes of land and forest tenure reform implementation in Indonesia
Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, March 20-24, 2017
Outcomes of land and forest tenure reform implementation in Indonesia
Mani Ram Banjade
Tuti Herawati
Nining Liswanti
Esther Mwangi

2. Outline Context Research Questions and Methods
Key Findings on Outcomes of Forest Tenure Reform
Conclusion

4. Forest Reform Types Social Forestry Partnership Customary Forest-
Government owns the land
Usufruct rights granted to local communities
Conditions for forest product use vary across social forestry schemes
Partnership
Government owned
Designated for Company (State/Private)
Benefit sharing with local community/IPs
Customary Forest
Owned by IPs
Collectively managed by customary community

5. Key questions: tenure security, livelihoods & forest condition
What are the main sources of land/forest tenure insecurity?
Any improvement have you undertaken on land you use since the reform? Any investment made on land improvement or sustainable land/forest management ?
How do you compare the forest condition now and before reform?
What are the main sources of land/forest tenure security?
How often in the last year did you have problems satisfying the food needs of the household ?
Compared to when you first joined the [scheme/program], has the condition of forests been changed?
In your view has your tenure security to land/forest resources changed because of the reform ?
How does the situation with regard to household food needs compare with before reform? Reasons of change in food needs over time.
What are key reasons for change (improved/worsened) tenure security to land/forest resources?
How do you compare income from agriculture/farming/forestry/livestock between NOW and before reform? What caused the change?
Since joining the scheme have you adopted different technologies and practices for protecting, maintaining and improving the forest
Perception of tenure security: strong or weak?
Whether you livelihoods was improved ever since you joined the [scheme/program]?
Perception of rights enforcement and protection in case of a dispute about forest use and access.

6. West Kalimantan Maluku Lampung
(Early stage social forestry)
Maluku
Customary community
Lampung
(Advanced social forestry)

7. Methods of data collection
Intra-Household Surveys (1024)
Focus Group Discusions (64)
Key Informant Interviews (52)

8. Data analysis Comparisons made between
Different tenure types: social forestry and partnerships
Within same reform: groups with longer experience of reform implementation and recently formed groups
Sites with or without reforms: formal reforms vs informal customary systems
Women and men
Poor and non-poor (about 20 percent of respondents are poor)
Participants vs non-participants within the sites with reforms
Correlation and Regression analysis
Qualitative data analysis using Nvivo
Spatial analysis

9. Key Sources of tenure insecurity: Poor vs non-Poor
The poor rated higher than by the non-poor for temporary rights and lack of protection of rights as source of tenure insecurity

10. Sources of Tenure Security in order of importance
Poor
Non Poor
TOTAL
Non-Reform
Reform
Total
Have title
152
234
386
818
948
1766
970
1182
2152
Boundaries are clear 51 57
108
398
370
768
449
427
876
Rights are permanent (extinguishability) 46 90
136
178
416
594
224
506
730
Rights will not change in time 14 71 85 28
238
266 42
309
351
No conflicts within the community 21 12 33
149
122
271
170
134
304
No overlapping rights 13 7 20
121 27
148 34
168
Legal basis for customary rights is respected 86
143 64 93
157
No conflicts with external actors 4 11 95
115 24
102
126
Communal authorities are autonomous and customary systems are respected 3 78 26
104 81
107
National legislation supports local right claims 17 63 80 70 87
Local institutions are robust in exercising/defending rights 2 32 43 58
Sustained external support exists in safeguarding rights 31 29 5 62
Long partnership time 6
Protected forest

11. Change in Perception of Tenure Security
Q: Has tenure security changed during the last xx years?

12. Perceptions on tenure security: Advanced groups vs recently implemented
Ever since I joined the scheme, I feel that my rights and access
to land and forest is strong and secure

13. Tenure security by gender

14. Livelihoods outcomes (% of resp)
My income and livelihoods have improved after the reform
Participants
Non-participants
Non Poor
Poor
Total
Completely Agree 7 8 2 1
Agree 57 67 58 6 4 5
Neutral 20 15 19
Disagree
Completely disagree
Do not know/response/ not applicable 12 11 82 87 84
100
Contribution to the livelihoods of the poor is higher from the reforms

15. Investment on land and forest management

16. Change in forest condition after reform
With Reform
Without Reform
Non Poor
Poor
Total
Better now 40 47 41 4 2
The same 26 29 21 28 22
Worse 33 24 32 75 67 74
Do not know 1
100

17. CONCLUSION
Devolving forest rights to local communities upheld strong tenure security.
Farmers in sites with reform claim higher investment on land and forest management.
Livelihood seems to have improved in the sites having advanced stages of forest tenure reform implementation.
The poor claim improved income and livelihoods after the reform than non-poor.
Improved forest condition in the sites under forest tenure reform as compared to the sites without a tenure reform.

18. Thank you!