Transformation of Agro-Forest Management Policy under the Dynamic Circumstances of a Two-Decade Regional Autonomy in Indonesia

Abstract

Agro-forest management policy is one of the most trending issues in Indonesia under the dynamics circumstances of regional autonomy. Regional autonomy has been recognized in the formal governance system of the Republic Indonesia through Regional Governance Law 5/1972 and Village Governance Law 5/1979. A strong political reform following deep economic crisis in 1998 has forced Indonesian President Suharto to step down, and the new government has to accommodate political reform agendas, included a broader regional autonomy, which has been implemented under a Regional Governance Law 22/1999, then replaced by Law 32/2004 and Law 23/2014. The existing Regional Governance Law has shifted almost all authorities in forest management from the regency to the province, and associated with the new established Law 11/2020 on job creation, a single license of multi-purpose forest utilization was introduced, including agroforestry, that will potentially reduce deforestation and improve the community welfare. This study evaluates key elements of local development goals, risks and barriers, as well as basic capitals for agro-forest management in Tebo Regency, Jambi Province, using an Interpretive Structural Modelling approach. Overall, this study concludes that weak coordination, low quality of human capital, inappropriate communication with stakeholders, and lack of financial resources are the greatest challenges to the implementation of agro-forest management, particularly agroforestry, as a part of social forestry schemes.

1. Introduction

Since the enactment of Regional Autonomy Law 22/1999, the decentralization of forest management has been one of the mainstream policies in Indonesia. This study evaluates policy transformation from an era of large regional autonomy in 1999, where almost all government authorities—except defence and security affairs, fiscal and monetary affairs, foreign affairs, judicature, religion, and other policies in strategic areas such as technologies, conservation, and national standardization—are decentralized to the regency, to a new decentralized regional system that shifted almost all government authorities from the regency to province and central government, but at the same time the central government giving more opportunities to the local communities to manage forests through social forestry license. This means, although most of the forest management authorities have been shifted from the regency to the central and provincial government, more and more numbers of local communities are getting direct benefits from forest management under the new decentralization system.

Agro-forest management means a synergy of agriculture and forest management in a landscape unit [1]. This has a broader meaning rather than agroforestry, i.e., a pattern of landuse for a combination of the cultivation of agriculture and forest commodities in a piece of land. Agro-forest management is very important to give more livelihood alternatives, particularly in a larger village population. It is argued that larger areas of forests allocated for community forests are associated with the increased of community welfare [2,3].

Regional autonomy is one of the most important topics on the agenda of political reform following the collapse of Soeharto’s New Order regime in May 1998 [4]. After regional autonomy, some administrative, fiscal, and political authorities were transferred from the central government level in Jakarta to the local level, i.e., provincial, regency (kabupaten) or municipal (kota), and village level. (The hierarchy of the government system in Indonesia from the top to the bottom consists of central government, province, regency or municipal, and village. Both regency and municipal are an autonomous government under the province. Municipal is autonomous city government led by a mayor, while regency is led by a regency head, called “Bupati”. Usually, a regency is laid in the rural region, covering a much larger area rather than municipal. In this study, the term “state” refers to “negara” or the government of Indonesia. So, “state forest” means forest belong to the government. The term “regional government” involves all levels of local government, i.e., province, regency or municipal, and village (other than central government)). With regard to decentralization in the agro-forest management, the issuance of a large number of small-scale logging and forest conversion licenses by the Regency Head and the imposition of taxes and regulatory restrictions on timber concessions by the regency governments at the early stage of regional autonomy two decades ago marked the onset of the decentralization era [4,5].

In 2004, Regional Autonomy Law 22/1999 was replaced by Law 32/2004 that removed the authority of the regency head to give small-scale logging license. Since 2004, all logging licenses were not given by the regency or province, but central government, through the Ministry of Forestry (now Ministry of Environment and Forestry). The 2004 regional governance law was leaving some authorities in forest management, particularly protection forests and forest management unit (FMU), to the regency. Ten years after the implementation of Law 32/2004, this law has been replaced by Law 23/2014. Referring to the existing regional governance law, the regency governments have lost most of their authority in forest management, only Taman Hutan Raya or forest garden is under the authority of regency. Some issues regarding the distribution of authority and budget between central and local governments, the lack of local institutions’ capacity to implement the decentralization agenda, issues with sustainability in forest use and the livelihoods of the nearby local communities, and the importance of clarity in governance and legal structure of decentralized forest management are widely covered by previous studies. However, the results from analyses of forest management decentralization outcomes vary between previous studies [4,6,7,8,9,10]. Therefore, further empirical studies that take into account local contexts, including governance and resource availability, are required.

This study aims to identify and understand the transformation of agro-forest management policies as a consequence of local development goals, risks and barriers, as well as basic capitals for agro-forest management after two decades of regional autonomy in Tebo Regency, Jambi Province in Indonesia. To achieve its objective, this study therefore addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the key elements of the local development goals and how do these link to agro-forest management policies? (2) What are the main risks and barriers to optimal implementation of the decentralized forest management in the Tebo Regency? (3) What basic capitals does the Tebo Regency have to enhance agro-forest management under social forestry schemes, consisting of community forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm), community forest plantation (Hutan Tanaman Industri/HTR), village forest (Hutan Desa/HD), collaborative forest management (Pengelolaan Hutan Pola Kemitraan), customary forest (Hutan Adat), and smallholder private forest (Hutan Rakyat/HR). Within the Indonesian context, basic capitals incorporate not only natural resources but also include various strengths and supporting factors such as education, infrastructure, rule of law, and many others.

2. Conceptual Framework: Forest Governance and Agro-Forest Management Policy

Forest governance is an important element in agro-forest management [3,11,12]. The concept refers to “how the forests and the people participating in management and utilization of the forestry resources are governed” [12,13,14,15,16,17]. A set of indicators with respect to governance key dimensions can be used as an assessment tool at the local level, i.e., social, economy, ecology, legal and institutional, and accessibility and technology [18]. Amidst the ongoing process of regional autonomy, which reflects a shift in the governance structure, one policy question being imposed is how this would impact agro-forest management. Some previous studies show that decentralization has resulted in a significant difference in forest governance amongst regencies, and that this change in forest governance is associated with the deforestation rates [4,5,19]. Nowadays, two decades after the onset of regional autonomy, the topic of decentralized forest management remains an empirical and important policy matter. According to the existing Regional Governance Law 23/2014, all types of forestry licenses given to corporations or to the community are the authority of the central government. The central government, i.e., Ministry of Environment and Forestry, provides forestry business licenses according to the proposal from the company and social forestry license for farmer group, after verifying and consulting with the regency head and governor through province forest service.

There are variations between regions in terms of human resource capacity, economic growth, public participation, and regulatory and institutional robustness. The Law 11/2020 on job creation has replaced a partial license of forest commodity such as utilization of timber, non-timber, ecotourism, and environmental services (e.g., carbon sequestration) with a single license for multiple products for the forestry business. Thus, the license holder is able to utilize all forest products following the business plan, approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. This law enabled to implement several schemes of agro-forest management. The grey boxes indicate all types of forest and activities related directly with agro-forest management (Figure 1).

The current law on job creation has simplified procedures for getting licenses of any types of forest utilization, including social forestry schemes. Social forestry involves two areas of activity, i.e., community forestry, the community-based activities conducted on forests, and community development, the activities to empower community who live around the forests through, for instance, a forest empowerment program. This program is carried out by the forest authority, together with forest farmer groups, called Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan (LMDH). The farmer group may get a license of forest utilization from the central government, called a recognition of the forest and environment partnership (KULINKK). The government also gives license for “on forest” activities under social forestry schemes, i.e., HKm, HTR, HD, or collaborative forest management, and recognizes customary forests as well as smallholder private forests.

The authority to manage the production forest and protection forest is now held by the provincial government, while the central government holds the authority to manage the conservation forest. Since the enactment of regional autonomy, the forestry sector contribution to Tebo Regency’s Gross Domestic Regional Product (GDRP) continued to decline from 10.12% in 2002 to only 5.10% in 2013 [20]. Furthermore, the forest cover in Tebo Regency has also declined over the past two decades (Figure 2).

The current regulation on a single license of multi-purpose forest utilization, including agro-forest management, is a very important change to not only administrative procedure but also forest business practice in order to reduce deforestation by increasing financial direct benefits of forests and improving the community welfare.

3. Methods

The study was carried out in Tebo Regency, Jambi Province, Indonesia. It handled two decades of the implementation of regional autonomy in Indonesia, and its implication to the agro-forest management, by focusing on the case of the respected regency. The regency has an area of 646,100 hectares [21], and 43.33% or 280,100 ha is covered by forests [22].

This study applies the Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique. The ISM technique, first introduced by Warfield [23], is usually used to evaluate interrelated elements linked to complex issues, for example as experienced during strategic policy planning [23,24,25,26]. In this study, data are collected through a two-stage method. First, it reviews relevant forestry development planning documents. The purpose of this stage is to identify the chain of agro-forest management policies with the national, provincial, and regency levels from the selected planning documents. This qualitative document analysis has been widely used in previous studies [27], using the ISM technique [28,29].

As the first step, we developed a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) to represent the contextual relationships between elements listed in

Table 1. List of local development goals.

Category	No	Conditions of Agro-Forest Management
Local development goals	A1	Increased quantity and quality of land transportation infrastructure
	A2	Increased quantity and quality of public facilities
	A3	Increased quality of irrigation infrastructure
	A4	Increased quality of education
	A5	Increased quality of health
	A6	The realization of the balance growth between population and social development
	A7	Decreased gap in community income
	A8	Decreased unemployment rate
	A9	Increased rate of economic growth in leading sectors
	A10	Growth in the tourism sector
	A11	Increased food security based on local food sources and science & technology
	A12	Increased quality of environment
	A13	Increased stability of public order, legal and political awareness
	A14	Increased social and community protection
	B1	Forest management unit is not able to run its functions and authorities appropriately
	B2	High potential of forest and land fires
	B3	High rate of land encroachment, especially for agriculture and settlements
	B4	Limited number of human resources for managing the forest areas
	B5	Limited capacity of human resources for managing the forest areas
	B6	The poverty level of the community surround forest areas is still high
	B7	Low legal awareness of the community
	B8	The potential of forest resources has not been utilized optimally
	B9	Weak working relations between district, provincial and central governments
	B10	The community-based forestry industry has not yet developed
	B11	Low interest in private investment in the forestry sector
	B12	There is no cross-sector based regional development integration yet
	B13	Lack of communication among stakeholders in the context of the synergy of forestry
	B14	Limited funding for forest management
	B15	Low public awareness and understanding of the importance of forests
Basic capitals for agro-forest management	C1	Quality of Education and human resources
	C2	Quality of leadership in government agencies
	C3	Access and availability of development funding
	C4	Working infrastructure and technology
	C5	Community social capital
	C6	Availability of development land
	C7	Governance system
	C8	Networking and partnership
	C9	Multi stakeholders involvement in development process
	C10	Law Enforcement and Assurance
	C11	Stakeholders commitment

. Four symbols—namely V, A, X, and O—were used to represent the relationship between two variables, i.e., variables $i$ and $j$. The relationship is denoted by V if variable $i$ influences variable $j$; A if variable $j$ influences variable $i$; X if both variables influence each other; and O if there is no relationship between the two variables.

A futher step was to develop the Reachability Matrix (RM). The initial RM is obtained by changing the SSIM symbols (i.e., V, A, X, and O) into a binary matrix following standard rules that exist within the ISM literature. (According to Liu et al. [29], the following rules apply: (i) if the $\left(i,j\right)$ entry in the SSIM is V, the entry $\left(i,j\right)$ in the reachability matrix is set to one; while entry $\left(j,i\right)$ is set to zero; (ii) if the $\left(i,j\right)$ entry in the SSIM is A, the entry $\left(i,j\right)$ in the reachability matrix is set to zero; while entry $\left(j,i\right)$ is set to one; (iii) if the $\left(i,j\right)$ entry in the SSIM is X, the both $\left(i,j\right)$ and $\left(j,i\right)$ entries in the reachability matrix are set to one; and (iv) if the $\left(i,j\right)$ entry in the SSIM is O, the both $\left(i,j\right)$ and $\left(j,i\right)$ entries in the reachability matrix are set to zero.) The final RM can be derived after the application of the transivity rules. (The transitivity property states that if attribute X is related to attributed Y, and attribute Y is related to attribute Z, then attribute X is necessarily related to attribute Z.) A further analysis was then performed by partitioning the RM. Based on the final RM, then reachability sets and antecedent sets for a particular attribute can be obtained. (A simple definition noted by Fathi et al. [28] is that the reachability set for a particular element includes the element itself and all of the other elements that it determines; while the antecedent set comprises the element itself and all of the other elements that determine it.) Intersection occurs when the same element numbers are found in both reachability and antecedent sets. We then performed an iteration process (the first iteration process determines the level of a variable that has the same value or an intersection number with the value or a number in the reachability set, which is then denoted as Level 1. Level 1 is then ignored in the second iteration process which produces Level 2. Subsequently, Levels 1 and 2 are ignored in the third iteration process, and so on) to obtain the hierarchic levels of elements. Based on results from the earlier stages to produce the SSIM, RM, and level’s partitioning, three digraphs were derived showing the hierarchy of levels of the elements of interest with the bottom level showing the key elements.

Based on the review, we obtained three categories of agro-forest management: (1) local development goals, (2) risks and barriers of agro-forest management, and (3) basic capitals for agro-forest management (Figure 3).

In the second stage, three categories for agro-forest management are discussed in focus group discussions (FGDs) in the Tebo Regency. The FGDs were attended by six key participants (experts) representing institutions related to agro-forest management, namely Jambi Provincial Forestry Service, Tebo Regency Development Planning Agency, Jambi Natural Resources Conservation Unit, East Tebo forest management unit, Jambi University, and a Jambi forestry observer. The selection of those six FGD participants was based on the results from a preliminary visit to Tebo Regency, particularly having discussions with numbers of people from various stakeholders for their recommendations on expert respondents. While this selection basis narrowed down the number of experts relevant to the research theme, information derived from the FGD presents reliable and comprehensive insights into discussion points [28]. The experts ensured that there was no key element missing from the three categories, and they scrutinized the contextual relationships between the listed elements of interests.

4. Results

4.1. Qualitative Planning Document Analysis and Results from FGDs

Following a search of relevant planning documents and consultations with relevant experts, we selected three main planning documents related to forestry development in the Tebo Regency, namely (1) the MoEF Strategic Plan [30]; (2) the Jambi Provincial Forestry Service Year Strategic Plan 2016–2021 [22]; and (3) the Tebo Regency Mid-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) 2017–2022 [21].

The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) Strategic Plan Year 2014–2019 is regulated under the MoEF Decree 39/2015. It serves as the legal basis for developing the policy and strategy of environment and forestry sector development applicable to all working units. The Strategic Plan provides a list of programs and activities, barriers, basic capitals, goals, and a financial framework for achieving the MoEF’s vision of preserving environmental conditions to improve people’s livelihoods and sustainable resource management and, in parallel, enhance natural resources’ contribution to the national economy.

Table 1 shows the list of development goals, risks and barriers, and basic capitals for agro-forest management as discussed by FGD participants.

4.2. Identifying and Classifying Key Elements

The ISM technique was used to determine the key elements of the local development goals, risks and barriers, and basic capitals for agro-forest management in Tebo Regency, Jambi. Figure 4 shows the increased quality of environment (A12); increased stability of public order, legal, and political awareness (A13); and increased social and community protection (A14) are the key elements of the Tebo Regency development goals. The well-functioning of the last two aspects (A13 and A14) and progress towards achieving the first aspect (A12) should also contribute to a successful implementation of agro-forest management in Tebo Regency. The increased quality of irrigation infrastructure (A3) is an element that does not have influences on the other elements. Based on discussion during the FGD, irrigation infrastructure as one of the priority development targets is not expected by the public. The agriculture sector in Tebo Regency is dominated by rubber plantations and oil palm plantations, which do not depend on irrigation infrastructure.

Figure 5 shows five key elements: limited capacity of human resources for managing the forest areas (B5); weak working relations between regency, provincial, and central governments (B9); lack of communication among stakeholders in the context of the synergy of forestry development (B13); limited funding for agro-forest management (B14); and the low public awareness and understanding of the importance of forests (B15).

Furthermore, Figure 6 presents seven key elements of basic capitals for agro-forest management. These include the quality of education and human resources (C1); quality of leadership in government agencies (C2); community social capital (C5); governance system (C7); networking and partnership (C8); multi stakeholder’s involvement in the development process (C9); and stakeholder commitments (C11). The results further confirm an earlier observation of the importance of the broad dimensions of social and human capital in the agro-forest management from quality education to coordination and good governance.

As the last stage of this analysis, the Matrice d’Impacts croises technique multiplication appliqúe an classment (MICMAC) analysis was applied to identify and assess the driving and dependence powers of each element of interest related to local development goals, risks, and barriers to the agro-forest management and basic capitals for agro-forest management in Tebo Regency, Jambi. Three two-dimensional diagrams were developed using the dependence value and the driving power to determine Y axis and X axis coordinates, respectively. Results from the MICMAC analysis categorized elements into four clusters or quadrants, namely (1) autonomous, (2) dependent, (3) linkage, and (4) independent. The classification results are presented in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.

Figure 7 shows the increased quality of irrigation infrastructure (A3) is in the autonomous category. This implies that this element has weak driving power and weak dependence power, and it is disconnected from the local development goals of Tebo Regency, Jambi. This finding is interesting given that more than 50% of the Tebo Regency’s gross domestic regional income comes from the agriculture sector. There is quite a large number of elements in the linkage category, i.e., strong driving and dependence powers. The category reflects unstable relationships, which mean that any action on these elements will impact others and have a feedback effect on themselves.

Meanwhile, Figure 8 suggests that the limited number of human resources for managing the forest areas (B4) has no relevance to the risks and barriers to agro-forest management. The results indicate less concern over the quantity aspect of human capital, but instead a concern about the quality of human resources involved in the programs. Figure 8 also shows a large number of elements in the independent category, i.e., strong driving power but weak dependence power. With regard to basic capitals, Figure 9 shows seven elements in the linkage category with strong driving as well as dependence powers. Except the element of working infrastructure and technology (C4), it is important to note that all of these elements are associated with human and social capital, including education, leadership, social capital, governance, networking, stakeholder involvement, and law enforcement. The relationships between these elements are interdependent. Hence, an action affecting one element may impact the relevance of other elements to the focus dimension.

5. Discussion

5.1. Addressing Local Development Goals

Whilst there is no agro-forest management-specific document currently in place, there are other documents that look at the environmental aspects of the local development in the Tebo Regency. For instance, one of Tebo Regency’s development missions for 2017–2022 is to encourage regional economic growth and individual incomes based on agribusiness and agro-industry development by paying attention to environmental sustainability. The mission is further devided into five programs, two of which are the Program for the Protection and Conservation of Natural Resources; and the Program for Improving the Quality and Access to Information on Natural Resources and the Environment. One of these programs’ targets is to develop three ‘Adiwiyata schools’ in the period of 2017–2022 as an effort to improve social and environmentally friendly culture at local schools (the implementation of which is regulated by the Minister of Environment Regulation Number 5 Year 2013). Forest conservation should be included in the supporting educative materials, which can be further disseminated to other local schools. This can be achieved through a collaboration between the Tebo Regency Government, the Jambi Provincial Forestry Service, and the Office of the Technical Implementation Unit under the coordination of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.

The “missions” of the Regional Mid-term Development Plan (RPJMD) of Tebo Regency 2017–2022 also encourage the creation of peace and order in community life. The mission is further translated into three development strategies, namely (1) increasing community participation in maintaining security and order; (2) increasing security control and environmental order; and (3) increasing disaster prevention and mitigation efforts. While these do not specifically refer to the forestry sector, the inclusion of environmental and disaster prevention elements should have some linkages with efforts in the forestry sector. Furthermore, earlier studies also highlight that low public and government legal awareness is one of the reasons for poor law obidience [31,32]. To this end, raising legal awareness should continue to be a priority. Improving social and community protection is also very important and is one of the strategic targets in the RPJMD of Tebo Regency 2017–2022. This plan defines a strategy to increase public access to basic social services such as health, education, and employment. Resources allocated by the Tebo Regency government should be integrated with the ongoing forestry development programs to the extent possible, such as Social Forestry that can support various community activities that support agro-forest management and conservation efforts.

5.2. Addressing Risks and Barriers to the Agro-Forest Management

Referring to Nurtjahjawilasa [33], a task force can be set up to perform the assessment. This task force can be formed by the Jambi Provincial Forestry Service, which has an authority based on Law 23/2014 on Regional Governance. The task force should be multidisciplinary and consist of representatives from various relevant institutions for addressing both forestry-specific human resource needs and those required to do cross-sectoral, cross-institution, and stakeholder engagement programs.

Addressing sub-optimal coordination in forest land management between relevant institutions has also been pointed out by previous studies [33,34,35,36]. The complexity of agro-forest management and the changing institutional structure requires an agile governance and appropriate work relation arrangements between involved agencies including matters pertaining to accountability, transparency, clarity in work allocation, and knowledge of relevant regulatory frameworks. To this end, there has been an ongoing effort to improve the implementation of agro-forest management in the decentralization era.

Enhancing stakeholder participation is also very important to achieve a good governance [37]. To optimize participation by the stakeholders, the role of effective communication is paramount. The changing technologies, shifting demographics, and regulatory frameworks require an alteration in the way information should be communicated to direct stakeholders and the general public. Learning from the marketing strategies used in the private sector, a communication plan should be an integral part of agro-forest management, the core of which should be around providing regular, useful, and accurate information to audiences.

In addition to an assessment for human resources, improved coordination, and stakeholder participation, sources of funding are also pivotally important for successful agro-forest management. The Food and Agriculture Organization lists challenges facing agro-forest management financing [38]. Many challenges stem from the absence of, or minimal monetary incentives from, agro-forest management programs. Another challenge is the complexity of agro-forest management costs and risks compared to other land uses. Thus, agro-forest management should apply a multiple utilization strategy, such as ecotourism and agroforestry, in addition to timber management.

Our last recommendation on addressing risks and barriers to agro-forest management is to improve public awareness and understanding of the importance of forests. Learning from the United States (US), noting promotional activities undertaken by the US government [39], an innovative and user-friendly approach is suggested. For instance, the United States of Forest Service (USFS) introduced a forest fire prevention mascot named ‘Smokey Bear’ in 1944, which has been recorded as the longest running US government campaign in history. The popularity of the mascot with “only you can prevent forest fires” motto is comparable to that of Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus. According to the USFS, Smokey Bear has a strong bearing on the decline in forest fires in the US, from 22 million acres per year to under eight million acres per year in 2004. However, it is also important to note that although many fires are bad, fire is a natural part of ecosystems, and some ecosystems are fire-dependent. Thus, prescribed burning may be necessary in certain managed forests.

In addition to a general campaign on agro-forest management, consideration should also be given to improve awareness of select topics such as the role of women in agro-forest management. Women play roles in gathering and utilizing food sources originating from forests such as leaves, fruits, roots, tubers, seeds, nuts, mushrooms, sap, and animal products (such as eggs and honey), while men are invovled in hunting and fishing [40]. Women have the potential to bridge the “gap” between environmental and development issues and pass this knowledge on to their children [41].

5.3. Enhancing Basic Capitals

The first and foremost basic capital to implement any management and development program, including agro-forest management, is education and human resources. In the context of decentralization, the human resource capacity is very important in determining regional development priorities. The lack of human resource capacity is a weakness of developing countries that becomes an obstacle to implement decentralized forest management [42]. Strategies to address issues with quality human resources should include the development of a clear career pathway in the forestry sector, consolidation between the sector’s needs and education, and training programs including knowledge specific to the implementation of decentralized agro-forest management.

Second, a leadership role is critical for successful agro-forest management. Leadership is seen as one of the success factors for community participation or collective actions in addition to the allocation of resources such as costs, time and energy, and expected benefits from the collection action [43]. Effective leadership can encourage collective action through inspiring the community, urging the implementation of institutional norms, resolving conflicts, building networks with development partners, and ensuring the achievement of benefits expected by the community. To achieve these outcomes, strategies such as leadership management exercises, encouraging participation, and capacity development of early-career officials should be considered.

In addition to education and a leadership role, social capital is another important basic capital for agro-forest management. Social capital according to Putnam is defined as a social institution that involves networks, norms, and social trust that encourage social collaboration (coordination and cooperation) for the common good [44], while Bourdieu [45] defines social capital as a collection of resources owned by each member in a group that is used together. As summarized by Ishihara and Pascual [46], since the 1990s the concept of social capital has received growing attention in the literature on the management of common pooled resources and collective actions, especially in relation to the use and development of sustainable natural resources. Social capital contributes to collective actions to manage complex environments through knowledge creation and diffusion. It can also improve the community’s ability to overcome social and environmental problems including challenges facing agro-forest management. The Tebo Regency Government should therefore assess social capital currently existing in the community before developing a program to increase social capital, and its contribution to the agro-forest management.

Fourth, we highlight the need to improve the governance system. A key element of this is enhancing the rule of law. For instance, Yasmi et al. [47] review conditions under which decentralization can achieve its objectives, which include addressing issues related to property rights such as de jure and de facto claims of forests. In addition to the involvement of governments and communities, a solution to such issues may benefit from the involvement of a mediator, making reference to scientific findings and results from research, and planning and monitoring by multi stakeholders [48] to gain an optimum benefit [49].

Part of good forest governance is enhanced partnerships and an efficient forest business license. The establishment of Law 11/2020 on job creation, has changed a complex and partial forest business license to a single license of multi-purpose forest utilization. In addition, the complexity of agro-forest management that requires scientific support and significant human, financial, and technological inputs as well as governments’ resource constraints provide the rationale for partnerships between different levels of the government and stakeholders including the private sector, NGOs, and international institutions. A stakeholder engagement plan is advisable to provide practical guidance towards achieving a participatory agro-forest management. The plan may include activities such as the regular holding of multi-stakeholder forums, and the use of electronic platforms such as a regency government-managed website, to invite partnership opportunities. These would only succeed, however, if involved stakeholders have clarity about the intended outcomes of and benefits from such partnerships. This study formulated a number of policy recommendations as summarized in

Table 2. Recommendations to address issues pertaining local development goals, risks and barriers to forest management, and provision of basic capitals.

Local Development Goals (LD)	Risks and Barriers to Forest Management (RB)	Basic Capitals (BC)
Improve the environment quality Increase the stability of public order, political and legal awareness Improve social and community protection	Assess the need and quality of human resources for managing the forest areas Strengthen coordination between relevant institutions and groups Enhance communication between stakeholders Improve forest management financing Increase public awareness and understanding of the importance of forests	Education and human resources Effective leadership role Improve social capital Governance including rule of law and multi-stakeholder engagement Partnerships

.

In addition to a periodic comprehensive forest inventory (Inventarisasi Hutan Menyeluruh Berkala/IHMB), this study also recommends conducting a periodic comprehensive social inventory (Inventarisasi Sosial Menyeluruh Berkala/ISMB) to define the best institutional option of agro-forest management according to state capacity and social capital [5,50,51], in order to pursue local development goals, to address risk and barriers to agro-forest management, and to strengthen basic capitals (Figure 10).

According to the matrix in Figure 10, this study recommends a community-based forest management approach as the most appropriate institutional choice for agro-forest management due to the situation of high social capital and low state capacity. In this situation, LD3—Improve social and community protection, RB1—Assess the need and quality of human resources for managing the forest areas, and BC3—Improve social capital are recommended to address issues pertaining to local development goals, risks, and barriers to forest management and provision of basic capitals. When both social capital and state capacity are high, then a collaborative forest management will be recommended for agro-forest management, by implementing LD2—Increase the stability of public order, political and legal awareness, RB2—Strengthen coordination between relevant institutions and groups, RB3—Enhance communication between stakeholders, RB5—Increase public awareness and understanding of the importance of forests, BC1—Education and human resources, BC4—Governance including rule of law and multi-stakeholder engagement, and BC5—Partnership.

State forest management is recommended for agro-forest management in the situation of low social capital and high state capacity, by implementing LD1—Improve the environment quality and BC2—Effective leadership role. Finally, private agro-forest management is recommended in the situation where both social capital and state capacity are low, to avoid open access and the tragedy of the commons [52], amongst other by implementing RB4—Improve forest management financing.

6. Concluding Remarks

The Indonesian democratic decentralization process is a work in progress. After two decades of the implementation of regional autonomy in Indonesia, state, provincial, regency, and also village governments continue to face challenges to find an appropriate distribution of authority and responsibility among themselves, and a way to interact and partner with other stakeholders. The dynamic socio-economic environments alongside pressures on the regulatory frameworks and governance systems to be agile, responsive, and inclusive have put even more pressures for government agencies at the regency level to pursue their own development goals and be in a position to implement agro-forest management appropriately.

We found that out of the 14 development goals identified in the planning document review and FGDs, 3 are viewed as key elements for Tebo Regency, namely the increased environmental quality; increased stability of public order, legal, and political awareness; and increased social and community protection. These three elements indicate a balance between social and security expectations from the community and the environmental needs. If achieved, these development goals will provide a strong base for further progress in the region’s agro-forest management efforts.

Furthermore, we identified that five out of the 15 risks and barriers to agro-forest management, identified in the planning document review and FGDs are perceived to have a major influence on agro-forest management. These include the limited capacity of human resources for managing the forest area; weak inter-agency work relationships; lack of communication among stakeholders; limited funding for agro-forest management; and low awareness and public understanding of the importance of forests. It is evident that most of these are centred at the needs to address human dimension of the agro-forest management including human capital, coordination, and communication.

Our analysis also found that 7 out of the 11 basic capitals identified in an earlier stage are perceived as key elements. These cover the quality of education and human resources; quality of leadership in government agencies; community social capital; governance system; networking and partnership; multi stakeholders’ involvement in the development process; and stakeholder commitments. The interdependency between these elements is obvious given that many of these are part of what constitutes good governance.

Based on results from the analysis, several recommendations were put forward. Whilst most, if not all, recommendations that we propose here are not novel, the persistent issues with regard to the lack of coordination and communication, quality human capital, stakeholder participation, as well as financing issues call for concrete actions from governments and other stakeholders to focus on practical ways to address these long-standing issues. Overall, this study highlights the importance of reviewing planning documents and understanding how stakeholders perceive the planning goals, challenges, and basic capitals, hence positioning themselves to contribute to the success of the implementation of agro-forest management.