Indonesia's Village Forestry Development Program: Perspectives on its performance.

摘要

The purpose of the research is to evaluate the Government of Indonesia's (GOI) policy on the Village Forestry Development Program (VFDP), to analyze the impact of the program on the socioeconomic conditions of rural forest communities (RFC) and on forest conservation, and to identify different indicators for evaluating the success of the program from the perspectives of different stakeholders. Nine GOI forestry officers (from central, provincial, and district levels), 16 timber concessionaires (from ten private timber concessions) and 107 RFC households (from ten villages) in the province of East Kalimantan were interviewed in August 1995 to June 1996. The timber concessions and the households were selected randomly. The GOI forestry officials and the timber concessionaires were selected based on their knowledge of relevant information.;The study shows that the original GOI policy had some weaknesses that led to different reactions from the private timber concessions (the implementing agents) and the forest communities (the target groups), subsequent revision of the program, and some potential confusion and problems with implementation of the revised program.;The program, in the short run, improves the socio-economic conditions of the RFC households who joined the program. These people depend less on the forest than the ones who did not join the program. The program has also potential to conserve the forest. However, sustainability of the program is questionable. There is not enough evidence to evaluate the environmental impact of the program yet.;The VFDP is perceived as "successful" to "somewhat successful" by the majority of GOI officers and timber concessionaires (67% and 75%, respectively), but less so (30%) by the forest communities. These three groups involved in the program appear to have similar criteria for measuring success (e.g., social, economic, and environmental benefits, and improved village infrastructure), but they differ in their choice of indicators. Differences may be attributed to the expected benefits and the benefits received by each group.