Conflict Variety and the Facilitation Role of Forest Managemen Unit (FMU) on Resolution of Tenurial Conflict

Golar Golar, Hasriani Muis, Wahyu Syahputra Simorangkir


In this study, tenure conflict is interpreted as various forms of claims related to mastery, management, utilization, and land use at  FMU areas of Dampelas Tinombo. In this context, the FMU will be directly and responsibly involved in addressing disputes in its territory. This research aims to identify and analyze the variety of land-use conflicts and how the role of FMU in resolving conflict resolution in its managed areas. This study was conducted in 2020 at FMU of Dampelas Tinombo using the Rapid Land Tenure Assessment (RA-TA) method. Data collection techniques with a Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) approach through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The study sample was established by purposive sampling. The results showed that the variety of conflicts in FMU was land clearing, threats of illegal logging activities, and low public trust in programs derived from FMU. The role of KPH is needed in the resolution of tenure conflicts, significantly facilitating in optimizing collaborative management of forest resources and reducing the implementation of social forestry in the form of empowerment schemes and forestry partnerships.

Keywords: tenure conflict, collaborative, FMU, social forestry


Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179–196.

Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Verburg, P., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Inacio da Cunha, M., & Sanchez Santivañez, M. (2020). Delivering an enabling environment and multiple benefits for land degradation neutrality: Stakeholder perceptions and progress. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 109–118.

Alusiola, R. A., Schilling, J., & Klär, P. (2021). REDD+ Conflict: Understanding the pathways between forest projects and social conflict. Forests, 12(6), 748.

Ambarwati, M. E., Gatot, S., & Wilson, M. A. T. (2018). Dynamics of the tenurial conflict in state forest area (Case in BKPH Tanggung KPH Semarang). Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 6(2).

Anderson, N. M., Williams, K. J. H., & Ford, R. M. (2013). Community perceptions of plantation forestry: The association between place meanings and social representations of a contentious rural land use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 121–136.

Anugrahsari, I., Sardjono, M. A., Fitriyah, N., & Golar, G. (2020). Social Contracts: Pillars of community conservation partnerships in Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia. Forest and Society, 4(1), 115.

Arsyad, M., Nuddin, A., Fahmid, I. M., Salman, D., Pulubuhu, D. A. T., Unde, A. A., & Djufry, F. (2020). Agricultural development: poverty, conflict and strategic programs in country border. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 575(1), 12091.

Baral, S., Meilby, H., Khanal Chettri, B. B., Basnyat, B., Rayamajhi, S., & Awale, S. (2018). Politics of getting the numbers right: Community forest inventory of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics,

, 19–26.

Batunacun, Wieland, R., Lakes, T., Yunfeng, H., & Nendel, C. (2019). Identifying drivers of land degradation in Xilingol, China, between 1975 and 2015. Land Use Policy, 83, 543–559.

Baynes, J., Herbohn, J., Smith, C., Fisher, R., & Bray, D. (2015). Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change, 35, 226–238.

Bellandi, M., Donati, L., & Cataneo, A. (2021). Social innovation governance and the role of universities: Cases of quadruple helix partnerships in Italy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 120518.

Bergius, M., Benjaminsen, T. A., Maganga, F., & Buhaug, H. (2020). Green economy, degradation narratives, and land-use conflicts in Tanzania. World Development, 129, 104850.

Bhugeloo, A., Peerbhay, K., Ramdhani, S., & Sershen. (2019). Tracking indigenous forest cover within an urban matrix through land use analysis: The case of a rapidly developing African city. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 13, 328–336.

Bluffstone, R., Dannenberg, A., Martinsson, P., Jha, P., & Bista, R. (2020). Cooperative behavior and common

pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal. World Development, 129, 104889.

Cai, M., Liu, P., & Wang, H. (2020). Political trust, risk preferences, and policy support: A study of land-dispossessed villagers in China. World Development, 125, 104687.

Ece, M., Murombedzi, J., & Ribot, J. (2017). Disempowering Democracy: Local Representation in Community and Carbon Forestry in Africa. Conservation and Society.

Fauziyah, E., & Sanudin, S. (2017). The Effectiveness of Private Forest Institutional and Policy in Banjarnegara and Banyumas Regency.Jurnal Wasian, 4(2), 79.

Fisher, L. A., Kim, Y.-S., Latifah, S., & Mukarom, M. (2017). Managing forest conflicts: Perspectives of Indonesia’s forest management unit directors. Forest and Society, 1(1), 8.

Gamin, G, Kartodihardjo, H., Kolopaking, L. M., & Boer, R. (2014). Menyelesaikan konflik penguasaan kawasan hutan melalui pendekatan gaya sengketa para pihak di Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lakitan (Resolving forest land tenure conflict by actor’s conflict style approach in Forest Management Unit of Lakitan). Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 11(1), 71–90.

Golar, G., Malik, A., Muis, H., Herman, A., Nurudin, N., & Lukman, L. (2020). The social-economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for potential forest degradation. Heliyon, 6(10), e05354.

Golar, G., Massiri, S. D., Rauf, R. A., Muis, H., & Paingi, S. (2021). Participatory land use conflict resolution: efforts towards community collaborative management. The Agricultural Sciences Journal

(e-Journal), 8(1), 47–59.

Golar, G., Muis, H., Massiri, S. D., Rahman, A., Maiwa, A., Pratama, F., Baharuddin, R. F., & Simorangkir, W. S. (2021). Can forest management units improve community access to the forest? International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 16(5), 565–571.

Golar, Mahfudz, Malik, A., Muis, H., Khairil, M., Ali, S. S. S., Razman, M. R., & Awang, A. (2019). The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park. Ecology, EM International, 25(4), 352–359.

Harun, M. K., & Dwiprabowo, H. (2014). Model resolusi konflik lahan di Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan Produksi Model Banjar. Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 11(4), 265–280.

He, J., Martin, A., Lang, R., & Gross-Camp, N. (2021). Explaining success on community forestry through a lens of environmental justice: Local justice norms and practices in China. World Development, 142, 105450.

Helmi, H., Djafri, D., Mutiani, C., Abd Halim, N., Badri, M., & Yefni, Y. (2021). Indigenous people in the dynamics of land use changes, forest fires, and haze in Riau Province, Indonesia. In Natural Resource Governance in Asia (pp. 291–308). Elsevier.

Ilham, Q. P., Purnomo, H., & Nugroho, T. (2016). Stakeholder and social network analyses towards multistakeholder forest management in Solok District, West Sumatera. Jurnal Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia, 21(2), 114–119.

Irawan, A., Mairi, K., & Ekawati, S. (2016). Analisis konflik tenurial di Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi (KPHP) Model Poigar (Analysis of tenurial conflict in Produsction Forest Management Unit (PFMU) Model Poigar). Jurnal Wasian, 3(2), 79–90.

Islam, K., Nath, T. K., Jashimuddin, M., & Rahman, Md. F. (2019). Forest dependency, co-management and improvement of peoples’ livelihood capital: Evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environmental Development, 32, 100456.

Iswahyudi, I. (2017). Pengelolaan lahan kritis hutan lindung bukit batabuh berkelanjutan. Jurnal Penelitian Agrosamudra, 4(1), 91–99.

Luo, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, D., & Dong, J. (2015). Actor, Customary regulation and case study of collective forest tenure reform intervention in China. Small-Scale Forestry, 14(2), 155–169.

Maryudi, A. (2016). Arahan tata hubungan kelembagaan kesatuan pengelolaan hutan (KPH) di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan, 10(1), 57–64.

McGrath, D. G., Peters, C. M., & Bentes, A. J. M. (2004). 11. Community forestry for small-scale furniture production in the Brazilian Amazon. In Working Forests in the Neotropics (pp. 200-h). Columbia University Press, New York.

Myers, R., Intarini, D., Sirait, M. T., & Maryudi, A. (2017). Claiming the forest: Inclusions and exclusions under Indonesia’s ‘new’ forest policies on customary forests. Land Use Policy, 66, 205–213.

Ribeiro, J. R., Azevedo-Ramos, C., & Nascimento dos Santos, R. B. (2020). Impact of forest concessions on local jobs in central amazon. Trees, Forests and People, 2, 100021.

Riggs, R. A., Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A. K., Langston, J. D., & Sutanto, H. (2016). Forest tenure and conflict in Indonesia: Contested rights in Rempek Village, Lombok. Land Use Policy, 57, 241–249.

Rijal, B., Raulier, F., & Martell, D. L. (2018). A value-added forest management policy reduces the impact of fire on timber production in Canadian boreal forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 97, 21–32.

Rout, S. (2018). Gendered participation in community forest governance in India. Contemporary Social Science, 13(1), 72–84.

Ruhimat, I. P. (2013). Model peningkatan partisipasi masyarakat dalam implementasi kebijakan KPH: Studi kasus di KPH Model Kabupaten Banjar, Kalimantan Selatan. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 10(3), 255–267.

Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Supratman, S., Yusran, Y., Pratama, A. A., Maryudi, A., Runtubei, Y., Sabar, A., Verheijen, B., Wong, G. Y., & Kim, Y.-S. (2020). Prophets and profits in Indonesia’s social forestry partnership schemes: Introducing a sequential power analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 115, 102160.

Sonnhoff, M., & Selter, A. (2021). Symbolic interaction and its influence on cooperation between private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 130, 102535.

Uddin, M., & Anjuman, N. (2014). Participatory rural appraisal approaches: An overview and an exemplary application of focus group discussion in climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology, 3(2), 72–78.