Fitri Nurfatriani, Iis Alviya


The policy of 12.7 million ha land allocation for Social Forestry has been released since 2014.  Social forestry policy places communities as the main actors in forest management. This policy is expected to be a solution to the problems of forest degradation, poverty, and land tenure conflicts. This paper aims to: (1) determine criteria and indicators priority in land allocation policy for social forestry, and (2) analyze the effectiveness of land allocation policy for social forestry. This study uses Pairwise Comparison-AHP and scoring approaches. The results show that the environmental aspect is the top priority in land allocation policy for social forestry, followed by economic and institutional aspects. From environmental aspect, the main priority is to overcome estate forest encroachment issues, while from economic, the priorty of this policy is as a source of income for the communities who live in/ around the forest. The priority of institutional aspects is finding the way of how social forestry can create market network for social forestry commercial products. In terms of social aspects, social forestry is prioritized to overcome tenure conflicts between communities and government. Based on effectiveness index, social forestry land allocation policy is categorized quite effective with the value of 10.79.


Social Forestry Policy; pairwise comparison; criteria and indicators; communities.


Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving ahead with REDD+: Issues, options and implications. Bogor Indonesia: CIFOR.

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2015). Analisis rumah tangga sekitar kawasan hutan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Pusat statistik.

Bappeda Kabupaten Kampar. (2015). Pemetaan batas Hutan Larangan Adat Kenegerian Rumbio. Bogor: Bappeda Kabupaten Kampar.

Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., & Luttrell, C. (2012). An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 30-37.

Cooper, P.J., & Vargas, C. M. (2004). Implementing sustainable development from global policy to local action. Marylans: Rowman and Little Field Publisher Inc.

Direktorat Bina Usaha Perhutanan Sosial dan Hutan Adat (Direktorat BUPSHA). (2017). Matriks Capaian Fasilitasi Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Sosial (KUPS).

Dunn, W.N. (2003). Pengantar analisis kebijakan publik. Yogyakarta: Gajahmada University Press.

Gbedomon, R. A., Floquet, A., Mongbo, R., Salako, V. K., Fandohan, A. B., Assogbadjo, A. E., & Kakai, R. G. (2016). Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of community based forest management: A case study from TobeKpbidon forest in Benin, Western Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 64, 46-55.

Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy, and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187-196.

Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila, M., & Kangas, J. (2012). Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis - Lesson learnt in strategic natural resources management. Forest Policy and Economics, 20, 1-9.

Kim, Y. S., Bae, J. S., Fisher, L. A., Latifah, S., Afifi, M., Lee, S. M., & Kim, I. (2016). Indonesia's forest management units: Effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 69-77.

Luttrell, C., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Muharrom, E., Brockhaus, M., & Seymour, F. (2014). The political context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Constituencies for change. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 67-75.

Mahanty, S., Suich, H., & Tacconi, L. (2013). Acces and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: Lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy, 31, 38-47.

Mendoza, G.A., & Prabhu, R. (2000). Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management, 131, 107-126.

Moktan, M. R., Norbu, L., & Choden, K. (2016). Can community forestry contribute to household income and sustainable forestry practices in rural area? A case study from Tshaoey and Zariphenum in Bhutan. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 149-157.

Patton, C.V., & Savicky, D.S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. London: Prentice Hall.

PKPS-KLHK. (2017). Capaian realisasi perhutanan sosial. Jakarta: Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.

Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Admadja, S., Ekaputri, A. D., Intarini, D. Y., & Indriatmoko, Y. (2014). Does tenure security lead to REDD+ project effectiveness? Reflections from five emerging sites in Indonesia. World Development, 55, 68-83.

Ritonga, A., Mardhiansyah, M., & Kausar. (2014). Identifikasi kearifan lokal masyarakat Hutan Larangan Adat Rumbio, Kabupaten Kampar terhadap perlindungan hutan. Jurnal Online Mahasiswa (Bidang kehutanan), 1(1),1-9.

Rochmayanto, Y. (2013). Analisis risiko kegagalan implementasi REDD+ di Provinsi Riau. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 10(2), 149-165.

Saaty, T.L. (1993). Pengambilan keputusan bagi para pemimpin, proses hirarki analitik untuk pengambilan keputusan dalam situasi yang kompleks. Jakarta: PT. Pustaka Binaman Pressindo.

Suich, H., Lugina, M., Muttaqin, M. Z., Alviya, I., & Sari, G. K. (2016). Payments for ecosystem services in Indonesia. Oryx International Journal of Conservation, 1, 1-9.

Sunderlin, W. D., & Atmadja, S. (2004). Is REDD+ an idea whose time has come, or gone? CIFOR.

Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environmental Development Economic, 13(3), 279-297.

Zakaria, R.Y. (2018). Pelembagaan perhutanan sosial sebagai alternatif pengelolaan sumberdaya hutan di Indonesia masa depan. Materi disampaikan pada Rapat Dengar Pendapat Umum yang diselenggarakan oleh DPRD RI, Jakarta.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20886/jakk.2019.16.1.47-66

Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.