In recent years, the concept of social forestry has been hotly debated, especially in the work area of

Perum Perhutani in line with the stipulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation
Number 39/1/6/2017.

The Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry is part of an economic equalization policy to
reduce land ownership. In addition, social forestry can also regulate legal relations between
residents/communities and forests in an effort to improve the quality of sustainable forest
management.

Social forestry also assumes that the parties who feel the most success or failure in forest management
are the people living around the forest. Therefore, they should receive the highest incentives to manage
forestry businesses as a source of livelihood while preventing damage.

Social forestry is also expected to reduce poverty and conflicts related to land rights/access. For groups
who disagree, social forestry is feared more as a distribution and management of forest conservation.

Historically, the practice of social forestry has included the provision of three things, namely “energy,
air/food, and environmental services”. Firewood, for example, is essential in meeting the energy needs
of the poor. It is estimated that wood contributes about 20 percent of all energy needs in Asia and 50
percent for Africa. Thus, social forestry initially made firewood the main commodity, not food or
plantation commodities (Leach and Mearns 1988).

This shows that the social forestry spectrum is more related to the relationship of people and trees, the
output of trees, and is related to the community's relationship with the forest. Its existence has become
an integral part of village development, alleviation of the poor, as well as building the socio-economic
independence of the poor in and around the forest. Therefore, social forestry practices are important in
improving the lives of the poor, supporting regional development and forest resources themselves,
especially in the context of climate change.

Basically, there is a close relationship between poverty and climate change. In 2006 climate change, it is
known that global warming is happening faster than predicted. The international development agenda
was forced to shift from the issue of aid, debt, and trade.

Factors that affect poverty are issues of low emissions, ecological disasters, and are related to climate
change mitigation/adaptation.

About 20 years ago, the formal social forestry program began to be seriously implemented by the
Ministry of Forestry because it was believed to be a middle way in overcoming social, economic, and
environmental problems. However, it is undeniable that forest management with social labels prefers
welfare aspects over ecological functions.

Social forestry in Kalibiru Hamlet, Hargowilis Village, Yogyakarta Special Region, is an example of
successful community-based forest management that is able to integrate economic, social and
ecological interests. Since it was pioneered in 1999 with a Community Forest (HKm) permit, it has
changed forest areas that were originally critical to become productive as ecotourism areas.

After 18 years running, social forestry (HKm) Kalibiru has provided economic benefits and improved the
lives of the surrounding community.
In 2016, income from Kalibiru ecotourism activities reached Rp. 5.9 billion and was able to absorb up to
100 workers from villagers. Currently, no one in the village is cutting wood. From the forest, they take
fodder for cattle.

Many of the economic activities of the Kalibiru community come from ecotourism because it directly
helps increase and increase their income.

One of the factors in the success of Kalibiru social forestry is placing the community as subjects who
have knowledge and experience in managing forest resources sustainably. In addition, government
support with permits for management and infrastructure legality.

This is a criticism of the government's policy that separates the relationship between forests and
communities through the provision of economic incentives outside of forest resources, such as
intensification of agriculture, business skills, and other capital, which in fact have no impact on forest
sustainability.

proved positive, the development of social forestry was less significant in terms of the number of
locations that received permits and the size of the designated area. Until 2016, only 1.08 million
hectares or 7.9 percent of the 12.7 million hectares were designated as social forestry lands.