Examining Legal Gaps in Indonesia’s Social Forestry: Lessons from Lampung

Social forestry sits at the intersection of law, economics, and governance. When millions of people depend on forests to live, access to those forests is a question of justice, climate, and long-term stability.

Indonesia is home to the third-largest rainforest on the planet and the second-highest level of biodiversity in the world. Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) have managed these ecosystems for generations – yet, many still lack formal legal recognition of their rights.

In response to this, the Indonesian government has launched the social forestry (SF) programme (perhutanan sosial) as a national vehicle for sustainable forest management and community welfare. 

The regulatory foundation

The Ministry of Forestry (MoF) is steering the programme toward 12.7 million hectares approved by 2028 under Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 climate commitment, and 45,200 social forestry business groups (KPUS) by 2030.

As of September 2025, 8.4 million hectares have been allocated to 1.4 million households. Lampung Province, with roughly 207 hectares allocated, has shed light on how its implementations continue to face complexity, lengthy processes, and fragmentation across different levels of governance. 

The legal gaps

Three fault lines slow progress.

1. Procedural: Communities struggle to navigate a complex application process without consistent guidance and support, compounded by limited MoF staffing and staff rotations as frequent as every six months, and low institutional knowledge among regional officials.
2. Structural: A governance chain spanning national, provincial, and local institutions creates coordination and decision-making gaps. In Lampung, social forestry has yet to be embedded in the provincial development plan (RPJMD), resulting in inconsistent long-term funding allocation.
3. Competitive: Agrarian land reform under the TORA scheme targets the same lands and offers permanent private ownership, creating competing incentives that delay community decisions and fragment implementation.

Practical steps forward

Effective implementation calls for three coordinated actions:

1. simplifying application procedures with consistent support at every stage
2. integrating social forestry into provincial development plans to secure stable funding and coordination
3. aligning social forestry and agrarian reform through inter-ministerial frameworks so both programmes reinforce each other’s goals and give communities coherent choices