From legalisation to benefits: rethinking success in the implementation of Indonesia's social forestry programme

Indonesia's Social Forestry (SF) programme has made significant progress in expanding community forest tenure and advancing forest governance reform, yet its livelihood impacts remain uneven. This paper examines under what institutional conditions formal management rights under SF enable or constrain communities' ability to realise livelihood benefits from forests. Drawing on legal pluralism and Ribot and Peluso's Theory of Access, the study analyses customary and village forest cases in Aceh using a sequential mixed-methods approach, with emphasis on semi-structured interviews, small focus group discussions, document analysis, and comparative thematic analysis. The findings show that legal recognition alone does not guarantee improved livelihoods. For participants, SF outcomes were shaped by statutory rights, forest-function classifications (protection versus production), forest accessibility and physical conditions (e.g. slope), and the strength of customary institutions in mediating access to finance, labour, knowledge, technology, and authority. Where customary institutions are weak, legalisation may introduce additional organisational, financial, and technical responsibilities, particularly through requirements for forest-based commercialisation. Conversely, where customary institutions are cohesive, legitimate, and administratively capable, SF can strengthen local authority, enhance exclusion capacity, reduce tenure uncertainty, and support locally defined benefit pathways, including non-commercial and conservation-oriented outcomes. The paper advances an “access-to-benefit” framework for evaluating SF implementation, arguing that tenure reform should be understood as an institutionally mediated process rather than an endpoint in itself. This shifts policy design and evaluation beyond hectares legalised and enterprises formed toward greater support for local and customary institutions in converting formal rights into practical, equitable, and locally meaningful livelihood benefits.