The development of Social Forestry is currently under scrutinizing. The attention of the wider community is how to optimize programs that seem easy but are not as simple as they think. Social Forestry is involving the community actively and participative in sustainable forest management. But from the business side, the community is easy, difficult to encourage in sustainable management. Maybe because they only meet the makeshift needs.
Social Forestry Development indeed has to go a long way because various requirements need to be carried out including in order to meet the principles of togetherness,
meeting economic needs for local communities and
various technical requirements related to planting, maintaining and harvesting forest products.
The most unique Forestry Program with the involvement of local people who are encouraged to have an adequate social vision, entrepreneurship and environmental preservation.
Positive debates will produce adequate output for advising sound and sustainable management. During this time there are several groups or groups that provide enlightenment for the development of social forestry sciences for the better. But this enlightenment has not had a very significant effect on the development of social forestry in this country. There are still many parties who negate the benefits of social forestry even from institutions that promote Community-Based Forest Exploitation. When the community starts asking for clarity on more equitable forest management, the institution that wants to cooperate reacts negatively and tends to be “reluctant” to the social forestry itself.
Negative debates are usually full of political content that aims to oppose government policies by taking actions that are not align each other. Groups that are not in line and tend to oppose government policies will tend to give false statements that need to be checked for truth and put the truth to the issue of forestry today /
Social Forestry has the function of activating the potential of rural communities living around the forest to be economically and socially empowered. But not all are ready to activate themselves and produce like the demands of the present in the modern world to the maximum possible production.
There are still traditional and traditional constraints and business ethics of local people who adhere to their traditional rules. Local people, for example, only think to meet their needs. While in the global tradition, people make a living to prepare for long-term living needs.
Society makes them not ready to compete with according to global rules.
While the counterpart cannot blame entirely on local communities who need space and time to adapt
In relation to the challenges of Social Forestry, certain parties need to prioritize and give flexibility to government programs by giving land to communities to be managed. On the other hand, it is also necessary to see the reality of the field that this program needs to carry mutually reinforcing economic and social values.
The government program by giving land certificates to farmers still faces problems due to several things.
The process of handover land from the owner who was previously still experiencing resistance. There are SOEs that are resistant to land acquisition for the community because they feel more capable. While the stalled or abandoned land would be better if attempted and cultivated better.
Social Forestry needs to guarantee results that contain economic value.
Social Forestry faces the dynamics of its development in the midst of “stretching” the community who also need a guarantee of the recipient of the results of the Social Forestry.
However, it should be noted that social forestry actors will only “move” if there is an industry or container ready to accept the results of the social forestry activities.