COmmunity-Government, and Private Partnership (CGPP): Revisiting the Concept of Community-Based Forest Management

HIGHLIGHTS The Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) model has been seen as a potential solution to solve various problems related to forest degradation and the creation of inclusive forest governance. The implementation of Community-Based Forest Management is varied in different countries. Community-Based Forest Management does not always give positive impacts to the community and environment. The implementation of CBFM has weaknesses in the organizational activities, equal involvement among various stakeholders involved, community empowerment, economic improvement, and sustainability. An alternative model, the so-called Community-Government and Private Partnership model (CGPP), is proposed with cooperative as “core institutions”. SUMMARY The Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) model has been seen as a potential solution to solve various problems related to forest degradation and the creation of inclusive forest governance. However, in practice, CBFM does not always implement smoothly, with some studies highlighting the weaknesses of CBFM in term of accountability, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, empowerment, monitoring, law enforcement, and dependency on external actors. Accordingly, this paper revisits the concept of CBFM from the perspective of New Institutional Economics and the proper governance concept. The data collection process was conducted through literature studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology. It may be argued that the implementation of CBFM has weaknesses in terms of, amongst other things, business and organizational activities, inclusivity, community empowerment, community income, and sustainability. In reference to the various flaws encountered in the implementation of CBFM, and to put in place proper governance in forest business activities, this paper proposes a new model – the so-called Community-Government and Private Partnership model (CGPP). This developed model has positioned the cooperative as “core institutions” whose role is to orchestrate five main governance functions, namely: organizational, business activities, human resource development, and corporate and environmental sustainability. This CGPP model is expected to contribute to the existing literature of institutional analysis and forest management with a different approach, as well providing concrete recommendations for the implementation of the CGPP model in CBFM. Le modèle de Gestion forestière basée sur la communauté (CBFM) a été considéré comme une solution potentielle pour résoudre divers problèmes liés à la dégradation forestière et pour permettre la création d'une gestion forestière inclusive. Cependant, la CBFM ne parvient pas toujours, en pratique, à être mise en œuvre sereinement, certaines études soulignant ses faiblesses quant à la prise de responsabilité, la transparence, l'efficacité, l'effectivité, l'octroi de pouvoir, la surveillance, la mise en application des lois et la dépendance sur des acteurs extérieurs. De ce fait, ce papier revisite le concept de la CBFM du point de vue de la Nouvelle économie institutionnelle et de celui du concept d'une gestion digne de ce nom. Le processus de recueil de données a été effectué par le biais d'études de la littérature, en utilisant le Rapport favorisé des éléments pour les analyses systématiques et la Méthodologie de méta-analyse (PRISMA). On peut dénoncer des faiblesses de la mise en œuvre de la CBFM en termes, entre autres, d'activités commerciales et organisationnelles, d'inclusivité, d'octroi de pouvoir à la communauté, de revenus pour la communauté et de durabilité. En ce qui concerne les divers défauts de la mise en pratique de la CBFM, et afin de pouvoir mettre en place une gestion digne de ce nom dans les activités commerciales de la forêt, ce papier propose un nouveau modèle: le modèle soi-disant nommé Modèle de partenariat communauté-gouvernement et privé (CGPP). Ce modèle développé a placé la coopérative en tant qu'institution de base, dont le rôle est d'orchestrer cinq fonctions principales du gouvernement: les activités organisationnelles et commerciales, le développement des ressources humaines et la durabilité environnementale et d'entreprise. Ce modèle de CGPP devrait contribuer à la littérature existante d'analyse institutionnelle et de gestion forestière avec une approche différente, ainsi qu'en fournissant des recommandations pratiques pour la mise en œuvre du modèle CGPP dans la CBFM. El modelo de gestión forestal de base comunitaria (GFBC) se ha considerado una solución potencial para resolver diversos problemas relacionados con la degradación de los bosques y la creación de una gobernanza forestal inclusiva. Sin embargo, en la práctica, la GFBC no siempre se aplica sin problemas, y varios estudios destacan las deficiencias de la GFBC en términos de rendición de cuentas, transparencia, eficiencia, eficacia, empoderamiento, monitoreo, aplicación de la ley y dependencia de agentes externos. En consecuencia, este artículo revisa el concepto de la GFBC desde la perspectiva de la Nueva Economía Institucional y el concepto de gobernanza adecuada. El proceso de recopilación de datos se llevó a cabo mediante estudios bibliográficos que utilizaron la metodología de los Elementos Preferidos para Preparación de Informes de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis (PRISMA, por sus siglas en inglés). Se puede argumentar que la aplicación de la GFBC muestra debilidades en lo que respecta, entre otras cosas, a las actividades empresariales y organizativas, la inclusividad, el empoderamiento de la comunidad, los ingresos comunitarios y la sostenibilidad. En referencia a las diversas carencias encontradas en la implementación de la GFBC, y para instaurar una gobernanza adecuada en las actividades empresariales forestales, este artículo propone un nuevo modelo: el denominado modelo de alianza entre la comunidad, el gobierno y el sector privado (CGPP, por sus siglas en inglés). El desarrollo de este modelo posiciona a las cooperativas como “instituciones medulares” cuyo papel es orquestar cinco funciones principales de gobernanza: organizativas, empresariales, desarrollo de recursos humanos y sostenibilidad corporativa y medioambiental. Se espera que este modelo de CGPP contribuya a la literatura existente sobre análisis institucional y gestión forestal con un enfoque diferente, además de proporcionar recomendaciones concretas para la implementación del modelo de CGPP en la GFBC. Model Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat (CBFM) dipandang sebagai potensial solusi untuk mengatasi berbagai permasalahan terkait degradasi hutan dan terciptanya tata kelola hutan yang inklusif. Namun dalam implementasinya, CBFM tidak selalu berjalan mulus dengan beberapa kajian menyoroti kelemahan CBFM dalam hal akuntabilitas, transparansi, efisiensi, efektivitas, pemberdayaan, pemantauan, penegakan hukum, dan ketergantungan pada aktor eksternal. Oleh karena itu, makalah ini meninjau kembali konsep CBFM dari perspektif Teori Ekonomi Kelembagaan Baru dan konsep Proper Governance. Pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi literatur dengan metodologi Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa implementasi CBFM memiliki kelemahan antara lain dalam hal kegiatan bisnis dan organisasi, inklusivitas, pemberdayaan masyarakat, pendapatan masyarakat, dan keberlanjutan. Mengacu pada berbagai kelemahan yang dihadapi dalam pelaksanaan CBFM, dan untuk menempatkan tata kelola yang baik dalam kegiatan bisnis kehutanan, makalah ini mengusulkan suatu alternatif model - yang disebut model Community-Government and Private Partnership (CGPP). Model yang dikembangkan ini memposisikan koperasi sebagai “lembaga inti” yang berperan mengatur lima fungsi utama tata kelola, yaitu: organisasi, kegiatan usaha, pengembangan sumber daya manusia, serta kelestarian lingkungan dan perusahaan. Model CGPP ini diharapkan dapat berkontribusi pada literatur yang terkait dengan analisis kelembagaan dan pengelolaan hutan dari pendekatan yang berbeda, serta memberikan rekomendasi konkrit untuk implementasi model CGPP di CBFM.


INTRODUCTION
The management of forest resources by community has been one of the most discussed issues currently (Caballero 2014).The issue has been popular following the failure of several forest rehabilitation projects in many countries.According to the World Bank (2008), the failure of the forest rehabilitation projects was caused by the lack of community's involvement in program planning and implementation.De Royer et al. (2018) further explained that by excluding the community in the forest management, the forest became the source of income for those in power and increased social conflict.As a result, a massive forest degradation persisted followed by the increasing level of concern about the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and climate change.To solve the problem of forest degradation and social conflict in the forest areas, several forest management strategies established including Community Based Forest Management Systems (CBFMS) (Maraseni et al. 2005).The Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) has been perceived for its ability to reduce forest degradation while improving the local livelihood (Dev et al. 2003) by harnessing the local wisdom (Zerga et al. 2019) or as a collaborative effort through traditional institutions that have been helped to reduce the deforestation (Chung et al. 2011, Purnomo et al. 2020), mitigate forest fires and protect biodiversity (Nugroho 2021).Since then, the forest governance involving local communities has become an important policy tool (Behera and Engel 2006) or as a state technology (Erbaugh 2019) in developing countries to solve many problems in the forest areas.
In the CBFM concept, the community has become the main actors while the government and private sector are the supporting actors.The government provides policy regulation (Harly 2023) and capacity building which increases bonding or bridging social capital (Baynes et al. 2015).Meanwhile, the private sector could involve in providing financial support, technical expertise, access to markets, sharing knowledge and best practices, support for community-led initiatives and even help in the certification and standards of forest products (McGrath et al. 2015).
However, in their implementation, these roles have yet to operate optimally.Each stakeholder involved with the forestry often fails to fully understand the extent of their own authority, particularly in terms of land ownership, regulation, and utilization, often leading to community conflicts (Punomo and Anand 2014).The government's role ambiguity is indicated by the existence of a seemingly top-down land use policy in forest areas (Urech et al. 2013).In other words, the government frequently imposes pre-designed programs and activities (De Royer et al. 2018, Beaudoin et al. 2015) and plays a larger role in the management of forest areas (Purnomo andAnand 2014, Urech et al. 2013).On the other hand, the role of the private sector is often unclear, leading to the dominance of certain actors and excluding the community as a primary actor in the utilization of land in forest areas (Sahide et al. 2020a, Sahide et al. 2020b).The lack of clarity in the roles of the government, private sector, and the community has resulted in weaknesses in CBFM related to accountability, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, empowerment, monitoring, law enforcement, and dependency on external actors (Caballero 2015, Aheto et al. 2016, Gbedomon et al. 2016, Duguma et al. 2018, Erbaugh 2019, Ghimire and Lamichahhane 2020, Frey et al. 2021).
Several previous studies have primarily examined CBFM in terms of its weaknesses and strengths, the rules and policies that have been implemented, the role and activity of actors and business actors in community forestry, and the barriers to implementing programs that support the success of community forest management (Arifandy and Sihaloho 2015, Baynes et al. 2015, Budi et al. 2021, De Royer et al. 2018, Frimadani et al. 2020, Purnomo and Anand 2014, Purnomo et al. 2017, Tangngareng and Ridha 2016, Wulandari and Inoue 2018, Wahyu et al. 2020).Several previous studies have also examined the factors that influence the success or implementation of CBFM.Urech et al. (2017) examined the factors that influence the success of CBFM implementation using seven attributes of resource use.Baynes et al. (2015) examine five factors that influence institutional governance associated with social capital.The various weaknesses and strengths presented from previous research on CBFM encouraged us to revitalize the CBFM concept model.To revitalize the CBFM concept, the New Institutional Economics (NIE) theory introduced by Oliver Williamson in 1975 (Menard andShirley 2005) and the concept of proper governance put forward by Hidayat (2016) are used, which are reduced to five dimensions of proper business governance.This article aims to revitalize the concept of CBFM by using five dimensions derived from NIE theory and the concept of proper governance.
This paper contributes to the existing literature on institutional analysis, CBFM, NIE and the proper governance concept.This paper will complement the existing literature with an institutional analysis that combines between the NIE and the proper governance concept.The study contributes to the production of a new model of CBFM which is able to promote better forest management.It also lends insight into what kind of institutions and organization that are able to improve the transfer of property rights to the community and reduce the transaction cost.

New institutional economics
The theory of "new institutional economics" (NIE) is one of the developments of mainstream institutional theory combined with neo-classical economic the ory.This theory has been widely used since it was first introduced by Oliver Williamson in 1975 (Menard and Shirley 2005).The NIE theory assumes that every individual does not have perfect information and has limited abilities, so they are faced with various uncertainties in the future.Furthermore, the NIE also assumes that there are limited resources and competition.Unlike other institutional theories, NIE is aimed at understanding why an institution changes by trying to understand the incentives and power of the beliefs, norms, and rules that are created to achieve its goals.In other words, institutions, according to NIE, are used as a tool to limit interactions between people in the form of formal and informal rules that then shape individual and organizational behavior in society (North 1991).Williamson (2000) introduced four levels of social analysis to understand the institutional change.Every level has a reciprocal relationship with the higher level imposing the constraints to the lower level while the lower giving feedback to the higher level.The first level started from informal institution which is embedded in the community including norms, customs, traditions, and religion.The first level followed by institutional environment (formal rules of the game) and the governance or rule of the game.The last level is related to resources allocation and employment or get the marginal conditions right (Williamson 2005).To understand the dynamic change of the implementation of CBFM, this paper focuses particularly on level 2 ('formal rules of the game') and level 3 ('play of the game').
The theory of NIE is very relevant being employed as a reference to analyze the implementation of CBFM because CBFM is related to the analysis of institutional change, political framework, legal rules, and property rights (Caballero 2015).According to the concept of property rights in the theory of NIE, Behera and Engel (2006) found that incomplete or incoherent transfer of property rights from the government of India or the authority to the community has caused the unsustainability of the forest management system and serious enforcement and rent-seeking problems.In Indonesia, the analysis of CBFM using property rights concept showed that the absence of a clear definition of property rights for forest resources has led to conflicts, the emergence of new rulers in the utilization of forest resources, and radical forest degradation (Purnomo et al. 2014).
Meanwhile, the third level of Williamson's NIE related to how the institutional arrangement or how the governance mechanisms of an institution (Williamson 2000).According to Williamson (2000), the third level is related to the transaction cost as the basic unit of analysis, and governance as an effort to put an order, mitigate conflict and realize mutual gains.Therefore, the analysis of NIE in the third level is related to the transaction cost of economics.The smaller the economic transaction costs, the more efficient the institution is (Catelo and Costales 2009).In CBFM, there are at least three major transaction costs occurred: (1) transaction cost in decision making or incurred during the process of setting-up the forest user groups; (2) transaction cost in the implementation of program; and (3) transaction cost of monitoring the implemented decisions (Adhikari 2004).As an example, the costs occurred from the administrative procedures and bureaucratic design had resulted a higher transaction cost and ineffective forest management systems in the Brazilian Amazon (Humphries et al. 2020).In Nepal, the devolution of forest management to the community was expected to lower the transaction cost incurred by the state, but in the reality, these transaction cost did not equally distribute with the poorer household having the higher transaction cost for communal forest management (Adhikari 2004).In the Indonesian context, CBFM has been perceived as a tool to solve the conflict over forest tenure and legalize forest occupations by communities, but has ignored the participation of the communities from the preparation to the implementation, and even left without financial and technical skills and assistance, and thus, it increases the social cost rather than social justice (De Royer et al. 2018).
Therefore, it is clear that the NIE in this paper will be used to analyze the relation between the structure and the actors.The NIE will also be used to construct an alternative model according to the relationships between the structure and the actors.

Proper governance
Initially, the terms "government" and "governance" were considered to be the same concept, namely a way to exercise authority in an organization, institution, or state, but the two concepts are different (Kharisma 2014).The government refers to entities that carry out a rule or exercise power that is owned by the government in a country.Governance refers to the act of regulating individual and group behavior, both in the public and private sectors, which leads to the process of influencing decisions and actions to create a set of collaborative partnership activities (Emerson et al. 2012).
The concept of "proper governance" is one of the concepts introduced by Hidayat (2016) as an alternative concept to the concept of "good governance."This concept departs from the perspective of a new way of thinking about governance that integrates the old-government concept and the new governance concept, which emphasizes function as a "process" involving the state and society.The concept of proper governance emphasizes the importance of equality between government and society.There are four main principles in the concept of proper governance proposed by Hidayat (2016), namely: developmental, democratic, socially inclusive, and cultural and historical context (local content).The state and society must be treated equally in the concept of proper governance.Table 1 shows how Hidayat (2016) figured out the arena, dimensions, principles and parameters of the idea of proper governance.
The above proper governance concept seems to be very relevant being employed as a reference in the work to criticize the strengths and weaknesses of the CBFM model, as well as a conceptual basis in developing an alternative model, hereinafter referred to as Community-Government and Private Partnership (CGPP).In short, it can be argued that based on proper governance perspective, there have been several weaknesses in the implementation of CBFM so far.On the developmental dimension, for example, the results of the study by Frey et al. (2021) in Southern Tanzania indicate that business activities in forest areas managed by the community cannot achieve profitable economic feasibility, because the total production cost that must be incurred is higher than the proceeds from the sale of timber.
Then, in regard with the implementation of the second dimension of proper governance concept, namely democracy, the results of the study by Humphries et al. (2020) on the Brazillian Amazon case, shows that control by the state is tight through various administrative procedures and bureaucratic design, leading to ineffective forest management systems with higher transaction costs.In the Indonesian context, Sahide et al. (2020) argue, the implementation of the partnership scheme in managing forestry businesses in Indonesia has not shown justice, but rather serves to strengthen the position of existing actors, amongst other things, Perhutani, Regional government, Universities, and Private companies.
Furthermore, when the implementation of CBFM is criticized on the basis of the third and fourth dimensions of proper governance concept, namely Socially Inclusive and Local Content, several weaknesses can also be underlined.For example, in Ethiopia, there is a tendency to position community as objects, or not as subjects, of development in forest areas (Engida et al. 2012).Meanwhile in Indonesia, Purnomo et al. (2020), stated that among the fundamental weaknesses of CBFM implementation is the weak of bottom-up approach in catching problems and articulating community needs.
Therefore, the Proper Governance Concept is used to analyze and construct the rules of the game of the relationships between the structure and the actors.The rules of the game constructed are based on the four dimension of the Proper Governance Concept namely: developmental, democratic, socially inclusive, and cultural and historical context (local content).

Relationship between NIE and the Concept of Proper Governance
The NIE Theory and the Concept of Proper Governance emphasize the importance of equality between the state, represented by the government, and society.In the democratic country, the community is the principal and state is positioned as the agent.For the relationship between the principal and agent to run well and minimize transaction costs between the two parties, information transparency, ownership, public transparency, and trust are needed.Some of these components are listed in the components of the concept of proper governance.Therefore, the theory of NIE and the concept of proper governance could be used as a tool to analyze the implementation of CBFM in many countries.
As an example is the study of Humphries et al. (2020) on the Brazillian Amazon case that illustrates the tight control of the state through various administrative procedures and bureaucratic design in the forest management system.The tight control of the state means incomplete transfer of property rights in NIE that could lead to unclear impact of CBFM to the community and ineffective forest management systems with higher transaction costs.Meanwhile, according to democratic dimension in the concept of proper governance, the tight control of the state means there is no guarantee for the involvement of the community from decision making, implementation, and evaluation, as well as accountability and transparency.
While the NIE is used to analyze the relationships between the organizational structure and the actors, the Proper Governance is used to analyze the function or the process of governing or managing the interrelation between the structure and the actors.Therefore, there are five dimensions generated based on the NIE and the Proper Governance to analyze the implementation of CBFM activities and weaknesses of the implementation of CBFM concept, as well as revitalize the implemented CBFM concept.The five dimensions of governance are: (1) organizational structure; (2) actor representation; (3) operational mechanism; (4) economic impact; and (5) environmental and business sustainability (Figure 1).

Data Collection Process
This paper is a systematic review paper.The accuracy of research based on systematic reviews and meta analysis relied heavily on the data from the most reliable sources (Mayo-Wilson et al. 2017).Therefore, it is important to selectively chosen the most useful data from the most reliable sources.To selectively chosen the most accurate data from the most reliable sources, this paper used the Preferred Reporting compiled into a summary of the substance of the review results based on the five dimensions.The summary results of each paper are analyzed and generalized (strengths and weaknesses) from the issues/problems resulting from the review.
The generalization results are then further analyzed using five important dimensions or aspects derived from the NIE theory and the concept of "proper governance."By looking at the interrelationships between actors and the five dimensions, a CBFM model of "community, state, and private partnership" is produced in the forestry area.The rationale for this review is presented in Figure 2. The article chosen then assessed and the following study information retrieved: author(s), study name, country or region as in Kim and von dem Knesebeck (2018).This paper also differentiates the article chosen according to the disciplines, perspectives, approaches and methodologies used which will be described in the Results and Discussions section.

Literature Collection and Screening
The first search was obtained from the Scopus database and a search engine (i.e., Google Scholar).Initially, the papers obtained from Google Scholar were not only in the form of journals but also theses, dissertations, working papers, and proceedings, for a total of 108 papers.However, to maintain the validity and quality of the results of this review, only journals were selected, so 78 works of literature were identified, consisting of 42 papers from Scopus and 36 papers from Google Scholar.Of the 78 papers, a re-selection or screening was carried out using the topic and limiting the range of publication years from 2012 to 2022.As a result of the screening, 50 pieces of literature were obtained.Papers that have no relation to the five dimensions or aspects that have been stated previously are then removed from the list of papers that can be used to analyze CBFM performance.The results of the final selection yielded 39 papers between 2012 and 2022 (Figure 3).
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) method.PRISMA is a tool and guide for assessing a systematic review or meta-analysis, that helps writers and researchers create high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
PRISMA According to Mayo-Wilson et al. (2017), to use multiple data sources in systematic reviews, it is important to specify first the sources used.To have the most reliable sources, the literature review criteria used in this paper are scientific articles covering national journals, international journals, and international proceedings.The second step of the process is to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria (Moher et al. 2015).Therefore, we firstly conducted a searching using Google Scholar, and Scopus in September 2022 with keywords consisting of "community-based forest management" OR "CBFM" OR "social forestry" OR "forest management with the community" OR "PHBM" OR "community forestry management".Based on some of the literature that has been collected, an overview of how CBFM is implemented in various countries can be seen.
The third step of the process in PRISMA is to identify the inclusion and the exclusion criteria (Kim and von dem Knesebeck 2018).For inclusion, the literature obtained was selected using the topics "Social Forestry", and "CBFM" which contained the implementation and evaluation of CBFM in various countries and limited to the publication between 2012 and 2022.Articles that are not related to the topic and are not in that year range were then excluded.Articles related to the topic were re-selected using the five dimensions that have been derived from the NIE theory and the concept of proper governance.Each final selected article has then been

Classification by Disciplines, Perspectives and Approaches
Various disciplines, perspectives, and approaches related to CBFM and their implementation in the literature between 2012 and 2022 are quite varied.Most of the authors come from Africa and Asia.Of all the literature reviewed, social science disciplines mostly discuss CBFM issues and their implementation (46%).Literature in social science disciplines discusses empowerment, relations between actors and institutions, and conflict issues in social forestry areas.The field of management research is the second-largest disciplinary field (23%), which also discusses CBFM, its weaknesses, and strengths in its implementation.Other disciplines that discuss CBFM and its implementation are economics (16%).Discussion of papers in the field of economics related to the economic impact of implementing CBFM in social forestry areas.In addition to the social and economic fields, several papers also discuss the social and economic sciences in the same paper, namely 10%.Papers that discuss the field of socio-economic science related to the issue of economic, ecological, and institutional impacts from the implementation of CBFM.Of the various literature that discusses CBFM, implementation, weaknesses, and strengths, only 5% discuss CBFM from an environmental perspective.This shows that environmental issues have not been given much attention in the implementation of CBFM.CBFM issues are still mostly related to community involvement in forest areas, levels of participation, interrelationships between actors, and the weaknesses and strengths of the CBFM concept, but not much has been said about sustainability from an environmental perspective.The classification of literature based on scientific disciplines is illustrated in Figure 4.

Classification based on Research Methods in the Literature
Most of the methodologies used in various works of literature are qualitative (64.10%), followed by mixed methods, or a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods (25.64%), and only quantitative methods (10.26%).Of the 25 studies using qualitative methods, only 4% did not clearly state the method used because the paper was presented in the form of a review.In addition, there are 12% of papers using qualitative research methods with a case study approach (Figure 5).
Much of the literature uses qualitative research methods because it discusses CBFM from a social science perspective, such as De Royer et al. (2018), Sahide et al. (2020a), and Wong et al. (2020).Research using qualitative methods was carried out on various kinds of literature in the form of reviews using the PRISMA method and case studies.Several other qualitative studies were conducted using focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, in-depth interviews, observation, and triangulation methods.There were 25.64% of papers using mixed methods, including survey, interview, statistical analysis, Likert scale, participatory observation, and stakeholder analysis methods.Meanwhile, 10.26% of studies used the quantitative method (Aheto 2016, Chowdury et al. 2018, Frey et al. 2021, Mbeyale et al. 2021).Quantitative methods used are participatory GIS mapping, surveys, and interviews.Some of the tools used to analyze quantitative data include economic and financial analysis and multi-stakeholder analysis.

Implementation of CBFM in Several Countries
Since the issue of the importance of involving the community in forest management emerged, the concept of CBFM has become "booming" and is being used in various countries around the world.All governments in various countries have started implementing the CBFM concept to reorganize forest areas that have been damaged and reduce poverty in forest areas.
The application of the CBFM concept is carried out in various countries in the form of different programs and names, such as 'KoloAla' in Madagascar (Urech et al. 2013) In addition to the different forms of programs, implementation in the field is also different, but most are still top-down, initiated by the government (Purnomo and Anand 2014, Urech et al. 2013), and even if bottom-up, initiated by external agencies such as NGOs, local NGOs, and academics (Sahide et al. 2020b).As with the initiation from outside, the initiation for CBFM implementation also varies.Some are directly managed by the government (Urech et al. 2013), but some are managed through institutions formed with facilitation by the government, local government, or NGOs (Sahide et al. 2020b).The existence of institutional forms that are not directed, and often not based on community initiatives in the forest area itself, causes the institutions that are formed to not run optimally, depend on assistance from external agencies, and not have diverse business activities (Apriandana et al. 2021, Baynes 2015, Bahruzin et al. 2014, Drigo et al. 2013, Horota et al. 2018, Purnomo et al. 2020, Raharjo et al. 2020, Satria and Hermianto 2020).Institutions that are formed are also often considered to pay little attention to the important role of indigenous people's institutions, as happened in the Loita Community Forest, Kenya, and causing forest degradation (Mbuvi and Kungu 2021).
Of actor representation, the CBFM concept emphasizes the much bigger role of the community in the conservation and management of land in forest areas, while, the government and private parties or large private operators have a role in forest area management (The World Bank 2008).This means CBFM is a collaborative forest management partnership

FIGURE 4 Classification by discipline addressing communitybased forest management FIGURE 5 Research methods used in the studies
model involving the government, NGOs, and local communities (Purnomo et al. 2017).In this concept, there is also implied a business partnering between the government, NGOs, and local communities.Business partnering is a process through which the involved parties establish and sustain a competitive advantage over similar entities, through pooling resources in trusting atmosphere focused on continuous, mutual improvement (Poirier and Reiter 1996).
However, in the implementation of CBFM, the role of the community is often not seen in program initiation, so the needs of the community are often not considered, and they are placed as objects rather than implementing subjects (Engida and Teshoma 2012).The unclear role of the community, government or state, and private sector in the concept of CBFM often cause actors not to be involved at all (Moeliono et al. 2017), or instead leads to the dominance of certain actors and excludes the role of the main actor or local community, which is very needed (Sahide et al. 2020a, Sahide et al. 2020b).As a result, CBFM often creates new conflicts due to demands from marginalized people for managing land in forest areas (Arifandy and Sihaloho 2015) or even conflicts of interest between policymakers regarding issues of land ownership and the environment (Fajar and Kim 2019).In addition, the role of one actor, such as the state, is too large in managing forest areas and their resources, causing the forest management system to become ineffective with higher transaction costs (Urech et al. 2013, Humphries et al. 2020).Thus, CBFM is frequently criticized for being and unrepresentative of society (Bahruzin et al. 2014, Mbuvi and Kungu 2021, Moeliono et al. 2017, Purnomo and Anand 2014, Rakatama and Pandit 2020, Sahide et al. 2020b, Satria and Hermianto 2020, Sukresna et al. 2020, Zulkarnain 2021).
It is this unequal role between society and regulators, as well as private actors, that needs to be reviewed in the concept of CBFM.According to the theory of NIE (Williamson 2000) and the concept of proper governance (Budi et al. 2021), for an institution to run well, there needs to be an equal position between the state, the private sector, and the community.To achieve an equal position between the state, the private sector, and the community, it is necessary to have inclusive and neutral institutions, good communication, and the establishment of 'trust'.As in the case of Forest Management Community in Muara Danau Village, Muara Enim Regency, South Sumatera, Indonesia, the establishment of cooperative as the business enterprise was not optimal because of the lack of trust from the community to the management (Apriandana et al. 2021).Therefore, the establishment of trust is important for the successful of the forest enterprise.
There are weaknesses in the formation of institutions and the unequal roles of actors such as the state or the dominant private sector, as can be seen from the working mechanism in the implementation of CBFM, which is not following the expectations of the local community.CBFM hints at the importance of community empowerment (The World Bank 2008), but in reality, it tends to ignore the importance of assistance.The absence of assistance causes the implementation of CBFM to be less successful or ineffective because the capacity of the human resources involved is low or they do not understand the concept of CBFM holistically (Bahruzin et al. 2014, Duguma et al. 2018, Fajar and Kim 2019, Moeliono et al. 2017, Purnomo and Anand 2014), and they do not pay attention to existing customary community institutions to manage forests (Mbuvi and Kungu 2021).
The lack of optimal institutions and performance mechanisms has resulted in the unclear application of the CBFM concept in providing economic impacts on communities in forest areas (Laksemi et al. 2019, Rohmayanto et al. 2019).The lack of clarity on the economic impact of implementing CBFM is supported by the opinion of the majority of farmers (36.7%) in forest areas in Ciomas Village, Indonesia who do not dare to express their opinions when asked about the economic impact of planting in forest areas (Parhusip et al. 2019).Frey et al. (2021: 12) also stated that: "… a group of 14 FSC-certified CFs in Southeastern Tanzania, which sell standing high-value timber, is not currently economically independent…" unless they continue to increase their timber sales, look for more market opportunities, and continue to conduct training that can reduce the cost of wood production per unit.Urech et al. (2013) also stated that CBFM is not easy to implement, especially in locations with very high poverty rates or in communities with a very high level of dependence on land in forest areas.For this reason, in addition to providing community access to land management in forest areas, reducing community dependence through other businesses besides agriculture is also important.
Points to be underlined here are, among others, that so far the implementation of CBFM has tended to place more emphasis on efforts to involve the community in increasing income in forest areas, and poverty reduction, without paying much attention to environmental sustainability or the conservation and sustainability of farmer businesses in forest areas (Dev et al. 2003, Purnomo and Anand 2014, Baynes et al. 2015, Urech et al. 2013, Aheto 2016, Beaudoin et al. 2014, Raharjo et al. 2020, Rakatama and Pandit 2020, Laksemi et al. 2019, Rohmayanto et al. 2019, Kamaluddin and Tamrin 2019, Duguma et al. 2018).In another section, Erbaugh (2019) states that CBFM is considered an attempt to transfer responsibility for forest destruction by the state to communities around forest areas, but without providing information on how the process of transferring responsibility should be carried out.The unclear process of transferring responsibility for forest maintenance has resulted in higher rates of forest deforestation in Cameroon ( 2022) and economic diversification in community forestry in British Columbia (2015).The various problems stated above can be briefly seen in Table 2.

Discussion
According to the explanation mentioned above, there are three important actors with its roles in the implementation of CBFM.First, the community as the main actors in the implementation of CBFM.Second, the state as the regulator who could provide rules and regulation, as well as capacity building and financial support for the community (Harly 2023, Baynes et al. 2015).The last one is the private sector who could provide financial support, technical expertise, access to markets, sharing knowledge and best practices, and support for community-led initiatives (McGrath et al. 2015).
However, there is a lack of clear boundaries in the interactions among these three entities in the implementation of CBFM.The absence of well-defined roles for these three actors has resulted in diverse interpretations and fluid implementations concerning the roles and interactions of the government, community, and private sector.According to the NIE theory, the ambiguous delineation of the government's roles occasionally leads to challenges in transferring property rights from the government to the community, as highlighted by Erbaugh (2019).Issues related to property rights transfer are noticeable in the government's recurrent insistence on executing pre-designed programs and activities, which exemplifies a top-down approach (De Royer et al. 201, Beaudoin et al. 2015).On the other hand, the private sector, as a pivotal stakeholder often providing capital, training, and acting as the off-taker of production, also frequently exerts pressure to align government-led initiatives or endeavors with its interests.It tends to dominate capital ownership and, eventually, take control of ongoing ventures (Arifandy andSihaloho 2015, Beaudoin et al. 2015).
The attempts to impose specific programs or activities by both the government and the private sector, when analyzed using the NIE theory, indicate the presence of unequal relationships among the community, government, and private sector (Bahruzin et al. 2014, Ghimire and Lamichhane 2020, Humpries et al. 2020, Mbuvi et al. 2021, Moeliono et al. 2017, Purnomo et al. 2014, Purnomo et al. 2020, Rakatama and Pandit 2020, Sahide et al. 2020b, Satria and Hermianto 2020, Sukresna et al. 2020, Urech et al. 2013, Zulkarnain 2021).Consequently, communities have been brought into the fold artificially, lacking involvement from the outset.This approach often disregards the needs of the community, positioning them as objects rather than subjects within the program's framework (Mansuri and Rao 2004, Engida and Teshoma 2012, Sahide et al. 2020b).Additionally, indigenous people or informal institutions rooted in local wisdom have not been integrated into the execution of CBFM (Mbuvi and Kungu 2021).All in all, the unclear definition of the roles of these three actors has resulted many failures in the implementation of CBFM, as mentioned above.
Therefore, it is important to find the optimal combination of relationships between the three actors.We used the NIE theory to analyze and construct the interaction between the structure and actors, and the proper governance concept to analyze and construct the function of the interaction between the structure and actors.By using the NIE theory and the concept of proper governance, we then propose an alternative model to apply in the management of forestry business activities.The model constructed is called the Community-Government and Private Partnership (CGPP).The CGPP is not an attempt to exclude or undermine the roles of the government and the private sector in the CBFM model, but to define the optimal combination of the relationships between actors (community-government-private).Table 3 illustrates the problems with the relationships of actors in the implementation of CBFM and how the CGPP solve those problems.

Dimensions Challenges Articles
Organizational Structure The business organization is not running optimally, depending on external assistance As presented in Table 3 and Figure 6, the CGPP is different from the previous concept of CBFM.There are four important differences of CGPP from CBFM.First, in CGPP, there is a clear division of roles between the community, government, and private sector in the management of forest areas.The community has been positioned as the main actor in the implementation of forest management.The community's involvement should be grounded in the principles of inclusivity and equality.This means that the community has an access to resources; can participate in the decision making, and program/activity implementation.Local values are also acknowledged and integrated into the design of the programs and business activities.However, local communities could not manage the forest resources by themselves.As in the case of a community-based mangrove planters' association that has been involved in the management of mangrove ecosystems along the Volta River Estuary in Ghana over 20 years, they could gain benefit from the mangrove-forest ecosystems, but they failed to reduce mangrove exploitation without the involvement of government (Aheto et al. 2016).Therefore, the involvement of government is important as a regulatory facilitator, to provide capital support, to offer training and mentorship, and to support product marketing.Government has a role as a facilitator who help the community in the process of transferring the property rights of forest resources from the government to the community.This assistance is in the form of legal law enforcement for the private sector and other communities who would like to access or use the resources that belong to a community.The government could not be involved in the resource management and they could not force their business to the community.In the CGPP, the important assistance and equal relationships are signed by the hyphen in the words "Community" and "Government".It means that Government and Community have an equal position, and the facilitation, support, and assistance of governments are important for the community, and thus, they should work together for the successful implementation of a community initiative program.
Meanwhile, the existence of private sector in the forest management is also important.The engagement of the private sector is confined to investment, market provision, and technical support (McGrath et al. 2015), all of which are governed by business organizations established by the community (the core institution).According to Beaudoin et al. (2015), engaging legally-established private companies, even those not directly related to forestry activities is crucial, to foster a learning atmosphere and broaden the horizons of the community in their interactions with externally experienced business entities.Second, to ensure the success and sustainability of forestry business activities, there should be equal position partnerships among communities, government, and the private sectors.The equality function of three stakeholders in forest resource government is align with the concept of proper governance especially developmental dimension, as well as property rights in NIE.This equal relationship between the government, community, and private sector seem to be idealistic, and difficult to do, but it is not impossible.As an example is the Aborigin community in the forest areas of Canada that has already successful in developing Aboriginal Community-Based Enterprises (ACBE) and benefited the local community by increasing their income, creating new employment, and conserving the natural resources (Beaudoin et al. 2015).This successful development of ACBE occurred because the "community had access to, and expanded, human, natural, social, and financial capital", while the local government and the private sectors initiate, facilitate, and support financially, as well as transfer the property rights and acknowledge the local values of the community (Beaudoin et al. 2015: 24).
Third, there must be a "core institution" whose role is to carry out the governance of forestry business activities on a day-to-day basis, to orchestrate functional relations in a triple helix partnership (community, government, and private sector), and to develop business diversification in wood and non-wood products.According to Menard and Shirley (2005), the institution is important to reduce risks and transaction costs between individuals or organizations who do not have perfect information about each other.An institution as a community enterprise is also important to guarantee economic sustainability of the community (Humphries et al. 2020).
As previously highlighted, the implementation of CBFM varies across countries (Susilawati and Esariti 2007, Urech et al. 2013, Beaudoin et al. 2015, Aheto 2016, Chowdury et al. 2018, Erbaugh 2019, Mbuvi and Kungu 2021).Based on the literature, there are at least three community forest management types: individual management, group business endeavors, and Community Forestry Enterprises (CFEs).Comparatively, among these three forest management forms, CFEs offer the most assurance for sustainability (Humphries et al. 2020).Governments and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have promoted CFEs as a sustainable commercial model in forest management that boosts community income, creates employment opportunities, and enhances the added value of community-produced goods (Vega and Keenan 2014).
In the CGPP framework, CFEs serve as the core institutions that facilitate or organize collaboration between the three main stakeholders.CGPP emphasizes the importance of establishing economic institutions based on community aspirations for sustainable forest management.It is the community that determines the business plan, accumulates capital collectively, and ensures the benefits return to the community.
CFEs could be in the form of private company, cooperatives, or others.However, in our model, we propose cooperatives as the most appropriate core institution.This perception of cooperatives is rooted in their inherent spirit of collective action, which allows them to reduce transaction costs, amplify benefits to their members, and distribute rights equitably amongst them (Staatz 1987, Guttmann 2021).Cooperatives are usually built on the initiative of the community, conducted by the community, and benefited the community.The example of a successful cooperative that managed forest areas is Comfloona, a Community Forestry Entreprise (CFE), led by the community association in the form of cooperative, in Brazil (Humphries et al. 2020).The cooperative has gained many members, and assisted financially and technically by the government and private sector without any involvement from the government and private sector in their forest management function.The transparent and accurate financial reporting and FIGURE 6 Community-government and private partnership (CGPP) model management is delivered every year at the general assembly of cooperative members and the members could evaluate and monitor the financial and company report.As a result, the cooperative has gained trust from the community, as well as the community has benefited more from the existence of the enterprise.Another example is Nengfu Cooperative, a cooperative for forest certification, built by the community in China (He et al. 2015).The members involved with an equal status and implemented democratic management.They also shared self-management, self-responsibility for profit and loss, as well as benefit and risk in the operational of the Cooperative which was emphasized the equality idea in NIE and the concept of proper governance.Therefore, by considering the successful cooperative mentioned above, we believe that cooperative could be the core institution in the CGPP model.
Four, there must be a formulation of governance functions to support the successful implementation of forestry business activities and to ensure their sustainability.By utilizing the indicators derived from the NIE and the concept of proper governance, we define four main governance functions in CGPP, namely: Organizational, Business Activities, Human Resource Development, as well as Business and Environmental Sustainability functions.More specifically, the scope of the role of each stakeholder in carrying out the four governance functions in the context of the CGPP model that we propose can be seen in Table 4.These functions also support the clear division of roles between community, government, and private sectors as mentioned in the first characteristic of CGPP.
We recognize that the CGPP, envisioned as an optimal institutional model benefiting forest communities while ensuring sustainable forest conservation, cannot operate effectively without the support of various internal and external factors.Beyond partnerships with government and private sectors, the success of CGPP also hinges on intricate internal elements.Factors like limited community capacity in management, the challenge of broadening market networks, and opportunistic behaviors within the institution pose significant constraints.Therefore, intensive external support, both in terms of training, capacity building and financial supports from the government and private entities, is indispensable.
Moreover, CGPP offers an alternative model for communityinvolved forest management.As an ideal institutional framework, it necessitates practical application and further empirical evidence and research to support the CGPP to run effectively.This situation presents both limitations and opportunities for researchers and practitioners intending to directly implement the CGPP within communities.Through such endeavors, it is expected that this model can benefit communities, foster advantageous collaborations with government and private sectors, while sustaining forest conservation.

CONCLUSIONS
Referring to the various weaknesses encountered in the implementation of CBFM and to the need to present proper TABLE 4 Functional Relations in the Community-Government and Private Partnership (CGPP) Model governance in forest business activities, the research team proposed a model, hereinafter referred to as the Community-Government and Private Partnership (CGPP).The model constructed by the research team positions cooperatives as "core institutions" whose role is to orchestrate the functions of Organizational Governance, Business Governance, HR Development Governance, as well as Business and Environmental Sustainability functions.Cooperatives have been articulated as the most appropriate institutions to act as core institutions because cooperatives are one of the economic institutions formed based on community aspirations, in line with the basic principles of Community Based Development (CBD) in general, and CBFM.The effectiveness of coordination is also very much needed, both internally as a core institution and externally with stakeholders included in the triple helix partnership.In this way, mutually beneficial partnerships (community, government, and private) can be built and strengthened while maintaining forest sustainability.
is made up of a checklist that includes recommendations for what things must exist to ensure the inclusion of all critical aspects in the study(Gurevitch et al. 2018).In the PRISMA, the data obtained are also thoroughly discussed to emphasize the quality of the study and its analysis(Gurevitch  et al. 2018).PRISMA has been widely used to compile review(Moher et al. 2015, Crocetti 2016, Matthew et al.  2021, Gurevitch et al. 2018) and research articles(Shamseer et al. 2015, Mayo-Wilson et al. 2017, Kim and Knesebeck 2018, Nguyen et al. 2022).

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1 The relationships between NIE and Proper Governance Concept

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2 Research framework of governance for forestry business activities based on trans-disciplinary approach , the Essipit model of Aboriginal Community-Based Enterprises (AEBC) in Canada (Beaudoin et al. 2015), community-based mangrove forest management in Ghana (Aheto 2016), village common forest management in Komolchori, Bangladesh (Chowdury et al. 2018), traditional CBFM in Kenya (Mbuvi and Kungu 2021), Social Forestry, Development with Village Forest Communities (PMDHT), Forest Village Communities Empowerment Programs (PMDH), Community-based Collaborative Forest Management Program (PHBM) in Indonesia (Sahide et al. 2020a).

TABLE 1
Actors, Dimensions, and Principals of Proper Governance ConceptGuaranteed the right of every citizen to obtain equal rights in accessing economic and political resources; equal legal treatment regardless of status; and the establishment of an attitude of mutual trust, both among the public, state administrators and between the public and state administrators)

TABLE 3
CBFM and CGPP Model, Problems and Solutions