Forest Management Based on Local Culture of Dayak Kotabaru in the Perspective of Customary Law for a Sustainable Future and Prosperity of the Local Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper uses the normative juridical method to find a form of sustainable forest management and sanctions for the perpetrators of forest destruction based on Dayak Kotabaru's indigenous people.

The topic of this paper is interesting. However, there are too many English writing faults and paper format faults. In addition, the literature review is not enough to support the motivation of this paper. And, verification of the results should be made. Detailed comments are as follows.

* A comprehensive literature review on related works should be made. In addition, the comparison of this work and these previous works should be detailed.

* There are too many English writing faults. English writing of this paper should be checked carefully, e.g., in Abstract, there should be a conjunction in the first sentence; in line 7, `method which focusing'; page 1, `can be find'; and many others.

* Page 2: Citation should be put before the `.' symbol, e.g., `ideas.[18]' --> `ideas [18].' Also check similar faults throughout this paper.

* Page 3: The figure resolution should be improved.

* Page 4, Figure 2: Two arrow icons are placed at wrong positions.

* Pages 4-5: Because the readers in the forestry journal may not be familiar with the research method from laws, a more detail introduction to the research method should be given.

* An illustration of how the research method performs should be given.

* Page 6: The indentations of paragraphs are not consistent. Check them throughout this paper.

* Page 11: Generally, the correctness of an academic paper should be verified. The verification of this paper is lacking.

* Page 12: The caption of Figure 3 should be placed on page 11.

* There are two Figure 2's and two Figure 3's?

* Picture 1 should also be referred as a figure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Resources Scientific Journal

First of all, thank you for your time to review our manuscript. From the report, there are several issues concerning the paper. Therefore we revised it as the reviewer's instruction. Please find all the changes in the highlighted paragraph.

The reviewer 1 ask for a comprehensive literature review on related works and the comparison of this work and previous works. For this, we added several previous research related to forest management in tenure customary land and their implications on this study. These changes can be seen in the highlighted paragraph.

Furthermore, the reviewer 1 argues that because the readers in the forestry journal may not be familiar with the research method from laws, a more detail introduction to the research method should be given. Thus we give an illustration of the research process. This can be seen in Fig.3 page 6.

As for technical and grammatical mistakes, we also fixed it according to the reviewer’s comment and used grammatical software to improve it.

Hopefully, this cover letter is addressing the reviewer’s comments properly and the revised paper can meet the reviewer's criteria.

Best Regard,

M.Y. Said

Reviewer 2 Report

At first sight, the topic of the paper is very interesting and promising, especially when the abstract is read. However, going through the paper, page after page, it is not an easy task to follow the ideas of authors, in particular for those who are not completely familiar with the Indonesian case. In many cases, the sentences are not understandable also because of improper English grammar used. I would say that this topic dispose of a great potential, however, proper literature review is needed. Then, the accurate objective of the paper together with the clear framework of reference need to be defined so that the results presented in the paper are followable. In general, the paper is of rather descriptive nature covering a number of different issues connected together by such keywords as forest management or customary law.

The introduction does not include all relevant references - only one example of the relevant  study prepared by the World Resources Institute is mentioned, however without proper citation (study on using of customary law in management of forest resources of three Latin America countries). There are numerous scientific studies dealing with the mentioned issues in different countries, including South East Asia countries. It is necessary to mention al least some of them.

Considering the methods used, it is necessary to take into consideration the document as well as content analysis as these two methods are viewed as the essential ones within the scope of legal research. The methods described in the paper seem to be too general, without clear connection to the problems analysed by the authors.

The whole chapter 3.1 is too general, without clear connection to the research design. As an example, the term "forest inauguration" as described in the chapter 3.1 is absolutely unclear, thus, one may not judge if this concept is important or not for the presentation of results. 

The eligibility of Dayak Kotabaru community to be classified as the customary law community, examined in chapter 3.2, is based on "believes" of authors as scientifically sound proofs are missing. Especially here, the detailed document analysis is needed.

Moreover, the concept of "Bera system", mentioned in chapter 3.3, is also unclear and its connection to the concept of customary law is rather vague. Thus, it is not obvious if the sanctions further analysed in this chapter dispose of any scientific value. 

The discussion part once more describes issues already covered by previous chapters.

Finally, the conclusions just summarize the analysed issues, however, without any synthesis.

All figures are just illustrative ones and they do not really support any potential conclusions derived from the presented analysis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Resources Scientific Journal

First of all, thank you for your time to review our manuscript. From the report, there are several issues concerning the paper. Therefore we revised it as the reviewer's instruction. Please find all the changes in the highlighted paragraph.

The reviewer 2 ask for a comprehensive literature review on related works and the comparison of this work and previous works. For this, we added several previous research related to forest management in tenure customary land and their implications on this study. These changes can be seen in the highlighted paragraph.

Furthermore, the reviewer 2 argues that the need for accurate paper objective together with the clear framework of reference in order that the results presented in the paper are followable. Thus We revised it as your instruction, and You can find these changes in the highlighted paragraph. The reviewer also argues that the paper is of rather descriptive nature, this is because we used a descriptive analytic method for elaborate the paper.

The reviewer also stated that the introduction does not include all relevant references the necessary to include study from South East Asia countries. Therefore We added the latest successful study on the adat forest in the Kandilo Subwatershed, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Then related to the generality of methods. We revised it and added a clear connecting point on the objective and also added an illustration related to the process (see p.4-5). Moreover, regarding the forest inauguration, we revised the structure and added more details and illustration on the stages (see p8-9).

Moreover, the reviewer also commenting on the concept of "Bera system", that it is also unclear and vague. Thus, we elaborate more details on this concept and its implication for the research. As for the sanctions, we elaborate it for comparative value. Finally, the conclusions are revised as reviewers comment to added a form of synthesis.

As for technical and grammatical mistakes, we also fixed it according to the reviewer’s comment and used grammatical software to improve it.

Hopefully, this cover letter is addressing the reviewer’s comments properly and the revised paper can meet the reviewer's criteria.

Best Regard,

M.Y. Said

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors still did not give a comprehensive literature review on related works. In addition, a comparison of this paper with these previous works should be clarified. Therefore, the authors are suggested to revise this paper again.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Resources Scientific Journal

The first reviewer once again ask for a comprehensive literature review and a comparison of this study and previous works. For this, we added a sub section on literature review (Page 6-8), while as the comparison between this study and previous research can be seen from this study objective which is aims to review and describe the problems that arise as a result of the absence of legal protection for indigenous peoples in customary forests in communal lands. Then, this study also aims to examine the extent of forest management by the Dayak Kotabaru customary law to prosper the local community. Besides, this research also seeks to formulate forest management solutions in Indonesia based on local culture as a prescriptive future policy to maintain the sustainability of forest for the locals. While previous work referred in article only focusing on the impact and efficiency of forest management through communal to reduce deforestation.

Hopefully, this cover letter is addressing the reviewer’s comments properly and once again the revised paper can meet the reviewer's criteria.

Best Regard,

M.Y. Said

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of this paper is slightly better than the original version, however, two points need to be stressed again:

The accurate objective if the paper is not defined properly. At the end of the introduction part, authors state that "...this study aims to answer the issues of sustainable forest policy for the sustainable future for locals." Such aim is too general, thus, the analytical part of the paper may not be accurate enough.

Results and findings are still not consistent enough. What authors did is that they exchanged subchapters and added some clarification, unfortunately (due to previous comments), it is extremely difficult to follow authors' ideas. For example, it is not understandable at all why authors compare the case of Finland with the case of Indonesia with totally different background.

Also, it is still necessary to significantly improve English grammar and vocabulary.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

The second reviewer stressed that there are two major issues related to the paper. First is the objective of research, which the authors revised as following: This study objective is aims to review and describe the problems that arise as a result of the absence of legal protection for indigenous peoples in customary forests. Then, this study also aims to examine the extent of forest management by the Dayak Kotabaru customary law to prosper the local community. In addition, this research also seeks to formulate forest management solutions in Indonesia based on local culture as a prescriptive future policy.

Second regarding the result of the study, because the objective of the research has been revised and We consider the result is suffice, therefore We only rearranged the resulting structure and conclusion to make it more comprehensive for readers. While for the case of Finland as comparative subject, we added it as a supplementary example of country using doctrine of sustained yield which have similar characteristics to the Customary Law. Despite the different background, the regulation is actually applicable in Indonesia, the only problem is that the permission process in Indonesia often linked with bribery (as the study by Corruption Eradication Commission). Therefore it is essentially risky to put the major control of forest in the hand of private companies through permits.

As for English grammar and vocabulary We tried to enhance it as best as we could.

Hopefully, this cover letter is addressing the reviewer’s comments properly and once again, the revised paper can meet the reviewer's criteria.

Best Regard,

M.Y. Said

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my previous suggestion accordingly, though the review on related works is still not complete. It is suggested to accept this paper for publication in this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version is again improved, however, English grammar still needs to be improved, thus, I would suggest to check the text by native English speakers as in some case it is not at all easy to follow ideas of the authors. I must say that the chapter 3. Literature review is not really a literature review, it is rather "legislative process review". 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I hope You are doing well,

Thank you once again for your kind advice. Regarding Ch. 3 to avoid the difference between the content and chapter title. Therefore we think it is more appropriate to change it to legislative review as the reviewer's suggestion. However regarding the grammar and proofreading by native, due to limited time given to us by the editor (1-day revision), therefore I reconstruct several sentences, to make it easier to follow.

Best Wishes,

M.Yasir Said

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research, using normative juridical method, aims to find a form of sustainable forest management and sanctions for the perpetrators of forest destruction, which is based on Dayak Kptabaru's indigenous people. Focusing on the secondary data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials, this research comes to the conclusion that the forest conservation customary law in Dayak Kptabaru is carried out with a shifting cultivation system and the sanctions for perpetrators of forest destruction is still applied with the principles of local culture. This research is attracting and intriguing, which contains the elements for the forestry policy for Indonesia. However there are some space to improve.

My comments for this research are listed below:

1.          Page 2, line 48-49, the authors mentioned that “However, forest management in Indonesia still does not reflect compliance with good forest governance principles, leading to significant forest degradation and deforestation.” Please provide statistical evidence to support this point.

2.          Page 2, paragraph two tried to state the ineffectiveness of the government. However, the critical statement was not well support. Please offer details or previous studies to enhance your statement.

3.          Page 2, the last paragraph tried to point out that giving indigenous people the authority is necessary for forest management. Nonetheless, there are few evidences to support such statements. Please provide more references to enhance the point.

4.          Page 3, line 70-75, please explain why this research would like to use Dayak Kotabaru? What are the characteristic of Dayak Kotabaru? I would suggest the authors explain the reasons why Dayak Kotabaru was used to be the research area.

5.          Page 3, Figure 2 did not have any unit.

6.          Page 3, line 82, please provide the complete name of WRI.

7.          Page 3, line 85, please update the average rate of deforestation among Indonesia.

8.          Page 8 line 221-222, the research suggest that the criminal sanction in forestry become more functional. Why?

9.          In the conclusions, please provide the advices and future policies and suggestions from your study to the government, and related limitations.

10.      Though the article states the conclusion clearly, the research is not lucid enough to calibrate the social importance of this research.