Trapped in the middle: The provincial governance trilemma in Indonesia’s recentralized forestry sector

• Recentralization positions provinces as intermediaries rather than empowered forest governors • Provincial forest governance is shaped by a trilemma of coordination, capacity, and accountability • Centralized permitting recentralizes authority while devolving conflict management to provinces • Forest Management Units lose field authority, weakening enforcement and community engagement • Recentralization risks reproducing governance failures at a higher administrative tier Recentralization of forest governance in Indonesia has shifted key authorities from districts to provinces, with significant implications for forest sustainability and forest-dependent communities. While intended to improve coordination and control, its practical implementation and socio-ecological consequences remain insufficiently understood. This study examines how provincial governments become “trapped in the middle” of competing central and local pressures, facing a governance trilemma of coordination, capacity, and accountability. Using a qualitative case study of West Sulawesi, based on 41 in-depth interviews, document analysis, and focus group discussions, the study shows that provincial governance is shaped by three interrelated constraints. Coordination is limited by fragmented authority across central agencies and districts. Capacity is constrained by expanded mandates without sufficient personnel and fiscal resources. Accountability is weakened by unclear responsibility toward forest-dependent communities. Together, these dynamics create a self-reinforcing governance trap that leads to delayed enforcement, prolonged conflict resolution, and livelihood uncertainty. Rather than resolving decentralization failures, recentralization reconfigures them at the provincial level, where responsibility expands without corresponding authority or capacity. These findings show that improving forest governance requires realigning authority, capacity, and accountability, rather than relying on institutional restructuring alone.