 Mapping of forest lands and bureaucratic reform is crucial if Indonesia is to realise its vision of transferring land rights to local communities. Those were some of the messages that came out of this year's colloquium on land and forest tenure reform in Indonesia. The colloquium, which brought together government, civil society and scientists, was an opportunity to discuss the progress of recent policy changes. An Indonesia public debate about around forest tenure reform is polarised into two areas. One group of actors, they see that providing more rights over forest and land resources to local communities is the best way to go forward because the local communities have traditionally been using that resources and they have the knowledge of how that resource works. The other actors are more suspicious about the capacity of local communities. If we offer more rights to local communities, they might try to convert that or sell that land and forest resources to private competing other land users. The most lacking part in this debate is the information coming from the experiences from the ground. So that's why we wanted to have this informed dialogue across different actors. Key to the discussions was how a recent policy to transfer 12.7 million hectares of land to forest communities will be implemented. While participants agreed that these reforms are very important, they also spoke about the challenges impeding progress on the ground. This includes a lack of coordination among government agencies and conflicting maps and land claims. If we look at the ministerial, we should have more discussion with them about the coordination. In Indonesia, we have two types of forest, the BPN and the forest itself. So we know that this has never happened before. The need to build the capacities of government and local community groups was also highlighted. An important part of this is making sure research and experiences on the ground are feeding into policy processes. To continue this type of colloquium of the dialogue was failed by everyone. So what they have decided is to revive the existing multi-stakeholder forums. For example, tenure working group, social forestry forum. And also they suggested that research, for example, coming from C4, should also be providing the input to those forums in the future. So that the forums will be more informed, dialogue within that forum and the more useful and effective policy documentation can be made to the policy makers as well as to inform the practices on the ground.