Section: Indonesia > Java > Reserach Activities

print-version

Collaborative forest management of teak forest in Central Java

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Steps of implementation of Java case study:

2004-2005 Baseline survey

2005-2006 Intervention on LMDH empowerment and participatory forest management planning

2006-2007 Participatory monitoring and evaluation for sustainable forest management

2007-2008 Exit strategy and LPF participatory evaluation

Phase 1 - BASELINE STUDY

Year 1 process

Phase 2- INTERVENTION

Year 2 process

The eight main activities are as follows:

1. Building Awareness of the Community Members at the Village Level about LPF Project

This is an ongoing activity which started when the project selected the villages. In Year 1, we conducted several activities and collected data and information about the village and its stakeholders, resources and resource use, institutions, livelihoods, formal and informal agreements and policy framework, in order to get a better picture about the study area. While in Year 2, the project developed a framework to guide activities in the intervention phase. Prior to our intervention in each village, it was necessary for the project team member to introduce the project to community members. The awareness raising program was conducted during some local formal and informal meetings, such as pengajian (religious activity), arisan (gathering), etc.

2. Building a Common Vision

Different stakeholders have different interests and perspectives, which may directlt or indirectly lead to conflicts in the future about their access to renewable resources. Previous studies showed that people, who at the moment have different interests and possibly are facing conflict, may have a common vision regarding the ideal conditions of the future, e.g. the next 15 to 20 years. Based on these studies, we facilitated the community members to come up with a common vision for the village. The community then came up with a draft of their common vision, which was later on revealed and recognized by village stakeholders.

3. Identification of Problems and Priorities

After formalising the common vision, the local community identified the current problems that hindered them from achieving the vision. Those problems were subsequently prioritised, such as which ones were short-term or long-term problems to address. They were also clustered based on sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, education, infrastructure, etc.

4. Development of Strategy to Address Local Issues

The community was facilitated to develop a strategy to address the prioritised problems.

5. Building Community Working Groups

Each strategy was developed further in each working groups. Community members voluntarily assigned themselves to their sector of interest, and selected the coordinators of the working groups.

6. Facilitating Collective Action

This is the coordination work carried out by each community working group in addressing local issues through - what the project called – a micro project. We facilitated those working groups, both those who are working on forestry issues and non-forestry issues through discussion, focus group discussions, and workshops.

7. Coordination and Communication

At this step, the project facilitates stakeholders at different levels; assists the coordination and improves communication among them particularly on the collaborative forest management or PHBM scheme.

8. Capacity Building

The project builds the capacity of the people by conducting training and discussion sessions based on the needs of local community. These empower the local community, in particular forest farmers.

Intervention steps, methodology and tools used

Phase 3 – MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The performance of the LPF project was participatory evaluated by project’s stakeholders in its final year of implementation. Evaluations were considered essential for identifying the results and lesson learnt of LPF project implementation between 2004 and 2007. LPF performance evaluations took place at the village level and at project level. Village level performance evaluation was involved all village stakeholders in forest management, while project level performance evaluation involved the project team member.

The objectives were:

• To identify LPF outcomes and impacts;
• To recognise the successes of methods developed by the LPF project and determine what improvements were necessary
• To generate lessons learnt for all parties who wish to develop multistakeholder approaches

Further information click Java Case Study Report on Participatory Evaluation & Self Assessment