|
Collaborative forest management of teak forest in Central Java
RESULTS and IMPACTS
Result of baseline study is written in the
Year 1 report
of Java case study. LPF processes on intervention phase were documented in
Year 2 report, while Year
3 report explained the process on development criteria and indicator for
sustainable forest management in PHBM system.
Activities related with exit strategy, LPF project facilitated the production of flyers and calendars to help LMDH for building awareness activities about PHBM program.
LPF team also produced a
flyer on PHBM to help local community to better
understand PHBM concept.
Results |
Results and/or outputs |
Source of verification |
1. Key actors’ demand for project intervention identified or confirmed on six contrasted strategic locations
|
Done: 5/5
The state-owned company Perhutani initiated development of collaborative forest management with local community (PHBM) to improve forest control.
Local community wants to improve its livelihood.
Key actors (local community, Perhutani and local government) welcomed project intervention and became actively involved in all processes of project implementation framework.
|
Memorandum of understanding between project and Perum Perhutani published (see reports of Java case study Year 1 and Year 2). |
2. Key actors negotiate and agree on a common long-term objective for forests and associated lands management |
Done: 5/5
Key actors (community and Perhutani) have negotiated and agreed on common long-term (6–10 years) and short-term (1 year) planning.
The produced vision and mission statement in all villages legitimise local community to act on local needs and issues.
Participatory management plan developed and implemented for medium-term (3–5 years) and short–term (1–2 year) plan.
|
Vision and mission statement in four villages; participatory management plan involving local community and Perhutani; local institutions introduce and disseminate plan to community members (see report of Java case study, Year 2). |
3. Place of negotiation is set up where key actors meet regularly to discuss issues |
Done: 5/5
Local organisation (LMDH) at village level set up in four villages, acts as forum for negotiation.
Other informal forums exist, where local issues are discussed and/or negotiated.
Community is able to express views and opinions on any issues that emerge.
|
LMDH exists; community working groups and local institution take collective decision and act upon common agreement (see report of Java case study, Year 3). |
4. Role of natural resources in relation to people’s livelihood understood and acted upon by researchers, company and/or local government |
Done: 5/5
Researchers have undertaken action research. Local community and Perhutani, with facilitation by researchers and support from local government, have been acting upon identified problems.
Local people understand that forests contribute to their livelihood, and people are actively involved in forest security.
Ongoing negotiation related to land allocation for agriculture activities within PHBM (collaborative forest management) areas in Glandang and Surajaya.
|
Case study reports, minutes of meetings of community working groups; new contract in Tanggel village about forest management plan for mixed cropping of orange and neem; LMDH organises and develops schedule for forest patrol in each village, and community takes action on forest patrol (see report of Java case study, Year 3). |
5. Community representatives make more proposals about environmental livelihoods, act on list of environmental priorities and learn from experience |
Done: 5/5
Community working groups and LMDH prepared proposals for village development and land management. Those proposals have been submitted to local government, private sectors and LMDH.
|
Proposals developed and submitted to local government, private sector and LMDH (see report of Java case study, Year 3).
Glandang and Surajaya established partnerships with 3rd parties on establishing forest as well as micro business.
|
6. Community acts less as individuals and nominates and selects representatives through democratic process |
Done: 5/5
Local community acted collectively in addressing the problems through community working groups and LMDH.
Forestry working group is working in collaboration with Perhutani.
The new board member of LMDH in Gempol was elected in democratic and transparent way.
|
LMDH working plan; minutes of meetings of LMDH (see report of Java case study, Year 3). |
7. A current or potential partner indicates forward contract for new environmental product |
Done: 5/5
LPF project seeks and facilitates community working group and LMDH to get a grant from private company for local development through microproject. LPF identified these potential private companies.
LPF maintains communication and shares information among parties.
|
Email communication with third party; proposal developed and sent to private company (see report of Java case study, Year 3).
Proposal approved and implemented in Glandang and Surajaya.
|
8. Scientists able to communicate and influence development actors by using simple simulation approaches |
Done: 5/5
Schemes developed for efficient agriculture activities and to attract grants from private company.
|
Working plan developed; schemes developed.
Local community skill on facilitation improved.
Local stakeholders plan to adapt LPF approaches for scaling up the program.
|
9. Institutions publish or communicate more on environmental stewardship approaches and methods |
Done: 5/5
Researchers have presented LPF project, approaches, and methods in local workshops.
Several papers and posters presented in international and national forums in 2005–2006.
|
Papers presented at IASCP conference and national workshops.
LPF approaches documented in book format.
|
A brief description of some of the project results
achieved in Year 3 follows below.
Result 3. Place of negotiation is set up
where key actors meet regularly to discuss issues
The LPF Project established LMDH in one of the four villages, Glandang, as
LMDH was already in the other three villages prior to the project. LMDH is a
local organisation who represents local community as agent to sign the agreement
in collaborative forest management (PHBM) with Perhutani. LMDH also serve as a
forum in which local community members, who may have some diverging interests,
can express their ideas and discuss the plans, which later will be negotiated
with Perhutani or other parties for an agreement on certain issues.
Another institution related to PHBM is the Communication Forum on PHBM at the
village level. The functions of the forum are to (1) monitor implementation of
collaborative forest management between LMDH and Perhutani, (2) convey the
aspirations of the local community to LMDH and Perhutani and (3) operate the
forum for all parties involved in forest management. Other informal forums such
as pengajian (religious gathering) are also used as a place for sharing
information and negotiation.
The LPF approach and capacity building directly and indirectly influences the
local community’s way of thinking about forests and forest resources. Men and
women are able to express their opinions and share their ideas in open forums.
Result 4. Role of natural resources in
relation to people’s livelihood understood and acted upon by researchers,
company and/or local government
LPF researchers conducted action research and facilitated local stakeholders
to act upon identified problems and strategies developed. The local community
recognised that forest and forest resources contribute to its source of
livelihood as well as savings for the generations. Moreover, local people are
involved in forest patrol.
In all villages, local communities through LMDH and village government arenow
able to negotiate with Perhutani about forest management, including land
allocated for agriculture activities. Further, local stakeholders were able to
develop a set of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, as
their monitoring tool.
Result 5. Community representatives make
more proposals about environmental livelihoods, act on list of environmental
priorities and learn from experience
Under the coordination of LMDH, community working groups identified
priorities for the development of their village, including a potential source of
funds. In Pemalang, most of the proposals were developed and submitted to local
government, such as those for road infrastructure (asphalted), small irrigation,
school building for regular and Islamic schools, cooperative, training on
community skill improvement, and NTFP processing. Meanwhile in Randublatung,
most of the programmes were financed by LMDH through money from benefit sharing.
Result 6. Community members act less as
individuals and nominate and select representatives through democratic process
LPF provided capacity building to LMDH, facilitated the creation of community
working groups and observed the election process of new LMDH board members in
Gempol village. The project facilitated the development of an LMDH working plan
whereby most of the programmes have been progressing. The management of LMDH has
been working well after some training conducted by LPF. LMDH in four villages
have been the main recipients of assistance and capacity building activities
provided by the project.
LMDH and local government are two different institutions, but are not in
competition. LMDH is focused on forest management issues. LMDH received money
from benefit sharing, and allocated a percentage to village development
activities undertaken by the village government, which is in charge of village
development. The village government also received money for village development
from the district.
Result 7. A current or potential partner
indicates forward contract for new environmental product
LPF project facilitated the community working group and LMDH to identify a
potential medium- or /small-scale business related to local development. Based
on the Tanggel people’s experience, oranges have potential for short-term income
generation. Due to limited land for cultivation, they propose to develop mixed
cropping between orange and tree species on state forest land. A proposal was
developed to seek financial support from a third party. LPF facilitated and
identified a private company as potential partner. This proposal was sent to
Accord Indonesia in October 2006.
Result 8. Scientists able to communicate
with and influence development actors by using simple simulation approaches
The simulation approach was not planned for the Java case study. Through a
group discussion, however, a scheme was developed for efficient agriculture land
use, i.e. an innovation of mixed cropping between neem (Azadiractha indica) and
orange trees.
The proposal on joint forest management with private sector also implemented
with national and international institutions.
Result 9. Institutions publish or
communicate more on environmental stewardship approaches and methods
This year LPF scientists presented two papers at international conferences:
Awang, S.A., Widayati, W.T., Himmah, B. and Wardhana, W. 2006
Collaborative action on state forest company in Java, Indonesia. Paper
presented at the Eleventh Biennial Global Conference of The International
Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), Bali, 19–23 June 2006.
Santoso, L., Awang, S.A., Widayati, W.T., Himmah, B. and Astuti, A. 2006.
Can collaborative forest management address poverty issues?. Paper presented
at the 9th Biennial Conference of International Society Ecological
Economics, New Delhi, India, 15–18 December 2006.
|
|
