Inter-generational Access to Resources: Developing Criteria and Indicators

Summary This paper makes use of data from a methodological pre-test conducted in and around Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Its purpose was to contribute to the development of principles, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (SFM). The particular topic investigated here is (cid:210)inter-generational access to resources(cid:211), an issue widely deemed important — and very difficult to assess — in sustainable forest management. The methods pre-tested are described, and earlier versions of the principles, criteria and indicators are re-evaluated, re-ordered and scored in a dual attempt: ¥ to develop simple, inexpensive and reliable assessment methods, and ¥ to contribute to our understanding of the causal links between inter-generational access to resources and sustainable forest management.


The CGIAR System
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is an informal association of 41 public and private sector donors that supports a network of sixteen international agricultural research institutes, CIFOR being the newest of these.The Group was established in 1971.The CGIAR Centers are part of a global agricultural research system which endeavour to apply international scientific capacity to solution of the problems of the worldÕs disadvantaged people.

CIFOR
CIFOR was established under the CGIAR system in response to global concerns about the social, environmental and economic consequences of loss and degradation of forests.It operates through a series of highly decentralised partnerships with key institutions and/or individuals throughout the developing and industrialised worlds.The nature and duration of these partnerships are determined by the specific research problems being addressed.This research agenda is under constant review and is subject to change as the partners recognise new opportunities and problems.

INTRODUCTION
The fundamental impetus to the research reported here was a widely recognised need to be able to assess intergenerational access to resources simply, inexpensively and reliably.Although our research effort was initially sparked by an interest in timber certification, we quickly found a significant group of other would-be users Ð forest managers, government policy makers, scientists, donors, even local communities Ð interested in enhancing the sustainability of global forest management.As we worked on developing methods, we also realised there was a more fundamental question: Why, and by what means, is inter-generational access to resources important for sustainable forest management (SFM)?
The analysis provided in this paper focuses on the first issue (methods), but we have tried to advance our understanding of the causal links, as well.Still a great deal remains to be done.

Theoretical Context
The above questions arose in the context of an ongoing effort to assess sustainable forest management (see Prabhu et al. 1996).Part of this process has focused on identifying or defining principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers Ð organised in an hierarchical fashion 2 Ð that will allow us to assess forest conditions (including those of forest people) in a simple, cost effective and reliable way.We hope, in this way, to make assess-ments cost effective enough so that important stakeholders Ð governments, scientists, donors, project and forest managers, and ideally even local people Ð will routinely use them, thereby contributing to improvements in forest management.From our perspective, the conditions of human beings living in and around forest areas constitute important elements of sustainable forest management.
The importance of local peopleÕs security of intergenerational access to resources was identified in six recent CIFOR field tests of criteria and indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management (Prabhu et al.  1996, 1997; see also Colfer et al. 1995) Ð in Germany, Indonesia, C™te dÕIvoire, Brazil, Austria and Cameroon.This issue has also been debated in numerous other scholarly studies (e.g., Fortmann and Bruce  1988; Ostrom 1990; Lynch and Alcorn 1994; Rose  1994; Besley 1995; Grigsby 1995; Lueck 1995).Yet we all (CIFOR personnel and test team members) felt real dissatisfaction with our ability to assess the C&I selected by the teams.We also felt uncertain about the causal links between security of access and sustainable forest management.Security of inter-generational access to resources seemed too difficult to determine reliably in the short amount of time typically available.
In response to these problems, we decided to focus some research on these two issues: developing simple methods, and improving our understanding of the role of security of inter-generational access to resources (among other things) in forest management.

Definitions
What do we mean by Òsecurity of inter-generational access to resourcesÓ?The most common examples cited by CIFOR team members included security of land tenure, use rights for forest products and fair distribution of forest benefits. 3The meaning of Òinter-generationalÓ is quite obvious in the Indonesian con-text.The resources in question are for the benefit of both this, and subsequent, generations (see Becker  1997, for a brief philosophical discussion of this issue). 4ÒSecurityÓ refers to a reasonable certainty that the future will not involve a significant reduction in peopleÕs access.
ÒAccessÓ includes the following: ¥ the resource remains (sufficient quantity and quality), 5 ¥ the people can use it, as needed or to the same extent as in the past, 6 ¥ ÒfairnessÓ exists in regulations governing its use and distribution.
By ÒresourcesÓ, we refer to natural resources, such as forests and their products, streams, lakes, agricultural lands, fisheries, anything in nature that has or could have a productive potential and/or provide ecological or cultural services Ð in forested landscapes.

Field Test Site
A preliminary step in the pursuit of these goals involved a pre-test of three methods 7 in and around the Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve (DSWR) in West Kalimantan, Indonesia (Figure 1).DSWR was originally gazetted as an 80,000 ha wildlife reserve because of its ecological uniqueness.It is an area of seasonally flooded, black water lakes, in the remote interior of Borneo near the border with Malaysia.During the past couple of years considerable effort has been devoted to expanding the boundary to include the hills to the east of the reserve; more recently efforts have been made to expand it northwards as well (where oil palm plantations were being planned in DSWRÕs buffer zone area).This would result in a reserve of 197,000 ha.
C.J.P. Colfer, R.L. Wadley, E. Harwell and R. Prabhu  2   3   The fact that there are many interpretations of Òfairness,Ó reflecting real differences in peopleÕs perceptions and understandings, complicates the issue.See, e.g., Prakash and Thompson (1994) or Farmer and Tiefenthaler (1995) for fuller discussions.

4
The meaning of Òinter-generationalÓ has proved more complicated in Cameroon, where there is rather dramatic competition, even antagonism, between different generations, between the young and the old Ð something rare or under-stated in the Indonesian context.

5
One could argue that this issue can be left to the ecologists.However, our own perspective is that local people are likely to have important responsibilities in maintaining that resource.Where people have developed mechanisms for maintaining a resource, its condition is likely to be better.

6
As with many criteria and indicators there are potential conflicts.If the population has risen drastically, for instance, the same resource base may no longer support previous levels of use.This in turn will affect the first quality of Òaccess.Ó It is also a Òred flagÓ relating to sustainability.This site was chosen for our pre-test for several reasons: ¥ Three of the authors spent a total of six years conducting ethnographic research in the area (1992 -1997).
¥ We had access to over 130 reports from an ongoing conservation project there, along with results of our own studies.
¥ The area represented a variety of purported managers, including local people, conservation managers and timber concessionaires.
¥ We anticipated considerable variation in local peo-pleÕs security of access to resources, based on their different resource use, different lengths of residence in their communities, and different potential conflicts with other stakeholders.
The primary Òforest actorsÓ8 in this area include Muslim Melayu fisherfolk who live in the seasonally flooded core of the reserve, Christian and animist Iban swidden cultivators who live in the surrounding hills and, to a much lesser degree, forest workers.These two main groups inhabit ecologically very different habitats and have significantly different natural resource management systems.Other important stakeholders include residents of the larger, Melayu Òmother vil-lagesÓ along the Kapuas river, traders, timber concession holders, timber workers, the conservation project and local government.We were also cognisant of the potentially different concerns of men vs. women, old vs. young, rich vs. poor, and newcomers vs. old-timers (see particularly Nurse et al. 1995 or Wollenberg 1996).
We focused on four communities:9 the Melayu communities of Nanga KedebuÕ and Danau Seluang, and the Iban communities of Wong Garai and Bemban.Because of logistical problems resulting in an incomplete pre-test in Bemban, we pre-tested some of our methods in the Iban community of Kelayang.

Organisation of Text
In the following section we introduce and evaluate our methods.We then discuss several iterations of principles, criteria and indicators on the topic of intergenerational access to resources.In this discussion we are interested both in the proper wording and the hierarchical status of criteria and indicators (to simplify assessment as much as possible), and in providing cases which exemplify field-based evidence pertaining to these C&I.The purpose of the latter is to shed additional light on the question raised at the beginning of this Introduction: Why and by what means is intergenerational access to resources important for sustainable forest management?In other words, what are the causal links between these issues and sustainable forest management?This section concludes with a discussion of our scoring of the qualitative cases pertaining to each indicator. 10With improvement this could allow us to quantify our assessments of these criteria and their indicators, and help us come to a decision on the sustainability of the management of a particular forest and its peopleÕs inter-generational access to resources.

METHODS
We selected two methods, and developed a third, to pre-test: a history form, participatory mapping, and the ÒIterative Continuum MethodÓ (or ICM).Each of these is described below, with comments on our related experience, and evaluation of its utility for cost-effective assessment of inter-generational access to resources.The methods are presented in an order that reflects increasing expertise needed by the assessor.Tainter (1995) and Vayda (1996), among others, have recently argued for the important role that history must play in any attempt to address sustainability issues.Sustainability, by definition, has a temporal component.Similarly, Òinter-generational access to resourcesÓ has a time frame built into it.By using the history form, we hoped to gain some sense of the sweep of history within the area; we hoped that looking backward might be helpful to us in the much more difficult task of looking forward.We also hoped that looking at the current situation with some understanding of past events would help us, as Vayda (1996) argues, to understand some of the ÒcausesÓ behind the present situation.Finally, we hoped that the history form would serve as a catalyst to discussions which in turn would help us understand the dynamics of factors affecting intergenerational access to resources.

History Form
This method was the simplest and most straightforward of the three.We simply filled two sides of a piece of paper with dates, starting in 1920, with a line next to each date (similar to the Òtime linesÓ described in the Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook 1990).We then asked individuals and groups in our study villages to tell us important events in the communityÕs history (shown on Table 1). 11As we learned more, we were able to prompt people with known dates and to help them estimate unknown dates, since the use of dates is not common in the Lakes area.These we put on the form.This helped us gain historical perspective on natural disasters, warfare, the arrival of significant outsiders like timber concessionaires and the conservation project, adoption or development of important new technology, etc.The form was useful in a general sense, in that it did serve as a catalyst for discussion; and it gave us useful dates, like the timber companiesÕ arrival.However, peopleÕs inexperience in dealing with dates was a significant constraint to its utility.The people typically had no idea when particular events happened; and assigning dates required long discussions about what event preceded what other event. 12In each village, it was also necessary to seek out a group which included both old people (who were least likely to be comfortable with dates) and young people (who were better with dates but knew little about history).The locally recruited assistants were not much help in this endeavour, except as translators when needed.Using this method, assessors basically served as record keepers and analysts.It was simple, reliable (with cross checking) and cost effective, but did not provide sufficient information to satisfy our desire for a historical perspective.13

Participatory Mapping 14
Participatory mapping was selected to pre-test because of our sense that residents were likely to be more forthcoming about boundaries, regulations, sanctions and conflicts Ð often sensitive topics Ð when confronted with a visual image than they might be when asked direct questions.We hoped to be able to get this kind of information over informal discussions about the maps and in walks through the area with local residents.
An important activity within the Conservation Project of the U.K. Department for International Development (DfID) was the participatory mapping of traditional use zones in and around DSWR.The spatial extent of community claims to forest and lake areas was mapped in a participatory fashion, between 1994 and 1997, by Dennis and Erman (1997).An array of techniques was used in the process: sketch mapping, surveying with a global positioning system (or GPS), and interpretation of radar and satellite imagery and aerial photography.Considerable time was spent incorporating the results of the community-level mapping into a GIS.
For use in the field, these boundaries were plotted on a base map at a scale of 1:75,000.The relevant areas were enlarged and photocopied in black and white.The maps requested had to show sufficient topography to facilitate recognition by the local communities.Unfortunately, due to complex topography, a surfeit of place names and lack of colour, the maps proved too difficult to interpret.This situation was resolved in the field by simplifying the maps (hand-drawing, adding colour).
Wadley, without access to the above maps (Wong Garai being on the periphery of DSWR), began with his own hand-drawn maps.He attempted some surveys of forest sites using a GPS unit, but was unable to get reliable readings because the forest cover blocked the signals (cf.Sirait et al. 1994 or Momberg et al. 1996  on the use of this technique).
In using the maps, we first asked people to identify locations from which they gathered various forest products.In the course of the discussions, the issues of indigenous management practices, access and use rights, historical trends and conflicts emerged as well.We used the maps in a variety of contexts, with various kinds of users and stakeholders.Local people were interested in the maps (partly in finding errors in them), and in many cases enjoyed pointing out areas with different uses, different histories, conflicting claims, etc.Both the maps and the accompanying excursions into community territories to see the resources about which access was to be assessed were important.Stimulated by a visual representation of the resource contexts themselves, people discussed related issues more fully.
In Danau Seluang, for instance, we were able to get a fairly clear view (Figure 2) of logged and burned areas, areas where rattan grew abundantly, and areas of comparatively Ògood forestÓ (including locally protected areas).Excursions into the forest to check the maps prompted discussions of conflicts among adjacent villages, different perceptions of boundaries and the bases of historical claims to land and other resources.Indeed, the inclusion by Danau Seluang residents of the bamboo and protected areas to the east in their territory reflects differing perceptions by this community and the adjacent Iban community. 15ith our simplified map, in Nanga (Ng.) KedebuÕ, we focused on non-timber forest products (NTFPs).In Danau Seluang, we had found only rattan mentioned consistently as an important NTFP.Three outings convinced us that the Melayu were not using many other NTFPs.This conclusion is consistent with 1992-93 household record-keeping data from this location. 16n Bemban, we found the method useful for eliciting historical data on settlement of the community, locations of timber camps and logging activities, and local types of land use (Figure 3).It also prompted much discussion of conflicts that had occurred between the community and various outsiders (plantation owners, other villages, timber concessionaires).The people of Kelayang, sparked by Conservation Project interest, had made their own map, on which we were able to build.Again, the mapping exercise elicited areas of resource use and conflict, and different land uses and histories.
Because of WadleyÕs extensive experience in Wong Garai, we were able to elicit more detailed information on the extent of the traditional use area and the present area of the longhouseÕs effective control (Figure 4).In going over the list of specially preserved forest and old longhouse sites originally collected by Wadley (Figure 5), he asked about the kinds of tree species used by the Iban (Table 2).The list is not exhaustive, but indicates the variety of plant resources managed and exploited by the Iban and the importance of these specially preserved areas of forest in the Iban agroforestry system. 17     For the other communities studied during this pretest, we had access to satellite imagery and the cooperation of a remote-sensing specialist (see Dennis et  al. n.d.).This kind of information is important because we expect to compare our results from DSWR with those from similar tests in other locations.We will want to be able to demonstrate the condition of the for-est, as related to human well-being within and around that forest.Using DennisÕ maps, we were able to provide fairly believable evidence that little or no dramatic forest loss had occurred in the three study villages.
For Wong Garai, in the absence of such a means for assessing the biological sustainability of the local situation, we used an indirect method based on farming

Box 1: Iban Management Ð An Example
Table 2 provides interesting information on the contrast between plants reportedly found in two forested indigenous land use types: tembawai (old longhouse sites) and pulau (specially preserved forest areas).Although both categories of sites show similar counts having fruit trees (domesticated, semi-domesticated and wild), eleven pulau have trees used for lumber in comparison to only three tembawai.Sixty-five per cent of the tembawai contain useful fruit trees compared to only 46.8 per cent of pulau.This illustrates the different nature of management for these two categories.Tembawai, even those that are over 100 years old, contain many fruit trees because while occupying a longhouse people plant fruit nearby.After abandonment of a longhouse, they promote the succession of saplings from the original trees, thus producing a forest patch dominated by fruit trees.Pulau, in contrast, are patches of forest that have been preserved from felling for various reasons Ð as sacred sites, as places to collect rattan or wild latex, and as places to cut lumber for longhouse construction.The succession of useful tree species is also promoted in these sites (see e.g., Sather 1990; Padoch and Peters 1993;  Wadley et al. 1996).Four years of farming data were selected (1979, 1983,  1988 and 1993) that would give some indication of forest types being farmed, field sizes and the length of fallow used Ð all practices which have implications for forest cover.The locations of fields is given in Figure 6 with summary information in Table 3.This shows the increase in longhouse size from seven households in 1979 to 14 in 1993.As the number of households increased, so did the number of fields for each year surveyed; but there is no directly linear increase in the total area farmed by the whole community, although there is a rough increase.There does not appear to be, however, any decline in fallow length indicating land shortage or any increase in fallow length indicating the opening of old growth forest.What these data reveal is the annual cycling of fallowed forest Ð in some years young fallow, in other years older fallow Ð with an average fallow length overall of 22.7 years.Thus, these data suggest that forest cover, as with the other communities where satellite data were available, has remained fairly stable over the years.A subsequent and more detailed analysis of the Wong Garai situation supports these findings (Wadley n.d.).
The participatory mapping method was also of mixed value.Although it was useful in helping to capture human use of the forests, it did not produce results that would be easy for someone young, inexperienced and/or untrained to interpret, from the standpoint of sustainability.Assessors, as with the previous method, served as record keepers and analysts, but we sensed that our results were significantly enhanced by the fact that we were also able to serve as sensors or tools.The pertinence of our questions, as we accompanied community members, significantly influenced the quality of the responses Ð and our ability to ask pertinent questions was significantly influenced by our experience.The method, as implemented, contributed to our collection of case material for better understanding of the causal links between inter-generational access to resources and sustainable forest management.
Locally recruited team members (as representatives of the young, inexperienced and/or untrained) helped us by explaining things that were not clear to us, based on their own intimate knowledge of the area, combined with their fluency in the local language.But for best results, assessors will probably require either considerable experience or training.We hope that the scoring technique suggested in the next section may help address this problem.

ÒIterative Continuum MethodÓ (ICM)
This experimental, qualitative method was designed to provide a framework within which to organise oneÕs thoughts and emerging understanding of site conditions, over the course of necessarily brief fieldwork.The form used with this method is also simple.We devised sheets, for use by the field team on a daily basis, with a continuum at the top of each, and space below for notes (Appendix A).Researchers filled in one form on each day of the fieldwork, assessing where the community (or sub-groups within the community) should be placed along the continuum, based on the researcherÕs understanding, as of that day. 18lacement was accompanied by an arrow to show the researcherÕs perception of the direction of change.The spaces on the pages were then filled with evidence to support the conclusions marked on the continuum.An attempt to estimate the speed of change was shown by colour-coding the arrows.The process of filling in these forms was iterative, in which the researchersÕ To gain the kind of understanding needed to estimate the placement of a community or sub-group along the continuum, we spent days with representatives of the various stakeholders and sub-groups, discussing, observing, inquiring, using elements from VaydaÕs contextual analysis approach (Vayda et al.  1980; Vayda 1983).This approach strives to trace the links among significant human actions Ð such as felling timber, monitoring concessionaires or contributing ideas about forest management to conservation project personnel Ð in the research setting.The emphasis in this research was on tracing causal links, 19 to demonstrate the relevance (or irrelevance) of particular kinds of human actions for sustainable forest management.
The researcher filled in the form, supporting the initial assessment with cases and evidence.During the process of reassessing the data and filling out the forms subsequently, additional cases and evidence to account for the changes in the researchersÕ perceptions were documented.The reasoning was that by the end of the fieldwork, the state and direction of change along the continua for the locations studied would thereby be fine-tuned, and the factors affecting forest management better understood.
As a further check on our emerging understanding, we asked several other stakeholders (traders, intellectually oriented villagers, inhabitants of the larger, linked towns on the Kapuas) to fill in these forms, as the opportunity arose.We reasoned that these people would have a much deeper familiarity with local conditions than ourselves, so we did not ask them to keep a daily record.Besides giving us another perspective on the substantive issues we were investigating, this

Box 2: Filling in the ICM Ð An Example
When Colfer began the 1996 pre-test, she was uncertain about peopleÕs feelings of security about their tenure and use rights in the area.She remembered her first visit there in 1992, when a group of villagers had explained that they had no rights to the land on Bukit KedebuÕ, that they were ÒreallyÓ residents of Selimbau, a larger town on the Kapuas river.Based on this assertion, she and her husband had proceeded with their plan to build the DSWR Field Center there.Much to their surprise, the local governmental triad (police, military and district government) called a meeting at which a man from yet another village asserted most aggressively that he and 14 other people ÒownedÓ Bukit KedebuÕ.Although this disagreement was resolved eventually to every-oneÕs apparent satisfaction, Colfer concluded over the next 15 months that there was a very confusing mŽlange of ownership and use rights in the area.
How could she better understand the importance of such use rights to sustainable forest management?One important issue identified in the literature seemed to be the presence and operation of regulations.She began looking for further evidence of regulations.She knew they existed in fisheries, but what about forests?She found evidence that the Melayu considered rattan harvesting to be subject to regulation by local communities, and that permission had to be given before one could harvest it.She found regulations among the Iban about collection of forest foods.Did these seem to be regularly applied?Were there sanctions?One question led to another, always keeping in mind the link to the state of the forests in the area and the likelihood and direction of change.
Mechanisms for conflict resolution represented another feature that previous CIFOR research (and the literature) had identified as important for SFM.The potentially bad effects of conflict on forests also became clear in the course of the fieldwork.She began listening for stories of conflicts and trying to understand how people resolved them.There were conflicts between timber companies and local communities, some of which were resolved by negotiation, others by violence.There were conflicts between neighbouring communities over appropriate fishing gear, boundaries and regulations.The various methods of resolution were duly noted.
The ICM process requires the researcher to keep alert and to be open to many kinds of evidence Ð because of the huge variety in human uses of forests.One observation leads to others, following the connections among human values and behaviour, on the one hand, and sustainable forest management, on the other.Experience in participant observation techniques is also helpful in this process.
procedure was designed to give us some feedback on how simple or difficult the method was for others with less social science training than we have.
Our attempt to have local people and our assistants use the ICM form was not particularly useful.The primary reason was that they did not have the global perspective necessary to place themselves on a continuum (other than perhaps one pertaining to their own trajectory toward or away from sustainability).20 Indeed, Wadley and Colfer had similar problems with the method, feeling the need for some defined points along the continuum (from secure to insecure access to resources) to help us ÒanchorÓ our observations from day to day.In response to this problem, Colfer began a tentative series of steps from Òvery insecure tenureÓ to Òvery secure tenureÓ which are shown in Appendix B. These steps were helpful in making her daily entries, and would be even more helpful if refined, for use by less educated (but trained) assessors.Our general view was that the people in the DSWR area fit around 4 or 5 on a 10-point scale, as tentatively presented in Appendix B. The utility of this scale however will be greatly improved with the inclusion of similar assessments from sites in other areas of the world.
Our evaluation of this method, like the previous ones, is mixed.On the one hand, it kept us focused on the issue of security of inter-generational access to the resource, recording what we learned, and thinking about the implications thereof.It also resulted in a wealth of case material relating to the topic of interest.On the other hand, we are not confident of the ability of less experienced researchers, less familiar with the context, to use the method as reliably.This method requires assessors to record and analyse data, and also to act as sensors or tools Ð as anthropologists normally do, but for which a typical assessor would need special training.
In response to our dissatisfaction with these methods, and based on our analysis of the case materials (see next section), we have re-organised the principles, criteria and indicators, so as to help us in scoring them, based on the rich case materials we collected.

Methodological Conclusions
We remain dissatisfied with the methods available for assessing inter-generational access to resources.Although all of these methods were useful and none was discarded, our search for better methods contin-ues. 21The history form is fairly easy but not sufficiently informative; the mapping exercise provides qualitative information that will be better collected and interpreted the higher the qualifications and experience of the assessor; and the ICM requires even more global experience and sophistication in its current form.We do however feel that overall we have been able to make both conceptual and methodological progress in the process of assessment (see next section).

PRINCIPLES, CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR ASSESSING INTER-GENERATIONAL ACCESS TO RESOURCES
The goal of developing clear and relevant principles, criteria and indicators for assessing sustainable forest management has been hotly pursued in recent years (see Upton and Bass 1995 for a good overview).No element in this process has been more controversial, or more difficult to attain, than the development of good social C&I.We have entered this process in full recognition of its difficulty and with some uncertainty about the possibility of success.But the potential gains: ¥ the existence of simple assessment tools, ¥ the potential of influencing forest managers to attend meaningfully to resident communities (in all their variety), ¥ a greater share of the forest ÒpieÓ and a greater ÒvoiceÓ for those currently disadvantaged, ¥ improved understanding of the causal links between human behaviour/beliefs and SFM, and ¥ improved management of resources through better information should we (globally) succeed, make it worth the gamble.We do, however, still have a long way to go.

History
We first provide a brief history of our own involvement in this process, including earlier iterations of social C&I, to provide a context.These efforts are part of an overall attempt to develop C&I for SFM, including social, ecological and conventional management considerations (e.g., Prabhu et al. 1996).Naturally there is overlap in concerns among these areas, some of which will become clearer below.Within the social sphere, we first developed a conceptual framework from which to approach C&I (Colfer et al. 1995).This was done, as has much of our work, using oscillating iterations of top-down, bottomup, conceptual cycling.We looked first at existing C&I (e.g., ITTO 1992; Rainforest Alliance 1993; Forest  Stewardship Council 1994; Lembaga Ekolabel  Indonesia 1994; Soil Association 1994), and then we developed C&I based on our own experience with forest people.We then compared this first draft of fieldbased C&I with those from the existing sets; and revised yet again (see Colfer et al. 1995).
We subsequently assembled a number of interdisciplinary teams who tested sets of C&I in and around various logging concessions (in Indonesia, C™te dÕIvoire, Brazil, Austria, Cameroon). 22On analysis of their results, we found a number of C&I that were common to all the sets (Prabhu et al. 1996: 50).In Table 4, we list the common social C&I.
These principles, criteria and indicators are, of course, taken out of context, so they do not provide the coherence that will ultimately be desirable Ð either within the sphere of social C&I alone, or as part of a comprehensive set of policy, ecological and conventional forest management C&I.But they do identify some of the important issues that we have addressed in this research.Indeed, the above results led to the research reported here.
Table 5 shows our current conceptual framework for issues pertaining to inter-generational access to resources. 23This revision has resulted from our previous experience, particularly our West Kalimantan pretest of methods.Although dissatisfied with our methodological progress on this topic during the pretest, we made modest progress toward answering the question posed at the beginning of this article: Why, and by what means, is inter-generational access to resources important for sustainable forest management?In the subsequent pages, we try to make these links clearer by means of cases from the DSWR area.Our hope is that these cases can spur other researchers to add to our growing fund of case materials pertaining to this topic.We also suggest a simple scoring technique.We hope that, if our attempt to develop more quantifiable methods fails, we will have made some progress in outlining the relevant qualitative features.

Commentary
One prerequisite for achieving inter-generational access to forest resources by forest people is the maintenance of the forest resources.That is, if the forests and their resources have been depleted or destroyed, it is impossible for the current or next generation to have access to them.This concern results in the first criterion (C1) in Table 5 and its indicators, the development of which has been influenced by OstromÕs work (1990, 1994; Wollenberg and Colfer 1996).Clearly there is a host of complementary ecological C&I that we ignore here.
There is overlap between the C&I discussed here and other social C&I.For instance, Indicator C1.1 (ÔÔownership and use rights to resources...are clear and respect pre-existing claimsÓ) has implications for the question of voice in forest management or co-management.Without a firm economic base, forest actors may remain comparatively silent and powerless (see Gatuslao 1988 and Canuday 1996, for some recent counter examples).
The distinction between criteria C1 (ÒLocal management is effective in controlling maintenance of and access to the resource.Ó) and C2 (ÒForest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use.Ó) has been confusing to some biological scientists.It may help to think in terms of input and output variables, with C1 as an input (the basis on which access to resources rests) and C2 as an output (the products that come from that resource base).
Finally, our work has been influenced by a perhaps unwarranted assumption that C&I can be organised into hierarchies.Considerable progress has been made in improving our definitions of principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers (see Prabhu 1995 or Lammerts  van Bueren and Blom 1997); but we remain uncertain whether these hierarchical connections are as immutable as they may seem on paper.An indicator in one context can, in our view, function as a criterion in (P) Forest management maintains fair inter-generational access to resources and economic benefits (C)1.Local management is effective in controlling maintenance of and access to the resource.another; and vice versa.Income levels, for instance, may be considered (and phrased as) an indicator for a criterion on the state of peopleÕs health; or conversely, adequate incomes could be conceived as a criterion for human well-being, with human health as an indicator.The hierarchical approach has its appeal, but we wonder also if, as Young (1992: 144) implies, there may be more hierarchical levels which need to be applied for social phenomena.He quotes Thoreau (1854: 197), who says Òthe imagination, give it the least license, dives deeper and soars higher than Nature doesÓ.Is it possible that human systems, more directly affected by human imagination, may require more levels than we are allowing in Lammerts van Bueren and BlomÕs interesting formulation?Or must we ultimately recognise a certain arbitrariness in our hierarchies?These are not questions we can answer in this short paper.We do, however, view the use of the hierarchical formulation as a means rather than an end.It has utility insofar as it can further our understanding of these problems.We are currently considering looking at these issues from a network perspective.

Cases from DSWR Pertaining to Inter-generational Access to Resources
Appendix C portrays the examples or cases that contributed to our qualitative assessment of Òsecurity of inter-generational access to resourcesÓ in and around DSWR. Examining previous C&I, along with the cases found in DSWR, we revised the C&I.In an attempt to quantify the qualitative, each author made a comparatively independent assessment of these cases (Table 6). 25For each criterion or indicator,26 a score Ð qualitatively determined Ð between 1 and 10 is provided, with 10 representing the most sustainable value.The ÒTentative Steps to Sustainability -Security of Inter-generational access to ResourcesÓ (Appendix B) provided a conceptual anchoring function, but the scoring process was primarily one of personal judgement, based on the kinds of evidence presented under each indicator.The final column provides the average scores for each C&I.We were pleasantly surprised at the similarity of our scores.Hopefully repeated use of this method can provide us with more cases and a clearer basis on which to make these judgements.
The fact that the forests in and around DSWR are in comparatively good condition suggests that these scores may be high, on a global scale.The low average score (2.5) for Criterion 2 (ÒForest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use.Ó) suggests a possible flash point; and indeed feelings of unfairness about local peopleÕs share in forest benefits that they felt should be their own, were both a recurring complaint and a rationale for examples of violent confrontation. 27Our comparatively high assessments of the strength of their feelings of security about access to resources (7) and their clear conceptual link between their own and their childrenÕs well-being and the forests (5.4) seem likely to contribute to sustainability by a) confirming their ÒstakeÓ in the forest, and b) providing motivation for protecting it against potentially destructive new endeavours in the area.
A further and important test of the utility of this approach will come when we can compare these kinds of findings with our results in Cameroon, East Kalimantan and Brazil, where we are using the same methods (with additional ones).

IN CONCLUSION
This paper has evaluated our experience with several methods designed to assess inter-generational access to resources quickly, inexpensively and reliably.In this endeavour we have also developed another iteration of principles, criteria and indicators, with supporting evidence and a proposed scoring technique.The extensive evidence which led to our reformulation of the principles, criteria and indicators (Appendix C) can be evaluated by other assessors for potential use in other locales.We see such case material as the beginning of a ÒlibraryÓ of cases from different contexts, building ultimately to a fuller understanding of the causal links between security of inter-generational access to resources and sustainable forest management.
We continue to hope that better methods Ð ones that are more quantitative, more transparent, requiring less expertise and experience Ð will emerge in our (and othersÕ) further testing of methods.But we are pleased that all three authors were inclined to score the rather extensive, qualitative case material in a fairly consistent manner.Our attempt to understand the causal links between inter-generational access to resources and sustainable forest management is a long term goal.But our revised organisation and wording of the C&I on this topic reflect our improved understanding.We cannot say, of course, based on our limited field experience to date, that maintenance of fair inter-generational access to resources and economic benefits is always important for sustainable forest management.The evidence, or cases, we accumulated for DSWR, however (like that of many other researchers), tend to support this inter-pretation and do not provide counter-evidence.Based on our examination of security of inter-generational access to resources there, we concluded that Òbest practicesÓ in forest management Ð whether by local people or by timber concessionaires Ð will require a) that resources be maintained if people now and in the future are to continue to have access to them (C1); b) that local people must share in the economic benefits from forest use (C2); and c) that people (in this case, also managers)28 must link their own and their chil-drenÕs future with good management of the resource.

Box A1: Communities and Loggers in Competition
In April 1996, the people of Bakakak (Melayu) burned down a base camp in territory they considered theirs, where P.T. Hutan Hebat had begun logging.The people claimed this area as a Òprotected areaÓ from which they expected to harvest wood for their current and future building needs.The Regional Forestry Office in Pontianak had given Hutan Hebat special permission to cut in this area (which was in fact outside the com-panyÕs current annual work area or ÒRKTÓ).There had been discussion between the company and community, in which the community had asked for company contributions which the company felt were excessive.Estimates of the requests ranged from Rp. 10 to 30 million [US$4,300 to US$12,800].The community had not yet agreed to Hutan HebatÕs cutting when the company began its logging operation.The burning appeared to be a spontaneous, village-wide reaction, reflecting peopleÕs feeling that Hutan Hebat was infringing on their legitimate rights.
There was an investigation involving the police, the military, the regional government, as well as the company and the community; and Hutan Hebat stopped cutting temporarily.However, our last understanding was that the Regional Forestry Office had stuck by its original permission, and the other governmental agencies were supporting Hutan Hebat.Hutan Hebat agreed to improve the boardwalks and build a religious school in the community.A local Forestry official said this action was not a requirement; only a Òtoken of good will.Ó The people, it appeared, had lost their right to the area they had been managing for their own future use.C=2;W=2 (Melayu) Wadley 1997).Since then, people of Wong Garai have expressed their need and desire to preserve their lowland swamp forests for their own use in the future.33C=9;W=9 (Iban) 5. Occasionally during the early 1990s, the people of Wong Garai have been approached by outsiders requesting permission to search for garu or aromatic eaglewood (Aquilaria spp.) in Wong Garai forests.Invariably, and despite misgivings, the Iban have granted access to their forests, occasionally joining the search, with the promise of recompense (fees, sharing of harvest or purchase).Also invariably, the community felt cheated, and complained amongst themselves (that some garu was hidden, or the work was harder than payments justified).
Although this suggests naivetŽ on the part of the Iban to outsiders, it actually represents a deeply felt ethic of generosity and hospitality, making refusal extremely difficult (see Peluso 1994, Colfer et al. (1997), for a similar pattern among other Dayaks).C=4;W=4 (Iban) (I) 1.3 Means of conflict resolution function without violence 1.In the late 1980s, Wong Garai had a land dispute with a neighbouring longhouse.In years past, Wong Garai had allowed members of the other longhouse to farm land within Wong Garai territory, but later the other longhouse claimed the land as their own.They brought the case before the temenggong (traditional law leader) for a hearing, and the temenggong decided that the two disputants should divide the land.Wong Garai refused to accept the decision (which is locally agreed to be their right), arguing that the other longhouse has no tembawai (old longhouse sites) on Wong Garai territory which would mark their claim to the land.[See also (I)1.2, case 4] C=8;W=8 (Iban) 2. Ng.KedebuÕ residents had frequent disagreements with P.T. Hutan Hebat, a timber company which regularly towed log rafts through Ng.KedebuÕ territory.One community member served as a tugboat pilot for the company, and also as an informal mediator in resolving these disputes.There was grumbling with regard to levels of compensation for damage to local fishing gear, but the system seemed to work.C=8;W=8 (Melayu) tesy.They viewed such lack of concern for proper etiquette as a sign of arrogance and as a reflection of their own powerlessness in the situation.C=4;W=4 (Iban) 3. Throughout the DSWR area, concern is expressed that others (e.g., timber companies, other ethnic groups, transmigrants) are encroaching on their areas of traditional use, which could threaten their ability to use those resources in the future.For the Iban, the concern is more about their forest resources; whereas for the Melayu the concern revolves around fisheries resources.C=4;W=4 (Iban; Melayu) 4. In Bemban, Ng.KedebuÕ and Kelayang, many people expressed the conviction that they had recognised and legitimate rights to the areas and resources they were using Ð despite the presence of other stakeholders (especially the Conservation Project and timber companies) who were in competition for those resources.Rian area, some of whom are related to Kelayang residents.Although Kelayang economic involvement with this company is greater than that found between other companies (like P.T. Militer or P.T. Hutan Hebat) and local communities, there are still recurring conflicts (see Colfer and Wadley 1996).These include perceptions of inadequate employment opportunities, promised but unpaid rent on land, requests for rattan which is then not bought and unfair recompense when a community member was killed by a company speedboat.C=3;W=3 (Iban) which they come.We met a number of examples of young people who did just that.C=5;W=5 (Iban) 2. The Iban have a still-functioning system of land tenure and tree ownership rules and practice (see Wadley  1997), and maintain many rituals connected to farming.But they fear these Òold waysÓ Ð the ritual chants, the rich ceremonial language, and farming and forest knowledge Ð are being lost to the youth.Competition from national education and television is constant.In June 1996, for example, a set of important longhouse rituals was being performed at 1 am (making of offerings, chanting of invocations to ancestor gods).At the same time, the young people had set up a stereo system to play Indonesian pop music at high volume, to which they Òdisco-edÓ at the other end of the longhouse.The resources of cultural and ecological knowledge (integral to sustainable management) which their immediate and distant ancestors have acquired were being lost.C=4;W=5 (Iban)

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Danau Seluang territorial map 17 A more intensive inventory survey would likely have produced far more known plant resources (see e.g.,Bernstein et al. n.d.).HanneChristiansen (n.d.) has documented an Iban lexicon of some 2,000 plant species and reports that in one longhouse at least 127 families of plants are known and regularly used.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Areas of traditional use and effective control, Wong Garai

P:
Forest management maintains fair inter-generational access to resources and economic benefits.C: Stakeholders/forest actorsÕ tenure and use rights are secure.¥ I: Tenure/use rights are well defined and upheld.¥ I: Opportunities exist for local people/forest-dependent people to get employment and training from forest companies.¥ I: Forest-dependent people share in economic benefits of forest utilisation.P: Stakeholders, including forest actors, have a voice in forest management.C: Stakeholders/local populations participate in forest management ¥ I: Effective mechanisms exist for two way communication related to forest management among stakeholders.¥ I: Forest-dependent people and company officials understand each otherÕs plans and interests.C: Forest-dependent people/stakeholders have the right to help monitor forest utilisation ¥ I: Conflicts are minimal or settled.

(C) 3
People link their and their childrenÕs future with management of forest resources.

3. 1
People invest in their surroundings (e.g., time, effort, money) 3.2 Out-migration levels are low 24 3.3 People recognise the need to balance numbers of people with natural resource use 3.4 Children are educated (formally and informally) about natural resource management 3.5 Destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare.3.6 People maintain spiritual links to the land.

2 : 1 .
Forest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use (I) 2.1 Opportunities exist for local people/forest-dependent people to get employment and training from forest companies Very few residents within and around DSWR work for the timber concessions.Most workers are brought in from the outside.Kelayang is in the P.T. Panggau Libau concession, partially owned by Iban from the Lubok

Table 1 .
DSWR History, as obtained from local communities Population: 25 households, selected for governmentÕs Òleft behind villagesÓ program (K) Began selling handicrafts to conservation project (B) Conflict between Hutan Hebat and B, regarding compensation for forest cut, damage (PD) Tayak -Dayong dispute over use of jermal padat in shared lake; 50 households (DS) Built village community centre (K) Population: 17 households (B) Construction irrigation dam and canals begun on WG land (WG)

Table 1 .
DSWR History, as obtained from local communities (continued)

Table 2 .
Iban Plant Resources found in Specially Preserved Forest

Table 2 .
Iban Plant Resources found in Specially PreservedForest (continued)

Table 3 .
Forest Type, Field Size and Fallow Length of Hill

Table 4 .
Principles, Criteria and Indicators Selected by all CIFOR Field Assessment Teams 22Each team produced a report:Burgess et al. 1995 for Indonesia; Mengin-Lecreulx et al. 1995for C™te dÕIvoire; Zweede et al. 1996 for Brazil; Federal Ministry of Environment, Youth and Family 1996 for Austria; and Prabhu and Colfer 1996 for Cameroon.
Forest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use.2.1 Opportunities exist for local and forest dependent people to get employment and training from forest companies 2.2 Damages are compensated in a fair manner 2.3 Wages and other benefits conform to national and/or ILO standards 2.4 Fair mechanisms exist for sharing benefits with local communities.

Table 5 .
Proposed Principles, Criteria and Indicators Pertaining to Security of Inter-generational Access to Resources

3.5 Destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare. 38
1. Recurrent poisoning of fish with commercial pesticides, largely by a minority of Iban merchants, but also by some Melayu.C=4;W=4 (Iban; Melayu) 2. Use of jermal padat, by a few comparatively wealthy Melayu (under a schizophrenic government policy).C=3;W=3 (Melayu) 3. Perceived over-harvesting of swamp forest (rawa) by local people -current supplies of species available to local people are significantly reduced (tembesuÕ, kawi, kelansau, medang, menyawai).[Those used by Melayu are mostly swamp species.]C=5;W=5 (Melayu) (I) 3.6 People maintain spiritual links to the land