print-version

Section: Indonesia > South Sumatra > Impacts

Partnership between communities and acacia pulp plantation in South Sumatra

Impacts

The LPF project developed principles, criteria and indicators to assess how far the levelling of the playing field took place for targeted users. The first principle, empowerment, evaluates how much a local community and its institutions have been empowered vis-à-vis other groups. The second principle, environmental mediation, evaluates how the negotiation process takes place. The last principle, reinforcement, evaluates community enforcement through networking with other parties. Box 1 provides the complete structure of principles, criteria and indicators.

Box 1. Principles, criteria and indicators of project result assessment

P.1. Empowerment

C.1.1. Community members committed to collective decision

I.1.1.1. Community members select representatives through democratic process

I.1.1.2. Transparency on decision making process

C.1.2. Community representatives make more proposals about environmental livelihoods, act on list of environmental priorities and learn from experience

I.1.2.1. Community representatives learn from their experiences

I.1.2.2. Community acts on a list of environmental priorities

I.1.2.3. Community produces proposals in participatory way and sends to the funder/partner

P.2. Environmental mediation

C.2.1. Role of natural resources in relation to people’s livelihoods understood and acted upon by researchers and key actors

I.2.1.1. New knowledge about interaction between natural resources and local people is shared

I.2.1.2. Key actors agree and act on trends regarding natural resources and livelihoods

I.2.1.3. Local communities get additional income from partnership

C.2.2. Key actors’ demand for intervention identified

I.2.2.1. Key actors express demand for intervention, e.g., written/reported statement, memorandum of understanding

I.2.2.2. Key actors involved in LPF activity

C.2.3. Key actors, incl. community representatives, negotiate and agree on a common long-term objective

I.2.3.1. Statement of agreed common vision exists

I.2.3.2. Common vision publicly known (at least up to district level)

I.2.3.3 People commitment (people act according to the common vision)

C.2.4. Place of negotiation is institutionalised

I.2.4.1. A place/forum for negotiation is established for key actors to meet

I.2.4.2. Common issues discussed by key actors

I.2.4.3. Decision taken by key actors in this place/forum

P.3. Reinforcement and networking

C.3.1. Third parties in relation to key actors indicate forward contract for new environment product

I.3.1.1. New environment product exists (e.g., new partnership/agreement)

I.3.1.2. Key actors involved in developing new environment product and service

I.3.1.3. Expression of interest by external party in environment product

C.3.2. Scientists able to communicate and influence development actors by using simple simulation approaches

I.3.2.1. Simulation tools (model, game, facilitation game) exist and are presented

I.3.2.2. Key actors understand and recognize usefulness of simulation tools

I.3.3.3. Key actors’ perceptions are influenced by tools

On 20 February 2008, after three years of execution, we conducted the project result assessment in a participatory way. The assessment took form in a one-day workshop attended by participants of local communities (33 persons), MHP staff (5 persons) and local government (2 persons). After reviewing the action research process the participants in three working groups discussed the indicators to gain a common understanding. Each group discussed the score of each indicator before and after LPF intervention (now). Scores from 1 (seed) to 5 (productive tree) represent the degree of change. The result of group assessment is shown in the Table 1.

Table 1. The result of group assessment facilitated by Forum Sebahu Sejalan, 2008

Assessment

Indicator

Group 1

Group 2

Group 2

Median

Differ¬ence, before to after

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

P1. Empowerment

I.1.1.1.

1

3

2

4

1

3

1

3

2

I.1.1.2.

1

3

2

5

1

3

1

3

2

I.1.2.3.

1

3

1

5

1

4

1

4

3

I.1.2.1.

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

I.1.2.2.

1

1

5

5

1

3

1

3

2

I.1.2.3.

1

2

1

5

1

3

1

3

2

Median P1 indicators

1

3

2

P1. Empowerment

I.2.1.1.

1

1

5

5

2

5

2

5

 3

I.2.1.2.

1

3

1

1

2

4

1

3

 2

I.2.1.3.

3

3

4

-

3

 -

I.2.2.1.

4

3

3

3

-

 -

I.2.2.2.

4

4

4

-

4

 -

I.2.3.1.

No

No

1

5

1

5

1

5

4

I.2.3.2.

5

3

-

4

 -

I.2.3.3.

5

4

-

4.5

 -

I.2.4.1.

1

2

3

5

2

5

2

5

 3

I.2.4.2.

1

1

2

3

1

3

1

3

 2

I.2.4.3.

1

1

2

4

2

4

2

4

2

Median P2 indicators

2

4

 2

P1. Empowerment

I.3.1.1.

1

1

2

-

1

 -

I.3.1.1.

1

1

1

-

1

 -

I.3.1.3.

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

0

I.3.2.1.

4

5

4

-

4

 -

I.3.2.2.

4

5

4

-

4

 -

I.3.3.3.

3

3

3

-

3

 -

Median P3 indicators

1

2

1

Median of all indicators

1

3

2

Note: 1 = seed (biji), a situation just started; 2 = seedling (kecambah), a situation just growing; 3 = young tree (pohon muda ), a situation where it grows but is still at the beginning; 4 = early fruitful tree (pohon awal berbuah), a situation assessed already that has medium impact on another; and 5 = productive tree (pohon produktif), a situation assessed already that has big impact on another.

For principle 1 (empowerment), there was a two-grade difference between before (1) and after intervention (3). The stakeholders perceived that LPF improved democratization, transparency and commitment to collective action. The role of elites was controlled and ruled according to the AD/ART. The local community organization, i.e., MHBM, proposed to improve people’s livelihoods and environment. Therefore, LPF is quite successful in empowering local organizations and institutions based on the shared value of transparency.

For principle 2 (environmental mediation), there was a two-grade difference between before (2) and after LPF intervention (4). LPF improved local community understanding of the role of land and natural resources and capacity to express one’s interests in negotiation. Local key actors on the negotiation were united in expressing their interest and had a common platform and vision of the future. All stakeholders agreed that Forum Sebahu Sejalan could act as place for negotiation. The importance of the negotiation process as a way to achieve agreement and harmonize interests of different stakeholders was institutionalized. This principle reached the highest score (4) among others after intervention.

For principle 3 (reinforcement and networking), stakeholders measured the result after LPF intervention. As far as ontaining a contract with another party goes, the LPF South Sumatra has not produced a good result. Networking with national and international communities has not been fruitful. Carbon trade scheme through clean development mechanism has been studied, but has not yet produced any contract. There was no difference between before and after intervention. Nevertheless, the LPF scientists were able to use the model and simulation to communicate and influence actors’ perceptions. We thought there was a one-grade improvement in reinforcement and networking principle. This principle garnered the lowest score (2) among others after intervention.

Overall LPF South Sumatra made a significant difference by its intervention. The median of all related indicators before intervention was 1 (seed), but after LPF intervention the median score was 3 (young tree). The 3 score illustrates that the work is not yet finished. The shared values of transparency, negotiation and local institution are still young and need to be further increased in the future.

LPF Home | Indonesia | Malaysia | Philippines | Events | Publications | Contact Us

Copyright © CIFOR 1993-2004 - Last update: Thursday, June 05, 2008 - Site designed by CIFOR - Webmaster: webmaster-cifor@cgiar.org