|
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.
|
|
