Social Contracts: Pillars of Community Conservation Partnerships in Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia
Versions
- 2020-04-26 (2)
- 2020-04-26 (1)
Additional Files
The Community Conservation Partnership Agreement (KKM) was an effort to reduce, prevent and mitigate the impacts arising from the complexity of managing Lore Lindu National Park. Several approaches in building KKM in the National Park had been carried out by several parties but had not proceeded as expected. Social Contracts were built to advance community agreements. The purpose of this study was to explore the obstacles and strategies for implementing KKM in the National Park. A qualitative approach was used in this study, through in-depth interviews, field observations, and active research in the process of drafting the KKM agreement. The results showed there were multiple interpretations of the roles, functions, and work of the parties based on their authority and interests in building the KKM. This resulted in the KKM becoming unsustainable. Findings show that in order to re-establish the KKM requires strategic steps, which mediate across stakeholder interests. Partnerships towards effective social contracts would only succeed if there was recognition of, and meaningful involvement among parties that begin at the design and planning processes and continue throughout the implementation phases of the partnership activities. The process of building a social contract must therefore begin with solid communication between stakeholders, which establish institutional mechanisms that are systematic, promote active coordinative, and are based on the trust and understanding between stakeholders.
Bellon, M.R., Kotu, B.H., Azzarri, C., Caracciolo, F. (2020). To diversify or not to diversify, that is the question. Pursuing agricultural development for smallholder farmers in marginal areas of Ghana. World Development 125, 104682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104682
Bluffstone, R.A., Somanathan, E., Jha, P., Luintel, H., Bista, R., Toman, M., Paudel, N., Adhikari, B., (2018). Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program. World Development 101, 133–141. doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.030
Chankrajang, T. (2019). State-community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand’s community forestry. Journal of Development Economics 138, 261–273.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.01.010
Cuni-Sanchez, A., Ngute, A.S.K., Sonké, B., Sainge, M.N., Burgess, N.D., Klein, J.A., Marchant, R. (2019). The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon. Ecosystem Services 40, 101000. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101000
Foundjem-Tita, D., Duguma, L.A., Speelman, S., Piabuo, S.M. (2018). Viability of community forests as social enterprises: A Cameroon case study. E&S 23, art50. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10651-230450
García-López, G., Antinori, C. (2018). Between Grassroots Collective Action and State Mandates: The Hybridity of Multi-Level Forest Associations in Mexico. Conservation and Society 16, 193. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_115
Golar, Basir-Cyio, M., Rusydi, M., Bakri, R., Bohari, Pratama, M.F., Laihi, M.A.A. (2019a). Gold Mining and its Impact on Agricultural Land, Public Health, Violation of the Law: A Study on Poboya Traditional Mining, Palu, Indonesia. Ind. Jour. of Publ. Health Rese. & Develop. 10, 924. doi: https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.02939.5
Golar, Mahfudz, Malik, A., Muis, H., Khairil, M., Ali, S.S.S., Razman, M.R., Awang, A. (2019b). The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park 8.
Golar, Rachman, I., Umar, H., Alam, A., Labiro, E. (2017). The Poverty Assessment based on Subjective Criteria: Case Study of Rural Community near Protected Forest in Central Sulawesi. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9.
Gupta, D., Koontz, T.M. (2019). Working together? Synergies in government and NGO roles for community forestry in the Indian Himalayas. World Development 114, 326–340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.016
Handoko, C., Yumantoko, Y. (2015). LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON TENURE RIGHTS AND CONFLICT IN FMU RINJANI BARAT, WEST NUSA TENGGARA PROVINCE. Jurnal Penelitian Kehutanan Wallacea 4, 157. doi: https://doi.org/10.18330/jwallacea.2015.vol4iss2pp157-170
Hvenegaard, G., Carr, S., Clark, K., Dunn, P. (2015). Promoting Sustainable Forest Management Among Stakeholders in the Prince Albert Model Forest, Canada. Conservation and Society 13, 51. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161222
Irawan, A., Mairi, K., Ekawati, S. (2016). Analysis Of Tenurial Conflict In Production Forest Management Unit (Pfmu) Model Poigar. Jurnal Wasian 3, 79. doi: https://doi.org/10.20886/jwas.v3i2.1595
Islam, K., Nath, T.K., Jashimuddin, M., Rahman, Md.F. (2019). Forest dependency, co-management and improvement of peoples’ livelihood capital: Evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environmental Development 32, 100456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100456
Isoaho, K., Burgas, D., Janasik, N., Mönkkönen, M., Peura, M., Hukkinen, J.I. (2019). Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging. Ecosystem Services 40, 101028. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101028
Maesen, L. van der, Cadman, T. (2015). Sustainable Forest Management: T he Role of Government Agencies, NGOs, and Local Communities in Western Australia. The International Journal of Social Quality 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2015.050204
Massiri, S.D., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., Soekmadi, R. (2019). Institutional Sustainability of a Community Conservation Agreement in Lore Lindu National Park. Forest and Society 3(1), 64-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.5204
Meehan, F., Tacconi, L., Budiningsih, K. (2019). Are national commitments to reducing emissions from forests effective? Lessons from Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 108, 101968. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101968
Nolan, D.P. (2015). Specialized Reviews—CHAZOP, EHAZOP, Bow-Tie Analysis, Layers of Protection Analysis, Safety Integrity Level, Fishbone Diagram, and Cyber Security Vulnerability Analysis, in: Safety and Security Review for the Process Industries. Elsevier, pp. 17–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-32295-9.00005-7
Riddell, M. (2013). Assessing the Impacts of Conservation and Commercial Forestry on Livelihoods in Northern Republic of Congo. Conservat Soc 11, 199. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.121002
Sahide, M.A.K., Fisher, M.R., Maryudi, A., Dhiaulhaq, A., Wulandari, C., Kim, Y.-S., Giessen, L. (2018). Deadlock opportunism in contesting conservation areas in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 77, 412–424. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.020
Satyanarayana, B., Bhanderi, P., Debry, M., Maniatis, D. (2012). A Socio-Ecological Assessment Aiming at Improved Forest Resource Management and Sustainable Ecotourism Development in the Mangroves of Tanbi Wetland National Park, The Gambia, West Africa. AMBIO 41, 513–526. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0248-7
Sunam, R., Bishwokarma, D., Darjee, K. (2015). Conservation Policy Making in Nepal: Problematising the Politics of Civic Resistance. Conservation and Society 13, 179. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.164201
Wittayapak, C., Baird, I.G. (2018). Communal land titling dilemmas in northern Thailand: From community forestry to beneficial yet risky and uncertain options. Land Use Policy 71, 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.019
Zeb, A., Armstrong, G.W., Hamann, A. (2019). Forest conversion by the indigenous Kalasha of Pakistan: A household level analysis of socioeconomic drivers. Global Environmental Change 59, 102004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102004
Copyright (c) 2020 Forest and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice
