Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 General introduction
- Part I Conservation needs and priorities
- Part II Conservation with and against people(s)
- 11 Introduction to Part II
- 12 Collaboration, conservation, and community: a conversation between Suraya Afiff and Celia Lowe
- 13 Hands off, hands on: communities and the management of national parks in Indonesia
- 14 Conservation and conflict in Komodo National Park
- 15 Another way to live: developing a programme for local people around Tanjung Puting National Park, Central Kalimantan
- 16 For the people or for the trees? A case study of violence and conservation in Ruteng Nature Recreation Park
- 17 Seas of discontent: conflicting knowledge paradigms within Indonesia's marine environmental arena
- 18 Strategy and subjectivity in co-management of the Lore Lindu National Park (Central Sulawesi, Indonesia)
- 19 Indigenous peoples and parks in Malaysia: issues and questions
- 20 Protecting Chek Jawa: the politics of conservation and memory at the edge of a nation
- 21 Integrating conservation and community participation in protected-area development in Brunei Darussalam
- 22 Conclusion to Part II
- Part III Legal and governance frameworks for conservation
- 29 General conclusion
- Index
- References
13 - Hands off, hands on: communities and the management of national parks in Indonesia
from Part II - Conservation with and against people(s)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 November 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 General introduction
- Part I Conservation needs and priorities
- Part II Conservation with and against people(s)
- 11 Introduction to Part II
- 12 Collaboration, conservation, and community: a conversation between Suraya Afiff and Celia Lowe
- 13 Hands off, hands on: communities and the management of national parks in Indonesia
- 14 Conservation and conflict in Komodo National Park
- 15 Another way to live: developing a programme for local people around Tanjung Puting National Park, Central Kalimantan
- 16 For the people or for the trees? A case study of violence and conservation in Ruteng Nature Recreation Park
- 17 Seas of discontent: conflicting knowledge paradigms within Indonesia's marine environmental arena
- 18 Strategy and subjectivity in co-management of the Lore Lindu National Park (Central Sulawesi, Indonesia)
- 19 Indigenous peoples and parks in Malaysia: issues and questions
- 20 Protecting Chek Jawa: the politics of conservation and memory at the edge of a nation
- 21 Integrating conservation and community participation in protected-area development in Brunei Darussalam
- 22 Conclusion to Part II
- Part III Legal and governance frameworks for conservation
- 29 General conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Conservation became an important issue on the agenda in Indonesia during the 1980s, influenced by international events such as the drafting of the World Conservation Strategy in 1981 by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the second international congress on National Parks in Bali and the publication of Our Common Future in 1987 (Mulyana 2002). This is not surprising considering that conservation efforts have been funded mostly by international organizations. The World Conservation Union, WWF, FAO and ADB (Asian Development Bank) have been present since the 1970s, and, more recently international organizations such as Tropenbos, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Conservation International (CI) have joined the crowd.
In consequence, the government intended that at least 10% of its forest area should be set aside as conservation areas. Today, conservation areas cover about 23 million ha of the 120 million or so of state forest land. All of this area was designated without any regard to existing rights of local and indigenous communities. Indeed, local communities were considered the main threat to conservation areas.
In 1999, Indonesia's government underwent some radical changes. The rigidly hierarchical and centralized government structure was transformed into a highly decentralized system, where autonomy was established at district rather than provincial level. For many local and indigenous communities these reform and decentralization processes were understood as a return of customary or adat rights.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected AreasCase Studies from the Malay Archipelago, pp. 165 - 186Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
(1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Kopermas: Masyarakat Hukum Adat sebagai Tameng bagi Pihak yang Berkepentingan. Governance Brief no. 9, May 2005. Bogor, Indonesia : Forest and Governance Program, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
, , et al. (2001). The Impacts of Decentralisation on Forests and Forest-dependent Communities in Malinau District, East Kalimantan. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Case studies on decentralisation and forests in Indonesia case study 3. www.cifor.cigar.org/publications/Detail?pid=980.Google Scholar
, , & (2000). Co-Management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. Heidelberg, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag.Google Scholar
& (2005). Co-management : concept and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Recent Approaches to Participatory Forest Resource Assessment. Rural Development Study Guide 2. London, UK: Rural Development Institute.Google Scholar
& (2005). Strengthening Forest Management in Indonesia Through Land Tenure Reform: Issues and Framework for Action. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar
Direktorat Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (2005). Kawasan Taman Nasional Tahun 2004. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Edmunds, D. & Wollenberg, E. (2003). Whose devolution is it anyway? Divergent constructs, interests and capacities between the poorest forest users and states, In & , eds., Local Forest Management: The Impacts of Devolution Policies. London, UK: Earthscan, pp. 150–165.Google Scholar
& (2003). The Dayak people and Kayan Mentarang: first co-managed protected area in Indonesia. Policy Matters, 12, 248–253. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/publications/publications.htm.Google Scholar
Fay, C. & Sirait, M. (2002). Reforming the reformists in post-Soerharto Indonesia. In & , eds., Which Way Forward? People, Forest and Policymaking in Indonesia. Washington, DC: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), pp. 126–143.Google Scholar
(2005). The catch-22 of conservation: indigenous peoples, biologists, and cultural change. Human Ecology, 33, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwan, R. (2004). Mobilizing community conservation: a community initiative to protect its forest against logging in Indonesia. Presented at The Commons in an Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities, the Tenth Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons. http://dlc.dlip.indiana.edu/archive/00001415.
Kompas (2000) 10 November 2000. Mengapa Departement Kehutanan Harus Mandiri?
Kompas (2001a) 31 Januari 2001. TN Kutai Sulit Diselamatkan.
Kompas (2001b) 6 November 2001. Kerusakan Hutan akibat Reformasi Kebablasan.
Kompas (2005a) 18 Maret 2005. Hutan Kritis 59, 2 Juta Hektar.
Kompas (2005b) 9 Mei 2005. Konservasi Lingkungan Belum Diperhatikan Serius.
(2000). Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Development and Change, 31, 931–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, O. & Harwell, E. (2002). Whose Natural Resources? Whose Common Good? Towards a New Paradigm of Environmental Justice and the National Interest in Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law) in collaboration with Huma (Association for Community and Ecologically-Based Law Reform), ELSAM (Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy), ICEL (Indonesian Center for Environmental Law) and ICRAF (International Center for Research in Agroforestry).
& , eds. (1995). Balancing Acts: Community-Based Forest Management and National Law in Asia and the Pacific. New York, NY: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
& (2002). High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2005). Forest and Land Tenure, Resource-Use Decision-Making, and Spatial Planning. Synthesis Report, Theme 2. Bogor, Indonesia : CIFOR.Google Scholar
Menteri Kehutanan (1999). Law no. 41 on forestry.
Ministry of Forestry (2004). Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan No.19/Menhut-II/2004 tentang Kolaborasi Pengelolaan Kawasan Suaka Alam dan Kawasan Suaka Alam dan Kawasan Pelestarian Alam. Indonesia. (Ministerial Decree on collaboration for the Management of Protected Areas.) www.dephut.go.id/informasi/skep/2004/p19_04.htm.
Ministry of Forestry (2005). Informasi Umum tentang Kehutanan. Siaran Pers.
Mosse, D. (2001). People's knowledge, participation and patronage: operations and representations in rural development. In & , eds., Participation: The New Tyranny. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
(2002). Sejarah dan Sepak Terjang Pengelolaan Taman Nasional: Mempertimbangkan Tuntutan Global, Menegaskan Hal-Hak Masyarakat Lokal. Bahan refleksi bagi para peserta Konsorsium Pengembangan Masyarakat Nusa Tenggara. Indonesia: Nusa Tenggara.Google Scholar
(2000). From participation to ‘responsibleness’. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, 42, 4–10.Google Scholar
(1992). Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretty, J. N. & Vedouhe, S. D. (1997). Using rapid or participatory rural appraisal. In , & , eds., Improving Agricultural Extension. A Reference Manual. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5830E/w5830e08.htm.Google Scholar
RECOFTC E-News (2003).14; http://www.wwf.or./
(2002). Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Sardjono, M., Agung, R., Diah, D. et al. (2000). Pembinaan Masyarakat Desa Hutan. Buku I: Pengantar dan Prinsip Dasar Pengelolaan PMDH, SFMP-Dephut-GTZ.
(1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wardojo, W. & Masripatin, N. (2002). Trends in Indonesian Forest Policy. Policy Trend Report, 2002 77–87 www.iges.or.jp/en/fc/pdf/reports/PTR0206.pdf.
, , et al. (2006). Between state and society: local governance of forests in Malinau, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrangham, R. (2002). Changing policy discourses and traditional communities, 1960–1999. In & , eds., Which Way Forward? People, Forest and Policymaking in Indonesia, Washington, DC: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), pp. 20–35.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.