Conservation
Conservation Kampung Model/Model Kampung Konservasi (MKK)
escrito por Dini Harmita
esta es mi first book I wrote decades ago; at that time I have already translated it for the project; I was going to re-translate it when I was in Japan but didn’t get to finish it; hereby I am posting the very few pages, to read full en Bahasa-Indonesian language please do visit at least public libraries and national park offices in Indonesia; grathiassssssss, victory, Lance Armstrong, thanks,
love, profcbs 🦋🎧🤍📚🫅🤴 ~
Mutual Trust and Respect on Different Perspectives
Dini Harmita
Contributors:
Ibrahim (Field Officer/FO Coordinator)
Cecep Sumarna
Kohar
Ridwan Effendi
Luki Turniajaya
Arifudin Bayu Aji
Map:
Sony Surbakti
Editor:
Lilis Ciyarsih
Foreword
Gunung Halimun Salak National Park (GHSNP) is one of the national park models that implements multi-stakeholder management pattern, this is reflected in the National Park Management Plan/Rencana Pengelolaan Taman Nasional (RPTN) year 2007-2026 which was arranged with related stakeholders. With the arrangement of the multi-stakeholder RPTN it is expected that GHNSP management can be implemented well so that it will give optimum benefit to the ecological, social and economic interest based on the characteristic of the National Park.
Multi-stakeholder management in GHSNP, one of is materialized in a community development program that involves local community as the subject of the activity. This program is packaged in the framework of Conservation Kampung Model (MKK). MKK is a community development model in GHSNP which is supported by 3 (three) activity foundations, which are Restoration/Rehabilitation; Participatory Observation; and Income Generation/Community Economic Increasing.
This book delivers the experiences taken from MKK learning process in 3 (three) locations (Sirnaresmi, Cipeuteuy and Gunung Malang) as a collaborative management model in GHSNP. This program is facilitated by GHSNP Management Project (GHSNP MP), in cooperation with Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam/PHKA) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The experience is taken from the process steps implemented by MKK actors and related stakeholders in developing MKK and Supporting System for Upstream Community (Sistem Dukungan untuk MasyarakatHulu/SISDUK) in GHSNP.
Appreciation is delivered to the author and contributors in making the book of “MKK Mutual Trust and Respect on Different Behavior”. Hopefully this book can be useful for all sides who care and want to develop collaborative management in conservation area.
Kabandungan, January 2009
Head of National Park
Dr. Ir. Bambang Supriyanto, M. Sc.
NIP. 71001755
____
LIST OF CONTENTS
Foreword
List of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter 1: Learning and Making Action Together
Chapter 2: Our Kampung (Sub-Village)
Chapter 3: Not Only Us Who Care
Chapter 4: Halimun-Salak in the Shadows of Hopes
Chapter 5: MKK as Together Learning Process
Chapter 6: MKK as Process of Making Action Together
Chapter 7: To Sustain MKK: Not Only One Person’s Job
References
____
Chapter 1: Learning and Making Action Together
What They Say about Nature and Us
Every ring has different meanings. A ring in one morning became more meaningful when a man’s forehead shriveled up, he was thinking, trying to remember whose voice is talking behind his mobile phone. “I don’t want to know Sir, the point is that I do not accept that our land is claimed as the National Park area, that is a heritage from our inheritance. Forest has become the place where we protect ourselves, we don’t want to lose our forest”.
Who knows that we are really-really going to lose our conservation forest with everything inside it? When actually many of us really proud of our forest as one of invaluable treasures.
One of the conservation forests managed by National Park is Natural Protected Area with the management based on zoning. NP implemented zoning in order to determine which zone can be used to fulfil community needs for picnic, education, research and cultivation support (usually called as utilization zone) and which zone is really guarded for the sake of the whole life system. That kind of zone is usually called as main or core zone. In order to prevent direct contact between utilization zone and main zone, there’s a buffer zone.
Every management has their own uniqueness in implementing their responsibility towards forest. Beside the aforementioned zones, there are also forest and special zones which are adjusted in relation to the local condition of the forest.
Local communities also have their own indigenous knowledge in defining the forest as the place where they live. Kasepuhan community in Halimun Salak Mountain divided the forest into deposit, covered and managed forest. Community calls the deposit and covered forest as natural forest. Deposit forest is the forest given by the ancestors while covered forest is the forest that is officially covered (such as by National Park). Managed forest is the forest that can be managed by the community.
Edy Nasriadi Sambas from Indonesian Institute of Sciences mentioned that there are several forest type divisions. One of the most general and used divisions in research and development of science is forest definition from the point of view of ecology and forest from the point of view of regulation. From ecology point of view, forest is dominated by trees. From regulation point of view, forest has a status managed by government or other institutions.
Whatever the terms, definitions and status, Edy Nasriadi Sambas agreed that our forest is one of the priceless things that needs to be maintained. “From which ever point of view we see, back to the function of the forest, benefits we get from the forest, the most important thing is that the government and other related stakeholders participate in taking care of it. If our forest is disturbed, we see what happens, flood and forest fire”, he said.
Physically, our forest consists of trees dominated with greenery. While psychologically, we cannot deny, just like other social and cultural spaces, there are several institutions inside the forest.
Institution is something abstract which consists of structure and function in a system that becomes a background of attitude and behavior. That abstract thing can be in the forms of rules, norms and values. Physical space of that institution can be called as association. There are few points of view which call that association as institute. The easiest example is when we get married at Religion Affair Office, then that office is an association or institute, while the marriage or divorce is an institution. Marriage and divorce are abstract things constitute of norms and values that regulate at least 5W-1H (What, Why, When, Where, Who – How) someone is married.
It happens also to taking care of forest. Institution in taking care of forest is the abstract thing that consists of norms and values which regulate how we take care of our forest.
Norm is something that we can choose (consciously or unconsciously) either to obey or disobey. Every time we obey or disobey, we get different values. Our different status and role also makes us different in seeing and implementing institution into attitude and behavior. Role is something attached to the status we have. There are few of us who choose to have status first then have roles and there are also few of us who have roles without caring about the status.
In that diversity, the similarity among all of us is that we agree that greenery and institution are two things that we would like to maintain. As mentioned by Asep Sudrajat (SISDUK Coordination Team Leader, Head of Village Government Body Sukabumi District), the problem of the groups especially in rural and mountainous relies on the institution that is not ready yet to receive assistance, program or other approaches.
In order to maintain the greenery, institution is necessary. In order to maintain institution, we also need greenery. The interaction between greenery and institution reflects the interactions between nature and us.
One of the forms of the interaction between nature and us which makes us have to reflect more is water crisis. “We are in the mountain how can we are lacking of water?”, said the dwellers of mountainous area.
This worry is also delivered to the forest managers either from National Park or Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Mimura Kiichi, Chief Advisor, Expert on National Park GHSNP-MP, agreed that water resource is one of the resources that we need to maintain, not only by, from and for the life of upstream community, but also middle and downstream communities. By that the Social Philosophy in Sundanese Language which says usaha bisa katenjo, masyarakat jongjon ngejo, leuweung tetephejo (economical business runs well, community can eat, forest is still green) can be implemented.
Chapter 2: Our Kampung (Sub-Village)
Characteristic of community in rural and mountainous area related to the forest is the existence of kampung as a physical space. That physical space becomes the place for community to have activities started from fulfilling their daily needs until self-actualization.
As a social unit, kampung consists of vary individuals who gather in groups either primary or secondary. Primary groups in the form of families in kampung tend to have more chances to share things together so they are able to learn and have action together. Nevertheless, the knowledge development is not gained only through primary groups, we also need secondary group such as learning and playing groups.
From those groups and families, we can complete and develop the principals of institutional development. Especially if it is related with maintenance of greenery and institution in taking care of forest, we need to have mutual trust and respect towards different perspectives.
We need to have mutual trust and respect on different perspectives because we live as social human being who interact with nature. As an institution, kampung has abstract thing with unique norms and values in regulating how individuals and groups inside interact with nature.
Those norms and values sometimes come from law started from state until village level and sometimes come from the community itself. Those norms and values which come from the state until village laws are represented in the forms of written and verbal regulations.
In taking care of forest, every regulation agrees that we need to develop the principal of trusting each other and respecting different perspectives. Especially because when we realise the diversity of the management interests toward our forest, if we do not trust each other, then flood and forest fire would happen, conflict between us which leads to disunity will not be able to be prevented. If we do not respect different perspectives, it will be difficult for us to manage the conflicts which we always presumed as obstacles into challenges in taking care the interaction between us and nature.
As mentioned by Dr. Ir. Bambang Supriyanto, M.Sc. (Head of GHSNP), that challenge is an alternative terminology which we can use to manage obstacles. As the development of mutual trust and respect on different perspectives principals through the groups, its challenge needs to be managed through a bottom-up approach, unlike the top down program. As in zoning context, there are differences in how National Park and Kasepuhan perceive the terminology of ‘forest that needs to be maintained’. National Park uses the term main or core zone for forest area that needs to be maintained, while Kasepuhan community calls it as leuweung titipan. One of the challenges is how to discuss it together so that we can get a proper and agreed wording.
That bottom-up approach becomes important in kampung, one of because the interaction between human and nature directly can be felt more in this social unit and institution. Community of Pandan Arum Cipeuteuy Village Kabandungan Sub-District Sukabumi District stated that conservation and biodiversity values need to be maintained in taking care of forest. Followings are the approach alternatives they offer in facing the challenge.
Community of Leuwiwaluh Kampung Cipeuteuy Village Kabandungan Sub-District Sukabumi District has few indigenous rules related to the conservation function, such as prohibition in making rice field in the forest, prohibition in cutting the trees nearby the water source and in certain day prohibition in cutting bamboos and coconut trees. When the rules are not obeyed, the disaster will occur. The occurred disasters include rat and bird attacks in the rice field area due to ununiformed planting. In relation to water management, they build water piping for bathing and washing autonomously. There are also villagers who make drinking water storage which can be utilized by whole villagers. In relation to rehabilitation, the Head of Arum Bandung Farming Association in Cilodor has done initiatives in hard plant seedlings. Not only fruits were developed, but also natural forest plants such as Kiara and Ficus sp. Those efforts need to be appreciated as our efforts in managing our interaction with nature in taking care of forest. The principal of mutual trust and respect on different perspectives will make that interaction becomes developed, forest becomes maintained, greenery and institutions become maintained.
Chapter 3: Not Only Us Who Care
As written before, not only us who care about the forest. People from all parts of countries and all over the world concern about every stretch of remaining forests. With vary status and roles, each of us tries to have roles in managing natural resources.
Government as the policy maker, has a role through local government in collaboration and mechanism of natural resource management. Aside of that, through National Park, government has a role in developing the capacity of resources either natural or human.
Along with government, people who joined Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) also have roles in collaboration and mechanism in managing natural resources. Communities who live either in upstream area, middle-stream area, or down-stream area are those who either culturally, socially or economically related with forests directly through land management by maintaining the greenery and institutions.
Post the expansion in GHSNP area there are 314 kampungs (notes from collaborative kampung survey, JICA, 2004). Generally, the typology of community in and surround GHSNP can be categorized into two: First, Indigenous People (Kasepuhans in Sukabumi District and Kaolotan in Lebak District), second, local communities who have been staying for more than years but no longer having strong relations with indigenous institutions and usually at the beginning of their existence maintained relationship with existing plantation companies (Hanafi et. al, Nyoreang alam ka Tukang Nyawang anu Bakal Datang, 2002). Dr. Ir. Bambang Supriyanto, M. Sc. divided typology of community into indigenous people (Kasepuhan), Dutch-era plantation labor, communities who are involved in Community Forest Management and comers.
There are big seven Kasepuhans with significant influence to the followers including Ciptagelar Kasepuhan, Cipta Mulya Kasepuhan, Sirnaresmi Kasepuhan, CisungsangKasepuhan, Cisitu Kasepuhan, Citorek Kasepuhan and Urug Kasepuhan. Those seven Kasepuhans are located in three Districts including Lebak, Sukabumi and Bogor. Indigenous pattern which emphasizes their life development and existence in agriculture by farming system becomes a phenomenon which has to be framed by GHSNP management. Moving farming system, moving kampung, and life rotation which are done by these Kasepuhans most are often perceived as threats for the existence of the Halimun Area.
Pattern of life space in indigenous people and local community inside and surround Halimun area in addition with population forge should create a new model that can meet the community needs on their welfare amongst the conservation rules, and doesn’t come out from the corridor of its law interpretation. Conservation Village Model/Model Kampung Konservasi (MKK) moves forward making a trial in facing the challenge for the existence of a National Park. Supports from indigenous people and local communities in three Districts (Bogor, Sukabumi and Lebak) are absolutely needed for maintaining the conservation area.
As other National Parks, the implementation of conservation efforts in GHSNP also faces problems which require hard work, clever and fair efforts to solve them from day to day. Illegal logging, Without-Permission Gold Mining, encroachment and wild hunting still happen until now. From MKK concept, supports from the communities surround National Park still not optimal. The supports which are expected will occur when the communities feel they get the benefits from the existence of the National Park.
Chapter 4: Halimun-Salak in the Shadows of Hopes
Luki Turniajaya & Cecep Sumarna (GHSNP) divided community typology in GHSNP as follow.
First,
Non-indigenous people who are migrant communities. Since the Dutch occupancy era they were brought to work in plantation and mining sector. Non-traditional kampungs at the beginning were the residents of those workers, before part of them decided to do farming and move to residents in other areas.
Second,
New comers, especially in the reform euphoria era (1998 – 2000) until now.
Third,
Seasonal comers who act like forest bad guys (illegal miner and logger).
Fourth,
The category of this community includes the Kasepuhan communities who have high dependency toward the area.
National Park is an institution which has role in bridging the community and government interests. It is important to acknowledge its history, in relation to our understanding to the role. Following is the history of one of National Parks in Indonesia, which is Gunung Halimun National Park.
Table 1. Chronology of Gunung Halimun National Park Management
Status | Year | Manager |
Protected Forest | 1924-1934 | Netherland Government |
Nature Preserve | 1935-1961 | Netherland Government and Government of Indonesia |
| 1961-1978 | Perum Perhutani (State Owned Company) |
| 1979-1990 | Balai KSDA III (Natural Resource Conservation Headquarter) |
| 1990-1992 | Gunung GedePangrango NP |
National Park | 1990-1992 | Gunung GedePangrango NP |
| 1992-1997 | Gunung GedePangrango NP |
| 1997-2003 | Gunung Halimun NP Headquarter with wide 40,000 ha |
| 2003-now | GHSNP Headquarter added with the function change of PerumPerhutani Forest so the wide became 113,357 ha. |
*Netherland government = Dutch government
Source: GHSNP
GHSNP area at the beginning had a width of 40,000 ha, and in 2003 through the Decision Letter of Minister of Forestry Number 175/Kpts-II/2003, date June 10 2003 the GHSNP area became 113,357 ha. With the extended area of GHSNP there are more than 314 kampungs inside and surround GHSNP area.
Geographically, GHSNP area is located in between 106021’ – 106038’ East Longitude and 6037’ – 6051’ South Latitude. This area is important for the life existence either seen from biodiversity aspect or environmental protection. The potential of flora and fauna reaches thousands of species which becomes a proof that this area is a protection place for germ plasm which not all of the benefits are known yet therefore becomes a heaven for researchers. A tiger which is an icon in West Java called “Macan Tutul” (Pantherapardus), also “Eagle” as the icon of Lebak District can be found in the National Park. “Elang Jawa” or Javanese Eagle (Spizaetus bartelsii) now becomes very rare and threatened to be extinct; also the beauty of the nature in few tourism location or the ecotourism that hasn’t been touched and need to be preserved. Beside, this area is the upstream of Cisadane, Cimadur, Cibareno rivers which flow to the capital Jakarta, West Java and Banten that can fulfil the needs of the water of the inhabitants.
The role of the GHSNP is now being threatened. Within 1989 – 2004, in GHSNP there had been a deforestation with a significant number which is 23 thousand hectares or 19,6%; or the average damage rate per year is 1,3% from 113.357 ha. This forest degradation happened mainly in the ex-production forest area. This deforestation is followed by the increase number consistently of bushes, farming and housings and population of inhabitants in the kampung who lack of knowledge on family planning.
Management of GHSNP area cannot be separated from the communities inside and surround the area, who have high dependency towards natural resources inside the area. Communities inside and surround the area are parts or elements of GHSNP ecosystem, who depend toward each other. Therefore, they would maintain the existence and conservation of GHSNP if they can get benefit, either direct or indirect from the GHSNP natural resource. On the contrary, they will damage the nature if they do not get any benefits from the existence of GHSNP. This can be happened due to the social economic situation of the communities which causes concern, and the lack of awareness.
The principles of mutual trust and respect on different perspective give options to the communities to be able to live together. It will give guarantee toward the forest conservation for the sustainable utilization.
Chapter 5: MKK as Together Learning Process
The new mandate of GHNP which becomes GHSNP in 2003 required an adequate management model to optimise the limitation of staff number and to engage the communities surround and inside the area in managing and maintaining GHSNP area nowadays. Besides, the national politic condition, the enactment of Regional Autonomy Law No. 22 and No. 25 year 1999 and the change of paradigm in management of Conservation Area (IUCN, 2003) also become the background of MKK in GHSNP.
In the new paradigm, conservation is funded from many possible financial sources. Those financial sources can be from government, private and community, also in the scope of regional, national or international.
MDK is a new approach implemented by Directorate General of PHKA in managing the conservation area. MDK involves community in managing the conservation area. This model gives opportunity to community to gain safe access for the area utilization so that it can guarantee their long term commitment to support forest area conservation. This utilization access model can be different from one area into other areas depend on the agreement with authorized stakeholder in the area management.
MDK was introduced as one of the efforts to solve the degradation of conservation area in Indonesia. Most of 22 hectares of conservation area are damaged because of several factors including: land conversion, forest fire, illegal logging, illegal market of rare species, also the high population growth.
According to the data of PHKA there are 2.040 villages in the buffer area of conservation area which the inhabitant number has reached 660.845 families. Most of the population really depend on natural resources in the forest area. That’s why, the community involvement is one of the keys to the success of conservation area efforts with high value of biodiversity.
MDK Objective
MDK is aimed at creating and increasing the community capacity so that their dependency toward the conservation area can be decreased. MDK is expected to have positive impact toward protection, preservation and utilization of conservation area.
MDK Criteria
MDK is a village which becomes a model in community development inside or surround the conservation area. For the chosen villages to be the MDK villages, they should fulfill following criteria:
MDK Scope
The MDK scope consists of following three aspects:
Community Development
Community development in MDK is implemented through nine steps of community development:
Community institution will have important roles in MDK implementation. The success of community capacity development, development of community productive economic business activity and developing partnership and business marketing depend on the success of community institution development.
Conservation Based Rural Spatial Arrangement
In this activity, spatial arrangement of productive economic development in MDK is implemented in order to make the activity of economic development doesn’t have negative impact toward the conservation area. That includes the arrangement of agricultural activity between local communities so that the conservation area utilisation aspect can be in line with the conservation and preservation aspect.
The implementation of MDK in GHSNP is translated into MKK which is another name for “The Support for Community-Based Activities”. Definition of Conservation Kampung according to MKK version is that a kampung (smaller village) where we can do protection activities autonomously, maintain the ecosystem and economically give welfare to the community. In its development, communities perceive MKK as an approach which needs to be developed in taking care of forests and improving forest welfare. Ms. Marni from Cimapag Kampung Sirnaresmi Village Cisolok Sub-District Sukabumi District stated that communities are able to develop small capital if they are willing to and do it with mutual trust and respect toward different perspectives.
Mr. M. Acep Kamal who is the group leader of MKK Giri Lestari in Gunung Malang village also stated that the forest protection efforts are important to be implemented. His group which develops chicken business through MKK group stated that they believe they can develop the business and improve their welfare.
Mr. M. Endang who is the group leader of Bunga Harapan (Hope Flower) Group of Gunung Malang village stated that MKK is one of the hopes which is started from a flower, that is expected to have fruits. “Everything is started with flower, which can be developed into fruits, that’s why we named our group as Hope Flower”, he added.
If we want to maintain the forest condition as a place where people can enjoy as a tourism spot, we have to take care of it together. By maintaining forests for ecotourism or cultural-tourism, the welfare is going to be developed. One of the efforts is believed can be done through MKK. Therefore, indirectly the communities have defined the MKK as one of their efforts in taking care of forests and improving welfare so that they can live together with National Park.
MKK has a vision as “Community lives together with National Park”. MKK is a model of a kampung which implements conservation values. Definition of the conservation kampung itself is a kampung where we can do protection activity autonomously, take care of good ecosystem and economically can give welfare to the community.
MKK has following objectives:
Followings are the expected results of MKK activity:
Followings are the tools used in MKK:
First, doing observation together with local community to monitor the area situation, make strong communication networks between local community, NGO and GHSNP.
Second, doing restoration or rehabilitation of GHSNP area which is damaged by involving local community.
Third, cooperate with Local Government to improve the welfare of the local communities in GHSNP.
MKK was started in 2004 with preparation and education for NP officers. In 2005 social preparation was conducted in two villages and resulted MKK guideline toward Conservation Kampung. Its implementation was started in 2006 which was developed using the collaboration system with Local Government since 2008. In 2008 SISDUK for income generation was developed and replication of MKK to the Conservation Kampungtook place by sharing the experiences to other NPs started to take place.
CASE STUDY
One of the case studies of Community Development team to learn about the process was conducted on 25 – 28 May 2005 in Krui/Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP). The case study’s participants consist of nine persons from GHSNP, Takeo Toyota and Budi Nurzaman from JICA, and one person from LATIN (Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia/Indonesian Tropical Nature Association). The case study was aimed at doing observation and learning from collaboration processes which have been developed in Krui and sharing experiences with the collaboration actors also the developer of community development model in Krui.
The objective of the case study is to develop knowledge and enrichment of understanding for Halimun community development team in relation to collaboration model which will be developed in the future also in order to be able to enrich the collaboration strategy in Halimun either in kampung level until the District level through the experience sharing and field visit to Krui/BBSNP. Besides, it was also aimed at widening the knowledge of the GHSNP-JICA team regarding community development strategy in BBSNP which is called as pulan and repong damar model.
Apart from the visit to BBSNP, a case study was also conducted to Meru Betiri NP (MBNP) on 5 – 10 September 2005. In MBNP the participants learned about Forest Management with Community (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat/PHBM) where besides the local community, the NGOs such as KAIL and LATIN were involved.
In Meru Betiri, there are farmer groups with clear structures and transparent agenda toward related stakeholders. They were in the process of agreement between farmers and NP side. Periodical meeting between them was conducted routinely. They have a small cooperative likewise called Together Business/Usaha Bersama (UB). It was built from the basic capital of group (credit business/saving and loan business in each group). The farmers admitted that they try to preserve and conserve. There’s also managing right of land in certain area inside Meru Betiri. Farmers can harvest fruits, but cannot own the land, the land belongs to the state. Sumarsono (head of Administrative Section MBNP) stated that the most important thing is to make forest become green.
In Meru Betiri, there’s MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) which makes farmer groups and MBNP have certainty regarding responsibility and rights. There’s a bravery in doing something innovative from MBNP through policy based on Decision Letter of Directorate General of PHKA.
Endemic plant such as Kedawung (Parkia timoriana) is found in MBNP. There are several types of plants which based on the agreement between farmers and MBNP cannot be planted in the rehabilitation area such as tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum), in order to avoid the trend of tobacco homogenization.
The staffs of MBNP also have skills in approaching community, especially in doing analysis of history of the community existence, history of interaction between groups and forests and cultural sensitivity. In relation to culture, Javanese and Maduranese communities in Meru Betiri use traditional herbal drinks which eased the finding of ‘compromised plant’ between farmers and MBNP in rehabilitation area. Herbal plants have significant economical prospect in buffer villages. NGOs were involved in facilitation processes. Researchers of Bogor Agricultural University encouraged MBNP through scientific argument in managing the rehabilitation area with community involvement model.
FIELD OFFICER (FO) TRAINING
What is FO?
FO or Field Officer is taken from English Language which refers to officers who conduct activities in the field. In Indonesian language [Bahasa] the suitable terms are penyuluh or petugas lapang. In practices of implementing tasks in the field few working requirement and abilities are required. Those are mandatory to acquire before the FO doing the task. For that, an FO training was conducted on 11-13 December 2007 in meeting room of GHSNP headquarter. This training was conducted within three days with an adult education training method guided by facilitator and resource persons from LATIN Sukabumi.
Facilitator can be defined as a person who has a role to create agreement space between development actors and other related stakeholders which has been embedded in local social (context) (Toyota, 2001:1).
In the context of MKK, FO is a person who has a task in facilitating community either inside or surround conservation area to be empowered without any tendency to damage the area. This is an ideal condition which is difficult to be materialized, but it doesn’t mean there’s no opportunity to implement it for anybody. Becoming a facilitator who is able to ‘cook’ the interests of development and the interests of conservation into one requires energy which is not small.
Followings are few guides which able to answer anyone’s needs regarding becoming an FO in doing the mission, and determining the task and function based on the concept of MKK itself.
Five Basic Ethics of Field Officer refers to Takeo Toyota (2001: Page 3-7):
Outsiders always easy to find out “what is not known by villagers, what is not able to be done by them, why they couldn’t think scientifically”. Outsiders always teach and give things which are not owned by villagers. Beside human resources, ‘other’ capabilities of the community are not considered.
[Don’t forget that the main actor of development is community, without their involvement then the activity won’t be optimum]
Theoretically, this thing is easy to understand but difficult to implement. There’s an assumption saying that community has low education, cannot unite opinion, lazy, that’s why they need help, which the assumption is so strong and believed by the community themselves.
It’s difficult to make the community becomes the main actor of development because beside of the internal problems, also often outsiders (including FO) when they explain something they do not choose simple words which are understood by the community logic about the importance of development main actor position, and lack of ability to develop community motivation.
Though the community plays an important role as the main actor, it doesn’t mean that we need to fulfil everything they want. The community has to be aware of their important position, has responsibility as the owner of the program, and FO should become a facilitator so that the community as the main actor will be able to do something for their area.
[Ask yourself who are the communities?]
It’s clear that putting the community as the main actor of development (including conservation inside is believed as one of the further solution), but, when FO enters the village, then he/she’ll meet many elements of communities including village officials, village head, religious people, indigenous people, women, youth, children, rich people and poor people. From the different backgrounds it’s very possible that opinion and interest differences will occur.
In its turn, the opinion differences become something usual as the part of community dynamic. This thing shouldn’t be worried by anyone. Therefore, when activity priority arrangement takes place, it will reflect which activities represent the community attitude, or which activities only represent the interest of certain people. If the communities are active in implementing the activities, then it reflects that the activity has fairly fulfilled the needs of the communities. When the communities passively implementing the activities then it reflects that the activities/programs are not fairly fulfilling the needs of the communities.
If FO started to live in the village, then they will be able to interact more. But sometimes they chose only to stay in rich people or people with high status’ house. Only by listening to the opinion of the hosts do not represent what most villagers would say.
[Do not increase the community dependency]
Situation in the field very easily traps our mind into the assumption that development is about helping weak people. When we listen directly from the community, this thing is easily happened. So that fulfilling the community request becomes a moral obligation. What has to be concerned by FO is the main basic of development/organizing which is aimed at improving the ability of organising autonomously and the ability of implementing the activities. In order to get a fast result many interventions can be done including the funding provision and decision making by the sides who interfere but it makes the communities stop thinking and start to depend on outsiders.
It means that the option of outsider interventions should be in line with the strategy of the development of community capability to be more capable in managing and solving the problems by themselves. If this happens, then the role of FO becomes only as a source of community thinking reference to strengthen together idea which is occurred from the community.
Many experiences show the tendency that if outsiders do not give any results then the community will go away. In the situation like this, many FO choose to maintain the personal relationship with the community. The boundaries between personal and FO relationships should be underlined.
[In the first steps, participatory development requires time, funding, and patience]
Objective of FO existence in this supporting system is to make the communities become the main actor of the program so that their capacity building can be improved, the interests are pointed out in the process of training and experience digging. The result of the program is not the most important thing as long as the community can experience the organizing process. It is important for the community to organise themselves, grow with their own efforts, and enter the processes to be autonomous. FO and government institution should interact with the community as much as possible. If there’s a funding, then a comparison study to a place where ‘the ability of the community in organizing their potential is better’ in order to widen the community knowledge should be conducted. Nevertheless, time and fund are limited things. Hence, more autonomous the community represents less time and fund from outsiders is necessary.
[FO should aware of the end time of assistance giving period in the village (should know when the exit strategy should be done)]
The objectives of the FO Training:
In relation to the roles of FO, Ibrahim as the coordinator of FO stated that one of the challenges of being FO in MKK is that when FO is also the head of Resort. Having double jobs is difficult because FO should stay longer with the community in the villages, especially in relation to the funding. “Sometimes we have to use our own money to implement the task and function of FO. But we always have full spirits to give comprehension whether for community or FO regarding the MKK development. My hope, in the future, this MKK can be developed and sustained. FO’s role in facilitating the community needs to be delivered to related stakeholders because it is an important role. Because this is not only the work of one person, this is a together work, between local government, NGO, JICA, and National Park”, he said.
REHABILITATION/RESTORATION
Rehabilitation/restoration is implemented in degraded area, which is located in three sections of management of National Park. Rehabilitation is conducted together between community and national park side. The area which has been rehabilitated is 20 hectares in Lebak section, 29 hectares in Bogor Section, and 171 hectares in Sukabumi section. Plants which are planted in the process of land rehabilitation/restoration is sugar palm (Arenga piñata), puspa (Scima walicii), pasang (Quercus suber), rasamala (Altingiaexcelsa) and huru (Licea sp) which are the endemic plants of GHSNP. Beside endemic plants, fruit plants are also planted so that the community can utilize the fruits.
PARTICIPATORY OBSERVATION
Joint participation or participatory observation is one of the observation activities in the areas planned and agreed by the team before going to the field. What important and basic in participatory observation is the involvement of other stakeholders.
This activity is designed to bridge the differences of ‘point of view’ regarding the facts in the field which probably will be a together action movement for the future and find the newest fact together in the field which doesn’t come from opinion but comes from the reality.
Participatory observation was implemented from 2006 until October 2008. Participatory observation is conducted twice a month in two locations of MKK which are Sirnaresmi and Cipeuteuy. In May 2006 participatory observation was conducted in three locations of MKK which are Cipeuteuy, Sirnaresmi and Gunung Malang.
Participatory observation was conducted with following conditions:
REPORTING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION
After field activities accomplished every team should make a report in an agreed format (for government officers, NGOs and community). The report becomes the material for the managers to follow up in the forms of relevant activities or data updating.
Every three months an evaluation is conducted together by involving related stakeholders (who are involved in the participatory observation). Followings are the things that are monitored.
Evaluation of participatory observation is conducted every year. The last evaluation was conducted in May 2008 for evaluating field level. The locations evaluated were Sirnaresmi and Cipeuteuy. The evaluation was conducted in the forms of interview with community and FGD in the kampung level. In the NP officer level, the evaluation of participatory observation is conducted by checking the document of participatory observation. The results of document checking and participatory observation activity was presented in the workshop on July 29, 2007. Followings are the result of the evaluation:
IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY ECONOMY THROUGH SUPPORTING SYSTEM (SISTEM DUKUNGAN/SISDUK)
National Park and Local Government work together in improving the community economy through SISDUK. This SISDUK is developed through Annual Working Plan (Rencana Kerja Tahunan/RKT).
Annual Working Plan (RKT)
The basic of RKT arrangement is MoU between GHSNP and Sukabumi regent which requires the implementation of community development cooperation in the forms of RKT. RKT is arranged based on the agreement of stakeholders for three-year working plan (2008 – 2010) and translated into annual plan. The stakeholders which are involved in the RKT arrangement are the coordination team which consist of GHSNP, Bappeda (Regional Planning and Development Agency), Bapemdes (Village Government Agency), Forestry Regional Office, and other related regional offices. RKT arrangement by the coordination team is based on the field data gained from FO and Village. It includes cooperation agreement between GHSNP and Cipeuteuy Village community with Number S.419/IV-T.13/III.I/2007 about utilized land use in special zone of GHSNP.
Objective of Economic Development of Upstream Community in MKK
Expected Outputs
Criteria/Standard of Activity Proposal Determination
Management Mechanism
SISDUK is a cooperation program between GHSNP and Local Government of Sukabumi District in implementing community development. This SISDUK program is aimed at supporting the upstream communities who have done conservation and take care the forest preservation in GHSNP area. The objective of the SISDUK program is to increase the income of the community surround GHSNP by giving supports for developing alternative businesses which is not based on timber, by considering the supporting ability of the GHSNP area.
This cooperation is implemented in three years from 2008 until 2010. To implement this three-year RKT and annual collaborative program, RKTs have been arranged. In 2008 as a trial, SISDUK funding to support the community businesses is allocated from JICA and for 2009 and 2010 the budget is allocated from Local Government of Sukabumi District.
…
