Impediments (Nus 2005)


Published on

Conservation for/by Whom? Social Controversies and Cultural Contestations regarding National Parks in the ‘Malay Archipelago’. International workshop jointly sponsored by the Asia Research Institute, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Faculty of Law, all at the National University of Singapore, 16-18 May 2005, NUS, Singapore.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Multidisciplinary forum >>>> no single discipline can do justice to the complexity of NRM That’s the problem in KNP: how a quite limited approach has caused lasting conflict by prioritising ecological ahead of socio-economic objectives Concept of co-management and some of the principles it implies
  • Impediments (Nus 2005)

    1. 1. Structural Impediments to Community Participation in Komodo National Park, Indonesia Henning Borchers
    2. 2. Argument <ul><li>One of the potential shortcomings of co-management is the inherent conflict between expert- and local knowledge, values and discursive power </li></ul><ul><li>Expert scientific knowledge is prioritised. Subsequently, local values and experiences are devalued and marginalised </li></ul>
    3. 3. Case Study <ul><li>The Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative falls short of involving local communities in a substantial way. </li></ul><ul><li>Community input is marginal, while scientific expertise prevails and determines decision-making </li></ul><ul><li>Planning and management remains top-down </li></ul>
    4. 4. Topics of Discussion <ul><li>Principles of communicative/ collaborative planning and co-management </li></ul><ul><li>Problems of implementation under a conventional conservation paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>Case Study: Planning and implementation of the Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative (KCMI) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Planning <ul><li>Conventional planning theory and practice guided by Western-scientific rational discourse </li></ul><ul><li>Yet, successful planning is more than simply producing a product: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mutual respect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction and relationship-building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ownership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved social and political responsibility </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Communication <ul><li>As a transmission process: information is conveyed and received </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication refers to an end state </li></ul></ul><ul><li>As an ongoing process: dialogue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Negotiating and interpreting diverse meanings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dealing with a variety of responses and multiple frames of reference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This requires adaptation and adjustment </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Communicative/ Collaborative Planning <ul><li>Communicative rationality: An effort at mutual understanding in a particular context. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consensus by dialogue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognition of plurality and difference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-cultural practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Social learning’ through active participatory dialogue </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Planning as a democratic enterprise, aimed to promote social justice and environmental sustainability” </li></ul><ul><li>(Healey 1992:141) </li></ul>
    8. 8. Social Justice <ul><li>Social justice incorporates the three broad principles of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>equal participation in the policymaking process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>self-representation and autonomy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>political, economic and cultural self-determination </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Co-Management <ul><li>Partnership development through: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decentralised and shared decision making </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Active participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Empowerment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consensus-building and dialogue </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Can Dialogue be ‘Value-Free’? <ul><li>In the public discourse, scientists and non-scientists act as a result of two primary influences: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tacit interests and knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ideas, agreements and conflicts that emerge during interactions with others </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Power and knowledge determine the process: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hierarchies and inequalities may maintain top-down structures </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Case Study: Komodo National Park
    12. 12. Conservation and Development <ul><li>‘ Best practice’: Reconcile conservation goals with human needs </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable Development paradigm & Convention on Biological Diversity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustainable use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit sharing </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. The Co-Management of Komodo National Park <ul><li>According to project documents, the KCMI pursues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Community participation’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Active involvement of local communities as managers and beneficiaries’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Focused dialogue with specific problem groups or communities’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Consensus-building’ </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Level of Community Participation and Empowerment <ul><li>Communities not formally included yet . </li></ul><ul><li>Instead, consultation mechanisms for community inputs and participation </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low- to medium level of participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modified top-down interventionist approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results may or may not be taken into account </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overall, planning remains top-down </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Consultation in KNP <ul><li>Gaps in consultations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women, youth, ethnic and social groups not systematically identified </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most decisions made by male elders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TNC & PKA tend to direct activities in villages themselves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotion of ‘persuasion techniques’ for awareness staff </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Stated goal of consultations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ To explain to […] local communities how they will be involved in long-term management planning of the Park” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(Mous et al. 2004:18). </li></ul>
    16. 16. TNC’s Stakeholder Analysis <ul><li>Framework for stakeholder announcement; attributes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Power: Groups who can influence decisions that are being made </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legitimacy: Groups who have a moral or legal claim over an area or an issue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urgency: Whose claim needs immediate attention? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Height’ of stakeholders according to the number of attributes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(3) definite </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(2) expectant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(1) latent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(0) public – a group of people who do not have any of these attributes </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Power-sharing in TNK according to TNC <ul><li>In TNK: </li></ul><ul><li>Co-management board: Putri Naga Komodo (TNC and P.T. JPU) </li></ul><ul><li>Advisory committee: 11 members (incl. 3 members of C.C.) </li></ul><ul><li>Consultative committee: +/- 30 members </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation </li></ul>    Consultation session    Consultative committee   Advisory committee  Co-management board public latent expectant definitive
    18. 18. Consequences of Mismanagement of KNP <ul><li>Customary resource use restricted or prohibited, though long-standing customary use patterns may not adversely impact KNP’s resources </li></ul><ul><li>Provision of alternative livelihoods largely limited to buffer zones </li></ul><ul><li>Tourism development limited within the park </li></ul><ul><li>Livelihoods of poor residents curtailed </li></ul><ul><li>Local communities not sufficiently informed; ‘socialisation’ of management plan and regulations ongoing </li></ul><ul><li>Alienation of local communities - distrust and lasting conflict </li></ul>
    19. 19. Approaching the Problem I <ul><li>“ We tend to work on making management more inclusive ” </li></ul><ul><li>Tri Soekirman, TNC (2005) </li></ul><ul><li>“ To listen, and then hear, is an incredible challenge. To hear and then act is a strenuous exercise fraught with pitfalls endemic to the highly politicized settings characteristic of natural resource planning ” </li></ul><ul><li>Lapachelle et al. (2003:488) </li></ul>
    20. 20. Approaching the problem II <ul><ul><li>We cannot solve the problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>we have created with the same </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>thinking that created them. </li></ul></ul>