Presented by Sara Gabai of The Nature Conservancy at the 3rd Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit, on 23–25 April 2018 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

1. Sara Gabai, PhD Candidate
Communication Officer, TNC

2. UTLINE
CONFLICT ANALYSIS
PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES 1-2

3. URAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INVOLVES THE
IVE PARTICIPATION OF A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
O OFTEN HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS, NEEDS,
PRIORITIES.

4. EVEN IF FOREST CONFLICTS CAN HAVE POS
OUTCOMES, THEY MAY BE DISASTROUS TO FOR
USERS, ESPECIALLY FOR COMMUNITIES WHO DEP
ON FOREST RESOURCES FOR THEIR LIVELIHOODS.

5. INDONESIA
OREST CONFLICT
AS AFFECTED
3-19M PEOPLE
0% POPULATION.

6. CONFLICT
ISAGREEMENT
ROUGH WHICH THE
RTIES INVOLVED
RCEIVE A THREAT TO
EIR NEEDS, INTERESTS
D CONCERNS.

8. PREJUDICE
PRECONCEPTIONS
NO INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE
VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
IGNORANCE
STEREOTYPES
INTOLERANCE
DIFFERENT MATERIAL INTERESTS
DIFFERENCES IN IDENTITY & BELIEFS

9. IDENTIFYING AND UNDERSTANDING THE
POSSIBLE CAUSES OF CONFLICT IS
ESSENTIAL TO DEALING WITH IT
EFFECTIVELY.

10. R COMPANIES, CONFLICT WITH COMMUNITIES CAN:
REASE FINANCIAL RISKS, SUCH AS HIGH
ERATING COSTS AND EVEN CLOSURE OF THEIR
ERATIONS.

11. NEED FOR MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
THAT CAN TRANSFORM CONFLICT INTO
SOCIAL CHANGE

12. LEADING TO

15. PARTNERSHIP
ONGOING WORKING RELATIONSHIP WHERE RISKS AND BENEFITS ARE SHARED.

16. PARTNERS EQUALLY
CO-CREATE ACTIVITES.
BRING CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT KINDS.
COMMIT TO MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

17. PARTNERING CONTEXT
SINGLE
PARTNERSHIP IS
LIKE ANY OTHER

18. PARTNERSHIP TYPES
POLICY
CONSULTATIVE
PUBLIC - PRIVATE
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
INTRA - SECTOR
TEMPORARY
CAPACITY BUILDING
LEARNING
INTERNAL
GLOBAL
NATIONAL
LOCAL

19. WHICH TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP ARE YOU
INVOLVED WITH?
ARE THERE OTHER TYPES NOT LISTED?

20. NATURE OF PARTNERSHIPS
TACTICAL COLLABORATIVE
MORE FORMAL AGREEMENTS
CLOSED
NOT FLEXIBLE
LOOKING FOR MATERIAL BENEFITS
MORE COMFORT
EASIER
COMPROMISE
NOT COLLABORATIVE
ABLE TO TAKE ON BOARD EXTRA PARTNERS
LOOKING FOR BENEFITS THAT ARE NOT JUST
MATERIAL
NEW IDEAS / INNOVATION
WIN-WIN
MORE CIVIL SOCIETY INVOLVEMENT
MORE FOCUSED ON PEOPLE
NO PARTNERSHIP WITHOUT COLLABORATION

21. CORE
PRINCIPLES

22. EQUALITY
EQUALITY TRANSPARENCY
RESPECT
R ADDED VALUE EACH
PARTY BRINGS.
MUTUAL
BENEFIT
TRUST
WITH PARTNERS MORE
WILLING TO INNOVATE & TAKE
RISKS.
ENGAGEMEN
MORE LIKELY TO SUSTAI
BUILD RELATIONSHIPS
OVER TIME.

23. COMMON
CHALLENGES

25. WHAT ARE THE
KEY PROBLEMS
THAT COULD
DESTROY YOUR
PARTNERSHIP?

26. ACTIVITY 1
PRECONCEPTIONS
HOW SECTORS ARE USUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND CHARACTERIZED.

27. EQUALITY
GOVMNT.
TRANSPARENCY MUTUAL
BENEFIT
BUSINESS NGO COMMUNITY

28. EQUALITY
GOVMNT.
TRANSPARENCY
BEUROCRATIC
NOT FLEXIBLE
CONTROLLING
SLOW
INEFFICIENT
MUTUAL
BENEFIT
PROFIT-DRIVEN
QUICK SOLUTIONS
SELF-CENTERED
INCONSIDERATE
UNETHICAL
WASTEFUL
NON-SENSITIVE TO
LOCAL CULTURE
BUSINESS NGO COMMUNITY
DEMANDING
LAZY
UNEDUCATED
DIFFICULT
UNREALISTIC

29. CHALLENGE
YOUR
PRECONCEPTIONS
OR THEY WILL
CHALLENGE YOU.

31. DRIVERS & BENEFITS
OF PARTNERING
CONTRIBUTIONS
WHY EACH
SECTOR MAY
WANT TO
PARTNER?
WHAT CAN EACH
SECTOR OFFER
TO A PARTNERSHIP

32. ACTIVITY 2
WHAT CAN EACH PARTNER BRING?
DRIVERS & BENEFITS I CONTRIBUTIONS
PARTICIPANTS ARE ASSIGNED TO THE FOLLOWING GROUPS AND ASKED TO FILL IN THE TABLES.

33. GOVMNT. BUSINESS NGO COMMUNITY
DRIVERS & BENEFITS I CONTRIBUTIONS

34. EQUALITY
GOVERNMENT
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
WHY? WHAT?

35. EQUALITY
BUSINESS
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
WHY? WHAT?

36. EQUALITY
NGO
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
WHY? WHAT?

37. EQUALITY
COMMUNITY
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
WHY? WHAT?

38. EQUALITY
GOVERNMENT
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
NSTRATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
E THE COMMUNITY IN MORE DIVERSE WAYS
EASE THE REPUTATION OF THE GOVMNT.
ADVANTAGE OF RESOURCES FROM OTHER PARTNERS
MENTATION WITH OTHERS
INFLUENCE OVER THE SECTORS
PUBLICITY
LE TO DELEGATE
H TO THE POPULATION
ER IMPLEMENTATION
FINANCIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
LEGITIMACY
LONG TERM STABILITY OVER THE SECTORS
PUBLICITY
MORE INFLUENCE OVER THE SECTORS
GIVE AUTHORITY
GAIN ACCESS TO LEADERS, INFORMATION, RESOURCES

39. EQUALITY
BUSINESS
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
ET EXPANSION
VATION OF PRODUCTS & SERVICES
ETING
AL RESPONSIBILITY
RIBUTING TO POLICY MAKING PROCESSES
FIED HUMAN RESOURCES
S
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
GAIN ACCESS TO HUMAN, FINANCIAL & TECHNICAL
RESOURCES
CONTRIBUTING TO POLICY MAKING PROCESSES
FASTER IMPLEMENTATION / EXECUTION
HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT
CAN SUPPORT INNOVATION OUTSIDE OF THEIR ORGANIZATI
CAN TAKE BIGGER RISKS THAN GOVMNT.

40. EQUALITY
NGO
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
EASE VISIBILITY, CREDIBILITY, REPUTATION
CITY
A RESOURCES & FUNDING
AL ASSOCIATIONS
RECOVERY
EASE / HIRE PERSONNEL & EXPERTS
E THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
E GOVMTS’ ADVISORS
HANDS ON EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE ON THE GROUND
CAN BE WATCHDOGS
CAN TAKE FORWARD MORE SENSITIVE ISSUES
WIDEN UP NETWORKS
EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE
CAN HELP GOVMNTS AND OTHER SECTORS TO ENGAGE WIT
SENSITIVE TOPICS

41. EQUALITY
COMMUNITY
DRIVERS & BENEFITS CONTRIBUTIONS
CAN’T DO IT ALONE
WANT TO BE PART OF SOMETHING THAT CAN IMPROVE
COMMUNITY
MPLISH PROJECTS BY LEARNING FROM DIFFERENT
RIENCES AND STAKEHOLDERS
NEW IDEAS AND INNOVATION
INSIDER / COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE
HAVING A VOICE IN SHAPING FUTURE DIRECTION
CONTINOUS EVALUATION
DEMOCRACY AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
THEY CAN SHIFT DEMAND TO DRIVE BUSINESS DIRECTIONS

42. ACCESS TO MORE RESOURCES (EXPERTISE, KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS,
NETWORKS, MONEY).
GREATER REACH, SCALE, IMPACT.
(RE) BUILDING REPUTATION.
INCREASING EXPECTATIONS OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

43. OCIAL CONFLICT & INFORMATION SYSTEM DATABASE
Karen Mo, WWF Global Forest Practice

44. concerned with
SOCIAL CONFLICT
LOCAL COMMUNITIES /
FOREST COMPANIES
FOREST MANAGEMENT

45. CONFLICT MAPPING &
RESOULUTION GUIDANCE
Perdirjen Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Lestari No
P.5/PHPL/ UHP/PHPL.1/2/2016. tentang Pedoma
Pemetaan Potensi dan Resolusi Konflik pad
Pemegang Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Huta
Kayu (IUPHHK) dalam Hutan Produksi.

46. CRITERIA / 47 INDICATORS
TERIA 1: FMU Characteristics I 10 Indicators.
TERIA 2: Activities of Local Communities in FMU Forest Area I 17 Indicators.
TERIA 3: Local Communities Claim for FMU Forest Area I 5 Indicators.
TERIA 4: Social Conflict Aspect I 9 Indicators.
TERIA 5: Institutional and Key Person in Village I 6 Indicators.

47. KALA
ONFLICT STATUS
VERY CRITICAL (HIGH PRIORIT
CRITICAL (PRIORITY)
WARY (MIDDLE)
CONTROL (LOW)
SAFE (VERY LOW)

48. Terima kasih