Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme IndonesiaJalan Hang Lekir VIII/1, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta 12120

Telephone 62-21-7266341, Fax 62-21-7206125http:\\www.sgp-indonesia.org, http:\\www.undp.org

Email info@sgp-indonesia.org

First edition 2006Second edition 2007© Global Environment F acility Small Grants Programme Indonesia

This publication may be quoted, partly or wholly, in any form, foreducational or non-profitable purposes without prior permission as long asthe source is mentioned. The National Secretariat of GEF SGP Indonesiaappreciates the submission of copies of publication using this publicationas the reference.No commercial attempts of this publication may be allowed without specialpermission from The National Secretariat of GEF SGP Indonesia.

Cover photos: GEF SGP Indonesia documentationEditor & designer: Harijanto Suwarno

National Steering Committee

Bo Asplund (Resident RepresentativeUNDP CO Indonesia)Dr. Priyo Budi Sayoko (UNDP)Drs. Effendy A. Sumardja, MSc (KLH)Maria Hartiningsih (Kompas)Dr. Zainal Arifin, MSc (LIPI)Yani W icaksono (YBUL)Dr. Martha TilaarDr. Siti Nuramaliati Prijono (LIPI)Franciscus Welirang (PT Indofood SuksesMakmur Tbk.)Ismid Hadad (Kehati)Ita Natalia

National Coordinator

Avi Mahaningtyas

Program Assistants

Hery Budiarto - Program Finance &AdministrationDwi Lestari Rahardiani - Network &AdministrationCatharina Dwihastarini - SSGF & ProjectDevelopmentCarolina Monteiro - Knowledge Manage-ment

Global Environment FacilitySmall Grants ProgrammeIndonesia

Jalan Hang Lekir VIII/1, Kebayoran Baru,Jakarta 12120Telp. 62-21-7266341, Fax 62-21-7206125http:\\www.sgp-indonesia.org,http:\\www.undp.orgEmail info@sgp-indonesia.org

Community’sContributionto DevelopSustainableFuture

EXPERIENCES IN MANAGINGSMALL GRANTS FORTHE ENVIRONMENT

Editor ’s NoteThe book is a piece of the big mosaic of knowledge management devel-oped by GEF SGP Indonesia to support local initiatives for global environ-mental change.The author are indebted to the support of GEF-SGP Indonesia’s NationalSteering Committee, the hard work of all the National Secretariat’s members, inparticular the direction and guidance of the National Coordinator, A viMahaningtyas, and input from former Program Assistants Ery Damayanti andWayan Dirgayusa.Other pieces of the mosaic have been laid by partners – NGOs and civil societygroups - in problem identification and program monitoring and evaluation. Thebook draws on the results of the intensive research into partners’ inputs, whichwas coordinated by Ida Ronauli and Tedjo Wahyu, who also helped design theanalytical framework, as well as input from so many GEF-SGP Indonesia’spartners that this publication cannot mention one by one.A network of thinkers and further cooperation is needed to extendthe picture ofknowledge contained in this book. Any contribution – suggestions, lessons,ideas, and even dreams – sent to the editors and the Secretariat by individualsconcerned about environmental conservation will clearly show that the movementdoes exist. The most important thing is that civil society’s contributation hasbecome clearer, demonstrating that a massive power is hidden there, and thatthe future of the environment and life lies in people’s hands.

EditorHarijanto SuwarnoBogor , August 2006

Table of Content

Foreword by

UNDP Resident Representative in Indonesia - 1

Introduction

Solving Global Environmental Problems withSmall Grants Funds? - 2

GEF SGP Indonesia Through the Years - 4Focal Areas & Operational Programs - 5

Selling Micro Hydro Power - 6

Energy - 7Revitalization of Micro Hydro Power Plant - 8Electricity for Nature Reserve - 10

Pico Hydro - 12

Organic Waste Composting - 12Energy Efficient Stove - 13

Solar Thermal Dryer - 14

Solar Tunnel Dryer - 15

Dry Land Organic Farming by Pesantren - 15Replanting Coastal Area - 16

Dry Land Democracy - 17

Conservation and Community Ecotourism - 17Fruit Garden Project in Unproductive Land - 18

Biodiversity in Unproductive Land - 19

Rural Ecotourism Network - 22

Park Guide Training - 22Conservation for Local Community Development - 23

Community Forestr y in Conservation Area - 24

Mount Palung National Park - 24West Bali National Park - 25

Integrated Organic Farming - 27

Self-documentation for Traditional Knowledge and Sustain-able Resources Management - 29

Modern Conservation within Cultural Frame-work - 30

Semangat Baru - 39Mangrove - 42Mangrove Rehabilitation Learning Center - 44

Community Based Biodiversity in Bintuni Bay - 45

Survivors-based Redevelopment of Coastal Ecosystems andLivelihoods - 47

Coral Reefs - 50Community-based Coral Reefs Conservation - 50

Coral Reefs Restoration & Aquarium Fish Trade - 51Conservation of Local Durian - 56

Semi natural Butterfly Breeding - 57

Forest - 59Meratus Forest Biodiversity - 59

Monsoon Forest Conservation - 60

Pond Conservation - 62

Marsh Lake Conservation - 63

Impact of Mercury to Health and Environment - 64

Living Fence & Jungle School - 66

Partners of GEF SGP Indonesia - 70

COLUMNS

Community-Based Participatory Programs:Necessity or Obligation? - 36

Retiring with the People - 54

NGO’s Position in Changes - 68

BOXESSeeking Credits with Contract - 11Post-harvest processing - 14Project Evaluation & Reporting - 20Direct Grants to CBOs - 26Community-based Commercial Company - 53Community’s Product Marketing - 56Monsoon Forest - 60Planning Grants - 63Visual Proposal - 66

1

Communities across the developing world areat the frontlines of global efforts to protectthe environment. They are often the mostvulnerable to the impact of environmental

degradation and global warming. But they also play aleading role in finding local solutions to managingnatural resources in a more sustainable manner. Thisis the core premise of the Global Environment Facility(GEF) Small Grants Programme, managed by theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Todate, this programme has supported over 8,000projects in over 100 countries supporting communityaction to protect biodiversity, reverse land degrada-tion, and promote the use of renewable energy.

In Indonesia, the GEF Small Grants Programme hassince 1994 disbursed USD 3.6 million through 221community projects across the country. Communitieshave successfully raised co-financing to scale up theiractivities and many have pioneered innovative ap-proaches to environmental conservation. This commu-nity-generated knowledge is now filtering up to policymakers helping to strengthen national efforts to

Foreword

promote sustainable development.UNDP is proud to present this compilation of notes andreflections from communities, practitioners and schol-ars who have been actively involved in the GEF SmallGrants Programme over the past decade here inIndonesia. This collection of experiences and knowl-edge will help policy makers and development work-ers understand better the realities on the ground andthe power of community action. It will also serve as asource of inspiration for other communities who want tojoin the global movement to save the environment.

Jakarta, 5 June 2007

Bo Asplund

UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Repre-sentative in Indonesia

Member of National Steering Committee of the GEFSmall Grants Programme

32

Throughout my ten years of work in small grantsfunds management, for both bilateral andmultilateral development programs, I have found

out that in a lot of discussions participants are busythinking over and formulating answers to fundamentalquestions such as, “ To what extent do small grantsprograms generate impacts on the environment andthe quality of people’s lives?”, “How do we measure aproject’s successes and failures?”, “What is theproportion of the successes and the failures?”, “Whatevidence do we have for their impacts and benefits”.Guidance in delivery methods have been developed insuch a way that they can be carried out by the targetedpeople and their facilitating NGOs. How to ensureproject’s success and at the same time reduce the risk ofmismanagement are anticipated through participatoryplanning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Anec-dotes, videos, photos taken before, during and after theactivities as well as basic statistics are presented todemonstrate that the project and the program have

indeed been implemented in accordance with the fundingconditions. While these are quite impressive and advo-cated by many, scientists and donors keep questioning theaccuracy of the measuring methods and the indicatorsused to measure the impacts.Further questions to be addressed are: who shoulddetermine if the planned impacts have been achieved?Who will enjoy and ‘pay’ the social and ecological costs ofchanges in attitudes that are in accordance with environ-mental sustainability and poverty alleviation? Whatenabling factors are needed so that small grants pro-grams can achieve their goals? This introduction aims tointroduce experiences and lessons learnt from activitiessupported by GEF SGP through its facilitation of fundingsince 1992. It serves as an effort to document evolvingknowledge in a more honest way and by no meansrepresents a concluding statement or a set recipe forsuccessful small grants program management. It is hopedthat this book can enrich insights, debates and discourse

Introduction

Solving Global Environmental Prob-lems with Small Grants Fund?

about the role of small grants in encouraging change insocial and environmental behaviors.

Due to many reasons, only a few impressions and reflec-tions of the experiences of the at least 170 partners can becompiled. Many organizations have been closed or havemoved without notification of their new location. Projectfailures have often not been documented well. Peoplehave been unable to provide inputs as they have not beenengaged in a given program from the beginning to theend, so that they know little about the overall activitiesand the kinds of support. Weak knowledge managementsystems have led to poor storage of data and information.GEF SGP Indonesia itself, from the beginning to the end ofthe second operational program (1992-2003), had noformal policies on conducting post-project studies.

In 2004, GEF SGP Indonesia conducted an ex-post study –a reflection study on the sites and communities previouslysupported by GEF SGP. Four sites were chosen to obtain apicture of both the positive and the negative impacts. Aseries of measuring questions was designed, and a broadrange of academics and experts in community develop-ment, anthropology, the environment and developmentcooperation were approached to provide answers to thesequestions. The study revealed that a mangrove projectfailed in North Sumatra due to misuse of authority andfunds, but succeeded in another area not supported byGEF SGP. An agro-biodiversity management project failedleaving not a single tree on the site, and not a singleindividual in East Kalimantan even remembered theproject. Projects supporting micro-hydro were consideredsuccessful due to the leadership that benefited thecommunity in West Java. An environment-based regionalplanning process in Bintuni failed to deliver its goals butopened the way to broader district planning. Do all theresults of the studies reflect improvement to the respectiveregion’s quality and environment? Who can decide on theadvantages and disadvantages of the projects?

In 2005, GEF SGP started to apply national and globalprogram indicators accompanied by a series of moremeasurable key achievements. Not only does GEF SGPcarry its environmental sustainability mandate as part ofthe international community’s contribution, but it alsocarries the UN’s mandate to ensure that by 2010 povertyshould be reduced to 50% globally. Measurements of

project impacts and national programs are aligned toensure that all the supported projects should embrace theelements of democracy, participation, innovation, cleanenergy use, improved people’s economy based onsustainable natural resource management, improvedgender equality and justice, and improved marginalpeople’s access to decision-making process related tointegrated ecosystem management. Many universal goalsand values can be added to the list. All must be achievedat the minimum expense possible as the funding isrelatively small. Simply put, it must be cost-efficient andtime-efficient (i.e. achieving the goals in the shortestpossible time). People’s direct contribution as a symbol ofownership and respect for local knowledge becomes oneof the prerequisites and risk-reducing tools. Does ittherefore follow that the objectives and the risk-reducingmeasures can be used to generate sustainable, influen-tial, effective and replicable projects? Can GEF SGP’sprogram be said to be a success or a failure?

From the supported proposals and projects, theSecretariat Team with the support of the NationalSteering Committee and voluntary experts and net-works, made pro-active efforts to approach innovativeinitiatives, helped develop activities through participa-tory planning, and encouraged on-time and purpose-driven implementation of strategic projects. Withoutvoluntary principles and networking, the programwould not demonstrate uniqueness and differences inresponsive small grants management with propor-tional operational costs below 25% of the annual grantfunding, which can in total reach US$600,000.

Problem-solving efforts and breakthroughs, whichshould be continuously made, include reconciling thegaps: between local and global environmental prob-lem understanding; in power relationships betweenfunding institutions and grantees; between hopes andreality; and between international funding institutions’priorities and people’s hopes for improved lives andenvironmental quality.

Avi MahaningtyasNational Coordinator

GEF SGP Indonesia

54

Focal Areas &Operational Programs

Biodiversity

Coastal, Marine and Fresh-water Ecosystem

Forest Ecosystem

Mountain Ecosystem

Land DegradationSustainable Land Manage-ment

International Waters

Waterbody-based opera-tional program

Integrated land and watermultiple focal area operationalprogram

Contaminant based program

Climate Change

Removal of Barriers to EnergyEfficiency and Energy Conservation

Promoting the Adoption of Renew-able Energy by Removing Barriersand Reducing ImplementationCosts

Climate Change Related to LandDegradation Issues

Persistent Organic Pollutants

Draft Elements of an OperationalProgramme for Reducing andEliminating Releases of PersistentOrganic Pollutants into the Environ-ment

GEF SGP Indonesia has notadopted POP operational program.

Kalimantan5% - 0% - 8% - 0%

Sulawesi6% - 9% - 31% - 31%

Papua2% - 0% - 0% - 0%

Bali & Nusa Tenggara13% - 43% - 15% - 0%

Grant Distribution inPilot Phase - Operational Phase I - OP II - OP III

Phase III

Biodiversity - 56% Multi Focal Areas - 32% Climate Change - 6% Land Degradation - 6%

peoples, women and other vulner-able groups struggling to exerciseaccess to and control over naturalresources essential to their survival.The programme prioritizesSumatra and small islands as itsgeographical and thematic issuesin restoring critical ecosystems. In2004, GEF SGP Indonesia pio-neered the use of video proposalsto reach out to isolated communi-ties and establish base line data.This has enabled a number ofisolated and vulnerable communi-

ties to participate in the Pro-gramme while respecting their ownways of life and use of knowledgeand local language. With assist-ance from the South South GrantsFacility and F ord Foundation, theProgramme responded to commu-nity requests for help in rebuildingtheir lives by applying environmen-tally friendly reconstruction andrehabilitation approaches in Acehand Yogyakarta following theDecember 2004 tsunami and theMay 2006 earthquake.

GEF SGP Indonesia through the Years

4Opening Phase

Biodiversity Conservation - 100 %

Sumatra10% - 26% - 11% - 38%

The Global Environment Facility -Small Grants Program (GEF/

SGP) is a multilateral programlaunched during the 1992 EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.The main aim of the programme isto support community-basedinitiatives that help improve theglobal environment through localactions implementing the UNconventions on Biological Diversityand Climate Change. Y ayasanBina Usaha Lingkungan hasserved as the national host institu-tion since 1996 in collaborationwith the UNDP CO, the Ministry ofEnvironment and the GEF NationalFocal Point.

GEF SGP Indonesia is managed bya National Coordinator thatexecutes the strategic direction setby a National Steering Committeeconsisting of members from civilsociety organizations, indigenouspeoples, government, the privatesector and researchers. Each of theNSC members has professionalexpertise that they contributedvoluntarily to the programme. GEFSGP Indonesia has providedsupport to grassroots movements inconser vation of biodiversity,mitigating the impacts of climatechange, halting land degradation

and reducing pollution of interna-tional waters. GEF SGP Indonesiahas integrated the MillenniumDevelopment Goals into its projectconceptualization and implementa-tion to better assist communityefforts in sustainable managementof critical ecosystems.GEF SGP Indonesia started with aPilot Phase (October 1992 – June1996), followed by OperationalPhase 1 (July 1996 – December1998), OP 2 (January 1999 –February 2004). It is currentlyclosing its OP 3 (2004-2007). GEFSGP Indonesia has disbursed morethan 3.6 million USD to 221 commu-nity-based projects across Indone-sia. The programme mobilized 2.8million USD in co-financing throughcommunity contributions andpartnership with other donors.Small grants range from 2,000 -

50,000 USD with support lastingfrom 2 to 24 months and grantsaveraging 25,000 USD per project.The programme places a highpriority on establishing directpartnerships with community-basedorganizations and their supportingnon-government organizations.Community contribution andownership is translated through 1:1co-financing in cash and in kind. Inmost cases the community’s contri-bution exceeded the amount of thegrant.During the implementation of OP 3,the National Steering Committeeendorsed a shift toward improve-ment of GEF SGP Indonesia’sservices to reach out to indigenous

Phase II

Biodiversity - 74 %

Climate Change - 19% Multi Focal Areas - 7%Phase I

Biodiversity Conservation - 82% Multi Focal Areas - 10% Climate Change - 6% International Waters - 2%

Java61% - 22% - 31% - 31%

76

Selling Micro HydroPowerLocation

Seloliman, East JavaPartner, Project Duration & Costs

KSM Peduli Seloliman1998-2000 - US$8,341Konsorsium Seloliman2000-2002 - US$27,388Paguyuban PLTM Kalimaron Seloliman2002-2004 - US$27,000

It has long been predicted thatIndonesia will face anenergy crisis. One of the

problems is the national distributionnetwork for electricity, the failure ofwhich led to a blackout throughoutJava and Bali in 2005. It is thereforequite surprising to learn that the MicroHydro Power (PLTM) of Kali Maronsold half of its production to PLN(National Electricity Company), whichis in charge of the distribution. Whydid PLTM sell to the troubled network?In fact, is not decentralized powerproduction the solution to suchfailures?

6

Several hundred years ago, apublic bath in Jolotundo, an areaat the base of PenanggunganMountain, was constructed duringthe reign of King Airlangga. Sincethat time, it has received roughlythe same amount of water. In the1990s the flow decreased drasti-cally as the upstream Perhutani-

The sale gave PLTM a monthlyincome of Rp4,000,000 comparedwith the previous monthly income ofRp800,000 for the whole community.The other half of the electricityproduction is used by the community.However, profit was not the reasonbehind the sale. It was to show thatmicro hydro power might contribute tofulfil the electricity needs of Java andBali.

The collaborative initiative of thelocal people and PPLH Seloliman –the association of PLTM Kali Maron) –to spread this self-sustained and self-managed initiative to other areas stillfaces a number of obstacles. Largeinitial investment (Rp350 millions) isneeded to contruct a micro hydroplant. Efforts to cooperate with localgovernments to construct such a plantin the region of Mojokerto wereterminated when a regulation waspassed prohibiting all regionalgovernments from cooperating withfoundations or NGOs.

managed forest was illegallylogged to its last tree. Community-driven reforestation and manage-ment have been able to restore theflow to the bath, which is said tohave a remarkable rejuvenating

effect. The micro hydro plant hasmade it easier for the local peopleto understand the hydrologicalcycle. Deforestation has conse-quences: unstable electric gen-eration due to decreasing streamflow.

Eventually, the governmentdecided to disclose the energy

crisis to public. Intentionally or not,the new policy on gas supply quota,effective from July 2005 was arather good campaign. Soonafterwards, PLN called for thereduction of electricity use duringthe peak hours to the minimum 50Watts per person. Even governmen-tal officials were requested to takeoff their jackets in the office andswitch of f the AC to lower the load.Surveys are needed to ensure thatthe policy has indeed been effec-tive. Questions should be asked ofwho are the largest end-users ofelectricity , households or industry,private cars or factories; and howsignificant the reduction has been.Efforts to develop Indonesia’s

EnergY diverse non-fossil fuel alternativeshave long been in place; however,the application is still poor. People’slow capacity to adapt to new ideas(innovation) has often been referredto as the reason for poor uptake ofalternative power systems. Pricehas also been said to be one of themajor obstacles. But, it is not quiteright to say that people cannota fford to pay for energy. From theafternoon to midnight one can heara “symphony” of gensets in remotevillages. We can calculate howmuch the genset costs and howmuch the people must spend onfuel to run the genset.As a matter of fact, most villages arebuilt close to rivers. The rivers holda huge continuous kinetic powersupply. Imagine how much eco-nomic benefit could be provided inarid areas if agricultural land couldbe become productive again by

GEF SGP Indonesia \ Harijanto Suwarno

7

98

times and crises, revitalisingthe power plant to revitalizetrust and introduce cohesionback to the community.Abah Anom also has beenthe sole decision maker formost of the issues in thecommunity. He decided the

amount of traditional fines chargedfor violation of traditional customs,and when to have circumcisionparties for their boys. He alsodecided how much the communityshould pay for the electricity.The cheap price is an importantfactor that makes the communityenthusiastic to maintain the plant.The other factor is the strong leader-ship of Abah Anom. However, fromthe beginning of the project, trainingshave helped some local techniciansto learn how to run the plant.

Project ImpactThe main output of the project is therevitalization of the damaged powerplant, improvement of communitylivelihoods, and improving efforts ofthe community to maintain the forests,reducing the use of fossil fuels, and inthe long run helping to improve theglobal environment.The revitalization has been succesful.However, the full benefits of access toelectricity are not enjoyed by most ofthe population. Most use of theelectricity is lighting. Only one familyuses it to power a freezer to produceice. The power consumed by thecommunities is still very low com-pared to the capacity of the plant.The monthly payment records showthat only seven kilowatts of energyare used, 10% of the plant capacity.However, many customers useelectricity without reporting their use.Even so, use of kerosene for most ofcommunity members and diesel fuel

for Abah Anom’s electric generatorhas been reduced to almost zero.And the fuel needed for transportingin kerosene from the nearest town isno longer needed.

The most significant outcome is theincrease in student’s performance,because they can study longer atnight with better lighting. Theexpected outcome of the increasingeconomic activities (ice making, woodwork, garment and embroidery) orimproved livelihood in general is notyet visible. Improved flow of informa-tion into the community —as expectedto happen at the beginning of theproject—is not significantly felt either,as TV’s can only be turned on in theevening when mostly entertaintmentprograms can be watched.Some unexpected outcomes however,have occured, such as increasing thepolitical legitimacy of Abah Anomand the “inner circle” of people in thecommunity. A leadership stylecentered on several key persons mayendanger the long term sustainabilityof the community and its develop-ment. It will sustain development ifthe leader who holds the ultimatepower is not corrupt, which until nowis the case. Abah Anom, despite theultimate power that he has, uses thepower to serve the community.The project helped the community tobetter understand forest conservation.The community realizes that the morethe forest is cut, the more fluctuationof the water stream that feeds thepower plant. The Banten Kasepuhancommunities have set up a nursery forhardwood trees, as well as establish-ing and participating in forestpatrols. The illegal deforestationwhich still happens in the NationalPark is mostly conducted by outsid-ers.

Revitalization of MicroHydro Power PlantLocation

Sirnarasa, Sukabumi, West JavaPartner

People-based Business & EconomicInstitute (Ibeka)Project Duration & Costs

1998-1999 SGP Indonesia: US$49,946.5;Co-financing: US$ 44,552.6 (community& Ibeka)

Derived from the ex-post study by Taufiq Alimiin association with Department of Anthropol-ogy, the University of Indonesia.

In this project, the community andIbeka practically rebuilt theabandoned power generator and

infrastructure. The power plant was

Most customers use the electricity forlimited lighting (5 watts), some fortelevision or radio.

Project SustainabilityEcologyThe sustainability of the projectcannot be separated from theecological conditions of Sirnarasawhich is located inside HalimunNational Park. Most people in thearea are highland farmers. Rice isthe main source of income, besidesfish ponds and vegetable gardening.Almost all parts of Sirnarasa can bereached by four wheel drive or lighttrucks. The center of the village liesabout 20 kilometers from the districtcapitol, Pelabuhan Ratu. This is oneof the external factors that hastriggered logging in the area, mostlyillegal. However, the environment ingeneral is in good condition. ThePark forest guarantees the stability ofwater supplying the micro hydro.

SocialThe village is a traditional communityunder the leadership of Abah Anom.Abah Anom holds responsibility forimproving the livelihood of thecommunity, and the micro hydroinitiative is one such means to helpthe community.The initiative of Ibeka to revitalize thepower plant was seen as a chance tohelp the community through tough

initially constructed by the localgovernment in cooperation withBandung Institute for Technology(ITB), which was accomplished inone year, and had been operatingever since except in the dryestmonths. The peole had been trainedto operate, maintain, and run theadministrations as well.

BackgroundNational CrisisIn 1997-1998 when the planning andimplementation of the project tookplace, the country was suffering fromthe crises affected the livelihood ofcommunities, even in a remote placeas the project site on Mount Halimun,not only the economics and politics,but also shook the very social fabric.Under such circumstances, the furtherdevelopment of the project was notpossible. Government was unable toprovide basic infrastructure forbetterment of communities’ livelihood.Trust of the society in the governmentwas at its lowest. People were left ontheir own. In this situation, many NGOstook more initiatives and bigger rolesin developing communities throughvarious projects. Initatives to improvelivelihoods included some good andproductive initiatives, but sometimes itled to more destructive behaviors.Deforestation—legally and illegally—was peaking. Some national parks

and protected areas were looted.Such situation worsened the livelihoodof community members depend on theforests. Forests provided sources ofliving through the land for their farmsand water irrigation for paddy fields.Alteration of social and economicsystems had led to impoverishment inrural as well as urban areas.

Here Comes the PowerThe traditional rules of BantenKasepuhan do not allow communitymembers to sell rice, and they have tocook using firewood. Before the microhydro power system was established,community members used kerosenepressure lamps or kerosene lanterns.Each household consumed roughlyone liter of kerosene per night. AbahAnom had a diesel generator whichconsumed around 20-25 liter dieselfuel per night which provided electric-ity to dozens of houses.The maximum capacity of Sirnarasamicro hydro power plant is 70 kilo-watts. The plant runs only duringevening, and occasionally in daytime.The power plant is fed by a onekilometer canal. The canal takeswater from a river into a pipe generat-ing 30 meters head of pressure. Undernormal operation, the water is able togenerate 40-50 Kwatt of electricity.The direct beneficiaries of the projectare about 360 household subscribersto the electricity from four hamlets.

adequate water supplyfrom well pumps poweredby the wind or the sun,whose energy for electricityproduction has rarely beenutilized so far.Governmental and re-search institutions have yetto contribute to impact-generating activities. Thegrowing talks on environmentally-friendly energy among NGOs arepartly due to its popularity in thesociety. The people are, in fact,willing to adopt alternative tech-nologies if it supports their basicneeds.With all the successes and thefailures, the introduction to alterna-tive energy by SGP Indonesia’spartners has taught a lot of lessons.

EX-POST STUDY

GEF SGP Indoneia \ Taufiq Alimi

1110

Few NGO/CBOs get bank funding (credits) for theirprograms. Intitiatives to seek co-financing or emer-gency funding while waiting for the disbursement of agrant have yet to develop. The process is indeed notthat simple. Yayasan Pribumi Alam Lestari (YPAL),whose grant disbursement was delayed, made threeattempts to get bank credits; all ended in vain.The first reason for the rejection was because theproject funding came from foreign donors. If theforeign funding was not made available, the bank wasafraid of being unable to “chase” UNDP, although ithad a representative office in Jakarta. The secondreason was because it was a social project, the bank

felt reluctant to confiscate the collateral should thedebtor be unable to pay off the loan. The third reasonwas that the project site, the implementing organiza-tion, and donor representative office were not locatedin the same area as the bank. Nevertheless, YPALeventually succeeded in getting an individual loan sothe project could be continued. The microhydrosystem was installed and inaugurated by the Head ofthe Regency in early 2006. The community center, avillage market and office of head of village use theelectricity along with 60 houses. The Head of theRegency has plans to replicate microhydro in othervillages using the local government budget.

Seeking credits with Contract

GEF SGP Indonesia \ YPA L

Electricity for Nature ReserveLocation

Cibuluh, Cianjur, West JavaPartner

Yayasan Pribumi Alam LestariProject Duration & Costs

2003-2004 US$44,338

More than half of the community of Cidaun Sub-district, Cianjur District, in particular thoseliving in the mountain area bordering forest

lands are yet to enjoy electricity services. Many people-driven efforts have been made to produce electricity,including the use of diesel generators (gensets) – mostof which were abandoned due to high operationalcosts. Some of the people get electricity for their housesfrom the neighboring village. The electricity is transmit-ted through more than 2-km of telephone wire. Someothers have established traditional water powerplants, using motor-cycle dynamos attached to woodenwheels that are driven by stream flow. The capitalneeded amounts to Rp1.5 million (US$160) with themonthly maintenance costs are Rp40,000 ($5 for spare

parts and canalmaintenance). It

is a relativelyexpensive

project given thesmall output, of

50-150 Watts. Moreover, itis unsafe. 6 deaths havebeen reported due toelectrocution. There arenearly 600 waterwheels inthe area. As the watersource is a shared public

resouce, struggles over access towater to run the turbines arecommon during the dry season.It was no surprise that the peoplewelcomed with open arms YayasanPribumi Alam Lestari’s (YPAL)inititative to establish a microhydro power plant in 2003. At thebeginning there were some doubtsabout such a plant as it was notmade by PLN (National ElectricityCompany), and because twoneighboring villages had badexperiences with outsiders attempt-ing to help them establish microhydro facilities. . An initiative toestablish a micro hydro powerplant in Batuireng by Poklan,supported by SGP Indonesia, wascanceled. In Mekarjaya, theDepartment of Energy’s micro hydroproject, implemented by theprovincial government in coopera-tion with LPM of IPB (Bogor Agricul-tural Institute), has been aban-doned.YPAL first came to Cibuluh in 1998to do some observation work on theJavan hawk (Spizaetus bartelsii).In 2000 YPAL introduced agricul-tural species adapted to hard soilsto some villages in Cidaun Sub-district and facilitated the formula-tion of a Village Regulation onforest conservation. To enforce the

regulation, the people formedRaksa Bumi Forest Patrol Team.Timber theft was rampant in theforest, which is part of GunungSimpang Reserve.

Although the official number of teammembers was fifty, a lot of the peopleparticipated in the operations to stopillegal logging due to the injusticeimposed on them. They were notallowed to log in the forest, butillegal logging was rampant, backedby the reserve officers. In 2005participation in the logging patrolsbegan to fade as the promise tobring electricity to the area had notbeen fulfilled.In accordance with the MOU, SGPIndonesia’s grant was to bedisbursed in four stages, fromNovember 2004 to May 2006. Thefirst disbursement was only real-ized only in April 2005, the secondin late December 2005. Theworkshop responsible for makingof the turbine refused to continuecompleting the turbine. Almost fivemonths went by without progress.The people were once morehaunted by the failures of theprojects in Batuireng andMekarjaya. The project manage-ment committee established inCibuluh received much pressurefrom the people. Unable to stand

Traditional wooden power turbine.Raksa Bumi forest patrol.

the pressure, one of the members,who trades in ginger, gave up hisworking capital (Rp10 million orUS1,100) for building materialsand workers’ expenses to continuethe canal construction. Localpeople, who had been neutral orsupportive, started to oppose theproject. The awareness raised toencourage self-sustenance duringthe socialization seemed to fadeaway.

1110

1312

Pico HydroLocation

Cianjur & Bandung, West Javapartner

Forest Conservationist Association(Poklan)Project Duration & Costs

2001-2002 - US$25,000

In the beginning the project wasgranted a financial commitmentfrom USAID, private enterprises

and SGP Indonesia. Along withcommunity self-financing, five pico-hydro power plants were to beestablished for five villages inCianjur District and BandungDistrict. Water was abundant in theareas. Also, physical work was notvery hard as there were alreadysome irrigation canals.However, by the end of the projectonly one power plant was estab-lished, namely in Garung hamlet.The funding, amounting to Rp140millions, came from Y ayasan BinaUsaha Lingkungan. USAID’sfunding commitment for the projectwas not realized. SGP Indonesiaalso delayed the payment of thecommitted grant, which would be

Energy Efficient StoveLocation

The villages of Selomanik,Wadaslintang, and Ngalian,Wonosobo District, Central Java

Partner

Yayasan Konservasi LingkunganProject Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$15,125

Located in a volcanic mountainarea, the district of Wonosoboand the surroundings are very

fertile. Poverty and bad regionalmanagement seem to race eachother for the title of the leadingcause of environmental degrada-tion. The people are often blamedfor deforestation. Forest dependentpeople in the production forestarea managed by Perhutani saythat the forest was looted by thosewho should have protected andmanaged it.

The projectaimed atpromotingenergyefficientstoves inSelomanikand

On the other hand, the projectapproach, which aimed at thepeople’s engagement from thebeginning, yieded a very positiveresult. The people conducted a seriesof experiments to make the stove outof different materials (i.e. differentcomposition of soil and sand). Someeven attempted to make one out ofash and husks.Introduction of a new concept ortechnology – such as the energyefficient stove – will yield greaterresponses if it is combined withanother program. Such an introduc-tion should also make approachesclosest to the target’s actual needs.Stoves are much closer to economicand health issues than to forestryones, let alone policy advocacy.Empirical experience shows thatthe stoves can decrease the use offirewood by 30%, and cooking timeby 1-2 hours per day. One of thefacilitated groups formed a jointbusiness group producing crystalsugar and cassava chips. Thetrend has effectively motivatesothers to take other initiatives. Thenother groups flourish making otherprocessed foods based on plantsthat they grow, such as ginger,providing new income as thepeople no longer have to sellunprocessed crops. Seeds of othersmall-sized enterprises have cometo grow, as indicated by thepurchase of raw materials fromother villages. More KUBs arebeing formed indicating thegrowing organizational awareness.

Organic WasteCompostingLocation

Tambak Kalisogo, Sidoarjo, EastJava

waste into compost. At the imple-mentation level, the collectorscooperated with the regionalgovernment – which passes policygranting waste managementconcessions to waste collectors –and private businesses – whichbuilt processing mills. The roles of

the collectors were to classify,operate the machines, and sell thecompost produced.

Despite some unfulfilled programsdue to a fuel price hike, in general,the project has succeeded in deliver-ing its goals. Generally, privatebusinesses are better than NGOs atcalculating funding risks.

Mitra

Yayasan Citra Bangun IndonesiaDurasi & Nilai Proyek

2002-2003 US$28,471

The project aimed atempowering garbagecollectors (pemulung ) to

separate and process organic

Ngalian villages to make the use offirewood for cooking more efficientand thus lessening pressure on theforest. The greatest obstacle facedby the program was related topsychology: how to shift the localpeople from their customs. Unlikethe conventional stoves, which aremade of stones in a simple struc-ture, the energy efficient stoves aremade of clay and sand. Previously,nobody could ever make oneleading to some delay in itsdevelopment and introduction. Inaddition, clay and sand do not lastas long as stone. Much more effortis needed to introduce the stovesand to explain their benefits in thelong term.At the beginning of the process, thepeople would rather have income-generating activities than attemptingto save firewood. They did not seeany relationship between conven-tional stoves and timber scarcity.Also, they could not understand thattime saved by using an efficient stovecould be used for more productiveactivities.To overcome the obstacles andmaterial-related problem, trainingwas organized for the local stonema-sons; however, only one eventuallysucceeded in making the energyefficient stove out of stone.

used to support community empow-erment and local institutionalbuilding.In fact, the project had been quitesuccessful in convincing the localpeople about the project. The people,who had been using traditionalpower plant (small waterwheelsdriven by motor cycle dynamos), werewilling to adopt a pico hydro powerplant. The management body hadbeen trained to operate and main-tain such a plant. The project alsooffered micro credits (e.g. for trade,cattle-raising, agrobusiness) in anattempt to entice the people to formthe body. This economic improvementprogram was quite successful at theintroduction and implementationlevel. However, it had yet to createmarket potential. There was frictionamong the people as not all peoplehad access to credit.With the cancellation of the pico-hydro power plant project, thepeople returned to their formerelectricity generating plants.Distrust of NGOs flourished. Theproject teaches us that buildingunderstanding of the values andthe benefits of a given project is alengthy process. Excessive aid inthe short term (e.g. credit) does notensure the establishement of asolid foundation.

Micro hydro power plants arecapable of generating between

5,000 and 100,000 Watts. Thereare several types of micro hydropower plant. Some are similar tothe large-scale water-poweredplants like the one used by PLN(National Electricity Company). Thescale of micro hydro power plantsallows construction in remote areasand low investment, which canoften be provided by the localpeople.Pico-hydro power plants aresmaller in size and capacity. Likemicro hydro plants, the price ofeach watt generated is higher thanthat of large-scale micro hydroplant such as run by PLN. However,pico-hydro plant -even more thanmicro hydro- allows some break-throughs deemed impossible inlarge-scale hydro plants. Forexample, pico-hydro generatorswith a capacity below 1,000 Wattweigh only 35 kgs, allowing it to betransported on motor cycles, theonly means of motorized transporta-tion in many remote areas ofIndonesia. Another benefit is thatthe maintenance is simple andeasy. It allows community-driven

power generation.

Micro hydro powerplant with horizontalturbine.

Pico-hydro power plantwith vertical propellers.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ K

olin

g

GEF SGP Indonesia \ Koling

1514

Solar Thermal DryerLocation

Lembah Subur Village, Rawa AopaWatumohai National Park, SoutheastSulawesiPartner

Yayasan SwamiProject Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$25,000

The main livelihood of thepeople of Lembah SuburVillage, who mostly are of Bugis

origin, living on the border of RawaAopa Watumohai National P ark, istraditional cocoa cultivation. The SwamiProject improved local post-harvestmanagement and successfully reducedthreats to the Park through making theexisting agricultural areas stable. Theextension program included picking,breaking, fermenting and drying. Dryingis a very important phase as the harvestalways takes place during the wetseason. One solution offered by theproject was the use of solar thermaldryers (STD).However, it turned out that STD was not anappropriate solution. 3 STD units werebuilt, each capable of drying harvest from10 hectares of cocoa gardens. The totalpeople’s cocoa gardens in the area in factamounted to 2,800 hectares. So, the designwas changed into drying ovens usingkerosene, which requires a much smallerinvestment and so that more cocoa could bedried at once. A hybrid solar/biomasssystem could potentially replace thekerosene ovens if it was based on localmaterials, inexpensive and simple tooperate and maintain.

Post-harvest processing,particularly in tropical countries,

is instrumental in determining theamount of people’s income. Inadvanced countries, post-harvestprocessing contributes up to 80%of the income generated fromagriculture, animal husbandry andfisheries. In developing countries,however, the contribution is muchless. To maximize the incomegenerated from investment in thesectors mentioned above, morecountries are turning to down-stream policies, i.e. efficiency inpost-harvest processing rather thanincreasing the harvests.In temperate countries, about fiveper cent of agricultural productionis lost due to fungus and insects.. Intropical countries the figure is saidto reach up to 70%! Most agricul-tural and fishery products in Indone-sia shrink by up to 40% due toimproper management and stor-age.However, post-harvest manage-ment is not merely reducing theamount of decay. Many post-harvettechnologies have been developed

to increase the product quality tomeet the market demand. Produc-ers do not have to sell the excess oftheir production cheaply as it canbe preserved by post harvestprocessing.Poor facilities and slow advance inpost-harvest technologies hindersmall producers from enteringglobal markets. On one hand, manymiddlemen offer loans to farmers tobuild drying places. On the otherhand, energy-hungry dryers areoften too expensive for smallfarmers.Apart from the fact that solar dryers,like the one introduced in Southand South East Sulawesi, have notbeen optimized yet, the introductionitself has brought about changes atcommunity level. More time is nowavailable for farmers to do otheractivities as they do not have towatch the commodity dried in theopen space. Also, the level ofwomen’s and housewives’ engage-ment in the program has beenincreasing, indicated by the estab-lishment of women’s managementgroups.

Post-harvest processing

Dry Land OrganicFarming by PesantrenLocation

Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara

Partner

Institute of Pesantren and CommunityDevelopment (LPPM)Project Duration & Costs

2003-2004 US$9,398

Jagaraga Village, located 20 kmfrom the capital city Mataram,has been known as the vegeta-

ble center supplying almost all thetraditional markets in the WestLombok. However, farmers’ income,which once reached up to Rp15million (US$1,500) monthly, wasdecreasing. Fertilizers and pesti-cide began to cost more and more.Fertilizer and pesticide needsincreased as the land lost itsfertility and pests were becomingimmune to pesticides. Still, theproduction kept decreasing. Chilliharvest reached 6.4 tons/ha in 2000and dropped to 5 tons/ha in thefollowing year. Prices were uncer-tain.

The project aimed at developingorganic farming to restore the soil’sfertility, increase production,reduce pest threats and plantdiseases and increase pricesthrough changes in planting cycles.Introduction to organic farming metno serious obstacles. It challengedsome long-established agricultural

practices but these problems wereeasily resolved. A more seriousobstacle, however, occurred afterthe harvest. Consumers were notwilling to pay a higher price fororganic products as the benefitshad not been well socialized.Marketing was not properlydeveloped from the beginning. Thepoor sales depressed the farmers.However, the unsatisfactory pricesgave birth to an innovative post-harvest initiative. The farmersattempted to gain some addedvalue by grinding the rice first andsold it as hulled rice instead ofunhulled rice as previouslypracticed.Introducing an innovation to farmersis more effective if followed by fieldpractices so that the farmers couldprove its benefit to themselves. Thishad proven true with the re-develop-ment of a local rice variety– the Beaqganggas – following success withother varieties.Selecting appropriate partners leadsto greater success of the program. Inthe project LP2M chose to cooperatewith Najmul Huda, a well-establishedfarmer group within Nurul Hakimpesantren (Islamic boarding school).Under such cooperation, grouppreparation was not needed. Internalconflicts could be resolved easily.This proved true when the inter-member cooperation ran poorly, theproblem was quickly resolved by theenforcement of its internal regulations(awik-awik), which imposed heavysanctions against violators.

Solar Tunnel DryerLocation

South SulawesiPartner

Institute of Vilage, Coastal and PeopleStudy (LP3M)Project Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$27,000

Like solar thermal dryer, thesystem offered by LP3Mmakes use of solar energy,

but the design of the oven isshaped like a tunnel. Comparedwith the natural drying processunder the sun, which may takeseveral days to complete, solartunnel dryer only takes 6-8 hours tocompletely dry crops (clove,vanilla, corn) and fishery products(anchovy, grouper).It turned out that the priority com-modities to be dried were cloves andvanilla, so the dryer was only fullyused during the main harvest of thesecommodities. To optimize the use ofthe dryers, efforts are needed topromote the drying of other commodi-ties which have different harvesttimes.

LP2M

Solar tunnel dryer

Yay

asan

Bin

a U

saha

Lin

gkun

gan

Solar thermal dryer

Hybrid solar andbiomass dryer .

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ L

PP

M

14

1716

GEF SGP INdonesia \ Avi Mahaningtyas

Dry Land DemocracyLocation

Mekarsari, Cilacap, Central JavaPartner

Rapid Agrarian Conflict Appraisal(RACA) InstituteProject Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$22,000

As in many cases in Java, aproblem faced by farmers istheir low capacity in resolving

conflicts with outsiders. In fact, this iswhat facilitating NGOs see: the needto increase famers’ institutionalcapacity. On the other hand, RACAfully recognizes the significance oflocal economic needs.The drought that struck MekarsariVillage was very worrying. The soildried out and cracked to a depth of20 cms. The only source of water – theCikawung River – flows below theagricultural land and sinks evenlower during a long drought. Asolution to overcome the problem andto optimize the management of theagricultural land is to have wind-powered water pumps given thepotential of wind energy in the area.However, the water generated wasnot as much as predicted, partlybecause the pumps were made ofused materials. Some of the pumpparts were not locally available,making the repair a very difficulttask. Farmers again rented dieselpumps to irrigate the land.

Despite this, the wind-powered waterpumps generated positive impacts onthe local social life. The location ofthe pumps served as the discussionplaces for the farmers. Group workalso steered away the perception –commonly held by the regionalgovernment - that farmers had noorganizational capacity.

A coastal area encompassing300 hectares, 50 hectares ofwhich are located in

Jangkaran, belongs to SultanGround. The people can utilize theland freely . However, the geo -graphical conditions do not allowpoor people to use it for their ownsake. Prior to the 1980s, the landwas rich in trees and was thehabitat of diverse bird species.Gradually , the land became arid

Conservation and Peo-ple-based EcotourismLocation

Mahakam, East KalimantanPartner

Yayasan Biosfer Manusia (Bioma)Project Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$20,000

The majority of Dayak peoplesalong the Mahakam Rivercontinue to practice tradi-

tional management of their naturalresources. One example that is wellrecorded in anthropologicalliterature is community-managedforests that preserve the socio-economic, ecological and culturalvalues of the forest.

This SGP supported project was toenhance the participation of thelocal community and otherstakeholders in the development ofa community-managed conserva-

and sand shield species(pandanus, glirisidia, cemaraudang), followed by the develop-ment of secondary crop garden toincrease the local income. Improve-ment in the people’s welfare was tobe achieved through revolving cowraising program. The cow penswere grouped to ease biogasproduction.

However, the prices of secondarycrops suitable to grow there – redchilli and cassava – fluctuated.The program needs to be modifiedto develop self-funding activities.The relatively high cost of wellsand wind-powered pumps hasstopped program expansion toother groups.

due to the wind from theSouth Sea, carrying saltthat kileed the trees.

Yaperindo programaimed at increasing thelocal people’s incomethrough an integratedfarming system and theintroduction of alterna-

tive energy generation. It aimd atrehabilitating the coastal forest tofunction as a wind-break along theregion of Congot, as well asoperating a biogas unit and wind-powered water pumps.To restore the vegetation, a numberof wells were dug, equipped withwind-powered pumps to bring thewater to the surface. Re-greeningstarted with the planting of wind

Replanting Coastal AreaLocation

Jangkaran, JogjakartaPartner

The Foundation of Indonesia People EconomicDevelopment (Yaperindo)

Project Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$35,500

tion area to cater for ecotourismand sustainable resource use.

The community's dependence onwood extraction since the 1970'stimber boom was the main chal-lenge for the local community torediscover their old traditions inusing forest resources sustainably.Access to site was expensive, andmore funding was needed toimplement intensive communityfacilitation. The provision offunding by other donors did notmaterialize before SGP's supportfinished. The NGO should havetaken action to secure other fundsto avoid the problem of discontinu-ation of funding. There was norecord of it approaching otherdonors or local government tosupport the continuation of theproject, for example through thelocal government budget for WestKutai regency. If continued, theinitiative could have become analternative source of income for thelocal community and the regency.

1918

Fruit Garden Project inUnproductive LandLocation

Loa Bakung, Samarinda, EastKalimantan

Partner

Tembak Maris Foundation (YTM)Project Duration & Costs

1998-1999 SGP Contribution :::::US$9,709. Co-financing (Yayasan BinaUsaha Lingkungan): : : : : US$1,006

Derived from ex-post study by AchmadF edyani Saifuddin & Iwan Tjitradjaja with theDepartment of Antropology, University ofIndonesia.

The goal of the project wassutilizing unproductive land todevelop a fruit garden for

agro tourism, managed by localpeople. The location, Loa Bakungvillage, is in the vicinity ofSamarinda, the capital of EastKalimantan province. Hopefully thiswill attract tourists from the city .The grantee, Yayasan TembakMaris (YTM), have chosen tofacilitate the P al Besi community,one of about 70 communities in LoaBakung. Almost all of the 40households were Butonese mi-grants. They moved to Samarindain late 1970s, then transmigrated to

Loa Bakung village in 1980. TheButonese community in Loa Bakungwas selected because their loweconomic condition supposedlymade them hard workers. Theirtendency to live in ethic groupswould make the YTM task tofacilitate them easier because itwould not be necessary to contacteverybody in the community, justtheir leaders.

The first phase of the project,March 1998 - March 1999, was notsuccessfully implemented. No fieldactivities were carried out. Landclearing and seed plantingtraining were not performed.Facing termination of the contract,YTM reshuffled their projectorganization personnel. And theypaid K elompok Tani Karya Mandiri(KTKM) members from Pal Besi toclear five hectares of unproductiveland. But according to the people’sconcerns, they didn’t understandwhether they will be allowed towork that land on a long timebasis. They worked because theywere payed. Actually, they were lowincome people who rely on day today earnings.YTM considered the continuation asthe second phase of the projectimplementation. They recognized

that their first phase failure wascaused by mismanagement, lesscontrolling capability upon theirown personnel who were responsi-ble for handling project in the field,and lack of monitoring from thefunding institution.During April 1999 - January 2000YTM succeeded to pursue andfacilitate the KTKM to clear up 8-9unproductive hectares of 14hectares of lands in Loa Bakungallocated for the fruit gardenproject. Workers were were paidRp.35,000 per day (US$3.00).About 16 varieties of fruit treeswere supposed to be planted,including rambutan, melinjo,durian, sukun, cempedak, guavaand mango. YTM complained thatit was very hard to find rare fruitseeds. Then, to use the landmaximally they also planted short-term mixed plants such as corn andginger between the rows of fruitplants. They cropped corn onlyonce, because there was no moremoney. YTM payed two persons totend the garden Rp. 100.000(US$10) per month for threemonths.The land was then distributedamong the members of the KTKMwho previously worked upon it. But

it was not maintained because themembers were used to work fordaily cash and could not wait formonths or years for the fruit har-vest.

The project was never completed,abandoned by the local peoplebecause they have not beensufficiently informed about the ideaand objectives of the project. Someeven got the first glimpse of thefruit garden project from localgovernment persons, not from YTM.The project was designed with thevillage officials in terms of theirown Mahakam Plan, not for LoaBakung people’s benefit, andwithout consultation with thecommunity.

When the second phase was over,and no more money was availableto pay the people, the project wasnot continued and the land re-turned to bushes again becausenobody managed it. The YTM

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ A

chm

ad F

edya

ni &

Iwan

Tjit

radj

aja

Biodiversity in Unpro-ductive LandLocation

Bogor, West JavaPartner

ElsppatProject Duration & Costs

1998-2000 US$5,160.30

At the outset, the projectaimed at increasing localincome through cultivation of

various plants commonly found invillages on unproductive land, thuscontributing to biodiversity conser-vation. Use of unproductive land

Another factor attributed to thefailure was the fact that the ideaoriginated from Elsppat without thepeople’s engagement in makingthe proposal.

Apart from these problems, groupestablishment proved to be quiteuseful. Through discussions, groupsof farmers, breeders, women, fruitorchard owners, pesantren (Islamicboarding school), were formed. Thegroups had access to credit, forexample, a breeder group wasgranted a revolving fund fromLembaga Penelitian danPengembangan Sosial (SocialDevelopment and ResearchInstitute) to purchase goats.

became important in the light of thefact that more cultivated land wasbeing converted to housing com-plexes to accommodate the increas-ing influx of people from outsideBogor. Biodiversity support wasneeded to balance the monoculture(rice) farming trend. However, inthe middle of the program, theactivities were focused more onorganic farming and women’scapacity building. Awarenessraising towards biodiversity failedto achieve its goals.While the benefits of organicfarming can be directly felt,biodiversity performance is hard tomeasure, and the benefits cannotbe directly felt.

claimed the failure was becausethe local people were lazy, unwill-ing to learn new things aboutplanting fruits. But even in theproposal, YTM did not have theright idea what to do. Theirknowledge and understandingabout project management waslimited. They stereotyped thepeople as lazy and indigent. Therewas never an effort to clarifywhether the community people wereready to manage the garden as theowners, not just workers. Thepeople thought that the land didnot belong to them because theywere paid to work on it.Actually there was a chance tobuild the esprit d’corpse. A coalmining company has been operat-ing in the area nearby the commu-nity. Its operations have oftengained protests from the villagersdue to pollution it producedespecially in dry season. Many

people have suffered respiratorytract infections, severe skin and eyeirritations due to coal dust. In rainyseason floods, muddy roads anddiseases were not uncommon. Thecondition was put into the discus-sion agenda of the Pal Besicommunity to seek solutions tothese problems.In the second phase, the Pal Besicommunity people also receivedscholarship grants for 24 children,a Rp. 50,000.-/month/person ($5),for one year. The YTM also granted20 chickens each to 15 kids toraise. This was based on theindication that the communitypeople actually need immediatecash and support such as moneysupport for their children, orchickens that reproduced in muchshorter than fruit trees. The projectfailed because the project goalsand design didn’t correspond tothe needs and interests of thetarget community.

EX-POST STUDY

2120

Project Evaluation & Reporting

It is no longer asecret that at the community and

facilitating NGO level, evaluationand reporting are often seen asobstructive factors. In addition tothe difficulty in reporting, non-systematic data collecting andstorage make it difficult to retrieve

the needed data.GEF SGP Guatemala proposed aninitiative to overcome these obsta-cles. It introduced a format knownas Almanario made of a piece ofwater-proof and tear-proof A1

record progress before, during andafter the project implementation.

A number of SGP Indonesia’spartners have in fact made similar

paper (60x85cm2), whichcould be easily held and filled in bypeople and local facilitators.Almanario was to be used from theproject planning. The use was to

2120

efforts. However, experience teachesthat a mere format does not guar-antee project success. Drawings/Pictures/Illustrations, which areinteresting at first will soon become

boring. To overcome this, somepartners asked to make the draw-ings and the format as well bythemselves, so that theattrativeneness and the use of thisevaluation and reporting tool willlast longer. In other words, evalua-tion and reporting should be theintegral part of a given project, andas such, the same approachescommonly applied to the initiating,planning and implementing phasesare applicable, too.

2322

Rural Ecotourism Net-workLocation

The Villages of Pelaga, Sibetan,Ceningan, and Tenganan, BaliPartner

Wisnu FoundationProject Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$35,000

Part of Bali, Tenganan,Ceningan Pelaga andSibetan villages are rich in

nature’s beauty and attractive totourists. Facts show, however, thatmass tourism does not alwaysgenerate positive impacts orcontribute to local economy, inparticular as in the case of masstourism controlled by outsideroperators.Environmental tourism (Ecotourism)has been increasingly promoted asa solution to local economicdevelopment: low in volume buthigh in value. However, ecotourismis often translated merely as ‘visitnature’. Yayasan Wisnu and thecommunities of four villages offerreal village life as part of a touristattraction. It is well recognized that

Bali offers cultural more thannature tourism. The project wasimplemented simultaneously in thefour villages to allow servicesharing. The long term objectiveswere to include other villages inBali and at the same time conservelocal resources and biodiversity,which embrace unique and ritualnatures.However, Village EcotourismNetwork (JED) was unsuccessful indeveloping effective businessstrategies. It was rather slow inseeking the market. Trekkingpackages were not designed inaccordance with the uniquecharacteristics of the villages.Business demands were notanticipated seriously. Cooperationwith tourism operators did not runsmoothly, as JED was not a legalcorporate entity.On the other hand, Wisnu had infact anticipated the local economicneeds. The project started withefforts to create food and energyindependence, among othersthrough development of botanicalgardens for customary ceremoniesand post-harvest management ofseaweed. Unfortunately, the projectdid not run as expected partly due

Park Guide TrainingLocation

Mount Gede-P angrango NationalPark, Cianjur, W est JavaPartner

The Foundation of Bioscience andBiotechnology Development (YPBB)Project Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$19,000

The project was a follow-up ofenvironmental education andguide development as well

as a collaborative program todevelop nature tourism pioneeredby YPBB in Gede-PangrangoNational Park (GPNP) since 1995.

GPNP is one of the major tourismdestinations in West Java. Of thethree tourism centers in GPNP,Cibodas is the most popular as itcontains the botanical gardens – a

collection of montane tropical forestspecies. Cibodas is also theentrance for hikers to Mount Gedeand Mount Pangrango.

The main target of the project wasnature lovers, who would betrained as guides. At the imple-mentation level, however, thenature lovers – who are mostlySenior High School graduates –were not prepared for a long termlearning processes involvingspecific skill improvement. Accord-ingly, the entry points used in-cluded park waste issues, goodcamping practices, and otherenvironmental issues. However,understanding of the socialmakeup of Park users was poor.

YPBB’s analyses showed that thetarget group had low motivationdue to competition. While theprogram was designed to offervoluntary work, there were many

programs in the samelocation offering profes-sional pay. YPBB recog-nized its limitation toexpand the program tocommercial level,particularly promotion,so it failed to addressthe economic needs ofthe target groups.

In addition, YPBB did nothave adequate capacityto organize naturelovers, who have theirown networks and ‘rulesof the game’. The groupsare also governed by

seniority. Regeneration andcapacity building will be verydifficult if these aspects areignored.

Conservation for LocalCommunity DevelopmentLocation

Menoreh, Central JavaPartner

Patra-Pala FoundationProject Duration & Costs

1998-2000 US$23,708

Menoreh mountains, wherethe Borobudur Templelies, is a watershed

supplying water for community’sagricultural land and foreststhroughout the district ofMagelang. This function, however,is in conflict with some of thetourism interests at one of theworld’s wonders. Not only localpeople surrounding the temple butoutside investors also put muchinterest in tourism. Incominginvestments have converetedagricultural land, forcing localpeople to encroach on forest landfor their livelihoods, which ad-versely affects the watershedcapacity. The project aimed atproviding alternative income-generating activities to reducethreats to the region of Menoreh.The Patra Pala program coveringfisheries, animal husbandry,organic farming and ecotourismcapacity building, did not com-pletely achieve its goals. The

program was terminated after theSGP Indonesia’s grant was usedup, just at the time when theprogram was becoming successfulin arousing the local people to getcommunally and participatorilyengaged in it.

Patra Pala, in fact, was quitesuccessful in developing thenetwork. The local-driven conserva-tion concept opened the way tocommunication with other NGOs,including Yayasan Rindang, KlubIndonesia Hijau, Yayasan LingkarLingkungan Hidup Indonesia, andYayasan Wana Mandira. A numberof comparative studies and obser-vations had been conducted byInsist, Canadian CrossroadsInternational, Matala Bio GamaUniversitas Gajah Mada, andYayasan Lembaga KonsumenIndonesia Jogjakarta. Cooperationwas also built with the districtgovernment. Approaches had beenmade to a number of fundingdonors, including TDH - Germany,Oxfam - United Kingdom, Conser-vation International, YayasanKehati, CEEPI, and JICA. From theprivate sector, Forum EkowisataYogyakarta was interested inorganizing a joint program in thearea. Despite all these potentialfunders, the project failed to followthrough with the network potentialto develop community empower-ment programs.

Gunung Gede

Borobudur Temple with MenorehMountains in the background

to internal affairs when the commu-nity’s organizing work was not yetoptimum.

2524

Community Forestry inConservation AreaLocation

Alas Purwo, Baluran, Bromo-Tengger-Semeru, and Meru BetiriNational Parks, East JavaPartner

Konservasi Alam Indonesia Lestari(KAIL) FoundationProject Duration & Costs

2003-2004 US$2,000

2004-2005 US$38,000

Based on the experience indeveloping a communityforestry program in Meru

Betiri National P ark, KAIL Founda-tion was encouraged to initiatecollaborative work in three othernational parks in East Java,namely Alas Purwo, Bromo-

Mount Palung Na-tional Park

Location

West Kalimantan

Partner

Biodamar FoundationProject Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$20,000

Illegal encroachment andlogging has long been practicedin the buffer zone of Mount

Palung National Park. The shrink-ing community forest forced them

to encroach deeper into thePark. Advocacy efforts in the

Mount Palung National Park is one of several habitats of Orangutan (Pongopygmaeus) and Bekantan (Nasalis larvatus) in Kalimantan.

community of Laman SatongVillage aimed at developing localagriculture and husbandry toreduce the community’s depend-ence on forest products.

At the beginning of the project, thehigh dependence on forest prod-ucts and the wide distribution ofthe local actors hampered theawareness raising activities.Biodamar made an agreement withthe community group. Groupmembers who had received aidshould revolve it to other members,and invite other people to becomegroup members.

In the beginning Biodamar did nothave the organizing capacity to

Tengger-Semeru, and Baluran. Allthe four national parks sharesimilar characteristics includingtheir community’s socioculturalbasis.

The project was among the onesthat were granted planning grantfunding from GEF SGP Indonesiabefore being full funding wasapproved. The purpose of theplanning funding was to designintitial bioregional managementand development plans of thenational parks. The design in-cluded assessing and formulatingstrategic plans, and selectingdemonstration villages.The first stage of the projectidentified a number of problemswhich became the targets of thesecond stage. All of thestakeholders demonstrated highsectoral selfishness/arrogance.Park managers felt that the parks

were theirs and that local peopleshould not be engaged in themanagement, let alone the plan-ning. To forest rangers, localcommunities were the cause offorest degradation without trying tounderstand that forests and alltheir resources are an integral partof local people’s lives. On the otherside, the local people could notunderstand why they were notallowed to utilize forest resourcesas they had been doing for genera-tions. The regional governmentsthemselves had their own interestsand perceptions.

The positive side was that thelimited workshop held during thefirst stage was successful inconvening the people to design thenext planning stage. It was theseinitial findings which were accom-modated in the program plansubmitted for full funding.

Gilimanuk

Taman Nas ionalBali Barat

N ational Park

Ja lak Bali S tar li ng C ent er

La buan La langKant or Tam an N asionalN ati onal Par k O ff ice

CekikKant or Tam an N asion alN ati onal Par k Of fi ce

Sumbe rklampo k

M en ja nga n

B anyuw angi Denpasar

Singaraja

Java

Bali

West Bali National ParkLocation

Sumberklampok, West Bali Na-tional ParkPartner

Sumberklampok Multi-businessCooperativeProject Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$22,815

The most serious problemfaced by the community ofSumberklampok Village was

conflict with West Bali National

Park (WBNP) over land status. Theproject therefore aimed at govern-ment recognition of community’srights to land and resource man-agement. In addition to upholdingthe rule of law, a buffer zone wasneeded to reduce threats to thePark.

governmental institutions such asthe Park Management, ForestryAgency and Bali Provincial Legisla-tive Assembly (DPRD). KUBSumberklampok conducted activeconsultation with relevant groupsnot only about socialization andcoordination, but also administra-tion and finance, economic activitydevelopment, participatory map-ping, buffering species cultivationand integrated farming.Up to the completion of the project,no buffer zones for the village andthe Park had been designated ordrawn on the official maps. Com-munity rights to land and resourcemanagement were still not recog-nized by the Park Management.However, the Park Managementand Forestr y Agency informallyrecognized the community’s bufferarea bordering on the village.

Wana Agung Multi BusinessCooperative established by thecommunity had been successful ingetting credits. The village conser-vation concept – organic farming –bore fruit through the sale of theorganic products and fertilizers toGilimanuk and Banyuwangi. As forlegal advocacy, the communityestablished their own institutioncalled Yayasan Pilang.

bring the people to such a solution,but the project implementationtaught Biodamar a lot of valuablelessons. The activity schedule wasre-designed with communityparticipation to suit seasonal work.In the light of Biodamar’s limitedtechnical skills, it built cooperationwith other institutions, for example,with Ketapang Estate CropsAgency in cultivation.

At the end of the program, some ofthe community had started to selltheir agricultural products outsidethe village. However, severalplanned activities had to beterminated due to the short advo-cacy period.

As an entry point, organic farmingwas chosen to increase localeconomy and provide an alterna-tive livelihood. Independentcommunity and environmentfriendly economy were expected tomobilize support for recognition ofcommunity’s rights to land andresource management. WBNP hadgranted permits to 3 private tourismoperators, including pearl cultivationas an attraction.The project is an example whereSGP Indonesia gave a direct grantto a community group. First ac-

quaintance with donors wasfacilitated by an NGO calledManikaya Kauci. Then, KUB (ajoint business group)Sumberklampok, which wasestablishedby the commu-nity, built anactive network

with a number oforganizations,includingYayasan Wisnu,BahteraNusantara, WWFWallacea, and

24

West BaliNational Parkis the lastnatural habitatof Bali mynnah(Leucopsarrotchildi).

2726

Grants channeled by SGP arerelatively small, up to a maximumUS$50,000 for a given 24-monthprogram. Such fund is sufficient tofinance the overhead costs of anassisting organization (mainlyNGOs) only if the organizationfollows its main goal: supportingcommunity initiatives to addressenvironmental problems. Thequestion is can a grant be directly

channeled to self-help groups?In SGP’s first years worldwide, thiswas not possible, as one of SGP’sregulations stipulates that grantsare only given to legal entities.Experiences show that commu-nity-based organizations are weakin managing programs, in particu-lar those needing large funding.A breakthrough was needed toaddress the problem. SGP Indone-

Makaryo in Jetis, Jogjakarta.All the successful programs wereindebted to the organizationsassisting the CBOs. It wasCindilaras, an organizationassisting Cipto Makaryo, whichinitiated a relationship with SGPIndonesia. An assisting organiza-tion is often needed, in particularduring the initial stages of a givenproject. The problem is, however,

that only a few assisting organiza-tions are prepared to incorporateCSOs into the full-cycle of aprogram, particularly in theprogram initiation, planning, andfunding. Despite Cindilaras’sassistance, it was Cipto Makaryo,which exercised the authority indecision-making and was incharge of the project implementa-tion.

Integrated OrganicFarmingLocation

Jetis Hamlet, Gunung Kidul,Jogjakarta

Partner

Cipto Makaryo Farmer OrganizationProject Duration & Costs

2001-2003SGP Indonesia: US$27,318Other contribution: US$6.209

In mid 1980s the Green Revolution of the Government’s Agriculture Department required all

farmers in Indonesia to grow newhybrid varieties of rice. There wasno exeption for Jetis, a smallhamlet in Gunung Kidul, Jogjakartawhich is well-known for waterproblems and dry stoney soil. Its

Since 2001, the Cipto MarkaryoFarmer Group in Jetis, facilitatedby Cindilaras, Rural empowermentand Global Review Institution fromJogjakarta had initiated usingorganic fertilizer and naturalpesticides. The practice of ricemono-cultures has been aban-doned. The locals now growsecondary crops or palawija andlocal plants as soil conditionersand natural insecticides. Thedependency on irrigation wassolved by digging wells in thefield.

With Cindilaras support, CiptoMakaryo received grants from SGPIndonesia. The group bought 12cows. After breeding, the first babycow could be bought for a lowprice by the owner. The mother cowcould then be transferred toanother farmer. Today, there are 35families with cows. The samescheme is applied to goats afterthe failure of a fish pond project. In2004 the community agreed to forma credit union group, with capitalof 20 million Rupiah (US$2,000). ByApril 2005, the fund reached 46million rupiah. Slowly but con-stantly the economy has beengetting better. There are only a fewfarmers who still owe money, due to

farmers tried to make the harvestlevel increase through using thehybrid seeds, but the ‘new’ riceneeded more water . The farmersbecame dependent on pesticidesand chemical fertilizers whichdecreased soil fertility and benefi-cial insects.

sia re-considered the policy. In theFirst Work Phase, five grants weregranted to CBOs. It turns out thatonly one program failed to achieveits targets, which we regard as nota bad result. In the Second WorkPhase, all the five grants granted toCBOs were successful. One wasthe Integrated Organic Farmingand Gardening, developed by afarmer’s group named Cipto

Direct Grants to CBOsBased on the experiences learnedfrom the previous phases, in thethird phase SGP Indonesiafocused on direct cooperation withKSM, while taking the implement-ing organization’s capacity intoconsideration. SGP Indonesiawould suggest assistance (anassisting organization) whendeemed necessary.

Ekosistem terpadu. Hampir di tiaphalaman rumah di Jetis ada kandangsapi dan kebun. Pengertian lumbungpangan mencakup seluruh halamanrumah dan lahan kosong. Mengelolasemua sumberdaya yang adaberdasarkan pemahaman ekosistemterpadu.

2726

GEF SGP Indonesia \ Harijanto Suwarno

2928

“If there’s a well in the field”, one Indonesianproverb says, “we can ask for permission to take abath”. In the dry region of Jetis, wells support mixedcrop plantations as the community starts to grow local

Food Sovereignty. Organic rice produced by Jetiscommunity is used for self-consumption althoughthe market price is much higher than non-organicrice. The community developed grain storagegroups. The neighborhood grainstoreroommeasures 2 by 2 meters; the village’sgrain store is twice as large. Members of thecommunity that are late in harvesting their rice can‘borrow’ the storeroom rice. A grain store evenembraces the entire house’s yard and the surround-ing bare patches. Utilizing the available naturalresources.

Self-documentation forTraditional Knowledgeand Sustainable Re-sources ManagementLocation

Ngata Toro, Central SulawesiPartner

Ngata Toro Indigenous CommunityProject Duration & Costs

2003-2004Total US$38,455. SGP IndonesiaUS$30,000. Community US$3.700.Yayasan K onfiden US$3,800. Technicalassistants GEF SGP Indonesia: visualdocumentation specialists, project cyclemanagement, visual documentationtraining.

Toro is an indigenous community neighborhood within theLore Lindu National Park, in

Central Sulawesi. Illegal poaching,protected animal trading and fish-electrifying were common when theproject started. To address thesethreats the tranditional communityhas created Tondong Ngata, aforest ranger troop. Their duties areto uphold the indigenous law as itapplies to the protected forestbased on indigenousregula-tions. ButTorovillag-

ers are not the only ones who benefitfrom the forestr y resource in the Torocommunity zone. The indigenousgovernance apparatus also set-upindigenous rules applied to thosefrom outside the indigenous commu-nity who enter community lands. Thenational park management ac-knowledges Toro indigenous law butmany policy dialogs were neededespecially with the local govern-ment, the forest authority andneighboring hamlets/villagers toachieve this recognition. Themeetings developed a system ofcomprehensive and growing commu-nity forest management with col-laboration with neighboring villagesand other stakeholders.In 2004, Ngata Toro community wasone of 26 finalists from communitygroups around the world in the2004 Equator Iniative award. GEFSGP Indonesia recognized the Toroachievement by granting themUSD 30,000.

One of the most important aspectswithin the GEF SGP Indonesia andToro collaboration is a documen-

tation processand communica-

price-hikes for fertilizers andpesticides in the past.

The community did not followgender-based work. Both men andwomen work in the field, plantationsand even at home, including takingcare of the children. Over the lastfive years the number of householdshas remained the same. Children’level of education, however, is stilllow, due to both limited income and

perception that the only educationneeded by children is how to helpthe community develop the village.Indirectly, Jetis’s success is attrib-uted to the fact that the village ispoor in natural resources. Thespecial province of Yogyakartarecognizes three types of landownership: state land, private/individual land, and the Sultan’sland. The community may utilize the

Sultan’s land but cannot own it. Thistradition, stipulated by the Sultan,leads to a small number of land-related conflicts. The communitybarely has interest in determining ordefending land, let alone in GunungKidul. No investors or speculators,except limestone companies, will beinterested in the area. The commu-nity has no temptation to sell theland.

crops: rice, corn,watermelon, cassavaand vegetables. Thecommunity says thatthe roots of local rice,unlike that of VUTW (akind of pest-resistant

rice) do not spread so it can be grown next to, forexample, chilli bushes. Local species need lesswater. To get rid of pests, natural pesticide is applied.Traditional knowledge of pest control species, likeseveral kinds of taro and tobacco, is again beingapplied.According to Mbah Mitro, a local elder, who in thephoto is treating tobacco for use as a pesticide, theterm ‘organik’ (farming) stands for obahing badan lanobahing utek, olah raga dan olah otak, that is to say,the most important thing in organic farming is theadaptation of way of living and way of thinking.

2928

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a / K

onfid

en

GEF SGP Indonesia \ Harijanto Suwarno

3130

Cool air greeted us, relievingthe tiredness and thediscomfort resulting from a

three-hour trip through bumpy ,steep, twisting roads, which insome parts were narrowed down bylandslides exposing us to danger-ous ravines and steep forests onboth sides. Some unexpected viewswere spotted at villages recentlytorn by earthquakes and floods.

“Seperti tsunami kecil. Ngeri, tapimasih untung karena tidak adakorban,” ujar Umar, supir kami,ketika kami melintasi bagian yang

masih porak peranda di beberapadesa, memasuki kilometer 25menuju Ngata Toro. Kamimencapai Ngata Toro sekitar puku l20.00 waktu setempat (satu jamlebih cepat dari WIB) danmendapati desa itu sudah separuhtidur .“It is like a small-scale tsunami.Terrible indeed, but fortunatelythere are no fatalities,” said Umar,our driver, when we were drivingthrough the ruins at the KM25towards Ngata Toro. We arrived at8 p.m. local time and found half the

village had already gone to bed.

We stood in total darkness. Thoughelectricity had lit the village’shouses, the light was too weak topierce through the darkness. Attimes we heard the sound ofsomething being beaten on hollowwood that turned out to be woodencow-bells. The cattle were herdedfreely in the grassy and scrubbyfield.

Here we were in Ngata (or village)Toro, a village 85 kilometers to thewest of Palu, the capital of CentralSulawesi. One of the 28 villages

that make up Kulawi Sub-district,the village was frequently men-tioned in international events dueto its on-going identity reorientationas a community, including its hardwork in re-applying local knowl-edge in natural resource manage-ment.

Made up of 7 hamlets, it houses567 households totaling 2,307 lives.It is situated in a valley and slopessurrounded by mountains, part ofwhich protrudes into Lore LinduNational Park (LLNP).“Our village is located at thebottom of a bowl-shaped valley,”said Rukmini, 35 year -old motherof three children, who has beenattempting to revive Toro indig-enous women’s power since 2001.With only one narrow and stonyroad connecting the village with thesurrounding villages, Toro is anenclave bordering on the Park.

Rukmini said that July 2000 saw thesigning of the Ngata Toro Indig-enous Territory encompassing22,950 hectares, 18,000 hectares ofwhich had been designated by thecentral government as part of theNational Park in 1993.

Although started in 1997, institu-tional revitalization in the area hasbeen more intensive since 2000when local wisdom in forestmanagement began to be pro-moted and documented; theexistence and the role of customaryorganizations had to be strength-ened. This was what M. Shohibudin

of the Bogor Agriculture Institutereferred to in his thesis entitled“Artikulasi Kearifan Tradisionaldalam Pengelolaan SumberdayaAlam sebagai Proses ReproduksiBudaya” (Articulation of TraditionalWisdom in Natural ResourceManagement As Cultural Repro-duction Processes) (2003) as ‘aneffort to develop modern conserva-tion within the ideological frame-work and collective agenda of theToro community ’.

“This might be the impact of thereform,” said Village Head NaftaliB. Porentjo BBA (47), who has beenleading the village for 11 years. Headded that prior to the reform, thevillage head was a very powerfullocal elite. “Now, it is no longerpossible. Everything must bediscussed with and agreed to bythe indigenous community council,”said he. According to him, thecouncil consists of 13 members: 7village heads and 6 prominentfigures at community level. “The sixconsists of 3 men and 3 women, ofwhom Rukmini is one,” he contin-ued. Rukmini formed OrganisasiPerempuan Adat Ngata T oro -OPANT (Indigenous Women’sO rganization of Ngata Toro) in2002.

Shohibudin’s study showed that inthe pre-colonization era the Torocommunity had – like theneighboring villages – a ‘villageideology’ in its fullest meaning, i.e.it was an independent social

political unity. These

communities were beyond theinterest (as well as the ideologyand the supremacy) of Islamicempires ruling in the coastal areas.

The disenfranchisement of custom-ary organizations might havestarted when the Dutch power waseffective in 1905 although the Dutchkept local rules, tradition andculture to maintain its hegemony inthe region.

The Dutch introduced a morehierarchical government model thataltered the basic inter-villagefederation, which was ratherinformal in nature. The Torocommunity and the other surround-ing villages were then designatedas Kampung, the lowest govern-mental unit in the ideologicalgovernment practiced in the regionwhen the Dutch came in 1905.History also tells that in some waysthe New Order regime adopted theideological government. Theregime passed regulations andpolicies that - it said - respectedadat (customary rules), but in factit disenfranchised the functions andmade adat an ornament just toshow Indonesia’s cultural diversity.

On the other hand, the creation ofuniform governmental structuresthrough Law No. 5 Year 1979 onRegional Governments effectivelyeradicated the socially-diverselocal institutions, such as Nagari inWest Sumatra, Lembang in Toraja,Banua in Kalimantan and manyothers.

Modern Conservation WithinCultural FrameworkMaria HartiningsihJournalist, Kompas Daily

tion on the local wisdom of theNgata T oro experiences in manag-ing their natural resources incollaborative way .Aside from information dissemina-tion towards the internationalcommunity , Ngatar Toro hadpositioned inter-village discussionswith the local government as atarget for their information. As wellas printing a book on local herbalmedicines book printing, the Ngata

Toro Indigenous Institution hastrained the youth group in how tofilm their own knowledges. Themain goal for the villagerfilmmaking is to increase aware-ness of traditional wisdom amongToro generations and surroundinghamlets, especially on sustainablenatural resource management. Themedia chosen is participatoryvideo documentation After goingthrough an intensive workshop foralmost a month with the Konfiden

foundation, groups of Toro audiovisual videomakers could producegood quality video documentation.In 4 months they produced 7 videooutputs which have been used as adialog tool with neighboringvillages and members of parlia-ment. They have documentatedvillage and region policy decisionprocess on the livelihood sourcesthat could impact the Toro commu-nity.

3130

3332

The forced integration of theselocal institutions into the nationalpolitical system through the law notonly disenfranchised the localinstitutions’ dignity and graduallydeteriorated them, but above all, itstrictly controlled community’snatural resources by re-designingthe ideological and demographicalstructures.

This happened in Ngata T oro fortwo decades before the communitygained the strength to redefinetheir identity and tradition as acommunity and their environment.With this, they could reaffirmideological autonomy over naturalresource management.

According to C.H. Towaha, a localelder who refused to be called‘customary leader’, before thestate, education and religion wereestablished, customary institutionswere functioning very well. Allaspects of life were governed byadat . When a ‘new civilization’came, adat was neglected.

“ Adat is only practiced for ceremo-nies. The essence is neglected,”said the respected elder. “Adat nolonger governs the life. The govern-ment defines the relationshipbetween humans and the natureaccording to its interests.”

Policies and regulations decidedon without community consultation,

according to T owaha, areused to take control

over natural

resources, which the state claimsbelong to it.

It was for these reasons that theToro communtiy rejected the LLNP’spure conservation ethic and offeredinstead one that favors the commu-nity and community participation.Moreover , as Toro’s Head men-tioned, the forest area designatedas part of LLNP overlappedcustomary forest ( huaka lando)and community plantations.He added that Toro’s traditionalwisdom embraced traditionalzonation that utilized and man-aged natural resources based ontheir functions (huaka) and owner-ship ( dodoha).

“Previously, we did not want to usethe traditional wisdom. Just leaveit. There are regional regulationsgoverning conservation,” headded. But the community knewnothing about the regulations asthe regional government had neversocialized them.

“They knew the regulations whenthey were arrested and tried atcourt because they did somethingthat violated them. The localtradition did not prohibit such apractices.” said he.

In relation to the violations, Towahacriticized the government’s incon-sistency . Some time ago a Toroopened a plantation in the part oftheir territory that was allowed bythe local tradition.

“The government said that it waspart of the restricted area. How-

ever, some time later a companycame and opened a large planta-tion in the area. The companyobtained the government’s permit.So what does the governmentwant?” Towaha sighed.As Towaha mentioned, prior to theyear 2000 the customary institutionsand the village administrationwere flooded by community com-plaints about illegal establishmentin areas that were forbidden by thetradition.

“The community blamed us. So,they know their responsibilities,”Towaha spoke of one of the reasonsbehind the revitalization of villageinstitutions. If the tradition wasenforced, there was no way for theoutsiders to advantageously usethe community to illegally log in theforest.With the tradition governing forestmanagement, the community coulddirectly control what was going onin their forest. Rukmini, the localwomen’s leader and founder ofToro women’s group, said thatthere were several cases of illegallogging by outsiders.“They were judged by adat andhad to pay sanction of buffalos,plates and sarong,” she said.However, Rukmini said that themost important part of the trial wasnot the things but social sanctionfrom the community.

“Nature should be managed wiselyas we depend on it,” Towahaasserted. According to Toro cus-

toms, forest management is dividedinto three: first, the wanakini, is amontane forest with the remainingsmall timber trees and thick lichenon the trees and the soil.

“It is always cloudy and drizzlingthere even in the dry season,” saidTowaha.

Second, the wana, is an areacovered by thick lichen with largetimber trees already grown.

“Destruction to these two parts willgreatly affect humans,” Towahacontinued. Wanakiki and wana aresources of fresh clean air andwater as well as medicinal herbsnot found elsewhere.Third, the pengale, is an area thatcan be utilized except the forestedpart (taoro).“Although the taoro forest is flat,dry and on limestone, it may not becleared,” Towaha explained.

Fallen branches can be collectedbut it is strictly forbidden to stripthe forest. Headwaters cannot beutilized. Riparian land up to 250meters from the banks of streamscan be utilized. The traditionforbids sale of any of the land.Towaha complained about his hardobligation to ask young people tosee nature in a wise and non-greedy way.

“Now everything is different. Localwisdom is hard to perceive. Toyoung people money is everything,”he said.

In some ways Towaha’s complaints

reveal a competition between theold values perceived as an ‘ideal’and new values brought by citystyle and ideology.

Rukmini and Naftali’s efforts todocument local wisdom andbiodiversity by use of modernequipment (handycam) providedby a donor seemingly did not gaintotal acceptance of Towaha.

“Visualization is one-sided,”Towaha commented on the twolocal leaders, who it turns out arehis relatives.“Socializing local wisdom needsdirect communication,” said he.

This is just one problem. Anotherproblem in relation to the influx ofa large number of NGOs helpingbuild local capacity is the difficultyin convening the community todiscuss village problems.“Now, you have to provide sometransport, tea, coffee, cigarettesand even snacks to convene thecommunity,” said Towaha.

It might be that the next stepforward is to create room fornegotiation to seek a middleground between the old and thenew values, by which the communitycould maintain their tradition tomanage the natural resources in aneffective but not exclusive way, aswell as to encourage the surround-ing communities to revive their ownwisdom to re-define and re-establish their identity and environ-ment.

RukminiIt was getting late. The tempera-ture was dropping to 16ºC in mid-September. The village in a remotearea in Kulawi Sub-district, in themiddle of Central Sulawesi, 85kilometers from the provincialcapital, seemed to be embraced bythe surrounding mountains, and togreet LLNP that encompasses someparts of the village.

We were sitting face to face on ared carpet that had holes in someparts, with two cups of hot tea towarm up our chilly bodies. Thewoman was wrapped in a sarong.At a first glance, she was like otherToro women, who had to finish thehouse chores first before havingtime to enjoy themselves. Her facewas tender and tranquility radi-ated from her eyes.

She was Rukmini, a 35-year-oldhousewife with three children. Heryoungest child, Alam (5), called hismother “Bu Rukmini (Mrs.Rukmini),” a name that was veryclose to the local lives, to thedynamics in both public andprivate domains.

That afternoon, she had a femalevictim of domestic violence, whocame for consultation and protec-tion.Rukmini, along with the villagehead Naftali B Porentjo, localfigures (such as CH Towaha, andBerwin P representing the youth),and a progressive Protestant priestFerdy Lumba are the main actors in

3332

3534

the re-articulation process of Toro’straditional wisdom.

“ We are all relatives. Naftali is mynephew and Rukmini is my niece,”said Towaha.

Rukmini is the head of IndigenousWomen’s Organization of NgataToro (OPANT), a local organizationformed as part of the revitalizationof local institutions. Local institu-tions were disenfranchised andreplaced with a centralizedstructure during the New Orderregime.The strong and deep kinship hasalso prevented the community fromdisunity driven by conflicts in Poso.“There are families with differentreligions in our community , but ourtraditional kinship is much strongerthan the differences created bydisunity in the name of religion,”Naftali explained.

The 47-year-old village head, whohad been in office for more than 15years, was the key player in thehighly dynamic changes in NgataToro after the fall of New Orderregime.

“P reviously, village heads hadabsolute power. They can no longerdo so. All things have to be de-cided on in the Indigenous Commu-nity Council,” he added.

He said nothing about who askedhim to delegate some of hisauthority; however , from his longtalk it was not very difficult toconclude that it was his decision.He acknowledged well that the

delegation of power was the key tothe re-articulation of the traditionalwisdom, the key to changes.Along with that, Towaha andseveral village elders (TotuaNgata ) were digging deeper intotraditional knowledge and ecologi-cal practices.

“Forests cannot just be cleared.There are some parts that shouldnot be touched by anybody ,”Towaha said.However, conservation does notmean that anybody is not allowedto enter the forest. The communityof Toro has their own wisdom toprotect and maintain what givesthem life.

The indigenous community councilconsists of 13 members: 7 villageheads and 6 prominent figures atcommunity level. The six consists of3 men and 3 women, of whomRukmini is one.

“Representation is not of individualbut organization,” assertedTowaha.

Many NGOs have driven changes.Moreover , Naftali was engaged inan environmental organizationwhile still at college in Palu.Rukmini has a wide range ofconnections with activists andwomen’s organizations in Palu andJava.

“ What has been happening in Torofollows an internal – rather thanexternal – agenda and dynamics,”said Rukmini.

OPANT has a clear agenda – todefine the role of indigenouswomen in environmental conserva-tion and management, and reject aperspective that advantageouslyuses “traditional wisdom” for otherthan the community’s interests.

“There used to be a mother ofideology, whom we called T inaNgata . The last one that we knewwas Tiloigi,” said Rukmini.

According to Rukmini, Tina Ngataled all the village traditionalprocesses.“She was the one who chose whento plant the seeds, when to openthe forest, which part of the forestto open. She was believed to bewise. Although there were villageelders (Totua Ngata), no meetingswere held in the absence of TinaNgata.Since the establishment of NgataToro, women have been playingimportant roles in their society.“During tribal wars, women used toreduce the tension. They wentahead of the soldiers to stop thewar” Rukmini added.

When the New Order regimeestablished new ideologicalorganizations, including womengroups called Family WelfareProgram (PKK), many of thetraditional roles were abolished.

“ Women had no forum to discussprotection of natural resources, nocustomary court, and no customarydecision-making. Our roles wererestricted to household chores.

During meetings all we had to dowas to prepare the consumption,”Rukmini continued.In 1995 Rukmini, once becomingPKK treasurer and acting chairper-son (during the chairperson’smaternity leave), convened thewomen to discuss and re-open thevillage documentation on women’sroles in the society. She dug upTina Ngata’s roles by interviewingelders from other villages. Shediscovered the history of the KulawiKingdom, once ruled by a womanwho strongly opposed the comingof the Dutch into the region. TheDutch, however, finally took controlover the region through its divideand rule politics.

In a work meeting in 2000, some 75women agreed to form a forumoutside PKK.“We planned a structure that PKKdid not have in it,” Rukmini ex-plained.In May 2001 a women’s workshopwas held to discuss the governmen-tal structure of Ngata Toro. Anotherworkshop in August 2001, facili-tated by a Palu-based women’sgroup called Kelompok PerjuanganKesetaraan Perempuan Palu(Women Equity Struggle Group ofPalu) produced the OPANT Decla-ration, followed by the election ofthe management board at ngataand boya (hamlet) level. With thedeclaration, women had biggeraccess in customary and govern-mental institutions.

“We also have the right to vote forwide range of sanctions againstviolations such as gaharu theft anddomestic violence. OPANT has alsobeen documenting local wisdom, inparticular because in July 2000 aplaque was signed describing theNgata Toro indigenous territory,which encompasses 22,950 hec-tares, of which 18,000 hectareshave become part of Lore LinduNational Park,” said Rukmini.Shohibudin’s study on Toro commu-nity (2003) observed that OPANTput forward a petition to thecustomary council and the villageadministration against conserva-tion practices that are in directcontradiction to the conservationagreement made.In September 2002, OPANT held ameeting which produced a demandthat policy-making institutionsshould convene to unify the percep-tion and give birth to new consen-sus and ideology.

The demand was fulfilled by avillage-level meeting in October2002 discussing the structure andrelationship among institutions inNgata Toro, regulations onnatural resource manage-ment, work programs, etc.The meeting produced thestructure and the relation-ship among four majorvillage institutions: thevillage administration,the customary council,Village Representative

3534

and OPANT.The story shows the long history oflocal knowledge and institutions.The aspects have been constructedby various groups, depictingchangeable power relations.All these have been colored withthe tug-of-war between ideologicaldiscourse on development, conser-vation, and natural resourcemanagement, on one side andlocal wisdom leading to communityidentity on the other side. Rukminiis a figure that demonstrates howwomen have been playing strategicroles in the dynamics.

However, Rukmini and OPANT’sstruggle still faces a long windingroad ahead. Negotiations shouldbe continued. The tug-of-warbetween “tradition” and “localwisdom” on one side and “moder-nity” on the other side has yet toachieve a middle ground within thecommunity while challenges keepcoming from the outside. Uniquely,natural resources-based businessinterests always come together withideological practices of conserva-tion that marginalize their ownconstituents.

3736

Community-Based ParticipatoryPrograms: Necessity or Obliga-tion?Ita Natalia Asikin

Community engagement is a formof appreciation for the groupsaffected by either the benefits orthe shortcomings of a givenprogram. Closing the space forparticipation is a violation of theprinciples of togetherness amongthe people, the government andother civil society groups.

Talking about communityparticipation is like initiatingcommunity engagement in all

the activities within a given pro-gram, from the planning to themonitoring and evaluation. Partici-pation is a strategy to disseminateinformation to the people involvedin the entire program. The utmostexpectation from participatoryprocesses is the room to learntogether, to take the responsibili-ties together and to avoid anydistance among the involved

groups. Simply put, participationcan mean efforts to engage a lot ofgroups and to bind them to beaccountable and responsible forall the activities done together.It must be admitted that theawareness of the need to engagethe people is a result of criticallearning about the failures of theprograms that have been executedby the government and NGOs,particularly GEF -SGP partners. Infact, participation cannot beseparated from NGOs’ work. Some

say that participation is a must forprogram accountability. Facts show,however, that participation is oftenpurposely developed to achievesome hidden agenda.

There are a large number of on-going programs developingpseudo participation to achievetemporary, short-term goals. Thegovernment’s national Gerhan(Land and Forest RehabilitationProgram) does not lead to positivemovements in many regions, butincreasing corruption and abuse.Community contribution is very low;the communities are involved justas nursery or planting workers. Thework is to be done; the growth ofthe trees is not important. Commu-nity development programs byprivate groups see participation as

means to create facilities andinfrastructure, which may not bewhat the community really needs.

Community Participation andCivil Society MovementsOne cannot deny that community

participation in program proposalsas required by most donorsseemingly makes the community afocal point. But it is also true thatnot all NGOs and governmentalinstitutions take participation as amere requirement to obtain logis-tics support. Many perceive it as afundamental value that they haveto follow.

Then, is the community engaged inthe decision-making processes ofNGO’s and Government? Is thecommunity engaged from theplanning phase? And more impor-tant, is the community engaged inthe monitoring, including knowingabout the budget?

There has been a large amount ofwork done by NGOs and govern-mental institutions in the last ten

years that is not in accordance withwhat the community ‘perceives’. Inmany cases, the programs are indirect contradiction to the communi-ty’s agenda. Policy changes oftentake precedence over everythingelse. This leads to a large numberof unsuccessful programs. Conser-

vation and rehabilitation pro-grams, for example, often havenothing to do with the developmentof a community’s discourse to bringback community independence indeciding on what (renewable)energy they need or the develop-ment of the local school children’sdiscourse on their environment orenvironmental sanitation andpublic health. The community’sbasic needs in economy, educationand health are not integrated inconservation and other environmen-tal programs.

One can trace some of the reasons.NGOs hold meetings with donors orgovernmental officials more oftenthan pay a visit to villages. NGOsand the government are busy withproposals rather than holding

discussions with the community.NGOs and the government are veryserious with donor’s evaluationprogram but are indifferent to theevaluation with the community. Theyare satisfied to implement theprogram according to the timetableand do not feel guilty about

3938

making the community wait andwait.

One can say the NGOs and thegovernment design the planning onbehalf of the community. Theirvisions and missions are similar ,speaking of returning community’ssovereignty and empowering thecommunity . Surely, the visions andthe missions can be the same, buthave community’s suffering andproblems been reduced signifi-cantly?

Participation can also be perceivedas togetherness. Then, the chal-lenges faced by NGOs and thegovernment should also be commu-nity’s challenges. NGOs and thegovernment’s failures should betaken as the failures of all. Is thiswhat is happening in the move-ment?

Building P articipationTwo requirements are needed tobuild community participation:equity and transparency.Do all the involved groups sharethe same rights and obligations inachieving the goals? Is the commu-nity perceived as the one to behelped, and are NGOs and thegovernment the more capablegroups? Is there transparency inthe planning, the implementation,the monitoring and the evaluation?

One big question for us all is howto take corrective measures toencourage full participation of thecommunity , and how to place thecommunity as the main actors, andnot as spectators.

1. Being Neutral. Community’sassistants should be neutral to

problems faced by the community.They should provide manyopportunities to the community toaddress their own problems.Being neutral does not meandefending the community. On thecontrary, taking sides often leadsto community’s dependence onNGOs and the government.

2. Becoming a Guide. Community’sassistants should not positionthemselves as the all-knowing,the infallible ones. On thecontrary, NGOs and the govern-ment should throw out theiropinions and dig deeper intowhat the community has in mindinstead.

3. Believing in the community’spotential. Feeling that they areequipped with much moreinformation, NGOs and thegovernment might think they knowwhat is best for the community.The community is often perceivedas as a weak group needingassistance. In fact, the communityis often not weak. On the contrary,believing in the community’spotentials would lighten NGOsand the government’s workloadas they believe that the commu-nity is capable to carry out theactivities.

4. Educating processes. Too muchspirit and confidence sometimesoversimplifies the resolutionprocesses. It seems as if allproblems can be solved throughthe same strategy. In fact, prob-lems are a process. NGOs andthe government should not deliverpractical strategies to the commu-nity but long-term outlines for

“In 1990, to be precise in August, when there was acommemoration of Scout Day, we asked theKoran recital students of Ms. Sumiati to conductsocial work.”

In August, 15 years later, Siti Aminah and Sumiatityped the story in Sumiati’s house in Semangat Baruhamlet, Alas Sub-district, Sumbawa. The years inbetween, turned into pages of a conservation drama.

“We will provide for food and drink, but we shouldbring mangrove fruits home. Kids, what do youthink? All right, was the kid’s reply . From then on,the kids became eager to go on a trip following theexplanation why they should bring mangrove fruitshome. Ms. Sumiati asked the kids to have a look attheir eroded coast. When I was very young, therewas a vast field here. It is gone now. Compare withthe mangrove-covered area. Why? why? she saidas she showed us the recreation site where thekids collected mangrove fruits”.

As there were no mangroves left around the hamlet,they had to take a boat to the nearby islands. Thenthey asked the kids to grow the mangrove trees in thecoastal area of their hamlet.

“The regular collecting and planting of mangrovesbrought a harsh response from the kids’ parents.You ask our kids to do something bad and health-endangering! Planting mangroves here will onlybring bad luck”.

They were both about twenty years old back then. Itwas not customary for young women to hang aroundwith kids.

“The kids who want to come should finish theirhouse chores first. This is to persuade theirparents to allow the kids to go on a trip. But, still wewere often scolded and referred to as wild girlsbecause we were doing what was commonlydone only by boys.”

Some mothers became less hard; some others evencame with us.

“Later on, we are thinking of approaching the localleader (RT) about our desire to plant mangroves.We did it and received a positive response. Heallowed his son to go with us. However, we werestill scolded by other parents whose childrensecretly collected mangrove fruits.”

To raise fathers’ participation we arranged a picnic tothe island where we collected mangrove fruits. Thewives prepared the food, the husbands collectedfirewood and caught some fish. This recreationalapproach worked.

The planting area soon expanded. However, every-thing did not run as smoothly as we expected. Localfishermen tied their boats to any stands they found,including the weak young mangroves. Goats andbuffaloes went about freely picking up all youngleaves that could satisfy their hunger. In a visit in 2005,some local people said that the next time you come tohelp, please do not only pay attention to the planting;put up a fence around the planting sites as well.

“In the following years we tried to coordinate withthe local government and related institutions to

Semangat BaruSemangat Baru

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ H

arija

nto

Suw

arno

resolving problems together.5. Utilizing the available resources

(self-sustaining). Developingtogetherness should build on thespirit to be liberated fromdependence on other parties.Utilizing one’s own resources fora given project is a formula toavoid dependence which makesthe community powerless againstintervention.

Ideas of ImprovementIf progress cannot be made, is itwrong to get rid of “communityparticipation” from NGO and thegovernment’s programs? It is betterthan paying lip service to communi-ty’s participation.

This might be an immature deci-sion. Positioning the community asthe main actors is not easy. But, itis not easy as well to find a reasonto avoid it. The returning of commu-nity’s rights or community sover-eignty would mean nothing ifachieved through pseudo partici-pation.

It would be better if NGOs and thegovernment can lower their ego asthe “owner” and the “controller” ofa program. At the same time, thecommunity should raise theirposition as an integral part of aprogram. The community should notbe treated as a mere object.

It is true that making participationa strategy in community develop-ment requires long discussions. Butwe can if we want to, as long as webelieve that community participa-tion is indeed a need.

4140

The participants of the Semangat Baru movementdidn’t have enough learning (knowledge and skills)during the early days of the program. Sumiati and SitiAminah themselves were still learning then. No onewas facilitating. Now, Sumiati takes care of her ownfamily, still in Semangat Baru hamlet. Siti Aminah,once trading in used clothes and bread, is nowworking as a community facilitator in other areas.They said that they still wanted to work with communities like the old days. But, according to them, the programshould start with housewives being engaged in seaweed post harvest management. “At that time we neverthought of fulfilling basic needs.”

Several years after the Semangat Barumovement was forgotten, mangrove rehabili-tation projects were flourishing in the othervillages and even in the neighboring sub-districts.

2005. Sumiati and her fourth daughtervisited the barren beach on the backyardof her hamlet, once a lush covered withmangrove. She had her first misscariageas the result of working too hard underthe sun, trying to rehabilitate the beachwith mangroves.

our crazy work got some funding, and it was fromJakarta!”

National mass media published several reports on ourstruggle. In 1996 the P rovincial Forestr y Agency (SubBalai RLKT) offered a cooperation to rehabilitate some100 hectares of mangrove land. The rehabilitationwould involve all hamlets in the village. The spiritaroused again. The planting area target was deter-mined.

In the same year, SGP Indonesia provided otherfunding for a fishermen’s group strengthening (e.g. tobuy boats). Unfortunately, the group was dismisseddue to internal conflicts.

“In 1997, UNO-UNEP awarded us for our motiva-

explain to the community that the mangroveplanting was to restore the function of themangrove forest as erosion/abrasionprevention.”

But incidentally they invited the Head of theSocial Political Directorate, because he was theonly person they had in mind. The Head turnedout to be wise enough and familiar with conser-vation basics. Some local groups that werestrongly opposed to the idea turned neutral.

“In the following year, we learned thatEnvironmental Partner Fund ( Dana MitraLingkungan – DML) Jakarta financed a one-year mangrove planting program, in 1992-1993. We were the field staffs of NationSolidarity Organization ( LembagaSolidaritas Bangsa – LSB) then. We neverthought of having funding. We kept on withour planting although we were repeatedlyasked to pay off our debts by the kiosk wherewe owed money for our recreation.”

Beyond their planning, the movement started tospread outside Semangat Baru. But, the spiritwas not necessarily the same.

“Over time, teenagers became interested inour recreation. They came along, and weprovided for the food and drinks. Then along cameanother NGO adopting our program and offeringgifts such as free t-shirts, caps, and rice. Ourteenage followers turned around and did not evenacknowledge our presence.”

In 1994 a senior NGO activist from Lombok asked GEF-SGP Indonesia to come to Semangat Baru. A weeklater they were asked to come to Mataram to draft aproposal.

“We never hear about proposals, let alone draftingone. But we managed to draft one – in handwriting– in three days.”

LSB got funding for two years, from 1994-1996.

“We jumped with joy when hearing the news.Those who had been skeptical and cursing usgradually changed their mind when they saw that

tion for conservation. In 1998, we received anaward from the Minister of Forestry and EstateCrops as the pioneer in conservation. In 1999 wereceived another award from the Governor of WestNusa Tenggara. But, we had never re-ceived any awards from the local regent.”

After all the second phase funding from SGPIndonesia was used up, the movement inSemangat Baru hamlet finally faded out.Nobody cared for the young mangroves. Slowly,they died. The beach, which was once turnedinto the front yard, now became the back yardagain.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ H

arija

nto

Suw

arno

4342D

ok. U

ND

P In

done

sia

Threat to the community is an important factor that effectively drives the community to have concern about mangroves. The Bauluang coastline moved 50 meters inland from its previous position due to abrasion, before the

community and Yayasan Konservasi Laut commenced a 2-year mangrove replanting project with US$22,000 grantfrom SGP Indonesia.

43

Although only 3 percentsof the total area ofIndonesia’s forest, Indone-

sia’s mangrove forests are theworld’s third largest, with anestimated size of 3,450,000hectares in 1996 (18-24% of theworld’s 17,500,000 hectares ofmangrove forests).

Indonesia’s mangrove forests,however, are disappearing at analarming rate. The government of

Indonesia has passed somepolicies on mangrove conservation,but the enforcement is ver y poor.Mangrove forests designated bythe government as protected areasare heavily degraded or com-pletely gone. It would be nosurprise if the real size of theforests is far below the officialclaim of the Ministry of F orestry,which is the main institution incharge of forest management in

Indonesia.Local communities –who are economicallyand politically weak– are often blamedfor the degradation,becoming the targetof the ruler’s pres-sure. It is in factdomestic and foreigninvestors who must beheld accountable forthe large-scaleconversion of man-grove forests.

Therefore, mangroveforest rehabilitationprojects not only aim

at raising awareness among thecommunities about the significanceof mangrove conservation but alsoshowing (the government) thatlocal communities are concernedabout it. Communities are capableof mangrove replanting andmaintenanceing. They can alsousethe benefits of good andhealthy mangrove ecosystems fortheir economic improvement.

As one can learn from manysuccessful – and unsuccessful –mangrove conservation projects,community’s engagement in aproject can lead to increasedownership and concern aboutmangrove ecosystems on whichtheir lives depend.

Ownership and concern are thepractical solutions to address poormonitoring and law enforcement –the major problems in Indonesia’sconservation efforts.

As Yayasan CINTA Alam (Yascita)learnt from the community of MuaraRanowulu within Rawa Aopa

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ E

ry D

amay

anti

Mangrove logs are sold per piece withprice depending on the diameter.

Before being sold, the logs are usuallybarked to get higher price. The bark issold to a dye factory or used to dye nets

(the color isyellowish red).The bark is alsoused as firewoodin charcoalindustry.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ E

ry D

amay

anti

GEF SGP Indonesia \ Suraya Affif

In some places, mangrove wood or charcoal is used for firewood. It has aunique smell. For coto Makassar and roasted fish fanatics, the dishes

are perfect only if cooked or roasted over mangrove charcoal. In Sinjai andBauluang this is a factor that helps conserve mangroves. Women sellingroasted fish actively campaign for mangrove conservation to ensure acontinuous supply of the charcoal.

Watumohai National Park in SouthEast Sulawesi, the presence of thecommunity did not lead to conflictsas their activities did not adverselyaffect the Park. The community evenconducted self-sustained mangroverestoration. They realize thatmangrove forests are the breedingground for prawns, which theyharvest to make terasi or shrimppaste,one of their main sources oflivelihood. SGP’s program strength-ened local institutions, helpedestablish cooperatives and devel-oped the terasi market. Indirectly,this helped eliminate the stigmathat enclaves always threatenconservation areas.

The planting commonly startswith Rhizopora, a large

number of R. apiculata and a fewR. mucronata as the root systemsof the species are unique: theybreak sea current and trap mud.Increasing mud sedimentation willenlarge the land into the sea.Then, other types of mangrove willbe easier to grow.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ S

uray

a A

ffif

4342

MangroveMangrove

4544

EX-POST STUDY

Mangrove RehabilitationLearning CenterLocation

Rugemuk & Paluh Sibaji, DeliSerdang, North SumatraPartner

Yayasan Pengembangan SumberdayaPedesaan (Yapesda)Projecy Duration & Costs

1994-1996GEF SGP Indonesia US$18,675co-financing (in-kind) US$8,508

Derived from the ex-post study by SurayaAffif in association with Department ofAnthropology, the University of Indonesia.

Yapesda, a grass rootsorganization based inPantai Labu Sub-district,

had some experience from 1989 inmangrove rehabilitation. At thattime, Yapesda received a Rp2million funding from Dana MitraLingkungan. From 1994 Yapesda

was workingintensively with thecommunity ofRugemuk Villageand Paluh SibajiVillage, with

funding from SGP Indonesia.

The project started with the estab-lishment of a community organiza-tion and approaches to the re-gional government. As a result, 100out of 500 people of Rugemuk wereactively engaged in the replanting18-hectares of land. Now , only 10hectares are left due to abrasionand other causes.

The planting was done on the landnot under control of any fishpondcompanies. Domestic and foreigninvestors cleared most of the regionin the 1980s, mostly for shrimpponds. When shrimp business wassuffered financial ruin in the 1990sdue to plague and mismanage-ment, most of the ponds wereabandoned or converted intotraditional fish ponds, recreationalsites and other business sites.The project demonstrated howcommunity engagement couldcontribute to increased awareness

about the significance of man-groves as an ecosystem. Thebenefits of the conservation weredirectly felt by the local communitystrengthened their motivation tomaintain the ecosystem. Thecommunity continues the plantingand the maintenance although theproject is over. This shows that thetransfer of knowledge during aproject is a key to ensuring projectcontinuation. The community evenkeeps developing their knowledgeand skills. Rugemuk and PaluhSibaji have become mangrovenatural laboratories frequentlyvisited by NGOs and a wide rangeof communities. One of those thatonce came and learned there wasthe community of Semanga BaruVillage in Sumbawa, which won theinternational Globe 500 Award.The local community’s belief in thesignificance of mangrove deep-ened when this green belt pro-tected the village from the Decem-ber 2004 tsunami. According tolocal community, the tsunami thatdevastated much of Aceh had littleimpact on the village and thecommunity.

Community BasedBiodiversity in BintuniBayLocation

Bintuni Bay, PapuaPartner

Bintuni Bay Development DialogFoundation (Yayasan DialogPembangunan Teluk Bintuni, YDPTB)Project Duration & Costs

1998-2000 GEF SGP Indonesia: US$10,234.38; Co-financing : US$15,911.25(swadaya & mitra)

Derived from the ex-post study by AriefWicaksono in association with Departmentof Anthropology, the University of Indonesia.

At least 35% - 1.5 millionhectares – of Indonesia’smangrove forests lie in

Indonesia’s easternmost province ofPapua. Of which, one third liearound the Bintuni Bay, an arearich in biodiversity.Most of the mangrove forests inBintuni have been harvested. The

exploitation, however, does notbring any benefits to local commu-nity. Timber companies strip off allthe kinds of mangrove, frommokmov (Sonneratia alba) to theprecious kambau. When a localcommunity wants to build a boat,they have to search for the timberdeep into the upstream forests.

In addition to timber, the region isrich in economically valuablemarine resources such as prawns,crabs and fish. It is also rich inmineral deposits such as gas, oiland coal.The worsening situation and theaccumulated despair of indigenouspeoples that are deprived of theirrights over natural resources serve

as a basic argumentfor restructuring theexisting institutionalsystem.

The Community-basedSustainableBiodiversity Manage-ment Project in BintuniBay was a first step

towards a much larger frameworkof community-based biodiversitymanagement development throughlocal institutions. However, unclearrole-sharing and weak institutionalcapacity made the project run inunclear direction and finally endup in vain.

Project Objectives1. To produce a map of traditional

use zones before and after thecoming of commercial activities.Document traditional use pattern.

2. To formulate a community-basedsustainable use action plan

3. To develop recommendations forcommunity-based protected areamanagement

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ S

uray

a A

ffif

45

Mokmov(Sonneratia alba)G

EF

SG

P In

done

sia

\ Sur

aya

Affi

f

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ A

rief W

icak

sono

4746

EX-POST STUDY

1997 YDPTB and PSAP-UGM,Konphalindo and YayasanPengembangan MasyarakatDesa – YPMD (Village CommunityDevelopment Foundation)Jayapura held a workshop inBintuni, discussing community-based biodiversity managementin Bintuni Bay, with emphasisbeing placed on mangrove

1998 GEF-SGP Indonesia approvedthe proposal and provided agrant and the project started.Konphalindo would help withproject management and techni-cal matters. Due to the shortproject duration compared withthe complex problems in BintuniBay, SGP Indonesia was expectedto become collateral to attractother sources of funding.

1999 The only program run byYDPTB was a revolving fund tothe community, an activity whichwas not included in the proposal.Following up the indication thatthe project was not runningsmoothly, SGP sent some staff toSorong to find out the problemsand seek some solutions. Adiscussion was held with PSAP-UGM, Konphalindo, YDPTB andYayasan Nen Mas Il (Tual, SouthMaluku). It was agreed that NenMas II would replaceKonphalindo, upon considerationthat Nen Mas II was much closer

Survivors-based Rede-velopment of CoastalEcosystems and Liveli-hoodsLocation

Lhok Bubon & Pucok Lueng,Meulaboh, AcehPartner

Yayasan Pengembangan Kawasan(YPK)Project Duration & Costs

2004-2005US$50,000 x 2 lokasi, co-financingUS$454,273.72 (cash & in-kind)Location

Awe Kecil, Simeulue, AcehPartner

Yayasan BanauProject Duration & Costs

2004-2005US$35,000, co-financing US$157,557.71(cash & in-kind)

A year after the tsunami andearthquake in December 26th 2004 the impacts on

environment and livelihoods arestill large. GEF SGP Indonesia tooka pro-active approach in visitingPucok Leung, Samatiga, WestAceh, in April 2005. A team ofvillage planning facilitators andfilmmakers was sent to help thecommunity perform their develop-ment planning to reconstruct theirvillage and livelihood.

YPK as one of the key partnerorganizations has worked inSamatiga region before thetsunami. The community trusted the

organization and this helpedstrengthen their motivation andvoice in independent developmentand village economy efforts withoutdamaging their environment. TheGEF SGP team Indonesia facili-tated YPK and Pucok Luengcommunity in spatial planningmapping and natural resourcepost-tsunami.

The reconstruction was not as easyand fast as it was predicted. As oflate 2006, the community still livesin IDP’s tents or temporary shelters.Trust and safety are very expensivecommodities that need to be rebuiltby the community that lived througharmed-conflict for the past twodecades.

One of the main efforts is to designa Village Community EconomyInstitution (LEM) to organize thecommunity socio-economy needsand environment. Pucok Lueng isone of the very few communitieswhich was independently aware todo self-help schemes and not

depend on the government cash forwork program.

In May 2005, NSC approvedcollaboration with YPK and PucokLueng community in visual pro-posal process. GEF SGP Indonesiaagreed to support funding mobili-zation and other assistance tocreate a better and bigger pro-posal for community based coastalnatural resource management. Incollaboration with DeakonieGermany, the grants provided theboat working station, bigger boatsfor fishermen groups, handicraftstation, goldenthreadsweaving,capita,organic

Chronology1990 A private company started

commercial exploitation in themangrove forests of Bintuni Bayand exported the logs to aTaiwanese bank note maker.

1995 Conflicts between the com-pany and the local community.Customary meetings concludedwith the establishment ofLembaga Masyarakat Adat TelukBintuni – LMATB (Bintuni BayIndigenous People Organization),which in turn facilitated theestablishment of Yayasan DialogPembangunan Bintuni Bay –YDPTB (Bintuni Bay DevelopmentDialog Foundation), with theengagement of Bintuni BayCommunity Association fromManokwari and Bintuni BayYoung Students Association fromJayapura.

1996 Asia Pacific Study Center ofthe University of Gajah Mada(PSAP-UGM) and YDPTB con-ducted a research on community-based biodiversity managementin Bintuni Bay

to the site.

2000 NGO Perdu from Manokwaristarted to work with the indig-enous people of Babo District, toreplicate YDPTB program inBintuni.

2001 Konphalindo’s programofficer conducted an assessmentto Sorong and Bintuni Bay. Itfound out that the YDPTB’sDirector had never read the SGP-approved proposal. Also, nodirection had been given to himby the foundation’s foundersbefore he was moved to Sorong.

In reply to Konphalindo’s pressurefor project accountability, YDPTBheld a big meeting in Bintuni,using the remaining funds andwith a help from the Regent ofManokwari. Instead of discussingthe continuity of the project, themeeting discussed possibilities toestablish a new district of BintuniBay (i.e. to split the existingdistrict into two).

2003 A field survey was conductedto prepare Bintuni CoastalResource Map by Proyek Pesisir /Coastal Project (USAID) of theUniversity of Papua and theprovincial government of Papua.

2004 The Second Coastal Projectstarted, involving YDPTB. It wasto continue the unfinishedYDPTB’s plan.

4. To raise awareness among thelocal communities about theeconomic and social significanceof the biodiversity and about theneed to conserve mangroves

None of the above objectives wereachieved by the end of the project.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ A

rief W

icak

sono

4746

494848

farming and rubber plantation rehabili-tation and agroforestry scheme. Thismodel was based on a revolving fundwith seven other villages along thecoastal area of Pucok Lueng to LhokBubon.The pucok Lueng reconstruction wouldhave been more effective if it was done inan integrated manner and includedexchanges of perspective within theirculture and with outsiders, andused participatory

planning, especially understanding environ-mental perspectives and reconstruction ofcommunity economy and way of living. Thefund itself, however, could not guarantee thedevelopment goal would be achieved lateron. G

EF

SG

P In

done

sia

49

5150

Coral ReefsIndonesia contains at least 14,000

coral reefs dispersed in morethan 200 locations, with the totalarea covering 85,000 km2 or 14%of the world’s total reefs (Reefbase,1997). During the last 50 years,however, they have been disap-pearing at an alarming rate.Wilkinson (1998) said that Indone-

sia’s coral reefs would be com-pletely gone in 10-40 years. Nowsome 40% of Indonesia’s coralreefs are in “bad” condition (i.e.having less than 25% of live coralcover). Only 29% are in “good” to“excellent” condition (i.e. havingmore than 50% of live coral cover).

There are four exploitation methods50

Community-based CoralReefs ConservationLocation

Hari Islands, Southeast SulawesiPartner

Yayasan Bahari (Yari)Project Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$41,0002004-2005 US$50,000, co-financingUS$11,366 (in-kind)

Yayasan Bahari conducted acoral reef restoration proggram in Hari Islands one

year before it received a grant fromSGP Indonesia. During the first year,Yari did not inform the communityabout the economic aid package(credit for boat and motorcycles) toavoid biased engagement. Duringthe establishment of the communitygroup, the community only knew thatthey were going to rehabilitate the

coral reefs surrounding the islands.No wonder only few were willing tojoin the group.

“Coral cannot be planted” was thegeneral opinion among the commu-nity. Only after a year did Yari tellthe community about the revolvingeconomic aid package. The first tenaid receivers were those who weremost active in coral reef rehabilita-tion. The group also formed a jointventure (Badan Usaha Bersama –BUB) to coordinate the revolvingfund for boats. BUB providedsupporting facilities and infrastruc-ture, collected members’ fish catch,opened marketing networks andconducted price surveys at the localmarket.

Now the community ofSaponda and Baho – thesecond inhabited island –no longer practice destruc-tive fishing methods(dynamite and poison).The neighboring villages haverequested lessons on coral reefplanting.Following the endorsement of avillage regulation on sustainablecoral reef utilization in SapondaIsland, Yari coordinated with theMarine and Fishery Agency to putforward input for district andprovincial policy making. Followingthe success, Yari was granted thesecond-phase grant from SGPIndonesia.

that threaten these coral reefs:dynamite, cyanide, coral harvestand bottom trawling. Other threatscome from waste pollution andsedimentation resulting fromlogging and land reclamation.

Cesar (1997) measured the coraldegradation from a managementviewpoint. Dynamite fishinggenerated a profit of US$15,000/km2 of coral reefs, but also a loss

of US$700,000/km2 from the long-term decline in fishery sector (i.e.small fish being killed and noregeneration), as well as in tourismsector (i.e. no beautiful coral reefsto sell). The rehabilitation cost wasenormous, too.Most NGOs adopt similar ap-proaches to coral reef manage-ment. Some directly drive thecommunity to calculate the eco-nomic values of maintaining coral

reefs, as done by Yayasan BahteraNusantara to ornamental fishfishermen in Les, Bali. YayasanKalpataru in the Thousand Islands,and Kapopposang Consortium inSouth Sulawesi helped with theconstruction of ice factories, afacility that enables the fishermento maintain the quality of the fishuntil they reach the market. Someothers offer alternative sources oflivelihood such as seaweed

cultivation and training for divingguides on expectation that theactivities will allow the reefs toregenerate and fish to return.

Almost all are of economic ap-proaches. While they are directand rather effective as they touchthe community’s basic needs;strangely enough, the most commonobstacle faced by most of SGPIndonesia’s partners is marketing.

Coral Reefs Restoration &Aquarium Fish TradeLocation

Phase 1 : Les, Bali

Phase 2 : Les, Tembok, Serangan,GilimanukPartner

Yayasan Bahtera Nusantara (YBN) Many efforts have beenmade to curb coral reefand coastal degradation, from awareness

raising to provision of alternativesource of livelihood. Many have notlasted long due to enormousfunding needs. However, the small

grant programadopted byYayasan BahteraNusantara inBali survived thefifth year andshows continuous

devel-opmentdespiteitslimita-tion andcom-plexity.

50 51

This coral reef rehabilitation in LesVillage, Bali, is intended to createmore habitat for ornamental fish toLes utilizing socio-economicapproaches.

A YBN activist came to Les pretend-ing to be ornamental fish trader.The ornamental fish fishermengroup in North Bali used to prac-tice cyanide fishing. The coral reefsin the region were heavily de-graded due to the cyanide spreadby sea currents.

The community was informed of theprospect of better business if thesold fish were not dead or stunnedby cyanide. They learnt how tocatch fish using small nets and totreat and transport fish in a betterway.About one third of the 2-year grantreceived by YBN in mid-2002 fromSGP Indonesia was used to estab-lish PT Bahtera Lestari (PTBL), anexporter of ornamental fish. Someof the shares were owned by ‘MinaBhakti Soansari’ fishermen’s group,Adat Village and Dinas Village.PTBL now has a monthly turnover ofRp30-60 millions.The good relationship with the

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ E

ry D

amay

anti

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ B

ahte

ra N

usan

tara

Project Duration & Costs

2002-2004 GEF SGP US$45,007,community US$10,532, MAC US$2,3642004-2007 GEF SGP US$50,000, Lescommunity US$15,986, Tembok comm.US$20,581, Serangan comm.US$26,693, Gilimanuk comm.US$17,549, other donors US$30,640

5352

regional government yielded acontract that the Les communityshould apply the same program inother regions in Bali, includingSerangan, near Denpasar; andGilimanuk, which borders on BaliBarat National Park. Nine otherregional governments are nowfinalizing coral reef rehabilitationand fish trade that can be appliedby communities such as is done inLes and Serangan. The communityof Serangan is now seeking apermits to harvest coral it hasgrown and to trade in and exportlive corals.

Poverty among fishermen is often attributed to lack ofentrepreneurship. Fishermen are only a single link atthe chain of custody that grows in value to tens of timeshigher than their catch sale price. Fishermen don’thave the capital to export their product. The profitmargin at the local market often goes to the middlemen and traders.Several community-based trade schemes end infailure due to imbalanced competition with commer-cial companies, which move forward without being

hampered by the so-called “for the community’s sake”concerns. Few community facilitation/advocacy effortsstart with commercial approaches, and, after they arerather successful, the benefits are not always distrib-uted fairly to the community. This might be partly due tothe failure of the trickle down effect theory.PT Bahtera Lestari in Les, Bali, attempts to ensure fairprofit-sharing by allowing fishermen’s groups to own theshares, and thus allowing the company to be free fromfulfilling social obligations outside its trade scheme.

Community-based Commercial Company

52

Commodity and MarketDemand for ornamental fish inBali, particularly from exportmarkets, is quite high. The rela-tively high turnover and profitmargin have driven the communityof Les to change their fishingmethod and packaging. The oldmethod – dynamite and cyanidefishing – gives the fishermen deador broken fish resulting in a lowprice. Having compared the result,

the community easily shifted toother practices.The location of the market alsoplays an important role. Bali isknown as one of the centers forornamental coral fish in Indonesia.Denpasar is an important spot forexport. Ornamental fish accountsfor 60% of the fish trade in Bali.Although the trade generates anominal profit compared withtourism, it does not generateadverse impacts on tourism asdestructive fishing does through itsover-fishing, let alone dynamiteand cyanide fishing that destroythe coral reefs. As well as protect-ing coral from cyanide, the projecthas successfully brought signifi-cant improvement to localeconomy and poverty alleviation.

Community ApproachGenerally, NGOs coming into acommunity are not equipped withadequate ‘local language’ skills.Yayasan Bahtera Nusantara (YBN)introduced itself and then inter-acted as an ornamental fish trader.Equipped with a sound back-ground in the ornamental fishtrade, it could discuss with thecommunity about anything related

to ornamental fish, from the priceto the fishing technique.This initial approach was carefullyselected after consideration thatthe best communication could bebuilt if it was directly related to thecommunity’s basic needs, the‘language’ the community couldunderstand most easily. Thequestion for other projects iswhether NGOs are prepared tospeak the ‘local language’ and arecapable of understanding commu-nity survival needs.

Cost of LivingOne factor that impedes NGOs’facilitation and assistance isoperational costs. YBN has provento be able to address the problemas some of the profit generated isspent to support program activities.To run an ‘enterprise’ does notnecessarily need a lot of re-sources. The community willnaturally come to discuss abouttheir business interests. No budgetis needed for lengthy meetings orworkshops. These communityempowerment and environmentalconservation efforts are stillcontinuing, and YBN and thecommunity are still learningtogether.

5554

isolated place ask the regionalgovernment to pay a certainhonorarium to neighborhoodleaders (RT). Money is seen as theproblem-solver. The conditionseems to get worse. Then, whatshould we do about it?

Critical awareness is theanswer. The communities

should be encouraged to be ableto make assessments and decisionsfor themselves with due considera-tion, both at present and in thefuture. If this has been done,maintaining the critical awarenessis the next serious work.

Time-based ‘project’ approach (oneor two years) within the donor-approved timetable is somethingimpossible. While the deteriorationhas been going on for tens ofyears, it is impossibleto restore it in only ayear. Only a Supermancan do that: a victimscreams for help andwhoosh Supermancomes and rescues him/her.

Target-based projectand the large

extent of fund absorp-tion are among thecauses of partialapproaches. Empower-ing organizations are trapped inproject completion efforts. Once theproject is over, gone is everything.‘Investment’ is not found in a projectmanager’s vocabulary . Billions of

rupiahs have been spent, but thenumber of poor people is growing .Everything ends in vain.Another problem comes from thefact that the project managers andtheir staff are based in cities, whilethe project site (i.e. communityempowerment) is usually located inisolated areas. One can imaginehow city people with their modernway of living and ‘folder’ mentalityhave to live in a place they havenever imagined before. Only feware able to adapt to the highlycontrasting way of life. Most staffcan stand living in this new situa-tion only for a week. They payfewer visits to the site and finallydo not come at all unless the donorcomes for monitoring. And thestage is set, the local community is

treated with big smiles, and allother things are done to give animpression that the work is doneproperly. However, such attitudescannot give birth to a movement.

As a matter of fact, community-levelwork can be done even withoutfunding, as long as all the avail-able resources allow. Empower-ment concept should be perceivedas an ‘investment’ which will bearfruit when the target has beenempowered. Knowledge andexperience become the basis onwhich empowering work is based.Empowerment is not just nominalwork.

Today I am sitting in a publicstage house built by the local

community in a recreational villagein Bogor. The village is owned bythe community, and I have my ownshare in it. The houses are cleanbecause they are commonly usedfor home stay programs. To achieveits goal, the space use is carefully

designed. Alltourist servicesare managed bya business unitcalled “yourvillage is myvillage”.My kid goes to anature school, forfree, because theschool is subsi-dized by the rich,not by the commu-nity, to whom I

belong. The teachers are qualifiedbecause they are the villagersspecially trained to train their owncommunity. The school is part of thebusiness unit called “outdoorsschool”.

Retiring with the PeopleAhmad Baehaqie *

The development approach inall sectors throughoutIndonesia, from seas to

mountains, from remote villages tometropolitan cities, from trickledown approaches to participatoryapproaches, has been far from theconcept of development based oncommunity sovereignty. Communi-ties have not become more inde-pendent. A “begging” attitude hasbecome more common anywhere.Many communities can now onlymove if driven by money, eventhough it is to solve their ownproblems. What a miserablecondition!.

Partial ways of thinking has led tothe wrong conclusion that economicpoverty is the root of all the prob-lems. This has led to the applica-tion of economic approaches in alldevelopment concepts.

Participatory spirit was then added

to the approaches creating theterm “organizing,” which waspoorly perceived as “formingorganizations”. This is the reasonwhy there are so many the so-called “community organizations”.

And now comes the so-calledcommunity-based approach, whichis perceived as the next approachto participation. The results,however, are no better. The commu-nities are still left alone andpowerless.

Organizing should be the nextstep following institution

forming, which is intended to createcooperation and mutual relation-ship. Mutual relationship, such assincerity, understanding and trustis the essence of future organiza-tions. Robert Putnam (1995) calledit ‘social resource: “… Whilephysical resource refers to humanresource, and physical object refers

to individual wealth, social re-source refers to inter-individualrelationship – the social networkand mutual and trust values thatthey build.”The social resource called “gotong-royong” (mutual cooperation) thathas long been established withinIndonesia’s communities has beendeteriorated by money-orientedapproaches. Mutual benefit inindividual relationship is nowdetermined by ‘money’. In severalplaces, in particular Jakarta, asocial task to manage relation-ships between neighbours – whichis generally the role of aneighborhood leader (RT)– hasbecome paid work. People strugglehard for political positions. Moneypolitics comes into play. All thesehave led to separation, not unity,within the society.

This condition has spread to otherregions. Some people in an

Head of Community Development Division of the Center for Regional Assessment, Planning and Development of Bogor Agricultural Institute.Lecturer of practical work in Participatory Regional Planning with PS-PWD and PS-PWL, Post Graduate Program of Bogor Agricultural Institute.SALAM’s staff is specifically dedicated to Community-based Regional Planning.

1 Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital; Journal of Democracy, 6:1 Jan2 Social capital of community consists of institutions, relations, attitudes, and values that determine inter personal relationships and haveimportant roles in social and economic development. Social capital was established for a long time in economics, sociology, anthropology, andpolitics.

5756

The food is provided by self-sustained organic farms. The farms(rice, fruits, vegetables and cattle)are managed by a business unitcalled “healthy nutritional food”,where my wife is actively engaged.The drinking water is free, comingfrom a natural spring in themountain. Those who pay for thewater are bottled drinking watercompanies, the loyal customers of abusiness unit called “clean water”.Waste poses no problem at all as itis managed by another businessunit called “my waste is my bless-ing”, which is well-managed andprofitable.I have had all the assets needed tosupport me in my old age. I will nothave to work hard to supportmyself then.

Suddenly , my kid cries, wantingto see his mother. I wake up

from my dream. I wish I could be inthe situation and conditions likethose in my dream. T oday, only asmall part of my dream has beenfulfilled. I wish all my dream couldbe fulfilled in ten years. At least, Ihave made my first small step, andam moving forwards, though theroad ahead is not smooth. Some-how, I am quite sure. Amen.Social resources of a given commu-nity include institutions, relation-ships, attitudes and values thatgovern the members and play arole in the economy . Social devel-opment within community develop-ment framework has long beenestablished in the fields ofeconomy, sociology, anthropologyand politics.

Community’s Product Marketing

Conservation of LocalDurianLocation

Mojokembangan, East JavaPartner

Bima Lestari Sejahtera FoundationProject Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$6,500

“We call it the technology thatunderstands you” is Nokia’s market-ing concept. Another company hasa principle “Love he customers, notthe product.” Theodore Levvit, amarketing expert, distinguishes“sale” and “customers”. Cosmeticproducers Estee Lauder in 1991-1992 marketed special products forblack women and succeeded inincreasing its sales by 45%.Whether they realize it or not,ornamental fish fishermen conduct

the same process: market (de-mand) study. They only catch fishthat sell good in the market, or evenpre-ordered species. Similarly,farmers consider what they willgrow in a certain season. Too manycrop by harvest time will drop theprice.

Some producer communities haverealized the importance of marketinformation. Some grouper fisher-men invested in communicationradio in order to follow the price

fluctuations in the internationalmarket, or set up a network withother producers or other groupsthat can link them to the market orconsumers.On the other hand, many assistingNGOs have only one primesolution in assisting the commu-nity. Whereas rattan is abundant,they encourage community toproduce rattan handicrafts.Whereas durians are not indemands, then teach the commu-

Local durian farm and production of liquid fertilizer from cow manure.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ B

ima

Lest

ari

logged, including the local durian.Two local durian species – durianMojo and durian Trawas – are wellknown for their thick meat, andunique smell and taste. They arebetter than other local durians. Theproject was intended to bring thedurian back to the village, developmedicinal herbs, and makeliquefied fertilizers out of manure.

In addition to SGP Indonesia’sfunding, funding also came from

nity to make sweets and otherpreserved food products. Where assite is bestowed with naturalbeauty, then promote ecotourism.Most of GEF SGP Indonesia’spartners adopted the same line ofthoughts. A few has alreadyintegrated various marketingfactors from the comception ofproducts. In the case of Lesvillage and Serangan, the assistingNGOs invested dearly in involvingthe commmunity starting from its

awareness program and trustbuilding exercises. However, thereare some intervention process thatskipped these important steps sothat the objectives of the interven-tion failed to be materialized. In thelatter case, the communities failedto independently analyze therelations of supply and demands.Fortunately, there are growingevidence that show community’sunderstanding regarding marketdemands and then was respondedby assisting NGOs through capac-ity building programs.

Prior to 1997 most of thecommunity of MojokembangVillage, East Java, depended

on forests. Men and women col-lected firewood, young edible ferns,mushrooms, teak leaves, candlenutfruits, bendo and kluwek to be soldat the market. Entering the reformera, when large-scale illegal forestexploitation was rampant, a largenumber of species were completely

the UK Embassy for a cow fatteningprogram for women farmers. Cowbreeding is closely related todurian cultivation and medicinalgardens. Each tree needs 10 kgs ofmanure. So for 500 durian trees, 5tons of manure are needed everythree months. The organic fertiliz-ers produced have been marketedas far as Bali.

The good market developmentcannot be separated from institu-tional capacity building. YayasanBima Lestari Sejahtera is thereincarnation of a community’s self-help group (KSM) that receivedfunding from DFID to preserve localculture. Within SGP Indonesia’sproject duration, they came backand started to seek other fundingsources, including co-funding fromthe regional government for biogasdevelopment.

Semi natural ButterflyBreedingLocation

Bantimurung, Sulawesi SelatanPartner

Institute of Community Research &Development (Institusi Penelitian &Pengembangan Masyarakat, IPPM)Project Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$15,000

Mr. Ali can only sell hiscommodity at the localBantimurung market. He

cannot export it because he doesnot have the permit. Licensed

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ E

ry D

amay

anti

5958

been attempting toraise the butterflies(from caterpillars toadult butterflies) at home.Half of the butterflies areraised from caterpillarscaught in nature. Although itseems unsustainable, it shouldbe understood that a butterfly’slife is quite short; they die shortlyafter laying eggs.

Generally, between 2 and 5% of thebutterflies raised are brought backto nature, mostly to national parksor almost impassable areas toavoid hunting.

Buyers of preserved butterflies comefrom faraway cities, such asSurabaya (East Java) and Bogor(West Java). Prices at producer/maker level are low. They are oftenpressed by middlemen or traderswho allege that the breeders do nothave the permits to catch or raiseprotected species. The absence ofpermits depresses the breeders. Infact, they operate in front of theentrance to Bantimurung NationalPark. Butterfly breeding not onlyconserves threatened species butalso helps domestic and foreign

Ery D

amay

anti

ForestIndonesia contains the world’s

third largest tropical forest areaafter Brazil and Zaire, i.e. 10% ofthe world’s total. Indonesia’s forestecosystems stand at 120 millionhectares, comprising montaneforests, lowland forests, andmangrove forests, each with theirown biodiversity.However, these exceptionally richresources were heavily exploitedstarting in the early 1970s, andexploitation got worse up to the late1990s. In 1994 the production oftimber and its derivatives generatedUS$5.5 billion. The formal forestryindustry absorbed 700,000 workers.Deforestation increased as the

industry grew. An FAO study in 1990showed that Indonesia had lost 56-74% of its forests in a span of 30-40years. The deforestation ratemultiplied from 300,000 ha/year inthe 1970s to 600,000 ha/year in1981. In 1990 it soared to onemillion hectares per year.

Economy-driven natural resourceexploitation has deprived thecommunity of their right to life.When the community has to give upits resources to the national inter-est, regional governments cannotmaintain their bargaining powerand this opens room and opportuni-ties for investors to take control overnatural resources.So the fact is that forest ecosystemsstill suffer enormous loss whileimpoverishment of the communitygets worse.

Many collective efforts have beenmade by a wide-range of communi-ties. One was GEF-SGP Indone-sia’s partner, who assisted theDayak Meratus in SouthKalimantan to actualize customaryforest management through theestablishment of an informationcenter to build communication withoutside groups.Such efforts will remain sideinitiatives however, if the roots of theproblem – legal certainty, manage-ment planning, tenurial certainty,and the balanced relations amongthe government, the industry andthe society – are not addressed.How much political will does thegovernment and the otherstakeholders have to supportcommunity collective efforts tomanage forest ecosystems in asustainable way?

buyers come and buy from himcheap. Abroad, butterflies arepreserved not only as souvenirs butalso decoration - a fashion: theydecorate night gowns!

South Sulawesi endemic butterflieshave been a community business inthe region of Bantimurung forgenerations. However, the businessis facing increasing threats fromchanges in land use, including thecoming of a cement company intothe area, which is one of theimportant karst regions in easternIndonesia. Moreover , Aristolocea –the main plant that feeds thebutterfly caterpillars – and manyother plant species are becomingrare.

In 2000, Ali Mutahar, a localbutterfly trader , made an initiativeto raise butterflies which drew a lotof attention from other butterflytraders who used to rely on suppliesfrom nature. Several individualsstarted to learn about the breedingmethods. In 2003 they formed theNirwana Group and then theToalaka Group. Eight species ofbutterfly have been bred so far.It turns out that only a few peoplecontinue thisrather compli-cated business.Without additionalcapital, the groupscan only supply 25% ofthe demand. Somegroup members have

Meratus ForestBiodiversityLocation

Loksado, South KalimantanPartner

Cakrawala Hijau Indonesia FoundationProject Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$45,000

The region of Loksado in SouthKalimantan Province is wellknown to contain the Indone-

sia’s second largest types of bam-boo, after the region of Simpang inWest Java Province. This part ofMeratus mountains is also wellknown for its orchid diversity.

The biodiversity has been threat-

ened by land conversion. T o date,the local community has beenpracticing rotational cultivation.While the cycle ranged from 7 to 12years in the past, now it is shortenedto 5-6 years or even 2 years. Thechange in the cultivation cycleindicates that the area undercultivation has been shrinking in the

For a hundred years, the MeratusDayak have been selling their cropsto downstream villages on bamboorafts, which they eventually sell, too.Bamboo is one of the region’s kindsof biodiversity. Since ten years,bamboo raft cruises has attracted alot of tourists.

researchers study thespecies.

In this project, GEF-SGP Indonesia’spartner, IPPM, faced difficulties indeveloping the technology andlocal initiatives to increase thecommunity’s income and to have apolicy dialog with all thestakeholders.

6160

MonsoonForestMonsoon forest or kerangas is oneof the fifteen sub-types of tropicalforests. Monsoon forests are foundin eastern Brazil, northern Aus-tralia, western and eastern Africaand Asia. In Asia, they are found inIndia, Ceylon, China and Indone-sia.

The biodiversity of a monsoonforest is lower than that of someother tropical forest types.Monsoon forests exist in regionswith moderate rainfalls, with apronounced dry season, and arecharacterized by shorter trees anda relatively thin canopy allowingother species to grow below, as ifcreating another forest of theirown. The forest floor is usuallycovered by thick vegetation.

Monsoon Forest Conser-vationLocation

Lore Lindu National Park, CentralSulawesiPartner

LP A Awam Green

Project Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$15,000

The monsoon forest in LoreLindu National Park lies 300-700 meters above sea level,

with anannual rainfall less than200 mm. This dry condition ham-

tion and the restoration. One goodthing is that at least the projectwas able to prevent the movementof logging companies operating inSibovi Village, which had beenexploiting the forest by using thelocal community as loggers. Atcommunity level, new awarenesswas born about the monsoon forestecosystem. The community under-stood that the forest surroundingtheir village was unique to theirarea. Gradually, the willingness totake part in the management andthe conservation of the foreststarted to grow. Relationshipsstarted to build among the commu-nities of Sibovi Village, Uwe LoweVillage and Lompio Village,enabling more effective learningprocesses and cooperation inenvironmental issues and localinstitutional capacity building.

Building community participationwas achieved through intensive,regular and informal villagemeetings. Community Organiserswere selected from local figures toensure the effectiveness of theirwork. The project was successful inbuilding CO’s capacity andforming CO’s cadres, indicated bythe smoothness of leader replace-ment. The implementing organiza-tion shared knowledge, capacityand roles with the community toachieve the goals together. Thecommunity made a consciousrequest to the implementingorganization to facilitate localinstitution arrangement. If theassisting NGO did not have theresources, it invited resources fromother related institutions, includingHusbandry Agency (fish and cow)and the Park Management (forlocation and planting).Pressure to fulfill the basic needswas one of the factors hamperingthe optimization of the rehabilita-

pers the natural restoration of thedegraded part, and even leads topermanently degraded areas.Therefore, the impact of landclearing, which is relatively high inthe region, is worse than that inwetter tropical forests.

The local community practice arotational herding system, intendedto allow the grazing field time torestore itself. However, this tradi-tional practice has been graduallyoverrun by large-scale grazing byoutsiders as well as continuousland clearing that has destroyedthe monsoon forest. There has alsobeen an increasing sale of orna-mental monsoon plants, such asCycas sp. and Draisena sp.At the outset, the ultimate goal ofLP A Awam Green project was torehabilitate and restore themonsoon forest. While the rehabili-tation targeted the Park’s bufferzone, which is the local gardenforest, the restoration would planttypical monsoon species, such as

Java tamarine. The project wasexpected to serve as a model formonsoon forest conservationthrough community participation.

Threats to the ecosystem includehunting, illegal logging andharvest of certain ornamentalspecies. The actors in thesebusinesses are mostly outsiders.The local community cannot doanything to prevent the activities,let alone to impose any sanctionagainst the actors, as they have notbeen engaged in the protection ofthe Park.

The rehabilitation and restorationare a temporary solution to theincreasing degradation. To solvethe continuous threats needscomprehensive approaches,including preventive measures. Allthe activities to protect the forestshould be done in cooperation withthe local community to enable jointlearning process, work andaccountability to ensure thesustainability of the project.

Indonesia’s monsoon forests onlyaccounted for 17,000 hectares outof the total 120 million hectares offorest (RePPProt, 1990). Thedistribution is restricted to CentralSulawesi, Muna Island, NusaTenggara and in some areas ofCentral Java. The endemic birdspecies inhabiting monsoonforests include Maleo(Macrocephalon maleo) inSulawesi and Gosong bird(Megapodius reinwardtii) in NusaTenggara.

last few years. The local communityalso has a collective forest, wherethey can collect firewood and otherforest products. There are alsosacred forests (katuan), where theycannot enter without permision fromcustomary leaders.

YCHI implemented a project withthe communities of Malaris andHaratai to improve the localeconomy by introducing alternativesources of livelihood to reducethreats to the forests, and at thesame time promote sustainablenon-timber forest product utiliza-tion. The project consisted of threeprograms: orchid cultivation,bamboo handicraft development,ecotourism development (bamboo-raft river cruises).

An information center was estab-lished to disseminate forestconservation through orchidcultivation. Over time, the functionhas shifted to a customary meetingplace. Now the local communitygets angry if outsiders come andcollect orchids from the forests.

Orchid cultivation, however, has yetto be maximized due to limitedcapacity to expand the market andlimited capital. As the cultivationhas yet to yield any profits, thecommunity tends to do otheractivities.

6362

Marsh Lake Conserva-tionLocation

Rawa Danau, Serang, BantenPartner

Halimun Ecotourism Foundation

Project Duration & Costs

2000-2002 US$1,370

Rawa Danau is the last peatswamp ecosystem in JavaIsland. F rom a water man-

agement viewpoint, Rawa Danau isthe source of fresh water forSerang, the capital of BantenProvince; the recreational site ofAnyer; and the industrial site ofCilegon. The management is poor,however, and sedimentationresulting from logging activities

Total Full Grants Planning Grants

2004-2005 12 6 50% 6 50%2003-2004 37 20 54% 17 46%2002-2003 19 11 58% 8 42%

2000-2002 50 39 78% 11 22%1998-2000 62 50 81% 12 19%1993-1996 23

Pond ConservationLocation

Gunung Kidul, JogjakartaPartner

NawakamalProject Duration & Costs

2003-2004 US$2,000

2003-2004 US$41,867

The karst ecosystem inGunung Kidul once containedmore than 100 ponds, of

which only about 15 survive; theothers have dried up. In the dryseason, community wells get drytoo, so they have to collect or buywater from other areas. The

disappearance of the ponds iscaused by soil erosion around theponds, which have less and less trees.The communities living around theponds are mostly crop farmers. Thecommunities’ high dependence onthe ponds can be seen from theSedekahan Telaga, a traditionalannual ceremony in which thecommunity gives offerings to the“keepers” of the ponds, the spiritsbelieved to own/control the pond.The dependence, however, hasmade it easier to mobilize thecommunities to save the remainingponds. The communities buildterraced farms, stone fences andplant trees. The program is sup-ported by the local husbandry ,which provides manure, thusenabling the development oforganic farms.These are the basic considerationswhy SGP Indonesia provided a fullgrant. Other supporting reasonsare that the project representsSGP’s fresh water ecosystemoperational programs.From an institutional viewpoint,

Nawakamal is consideredto have strong capacity torender assistance. Inaddition to having key staffwith anthropologicalbackground, Nawakamaloften conducts studies onrural communities.Nawakamal startedassistance in Gunung Kidula few years ago.

The table shows incrementalplanning grants provided by GEF-SGP Indonesia in a span of tenyears. Planning grants are in-tended to help community’sgroups or NGOs who are consid-ered to have activities in compli-ance with GEF-SGP’s criteria butdo not have capacity to draftproposals.The technical assistance providedby GEF-SGP Indonesia is notlimited to administrative arrange-ments. To address partners’specific needs that are beyond

Musyawarah perencanaankelompok warga dan sistemterasering di sekitar telaga.

Planning Grants

has been filling the swamp.Following the planning grantperiod, Yayasan EkowisataHalimun – YEH (HalimunEcotourism Foundation) drafteda proposal for a full grant. Itproposed community-basedmanagement initiative throughsustainable benefit generation.The proposed activities in-cluded organic farming,handicraft and ecotourism.YEH was considered to be strong indeveloping biodiversity andecotourism, among others from itsexperiences in ecotourism develop-ment in Mount Halimun. YEH hadeven probed the possibility tocooperate with a large privatecompany operating in the region topromote ecotourism.

However, the full grant proposalwas rejected by SGP Indonesia,

mainly due to the organization’sweakness in the socio-politicalfield. The proposal lacked goodsocial preparation. In fact, due toits closeness to an industrial site,the communities living around theswamp were not as homogeneousas those around Gunung Kidulponds, for example. Communityorganization was the entry pointkey that would determine theproject’s success.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ A

vi M

ahan

ingt

yas

SGP staf f’s capacity, GEF-SGPIndonesia will seek outsideresources. The specific assist-ance provided so far includesknowledge management, market

network development, organicfarming, packaging, micro finan-cial institution development, up tofund raising for programs’sustainability.

6564

Impact of Mercury toHealth and Environ-mentLocation

Sekayam, West KalimantanPartner

PPSHK Pancur KasihProject Duration & Costs

2002-2003 US$2,0002003-2004 US$33,849

The rampant gold miningoperations using Mercury toseparate gold from impuri-

ties have increasingly polluted theenvironment and endangeredhuman life. Done along the river-side, the operations acceleratedmercury pollution via the water andriver species consumed by humans.The possibility of mercury impactson human health in WestKalimantan is very high.

In 2000 a lecturer with the Univer-sity of Tanjung Pura stated that thewater of the Kapuas River was nolonger appropriate for drinking.Apart from the controversy gener-ated by such a statement, itopened community’s eyes tomercury pollution in Kapuastributaries: Mandor, Landak,Sekayam, Sepauk, Sekadau,Melawi, Ketungau, and Silat,where gold mining operations wererampant at that time.In 2003 Yayasan Pancur Kasih incooperation with the provincialgovernment and several NGOsconducted research into mercury in

tions. The CO roles were assignedto group leaders. In TerusanVillage, for example, there werewater user groups, vegetablegroups, joint venture groups, etc.Organization training was held to

human body. The research re-vealed that the content was abovethe allowable standard set by F AO.The year before, ProgramPengembangan Sistem HutanKerakyatan – PPSHK (Community’sForestry System DevelopmentProgram), one of Pancur Kasih’sprogram units, was granted aplanning grant from GEF -SGPIndonesia, and used it to financefield visits and a series of commu-nity’s workshops. As a result, thecommunity became more aware ofthe danger of mercury and felt thatthey should seek access to non-polluted sources of water.PPSHK aimed at encouraging thecommunity’s initiative to use andmanage natural resources throughintroducing local species cultiva-tion, providing diagnoses and freemedical treatment for mercuryvictims, constructing fresh watercanals, and rehabilitating ex-goldmining sites. PPSHK also attemptedto build a community movement toreject mercury use – a proposalforwarded to the district govern-ment of Sanggau, and to dissemi-nate information on the danger ofmercury through bulletins, commu-nity radio and village meetings.SGP’s full grant received by PPSHKin 2003 was used wholly forfacilitation purposes (training onjoint venture management, market-ing strategies, annual meetings),and not for facilities building orprovision of capital, in fear that thecommunity’s ownership would bediminished. The policy not to getengaged deeper in decision-making was adopted by PPSHK

based on its experiences in otherproject locations. PPSHK did notuse the term ‘local communityorganizer’ (CO) as it often resultedin COs’ overacting, which oftenbrought contra-productive reac-

Management of ex-gold mines criticalland

Gold mining operations were firstlydone by outsiders. The operationsincluded the felling of trees inriparian areas. The local commu-nity started to get engaged in themining when the deposits had beenrunning out and were considerednon-economic by the outsideoperators. The river is still murkydue to erosion, though not as murkyas previously . No water plants andtree branches that harbor river fishcan be found. All have been de-stroyed by the miners’ pumps. It isthe local community again who hasto take the consequences of theoperations. They have to rehabili-tate bare, white quartz sandypatches, which are almost impossi-ble to cultivate.

Training on Compost Making To Support VegetableGarden Development

PPSHK’s facilitators once identifiedimbalanced gender responsibility. Previously,the vegetable groups consisted of womenonly. The men argued that vegetable plantingwas too easy for them. But when confrontedwith the fact that women also tapped rubber

and asked whether only women benefited from the vegetable gardens, therewas a change in the men’s attitude. More men have joined the vegetablegroups now.

convey the functions, the duties, theresponsibilities and the principlesof CO but with efforts to avoid theuse of this foreign term. Thesuccess of such an approach,indirectly show that external ideas

are hard to gain acceptance in thecommunity and can even generateproblems.

Although integral group work wasnew to the community, they showedhigh enthusiasm in the activities.Each community even took part inthe book-keeping. It was no wonderso many members asked questionsto their group leaders. One groupleader handed in his resignationas he felt that his duties were toohard for him to handle.

On the other hand, there was anindication of a high level of democ-ratization among the community.Replacement of group leaders (dueto inappropriate attitude) wasdone in a democratic way.

Organizational independence wasimproved. If someone neededfacilitation in financial administra-tive management for example, hehad to provide the facilitator’saccommodation (transportation,consumption and honorarium).

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a \ P

PS

HK

6766

Living Fence & Jungle SchoolLocation

Bukit Dua Belas National Park, JambiPartner

SokolaProject Duration & Costs

2003-2004 Planning Grant GEF SGP IndonesiaUS$2,000

2004-2005 Total US$33,660, GEF SGP IndonesiaUS$23,455, Community US$4,071, SokolaUS$6,133, Technical assistance GEF SGP Indonesia:project analysis, narative and financial reporting.

For a very long time OrangRimba who live deep in theJambi jungle, Sumatra, have been

labeled as primitive, unreachable forestnomads. Almost no clear descriptions of thistribe emerged within the public sphere, not tosay photographs. Several communities live inthe area. As hunters and gatherers, theymove regularly, never stay for long in oneplace. This is one of the reasons why it has

Visual ProposalIn March 2004, the National SteeringCommittee (NSC) of GEF SGP Indonesiaapproved a living fence development projectof the Orang Rimba in Bukit Dua BelasNational Park, Jambi, Sumatra, after viewinga visual proposal. The short film consisted ofOrang Rimba from Makekal Hulu discussingand analysing simple ecological threats andtheir self-capacity to face the problem.Further, this mechanism was used to openwider opportunity for illiterate communitygroups and or groups who face a situation inwhich it is difficult to write a proposal ac-cording to donors requirements.The initiative was done with support fromeducation practitioners, anthropologists andfilmmakers. They first obtained thrust andpermission from Orang Rimba. The overall

been difficult for formal educationto reach them.

Sokola found out that it was nottrue that Orang Rimba do not careabout the forest. They even have aconcept of forest garden forsustainable use zone, Hompongon,as a means to protect their lastremaining forest and to supporttheir livelihood. The Hompongon orliving fence is planted with foodcrops and rubber to preserve thesubsistence economy and semi-nomad way of living. Today, a solarpanel provided by SGP stillfunctions and is maintained tosupport the learning process at

night without disturbing thechildren’s day time productivity asOrang Rimba and their forestmonitoring activities.

The project was the continuation ofa project supported by SGP’sUS$2,000 planning grant in 2003-2004. Full grant was granted uponconsideration that the partner wascapable of identifying ecologicalthreats, anticipating and handlingecological, social and economicproblems, and supporting indig-enous people’s (Orang Rimba)efforts to manage their naturalresources in a sustainable way.

GE

F S

GP

Indo

nesi

a / A

vi M

ahan

ingt

yas

Key questions that guide the draft-ing of a visual proposal flowchartinclude:1. What are the ecological threats

and impacts faced by the environ-ment and the community?

2. What capacity does the commu-nity have to address the threat(s)?

3. What kinds of collective effortshave been made? Which ones havebeen successful and which havenot been?

4. If necessary, what kinds of exter-nal aids are needed and how?

5. How will the organization be heldaccountable and how will thereporting be conducted?

6. Mention the roles of eachstakeholder to be involved in theactivities (co-financing, visualreport, technical assistance)

6766

planning, shooting, final packagingand presentation was performedfollowing the principle of free, priorand informed consent.Orang Rimba suggested the “living-fence” development surroundingtheir forest area, which was beingconverted to fields and housing, topreserve their forest from illegallogging, rubber-tree plantation andpalm-oil plantation. GEF SGPIndonesia also provided funding for asolar panel for the forest school(sekolah rimba), and to provide fundsfor work for young people especiallyin cultivating and guard their fieldsand living-fence day and night. Thevideo proposal is also effective as aneducation material and in supportingthe dialogue of the Orang Rimbawith the National Park, and with

donors and other audiences.Until 2005, GEF SGP Indonesia hasfacilitated and collaborated withindigenous communities producingvisual proposals for:- Gampong Awe Kecil community,

the island of Simeulue, Aceh- Gampong Lhok Bubon community,

Samatiga, Aceh- Gampong Pucok Lueng commu-

nity, Samatiga, Aceh- Gunung Lumut community, East

Kalimantan (facilitating editing)- Orang Rimba community, Jambi,

SumatraA request for assistance in producinga visual proposal from Lamalera,Lembata (East Nusa Tenggara) wasnot followed up due to the institutionlack of capacity.

6968

stration by university students in theearly 1970s – the expression ofsensitivity of a certain community’selements to the ruler’s unfavorablepolicies. The protests and demon-strations represented the expres-sion of rage against the new‘religion’ called economic growth,which was believed by the NewOrder’s economic technocratswould bring the trickle-down effectto the whole nation. All thesemovements ended up in the state’ssuppression of critical voices,driven by university students,through the repressive NKK (Cam-pus Life Normalization), followedby the forming of BKK (CampusCoordination Body) in 1978.

Such suppression did not stop theurges and the suppressed con-cerns. Environmental movementemerged in the late 1970sand the early 1980s, partlydriven by nature lovergroups, research students’organizations and religion-based groups. NKK and BKKdid not touch universitystudents engaged in re-search, religion, sports, artand nature adventures.Expeditions to various placesthroughout Indonesia openedthese youth’s eyes to and offeredopportunity for them to see directlythe injustice imposed on the peoplein the name of national develop-ment. The youth working in villagessought alternatives that enabledthe people to enjoy the develop-ment, such as economic develop-ment, fresh water service, appliedtechnology etc. The suppressedcritical attitude continued to find its

path out.It was during the era that environ-mental organization started toflourish, all referring to Friends ofthe Earth Indonesia (WALHI).Pressure at domestic level isusually accompanied by the globalstruggle in the field of ecology andsustainable development.The era was colored by the birth ofmany NGOs orientating towardssocial welfare and community’sempowerment. Despite the diverseperception and movements, NGOshave something in common: theyare struggling against poverty,injustice driven by the develop-ment, and environmental degrada-tion.

Indonesia’s NGOs keep increasingtheir critical attitude towards thestate’s policy and governance, from

the polite and compromisingapproaches to the litigationapproaches. With due respect tothe true critical attitude grownamong NGOs, one cannot ignorethe enabling factors in the form offunding support, both private andcountry funding, from industrialcountries in the effort to bridge thegap between north and southcountries. Bilateral and multilat-

eral funds from internationaldevelopment organizations haveflooded Indonesia’s NGOs since the1970s, wrapped in various thematicdiscourses and programs.

It should be noted that during thesame period, in particular from themid-1990s, foreign funding re-quired the cooperation between thestate bureaucracy and NGOs.Community engagement andwomen’s empowerment have sincebecome the central themes ofinternational funding. The govern-ment, pressed by the donors,accepted the funding half-heartedly indicated by its nominalsustainable development, conser-vation and community’s engage-ment policies.Now comes the second paradox.NGOs, or more popularly called

self-reliant organizations,seem to be completelyindependent from stateintervention. Then, howindependent are they fromdonor’s intervention? Andwhat are the mandate-linkand relational patternbetween NGOs (grant-ees), and the grantor?And, more importantly,what are the transaction

and mandate-link modes betweenthe NGOs and the beneficiaries(the people), who are trapped inthe vortex of the sustainabilitycrises?

NGO’s Position in ChangesArief Wicaksono

“One sees the mote in his broth-er’s eye and not the beam in hisown eye.”

Reading and ContemplatingContextOne example of social, culturaland political change that isobvious but overlooked is the wide-spread and deep collapse ofpatterns of consumption.

The collapse impinges not onlyon rural people, who oftenbecome the target of protec-

tive efforts by NGOs or other formsof non-profit organizations.

Changes in consumption patternsoccur without any resistance,without it being realized as thebeginning of the domino effect thatwill lead to changes in otherstructures. The changes have somany entry points. Among farmers,

media.

The portrait has made intensiveefforts by NGOs against theeconomic and religious growthadopted by the ruling regime aparadox: to encourage changesthrough adoption of concepts andmodels on a long decayed androtten medium. It is no wonder tosee that despite the seeminglymore sophisticated initiatives, thecrises keep enveloping people’sdaily lives.

Absence of Sovereignty as KeyWordHuge foreign loans since the era ofNew Order Regime start the storyof Indonesia’s dependence ondonor countries. The early 1970ssaw rampant protests and demon-

they enter through Green Revolu-tion. Among fishermen, they enterthrough fishermen’s motorizationand Blue Revolution. Among theofficials and governmental serv-ants, they pounce, wrap, and trapthrough long term funding, be itbinding grants or loans. Amonguniversity students, they enterthrough replication of the adoptedcurriculum, both in the form ofintensive technical assistance byindustrial countries’ experts andscholarship programs. And amongactivists, they enter through large-scale funding wrapped in correc-tive and constructive discoursesand struggle. These exclude theadoption of new, modern, andconsumptive ways of life that arebroadcast 24 hours a day via

8. PAKTAStrengthening and Improving NGO’sCapacity in Environmental Conservation.2000-2002. US$30,000.

9. KPSHKLokakarya Pengelolaan Sumberdaya AlamBerbasis Masyarakat (CBNRM) dalamForum Lingkungan Asia Eropa (AEEF).2004-2005. US$3,100.

10. LLIWorkshop on Awareness on OperationalCosts Efficiency in Hotel and RestaurantManagement.1998-2000. US$16,082.

Project Location

Gorontalo, Sulawesi1. Japesda

Community Planning to Anticipate theUpcoming Gazettement of Taman NasionalNantu-Boliyohuto National Park.2003-2004. US$2,000.

Project Location

Jambi, Sumatra1. Yayasan Gita Buana

Development of Fair Community-basedNatural Resources Management.Berbak National Park.2003-2004. US$2,000.

2. Wana Winaya MuktiIntegrated Forest Conservation.Durian Luncuk Reserve Area.2002-2003. US$20,442.

3. SokolaPlanning on Education and SustainableLivelihood of Orang Rimba.Bukit Dua Belas National Park.2003-2004. US$2,000.Living Fence and Jungle School: ProtectingOrang Rimba and Their Forest Home.Bukit Dua Belas National Park.2003-2004. US$23,456.

4. SkephiCommunity-based Brown Sugar Industry.1993-1996. US$18,680.Community-based Sustainable NaturalResources Management.2000-2002. US$24,521.

Project Location

West Java1. YPBB

Community Empowering of People aroundConservation Area through AlternativeEconomic Solutions.Mount Gede Pangrango National Park.2000-2002. US$19,000.

2. Yayasan Pribumi Alam LestariMicro Hydro Power Plant.Simpang Nature Reserve.2003-2004. US$44,338.

3. Yayasan MandiriImprovement of EnvironmentalConservation through Aren Sugar Industryand Firewood Cultivation.1993-1996. US$41,262.

4. RMIDevelopment of Traditional Energy Gardenas Biodiversity Conservation Effort andAlternative Energy Development.1998-2000. US$6,166.Development of GEF-SGP PartnersCapacity in Community Forum forSustainable Livelihood and WorldEnvironment Day 2003.2002-2003. US$21,685.

5. PoklanLocal Chicken and Traditional Feeding.1998-2000. US$6,793.Pico Hydro Power Plant and VillageCommunity Economic Empowerment.2000-2002. US$25,000.

6. KSM Cikananga/ YPALProposal Development on Kancil DeerRearing.1998-2000. US$1,000.

7. Cimanggu NetworkStrategic Plan for Network Development.1998-2000. US$9,112.

10. IbekaMicro Hydro Power Plant Re-development.1998-2000. US$49,947.

11. ElsppatParticipatory Biodiversity Enrichment inUnproductive Land for CommunityEmpowerment.1998-2000. US$5,160.

12. Biological Science ClubCommunity-based Development andCommercialization of Wild Orchid.2000-2002. US$14,799.

13. YMDImplementation of Integrated FarmingSystem through Culturing Chicken andWaste Organic Manure.1998-2000. US$22,603.

14. Yayasan TitianWorkshop on Wildlife Trading LawEnforcement in Indonesia.1998-2000. US$1,000.

15. Tirta WahanaConservation of Natural Water Source withLocal Plant Culturing.1998-2000. US$6,743.

16. Sekar TiaraIncreasing the Bargaining Power of FlowerGrowers with Direct Marketing.1998-2000. US$16,182.

17. Warkop LSM PAPartners Meeting for NetworkDevelopment and Information Sharing.1998-2000. US$14,370.

18. Yayasan SadagoriEducation and Training Institute forFarmers.1993-1996. US$13,993.

19. BidaraSustainable Farming ManagementDevelopment.1998-2000. US$12,044.

20. Bina DesaCommunity Empowerment throughDevelopment of Environment FriendlyFarming.1998-2000. US$10,370.

21. BungawariRevitalizing Traditional InformationDissemination through Re-planting PaperMaterial Plants.1998-2000. US$6,186.

22. PSELCommunity-based IntegratedUnproductive Land Development.1998-2000. US$16,525.

23. Paguyuban Masyarakat TambunMembangunClean Water Self-management throughRenewable Energy.2004-2005. US$2,000.

24. PantauInformation Dissemination of Rare BirdTrade.1998-2000. US$2,913.

25. Kopsi Cakra BuanaPromoting Organic Fertilizer.2004-2005. US$2,000.

26. DarunnajahDevelopment of Environment FriendlyFarming through Pesantren Community.1998-2000. US$921.

27. CRADIncreasing Community Participation inNature Conservation through IntegratedFarming.1998-2000. US$1,000.

28. IpensiProduction of Kids Conservation EducationPuzzle made of Waste Wood.1998-2000. US$1,511.

29. Bima Lestari SejahteraCommunity-based Conservation of LocalDurian Species.2000-2002. US$6,500.

Project Location

Central Java1. Yayasan Pembinaan & Pengembangan

Swadaya Sinode GKMICoastal Abrasion Prevention Program.Jepara.2003-2004. US$2,000.

2. Yayasan Konservasi LingkunganEnergy Efficient Stove as Climate ChangeSolution and Community Welfare.2000-2002. US$15,125.

3. RACASolution of Dry Farming Land throughLocal Mechanisms as Farmer OrganizationDemocratization.2002-2003. US$22,000.

4. PMPCLDevelopment of Coastal RehabilitationPlanning.2003-2004. US$2,000.

5. Patra PalaCommunity Economic Empowering throughLocal Plant Species to Reduce the Threatagainst Borobudur Temple World Heritage.1998-2000. US$23,709.

6. Mitra DiengPlanning on Participation Program ofDieng Community2000-2002. US$1,096.

Partners of GEF SGP IndonesiaSince 1993 GEF -SGP Indonesia has granted more than US$3,000,000 grants to 207 projects of 188 organizations

Project Location

Aceh, Sumatra1. Yayasan Puter

Setting up Website for KnowledgeManagement as Follow-up of CoastalPlanning and Management for postTsunami Aceh Recovery.2003-2004. US$4,000.

2. Area Development Foundation (YayasanPengembangan Kawasan, YPK)Natural Resources Rehabilitation andManagement.Lhok Bubon, Samatiga, Aceh, Sumatra.2004-2005. US$50,000.

3. Banau FoundationRehabilitation of Natural Resources andSources of Livelihood Post- Tsunami andEarthquake.Awe Kecil, Simeleu, Aceh, Sumatra.2004-2005. US$35,000.

4. Center for Regional Planning &Development Study - IPBPost- Tsunami Documentation andDissemination on Panglima Laot Planning .2003-2004. US$6,000.

5. Lembaga Hukom Adat Panglima LaotMangrove Rehabilitation and EconomicRecovery Post-Tsunami.Weh Island, Aceh, Sumatra.2003-2004. US$17,000.

6. Forum LSM AcehGreen Conference & Expo: Practices forThe Reconstruction of the Tsunami-Wrought Areas .Aceh, Sumatra.2004-2005. US$35,000.

Project Location

Bali1. YBLL

Reinforcing River Banks with bambootrees.The Ayung River, Bali.1998-2000. US$7,125.

2. Manikaya Kauci FoundationOptimizing Critical Land Management1993-1996. US$13,790.

3. Bahtera Nusantara FoundationRestoring Coral Reef Ecosystem andStrengthening the Community inEnvironmentally-Friendly OrnamentalFish Trade to Improve Fishermen’s WellBeing.2002-2003. US$45,000.2003-2004. US$50,000.

4. WisnuTowards Food and Energy SustenanceThrough Village Ecotourism Network.2002-2003. US$35,000.

5. PPLH BaliProtecting Southeast Aru Sanctuary asTurtle Habitat through Demand Reductionin Bali2000-2002. US$5,788.

6. KUB SumberklampokPlanting Highly Economic and EcologicalValued Species in Limiting Zone to IncreaseCommunity’s Income and to SupportDelineation.1998-2000. US$1,000.Conservation Village Development.Bali Barat National Park.2000-2002. US$22,815.

7. Kelompok Pencinta Burung KokokanEvaluation of Balinese Myna RehabilitationPlan.Taman Nasional Bali Barat.2000-2002. US$1,082.

8. Swadesi FoundationBamboo, Bird, Medicinal Herbs and WaterPlant Conservation.1993-1996. US$17,356.

Project Location

Banten, Jawa1. Yayasan Ekowisata Halimun

Community-Based Marsh LakeConservation.2000-2002. US$1,370.

2. Lembaga Alam Tropika IndonesiaCommunity-Based Javanese Single-HornedRhino and Tropical Forests.Ujung Kulon National Park.1993-1996. US$25,728.

3. Biological Science ClubEtnobotanical Development.Gunung Halimun National Park.1993-1996. US$41,262.

4. BCIInformation on Conservation Application.Ujung Kulon National Park.1998-2000. US$4,934.

Project Location

Bengkulu, Sumatra1. Kanopi

Developing Community-Based ForestManagement Model.2003-2004. US$2,000.

2. Aliansi Masyarakat Adat BengkuluDeveloping Customary Institution toPreserve Local Wisdom Based onSustainable Natural Resource Management2003-2004. US$2,000.

3. GeminiLocal Durian Conservation.1998-2000. US$9,710.

Project Location

DKI Jakarta, Jawa1. Klub Indonesia Hijau

Conservation Education for Teachers andStudents.1993-1996. US$11,660.

2. Kalpataru Nusa LestariCommunity-based Coral ReefsConservation and Income Improvement.1998-2000. US$12,251.2002-2003. US$35,295.

3. YKELReducing Tofu Industry Impacts throughWaste Recycling and Producing HighProtein Animal Feed.1998-2000. US$7,671.

4. TelapakGEF-SGP Multi Stakeholder Workshop.2000-2002. US$16,000.Developing Local Variety Demplots toEqual Imported Species.1998-2000. US$19,658.

5. KonphalindoDonor Meeting to Map Interests/Activitiesand Seek Cooperation Opportunities.1998-2000. US$8,947.Indonesia Biodiversity Forum.2000-2002. US$6,000.Partner Workshop: 10+ GEF-SGPIndonesia Partnership With Communitiesto Strengthen Global EnvironmentalSignificance through Local Actions.2003-2004. US$45,000.

6. Mitra UsahaPlanting Sea Weed to IncreaseCommunity-Based Economy.1998-2000. US$10,784.

7. KonfidenDocumenting Ecological Changes ThroughCommunity’s Eyes, Collaboartion forKnowledge Management.2003-2004. US$45,000.

7. Lembaga Pengembangan Potensi danKeswadayaanOrganic Farming for Community-basedFood Sovereinity.2003-2004. US$25,000.

8. Lembaga Pengembangan PertanianSelaras AlamCommunity Participation in StrategicPlanning on Sustainable CoastalDevelopment.Pati.2003-2004. US$6,000.

9. KomposStudy on Rice Production with BengawanSolo Irrigation Scheme.1998-2000. US$1,414.

10. KIH Regional 11 SemarangStrategic Planning on Dieng National ParkManagement.1998-2000. US$1,000.

11. Jaringan Program Mitra DiengForest Conservation through EnvironmentFriendly Economic Activities.Dieng National Park.2000-2002. US$27,082.

12. GeniBiogas Production as Alternative Livelihoodfor Local Horse Cart Owners.1998-2000. US$10,489.

13. YPPLocal Ipoemea Species Conservation asAlternative Food Source.1998-2000. US$10,061.

14. LPTPMarket Development for EtnobotanicalProducts.1998-2000. US$7,784.

15. LPMCommunity Capacity Increase forSustainable Aren Palm Development.1998-2000. US$1,000.

16. LesmanDevelopment of Farming for EnvironmentConservation.1998-2000. US$9,299.

17. JKPMCommunity-based BiodiversityConservation through Ecofarming.2000-2002. US$23,500.

Project Location

East Java1. YCBI

Organic Waste Composting.

2. YBLSComunity Empowerment in Community-based Forest Management through LocalDurian Sprcies Conservation.

3. YaseruTraditional Wisdom Conser vation.Bromo Semeru Tengger National P ark.1998-2000. US$3,405.Sustainable Mountain Farming System .Bromo Semeru Tengger National P ark.2002-2003. US$2,000.

Project Location

South Sulawesi1. Yayasan Waru Mutahhar

Community-based Lake Management.Lake Sidenreng & Lake Tempe.2002-2003. US$2,000.

2. Yayasan Konservasi LautSustainable Community-based MangroveManagement.Bauluang & Tanakeke, Takalar .2000-2002. US$22,000.

3. WaldaRenewable Energy and CommunityWelfare. Tana Toraja.1993-1996. US$21,786.2000-2002. US$40,285.2003-2004. US$28,090.

4. Swakarsa KolakaInstitutional Building and TechnologyDevelopment to Increase the Quality ofNatural Honey.Hutan Lindung Ulu Iwoi.2004-2005. US$2,000.

5. PPLH PuntondoProgram and Facility Building of PuntondoEnvironment Education Center.1998-2000. US$11,334.

6. LP3MCommunity-based Development of SolarTunnel Dryer System for Marine andFarming Products.2000-2002. US$27,000.

7. Lembaga Advokasi & PengkajianDevelopment of Village and Tourismthrough Alternative Energy in BrickIndustry.Gowa, Takalar.2003-2004. US$2,000.

8. LakpesdamMangrove Rehabilitation to ReduceAbrassion.1998-2000. US$8,562.

9. Konsorsium Pemerhati KapopposangCommunity Authority in Small IslandNatural Resources Management.1998-2000. US$2,929.2000-2002. US$21,048.

10. Institusi Penelitian & PengembanganMasyarakatPlanning on Community-based ButterflyConservation.Bantimurung National Park.2000-2002. US$2,000.Community Empowerment throughButterfly Conservation with Semi NaturalBreeding.Bantimurung National Park.2002-2003. US$15,000.

11. YCMIMangrove Rehabilitation for CoastalProtection.1998-2000. US$7,054.

12. Yayasan Insan CitaDevelopment of Basic Curriculum forEnvironmental Awareness in PesantrenCommunity.1993-1996. US$4,190.

13. Yayasan Pelopor Perjuangan RakyatParticipatory Planning on Mountain AreaConservation and Alternative Livelihood.2003-2004. US$2,000.

14. Yayasan ASA NusantaraCommunity-based Water Management.2002-2003. US$2,000.

15. Yayasan Aktualita Amanah HidupDevelopment Plan on the Management ofHorse as Local Transportation and OrganicFertilizer.2003-2004. US$2,000.

Project Location

Central Sulawesi1. Yayasan Toloka

Stakeholders Empowerment inCommunity-based Natural ResourcesManagement.Togean. 2003-2004. US$2,000.

2. Yayasan Sahabat Alam IndonesiaCommunity-based Natural ResourcesManagement.Togean. 2000-2002. US$21,000.

3. Yayasan Palu HijauFish Farming and Marine Conservation.Banggai Islands.2004-2005. US$2,000.

4. Yayasan Katopasa IndonesiaEnergy Efficient Stove and Solar Dryer forFish and Crops Post Harvest Processing.2003-2004. US$15,955.

5. Yayasan JambataPartisipatory Planning on the Conservationof Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo ).Pinjan Tanjung Matop Animal Reserve.2002-2003. US$2,000.

6. Yayasan Bina Sains HayatiEtnobiological Study in MarineConservation Area.Togean. 1993-1996. US$46,602.

7. LPA Awam GreenCommunity-based Monsoon ForestConservation.Lore Lindu National Park.2000-2002. US$15,000.

8. Lembaga Masyarakat Adat ToroDocumentation of Indigenous Knowledge &Policy Strengthening of SustainableNatural Resources Management.Ngata Toro, Lore Lindu National Park.2003-2004. US$30,000.

Project Location

Southeast Sulawesi1. Yayasan Cinta Alam

Training on Forest ManagementInvestigation to Support BiodiversityConservation.2000-2002. US$4,270.Community Participation in MangroveRehabilitation and Conservation.Rawa Aopa National Park.2000-2002. US$24,000.

2. Yayasan BahariCommunity-based Coral ReefsConservation Program.2002-2003. US$41,000.2004-2005. US$50,000.

3. SWAMILocal Economic Empowerment through theUse of Solar Thermal Dryer for Cacao PostHarvest Processing.2000-2002. US$25,000.

4. Yayasan Hijau SejahteraCommunity-based Montane ForestManagement and Conservation.Nipa-nipa.2000-2002. US$2,000.

5. Yayasan MoonianaLocal Technology for Fish Waste Processing.2000-2002. US$2,000.

6. Yayasan Bina InsaniPlanning of Community-basedManagement and Conservation.Buton. 2000-2002. US$2,000.

7. SuluhPlanning of Rattan Management.2000-2002. US$2,000.

8. LappamPlanning of Local Economic Empowermentthrough Agroforestry.2000-2002. US$2,000.

9. LakamaliCommunity-based Coastal and MarineResources Management.1998-2000. US$10,253

10. AsasiPlanning on the Capacity Building ofCoastal Women to Protect andRehabilitate Coral Reefs and Mangrove.2000-2002. US$2,000.

11. Cakrawala FoundationConservation through Economic, CapacityBuilding, Infrastructure Development andVillage Law Enforcement.2004-2005. US$2,000.

Project Location

North Sulawesi1. Yayasan Napo

Model Development of Integrated SmallIsland Management.Sangihe & Talaud.2002-2003. US$2,000.

2. Tangkoko LestariConservation through CommunityEmpowerment and EconomicDevelopment.Tangkoko. 2000-2002. US$27,642.

3. LP2SRiverine Conservation throughCommunity-based Sustainable NaturalResources Management.Tondano. 2000-2002. US$12,471.

4. Wanuata WayaWomen Participation in SustainableNatural Resources Management.Tondano. 2000-2002. US$17,635.

4. Solidaritas Masyarakat DesaCritical Land and Energy Conservation forCommunity Welfare.2003-2004. US$2,000.

5. Paguyuban PLTM Kali Maron SelolimanCommunity Empowerment throughRiverine Management.2003-2004. US$27,000.

6. MadinaCommunity Capacity Building inBiodiversity Enrichment Program throughIntegrated Farming.2002-2003. US$2,000.

7. KSM Peduli SelolimanLocal Resources Alternative Energy forLocal Community.1998-2000. US$8,341.

8. Konsorsium SelolimanIncreasing the Micro Hydro Power Capacityto Support Local Economic Development.2000-2002. US$27,388.

9. Konservasi Alam Indonesia LestariDevelopment of Bioregional StrategicManagement Plan.2003-2004. US$2,000.Strategic Planning of BioregionalManagement in Four National Parks.2004-2005. US$38,000.

10. SPMAAWomen Participation in the Utilization ofRestricted Area for BiodiversityConservation.1998-2000. US$5,837.

11. KSM BimaConservation of Medicinal Plant Specieswith Demonstration Plot and Community-based Genetic Plasma Collection.1998-2000. US$1,000.

12. RATOptimalization of Community-basedAgrobusiness Management.1998-2000. US$15,039.

13. Citra Bangun IndonesiaOrganic Waste Composting.2000-2002. US$28,471.

Project Location

Jogjakarta, Jawa1. Yaperindo

Local Resources Management forIntegrated Farming Development.2002-2003. US$35,500.

2. NawakamalPlanning for Community-based PondConservation.2003-2004. US$2,000.Community-based Pond Conservation.2003-2004. US$41,867.

3. Kelompok Tani Cipto MakaryoIntegrated Organic Farming. Gunung Kidul.2000-2002. US$27,318.

4. CindilarasCapacity Building for ProposalDevelopment in GEF SGP’s Focal Areas.2000-2002. US$15,882.

5. YSAMOrganic Farming with LAMP Method.1998-2000. US$6,318.

6. Pokja LKMDLand Reclaiming to Increase WaterPenetration and Biodiversity Conservation.2000-2002. US$24,172.

Project Location

West Kalimantan1. Yayasan Karya Banua P ulanggana

Resources Management throughEcosystem Rehabilitation and WaterManagement.2003-2004. US$14,500.

2. PPSHK Pancur KasihPlanning on Public and CommunityAwareness on the Impact of Mercury toHuman and Environment Health Program.Sekayam. 2002-2003. US$2,000.Public and Community Awareness on theImpact of Mercury to Human andEnvironment Health.Sekayam. 2003-2004. US$33,849.

3. PP-Bahuma Kalimantan BaratIndigenous Community Empowerment inthe Rehabilitation of Ex Small Scale GoldMining.Bengkayang. 2003-2004. US$2,000.

4. Bio DamarLocal Community Strengthening in theBuffer Zone of Gunung Palung NationalPark through Alternative IncomeGenerating for Biodiversity Conservation.2000-2002. US$20,000.

5. YSKMConservation of the Local Species ofTengkawang.1998-2000. US$3,329.

Project Location

South Kalimantan1. YCHI

Community-based Sustainable ForestManagement.

2. Cakrawala Hijau IndonesiaLocal Community-based Sustainable ForestManagement.Loksado. 2002-2003. US$45,000.

3. Aliansi Advokasi MeratusCommunity-based Natural ResourcesManagement.2000-2002. US$21,714.

project Location

East Kalimantan1. Yayasan Padi Indonesia

Micro Hydro Power Plant Development,Education for Forest Community, and Non-timber Forest Product Marketing.2003-2004. US$45,767.Facilitating the Development of Womenand Energy Program Workplan.2003-2004. US$2,000.

2. BiomaDevelopment of Traditional ConservationArea and Community-based Ecotourism.Hulu Mahakam.2000-2002. US$20,000.

3. Yayasan Tembak MarisDevelopment of Local Fruit Garden toSupport Ecotourism.1998-2000. US$9,710.

Project Location

Lampung, Sumatra1. Watala

Supporting Village Role in Community-based Natural Resources Management inBuffer Zone.Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park.1993-1996. US$12,339.1993-1996. US$16,392.

2. Mina JayaReplacing Traditional Kerosene Lamp withSolar Power.1998-2000. US$22,881.

Project Location

Maluku1. Lus Doan

Revitalizing Traditional Medicine Practiceswith Replanting of Etnobotanical Species.1998-2000. US$11,458.

2. ArmanCommunity Capacity Building inIntegrated Farming.1998-2000. US$1,000.

Project Location

West Nusa Tenggara1. Yayasan Koslata

Participatory Spatial Planning.Gili Trawangan, Lombok.2000-2002. US$2,000.

2. SamudraStakeholder Workshop: Local NGOs/CBOsAddressing National/Global EnvironmentalProblems in Local. Lombok.1998-2000. US$25,048.

3. Lembaga Solidaritas BangsaMangrove Conservation and CommunityDevelopment. Sumbawa.1993-1996. US$2,882.1993-1996. US$6,692.

4. ParamalokaGEF SGP Success Story Documentation:Women and Mangrove.Labuhan Mapin, Alas, Sumbawa.1998-2000. US$22,222.

5. LP2MDry Land Organic Farming to ImproveFarmers Organization Democratization.Pondok Pesantren Nurul Hakim.Kediri, Lombok.2002-2003. US$9,398.

6. Lembaga Olah HidupCommunity-based Natural ResourcesManagement.Pulau Moyo, Sumbawa.2000-2002. US$34,274.

7. Aliansi Tiga GiliCommunity-based Sustainable Ecotourism.Lombok.2000-2002. US$30,358.

8. PSP-NTBCommunity-based Economic Support toDecrease Local Community’s Dependencyon the National Park.1998-2000. US$8,092.

9. YLKMPConservation of Local Plants for TraditionalHandicraft through Sustainable Farmingfor Biodiversity Conservation.1998-2000. US$8,504.

10. PSPSDMSustainable Management of Local GaharuSpecies.1998-2000. US$8,858.

11. JKSMPAlternative Livelihood for FisherCommunity.1993-1996. US$14,703.

Project Location

East Nusa Tenggara1. KMPH Watumbelar

Community Empowerment in InteractiveZone Management.Manupeu Tanadaru National Park, Sumba.2002-2003. US$2,000.2003-2004. US$43,000.

2. Yayasan Timor MembangunCommunal Tenure and SustainableCommunity-based Coastal Management.Timor. 2000-2002. US$33,653.Sustainable Community-based CoastalManagement.Timor. 1993-1996. US$22,09.

3. Yayasan Haumeni SoeForest Conservation and Rehabilitationthrough Wind Energy.2000-2002. US$21,000

4. Yayasan BaiturrahmanTraditional Wakaf Tenure Development.1993-1996. US$19,953.

5. Yayasan Baha EtiLocal Community Empowerment inSustainable Natural ResourcesManagement.2000-2002. US$15,741.

Project Location

Papua1. YDPTB

Community-based Sustainable BiodiversityManagement in Mangrove Area.Bintuni. 1998-2000. US$10,234.

Project Location

Riau, Sumatra1. Yayasan Hakiki

Community-based Natural ResourcesManagement through Community Logging.Bukit Tiga Puluh National Park.2000-2002. US$17,000.

Project Location

West Sulawesi1. Yayasan Putra Mitra Masyarakat Desa

Discussion on Community Planning forForest Conservation.2004-2005. US$2,000.

Project Location

W est Sumatra1. Sekretariat Pengembangan Kawasan

MentawaiConservation with the People.1993-1996. US$28,641.

Project Location

South Sumatra1. YPD

Maintaining Local Fish Population throughNursery and Minimizing Dependency toNatural Stock.1998-2000. US$14,004.

2. KemasdaPlanting of Local Productive Species toIncrease Village Welfare.1998-2000. US$1,000.

Project Location

North Sumatra1. Yayasan Pengembangan Sumberdaya

PedesaanMangrove Planting for BiodiversityManagement.Lubuk Pakam. 1993-1996. US$18,675.

2. Yayasan Ekowisata SumateraBuilding Apiary as an Enterprise of Non-timber Forest Product.Dolok Ginjang, Tapanuli.2003-2004. US$2,000.

3. Pusat Pengkajian & PengembanganMasyarakat NelayanCapacity Building of Coastal Community inCommunity-based Mangrove Managementfor Coastal Biodiversity Conservation.Asahan. 2003-2004. US$ 20,000.

4. Pesticides Action Network North SumatraEnvironment Management and Advocacythrough Public Participation.1993-1996. US$17,924.

5. Yayasan Suka MajuCommunity Empowerment throughAdvocacy and Integrated Farming.1993-1996. US$16,710.

6. YapesdaProductive Land Management in WaterCatchment Area.1998-2000. US$19,428.

Project Location

East Timor1. Pusat Latihan Wiraswasta Tani

Conservation and CommunityDevelopment through IntegratedAgroforestr y.1993-1996. US$16,505.