KalTim Social Forestry Project

Executing Agency : The University College of the CaribooDonor: CIDA

Participatory Evaluation January/02Presenters at CES Congress May 2003:

Ivan G. Somlai & Philip Cox; + (virtually) the CSF Team & Prem Maharjan

Brunei=green; Malaysia=red; Indonesia=black

KALimantan TIMur Relief Map

Mahakam River Arteries

Extent & Distribution of Logging Concessions

Burns

1956 Hotspots !

Fire Fighting

Vegetation and land use classesArea[ha]

Burned[ha]

Burned%

Open land, alang alang, bushland 368,860 292,569 79.3

Lowland Dipterocarp forest 5,379,562 2,177,880 40.5

Farmland mixed with degraded forest areas, including Forest and Estate crop plantations *

2,304,263 1,725,735 75.5

Mangrove forest 1,042,127 91,729 8.8

Shrimp ponds 57,187 316 0.6

Swamp (peat swamp) forest 426,051 311,098 73.0

Wetlands 358,750 290,432 81.0

Mountainous region, mainly highland Dipterocarp forest 3,551,826 213,194 6.0

Total 13,488,626 5,102,954 37.8

Burned Areas

Rolling on the River

CSF Headquarters

Environmental Links

What the Centre for Social Forestry Does…

• Provides education and training in social forestry to stakeholder organizations and to UNMUL faculty and students (including compulsory undergraduate course);

• Conducts social forestry research to better understand the issues related to the sustainability of forests and their impact on forest communities;

• Assists local communities in better managing the forests;

What CSF Does…

• Assists government, private companies, and other stakeholders in formulating policies and programs to promote social forestry;

• Develops community-based programs for sustainable forest management with mutual benefits to all stakeholders; and

• Provides information related to social forestry and natural resources.

Photogenic Orang Utan

Not-so Photogenic Orang

Investment of Time in Participatory Evaluation

• Evaluation Design• Orientation• Information Collection

(including field visits)• Analysis and

Documentation• Presentation and

Finalization of the Report

• 6 months (20 pd) • 2 days (25 pd)• 11 days (70 pd)

3 days ( 6 pd)

• 4 days (10 pd)

Asian (Nepali) Perspective

Orientation Seminar

Interviews

Careful Packing for Our Trip

The “E” Team on the River

A River “Pasar”

NTFP & Gender Considerations

Home Sweet Home

Focus Groups

Socio-Economic Research

Log Transport

Sumalindo Meeting

Chained to his Big Mac

Report Cover

So What?…10 Propositions for Discussion

1. Evaluation Methods must be compatible with Project/Program Management Style and Purpose

2. 'Objectivity' in evaluations can be enhanced with broad stakeholder participation and the involvement of external evaluators

3. Participatory evaluations require careful preparation and orchestration

4. Results based logic models can be a very helpful point of reference in the evaluation inquiry

5. Participatory evaluations can build mutual understanding and trust between stakeholders

10 Propositions, Continued…

6. Successful participatory evaluations allow critical reflection only when there is an atmosphere of mutual trust

7. Participatory evaluations can give staff the opportunity to a) examine their work from different vantage points and b) to consider findings/recommendations for future strategic planning

8. Care must be taken to balance transparency (and the public interest) with confidentiality - participatory evaluation should not erode the strategic position of the organization/ program/ project

9. At times, there are ethical considerations with the participation of potentially competing groups

10. Participatory evaluation practices can help the public to hold authorities accountable at many levels (local to national)

To Remoter Communities