REGIONAL WORKSHOP

METHODOLOGY FOR ACTION RESEARCH AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

Bogor and Jakarta 26-29 April 2004

Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Improvement to Improve Forest Sustainability

in Southeast Asia

WORKSHOP REPORT

1

PREFACE The project on Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia (LPF) formally began in September 2003 after CIRAD and EU signed the contract. Following this, CIRAD/CIFOR team visited the three partners in the three participating countries, i.e. Gajah Mada University (UGM), University of Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), to discuss about the project, partnership arrangements, and to collect up-to-date information on the situations of the proposed project sites. During those early visits, it was clear that there was a need to fine-tune work plan in each country based on the most recent development in the country and to bring together all project’s partners and relevant collaborators to level off understanding on the project, develop/agree on project implementation framework and project methodology, and share knowledge and experience on different methods and tools. We addressed these issues while we organize a regional workshop on “Methodology for action research and its implementation” in Indonesia on 26-29 April 2004. The objectives of the workshop are as follows: 1. To discuss project’s goals, outputs, and outcomes, and project’s approach. 2. To discuss and agree on project’s methodologies, methods, and implementation framework

that will be used across the sites to allow comparisons; 3. To have work plan of Java and Palawan sites finalised. 4. For the project team members, partners, and collaborators to know each other better to

allow them to work together as an effective team. The workshop was attended by 18 persons: 4 persons from UPM, 3 persons from UPLB, 2 persons from UGM, 2 persons from the teak state enterprise Perum Perhutani, 1 person from EU-funded Tanimbar project, 4 persons from CIFOR and 2 persons from CIRAD. In addition, we also invited a resource person from CIFOR to give a presentation on Multistakeholder Landscape Assessment. The details of the participants can be found in the List of Participants.

Picture 1. Workshop participants

2

Recognizing that our partners are leading universities in their respective countries therefore have extensive knowledge and experience, we decided that this workshop should use participatory approach. Participants would be engaged actively prior and throughout the workshop. The participants were contacted prior to the workshop to get their feedbacks on the agenda. Requests for some of the participants to prepare some presentations on their sites, key issues faced in their sites, or certain research methods were also distributed as a part of the workshop preparation. The participants came to the workshop ready to share their knowledge, expertise and experience about their sites and different aspects of natural resource management. CIRAD/CIFOR team acted more as facilitators, and they would take up the role of resource persons only when needed. This workshop report outlined the processes that the participants went through at the workshop. It also summarized the results of small group discussions and pointed key issues raised during the presentations and plenary discussions. The success of this workshop was the results of the efforts and the commitment of many people. We would like to thank you all the participants for their active engagement throughout the workshop, Dr. Bernard Mallet for his enthusiasms and support, Dr. Martine Antona for her inputs to the project framework and methodologies, Ms. Rosita Go for her excellent administrative and logistic support, and Ms. Rina for her assistance in financial matters.

Bogor, July 2004

Editor Herlina Hartanto Levania Santoso Philippe Guizol

3

PARTICIPANT LIST

France

Dr. Bernard Mallet

Head of Plantation Program CIRAD-Forêt TA 10/C, Campus International de Baillarguet 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5

Tel: 33-4-67593774 Fax: 33-4-67593733 E-mail: Bernard.mallet@cirad.fr

Indonesia

Mr. Bayuni Shantiko

Tanimbar Land Use Planning Project CIRAD-EU-BirdLife

Fax No.: +62-918-21278 E-mail: bshantiko@telkom.net

Ms. Herlina Hartanto CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680

Tel.: +62-251-622622 Fax.: +62-251-622100 E-mail: h.hartanto@cgiar.org

Mr. Herry Purnomo CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680 CIFOR

Tel.: +62-251-622622 Fax.: +62-251-622100 E-mail: h.purnomo@cgiar.org

Ms. Julia Maturana CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680

Tel.: +62-251-622622 Fax.: +62-251-622100 E-mail: j.maturana@cgiar.org

Ms. Levania Santoso CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680

Tel.: +62-251-622622 Fax.: +62-251-622100 E-mail: l.santoso@cgiar.org

Mr. Manuel Boissiere CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680

Tel.: +62-251-622622 Fax.: +62-251-622100 E-mail: m.boissiere@cgiar.org

Dr. Philippe Guizol CIRAD Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680

Tel: +62-251-622622 Fax: +62-251-622100 E-mail: p.guizol@cgiar.org

Mr. Sadarjo S. Martana Perum Perhutani-Teak Center Pusat Pengembangan Sumber Daya Hutan Jl. Wonosari Batokan, Tromol Pos 6, Cepu

Tel: +62-296-421233 Fax: +62-296-421883 Email: sadhardjo@hotmail.com HP: 62811 279760

Dr. San Afri Awang

Faculty of Forestry Gadjah Mada University Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta

Tel. 0811267010 Fax No.: + 62-274-550541 E-mail: sawang@indo.net.id

4

Mr. Wahid Nurdin Perum Perhutani-Teak Center

Pusat Pengembangan Sumber Daya Hutan Jl. Wonosari Batokan, Tromol Pos 6, Cepu

Tel: +62-296-421233 Fax: +62-296-421883 Email:

Mr. Wahyu Wardhana

Faculty of Forestry Gadjah Mada University Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta

Fax: +62-274-550541 E-mail: wahyu92@telkom.net

Malaysia

Prof. Dato' Dr. Nik Muhamad Majid

Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM-Serdang

Tel: +60-3-89467211 HP: +60-12-2365996 Fax: +60-3-89432514 E-mail: nik@forr.upm.edu.my

Dr. Khamuruddin Mohd Noor

Head Dept of Forest Management Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM-Serdang

Fax: +60-3-89432514 Email: kamardin@forr.upm.edu.my

Dr. Sharifah Norazizan Syed Abdul Rashid

Dept of Social and Development Sciences Faculty of Human Ecology Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM-Serdang

Fax: +60-3-89432514 Email: sharifah@putra.upm.edu.my

Ms. Rosta Harun

Faculty of Environmental Science

Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM-Serdang

E-mail: rosta@fsas.upm.edu.my; rostaharun@yahoo.com

Philippines

Ms. Fe K. Mallion

Forestry Development Center College of Forestry and Natural Resources UP at Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031

Tel: Fax: +63-49-5362341/ 5363097 E-mail: fkm1866@yahoo.com

Ms. Ma. Eduarda Devanadera

Budyong Rural Development Foundation Inc. (BRDFI) Palawan

Tel: +63 0919 8457861 E-mail: mdevanadera@lycos.com

Mr. Teodoro Villanueva

UPLB-FI Philippines

Tel: +63 9173277090 Fax: +63-48-5362341 E-mail: teodoro_villanueva@yahoo.com

5

Day 1, 26 April 2004 (Bogor) BUILDING BLOCK 1. SETTING THE SCENE Facilitator: Herlina Hartanto 1.1. Getting to know the participants The facilitator briefly welcomed all the participants and explained that the first session of the workshop would be for the participants to get to know each other better. Each participant was asked to find a partner that they know the least so far, and they should spend around 10 minutes to get to know the other’s name, institution, background, and any good news or experience that he/she would like to share with the rest of participants. The participant should introduce his/her partner afterwards. The session went very well. The participants learned new things about his/her partners.

Picture 2. Participant Introduction 1.2. Welcome speech by Philippe Guizol Philippe, the team leader of LPF project, welcomed the participants. He explained the reason of holding this workshop and pointed out the objectives of the workshop, i.e.: 5. To discuss project’s goals, outputs, and outcomes, and project’s approach. 6. To discuss and agree on project’s methodologies, methods, and implementation framework. 7. To have work plan of Java and Palawan sites finalised. 8. To get to know each other better.

6

1.3. Participants’ expectation and concerns Each participant was asked to describe his/her expectation for the workshop (things that he/she wants to achieve) in one card and his/her concern (things to avoid in the workshop) in another card. The participants should describe one idea per card and can ask for another card if needed. The cards were then collected. Cards with similar ideas were then grouped together (see Appendix 1 for details). The results showed that most of the participants would like to learn more about the methodology that will be used in LPF project. These include methodology in selecting sites, methods to use in carrying out research at different stage and their purposes, and methods for assessing impact of the project. Other expectations were to establish better coordination within the team in each country, to establish networks with other teams that work in different countries, to understand what LPF project is about, and to have their work plan developed. Things to avoid in the workshop include the use of jargons, domination by certain participants, not able to stick to schedule and stay focused on important issues. Other concerns about the project in general include how to analyse the results if different countries are in different stage, how to generate impacts, e.g. how to generate tools and models for different audience, who the targeted users are, etc. 1.4. Presentation of the workshop’s building blocks and today’s agenda The facilitators presented the building blocks of the workshop and pinpointed that most of the participants’ expectations will be addressed, especially the methodology and LPF project. Some of the expectations, such as coordination and networking, are things that will be initiated through the interactions at this workshop but they should continue throughout the project. The building blocks were as follows: Building Block 1. Setting the Scene – Day 1 Building Block 2. Project’s goals, outputs, outcomes, and research questions – Day 1 Building Block 3. Research methodology – Day 2 Building Block 4. Site Work Plan – Day 3 (half day) Building Block 5. Wrapping up and Preparation for Steering Committee Meeting – Day 4 (half day) With regards to the schedule, the facilitator explained that there is no fixed agenda as we tried to be flexible and accommodative to participants’ interests and needs. In general, we will start around 9AM and finish around 5.30PM. 1.5. Select participants’ representatives for each day The participants were requested to take part actively. For each day, two representatives from the participants were requested to sit together with the workshop organizers to reflect on the day’s process and to design the following day’s process. One of them should also provide a brief summary of that day to the participants. The volunteers were: Day 1: Bernard Mallet and Rosta Harun Day 2: Ted Villanueva and Khamuruddin Mohd Noor Day 3: Doodee Devanadera and Wahyu Wardhana (Note: since not much to report, the team did not meet at the end of Day 3).

7

1.6. Workshop Evaluation The facilitator explained that since the participants already put out their expectations, there is a need to assess whether or not the workshop meet those expectations at the end. An evaluation wheel was introduced and explained. The participants can select the criteria to assess and those criteria can be drawn from participants’ expectations. One of the participants, Ted Villanueva, was asked to facilitate the discussions on what criteria to select. Once they were agreed, each participant should draw a small dot in the evaluation wheel for each criterion during the coffee-break. The wheel will be re-visited at the end of Day 4. The results of the evaluation can be found in Appendix 2. BUILDING BLOCK 2. PROJECT’S GOALS, OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES, AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 2.1. Project Goals, Outputs, Outcomes Facilitator: Julia Maturana Picture 3. Group exercise to come up with a common understanding on LPF project’s expected

impacts The facilitator explained that in this session we try to come up with a common understanding about what the project is trying to do and achieve. The facilitator explained about several terms used and their definitions (see Box 1). To learn about participants’ understanding on what the LPF project might produce in term of “impacts”, the facilitator requested the participants to write their ideas on the cards. Cards with similar ideas were then grouped together.

8

The results showed that most participants expect that LPF project would contribute to sustainability of forest management that supports the livelihood of the people (“rich forest, rich people”), empowerment of local institutions (a more balance power among different stakeholders, change of behaviour, stakeholder coordination), stakeholder coordination and communication (understanding of their roles, responsibilities, functions in relation with others, understanding of others’ needs), collective action and collaboration among stakeholders (include better negotiation process to come up with agreement), and improved people’s livelihood and welfare. Other expected impacts include capacity building especially universities, extension, and production of decision-making tools and policy recommendation to policy-makers. The complete list of participants’ understanding on expected impacts of LPF project can be found in Appendix 3.

After a brief session on participants’ observations and feedbacks on the results, the session continued with a brief presentation by Philippe Guizol on the project’s approach, hypothesis, goals, outputs, and outcomes. The full presentation is attached in Appendix 4. Philippe emphasized that the project is open to ideas and suggestions from participants to improve the project’s outputs, hypothesis, goals, outputs, and outcomes. In general the participants found the proposed project’s outputs, hypothesis, goals, outputs, and outcomes are acceptable. During discussion session, several questions were raised by participants. Some of them were: • Criteria of site selection. In Indonesia, for example, one participant pointed out that MHP

has been more active that other companies elsewhere. In Malaysia, UPM team leader asked whether it is possible to work in mangrove forest. Furthermore, as company-community interaction like in Java site can not be found in Sabah, he wondered how this would affect site selection in Malaysia.

• Collaboration. The discussions were evolved around the strategy to facilitate stakeholders in different position of power, how to deal with stakeholders who refuse to collaborate, and how to make collaboration effective.

• Stakeholder identification. It was agreed that proper stakeholder analysis must be conducted to understand who key stakeholders are, representation in meetings and decision-making process, the complexity of their interactions, and the issues that they are facing. Methods and processes for stakeholder analysis are needed.

• Impact on policy. The Malaysian team expressed that it would be a challenge to revise the current policy setting in Malaysia. Nevertheless, recommendations in the form of policy brief would be needed to influence policy-makers.

• Population growth. It was pointed out that population growth is an important factor to consider in Java. Population could double in the period of 25 years.

2.2. Research questions Facilitator: Herlina Hartanto Philippe Guizol presented the research questions (RQ) that were put together by CIRAD/CIFOR team prior to the workshop (see Box 2) and welcomed inputs, feedbacks, and questions from participants.

Box 1. LPF project’s definition of goal, outcome, and output Goal: what stakeholders will achieve at the end of the project Outcome: what stakeholders should do Output: what the project has to achieve

9

Several issues raised and discussed were: • Adaptation of those umbrella research questions to research sites. Discussions evolved

around whether each site should answer all those questions. It was clarified that the umbrella research questions are general so they should be adapted according to the characteristics of each site. Umbrella research questions are needed so that we can compare and generate analysis across different sites. Certain sites will have opportunities to test certain methods and approaches (and the lessons learnt should be compared), but not other methods and approaches because they are irrelevant to their site conditions. It is not impossible that more research questions would be added and tested in each sites.

• Current policy setting in Malaysia and its implications (RQ1). As the government currently does not allow local community to participate in forest management, this question may not be addressed in Malaysia sites especially there is a possibility that government do not want to negotiate their current stand. It was agreed that this project can provide relevant information on community forestry experience from other countries to Malaysian policy-makers.

• Empowerment (RQ1). Questions were raised on what is meant by empowerment (power distribution among stakeholders, or else), who should be empowered, and whether it is realistic to expect the project would increase empowerment with the current project’s timeframe. It was suggested that in the case of Malaysia, the project should find sites where it is possible to address this issue. There was a suggestion to re-word the question into: What approaches and processes to make the community strong enough to influence the government/decision-making process?

• Suggestion to revise RQ2. Suggested wordings are: Under what condition the project will produce impacts on local livelihood and forest management?

• Long-term forest management. What is meant by this term and whether there is a need to define criteria as they may vary across sites. Furthermore, how this will link with certification.

To check opportunities provided by the project sites to answer those RQs, Ted Villanueva (UPLB) and San Afri Awang (UGM) presented the situations in Java and Palawan sites with regards to: - Community: Socio-economic aspects of the community - Natural resources - Stakeholders and institutional arrangements in natural resource management - Problems and challenges faced at different levels

Their presentations are attached in Appendix 5.

Box 2. Umbrella Research Questions How to achieve long-term forest management goals in multi-stakeholder situation with different interests, views and power:

1. Can local livelihood be improved through increased empowerment in forest management?

2. What is the impact of the project on forest management and local livelihood? 3. What are the most appropriate mechanisms (multi SH forum, etc.) and tools

(modeling, future scenario, etc.) to facilitate negotiation among stakeholders? 4. Under what conditions multi-stakeholder will be (dis)encouraged to manage

forest in sustainable way (market condition, collective action, policy framework, etc.)?

10

Picture 4. UGM team members presented the situation of the Java site. During discussion session, participants raised several questions to both presenters. For Palawan site, the question was on the recent policy that bans wood recovery permit of the community organizations. For Java site, the questions were on coordination and whether there is a forum for coordination, and the interests of the community on the PHBM initiative. The workshop continued with site comparison. After the participants learned about the two sites, the facilitator asked the participants to identify site characteristics or elements that are similar and different between the two sites. The participants identified 13 site characteristics (see Appendix 6). To allow participants to check whether or not the umbrella RQs are relevant and can be answered with the three confirmed sites (Palawan, Java, and mangrove area in Malaysia), the participants worked within their country team and completed the site matrix. After the matrix was completed, the participants discussed briefly their observations, opportunities offered by the existing sites, and the challenges that they might face. Day 1 of the workshop ended around 5.30PM. The facilitator reminded the participants that the second day of the workshop would begin at 8.30AM.

11

Day 2, 27 April 2004 (Bogor) The second day of the workshop began with Rosta summarising the processes and several key points that were raised and discussed in Day 1. She then introduced another Malaysian team member, Syarifah, who just arrived and joined the second day of the workshop.

Picture 5. Ms Rosta Harun summarized the activities of Day 1.

BUILDING BLOCK 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Facilitator: Herlina Hartanto 3.1. Project’s implementation framework The facilitator explained that the second day would focus on project implementation, particularly the methodology and different methods that will be used in the project. Philippe Guizol kicked off the morning session by presenting the project’s implementation framework. He explained that the implementation of the project can be viewed as consisting of three stages: baseline study, intervention, monitoring and impact assessment. During the intervention stage, LPF researchers will act as facilitators who facilitate social processes among community and local stakeholders. These social processes will take place at different stages such as: - Initialization - Building common views - Co-designing management scheme (roles, plans, tools) - Choosing management structures and roles - Implementation (control, sanction, enforcement) At certain stage, community and local stakeholders can review and re-assess their situation and go back to the previous stage to re-negotiate and improve the situation (see Appendix 7 for details). The participants were given the time to provide feedbacks and comments or raise any questions. Some of the issues raised and discussed were:

12

• Impact assessment. One participant asked whether impact assessment would include Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It was clarified that the project will definitely try to assess its impact on the conditions of the natural resources. The framework, however, would be different from the framework used during EIA.

• Researchers’ role in different project implementation stage. It was discussed and clarified that the role of the researchers is more as facilitators during intervention stage. The researchers should try to get active involvement of the stakeholders and facilitate their planning and action.

• Time needed to produce impact. One participant raised the concern that the project may not be able to produce observable impacts due to the fact that the project will only work in each site for about 2 years. This calls for a strategic planning from the project so that several impacts can be produced during the short period of time. Bernard added that within this timeframe we would learn more thanks to the local community. We also should work with local stakeholders to refine our plan in order to achieve impacts.

3.2. Methods The participants were divided into two small groups. Each group was asked to brainstorm on different methods that can be used during baseline study, interventions, and impact assessment stage. They were given a list of questions to guide their small group discussions (see Box 3). The two groups subsequently presented the results of the groups, followed by brief plenary discussion session. The results of the two groups were complementary. While Group 1 fleshed out a long list of different parameters and methods that can be used in each stage, Group 2 discussed more about general principles that should be considered at different stage. For intervention stage, Group 1 also differentiated between what stakeholders will undertake and the kind of interventions and support that can be provided by the project. The results of the two groups are attached in Appendix 8.

Box 3. The guiding questions for small group discussions on different project implementation stages Each group will look at the three project implementation stages and discuss the following issues: Baseline:

- What baseline studies are for? - Are they needed? - If baseline studies are needed, what parameters to collect? - What methods or tools can be used?

Intervention:

- What does each step implies (for the stakeholders) i.e. initialization, building common views, co-designing management scheme, choosing management structure, implementation?

- What the project needs to do in each step? - What methods can be used?

Monitoring and Impact assessment:

- What parameters to monitor and assess? - Revisit the list of the expected impacts produced by the participants, are they

realistically can be achieved? - What methods can be used for monitoring and impact assessment?

13

Picture 6. Small group discussion The facilitator mentioned that, prior to the workshop, CIRAD/CIFOR team has tried to put together a list of parameters and methods of collection for different stages. It was agreed that the team should try to combine the list with the results of the two groups. The results will be distributed to the participants in Day 3 for further inputs. 3.3. Series of presentations on methods Facilitator: Levania Santoso and Herry Purnomo The facilitator showed the list of key methods that will be presented by team members, resource persons, or project partners. She explained that the list was not exhaustive but the intention of the presentations was so that the participants can get ideas on the methods that most likely would be used in the project. The project also has put together and distributed to participants a ‘toolbox’ that compiled different methods, including those that were presented, plus several references that outline how those methods were carried out in the field. This toolbox should provide more information about the methods that the participants can go through if they decide they want to use those methods in their work. The methods presented were: - Stakeholder Analysis: Who Counts Most (presented by: Herry Purnomo) - PACT (Levania Santoso) - Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment (Manuel Boissiere) - Socio-economic assessment (Julia Maturana) - PAR (San Afri Awang) - Companion modelling for knowledge production and negotiation (CORMAS) (Wahyu

Wardhana) - Market chain (Philippe Guizol) - Criteria and Indicator for impact assessment (Ted Villanueva) The presentations can be found in Appendix 9. At the end of each presentation, the participants were given the time to discuss and ask questions. Some of the issues raised and discussed were:

14

MULTIDISCPLINARY LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT (MLA) 1. How to deal with the conflict between customary and village leaders, if it occurs.

Discussion sessions were done often enough to build collaboration with local people and to prevent conflict. In undertaking research, researchers should be cautions on whom to visit first, customary or village leaders.

2. Incentives for community. If researchers follow them to their garden and do the observation themselves, no incentive is given to the people. If they are hired as local experts, then their time is compensated. Local experts were also invited to participate for a certain period before they were replaced by other people.

3. How much resources are needed for this study. Difficult to answer because they varied. The Kalimantan study was for method development and currently the method is being improved. For training in Papua, for example, the cost is estimated around US$ 80,000 but this will also vary according to the size of the group, resource persons, etc. For one village, the duration is 3 weeks.

4. Has MLA been used to assess changes? Yes, it has just been done in Kalimantan but the results are not known yet.

WHO COUNTS MOST 1. Once you identified important stakeholders, what’s next. They should be involved in

project activities while the least important can be less involved. Nevertheless, stakeholders who are scored above 2 may be important as well, depending on the context.

2. Dimensions or criteria used to decide key stakeholders. The criteria can be modified. Currently the criteria used in “Who Counts Most” may not be suitable in the context of LPF project. Another modification that can be done is to rank or put weight on the criteria or dimensions.

3. In analyzing the score, what to do with the ones where the score is missing (“var”). The participants can decide not to score if they don’t know. If this is the case, the blank score will not be included in the calculation. Nevertheless, in reality scoring can be done quite easily by participants so we can expect that the matrix will be completely scored.

4. Possibility of exclusion. It was agreed that the tool should not be used to exclude relevant stakeholders. Facilitation is needed during the implementation of this exercise.

5. Scoring. In the Colfer’s BAG (Basic Assessment Guide), to determine key and important stakeholders the final scoring is calculated by averaging the scores given for each dimension. As an alternative, Herry proposes ‘median’ or ‘mode’ instead of the average. The ‘median’ is the value at the center of an ordered range of numbers. The ‘mode’ method will return the most frequently occurring, or repetitive, value in an array or range of data. The last two methods are more appropriate if we score the dimensions in ordinal numbers instead of interval numbers.

15

PACT 1. How many people should be interviewed. Small samples for in-depth interviews are 1 to 3

respondents. Questions are divided in 4 phases. The respondent will answers the question in detailed, each explanation will be clarified by interviewer and will re-questioned to the respondent. No more question will be asked when there is no further answer and clarification from the respondent.

2. How to deal with important stakeholders who are difficult to be interviewed. There should be special approach and arrangement. Few important points for the interviewer are: (1) have no prejudice to the stakeholders; (2) the questions conveyed should not intimidate the respondent; and (3) the interviewer should have no assumption before the answers are provided by the respondent.

SOCIO ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Khamuruddin Mohd Noor presented the results of the group discussion session that took place in the evening of Day 1 among the project’socio-economist scientists. They were: Julia Maturana, Bayuni Shantiko, Fe Mallion, and Khamuruddin. The questions raised by participants were: 1. Why the indicators selected were mentioned as given contribution towards “poverty

alleviation” while the project is about natural resource management. There is a need to identify indicators that can show the link between poverty alleviation and natural resources such as access to markets, access to benefit sharing. The purpose is to select relevant indicators from the long list that can show influence or impact of the project.

2. Impact on stakeholder relationships. The project will modify stakeholder relations so we should analyse how improved relationships will lead to livelihood improvement.

3. How to deal with communities who do not want their livelihood to be changed. The project should select sites that welcome and request project’s activities and interventions. The demand from the site is one of the determining factors in site selection.

4. Impact of project on health. Health was mentioned as one indicator to assess. However, there is a possibility that the project cannot solve health-related issues directly.

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 1. Is PHBM just a model? How to come up with a working plan from the point of view of the

community? LMDH may be used in a way it includes other people who were not included yet.

2. At what stage of the project PAR will be implemented. From intervention stage to monitoring. Results from monitoring will be feedback so that local people and stakeholders can improve their strategies during intervention phase.

16

Picture 7. The participants of the workshop were listening to the presentations. CORMAS 1. Model building and testing. Modelers should input the behavior of the agent, the rules,

whether or not they can communicate to each other, etc. into the model. The model is then validated through role play, and feedbacks of the community and stakeholders are then used to improve the model.

2. CORMAS and socio-economic dynamics of the site. CORMAS can capture socio-economic dynamics of the site.

3. Integration of GIS into CORMAS. This can be easily done. You can import GIS data into CORMAS model.

4. Behaviour of the agent. The agent can be designed in such a way so they can learn and change their behavior. You can also check your assumption on whether or not behavior of agent will change as you anticipate.

5. Grid shape and its effects. The size and shape of the grid affect simulation accuracy and its results. As shown in the prey-predator model, the prey will survive easily if there is more space. On the contrary, if there is too much space, the predator then cannot catch the prey so that the predator will not survive.

6. How to predict accuracy of the model. An AIT student is currently trying to do so with regards to land use plan model.

7. The maximum number of agent in the model. It seems there is no limit. In the current version of CORMAS, the number of agent is limited by the number of the grid, i.e. 300x300 maximum in order to run CORMAS well. Since each grid can be occupied only by a single agent, then the maximum number of agents or cluster of agents is 90,000. In the future, the number may increase with the technology advancement.

17

CRITERIA AND INDICATOR FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. The link between this C&I study with certification. No, the study was designed to measure

impact of the project and not linked with certification.

2. Number of experts participated. The experts participated in the study were policy specialist, social scientist, and forester/ecologist. Representatives from communities and government institutions were also invited.

3. Difficulties faced by local community in understanding C&I. C&I were translated into local language and not much difficulty in understanding them. As the study was for measuring impact for project’s use, we selected the educated representatives from communities.

18

Day 3, 28 April 2004 (Bogor) Day 3 of the workshop began with a presentation by Rosta Harun on her work on indigenous communities in Malaysia. Her presentation slides can be found in Appendix 10. Several issues raised and discussed following her presentation include: • Focus on local people. Does this project focus on local people? Participants responded by

saying that it was not the case because they are aware of the fact that there are other stakeholders such as Perhutani, forestry departments, etc. For this reason, the project applies stakeholder analysis so important stakeholders will not be left out. The focus of this project is to try to facilitate negotiation between stakeholders especially in the situation where the position of power is so unbalanced.

• Project methods. There was the impression that the methods discussed so far can be used for local people only. It was explained that those methods actually can be used for other stakeholders as well. Nevertheless, perhaps the discussions so far have not explicitly addressed how those methods can be used for other stakeholders, and in what way.

Khamuruddin Mohd Noor summarized the processes and the programs of Day 2. This was followed by distribution of the list of parameters and collection methods combining the results of CIRAD/CIFOR team and the results produced by the two groups (see Appendix 11). The participants were divided into three small groups who then critically reviewed the list and made revision. The inputs and feedbacks from the three groups were incorporated and the revised version can be found in Appendix 12. Several issues were raised and discussed: • Impact of the project. The concern expressed by the participant was whether the project can

produce impact considering that the activities on the ground will only take place for two years.

• Baseline survey. It was agreed that information collected might differ from site to site. Each country team should collect relevant information for their site using the list of information in the list as a guide.

• Ostrom approach. Participant requested clarification on what is Ostrom’s approach. Philippe Guizol explained briefly that Ostrom has done an extensive study on common pool resource management. The partners will be given a copy of her work.

• Methods for assessing agreement. The participants pointed out that they were not familiar with the two methods for assessing agreement, i.e. multiple interest accommodation assessment and benefit sharing contract analysis. The LPF team will provide information at later stage about the two methods.

• Toolbox of methods. It was suggested that there should be more methods to be considered and the researchers should think of other tools that may be useful. It was recommended that relevant references particularly on how the tools are applied in real case situation distributed by LPF team to the partners. When needed, relevant expert can be invited to support the partner, for example, MLA expert to help Philippines team or PACT expert to help Malaysian team.

19

Picture 8. Small group discussion on different implementation stages of the project. BUILDING BLOCK 4. SITE WORK PLAN Facilitator: Julia Maturana 4.1. Small group discussion to develop site work plan The facilitator explained that in this session the participants would be given the time to pull together all the information that were presented and discussed in previous day; then they should use them to design the work plan for their own sites. It was expected that the participants would produce a draft work plan and present them in Day 4. The team leader should also present the plan to the Steering Committee on Friday. The facilitator also presented the structure of the work plan that the participants can follow in developing their plan (See Box 4). The participants were divided into three groups: Palawan, Java, and Malaysia. Before small group discussion, there were several questions raised by the participants with regards to the timeframe of field work and budget allocation per site. These issues were clarified by Philippe Guizol.

Box 4. Structure of the Work Plan

1. Background 2. Specific goals, outcomes, and outputs/objectives 3. Site specific hypothesis and research questions 4. Methodology (for baseline, intervention, impact assessment stages) 5. Proposed schedule for project implementation

20

Discussion took place until lunch. The participants then left Puncak and travelled to Jakarta. The rest of the afternoon was free time so that the participants could visit places of interests in Bogor or Jakarta. Discussions on the work plan continued in the participants’ small groups in the evening (Palawan and Malaysia) while the Java team continued the discussion right after lunch.

21

Day 4, 29 April 2004 (Jakarta) Fe Mallion summarized Day 3 activities; participants raised and discussed key points.

BUILDING BLOCK 4. SITE WORK PLAN (CONTINUATION) 4.2. Presentation of the site work plan This was followed by presentations of the work plan by the country teams, i.e. mangrove area in Seberang Prai or Matang in Malaysia (Khamuruddin Mohd Noor), Palawan (Ted Villanueva), and Java (San Afri Awang). Their presentations can be found in Appendix 13. Several questions from the participants were: Malaysia: • Time gap between the 2nd workshop and management plan. The presented schedule showed

a big gap of 6 months between the 2nd workshop and the management plan. This was considered too long. The Malaysian team will revise the time schedule accordingly.

• The problems or challenges anticipated by the team in bringing together the different stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder forum. The team considers a long preparation time before reaching that stage. There will be series of discussions with related government representatives (lobbying them) in order to have their involvement in the project and such a forum, especially since the initiative proposed in LPF project is quite new in Malaysia.

• The involvement of community in the project. The team explained that the community consists of fishermen, charcoal makers, etc. There will be also other community members who are linked with the system.

Java: • In decision-making and learning theory, some proposed that all stakeholders should have

equal power as conditions for shared learning. Can this apply in Java case? As the team will be using Participatory Action Research, the team does not have hypotheses but they have assumptions. The team assumes stakeholders can have balanced position of power. The participant referred to Wollenberg reference that emphasized that awareness of unbalanced of power can help learning and participatory decision making process, as it may not be possible to balance out power among all stakeholders.

• Benefits for the stakeholders. The team explains that there are benefits for stakeholders but they may not be very clear from the assumption. In the local workshop, the team will try to address the power issue and show the benefit to all stakeholders.

To follow up:

1. Philippe to send the Ostrom’s materials to all participants

4.3. Project Website Facilitator: Herlina Hartanto Herry Purnomo presented the draft project website. He showed the current look of the website. He mentioned that the project website will be a part of CIFOR website. It can be maintained as well by CIRAD at later stage. It has links with partner universities, several relevant projects and programs. Several issues need to be clarified before the website can be improved further. They include for examples what the website is for, as a tool to exchange progress and information among the partners, provide certain key information such as teak or else, how often the

22

information should be updated, etc. Herry’s full presentation slides can be found in Appendix 14. Participants raised several issues and gave suggestions during discussion session. Among others:

• Launching of the website. When the website will be launched really depends on our decision on the best time to do so. Technically, the website is ready to be launched in its current state. However, the website currently does not contain much information apart than the information from the project proposal.

• The use of website as communication tool among researchers. There were mixed

experiences among participants. Some mentioned that website can facilitate communication while others mentioned that people preferred to use email rather than website in exchanging ideas.

• Logos. The roles of the different institutions, whether they are executing agencies

(CIRAD and CIFOR), sponsor (EU) and collaborator (3 partner universities) should be clear. The existing home page will be revised to better reflect these.

• Website ownership. The project should share the ownership of website to project

collaborators and partners in the field. • The next move. The representatives from each project partners, i.e. Wahyu, Ted and

Khamuruddin will work with Herry to provide relevant information and improve the website.

Building Block 5. Wrapping-Up and Preparation for Steering Committee Meeting Facilitator: Herlina Hartanto 5.1. Preparation for Steering Committee Meeting Philippe Guizol informed the participants about Steering Committee meeting that will take place tomorrow. He explained about the composition of the Steering Committee members, the agenda of the meeting, and several issues that he would like to discuss with the Steering Committee. 5.2. Wrapping-Up The facilitator reminded the participants on what have been discussed throughout the workshop, started from Day 1 until Day 4, using the 5 building blocks of the workshop as reminders. The participants were given the opportunity to bring up any issues under each building block that may be left out so far. The participants felt that important and key issues have been raised and discussed properly. The team leader from UGM pointed out that there was still a need for UGM and CIRAD/CIFOR team to discuss about the budget for Java work. It was agreed that a session will be held immediately to handle this issue. It was agreed that this methodological workshop was not the one and only opportunity for partners and the project team to come together. There will be other venues in the near future to exchange experience and to address other issues. The facilitator presented the flipchart showing the cluster of participants’ expectations and concerns for this workshop. The participants were asked to review the clusters and reviewed how much their expectations have been met. To help them to review their individual’s progress with regards to their knowledge about the LPF methodologies, LPF project, coordination,

23

networking, work plan, and how much their concerns have been addressed, the flipchart showing the evaluation wheel completed at the beginning of the workshop was presented. The participants were asked to re-score this wheel. The results showed that most of the dots drawn by the participants moved from inner circles to outer circles indicating improvement (see Appendix 2). The participants felt that their knowledge has been improved in most of the areas. With regards to methodology, there were still several dots in lower circle. The participants explained that this was because they still need to improve their understanding by reviewing the information and reference on each method after the workshop. Similarly for coordination and networking, the processes to improve those areas will take place beyond this workshop. Overall the participants found this workshop useful and productive, and thanked LPF project for organizing the event.