natural priorities
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
1/110
NATURAL PRIORITIES
The Complexities of Promoting Natural Resource
Management in Indonesia ommunity DrivenGreen PNPM Programme
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
2/110
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present thesis was devised, researched, and written in Indonesia with the aid of nu-
merous groups and individuals, without whom this document would not exist. Early dis-
cussions with Lars Eskild Jensen from the Danish Embassy were instrumental in forming
our interest in the topic of Green PNPM, and his support, along with that of numerouscolleagues at the embassy, has kept us on target throughout the process. Yunie Setyaning-
sih and Popo AnwarVDVVLVWDQFHLQ the formulation and translation of our structured inter-
view guides was invaluable due to the short time we had available in the field. Upon return
from North Sulawesi, Elisabeth L.A. de Lima of the Finnish Embassy engaged weeks of
work hours in translating the answers we collected in Bahasa Indonesia throughout the
field trip, and are her deeply grateful.
Our greatest acknowledgements go to Per Rasmussen for his continuous support, the
meetings he made possible, and the contacts he facilitated. His engagement in our study
has been paramount in ensuring the breadth and depth of our empirical data, and his pa-
tient feedback to numerous questions and enquires about the programme has been invalu-
able.
L t b t t l t th it f WCS h ti d t i d i d bt d
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
3/110
G L O S S A R Y A N D A C R O N Y M S
Astal District Green PNPM Facilitator
Bappenas National Development PlanningAgency
Bupatan Head of district
CBNRM Community Based Natural ResourceManagement
CDD Community-Driven Development
Charman Head of sub-district
CIDA Canadian International DevelopmentAgency
CSO Civil Society Organization
DANIDA Danish International DevelopmentAgency
FKL F ilit t K t Li k
MEMR Ministry of Energy and Mineral Re-sources (Indonesia)
MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Den-mark)
MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs (Indone-sia)
Musrembang The national development planningprocedure
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NRM Natural Resource Management
PjoK Project manager for KDP at theKecamatan level; section head PMDat the Kecamatan level
PMD Directorate General of VillageCommunity Empowerment
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
4/110
CONTENTS
Glossary and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. iii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Problem Formulation .................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 Methodological Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1.1 Epistemological and Ontological Influences ................................................................ ............................. 4
1.2.1.2. Grounded Theory .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Method of Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.2.1 Qualitative Research Design ......................................................... ............................................................ 9
1.2.3 Research Techniques ...................................................... ................................................................ ................ 10
1.2.3.1 Semi-structured Interviews .................................................................................................................... 12
1.2.3.2 Structured Interviews Turned Questionnaires ....................................................................................... 13
1.2.3.3 Expert and Stakeholder Interviews and Literature Review .................................................................... 15
1.2.4 Research Tools ............................................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.5 Implications .................................................................................................................................................... 16
1.2.5.1 Primary Sources of Data ......................................................................................................................... 16
1.2.5.2 Secondary Sources of Data .................................................................................................. ................... 17
1 2 5 3 Pre understandings of the Researchers 17
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
5/110
3.2.2 Green PNPM ........................................................ ................................................................ ........................... 35
3.2.2.1 The Green PNPM Funding and Approach ............................................................................................... 363.2.2.2 Green PNPM Institutional Setup ............................................................................................................ 38
3.2.2.3 The Project Formulation and Implementation Process in Green PNPM ................................................ 39
4 Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1 Community ................................................................................................................................ 42
4.1.1 Priorities of the communities ............................................................... .......................................................... 42
4.1.1.1 Direct Benefit as a Requirement ............................................................................................................ 434.1.1.2 Individual Needs ............................................................................................... ...................................... 44
4.1.1.3 Incentives: Changing Behaviors and Attitudes? ..................................................................................... 45
4.1.2 Knowledge ........................................................... ................................................................ ........................... 47
4.1.2.1 Ignorance is Bliss? .............................................................. ................................................................ ..... 48
4.1.2.1 Resourse Degradation and Change of Behavior .......................................................... ........................... 49
4.1.2.3 Experts in what? ..................................................................................................................................... 50
4.2 Green PNPM programme design and implementation ................................................................. 52 4.2.1 The KDP Heritage ........................................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.2 Long Term Projects with Short Term Funding .......................................................... ...................................... 55
4.2.3 Ambiguous Guidelines and Weak Process management ............................................................................... 56
4.3 A World of Influence ................................................................................................................... 60
4.3.1 One Path among Many .............................................................. ................................................................ ..... 60
4.3.2 Donor Coordination? ...................................................... ................................................................ ................ 62
4 3 3 The Elephant in the Room Green PNPM in MoHA 64
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
6/110
A B S T R AC TThe Indonesian development programme Green PNPM combines the objectives of poverty alleviation,
sustainable natural resource management (NRM) and empowerment. It does so by using a community-
driven development (CDD) model to promote these types of projects on the basis of community re-
quests. Concerns over the ability of the programme to fulfill its objective of promoting sustainable
NRM as a means of poverty alleviation are growing and this thesis is therefore conducted as a process
evaluation of the programme to establish whether the Green PNPM is a suitable vehicle for NRM.In order to explain the impending concerns around the Green PNPM program, the thesis critically ex-
amines the underlying assumptions on which the program is based. Specifically, the combination of
CDD and NRM that entails a series of simplifications which the founders of Green PNPM have readily
accepted regarding the ability and will of communities to invest in and carry out sustainable NRM. Due
to our critical stance towards the applicability of this combination of NRM in CDD programmes, we
use the method of grounded theory to examine the empirical data and establish whether it supports the
underlying assumptions of the Green PNPM programme. In doing so, it allows for an uncontrived
process evaluation by giving attention to factors on the basis of their prominence and causal signific-
ance in the data as opposed to their theoretical importance.
The empirical data for this evaluation was collected during a field study in North Sulawesi in combina-
tion with expert interviews and secondary data as a basis for an intermediate level analysis. Before en-
gaging in the analysis, we use the conceptual framework to introduce and discuss the theoretical back-
d h f d i h i hi h CDD h f NRM b d W
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
7/110
1 I N T R O D U C T I O NThe archipelago of Indonesia1 holds some of the most important natural resources in the world. This
LQFOXGHVVRPHRIWKHZRUOGVPRVWH[WHQVLYHDQGELRORJLFDOO\GLYHUVHIRUHVWVDQGNP2 or roughly
RIWKHZRUOGV FRUDOUHHIV%XW WKH IRrests are disappearing at the fastest rate in the world (The
World Bank Office Jakarta 2006, 12); (FWI/GF 2002, ix) DQGRI,QGRQHVLDVUHHIVDUHQRZFRQV i-
dered threatened (The World Bank 2011a). Likewise, over-fishing, soil-degradation, solid-waste pollu-
tion, mismanagement of fresh-water pools and coastline areas constitute serious threats to the Indone-sian environment as it buckles under increasing pressure from the effects of human life.
These are grim facts and they pose a tremendous problem with respect to economic and human devel-
RSPHQWDVHQYLURQPHQWDOUHVRXUFHVDQGHFRV\VWHPVDUHHVVHQWLDOHOHPHQWVRIWKHFRXQWU\VZHDOWKDQG
a foundation for economic growth and livelihoods (The World Bank Office Jakarta 2006, 4). The
World Bank estimates that the national cost of environmental degradation, including climate change, is
over 5% of GDP per year and likely to increase. These costs are disproportionately borne by the poor-est and those living in rural areas because of their direct reliance on natural resources and their inability
to mitigate the effects of environmental and climatic changes (The World Bank 2009a, 4).
Numerous poverty studies (see e.g. (Cavendish 2000); (Parnwell 1988)) have shown that rural livelih-
oods are intrinsically intertwined with the surrounding environment and natural resources, and agree-
ment exists that poverty alleviation programs in rural areas therefore must include consideration to and
d di f h i b l d i li lih d (L d N
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
8/110
these projects seldom consider the environment and thus fail to address the central problems which
stem from the interconnected natural resources and livelihoods (PNPM PSF 2009, 2). The fact that fewto none of the communities invested in NRM projects within the PNPM programme led to the initia-
WLRQRIDJreen pilot programme under the PNPM framework.
The Green PNPM (which is jointly managed by the World Bank and the Government of Indoensia
(GoI)) has been running since 2008. The programme follows the modality of CDD as it has been main-
streamed by the World Bank, ZKRVHDSSURDFKLQYROYHVWDNLQJDGYDQWDJHRIORFDONQRZOHGJHand giv-
LQJWKHSRRUJUHDWHUYRLFHDQGFRQWURORYHUGHYHORSPHQWGHFLVLRQVVXSSRUWLQJRZQHUVKLSDQGHPS o-werment in the process (Wassenich and Whiteside 2004, 1). The programme is based on the belief that
LPSURYLQJOLYHOLhoods and development initiatives in rural Indonesia will to a large extent, and espe-
FLDOO\ LQSRRUHU DUHDV EH OLQNHG WRXWLOL]DWLRQ RIWKHQDWXUDO UHVRXUFHV (Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2006, 24) and consequently desiJQHG WRSURPRWHJUHDWHU HPSKDVLVRQHQYLURQPHQWDO LVVXHV LQ WKH
&''SODQQLQJSURFHVV(Supervision Mission 2010, 5).
The Green PNPM is now in its third phase, and preliminary evaluations and experiences from the fieldreveal a gap between expected and actual outcomes. A number of conceptual and programmatic issues
have materialized or become apparent during the existence of the programme (Rasmussen 2011a),
which warrants investigation into the cause for the outcome-gap. A supervision mission carried out in
6HSWHPEHUFRQFOXGHGWKDWLWLVXQFOHDUWKDWWKHSURJUDPKDVEHHQ>DV@HIIHFWLYHDVSRVVLEOHLQ
ensuring [that] environmental issues are prominently addressed in the local development planning
SURFHVVHV(Supervision Mission 2010, 7). This indicates that the Green PNPM may not be a suitable
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
9/110
in the spring of 2011. The present paper thus presents an analysis of the compatibility of NRM with
CDD in the context of the PNPM programme in Indonesia. While the analysis is focused on the em-pirical data, and based on the emerging doubt that Green PNPM will be successful (Rasmussen 2011a),
other critical works on the combination of CDD and NRM provide important contributions to our
conceptualization of the issue.
We find inspLUDWLRQLQ$UXQ$JUDZDODQG&ODUN*LEVRQVGHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIFRPPXQLW\DQGWKHLUDQ a-
lytical emphasis on institutions (Agrawal and Gibson 1999)DQGLQ-HVVH5LERWDQG5RELQ0HDUQVDc-
WRUV SRZHUV DQG DFFRXQWDELOLW\ DQDO\VLV of decision making processes in CDD (Ribot and Mearns2005). These works support our choice to poise our empirically founded analysis against the basic theo-
retical assumptions guiding the combination of CDD and NRM in Green PNPM. We do therefore not
present a case study of the PNPM programme in the rural areas of North Sulawesi, where our research
is carried out, nordo we engage in theoretical discussions about the general applicability of NRM in
CDD programmes. We offer, instead, an intermediate level analysis which explores the appropriateness
of using the PNPM programme as a vehicle for natural resource management. In the process, the con-
ceptual assumptions guiding the Green PNPM are deconstructed and challenged on the basis of their
contextual merit, which finally leads us to suggest a new hypothesis on NRM in CDD programmes. In
its totality, the current thesis thus seeks to answer the following problem:
1.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
10/110
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The following description of our methodology is not an attempt to objectively depict the steps taken to
reach a predetermined end; conversely we use the process to reflect and deliberate about the choices
PDGHDQGDVVXPSWLRQVDFFHSWHGRUUHMHFWHGLQRXUUHVHDUFK0HWKRGRORJ\LVDERXWUHVHDUFKFRQFHp-
WLRQVSURFHVVHVDQGSUDFWLFHVRIDQDO\VLV (Gallagher 2008, 6), which means that when describing ones
methodology, one must necessarily devote considerable effort to conceptualize and describe the con-
nection between guiding perceptions, methods chosen, and scientific implications. The present sectionwill do so in exactly this order.
1.2.1 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Laying out our methodological considerations involves paying some attention to the source of theseconsiderations. We therefore initiate this section with a brief discussion of the evolution of ideas that
has influenced our choice of methodology. We do this with an eye to ethics. Ethics as a concept cannot
EHFRQVLGHUHGRQWKHEDVLVRIDFWLRQVDORQHVLQFHWKHVHDUHDQH[SUHVVLRQRIWKHDFWRUVRQWRORJLFDODQG
epistemological belonging, hereunder understanding of the subject of research and of research itself.
Consequently, our endeavors to uphold high standards of ethics are guided by our reading of what ex-
ists and how it can be studied.
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
11/110
traditional often radical readings of reality as accepted truths thereby challenging the hegemonic
discourse that characterizeEmpire3$VKFURIW*ULIWKVDQG7LIQHGV; (Hardt and Negri 2000).
This (rather crude) description of our ontological and epistemological influences designates an under-
standing of knowledge and the world which necessitates a critical reading of accepted theoretical and
empirical truths, and acknowledges the merit of different perspectives. We accept the above as impor-
tant with respect to all readings of reality, but especially so in the present study where issues of the en-
vironment, development and local perspectives are juxtaposed. This combination of issues forms the
basis for numerous debates between developed and developing countries about the merit of the Global1RUWKVQRUPDWLYHDUJXPHQWVIRUSURWHFWLRQRIQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVLQWKH*OREDO6RXWK
The North-South debate can be sketched according to two basic conflicting arguments: the North ar-
JXHVWKDWWKH6RXWKVKRXOGOHDUQIURPWKH1RUWKVPLVWDNHVDQGDYRLGWKHHQYLURQPHQWDODQGHFRQRm-
LFFRQVHTXHQFHVRIXQVXVWDLQDEOHGHYHORSPHQW(Jacobsen 1993, 9). The South contests this by arguing
that developing countries should be given the same rights and opportunities that made it possible for
the North to develop, and that by denying the South these rights, the North is implicitly trying to pre-
vent the South from developing by exercising what Paul Driessen describes as Eco Imperialism
(Driessen 2005):KLOH'ULHVVHQVDQDO\VLVGHDOVSULPDULO\ZLWKSULYDWH VHFWRU LVVXHVDQG WKH WHQVLRQ
between large scale economics and environmental concerns, Ramachandra Guha directs the discussion
to the level of individuals by pitting human well-being against environmental well-being. In his criticism
of international conservation organizations, he argues that these organizations value environmental
conservation higher than the wellbeingRIORFDOSHRSOHZKRGHSHQGRQWKHH[SORLWDWLRQRIVDLGHQYi-
O K L OL OLK G * K ' L G L L I K W L
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
12/110
fulfill the requirements of the local peoples needs, we position ourselves critically towards the promi-
nent assumptions about CDD and NRM and consequently the assumptions behind Green PNPM to conduct a valid and truthful analysis of the empirical data without falling into the trap of readily ac-
cepting hegemonic theoretical suppositions that may not apply in the context of PNPM and Indonesia.
1.2.1.2. GROUNDED THEORY
Grounded theory (GT) presents itself as a natural methodological choice for this thesis because of the
possibilities it opens to question accepted knowledge and establish new theories on the basis of system-
ically analyzed data (Haig 1995). Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss are usually singled out as the most
prominent contributors to the development of grounded theory, which they take to mean the inductive
PHWKRGRIGLVFRYHULQJ WKHRU\ IURPGDWD V\VWHPDWLFDOO\REWDLQHGIURP VRFLDO UHVHDUFK (Glaser and
Strauss 1967, 2). Glaser and Strauss emphasize the generation of theories as DQLQWHJUDOSDUWRIWKH
UHVHDUFKSURFHVV (Haig 1995) which they describe according to a number of systematic steps the re-searcher must take to be able to build a solid theory.
To Glaser and Strauss the quality of a theory is determined by the process of its formulation, which
WKH\GHVFULEHDVDFRQWLQXRXVRQHDVWKHLUVWUDWHJ\RIFRPSDUDWLYHDQDO\VLVIRUJHQHUDWLQJWKHRU\SXWVD
high emphasis on theory as process; that is, theory as an ever-developing entity, not a perfect SURGXFW
(Glaser and Strauss 1967, 32). In their original works (both joint and individual), Glaser and Strauss are
i l b h f h h h h ld f ll l h h d f f
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
13/110
WKHSUHVHQWWKHVLVDELOLW\WRIROORZWKHPHWKRGRORJ\LVGHILQHGE\LWVVFRSHZKLFKLVWRRVPDOOWRZD r-
rant adherence to comprehensive and complex rounds of coding.
GT is now conducted in a variety of ways that deviate from the principles described by Glaser and
Strauss (see e.g. Elsbach and Kramer (2003) described in (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, 28)) There-
fore, we use a simpler version of data organizing where comparisons and coding remain the most im-
portant principles, but with more emphasis on exploring categories found in the data accompanied by
more leniency on the particularity of coding employed. We find this methodology more appropriate for
this thesis, since, even though it may not provide the amount of comparisons, discussions and causalexplanations needed to build a good theory, it will allow us to answer whether Green PNPM is a suita-
ble vehicle for NRM and build a new hypothesis on the applicability of NRM in CDD progammes.
&RQVHTXHQWO\ZHIRFXVRQUHFRJQL]LQJSDWWHUQVRIUHODWLRQVKLSVDPRQJFRQVWUXFWV>@ andtheir un-
GHUO\LQJORJLFDODUJXPHQWV (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, 25) at the expense of systematic coding,
which we see as out of line with our qualitative approach to the study.
Figure 1: Coding of Interview. Code numbers on the right hand side refer to a list of 30 different categories
identified throughout the data
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
14/110
1.2.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
$VWXG\Vmethod of analysis determines not only the realms of applicability of its conclusions; it also
shaSHVWKHUHVHDUFKHUVDSSURDFKWR answering the problem formulation.
The method of analysis of this study is by means of a process evaluation of the delivery of the Green
PNPM programme, critically assessed in the light of its underlying assumptions of the combination of
the concepts of CDD and NRM. Our understanding of the scope and method of process evaluations
stem from numerous methodological articles which have been developed primarily for the health sec-
tor, but adopted by a range of other fields, including international development. Our process evaluation
design is inspired by Melanie J. Bliss DQG -DPHV*(PVKRIIV ZRUNERRNRQ WKH VXEMHFW (Bliss and
Emshoff 2002) as it provides a simple yet flexible framework for evaluating the way the Green PNPM
programme is carried out and how conducive this is to the reality of rural communities in Indonesia
with regards to fulfilling its objective of promoting NRM from the perspective of community-driven
development. According to Bliss and Emshoff,
Process evaluation uses empirical data to assess the delivery of programs. In contrastto outcome evaluation, which assesses the impact of the program, process evaluation
verifies what the program is and whether it is being implemented as designed (Blissand Emshoff 2002, 1).
In this respect, the relationship between GT and process evaluation is in line with the principles of GT,
which enable the researcher to focus principally on the empirical data and let it reveal whether inconsis-
tencies exist between the reality and the assumptions the programme is built on. Furthermore, by let-
i h d id h l i d i d h l i l
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
15/110
setting characteristics) and program processes (i.e., levels of impOHPHQWDWLRQ (Bliss and Emshoff 2002,
1).
While this project is a process evaluation of the Green PNPM, it is worth mentioning that it has devel-
oped into more than that, as our investigation of the empirical data quickly showed that fundamentally,
the programme is based on incorrect assumptions about particular concepts that have been put togeth-
er in the formulation of Green PNPM. These concepts and assumptions are presented in the Concep-
tual Framework, which presents the conceptual background of the programme, and therefore can be
understood as part of the empirical data, as mentioned above. In short, the present report uses the me-thod of process evaluation to conduct an intermediate level analysis which includes an in-depth discus-
sion about the effects of too readily accepting assumptions about CDD and NRM and in particular
the combination of CDD and NRM - as the foundation for the Green PNPM in Indonesia.
1.2.2.1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN
The application of GT used in the present study is based on the tenets of qualitative research as it em-
phasizes deep research as opposed to broad, and treats subjective perspectives as relevant and valid.
The abstract arguments for or against qualitative research have, from our perspective, lost their urgency
over time as qualitative research has gained acceptance in and outside social science. We will therefore
not focus on the abstract arguments for why qualitative research is better than quantitative, but con-
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
16/110
VSLWHRI,QGRQHVLDVFXOWXUDODQGJHRJUDSKLFDOGLYHUVLW\LVVXHVVXFKDVUHOLDQFHRQQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVWKH
socio-economic and institutional make-up and political situation are similar in most of the country.Furthermore, due to the scope of this study, we did not have the resources to conduct several field
studies.
As mentioned, our analytical focus is divided into the following three levels, identified according to
their relevance with regards to answering our problem formulation: community, programme structure,
and external influences (including institutional and cultural influences). We include examination of po-
litical, and institutional effects on the sustainability of NRM in the PNPM Rural programme as impor-tant parts of our analytical framework as we VXSSRUW$JUDZDODQG*LEVRQVXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHLQIOu-
ence of the external on the internal, and accept their argument that
although it is convenient to talk about the community and the state, or about the lo-
cal and the external, they are linked together in ways that it might be difficult to iden-
tify the precise line where local conservation begins and the external (that helps con-
struct the local) ends (Agrawal and Gibson 1999, 637).
This understanding of inseparability of the local and external transcends all aspects of the the-
sis and have an explicit effect on both our understanding of the conceptual framework (see
section 2.4) and, as mentioned above the analytical framework (see section 4)
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
17/110
The research was carried out to learn about the experiences and priorities of all stakeholders involved
in the PNPM programme at the local level. An important aspect of this is how the villagers understandtheir life, village and resources and the interplay between these. It can be argued that this knowledge
would be best obtained through an ethnographic field study, but due to the limitations of time and
access and the isolated location of many of the villages we visited (the villagers there had not seen bule9
people for many years so our mere presence resulted in a considerable amount of attention), it was not
an option. Our ability to conduct interviews was therefore markedly influenced by the number of
people following us around at any given time and the authority (or power-status) assigned to us by nu-
merous interviewees, whose behavior made it clear that they assumed that we were somehow influential
people10 who they would do well to please. Consequently, we abandoned our pre-planned structured
interviews with villagers, as these required a more socially intimate situation than circumstances could
provide. Ultimately, we opted to hand out the interview questions as questionnaires instead 11, to give
the respondents time and space to answer the questions without having to deal directly with us and the
entourage we gathered, which we experienced was uncomfortable for many of them.
The field study was initiated by two informal interviews with key people in the :&6VPDLQRIILFH in
Bogor and one with former Danida advisor Per Rasmussen to familiarize ourselves with the situation
and understand how respectively WCS and PSF12 perceive the workings of Green PNPM in rural
communities in North Sulawesi13. This was useful to establish a basic understanding of the set-up of
and assumptions behind Green PNPM. Furthermore, we familiarized ourselves with the theoretical
underpinnings of CDD and NRM, as these form the basis for the establishment of the Green PNPM14
d h f i d i Fi ll d i l I d i
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
18/110
1.2.3.1 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Qualitative semi-structured interviews were chosen as the technique for the bulk of interviews con-
GXFWHGLQRXUUHVHDUFKEHFDXVHRILWVVXLWDELOLW\WRUHVHDUFKVLWXDWLRQVZKLFKDLPWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHPHV
RI WKH OLYHG GDLO\ ZRUOG IURP WKH VXEMHFWV RZQ SHUVSHFWLYHV (Kvale 2007, 11). As emphasized
throughout this section, our adherence to this technique is also guided by its connection to the overall
methodological tenets of this study, and we acknowledge that semi-structured interviews are not always
suitable and that the technique is not without its limitations either. In addition to those explained
above, this includes the inability of interviews to provide objective, factual images of reality. As David6LOYHUPDQSRLQWVRXWLQWHUYLHZVGRQRWWHOOXVGLUHFWO\DERXWSHRSOHVH[SHULHQFHVEXWLQVWHDGRIIHU
indiUHFW UHSUHVHQWDWLRQVRIWKRVHH[SHULHQFHV (Silverman 2006, 117), and we therefore focused our
LQWHUYLHZ TXHVWLRQV RQ WRSLFV WKDW ZRXOG UHYHDO LQWHUYLHZHHV SHUVSHFWLYHV DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQg of
PNPM, their lives and natural resources.
We conducted 10 interviews15 with village community groups related to PNPM. The interviews were
conducted in 8 villages with both PNPM Rural and Green PNPM, and 2 villages with only PNPM Ru-ral. At district level, we conducted 2 interviews with local government and one with a Green PNPM
facilitator (Astal). Finally, we also conducted one interview with the provincial PNPM government offi-
cial (PMD) and one with the provincial Green PNPM facilitator (SPL). An excerpt of the transcriptions
can be found in appendix C and the complete transcription can be found on the CD enclosed with this
document7KLVPL[ZDVFKRVHQWRJDLQLQVLJKWLQWRGLIIHUHQWYLOODJHUVSHUVSHFWLYHVDQGSULRULWLHVLQ
relation to Green PNPM and PNPM Rural, and to learn about the programmes from respectively gov-
d i l i S ifi ll hi i i i h h k l d
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
19/110
14 Feb Teremaal, North Minahassa Dafit Julinal
Yulita Mamonto
Jubnir Untiliara
Cornelia Mangaehe
Nurhayati Mangaehe
Suyati Lerah
Yamin Dotuluna
Lysniliana Rundimang
Endang Lerah
Rofien Pusioumang
Henge Tapaming
Apolda Mantaghe
Rita Rumarati
FKL
Bendahara UPKKPMD
KPMD
TPK
TPK
TPK
TPU
TPU
TPU
Tim Monitoring
Tim Monitoring
Tim Monitoring14 Feb Wori, North Minahassa James Gara
Stevan Rumambi
Meyty Kaeng
Risna Karenge
Yeane Petrus
Not specified
Facilitator village level
TPK
Facilitator kecamatan level
Facilitator village level
15 Feb Tondegesan 1 & 2 Kramat Lumopa
Hendra Mamahit
Steven Goni
Seysi Saada
FKL
TPK
TPK
KPMD
16 Feb Government office, Mina-
hassa
Kepala Bidang
R.I. RembangRonald Rundengan
Arthur Rori (AR)
Head of sub-office
PJOPMD secretary
FasKab Intregration
16 Feb Tounelet, Minahassa Richard E. Lontaan
Stenly Wawolumaja
Vanda Kumakauw
Donny G. Tiduw
Pem Kalola
Mario Pangolila
Deibie Terok
+ 7 villagers
TPK
TPK
TPK
KPMD
TPK
UPK
KPMD
&
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
20/110
nected to establishing a natural conversation with rural villagers who are not involved in the PNPM
process and therefore are unfamiliar with the nature of our study. Structured interviews consist of anumber of questions which are asked in the same way in each interview. The questions may be ex-
plained or elaborated on by the interviewer, but as a rule, s/he should refrain from asking follow-up
questions or departing from the pre-chosen interview questions (Pawar 2004, 30). This makes it possi-
ble to identify trends and draw out tendencies. Structured interviews are most often used in quantitative
research, but our quasi-qualitative application of the technique where a mix of open-ended and closed-
HQGHGTXHVWLRQVDUHXVHGWRJDLQLQVLJKWLQWRUHVSRQGHQWVH[SHULHQFHVDQGSULorities is also common
among researchers (Goodwin and Goodwin 1996, 135).
As touched upon above, we were not able to conduct the interviews in person but had to hand out the
questions to be filled out as questionnaires. This took away the chance to explain what is meant by the
questions in cases where there was doubt, but we believe that under the conditions this is an acceptable
limitation. We handed out approximately 70, and got 47 questionnaires returned with answers. After
translation16, the answerers were organized according to tendencies, and, when relevant, organized sta-
tistically.
Table 2: Organization of questionnaire data (small excerpt for the sake of illustration)17
Total (when
applicable)
Question Respondent
Green PNPM Structured inter-
view/Questionaries Data collection
1 2 3 4
k d h l b
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
21/110
1.2.3.3 EXPERT AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Considerable research was carried out in Jakarta upon returningIURPWKHILHOG3ULPDULO\WKLVUHVHDUFK
consisted of extensive literature reviews on two planes. On the one hand, programme documents and
historical, institutional and political literature was consulted to gain an understanding of the Indonesian
context at large and rural communities and the Green PNPM programme, more specifically. Secondly,
the theoretical assumptions behind Green PNPM were studied under the headlines of CDD and NRM,to understand the theoretical basis for the programme and thus the conceptual context of our study.
Because of the importance of elaborate and reliable data in grounded theory studies, we conducted
three expert interviews in Jakarta focused on NRM, CDD and Green PNPM. Including expert inter-
views in a study is also a useful way of gaining distanced and reflective readings of the case. Eisenhardt
DQG*UDHEQHUDUJXHWKDWLQ*7DNH\DSSURDFKLVXVLQJQXPHURXVDQGKLJKO\NQRZOHGJHDEOHLQIRr-
mants who view the local phenomena from diverse perspectives [because] it is unlikely that these variedinformants will engage in convergent retrospective sense-making and/or impression management
(Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, 28). Interviews were therefore carried out with a Danida advisor who
specializes in NRM, and a policy analyst who advise MoHA on PNPM. Finally, a national level stake-
holder from MoHA was interviewed to learn about his understanding of and experiences with Green
PNPM. All these interviews were carried out as semi-structured interviews18.
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
22/110
Our dependence on interpreters caused some limitations as interviews on occasion were guided by the
pre-understanding of the interpreter regarding what we wanted to, or should, know; or when detailswere lost in translation. This is generally identified as a major pitfall of interpretation (Desai og Potter
2006, 172), and something we found very unfortunate, but impossible to avoid.
A combination of recording methods was used to capture both the data and our interpretation of it
(which in GT is also considered data (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 103)). A recording device was used dur-
ing all the interviews22 as we believe that one cannot rely on recollections of conversations: Certainly,
depending on our memories we can usually memorize what people said. But it is simply impossible toUHPHPEHU>@DFWXDOGHWDLO (Silverman 2004, 354). Recordings were, however, sometimes inaudible
due to background noise, in which case the consequent KROHLQRXUGDWDLVPDUNHG>LQDXGLEOH@LQWKH
transcriptions. Despite its imperfections the recording devise was an invaluable tool in the process of
transcription and organization of the data. Notebooks were used to write down interesting subjects,
conversations and thoughts, and diaries and pictures were used to capture important observations and
thoughts during the field study. Finally, a translator was used in preparation of the structured inter-
view/questionnaires for the field trip and to translate answers upon our return to Jakarta.
1.2.5 IMPLICATIONS
Throughout the present section, limitations and problems of the chosen methodology, methods, tech-
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
23/110
and partly by the necessity to accompany the schedule of WCS. Because of the short timeframe, some
implications ensued in the process of conducting the field trip. First and foremost, due to the tightschedule, village visits were short and often left little opportunity to talk to individuals in the communi-
ties without WCS staff or community officials. The fact that community members were never engaged
in interviews without officials nearby meant that the responses from these individuals or groups might
have been swayed in the direction of what was perceived to please these officials, possibly resulting in
distorted data.
Because of practical conditions and to follow the principles of grounded theory, prepared interviewquestions and structured interview guides for the field trip were short and designed to be frameworks
which could be adapted as the field study progressed. More than often, the prepared material showed
to be inadequate which resulted in a lot of improvisation to seek answers from situational and relevant
subjects discovered along the way. Triangulation of key arguments and problems found was therefore
not pursued in the data gathering process as that would have required a longer or more pre-planned
process and would have limited the amount of answers sought in WKHVWXG\VSXUVXLWRIDFRPSOHWHXn-
derstanding of its case. Despite this there are multiple examples of repeated answers to questions in thedata gathered. The data has, instead of aiming to provide repetitions, established a broader and deeper
understanding of the case as all variants of data is considered essential and equal in its importance until
proven otherwise in further analysis.
Finally, interviews with administrative officials have often proved a very difficult as formal proceedings
of greetings and small talk took the lead. For example, on one such occasion in Menado, the regional
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
24/110
data and analyze it competently without prejudice of its relevance. Even though it is the aim of this
study to analyze the data without letting our pre-understandings shape and influence the interpretation,it is also clear that all researchers see the world through distinctly shaped glasses and are thus influenced
by ethnocentrism. Because of these glasses there is a danger that the UHVHDUFKHUV RZQEDFNJround
norms and values and culture can be used WRMXGJHDQGXQGHUVWDQGRWKHUVWe therefore acknowledge
that the data produced in this paper has been influenced by some prejudices, and preconceptions; and it
can be argued that by not analyzing data on the basis of broadly accepted theory, one discards the ac-
creditation that follows from siding with established reasoning, and hence is an easy target of criticism.
Yet, this is the conditions one must face when hegemonic thinking is questioned, and we thus accept
that this study and its conclusions can be criticized on these grounds.
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
25/110
2 C O N C E P T UA L F R A M E W O R K This chapter reviews the main theoretical underpinnings behind the basic concepts of CDD pro-
grammes focused on NRM (like Green PNPM). This means that the conceptual framework presents
two main theoretical concepts: CDD and NRM. As explained in the previous chapter, this section
presents the conceptual underpinnings of the programme to establish an understanding of the assump-
tions and perceptions that guide the combination of CDD and NRM. This understanding is important
as a basis for the analysis which shows that many of these theoretical concepts are unable to explain thereality of Green PNPM in Indonesia. We therefore include in our process evaluation the following re-
view of relevant concepts to enable an analytical discussion of how potentially flawed assumptions have
resulted in unsuited programme elements.
Therefore, this section introduces the theoretical background of the Green PNPM by:
1)Taking departure in general definitions of and theories behind CDD to establish the basicframework of the Green PNPM programme, i.e. assumptions about communities and their sui-
tability as development institutions.
2) Subsequently, NRM is introduced to draw the theoretical arguments about its importance forSRRUSHRSOHVOLYHOLKRRGVDQGWRpresent the theoretical debate on state vs. community man-
agement of natural resources.
3) Finally, the limited theory that deals specifically with NRM in CDD programmes is reviewed
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
26/110
2.1 COMMUNITY-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT
The emphasis on local participation in and management of resources in development processes accom-
panied a general shift in governance discourse away from the state centered thinking that characterized
WKHFRORQLDODQGLPPHGLDWHSRVWFRORQLDOHQvironment where states saw themselves as best suited to
UHVRXUFHFRQWURODQGPDQDJHPHQW(Agrawal 2003, 245). The broad concept ofparticipationwhich ema-
nated from this shift is generally attributed to Robert ChambHUVIRXQGLQJZRUNVLQZKLFKSDUWLFLSDWLRQ
LV GHVFULEHG DV EHLQJ DERXW EXLOGLQJ RZQHUVKLS IURP WKH ERWWRP XS (Blackburn, Chambers andGaventa 2002, 61) E\ZD\RISXWWLQJWKHODVWILUVW(R. Chambers 1983).
Like its paradigmatic parent discipline participation; community-driven development is fundamentally
critical of the ability of centrally managed top-down development programmes to produce sustainable
or effective projects (Binswanger-Mkhize, de Regt and Spector 2009) (Wienecke 2005, 23)23. Participa-
tion advocates point to a vast pool of empirical studies and practical experiences which show that by
including the beneficiaries of a given project in all stages of the project cycle, they achieve an under-standing of and an interest in the project which ensures future investment in their own development
related to it. There is thus an emphasis on empowerment and ownership as the driving forces behind
sustainable development (Dongier, et al. 2002, 5).
It should be emphasized that the designation community-driven developmentis only one among a number of
approaches under participation which are often used interchangeably. CDD is primarily set apart from
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
27/110
Similarly, Binswanger and Aryar define CDD according to its development ideology and objective as:
DQDSSURDFKWKDWDims to empower communities and local governments with resources and authorityWRXVHWKHVHIOH[LEO\WKXVWDNLQJFRQWURORIWKHLURZQGHYHORSPHQW (Binswanger og Aryar 2003, 5).
7KH\JRRQWRVD\WKDW WKLVLQFOXGHVJLYLng people access to voice and information, greater social in-
FOXVLRQDQGSDUWLFLSDWLRQJUHDWHUDFFRXQWDELOLW\DQGRUJDQL]DWLRQDOVWUHQJWKDOORIZKLFKEXLOGVVRFLDO
capital (Binswanger og Aryar 2003, 5); (Wassenich and Whiteside 2004, 24, 70).
2.1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The above definitions are mutually complimentary, and are all applicable to different levels of under-
standing of the approach of the PNPM programme, which does not directly define CDD, but describes
its processes according to both effectual, operational, ideological logics (Green PNPM Task Team
2010, 7) (PNPM PSF 2009, 20) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2006, 8-9). This literature review sums up
the key concepts that constitute the overall theoretical background of CDD, and thereby also the theo-retical assumptions that guide the combination of CDD and NRM in Green PNPM.
The World Bank has, after decades of criticism and limited successful experiences with top-down de-
velopment in the 1960s and 1970s, shifted to almost exclusively designing projects with some level of
bottom-up, participatory approach (Blanco 1999) (Blake 2000),QGRLQJVRLWKDVPDGHDVKLIWLQSROi-
cy that treats community groups and individuals as stakeholders, rather than the direct recipients of
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
28/110
SXUVXLWRIFKDQJHVLQWKHH[HUFLVHRISRZHU/HZLVLQ(Wienecke 2005, 25). Borrowing from
Anthony Giddens, the theoretical principle adopted by writers on empowerment processes in CDDrefers to the relationship between agency and structure as mutually constitutive, 25 which means that
WKHGHJUHHDQGQDWXUHRIDQLQGLYLGXDOVDQGDFRPPXQLW\VHPSRZHUPHQWLVWKHSURGXFWRIWKHLQW e-
UDFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHLUSHUVRQDOFDSDELOLWLHVDQGUHVRXUFHVDQGWKHUXOHVWKDWELQGWKHP (Davis 2007,
11).
Numerous works linking empowerment and poverty alleviation (see e.g. (UN Depertment of
Economic and Social Affairs 2005) and (Narayan 2002)) show that the process of empowerment isDVVXPHGWRKDYHERWKLQWULQVLFDQGLQVWUXPHQWDOZRUWK(Alsop, Bertelsen and Holland 2006, 2). Even
though this is sometimes referred to as a tension in the theory, it is generally asserted that formal em-
powerment processes are necessary to foster legal and conceptual ownership (Wienecke 2005, 25-26).
Community empowerment is described as DVXE-set of, or necessary precursor to, participatory devel-
RSPHQWWKLQNLQJDQGSUDFWLFH(Davis 2007, 5), including the concept of ownership. Ownership, like
empowerment, entails both actual and perceived ownership of a given object, place or developmentprocess, and it is therefore paramount that once formal ownership is ensured, mechanisms are in place
to foster perceived ownership. According to Dongier et al., CDD programmes build ownership
through inclusion (Dongier, et al. 2002, 5), which means that both ownership and empowerment are
fostered through close connection with the development process.
Finally, CDD advocates argue that the combination of processes and factors introduced above create
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
29/110
assumption that: communities are the most effective and efficient drivers of their own develop-
ment. By treating communities as stakeholders, it is explicitly assumed that they have a stake in thegiven project, and implicitly assumed that this merits their involvement. The reasoning continues that
because communities know their own conditions and what works in these conditions better than out-
siders, they are more capable of designing development projects that work effectively; and because
funds are directly transferred to communities, levels of bureaucracy and corruption are avoided and
more funds are channeled into the projects (and at a faster rate), resulting in more efficient projects 26
(Beard and Dasgupta 2007).
The prominent understandings of empowerment, sustainability and ownership reflected in the literature
assert that: local management of resources27 and decision-making power in development
projects empower the community and establish ownership and sustainability. Reflecting the
causality that is asserted within CDD, this assumption can be elaborated to a cause-and-effect state-
ment where: the process of CDD assumedly constitutes institutional reform by means of increasing
access to information, designing mechanisms for inclusion and participation (including decision-making
power), creating effective accountability processes and improving local organizational capacity, which,
as reflected in the literature, empowers the communities. Assuming local ownership of relevant re-
sources; community inclusion and empowerment leads to conceptual ownership and the desire and
ability to sustain the given SURMHFWVRXWFRPHV
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
30/110
2.2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Natural resource management (NRM) concerns the management of resources from nature such as land,
water, air, minerals, forests, fisheries, wildlife and flora (The World Bank 2000, 6). Nature itself is con-
YHUWHGLQWRDUHVRXUFHZKHQLWLVDVFULEHGYDOXHIRUKXPDQXVHRUEHQHILW (Goodbody and Hope 2002,
2-3), i.e. when it is appropriated and used by humans for consumption, energy and other functions
which in turn make it valuable. The value ascribed to the natural resources determines the cost of
access to and ownership of it (Goodbody and Hope 2002). Natural resources are thus essentially anyand all resources from nature used by humans. In the context of development, it is important to distin-
guish between renewable resources and non-renewable resources. Whereas oil and minerals are relevant
resources with regard to other levels of development; LQFDVHVRIUXUDOFRPPXQLWLHVOLYHOLKRRGVDQG
interaction with their surrounding nature, it is the renewables that provide food, firewood, water etc.
that are most significant (The World Bank 2000, 6). This distinction is important in the context of
CDD programmes like Green PNPM28 where NRM is defined as knowledge and activities to utilize
renewable natural resources in a sustainable way to improve livelihoods and alleviate poverty by in-creasing welfare (Ministry of Home Affairs Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008, 11-13).
2.2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
31/110
including population size, poverty level, economy, use of technology and the overarching governance
structures and institutional framework of the natural resources and the ways they affect the people.
'UDZLQJRQ$EUDKDP0DVORZV+LHUDUFK\RI1HHGV, it can be asserted that the immediate needs of
local rural communities heavily impact how the natural resources are used and managed. According to
Maslow, humans have to satisfy their basic physiological and safety needs before any of needs higher
up the hierarchy (such as social interaction and the need to learn and grow) can be satisfied (Maslow og
Stephens 2000, 1). Factors such as learning, creativity, innovation or self-esteem will remain non-
important to poor people that are still combating short term survival issues to satisfy their basic needs(Maslow og Stephens 2000, 2). Consequently, it is asserted that poor rural communities that struggle to
satisfy their basic needs do not feel a need to learn about or preserve the resources around them. Such
activities are therefore more often associated with knowledge of sustainability and the long-term con-
cerns and commitments these require, i.e with people that have moved up the hierarchy of needs (Tyler
2006, 167). With regards to issues of NRM in poor rural locales, this is paramount as the motivations of
the individual are caught between narrow self-interest (or a struggle to survive) and a general concern
for the society as a whole (Ostrom 2002, 3).
2.2.1.2 COMMON POOL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STATE VS. COMMUNITY
The shift from top-down to bottom-up thinking that sparked interest in CDD has also heavily influ-
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
32/110
WKH\FDQHLWKHUFKRRVHWROLPLWWKHLUXVHRIWKHUHVRXUFHDWWKHPHUF\RIWKHRWKHUSHRSOHVchoice to do
the same; or they can continue overusing to gain short term benefits, either believing that others will dothe same or believing that everyone else will restrict their usage (in either case leaving the negative in-
fluence by one individual on the natural resource insignificant) (Hardin 1968). The argument follows
that because the state works for the collective benefit of its people, state management is the only way to
limit the negative influence of self-interested individuals who, in their lack of perspective and know-
OHGJHRIRWKHUVDFWLRQVZLOOSULRULWL]HWKHLULPPHGLDWHZHOOEHLQJRYHUWKHFRPPRQJRRG6LQFH+DU d-
ing, property rights theorists and scholars on collective action theory have contributed to the arguments
for more state control and regulation of common pool resources by arguing that as demands rise, theconsequential overexploitation will require such actions (North 1990, 87), (Olson 1998, 2).
0DQFXU2OVRQVZULWLQJVRQWKHORJLFRIFROOHFWLYHDFWLRQVDQGWKHSUREOHPRIWKHIUHHULGHUDUHEDVHG
RQWKHVDPHDQDO\VLVRIKXPDQEHKDYLRU2OVRQDUJXHVWKDWUDWLRQDOVHOI-interested individuals will not
act to achieve their common or group intHUHVW(Olson 1998, 2) unless they have special incentives to
do so. Hence, once they are established, individuals can benefit from collective goods without ever
contributing to their improvement or maintenance - thereby acWLQJDVIUHHULGHUV (Ostrom 1990, 6).This simultaneously creates the problem of exploitation by a few at the expense of the rest and deters
others from investing in collective goods that are open to exploitation. Consequently, this calls for state
regulation.
In a response to the views presented by scholars like Hardin and Olson, contemporary writers of the
commons argue that things are not so simple that they can be explained by assumptions on human
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
33/110
2.3 CDD PROGRAMMES WITH A NRM FOCUS
Since advocates of CDD hold the conviction that local communities should manage their own re-
sources for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency in implementation and management, as well as for
the sake of empowering local communities to drive forward their own development in a sustainable
manner; it is only logical that this should apply to management ofnaturalresources as well. The argu-
ments for the fall back to local management of natural resources within the theoretical framework of
common pool NRM supports this and it is argued as the only logical step after previous failed attemptsof state management (Li 2002, 265). CDD programmes that, like the Green PNPM, aim to promote
NRM are thus based on the set of assumptions derived from the theoretical tenets of CDD combined
with those of NRM.
2.3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Conducting NRM within a community framework is not a new approach, and Community-Based Nat-
ural Resource Management (CBNRM) is now a prominent approach. Like CDD, CBNRM projects are
driven by a set of assumptions about the communities themselves and how they are able to administer
their own development provided with the right set of tools (such as an enabling institutional environ-
ment which can foster ownership and empowerment). CBNRM efforts are, similar to CDD, driven by
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
34/110
then a decisively different modality than what is known from the CBNRM setup where a project will be
based on mutual understanding of project objectives between the community and the organizationwhich is responsible for it, rather than solely relying on the communities own interest and priorities to
initiate NRM project. The biggest difference and the challenge of focusing on NRM in CDD pro-
grammes is therefore, as Ribot and Mearns describe, that when given the choice, communities do not
tend to choose NRM over other priorities:
In most projects where people were given a wide range of investments options,
people did not prioritize natural resource management (NRM). This was even thecase in instances where environmental education campaigns had been conducted
to encourage environmental investments. (Ribot and Mearns 2005, 8)
$V150XQGHU D &'' DSSURDFK LV GHSHQGHQWRQ WKH FRPPXQLW\VSULRULWLHV DQG DVSLUDWLRQV LW LV
therefore asserted that NRM should be incentivized to allure the community into managing their re-
sources until the desirability of NRM is evident to them (Post 2009a, 1). It is therefore broadly advo-
cated by CDD promoters that there needs to be a proper enabling environment to produce the desiredresults i.e. NRM initiatives chosen and engaged in by communities based on their own priorities and
motivations (Ribot and Mearns, Steering Community Driven Development? A Desk Study of NRM
Choices 2005, 2).
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
35/110
KRZGR\RXFKDQJHSHRSOHVDWWLWXGHVLQDZD\VRWKDWWKH\EHJLQWRGRWKLQJVGLII e-
rently? That is what it is all about. They might not see the whole picture but theystart to manage the natural resources and their environment in a sustainable way
(Rasmussen 2011b, 53:28)
It is the assumption that enhancing awareness about sustainable environment and natural re-
source management will change stakeholder attitudes, increasing concerns and activity pro-
posals in relation toNRM. Post and Ribot and Mearns refer to this as providing the communities
with environmental education. Education provides knowledge about the benefits of NRM and the links ithas with other income sectors thereby encouraging the NRM activities in the communities (Ribot and
Mearns 2005, 12), (Post 2009a, 5). Furthermore, it is argued that once the communities are engaged in
NRM projects they will see the benefit that follows. Post recommendspiloting successful NRM projectsas
incentives for other communities (Post 2009a, 5). These arguments are closely related to that of educa-
tional awareness raising, but are based on another assumption, namely that on the basis of personal
experiences or experiences of familiar communities with successful NRM projects, communi-
ties will seek to replicate or extend these projects.As a result, the programme will have an accumu-lative effect over time as more positive NRM examples are replicated, and potentially, even result in
NRM projects in similar CDD programmes of nearby communities who have been inspired by the
successful NRM projects.
In combination, the concepts and assumptions presented throughout the theoretical framework estab-
lish the hypothesis that:NRM can be successfully pursued in CCD programmes if the communitiesare made aware
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
36/110
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF T HE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
While the previous sections have presented an overview of the prominent concepts behind CDD and
NRM and illustrated how these result in a number of assumptions about how to focus CDD pro-
grammes on NRM, there is one important underlying assumption that needs special attention as it is
the foundation of the very concept of community-driven development: namely that the community is a
relatively unitary entity which is open to the influences described above. Critical analysis of the concept
RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ VSHFLILFDOO\ ZLWK UHODWLRQ WR&'' DQGRU 150 LV DQ LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI WKHprocess evaluation, as it can reveal inconsistencies between preconceptions in the programme design
DQGUHDOLW\:HWKHUHIRUHGHYRWHWKLVVHFWLRQWRDFULWLFDOUHYLHZRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHFRPPXQLW\
which can be seen as a critical response to the prominent framework, and which represents our concep-
tual understanding of this key term. Contrary to the previous section, the following is thus not part of
the backgroundfor NRM in CDD programmes, but a theoretical criticism of the accepted community
concepts, which we have accepted as part of our conceptual understanding.
2.4.1 COMMUNITY CONCEPTS
7KHWHUPFRPPXQLW\LVRIWHQQRWGHILQHGLQZRUNVRUSURJUDPPHVWKDWSRVLWLRQWKHFRPPXQLW\DWWKH
forefront of development. Yet, it is assumed that characteristics such as closeness, shared purpose, and
social capital make communities capable of delivering the presumed benefits promised by advocates of
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
37/110
fined according to this notion which was also prevalHQWLQWKHHDUO\VWDJHVRIGHYHORSPHQWWKHRU\VFHl-
ebration ofmodernization(Agrawal and Gibson 1999, 630-631).33
This depiction shares the perception ofcommunities as uniform wholes, and discards the possibility of different levels of wealth, knowledge,
status, and priorities, needs and wants within a single community.
While this was useful to analyze social change under industrialization, we argue that you have to analyze
communities as a collection of individuals who are influenced by the whole of their existence and may
not always have the same priorities, abilities or perceptions. For example, the assumed democratization
process in CDD programs can be criticized for ignoring internal power-relations and governance im-perfections by treating communities as homogenous entities. This issue has been extensively covered in
the recent literature pool which is established on the basis of evaluation of CDD projects (see for ex-
ample: (Beard and Dasgupta 2007) (Mansuri and Rao 2004) (Mansuri and Rao 2006) for an Indonesian
perspective, and (Campbell, et al. 2001), (Ribot and Mearns 2005), (Agrawal and Gibson 1999), (Tyler
2006) for an international perspective). Because democratization does not break with informal power
institutions such as money, knowledge and tradition; Mansuri and Rao argue that even when power is
devolved to the community level, these communities have leaders (often comprised formally and in-formally bythe elite), who may inevitably dominate decision-making in CDD projects because they often
DUHWKHRQO\RQHVZKRFDQHIIHFWLYHO\FRPPXQLFDWHZLWKRXWVLGHUVUHDGSURMHFWGRFXPHQWVNHHSDc-
FRXQWVDQGUHFRUGVDQGZULWHSURSRVDOV(Mansuri and Rao 2004, 23).
We do, however, acknowledge that some degree ofpractical simplificationsis needed for the concept to be
useful. In the following, we therefore follow the geographic and administrative labeling of villages as
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
38/110
3 P R E S E N T A T I O N O F T H E C A S E3.1 CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
The Indonesian context is considered a requirement for understanding the interplay between the topics
and underlying issues and mechanisms that are juxtaposed in the present study, and we therefore in-
itiate our analysis by depicting the political, economic and social reality of Indonesia.
3.1.1 A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
In the beginning of the 1900, Indonesia was a Dutch colony and had been a colony for three and a half
centuries. The Second World War forced out the Dutch rule from the Indonesian archipelago and the
country shifted hands over to the Japanese who occupied the territory during the war until it ended in
1945. After the Second World War, the Dutch returned to the former colony, but in the meantime the
political scene in the country had changed and their return sparked a revolution which resulted in the
leader of the Indonesian secular nationalist movement Sukarno or (Kusno Sosrodihardjo) and his
VHFRQGLQFRPPDQG0RKDPPHG+DWWDSURFODLPLQJ,QGRQHVLDVLQGHpendence on 17 August 1945. This
led to continuous confrontations with the 'XWFKUXOHWKDWHQGHGLQPDUNLQJ,QGRQHVLDVELUWKDV
an independent country (Lamoureux 2003, XII).
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
39/110
Asia was hit by a currency crisis in late 1997 that lasted into 1998. Indonesia proved to be the least dur-
able of the Asian economies with the Indonesian Rupiah losing almost 80% of its value, sending inter-est rates to about 60%, which lead to a huge rise in poverty throughout the archipelago (Asian
development Bank 2008, 11). Whereas income per capita before the crisis was close to 1000 US$; in
early 1998, it was 350 US$ (Bourchier og Hadiz 2003, 19).
After the shooting of four students at a demonstration in Jakarta at Trisakti University, the reformasi
(reform) movement gained power (Bourchier og Hadiz 2003, 19). Following the shooting, resentment
against the rich Chinese elite led to mass looting, pillaging and burning of Chinese ethnic areas. As a
UHVXOWDORWRIIRUPHU&KLQHVHFLWL]HQVIOHGWKHFRXQWU\,QWKHPHDQWLPHWKH6XKDUWRJRYHUQPHQWV
inability to restore peace further induced mass protests against the regime. On 26 May 1998, Suharto
finally agreed to his resignation, leaving his office to Vice-president B.J. Habibie (Bourchier og Hadiz
2003, 20). The fall of Suharto led to an extensive reform of the institutional and political systems go-
verning Indonesia as well as its development policies. The process of currency devaluation that fol-
lowed WKHFULVLVUHVXOWHGLQan increase in poverty that effectively ruined years of successful poverty
alleviation efforts which had reduced poverty levels from 50% in the 1970s to approximately 18% in1996. The crises shot poverty levels in the country back up and more than 25% of the population was
again below the poverty line (The World Bank 2008B, 1). The economy of Indonesia has made a strong
recovery since the financial crisis in 1998. Despite its democratic transition, ,QGRQHVLDV poverty levels
remain stagnant around the 1970s level with 16.5% of the population living under the national poverty
line of $1/day (Badan Pusat Statistik 2010), and 52% of the population living under the internationally
recognized $2/day poverty line (The World Bank 2009c).
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
40/110
Indonesia has now undergone 13 years of democratization, and the current President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono won his second term comfortably after an orderly and peaceful campaign in the July 2009election (The Economist 2011, 4). It is expected that the political stability will continue beyond the next
general election to be held in 2014 (The Economist 2011, 4). The recent 2008-09 financial crisis did not
hit ,QGRQHVLDDVKDUGDVLWVUHJLRQDOQHLJKERUVGXHWRWKHFRXQWU\VUHOLDQFHRQLWVGRPHVWLFPDUNHWDQG
because the foreign debts ratio has been diminished from more than 140% of BNP to less than 40%
(The Economist 2011, 4). However, fiscal problems do exist, and these have worsened since the crisis.
The country has experienced a rise in inflation to 7% in December 2010 (The Economist 2011, 4),
which results in the fastest nominal rise in prices since April 2009 this is however still far from theGRXEOHGLJLWILJXUHVH[SHULHQFHGEHIRUH&RUUXSWLRQLVVWLOOZLGHVSUHDGLQ,QGRQHVLDVSXEOLFVSKHUH
DQG LV FRQVLGHUHG RQH RI WKH ELJJHVW SUREOHPV IRU WKH FRXQWU\VGHYHORSPHQW (Transparency Inter-
national 2010),Q7UDQVSDUHQF\,QWHUQDWLRQDOVFRUUXSWLRQSHUFHSWLRQLQGH[,QGRQHVLDVFRUHGD
mere 2.8, placing it close to the bottom of the global list (Transparency International 2010). The stag-
nating score reflects the poor design and implementation governance reform, which has been moving
relatively slowly (Transparency International 2010).
Following the governmental decentralization process, development policies have shifted to a more de-
centralized locally-sensitive focus. As a result, implementation of CDD projects with help from WB
became a popular development method (The World Bank 2008B, 2). Among these new programmes
was the Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) started in 1998 as a pilot project with 28 villages.
Mainly an infrastructure project, it aimed at alleviating poverty, strengthening local government and
community institutions, and improving local governance (The World Bank 2011b), (The World Bank
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
41/110
3.2 THE GREEN PNPM PILOT PROGRAMME
3.2.2 GREEN PNPM
The PNPM umbrella was launched in 2007. Under the umbrella, the former KDP programme became
PNPM Rural, implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and funded by the WB like its
predecessor (The World Bank 2008a, 3). Building on the CDD approach, the PNPM Rural is a unifiedprogram to achieve EHWWHUQDWLRQDOWDUJHWLQJRI,QGRQHVLDV poorest populations, in the form of direct
transfer of funds from MoHA34 to the local rural villages in the form of block grants on a national scale
(The World Bank 2008a, 4).
The Green PNPM Pilot was formulated in the footsteps of and on the same principles as the PNPM
Rural programme. It was founded as an environmental pilot programme under the PNPM Rural and
first implemented in 2008. The Green PNPM pilot sprung from the discovery that the majority of par-ticipating sub-districts in PNPM Rural only opted to fund development activities that would have an
immediate and clear impact within their village i.e. infrastructure projects or similar physical, short term
projects. Even though the PNPM Rural functions as an open menu for project proposals, few to none
of the communities engaged in the programme opted to invest in NRM projects. It was believed that
the general knowledge base of the communities about NRM projects was to blame for this as the
communities did not know how NRM could benefit their livelihoods (PNPM PSF 2009, 2).
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
42/110
d. ,PSURYHUXUDOFRPPXQLW\VTXDOLW\RIOLIHWKURXJKVXVWDLQDble environmental and natural resourcemanagement activities,
e. Improve local government administration capacity in planning development with anenvironmental viewpoint. (Ministry of Home Affairs Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008, 11)
3.2.2.1 THE GREEN PNPM FUNDING AND APPROACH
The major difference between PNPM and other development programmes in Indonesia lies in thefunding scheme that provides direct funding to the participating rural sub-districts to fund productive
GHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWLHVWKDWDUH LGHQWLILHGDQGSULRULWL]HGE\YLOODJHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVWKURXJKDJHQGHU-
LQFOXVLYHSDUWLFLSDWRU\DSSURDFK (PNPM PSF 2009, 2). That means that the funds effectively bypass
all government organizations and levels. This hinders potential corruption and bypasses bureaucracy by
effectively granting local villagers direct control of the resources. Like PNPM Rural, Green PNPM is
based on the CDD approach where block grants for the communities are provided through the nation-
al budget. The Green PNPM only holds one major difference from Rural in its funding scheme: Fund-ing in Green is given to the GoI through two separate trust funds administered by WB. One of these
trust funds is funded by Canada, while the other is jointly funded by the Netherlands, Denmark, the
United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia. (Supervision Mission 2010, 2-3). The pilot pro-
gramme is geographically limited to 8 provinces with 27 districts which amounts to 78 sub-districts
located in on the Sulawesi and Sumatra islands in Indonesia35.
The Figures below show the 8 provinces participating in the Green PNPM programme and their geo-
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
43/110
These areas were selected on criterias of poverty and abundance of natural resources as well as the
communities familiarity with the PNPM programme (PNPM PSF 2009, 4). Despite its dual funding
scheme, the Green PNPM has been handled as one programme and the funding for the programme is
currently set to span from its start in 2008 to 2012 (Supervision Mission 2010, 3).
As Green PNPM funding is especially allocated for support of community investments and proposals
LQJUHHQ36SURMHFWVRSHQPHQXVKRXOGKHUHEHXQGHUVWRRGDVDOOSURMHFWVWKDWFRQVWLWXWHRUFRQWULEXWH
to sustainable NRM (Ministry of Home Affairs Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008). The 2010 annual status
report for Green PNPM lists the major categories of green proposals and activities that have been in-
itiated thus far (Green PNPM Task Team 2010).
Table 3: Categories of activities and proposals in Green PNPM37(Green PNPM Task Team 2010, 11)
Category Sub-Category Illustrative Sub-Project Activities
Natural Re-
source Man-
agement
Management (utilization) of forest
resources
Agro-forestry, fruit tree nursery, timber tree planting, fruit tree planting,
reforestation
Management (utilization) of water
resources
Forest conservation surrounding the spring water
Management of biological resources
(flora, fauna)
Fish cultivation, seaweed cultivation
Management of environmental Eco-tourism, management of local marine conservation area
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
44/110
3.2.2.2 GREEN PNPM INSTITUTIONAL SETUP
Both Green PNPM and PNPM Rurals main administrative units are centralized, under MoHA while
the project formulations and implementations are decentralized to the rural sub-districts. The Green
PNPM was setup as a parallel programme to the PNPM Rural with the same administrative institutions,
as illustrated in figure 4 below. The only exception from Rural in the institutional setup is that of the
associated facilitators and the CSOs which are contracted by the WB in Green PNPM to conduct
awareness raising, participate in socialization and the planning process of the project proposals. These
tasks carried out by the CSOs are meant to increase community knowledge of NRM (PNPM PSF 2009,
5), while other facilitators and consultant functions as special provincial administration and technical
advisors on sub-district level. (PNPM PSF 2009, 5). Figure 4 displays the parallel setup between the
programmes and the CSOs position in the institutional framework.
Figure 4*UHHQ3130DQG31305XUDOVLQVWLWXWLRQDOVHWXSDQGILQDQFLDOIORZV38
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
45/110
3.2.2.3 THE PROJECT FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN GREEN
PNPMPNPM follows the finance year of the GoI (Jan-Dec) which means that the programme follows a one
year cycle (PNPM PSF 2009, 4). The village itself is responsible for almost everything in relation to the
PNPM process: They are the executors, facilitators, counselors and administrators, which means that a
number of village groups are formed: BPD (Village Consultative Assembly), TPK (Activity Manage-
ment Team), TPU (Proposal Writing Team), Monitoring Team, Maintenance Team and the KPMD
(Village Community Empowerment), (Ministry of Home Affairs Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008, 17).
The CDD process in the village starts in January with a socialization process with local facilitators.
Each individual village in the sub-districts are allowed to submit 3 proposals each year, one cross sub-
district project and two for village scope projects (Ministry of Home Affairs Rupucblic of Indonesia
2008, 14). In the first step of the project proposal phase, the respective CSO and facilitator provide the
community with information and build awareness of the environmental issues and potentials within the
specific community area. Then the process of the PNPM activities on village level starts.
Firstly, a village socialization meeting is facilitated by the local technical staff (FKL), where information
on the programme is provided and villagers are chosen for the KPMD group and trained in related
responsibilities. After this, the community takes part in a brainstorming session facilitated by the com-
munity members in the KPMD to identify potential projects that the community needs. After this
brainstorming session, another session is held for women only, preventing potential gender bias. Then
the village starts a prioritization and validation process of proposals from the brainstorming which en-
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
46/110
4 A N A L Y S I SThis analysis is based on an open approach to the data whereby the main levels of influence on the
suitability of Green PNPM as a vehicle for NRM have been established. Through our research, we have
identified three main levels, and the following analysis will thus be an examination and discussion of
these levels. The empirical data is thus divided into three analytical levels according to proximity to and
association with the communities. The levels of analysis do, however, not represent cocoons of data as
ZHDVPHQWLRQHGSUHYLRXVO\VXSSRUW$JUDZDODQG*LEVRQVUHDGLQJRIthe ORFDODQGWKHH[WHUQDODV
interconnected levels that are linked together in ways that it is sometimes impossible to determine
ZKHUH WKH ORFDO HQGV DQG WKH H[WHUQDO WKDW KHOSV FRQVWUXFW WKH ORFDO EHJLQV (Agrawal and Gibson
1999, 637).
Figure 5: Layers of analysis. Cross-cutting issues and influences
are illustrated by the orange arrows.
Community
PNPMprogramme
Externalinfluence
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
47/110
the causality is turned around, and rather than looking at external influences on the local, the merit of
WKHSURJUDPPHVLQWHUQDOHPSRZHUPHQWSURFHVVHVDUHTXHVWLRQHGRQWKHEDVLVRIWKHH[WHUQDOUHDOLW\
This particular setup of the analysis allows us to process the large amount of interviews and empirical
data in a clear way. It provides a way to process the data without being influenced by the viewpoints of
the conceptual framework, so that we instead can access the frameworks ability to explain the empiri-
cal causalities found throughout this analysis. Ultimately, this enables a conclusion on the suitability of
pursuing NRM projects in the PMPM framework and a discussion of whether the underpinning as-
sumptions that support this combination are valid.
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
48/110
4.1 COMMUNITY
As reflected in the theoretical framework, we dissociate ourselves from the concept of community that
treats a group of individuals as a homogenous unit that can be analyzed according to a set of characte-
ristics which define their abilities and aspirations. This section therefore examines the community as a
multifaceted, heterogenic unit of individuals, and approaches the data with the questions of why com-
munities select certain projects over others. It will assert how they understand their role in relation to
natural resources and their management, and why this is both individually and collectively.
This section shows that communities favor projects that have economic or general direct impact on the
village by either alleviating poverty or building infrastructure. As the poor people in the communities
have not yet satisfied their basic needs, the most important priority is improving their livelihoods through
projects that e.g. directly increases income or food products or build infrastructure. The interviewed
communities therefore show little or no interest in pursuing sustainable NRM projects. Changing the
immediate behaviorRIDFRPPXQLW\E\SURYLGLQJDQLQFHQWLYHIRU150RUJUHHQSURMHFWVLQWKHZLGHUsense) does not necessarily translate to a change in attitude towards natural resources because of the
methods used to facilitate the community awareness raising, by the related associated experts and CSOs
within the Green PNPM programme. The section shows that indigenous or local knowledge is largely
irrelevant with regards to natural resource management and that this delimits the project proposals to
those solutions the communities can envision or already know about partly because the related CSOs
themselves lack knowledge on how to effectively initiate NRM projects. Projects thus become focused
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
49/110
4.1.1.1 DIRECT BENEFIT AS A REQUIREMENT
As introduced previously, the community drives the decision making process in Green PNPM and
therefore also chooses the projects that are implemented in their villages as long as they fulfill the re-
quirements of increasing welfare in a way that sides with the environment39 (Ministry of Home Affairs
Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008, 11).
The communities around the sub-districts vary in size and population as well as in characteristics of
their nearby resources (e.g. some may have clean water freely running through the village from a spring
while others have to buy their water). However, the priorities of the people living in the communities
are often similar. By far the most prominent priority amongst the communities that where questioned
was the need to clearly see direct benefits to their livelihoods through proposed projects (Julinal, et al.
2011, 24:33), (Teguh 2011, 07:40), (Rasmussen 2011b, 14:13), (Pangemanan, et al. 2011, 01.00:48),
(Pangemanan, et al. 2011, 23:35), (Mamonto, et al. 2011, 24:13).
Direct benefit in these cases can mean a lot of different things to the communities e.g. money and food
or simply to see actual results within a short period of time. One example of this was encountered in
Batu village (which is part of PNPM Rural) where the community expressed enthusiasm about the eco-
nomic benefits of the skills a neighboring Green PNPM community had gained through a project. The
interview group explained that in the neighboring community, they already manage their fruits, not
just sell fresh fruit like this, but they already manage to maybe make syrup or fruit in a the can, so they
GRQWQHHGWRMXVWVHOODVWKHIUHVKIUXLW (Pangemanan, et al. 2011, 01.00:48). In Bentung village they
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
50/110
0
1
23
4
5
6
7
Community investment priorities
Green PNPM
the environment around them because of the effects it has on their livelihoods (Teguh 2011, 20:20).
This distinction is important as priorities differ and range between the particular needs and knowledgeamong the communities and the individual people that live there. Yet, from our research in North Su-
lawesi, this level of understanding or long term perspective was not reflected in project proposals.
Questionnaires and interviews showed that community investment priorities mainly focus on income
generating activities or direct impact projects, as shown below in figure 6.
Figure 62YHUYLHZRIFRPPXQLWLHVSURMHFWSULRULWLHVLQ*UHHQ3130
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
51/110
WKDQRIWHQUHVXOWLQDEHOLHIWKDWLI,RQO\FXWRQHLWZLOOEHRN (Teguh 2011, 44:05) depicting individu-
als who disassociate themselves from the broader issues believing that their own actions have little ef-fect on the environment. This supports the theoretical assertion that self-interested individuals face the
SULVRQHUVGLOHPPDRIGHWHUPLQLQJZKDWXOWLPDWHO\ZLOOEHQHILWKLPKHUWKHPRVWZLWKRXWNQRZLQJRU
trusting the decisions of others. Furthermore, the tendency of community members following their
own priorities, even if they are out of sync with the greater good of the community, can be contributed
to the fact that many of the rural people in the communities are very poor. In North Sulawesi alone
almost 200,000 people are living under the $1/day poverty line (Badan Pusat Statistik 2010) and people
are therefore (as argued by Maslow) primarily concerned with meeting their basic needs which leaveslittle energy to contemplate issues that are beyond their own personal sphere. Hence, our findings in
WKLVUHVSHFWJHQHUDOO\VXSSRUW0DVORZVXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIKXPDQEHKDYLRU
The empirical data also supports HardiQJVDQG2OVRQVGHSLFWLRQRIprioritization towards individual
needs on account of self-LQWHUHVWHGLQGLYLGXDOVDQGHYHQ+DUGLQVFODVVLFDOH[DPSOHRI LQGLYLGXDOVUa-
tionalizing natural resource degradation by their own minimal usage as they are dissociated from the
larger picture and long-term effects is reflected in the data. This confirms the assumption that forcommunities to choose NRM projects, there must be a direct link between the project and the
betterment of their livelihoods, and shows that it is correct to assume that presenting the communi-
ties with the incentive of direct benefits is imperative if there is to be combination of NRM in a CDD
programme - or as asserted by Ribot and Mearns: that NRM must be incentivized for communities to
initiate such projects in CDD programmes (Ribot and Mearns 2005, 20).
-
7/29/2019 Natural Priorities
52/110
Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008, 11) which is meant to increase communities prioritization of NRM. Fi-
nally, Green PNPM uses direct salary (i.e. the HOK) to community members that labor in the imple-mentation of projects to increase community involvement in NRM (Ministry of Home Affairs
Rupucblic of Indonesia 2008, 3). These incentives are provided with the aim that, even though com-
munities have different priorities, most of which are aimed towards direct benefit, interest is spiked and
attitudes are changed towards sustainable NRM (MoHA Indonesia, MEMR Indonesia & MoFA
Denmark 2007, 17).
The combination of the focus on poverty alleviation and on increasing NRM efforts often results in asituation where the established Green PNPM projects land in between the two; or when projects result
in a focus specifically on one of the objectives, it is generally on poverty alleviation and not NRM
(Mamonto, et al. 2011), (Lumopa, et al. 2011), (Saleul, et al. 2011). One example of such a project is in
the village of Teremaal, which was one of the most positive and invested communities in regards to
JUHHQSURMHFWVWKDWZHPHHWGXULQJ WKH ILeld trip to North Sulawesi. Their enthusiasm was evident
when they proudly explained about their former coral rehabilitation and mangrove rehabilitation
SURMHFWV'HVSLWHWKHLUVDWLVIDFWLRQZLWKWKHWZRVXFFHVVIXO150SURMHFWVWKHFRPPXQLW\VPRVWUe-cently proposed project was for chili seedlings and planting. When aske