Natural Priorities

7/29/2019 Natural Priorities

1/110

NATURAL PRIORITIES

The Complexities of Promoting Natural Resource

Management in Indonesia ommunity DrivenGreen PNPM Programme


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


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


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


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


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


7/110

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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-


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)


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


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


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

&


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


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.


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-


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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).



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-


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


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.


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


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).


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


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


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


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).


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).


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


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).


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-


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


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


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-


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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

Natural Priorities

Documents

Transcript of Natural Priorities