Bukti Korespondensi
Artikel Jurnal Internasional Bereputasi
Judul Artikel : Social Contracts: Pillars of Community Conservation Partnership in Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia
Jurnal : Forest and Society Jornal, Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2020, Pages 115- 126,ISSN: 25494724, DOI: 10.24259/fs.v4i1.8682 , Publisher:
Hasanuddin University
Penulis : Ice Anugrahsari, Mustofa Agung Sarjdono, Nur Fitriyah, Golar
No Perihal Tanggal
1 Bukti Artikel yang telah disubmit Selasa, 17 Desember 2019 2 Bukti Konfirmasi Review dan hasil review pertama Sabtu, 1 Februari 2020
3 Bukti hasil revisi pertama Senin, 6 Maret 2020
4 Bukti accepted submission Jumat, 10 April 2020
5 Bukti revisi Kedua Selasa, 14 April 2020
6 Bukti artikel telah dipublish Minggu, 26 April 2020
1. Bukti artikel yang telah disubmit
2. Bukti konfirmasi review dan hasil review pertama
Hasil Review
Reviewer A:
Artikel ini mengambil KKM di TNLL sebagai contoh dan mengidentifikasi strategi dan kendala pelaksanaan KKM di TNLL. Saya suka artikel ini karena menggunakan data dari survei lapangan dan memberikan bukti langsung tentang bagaimana membangun lembaga KKM melalui kontrak sosial, yaitu benar-benar topik yang penting. Temuan artikel ini akan memiliki banyak implikasi kebijakan dan akan membantu berbagai pemangku kepentingan memecahkan konflik dan meningkatkan rasa saling percaya.
Untuk lebih meningkatkan kualitas artikel, saya juga memiliki beberapa pertanyaan sebagai saran:
1. Abstrak mengatakan, “Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan yang mencakup studi literatur, wawancara dengan informan, observasi lapangan terbatas dan keterlibatan peneliti dalam proses persiapan partisipatif perjanjian kemitraan”.
2. Namun, informasi tentang pengumpulan data adalah hilang di bagian Metodologi.
Saya tidak tahu informan macam apa diwawancarai dan jumlah informan yang diwawancarai.
3. Bagian Metodologi sangat samar, dan lebih banyak teori daripada metodologi.
Saya menyarankan agar penulis memberikan lebih banyak informasi tentang pengumpulan data di bagian metodologi.
4. Artikel ini lebih banyak ditulis untuk pembaca Indonesia, dan tentu kurang relevan dengan pembaca internasional yang sangat terbatas pengetahuan tentang situs investigasi ini di Indonesia.
5. Penulis perlu letakkan penelitian ini dalam konteks yang lebih besar dan cobalah untuk membangkitkan minat lebih banyak lagi pembaca internasional.
6. Saya sarankan penulis dapat memberikan sedikit lebih banyak informasi latar belakang tentang TN. Kemudian penulis mencoba untuk mengintegrasikan lebih teoritis pembahasan dalam artikel ini. Masalah terkait lainnya adalah kertas sekarang lebih banyak laporan survei karena buktinya bagus, tetapi teorinya diskusi tidak mencukupi.
7. Penulis harus berusaha memperbaiki tulisannya. Beberapa kalimat juga panjang.
Misalnya, satu kalimat dari abstrak “The process of building social contracts
could begin with communication and collaboration that refers to institutional mechanisms that were systematic, coordinative, andwere based on equality and understanding between stakeholders”. Ada beberapa klausa dalam kalimat ini,membuat pembaca sulit untuk cepat memahami maknanya. Masalah serupa juga ada di bagian lain.
8. Selain itu, perlu dicatat bahwa beberapa masalah bukan tentang tata bahasa, tetapi tentang penulisan. Misalnya, mencakup beberapa tabel dan gambar, tetapi teks utama tidak mengutip tabel ini dan angka, menunjukkan analisis yang tidak memadai dari isi tabel dan angka. Selain itu, judul tabel kedua adalah “Tabel 10.
Grup / Individu …”, yang merupakan kesalahan yang jelas. Tidak bisa Tabel 10 tetapi harus Tabel 2. Silakan periksa lagi dan hindari masalah ini di draf akhir.
Secara keseluruhan, saya menyukai makalah ini, dan saya yakin penulisnya mampu
mengatasi masalah di atas dan menyadari potensi penuh dari penelitian mereka
Reviewer B:
Naskah ini berpotensi menjadi artikel yang bagus. saya merekomendasi menulis ulang abstrak berikut 7 pertanyaan:
Mengapa artikel/topik penelitian Anda penting? [tujuan]
Apa saja pertanyaan penelitiannya? [tujuan]
Apa kerangka penelitiannya? [metode]
Bagaimana Anda melakukan penelitian? [metode]
Apa yang Anda temukan? [temuan/hasil]
Apa relevansi hasil temuan di artikel?
Tata Bahasa: tolong manuscript ini dibawa ke penutur asli
Saya menyarankan untuk mendeskripsikan secara detail pada bagian metodologis/ teoritis
Penulis harus memberikan lebih banyak informasi tentang pengumpulan data di bagian metode, sedangkan di bagian teoritis harus membawa seni framing penelitian ini
Penulis perlu menghubungkan temuan studi dengan konteks yang lebih besar
Naskah ini hanya menginformasikan empiris tanpa didukung dengan bukti teoritis
Saya merekomendasikan revisi besar
3. Bukti Revisi Pertama
Special Section on community-based conservation in the Wallacea region Research Article
Social Contracts: Pillars of Community Conservation Partnerships in Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia
Ice Anugrahsari1,5, Mustofa Agung Sardjono2, Nur Fitriyah3, Golar Golar4*
1 Post Graduate Program of Forestry Faculty Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
2 Forestry Faculty of Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
3 Politics and Social Science Faculty of Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
4 Forestry Faculty of Tadulako University, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia
5 Forestry Program of Agriculture Faculty Muhammadiyah University, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia
* Corresponding Author: Golar, Forestry Programme of Forestry Faculty Tadulako University, Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia Tel. +6281145210109. Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The Community Conservation Partnership Agreement (KKM) was an effort to reduce, prevent and mitigate the impacts arising from the complexity of managing Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP).
Several approaches in building KKM in LLNP the National Park had been carried out by many several parties but had not proceeded as expected. Social Contracts were the main foundation that must be built in to advance in building community agreements. The purpose of this study was to explore the obstacles and strategies for implementing KKM in the LLNPNational Park. A qualitative approach was used in this study, through in-depth interviews, and limited field observations, and active research in the process of drafting the KKM agreement. The results showed there were multiple interpretations of the roles, functions, and work of the parties based on their authority and interests in building the KKM. This caused resulted in the KKM not becoming unsustainable as a result that was solid, participatory and became social control. Findings show that in order to rRe-establishing the KKM requires strategic steps, which were expected to be able to mediate all the across stakeholder components involved in itinterests.
Partnerships towards effective social contracts wcould only be done succeed if there was recognition of, and meaningful involvement as well as equality of the among parties since starting the activities, that begin at the design and planning processes and continue throughout the implementation of phases of the partnership activities. Its clarity and respect for the rights and obligations of each party, clarity of the benefits of the involvement and results of partnership activities, resource support (time, energy, cost) and trust in the process being built and later implemented, as well as an understanding of social issues and the local context of the community involved in the partnership process. The process of building a social contract could must therefore begin with solid communication between stakeholders, which establishand collaboration that refers to institutional mechanisms that awere systematic, promote active coordinative, and are based on the existence of equality trust and understanding between stakeholders.
Keywords: Conflict rResolution; Natural resources; Co-management; Community Conservation Partnership;
Lore Lindu National Park
1.Introduction
Lore-Lindu National Park (LLNP) was officially confirmed by the Minister of Forestry and Plantations in 1999. Previously, LLNP was designated by UNESCO in 1977 as one of the a biospheres reserved in Indonesia in 1977. The important role of LLNP thus plays an important role was in protecting ecosystems and biodiversity support systems, ranging for a diversity ofsuch as flora and
fauna on the from the Wallacea lineregion, which includes with various types of flora and fauna that were endemic species, as well as a high diversity of socio-cultural values.
As one of the a national parks that had with a unique social culture, the LLNP could not be separated from the problem challenges of land claims and forest encroachment. This issues hasa been problematic through in the history of its LLNP management. Theise conditions caused frequent social and tenure conflicts (Golar et al., 2019b)(Golar et al., 2019b) which resulteds in the non- optimal management of LLNP (Golar et al., 2017; Irawan et al., 2016)(Golar et al., 2017; Irawan et al., 2016). stated that tThe trigger factor for conflicts around forest areas including the National Park in and around LLNP was the lack of clarity of policies designed by the government. Another thing also aspect raised mentioned by (Maesen and Cadman, (2015) was that the dilemma in forest conservation efforts aside from the lack of aspects of attention to the relative to human dimensiondevelopment indicators of local populations, also activities generally only focus on conservation. Satyanarayana et al., (2012) added that unclear information about community rules, regulations and rights (see also Chankrajang, 2019) and the role of stakeholders in forest management was also the caused tensions and flared up as conflicts (Gupta and Koontz, 2019) (Gupta and Koontz, 2019).
One community that experienced sSocial conflicts over claims and land use was the Lembah Bada community were also experienced by several communities around the LLNP (Golar et al., 2019b; Massiri et al., 2019)(Golar et al., 2019b; Massiri et al., 2019). one of which was the Lembah Bada community. This community had its was unique as it was surroundedness, where the area was surrounded by forests that were still as good classified in a good condition. The Lembah Bada Valley community settled in the LLNP area long before the area was designated a National Park. Interaction between the community and the forest had existed for a long time. Like some other indigenous communities, in interacting living among and near with forests, the Lembah Bada Community puts forward has a reach tradition of local wisdom to preserve and preserve its forests (Golar et al., 2019a)(Golar et al., 2019a). Theise practices are considered multi-generational and adaptive, a heritage passed down from had been done since the time of their ancestors.
Nevertheless, the park manager of LLNP still viewed the existence of the Lembah Bada community to be illegal, because it they are considered to contradicts regulations regarding the prohibition of land use in the a National Park Area in addition to on pursuing its conservation goals.
This had led to tenurial conflicts between the community and LLNP management. Several efforts to resolve tenure conflicts had been carried out, both initiated by the park management, local governments, and non-governmental organizations. However, these efforts had not given adequate resultscreated acceptable terms among the stakeholders.
Meanwhile, on a national scale, several regulations were issued that could accommodate community participation in the management of conservation areas. Even Ffurthermore, the LLNP had conducted a review of the zoning areas of the park of LLNP management, to accommodate the tenure concerns and engage in a conflict resolution effortsprocess. An The initiative had been was carried out to revitalize the Community Conservation Agreement (KKM), and one of those involved the , including in the communities from the Lembah Bada area. The KKM program was originally initiated by one of the support from an influential international NGO:s "The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which worked" in collaboration with several local NGOs in the 2000s. At that time, the KKM signing whas been facilitated to produce an agreement document, accompanied by a participatory management plan.
However, the implementation of KKM developed supported by TNC did not last long. After the project ended, several villages were considered to be in violation ofed the agreement, so that and until the time of writing, now the program had not was unbeen able to solve the problem of land use in the LLNP. It was strongly suspected, Tthe cause reason was that the mechanism for implementing the KKM program was inadequate due tonot going well so that a lack of strong commitment was not formed established between parties (Wood et al., 2019) in ensuring the sustainability of the program (Wood et al., 2019). Based on this description, we pursued a study design to develop an in-depth study of about the constraints of implementing the KKM program and potential strategies for creating social contracts was needed to support the success of the KKM and to optimize conflict resolution efforts in the LLNP.
Figure 1. Research Locations at Lembah Bada in Lore Lindu National Park (Foto source: LLNP, 2020)
2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Study Area
This research was carried out in Lembah Bada, one of the a sub-districts around the LLNP area of Central Sulawesi Province. Administratively, Lembah Bada consists of six villages, including namely Tuare, Lengkeka, Kageroa, Lelio, Tomihipi and Kolore (Figure 1). Most livelihoods of people in this region depend their lives on the LLNP area, both in the form of land use within the area Park boundaries and the collection of non-timber forest products.
2.2 Data collection
The dData collection was consisted of the following: Hhistorical data collected about on the management of national parks and the KKM program in the study area;, direct engagement with ccommunities living in and y interactiong with forest areas,; examining the existence and constraints of applying the KKM formed by TNC; and evaluating the KKM as part of broader the results of revitalization interests in Lembah Bada;, as well as considering the potential supporters of the implementingation of social contracts and the identification of problems or obstacles in the application of social among counterparts. The data collection method was carried out through both involved observation and in-depth interviews,ing and supported by thematic FGD techniquess, based on the research objectives to be achieved.
Interviews were conducted with representative informants in each sample village, which were conducted purposively. There were five5 informants in each village. The main criteria used to select an informant includes: (a) the informant conducts land use activities within the forest area; (b) was a representativeon of the village community based on recommendations from community leaders or the local village head. Meanwhile, the thematic FGDs activities were carried out by inviting all informant representatives in each village, as well as validating the results of the in-depth interviews and observations that had been produced.
To explore in-depth information related to field findings, an in-depth interviews wereas also conducted with 6 (six) key informants, namely: 2 (two) representatives of community leaders, 2 (two) representatives of village heads, and 2 (two) representatives of LLNP.
2.3 Data Analysis
Data were analyzed descriptively and -qualitatively, through a synthesis of empirical data obtained through deep during interviews, field observations, and the process of drafting a conservation partnership agreement carried out in each of the sample villages. We have begun by analyzing the constraints on the implementation of the KKM formed by TNC. Then an analysis of the roles of the parties is carried out in the process towards an agreed partnership, as a form of social contract.
Analysis of problems identified were conductedcation through the Fishbone approach and of sStakeholder analysis, which was used to identify the root of the problem, as well and also as the obstacles encountered in the partnership agreement that would be built with the parties community and LLNP parties. Fishbone analysis (Nolan, 2015) was used to identify the various potential causesd of an effect or a problem, and analyzed the problem through 6 categories, namely: Manpower (human resource input), Machine (infrastructure), Measurement (policy/regulation), Material (raw materials and natural resources), Money (financial), and motivation (encouragement and behavior).
Through this analysis would be seen as the pattern of relationships and inhibiting factors causing the emergence of KKM problems in the LLNP.
Stakeholder analysis used the 4Rs (Right, Responsibility, Revenue, and Relationship) methods, related to the management of LLNP (Islam et al., 2019). Through this analysis, the roles would be seen based on the 4 aspects (Rights, Responsibilities, benefits, and patterns of relations between stakeholders).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 History of the KKM Program in LLNP
Community interaction with LLNP had been ongoing on for a long timein the 70s, before the area was establishment as the national park. The establishment of LLNP through 6 (six) stages:
proposal (1967), statement (1982), appointment (in 1993), boundary arrangement (in 1995), confirmation (in 1997) and. Establishment as LLNP (in 1999).
. The main driving factor was the community's dependence on resources within the LLNP (Massiri et al., 2019). There were at least 76 villages directly adjacent to the LLNP. A mix of natives indigenous and migrants (Table 1) inhabited the villagers. Indigenous inhabitants and migrants around LLNP live without conflictd in harmony, and still over tiem developed and respected uphold
cultural values, customs, norms and rules (Islam et al., 2019)(Cuni-Sanchez et al., 2019; Handoko and Yumantoko, 2015; Hvenegaard et al., 2015) .
Table 1. Multi-ethnic distribution around the LLNP
No Sub District Ethnicity
1 Sigi Biromaru Kaili
2 Gumbasa Kaili Ado, Edo
3 Lindu Kaili
4 Kulawi Kaili
5 Kulawi Selatan Kaili Moma
6 Tanambulava Kaili
7 Palolo Kaili
8 Nokilalaki Kaili Da’a
9 Lore Utara Pokerehua, Tawaelia-Baria
10 Lore Piore Behoa, Pokerehua
11 Lore Tengah Behoa
12 Lore Barat Bada
Sources: RPJP Document LLNP 2016-2022
In the course of its management, social dynamics occurred, mainly due to the migration of people around the LLNP. His The main motivation for migration was the insistence on the need to meet the survival of his family needs (Golar et al., 2019a; Satyanarayana et al., 2012)(Golar et al., 2019a; Satyanarayana et al., 2012). The phenomenon of migration began to appear in early 2017.
Some of the triggering factors were resulted in a decline in global economic conditions and the occurrence of conflict in Central Sulawesi (Poso city and surrounding areas), triggering a rush and exodus to other regions, especially in to the LLNP. Since then, land clearing within the forest estate LLNP had begun to be explored in several locations within the forest estate.
This was one of the main impetus reasons why for launching the KKM program was launched at LLNP. The program was initially initiated in 2002, which was an initiative of The Natural Conservancy (through a TNC initiative). Although it was not an initial initiative objective of TNC, it the KKM grew outwas the result of an adaptation of the Central Sulawesi Area Integrated Development and Conservation Project (CSIDCP) programs. This programs project sought to integrated conservation goals with regional development policies and programs. In the implementation of the KKM programs at that time, there were several problems however. On the one hand, there was a desire to meet the needs of the community, but on the other hand, there was a push to maintain the sustainability conservation status of the forest area. This phenomenon was also often found elsewhere, which had an impact on widespread pressure on forest areas and the emergence of several tenure conflicts (Riddell, 2013)(Riddell, 2013)
The history of land use in the area of the LLNP area confirmed the longstanding interaction between the community and the forest area, long before LLNP was designated a Conservation Area.
This information was the main consideration in the preparation of KKM in LLNP. By According to some researchers, it was categorized as a form of recognition of their existence in conservation areas (Meehan et al., 2019; Zeb et al., 2019)(Meehan et al., 2019; Zeb et al., 2019)
3.2 Community Conservation Partnership that had not been OSuboptimal KKM approach in LLNP
The presence of total area of LLNP with an area ocoversf 217,9911.18 ha, was located between Sigi Regency and Poso Regenciesy., which In other administrative terms, this means that LLNP was directly related interacts with to 67 villages with totaling 104,631 inhabitants having different conflicts. The conflict that occurred in Lembah Bada wereas closely related to people's lives in meeting their food subsistence needs. The necessities of life of the community were very dependent on the results of farming in the LLNP area. On the other hand, the manager did not allow the community to enter, let alone inhabit the Forest Zone.
Several efforts to resolve social and tenure issues in the LLNP, including in the Lembah Bada Valley had been carried out. One of them was through the revitalization of KKM initiated by LLNP and its partners. However, in general, the KKM in the LLNP was generally not optimal due to among others the following reasons as described in the list below and in the fishbone diagram of (Figure 2);:
a. Human resources in Lembah Bada villages were relatively low and limited due to the lack of agricultural and forestry extension agents. Dominant factors were the low level of education and the lack of information, including socialization outreach and interaction from the LLNP;
b. Infrastructure limitations due to areas/locations far from cities, low accessibility and limited information;
c. Policies and regulations that had not been well understood by citizens due to minimal outreach programs socialization, including problems of coordination and authority among sectors that were still centralizedstic and structural, as well as tenure issues and land claims that were never completedfully addressed;
d. Actual conditions in the LLNP field that had not been fully developedexecuted, such as the absence of permanent boundaries, local institutions that were not involved enough, the limited management staff at LLNP, and growing LLNP community distrust of the LLNP;
e. Limited funding due to minimal or almost no financial institutions that that reached villages and, limited access to markets and information, and livelihood sources that were still agrarian.;
f. Motivation and behavior that were still weak due to traditional life attitudes, opportunities and participation were still low, dependence on nature was still high, and the experience was not good in the past.
Figure 2. Fishbone aAnalysis of pProblems with the Non-Optimumsuboptimaal KKM and Community Participation in Conservation Partnerships in LLNP
There were vVarious collaborative activities within the framework of the partnership framework between LLNP and the Lembah Bada community. The activity was intended as a form of awareness and opportunity for LLNP to be able to interact with the community in and around LLNP. Forms of approach that had been carried out include the initiative to establish the boundaries of the LLNP area, Zoning Area Arrangement, Forest Police Volunteers (Pamswakarsa), Partnership Activities by LLNP Partner agencies (Table 2).
Table 2. Effectiveness of Prior Collaborative Approaches
No Approach Short Description Achievements/
Performance
Acting actor Information
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. LLNP Area Boundary Setting
Carried out consultatively since 2006.
The results of the consultationsve work were outlined in the proposed outer boundaries and LLNP zoning
Map of proposed outer boundaries of the TNLLNP.
Map of proposed LLNP zoning
Balai Besar LLNP
BPKH
Masyarakat
The parties were all involved
The consultative process supported by LLNP partners).
2. LLNP Zoning The activity was intended to obtain spatial planning in the LLNP area in a participatory manner
The activity began with Participatory Village Mapping (PDP) with LLNP partners
Village participatory mapping in the form of the community version of land classification as a basis for the
preparation of LLNP zoning
Zoning recommendati ons included core zones,
Balai Besar LLNP
LLNP partners
Society
Land classification according to the community: (a) residential areas, (b) agricultural land, (c) pasture and cattle grazing, (d) forest areas (limited, daily use, and customary forest), (e) historic sites/culture.
traditional use zones and special zones 3. Pam-Swakarsa A program to
support BBLLNP in the formation of voluntary forest security personnel (Pam Swakarsa).
Formation of self-help initiative for the
management of LLNP from residents
Balai Besar LLNP
Society
Membership of local people recruited for regular security and monitoring/patrol services in the LLNP area.
4. Conservation Collaboration
The partnership process developed by BB LLNP with the involvement of partners
Done to strengthen the management of LLNP that was more participatory, equitable and sustainable
Model examples of conservation partnerships in several activity sites
BB LLNP
LLNP partners (TNC, FP3, EPAS)
Society
Results were not optimal
3.3 Collaborative Program and the Role of Parties
Collaborative management was a solution that was expected to solve the problems that had occurred since 2000 in the Bada Valley Lore Lindu National Park. The development of sustainability required adaptation in adjusting to existing policies and regulations. This was important in synergizing the perspective of the KKM as a pathway to establish the "Conservation partnership,", which began with building a re-understanding between stakeholders involved in the management of LLNP (Golar et al., 2017; Gupta and Koontz, 2019)(Golar et al., 2017; Gupta and Koontz, 2019)
The collaborative approach to the resolution of the Lembah Bada conflict began with a reflection activity to identify the fundamental problems, opportunities, and issues (Isoaho et al., 2019)(Isoaho et al., 2019). The results of the reflection were then used as an important factor to consider in the process of preparing a problem-solving plan (Sunam et al., 2015)(Sunam et al., 2015).
Collaboration as a conflict resolution in Lembah Bada was developed through the Vision of the Lore Lindu National Park Center, namely "Optimizing the Management of the Lore Lindu National Park to Create Sustainable Forests for the Fair Welfare of the People" and adapted to the fundamental problems that occurred in Lembah Bada. Through this vision, it was expected to become an alternative resolution approach forof social and tenuriale conflicts.
Different views and management goals were often seen as problems that could only be resolved if we stakeholders had the same goals (Sahide et al., 2018)(Sahide et al., 2018) . The identification and role of the parties were needed to identify their involvement and role in building a more solid and sustainable collaboration (Wittayapak and Baird, 2018)(Wittayapak and Baird, 2018).
Identifyingied the roles of the parties includeding government stakeholders, local governments, the private sector, the community, and development partners (academics, donors, NGOs). Table 3 showsn the roles and positions of the parties in the variant/window based on their involvement and influence on the management of LLNP.
Table 3. Group / Individual Stakeholder Mapping Window Based on Interests of Involvement and Its Impact on Management of LLNP Areas.
INFLUENCES
INTERESTS
HIGH LOW
HIGH
Governor and Regent (PEMDA)
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Dirjen KSDAE)
BBLLNP
DPRD
TNC, UNESCO
NGOs
Religious and community leaders
Teacher
Village extension agents and facilitators
Press / Journalist
Village government
Related OPD in the Regency
LOW
Security forces
Academic Institution (Untad)
Environmental Services Users
Farmer Group (Gapoktan)
Timber or non-timber forest product collection group
District Government
BBNLL workers and staff and partners
Local Ethnic Society
School Students and Students
In Table 3 there were 4 (four) variants or stakeholder windows, namely:
Window/variant (1) level of importance and involvement and influences were equally high,
Window/variant (2) stakeholders with high interests and involvement with low influences,
Window/variant (3) stakeholders with low interests and involvement, but had a high influences (authority), as well
Window/variant (4) stakeholders with low levels of interests and influences.
Very high importance and influences was presented a huge potential for identifying common ground to be the for spearheading of the Conservation Partnership successful. The main reason was that the community conservation agreement was a negotiation of community interests and the interests of preserving the functions of the LLNP area, so that if interests and influences become the main force, then the guarantee of success would be better more likely (Bluffstone et al., 2018;
Foundjem-Tita et al., 2018; García-López and Antinori, 2018; Sunam et al., 2015)(Bluffstone et al., 2018; Foundjem-Tita et al., 2018; García-López and Antinori, 2018; Sunam et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it must still be the main consideration must be related to the principle of regional clarity, user clarity, and clarity of resource use (Golar et al., 2017; Massiri et al., 2019)(Golar et al., 2017; Massiri et al., 2019). Another important thing aaspect was the clarity of the constitutional rules regarding conservation partnerships, as pillars of guarantees for the formal foundation of the implementation
of conservation partnership programs (Maesen and Cadman, 2015; Zeb et al., 2019)(Maesen and Cadman, 2015; Zeb et al., 2019).
3.4 Sustainability Strategy Agreement for Community Partnerships Through Social Contracts
Collaborative management was a solution that was expected to solve problems that had occurred since 2000 in the LLNP. Collaboration began with building an understanding between stakeholders involved in the management of LLNP. In this case the success of collaborative work could be achieved if the establishment of a shared view (common ground) between stakeholders, the recognition of each stakeholder and collective agreement on the LLNP management.
The Community Partnership Agreement or what was currently known as the Community Conservation Partnership (KKM) in Lembah Bada was one of the priorities in for collaborative management in the LLNP. The KKM at this location was a strategic step to accommodate the local wisdom of the community (Bellon et al., 2020; Bluffstone et al., 2018)(Bellon et al., 2020; Bluffstone et al., 2018), as well as minimizing the impact caused by encroachment around the LLNP. The participation and support of local/indigenous communities must be developed through social agreements in the form of social contracts that demonstrate the rights and obligations of each party.
Some of the steps needed in establishing a social contract for KKM in LLNP were described as follows:
a. Communicate and Consult Ideas; At this stage, LLNP and the parties who would be involved in the partnership process and build agreements in the form of social contracts to would first communicate the ideas, ideas and planned activities to the community. Communities and stakeholders were aware of program plans, benefits, and potential impacts and risks. The parties involved were facilitators, donors and people or /groups who during the process of building partnerships must be known and their track record was known by the community. At this stage of the process, representatives from people who were considered suitable to represent the community should be agreed upon in the process of discussion, negotiation; and including being consulted and making decisions. Thus, in the next phase had been obtained by people and /groups anywhere in the community who had a voice and could be trusted to represent or on behalf of the community.
b. Develop Concept and Design Agreements; KKM ideas and ideas were carried out together openly and in a participatory manner with the community. The submission process began with identifying the actual location of the community's existing land use (gardens, rice fields, settlements, etc.). The results of the identification and mapping of the plantation location were then carried out by delineating land areason to obtain a rational and accommodative proposal area.
Criteria for land that could be proposed includeding
in the proposed the followingpartnership planning were:• Within the village administration boundary
• Located within the LLNP area
• Entered into the appropriate zoning of LLNP zoning
• Location priorities that had been managed by the village community
Based on these criteria, the results of the delineation were made into a collective proposal which then became the official proposal for the extent of the partnership area as accommodated in
the Village Spatial Plan (RTRW Desa). This process was the process of land structuring and land use planning within the village administration area within the LLNP. These include:
a. Building Commitment and Institutional Management;; The land compliance process in the form of a village spatial plan must ultimately obtain the consent of the citizens and be enacted in the form of village regulations (Perdes). Perdes that had shown the allocation of land for use, reserves and protection must have guarantees from the village government, where each member of the community receives justice for their rights to land, as well as guarantees for the continued allocation of land designated for reserves and protection. In this case, it was very necessary to have an institution from the community that would be responsible for the management of land and natural resources in the village.
b. Commodity Management and Commodity Development Activities:; The community then discussed actions and relevant activities or actions needed to manage, maintain and protect natural resources, especially existing forests. In addition to the form of activities, the community was also invited to identify important and reliable commodity choices to support
and prosperthe community.Three types of commodities could be developed, namely: The aActual commodity,
that the type of commodity whose product was already in the village and currentlythe source of the community's actual livelihood; . The pPotential cCommodities, namely the types of commodities whose commodities and products were in the village area, but the community had not yet developed them even though there was an available market potential;.
The pProspective pPotential commodities,namely a type of commodity whose commodity that does not exist in the village area, but could be produced and cultivated because the market was very needy
and promising.c. Welfare and Sustainability: A; at this stage, the community was invited to discuss the criteria and indicators for welfare and sustainability of partnership activities.
This stage was important for establishing monitoring tools as well as seeing and
measuring and gauging the level of success in implementing partnerships. Criteria and indicators that had been compiled together could be used as material for ashared vision in realizing partnerships to improve community welfare.
After all of these stages had been carried out, and subsequently obtained several approval documents and planning documents, it could be continued by arranging a collective agreement as a form of the social contract between the LLNP manager and the village community. To be able to bind the commitments of all citizens, the agreement could be realized in the form of village regulations (Perdes) or joint agreements between villages in the LLNP area and LLNP managers.
Figure 3. Flow Chart for the Formation of Social Contracts to Build Conservation Partnerships in the LLNP
4. Conclusions
There have been various collaborative approaches had been carried out by many parties since 2006, which include forms of KKM. These include i.e. participatory boundary arrangements, Zoning of the LLNP area, Pam-Swakarsa, and the collaborative pattern of co-management conservation areas. Its apparently could That these initiatives did not function optimally was due to the following reasons: the fact that pPrograms that were still approached in the conventional ways, in which community involvement was still mobilized in unequal terms and dominateding by LLNP managers.
Furthermore, there was l Limited resources and access to information,. Its involvement of the local stakeholders parties at the local level was not maximal,. Its the absence or not yet of finalized arrangements onf boundaries and traditional attitudes to life, and past bad experiences in resolving tenure and social conflicts.
Conflict resolution models through using the partnership processes offer opportunities towards effective social contracts but which can only could only be carried out, namely with the recognition, of the involvement, and equality balance of decision making powersof the parties since that are clearly laid out and agreed upon at the starting the of activities, and which last throughout the planning process, and the continue in the implementation of partnership activities. Its clarity and respect for the rights and obligations of each party as well as clarity of benefits for the involvement and results of partnership activities are also essentials. Its The availability of resources (time, energy, cost) and trust in the process must being built and later implemented. This must also be Its rooted in a careful understanding of social issues and the local context of the community involved in the partnership process.
To strengthen social contracts in LLNP, the support of key stakeholders iwas very important. The main one was the Central Sulawesi Governor, playing a role in ensuring that social contracts run well by the development program in the Central Sulawesi region. The Lore Lindu National Park Office, which playsed a role related to supervision, control and respect for the commitment to implementing partnerships includeing capacity building,, empowerment and improvement ofing the welfare of the community around the LLNP. The One village head who had a role in promoting and ensuring that social contracts were carried out by the agreement and village development plan. The community leaders played a role in disseminating the results of the agreement and together with
Facilitator and LLNP
Communicating and consulting
Building Concepts and RTRW Des
Build commitment and institutions Develop a plan of
activities and commodity choices Provides indicators
of well-being and sustainability
citizens to implement the agreement well. Partners played a role in facilitating and assisting the implementation of the results of the agreement, especially in increasing the capacity and empowerment of local human and institutional resources.
Based the research results and conclusions that the author had suggestedof this research in closely examining KKM, the authors provided several suggestions for approaching such as the overall collaborative management of conservation areaspattern which had been developed, especially those that were permanent (e.g. safeguarding the area in a pamswakarsa). It There must be follow up for the initiatives that had been tried in the past through the principles listed herein. Furthermore, (for example through various social agreements or contracts) and continued, eventually developed because threats/disturbances to the LLNP were dynamic and would continue by socio-economic and political developments. The a serious assessment iwas needed about models of to establish buffer zones that can work to the benefit of local communities while supporting the LLNP interests in conservationbuffer zones that were more effective and efficient than those currently available, taking into account the shape, direction, and intensity of disturbance including encroachment of LLNP areas/lands that could occur at anytime, anywhere and from anywhere. LLNP managers must also be equipped with social management engagement expertise and community sensitivity. It was supported by the pPolicies and regulations can also be strengthened and supported atat the local (village) and district levels, which can help to provide quality assurance and certainty (including funding) through the APBDes in supporting collaborative management. that began with a specific social contract to improve the economy, institutions and local resources in the community.
Acknowledgments
During this research, many parties were involved, both directly and indirectly. On this occasion, tThe authors would therefore like to thank to Haris Priyana who made the map, Akhmad Wijaya who provided an overview guidance onf data analysis, and reviewers who provided suggestions to improve this research, as well and as Budi Setiawan who helped the manuscript editing, translating, and submitting submission process.
Authors' Contribution
Mustofa Agung Sardjono, Nur Fitriyah, Golar who provided the conceptual models, theoretical supports, data supports and advice in editing.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Bellon, M.R., Kotu, B.H., Azzarri, C., Caracciolo, F., 2020. To diversify or not to diversify, that is the question. Pursuing agricultural development for smallholder farmers in marginal areas of Ghana.
World Development 125, 104682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104682
Bluffstone, R.A., Somanathan, E., Jha, P., Luintel, H., Bista, R., Toman, M., Paudel, N., Adhikari, B., 2018. Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program. World Development 101, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.030 Chankrajang, T., 2019. State-community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand’s community forestry. Journal of Development Economics 138, 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.01.010
Cuni-Sanchez, A., Ngute, A.S.K., Sonké, B., Sainge, M.N., Burgess, N.D., Klein, J.A., Marchant, R., 2019.
The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon. Ecosystem Services 40, 101000.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101000
Foundjem-Tita, D., Duguma, L.A., Speelman, S., Piabuo, S.M., 2018. Viability of community forests as social enterprises: A Cameroon case study. E&S 23, art50. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10651-230450 García-López, G., Antinori, C., 2018. Between Grassroots Collective Action and State Mandates: The Hybridity of Multi-Level Forest Associations in Mexico. Conservation and Society 16, 193.
https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_115
Golar, Basir-Cyio, M., Rusydi, M., Bakri, R., Bohari, Pratama, M.F., Laihi, M.A.A., 2019a. Gold Mining and its Impact on Agricultural Land, Public Health, Violation of the Law: A Study on Poboya
Traditional Mining, Palu, Indonesia. Ind. Jour. of Publ. Health Rese. & Develop. 10, 924.
https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.02939.5
Golar, Mahfudz, Malik, A., Muis, H., Khairil, M., Ali, S.S.S., Razman, M.R., Awang, A., 2019b. The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park 8.
Golar, Rachman, I., Umar, H., Alam, A., Labiro, E., 2017. The Poverty Assessment based on Subjective Criteria: Case Study of Rural Community near Protected Forest in Central Sulawesi. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9.
Gupta, D., Koontz, T.M., 2019. Working together? Synergies in government and NGO roles for community forestry in the Indian Himalayas. World Development 114, 326–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.016
Handoko, C., Yumantoko, Y., 2015. LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON TENURE RIGHTS AND CONFLICT IN FMU RINJANI BARAT, WEST NUSA TENGGARA PROVINCE. Jurnal Penelitian Kehutanan Wallacea 4, 157.
https://doi.org/10.18330/jwallacea.2015.vol4iss2pp157-170
Hvenegaard, G., Carr, S., Clark, K., Dunn, P., 2015. Promoting Sustainable Forest Management Among Stakeholders in the Prince Albert Model Forest, Canada. Conservation and Society 13, 51.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161222
Irawan, A., Mairi, K., Ekawati, S., 2016. Analysis Of Tenurial Conflict In Production Forest Management Unit (Pfmu) Model Poigar. Jurnal Wasian 3, 79.
https://doi.org/10.20886/jwas.v3i2.1595
Islam, K., Nath, T.K., Jashimuddin, M., Rahman, Md.F., 2019. Forest dependency, co-management and improvement of peoples’ livelihood capital: Evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh.
Environmental Development 32, 100456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100456
Isoaho, K., Burgas, D., Janasik, N., Mönkkönen, M., Peura, M., Hukkinen, J.I., 2019. Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging. Ecosystem Services 40, 101028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101028
Maesen, L. van der, Cadman, T., 2015. Sustainable Forest Management: T he Role of Government Agencies, NGOs, and Local Communities in Western Australia. The International Journal of Social Quality 5. https://doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2015.050204
Massiri, S.D., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., Soekmadi, R., 2019. Institutional Sustainability of a Community Conservation Agreement in Lore Lindu National Park. FS 3, 64.
https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.5204
Meehan, F., Tacconi, L., Budiningsih, K., 2019. Are national commitments to reducing emissions from forests effective? Lessons from Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 108, 101968.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101968
Nolan, D.P., 2015. Specialized Reviews—CHAZOP, EHAZOP, Bow-Tie Analysis, Layers of Protection Analysis, Safety Integrity Level, Fishbone Diagram, and Cyber Security Vulnerability Analysis, in:
Safety and Security Review for the Process Industries. Elsevier, pp. 17–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-32295-9.00005-7
Riddell, M., 2013. Assessing the Impacts of Conservation and Commercial Forestry on Livelihoods in Northern Republic of Congo. Conservat Soc 11, 199. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.121002 Sahide, M.A.K., Fisher, M.R., Maryudi, A., Dhiaulhaq, A., Wulandari, C., Kim, Y.-S., Giessen, L., 2018.
Deadlock opportunism in contesting conservation areas in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 77, 412–424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.020
Satyanarayana, B., Bhanderi, P., Debry, M., Maniatis, D., 2012. A Socio-Ecological Assessment Aiming at Improved Forest Resource Management and Sustainable Ecotourism Development in the
Mangroves of Tanbi Wetland National Park, The Gambia, West Africa. AMBIO 41, 513–526.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0248-7
Sunam, R., Bishwokarma, D., Darjee, K., 2015. Conservation Policy Making in Nepal: Problematising the Politics of Civic Resistance. Conservation and Society 13, 179. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972- 4923.164201
Wittayapak, C., Baird, I.G., 2018. Communal land titling dilemmas in northern Thailand: From community forestry to beneficial yet risky and uncertain options. Land Use Policy 71, 320–328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.019
Zeb, A., Armstrong, G.W., Hamann, A., 2019. Forest conversion by the indigenous Kalasha of Pakistan:
A household level analysis of socioeconomic drivers. Global Environmental Change 59, 102004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102004
Bellon, M.R., Kotu, B.H., Azzarri, C., Caracciolo, F., 2020. To diversify or not to diversify, that is the question. Pursuing agricultural development for smallholder farmers in marginal areas of Ghana.
World Development, 125, 104682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104682
Bluffstone, R.A., Somanathan, E., Jha, P., Luintel, H., Bista, R., Toman, M., Paudel, N., Adhikari, B., 2018. Does collective action sequester carbon? Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry
Program. World Development, 101, 133–141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.030 Chankrajang, T., 2019. State-community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand’s community forestry. Journal of Development Economics, 138, 261–273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.01.010
Cuni-Sanchez, A., Ngute, A.S.K., Sonké, B., Sainge, M.N., Burgess, N.D., Klein, J.A., Marchant, R., 2019. The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon. Ecosystem Services, 40, 101000. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101000
Foundjem-Tita, D., Duguma, L.A., Speelman, S., Piabuo, S.M., 2018. Viability of community forests as social enterprises: A Cameroon case study. E&S 23, art50. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10651- 230450
García-López, G., Antinori, C., 2018. Between grassroots collective action and state mandates: The hybridity of Multi-Level Forest Associations in Mexico. Conservation and Society 16, 193. doi:
https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_115
Golar, Basir-Cyio, M., Rusydi, M., Bakri, R., Bohari, Pratama, M.F., Laihi, M.A.A., 2019a. Gold mining and its impact on agricultural land, public health, violation of the law: A study on Poboya traditional mining, Palu, Indonesia. Ind. Jour. of Publ. Health Rese. & Develop. 10, 924. doi:
https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.02939.5
Golar, Mahfudz, Malik, A., Muis, H., Khairil, M., Ali, S.S.S., Razman, M.R., Awang, A., 2019b. The adaptive-collaborative as a strategy comunications for conflict resolution on the National Park 8.
Golar, Rachman, I., Umar, H., Alam, A., Labiro, E., 2017. The poverty assessment based on subjective criteria: Case study of rural community near Protected Forest in Central Sulawesi.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9.
Gupta, D., Koontz, T.M., 2019. Working together? Synergies in government and NGO roles for community forestry in the Indian Himalayas. World Development 114, 326–340. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.016
Handoko, C., Yumantoko, Y., 2015. Local perspectives on tenure rights and conflict in FMU Rinjani Barat, West Nusa Tenggara Province. Jurnal Penelitian Kehutanan Wallacea 4, 157. doi:
https://doi.org/10.18330/jwallacea.2015.vol4iss2pp157-170
Hvenegaard, G., Carr, S., Clark, K., Dunn, P., 2015. Promoting sustainable forest management among stakeholders in the Prince Albert Model Forest, Canada. Conservation and Society, 13, 51. doi:
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161222
Irawan, A., Mairi, K., Ekawati, S., 2016. Analysis of tenurial conflict in Production Forest Management Unit (PFMU) Model Poigar. Jurnal Wasian, 3, 79. doi:
https://doi.org/10.20886/jwas.v3i2.1595
Isoaho, K., Burgas, D., Janasik, N., Mönkkönen, M., Peura, M., Hukkinen, J.I., 2019. Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging. Ecosystem Services, 40, 101028. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101028
Maesen, L. van der, Cadman, T., 2015. Sustainable Forest Management: T he role of government agencies, NGOs, and local communities in Western Australia. The International Journal of Social Quality, 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2015.050204
Massiri, S.D., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., Soekmadi, R., 2019. Institutional sustainability of a community conservation agreement in Lore Lindu National Park. Forest and Society, 3, 64. doi:
https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.5204
Meehan, F., Tacconi, L., Budiningsih, K., 2019. Are national commitments to reducing emissions from forests effective? Lessons from Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 108, 101968. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101968
Riddell, M., 2013. Assessing the impacts of conservation and commercial forestry on livelihoods in Northern Republic of Congo. Conservation Social, 11, 199. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972- 4923.121002
Sahide, M.A.K., Fisher, M.R., Maryudi, A., Dhiaulhaq, A., Wulandari, C., Kim, Y.-S., Giessen, L., 2018. Deadlock opportunism in contesting conservation areas in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 77, 412–
424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.020
Satyanarayana, B., Bhanderi, P., Debry, M., Maniatis, D., 2012. A socio-ecological assessment aiming at improved forest resource management and sustainable ecotourism development in the Mangroves of Tanbi Wetland National Park, the Gambia, West Africa. AMBIO, 41, 513–526. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0248-7
Sunam, R., Bishwokarma, D., Darjee, K., 2015. Conservation policy making in Nepal: Problematising the politics of civic resistance. Conservation and Society, 13, 179. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972- 4923.164201
Wittayapak, C., Baird, I.G., 2018. Communal land titling dilemmas in northern Thailand: From community forestry to beneficial yet risky and uncertain options. Land Use Policy, 71, 320–328. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.019
Zeb, A., Armstrong, G.W., Hamann, A., 2019. Forest conversion by the indigenous Kalasha of Pakistan: A household level analysis of socioeconomic drivers. Global Environmental Change, 59, 102004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102004
4. Bukti Accept Submission
Reviewer A:
Saya senang melihat bahwa penulis telah membuat revisi substansial berdasarkan komentar dari dua pengulas, dan kualitas makalah telah sangat meningkat. Namun, penulis harus memeriksa dua yang tersisa masalah sebelum makalah dapat diterbitkan:
1. Kesalahan ejaan
Masih ada beberapa kesalahan ejaan yang harus menarik perhatian dari penulis.
Sebagai contoh:
a. Lembaga kerja penulis ketiga: Ilmu Politik dan Sosial… Sosial di sini seharusnya Sosial.
b. Bagian 3.3, paragraf pertama itu pembentukan pandangan bersama (coo.mon ground) … Ini seharusnya tampaknya menjadi “common”
2. Penomoran bagian, tabel dan gambar
Sebenarnya, reviewer 1 sudah menunjukkan masalah ini review pertama, tetapi penulis tidak memberikan perhatian yang cukup. Disini ada masalah yang saya temukan di manuskrip baru:
a. Bagian Kesimpulan adalah empat, bukan bagian ketiga.
b. Table 10. Group/Individual Stakeholder Mapping … harusnyaTable 3.
c. Figure 2. Flow Chart for the Formation of Social Contracts … should be Figure 3
Revisi yang sesuai juga harus dilakukan ketika penulis merujuk pada ini tabel dan gambar pada teks/paragraf utama.Singkatnya, sebelum artikel diterbitkan, saya menyarankan penulis harus hati-hati memeriksa kembali makalah ini dan memeriksa ulang jika ejaan dan kesalahan penomoran yang ada.
Editor:
- Harap pastikan hanya kutipan dalam teks yang muncul di referensi dan sebaliknya - Berikan DOI jika tersedia
- Silakan isi metadata di sistem web, periksa nama dan afiliasi
- Silakan lihat pedoman kami untuk referensi, dan gunakan template di Lampiran
5. Bukti Revisi Kedua
Special Section on community-based conservation in the Wallacea region Research Article
Social Contracts: Pillars of Community
Conservation Partnerships in Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia
Ice Anugrahsari1,5, Mustofa Agung Sardjono2, Nur Fitriyah3, Golar Golar4*
1 Post Graduate Program of Forestry Faculty Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
2 Forestry Faculty of Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
3 Politics and Social Science Faculty of Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
4 Forestry Faculty of Tadulako University, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia
5 Forestry Program of Agriculture Faculty Muhammadiyah University, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia
* Corresponding Author: Golar, Forestry Programme of Forestry Faculty Tadulako University, Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia Tel. +6281145210109. Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The Community Conservation Partnership Agreement (KKM) was an effort to reduce, prevent and mitigate the impacts arising from the complexity of managing Lore Lindu National Park. Several approaches in building KKM in the National Park had been carried out by several parties but had not proceeded as expected. Social Contracts were built to advance community agreements. The purpose of this study was to explore the obstacles and strategies for implementing KKM in the National Park. A qualitative approach was used in this study, through in-depth interviews, field observations, and active research in the process of drafting the KKM agreement. The results showed there were multiple interpretations of the roles, functions, and work of the parties based on their authority and interests in building the KKM. This resulted in the KKM becoming unsustainable. Findings show that in order to re-establish the KKM requires strategic steps, which mediate across stakeholder interests. Partnerships towards effective social contracts would only succeed if there was recognition of, and meaningful involvement among parties that begin at the design and planning processes and continue throughout the implementation phases of the partnership activities. The process of
building a social contract must therefore begin with solid communication between stakeholders, which establish institutional mechanisms that are systematic, promote active coordinative, and are based on the trust and understanding between stakeholders.
Keywords: Conflict resolution; Natural resources; Co-management; Community Conservation Partnership;
Lore Lindu National Park
1.Introduction
Lore-Lindu National Park (LLNP) was officially confirmed by the Minister of Forestry and Plantations in 1999. Previously, LLNP was designated by UNESCO in 1977 as a biosphere reserve.
LLNP thus plays an important role in protecting ecosystems and biodiversity support systems, ranging for a diversity of flora and fauna from the Wallacea region, which includes various types of endemic species, as well as a high diversity of socio-cultural values.
As a national parks with a unique social culture, LLNP could not be separated from the challenges of land claims and forest encroachment. This issues hasa been problematic through the history of LLNP management. These conditions caused frequent social and tenure conflicts (Golar et al., 2019b) which resulted in the non-optimal management of LLNP (Golar et al., 2017; Irawan et al., 2016). The trigger factor for conflicts around forest areas in and around LLNP was the lack of clarity of policies designed by the government. Another aspect raised by Maesen and Cadman (2015) was the dilemma in forest conservation efforts relative to development indicators of local populations.
Satyanarayana et al. (2012) added that unclear information about community rules, regulations and rights (see also Chankrajang, 2019) and the role of stakeholders in forest management also caused tensions and flared up as conflicts (Gupta and Koontz, 2019).
One community that experienced social conflicts over claims and land use was the Lembah Bada community (Golar et al., 2019b; Massiri et al., 2019). This community was unique as it was surrounded by forests that were still classified in a good condition. The Lembah Bada community settled in the LLNP area long before the area was designated a National Park. Interaction between the community and the forest had existed for a long time. Like other indigenous communities living among and near forests, the Lembah Bada Community has a reach tradition of local wisdom to preserve its forests (Golar et al., 2019a). These practices are considered multi-generational and adaptive, a heritage passed down from their ancestors.
Nevertheless, the park manager of LLNP still viewed the existence of the Lembah Bada community to be illegal, because they are considered to contradict regulations regarding the prohibition of land use in a National Park Area on pursuing its conservation goals. This led to tenurial conflicts between the community and LLNP management. Several efforts to resolve tenure conflicts had been carried out, both initiated by park management, local governments, and non-governmental organizations. However, these efforts had not created acceptable terms among the stakeholders.
Meanwhile, on a national scale, several regulations were issued that could accommodate community participation in the management of conservation areas. Furthermore, the LLNP conducted a review of the zoning areas of the park to accommodate tenure concerns and engage in a conflict resolution process. The initiative was carried out to revitalize the Community Conservation Agreement (KKM), and one of those involved the communities from the Lembah Bada area. The KKM program was originally initiated by support from an influential international NGO: The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which worked in collaboration with several local NGOs in the 2000s. At that time, the KKM signing was facilitated to produce an agreement document, accompanied by a participatory management plan.
However, the implementation of KKM supported by TNC did not last long. After the project ended, several villages were considered to be in violation of the agreement, and until the time of writing, the program was unable to solve the problem of land use in the LLNP. The reason was that the mechanism for implementing the KKM program was inadequate due to a lack of commitment established between parties in ensuring the sustainability of the program (Wood et al., 2019). Based on this description, we pursued a study design to develop an in-depth study about the constraints of implementing the KKM program and potential strategies for creating social contracts to support the success of KKM and optimize conflict resolution efforts in the LLNP.
Figure 1. Research Locations at Lembah Bada in Lore Lindu National Park (Foto source: LLNP, 2020)
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Study Area
This research was carried out in Lembah Bada, a sub-district around the LLNP area of Central Sulawesi Province. Administratively, Lembah Bada consists of six villages, including Tuare, Lengkeka, Kageroa, Lelio, Tomihipi and Kolore (Figure 1). Most livelihoods of people in this region depend on the LLNP area, both in the form of land use within the Park boundaries and the collection of non-timber forest products.
2.2 Data collection
Data collection consisted of the following: Historical data collected about the management of national parks and the KKM program in the study area; direct engagement with communities living in and interacting with forest areas; examining the KKM formed by TNC; evaluating the KKM as part of broader revitalization interests in Lembah Bada; as well as considering the potential supporters of implementing social contracts and the identification of problems or obstacles in the application among counterparts. The data collection method was carried out through both involved observation and in-depth interviews, supported by thematic FGDs based on the research objectives.
Interviews were conducted with representative informants in each sample village, which were conducted purposively. There were five informants in each village. The main criteria used to select an informant includes: (a) the informant conducts land use activities within the forest area; (b) was a representative of the village community based on recommendations from community leaders or the local village head. Meanwhile, the thematic FGDs were carried out by inviting all informant representatives in each village, as well as validating the results of the in-depth interviews and observations that had been produced. To explore in-depth information related to field findings, in- depth interviews were also conducted with six key informants, namely: two representatives of community leaders, two representatives of village heads, and two representatives of LLNP.
2.3 Data Analysis
Data were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively through a synthesis of empirical data obtained during interviews, field observations, and the process of drafting a conservation partnership agreement carried out in each of the sample villages. Analysis of problems identified were conducted
