Impediments (Nus 2005)

Structural Impediments to Community Participation in Komodo National Park, Indonesia Henning Borchers

Argument One of the potential shortcomings of co-management is the inherent conflict between expert- and local knowledge, values and discursive power Expert scientific knowledge is prioritised. Subsequently, local values and experiences are devalued and marginalised

Case Study The Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative falls short of involving local communities in a substantial way. Community input is marginal, while scientific expertise prevails and determines decision-making Planning and management remains top-down

Topics of Discussion Principles of communicative/ collaborative planning and co-management Problems of implementation under a conventional conservation paradigm Case Study: Planning and implementation of the Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative (KCMI)

Planning Conventional planning theory and practice guided by Western-scientific rational discourse Yet, successful planning is more than simply producing a product: Learning Mutual respect Interaction and relationship-building Ownership Improved social and political responsibility

Communication As a transmission process: information is conveyed and received Communication refers to an end state As an ongoing process: dialogue Negotiating and interpreting diverse meanings Dealing with a variety of responses and multiple frames of reference This requires adaptation and adjustment

Communicative/ Collaborative Planning Communicative rationality: An effort at mutual understanding in a particular context. Consensus by dialogue Recognition of plurality and difference Cross-cultural practice ‘ Social learning’ through active participatory dialogue “ Planning as a democratic enterprise, aimed to promote social justice and environmental sustainability” (Healey 1992:141)

Social Justice Social justice incorporates the three broad principles of equal participation in the policymaking process self-representation and autonomy political, economic and cultural self-determination

Co-Management Partnership development through: Decentralised and shared decision making Active participation Shared responsibility Empowerment Consensus-building and dialogue

Can Dialogue be ‘Value-Free’? In the public discourse, scientists and non-scientists act as a result of two primary influences: Tacit interests and knowledge Ideas, agreements and conflicts that emerge during interactions with others Power and knowledge determine the process: Hierarchies and inequalities may maintain top-down structures

Case Study: Komodo National Park

Conservation and Development ‘ Best practice’: Reconcile conservation goals with human needs Sustainable Development paradigm & Convention on Biological Diversity Conservation Sustainable use Benefit sharing

The Co-Management of Komodo National Park According to project documents, the KCMI pursues: ‘ Community participation’ ‘ Active involvement of local communities as managers and beneficiaries’ ‘ Focused dialogue with specific problem groups or communities’ ‘ Consensus-building’

Level of Community Participation and Empowerment Communities not formally included yet . Instead, consultation mechanisms for community inputs and participation Consultation: Low- to medium level of participation Modified top-down interventionist approach Results may or may not be taken into account Overall, planning remains top-down

Consultation in KNP Gaps in consultations: Women, youth, ethnic and social groups not systematically identified Most decisions made by male elders TNC & PKA tend to direct activities in villages themselves Promotion of ‘persuasion techniques’ for awareness staff Stated goal of consultations: “ To explain to […] local communities how they will be involved in long-term management planning of the Park” (Mous et al. 2004:18).

TNC’s Stakeholder Analysis Framework for stakeholder announcement; attributes: Power: Groups who can influence decisions that are being made Legitimacy: Groups who have a moral or legal claim over an area or an issue Urgency: Whose claim needs immediate attention? ‘ Height’ of stakeholders according to the number of attributes: (3) definite (2) expectant (1) latent (0) public – a group of people who do not have any of these attributes

Power-sharing in TNK according to TNC In TNK: Co-management board: Putri Naga Komodo (TNC and P.T. JPU) Advisory committee: 11 members (incl. 3 members of C.C.) Consultative committee: +/- 30 members Consultation     Consultation session    Consultative committee   Advisory committee  Co-management board public latent expectant definitive

Consequences of Mismanagement of KNP Customary resource use restricted or prohibited, though long-standing customary use patterns may not adversely impact KNP’s resources Provision of alternative livelihoods largely limited to buffer zones Tourism development limited within the park Livelihoods of poor residents curtailed Local communities not sufficiently informed; ‘socialisation’ of management plan and regulations ongoing Alienation of local communities - distrust and lasting conflict

Approaching the Problem I “ We tend to work on making management more inclusive ” Tri Soekirman, TNC (2005) “ To listen, and then hear, is an incredible challenge. To hear and then act is a strenuous exercise fraught with pitfalls endemic to the highly politicized settings characteristic of natural resource planning ” Lapachelle et al. (2003:488)

Approaching the problem II We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them.

Impediments (Nus 2005)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Impediments (Nus 2005) (20)

More from h.borchers (7)

Recently uploaded (20)

Impediments (Nus 2005)

Editor's Notes