A case study of conservation project proposal by CIFOR Indonesia in Malinau,
East Kalimantan, Indonesia
by
Hesthi Nugroho
Introduction
The problem of deforestation and degradation is occurring in many tropical developing countries. The solutions to overcome these conditions cannot work well, and even failed. This is because the conflicts between governments and indigenous communities, in which the indigenous communities have felt marginalised, have affect the solution process to overcome the problem. The conservation project, which has been brought up to overcome this condition, is also being seen as a foreign project, which does not represent the rights of indigenous people in the current area, and tends to give their side to the government in legalising their action in forest extraction’s activities (Colchester 2007).
This paper will discuss and analyse the conservation project proposal in Malinau, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. The proposal project is being conducted by CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research) Indonesia, which is funded by ITTO (The International Tropical Timber Organisation) European Commission, The World Bank and MacArthur Foundation. This conservation project is interesting to look at, in terms of the approaches as well as the recommendations that have been delivered by the conservationists (CIFOR Indonesia). However, it does not consider the existence of the indigenous communities in Malinau who directly involve and depends on the forest resources. This type of conservation can be considered as an attempt by outsiders to gain control over land and forest resources, which at best will fail to develop local constituencies for conservation and at worst, will spark and increase conflicts (Sheil, Puri, Wan, Basuki, van Heist, Liswanti, Rukmiyati, Rachmatika, & Samsoedin 2006). In addition, by analysing this conservation project, one of the lessons that can be drawn is that to improve the planning of conservation forests, the conservationists need to integrate biodiversity inventories with information on how people value and view their natural resources, so that the conservation project will not only advance the management of forest land and forest resources but also successfully address the needs of indigenous people.
First, this paper will deliver background information of the proposed project in Malinau, Indonesia, then it will follow by the discussion of several issues that influenced the process of implementing the conservation project in Malinau such as actors and power, institutions and ecological context, while the conclusion will be drawn afterwards.
Background Information of the conservation project of Malinau,
East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Malinau is located in East Kalimantan, Indonesia and was established in 1999 from larger district, which is Bulungan (Wollenberg, Limberg, Iwan, Rahmawati & Moeliono, 2006). It lies along the border with forms part of Kalimantan and Serawak, Malaysia (Wollenberg et al 2006). Malinau forest has the richest flora and fauna species in the world (Meijaard et al 2006). The forest cover is about five millions hectares, which every hectare there is 150 to 200 species of tress, more than 10 centimetres in diameter (Meijaard et al 2006). There are three indigenous ethnic groups in Malinau; Merap, Punan and Kenyah, and most of them are farmers who practice shifting cultivation and some hunting as well as gathering, and they rely heavily on the forest products (Wollenberg et al 2006).
The conservation project, which is being proposed by CIFOR Indonesia, is planning to use in 48,000 hectares of Malinau forest (Meijaard, Sheil, Nasi, Augeri, Rosenbaum, Iskandar, Setyawati, Lammertink, Rachmatika, Wong, Soehartono, Stanley, Gunawan, & O’Brien 2006). The project is focusing on the small part of production forest that has been organised by the Indonesian Government (now is in the hand of Malinau’s government) since 1960s, and is being funded by ITTO European Commission, The World Bank and MacArthur Foundation (Meijaard et al, 2006). In realising the project into practise, CIFOR Indonesia maintains that they will collaborate with LIPI (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia or Indonesian Institute of Sciences), WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), and local Department of Forestry (Meijaard et al, 2006).
The objectives of this project are to give recommendations to the government and biology experts in regards to conserving the forest, improving the knowledge of conservation staff about the historical story and the current condition of the forest, and giving some ideas for further research (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, there are several recommendations that have been made by CIFOR Indonesia, which they suggest should be put in place, such as making clear adjustments in boundaries between the protected forest and production forest, planning in road tracks of logging transportation, mapping points of logging impacts on other vegetation in the forest and the soil fertility, cutting trees in a particular direction, and ensuring roads be built 100 metres from the river (Wollenberg et al 2006). Also if the soil layer in particular area is too thin, the trees in this area should not be cut although they have high economy value, and timber should be carried by cables rather than bulldozers to avoid in destroying important species of vegetation underneath the forest area (Wollenberg et al 2006). Moreover, in the project’s implementation, CIFOR Indonesia is also offering help to the governments in drafting clear and strict regulations to reduce threats towards the forest resources and land, creating regulations that ban illegal logging followed by strict sanctions, and providing more modern technology for tracking down any illegal activities in the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). Furthermore, CIFOR Indonesia states that biology experts are also to have several responsibilities, such as becoming the third party between the government of Malinau and international institutions, promote educational activities for local stakeholder about forest management, hold trainings to increase the capacity of managing the forest, give an intervention in forest management (Wollenberg et al 2006).
Nevertheless, there are several issues that influence the process of designing and implementing every resource project, such as actors, power, political economy, institutions, historical process, ecological context and knowledge (Mahanty 2008). It is important to mention the role of actors because the conservationists who run the project would know who is involved in the resource projects and what their responsibilities are (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). The distribution of power and the role of institutions, either by governments or indigenous peoples, should be known as well, because this would lead to the explanation of whether there is equal or unequal distribution of power between actors, which also determines whether the project will fail or succeed because of conflicts that might emerge from this distribution (Bryant & Bailey 1997). The issue of political economy is also important to mention in discussing any resource projects, because the pressure of economic conditions will determine the decisions of land managers and resource management goals, while the contingency of political condition will determine the management opportunities (Robbins, 2004). In other words, the changing of political and economic conditions will alter the decision-makers context and set the terms of their environment use (Robbins, 2004).
Meanwhile, the issue of institutions is important to be recognised because the contradiction of regulations that governments have applied to the resources and the traditional laws that the indigenous people have owned and practised for centuries, as well as conflicts as the outcome of this contradiction, will determine whether the implementation of the project would work well (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Moreover, by knowing the historical process of the ownership of particular resources, the conflicts that occur today between governments and indigenous peoples can be overcome by having several activities during the operation of the project (Robbins, 2004). This also applies in mentioning the issue of knowledge in resource projects, because the designers as well as the implementers of the resource project need to understand the change in social and environment over time, how they become undesirable and how they can change (Robbins, 2004).
Before implementation of the project, they should know as well the scientific accounts, government documents and local stories about the same environment and social conditions are being formed and made powerful by state (Robbins, 2004). Thus, as the researchers, they are not only accepted but also explore the history of ideas, examine the effects of politics, and its linkages (Robbins, 2004). Furthermore, the ecological context issue should also take into account, because between the government and indigenous communities as well as the conservationists have different perception or context in a way of viewing and valuing the resources (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). For example, the government will see natural resources as a bunch of economy resources, in which the extraction of it will generate the country’s economic growth and the protection of these resources should be applied and is in the hands of the government (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). While, the conservationists would see the natural resources as unrenewable resources and, along with the government, think that the protection of these resources is very necessary for the sake of future generations (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). However, the indigenous communities see the natural resources as part of their daily activities, in which they very much depend on the resources, and see that the activities that have been done either by the government or the conservationists to be considered as threats to their rights towards the use of the resources (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Thus, the issue of ecological context is important to be mentioned and realised in resource projects, so that the differences of way viewing at and treating the resources can be converged.
Nevertheless, from those issues above, this paper will only discuss some part of them when discussing the conservation project in Malinau. These issues are actors and power, institutions, and ecological context. This is because these issues are the major causes of conflict that occur in Malinau between the government officers and the indigenous communities. However, the writer has found strong correlation, arguments as well as articles which support the arguments for these issues, so by discussing the issues raised above will show that the proposal of a conservation project in Malinau would not work well if it is put into practice. Another reason that this paper will not discuss and explore other issues in detail is the word limitation.
Discussions of issues of actors and power, institutions and ecological context
in the process of implementing the conservation project
in Malinau, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Actors and power
To understand the pattern of human-environment interaction and the environmental problems, we need to know the key factor of it, which is an unequal relation between actors that constitute the developing countries’ environmental crisis (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). The unequal relation relates to power that each actor has, either in lesser or greater amounts, and will influence the outcome of environmental conflicts (Bryant & Bailey 1997). In this case, one particular actor will seek ways to exert control of the natural resources over other actors. For example, monopolise the value of resources, thus the economic benefits from the extraction of this resources will accrue largely to the actor (Bryant & Bailey 1997). Power is not only about control of material practices, but also linked to regulation of ideas that attempted (Bryant & Bailey, 1997).
According to CIFOR Indonesia, the actors that should be involved in the conservation project in Malinau are the logging company which is owned by the regional government of Malinau, the local government in the Department of Forestry, biology experts in conservation, CIFOR Indonesia, LIPI and WCS (Meijaard et al 2006). Although CIFOR Indonesia has mentioned the role of indigenous communities in the use of forest resources, the necessity of participation from indigenous communities does not take into account when they plan the implementation of their project. Meanwhile, the recommendations which have been given by CIFOR Indonesia are only focused on the improvement of how to log, the trainings that should be done for the Department of Forestry staff, creating more regulations that would reduce the threats towards the forests, regulations that ban any illegal activities and giving heavy sanctions to those who breach the laws, and enforcing the biology experts to be involved more in forest management while promoted educational activities to local stakeholders about forest management at the same time; while the recommendations to the indigenous communities are none (Meijaard et al 2006). In this case, it shows that CIFOR Indonesia has failed to consider the importance of participation and involvement of indigenous communities to make sure the conservation project in Malinau works well and is sustained. This is especially when the indigenous people of Malinau are using the forest resources for their daily needs. Colchester (2007) maintains that this project is typical of only shaping the policies towards the forest resources to prioritise the conservationists’ or governments’ interests, while the rights and interests of the indigenous communities who are directly living from forests, too often have been secondary considerations or even denied.
Moreover, CIFOR Indonesia also recommends that the implementation of their recommendations, such as new policies and regulations in Malinau should be top-down for a start (Meijaard et al 2006). However, as mentioned by Bryant and Bailey (1997), this particular top-down implementation would spark the inequality of power distribution within actors, especially when it is dealing with the regulation of using the forest resources by indigenous communities. In this case, new policies from the top somehow do not take into account the customs, institutions and forms of natural resources’ ownership that own by the indigenous people (Colchester 2007). In addition, the indigenous communities also tend to suffer, because the policies that have been imposed by the government force them to relocate, while their rights to reasonable compensation for the loss of their land as well as the loss of rights using forest resources are overlooked (Colchester 2007). The government tends to exert their power to intervene in the interaction of indigenous peoples and the forest resources either to remedy the environmental problems or to support desirable environmental projects, such as this conservation project in Malinau (Bryant & Bailey (1997). Meijaard et al (2006) has mentioned that this proposed conservation project in Malinau become part of the governments’ promises to CIFOR Indonesia in doing either researches or projects in this area.
Overall, it can be seen that this project has failed to include the indigenous communities as part of the actors in the implementation of their project. In this case, the actors which are involved are limited only to bureaucrats and experts (Sundar 2001). Besides that, the top-down implementation, that they have recommended, overlooks the problem of inequality of power between the government and the indigenous people of Malinau that has occurred, which would make the friction between the government and the indigenous communities worsen. As to what Wollenberg et al (2006) mention the rights of indigenous peoples towards the use of forest resources in Malinau are already unclear and over time the conflicts of forests boundaries and issue of rights are increased.
InstitutionsRandomly, the definition of institutions is “the act or process of instituting by establishing orders, permanent laws or policies” (Webster 2008). Meanwhile, institutions can mean a custom, which for a long time has been a feature that important to some groups or society (Wordnet 2008). These two definitions are suitable in representing the institutions, which are established by the government and those which have been held by the indigenous people of Malinau for centuries. In this case, the government of Malinau has formal institutions or formal property rights towards the forest, which is issued by the Department of Forestry, legitimised by the Indonesian Government and in principle can be defended in courts of law (Leach, Mearns, & Scoones 1999). Meanwhile, the informal or customary property right, held by the indigenous people of Malinau, is legitimised by social norms and codes of behaviour, which legitimates in the eyes of local resource claimants, but illegitimate in the eyes of the government (Leach et al 1999). Moreover, formal institutions will be upheld by the government through organisational means, such as law courts, prison, and many more; while the informal institutions upheld by mutual agreements among social actors who are involved, or it can be by relations of authority and power among them (Leach et al 1999). Before the year of 1999, the government system in Indonesia was centralistic (Meijaard et al 2006). Between 1960 and 1999, larger concessions for timber in Malinau have been organised by the central government and these activities gave small benefits to indigenous people (Wollenberg et al 2006). When decentralisation reforms were introduced in 2000 through Government Regulation no. 22/1999 and no. 25/1999, the local governments are beginning to have authorities in managing their areas, in which they also have rights to allocate the log permits and release several hectares of forest area to the prospective investors, to gain their regional revenues (Meijaard et al 2006). In Malinau, the government organised their own forest company called PT INHUTANI II, which runs the logging activities as well as the marketing of the timber (Meijaard et al 2006). The forest use or spatial plans is becoming the important tool for the government of Malinau to designate the forest to be eligible for conversion into other uses, such as the zoning or mapping which has divided the Malinau forest into two categories, production areas and protected areas (Wollenberg et al 2006). However, the indigenous communities are not always informed about the governments’ plans, thus, from this condition emerge conflict as the indigenous communities have applied their own customs and ownership as well as made their own boundaries towards the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, the indigenous communities of Malinau have divided the forest into farm land, village forest, village areas and restricted areas (where all activities within the restricted area are taboo) (Wollenberg et al 2006). The main subsistence of these indigenous peoples is by becoming farmers who practice shifting cultivation and some hunting as well as gathering, which they mainly rely on the resource from the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). The indigenous people in Malinau are also conducting activities in making herbal medicines as their main skill which they have learnt from their ancestors, and the raw materials they use for the medicines are obtained from the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). The indigenous people have two leaders to run their own institutions, a village leader and a customary leader. The village leader has the duty to deal with any kind of dialogue and discussion with the outsiders, while the customary leader tends to deal with customs, norms and activities that indigenous peoples have done so far with the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). The conflicts that have occurred between the local government of Malinau and the indigenous people are mainly because the regulations, that the government have implemented to forest boundaries as well as the use of the forest resources, have overlapped with the traditional regulations that have been implemented by the indigenous communities (Wollenberg et al 2006). There are several particular areas of the forest where the government banned the indigenous communities to do their usual activities in extracting the resources as those areas become protected areas according to the government’s regulation (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, the government does the extraction of timber in the forbidden area according to the indigenous’ beliefs (Meijaard et al 2006). The conflicts become wider when the indigenous people do not obtain any benefits of the timber extraction activities which the government did (Wollenberg et al 2006), and these conflicts become even worse when there are removals of indigenous people from their village to another area so that the government can implement their plans for forest use (Meijaard et al 2006). In addition, the government of Malinau has not given any certification of land to the indigenous people as part of their acknowledgement of rights to the indigenous’ ownership (Wollenberg et al 2006). However, the indigenous people thought that the acknowledgement of their ownership rights to the forest land by the government is very important to them (Wollenberg et al 2006). The indigenous people also thought that the forest was their common property right, which all government levels should acknowledge and the outsiders should pay an amount of money into the village fund if they want to do activities towards the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006).
Nevertheless, some of the recommendations, which are being given by CIFOR Indonesia in their conservation project, state that the government of Malinau should establish stricter regulations to reduce the threats towards forest resources, there should also be a regulation that bans the illegal logging which is by giving strict sanctions, and the government should provide more modern technology for tracking down the illegal activities in the forest (Meijaard et al 2006). It can be seen that CIFOR Indonesia fails to consider the current conflicts between the government and the indigenous people in Malinau when delivering their recommendations to the government of Malinau and how these recommendations would just make greater conflicts towards the Malinau forest. CIFOR Indonesia overlooks the fact that the regulations that they have recommended cannot work effectively, because of various factors such as the inappropriate intrusion of the government policies towards the Malinau forest which have been regulated by the indigenous people, the breakdown of traditional authority towards the forest by the government, and the commercialisation of the forest (Leach, Mearns, & Scoones 1999). In addition, by giving a recommendation of regulations to the government of Malinau, means that CIFOR Indonesia is supporting the Forest Law no.41/1999 which so far has been designed to keep the indigenous people out from the Malinau forest and free the forest for government production which remains the central motive that forest staff operates (Sundar 2001). Moreover, there is no recommendations by CIFOR Indonesia in solving and bridging the conflicts and gap between the government and indigenous people of Malinau .
Ecological context
The ecological context can be referred to as the way a particular society sees, interacts and makes contribution to the environment around them (Bryant & Bailey 1997). In this case, the government of Malinau sees the forest as one with economic assets, of which the benefits generate economic growth in Malinau, thus any activities which relate to the extraction to the forest resources need to be restricted with regulations and sanctions (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, the indigenous people of Malinau see the forest as their main resources to fulfil their daily needs and the interaction between them and the forest has been done since their ancestors (Wollenberg et al 2006). The research by Sheil et al (2006) shows that the indigenous communities use the forest to find plants that serve as foods, medicinals and craft materials. Sheil et al (2006) also mention that ancient Punan communities use a particular area of the forest as gravesites for buried their dead and considers as forbidden to enter, however this area has been converted by the government as a log site.
Referring to the conservation project by CIFOR Indonesia in Malinau, the recommendations which are being given clearly show to which ecological context of these conservationists are standing, which is at the government’s side. CIFOR Indonesia tends to support the government activities which have been done so far towards the forest along with its regulations and sanction, while ignoring the marginalisation of indigenous positions by the government in this situation. It can be seen from some of the recommendations which are being given by CIFOR Indonesia, such as the government should cut particular trees with particular diameters and in a particular direction without mentioning the thought or perception of the indigenous communities about this area of logging (Meijaard et al 2006). Although CIFOR Indonesia mentions that the logging activities should reduce the amount of impacts that have been created to the environment such as the fragmentation of the soil or the chance of destroying other vegetations that are important as the raw materials of herbal medicines for indigenous people (Meijaard et al 2006), CIFOR Indonesia does not mention at all about the need of contribution from indigenous communities that they should consider and put into the implementation of their conservation project. What CIFOR Indonesia say has been overlooked is the fact that in developing countries, the ecological context of governments towards the forest resources is always influenced by politics and economics interventions which are created by the government itself (Bryant & Bailey 1997). From a political context, the forest resources can be converted to other uses, according to the government interests or foreign interest (in which these foreign countries or companies have such large power to influence governments’ decisions towards the natural resources) (Bryant & Bailey 1997).
Meanwhile, from an economic point of view, the government views the forest as one of the economic resources that can be sold to cover the debts because of improving their country’s infrastructure or the extraction of it will generate the economic growth of their country (Bryant & Bailey 1997). Moreover, CIFOR Indonesia does not see that the ecological context of indigenous communities in Malinau is simply because their dependency towards the forest resources without any intervention of political or even economical contexts. CIFOR Indonesia should realise that recognising the ecological context of indigenous people is important for sustaining their conservation project in Malinau. Which is also viewing the environment through indigenous’ perspective or context as well as generating the conservation from what is important for the indigenous people, this conservation project not only would envisage the future forest landscape that creates a strong economy, but also continues providing the basic needs of indigenous people (Sheil et al 2006). In addition, this approach will also ameliorate the path of dialogue between the government and the indigenous communities in Malinau, which will converge the agreement about zonation, types of activities, controls and management of the Malinau forest (Sheil et al 2006).
Furthermore, CIFOR Indonesia should have also asked the indigenous communities about their desire towards the forest resources use; this means that the conservation should be built around what indigenous people find important (Sheil et al 2006). Research by Wollenberg et al (2006) shows that the indigenous communities want to be involved in any plans that the government do to the forest use as well as obtain the share of the benefits that the government of Malinau have gained from the forest products. However the agreements that the government and the indigenous people of Malinau organise should be enforced through customary sanctions, thus their position and status are being acknowledged by the government (Wollenberg et al 2006). This issue has been overlooked by CIFOR Indonesia, therefore CIFOR Indonesia should consider more to what is important locally, so that they can seek land use options which better reflect local needs and their conservation goals (Sheil et al 2006). This conservation project must seek to cope with varying interests of actors that are involved with the forest and identify the main priorities, in which later CIFOR Indonesia should try and build a consensus with the variety of user groups that are involved (Appiah 2001).
Conclusion
As the degradation of forests in the world especially in developing countries is increasing over time, many conservationists are in a race to save those remaining forests with all biodiversity in them. However, the ways the conservationists are taking to make their projects come true and, which in their point of view, successfully implemented have eliminated several important factors that should have been considered and included to the implementation of their projects. The result of this ignorance is obvious, the projects do not sustain and the friction between stakeholders which include or do not include the projects is increasing.
The conservation project in Malinau, East Kalimantan Indonesia, which is organised by CIFOR Indonesia, does not regard the indigenous communities as one of the actors who should be involved in their project. In addition, the distribution of power which CIFOR Indonesia recommends through the regulation, only focuses on the scope of bureaucrats and experts (Sundar 2001) and denied the rights and interests of the indigenous communities who are directly living in the Malinau forest (Colchester 2007). Meanwhile, CIFOR Indonesia has failed to recognise the long term conflicts between the government and the indigenous communities because of their distinctive way of instituting the forest and its resources. Instead, CIFOR Indonesia has given several recommendations of how the government should regulate the forest in which makes the conflicts even worse. Not only that, CIFOR Indonesia has also failed to recognise the different contexts of ecology which the government and the indigenous communities in Malinau have, and turn their side to the government without considering the ecological context of indigenous communities. The non-recognition of the indigenous people to become part of the project’s stakeholders, the inequality of distribution of power between bureaucrats and indigenous people that has been ignored, the conflicts because of the distinction in the way the government and the indigenous communities in Malinau institute the forest and its resources as well as their ecological context that have been neglected, will make the implementation of the conservation project unworkable. CIFOR Indonesia has neglected many important points which confirm that the conservation project that they have proposed cannot be sustained.
If CIFOR Indonesia would want this conservation project to work well and be sustained, they should consider the indigenous communities to become part of the actors or stakeholders of the project. Because by having the indigenous communities as part of their stakeholders, there would be a dialogue that exemplifies general potentials which will create more connection between the conservationists agenda and their aspirations as well as gain knowledge of the indigenous people whose their forest and resources become the target of the biodiversity conservation (Hviding, 2006). The conflicts that emerge because of the distinction in instituting the forest and the resources as well as because of the different context in ecology between the government and the indigenous communities of Malinau should have been considered as well. This is because, recognising the different views and institutions between stakeholders will help improve this forest conservation planning, in which not only addressing the bureaucrats needs but also local needs and will advance the management of Malinau forest land (Sheil et al 2006). Thus the conservation project will not be seen as another attempt by an outsider in gaining control over the forest land and the resources in it, which will lead to worse conflicts (Sheil et al 2006). In addition, the inclusion of all stakeholders means that the dialogues, which have been created during the implementation of the project, are not only recognising but also balancing indigenous needs and priorities with other demands (Sheil et al 2006). In this case, the conservation project not only creates strong local economy but also continues in providing basic needs for the indigenous people (Sheil et al 2006).
Moreover, the project should also consider the ownership and ancestral domains of the forest according to indigenous people (Colchester 2007). In which, it needs an agreement of zonation, which different activities, management and controls, between the government and indigenous communities of Malinau, and this agreement of zonation reflects the needs and a compromising between these two actors (Sheil et al 2006). There should also be an agreement in which the indigenous communities are free to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in which also includes the right in choosing their own market the forest products from their domain as well as obtaining the right of fair prices for the products (Colchester 2007). Furthermore, the conservation project should reflect a large section of indigenous society and give constructive new alliances as well as constituencies. Therefore, the conservation project in Malinau can be valued and implemented as a locally motivated process rather than just a result of external and foreign pressures. In addition, this conservation project will be seen as a project that blending the modern scientific ecology as well as the management of the ecosystem with taking the indigenous customs into account, in which recognising the indigenous knowledge and attitudes (Appiah 2001).
References:
Appiah, M., 2001, ’Co-partnership in forest management: the Gwira-Banso joint forest management project in Ghana’, Environment, Development, and Sustainability, vol. 3, pp. 343-360.
Bryant, R.L. & Bailey, S., 1997. Third World Political Ecology, Routledge, London.
Colchester, M., 2007, ‘Beyond tenure: rights-based approaches to peoples and forests’, Forest Peoples Program.
Hviding, E., 2006. Knowing and managing biodiversity in the Pacific Islands: challenges of environmentalism in Marovo Lagoon, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Malden.
Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I., 1999, ‘Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management’, World Development, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 225-247.
Mahanty, S., 2008, ‘Resource projects and indigenous peoples’, Lecture, 28 February.
Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Augeri, D., Rosenbaum, B., Iskandar, D., Setyawati, T., Lammertink, M., Rachmatika, I., Wong, A., Soehartono, T., Stanley, S., Gunawan, T., & O’Brien, T., 2006. Hutan pasca pemanenan: melindungi satwa liar dalam kegiatan hutan produksi di Kalimantan, SUBUR Printing, Jakarta.
Robbins, P., 2004. Political ecology: critical introduction to geography, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Malden.
Sheil, D., Puri, R., Wan, M., Basuki, I., van Heist, M., Liswanti, N., Rukmiyati, Rachmatika, I., & Samsoedin, I., 2006, ‘Recognising local people’s priorities for tropical forest biodiversity’, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 17-24.
Sundar, N., 2001, ‘Is devolution democratisation?’, World Development, vol. 29, no. 12, pp.2007-2023.
Webster 2008,…..
Wollenberg, E., Limberg, G., Iwan, R., Rahmawati, R., & Moeliono, M., 2006,’ Our forest, our decision: a survey of principles for local decision-making in Malinau’, viewed 15 April 2008,
< http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BWollenberg0601.pdf>
Wordnet, 2008, ‘World dictionary’, Sederet, viewed 15 April 2008,
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar