KalTim Social Forestry Project

1
KalTim Social Forestry Project

• Executing Agency The University College of the
  Cariboo
• Donor CIDA
• Participatory Evaluation January/02
• Presenters at CES Congress May 2003 Ivan G.
  Somlai Philip Cox (virtually) the CSF Team
  Prem Maharjan

2
Bruneigreen Malaysiared Indonesiablack
3
KALimantan TIMur Relief Map
4
Mahakam River Arteries
5
Extent Distribution of Logging Concessions
6
Burns
7
1956 Hotspots !
8
Fire Fighting
9
Burned Areas
Vegetation and land use classes Areaha Burnedha Burned
Open land, alang alang, bushland 368,860 292,569 79.3
Lowland Dipterocarp forest 5,379,562 2,177,880 40.5
Farmland mixed with degraded forest areas, including Forest and Estate crop plantations 2,304,263 1,725,735 75.5
Mangrove forest 1,042,127 91,729 8.8
Shrimp ponds 57,187 316 0.6
Swamp (peat swamp) forest 426,051 311,098 73.0
Wetlands 358,750 290,432 81.0
Mountainous region, mainly highland Dipterocarp forest 3,551,826 213,194 6.0
Total 13,488,626 5,102,954 37.8
10
Rolling on the River
11
CSF Headquarters
12
Environmental Links
13
What the Centre for Social Forestry Does

• Provides education and training in social
  forestry to stakeholder organizations and to
  UNMUL faculty and students (including compulsory
  undergraduate course)
• Conducts social forestry research to better
  understand the issues related to the
  sustainability of forests and their impact on
  forest communities
• Assists local communities in better managing the
  forests

14
What CSF Does

• Assists government, private companies, and other
  stakeholders in formulating policies and programs
  to promote social forestry
• Develops community-based programs for sustainable
  forest management with mutual benefits to all
  stakeholders and
• Provides information related to social forestry
  and natural resources.

15
Photogenic Orang Utan
16
Not-so Photogenic Orang
17
Investment of Time in Participatory Evaluation

• Evaluation Design
• Orientation
• Information Collection (including field visits)
• Analysis and Documentation
• Presentation and Finalization of the Report

• 6 months (20 pd)
• 2 days (25 pd)
• 11 days (70 pd)
• 3 days ( 6 pd)
• 4 days (10 pd)

18
Asian (Nepali) Perspective
19
Orientation Seminar
20
Interviews
21
Careful Packing for Our Trip
22
The E Team on the River
23
A River Pasar
24
NTFP Gender Considerations
25
Home Sweet Home
26
Focus Groups
27
Socio-Economic Research
28
Log Transport
29
Sumalindo Meeting
30
Chained to his Big Mac
31
Report Cover
32
So What?10 Propositions for Discussion

1. Evaluation Methods must be compatible with
   Project/Program Management Style and Purpose
2. 'Objectivity' in evaluations can be enhanced with
   broad stakeholder participation and the
   involvement of external evaluators
3. Participatory evaluations require careful
   preparation and orchestration
4. Results based logic models can be a very helpful
   point of reference in the evaluation inquiry
5. Participatory evaluations can build mutual
   understanding and trust between stakeholders

33
10 Propositions, Continued

• Successful participatory evaluations allow
  critical reflection only when there is an
  atmosphere of mutual trust
• Participatory evaluations can give staff the
  opportunity to a) examine their work from
  different vantage points and b) to consider
  findings/recommendations for future strategic
  planning
• Care must be taken to balance transparency (and
  the public interest) with confidentiality -
  participatory evaluation should not erode the
  strategic position of the organization/ program/
  project
• At times, there are ethical considerations with
  the participation of potentially competing groups
• Participatory evaluation practices can help the
  public to hold authorities accountable at many
  levels (local to national)

34
To Remoter Communities
35
(No Transcript)