PLANNING ASA LEARNIN GPROCES S ISBN969-8202-00- 5 ANNETI VANDE NHOE K

BEELAERTSLAAN74 6861 AZOOSTERBEEK ,TH ENETHERLAND S

PRINTEDA TIMPRINT ,ISLAMABAD-PAKISTAN . PLANNING ASA LEARNING PROCESS

A strategy for planninglan dus eprogramme s atloca l level with specialreferenc e to theupland so fJava .

Ontvangen £8 DEC 1992 AnneV?.-C^^ö^ek BIBLIOTHEEK LANDBOUWUNlVERSlliOA

Promotoren: prof. ir. A. van Maaren hoogleraarinBoshuishoudkunde,LandbouwUniversiteitWageningen

prof. dr. ir. H.A. Luning hoogleraarin Land Resource and Urban Sciences,ITC Enschede. AyA/0X>20/r /57J

ANNETVA NDE NHOE K

PLANNING AS ALEARNIN G PROCESS

Astrateg yfo rplannin glan dus eprogramme s atloca l levelwit hspecia lreferenc e to theupland so fJava .

Proefschrift terverkrijgin g vand egraa dva ndocto r ind elandbouw -e n milieuwetenschappen opgeza gva nd erecto r magnificus, dr H.C.va nde rPla s inhe topenbaa rt everdedige n opvrijda g 18 december 1992, desmiddag st e 13.30uu ri nd eaul a vand eLandbouwuniversitei t teWageninge n

W s**'2>H STELLINGEN l.Het plannen van duurzame landgebruikprogramma's vereist het op elkaar afstemmen van drie aspecten: het plannen van land gebruiksinterventies; het ontwikkelen van communicatieprocessen en het verbeteren van de competentie van de uitvoerende or­ ganisaties. Om deze afstemming harmonisch te laten verlopen is, gezien de complexiteit van het management hiervan, een gefaseerde strategie nodig (dit proefschrift).

2. De duurzaamheid van vele ontwikkelingsprogramma's is beperkt omdat ze vaak niet verder komen dan een eerste experimentele fase. De tweede en derde fase waarin communicatieprocessen ontwikkeld moeten worden tussen overheidsstaf en lokale bevolking en waarbij de overheidsorganisatie zich structureel zou moeten aanpassen zijn bedreigend voor de lokale overheid en vragen om steun van donororganisaties. Het door het Directoraat Generaal Internationale Samenwerking (DGIS) gevolgde beleid om projecten langdurig te ondersteunen gaat vaak voorbij aan de vraag hoe deze tijd moet worden ingevuld in die zin dat aan alle drie de fasen aandacht wordt besteed (dit proefschrift).

3. Voor de ontwikkeling van duurzame landgebruikprogramma's is het nodig een combinatie van technische en sociaal-economische interventies te plannen. Hierbij is het concrete karakter van de technische interventie vaak de motor achter sociale veranderingen in communicatieprocessen en organisaties; ze inspireren personen en organisaties om hun manier van werken te veranderen (dit proefschrift). 4. Een strategie voor planning op lokaal niveau kan niet op dit niveau alleen gerealiseerd worden; het bewerkstelligen van veranderingen in communicatieprocessen en organisatiestructuur van de overheid vereisen ingrijpen op nationaal niveau (dit proefschrift).

5. De doelstelling om via dorpsontwikkelingsplanning te komen tot een betere verdeling van middelen en inkomsten is moeilijk te realiseren, omdat de dorpselite en de betrokken sectorale diensten hun eigen belangen voorop zetten (dit proefschrift).

6. Het principe van alleenheerschappij ('kuassa tunggal') van de Indonesische overheid is in tegenspraak met de activiteiten zoals voorzien in de tweede en derde fase van deze planningsstrategie die gericht zijn op een verandering van houding t.a.v. participatie van dorpelingen in het plannen van hun eigen ontwikkelingsprogramma's (dit proefschrift). 7. Veel van de buitenlandse consultants werkzaam in Indonésie zien de moeilijkheden op het gebied van communicatie en competentie van de overheid als redenen voor het niet slagen van hun interventies. In plaats van als excuus voor mislukking te gebruiken zou dit eerder een aanleiding moeten zijn om door middel van een gefaseerde strategie daar aandacht aan te besteden.

8. Het feit dat de Javaan communiceert op basis van consensus en de Pathaan (Noord-Pakistan) door middel van conflict betekent voor het plannen van ontwikkelingsprogramma's dat in het eerste geval de kans groot is dat programma's stilzwijgend mislukken terwijl in het tweede geval het gevaar dreigt dat programma's meer conflicten oproepen dan oplossen. Gezien het belang van een dialoog in ontwikkelingsprogramma's is de samenwerking met Pathanen te verkiezen.

9. Door het gearrangeerde huwelijk in Pakistan kom je als vrouw wel makkelijk aan de man, maar er moeilijk van af, aangezien familiebelangen belangrijker worden geacht dan het persoonlijk geluk.

10. Het versterken van de autonomie van vrouwen in Noord-West Pakistan kan niet via activiteiten binnen de lopende land-en bosbouwprojecten gerealiseerd worden. Eerder zou aandacht besteed moeten worden aan scholing en werkgelegenheidsprogramma's voor vrouwen.

11. Het gezegde "boompje groot, plantertje dood" gaat niet op in de sociale bosbouw waar voornamelijk snelgroeiende boomsoorten gebruikt worden. Een actueler gezegde zou zijn "boompje groot, planter zijn brood".

Annet van den Hoek

PLANNING AS A LEARNING PROCESS A strategy for planning land use programmes at local level with special reference to the uplands of Java

WAGENINGEN, 18-12-1992 PREFACE Villageleve lplannin gha shel da lon gtim efascinatio n forme . Igues si t isth edirec tdialogu ewit hth elan dusers ,sharin gthei rview so ncurren t land use management practices and opportunities and constraints for improvement that never seem to become boring. Moreover, village development programmes are ready for direct implementation which makesresult sver ytangible . Early 1988 I stumbled my way through the first trial case on village developmentplannin gi nPagersar ivillag ei nEas tJava .Th evillag eha d a history of centrally designed government programmes, which the peoplefoun dinterestin genoug hfo rth esubsidie sinvolve dbu totherwis e didno thel pthe mmuc hi nth elon grun .Thi striggere dm ysearc hfo ra n alternativewa yfo rplannin gdevelopmen tprogramme sa tloca llevel . It was however only after implementing the second trial case, which received anenthusiasti crespons efro m villagersan dgovernmen t staff thatI full y realizedth echalleng eo fdevelopin ga strateg yfo rintegrate d villagedevelopmen tplanning . Ifollowe d afield-base d learningproces susin gth einstitutiona l frame­ work of village organizations and the government. In the meantime I studied literatureo ndifferen t planningmethod san dtechnique sfo rth e development of analternativ eplannin gmethod .I twa sonl y later, first back in Holland and then in Pakistan, that I developed a strategic (theoretical) model and linked the two together. Although it wasn't always easy, I'm happy that the research started in the village and developedint oa strategi cmode lbecaus ei ti swel li nlin ewit hth ebottom - uplearnin gproces stha ti sa tth ecor eo fth estrateg yI developed . Inretrospec ti tstrike sm etha t mysupervisor sdi dno thav ea neas ytask . Theyonl ybecam einvolve dafte rI ha dfinishe dm yfiel dresearc han dw e mostlycommunicate d 'long-distance'.Firs to f allI woul d liket othan k FreerkWiersu mfo rhi senthusiasti csuppor tan dwis eadvice . Infac th e wason eo fth efirs t withwho mI discusse dth eide ao f thisboo kove ra ortiono fsata yi nBatu .Furthermor em ysupervisor sProfesso r A. Van Klaarenan dProfesso rH.A .Lunin gofte n workedunde rtim epressur et o send their valuable comments back in time. I thank them for their commitment andsupport . Idoub twhethe rPa kPranoto ,Pa kDad ian dal lth eother sI me ti nth efiel d along thewa y appreciate that those village meetings and sketch maps would eventually lead to a book of 230 pages....T o be honest it still puzzlesm esometime stoo .Thei rwor kwa sanywa yth emos timportan t part of this study and I thank them all. I can only hope that they will somehowbenefi t from my efforts. Malang/Zeist/Saidu Sharif,Jun e199 2

IV CONTENTS PREFACE iv CONTENTS v LISTO FFIGURE S ix LISTO FTABLE S xi LISTO FBOXE S xii ABBREVIATIONS ANDGLOSSAR Y xiii ABSTRACT xvi 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Landus emanagemen t 4 1.2.1 Complexityan ddiversit yi nlan dus emanagemen t 4 1.2.2Degradatio nprocesse si nlan dus e 10 1.2.3 Governmentrespons et oproblem si nlan dus e 11 management;a nexampl efro m Java 1.3 Research objectives and scope 12 1.3.1 Researchobjective s 12 1.3.2 Scope 12 1.4 Research approach 14 1.5 Structur eo f thebook . 15

2 CONCEPTSI NPLANNIN G LANDUS EMANAGEMEN T 17 2.1Introductio n 17 2.2Plannin ga spar to fth edevelopmen tproces s 17 2.3Sustainabl elan dus emanagemen t 19 2.3.1Lan dus esystem s 19 2.3.2Propertie so f sustainablelan dus emanagemen t 21 2.4Loca lleve l 23 2.5Organization san dinstitution s 26 2.6Summar y 27

3 STRATEGICMODE L 29 3.1Introductio n 29 3.2Principle si nplannin gdevelopmen tprogramme s 30 3.2.1 Thelearnin gproces s 30 3.2.2Thre evariable st ob econsidere d 32 3.3 Strategicmode lfo rplannin gsustainabl elan dus eprogramme s 34 3.4Th eachievemen to ffi t perphas e 40 3.4.1 Fiti nth etria lphas e 40 3.4.2Fi ti nth edevelopmen tphas e 44 3.4.3Fi ti nth eexpansio n phase 53 3.5 Summary 58

4 PLANNINGMETHO D 61 4.1Introductio n 61 4.2Lan dus eplannin g methods 68 4.2.1Revie wo fFarmin g SystemsAnalysi s (FSA) 70 andLan dEvaluatio n 4.2.2Agroecosyste m Analysis(AEA ) 74 4.2.3Landscap ePlannin g 77 4.2.4Rapi dRura l Appraisal (RRA) 79 4.2.5Gende rAnalysi s 81 4.3Method sfo rprogrammin g 83 4.3.1Plannin gextensio n means 83 4.3.2Plannin gprojec t management techniques 84 4.4Propose dplannin gmetho d 87 4.5Summar y 91

5 THEENVIRONMEN TFO RPLANNIN GLAN DUS E 93 PROGRAMMES INTH EUPLAND S OFEAS TJAV A 5.1Th elan d usesystem s 93 5.1.1Genera ldat ao nlan dus ei nth eupland so fEas tJav a 94 5.1.2Historica linfluence s onpresen t landus ei nth e 95 uplandso fEas tJav a 5.1.3Lan dus eaccordin gt ozon e 96 5.1.4Factor sinfluencin g landus estrategie s 104 5.1.5Th erol eo fvillag eorganization si nth elan dus esyste m 106 5.2Th erol eo f governmental andnon -governmenta l 109 organizations(NGOs )i nlan dus edevelopmen tstrategie s 5.2.1Governmen torganizatio n 109 5.2.2 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 113 5.3Relationship sbetwee ngovernmen tan dloca lorganization s 114 5.4Interventions ;tw oexample so fgovernmen tprogramme s 116 5.4.1Th eRegreenin gprogramm e 116 5.4.2 Ruraldevelopmen tplannin g 118 5.5Analysi so f twogovernmen tprogramme s 120 5.5.1Adjustment s ofintervention st olan dus esyste m 120 5.52Communicatio nbetwee nloca lpeopl ean dorganization s 123 5.5.3Th ecompetenc eo fth eorganization st oimplemen t 126 theprogramm e interventions

vi 5.6 Summary andconclusion s 127

6 TRIALCASE SI NTH EUPLAND S OFMALAN G 129 DISTRICT,EAS TJAV A

6.1Introductio n 129 6.2Learnin gproces sthroug h four trialcase s 131 6.3Plannin gmetho d 136 6.4Tria lcas ei nth evillag eo fSumberej oII : anillustratio n 156 6.4.1Introductio n toth evillag eo f SumberejoI I 156 6.4.2Analysi san dprogramm eproposal sfo reac hke y issue 158 6.5Preliminar yresult sfro m theplanne dprogramme s 164 6.5.1Socia lforestr y project in Sumberejo Ivillag e 164 6.5.2 Soilconservatio n andproductio nintensificatio n 165 project inSumberbenin gvillag e 6.6Lesson slearne dfro m implementing trialcase s 168

7 EXPERIENCESWIT HOTHE RLAN DUS EPLANNIN G 171 STRATEGIES ONJAVA ;TH EJAV ASOCIA L FORESTRY PROGRAMME

7.1 TheJav aSocia lForestr y Programme 171 7.2 Someconstraint si nth eJav aSocia lForestr y 173 Programme;a nevaluatio n

8 THESTRATEGI CMODE LI NTH EJAVANES ECONTEX T 177 8.1 Introduction 177 8.2 Possibilitiesfo rth eapplicatio no fth estrategi cmode lo nJav a 178 8.2.1Th etria lphas e(phas eI ) 178 8.2.2Th edevelopmen t phase (phaseII ) 178 8.2.3Th eexpansio n phase(phas eIII ) 180 8.2.4 Managingth ephase d strategy 185 8.3 Constraintst oimplementin gth estrategi cmode lo nJav a 187 8.3.1Constraint si nth etria lphas e 187 8.3.2 Expectedconstraint s toimplementin g a 192 phased learningproces so nJav a

vu 9 CONCLUSIONSAN DPOLIC YRECOMMENDATION S 197

9.1 Conclusions 197 9.2 Policy recommendations for government and 199 donor organizations

10 EPILOGUE 201

REFERENCES 203

APPENDICES 219 Appendix 1:Programm e for village land use planning 219 Appendix 2:Fiel d survey forms for village land use planning 221 Appendix 3:Questionnair e for village land use planning 222 Appendix 4:Example s of monitoring forms 224

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 225 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 226 SAMENVATTING 227

vin LISTO FFIGURE S

Figure2. 1 Planneddevelopmen tproces s 18 Figure2. 2 Landus esyste m 20 Figure3. 1 Triangleo ffi t requirements 35 Figure3. 2 Planned androutin eintervention s 36 Figure3. 3 Threephase so fth estrategi cmode lan dth especifi c 37 fits tob eachieve d Figure3. 4 Degreet owhic hfit sar eachieve di nth etria lphas e 43 Figure3. 5 Degreet owhic hfit s areachieve di n the 45 developmentphas e Figure3. 6 Degreet owhic hfit s areachieve di n the 58 expansionphase . Figure4. 1 Theplac eo fdevelopmen t approachesi nth e 67 strategicmode l Figure4, 2 Funnelprincipl e 70 Figure4. 3 Exampleo fdat ainventor yan danalysi sresult s 76 Figure5. 1 Cross-sectiono fuplan d zonesi nEas tJav a 97 Figure5. 2 Government administrative structurewit h 110 funding sources Figure5. 3 Exampleo fbottom-u pprocedure sfo r ten 119 villageproposal si non e sub-district Figure6. 1 Location ofth etria lcas evillage si nEas tJav a 129 Figure6. 2 Learningproces si nimplementin gtria lcase s 130 Figure6. 3 Proposedplannin gtea m 135 Figure6. 4 Exampleo fpar to fa proble mtre ean dth e 138 formulation ofke yissue s

IX Figure6. 5 Exampleo flan dus ezone si nSumberej oI villag e 139 Figure6. 6 Historyprofil e for Sumberejo IIvillag e 140 Figure6. 7 Crosssectio no f Sumberejo IIvillag e 143 Figure6. 8 Analysisma po ffuelwoo dflows (need san dmarkets ) 145 inSumberej o Ivillag e Figure6. 9 Exampleo fdetaile danalysi si nSumberbenin gvillag e 150 Figure6.1 0 Exampleo fdetaile dprojec t design in 151 Sumberbeningvillag e Figure6.1 1 Exampleo f acost-benefi t calculation for 152 carpentryi nSumberej o IIvillag e Figure6.1 2 Villagema po f Sumberejo IIvillag e 156 Figure8. 1 Matrixstructur ea sorganizatio n structurei nth e 186 developmentphas e Figure 8.2 Comparison ofphase si nth esocia lforestr y 193 programmean dth estrateg yfo rvillag e development planning LISTO FTABLE S Table 1.1 Possiblestrategie sfo rsocia lforestr y management 9 Table3. 1 Conflicting motivation ofloca lpeopl ean d 47 organizationsfo rdevelopmen t programmes Table4. 1 Gender analysis;area so f analysisan dtool s 81 Table4. 2 Proposedplannin gsequenc eindicatin gth e 88 applied techniquesan dtool sfo reac hste p Table5. 1 Somesocioeconomi cdat afo r three 101 agroecologicalzone s Table6. 1 Activitiesfunde db yINPRE Svillag esubsidie s 137 Table6. 2 Checklistfo rdat acollectio n 141 Table6. 3 Activityprofil eo fpoo rfarmer sfro mSumberejoI I 144 Table6. 4 Exampleo f adetaile dprojec t designfor m 148-149 Table6. 5 Programmeplannin gmatri xfo rSumberej oI Ivillag e 153 Table6. 6 Off-farm employmentactivitie si nSumberej oI Ivillag e 160

XI LIST OF BOXES

Box 1.1 Exampleso fdiversit yi nth eupland so fEas tJav a 13 Box3. 1 Definitions of servicesan dtask s 33 Box4. 1 Eightdifferen t extension approaches 64-65

Box5. 1 Exampleo fpoo rtechnolog ydesig nan d 121

implementation

Box6. 1 Advantageso fusin gaeria lphotograph s 144

Box 6.2 Adescriptio no f sub-districtdevelopmen t 154 programmes Box 8.1 Governmentpolicie sfo rth e 1990/1991yea r 181 Box 8.2 Exampleo f theimpac to f strictregulation s 183 on sustainablelan dus e Box 8.3 Exampleo fprojec t supportt oimplemen t 194 the strategy

Xll ABBREVIATIONS ANDGLOSSAR Y

APBDI : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja DaerahI; ProvincialDevelopmen tFund s APBDII : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja DaerahII; DistrictDevelopmen tFund s APBN : AnggaranPembangunan Nasional; NationalDevelopmen tFund s BANGDA : (Direktorat Jenderal) Pembangunan Daerah; (Directorate General for) Regional De­ velopment BANGDES : Pengembangan Pedesaan; Rural Development Section of Local Government BAPPEDA : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah; RegionalDevelopmen t PlanningBoar d BAPPENAS : Badan Perencenaan Pembangunan Nasional; NationalDevelopmen t PlanningBoar d BIMAS : Bimbingan Massai; MassGuidanc e BPP : BalaiPenyuluhan Pertanian; Agricultural Extension Centre BRLKT : BalaiRehabilitasi Lahan dan Konservasi Tanah; Centre for Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation Bupati : DistrictHea d Camat : Sub-districtHea d Desa : Village,administrativ euni tconsistin go f severalhamlet s (dukuhs) DIP : DafterIsian Proyek; Listo fApprove d Projects DIPERTA : DinasPertanian Tanaman Pangan; Servicefo r FoodCrop s DISBUN : DinasPerkebunan; Servicefo r Estate (perennial)Crop s DISNAK : DinasPertenakan; Servicefo r AnimalHusbandr y DUP : Daftar Usulan Proyek; Listo fProjec t Proposals

XUl FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GotongRoyong Self-help, based on theprincipl e of reciprocity GOI Government of Indonesia; INPRES Instruksi President; Indicating funds and schemes which have been established by presidential instruction IPEDA Iuran Pendapatan Daerah; District Tax Kabupaten District, sub-unit of aprovince , headed by a Bupati Kecamatan Sub-district, sub-unit of a kabupaten, headed by a Camat Kecamatan Rowan Marginal sub-districts (funds) Kecamatan Terpadu: Integrated sub-districts (funds) KEPAS KelompokPenelitian Agro-ekosistem; Research Group for Agroecosystems KPD KaderPembangunan Desa; Village representatives responsible for development activities Kuasa Tunggal Principle of sole authority LESMAS Lesti danMalang Selata;n Lesti Watershed and South Malang Area LKMD Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa; Village Organization for Community Development LMD Lembaga Musyawarah Desa; Institution for Village Consultation LSD Lembaga Sosial Desa; Village Social Institution Musyawarah Consultations leading to consensus NGO Non Governmental Organization Pamong desa Village Administration Perum Perhutani Perusahaan Umwn Perhutani; State Forest Corporation (SFC) PKK Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga; Women Organization for Education for Family Welfare PLP Petugas Lapangan Penghijauan; Extension worker of BRLKT PMP Petugas Madya Pertanian; Coordinatory of Extension Workers

XIV PPL : PetugasPenyuluh Lapangan; Agricultural Extension Officer PPUP : Pertanian UnitProgram; Coordinatoro fAgricultura l Extension Work RAKORBANG : RapatKoordinasi Pembangunan; Development Coordination Meeting REPEUTA : RencanaPembangunan Lima Tahun; FiveYea rDevelopmen tPla n RRA : RapidRura lAppraisa l RT : RukunTetangga; Neighbourhood Organizations RTL : RencanaTeknik Lapangan; SemiDetaile dWatershe dPla n Swadaya : Self-help; usuallyrefer s toeffort s that areno tgovernmen tsponsored ,als o traditional stateo fvillag edevelopmen t Swakarya : Transitional stateo fvillag edevelop ­ ment Swasembada : Developed stateo fvillage s TanahBengkok : Villagelan daccrue dt ovillag e officials TingkatI : Provincialleve l Tingkatll Districtleve l UDKP : DaerahKerj a Pembangunan; RegionalWorkin gUni tfo rDevelop ­ ment USAID : United StatesAgenc yfo r International Development.

XV ABSTRACT

Introduction The challenge for land usemanagemen t in the nineties is to initiatea people-centered development process which creates opportunities for local people to make their own choices about which development strategyt ofollow . Thisnee di sfel ti nparticula rfo r uplandarea swher e government initiated blue-printprogramme s for land usemanagemen t havea recor do ffailure .Th emajo rreaso ni stha tthes eprogramme sar e often not adjusted to cope with the complexity and diversity of the uplands.Lan dus emanagemen tencompasse sbot hshort-ter man dlong - termbenefit san di sconfronte d withrapi dchanges .Th edifferin g roleo f private,stat ean dcommuna lland si ncombinatio nwit ha comple xsyste m ofcontro lan dutilizatio n makeslan dus emanagemen tdifficul t to fully understand. Thisstud yrespond swit hth edevelopmen to fa nalternativ e strategyfo rplannin gsustainabl elan dus eprogramme sa tloca lleve lan d hasth efollowin g objectives: to develop a strategic model for people-centered planning of sustainable landus eprogrammes ; todevelo pa flexibl eplannin gmetho dtha tca nserv ea slan dus e managementtoo la tloca llevel ; totes tth efeasibilit y ofth estrateg yfo rth eupland so fEas tJava , Indonesia. Strategic model Thetw omajo r principles ofth estrategi c modelare : Programmes are planned and implemented through a learning process in a local and organizational dimension. The local dimension includesa learnin gproces so f planning,implement ­ ing and monitoring of small scale programmes. The planning processi sshort ,bu tplanne dintervention sar eregularl y adjusted based on new insights and changing conditions. In theorgani ­ zationaldimensio n thelearnin gproces sproceed sthroug hthre e different phases of trial, development and expansion. In this dimension,th egovernmen tca nlear nho wt omanag eth estrateg y ofimplementin gloca lleve lplannin gan dho wt ochang eattitudes , normsan dorganizationa lcompetenc eo forganization si norde r tod o so.Thi sdimensio n embraces local,regiona l andnationa l governments. Three major variables have to be considered in programme planning: land use system; interventions and organizations. Sustainablelan dus eprogramme sar eonl ypossibl ei fa goo dfi t between thesevariable si sachieved . Inth estrategi cmode lthes etw oprinciple s arecombined ; afi t between

xvi thevariable si sachieve d through alearnin gprocess .Becaus e achieving a fit between the three variables is a complicated matter, it requires a phased approach which consists of the following three steps: a trial phase, adevelopmen t phase and anexpansio n phase.I n the trial phase, thefocu si so nachievin ga fit betwee n interventionsan dlan dus esyste m in theloca l dimension. This is achieved through theimplementatio n of trial cases in local level planning in which villagers, field workers of organizationsan dloca lleader sbecom eacquainte dwit hthi sne wapproac h of planning sustainable land use programmes at a local level. In the development phase, attention is focused on achieving a fit between organizations and landus esystem .Throug h thedevelopmen t of human resources and extension processes the skills and attitudes of those involvedma y gradually changet obecom emor epeople-oriented . In the expansionphas eth efocu si so nachievin ga fit betwee nintervention san d organization.I nthi sphas eth eplannin gapproac hi saccepte dan dapplie d at a national level. Changes in government structures and procedures, sucha sdecentralizatio n andstrengthenin go floca lleadershi pnee dt ob e achieved. By dividing the process into phases, the complex problems associated with planning sustainable landus ebecom emanageable , and stepb yste pth eultimat egoa lo fachievin ga fi tbetwee nal lthre evariable s can be reached. Planning method Inorde rt oreac ha noptima lfit betwee nth ethre evariable so fth estrategi c model inth e trialphase ,a plannin g method should beapplie d tocollec t and analyse data that can be transformed into the design of effective programmes. No 'off-the-peg' planning method is available, instead a combination ofexistin g approaches,method san dtechnique si sneeded . Threedevelopmen tapproache sca nb edistinguishe dt othi send :plannin g oflan dus edevelopment ;extensio napproache san dprojec t management approaches.Generall yspeaking ,eac happroac hcover sa differen t sideo f the strategic model. Land use development focuses on achieving a fit between interventions and land use system; extension processes can be used in achieving afi t between land use system and organizations; and the fit between interventions and organizations can be accomplished with the help of project management techniques. Forplannin glan dus edevelopmen t inth etria lphas ea numbe ro fcurren t methods and techniques are discussed. These are Farming System Analysis,Lan d Evaluation, Agroecosystem Analysis,Landscap e Plan­ ning,Rapi dRura lAppraisa lan dGende rAnalysis .Th ecriteri ase tb yth e strategic model determine which aspects of these present planning methodsan dtechnique sar eusefu lfo rth edevelopmen to fa ne wplannin g method. None of these methods and techniques as such are ideal as an operationalplannin gmetho dfo rrealizing th efirs t phaseo f the strategic

xvii model.A synthesi so f all useful features intoa ne w land useplannin g method isproposed . Forth etria lphas eth efocu si so nplannin glan dus edevelopmen twhil e opportunities to develop extension processes and to influence project managementar elimited .Therefor eplan sshoul dbasicall yb etailore dt o theexistin gcompetenc eo forganizations .Withi nthes elimitation ssom e attentionca nb epai dt oextensio nprocesse san dmanagemen ttechnique s byintroducin ga nadditiona l stept olan dus eplanning ,calle dprogram ­ mingwhic hinclude sth epreparatio no fa detaile ddesig nan da programm e planningmatrix . Planningenvironment on Java Theenvironmen tfo rth eplannin go flan dus edevelopmen tprogramme s isdivers ean dcomple xi nth eupland so fEas tJava . Farmersreac tt oth e widediversit y inth elan d usesyste mb ydevelopin g alarg enumbe ro f different landus estrategies .B ycontrast ,governmen torganization sus e standardizedprogramme swit hunifor man dmostl yinflexibl eprocedure s for planning and implementation. Village development planningpro ­ cedures exist, but do not yet function properly. Local organizations responsible for village development planning do not yet possess the skills and capability to develop such plans, and centrally organized sectoralagencie sstil ldominat ethi s 'bottom-up' planningprocess .Th e dominanceo f thecentra lgovernmen tca nb eexplaine db yth eincorpo ­ rationo fa numbe ro fsocio-cultura lfeature s inthei rpolicy ,suc ha sth e principleso f'sol eauthority' ,consensus ,an dharmony .Th egovernmen t usesthes eprinciple st oencapsulat eautonomou s localorganization si n the government administration, orienting the local leaders more to governmentrule san dprocedure stha nt oth eneed so fth eloca lpopula ­ tion.

This orientation towards government administration has two major implications for the current planning of interventions. Firstly, the in­ terventions areadjuste d toth ecompetenc e of implementing organiza­ tionsrathe rtha n letting theorganization s develop theircompetenc et o implement the tasks of locally planned interventions. Secondly little moretha nlip-servic ei spai dt oth eparticipatio no fvillager si nplanning . Notwithstandingthes eshortcoming si nth epresen tvillag edevelopmen t planning process, official government policy has some room for im­ provement.Thi sma yallo wfo r amor ebalance dplannin gproces sne w approach. Secondly,constraint swhic hca nb eexpecte dwhil eapplyin gth emode l onJav aar edescribed . Thefeasibilit y ofth etria lphas eo fth estrateg yi s evaluated based on experiences with implementing the trial cases on xviii Java.I nthi sevaluatio nth equestio ni sraise da st owha texten tth eresult s ofloca lleve lplannin go nJav aca nrespon dt oth eresearc hobjective sa s formulated atth estar to fthi sstudy .N oexperienc eha sbee ngaine da sye t withimplementin gth edevelopmen tan dexpansio nphase .On eprogramm e that provides some valuable lessons for the feasibility of the phased learning process of the strategic model is the Java Social Forestry Programme(JSFP) .Thi sprogramm eha sfollowe da comparabl ephasin g strategy and hasalread yreache d theexpansio nphase . Conclusions andpolicy recommendations Thisevaluatio n resultsi n anumbe ro fconclusion so ncondition s tob e fulfilled for successful implementation ofth estrategy .T osu mup : although the strategy is aimed at the local level, it cannot be realizeda tloca lleve lonl ya si trequire sinvolvemen to fregiona l and national government organizations to deal with changing communication processesan dorganizationa l structure; objectives in villagedevelopmen t planning should be setreal ­ istically in the knowledge that short term results will always dominate long term benefits, tangible results will get higher priority than social changes, while top-down influences from sectoral agencieswil lprevail ; in addressing the organizational dimension achoic e should be made between following an approach of 'decentralized trial cases' versus 'centrally guided bottom-upprocess' .Whicheve r strategyi schose ni tneed scarefu lmanagemen tt oavoi ddifficultie s ininstitutionalizatio n ora to orapi dexpansio n respectively; iti snecessar y for thegovernmen t tob e shownbette rresult si n termso f sustainablelan dus edevelopmen tprogramme sa tloca l levelimplemente db yhighl ycommitte dvillagers .Onl ythe nma y theyb emotivate dt oaccep tsuc ha participator y approacha tth e costo f losingsom epowe ro rconsensus ; implementing a participatory planning process is an initially slowprocess ,t owhic hgovernmen tagencie snee dt ob ecommitted . Thesecondition sar etranslate dint oa numbe ro fpolic yrecommendation sfo r donoragencie san dgovernment spertainin g to:long-ter man dcontinuou s commitment;developmen to fth emanagemen tcapacit yan dmotivatio no f peopleinvolved ;an dstrengthenin gth ecompetenc eo fa governmen torga ­ nizationfo rresponsiv egovernance . Experiencesi nJav ahav eillustrate dth eimportanc eo fcongruenc ebetwee n thedesig n of land useinterventions ; thedevelopmen t of communication processesan dth edevelopmen to forganizationa lcompetence .Th e whole rangeo factor sinvolve dwh ostriv efo rsustainabl elan dus e- fro mvillager s toprogramm emanager s- wil lhav et ocontribut et oachievin gthi sfit .The y willonl yb eabl es owhe nthe yvie wPLANNIN GA SA LEARNIN GPROCESS .

xix INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Forth elas tthre edecade sgovernmenta lan dnon-governmenta lagencie s in the Third World have tried to tackle the problems of increasing productionneeds ,povert yan denvironmenta ldegradatio n witha rang e ofdifferen t development strategies.Th eproduction-centere d approach ofth esixtie swa sgraduall yreplace db yrura ldevelopmen t strategiesi n the seventies. However the disappointing results obtained in poverty alleviation,equitabl edistributio no fbenefit san dth esustainabilit yo fth e programmes led to an awareness of the need for anew , morepeople - centered development approach. The latter gained increasing support from development agenciesi nth eeighties ,bu tha sno tye tbee nwidel y implemented. The challenge for the nineties is to put the policies of human developmentint opractice . Theconventiona ltool so fproduction-centere ddevelopment ,whos eus e startedi nth esixties ,aime dt odevelo presource sthroug hth eapplicatio n ofadvance dtechnologies .Governmenta lan dnon-governmenta ldevel ­ opment agencies primarily addressed farmers as agents of economic productionan dstimulate dthe mt oincreas eoutput si norde rt osatisf yth e growingdeman dfo rfoo dan dcas hcrops .Howeve rthi spolic ycreate da biastoward scapita l andenerg yintensiv einvestments ,withou tprovid ­ ing any prospect of meeting the basic needs of all sections of rapidly expanding populations. Although many third world countries were achievingcredibl eadvance si noveral leconomi coutput ,thei rrecor di n alleviation of poverty and inequality was poor (Korten and Alfonso, 1983). Inreactio nt othi ssituatio n multi-objective ruraldevelopmen t projects were initiated from the early 1970'sonwards .Th emajo r aimo f these projectswa st osatisf y thebasi cneed so fth erura lpopulation . Buti nth e rusht oge tdevelopmen t benefitsdirectl yt oth epoor ,bot hth eadminis ­ trative and institutional dimensions of development were, for atime , neglected.Bureaucrati cstructure sha dlittl ecapacit yt orespon dt oloca l diversity,elici tmeaningfu lparticipatio no rrespon dt ofeedbac kfro mth e

1 localpeopl einvolve d(Korten ,1984 ;Uphoff , 1986).I nthi spaternalisti c approach to development people were considered to be a 'problem': unablet oimprov ethei rlives ,the yha dt ob ehelpe db yapplyin gresource s and technologies in a top-down bureaucratic manner. Decisions were madeb yexpert sfa r removed from people and theirneeds ,an dimple ­ mented through structures intended to be more responsive to central directiontha nt oloca lrealit y(Korte nan dAlfonso ,1983) .A sa resul tth e imposedprogramme swer eno tsustainable ,sinc eactivitie scoul dno tb e maintainedo rcontinue db yth eso-calle dbeneficiarie s themselves. Both production-centered and rural development programmes have oftenbee nimplemente dvi aa blue-prin tapproach ,whic hseverel ylimit s their effectiveness. This type of approach emphasizes 'careful pre­ planning for which researchers provide data from pilot projects and surveyswhic hallo wth eplanner st omak ea projec tdesig nfo rachievin g a given development outcome and reduce it to ablue-prin t for imple­ mentation' (Korten, 1980). In such a process, staff members of the implementing organization are supposed to execute the project plan accordingt othi spre-determine dse to fguidelines .Thi sfor mo fallocativ e centralized planningi stypicall y adapted toth erequirement s andpref ­ erences of bureaucratic state organizations (Friedmann, 1984) and resultsi nth efollowin glimitation st oeffectiv e programmeperformanc e (Bunch, 1982;Chambers , 1983;Korten , 1983;Korten ,1984) : Pressureso nagencie st ospen dto omuc hmone y tooquickl yi n time-bound,pre-planne dproject si npursui to fshort-ter mresults ; Pressurefo r immediateresult smeasure db ygood san dservice s delivered; Limited reach of programmes. Often the government is able neithert oprovid eth enumber so fstaf fan dfacilitie srequired ,no r toensur ethei r effective supervision. Forexample ,extensio n and training have usually been considered outlets for the knowledgedevelope di nresearc h stationso rfo rpolicie sdevel ­ oped atnationa l level,an dfarme r groupsar emainl yorganize d forth ebenefi t of theextensio nworkers ; Inability tosustai n necessary localleve laction .Developmen t projectsproduc ene wfacilitie softe n without adequateprovisio n for theiroperatio n andmaintenanc eb y beneficiaries; Limited adaptability.Th eactua lneed so fth ebeneficiarie s differ betweencommunit yan dcentra lplanner shav ea limite d capacity to respond tothi sloca ldiversity .The yexpec tbeneficiarie s to tailorthei rneed st owha tth eagenc yfind s convenientt o offer. Creation of dependency.Governmen t programmes seek toim ­ prove the fate of the poor through doing for them what they previouslydi dfo r themselves,wit hth egovernmen tmakin gth e decisionsan dprovidin gth eresource sb ysubsidizin gagricultura l andrelate dactivities . Theinadequac yo fthi sblue-prin tdevelopmen tapproac hi nrespondin g to a changing and diverse environment, beset by complex problems, becamemanifes ti nth e1980's .Experienc eshowe dthatpovert yalleviatio n anddesire d changesi nsocia l structurescoul dno t beachieve dthroug h thecentra ltechnocrati callocatio no fresource san dtha tthe yrequire da different approach.T oachiev eth edesire dimprovement si nhuma nwell - being development would need to become people-centered. This ap­ proachcalle dfo rth ecreatio no fpeople' sinitiative san dwa st ob ebase d on the social, physical and economic resources under their control (Bunch, 1982;Korten , 1984). Ackoff (1984)define sdevelopmen ta sa produc to flearnin gho wt ous e oneselfan done' senvironmen tt obette rmee tone' sow nneed san dthos e of others. In this context therefore, a government cannot develop a country,i tca nonl yassis tth einhabitant so fth ecountr yt od oso .Edward s (1989) supports this statement: 'No country in the world has ever developed itself through projects. Development results from a long processo fexperimen tan dinnovatio nthroug hwhic hpeopl ebuil du pth e skills,knowledg ean dself-confidenc e necessaryt oshap ethei renviron ­ ment in ways which foster progress toward goals such as economic growth,equit yi nincom edistributio n and political freedom'. Butalthoug h thisne wawarenes si swidel yexpresse d indevelopment - related literature itha sno tye tbee nreflecte d toan ygrea texten t inth e practices of rural development programmes. Governments have not possessed the organizational structure, attitude or managerial and ad­ ministrativecapacit yt obrin gabou tsuc hchanges ,whil eth ecapacitie so f privateo rnon -governmenta lorganization shav ebee nlimited . Thusth echalleng efo rth eninetie si st orealiz ea developmen tproces sof , foran db yth epeople . Sucha developmen tproces smus tcreat eopportu ­ nities for people in deciding their own destiny and making theirow n choices(DGIS , 1991). Theirparticipatio nwil lmea ntha tthe yar egive n theopportunit yan dar estimulate dt od omuc hmor etha nprovidin gthei r labour,ra wmaterial san dtim ei ndevelopmen tprojects ;rathe rthe ywil l takea nactiv erol ei nth eproces so fdecision-makin gregardin gdevelop ­ menteffort s andth eallocatio no fdevelopmen tresource swhic henhanc e their well-being in terms of income, self-reliance, security or self- esteem,o rothe rvalue s which theycheris h (Paul, 1987;White ,1989) . Sucha developmen tproces srequire sgoo dgovernanc ewit ha fundamenta l changei nth eattitude ,structur ean dprocedure so fnationa lgovernments , as well as skilled and motivated civil servants. Non-governmental organizations can supportthi schange . 1.2 Landus emanagemen t Theapplicatio no fthi s'people-centered ' developmentstrateg yfo rlan d usemanagemen tconstitute sa challengin gan dcomplicate dtask .On eo f the reasons is that land use management involves different actors, varyingfro mindividua llan dusers ,loca lorganization st oth egovernmen t eachhavin gthei row neconomic ,political ,cultura lan dtechnica lreason s for managing the land. Whereas an elaborate definition of land use management will be given in chapter 2, the following sections will illustratejus tho wcomplicate d theissu ei sthroug h adescriptio n of: complexityan ddiversit yi nlan dus emanagemen t(1.2.1) ; degradation processesi nlan dus e(1.2.2) ; government responses to problems in land use management (1.2.3). 12.1 Complexity anddiversity inland use management Land use management is both complicated and diverse, because it involvesa wid ediversit yi nlan dus econdition sa swel la si nth enatur e ofusers .Thi swil lb eillustrate db yth efollowin gfou rdimension so flan d usemanagement : time; shortan dlong-ter mbenefits ; dynamicchange s space;loca lan dremot e property;private ,state ,a swel la scommuna lland s organization andmanagement ; intra-household,househol dan d supra-household level;rol eo f landusers . Time Landus emanagemen tshoul dinclud ebot hshor tter mbenefit sa swel la s longter mconservatio nneeds .I ti sdirecte d atbot hpresen tproductivit y aswel la sconservatio n ofvita lresource san dwil lfocu s ontw oset s of landus eactivitie s (Wiersum, 1991): the utilization and management of (agricultural) production processes (orindirec texploitatio n ofnatura lresources) ,an d the(direct )exploitatio n andmanagemen to f naturalresource s Naturalresource s (sucha ssoil ,water ,vegetatio n andfauna ) areo nth e onehan dimportan t inputs toagricultura l production processes,bu to n theothe rhand ,natura lresource slik etrees ,plant san danimal sar eals o directly exploited and used for subsistence use or sale. Thus natural resourcesar euse dfo rshort-ter mdirec tbenefit s(exploitation )a swel la s forlon gter m(agricultural )productio nneeds . Althoughthes elon gter m benefits areofte n forgotten, orno twithi n thescop ean dpossibilitie so f thesmal llandholders ,the yar ecrucia lfo rsustainabl elan dus emanagemen t (Wiersum, 1991). Another aspect of the temporal dimension is that natural resource managementrequire sa lon gter mperspective .Fo rfores tmanagemen ti t will take, depending on the required species and end-use, anywhere between3 an d5 0year sbefor eth etree sca nb eutilized .Thi simplie stha t itwil lb ea lon gtim ebefor epeopl ese ebenefit san dar ewillin gt ocommi t their time and effort. While agricultural products may yield within a period of a few months and thus present large possibilities for an experimental trial anderro rproces sb yfarmers , forestry requiresmor e thoroughplannin go fth edesire dspecies ,plantin gtechnique san dfores t management. Landus ei ssubjec tt odynami cchanges .Th edynami cnatur ei sth eresul t ofinterrelate dfactors ,suc ha sdemographi cchange s(populatio ngrowt h andmigration) ;incorporatio no fformerl yisolate d areasi nth enationa l economy,privatizatio no ffarmin g systemso rinstitutiona lchange slik e new land tenure arrangements, neworganizations ,change s inhuma n aspirationetc .(Maxwell ,1984 ; Pelusoetal. 1990). Thesechange shav e influencedlan dus emanagemen ti ntw oway s(Mo lan dWiersum ,1990) . Onereactio n ist oadjus t practicesan dchang eregulation sfo rmanage ­ ment control and in the secondreaction , where users were notabl et o adjust, a break-down of land use management systems takes place. Adjustmentsoccu rgraduall yi nrespons et osocial ,politica lan deconomi c pressure. For example farmers adjust their land use system to the availability of external production inputs as well as the increased marketing opportunities resulting from improved accessibility andin ­ creased demands.Bu tals oi ncas eo f governmentcontro l onlan d(lik e state forest land) adjustments are made by local users in the form of developinginforma lmanagemen tsystems ,lik eth ecollectio no ffue lwood , fodder,o rothe rside-products .Example so fbreak-dow noccu rwhe nth e traditionalcommuna lmanagemen tsystem sar eprivatize do rtransferre d toopen-acces s ("free-for-all") utilizationsystems . Space Landus emanagemen t alsoha sa spatia ldimension .Lan dus epractice s onon elocatio n mayhav econsequence sfo r otherarea sdownstrea mo r downhill.Fo rexample ,erosio ni nth eupland sma ylea dt orive rflooding s orsedimentatio ni nth elowlands .Thu sth equestio narise so fdistributio n of costs and benefits of land usemanagement . Dothos e whobea rth e costsals oaccru e thebenefits ? Forexampl euplan dfarmer s whoinves t their labour in soilconservatio n orreforestatio n dono t always seeth e directbenefit so fimprove dproduction .Thi simplie stha tuplan dfarmer s maynee dsuppor ti nlan dus emanagemen ts otha tdownstrea minterest s aretake nint oaccount . Property Land use takes place on private, state and communal lands. While permanent field cropping of food and cash crops is often practiced on privatelands ,variou sbasi csystem so flan dutilizatio nma yb efoun do n common property or state lands, such as hunting/gathering, shifting cultivation, forest management orpastoralism .Thre edifferen t typeso f commonproperty-right sregime sca nb edistinguishe d (Berkes,1989) : Open access;free-for-all; resource-us erights ar eneithe rexclu ­ siveno rtransferable ; theserights ar eowne di ncommo n butar e open-accesst oeveryon e(an dtherefor epropert yt on oone ) Stateproperty ;ownershi pan dmanagemen tcontro li shel db yth e nation state orcrown ;publi c resources towhic h use-rightsan d accessrights hav eofte n notbee nadhere dt ob yth eloca lpeople , asthe yhav ea differen t perception ofthes e rights Communalproperty ;use-right sfo rth eresource sar econtrolle db y anidentifiabl e groupan dar eno tindividuall yowne do rmanage d by governments; there exist rules concerning whoma y use the resource,wh oi sexclude d from usingth eresource ,an dho wth e resource shouldb eused . Thesecommo npropert yresource softe n playa complementar yrol ewit h respectt oprivatel ymanage dresource san dthu sca ncontribut et oa mor e equaldivisio no fresources .Man ycommuna lfores tarea sprovid evariou s basicinput sfre e of cost toloca l households,suc ha sfuelwood , fodder, greenmanur ean d timber,collecte dfo rsubsistenc eus eo rfo rsal eo nth e localmarkets .Thi sma yprovid eincom eopportunitie sfo rrura lpoo ran d especiallyfo r thelandless ,wh oofte n dependo nth efores t products for theirsurvival .Furthermore ,communa lpropertie sma yoffe r possibilities forcreatin gne wasset si nth erura lcommunity .Fo rexample ,th eusufruc t of government reserve land that has become degraded wasteland may provideth epotentia lfo rne wpattern so fbenefi tdistributio nan dnee dno t necessarily beallocate d according toth eol ddistributio n patterns(Mo l and Wiersum, 1990).Therefor e the useo f bothprivat e and communal land isimportan t for thesurviva l strategyo f landusers . Organizationand management A complex system of control over the management and utilization of naturalresource sma ytak eplac ea tvariou slevel so fsocia lorganizatio n (Wiersum,1990) .Thre elevel sca nb edistinguished :th eintra-household ; thehousehol d andth esupra-househol d orcommuna l level (localorga ­ nizations and government). All actors involved (male and female) are called"lan dusers" .Thi ster minvolves :thos ewh ous eth eland ,bu tar e without control over themanagemen t (e.g.tenants) ;thos ewh ous eth e landan dmanag ei t(farmers-owners ) andthos ewh omanag eth elan dbu t dono tactuall yus eth eland ,a sthe yleas ei tou to rleav ei tfo rcommuna l use(government ,bi glandowners) . At the lower than household, or intra-household level, decision and organization patternsoccu rsuc ha sa tas kdifferentiatio n amonghouse ­ hold memberso r decision-making arrangements. Ahousehol d should not be seen as a homogenous grouping of people with a common productionan dconsumptio nfunction .Member so fhousehol dd odifferen t things,hav eacces st odifferen t resourcesan dbenefit san dhav edifferen t responsibilities(Poat san dSim sFeldstein , 1990). Accesst oan dcontro l overcertai n resourceso rtask si sdivide d betweenth emal ean dfemal e members of the household or between the different age groups or generations accordingt oloca ltradition ,rules ,skill so rcapacities . At the household level the farming system is managed byth e family memberswh ofor mon ehousehold .Althoug hprivat elan di sowne dan d controlled byon efar m family, different peoplema yhav eacces st oth e land, such as farm labourers, farmers whoren t the land, or gatherers. Theselan duser s(individual so rhousehold )ar ei nth ebes tpositio n(b y virtueo findigenou sknowledg ean dresidence )t omaximiz esustainabl e productivityo fth enatura lresources .The yar edecisio nmaker swho ,o n thebasi so fthei rneed san dcapacities ,choos ecertai nlan dus eactivities . Theirlan dus estrateg yi smainl ydetermine db ythei rproductio nassets , sucha scapital ,labou ran dacces st oland . Thesurviva lstrateg yo fa farme ri sno trestricte dt ohi shousehol dlevel ; communal physical and social resources alsodetermin e hisdecisions . Effective supra-household cooperationca nope n upa broa dne wrang e oftechnologie s(includin gthos ewhic hrequir ejoin tcontro lo rar escal e dependent), as well as facilitate their adoption (Grandin, 1986). For example, certain types of production systems on communal or state- ownedland ,requir eth eanalysi so fth eus ean dmanagemen to fal lnatura l resourcest owhic hfar mhousehol dhav eaccess ,suc ha scommo ngrazin g landso rforests .Bu tals oth ecommo nus eo fpath san driversides, whic h areofte n heavilyerode d becauseo f intensiveus eb ycattl ean dpeople , require acommuna l approach (Rocheleau and Van den Hoek, 1984). Other communal problems such aspes tcontro l orerosio n call for the involvemento fgroup so fpeopl eo rloca lorganizations .Onl yb yhavin g acommunit yprofil eca nth elikel yeffect s ofa ninterventio no nbot hth e 'target' groupan dothe rmember so fth ecommunit y bepredicted .Thi s demands information at the supra-household level concerning social structures, local organizations and intra-community heterogeneity by wealth,educatio n andethni cgroups . Inorde rt ogai nbette racces so rcontro lt oresource speopl ema yorganiz e themselvesi nloca lorganizations ,wit hthei row nrule san dbudget sfo r local community control, in a form of decentralized management of resources(Korte nan dKlauss ,1984) .Thi sfrequentl y happensi nth ecas e ofcommuna lmanagement .Managemen to fthi skin dwil lonl ysuccee d when all users can be identified and when clear rules and decision­ makingarrangement sca nb epu tint opractice .However ,i ngenera l the usersar ea disparate/divers egroup ,rangin gfro mth elandles spoo rt oric h landowners, which makes the management process complicated. For example,whe n thelandles susers ,wh oar eles slikel y tojoi n organiza­ tions(suc ha slocall yelecte dbodies )d ono tparticipate ,the yca nundercu t mostmanagemen tscheme s(Uphoff , 1986).Thu scollectiv eactio nb yal l usersi scrucia l for sustainablecommo nresourc emanagement . Local(non-governmental )organization sca nfunctio n asa nintermediar y betweenth eloca lpeopl ean dth egovernment ,sinc ethes eorganization s areroote di nth ecommunit yan dfounde do nindigenou sinstitutions . On the one hand they should be able to promote local participation and developcooperativ eactivities ,whil eo nth eothe rhan dthe yshoul dhav e thecapacit yt oestablis h linkageswit hgovernmen tdepartments/bodies . Besidesth eindividua llan duser san dloca lorganizations ,a thir dcategor y ofactor si nlan dus emanagemen ti srepresente db yth egovernment .Th e involvemento fth egovernmen ti nlan dus emanagemen ti softe nnecessar y toresolv e conflicts between different groupso f users.Wit h respect to regulatingth espatia ldimensio no fup-strea man ddown-strea mimpact s and thetempora l dimension of direct needsan d long termbenefit s the governmentma ypla ya nessentia lrol ei nlan dus emanagement .Th eus e ofexistin ggovernmen tstructures ,rule san dprocedure sma yprovid eth e necessarylinkage sbetwee nlan dus emanagemen ta tlocal ,regional ,an d nationallevel .Suc hlinkage st ohighe rlevel sar enecessar yt o safeguard nationalinterest so fproductio n andconservation .Thes enationa linter ­ estscompris ecommo nbenefits ,suc ha sth edevelopmen to fth enationa l economy, for instance through the export of agricultural products,o r watershedmanagemen tt osecur esustainabl eus eo finfrastructura l works sucha sdam san dirrigatio ncanal si nth elowlands .Accordin gt oUphof f (1986):'nationa linstitution smus tcertainl ytak esom einitiative si nsoi l conservationefforts , ifonl yt ocompensat ethos ewh omus tbea rpresen t costsfo r thesak eo f beneficiaries indownhill-downstrea m areaso rfo r future generations'.Th egovernmen tma yals opla ya rol ei ncontrollin g andmanagin gcommuna llands .Throug hth esuppor to floca lgovernments , sucha slocall yelecte dbodie sa tvillag elevel ,regulation san dincentive s mayb eimprove d andconflict s resolved. Tosummarize ,lan dus emanagemen tconcern sshort-ter man dlong-ter m benefitsan di sconfronte dwit hdynami cchange st owhic hi tha st oadjus t Landus emanagemen ti sno tonl yo floca lconcer nbu tals oaffect s more

8 remote,down-strea m or down-hill areas.Th e varying role of private, state andcommuna l lands inth e survival strategieso f localpeople ,i n combinationwit hth ecomple xsystem so fcontro lan dutilization ,make s landus emanagemen tdifficul t tofull y comprehend.Th eactor si nthes e managementsystem sca nb edivide dint othre edifferen t categories: the locallan duser s (individualso rhouseholds) ;loca l (non-governmental) organizationsan dth egovernment .Th ecombinatio no fth ethre e differ­ entlan dtenur econdition san dthre ecategorie so flan duser smake slan d use management acomplicate d activity.Th emanagemen t of treean d landresource sma ybelon gt oeithe rcommunit yo rcollectiv egroups ,t o private households or persons,o r to the public sector. Furthermore, controlan dresponsibilit yfo rmanagin gthes eresource sd ono tnecessar ­ ilycoincide .Th estat ema ycontro lth emanagemen to ffores tland ,whil e the local forest farmers are directly responsible for tree planting and maintenance activities. Table 1.1 gives an example of the different strategies for (social) forestry management, which are based oncom ­ binationso f land tenureconditio n andmanagemen tresponsibility .

Table1. 1 Possible strategies for social forestry management (basedo nFAO , 1985)

Individual land Local organizations Government usersa t atcommuna lleve l organiza Tenure householdleve l tionsa t stateleve l

Household I IV vn

Communal n V Vffl

State m VI IX

I : Privatelymanage d tree-farming andtree-plantin g aroundhousehold s II :Privatel ymanage d tree-growing oncommuna lo rcommunit y land m :Publi c landallocatio nfo rprivat e tree-growing IV :Communa l tree-growingo nprivat eland s V :Communa l tree-growing oncommunit y lands VI :Publi c landallocate d for communal andcommunity-base d forestry VU :Stat e supportfo r farm forestry programs Vul :Stat esuppor tfo r communal tree-growing oncommunit y lands IX :Stat efores tmanagemen tb yfores t department 1.2.2 Degradationprocesses inland use Land use management in rural areaso f most tropical countries hast o contend with serious degradation processes. Under the influence of dynamicchanges ,suc ha spopulatio n growth,pressur et oproduc ecas h cropsan dgovernmenta lclaim so nth eus eo fnatura lresources ,lan duser s aren olonge rabl et oadjus t theirpractice so rchang ethei rregulation si n asustainabl emanner .Thu sman yformerl ywell-adjuste d andecologica l sustainableindigenou smanagemen tsystem sar ebreakin gdown ,result ­ ingi nover-exploitatio nan decologica ldegradatio n(Gibb san dBromley , 1986;Blaikie , 1985;Donner , 1987;Palte ,1990) . Degradation is caused as much by bio-physical as by socioeconomic influences. Forexample ,soi lerosio ni sonl ya physica lphenomen a as longa si ti sno trecognize da sa problem ,o ra slon ga sn oactio ni stake n by the land users.Whe n they take action (for example in the form of shiftingcultivatio no rterrac econstruction )soi lerosio nbecome sa socia l issue,becaus e these changes cause new socialrelationships ,rule san d conflicts of interest to emerge between different land users in the community.Thes econflict s mayb eexacerbate d bygovernmen t inter­ ventions such asextensiv e soil conservation programmes that include attractivesubsidie sfo rspecifi clan duse rgroups .Lan dus eintervention s can then become political-economic issues, which may involve land tenuresystems ,o rrearrangement si npricin gstructure s(Blaikie ,1985) .

Socioeconomiccondition shav ea direc teffec t onth edegradatio no fth e bio-physicalenvironment .Fo rexample ,poor ,smal lan dlandles sfarmers , to a much greater extent than rich farmers, are dependent on their immediateenvironmenta lsettin gfo rthei rlivelihoods .Limite dacces st o land,labou ran dcapita lforce sthe mt oextrac tth ehighes tpossibl eshor t termeconomi cbenefit swit hth elowes tpossibl einputs .Thi si sachieve d by over-exploiting sources of fuel, fodder and wood and intensifying agriculturepractices ,resultin gi nth edepletio n ofnatura lresource san d destruction of theenvironment . Chambers (1985) writes: Their herds overgraze, their shortening fallows on steep slopes and fragile soils induceerosion ,thei rnee dfo roff - seasonincome sdrive sthe mt ocu tan d sell firewood and they are forced to cultivate and degrade marginal lands.' The dependence of the poor increases yet more due to an expandingpopulatio nlivin go nlimite dan dalread yintensivel ycultivate d agriculturalland .T oconclude ,thei rlan dus epolic yi slimite d toshort - termbenefits ,whil eth econsequence sfo rremote ,downstrea marea so r future generationsexten dbeyon dthei rvision .Thu sth eidentificatio no f socioeconomic conditions of the poor and landless land users that determinethei rlan dus estrateg yi so fmajo rimportanc ei ndealin gwit h landresource sdegradatio n processes (Barbier, 1988,Korten , 1983).

10 12.3 Governmentresponse toproblems in landuse manage ment;an example from Java Theprogramme sinitiate db ygovernment st orespon dt othes eproblem s areofte ndesigne di nth efor mo fstandar ddevelopmen tpackage sfo rth e wholecountry ,implemente d accordingt ocentra lprocedure san drules . Sincei nman ycountrie sth eprivat esecto ri slimite di nit scapacit yt orais e theresource s andi softe n regarded asa ninappropriat einstrument ,th e stateha sactivel yintervene dan dmanage ddevelopmen tactivities .Thu s thegovernmen tidentifie sth emajo rproblem sa swel la sth eattitud ean d toolso fth egovernmen tagencie s tosolv ethes eproblem s(Lon gan dVa n denPloeg ,1989) . Thegovernmen to fIndonesi aha strie dt oincreas eagricultura lproduc ­ tionan dsolv eproblem scause db ylan ddegradatio nb ydevelopin ga five - year development policy. In this policy sectoral plans give detailed instructions on the kind of interventions and the procedures to be followed.Du et oa well -establishe dorganizatio nstructure ,governmen t programmesd oreac hth evillag elevel .However ,experienc ereveal stha t thesetop-dow ncentrall ydesigne dstandar dprogramme sar eno talway s effectivei nth ecomple xan ddivers eenvironmen to fth eupland so f East- Java(Developmen tPerspectives , 1988;Schult eNordholt , 1981;Palte , 1990;McCauley , 1988;Va nde nHoek ,1991) . Therear esevera limportan treason sfo rthi slac ko fsuccess . Firstly,th e largediversit yi nbio-physica lcondition sa swel la sth eextensiv esocio / cultural and economic differences in the upper part of the country's watersheddeman dflexibilit y inplannin gt oadjus t programmest oloca l conditionsan drequirement so fth elan dusers .Secondly ,th eprogramm e planningfocuse so nth edesig no ftechnica lintervention sfo rsustainabl e landuse ,bu tth esocia lcapacit yo fth eloca lpopulatio nt omanag ethes e resources,th eexten tt owhic hth ene wpractice sca nb eadapte d tothei r needs, and the need for amor eequa ldistributio n of theseinput shav e beenneglected .Thirdly ,ther ei sa lac ko f cooperation inplannin gan d implementation;consequentl yn ointegratio no fsectora lprogramme so r coordination ofactivitie sca ntak eplace . Fourthly,shortcoming si nth e competenceo fgovernmen torganization st oimplemen tth eprogrammes , becauseo ftime-consumin gan dstric tprocedures ,a swel la sth elimite d capabilitieso fgovernmen t staff, makesuccesse seve nmor edifficul t to attain. Working together with local population is still alien to many governmentstaf f members.The yhav ebee nbrough tu pi na cultur ewher e thepeopl ear esuppose dt ob ehelpe dwit hth emanagemen to ftechnologie s ina top-dow nbureaucrati cfashion .Althoug ha nadministrativ eprocedur e forth eso-calle dbottom-u pplannin gexists ,i ti sno timplemente da ssuch , becausetop-dow nan dsectora lplan sdominat eth elatte ra swell .

11 1.3Researc hobjective san dscop e Theformulatio no fne wdevelopmen tpolicie san dth ecomplexit yo flan d usemanagemen tunderlin ea nee dfo ra nalternativ estrateg yfo rlan dus e managementprogrammes . Thischapte ropen swit ha descriptio no fth e development policy of the nineties,callin g for adevelopmen t process thatwil lcreat eopportunitie s for localpeople ,i n which theyca nmak e their own choices about which development strategy to follow. The problems in land usemanagemen t subsequently illustrated emphasize thisnee dfo r analternativ e strategy. Because of the complexity and the different dimensions of land use management,plannin gi spropose da slan dus emanagemen ttool . Inthi s context, planning should be seen as a tool for good governance to formulate a strategy for long-term integrated and interdisciplinary programmes,whic h arebase do nth eparticipatio n of ruralpeopl ean d whichwil lincreas ethei rcapacit yan dthos eo ffiel d workerso fsupport ­ ingorganization st omanag esuc hprogrammes .A ssuc hplannin gca nb e used toidentif y different users,interests ,powe r structures, localcon ­ straintsan dopportunitie sfo r development.Thu sa plannin g strategyi s neededtha ti sflexible in us ean doperate sa tth eloca llevel . 1.3.1 Research objectives Theai mo fthi sstud yi st ocontribut et oth edevelopmen to fa strateg yfo r planningo fsustainabl elan dus eprogramme sa tloca llevel .A strateg yi s defined after Paul (1983) as: 'the set of long term choices about the operating goals, services, policies and action plans of a programme. Thesechoice sar einfluence d byobjective slai ddow nb yth egovernmen t andth eenvironmen to fth eprogramm e' .Thi sai mi sfurthe rspecifie dint o thefollowin g objectives: to develop a strategic model for people-centered planning of sustainable landus eprogrammes ; todevelo pa flexibl e planningmetho dtha tca nserv ea slan dus e management toola tloca llevel ; totes tth efeasibilit y ofth estrateg yfo rth eupland so fEas tJava , Indonesia. 1.3.2 Scope The scope of this strategy encompasses uplands in general and the uplandso fEas tJava ,Indonesia ,i nparticular . Fora lon gtim efoo dcro p productioni nuplan dregion sha sbee nneglecte db yth enationa lgovern ­ mentsconcerned ,becaus eattentio nwa sfocuse do nth eintensificatio no f foodan dcas hcro pproductio ni nth e(irrigated )lowlands .Th euniformit y

12 of terrainconditions ,permanen t availabilityo fwate ran deas yaccessi ­ bilitymad ethes elowlan dregion spreferabl efo ragricultura lproduction . However,i nIndonesi afo rexampl eth eimportanc eo fth euplan dregion s for national interest has attracted the government's attention overth e pastdecad e(KEPAS ,1988 ;Palte ,1990) .Thi sresulte di nth erecognitio n of issues such as: erosion in the uplands may endanger the water infrastructure downstream; thehig hrat eo fdeforestatio n enhancesth e erosionproces san dmake slarg e areasunproductive ;th epotential s for cashcro pproductio ni nuplan darea sma ybecom ea nalternativ eexpor t commodity;whil eth enumbe ro flandles san dpoo rfarmer s isgrowin g inth euplands .Bo x1. 1illustrate sth elarg ediversit ycause db yeconomic , politicalan dcultura linfluence so na physica lcomple xlandscap ei nth e uplandso fJava .

Variationsi nrainfal lpatterns ,geologicaiforoiatkjnso »awlderangeo f dopeso fdifferin g agesandvarioa ssoi lconditional s£»mbinatior iwit s humanintervention shav eresulte di nalarg evariet yo flan dus epattern s in theuplands .Thes einclud eirrigate dfields ,kitche ngardens »bmlt-a p areas,perennia lcro pgarden so fman ykinds ,dr yarabl efîeids,an d forest lands. The latter vary from undistutbed virgin rainforests toheavil y erodedwast elands .Politica lprocesse shav eevolve dove rth elas ttw o centuries under the influence of traditional feudal systems»colonia l ocçupatïorian dinterna lpoKöcal/religïoü sstruggles ,Untilno wthe yhav e detenâîned the socialorganization s in villages»th e function ofloca l leadership and thewfe of individuals and organizations indécisio n rnakîng and management concerning the total resources* Différent patternso facces st oprivat ean dstat elan dar earesul to fdies eprocesses , visiblei nth efor mo funclea rlan downership ,landles sfarmer slivin go a theborde ro f theforest ,nationa llan drente dt oth emilitar yo rprivat e enterprisesan drernainder so fplantation seithe rmanage db yfarmer so r byestates . Generallyspeakin gthos elan duser swit hacces st o money, education*ne wtechnologies *lan dan dlabou rhav ebee nabl et odevelo p themselvesa tth eexpens eo fth elandles san drum lpoor ,Thus ,i nth e uplands»th epoo r havebecom emor ean dmor edependen to nnatura l resources for their daily survival resulting îr»over-exploitatio n ma poverty.

Box 1.1Example so fdiversit yi nth eupland so fEas tJava . Thedegre eo fdegradatio ni nth elan dus esystem so fupland sarea scombine d withth efac ttha texistin gcentrall ydesigne dprogramme sar eno t effective inthes ecircumstance sjustifie sthi sfocu so nth edevelopmen to fth euplands . Inth eupland smajo rachievement si nincreas eo fagricultura lproductio nan d

13 soilconservatio nca nstil lb eattained .Th efac ttha tth escop eo fthi sstud yi s onth eupland so fEas tJav aimplie stha tth estrateg ydoe sno tdea lextensivel y withth emanagemen to fcommuna llands ,a sthes ear ealmos tabsen ti nJava .

1.4 Research approach Theide afo rth edevelopmen to fa strateg yfo rplannin gsustainabl elan d use programmes at local level was triggered by experiences with the implementation of watershed management activitiesi nth eKal iKont o Project,Eas tJava ,Indonesia .Th eimplementatio nphas eo fthi sNether ­ lands' funded project started in 1986, after research and planning activities had been carried out in previous phases, from 1979. The watershed management plan that had been developed on a scale of 1:50,000wa sintende dt oserv ea sa basi sfo rimplementation . However theinformatio n itprovide dwa sto ogenera lan dwa sbiase dtoward sbio ­ physical data. The plan had been based on a land evaluation and a separateextensiv e socio-economic surveyan ddi dno toffe r anyguide ­ linesfo roperationa lprogrammes .A sa resul tprogramme swer estarte d bydifferen t sectoralagencie seac hbase do nthei row ncentrall ydesigne d standard programmes.Lac k of consistency between programmes and confusion amongth eloca lpeopl einvolved ,indicate da clea rnee dfo rth e planningo fintegrate ddevelopmen t programmes atloca llevel .

A total of four trial cases on local level planning were implemented between 1988an d 1990wit hth efollowin g broad objectives: firstly to developa flexibl ean dsimpl eplannin gapproac htha twa simplementabl e byloca lvillager san dfiel d staff ina shor ttim efram e andsuitabl et ob e adoptedb yth egovernment ,an dsecondl yt oformulat eintegrate dvillag e developmentplan stha twer edetaile denoug ht ob edirectl yimplementable . Viaa proces so ftria lan derror ,differen tplannin gmethod san dtechnique s weretrie dout . Theorganizationa lan dinstitutiona l aspectso fplannin g atloca lleve lwer eals odeal twith .Villager san dfiel dstaf fo fth edifferen t sectoralagencie sparticipate di nth etria lcase san dexistin gorganization s andprocedure swer euse dt oenhanc eth eacceptabilit yan dfeasibilit yo f thene wplannin g approach. During the implementation of the trial cases, a literature study was undertakencoverin gplannin gmethod san dtechnique sa swel la saspect s of administrative management of programmes. Ideas and concepts encountereddurin gthi sstud ywer eincorporate d inth edevelopmen to f the planning approach and directly tested during the trial cases.Thi s cyclicalproces so fapplyin gtheoretica lconcept san dtestin gi nth efiel d resulted in the development of a general concept for the planning of sustainable land use programmes at local level. Subsequently another

14 literaturestud ywa scarrie dou ti norde rt odevelo pa theoretica lmode lfo r planning sustainablelan dus eprogrammes . Thistheoretica lmode lwa s used to evaluate existing planning methods and further elaborate the conceptfo r theplannin gmetho ddevelope di n thefield . Finally,th epractica lvalu eo fth estrategi cmode lan dplannin gmetho d for the situation in the uplands of East Java was considered by firstly assessing the possible application of the strategic model onJav aan d secondly by analyzing the constraints to implementing the strategic model onJava .Th elatte r wasbase do nexperience s withvillag eleve l planningan dth eJav aSocia lForestr y Program. Toconclude ,th eresearc hstrateg ywa sa field-base d learningproces si n whicha niterativ eproces so ftria lcase san dth edevelopmen to ftheoreti ­ calconcept stoo kplace .Henc eth eoveral lapproac hha sbee nexplorator y andqualitative .Sinc eth efiel dresearc htoo kplac ewithi na developmen t project, theresearc h wasextremel y objective-oriented andcarrie d out underloca lconditions ,usin gth eloca linstitutiona l framework. Hence, the strategic model developed is believed to be highly realistic and operational.

1.5 Structureo fth eboo k Thisstud yreview sbot hth etheoretica lan dpractica ldimension so fa lan d usemanagemen tplannin gmodel .Th efirs tpar tdescribe sth çtheoretica l strategicmode lan dth eplannin gmetho d(chapte r3 an d4) .I nth esecon d partth efeasibilit y of themode lan dplannin g method areteste di nth e Javanesecontex t(chapte r5,6, 7an d8) .A noutlin eo fth econtent so feac h chapteri sgive nbelow . Inchapte r2 majo rconcept si nlan dus emanagemen tar edescribed .Give n the extensive use of jargon and the different interpretations used by variousauthors ,a novervie wo fth emajo r underlyingconcept san dthei r meaningi sprovide dfo rclarification . Thena mode lfo rlan dus esystem s isintroduce d andit spropertie sar edefined . Thereason sfo r workinga t theloca lleve lar efurthe rexplaine dan da ninterpretatio no fth eloca lleve l isgiven .Finally ,th eterm s'institutions 'an d'organizations 'ar edefined . Theconclusio nfocuse so nth enee dfo rth edevelopmen to fa nalternativ e strategy for planningsustainabl e landus ea tloca llevel . Inchapte r 3a strategi c model for theplannin g of sustainable landus e programmesa tloca lleve li sformulated . Themode lprovide sa ninsigh t intoth echoic eo fmajo rvariable st ob econsidered ,th erelationshi ptha t shouldb eestablishe d betweenthes evariable san dthroug hwhic hphas -

15 ingstrateg ythi sca nb eachieved .Subsequentl yth eoperationalizatio no f themode li sdescribed . In chapter 4, aplannin g method isdescribe d for the first phase of the strategic model.Existin g planning approaches and methods areteste d against the criteria set by the strategic model. This leads to a new planningcycle ,whic h synthesizesexistin gplannin gmethods . Inchapte r 5,th eenvironmen tfo rplannin glan dus eprogramme si nth e uplandso f EastJav ai sdescribed . Thelan d use system andth erol eo f government and private organizations in land use management are outlined and the failures and successes of two current government programmesar eanalyzed . Chapter6 o fth eboo killustrate sth eimplementatio no fth efirs tphas eo f the strategicmode li nth eupland so fEast-Java ,i nth efor m ofa description of the organization, planning method and results of trial cases. Chapter 7describe s experiences with another -comparabl e -lan d use planningstrateg yo nJava ;th eJav aSocia lForestr yFYogramme . Chapter8 firstl ydiscusse sth epossibilitie sfo rapplicatio no fth estrategi c model on Java and secondly describes the constraints which can be expectedwhil eapplyin gth emode lo nJava . Thefina lchapte r9 give ssom econclusion so nth evalidit yo fth eplannin g strategy, followed by policy recommendations for government and donororganization san dth eepilogue . Chapter 10i sth eepilogue .

16 2 CONCEPTS IN PLANNING LAND USE MANAGEMENT

2.1 Introduction Concernfo rth eenvironmen tan dit sdegradatio nha sinspire da profusio n of papers and articles by development planners on this issue. The terminology theyus ei softe n confusing. 'Environmental management', 'sustainability', 'localan dintermediat elevel' ,'landusesystems ' arejust afe wexample so fterm sfo rwhic hth eexac tmeanin gi sno talway sclear .

It seems appropriate therefore to provide concise definitions and/or interpretations of themajo r conceptsuse di nthi sstudy .I nth e following sub-sections,a nexplanatio n isgive no ffou r components integral toth e strategy developed. These are: planning, aspar t of thedevelopmen t process; sustainable land use management; local level; institutions and organizations.

2.2 Planning as part of the development process Planningi softe n described asa norganized ,consciou sattemp t to select the best available alternatives toachiev e specific goals.I n this process data is systematically collected and analysed, alternative proposals for action are discussed and those alternatives which are predicted to best achieveth especifie d objectives areworke dou t(Waterston , 1965;FAO , 1989;Frescoetal , 1990).Plannin gexercise shav eofte ngenerate da blue ­ print for development containing elaborate schemes and a pre-deter- mined set of guidelines for the development of regions or sectors. However inthi s study development is seen asa lon gproces s of experi­ mentation and innovation through which people build up the skills, knowledge and self-confidence necessary todevelo p their environment (section 1.1). In order to effect this process, planning should take the form ofa dialogu ebetwee nloca lpeopl ean dsupportin g (external) orga-

17 nizations. Planning in the development process should be seen as a learningproces swhere ,a teac h step, moreinformatio n isgathere dan d decisions are made determining the next move, in order to arrive at sustainableprogrammes .Thus ,plannin gcanno tb eartificiall y separated fromimplementatio nan dmonitoring/evaluation .Preferabl yth eplanne r shouldals ob eresponsibl efo rimplementatio ns otha tinitia lplan sca nb e adjusted on the basis of experience. This kind of iterative planning process including planning, implementation and monitoring is also called 'planned development' (figure 2.1) (Van Staveren and Van Dusseldorp,1980) .

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Figure2.1 : Planned Development Process

Theplannin g strategyi nthi sstud yhowever ,concentrate so nth eplan ­ ningpe rse ,define d asth efirs t stepi nplanne ddevelopment .Base do n the identification of local needs,constraint s and opportunities,devel ­ opment programmes which local people can adopt and supporting organizationsca nimplement ,ar eproposed . Planshav eofte nno tbee nimplemente dbecaus ethe ywer eno tpracticall y feasible.Suc hplan swer eno ttune dt oth ecapacit yo fth eloca lpeopl et o implement and manage the programmes, or to the competence of the implementingdevelopmen tagenc yt osuppor tthem .T oovercom ethes e problems, planning requires, besides the design of interventions, a comprehensiveprogramm efo rth eimplementatio no fth einterventions . Thisprogramm eshoul db ehighl ypracticable ,suite dt oth ecapacitie so f local people and supporting organizations, and should include for instance: a priority list of projects for phased implementation, their locationsan dth especifi cparticipants ;structure sfo rloca lorganization s andth eresponsibl eagenc yfo rimplementatio n andsupport ;th esourc e

18 and amount of funds, cost sharing arrangements and a time schedule for operation. It should also include the design of a participatory monitoring programme. The process of preparing such a programme for implementation and monitoring is called programming and is regarded as an integral part of the planning process. Planning of interventions can aim at the improvement of and the transformation of existing situations (Long, 1977). The first approach aims to encourage development within existing land use systems, while the latter attempts to establish new forms of land use systems through radical breaks with present systems, including the scale of operations, production techniques and socio-legal structure. In the improvement approach qualitative changes are proposed, while in the transformation approach structural changes in social organization and government orga­ nizations aresuggested .Th estrateg ydevelope d herefo r planning at the local level is a mixture of these two approaches. The first phase of the strategy focuses on qualitative improvement, to be followed by some structural changes in later phases.

2.3 Sustainable land use management In this section an interpretation of land use systems and their management is followed by a description of the properties of sustainable land use management. 2.3.1 Land use systems Conway (1985) defines a land use system as: 'a hybrid system, which involves the interaction between the land andit s users and thus encompasses numerous interactions between a bio-physical and socioeconomic system'. These interactions are based on human interventions in the natural environment formed by ge­ ology, soil, climate, water drainage, fauna and flora. In order to survive,peopl e haveexploite d and managed thenatura l environ­ ment and changed and reorganized it into the so-called bio­ physical system, consisting of the natural and built (man-made) environments (figure 2.2).

19 bio-physical ^ socioeconomic system ! system

LANDUS ESYSTE M

E: Economic subsystem P: Political subsystem C:Cultura l subsystem T:Technica l subsystem

Figure22: Landuse system

This bio-physical system isvisibl e in the landscape in the form of: terraincondition s(lan dform , soilconditions ,drainag epatterns) ; landus epattern s(no tonl ydifferen t kindso flan dus epractice so r farming systemsbut als osettlemen tpatterns ,o r infra-structure); spatialpattern so fagricultura ltechnology ,(e.g .irrigatio nschemes ) including the differential diffusion of innovations, such as the introduction of new crops orplantin g techniques.

Peoplewh ointerven ei nth enatura lenvironmen torganiz ethemselve si n aloca lcommunity .The y havethei row nrules ,norm san d socialvalues , inwhic h land usean dothe rhuma n activitiestak eplace .Th emotive so f people tous e thepotential s in the bio-physical system thewa y they do are determined by economic, political, cultural and technical reasons (Eckholm,1979) .Accordin gt oKleefman n( 1985 )thes etogethe rconsitut e thesub-system so fth esocioeconomi c systema sillustrate d infigur e 2.2. The interaction between the socioeconomic and bio-physical system

20 forms thelan dus esystem . Theinteractio nbetwee nth ebio-physica lan dsocioeconomi csystem si s manifested in anumbe ro fways .Th einteractio n ofth eeconomi csub ­ system with the bio-physical system is reflected in the settlement patterns or infrastructure established as a result of the occurrence of economic production centers ordistributio n systems. Specific income opportunities areeithe rt ob efoun d onlya ta specifi c location (sucha s irrigatedland) ,o rar emor eprofitabl ea ton elocatio nbecaus eo fdistanc e criteria, suitability of soils or water availability. (Blaikie, 1985).Th e influence ofth epolitica lsub-syste mca nb edirect ,suc ha sth eimpose d boundaries betweenfores t andagricultura l landsan dindirect ,a si nth e caseo fth eexpansio no firrigate drice-fields throug hgovernmen tsubsi ­ dies.Th eimpac to fth ecultura l sub-systemo nth ebio-physica l system mayb evisibl ei nth efor mo flan dus epattern s sucha sth einhabitatio n of hamlets by specific ethnic groups or family clans,divisio n of land holdings,o rb yindigenou srights concernin gth emanagemen t ofcom ­ monlands .Th eavailabilit yo ftechnica lknowledg eca nre-shap eth ebio ­ physical system, with interventions such as the construction of water pumpsand/o rirrigatio n systems,th eintroductio no fne wcas hcrops ,o r the development of infrastructure (drinking waterpipes ,electricit y or roads), each creating new possibilities for land use. In this land use system,th ebio-physica l systemca n beconsidere d a 'reflection' ofth e socioeconomic system, but equally the bio-physical system provides potentialsan dconstraint sfo rlan dus etha tinfluenc e thesocioeconomi c system. Inthi sstud yth emanagemen to flan dus esystem si so fcentra lconcern . With the use of this land use system model, management of land use systemsca nb edefine dmor eexplicitl ya sth eproces so fformulatin gan d implementinga cours eo factio ninvolvin gth epotential san dconstraint s ofth ebio-physica lan dsocioeconomi c systems,takin gint oaccoun tth e economic, political, cultural and technical factors that determine the system. Thus, land use management is more than themanagemen t of ecological resources such as soil, water, vegetation and fauna. It also involves socioeconomic activities in whichpolitica l relations andcul ­ turalpatterns ,suc ha sownershi po fland ,th eproductio n ofcas hversu s subsistencecrops ,o rth eavailabilit yo flabou rma yb ecrucial .Lan dus e management programmes must take these relations into account and makethes epattern sexplici ta tth edifferen t scalelevel s(Blaikie , 1985). 2.3.2 Properties ofsustainable landuse management Agenera lconsensu so nth econcep to fsustainabl elan dus ei stha tit sgoa l shouldb et omaintai n landus epractice sa tlevel snecessar y tomee tth e

21 needsan daspiration so fth epresen tpopulatio n withoutcompromisin g theabilit y tomee tfutur e needsa sa resul t of excessive environmental degradation (York, 1988i nWiersum , 1990). Inorde rt ob eabl et oidentif y theconstraint si npresen tlan dus ean dt o plan sustainable programmes,i t is useful to identify the propertieso f sustainable land use management. For this purpose the properties of Agroecosystem Analysis are taken as a basis. Agroecosystems are identical to land use systems in the sense that they are defined as ecologicalsystem smodifie d byhuma nbeing st oproduc efoo do rothe r products. Agroecosystem analysis is a methodology that investigates relationshipsbetwee nth ebio-physica lcharacteristic san dth esocioeco ­ nomicpattern swhic hhav eemerge di nth esyste m (Conway, 1987). Its propertiesca nb eclassifie d as:productivity ,stability ,sustainabilit yan d equitability (seechapte r4 fo rdetails) . The first three properties all refer to the maintenance of production potential.Th eimportanc eo fcreatin gopportunitie so rplannin gactivitie s that can be adapted by the users (comprising both owners and non- owners)an dwhic hfi t theirlan dus estrategy ,i sno texplicitl y included inthes eproperties .Chapte r 1 illustratestha tthi si sa majo r criterion for thesustainabilit yo fdevelopmen tinterventions .A ke yfacto rcontribut ­ ing to environmental degradation and low productivity on marginal uplandsi sth einabilit yo ffarmer st oadap tthei rfarmin gan dcultivatio n systemt oth echangin gcondition sfoun d(Barbier ,1989) .Adaptabilit yi s usedher et oindicat e thewa yfarmer s canresis t orovercom edynami c changes in bio-physical (e.g. droughts, diseases) and socioeconomic conditions (e.g.changin g markets,price s and/ortenur e arrangements) and can respond to new opportunities (e.g. new production inputs, technologieso rorganizations )t oimprov ethei rlivin gstandar d(Wiersum , 1990). This adaptability of farmers should not be confused with the adaptability of theinterventions , which should beflexibl e enough to adjust toloca lconditions . Thelatte rdepend so nth epotentia lcost so f interventions,th esocia lan dtechnica lfeasibilit yo fth eintervention san d thetime befor ebenefit sar erealize d(Conway ,1987) .Th eadaptabilit yo f farmers is an important property of sustainable land use. Thus, the necessityt ounderstan dth ewa yfarmer sca nadap tt oeconomic ,politica l and technical interventions and make decisions concerning choiceo f crops,farmin g systeman dlan dus emanagemen t becomesparamount . Besidesth etw opropertie so f maintenanceo f production potentialan d the ability of farmers to adapt their management practices, a third propertyo fsustainabl elan dus ei sth e(more )equa ldivisio no fresource s andbenefits .A mor eequa ldistributio no fagricultura linput san doutput s is important for the maintenance of production capacity. This can be

22 illustrated by the fact that the management strategy of the poor and landless land usersi sa majo r causeo f soilerosion .Unequa l division of inputs and outputs makes people more individualistic and self-seeking andpeople' swillingnes san dabilit yt owor ktogether ,a preconditio n for permanentimprovement si nlan dus emanagement ,i sundermine d(Bud d etal , 1990).I nsectio n 1.2i ti smentione dtha tth emanagemen to fnatura l resourcesrequire scollectiv eactio nt odea lwit hth elong-ter man dremot e impactso flan dus emanagement .T oa neve ngreate rextent ,th emanage ­ ment of communal property requires the involvement of all land users involved, as otherwise the activities of one group can undercut the management schemes of others. Since the poor are dependent on the exploitationo fcommo nresource sfo rthei rsurvival ,improvemen to fth e situation of the poor, by a more equal distribution of resources and benefits, is aprerequisit e for sustainable land use.

Thus, sustainable land use is not only characterized by maintenance of production levelo fth eresources ,bu tals ob yth esocia lcapacit yt omanag e theseresources .Hence ,th eter m 'sustainability in land use' should notb e used to refer to the maintenance of production level, but rather to the maintenance of production capacity (Wiersum, 1990). This includes the socialcapacit yo f landuser st oadap tthei rlan dus epractices ,an dequit yi n thedivisio no fresource san dbenefits .I nth efunctionin go flan dus esystems , the land user constitutes the crucial link between the bio-physical and socioeconomic system.Hi sbehaviou ri sdetermine db yhi sabilit yt oadap t to changing conditions and equity in distribution, which is the key to sustainablelan duse .Therefore ,th ethre emajo rpropertie so fsustainabl elan d use systemsar e(Conway , 1985;Wiersum , 1990): maintenance of production potential; adaptability of land users; (more) equal distribution of resources and benefits.

Thesepropertie sca nserv et odescrib eth elan dus esystem ,a swel la st ogiv e an indication of its performance. These indicators are important in the analysiso fconstraint san dopportunitie si nth elan dus esystem .Furthermor e theeffec to fintervention so nth elan dus esyste mca nb echecke dagains tthes e propertiesdurin gplannin gan dmonitorin go fimplementation .Thi sinterpre ­ tationo fsustainabl elan dus emanagemen tform sth ebasi sfo rth edevelopmen t of a strategic model for planning land use management programmes as presentedi nchapte r3 .

2.4 Local level The term 'local level' has already been mentioned several times in previous sections.Wh y theplannin g strategy focuses onth eloca l level

23 andwha ti sreall ymean tb yloca lleve lca nb eexplaine d asfollows . Firstly, a development process of, for and by the people, in which opportunities are created for development where they can make their ownchoices ,require sa napproac ha tloca lleve li nwhic hth eloca llan d users become theplanners .Thei r involvement helpst oensur e thatth e programme willrespec t localcultura lvalue s andwil lb econtinuousl y oriented towardsth epeople' sfel t needsan dcapacitie s (Bunch, 1982). Throughthei rinvolvemen t thedifferen t landuse rgroup san dstrategie s canb eidentified .The yca nthe nbecom eresponsibl emanager sfo rthei r owndevelopmen tprogrammes . Secondly, the widediversit y andcomplexit y in landus e management demands acarefu l and detailed analysis at local level. Problems with landownership or land use entitlement, use of irrigation water and delineation of boundaries can only be dealt with at local level.Thes e detailsar eneede di norde rt oidentif y adaptablepractice san dt oai ma t amor eequa ldivisio no fresources . Moreover,a stud yo nth einteractio n between the bio-physicalresource san dth esocia lcapacit y of theloca l peoplet omanag ethes eresource srequire sa ninterdisciplinar yapproac h whichi smos tfeasibl e atloca llevel . Thirdly,plannin gi spar to fa proces so fplanne ddevelopmen t inwhic h feedback from implementation and monitoring may result in adjust­ ments to the plan.Thu s aflexibl e learning-by-doing approach ispro ­ posed which can respond promptly to rapid changes. Small scale programmes should therefore beplanne d at local level. Since in such programmesonl ysmal lsum so fmone yar einvolved ,th evillager sca nse t thepac efo r development,rathe rtha nth eprogramme' s funds ordevel ­ opment agenciesleadin g thewa y(Bunch , 1982). Havingjustifie d this focus on the local level, the next question tob e answeredis :wha ti sth eloca llevel ?Lan dus emanagemen ta tloca lleve l hastw odimension s(fig .2.1) .Th efirs t (leftpar to fth emodel )i sth ebio ­ physical systemtha tform s aphysica l unitfo rplanning .Watershed so r coastalzone sar eexample so fbio-physica lunit san dca nb edefine da sth e immediate physical setting for the livelihoods of therura l population. Thesecon ddimensio n isth esocia l system (rightpar ti n themodel) .I t consists of the land users, their rules, social structures and norms, formalizedi na ninstitutiona lframework .Th esocia lsyste mprovide sth e local level with the administrative and social unit for planning and managingprogrammes . Inpractic e thiscombinatio n ofphysica l andadministrativ e units often does not coincide. Experiences with watershed management projects

24 (DHV Consultants, 1990; Hufschmidt,1986; McCauley, 1985) have taughttha ta watershe dprovide sa usefu l unitfo rmanagin gth ephysica l system,bu ttha tth epeopl ewh oar emakin gus eo fi tcanno tb etreate da s awell-define d socioeconomic system.Th ereaso ni stha tboundarie so f thebio-physica l andsocioeconomi c systemar eno talway scontiguous . For example, within each watershed abroa d range of tenure arrange­ ments,stratifie d socialgroup san dvariou sfarmin gsystem san dlan dus e patternsexis t (Cernea, 1985).Sinc ei n apeople-centere d development approachthes esocia lunit sar eo futmos timportance ,thi sstrategi cmode l isdevelope dprimaril yo nth ebasi so fsocioeconomi crathe rtha nphysi ­ calunits .Thi smean stha tprogramme sshoul db edevelope dfo ra village , orcluste ro fhamlet so rsettlement stha tfor msom eothe rsor to fsocia lo r administrative unit.Plannin gfo r administrative unitsals oprovide sth e opportunity to involve existing government organizations and proce­ duresi nth eplanning . Whenplannin gi scarrie dou ta tthi sloca llevel ,villager so rmember so f a clan, tribe or other social organization become the planners. Their contribution in providing knowledge of local conditions, identifying problemsan dconflict s oropportunities ,identifyin g groupso f different landusers ,judgin gth ecultura l acceptabilityo fdifferen t strategiesan d helpingdecid ewhen ,wher ean dho wcertai nactivitie sshoul db ecarrie d out,i smos tvaluable .However ,the yshoul db ehelpe di nth eidentifica ­ tion andformulatio n of interventions bya moderato r from anexterna l organization.A sthe ygai nexperienc ean ddevelo pthei rcapabilitie sthe y will become increasingly able to participate in planning and more important,increasingl y enthusiastic. Thisdoe sno tmea nhowever ,tha tal llan dus eproblem sca nan dshoul d besolve da tloca llevel .Chapte r 1 illustratesth eimportanc eo finvolvin g thegovernmen t inlan d usemanagemen t asthei rinfluenc e onnationa l policies such as subsidies, prices, land tenure or other institutional aspects arecrucia l toth e success of sustainable land useprogrammes . Moreover, linkages to government administration may give access to government budgets,ne wtechnologie s andrule sconcernin g theman ­ agemento fcommo nresources .Governmen tshoul db eth einitiato ro fth e planning strategyan dprovid eth einstitutio n for itsmanagement . Although rural people are in general rather wary about government interventions,thi sshoul dneve rb ea reaso n forleavin gth egovernmen t out of the development process. Rural people have often mistrusted governmentswhos ehistorica lrelationshi pwit hit speopl eha sbee non e ofoverseer ,rule-enforcer , potentialgrabbe ro fpar to fthei rbenefit san d bribe-taker(Blai ran dOlpadwala , 1987).However ,a share dperceptio n of the problems by land users and government organizations, or an

25 arrangement inwhic h bothloca llan duser san d government organiza­ tions bear some responsibility for costs and benefits, is essential for successful landus emanagemen t(Blaikie , 1985). Carson(1989 )formu ­ lates this dilemma as follows: "The closer one gets to the villager's situation,th ebette rth einformatio no nho wt obes tmanag eth eland .Th e closeron eget st oth ecentra lgovernmen toffice r inth ecapital ,th ebette r theabilit y toinfluenc e governmentpolicie s andbudgets' .Th epresen t system of orders flowing down the chain of command will nodoub t continue,bu tsomeho wusefu l information onwha tt od oan dho wt od o itmus tb epermitte d toflo w from theloca lt oth ehighe rlevels . An oft-cited, practical constraint to planning land use management programmes at local level is the fact that it istime-consuming an d therefore has a limited reach. This is not usually to the liking of governmentagencie san dinternationa ldonors ,wh oi npractice ,prefe rt o measureth eimpac to fthei rdevelopmen teffort sb ysiz eo rquantit yrathe r thanqualit yo fth eprogrammes .Althoug hth edevelopmen tprogramme s planneda tloca lleve lma yb esmal li nsize ,thi sma yb ecompensate d for by their high degree of effectiveness. The enhanced ability of local peoplean d supportingfiel d workerst opla n sustainable landus einter ­ ventionsma yresul ti nbette ran dfaste r planningo fintervention si nth e longrun .A participator yplannin gproces si sthu so fgreate rimportanc e from a long-term perspective, than the short-term results of planning interventions.Developin gth eplannin gproces sa ta slo wpac erequire s relatively intensive external support in the initial stages and a strong commitmentfro mprojec tmanager san ddono rorganizations .Bu tthi si s justified byth egraduall yincreasin gimpac ttha tloca lleve lplannin gwil l havei nth e future.

Another constraint to participatory planning at the local level is that it requires a large number of villagers and supportive field workers tob e activelyinvolve dfo ra certai nperio do ftime .Th epoores tsection so fvillag e societyi nparticula rdevot eal lthei rtim et othei rdail ysurvival .Becaus eo f thisproble mo f'opportunit ycost so ftim e'o fbot hvillager san dfield worker s andth elimite dskill san davailabl eresource sfo rimplementin gth eplannin g processi neac hvillage ,th efirst ste pi nth eproces so fplanne ddevelopmen t (figure2.1 )shoul db equic kan dfairl ysimple .

2.5 Organizationsan d institutions Theterm sinstitutio nan dorganizatio nar ecommonl yuse dinterchange ­ ablyan dthi scontribute st oconfusio n anddebat eamon gdevelopmen t planners.Th efollowin g definitions andinterpretation s of theseterm s are usedi n thisstudy .

26 Uphoff (1986) defines organizations as structures of recognized and acceptedroles .Thes eorganization sma yoperat eo na forma lo rinforma l basis.Th elatte rmean sther ei sn olega lo rotherwis eexplicitl yprescribe d basisfo rth erole so rfo rth eauthorit yan dothe rresource sassociate dwit h them.Institution sar ecomplexe so fnorm san dbehavior stha tpersis tove r timeb yservin gcollectivel yvalue dpurposes .No tal lorganization sar e institutions.However ,whe na norganizatio nha sacquire dspecia lstatu s andlegitimac yfo rhavin gsatisfie d peoples'sneeds ,on eca nsa ytha ta n organization hasbecom e 'institutionalized'.Som ekind so f institutions have anorganizationa l form withrole s and structures,wherea s others exista spervasiv einfluence s onbehaviour .A nexampl eo f thefirs t isa governmentwit hgenerall yaccepte drole san dorganizatio nform ,wherea s anexampl eo fth esecon dkin do finstitutio ni sth eprincipl eo f self-help, whichlack sa structur eo fgenerall yaccepte droles .A distinctio nca nb e madebetwee n 'madeup 'an d'traditional 'institutions .'Made-up 'insti ­ tutionsar e(often )newl yestablishe dinstitution sassigne dspecifi cdevel ­ opmenttask sb yth enationa lgovernmen to rdono rorganizations .Tradi ­ tionalinstitutions ' areevolve d andsupporte d byrura lpeople . Theter minstitutiona l development is used for both organizations and institutions.Waardenbur g (in SchulteNordholt , 1990)define s institu­ tional development as: 'the package of supporting measures and programmes aiminga tstrengthenin g andenablin ginstitution so rorga ­ nizationss oa st oguarante ethei rcontinuity' .

2.6 Summary Inchapte r 1 ashif t indevelopmen t approachestoward sa developmen t processof ,fo ran db yth epeopl ei sadvocated .Th ewid ecomplexit yan d diversityo flan dus esystem sfoun di nuplan darea ssupport sthi snee dfo r achange .Lan dus emanagemen tencompasse sbot hshort-ter man dlong - termbenefit san di sconfronte d withrapi dchanges .Th edifferin g roleo f private,stat ean dcommuna lland si ncombinatio nwit ha comple xsyste m ofcontro lan dutilizatio n makeslan dus emanagemen tdifficul t to fully understand. Government initiated blue-print programmes have notal ­ ways been successful in the upland areas because these programmes were not adjusted to cope with the complexity and diversity of the uplands.Therefor ei tseem swarrante dt orespon dwit hth edevelopmen t ofa nalternativ estrateg yfo rplannin gsustainabl elan dus eprogramme s at local level.Th e concepts introduced in this chapter are used in the development of a strategic model for planning sustainable land use programmes,describe di nth enex tchapter .

27 STRATEGIC MODEL

3.1 Introduction The need to develop a strategy for planning sustainable land use programmesa tloca lleve lha sbee nmad eclea ri nth epreviou schapters . The next step is to determine the kind of strategy tnat can provide a flexibleframewor k forpolic ymaker st ofollo wwhe nplannin geffective , sustainable and operational land use programmes at local level. This chapterdescribe sa mode lwhic hindicate sth emai nprinciples ,element s andrelation st ob econsidere d informulatin g sucha strategy .Th emai n principleso fthi sstrategi cmode lare : programmes should beplanne d andmanage d in thefor m of a learningprocess ; three variables should be considered in programme planning; land use system, interventions and organizations. Sustainable landus eprogramme sar eonl ypossibl ei fa goo dfi tbetwee nthes e variablesi sachieved . The learning process is implemented in a local and organizational dimension.Th eloca ldimensio n includesa proces so fplanning ,imple ­ mentation,monitorin gan dadjustin g small scaleprogramme sbase do n newinsight san dchangin gconditions .I nth eorganizationa l dimension the learning process proceeds through three different phases of trial, developmentan dexpansion .I nthi sdimensio nth egovernmen tca nlear n how tomanag e the strategy of implementing local levelplannin g ata local,regiona l andnationa llevel . Achieving a fit between the three variables is a complicated matter requiring the phased approach. In the trial phase, the focus is on achievinga fi tbetwee nintervention san dlan dus esyste mb yimplement ­ ingtria lcase si nloca lleve lplanning .I nth edevelopmen tphase ,attentio n isfocuse d onachievin ga fi tbetwee norganizatio nan dlan dus esyste m throughth edevelopmen t ofhuma nresource san dcommunicatio npro ­ cesses. In the expansion phase the planning approach is accepted at national levelan achange si ngovernmen t structure andprocedure sar e needed tob eachiev ea fit betwee nintervention s andorganization . Section3. 2present sth etw obasi cprinciple so fth emodel .A descriptio n ofth emodel ,wit hit smajo r componentsan dth erelationship s between

29 the components is given in section 3.3. Section 3.4 describes the achievemento ffi tbetwee nth ecomponent si nphases ,whil econclusion s arese tou ti nsectio n3.5 .

3.2 Principlesi n planningdevelopmen t programmes 32.1 Thelearning process In chapter 1 development is defined as the slow process of people learningho wt ous ethei row n capacitiesan dthos eo fthei renvironmen t to better meet theirow n needs and those of others. 'Planneddevelop ­ ment' should imitate this process and therefore should be seen as a learningprocess . Thereason st oop tfo ra learnin gprocess ,rathe rtha nth edevelopmen to f blue-printsfo rplannin glan dus eprogrammes ,ar ei nman yway sidenti ­ calt oth eargument suse dt osuppor tth echoic efo rplannin ga tloca llevel . Anadditiona largumen ti nfavo ro fth elearnin gproces sapproac hi sth e fact that land use systems are characterized by many changes and uncertainties, suchas : changing conditionsi n the socioeconomic/political systemin ­ cludinglan downershi psituations ,marketin gconditions ,price s ofproducts ,labou ravailability ;politica lstruggle sove rresources ; changes in physical conditions,cause d by erosion, diseasesi n trees/crops,rainfall . Thefac t thatpeopl eshoul db eth ecentra lfocu so fdevelopment , further increases the level of uncertainty in planning and managing interven­ tions. Participatory development as described in chapter 1doe s not jroduceneat , time-bound,predictabl eresults ,tha tca nb eplanne d and judgetedi nadvance . Insteadi tinvolve sa hig hdegre eo funcertaint ya s ocalpeopl ema ychang ethei rmind sabou tprioritie sand/o rth emean st o achievethe m(Hofstede , 1981;White , 1989). Thenatur ean dbenefi to f >articipation depends on the local land users,thei r organizations and {ocal institutions. It also depends on objectives, the kind of activities undertaken andth ecircumstance sunde rwhic h thesear eimplemented . Todea lwit hthi smultitud eo fconstantl ychangin gvariable san duncer ­ tainties,flexibilit y isrequire di nth eproces so fplannin gan dmanagin g landus eprogrammes .I nfac t land usemanagemen t iss ocomple xtha t any goodprogramm e should beconstantl y discovering newan dbette r approachest ous e(Bunch ,1982) . Thereforea learnin gproces sapproac hi sproposed ,i nwhic hadjustment s can bemad e toplannin g and management practices,base d onexperi ­ enceswit hsmal lscal eprogramme sshare db yth evariou slan dusers .Th e latterca nb eindividuals ,loca lorganization san dimplementin gagencies . Inthi sapproac h thefirs t stepo fplannin glan dus eimprovement si s

30 relatively short (a period of one month). Any shortcomings in these rapidlydraw n upplan sar e revealeddurin gimplementatio n andmoni ­ toring of programmes, and the plans are adjusted accordingly. This approach isa neducationa l processi nwhic hparticipant s (localpeopl e and field staff) gain an increased awareness and understanding of the variousfactor s whichaffec t them,thereb yincreasin gthei rcontro love r thedevelopmen tproces s(FAO ,1988) .Erro rdetectio nan dne wexperi ­ encesar eth emai nfeature s ofthi slearnin gprocess . A learning process is not only desirable to adjust interventions to the needs,opportunitie san dconstraint si nth eloca llan dus esystem .I tals o allows adjustments to be made at organizational level. Intervening governmental andprivat eagencie sshoul dlear n howt oimplemen tth e newtask stha tcom ewit h apeople-centere d development approach. A typical taskmigh t bet otrai n andmotivat ea grou po f farmers toteac h innovative methods to other farmers, as well as toteac h them how to improve on those innovations by themselves (Bunch, 1982).Thi sre ­ quires achang ei n attitudeo nth epar to f government staff andals oa n adaptation of their organization structures and procedures. Thus, the learning process operates in twodimensions . In theloca l dimensiona learningproces sof *planning ,implementatio n andmonitorin g of inter­ ventions takes place. In the organizational dimension, organizations learn how to implement the local planning process. This involves changingthei rstructure ,norm san dattitud ei norde rt ocarr you tth ene w taskswhic hloca l levelplannin gdemands . Inth eorganizationa ldimensio nth elearnin gproces sprogresse sthroug h threephases :a tria lphase ;a developmen tphase ;an da nexpansio nphas e (Korten,1980) .I nth etria lphas e(phas eI) ,smal lscal eplannin gactivitie s starto n anexperimenta l basiswit h highinput sfro m agents within the externalenvironment ,suc ha sdono ragencie san dnationa lgovernment . At this stage the planning activities are implemented by a temporary planning team, which is relatively free from normal administrative constraints.I nth edevelopmen t phase (phaseII) ,th erequire d external inputs,suc ha sfinancia lan dhuma nresources ,ar egraduall yreduce dan d the important planning activities are routinized. Organizational con­ straintsar erecognize d anda nexpande dcadr eo ffiel d workersi straine d to support participatory planning processes. Some loss in quality of designwil lb eth enecessar ypric eo fincreasin gthei rskill san dcapacities . Inth eexpansio nphas e(phas eIII) ,th ecentra lconcer ni swit hexpandin g thecompetenc eo fagencie st omanag elan dus eplannin ga ta loca llevel . Becauseexpansio nwil linevitabl ymea na reductio ni n(external )suppor t andtraining ,compare dt oth efirs t phase,constan tattentio ni sneede dt o maintain anacceptabl equalit yo fplannin g (Korten, 1980). Tosummarize ,a learnin gproces sshoul dtak eplac ei ntw odimensions : theloca ldimension ;a learningproces so fplanning ,implement - 31 ing andmonitorin g landus e managementprogramme sa tloca l level withactiv einvolvemen t of theloca l landusers ; theorganizationa l dimension; alearnin g processo fdevelopin g and managing local levelplannin gvi a atria lphase ,a develop ­ mentphas ean da nexpansio nphase . 3.2.2 Threevariables tobe considered A project can be successful when: 'it has worked out a programme model,responsiv et oth ebeneficiar y needsa ta particula rtim ean dplac e and when it has built a strong organization capable of making the programmework ' (Korten, 1980). Kortenidentifie s threevariable so fa programmemodel ,namely :(a )beneficiar yneeds ,(b )programm ean d(c ) organizations. Inthi s study thevariable so f aprogramm e modelhav e beenmodifie d tobecome : (a)lan dus esystem ;(b )intervention san d(c ) organizations.Th epurpos eo fthes emodification s ist oprovid ea bette r insightint oal lfactor stha tpla ya rol ei nplannin gan dmanagin geffectiv e local level land use programmes. The three new variables are briefly describedbelow :

Landuse system Thevariabl e'beneficiaries' ,a suse db yKorte n(1980 )i sreplace db yth e broader term 'land usesystem' . Aninterpretatio n of theter mlan dus e systemi sgive ni nsectio n2.3 .Th ereaso nfo rdoin gs oi stha tth edesig n of sustainable land use programmes should not focus on the need of 'beneficiaries' only.I ffo rexample ,possibilitie san dconstraint sfo rth e managemento fnatura lresource so rth eintroductio no ftechnologie sar e identified, attention shouldno tonl yb epai dt oth eshort-ter mdemand s ofth eloca lpeople ,bu tals ot olong-ter mbenefit s focused onecologica l and economicrequirement s for sustainable land use.Intervention s are neededtha trespec tal lthre epropertie so f sustainablelan dus esystem s mentioned in section 2.3:maintenanc eo f production potential; adapt­ abilityo fpractice s bylan dusers ;an da mor eequa ldivisio no fresource s andbenefits . Hence,fo r theidentificatio n of sustainableprogrammes , bothphysica lan dsocia lconstraint san dopportunitie smus tb etake nint o account. Theus eo fth eter m'lan dus esystem 'instea do f 'beneficiaries' provides,abov e all,a nopportunit y toanalys e thisinteractio n between thephysica lan dsocia lsystems . Thisensure stha tno tonl yar eth eneed s ofbeneficiarie s takenint oconsideratio n whendesignin ginterventions , butals oth ecapacit yo f'beneficiaries ' tomanag ethes einterventions ,i n addition to long-term ecological and economic requirements. In this modelth elan dus esyste mi sconsidere da tth eloca lleve l (asdescribe d in section2.3) .

32 Interventions The variable 'programme' as used by Korten (1980) is replaced by 'interventions' andthu sha si nfac tbee ngive na narrowe rinterpretation . Korten(1980 )define s 'programme' asprogramm edesign ,resultin gi n outputs(resource san dservices )an dtas krequirement s(bo x3.1) .How ­ ever, 'programme' is often interpreted as 'project' and in this more common interpretation, the term 'programme' is used for the total performance that isa produc t of thefi t achieved between the landus e system,th eintervention san dth eintervenin gorganizations .Therefore , topreven tmisinterpretation , theter m 'interventions' isintroduced .A n intervention is a systematic effort to strategically apply resources to manipulateseemingl ycausa lelement si na nongoin glan dus eprocess ,s o ast opermanentl yreorien ttha tproces si ndirection sdeeme ddesirabl eb y the local land users and the intervening organization (Röling, 1988). Interventions encompass resources (or inputs) and services directed towards the land use system (resource management actions), and the implementation taskstha tevolv efro m theseintervention st ob eunder ­ taken byth eimplementin gorganizations .

Servicesma ybedefûie d asth etota lan dînter>*e1ate dse to f aetivftie* far delivering the resources or inputs for technical,econoirif c and :socia lsuppor tneede d byth eloca lpeople ,Example so f servicesar a supply ôf ^formation, creditfacilities , marketingprogrammes *n v troduotioao f regulations*trainin g in technologies, developmento f iöCalorganization san d tenuriaï arrangements.Th e speculationO f tasks identifies the activities and functions the organisation must performi norde rt oprovid eth eservices ,suc ha sth esuppl yo fmateria l or(production )inputs *extensio nan dtraining *mobilisatio no fpeople * orcapacit ybuildin go floca lorganization s(Paul * 1982)»

Box3. 1Definition s of servicesan dtask s Thusintervention sar eno tsimpl y theexecutio no fa pre-specifie d plan of action with expected outcomes. They are always part of achai no f eventslocate dwithi nth ebroade rframewor k ofth eactivitie so fth estat e and the action of different interest groups (Long and Van der Ploeg, 1989).Therefore , theplannin g of interventions isa n adaptive process whichshoul dalway sstar twit ha ninventor yo fwha tloca lpeopl ealread y doan dknow ,s oi tca nfurthe r buildo navailabl eknowledge ,resources , practices,capabilities ,institution san dpolitica ldisputes .I fnot ,interven ­ tions may enhance the inequity and heighten confrontations between differing interests andvalue si n theloca lenvironmen t (Heaver, 1982,

33 Hofstede, 1981,Lon gan dVa nde rPloeg ,1989) .Fo rexample ,i na socia l forestry programme the distribution of lucrative reforestation plots amongth eloca lpopulatio ni sa politica lstruggle ,i nwhic hth erura lpoor , whoar eth emai ntarge tgroup ,ar eofte nlef twit hth ewors eplot s(Peluso , 1986). However, via the planning of well-adjusted and adaptable interventions,loca lpeopl eca nb esupporte di nthei rdevelopmen twit h knowledge,materia lan dorganizationa linput sfo r sustainabledevelop ­ ment.Therefore , interventions shouldb ea blen do f whatpeopl ewant , knowan dar eabl et od oan dwha tintervenin gpartie sar eabl et oprovide , interm so ftangibl eopportunities ,researc hbase dinformation ,attractiv e andeffectiv e productsan dsoun didea s (Röling,1988) . Organizations Inthi sstud ya distinctio ni smad ebetwee nloca lorganization sa spar to f thelan dus esyste man d(external )governmen tan dprivat eorganizations , whointerven ei nthi slan dus esystem .Th evariabl e 'organizations'wil l beuse da sa referenc et oth elatte r(otherwis eth eter mloca lorganization s will be used). Thus, organizations can be defined as structures of recognizedan daccepte droles ,whic hoperat eo na forma lbasi s(Uphoff , 1987). In the analysis and planning of capable organizations, two interrelatedfeature sca nb edistinguished .Thes ear e(a )th ecompetenc e of an organization and (b) the processes by which the organization communicatesan dmake sdecisions .Th ecompetenc eo fth eorganizatio n toimplemen t itstask srelate st o(Korte n 1980):th e structure,routine s andnorm swhic hgover nth eorganization' sfunctioning , andth etechni ­ cal and social capabilities it employs when providing interventions. Communication anddecision-makin g processesca n bedefine d asth e influences onhuma nbehaviou rleadin gt odecision san daction st ohel p eoplefor m soundopinion san dmak edecision s (Paul, 1982;Va nde n Êianan dHawkins ,1988) . Summarizingthi ssection ,th etw oprinciple sfo rth eplannin go fsustain ­ ablelan dus eprogramme sare : planningi sa learnin gprocess ; planningconsider s three variables:lan dus esystem ,interven ­ tionsan dorganization s These form the basis for the development of a strategic model for planninglan dus eprogramme sa tloca llevel ,whic hi sfurthe relaborate d inth enex tsection .

3.3 Strategic model for planning sustainable land use programmes In this section a strategic model for planning local level land use programmesi spresented .Th emode li sobtaine da sa resul to fintegratin g thetw oafore-mentione d principles andca n bedepicte d asa triangula r

34 relationshipbetwee nth ethre evariables ;lan dus esystem ,intervention s andorganizations .Th e basic assumption underlying the modeli stha t sustainablelan dus edevelopmen tprogramme sca n be achievedwhe na fit isrealize d between allthre evariable s(figur e 3.1).

itriERViacnoNS

imumi^wwi'N,

Figure: 3.1 Triangleof fit requirements

The firstfi t to be achievedi sbetwee nlan dus e systeman d interventions. Thelan dus esyste mpresent sneeds , opportunitiesan dconstraint sfro m thephysica lan d socialsyste mseparately ,a s wella s from the interaction between them.Th eintervention srespon d inth efor m ofresource san d services.Th e secondfi tt ob eachieve di sbetwee nth elan dus esyste man d organizations.Channel sma y needt ob e establishedthroug hwhic hloca l peopleca nexpres sthei rneed san dorganiz ethemselves ,an dth eorgani ­ zation can respond and offer support. The way in which this fit is achievedwil llargel ydetermin ewhethe rintervention sbuil do rdiminis h the community's capacity for local problem- solving. The third fit, between interventionsan dorganizations ,i s achievedeithe rb yadjustin g taskrequirement st oth ecompetenc eo fth eorganization scharge dwit h the implementation of these tasks, or adjusting the competence of organizationst o suit the new tasksassociate dwit hth eplanne dinterven ­ tions.(Korten , 1980). Social interventions can be part of both planned interventions and communicationprocesses .Fo rexample ,th e identification ofloca lorga ­ nizations, informal leaders, need for communal land management ar­ rangements or training can be an integral part of planned land use interventions to be accomplished in theloca l dimension. However,t o developth ecapacit yo floca lan dintervenin gorganization st oimplemen t

35 social interventions on along-ter m basis, long-term commitmentan d structuralchange swithi ncommunicatio nprocesse sar erequired .Thes e have tob eaccomplishe d in theorganizationa l dimension andconcer n routineinterventions .Thu sroutin eintervention sfor ma direc tan dlong - termrelationshi pbetwee norganization san dth elan dus esystem ,whil e locally planned interventions can take place in the short-term (figure 3.2). Implementation of these planned short-term interventions will stimulateth elong-ter mdevelopmen to fcommunicatio nprocesses .

INTERVENTIONS

PLANNEO/^SOCIAL INTEB^ENTIONS

LAND USE SYSTEM ORGANIZATIONS

ROUTINE SOCIALINTERVENTION S

Figure 32: Planned and routine interventions

Achievinga fit betweenth ethre evariable si sa comple xoperatio nan d demandsattentio nt oeac hrelationshi pbetwee nthes evariable sa tdiffer ­ ent phases. Asdiscusse d in section 3.2.1, three phases can bedistin ­ guished in a learning process approach: a trial phase; a development phase and an expansion phase. In this model, each phase focuses on achieving aspecifi c fit. Figure 3.3illustrate s thethre ephase san dth e focuso feac hphas eo na specifi cfit .Generall y speaking,th etria lphas e isimplemente d atth eloca llevel ,th edevelopmen t phaseals oinvolve s theregiona llevel ,whil eth eexpansio nphas erequire sinvolvemen to fth e centrallevel .Th etim escal ei nwhic hth efi ti sachieve di sals oindicated .

36 1

•o

«C & u &

T3

•8

'50 3

W g g f-i

00 s:

37 Inth etria lphas e(phas eI )activitie sstar to nth ebasi so ftria lcase si nloca l level planning, usually with a high level of inputs from the external environment,t oasses swha ti srequire dt oachiev ea fit betwee nth ethre e variables. Acycl eo fplanning ,implementatio n andmonitorin g ofth e smallscal etria lprogramme sprovide sth enecessar ydat aan dexperienc e for planning sustainable land useprogramme s at local level.Externa l inputs,suc ha sfinanc ean d consultanciesar erequire dfo rth eimplemen ­ tation of these trial cases.I n thisphase ,th efocu s iso n achieving a fit betweenth edesig no fintervention san dth eloca llan d use system.I na trialcase ,loca lfiel d workersan dvillager sar einvolve di nth eplannin g andexistin gorganizationa lstructure san dprocedure sar euse dwheneve r feasible.I nthi swa ybot hloca lpeopl ean dth esupportin gorganization s become acquainted with amor epeople-centere d approach toplannin g sustainablelan dus eprogramme sa tloca llevel . In the development phase (phase II) the external inputs are gradually reduced and the local level planning, implementation and monitoring processes are routinized. The focus is on achieving a fit between organizationsan dlan dus esyste mb ydevelopin gcommunicatio nthroug h humanresource sdevelopmen tresultin gi ncapabl eloca l organizations and a cadre of experienced planners/managers. Alearnin g processo f local level planning and training programmes aims to increase the motivation,skill san dcommitmen to ffiel d staff, localpeopl ean dloca l leaderst ocooperate .Als oguideline so nloca lleve lplannin ghav et ob e prepareda tthi sstage .Thes eactivitie sar ecoordinate da ta regiona lleve l andma yexten dove ra perio do fsevera lyears .Thus ,th eplannin gproces s as developed in phase I becomes institutionalized and embedded in organization structures.

Inth eexpansio nphas e(phas eIII )attentio ni sfocuse do nth efi tbetwee n interventions and organizations. Achieving this fit requires decentral­ izeddecision-makin gprocesses ,autonomou sresponsibilit yi norganiza ­ tions, strong local leadership and adjusted structural forms of organi­ zations. The experiences with local level planning and training programmes provide the necessary examples for these changes.Thi s stagema yb eth emos tdifficul t toattain ,sinc eitrequire ssom efundamen ­ talchange si n thegovernmen t structure,norm san dorganization ,t ob e inducedb yth ecentra lgovernment . Becauseeac hphas einvolve sdifferen t activitiesan dorganizations ,th e organizational structureneed st ob eadapte dfo r eachphase .I nth etria l anddevelopmen tphase smultipl eintegrate dprogramme snee da struc ­ ture which permits dual control by the programme manager of the government administration and the regional managers of the sectoral agencies who will be responsible for project implementation. This

38 requires a matrix structure in which management control is effected througha decentralize d arrangement.Th efina l controlo f theplannin g strategy still rests with the top management of the programme, but decision-making concerning the organization of the planning process andth eimplementatio no fplanne dintervention si sdelegate dt oregiona l andservic elevel ,wher emanager sar erequire dt oexercis ejoin tcontro l (Paul,1983) .Experienc ewit hintegrate ddevelopmen tprogramme shav e revealed the difficulties with cooperation between different sectoral agencies.However ,a slon ga sth ematri xstructur ei simplemente da tsub - districto rdistric tlevel ,inter-agenc ycooperatio nma yb epossible .I nth e expansionphas eth eprogramme sar eexpande dt oa nationa llevel ,whic h cann olonge rb econtrolle d byon elea dagency ,bu trequire sa networ k structurei nwhic hth edifferen t agencieswor ktogether .Th elea dagenc y coordinates,bu tdoe sno tcontrol .Th enetwor kperform swel lonl yi fth e lead agency can influence the other members of the network byjoin t allocation of funds, joint planning of activities, political support and reviewo fth eplannin gstrategy .Thi snetwor kpermit sa hig hdegre eo f decentralizationt orespon dt oextrem ecomplexit yi nloca lenvironment s (Paul, 1983). In practice, establishing such a network structure still appearst ob ea difficul t task. Whenchange si norganizationa l structuresoccur ,th enee dfo r different managers arises. In the local dimension, local people and the field (extension)worker so fsupportin gorganization sfor mth eplannin gteam , whoidentif y needs,constraint san dopportunitie san dformulat edevel ­ opmentprogrammes .Thei ractivitie sar ecoordinate dan dsupporte db y aloca lgovernmen t leader(lik eth ehea do fa sub-district )o ra leade ro f a local NGO. In the organizational dimension of implementing the developmentan dexpansio nphas eprogramm emanager sshoul db eabl e tose eth etotalit y offi t between thevariable san dsearc hfo r congruent combinations at the different phases (Paul, 1983). Thus they should focusattentio no nth edesig no flocall yadjuste d interventionsa tth etria l phase, improved communication processes at the development phase anddecentralize d organization structures atth eexpansio nphase .Suc h a programme manager should come from a government organization with the power and capacity to integrate programmes, mobilize other organizations, use budgets in a flexible way and get political support from other ministries. Depending on the circumstances of individual countriesthi sma yb ea norganizatio ni nth eMinistr yo fInterio r Affairs, theMinistr yo fRura lDevelopmen to rothers .Thi slea dagenc yguide sth e implementationo fth estrateg ya ta local ,regiona lan dnationa llevel ,throug h monitoringresultsoftheplannedprogramnTes;motivationofpeopleinvolved; constraintswithi ngovernmen tstructure ;constraint st odecisio nmakin gan d communication processes and political changes; and by involving key peoplewit hexperienc ei ntria lcase sa sregiona lmanager so rtrainers .

39 Itca nb econclude dtha tb ysubdividin gth eplannin go fsustainabl elan d useprogramme sint odifferen t phases,th ewhol eproces sbecome smor e manageable.Th e difficulties in bringing about changes in the attitude andstructur eo forganization sar en olonge ra nexcus efo rno tstartin ga programme:i nfac tthe yjustif y phasingo fth estrategy .Beside smakin g the process more manageable, the division into phases provides the opportunity for alearnin g process,i n which, stepb y step,a fi t canb e achieved between allvariables .

3.4 Theachievemen t offi t perphas e Thefollowin g sub-sectionsdescrib eho wan dt owha texten ta fi tca nb e achieved betweenth evariable sfo reac hphase . 3.4.1 Fitin thetrial phase Inthi sphas eth efocu s iso nachievin g a fit between alan dus esyste m and interventions,throug h thedesig n of interventions thatfi t theloca l needs,wishes ,constraint san dopportunities .Loca li sdefine d inchapte r 2a sa village ,a cluste ro fhamlet so rsettlement stha tfor m somesor to f social or administrative unit. Not only should the question of what interventionsar eneede db eraised ,bu tals oth equestion show ,when ,an d bywho mthes eintervention sshoul db eimplemente ddeserv eattention . Thesefor m thetas krequirement s for theorganizations . Sinceth etria l phasei sstarte d with trial cases,n ostructura l changesi norganization s can beexpecte d yet and hence these tasks should be adjusted tothei r presentcompetence .

Interventions should be geared towards the land use system, by the planning of appropriate physical inputs (material, finances), resource management technologies, technical services and socioeconomic ser­ vices.Example so fresourc emanagemen ttechnologie sare :agroforestry , soilconservatio no rcroppin gsystems . Thedesig no ftechnica lservice s encompasses techniques andpractice s that focuses onmanagemen to f bio-physical resources.Th elatte rinclud e training andhel pi nproduc ­ tion,suppl yan dus eo fmateria l(seed ,seedlings ,fertilizers ,constructio n material).Th edesig no f socioeconomic servicesfocuse s onth ehuma n resources.I tencompas sth eimplementatio n tools(e.g .extension ,train ­ ing,incentives ,organizin gloca lgroups )fo rth eloca lpeopl et ocarr you t thesepractices ,a swel l asth einstitutiona l arrangements atloca llevel , within which the implementation of these technologies can proceed. Exampleso f institutional arrangements are:lan d tenurearrangements ; marketingcontracts ;o rlegislatio no f localorganizations .

40 Although land use management technologies and technical services focus on the management of the bio-physical system and the socioeco­ nomic services on the socioeconomic system, the interaction between technologies,technica l andsocioeconomi c servicesi so f utmost impor­ tancei nth eformulatio n oflan dus estrategies .I nchapte r2 i ti smentione d thatbio-physica lresource sar eonl ysustainabl ean dproductiv ewhe nth e localpeopl ehav eth esocia lcapacit yt omanag ethes eresource san dwhe n such management is economically attractive. Adescriptio n of sustain­ ablelan dus esystem si spresented ,culminatin gi nth edefinitio n ofthre e properties that describe and characterize sustainable land use systems. Thus,t oachiev ea fi t between interventions and thelan d use system the designo ftechnica lan dsocioeconomi cintervention sshoul db esuc htha t thesethre e properties of sustainable land use are pursued: maintenance of production potential adaptability of land users a more equal distribution of resources and benefits Thisrequire sth eidentificatio n and analysiso fneed san dcapabilitie so f different categorieso flan dusers ,so-calle d landuse rgroup s *)an dthei r specific strategies for using/managing the natural resources. Chapter 1 illustratesth efac ttha tlan duser sconsis to fa larg evariet yo frura lpeople , manyo fwho mar eneithe rowner sno rmanager so ffarms .Thei rbehaviou r isth eke yt osustainabl elan dus ean da majo rreaso nfo rlan d degradation or problems with land management practices lies in their land use strategy. Inthei rsurviva lstrategy ,peopl ewil lactivel ystriv et oachiev e a fit between their consumption necessities, the production factors at their disposal and the alternatives for generating monetary and non­ monetaryincom e (Wood,i nRutten , 1987).Thi s strategy is determined by economic, political, cultural and technical motives. While the eco­ nomic and technical motives are normally acknowledged by many planners of interventions, the political and cultural factors are often neglected. It is however of the utmost importance to understand all the motivesbehin dlan dus estrategies ,i norde rt opla nintervention stha tca n be adopted and managed by the land users.

It would be impossible to identify the strategy of each individual land user. Instead different land user groups are classified according to the strategies they employ (Rocheleau, 1987). The strategies of land user groupsca n bedistinguishe d on the basis of five morepractica l criteria: activity (farmers, herdsmen.labourers, off-farm employment); tenure (ownership/sharecroppers, tenants, labourers); location of theirlan d(fertility , accessibility, water availability); divisiono factivitie swithi nhousehold so rgende rspecifi c activi­ tiesfo r maleo rfemal e farmers, each havingdifferen t modes for access and control of resources; unit of organization and management (individuals, households, communities). *) Inthi scontex ta grou pshoul db einterprete da sa 'category 'rathe rtha na grou p asa uni to fsocia lorganization . 41 Theidentificatio n ofmai nactivitie so flan duser s isdetermine d byth e consumption needs,productio n factors and alternatives for generating income,whil eth eright so facces san downershi p mayb edetermine db y identification ofproductio nsystem s(private ,communa lo rstat eowne d land),o rlan dan dtre etenur earrangements . Locationo flan ddetermine sfarmer sacces st ofuelwood ,water ,markets , information andthu sinfluence s hislan d usestrategy .Anothe rdistinc ­ tion between usergroup si sgende rrelated .Femal efarmer s often have different accessan dcontro l toland ,productio n inputsan d information compared tomen ,whic h influences theirlan d usestrategy . Forth eidentificatio n ofunit so forganizatio na ninvestigatio no ffarmin g systems,loca lorganizations ,lan dusers 'association san dsocia lpattern s isneede d (Rocheleau, 1987).Processe ssuc ha sreforestation , environ­ mentalprotection ,watershe drehabilitatio n andth egrou pmanagemen t of natural resources in general require planners to concentrate on the dynamicso fcollectiv ebehaviou ran d selectthos esocia lorganization s capable of sustaining atechnica l innovation. Iti simportan t to identify preciselywhic hsocia lunit so forganizatio nca nan dwil lcarr you tcertai n activitiesan dwhic hsocia lunit so rgroup sca nfor ma sustainabl esocia l structure. Social organizations will vary with the technologies for resourcesmanagement .Fo rexample ,on-far m forestry mayrequir eth e farm family as the social unit, while forestry on common lands may demandth einvolvemen t of wholecommunitie san dvillag eorganizin g bodies (Cernea, 1985). Thisdistinctio n between land usergroup sno t only helps to formulate interventions that can be adopted, but it also provides anopportunit y toexamin e thedistributio n of benefits among thegroups . Thefac ttha tresources ,resourc emanagemen ttechnologie san dtechnica l and socioeconomic services are needed, means that an integrated programme of multiple project activities is needed (Paul, 1982). For example,th eintroductio no fa ne wlan dus epractic ei suseless ,unles sa t thesam etim esupportiv esocioeconomi c servicesar eprovided ,suc ha s creditfacilities , usufruct rights,managemen t arrangementso rtraining . Also,specifi ctechnologie san dservice shav et ob edesigne dfo r specific land user groups,requirin g multiple programme activities. Moreover, thecombinatio no ftechnica lan dsocioeconomi cintervention si sneede d as technical interventions are often the motor behind socioeconomic changes.Th etangibl eresult so ftechnica lintervention sinspir eindividu ­ alsan dorganization s tochang ethei rmod eo foperation . Therei sa limi tt oth enumbe ro finnovation stha tca nb eintroduce da tan y onetime :a wid ediversit y inmultipl e servicesdemand s temporalan d

42 spatial phasing of the programme. Too great a variety of services arrangedb ydifferen t organizationsma yb econfusin g forth elan duser s involved. Otherreason sfo rsequencin gca ninclud e insufficient finan­ cial resources, limited management capacity of organizations, or too many uncertainties about the impact of services.However , the most importantreaso nfo r sequencingi stha ti tprovide sth eopportunit yfo ra learningproces sapproach ,i nwhic hth eloca lpeopl ean dth esupportiv e organizationshar ethei rexperienc ean didea sbase do nexperimentation , and adapt services to fit the changing conditions (Paul, 1982). The advantage of working with a limited number of interventions is that priorityca nb egive nt othos eintervention spropose d thatbes tcombin e simplicityan dlo wris kwit hmajo rincrease si nincome .Thi sprovide sth e best chance of achieving a high rate of success.I n addition a limited programmei slikel yt oreac h morepeople ,especiall y thepoo r(Bunch , 1982). Anotherdimensio no fplannin gintervention srelate st oit smeasurabilit y andoutcome .Th eresult so fphysica ldevelopmen t sucha ssoi lconser ­ vationmeasures ,o rreforestatio n programmesar eeasie rt omeasur etha n programmes focused on changing the behavior of land users,o rothe r socialchanges .Thi s may beon eo f thereason s why government (and donor)programme sten dt ofocu so nmeasurabl eresults .The yar ehighl y visiblean dprovid ea clea rindicatio ntha tmone yha sbee nspen taccord ­ ingt oth estandar ddesign ,whic hserve sa syardstic kfo rth eperformanc e ofth eimplementin gorganization .Therefor ea combinationo fphysica l andsocia lmeasure sma yb ea realisti ccompromise ,althoug hth eneglec t of social servicest odat ejustifie s greateremphasi so nsocia lchanges . In this trial phase, communication and decision processes that areo f importancefo rth efit betwee nth elan dus esyste man dorganization sar e initiated undertria lcondition s (figure3.4) .

INTERVENTIONS

Major focus on fit to be achieved.

Fits realised under trial condition only.

LAND USE SYSTEM ORGANIZATIONS

Figure 3.4 : Degree of fits achieved in the trial phase 43 No structural changes in the competence of organizations can beex ­ pected yeta tthi sstage .Th eplannin go ftria lprogramme si scarrie dou t by a temporary planning team with a temporary organization and the designo fintervention s shouldb eadjuste d tothei rcurren tcompetence . Thisca nb eestablishe db yidentifyin gth epresen tcapacit yan dcompetenc e of local people and field workers, budgets available, transportation means,decision-makin gprocedure san dothe raspect so fth ecompetenc e of organizations. By participating in the trial cases for local level planning, field workers and their organization immediately become acquainted with morepeople-centere d processes:th e learning process startsb ylistenin gt ofarmer s andconsiderin gthe ma sequa lpartner si n ateam ,b yinvolvemen ti nparticipator yplannin gtechnique san dthroug h themobilizatio n ofhuma nresources .Thi saccumulatio n ofexperienc e reorientsattitude san dhabit so fthough t (Chamberse tal , 1989). Thus, behaviori schange d (inthi sphase )befor e attitude (inth edevelopmen t phase).Als oi nthes etria lcases ,villager sma ydevelo pth ecapabilit yo f their local organizations to organize themselves and to express their needs. Suchexperience sma ypav eth ewa yfo rmor estructura lchanges . Tosu mup ,i n theformulatio n of sustainable land useprogramme sth e interaction between bio-physical and social interventions iso f utmost importance.Thes eprogramme s shouldfocu s onth ethre epropertie so f sustainable land use systems: maintenance of production potential; adaptabilityo flan duser san da mor eequa ldistributio no fresource san d benefits. Thisrequire sth eidentificatio n andanalysi so fth emotive s of different land users for their specific land use strategies. Land user groupsca n be subdivided bymai n activities,b y tenure, bylocatio no f land,b ygende ran db yuni to forganization .Multipl eservice sshoul db e interactive andimplemente d insequenc et okee pth eprogramm eman ­ ageableb yth eloca llan duser san dt ocreat ea nopportunit yfo ra learnin g process.Plannin g socioeconomic servicesmeri t greateremphasi stha n technicalpractice sa sthe yar emor edifficul t tomeasur ean dthu seasie r to neglect. In thetria l phase no structural changes can bemad e toth e competenceo forganizations .However ,th einvolvemen to fthei rexten ­ sionworker si nth etria lcase so floca lleve lplannin gma yinfluenc ethei r behaviouri n workingwit hth eloca lpeople .

3.4.2 Fitin the development phase Inthi sphas eth efocu si so nachievin ga fi tbetwee na lan dus esyste man d organizationsb yth edevelopmen to fcommunicatio nprocesses . Differ­ entform so fcommunicatio nbetwee nth eloca llan duser san dth estaf fo f organizationsalread ytak eplac edurin gth eplannin gproces si nth eloca l dimension. Localpeopl e and staff of organizations work together ina team and implement the process of planning, implementation and

44 monitoringjointly .Moreove ra learnin gproces si nwhic hinformatio ni s shared between all actorsinvolve d isa mai nprincipl e of theplannin g strategy. In the development phase, these communication processes have to become institutionalized and embedded in an organization's structure. Inthi sphas ecommunicatio nprocesse stak eplac ethroug hth eimplemen ­ tationo floca lleve lplannin gan dhuma nresource sdevelopmen tactivities , managed ata regiona lscale .I nth eproces so fimplementin gloca lleve l planningth egovernmen twil lgai nexperienc ean dmotivatio nt ofurthe r develop and implement local level planning (figure 3.5). In order to understandth enecessit yfo r humanresource sdevelopmen t ananalysi s of thepresen t state of communication between many government or­ ganizations andloca lpeopl ei spresente dbelow .

SSS Major focus on fit to be achieved.

--- Quality of fit is improved. Fit realised under trial condition only.

LANDUS ESYSTE M ORGANIZATIONS Figure 3_ 5: Degreeof fits achieved in the development phase. Absenceo ffi tbetwee nth eorganization san dth elan dus esyste mi softe n caused by anincompatibilit y between theinstitution s of theorganiza ­ tionsan dth einstitution so fth eloca lpeople .Thi sha slimite dth esucces s ofsustainabl elan dus eprogramme s(Fo xan dFisher , 1990).Th einstitu ­ tions of local people are formed by their local social system, which determines the capability of local organizations or individuals to participate,organiz ethemselves ,mak edecisions ,expres sthei rdemand s and present options for communication with the organizations. The institutionso forganization spresen tdecisio nan dcommunicatio npattern s (throughthei rnorm san dvalues) ,bu td ono treac tt oth esocia lsyste mo f the local people.Thus ,situation sma y occur in which ase to f ruleso r practicesaccepte db yorganization sar eoppose dt oa se ttha ti saccepte d in the land use system. This incompatibility presents a need for the developmento fcommunicatio n andprope rdecisio nprocesse sbetwee n theloca lpeopl ean dth eorganizations .

45 Fromth epoin to fvie wo fth eloca lpeople ,thi sreluctanc et ocommuni ­ catema yb einduce db ya lac ko fmotivation .Thi si ntur nma yb ecause d by any one or a combination of the following factors: poor benefits; limited flow of information; lack of access to (financial) resources; differingeconomi cinterests ;th eabsenc eo floca lorganizations ;politica l interestso felit egroup si nth eloca lsocieties ;lac ko finvolvemen twith , responsibility for anddisappointment s withpreviou sprogrammes ;re ­ sentment of officials (because of corruption). As a result their countervailingpowe rt oactivel y'pul ldown 'service s(suc ha sextensio n andresearch ) from theorganization , islackin g (Röling, 1988).I nthi s respect, participation of the rural poor in the communication process deservesspecia lattention ,a sthe yar eofte n theleas torganize dbecaus e theyhav en oeducation ,n oacces st oextensio n andn otime t oorganiz e themselves. Amajo rcaus eo fth einabilit yo forganization st ocommunicat ewit hloca l peoplei sth eattitud ean dadministrativ estyl eo fgovernmen tstaff . They areheavil y dominated byhierarchica l authority,the y tend tofocu so n observingprocedure srathe rtha nachievin gresult san dar echaracterize d bya ninflexibilit yengendere db ystandardize dan droutinize dprocesses . For example in centralized bureaucratic programmes, a paternalistic approach is followed which implies that everything must be done for local people in a top-down, bureaucratic manner. Agency personnel comet oexpec ttha tth epeopl eserve dshoul daccep tth egreate rexpertis e ofth eprofessional .Skill si nlistenin gt opeopl ean dreshapin gprogramme s accordingly aresimpl yno tdevelope d (Korten, 1983).Loca lfiel d staff are often reluctant to undertake participatory planning because it is a time-consuming anddifficul t process.Instea dthe yprefe r tofollo w the standard designs laid down bycentra l government without theris ko f taking,ofte n unappreciated,initiatives .Moreover ,the ydoub tth ecapa ­ bilityo f localpeopl e toanalys ethei row nproblem s andcom eu pwit h valuableideas .Hence ,i nman ydevelopin gcountrie sgovernmen tagen ­ cies areno ttune d tomotivatin gan dhelpin gloca lpeopl et ocarr ythei r own development process. If local organizations exist, they are often exploitedo rforme dfo rth ebenefi to fgovernmen torganizations .Farme r groupsma yb euse dfo rextensio nmeeting san dth edistributio no finputs , whileth eloca lpeopl eofte n dono tse eth ebenefi t of suchorganizatio n and they: 'will last as long as the villagers feel they must keep the organizationsgoin gt osatisf ya developmen tagenc yo rreceiv ewhateve r subsidiesma yb eforthcoming ' (Bunch,1982) .

Inth elas tdecade ,ofte nunderpressur efro mdonors ,centra lgovernment s havegraduall y shown amor epositiv e attitude towardsa participator y approach to land use management programmes. The introduction of socialforestr yprogramme si sa nexample .However ,the yofte n stilllac k

46 confidence inth esocia lcapacit yo f localpeopl et omanag eresources . This results in an ambiguous approach that aims at handing over responsibility for land use management to communities without also handingove reffectiv econtrol ,whic hi stantamoun tt osaying :'Yo uhav e full authorityt omanag eth eforest s thewa yw ewant ' (Foxan dFisher , 1990). Asa resul to fconflictin g institutionsan dincompatibilit yi nth ecommu ­ nication process, the motivation for development programmes often differ, asillustrate d intabl e 3.1. Table3. 1 Conflicting motivationo floca lpeopl ean dorganization sfo rdevel ­ opment programmes

LOCAL PEOPLE ORGANIZATIONS

* are responsive to subsistence * areresponsiv e toplanne d and cash needs production and conservation objectives

* aresensitiv e to their timean d * follow existing organizational and planning capital constraints procedures

* require flexible programmes to * require reliableresult s respond to changes and minimal trouble to implement

* wantclea r farmers' rights and * wantclea r rights and ownership and no responsibility questioning of state's ownership and control of state land byloca l people

Theseobstacle st ocommunicatio nrequir eth eidentificatio n andformu ­ lation of new communication and decision processes between local peoplean ddevelopmen t practitionerso forganizations .Extensio npro ­ cessesma yb ea nanswe rt othes eneeds . Röling (1988) defines extension as: 'a professional communication intervention deployed bya ninstitutio n toinduc echang e in voluntary behaviorswit ha presume dpubli co rcollectiv eutility' .Suc ha commu ­ nication intervention aimsa t changing people, not things, nor doesi t promote private interests. 'Change involuntar y behaviour (behaviour thati senacte d inth eabsenc eo f surveillance andincentiv e structures) cannotb echange db ydegree .I trequire spersuasion ,transfe r of infor­ mation and other communication leading to changes in knowledge, awareness,motivation ,understandin go rfeed-back , whichallo wtarge t

47 Clientst odecid etha tbehaviou rchang ei si nthei rinterest' . Suchexten ­ sion requires technical innovation and humanresource s development, which should mutually reinforce each other (Röling, 1988). Bunting (1986)i srathe rmor especifi cwhe nh edefine s thetas ko fextensio nas : 'tocomprehen d thesocial ,economi c andtechnica lenvironmen t ofth e producersan dthei robjectives ,resources ,existin gmethod san ddifficul ­ ties;t orepresen tthei rnee dt oth eadministrativ eapparatu sa swel la st o theres to fth eknowledg esystem ;an dt ohel pconve yth eproduct softha t systeman doption sderive dfro mthe mt oproducers' .Thi sassume stha t agricultural extension which utilizes technical information from both indigenous and scientific knowledge systems is likely to be more effective over time than approaches from only one of these sources (Axinn, 1988). Thus, communication programmes require a steady flow of reliable information from bothsides ,an dloca lpeopl ean dorganization sshoul d haveth ecapacit yt ocommunicat ean dreac tt one winformation . Local people should be able to participate actively in solving their own problems by utilizing their indigenous knowledge, skills and their capacity for self-help (Ashby, 1985).O n the other hand they should benefit from resourcesan dservice sprovide db yorganization swit hth e helpo fextensio nworkers ,wh ofunctio na sadvisor srathe rtha npersuaders . This approach to extension is known as the 'agricultural extension participatory approach'. Afirst ste pi nachievin goptima lextensio n processesha salread ytake n place in the planning process in the local dimension. This planning process does thefollowing : mobilizes local people andorganizations ; stimulates their cooperation; responds to the diversity of the different landuse rgroups ;help sthe mbecom eawar eo fthei rsituation ,constraint s and opportunities; develops their capacity and helps them gain countervailing power.I nthi sdevelopmen t phase,communicatio npro ­ cesses are institutionalized by being incorporated into local organiza­ tionsan dintervenin gorganization sthrough :developin gloca lorganiza ­ tions; training; motivation andmonitoring .Befor e theseprocesse sar e discussed,th eissu eo fmanagin gan dimplementin gthes ehuma nresourc e development willb eexplored . Accordingt oRölin g(1988 )th eabilit yo fan ycivi lservic einstitutio nt o perform thefunction srequire db ythi styp eo fhuma nresourc edevelop ­ menti sdoubtful . Suchactivitie sar eincompatibl ewit hth epresen twor k ethic, incentive systems and career perspectives. 'It is agricultural extension workersthemselve swh oar eth etarge to f mucho f themobi ­ lization,organizatio nan dtraining .On ecanno texpec textensio nworker s toincreas eth eclaim smad eupo nthemselves '(Röling ,1988) .So ,a slon g

48 aschange si ngovernmen tstructur e haveno tye ttake nplac e(thi soccur s inphas e III),a n intermediateorganizatio n mayhav et ob einvolve dt o developth ehuma nresource ss otha tultimatel ya balance dapproac hca n bereache dbetwee ntechnica lagencie san dfarmer sorganization .Thes e farmerorganization sshoul dai ma tth edevelopmen to fa self-sustainin g systeman dmus tavoi dcreatin gdependence .NGO sca nmak ea valuabl e contribution as the intermediate organization. The mainstay of their contributiont odevelopmen ti sno tfinancial ,bu torganizational ,sinc eth e essenceo fthei rapproac hi st oorganiz epeopl eint ostructure sfo rgrou p action. Sinceman yNGO sar eroote d in communities they areabl e 16 reach therura l poor and set upoutreac h programmes inremot eareas ; theyca npromot e localparticipatio n andoperat eo na lo wbudget ,an d haveth ecapacit yt oinnovat ean dadap tt oloca lsituations .Howeve rthe y havelimite dreplicabilit yan dself-sustainability ,becaus ethei ractivitie s are often small, localized and dependent on highly motivated staff (Cernea,1988 ;White ,1989) .Moreove rthe yar eofte nno taccepte da sa n alternativepowe ri ndevelopmen t processes byth egovernment . Inth e following somecomponent so fextensio nprocesse s willb ediscussed . Localorganizations Bydevelopin g localorganizations , localpeopl eunit ean d thusma yb e better able to voice their needs or objections, implement and manage development activities, while for the intervening organizations these local organizations areeasie r tocontac t andcooperat e with thanindi ­ vidual farmers. Local organizationsca n enhancemobilizatio n ofloca l knowledgean dresource sthu sallowin gpeopl et ohel pthemselve san dt o pressfo rservice stha twoul dotherwis ehav epasse dthe mby . Inthi swa y they are endowed with a greater voice in planning, management and evaluation, making them less dependent on government and private organizations (Uphoff, 1986;Röling ,1988) . Thedevelopmen to fa singl emode lfo rloca lorganizatio ni si nfundamen ­ talconflic t withth ewid ediversit y found invillag eorganization s(Fo x and Fisher, 1990). However, there are a number of aspects of well functioning local organizations which may serve as guidelines to de­ velopingo rsupportin gloca lorganizations .Socia lorganization sshoul d besmal lclose d groups,wh ohav ea clea rmanagemen t unit,wh oshar e managementobjective san dwh osho wdirec trelatio nbetwee ninput san d outputso fgrou pactivities .Ther eshoul db eeffectiv e leadershipi nwhic h membershav eacces st omanagemen tpositions .Powe rma yb edelegate d to a management group in the local organization. The acceptance of sanctionsand/o rrule so nmanagemen tan dus eo fresource sb ymember s of the organization will prevent the prevalence of individual benefits over those of the group (the so-called 'free-riders' phenomenon). To supportth elegitimac yo fth eorganizatio nfo rmember san doutsider sth e

49 Organizationma ynee dlega lstatus .However ,thi sma ycarr yth e danger of monopolization of positions in the organization or the use of organizationsb yth egovernmen tfo r politicalpurpose s (Werter,1992) . Such social organizations can be either indigenous (existing) groups, such as family households, clans, or created groups, like women's groups, or cooperatives (Cernea, 1985; Uphoff, 1986). Any support offered to local organizations should not conflict with the general culturalvalues ,attitude san dbehavio rpattern so fth epeopl e(Ozgediz , 1983). Cautioni snecessar ywhe nusin ga nexistin gorganization ,becaus eo fth e possibilitytha ti ndoin gs oexistin gsocia linequalitie swil lb emaintained . Because the more powerful succeed in acquiring most benefits, the involvemento fth e'elit eonly 'i nloca lorganization sshoul db eavoide d (Frerks,1991) .Thi si svita l sinceth eprospec to fa mor eequa ldistribu ­ tiono f benefits andresource samon gth evillag ecommunit y isa majo r incentive for therura lpoo rt ocooperat ei ndevelopmen tprogrammes . Establishment of an organization is a slow and difficult processespe ­ ciallywher egroup so fdifferen t socioeconomic background havet ob e broughttogethe r(Werter , 1992). Experienceha staugh ttha tsuc horga ­ nizations should begin with only one or two highly salient activities. Once thesear eperforme d effectively, anda smember sgai n bothcom ­ petencean dconfidenc e inthei rorganization , thescop eo fit sactivitie s can expand. In situations of low mutual trust in managing communal resources smallnessi sa necessar y condition for theviabilit y of aloca l organization (Röling,1988) .T oachiev esom eautonomy ,organization s mustmobiliz e someo f theirow nresource san dno tdepen dentirel yo n outsidesources ,whil egovernmen tagencie snee dt ob ewillin gt ole tth e organizations learn from making their own mistakes.Thes e resources mayconsis to fgood san dservices ,informatio n andstatu so rlegitimacy . Themos ttangibl ean dappreciate d areth eeconomi cresources ,suc ha s cash and credit, goods and labour and thus theloca lcapacit y of orga­ nizationsfo r economicresourc e mobilization andmanagemen t should beo fconcer n(Uphoff , 1986). Sinceth ecreatio no forganization si ssuc h adifficul t processintensiv eguidanc ean dtrainin gwil lb ea prerequisit e for theirautonomou s functioning.

Training Training and education of local people is important for their capacity building.Thes eactivitie sca nb esimpl ean dorganize di na loca lsettin g soa st ous etrainin gmateria ldraw nfro m theirow nenvironmen t andt o reacha greate rnumbe ro fpeopl edirectly .Trainin gcover sth edevelop ­ ment of knowledge and skills in technology management, but also involvesdevelopin g themanagemen t capacities of local organizations

50 viaconflic t management,decisio n makingan d book-keeping.I naddi ­ tionmor eforma l trainingan deducatio nfo rgovernmen tstaf f isneede d tochang ethei rattitude ,skills ,an dcapacitie sfo rparticipator yplanning , implementationan dmonitorin gprocesses .Thi sma ytak eth efor mo fin - service training as well as support to schools and universities totrai n futureextensio nworker san dplanners .Thu sa cadr eo fexperience dstaf f oforganization st omanag eth eplannin gproces sca nb edeveloped . Motivation Different participants and types of programmes will need different combinations of incentives tomotivat ecommitment .Th eai mo fthes e communication processes is to bring about voluntary change, which meanstha tenforcemen t andsurveillanc ear eno tconsidere dt ob evali d incentives.Thi scombinatio nma yinclude ,beside seconomi cincentive s such asincrease si nproductivit y andincome ,othe rincentive s such as status,recognitio n ofloca lorganization san da mor eequa ldistributio n ofbenefits .I norde rt obecom emotivate dt ocarr yo nthei row ndevelop ­ ment process, people must acquire enthusiasm and a willingness to experiment, study, makedecision s and cooperate with others (Bunch, 1982).Earl yrecognizabl esuccesse sar ecrucia li ninstillin genthusiasm .

Thepolitica l strugglefo rresource swhic hi sapparen ti nmos tdevelop ­ mentbureaucracie simplie stha tdevelopmen tprogramme smus tno tonl y makesens efo r theloca lpopulation ,bu tshoul d alsoprovid eincentive s to the supporting government staff. Therefore, a new task will be the assessment of the motivation of government staff and planning of incentivest ostimulat e theirconcer n for therura lpoo r(Heaver , 1982). Examples of such incentives may be:providin g status to successfully developed local organizations; promotion and training facilities, or provision ofallowances . Monitoring Animportan tfeatur eo fextensio nprocesse si sth ewa yi nwhic hpartici ­ pantslear nfro m eachothe ropinion san dexperiences .Farmers 'abilit y to make decisions will increase when they can learn from their own action,fro m observingothers 'actio nan dfro m discussingrelationship s between cause and effect (Ban and Hawkins, 1988). This calls for monitoringprocedures ,whic henabl epeopl et oimprov ethei r efficiency and effectiveness. By undergoing an educational process local people andfiel d staff increasethei rawarenes san dunderstandin go fth evariou s factors which affect them, and thus increase their control over the development process (Bajracharya etal. , 1987;FAO ,1988) . Governmentsi nthir dworl dcountrie sten dt orel ymor eo nth eobservanc e ofprocedure san drule sgovernin gth eprocesse so fdecision-makin g

51 and budgetary control than on the real performance of development programmes. Frequently, existing monitoring systems are geared to­ wardsprovidin ghighe rleve lpolic ymaker san dplanner swit hinformatio n onproductivit y andyields ,level so f technology, accesst o information andadvisor y services.However ,i nlan dus emanagemen tprogramme s at local level it may be much more useful to monitor the process of operations,th eperformanc e of thoseinvolved , theprogres s orresult s they achieve,resource s used andth eoveral limpac to n thelive so fth e beneficiaries. In practice much more use can be made of qualitative rather than quantitative indicators of success such as: the degree of enthusiasm of farmers.the requests for more training, the numberso f dayswor kfarmer s arewillin gt opu tint oinnovations ,th espontaneou s spreado fsuc hinnovation sfro mon evillag et oanother ,o rth ewillingnes s toexperimen t withne wpractice so ractivitie s (Bunch,1982) . Errordetectio n is amai n feature of themonitorin gprocess .However , revealing when and how projects deviate from their design during implementationi sa difficul t taskan dofte nconflict swit hcultura lnorms . People in many developing countries are reluctant to confront their superiorso rdonor s withpoo rresults .Th erol e of local leadersca nb e importanti nthi srespec tb ystimulatin gfeedbac k from thecommunity . They should give local people the inspiration and security to openly criticizeth eprogramm ewithou tgivin grise to ba dfeeling so rrepercus ­ sions,a swel la sth ereassuranc etha tthei rsuggestion swil lb eacte dupo n (Bunch,1982) . To sum up:i n the development phase the focus is on achieving a fit between local people, situated in their specific social system, and organizations(figur e 3.5),throug hth edevelopmen t ofcommunicatio n processes. The intervening organizations should help local people to decide on changes in their land use strategies based on changes in knowledge,awareness ,motivation ,o rpowe rderive dfro mloca lorgani ­ zations.Extensio nprocesse sca nhel pt obrin gabou tthi scommunication . Important components of these extension processes are: thedevelop ­ ment of local organizations, training, motivation and monitoring. As long as changes in government structure have not yet taken place,a n intermediateorganizatio nma yhav et ob einvolve dfo rhuma nresource s development. In thisdevelopmen t phase the fit between interventions andorganiza ­ tionsbecome sles sexperimenta lsinc ea growin gnumbe ro fgovernmen t organizations become involved in local level planning, training and monitoring.Th eorganizatio no fth eloca lleve lplannin galread yrequire s somechange s inoperation . Forexample ,th eorganizatio n of interdis­ ciplinaryplannin gteam so ffiel d workersan dvillager srequire s cooperation

52 betweenth edifferen t sectoralagencies . Theyshoul db ecoordinate db y a manager of the local government which will require a form of decentralized(deconcentrated )management .I nthi swa yth efirst ste pi s taken toachiev ea fi t between interventions andorganizations . Inthi sphase ,th eexterna linput s(fro mdono ragencies )wil lb ereduced , whileth e government will have tomak eroutin e budgets available for implementing local levelplannin gan dtrainin gprogrammes .Thi swil l onlyhappe ni fth epolitica lwil lexist st oimplemen tthi sne wstrateg yo f landus eplannin go na large rscale .I fthi si sth ecase ,i twil lb emanifeste d by a greater motivation on the part of the staff of organizations to cooperatewit hvillager san da nincrease dconcer nfo rth erura lpoor .I t shouldals olea dt oa nincrease dwillingnes st oinves ti nimprovin gthei r public service management. Thisinclude s arranging training schemes andincentive sfo rstaf f andcreatin gstructure san dprocedure si nwhic h participatory planning is possible and accepted (Korten, 1983;Paul , 1982).Th elatte rha st ob ecomplete d inth eexpansio nphase . 3.4.3 Fit inthe expansion phase Inthi slas tphase ,a fit betwee n interventions andorganization s canb e achieved if the organizational competence is adjusted to the task requirements,a sdictate db yplanne dinterventions .Intervention si nlan d usemanagemen t atth eloca lleve li nwhic hth epeopl ear eth ecentr eo f development,requir ea fundamenta l reorientationi npurposes ,structur e and operation of government organizations. They should move away fromdirec tservic edeliver yan dresourc emanagemen ttoward scapacity - buildingo floca lorganization san dindividuals .Thes etasks ,whic hhav e beenmentione d inth etria lan ddevelopmen tphases ,requir ea norgani ­ zation thatcan : adapt toloca l situations; analyse economic,cultura l andpolitica l factors thatdetermin e farmers' strategiesfo rresourc e management; organizeextensio nprocesse swhic hutiliz etechnica linformatio n from bothindigenou s and scientific knowledgesystems ; develop andsuppor t localorganizations ; organize trainingprogramme sfo r local organizations andgov ­ ernment staff with the involvement of intermediate organiza­ tions; introduce moral and financial incentives for local people and government staff; setu pa participator y monitoringprogramme ; integrate servicesan dcoordinat eactivities . Existinggovernmen torganization softe n dono tposses sth ecompetenc e

53 toimplemen t these tasks,bu tman yo f themrecogniz e thenecessit y to build it up. Chapter 1 discusses how the policies and programmeso f manydevelopin gcountrie sar edesigne db ysectora lagencie sa tcentra l level and are financed with national budgets, while lower levels of government administration are responsible for implementing the programmesaccordin gt oprescribe dguidelines .However ,government s haveincreasingl ybee nforce d tochang ethei rplannin gan dadministra ­ tion procedures in the past decade because of: (a) poor programme performance and disappointed electorates; (b) shifts in international developmentstrategie stoward sth epoor ,(c )financia lproblems ,becaus e of decreasing exports and diminishing foreign assistance. This has persuaded government organizations to find ways of using limited resources more effectively through a careful move towards changing theircompetenc e(Rondinell ie tal , 1984;Alfonso , 1983;Ickis ,1983) . The identification of the competence of the organization required to implement their new tasks should be based on the identification of possibilities and constraints in structure and operation of government organizations.Firstl y structuralchange si nth efor mo fdecentralizatio n processes are examined, followed by adiscussio n of therol eo f local leaders. Theimplementatio n of astrateg yfo r planning localleve lprogramme s which areadjuste d toth eloca lsituatio nan dtak eth efor m ofa learnin g process implies anee d for decentralization. Rondinelli (1984) defines decentralization as 'an incremental processo f buildingth ecapacit yo f subordinate or semi-autonomous organizations that assume greater responsibility for development planning, management and resource raisingan dallocatio n' .Decentralizatio nbring splanner san dimplementor s closert oth eopportunitie s andconstraint so f thelan dus esystem .Fou r types of decentralization are apparent (Uphoff and Esman, 1974, Cernea,1988,Rondinell i etal ,1984) : Déconcentration; thedecision-makin gi smove dt olowe rlevels , butth eresponsibilitie s andsanction sremai nwit hth etop ; Delegation; managerial responsibility for specifically defined functions is transferred to organizations that are outside the regular bureaucratic structure and that areonl y indirectly con­ trolledb yth ecentra l government; Devolution; sub-national units of government are created or strengthened, financially or legally, and their activities are substantiallyoutsid eth edirec tcontro lo fth ecentra lgovernment . Both decision making andoperation s arei n the handso f these sub-nationalunits ,wher eregionall yo rlocall yaccountabl epeopl e manageactivities ; Privatization;responsibilit yfo rfunction si stransferre dt ovolun -

54 taryorganization so rperforme d byprivat eenterprises .Bot ho f theserepresen tform so forganizationa l autonomy. Ingeneral ,decentralizatio nprocesse sar estil ldifficul t toachiev ean dar e oftenjudge dt ocaus ecompetitio nbetwee nth ecentra lauthoritie san dth e local organizations: one of the reasons why déconcentration is more apparent in many developing countries than devolution. Even when local administrative units have,i n theory, been given broad powerst o perform development planning and management functions, adequate financialresource san dqualifie d personnelt ocarr ythe mou thav eofte n beenwithhel d (Paul, 1982, Uphoff andEsman , 1974). Thedecentrali ­ zation process needs to beaccompanie d bycapacity-buildin g of local agenciest oimplemen tthei rtask sa swel la sth einvolvemen t ofNGO' s ormor eautonomou s governmentagencies . Decentralization of the planning and the management of land use programmes may also involvedecision s concerningrule s andregula ­ tionsfo rth emanagemen to fresource sa tloca llevel .Thes ebureaucrati c changes become apparent when the interventions require legal provi­ sions to pursue a participatory approach that allows for greater local accesst oan dcontro love rresources ,i fi ti st ob eresponsiv et ocommunit y interests and desires. In many contexts meaningful participation in managemento floca lresource sca nonl yb egenerate di fcertai nrights o f thepeopl e expected toparticipat e arerecognized *suc h asdistributiv e arrangements, authority mechanisms for collective decision making, usufruct andlandownershi p rights. Consequently decentralization has a cost in terms of the increased complexity of management control anddevelopmen t of better trained decisionmaker sa tlowe rleve l(Paul , 1982; Uphoff andEsman ,1974)) . The need for capacity-building of local agencies and exerting control overthe mrequire sthi s'expansio nphase 't opa yattentio n toth eidenti ­ fication of needs and the development of programmes that focus on strengthening the role of local leaders, by giving them autonomous financial responsibility of local agencies and autonomy in decision making; Thefunction s transferred toloca ladministrativ eunit smus tb esuite dt o theircurren to rpotentia lmanageria lcapacities ,an dindee dshortage so f skilledleader sa tth eloca lleve lha sbee na nimportan tfacto rcontributin g to the disappointing results of decentralization programmes so far. Experienceha staugh ttha tchange si nth estructur eo forganization sma y occuri nrespons et oth eaction so fa loca lleader ,wh obuild sa commit ­ mentwithi nth eorganizatio nt oa ne wse to fvalues ,leadin gi tthroug hth e difficult adaptationproces s(Ickis ,1983) .Suc ha loca lleade rma yb eth e

55 heado fa (sub-)district ,a loca lextensio ncentre ,a nNGO ,a villag eo ra local cooperative. When the planning strategy enters the expansion phase,th enee dfo rdevelopin ga cadr eo fcapabl eloca lleaders ,wh oca n manageth eimplementatio n ofth estrateg y ispivotal .Thi sha salread y partly been accomplished through human resource development pro­ cessesi nphas eII .However ,suc hprocesse sals orequir eimprovement s inpubli c servicemanagemen ta swel la sautonom yi ndecisio nmakin g andfinancia l responsibility. Decentralizationimplie stha tloca lleader swil lfirml yente rth epolitica l arenao fconflict san dcompetitio nfo rinfluenc ean dresources .Th eloca l developmentmanage rshoul db eabl et odevelo pth epolitica lknow-ho w tocompet e for resources;identif y thecritica l pointsfo r interventions; detect errors; securecommitment sfro m personsove rwho mh eha sn o directcontro lan dinstitutionaliz elinkage sbetwee norganization sa ske y inputst othi scapacity-buildin gproces s(Ickis , 1983). Inadditio nt oth e wrenching human and organizational problems of adapting existing structures tone w strategies,th e local leaders havet odea l with vested interestso f their superiors. Therefore, somefor m of accountability is necessary tocontro lth eact so fleader so floca lorganization sbot hfro m above (central government) and from below (local people). Simple proceduresan dth eus eo fadministrativ eunit sma ymak ethes edecentral ­ izedlevel so fgovernmen tmor eresponsiv et oth epeopl ethe yserv ean d thus better controlled. The accountability of local leaders to their constituenciesi so fmajo r importancet othei r functioning. Although central governments prefer to transfer resources rather than givingth erea lpowe rt oself-generat e resources,autonomou s financial responsibilityi sa tth ecor eo fth econcep to fdecentralizatio nan dcrucia l forth estrateg yo fplannin glan dus eprogramme sa tloca lleve l(Cochrane , 1983;Rondinell ie tal ,1984) .Therefore ,decentralizatio nmus tboos tth e powero fsub-nationa lunit st orais erevenue san dincreas eth esum stha t are actually generated. This will diminish the dependency of local authorities,an dincreas ethei rresponsibilit y toimpos etaxe s(instea do f central government) andjustif y to the local population how revenues havebee nspent .However ,loca lgovernment sfac edifficultie s infindin g revenue sourcesamon gth erura lpoor ,becaus ethe yar epoliticall yan d administratively difficult togather . Inloca lleve lplannin gmor eadaptiv ean dinnovativ eactivitie sar et ob e performed, which suggests that programme agencies require greater autonomy from thecentra l government. Moreover,whe n taskrequire ­ ments call for structures and processes different from those of the government, or when governments have been reluctant to become 56 involvedi ncontroversia lo rexperimenta lactivities ,programm eorgani ­ zationswit hsom edegre eo findependenc efro m government(voluntar y orprivat eorganizations )ma yhav et ob ese tu p(Paul , 1982;Rondinell i et al, 1984). For example, the management of communal natural re­ sources requires a strong social organization capable of enforcing incentives andcontrol .Managemen to fthes eresource sb ygovernmen t bodiesha sno talway sbee neffectiv e asthe ywer eno tabl et ogenerat e similarpattern so f socialorganization .Thi sabsenc eha sallowe dope n accessresultin gi nresourc edestructio n andenvironmenta ldegradatio n by individuals. This may best be filled by the people themselves, groupingthemselve sint oloca l(non-governmental )organization ssup ­ portedb y(temporary )intermediat eorganization s(Cemea , 1988). Also the involvement of NGOs as intermediate organization in developing trainingprogramme sfo rloca lorganization san dgovernmen tstaf f isa n exampleo f anee dfo r independentorganizations . Althoughdecentralizatio n ispropose dfo reffectiv e organizationo fth e local level planning strategy, local autonomy by itself is judged to provideto olittl eleverag efo rdevelopment .Chapte r2 demonstrate stha t linkagesar ea mor esignifican tvariabl etha nautonom ywhe ni tcome st o promotingsustainabl elan dus eprogramme s(Uphof f andEsman, 1974). Thereforedecentralizatio nmus tb eviewe drealistically ,a son eo fa rang e of administrative ororganizationa l devices that may improve the effi­ ciency, effectiveness and responsiveness of various levels of govern­ mentunde rsuitabl econditions . Tosummarize : inth eexpansio nphas eth ecompetenc eo fth eorganiza ­ tionca nb eadjuste d toth etask san dlega lrequirement so fth einterven ­ tions(figur e3.6) .Decentralizatio nprocesse sar edeeme dnecessary .Th e

INTERVENTIONS /; /j _ // "%L ^^ Major focus on — fit lob e achieved. — Qualityo f achieving fits is improved.

LAND USE SYSTEM ORGANIZATIONS

Figure 3.6 : Degreeof fits achievedin the expansionphase.

57 central government shouldpursu e thisdecentralizatio n and promotea stronger capacity for autonomy in decision-making and finance, by stimulating theraisin g ofrevenue san dmanagemen to f finances atth e local level.Also ,i t should developpersonne l management atth eloca l level to strengthen the role of local leaders by organizing training, incentives,increase d accountability andcoordination .However ,attitu - dinal,behaviora lan dcultura lcondition sshoul db econduciv et odecen ­ tralization, such asth equalit y of local leadership,th eattitud e towards corruption, the attitudes of rural people toward government, or tradi­ tionalcustom san dbehavior .

3.5 Summary In this chapter a strategic model for planning sustainable land use programmesa tloca lleve li sdeveloped .Th etw omajo rprinciple so fthi s modelare : Programmes are planned and implemented through a learning process in a local and organizational dimension. The local dimension includesa learnin gproces so f planning,implement ­ ing and monitoring of small scale programmes. The planning processi sshort ,bu tplanne dintervention sar eregularl y adjusted basedo nne winsight san dchangin gconditions . Inth eorganiza ­ tional dimension the learning process proceeds through three different phases of trial, development and expansion. In this dimension,th egovernmen tca nlear nho wt omanag eth estrateg y ofimplementin gloca lleve lplannin gan dho wt ochang eattitude , normsan dorganizationa lcompetenc eo forganizatio ni norde rt o do so. This dimension embraces local, regional and national governments. Three major variables are considered in programme planning: land use system; interventions and organizations. Sustainable landus eprogramme sar eonl ypossibl ei fa goo dfi tbetwee nthes e variablesi sachieved . Inth estrategi cmode lthes etw oprinciple sar ecombined ; afi t between thevariable si sachieve dthroug ha learnin gprocess .Becaus eachievin g a fit between the three variables is acomplicate d matter, it requiresa phased approach which consists of the following three steps: a trial phase,a developmen tphas ean da nexpansio n phase.I nth etria lphase , thefocu si so nachievin ga fi tbetwee nintervention san dlan dus esyste m in the local dimension. Trial cases in local level planning are imple­ mented in which villagers, field workers of organizations and local leadersbecom e acquainted with thisne w strategyo f planning sustain­ able land use programmes at local level. In the development phase, attentioni sfocuse do nachievin ga fi tbetwee norganization san dlan dus e

58 system through the development of communication processes. The development of extension processes and the implementation of local level planning on a larger scale may gradually change the skills and attitudeo fthos einvolved .Communicatio nprocesses ,a sinitiate di nth e trialcase sbecom einstitutionalized .I nth eexpansio nphas eth eplannin g approach isaccepte dan dapplie da tnationa llevel .Change si ngovern ­ mentstructure san dprocedures ,suc ha sdecentralizatio nan dstrengthen ­ ingo floca lleadershi pnee dt ob eachieved .B ydividin gth eproces sint o phases,th ecomple xproblem sassociate dwit hplannin gsustainabl elan d usebecom emanageable ,an dste pb yste pth eultimat egoa lo fachievin g afit betwee n allthre evariable sca nb ereached . The next chapter reviews planning methods suitable for use in the implementationo fthi sstrategi cmodel .Thi sdiscussio nwil lb edirecte d specifically atmethod swhic har eappropriat efo rth eimplementatio no f thefirs t phaseo fth emodel .

59 PLANNINGMETHO D

4.1 Introduction Inth estrategi cmodel ,a sdescribe di nchapte r3 ,th evariou selement san d phasest ob etake nint oconsideratio nwhe nplannin gsustainabl elan dus e programmeswer eoutlined .Fo rpractica lapplicatio nthi sstrategi cmode l shouldb ecombine dwit ha noperationa l methodfo rplannin glan dus e programmes at local level. This chapter describes aplannin g method appropriatefo r thetria lphas eo fth estrategi cmodel . Threebasi c questions shouldb eaddresse d whendevelopin g anopera ­ tionalplannin g method: what criteria does the strategic model set for the planning method? whatplannin gmethod sexis tfo rplannin glan dus eprogrammes ? if we use these criteria, which existing planning methods are appropriatefo r implementing thetria lphase ? The basic principles underlying the strategic model set the following criteria for thedevelopmen to fsuc ha noperationa lplannin gmetho di n thetria lphase : local level implementable at theloca l level of an administrative or social unit; implementable byvillager san dfiel d staff oforganizations ; simplean dquic kplannin gprocess ; provideslinkage sbetwee nloca lan dhighe rphysica lan dadmin ­ istrativelevels . learningprocess providesth epossibilit yfo rsharin go fknowledg ean dexperienc e between localpeopl ean dfiel d staff oforganizations ; implementable asa niterativ eprocess ; providesflexibilit y byplannin gsmal lscal etria lprogrammes .

61 Fitbetween variables adjusts interventions toloca lneeds ,constraint s andopportuni ­ ties; analysesth ebio-physica l andsocioeconomi c systemsan dthei r interaction; distinguisheslan duse rgroup sb ythei rlan dus estrategies ; pursues thethre epropertie s of sustainable land use systemsi n designo finterventions ; designsintegrate dprogrammes ; identifies the capacity of local organizations and (external) organizationst orespon dt oeac hother ; adjusts theplanne d interventions toth epresen tcompetenc eo f organizations. Anumbe r of different approaches have beendevelope d in thepast ,t o dealwit hsituation so rproblem so fpoverty ,environmenta ldegradatio n or agricultural development. Three sets of approaches can bedistin ­ guished:lan dus edevelopment ;extensio napproache san dprojec tman ­ agement.Eac ho fthes eapproache si sdescribe d andsubsequentl ythei r relation toth estrategi cmode li soutlined . Landuse development Land usedevelopmen t approaches include:rura l development, water­ shed management, agricultural and sectoral development. As in this chapterth edevelopmen to fa plannin gmetho di scentral ,attentio nwil l focus onth eplannin go f theseapproaches . Ruraldevelopmen tplannin gaim sa ta proces so fchang ei nth erura larea s leading tobette rlivin gcondition s andgreate r securityo fexistenc e for thepopulatio n within theguideline so rpolicie sestablishe d bynationa l development objectives and priorities (Hamilton and King, 1984, Sterkenburg, 1987).Althoug h land use development is often a major component,th eprogramm ecoordinate sal laspect so frura ldevelopment , including health, education, transport (FAO, 1989). These so-called sectoraldevelopmen tprogramme sar eofte nth eresponsibilit yo fsectora l agencies such asforestry , public works(irrigation ,roa dconstruction) , agriculture,healt hcare ,industry) .On eo fth emajo r drawbackso fsuc h integrated rural development programmes is the fact that they are difficult toimplement . Institutionalrivalries an dwidel yvaryin gbudge t allocations hinder a coordinated strategy for dealing with integrated programmes.Sectora lministrié san dagencie sar eorganize dalon g rigid verticaladministrativ ean dpolitica lstructure swit hhardl yan ycoopera ­ tionbetwee nthem .Thu sth einstitutiona lframewor k isofte n lackingfo r integrationo fsuc hsectora lprogrammes .Moreover ,thes erura ldevelop ­ mentprogramme s haveofte n beenimplemente d viatop-dow ncentral -

62 ized planning and management, which makes them difficult for local landuser st oadopt . New concepts have been developed for integrating programmes and restricting the number of sectoral agencies involved. For example, watershedmanagemen tconsider sth edrainag ebasi nconcep t asa vali d andusefu l integratinguni tfo r understandingth estructur ean d function of social and natural systems (Hamilton and King, 1984). Easter and Hufschmidt (1985) define integrated watershed management as: 'the process of formulating andimplementin g acours eo f action involving natural, agricultural, and human resources of awatershed , taking into account thesocial ,economi c andinstitutiona l factors operatingwithi n the watershed and the surrounding river basin....to achieve specific objectives'. Assuch ,watershe dmanagemen tca nb edistinguishe d from other approaches by its physical unit for planning. However this ap­ proachha sals oface dproblem so fcooperatio nbetwee ndifferen t sectoral agencies. Anotherapproac hi sregiona l(agricultural ) planning,whic hi sdescribe d byFresc oe tal . (1990) as: 'Theproces so f analyzing andplannin g the development ofth eagricultura l sectoro fa region' .I ti sa specifi c form of intermediate level planning of sectors and regions with a view to bridging the gapbetwee n generalmacro-plannin g and specific project planning.Th ejustificatio n forhighlightin gth eagricultura lsecto rwithi n aregio n istha ti n mostdevelopin g countries agricultural activitiesar e veryimportan t especially atregiona llevel ,becaus eusuall y thelarges t parto f theemploymen t andincom ei sgenerate d within thissector . Extension approaches Axinn (1988)recognize s eight major extension approaches in current extensionpractic e(se ebo x4.1) ,whic hca nb ecombine di nan ynumbe r ofpermutation san dvariations ,dependin go nan yparticula rplace , time orpurpose .Th efirs t threeapproache shav eman yadvantage st ocentra l governments: national policies are interpreted; they cover the whole nation; they are easy to control and effect rapid communication from centralt oloca llevel .However ,thes eapproache sar eno tadjuste dt oloca l knowledge,need san dcapacities .Th eparticipator y andfarmin g system developmentapproache s however,ar edifficul t tocontro lb yth egovern ­ ment, but showhig hrelevanc e toloca lneed san dinterests ,bot h inth e contento fth eextensio nprogramm ean di nth ecommunicatio nmethod s usedb yextensio n workers(Axinn , 1988).

63 1 Thegenera lagricultura lextensio napproac h Thebasi cassumptio ni stha ttechnolog yan dinformatio nar eavailabl e whichar eno tbein guse db yfarmers ,an di fthi sknowledg e(teii&nolo - gies)conldb etransferre dt ofarmers ,farmpraetice swool db eimprove d andproductio n increasedProgramm eplannin gi smainl yeontroEel l byth ecentra lgovernment ,wh oemploy sa larg enumbe ro frteï dstaff . throughouttneeountr ya thig hcost *A maJorimpiementado Btechniqu e isdemonstratio nplot s(introdueingne wtechnolog yfro m thegovern « ment), 2 Thecommodit yspecialize dapproac h Toincreas eproductivit yofacommodit yero pai lfunction s(e*teasio& , research,input ssupply ,marketing )ar eorganise d«ade *on eadminis ­ tration,PrograöUtteplaiJniögisoontroile db yaèommodit yorgaiiissatio ö and implemented through its Held staff by giving instnictions to cultivators. 3 TheTrainin gan dVisi tapproac h Thisapproac hassume sthatfieldstaf fundertheMioistr yo fAgricultur e arepoorl ytrained ,notu pt odate »lac ksupervisionan dlogisti csuppor t andtha tthe yd ono tvis «an dhav econtac twit hfarmers .Th eapproac h aimsatreaiizin ga two-wa yflo wo fcommunicatio nbetwee nresearc h andextensio nunits ,an dextensio nstaf fan dfarmers ,throug ha highl y disciplinedsyste mo ftrainin go fvillag eextensio nworker sb ysubjec t matterspecialist san dvisit sb yextensio nworker st ofarmers *Contro l ofprograranKipl^ningiscentraHzedandwithfundsfromintéJtiationâl sources,tota lstaf f sissean dlogisti csuppor tca nb egreatl y increased« Successi smeasure di nterm so fproductio nincreases » 4 Theagricultura lextensio nparticipator yapproac h Theassumption stha tfarmingpeopiepossessmuehwisdoraregardin g productiono ffoo dfro mthei rland » butthei rstandar do flivin gcoul d be improved by learning moreo f whati s known outside« Effective extension cannot be achieved without actiye farmer participation* Focusi spu to ngrou pforming ,grou plearnin gan dexpresse dneed so f farmers.Programm eplannin gi scontrolle dlocally ,ofte n byfarmers * groups,an dthu sprioritie svar yaccordingt ogrou po rlocation .Imple ­ mentationisthroug hgrou pmeetings ,demonstraäons>excumon san d localsharingo fappropriat etechnologies .Onc eloca lorganization sar e funcdoninglocalpeoplebecometheke yfiel dpersonne loftheextenskai : organization. (Examples of such methods are (van der Kamp and

64 6 ' TheFarmer» *

B °-,Eightdifferentextensionapproachra(Axinni^

65 Projectmanagement Thedriv efo refficienc y andcontro lo fdevelopmen tproject sresulte di n theintroductio n of anumbe ro fmanagemen t techniques in the 1960's and 1970's, which are still used.Thes e management techniques were developedi nwester ncountrie sfo rprivat eenterprise san dus ea comple x seto ffinancial ,economic ,technica lan dadministrativ ecriteri at otes tth e feasibility andmonito rprogres so fprojects . Development projects are identified,prepared ,appraise dan dselecte dthroug hcomprehensiv ean d systematic analysis, which aim to control development. Examples of suchsystemati canalysi stool sare : 'Managementb yObjectives '(MBO) , the 'Logical Framework' developed byUSAID , 'Zero Based Budget­ ing',cost-benefi tanalysis , orth eprojec tcycle sdevelope db yth eWorl d Bank.However ,thi scarefu lprojec tappraisal ,analysi san dmanagemen t techniquesdisplay sman ylimitations ,a sRondinell i(1983 )point sout : costly andineffectiv e analysis; longdelay sbecaus eo fdetaile dplanning ,whic h generatemor e uncertainty andinconsistency ; complexity, which results in an undesirable dependence on foreign experts; inadequate understanding ofloca l social/culturalconditions ; rigid designs,whic hsuppres sth eabilit yo ffiel dstaf ft oinnovate , experiment,modif y orimprovise ; politicalconflict s andlo wlevel so f administrativecapacity ; reluctance to reveal when and how projects deviate from the designsdurin gimplementation .Project sar emeasure db yinput s used,rathe rtha nb yimpac to nbeneficiaries ,natur eo fchange so r quality andquantit y ofoutputs . Whentryin g torelat ethes ethre eapproache st oth estrategi cmodel ,i tca n be concluded that, conceptually, the land use development planning focuses on achieving afi t between interventions andlan d use system, extensionapproache sar emor econcerne dwit hth erelatio nbetwee nth e landus esyste man dorganizations ,whil eprojectmanagemen tfocuse so n the competence of the implementing organizations to implement and manageth einterventions .I nothe rwords ,eac happroac hemphasize sa different sideo f the model (figure 4.1) Since,al l three fits havet ob e considered for the planning of sustainable land use programmes, a combinationo fapproache si sneeded ,rathe rtha nchoosin gon e specific approach todevelopmen tplanning . Thiscombinatio no f approachesha sno tye treceive dmuc hattentio ni n planning land use development programmes (figure 4.1). Land use planningofte n forms animportan tpreparator y stageo f adevelopmen t programme but related human resource development for capacity- buildingo floca lo rintervenin gorganization si signored ,whil eth e

66 Interventions

LAND USEDEVELOPMEN T PROJECTMANAGEMEN T

Land use system EXTENSION Organizations

Figure4.1 :Development approaches in the strategic model organization andinstitutiona l settingar edecide d bya shor tter mprojec t formulation mission only. Because in such cases planning of land use interventions iscarrie d outindependentl y of theplannin g of communi­ cation processes and organizational competence, the planned services may not be implementable or effective. Thus expensive and time- consuming land useplannin g exercises have often produced negligible benefits. In other cases, development projects are identified, prepared, appraised and selected through comprehensive and systematic analysis methodsfo rprojec tmanagemen twithou tprope rus eo flan dus eplannin g methodst oidentif y theconstraint san dopportunitie so fth eloca llan dus e system.Thes ecentrall ydesigne dprogramme sar eno tadjuste d tooppor ­ tunities, needs and constraints in the land use system and may not be appreciated or effective.

Acombinatio no fth ethre eapproache si sproposed .However ,fo rth etria l phase(phas eI) ,th eopportunitie st odevelo pextensio nprocesse s andt o influence project management are limited and the plans should be tailored to the existing competence of organizations. This can be dealt with by introducing an additional step to land use planning, called 'programming'. Programming is the preparation of a detailed action programme with: a priority list ofproject s or activities; their location; thepeopl e who are tob e involved;

67 theirlabou ran dfinancia l capacities; theirloca l organization; theintervenin gorganization ; communicationmeans ;th esourc ean damoun to ffund sneeded ; atim eschedul efo roperation ; aparticipator y monitoring andevaluatio n schedule; the(management )task sfo r theimplementin gorganizations . This planning andprogrammin g isfollowe d byapprova l of plansan d budgets;implementation ,operatio nan dmaintenanc e andparticipator y monitoring andevaluatio no fth eprogrammes ,execute do na niterativ e basis.Thi schapte rhoweve rwil lemphasiz eplannin gan dprogrammin g asth efirs t stepi nth eproces so fplanne ddevelopment .I nth efollowin g sectiona nevaluatio no fcurren tlan dus eplannin gmethod si scarrie dou t (section4.2) ,followe db ya nanalysi so fpresen tprogrammin gactivitie s (section4.3) .Finall ya plannin gmetho dwhic h synthesizesth epositiv e features of eachplannin gmethod , technique and toolevaluate d inth e previoussection ,i spropose d anddescribe d (section4.4) .

4.2 Landus eplannin gmethod s Theai mo flan dus eplannin gi st omak eth ebes tus eo flimite dresource s invie wo faccepte dobjectives ,opportunitie san dconstraint si nth elan d use system. Data obtained from the analysis of the bio-physical and socioeconomic sub-system are synthesized and transformed into an integrated land use strategy, that will serve as abasi s for decidingo n future landuse s(FAO ,1989 ;Fresc oe tal. ,1990) . Competitionbetwee n different useso fth esam elan dan ddegradatio n ofth enatura lenviron ­ ment hasle d to an increased need for thiskin d of systematic landus e planning (Chambers,1987) . Toavoi dconfusio nabou tth eterminolog yused ,th econcept so fplannin g methods,technique san dtool sar efirs toutlined . Aplannin gmetho dfo r sustainable land use programmes can be defined as: the systematic collection and analysis of bio-physical and socioeconomic data that determinelan d usepatterns ;th edevelopmen t of thosealternative s for landus eactivitie swhic hmee tspecifi c strategieso flan duse rgroup so r development goals; the designing of land use interventions; and the drawingu po fpolicie san dprogramme sfo rth eus eo flan d(Dent , 1988). Planning techniques are ways of collecting,processin g and analysing dataand/o rtransformin g theseint odesigns .I npractic edat acollectio n techniques are fairly well developed: these include land resource surveys,househol dsurvey san dRapi dRura lAppraisal s(RRA) . How­ everth estep sfro m datacollectio nt odesig nar eofte n muchles sclearl y understood. Planning tools areinstrument s to be used in theplannin g

68 techniques.Example so ftool sare :forma lan dinforma linterviews ,grou p discussions and observations for data collection; useo f aerial photos, maps, diagrams for data analysis and visualization of problems and solutions. Different methods have been developed which contribute to land use planning.Th emos timportan tone sar eFarmin gSyste mAnalysi s(F SA ) andLan dEvaluation . Below,th emajo r objectives ofeac h method are described. FSA aim st ogai na nunderstandin go fth estructure san dfunction so ffar m systems and of the agroecological and socioeconomic constraints on agriculturalproductio na tth efar mlevel .I tlook sfo rway st otranslat ethi s understandingint oadaptiv eresearc han ddevelopmen tprogramme sfo r specifiedcategorie so ffarmers .I nFS Atheor yi ti sacknowledge dtha tth e interaction between sub-systems and the multiple factors matgover n farm management, is crucial to understanding theperformanc e of the systema sa whole .Farmin gSyste mResearc han dDevelopmen t(FSR&D ) transformsan ddevelop sagricultura lstrategie sthroug hbot htechnologi ­ caladvancemen tan dinstitutiona l andeconomi crefor m inth eenviron ­ mento fth efarmin g system(Fresc oe t al.,1990) . LandEvaluatio naim st oselec tth emos tsuitabl efor mo flan dus egive n the physical characteristics of land and the requirements of land use enterprises (Douglas, 1989).Thu si tadapt slan dus et olan dan dbring s abouta nunderstandin gbot ho fth enatura lenvironmen tan do fth ekind s oflan dus eenvisaged ,confrontin gth eplanner swit hcomparison so flan d resourcedat awit hlan dus etype s(FAO ,1976 ;Fresc oe tal. , 1990).Th e purpose of Land Evaluation in planning can betwofol d (Putte, 1989). Firstlyi tprovide sanalytica lresults ;a nanalysi san dresultin gclassifica ­ tion of land resources to be used as input for planning. Secondly it providesnormativ eindication s of thelikel y situation in thefutur e and therebyimpose sa framewor k forplannin gactivities .I nth efirs tinstanc e LandEvaluatio ni suse da sanalytica ltechniqu ei na niterativ eplannin g process,wherea si nth esecon dinstanc ei tacquire sth ecapabilit yt omak e realistic simulations, including the effects of possible interventions. Accordingt oFA Oguideline sLan dEvaluatio ntend st ob eapplie dfo rth e secondpurpose . Firstly,thes etw omethod sar eevaluate dfo rthei rusefulnes s inth efirs t phaseo fth estrategi cmode l(sectio n4.2.1) . Subsequentlytw oplannin g methods which arebase d onFS A andLan dEvaluatio n are evaluated: Agroecosystem Analysis and Landscape Planning. This evaluation is followed by a description of two planning techniques: Rapid Rural Appraisalan dGende rAnalysis .

69 42.1 Reviewof Farming Systems Analysis (FSA) and Land Evaluation Before reviewing theseplannin g methods,i t should berealize d thata distinction mustb emad ebetwee n their shortcomings in theory andi n practice.Criticis mi softe n directed atthos ewh oappl y thesemethods . Gettingi tright in practic ei sa matte ro fusin gth eright metho do nth e right scalewit h theappropriat eintensit y of research.Thi sca n bedescribe d using the funnel- principle, which illustrates a hierarchy of surveys, parallelt oth ehierarch yo flan dus esystem sa tnational ,regional ,o rloca l level (Fresco et al., 1990) (figure 4.2).Tw o criteria for applying the appropriate planning methodcorrectl y becomeapparen ti n this funnel principle(Chambers ,1983) : knowwha ti sonl y worthknowing :selectiv edat acollection ; proportionate accuracy:recognitio n of thenecessar y degreeo f accuracyrequired .

NATIONAL LEVEL^ i SCREENINGAN D RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES

\ / REGIONAL LEVEL REGIONAL PLANNING

/ LOCAL LEVEL i f / i DETAILED APPRAISALS. PARTICIPATIORY PLANNING - FORMULATION OF OPERATIONAL 1 » PROGRAMMES

Figure4.2 :Funnel principle

This means that planning on different scales requires information on different scalelevels .Beside sselectin gth eright scal elevel ,th emetho d chosenfo rth epurpos eo fplannin gshoul db eappropriat et oa particula r situation. To achieve this both the information needs and the data collection techniques should be target-oriented and selective.

70 Forexample ,a tnationa lo rregiona lleve l(th eto pen do fth efunnel ) no detailedplan sshoul db eprepared ;screenin gan dreconnaissanc estudie s can aid policymakers in deciding on priority areas and allocation of funds. At the bottom end (local level) more detailed procedures are implemented (Frescoe tal. , 1990).Thi si sth eappropriat eleve lfo r the designo foperationa lan dsustainabl elan dus eprogramme s(figur e4.2) . The guiding principle is thus that it is important to apply theright planningmetho da tth eright leve lfo rth eright purpose . Theexten tt owhic hF SA an dLan dEvaluatio nmee tth econdition sse tb y thestrategi cmode lar ediscusse di nth eligh to fthi s funnel-principle. FSAca ncontribut et olan dus eplannin gb yit sdiagnosi so fth ecurren t situation with regard to farming and land use practices at intra- and householdlevel .A ssuc hFS Aha ssuccessfull y shownth eimportanc eo f a detailed analysis of farmers' constraints and the usefulness of an ongoingdialogu ewit h farmers. FSAuse ssevera ltechnique sfo rdat acollection ,o fwhic hth etw omos t distinctive are: formal statistical surveys and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA).Th efirs t arecostl y andtime-consumin g andonl yusefu l when precise information requirements are known and it iscertai n that this quantitative information will make a significant contribution to the understandingo fth eloca lsituatio n(Fresc oe tal. ,1990) .Forma lsurvey s of thiskin d areno timplementabl e byvillager s andloca lfiel d staff, as theylac kth eskill san dexperienc et osystematicall ycollec tan danalys e sucha larg eamoun to fquantitativ edata .Rapi dRura lAppraisa li s now routinelyemploye dt olimi tth ecostl yan dtime-consumin gquantitativ e questionnaire survey work (Hildebrand, 1981, Carruthers and Cham­ bers, 1981)an dt omak eFS Aimplementabl e atloca llevel . Maxwell (1984)criticize sFS Afo r itslimite d flexibility inadaptin gt o dynamic changes in the land use system. When formal, statistical surveysar eused ,FS Aan da subsequen texperimentatio nphas ema yhav e afiv et o 15 yeartim ehorizon .Durin gthi stim efarmin g systemsa swel l asresearc hprioritie sma ychang eunde rth einfluenc e ofeconomi can d politicalfactors .Als owit htraditiona lquestionnair esurvey sth eoption s for sharingknowledg e between field staff andvillager si n aniterativ e processo fresearc h anddesign ,ar elimited .Whe nRR Ai sincluded ,th e processca nb emuc hmor eflexible ,a dialogu ema yb einitiate dan dfeed ­ backbetwee ndesign ,analysi san ddat acollectio ni spossible .I npractic e however, RRAtechnique s usedi nFS A areno t yetver y participatory. Farmers'involvemen ti softe n limitedt oanswerin gquestion spose db y scientists,whil efield worker so fgovernmen tagencie sma yb elef tou to f theresearc hteams .

71 AlthoughF SA stresse sth enee dt ounderstan dfarmers ' circumstances, inpractic elittl eattentio nha sbee npai dt oth eimportanc eo fcommunit y levelprocesse san dinstitutions ,an dthei rimpac to nacces st oresources , productiongoal san dmanagemen tpractice s(Grandin , 1986). Although FSA provide sth eopportunit yt oidentif y landuse rgroup sbase do nthei r farming systems,i t tends to focus its research on theindividua l land­ owners.Thes ear eofte nth eriche ran dmor eaccessibl elan dusers ,whil e womenfarmers , agricultural labourersan dothe r landlesspeople ,wh o dependo ncommuna l landsfo ra nincome ,ar eneglecte d(Fresc oe tal. , 1990; Grandin, 1986). Consequently, FSR&D programmes are often detailed butfragmented , focusing on measures of how toimprov eth e efficiency of agricultural technology. Simmonds (1986) states: 'the designo fsustainabl elan dus esystems ,rathe rtha nmino rimprovement s inexistin gfarmin g patterns,ha sbee n neglected'. In practice, FSA studies make only passing reference to bio-physical conditions and devote most of their attention to the socioeconomic factors. For example very few geographical references, such as soil mappingunits ,ar emade .Mos tFS Awor kt odat eha sbee nconducte db y smallteam so fagronomist san deconomists ,a sinterdisciplinar y studies aredifficul t toorganiz e(Douglas , 1989;Fresc oe tal. ,1990) . Thus it can be concluded that the degree to which FSA is a suitable planningmetho di nth etria lphas edepend so nth echose ntechniqu ean d the way it is applied. Oneusefu l feature isit s detailed analysis of the interaction between thebio-physica l and socioeconomic system atth e householdleve la swel la sth eopportunit yfo ridentifyin g different land usergroups ,base do nthei rfarmin g systemsanalysis . LandEvaluatio n isa mor e suitabletoo lfo r land useplannin g atsemi - detailedan dreconnaissanc eleve ltha na tloca llevel ,becaus ei ngenera l itemphasize sth evariatio nbetwee nlan dunits ,rathe rtha nth evariatio n withinlan dunits .Th eloca lleve lplannin gmetho drequire smor edetaile d participatory analysisan dproblem-solvin gtha nth ecompariso no flan d resourcedat awit hlan dus etype sca nprovide .Suc hdetaile dquantitativ e physical andeconomi c land suitability classifications may bepossibl e withLan dEvaluation , but willrequir ehig htechnica l standardsan db e expensivean dtime-consumin g (Frescoe tal. , 1990;va nde nHoe kan d Schomaker, 1988; van den Hoek et al., 1988). This contradicts the criteria of asimpl ean dquic kprocess ,implementabl e byvillager san d local field staff. LandEvaluatio ni smos tcommonl ycarrie dou ti na top-dow nmanne rb y scientistsa tregiona llevel .Thi sapproac ht olan dus emanagemen tcanno t caterfo rdynami cchange si nlan dus emanagemen tno rca ni tsimulat eal l

72 the static as well as dynamic variables affecting a farmer's land use decision (Fox,1987) .Thus ,ther ei shardl yan yflexibilit y inth emetho d for adapting to dynamic changes and an iterative planning process is difficult tocarr yout . Althoughi ntheor yLan dEvaluatio ninvolve sa nanalysi so fth einterac ­ tionbetwee nsocioeconomi can dbio-physica lsystems ,i npractic elargel y bio-physicalevaluation sar ecarrie dout .Lan dEvaluatio n assumestha t technologyo fth elan dutilizatio ntype san dit sperformance si nth estud y areaar eknown ,an daward sinsufficien t consideration toaccessin gan d understandingth ecircumstance so fth elan duser sthemselve sa spar to f the suitability evaluation exercise.Als oth eFA Oframewor k concerns itself with individual land useenterprise s or broadly defined farming types rather than therealit y of complex smallholder farming systems (Douglas, 1989).Hence ,Lan dEvaluatio ni sessentiall yconcerne dwit h land and neutral with respect to people (Fresco et al., 1990). This inadequate knowledge about the strategies of the different land user groupsfo r themanagemen t of natural resourcesan d agriculture inth e tropics makes the matching procedures less reliable. Consequently, accordingt oFresc oe tal .(1990 )an dYoun g(1985 )Lan dEvaluatio ni s of little help in areas where development takes place through the modification ofexistin gsystems . To conclude, Land Evaluation can be a useful technique for land use analysis, but it does not go far enough to offer a complete planning methodfo r solvingth elan dus emanagemen tproblem so fdifferen t land usergroups .It sutilit ylie si nth eanalysi so fbio-physica lcharacteristic s of the land in relation to different land use types. However, such an analysisshoul db esimpl ean dquic kt oimplement ,i norde rt ob eusefu l forth eplannin gstrateg ya tloca llevel . Itsstron ggeographica lorienta ­ tionprovide sth eopportunit y tolocaliz eproblem si nlan dus emanage ­ mentan dt omak eus eo fmap sfo rth evisualizatio no fthes eproblem san d thedesig n of landus einterventions . Inreactio nt oth eshortcoming so fFS Aand/o rLan dEvaluation ,alterna ­ tive or refined methods evolved, including Agroecosystem Analysis (Conway,1985,1987a) ,Agroforestr yDiagnosi san dDesign ,develope d byICRA F(ICRAF , 1984,1987;Raintree , 1987)an dLandscap e Plan­ ning(Duchhart ,1989) .A stud yo ncombinin gmethod st ocompensat efo r thedrawback so fon emetho dwit hth eadvantage so fth eothe rresulte d inth eformulatio n ofth eLEFS A(Land-Evaluatio n / Farming-System- Analysis) sequence(Fresc oe tal. ,1990) . Theimportanc eo fAgroecosyste mAnalysi san dLandscap ePlannin ga s methodsfo r implementing thetria lphas ewarrant sthei ranalysi si nth e

73 followingsub-section .Th emai nasse to fAgroecosyste mAnalysi si stha t it provides a structure for interdisciplinary analysis,whil e Landscape Planningi son eo fth efe wlan dus eplannin gmethod stha treache sbeyon d analysisint odesign . 4.2.2 AgroecosystemAnalysis (AEA) Agroecosystems areecologica l systemsmodifie d byhuma n beingst o producefoo do rothe ragricultura lan dfores tproducts .Lik eth eecologi ­ calsystem sthe yreplace ,agroecosystem sar ecomplex ,a situatio nwhic h arises primarily from theinteractio n between socioeconomic andeco ­ logical processes.Hence ,th edelineatio n of an agroecosystem zonei s determinedb ybot hbio-physica lan dsocioeconomi cpattern s(Conway , 1987a,c). Suchzone scan for, example ,b eidentifie d onth ebasi so fth e prevailingaltitude ,terrai nan dagro-climatologica lcharacteristics ,eac h of which is further defined by taking into account key social and economic patterns affecting land management. These social andeco ­ nomic patterns include the education and wealth of farmers, their cultural traits and the availability of markets. The use of such agroecosystemzone sprovide sconsiderabl escop efo rtransferrin g infor­ mation,managemen ttechnique s andskill sidentifie d perzon efro mon e regiont oanothe r(Carson , 1987;Conwa ye tal. ,1989) . Agroecosystem analysisuse sa syste manalysi sapproac hi na worksho p environment. A system-oriented perspective may be used to identify howproductivit yo fth eentir esystem ,i nwhic ha particula rcommodit y isbu ton ecomponent ,ma yb eimproved .Fo rexample ,th ecomplexit yo f the uplandspresent s anee d toanalys e farmers' accesst oth e different land use systems, like dryland gardens, uplands wet-rice systems, household production systems and communal land management sys­ tems.AE Ai sa metho dwhic hca nestablis hth emos timportan tlinkage s betweenan dwithi nsystem san danalys efarmers ' decisionswit hregar d tosyste mmanagement .I ti sa metho do finterdisciplinar y analysis,tha t investigates relationships between the bio-physical characteristicsan d thesocioeconomi cpattern so fagroecosystems ,t oidentif y key on-farm resourcemanagemen tproblems .Afte rth eformulatio no frecommenda ­ tions for solving key on-farm management problems, the remaining phaseo f theprocedur ei son eo fconventiona l farming systemresearc h and development. So far, workshops and trial cases, based on agro­ ecosystemanalysi shav eha dth efollowin g objectives (Conway,1985) : toidentif y research priorities that willlea d toimprovement si n theleve lan dstabilit yo fne tincom eo ffar mhousehol di nregions ; to identify tentative guidelines for improving agriculturalpro ­ ductivityo f thepoo rfarmer s invillages .

74 KEPAS (KelompokPenelitian Agro-ekosistem), aResearc h Group for Agroecosystems, based in Bogor, Indonesia, added the objective of (KEPAS,1985) : the development of a simple mechanism of communication, which canmor edirectl y link extension workers,researcher s andfarmers . Agroecosystems are described and analysed by the following four systemproperties ;productivity ,stability ,sustainability ,an dequitability . Productivity is the yield or net income per unit or resource. Stability relatest oth edegre et owhic hproductivit yi sconstan ti nth efac eo fsmal l disturbances caused by environmental variables. Sustainability is the ability of a system to maintain productivity in spite of major distur­ bances. Equitability expresses how evenly the products of an agro ecosystem are distributed among its human beneficiaries (Conway, 1985). The four properties are interlinked and according to Conway (1987a); 'AEAca n beuse d asa metho d toanalys eexistin g and future land use by making the 'trade-off' between the system's properties explicitan daccounte dfor. ' Theinfluenc e ofchange si nlan dus eo nth e interrelationship between productivity, stability, sustainability and equitabilityca nthu sb edistinguished .Fou rpattern sar echose na slikel y torevea lth eke yfunctiona lrelationship stha tdetermin esyste mproperties . These are: space (location of activities); time (seasonal or long term changes);flow s(o fenergy ,material ,information ,money) ;an ddecision s (choiceso findividuals ;spher eo finfluenc eo fdecisio nmakers ,decisio n patterns of local organizations; politics of local authorities) (Conway, 1985).Figur e4. 3illustrate s possible results of apatter n analysis.Th e introduction of twone wparameter s -flow s anddecision s -offer s new options for identifying decision and communication processes and relationships sucha sthos ebetwee nth edifferen t landuse rgroups ,thei r organizationform s andthei rrelationshi pt oorganizations .Abov eal lthi s typeo f analysisprovide s theopportunit y tointegrat e bio-physical and socioeconomicdata . Agroecosystemsca nb eidentifie d atal l different levels,fro m cropping system tonationa l level,eac ht ob eanalyse di n itsow nright. T odate , AEAha susuall ybee ncarrie dou ta tvillag elevel .On eo rmor evillage s mayb eselecte dpe rzone ,fo rwhic ha nagroecosyste manalysi si scarrie d out by an interdisciplinary team. The analysis is based on farmers' perceptions and theresearchers ' knowledge of land managementpos ­ sibilities.

75 Theprocedur eo fAE Arest so nfou r assumptions (Conway,1987a) : 'Iti sno tnecessar yt okno weverythin gabou ta nagroecosyste m inorde rt oproduc ea realisti c and useful analysis. Understanding thebehaviou ran dimportan tpropertie so fa n

Space * Cross section of village * Topographical village map, indicating location of development programmes * Land usean dterrai n map with detailed legends * Analysis of water availability (map) * Forest land use conflict map * Tablewit h location of off-farm employment activities * Priority map for soil conservation measures * Land ownership map

Time * Historical profile of village * Rainfall and cropping pattern calender * Seasonal fodder consumption calender

Flows * Migration table * Flow diagram for farming sub-systems (e.g.cassava , fruit) * Marketing flows

Decision making/Management * Activities Profile (gender specific) * Table with level of education * Venn diagram indicating roleo f villageorganization s and government services in village * Off-farm employment table

Figure 4.3 Example of data inventoryand analysis results

agroecosystemrequire sknowledg eo fonl ya fe wke y functional relationships andthu sresearc h canfocu s onke yissue s (orke y problems)fo r development. Producing significant improvements in the performance of an agroecosystemrequire schange si nonl ya fe wke ymanagemen t decisions. Identification andunderstandin g of theseke yrelationship san d decisions requires that a limited number of appropriate key questionsar edefine d andanswered. '

76 Theseassumption sfor mth ebasi sfo ra learnin gproces sapproach .I nthi s iterative process, new knowledge and perspectives at each stage are likelyt orequir erevisio no fearlie r stages.I nparticular ,answer st oke y questionswil lmodif y earlierassumptions .Becaus eth emetho di sbase d on Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), it is quick (one to three months), flexible indesig nan dencourage swid ean deas yparticipatio n andne w ideas.Hence ,AE Aca neasil y adaptt ochangin gcondition s inth elan d usesystem .Th eus eo fke yissue st ofocu sth edat acollectio nan danalysi s throughout theplannin gproces sfacilitate s this rapidapproach . AEA guarantees an integrated approach, in which the relationship between the bio-physical and socioeconomic aspects of the system becomes clear. In practice however, a tendency exists to pay more attention toth eagro/socio-economi csid etha n tobio-physica l factors. Although, AEA is explicitly based on the assumption that land use involvesth einteractio nbetwee nth elan dan dth euse r(Conway ,1985) , noneo fit spropertie srefe rexplicitl yt oth eadaptabilit yo fth eactua llan d user(Wiersum ,1990) .S ofar ,AE Aha sfocuse d onagricultura lproduc ­ tivity,whic hi sillustrate di nth edefinitio no fthre eo fth efou rproperties : productivity;stabilit yan dsustainability ,al lrelatin g toth emaintenanc e ofproductio npotential . Toconclude ,AE Ai sa ver yusefu l methodfo r theanalysi so f landus e systems. Itca nb eapplie da tloca lleve li nth efor mo fa learnin gproces s andfocuse s onth einteractio n between thebio-physica l andsocioeco ­ nomic sub-systems. However, due to the rather complex theoretical framework of properties and pattern analysis the AEA approach is difficult tounderstan d andimplemen ti nth efield b yfiel d workersan d villagers.A sa result ,th eAEA-concep tha softe n beenapplie da sa for m of RRA (KEPAS, 1985; 1988), without full comprehension of the framework foranalysis . 42.3 LandscapePlanning Landscape planning ison eo f thefe w land useplannin g methodstha t goesbeyon dth eanalysi sstag ean dinvolve sdesig nactivities .Th eai mo f landscapeplannin gi st opla nlan dus epattern s thatprovid eimmediat e profitst oth eloca lpopulation ,a tth ehousehol dlevel ,an da tth esam etim e offer longter msustainabilit y toth elandscap e (Duchhart, 1988a,b) . Themetho dconsist so fthre emajo r steps:a dat ainventor y andanalysi s process, a creative design process and the implementation of pilot projects andmonitorin g (Duchharte tal. , 1989).Continuou s feed-back betweenth edifferen t stepsi sa tth ecor eo fth eplannin gmethod .I norde r toleav eenoug hflexibilit yi nth epla nt oadjus tpractice st one weconomi c

77 demandso rsocia lchange s(Duchhart ,1988) ,th epla ni simplemente dvi a pilotprojects ,whic har emonitore dan devaluated .Althoug himplemen ­ tationan dmonitorin gar epar to fth emethod ,thi sfina l stepha sno tye t been fully developed. Inth efirs tstep ,a landscap eanalysi stake splac ea tbot hregiona lan dloca l levels. At the regional level a reconnaissance study is carried out,i n which ahypothesi s isformulate d ast oho wth epresen t landscapewa s formed, anda nanalysi so fsocia lan decologica linfluence s onth estud y areai scarrie dout .A tth eloca llevel ,th eanalysi saim sa tobtainin ginsigh t into the natural processes and human activities taking place in the landscapeo fth estud yarea .Thi sanalysi si smainl ybase do nsecondar y datacollectio n andobservation si nth earea . Thisfirs t stepend swit ha generalproble m definition andth edesig n ofa conceptua l plan,whic h gives suggestions of how and where problems may be solved in an integratedway .I tma yserv ea sa framewor k formor edetaile dresearc h tob eundertake nb ydifferen t disciplines.I nth ecas estudie so nlandscap e planningtha thav ebee ncarrie dou ts ofar ,th econcep tha sbee nbase do n stabilization ofth edrainag enetwor kb ylan drestoratio nan drehabilita ­ tion for themid - andlong-ter m (Duchhart, 1988;va nde nHoek ,1983 ; Rocheleau and van den Hoek, 1984), and thus focuses on the bio­ physicalsystem .

In the second step detailed studies and designs are executed to gaina n understandingo fwhatpeopl enee dan dho wth eimplementatio no factivitie s canb eorganized . Attentioni spai dt oth eplannin go fimplementatio no f proposedmeasure sb yholdin gdiscussion swit hvillager san dloca lauthoritie s toexplor eloca lcapacities ,availabl ebudgets ,technica lskills ,problem so f landtenure ,politics ,o rmanageria lcapacity . Studiesfro m varioussector s and scalelevel s can beintegrated , and short and long-term benefits are combined in the design. Visualization of the spatial lay-out of planned interventionsmake sdesig na nexcellen tdiscussio ntool . Forexample , the consequenceso fintervention s for otherscal elevel so rothe rsector swil l becomevisibl ean dlocalize di na ma p(Duchhart , 1988 a,b). Landscapeplannin gca njustifiabl yclai mt ob ea nintegratio no fso-calle d top-downan dbottom-u pprocesses .Th efirs t stepca nb esee na sa for mo f top-downplanning ,whil eth esecon dan dthir dste p(o fimplementatio nan d monitoring)ar emor econcerne dwit hparticipator yplanning . However,i n practiceth eplannin gmetho di sdevelope dfo r 'outsiders',suc ha sstaf fo f regionalplannin ginstitutes ,an dinvolvemen t of localorganization san d localpeopl ei sstil llimited . Thusth emajo rasset so flandscap eplannin gar eth edesig nphas ean dth e twoscal elevel so nwhic hi toperates . Thedesig nphas eensure stha tth e

78 methoddoe sno ten dwit ha nanalysi san dgenera lrecommendation ,a s inth epreviousl ydiscusse dmethods ,bu tresult si nth edetaile ddesig no f programmes. The use of two scale levels - the users' level and the landscape level - offers the possibility of focusing on the linkages between supra-, intra- and household levels. A serious shortcoming, however,i stha tth edifferen t stepsi nth eplannin gprocess ,especiall yth e collection of socioeconomic data,hav eno t yet been sufficiently well- definedfo rth eproces st ob esimpl eenoug ht oinvolv eloca lvillager san d fieldstaff . Havingevaluate dthes eplannin gmethods ,tw oplannin gtechnique sar e now discussed: Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Gender Analysis. Both of these have greatpotentia l for theplannin g method in thetria l phase. 4.2.4 RapidRural Appraisal (RRA) RapidRura lAppraisa li sa relativel ysimpl ean dquic ktechniqu efo rdat a collectionan danalysi san di sdesigne dt oinvolv eresearcher so rth estaf f of organizations, and localpeople . According to Molnar (1989)RR A was developed because planning methods using formal surveys pre­ sentedproblem srelate dto : thetim ela g between analysiso f dataan dtangibl eresults ; thehig hadministrativ ecosts ; the low level of data reliability due to errors in questionnaire designan dintervie wtechniques ; theirrelevanc eo fman yo fth equestion sfo r specific implemen­ tationpurposes . RRAi sessentiall ya toolki tfo rinformation-gathering , andther ei sn ose t way of combining thedifferen t tools of the RRA for thepurpos e ofa survey or planning method. However there are anumbe r of so-called 'package approaches' developed by various RRA experts. These are often geared to aspecifi c purpose, such asin-dept h problem analysis, generalprogramm e formulation orvillage-leve l planning of activities (Molnar, 1989). Examples of these packages are the Diagnosis and Design (D&D) at ICRAF (ICRAF, 1987; Raintree, 1987); AEA as developed by Conway (1985; 1987a,c); FSR&D developed by the ConsultativeGrou po fIntegrate d Agricultural Research(CGIAR) ; and local level planning approaches (KEPAS, 1985, 1987; Khon Kaen University, 1987; vande nHoek , 1991;Saveny ean dHuysman ,1991)) . However,RR Aca nals ob euse dfo rplannin go fparticipator ydevelop ­ mentprocesse s in the form of developing community self-awareness, training,methodolog ydevelopmen t(supplementin go rimprovin gothe r methodologies) orfo r generalunderstandin g of situations (KhonKae n University 1987).

79 RRAi sbase do nth eprincipl etha ti ti sno tnecessar yt okno weverythin g abouta lan dus esyste mt oproduc ea realisti can dusefu l analysis. RRA focuses on key problems and is selective in data collection. As data collectioni srapi di ti simportan tt ocollec trepresentativ einformatio ni n different areas,fro m different user groups and through different data collection techniques.T oaddres sth etim econstrain to ndat acollectio n and analysis organized data collection and cross-checking of data by triangulationar eimportant .Also ,relianc eo navailabl esecondar yinfor ­ mation,us eo fdetailed ,open-ende dintervie wguide st oensur eke yissue s are covered and extensive team interaction are all incorporated in the RRAapproac h topreven tbiases . RRA is the selection and combination of anumbe r of data collection techniques and tools and mayinclud e (Khon Kaen University, 1987): collection of secondary data; field observations;forma l and in-formal (open-ended)intervie wtechnique san dgrou pmeetings .Al lRR Aexer ­ cises make use of individual, (intra) nousehold and key-informant interviewst ogathe rinformatio nabou tth eloca lsituation .Informatio no n key issues iscollecte d byposim * open-ended questions:What ,When , Where,Who , Whyan dHow .Also ,grou pinterviewin gi sa nimportan t elemento fth eRRA ,becaus ei tcollect sinformatio n from awid erang e of peoplerelativel y quickly;i tgenerate sdiscussio n onke yissue san d stimulatesloca lparticipatio n invillag eleve lplannin go factivities .Fo r field observations observationaltechniques ,lik ewalkin gtransect san d spendingtim ei ncentra lplace san dmeasuremen tan drecordin gtool sar e used, such as acamer a sketch maps and auger. Theus e of interactive data-gatheringan dplannin gtool sstimulate sth einvolvemen to fpeopl e in theplannin gproces s and enliven thediscussion .Example s orthes e toolsare ;agricultura l calendars,cros s sections,rankin g games,sketc h maps, cross sections, labour calendars and (village) planning games. Minimumdat aset shav ebee ndevelope di nrecognitio n thatRR Aofte n fails becauseimportan taspect so fa particula rissu ear eno tcovered . Theappropriatenes so fRR Aa sa plannin gtechniqu edepend so nvariou s factors. Forexampl eRR Ai smor eusefu l whenopen-ende d learningi s needed,tha nwhe nquantitativ edat ai srequeste d(Kho nKae nUniversity , 1987).I ngeneral ,RR Ai sa nextremel yusefu ltechniqu efo rimplement ­ ingloca lleve lplanning ,becaus eo fth efollowing : RRA isa relativel ysimpl ean dquic ktechniqu efo rdat acollec ­ tionan danalysi san di sdesigne dt oinvolv eresearcher san d local people.RR Ai softe n carriedou ta tvillag elevel .Th eduratio no f aRR Aexercis eca nvar ybetwee nthre eday san dtw omonths . RRA is a short and flexible learning process in which the villagers,loca l authorities and staff oforganizations can share theirknowledg ean dexperience .I tprovide sa foru mfo rexchang ­ ingidea san d rapid andprogressiv elearning .Re -evaluatio no f defined keyissue s orhypothese s duringth ecours eo ffieldwor k makesadjustment spossibl ei na explorator y andhighl yiterativ e process. Also,th eus eo finteractiv etool sfo rgatherin gdat ao n

80 landus emanagemen tthroug hclos ediscussio nwit hloca lpeopl e facilitates substantial use and exchange of indigenousKnowl ­ edge (KhonKaen , 1987; Molnar,1989) . RRA is not limited to the household or landscape level, but rovides the opportunity to investigate at intra-household, Eouseholdan d supra-householdlevel . 42.5 GenderAnalysis GenderAnalysi si nagricultura ldevelopmen tprogramme sha sresulte d largelyfro mth eapplicatio no fWome ni nDevelopmen ttool st oFSR&D . In every society women and men do different things, have access to different resources and benefits and have different responsibilities. Thesedifference s areroote di nsocia lorganizatio nan dar esupporte db y culturalbelief san dvalues .Gende rAnalysi sha sbecom eth ecommonl y accepted term for analysing these gender roles and intra- and inter- householddynamic swithi nfarmin gsystem s(Poat san dSim sFeldstein , 1990). GenderAnalysi sstem sfro m therecognitio ntha tth ehousehol di sno ta n undifferentiated grouping of people with a shared and equal access to resourcesfo ran dbenefit sfro mproduction .I tencourage splanner st ofin d out,fro mempirica ldata ,wh odoe swhat ,whe nan dwhere ,an dth eresource s thedifferen tmember si na communit yhav ea tthei rdisposa li norde rt ocarr y outthei rrespectiv etasks .Th eframewor k forGende rAnalysi suse sfou r interrelated components: Activity Profile; Access and Control Profile; Analysiso fFactor sInfluencin gActivities ,Acces san dControl ;an dProjec t CycleAnalysi s(Overhol te tat , 1985).Tabl e4. 1 presentsarea si nwhic h GenderAnalysi sca nmak ea nimportan tcontribution .

Table4. 1 Genderanalysis ;area so fanalysi san dtool s

AREASO FANALYSI S TOOLS

1Labou ro ractivitie s 1Activitie s profile 2Resource s 2Acces san dcontro lprofil eo f resources 3Benefit s andincentive s 3Acces san dcontro lprofil eo f outputo fproductio n Userpreferenc eprofil e 4Inclusio n 4Profil e ofwh oi sinclude di n eachstag eo fanalysis , planning, implementationan c monitoring.

81 The Activity Profile will indicate who does what, by delineating the economican dsocia lactivitie so fth epopulatio ni nth eplannin gare afirs t byag ean dgende ran dthe nb yethnicity ,socia lclas so rothe rdistinguish ­ ing characteristics. An activity profile can be constructed by making seasonalcalendar san dagricultura lactivitie scalendar srevealin gperiod s of labour shortage or identifying all competing tasks by gender. The profile willindicat eth eamoun to ftim espen tb yindividual so neac ho f theseactivities .Th eprofil ema yals ospecif y whereth eactivit yi sbein g performed. Because of the diversity within the social system it is essentialt odevelo pseparat eactivit yprofile sfo reac ho fth edistinc tlan d usergroups . TheAcces san dContro lProfil ewil lidentif y whatresource sindividual s can command tocarr y out their activities and the benefits which they derive from them. It is essential to differentiate between access and control,sinc eacces st oresource sdoe sno tnecessar yimpl yth epowe rt o controlthem . Controlca nb edefine d asth epowe rt odecid ewhethe ran d howa resourc ei suse dan dho wi ti sallocated .Acces si sth epermissio n to use the resource. Resources include land, capital, tools, livestock, labour, credit, education and knowledge. These profiles consist of a matrix,wit hth egende ran dag egroup so non esid ean do nth eothe rth e activitiest owhic h thesegroup shav eacces sand/o rcontrol . Iti sals oimportan tt odifferentiat ebetwee nacces st oan dcontro love rth e benefitsderive dfro m themobilizatio no fresources .Th emotivatio nfo r allocationo flabou ran dothe rresource sdepend slargel yo nwh obenefit s fromi tan dth eintende dus eo fth eoutpu to feac hactivity . Aprofil ema y indicate uses of products such as consumption, storage, sale, fuel, manure anddesirabl echaracteristic sfo r theseuse s Another aspect of Gender Analysis may be the analysis of who is included ateac h stageo f planning, implementation and monitoringo f development programmes.Ho war eth edifferen t usersincluded ,wha t criteriaar euse dfo rselectin gthe man dwha tmethodologie sar euse dt o ensure their participation? Forth edesig n of operational programmes issuespertainin gt oth erelationshi po feac huse rgrou pi nth eare at ofiel d workerso fintervenin g organizations,organizationa l structures,opera ­ tionsetc .nee dt ob econsidere d (Overholt et al., 1985; Poats andSim s Feldstein, 1990). Tosu mup :Gende rAnalysi sprovide sa ninsigh tint oth edistributio no f activities,resource s and benefits/incentives between household mem­ bers. It contributes to the identification of the role, capability and organizationalform so fth edifferen t landuse rgroup si nmanagin gthei r landus esyste man dhelp st oadjus tth eprogramm et othei ropportunitie s

82 andconstraints .Thus ,informatio n mayb egaine do nth eadaptabilit yo f the interventions, and also on the equity in division of resources and benefits among the local population. The profiles created by Gender Analysisprovid eth emean sfo rpinpointin gth e(mor eequal )distributio n ofth ecost san d benefits ofparticula rinterventions .

4.3 Methodsfo r programming The methods previously discussed focus on the planning of land use interventions.Referrin g toth estrategi cmodel ,thes elan dus eplannin g methodsca nb eapplie dt oachiev ea fi tbetwee nintervention san da lan d use system. In order to achieve a fit between a land use system and organizations and between interventions and organizations in thetria l phase,programmin gi sproposed .Programmin gwil linclud eonl ythos e extension processes actually feasible in the trial phase, in addition to those already incorporated in the planning method. Similarly only simpleprojec t managementtechnique swil lb einclude di nth edetaile d design andth edevelopmen to fa nintegrate dprogramme . 4.3.1 Planningextension means At the start of this chapter different extension approaches were de­ scribed, of which the agricultural extension participatory approach appeared mostclosel yrelate d to the local levelplannin g strategy. Its' communication processes are already incorporated in the planning method. At this stageo f programming adiscussio n of which commu­ nication meansshoul db eplanne di spertinent . A number of extension means are useful in planning participatory development. These are: group extension methods (demonstrations, [on-farm trials],excursions , groupdiscussions ,farme r organizations); face-to-face dialogue,us eo ffol kmedi aan daudio-visua laids ,introduc ­ tiono fincentive setc .Th eplannin go fdemonstration san don-far mtrial s areo fgrea timportanc et oenabl efarmer st oacquir eth eenthousias mtha t will motivate them to continue development activities by themselves (Ashby, 1985).Enthusias m can best beinstille d byearl y recognizable successesi nth efor mo fsmal lscale ,low-risk ,low-cos t experimentation, resultingi ndemonstrabl eincrease si nincome .Thusfarmerscanleammore , they can compareresult s and have the satisfaction of doingi tthemselves . Accordingt oChamber se tal .(1989) : 'identifyingfarmers 'prioritie san dhelpin g farmersmee tthe mlead st oinnovation swhic har eadopted' .I nothe rword si ti s a kind of self-help therapy. However, linkages with formal research and cbvelopmentprograrrmiesarealsorequiredtDin^ aboutnewl ydevelope dtechnologie s andspecies .

83 Inorde rt ostimulat ecommunicatio n andenhanc eparticipatio no floca l people in the planning process a technique known as the 'Problem census'ma yb eused .Durin ggrou pmeetings ,loca lpeopl ear easke dt o form smallgroup san dwrit ethei rmajo r problemso nbi gpape rsheets . Theypresen tthes eproblem st oeac hothe ran dsubsequentl y onecom ­ binedlis to fproblem si smade .I na nex t stepth e smallgroup shav et o assign priority to these problems, which are again presented to each other.Finall yth efacilitato ro fthi sgrou pmeetin gadd su pth epriorit yan d presentson efina lrankin go fpriorit yo fproblems .Thi stechniqu eresult s ina clea rpictur eo fproblem san dconstraint s asperceive d byth elan d users.Thi stechniqu ema yals ob euse ddurin gth eanalysi so fproblem s orplannin go fintervention s (Crouch,1984) .

432 Planningproject management techniques An integrated programme, with the involvement of different local organizationso rsectora lagencie swh ocooperat ea tloca llevel ,require s goodgovernanc eb yth eprogramm emanager .Th efollowin gtechnique s andtool sma yb eusefu li nplannin gth eorganizationa lcompetenc ei nth e trialphase : project design summary; programmeplannin gmatrix ; cost-benefit assessment; monitoring formats; problemtre ediagra m(visualizatio ntechniques) . Eacho fthes ewil lb ebriefl y outlineda sfollows . Projectdesign summary Theprojec tdesig nsummar yoriginate sfro m the 'Logical Framework', whichconsist so ffou r setso fdat a(Rondinelli ,1983) : 'the goals or objectives of the project, and the programme or sector goals to which the project will contribute, in which the specific purpose of theprojec t mustb edescribed , theintende d outputsdelineate dan dth erequire dinput so rresource sidentifie d (includingbudgeting) ; objectively verifiable indicators, including measures of goal achievement,condition stha twil lindicat ea tth een do fth eprojec t thatth epurpos eha sbee nachieved ,th emagnitud eo fth eoutput s andtyp ean dquantit yo fimplementatio ntargets ; meansb ywhic hth eindicator sca nb everified ; important assumptionsconcernin g theabilit y to achievegoal s and targets, project purposes, and outputs, and the means of providinginputs. '

84 Thisdesig n summary hasthre efeature s ofus ei n thetria lphas eo fth e model.First ,i tca nassis tplanner st odesig n detailedprojec t activities. Second,i fth eframewor k isformulate d inth eplannin g stage, achieve­ mentsca nb emeasure ddurin gth eimplementation ,throug hclos emoni ­ toring.Third ,i tca nb euse dt obegi nth eevaluatio nproces s(Bryan tan d White,1982) . Programmeplanning matrix Inth eprogramm eplannin gmatri xal lth epropose dproject sar ebrough t togetherint oon eintegrate dframewor ko flan dus eprogrammes .Priorit y ofproject si sindicate dan dlocation ,involvemen to floca lpeople ,thei r local organization, the supporting organization, budget requirements andtim eschedul efo rimplementatio no fproject sca nb ecoordinate dan d synchronized. By using this framework planners are forced to deal systematically withthes eimportan tmanagemen tissues . Cost-benefitassessment Cost Benefit Assessment is based on the idea that in a successful programme, the benefits should outweigh thecosts .I tca n beuse d for estimating the feasibility of aproject/programm e prior toit s startan d later for project evaluation. Although the method is widely used, the consensus is that the identification, quantification and valuation of indirect and external effects, and of the intertemporal effects that characterizelan dus emanagement ,create simmens eproblem s(d eGraaf f and Schipper, 1991): Measuring costsan dbenefit si sdifficult .I nparticula rqualitativ e effects, such as social change, are difficult to translate into quantitativemeasures . Determining indirect and long-term effects of measurespose s problems. Determiningth ediscoun trat e(o rth evalu eo fth emone ytoda y andit s value at somefutur e date)i srathe r arbitrary. Estimates dependo nth ewa yproject sar emanage dan dtherefor eorganiza ­ tional design and implementation considerations should bein ­ cludedi nth eanalysi s(Bryan t andWhite ,1982) . Thesedifficul t judgementsrequir eth especialize dprofessiona l skillso f a multi-disciplinary group of specialists in which the gathering and verifying ofdat ai stime-consumin g(Pric ean dGittinger , 1982). How­ ever, assessment of the direct costs of interventions and short-term benefits is feasible and of great importance in planning sustainable programmes.Moreover , using the strategic model does notrequir e as detailed a cost-benefit analysis as the top-down planning. Since local villagersan dfield staf f implementth eplannin gprocess ,socia lconsid ­ erations,o rfarmers ' strategiesar ealread yaccounte dfo ri nth edesig no f

85 programmes.I n theirlan d use strategiesfarmer s have already madea cost-benefit estimate of expected inputs, outputs and risks. Also, by pursuingadaptabilit y andequit yi ndistributio n inloca lleve lplanning , someimportan taim so fcost-benefi t analysisar ealread yincorporate di n theplannin gprocess . Therefore,calculation so nexpecte dinput san doutput sar erestricte dt o ashort-ter mtim ehorizo nonly ,s othe yca nb esimpl ean dth eaforemen ­ tionedproblem sca nb ecircumvented .A majo rai mo fthes ecalculation s is to obtain some parameters that can serve as indicators for budget allocation and programme performance during the monitoring. These calculationsar epar to fth eprojec t designsummaries . Otherform s ofeconomi c assessmentso f theprogramme s such as:th e availability of budget resources; the capacity of the land users to implementth eprogrammes ;an dth esustainabilit yo fprogramme s(ca n expenditureso noperatio n andmaintenanc e beme ti nth efuture? ) are needed(d eGraa ffan dSchipper ,199 1) .Thes equestion sar eraise ddurin g theformulatio no fprojec tdesig nsummarie san dth eintegrate dprogramm e planningmatrix . Monitoring andevaluation Theprojec t design summaries form the basis for the monitoring and evaluationo fth eprogrammes . Inthes edesig n summaries,th eexpecte d programmeoutput sar eformulate d (withth esuppor to fth ecost-benefi t analysis) and theassumption s thatar emad eabou tprogramm e perfor­ mancedurin gth eplannin gca nserv ea sguideline sdurin gth emonitorin g andevaluation . Problem tree diagram A 'problem treediagram ' helpst ostructur einformation . Asystemati c visualization technique as developed by 'Metaplan' is used in the analysiso fproblem san dobjectives .Everybod yinvolve di nth ediscus ­ sionca nwrit eproblem san dconstraint sa sh esee sthe mo ncard swhic h areattache dt olarg epinboards .A 'moderator ' helpst ostructur eal lth e contributions and guides the group, step by step, through the whole process of problem analysis. In the problem analysis the significant problemsi nth eprogramm eenvironmen tar estructure daccordin gt oth e causallinkages .Thi sproduce sa roug hmode lo fth e problemhierarch y or'proble mtree' . Amai nfeatur eo fth etechniqu ei stha ti tallow sman y people to express their opinion simultaneously without hesitance and assuresa livel ydiscussion .Thi sproble minventor y techniquei s useful during the formulation of key issues, as one of the first steps in the planningprocess .

86 4.4 Proposed planningmetho d In thepreviou s sections land useplannin g methods and techniques as well as some techniques for programming have been described and analysed,usin gcriteri ase tb yth estrategi cmodel .Non eo fthes emethod s andtechnique sa ssuc har eidea la sa noperationa lplannin g method for realizing the first phase of the strategic model. Given their different focus,eac hha susefu l features eitheri ndat acollectio n andanalysis ,i n design,o rprogramming .Therefor ea synthesi so fal lthes eusefu l features intoa ne wplannin gmetho di sproposed .Tabl e4. 2present sthi splannin g sequence,i nwhic hth eapplie dmethod san dtechnique sar eindicate dfo r each step.I tshoul db erealize d however,tha tthi splannin gsequenc ei s flexible inuse ,i nth esens etha tother ,ne wtechnique san dtool sma yb e added. Alternatively whenth eloca lcapacity ,o rtime ,i slimite dsom e techniquesan dtool sma yb elef tou to fth esequence .Th esequenc eshow s anintegratio n oflan dus eplannin gan dprogrammin gtechniques . Preparation andorganizatio no fth eplannin gi sth eresponsibilit yo fth e localgovernmen t organizations,wh oma y besupporte d inthi stas kb y privateorganizations . Theyselec tth eplannin garea ,eithe ra villageo r anotheradministrativ e unit atloca l level,confronte d with seriouslan d use problems. This selection is based on theregiona l development or watershedplan sa tth emes oan dnationa lleve lan do nth edevelopmen t policieso fth eregiona lgovernments .Hence ,linkage sca nb eestablishe d betweenth eloca lan dregiona lo rnationa llevel .Result so fthes elocall y developed land use plans may refine the regional or national plans. Operationalissue sconcernin gwh otake spar ti nth eplannin gteam ,thei r permission to participate, the planning period, a day-to-day work programme,th eorganizatio no ffacilitie san dth efundin go fth eexercise , aredeal twith .Fund san dequipmen tar eallocate dan dinformatio n inth e form of maps and reports from the regional and national level is collected. Although the procedure is presented as a linear process,in realityth eplannin gi sa niterativ eproces si nwhic hcontinuou sfeed-bac k takesplac ebetwee nth edifferen t steps.Fo rexampl edurin gth eanalysi s theplanne rma yrealiz ea nee dfo radditiona ldat acollectio nan dtake sa stepbac ki nth eprocess .I nth efollowin g sectionth edifferen t stepsar e further outlined. Step 1 Brain-storming sessions, the interpretation of secondary data and a problem census among themember so f theplannin g teamprovid eth e necessaryinformatio nt odefin eth emajo rke yissue si nlan dus emanage ­ ment.Th eus eo fa problem-tre ediagram ,ma yhel pi nth eformulatio no f causesan deffect s ofproblem san dthei rgroupin gint omai nke yissues . Theidentificatio n ofmajo rlan dus eproblem si srelativel yeasy ,a sloca l peoplean dfiel dworkers ,wh ofor mth eplannin gteam ,liv ean dwor ki n 87 Table 4.2 Proposedplannin g sequenceindicatin gth eapplie dtech ­ niques and tools for each step

PLANNINGSTEP S TECHNIQUES/TOOLS

1 Inventory of problems 1 Problem census and problem Identification of key-issues tree and main user groups - group discussion

2 Primary data collection 2 RRA including: (focused on key-issues and field observation land user groups (land use and terrain survey) - informal interviews - formal interviews (householdsurvey ) - group meetings (problem census)

3 Data Processing and analysis 3 Combining and visualization of information in maps,diagrams , tables. Pattern analysis of key-issues including: - groupdiscussio n per issue - gender analysis (activity and access/control profile) - land evaluation

4 Conceptual plan 4 Conceptual plan map development Checking proposed programme with AEA properties

5 Detailed analysis 5 RRA including: - detailed field survey - group meetings; problem census and analysis - informal interviews - visualization techniques 6 Detailed design 6 Group meetings (participatory planning) Detailedprojec t design summary 7 Formulation of land use 7 Programme planning matrix development programme and land use plan

88 theare aan dhav ebee ndirectl yconfronte dwit hthes eissue sove rth epas t years. Asdat acollectio n israpi d representative information hast ob e collected.Therefore ,th etea midentifie sth emajo rlan dus eunit san dlan d usergroup si n thevillage .Bot hke y issuesan duse r groups should be dailychecke d andi fnecessar y adjusted. Step2 Aspecia lRRA-packag ei sdeveloped ,whic his :implementabl eb yloca l people and field workers; pays equal attention to bio-physical and socioeconomic aspects;an dresult si nqualitative ,descriptiv e informa­ tion, with geographic references to be used for detailed programme design. RRA forms the basic technique for data collection, but some more standardized and quantitative data collection techniques are in­ cluded.Thes ear ea terrai nan dlan dus esurvey ,an da smal lan dsimpl e household survey focused on the identification of different farming systems.Also ,Gende rAnalysi s toolsar einclude d for aninventor yo f activities and access to and control over resources by the household memberso fdifferen t landuse rgroups .Participatio n of localpeopl ei n problemidentificatio n andinformatio n collectionca nb estimulate db y usingth e 'problemcensus ' tool. Specialstudie so ncertai nke yissues , sucha sa ninventor y oferode dland ,lan downershi psituation ,accessi ­ bilityo fth earea ,marke tfacilitie so rloca lorganizations ,ma yals ob epar t ofthi sRRA-package .Th econten to fthi spackag ei ssuc htha t informa­ tioni scollecte d onal lthre epropertie so f sustainablelan duse : mainte­ nanceo fproductio npotential ;adaptabilit yo ffarmer san dth edivisio no f resourcesan d benefits. Step 3 Theanalysi so fdat afollow s thepatter nanalysi so fth eAgroecosyste m analysismethod .Th eresult so fdat acollectio nar eprocesse di na numbe r ofmaps ,diagrams ,table sa spresente di nfigur e 4.3. Foreac hlan duse r groupan dpe rke yissu eth erelevan tmaps ,tables ,diagram so fth epatter n analysis are discussed. This results in the identification of land use systemsan dthei rconstraints .Thi spatter n analysisoffer s theoptio nt o integrate the bio-physical and socioeconomic data and focuses onth e management of resources at intra-household, household and supra- household, rather than limiting it to on-farm key issues. The supra- household level includes the use and management of communal re­ sources(forest , grazing,water )an dsocioeconomi cservice sfo rmanag ­ ing these resources, such as local organizations, infrastructure and markets. A simple form of Land Evaluation (land classification) at a supra-household levelma yb eadde dt oth epatter nanalysi so fspace , in order to pay more specific attention to bio-physical potentials and constraintsi nth earea .Fo rexample ,a compariso no fterrai ncondition s with actual land use may result in an erosion hazard map. The intra-

89 household level can be incorporated by using the gender-specific activity andaccess/contro lprofil e inGende rAnalysis . Theus eo fth erathe rtheoretica lframewor k ofAgroecosyste mAnalysi s and the addition of Land Evaluation and Gender Analysis techniques makes thewhol e undertaking difficult togras p for theplannin g team. Therefore,th eloca lplanner shav et ob eguided ,step-by-step ,throug hth e process.Also ,th epresentatio no fth eresult so fanalysi sneed st ob eclea r andpractical .Th eanalysi si spresente daccordin gt oke yissu ei nth efor m of cross-sections, (sketch) mapsan d simple tables.Thi s will facilitate understandingan denlive ndiscussio nwithi nth eplannin gteam ,a swel l asdurin gmeeting swit hvillagers . Thisdat acollectio nan danalysi sca n leadt oth edetaile ddesig no fprogrammes ,rathe rtha nth eprovisio no f generalrecommendations .Fo rexample ,th eanalysi so fth erol eo flocal , privatean dgovernmen torganization si nth evillag ean dthei rlinkages , providessom ebasi cinformatio n forth edesig no fextensio nprocesses . Step 4 Foreac hke yissue ,constraint sar ediscusse d andpossibl e solutionsar e formulated. Theyar efinall y integratedint oa conceptua lplan ,i nwhic h therelationship s(an dpossibl econflicts )betwee nth edifferen t interven­ tions become visible. In this plan, general guidelines are given for solvingth eke yproblem san da tthi sstag eo fplannin g specialattentio n isgive n toth e supra-household level.Th ethre epropertie s are usedt o checkth esustainabilit y ofpropose d landus einterventions . StepS Foreac hpropose dprogramm eactivit ya detaile danalysi si scarrie dou t togetherwit hthos elan duse rwh oar et obecom einvolved .Th epurpos e ofthi smeasur ei st o assesswhic hspecifi ctechnica lpractice san dsocia l measures and arrangements are needed to enlarge their capacity for sustainablemanagement .Thi simplie stha tdetaile dlan dsurvey sma yb e needed,a swel la sdiscussion s withth eintende dparticipant s(individual s andloca lorganizations ) aboutthei r specific wishes,needs ,constraint s andcapacities .A gende ranalysi sfocuse do nthi sgrou po fpeople ,a swel l as a problem census exercise with the intended participants to be involvedma yb eincluded .

Step 6 Theloca lpeopl ewh owil lbecom eth eimplementor san dmanager so fth e interventionsshar eresponsibilit yi nth edesign .Discussion sar ehel do n possibletechnica lan dsocia lintervention si nth efiel do ra thom ewit hth e aido fsketche san dmaps . Theircapacit yt oimplemen tan dmanag eth e activities are included in the design. Hence, programming starts in formulating thedetaile d designs.Detaile d design summaries aremad e

90 for each proposed project, indicating itsobjectives , intended outputs, requiredinputs/resources/material ,physica lmeasures ,socia lindicator s of project performance, outputs and assumptions concerning the achievement ofobjectives ,projec t outputsan dth emean so f providing inputs. Step 7 Finally,thes edesign sar eintegrate dint oa programm eplannin gmatrix . Priority for project implementation isindicate d and local capacity for implementation andmanagemen ta swel la stota lbudge trequirements , possiblefinancia l sourcesan dcos tsharin garrangement sar ediscussed . The programmes should be checked for sustainability with the three properties.A tim eschedul efo rimplementatio ni sprepared .Th elocatio n ofpropose d interventionsi svisualize di na lan dus epla nmap .

4.5 Summary Inorde rt oreac ha noptima lfi tbetwee nth ethre evariable so fth estrategi c modeli nth etria lphase ,a plannin gmetho dshoul db eapplie dt ocollec t and analyse data that can be transformed into the design of effective programmes.N o 'off-the-peg' planning method isavailable ,instea da combinationo fexistin gapproaches ,method san dtechnique si sneeded . Three development approachesca n bedistinguishe d tothi send :plan ­ ningo f land usedevelopment ; extension approaches andprojec t man­ agementapproaches .Generall yspeaking ,eac happroac hcover sadifferen t sideo fth estrategi cmodel .Lan dus edevelopmen tfocuse so nachievin g afi tbetwee nintervention san dlan dus esystem ;extensio nprocesse sca n beuse di nachievin ga fi tbetwee nlan dus esyste man dorganizations ;an d the fit between interventions and organizations can be accomplished withth ehel po fprojec t managementtechniques . Forplannin glan dus edevelopmen ti nth etria lphas ea numbe ro fcurren t methods and techniques are discussed. These are Farming System Analysis,Lan dEvaluation ,Agroecosyste mAnalysis ,Landscap ePlan ­ ning,Rapi dRura lAppraisa lan dGende rAnalysis .Th ecriteri ase tb yth e strategicmode ldetermin ewhic haspect so fthes eplannin gmethod san d techniques areusefu l forth epropose dplannin gmethod .Non eo fthes e methods and techniques as such are ideal as an operational planning methodfo rrealizin gth efirs tphas eo fth estrategi cmodel .A synthesi so f all useful features intoa ne wlan dus eplannin gmetho di sproposed . Forth etria lphas eth efocu si so nplannin glan dus edevelopmen twhil e opportunities to develop extension processes and to influence project

91 managementar elimited .Therefor eplan sshoul dbasicall yb etailore dt o theexistin gcompetenc eo forganizations .Withi nthes elimitation ssom e attentionca nb epai dt oextensio nprocesse san dmanagemen ttechnique s byintroducin ga nadditiona lste pt olan dus eplanning ,calle dprogram ­ ming.Programmin ginclude sth epreparatio no fa detaile ddesig nan da programmeplannin g matrix.Th edetaile ddesign sma yinclud ea cost - benefit analysisa swel la ssocia lindicator san dassumption sconcernin g the performance of the project. The latter can form the basis for a monitoringan devaluatio nprogramme .Th eprogramm ematri xindicate s priorityfo rprojec t implementation,th eloca lcapacit yfo r implementa­ tion and management as well as total budgetrequirements, possibl e financial sources and a time schedule. Thus, the proposed planning methodconsist so flan dus eplannin gan dprogrammin gactivities .

92 5 THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PLAN­ NINGLAN DUS EPROGRAMME SI N THEUPLAND S OFEAS T JAVA

Thischapte rdescribe s andanalyse s thepresen t environment for plan­ ningsustainabl elan dus eprogramme si nth eupland so fEas tJava . This environment consistso f thethre evariables :lan dus esystem ,interven ­ tions andorganizations .Firstl y the land use system for the uplandso f EastJav ai sdescribe d (section 5.1).Secondly ,governmenta lorganiza ­ tions, their planning procedures and the role of Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) in rural development on Java are outlined (section5.2) .Thirdly ,intervention sar eillustrate dwit htw oexample so f governmentprogramme s(sectio n5.3) .Whil eth edescriptio no forgani ­ zations and interventions applies to the whole of Java, the land use systemi sdescribe dmor especificall y forth eupland so fEas tJava .Afte r this description an analysis of the two government programmes is provided,base do nth eprinciple so fth estrategi cmode l(sectio n5.4) .Th e final sectionpresent sa summar yan dconclusions .

5.1 Thelan dus esystem s The concept of a land use system, as described in chapter 2, is an interaction between the bio-physical and socioeconomic sub-systems which is influenced byeconomic ,political ,cultura l and technical fac­ tors.Becaus ei nth eupland so fJav athes ebio-physica lan dsocioeconomi c factors differ locally a wide diversity in land use systems occurs. Thereforea genera ldescriptio no flan dus esystem swoul db einappropri ­ ate. In the following sections, a brief general description of land use conditionsprecede sa mor edetaile ddescriptio no fthre eagroecologica l zones.

93 5.1.1 Generaldata on land use in the uplands of East Java Thelan dus esyste mi nJav aha sbee ndescribe dextensivel yb ynumerou s authors eitherfrom a bio-physica l or asocio-cultural-economi cview ­ point. Thosefactor smos tsalien tt oa nunderstandin go fth emajo rissue s inplannin gsustainabl elan dus ei nth eupland so fEas tJav aar ediscusse d below. According toth eWorl d Bank (1988) themajorit y of slopes in upland areaso fJav ahav ea gradien tsteepe rtha n30% .Approximatel y 51%o f thelan di sdevote dt orainfe dagriculture ,23 %t oirrigate drice cultivatio n and 25% toforest . Further information isprovide d byBarbie r(1989) : '...theare ao f severelyerode dupland si sincreasin ga tth erat eo f 1-2% perannu man dno wcover sa tota lo fove rtw omillio nhectares ,approxi ­ matelyone-thir do fJava' scultivate duplands .Roughl y1 2millio npeopl e livei nth euplands .Populatio ndensitie si nthes earea saverag e600-70 0 peoplepe rsquar ek man dholding saverag e0. 4h ao rless .I nsom earea s asmuc ha s20-25 %o fth epopulatio nar elandless .Yield sfo ruplan d rice andcor naverag e0. 9t o2. 5to npe rhectare. ' Amor epractica ldescriptio no fth euplands ,emphasizin gthei rdiversity , canb egleane dfrom th efollowin gexamples : totalannua lrainfal l varies from less than 1000m m to more than 3000mm ;rainfal l distribution rangesfro ma sman ya snin ewe tmonth spe ryea rt oa sfe wa sthre ewe t months; upland landscapes are diverse with volcanic, alluvial and sedimentary deposits on a wide range of slopes of differing ages. Differences arefurthe r caused byvariation s in seasonal andperennia l crops sown, cropping patterns, and management practices of dryland crops (KEPAS, 1988). Furthermore widely divergent socioeconomic groups can be distinguished among village communities such as (McCauley, 1985): landless labourers(thos ewh oow na tmos ta homestead) .Thes e familiesar edependen tupo nwag elabour ,handicraf tproduction , fuelwood collection and sale, and other marginally productive economicactivities ; farmer-labourers (those whocontro l insufficient land, through ownership, rental or share-cropping, to completely depend on agricultural production for aliving) .The y carry out additional worksimila r toth elandles slabourers ; 'self-sufficient' farmers (those whosuppor t themselvesalmos t entirely from theproduct so fpadd yan ddrylan dcultivatio no n theirow nland) ; farmer-entrepreneurs (often relativelyprosperou sfarmers ,wh o earnadditiona lincom efro mtrading ,teaching ,o rbein ga villag e official). They rent out part of their land to landless or near- landlesshouseholds . 94 entrepreneurs(thos ewh oar eabl et oprospe rfrom non-farmin g activities). Eacho fthes esocioeconomi cgroup semploy sit sow nlan dus estrategy .Fo r example,smal lfarmer san dlabourer shav en oothe rchoic etha nt ocultivat e thelan dfo rsubsistenc efoo dproduction ,regardles so fth egradien to rfertilit y ofth eland .However ,diversifie dfarmer scultivatin gpiece so flan do fvarie d qualityhav eth eflexibilit y toselec tlan dus epractice si naccordanc ewit h thesequalities .Farmer-entrepreneur sposses sth ecas hincome ,bu tlac kth e timerequire dfo rintensiv ecultivatio nan dthu sma ychoos eextensiv elan d use strategies such astre ecro pproduction .Th ecomplexit y of thesocia l patternsi n villagesca n befurthe r illustrated byth einsecur elan dtenur e arrangementsan dth epresenc eo fpeopl eo fMadures eorigi na sa resul to f politicalan deconomi cforce si nth epast .

5.1.2 Historicalinfluences on present land use in the uplands of EastJava Java'sric h historyo flan dus eha sbee ndescribe dextensivel y (Raffles, 1830;Nibbering , 1989;Palte , 1990;Pelus oe t al.,1990) .Howeve r the account which follows focuses on only those historical events which continuet oinfluenc ecurren tlan dus ei nupland so fEas tJava .Th emajo r impactsar eerode dland ,insecurit yo flan dtenur ean dth esettlemen to f Madureseo nJava . Duringth ecolonia lperio dmos tuplan darea si nEas tJav awer ecovere d byforest , andcoffe e andrubbe rplantations .Howeve rdurin gth eJapa ­ neseoccupation ,th erevolutio nan dfo rsom etim ethereafter , largetract s of theseforest s andplantation s werecu t andconverte dint odr yarabl e fields. Besidesland-hungr yfarmers ,th eJapanes eoccupatio narm ywa s largelyresponsibl efo rth edestructio no fforest san dpoo rlan dmanage ­ mento nforme rplantations .I trequisitione d areast oproduc efoo dcrop s aswel la scertai ncommodit ycrop s(i.e .castor )t osuppor tth ewa reffort . Littleattentio nwa spai dt osoi lconservatio no nthes elands ,resultin gi n high rates of erosion (Wiersum, 1980;Nibbering , 1989;Palte , 1990). Alsoafte r thewar ,durin gth estruggl efo r independence,larg earea s of plantations andfores t fell victim to settlement andcultivatio n (see for exampleBekkerin g andKucera , 1990). Rappard (1951)mention stha t inth eBranta swatershe d atota lo f 43,000h ao fforest s weredestroye d andth elan dgive nove rt ocultivation ,an dtha tth epercentag eo fforeste d areas shrank from 24% in 1924 to 18%i n 1951. During the colonial period other authors had already forewarned of the problems that deforestation would cause for future land use and the hydrological situation onJav a(Heringa , 1939;Altona ,1914) .

95 Accordingt oPelus oe tal .(1990) :'Thes ewa rproductio npolicie shav e ledt ocontemporar y disputesove rlan dright sbetwee n theStat eFores t Corporation,th eDepartmen to fAgraria nAffair san dindividua lfarmers . Parto fthes eforme rfores to restat eland sstil lfac eth eproblem so f lack of security of tenure. Palte (1990) estimates that illegally cultivated forestan destat eland so nJav acove rhundred so fthousand so fhectares . Oneexampl ei s militaryland ,whic hi slocate do nforme restat elan dan d nowrente db yth emilitar yfro m thegovernment .Peopl ear eallowe dt o liveo ncertai npart so f thelan d andcultivat ei tunde rstric tconditions . Another example is the so-called Magersari land: temporary forest camps convertedb yfores tlabourer sint opermanen tsettlements ,whic h areno wunofficiall y acceptedb yth eStat eFores tCorporation .On eeffec t of this insecurity of land tenure is to make squatted former estates or squattedfores tlan dliabl et odegradation ,becaus efarmer sar eno twillin g toinves ti nlan dwhe nthe ystil lfea rexpulsion .Give nth eexten to fthes e lands,th eproblem so ferosio nassum egrav eproportion s (Palte,1990) . In addition thepresenc e of Madurese in many upland villages inEas t Java has had an impact on land use and the success of land use programmes.Durin gcolonia l timespeopl efro m theislan d ofMadur a camet owor ki nth ecoffe eplantation san dsinc ethe nhav esettle di nthes e areas,ofte n formingthei row ncommunities ,livin gi nseparat ehamlets . Maduresepeopl e canb edistinguishe dfro mth eJavanes eb ythei rstron g religious sentiments, loyalty toinforma l leaders, wariness of govern­ mentservice san dhig hleve lo filliterac y(Bijlmer , 1987).The yar ever y skeptical of government programmes and the government finds them extremely difficult to cooperate with. Although their social ties are strong, especially on their homesteads which often consist of two households, they are highly individualistic when it comes to their economic domain (Bijlmer, 1987).Madures efarmer s have a different landus esyste mfro mth eJavanese :the yrea rcattl efo rfattenin gan dplan t hedgesaroun dthei rfield sand/o rhome ,a lan dus epractic ethe yinherite d fromMadura ,wher en oalternativ efue lwoo dan dfodde rgrow snea rthei r homes.

Given thisdiversit yi n land usei n upland areas,a genera ldescriptio n wouldno tb eappropriate ,whil ea descriptio no feac hlan dus esyste ma t localleve lwoul db eimpossible .I norde rt ogiv ea mor especifi cpictur e oflan dus ei nth euplands ,a descriptio no fthre eagroecologica lzone si s presented. 5J.3 Land useaccording to zone Agroecological zones are areas with relatively uniform bio-physical characteristicssuc ha saltitude ,geo-morphology ,dominan tslop erange s andclimate ,whic hhav ea simila rrang eo fproductio npossibilities .Th e

96 V

g S

5 sCl I xsfi I g

! G

amiBiaduiaj IBnuire ueaui

(•j's-Bj-ui aprvmjB

97 cross-section in figure 5.1 depicts the different zones that can be distinguishedi nth eupland so fEas tJav a (Carson, 1989;DH VConsult ­ ants,1990a) . Land use is described for three of the zones in figure 5.1: upper and middlevolcani czone ;lowlan dvolcani czon ean dlowlan dsedimentar y zone.Fiel dresearc h (inth efor m of trialcases )ha sbee nundertake ni n thesethre ezones .The yar edelineate do nth ebasi so fterrai nan dclimat e conditionsan dagricultura lproductio nsystems .Fo reac hzon esocioeco ­ nomiccondition s sucha soff-far m employment, tenurial arrangements orfores t managementissue sar ediscussed .However ,i tshoul db enote d thatsinc ebio-physica lcriteri aar euse dt odistinguis hthes ezones ,thes e factorsar epredominan ti nth edescription .Th edifferen t socioeconomic capacities of land users to manage these bio-physical resources are illustrated bydescribin gsoi lconservatio n strategiesfo r eachzone . UPPERAND MIDDLE VOLCANIC ZONE Terrainand climate conditions: The altitude ranges between 500 and 1500 m, with the demarcation betweenuppe ran dmiddl ezon eoccurrin ga t100 0m a.s.l .Thes eupland s are situated for most part on the middle volcanic slopes and on some inter-volcanic plains and plateaus (Kucera, 1990).Th e zone hasdee p fertilepermeabl esoil swit hslope so ffou rt oeigh tdegrees .However ,i n sharply fissured areas,stee pslope san d shallowtopsoi l aremor ecom ­ mon.Th eclimat ei swar man dhumi dwit hannua laverag etemperature s of20'C. Agriculturalproduction systems: Traditionallyth eagricultura lproductio nsyste mi nthi szon econsiste do f subsistencecrop san dcoffe e plantations.Howeve rth erisin gdeman dfo r fruits, vegetables, meat and milk from therapidl y growing cities has transformed the subsistence cropping pattern into one dominated by commercial crops. This was made possible by intensifying farming practices, using high yield varieties and fertilizers, and improving accessibility (Nibbering, 1989). Nowadayslan dus ei nth euppe rvolca ­ nic zones is characterized by vegetable and apple cultivation (World Bank, 1988).Beside sth ecommercia lcrops ,maiz ean dcassav aar estil l cultivated,especiall yb yth eresource-poo rfarmer .Wherea scommercia l cropsar egrow no nperfectl y maintainedterraces ,subsistenc ecrop sca n befoun do nsteepe rareas ,highl ypron et oerosio nan dwit hrathe rpoore r terracesystems .Th erat eo ferosio no fthes emaiz efield sca nexcee d20 0 ton/ha/yr (Carson, 1989). (Dairy) cattle-rearing, for meat and milk production, is aprofitabl e occupation: in the Kali Konto Project area dairy cattlemanagemen t activities showed an 13% increasei nincom e and a20 %increas e inemploymen t during theperio d 1986-89.A tth e

98 same time a 120% increase in average arable land area planted under grass per household was observed (de Graaff and Dwiwarsito, 1990). Cattlei skep t in stables and acu t and carry system ispracticed . Grasses aregrow no nth ebenche so fterraces ,whil eadditiona lfodde ri scollecte d inth eforest . Homegardensar esmall .Th emos timportan t(fruit ) treesar e grown on dry arable land near the homes.

Forest management: Forest landi sdivide d intonatura l andplantatio n forests, both managed byth e StateFores t Corporation (PerumPerhutani ) either for protection orproductio npurposes .Al lth eremainin gnatura lforest sar eprotecte di n accordance with their assumed hydrological function in downstream areas.Howeve rth enumerou ssawpit sfoun di nforest swher ehig hqualit y timberspecie sar estil labundan tar eevidenc etha tprotectio nha sno tbee n veryeffective .Plantatio nforest sar eplante daccordin gt oth etwnpangsari agroforestry system,i nwhic h landless farmers receive0.2 5 hao f forest land on which they have to plant trees. The recipients derive benefits from annualcrop sgrow n amongth enewl yplante d treesdurin gth e first two years in return for their labour inputs in cleaning, planting and weeding the forest site. Since the contract is short-term, these farmers often have norea l interest in the well-being of the trees.Knowin g that theircontrac t can beextende d if the trees fail toestablis h farmers have evenbee nprompte dt odamag etree sintentionally .Als oafte rth econtrac t period is over, initially successful plantations may still fall victim to illegalcuttin g byloca lpeopl e asnobod y feels responsible for them and forest patrols are ineffective (DHV Consultants, 1990b).

Socioeconomic conditions: Averagefar m sizei srelativel ylo wa t0.4 7h ape rhousehold . Ofth ethre e zonesth eproportio n oflandles san d smallfarmer s isgreates ti nthi son e (table 5.1). Although most employment isfoun d in agricultural activi­ ties,off-far m activitiesprovid eth ebigges tsourc eo fincom e(tabl e5.1) . Therelativel yfavourabl eemploymen tsituatio ni nthi szon eca nb epartl y attributed to the vicinity of forest lands (DHV Consultants, 1990a). In villages close to the forest 'professional' fuelwood collectors sell the wood on local markets (Palte [1990], citing Nibbering et al., 1985). However,th emajo r employmentopportunit yi nth efores t areai screate d by the reforestation activities generated by the twnpangsari planting system. Substantial earnings can thus be obtained from cultivating agricultural crops on the fertile freshly opened forest soils. Apart from some trade and artisan activities few alternative off-farm employment opportunitiesar eavailable .Migratio noccur si nal lthre ezones ;member s of 20-30% of all households temporarily migrate for an averageo f five monthspe ryear .Howeve rth eincom eleve lo f 31% o f thepeopl e living in this zone is still below the poverty line (= income of Rp 120,000/

99 person/year, in 1989US $ 1.0 equalled approximately Rp 1,800)(DH V Consultants, 1990a). Commercial production has led to increased economic stratification of farmers, especially in apple cultivation. Small farmers who are unable to make large and risky investments rent out their land to (often Chinese) investorsfro m thecitie san dbecom e labourerso nthei row n land.O rthe y borrow moneyt omak eth einvestments ,bu td ono tmanag et opa yi tbac k within the setperio d and areforce d to sell their land and cultivate it as a labourer. Large farmers are much less vulnerable to such financial risks. Theyar ebette rabl et obenefi t from commercialopportunitie san dmanag e to acquire economic power, which is often translated into local political powera swel l (Palte, 1990;va nde nHoe ke tal. , 1990).

Soilconservation strategy of farmers: Withwell-maintaine d terraceshig hinvestment si ncommercia lcro pman ­ agement inputs such as mulch, chemicals and organic fertilizer can be optimizedan dthu sinfluenc e theexpecte dprofitabilit y ofthes ecrop si nth e future. However,poo rmaize-farmer s havea differen t perspective aspoo r terracingdoe s notdirectl y affect theiryields .Th eus eo f largeamount so f fertilizers on deep soils compensate for these poor terracing practices. Cropping may continue for some time without soil loss affecting its productivity.Th esuppl yo flow-cos t (highlysubsidized )chemica l fertiliz­ ers,ha sencourage d thesefarmer s toneglec tth emor eexpensiv e butmor e sustainablemethod st oincreas efertilit yan dconserv esoils ,suc ha smanuring , mulching and using compost (Carson, 1989).Generall y speaking, in this zone,th elan dtha tshow sgreates terosio ni sno tmanage db yth eowner ,bu t rented by other people for a short period, who only receive short-term benefits.Tre ecove ro nagricultura lland sfo rfuelwoo d orfodde r iso flittl e importance. Thefores tborderin gth evillag ei sperceive db yfarmer s asth e mostobviou splac et ocollec tthei rdail yfuelwood .Moreover ,farmer sar eno t interested inplantin gtree so nhighl yproductiv eland , asthe yfea rcompe ­ tition withthei rcrops .

LOWLAND VOLCANIC ZONE Terrain and climate conditions: Altitude ranges between 0-500m a.s.l .an d thelandscap e is dominated by ancient volcanic landslide material, overlying older sedimentary limestone materials. This thick blanket of volcanic debris originally formed analmos tfla t plain (Carson, 1987).However ,natura lan dman - induced erosion has eroded the sloping areas and hilltops, where the olderlimeston emateria li sno wvisibl ea tth esurface . Overall gradients ofth eplatea uli ebetwee nzer oan dfiv edegrees ,whil eth edrainag eway s are between 10 and 35 degrees in gradient. The climate is warm and humid with a mean annual temperature of 24'C.

100 Table5. 1: Somesocioeconomi c datafo rthre e agroecologicalzone s

Upperan d Lowland Lowland middlevolcani c volcanic sedimentary zone zone zone

av.famil y size 4.5 4.3 4.7 av.far m size(ha ) 0.47 0.79 1.16 Typeo flan d cultivated(% ) -irrigation 9 11 7 -drylandannua lcrop . 32 67 42 -perennialgarden s 42 3 30 -homegardens 13 18 20 -forest/other 4 1 1 Landtenure : -%ofh.h.landless 5 2 3 -%<0.0 6h a 28 13 4 Livestock/hh: -no.o fcattl e 0.6 0.9 1.5 -no.o fsmal lrumin . 0.9 0.4 0.5 Employment: -%agri . activities 30 37 43 -%on-far m labour 13 12 7 onothe r farms -% off-farm 15 13 9 employment -% home and other 42 38 41 Income: -% agri.activitie s 34 43 57 -% onfar m labour 15 18 15 -% off-farm 51 39 28 employment. -%o fperson swit h 31 49 47 incbelo w poverty line Source: Integratedbaselin esurvey-LESMA S (DHVConsultants ,1990 )

101 Agriculturalproduction system: Rainfed annualcro pproductio n dominatesth efarmin g systems.Suga r cane,cassava ,maiz ean dbean sar eamon gth emajo r crops.Suga rcan e isth emai ncas hcrop ,largel ybecaus eo fth egovernment' spricin gpolic y (Kepas, 1988). Cassava isgrow nb yric h andpoor ,bot h asa cas han d subsistencecro p (Carson, 1987).Productivit y of cassava andmaiz ei n generali slow ,becaus eo fpoo rqualit yplantin gmateria lan dlo winputs . In smallvalle y bottoms,wher e water flowsfrom loca l springs,ric e is grown.Frui ttree sar eusuall ygrow ni nhomegardens .Cattl ei sraise dfo r draft-power, meatproductio n (mainlyb eth eMadurese )an da ssaving s capital.Howeve rth enumbe ro fcattl epe rhousehol di ssmal l(tabl e5.1) . Forestmanagement: Forest landsar emainl ycovere d bytea kplantations ,althoug h recently fast-growing species, such asParaserianthes falcataria an d Gmelina arborea, haveals obee nplanted .Reforestatio n often fails for thesam e reasonscite dfo rth euppe ran dmiddl evolcani czone .Organize dtimbe r theftoccurs ,a sdoe sth ecollectio no ffuelwoo d forhousehol dconsump ­ tionan dfo rsale .Anothe rmajo rproble mi nmos treforestatio n areasi sth e grazingo fcattle .I nth edr yseaso nparticularl yno tenoug hfodde rca nb e collectedo nprivat eland san dfarmer sar eforce dt obu yi ti nothe rplace s and/ordepen d onth efores t for fodder collection andgrazin g (vande n Hoeke tal , 1989). Socioeconomic conditions: Average farm size at 0.79 ha. is slightly larger than in the upper and middlevolcani czone .Agricultura lactivitie sprovid eth emajo rsourc eo f income, while off-farm employment plays a smaller role than in the previous zone. Nearly half the total households (49%) has an income below thepovert y line.Initia l capital costs of planting sugarcan ean d restricted accesst oth esuga rfactor y resultsi nsuga rcan ebein ggrow n predominantlyb yresourc erich farmers .Moreover ,suga rcan eha st ob e growno ngentl yslopin gareas ,ofte nowne db yth erich farmer s(KEPAS , 1988). Soilconservation strategy of farmers: Farmers'interes ti nsoi lconservatio no fsuga rcan efield si slimite deithe r becauseterrace swil ltak eu psom eo f theirproductiv e land,o rbecaus e landi softe n rentedan dth etenant sar eno twillin gt oinves ti nlan dthe y onlycultivat efo ra perio do ftw oyear s(va nde nHoe ke tal. , 1990).Th e government programme for terracing sugar cane fields has failed as farmers were unwilling to cut their sugar cane during programme implementation, which often did not coincide with their harvest time (after 14 months) (vande nHoe k etal. ,1988) .

102 LOWLAND SEDIMENTARY(LIMESTONE) ZONE Terrain andclimate condition: This zonelie sbetwee n sealeve l and20 0m elevatio n andrange s from undulating torollin g cultivated lands in the north (volcanic origin) to stronglyrollin gkars t(limestone )terrai nalon gth ecoast .I ngenera lsoil s area combinatio no flimeston ean dvolcani csoils ;the yar eshallow ,ston y andclayey.Subsoil sgrad eabruptl yint obedrock .Slope srang efro m 1 to 45degree swit hdominan tslope so f 10t o1 5degrees . Theclimat ei sho t and moist with a mean annual air temperature of 25'C and annual precipitation of200 0mm .Drough tca nb esever ean di sexacerbate db y theshallo w stony soilso f theare a(Carson , 1989). Agriculturalproduction system: Subsistence farming is the most important farming system. Rainfed annual cropping together with coconut plantations are the dominant formso flan duse .Th emai ncrop sgrow nar ecassava ,maiz ean ddrylan d rice,whic h give low yields due to poor planting material and lack of inputs.Valuabl efrui ttree sar egrow ni nrelativel yextensiv ehomegarden s for household consumption. Cows are kept for ploughing and by the Madureseinhabitant sfo rmea tproductio na swell .Larg earea so fbar eo r marginally cultivated lands with some teak and coconut plantations occur on the karst terrain in the southern part of the zone. Poor land management,whic hstarte dwit hth ecuttin go ffores tdurin gth ewar ,ha s resultedi n severeerosion ,a sharpl ydissecte dlandscap ean ddecrease d soil productivity. Large areas of this land are already abandoned or under-utilized (Carson, 1989). Forestmanagement: Asmal lcoasta lstri po fsom eproductio n andprotectio nfores tremains . Ingenera lth efores ti sto ofa rawa yfo rth evillager st og other et ocollec t theirdail yfuelwood . Besides,extensivel ycultivate dprivat eland spro ­ duce largeamount so f fuelwood. However professional wood thieves stilloperat ei nth efores t insearc ho fhig hqualit ytimbe r(va nde nHoe k etal. , 1989). Socioeconomic conditions: The average farm size is large at 1.16 ha per household, and the percentage of landlesso r small farmers is small (table 5.1). However, since the productivity of the land is low, outmigration characterizes manyvillage si nthi szone :wor ki softe n soughtb yyoun gpeopl ei nmor e promising rural areas or in the cities (Palte, 1990;DH V Consultants, 1990a; van den Hoek et al., 1990). Infrastructure in the villages is comparativelypoorl ydeveloped .I nthi smor eisolate dzone ,whic hlack s lucrativecas hcrop ssuc ha sric eo rsuga rcane ,th eagricultura lextensio n servicei softe n notrepresented . Approximately 47%o fth epopulatio n

103 havea nincom ebelo wth epovert yline . Soilconservation strategy of farmers: Thelo wprofitabilit y oferode dlan ddiscourage sfarmer sfro m cultivat­ ing it, since the cost of inputs required to initiate land management measuresunde rthes ecircumstance swoul db emuc hhighe rthe nexpecte d value of the outputs. They leave the land fallow with some teak and coconutstand san dus ei tfo rgrazin gan dwoo dcollection .Consequentl y thosefarmer swithou talternativ elan dt ocultivat ewil lloo kfo radditiona l income in off-farm employment. Another reason for the extensive cultivationo fthes emargina lland si sthei rrelativel ylon gdistanc efro m the farmers' homes, which restricts transport and limits security. For example,farmer s arereluctan tt oplan tfrui t treesbecaus ethe y willb e vulnerablet o theft. Becausefarmer sd ono tposses ssecurit yo flan dtenure ,th egovernmen t (military) land in the northern part of the zone stands testimony to mismanagementan derosion .N oseriou ssoi lconservatio nmeasure sar e implemented, nor are any long term agricultural investments made. Moreover,sinc eth emilitar ydoe sno tallo wtree st ob ecu to nthi sland , farmers have no incentive to plant them (van den Hoek et al., 1989; Carson,1989) . 5.1.4 Factorsinfluencing land use strategies Basedo nth edescriptio no flan dus ean dsoi lconservatio nstrategie sfo r each zone,an dadditiona lliteratur e study,th efollowin g factors canb e identified asinfluencin g landus estrategie so ndr yarabl elan di nuplan d zones(Carson , 1989;Worl dBank , 1988;Barbier , 1989;va nde nHoe k etal. ,1989) : Qualityof land Physicalcharacteristic so fth eland ,suc ha sth eavailabilit yo fwater ,soi l depthan dtexture ,slop egradien tan dlength ,an dth epresenc eo fstones , determinepotential sfo rlan dmanagemen tstrateg yi nth efirs tplace .I n general, upland farmers arequic k to adopt new farming systems and modify theirlan dmanagemen t practicesi f theyperceiv ea neconomi c advantage in doing so.Hence , themor eproductiv e the land and the moreprofitabl e thecrops ,th emor efarmer sar ewillin gt omaintai nan d invest in better land management and erosion control practices. Soil conservationpractice sar eles slikel yt ob eaccepte di narea swher eonl y smallproductivit y lossesaris efro m erosion.

104 Availabilityof cash Conservationfannin gi smor ereadily adopte db ywealthie rfarmer swit h readycash . Poorfarmers , however,canno t afford totak e uplan d use strategiesrequirin gsignifican t inputso flabou ran dcapita lno rar ethe y ablet osustai nth etemporar ylos so ffoo dcrop s whichterracin gentail s (Pickering, 1979).The yar eengage di nsubsistenc eagricultur e andar e primarily concerned with steady,low-ris kproduction . Availabilityof different land parcels Farmerswit hvarie dplot so flan dca nbette radjus tthei rlan dmanagemen t to the suitability of each plot. For example, by planting intensively cultivated cashcrop so nirrigate d land,margina lland sar erelease d for fodderan dfuelwoo d crops.Subsistenc efarmer sd ono thav ethi schoic e sincethe yofte n haveonl yon eplo tt ob euse dfo r food production and theseplot sar eofte n located onmargina lland .Also ,wheneve ra fores t isi nth evicinit yloca linhabitant swil lvie wi ta sa nalternativ esourc efo r fuelwoodan dfodde ran dwil lb eles sincline dt oplan tthes ecrop so nthei r arablefields . Availabilityof labour Lacko ftim eo nth epar to ffarmer so rshortag eo flabou rma yforc ethe m tomanag elan dextensively . Oneo fthei rmajo r concernsi sth eoppor ­ tunitycos to flabour .Thu sh ewil lop tfo rothe rlabour-demandin g (off- farm) activitieswhe nthes ebrin gthe ma highe rincome . Tenurialarrangements Farmers lacking secure tenurial arrangements are only interested in short-termbenefits . If,fo rexample ,the yren tlan dfo ra shor tperio dther e isn oincentiv et oinves ti nsoi lconservatio nmeasure swhic hwoul donl y benefit themi nth elon grun . Alternativesources of income Farmers earning a large proportion of their income from off- farm employmentwil lten dt orespon dt oreduce dprofitabilit yo fthei ragricul ­ tural land by devoting more labour to off-farm work. Wealthy land ownerswh ofar mmargina llan dse equicke rprofit si nothe rbusines san d loseinteres ti nth efarm , leavinga tleas ta portio no fthei rlan dfallow . Marketsituation Adoption of new cropping patterns orplantin g systems is slow when marketing and transportation facilities are insufficient to fully exploit theseinnovations .

105 Access to newtechnology and inputs Lacko finformatio n onavailabl etechnolog yan dinput sma yb ea reaso n for continuing traditional and often non-optimal land management practices. Presence oflivestock Thefodde r requirements of highly profitable dairy cattle will reorient landus estrategie stoward sth eplantin go fgras so ndr yarabl eland . The availabilityo fmanur echange slan dmanagemen tpractices ,sinc ei tca n be usedi n addition to,o rinstea dof , chemical fertilizers. Distancebetween land, roadand the homestead Thegreate rth edistanc ebetwee nlan dan dth ehomestea dth eles ssecur e farmersfee l aboutth eproduct sthe ygro wo nthei rland .A lon gdistanc e toroad smake s transportation moredifficul t and thusmor eexpensive , especiallywhe nproduct sar ebulk yo rperishable . Anotherconsequenc e of this distance is that farmers have no control over their valuable products.Consequentl yextensiv elow-inpu tagricultur ei spractice do n these sites whenever there is alternative land for food production, or people stayovernigh to nthei r landdurin gharves ttime . 5.1.5 Therole of village organizationsin the land use system Inth eanalysi so flan dus ezone sdescribe dabove ,villag eorganization s wereexcluded .Ther ear etw oexplanation sfo rthis :firstl yth einstitution ­ alization and incorporation of indigenous village organizations into government organizations hasmad e themfairl y homogeneous andth e samebodie sar epresen ti neac hvillage .O nth eothe rhan dth efunctionin g of these organizations differs between villages, depending on local powerstructure san dpolicies ,an dthu sthe ycanno tb edistinguishe do n a zonal basis. Therefore only a general picture will be drawn for all uplandvillages ,focusin g onvillag eadministratio n andorganizations . During the seventies the government carved out the present village administration from autonomous indigenous village organizations. SchulteNordhol t(1987a )describe sho wth evillag eorganizatio n(LSD ; LembagaSosialDesa, avillag esocia linstitution )wa sgraduall yenvel ­ oped by the government; 'on behalf of a rural development policy in whichther ewa sn oplac efo rautonomou svillag einstitutions . Bymean s ofdirective san dregulation sand ,finally ,th e197 9la wregulatin gvillag e administration, theLS D (albeit under thene wnam eLKMD ,meanin g LembagaKetahanan MasyarakatDesa; th eVillag ePeople' sResilienc e Unit) was assigned an executive but controllable role in meeting the normsse tfo r 'participationi ndevelopment' .A sa resul tth egovernmen t drasticallychange dth estructur eo fJavanes erura lsociety ,especiall yth e

106 roleo fth evillag ehead ,wh oi sofficiall y electedo nbasi so fgovernment - approvedcandidacy .Th efollowin gvillag eorganization sno wformall y exist (SchulteNordholt , 1987a): Thepamong desai sth evillag eadministration ,consistin go fth e villagehead ,villag e secretary,th evillag epolic ean d themem ­ bersresponsibl efo rdevelopmen ttasks ,suc ha sgenera l welfare affairs and agricultural orirrigatio n activities. The LMD (JLembaga Musyawarah Desa)i s an institution for village consultation and consists of the village 'elders'. The villagehea di sth eex-offici ochairman .Beside sthei rgenera ltas k of advising the village head, they approve the annual village development plans and budgets. The LMD is based on the traditional concept that village elders or elites can speak and decidefo r thewhol evillag epopulation . TheLKM Di sa ninstitutio nuse dt osuppor tvillag esociety .Th e villagehea dchair sth eLKM D (ex-officio) andappoint sth efiv e boardmembers ,eac hwit hthei row nsectio nfocuse do nactivitie s in socialwelfare , education anddevelopment .Th eLKM D pre­ sidesove rth ePK K (Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga; the women's association for welfare) (Schulte Nordholt, 1987). While the original objective of the LKMD was to assist the villagehea di nstimulatin gan dmotivatin gcommunit y self-help andmutua lhel pi ndevelopment ,thei rmai ntas kno wi st oadvis e thevillag ehea di nmatter sconcernin gvillag edevelopmen tan d to formulate the yearly village development plans, including determiningth esiz eo fth eyearl ybudge tfo rvillag edevelopmen t activities.A ssuc h thegovernmen t claimstha tth eLKM Di sa n instrument for localparticipatio n indevelopmen t planningan d that it constitutes the 'bottom' rung of theplannin g processo f rural development. The KPD (Kader Pembangunan Desa) is the village develop­ mentcadre ,consistin go f 10representative so fth evillag ecom ­ munity.Thes ecadre sar ese tu pt oassis tth eLKM Dt o identify problems, list felt needs,disseminat e information, and discuss villagecommunit yproblem san dissue si nth edifferen t hamlets. Besidesthes evillag eorganization sals osom eadministrativ eunit sexis t within thevillage .Th edukuhs arehamlets ,whic hfor m administrative partso f thevillage .Eac hdukuh ha sa dukuh head,ofte n representedi n the village administration. In upland regions the distance between dukuhsma yb elarge ,suc htha teithe rthe yhav egreate rautonomy ,o rthe y aresomewha t neglectedb yth evillag e administration.Th eR T (Rukun Tetangga)ar eforma lneighbourhoo dorganization swhic hwer ese tu pa s administrativeunit sb yth eJapanes earm yo foccupation ,eac hrepresent ­ ing around 25 households. Later, the head of the RT became

107 neighbourhood advisor and confidante toth einhabitants .H ei ssome ­ timesuse d as achanne l through which thevillag e administration can communicateinformatio nt oan dgai ncontro love rth evillager s(Schult e Nordholt, 1987a). Thevillag eadministratio n actsa sa nagen to fgovernmen tpolicie san d administration. Thecareer so f village headsdepen d onthei r ability to satisfy theirsuperior si nth egovernmen tadministratio n withreport so f successfully implementedvillag edevelopmen tprogrammes ,funde db y centralgovernment .Thus ,villag eadministration sconcentrat eo nimple ­ menting land use programmes according to government rules and proceduresi norde rt osatisf y officials, rathertha ndevelopin glan dus e programmes that reflect the perceptions and wishes of local people. Moreover, village heads may reinforce their position by appointing familymember st oth eLKMD ,LMD ,o rP'among Desa, b ymanipulatin g development projects to their economic advantage and by ignoring politicaloppositio no rexploitin gthei ropponent s'politica lpas tt orende r thempoliticall ysuspec t(Schulte^Tordholt ,1987b) . Sincemos tgovern ­ mentservice st oth erura lcommunit y havebee nchannele dthroug hth e village administration, the gap between the bureaucratic elite and the lowerechelon si nth evillage sha sgrown .Thi sha sserve dt oestrang eth e villageleve ladministratio n from non-formal leaders,an dloca lorgani ­ zations at hamlet level (Tjondronegoro, 1984). The extent to which villageofficial s area tlibert yt oadap ta governmen tprogramm et oloca l conditionsdepend so nthei rrelationshi p with theloca lpopulatio n and theireconomi can dpolitica lpower .Muc hdepend so npersonalit yho w central policies are executed, and whether they can be ignored or transformeda sthe yreac hth elowe rlevel s(Quarle sva nUfford , 1987an d 1988). Althoughth emos timportan tloca lorganization shav ebee nincorporate d inth egovernmen tadministration ,certai ninformal ,autonomou svillag e organizationssuc ha sfarme r associationso rreligiou sgroup sstil lexist . The stronger informal community ties stemfro m neighbourhood rela­ tionships that can be found at sub-village, rather than at village level (Tjondronegoro, 1984).Som eo f theseassociation s may havemature d into Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), sometimes supported byNGO sworkin ga tsupra-villag elevel . Characteristicso fthes eNGO s arefurthe r discussedi nsectio n 5.2. By relating this information on local organizations to the strategic model it can beconclude d that autonomousvillag eorganization s are parto fth elan dus esyste ma tloca llevel .However ,a sthe yar eenvelope d by the government administration, they increasingly come under the influenceo f organizations. But since local people continue to play

108 amajo rrol ei nthes eorganization sthe yar estil lclassifie dunde rth elan d usesystem .

5.2 Therol eo fgovernmenta l andnon-governmenta l organiza­ tions(NGOs )i nlan dus edevelopmen tstrategie s Inth esection sbelow ,a descriptio no fth egovernmen tadministration ,it s proceduresan dfundin gsource s(5.2. 1) i sfollowe db ya discussio no fth e roleo fNGO si nIndonesi ai ngeneral.an dthei rpotential san dlimitation s incontributin gt odevelopmen t programmes(5.2.2) . 5.2.1 Governmentorganization In196 9th egovernmen to fPresiden tSuhart o(kno wa sth e'Ne wOrder' ) initiateda developmen tstrateg ybase do nth estat eideolog yoîPancasila andth e 1945Constitution .Developmen tpolicie sar eexecute dthroug h fiveyea rplans ,startin gwit hRepelita ƒ i n196 9u pt oth ecurren tRepelita V (1989/90- 1994/95).Th eobjective s of thesedevelopmen t plansare : Political Stability and Economic Growth, and since Repelita III the objective of EqualDistributio n hasbee n added. Political participation hasclearl ybee npu to nth ebac kburner .Th estat eideolog ydeclare stha t allpart so fsociet yfal lunde rth egovernanc eo fth estate ,d efact ounde r theleadershi po fth epresident ,wh ocontrol sth earmy ,th ebureaucrac y andimportan tsector so fth eeconomy .A ssuc hth edevelopmen tstrateg y pursuedca nb edefine d astha to fa n'Interventionis tDevelopmen tState ' (SchulteNordholt , 1991,citin gRobertson , 1984),i nwhic hth egovern ­ mentha sth esol eauthorit y (KuasaTunggal) i ndevelopmen tprocesses . Throughoutth eRepubli co fIndonesia ,al lgovernmen tadministratio ni s organized andoperate sdow nt oth evillag eleve laccordin gt oth esam e rulesan dinstruction sissue db yth ecentra lgovernment .Th egovernmen t uses administrative units of provinces, districts (kabupateri), sub-dis­ tricts(kecamatan) an dvillage s(desa). Th eadministratio ni sse tu palon g two 'lines'; consisting of (1)th e ministries and their sectoral agencies and(2 )th ecivi ladministratio n ofth eMiniste ro fHom eAffair s (figure 5.2). In between these two 'lines' areth eplannin g boards BAPPEDA (BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Daerah) atprovincia l anddistric t level, which coordinate and integrate development planning. These planningboard sfal lunde rth eMiniste ro fHom eAffairs . Theoretically, theplannin go fdevelopmen tprogramme sfollow sbot h(so-called )'top - down' and 'bottom-up'procedures . Top-downprocedure sare ,howeve rdominan ti ndevelopmen tplannin g atpresent .Centra lgovernmen tundertake sstron gcentrall ybase dsectora l planning(Developmen tPerspectives ,1988) .Th efiv eyea rdevelopmen t 109 PRESIDENT

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING BOARDBAPPENA S

MINISTERO F MINISTERSO F HOME AFFAIRS THECABINE T

BANGDES BANGDA

APBD GOVERNOR V \ \ DIR \ BANGDES > DEVELOPMENT INPKES PLANNING BOARD BAPPEDAI N N SECTORAL AGENCIES BANGDES OFFICE BUPATI/WALI KOTAMADYA APBD "^T v» DEVELOPMENT PLANNING INPKES BOARD BAPPEDAI I

TVTSECTORA L AGENCIES

CAMAT

BANGDES •— I UDKP •o OFFICE M 3 <ß SECTORAL AGENCIES HEADO F VILLAGE

LKMD

flow of funds • hierarchical — consultative/ responsibility functional responsibility

Figure5.2 : Governmentadministrative structurewith funding sources

110 plans contain detailed instructions for thekin d of activities needed and howan di nwha ttim espa nthe y should beimplemented .I ntur n sectoral agencies issue strict instructions for implementing their sectoral plans and provide funds to lower administrative government levels (Schulte Nordholt, 1981).

At sub-district level the UDKP (UnitDaerah Kerja Pembangunan), is theworkin guni tfo rare adevelopmen tan di sresponsibl efo rth ebottom - up procedures of local planning. Field staff of the sectoral agencies presenta tsub-distric tleve lan dth eloca lofficia l forvillag edevelopmen t affairs (Bangdes)for m theUDK P team,chaire d byth e Camat (heado f the sub-district). The official objectives of UDKP are (Manual for Implementation of the UDKP system, 1977): tocoordinat e alldevelopmen t activities within the area of a kecamatan (sub-district), through a comprehensive and inte­ gratedare adevelopmen tplanning ,implementatio n andmonitor ­ ing process with a bottom-up approach (each sub-district in­ cludes 15-20villages) ; to assistth eCamat, a sare ahead ,i nmanagin gadministratio nan d co-ordinating development activities; to stimulate the development of kecamatans as local growth centres in order to have an impact on the surrounding villages. Three different funding sources are available for development programmes. The first source comes under the heading of sectoral development funds, provided by central government (APBN). The activities tob e funded areplanne d and prepared atth enationa l level by theplannin g units of the sectoral departments and subsequently finan­ cially coordinated by BAPPENAS (the national planning agency).

Thesecon dsourc eo ffund sar eknow na sth eINPRE S (InstruksiPresiden) funds, which are also provided by central government. Two types of grants are distinguished; multipurpose and special earmarked grants. Thesear edirectl ychannele d toth edistric tleve lan dar euse dfo rregiona l development. Multipurpose grants effectively pass through local gov­ ernmentaccount san dbudget s(APB DI an dII) ;specia learmarke dgrant s are disbursed in the form of projects (DHV Consultants, 1990b).The y are the responsibility of the regional authorities. However, in practice national level issues rigid instructions concerning the objectives, size, content and execution of theprogrammes . Lower administrative levels are thus left to determine only the geographic location of INPRES- activitiesan dimplementatio no fth eprogramme .Thus ,th egovernment' s assumption that thedeploymen t of INPRES funds by the local govern­ menti sa sufficien t guarantee for bottom-upparticipatio n inplannin g is questionable (Development Perspective, 1988).On e separateINPRES -

111 programme is the Subsidi Desa,i n which afixed budge t is provided annuallyt oeac hvillage . Thevillag eadministratio nca nus ethi sbudge t atit sdiscretio n althoughcertai ncentra l guidelinesar estil l followed. Thethir dfundin gsourc ei sregiona li.e .Provincia lan dDistric tDevelop ­ mentFund s(APBD) ,originatin gbot hfro m regionalrevenue s(IPED A taxes) and multipurpose INPRES grants (DHV Consultants, 1990b). They finance projects which are planned and implemented by the provincial and district governments andcoordinate d byBAPPED A at provincialan ddistric tlevel . Foreac hprojec tproposa la DU P(Daftar Usulan Proyek) for mha st ob e prepared.Thi sstandar dplannin gfor mindicate sestimate drequirement s formaterial ,labour ,trainin gan dfiel d allowances.Onc ea proposa lha s beenapproved ,a detaile ddesig nknow na sa DI P(Daftar Isian Project) hast ob edraw n up. TheseDI Pan dDUP sar eprepare d byth esectora l agencies involved, byorde r of BAPPEDA.I t is almost impossible to makechange st oa DI Po rDU Ponc ei tha sbee napproved . Fromthi sdescriptio no ffundin g sourcesi tbecome sclea rtha ta tpresen t top-downprocedure sar epre-eminen ti ndevelopmen tplanning .Thi sca n be further illustrated by the national budget allocations: in 1988ove r 80% of the total annual budget was spent on centrally-planned sector developmentproject s andprogrammes ,wherea sINPRE Sprogramme s and regional development activities received a mere 15% and 5% respectively.Eve nthoug hth elatte rar eadministere db yregiona lgovern ­ ments, top-down policies still dominate (Development Perspectives, 1988). Agricultural development activitiesar eundertake n byth eagencie s for agriculture (DIPERTA),estat ecrop s(DISBUN )an danima lhusbandr y (DISNAK),al lfallin g underth ejurisdictio no fth eMinistr yo fAgricul ­ ture.The y areadministere d byth eloca ldistric t headan dar eprovide d withtechnica lguidanc efro mth erespectiv ecentra lgovernmen tdirector ­ ate via provincial offices. The extension component of agricultural development programmesi sth eresponsibilit y ofBIMA S(Mas sGuid ­ ance Coordination Board), an agency under the supervision of the Ministryo fAgricultur e (DHVConsultants , 1990b).Althoug hit sorga ­ nization structurewa sdevelope dfo r theric eproductio nprogramm ei n thelowlands ,i tha sals obee napplie dt oagricultura ldevelopmen ti nth e upland areas.It sstructur ei sfashione d alongvertica lhierarchica l lines from national tovillag e level.Regiona l extension centres (BPP) have beense tu pcoverin gu pt othre esub-district sdependin go nthei rsize . In thesecentre ssenio rextensio nstaf f (PPUP)o fth eservice sfo rperennia l crops,foo dcrops ,livestoc kan dfishery ,ar eresponsibl efo rmanagin gth e

112 extensionprogramme san dthe yar esuppose dt oguid eth efield extensio n workers(PPL) .Eac hPP Lrepresent sal lfou rdiscipline san dcover son e tofive villages .He/sh ei ssuppose d toserv earoun deigh tt ote n farmer groups. Other sectoral agencies are also involved in land use management: however cooperation between them is poor. The agency for Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation (BRLKT) of the Ministry of Forestry is responsible for watershed management but collaboration withth eagricultura lservice si slimited .The yhav ethei row nprogramme s andthei row nfarme r groups.Bu ta sthei roffic e isofte n locatedwithi n the BPP building some informal cooperation is still possible.A third importantagenc yi nlan dus emanagemen ti sth eStat eFores tCorporatio n whichi sresponsibl efo rth emanagemen to fstate-owne dprotectio nan d productionforest .I tha sa completel yseparat eorganizatio nwit h differ­ entadministrativ eunits .Cooperatio nwit hth eagenc yfo rPubli cWork s inlan dus emanagemen tprogramme sa tloca lleve li seve nmor edifficul t asthe yar eno talway srepresente d atsub-distric t leveli nuplan dareas . 52.2 Non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) Given the state ideology of 'sole authority', the government doesno t leavemuc hroo mfo rth edevelopmen to findependen tan dcritica lNGO s inIndonesia .The y havebee nforce d tomoderat ethei ractivities .The y generallysubscrib et oconventiona ldevelopmen tpolicy ,bu tcriticiz eth e way objectives areachieve d andprogramme s implemented. Thus,th e contributiono fNGO sha sbee nmor eon eo f'developmen tconsultancy' , rather than challenging the government with alternative development models. Someenvironmenta l organizations constitute an exception to thisa sthe yfocu so nmor epolitica lissues ,suc ha sloggin genterprise san d migration schemeso nth eoute risland s(White ,1989 ; SchulteNordholt , 1991) .Becaus eo fth elarg ean dgrowin gsum so fdevelopmen tfund sthe y receive from foreign donororganizations , their influence in 'develop­ mentconsultancy ' isincreasing . However,notwithstandin gth epopularit yo fNGO swit hdono rorganiza ­ tions,the yhav eals ocom ei nfo rsom ecriticism .Sason o(1989) ,Schult e Nordholt (1991) and White (1989) among others mention that NGOs oftendepen dheavil yo n foreignagencie swhil en odomesti cpowe rbas e isbein gbuil tfo rlon gter mpolitica ladvocac yan dtherefor eaccountabilit y tothei rloca lmember si sweak .Furthermor eparticipatio no fth epoores t groupsi nvillag ecommunitie si softe nlimited .Becaus eNGO saccep tth e developmentstrateg yan dpowe rstructur eo fth egovernment ,the yfocu s on the stronger members of the local communities expecting their programmest ohav ea positiv eimpac to nth epoor . Anotherreaso nwh y

113 NGOsfocu s onmor eprogressiv ebeneficiarie s isth eexterna lpressur e onthe mt obecom efinancially independen tfo rwhic hthe ynee devidenc e of successful programmes.

5.3 Relationshipsbetwee ngovernmen tan dloca lorganization s Thegovernmen tha sno tonl yenvelope dloca lorganizations ,i tha sals o incorporatedth esocio-cultura lprinciple si nit sadministratio n aspar to f its policy and self-legitimation (Schulte Nordholt, 1987). In order to understandth eoperation san dprocedure so fgovernmen tadministration , someo f thesocio-cultura lprinciple stha tappl yt oth eNGO san dmor e specifically toth e(village )administratio n arediscusse dbelow : Kuasa Tunggal(th esol eauthority) ,implie stha tth egovernmen t givesth egovernmen tofficia l afre ehan dt ous eal lth eresource s at his disposal, but expects him (and the village meetings) to ratify its 'advice'; Musyawarah (consultationsleadin g toconsensus) ,a sexempli ­ fiedi n the LMD,However , thisprincipl e inrealit y meanstha t disapprovali sno taccepted ,o rtha tloca lpeopl ear eno tinvolve d norinformed ,sinc ei tha salread ybee ndiscusse dwit hth evillag e elite.Thi sbecome sclea rwhe nprogramme s are'approved' ,bu t notimplemented ; Gotong Royong, (afor m of self-help,base d onth eprincipl eo f reciprocity) consists of community funds, labour and material and is considered to be the basic capital resource for village developmentimplementation .Thi sprincipl ei softe nmis-use di n such awa y that the government in fact compels villagers to providesupplement st ogovernmen tsubsidies ,withou treceivin g directbenefit s (SchulteNordholt , 1987b; UN/ESCAP,1986) . Patterns of behaviour and social relationships with the government administration are also strongly influenced by culturally determined phenomena such as bapakism' (fatherism) and 'harmony' in relation­ ships.Th eter mbapakism i suse dt odescrib ea comple xsyste mo fpatron - clientrelation s (Jackson and Pye, 1978).Th e bapak is the leader of a groupo ffollowers , whoar ecalle dchildren .Th ebapak i ssuppose d to carefo rneed so fhi schildre nwhil ei ntur nth echildre nar esuppose dt o supportth ebapak b ymakin gcontributions ,deferrin gt ohim ,an djoinin g orleavin gorganization samon gothers .Th emos tdesirabl ething si nlif e sucha sgovernmen tjobs , scholarship,ran ki n thearm yo rtrip sabroa d canonl yb eachieve d through one'sbapak"s accesst othes e goodsan d willingnesst ofavo rhi schild .Anothe rexampl eo fth eculturall yincline d behaviour of most Javanese people is their indirectness and desire to avoidpersona lfrictions .Thi sma yhel pexplai nwh yther ei sn ofeedbac k

114 information on poor performances and results of programmes to the policymakers .Jackso nan dPy e(1978 )describ ethi sbehaviour :'rathe r thanbein gcrud eb yacknowledgin gpeasan tresistanc eo rtha tth epla ni s simply unworkable, local leaders promptly acquiesce'. Officials throughoutth ehierarch yassur ethei rsuperior stha tal lpla ntarget swil l bereached , whileth eloca l landuser shav et odea lwit h allpredictabl e failures of poorlyplanne dprogrammes . Theimplication so f theseculturall y determined phenomena are firstly that hardly any room exists for autonomous local organizations and secondly thatopportunitie s for villagers toparticipat e in development planningar elimited . Anillustratio no fth efirs tpoin ti sth ereplacemen t ofth eter mNG Ob yth eterm so fL SM an dLPS M(socia linstitution sfo r thepeople )sinc eNon-Governmen torganizatio n wasthough tt ogiv eth e negativeimpressio n ofanti-government . Furthermore,th eus eo fthes e LSMsallow sth eofficial s toencapsulat ea numbe ro floca lindependen t institutionsan dcontro lthe mb yregulations .Thi sha shappene dwit hth e LKMD,a sdescribe di nth epreviou ssectio nan dthroug hth e regulation thatal lcooperative sshoul db eaffiliate d toth estate-controlle d coopera­ tives(KUDs )(White , 1989;Schult eNordholt , 1991). Furthermore, participation is widely preached in governmentpolicies , buti nrealit yprogramme sar estil lcarrie dou twit htop-dow nguidance . Proposals for village development are prepared by sectoral agencies, whilemanagemen ti si nth ehand so fgovernmen tofficial s atprovincia l and district level. The government's ideas on political stability, as reflectedi nit splannin gprocedures ,ar eclearl yi nconflic twit hit spolic y ofmor eequa ldistribution ,whic hrequire sparticipatio nfro mth evillag ­ ersi nplannin gan ddecisio nmakin g(Developmen tPerspectives , 1988). Theunres tan dturmoi lo fth esixtie sstil lserve sbot ha sa painfu lreminde r anda sa nexcus efo rretainin gcontro li nth egovernment' s hands.Thi s discrepancy between the theory and practice of government policies meanstha tprocedure sexist ,bu tthe yar eno tactuall yfollowed .Thi sca n beillustrate d byth ediscrepanc ybetwee nth eobjective san dth etyp eo f activitiesan dmanagemen tlai ddow ni nth eGuideline so nth eimplemen ­ tation of integrated area development programme (Instruction no 14, 1990).Th eobjective s formulated are:t oencourag edecentralization ;t o involveth elowes tleve lo floca lcommunit yi nplannin gan dimplemen ­ tation;t odevelo pth ecapabilit yan dautonom yo fgovernmen tinstitution s and community and to encourage creative attitudes and behaviour. However,th eactivitie spropose dt oachiev ethes eobjective sfocu sonl y oneconomi cdevelopment ,fo rexample : increasingcommunit yincom e and welfare, provision of credit facilities for the poor, provision of trainingan dcourse si nrunnin g abusiness .

115 5.4 Interventions;tw oexample so fgovernmen t programmes Developmentprogramme sar eplanne dan dimplemente db ygovernmen t organizations and NGOs. In this section the focus is on government interventionssinc ethe yca npla ya majo rrol ei nth edevelopmen tproces s in the uplands of East Java, given the capacity of the government administrationan dbudget savailable .Tw odifferen tline so fgovernmen t interventionsca n bedistinguished :th etechnica lintervention splanne d bysectora lagencie san dth eintervention splanne db yth eloca lgovern ­ mentadministration .I norde rt oprovid ea nimpressio no fth eopportu ­ nitiesan dconstraint so fthes eintervention sfo rth eplannin go fsustainabl e landus eprogrammes ,bot htype so fprogramme sar ediscussed .Th efirs t typei sdescribe db ygivin ga nexampl eo fth e'Regreenin gprogramme' , whileth e second onei sdescribe d byoutlinin g thegovernmen tproce ­ duresfo r 'RuralDevelopmen t Planning'. 5.4.1 TheRegreening programme Thegrowin glan dus eproblem si nth eupland shav ebee no fincreasin g interestt oth eGovernmen to fIndonesi a(GOI )an dinternationa ldonors . TheGovernment' sconcer nwa smainl yinduce db yit swis ht osafeguar d highlyproductiv eirrigate dland san dexpensiv einfrastructur esuc ha sth e damsan dirrigatio ncanal sfro mfloodin gan dsiltation .A causa lrelation ­ ship was assumed between these processes and the intensive use of steeply sloping arable land and deforestation in the uplands. Thus, programmes in theupland shav eha d asthei rmajo r goalth eestablish ­ ment of land use practices characterized by improved soil and water conservation (McCauley, 1986;1988) . Recently,tw oothe rfactor shav econtribute dt oth eGovernments 'polic y topa ymor eattentio nt oth euplands .Th efirs ti sth edevelopmen to fnon - oilexpor t commodities andmor ediversifie d agricultural development outsideth eirrigate dric efields ; thesecon di sth eintentio n todistribut e governmentresource smor eequally .A nimbalanc eha sbee ncause db y fifteen years of substantial government investments in the lowland irrigatedfield s(McCauley , 1986).Th epreoccupatio no fth eMinistr yo f Agriculture with riceproductio n in the lowlandsan d theconcomitan t neglect of potential upland crops meant that it was mainly forestry officiais whoresponde dt ouplan dsoi lerosio nproblems ,o nagricultura l aswel la sfores tland .The ystarte dwatershe dmanagemen tprogramme s andproject s thatinclude d bothtype so flan d (McCauley, 1988). At present, the largest upper watershed programme is known as the INPRESPenghijauan programm efo rafforestatio n andregreening .Thi s programmei sbase do nexperience swit hpilo tproject si nth eUppe rSol o

116 WatershedManagemen tan dUplan dDevelopmen tProjec timplemente d between 1966an d 1975(Wiersum , 1974).Implementatio n atnationa l levelstarte di n 1976. Inth einitia lstag efarmer swer einstructe dt oplan t densehedge so fCalliandra specie so nthei rfield su pt o50 %gradien tan d timberspecie si nwoodlot so nth esteepe rslopes .However ,unpopularit y of species and practices among the farmers and major technical and organizational problems in the implementation of the programmere ­ sultedi ntre esurviva lrate so funde r20% .Owin gt othes eproblem san d theperceive dopportunitie sfo remploymen tcreatio ni na ne wapproach , thegovernmen tchange d theirprogramm efro m 1979onwards . Inthi sne wprogramme ,th eemphasi sha sbee nshifte dt oth econstructio n ofbenc hterrace swit htal lgrasse san dsmal ltree so nth eedge san drisers . Otheractivitie shav ebee ninclude di nth eprogramme ,suc ha scheckda m andgull yplu gconstruction ;privat efores testablishment ;villag enurser y development and introduction of agroforestry techniques. A greater varietyo ftree swa sintroduced ,includin gsom efruit san dtimbe ran dth e largescal e approach wasexchange d for oneusin gdemonstratio n plots ofabou t 10h at oserv ea sexampl eo flan dmanagemen tt oth efarmer si n thesurroundin garea .Farmer swh oow nlan di nthi splo treceiv efruit , fuel and fodder seedlings; maize seed (or other food crop); fertilizer or manure and a subsidy per ha as working capital. Impact areas of approximately 200 ha surrounding the demonstration plots receive technical assistance and a smaller or no subsidy (Pickering, 1979; McCauley, 1985;Palte , 1990; Sutadiprajda and Hardjowitjitro, 1984; WorldBank , 1988). Policies and planning of this programme have been handled almost exclusivelyb ycentra lgovernmen t(McCauley , 1988),whil eimplemen ­ tationo fth estandar ddesig nha sbee nth eresponsibilit yo fth ehea do fth e district, whoals odecide s onth e selection of the sites.I nth eplannin g mainemphasi si spu to nfulfillin g physical targetsan dachievin g short termproductivit yincreases .Implementatio nfund sar edirectl ychannele d toth egovernmen ta tdistric tlevel .Programm emanager sar eappointe d byth egoverno ran dth ehea do fth edistric tt ocontro limplementatio nan d disbursement offunds . Inprinciple ,seve ngovernmen tdepartment sar e involved in the programme viz. Agriculture, Forestry, Public Works, HomeAffairs , Finance,Populatio n and Environment and theNationa l DevelopmentPlannin gBoard . TheServic efo rLan dRehabilitatio nan d Soil Conservation (BRLKT) of the Ministry of Forestry is officially responsiblefo rcoordinatio nan dsupervisin geffort s througha watershe d management centre. However, in practice, they are also primarily responsiblefo rth etechnica limplementatio ni nth efiel dan dprovid eth e extension staff. (McCauley, 1985an d 1988;Palte ,1990) .

117 Foreigntechnica lassistanc et owatershe dmanagemen tprojects ,suc ha s that provided by FAO to the Upper Solo Watershed Management Project;b yU SAI Dt oth eCitandu yProjec tan db yth eDutc hGovernmen t toth eKal iKont oProject ,wer eintende dt odevelo pne wapproache san d technologies. However they have often been used to implement the Regreening programme and provide the infrastructural investments, sucha sdams ,acces sroad san dterrac econstruction ,deeme dnecessar y to support Government programme goals. As such, in practice these projects are viewed largely as an alternative source of financing for activities under the Regreening programme (McCauley, 1988;DH V Consultants, 1990b). 5.42 Ruraldevelopment planning Therear ethre eofficia l categorieso fvillage so fIndonesia ,correspond ­ ing to their level of development: swadaya(traditional) , swakarya (transitional)an dswasembada (developed) .Th eultimat eai mo fth erura l developmentprogramm econducte d underth eauspice so f theMinistr y ofHom eAffair s ist oenabl eal lvillage sreac hth estag eo fswasembada. Thisrura ldevelopmen tprogramm ei sundertake nthroug hth eKecamatan UDKPPlannin g Procedure,whic h hasbee n termed abottom-u pplan ­ ningproces s(UN/ESCAP ,1986) . Inthi splannin gprocedur ea surve yi s carriedou ti nth eselecte dsub-distric tb ystaf f memberso fth eplannin g board( BAPPEDAII )an dth eRura lDevelopmen tDirectorat ea tdistric t level. Subsequently, the UDKP Master Plan is drawn up with the involvemento fth esectora lagencie sa tdistric tlevel . Centrallyplanne d policiesar einclude d inth eplan .Th eresultin gpla ni ssubmitte d toth e sub-districtfo rdiscussio nwit hth eagenc yfo rvillag edevelopmen tan d thevillag eofficials .The yar eoffere dth eopportunit yt ocommen to nbehal f ofth evillag ecommunity .A tthi sstage ,th evillag edevelopmen tplans ,whic h areformulate d byth eLKMD ,ar e synchronized and integrated withth e MasterPlan .Th efinal pla nconsist so fproject s tob eimplemente d atth e Kecamatan UDKP,includin g timeschedule so fannua lprogramme san d projects.Implementatio ni scarriedoutb yth esectora lagencie san dcoordinate d byth ehea do fth esub-distric t(th eCamat).

Thebudge tallocatio nfo rthi spla ninvolve sth edistrict ,provincia lo reve n nationallevel .BAPPED AI I(distric tlevel )i sth efirst to proces sth epla nt o ensureit sintegratio nwit hdevelopmen tpolic yan dallocate sa distric tbudge t ordecide so n thecontributio n of thecommunit y itself through self-help. Thosepropose dproject sfo rwhic hn ofund sca nb eallocate da tdistric tleve l aresubmitte dt oth eprovincia lgovernment .A tprovinc eleve lB APPED AI determines whichprogramme so rproject s areto b efinance d byth epro ­ vincialbudget .Th erest ,togethe rwit hth eprovincia lplan ,ar esubmitte dt o thecentra l level through BAPPENAS,t o be financed from the central budget.Figur e5. 3illustrate sth eplannin gprocedure .

118 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUREAN D NUMBERO FPROJEC T LEVEL TIMING POR PROJECT DESIGNSACCEPTE D PROPOSALSAN D PER ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETALLOCATIO N LEVELAN DIT STIMIN G

1DU Paccepte d- -> 1 DUPtransforme dint o mmmL DIPwit hAPB N(INPRES ) 1DU Prejecte d funds Augustyear 1 Aprilyear 2

2 DUPsaccepted ; -> 2DUP s transformedint o 2 DUPsaccepted , nofund s DIPs withAPBD Ifund s mwwciAi* allocated June/Julyyear I June/Julyyear 1

I 2 DUPsaccepte d 2 DUPs transformed into DISTRICT 4 DUPsaccepted ;n obudge t detailedprojec tdesign s (Karsten) allocated (DIPs)wit hAPB DI Ifund s 2proposal sturne ddow n August/Septyear 2 May/Juneyear 1

8proposal saccepted ; S^BJEÎÏSTRIÇT formalised inDUP s Oct/Nov Year2 CKeeaïHatao) 2proposal sturne ddow n AprilI May year I Intota l S Projectscan bedivide d over 110villages . \NovlDecyear 2 10projec tproposal s i VILLAGE (from 10villages ) V

Figure 5.3: Example of bottom-upprocedures for 10 villageproposals in one sub-district.

119 Theprocedur ebegin sa tvillag eleve lwit hth estar to fth efinancial yea r in April and ends in September/October with budget allocation at regionalan dnationa llevel .Afte rimplementatio nha sstarte dth eUDK P becomes responsible for monitoring the programmes and training the peopleinvolve di n implementation. Giventh ewid ediversit yi nlan dus esystem san dth enee dt orelat ethes e plans toth e top-down planned andmanage d government programmes describedabove ,i ti sno thar dt oimagin etha tthes eprogramme shav eno t alwaysbee n successful.

5.5 Analysiso ftw ogovernmen t programmes Thetw ogovernmen tprogramme scite d- th eRegreenin gProgramm ean d RuralDevelopmen tProgramm e- ca nbot hb eanalyse daccordin gt oth e principleso fth estrategi cmodel .I nthi sanalysi sth efollowin gquestion s areraised : towha t extentar eth eprogramm eintervention sadjuste d toloca l conditions,needs ,opportunitie s andcapacities ? whati sth enatur eo fth ecommunicatio nbetwee nloca llan duser s andth e government staff ofimplementin g organizations? to what extent are programme interventions adjusted to the competenceo fimplementin g organization? In answering the first question adistinctio n is made between the two programmes.Fo rth elatte rtw oa mor egenera lanalysi si spossible ,fro m whichconclusion sca nb edraw nfo rgovernmen tprogramme si ngeneral . 5.5.1 Adjustmentof interventions toland use system Regreeningprogramme Various studies have been carried out evaluating the results of the regreeningprogramme s(Pickering ,1979 ;Carson,1989 ;McCauley,1985 ; WorldBank.1988 ;Barra uan dDjati , 1983;Dar uan dTips ,1985) .Thes e evaluations contribute to the following analysis in which three main issuesar ediscussed .Firstly ,th ewa yprogramme sca nb eadopte db yth e localfarmers ,secondl yth eappropriatenes so ftechnolog ypackage san d thirdly thecoordinatio n withothe rsectora lprogrammes . Fromth edescriptio no fth eprogramm ei nsectio n5.4.1 ,i tbecome sclea r thatthi sstandar dprogramm ei sno tadjuste dt oth elarg ediversit yi nlan d usestrategie san dth etechnologie san dpractice sdemonstrate dhav eno t

120 alwaysbee nadopte db yfarmers .Design sfocu so nth etechnica laspect s of cropproductio n and soilmanagement , while socioeconomic condi­ tionsan d land tenurestatu so f householdsar eofte n neglected. Thisi s reflected in the site selection and planning of interventions for which onlyth ephysica lcondition so fth elan dserv ea scriteria ,wit hn oattentio n paid to the land users who cultivate the land. Thus, many of the demonstration plots are located on land which is cultivated by rich farmerswh oren ti tou tt otenant so rwh oleav ei textensivel ymanage do n purpose. Agroforestry systemscoul dno tb eadopte db ypoore r farmers whodepen do nthei rextremel ysmal llan dholding sfo rfoo dproduction . Demonstration of bench terraces has been less beneficial to farmers whose land showed low productivity. Also the introduction of new varietieswithou t testingfo rrisks ,require dinput san dmarketabilit yb y localfarmer s haveshow ngreate rchance so ffailure . Ifth emeasure so f the Regreening programme are compared to the different land use strategies,a sdescribe di nsectio n5.1.2 ,i ti sclea rtha tthes eprogramme s oftend ono tfi tint ofarmers 'capacity ,capabilit yo rinterest . Intha tcase , farmersma yparticipat ei nth eprogramm eprimaril yt oreceiv esubsidie s andretur nt o'normal 'practice safte r theprojec ti sove r(Carson ,1989) . However,th eproble mi sno tsimpl ytha tintervention sar eplanne dwhic h areno tadjuste dt oloca llan dus estrategies ,bu tals ocertai nshortcoming s appear in technology design andimplementation , asillustrate d inbo x 5.1.

From198 9onward sth epromotio no fParaseriathe sfalcatari a(loca l name: Sengon) becamehighl ypopula rafte r the Resident andth e Minister,o fForestr ydeclare dtha tthi streeshoul db eplante dt oboos t pulpproduction .Sengonisas ibecam eth efashio ni nth eRegreenin g programmea swel lDu et oth esuddenderr^ndforseedling sproductio n fell short and overly immature seedlings were planted* many of ;whic h did not survive: Alsoth e tree* waspromote d by extension workersa s good for soil conservation and as an improver of soil fertility without being tested for its suitability in different agrœoaîoglcalzones *I norde rt oexpan dth eare aundercove ra sfas t aspossibl ethetreehasfcve nbee nadvocate da ssuitabl eforhedgerow s andfodde rproduction ,fo rwhic hi ti sdefinitel y not

Box5. 1Exampl eo f poortechnolog ydesig n andimplementation .

121 Another example of poor technology design is the overestimated importance of off-site measuresan d neglected potential for improving on-siteagricultura lpractice si nth euplands .Regreenin gexpenditure si n the 1982-83 period were: 59% for checkdam construction, 19% for agriculture and silviculture, 10%fo r rehabilitation of terracesan dles s than 5%fo r maintenance (WorldBank , 1988).However , WorldBan k (1988)estimate stha to fth etota lsoi lerosio ncost so nJava ,perhap s80 % isdu et odeclinin gproductivit yo nagricultura llan di nuppe rwatersheds , whileonl y20 %i sdu et ooff-sit e (downstream)erosio ncosts .Thus ,th e proportion spent(two-third so f totalexpenditure )o noff-sit e measures, sucha scheckdams ,regreenin gan dgull yplug si sno tcommensurat ewit h theproportio no foff-sit e erosioncosts . Coordination betweenthi s 'Regreeningprogramme ' andothe rsectora l developmentprogramme si swell-nig habsent .A sa resul tintervention s mayb eimplemente dwit hopposin geffect s andcompetin gdemand sfo r labour.Fo rexample ,demonstratio nplot sfo rsoi lconservatio nmigh tb e located downhill from a reforestation area, which was clearcut just beforeth eheav yrain sstarted .Thes estee pslope sar epron et oerosio nfo r at least the first year, when vegetation cover is still limited. Another examplei sth eimplementatio no flivestoc kdevelopmen tprogramme sb y theServic efo rAnima lHusbandry ,whic hofte nconflict swit hth eeffort s ofth eStat eFores tAuthorit yt okee pgrazin gactivitie soutsid eth efores t areas.Moreover ,thes euncoordinate dactivitie slea dt oconfusio namon g the local people. They may be expected to contribute their labour to differentprogramme ssimultaneously ,an dparticipat ei ndifferen t farmer groupsa tth esam etime .

To conclude: the technologies and practices demonstrated were not adjusted toloca l landus estrategies ,whil eshortcoming s alsoappeare d in technology design and implementation. Thus technologies were difficult toadop t byfarmer s RuralDevelopment Programme Alsoth eintervention spropose di nth evillag edevelopmen tplan sar eno t adjusted to the needs, opportunities and constraints of the land use system.The ytak eth efor mo fa 'shoppin glist 'o fproject sdesire db yth e villageadministratio nan dth esectora lagencies .Ofte nn odialogu etake s place at village level between the LKMD and the village community during the planning of interventions. Most LKMDs and KPDs are passiveentitie slackin gth ecapacit y(training ,guidelines ,facilities , field allowances)t ocarr you tthei rtasks . TheLKM Di softe n representedb y thevillag eelite ,wh oar eno talway sawar eo fth eneed san dwishe so fal l strata of thevillag epopulation , orhav ea veste d interest and therefore divertdevelopmen tprogramme st ofulfi l theirow nobjectives .A sa resul t

122 of the top-down influence in the planning procedures the proposed projectsa tUDK Pleve lpu tsectora linterest sove rloca lpeople' sinterest s andneeds .Consequentl yproject sappea ra tloca lleve lwhic hwer eneve r proposedo rexpecte d byloca lgovernmen t officials andles s sob yth e localpeople ,whil eonl ya smal lnumbe ro fvillag edevelopmen tpropos ­ als are honoured (figure 5.3) (Schulte Nordholt, 1981; Development Perspectives,1988) .A sa consequenc eo fth edominatin ginfluenc eo fth e villageadministratio n amor eequa ldivisio n ofresource s and benefits mayb edifficul t toachiev ethroug hthi sprogramme .I tma yb econclude d thatalthoug hth eprocedure sfo rplannin ga tloca lleve lar eaccepted ,i n practiceculturall y determined ideaso npowe r and social relationships within the government organization conflict with implementing these procedures. 5.5.2 Communication between localpeople and organizations Ingenera lcommunicatio n betweenloca llan duser san dstaf f ofimple ­ menting government organizations ispoo ro n Java.Thi s shortcoming canb eattribute dt osevera lfactors .Th efirs ti sth efocu so fgovernmen t staff towards theirow n administration, which implies arelianc e upon targets rather than on reaching people, and an adherence to strict procedures.I tals oresult si npoo rcoordinatio no fextensio nprogrammes . A second reason is the limited capacity and motivation of field staff. Thirdly poor extension techniques and inadequate information canb e blamed for limited communication. These arguments arediscusse d in moredetai lbelow . Orientation towardsgovernment administration Inevaluation sgreate rimportanc ei softe n attachedt oth efunctionin g of thegovernmen tadministratio ntha nt osolvin gth eproblem so fth epoo r farmer. For example, the success of the Regreening programme is defined in terms of physical targets, set by the government, such as hectares 'regreened',an dth enumbe ro fchec kdam sconstructed ,rathe r thanmeasurin gth ebenefit st oth eloca lpeople . Thehead so fth evillag e and sub-district and the field staff are turned towards their superiors, further supportingth ementalit ytha t'a slon ga sth ebos si ssatisfied 'the y haveperforme deffectively .Thus ,thei rattitud ean dmotivatio ni slargel y determinedb ythei r'surviva lmechanism 'i na hierarchica lorganization . Error detection or learning from mistakes are processes alien tomos t extensionworkers .Th eimportanc eo fpleasin gsuperior sals ocause sth e reliability of data to be subordinated to the form in which they are presented.Thus ,materia laspect sge tpriorit yove rth edevelopmen tan d participation ofpeopl e(Schult eNordholt ,1981 ;Developmen tPerspec ­ tives,1988) .

123 Furthermore, the government has created a number of administrative obstacles for participation, such as the short time span in which programmes, once approved, have to be carried out, (the reporting systems call for quick and quantifiable results) and their prescriptions concerning size of groups and area. Uncertainty and the long period between the planning and the implementation (at least one and a half years) makes theplannin gexercis efa r from adynami c and stimulating affair (see alsofigur e 5.3).Fo r example,owin g to financial constraints atdistric tleve labou t85 %o fproposal sar ereferre d toth eprovincia lleve l forbudge tallocation .However ,o fthes eproposal sonl yaroun d20 %ma y beselecte d for funding (UN/ESCAP, 1986).Moreover ,becaus emone y is required for 'coordination and administrative purposes' at all levels, generally only apar t of the planned budgets arrive atvillag e level. Because of these strict procedures, a learning process is almost impos­ sible. Whenever plans are accepted and budgets allocated they are supposedt ob eimplemente d exactlyaccordin gt oth epla nbefor e theen d of the financial year. Since for example, budgets often arrive too late, when the rainy season has already started, little can be learned about terraceconstructio n techniques(whic h shouldb edon ei nth edr yseason ) nori sther emuc h timelef t for learning, sinceth emone y hast ob e spent intw oo rthre emonths ,befor eth estar to fth ene wbudge tyear .Moreover , after a village has received governmental support, the chances of receiving this again in the following year areremote .Hence , atria l and errorproces si n whichprogramme s arereformulate d orimplemente d in stages is almost impossible.

Limited capacity and motivation offield staff Amajo r obstaclet ocommunicatio n isth ecapacit yan dth emotivatio no f theextensio nworker .Becaus eo fth egovernment' sfocu so nth eirrigate d lowlands, in financial support and agricultural education, government officials often display a negative attitude towards upland farming; in particular, the prejudice of considering all non-irrigated cultivation as inferior (KEPAS, 1988;Palte , 1990). Field staff prefer towor kwit hth e moreadvance d farmers sincethe yar emor ecooperativ e andthu sresult s mayb ebette ran dvisibl emor equickly .Consequently ,tw ogroup si nth e societyhardl yparticipat ei ndevelopmen t programmes:th elandles san d poorfarmers ,an dwome n(SRDP/PPWS , 1989).The yhav en otime ;an d only limited access to information, as they arerarel y amembe r of any villageorganizations .The yar eno talway sinvite dt omeetings ;an dthei r (frequently) pooreducatio n andlac ko fexperienc ei nvoicin gthei rneed s andideas makes the mreluctan tt oparticipate .Also ,th ecapacit yo f field staff is not sufficient to support all programmes intensively. They may have to cover five villages, accessible only by bad roads, without the money to pay for petrol for their motorcycles or without transport

124 facilitiesa tall .Moreover ,thei rlo wsalarie sforc ethe mt ofin dadditiona l sourceso fincome . Thus,i ti sno tsurprisin gtha tman yisolate dvillage s orhamlet shav eneve r seen anextensio n worker. Inadequate extension tools andinformation Inlin ewit hth estandar dtechnolog ypackag eo fth eRegreenin gprogramm e the extension worker functions as a messenger. McCauley (1988) describes their situation thus: 'Many conservation extension workers expecttha tonc eth efarmer sar eproperl yinformed , theywil lsponta ­ neously adoptconservatio n techniques thatth eprojec t hasconsidere d suited tosustainabl e agricultural production'. Farmerswh ocultivat ea piece of land in the selected demonstration plot areoblige d to form a farmers' group. However,thes egroup sar eforme dmor efo rth ebenefi t of theextensio n worker,i norde r toge t across hismessag edurin g the meetings,tha no ninitiativ eo fth efarmer sinvolved .Anothe rillustratio n of their present attitude towards extension is the excuse of'tinggal penyuluhansaja', literall ytranslate da s'leave su swit hjus tsom eexten ­ sion', which can be taken to mean: 'with some indoctrination and promises,i nth een da farme rwil lb econvince dt oimplemen tth eprojec t as prescribed'. Thus extension tools that are part of the standard programmesd ono talway spromot eoptima lcommunication .Som etool s are designed on the basis of a number of incorrect assumptions. For example, in the Regreening programme demonstration plots for soil conservationmethod swer eplanne dbase do nth eassumptio ntha t(1 )th e farmer isignoran t of thene wtechnologies ,(2 )th efarme r must seeth e technology on acontiguou splo tove ra numbe ro f hectaresi n ordert o believei tca nb eadopte do nhi slan dan d(3 )th ene wtechnolog yi sindee d environmentally andeconomicall y appropriatefo r thearea . Therealit y istha ti f improved technology isphysicall y andeconomicall y suitable for afarme r hewil l seeki tout ,eve n if thedemonstratio n areai sver y small andeve n without payment (Carson, 1989).Thi swoul d however callfo r acleare rlin kbetwee nfarmer' s knowledge,researc h andexten ­ sions otha ttechnologie sca nb edevelope dtha tfi tth efarmer' s strategy. Repeated failure and lack of involvement has made the local people skepticalo fgovernmen tprogrammes .The yd ono tvie wgovernmen tai d as a mechanism giving them the right to participate in development processes for which they want to bear responsibility in planning and implementation.Instea dthe yofte n seeth egovernmen tai da sa welcom e gift, whichma yb et othei r(short-term )benefi tbu tfo rwhic hthe yd ono t bearresponsibility .

125 5.5.3 Thecompetence of organizations to implement the programmeinterventions Theorientatio ntoward sgovernmen tadministratio nmean stha tinterven ­ tionsar eadjuste d moret oth ecompetenc eo fth eimplementin gorgani ­ zationtha nvic eversa .Fo rth egovernmen tadministration ,intervention s are ideally known and relatively manageable technologies with tried budgetingsystem swhic hca nb euse di nal lregions .Thi si sillustrate db y thecas eo fth eRegreenin gprogramme . Government agenciesd ono tye tposses sth ecompetenc et oimplemen t interdisciplinaryprogrammes .Cooperatio nbetwee nsectora lagencie si s pooran dmanagemen tresponsibilitie sar efragmente d(se esectio n5.2.2) . Often individual agenciesar eno tcompeten t todelive rthei row n ser­ vices,le talon e cooperatewit hothe ragencies .Thei rremot econtro lma y produce problems of logistics and synchronized timing of inputs (McCauley, 1988).Input sar eofte n beendelivere d toolat ean do fpoo r quality,negativel yinfluencin g thesucces so f theprogramme s andth e credibility of the government in the eyes' of farmers. In BAPPEDA, primaryemphasi si so nbudgetin gactivitie san dimplementatio nduties , whileplannin gan dprogrammin greceiv elittl eattentio n (Development Perspectives, 1988).Monitorin g of programmes is left to the sectoral agencies,excep t for the INPRES funds. Thepositio n of theCama ta s coordinatora swel la sth efunctio n of theUDK Pi sfurthe r undermined by the lack of coordination of the sectoral agencies and becauseeac h agencyfocuse so nimplementin git sow n 'package'.(Schult eNordholt , 1981;Developmen tPerspectives ,1988) .

Theinabilit yo fth egovernmen tt ocarr you tthei rimplementatio n tasks anddelive rservice sa tth eright tim ean dplac ei sfurthe r aggravatedb y theinflexibilit y ofbudge tprocedure sa sillustrate dearlier . Thecompli ­ cated, strict and extremely time-consuming procedures required to generate the DIP and DUP leave little time for government staff to supportimplementatio n andmonitoring . Moreover,th emakin go f field tripsi softe n related toth epresenc eo f 'uangjalan' , afield allowance . Since these allowances are limited and the administration is time- consuming,staf f atdistric tleve lten dt ob eimmobil ean dunawar eo fth e situation inth e field. Thegovernmen t isawar eo f anee dfo rdecentralization .However ,th e extentt owhic hauthorit yi sdelegate dt olowe rlevel si sa functio n ofth e delicatebalanc eo fpowe rbetwee ncentra lan dloca llevel . Thegovern ­ mentfear s thatth egrantin go fautonomy ,th edecentralizatio no fdevel ­ opment and the financial balance between the central and provincial governmentcoul dtur nth eprovince sint o'federa lstates' .A ninadequat e

126 administrative system and lack of qualifications of local officials are mentioned asothe rexcuse sno tt odecentraliz e (Jakarta Post4/1/90) . Decentralizationprocesse sa sdemonstrate dthroug hth eUDK Porgani ­ zation, are in reality déconcentration processes, which means that (restricted) decision makingo n village and site selection is moved to lowerlevels ,bu tth eresponsibilitie san dcontro lremai nwit hth etop .N o autonomyi ndecisio nmakin gconcernin gth eplannin go fintervention s northei rfinancia lautonom yha sbee naccomplishe dyet .O nth eon ehan d thestrengthene drol eo fBAPPED Ai nth eplannin gsyste mi swelcome d to limit the role of sectoral agencies and achieve better coordination betweensectora lprogrammes ,whil eo nth eothe rhan dth estrengthene d roleo fBAPPED Aan dUDK Paugment sth einfluenc eo fcentra lgovern ­ mento ndecisio nmakin gi nth eregio nthu sreinforcin g theprincipl eo f déconcentration (Development Perspectives,1988) .

5.6 Summaryan dconclusion s Thecontent so fthi schapte rca nb esumme du pa sfollows .Th eenviron ­ mentfo rth eplannin go flan dus edevelopmen t programmesi sdivers e and complex in the uplands of East Java. Farmers react to the wide diversityi nth elan dus esyste mb ydevelopin ga larg enumbe ro fdifferen t landus estrategies . Incontrast ,governmen torganization sus estandard ­ ized programmes with uniform and mostly inflexible procedures for planning and implementation. Village development planning proce­ dures exist, but do not yet function properly. Local organizations responsible for village development planning do not yet possess the skills and capability to develop such plans, and centrally organized sectoralagencie sstil ldominat ethi s 'bottom-up' planningprocess . The dominanceo fth ecentra lgovernmen tca nb eexplaine db yth eincorpo ­ rationo f anumbe ro f socio-culturalfeature s inthei rpolicy ,suc ha sth e principleso f'sol eauthority' ,consensus ,an dharmony .Th egovernmen t usesthes eprinciple st oencapsulat eautonomou sloca lorganization si n the government administration, orienting the local leaders more to governmentrule san dprocedure stha nt oth eneed so fth eloca lpopula ­ tion.

This orientation towards government administration has two major implicationsfo rth eplannin go finterventions .Firstly ,th eintervention s are adjusted to thecompetenc e of implementing organizations (rather thanlettin gth eorganization sdevelo pthei rcompetenc et oimplemen tth e tasks of locally planned interventions). Secondly little more than lip- servicei spai dt oth eparticipatio n ofvillager si nplanning . Firstlyth eus eo fstandar ddesign si sa resul to fadjustin g interventions to the competence of organizations. Standard designs, with tried bud-

127 getingsystem san dfixed procedure s for planning and implementation areuse da sthe yar eeas yt omanag ean dcontrol .However ,beside sth e fact that these interventions may not be adoptable by local farmers, remoteplannin g andcontro l often present technical shortcomingsan d problems of logistics and timing, while complex procedures leave no time for government staff to visit the field. Moreover, cooperation between the different sectoral agencies is poor with the result that integration or coordination of land use interventions is negligible. Although the need for decentralization is acknowledged, it is still difficult for thegovernmen tt odiges tfo r fearo flosin gcontrol . Secondly,th eprincipl eo f'sol eauthority 'o fth eStat ei si ncontradictio n withth eai mo fstimulatin gparticipatio no fvillager si nth edevelopmen t process.Sectora l agencies still stronglyinfluenc e villagedevelopmen t plans,whil evillager s arehardl yinvolve di nth eplanning .A sa conse ­ quenceloca lpeopl efee ln oresponsibilit yfo rth esucces so fprogramme s norforoptima lspendin go fgovernmen tfunds .Communicatio nbetwee n field staff andvillager si spoor .Fiel dstaf far efocuse do nth eprocedure s andachievemen to ftarget sse tb yth egovernmen tadministration ,rathe r thano nimplementatio no fsustainabl elan dus eprogramme si ncoopera ­ tionwit hth elan duser sinvolved .Thei rlimite dcapacit yan dexperienc e with participatory planning contribute to this attitude. The extension techniques employed and information they 'communicate' to local peoplear ea standar dpackag efro mth ecentrall ydesigne dprogrammes . Iti stherefor eno talway sadjuste d toneed san dcapacitie so fth efarmers . Also,uncertaint yan da lon gtime spa nbetwee nth eplannin gan dbudge t allocationdiminishe sth emotivatio no floca lfiel dstaf f andvillager sfo r participation in governmentinduce d developmentactivities .

Notwithstanding these shortcomings in the present rural development planning process, official government policy has some room for im­ provement. This may allow for a more balanced planning process in which both local needs and government support measures can be integrated. Inthi swa ytheorie sca nb epu t intopractices . Thisconclusio nform sth epremis efo rth efurthe rdevelopmen to fvillag e development planning through the learning process of implementing trial cases in the uplands of East Java. The general aim has been to improve the quality of village development plans within the existing government procedures.Th eapproac h andresult s willb ediscusse di n thefollowin g chapter.

128 TRIALCASE SI NTH EUPLAND SO F MALANG DISTRICT,EAS TJAV A

6.1 Introduction Within the scope of the Kali Konto Watershed Management Project (DHV Consultants, 1990), a new approach for integrated village de­ velopmentplannin gha sbee ndevelope dthroug hth eimplementatio no f trialcase si nth eupland so fEas tJava .I nthi schapte r theorganization , planning method and results of four trial cases on integrated village developmentplannin gar edescribed .Th efou rcas evillage sar elocate d inth ethre eagroecologica lzone sdiscusse di nsectio n5.1 ,i nth eupland s ofMalan gDistrict ,Eas tJav a(figur e 6.1).

ggjgj CMS studyin« : villaga landdavatopman t planning

Malangdistric t boundary

S&"

Jmo. wUim enfai|etf mop oftfw projca ami

Figure 6.1: Location of the trial case villages inEast Java. (Source: vanden Hoek, 1991)

129 Thefirst tria lcas ewa si nPagersar ivillag e(Kecamatan Ngantang),th e second in Sumberejo (I) village (Kecamatan Pagak), the third in Sumberbeningvillag e(Kecamata nBantur )an dth elas ti nSumberej o(II ) village (Kecamatan Poncokusumo). Thetria lcase swer ecarrie d out according toa learnin gprocess :expe ­ rience gained in the execution of one trial case was subsequently incorporated inth emethodolog y forth enex ttria lcas e(figur e6.2 )

Experience with Implementing activities In Kali Konto project v Implementationo f 1 trialcas e I Experience with trial case I Study on planning methods and techniques ^ Study on Indonesian planning implementiation

1 Experience with trial caseI I Study on Gender Analysis tech­ niques * Study on Institutional develop­ implementiationo f ment trial caseII I

1

Experience with trial caseII I Improvements in planning tech­ + niques impteJöSfttfetftoöi of trial cause IV

Concept of and preliminary guidelines for village development -^ planning ^

Figure 6.2: Learningprocess inimplementing trialcases

130 In this way different aspects of existing planning methods could be incorporated and tested in the trial cases while the reality of current governmentadministratio n andprocedures ,an dth ecapacit yan dpoten ­ tialso fth eplannin gtea mhav eals oinfluence d theapproach .Sectio n6. 2 describesthi slearnin gprocess .Sectio n6. 3outline sth eplannin gmetho d which evolved out of these studies, while section 6.4 illustrates the analysisan dprogramm eproposal sfro m oneo f thetria lcases .Result s from implementing the proposed programmes are limited: however somepreliminar yresult so ftw oproject slocate di ndifferen t villagesar e discussed in section 6.5.Finally , conclusions aredraw n (section 6.6). Theresult so fth eseparat etria lcase shav ebee ndescribe di nfou r Project WorkingPapers(va nde nHoe ketal. ,1988 ;1989a ;1989b ;an d1990) ,o n which thefollowin g information isbased .

6.2 Learning processthroug hfou rtria lcase s Inth eperio dbetwee n 1988an d 1990fou rtria lcase swer eimplemente d withinth eframewor k ofth eKal iKont oProjec ti nMalang . ThisProjec t supported the Service for Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation (BRLKT)i nit stas kt odevelo pa napproac hfo rwatershe dplannin gan d to implement measures for improved watershed management. In the approach for watershed planning aga pwa sdiscerne d between,o nth e one hand, the screening studies (1:250,000 scale) and semi-detailed planning studies (1:50,000scale )an do nth eothe rhan dth eimplemen ­ tationo fstandar dtechnica ldesign so na 1:100 0 scale.Plannin gdi dno t result in locally appropriate watershed management programmes. Therefore anadditiona lste pi nwatershe dplannin gwa sproposed ,t ob e implementedo na 1:10,00 0o r5,00 0scale ,i nwhic hintegrate dprogramm e design and coordination of sectoral agencies' programmes could take place (vande nHoe kan dBekkering ,1988) . TheProjec texperience dproblem swit hit sprogramm eimplementation , becausether ewa sn ocoordinatio n amongsectora lagencies . Asa resul t activitiesb ydifferen t agencieswer estarte di nth esam evillage ssome ­ timeswit hconflictin g interestsan dcausin gcompetitio ni nth edeman d forlabou ran dfo rth esuppor to fvillag eorganizations .Therefore ,a mor e integrated approach to planning development activities at the village level was proposed, known as: 'Local Land Development Planning' (LLDP)(va nde nHoe kan dSchomaker , 1988;va nde nHoek , 1988). Inth eligh to fthes eprojec texperience sth efirs t trialcas eo nLLD Pwa s basedo na Lan dEvaluatio n(chapte r4.2 )an dimplemente db ya tea mo f field staff from BRLKT. The major objectives were to develop an integratedwatershe dpla na tloca lleve lincludin gfores tan dvillag elan d

131 and to enhance the cooperation of government programmes through integrated planning.Th eLan dEvaluatio n wasbase do nth einterpreta ­ tiono faeria lphoto so na 1:20,00 0scal ean da nenlargemen to na 1:500 0 scale, while for the socioeconomic survey a small questionnaire was developed. Box 6.1 describes the advantages of working with aerial photos. Meetings with village officials and villagers in the different hamlets were organized in order to enhance their participation in the planning.

Aerialphotograph swit ha seai eo f1:20,00 0whic hca nb eenlarge d toa1^00 0scalear ea nidealbasefbrrapidassessmentso fnatura lan d humanresoüfc& si nvillage so rsmal lwatershed s(Carso« ,19&5 ;va n den Hoek et al**Î988) .TJnHfc eexistin g mapsi n Indonesia,aeria l photoscove r both village and forest land and *eveal agio/socio/ economicinfluence so nth enatura llandscape ,Fo rexample ,lan dus e parcels*cattl e traeks»route s for fuehvood collection or drinking watersource ssho wthei rtrace si nth elan dus epattern san dar evisibl e m thephotos .Photo sma yals ob euse dt ostimulat ediscussio n^itb - farmerso ncertai nksues*a sthe yrecogniz ethei row narea ,hills »thei r house,road san d fields (Carsoti, 1985),Photo sprovid ea basi s for field surveysandmap-drawing .

Box6. 1Advantage so f usingaeria lphotographs . Theresult so fth esurve ywer ea lan devaluatio nmap ,indicatin grequire d changesi nlan d usean dadaptation s of management techniquesfro m a bio-physical point of view, andplan s for income-generating activities anddevelopmen to finfrastructure . Theplanner sonl ygav esuggestion s fordevelopmen tprogrammes ,whil eth eresponsibilit yfo rprogrammin g was left to the local government and an interagency meeting. Each sectoralagenc ywa ssuppose dt omak eit sow ndetaile dtechnica ldesigns . Theseproposal swer esen tt oBAPPED Aan dbudget swer eallocate dfo r implementationfro mth eKal iKont oProjec tfund san dfro mth eregiona l development funds (APBD). Resultswer eno tsatisfactory .Althoug ha lan devaluatio nprove dfeasibl e by trained field staff, the results obtained from a comparison of land resourcedat a withlan d usetype swer eto oone-sided , time-consuming andinadequat efo rplannin gsustainabl elan dus eprogramme s adjusted toth ecapacit yo fth edifferen t landusers .Also ,i twa sacknowledge dtha t insufficient attention had beenpai d to socioeconomic aspectsan dtha t participationo fvillager si nth eplannin gwa slimited .Th enee daros efo r an alternative approach, which was simple and flexible and which includeda participator y analysiso fth estrateg yo flan duser st omanag e

132 theirresources .I twa sals othough t unrealistic toexpec t an integrated approach without all agenciesinvolved . Moreover, in the meantimea numbero fothe rgovernmen tproject san da non-governmenta lorganiza ­ tioni nMalan g hadbecom einvolve di nloca lleve lplannin g(KEPAS , 1988;McCracke ne tal. , 1988;Seymour , 1991)an di twa stim et oshar e experiences andinterests . Ane wapproac hfo rplannin ga tloca lleve lwa sdeveloped .I nJun e198 8 agenera lmeetin gwa sorganize dt odiscus spossibilitie sfo rcooperatio n and integration of the land use planning approaches of the different projects.Participant swer eth eStat eFores tCorporation ,BRLKT ,KEPA S (KelompokPenelitianAgroekosistem;aresearc hgrou po nagroecosyste m analysis);th eUplan dAgricultur ean dConservatio nProject ,(sponsore d byUSAID )an dth eKal iKont oProject ,bot hsupportin gth eServic efo r Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation (BRLKT). Secondly, a technicalmeetin gwa shel dt odiscus splannin gtechnique san dtools .Th e priorityo fthes emeeting swa st ogai npolitica lsuppor tfro mth edifferen t agencies for an improved planning strategy. An understanding was reachedo nth eapproac ht ob efollowe d anda nare awa sselecte dfo rth e second trial case to be implemented by KEPAS and the Kali Konto Projectan da KEPA Sconsultan twit hsuppor tfro mth eothers .A steerin g committeewa sforme d of thehead so fregiona loffice s ofal lorganiza ­ tions involved. The objectives were: to reduce the traditional gap between planning and implementation; to provide an opportunity to break away from standard programmes and to train field workers in planningmethod san dtechniques .Th eplannin gtea mconsiste do fseve n persons; two field coordinators (PPUP), two fieldworkers (PLP and PPL),th efores t guard,th eBangde srepresentativ e at sub-district level andth ehea do fth eLKM Do fth evillag einvolved .Th eplannin gmetho d wasbase do nagroecosyste manalysi sfo rwhic hRR Atechnique sa swel l asfiel dan dhousehol dsurvey swer eused .I nthi scas eth eplannin gtea m wasals oresponsibl efo rpreparin ga detaile dprogramme ,includin gth e planningo f budgetallocations .I nadditio n anNGO ,activ ei n thearea , wasinvite d toparticipate .However ,du et otim econstraints ,it scontri ­ bution was limited to giving a brief introduction on activities and experiences.A tthi sstag eth eplannin gmetho dwa sstil lfa r from ideal. Therewa sn otim efo rdetaile danalysi san ddesig no fintervention san d thus proposed plans were not sufficiently specific. The concept of Agroecosystemanalysi sappeare dto ocomplicate dt ob efull yunderstoo d byvillager san dfiel d staff. Inth ethir dtria lcas efurthe rdevelopment swer eachieve di nth eplannin g method.Th efou r propertieso f Agroecosystems wereredefine d asth e threepropertie s of sustainable landus e(a sdescribe d inchapte r2 )an d incorporated intoth eplannin g method, sotha t byimplementin g rapid

133 appraisals, analysis and planning.implicit attention was paid to these properties.Attentio nwa sals opai dt oth eidentificatio n ofspecifi clan d user groups through incorporating gender analysis techniques in the planningmetho dan db yenhancin gth eparticipatio n ofvillager s(espe ­ ciallyth epoor )i nth eplanning .A femal efiel dworke ran da woma nfro m the village participated in the team ensuring that greater weight was given to the potentials and constraints for women in development activities.A nNG Ogav ea nintroductio n onparticipator y development techniques. Theimplementatio no fdetaile danalysi san ddesig nbecam e parto fth eplannin gmetho dan dthu seve nmor erealisti can doperationa l programmescoul db eplanned .A firs t stepwa stake ntoward splannin g the monitoring and evaluation activities by devising a programme matrix, andformulatin g indicators for successan dassumption s onth e implementationo fpropose dprojects .Agroecosyste munit si nth evillag e wereindicate dan ddescribe da swell .

Atth estar to fthi sthir dtria lcas ei twa sstil lassume dtha tth eBRLK Ta t districtleve lcoul dprovid etechnica lbackstoppin gan dsuppor ti naeria l photointerpretatio nan dcomputerize ddat aprocessin go fth ehousehol d survey. The BRLKT had been assigned responsibility for watershed management and was trained in both techniques and supported with equipmentb yth eKal iKont oProject .However ,durin gth eimplementa ­ tion of the trial casei t was acknowledged thatthi swa sunrealistic ,a s BRLKTdi d not have thecapacit y tocarr y out these tasks in atimel y fashionan dvillager swoul dbecom eto orelian to nit ssupport .Moreover , in Indonesia aerialphoto s areextremel y difficult toobtai n becauseo f strictmilitar yrules .Therefore , theus eo faeria lphoto swa srestricte dt o thisthir dtria lcase , whiledat afro m thehousehol dsurve ywa sanalyse d (byhand )b yth eplannin gteam .

Theai mo fth eplannin gwa sincreasingl yfocuse d onprovidin ginstitu ­ tionalsuppor tt ovillag eorganization sfo rimprovin gth equalit yo fthei r villagedevelopmen t plans.Consequently , from theno n the namewa s changedfro m 'LocalLan dDevelopmen t Planning' to 'IntegratedVil ­ lage Development Planning'. Decentralized sub-district funds were allocated for the financing of proposed programmes and the Camat becameactivel yinvolve di nth eorganizatio no fth etria lcas ea swel la s indiscussion so ndevelopmen tconstraint s andopportunities .

Inth efourt h andlas ttria lcas eth echange si nth eplannin gmetho dan d

134 institutionalaspect s wereles sradical ,indicatin ga consolidatio no fth e approach.Th eplannin gtea mconsiste do f1 2peopl eo fwho mfiv ewer e from theUDK Pan dfiv e werevillagers ;on erepresentativ epe rhamle t (KPD)plu sth ehea do fth eLKM D(figur e 6.3).

UNrT FOR PLANNING. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ATSU B DISTRICT LEVEL (UDKP) 'F 1. Staff ßapgdes Head ofth e subdistric t L Field coordinator of &. FjUaldworke r ßRLKTfPLP!) Agriculture (PPUP)(4 ) A Field staff PU N & Field wqrkerAgricultur e(PPL ) Field staff KUD N & Field «öofdjsosiof Field staff Servicefo r I , ^«culture (PPUP3 Industrial Development N '. s Field staff Servrvefo r 0 Healthcare and Education T ?. forest guard & LKMD(village ] A U PerttbangünanDes afer èâc h

Figure6.3: Proposedplanning team

Thistim eth efores t guardcoul dno tparticipate .A totalo fthre efemal e plannersparticipated .Experienc ei nthi stria lcas eprove donc eagai ntha t sustainablevillag edevelopmen tprogramme snee dt otak ea nintegrate d approachan dshoul dinclud edevelopin glan dmanagemen ttechnologies , off-farm employment and supportive socioeconomico rphysica l infra­ structure. Somechange swer emad et oth eplannin gmethod .Greate rattentio nwa s paid toth e formulation ofke y issues tomak e them more specific.A problem tree indicating causes and effects wasintroduce d forth e formulationo fke yissues .Also ,linkage swer emad ebetwee nth evillag e planningan dregiona llan dus eplan sb yusin gth eRT L(watershe dpla n at1:50,00 0scale )a sa nindicato ro fpriorit yarea sfo rplanning .Th eRT L mapswer eals ouse da salternativ et oaeria lphotos .The ywer eenlarge d toa scal eo f1:500 0an dtogethe rwit hth evillag ema pthe yserve da sth e basisfo r theterrai n andlan dus esurvey .Sligh tchange swer emad e by simplifying the questionnaire, the detailed design summaries and the formfo rplannin gmonitorin gactivities .I nprogrammin gmor eus ewa s

135 madeo floca lhuma nan dfinancia lresources ,a sth ecapacit yo fgovern ­ mentstaf f tosuppor timplementatio n inthi sremot evillag ewa slimite d and nosub-distric t funds wereavailable .

63 Planningmetho d The planning method for integrated village development planning, whichemerge dfro m thefou r trialcase s(figur e 6.2)i sflexibl e andca n beadjuste d toloca lconditions ,capacitie so ravailabl etime .Th emetho d proved feasible and useful in the uplands of East Java. Thisplannin g methodi sdescribe dextensivel yi nchapte r4 ,a si ti sbase do nplannin g theories.I n thischapter ,howeve r theplannin g method isdescribe di n termso fho wi twa sapplie dan dteste di nth efield . Severalillustration s ofdat acollectio n techniquesan dresult sar epresente d (vande nHoek , 1988;va nde nHoe kan dBekkering , 1988;va nde nHoek , 1991).

Theorganizatio n of trial caseso nvillag e development planningi sth e responsibility of theCamat an dth eBangde srepresentative ,fo r which theyma y getexterna l support (inthi scas eb yth eKal iKont oProject) . Theyselec tth eplannin gteam ,choos eth eplannin gperiod ,mak ea work - plan(Appendi x 1),an dorganiz efacilities .Th eselectio no fth evillag ei s carriedou tb yth eUDK Pan di sbase do nth eresult so fregiona llan dus e and forest plans and policies of the local government. As during the implementationo fth etria lcase sintegrate dregiona ldevelopmen tplan s wereno tavailable ,th esemi-detaile dwatershe dplan s(RTL )wer euse d to indicate priority areas. The policies of the local government are determinedb yth epriorit ythe yassig nt odevelopin gvillage swh oar estil l traditional,o raccordin gt othei rcriteria ,a tth e'swadaya 'level .

Secondarydat aar ecollected .A villag ema p(o na scal eo fapproximatel y 1:5000 scale) is available in almost each village and the Bangdes representative makes reproductions of this map to be used during the planning.Fo rth efiel dsurve yexistin gterrai nan dlan dus emap sar euse d andblow nu pt oth esam e1:500 0scal ea sth evillag emap . Roads, rivers andsettlemen tar euse da sreferenc epoints .Wheneve rmap sar eunavail ­ ablesketc hmap sca nb edraw nwhe nstandin go nth ehighes tpoin ti nth e area.Thi si sals ousefu l forcheckin gth eenlarge dmap sa tth eoutse tan d for making new (simple) legends for the units in the planning area. Resourceperson ssuc ha sth ehea do fth eregiona lextensio ncentr ean d anNG Orepresentativ e areinvite d togiv einformatio n on experiences withan dresult so fpreviou s(government )intervention si nth earea ,whil e

136 the Bangdes representative himself makes an inventory of projects funded throughth eINPRE Svillag esubsid yo rth ePKK .Tabl e6. 1

Table 6.1: Activities funded byINPRE Svillag e subsidies. US$ 1» (approximately Rp. 1,800)

USEO FINPRE S VILLAGESUBSID Y FUNDS

Year Projects TotalFund s(Rp ) INPRES Funds Self-help

80 Village office 3x12m 650.000 300,000 81 Village Office 3x12m 800,000 200,000 82 Village meeting place 12x 12 m 1,000,000 300,000 83 Lining of road 150 x 1 m 1,000,000 500,000 84 Lining of road 100 x 3 m 1,000,000 500,000 85 Waterway for drinking water 200 m 1,000,000 2,000,000 86 Waterway 200 m 1,000,000 1,000,000 87 Lining road 4x 11 m 650,000 1.470,000 88 Lining Waterway 400 m 900.000 1,000,000 89 Culvert 10x6 m 912.000 1,000,000

illustratesa ninventor yo fsuc hexpenditure si nSumberej o (II)village . After organizational matters have been dealt with and secondary data inventoried theplannin gproces si nth evillag estarts .Thi si sdescribe d throughth efollowin g steps. Step 1:Formulation of key issues and land user groups Theplannin gtea mmake sa rapi d one-day appraisal,throug h observa­ tionsan dinforma linterview so nth emajo rissue sfo rdevelopmen ti nth e village.Thes ear echecke dwit hsecondar ydata .Durin ga brainstorming session by the planning team approximately six major key issues are formulated withth ehel po fa 'problemtree' .A nexampl eo fa proble m treean dissue sidentifie di sillustrate di nfigur e6.4 . Theseissue shav et o bechecke dan di fnecessar yreformulate d during fieldwork.

137 c 3 ta O a o. 2 & 1| «J 9 to §jgj2 3: «

if

c 3&

e I c oa al •8 3 I J3 "05 S 1 c e c tn ü 3 6; < a ai z ai o 18|g -O "O iel > £ E S i s o c bas — o a D S Po Z J u I

138 As data collection is rapid it is important to collect representative information indifferen t areasan dfro mdifferen t landuse rgroup si nth e village. Therefore the identification of land use zones and land user groupsb yth eplannin gtea mma yhel pi nthi srespect .Th eidentificatio n oflan dus ezone sdiffer sfo reac hvillag ea si ti sbase do nbio-physica lan d socioeconomiccriteri a (figure 6.5).

Zone Terrain Land Use LandUser s Hamlets

Alluvial Plain IrrigatedGeld s Javanese farmers Jomblang

Footslopes Dryarable fields + a)Madures e truck a)Beko r homegardena drivers) Jomblang (sugarcane.maize, b)Javanes e farmers b)Bekur cassava) c) Forest labourers c) Bekur

II Steepridg e Forest(mahogany , ' teak)

NI Plateau Dry arable fields Village officials Bandarangm with sugarcane Uttra

rv Complex Dryarabl e fields Javanese fanners Bandarangin volcanic homegardciu Selatan slopes (sugarcane.maize , 'cassava)

Figure 6.5: Distinctionand description of land use zonesin Sumberejo I village

Duringth eimplementatio no fth etria lcase si tappeare dtha ti nmos tcase s theselan dus esyste mzone scoincide swit hth edifferen t hamletsi nth e village.Withi n each zonedifferen t landuse rgroup sca n be identified, sucha ssmall/landles san dric hfarmers ,o fJavanes eo rMadures eorigin , traders, forest labourers,al l of which may befurthe r sub-divided into malean dfemal egroups . Step2: Data collection A special RRA package is developed in the form of a Rapid Village Appraisal(se eals ochapte r4) .I tincludes :collectio no fsecondar ydata ; observations; field survey; informal and formal interviews; (group) meetingswit hdifferen t landuse rgroup san da genera lLKM Dmeeting . These are discussed below. Secondary data is collected during the preparationbu tma ynee dt ob esupplemente db ydiscussion swit hvillag e eldersan dofficials . Thisma yresul ti na ninventor yma po flocation so f government interventions in the past, while the drawing of a history profilei susefu lt oexplai nchange si nlan duse .Figur e6. 6 illustratessuc h aprofile .

139 Before 1800 (Two villages) FOREST Sumberrejo

1800-1900(1 Village) COFFEEPLANTATIO N Sumberrejo

1930- 1943 COFFEE PLANTATIONAN DDR YARABL ELAN D Sumberrejo

After 1943 DRYARABL ELAN D

Figure6.6 :History profile for SumberrejoII village

140 Available mapsar cchecked ,specifie d orotherwis e newly sketchedi n thefield b ywalkin gtransect sthroug hth edifferen t (landus ean dterrain ) unitsi nth elandscap ean db ymakin gobservation so nlan dus ean dterrai n conditions. Duringthi sfield surve yinforma l interviewsshoul db ehel d wheneverpossibl ewit hfarmer s workingi nth efiel d toobtai n informa­ tion on the key issues Field survey forms are used to structure the observations on land use systems, cropping patterns, yields, erosion problemsetc .(Appendi x 2). Otherinforma l interviews arecarrie dou t withrandoml y chosenrespondent sa tthei r homes,i nth estree to ri na shop.Als okey-informant s shouldb esough twit hwho mt odiscus sth e key issues, such as the village head, forest ranger, leader of farmer organization, religious leader, or schoolteacher. Group meetings are organized for each hamlet and in small homogeneous groups, of e.g. women,landles sfarmers ,ric hfarmers .Thei rparticipatio ni sstimulate d with the 'problem-census' technique (chapter 4). Formal interviews with selected respondents arehel d in thefor m of ahousehol d survey. Thus,som emor equantitativ edat aca nb ecollecte do ndifferen t aspects of the farming system. A small and simple questionnaire has been developedfo rthi spurpos ea sillustrate di nAppendi x3 .I nth equestionnair e the following aspects arecovered : family pattern;education ; off-farm employment; land use patterns and productivity; livestock; welfare conditionan dfuelwoo dconsumption .Also ,question so ngender-specifi c activities areincluded . Inorde rt oorganiz ethi sdiversifie d datacollectio nan dt omak esur etha t sufficient information is collected for all key issues through different datacollectio n techniquesa checklis t isuse d (Table6.2) . Table6. 2 Checklistfo r datacollectio n

DATA SECON PARTICI GROUI INDIVIDUAL HELD FORMAL COLLEC DARY PATORY INTER INTERVIEWS SURVEY INTER TION DATA OBSER VIEWS VIEWS TECHNIQUE VATIONS RESPONDENTS:

SEL AT KEY ECTED RAND INFOR OM MERS KEY ISSUE 1.Villag e V V V V institutions

2.Deforestatio n V V V V V V V

3.Agricultura l V V V V V V V development

4.Drinkin g V V V V water 141 Different survey tools are used in this appraisal. For thefield surve y measuringtool ssuc ha sa nauge ro rclinomete r(t omeasur eslop eangles ) areuseful , butotherwis e moregenera ldescription s based onobserva ­ tionssuc h as'ver y steepslope ' and 'clayey soils'ca nb eused .A small pocket notebook is used during informal interviews to check theke y issuesan dt omak enote so fth ediscussions .Question so nWhat ,Where , When, Why, by Whoan d How activities are carried out or decisions taken should be posed to understand the main issues in the land use system.Eac hevenin gth enote sar erecorde dfo reac hke yissue .Th eplac e andtim eo fmeeting si sadjuste d toth econvenienc eo fth eloca lpeopl e involvedt ohav eoptima lparticipation .Map san dsketche sar evaluabl e toolst ostimulat ediscussio nan ddevelo pidea samon gth etea mmember s andwit hth evillagers .Fo rth ehousehol dsurve ya stratifie d selectiono f anaverag eo f6 0household spe rvillag eappear sfeasible . (Onaverage , villages in the uplands of the Brantas Watershed have about 600 households). Stratified meanstha tal llan dus esyste mzone sshoul db e represented andtha tfo r eachzone ,th eproportio n ofrespondent s from onelan duse rgrou preflect s theproportio no fvillager sbelongin gt othi s group. Step 3:Data analysis Afterthi sappraisa li nth efiel d allth einformatio n collectedi sprocesse d intotables ,maps ,diagrams , sketchesetc .Fo r agoo d interpretation of data, different data sources arecombined . Forexample , thecroppin g calendar isbase d ondat afro m thelan d use survey,househol d survey, observationan dinforma linterviews .Thi scross-checkin go fdat abecome s of integral importance in rapid appraisals, where qualitative and de­ scriptive,rathe rtha nquantitativ edat aar ecollected .Fiel dobservation s arecollecte d for each unit.A terrai n and landus ema p aremad e anda cross-section isdraw no fth elandscape ,i nwhic hth edifferen t unitsar e described for terrain,slope ,soil ,erosio n and landus econditions .

142 Figure 6.7 illustrates such a cross-section. Results of the household survey arepresente d foreac haspec to fth efarmin g system intables .

s*

8 »• S"

< CÜ 5?

-Ä CA Hit Jtl-é. 1JT a-a

•all?? 1 îai! * a-il S jr a 12.11 1 1 O vi •a s Vi oo > — 1 53 o s * S" 5« Ml

< a; »>' Jvs. "9 1 8 1 03 il. ^ S 8| S « -ai S » « s* 11 < ai X 03 D 03 lui. x> ? i m 0 1 tv! c- fr ,u 6 Q va < 0! .3:5 ,. .*> s» "b3u 00 H £

143 An activity profile is drawn for each land user group.Dat a from the householdsurvey ,th einforma l interviewsan dobservatio nca nb euse d forthi sprofile .Th eacces san dcontro lprofile ,presente di nchapte r4 a s parto fGende rAnalysi sTechniques ,i sno tuse di nth eplannin gmetho d assuch ,a si tappear sto ocomplicate dan dtime-consumin gt omak esuc h a profile useful. The activity profile already gives information on the division of tasks/activities between members of the household and betweendifferen t landuse rgroup s soinstea d thesedat aar ecombine d withfo rexampl ea landownershi pma pt oge tinformatio n onacces san d control toland . Asman y activities arecarrie d out byfamil y members together,a descriptio no fa naverag eworkin gda yfo rmen ,wome nan d childrenma yclarif y thedivisio no ftasks .I tshoul db erealize dhowever , thatsuc ha pictur eo fa workin gda yi sseason-biased .A nillustratio no f onesuc hactivit yprofil efo rth epoo ran dlandles sfarmer si nSumberej o IIvillag ei spresente di ntabl e6.3 .

Table6.3 : Activityprofil e ofpoo rfarmer s from Sumberejo IIvillag e

Activity Profile (Predominant responsibility) No. Activity Sumberwates Krajan Banjarejo Military Land 1 Watercollectio n Women Women Women Women 2. Fuelwood collection Women Men Women Women 3 Land/crop management - dryarabl e land Men Men Both Women - homegarden Men Men Women Women - irrigatedfields Men Both Men Women 4 Sale ofcrop/yield : Women Women Both Women - Buying of production Women Women Both Both Inputs 5 Livestock care Men Both Men ChÜd Fodder collection Both Men Men/ (Female)/ children Men 6 Social activities in Men Men Men Men/ (village organizations ChÜd rellglous.cultural, sport (Male) activities) 7 Off-farm employment Women Men Men ChÜd (Female) 8 Migration Men Men ChÜd Men/ (Female) ChÜd (Male)

Thematicmap sar euse dt ocollec tinformation ,analys ecertai nke yissue s and make them clear to other people. Athemati c map can bedraw n showing, for example, flows of fuelwood (indicating where and how muchi scollected ,b ywhic hhamlet san dwher ei si ttransporte dt o(figur e 6.8).

144 Fuelwood salea tloca l market Forest Land from forest land: 120cm/y r

Magersari (hamlets Fuelwood needs forhousehol d situatedo n forest land) consumption from forest land: 3380cm/y r y/A Hamletswh odepen d on forest Limestone burning industries 222 land for fuelwood need ^ Fuelwood needs for limestone ^ burning industries from forest ' Road land:75 0cm/y r

Figure 6.8: Analysis map of fuelwood flows (needs and markets) in village. Otherissue sfo rthemati cmap sare :lan dtenur esituatio n( ama pindicat ­ ingwhic hlan di sowne db ywho man dunde rwha ttenur earrangements) ; accessibility( ama pindicatin gth econditio no froads ,th e distancet oth e nearestmarkets ,publi ctransportatio n means);drinkin gwate r facilities (ama pindicatin gwher ewate ri scollected ,th edistance st oth ehamlet s or neighbourhood, the capacity of the sources and the bottlenecks in distribution). Theanalysi so fth edat acollecte di sbase do nAgroecosyste m Analysis (AEA).Chapte r4 describe sho wth ethre epropertie so fsustainabl elan d useca nb eanalyse db ylookin gint ofou rpattern so fagroecosyste m(lan d use)systems : space (geographiclocation ) time(seasona lo rlon gter mchanges ) flows (ofenergy ,products ,mone yo r information) decisions (choices of individuals, decision patterns of local organizations,politic so floca lauthorities ) Theanalysi si scarrie dou tfo reac hke yissue ,a si sillustrate di nsectio n 6.4.Chapte r4 present sa lis to fpossibl eresult so fth edat ainventor yan d analysis.Howeve rth eexten tt owhic hthes emaps ,diagrams ,table setc . arevaluabl efo ranalysi si na villag edepend so nth eloca lcondition san d thusthe y should beuse dflexibly . It shouldb eclear ,fo r example,tha t whenevercro pproductio ni sno ta nissu eo fconcer ni nth evillage ,ther e isn onee dt omak ea croppin gcalenda ro rflo wdiagra mo nit sproductio n system. Step4: Conceptual plan Basedo nth eanalysi sfo reac hke yissu epossibl esolution sar ediscusse d for each issue. This is illustrated in section 6.4. Finally they are all integrated into aconceptua l plan, in which thepropose d activities are localizedi na map .B yusin gsuc ha pla nma prelationship san dpossibl e conflicts between thepropose dactivitie sbecom evisible . Step5 and 6: Detailed analysis and design Inth econceptua lpla nal lth epropose dactivitie sar estil lfairl y general. However,t odevis eoperationa lproject stha tca nb eadopte db yth eloca l land users more detailed designs have to be drawn up. The detailed analysisan ddesig no fprogramm eactivitie si sth eresponsibilit yo fth e target groupso f landuser swh oar et obecom einvolved .Th eplannin g teamsupport sthe mi nth efollowin g activities: participatoryanalysi so fth eproblem san dconstraint sa smentione d inth eproble mcensus ; discussion with theselan d users on their specific wishes,needs , constraintsan dcapacities .Th ereason sbehin dthei rlan dus estrat ­ egy shouldbecom eclear ; 146 selectiono flan duser st obecom einvolve dfo reac hprogramm e activity, based on their land condition, land use strategy and enthousiasm toparticipate ; detailed surveyo flan dus econdition swit hinvolvemen to flan d users; formulation ofidea sfo rintervention san dthei rpossibl einpu ti n thepropose dactivities ; preparation ofdetaile d technicaldesign s basedo nterrain ,lan d useo rerosio n sketchmap so na 1:1000 scale; planningth erequire dmaterial ,physica lmeasures ,socioeconomi c arrangements, local organization, involvement of intervening organization,extensio nactivities ,budgetin gan dsourcin gactiv e ties, projectorganizatio n andtime schedule . Theplanner sar espli tu pt oimplemen tth edetaile danalysi san ddesig n accordingt othei rprofessiona l background.Fo rexampl ea soi lconser ­ vationprojec twil lb edesigne db yth eBRLK Tfiel dworke r(PLP )a she 7 sheha s(acces sto )th etechnica lknowledg ean dwil lals ob eresponsibl e forit simplementation . Inorde rt ofacilitat eth eprojec tdesig na desig nfor mha sbee ndevelope d toguid eth eplanner .Tabl e6. 4illustrate sa detaile dprojec tdesig nform . Inthi sdetaile ddesig n form, indicators andmean sb ywhic hindicator s canb everifie dprove dt ob eto ocomplicate dt ob eidentifie d (chapter4) . Insteada detaile ddescriptio no fpropose dactivities ,organization ,mate ­ rialan dbudget sneeded ,tim eschedul ean dth eexpecte dresult sserv ea s indicators.However ,assumption sfo rth eimplementatio n ofth e activi­ ties areformulated .A nexampl eo fa detaile danalysi san ddesig ni non e ofth ecas evillage si sgive n infigur e 6.9an d6.10 . A cost-benefit analysis of expected inputs and outputs of proposed projectsi nth eshor tru nma yb epar to fth edetaile ddesig n(figur e6.11) . Thisprove d to bever y useful. Theintroductio n of this typeo f simple cost-benefit calculation during thedetaile d project design will further improve thequalit y of thepropose d projects asplanner s areforce d to thinkabou tth econsequence so fthei rpropose dactivities .T odate ,fiel d staff have not been encouraged to think about economic benefits of government programmes,a sthei rmajo r concerni st oimplemen t stan­ dardprogramme saccordin gt oth epla nan dprocedures . Step7: Integrated development programme andland use plan In this last step a programme planning matrix is devised. Table 6.5 illustrates this type of matrix in which the proposed programmes are given,sub-divide dint odifferen t projects.Fo reac hprojec tdi efollowin g features areindicated :it slocation ;th eparticipants ;thei rloca lorganization ;

147 Table6. 4 Exampleo fa detaile dprojec t designfor m

OBJECTIVEPROJEC T ASSUMPTIONSfo r project - Reduce soil erosion implementation: - Increase productivity of landb y improving land management and cropping pattern. - Increase farmers'income PROJECTINPUT S - All 10farmer s participate - Target group:Farme r groupi n hamlet actively. Dewo(1 0 farmers) - Head of farmer group:Pa k Isman - Location: hamlet Dewo4. 1h a PROPOSEDPHYSICA LACTIVITIE S - Aid in the form of seeds, - Improvemento fterrace san ddrainag e fertilizers. Cuttings arrivei n - Planting of : coffee seedlings timei n thehamle t cutting of Gliricidia - Coffee production and intro Albizia seedlings duction of maize (Arjuno) avocado seedlings increases theincom e of - planting ofmaiz e (Arjuno) and farmers cavassa - Farmersmanag e these new Applicationo f manurean dpesticide s cropswel l (design planting system is added) PROPOSEDSOCIO-ECONOMI CACTIVITE S - Farmers arewillin g to save - Groupdevelopmen t by organizing a money on acontinuou s basis saving programme and tospen d it collectively (twicea mont h Rp 500) - Theextensio n worker sup- - Field trips and training todemo n ports thegrou pregularl y in strate soil conservation measure, technical and socio-economic andcoffe e garden. activities - Collective buyingo f seedlings (with useo f saved money) - Regular meetings with extension worker (PLP)(a t least twice amont h inth efirs t year) todiscus s maintenance, monitoring, administration. COST-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS - Farmers aremotivate d to - Terrace construction and drainage improvethei r terraces improvement arecarrie d out with self- through self-help. Each year help activities instages ,accordin g to they will improve their land management thecapacit y of each farmer. - Farmers arewillin g and able - 50%o f thecoffe e and avocado seed tobu y seedlings inth e village lings areprovide d for free, 50%ha s to nursery bebough t in thevillag e nursery - Thevillag enurser y produces - Maize(Arjuno ) seedsan d fertilizers are sufficient seedlingso fhig h provided for free. quality

148 MATERTALAN DBUDGE TNEEDE D - The planned material is - Coffee seedlings:5000x15 0= R p750,00 0 available for the farmers, - Avocado + Albizia according to the timesche d seedlings: 1000x250= R p 250,000 ule. - Cuttingo f Gliricidia:25,000 x 5=R p 125,000 -Manure :20,000x 5=R p 100,000 -Fertilizers : 500x200 =R p 100,000 -Insecticides : 20x8000=Rp 160,000 -Maize seeds (Arjuno) : 120kg=R p 150,000 Total Rp 1,635,000 TIMESCHEDUL E 1.Extensio ngrou pmeeting s April '91 - Activities canb e carried out 2. Land preparation May/June'9 1 according to time schedule 3.Technica l adviceo nsoi l - Rains start in time conservationmeasure s July/Nov'9 1 - Inputs areavailabl e in time 4.Preparatio nplantin g Nov'9 1 5.Plantin go f seedlings/seedsDe c'91/Ja n'9 1 6.Maintenanc ean dreplantin g Feb '92 7. Part monitoring & evaluation March 8. Maintenance March BUDGETPLANNIN G - Selfhel pactivities : - Government orProjec t Funds Labour Rp250,00 0 are available inearl y Novem 500seedling s Rp500,00 0 ber '91, in accordance to the Manure Rp 100,000 planned funds

Total Rp 850,000 EXPECTEDRESULT SPROJEC T -10 farmers (see list of names) participate - The seedlings perform well at actively in group activities theen d of 1992withou t - Atota l of4. 1h a isplante d with coffee majorproblem s withbug s or fruit and Albizia seedlings and fodder diseases - The farmers have increased theirknow l edge and skills in land and coffee tree - Farmers can benefit from management their saving programme. - Farmers gradually improve terrace construction and drainage - The income situation improves through the saving programme

149 £j=Sj=£,c Sc ÄCISÄ-SOS ocools ' S SÄ gS S «a^ e * c8 eS SCÏ* c Xc ?8 ^ lliailllâ lââlslMlaliMibifisiiijliiiiiiliiiiîi i 3

M

tf) ta c g> 1 o I — ooin -i ncoeinoiS «*ininMift ONM inëi or»* o—at mo* ifiifiêi * oooooo —oo oo -—N ooo o—o —oo 3 Ç isE »? ililli liliil1,1 11 1il lil lil lIi 1 n 2, to gSSSSs Stoa PÏ$ na ata MÛ e«i esa 3 £ g (U.Û ü CQJ3 ü 'C32"Ü 'C?S*Ü' a S IB

M "(3 ¥ I 1 ö.? iä O 00 53 à D il

c 2 2 «

ils

Q aÜ .2 â2 •"m *• b.l

- U 01

150 Design 1

Livefenc e Banana.. Terraœimprovemen t ofGliricidia BananaM.a«e | withstone san dgrasse s & (Arjuno ) Me"Tinj" o

Avocadotre e

25m

/\ Landowne db yon efarme r l '(tota lfarme r participation: 11)

Design 2

| Groundcover : '3m I Centrosemapubescen s andTeprosi aCandid a Gullyfille d withstone s Plantingdistanc e andgras s Albizziafaicata : 2x3m

•Far m boundary Contour lines - Boundaryo fvillag e Roads development plan

Figure 6.10: Example of detailedproject designin Sumberbening village.

151 ToMalang Wood from outside - Kotalana - BUmbing From : • Jajang -Dtnoy o •Déw o • Aran-aran -Mgandeng Price of bed - PalokPids - large Rp. 7,000 - small Rp. 5,000 Species: Mlndi.sengon, Truck Rp 2.500/m» Majhonl.suren, kembang.dadap Truck Mahoni Rp 30,000/m glondong Sengon Rp. 25,000/m3 glondong

Production Wood from own land Species :- kembang Large bed -mindi Small bed -sengon Small table -su ren -mahoni -dadap Carried as shoulder load I To: Turen Tools Material Wajak Kepanjen Saw Bamboo Gondanglegl Plane Mahoni Large Chisel bark Large bed Rp. 7.000 Small Chisel Small bed Rp. 5.000 Drill

Input Output Price of wood Rp. 25.000 15 beds 9 Rp. 7.00 (m3) Salary Rp. 20.000 (2x5 days)

Labour costs Rp. 30.000 (15x1 days)

Transportation Rp. 2,500 costs (wood)

Transportation Rp. 4,500 costs ( 15 beds)

Total Rp. 82.000 Rp. 105,000 Income Rp. 23.000 (20 days)

Figure6.11: Exampleof a flow diagram andcost-benefit calculation for carpentry inSumberejo II village

152 Table 6.5. Programmeplannin gmatri x for Sumberejo Itvillag e

e§l i il» B S MM w— M N<3QI f M M —Mrt» M I s si ail s sjii s s |s§s s

il gît lil h II il il imJiëi 1 eêl * S a -I 11 -1 -§ »SU -I «n S S llîî SSgS * î i § § i § § i § i §§ M ! s « | s ; « g jî §s iii i PU i> i« i ii i 1*lu i ili u uä 1 1 i lîl ü ! i „ i lî ml jl t IlI iî I A ! ! 1 I iîi i \m\ 1f i M là !l!i ii iti ! lull* Hi ii Mf

153 thesupportin gorganization ;th erequire dbudget san dsources ;an da tim e schedulefo rimplementation .Durin gthi s programmingexercis eopera ­ tional programmes are formulated by calculating the available funds, availablelabou ran dfinancia l capacitieso fvillager san dfiel d staff,an d by coordination and good timing such that there are no competing demandsfo r labouran dtha timplementatio n ofon eprojec tca nsuppor t the success of the other. For example,reforestatio n would be useless without simultaneously solving the grazing problem in the forest by introducinggras splantatio no narabl efield san da cu tan dcarr ysystem . Since interventions have to be adjusted to the present competence of governmentorganizations ,margin sshoul db efoun d withinth epresen t systemo fallocatin g decentralized funds. Althoughpresentl y thesear e scarce on Java, some possibilities exist in the form of sub-district development funds liketh eKecamatan Rowan (marginal sub-districts) andKecamatan Terpadu (integratedsub-district )funds ,whic har eonl y present in perhaps twoou t of ten sub-districts in a limited numbero f districts (box6.2) .

There are two district development programmes; the 'Kecamafan Terpadu* {integrated sub-district) and. the 'Kecamatan Rawan^marginaî sub-district) arefairl y similari nthei robjectives , Theobjectiveso fth e* Kecamatan .Terpadu *programm ear et oachiev e theimplementatio no fth eUDKP-s yste man dt ospee du pth énumbe r ofvillage swit hth estatu so f'swasembada '(developed) ;increas eth e participation ofvillager s withself-hel p activities;reduc e the differ­ encesm developmen t amongvillage san dincreas eth ecoordination , andcapacit y of government agencies.Project s aim to improve the economic infrastructure in the village using revolving funds. The 'KecamatanRawan 'programm eha sa nidentica lobjective ,However , it focuses on direct and short term economic development of the poorest groups in rural society such as landless farmers, livestock snare-managers,labourer san dboatles sfishermen ,Th emajo r differ­ encebein gpa tth e*Kecamata nTerpadu * programmesar emanage d and coordinated by Bappeda ana planned per year» while the «KecamatanRawan fprogramme sar emanage db yBangdes , coordi­ nated by Bappeda and planned per Repelita, For the 'Kecamatan Terpadü' programmeforeachprovince iSOsub-districtsareselected byth egovernor , Ineachsub-districtoniytw ovillagescanb eselected . Theplannin g processfo r both programmesi ssimila rt o thato fth e village development planning. However, the Camats have greater authority as they canmak eth e decisions on selecting viBagesan d allocating funds for proposed projects, which in 95%o f cases are acceptedb yth edistric tan dprovincia lgovernment ,

Box6. 2Descriptio n of sub-district development programmes

154 Thesefund s amountt oR p 10millio npe rsub-distric tpe ryea ran dhav e to be spent on developing income-generating activities, often divided between two or three villages. Also, the recently increased INPRES villagedevelopmen tfund s (SubsidiDesa) o fR p2. 5millio npe rvillag e per year may be used to finance proposed programmes. However, decentralizedfund sma yno tb esufficien t tofinanc eal lpropose dactivi ­ tiesan dregiona ldevelopmen t funds (APBD)ma ynee dt ob eallocate d inaddition .Curren tgovernmen tprocedure sd ono tallo wfo ra tria lan d errorprocess . Theplannin gprocedur efo rproject so nJav aimplie stha t fundsca nonl yb eallocate dfo ron eyea ran dtha tgovernmen tmone yha s tob espen twithi na perio do fapproximatel ythre emonths .Thi ssuggest s thatafte rth efirst yea ractivitie sshoul dbecom efinanciall y independent ofth egovernmen t which wouldentai lal lnecessar yinvestment sbein g madei nth efirst year ,direc tbenefit splanne dand/o ra saving sprogramm e startedt ocontinu eactivitie si nth ecomin gyears .NGOs ,possessin gthei r ownresources ,ma yhel pt oimplemen tprojec t activities. Thelimite d capacity andmotivatio n offiel d staff should betake nint o accountwhe ndesignin goperationa lprogrammes . Anextensio nworke r cannot be expected to provide intensive group support and technical assistancei na remot evillag e withouttransportatio n facilities ando n a lowsalary .I nsuc hcase sloca lleader slik ea schoolteacher ,o r informal leaders of ahamle t should beinvolve d in programme implementation too.Th emotivatio n of field staff towards working with thepoores ti n remotearea swil lno tchang eovernigh tb yinvolvin gthe mi ntria lcase s onvillag edevelopmen tplanning .However ,thei reye sma yb eopene dt o adifferen t approachtha tshow sbette rresults .Programme stha twor kan d display direct effects areth ebes tincentive ,no tonl yfo r land usersbu t alsofo rextensio n workerst oparticipate . Programmemonitorin gi sals oplanne da tthi sstage .Eac hdetaile ddesig n form provides the basis for participatory monitoring and evaluation becausedurin gth edesig nth eexpecte dresult san dth eassumption sar e formulated (table6.4) .Additiona lmonitorin gform sca nb edeveloped . Appendix4 give sexample so fmonitorin gforms . Thefina lprogramm ei sdiscusse dwit hvillag eofficial s whosen di tt oth e UDKPfo rapprova lan dbudge tallocation .A sdecentralize d sub-district funds arelimited , allfou rvillag edevelopmen tprogramme s aresen tt o BAPPEDAt ob eallocate d (additional)regiona l andnationa l funds.

155 6.4 Trial case in the village of Sumberejo II:a n illustration

In this section an analysis of the key issues in the trial case village of SumberejoI Ii spresente di nwhic hdifferen t resultsfro m datacollectio n areused .Th eanalysi so feac hissu ei sfollowe d byprogramm eproposal s toillustrat e the link between analysis and design. 6.4.1 Introduction to the villageof Sumberejo II

Thevillag ei slocate do nth eslope so fMoun tSemer ua ta naltitud erangin g from70 0t o110 0mete ra.s.l .an dwit ha naverag eannua lrainfal lo f208 9m m per year. The village consists of five hamlets; Sumberejo (740 people), Jajang (1106people) ,Wonokert o(90 0people) ,Ara n Aran (1900)peopl e andDew o (700people) .A villag ema pi spresente d infigure 6.12 .

.. ..j.—;^/.. /

) ..•••••'• i »-V \ -v, i t— v V '/ y \ • // /

\ >0 s Boundariesvillag e /

.^.. x' DirtRoa d FootPat h Hamlet

Figure6.12 :Village map of Sumberejo II village

156 AranAra ni sth ecentr eo fth evillag eadministration .Transportatio nan d communicationi sdifficul t asfou ro fth ehamlet sar econnecte db ya dir t roadonly ,whic hi sinaccessibl ei nth erain yseaso nan dhamle tDew oi s onlyaccessibl eb yfoo tvi aa stee ppat ho rb yroa dvi ath eneighbourin g village(va nde nHoe ke tal. ,1990) . Themajo r terrainunit san dlan dus epattern sar edepicte di nth ecross - section of the village (Fig 6.7 presents an illustration of this cross- section).Soil sar esand yt oloam yan dbecaus eo fth ehig herosio nrate s onth estee pslopes ,mos to fth eloam yto psoil shav ebee nwashe daway . Land use is dominated by acroppin g pattern of maize-cassava in the lowerpar to fth evillag e(Ara nAran ,Dewo ,Sumberejo ) andsuga rcan e andmaize-cassav acultivatio n inth ehighe rpart s(Jajang ,Wonokerto) . Bothcroppin gpattern ssho wlo wproductivity . Recentlyappl eorchard s withgoo dprospect shav ebee nplanted .Mos tcoffe e gardensar elocate d aroundDewo ,bu towne db yfarmer so fAran-Aran .Th eeaster npar to fth e villageborder sfores tland ,bu tn oseriou sconflict sove rfores tmanagemen t occurbetwee nth evillager san dth eStat eFores tCorporatio n(SFC) . Landi sunequall ydivided .Man yo fth evillager sar esmal lfarmer s(38 % ofth ehousehold sow nles stha n0. 5h ao f land).Th ehousehol d survey revealstha tdespit eth ehig hpercentag eo f smallfarmer s anaverag eo f 1.5hai sowne dpe rhousehold .Sinc eproductivit yo fth elan di slow ,thes e smallfarmer s havet owor ka slan dlabourer so rfin d additionalincom e from off-farm employmentactivities .Th eactivit yprofil e indicatestha t menar emainl yinvolve di nfar mlabour ,a scarpenter san dtraders ,whil e besidesfar m labour women alsoderiv ea nincom efro m mat-weaving, tradeo rdomesti c servicei n thecities .Incom efro m off-farm employ­ menti slow : forme na naverag eo fR p30,00 0pe rmont han dfo rwome n Rp20,00 0pe rmonth . Livestocki sals ounequall ydivide damon gth ehouseholds .Household s owno naverag eon eco wan dtw oan da hal f goats,althoug hi nrealit ya few rich farmers ownlarg enumbers ,whil esmal lan dlandles s farmers manageth elivestoc ko fth eric hi nth efor mo fshar emanagemen t(bagi hasil). Half thetota lnumbe ro fgoat sar emanage di nthi sway . Fuelwoo dconsumptio ni so naverag e3. 5shoulder-load s(pikuls) pe rwee k perhousehold .Fuelwoo di scollecte do nth edr yarabl efields ,th ecoffe e gardensan di nth e forest. Access to drinking water sources isdifficult . Villagers in Sumberejo, Dewoan dWonokert ohamlet s havet owal k200-30 0meter sint ostee p rivervalley s towas h andcollec t water.Consequentl yprimar y school­ teachers dono t want toliv ei n those hamlets andvillag e nurseriesar e

157 difficult toestablish .Appl ecultivator shav eha dt oconstruc twate rpipe s tochanne l waterfro m sourceso nth emountain st othei rorchards . Theleve lo feducatio ni slow ;70 %o fth ehead so fhousehold shav eno t completed primary schooleducation .Ther e areprimar y schoolsi nth e hamlets,bu tonl y 12,5%o fth estudent swh ofinis hprimar yschoo lals o finishth eS M P(firs tthre eyear so fhig hschool) .Lon gdistance st oschoo l on poorroads , lack of money for school fees and the need for labour discourageparent sfro m sendingthei rchildre nt oschool . The village administration is poorly organized and does not function well.Reason sfo rthi sinclude : poorcommunicatio n within thevillage ; oldvillag eofficial s whosho wn oenthusias mfo rinitiatin gdevelopmen t activities;lac ko ftrus ti nofficial s byth evillagers ,becaus eo fa numbe r of bad experiences with the spending of government funds (INPRES villagesubsidies),an dunclea radministration .Official s themselveseve n suggested splittingu pth evillag ei ntwo . 6.4.2 Analysisand programme proposals for eachkey issue Theplannin gtea mformulate d thefollowin g sixissue sa ske yproblem s inth evillage : 1 Largedifference s inlandownershi p amongth ehouseholds . 2 Lowproductivit y ofth edr yarabl eland . 3 Higherosio nrate so ndr yarabl eland . 4 Difficult transportationan dcommunicatio namon gth ehamlets . 5 Limited availabilityo fdrinkin gwate rsources . 6 Poorvillag eorganizatio n and administration. The analysis of the first three issues and ideas for programmes are illustratedi nth efollowin gparagraphs . Keyissue 1:Large differences inlandownership among households Twomajo r landmanagemen t strategiesca nb edistinguished : Forth eappl eorchards ;poo rfanner sow nth eland ,whil eth eric h renti tan dcultivat ei ta sinvestors . For food crops; therich farmer s own the land, while thepoo r farmers cultivatei ta slan dlabourers . Poorfarmer sar eeasil ypersuade dt ole tou tthei rlan dt oinvestor sa sth e presentproductivit yo fthei rstee plan di slo w(R p150,000/yr )an dthe y areattracte db yth elarg elum psum .Thi smone yma yb euse dt obu ylan d and livestock, but more often it is used for conspicuous consumption purposes likerestorin g thehouse ,buyin ga radi oo rmotorcycle . Estate agentscajol ethe mt ole tou tthei rland .I nth ehamlet sSumberejo ,Jajan g

158 andWonokert olarg earea shav ebee nrente db yric hfarmer san dChines e investorsfo ra perio do f1 0year sfo rR p1. 5millio nonly .Afte rthi sperio d yields will be shared between the investor and land owner. However arrangementsdiffe r for eachhamle tan dar eunclear .Experience s from theappl eare a in Batu (anearb yvillag e ina simila r zone) showedtha t manyfarmers , bylettin gou tthei rlan do racceptin g severalloan s from investors,en du pbecomin glan dlabourer so nwha tuse dt ob ethei row n land. On the other hand, the introduction of apple orchards also brings a numbero f advantages tofarmers . Applecultivatio n requires intensive management andthu screate semploymen topportunities .Whil ewage s forlan dlabourer suse dt ob ea mer eR p300-50 0a day ,Chines einvestor s payR p 1000-1500pe rday ,whic hha sresulte d ina genera lincreas eo f wagesfo rlan dlabourer si nth evillage . Moreover,appl ecultivatio ni sa veryrisky busines srequirin glarg einvestment s: i ttake s1 0year st oreac h break-eve npoin tbetwee ninput san doutputs .Mos tfarmer si nth evillag e areno tye tread y tomak e suchmajo r investments.B ylettin g outthei r land andworkin g aslaboure rthe year n asmal l butsaf e income,whil e theirlan di sperfectl y terracedan dfertilizer s andmanur ear eapplied . In themeantim eth efarmer ,i nhi srol ea sa labourer ,learn sth emanagemen t techniques. Those farmers who feel unable to continue with apple cultivation after the contract ends plan to plant coffee on this well- terraced land. Aresul to funequa llandownershi pi sth elarg enumbe ro fpeopl einvolve d inoff-far m employmentactivitie s(tabl e6.6) .However ,thei rwage sar e low.I nhamle t Wonokertoparticularl y thenumbe ro fme nworkin g as carpentersfo ra ver ylo wincom e(R p1100/day )i sstrikingl yhigh .Base d on aninventor y of their inputs and outputs, as illustrated in the flow diagrami n figure 6.11,th efollowin g conclusionsca nb edrawn : 1) the quality and therefore the prices of the products are low, because the qualityo fwoo di sinferio r andth etechnolog ycrud e(product sconsis to f simplebed san dtable sonly )an d2 )inefficien t modeso foperatio nexist ; eachcarpente rwork so nhi sown ,buy shi sow nwoo dan dtake shi sow n products toth emarke t (betweeneigh t and 18 kmaway) .Th e off-farm employmenttabl eals oillustrate sth emat-weavin gactivitie si nhamlet s AranAra nan dDewo .Averag eproductio no fa weave ri slo wa ttw omat s perweek ,bringin gi na nincom eo fonl yR p4,50 0pe rmonth .

159 Table6. 6 Off-farm employmentactivitie si nSumberej oI Ivillag e

NO OFF-FARM SUMBEREJO JAJANG WONO ARRAN- DEWO EMPLOYMENT KERTO ARRAN

M F M F M F M F M F

1 Sugarproducer s 2 1 2 - 2 Landlaboure r 60 60 41 30 3 17 15 35 35 35 3 Healer 2 2 4 - 2 8 1 4 Housemai d 10 43 5 15 25 32 10 - 5 Brickmake r 2 - 2 1 - 8 - 6 Repairsho p - - 3 - - 7 - 7 Carpenter 4 - 3 100 - 8 - 8 Small shop - 4 5 4 5 6 - 9 Trader 2 - 2 8 - 4 - 10 Restaurant - 7 4 - - 5 3 11 Matweave r - 10 - - - 7 15 60

Total 52 127 58 50 141 56 55 73 35 99

M: MALE F: FEMALE

Aproposa l for aprogramm e thathelp s to solve thefirst issu e aimst o distribute economic benefits moreequitabl y in thevillag e through the following activities: arrangements for land renting and share-cropping of apple or­ chardst oguarante ebenefit sfo rth elan downers ,wit hhel pfro m thevillag eadministration ; a livestockdevelopmen tprogramm efo r thesmal lan dlandles s farmers; increasingth eproductivit yo fcarpenter si nhamle tWonokerto ;

160 increasingth eproductivit yo fwome ni nmat-weavin gi nhamle t Dewo

Thelatte rtw oactivitie swil lb erealize dthroug hth edevelopmen to floca l organizations,ne wskill san dproduct san dcooperativ eproductio nan d marketing. Keyissue 2: Low productivity of dry arable fields Thelan dus ema pillustrate sth elan dus epatter nan dit slegen dprovide s amongothe rthing sinformatio n onth ecroppin gpatterns ,us eo ffertil ­ izers,yield san dlan downershi pstatu s(private ,villag eo rnationa lland) . Althoughthi sare ashow shig hpotential sfo rfruit , coffee andvegetabl e cultivation,maiz ean dcassav aar estil lth edominan tcrops .Productivit y islow ;1. 2ton/ha/yea rfo rmaiz ean d6 ton/ha/yea rfo rcassava ,an dthes e cropsar egrow nfo rsubsistenc eus eonly .Th emajo rreaso nfo rthi slo w productivity is the unsuitability of these crops for this altitude. The croppingcalenda r showstha to nthi selevatio n maize needsa growin g periodo f four months.I nadditio n poorsowin gtechnique s andlac ko f access to fertilizers and seedlings (the market is seven km away) contributet olo wproductivity .Moreover ,du et ohig hdemand , farmers sellthei rmanur et ocultivator so fappl eorchards ,instea do fusin gi to n their own land. Coffee production is also far from optimal. Coffee seedlings are difficult to obtain and often species for low altitudes (Robustacoffee ) areplante di nthi sare ao fhig helevation .Th eaverag e productivity of sugarcan ei sbelo waverag e(4 0ton/ha) .Suga rcan ei s grownfo r aperio do f threeyears ,afte r whichi t needst ob ereplanted . Thereforelan dplante dt osuga rcan ei srente dfo ra perio do fthre eyear s only, during which no land management measures are taken by the tenant. Another reason for the low productivity is the lack of extension and trainingbecaus eth eextensio n worker (PPL)doe sno tvisi t thevillage . Theare ai sisolated ,th eleve lo feducatio no ffarmer si slo wan dfarme r groupsd o not function. Farmers see noalternativ e or dono t haveth e inputst oalte rthei rcroppin gpattern .Th ePPL' stim ean dtherefor e his capacity for extension islimite d because heha st ocove rfou rvillages , two of which consist predominantly of irrigated fields. As irrigated agriculture still takespriority ,attentio n todrylan d agricultureremain s minimal,especiall y ininaccessibl eareas . A programme proposal for this second issue aims to increase the productivity of poor farmers through a programme which gradually shifts production from maize-cassava tocoffee . During thefirst thre e years coffee trees will be intercropped with maize. CoffeeArabica

161 seedlings will be locally produced. Forrich farmer s a programme is proposedtha t aimsa ta gradua l change from sugarcan eproductio n to appleproductio n intercropped withvegetable s (greenonions) . Keyissue 3: High erosion rates Severe erosion in the village is a result of the combination of the mountainous terrain, with loamy sand to sandy soils, and poor land managementwhic hitsel fi smainl ycause db ylan dtenur earrangements . Unequal landownership results in a situation where rich farmers own largearea so fland ,whic hthe ycanno tmanag eb ythemselves .The yle t the land to others or hire land labourers, who have no interest in sustainable land management, since their main concern is to make as muchmone ya spossibl ei nth eshortes ttim epossible .Consequentl yth e construction and maintenance of terraces and other soil conservation measuresar eneglected .B ycomparin ga lan derosio nma pwit hth elan d tenurema pth eimportanc eo fidentifyin g thelan duse ran dhi s(o rher ) land management strategy become clear. For example an old widow owns 30 ha of land in hamlet Wonokerto. This land is cultivated by tenantsan di sseverel yerode dwit h 150mete rdee pgullies . Alsovillag e officials letou tthei rpar to fth evillag elan d(tanah bengkok) fo ra perio d offiv eyears ,sinc ethei rhome sar efa raway ,roa dcondition sar epoo ran d they dono t havetim et ocultivat e it themselves.A tota lo f tenvillag e officials havea shar ei n23, 2h ao fthi serode dland .Thu sth esituatio n ariseswher evillag eofficial s themselves furnish thewors texampl eo f land management. The consequences of neglecting this land tenure situationi nsoi lconservatio nprogramme shav ebee ndemonstrate di nth e failure of 'regreeningprograms 'o nthi sland .

Theinventor yma pindicatin gth elocatio no fgovernmen tintervention s in thepas t showsth elarg e number of soilconservatio n programstha t havebee nimplemented .Result shav ebee ndisappointin gbecaus emea ­ sureswer eno tadopte db ylan duser sfo r thefollowin g reasons: interventionswer edemonstrate dt ofarmer swh odi dno thav eth e moneyand/o rtim et ofollo wth eexample .Consequently ,farmer s in the demonstration plot areas participated as long as they received subsidies, but stopped investing in land management whenth esubsidie sra nout .Th eimpac to fth eprogra mo nfarmer s outsidethi splo twa snon-existent ; subsidiesfo r terraceconstructio n werefa r toolo w (Rp 18,000/ ha):rea lcost swer eestimate da tR p300,000/hao naverage .Thu s terraces were badly constructed andeve n increased erosionb y forming gullies; erosion measuresshowe dpoo rtechnica ldesign ,a sn odrainag e wayswer econstructe d andth elimite d grasscutting stha twer e planted wereeate nb y bugs;

162 extension wasdelivere d tome nonly ,despit e theevidenc etha t women are involved in land management. For example in the poorerhousehold so fth ehamle to fWonokert owome ncultivat e the land, since their husbands work ascarpenter s (seeactivit y profile). Hence the impact of the 'extension message' was limited. Thefac t thati nth eare ahighl yproductiv e appleorchard sar e perfectly terracedan dmaize/cassav afield s areno tsupport sth epremis etha tsoi l conservationprogramme sshoul dalway sb elinke dt oproductio ninten ­ sificationprogrammes .However ,poo rfarmer sma yno tb eabl et omak e largeinvestment srequire dfo rintensiv eproductio nsystem simmediatel y andtherefor e subsidiesfo rproductio ninput san da phase dimplementa ­ tionma yb eneeded .Thu sfarmer sca nimplemen ton-sit esoi lconservatio n measuresaccordin gt othei row ncapacit yan dth eestimate dvalu eo fthei r land. Inth ethir dprogramm eproposal ,th efollowin gsoi lconservatio nproject s areplanned .Firstly ,lan dmanagemen tsuppor tt osmal lfarmer si nhamle t Dewo with a supply of high quality coffee seedlings; extension and training on intercropping of maize;an d coffee and soil conservation measures.Implementatio no fsoi lconservatio nmeasure swil lb ecarrie d out in stages through self-help activities. Secondly, extension and technicaladvic et oth ewido wi nSumberej ohamle tan dhe rforeme no n coffeeplantin gan dmanagemen tan dsoi lconservatio nactivities .Thirdly , arrangements for the management of 'tanah bengkok'. The planning teamsuggeste dtha ta genera lrul ei sneede dstatin gtha tonl yhal fth elan d canb ele tou tfo ra maximu mo ftw oyears ,whil eth eothe rhal fha st ob e managed byth evillag eofficial s themselves,t o set agoo dexampl eo f landmanagemen tt ovillagers .Afte rthes egenera lprogramm eproposals , whichar elocalize di nth econceptua lplan ,detaile danalysi san ddesign s aremad efo r eachpropose dproject . Thefina lresult so fth e Sumberejo village development programme are illustrated in table 6.5. For this programmen osub-distric tdevelopmen tfund swer eavailabl ean dfund s had tob eallocate d from theregiona l andnationa ldevelopmen t funds. Thismean stha ti fthes epropose dproject sar eaccepted ,i twil lb ea tleas t one and a half years before implementation can start. Other projects proposed are to be financed by INPRES village subsidies and by an anticipated newDutch-sponsore dprojec t (knowna sLesmas) .

163 6.5 Preliminary resultsfro mth eplanne d programmes Experiencewit hactua limplementatio no fth epropose dvillag edevelop ­ mentprogramme s hasbee nlimited .Th elas ttw otria lcase stoo kplac e inth efina l yearo fth eKal iKont oProjec t andoutsid eth eProjec tArea , so time and budgets to support implementation were very limited. However, Indonesian government agencies wanted to spend someo f their (already available) budgets on the implementation of proposed activities.I nth efollowin gsectio ntw oexample sar egive no fpreliminar y results andproblem stha t arose when theexistin g governmentorgani ­ zationsstarte d implementinglocall yplanne dinterventions . 6.5.1 SocialForestry Project in SumberejoI village SumberejoI villag ei sdivide db yfores t landint otw opart s(figur e6.8) . Reforestation efforts byth eSF Ct oestablis htea kan dmahogan yplanta ­ tionshav efaile drepeatedl ybecaus eo fth eintensiv eexploitatio no fth e forestlan db yth evillager si ncollectin gthei rdail yfue lwoo dan dgrazin g theircattle . Therefore, asocia lforestr y projectwa spropose dt oinvolv e the villagers in sustainable forest management. In this project local people were to be organized as farmer groups, mainly involving the landlessfarmer slivin go nfores tlan d(Magersari). A tth ereques to fth e people,coffe etree swer epropose dt ob einterplante dwit hParaserianthes falcataria,a goo dshad ean dtimbe rtree .Contract swer epropose dfo ra periodo f8-1 0year san da divisio no frevenue splanned ,i nwhic htimbe r and50 %o f thecoffe e yieldswoul d accruet oth eSFC ,whil eth eothe r 50%o fth ecoffe e yieldswer et og ot oth efarme r groupsinvolved .Th e introduction of acu t andcarr y system waspar to f thepla n tokee pth e cattlei nstable san dproduc efodde ri nth efores t andhomeyards .Als oa stableconstructio n andextensio nprogramm eo nanima lhusbandr ywa s proposedt osuppor tthi sne wsystem . However,implementatio no fth eprojec twa sconfronte d withsom eseriou s problems,du et oth eplannin gan dimplementatio nprocedure so fSF Ca swel l ast osom etechnica lconstraints .As ,i nth eSFC' ste nyea rplan ,th econcerne d siteha dbee nplanne dfo rreforestatio n withtimbe rspecie sdurin gth enex t year,th epossibilit ywa sdiscusse dwit hth eregiona lhea do fth eSF C(ADM ) to change the original plans into this new proposal. Therefore a special project statement was made by the ADM, which was accepted by the regional planningoffic e of the SFC.However , theorigina lpla n wasno t rejected anda confuse d situationaros ei nwhic hbot hplan swer e officially valid.Tw ofactor smad eimplementatio no fth epla neve nmor ecomplicated . Firstly,a governmen tstatemen tmad eclea rtha texpansio no fth ecoffe eare a onfores tlan dwa sn olonge rallowed .Secondly ,th e(Madurese )participant s ofthi spropose dsocia lforestr yprojec talread ystarte dpreparin gth efores t land onthei row ninitiative .A sa resul tstee pbar eslope swer evisibl efro m themai nroa dembarrassin gth e SFC.

164 Also the technical design, which differed from standard reforestation plans,wa sdifficul t toaccept . Theregiona loffic eo fth eSF Cha dtroubl e withth ewid eplantin gdistanc eo fth etimbe rspecies ,makin gi tmor elik e acoffe e gardentha na forest .However ,th eplanner s(includin gth efores t guard) wereconvince d that given thelocatio n of thereforestatio n site (squeezed in between thetw opart so f thevillage ) andth epoo rsocio ­ economic condition of the villagers, especially those living in the Magersarihamlets ,a pur eproductio nfores twoul db eunrealistic .I nth e end a compromise was accepted in the form of a different planting system,wit hmor etimbe r andles s coffee. Despitethes eproblems ,implementatio n startedalmos ta yea rafte r the planningexercise .Thos ewh oha dalread yoccupie da plo to nthei row n initiativeha dt oresubmi tthes eplots ,t ob eredistribute d accordingt oa lottery system. Shortage of planting material for hedgerows was the reasonfo ranothe rchang ei nth eplantin gsystem ,whil eth epoo rqualit y of timber seedlings resulted in low survival rates. Also the SFC was reluctantt oincu ran yexpenditure so nth epurchas eo fcoffe e seedlings fromth eloca lvillag enurser yan dpostpone dth edecisio no nth epurchas e of seedlingsfro m coffee plantations. Fromthi spreliminar yexperienc ei tbecam eapparen tthat ,althoug hth e forestguar dha dparticipate di nth eplannin gteam ,th esocia lforestr ypla n was not acceptable to the SFC. Strict planning procedures and ane w design,no ti nlin ewit ha nearlie rplanne dstandar dprogramme ,mad ethi s SocialForestr ypla n difficult todigest . Consequently,compromise si n design and implementation had to be made. Hence, the design of interventionsha dt ob eadjuste d toth ecompetenc eo fth eimplementin g government organization. 6.5.2 Soilconservation andproduction intensificationproject in Sumberbening village One of the results of the village development programme for Sumberbeningvillag ewa sth edesig no fa soi lconservatio nan dproductio n intensification project.Th esit eha di nfac t beenselecte db yth eBRLK T beforehando nwhic ht oestablis ha soi lconservatio ndemonstratio nplot . The planning team elected to take care of the detailed participatory designo fsuc ha soi lconservatio nproject .Togethe rwit hth elan dusers , theplannin gtea mattempte dt opla nintervention stha twoul db eadjuste d to local needs, constraints and opportunities. The basic idea was to increaseth evalu eo fth elan dthroug hincrease dproductivit yan dhenc e motivatefarmer st oinves ti nthei rlan dmanagement . Belowth eprojec t design is described, followed by a description of some preliminary resultso f implementation.

165 Design Thedesig nha sbee nbase do na detaile dterrai nsurvey ,a ninventor yo f the socioeconomic status of the participants and discussions of their needs,capacitie s andpossibl e technical interventions. Sketcheso f al­ ternative solutionswer euse ddurin gthes ediscussions . Theresul twer e two alternative designs; one for those farmers interested in extensive cultivationan don efo rsubsistenc efarmer swh odepen do nthei rlan dfo r foodproduction .Th efirs tdesig ninclude dth eplantin go fParaserianthes falcatariaan dth esowin go fgroun dcover s(Jephrosia an dCentrosema), whereasth esecon dwa sa nagroforestr y design,intercroppin gth ehig h yieldingmaiz evariet yArjuno wit hfrui ttrees ,whil eth eriser so fterrace s wouldb eplante dwit hgrasse san dlegume s(Flemingia sp.). Fodde rhedge s were designed tosurroun d theplot s and some small soil conservation measures were planned. An illustration of the design is presented in figure 6.10. It was furthermore decided that the government would supply the production inputs (seeds, fertilizers, cuttings, seedlings), whileth efarmer swer eresponsibl efo rimprovin gthei rterrace san dothe r soilconservatio nmeasures . Inadditio nth efarmer splanne dt oorganiz e themselves into a farmers' group and decided to start some saving activities. The extension worker from the BRLKT was assigned to provide intensive support in land use management to the farmers' organization andon-sit etrainin gan dfield excursion swer eplanned .

Results Atth een do fth efirs tyea ro fsupport ,th eplo texhibite dth espectacula r resulto fa 127%increas ei nmaiz eyields ,whil eth eplantatio no f (fruit) treesshowe da naverag esurviva lrat eo f80% . Alsoth ehedge san dth e Paraserianthes trees were doing well. Ground covers and Flemingia howeverlargel y failed due totechnica l problems.Farmer sha dstarte d levelling terracesi nphase saccordin gt othei row ncapacity .Th edrop - structureswer ealread yfille d with sediment atth een do f theyear . Atota lbudge to fR p1 3millio nwa sspen tdurin gth efirs tyea rfo ra nare a ofapproximatel y 11 ha.Th eamoun twa sallocate daccordin gt ostandar d procedures which meant that arelativel y high sumwa s spent oncon ­ structing a workshed, on field allowances for government staff from districtoffice san do norganizin ga trainin gcours efo ra tota lo f6 0peopl e from three different villages. Rather than the local extension worker taking responsibility, staff of government agencies at district level deliveredstandar dtrainin gpackage so nsoi lconservation ,agroforestry , beekeeping ,fodde r productionfruit, tre eproductio nan dvillag edevel ­ opment, whilst an NGO gave training in 'group dynamics'. Besides beingquit ecostl yi nterm so fallowances ,th eusefulnes so fsuc htrainin g is doubtful.

166 Inlin ewit hstandar dprocedures ,th etota lbudge tha dt ob edisburse di n thefirst yea ro fimplementatio nan dconsequentl ydurin gth esecon dyea r allexterna lsuppor tstopped .Als oth eextensio nworke rn olonge rvisite d thefarmers . Monitoringdat agathere d byth egovernmen torganizatio n involved (BRLKT, 1991) showtha talthoug h thetree san d hedgesar e performing well, all the farmers had planted the local maize variety again.Onl yconjecture s weremad ea st oth ereason sfo r thishowever . According to the implementing government organization the farmers needgreate rguidanc ean dprolonge dfinancia l support (fora minimu m ofthre eyears )i norde rt ohel pthe mchang ethei rlan dus estrategies . On thesemargina l soilsth erisk s arestil lto ohig h toinves ti nhig hinputs , withoutsupportin g fertilizing activities.

Conclusions Evenmor etim eneed st ob espen to nth eidentificatio n of thelan d use strategies of farmers. Was their interest in the Arjuno maize variety purely motivated by ideas of grabbing what they could while the subsidieslaste dan ddoin ga sthe ylike dafterwards ?Participatio no fpoo r Javanesefarmer si nplannin gi sextremel ydifficult , asthe yar eno tuse d tospeakin gou tan draisin gidea si nfron t of government officials. Therelationshi p betweenextensio nan da governmen tprojec t hasonc e again become clear in this case. Extension workers see their role as implementors of thephysica l measures aspar to f the standard project. Whenth eprojec t stopsthe ystop , asthe ywil lgai nn omor ecredi t from theirsuperior sfo r thework .

Thisexperienc eshow sth eimportanc eo fa tria lan derro rprocess .Fiel d workersan dfarmer s shouldexperimen twit hon-far m practicesi norde r tofin dth emos toptima llan dus estrateg yfo rth efarmer sinvolved .Thi s requires the long-term commitment of the extension worker. It also requiressom eadditiona lfund sfo rexperiment san dreplantin gactivities . Theuni tchose nfo rplannin gpurpose sshoul db ea selectio no flan duser s whohav esimila rconstraint san dcapacities ,rathe rtha na physica lare a (plot)o fland .Thi swil lensur etha t thefarmers ' groupfunction s better and will guarantee that government support reaches thepoores t inth e villagesociety .

167 6.6 Lessonslearne dfro mimplementin g trialcase s Thefollowin glesson sca nb elearne do nth eimplementatio nan dresult s ofvillag edevelopmen t planning (vande nHoek , 1991): 1 It proved possible to implement a Rapid Village Appraisal, Planningan dProgrammin gmethod ,usin ga tea mo fvillager san d field staff. By planning at local level interventions can be devised.which are more easily adopted, as local planners are better ablet oadjus t thedesig n toth elan d use strategies ofth e different landuse rgroups . 2 Involvemento fvillager si nth eplannin gtea mappeare dvaluabl e in thedat acollection , analysisan dplannin g stage as:resourc e persons;organizer so fmeetings ;discussio npartners ;an di nfiel d surveysa sthe ykno wth earea ,th epeopl ean dth esocia lsystem . Their limited education and experience forced them to take a back-seatdurin gth edat aprocessing . 3 Itwa sno tonl yth evillager swh oprove dt ob ea nimportan tsourc e of indigenous knowledge.Fiel d workers alsohav e awealt ho f experiencegaine dfro mimplementin ggovernmen tdevelopmen t programmes.Thi swa stru eno tonl yfo rtechnica lissue sbu tals o for socio-political aspects such as local power structures and tenurial arrangements. The enthusiasm displayed by the field workerst ob einvolve da sprofessiona l andexperience dpartner s in development planning was substantial. This can partly be attributedt othei rsuppresse dfrustration s aftertryin gfo ryear st o implement government programmes which did not fit local conditionsan dneeds . 4 Thescop eo fintegrate dvillag edevelopmen tprogramme sca nb e restrictedt olan dmanagemen ttechnologies ;off-far memploymen t and supportivesocioeconomi c andphysica l infrastructure. 5 Theinclusio n of aprogrammin g stepi nth eplannin g approach madeth epla nmor epractica lan dconcret ean deasie rfo rdi eloca l government toaccept . 6 Becausevillager s and field staff form theplannin g team,wit h limitedexperienc ean dacces st one wtechnologies ,onl ysimpl e innovations can be expected. Also, research needs may be identified andshoul db ereporte dvi aBAPPED At oth eresearc h stations.

168 7 Cooperation among sectoral agencies is promoted when their field staff areinvolve di na loca lleve linterdisciplinar yplannin g team whichthe npropose sintegrate ddevelopmen tplans . 8 BAPPEDAan dth eloca lgovernmen tfel t thaton emajo r disad­ vantage of the planning approach was that government funds were tooconcentrate d in onevillag e and that health care and education wereno tincluded .However , thecomplexit y oflan d usemanagemen tproblem san dlimite dcapacit yo fth eplannin g team justify the focus on the issues mentioned above. Equal division of resources and benefits among the villages should occurove rth eyears ,wit hintegrate dan dwel lplanne ddevelop ­ mentprogrammes ,rathe rtha ndividin gfund s amongal lvillage s ina regio nb yimplementin gad-ho can dincidenta lproject swhic h areno tsustainable . 9 New technologies may be introduced through this villagede ­ velopmentplannin gwhe nresearc hstation so rsectora lagencie s establish better information channels to theregiona l extension centres(BPP )an dt oth eUDKP sa tsub-distric tlevel . 10 Usingexistin g planningprocedure s and involving government staffi nth eplannin ghelp st omak eth eplannin gstrateg yacceptabl e atth eloca lleve lan daccelerate sth eproces so finstitutionaliza ­ tion. 11 Although thequalit y of theplan s may beimproved , itsimple ­ mentation andresult sar estil l stronglyinfluence d byth eus eo f strict government proceduresfo r implementation. Theplanne d interventions had to be adjusted to the competence of the implementing organization. 12 Sinceonl ysmal lscal etria lprogramme sar eplanned ,a learnin g bydoin gproces si so f greatimportanc et omak eadjustment s to theprogramme ,base do nexperienc ean dne winsights .However , theus eo fpresen tbudge tprocedure san dth etas kperceptio no f theextensio n workersprohibit ssuc ha process .

169 7 EXPERIENCESWIT HOTHE RLAN D USE PLANNING STRATEGIES ON JAVA;TH EJAVASOCIALFORESTR Y PROGRAMME

Oneprogramm etha tprovide ssom eextremel yvaluabl elesson sfo rth e development of this planning strategy is the Java Social Forestry Programme,a collaboratio nbetwee nth eStat eFores tCorporatio n(SFC ) andth eFor dFoundatio ni nIndonesia .Recentl ymuc hliteratur econcern ­ ingthi sprogramm eha sbee npublished ,o fwhic hth eboo k 'Keeperso f theForest ' byMar kPoffenberge r (ed., 1990)an da narticl eb yFrance s Seymour; 'SocialForestr yo nPubli cLand si nIndonesia :A blurrin go f Ends and Means' (1991) form the basic sources for the following discussion. In this section, constraints in implementing this Social Forestry programme are described. These constraints will serve as lessons learned for implementing the planning strategy on Java, as describedi nchapte r8 .

7.1 TheJav aSocia l ForestryProgramm e The programme started in 1984, in response to growing conflicts betweenvillager san dforester sove rfores tmanagement ,resultin gi nth e rapiddegradatio no ffores tresources .Stone yan dBratamihardj a (1990) estimate that 30% of forest land on Java is degraded or marginally productive.Pressur eo nfores t resourcesi sa combinatio no fo nth eon e hand thepolic y of the SFC,focuse d onprofitabl e management of the forestland ,i norde rt oproduc eforeig nexchang ean dprovid efo rit sow n operational budget.and on the other hand a growing number of rural people seeking access to forest products and land for subsistence. According to Peluso et al. (1990) the conflicts between villagers and foresters over the management and access to forest resources can be attributedt othre efactors : long-standing disputes betweenfores tvillager san dstat eforest ­ ersove rfores t landsan dtre etenure ;

171 ahistor yo fbureaucrati cmisbehaviou ramon gman yfiel d forest­ ers, including corruption,exploitatio n andinvolvemen t intea k theft; the failure of the highly centralized SFC to adapt its forest management policies todivers e ecological and socioeconomic circumstances. TheJav a Social Forestry Programmerealize d that such deeply rooted conflicts couldonl yb esolve dthroug hstructura lchange si nth eattitud e and organization of the forest administration. While social forestry projects developedi n thepas t werestil lconsidere d trialcase s without influencing traditional state forest management, this Social Forestry Programmeacknowledge dtha tth eSF Cwoul dhav et orelinquis hsom e ofth econtro lthe yhav etraditionall yclaime dove rJava' sfores tresource s (Peluso,1990) .I taim sa tsolvin gconflict sb yimprovin gcommunicatio n betweenth efores tuser san dadministrator sthroug hth edevelopmen to f amor e'social 'approac ht ofores tadministration .'Social 'i nthi scontex t meansinvolvin g localpeopl ei nmanagemen tdecision s and allocating benefitsb ytransferrin gloca lmanagemen tresponsibilitie st ocommunit y groups. It requires decentralization processes in combination with a transformation inattitud eo fSF Cstaf f tothei rrol e'fro m beingresourc e managerst ohelpin gcommunitie sdevelo presourc emanagemen tcapa ­ bilities' (Poffenberger 1990). The content of the programme can be summarized in the following points: SFC personnel cooperate with forest villagers to manage the forest; degraded forest landsar egive npriorit yi nsit eselection ; structural changes in access controls are made to give people longerright so ftenur eo nreforestatio nland san dgreate rinvolve ­ ment inselectin g alternativecro pspecies ,t owhic h theywoul d havefirme rrights ; at communitylevel ,fores tfarme rorganization sar et ob eforme d togiv efarmer sa greate rsens eo fcollectiv epowe ran dresponsi ­ bilityan d acommo n direction; forest rangers have toexchang e their police roles for thoseo f communityorganizer s andassistants ; communityorganizer s(COs )outsid eth eSF C(fro ma NGO )ar e enlistedi nadditio nt osom efores tranger sfo rtrainin gi ncommu ­ nityorganization ; coordination of these COs is realized by externally recruited provincial socialforestr y coordinators; forest managementplan sar et ob edevelope d byFores tFarme r Groups,wit hth eai do fsemi-structure dinterviews ,aerial-photo s and sketchmaps .

172 Theprogramm e wascarefull y planned using what Korten and Uphoff (1981) recommend as a 'centrally guided bottom-up process'. With political commitments from highly placed officials, funding and re­ search wereplanne dfro mth eto pt osustai n'bottom-up 'activitie si nth e field. A working group has been formed at top level, as a political coalition able to lobby effectively for decentralization. This working groupi s linkedt ofiel d levelactio nresearc h programmes andthu sca n channel information from the 'bottom' into the heart of conservative centralized agencies (Poffenberger, 1990). Thus, working groups are supposed tobrin g sensitiveissue s intoth eope n andremov eorganiza ­ tionaltaboo so nthei rdiscussion . Theprogramm eha sbee nimplemente di nth efor mo fa learnin gproces s of three phases (Poffenberger, 1990). In the first phase diagnostic researchwa scarrie dou to nth eissue sbehin dth emai nconflict sbetwee n forest user and the SFC. In the second phase pilot projects were implemented, in which the new methods for project planning and implementation were tried out. In this phase attempts were made to integratean dadjus t newprocedure st oth epresen tstructure ,operation s andresource so fth eSFC . Expansiono fth eprogramm et oimplementa ­ tiona ta nationa lscal eleve lha stake nplac ei nth ethir dan dcurren tphase .

7.2 Someconstraint si nth eJav aSocia lForestr yProgramme ;a n evaluation Despiteth efac ttha tthi sprogramm ewa scarefull y plannedb ya profes ­ sional and experienced group of people and implemented by well- managed organizations of both the SFC and Ford Foundation, some major constraints appeared during the expansion phase. These con­ straintswer erelate dto : incongruence inobjectives ; limited impacto ndevelopmen to fth epoorest ; noinvolvemen to fwomen ; strongtop-dow n structured organization; toorapi d expansion; limitedinvolvemen t fromNGOs . Thesear ediscusse d below. Incongruence in objectives Theprogramm eobjective sa sperceive d byth eFoundatio nan dth eSF C appeart odiverge .Fo rth eSF Cth eprimar yobjectiv eo fsocia lforestr yi s to reforest degraded lands. Production is their main objective, while increasingcommunit y welfare andparticipatio n aresee na stechnique s to beuse d to achieve these objectives. Given its mandate to produce

173 foreignexchang ean dt oprovid efo rit sow nbudgets ,i tprove dunrealisti c toexpec tanythin gothe rtha nthes eobjectives .A sa consequenc eo fthei r focuso nsuccessfu l plantingo ffores t species,th eSF Cpai d noattentio n to participatory management systems. As long as production-related indicatorsremaine dfavorable ,SF Cofficial swer eno talarme db yreport s ofpoo rperformanc e withregar dt ofarmers ' involvement,poo rperfor ­ manceo fth ehorticultura l specieso fth eagroforestr y systemsan dlac k ofprogres stoward sgreate requit yan dparticipation .Fo rth eFoundatio n theemphasi swa sreversed :'increasin gth eproductivit y offores tlands , while desirable as an end in itself, was viewed instrumentally as a strategyt orais eincome so fth erura lpoor ' (Seymour, 1991).Thi slatte r objective wasstrongl yreflecte d inth eprogramm edesign . As aresul t of these different objectives, the programme hasno t been implemented according toit sdesign .Neithe rfarme r groupsno rjoint - management contracts have functioned as envisaged by programme designers.Instea dth erol eo fcontract sha sbee nt oreassur eth eSF Ctha t expanding and extending farmer's access rights would not lead to unwelcome claims toownershi p of thelan d or thetrees .Thi s mayb e explained by the view of most forest managers who according to Nibbering(1988) :'fea rthe ymigh tlos econtro love rth emanagemen to f forest resources, because once local people are involved for longer periods,th elatte rhavin gbecom eto orelian to nfores t landma yeventu ­ ally lay claim to it'. They believe that nomatte r how much the forest authoritycede st oth epopulation ,th elatte rar egoin gt odeman dmore ,a s theirnumber sgrow ,thei rlivestoc kcontinu et omultipl yan dthei rneed s increase (Nibbering, 1988)

Besidesfocusin go nth eobjectiv eo fproductio nth eSF C usedth esocia l forestryprogramm et oserv eothe ragenc ygoals ,suc ha sconsolidatio no f territorial control, in which Social Forestry is used to 'resolve' land disputesinvolvin gconflictin g ownershipclaims .O nth eothe rhan dth e SFC has been reluctant to open social forestry sites in the immediate vicinityo fresettlemen tarea ssurroundin ga controversia l multipurpose reservoiri nCentra lJava ,fo rfea ro flosin gjurisdictio nove rthos earea s aswel l (Seymour, 1991). Limitedimpact on development of the poorest TheSocia lForestr y Programme's potentialimpac to npovert y allevia­ tion has been compromised by the poor performance of horticultural species,th eswitc ht oshort-rotatio nspecie stha tshad eou tth ecrop safte r thefirs tyear ,th econcentratio no fexpansio ni nbetter-of f wetlandarea s and thefailur e togiv eth epoores t householdspriorit y in participation. Becauseacces st oth efores twa sbecomin ga mor evaluabl ecommodit y (with longer contracts and more valuable crops), rich farmers also

174 becameintereste di nparticipatin gan duse dthei rpowe ro rrelation swit h thefores tguar dt oge tacces st oth ebette rplots .Moreover ,man ylandles s families lackedth eresource st oinves ti ntre ecrop stha twoul dgenerat e incomeonl yafte rfou rt oseve nyear san dthe yha dt osel ltre etenur ean d rights of programme participation to richer farmers (Peluso and Poffenberger, 1989). Thesepractice shav ebee naccepte db yth e forest guards,a sthe yprefe rt owor kwit hth emor eadvance dfarmers ,wh oar e likelyt osho w betterproductio nresults . Noinvolvement of women TheSF Ci sa nextremel ymal eoriente dorganizatio nan di nth eprogramme , women were systematically excluded from participation. However, women often spend more time in the forest than men and are more dependento nit sproducts .Thei rexclusio nfro mth eprogramm ejeopar ­ dizesth eattainmen to f sustainablefores t use. Strong, top-downstructured organization Althoughi nth efirs tinstanc ea wel lorganize dSF Cwit hit sow nbudget s anda goo dcommunicatio n network seemeda tremendou sasset ,i tals o appears that such a strong hierarchical organization imposes some seriousconstraint so nth eimplementatio no fth eprogramme .Incorporat ­ ingth eprogramm eint oth eSF Cha sresulte di nformalize dsocia lforestr y policies and practices with limited flexibility. Oncethes e new 'social forestryrules ' weremade ,adjustment s toloca lsituation san dideas ,fo r instance on the applicability of new agroforestry technology, were almostimpossibl et omake .I nth eSocia lForestr yProgramme ,th e top- downoriente dapproac hprevaile da sn oseriou sdecentralizatio nprocesse s had beencarrie d out.Th emai n structural changeaccomplishe d wasi n thefor m ofpeople' s longerrigh to f tenurei nreforestatio n andgreate r involvement in selectingspecies . This traditional top-down oriented government machine also ensured thatne wtrend si nth egovernmen tpolicie sa tnationa lleve limmediatel y influenced thecharacte ro f theprogramme sa tloca llevel ,fo rexample : inrespons et oa Ministeria lmandat et oregree ncoasta l areaso f Java, since 1988th e SFCha sconcentrate d programme expan­ sion in thewetlan d areaso f Central Java and in the mangrove forests ofWes tJava ; whenth epopularit yo fGmelina arborea a sfas tgrowin gspecie s became known toth epolicymakers ,rapi d expansion in itsus e wasunavoidable . However,th etre eshade sou tfarmer scrop sa s early as the end of the first year and as such the objective of improving thewelfar e ofth epoo ri sneglected ; forcedplantin go fmaiz etoo kplac eo nreforestatio n sites,reflect ­ ingth emaiz ehybri dthrus twithi nth ene wagricultura lprogramme .

175 Too rapid expansion Inpursuit o f theshor tter m successo fth eprogramme ,i texpande d (too) rapidly, to which the SFC has sacrificed intensity of management and training in order tofocu s on short-term production results.A s aconse ­ quence: the addition of new sitesha soutpace d the training of personnel to staff them; the development of farmer groups has been arrested, and the abilityo fstaf f toprovid esufficien t supportfo rth efarme r groups is inadequate; thetrainin gbacklo gha sbee nreduce db ydrasticall ycuttin gbac k on the length and intensity of special courses, causing loss of quality; no guidelines were developed on site selection, the planning method,extensio ntechnique so rparticipator ymonitorin gactivi ­ ties; expansion has overburdened an already weak planning and monitoring capability, (a too rapid expansion occurred just as SFCofficial s attemptedt oincorporat ecommunit y appraisalan d sketch-mappingexercise s inth estandar doperatin gprocedures) ; thecollectio n ofreliable ,consisten t data on theprogramm e fell behind; qualitative data such asfarme r group activities tended tob e left blank; many inappropriate sites were selected.

Limited involvementfrom NGOs The fast expansion and the limited importance the SFC attributed to communitydevelopmen t andparticipatio n contributed toa reduce drol e of the NGOs in training and support. Inth etria lphas eNGO sfunctione d asconsultant so nth einitiativ eo fth e Ford Foundation. They did not have countervailing power and did not push the objectives of participation and equity. Like SFC officials, the NGO staff and the university research team involved have implicitly accepted the political choice to sacrifice community land claims for reforested land in the name of community welfare.

Onth ebasi so f theanalysi so fth epresen tplannin genvironmen ti nJav a (chapter 5),experience s with trialcase si nth efield , andliteratur e study onexperience swit hth eJav aSocia lForestr yProgramme ,th eapplicabil ­ ityo fth estrategi cmodel describe di nchapte r3 ca nb eteste dfo rplannin g sustainable land useprogramme s on Java. This isdescribe d in thenex t chapter.

176 8 THE STRATEGIC MODEL IN THE JAVANESECONTEX T

8.1 Introduction Thischapte rconsider swhethe rth e strategicmode lca nrealisticall y be appliedt oJava .Sectio n 8.2outline sth especifi c actiontha timplemen ­ tationo fth e 'developmentphase ' (phaseII )an dth e 'expansion phase' (phase III) entails in the Javanese context. Expected constraints to implementing theseaction sar ediscusse d insectio n 8.3.Thi s servest o clarify thefeasibilit y ofth estrategi cplannin gmode lfo raddressin gth e problemso fprogramm eplannin gan dmanagemen to nJav apreviousl y discussedi nchapter s5 ,6 an d7 . Atthi sstag ei tshoul db enote dtha tth eresearc happroac happlie dstarte d withfiel d research through trialcase s (chapter6) .Onl yafte r elaborate literature study was the strategic model developed and the phased approach of trial,developmen t and expansion outlined. Experiments withtria lcase si nth efiel dal lcom eunde rth e'tria lphase '(phas eI) ,wit h asye tn orelevan tfield experienc ei nimplementin gth edevelopmen tan d expansion phases. Therefore, possibilities for the application of the development andexpansio n phasesar eformulate d asa se to f expecta­ tions. These expectations are based on the analysis of the planning environment on Java (chapter 5), some preliminary results from trial cases (chapter 6) and lessons learned from the Java Social Forestry Programme(chapte r7) .Becaus eth eexperienc ewit hth eapplicatio no f the three phases of the strategic model differ, the analysis of the constraintst oimplementin geac ho fth ethre ephase si sno tbase do nth e same criteria . Nevertheless the analysis provides an insight into the feasibility of theapplicatio n ofa thre ephase d learningprocess .

177 8.2 Possibilities for the application of the strategic model on Java. 8.2.1 Thetrial phase (phase I) For the implementation of theplannin g strategy atloca lleve l onJav a current government procedures for rural development planning (see chapter5 )ar etake na sth estartin gpoint .Withi nthi sframewor k putting the strategy into practice means improving the quality of village developmentplan san dexistin gbottom-u pplannin gprocedures . Chap­ ter6 illustrate sho wsuc hvillag edevelopmen t planning canb ecarrie d outi nth efor m oftria lcase sb ya tea mo fvillager san dfiel d staff from sectoralagencies .I tdescribe sth eplannin gmetho ddevelope da swel la s theresult so ftria lcases .Durin gth etria lphas eth efollowin g outcomes can be achieved: improved quality of village development plans (ad­ justed to local needs, constraints and opportunities of different user groups); enhanced participation of villagers in planning; improved motivation andcapabilit yfo rparticipator yplannin go nth epar to f field staff;enhance dcooperatio nan dcoordinatio no fsectora lagencies ;an da moreoptima l useo fexistin gdecentralize d funds. 8.2.2 Thedevelopment phase (phase II) Chapter 5 reveals that themajo r problems inprogramm e planningo n Javaar ecause db ypoo rcommunication ,an drigi dan dtime-consumin g administrative procedures. However, changes or adjustments to these organizationsar edifficul t tobrin gabou tovernight ,a sthei rprocedure s and structure are strongly influenced by socio-cultural-political phe­ nomena, such as the state ideology of 'sole authority', bapakism and hierarchicalrelationships .Therefore ,aphase dapproac ho fdevelopmen t andexpansio n seemswarrante d tointroduc e thestrateg yo f localleve l programmeplannin go nJava . Thedevelopmen tphas eo nJav awil lfocu so ninstitutionalizin gcommu ­ nicationprocesse san dwil linclud eth efollowin gprogramm eactivities : Implementationof village development planning Village development planning will be implemented on a larger scale, covering one district. The resulting village development programmes willb eprocesse dthroug hth eplannin gprocedure so fBAPPEDA .I nthi s wayfiel d andplannin gstaf f willbecom eacquainte dwit ha nalternativ e approach toparticipator yprogramm eplannin ga tvillag elevel . Training Trainingprogramme swil lb eorganize dfo rfou rdifferen t targetgroups :

178 fieldstaf fo fsectora lagencie san dplannin gstaf fo fBAPPEDA ;student s atschool san duniversities ;loca lorganizations ;an dfutur emoderator so f oradvisor st oth eplannin gproces sa tdistric t level.Combine d training programmes,fo rexampl ebot hfo rfiel dstaf fan dloca lorganization sma y alsob epossible . For field staff (UDKP) and government planning staff (Bangdes/ BAPPEDA)trainin gwil lb eorganize dt oorien tthei rattitude san dskill s towardscommunit ydevelopmen tan dparticipator yplanning .Althoug h BAPPEDAi sno tdirectl yinvolve di nplannin ga tloca llevel ,trainin gi s alsoimportan tfo rit sstaf f inorde rt oincreas ethei runderstandin go fth e objectivesan dsignificanc e ofintegrate dvillag edevelopmen tplanning . Their role in village development planning is to coordinate village developmentplan swit hothe rdevelopmen tprogramme sa swel la swit h theallocatio no fadditiona lfund s atdistric tan dprovincia llevel . A second trainingprogramm e onparticipator y planning will focus on supporting schools and universities in their training and education programmes.Thi sma yals oinclud eth eimplementatio n ofresearc ho n monitoringactivitie sb yundertakin gtria lcas eresearc ho rspecia lstudie s onconstraint s tovillag e levelplannin g andresult s ofvillag edevelop ­ mentplanning . Athir dtrainin gprogramm ewil lsuppor t localorganization st odevelo p theirautonom y (infinance san ddecisio nmaking )an dthei rcapacit yt o respondt ogovernmen tservices .NGO swh ohav eexperienc ei nthi sfiel d couldfunctio n asintermediarie san dma yhel pt ostimulat ecommunica ­ tion between the two parties. In a fourth training programme future moderators and advisors, who will support the planning process at districtlevel ,wil lb etraine dfo rthei rne wpositions . Guidanceand consultancy Besidestrainin gdirec tsupervisio n orconsultanc ywil lals ob erequire d tosafeguar dth equalit yo fth eplannin gprocess .Fo reac hdistric tthi swil l includeon eo rtw oadvisor swh ooperat eoutsid eth eregula rbureaucrati c structure.The ywil lprovid eback-stoppin gt oBAPPED Astaf f andfiel d staff. Theyma yals osuppor tthe mwit htrainin gprogrammes .Commu ­ nityorganizer s(mal ean dfemale )wil lsuppor tth eextensio nworker si n thefield , andi norde rt oreac hmor efemal elan duser sfemal eextensio n staff willb einvolved .Guideline so nth eplannin gmetho dwil lb edrafte d duringthi sphas et osuppor textensio nstaf fan dcommunit yorganizer si n performing theirne wtasks . Participatorymonitoring Aparticipator y monitoringsyste mwil lb eintroduce dwhic hfocuse so n

179 theimplementatio nproces san dparticipatio no fusers ,rathe rtha no nth e achievemento fphysica ltarget sonly .Chapte r5 illustrate sth edifficultie s ofmonitorin gactivitie si na cultura lenvironmen twher eerro rdetectio n andanalysi sar ealie nconcepts .Therefor eextr aattentio nwil lb epai dt o this aspect by setting upa participatory monitoring programme with BAPPEDA,supporte db youtsid eadvisor swh oca nbrea kthroug hthes e cultural barriers. This will involve newprocedures , training and the development ofguidelines .I nthi swa ymor eobjectiv e feedback infor­ mation andqualitativ e datao nth e participation andmotivatio n ofth e peopleinvolve dma yb eobtained . NGOswil lpla ya nimportan trol ei nsupportin ggovernmen tagencie st o perform theirne wtasks .Thei rmajo rresponsibility ,a sa nintermediar y betweenloca lorganization san dgovernmen tstaff ,wil lb et odevelo pth e capacityo floca lorganization san dinitiat echange si nth eattitud eo ffiel d staff towards community development and a more participatory ap­ proach. Their contribution lies inorganizin g training programmesfo r government staff andloca lorganization s aswel l asgivin gguidanc et o field workersi nthei rne wextensio nrole .Thu si nth edevelopmen tphas e aproces so fconsolidatio n andacceptatio no fth ene wplannin gstrateg y maytak eplac eamon ggovernmen t staff. 82.3 Theexpansion phase (phase III) Inth eexpansio nphas eth eplannin gstrateg ywil lb eaccepte da tnationa l levelan dvillag edevelopmen tplannin gma yb eimplemente di ndistrict s throughout Java, accompanied by extensive training and guidance programmes. Those government staff and/or NGOs whohav e gained experience in previous phases will become consultants to guideth e planningproces si nth edifferen t districts. Implementation of the strategy atnationa l level requires anumbe ro f structuralchange si nth egovernmen torganization .Thus ,th eactivitie si n the expansion phase take thefor m ofcondition s for therealizatio no f localleve lplannin gactivitie san dcommunicatio nprocesse sa tnationa l level. Decentralization This expansion will involve decentralization processes. However,o n Javadecentralizatio nha sbee nmainl yinterprete d asdéconcentratio nou t offea rtha tdecentralizatio nwil lgran tto omuc hautonom yt oth eregions , causing thepolitica l unity in thecountr y toweake n (chapter 5). For example,th esub-district sar ea for mo fdeconcentrate dadministratio no f the district, so decentralized services or decision making processes cannot take place atth e sub-district level. Therefore, itma yb emor e

180 realistic to hope for a substantial increase of existing deconcentrated development funds. For example, greater allo­ cations of Kecamatan Terpadu and Kecamatan Rowan funds to every sub-district would serve this purpose. Also the 'Develop­ ment of Integrated Zone' programme, explained in box 8.1,ma y be apossibl e source for decentralized funding. Another option is to use the multipurpose grants of the INPRES funds, since they are officially the responsibility of the regional authorities. This has been the case in the Dutch sponsored regional development project in Sukabumi (West Java) (Haskoning, 1988).

Wwe areincreasin g substantiallyth e amount of assistancet o the Village,Districtan dProviiöee,*.a$si$tane et oth evillag ewil ldemise d fromRpt*50O#OOt oRp23öpö0perviüage ^A sa wholeJNPRB S assistance to Level h Level'JIJRegiô a and village has increased tremendously*namel yfrom R p70 6billio ni nth ecurren tfisca lyea rt o moretha nR p1 trillionfo rth enex tfisca l year.I as kweOovernor st o superviseclosel yth emanagement© ?thes efunds ,sothatk sutilizatio n willreall yreac htheobjectives,,„Qn eo fth eimportan tprogramme si n misRegional »Rura lan dUrba ndevelopmen t sectori sth eDevelop ­ mento fIntegrate d Zone,Thi sprogramm ei sdealin gespeciall ywit h thegroupo fmecommunit ywhic hi sstil lunabl et oparticipat efull yi n development sucha sthos ewh oliv ei ncoasta lareas ,isolate dplace s andrura lareas / Althoughth etendenc yt oincreas edecentralize d fundsi svisible ;th e total amount remainssmal l incompariso n tonationa ldevelopmen t funds*

Box8. 1Governmen tpolicie sfo r the 1990/1991yea r(Jakart aPos t 5.1.90) Theexpansio nphas ewil lals oinvolv easpect so fpersonne lmanagement , proceduresan dorganizationa lstructure .Eac hi sbriefl y outlinedbelow : Personnelmanagement A changing role for the extension worker, as a facilitator who helps farmers tofor m opinions,experienc ean dmak edecision swil lhav eth e following implicationsfo rpersonne l management: This planning process requires long term commitment from extension workers. Only then can they share knowledge and experience based on a trial and error process. Thus field staff

181 transfers shouldb ereduce d toa minimum . Theassignmen to fplannin gan dcommunit ydevelopmen ttask s tofiel d workersshoul db eformalize d throughne wjo bdescrip ­ tions and the provision of career prospects for professional planners. The development of a cadre of experienced field staff and planning staff of BAPPEDA will beneeded . Advisors willb e recruited toprovid e supervision of theparticipator y planning process. Theintensiv ean dtime-consumin gnatur eo fparticipator yplan ­ ningan dcommunit ydevelopmen trequire soptima lperformanc e of fieldstaff . Financial incentives andmorale-boostin g which encouragegoo dperformanc ean dlon gter mcommitmen ti npoo r areas could include: field allowances; better transportation facilities;evaluatio no ffiel dstaf fperformance ;reward sfo rthos e whopionee r and support farmers' innovations, stimulateinde ­ pendent farmer organization and/or achieve long-term results. Upland agriculture andeducatio n shouldb eawarde denhance d statusi ngovernmen tpolicies . Technicalan dsocia lsuppor tfo rth ePK Kan dothe rloca lwome n's organizations willb erealize d through therecruitmen t ofmor e female extension staff and through theintegratio n ofwomen' s activitiesi nth eagricultura lextensio nprogramme .Als ospecifi c training on thedevelopmen t of local women organizations is envisaged. Procedures. Inorde rt oimprov ecommunicatio n between localpeopl ean dgovern ­ mentstaff , obstaclest oparticipation , sucha s longan dinflexibl e plan­ ningprocedures ,shoul db eaddressed .Fo rexample ,whe nth eproposal s for development funds (DUPs) are written in the same detail asth e village development plans, thenex t stage of proposals (DIPs)ca n be submittedb yBAPPED Astaf fthemselves ,instea do fsendin gth epropos ­ alst oth esectora lagencie sfo rscrutin yan dendorsement .I nthi swa yth e planning procedure will be much quicker, the influence of sectoral agenciesma yb ereduce dan dBAPPED Ama yb ebette rabl et ocoordi ­ nateth eprogrammes . Changes in the method of disbursement of funds will increase the possibilities fora learnin gprocess .Fo rexample ,certai n project funds shouldno tb edisburse di na singl efinancia l year,bu tallocate d flexibly over several years. Only then can a learning process of continuous adaptation beadopted .

182 Not only should budgets bedecentralize d but so should any decision makingwhic hconcern srule san dregulation stha tgover nacces st oan d controlove rresources .Rule simpose db ycentra lgovernmen tconcern ­ inglan dan dtre etenure ,harvestin gright so rinstruction so nspecie st ob e planted,ma yno tfi tth eloca lsituation .The ywil lthu screat eproblem so f uncontrolledexploitation ,les stha noptima lproductio no runsustainabl e use. Box8. 2give sa nexampl eo fth eeffect s of strictregulation s setb y theStat eFores tCorporation .Decentralize dregulation san dcontro lca n lead to improved service delivery through better timing and local production ofinput s(i.e .seedlings ) appropriate toth earea .

TheStat eFores tCorporatio n(SFC )Issue dstric tregulation so nth e plantingo fcertai nfrui t treesi nreforestatio n sites.However ,these , fruittree swer enotsuitabl ein,£o rexample ,th euppe rvolcani czone , ÀlthûUgh.bothfarmer sandîoc^staf facknowledge dthis,nochang«i § could be made. Farmers in this zone repeatedly suggested the plantingo fcoffe e treesbecaus eo fexpecte dhig hyields . Localstaf f ofSFCreaiize dth eadvantag eo fplantin gcoffe ebecaus eo fit sshad e tolerancean dgoo dmaxketingprospects .However ,stric tregoiatioo s from theto pmad eth eplantin go fcoffe e unacceptable.

Box 8.2 Exampleo fth eimpac to fstric tregulation so nsustainabl e land lisp

Organizationalstructure Decentralizationrequire sstrengthenin gth ecompetenc ean dcapacit yo f localgovernmen tofficials .Thi sshoul dno timpl ytha tth erol eo fth eloca l governmenti sstrengthene dt oth eexten ttha ti tha ssol eauthorit ya tth e local level and no longer needs tocooperat e with local organizations. Insteadi tmean stha tth eloca lgovernmen tshoul dlear nt obecom emor e responsive to the needs and opportunities in the village communities. Thisrequire sdifferen tqualitie si nloca lgovernmen tofficials . Inpractic e it means that theUDKP ,heade d by the Camat, should be given more autonomyt omak edecision sabou tvillag edevelopmen tplan san dthei r budgetallocations . Thisfor mo fautonom yi srelative ,a sth esub-distric ti sa deconcentrate d administrative unit with allmajo r decisionsmad ea tdistric t level.Th e functioning anddecisio n makingo f theCamat wil lb econtrolled .Thi s shouldb edon efro m belowb yth evillag eadministration ,loca lorgani ­ zationsan dNGO si nth esub-district ;an dfro mth eto pb yth ehea do fth e

183 district(Bupati) an dBangdes .A scontro love rgovernmen tofficial s from below represents a system alien topresen t society, itrequire s institu­ tionalsupport ,suc ha sa forma ledic tfro mth egovernment .Fo rexampl e the Camat could be elected by people in the sub-district, rather than appointed.Howeve rthi sproposa lcarrie sth eris ktha tth eCamat wil ltr y to buy his votes in return for giving away development activities.I n addition the lack of democratic traditions and the principle of 'sole authority' maylimi tth eeffec t of suchedicts . Certain structural changes in thevillag e administration are needed to enhance therol e of villagers in thedevelopmen t process.Th epresen t villageadministratio ndoe sno tcate rfo ra reall ymeaningfu lcontributio n from theloca lpeopl ei nplannin gan ddecisio nmaking .Villag e officials shouldb emor eoriente dan dresponsibl etoward sth evillager si norde rt o governwel lan dresponsively .Thi sma yb estimulate d byth efollowin g changes,whic hhav ebecom eofficia l governmentpolicies ,bu ti nprac ­ ticear eno tye talway simplemented : no appointments for life of thevillag e headman, but elections everyeigh tyea rwit hth epossibilit yfo ron ere-electio n (lawo n villageadministration , 1979); the capacity for villages to raise funds to remunerate village officials throughth eintroductio no fta xi n198 7(Pajak Burni dan Bangunan); increased participation of more ordinary villagers and non- formalleader swit hrepresentative so fa tleas tth emos tinfluentia l localleader so fhamlet sa smember so f theLKM Dan dKPD . Another suggestion for change is the phasing out of the allocation of tanahbengkok to village administrators, being remnants of a feudal system.Instea d theyshoul db eeligibl efo rcertai nbenefit s atth een do f their fixed term(tanah bengkok i slan dallocate db yvillag eofficial s to compensatefo rthei radministrativ eduties )(Tjondronogoro , 1984); In addition some administrative reorganization which has been under way since the start of the last Repelita (1989/90-1994/95) should be completed. For example, thecentre s for Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation (BRLKT)wil l becomepar to fth eprovincia l administra­ tion under the governor. Anotherexampl e isth ereorganizatio n of the regionalextensio ncentre s(BPP) ,whic har epresentl yunde rth eauthor ­ ityo fBIMAS ,bu twhic har eplanne dt ocom eunde rth eauthorit yo fth e heado fth esub-district .I fthes eplan smaterialize ,loca lgovernmen twil l assumegreate rauthorit yan dmor eflexibl eprocedure sca nb eexpecte d inwhic h local adjustments ofprogramm edesig nca nb e made.

184 Inorde rt odevelo pextensio nprocesse swhic h linkextensio nworkers , researchers and farmers, areorganizatio n of theagricultura l extension service is needed. KEPAS (1988) and McCauley (1988) suggest a changei nth eextensio n service,presentl y organizedo na regiona lan d commoditycro pbasis ,toward sa nagroecologica lzon ebasis . A'menu ' approachi spropose dfo reac hzone ,i nwhic hfarmer sar epresente dwit h arangeo flan dus epractice ssuitabl et othei rphysica lan dsocioeconomi c conditions.Th eextensio nworke rwil lassis tthe mi nmakin gthei rchoic e of those crop varieties or practices which best serve their needs and capacities. Hence, they will fulfil the role as facilitator between the government authorities and theloca l people and help farmers to form opinionsan dexpres sthei rneeds .Wheneve ra nee dfo rmor ecomplicate d technologyarises ,linkage st oresearc hinstitute so rspecialis to fsectora l agenciesca nb eestablished . 8.2.4 Managingthe phased strategy TheJav aSocia lForestr y Programme (JSFP)ha staugh ttha ti norde rt o besuccessful , organizationalchang estrategie srequir econtinue dcom ­ mitmentfro m highlyplace dofficial s (Poffenberger, 1990).Therefore , the establishment of working groups is envisaged, composed of the majorprogramm eleaders ,a tdistric tan dnationa llevel . Atdistric tleve l thiswil linvolv eBangdes ,th ehead so fsectora lagencies ,B APPED Aan d ifrelevan ta dono rorganizatio n whowil lrevie wresult san drespon dt o problems encountered in the field. At national level BANGDA, as central coordinating body; BAPPENAS, responsible for formulating development programme; and thecentra l sectoral departments willb e involved. This political coalition may beabl e to lobby effectively for decentralization (Poffenberger et al., 1990) and will be sensitive to political and socioeconomic changes. The specific strength of such working groups may be to channel information from monitoring of villagedevelopmen t programmes toth ecentra lleaders . Theorganizationa lstructur ei nth edevelopmen tphas ewil ltak eth efor m of amatri xi n which thefiel d staff issupervise d bytw omanagers ;th e heado fth esub-distric t(th eCamat) andth erespectiv ehead so fsectora l agencies. Amatri xstructur egive sa singl eorganization ,i nthi scas eth e Departmento fVillag eDevelopmen t(Bangdes )o fth eMinistr yo fHom e Affairs, full authority over the organization of village development planning(figur e 8.1). Theworkin ggrou pa tdistric tleve lwil lsuppor t Bangdes in their management task. In the expansion phase anetwor k structurewil lb eforme d atnationa llevel ,i nwhic hth enationa lworkin g group support BANGDA in the coordination (but not control) of the groupsa tdistric tlevel .

185 Bupatl Bangdes office

tfeadDIPERTA Head BRLKT Camat 1+Bangdes 1 Camat 2+Bangdes 2

\ \ O Members"bf^tea m \ PWngTsam \ © PPL \ V. © PLP >D© ÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ

Figure8.1 : Matrixstructure asorganization structurein the development phase .

Themanagemen to fth estrateg ywil lb esupporte db ya nexterna l (donor) organization during all phases to take the 'risk' of experimenting with this new approach, to finance (part of) the programme, and to analyse constraintsi npresen tgovernmen tprocedures .Th esuppor twil lhoweve r vary according tophas e asdiscusse d below.

In thefirs t phase these external organizations give intensive support in organizing and preparing the trial cases; they will guide the planning process and introduce new wayso f working with thevillagers .Th etria l phase may be implemented within the framework of a donor project, which operates at local level, but has the prestige to gain support from national policymakers.

In the second phase external supporti sexpecte d topla y amajo r rolei n thedevelopmen t ofguideline san dtrainin gprogramme s onth eplannin g strategy. Besides, some support may be welcomed in developing new extension programmes. The donor organization will participate in the working groups atdistrict level.I n thiscapacit y they will help with the timing for entering the third phase of the strategy at national level and subsequently participate in the national working group.Th e timing for entering theexpansio n phase will depend on whether sufficient experi­ ence is gained with implementing local level planning at district level. Only when acadr eo f experienced planners isi nplace ,an da chang ei n the role and attitude of government staff has been initiated, can the strategy bepresente d at national level.

In the expansion phase, involvement of external (donor) organizations will belimite d toprovidin g support in the management of the strategy.

186 Itwil lsuppor tBangde si nthi srespec tb ystrengthenin git scompetenc e toorganiz ean dcoordinat eintegrate dvillag edevelopmen tplanning , so thati tbecome smor eresponsiv et oloca lneed san dopportunities .Th e participationo fa dono rorganizatio ni nth eworkin ggroup sma ypreven t policymakers at national level from losing interest and withdrawing support for the strategy which would then be in danger of losing momentuman dmigh tfai lt oemerg efro mit stria lphase .I tma yals onee d tosensitiz epolitica lleader st oth erisks o fto orapi da nexpansio n(Paul , 1983).Suc hworkin ggroup swil lperfor mwel lonl yb yjointl yplannin g activities andpolitica l support. Successful functioning of theworkin g groupwil lb ebase do nth emotivatio n andvisio no fth eparticipants ,a s wella so nclea rgoal san dobjective sfo rth egrou p(Seymou ran dFisher , 1990). Duringimplementatio n of thestrategi cmodel ,th edistinctio n between phaseI Ian dphas eII Iwil lno tb ea sshar pa spresente di nth emodel .Som e changesi nprocedure san dorganizatio n willb enecessar yi nphas eI Ii n ordert oimprov ecommunicatio n betweenvillager san dfiel d staff.Th e samehold s true for the improvement of government's competence to implementsustainabl elan dus eprogrammes .Changin gthi scompetenc e should notb epostpone d toth ethir dphase ;instea d someflexibilit y of rulesan dbudge tprocedure s should beintroduce d inphas e II.

8.3 Constraintst oimplementin g thestrategi cmode l onJav a 8.3.1 Constraintsin the trialphase Oneo fth ethre eobjective so fthi sstud yha sbee nformulate d as:'t otes t thefeasibilit y ofth estrateg yfo r theupland so fEas tJav aIndonesia' .I n this section the feasibility of the trial phase of the strategy will be evaluated based on experiences with implementing the trial caseso n Java.I nthi sevaluatio nth equestio ni sraise da st owha texten tth eresult s of local level planning on Java can respond to the other tworesearc h objectives (section 1.3): to develop a strategic model for people-centered planning of sustainable landus eprogrammes ; todevelo pa flexibl eplannin gmetho dtha tca nserv ea sa lan dus e management toola ta loca llevel . Thesetw oresearc hobjective s canb etranslate dint oth efollowin g four questions: 1 Isth e strategic modelpeople-centere d in asens etha tplannin g createsopportunitie sfo rloca lpeopl et omak ethei row nchoice s aboutwhic hlan dus estrateg y tofollow ?

187 2 Canth estrategi cmode llea dt osustainabl elan dus eprogramme s in asens e that production potential ismaintained ; farmers can adaptt one wpractice san da mor eequa ldistributio ni srealized ? 3 Isth eplannin gmetho dsuitabl ea sa lan dus emanagemen ttoo la t aloca llevel ? 4 Isth eplannin gmetho dflexibl e inuse ? Someobservation so n theabov ementione d questions arepresente di n the following. 1 Can thestrategic model result in people-centered planning ? Thevillag eadministratio ni sa tpresen tstil lstrongl yoriente dt ofollow ­ inggovernmen trule san dprocedures :meetin gth eneed so floca lpeopl e issubordinat et ocarryin gou tth egovernment' sprogramm ean dsatisfyin g official requirements.Thus ,governmen tprogramme sma ydominat eth e outcome of theplannin g process.Th einvolvemen t of field staff from sectoral agencies in the planning team heightens this danger. Under pressuret oreac htarget san dselec tsite sfo rsectora lprogramm eactivitie s theyma yexploi tvillag eleve lplannin ga sa too lfo rsit ean dparticipan t selection for theircentrall y designed standardprogrammes . Atth estar to fthi sstud yplannin gi spropose da sa lan dus emanagemen t tool 'to identify the local land use system; its different users, their interests,powe rstructures ,loca lconstraint san dopportunitie sfo rdevel ­ opment'.Plannin ga tth estar to fth edevelopmen tproces sha sth emajo r advantage thatintervention s arebase d onloca lperception s andpriori ­ ties.Man ydevelopmen tproject sma yno thoweve rhav eth eflexibilit yt o follow-upth eoutcom eo fsuc hinitia lplannin gsinc ethe yofte nhav ebee n formulated tob e sector oriented andreflec t afocuse d approach toth e management of natural resources (Wiersum, 1991).Th e latter implies thata projec toffer s apackag e(o ra 'menu' )o fintervention sfro mwhic h the local peoplehav e tochoose ,eve n though theyma y have different interestso rprioritie sfo rdevelopment .Althoug hsom edegre eo fpartici ­ pationi nplannin go fimplementatio no fsuc hpackage sca nb eattained , it may be concluded that the dominance of government programmes currently curtailsth epossibilitie s tous eplannin g tomee t theneed so f localpeople .

Toconclude ,plannin gi nth etria lphas ei sonl yt oa limite dexten tpeople - centered.Althoug hi tidentifie sintervention sbase do nloca lperception s andpriorities ,governmen tprogramme sstil ldominat eth eoutcom eo fth e planningprocess . 2 Canthe strategic model leadto sustainable land use programmes? Oneo fth eobjective so fth estrategi cmode li sachievin gsustainabl elan d

188 usemanagemen tthroug hpayin gattentio nt omaintenanc eo fproductio n potential,adaptabilit yo ffarmer san dequit yi ndistributio no fresource s andbenefits .I npractic ehoweve rth efocu si smor eo nth e 'adaptability' and 'equity' issuesrathe rtha nth emaintenanc eo fproductio npotential . Wiersum (1991) observes that often the technical soundness of the interventionsan decologica lsustainabilit yar eno tsufficientl y assessed. Thereforeth estrategi cmode ladvocate sa learnin gproces sa tloca lleve l whereby interventions can be adapted continuously. The degree of adoption of an intervention by a farmer serves as a criterion for its sustainability and economic profitability. Moreover stronger linkages with research stations are proposed through field staff of sectoral agenciesi norde rt osuppor tdevelopmen to ftechnicall ysoun dinterven ­ tions. Thestrengt ho fth estrategi cmode li sit sfocu so nidentifyin g thestrateg y of land users to manage their land. Byplannin g at the local level,i n cooperation with localfield staf f andvillagers ,need san dcapacitie so f different landuse rgroup sca nb eidentified .Hence ,th eabilit yo ffarmer s toresis to rovercom echange si nbio-physica lan dsocioeconomi ccondi ­ tionsan dt orespon dt one wopportunitie s(adaptability )ca nb etake nint o account whenplannin ginterventions . Moreoverth eai mo fmor eequa ldistributio no fresource san dbenefit si s difficult to attain because the village elite and sectoral agencies may dominateth eprogrammin go f activities.Th eidentificatio n of different landuse rgroup screate sa basi sfo ra mor eequa ldivisio no fresource san d benefits.However ,involvin gth epamong desa (villag eadministration) , invillag edevelopmen tplannin gmean stha tth eelit ei sinvolved ,whic h isi na powerfu lpositio nt oinfluenc eth efinal programmin go factivitie s and to involve its families as major target groups. Hence, the most powerful groupsi nth eloca lsociet yma ytr yt ogai nmaximu m benefits from external support.Experienc eo f trialcase s(chapte r6 )ha sprove d the'willingness 'o fth eloca lparticipant si nth eplannin gexercis et ooffe r theirow nlan dfo rne winnovation san dthei rpreferenc efo rworkin gwit h familymembers ,o restablishe d groupso fadvance dfarmers .Thu sonl y alimite dimpac to nth epoores tgroups ,a sexperience di nth eJSFP ,ca n beexpecte d when implementing theplannin g strategy. Moreover, the focuso fth egovernmen to ndirec teffect s andtarget sthroug hincreasin g productionimplie sa preferenc e for workingwit hth emor eprogressiv e andbette reducate dfarmers . Manyfield staf fd ono tsubscrib et oth evie w that involving thepoo r is necessary for the sustainable management of naturalresources .I tshoul db erealizedhowever ,tha talthoug hth eprogramm e does not reach the poorest farmers within a village community, most villagesi nth eupland so fJav aar epoo rb yabsolut estandards .I nparticula r thosewit hmargina lland san darea so fextrem epovert yshoul db echosen .

189 Alsoth elac ko fcapabl ean dwell-functionin g women'sorganization san d minimalsuppor tfro mfemal efiel dstaf far ehandicap st oth erealizatio no fa moreequa ldistributio nbetwee nme nan dwomen .I nth estrateg yfo rvillag e developmentplannin gwome nparticipat ei nth eplannin gteam ,an dgender - specificanalysi san dplannin gi spar to fth eplannin gmethod .However ,a t presentth egovernmen tautomaticall yassign sresponsibilit yfo ral ldevelop ­ mentactivitie sfo rwome nt oth ePKK . Thisi sth efamil y welfareorgani ­ zation made up of wives of government officials which exists inever y village(se echapter s5 an d6) .Sinc eno tal lthes ewome nnecessaril yposses s themotivation,skiUsandexperiencetoformulateandimplementdevelopment activities, these programmes often display poor results. Thus, without technicalan dsocia lsuppor tt oth ePK Ksustainabl eWome nI nDevelopmen t (WID)activitie sar edifficul tt orealize .A solutio nmigh tli ei nincreasin gth e involvemento fNGO si nimplementin gdevelopmen tactivitie sfo ran dwit h women.O nJav asom ehav eprove dt ob esuccessfu l insuc hactivities .

Tosu mup ,th estrategi cmode lcontribute st oachievin gsustainabl elan d useprogramme sa si tidentifie s theadaptabilit yo ffarmer s andcreate sa basisfo r amor eequa ldivisio n ofresource san dbenefits .However ,th e dominanceo fth evillag eelit ean dth esectora lagencie smake sth eimpac t on thepoores t groups invillag e societies limited. Themaintenanc eo f productionpotentia lca nonl yb eachieve dthroug ha learnin gproces so f continuousadaptatio no fintervention san dth eestablishmen to flinkage s withresearc hstations . 3. Isthe planning method suitable as land use management tool at local level? The feasibility of the planning method by villagers and field staff of sectoral agencies has been demonstrated in the trial cases. However whetherthi splannin gmetho dresult si nimprove dlan dus emanagemen t has not been proven yet. Only somepreliminar y results from planned programmes are available.Thes e taught that changes in the socioeco­ nomicservice so fgovernmen tagencie sar edifficul t toattai ni nth etria l phase.Fo rexampl eon eoutcom eo fth evillag edevelopmen tplan si sth e identification ofloca lorganizations ' needsfo rdevelopin gth ecapacit y of individuals orgroup st omanag eresources . Another isth enee d for arrangementsi nsocia linfrastructur e (landtenure ,marketing ,rule san d legislation). Preliminary results of implementing village development plans show that such issues were not sufficiently addressed and that socioeconomic servicesdi d not gobeyon d standard activities suchas : formation of farmer groups,initiatin g saving activities,an d running a trainingcours ei nagricultura ldevelopmen tb ydistric tgovernmen tstaff . Butgive ntha tth eimplementatio n ofthes eplan sha sbee nth eresponsi ­ bilityo f government staff without anyexterna l support theycanno tb e expected to change their own role as community organizers without

190 changesi n theirorganizatio n and without havingundertake n training. Externalsuppor ti sneede ddurin gth etria lphas eno tonl yt odra wu pplan s but also, during the process of implementation and monitoring, to achieve these changes in socioeconomic services. Arrangements in socialinfrastructur e cannotb eaccomplishe d atth eloca ldimension ,a s thisrequire spolitica l supportfro m regional andcentra llevels . Experience with implementing theplan sa spropose d in thetria lcase s teachestha tmor etim eneed st ob espen to nth eidentificatio n oflan dus e strategiesan dneed so ffarmer s(se echapte r6) .Th eparticipatio no fpoo r Javanese farmers in planning is beset by difficulties since they are unaccustomed tospeakin gou tan draisin gidea si nfron t ofgovernmen t officials. Itma yb ebette rt odivid eu pth eplannin gproces sint otw oo r threepart swit ha fe wday so rweek si nbetwee neach ,t ogiv efarmer san d fieldworker smor epossibilitie sfo rparticipation ,tim et oreflect ,develo p ideasan dfor ma nopinion .Als omor etim ei sneede dfo rgrou pmeeting s andparticipator y design. Thus,th eplannin gmetho di ssuitabl eprovide d thatexterna l supporti n planningan dimplementin g socioeconomic servicesi sgive n and suffi­ cient time is allocated for theparticipatio n of Javanese farmers in the planningo finterventions . 4. Isthe planning methodflexible in use? Presentbudge tprocedure smak ea flexibl e learningproces so fplanning , implementationan dmonitorin gb yfarmer san dfiel dworker simpossible . Budgetsar eonl ydisburse dfo ra singl eyear ,an di ngenera fieldl worker s withdrawthei rsuppor twhe nth egovernmen tinvolvemen t stops.More ­ over,uncertaint yove rallocatio no ffund san da lon gtim elaps ebetwee n budgetplannin gan ddisbursemen tmake svillager sextremel yskeptical . It reduces the motivation of local field staff and villagers to commit themselves in the long-term to government-induced development ac­ tivities.Beside sthes eprocedures ,th emotivatio no fth eextensio nworke r alsodetermine sth eflexibilit yo fth eplannin gmethod .A tpresen th esee s hisrol ea sa nimplemente ro fphysica lmeasure sprescribe d inth eplan s (chapter 6).Whe n agovernmen t project stops,hi sinvolvemen t isals o ended.Wit hsuc htemporar yan duncertai ngovernmen tsuppor ti ti sver y difficult tobrin gabou ta flexibl elearnin gproces stha taim sa tsustainabl e changesi nlan d usestrategies .

Theus eo fstandar drule san dprocedure sfo rimplementin gth eplanne d programmesmake sth efina loutcom eo fvillag eleve lplannin ginflexibl e in use.Althoug h programmes may bedevelope d basedo n localneed s and capacities of the different user groups, standard forms and rules determineth eimplementation .Thi sca nresul ti na seriou slos so fqualit y

191 toth eplans ,a sthe ybecom eles sflexible an dles swell-adjuste d toloca l situationsan dneeds . Summarizing, in the trial phase temporary and uncertain government supportan dth eus eo f standardrule san dprocedure sfo r implementing theplanne dprogramme smak eth efina loutcom eo fth eplannin gmetho d inflexible inuse . 8.3.2 Expectedconstraints to implementing a phased learning process onJava Noexperienc e hasbee ngaine d asye twit himplementin g thedevelop ­ mentan dexpansio nphase .Howeve rth eJav aSocia lForestr yProgramm e (JSFP)(chapte r7 )ha sfollowe d acomparabl ephasin gstrateg yan dha s already reached theexpansion s phase.Give n the similarities between thisprogramm e andth estrateg yfo rvillag edevelopmen tplanning ,th e experienceo fth eJSF Pprovide ssom evaluabl elesson sfo rth efeasibilit y of thephase d learningproces so f thestrategi cmodel . Incongruenceof objectives inthe phased strategy Duringth eimplementatio no fth ephase dplannin gstrateg yobjective so f thegovernmen tma yappea rt ob edifferen t from theobjective sse ti nth e strategicmodel .Fo rexample ,i nIndonesia nagencie sshort-ter mresult s dominate long-term benefits and physical, tangible results get higher priority thansocia lchange so rth eincrease dparticipatio n anddevelop ­ ment of thepoor .Thu s thecommunicatio n processes suggested in the strategic model will bedifficul t tocomplete .Thi s isillustrate d byth e JSFP,wher eth eobjective so fcommunit yparticipatio n andequit yhav e beensacrifice d inorde rt opursu eproductio nobjectives .B ycomparin g the phases of the JSFP with the strategy for village development planning, it can be concluded that the JSFP has leap-frogged the developmentphas e(phas eII )(figur e 8.2).To ogrea ta nemphasi so nth e rapidexpansio no fphysica ltarget sresulte di nth eneglec to fchange si n attitudes, of local organization development, of training programmes and of guidelines for theplannin g method andprocedures .Thi srapi d expansion might alsothreate n thevillag edevelopmen t planning strat­ egy.Halfwa y throughth eimplementatio no fth efou rtria lcases ,request s havealread ybee nmad et oimplemen tth evillag edevelopmen tplannin g atdistric tlevel . Forth eplannin gstrateg ya differenc ei nobjective sma yals ob eanticipate d becausesectora lagencie smigh twan tt ous evillag edevelopmen tplannin g forsit ean dparticipan tselection ,an dpromotio no fthei r(standard )sectora l programmes. This is particularly likely to happen when no changes in communicationprocesse san dcompetenc eo fgovernmen t organizations havebee n achieved.

192 diagnostic .^ôt project research' •>

Int Ui

a) Phasing InJav a Social Programme (JSFP)

De\t'U>pment Expônçiôo Trial phase "^ phase — > pha^»e "

b)Phasin g in strategy for integrated village development planning.

Figure8.2: Comparisonof phases in theSFP and thestrategy for village development planning. Another incongruence in objectives, which might be expected in this strategy, relates to the expansion of the scope of village development planning.Durin g theimplementatio n of thetria lcases ,th e government has asked why theplan s should be focused on sustainable land use and why health care, credit or trade development should not be included. Such loss of focus is indeed likely to occur since the government's interpretation of regional development is one of industrial and trade activities (see: 'Guidelines on the implementation of integrated area development programme in the framework of regional development', Instruction 14,1990). When thegovernmen t accepts thisvillag edevel ­ opmentplannin ga sa manageabl etoo lfo rformulatin gan dimplementin g developmentprojects ,i twil ltr yt ous ei twit ha swid ea scop ea spossible .

Different interpretation of phases The comparison of the phasing strategy of JSFP and the planning strategy,illustrate d infigur e 8.2, alsolead st osom einterestin g conclu­ sions concerning the interpretation of phases. Both have based their phasing strategy on the learning process approach of Korten (1980). However they have been applied differently. The JSFP follows a cen­ trally-guided bottom-upprocess ,i nwhic ha diagnosti cresearc hphas ei s followed bya pilo tprojec tphas ean da subsequen texpansio n phase.Th e villagedevelopmen tplannin gstrategy ,however ,i sbase do nimplement ­ ing trial cases at local level,followe d by adevelopmen t and expansion phase.I n thefirs t approach thecentra lgovernmen t isinvolve d from the startan dprovide spolitica lsuppor tthroug hit sworkin ggroup ,consistin g ofth eprogramm eleader so fSFC ,th eNG O'Bin aSwadaya' ,th euniversit yan d

193 theFor dFoundation .Thus ,th estrateg yha sbee n well-embedded ina n institutional framework. Anegativ eimpac to nth eJSF Po fth einvolvemen to fnationa lpolicymaker s from the start may have been the too rapid expansion and focus on reaching physical targets, while changes in extension processes have beenneglected .O nth eothe rhand ,th efac ttha tth eplannin gstrateg yfo r village development starts on anexperimenta l basismake s it liablet o remain dependent onexterna l support and thus losemomentu m inth e trialphas e(bo x8.3) .However ,i nthi swa yth elikelihoo do foverl yrapi d expansioni sreduce d andexterna linfluence s mayguarante e thetransi ­ tiont oth esecon d andthir dphase .

ïn the Kali Konto Project four trial cases on integrated village developraentplanninghavebeenimplemente dandaplanningmetho d hasbee ndeveloped .Thus *th een do fphas eI o fth estrateg yha sbee n reachedwithou tnationa lsupport .However ,governmen tagencie sa t district and sub-district level were involved and the allocationO f budgetsfo r theseplan swen tthroug hBAPPÊD AÏ an d ILAlso , the status of the Project and its capacity to organize workshops and producepaper soa thesubjec t appearedt ointeres tpolicymaker s at nationallevel .However »th eProjec tende di nApri l 1990an dsinc e thenn ofina l agreementha sbee nmad eregardin g thestar to fa ne w Project*Becaus eo fthi sdela yther ewil lb ea lon gga pi nth ephasin g ofth estrategy .Darin gthi sperio dth eenthusias man dcommitmen to f: thegovernmenta tdistric tan dsub-distric tleve lt ofurthe rdevelo pth e strategyma ydisappea ran dstar tinvolve di n thetria lphas ema yb e transferred, Thiswil lresul ti nsetback sfo rth econtinuatio no fphas e I throughne w trial cases.T oconclude »externa l support by donori agenciesma yhel pt oimplemen tth estrateg ya t localleve lbu tonl y underth econditio no fcontinuit yi nthei rsupport ,

Box 8.3Exampl eo fprojec t support toimplemen t thestrateg y Although the JSFP has enjoyed support from the higher echelons of nationalgovernment ,decentralizatio no fmanagemen tauthorit yt omid - level government staff hasno t taken place.Therefor e these staff have barely been exposed to the conceptual and procedural innovations of SocialForestr y (Seymour, 1991). However,i nimplementin g theplan ­ ningstrateg yfo rvillag edevelopmen tsuc hconstraint sar eno texpected , asmid-leve lstaf fo fBAPPED Aan dth eUDK Phav ebee ninvolve dfro m the beginning; déconcentration trends have already started within the marginso fth egovernmen tadministratio nan dfurthe rexpansio no fthes e processesi splanned .

194 Competence tomanage thephased strategy If a well-organized State Forest Corporation is unable to effectively implementth evariou sstage so fsuc ha phase dprogramme ,wha tca nb e expectedfro m arathe rloos econfederatio n of sectoralagencies ,withi n theframewor k of theUDK Pa t sub-district and BAPPEDA atdistrict / jrovinciallevel ?Th eagencie sinvolve dar eofte n badlymanaged ,wit h fimitedoperationa lbudget san dpoorl ymotivate dstaff .Althoug hman ­ agingth estrateg yma ypresen tgreate rdifficulties , converselyther ema y becertai nadvantage si ncompariso n withth emanagemen to fth eJSFP , suchas : nostron gmandat eo freachin gproductio ntargets ; notraditio n of conflict overth eus eo f naturalresources ; lessrigidl ycommodit y oriented; weakerorganization swhic har emor esusceptibl et ochang e(les s organizational strength andfewe r financial resources). However, these relative advantages can only be utilized to the full if combinedwit hexterna lsuppor ti nmanagin gth eimplementatio n ofth e strategy. Equally crucial is the development of the competence and motivation of staff through extensive training and guidance of programmes.

Experiences with the JSFP reveal that NGOinvolvemen t in training, back-stopping,monitorin gan devaluatio n activitieswa soutstrippe db y theSFC' sagenda .B ysettin gth erapi dexpansio no freforestatio n targets asit smai nobjective ,staffin g andfundin gfo rth esocia lapproac hlagged . Thusth einvolvemen t ofNGO s wasrelativel y reduced.Thi sma yals o happent oth evillag edevelopmen tplannin gstrategy . Thepolic yo fth e Indonesian state as 'sole authority' in development will sustain the government's reluctance to involve NGOs in development planning. External financial support and lack of in-house capacity may merit a changei nattitud etoward sNGOs .However ,involvin gNGO si sals ono t withoutproblems .The y have,fo r instance,a limite dcapacity ,a sthos e NGOs who possess national credibility are already over-claimed by donororganizations . Also,th ecapabilit yo fthei rstaf f toprovid esocia l services and focus on the rural poor may be limited. Members of the bigger NGOs often come from the urban middle classes and have difficulties inidentifyin g with thepoo r (SchulteNordholt , 1991).

Functioning ofthe working group Theperformanc eo fa workin ggrou pwil ldepen do nclea robjective sfo r the group,th ejoin tplannin go f activities andpolitica l support.Wit ha history of non-cooperation between the government agencies, these taskswil lno tb eeasy . Inth eJSF Pi ttoo ka relativel ylon gtim et oreac h the stage,wher e working groups members became familiar with each

195 other andwit h theirrole s (Seymour andFisher , 1990).I n thenationa l working group BANGDA and BANGDES are supposed to work to­ gether,wit hBANGD Aa scentra lcoordinatin g body.BAPPEDA' s fall underBANGDA ,whil eth eLKM Dan dUDKP' sfal lunde rBANGDES . In practice, this confusing organizational set up and rivalry between thesedirectorate swil ljeopardiz ethei rfunctionin gi nth eworkin ggroup . This evaluation of the application of the strategic model results in a numbero fgenera lconclusion san drecommendation sfo rimplementin g the strategywhic h arepresente d inth enex tchapter .

196 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Inth epreviou schapte rth efeasibilit yo fth estrategi cmode lo nJav aha s beenevaluated .I ti sconclude dtha tth eplannin gstrateg ycanno taddres s allobjective s of thisstud y andsom eexpecte dconstraint s inmanagin g thephase d strategy are described. Thisresult si n anumbe r of general conclusionso ncondition st ob efulfille d for successful implementation of the strategy that are described in this chapter (section 9.1). Subse­ quently these conclusions are translated into policy recommendations for government andnon-governmen t organizations (section9.2) .

9.1 Conclusions Structuralchanges Strict budget andimplementatio n procedures andlimite d communica­ tionbetwee nfiel d staff andth eloca lpeopl emak ea learnin gproces so f planning,implementatio n andmonitorin gb yfarmer s andfield worker s impossible.I tmean stha trealizatio no fstructura lchange si nth eorgani ­ zationalcompetenc eo fth egovernmen tar ea prerequisit efo rimplement ­ ingvillag eleve lplanning . Such structuralchange si ncommunicatio n processesan dth eorganiza ­ tionalcompetenc ear edifficul t tobrin gabou tovernigh t asgovernmen t procedures and structure are strongly influenced by socio-cultural- political phenomena. It requires political support of external (donor) organizationsi nmanagin gth estrategy .Thi sinclude stakin g financial andpolitica lrisks, t oinitiat esocia lchange san dt ostimulat ecooperatio n betweendifferen t agencies.Externa lsuppor ti stherefor enecessar yi nal l three phases and cannot be limited to phase I and part of phase II as anticipated inth estrategi cmodel . Theseobservation sunderscor etha talthoug hth estrateg yi saime da tth e local level, it cannot be realized at local level only as it requires involvemento fregiona lan dnationa lgovernmen torganization st odea l withchangin gcommunicatio n processes andorganizatio n structures.

197 Clearand realistic objectives Duringimplementatio n anincongruenc e mayaris ebetwee n objectives formulated as premises for the strategic model and objectives of the implementingagencies . Thisma yresul tin : apreferenc e of theagencie s for short term tangibleproductio n targets at the expense of community participation. Hence, the secondphas ema yb eskipped ; villagedevelopmen tplannin gbein guse do na muc hlarge rscal e thaninitiall yintende dfo ral lkind so frura ldevelopmen tactivities . Furthermore the planning method has the intention of being people- centered,emphasizin gth eidentificatio no fneeds ,constraint san doppor ­ tunitieso fuse rgroup sa thamle tlevel ,i norde rt ofulfi l theadaptabilit y andequit ymandate .However ,th eformulatio n ofa programm ean dth e setting of priorities for implementation may still bedominate d byth e village elite or the sectoral agencies.Thi s means that the say of local people in planning their own development activities remains limited, whileonl ya limite dimpac to nth epoores tgroup so fth evillag esociet y can be attained. This suggests that objectives in village development planning should be set realistically in the knowledge that short term resultswil lalway sdominat elon gter mbenefits ,tangibl eresult swil lge t higher priority than social changes, while top-down influences from sectoral agencieswil lprevail . Decentralizationprocesses In addressing the organizational dimension, achoic e should be made between following an approach of 'decentralized trial cases' versusa 'centrallyguide dbottom-u pprocess' .Wit hth eforme ra learnin gproces s ispossibl e in which the motivation and capacity of local andregiona l governments isslowl y built up.Throug h theinvolvemen t of mid-level governmentstaf fa déconcentratio nproces si nplannin gca nalread ystar t in the trial phase.Howeve r in the first twophases , the strategy isno t embedded enough in the institutional framework atnationa l levelan d lacksth epolitica lpowe rt olobb yfo rchange si norganizationa lcompe ­ tence.A 'centrall y guidedbottom-u pprocess 'ha smor epossibilitie so f bringing about changes in organizational competence in the earlier stages.O nth eothe r hand thisapproac h involves therisk tha t national policymakers will push for rapid expansion and focus on reaching targets.Whicheve rapproac hi schosen ,i tneed scarefu l managementt o avoid thepitfall s mentionedabove . Althoughdecentralizatio nprocesse sar eadvocate di nth estrategi cmodel , reality showstha t agovernmen tma yprefe r déconcentrationprocesse s out of fear of losing control and/or because of lack of democratic traditions. The principle of "sole authority" of the Government of Indonesiai si ncontradictio n withth eaim so f stimulatingth eparticipa ­ tiono fvillager si nth edevelopmen tprocess . Consequentlyth eplannin g

198 strategy can only attain theobjective s of people-centered development toa certai nextent .I ti stherefor enecessar ytha tth egovernmen ti sshow n betterresult si nterm so f sustainable land usedevelopmen t programmes atloca lleve limplemente d byhighl ymotivate dvillagers .Onl ythe nma y they bemotivate d toaccep t such aparticipator y approach atth ecos to f losing some power or consensus. Slow-paced development process Toimplement a participator yplannin gproces sa sadvocate dthroug hthi s planningstrateg yi sa slo wprocess . Theskills ,capacitie san dmotivatio n ofloca lorganization san dgovernmen tstaf fnee dt ob ebuil tu pfo rvillag e development planning.A tth ebeginnin g theproces si s time-consuming and haslimite dreach .However ,thi sslo wpac ea tth estar t (phaseI and II)wil lpa ydividend swhe n theloca lcapacitie sfo rplannin g sustainable programmes at village level have increased to a level where local organizations areabl et opla n theirow nprogrammes .The nth edevelop ­ mentproces s may takeplac e at amuc h faster pace.Thi s does however requirea commitmen tt oa ninitiall y slowprocess .Thi si softe n nott oth e liking of government agencies and international donors asthe y want to see directly measurable results of their programme activities which justify their expenditure.

9.2 Policy recommendations for government and donor organi­ zations

The previous conclusions indicate that if this strategy of a phased learning process is tob e implemented successfully the following com­ mitments are required from both donors and governments together as well asfro m each of them separately. Structural changes Donors and governments should: make along-ter m commitment to implement all phases; ensure continuity of support during thewhol eprocess ; support working groups atdistric t and national level tojointl y plan activities and setu p asyste m in which they keep in touch with activities at the local level; manage thelearnin g process and takecar e that the competence and motivation of the participants in the local level planning process is such that the expansion phase can be attained. Governments should: improve employment conditions for most field staff and rural people to motivate them to promote a more equal division of resources and benefits;

199 attributemor evalu et olocall ydevelope dplan srathe rtha ntrus t blindlyt ocentrall ydesigne dblue-prints ; increaseth eflexibility o f proceduresconcernin gth eimplemen ­ tationo f activitiesan dth edisbursemen to fbudgets ; recruit more female extension workers and support women's organizations and Women In Development programmes of sectoralagencies . Donorsshould : provide substantial and continuous external political support, trainingan dguidance . Clearand realistic objectives Donorsan dgovernment s should: possessth eflexibilit yt oadjus tth eproces st one wcircumstances , policiesan dneeds ; Governments should: becomeawar eo fth enee dt oimprov eth emanagemen tcapacit y ofloca lpeopl ei norde ro rreac hsustainabl ean dproductiv elan d usemanagement . Donorsshould : makeever y effort to understand and interpret thegive n objec­ tives of the government organization before the design of a programme; Decentralizationprocesses Donorsan dgovernment sshould : strengthen the competence of a government organization for responsive governance and management of the strategy and supportthe mi nthei rtask s Slow-paceddevelopment process Donorsshould : make along-ter m commitment of at least ten years (e.g. three years trial phase; three years development phase; four years expansionphase) ; Donorsan dgovernment s should: showstron gcommitmen tt oa slow-pace ddevelopmen tprocess , especially inphas eI an dII ;

200 10 EPILOGUE

Thepreviou schapte rillustrate s how thene wproces srequire stremen ­ dous changes in the competence of government organization. These changes demand large investments of both a political and financial nature.Th equestio ni swhethe rth egovernmen ti swillin gt omak ethes e investments and whether the benefits of the planning strategy match thesecosts .T oanswe rthi squestio na neconomi cassessmen twoul db e needed,comparin gth epresen tcost so fgovernmen tprogramme st othei r very meager successes. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study.However ,repeate dfailur eo fexpensiv egovernmen tprogramme s andth ehig hcost so fth epresen textensio napproac h(chapte r5 )ma yfo r examplehav ebee nth ereaso nfo rth eIndonesia nGovernmen t tostar ta procedurefo rvillag edevelopmen tplannin gi nth efirs tplace .Th emajo r gainsfro mthi sar eth eenhance dparticipatio no fvillager san dfiel d staff, their improved motivation and capabilities and enhanced cooperation andcoordinatio no f sectoralagencie si nth eplannin gprocess . Enthusi­ asticresponse sdurin gth etria lphas eindicat etha ta tleas tmajo rpart so f thestrateg yar e feasible. Experiences on Java have illustrated the importance of congruence between the design of land use interventions; the development of communication processesan dth edevelopmen t oforganizationa lcom ­ petence.I fcommunicatio nprocesse sla gbehind ,th eintervention swil l fail too;i f agoo dorganizatio n structure islackin gt oimplemen t these interventionsn osustainabl elan dus eca nb eattained .Th ecomplexit yo f managing this congruence demands aphase d strategy in which each phasefocuse s onachievin ga differen t fitbetwee n (i)intervention san d landus esystem ;(ii )lan dus esyste man dorganization san d(iii )interven ­ tionsan dorganizations .Th ewhol erang eo factor sinvolve d whostriv e for sustainablelan dus e- fromprogramm emanager st ovillager s- will havet ocontribut e toachievin g thisfit . Theywil lonl yb eabl et od os o whenthe yvie wPLANNIN G ASA LEARNINGPROCESS . Thisplannin gstrateg yo ftrial ,developmen tan dexpansio nphase sdoe s nothav ea nend . Societyi sdynami c and subject tocontinuou schange . Thisrequire stha t the strategy adjusts tomee tchangin g circumstances anddemands .Thi sma yimpl y thati nth eexpansio n phaseth enee d for new trial projects is identified. Hence there is no end to this planned development process, which seems an appropriate observation with which to finish.

201 REFERENCES

Ackoff, R.L. 1984.'O n thenatur eo fdevelopmen t andplanning. ' In: Peoplecentered development, contributionstoward theory and planningframeworks. D.C .Korte nan dR .Klaus s(ed.) .Kumaria n press,Wes tHartford , Connecticut. Alfonso,F.B. , 1983. 'Assistingfarme rcontrolle ddevelopmen to fcom ­ munalirrigatio n systems.'In :Bureaucracy and the poor, clos­ ingthe gap. D.C .Korte nan dF.B .Alfons o(ed.) ,Asia nInstitut e ofManagement ,Manila . Altona, T., 1914. 'Rapport noopens het voorloopig hydrologisch onderzoek vanhe tBrantasgebied. ' Tectona, no.7 (Nl) . Anon., 1985. 'Graap's method. Experiences in Burkina Faso.' Heia Newsletter, no.4 ,pp . 12-13. Ashby,J.A. , 1985.'Methodolog y forth eparticipatio n of small farmers inth edesig no fon-far mtrials .' Agricultural Administration, no . 22,pp . 1-19 Axinn, G.H., 1988.Guide onalternative extension approaches. Agri­ cultural Education and Extension Serive (ESHE) Human Re­ sourcesInstitution san dAgraria nRefor mDivision ,FAO ,Rome . Bajracharya, P.,R .Mors e and A.Pongsapich , 1987.Village voices in rural development andenergy planning: participatory action researchin Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan. East-WestCentre , Honolulu,Hawaii . Ban, A.W.va n den and H.S.Hawkins , 1988. Agricultural Extension. Longman,London . Barbier, E.B., 1988.Sustainable agriculture and the resource poor: policyissues and options. (LEECpaper ;88-02 )IIED/UC LEn ­ vironmentalEconomic sCentre ,London . Barbier,E.B. ,1989 . 'Cashcrops ,foo dcrop san dsustainability :Th ecas e of Indonesia.' WorldDevelopment, vol 17,no .6 ,pp .879-895 . Barbier, E.B., 1989.Economics, NaturalResources, Scarcity andDe­ velopment. Uitgever,London .

Barreau,E.M .an dK .Djati ,1983 .'Th eCitandu yprojec ti nJava :Towar d

203 a new approach towatershe d stabilization anddevelopment. ' In: Soil erosionand conservation. S.A.El-Swaify , W.C.Moldenhaue r andA .L o(ed.) ,Iowa . Bekkering, T.D. and K.P. Kucera, 1990.The Lebakhatjo forest area. Naturalresources and human interference. Kont oRive rProject , WorkingPape rno . 32,Malang . Berkes,F. ,1989 .Common property resources. Ecology and community- basedsustainable development. Belhaven Press, London. Bijlmer,J. ,1987 .Ambulante straatgroepen in Surabaya: een studie naar kleinschalige economische activiteiten. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Blaikie, P., 1985.The political economy ofsoil erosion in developing countries. Longman,London . Blaikie, P. and H. Brookfield, 1987.Land degradation and society. Methuen,London . Blair,H.W . and P.D.Olpadwala , 1987. 'Planning for appropriate for­ estryenterprises :lesson sfro mrura ldevelopmen texperienc ei n third worldcountries. 'New Forests, no.2 ,pp .41-64 . Bryant,C .an dL.G .White , 1982.Managing Development in the Third World. Westview Press,Boulder ,Colorad o Budd,W.W. ,I .Duchhar t andL.H .Hardesty , 1990.(ed. )Planning for agroforestry. Isomul seriesno .6 cElsevier , Amsterdam. Bunch,R. , 1982. Twoears of corn; a guide topeople-centered agricul­ turalimprovement. WorldNeighbours .Oklahom acity . Bunting,A.H. ,1986 . 'Extensionan dtechnica lchang ei nagriculture' .In : Investing in ruralextension; strategies and goals. GwynJone s (ed.).Elsevier ,London . Carruthers,I .an dR . Chambers, 1981. 'Rapidappraisa lfo rrura ldevel ­ opment.' AgriculturalAdministration, no.8 ,pp . 407-422. Carson,B.R. , 1985.Assessment of a small watershed using aerialpho­ tography:an example from a remote hill region in Nepal. Pape r presented toth einternationa l workshop'onwatershe dmanag e

204 menti nth eHindukush-Himalay aRegion ,14-19 ,Octobe r1985 . Chengdu,China . Carson, B.R., 1987a. Agroecosystems; a comparitive studyof agro- ecosystems inEast Java andNusa Tenggara Timur. KEPAS , Malang. Carson,B.R. ,1987b .A comparison of soil conservation strategies in four agroecologicalzones in the upland of East Java. KEPAS ,Malang . Carson, B.R. 1989. Soil conservation strategiesfor upland areas of Indonesia.Occasiona lPape rNo .9 East-Wes tEnvironmen tan d Policy Institute, Hawaii. Cernea, M.M., 1985. Putting people first, socialvariables in rural development.Worl dBan kPublication ,Oxfor dUniversit yPress , NewYork . Cernea,M.M. , 1988. Nongovernmentalorganizations and local devel­ opment.Worl dBan kDiscussio nPape rno .40 ,Washingto nDC . Cernea, M.M.,J.K . Coulter andJ.F.A.Russell , 1985.Research, exten­ sion,farmer. A two-way continuumfor agricultural develop­ ment. AWorl dBan kan dUND Psymposium ,Washingto nDC . Chambers,R. , 1983.Rural development: Putting the last first. Longmann , London. Chambers,R. , 1985.'Shortcu tmethod so fgatherin gsocia l information forruraldevelopmentprojects.' In:Putting people first. M .Cerne a (ed.),Oxfor d University Press,Ne wYork . Chambers,R. ,A .Pace y andL.A .Thrupp , 1989. Farmerfirst: Farmer innovationand agricultural research. Intermediat eTechnolog y Publications,London . ChambersR. , 1987.'Shortcu tmethod si nSocia lInformatio n Gathering for Rural Development Projects.' In:Rapid Rural Appraisal. Proceedings of the 1985internationa l conference Khon Kaen University, KhonKaen . Cochrane, G., 1983.Policies for strengthening localgovernment in developingcountries. Worl dBan kStaf fWorkin gPape rno .582 , WashingtonDC . Conway,G.R. , 1985.'Agroecosyste m analysis.'Agriculturaladminis-

205 tration, no.20 ,pp .31-55 . Conway,G.R. , 1987a.Th epropertie so f agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems, no.24 , pp.95-118 . Conway, G. R., 1987b.Farmers andagricultural research: comple­ mentarymethods. ID S workshop. Institute of Development Studiesa tth eUniversit y of Sussex, London. Conway,G.R. , 1987c.'Rapi drura lappraisa lan dagroecosyste manaly ­ sis:A cas e studyfro m northern Pakistan.' In: Rapidrural ap­ praisal.Proceedings of the 1985 international conference. Kho n KaenUniversity ,kho nKaen . Conway,G.R. , J.MMacCracke n andJ.N .Pretty , 1989.Training notes for agroecosystem analysis andrapid rural appraisal. IIED, London. Crouch,B.R. , 1984. 'Theproble mcensus :farme r centeredproble m identification.' In:Training for agriculture andrural develop­ ment. FAO, Rome. Daru, R.D. and W.E.J. Tips, 1985. 'Farmers participation and socio­ economic effects of a watershed management programme in CentralJav a(Sol orive rbasin ,Wirok owatershed) .'Agroforestry Systems, no.3 ,pp .159-180 . Dent,D. ,1988 .Guidelinesfor land use planning. Fift hdraft .FAO ,Rome . Development Perspectives, 1988.Research coordination and planning developmentprogramme BAPPEDA I, West Java, Indonesia (1985-1988). FinalReport ,Arnhem . DGIS, 1991.Een wereldvan verschil, Nieuweleaders voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking in dejaren negentig. DenHaag . DHV Consultants, 1990a. Lesti Watershed and SouthMalang area, basic inventory. KontoRive rProject ,Malang . DHV Consultants, 1990b.Konto RiverProject phase 3 andphase 3 extension. Finalreport, volume 1,experiences with watershed management. KontoRive rProject ,Malang . Donner,W. , 1987.Land use and environment in Indonesia. C.Hurs t& Company,London .

206 Duchhart, I., 1988a. 'Towards an integrated planning method for agroforestry development.' In: Viewpoints on agroforestry, second renewed version. K.F. Wiersum (ed.), Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.

Duchhart, I., 1989.Landscap e Planning: 'An Approach to Local-Level planning?' In: Local level planningfor sustainable land use. R.P.F.va n Haeringen andK.F .Wiersu m (ed). BOS-Document no. 9, Wageningen.

Duchhart, I.,F .Steine r and J.H.Bassman , 1989.'Plannin g methods for agroforestry.' Agroforestry Systems, no.7 ,pp .227-258 . Douglas,M.G. , 1989.Integrating conservationinto the farming system. Land use planning for small holderfarmers. Concepts and procedures. Commonwealth Secretariate, London. Easter, K.W. and M.N. Hufschmidt, 1985.Integrated watershed man­ agement researchfor developing countries. Workshop report. Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Centre/USAID, Honolulu/Washington DC.

Eckholm,E.1979 .Planting for thefuture:forestryfor human needs. Worl d Watch Paper no 26.Washingto n DC.

Edwards,M. ,1989 .'Th eirrelevanc eo fdevelopmen tstudies .'ThirdWorld Quarterly, no. 11(1) . FAO, 1976. Aframework for landevaluation. ILRIPublicatio n no.22 , ILRI Wageningen. FAO, 1984. Land evaluationfor forestry. FAO Forestry Paper no.48 . FAO, Rome. FAO, 1985.Tree growing byrural people. Forestry Paper no.64 .FAO , Rome. FAO, 1988. Participatory monitoring and evaluation, handbook for trainingfield workers. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. FAO, 1989.Community forestry, participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Community Forestry Note no. 2.FAO ,Rome . FAO, 1990. Social Forestry in Indonesia. Workshop report. Field Document no. 25.FAO/RWEDP, Bangkok.

207 Ffolliott,P.F .an dJ.L .Thames ,1983 .Environmentally sound small-scale forestryprojects. Guidelinesfor planning. VITAPublications , Arlington. Fisher,R.J. , 1989.Indigenous systems of common property forest man­ agementin Nepal. Environmen tan dPolic yInstitute ,East-Wes t Centre,Honolulu ,Hawaii . Fox, J., 1987. 'Why Land evaluations for agriculture go awry.' In: QuantifiedLand Evaluation. K.J .Beek ,P.A .Burroug han dD.E . McCormack (ed.).ITC , Enschede. Fox,J. ,M . Bratamihardja, Poedjorahardjo, 1990.'Socia lforestr y plan­ ning: Searching for amiddl e way.' ODI SocialForestry Net­ workPaper no . lOdLondon . Fox,J .an dR.J .Fisher , 1990.Community organization and government bureaucracies insocial forestry. Workin g Paper no.22 , East- WestCentre ,Honolulu ,Hawaii . Frerks,G.E. , 1991.Participation indevelopment activities atthe local level:Case studies from a Sri Lankanvillage. PhD. Thesis Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity ,Wageningen . Fresco,L. ,H .Huizing ,H .va nKeulen ,H .Lunin gan dR . Schipper,1990 . Land evaluation andfarming system analysis for landuse planning. FAOGuidelines ;Workin gDocument .Rome . Friedmann,J. , 1984.'Plannin g associa llearning. ' In: Peoplecentered development,contributions toward theory and planning frame­ works. D.C.Korte nan dR . Klauss(ed.) .Kumaria n Press,Wes t Hartford, Connecticut Gibbs,C.J.N .an dD.W .Bromley , 1986.Institutional arrangements for sustainablemanagement of rural resources: common property regimesand conservation. Pape rprepare dfo rth eConferenc eo n Conservation and Development: Implementing the World Conservation Strategy.Ottawa . Gittinger, J.P.,1982. Economic analysis ofagricultural projects. John HopkinsUniversit y Press,Baltimore/London . Graaff, J. de and K. Dwiwarsito, 1990. Economic monitoring and evaluation of Konto RiverProject implementation activities, (costbenefit analysis of watersheddevelopment activities). Kont o RiverProjec t Communication no. 15,Malang .

208 Graaff, J.d ean dR .Schipper , 1991. 'Aneconomists 'vie wo fenviron ­ mental management.'In: Making haste slowly. Strenghtening localenvironmental management in agricultural development. H. Savenye and A. Huysman (ed), Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam. Grandin, B.E., 1986. Adding community level variables toFSR: Are­ searchpriority. Pape rpresente da tth eIMMI-Rockefelle rFoun ­ dationWorksho po nSocia lScienc ePerspective so nManagin g Agricultural Technology,Lahore . Hamilton,S.M .andP.N .King ,1984 .Watersheds and rural development planning. East-WestCenter ,Honolulu ,Hawai . Hardcastle,P.D. ,1987 .Micro planning for social forestry. A description ofthe system designed for Karnataka SocialForestry Project. ODISocia lForestr yNetwor kpape r4c ,London . Hartono Wirjodarmodjo and Mulyadi Bratamihardja, 1984. 'Policies, strategies and design of forest development on the island of Java.'In :Strategies and designs for afforestation, reforestation andtree planting. Proceedingso fa ninternationa l symposium, 19-23Septembe r1983 ,Wageningen .K.F .Wiersu m(ed. )Pudoc , Wageningen. Haskoning, 1988.Medium term regional developmentplan 1989/90- 1993/94, development region Sukabumi. West Java regional developmentplannin gprojec t LTA-47. Heaver, R., 1982. Bureaucraticpolitics andincentives inthe manage­ ment ofrural development. World Bank Staff WorkingPape r no.537 ,Washingto nDC . Heringa,P.K. , 1939.'Th estat eo freforestatio n invie wo fth e industri­ alization ofEas tJava .Tectona, no.32 ,pp .256-264 . Hildebrand, P.E., 1980.'Combinin g diciplines inrapi d appraisal;Th e sondeoapproach. 'Agricultural Administration, no .8 ,pp . 423- 432. Hoek,A.I .va nden ,1984 .Landscape planning and design of watersheds in the Kathama Agroforestry Project, Kenya. MSc. Thesis Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity ,Wageningen .

209 Hoek, A.I. van den, 1989. 'Land use planning for social forestry; A planning methodology at local level for social forestry programmes on Java, Indonesia.' In:Local levelplanning for sustainableland use. R.P.F.va nHaeringe nan dK.F .Wiersu m (ed).BOS-Documen t no.9 ,Wageningen . Hoek,A.I .va nde nan dM.S .Schomaker , 1988.Local land development planning:guidelines for a training course. Kont oRive rProject , WorkingPape r no.23 ,Malang . Hoek,A. Iva nden ,M.S .Schomaker ,an dJ.M .Zonneveld , 1988.Local landdevelopment planning: amethodology for integratedvil­ lagedevelopment planning. KontoRive rProject ,Workin gPa ­ perno .22 , Malang. Hoek,A.I .va nde nan dT.D .Bekkering ,1988 .'Plannin go f agroforestry inJava. 'In :Planning for Agroforestry. W.W .Budd ,I .Duchhart , L.H.Hardest yan dF .Steine r(ed.) .Isomu lSerie sno .6 cElsevier , Amsterdam Hoek,A.I .va nden ,D.D .Widjajant o andF .Wasisto ,1989a .Local land developmentplanning. A case study in Sumberejo village, Sub- district Pagak. Konto River Project, Working Paper no. 30, Malang. Hoek,A.I . vanden ,D.D . Widjajanto andF .Wasisto ,1989b .Integrated village developmentplanning. A case study in Sumberbening village, sub-districtBantur. KontoRive rProject ,Workin gPa ­ perno . 31,Malang . Hoek,A.I .va nden ,D.D .Widjajant o andF .Wasisto , 1990. Integrated village developmentplanning. A case study inSumberejo vil­ lage,Sub-district Poncokusumo. Kont oRive rProject ,Workin g Paperno .33 ,Malang . Hoek,A.I .va n den, 1991. 'Local levelplannin g inth eupland so fEas t Java,Indonesia. ' In:Making hasteslowly. Strenghtening local environmental management in agricultural development. H. Savenye and A. Huysman (ed), Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam. Hofstede, G., 1981.'Managemen t control of public and not-for-profit activities.' Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 6 (3),pp . 193-211.

210 Hufschmidt, M.M., 1986. 'A conceptual framework for watershed management' In: Watershed resources management. K.W. Easter,J .A .Dixe nan dM.M .Hu fSchmid t(ed.) ,Studie si nWate r Policy and Management no. 10, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Ickis,J.C. , 1983.'Structura lresponse st one wrura ldevelopmen t strat­ egies.'In :Bureaucracy and the poor, closing the gap. D.C .Korte n F.B.Alfons o (ed.).Asia nInstitut eo fManagement ,Manila . ICRAF, 1984.Draft report of thejoint ICARIICRAF diagnostic and designexercise at theBhaintan watershed in the outer Himalaya ofUttar Pradesh. ICRAF, Nairobi. ICRAF, 1987.D&D user's manual. AnIntroduction to Agroforestry Diagnosisand Design. ICRAF, Nairobi. Israel, A., 1987. Institutional development-incentives toperformance. JohnHopkin sUniversit yPress ,Baltimore . Jackson,K.D.andL.W.Pye ,1978 .Political power and communications in Indonesia. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles. Kamp,J .va nde ran dP .Schuthof , 1988.Methods of participative tech­ nologydevelopment, theoretical and practical implications. MS c ThesisWageninge nAgricultura lUniversity/Ileia ,Wageningen / Leusden. KEPAS,1985 .The critical uplands of Eastern Java: an agroecosystems analysis. Brawijaya University,Malang . KEPAS, 1988.Pendekatan Agro-ekosistem pada pola pertanian lahan kering: hasil penelitian di empat zoneagro-ekosistem Jawa Timur. Kelompok Penelitian Agro-ekosistem,Malang . KhonKae nUniversity ,1987 .Rapid Rural Appraisal. Proceeding so fth e 1985internationa l conference, KhonKaen . Kleefmann, F., 1985. Handelen, handelingscontexten planning, een theoretisch-sociologische verkenning. Wageningen Agricul­ turalUniversity ,Wageningen . Korten,D.C. , 1980.'Communit yorganizatio n andrura ldevlopment :a learningproces sapproach. 'Public Administration Review, no . Sept/Oct,pp .480-511 .

211 Korten, D.C., 1983, 'Social development: putting people first.' In: Bureaucracy andthe poor, closing thegap. D.C. Korten and F.B.Alfons o (ed.)Asia n Instituteo f Management,Manila . Korten, D.C., 1984. 'People-centered development: toward a frame­ work.' In:People centereddevelopment, contributions toward theory andplanning frameworks. D.C. Korten and R. Klauss (ed.).Kumaria n Press,Wes tHartford , Connecticut. Korten,D.C . (ed), 1987.Community Management. Asian experiences andPerspectives. Kumaria nPress ,Wes tHartford ,Connecticut . Korten,F.F. , 1983.'Communit yparticipation :a managemen tperspec ­ tive on obstacles andoptions. ' In: Bureaucracy andthe poor, closingthe gap. D.C. Korten and F.B. Alfonso (ed.), Asian Instituteo f Management,Manila . Korten,D.C .an dF.B .Alfonso ,1983 .Bureaucracy and the poor, closing thegap. AsianInstitut eo f Management,Manila . Korten,D.C .an dR .Klauss , 1984. Peoplecentered development. Con­ tributions towardtheory and planning frameworks. Kumarian Press.Wes tHartford , Connecticut. Kucera,K.P. ,1990 .Frameworkforsemi-detailedplanning in integrated watershedmanagement and development studies (with examples ofupper-LestiandBarek). Kont oRive rProject ,Discussio nPape r no. 31,Malang . Long,N. , 1977.An introduction to thesociology of rural development. Tavistock Publications,London . Long, N. and J.D. van der Ploeg, 1989. 'Demythologizing planned intervention:a nacto rperspective. ' InSociologia Ruralis, Vol. XXIX-3/4. Machfud, D.S., 1990. 'Socialforestr y indispute duplan darea si nJava. ' ODISocial Forestry Network Paper, no. 10b,London . Maxwell,S. , 1984. Farming systemresearch: Hittinga moving target. Discussion paper.IDS , Brighton. McCauley,D.S. ,1985 .Upland cultivation systems in densely populated watershedsof the humid tropics-opportunities and constraints relatingto soil conservation: a case from Java, Indonesia. Workingpaper .East-Wes tCentre .Honolulu ,Hawaii .

212 McCauley,D.S. ,1986 .'Watershe d managementi nIndonesia :th ecas e of Java's denselypopulate d upperwatersheds. ' In: Watershed ResourcesManagement: An integrated framework with studies fromAsia andthe Pacific. K.W .Easter ,J.A .Dixo nan dM.M . Hufschmidt (ed.).Studie si nWate rPolic yan dManagemen tno . 10,Westvie wPress ,Boulder ,Colorado . McCauley, D.S., 1988. Overcoming institutional and organizational constraintsto watershed management for the densely populated island ofJava. Paper presented at the 5th international soil conservation conference: landconservatio n for future genera­ tions,Bangkok . McCracken, J., K. Suryanata, D.D. Widjajanto, M.H. Sawit and H. Yusron, 1988. Latihan dan lokakarya analisis agroekosistem, kasus Jawa Tengah danTimur. Kelompok Penelitian Agro­ ekosistem,Malang . Mol,P.W .an dK.F .Wiersum , 1990. Communalmanagement of forests inSouth and Southeast Asia. Departmen to fForestry ,Wageninge n Agricultural University,Wageningen . Molnar, A., 1989.A review ofrapid rural appraisal tools for use in naturalresource management planning and project design and execution.Draf tPaper ,FAO/Asi aEnvironmen tDivisio nWorl d Bank,Rome/Washingto nDC . Nibbering,J.W. , 1988.'Fores tdegradatio n andreforestatio n ina high ­ land area in Java.' In: Changing tropicalforests. Historical perspectiveson today's challengesin Asia, Australia and Oceania. J.Dargavel ,K .Dixo nan dN .Sempl e(ed.) .Australi a National University,Canberra . Nibbering,J.W. ,1989 .Transitions in land use in upland central Java. A casestudy in the Gunung Kidul. Paperpresente da tth e confer­ enceo nIndonesia' sNe wOrder : Past,present ,future , Australia National University,Canberra . Overholt,C ,M.P . Anderson,K . Cloud,J.E .Austi n(ed.) ,1984 .Gender rolesin development projects: A case book. Kumeria nPress ,Wes t Hartford, Connecticut. Ozgediz,S . 1983.Managing public service in developing countries. Worl d BankStaf f WorkingPape rno .583 ,Washingto nDC .

213 Palte,J.G.L. , 1990.Upland farming on Java, Indonesia: asocio- eco­ nomicstudy of upland agriculture and subsistence under popu­ lationpressure. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. PauLS.,1982 ,Managing development programs; the lessons of'success. Westview special studies in Social, Political and Economic Development,Westvie w Press,Boulder ,Colorado . Paul, S., 1983. Strategic management of development programmes. Guidelinesfor action.Managemen tdevelopmen tserie sno .19 . ILO,Geneva . Paul, S.,1987.Community participation indevelopment projects. The worldbank experience. World BankDiscussio n Papersno .6 , WashingtonDC . Peluso,N.L. ,1986 .Report on social forestry field research in West and CentralJava, October 1984 -October 1985. Perum Perhutani andFor dFoundation ,Jakarta . Peluso, N.L. and M. Poffenberger, 1989. 'Social forestry in Java: Reorientingmanagemen tsystems. 'Human Organizations, vol . 48, no.4 ,pp .333-344 . Peluso, N.L., M. Poffenberger and F.J. Seymour, 1990. 'Reorienting forest management on Java.' In: Keepers of theforest, land management alternatives inSoutheast Asia. M . Poffenberger (ed.),Kumaria npress ,Wes tHartford , Connecticut. PerumPerhutani,1985 .Studi kasus social forestry beberapa keluarga diJawa Tengahdan Jawa Barat (II). Jakarta. 'Pickering, K., 1979. 'Soil conservation andrura l institutions in Java.' IDSBulletin 10(4 )pp .60-66 . Poats,S.V .andH .Sim sFeldstei n (ed.),1990 . WorkingTogether: Gen­ derAnalysis in Agriculture. Volume 1:Case studies Volume2: Teaching notes. Kumarian Press,Wes tHartford , Connecticut Poffenberger, M., 1990.Keepers of the forest, landmanagement alter­ nativesin Southeast Asia. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut. PutteR.A .va n de, 1989.'Lan dEvaluatio n andprojec tplanning. ' ITC Journal, no.2 ,pp . 139-143.

214 Quartesva nUfford , Ph. (ed), 1987. Localleadership andprogramme implementationin Indonesia. Fre eUniversit yPress ,Amsterda m Quartesva nUffor dPh. ,D .Kruy tan dT .Downing ,1988 .The hidden crisis indevelopment: development bureaucracies. Free University Press,Amsterdam . Raintree,J.B. , 1987.'Th eStat eo fth ear to fagroforestr y diagnosisan d design.'Agroforestry Systems, no.5,pp .219-250 . Raffles, T. S., 1965.The History of Java, (s.n.), 1830,London . Rappard, F.W., 1951. 'Ontbossing en herbebossing van het bovenstroomgebiedva nd eBrantas-rivier. 'Tectona, no . 41,pp . 286-287. Rocheleau,D.E .an dA.I .va nde nHoek , 1984.The application ofeco­ systemsand landscape analysis in agroforestry diagnosis and design: A casestudy from Kathama sub-location, Machakos District, Kenya. ICRAFworkin gpape rno . 11,Nairobi . Rocheleau, D.E., 1987. 'The user perspective and the agroforestry researchan dactio nagenda. ' In:Agroforestry :realities, possi­ bilitiesand potentials. H.L .Ghol z(ed) .ICRAF/Martinu sNyhof f Publishers,Th eHague . Roling,N.G. ,1988 .Extension science. Information systems in agricul­ turaldevelopment. CambridgeUniversit y Press,Cambridge . Rondinelli,D.A. , 1983.Development projects asplicy experiments. An adaptiveapproach to development administration. Methuen& Co,London/Ne wYork . Rondinelli,D.A. ,J.R . Nellis,G.S .Cheema , 1984. Decentralization in developingcountries; a review of recent experience. Worl dBan k Staff WorkingPape rno .581 ,Washingto nDC . Rutten, R., 1987.Notitie over onderzoek naaroverlevings strategieën van huishoudens. Unpublishedpaper ,Amsterdam . Savenye, H. and A. Huysman (ed), 1991. Making haste Slowly. Strengtheninglocal environmental management in agricultural development. RoyalTropica lInstitute ,Amsterdam .

215 Sasono,A. ,1989 .'NGO' san dPeople' smovement si nth edevelopmen t process.'In :Non governmental participation in development in Indonesia.Repor to fa nexper tconsultation ,Roya lNetherland s Embassy,Jakarta . SBRLKT Brantas, 1990. Laporan local land development plan (pengembangan rencanatingkat desa), volume 1.Malang . SBRLKTBrantas ,1991 .Laporan pengembangan rencana tingkat desa (pemantauan th1). Malang ,Indonesia . SchulteNordholt ,N.G. , 1981.Opbouw in opdrachtof ontwikkeling in overleg1? Academisch Proefschrift. Sneldruk Boulevard, Enschede. SchulteNordholt ,N.G. ,1987 .Tro mLS Dt oLKMD :participatio na tth e village level.' In: Local Leadership andProgramme Imple­ mentationin Indonesia. Ph. Quarlesva nUffor d (ed).Fre eUni ­ versity Press,Amsterdam . SchulteNordholt ,N.H. ,1987 .State-citizen relations in Suharto's Indo­ nesia:Kawula-Gusti. CASPErasmu sUniversity ,Rotterda m Schulte Nordholt, N.H, 1991. Toegestaan, binnen smalle marges: de positieen rolvan NGO's in deNieuwe Ordevan Indonesië. Universiteit Twente, Enschede. SchulteNordholt ,N.H. ,1990 .Institutionele ontwikkeling : een poging to eencreatieve oplossing. Themadagontwikkelingssamenwerkin g eninstitutionel eontwikkeling .Clingendael . Seymour,F .an dL .Fisher , 1988. 'Emerginglesson sfro msocia lforestr y programmesi nsoutheas tasi a(wit hspecia lreference s toIndo ­ nesia).'In :Social forestry in Indonesia, workshop report. Fiel d Document no.25 .FAO/RWEDP ,Bangko k Seymour, F.J., 1991.'Socia l forestry on public lands in Indonesia:A blurringo fend san dmeans. 'In :Social forestry, communaland privatemanagement strategies compared. D.Challino ran dM . HardtFrontdor f (ed.).Th ePau l H.Nitz e School of Advanced InternationalStudies .Th eJoh nHopkin sUniversity ,Baltimore . Simmonds,N.W. , 1986.' A shortrevie wo ffarmin g systemresearc hi n thetropics. 'Experimental Agriculture, no.22 , pp. 1-13.

216 Staveren, J.M. andD.B.W.M . van Dusseldorp, 1980.Framework for regionalplanning in developing countries: methodology for an interdisciplinaryapproach tothe planned development of pre­ dominantlyrural areas,. Internationa l Institutefo r LandRecla ­ mationan dImprovement ,Wageningen . Sterkenburg, J.J., 1987. RuralDevelopment and rural development policies:cases from Africa and Asia. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Stoney, C. and M. Bratamihardja, 1990. 'Appropriate agroforestry technologiesi nJava. ' In:Keepers ofthe forest, land manage­ ment alternatives in Southeast Asia. M. Poffenberger (ed.), Kumarianpress ,Wes tHartford , Connecticut. Sutadipradja, E.an dH .Hardjowitjito , 1984.Watershed rehabilitation programrelated to the management of river and reservoir sedimentationin Indonesia. Paperpresente d atth esymposiu m onmanagemen to frive ran dreservoi rsedimentation ,East-Wes t Centre,Honolulu ,Hawai . Sunderlin, W. (ed), 1990. 'Social equity and social forestry in Java: Preliminary findings from four case studies.' ODI Socialfor­ estryNetwork Paper no . 10a, London. Tjondronegoro, S.M.P., 1984. Social organization andplanned devel­ opmentin rural Java. Oxford University Press,Singapore . UN/ESCAP, 1986.Operationalizing local-levelplanning. United Na­ tions, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Uphoff,N.T. ,1985 ,'Fittin gproject st opeople. 'In :Putting people first; sociologicalvariables in rural development. M.M .Cerne a(ed. ) WorldBan kPublication ,Washingto nDC . Uphoff, N.T.an dM.J .Esman , 1974. Local organizationfor rural de­ velopment:analysis ofasian experience. Specia lSerie so nRura l Local Government. Rural Development Committee, Cornell University,Ithaca ,Ne wYork . Uphoff, N.T., 1986. Local institutional development; an analytical sourcebook with cases. Kumarian Press,Wes tHartford , Con­ necticut. Waterston, A, 1965.Development planning. John HopkinsUniversit y Press,Baltimore ,Colorado .

217 Werter,F.J. , 1992.Organization for forestry extension in the Malakand SocialForestry Project. Paperpresente d atExtensio n Coordi­ nationMeetin g24/2-26/2/199 2i nGilgit . White,B. , 1989. 'Internationalexperience swit hNGO' sactiv ei ndevel ­ opingcountries. ' In:Non governmental participation in devel­ opment inIndonesia. Report of anexper t consultation, Royal NetherlandsEmbassy ,Jakarta . Wiersum,K.F. , 1974.The Indonesian greening movementand related projects to control erosion in the upper Solo watershed. WorkingPape rno .13 .Uppe rSol oWatershe dManagemen tan d UplandDevelopmen t Project,Solo . Wiersum,K.F. , 1980. 'Erosie,plattelandsontwikkelin ge nbo so pJava. ' Lanbouwkundig tijdschrift, no. 92,pp .338-345 . Wiersum, K.F., 1988. Surface erosion in agroforestry systems. In: Viewpoints on agroforestry, second renewedversion. K.F . Wiersum (ed.), Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen. Wiersum, K.F. 1990. 'Planning agroforestry for sustainable landuse. ' In:Planning for Agroforestry. W.W. Budd,I . Duchhart, L.H. Hardesty and F. Steiner (ed.). Isomul Series no. 6c Elsevier, Amsterdam Wiersum,K.F. ,1991 .' Acompariso no fprojec tapproaches. 'In :Making haste slowly. Strengthening local environmentalmanagement inagricultural development. H . Savenyean dA .Huysma n(ed) . RoyalTropica l Institute,Amsterdam . WorldBank , 1988.Indonesia: forest, landand water. Issues in sustain­ able development. Unpublished. York,E.T. ,1988 .'Improvin gsustainabilit ywit hagricultura lresearch. ' Environment, 30(9)pp . 19-41,37-40 . Young, A., 1986. 'Land evaluation and agroforestry diagnosis and design:Toward sa reconciliatio no fprocedures. 'SoilSurveyand LandEvaluation, no.5 ,pp .61-76 .

218 APPENDIX1 PROGRAMMEFO RVILLAG EDEVELOPMEN TPLANNIN GI N SUMBEREJOIIVILLAG E NOVEMBER 27- DECEMBE R2 3 WEEKI day 1: introductionprogramm e introduction approachfo rvillag edevelopmen tplannin g introductionRapi dRura lAppraisa ltechnique s trainingi nth eus eo fthes etechnique s day2 : information fromresourc eperson s(hea do fth esub-distric tan d theregiona lextensio ncentre ) brainstormingo nkey-issue sfo rdevelopmen to fth evillag e formulation ofmajo rkey-issue s andresearc hquestion s day3 : trainingi ninforma l interviews trainingi nth eus eo ffiel d form andquestionnair e day4 : first orientationi nth evillag e collection of secondarydat a informal interviews day5 : collection andstud yo f secondarydat a reformulation key-issues WEEKI I day 1: field preparations field surveyo nterrai nan dlan dus econdition s andinforma l interviews villagemeeting s(i nevening ) day2 : continuation field survey formal interviews notingdow no fobservation s andinformatio n perissu e discussion andcheckin go fdat acollectio npe rissu e andformulatio n ofneed sfo r additionaldat acollectio n day3 : informal interviewswit hkey-respondent s additionaldat acollectio n villagemeeting s

219 day4 : preparation ofactivit y profile discussion onkey-issue s day5 : discussion onkey-issue s WEEKII I day 1: dataprocessing ;productio no fmaps ,tables ,diagram s day2 : dataprocessin g day3 : analysiso fkey-issue s day4 : formulation ofidea sfo rprogramm eactivitie s(conceptua lplan ) WEEKI V day 1: detailed analysiswit hpotentia l targetgrou pi nth efiel d day2 : detailed analysisthroug hinforma l interviews dataprocessin g day3 : participatory planningo fprojec t activitieswit htarge t group day4 : discussion onresult sparticipator yplannin gi ntea m formulationo fa nintegrate dvillag edevelopmen tprogramm e(i n programmematrix ) day5 : finalizing of theprogramm e WEEKV day1 : preparation ofpresentatio n presentationo fth eprogramm et ovillager san dloca lgovernmen t officials

220 APPENDIX2 STANDARDFOR MFO RRAPI DFIEL DSURVE YO NTERRAI NAN DLAN D USECONDITION S Name: Observationsite : Terrain Mapunit : Terrainunit :Dominan tslop e waterlogging/gullies/salinity percentage: Terraced:Yes/N o Outwardslopin g Bunded: Yes/No %ageTerrace d level 0% Inwardsloping : 0-50 % 50-85 % 85-100 % SoilDepth : SoilTexture : SoilDrainage :

0-20c m fine:,. till... poor 20-50 cm medium:...til l.. . moderatelywel l 50-100c m coarse: till... wello rbette r > 100c m Anyothe rremark so nterrain : LandUs e MapUnit : Ifmixe dfor m oflan dus ei nth earea ,indicat epercentage :(e.g .tega l40 % kebun 60%o rtega l50 %kebu n30 %homegarde n20% ) Annualcrop s Cropping Perennial Planting Diseases Yields inth e field: Pattern: Crops: System: Occur: t/ha: onbund s in fields alongpat h Irrigationpractices :non/semi-technical/loca l(supplementry ) Watershortages :Yes/No ,remark so nwate ravailability . ForestType : Species: Nat.Forest : Plantation Forest PlantationSystem : -tumpangsar i -cemplonga n -othe r Shrub/Belukar GrassLand : Anyothe rremark so nlan duse : 221 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE Adaptedfro m Kali Konto Project ,198 9

I. Identification Date : . Enumerator Name (heado f household): Education (duration): Farmsize:..,, , ha; Hamlet/RT: /. Village:

II. Memberso f household Number :-1=HH/ - 2 -/- 3 -/-4 -/- 5 -/- 6 -/-7 -/- 8 • Sex(M/F) : Age(yrsold): Employment outsideow n farmb yh.h .member s Type (1) : No. ofday s (ina month ) Income (permonth ;R p 1000)

Type (2) No. of days (in amonth ) Income (permonth ;R p 1000)

UI.Social-economica l conditions Type andconditio n of house? brick (3); 'klenengan' (2);bamboo/woo d (1) good (3); medium (2);ba d (1) Floor:til e (3);cemen t (2);soi l (1)

Any electricity? Yes (1);N o (0) Anyradio ? Yes(l);No(0) AnyT V set? Yes(l);No(0) Any motorcycle ? Yes(l);No(0)

IV.Informatio n onlan dan dcroppin gpattern s

Plotnumbe r /-1 -/- 2 -/- 3 -/-4 -/-5 -/- 6 -/- 7 -/-8 -/ Landtyp e (irrigatedlan d= 1; drylan dwit h annualcrop s = 2;perrenia l crops= 3; home garden = 4; intercropping on forest land=5 ;brackis hpond ,etc .= 6; other= 7) Plotare a (0,01 ha) Tenure (owner=l, other=0)

222 Croppingpatter n(withi nlas tyear ) (a= mai ncrops ;b = intercrops; / =relay ) Firstcrop(s ) la.,

Secondcrop(s ) 2 a.

Thirdcrop(s ) 3 a.

No. oftree s Perrenial crops : (estate, fruits) Wood : (fuelwood/timber) Production Rice Maize (dried) Cassava Firstcro p (dried) (sawah)(tegal) kg/ha kg/ha kg/ha ton/ha

V. Animal husbandry M-/-2-/-3-/-4-/-5-/-6-/ Type dairy droughtbuffal o sheep/ chicken cattle cattle goat

No. of animals No. reproductive No. of adultmal e No. of animals owned

Condition of thestabl e ...... (l=good;2=medium ;3=poor )

Fodder

Grass& leaves (maize leaves,etc ) (pikulpe rweek ) - collected by theh.h . -collecte db ylaboure r -bein g bought(Rp.7.. )

VI.Consumptio n andavailabilit y of energy Lastwee k Usuallype rwee k - How manypiku lo f fuelwood consumed? ..piku l ..piku l - Howman y litreo f kerosineconsumed ? ..litr e ..litr e

Lastmont h Usuallype rmont h - Fromwher e is fuelwood collectedan d aboutho w manypikul ? fromow n land(sawah , tegal) boughtfro mtrade r bought from StateFores tAuthorit y collected from forestare a

223 APPENDIX 4: Exampleso fmonitorin g forms

1.Monthl y planning andmonitorin g of activities

January February March April May June Application Maintenance Maize sowing Application ormanur e of coffee of fertilizers seedlings Planting of Replanting Monitoring of Fieldtrip coffeeseedling s coffee survivalrate s seedlings Technical meeting Harvesting maize Maintenance Attentiono n on coffee coffee tree planting management techniques Meeting farmers Meeting farmers Meeting farmers Meeting fanners groupsavin g groupsavin g groupsavin g groupsavin g programme programme programme programme

2.Monitorin g form of physical resultspe r month

Farmer Land(ha ) Percentage of Numbero f Numbero f Yields improvedterrace s coffee trees gliricidia of cuttings maize

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. Monitoring form for financial administration of farmer group

Savings/expenditure January February March Savings perfarme r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total permonth : Total incash : Expenditures:

224 ABOUTTH EAUTHO R

Theautho rwa sbor ni n196 0i nOosterbeek ,th eNetherlands .I n19 78 sh e completedhe rsecondar yeducatio nan dstarte dhe rstud ya tth eAgricultura l University of Wageningen, theNetherlands .I n 1985sh e graduated in landscape planning with agroforestry, remote sensing and business administrationa ssecondar ysubjects .A spar to fhe rstud ysh eworke dfo r eightmonth sa tth eInternationa l Councilfo r Agroforestry (ICRAF) in Nairobi,Kenya ,wher e sheintroduce d aDiagnosi san dDesig n (D&D) approach atsupra-househol dlevel . After her study she worked briefly at the Department of Landscape Planning at the Agricultural University Wageningen until she was offered a job in Indonesia. Here she stayed from 1986 till 1990 as associate expert for the Netherlands Government (DGIS) in the Kali KontoWatershe d ManagementProject ,Eas tJava . Herwor ko nvillag e developmentplannin gforme d thebasi sfo rthi sthesis .Bac ki nHollan d shecarrie d out aliteratur e study and started writing-up thisbook .Th e bookwa sfinalize d inNorther nPakistan ,wher esh eha sbee nlivin gwit h herfamil ysinc e1991 .Currentl ysh ei sinvolve di nconsultanc yo nvillag e landus eplannin gwit hth eMalakan dSocia lForestr yProject .Th eautho r haswritte n severalpublicatio n onvillag eleve lplanning .

225 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the four years of my research many people in Indonesia, the Netherlandsan dPakista nhav esupporte dm ei nvariou sways .Althoug h iti simpossibl et omentio nall ,I woul dlik et othank : Bakhtiar-U-Din, Sjaak Beerens, Just Bekkering, Titus Bekkering, mr and mrsBekkering-Merens , Pak Budi,Bria n Carson,Nicol a Harford, HannyHeetman ,m ran dmr sVa nde nHoek-Va nKampen ,Pete rva nde n Hoek, Riazat Hussain, Henk Luning, mr Van Maaren, Pak Pranoto, Mirjam Schomaker, Nazeer, Nico Schulte Nordholt, Frans Werter, FreerkWiersum ,Faja r Wasisto,Das iDia n Widjajanto. I wouldlik et othan kth e LEB-Fondsfo rthei rfinancia l contribution.

226 SAMENVATTING Inleiding Landgebruiksbeheeri nd enegentige rjare nstaa tvoo rd euitdagin go md e lokalebevolkin gcentraa lt estelle n inhe tontwikkelingsproce sdoo rz e te steunen in bet ontwikkelings proces, bij hunkeuz evoo ree n eigen ontwikkelingsstrategie. Deze uitdaging geldt vooral voor de bovenstroomse gebieden waar de blauwdruk programma's voor het beheerva nlandgebrui kva nd ecentral eoverhei d eengering ekan sva n slagenhebben .D ebelangrijkst erede nhiervoo ri sda tdez eprogramma' s vaaknie tzij naangepas taa nd ecomplexitei te ndiversitei tva nlandgebrui k ind ebovenstrooms e gebieden.He tbehee rva nlandgebrui k zowelee n korte - als een lange termijnperspectief en is onderhevig aan snelle veranderingen. De verschillende rollen van privé-, staats - en gemeenschappelijke gronden,i ncombinati eme tee ncomple x systeem vangebrui k enrechten ,make nhe tbehee rva nlandgebrui k moeilijk te doorgronden. Deze studiei s een antwoord op deze uitdaging doordat het een nieuwe strategiebehandel tvoo rhe tplanne nva nduurzam elandgebruikprogramma 's oplokaa lnivea ume td evolgend edoelstellingen : het ontwikkelen van een strategisch model voor duurzame landgebruikprogramma's waarin de lokale bevolking centraal staat; hetontwikkele nva nee nflexibele planningsmethode ,di egebruik t kan worden als managementinstrument voor het beheer van landgebruiko plokaa l niveau; het testen van de uitvoerbaarheid van deze strategie voor de bovenstroomsegebiede ni nOost-Java , Indonesië. Hetstrategische model Detwe ebelangrijkst e uitgangspunten vandi tmode l zijn: programma'sworde ngeplan de nuitgevoer dd.m. vee nleerproce s met zowel een lokale als organisatorische dimensie. De lokale dimensie bestaat uit een leerproces van planning, uitvoering en 'monitoring' van kleinschaligeprojecten . Hetplanningsproce si s kort, maar geplande interventies worden regelmatig aangepast, gebaseerdo pnieuw einzichte ne nveranderend eomstandigheden .I n deorganisatorisch edimensi everloop the tleerproce si ndri efase nt e weten: de 'experimentele' fase, de 'ontwikkelings' fase en de 'expansie'fase .I ndez edimensi eka nd eoverhei dlere nho ez edez e strategie voor het uitvoeren van planningo p lokaal niveaumoe t managene nwelk eeise ndi tstel taa nhe tverandere nva nhu nnormen , houdinge norganisatorisch ecompetentie .Dez edimensi eomva td e lokale,regional ee nnational eoverheid .

227 drievariabele nmoete nbeschouw dworde ni nprogrammaplanning : hetlokal elandgebruiksysteem ,d einterventie se nd euitvoerend e en ondersteunende organisaties, zoals de overheid en niet- gouvernementele organisaties (NGO's). Duurzame landgebruiksprogramma's zijn alleen mogelijk als deze drie variabelen goedo pelkaa r zijn afgestemd. Inhe tstrategisc h modelzij n dezetwe euitgangspunte n gecombineerd: eengoed erelati etusse nd evariabele nword tbereik tdoo ree nleerproces . Omdat het moeilijk is om de drie variabelen goed op elkaar af te stemmen,word tee ngefaseerd e benaderingtoegepast .Dez ebestaa tui t devolgend edri estappen ;ee n'experimentele 'fase ,ee n'ontwikkelings ' fasee nee n 'expansie'fase .I nd e'experimentele 'fas egaa td eaandach t uitnaa rhe tafstemme nva ninterventie so phe tlokal elandgebruiksysteem . Dit kan worden bereikt door de uitvoering van 'trial cases' waarin dorpelingen, veldwerkers van overheidsorganisaties en lokale leiders bekendrakenme tdez enieuw ebenaderin gvoo rhe tplanne nva nduurzam e landgebruiksprogramma's oplokaa lniveau .I nd e 'ontwikkelings' fase wordtspecifiek e aandachtbestee daa nd erelati etusse norganisatie se n hetlandgebruiksysteem .Doo rhe tonwikkele nva nd e'huma nresource s' encommunicatieprocesse nverandere nd evaardighede ne nhoudin gva n debetrokkenen .I nd e'expansi e'fas egaa td eaandach tui tnaa ree ngoed e relatie tussen interventies en organisaties. In deze fase is de planningsbenadering geaccepteerd enword thi j toegepast opnationaa l niveau. Veranderingen ind eoverheidsstructuu r en -procedures , zoals decentralisatieprocessene nhe tversterke nva nlokaa lleiderscha pmoete n indez efas eworde ngerealiseerd .Doo rhe tproce so pt esplitse ni nd edri e fasenworde n decomplex eproblemen ,di egepaar dgaa nme td eplannin g van duurzaam landgebruik, beheersbaarder en kan stap voor stap het uiteindelijke doel dedri evariabele n op elkaar af te stemmen,worde n bereikt.

Planningsmethode Voor het afstemmen van de drievariabele n in de experimentele fase, moetee nplanningsmethod eworde ntoegepas to mgegeven st everzamele n en te analyseren. Deze gegevens worden vervolgens met behulp van participatieve planningstechnieken gebruikt voor hetontwikkele n van effectieveprogramma 's .E ri sechte rgee nkan te nklar eplanningsmethod e beschikbaardi evoldoe taa ndez eeis .I nplaat sdaarva ni see ncombinati e van bestaandebenaderingen ,methode ne ntechnieke nnodig . Driebenaderinge nzij nhiervoo rva nbelan gn.l :landgebruiksontwikkeling , voorlichting en projectmanagement. In het algemeen gesproken dekt iederebenaderin gee nverschillend ekan tva nhe tstrategisch emodel .D e

228 ontwikkelingva nlandgebrui kricht zic ho pd erelati etusse ninterventie s en het landgebruiksysteem; voorlichtingsprocessen kunnen gebruikt worden om organisaties en het landgebruiksysteem op elkaar af te stemmen,terwij ld erelati etusse norganisatie se ninterventie sverbeter d kan wordenme td ehul pva n projectmanagementtechnieken. iV Voor de planning van landgebruiksontwikkeling in de experimentele fasezij nee naanta lbestaand emethode ne ntechnieke nrelevant .Di tzij n 'FarmingSyste mAnalysis' ,'Lan dEvaluation' ,'Agroecos yste mAnaly ­ sis','Landscap ePlanning' ,'Rapi dRura lAppraisal 'e n'Gende rAnalysis' . Decriteri azoal sgeformuleer d inhe tstrategisch emode lbepale nwelk e aspecten van iedere methode of techniek bruikbaar zijn voor de ontwikkeling van een nieuwe methode. Geen van deze bestaande methoden en technieken is op zich zelf geschikt als operationele planningsmethodevoo rd euitvoerin gva nd eeerst efas eva nhe tmodel . Eencombinati eva nall ebruikbar eelemente n wordtvoorgesteld . Ind eexperimentel efas e gaatd eaandach tui tnaa rd eontwikkelin gva n landgebruik, terwijl de mogelijkheden om voorlichtingsprocessen te ontwikkelen en om projectmanagement te beinvloeden beperkt zijn. Daarom moeten de plannen voornamelijk aangepast worden aan de bestaande competentie van de organisatie. Binnen deze beperkingen echter, kan wel degelijk enige aandacht aan deze processen besteed wordendoo ree n stapto et evoege n aand eplannin gva nlandgebrui ki n devor mva nprogrammering .Dez eprogrammerin gomva tgedetailleerd e 'actieplannen' enee ngeïntegreerd e programmamatrix. Omstandigheden voorplanning op Java Deomstandighede nvoo rd eontwikkelin gva nlandgebruiksprogramma 's in de bovenstroomse gebieden op Oost Java zijn divers en complex. Boeren hebben op deze diversiteit ingespeeld door verschillende strategieën voor landgebruik te ontwikkelen. Haaks hierop staan de standaard programma's vand eoverhei d met uniforme en veelalvast e proceduresvoo rd eplannin ge nuitvoering .Hoewe le rprocedure svoo r dorpsontwikkelingsplanning bestaan,functionere n zenie t alszodanig . Lokale organisaties die verantwoordelijk zijn voor dorpsontwikkelingsplanning dorpsontwikkelingsplanning hebben nog niet de vaardigheden om zulke plannen te ontwikkelen, en bovendien blijven de centraal georganiseerde sectorale diensten dit 'bottom-up'-proce sdomineren .D edominanti eva nd ecentral e overheid is een gevolg van de inlijving van een aantal sociaal- culturele elementen in hun politiek, zoals alleenheerschappij en harmonie. De overheid gebruikt deze elementen om autonome lokale organisaties in te kapselen in het overheidsysteem en om de lokale leiders te binden aan overheidsregels en procedures. Dezesterk egerichthei do pd eoverhei dheef t tweebelangrijk e gevolgen 229 voor de huidige planningva n interventies. Ten eerste,d e interventies wordenaangepas taa nd ecompetenti eva nd euitvoerend eorganisatie si n plaatsva nda tdez e huncompetenti eontwikkele no mnieuw etake nui t te kunnen voeren. Ten tweede wordt er niet meer dan 'lip-service' gegevenaa nd eparticipati eva nd edorpelinge n ind eplannin gva nhu n ontwikkelingsprogramma's . Ondanks deze tekortkomingen in de huidige procedure voor dorpsontwikkelingsplanning is er wel degelijk ruimte voor een verbetering.Dez ei sgerich to phe tto tstan dkome nva nee nevenwichti g proceswaari nlokal ebehoefte ne noverheidssteu ngecombineer dworden . 'Trialcases' Dezeconstaterin gvorm td eaanleidin gto tee nverder eontwikkelin gva n een planningsmethode voor dorpsontwikkeling in de bovenstroomse gebiedeni nOost-Jav avi aee nleerproce sva n'tria lcases' .D ealgemen e doelstellingi so md ekwalitei tva nbestaand edorpsontwikkelingsplanne n te verbeteren binnen de bestaande overheidsprocedures. Het planningsteam bestaat uitdorpelinge n enee nveldsta f vand esectoral e diensten,di egezamelij k eenplanningsmethod euitvoere nbestaand eui t een'Rapi dVillag eAppraisa l' ,participatiev eplannin ge nprogrammering . Het resultaat is een geïntegreerd dorpsontwikkelingsprogramma, wat gericht is op de ontwikkeling van technologieën voor beheer van landgebruik,werkgelegenheidprogramma' se nondersteunend esociaal - economischee nfysiek e infrastructuur. Vier trial cases zijn uitgevoerd en de resulterende dorpsontwikkelingsprogramma's zijn geaccepteerd door de lokale overheid, waarbij Indonesische fondsen zijn gealloceerd. Het gebruik van bestaande planningprocedures en de betrokkenheid van de overheidsstaf in de planning maakt de strategie acceptabel op lokaal niveau en versnelt het institutionaliseringsproces. Aan de anderekan t illustreren enkele voorlopige gegevens over de uitvoering van programma's, dat het gebruik van overheidsprocedures de resultaten sterk beinvloedt. Hoewel deze programma's gebaseerd zijn op lokale behoeften, mogelijkheden en capaciteiten van de verschillende landgebruikers,bepale ndez eoverheidsregel sd euitvoerin gi ndi ezi nda t zeminde rflexibe l enmee rgestandaardiseer d worden. Hetstrategisch modelin de Javaanse context Dediscussi e overd euitvoerbaarhei d van het strategische modeli nd e Javaanse situatiebestaa tui t tweedelen . Teneerste ,worde nd emogelijkhede nvoo rtoepassin gva nhe tmode lpe r fase besproken. De 'experimentele' fase bestaat uit het uitvoeren van 'trial cases' in dorpsontwikkelingsplanning; de 'ontwikkelings' fase omvat het uitvoeren van deze planning op een regionaal niveau,

230 trainingprogramma's, begeleiding, advies en participatieve 'monitor­ ing';terwij ld e'expansie 'fas edecentralisatieprocesse n vooroge nheef t ind evor mva nee nverhoog daanta lgedeconcentreerd efondsen ,verbeter d personeelsbeheer, de introductie van flexibele procedures en een veranderingi nd eorganisatiestructuu rdoo rverbeterin gva nd ecompetenti e van de lokale overheid. Om het management van de strategie te ondersteunen worden werkgroepen op regionaal en nationaal niveau voorgesteld, waardoor de politieke betrokkenheid van invloedrijke personen wordt gegarandeerd. Externe organisaties (zoals donoren) zullengedurend eall efase n steunmoete nverlene naa nhe tmanagement , omd erisiko's te drage ndi eme td eintroducti eva nee nnieuw estrategi e gepaardgaan . Tentweede ,worde nd ebeperkinge ndi everwach tkunne nworde ntijden s de uitvoering van het model geëvalueerd. De uitvoerbaarheid van de experimentele fase van destrategi ei sgebaseer d opervaringe n metd e 'trialcases' .Tijden sdez eevaluati erijs td evraa gi nhoeverr ed eresultate n van planning op lokaal niveau op Java beantwoorden aan de onderzoeksdoelstellingen zoals geformuleerd aan het begin van deze studie. Geen ervaring is nog opgedaan met de uitvoering van de 'ontwikkelings'e n'expansie 'fase .Hiervoo rzij nd eervaringe nme the t 'JavaSocia lForestr yProgramme 'waardevol .Di tprogramm aheef tee n vergelijkbare faseringsstrategie gevolgdmaa rverkeer ta li nd eexpansi e fase. Deervaringe nhebbe nbetrekkin gop :(i)incongruenti eva ndoelstellinge n tussend edono re noverheidsorganisati e ind ezi nva nproducti eversu s bevolkingsparticipatie; (ii)beperkt einvloe do pd eontwikkelin gva nd e armsten; (iii) geen betrokkenheid van vrouwen, terwijl zij tot de belangrijkste gebruikersva n hetbo sbehoren ; (iv) sterkehierarchisch e organisatie, die leidt tot geformaliseerd en inflexibel beleid voor uitvoering; (v) een te snelle expansie ten koste van management en training; en (vi) een beperkte rol van de NGO's vanwege de lage prioriteit voortrainin ge nmanagement . Conclusies en beleidsaanbevelingen Deevaluati eresulteer ti nee naanta lconclusie sbetreffend evoorwaarde n waaraan moet worden voldaan voor succesvolle uitvoering van de strategie.Dez econclusie s zijn: hoeweld estrategi egerich ti so phe tlokal eniveau ,ka nz enie to p het lokale niveau alleen uitgevoerd worden, omdat dit een samenwerking vereist van de regionale en nationale overheidsorganisaties om veranderingen in communicatieprocessen en organisatiestructuren te kunnen realiseren; de doelstellingen voor dorpsontwikkelingsplanning moeten 231 realistisch worden geformuleerd, aangezien korte termijn resultatenaltij dd elang etermij nperspectieve nzulle ndomineren , tastbareresultate nee nhoger eprioritei tzulle nkrijge nda nsocial e veranderingen,terwij ltop-dow ninvloede nva nsectoral edienste n zullen overheersen; bijhe tplanne nva nd eorganisatorisch edimensi emoe tee nkeuz e gemaakt wordentusse nee nbenaderin gva n gedecentraliseerde 'trial cases' en centraal geleidde 'bottom-up' processen. Onafhankelijk vand ekeuz evoo ree nstrategi ei sgoe dmanage ­ mentvereis to mprobleme nme tinstitutionaliserin g(eerst egeval ) ofva nee nt esnell eexpansi e(tweed egeval )t evoorkomen ; heti snoodzakelij ko md eoverhei dgoed eresultate nt elate nzie n in de vorm van succesvolle programma's voor duurzaam landgebruik, uitgevoerd door gemotiveerde en enthousiaste mensen.Slecht sda nka nd eoverhei dgemotiveer drake no mdez e strategie teacceptere n tenkost eva nee nverlie saa ninvloed , deuitvoerin gva nee nparticipatie fplanningsproce si saanvankelij k eenlangzaa mproces ,da tee n langdurigepolitiek ebetrokkenhei d van deoverhei dvereist . Dezeconclusie s zijn vertaald inee n aantal beleidsaanbevelingen voor donorene nlokal eoverhede nme tbetrekkin gtot :langdurig ee ncontinu e betrokkenheid;ontwikkelin gva nd emanagementcapacitei te nmotivati e vand ebetrokke nmensen ;e nhe tversterke nva nd ecompetenti eva nd e organisatievoo rverantwoor d beleid.

Ervaringen opJav ahebbe n hetbelan ggeïllustreer d vand esamenhan g tussen hetplanne n van landgebruiksinterventies, deontwikkelin g van communicatieprocessen en de ontwikkeling van de organisatorische competentie. Alle mensen die een rol spelen bij het bereiken van duurzaam landgebruik - van dorpelingen tot programmamanagers - zullen moeten helpen omdez e samenhang terealiseren . Zezulle n dat alleen kunnen doenal sz eplannin g zienal see nleerproces .

232