Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality and Livelihoods in Indonesia • 109
may have varying underlying causes (Box 4-3) and can be improved in
different ways. In the field, the mechanism for problem framing was an
exchange of information to search for facts that were accepted by all actors.
Collective knowledge developed as the search process evolved, sometimes
supported by fact-finding activities. Box 4-4 gives an example of a problem
framing exercise.
Box 4-3. Problem framing: crop damage by pigs
It is often thought that if stakeholders have jointly identified a given problem
situation, they will all view that problem from the same perspective. We learned
that this is not necessarily the case: different stakeholders may see different
causes for a problem, as the following example shows.
The Orang Rimba in Jambi saw the rampant devastation of food crops by
pigs as a problem of external origin. The pigs came from distant places where
forest resources had decreased and were searching for new habitats. The Baru
Pelepat community, on the other hand, thought that clearing of small forest
patches by community members caused the problem, and that if larger areas
had been cleared, as in the past, the pigs would be less likely to form herds
and destroy crops.
The Orang Rimba believed that the solution should be hunting the pigs,
whereas Baru Pelepat community members suggested starting dry fields in
grouped localities. This is an example of how different stakeholders in search
of solutions see the same problem from different angles. (Kusumanto et al.
2005)
Box 4-4. Problem framing: unclear village boundaries
The issue of boundaries was one of the six ‘learning questions’ identified
by community actors. The Baru Pelepat community had to negotiate village
boundaries with the neighbouring community of Sungai Beringin. Although the
communities agreed that the village boundaries were unclear, they had different
views on how the problem should be tackled. They began by exploring their
common knowledge and agreements about the boundaries. Although the two
communities had different traditions regarding natural resource boundaries
and management, there were—to their own surprise—certain geographical
points and customary values that both shared. When communicating and
sharing knowledge in search for shared values did not help, they conducted
field visits for joint fact-finding. Gradually, collective knowledge took shape.
People discovered that because the problem situation could be approached
from different perspectives, strategies for making improvements in the
situation were diverse as well.