The debate on the concept of natural resources conservation and local livelihood has been raised for a long time in development studies. Models of forest governance which centralising on the role of community is widely implemented. Forest conservation strategies is now promoting to include local development strategies. Collaborative management of forest conservation emerged and became the main strategy of environmental organisations in combining the concept of conservation and local livelihood. Community participation in the management process is viewed as the key to success. This paper present a study on collaborative management approach as a forest governance approach. By researching the process of developing the collaborative management approach in Central Kalimantan, this study would like to highlight that balancing environmental interest and livelihood interest will take long journey and need continuous willingness of every stakeholders to open up and contextualise the approach. Additionally, this research will examine the benefits of collaborative management in balancing the forest conservation efforts and the community’s provision for sustainable livelihoods. A qualitative approach through secondary data study, semi-structured interview and observation has been applied to examine the case study of Sebangau National Park in Central Kalimantan Indonesia. The study showed that bringing together stakeholders to negotiate and coordinate to find solution for conservation and livelihood interest is not an easy work. Some challenges derives from the government side and dynamics within the community might hinders the process of developing collaborative management in place.

, , , , , ,
Gomez, Georgina
hdl.handle.net/2105/32934
Governance, Policy and Political Economy (GPPE)
International Institute of Social Studies

Roviana, Maria Theresia Astika. (2015, December 11). Collaborative Forest Management: Community’s Livelihood vs Forest Conservation A Case Study of Sebangau National Park, Indonesia. Governance, Policy and Political Economy (GPPE). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2105/32934