Intent and Consequence: Forestry Institutions and Community Management in Indonesia

本论文研究项目将调查印度尼西亚森林共同管理倡议的良好意图如何以及为什么会导致意想不到的后果。它将审查参与共同管理的组织的机构文化及其之间的关系，并说明这些举措如何提供一个舞台，加强、谈判和争夺地方一级对森林资源的主张。国际林业研究中心(林业研究中心)及其在东加里曼丹的共同管理倡议将是审查这些问题的协调中心。这项研究试图了解印度尼西亚森林和依赖森林的社区的知识生产过程，以及这种知识对依赖森林的社区的影响。研究目标如下：(1)记录和确定影响CIFOR选择、实施和报告印度尼西亚森林共同管理研究的过程和因素；(2)追踪CIFOR与地方、区域和国家各级其他行为者之间的信息类型和流动；(3)审查地方一级行为者如何谈判和争夺森林资源的权利和主张，并确定CIFOR的共同管理倡议如何影响这些争议和谈判；(4)比较CIFOR干预的后果和倡议的意图；以及(5)有助于更广泛地从理论上理解产生有关森林和依赖森林的人的知识的机构的文化和政治经济学。要实现这些目标，就需要关注知识是如何产生、使用和转化的。在为期12个月的时间里，将在印度尼西亚进行多地点研究，采用以下方法：参与者观察、半结构化和开放式访谈以及文件内容分析。使用这套方法将能够对从多个来源收集的访谈、观察和记录数据进行三角测量，并分析数据来源之间的连续性和脱节。在后勤层面上，与CIFOR的合作为成功进行这项研究提供了必要的途径。这项研究将有助于有关知识生产机构的文化和政治经济学以及这种知识在全球、国家和地方层面的影响的理论辩论。研究林业机构的机构文化填补了发展和环境机构文献中的一个重大空白。它还通过研究科学和管理的关系，并从研究最多的实验室科学转向研究最少的实地科学及其应用，为科学研究文献做出贡献。虽然大多数关于村级林业制度干预的研究将其范围限制在村级动态，但本研究将对村级干预的理解与对产生这种干预的制度文化的调查相结合，并分析了村庄与制度现实之间的相互作用。在这样做的过程中，它质疑了西方知识与非西方学科之间、专家与表面上需要专业知识的人之间的假定界限。

This dissertation research project will investigate how and why good intentions of forest co-management initiatives in Indonesia lead to unintended consequences. It will examine the institutional culture of and relationships between organizations involved in co-management, and map how these initiatives provide an arena to strengthen, negotiate and contest claims to forest resources at the local level. The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and its co-management initiative in East Kalimantan will be the focal points through which these issues are examined. The study seeks to understand the process of knowledge production about forests and forest dependent communities in Indonesia, as well as the consequences of that knowledge for forest dependent communities. Research objectives are as follows: (1) to document the processes of and identify the factors that affect selecting, implementing and reporting research on forest co-management in Indonesia by CIFOR; (2) to trace the types and flows of information between CIFOR and other actors at local, regional and national levels; (3) to examine how local level actors negotiate and contest rights and claims to forest resources and determine how CIFOR's co-management initiative affects these contestations and negotiations; (4) to compare the consequences of CIFOR's intervention with the initiative's intentions; and (5) to contribute to a broader theoretical understanding of the culture and political economy of institutions that produce knowledge about forests and forest dependent people. Meeting these objectives requires an ethnographic focus on how knowledge is produced, used and transformed. Over a 12-month period, multi-sited research will be conducted in Indonesia, employing the following methods: participant observation, semi-structured and open-ended interviews, and content analysis of documents. Using this set of methods will allow triangulation of interview, observational and documentary data collected from multiple sources, as well as the analysis of the continuities and disjunctures between data sources. On a logistical level, collaborating with CIFOR provides the necessary access to conduct this study successfully.This study will contribute to theoretical debates concerned the culture and political economy of knowledge producing institutions, and the effects of that knowledge at global, national and local levels. Investigating the institutional culture of a forestry institution fills a major gap in the literature on development and environmental institutions. It also contributes to the science studies literature by investigating the nexus of science and management, and moving from the laboratory sciences, which has been most examined, to the field sciences and their application, which has been least studied. While most studies of forestry institution interventions at the village level limit their scope to village level dynamics, this study integrates an understanding of an intervention at the village level with an investigation of the institutional culture that gave rise to it, as well as analyzes the interplay between village and institutional realities. In doing so, it interrogates the assumed boundaries between western knowledge and its non-western subjects and between experts and those ostensibly in need of expertise.