In the last few decades, there have been growing concerns over discrimination against women, leading to the increasing number of international agreements, funding and national legislation frameworks aimed to promote gender equity. In Indonesia, an umbrella policy was declared in 2000 through Presidential Instruction no. 9/2000 on Gender Mainstreaming. However progress and achievement are often not as expected; key government officials still show resistance on gender issues; meanwhile researchers, field facilitators and extension workers often lack conceptual knowledge and technical skills. Our research projects in Jambi, West Kalimantan, and Southeast and South Sulawesi provinces in Indonesia are aimed to promote sustainable and equitable forest management among gender and stakeholder groups across levels. Each site has different social and cultural characteristics, e.g. distribution of roles and responsibilities between men and women, knowledge on natural resources, cultural perspectives towards women, tenure and access to resources, etc. This paper shares our experience, including constraints and lessons learned throughout the projects, and the process of methods development to respond to cultural diversity and differences across sites. Some important lessons include the usefulness of (1) changing from a problem-based approach to an asset- based one and (2) identifying the right entry points, with women's initial activities in facilitation of critical importance in avoiding men's resistance. CIFOR Scientist Elizabeth Linda Yuliana alongside Carol Colfer and Hasantoha Adnan presented on 8 June at the panel discussion "Methods and approaches for analysing gender differences in rights of access to the usage, and management, of forests and tree products" at the 2013 IASC conference held on Mount Fuji in Japan. For more information, please click here: http://www.cifor.org/events/upcoming-events/iasc.html

1. 6/16/2013 1
Gender in forestry research in Indonesia:
dealing with diversity and complexities
E.L. Yuliani, C.J.P. Colfer, H. Adnan

2. 6/16/2013 2
Indonesia: a vast and
diverse country
• Land: 1,922,570 km2 (13,466
islands)
• Sea: 3,257,483 km2
• Population 237,641,326 in
2010:
– 119,630,913 male
– 118,010,413 female
• 1,128 ethnic groups
• Rich and complex social,
cultural and traditional
systems

3. 6/16/2013 3
Gender mainstreaming
instruments
• Law No. 7/1984: Ratification of
Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination against
Women
• Presidential Instruction No. 9/2000
on Gender Mainstreaming in
National Development
• Forestry Ministerial Decree No.
528/Menhut-II/Peg/2004 on
Guidance for the implementation
of gender mainstreaming in
forestry development
• Other ministerial decrees

4. 6/16/2013 4
Began in late 1990s or early 2000
However little progress at
national and regional level (low
understanding, high resistance,
weak implementation) (ADB
2006, Bappenas 2013).

5. 6/16/2013 5
‘State’ of key stakeholders’
knowledge and awareness on gender
is relatively poor
Gender is incorrectly interpreted as “about women only” or as
synonym of “women”

6. 6/16/2013 6
Government officials attitude to their
colleagues (male) who support gender
mainstreaming programs:
At central government
Gender? You sound
like women!
Photo illustration only.

7. 6/16/2013 7
At district government level
Head of district:
Photo illustration only.
We apologize that only
men could attend this
event. Gender can’t
come as they are
picking up children
from school

8. 6/16/2013 8
At village
Village head:
Photo illustration only.
Number of participant
should be equal, 15
men and 15 gender

9. 6/16/2013 9
Meetings/training/workshops
• Still characterized by men’s
resistance and debate on:
– Women from religious
perspectives and traditional
norms
– Gender vs feminism
• Ineffective to build
participants understanding on
the importance of gender-
sensitive activities

10. 6/16/2013 10
Case studies
• Adaptive Collaborative
Management of Forest in Jambi
• Governance of protected area
management under
decentralization (Danau
Sentarum, West Kalimantan)
• Linking agroforestry and forestry
knowledge with action in South
and Southeast Sulawesi
•Objectives:
• To promote sustainable and equitable forest management among gender and
stakeholder groups across levels, through learning and participatory approaches
• To look for best mechanisms/approach/tools that can be replicated elsewhere
and useful for the above objective

11. 6/16/2013 11
• Multi-stakeholder processes, capacity building/learning, research
(conventional and participatory)
Facilitate and catalyze learning process
Observe, document,
and analyse the
process
Participatory Action Research

12. 6/16/2013 12
Diversity in
research sites

13. 6/16/2013 13
Baru Pelepat,
Bungo District, Jambi
• Ethnic groups:
– Minang descendent
(matrilineal)
– Jambi (patrilineal)
– Migrants from Java
(bilateral, patrilateral
tendency)
• Common property:
– Customary forest
– Protected fish spawning
area (lubuk larangan)

14. 6/16/2013 14
Danau Sentarum,
West Kalimantan
• Ethnic groups:
– Dayak (Iban, Kantu’,
Embaloh). Communal in
long-houses.
– Malay. Individual homes.
– Both: bilateral
• Common property:
– Customary forests
– Fishing area
– Protected lakes
– Forest for wild-bee
honey

15. 6/16/2013 15
Bantaeng and Bulukumba,
South Sulawesi
• Ethnic groups:
– Makassar
– Bugis
– Both: patrilineal
• Common property:
– Water
– Community forest
– Village forest

16. 6/16/2013 16
Konawe and Kolaka,
Southeast Sulawesi
• Ethic groups:
– Tolaki (bilateral)
– Bugis (patrilineal)
– Balinese (bilateral)
– Java (bilateral, patrilineal
tendency)
– Madurese (patrilineal)
• Common property:
– Water
– Community forest
– Grand forest garden

17. 6/16/2013 17
Characteristics Jambi West Kalimantan
South
Sulawesi
Southeast
Sulawesi
Resistance towards
women participation
in governance
processes
High* Low Low-medium Low
Female literacy in
Indonesian language
Elder: low
Youth: medium
Elder: low
Youth: medium
Low Low-medium
Women’s strengths Enthusiasm to
participate
Confidence to speak (in
local language)
Confidence to
speak (in local
language)
Confidence to
speak (in local
language)
Main challenge(s) to
women participation
Men’s
resistance;
women lack of
confidence to
speak in public;
• Dayak: not invited;
• Malay: think that
women’s opinion
would be well
represented by men;
• Both: language,
remoteness.
• Not invited
• Language
• After dark
meeting
• Not invited
• After dark
meeting
* high in Indonesia is not as high as in some countries in other region e.g. Africa, Middle East, China

18. 6/16/2013 18
Lessons and practical experience

19. 6/16/2013 19
1. Problem-based approach, linear
thinking and too direct communication
Common mistakes in village participatory meetings,
e.g. Jambi
Women have rights to be
involved in meetings and
decision making. They
should be allowed to
participate.
• Strong reaction and resistance
• Contradicting outcomes
Never! From now,
no women are
allowed to
participate!!!

20. 6/16/2013 20
2. General views:
Women gain better recognition
and voice, leads to equity when
they could generate additional
income for the family
vs
Facts:
vary and in some cases have led to
economic and physical violence:
• Husband relies on wife for
income
• Husband’s pride threatened 
sometimes manifests in violence
• Husband uses wife’s money to
re-marry.
• “Busy wife should be ready if
husband wants polygamy”
Such negative risks are reported in
news/media, and directly by
communities in our locations, but
less reported in scholarly articles
than positive outcomes.

21. 6/16/2013 21
Lack of facilitation skills
3. Outsiders (facilitators,
extension workers, project
staff government):
• Act as the most
knowledgeable person
• Do not speak local language
• Ignore the silence/fail to
motivate the silence to
speak

22. 6/16/2013 22
FACTS
• Objectives of learning events
and participants expectation:
‘how to’ (practical methods)
for gender-sensitive research
and policies
• Government and local
people: most common
learning style is sensing
(data, details, facts,
information that can be
understood by the five
senses) (Myers et al. 1995).
• Assumption/ over-generalized views that participants
disagree or don’t understand the importance of gender
equity
• Standardized agenda/ process
• Ineffective for most
participants
(‘Sensing’ learning
type)
• No progress (or slow,
if any) for > 20 years
• Resistance, debate
(religion, norms,
culture)
• Misunderstand
Training processes are based on assumption, generalization
and standard procedure rather than facts
Process:
Basic concept,
principles, theories
and regulations/
legal framework

23. 6/16/2013 23
By pushing women
attending meetings, you
might have reduced
children’s time with their
mother, and it against
children’s rights.
Husband and wife have
agreed their respective
roles. We should not change
or interfere.
Husbands make decisions, wife
takes care of family at home.
It’s God’s will and defines our
culture! If you say it’s bad, you
are against God’s will!!!
Too many presentation/discussion on theories  misinterpretation and
argument

24. 6/16/2013 24
Government and donor indicators: nominal
Nominal indicators e.g. #women
participant, #institutions
formed, #budget for gender
related activities
• Equity??
• Better position and conditions
of women??

25. 6/16/2013 25
• Most presenters/resource persons/
facilitators: women
• Focus: women only
• “What do men know about
gender?!”
Misinterpreted as women’s
business only, led to debate
Government/scientific/ NGO events on gender
Is that what we mean? Is ‘gender’ only about women? What are the
differences between ‘gender-sensitive’ programs with feminism
movement?

26. 6/16/2013 26
What have worked and what are the
implications for forestry management

27. 6/16/2013 27
• Processes should meet participants learning style. E.g. ‘sensing’: case
studies, practical examples of impact of non-gender sensitive policies.
• Use various facilitation tools that stimulate five senses including
emotions (accelerated learning principles)
• Human brain works better to process picture than word (Meier 2000).
Learning and participatory approaches

28. 6/16/2013 28
• Focus on commonalities and strengths, not
differences and problems
• Should have clear outcomes, e.g.: common
goals, collaborative planning, individual
commitment, uggestions on policy/programs
• Solutions might not be directly related to
problems
Use strength-based
approach, e.g.
Appreciative Inquiry

29. 6/16/2013 29
Equal representation
and participation
• Involve men and women
equally in gender learning
events as resource persons,
facilitators and
participants. Yet often need
FGDs separately.
• Facilitators: speak local
language to help translate
and understand local
culture

30. 6/16/2013 30
• Gender in forestry: not only about
women. It’s about dynamic
interaction between men and
women.
• Context: site and time specific 
approach/methods: no ‘one size fits
all’.
• “Promoting gender equity should
not overload women. If women are
facilitated to take more roles and
have better access to decision
making in natural resources
management and land-use
planning, men should be facilitated
to take over some domestic
activities” (Labarani and
Mulyoutami, 2012).
Conclusion

31. 6/16/2013 31
Thank you