Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Paddy Plantation Management - DOC by irr74308


Paddy Plantation Management document sample

More Info
                       LEARNED FROM INDONESIA1

                                                                         By: ARIF ALIADI2

                                                                     I. INTRODUCTION
Indonesia posses a large area of forest (around 120,35 million hectares) that covers 68% of the land in Indonesia). These forest areas consist of 33,52
million hectares of protected forest, 66,33 million hectares of production forest, 20,5 million hectares of conservation forest. Unfortunately, this forest is
mostly blemished due to deforestation.

Referred to the mapping of the forest cover conducted in 1999 by the Indonesian Government with the aid from the World Bank – as quoted by
FWI/GWF (2001) – it was concluded that the average deforestation rate from 1985 – 1987 reached 1,7 million hectares. The islands that suffered most
from the deforestation during that period – totally losing more than 20% of their forest cover – were Sulawesi, Sumatera and Kalimantan. If the
deforestation keeps this trend, that has been rising since 1997, non-swamp lowland forests will disappear from Sumatera in 2005, and Kalimantan after
2010 (Holmes, 2000 in FWI/GFW, 2001).

The destruction of forest and land resources has eventually created negative impacts on social life, namely deficiency of the quality of environment,
flooding, erosion, landslide, sedimentation, lack of biodiversity as well as government income, not to mention the possibility to peril the life of a whole

The way to solve the problem of the destruction of forest has been carried out by government, such as depleting the illegal logging, rehabilitating the
forest, and overcoming the forest combustion.

Some critical groups such as NGO as well as Universities think that government did not give adequate effort to solve this problem since the forest
destruction is still going. What is considered as the source of forestry problem in Indonesia is the unfairness in utilizing forest resources, especially for
those who live within or surround the forest.

The unfairness can be seen in three factors. First, unfairness in access and control of some social groups towards lands and natural resources; Second,
the unfairness of utilizing the land as well as the natural resources, especially of the organization, practice and living in this lands; and third, a
centralization in decision making of the access and control as well as utilization of the lands and resources.

The unfairness in access, control and utilization of the lands and resources has emerged the community forestry movement in Indonesia which stands as
an alternative of better forest management in Indonesia.

The approach which is known as community forestry used to be applied as a strategy to guard the forest rather than to widen a welfare to the people
surround the forest. However, presently Indonesian forest is so wretched and thus needs a new approach, perspective and technology to be able to save
it from the catastrophe.

Community forestry is carried out by community surround the forest whose actively manage the forest area to ensure that there will be an integrity
between ecosystem and social aspect, also that the community will reach their welfare, to develop democracy and public accountability and law order.
Community forestry is expected to be the right solution.

This paper will explain about the role of CF in solving the forestry problem in Indonesia, include the problem of deforestation. What is meant by the role
of CF is practices in applying CF by community in the field. The last part of the paper will elucidate what works and does not work from the development

1 Paper presented in 2007 LEAD International Training Session in Bandung, Indonesia on 27 November.
2 Executive   Director of LATIN (Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia or the Indonesian Tropical Institute), an NGO works on community forestry

of CF. This is important to be elucidated in order that we can get a lesson learned, in term of what should be improved and avoid with the intention that
CF will be able to keep expanding

                                                         II. COMMUNITY FORESTRY

Agroforestry in Indonesia has given a significant contribution to the national income, i.e. about 70% from the total rubber production in Indonesia,
around 80% from the total resin, or 80-90% from fruits. It is exceptional in Sumatera, the function of around 4 million hectares of forest has been
changed by the people into agroforestry without external aids or guidance. It is estimated that 7 million people in Sumatera and Kalimantan live from
agroforestry-based rubber plantations, scattered on around 2.5 million hectare area (Fay, Sirait and Kusworo, 2000).
Agroforestry is a form of CF practices already developed in Indonesia. In deforestation context, it contributes to the prevention of deforestation through
the forest protection and critical forest land rehabilitation like what can be seen in CF practice sample in Krui (Province of Lampung, Sumatera), in
Kabupaten Kuningan (West Java province),and Meru Betiri National Park (East Java Province).

2.1.     Agroforestry in Krui, Lampung, Sumatera

Agroforestry in Krui, Lampung , Sumatera is an example of people‟s and their supporters‟ efforts to fight deforestation caused by the government‟s policy
that will allocate the land for logging and for oil palm plantation. Krui‟s people has struggled for the cancellation of the policy because it endangers the
„forest‟ built by the people since hundreds of years ago.

The coastal people of Krui have been living at hilly coastal areas in West Lampung since the 14 th century. They depend their life on resin and meranti
(Shorea javanica). Half of the indigenous people grow the tree as well as rattan, coffee, clove, and fruits. The people combine the trees with forest
ecosystem, and it is called “wanatani repong damar”. This agroforestry system is beneficial for the farmers in some ways, i.e. for the resources of
firewoods, fishing, and traditional medicines, for their daily life, and sometimes to sell. Some areas are made side by side with the people‟s ricefields.
This ecosystem is developed from 50.000 ha and extended until it forms a line between Bukit Barisan National Park (that has been built since the
colonial era) and the coastal areas.

Most of the Krui‟s indigenous coastal land has been claimed as “state‟s land” and was allocated for logging in 1970s. The forestry Minister gave license
to a logging company “Bina Lestari” in 1981, a concession holder to operate on a 52.000 hectare land, precisely at the west edge of a the national park.
Finally, the operational area of Bina Lestari was limited especially at the south part of its concession area in order to avoid conflicts with the community
and national park manager.

In the next decade, the forestry department divided Krui‟s area into three categories, i.e. limited production forest, protected forest, and agricultural

Bordering had not been started until the local government agreed with the new zone mapping in 1991. This borderline is made only on the map. The
forest area that could be logged then reduced from 44.120 ha to 33.000 ha. There was 7.800 conversed forest, located in the south part of Krui‟s coast
and it was already allocated for oil palm plantation (PT Karya Canggih Mandiri Utama) and other private companies in 1994.

Logging and plantation building have damaged the resin forest as well as all biosystem along Krui coast. The local people suppressed the government to
admit their indigenous rights and traditional values in forest management. In this case, they won supports from local and national NGOs as well as
national and international research institutes. Advocacy, then, became a very important thing during 1990s, when businessmen disguised their vested
interest (logging in Krui) with “oil palm boom” jargon to obtain the permission for plantation.

One of the civil community‟s/individual‟s tactics to support the forestry reform to protect agroforestry at Krui coast was: sending local people to be
candidates for Kalpataru nominees. The national award was given annually by the Minister of environment to individuals who had a contribution in
keeping and improving the environmental quality in Indonesia. In 1997, Jadri Junaidi, the customary leader and tribe‟s head of Krui, won the Kalpataru
award as the representative of his people.

The award he won succeeded to jerk the Forestry Department and Local Government to realize that the land in Krui is suitable for agroforestry, NOT for
natural forest because it can lift the economic welfare of the people and the people will get suffered if it is converted into oil palm plantation, and,
factually the people can manage the forest resource with their own method. Consequently, a dilemma emerged. If the Forestry Department recognized
Krui Coast people‟s indigenous rights, it would become a precedence/jurisprudence for other communities who settle the state‟s land to plea for the
same thing. But, Forestry Reform did not belong to the agenda during Soeharto‟s era.The minister‟s solution at that time was: giving a special status for
agroforestry in Krui as much as 29.000 hectares of land.

2.2.     PHBM in Kabupaten Kuningan

PHBM (Joint Forest Management ) developed in Kabupaten Kuningan, West Java , is meant to manifest the good forest governance. The effort constitutes
an response to the deforestation taking place in Kabupaten Kuningan.

Kabupaten Kuningan is a district in West Java Province that has 28.786 (24.6% of the land (117.000 ha)) and 16.637 (14.22%) people forest. But, the
forest condition has undergone a degradation. 5.844 ha forest has been destroyed from looting, 2.300 ha is in critical condition and covered by coarse
grass because of uncontrolled grazing and fire, and 7,577 ha is not productive due to poor spacing of trees (low density).

The damage has been worsened by the behavior of some people to express their demand for changes, democracy, freedom, etc. after the 1998 reform.
Unfortunately, their way to express it was uncivilized such as looting, and clearing the forest, etc. This sickening situation has inspired some people in
Kabupaten Kuningan to think over and find out a solution.

Their concern and spirit to solve the forestry management problems in Kabupaten Kuningan finally met with the idea of PHBM that was actual in
Perhutani. In principle, PHBM regulated the rights and duty of the stakeholders in collaborative forest management. The regulation was made in a
written joint agreement.

Some things regulated in the agreement was the duration for the people to manage the forest area that could extend up to 35 years; types of plants
required by the people; spacing; and benefit sharing from the crops. The agreement has given the people a long term benefit from the forest managed in

Although the implementation of PHBM at the field level still raises problems, it has shown positive achievement in forest conservation aspects, especially
reduced theft of timber. According to the data from KPH Kuningan, 2005, the trees stolen reduced from 15.694 trees in 1999 to 6.370 trees in 2001, and
1.786 in 2002, 341 in 2003 and 549 in 2004.

It has made Perhutani‟s loss decrease from Rp. 1,9 billion in 2000 and Rp. 2,7 billion in 2001 to Rp. 767 million in 2002, Rp. 104 million in 2003, and
Rp. 81 million in 2004. The progress has convinced that the very problem of the failure of plants and forest security is the social problem, and not the
technical problem.

2.3.     CF at Meru Betiri National Park, East Java

CF developed in Meru Betiri National Park constituted the solution for deforestation at Meru Betiri National Park occuring during 18-1999. Like in other
areas, during that year there was a massive forest clearance. At that time, not less than 2000 hectare teak forest at the border Meru Betiri National Park
were looted. As a result, the land became barren, except the land being used as a pilot project for medicinal herb agroforestry (7 hectares).

Medicinal herb agroforestry at Meru Betiri National Park has started since 1994. At that time, the manager of the national park cooperated with the
consortium of Forestry Faculty, Bogor Agriculture University, and LATIN made the sample plot for the medicinal herb agroforestry as big as 7 hectares
involving 43 farmers. This activity was developed to rehabilitate the critical land at Meru Betiri rehabilitation zone.

When forest clearance reduced in early 2000, the manager of Meru Betiri tried to rehabilitate the cleared land immediately by imitating the rehabilitation
done at the pilot project.

For example, the land to be rehabilitated was more than 2000 hectares, and would involve the people to cultivate by using agroforestry. The manager of
Meru Betiri National Park also cooperated with the people advocates. The advocates were the people living around Meru Betiri who used to join in
LATIN, and continued the advocacy process with the institution they had built, i.e. KAIL (Konservasi Alam Indonesia Lestari).

According to Nurhadi, the Director of KAIL, at present there have been 2.20 ha critical land reforested. The number of trees planted has been 186.600
consisting of 30 types. The number of people participating has been 3625 family units organized in 105 groups.

The types of plants used in the rehabilitation are, among others, kedawung, joho lawe, joho keling, pakem, bendo, kemaitan, mindi, aren, kepuh,
selasih, jambe, kemiri, cabe jawa, kemukus, pule pandak, jahe, temulawak, temukunci, temumangga, sambiloto, harendong, kumis kucing, etc. The

types above are medicinal herbs in form of trees, climbing plants, and bushes. Besides, there are 9 types of bamboo derived from Meru Betiri National
Park Area, and fruits such as durian, pete, mango, rambutan, jambu, jeruk, etc.

At the early stage, when the trees are still small, the farmers plant the land (space) between the tree seeds with seasonal crops such as corn, dry-land
paddy, soy, peanuts.

From KAIL's observation, the seasonal crops can cover about 52% of the farmers' economic needs. In some other place, farmers can harvest petai that is
worth Rp. 1 million /season.

It is real. And this is what has encouraged the farmers to help rehabilitate the critical land at Meru Betiri National Park. Moreover, they also report about
illegal logging, wild animals, and other violations within Meru Betiri National Park's natural forest.

2.4.     Other Example

Besides three examples above, there are more examples of community forestry practices in Indonesia, which is developed either by indigenous people or
other village people.

         Tabel 1. Example of Community Forestry Practices

  No.     Organizing Community            Location         Name of Managed Area                   CF practices being develop
         Rubber farmer

         (Source: de Foresta,           Jambi and
         Kusworo, Michon, Djatmiko,     South                                           Utilizing rubber,Planted corps, fruits, construction
    1    2000)                          Sumatera          Mixed Rubber Plantation       wood, firewood.

         Indigenous people of Kalbar
         (west Kalimantan)

         (Source: de Foresta,                                                           Utilizing tengkawang, nyatuh, kemenyan, jelutung,
         Kusworo, Michon, Djatmiko,     Sanggau,                                        pulai, damar, fruits, kinds of wood, palem, rotan,
    2    2000)                          Kalbar            Tembawang                     sirih, pakis for vegetable , medical or herbal plants

         Indigenous people of Kerinci
         (Source: de Foresta,           Jambi and
         Kusworo, Michon, Djatmiko,     South
    3    2000)                          Sumatera          Pelak                         Utilizing of cinnamon, coffee beans, fruits

         Mixed farmers (Melayu, Bali,
         Jawa, Cina) that have been
         living in a long period of
         time                           Gunung
         (Source: de Foresta,           National Park                                  Utilizing durian, langsat, dukuh, bedara,
         Kusworo, Michon, Djatmiko,     West                                           cempedak, keranji, aren, coffee, pekawai, manggis,
    4    2000)                          kalimantanr      Mixed of Durian Plantation    rambutan, mangga, jambu, etc
         Indigenous people of

         (Source: de Foresta,                                                          Utilizing cinnamon, crop, durian, bayur wood for
         Kusworo, Michon, Djatmiko,                                                    flooring and wall, surian, buah pala, coffee, perdu
    5    2000)                          West Sumatera    Parak                         medical plant and land
         Farmer surround Bogor

         (Source: de Foresta,
         Kusworo, Michon, Djatmiko,                                                    Utilizing fruits,vegetable, fish, cattle, construction
    6    2000)                          West Jawa        Mixed plantation              wood, firewood medical/herbal plant
         Marga Pembarap

                                                                                       Utilizing the outcome of forest and farming, field ,
    7    (Source: Darusman, 2000)       Jambi            Village land utilization      sesap, sawah, and rimbo
         Farmer in Batu Kerbau

                                                                                        Utilizing the outcome of forest , of cultivation, of
    8    (Source: Darusman, 2000)       Jambi            Village land utilization      humo, field, sesap, belukar, rimba,
         Farmer in Sungai Telang

                                                                                        Utilizing the outcome of forest , of cultivation, of
    9    (Source: Darusman, 2000)       Jambi            Village land utilization      humo, field, sesap, belukar, rimba, river
                                                                                       Utilizing of plantation for fabric, noken (sack) ,
         Indigenous people of Dani                                                     coloring, herbal, social and customary acessories
                                                                                       and auxiliaries, foods, construction material,
         (Source: Purwanto &                                                           ropingi, firewoodr, cigarette's packaging, poson
   10    Walujo 1992)                   Papua            Village land utilization      ingridients, accessories material, glue material
         Masyarakat adat Baduy                                                         Pemanfaatan berbagai tumbuhan untuk bahan
                                                                                       pangan, bahan papan, perkakas, kayu bakar, Source
                                                                                       obat-obatan, bahan kerajinan, perlengkapan
                                                                                       upacara, bahan peralatan kesenian, dan Source
   11    (Source: Hilwan, 1995)         west Jawa        Village land utilization      pendapatan tambahan

         Dayak people in Apo Kayan
         (Source: Soedjito,             East                                           Knowledge of land fertilize, root system and rice
   12    1995)                          Kalimantan       Recycled plantation system    production, various kind of soil

From the examples above, it is obviously seen that people have various objectives and motivation in protecting the forest. The objectives among all are
utilization of non-wooden forest product and of land for cultivation, protection of water resource, fortification of the sacred place etc. To achieve those
objectives, people are developing land employment system which depicts zoning where some areas are used for rice and vegetable cultivation, also for
seasonal plantations such as coffee bean, cacao, rubber etc. By such forest governance, people will consequently have a strong motive to avoid
deforestation, because let deforestation means devastating their own living resources.

                                                             III. LESSONS LEARNED

Based on the CF examples above, it is seen that the application of CF can avoid deforestation if it is supported by the following factors:

      1.     Indigenous people‟s movement and its supporters to fight for the admission of:
              Customary/indigenous forest area
              The existence of the indigenous and capability of the people of managing forest resources
              The rights of forest resources within the customary/indigenous forest area
              The customary/indigenous regulations and people‟s institution can be applied in the customary/indigenous forest area management.
      2.     Available joint agreement that clarifies the rights and duties of stakeholders in collaborative forest management.
      3.     Available multiparty collaborative institution for facilitating and making the stakeholders involved in collaborative forest management
      4.     Strong motivation of the people to protect the forest, i.e. their source of livelihood.

Conversely, the factors that cause CF cannot cease the deforestation are:
      1. Susceptibility to external changes, such as the government‟s policy changes. The central government‟s policy to delegate forestry issues to
             the local governments has been implemented by issuing the permission to use the timber from a 100 ha land for the people. It has happened
             in Kabupaten Berau, East Kalimantan. But, the permission was – in fact – used by logging companies to encourage the people to keep
             felling down the trees without thinking of how to restore it later.
      2. Habitat destruction having to do with internationally funded mega projects such as dam building, mining, and big estate plantations (Shiva,
      3. Economic and technological pressures to replace diversity with homogeneity in agricultural, forestry, fishing, and animal raising sectors.
             Green revolution in agriculture, white revolution in dairy companies, blue revolution in fishing sector are the revolutions in which
             biodiversity is replaced – on purpose – with bio uniformity and monoculture.
      4. CF practices are usually not recorded in written document so that it is difficult to transform the knowledge to the younger generation. And,
             it becomes more difficult since the young generation‟s interest in developing CF is weak.

                                                                  IV. CONCLUSION

CF can play its roles to avoid deforestation by physically protecting the forest resource at the field as well as by good forest governance.

CF can optimally play its roles to avoid deforestation if it is admitted by the government. Forest management policies issued should give the chance to
the people to take part actively in the forest management, and the people get the long term assurance of their rights and benefits from the forest area
they are cultivating besides the legal protection from adverse policies that can disturb the forest area being cultivated, for example, the policy of oil
palm estate building that overlaps with customary (indigenous) forest area.


To top