Session 3.4 timber production & poverty siarudin
-
Upload
world-agroforestry-centre-icraf -
Category
Documents
-
view
2.718 -
download
0
Transcript of Session 3.4 timber production & poverty siarudin
1
TIMBER PRODUCTION AND POVERTY:management strategy of smallholder timber farmers in
West Java, Indonesia
M. Siarudin
Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA)Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia
WORLD CONGRESS ON AGROFORESTRYDelhi, 2014
2
Smallholder Timber System (STS) in Java Island
paddy field
STS
fishpond
traditional agricultural land useIrrigated/wet landdry land
(see app. 1.a)
• Land size: small scale forest: < 5 ha/household Average = 0.3 ha (0.01 – 2 ha)
• Location: 0 - > 2 km• Management: family/individual based
BACKGROUND
• The largest STS in West Java Province, (124,430 ha; 50.9 % of total area of Ciamis Regency) [4;11]
• More timber is cut and sold in STS than the state forest[5]
(app. 1.b)
• Triggering local economic development-transaction value 17 million USD/year 800s small scale saw mill industries[5]; 911 small to medium scale of furniture and handicraft[10]
3
STS development in Ciamis Regency
STSState forest
4
PROBLEM
Problem statement
Many landowners/forest owners are typically rural poor households and do not get significant return from their forest assets
Preliminary observation: Despite high value of timber on the market, the poor landowners receive extremely low income from timber (about 12 USD annually) (see app.2)
5
QUESTIONs and RESEARCH OBJECTIVEs
Questions
Objectives
• To identify household and farm characteristics that become key in the STS enterprise
• To explore how those characteristics are related to the pattern of forest extraction and management
• What are the key factors for the farmers to get significant benefits?
• How do those factors affects the forest utilisation and management pattern and the outcome?
6
HYPOTHESIS
There are different patterns of forest utilisation and management among different level of socio-economic groups, due to different level of their capabilities in functioning the forest assets. This leads to the poor households receiving inadequate income from their forest asset.
7
RESEARCH LOCATION Research siteCipaku sub-district
Cijeungjing sub-district
Bunesuri village
Utama village and Bojongmengger village (see app. 3)
8
RESEARCH METHODFieldwork Time frame: February- September 2011Data collection method
• Questionnaires and in-depth interview = 59 landowners (25 better-off households and 34 poor households) (see app. 4)
• In-depth Interview to key persons =head of villages (3), government officials (2), community leaders (3)
• ObservationFocus of exploration
- Household and farm characteristics:household income, family size, education attainment, age of household head, land size, distance of forest to house
- Timber extraction: earning from timber, number of tree harvested, volume of timber harvested
- Forest utilization and management patterns: harvesting system, use of on-farm income, forest regeneration system
FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes
Correlations
1 .954** .724** .237 .348** -.235 -.034 .020 .680** .488** .784** -.126
.000 .000 .070 .007 .073 .797 .880 .000 .000 .000 .368
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
.954** 1 .758** .171 .123 -.122 -.020 -.006 .692** .520** .785** -.073
.000 .000 .195 .355 .359 .883 .965 .000 .000 .000 .604
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
.724** .758** 1 .302* .137 -.178 -.037 -.029 .805** .734** .836** .028
.000 .000 .020 .302 .176 .782 .827 .000 .000 .000 .844
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
.237 .171 .302* 1 .406** -.524** .333* -.096 .063 .026 .114 -.140
.070 .195 .020 .001 .000 .010 .469 .650 .852 .415 .317
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
.348** .123 .137 .406** 1 -.450** -.038 .066 .172 .118 .191 -.315*
.007 .355 .302 .001 .000 .775 .617 .212 .399 .172 .022
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
-.235 -.122 -.178 -.524** -.450** 1 -.187 .261* -.027 -.004 -.143 .136
.073 .359 .176 .000 .000 .155 .045 .847 .976 .306 .332
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
-.034 -.020 -.037 .333* -.038 -.187 1 .097 -.055 -.053 -.063 .032
.797 .883 .782 .010 .775 .155 .464 .692 .707 .655 .822
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
.020 -.006 -.029 -.096 .066 .261* .097 1 .107 .055 .050 .111
.880 .965 .827 .469 .617 .045 .464 .441 .697 .725 .429
59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53
.680** .692** .805** .063 .172 -.027 -.055 .107 1 .890** .927** .041
.000 .000 .000 .650 .212 .847 .692 .441 .000 .000 .771
54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 53 53 53
.488** .520** .734** .026 .118 -.004 -.053 .055 .890** 1 .772** .050
.000 .000 .000 .852 .399 .976 .707 .697 .000 .000 .722
53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 52
.784** .785** .836** .114 .191 -.143 -.063 .050 .927** .772** 1 .024
.000 .000 .000 .415 .172 .306 .655 .725 .000 .000 .863
53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53
-.126 -.073 .028 -.140 -.315* .136 .032 .111 .041 .050 .024 1
.368 .604 .844 .317 .022 .332 .822 .429 .771 .722 .863
53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Household income (Rp)
Income per capita(Rp/person)
Land ownership
education at tainment(y ear)
f amily s ize
age of household (year)
distance of f orest f romhouse (km)
f requency of harvesting(t imes)
number of tree harvested
v olume es timation of treeharvested (m3)
earning f rom treeharvested (Rp)
percentage of earningf rom t ree harvested tototal income (%)
Householdincome (Rp)
Income percapita
(Rp/person)Land
ownership
educationat tainment
(y ear) f amily s ize
age ofhousehold
(y ear)
distance off orest f romhouse (km)
f requency ofharvesting
(t imes)number of
tree harv ested
v olumeest imat ion of
tree harv ested(m3)
earning f romtree harv ested
(Rp)
percentage ofearning f rom
tree harv estedto total
income (%)
Correlat ion is signif icant at the 0.01 lev el (2-tailed).**.
Correlat ion is signif icant at the 0.05 lev el (2-tailed).*.
Correlation among variables
9
timber extraction is:• correlated to off-farm income
(household and per capita) and to land size
• not correlated to education attainment of household head, family size, age of household head, or distance of forest from house
FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes
Regression
R = 0.84, R2 = 0.699 R = 0.78, R2 = 0.617
the rate of earning from timber can be explained by land size and off-farm income
Land size (ha) Off-farm income
Earn
ing
from
tim
ber (
Rp/1
0 ye
ars)
Earn
ing
from
tim
ber (
Rp/1
0 ye
ars)
FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
forest land ownership (ha)
Percapita income (x10,000 Yen)
land size 0.08 Ha
better-off households: poor households:
23.7 USD/month/personOff-farm income
Mostly (66.67 %) from purchasing Mostly (74.29 %) from inheritance
Feature of initial assets: off-farm income and forest land
0.55
78
How this condition relate to the pattern of forest utilisation and management?
Off-farm income (x100 USD)
STS land ownership (ha)
FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management
1. Timber harvesting pattern
Among them (25 %) practice clear cutting Mostly (82.9 %) practice selective cutting
Harvest timber with normal rotation(harvest timber when the tree is ready/big diameter)
Harvest timber with “by need” rotation(harvest timber when they need urgent income/
small diameter)
Large number of trees and higher price
small number of trees and lower price
(See app. 7)
12
clear cutting selective cutting
Better-off Poor
13for d
ailyco
nsumtion nee
d
for child
ren's s
tudy
buy housew
are
for reli
gion holid
ay
medicin
e fee
s
marriag
e finan
cing o
f child
ren
plantati
on financin
g
for buyin
g new
land
financin
g pare
nt's fu
neral
for pay
ing off deb
t
financin
g house
building/r
enova
tion0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00 65.2
13.0
4.3
4.3
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.4
17.6
0.0 5.
9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9 11
.8
the poorthe better-off
Expenditure of cash income from selling timbers
perc
enta
ge (%
)
FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management (cont.)
2. Different use of cash income from timber
For capital investments(children’s school, buy new land, cost re-plantation)
Mostly (65.2 %) for immadiete consumption
(food)
Expansion of assets and production survival
Better-off Poor
FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management (cont.)
Usually buying nursery transplant (20.8%) or combination of nursery
transplant and natural seedling (66.67%)
Mostly (54.29 %) using natural seedlings or/and re-grow from root
3. Forest regeneration pattern
Better forest culture techniques (usage of improved genetic-seedling, regulated plantation spacing, maintenance etc.) can result in better wood quality and its price (Punches, 2004; Haygreen and Bowyer, 1996) only the better-off afford to do this
transplant with seed from nursery re-grow from rootrely on natural seedlings
(See app. 8)
14
Better-off Poor
15
CONCLUSIONs
• Land ownership and off-farm income level are the key determinants for significant yield of forest utilization.
• Small landownership (natural capital) combined with low income (financial capital) cause the poor households’ utilisation and management pattern on their forest asset do not result in better return.
Expected outcome: Policy implications: can be bases for appropriate policy formulation for the poor as the main target in order to achieve rural sustainable livelihood
16
Thank you for your attention..
“If immediate livelihoods are a priority of the poor, sustainability is a priority of the enlightened rich”
(Chambers, 1986:10)
Special thanks to:Lynn Thiesmeyer, M. Umegaki,J. Roshetko, B. Lusianafor your inputs
17
• Promote multi sector partnerships with smallholders Shifting the individual management to collective
management to reduce cost and risk and enhance benefits
Parties: large landowners, smallholders, landless farmers, investors, governments/NGOs
• diversification of income from forest to create various sequences of income promote non-timber/multipurpose tree species (MPTS)
to mix with timber species
Further consideration for local government policy
STS utilization and management
Different level of capability
not meet short term income need
not concern to forest asset
The Poor The Better-off
• Selective cutting• “by need” rotation• Spent money for
immediate consumption
• Poor reforestation techniques
• clear cutting• normal rotation• Spent money for
capital investment• Better reforestation
techniques
survival Expansion of asset and production
Collective management
Income diversification
not sustainable/ Loss of resource
Framework of Conclusion
proposals
19
Bibliography
1. Chambers, R., and G.R. Conway, 1991. Sustainable rural livelihood: practical concepts for 21th century. Discussion paper 296. Institute of Development Studies.
2. Chambers, R., 1986. Sustainable livelihoods: an opportunity for the World Commission on Environment and Development. Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex, UK.
3. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2011. Kebijakan Pembangunan Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Ciamis. Slide Presentation on Forum SKPD Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Ciamis. Local Government of Ciamis Regency.
4. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2010. Masukan/Penjelasan terhadap Raperda RTRW Kabupaten Ciamis 2010-2030. Local Government of Ciamis Regency.
5. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2009. Strategic Plan of Ciamis Forestry Office. Local Government of Ciamis Regency.6. Dorward, A., S. Anderson, S. Clark, B. Keane and J. Moguel, 2001. Asset Functions and Livelihood Strategies: a Framework for Pro
Poor Analysis, policy and Practice. CONTRIBUTED PAPER TO eaae Seminar on Livelihoods and Rural Poverty. www.nda.agric.za/docs/AAPS/Articles/Goats/.../R7823%20(02).pdf. Accessed in January, 24th, 2011.
7. Harrison, S.R, J.L. Herbohn, and A.J. Niskanen, 2002. Non-industrial, Smallholder, Small-scale and Family Forestry:What’s in a Name?. Journal of Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1): 1–11.
8. Haygreen, J.G. dan J.L Bowyer, 1966. Hasil Hutan dan Ilmu Kayu. Terjemahan Sutjipto A.H. Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta.
9. Hindra, B., 2006. Potensi dan Kelembagaan Hutan Rakyat. Prosiding Seminar Hasil Litbang Hasil Hutan: “Kontribusi Hutan Rakyat dalam Kesinambungan Industri Kehutanan”. Pengembangan Hasil Hutan. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hasil Hutan. Bogor. P14-23.
10. ITCOC (Industry, Trade and Cooperative Office of Ciamis Regency), 2009. Potensi Industri di Kabupaten Ciamis.11. Ministry of Forestry, 2009. Potensi Kayu dan Karbon Hutan Rakyat di Jawa Tahun 1990-2008. Balai Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan
Wilayah XI Jawa-Madura dan Multistakeholder Forestry Program.12. Ministry of Forestry, 2004. Potensi Hutan Rakyat Indonesia 2003. Pusat Inventarisasi dan Statistik Kehutanan, Departemen
Kehutanan and Direktorat Statistik Pertanian, Badan Pusat Statistik. http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/BUKU2/PHRI_03/PHRI_03.htm. Acessed in November 25th, 2010.
13. Punches, J., 2004. Tree Growth, Forest Management and Their Implication for Wood Quality. http://www.forestandraadeasia.org/doc_hit.html . Diakses pada tanggal May, 9th 2011.
14. Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2008. Analisis Kemiskinan Kabupaten Ciamis Tahun 2008 (Poverty Analysis in Ciamis Regency Year 2008). Ciamis
15. Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2010. Ciamis dalam angka (Ciamis in figure) 2010. Ciamis16. Huvio, T., J. Kola and T Lundstrom (ed), 2004. Small-Scale Farmers in Liberalised Trade Environment. Proceeding of the Seminar
on October 2004 in Haikko Finland. University of Helsinki, Departmen of Economics and Management. Publications no 38.
20
Appendix 1.aFormal definition of STSForest that grows at private/right land (Law no 41/1999)+ Forests that grows at private land and are covered by > 50 % of tree vegetations, or
minimum 500 trees/ha (Ministry of Forestry Decree No 49/Kpts-II/1997)+ Forest that grows at private land and are dominated by tree vegetations (Ministry of Forestry
Decree No. P 26/Menhut-II/2005)
Terminology used in some journals: farm forest, non-industrial forest, smallholder forest, small scale forest, family forest, community
forest (Harrison at al, 2002)
Government policy- National government has contributed the development of STS through some financing
support such as subsidy, micro-credit for STS, reforestation fund, and national movement for forest and land rehabilitation program (Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan/GNRHL). However the development of STS are dominated (62%) by self financing (Hindra, 2006).
- Local government of Ciamis regency reports to give seedling aid to landowners about 1 to 2 million seedling annually (Forestry Office of Ciamis Regency, 2011)
21
Appendix 1.b
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
local government's aid 1127200 415000 873492 521250 2126610 2155488
self financing 1250500 2561728 6304920 5480765 3560848 4069999
500,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 3,500,000 4,500,000 5,500,000 6,500,000
tree plantation in SSFF
num
ber o
f tre
e pl
ante
d (t
ree)
Tree plantation and timber production in Ciamis Regency
Source: Forestry Office of Ciamis Regency, 2011
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
- 50,000
100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
comparison of timber production from SSFF and state forest
SSFF
State forest
annu
al ti
mbe
r pro
ducti
on (m
3)
assets
people
activities
outcome
SSFF landFinancial capital
The poorThe better-off
Forest extractionForest management
Cash incomeImmediate consumption
Livelihood components(Chambers and Conway, 1991): Case study:
Sustainable rural livelihood
Sustainable
development
Rural poverty
reduction Research frameworkAppendix 1.c
23
wealth statusearning from timber harvesting (Yen/year)*
average min max
the poor 1,216.67 150.00 4,050.00
the better-off 6,031.30 500.00 25,000.00
all respondents 3,306.03 150.00 25,000.00
Value of earning from timber harvesting
Note: * this value are average from total earning during the last 10 years. The average frequency of harvesting are 2-3 times during that period.
want more land7%
want aid in form of cap-ital for forest enterprise
7%want aid inf form of
seedling8%
get better earning from forest29%forest can be better managed
3%next generation willing
to manage forest5%
next generation can get benefit from his forest
2%
government more ser-ious in supporting
SSFF5%
Do not know34%
Expectation of respondents towards SSFF
Appendix 2Value of earning from timber harvesting and expectation
24
Appendix 3Characteristic of research site:
Buniseuri
village Utama village Bojongmengger village
Total area (ha) 422.22 224.79 635.55
Number of citizen (person) 7573 3510 6004
male 3776 1802 3001
female 3797 1708 3003
Population density (peron/ha) 17.94 15.61 9.45
distance from capital district (km) 12 3 10
altitude (meter above sea level) 285 124 240
topography hilly flat flat and hilly
wetland farming (paddy field) 151 60.919 21.5
dryland farming (including private forest) 203.415 85.26 333.6
Source: Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2010
poor22.39%
better-off
77.61%
Ciamis Regency
poor24.94%
better-off
75.06%
Buniseuri village
poor23.43%
better-off
76.57%
Utama village
poor21.86%
better-off
78.14%
Bojongmengger village
25
CONSUMPTION POVERTY CHARACTERISTICSFOOD:Fulfillment of 2100 calorie per capita per day
1. Meal frequency2. the ability to
buy meat, chicken and milkNON-FOOD:clothing, housing and facilities, the cost of education, health care, transport, miscellaneous goods and services
1. ability to buy clothing per year2. floor area3. type of floor4. type of wall5. type of roof6. source of clean water7. type of lighting8. sanitation facility9. education attainment of household
head10. employment status of household head11. ability of health care12. asset ownership
Characteristic of povertyGovernment (Statistical Center Bureau) analyze the poverty line based on 14 criteria below:
In the process of measuring poverty line, government also included verification and public examination as a part of poverty measurement by community themselves, using values and norm prevailed in the society.
Source: Statistical Center Bureau, Ciamis Regency (2008)
Appendix 4
26
76%
24%
Gender of household head
male female
44; 75%
6; 10%
7; 12%
2; 3%
education attainment of household head
ES
JHS
SHS
UG
Characteristic of respondentsAppendix 5
Note: * The wealth status is based on the classification set by Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency in 2008
58%
42%
wealth status*
the poor the better-off
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-890
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Head of household by age
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
(per
son)
Farm worker
15%
Farmer34%
Trader22%
Service5%
Govern-ment
employee10%
Private employee
10%Freelance worker
3%
main livelihood
Farm worker3%
Farmer19%
Trader2%
service7%
None69%
complementary livelioods
average of house-hold income (US$/month)
average of house-hold expenses (US$/month)
Income-Expenses (US$/month)
Percentage of In-come - Expenses to total income
(%)
the poor 65.1478174603188
59.1385802469136
6.00923721340389
9.22400388480273
the better-off
274.833333333333
130.356481481484
144.47685185185
52.5688969745974
25 75
125 175 225 275
household income and expenses
Inco
me
and
expe
nses
(RUS
$/m
onth
)
Characteristic of respondentsAppendix 5 (cont.)
27average min max
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3
1
6
famili size
num
ber o
f fam
ily m
embe
r (pe
rson
)
28
Appendix 6.bLand tenure and regression analysis
R = 0.76, R2 = 0.574
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
74.29 20.00 5.71
land acquisition of the poor household
heritage purchase both heritage and purchase
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
33.33 37.50 29.17
land acquisition of the better-off household
R = 0.84, R2 = 0.699
R = 0.78, R2 = 0.617
29
the poor the better-off total respondent
9
43
23
number of tree harvested per household during the last 10
years
the poor the better-off total respondent
6
28
15
volume estimation of tree har-vested per household during the
last 10 years (m3)
need wood for self use
trees have been ready to harvest
plan to change to other tree species
timber collector offers to buy
need urgen cash income
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
34.3
2.9 2.9 2.9
57.1
28.6
11.417.1
5.7
37.1
the poorthe better-off
reason for selling trees
perc
enta
ge (%
)
selective cutting clear cutting clear and selective cutting
not yet0.00
10.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00 82.9
2.9 0.0
14.3
70.8
12.5 12.54.2
percentage of respondent by type of cutting
the poorthe better-off
perc
enta
ge (%
)Appendix 7Type of harvesting and reason for selling trees
30
the poor
the better-off
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
75.00
20.00
12.50
60.00
12.50
20.00
plantation and maintenance activities
do by himself hire other farm workersboth do by himself and hire other farm workers
Appendix 8Post harvesting management
the poor
the better-off
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
20.00
20.83
54.29
12.50
25.71
66.67
forest regeneration technique
buying nursery transplant natural seedling seed and natural seedlingthe poor the better-off all respondents
24,980.2
527,407.4
231,707.4
real cost spent for replanting and maintenance per household
(Rp/household)
the poor the better-off all respondents
329,216.7
960,063.4 863,050.1
cost spent for replanting and main-tenance per hectare (Rp/ha/house-
hold)