Conference PaperPDF Available

Tengkawang (Borneo Tallow Nut) Product Diversification to Improve the Livelihood Quality of Local People

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Tengkawang fruit business only exists in Kalimantan, particularly in West Kalimantan. Unfortunately, trading monopsony results in extremely low price of tengkawang fruit, Rp 1,000 to Rp 2,000/kg of fresh fruit. Tengkawang product diversity is one of possible way to enhance tengkawang fruits value. This paper studies possible tengkawang fruit product diversity in order to increase local people income. Tengkawang fruits as the raw material for this research were taken from Sanggau, West Kalimantan. The result show that the low quality of tengkawang fruit can be utilized as handycraft, and better quality of tengkawang fruit can be processed into several kinds of food such as ice cream topping, brownies and tengkawang crackers. Tengkawang fruit contains only about 1.36% of free fat acid (FFA), which is meet the FFA content for food (less than 5%). Accordingly, local people can produce and sell these various kind of products diversification directly to customers and reduce the dependence to the merchants.
Content may be subject to copyright.
PAPER
PRESENTATIONS
TOPIC 1
FOREST FOR PEOPLE
1
INAFOR A-0006
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF INDONESIA
FORESTRY RESEARCHERS
THE 2nd INAFOR, 27-28 AUGUST 2013
Agroforestry Bambang Lanang: Farmers’ Perception and Behaviour
in Supporting The Development of Community Forest
in Empat Lawang Regency-South Sumatera Province
Ari Nurlia1, Bondan Winarno2 and Edwin Martin3
1,2,3Forestry Research Institute of Palembang
Jl. Kol.H.Burlian Km. 6,5 Puntikayu Palembang
Corresponding email: ari_nurlia@yahoo.com
Paper prepared for
The Second International Conference of Indonesia Forestry Researcher (INAFOR)
27-28 August 2013
INAFOR SECRETARIAT
Sub Division of Dissemination, Publication and Library
FORESTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Jl. Gunung Batu 5, Bogor 16610
2
Agroforestry Bambang Lanang: Farmers’ Perception and Behaviour in
Supporting The Development of Community Forest in Empat Lawang
Regency-South Sumatera Province
Ari Nurlia1, Bondan Winarno2 and Edwin Martin3
1,2,3Forestry Research Institute of Palembang
Jl. Kol.H.Burlian Km. 6,5 Puntikayu Palembang
Corresponding email: ari_nurlia@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Development of community forest using local species is one of solutions to overcome lack of
wood supply for the community. Local species selected are the species that already tested to
produce high-quality wood and well known by the community. Bambang lanang (Michelia
campaka L) is a local wood species from Empat Lawang Regency that has been developed
traditionally over generations. Bambang lanang timber is a medium growth species that ideally
start to harvest over 10 years. This research is a survey using questionnaire to collect primary
data and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) to verify the data and explore the information
obtained. The results showed that farmers’ perception of agroforestry bambang lanang is good
which farmers realize that bambang lanang have not only economic value but also a high
ecological value. Economically, bambang lanang is used as a mean of farmer investment with
minimal input but high return. Bambang lanang can also be used as a farmer’ savings for
providing unpredictable needs such as for married needs, building a house and the school
cost. While ecologically aware farmers’ by planting bambang lanang can withstand erosion and
maintain existing water resources in their area. Farmers’ perception of bambang lanang
positively correlated with their behavior, where the majority of farmers had planted in their
farm. Limited land ownership is not an obstacle to plant bambang lanang, it is seen from
farmers interest in planting bambang lanang increase every year. Farmers hope government's
support in development of community forests bambang lanang.
Keywords: Bambang lanang, agroforestry, perception, behaviour.
1. INTRODUCTION
Development of community forests is one of the solutions to overcome the lack of wood
production from natural forests and plantations forest. Community forests can increase the
number of trees on private land (Adhikari, et al., 2007). Community forest is expected to
provide local and regional timber demand in community. To develop a community forest
requires support from not only policy makers but also the actors in the field, specifically
farmer. Local species used in the development of community forests is expected to increase
farmer’s motivation in planting timber trees in their farm. Local species selected are local
species that have been tested to produce high-quality wood and familiar to the community.
Bambang lanang (Michelia campaka L) is a local species selected to plant in Empat Lawang
Regency. Bambang lanang is a local timber tree from Empat Lawang Regency that had been
developed traditionally over generations. Bambang lanang as one type of constituent
community forests is expected to increase farmer interest to continue planting timber tree.
Agroforestry is the dominant planting system that can be applied to develop bambang lanang
in private land. In addition due to the limited land, agroforestry patterns can also ensure the
sustainability of farmer revenue.
3
To develop community forests of bambang lanang, it is necessary to study farmers’
perception of bambang lanang, because the perception will affect farmers planting behavior.
There is no specific behavior without perception, and behavior is the result of perception
(Harihanto, 2001). Perception is the first impression to achieve a success. It will affect the
learning process (interest) and encourage individuals to learn something (Ahmad, et al., 2012).
Perception gives a meaning to something and perception is the basis of behavior (Zimbardo
and Floyd, 1975). Good perception tends to form good behaviors and negative perceptions
tend to form negative behavior. The purpose of this research is to analyze and explain
farmers’ perception and behavior in supporting the development of bambang lanang
community forest in Empat Lawang Regency, South Sumatera Province.
2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
2.1. Location and Research Time
The survey was conducted in two village in Empat Lawang Regency, i.e. Kemang Manis
Village and Ulak Mengkudu Village, South Sumatera Province. Site selection is done
intentionally based on criteria of the village which is bambang lanang’s habitat and the place
that most of community plant it. Kemang Manis Village was selected to represent the down-
hill and Ulak Mengkudu Village was selected to represent the up-hill region (Figure 1). The
research was conducted on April-September 2012.
Figure 1: Map of site research
2.2 Data Collecting and Analysis
This research is a survey using descriptive research method. Descriptive research is a research
method that uses observation, interviews and questionnaires to describe the present situation
at the time of research. Method is done by several stages, namely preliminary study (pre-
survey) to explore and identify future research sites, and field surveys to collect overall
information through interviews (primary data) and secondary data collection supporting
4
research purposes. Interview was done by using questionnaire both a structured and semi-
structured.
Respondents were selected randomly with amount number of respondents were 40
households in Kemang Manis Village and 41 households in Ulak Mengkudu Village, bringing
the total number of respondents in this study as many as 81 households.
Primary data were analyzed using social analyzes which are tabulation analysis, descriptive
analysis and quantitative analysis. Tabulation analysis is done by grouping data based on
multiple criteria for the purposes of further analysis. Tabulation analysis results in the form of
data tables that illustrate relationships or joint research variables. Descriptive analysis is used
to analyze and describe the qualitative data.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Famers Perception of Agroforestry Bambang Lanang
According to Surya (2004) perception is one form of cognitive behavior that is a process to
get know environment with using senses. Perceptions are formed based on observations
which in naturally society in daily life-day who influenced by experience, information and
environment. Perceptions about the environment may provide a framework for forest
conservation, and inform future efforts in forest education (Dolisca, et al., 2007). In general
farmers’ perceptions against bambang lanang already classified as good, whereby they sighted
bambang lanang is type of plants who easy obtained seedlings, easy planted, easy maintained,
suitable with land condition and has a nice selling price. Value of bambang lanang perception
of Kemang Manis Village higher than Ulak Mengkudu Village (41.0% than 23.4%). Those are
presented on Table 1.
Table 1. Farmers’ perception of Bambang Lanang
Perception
Percentage of responses (%)
Average
(%)
Kemang Manis
Village
N=40
Ulak Mengkudu
Village
N=41
Bambang lanang’s as seeds are easy to obtain,
easy to plant and easy to maintain
62.5
26.8
Bambang lanang is suitable with land condition
62.5
31.7
Bambang lanang can be quickly harvested
10.0
2.4
Bambang lanang have wood straight and the
canopies not disturb other plant
7.5
21.9
Bambang lanang have a good selling price
62.5
34.1
Average value of perception
41.0
23.4
Source: Primary data research
Even though farmers know that bambang lanang is a long term harvest crop, they are still
interested to plant bambang lanang. Martin et al., (2010) found that in the past three years,
5
500,000 of bambang lanang seedling were prepare by seed breeder in Jarai and Muara Payang
in Lahat Regency each year that cannot provide farmers’ demand on bambang lanang.
Some farmer argue, bambang lanang’s canopy blocking the light, causing the plant to die
underneath. However, this does not discourage farmer to plant it because the losses by
planting bambang lanang is not worth comparing to bambang lanang’s high selling price. To
reduce losses of staple crops that hindered by bambang lanang’s canopy, some people plant it
as a land boundary.
Generally, farmer planted bambang lanang along with staple crops in their farm, or well
known as a mixed pattern or agroforestry. According to Lundgreen and Raintree (1982) in
Rianse and Abdi (2010) agroforestry is a collective term for systems and technologies in a
planned land use conducted on a unit of land by combining woody plants (trees, shrubs,
palms, bamboo, etc.) with agricultural crops and/or animals (livestock) and/or fish, which is
done at the same time or take turns forming ecological and economic interactions between the
various components. Bambang lanang agroforestry models developed by farmer in Kemang
Manis Village and Ulak Mengkudu Village are a bambang lanang-coffee agroforestry model
and bambang lanang-rubber agroforestry model (Figure 2). This is because the main crops that
plant in their farm are coffee and rubber. The more diverse types of plants in the ecosystem,
the more ecological system are getting stable (Leakey and Simon, 1998).
(a) (b)
Figure 2: (a) Agroforestry model of bambang lanang-coffee, and (b) agroforestry model of bambang
lanang-rubber
Farmers realize bambang lanang is not economically beneficial only, but also ecologically
beneficial. Bambang lanang economically used as a farmer investment with minimal input but
it possess a good selling price. Bambang lanang can also be used as a farmer savings in times
when unpredictable needs come such as marital needs, building a house and school needs.
While ecologically aware farmer by planting bambang lanang can withstand erosion and
maintain existing water resources in their area. Benefit of bambang lanang can be seen in
Table 2.
6
Table 2. Benefit of Bambang Lanang for farmers
Benefit of Bambang Lanang
Percentage of responses (%)
Average
Kemang Manis
Village
N= 40
Ulak Mengkudu
Village
N= 41
Economic Benefits
Investment
62.5
46.3
54.4
Providing unpredictable needs (married)
22.5
29.2
25.8
Build and repair houses
52.5
19.5
36.0
School needs
22.5
12.2
17.3
Ecological Benefits
Withstand erosion
57.5
0.0
28.8
Maintain existing water resources in their
area
60.0
0.0
30.0
Source: Primary data research
From the table above, Ulak Mengkudu Village farmer is not response about bambang lanang’s
ecological benefits. This is because the Ulak Mengkudu Village located in the up-hill region so
that the presence of water is still guaranteed. Unlike the Kemang Manis Village located in the
downs-hill region that often felt the lack of water when the dry season comes, so by planting
bambang lanang they hope to keep the existence of their water sources.
3.2. Farmers’ Behavior in Supporting of Bambang Lanang Community Forest
Behaviour is an action caused by perception while perceptions formed by environmental
influences, information, and community experiences. Correct perception of an object is
necessary because the perception is the basis for the formation of behaviour (Nurlia, 2006).
Formation schemes of public perception can be seein in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Formation schemes of public perception
Farmers’ behaviour toward bambang lanang in both village positive compared with their
perception. Farmers in Kemang Manis Village and Ulak Mengkudu Village have a positive
perception of bambang lanang agroforestry and they apply it in their daily activities to plant in
Experience PERCEPTION
Environment
Information
BEHAVIOUR
7
their farm (Table 3). With limited land area, they will continue to plant bambang lanang in
among of other plants or just as a land barrier crop.
Table 3. Characteristic of land ownership
Characteristic of land
Kemang Manis
Village
N=40
Ulak Mengkudu
Village
N=41
The average number of land
2 plot
2 plot
The average of land area
1.7 Ha
2.0 Ha
The average number of bambang
lanang/area
38 trees
21 trees
the average distance of land with house
4.0 Km
2.0 Km
Selling price/m3
IDR 1.7 million
IDR 1.5 million
Source: Primary data research
Although the average land area in Kemang Manis Village is less than Ulak Mengkudu Village,
the average number of bambang lanang at Kemang Manis Village is more than the average
amount in the Ulak Mengkudu Village. This is consistent with the average value perception
bambang lanang in Kemang Manis Village greater the amount of 41.0% compared with the
average value perception in Ulak Mengkudu Village by 23.4%. Thus, it reflected the influence
of the real behaviour perception of the farmer in planting bambang lanang.
Distance from house to farm in Kemang Manis Village is farther than in Ulak Mengkudu
Village, but Kemang Manis Village position that is closer to the center of the regency make
the selling price of bambang lanang woods at Kemang Manis Village is more expensive than
selling price of wood in Ulak Mengkudu Village. High selling price of Kemang Manis Village
also affect the interest of the farmer to plant bambang lanang.
The entire farmer aware, by planting bambang lanang in among their staple crops will affect to
production of staple crops. However, farmers do not feel the loss due to bambang lanang’s
selling price is higher than of loss of reduced harvest. Additionally bambang lanang also have
other benefits besides the wood as fire wood, hold the soil from erosion and maintain water
sources.
3.3. Constraints in Developing Community Forests of Bambang Lanang
Lack of government attention to the development of community forest of bambang lanang
causes various problems in forest management in community. Constraints are the lack of
information regarding the breeding, pests and cultivation of bambang lanang’s timber
correctly. Constraints experienced by farmers as described in detail in Table 4.
8
Table 4. The constraints in the development of bambang lanang community forests
The constraints
Percentage of responses (%)
Kemang Manis
Village
N= 40
Ulak Mengkudu
Village
N= 41
Nurseries (breeding, difficulty of getting a good seed)
47.5
43.9
Plant spacing
5.0
2.4
Pests
5.0
43.9
Limited of land
40.0
0.0
Source: Primary data research
Nursery and limited of land to be a constraints in Kemang Manis Village, while breeding and
pests become an obstacle in Ulak mengkudu Village. Farmers expect the government to help
them resolve these constraints
So far the government has not played an active role in development of bambang lanang
community forests. Socialization or training regarding the cultivation of bambang lanang have
never been done. Hence, it led to a lack of information while farmer interest in bambang
lanang currently high.
The farmers expect the government to facilitate them by providing socialization and
extention. So the farmers know the correct information about bambang lanang technique
cultivation, and their also expect the assistance of seeds in order to produce good quality
timber.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Farmers’ perception of agroforestry bambang lanang is good which farmers realize that
bambang lanang have not only economic value but also a high ecological value. Economically,
bambang lanang is used as a mean of farmer investment with minimal input but high return.
Bambang lanang can also be used as a farmer savings for providing unpredictable needs such
as for married needs, building a house and the school cost. While ecologically aware farmers’
by planting bambang lanang can withstand erosion and maintain existing water resources in
their area.
Farmers’ perception of bambang lanang positively correlated with their behaviour, where the
majority of farmers had planted in their farm. Limited land ownership is not an obstacle to
plant bambang lanang, it is seen from farmers interest in planting bambang lanang increase
every year.
The lack of government attention to the development of community forest of bambang
lanang causes various problems in forest management in community. The farmers’ hopes the
government to facilitate by providing socialization and counseling to get the correct
information about the cultivation bambang lanang. Farmers’ are also hoping for help such as
assistance seeds in order to produce quality wood.
5. REFERENCES
Adhikari, B, Frances W. and Jon C Lovett JC (2007): Local benefits from community forests
in the middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 464478.
9
Ahmad, B, Hasanu S, Dian D, dan Tri S W (2012): Persepsi Petani Terhadap Pengelolaan dan
Fungsi Hutan Rakyat di Kabupaten Ciamis. Jurnal Bumi Lestari, Volume 12 No. 1, Februari
2012, hlm. 123 136.
Dolisca, F, Josh M McDaniel, Lawrence D and Teeter (2007): Farmers’' perceptions towards
forests: A case study from Haiti. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 704712.
Harihanto (2001): Persepsi, Sikap dan Prilaku Masyarakat Terhadap Air Sungai: Kasus di DAS
Kaligarang Jawa Tengah. Disertation. Program Pascasarjana IPB, Bogor. 389 halaman.
Leakey, R R B and Simons A J (1998): The domestication and commercialization of
indigenous trees in agroforestry for the alleviation of poverty. Agroforestry systems 38 : 165-176.
Martin, E, Bambang T P, Armellia P Y, Ari N, dan Agus B.H (2010) Budidaya Jenis Bambang
lanang Aspek Status Pembudidayaan di Masyarakat. Laporan Hasil Penelitian. Balai Penelitian
Kehutanan Palembang. 27 halaman.
Nurlia, A (2006): Persepsi dan Perilaku Masyarakat dalam Pengelolaan Ekosistem Sub DAS
Cikundul. Skripsi. Jurusan Manajemen Hutan. Fakultas Kehutanan IPB. Bogor. 82 halaman.
Rianse, U dan Abdi (2010): Agroforestri: Solusi Sosial dan Ekonomi Pengelolaan Sumberdaya
Hutan. Alfabeta. Bandung. 327 halaman.
Surya, M (2004): Psikologi Pembelajaran dan Pengajaran. Pustaka Bani Quraisy. Bandung. 112
halaman.
Zimbardo, P G and Floyd L R (1975): Psychology and life. United States of America. Scott,
Foresman Company. 782 pp.
10
11
INAFOR A-0013
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF INDONESIA
FORESTRY RESEARCHERS
THE 2nd INAFOR, 2728 August 2013
Bee Management and Productivity of Two
Local Honeybees (Apis dorsata Fabr. and Apis cerana Fabr.)
in Riau Province
Avry Pribadi1 and Purnomo2
1,2 Forestry Research Institute for Fiberwood Technology
Jl. Raya Bangkinang-Kuok km. 9 Bangkinang Kab. Kampar-Riau 28401, Indonesia
Corresponding email: avrypribadi@gmail.com
Paper prepared for
The Second International Conference of Indonesian Forestry Researchers INAFOR
27-28 August 2013
INAFOR SECRETARIAT
Sub Division of Desimination, Publication, and Library
FORESTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Jl. GunungBatu 5, Bogor 16610
12
Bee Management And Productivity Of Two
Local Honeybees (Apis dorsata Fabr. And Apis cerana Fabr.)
in Riau Province
Avry Pribadi1 and Purnomo2
1,2 Balai Penelitian Teknologi Serat Tanaman Hutan
Jl. Raya Bangkinang-Kuok km. 9 Bangkinang Kab. Kampar-Riau 28401, Indonesia
Corresponding email: avrypribadi@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Forest degradation over to plantation forest and oil palm invasion are not only affect on
Sialang tree reduction, that causes the reduction of Apis. dorsata colony, but also provide
unique phenomenon. The growth of Plantation Forest Industry (PFI) in Riau also affects the
development of Apis. cerana. The lack of pollen source becomes one of the problem of
beekeeping in PFI.This paper studies the bee management of Apis dorsata and Apis cerana in
term of honey productivity and harvesting methods. The study was took place in Plantation
Forest Industry of Acacia. Mangium and Acacia. crassicarpa in Riau Province. The results show
that species dominate the deployment of Sialang tree are Makeluang (n=361), Kayu Ara
(n=325) dan Acacia mangium (n=253). The highest density of A. dorsata colony was found in
Kempas and Julang trees, with the average of 100 colonies/tree). The sustainableA. Dorsata
harvesting method showed that 28 days afte r honey harvesting, the A. Dorsata colony had
established about 1,050 cm2honey cell and about 264 cm2 pollen cell in each colony. The
average of honey productivity in Acacia mangium PFI is about 1.17 litres/month(in 2 years) and
1.18 litres/month(in 3 years) derived from A. cerana colonies. Meanwhile, honey produce from
Acacia crassicarpa PFI were about 1.18 litres/month (in 2 years) and 1.22 litres/month (in 3
years) from A. cerana colonies.The honey productivity production decreases by about 61.4%,
which is caused by the lack of pollen production in PFI.
Keywords: Apis dorsata, Apis cerana, Sialang tree, Plantation Forest Industry (PFI), bee management
1. INTRODUCTION
Riau is a province with the largest forest honey potency compared to other provinces in
Indonesia, even to West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) and Danau Sentarum (West Kalimantan). As
comparations the productivity of forest honey in Riau from 2006 to 2007 reached more than
400 tons (Purnomo et al., 2007) and became the highest productivity if it compare to forest
honey productivity in NTB (reached only 125 tons/year (Julmansyah, 2007)) and in Danau
Sentarum that only reached about 20 25 tons/year (Riak Bumi Foundation, 2012). But NTB
and Danau Sentarum is more popular as honey production areas than Riau. This is mainly due
to the campaign that carried out by each local government. The opposite effort happened to
Riau government that had no effort to introduce their forest honey potency. Whereas the
Riau forest honey had more advantages than NTB and Danau Sentarum, not only by its
quantity but also by its availability that abundance along the year. This superiority is not
happened in forest honey production in NTB and Danau Sentarum that is only available in
certain seasons (Purnomo et al., 2006).
In Riau, there are at least two species from Apis genus that produce honey, i.e Apis dorsata
(wild/forest honeybee) and Apis cerana (Hadisoesilo, 2001). Asiatic giant honeybee (A. dorsata)
13
is the most productive honeybee producing honey which has the percentage of honey
production nearly 70% of all honey produced in Indonesia (RLPS, 2006). The main
characteristic of Asiatic giant honeybee is its hive with one stroke that hangs in a branch and a
twig of a sialang tree (Starr et al., 1987). Sialang is a term for a big, tall tree which has diametre
reached 100 cm or more, and the height can reach 25 to 30 meter and is hosted by A. dorsata.
In Riau, it has at least 52 species (most of them registered on CITES Apendix II) of the
biggest sialang trees which spread in peat and mineral soil. Sialang tree is a kind of plant which
is protected by law, both government law and community law. For the some people who lives
near the forest, the forest honey from sialang tree used to be additional income.
Another bee species, A. cerana, is a local honeybee, that has been producing honey in
Indonesia commercially especially in Central and West Java for a long time. Although the
productivity is low if it compared to A. mellifera (European honeybee). Traditionally,
honeybees grows in the old coconut log and hive box where bee keepers can derive honey
from it.. A. cerana is a good pollinator, and high in survival capacity due to the co-evolution of
native floral sources, pests and predators accustomed to the same climatic conditions.
In early of year 1990`s, land clearing activity happened to the natural forest to accommodated
the Plantation Forest Industry (PFI) and Oil Palm Plantation. This deforestation activity are
not only giving negative effect to Sialang tree but also giving a unique phenomenon to the A.
dorsata. Before deforestation activity was done, A. dorsata colony was never found in high
buildings and bridges. But while deforestation was being done, reduction of the number of
sialang trees resulted in A. dorsata colony hive that migrated to nesting in buildings and
bridges. However, after the oil palm plantation and PFI are well established, A. dorsata is re-
nesting in tall tree bordering the two areas (natural forest and the plantation). It can be seen
from the tendency of A. dorsata colonies is more getting closed to the forest boundary of PFI
(that planted by Acacia crassicarpa, Acacia mangium, and Eucalyptus sp.) for example that
happened in Pelalawan district, even today A. mangium become one of the species of sialang
tree because nested by A. dorsata (happened in Rokan Hulu district) (Purnomo et al., 2007).
This issue was related to the availability of A. dorsata forage that is abundance in Acacia
plantation (Sihombing, 1997). The potency of extra floral nectar that secreted by A. crassicarpa
and A. mangium are about 60 litres/day/hectare in average based on the age of the tree
(Purnomo et al., 2009).
In term of honey production sustainability, the destruction method by cutting off all of the A.
dorsata hive to get the forest honey reduces the forest honey production. This destructive
technique happened before year 2000. Most of the bee keeper used the cut the all nest (brood,
bee bread, and honey) off method and it caused the reduction of honey bee production as the
A. dorsata bee colonies reduced significantly because of the life cycle of A. dorsata is
interrupted. But after year 2000`s, the new technique had been introduced to the forest bee
keeper. This new technique had increased the honey harvesting frequency from only 2-3 times
in one year (before year 2000) become every month after year 2000`s. The other problem to
A. cerana, the honey production of A. cerana has been reported to decrease significantly
although there is abundant of extra floral nectar in Acacia plantation. Acacia plantation only
provide the nectar that used for energy, but lack of pollen source because there is no flower
blooming of Acacia before 4-5 years. Pollen that unavailable on Acacia flower plantation
reduces the honeybee health and honey production siginificantly. Based on many problems,
this paper studies the bee management of Apis dorsata and Apis cerana in term of honey
productivity and harvesting methods in Riau province.
14
2. METHODS
2.1 Time and location
The research about the management of A. dorsata was done in year 2008 to 2009 at 10 district
of Riau provinces (figure 1). Meanwhile the research about management of A. cerana in was
done in year 2009 to 2011 at A. mangium and A. crassicarpa plantation in Arara Abadi
concession area (Siak district).
Figure 1: Riau province
2.2 Observations on Management of A. dorsata and Ssialang Tree
Determining the vegetation distribution and the number of Sialang trees, colony distribution,
honey productivity, and A. dorsata preference to sialang tree at Riau province (1° 15’ S - 4° 45
N and 100° 03’ E - 109° 19’ E). The bee keeper behaviour was also documented to compare
the sustainable A. dorsata harvesting method (Purnomo et al., 2008).
2.3 Observations on Management of A. cerana in A. mangium and A. crassicarpa
Plantation
Preliminary studies indicate that the potential forage in the A. crassicarpa plantation is sourced
from the extra floral nectar. Observations of potential nectar ekstra floral was done by
measuring the volume of secretions by using a micro pipette. Each selected stands were
selected and then determined based on the leaf canopy strata (upper, middle, and bottom).
Observations were done in each hour, started at 06:30 to 18:30.
A total of 20 A. cerana colonies placed on the A. crassicarpa and A. mangium, as many as 10
colonies placed in the A. crassicarpa and A. mangium plantation that introduced sorghum and
remaining 10 colonies placed on A. crassicarpa and A. mangium plantation that not introduced
with sorghum. Observations were made by measuring the honey productivity and crude
protein of worker bee.
15
2.4 Data Analysis
Data volumes of nectar secretions was calculated by calculating the amount of secretion for
each stand then for every hectare. Data analysis was done by descriptive quantitative
comparison between the potential A.crassicarpa nectar at the age of 12 and 50 months, honey
productivity, and crude protein of A. cerana worker. Mean while the data of A. dorsata was
evaluated to compare the honey quality and quantity before and after the sustainable harvest
method (Purnomo et. al., 2008) was introduced.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSION
3.1 Current Management of A. Dorsata and Sialang tree
Firstly, identification and observation of forest honey harvesting in each districtobtain an
information about the equipment that commonly used by forest bee keeper those were: (1)
“latak” and wooden bat, (2) smoke, (3) cutting tool nest, (4) containers for honey collection
(ubol) and rope to lower and raise the ubol, (5) strokes container, (6) tool filters and (7) lighting
equipment. This part of the sequence/procedur below; the sialang tree is reached by
used”latak” made of wood or bamboo, with a dimension of 20 cm length and 5 cm width and
used them as stairs to build nest in the beehive tree. “Latak” amount used depends on tree
height, the height of the tree where the nest colony “latak” needed more and more.
Traditional smoker used to relieve hives by the honeybees. Traditional smokeris made of
wood or roots of coconut coir can also bound form of bars. The ideal time for honey
harvesting is 07:00 pm to05:00 am and also at noon. Harvesting was normally carried out after
20-25 days from its arrival. The ideal duration to harvest all the hives in a sialang tree is about
2-3 days in average.
The honey utilization procedure is described as follows: Firstly, “latak” was installed on main
stem of sialang tree by the handler, then the bundle of honeybee that hangon the hive was
released using smoke. Then, the nests were cut using bamboo knife and strokes by
containerreel (ubol) that made of rattan. The honey was then squeezed by sterile hand (glove)
and then filtered manually used stainless filter. After extraction by squeezing technique, the
honey produced will be in mixture of brood/larvae, wax, pollens, and even with other waste.
Honey produced in various quality based on its cleanliness. The quality also refers to the
durability of the honey as low quality honey will ferment rapidly.
In 2000s, forest honey harvesting method was carried out by cutting off all of A. dorsata nest.
As a result, not only honey comb that was taken, but also the brood cell. In this method, there
was no selection treatment to separate between immature to mature honey comb. This
immature honey will easily ferment by yeast because the water content is still high (more than
25%) and it can be seen by honey comb that had not covered by bee wax yet.
In the years after 2000, the quality improvement efforts with regard wild honey harvesting
techniques and improved post-harvest handling (Purnomo et al., 2008) showed that there was
an improvement in the quality and sustainability of life honey A. dorsata which then have an
impact on increasing the intensity of forest harvesting honey 2-3 times a year to once every
month.In the years after 2000s, the efforts to improve the quality and quantity of forest honey
were done by stressed on honey harvesting techniques that based on sustainable forest honey
harvesting and improved the post-harvest handling (Purnomo et al., 2008). The results
showed that there was an improvement in the quality and sustainability of life cycle of A.
dorsata which then have an impact on increasing the intensity of harvesting honey by 2-3 times
in a year to 12 times in a year.In general, the test resultsshow that according to the forest
honey quality standard, forest honey produce from Riaucomply with SNI standard.
Parameters tested were lower than value stated in the SNI 01-3545, 2004. Following the
16
analysis of the quality of forest honey than honey quality requirements (SNI 01-3545 2004)
before and after the treatment was done (Table 1).
Tabel 1. Requirements of honey quality by SNI 01 3545 years 2004
No
Parameter
Requirement
Before
treatment
After treatment
1.
Diastase enzyme activity (DN)
Min 3
2.10
3.2
2.
Hidroksi metal furfural (HMF) (mg/kg)
Max 50
51.30
38.00
3.
Water content (%)
Max 22
24.10
23.10
4.
Reduction sugar (% w/w)
Min 65
69.1
69.3
5.
Sucrose (% w/w)
Max 5
1.20
1.20
6.
pH (ml Na OH1 N/kg)
Max 50
52.40
37.00
7.
Solids that unsolved in water (% w/w)
Max 0.5
Negative
Negative
8.
Ash (%,w/w)
Max 0.5
0.70
0.60
9.
Metal contamination
- Lead (Pb) (mg/kg)
Max 1.0
<0.005
<0.005
- Copper (Cu) (mg/kg)
Max 5.0
1.11
1.11
10.
Arsen contamination (As) (mg/kg)
Max 0.5
NegativeGutzeit
NegativeGutzeit
The function of diastase enzyme is to break down the oligosaccharides into monosaccharide
compound. The small amount of diastase enzyme activity due to diastase enzyme that
theoretically available in honeybee stomach will be denatured by the presence of yeast that
secrete the phenol compounds. The presence of yeast allegedly as a result of the high water
content in honey (Table 1) and the micro-flora of honey have not inhabit the yeast yet. The
high levels of water content happened when the treatment of forest honey was done in
younger cells (immature). Moreover, the existence of A. dorsata nest in the open air isallegedly
to be the only factor of the high water content of forest honeybee (Purnomo, et. al., 2008).
Treatments for increasing honey productivity was applied by cleaning treatmentfor the rest of
honey comb that was still attached to the stem after honey harvesting and by not doing
cleaning treatment (the rest of comb left tobe attached). Based on the observation, it showed
on the first day, after honey stroke harvesting,both trials were still made a crowd of A. dorsata.
After 28 days since the cleaned the old honey comb treatment, the cleaning of honey comb
shows that the part had reformed and bulged. Oppositely, the hive whose hive/comb was
uncleaned which change the function of the comb (which was the comb for brood become
honey) (Table 2). In addition, the cleaning process of the rest of the honey comb had higher
value of 1260 cm2, compared to the uncleaned honey combwhich was 960 cm2. The similar
trend could be seen in the pollen comb and brood which had higher values to the cleaning
treatment compared to the uncleaned one (Table 2).
Table 2.Wide average of each hive stroke (honey, pollen, brood) on the 28th day after the process
The low trend of comb wide of each hive to the uncleaned treatment was predicted because of
the existence of rotten comb rest, so it lured the decomposing organisms (fungi or
decomposer) to come, and it made the old hive becoming humid and rotten. This such
Part of hive comb
Honey (cm2)
Pollen (cm2)
Brood (cm2)
Cleaned
Uncleaned
Cleaned
Uncleaned
Cleaned
Uncleaned
comb of previously
harvested honey
(point part/farthest
part of main
stem/harvested part)
1050 0 264 0 0 0
17
condition was probably not favored by the bees, specifically it was because of the high
humidity of the comb which raised disease caused by fungi and bacteria. According to Renich
et al. (2011), some bee diseases are caused by the existence of microorganisms such as roten
larvae rot (caused by bacteria Bacillus larvae).
The total number of sialang trees in Riau province in year 2008 were 2011 trees, with 52
species of sialang trees and 46,875 of A. dorsata colony. The preferency of A. dorsata to nest at
sialang tree showed that the highest tree species are Makeluang (Heritiera Tarrieta) (n = 361),
Kayu Ara (n = 325), and Acacia mangium (n = 253). According to districts, the highest number
of sialang tree species are Rokan Hulu (20 trees species), Pelalawan (14 trees species), and
Kuantan Singigi (14 trees species). In general, sialang trees in Riau were widely distributed in
the middle and west districts and rarely in district that closed to the coast. Indragiri Hilir and
Rokan Hilir districts that close to the coast grow only 6 species of sialang trees which number
of 54 and 26 sialang trees. District located in the middle and west showed the high number of
sialang trees, such as Rokan Hulu districts (515 trees), Pelalawan (424 trees), and Kuantan
Singingi (378 trees). Similar trends occurred to the observation number of A. dorsata colonies.
The results show that the highest number of colony was on Pelalawan (11,517colonies),
Rokan Hulu (10,412 colonies), and Kuantan Singingi (9,636colonies). Districts near the
coastgrows fewer number of colonies, such as Indragiri Hilir (1,143 colonies) and Rokan Hilir
(545 colonies) (Table 3).
Table 3. Distribution of sialang tree and the colony of A. dorsata
District
Number of species
that found
Total of sialang
tree
Amount of A. dorsata
colony
Rokan Hulu
20
515
10,412
Pelalawan
12
424
11,517
Kuantan Singingi
12
378
9,636
Indragiri Hilir
6
54
1,143
Rokan Hilir
6
26
545
This is caused due to effect in the presence of Plantation Forest Industry (PFI) that planted by
A. mangium, A. crassicarpa, and Eucalyptus spp. that abundance at Kuantan Singingi and
Pelalawan. The forest plantation of Acacia sp. provides extra flora nectar as bee forage about
40 to 75 litres/ha/day (Purnomoet al., 2009). The existences of forest protected areas that
grows surrounding the PFI were so petrified that the A.dorsata nesting and finding sources of
pollen from the flowers of the forest (because of there are very low pollen source at PFI area).
There is many factor influenced the high and low of colony preference for honeybee A.
dorsata i.e amount of horizontal branchings and microclimate. The tree height reaching about
27 meters and become dominant (there is no found vegetation/ another tree which is as big as
the sialang tree, and branching that is far from plants of epifit and liana (Starr et al., 1987) and
located around the sustainable forest (Purnomoet al., 2007). It can be seen from sialang trees
located in the center of concession area of PFI and oil palm plantation were not nested by A.
dorsata and even most of sialang tree is died (Purnomoet al., 2007).
3.2 A. dorsata Honey Productivity
Two districts that produce forest honey more than 100 tons/year are Pelalawan (108.5
tons/year) and Kuantan Singigi (106.6 tons/year) (Table 3). Overall the total forest honey
productivity in Riau were about 438.75 tons in 2008. Similar trends happened on the district
18
that closed to the coast. In this district the forest honey productivity is low (under 10
tons/year) (Table 4).
Table 4. Potency of forest honey production in regencies of Riau province (2007 2008)
Honey production in every
district
Forest Honey Production
Kg/month
Ton/year
Kab. Pelalawan :
9,064.69
108.5
Kab. Siak :
4,677.23
55.8
Kab. Rokan Hulu :
2,416.17
49.01
Kab. KuantanSingingi :
8,893.07
106.6
Kab.Kampar
7,073.21
53.55
Kab. Indragiri Hulu
5,368
52.82
Kab. Indragiri Hilir
1,568.62
9.2
Kab. RokanHilir
682.2
3.27
Purnomo et al. (2008) mentioned that the plantations forest of A. mangium and A. crassicarpa
are good sources of nectar for honeybee species that continuously available. The nectar is
secreted from the plant age of 3 months. Based on the calculation of the potential nectarof
A.mangium and A.crassicarpa the nectar potency in such area is about 40-75 litres/hectare/day
depend on the standing age. Acacia nectar existence can be seen by the presence of reddish
forest honey which is a hall mark of honey derived from then nectar of Acacia (Purnomo et al.,
2007). While the low productivity of honey in the forest are near the coast is may be caused by
several factors such as, the lack of beeforage plants that produce nectar and physic influence
ssuch as exposure tothe strong winds that disrupt the bee flying activity and its
communication system(Murphy and Robertson, 2000).
Harvesting of forest honey is also influenced by the rainy and dry seasons. Based on the
observation of forest honey showed higher value in the rainy season (148,996 tons) compared
to those of dry season (134,420 tons). The differences are probably caused by the
improvement need of carbohydrate by A.dorsata colony in the dry season that cannot be full
filled by the available nectar by forest plant. So, in the dry season the initial allegations made
effect to the low of amount of honey obtained is mainly due to the small number of flowers
grows and bloom so as directly proportional effect to the amount of nectar that honeybees
can be taken. The influence of the wind and solar radiation intensity also affects to the amount
of nectar secretion. It is happened because the nectar will easily dry out with an exposure to
sunlight and constant strong winds. According to Anonymous (2012), the amount of
flowering formed will decrease during the dry season in the tropics. Most ofthe flowering
occurs during the transition from the dry to the rainy season. In the rainy season, the plants
will absorb more nutrients and water.
4. HONEY PRODUCTIVITY OF A. CERANA FARMED ON A. crassicarpa AND
A. M ang ium PLANTATIONS
The potency of extra flora nectar secretion of A. crassicarpa showsthat the same value in the
whole observed stand age of 12 and 50 months which was about 0.035 cc/day (Table 4).
However, in single stand, the nectar volume produce 25.69 cc/day for 12 months and 44.31
cc/day for 50 months. This happen due to the difference in the average of young leaves per
stands(734 pieces of leaf/plant for ages 12 months and leaves 1266 / plants to age 50
months).In calculation, 1 hectare extra flora reach about 42.774 cc/day for ages 12 months
and 73.766 cc / day for age 50 months (Table 5).
19
Table 5: Daily average of extra flora nectar secretion of A. crassicarpa age 12 and 50 months
Nectar
secretion
Plant age
12 month (cc/day)
50 month (cc/day)
per leaf
0.035
0.035
per tree
25.69
44.31
per hectare
42,774
73,766
Based on daily observations to extra flora nectar secretion on A.crassicarpa, can be assumed
that the highestsecretionnectarof12months was occurredat 06:30 to 7:30 that amounted to
0.012 cc. This valuewill declinedfrom 10:30 to 17:30 with volume secretion only reached
0.001cc. The volume secretion increase at 17:30 to18:30 with volume secretion of 0.002cc.
Mean while, the daily observations of extra flora nectar secretion nectar showed the same
trend between A.crassicarpa age of 50 months to 12 months, which the highest production
occurs at 06:30 to 7:30 with the volume secretion of 0.010 cc and continued to decline until
stagnate at 10:30 to17:30 with volume secretion of only reached 0.001 cc and volume secretion
will increased at 17.30 to18:30 with volume secretion of 0.003 cc (Pribadi and Purnomo,
2012).
A similar trend of nectar secretion is caused by environmental factors, one of which is
temperature, humidity, and wind. Kapil (1960) stated that the combination of temperature and
humidity of the environment will affect to the level of water saturation in the air. Daily air
temperatures shows risen during the day and noon to the observation in the afternoon, how
ever oppositely the trend of humidity. During the day, high temperatures and low humidity are
expected to affect the water content of the nectar secreted, so the nectar will dry rapidly,
before it was carried by honey bees. Wind factor is also thought to increase the rate of speed
of nectar to be drymore faster (Pinzauti, 1986).
At the trial of placement of A. cerana on plantations of A. mangium showed that the honey
productivity at the stands age of 2 and 3 years produces average of 1.175 litres/month/colony.
Whereas on plantations of 2 and 3 years A. crassicarpa showed honey productivity reach an
average of 1.20 litres/month/colony (Table 6). The same trend between A. mangiumand A.
Cassicarpat ree plantation at ages 2 and 3 years was due to the number of leaves on each tree
stands thus expanding that secreted nectar. Sihombing (1997) mentioned that plant species
Acacia sp.has abundant food (nectar) source for honeybee because of its extra flora and
continuously to secreted its nectar.
Table 6. Honey production of A. cerana at A. mangium dan A. crassicarpaplantation
Standing age
Honey production (lt) and its water content (%)
A. mangium
Water content (%)
A. crassicarpa
Water content (%)
2 year
1.17
22
1.18
22.71
3 year
1.18
21.98
1.22
22.78
5. PROBLEMS IN A. cerana GROWTH IN ACACIA PLANTATIONS
In the first year of Acacia plantation, weeding was carried out every 3-4 months. It aims to
reduce the level of competition for nutrients, but the absence of lower plants (weeds),
however the weeding will impact on the availability of pollen provided by lower plants
(Ageratum conyzoides and Mimosa pudica). Consequently,the lives of honeybee(A. cerana) will
affected by lack of pollen. The method that used to anticipate the scarity of pollen source is by
planting the pollen-producing plant,such as Sorghum spp. and provision of A. dorsata bee bread
supplements.
20
Colony health parameter of A. cerana can be seen by the percentage of crude protein (CP) of
bee worker’sbody. The result shows that the A. cerana placed on the area of the A. mangium
plantation which intercropped with sorghum showshigher value of CP by 58% and
significantly different from A.cerana which are not intercropped with sorghum (31.90%) (Table
7).
Table 7. The content of crude protein (CP) of A. cerana that placed on Sorghum spp. plantation and
without Sorghum spp. plantation.
Observations
Percentage of crude protein of A. cerana worker
Place on Sorg hum spp.
No Sorghum spp.
1
2
3
4
56.76
57.00
58.44
59.80
31.60
33.20
31.30
31.50
Averages
58.00*
31.90
A standardof healthy honeybee by Kleinschmidt and Kondos (1976) was the body of worker
bee should contains 40% to 67% CP. Getting a range of over 40%, honeybee colonies should
consume a minimum quality of pollen that contains at leastof 18% protein. Pollen from
sorghum based on proximate analysis content of 18.68%.
According Mourizio (1975), pollen is protein forage that is needed by brood growth and
development adult honeybees. In addition, pollen also contains fats, vitamins and minerals
which are essential nutrients for the honeybees. According to Dietz (1975), the protein in
pollen serves as the material for the formed of hypopherengeal gland located at the caput of
workerhoneybee that serve a shaper of royal jelly for the queen.Cale andR uthenbuhler (1975)
stated that for young honeybee, the protein will affected to hypopharengeal gland which then
affects the bee's ability to form food for the larvae and queen bees.
The low productivity of honey in the lack location of pollen source will result in less eager to
move to find the source of nectar. Furthermore, the pollen also affects the number of
honeybee colony (due to the lack of abilityto lay eggs for queen). This will result in low
production of honey produced from A. cerana which fell into 61.4% when compared to
colonies that were given supplements such as bee bread of A. dorsata.
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. Forest honey harvesting techniques that used in Riau are (1) the “latak” installation
conducted by the handler, (2) releasing the bee hive using traditional smoker, (3) cutting all
strokes nests using bamboo knife, (4) dropping off the honey comb using container (ubol)
that made of rattan, and (5) extracting and filtering.
2. After harvesting (on 28th day observation), the rest of honey stroke done through the
cleaning process had a higher value (1260 cm2) if compared to the honey stroke which was
uncleaned (960 cm2). The similar trend was seen in pollen and brood strokes which had
higher values through the cleaning process compared to the uncleaned process.
3. The phenomenon of sialang tree in Riau instant tends to widely distribute to rural areas
(middle to west district in Riau province) and the other wise distribution of sialang tree on
the district closed to the coast is low. Similar trends occurred in the distribution of A.
dorsata colony and forest honey productivity.
21
4. There are two districts that have highest forest honey productivity over 100 tons/year,
there are Pelalawan (108.5 tons/year) and Kuantan Singingi (106.6 tons/year). Overall
total honey productivity forest honey in Riau reached 438.75 tons in year 2008.
5. Placement of A.cerana on A. mangium plantations at the age of 2 and 3 years showed that
honey productivity is 1.175liters/month/colony. Mean while honey productivity at A.
crassicarpa plantation at age 2 and 3 years reach 1.20liters/month/colony.
6. Scarcity of pollen on plantation forest of A.mangium and A.crassicarpa result in lower CP of
worker bees that will impact to the low productivity of honey produced by A.cerana to
61.4%.
7. REFERENCES
Anonymous.2012. Pembungaan (flowering). http:/ www.sanoesi.wordpress.com. Acces at July
13rd, 2012 .
Cale, G.H and Ruthenbuhler, W.C. 1975. Genetics and Breeding of the Honey Bee. Dadant
and Sons Hamilton, Illonois.
Dietz, A. 1975. Nutrition of the Adult Honey Bee. Dadant and Sons Hamilton, Illonois
Ditjen RLPS, 2001.Data Produksi Madu Indonesia tahun 1997 s.d 2000.
http://www.dephut.go.id/informasi/Statistik/2001.
Kapil, R.P. 1960. Observations of Temperature and Humidity to Apisindica. Journal of Apic Italy
(27); pg 79-83 .
Kleinschmidt, G.J. and Kondos, A.C. 1976. The influence of crude protein levels on colony
production. Australian Beekeeping 80. pp: 251-257.
Mujetahid, M.A. 2007. Technique of Forest Honeybee Harvesting Praticed by Local
Community around the Forest Area in District of Mallawa, Regency of Maros.Jurnal Perennial,
4(1) : 36-40.
Murphy, C and Robertson, A. 2000. Preliminary study of the effects of honey bees (Apis
mellifera) in Tongariro National Park. Department of Conservation, Wellington
Pinzauti, M. 1986. The Influence of the Wind on Nectar Secretion from the Melon and on the
Flight of Bees: The Use of an Artificial Wind Break. J. Apidologie 17 (1); pp: 63-72.
Pribadi, A dan Purnomo. 2012. Introduksi Lebah Apis cerana pada Hutan Tanaman Industri
jenis Acacia crassicarpa di Provinsi Riau. Prosiding Seminar Nasional HHBK: Peranan Hasil Litbang
HHBK dalam Mendukung Pembangunan Kehutanan, Mataram.
Purnomo, Rochmayanto, Y., Junaedi, A., Aprianis, Y., dan Suhendar. 2007. Peta Sebaran
Koloni Lebah Hutan (Apis dorsata) dan Data Produksi Madu di Riau ed 1. Laporan Hasil
Penelitian Balai Penelitian Hutan Penghasil Serat, Kuok. Tidak dipublikasikan.
22
Purnomo, Rochmayanto, Y., Junaedi, A., Aprianis, Y., dan Suhendar 2008. Peta Sebaran
Koloni Lebah Hutan (Apis dorsata) dan Data Produksi Madu di Riau ed 2. Laporan Hasil
Penelitian Balai Penelitian Hutan Penghasil Serat, Kuok. Tidak dipublikasikan.
Purnomo. 2010. Potensi Nektar Pada Hutan Tanaman Jenis Acacia crassicarpa untuk
Mendukung Perlebahan. Laporan Hasil Penelitian Balai Penelitian Hutan Penghasil Serat,
Kuok (tidak dipublikasikan).
Rennich, K., Petitis, J., 2, Vanengelsdrop, D. and Hayes J., 2011. National Honey Bee Pests
and Diseases Survey Report. Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Riak Bumi Foundation, 2012.Forest Honey.http://www.riakbimi.or.id. Acces on June 6th 2013
Sihombing, D.T.H., 1997. Ilmu Ternak Lebah Madu. Gajah Mada University Press,
Yogyakarta.
Starr K. C., Schmidt, J.P., and Schimdt, J.O. 1987. Nest-site Preference of Giant Honey Bee,
Apis dorsata (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in Borneo. Pan-Pasific Entomologist 63(1); pp: 37-42.
Thomas, D., Pal, N. and Rao, K.S. 2002. Bee Management and Productivity of Indian
Honeybees. Journal of Apiculture in Tropical Climates (Apiacta) vol:3.
23
INAFOR A-0016
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF INDONESIA
FORESTRY RESEARCHERS
THE 2nd INAFOR, 27-28 AUGUST 2013
Farmers Participation in Land and Forest Rehabilitation: A Case Study of
Upstream Ciliwung Watershed
Heru Permana1, Bondan Winarno2, Takao Katsuki3 and Saut Sagala4
1 Kahayan Watershed Management Unit; Directorate General of Watershed Management and Social
Forestry, Ministry of Forestry;
2 Forestry Research Institute of Palembang
3Graduate School of Policy Science; Ritsumeikan University
4School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development; ITB
Coresponding email: heru_permana2003@yahoo.com and bondanw2308@gmail.com
Paper prepared for
The Second International Conference of Indonesian Forestry Researches (INAFOR)
27-28 August 2013
INAFOR SECRETARIAT
Sub Division of Dissemination, Publication and Libarary
FORESTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Jl. GunungBatu 5, Bogor 16610
24
Farmers Participation in Land and Forest Rehabilitation: A Case Study of
Upstream Ciliwung Watershed
Heru Permana1, Bondan Winarno2, Takao Katsuki3, and Saut Sagala4
1 Kahayan Watershed Management Unit; Directorate General of Watershed Management and Social Forestry,
Ministry of Forestry;
2 Forestry Research Institute of Palembang
3Graduate School of Policy Science; Ritsumeikan University
4School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development; ITB
Coresponding email: heru_permana2003@yahoo.com and bondanw2308@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The aims of Land and Forest Rehabilitation (LFR) are to maintain forest functions and to
reach welfare for community surrounding forest area which consists mainly of farmers.
Consequently, the main actor of LFR is dominated by the farmers. Therefore, farmers
participation is essential to implement LFR programs. The purpose of the research is to
describe farmers participation in conducting LFR activities and to improve farmers
participation in preserving and maintaining forest functions in upstream Ciliwung Watershed,
West Java, Indonesia. The research examines about facts and figures in the study location and
correlation among social economic variables related with farmers participation.
Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village are selected as the sample to collect data regard to
farmersparticipation. This research use qualitative and quantitative analysis. In order to
define level of farmersparticipation, scoring methods are used. Moreover, questionnaire and
interviews are used to collect data about farmersinvolvement in every stage of land and forest
rehabilitation activities. The result reveals that farmers have high participation due to their
involvement in all stages of LFR (Planning, Implementation, Monitoring-Evaluation, and
Utilization). The study is expected to be input for supporting strategies to enhance farmer
participation in developing LFR considering socio economic aspects and to increase people
awareness in preserving forest as well.
Keywords: Farmers Participation, Land and Forest Rehabilitation, Upstream Ciliwung
Watershed
1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, the conditions of the forests in Indonesia have been deteriorating, because of the
human need for land and natural resources. However, forests play important role in human
life mainly due to their function as production forests, protection forest, and conservation
forest (Act No. 41/1999). Indonesia has suffered degraded forest land caused by illegal
logging, forest fires, forest conversion, unplanned agricultural expansion, and social conflict
over forest resources (Nawir et al., 2007). Related with these conditions, Government of
Indonesia (GoI) has issued many policies in land and forest rehabilitation such as Forest
Community, Social Forestry, National Movement of Land and Forest Rehabilitation
(GERHAN), One Man One Three (OMOT), One Billion Indonesian Trees (OBIT), etc. In
addition Perhutani (as a State Owned Enterprise) also has applied forest management based
community.
The approach of the programs has been shifted from top-down to bottom-up as response for
the improvement of the programs. Top down-approach has shown the failed of the programs
25
to solve the problem in forest development and social economics. Therefore, participative
planning was built based on bottom up approaches (Nawir et al., 2007; Nomura, 2008). As one
of the effective approaches, participation of local communities is required in forest
management (Faham et al., 2008). In term of bottom-up planning, the community as the
subject of land and forest rehabilitation programs is very important. This is because the aims
of land and forest rehabilitation are to maintain forest functions and to obtain welfare for the
community in the surrounding forest area (Government Rules No. 76/2008, Ministry of
Forestry Regulation No. P. 70/Menhut-II/2008). Further, the community around forest area
consists mainly of farmers and their participation is needed as the main actors of land and
forest rehabilitation. Participation is known as one of the principles in ecosystem-based
approaches to river rehabilitation (Hilman et al., 2005).
In Indonesia, the Ciliwung River is one of the biggest rivers in West Java which has important
roles in supporting a variety of human and economic activities. Water pollution, lack of fresh
water, flood, and critical land in Ciliwung River are becoming the main issues. Moreover, the
capacity of this river tends to decline. In several researches indicated that land use changes are
the main problem affecting the flooding of the Ciliwung River. The forest area in Ciliwung
Watershed was 9 % of total area; meanwhile housing and plantation are 23.80% and 19.28%
respectively (Rusdiana et al., 2003). The forest area in Ciliwung Watershed which was merely
9% may cause floods and landslides (Surat Kabar Pikiran Rakyat, 2010). However, according
to Spatial Plan regulation (Act No. 26/2007) and Forestry regulation (Act No. 41/1999) a
watershed must cover at least 30% of green area including forest area in order to avoid
disasters such as floods, landslides, drought, etc.
Mainly, forests are located in upstream areas functioning as flood control for downstream
(Sherman, 1928; Asdak, 2002). To maintain forests functions in the upstream and to minimize
forest conversion, the role of farmers is very essential. Farmers living in the upstream of
Ciliwung Watershed should participate in preservation and rehabilitation of forest areas. In
addition, land and forest rehabilitation is related with long-term activity, so that it requires a
strong commitment in conducting this activity and it also depends on social economic aspects.
Furthermore, the farmers perspective always wants to get benefits instantly, therefore there
must be alternative livelihoods to support their life (Zhang et al., 2009). Farmers participation
is reflected as one of the most critical principles in forest development projects (Blay et al.,
2008). Without participation from them, the government will be immobilized. In Ciliwung
context, no study has identified the factors influencing farmers participation in conducting
land and forest rehabilitation.
Conflict may occur when participation and willingness of the farmers to rehabilitate land and
forest are decrease. In this case, social and economic aspect can be the main cause (Zhang et
al., 2009; Faham et al., 2008). Since land and forest rehabilitation program has not considered
social and economic aspects, its objectives will not be reached. Moreover, farmers are often
neglected in decision making process regarding land and forest rehabilitation program
(BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung, 2003). Although, initially they propose to government institutions
to involve in land and forest rehabilitation, they are only asked to participate when
implementation has just begun. Thereby, the farmers are not interested in participating in land
and forest rehabilitation. Based on the condition in the Ciliwung Watershed, the objective of
this research are to identify and analyze level of farmersparticipation in upstream Ciliwung
watershed in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and utilization stage in
land and forest rehabilitation.
26
2. METHODS
2.1. Location of Study
Ciliwung watershed covers from upstream Ciliwung to Jakarta Bay with total area which is
about 387 km2, with the main river length of about 117 km. Each part of Ciliwung watershed
has differences characters in physic, land use, and socio-economic activities (Pawitan, 2002).
The river flows from South to North of Java Island which across DKI Jakarta as the capital
city of Indonesia. Therefore, Ciliwung River is vital for Indonesia in order to keep existing of
DKI Jakarta. Ciliwung River is not the only one crossing DKI Jakarta, there are many rivers
that flow to DKI Jakarta. However, Ciliwung River is the biggest among the rivers flow to
DKI Jakarta. Consequently, the occurrence of flood in DKI Jakarta is always related to
Ciliwung watershed management in the upper part (Hendrayanto, 2007).
The upper watershed is started from Gunung Gede including mountainous area to Katulampa
Dam functioned as gauging station to control height level of Ciliwung River. It covers about
152 km2 and it is characterized by mountainous fast-flowing rapids, slope and high variation,
with 2-15% slope (70.5 km2), 15-45% (52.9 km2), and the rest more than 45%. In the upstream
part still found many springs and rainfall annual average over the period 1989-2001 is 3.636
mm with average monthly rainfall 303 mm (BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung, 2003; Hendrayanto,
2007).
2.2. Data collection
In this research, data is classified into primary and secondary. Primary data were obtained
from interview using questionnaire, in depth interview using key questions and discussion with
the respondents. Data from questionnaire related with characteristics, perceptions and,
experience of the respondents such as: personal attributes, social economic condition,
leadership, and farmers participation in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation,
and utilization stages. Discussion and in depth interview also conducted to stakeholders
involved in land and forest rehabilitation program to collect information about the policy and
roles of stakeholders. In addition, observation also conducted in this research to understand
further about the action what farmers do in preserving forest and related information and the
factors influencing as well. Secondary data were obtained from several documents, reports,
and other publications to support primary data. Secondary data are about regulation related
with land and forest rehabilitation, and related research and reports.
The main data for this study obtained from a set of questions in a questionnaire. The survey
conducts in July to August 2011 and February 2012. The focus of this research is farmers who
live in upstream area especially in Megamendung and Cisarua Districts. In those districts, there
are 41 villages. The villages will be selected purposively with several criteria, such as: (a) The
village has involved in land and forest rehabilitation activities; (b) Generally, the community
use to interact with other people from outside the community; (c) The record of the village
data provided regularly; (d) The socio political condition in the village is stable, and; (e)The
head of village and the community is welcomed for study.Furthermore, the respondent is the
farmer who has involved in land and forest rehabilitation activities. Because of the limited
time and resources in collecting data, the respondents for each village are 50 respondents, with
the total number of respondent from 2 (two) villages are 100 respondents. Based on
discussion with related institution such as: BPDASCitarum-Ciliwung, Forestry Agency of
Bogor Regency, and District Agency of Megamendung and Cisarua; the selected villages are
Megamendung Village and Tugu Utara Village.
27
2.3. Data Analysis
This research use qualitative and quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis use to explain the
quantitative result. In order to define level of farmers participation, scoring methods will be
used. Farmers participation in land and forest rehabilitation is divided into 4 (four) activities
which are (1) Planning Activities; (2) Implementation Activities; (3) Monitoring-Evaluation
Activities; and (4) Utilization Activities. To define the level of farmers’ participation, a set of
questions in the form of a statement will be used, then the answer will be rated on a five-point
scale from 1 to 5. Thus, the score will be calculated based on the activities. The score then is
converted into percentage; based on the percentage, the level of farmers participation will be
classified into 3 (three) levels: (1) High Participation; (2) Medium Participation; and (3) Low
Participation.
0%
33.3%
66.6%
100%
Low Medium High
The tools to justify the level of farmers’ participation in case studies are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Explanations of level of farmers’ participation in land and forest rehabilitation
Stages
Activities
Level of Farmers Participation
Planning Stage
1. Making Proposal/Plans
2. Forming groups
3. Electing committee
4. Selecting site
5. Selecting plants
6. Having a vote in decision
making
7. Influencing decision
Low
Not involve in all activities
Medium
Only involve in several
activities , have a vote but
cannot influence decision
High
Involve in all activities, have a
vote and can influence
decision
Implementation Stage
1. Preparing site
2. Delivery seedling to the
site
3. Planting the seedling
4. Maintaining trees
5. Having a vote in decision
making
6. Influencing decision
Low
Not involve in all activities
Medium
Only involve in several
activities, have a vote but
cannot influence decision
High
Involve in all activities, have a
vote and can influence
decision
Monitoring-Evaluation
Stage
1. Protecting site
2. Monitoring growth of trees
3. Monitoring and evaluation
of planting and
maintenance activities
4. Having a vote in decision
making
5. Influencing decision
Low
Not involve in all activities
Medium
Only involve in several
activities, have a vote but
cannot influence decision
High
Involve in all activities, have a
vote and can influence
28
Stages
Activities
Level of Farmers Participation
decision
Utilization Stage
1. Involving in harvesting
2. Involving in marketing
3. Having a vote in decision
making
4. Influencing decision
Low
Not involve in all activities
Medium
Only involve in several
activities, have a vote but
cannot influence decision
High
Involve in all activities, have a
vote and can influence
decision
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Locations Situation and Respondents Profile
Megamendung Village is located in Megamendung District. The Distance to the capital city of
Bogor Regency is 38 Km. Megamendung coversabout 1,200 Ha. In terms of population, the
number of residents by gender in 2010 consist of male 3,309 people and female 3,016 people.
The total population are 6,325 people with total household 1,833 Families. The population
density in Megamendung is 527 people/km2. Livelihoods in Megamendung consist of private
sector (850 people/26.23%), carpenter (769 people/23.73%), farmer (545 people/16.82%),
farm worker (376 people/11.60%), services (317/9.78%) and, therest are others source of
livelihoods. Land use in Megamendung is dominated by Others including forest area owned
by Perhutani (668.5 Ha/ 58.11%), and Housing (300 Ha/26.08%). Paddy field and farm area
are only 150 ha (13.04%).
Tugu Utara Village is located in Cisarua District. The distance to the capital city of Bogor
Regency is 44 Km. Tugu Utara covers about 1,703 Ha. In terms of population,the number of
residents by gender in 2011 consist of male 5,338 people and female 4,901 people. The total
population is 10,239 people with total household 3,072 Families. The population density in
Tugu Utara is 601 people/km2. Livelihoods in Tugu Utara is dominate by
entrepreneur/merchant (2,871 people/34.4%) and plantation worker (2,556/30.4%). Farmer,
Farm Workers and Plantation Workers are associated with planting activities in tea plantation,
agriculture, and forestry sector. Therefore, the total livelihoods related with planting activities
are 2,776 people (32.89%). The others work as government officer (7.47%), carpenter (7.46%)
and the rest are others livelihoods. land use in Tugu Utara is dominated by forest area (713.6
Ha/41.90 %) and it is followed by tea plantation (531 Ha/31.18 %).
Profiles of the respondents in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village based on questionaire
present in the table below. The total respondents in Megamendung Village and Tugu Utara
Village are 100 respondents. Profile respondents include characteristics respondents, socio
economics respondents and, resource endowments feature.
29
Table 2. Respondents profile in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village
No.
Aspects / Classification
Megamendung Village
Tugu Utara Village
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
1
Amount of Cultivated-Land
<0.25 Ha
6
12.0
8
16.0
0.25 - 0.5 Ha
12
24.0
7
14.0
0.5 - 1.0 Ha
18
36.0
12
24.0
>1.0 Ha
14
28.0
23
46.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
2
Land Status
State Land
21
42.0
38
76.0
Borrowed Land
23
46.0
3
6.0
Rented Land
3
6.0
3
6.0
Owned Land
3
6.0
6
12.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
3
Main Occupation
Vegetable Farmers
18
36.0
25
50.0
Tea Farmers
0
0.0
1
2.0
Forest Farmers
32
64.0
24
48.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
4
Household Monthly Income
<Rp. 1.2 million
45
90.0
32
64.0
Rp. 1.2 - 2.0 million
5
10.0
14
28.0
Rp. 2.001 - 5.0 million
0
0.0
4
8.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
5
Source of Income
Others
18
36.0
3
6.0
Agriculture
17
34.0
26
52.0
Forest
15
30.0
21
42.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
6
Household Monthly Expenditure
<Rp. 1.2 million
21
42.0
30
60.0
Rp. 1.2 - 2.0 million
29
58.0
20
40.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
7
Use of Expenditure
Tertiary Needs (Entertainment)
2
4.0
1
2.0
Secondary Needs (Education)
5
10.0
8
16.0
Daily Needs (Foods)
43
86.0
41
82.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
8
Family Members / Household Size
> 5 persons
6
12.0
12
24.0
3-4 persons
38
76.0
35
70.0
2 persons
6
12.0
3
6.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
30
No.
Aspects / Classification
Megamendung Village
Tugu Utara Village
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
9
Number of productive members in the family
1 person
25
50.0
29
58.0
2-3 persons
25
50.0
18
36.0
> 3 persons
0
0.0
3
6.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
10
Level of Education
No formal education
9
18.0
1
2.0
Elementary School
29
58.0
20
40.0
Junior High School
10
20.0
23
46.0
Senior High School
2
4.0
5
10.0
University
0
0.0
1
2.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
11
Distance to the LFR location
> 1,000 meter
17
34.0
3
6.0
500 - 1,000 meter
7
14.0
7
14.0
200 - 500 meter
10
20.0
31
62.0
< 200 meter
16
32.0
9
18.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
12
Topographic condition
Extremely Steep
1
2.0
1
2.0
Steep
17
34.0
14
28.0
Moderately Steep
23
46.0
32
64.0
Plain
9
18.0
3
6.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
Based on the above table, there are many similiraities and differences between Megamendung
and Tugu Utara Village. The majority of farmers (18 respondents/36%) in Megamendung
cultivate land 0.5 Ha to 1.0 Ha due to limited cultivated land, while in Tugu Utara mostly the
46% farmers (23 respondents) cultivate land more than 1.0 Ha. Main job of the farmers in
Megamendung mostly forest farmers (32 respondents /64%); however the farmers in Tugu
Utara the majority is vegetable farmers (25 respondents/50%) and it is followed by forest
farmers (24 respondents /48%). Forest farmers always depend on non timber forest products
such as fire wood, etc; while vegetable farmers depend on agricultural products such as
tomato, corn, cabbage, etc. Source of income from others sectors (36%) such as merchant, ojeg
(motorcycle rent), and villa (rest house/cottage) guard happen in Megamendung and it is
followed by agriculture (34%) and forest (30%); in Tugu Utara the income generates from
agriculture sectors (52%) and followed by forest (42%).
3.2. Respondents Perception about Land and Forest Rehabilitation
This section will elaborate the perception and knowledge of the respodents which are
connected with land and forest rehabilitation. Data about environmental knowledge of the
farmers focus on the farmers understanding through several statements regarding the
significance of land and forest rehabilitation, its definition, its impact, forest condition in
upstream Ciliwung, the reason to involve in land and forest rehabilitation, and land and forest
31
rehabilitation expectation in the future. Table 3 gives details of the results regarding
environmental knowledge of the farmers.
Table 3: Environmental knowledge aspect in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village based on
perceptions of the farmers
No.
Statements
Megamendung Village
Tugu Utara Village
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
1
LFR is very important
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
6
12.0
1
2.0
Agree
31
62.0
44
88.0
Strongly Agree
13
26.0
5
10.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
2
Recognize what is LFR
Disagree
1
2.0
0
0.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
10
20.0
4
8.0
Agree
34
68.0
41
82.0
Strongly Agree
5
10.0
5
10.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
3
Know the impacts in upstream Ciliwung to the middle and downstream
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
9
18.0
1
2.0
Agree
31
62.0
42
84.0
Strongly Agree
10
20.0
7
14.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
4
Deforestation in upstream Ciliwung is severe and worse
Disagree
3
6.0
0
0.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
7
14.0
7
14.0
Agree
26
52.0
38
76.0
Strongly Agree
14
28.0
5
10.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
5
LFR is one of efforts to recover environment
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
2
4.0
0
0.0
Agree
38
76.0
44
88.0
Strongly Agree
10
20.0
6
12.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
6
Involve because the benefits in the future
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
8
16.0
1
2.0
Agree
34
68.0
44
88.0
Strongly Agree
8
16.0
5
10.0
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
7
LFR will grow in the future
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
8
16.0
2
4.0
Agree
35
70.0
44
88.0
Strongly Agree
7
14.0
4
8.0
32
No.
Statements
Megamendung Village
Tugu Utara Village
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Total
50
100.0
50
100.0
According to Table 3, most of the farmers agree and strongly agree that land and forest
rehabilitation is very important to maintain forest function. The majority of the farmers
recognize the land and forest rehabilitation activities, only 10 respondents (20%) in
Megamendung and 4 respondents (8%) neither agree nor disagree in Tugu Utara due to
merely know several parts of land and forest rehabilitation activities. Moreover, they know the
impacts of land and forest rehabilitation in upstream of Ciliwung to middle and downstream
such as flooding in downstream can be caused by forest condition in upstream area.Their
views regarding forest condition are getting worse and severe because of landuse change into
other uses such as housing and agriculture area. Therefore, they realize that land and forest
rehabilitation is one of the efforts to recover environment including forest function. Most of
the farmers involve because the advantages of land and forest rehabilitation in the future, as a
result they expect that it will grow in the future due to economic and ecology benefits.
3.3. Farmers Participation Level
The nature and level of farmers participation was determined by their involvement in every
stage(planning, implementation, monitoring-evaluation, and utilization); their vote in decision
making and their influences in changing the decision.
3.3.1. Planning Stage
At planning stage, the activities consists of making proposal, plans, forming groups, electing
committee, selecting site, selecting plants, having a vote, and influencing decision making. The
result can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Participation level at planning stage in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village
According to Figure 1, farmers in Tugu Utara have higher participation than Megamendung.
Almost all the farmers in Tugu Utara (98%) involve in all planning activities, have a vote in
decision making, and can influence the decision, while in Megamendung only 72% of farmers.
It is because the farmers in Tugu Utara has more experience in government project and more
understanding in preparing land and forest rehabilitation.
3.3.2. Implementation stage
The first activities start with preparing the site based on design and technical planning. Then,
it is followed by delivering seedling to the site and planting the seedling afterward. Maintaining
the trees including providing fertilizer and pesticides, and replanting the decease trees is one
of the important activities in implementation stage. In decision making, the farmers also have
Medium
28%
14 Resp
High
72%
36 Resp
Participation Level at Planning Stages in
Megamendung Village
33
a vote and to extent the farmers can influence the decision. The results of farmers
participation at implementation stage is performed in Figure 2.
Figur
Figure 2: Participation level at implementation stage in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village
This figure demonstrates the level of farmers participation at implementation stage which is
identified that farmers participation in Tugu Utara is higher than Megamendung. The 94% of
the farmers in Tugu Utara involve in all activities at implementation, whereas in
Megamendung is 70% farmers. The rest of farmers are medium participation due to can not
influence the decision and only involve several activities of implementation.
3.3.3. Monitoring-evaluation stage
At monitoring-evaluation stage, the activities consists of protecting site and the plants,
monitoring growth of trees, monitoring and evaluation of planting and maintenance activities,
having a vote in decision making and influencing decision making in the groups. The
comparison between Megamendung and Tugu Utara can be seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Participation level at monitoring evaluation stage in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village
The majority of farmers has high participation in monitoring-evaluation stage with 84 % in
Tugu Utara and 62% in Megamendung. Both of them has only 1 respondent (2%) who has
low participation. The rest of the farmers has medium participation. Overall, the farmers
protect the site and the plants, monitor the growth of trees, and monitor and evaluation the
implementation of planting and maintaining activities. Since the government provide the
seedling and the others tools, it has to monitor and evaluate the result of implementation stage
whether together with the farmers or not. This means government has resposibility to monitor
and evaluate in order to measure the realization of implementation activities and
continuousness for budgeting in maintenance activity in the following year. The budget for
Medium
30%
15 Resp
High
70%
35 Resp
Participation Level at Implementation
Stages in Megamendung Medium
6%
3 Resp
High
94%
47 Resp
Participation Level at Implementation Stages in Tugu
Utara
Low
2%
1 Resp
Medium
36%
18 Resp
High
62%
31 Resp
Participation Level at Monitoring-
Evaluation Stages in Megamendung Low
2%
1 Resp
Medium
14%
7 Resp
High
84%
42 Resp
Participation Level at Monitoring-
Evaluation Stages in Tugu Utara
34
maintenance from the government is merely maximum for two years after implementation
activities and it depends on the monitoring-evaluation result conducted by government.
3.3.4. Utilization stage
The involvement in utilization stage is measured by farmers participation in harvesting and
marketing land and forest rehabilitation products, and a vote existence in decision making and
the extent of farmers can influence in the decision. Figure 4 provides the details of farmers
participation level at utilization stage in Megamendung and Tugu Utara.
Figure 4: Participation level at utilization stage in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village
From this figure, the farmers in Tugu Utara has higher participation in exploiting land and
forest products. While the trees not yet produce timber, fruits, and other products, the farmers
can generate income from annual crops planted sidelines of the trees. Land and forest
rehabilitation not only plant trees but also plant annual crops such as vegetables in order to
provide the farmers alternative livelihood to fullfill their needs.
3.5. Discussion
The findings reveal that commonly the farmers living in upstream area of Ciliwung watershed
are poor with low level education (elementary and junior high school). They are lack of
information and job opportunities. Most of them are vegetable and forest farmers with
income below wage minimum regional in Bogor Regency and West Java Province. The
farmers merely cultivate land less than 2 Ha with 1-2 person productive members in family.
There are five types in land utilization in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village:
a. Land is owned by the farmers and the benefits are from agricultural crops and the profits
are for the owner.
b. Land is owned by outsiders but the local farmers is allowed to use the land called as
borrowed land. The profits is for the farmer; and the land owner may give incentives for
the farmer because the land is maintained and secured by the farmer.
c. Land is owned by other farmers or outsiders and the farmer rent the land for farming
called as rented land. The benefits and profits are for the farmers and/or sharing with the
land owner.
d. Land is owned by the state, the farmers can utilize the land based on particular
regulations and get the benefits from the land as well. However they cannot have the land
and change the land status.
Low
4%
2 Resp
Medium
40%
20 Resp
High
56%
28 Resp
Participation Level at Utilization Stage in
Megamendung Low
2%
1 Resp
Medium
12%
6 Resp
High
86%
43 Resp
Participation Level at Utilization Stage in
Tugu Utara
35
e. Land is owned by unknown called as unmanaged land or lahan tidur / gontai, the farmers
use the land without permission.
According data of Counseling Agency of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (BP3K : Badan
Penyuluhan Pertanian, Perikanan, dan Kehutanan) 2010 in Suwarno (2011), there are arround 7,607
Ha which is divided into 7,228 Ha land owned and 379 Ha ex tea plantation area can be
managed by people in Upstream Ciliwung area. Further, the cultivated land area which is4,637
Ha (60.96% of 7,607 Ha) consists of cultivated land for agriculture 3,221 Ha (42,34%),
livestock 56 ha (0,01%), fishery 48 ha (0,01%), farming 1.312 ha (17,24%), and the remaining
2.970 ha (39,04%) in form of unmanaged land (lahan tidur/gontai) and river banks area. The
data present that unmanaged land area are almost 40%. It is opportunities for the government
to implement land and forest rehabilitation in such area. However, it is difficult because the
land could be owned by outsiders who live in other areas. Those conditions make land
cultivation for the farmers are limited. The limited land cultivation due to 70% to 80% owned
by outsiders create access to the land restricted and difficult to be controlled and coordinated
in performing land and forest rehabilitation (BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung, 2003).
Consequently, some of the farmers try to find another source as additional income to fullfill
theirs basic needs. Foods as basic needs are essential for them. As a result, some of the
farmers also work as merchant, motorcyle rent (ojeg), villa guard and so on. In addition, the
other farmers sell their land located near their home to other people to fullfill the needs.
Hence, most of lands surrounding the farmers are owned by outsiders. The remaining
cultivated lands are usually far from their home range from 200 -500 meters in Tugu Utara
and more than 1 km in Megamendung with moderately steep condition. However, their
understanding regards to land and forest rehabilitation is important in order to obtain better
life economically, socially, and ecologically in the future. It means that, they do not expect only
ecological benefits but also socio-economic benefits from land and forest rehabilitation.
The comparison of farmers participation levelof all stages indicate that the level participation
in planning stage are the highest. It is followed by participation in implementation stage and
monitoring-evaluation stage. The lowest precentage is participation level at utilization stage.
Those arise both in Megamendung and Tugu Utara.
Many of people are not willing to participate in government projects because they do not see
the benefits of developments and do not have incentive to maintain the project (Mirghani et
al., 1995). Based on this argument, the farmers in Megamendung and Tugu Utara has already
identify the advantages of land and forest rehabilitation, therefore they are willing to involve in
the activities shown by high participation in all stages. However, there are no sufficient
incentives to sustain the project due to limited budget from government and also forest need
long term to produce its products. This become challenges in forestry sector, how to maintain
land and forest rehabilitation outcomes can be sustained and give the welfares for the farmers.
At planning stage, the farmers are very interested to involve due to their expectation that the
activities can make better their life in the future both in economic and ecology aspects. The
activities consists of making proposal, plans, forming groups, electing committee, selecting
site, selecting plants, having a vote, and influencing decision making. The findings show that
the majority has involved in the planning stage activities especially in Tugu Utara (Figure 1). It
is because Tugu Utara becomes the focus of attention for government and researchers due to
its location at the most upper part of Upstream Ciliwung Watershed. So that, the farmers
often interact with government officer and researchers, thus it improves their knowledge and
information regard to environmental issues.
36
Based on interview, at planning stage the farmers construct proposal together and propose to
government in order to obtain several supports such as physical (ie. wage, seedling, tools, etc.)
and non physical (ie. policies, suation, etc.). They have a tentative plan regarding land and
forest rehabilitation. Basically, the plan is made based on bottom-up approaches. They
propose the groups, committee, site, type of plants. After the proposal is accepted by
government, the farmers have to sign agreement to distribute rights and responsibilities.
Sharing information and knowledge through socialization, discussion and negotiation related
with land and forest rehabilitation programs and projects is conducted by government and the
farmers.
The implementation activities are performed afterward. The activities are divided into several
actions such as preparing the site based on design and technical planning made by government
accommodated planning from the farmers groups; delivering seedling to the site; planting the
seedling; maintaining the trees by giving fertilizer and pesticides; and replanting the decease
trees; having a vote and influencing decision making related with implementation mechanism.
The farmers have to responsible for the plants. Therefore, there are willing to do
implementation activities. For instance, when the government provides the seedling, the
farmers must plant the seedling in their areas based on the technical plan. Usually, some of
the farmers do the implementation activities together and the others conduct individually.
Though, there is time table and schedule that they have to finish the implementation activities.
The next stage is monitoring-evaluation stage. In this stage, the farmers should take care the
trees which planted before by protecting and monitoring the site and the plants either
individually or groups. In addition, the government also implement monitoring-evaluation
regarding the results of implementation stage. Based on the government evaluation and
monitoring results, it will be determined whether the maintenance in the following year can be
implemented or not.
Farmers participation level at utilization stage is related with harvesting and marketing the
products of land and forest rehabilitation. The government should provide information
regarding land and forest rehabilitation products and its uses. If the products can be sold, how
to harvest and where the location of the markets. At this stage, the farmers have high
participation because they know they can obtain the benefit from the products. The farmers
in Megamendung and Tugu Utara usually sell vegetable and fruits in traditional markets
directly or sell to the collectors.
From the evidence depict that farmers involvement in all activities begun from planning to
utilization stage can enhance farmers participation in land and forest rehabilitation due to
understanding the conditions. By knowing the condition and farmers be included in decision
making procesess, open and transparents discussions would be followed. As a result, it lead to
increasing of farmers participation in land and forest rehabilitation activities.
Most of the farmers groups participate by taking initiatives independently regarding land and
forest rehabilitation (LFR). They realize that LFR is important for their future, not only for
economic reasons but also for ecological reasons. They develop contacts with external
institutions for resources and technical advice they need such as Government -Local and
Central Government; and State Owned Enterprise Perhutani. Their participation can
implement if a frame work to support exist due to related with government policies. Based on
Pretty (1995), the farmers participation in this context can be categorized in Self-
Mobilization.In fact, the farmers cannot participate totally indepedently because they need
structure and programs from the government to facilitate their participation particularly in
implementing land and forest rehabilitation.
37
Lise (2000) argued that the government should take the initial actions because of possessing
resources including policies and frameworks. It does not mean that top-down approach
should be applied. The process should occur from the farmers where high participation is
most likely take place (as shown in the results). The interaction between government and
farmers should create win-win situation as well as the important of transparency and legal
rights for the people in obtaining success.
Additionally, based on Arnstein (1969), it is can be seen from sharing responsibilities –
partnership-, a negotiation -delegated power- as well between the farmers and government in
terms of land and forest rehabilitation activities such as compromise in deciding types of
plants, deciding site for project, managing the project, etc. Further, power is in fact
rearrangedthrough negotiation between the farmers and government.They agree to share
planning and decision-makingresponsibilities in performing land and forest rehabilitation.
However, farmers still can not controls everything, the farmers cannot decide in planning
stage regarding design and scale of project, type of plants, and site for the project; and
evaluation stage regarding the successful level of project. It means citizen controls would not
be seen, because the farmers does not have full power to manage all aspects especially in
technical aspects. For instance, they are not free to choose the types of forestry plants due to
suitability climate and land condition, therefore there was a negotiation between government
and the farmers at planning stage. The government will establish the forestry plants according
to study results and regulations considering farmers aspirations and local knowledge.
On the other hand, the farmers can decide nontechnical aspects in such as selecting the
members of farmers groups, deciding rules in the groups, deciding on sanctions for those who
not participate actively, raising internal funds, distributing labor work, protecting plants
activities, etc. In other wordsthese decisions are likely to involve less technical/engineering
input and a local knowledge of the community (Khwaja, 2004). At implementation stage, the
role of local knowledge is crucial because the farmers know their capacity in administering
implementation activities.
Some conditions could be as obstacles to achieve citizen control, such as the unwillingness to
distribute power from government and the lack of skills and knowledge of the have nots –The
Farmers (Arnstein, 1969). This happen both in Megamendung and Tugu Utara, the
government have more power than the farmers in technical aspects in order to make the
outcomes of land and forest rehabilitation be achieved because the farmers have limited
resources and skills.
In the future, it is expected that the farmers can make decision not only in nontechnical
aspects but also in technical aspects. By increasing their ability and knowledge through
training, assistance, and technology supports toward empowerment of farmers institutions as
the grass roots, the bottom-up planning can be implemented totally to achieve the successfully
of land and forest rehabilitation.
Overall, this means that farmers participation can affect land and forest rehabilitation
outcomes. The farmers involvement and their willingness to participate have effect to the
outcomes. Since government do not provide incentives for long term, the outcomes depend
on the willingness from the farmers to maintain and preserve the trees as the outcomes; it
happens in Tugu Utara case. The derived motivation from the farmers in Megamendung and
Tugu Utara is not only economic benefits but also ecological benefits.
Participation level according to Arnstein (1969) are built based on the distribution of power
between the powerholders and the have-not. The highest level is that citizen can control and
38
manage all aspects in development activities. However, based on the findings and analysis,
citizen controls will not occur in Ciliwung context due to the government has more ability and
capacity to carry out land and forest rehabilitation. It means that the government is the driver
of land and forest rehabilitation while the farmers are the engine who have high participation
and power to involve in land and forest rehabilitation. Therefore, the implication is that this is
good opportunities for the government to facilitate the farmers in rehabilitating land and
forest by considering socio-economic aspects in order to achieve forest sustainability and
farmers welfare.
4. CONCLUSIONS
a. The level of farmers participation in implementing land and forest rehabilitation in
upstream Ciliwung especially in Megamendung and Tugu Utara Village are High. This
condition can increase the accelaration of land and forest rehabilitation programs, so that
it is good opportunities for the government to be more facilitate the farmers in
conducting land and forest rehabilitation. It means that the governmentperforms as “the
driver”and “the facilitator”while the farmers act as “the engine” and “the executor”.
b. Farmers involvement in all stages (Planning, Implementation, Monitoring-Evaluation, and
Utilization) can enhance farmers participation in land and forest rehabilitation due to they
know and understand the story and the condition from the beginning until the end of
project within open and transparancy atmosphere.
c. Eventhough the farmers have high participation, they cannot control everything due to
resources limitations, therefore they cannot decide in several activities of planning
regarding design and scale of project, type of plants, and site for the project; and
evaluation stage regarding the successful level of project. However, they can decide non-
technical aspects which need more a local knowledge of the community. The local
knowledge is crucial in managing and organizing the groups due to the farmers know
their environments and capabilities.
5. REFERENCES
Act No. 26/2007 about Spatial Plan
Act No. 41/1999 about Forestry
Anonimous (2003): Laporan Akhir: Rencana Pengelolaan DAS Terpadu DAS Ciliwung. Kerjasama
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung dan Fakultas Kehutanan Institut Pertanian Bogor. Bogor.
Anonimous(2010): Hutan di DAS Ciliwung Kritis. Surat Kabar Pikiran Rakyat, 30 Maret 2010.
Pikiran Rakyat Online accesed 11th January 2011. Bandung.
Arnstein, S., R. (1969): A ladder of citizen participation. Journal American Institut of Planners. Vol.
35. Pp. 216-224.
Asdak, Chay (2002): Hidrologi dan Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai. Gadjah Mada University
Press. Yogyakarta.
Bappenas (2007): Laporan Perkiraan Kerusakan dan Kerugian Pasca Bencana Banjir Awal Februari
2007 di Wilayah JABODETABEK. Bappenas. Jakarta.
39
Blay, D., Appiah, M., Damnyag, L., Dwonoh, KF., and Luukkanen, O. (2008): Involving local
farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: some lessons From Ghana. Journal
Environment Development Sustainability. Vol. 10. Pp. 503-518.
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung (2003): Rencana Pengelolaan DAS Terpadu DAS Ciliwung. Bogor:
Kerjasama BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung dan Fakultas Kehutanan IPB.
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung (2007): Monitoring dan Evaluasi Daerah Aliran Sungai Ciliwung untuk
Pengendalian Banjir Tahun 2007. BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung. Bogor.
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung (2009): Statistik BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung Tahun 2008. BPDAS
Citarum-Ciliwung. Bogor.
BPDAS Citarum-Ciliwung (2010): Data Lahan Kritis DAS Ciliwung 2009. BPDAS Citarum-
Ciliwung. Bogor.
Faham, E., Rezvanfar, A., and Shamekhi, T. (2008): Analysis of socio-economic factors
influencing forest dwellers’ participation in reforestation and development of forest areas (The
case study of West Mazandaran, Iran). American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences.Vol 3
(1): Pp. 438-443.
Government Rules No. 76/2008 about Forest Rehabilitation and Reclamation. Indonesia.
Hendrayanto (2007): Transboundary watershed management: a case study of upstream-
downstream relationship in Ciliwung Watershed. International Workshop on Integrated Watershed
Management For Sustainable Water Use in A Humid Tropical Region (pp. 8-11). Tsukuba: JSPS-
DGHE Joint Research Project. .
Hilman, M., and Brierley, G. (2005): A critical review of catchment-scale stream rehabilitation
programmes. Journal Progress in Physical Geography. Vol. 29. Pp. 50-70.
Khwaja, I. A. 2004. Is increasing community participation always a good thing? Journal of The
European Economic Association. Vol. 2 (2-3). Pp. 50-70.
Lise, Wietze (2000): Factors influencing people’s participation in forest management in India.
Journal Ecological Economics. Vol. 34. Pp. 379-392.
Megamendung Village Office (2011) : Profile of Megamendung Village 2011. Megamendung
Village. Bogor Regency.
Ministry of Forestry (2008): Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P. 70/Menhut-II/2008 about
Technical Guidances of Land and Forest Rehabilitation. Jakarta.
Ministry of Forestry (2009): Executive Data Strategis Kehutanan. Ministry of Forestry. Jakarta.
Ministry of Forestry (2009): Minister of Forestry Decree No. SK. 328/Menhut-II/2009 about
Watershed Priority of Mid-term Development Planning 2010 to 2014. Ministry of Forestry. Jakarta.
Ministry of Forestry (2009): Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P.42/Menhut-II/2009 about General
Pattern, Criteria and Standard of Integrated Watershed Management. Ministry of Forestry. Jakarta.
Mirghani, MMO., Savenije, HHG. 1995: Incorporation of people’s participation in planning
and implementation of water resources projects. Journal Physical, Chemical, Earth. Vol. 20 No. 3-
4. Pp. 229-236.
Nawir, A., Ani, Murniati, and Rumboko, Lukas (2007):Forest Rehabilitation in Indonesia; Where to
After More Than Three Decades?. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Jakarta.
Nomura, Ko (2008): The politics of participation in forest management: A Case from
Democratizing in Indonesia. The Journal of Environment and Development. Volume No. 17
Number 2. Pp. 166-191. June 2008. Sage Publications.
40
Pawitan, H (2002): Hidrologi DAS Ciliwung dan Andilnya Terhadap Banjir di Jakarta.
Makalah. Lokakarya P