Session 3.4 timber production & poverty siarudin

  • 2,144 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,144
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • [SSFF is a forest that grows in private land]. In traditional agricultural land use in Java island, as in many other places, people usually use their irrigated land for paddy field and fishpond. In the land where the water cannot reach, they usually let trees naturally grow or they plant trees. This dry land farming area are what so called small scale family forest (SSFF). It is classified as small scale forest, because the total area per households is less than 5 ha (according to classification of ???? source:), ranging from the very tiny one, 0.01 ha upto about 2 ha. Based on location, it can be located just at the homestead of the landowners, up to several kilometres from their house. Traditionally, it is managed by individual or family based management.
  • In ciamis regency, S is reported as the largest in West Java Province. It area reaches more than 100,000 ha, and covers about 50% of the total area of Ciamis Regency. as seen in the figure in the left side that are dominated with purple color, indicates the SSFF. It is also reported that there are there are more timber that is cut and sold in the SSFF compare to the state forest, we can see more in appendix 1.b. Then ittriggers local economic development, shown from the growth of small-medium scale of wood based industries. There are about 800s saw mill industries and about 900s downstream industries.
  • However, preliminary observation shows that despite high value of timber on the market, the poor landowners receive extremely low income from timber (about 1,200 Yen annually). Based on the condition, I address (can state) the problem here that “Many landowners/forest owners are typically rural poor households and do not get significant return from their forest assets”
  • Based on the problem, I raise two questions here: Firstly, What are the determinant factors for the landowners to get significant benefits? Secondly, How do those factors affects the forest utilisation and management pattern and the outcome?And my hypothesis is that “There are different patterns of forest utilisation and managementamong different level of socio-economic groups, due to different level of their capabilities in functioning the forest assets. This leads to the poor households receiving inadequate income from their forest asset”
  • Basically, this research is aimed at exploring ..... There are two specific objectives here, firstly to ...... Hopefully this research can be bases for ....
  • (This research is a case study in Ciamis Regency). I took three villages in a rural area as the sample. Administratively they are under two sub-district: Cipaku dub district and Cijeunjingsubdistrict, as seen in the figure. The tree villages represents different biophysical and socioeconomic condition to make sure that the samples are represents the larger population in Ciamis Regency. We can see more detail in appendix 2
  • I conducted fieldwork during February and March 2011. Data and information were collected by questionnaire and in depth interview to 59 landowners as the main respondents. Based on their wealth status, there are 25 better-off households and 34 poor households. I also conducted in-dept interview to several key persons, including: head of village, government officials, and community leaders. And I also conducted observation.The observation focuses on the household characteristics including income level, education attainment, age, family size, land size etc, we can see in appendix 5. The next focus is the forest utilisation and management pattern, and I especially comparing the poor and better-off household. Then I try to relate these two variables.
  • The first finding is about the link between SSFF and household attributes. Statistical analysis shows that the earning from forest is correlated to income per capita and landownership, but not correlated to education attainment of head of household... dstIt means that there are two main factors determining the earning from forest: which are income per capita (or in the Chambers terms it is a financial capital) and land ownership (or natural capital). This two assets become INITIAL ASSETS for the landowners to get income from forest.Based on this statistical analisis, we need to review the feature of those initial assets: income and landWe can see in this figure below the comparison between the better off in theleft side, and the poor in the right side; surely the better-off have higher income and larger land ownership, while the poor have lower income and smaller land. But there is an interesting case in the middle part of the graphic, near the border between the better-off and the poor. Here some of better-off respondents have relatively smaller land even if compared to some poor household..and by contrast, some of the poor have relatively larger land compare to the better off. It shows that not all better-off respondents are not interested in investing their money by purchasing land. But the fact is, most of better-off get the land from purchasing, while the poor mostly get the land from inheritance. And then, the next question is, how this condition ...., we will see in the next finding.THE NEXT QUESTION IS: HOW THIS CONDITION AFFECT THE PATTERN OF FOREST UTILISATION AND MANAGEMENT? WE CAN SEE IN THE NEXT FINDING
  • This is the regression analysis, between land size and income per capita to the earning from timber.The value of determinant coefficient is quite strong, more than 0,5, meaning that the rate of earning from forest can be explained by land size and off-farm income
  • The picture shows the comparisonbetween the better off and the poor in terms of their income and land size. Surely the better-off have higher income and larger land ownership. One interesting information is that: most of better-off get the land from purchasing, while the poor mostly get the land from inheritance.THE NEXT QUESTION IS: HOW THIS CONDITION RELATE THE PATTERN OF FOREST UTILISATION AND MANAGEMENT? WE CAN SEE IN THE NEXT FINDING
  • (The second finding is about how land ownership and income will affect the forest utilisation and management, by comparing better-off and the poor). Firstly, in term of timber harvesting pattern, the better off afford to practice clear cutting, while the poor mostly practice selective cutting. As illustrated in the figure, better off have larger land and the cut clearly in one piece of their land when harvesting and save the rest. The poor with smaller land, only cut several tree.And then (more importantly), the better-off usually harvest timber with normal rotation, meaning that they tend to/willing to wait until the tree is big enough, because they have more stable income to cover their daily need. While the poor usually harvest timber whenever they need urgent cash income, even if the tree is still small in diameters.So the result is: the better off can harvest large number of tree with higher price, and the poor only get smaller number of tree with lower price.As you may know that the price of timber is not only about the number of the trees, but also the diameter of the log. In same volume of timber, the bigger diameter, the higher the price.
  • Secondly, when they get money from selling timbers,better-off households usually spent for capital investments such as: ...., While the poor mostly use for daily consumption need. We can see at the figure below [plantation financing and buy new land, only happen in better of household, where for daily consumption need mostly happen in case of poor household]. So, we can see here that better household use the earn from forest for expansion of assets and production, while the poor use the earning only for survive.
  • In term of forest re-plantation, the better off usually using method of nursery transplant or combination between nursery transplant and natural seedling. While the poor usually use natural seedling or/and re-grow from root. When the better off practice clear cutting, they think that they need to replant using nursery transplant, besides they afford to buy. Then when the poor only cut several trees, they think that they only need to rely on the natural seedling or regrow from root, and they in fact do not afford to buy nursery transplant.These techniques can result in different performance. As many experts said that better forest culture techniques can result in better wood quality and its price. And this technique only can afford by the better off who have enough financial capital.
  • Based on the findings/discussion, I can conclude several points here. Firstly ..., “Land ownership and income level are the key determinants for significant yield of forest utilization”.Secondly small landownership and low income..or limited natural capital and limited financial capital... ” cause the poor households’ utilisation and management pattern on their forest asset do not result in better return”.Thirdly, even though forest assets play an important role for the poor for their subsistence, they tend not to concern to their forest asset because it does not satisfying their short term income.
  • For further consideration for local government policy, I propose two solutions. Firstly ” Promote multi sector partnerships with smallholders”The basic idea is to shift from the traditional management which is individual or family base management to collective management. This is mainly base on the promise that a collective management can reduce the cost and risk,..and enhance benefits such as enhancing income, self-respect, and their bargaining power in market and even with state.Secondly “diversification of income from forest”This solution is mainlyan effort to make forest can satisfying short term income. Or in other words, it is how to create various sequences of income from forest. The way is by planting non-timber species or MPTS to mix with timber species. For example: planting tree species which can produce fruits, resin etc. it can be harvested yearly, even monthly. I believe that this two proposals can be a strategy to help the poor to overcome their limitation in functioning their forest assets.
  • Sustainable development as the grand conceptual frame. Poverty reduction as one of keys for sustainable development (Elliot, 2006). Rural community are typically poor (Ashley and Maxwell, 2001); “Poverty is major cause-and-effect of global environmental problem” (UNEP, 2007). Sustainable livelihood approach for rural poverty reduction (Chambers, 1983; 1998;1995). Chambers and Conway (1991) postulate 4 components of livelihood: assets (can be tangible and intangible); people (with their capabilities); activities (what they do); outcome (what they gain from what they do: living). This case study focuses on small-scale family forest assets, where the actors (people) can be divided by their social status (wealth status); and the activities of forest asset functioning comprises forest utilisation and forest management; and the outcomes of the activities can be in form of direct use of forest yield (timber and non timber) and also cash income (gotten by selling the forest yields).
  • The first finding is about the link between SSFF and household attributes. Statistical analysis shows that he earning is correlated to income percapita and landownership, but not correlated to education attainment of head of household. It means that income per capita and land ownership are the key in the SSFF enterprise. We will discuss how this variables influence forest management in the next finding. But let see first the comparison of income and landownership between the better-off and the poor

Transcript

  • 1. management strategy of smallholder timber farmers in West Java, Indonesia M. Siarudin Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA) Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia 1 WORLD CONGRESS ON AGROFORESTRY Delhi, 2014
  • 2. 2 Smallholder Timber System (STS) in Java Island paddy field STS fishpond traditional agricultural land useIrrigated/wet landdry land (see app. 1.a) • Land size: small scale forest: < 5 ha/household Average = 0.3 ha (0.01 – 2 ha) • Location: 0 - > 2 km • Management: family/individual based
  • 3. BACKGROUND • The largest STS in West Java Province, (124,430 ha; 50.9 % of total area of Ciamis Regency) [4;11] • More timber is cut and sold in STS than the state forest[5] (app. 1.b) • Triggering local economic development-transaction value 17 million USD/year 800s small scale saw mill industries[5]; 911 small to medium scale of furniture and handicraft[10] 3 STS development in Ciamis Regency STS State forest
  • 4. PROBLEM 4 Problem statement Many landowners/forest owners are typically rural poor households and do not get significant return from their forest assets Preliminary observation: Despite high value of timber on the market, the poor landowners receive extremely low income from timber (about 12 USD annually) (see app.2)
  • 5. QUESTIONs and RESEARCH OBJECTIVEs 5 Questions Objectives • To identify household and farm characteristics that become key in the STS enterprise • To explore how those characteristics are related to the pattern of forest extraction and management • What are the key factors for the farmers to get significant benefits? • How do those factors affects the forest utilisation and management pattern and the outcome?
  • 6. HYPOTHESIS 6 There are different patterns of forest utilisation and management among different level of socio-economic groups, due to different level of their capabilities in functioning the forest assets. This leads to the poor households receiving inadequate income from their forest asset.
  • 7. RESEARCH LOCATION  Research site Cipaku sub-district Cijeungjing sub-district Bunesuri village Utama village and Bojongmengger village 7 (see app. 3)
  • 8. RESEARCH METHOD Fieldwork Time frame: February- September 2011 Data collection method • Questionnaires and in-depth interview = 59 landowners (25 better-off households and 34 poor households) (see app. 4) • In-depth Interview to key persons = head of villages (3), government officials (2), community leaders (3) • Observation Focus of exploration - Household and farm characteristics: household income, family size, education attainment, age of household head, land size, distance of forest to house - Timber extraction: earning from timber, number of tree harvested, volume of timber harvested - Forest utilization and management patterns: harvesting system, use of on-farm income, forest regeneration system 8
  • 9. FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes Correlations 1 .954** .724** .237 .348** -.235 -.034 .020 .680** .488** .784** -.126 .000 .000 .070 .007 .073 .797 .880 .000 .000 .000 .368 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 .954** 1 .758** .171 .123 -.122 -.020 -.006 .692** .520** .785** -.073 .000 .000 .195 .355 .359 .883 .965 .000 .000 .000 .604 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 .724** .758** 1 .302* .137 -.178 -.037 -.029 .805** .734** .836** .028 .000 .000 .020 .302 .176 .782 .827 .000 .000 .000 .844 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 .237 .171 .302* 1 .406** -.524** .333* -.096 .063 .026 .114 -.140 .070 .195 .020 .001 .000 .010 .469 .650 .852 .415 .317 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 .348** .123 .137 .406** 1 -.450** -.038 .066 .172 .118 .191 -.315* .007 .355 .302 .001 .000 .775 .617 .212 .399 .172 .022 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 -.235 -.122 -.178 -.524** -.450** 1 -.187 .261* -.027 -.004 -.143 .136 .073 .359 .176 .000 .000 .155 .045 .847 .976 .306 .332 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 -.034 -.020 -.037 .333* -.038 -.187 1 .097 -.055 -.053 -.063 .032 .797 .883 .782 .010 .775 .155 .464 .692 .707 .655 .822 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 .020 -.006 -.029 -.096 .066 .261* .097 1 .107 .055 .050 .111 .880 .965 .827 .469 .617 .045 .464 .441 .697 .725 .429 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53 .680** .692** .805** .063 .172 -.027 -.055 .107 1 .890** .927** .041 .000 .000 .000 .650 .212 .847 .692 .441 .000 .000 .771 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 53 53 53 .488** .520** .734** .026 .118 -.004 -.053 .055 .890** 1 .772** .050 .000 .000 .000 .852 .399 .976 .707 .697 .000 .000 .722 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 52 .784** .785** .836** .114 .191 -.143 -.063 .050 .927** .772** 1 .024 .000 .000 .000 .415 .172 .306 .655 .725 .000 .000 .863 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53 -.126 -.073 .028 -.140 -.315* .136 .032 .111 .041 .050 .024 1 .368 .604 .844 .317 .022 .332 .822 .429 .771 .722 .863 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Household income (Rp) Income per capita (Rp/person) Land ownership education attainment (y ear) f amily size age of household (year) distance of f orest f rom house (km) f requency of harvesting (times) number of tree harvested v olume estimation of tree harvested (m3) earning f rom tree harvested (Rp) percentage of earning f rom tree harvested to total income (%) Household income (Rp) Income per capita (Rp/person) Land ownership education attainment (y ear) f amily size age of household (y ear) distance of f orest f rom house (km) f requency of harvesting (times) number of tree harv ested v olume estimation of tree harv ested (m3) earning f rom tree harv ested (Rp) percentage of earning f rom tree harv ested to total income (%) Correlation is signif icant at the 0.01 lev el (2-tailed).**. Correlation is signif icant at the 0.05 lev el (2-tailed).*. Correlation among variables timber extraction is: • correlated to off-farm income (household and per capita) and to land size • not correlated to education attainment of household head, family size, age of household head, or distance of forest from house
  • 10. FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes Regression R = 0.84, R2 = 0.699 R = 0.78, R2 = 0.617 the rate of earning from timber can be explained by land size and off-farm income Land size (ha) Off-farm income Earningfromtimber(Rp/10years) Earningfromtimber(Rp/10years)
  • 11. FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 forest land ownership (ha) Percapita income (x10,000 Yen) land size 0.08 Ha better-off households: poor households: 23.7 USD/month/personOff-farm income Mostly (66.67 %) from purchasing Mostly (74.29 %) from inheritance Feature of initial assets: off-farm income and forest land 0.55 78 How this condition relate to the pattern of forest utilisation and management? Off-farm income (x100 USD) STS land ownership (ha)
  • 12. FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management 1. Timber harvesting pattern Among them (25 %) practice clear cutting Mostly (82.9 %) practice selective cutting Harvest timber with normal rotation (harvest timber when the tree is ready/big diameter) Harvest timber with “by need” rotation (harvest timber when they need urgent income/ small diameter) Large number of trees and higher price small number of trees and lower price (See app. 7) 12 clear cutting selective cutting Better-off Poor
  • 13. 65.2 13.0 4.3 4.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 17.6 0.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 11.8 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 percentage(%) Expenditure of cash income from selling timbers the poor the better-off FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management (cont.) 2. Different use of cash income from timber For capital investments (children’s school, buy new land, cost re-plantation) Mostly (65.2 %) for immadiete consumption (food) Expansion of assets and production survival 13 Better-off Poor
  • 14. FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management (cont.) Usually buying nursery transplant (20.8%) or combination of nursery transplant and natural seedling (66.67%) Mostly (54.29 %) using natural seedlings or/and re-grow from root 3. Forest regeneration pattern Better forest culture techniques (usage of improved genetic- seedling, regulated plantation spacing, maintenance etc.) can result in better wood quality and its price (Punches, 2004; Haygreen and Bowyer, 1996)  only the better-off afford to do this transplant with seed from nursery re-grow from rootrely on natural seedlings (See app. 8) 14 Better-off Poor
  • 15. CONCLUSIONs • Land ownership and off-farm income level are the key determinants for significant yield of forest utilization. • Small landownership (natural capital) combined with low income (financial capital) cause the poor households’ utilisation and management pattern on their forest asset do not result in better return. 15 Expected outcome: Policy implications: can be bases for appropriate policy formulation for the poor as the main target in order to achieve rural sustainable livelihood
  • 16. Thank you for your attention.. 16 “If immediate livelihoods are a priority of the poor, sustainability is a priority of the enlightened rich” (Chambers, 1986:10) Special thanks to: Lynn Thiesmeyer, M. Umegaki, J. Roshetko, B. Lusiana for your inputs
  • 17. • Promote multi sector partnerships with smallholders  Shifting the individual management to collective management to reduce cost and risk and enhance benefits  Parties: large landowners, smallholders, landless farmers, investors, governments/NGOs • diversification of income from forest  to create various sequences of income  promote non-timber/multipurpose tree species (MPTS) to mix with timber species Further consideration for local government policy 17
  • 18. STS utilization and management Different level of capability not meet short term income need not concern to forest asset The Poor The Better-off • Selective cutting • “by need” rotation • Spent money for immediate consumption • Poor reforestation techniques • clear cutting • normal rotation • Spent money for capital investment • Better reforestation techniques survival Expansion of asset and production Collective management Income diversification not sustainable/ Loss of resource Framework of Conclusion proposals
  • 19. Bibliography 1. Chambers, R., and G.R. Conway, 1991. Sustainable rural livelihood: practical concepts for 21th century. Discussion paper 296. Institute of Development Studies. 2. Chambers, R., 1986. Sustainable livelihoods: an opportunity for the World Commission on Environment and Development. Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex, UK. 3. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2011. Kebijakan Pembangunan Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Ciamis. Slide Presentation on Forum SKPD Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Ciamis. Local Government of Ciamis Regency. 4. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2010. Masukan/Penjelasan terhadap Raperda RTRW Kabupaten Ciamis 2010-2030. Local Government of Ciamis Regency. 5. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2009. Strategic Plan of Ciamis Forestry Office. Local Government of Ciamis Regency. 6. Dorward, A., S. Anderson, S. Clark, B. Keane and J. Moguel, 2001. Asset Functions and Livelihood Strategies: a Framework for Pro Poor Analysis, policy and Practice. CONTRIBUTED PAPER TO eaae Seminar on Livelihoods and Rural Poverty. www.nda.agric.za/docs/AAPS/Articles/Goats/.../R7823%20(02).pdf. Accessed in January, 24th, 2011. 7. Harrison, S.R, J.L. Herbohn, and A.J. Niskanen, 2002. Non-industrial, Smallholder, Small-scale and Family Forestry:What’s in a Name?. Journal of Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1): 1–11. 8. Haygreen, J.G. dan J.L Bowyer, 1966. Hasil Hutan dan Ilmu Kayu. Terjemahan Sutjipto A.H. Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta. 9. Hindra, B., 2006. Potensi dan Kelembagaan Hutan Rakyat. Prosiding Seminar Hasil Litbang Hasil Hutan: “Kontribusi Hutan Rakyat dalam Kesinambungan Industri Kehutanan”. Pengembangan Hasil Hutan. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hasil Hutan. Bogor. P14-23. 10. ITCOC (Industry, Trade and Cooperative Office of Ciamis Regency), 2009. Potensi Industri di Kabupaten Ciamis. 11. Ministry of Forestry, 2009. Potensi Kayu dan Karbon Hutan Rakyat di Jawa Tahun 1990-2008. Balai Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan Wilayah XI Jawa-Madura dan Multistakeholder Forestry Program. 12. Ministry of Forestry, 2004. Potensi Hutan Rakyat Indonesia 2003. Pusat Inventarisasi dan Statistik Kehutanan, Departemen Kehutanan and Direktorat Statistik Pertanian, Badan Pusat Statistik. http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/BUKU2/PHRI_03/PHRI_03.htm. Acessed in November 25th, 2010. 13. Punches, J., 2004. Tree Growth, Forest Management and Their Implication for Wood Quality. http://www.forestandraadeasia.org/doc_hit.html . Diakses pada tanggal May, 9th 2011. 14. Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2008. Analisis Kemiskinan Kabupaten Ciamis Tahun 2008 (Poverty Analysis in Ciamis Regency Year 2008). Ciamis 15. Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2010. Ciamis dalam angka (Ciamis in figure) 2010. Ciamis 16. Huvio, T., J. Kola and T Lundstrom (ed), 2004. Small-Scale Farmers in Liberalised Trade Environment. Proceeding of the Seminar on October 2004 in Haikko Finland. University of Helsinki, Departmen of Economics and Management. Publications no 38. 19
  • 20. Appendix 1.a Formal definition of STS Forest that grows at private/right land (Law no 41/1999) + Forests that grows at private land and are covered by > 50 % of tree vegetations, or minimum 500 trees/ha (Ministry of Forestry Decree No 49/Kpts-II/1997) + Forest that grows at private land and are dominated by tree vegetations (Ministry of Forestry Decree No. P 26/Menhut-II/2005) Terminology used in some journals: farm forest, non-industrial forest, smallholder forest, small scale forest, family forest, community forest (Harrison at al, 2002) Government policy - National government has contributed the development of STS through some financing support such as subsidy, micro-credit for STS, reforestation fund, and national movement for forest and land rehabilitation program (Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan/GNRHL). However the development of STS are dominated (62%) by self financing (Hindra, 2006). - Local government of Ciamis regency reports to give seedling aid to landowners about 1 to 2 million seedling annually (Forestry Office of Ciamis Regency, 2011) 20
  • 21. Appendix 1.b 21 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 local government's aid 1,127,200 415,000 873,492 521,250 2,126,610 2,155,488 self financing 1,250,500 2,561,728 6,304,920 5,480,765 3,560,848 4,069,999 - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 numberoftreeplanted(tree) tree plantation in SSFF Tree plantation and timber production in Ciamis Regency Source: Forestry Office of Ciamis Regency, 2011 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 annualtimberproduction(m3) comparison of timber production from SSFF and state forest SSFF State forest
  • 22. assets people activities outcome SSFF land Financial capital The poor The better-off Forest extraction Forest management Cash income Immediate consumption Livelihood components (Chambers and Conway, 1991): Case study: Sustainable rural livelihood Sustainable development Poverty reduction Rural poverty reduction Research frameworkAppendix 1.c
  • 23. 23 wealth status earning from timber harvesting (Yen/year)* average min max the poor 1,216.67 150.00 4,050.00 the better-off 6,031.30 500.00 25,000.00 all respondents 3,306.03 150.00 25,000.00 Value of earning from timber harvesting Note: * this value are average from total earning during the last 10 years. The average frequency of harvesting are 2-3 times during that period. want more land 7% want aid in form of capital for forest enterprise 7% want aid inf form of seedling 8% get better earning from forest 29% forest can be better managed 3% next generation willing to manage forest 5% next generation can get benefit from his forest 2% government more serious in supporting SSFF 5% Do not know 34% Expectation of respondents towards SSFF Appendix 2 Value of earning from timber harvesting and expectation
  • 24. Appendix 3 Characteristic of research site: Buniseuri village Utama village Bojongmengger village Total area (ha) 422.22 224.79 635.55 Number of citizen (person) 7573 3510 6004 male 3776 1802 3001 female 3797 1708 3003 Population density (peron/ha) 17.94 15.61 9.45 distance from capital district (km) 12 3 10 altitude (meter above sea level) 285 124 240 topography hilly flat flat and hilly wetland farming (paddy field) 151 60.919 21.5 dryland farming (including private forest) 203.415 85.26 333.6 24 Source: Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2010 poor 22.39% better- off 77.61% Ciamis Regency poor 24.94% better- off 75.06% Buniseuri village poor 23.43% better- off 76.57% Utama village poor 21.86% better- off 78.14% Bojongmengger village
  • 25. 25 CONSUMPTION POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS FOOD: Fulfillment of 2100 calorie per capita per day 1. Meal frequency 2. the ability to buy meat, chicken and milk NON-FOOD: clothing, housing and facilities, the cost of education, health care, transport, miscellaneous goods and services 1. ability to buy clothing per year 2. floor area 3. type of floor 4. type of wall 5. type of roof 6. source of clean water 7. type of lighting 8. sanitation facility 9. education attainment of household head 10. employment status of household head 11. ability of health care 12. asset ownership Characteristic of poverty Government (Statistical Center Bureau) analyze the poverty line based on 14 criteria below: In the process of measuring poverty line, government also included verification and public examination as a part of poverty measurement by community themselves, using values and norm prevailed in the society. Source: Statistical Center Bureau, Ciamis Regency (2008) Appendix 4
  • 26. 76% 24% Gender of household head male female 44, 75% 6, 10% 7, 12% 2, 3% education attainment of household head ES JHS SHS UG Characteristic of respondents Appendix 5 Note: * The wealth status is based on the classification set by Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency in 2008 26 58% 42% wealth status* the poor the better-off 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 numberofrespondents(person) Head of household by age
  • 27. Farm worker 15% Farmer 34% Trader 22% Service 5% Governmen t employee 10% Private employee 10% Freelance worker 4% main livelihood Farm worker 3% Farmer 19% Trader 2% service 7% None 69% complementary livelioods average of household income (US$/month) average of household expenses (US$/month) Income- Expenses (US$/month) Percentage of Income - Expenses to total income (%) the poor 65.15 59.14 6.01 9.22 the better-off 274.83 130.36 144.48 52.57 - 50 100 150 200 250 300 Incomeandexpenses(RUS$/month) household income and expenses Characteristic of respondents Appendix 5 (cont.) 27 3 1 6 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 average min max numberoffamilymember(person) famili size
  • 28. 28 Appendix 6.b Land tenure and regression analysis R = 0.76, R2 = 0.574 74.29 20.00 5.71 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 land acquisition of the poor household heritage purchase both heritage and purchase 33.33 37.50 29.17 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 land acquisition of the better-off household R = 0.84, R2 = 0.699 R = 0.78, R2 = 0.617
  • 29. 9 43 23 the poor the better-off total respondent number of tree harvested per household during the last 10 years 6 28 15 the poor the better-off total respondent volume estimation of tree harvested per household during the last 10 years (m3) 34.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 57.1 28.6 11.4 17.1 5.7 37.1 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 need wood for self use trees have been ready to harvest plan to change to other tree species timber collector offers to buy need urgen cash income percentage(%) reason for selling trees the poor the better-off 82.9 2.9 0.0 14.3 70.8 12.5 12.5 4.2 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 selective cutting clear cutting clear and selective cutting not yet percentage(%) percentage of respondent by type of cutting the poor the better-off Appendix 7 Type of harvesting and reason for selling trees 29
  • 30. 75.00 20.00 12.50 60.00 12.50 20.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% the poor the better-off plantation and maintenance activities do by himself hire other farm workers both do by himself and hire other farm workers Appendix 8 Post harvesting management 30 20.00 20.83 54.29 12.50 25.71 66.67 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% the poor the better-off forest regeneration technique buying nursery transplant natural seedling seed and natural seedling 24,980.2 527,407.4 231,707.4 the poor the better-off all respondents real cost spent for replanting and maintenance per household (Rp/household) 329,216.7 960,063.4 863,050.1 the poor the better-off all respondents cost spent for replanting and maintenance per hectare (Rp/ha/household)