REP093 Non timber forest products and SFM Tabalong (2), J Pa

SOUTH and CENTRAL KALIMANTAN PRODUCTION FOREST PROJECT
Jalan A. Yani, No. 37 (km35), Banjarbaru 70711, Indonesia
Tel. (62) 0511 781 975 – 979, Fax: (62) 0511 781 613
EUROPEAN COMMISSION – INDONESIA FOREST PROGRAMME
Non timber forest products
(NTFPs) and sustainable forest
management in upper Tabalong :
(2) Review and Analysis
Report No. 93
December 2001

Non timber forest products (NTFPs) and sustainable forest management in upper Tabalong :
(2) Review and Analysis - Report No. 93 - December 2001
i
PREFACE
The South and Central Kalimantan Production Forest Project (SCKPFP) is a
technical co-operation project jointly funded, in terms of the financing
memorandum ALA/95/18, by the European Commission and by the Government
of the Republic of Indonesia through the Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops
(MoFEC).
This report has been completed in accordance with the project Phase I Overall
Work Plan (OWP) and
in part fulfilment of Activities 2.1 “To increase household income in and around
the forest pilot concession areas”, 4.2 “To analyse the potential for non-timber
forest products (NTFP) utilisation”, 6.1 “To undertake environmental assessments”
and 6.2 “To strengthen the capacity to implement and maintain environmental
integrity in production forestry”
to achieve Result 2 “Livelihoods of local communities improved by assisting them
to become more active participants in production forest management”, Result 4
“Strategy developed to balance sustainable supply and demand of raw material for
the forest industry, incorporating opportunities to create added value from forest
products processing” and Result 6 “The forest ecosystem and associated
ecosystems within the project sites managed to maintain viability and diversity”,
to realise the three-year project Phase I purpose, which is “SFM model developed
that incorporates the ITTO guidelines and principles developed and implemented in
the forestry operation of Aya Yayang and a Central Kalimantan pilot concession.”
This report has been prepared with financial assistance from the Commission of the
European Communities. The opinions, views and recommendations expressed are
those of the author(s) and in no way reflect the official opinion of the Commission.
The report has been prepared by:
• Dr. Junaidi Payne (SCKPFP Ecologist)
The report is acknowledged and approved for circulation by the Project Co-
Directors when duly signed below.
Banjarbaru, December 2001
Dr. John Tew
International Co-Director Dr. Silver Hutabarat
National Co-Director

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Parts of this report were reviewed by the Forest Industry and Economics
component and the Socio Agriculture component. However, the author is
responsible for the contents of this final version.
Front cover : A group of gaharu collectors in upper Tabalong. Left insets : honey
bee tree (Koompassia excelsa); Poikilospermum species, a liana used medicinally;
rattan bundles. Right insets : fish from a stream in upper Tabalong; edible birds’
nests; chestnut-capped thrush (song bird)

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) were investigated in upper Tabalong area in
the northern part of South Kalimantan. Most of the remaining forest in this area is
dipterocarp forest on steep slopes, logged over the past 25 years, with some forest
on limestone. The majority of the lowlands in this region have been converted to
settlements, secondary growth, industrial tree plantation and untended rubber.
Original Dayak communities, who have traditionally harvested NTFPs for their
own use and for trading, remain in the area. They are now outnumbered by
permanent and temporary migrants, predominantly Banjar, Javanese, Dayak
Manyan, and transmigrants from Nusa Tenggara.
The NTFP resource base in this area exists in an approximately 137,000 ha block
of natural forest, with 85,000 ha of that area managed under the HPH forest
concession system by PT. Aya Yayang Indonesia. This forest block includes the
upper Tabalong river drainage, plus parts of rivers that drain into Central and East
Kalimantan; the forest area extends to the borders with Central and East
Kalimantan. Located south and adjacent, but outside the block of the natural forest
area, are three HTI (industrial tree plantation) concessions with a total area of
31,000 ha.
WHAT ARE THEY?
The main NTFPs of upper Tabalong are described in the accompanying report
“Non Timber Forest Products and sustainable forest management in upper
Tabalong : (1) Description”.
VALUE OF NTFPS
The total NTFP gross selling value estimated for year 1999 is IDR 1,060 million
when calculated up to the first trader link in the market chain. This value is 4% of
the forest products removed from the forest concession, the other 96% being
commercial timber produced by AYI but excluding timber removed from the forest
by illegal loggers.
WHO HAS RIGHTS?
In practice in upper Tabalong, almost all NTFPs are treated as open-access
resources by government and the majority of local residents. The few NTFPs that
have until recently enjoyed some degree of stewardship by the original inhabitants

iv
of the area (edible birds’ nests, honey bee nest trees and some fruit trees) are now
becoming open access in reality, as migrants have entered the area uncontrolled for
many years and are not prevented from felling trees for sale of timber, and for
farming and land claims.
IMPORTANCE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Most NTFPs harvested in upper Tabalong represent important sources of quick
income and / or food for some of the poorer residents and migrants, who have
limited sources of cash income other than rubber tapping and illegal felling of
trees.
Based on information collected in 1999, wild animal meat (mainly pigs and deer) is
the most important NTFP for the local population, in terms of combined food value
and cash income. Rattan was the largest employment contributor amongst NTFPs,
with 170 people involved during 4,420 person-weeks, while damar was estimated
to contribute the highest individual collector net income with a weekly income of
IDR 136,000.
SUSTAINABILITY & IMPACTS OF HARVESTING
Harvesting of the majority of NTFPs in upper Tabalong is not sustainable, either
because rates of harvesting are greater than replacement and / or because forest is
being lost through ladang farming and fire and / or because forest is being degraded
through legal and illegal logging.
However, the adverse effects of NTFP harvesting are considered to be relatively
minor in upper Tabalong, both in terms of their minimal immediate environmental
effects (harvesting does not involve fire, heavy machinery or chemical use) and in
comparison to the enormous losses in regeneration potential associated with a
combination of bulldozers in legal logging, removal of remaining commercial tree
seed sources through illegal logging, and ladang encroachment.
The most damaging NTFP harvesting activity may be fishing with poisons and
electricity, which has reduced local fish populations already and which appears to
continue uncontrolled.
HOW CAN NTFP HARVESTING HELP SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE FOREST
MANAGEMENT (SFM)?
Support for SFM through NTFPs can be generated only if there is adequate interest
from at least a part of the local community, for maintaining long-term supplies of
those NTFPs that depend on existence of regenerating dipterocarp forest (notably
damar, rattan, minyak keruing, illipe nuts). Without such local interest, forest
quality and extent will continue to decline. If such interest exists, it will need to be
supported by identifying specific forest areas that can be allocated and protected
from illegal logging and encroachment, for NTFP production.

v
HOW CAN NTFP HARVESTING HELP LOCAL COMMUNITIES?
There are four main ways in which NTFP harvesting can help local communities
(all of which can indirectly support SFM by providing alternatives to illegal
logging and speculative ladang making).
First is cultivation of selected plant species on village land (see below).
Secondly, specific forest areas could be allocated to specific groups (not
necessarily traditional communities), who would be granted exclusive rights to
management and harvesting of specified NTFPs (see below).
Thirdly, specific areas containing wild honey bee trees could be identified, and
formal agreements made between local government and interested families in
relevant traditional communities, to maintain and manage these areas and trees
under customary rights (thereby halting the ongoing trend towards open access in
adat areas). Although traditional honey harvesting wipes out bee colonies, the
process of conserving the relevant areas and trees can help to preserve massive old
trees from illegal felling.
The fourth and easiest way is to maintain the current open access situation for
NTFPs in the bulk of remaining forest areas, in order to allow poor families to
continue to obtain products or cash without bureaucratic or legal constraints. In
order to maintain regenerating forest, it is better that hundreds of people harvest
NTFPs than harvest trees.
POTENTIAL FOR CULTIVATION
Some NTFPs (e.g. some wild fruit trees, plants used in tonics and medicines,
rattan) have the potential to be cultivated in village gardens and, indeed, offer
better potential as income-generators if cultivated.
At least ten agroforestry models involving locally available NTFP species have
been suggested for development in the villages of upper Tabalong. However, there
are constraints to promoting cultivation of any forest plant species, including
uncertain road access to markets, lack of marketing cooperation amongst growers
of cash crops, weak government support for small-holder tree crop cultivation
(other than rubber), profitability of illegal timber felling, and lack of land
ownership security. These issues need to be addressed not only in relation to
cultivation of wild forest plants, but in general for residents of upper Tabalong.
In relation to sustainable forest management, it is important to distinguish between
NTFPs that occur naturally and are harvested from the natural forest, and those that
are cultivated and harvested outside the forest in gardens and estates. Although
many of them may be the same product, the distinction has important practical
implications on forest management and potential to support local people from the
point of view of products, efficiency, sustainability, marketing and economic
importance.

vi
NTFPs IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF SFM AND LOCAL COMMUNITY
WELFARE
A model has been proposed which incorporates harvesting of damar, keruing oil
and illipe nuts.
This model requires (1) the existence of one or more functioning groups (such as a
cooperative with active support from the HPH concessionaire) who want to harvest
and trade these NTFPs, (2) formal allocation of one or more specific forest areas to
the group(s) for long-term management of NTFPs (the group will be unable to
operate in the open access conditions that prevail in upper Tabalong), (3) existence
of reasonably large numbers of remaining mature Shorea (meranti and
tengkawang) and Dipterocarpus (keruing) trees in the area allocated, and (4)
enforcement of laws that prohibit illegal logging, clearance and burning in those
forest areas.
For success, all four requirements must be met. If they cannot be met in upper
Tabalong, it would be worthwhile to explore potential alternative areas (such as
Meratus mountains).
BIOPROSPECTING AND TOURISM
Neither topic represents an NTFP in the traditional sense of the term, but both have
been noted as worthy of further investigation. Both need to be approached with
caution. Difficult issues relating to laws and government policy, and to the need for
fair and equitable agreements with local communities, need to be resolved in the
case of bioprospecting. The Ayu and Missim river areas are amongst the most
attractive natural areas in South Kalimantan, and there is evidence of local
government support for “ecotourism”, but the readiness of local society for tourists
is uncertain and the risk of unfulfilled expectations high.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of (a) the entrenched open access nature of NTFPs in upper Tabalong, (b)
uncertainty over long-term rights that might be granted in the future to particular
areas or communities, (c) importance to poor families of flexible temporal and
spatial access to NTFPs, and (d) prevailing absence of law-enforcement capacity in
relation to management natural resources, it is considered neither practical nor
useful to introduce any new or formal systems of NTFP management either in the
PT AYI area or the upper Tabalong as a whole.
Instead :
• cultivation of selected forest plant species should be promoted in tandem with
moves to improve long-term road access and granting of secure land tenure;
also, introduction of apiculture would help reduce pressure on wild bee
populations and provide income using a product already familiar to local
residents;

vii
• relevant communities and families should be asked if they favour
identification and formal granting of rights to areas rich in bee trees, and
follow up action taken if there is sufficient genuine support;
• if a viable cooperative or cooperative-like group can be established and
sustained in upper Tabalong, assistance should be provided to stimulate
possible interest in the damar – minyak keruing model (if not, this model may
be suitable for a different area such as Meratus mountain communities);
• the current open access system for NTFPs is best maintained for most forest in
upper Tabalong as long as illegal logging and ladang making remain
uncontrolled; and
• if PT AYI aims to obtain certification of SFM, then rattan and damar, as the
major widespread NTFPs, should be inventoried in proposed felling blocks.

viii
RINGKASAN (INDONESIAN SUMMARY)
LATAR BELAKANG
Penelitian Hasil Hutan Bukan Kayu (HHBK) telah dilakukan di Hulu Tabalong
bagian utara Kalimantan Selatan. Sebagian besar hutan yang masih tersisa
merupakan hutan dipterocarp dengan kelerengan yang curam, bekas tebangan 25
tahun yang lalu, serta beberapa kawasan hutan pada batuan kapur. Mayoritas
kawasan dataran rendah di daerah ini telah dikonversi menjadi pemukiman,
pertumbuhan sekunder, Hutan Tanaman Industri serta perkebunan karet.
Masyarakat Dayak setempat secara tradisional masih memanfaatkan HHBK baik
untuk pemanfaatan rumah tangga maupun untuk diperdagangkan. Mereka saat ini
terdesak oleh pendatang menetap maupun tidak menetap yang mayoritas
merupakan masyarakat Banjar, Jawa, Dayak Manyan serta transmigran dari Nusa
Tenggara.
Sumberdaya HHBK tersebar pada lebih kurang 137 ribu hektar hutan alam di
bagian utara Kalimantan Selatan, dimana 85 ribu hektar di antaranya merupakan
wilayah konsesi PT Aya Yayang Indonesia. Kawasan konsesi tersebut meliputi
aliran sungai di Hulu Tabalong, sebagian sungai-sungai yang mengalir ke Propinsi
Kaltim dan Kalteng, serta yang berbatasan langsung dengan wilayah Kaltim dan
Kalteng. Juga terdapat 3 kawasan konsesi HTI dengan total luas 31 ribu hektar
yang terletak di bagian selatan dan sekitarnya namun berada di luar kawasan hutan
alam.
MELIPUTI JENIS APA SAJA?
Jenis utama HHBK di Hulu Tabalong dijelaskan dalam laporan terpisah “Hasil
Hutan Bukan Kayu dan Pengelolaan Hutan yang Lestari di Hulu Tabalong: (1)
Uraian”.
NILAI HHBK
Total penjualan HHBK pada tahun 1999 diperkirakan IDR 1,060 juta jika
perhitungan dilakukan pada pedagang pertama dalam rantai pasar. Nilai ini berarti
bahwa 4% dari hasil hutan yang telah diambil dari kawasan HPH, sementara 96%
lainnya merupakan produk kayu komersial yang dimanfaatkan oleh PT AYI, tidak
termasuk kayu yang diambil oleh para penebang liar di kawasan yang sama.

ix
SIAPA YANG MEMILIKI HAK?
Pada prakteknya di Hulu Tabalong, hampir semua HHBK dianggap merupakan
sumberdaya yang dapat diakses secara bebas oleh pemerintah dan penduduk lokal.
Beberapa HHBK yang hingga saat ini telah dinikmati secara turun temurun
kepemilikan dan pengelolaannya oleh penduduk asli setempat (seperti sarang
burung, pohon sarang burung madu, dan beberapa jenis pohon buah-buahan) saat
ini kenyataannya telah terbuka aksesnya, dimana para pendatang telah memasuki
kawasan tanpa terkontrol dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, dan upaya penebangan
pohon untuk menjual kayunya serta untuk ladang dan klaim lahan sudah tidak
dapat terhindarkan lagi.
NILAI PENTING UNTUK MASYARAKAT LOKAL
Sebagian besar HHBK yang dipanen di Hulu Tabalong mewakili sumber-sumber
penting pendapatan dan atau makanan untuk beberapa penduduk dan pendatang
yang papa, yang memiliki sumber-sumber pendatapan yang terbatas selain dari
menyadap karet dan ikut terlibat penebangan pohon secara illegal.
Berdasarkan informasi yang dikumpulkan pada tahun 1999, daging binatang
(terutama babi dan rusa) merupakan HHBK yang paling penting bagi penduduk
lokal, terkait dengan nilai makanan dan pendapatan tunai. Rotan merupakan bidang
kerja yang memberikan kontribusi lapangan pekerjaan yang paling besar diantara
jenis HHBK lainnya, dengan 170 orang terlibat selama 4,420 orang minggu kerja,
sementara damar diperkirakan memberikan kontribusi pendapatan bersih
pengumpul secara individu yang paling tinggi dengan pendaptan mingguan IDR
136,000.
KELESTARIAN DAN DAMPAK PEMANENAN
Pemanenan jenis mayoritas HHBK di Hulu Tabalong tidak lestari, baik karena
tingkat pemanenan yang lebih besar daripada upaya pengayaan/ penggantian dan
atau karena hutan telah habis akibat perladangan dan atau hutan telah rusak akibat
pembalakan secara legal dan illegal.
Bagaimanapun, pengaruh buruk dari pemanenan HHBK dianggap relatif kecil di
Hulu Tabalong, baik terkait dengan dampak minimal lingkungan langsung
(pemanenan tidak melibatkan pembakaran, alat berat maupun bahan-bahan kimia),
maupun besarnya perbandingan kehilangan potensi permudaan yang terkait dengan
kombinasi bulldozer pada pembalakan legal, penghilangan sumber-sumber benih
pohon komersial yang tersisa melalui kegiatan penebangan liar dan perladangan.
Kegiatan pemanenan HHBK yang paling merusak adalah penangkapan ikan
dengan menggunakan racun dan listrik yang telah menurunkan populasi ikan lokal
dan tidak dapat terkontrol.

x
BAGAIMANA PEMANENAN HHBK DAPAT MEMBANTU PENGELOLAAN
HUTAN LESTARI?
Usaha pengelolaan hutan secara lestari melalui HHBK hanya dapat diperoleh
dengan perhatian yang cukup setidaknya dari sebagian masyarakat setempat, untuk
memelihara persediaan HHBK dalam jangka lama yang tergantung pada
kelangsungan regenerasi hutan dipterocarp (seperti damar, rotan, minyak keruing,
tengkawang). Tanpa perhatian seperti ini, kualitas dan luas hutan akan terus
berkurang. Apabila ada perhatian, maka hal ini perlu didukung oleh
pengidentifikasian areal-areal hutan spesifik yang dapat dialokasikan dan
dilindungi dari penebangan liar serta perladangan untuk produksi HHBK.
BAGAIMANAN PEMANENAN HHBK DAPAT MEMBANTU
MASYARAKAT LOKAL?
Ada empat cara utama dimana pemanenan HHBK dapat membantu masyarakat
lokal (kesemuanya adalah yang dapat mendukung SFM secara tidak langsung
dengan menyediakan alternatif bagi pemecahan masalah penebangan liar maupun
pembuatan ladang spekulatif).
Pertama adalah dengan melakukan penanaman jenis tanaman terpilih pada lahan-
lahan sekitar desa (lihat penjelasan di bawah).
Kedua, pada kawasan hutan tertentu dapat dialokasikan untuk kelompok tertentu
(tidak harus masyarakat tradisional), yang akan dijamin hak-haknya untuk
mengelola dan memanen HHBK tertentu (lihat penjelasan di bawah)
Ketiga, kawasan tertentu yang terdapat pohon-pohon lebah madu perlu
diidentifikas dan kesepakatan formal perlu dibuat antara pemerintah lokal dan
keluarga yang berminat di dalam kelompok masyarakat adat yang terkait untuk
memelihara dan mengelola kawasan tersebut beserta pohon-pohonnya dibawah
hak-hak adat (dengan demikian kecendrungan terhadap keterbukaan wilayah adat
dapat diredam). Walaupun pemanenan madu adat perlu membubarkan lebah-lebah
dari sarangnya, proses perlindungan kawasan dan pohon dapat membantu
melindungi pohon-pohon tua yang besar dari kegiatan penebangan liar.
Keempat, merupakan cara yang termudah adalah dengan melakukan pemeliharaan
situasi keterbukaan akses yang ada saat ini terhadap HHBK, terkait dengan sisa
luasan kawasan hutan yang memperkenankan keluarga-keluarga papa untuk
melanjutkan perolehan produk atau pendapatan tunai tanpa birokrasi atau kendala
hukum. Terkait dengan pemeliharaan hutan, akan lebih baik jika ratusan orang
memungut HHBK daripada memanen pohon-pohon yang ada.
POTENSI UNTUK PENANAMAN
Beberapa HHBK (misalnya pohon buah liar, tumbuh-tumbuhan yang digunakan
untuk tonik dan obat-obatan, rotan) memiliki potensi untuk dikembangkan di
kebun-kebun sekitar desa, dan sesungguhnya merupakan potensi yang lebih baik
sebagai penambah pendapatan jika ditanam.

xi
Setidaknya ada sepuluh model agroforestry yang melibatkan jenis-jenis HHBK
yang dikenal secara lokal telah disarankan untuk dikembangkan di desa-desa Hulu
Tabalong. Namun, ada kendala untuk mempromosikan penanaman jenis-jenis
tanaman hutan, termasuk ketidakpastian akses jalan menuju pasar, kurangnya
kerjasama pemasaran antara penanam tanaman cepat panen, lemahnya dukungan
pemerintah terhadap penanaman pohon-pohon berskala kecil (selain karet),
keuntungan penebangan illegal, dan kurangnya keamanan pemilikan lahan.
Masalah ini perlu diperhatikan tidak hanya terkait dengan penanaman tanaman
hutan, tetapi juga secara umum bagi penduduk di Hulu Tabalong.
Terkait dengan pengelolaan hutan secara lestari, adalah penting untuk membedakan
antara HHBK yang ada secara alam dan yang dipanen dari hutan alam, dan yang
ditanam dan dipanen di luar kawasan hutan seperti di kebun atau perkebunan.
Walaupun sebagian merupakan produk yang sama, pembedaan memiliki implikasi
praktis yang penting terhadap pengelolaan hutan dan potensi untuk mendukung
masyarakat lokal dari sudut pandang produk, efisiensi, kelestarian, pemasaran dan
pentingnya ekonomi.
HHBK DAN DUKUNGAN TERHADAP SFM SERTA KESEJAHTERAAN
MASYARAKAT LOKAL
Satu model telah diusulkan yang meliputi pemanenan damar, minyak keruing dan
tengkawang
Model ini membutuhkan (1) keberadaan satu atau lebih kelompok pelaksana
(semacam koperasi yang didukung aktif oleh HPH) yang ingin memanen dan
memperdagangkan HHBK, (2) alokasi formal terhadap satu atau lebih kawasan
hutan tertentu kepada kelompok yang mengelola HHBK dalam jangka
panjang(kelompok tidak akan mampu melakukan pekerjaannya pada kondisi akses
terbuka seperti yang ada di Hulu Tabalong), (3) perlu ada pohon Shorea dewasa
(meranti dan tengkawang) dan Dipterocarpus (keruing) pada kawasan yang
dialokasikan, dan (4) penegakan hukum yang melarang kegiatan penebangan
illegal, pembukaan dan pembakaran di dalam kawasan hutan tersebut di atas.
Semua persyaratan di atas harus dipenuhi untuk mencapai keberhasilannya. Jika
mereka tidak dapat memenuhinya di hulu Tabalong, akan sangat berarti
melakukannya di daerah lainnya yang memiliki potensi (seperti pegunungan
Meratus).
BIOPROSPEKSI DAN PARIWISATA
Tak satupun topik (bioprospeksi dan pariwisata) yang mewakili HHBK dalam
kaidah tradisional, namun keduanya telah dicatat dalam penelitian lebih jauh yang
bernilai guna. Kedua aspek di atas perlu pendekatan dengan seksama.
Permasalahan yang sulit terkait dengan hukum dan kebijakan pemerintah, dan
kebutuhan bagi kesepakatan yang jujur dan setara dengan masyarakat lokal, perlu
pemecahan masalah bioprospeksi. Walaupun sungai Ayu dan Missim merupakan

xii
kawasan alami yang paling menarik di Kalimantan Selatan, kesiapan masyarakat
lokal terhadap pariwisata masih tidak pasti dan resiko terhadap tingginya harapan
yang tak terpenuhi.
REKOMENDASI-REKOMENDASI
Memandang (a) akses yang terbuka terhadap HHBK di Hulu Tabalong, (b)
ketidakpastian hak jangka panjang yang mungkin dijamin di masa mendatang pada
kawasan tertentu atau masyarakat, (c) pentingnya masyarakat papa terhadap akses
ruang dan kegiatan yang tidak mengikat pemanfaatan HHBK, dan (d) keberadaan
kapasitas penegakkan hukum saat ini yang terkait dengan pengelolaan sumberdaya
alam, adalah dipandang tidak praktis dan tidak bermanfaat untuk memperkenalkan
sistem baru pengelolaan HHBK baik di wilayah PT AYI maupun di Hulu Tabalong
secara keseluruhan.
Sebagai pengganti:
• Penanaman jenis-jenis tumbuhan hutan tertentu yang harus dipromosikan
bersama dengan memperbaiki akses jalan jangka panjang dan menjamin
kepastian dan keamanan lahan, juga, memperkenalkan pemeliharaan lebah
yang dapat membantu mengurangi tekanan terhadap populasi lebah madu liar
dan menyediakan pendapatan yang mempergunakan jenis yang telah dikenal
oleh penduduk lokal.
• Masyarakat dan keluarga terkait harus dihimbau jika mereka bersedia
melakukan identifikasi dan menjamin secara formal hak-hak kawasan yang
kaya akan pohon lebah madu, dan menindaklanjuti aksi yang diambil jika
terdapat dukungan yang cukup.
• Jika ada koperasi yang layak atau kelompok dapat dikembangkan dan
dilestarikan di hulu Tabalong, harus disediakan bantuan untuk memacu minat
yang mungkin timbul terhadap model damar - minyak keruing (jika tidak,
model ini bisa sesuai untuk daerah yang berbeda seperti masyarakat
pegunungan Meratus);
• Sistem akses terbuka seperti saat ini, bagi HHBK paling baik untuk hutan
yang ada di hulu Tabalong selama perladangan dan penebangan liar tidak
terkendali; dan
• Jika PT AYI bertujuan mendapatkan sertifikasi SFM, maka rotan dan damar
sebagai produk HHBK utama yang tersebar luas harus diinventarisasi pada
petak tebangan yang diusulkan.

xiii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AYI Aya Yayang Indonesia
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora
Dbh diameter at breast height
HTI hutan tanaman industri (industrial tree plantation)
Ha hectare(s)
IDR Indonesian rupiah
Kg kilogram(s)
NTFP non timber forest product
SFM sustainable forest management

xiv
Table of Contents
PREFACE..................................................................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................................................ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................iii
RINGKASAN (Indonesian Summary) ..................................................................................................................................viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS..............................................................................................................................xiii
1 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................................1
2 OVERVIEW OF SCKPFP STUDIES OF NTFPS........................................................................................2
3 CONSTRAINTS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH NTFPS .........................................................6
3.1 Environmental issues.......................................................................................................................................6
3.1.1 The issues.....................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .......................................................................................................................6
3.2 Sustainability of NTFP harvesting ..................................................................................................................6
3.2.1 The issue.......................................................................................................................................................6
3.2.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .......................................................................................................................7
3.3 Legal background............................................................................................................................................8
3.3.1 The issue.......................................................................................................................................................8
3.3.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................10
3.4 Allocation of harvesting rights......................................................................................................................10
3.4.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................10
3.5 Allocation of management rights ..................................................................................................................11
3.5.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................11
3.6 Allocation of land rights................................................................................................................................12
3.6.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................12
3.7 Who harvests and buy NTFPs? .....................................................................................................................13
3.7.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................13
4 NTFPS AND SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT.......................................................................15
4.1 Can NTFP harvesting help support sustainable forest management?............................................................15
4.1.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................15
4.2 How can NTFP harvesting help local communities? ....................................................................................16
4.2.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................16
4.3 Animal NTFPs ..............................................................................................................................................17
4.3.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................17
4.4 NTFPs and forest regeneration......................................................................................................................18
4.4.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................18
4.5 Bioprospecting and tourism...........................................................................................................................18
4.5.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................18
5 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................19
6 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................24

xv
List of Tables
Table 1. Breakdown of NTFP estimated economic values during 1999...................................................................................3
Table 2. Proposed best means to ensure future supplies of main NTFPs in upper Tabalong, arranged by NTFP type..........20
Table 3. Proposed best means to ensure future supplies of main NTFPs in upper Tabalong, arranged by interventions.......22

1
1 Objectives
The objectives of this report are to :
(a) provide a summary of work done and recommendations made by the various
SCKPFP specialists in relation to NTFPs in upper Tabalong;
(b) discuss major constraints and problems in relation to NTFPs and sustainable
forest management, based on a review of SCKPFP work and a literature
review; and
(c) identify interventions whereby NTFP use can contribute towards achieving
sustainable forest management.

2
2 Overview of SCKPFP studies of NTFPs
The SCKPFP Forest Economist reviewed existing definitions and classifications of
NTFPs (presented in sections 1.3 and 1.4 of the accompanying report “Non timber
forest products and sustainable forest management in upper Tabalong (1) :
Descriptions”). A short-term NTFP specialist conducted field work to identify the main
NTFPs harvested in upper Tabalong, and the amounts harvested and prices obtained
during 1999 (Basir, 2000).
The Forest Industry and Economist component used the information gathered to
assemble a NTFP database for SCKPFP.
The NTFP database, in MS Access, is arranged in nine search columns:
♦ Species name (scientific, local and English = 3 columns);
♦ Geographical location, e.g. project area;
♦ Product group, e.g. grass. A group can be vegetative or non-vegetative;
♦ Product subgroup, e.g. bamboo;
♦ Product type e.g. fibres & flosses;
♦ Used part e.g. stalk (culm is here stalk) for grown up parts or shoot;
♦ Employed as (= used as), e.g. construction material or food (in case of young
shoot). Here also end product is mentioned e.g. turpentine from pine resin.
A similar type of database has been produced by the Institute for Culture and Ecology
(Portland, Oregon, U.S.A), accessible at www.ifcae.org/ntfp/ ; however, this database
emphasizes North American NTFPs. In contrast, the FAO website presents a
description list of NWFPs in five columns very different from what the project has
done. The columns in the website are: Purposes, Type of product, Products,
Unprocessed and Processed.
The SCKPFP Environmental Expert developed, with PT AYI field research staff , a
plot-based method for surveying the abundance of four NTFP types : rattan (long-
stemmed climbing palms), damar (resin produced by certain dipterocarp trees),
medicinal plants and wild honey (Alfan & Payne, 2001).
The 17 NTFP survey plots of 500 x 10 m each covered a wide array of forest
conditions, and the results provide a first estimate of potential availability in upper
Tabalong of the four NTFP types investigated. The survey method can provide
information in terms of an estimated “standing crop” of rattan and damar per hectare at
the present time, but cannot provide information or predictions on the amount of NTFP
that can be harvested per year.
The methodology, including plot size and shape, was chosen so that one plot can be
covered within one day by a team of seven persons. The method could be incorporated

3
easily into tree inventory work in production forests, and appears to be very suitable for
obtaining data on rattan and damar. Other NTFPs cannot be surveyed adequately
without detailed species-specific studies because they are either rare (e.g. gaharu),
localized (e.g. kapulaga), seasonal or unpredictable in time (e.g. most wild fruits), not
easily detected (most wild animals) or a combination of these.
Alfan & Payne (2001) concluded that, in order for the PT AYI production forest to
continue in the long term to supply NTFPs, it is necessary to : (a) reduce levels of
damage caused to the forest by PT AYI in its operations to harvest and extract timber;
(b) stop logging by other parties; and (c) stop forest encroachment by farmers who burn
plots for rice production and claiming land ownership.
A NTFP evaluation model has been made for the PT AYI concession area (Skarner,
2001). Based on data obtained in 1999, the gross total sale value of NTFPs collected
was IDR 1,060 million, calculated up to the first trader link in the market chain. This
represents 4% of the total forest products removed from the concession, the other 96%
being commercial timber produced by AYI but excluding timber removed from the
forest by illegal loggers.
Table 1. Breakdown of NTFP estimated economic values during 1999
Product Group
Gross Selling Value
(Million IDR)
Net Profit
(Million IDR)
Rattan 452 107
Damar 160 24
Gaharu 15 5
Kedaung 3 1
Kapulaga (“Cardamom”) 16 4
Sum Vegetative products 646 141
Bee (honey) 23 4
Animal (wild meats) 262 -
Bird Nest (edible) 97 16
Song Birds 31 13
Sum Non-Vegetative products 414 34
Total 1059 175
Source : Skarner (2001)
(Note that the gross selling value incorporates products not sold, based on their usual
price if sold. This applies particularly to “Animal” (= wild meats), where most of the
product is consumed locally.)
The major NTFPs in terms of economic value are wild meats, rattan, damar, honey,
edible birds nests, song birds, “cardamom”, gaharu and kedaung (listed in descending
order of collector net income value). Together, the NTFPs in the four animal product
sub-groups are a more important source of “income” than plant sources, contributing to
60% of the NTFP net “income” to the collectors. In this context, “income” means the
overall value of NTFPs, combining items sold and items consumed or used for own
purposes (that is, in terms of money obtained and money that could have been obtained
if the NTFPs were sold).

4
In 1999, hunted wild animal meat was by far the most important NTFP for the local
population in terms of their daily food intake plus money obtained from local sales.
Traders are generally not involved in the wild meat business. When sold for cash it goes
to nearby local markets, with an average price of 7,400 IDR/kg, which is considered to
be low in comparison to prices that may be obtained for chicken or beef.
Rattan was the biggest employment contributor amongst NTFPs in 1999, with 170
people involved during 4,420 person-weeks that year. This is 56% of the total 7,860
person-weeks spent in collection of NTFPs. Rattan traders seem to gain a
disproportionately great part of the net income from the rattan business. A rattan
collector earned IDR28,000/week/person (IDR723,000 over the year) while the
individual trader got IDR 2 million per working week.
Damar contributed to the highest individual collector net income in upper Tabalong in
1999, with a weekly income of IDR 136,000 (= IDR 2,619,000 over the year).
The other three vegetative product sub-groups (kapulaga, gaharu and kedaung) were of
minor importance for cash income for local people, together contributing 3% to the net
income from all NTFPs. Individual weekly income from animal products other than
wild meats ranged between IDR109,000 /week for edible bird nests to IDR261,000
/week for honey collection. It is important to stress that kapulaga, gaharu, kedaung,
edible bird nests and honey are highly seasonal in availability, and provide occasional
income for a small number of specialist harvesters, in comparison to rattan and damar
which can be harvested over long periods by non-specialists.
MacLachlan (2001b) proposed three new approaches to sustainable NTFP extraction,
using products that to date have not been exploited in upper Tabalong : (a) resin tapping
from keruing (Dipterocarpus) trees and the production of other aromatic oils with a
view to starting a small export business and/or producing perfumes acceptable to the
local Muslim market; (b) bioprospecting or identifying plants with medicinal or
therapeutic properties; and (c) foraging for “windfall” NTFPs including damar,
collecting illipe nuts during crop years and sustainably harvesting rattan where and
when available.
MacLachlan (2001b) showed that damar harvesting by a cooperative (or similar
corporate entity) can show a marginal profit which, if combined with other NTFP-
related activities such as the new ones outlined above, could significantly increase the
incomes of communities who are willing to form such cooperatives and to follow
methods of sustainable extraction. The report showed that damar harvesting can provide
IDR25,000 per day over 3 days to the collector (equivalent to the daily wage at PT AYI
for casual labour) and still produce a small profit for the cooperative.
A simple Cost Benefit Analysis of the proposed enterprise was prepared. It was
suggested that profit levels can be further increased by forming a strategic alliance with
the forest concessionaire whereby PT AYI, at negligible cost to themselves, would offer
NTFP storage space, assistance with transporting the produce to market and, in the
early stages, help with administrative needs. In return, the cooperative entity would
cease all unlawful activities related to timber extraction and provide a security network
which could prevent outsiders from encroaching or operating illegally inside the
concession.
Lyssens (2001) notes that the current PT AYI permit to operate in upper Tabalong
requires transfer of 20% of the company shares to cooperatives. Although successful

5
development and running of a local cooperative presents enormous challenges, this
requirement presents an opportunity for the company and local community to work for
mutual benefit in terms of sustaining forest in good condition and production of NTFPs
for local income generation.
It is clear that some wild plants currently harvested as NTFPs could provide a better or
more secure income if cultivated. Werner (2001) identified “cardamom” (kapulaga),
rattan, certain timber trees and certain wild fruit trees as having potential for cultivation
as part of about ten possible agroforestry systems in the villages of upper Tabalong.
Gaharu yielding trees and certain medicinal plant species could also be cultivated,
taking pressure of wild plants and producing known high value products. Werner
(2001) noted that major constraints for the implementation of the agroforestry models
include (1) illegal timber exploitation as the base of the local economy, which makes
agriculture less interesting, because less profitable, (2) lack of land ownership security
for the non-transmigrants, which makes intensification risky, and (3) the attitude caused
by the present goverment development approach, which frequently is top-down.
Although rattan represents one of the most significant NTFPs in the PT AYI area in
terms of persons obtaining income from harvesting, the importance and development of
rattan in upper Tabalong lags far behind that seen in parts of Central Kalimantan, which
has an estimated annual production of more than 24,000 tonnes of dried rattan. Most of
the production is small diameter rattans which are cultivated and have a long history of
local use, in comparison with large diameter rattan which is still only collected from the
natural forest, but which is more valuable, being used to produce furniture for export.
Basir (2001a) investigated rattan production in Central Kalimantan and found that the
chain of rattan raw material trade from farmers/collectors to mills is too long, going
through various unnecessary middlemen, and resulting in low prices for cultivators and
harvesters. Shortening of the trading “chain” is recommended by Basir (2001a), in
order to allow harvesters a better income and an incentive to plant rattan. This
syndrome of low prices paid to harvesters is mirrored in comments made by people
living in the Tabalong area, that rattan harvesting there is not popular due to low prices.
Basir (2001b) proposed that cultivation of large diameter rattan should be given high
priority in land rehabilitation. Based on that, SCKPFP initiated with PT Dwimajaya
Utama and the local community in the upper Katingan – Samba area, Central
Kalimanan, a small-scale demonstration nursery to produce manau rattan from seed.
SCKPFP has also facilitated establishment of a pilot plantation with local farmers near
Palangkaraya, in co-operation with University of Palangkaraya (UNPAR) and two
rattan furniture factories.

6
3 Constraints and problems associated with NTFPs
The literature on NTFPs reveals numerous constraints and problems relating to
ecological, policy, legal, social and economic aspects of NTFP use. Many of these
are relevant to upper Tabalong.
3.1 Environmental issues
3.1.1 The issues
NTFP harvesting may have a much greater negative impact on the forest ecosystem
than generally assumed (Peters, 1996). Local extinction of harvested species is
possible. Overharvesting of NTFPs has potentially adverse impacts on the forest
ecosystem through such means as removing seeds from the process of forest
regeneration (by harvesting wild fruits and immature plants), selectively reducing
the abundance of certain species (such as commercial rattans), removing minerals
and nutrients from a nutrient-poor ecosystem (especially in fruits, meats and
growing shoots), and adding to pressure on rare and threatened species (notably
gaharu trees, edible nest swiftlets and some wildlife).
3.1.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong
To date, only straw-headed bulbul (a popular song bird) appears to have become
locally extinct in upper Tabalong as a result of overharvesting.
Although the situation prior to commercial timber harvesting is unknown, there is
evidence that populations of gaharu producing trees, edible birds’ nests, some
rattan species, and wild meat-producing animals have all declined; and that these
declines are due in large part to harvesting of these NTFPs, rather than to
commercial logging.
The most damaging NTFP harvesting activity may be fishing with poisons and
electricity, which has reduced local fish populations already and which appears to
continue uncontrolled.
Generally in upper Tabalong, however, legal logging, illegal logging, fire and
ladang encroachment appear to have much greater adverse impacts on the
ecosystem than does NTFP harvesting.
3.2 Sustainability of NTFP harvesting
3.2.1 The issue
Some clarification of the term “sustainability” is required in the context of this
report. For timber, the concept is normally linked to the idea of a “sustainable”
annual allowable cut in terms of cubic metres to be extracted per year from a
defined forest area, with only certain tree species greater than 60 cm diameter to be
felled. Although under real-life circumstances the concept may not work (due
mainly to illegal logging, but also because the legal annual allowable cut may have

7
been based on faulty data), there is always the possibility that, with reliable data, a
good management plan implemented, and law enforcement, a certain
predetermined amount of timber can be extracted annually in perpetuity.
Even where a forest area has been damaged by past logging and fire, it may still be
possible to make the forest ecologically “sustainable” through rehabilitation and
leaving it for some years to recover. In this case, there might not be a “sustainable”
annual cut, but forest cover can be “sustained” for future production.
In relation to NTFPs, it is debatable that the term “sustainable” should be used at
all, except possibly in the sense of preventing local extinction of breeding
populations of the plant or animal species that produce the NTFP. There are at least
two reasons why it is generally not appropriate to apply the term “sustainable” to
NTFP harvesting.
Firstly, there is normally insufficient information available on any NTFP species to
be able to calculate an “annual allowable harvest” in terms of weight of product to
be extracted from a defined area per year. There are many reasons why such
information is not available. The main practical reason is that the cost (to
government or to the holder of harvesting rights) of obtaining sufficient reliable
information is likely to be higher than the profits obtainable from harvesting. Peters
(1996) notes that sustainability of NTFP harvesting depends on monitoring (yet
responsibility for monitoring and for paying for monitoring are invariably not
addressed) and modifying harvesting rate based on monitoring data (typically,
reducing the rate, which may be unenforceable).
A second reason why the term “sustainable” does not apply to NTFPs is that a
decision to go and harvest a particular NTFP in a particular area at a particular time
will be made by individual people based on a particular set of circumstances. In the
case of legally-harvested timber, expensive investments will have been made in
equipment and in sustaining a properly-constituted workforce; there is a product to
be extracted in relatively large volumes, for which there is a definite market over
many years, and prices within a reasonably narrow range. In contrast, a decision on
whether to harvest NTFPs will depend on such factors as : (most importantly) the
price on offer within a rather short time frame; whether harvesters have other
options or obligations (such as illegal logging or rice planting); and the current
road access into the forest (always relevant, except for very high value NTFPs such
as edible birds’ nests).
In the absence of detailed long-term studies, quantitative data are not available to
assess rates of productivity of any NTFPs in upper Tabalong. It is clear, however,
that harvesting of the majority of these NTFPs is not sustainable either because
rates of harvesting are greater than replacement and / or because forest is being lost
through ladang farming and fire and / or because forest is being degraded through
legal and illegal logging.
It is not realistic to assume that arrangements can be made to allow a constant or
predetermined annual harvest of NTFPs from upper Tabalong. For some NTFPs,
this is partly a result of natural biological fluctuations that in turn depend heavily
on annual variation in weather and flower and fruit productions (honey, wild fruits
including tengkawang, wild pigs). Annual constancy in harvestable volumes of

8
damar and also rattan will have more to do with the constancy of kilometers of
road access provided by PT AYI than with biological production of the product.
3.3 Legal background
3.3.1 The issue
Only some NTFP species are included in laws and regulations. To some extent, this
is because NTFPs are not a homogeneous group except in that they are plants and
animals which occur in natural forest. There is no special reason to try to lump
them all into one category in terms of allocating rights to harvesting or
management. But NTFPs are affected by the general ambiguity relating to forest
classification and utilization, and to local community rights, which still
characterizes forests and forestry in Indonesia.
There is ambiguity over definition of forest through much of Kalimantan, including
upper Tabalong. Areas shown as production forest on both TGHK (Tata Guna
Hutan Kesepakatan = Consensus Forest Use Plan) and RTRWP (Rencana Tata
Ruang Wilayah Propinsi = Regional Spatial Plan) maps include areas which are not
forest. Some of this land is HTI and some is occupied by people and long-
established villages.
In part this stems from the fact that extensive areas of forest land throughout
Kalimantan were designated as production forest, and allocated to large
concession-holders in the early-mid 1970’s. The fact that local community claims
and rights to forest were ignored at that time has contributed to absence of law
enforcement relating to security of production forests. Also, protection and
conservation zones within production forest have yet to be properly defined by
government. The Spatial Use Management Law (UU RI 24/1992) which requires
that the provincial governor be responsible for preparation of a provincial spatial
plan (that in practice involves review and substantial reclassification of “forest”
land) appears never to have been carried out. Thus, the old (early 1980’s) Ministry
of Forestry mapping and designation of forest is still used, despite the enormous
loss and degradation of forest that has occurred since that time.
The Local Autonomy Law (No. 22/1999) grants local government authority to
utilize the natural resources in its territory, with the proviso that implementation
should consider the aspirations of the local people.
The current national forestry law (No. 41/1999) allows for “hutan adat”
(customary-law forest) within state-controlled forest land (such as production
forest). However, no such forest has been allocated in upper Tabalong, in part
because “adat communities” have not been identified or defined by government.
Presidential Decree No. 6/1999 dated 27/01/99 concerning forest management and
harvesting of forest products in production forest (“Pengusahaan Hutan dan
Pemungutan Hasil Hutan pada Hutan Produksi”) allows the Bupati to issue forest
product collection rights to Indonesian individuals or cooperatives, valid for
specific areas and amounts, for periods of up to one year, with preference given to
the needs of the local community. Those granted such rights for NTFPs have to pay
PSDH (provisi sumber daya hutan) tax.

9
Rights to harvesting forest produce are specified in Government Regulation
(Minister of Forestry and Estate Crops) No. 317/KPTS-II/1999 dated 7/5/99
concerning the Right of Customary-law Communities (“Masyarakat Hukum Adat”)
to Collect Forest Products within Production Forest Areas. Under this regulation,
Customary Law-based Communities may, with specified conditions, harvest
NTFPs in production forests. If the forest lies within an existing HPH (such as
applies in most of upper Tabalong), then NTFPs may be harvested (a) only for the
fulfillment of the daily needs of all the community members on the basis of the
principle of collectiveness, (b) not traded; or, if traded, then the benefits should be
for the collective interest, (c) only in specific areas decided by the Kabupaten level
forest authority based on recommendations by the HPH-holder and should be
outside annual felling blocks. If the forest is not a HPH area, then NTFPs may be
harvested only according to conditions specified by the Kabupaten level forest
authority, and instructed by the Bupati. However, as noted above, exactly which
people, if any, who live in upper Tabalong are defined as “Masyarakat Hukum
Adat” remains undecided by government.
Government Regulation (Minister of Forestry and Estate Crops) No. 318/KPTS-
II/1999 dated 7/5/99 concerning the Role of the Community (“Peran serta
masyarakat”) in Forest Management defines the “community” broadly as
Indonesians living as a community (sharing a history associated with forest) in or
near the forest. This regulation aims to ensure that large forest concession holders
make arrangements with all local communities (not just “adat” communities) in
relation to forest management; the regulation does not specify how this should be
done, nor rights to NTFPs.
Government Regulation (Minister of Forestry) No. 31/KPTS-II/2001 dated
12/02/2001 concerning the administration of community forest allows for
management by local communities (“masyarakat setempat”) of protection and
production forest (that has not already been granted HPH rights to another party).
This allows for local government (Bupati) to grant jointly agreed rights to certain
areas for activities that may include (but are not limited to) NTFP harvesting. The
“local community” is defined as “a social unit consisting of Indonesian citizens
who live in or near forest, as a community based on similar forest-related
livelihood, history, ties to place of residence, and an orderly system”. This implies
that local government can define a local community and grant rights not
necessarily based on purely on “adat” rights.
Government Regulation No. 7/1999 regarding Flora and Fauna Conservation
(“tentang Pengawetan Jenis Tumbuhan dan Satwa”) lists (amongst others) Cervus
species, Manis javanica, Muntiacus muntjak and Tragulus species (all of which are
hunted in upper Tabalong) as “protected species”. There are further rules under
Exploitation of Flora and Fauna (8/1999). However, the regulations do not specify
the meaning of protected, nor which agency is responsible for protection. Rather, it
allows the Minister of Forestry to direct the establishment and implementation of
conservation mechanisms. Thus, unless such mechanisms are established and
running, the regulation does not seem to impinge on harvesting of wild animals.
According to the PT. AYI forest utilisation right (Ministry of Forestry and Estate
Crops decree No. 840/Kpts-II/1999) the company shall not hunt any wild animal
within its working area and shall prevent illegal hunting.

10
At least two regulations mention taxation in relation to NTFPs. Peraturan
Pemerintah 59/1998 (“Tarif atas penerimaan Negara bukan pajak yang berlaku
pada department Kehutanan dan Perkebunan”) lists rates of “tariffs” payable on
NTFPs (presumably on trading, although this is not clear). Rattan, damar, minyak
keruing, edible birds’ nests, bark, bamboo, honey, gaharu and protected flora and
fauna are all listed, most with a “tariff” rate of 6%. Presidential Decree No. 6/1999
dated 27/01/99 concerning forest management and harvesting of forest products in
production forest (“Pengusahaan Hutan dan Pemungutan Hasil Hutan pada Hutan
Produksi”) states that individuals or cooperatives granted NTFP harvesting rights
have to pay PSDH (provisi sumber daya hutan) tax.
Together, the various laws and regulations indicate that considerable flexibility is
now allowed to local government to decide on a regime or system to regulate
harvesting of NTFPs. It is largely up to local government to decide what is
reasonable and feasible, and to utilise the laws and regulations to provide the legal
basis for implementation.
Apart from the many specific problems relating to the legal basis for NTFP
harvesting that are indicated above, three more fundamental issues stand out as
critical. Firstly, the whole issue of determining which villages and which people
are “masyarakat hukum adat”, which are “masyarakat setempat”, and which are
neither or both of those, remains unresolved. Secondly, if there is any serious
intention to apply laws, decrees or regulations to NTFP harvesting, then there
needs to be some assurance that any arrangement proposed can and will be
implemented. Thirdly, there is little point in putting effort into regulating NTFP
harvesting if production forest continues to be degraded by illegal logging and lost
by ladang encroachment.
It may be that the only possibility for regulating NTFP harvesting in a beneficial
way would be to choose and define one or more communities which have long-
standing links with the upper Tabalong forests, and formally negotiate and allocate
to that community defined management rights and responsibilities for specific
forest areas.
3.4 Allocation of harvesting rights
3.4.1 The issue
In theory, sustainable harvesting of NTFPs requires that specific forest areas are
allocated to specific groups or institutions, who are granted specific legal rights,
with limits, to harvesting in and / or to management of those areas. This mirrors the
practice of granting specific, demarcated areas of production forest to companies
for extraction of timber. Here, harvesting rights and management rights (see
section 3.5) are distinguished. Current forestry law (41/1999) uses the terms
“pemanfaatan” and “penggunaan”, implying “exploitation” and “use” (not
management) in relation to users of state forests.
In practice, rights to harvesting or management are rarely granted by government
anywhere in the world in relation to NTFPs.

11
Although excessive harvesting of NTFPs often will have adverse ecological
impacts (section 2.1.1), it is likely that in most cases harvesting will cease before
biological extinction occurs, because the cost and difficulty of finding the resource
will prevent harvesting before the last individuals are removed.
Amongst all NTFPs harvested in upper Tabalong, only wild honey (through
protection of bee nest trees and actual harvesting) and edible birds’ nests are
regulated by traditions. The rights to harvesting some wild fruit trees are regarded
by local tradition as belonging to certain individuals or families. In practice, all
other NTFPs are treated as open access resources that may be harvested by anyone.
In theory, allocation of NTFP harvesting rights could allow local government to (a)
limit the amounts of NTFPs harvested and (b) more easily obtain tax revenue.
Should harvesting rights be formally allocated to certain people, groups or
institutions for harvesting NTFPs in upper Tabalong?
In practice, allocation of such rights will incur at least four problems. Firstly, there
will be insufficient information to determine appropriate amounts and locations for
harvesting. Secondly, it will be difficult or impossible to ascertain if conditions
attached to harvesting are fulfilled. Thirdly, such conditions are likely to work
against the main benefit of NTFPs to rural households, which is to provide in a
very flexible manner the opportunity to obtain resources or cash in times of need.
Fourthly, in the absence of strong institutional mechanisms and local community
support, tax on NTFPs can be evaded.
With the exception of interventions for specific areas outlined below (sections 3.5
and 3.6), it is considered best to allow NTFPs to remain open access in upper
Tabalong, as they serve to provide a trouble-free means for rural households to
quickly obtain needed products and income in times of need.
3.5 Allocation of management rights
3.5.1 The issue
By granting management rights over forest land (as compared to harvesting rights
only) to particular groups (such as a rural community), it is expected that the group
will have obligations and incentives to plant, tend and protect NTFP sources, and
even the formal right to own NTFPs.
Any traditional tenure system that might have existed amongst indigenous Dayaks
over managing forest and forest products has been obscured initially by Banjar
settlers after World War 2, and then through the various activities of migrants who
came into upper Tabalong mainly as a result of logging roads built in the 1970’s
onwards. Loss and degradation of production forest continues due to HTI
development, fire, bad logging by PT AYI, illegal logging and ladang farming. The
potential for forest regeneration continues to decline as ladangs (hill rice farms) are

12
now normally replanted with rubber, rather than being left to natural forest
regeneration as occurred in the past.
In view of the loss of any local community system for regulating NTFP harvesting
in upper Tabalong (except for wild honey and birds’ nests), and the inability of
government to regulate unauthorised human access, the upper Tabalong forests are
effectively “open access” for NTFP exploitation. It seems unlikely that this
situation will change unless new initiatives are introduced into specific areas with
support of local residents.
By taking three closely-linked initiatives (new, but possible under existing laws
and regulations), it is possible that three benefits might emerge.
The steps are : (1) formal definition and recognition by local government of a
“local community” in upper Tabalong, (2) formal allocation of management rights
over specific area(s) of production or protection forest to that community (the area
will be adjacent to the community and consist partly of rice farms, secondary
forest, rubber, fruit trees etc.) and (3) formulation of a government-community
agreement on rights, responsibilities and obligations regarding the specified
area(s).
The benefits that might emerge are investment of effort by the community in (1)
protection of existing trees, (2) management of planted trees and (3) cultivating
NTFPs.
3.6 Allocation of land rights
3.6.1 The issue
Many NTFP researchers state or indicate that : the majority of NTFPs have
subsistence or “safety-net” functions for poor rural families; few have potential for
sustained cash-income; as prices increase, over-harvesting occurs; and that the
most promising NTFP species are best “domesticated” (Wilkie et al., 2001;
Wollenberg & Belcher, 2001). If the best recommendation for the most promising
NTFPs is to domesticate them, then secure rights are needed over the land on
which they are planted.
Amongst the significant NTFPs identified in upper Tabalong, at least several show
better economic potential if domesticated rather than harvested from the forest.
These include some medicinal plants (especially pasak bumi and possibly seluang
balum), kapulaga, fruit trees and probably also rattan and gaharu.
It is important that long-term land rights, recognized by the Basic Agrarian Law
law and not just “certificates” issued at Kecamatan level, are given to genuine local
residents of upper Tabalong. Arguably, granting of such rights offers a greater
incentive than subsidies and technical assistance towards serious cultivation of
commercial crop plants.

13
3.7 Who harvests and buy NTFPs?
3.7.1 The issue
The points made in this section are mainly extracted from Neumann & Hirsch
(2000). Worldwide in general, NTFP harvesters are poor rural people, and the
poorest households in a community tend to depend more than others on NTFPs (in
terms of using the NTFPs directly or of obtaining income from their sale).
Furthermore, NTFP harvesting is normally done to make up shortfalls in income
amongst very poor households. There are few or no reported cases where NTFP
harvesting has become a path to long-term increase in living standards.
Available studies suggest that buyers of NTFPs consist of a rather complex and
often changing chain of people, who generally perform such roles not open to the
harvesters, such as assuming financial risk and providing transportation. Although
“middlemen” may in some cases be exploitative and in some cases their roles could
possibly be taken on by the harvesters, this is not necessarily so. Exploitation of
harvesters by middlemen tends to occur under one or more of the following
conditions : (a) middlemen are creditors to harvesters, (b) middlemen monopolise
transport, (c) middlemen monopolise information on markets and (d) middlemen
perform no value-added task and merely pass NTFPs to another buyer.
There are mixed results amongst the rather few reported cases of interventions
made to increase prices obtained by NTFP harvesters for their products. Those in
India and Bangladesh appear not to have been successful, while those in Brazil,
Botswana and Papua New Guinea have been positive but modest and not
necessarily long-term.
SCKPFP information from upper Tabalong does suggest that NTFP harvesters are
from relatively poor households that use the NTFPs directly (sometimes) or (more
often) harvest to make up shortfalls in income when certain circumstances
converge (such as : outside rice cultivating seasons, when road access is good and
when there are no other income-generating opportunities).
The number and composition of people harvesting NTFPs clearly alters constantly
and can vary greatly from month to month and year to year in any given area. For
example, SCKPFP observers noted that there was much more evidence of damar
collection in upper Tabalong in year 2000 than in 2001. This difference is
attributable mainly to the fact that that an old main logging road was re-opened up
during 2000, between km 81 (Sinangoh River bridge) and northwards to km 100 or
more, in an area which had experienced no damar-harvesting for many years. This
road deteriorated and became impassable by March 2001.
In another example, a Dayak group of song bird catchers was often active during
1999 and 2000 in the km. 61 area. When field work for a specialist investigation on
song birds was done in March-April 2001, however, this group was inactive and
instead two Banjar groups from the Tanjung area were active instead. It turned out
that the leader of the Dayak group was sick during this time, resting in his village.
Under these circumstances, there may not necessarily be any merit in government
or any other institution attempting to plan or organize NTFP harvesting. It may be

14
better, in terms of helping poor households and preventing more men from turning
to illegal logging, to allow the current seemingly anarchic harvesting of NTFPs to
continue.
If specific forest areas are allocated for management to a specific community
(section 3.3.2, last paragraph), however, scope may exist for harvesters to obtain
better prices by reducing the need for middlemen buyers.

15
4 NTFPs and sustainable forest management
4.1 Can NTFP harvesting help support sustainable forest management?
4.1.1 The issue
The first projects that had the dual aims of supporting forest conservation and
economic development of human communities living near to forests (known as
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects; ICDPs) were initiated in the
1980’s, some of the pioneer projects being in Indonesia. Although ICDPs were and
are mainly concerned with national parks and similar protected areas, the principle
involved is similar to the case of NTFPs and production forests : the belief is that
forests will be conserved or managed well only if nearby communities obtain
economic benefits from the continued existence of those forests. Major forest-
derived benefits envisaged in all ICDPs are one or a combination of clean water
supplies, economic diversification and cash income from ecotourism, and
commercialization or enhancement of NTFP harvesting.
Experience to date has been predominantly negative. Even by 1998, most ICDPs
were shown to have either failed or had very limited success (Wells et al, 1998).
Failure was linked to an erroneous belief that assisting local community
development would help protect forest, when key threats connected to law
enforcement, road access, logging, mining and immigration of different ethnic
groups remained not addressed. Apart from that, doubts have also been expressed
over the fundamental compatibility of any efforts to enhance the socio-economic
condition of rural people and retention of forests where those communities exist
(Wunder, undated), because significant and sustained improvements in socio-
economic condition of rural people are normally associated with conversion of
forest to alternative land use. The recent experience in Indonesia (around 1998
onwards) is that hope of saving forest based on a real or perceived need of the local
community to conserve water or sustain NTFP production has been undermined by
a lack of government capacity to prevent massive illegal logging.
NTFPs may be significant as income-generators for some poor households, but
they are estimated in the case of PT. AYI to represent only 4% of the realized
economic value of the forest (perhaps barely 2% if illegal harvesting of trees is
included).
The issue of better managing NTFPs is also insignificant in comparison to the need
for better security of the forest as a whole. There is little point in devoting effort to
improve NTFP utilization unless : (a) levels of damage to the forest, caused by PT
AYI in its operations to harvest and extract timber, are reduced, (b) illegal logging
is stopped, and (c) forest encroachment (felling and burning of production forest by
people who aim to plant rice and / or rubber trees and / or claim land rights) is
stopped.
Support for sustainable forest management through NTFPs can be generated only if
there is adequate interest from local government, PT AYI and (most importantly) at

16
least a part of the local community, for maintaining long-term supplies of those
NTFPs that depend on existence of regenerating dipterocarp forest (notably damar,
rattan, minyak keruing, illipe nuts; MacLaghlan, 2001b; Skarner, 2001). Without
such local interest, forest quality and extent will continue to decline. If such
interest exists, it will need to be supported by identifying specific forest areas that
can be allocated for NTFPs, and protected for that purpose.
4.2 How can NTFP harvesting help local communities?
4.2.1 The issue
In the context of upper Tabalong and SCKPFP, efforts to help local communities in
relation to NTFPs should be made only if those efforts also support sustainable
forest management.
There appear to be four main ways in which NTFP harvesting can help local
communities, and indirectly support sustainable forest management.
First is cultivation of selected plant species on village land. Thus these plants cease
to be NTFPs. The benefit to people is that ownership of the product is clear and
greater amounts of product can be obtained. The potential benefits to forest
management are that that pressure on some threatened NTFP species (such as the
“best” rattans, pasak bumi, gaharu) will reduce, and an alternative to illegal logging
and ladang making is available. However, as an incentive, security of tenure is
needed over the land to be planted.
Secondly, the model proposed by MacLaclan (2001b), which incorporates
harvesting of damar, keruing oil and illipe nuts, could be pursued. This model
requires (1) the existence of one or more functioning groups (such as a cooperative
with active support from the HPH concessionaire) who want to harvest and trade
these NTFPs, (2) formal allocation of one or more specific forest areas to the
group(s) for long-term management of NTFPs (the group will be unable to operate
sustainably in the open access conditions that prevail in upper Tabalong), (3)
existence of reasonably large numbers of remaining mature Shorea (meranti and
tengkawang) and Dipterocarpus (keruing) trees in the area allocated, and (4)
enforcement of laws that prohibit illegal logging, clearance and burning in those
forest areas. The benefit to forest management would be that at least one specific
area is likely to be protected from illegal logging and farming.
Thirdly, specific areas containing wild honey bee trees could be identified, and
formal agreements made between local government and interested families in
relevant traditional communities, to maintain and manage these areas and trees
under customary rights (thereby halting the ongoing trend towards open access in
adat areas). Although traditional honey harvesting wipes out bee colonies, the
process of conserving the relevant areas and trees can help to preserve massive old
trees from illegal felling.

17
Fourthly, the easiest way is to maintain the current open access situation for NTFPs
in the bulk of remaining forest areas, in order to allow poor families to continue to
obtain products or cash without bureaucratic or legal constraints. Although at first
sight seemingly irrational, this situation at least provides alternatives to illegal
logging and speculative ladang making.
4.3 Animal NTFPs
4.3.1 The issue
The issues outlined in sections 4.1 and 4.2 primarily concern plant NTFPs, and
some potential beneficial interventions are implicit in those discussions. Harvesting
of animals tends to be more difficult to address in that greater concerns and
restrictions exist. This is partly because there are real differences : larger animals
tend to become more quickly threatened by over-harvesting than do plants. It is
also due to human bias, whereby killing, keeping or eating animals tends to
engender more interest and concern than doing the same to plants.
Edible birds’ nests and fish are clearly affected adversely by over-harvesting, and
represent the most significant animal NTFPs for which actions are needed. People
who claim ownership of nest sites can be informed of a nest-harvesting schedule
that can help to stabilize the bird population (see accompanying report “Non
Timber Forest Products and sustainable forest management in upper Tabalong : (1)
Description”). It may be impossible to enforce adoption of a better harvesting
schedule, but at least the “owners” should be made aware of the option.
The problem with fish is repeated destructive use of electric shocks and poisons,
which can eliminate entire local fish populations. Since absolute cessation of these
methods will be impossible, it may be more realistic to seek local agreement for
designation of “no fishing” zones in certain stretches of river. The onus will be on
local residents to decide and implement sanctions on offenders.
No special measures are needed for better management of the main wild meats
(pigs and deer). None of these species is threatened with extinction. PT AYI staff
should not be involved in hunting, as this contravenes the conditions of the S.K. for
operating in upper Tabalong. Maintaining the extent and quality of forest in upper
Tabalong represents the best conservation measure for wild meat animals. Of
special importance is to maintain forest on fertile moist lowlands, areas which tend
to produce the best and most constant food supply for herbivores.
Harvesting of song birds and pangolin should be discouraged, but no specific
interventions are proposed, as these species are not especially threatened (except
the straw-headed bulbul) and harvesting bans cannot be enforced.

18
4.4 NTFPs and forest regeneration
4.4.1 The issue
As noted by Peters (1996), excessive harvesting of some NTFP types (such as
removal of species that are pollinators or seed-dispersers) can contribute to
ecosystem degradation.
None of the NTFPs harvested in upper Tabalong represent “keystone” species that
play a very major role ecosystem functioning. The most significant is probably
honey bees, which act as pollinators.
4.5 Bioprospecting and tourism
4.5.1 The issue
Biodiversity prospecting (= Bioprospecting) means working in natural ecosystems
to identify living organisms, usually plants, with medicinal or therapeutic
properties, and isolating the chemicals responsible for those properties. Neither
bioprospecting nor tourism represent an NTFP in the traditional sense of the term,
but both have been noted as worthy of further investigation (MacLachlan, 2001b).
Both need to be approached with caution. Difficult issues relating to laws and
government policy, and to the need for fair and equitable agreements with local
communities, need to be resolved in the case of bioprospecting.
The Ayu and Missim river areas are amongst the most attractive natural areas in
South Kalimantan, and there is evidence of local government support for
“ecotourism”, but the readiness of local society for tourists is uncertain and the risk
of unfulfilled expectations high.

19
5 Recommendations
In view of (a) the entrenched open access nature of NTFPs in upper Tabalong, (b) uncertainty over long-term
rights that might be granted in the future to particular areas or communities, (c) importance to poor families of
flexible temporal and spatial access to NTFPs, and (d) prevailing absence of law-enforcement capacity in
relation to management natural resources, it is considered neither practical nor useful to introduce any new or
formal systems of NTFP management either in upper Tabalong or the PT AYI area as a whole.
Instead :
- cultivation of selected forest plant species should be promoted in tandem with moves to improve long-
term road access and granting of secure land tenure; also, introduction of apiculture would help reduce
pressure on wild bee populations and provide income using a product already familiar to local residents;
- relevant communities and families should be asked if they favour identification and formal granting of
rights to areas rich in bee trees, and follow up action taken if there is sufficient genuine support;
- if a viable cooperative or cooperative-like group can be established and sustained in upper Tabalong,
assistance should be provided to stimulate possible interest in the damar – minyak keruing model (if
not, this model may be suitable for a different area such as Meratus mountain communities);
- the current open access system for NTFPs is best maintained for most forest in upper Tabalong as long
as illegal logging and ladang making remain uncontrolled; and
- if PT AYI aims to obtain certification of SFM, then rattan and damar, as the major widespread NTFPs,
should be inventoried in proposed felling blocks.

20
Table 2. Proposed best means to ensure future supplies of main NTFPs in upper Tabalong, arranged by
NTFP type
Common
name
Best means to ensure future supplies Responsibility
What How
Provide land security to local residents Kabupaten
government
Gaharu
Promote cultivation on
own or communal land
Help to source seedlings Dinas Kehutanan
Educate on need for defined harvesting times BKSDAEdible birds’
nests
Harvest twice annually
in defined seasons Provide formal ownership of harvesting rights
to traditional families
Kabupaten
government
government
Rattan
own or communal land
Help to source seedlings Dinas Kehutanan
Stop illegal logging Dinas Kehutanan and
Police
Retain and protect large
and damaged Shorea
trees in remaining
natural forests
PT AYI to retain such trees in all felling
blocks
PT AYI and Dinas
Kehutanan
Formation and maintenance of local
cooperative-type trading groups
SCKPFP
Damar
Allocate rights to the
retained trees to local
trading groups Local cooperative-type trading groups to be
allocated sole harvesting rights to specific
forest areas
Kabupaten
government with
Dinas Kehutanan
Honey
(option 1)
Promote domestication
of honey production
SCKPFP
Honey
(option 2)
Ensure protection of all
known bees nest trees
Formally allocate rights to nest trees and
adjacent forest areas to traditional harvesters
in Dambong Raya & Salikong
Kabupaten
government with
Dinas Kehutanan
Song birds Not to be encouraged No action proposed
Pangolin
scales
Not to be encouraged No action proposed
government
Wild fruits Promote cultivation on
own land
Build and maintain more public roads outside
permanent forest land
Kabupaten
government
government
“Cardamom” Promote cultivation on
own land
Kabupaten
government

21
Common
name
Best means to ensure future supplies Responsibility
What How
government
Medicinal
plants
own land
Kabupaten
government
Fish No-fishing zones Discuss idea with Salikong, Panaan and
Dambung Raya communities (follow-up will
depend on response)
SCKPFP with
Kabupaten
government
Wild meats No action proposed
Stop illegal logging Dinas Kehutanan and
Police
Retain and protect
selected Dipterocarpus
trees in remaining
natural forests
PT AYI to retain such trees in selected areas PT AYI and Dinas
Kehutanan
SCKPFP
Keruing oil
Allocate rights to the
retained trees to local
trading groups Local cooperative-type trading groups to be
allocated sole harvesting rights to specific
forest areas
Kabupaten
government with
Dinas Kehutanan
Tengkawang Retain tengkawang
trees in all felling
blocks
Implementation of forestry regulations PT AYI

22
Table 3. Proposed best means to ensure future supplies of main NTFPs in upper Tabalong, arranged by
interventions
INTERVENTION
(WHAT)
R APPLIES
MAINLY TO
(WHICH)
PURPOSE
(WHY)
AGENCIES
RESPONSIBLE
(WHO)
IMPLEMENTATION
(HOW)
Obtain data on
NTFP availability
1 Rattan, damar Forest
monitoring,
achieve
certification
PT AYI Incorporate NTFP data
collecting into normal
inventory of proposed
felling blocks
Promote further
scientific
investigation of
NTFPs
Any Obtain
information
for better
use and
management
Universities and
other research
institutions
Local government / P T
AYI invite institutions
“Pilot cooperative”
includes NTFPs in
planned activities
2 Damar, illipe
nuts, keruing
oil,
bioprospecting
Provide
income-
generating
activity
which
supports
forest
conservation
Local
government
(Cooperatives
Department),
village leaders,
SCKPFP
Foster development of
cooperative from
interested individuals
Establish
“community
forests” (if “pilot
cooperative”
operates with
NTFPs)
Rattan, damar,
honey, fruit
trees, keruing
oil, illipe nuts
Promote
improved
protection
and
management
of forest and
utilisation of
deforested
land near
villages
Local
government,
Dambung Raya
& Salikung
communities
Dialogue and joint field
surveys; agreement on
management plan &
responsibilities;
approval from Bupati,
based on existing laws
and regulations;
boundary demarcation
Reduce damage
caused by logging
1 Rattan, damar,
forest fruits,
fish, wild
meats, keruing
oil, illipe nuts,
bioprospecting
Maintains
potential for
productivity
of these
NTFPs
AYI Planning and
implementation of
planned roads and skid
paths; improved felling
and skidding
Minimise
unlicensed logging
Rattan, damar,
forest fruits,
fish, wild
meats, keruing
oil, illipe nuts,
bioprospecting
Maintain
forest
structure and
allow forest
regeneration
Forestry
Department,
Police
Law enforcement

23
INTERVENTION
(WHAT)
R APPLIES
MAINLY TO
(WHICH)
PURPOSE
(WHY)
AGENCIES
RESPONSIBLE
(WHO)
IMPLEMENTATION
(HOW)
Prevent forest
clearance for
illegal cultivation
Damar,
keruing oil,
illipe nuts,
bioprospecting
Maintain
forest
structure and
allow forest
regeneration,
especially in
the most
accessible
areas
Forestry
Department,
Police,
community
leaders
Offer secure land
tenure and build roads
in deforested land
outside designated
production forest areas
Offer secure tenure
of permanent
settled land
Gaharu,
medicinal
plants,
kapulaga, fruit
trees
Enhance
profitability;
relieve
pressure on
threatened
species
Local
government
Identify qualified
villages; dialogues and
joint field surveys;
boundary demarcation;
issuance of valid
“certificates”
Formalise
protection of honey
bee nest trees (if
desired by local
residents)
1 Honey bee
nest trees
Preserve
large old
trees & help
maintain
local
tradition
Local
government with
Dambung Raya
& Salikung
communities
Define tree species and
areas to be protected
and families with
traditional harvesting
rights; issue local
government
regulations, including
penalties for felling
Refer to report number : 1 (Alfan & Payne, 2001), 2 (MacLachlan, 2001b)

24
6 References
Appanah, S. & Turnbull, J M (Eds) 1998 A Review of Dipterocarps. Taxonomy, ecology
and silviculture. CIFOR, Bogor.
Alfan S. & Payne, J 2001 The Availability of Rattan, Damar, Medicinal Plants and Wild
Honey in the PT AYI Concession Area. SCKPFP Environmental
Working Paper No. 12.
Basir, A 2000 Fourth Field Report on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPS) in PT Aya
Yayang Indonesia. SCKPFP internal report.
Basir, A 2001a Rattan Production in Central Kalimantan. SCKPFP Consultant Report.
Basir, A 2001b Rattan Cultivation in Tumbang Hiran and Tumbang Manggo villages in
Central Kalimantan. SCKPFP Consultant Report.
Barden, A, Noorainie A A, Mulliken, T & Song M (undated) Heart of the matter :
Agarwood use and trade and CITES implementation for Aquilaria
malaccensis. (Obtained via World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
U.K., website)
Hildebrand, F H 1949 Daftar Nam Pohon-pohonan Banjarmasin - Hulu Sungai
(Kalimantan Tenggara). Unpublished report, Balai Penyelidikan
Kehutanan, Bogor.
Lyssens, P 2001 The Cooperative Development in the PT Aya Yayang Indonesia Area.
SCKPFP Socio-agriculture Consultancy Paper No. 3
MacLachlan, A S 2001a Marketing Potential for Local Produce. SCKPFP Socio-
agriculture Consultancy Paper No. 4
MacLachlan, A S 2001b The Feasibility of a Non-Timber Forest Product-Based Enterprise
and its Role in Improving Livelihoods of Forest Communities.
SCKPFP Industry and Economics Working Paper No. 3.
Mogea, J & Alfan S 2001 Rattan Diversity of the Upper Tabalong area. SCKPFP
Environmental Working Paper No. 14.
Neumann, R P & Hirsch, E 2000 Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products :
Review and Analysis of Research. CIFOR, Bogor.
Payne, J & Courboules, J 1999 Report on a visit to Tutui-Sinangoh River, Aya-Yayang
Concession, 10-16 May 1999. Internal SCKPFP field report.
Peters, C M 1996 Observations on the Sustainable Explotation of Non-timber Tropical
Forest Products. An Ecologist’s Perspective. In : Current Issues in
Non-timber Forest Products Research, Eds. M R Perez and J E M
Arnold. CIFOR, Bogor.

25
Pérez M R & Arnold, J E M (Eds.) 1996 Current Issues in Non-timber Forest Products
Research. CIFOR, Bogor.
Robinson J G, Redford KH & Bennett E. L. 1999 Wildlife harvest in logged tropical
forests: An unrecognised by-catch. Unpublished draft paper. (9 pp)
Skarner, G 2001 Application of a Non-timber Forest Product Evaluation Model at P.T.
Aya Yayang Indonesia. SCKPFP Forest Industry and Economics
Working Paper No. 14.
Soerianegara, I & Lemmens, R 1994 Plants resources of South-east Asia. N0. 5(1).
Timber trees: major commercial timbers. Prosea Foundation, Bogor.
Wells, M, Guggenheim, S, Khan, A, Wahjudi W & Jepson, P 1998 Investing in
Biodiversity : a Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and
Development Projects. The World Bank, East Asia Region.
Werner, S 2001 Potential for Agroforestry Development. SCKPFP Socio-Agiculture
Consultancy report No. 6.
Wilkie, D, Clark, L & Godoy, R 2001 NTFPs – Economic and conservation potential in
Central Africa. European Tropical Forest Research Network News 32.
Wollenberg, E & Belcher, B 2001 NTFPs – Income for rural populations or not? European
Tropical Forest Research Network News 32.
Wunder, S (undated) Poverty alleviation and tropical forests – what scope for synergies?
CIFOR, Bogor (unpublished paper).

REP093 Non timber forest products and SFM Tabalong (2), J Pa

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to REP093 Non timber forest products and SFM Tabalong (2), J Pa

Similar to REP093 Non timber forest products and SFM Tabalong (2), J Pa (20)

More from Junaidi Payne

More from Junaidi Payne (10)

REP093 Non timber forest products and SFM Tabalong (2), J Pa