CHINESE JOURNAL OF

POPULATION RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT

Volume 15 Issue 3 September 2015 ISSN 1004-2857

Supported by Chinese Society for

Sustainable Development

Research Center for Sustainable

Development of Shandong

Shandong Normal University

Administrative Center for China's

Agenda 21

Chief Editor

Yanhua LIU , Counsellor’s Office of the State Council, China

Associate Chief Editor

Yanxiu ZHAO , Shandong Normal University

Editors

Wujun WEN, Shandong Normal University

Xiaowen LIU, Shandong Normal University

Ying ZHANG, Shandong Normal University

Editorial Director

Bo TANG , Shandong Normal University

Executive Directors

Shanlun ZHAO, Shandong Normal University

Qi LI , Shandong Normal University

Chairman

Honglie SUN, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Vice Chairman

Yanhua LIU, Counsellors’ Office of the State Council, China

Yanxiu ZHAO, Shandong Normal University, China

Editorial Board

Bin CHEN, Beijing Normal University, China

Jining CHEN, Tsinghua University, China

Kun CHEN, Chinese Society for Sustainable Development, China

Tae-Soo CHON, Pusan National University, Korea

Marianne CLARHOLM, SLU, Sweden

Ning DUAN, Peking University, China

Brian D. FATH, Towson University, USA

Risheng GUO, The Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21, China

Jing HUANG, China National Center for Biotechnology Development, China

Sven E. JØGENSEN, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Dan JOHNSON, University of Lethbridge, Canada

Elisabeth KESSLER, AMBIO, Sweden

Kin Che LAM, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Guy R. LAROCQUE, Natural Resources Canada, Canada

William J. MANNING, University of Massachusetts, USA

Peter H. MAY, ISEE, Brazil

Mohan MUNASINGHE, Munasinghe Institute for Development, Sri Lanka

Jiahua PAN, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China

Young-Seuk PARK, Kyunghee University, Korea

Sizhen PENG, The Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21, China

Karen R. POLENSKE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Ye QI, Tsinghua University, China

Santanu RAY, Visva-Bharati, India

Friedrich RECKNAGEL, University of Adelaide, Australia

Takamitsu SAWA, Kyoto University, Japan

Friedrich SCHMIDT-BLEEK, Factor 10 Institute, France

Walter R. STAHEL, Product-Life Institute, Switzerland

Bo TANG, Shandong Normal University, China

Hailin ZHOU, The Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21, China

Volume 15 Issue 3 September 2015 ISSN 1004-2857

CONTENTS

Double dividend of carbon intensity: environmental-quality improvement and sustainable economic growth Qingquan Fan, Xianhua Zhou & Jingran Liu pages 187-197 A comparative study of countries’ responsibilities for carbon dioxide emission in an open economy Ying Zhi Xu & Jin Guo pages 198-205 Distributional dynamic and trend evolution of China’s agricultural carbon emissions – an analysis on panel data of 31 provinces from 2002 to 2011 Yun Tian, Junbiao Zhang & Qiqi Chen pages 206-214 Linking China’s emissions trading pilot schemes Tao Pang, Li Zhou & Maosheng Duan pages 215-222 Estimation of emission reduction potential in China’s industrial sector Chaoxian Guo pages 223-230 Effect of working time on environmental pressures: empirical evidence from EU-15, 1970–2010 Qinglong Shao pages 231-239 Empirical research on construction of a measurement framework for tourism carbon emission in China Yongde Zhong, Shengyi Shi, Shihong Li, Fen Luo, Weiliang Luo & Qiong Xiao pages 240-249 Sustainable graywater reuse for residential landscape irrigation – a critical review U. Pinto & B.L. Maheshwari pages 250-264 A pattern for partnership between LMDH and Perhutani to enhance local community prosperity and preserve the forest: a case study at RPH Besowo, Kediri Regency, Indonesia Rustinsyah pages 265-271 Thailand’s economic growth and structural development projections in the context of environmental control Sompote Kunnoot pages 272-280

A pattern for partnership between LMDH and Perhutani to enhance local community prosperityand preserve the forest: a case study at RPH Besowo, Kediri Regency, Indonesia

Rustinsyah*

Anthropology Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia

(Received 13 December 2014; accepted 27 May 2015)

The deforestation in Indonesia is already alarming. One of the strategies used by the government to overcome forestdeforestation is social forestry. This program is called PHBM (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat/Joint ForestManagement) which is basically a partnership program. This study aims at describing the partnership program between alocal organization (i.e. LMDH) and a government unit (i.e. RPH of Perhutani) within the PHBM program. The objectivesof this study are to (a) describe the model of partnerships between LMDH and RPH Besowo for sustainable forestmanagement and local community empowerment; (b) determine the contribution of the forest to the national economyand rural household income; and (c) determine the obstacles commonly found in Besowo forest that have to be faced duringthe implementation of the partnerships. The study shows that with good partnership between these two units, the prosperityof the local community can be enhanced and the forest preservation can be maintained. The model of the partnerships in thisparticular area in Indonesia is expected to be applicable as well in other rural areas in Indonesia, as well as in otherdeveloping countries.

Keywords: developing countries; forest sustainable management; local community; local community empowerment;partnership; social forestry

1. Introduction

The destruction of forests in Indonesia is already alarming.The WWF on 28 April released its 2015 Living ForestsReport, projecting that between 2010 and 2030 around 35million hectares of forests in Kalimantan, Sumatra, andPapua would gradually disappear (The Jakarta Post 2015).In Java, the island with the highest population density inIndonesia, the forests are already scarce since severaldecades ago. However, the efforts to protect the forestsstill need to be carried out, so that the severity of thecondition of the forest will not continue.

The destruction of forests in many areas in Indonesiacan be due to various causes. The issue of forest encroach-ment is one of the serious problems that have causeddamage to forests. To overcome the problem of forestencroachment, Perhutani (a state-owned corporation thatis in charge of planning, managing, and preserving theforests in Indonesia) has started a social forestry programsince 1970, followed by a program called PMDH(Pembangunan Masyarakat Desa Hutan/Forest VillageCommunity Development) in 1980. Both programs hadthe same focus, which was to increase the number ofincome-generating activities in private lands and villagelands (Lindayati 2000). The programs provided training tofarmers and villagers on beekeeping, animal husbandry,new farming methods, etc.

When the economic crisis occurred in 1998, therewere many illegal loggings that occurred in large scalein various places. According to Sunderlin (2002), thatillegal logging in 1998 occurred due to the economiccrisis, increased poverty, and declined public order andlaw enforcement. It had been in the spotlight of variousstakeholders, including local communities, universities,and non-governmental organization, to accelerate theimplementation of social forestry program properly assoon as possible. After the end of the New Order, i.e. in1999, the Ministry of Forestry indicated its enthusiasm formaking new legislations for community-based forest man-agement. According to Safitri (2010, p. 52), since 1999,Indonesian forestry legislation has introduced nine modelsof community-based forest management: (i) CustomaryForest (Hutan Adat), (ii) Forest Area with SpecialPurpose (Kawasan Hutan dengan Tujuan Khusus/KHDTK), (iii) Village Forest (Hutan Desa), (iv) SocialForest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan), (v) Social Forestry(Perhutanan Sosial), (vi) People’s Plantation Forest(Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR), (vii) Company-commu-nity partnership in forest management (HutanKemitraan), (viii) Collaboration in ManagingConservation Forest (Kolaborasi Pengelolaan KawasanKonservasi), and (ix) People’s Right Forest (Hutan HakRakyat/Hutan Rakyat).

*Email: rustinsyah58@yahoo.com

Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 2015Vol. 13, No. 3, 265–271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2015.1059595

© 2015 Shandong Normal University

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015

A partnership program between local communities andPerhutani is intended to provide benefits or advantages toboth sides. In this case, in the forest management, thecountry as the owner must share some property rights tothe local communities. For example, Djamhuri (2012)mentioned in his study that there is a provision of incen-tive to the local community in the form of timber sharing.This is in line with the opinion of Gibson and Becker(2000), who argued that there are three basic conditionsrequired for successful local-level forest management: (a)locals must value the resource; (b) they must possess someproperty rights to the resources; (c) they must constructlocal-level institutions that control the use of theresources.

The partnership program introduced by Perhutani iscalled PHBM (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat/Joint Forest Management). Within this program, a partner-ship is formed between a government unit called RPH(Resort Pemangku Hutan/Resort Forest Management)and a local community unit called LMDH (LembagaMasyarakat Desa Hutan/Forest Village CommunityInstitution). The LMDH is expected to assist RPH inorganizing the collective action of the local communityto protect and conserve the forest resources. This form ofpartnership has been established in many rural areas inIndonesia, including in Java. However, most of them havenot been successful in achieving its goals. Peluso (1992)stated that the partnership program introduced by thegovernment has not been successful because the programand the forest resources have not been able to change thelives of local communities (i.e. toward prosperity). Theprogram seemed to have failed to overcome poverty in thevillages, and only brought profits to rural elites and land-owners. This case is similar to the one found byCavendish (2000), in Zimbabwe, where wealthy house-holds have been consuming forest products greater that thepoorer households. Nevertheless, in the research con-ducted by Kalaba, Claire, and Andrew (2013), forest pro-duce actually provides greater contribution to the incomeof poor households compared to the rich households in thevillages in the miombo woodlands of Zambia. Ideally,both the poor and the rich households should be able toenjoy the forest produce equally.

A national development program should be initiated inorder to maintain forest sustainability and enhance eco-nomic development (Paumgarten & Shackleton 2011). Forthis purpose, the Indonesian government tries to maintainthe forest sustainability with social forestry by buildingpartnerships with the local communities. Although most ofthe partnership programs in many rural areas have notbeen quite successful, there are a few cases where thepartnerships have actually shown some level of success.An example of a partnership that has been quite successfulin enhancing local community prosperity and preservingthe forest within the PHBM program is the one between

RPH Besowo and the local community in Besowo village,Kediri Regency, East Java province. This paper describesthe partnerships between RPH Besowo and the local com-munity, identifies the problems faced in the partnerships,and proposes some solutions for better partnershipbetween the government and the local community.

2. Research method

2.1. The RPH Besowo and its work area

The study was conducted in Besowo forest area, KediriRegency, East Java province. The RPH (Resort PemangkuHutan/Resort Forest Management) of Besowo manages aprotected forest, a production forest, and a conservationforest. Besowo’s protected forest has various tall treessuch as Beringin tree (Ficus benyamina), Kedawung(Parkia roxburghii G. Don), Kemiri (Aleuritas moluc-cana), Salam (Syzgium polyanthum), Bendo (Artocarpuselasticus), Aspen( Salicaceae), Pucung (Pangium edule),and Mahoni (Swietenia). In addition, there are also bananatrees, vegetables (pakis plant/Cycas rumphii, eggplant/Solamun melongenia, etc.), and other wild shrubs usedfor animal food. According to the data from LMDH in2012/2013, the area of Besowo protected forest reaches22,300 hectares. Next, the production forest in Besoworeaches approximately 740 hectares. This production for-est functions to produce forest products in order to fulfillthe needs of the community, government, industries, andexports. The production forest area is grown with pine(Pinaceace), Sengon (Albizia chinensis), Mindi(Meliaeae), jati putih (Gemlina), Jabon (Neolamarckia),etc. Finally, the conservation forest in Besowo coversapproximately 17 hectares. It is planted with bambootrees, sengon buto (Enterolobium cycocarpum), bendo(Artocarpus elasticus), salam (Syzgium polyanthum),aspen (Salicaceae), kedawung (Parkia roxburghii G.Don), etc. Most of these trees are very old, aging severaldecades, and are forbidden to be cut down.

As mentioned earlier, an RPH is a government unit.Therefore, it has an organization structure. In Besowo, thehead of RPH Besowo is called Mantri Kehutanan (ForestOfficer), and he is assisted by several Mandor (ForestSupervisors) and Polisi Hutan (Forest Police). There arethree forest supervisors; they are called Mandor Tanam(Forest Supervisor for Planting), Mandor Sadap (ForestSupervisor for Tapping), and Mandor Tebang (ForestSupervisor for Cutting). Mandor Tanam has the tasks ofdirecting and supervising the process and system of plant-ing and its maintenance. Mandor Sadap is the one whooversees, regulates, and manages the tapping of pine trees(Pinaceace). Mandor Tebang supervises the process ofcutting down the tress and transports the wood to theplace of wood hoarding. The timber logging activitiesare carried out only during the dry season. The logging

266 Rustinsyah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015

is done based on the warrant from Perhutani. Since thework of Mandor Tebang is only conducted occasionally,as the logging is strictly regulated, Mandor Tebang is alsoasked to assist the Forest Police to maintain the security ofthe forest area.

2.2. Sidodadi hamlet – the residential area in Besowoforest area

There is a residential area within Besowo forest, whichis called Sidodadi hamlet. The local residents are usuallycalled magarsaren in the local language, which is thentranslated into masyarakat desa hutan (forest villagecommunity) in Indonesian language. The residents inthis area may stay in Besowo forest area without beingtaxed by the government. The Besowo forest area whichis occupied by Sidodadi hamlet’s residents reachesapproximately 22 hectares, consisting of 300 families,with a total population is 980 people. According to headof Sidodadi hamlet, the existence of Sidodadi residentsin the forest area began in 1940. At that time, they weregiven the right to use Perhutani land (i.e. Besowo forestarea), and to set up residence. Each head of householdwas given a piece of land of 25 × 25 square meters. Asthe population increases, the children inheriting the landstart to build various types of houses to live in. The landis forbidden to be sold, but it can be lent to others to bemanaged or used, with an agreed amount ofcompensation.

As mentioned earlier, the residents of Sidodadi ham-let can build houses in the Perhutani land and they donot need to pay taxes. This has increased the value ofthe houses in this area. There are various types ofhouses in Sidodadi hamlet. There are simple houseswith sand floors and wood walls, but there are alsosome permanent houses with modern brick buildings.This shows the various types the socioeconomic condi-tions of Sidodadi hamlet residents. The electricity ser-vices have entered this area, so the residents can ownrefrigerators, televisions, etc. The main roads in this areaare hilly, but they can still be accessed by four-wheelvehicles. Almost all families in Sidodadi hamlet havemotorcycles. Motorcycles have been the primary trans-portation to run the economic activities and other activ-ities in this area. The people use motorcycles to taketheir children to schools, to go to the rice fields, to go tothe forests, etc.

The economic activities in Sidodadi hamlet are quitedynamic. In the rainy season, they work in the farms withagroforestry system. In the dry season, they work aslaborers of Perhutani to cut down trees, tap pine trees,seek honey, collect firewood, etc. There are also markets,shops, and food stalls in the area. Some of the sellers arefrom Sidodai hamlet, but some others are from the neigh-boring villages.

2.3. LMDH (forest village community institution) ofSidodadi hamlet

The LMDH (Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan/ForestVillage Community Institution) in Sidodadi hamlet wasformed on 2 July 2009. This LMDH is called LMDHWono Asri (literally translates as a “beautiful forest”).The LMDH consists of a chairman, a vice chairman, asecretary, a treasurer, and several section coordinators. Tocarry out their activities, LMDH has four sections. Thefirst section is called Seksi Keamanan (security section)which has to maintain forest security and protect forestfrom theft and fire in the area of production forest and alsothe area of protected forest. Every member of LMDH hasan obligation to patrol the forest area about once a week,in order to maintain forest security. Their work schedule iscoordinated by LMDH, particularly the person in chargeof the Security Section.

The second section, called Seksi Tanam (plantingsection), is responsible to prepare and plant perennialtrees in each area of the farmers. The farmers also havean obligation to plant food crops or trees that have beenprovided by Perhutani. This section is supervised byMandor Tanam (Forest Supervisor for Planting). Thethird section is called Seksi Pemeliharaan Tanaman(plant maintenance section) that is responsible to main-tain the crops and trees that belong to Perhutani, and tomake sure that they will grow well. If there is anydamaged crop or dead plant, this section will replace itwith a new one. The fourth section is called Seksi Sosial(social section), that is responsible to conduct socialactivities and help the members who are in trouble.This section also makes a mutual cooperation to buildnew roads and work place for the whole communitymembers. The Social Section may raise funds, for exam-ple, from the sale of rencek (twigs or branches that arenot used by Perhutani) and from some pieces of theharvested timber from Perhutani.

2.4. Techniques of data collection and data analysis

This study was conducted from May 2013 until July 2014.The data collection in the field was done by observationand interview. The observation was made to see directlythe condition of the forest within the RPH Besowo, theeconomic and social activities conducted by the villagers,and the partnership pattern between the community asmembers of LMDH and the government unit, i.e. RPHBesowo of Perhutani. The in-depth interview was done tothe selected informants, i.e. members of LMDH, adminis-trators of LMDH, staff of RPH Besowo, the village head,etc. After the data have been collected, the data were thencategorized into the themes based on the research pur-poses. Finally, the analysis was completed with the inter-pretation of the data.

Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015

3. The partnership between RPH Besowo (Perhutani)and LMDH (the local community)

To conserve and protect Besowo forest area, RPH Besowo(the unit of Perhutani) establishes a partnership with thelocal community. The local community is organized intoan institution called LMDH. RPH Besowo and LMDHhave a mutual agreement on the obligations of each ofthem. In general, RPH Besowo has the obligation to directand guide the LMDH members in working within theforest area by providing the training on agroforestry farm-ing system. RPH Besowo also provides incentives andwages for the LMDH members who work in the forestarea. LMDH provides laborer for crop planting, logging,forest conservation, security, etc., according to the direc-tion from RPH Besowo. The forms of the partnershipbetween RPH Besowo and LMDH can be classified intofour main groups: the partnership for community services,the partnership for forest security, the partnership for log-ging, and the partnership for agroforestry farming system.

3.1. The partnership for community services

Within the partnership for community services, LMDHand RPH work together for the benefit of the public. Thepeople working on the activities of the community ser-vices are not paid. They work voluntarily as they realizethat the work is for the common good of all people in thearea, including themselves and their family members. Thecommunity services are usually coordinated and instructedby chairman of LMDH.

An example of a community service was the work torepair the roads to the forest. The roads needed to berepaired, so that they could be easily passed through byfour-wheel vehicles during the harvest season. This com-munity service was done before the harvest season. Inrepairing the roads, the chairman of LMDH have a meet-ing with the members to agree the work schedule. LMDHmembers agreed to work twice a week, from 6 in themorning to 12 noon. They worked regularly onThursdays and Sundays from May to June 2014. Therewere about 50 people working on each Thursday, and thenumber increased to more than 70 people working on eachSunday. Those who came to the community service torepair the roads brought their own tools, such as hoes,sickles, and others. The local people agreed to workvoluntarily to repair the roads as they realize that theywould get the benefit later, i.e. the ease to transport theirharvest during the harvest season.

Another example of a community service activity isthe cleaning of the ashes around Ongaan (an area on thetop of a hill where we can see an abyss) after the eruptionof Mount Kelud in February 2014. The eruption seems tohave changed the structure of the land. A beautiful hill,called Ongaan (literally means “opening”), was discovered

by the local people. From this place, we can see an abyssand the beautiful scenery of the erupted Mount Kelud.However, it was difficult to reach Ongaan due to thethick ashes covering the footpath. Realizing the potentialof the area, the members of LMDH worked voluntarily toclean the ashes. After the footpath has been cleaned, thelocal people started opening food stalls around Ongaanarea as local tourists have started coming to this area tosee the beautiful scenery. The chairman of LMDH has alsosubmitted a proposal to the provincial government toestablish Ongaan as a tourism village or a touristdestination.

3.2. The partnership for forest security

The members of LMDH live in Sidodadi hamlet, which iswithin the Besowo forest area. To ensure their safety, theyrealize that they need to maintain the forest security. Theyneed to protect and prevent damage to the forest from thereckless human behavior (such as fire, timber theft, etc.).The forest has to be guarded 24 hours a day throughoutthe year, so every household in Sidodadi hamlet alsoworks as a security guard. The work schedule of thesecurity guards is regulated by LMDH. The 300 house-holds in Sidodadi hamlet are divided into 60 groups. Thismeans there are five people in each group. In patrolling theforest, the area is divided into five parts; these are the westpart, east part, north part, south part, and central part of theforest. Each of the part is guarded by one group.Therefore, there are always five groups or 25 peoplewho keep an eye on the forest area at all times. Thework schedule of the security guards is displayed on theannouncement board at the RPH office, so that everyonecan see when they have to patrol the area.

At the time of logging, the security of the forest isincreased in order to prevent timber theft. The admin-istrators of LMDH totaling 28 people help to maintainthe forest security. These 28 people are divided intoseven groups, so there are four people in each group,and each group works once a week to help maintainingthe forest security. They receive some income from thesales of rencek (twigs or branches, left over from thelogging, as these are not used by RPH/Perhutani).RPH staff also patrol the area, especially in the earlymorning, because the cases of timber theft often occursat dawn.

The condition of the plants and trees in the forestarea is also maintained by the local community and thegovernment unit. Mantri Kehutanan (Forest Officer) andMandor Tanam (Forest Supervisor for Planting) of RPHare the people in charge of the safety of the plants andtrees. In particular, they make sure that perennial plantsor trees that are less than 4 years old are protected fromdamage or fire. The members of LMDH are asked toreport immediately to RPH if there is any damaged plant

268 Rustinsyah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015

or dead tree in their work area. The case of fire mayhappen in the adjacent area which can reach the forest aswell, especially during the dry season. Sometimes, thefire was only due to reckless human behavior, e.g. throw-ing cigarette butts and not putting out the fire out com-pletely from the torch which is used to seek honey. Smallfires can occur during a dry season, but it can be solvedquickly because of the 24 hours of guard from theLMDH members and RPH staff.

3.3. The partnership for logging

The partnership for logging includes the work before thetrees are cut down. Before the trees are cut down, there isa job called klem, which is the numbering or labeling aspecial code to each tree which will be cut down. Thecode consists of the serial number of the tree, the tree’scircumference, and the type of the wood. The code isembedded in each tree to control the number of treesthat will be cut down. For doing this work, RPH makesa partnership with LMDH, in which the members ofLMDH are employed by RPH to do the work. The workis performed in groups. Each group consists of five peoplewith the task of recording, measuring, labeling, and super-vising the trees. Each group is assigned to work on a plotthat consists of approximately 600 trees.

When the logging begins, usually in the dry season,the LMDH members are hired again by RPH as workersof tebang-angkut (literally means cut-lift). These workersare paid quite well, i.e. each person gets approximatelyRp75,000 (USD6) per day (which is about twice of thedaily minimum wage in this province). However, they alsowork long hours, from 6 in the morning until 6 in theevening, depending on the volume of the work and theweather. In addition to the wage, the workers may also getadditional income from selling rencek (twigs or branches,left over from the logging).

After the logging, there is another job called lacak-bala, which means recording and labeling wood with aspecific code. After the trees are cut down, the bonggol(the hump or the knot left after the trees are cut, needs tobe given some codes. The code is the same as the codegiven to the tree. Lacak-bala will help the RPH to trackthe trees that have been cut down, in order to make surethat the trees that are cut down are those that have alreadybeen labeled.

3.4. The partnership for agroforestry farming system

According to von Maydell (1978), agroforestry is aland-use system in which the same land is plantedwith both forest trees and agricultural crops. Sidodadivillagers who are members of LMDH are agroforestryfarmers. The distribution of a bare land resulted afterthe logging is regulated through the LMDH membership

meeting. On average, each household who are membersof LMDH gets 0.1 hectare of land, while the adminis-trators of LMDH may get a wider land. For example, in2013, the area of production forest that was cut downreached 28 hectares. The area and the work involved260 households from the LMDH. The partnershipbetween RPH and LMDH resulted in an agreement inagroforestry farming system, in which the farmers maycultivate the area for 4 years.

In the first year, the farmers would grow horticulturesand food crops in that area. The horticultures that theyusually plant are beans, peppers, and tomatoes, whereasthe food crops are maize and taro. In the second year, RPHprovided approximately 60–70 seeds in each area of0.1 hectare. The farmers are obligated to plant the seedsunder the guidance of Mandor Tanam (Forest Supervisorfor Planting). RPH also provided the fertilizer to ensurethat the seeds grow well. The farmers still grow their ownhorticultures and food crops in that area until the fourthyear. However, in the fourth year, the trees have usuallygrown quite tall, and the leaves become shady, so thatfarmers cannot plant horticultures anymore. Therefore, inthe fourth year, the farmers usually only plant cassava,ginger, and other plants that do not need much sun light.After 4 years, if the farmers still do farm work in that area,they will be charged to share 20% of their profit to RPH.When the trees are already 8 years old, they are ready tobe cut down.

4. Contributions of Besowo forest to the nationaleconomy and local income

Besowo forest area has contributed to the national econ-omy and the income of the local people who are membersof LMDH. The contribution resulted from the logging andpine resin. The results of the logging in Besowo forest areshown in Table 1.

As we can see in Table 1, the amount of wood pro-duced in Besowo forest is quite big. This has certainly

Table 1. Data of the logging in Besowo Forest.

No YearType of treeharvested

Landarea (inhectare)

Amount ofwood harvested

(in cubicmeters)

Number ofworkersinvolved

1 2010 Mahoni, Salam 6.3 1800 182 2012 Sengon, Mindi 19.8 3200 183 2013 Sengon, Mindi,

Mahoni,Salam

28 6274 18

4 2014 Mindi 6.1 1200 18

Note: No logging in 2011.Source: LMDH of Sidodadi Village, 2014.

Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015

contributed to the national economy, because the wood isused by people in many areas in Indonesia as well as forexport. The local people receive some income from theforest by conducting various types of work. The types ofwork done by the local people are shown in Table 2. Thedata in Table 2 were collected by the author from theinterviews with the people in Besowo forest.

The amount of resin that can be tapped from pine treesare fluctuating, depending on the weather condition. Forexample, in 2012, the 53 hectares of pine trees in Besowoforest could produce pine tree resin of approximately50 tonnes. However, in 2013, only 48 tonnes of pinetree resin produced, because the long range of rainfallinhibited the production of pine tree resin. The resin isusually sold to a factory in Trenggalek (another city in theprovince) with price of Rp2800 per kilogram. Thus, thesales of pine tree resin in 2013 were estimated at approxi-mately Rp134,400,000. After the eruption of KeludMountain in 2014, Perhutani’s profit from pine tree resinsale decreased sharply because 30 hectares of pine treesdid not produce any resin. Only the remaining 23 hectaresof pine trees could produce resin. Thus, the profit frompine tree resin in 2014 was less than a half of the profit inthe previous year.

Every year, the RPH Besowo always shares some ofits profit from logging to the local officers and institutionsin the form of incentives. The incentives are usually givento the LMDH, the head of the hamlet, the head of thevillage, the head of the subdistrict, the village militarycommander, and the subdistrict military commander. Theamount of incentive depends on the result of logging. Forexample, according to the chairman of LMDH, in 2013,LMDH received an incentive of Rp40,000,000 from theRPH Besowo. That incentive is usually used for socialactivities, such as the feast gathering of the members,buying the materials for repairing the roads, etc.

As we can see in Table 2, the salary of a farmlaborer looks rather small, i.e. only Rp15,000. This isbecause they only need to work from 06:00 to 11:00.Farm laborers usually work in a production forest area

with agroforestry system, and may involve both menand women as laborers. The other types of work men-tioned in Table 2, i.e. honey seekers, vegetable seekers,fruit seekers, firewood seekers, and banana leaf seekers,are occasional work done by the local people. Theaverage income per day is based on the amount ofmoney they can get from selling the products theycollect. The highest one is for honey seekers, becausesearching for honey in the forest is more difficult ifcompared with the other products, and the value ofhoney is also quite high.

5. Obstacles commonly found in Besowo forest

There are several obstacles commonly found in Besowoforest and have to be faced by the RPH and LMDHduring the implementation of their partnerships. Themain obstacle is the reckless human behavior. One exam-ple of the reckless human behavior is the stealing ortaking of leaves, twigs, or branches of some trees forfodder. The RPH prohibits people to take the leaves,twigs, or branches of the trees that are not ready to becut down, because it makes the trees unable to growwell. Another example of a reckless human behaviorcan be related to the incidence of forest fire. The twomost common causes of forest fire are cigarette butts andtorch. Most of the workers usually smoke during theirlunch break. When their lunch break is over, some work-ers may forget to put off their cigarette butts completely.This can be dangerous, especially during the dry season,as it can cause forest fire.

The other common cause of a forest fire is the left overtorch of honey seekers. They use a torch to look for honeyand to protect them from bees. However, after obtainingthe honey and returning from the forest, they sometimesjust throw away the torch without putting it out comple-tely. Again, this can cause forest fire. Fortunately, sincethere are security guards around the forest all the time, thecases of fire can be solved very quickly.

Besides the reckless human behavior, another obsta-cle usually faced by the people is the presence of pests.There are three types of pests which are commonlyfound in the production forest area. The first is chara-faru pest. It attacks sengon trees on its leaves andbranches. The second is embug pest, which is a white-colored insect that destroys the roots of the trees. Thethird is boxfor pest that attacks the trunks of the treesand makes the trunk dry. If these dry trees are exposedto wind, the trees will easily fall. According to the RPHstaff, those three pests have caused large losses. Thosepests can damage up to 30% of the trees in Besowoforest. Some forestry experts from universities havestarted to conduct research to control the pests. Whenthis paper was written, the forestry experts have notfound the best solutions to solve this pest problem.

Table 2. The types of work done by the people in Besowoforest.

No Type of occupationAverage income perday (in Rupiah)

1 Pinus tree resin tappers Rp20,0002 Workers of tebang-angkut

(cut-lift/logging)Rp75,000

3 Farm laborers Rp15,0004 Honey seekers Rp150,0005 Vegetable seekers Rp75,0006 Fruit seekers Rp30,0007 Firewood seekers Rp50,0008 Banana leaf seekers Rp100,000

270 Rustinsyah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015

However, the RPH staff and LMDH members are hope-ful that the best solutions will be found soon, so thatthey can increase the production and profit fromBesowo forest.

The other obstacle faced by the people is a naturaldisaster that cannot be avoided. Besowo forest area islocated within Mount Kelud, an active volcano. Thismeans that the risk of an eruption is ever present. Aneruption of Mount Kelud happened in February 2014, andit made 30 hectares of pine tree forest went dry, so the resinof those pine trees could not be removed. In addition, othertrees, such as kemiri trees, pucung trees, etc., also went dry.The roads were also covered with ashes and made it diffi-cult to access the forest area. However, with a good partner-ship between RPH and LMDH, they voluntarily workedtogether to clean the ashes and repair the roads. The localpeople realized that they need a good access to the forest fortheir livelihoods. The government do not ask the people topay any taxes, so that the people really feel that the forest istheir home and will do their best to protect it.

6. Conclusion

The partnership between a government unit and a localcommunity institution should be established in order tomaintain the preserve forest and enhance local communityprosperity, in which both of them will contribute to thenational economy. As we have seen in the discussion inthe previous sections, the partnerships between a govern-ment unit, i.e. RPH, and a local community institution, i.e.LMDH, in Besowo village, Kediri regency, East Java pro-vince, has resulted in mutual benefits for both parties. Thereare four forms of partnerships identified from this research– these are the partnership for community services, thepartnership for forest security, the partnership for logging,and the partnership for agroforestry farming system. In thepartnerships for community services and forest security, thelocal people who are LMDH members are willing to workvoluntarily because they are not charged with any taxes forliving in the forest area. The government through the RPHbelieves that by not charging any taxes, the local peoplewill feel that they really belong to that area and will do theirbest to protect the area voluntarily. In the partnership forlogging and agroforestry farming system, the RPH needsthe workers who are local people, and the LMDH members(i.e. the local people) need the jobs to earn their livelihoods.Therefore, the agreement on the logging and agroforestryfarming system is made between RPH and LMDH for thebenefits of both parties.

The good partnerships between RPH and LMDH havealso been useful in facing the obstacles commonly found inBesowo forest. The obstacles can be classified into threetypes: reckless human behavior, pest attack, and naturaldisaster. The reckless human behavior, such as throwingcigarette butts and torch which have not been put out

completely, was handled by providing awareness to thepeople about the danger of the reckless human behavior totheir home and livelihoods. The pest attack is still beinghandled by asking for the help from forestry experts fromuniversities. The natural disaster is faced by workingtogether to alleviate the damage caused by the natural dis-aster. The lessons learned from the model of partnershipsbetween RPH and LMDH in Besowo forest are expected tobe useful to be considered and to be implemented in otherareas in Indonesia, and in other developing countries in theworld.

Disclosure statementIn accordance with Taylor & Francis policy and my ethical obliga-tion as a researcher, I am reporting that I received funding fromUniversitas Airlangga. I have disclosed those interests fully toTaylor & Francis, and I have in place an approved plan for mana-ging any potential conflicts arising from Universitas Airlangga.

ReferencesCavendish W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-envir-

onment relationship of rural households: evidence fromZimbabwe. World Dev. 28:1979–2003.

Djamhuri TL. 2012. The effect of incentive structure to commu-nity participation in a social forestry program on state forestland in Blora District, Indonesia. For Policy Econ. 25:10–18.

Gibson CC, Becker CD. 2000. A lack institutional demand: whya strong local community in Western Ecuador fails to protectits forest. In: Gibson CC, Mc Kean MA, Ostrom E, editors.People forests: communities, institutions, and governance.Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Jakarta Post. 2015 Apr 29. Deforestation continues for palmoil, says WWF. Available from: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/29/deforestation-continues-palm-oil-says-wwf.html

Kalaba FK, Quinn CH, Dougill AJ. 2013. Contribution of forestprovisioning ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in themiombo woodlands of Zambia. Popul Environ. 35:159–182.

Lindayati R. 2000. Community forestry policies in selectedSoutheast Asian countries. Working Papers 6, RuralPoverty and the Environment Working Papers Series.International Development Research, Ottawa.

Paumgarten F, Shackleton CM. 2011. The role of non-timberforest products in household coping strategies in SouthAfrica: the influence of household wealth and gender.Popul Environ. 33:108–131.

Peluso NL. 1992. Rich forest, poor people: resource control andresistance in java. Berkeley (CA): University of CaliforniaPress.

Safitri M 2010. Forest Tenure in Indonesia: the socio-legal chal-lenges of securing communities’ rights [dissertation].Leiden: Leiden University.

Sunderlin WD. 2002. Effects of crisis and political change,1997-1999. In Colfer CJP, Rerosudarmo IAP, editors.Which way forward? People, forests, and policymaking inIndonesia. Washington (DC): Resources for the Future,Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) andInstitute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS); p. 246–276.

Von Maydell, HJ. 1978. Tree and shrub species for agroforestrysystems in the Sahelian zone of Africa. Plant Res Dev. 7:44–59.

Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

210.

57.2

14.6

] at

20:

52 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2015