1

TIMBER PRODUCTION AND POVERTY:management strategy of smallholder timber farmers in

West Java, Indonesia

M. Siarudin

Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA)Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia

WORLD CONGRESS ON AGROFORESTRYDelhi, 2014

2

Smallholder Timber System (STS) in Java Island

paddy field

STS

fishpond

traditional agricultural land useIrrigated/wet landdry land

(see app. 1.a)

• Land size: small scale forest: < 5 ha/household Average = 0.3 ha (0.01 – 2 ha)

• Location: 0 - > 2 km• Management: family/individual based

BACKGROUND

• The largest STS in West Java Province, (124,430 ha; 50.9 % of total area of Ciamis Regency) [4;11]

• More timber is cut and sold in STS than the state forest[5]

(app. 1.b)

• Triggering local economic development-transaction value 17 million USD/year 800s small scale saw mill industries[5]; 911 small to medium scale of furniture and handicraft[10]

3

STS development in Ciamis Regency

STSState forest

4

PROBLEM

Problem statement

Many landowners/forest owners are typically rural poor households and do not get significant return from their forest assets

Preliminary observation: Despite high value of timber on the market, the poor landowners receive extremely low income from timber (about 12 USD annually) (see app.2)

5

QUESTIONs and RESEARCH OBJECTIVEs

Questions

Objectives

• To identify household and farm characteristics that become key in the STS enterprise

• To explore how those characteristics are related to the pattern of forest extraction and management

• What are the key factors for the farmers to get significant benefits?

• How do those factors affects the forest utilisation and management pattern and the outcome?

6

HYPOTHESIS

There are different patterns of forest utilisation and management among different level of socio-economic groups, due to different level of their capabilities in functioning the forest assets. This leads to the poor households receiving inadequate income from their forest asset.

7

RESEARCH LOCATION Research siteCipaku sub-district

Cijeungjing sub-district

Bunesuri village

Utama village and Bojongmengger village (see app. 3)

8

RESEARCH METHODFieldwork Time frame: February- September 2011Data collection method

• Questionnaires and in-depth interview = 59 landowners (25 better-off households and 34 poor households) (see app. 4)

• In-depth Interview to key persons =head of villages (3), government officials (2), community leaders (3)

• ObservationFocus of exploration

- Household and farm characteristics:household income, family size, education attainment, age of household head, land size, distance of forest to house

- Timber extraction: earning from timber, number of tree harvested, volume of timber harvested

- Forest utilization and management patterns: harvesting system, use of on-farm income, forest regeneration system

FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes

Correlations

1 .954** .724** .237 .348** -.235 -.034 .020 .680** .488** .784** -.126

.000 .000 .070 .007 .073 .797 .880 .000 .000 .000 .368

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

.954** 1 .758** .171 .123 -.122 -.020 -.006 .692** .520** .785** -.073

.000 .000 .195 .355 .359 .883 .965 .000 .000 .000 .604

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

.724** .758** 1 .302* .137 -.178 -.037 -.029 .805** .734** .836** .028

.000 .000 .020 .302 .176 .782 .827 .000 .000 .000 .844

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

.237 .171 .302* 1 .406** -.524** .333* -.096 .063 .026 .114 -.140

.070 .195 .020 .001 .000 .010 .469 .650 .852 .415 .317

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

.348** .123 .137 .406** 1 -.450** -.038 .066 .172 .118 .191 -.315*

.007 .355 .302 .001 .000 .775 .617 .212 .399 .172 .022

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

-.235 -.122 -.178 -.524** -.450** 1 -.187 .261* -.027 -.004 -.143 .136

.073 .359 .176 .000 .000 .155 .045 .847 .976 .306 .332

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

-.034 -.020 -.037 .333* -.038 -.187 1 .097 -.055 -.053 -.063 .032

.797 .883 .782 .010 .775 .155 .464 .692 .707 .655 .822

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

.020 -.006 -.029 -.096 .066 .261* .097 1 .107 .055 .050 .111

.880 .965 .827 .469 .617 .045 .464 .441 .697 .725 .429

59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 54 53 53 53

.680** .692** .805** .063 .172 -.027 -.055 .107 1 .890** .927** .041

.000 .000 .000 .650 .212 .847 .692 .441 .000 .000 .771

54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 53 53 53

.488** .520** .734** .026 .118 -.004 -.053 .055 .890** 1 .772** .050

.000 .000 .000 .852 .399 .976 .707 .697 .000 .000 .722

53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 52

.784** .785** .836** .114 .191 -.143 -.063 .050 .927** .772** 1 .024

.000 .000 .000 .415 .172 .306 .655 .725 .000 .000 .863

53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53

-.126 -.073 .028 -.140 -.315* .136 .032 .111 .041 .050 .024 1

.368 .604 .844 .317 .022 .332 .822 .429 .771 .722 .863

53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Household income (Rp)

Income per capita(Rp/person)

Land ownership

education at tainment(y ear)

f amily s ize

age of household (year)

distance of f orest f romhouse (km)

f requency of harvesting(t imes)

number of tree harvested

v olume es timation of treeharvested (m3)

earning f rom treeharvested (Rp)

percentage of earningf rom t ree harvested tototal income (%)

Householdincome (Rp)

Income percapita

(Rp/person)Land

ownership

educationat tainment

(y ear) f amily s ize

age ofhousehold

(y ear)

distance off orest f romhouse (km)

f requency ofharvesting

(t imes)number of

tree harv ested

v olumeest imat ion of

tree harv ested(m3)

earning f romtree harv ested

(Rp)

percentage ofearning f rom

tree harv estedto total

income (%)

Correlat ion is signif icant at the 0.01 lev el (2-tailed).**.

Correlat ion is signif icant at the 0.05 lev el (2-tailed).*.

Correlation among variables

9

timber extraction is:• correlated to off-farm income

(household and per capita) and to land size

• not correlated to education attainment of household head, family size, age of household head, or distance of forest from house

FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes

Regression

R = 0.84, R2 = 0.699 R = 0.78, R2 = 0.617

the rate of earning from timber can be explained by land size and off-farm income

Land size (ha) Off-farm income

Earn

ing

from

tim

ber (

Rp/1

0 ye

ars)

Earn

ing

from

tim

ber (

Rp/1

0 ye

ars)

FINDING 1: Link: STS and household attributes

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

forest land ownership (ha)

Percapita income (x10,000 Yen)

land size 0.08 Ha

better-off households: poor households:

23.7 USD/month/personOff-farm income

Mostly (66.67 %) from purchasing Mostly (74.29 %) from inheritance

Feature of initial assets: off-farm income and forest land

0.55

78

How this condition relate to the pattern of forest utilisation and management?

Off-farm income (x100 USD)

STS land ownership (ha)

FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management

1. Timber harvesting pattern

Among them (25 %) practice clear cutting Mostly (82.9 %) practice selective cutting

Harvest timber with normal rotation(harvest timber when the tree is ready/big diameter)

Harvest timber with “by need” rotation(harvest timber when they need urgent income/

small diameter)

Large number of trees and higher price

small number of trees and lower price

(See app. 7)

12

clear cutting selective cutting

Better-off Poor

13for d

ailyco

nsumtion nee

d

for child

ren's s

tudy

buy housew

are

for reli

gion holid

ay

medicin

e fee

s

marriag

e finan

cing o

f child

ren

plantati

on financin

g

for buyin

g new

land

financin

g pare

nt's fu

neral

for pay

ing off deb

t

financin

g house

building/r

enova

tion0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00 65.2

13.0

4.3

4.3

13.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.4

17.6

0.0 5.

9

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.9 11

.8

the poorthe better-off

Expenditure of cash income from selling timbers

perc

enta

ge (%

)

FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management (cont.)

2. Different use of cash income from timber

For capital investments(children’s school, buy new land, cost re-plantation)

Mostly (65.2 %) for immadiete consumption

(food)

Expansion of assets and production survival

Better-off Poor

FINDING 2: Forest utilization patterns & management (cont.)

Usually buying nursery transplant (20.8%) or combination of nursery

transplant and natural seedling (66.67%)

Mostly (54.29 %) using natural seedlings or/and re-grow from root

3. Forest regeneration pattern

Better forest culture techniques (usage of improved genetic-seedling, regulated plantation spacing, maintenance etc.) can result in better wood quality and its price (Punches, 2004; Haygreen and Bowyer, 1996) only the better-off afford to do this

transplant with seed from nursery re-grow from rootrely on natural seedlings

(See app. 8)

14

Better-off Poor

15

CONCLUSIONs

• Land ownership and off-farm income level are the key determinants for significant yield of forest utilization.

• Small landownership (natural capital) combined with low income (financial capital) cause the poor households’ utilisation and management pattern on their forest asset do not result in better return.

Expected outcome: Policy implications: can be bases for appropriate policy formulation for the poor as the main target in order to achieve rural sustainable livelihood

16

Thank you for your attention..

“If immediate livelihoods are a priority of the poor, sustainability is a priority of the enlightened rich”

(Chambers, 1986:10)

Special thanks to:Lynn Thiesmeyer, M. Umegaki,J. Roshetko, B. Lusianafor your inputs

17

• Promote multi sector partnerships with smallholders Shifting the individual management to collective

management to reduce cost and risk and enhance benefits

Parties: large landowners, smallholders, landless farmers, investors, governments/NGOs

• diversification of income from forest to create various sequences of income promote non-timber/multipurpose tree species (MPTS)

to mix with timber species

Further consideration for local government policy

STS utilization and management

Different level of capability

not meet short term income need

not concern to forest asset

The Poor The Better-off

• Selective cutting• “by need” rotation• Spent money for

immediate consumption

• Poor reforestation techniques

• clear cutting• normal rotation• Spent money for

capital investment• Better reforestation

techniques

survival Expansion of asset and production

Collective management

Income diversification

not sustainable/ Loss of resource

Framework of Conclusion

proposals

19

Bibliography

1. Chambers, R., and G.R. Conway, 1991. Sustainable rural livelihood: practical concepts for 21th century. Discussion paper 296. Institute of Development Studies.

2. Chambers, R., 1986. Sustainable livelihoods: an opportunity for the World Commission on Environment and Development. Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex, UK.

3. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2011. Kebijakan Pembangunan Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Ciamis. Slide Presentation on Forum SKPD Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Kabupaten Ciamis. Local Government of Ciamis Regency.

4. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2010. Masukan/Penjelasan terhadap Raperda RTRW Kabupaten Ciamis 2010-2030. Local Government of Ciamis Regency.

5. Ciamis Forestry Office, 2009. Strategic Plan of Ciamis Forestry Office. Local Government of Ciamis Regency.6. Dorward, A., S. Anderson, S. Clark, B. Keane and J. Moguel, 2001. Asset Functions and Livelihood Strategies: a Framework for Pro

Poor Analysis, policy and Practice. CONTRIBUTED PAPER TO eaae Seminar on Livelihoods and Rural Poverty. www.nda.agric.za/docs/AAPS/Articles/Goats/.../R7823%20(02).pdf. Accessed in January, 24th, 2011.

7. Harrison, S.R, J.L. Herbohn, and A.J. Niskanen, 2002. Non-industrial, Smallholder, Small-scale and Family Forestry:What’s in a Name?. Journal of Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1): 1–11.

8. Haygreen, J.G. dan J.L Bowyer, 1966. Hasil Hutan dan Ilmu Kayu. Terjemahan Sutjipto A.H. Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta.

9. Hindra, B., 2006. Potensi dan Kelembagaan Hutan Rakyat. Prosiding Seminar Hasil Litbang Hasil Hutan: “Kontribusi Hutan Rakyat dalam Kesinambungan Industri Kehutanan”. Pengembangan Hasil Hutan. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hasil Hutan. Bogor. P14-23.

10. ITCOC (Industry, Trade and Cooperative Office of Ciamis Regency), 2009. Potensi Industri di Kabupaten Ciamis.11. Ministry of Forestry, 2009. Potensi Kayu dan Karbon Hutan Rakyat di Jawa Tahun 1990-2008. Balai Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan

Wilayah XI Jawa-Madura dan Multistakeholder Forestry Program.12. Ministry of Forestry, 2004. Potensi Hutan Rakyat Indonesia 2003. Pusat Inventarisasi dan Statistik Kehutanan, Departemen

Kehutanan and Direktorat Statistik Pertanian, Badan Pusat Statistik. http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/BUKU2/PHRI_03/PHRI_03.htm. Acessed in November 25th, 2010.

13. Punches, J., 2004. Tree Growth, Forest Management and Their Implication for Wood Quality. http://www.forestandraadeasia.org/doc_hit.html . Diakses pada tanggal May, 9th 2011.

14. Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2008. Analisis Kemiskinan Kabupaten Ciamis Tahun 2008 (Poverty Analysis in Ciamis Regency Year 2008). Ciamis

15. Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2010. Ciamis dalam angka (Ciamis in figure) 2010. Ciamis16. Huvio, T., J. Kola and T Lundstrom (ed), 2004. Small-Scale Farmers in Liberalised Trade Environment. Proceeding of the Seminar

on October 2004 in Haikko Finland. University of Helsinki, Departmen of Economics and Management. Publications no 38.

20

Appendix 1.aFormal definition of STSForest that grows at private/right land (Law no 41/1999)+ Forests that grows at private land and are covered by > 50 % of tree vegetations, or

minimum 500 trees/ha (Ministry of Forestry Decree No 49/Kpts-II/1997)+ Forest that grows at private land and are dominated by tree vegetations (Ministry of Forestry

Decree No. P 26/Menhut-II/2005)

Terminology used in some journals: farm forest, non-industrial forest, smallholder forest, small scale forest, family forest, community

forest (Harrison at al, 2002)

Government policy- National government has contributed the development of STS through some financing

support such as subsidy, micro-credit for STS, reforestation fund, and national movement for forest and land rehabilitation program (Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan/GNRHL). However the development of STS are dominated (62%) by self financing (Hindra, 2006).

- Local government of Ciamis regency reports to give seedling aid to landowners about 1 to 2 million seedling annually (Forestry Office of Ciamis Regency, 2011)

21

Appendix 1.b

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

local government's aid 1127200 415000 873492 521250 2126610 2155488

self financing 1250500 2561728 6304920 5480765 3560848 4069999

500,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 3,500,000 4,500,000 5,500,000 6,500,000

tree plantation in SSFF

num

ber o

f tre

e pl

ante

d (t

ree)

Tree plantation and timber production in Ciamis Regency

Source: Forestry Office of Ciamis Regency, 2011

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- 50,000

100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

comparison of timber production from SSFF and state forest

SSFF

State forest

annu

al ti

mbe

r pro

ducti

on (m

3)

assets

people

activities

outcome

SSFF landFinancial capital

The poorThe better-off

Forest extractionForest management

Cash incomeImmediate consumption

Livelihood components(Chambers and Conway, 1991): Case study:

Sustainable rural livelihood

Sustainable

development

Rural poverty

reduction Research frameworkAppendix 1.c

23

wealth statusearning from timber harvesting (Yen/year)*

average min max

the poor 1,216.67 150.00 4,050.00

the better-off 6,031.30 500.00 25,000.00

all respondents 3,306.03 150.00 25,000.00

Value of earning from timber harvesting

Note: * this value are average from total earning during the last 10 years. The average frequency of harvesting are 2-3 times during that period.

want more land7%

want aid in form of cap-ital for forest enterprise

7%want aid inf form of

seedling8%

get better earning from forest29%forest can be better managed

3%next generation willing

to manage forest5%

next generation can get benefit from his forest

2%

government more ser-ious in supporting

SSFF5%

Do not know34%

Expectation of respondents towards SSFF

Appendix 2Value of earning from timber harvesting and expectation

24

Appendix 3Characteristic of research site:

Buniseuri

village Utama village Bojongmengger village

Total area (ha) 422.22 224.79 635.55

Number of citizen (person) 7573 3510 6004

male 3776 1802 3001

female 3797 1708 3003

Population density (peron/ha) 17.94 15.61 9.45

distance from capital district (km) 12 3 10

altitude (meter above sea level) 285 124 240

topography hilly flat flat and hilly

wetland farming (paddy field) 151 60.919 21.5

dryland farming (including private forest) 203.415 85.26 333.6

Source: Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency, 2010

poor22.39%

better-off

77.61%

Ciamis Regency

poor24.94%

better-off

75.06%

Buniseuri village

poor23.43%

better-off

76.57%

Utama village

poor21.86%

better-off

78.14%

Bojongmengger village

25

CONSUMPTION POVERTY CHARACTERISTICSFOOD:Fulfillment of 2100 calorie per capita per day

1. Meal frequency2. the ability to

buy meat, chicken and milkNON-FOOD:clothing, housing and facilities, the cost of education, health care, transport, miscellaneous goods and services

1. ability to buy clothing per year2. floor area3. type of floor4. type of wall5. type of roof6. source of clean water7. type of lighting8. sanitation facility9. education attainment of household

head10. employment status of household head11. ability of health care12. asset ownership

Characteristic of povertyGovernment (Statistical Center Bureau) analyze the poverty line based on 14 criteria below:

In the process of measuring poverty line, government also included verification and public examination as a part of poverty measurement by community themselves, using values and norm prevailed in the society.

Source: Statistical Center Bureau, Ciamis Regency (2008)

Appendix 4

26

76%

24%

Gender of household head

male female

44; 75%

6; 10%

7; 12%

2; 3%

education attainment of household head

ES

JHS

SHS

UG

Characteristic of respondentsAppendix 5

Note: * The wealth status is based on the classification set by Statistic Centre Bureau of Ciamis Regency in 2008

58%

42%

wealth status*

the poor the better-off

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-890

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Head of household by age

num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

(per

son)

Farm worker

15%

Farmer34%

Trader22%

Service5%

Govern-ment

employee10%

Private employee

10%Freelance worker

3%

main livelihood

Farm worker3%

Farmer19%

Trader2%

service7%

None69%

complementary livelioods

average of house-hold income (US$/month)

average of house-hold expenses (US$/month)

Income-Expenses (US$/month)

Percentage of In-come - Expenses to total income

(%)

the poor 65.1478174603188

59.1385802469136

6.00923721340389

9.22400388480273

the better-off

274.833333333333

130.356481481484

144.47685185185

52.5688969745974

25 75

125 175 225 275

household income and expenses

Inco

me

and

expe

nses

(RUS

$/m

onth

)

Characteristic of respondentsAppendix 5 (cont.)

27average min max

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

3

1

6

famili size

num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

r (pe

rson

)

28

Appendix 6.bLand tenure and regression analysis

R = 0.76, R2 = 0.574

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

74.29 20.00 5.71

land acquisition of the poor household

heritage purchase both heritage and purchase

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

33.33 37.50 29.17

land acquisition of the better-off household

R = 0.84, R2 = 0.699

R = 0.78, R2 = 0.617

29

the poor the better-off total respondent

9

43

23

number of tree harvested per household during the last 10

years

the poor the better-off total respondent

6

28

15

volume estimation of tree har-vested per household during the

last 10 years (m3)

need wood for self use

trees have been ready to harvest

plan to change to other tree species

timber collector offers to buy

need urgen cash income

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

34.3

2.9 2.9 2.9

57.1

28.6

11.417.1

5.7

37.1

the poorthe better-off

reason for selling trees

perc

enta

ge (%

)

selective cutting clear cutting clear and selective cutting

not yet0.00

10.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00 82.9

2.9 0.0

14.3

70.8

12.5 12.54.2

percentage of respondent by type of cutting

the poorthe better-off

perc

enta

ge (%

)Appendix 7Type of harvesting and reason for selling trees

30

the poor

the better-off

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

75.00

20.00

12.50

60.00

12.50

20.00

plantation and maintenance activities

do by himself hire other farm workersboth do by himself and hire other farm workers

Appendix 8Post harvesting management

the poor

the better-off

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

20.00

20.83

54.29

12.50

25.71

66.67

forest regeneration technique

buying nursery transplant natural seedling seed and natural seedlingthe poor the better-off all respondents

24,980.2

527,407.4

231,707.4

real cost spent for replanting and maintenance per household

(Rp/household)

the poor the better-off all respondents

329,216.7

960,063.4 863,050.1

cost spent for replanting and main-tenance per hectare (Rp/ha/house-

hold)