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 3.4.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................11 3.5 Allocation of management rights ..................................................................................................................11 3.5.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................11 3.5.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................11 3.6 Allocation of land rights................................................................................................................................12 3.6.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................12 3.6.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................12 3.7 Who harvests and buy NTFPs? .....................................................................................................................13 3.7.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................13 3.7.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................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 4.1.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................15 4.2 How can NTFP harvesting help local communities? ....................................................................................16 4.2.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................16 4.2.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................16 4.3 Animal NTFPs ..............................................................................................................................................17 4.3.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................17 4.3.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................17 4.4 NTFPs and forest regeneration......................................................................................................................18 4.4.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................18 4.4.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................18 4.5 Bioprospecting and tourism...........................................................................................................................18 4.5.1 The issue.....................................................................................................................................................18 4.5.2 Relevance to upper Tabalong .....................................................................................................................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 BKSDA Edible birds’

nests Harvest twice annually in defined seasons Provide formal ownership of harvesting rights

to traditional families Kabupaten government

Provide land security to local residents Kabupaten government Rattan Promote cultivation on

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


Song birds Not to be encouraged No action proposed Pangolin scales

Not to be encouraged No action proposed

Provide land security to local residents Kabupaten government

Wild fruits Promote cultivation on own land

Build and maintain more public roads outside permanent forest land

Kabupaten government


“Cardamom” Promote cultivation on own land




21

Common name

Best means to ensure future supplies Responsibility

What How


Medicinal plants

Promote cultivation on own land



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


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

Documents