cover report biru [vanny] · lpf/04/2004 levelling the playing field: fair partnership for local...

LPF/04/2004

Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia

The project is working in contexts where multi-stakeholders with different views and power act on forest management. The project aims to improve the forest management by facilitating stakeholders’ coordination and capacity building. It will develop approaches and tools for stakeholders to share views and create condition to manage the forest together.

Centre de coopération Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) are managing this project with three partners, universities well known for their involvement in forest management research, which are Gadjah Mada Univerisity (UGM), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). This first year (2004), after building a common methodological framework with the projects’ partners, the project started focusing on two of the three locations.

In Palawan (the Philippines) the project is working in the former CIFOR’s Adaptive Co-Management (ACM) project field site, where the government has devolved the rights and responsibilities to manage forests to the People’s Organisations through a Community Based Forest Management framework. In Java it will set up field work to help Perum Perhutani to put in force a similar program locally called PHBM, whose aim is to improve the forest management of their teak plantations by sharing both benefits and control with the villagers. The field work in Malaysia will start in the second year.

Http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf

About CIRADCentre de coopération Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) is a French scientific organisation specialising in agricultural research for development for the tropics and sub-tropics. It is a State-owned body, which was established in 1984 following the consolidation of French agricultural, veterinary, forestry, and food technology research organisations for the tropics and subtropics. CIRAD’s mission is to contribute to the economic development of these regions through research, experiments, training and dissemination of scientific and technical information. The Centre employs 1800 persons, including 900 senior staff, who work in more than 50 countries. CIRAD is organised into seven departments: CIRAD-CA (annual crops), CIRAD-CP (tree crops),CIRAD-FLHOR (fruit and horticultural crops),CIRAD-EMVT (animal production and veterinary medicine), CIRAD-Forêt (forestry), CIRAD-TERA (land, environment and people), and CIRAD-AMIS (advanced methods for innovation in science).CIRAD operates through its own research centres, national agricultural research systems and development projects.

About CIFORThe Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is a leading international forestry research organization established in 1993 in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR is dedicated to developing policies and technologies for sustainable use and management of forests, and for enhancing the well-being of people in developing countries who rely on tropical forests for their livelihoods. CIFOR is one of the 15 Future Harvest centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). With headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR has regional offices in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Zimbabwe, and it works in over 30 other countries around the world.

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Office addressJalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang

Bogor Barat 16680 - IndonesiaTel: +62(251) 622 622

Fax: +62(251) 622 100E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.cifor.cgiar.org

Mailing addressP.O. Box. 6596 JKPWB

Jakarta 10065 - Indonesia

IndonesiaFaculty of ForestryGadjah Mada University (UGM)

MalaysiaFaculty of ForestryUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)

PhilippineCollege of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)

Annual Report 2004Year 1

Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia

Annual R

eport 2

004 | Y

ear 1

Levelling the Playing Field (LPF):

By LPF TeamPhilippe Guizol, Herlina Hartanto, Herry Purnomo and Levania Santoso(in alphabetical order)



Annual Report 2004 Year 1

By LPF Team: Philippe Guizol, Herlina Hartanto,

Herry Purnomo and Levania Santoso (in alphabetical order)

TABLE OF CONTENT I. INTRODUCTION 1 I.1. LPF aims and focus 1 I.2. History of project proposal, approval, partners 2 II. PROJECT STATUS AND CURRENT PROGRESS 3 II.1. Summary of start-up activities of Year 1 3 II.2. Project start-up activities at the regional level 4 II.3. Operations achieved and ongoing in the Philippines 12 II.4. Operations achieved and ongoing in Indonesia 18 II.5. Operations achieved and ongoing in Malaysia 23 III. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT YEAR I 27 IV. ACTION PLAN YEAR 2 29 V. BUDGET FOR THE SECOND YEAR OF OPERATION 38 VI. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROGRESS 39 ANNEXES 41 List of Tables Table 1: Activities Achieved in Palawan Year I 18 Table 2: Brief Information about the Project Sites 22 Table 3: Activities Java Case Study Year 1 22 Table 4: Project Cost Statement Year 1 28 Table 5: Action Plan at the Regional Level Year 2 32 Table 6: Action Plan for Palawan Year 2 34 Table 7: Action Plan for Java 35 Table 8: Action Plan for Jepara Year 2 35 Table 9: Action Plan for Sumatra Year 2 36 Table 10: Action Plan for Matang Year 2 37 Table 11: Action Plan for Pahang 37 Table 12: Budget for LPF Operations Year 2 (September 2004-August 2005) 38 Table 13: Original General Plan of Actions as in the EC Contract 40 Table 14: Actions Achieved in Year 1 and Planned for Year 2 40 List of Figure Figure 1: System of Agreements for the LPF Project 5 Figure 2: LPF System of Contracts and Control 6 Figure 3: Negotiation Process for Sustainable Forest Management 9 Figure 4: The LPF website: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf 11 Figure 5: Activities Achieved in Java Site Year 1 23

1

I. Introduction

I.1. LPF aims and focus Leveling the Playing Field (LPF) project is working in contexts where multistakeholders with different views and power manage their forests and renewable resources. The project aims at improving resource management by facilitating stakeholders’ coordination and capacity building. It is developing approaches and tools for stakeholders to share their knowledge and views on development and renewable resource management, and learn about long-term issues. Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) are managing this project with three university partners known for their involvement in forest management research: Indonesia’s Gadjah Mada University (UGM); University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB); and University Putra Malaysia (UPM). The project aims to improve the livelihoods of people at the local level. To achieve this, it facilitates learning and formulation of shared visions at two levels: at the local level and at higher decision-making levels (macro-levels) where government officers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), private or state companies, brokers, and businessmen interact and influence local level conditions. Facilitation and improved communication among and across these different levels will improve stakeholders’ coordination for sustainable resource management. The project focuses on forest or renewable resources of importance to the stakeholders. In many cases stakeholders interact indirectly through renewable resources. Access to these resources can create competition and, in some cases, increase conflicts among stakeholders. The project aims to facilitate direct communication among stakeholders to adopt a more collaborative and integrated management regarding the use of these resources, and to agree on management modalities, which include access, sharing, control, monitoring, sanctions, and transfer of rights. Therefore, the project is not specific to a particular type of forest (plantation/natural forest/coastal forests) or a particular type of issue (wood production/biodiversity/ conservation). As our approach is based on uses of resources and people’s views about resources (which is the best way to understand people’s relationships to the forest resources), we have maintained flexibility regarding site selections. This has allowed the project to adapt itself to changing national demands, which our national partners in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines identified three years ago during the project preparation phase and reconsidered during this first year of project activities based on the latest developments. At the Philippine site, Palawan, coordination for forest management (including the community-based forest management area), coastal resource management and

2

lowland management involves different stakeholders. These include a People’s Organisations (PO), forest-dependent indigenous people, village leaders, NGOs, and different government institutions at municipal and provincial levels. One of the main issues at this site is how to find a balance between conservation, which some NGOs and state agencies advocate, and livelihood improvements, which local people expect. In Malaysia integration of forest management with rural and fishery development is the focus of the new prime minister together with issues related to coastal zones and forest people minorities. In Indonesia, in the context of weak state capacity, control of forest access is an issue. Partnerships between state or private companies and communities to control plantations emerged the last six years following the fall of Suharto regime. These partnerships could improve forest management but require a great deal of social approach, as by training foresters are use to implement top-down approaches driven by technologies. In this context, the LPF project selected two sites: one in Java, focusing on partnerships involving a state company and villages for teak plantation management; and one in Sumatra focusing on partnerships between villages and a private company that grows Acacia mangium to produce pulpwood. In Java, a third site has been selected. In addition to state forestland, agroforestry and privately owned woodlots are producing an increasing amount of teak wood. Teak resources outside state forests are an important issue as teak production from state forests is shrinking and teak wood is one of the most in-demand raw materials for an important downstream furniture industry that generates a lot of employment for rural poor. This furniture industry includes a large number of cottage industries, which generate most of the jobs of the teak value chain. Sustainable development of the teak industry and effective incentives to teak smallholders should be elaborated with stakeholders’ involvement.

I.2. History of project proposal, approval, partners CIRAD presented the project to the European Union in May 2001. The project was evaluated in June 2002, accepted in 2003 and began formally in September 2003 after CIRAD and EU signed the contract. The project didn’t actually start, though, until funds were transferred in early 2004. Following this, the CIRAD-CIFOR team visited the three university partners in the three countries to discuss the project, partnership arrangements, and to collect up-to-date information about the proposed project sites. All partners were very enthusiastic to be able to get the project off the ground. It was clear from those early visits that some field sites would need to be revised since conditions had changed dramatically in the field between the period of project design and project implementation, and that there was a need to fine-tune the work plan in each country based recent developments.

3

It was also deemed important to bring together all the project partners and relevant collaborators in order for them to understand the project fully, develop/agree on the project implementation framework and project methodology, and share knowledge and experience on different methods and tools. With this in mind, we paid a lot of attention to the regional workshop on Methodology for Action Research and Its Implementation that was held in Indonesia, 26-29 April 2004.

Contents of this report This report encompasses the progress achieved from 1 September 2003 to 31 August 2004, as well as details of activities planned for 2005. We include more detailed documentation on activities (e.g. countries details activities, trip reports, etc.) in the annexes. Part II covers the project’s status and current progress under four sub-headings; progress achieved at the regional level, and highlights of progress achieved in each of the three countries and milestones achieved versus planned. Part III is devoted to the financial management of the project. Part IV is the work plan and budget for Year 2.

II. Project status and current progress

II.1. Summary of start-up activities of Year 1 The first step was to develop a MoU and an agreement between CIRAD and CIFOR and then with the three universities. After building a common methodological framework with the projects’ partners, the project started focusing on two of the six field work locations. In Palawan (Philippines), the project works in Puerto Princesa municipality in three villages (or barangay) of San Rafael, Tanabag, and Concepcion. The LPF site covers all the villages’ administrative areas, which include forest, lowland, and coastal areas. This site includes the former CIFOR Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM) project site, where the government has devolved the rights and responsibilities to manage forests to the People’s Organisations through a community-based forest management framework. Philippe Guizol and Herlina Hartanto visited the Philippines as early as January 2004 to renew our partnerships with Philippine institutions in Palawan and Manila. Field work started in April with the Planning Workshop and Stakeholder Analysis. In July, we did the socio-economic assessment and institutional analysis.

4

In Java (Indonesia), sites have been selected in the State forest districts Pemalang and Randublatung. The purpose is to help the state enterprises called Perum Perhutani to put in force a partnership arrangement with the communities locally called PHBM (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat – Community Collaborative Forest Management), whose aim is to improve the forest management of their teak plantations by sharing both benefits and control with villagers. This became the company’s top priority after 2001. We needed more time than expected to get an agreement for the project with the state company Perum Perhutani, as it had to get approval itself from the Ministry of Forestry. Field work started as soon as the MoU was signed in June 2004. Field work in Malaysia started at the end of 2004. For a variety of reasons, implementation of activities at the four other sites was much more problematic. We address this issue in the report below. We let our partners decide about the most appropriate project sites as they are more aware about what matters in their own country. However, we remained faithful to the proposal submit to EC. Year 1 was primarily devoted to start-up activities required prior to field work, though we were able to start the field work at two sites as planned in the project proposal. Taking into consideration that we actually started in January 2004, the project implementation momentum fits with the planned schedule and our expectations.

II.2. Project start-up activities at the regional level Significant progress was made, as planned: on (i) Memoranda/letters of understanding between CIRAD and CIFOR and CIFOR/CIRAD with universities and agreement with state company; (ii) Setting up a steering committee for the project; (iii) Creating a common methodological framework across the different countries and sites; (iv) Developing common tools for participatory approach and modeling; (v) Capacity Building; and (vi) Developing a project web-page for information sharing and dissemination.

(i) Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) Figure 1 below shows the agreements flows starting from the grant contract between EC and CIRAD to the MoU with the different organisations involved in the project. In this project CIFOR and the universities can develop also MoUs with state or private companies. For example, this year we developed an MoU with the state forest enterprise Perum Perhutani.

5

Figure 1: System of Agreements for the LPF Project

In the Philippines, based on our discussions with UPLB and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), it was agreed that the project should establish a joint memorandum of understanding between CIRAD, CIFOR, UPLB, and DENR (see Annex VI). The MoU described the roles and responsibilities of each institution. The MoU has been signed by CIRAD, CIFOR, and DENR, and it is currently in the process of being signed by UPLB. In Indonesia the same process led to the signing of a MoU (Annex VI). In Malaysia we expect the MoU to be signed early in 2005. Figure 2 below shows the system of contracts related to the project with the existence of an independent auditor. Contracts are renewed every year based on a work plan. Prior to June 2004, the project reported to EC offices in Brussels. Now it reports to the EC Jakarta office, as the Forestry Line Budget management has been decentralized since then. The MoU covers the whole duration of the project.

Grant Contract

MoU

MoU with Universities

Forest companies

MoU

6

Figure 2: LPF System of Contracts and Control

In 2003-2004 we had discussions with three companies involved in teak wood furniture trading about business responsibilities regarding the environment and more precisely the teak wood resources. We expect that these contacts will produce some formal collaboration.

(ii) Setting up a Steering Committee for the Project The Steering Committee (SC) members are selected and recommended by CIRAD-CIFOR team members, the three universities and LPF collaborators. The terms and reference of the SC members are to: Provide scientific, technical and policy guidance based on very relevant expertise and experience, including potential links to other organisations and groups with related goals; Ensure the relevance of our work to the region; Serve as a channel through which the results from our study can be directed into appropriate policy-making settings; and Backstop our partners and provide feedbacks to LPF project team. The SC will meet annually. The first SC meeting took place 30 April 2004. It was attended by 15 persons: 9 steering committee members, the project leader with 5 other team members. Three others SC members could not attend this meeting. List of SC members are listed in Annex 1. During this first meeting, SC members had the opportunity to get to know each others and the project team. Project team members provided in-depth information about the project. SC members also discussed and provided recommendations about key issues as selection of sites and comparison across sites.

Grant Contract

Contract

Contract with Universities

Independent Auditor

Control

7

This first SC report is available at http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf/_ref/lpf/events/index.htm. It summarizes the discussions and key issues raised. Dr. Bernard Mallet has been nominated chair and Prof. Nik Muhamad Majid co-chair.

(iii) Creating a Common Methodological Framework

The First Regional Workshop The key task of Year 1 was to create a common framework with the three universities. For this purpose, we held a regional workshop on Methodology for Action Research and Its Implementation in April 2004. Frequent exchanges between the different universities’ teams and the CIRAD-CIFOR team also greatly contributed to the emergence of this common framework. The objectives of the workshop were as follows: 1) Discuss project’s goals, outputs, and outcomes, and project’s approach; 2) Discuss and agree on project’s methodologies, methods, and implementation framework to be used across the sites to allow comparisons; 3) Finalize the work plan for sites in Java and Palawan; and 4) Enable project team members, partners, and collaborators to get to know each other better to build a more effective team. The workshop was attended by 18 people: 4 from UPM; 3 from UPLB; 2 from UGM; 2 from the state teak enterprise Perum Perhutani; 1 from the EU-funded Tanimbar project; 4 from CIFOR; and 2 from CIRAD. In addition, we also invited a resource person from CIFOR to give a presentation on Multistakeholder Landscape Assessment. Information about the workshop process and its results is available on http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf/_ref/lpf/events/index.htm. Recognizing that our partners are leading universities in their respective countries with extensive knowledge and experience, we decided that this workshop should use participatory approaches. Participants were engaged actively prior to and throughout the workshop. The participants were contacted prior to the workshop to get their feedback on the agenda. Participants came to the workshop ready to share their knowledge, expertise and experience about their sites and different aspects of natural resource management. The CIRAD-CIFOR team acted more as facilitators, and they took up the role of resource persons only when needed. Key issues discussed during the workshop are described below.

Umbrella Research Questions Research questions were discussed and amended during the workshop. Agreed research questions are in Box 1:

8

Project’s Common Implementation Framework The implementation stages of the project were also discussed and amended by the whole team. Three stages have been adopted: baseline study; intervention; and monitoring/impact assessment. These stages will be used across the six sites. During the intervention stage, LPF researchers will act as facilitators, facilitating social processes among community and local stakeholders. These social processes will take place at different stages such as: Initialization; Building common views; Co-designing management schemes (roles, plans, tools); Choosing management structures and roles; and Implementation (control, sanction, enforcement). Community and local stakeholders might review and re-assess their situation and go back to the previous stage to re-negotiate and improve the situation. Figure 3 shows the three levels in this framework. The first level is the social process, which is what the stakeholders are expected to do. The second level is the project implementation steps, which is what the project will do to facilitate the first level. The third level describes a number of tools, which could be use to undertake the second level. Some feedback loops, for instance from building common views to initialization, have been discussed and we do know that we should keep them in mind, but we don’t represent them in the graph below to keep this graph simple.

Box 1. Umbrella Research Questions How to achieve long-term forest management goals in multistakeholder situations with different interests, views and power: 1. Can local livelihoods be improved through increased empowerment in forest management? 2. Under what conditions will the project produce impacts on local livelihood and forest management? 3. What are the most appropriate mechanisms (multistakeholder forum, etc.) and tools (modeling, future scenario, etc.) to facilitate negotiation among stakeholders? 4. Under what conditions will multistakeholders be (dis)encouraged to manage forest in sustainable ways (market conditions, collective action, policy framework, etc.)?

9

Figure 3: Negotiation Process for Sustainable Forest Management

Social process for sustainable forest management Initialisation

Building common views

Co-designing management schemes (rules,plans, tools)

Choosing management structure, roles

Implementing (control, sanction, enforcement)

Project implementation steps Baseline study (Biophysical and social surveys)

Intervention (Facilitation and additional survey Requested by stakeholders)

Monitoring and Impact

Examples of methods and tools Who count matrix Pro-Active Conciliation Tool Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment (MLA)

Pro-Active Conciliation Tool (PACT) Companion modeling approach (Cormas) Role playing game Participatory action research

C & I

(iv) Developing Common Tools for Participatory Approaches During this workshop participants did a number of presentations about the tools they are familiar with. The team put together and distributed to project participants a ‘draft toolbox’ that compiled different methods, including those that were presented during the workshop, plus several references that outline how those methods were carried out in the field. It is an ongoing effort. This toolbox provides more information about the methods that the participants can go through if they wish to use them in their work. We use tools already well tested and documented, and we exchanged information on existing documentation. This hopefully will facilitate the comparison, analysis, and the documentation of the different experiences in the various sites in order to be able to describe precisely later the processes that actually happened during this project. Besides agreeing on umbrella research questions, a common implementation framework, and different tools to use for implementing different stages of the project,

10

the three project partners also produced a draft work plan for their sites in each country. As the end of this workshop, the participants felt that they have a better understanding about the project in general and they are equipped with new knowledge about the project’s approach and different tools that can be adapted and used in their project sites. This regional workshop in April also contributed to the team capacity building as team members have learned the project framework and some methodologies. Several trainings for the community and key stakeholders have been identified, and they will be carried out in the second year of the project.

(v) Capacity Building Some team members benefited from capacity building either in the form of formal training workshops or mentoring by more senior scientist/researcher. Training/ Type

Subject Date / Location Beneficiaries Funding

Intensive Training Course

Multi-Agent Systems Modeling for Social Sciences and Integrated Natural Resource Management

13-18 Oct 2003, University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Herry Purnomo and Wahyu Wardhana

EU IT&C IRRI-CIRAD Project

International Workshop

Companion Modeling, Role-Playing Games and Multi-agent System for Integrated NRM in Southeast Asia

19-21 Oct 2003, Suan Bua Resort, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Herry Purnomo and Wahyu Wardhana

EU IT&C IRRI-CIRAD Project

Training Course

MAS Training in the Field of Computer Science Gems Institute of Research and Development Building

15-19 March 2004, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok

Herry Purnomo

EU IT&C IRRI-CIRAD Project and LPF Project

Personal training

PACT method for stakeholders perceptions analysis

April 8, 2004, CIFOR, Bogor

Levania Santoso

LPF Project

International Course

International Course on Rural Development Management (ICRDM)

May 3-21, 2004, Int. Institute for Rural Reconstruction, Philippines

Levania Santoso

LPF Project

11

The LPF project took advantage of training organised by the project of EU IT&C IRRI-CIRAD based in Bangkok, which is also financed by the EU under the EU Asia IT&C Phase I Programme line ( Project: 02/18; Contract: ASI/B7-301/97/0126-09). This project is called ‘Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), Social Sciences and Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM)’. Thanks to this project we have three team members who already are familiar with CORMAS (see below for description) tools and are able to develop models by themselves.

(vi) Website Development Figure 4: The LPF website: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf

The draft project website initially presented to the partners in April 2004, during the regional workshop. This website has links to partner universities, several relevant projects and programs. Several issues were clarified before the website can be improved further. Several suggestions were given: The use of website as communication tool among researchers. There were mixed experiences among project team members. Some mentioned that websites can facilitate communication while others mentioned that people prefer to use email rather than a website to exchange ideas. Logos. The roles of the different institutions, whether they are an executing agency (CIRAD and CIFOR), sponsor (EC) or partner (universities) should be clear. In the meantime, the home page has been revised to better reflect these changes. Website ownership. The project should share the ownership of website with project collaborators and partners in the field. Next move. Representatives from each project partner from universities will work with CIRAD-CIFOR team to provide relevant information and improve the website.

12

The website has been available at http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf since August 2004. The website will be regularly updated in Year 2 when more results from the different sites are available.

(vii) Modeling tools development Philippe Guizol and Herry Purnomo (Bogor-based CIFOR scientific staff) elaborated in 2004 a model using a tool called CORMAS, a multi-agent platform devoted to interactions between societies and renewable resources, developed by CIRAD-TERA. They used data from a survey, they conducted in 2001 while they were seeking potential site for LPF project in Sabah Malaysia. This model can be use to create more specific multi-agent models devoted to interactions between societies and plantations. It makes it possible to describe links between landscape management, livelihood of stakeholders and plantation development. We expect to use it in different sites of the project, but not necessarily in all of them. Other forms of modeling could be used, for instance, to describe the market chains. Multi-agent systems could be used also to support a role playing game in order to help stakeholders to learn about long-term issues like forest management. A presentation in an international workshop and two articles have ensued from this work.

II.3. Operations achieved and ongoing in the Philippines More detailed information is available in the Philippines Country Report Year 1.

Philippines Team The core team in Philippines consists of two scientists from UPLB based in Los Baños and two Palawan-based staff. They are in close communication and coordinate activities with Bogor-based CIFOR scientist/Philippine Country Coordinator, Ms. Herlina Hartanto. The following are brief descriptions about the team members: Dr. Teodoro Villanueva (forester, UPLB) is the project coordinator in Philippines. He has knowledge about the situations and challenges in LPF site as he has done several studies in that area in the past, such as the assessment of community forestry management by the People’s Organisation. In the LPF project, Dr. Villanueva is responsible for coordinating overall activities at the site, selecting suitable Philippine scientists to carry out identified studies and making sure that outputs are delivered, coordinating with the Palawan-based staff, liaising with CIRAD-CIFOR coordinators in Bogor and with UPLB Foundation (with regards to logistics and administrative arrangements). Dr. Fe Mallion (socio-economist, UPLB) is responsible in carrying out socio-economic assessments and studies in the LPF site and translating the analysis into forms that can be fed back to the community and other stakeholders in LPF site. She will also contribute to the development of a computer-based model and land-use plans for the project site.

13

Ms. Maria Eduarda Devanadera (community organiser, Budyong Rural Development Foundation Inc., Palawan) is responsible for maintaining the LPF project’s visibility especially at the provincial level by participating in provincial multistakeholder fora and liaising with different government institutions at the provincial level, backstopping Ms. Estanol in the field, and carrying out market chain analyses together with UPLB scientists. She is the founder of an NGO called Budyong Rural Development Foundation Inc., which is based in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. She assisted the People’s Organisation in the LPF site through her involvement in USAID-funded enterprise project in 2000-2002. Budyong also established partnerships with the community’s organisation in woodwork enterprises. Furthermore, she has maintained good relationships with key stakeholders in the province. Ms. Azucena Gamutia (forester, Palawan-based researcher) was involved in CIFOR research project on Adaptive Collaborative Management in Palawan in 1999-2002 and thus has extensive knowledge about the community in the LPF site, their activities in managing community forestry, and their interactions with different stakeholders in Palawan. She has some knowledge of different social methods that enriched her forestry background.

Site Selection Activity Site selection activity in the Philippines was easier than those carried out in Indonesia and Malaysia as LPF project was planed to work in Barangay San Rafael-Tanabag-Concepcion in Palawan, where CIFOR implemented their work on Adaptive Collaborative Management for three years (1999-2002). To assess the suitability of the site for LPF project, Mr. Philippe Guizol (project leader), Ms. Hartanto (Bogor-based Philippine coordinator), and Dr. Ted Villanueva (UPLB) visited the site in January 2004. The visit was intended to understand conditions at the site, to identify the issues that could be addressed by the LPF project, to assess whether or not there was a demand for the LPF approach, and, finally, to see whether or not the community and other stakeholders were interested in participating in the LPF project. Based on this visit, it was clear that the site in Palawan was a suitable site for LPF project. Community and key stakeholders at the city and provincial levels welcomed the project and agreed to participate in the project’s activities. There are several issues to be addressed by the project and the community and other stakeholders are keen to participate. Details of this visit can be found in Annex II. The site is located around 67 kilometers (km) from Puerto Princesa City, the capital city. Within the administrative boundaries of the three barangays (adjacent to one another), an area of 5,006 ha of forestland have been managed by a People’s Organisation since 1996. The rights to manage that forestland are given to the PO by Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) under the Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) program.

Baseline Studies The team conducted several studies to understand how community and stakeholders interact with each other, the way they use and manage natural resources in the area

14

(including forests, lowland, and coastal areas), the socio-economic status of the people and policy aspects in LPF site. 1. Stakeholder Analysis The team organised two small workshops to identify the different important stakeholders. The first workshop was held on 3 July 2004 and involved 14 community members, with almost equal numbers of representatives from San Rafael and Concepcion and 2 representatives from Tanabag. The second workshop involved 10 people from 9 key government and NGO institutions at the provincial level, including DENR (provincial and community-level offices), Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, city government, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and NGOs (Budyong, NATRIPAL, and Santiago Foundation). The report of the stakeholder analysis can be found in the Philippines Country Report Year 1, along with the workshop proceedings. Several key results are highlighted below. The stakeholder analysis exercise showed that there were many users in the three barangays. Upland: the People’s Organisation managing the CBFM area; residents who hold Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC); Indigenous Peoples; and charcoal makers. Lowland: farmers; quarry operators; livestock raisers; fishermen (who also use resources in the lowland). Coastal zone: fishermen; resort owners; seaweed raisers; farmers (who also fish in the coastal areas). The results revealed that many community residents depend not only on one resource (upland, lowland, or coastal area) but a combination of the three resources. For example, fishermen, besides fishing, may also maintain farm lots. Furthermore, they may also harvest certain forest products. With regards to different government institutions involved in natural resource management in the area, the community participants identified 8 institutions while the government and NGO participants identified 14 institutions. For the community participants, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PSCD) were considered the most important stakeholders. For the government and NGO participants, the most important stakeholders in the LPF site were the People’s Organisation (and CSC holders) and DENR. The exercises also showed that there were many external economic interest groups in the area. This indicates the variety of economic activities taking place in the LPF site. They ranged from coastal/beach resort owners, quarry operators, non-timber forest product licensees, small business operators, nipa (pawid) buyers and Vietnamese traders. The exercise also highlighted the need for the project to increase the skills of the barangay residents, especially the Indigenous People, in communication and negotiation so that they can negotiate more effectively with these various external economic interest groups.

15

2. Demographic and Livelihood Studies Data were collected by using questionnaires. The LPF team surveyed 20% of all residents in the three barangays (125 households) in July 2004. Data collected include data on socio-economic status of the households (income, expenses, etc.), income-generating activities, source of income from different resources (forests, lowland, coasts), etc. In addition, a participatory method called “Seasonal Calendar” was carried out to get information and improve understanding about the different economic activities carried out at different time of the year by the households. Data collection has been completed and analysis is being finalized at the moment. The report will be finalized shortly and the data will also be feedback to the community to help them in strategizing their actions to address the problems in renewable resource management. 3. Resources and Resource Use Information on resources and resource use were also gathered. In addition to this method, community mapping was carried out with community members to learn about what resources are being used by the community, the location of those resources, rules and regulations with regards to natural resource management, etc. Collection of the data has been completed and analysis of the data is being finalized. Results will be written up into a project report and the information will also be shared with the community to help them in strategizing their actions to address the problems in natural resource management. 4. Institutions Data collected on institutions include their mandates, roles, responsibilities, resources (staff, financial resource), etc. A questionnaire was distributed to the staff of key institutions in Palawan. Once the questionnaire was completed, the LPF team members conducted interviews to fill in the gaps or clarify issues that were not clear from the completed questionnaires. Data were collected from the following government institutions: DENR (provincial and community offices), PCSD, National Commission on Indigenous People, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, City Environment and Natural Resources Office (City ENRO). Data was also collected from the NGOs NATRIPAL, Foundacion Santiago, and Budyong. The information collected can be found on page 11-14 in Philippines Country Report Year 1 Analysis will be done in the near future and the report will be attached in the next project report. 5. Analysis of Formal and Informal Agreements As the LPF project will assist relevant stakeholders to negotiate, establish, implement and revise agreements with regards to natural resource management, it is necessary to review related past and present agreements. The analysis of those agreements will provide information about what kind of agreements were established so far, what institutions are involved, how the agreements were implemented, whether the agreements are fair for all the parties involved, etc. To conduct the analysis, the LPF team has collected the hard copies of the following agreements:

16

Community-Based Forest Management Agreement between DENR and People’s Organisation of San Rafael-Tanabag-Concepcion Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (STCMPC), which specifies both parties’ roles and responsibilities in the management of CBFM area. Agreement between People’s Organisation and Budyong on partnership in woodwork enterprises. Agreement People’s Organisation and EU-funded Palawan Tropical Forest Protection Program specifying the assistance that EU-funded project will provide to help the PO in conducting the activities as per annual management plan. Agreement between People’s Organisation and CIFOR in implementing Adaptive Collaborative Management Program Analysis on the above agreements is being carried out at the moment, and the results will be provided in the next project report. 6. Policy Framework LPF team members have put together a list of different policies related to natural resource management. Those policies will be compiled and used as a basis for analyzing how those policies affect the management of natural resources in LPF site.

Intervention Planning workshop (community level) The workshop was organised at the community level on 1-3 April 2004. The main purposes of the workshop were to introduce the LPF project so the barangay residents understand what the project is trying to do and in what ways it can help the community. Another goal was for the participants to identify major issues that they face and to start thinking about how they can link up with other stakeholders to address those issues. This workshop was attended by 68 community members from the three barangays. The participants identified major issues that they face and presented the results to the second workshop. The issues include illegal activities in the forest and coastal areas, lack of irrigation infrastructure for agricultural areas, low support from the Department of Agriculture, lack of information on markets and prices, inconsistent and inappropriate policies. Other problems faced are lack of electricity, potable water, health services and school (especially for the Bataks), and lack of credit schemes. Those major problems were presented by eight representatives of the community to the government officers and NGO at the provincial level in the subsequent workshop. Planning workshop (provincial level) The workshop was held in Puerto Princesa City on 5 April 2004, and was attended by various government agencies, local government and NGOs (around 20 people). The representatives from the village include barangay captains, barangay residents, members of STCMPC, and Bataks. This workshop was also used by the LPF team to introduce and explain the project to the provincial stakeholders. Furthermore, during this workshop, the community representatives were encouraged to analyze the problems further, identify the priority issues (as the ones presented were still a long list), and to link up with the City Planning office of the city government for funding,

17

etc. Other government institutions and NGOs were not able to give concrete commitment to support the three villages in addressing these issues. This was because those who came to the workshop were not the decision-makers (there was a need to communicate the results to their supervisors) and/or because the NGOs do not work directly in the three barangays. The proceedings of the two workshops are attached in Philippines Country Report Year 1. Working groups at the community level Based on the issues that the workshop participants identified at the community-level workshop and based on the inputs at the provincial-level workshop, several barangay residents decided to start addressing the priority issues that they can solve by themselves immediately. The first thing that they were encouraged to do was to analyse and prioritise the long list of problems that they identified in the workshop. The participants pointed out that some of the problems were actually inter-related and therefore they grouped them into five sets of issues: low productivity of upland, lowland, coastal, livelihood and marketing. To address those issues, the interested community representatives formed four groups. Each group consisted of two representatives from each barangay. In total, there were 24 barangay residents participating in the working groups. The groups have organised several meetings already to discuss about the causes of the problems and identify possible strategies to address them. To get the support from the barangay captains and barangay councils to those strategies, the group presented them to each barangay (San Rafael on 4 August, Concepcion on 6 August, Tanabag on 29 August). The LPF team members also used the opportunity to explain the LPF project to the barangay captains and councils. The group expected that the LPF project could be adopted by the barangay and that the prioritised issues can be adopted and incorporated into the priority issues of the barangay, and get endorsement from the barangay captains and councils when they propose them to City Development Council. So far, barangay San Rafael has endorsed them, while the other two barangays are still discussing it. The group also learned, during the workshop with the provincial stakeholders, that the city government have some funds that can be tapped by the community. The group then came together on 21 August to develop proposals for three projects: establishment of a nursery, livestock raising (pigs, poultry, cattle) and backyard gardening and cut-flowers. The application for the proposal was received from City Planning and was submitted to the city government in November 2004. Coordination and capacity building In the first year, the project has successfully coordinated with key stakeholders at the community, city, and the provincial levels in Palawan. The planning workshop brought together the barangay residents from the three barangays, and key stakeholders at different levels. In addition, the participation of the barangay residents and key stakeholders was also sought during the baseline information collection, i.e. stakeholder analysis and institutional analysis.

18

Table 1: Activities Achieved in Palawan Year I

Task NameSite selection activities

Trip to Palawan

Visit to key Institutions

Identification of demand

Planning at regional LPF Workshop

Baseline studies

Stakeholder Analysis

Demographic survey

Resource use

Inst itut ions

Analysis of agreements

Policy Framework

Intervention stage

Community Planning workS

Provincial Planning Works

Prioritization & C working groups

Community Working groups I

Community Working groups II

Community Working groups III

Community Working groups IV

1/22

1/28

4/29

4/5

8/21

'04 Feb '04 Mar '04 Apr '04 May '04 Jun '04 Jul '04 Aug '04 Sep '04 Oct '04 Nov '04 Dec '04 Jan '05 Feb '0

II.4. Operations achieved and ongoing in Indonesia

Indonesian Team The core Indonesian team consists of three scientists from UGM, one supporting staff and eight staff based in the field. They are in close communication and coordination with Bogor-based CIFOR scientific staff, Ms. Levania Santoso, Herlina Hartanto and Philippe Guizol. San Afri Awang (social scientist and forester, UGM) is the lead scientist. Wahyu Wardhana is the computer scientist and Wahyu Tri Widayanti (Titik) is a social scientist. She took care of financial matters during the first year. Sukdan is a computer scientist assistant. The study of partnership between communities and Perum Perhutani took place in two locations: Pemalang district and Blora district.

Site Selection Activities Indonesia’s forest administration has divided the forest area in Java into several management units (FMUs), locally called KPH (Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan) or Perum Perhutani (PP) forest districts. In Unit I Central Java, there are 26 KPHs managing 573,000 ha of plantations. The main species is teak (Tectona grandis), which covers 53% or 307,600 ha. Pine covers 33% or 190,000 ha, Agathis 5% or 27,800 ha. A variety of other species grow on the remaining 8% or 47,700 ha. Only six KPH units are categorized as profitable following a series of economic crisis and high illegal logging rates from 1997-2000. These units subsidise the other 20 KPHs’ operational costs. The teak forests contain many poor villages that do not benefit much from this valuable timber resource. The situation demonstrates the need

19

for a better and more collaborative system to achieve sustainable forest management and a better livelihood for forest dwellers. The Community Collaborative Forest Management or Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM) initiative is expected to provide this new system. The project team selected KPH Pemalang and KPH Randublatung as their research locations after visiting several KPHs in Unit I and discussing the PHBM initiative and biophysical aspects of forest resources with PP staff. Both KPHs are profitable and mainly planted with teak. They were selected for three reasons: 1) teak’s high economic value, underlining the need for sustainable management; 2) the threat posed by illegal logging, which strips out the teak and leaves behind ‘empty’ forest compartments; and 3) the need to replant degraded teak forests with support and assistance from local communities and other stakeholders. KPH Pemalang Total forest area is about 24,100 ha. Most is classified as production forest and dominated by teak plantation (81% or 19,600 ha). As of 2003, about 4,390 ha were degraded, including ‘empty’ forests following plundering since 1998. KPH Randublatung Total forest area is about 32,460 ha. Some 31,260 ha is classified as production forest and 1,200 ha as non-production forest. Plantations cover about 22,180 ha of the production forest; the balance is non-productive, including ‘empty’ land caused by forest plundering. Teak plantations account for 30,060 ha or 92%. LMDH (Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan) is a community organisation appointed by the company Perum Perhutani to implement its PHBM program. More details are in the Annex (Indonesia Country Report: Java Case Study). In each KPH, we looked for two types of situations: one with a well-developed LMDH community group, and the second with an LMDH group yet to be set up. On this basis, the research project team selected Tanggel and Gempol villages in KPH Randublatung, and Surajaya and Gelandang villages in KPH Pemalang.

Baseline Study Activities Methods The Year 1 project calendar required the baseline study to be conducted simultaneously in four villages. The following methods were used. Literature review In preliminary field work, the research team collected some basic information from secondary sources, such as official local government data, PHBM village agreements and PP documentation. Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder analysis was used to identify stakeholders and enlist their support for developing a collective action plan. Stakeholders were identified in each of the four villages during the livelihood survey and through the PACT method (see below).

20

Key informants Key informants were selected by choosing individuals who understood the issues well. The informants provided information on resources and resource use, institutional analysis of PHBM, and analysis of PHBM agreements. Survey or census Interviewers consulted each respondent individually using different questionnaires. Forty respondents were selected—30 respondents representing farmers who worked in PP forest areas and were dependent on forest resources (known as forest user group) and 10 respondents representing LMDH community group board. The respondents were selected using stratified random sampling and selective sampling methods. The former was based on stratifying land ownership and PP forest areas within the village community, while selective sampling was used to select respondents based on forest farmer typology inside the village. PACT (Pro-Active Conciliation Tool) The PACT method is used to understand stakeholders’ preferences and perceptions. In this project, we would like to know stakeholder preferences and perceptions on teak throughout its life cycle, from the forest right through processing, marketing and sales. This method combined in-depth individual interviews with analysis, followed by participatory workshops involving all stakeholders. The stakeholders included all types of people involved in teak issues. Focus group discussion The research team decided to use focus group discussions to identify various social or cultural factors that needed to be taken into account in designing and implementing the PHBM program. The focus group method was used to collect information about resources and their use, institutions, and formal and informal PHBM agreements. The method can be used to elaborate the data and complement information from key informants. Hopefully, the information from the focus groups represented respondents’ viewpoints without the facilitator’s intervention. The selected participants were people who knew and understood the topic and were familiar with their environment. The focus groups went through a series of steps. These included defining the objective so that all participants were clear about the purpose. Small group discussions were held where participants could focus more on the specific issue. These were followed by plenary discussion with the larger group, where issues covered in the small groups were presented and re-discussed so that all participants could understand, criticize, and question. During the conclusion phase, participants reflected on what was done, expressed any concerns, examined and debated remaining questions. In the reflection phase, participants considered how their decisions and daily activities related to forest management. Role play method Different institutions and individuals play various roles and have different perspectives, power, communication styles and so forth. Understanding each others’ roles and perspectives can help in understanding why certain institutions or

21

individuals behave in certain ways or make certain decisions. This understanding can provide a basis to improve communication, relationships and collaboration. Role playing can also provide insights into power relationships and communication patterns among different stakeholders. If done well, the exercise can increase participants’ self-confidence and empathy, and help them come up with guidelines or strategies to deal with the problems they all face. This method was implemented during the focus group discussion on resources and resource use in Glandang village. It was not used in the other three villages because forest resources were a sensitive issue. In these villages, PP efforts to protect their forest areas have made it difficult for the community to discuss forest resource use openly. Venn diagram Venn diagram is a participatory method used to identify which organisations/institutions the participants perceived as important, and the relationships among them, particularly the relationship with the LMDH. Supported methods or tools were used to make participants more active and reduce the gap between facilitator and participants in the focus group discussions in the four villages. For example, the Meta card method was used to give participants the opportunity to express their ideas or thoughts. Ice-breakers were used to refresh the group. The purpose was to help participants relax and reduce the facilitator’s dominant role. Participants or the facilitator could provide ice-breakers. The aim was to help participants express their feelings by using pictures or games in line with the exercise’s objectives. Basic information The baseline study also needed basic information about stakeholders, resource and resource use, livelihoods, institutions, and analysis on agreements. This information was collected during the preliminary field visit, the socio-economic survey and the livelihood survey. Secondary data was taken from the village monograph at provincial level, official government data, and Perum Perhutani’s offices from Unit I level down to sub-district level (Bagian Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan or BKPH) where the study villages were located.

22

Table 2: Brief Information about the Project Sites

Name of village

Total administra-tive village area (ha)

Total PP state forest area under PHBM (ha)

Population (people)

Total productive labor* (%)

Main occupation (%)

Main level of education (%)

Tanggel 3,265 2,560 4,860 3,048 (63%)

Farmer (46%) Farm labor (32%)

Elementary (66%)

Gempol 7,172 2,605 3,134 2,162 (69%)


Elementary (63%) Junior high school (12%)

Glandang 648 320 2,810 2,207 (79%)



Surajaya 570 546 (445 ha planted to teak)

7,644 5,715 (75%)



* Productive labor is defined as people aged 15 to 50 years old. Sources: Village monograph data and BKPH office

Table 3: Activities Java Case Study Year 1

Tanggel Gempol Glandang Surajaya

Site selection KPH Randublatung KPH Pemalang

Literature review PHBM, collection agreements, etc.

Methods

Stakeholder analysis

Observation Observation Observation Observation

Livelihood survey

Survey Survey Survey and Role Play

Survey

Resource and Resource Use

Survey and FGD

Survey and FGD

Survey and FGD

Survey and FGD

Institution analysis

FGD FGD FGD FGD

Agreements analysis

KI and FGD KI and FGD KI and FGD KI and FGD

Policy exist Cro

ss c

uttin

g to

pic

for J

ava

Cas

e us

ing

PA

CT

met

hod

KI KI KI KI

Bas

elin

e st

udy

Reports Comprehensive report will be produced in Year 2

23

Figure 5: Activities Achieved in Java Site Year 1

Task NameSite Identification

Trip in Perum Perhutani PP

Agreement with PP

Baseline

Literature review

PACT survey

PACT analysis

Livelihood survey

Livelihood S analysis

Institutional analysis

Resources Use

Agreements and Policies

Report

21/06

v '03 Dec '03 Jan '04 Feb '04 Mar '04 Apr '04 May '04 Jun '04 Jul '04 Aug '04 Sep '04 Oct '04

II.5. Operations achieved and ongoing in Malaysia As per the project proposal, there was no field activity scheduled to take place in Malaysia in the first year, however, some activities took place to prepare for Year 2 field activities in Malaysia.

Malaysian Team The core Malaysia team consists of six scientists from UPM. Prof. Dato’Dr.Nik Muhamad Majid is the coordinator for Malaysia team. He is supported by Dr. Khamuruddin Mohd Noor, who is an economist (Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry). Ms. Rosta Harun is anthropologist (Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Environmental Studies), Dr. Sharifah Norazizan Syed Abdul Rashid (Department of Social and Development Sciences, Faculty of Human Ecology) is economist and specialist of environmental assessment, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Kamil Yusoff (Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Studies) and Assoc. Prof. Mohd Zin Jusoh from Department of Forest Production, Faculty of Forestry.

Site Selection – Matang Mangrove, Perak In April 2004 we identified the location for site selection (see trip report in Annex IV) and prepared the working plan for Year 2. During this initial visit we met with officials in various government departments, especially the Forestry Department in Kuala Lumpur, research institutions and the European Union representatives in Kuala Lumpur. We learned during this trip that the plantation company we had identified three years ago in Sabah had been dismantled and the Department of Forestry recommended us not to work in Kelantan as previously planned in our project. The key outcome of the meetings was the Department of Forestry demanded the project to be conducted in Matang Forest Reserve and asked us to consider the issue of the

24

indigenous community in Pahang. We built on these demands and in August we went to the Matang Forest to meet some key stakeholders. From the previous Malaysia Plan (RM8 and RM9), the sponsoring body for the research project in Malaysia has been emphasizing an inter-sectoral research project. A project like this will definitely get a lot support from the related agencies. Site description Matang Mangrove forest is situated in Perak. Perak is a state in the northwestern part of West Malaysia, bordering Thailand and the states of Kedah, Penang, Kelantan, Pahang, and Selangor, and fronting the Strait of Malacca. The provincial capital is Ipoh. Its area is about 20,720 sq km (8,000 sq mi). Matang Mangroves is in the administrative district of Krian, Larut/Matang and Manjung of the state of Perak. The whole area comprises 19 independent gazetted forest reserves, collectively known as the ‘Matang Mangroves’. Matang Mangrove management is a classic example of the multiple uses of forestry and estuarine resource management. In the past 100 years its management focused on timber production while taking into consideration other aspects such as conservation and protection of the mangrove and its environment. While the department has been successful in managing the forest sustainably to produce mangrove timber, fisheries production, which depends on the mangrove ecosystem, seems to be unsustainable. There have been a lot of questions regarding the linkages between the fisheries and the mangrove ecosystem as the water quality of the mangrove has been affected by upstream pollution. Although the mangrove ecosystem, taken in isolation, could look sustainable, it is actually a component of a larger system that looks unsustainable. Locally, the livelihood of the fisherman is affected by the recommendations of the Department of Fisheries, which regularly reduces the level of total fish catch. The livelihood of the charcoal manufacturing workers seems to be also an issue. While the foresters were managing the timber, as if the mangrove was in isolation, unknowingly they were also managing the fisheries. The mangrove is also heavily affected by the pollution from the rivers. There is a need for integration in managing different ecosystem components. The crescent-shaped mangrove reserve measures about 13 km wide in the middle and about 52 km between extreme ends of the northern coast of Perak. The total area of Matang Mangrove, excluding major waterways, is approximately 40,466 ha, which is about 93% of the whole mangrove area available in the state of Perak. This area is divided into Production Forest (29,794 ha) and Protective Forest (10,672 ha). The island reserves were first gazetted in 1903. The first ‘management plan’ was then introduced in 1904 to regulate and control felling of island reserves. By 1906, the whole gazettement of Matang Mangrove was complete. The first comprehensive plan was introduced in 1950 (1950-1959) and revised once every 10 years.

25

Issues The key issue in Matang Mangrove is to understand the relationship between the human activities and the renewable resource of the mangrove. In 2000, fisheries generated about RM 267 million, of which RM 67 million came from the onsite hatcheries in the mangrove estuaries, while the remaining came from the offsite mangrove catch. The production of charcoal and mangrove poles, however, generated a much lower figure of RM 27 million a year. Such an imbalance has attracted economic activities towards aquaculture, while at the same time increasing the pressure on the mangrove estuarine management system. While the Forestry Department has the sole responsibility for managing the mangrove forest, the Fisheries Department has been given the authority to look into the matters pertaining to fishing administration. Local business activities are under the jurisdiction of the local municipality. The utilization of resources and benefits, however, extends beyond the boundary of the reserve. There are authorities related to some of these economic activities, which do not seem to be directly related to the forest and yet which are highly dependent on mangrove resources. There appears to be an issue of integrated management and policy across different departments to deal with communication issue. Throughout the years, all the agencies involved recognized each others authority within the area. While many individual acknowledged the interdependency of one another and have been operating at an accommodating level, they are not fully coordinated.

Site selection – Pekan, Pahang Pahang is a state in central West Malaysia. It is the largest state in peninsular Malaysia, with its capital at Kuantan, the most important port on West Malaysia's eastern China Sea coast. Pahang comprises chiefly the basin of the Pahang River (Malaysia's longest river) and a mountainous jungle hinterland to the northwest. Mount Tahan, the highest mountain in the Malay Peninsula, is in Pahang (See Map 4). The sparsely settled population includes indigenous hill peoples (Orang Asli) as well as Malay peoples and Chinese. The area is about 35,965 sq km (13,886 sq mi) with a population (1991 census) of 1,036,724. According the Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA) an Orang Asli is defined as follows: ‘Any person whose male parent is or was, a member of an aboriginal ethnic group, habitually follows and aboriginal way of life, an aboriginal customs and beliefs and include a descendent through males of such person’. The Orang Asli primarily depend on the forest for their survival and economic income. Over the years, a lot of efforts have been taken to improve the livelihood of this community. However, progress was slow and the methods as well as the success remain questionable.

26

This site has been proposed by Malaysia’s Department of Forestry, which is under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs, under the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development, has been informed and welcomes the project. Discussions have been held at the local level with the Director of the Department of Forestry and Director of Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Pahang. These department are concerned by the socio-economic level of Orang Asli community in these area, which are relatively low since 60% of them still depend on the forest for survival. Most of their living area (55%) is deep in the forest and hard to either reach or develop. In addition, there is a conflict of interest in the status of the land between the state government of Pahang and the Orang Asli community. Site description There are 31 Orang Asli’s villages around Hutan Simpan Pekan, Hutan Simpan Nenasi, Hutan Simpan Kedondong, and Hutan Simpan Resak. The population is about 11,000 Orang Asli in Pekan. The department recommended work in four villages. Each village has about 1,500 ha of forest, even though the land belongs to the state, the people have the right to use the resources. People are no longer living inside the forest but are still depending on forest resources. At least 60% of the people depend on forest resources.

27

III. Financial management Year I We experienced large delays before we were able to produce the financial report at the end of February 2005. CIFOR had first to consolidate the partners’ financial reports, which was completed 10 February 2005. There were several other reasons for the delay. Since it was the first year, our partners needed to learn EC reporting format and procedures. CIFOR had a lot of exchanges with the three university partners. The UPLB foundation in Philippines was restructured and a totally new team had to take over the report during the report period. This increased significantly the delays as they could send their report only in February 2005. We expect that these problems will not happen in Year 2, as our partners know how to proceed now. As indicated in the following table, the project’s total expenditure for the first year is 236,915 Euros, of which 78.31 % is the European Community contribution. This fits with the requirement of the grant contract special conditions as the maximum of the European Community contribution shall be 78.37%. We realize that we spent only 39% of the planned first year budget. Even though the project started officially 1 September 2003, work could only begin after the funds arrived at CIFOR, which was in January 2004. It took also a lot of time to get agreements to work in the field in Indonesia. We got the agreement with Perum Perhutani in June 2004.

28

Table 4: Project Cost Statement Year 1 Financial Statement

Project Title :to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia

Project No.: B7-6200/02/0642/TFGrant period: 19 August 2003 - 18 August 2007Grant amount: Euro 814,262Reporting Period: 1 January 2004 - 31 August 2004

CIRAD CIFOR CIRAD CIFOR

1.1 1.1.1 Social scientists 26 809 2 639Assistant 1 492 47Computer scientists (GIS, M.A. specialists) 8 651 1 460Information system / website specialistSpecialist of information to local people 561Junior scientists 2 861National coordinators 6 009 377

1.1.2 Administrative/support staff [Secretary] 4 1581.2 1.2.1 Project leader 49 000 21 000

1.2.2 Multi-agent specialist1.2.3 Conflict resolution, policy or assessment spec. 3 500 1 500

Conflict resolution, policy or assessment spec. 1 633 7001.2.4 CIFOR board team 1 2 2681.2.5 CIRAD board team 2 4 730

1.3 1.3.1 Cities ouside S. E. Asia as EuropeCities in S. E. Asia Region 9 958 2 885

1.3.2 Local (project staff) [rural area] 4 6641.3.3 1 688

Subtotal Human Resources 54 133 62 693 27 930 13 8342.1 International travel 2 7152.2 Regional travel 4 4562.3 National travel 2 128

Subtotal Travel 2 715 6 5843.1 Rent of vehicles 3 845 2113.2 Furniture, computer equipment 3 874 1 5003.3 Portable computer 10 7583.4 Communication tools ( video, camera) 3 288

Subtotal Equipment and supplies 21 765 1 7114.1 Vehicle costs 5354.2 Office rent 3 7024.3 Consumables - office supplies 2 187 1 0004.4 Other services (tel/fax, electricity, maintenance) 2 681

Subtotal Local office/project costs 2 187 7 9185.1 Publications 5.1.1 Book

5.1.2 Reports5.1.3 CD Rom

5.2 Studies field site mediators & NGO's 2 5825.3 Auditing costs5.4 External evaluation costs5.5 Translation document 785.6 Financial services (bank guarantee costs etc.)5.7 Costs of conferences/seminars 17 286

Subtotal Other costs, services 19 9468. Subtotal direct eligible project costs (1.-7.) 56 848 113 175 27 930 23 4639. Administrative costs 9 760 5 73910. Total eligible project costs (8.+ 9.) 66 608 118 914 27 930 23 46311. Contingency reserve12. Total costs (10.+11.) 66 608 118 914 27 930 23 463

Total costs (EC Grant + Cirad and Cifor contributions) 236 916 78.31%% EC Contribution

Center for International Forestry Research

Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development

(In EURO)

5. O

ther

cos

ts, s

ervi

ces

4. L

ocal

of

fice/

proj

ect

cost

s2.

Tra

vel

1. H

uman

Res

ourc

es

ExpendituresExpenses

Per diems for missions / travel

3. E

quip

men

t an

d Su

pplie

s

Technical / local experts

Abroad (project staff)

Seminar/conference participants [in rural area local stakeholder participants]

Contributions

Salaries (gross amounts, local)

Salaries (gross amounts, expat/int. staff)

29

CIRAD, CIFOR and each partner managed part of the EC contribution budget in the following proportions: Budget in

Euro In % of budget line

Total %

CIRAD CIFOR Universities Management of EC contribution

185,522 36 37 27 100

Partners’ contribution 51,393 51 38 11 100 Total in Euro 236,915

This table indicates also the financial contribution by partners.

IV. Action plan Year 2 Site selection justification in Indonesia and Malaysia The steering committee agreed last year on the two sites in Malaysia, i.e. Matang and Pahang, which were proposed by the Department of Forestry. For Indonesia the steering committee asked for further justification why we did not use the two sites mentioned in the proposal and our reasons for selecting the two sites proposed by the Indonesian team. The first reason we did not choose the site in Jambi was that it involved Asian Pulp and Paper (APP) with which CIRAD-Foret had some work on technical aspects of plantations. This can be viewed as a conflict of interest, which is not allowed by European Commission. The second reason is that APP is criticized a lot by WWF for its contribution to natural forest deforestation and degradation of biodiversity. CIFOR, which used to work with APP, is also now reluctant to do so for the same reason as WWF. The Finnantara plantations, which was another site identified six years ago, was sold in 2004 to APP. We had discussions with MHP in August 2004 and found that the company had developed a genuine policy to improve its relationship with the local stakeholders. They proposed two partnership schemes to farmers. But issues of land and fair benefit sharing are potential causes of future conflicts and we expect that the project could facilitate stakeholders to find peaceful and fruitful solutions for all. The MHP site fits very well with the original proposal, which was planned to take place in the APP area in Jambi. Both involve a large pulp company, which wants, through a subsidiary company, to develop partnerships with smallholders to grow Acacia mangium. It gives us the opportunity to compare partnerships for long-term plantation in Java with teak and short-term plantation in MHP with Acacia mangium. It is interesting to compare these two kinds of plantations for a fast wood (Cossalter 2003) and a slow wood (teak). With the over-exploitation of natural forests, these two resources might be the main supplier of the wood industries in the near future, helping

30

to maintain employment in this sector. These two resources might also converge. For instance, Acacia mangium can be used to produce indoor furniture and would be managed according to longer rotations while the teak can be managed under much shorter rotations. For teak it is happening already in agroforestry systems. A growing number of furniture makers are using teak from agroforestry with much smaller diameters than those from the state enterprise Perum Perhutani. These resources are of growing interest as Perum Perhutani forest resources are dramatically shrinking. Teak from agroforestry could be the resource that keeps the large industrial cluster of Jepara alive without relying on illegal wood from natural forests or illegal wood from Perum Perhutani teak forests. The relation between the teak small growers and the furniture makers in Java is not bounded by a formal contract but involves a lot of actors. It is worth it to document these relationships. Hundred of thousands people in Java depend for their livelihood on wood processing activities. We expect that the project can increase the awareness of the different stakeholders about their mutual interests and facilitate them to find solutions to improve smallholder teak forest management systems by, for instance, increasing incentives for smallholders to grow trees, creating tracking systems, improving the processing of small teak logs. The project will also increase the knowledge available on the links between forest management, industrial development, jobs opportunities and market dynamics.

Regional level action plan Year 2

Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding We expect the MoU with UPLB and UPM to be signed in Year 2. Even now, there is no progress with the MoU with DENR, ULPB-FI, CIRAD, and CIFOR. We will develop MoUs with companies and local government at field level (MHP in Sumatra, local government in district of Jepara).

Next Steering Committee Meeting The next steering committee should take place the second week of May 2005 in Palawan, Philippines.

Developing Common Tools for Participatory Approaches PACT ‘Pro-Active Conciliation Tool Analyzing Stakeholders’ Interrelation’ should be implemented in different fields (Java, Matang, Palawan), which requires some training. The use of role playing games to help stakeholders to learn by themselves should also be implemented and requires training.

Regional Trainings for Team Members Facilitation Training During the methodological workshop of Year 1 we identified training needs to improve the facilitation skills of the project team. These skills will be needed during

31

intervention stages, which will go on in Palawan and will start in Java, and other sites as Matang in Malaysia, MHP in Sumatra and Jepara during Year 2. We will hire INSPIRIT, an NGO specialized in such training. The INSPIRIT team has been itself trained by the Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC, Bangkok). Specific objectives of the course will be: Introduce the concept of ‘facilitation’ to LPF team members; Increase their understanding of why it is important and how it will be used during LPF project implementation; Build and improve the facilitation skills of the LPF team members from the three countries so that they can effectively facilitate meetings, discussions, dialogues, etc. that take place between and within different stakeholders during the implementation of the LPF project; Build and improve the skills of the LPF team members in designing workshop processes for effective participatory decision making; and Build awareness of the dynamics in multistakeholder settings and how facilitation can be used effectively in such a setting. Two facilitation training sessions will be organised: One will be organised in Kuala Lumpur in February 2005. This training will be in English with team members from Philippines, CIFOR and Malaysia and some local government officers from Malaysia. The second will be organised in Yojakarta in March 2005 in Bahasa Indonesia with team members from UGM, Perum Perhutani officers, MHP staff. A workshop on Multi-Agent System and Role Playing Games This workshop is planned for December 2004 in Thailand in coordination with CIRAD-TERA based in Chulalongkorn University. The title of the training will be Companion Modelling and Resilience of Ecosystems. The three key specific objectives of this course are:

• Present the theoretical and methodological backgrounds of renewable resource management and participatory modeling (Commod method) as a tool to analyse ecosystem resiliences;

• Present and discuss some Commod method experiences developed by the

CIRAD team in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world; • Help participants develop their own Commod method for their specific site.

The modeling work will require some coordination across the sites to share knowledge and experiences. Herry Purnomo (CIFOR) will be in charge of this coordination and a workshop is planned in Bogor in July 2005. PACT Training The Malaysian team is interested to learn more about PACT. The CIFOR team will provide some mentoring to Malaysian team members in Malaysia in February 2005.

32

Table 5: Action Plan at the Regional Level Year 2

Task NameRegional training

Role playing games and MAS

Facilitation Malaysia

PACT in Malaysia

Facilitation Yojakarta

Regional workshops

Regional workshop Palawan

Steering Committee Palawan

Workshop on modeling Bogor

Coordination

RPG and modeling Bogor

Coordination in Philippines I

Coordination in Philippines II

Coordination in Indonesia I

Coordination in Indonesia II

Coordination in Indonesia III

Coordination in Malaysia I

Coordination in Malaysia II

Coordination in Malaysia III

Reporting

19/05

t '04 Nov '04 Dec '04 Jan '05 Feb '05 Mar '05 Apr '05 May '05 Jun '05 Jul '05 Aug '05 Sep '

Coordination meetings We planned for a coordination meeting between CIRAD-CIFOR and the university partners to take place in May 2005 in order to minimize the number of trips. As much as possible we use also the opportunities provided by trainings or conference to hold these meetings. International expertise The key expertise from CIRAD will be: Manuel Boissiere, specialist of MLA (Multi-disciplinary Landscape Assessment) method, will assess the perceptions, the forest resources of Indigenous people in Palawan in February 2005 (2 weeks). He will be assisted by Nining Liswanti from CIFOR. Jean Marc Roda will design the method for the analysis of the industrial district of Jepara and its linkage with agroforestry (Indonesia - 2 weeks). Martine Antona will help the Malaysian team in designing the approach for integrated coastal management in Matang forest, Malaysia (2 weeks). Other expertise Marina Goloubinoff, market chain specialist, will train Philippine researchers in Palawan to conduct market studies for forest, lowland, and coastal products.

33

Program Year 2 in Philippines The key objectives in Year 2 in Palawan are: Finalize the baseline studies and issues the related reports; Facilitate collective actions across the three villages along the coast; Provide market information to the local stakeholders; Create a forum involving the local government agencies and NGOs at the provincial level; Document the perceptions, the resources uses and the livelihood of indigenous people living upland in the forest, using Multistakeholder Landscape Assessment (MLA) method; Test role playing game as a learning tool to address the long-term issues with the communities and the local forum.

Continuation of baseline surveys Natural resources assessment Market study Revisit vision and build common vision Workshop to validate trends

Interventions Facilitation training workshop for local stakeholders Decision process and capacity building Action planning by the local communities Institutional strengthening Conduct of trainings and forums Establish agreements Implement agreements Start of scenario modeling with Multi-Agent System to create role playing game (RPG)

Monitoring and evaluation

34

Table 6: Action Plan for Palawan Year 2 Task NameBaseline

Analysis for report baselines year I

Report baseline issued

Natural resources assessment

Report Natural R A issued

Market study

Report Market study Issued

Market Study II

Revisit vision /build common vision

Intervention

Facilitation training workshop

Facilitation and capacity building

Planning and coordination

Role Playing game

Micro-project facilitation

Provincial steering committee

17/01

15/04

23/03

03/11

Sep '04 Oct '04 Nov '04 Dec '04 Jan '05 Feb '05 Mar '05 Apr '05 May '05 Jun '05 Jul '0

Program Year 2 in Indonesia Research activities in Indonesia for 2004-2005 (Year 2) will be carried out in three sites: one ongoing site in Java and two new sites in Jepara and South Sumatra. The LPF project will be conducted in partnership with the Faculty of Forestry, Gadjah Mada University (UGM). Other possible partners are FORDA (Forestry Research and Development Agency, Ministry of Forestry), local government agencies, local NGOs, national/international universities, and private companies and associations.

Java Case Study The new activities will require the use of additional methods for intervention. New kinds of role playing game will be developed at the end of the Year 2. The need to develop facilitation skills within the team to carry on focus group discussions (FGD) will be fulfill by the regional trainings described above. In Year 2 the UGM team will carry out the intervention phase in Java as indicated into the following plan.

35

Table 7: Action Plan for Java Task Name

BaselineAnalysis and reporting

InterventionDesign process

Workshop in villages and KPH

Workshop reporting

Revising common vision

Facilitation for collective action

Modelling (part of intervention)Develop models

Chering Game or RPG

Revise model - develop scenarios

Report writing

September October November December January February March April May June July August

Jepara Case Study Activities in Jepara start in March 2005. The general method is to go from the industries to the forest resources as industry demand influences a lot forest management patterns. In this case, we will focus on the teak resources outside state forest, keeping in mind the resources from Perum Perhutani. The two sites ‘Java’ and ‘Jepara’ are not totally independent as a lot of wood illegally harvested inside Perum Perhutani forest ends up in Jepara. These two sites are complementary (mathematical sense). Some of the key questions that this study will address (working directly with the stakeholders) are: 1) could wood from agroforestry be a substitute for wood illegally taken from Perum Perhutani forests?; 2) what incentives are needed for small farmers to grow teak wood?; 3) what incentives are needed for industries owners, local and international furniture buyers to become responsible regarding the sustainability of wood resources? In Year 2 we will develop surveys (baseline) to document the dynamics of Jepara industries, their consumption of raw material, and the related creation of employment linked to teak wood resources. We will also organise a workshop to give stakeholders the opportunity to discuss issues related to the co-development of furniture industries and wood resources. We are planning in Year 3 to analyse the socio-economic attributes of teak grown by smallholders.

Table 8: Action Plan for Jepara Year 2

ID Task Name1 Identification of demand2 Baseline3 Expertise JM Roda method4 Preparation baseline5 Baseline Jepara6 Workshop with key stakehol7 Preparation8 workshop

Feb '05 Mar '05 Apr '05 May '05 Jun '05 Jul '05 Aug '05 Sep '05 Oct '05 Nov '05

36

South Sumatra Case Study Our goal at this site for Year 2 is to identify the local partners, identify the key stakeholders and launch some baselines studies as livelihood and institutions. These activities will take place in the second semester of this Year 2.

Table 9: Action Plan for Sumatra Year 2

Task Name

Identification of sitesTrip 1 to South Sumatra

Trip 2 to South Sumatra

InterventionSecondary data analysis

Village selection

Livelihood survey

Stakeholders analysis

InterventionWorshop

Modeling

er December January February March April May June July August September October Novem

Program Year 2 in Malaysia The plan for Year 2 (September 2004 –August 2005) in Malaysia is to concentrate on the following activities (See Table 10 and 11). Throughout 2004, the LPF project in Matang Mangrove will focus on baseline studies. The baseline study, which includes secondary data collection, will be conducted from September 2004 through May 2005. One of the activities in the baseline study will be to attend the ‘100 Years Matang Mangrove Management Conference’ in Ipoh, 5-8 October 2004. Such a meeting will be a good platform for the team to introduce the project to other stakeholders and academic community at large. The information gathered during this meeting will be analysed and a report provided in May 2005. Three focus group meetings will be held with the communities in Matang in April and July 2005. In April, we will bring together the scientific community that works on Matang to look at the interactions between their fields of research and to let them express their views on Matang sustainability and issues. Later we will assemble a first group of stakeholders (forest concessionaires, charcoal makers, fishermen etc.) to hear their views on the future of Matang Mangrove forest. The third workshop will gather representatives of different branches from the administration in charge of the management of Matang Mangrove forest (forestry, marine, planning, state and federal branches). A number of baseline studies on Matang Mangrove (livelihood, resources used, institutions) will be carried out from June to August 2005.

37

Table 10: Action Plan for Matang Year 2

Task Name

BaselineNational Workshop 100 years MStakeholders views (FGD)Secondary data analysisLivelihood surveyResource and resource useEnvironment, waterInstitutionsReporting

t '04 Nov '04 Dec '04 Jan '05 Feb '05 Mar '05 Apr '05 May '05 Jun '05 Jul '05 Aug '05 Sep '05 Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Ja

In Pahang the first objectives of this year are: 1) Identify the administration’s demands; and 2) Identify the villages where we can work as indigenous people’s issues are very sensitive in Malaysia. Several visits to the aborigines’ village in Pahang will be conducted from February to August 2005. Secondary data collection for Pahang will be done February-May 2005. The livelihood study in Pahang will be conducted June-August 2005. Table 11: Action Plan for Pahang Task Name

BaselineFirst field trip for villages identificationSecondary data analysisLivelihood surveyReporting

b '05 Mar '05 Apr '05 May '05 Jun '05 Jul '05 Aug '05 Sep '05 Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06

38

V. Budget for the second year of operation The following budget is a summary from the budgets prepared with our partners in each country.

Table 12: Budget for LPF Operations Year 2 (September 2004-August 2005) Project :

Unit Number of units

Unit rate(in EUR) Total EC Year 2 Total contributions

hors EC

1.1 1.1.1 Social scientists month 1 500 31,000 18,200 Assistant month 800 17,500 3,000 Computer scientists (GIS, M.A. specialists) month 1 300 13,000 - Information system / website specialist month 1 000 - - Specialist of information to local people month 1 000 - - Junior scientists month 250 1,800 - National coordinators month 2 000 12,000 -

1.1.2 Administrative/support staff [Secretary] month 2 000 1,700 5,000 1.2 1.2.1 Project leader month 7 10 000 49,000 21,000

1.2.2 Multi-agent specialist month 1 10 000 7,000 3,000 1.2.3 Conflict resolution, policy or assessment spec. month 2.6 10 000 7,000 19,000 1.2.4 CIFOR board team 1 month 12 000 - 11,000 1.2.5 CIRAD board team 2 month 11 000 - 5,000

1.3 1.3.1 Cities ouside S. E. Asia as Europe per diem 150 - - Cities in S. E. Asia Region per diem 135 14,800 -

1.3.2 Local (project staff) [rural area] per diem 35 14,400 - 1.3.3 per diem 10 12,300 -

Subtotal Human Resources 181,500 85,200 2.1 International travel flight 2 000 4,800 - 2.2 Regional travel flight 600 6,200 - 2.3 National travel flight 200 4,700 -

Subtotal Travel 15,700 - 3.1 Rent of vehicles month 550 15,500 300 3.2 Furniture, computer equipment pers-month 100 3,000 1,500 3.3 Portable computer unit 3 500 9,800 - 3.4 Communication tools ( video, camera) Unit 2 000 3,800 -

Subtotal Equipment and supplies 32,100 1,800 4.1 Vehicle costs pers-month 500 - 500 4.2 Office rent year 3 300 - 10,000 4.3 Consumables - office supplies pers-month 60 3,450 1,000 4.4 Other services (tel/fax, electricity, maintenance) pers-month 200 200 7,000

Subtotal Local office/project costs 3,650 18,500 5.1 Publications 5.1.1 Book unit 1 11 000 - -

5.1.2 Reports unit 2 000 500 - 5.1.3 CD Rom unit 3 500 - -

5.2 Studies field site mediators & NGO's month 1 500 44,000 - 5.3 Auditing costs unit 12 000 12,000 - 5.4 External evaluation costs unit 25 000 - 5.5 Translation document page 20 - - 5.6 Financial services (bank guarantee costs etc.) month 100 - - 5.7 Costs of conferences/seminars unit 28 000 73,800 -

Subtotal Other costs, services 130,300 - 8. Subtotal direct eligible project costs (1.-7.) 363 250 105 5009. Administrative costs (07% of 8, total direct eligible project costs) 32,813

10. Total eligible project costs (8.+ 9.) 396,063 105,500

Expenses

Levelling the Playing Field: Budget for the second Year of Operation

5. O

ther

cos

ts, s

ervi

ces

Per diems for missions / travel

1. H

uman

Res

ourc

es

Salaries (gross amounts, expat/int. staff)

Salaries (gross amounts, local)

2. T

rave

l3.

Equ

ipm

ent

and

Supp

lies

Seminar/conference participants [in rural area local stakeholder participants]

Abroad (project staff)

Technical / local experts

4. L

ocal

of

fice/

proj

ect

cost

s

39

CIRAD, CIFOR and each partner will manage part of the budget in the expected following proportions: Budget in

Euro In % of budget line

Total %

CIRAD CIFOR Partners Management of EC Contribution

396 063 22 46 32 100

Partners’ contribution 105 500 36 40 24 100 Total in Euro 501 563

This table indicates also the expected contribution by partners.

VI. Overall assessment of project progress Realized versus planned As mentioned earlier, the project started six months behind schedule. We spent more time in field site identification than planned because many things had happened on the ground in the three years between project design and implementation. Despite the delay, the project has progressed satisfactorily in Year 1. In Philippines, all activities scheduled in Year 1 were carried out as planned (despite the six months’ delay), except for natural resource assessment and market chain analysis study. The delay was due to the unavailability of the scientists/consultants to help the Philippine team members in designing and carrying out those studies. The delay was only slight as the two studies are scheduled to take place in the beginning of Year 2, i.e. in October 2004 (market chain study) and February 2005(natural resource assessment). In Java, the field work could start in June after getting the authorization from local authorities to sign an MOU with Perum Perhutani. Nevertheless, the UGM team managed to carry on most of the baseline studies in less than three months. We identified an alternative site to replace the site in Jambi and Kalimantan. It was planned that activities at these two sites should be implemented mostly in Year 2. So this did not affect the general implementation of the project. In Malaysia in Year 1 we were able to identify the new sites. It is not an issue as field work was planned to start in Year 2 and Year 3.

40

Table 13: Original General Plan of Actions as in the EC Contract

Time frame Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Activities 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Field sites identification

Regional workshops

Regional training Field work site 1 Palawan Field work site 2 MHP-Indo Field work site 3 Java - Teak Field work site 4 Matang Field work site 5 Teak_Jepara Field work site 6 Pahang Analysis and publications

As indicated below in Year 2, during the first six months we will focus on training the different project teams (facilitation and role playing game associated to modelling). We want that to be done to support intervention activities, which should start in Palawan and Java in Year 2. As we experienced that launching a new site takes a lot of time we decided to start the process earlier in the last sites in Jepara and Pahang.

Table 14: Actions Achieved in Year 1 and Planned for Year 2

Timeframe Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Activities 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Field sites identification

Regional workshops

Regional training Field work site 1 Palawan Field work site 2 MHP Field work site 3 Java teak Field work site 4 Matang Field work site 5 Jepara Field work site 6 Pah Analysis and publications

Annexes

I. COMPOSITION OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE 41

II. TRIPS REPORTS IN THE PHILIPPINES - YEAR I 43

III. COUNTRY REPORT INDONESIA - YEAR I 66

Java Case Study - Collaborative Management in Teak Plantation Forest 66

Jepara Case: Promoting smallholder teak forests and local teak wood enterprises. 86

South Sumatra Case: Collaborative management in fast growing plantation for pulp 89

IV. COUNTRY REPORT MALAYSIA - YEAR I 92

V. COMPANION MODELLING AND RESILIENCE OF ECOSYSTEMS TRAINING 111

VI. AGREEMENTS 112

VII. SCIENTIFIC PAPER 113

VIII AUDIT REPORT 133

41

I. Composition of the Steering Committee France Dr. Bernard Mallet

Head of Plantation Program CIRAD-Forêt TA 10/C, Campus International de Baillarguet 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5

Tel: 33-4-67593774 Fax: 33-4-67593733 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Jean-Guy Bertault

Resident Regional Director for Insular Southeast Asia CIRAD Forêt Plaza Business Kemang, 3rd fl. Jl. Kemang Raya No. 2 Jakarta 12730

Tel: +62-21-7199067 Fax: +62-21-7993044 E-mail: [email protected]

Indonesia

Dr. Agus Sarsito

Centre of Social and Economic Research and Development, Director Ministry of Forestry Jl. Gunung Batu no. 5 – Bogor

Tel/Fax: +62-251-633944 HP: +62-811141100

Mr. Chip Fay Scientist ICRAF Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680

E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Doris Capistrano Forest and Governance, Director CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680


Mr. Giovanni Serritella European Commission Wisma Dharmala Sakti, 16th fl. Jl. Jend. Sudirman 32 Jakarta l0220

Tel: +62-21-5706076 Fax: +62-21-5706075 Email:

42

Dr. Markku Kanninen CIFOR

Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang Bogor 16680


Dr. Sofyan F. Warsito

UGM- Dean Faculty of Forestry Gadjah Mada University Bulaksumur Yogyakarta 55281

Tel: +62-274-512102 HP: +62-8129993954 Fax: +62-274-550541/ 523553

Malaysia

Prof. Dato' Dr. Nik Muhamad Majid

UPM- Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM-Serdang

Tel:+60-3-89467211 HP:+60-12-2365996 Fax:+60-3-89432514 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Nazir Khan

Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia Kuala Lumpur

Fax: +60-3-26925657 E-mail: [email protected]

Philippines

Ms. Remedios S. Evangelista

DENR - Chief of Program Development Section Forest Management Bureau Department of Environment and Natural Resources Quenzon City

E-mail: [email protected]

43

II. Trips reports in the Philippines - Year I Details of the Philippines country reports are in a separate report called Philippines Country Report year I . Below are two trip reports.

TRIP REPORT Philippines 21- 29 January

Herlina Hartanto, Philippe Guizol, and Ted Villanueva The trip’s main purpose was to re-initialize our partnerships in Palawan and Manila with DENR, UPLB and others institutions to be able to implement this year the project titled “Leveling the Playing Field”, which will build on the former CIFOR project managed by ACM in San Rafael, Palawan. Wednesday, 21 January 2004 - Manila Participants: Herlina Hartanto (HH) and Philippe Guizol (PG), Teodoro R. Villanueva (Ted,UPLB) 08.00AM Meeting with Ted Villanueva (UPLB) PG presented the project to Ted and clarified the goals of this duty travel. 09.00AM Meeting with Domingo T. Bacalla (Doming) Community-based Forest

Management Division; Remedios S. Evangelista, Chief, Program Development Section, Boy Tolentino, DENR Regional IV-A, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Manila

PG presented the project (power point presentation), HH pointed out the potential key topics that can be addressed in the LPF project in Palawan (subject to discussions with key local stakeholders), which are: Forest resource assessment and use Marketing of forest products The development and use of modelling and other tools to enhance understanding of the impacts of management of different stakeholders and to enhance information flow across stakeholders We discussed the MOA (Memorandum Of Agreement); Domingo proposed to have one MOA for CIRAD-CIFOR-UPLB-DENR. To follow up, CIFOR-CIRAD should lead the MOA process and produce the first draft to be revised by UPLB and then by DENR. Domingo suggested also that the project organize a national workshop for presentation of project findings and feed-back to policy makers.

44

Boy suggested, we should also coordinate with the regional office of DENR where Palawan belongs. We proposed the idea of having a technical working group at local level which involves all relevant stakeholders in Palawan and regional level (CENRO, PENDROP, PCSD, local government). A representative from DENR Central Office will be invited to participate regularly, for example every 6 or 12 months. This idea was well accepted by DENR. We also explained that CIFOR is preparing a proposal to be submitted to ADB. This new project might have two fields in Philippines: Palawan and Mindanao. DENR expressed their interest to also participate in this proposal. Fact: Doming mentioned that wood recovery permit in CBFMA areas was suspended in May 2002 indefinitely. 10.30 AM Meeting Renato A. De Rueda Undersecretary for field Operations;

Romeo Acosta Other participants: Remedios S. Evangelista (DENR) PG and HH presented the project and Renato assured us that DENR will give its support to this project. Tuesday, 22 January 2004 – Los Banos Participants: Herlina Hartanto (HH) and Philippe Guizol (PG), Teodoro R. Villanueva (Ted, UPLB) 10.00 AM Meeting with Ramon A. Razal Dean of the College of Forestry and

Natural Resources (UPLB), Dr Enrique Tolentino, Jr., Coordinator for Research and Extension Linkages; Leni D. Camacho, Economist; Margaret Calderon, Environmental Economist.

Dr Enrique Tolentino presented UPLB College of Forestry and Natural Resources history, data about staff, data about graduate students, activities, etc. PG presented the LPF project (partners, project objectives, etc), Herlina followed up with the Palawan site (site characteristics, stakeholders, results of ACM, and remaining challenges). Flyer on ACM Philippines was distributed. Then we discussed about the partnership arrangements with UPLB. We mentioned that DENR suggested that an umbrella MOA between CIRAD, CIFOR, DENR and UPLB should be made. The Dean expressed his concern that the four party MOA may delay the start of the project as it may take longer time for that MOA to be signed. Furthermore, a MOA between DENR and UPLB already exists (it was signed in 2003). It was later agreed that the four party MOA should proceed. At the same time, we will process the contractual agreement between CIRAD/CIFOR and UPLB (which will be represented by UPLB Foundation, Inc. or UPLBFI). This would allow us to start working on the project without waiting for the MOA to be finalised. The Dean

45

also explained that the UPLBFI Executive- Director will sign the small amount contract, while big amount project should by signed by the Chancellor. We should discuss about the issue of administrative costs with UPLBFI. The Dean expressed his appreciation that CIRAD/CIFOR approached the CFNRfor this project. PG and HH then continued the discussion with Margaret (Marge Calderon) on her past experiences. She explained that she is currently working on a project that assesses the willingness to pay of Manila water users for clean water and its relations with water catchment’s management. She used contingency method. Her expertise is on ecological economics. She has done a market chain study but it was done 20 years ago. She looked at how the price of Albizzia and Leucaena changed and products were passed on from producers (in the village) to traders/middle men and consumers. She also mentioned that the school staff might not be able to spend too much time (only 1 week maximum) in the field during the semester due to their teaching commitment. They are more flexible during summer time and semester break: Summer: April – May (2 months) Semester break: mid October – the first/second week of November (1 month) December: 1 month Marge has not spent too much time in the field collecting data. So far she usually designed the research methodology, discussed with research assistants who collected data after she left the field. She did not have the experience working together with computer scientists/modelling in building a model. ACTIONS: Meet UPLB Foundation to learn about the procedures for the contractual agreements HH to send ACM Philippines book to the Dean. 01.30 PM Meeting with Damasa Macandog (Ecologist who has been using Cormas platform for modelling) , Paolo, Arvin Vista, UPLB- Eco-informatics Lab. Paolo just finished his Master thesis on the use of Multi-Agent System (MAS) in modelling coastal resource use in Bohol; he is very able to program Cormas model and he has a true expertise. He was trained by Francois Bousquet through a number of training workshop and Paolo spent 6 months in Montpellier with CIRAD-Green team. Paolo is available currently. Demi joined the meeting later on. She described her current MAS project in Claveria (ICRAF site in Mindanao) titled Smallholder Agroforestry Options for Degraded Soils Project (SAFODS). She gave us a copy of her paper on this project. The MAS model has been developed and she planned to use role games methods in her next step in developing the model further, probably in April. PG mentioned briefly about the LPF project; HH explained about the ACM project in Palawan. PG explained that there is a possibility that we will use MAS for the site in Palawan. ACM project had generated many information already that can be used for building the model. If this is the case, the model can be built in Los Banos first (as

46

Ted’s team members and ACM facilitator are in Los Banos as well), then tested and revised in Palawan. HH emphasized that at the site level what is important is not the model per se but rather it is hoped that the model can prompt discussions and negotiations between the PO and other stakeholders. ACTIONS: HH to send Demi the ACM Philippine book so she can have a rough idea what information has been collected under ACM project PG to look into possibility of bringing Paolo to Bogor so he can help building the model for Java and Palawan together with Hery and Wahyu. 03.00 PM Meeting with Abraham A. Caoili (Executive Director), Vicky Palis

(Finance officer), UPLB Foundation PG explained about the project and the fact that a Jakarta-based auditing company appointed by EU will audit the financial reports of this project. We also mentioned that we want to know about the process of establishing the contractual agreement and UPLB Foundation’s policy on administrative costs. Vicky explained that currently they are managing three EU projects: project on bamboo SAFODS project Forestry project They are quite familiar with EU requirements; they usually received advance and the rest will reimbursed upon the submission of satisfactory reports. In the past they had problems with EU reimbursement, i.e. some of the expenses were rejected. In average they are managing around 100-180 projects in each year. Regarding the administrative cost, UPLBF usually charge 10% (for government project) to 20%. The percentage charged depends on how much the donor can allow and it does not affect the kind of service and responsibilities the Foundation provided. The Foundation can not accept administrative cost of less than 10%. PG explained that CIFOR-CIRAD only received 7% administrative cost from EU. Their internal auditor audits the financial reports that they put together. In addition, they also hired external auditor once a year. Regarding the payment, UPLB Foundation can accept if payments are made in batches, e.g. 50% in advance, 30% in the middle of the contract, and the rest upon the submission of the final output. ACTIONS: CIFOR-CIRAD to specify in the contract that UPLB Foundation has to submit original supporting documents The currency used should be in US dollar as the Foundation only has US dollar account and it will minimize currency conversion costs. PG to discuss with CIFOR-CIRAD and EU regarding the administrative cost, and what/how contingency fund can be used CIFOR-CIRAD should work with Ted in finalising the project plan and budget. Ted will then discuss with the Foundation on how the administrative cost should be taken from.

47

Ted and UPLB Foundation to provide information on the in-kind contribution or counterpart budget that will be provided by UPLB for this project. This will include office space, electricity, and other facility use. Friday, 23 January 2004 – Puerto Princessa City, Palawan Participants: PG, HH, Ted (UPLB), Asuzena Estanol (former ACM research assistant), and Eduarda (Doodee) Devanadera 12.00PM Lunch meeting with Mayor Hagerdon, the Mayor of Puerto Princesa City Mayor Hagerdon emphasized about the need to protect Palawan and its population against all form of extractive industries including mining, logging etc. He explained that they already experienced mercury extraction, which polluted the water resources and logging. Palawan is very committed to keep its biodiversity and its renewable resources. Regarding his vision for Puerto Princesa City, he mentioned that the focus would be on agriculture and tourisms. 02.00 PM Courtesy call to Governor Joel T. Reyes Other participant: Nelson Devanadeara, Provincial Planning and Development Officer, Provincial Government. PH and HH briefly mentioned about the project. The governor expressed also his commitment for sustainable development and nature conservation. 02.30 PM Meeting with Joe Matulac (Director for Field Operations), Tex Racuya,

John Pontillas, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) PCSD is in charge of all Palawan. They are promoting a conservative approach of natural resource management. One of their activities is to define the land use. They use a ‘zoning approach’. Core zone and buffer zones are defined with GIS tools according to a couple of parameters as altitude, slope, forest cover view from satellite imageries and ground check. As a result of this zoning system, 20-50% of the whole CBFM areas in Palawan fall into protection area/core zone category. This means no extraction is allowed to take place. Nevertheless, in cases where the areas have been used by the indigenous people, the areas can be taken out from the core zone. With regards to policy, John mentioned that they are still trying to identify the best policy for Palawan with regards to forest management, e.g. whether 100% total log ban is appropriate. He felt our project is relevant for Palawan.

48

PCSD staff showed us the map showing the location of the critical watershed areas in Palawan. PCSD assisted in the protection of these watersheds. Tex Racuya is sitting as the PCSD representative in CFM Provincial Technical Working Group. (PG opinion: The issue is the implementation of this zoning, the means devoted to the control of these extensive ‘protected areas’, the incentives for local population to care about these core zone if their rights over all the forests resources are removed). Saturday, 24 January 2004 – San Rafael, Palawan Participants: PG, HH, Suzie, Ted (UPLB) Morning: Meeting with the Barangay Captains Venue: House of Barangay Captain of San Rafael, Puerto Princesa City Participants: Captain Candido Cañete, Barangay Captain of Concepcion, Melquiades Rodriguez (Mang Cading), Brgy. Captain of San Rafael, Kagawad Jess and Kagawad Merlyn This first meeting in the field site in Palawan was supposed to be attended by the three barangay captains of the LGUs covered by the CBFMA, i.e. San Rafael, Tanabag and Concepcion. The captain of Tanabag is not available so the meeting proceeded with only Mang Cading and Capt. Cañete. During the meeting two barangay council members of San Rafael joined the discussion. They are Kagawad Jess and Kagawad Merlyn.

49

Ted first introduced the project, explaining that the new project shall take off from what the ACM has done and that it aims to contribute to sustainable forest management. It also aims to expand opportunities for livelihood from the forest by assessing what exist in the forest and how these resources can be used to improve the life of people through livelihood development. He explained that the new project would also want to contribute to policy development for the improvement of forest management. Mang Cading responded by saying he is happy that CIFOR is back and that they are willing to cooperate. He expressed concern that the PO is not very active at the moment in the forest because of the suspension of the resource utilization permit (RUP). But there is a new activity that the people are engaged i.e. seaweed growing. At the moment, the only activity that the PO is still undertaking is rattan collection. Ted gave PG and HH an opportunity to explain the project. The meeting proceeded to discuss the kind of problems being encountered by the PO currently. According to the participants, the problems are: The RUP or wood recovery permit (for salvage logs) in Palawan had been suspended by DENR because of the many problems and issues being caused by this permit, including its abuse and misuse in illegal activities within and outside the CBFM site. The PO acknowledges that this RUP is being abused and used illegally by other CBFM holders and individuals in Palawan but they think that its suspension should not be sweeping and that should not include them who are properly adhering to the requirements of RUP. The suspension of RUP in the point of view of the Barangay people will not contribute to forest protection. Without RUP, the PO will have lost the opportunity to generate income, which they can use in undertaking some of their forest management activities including forest protection. [Note: the log ban applies for salvaged logs and fresh timber from natural forests. It does not apply to plantation within the forests or CBFM areas]. The PO has also problems in marketing of handicrafts from rattan, nito, and other non-timber forest products. According to them, sale is very slow and low, their market is very uncertain, and markets are not giving them fair price for their products (e.g., one NGO approached the women to produce 50,000 pieces of coasters, but they will be bought for only PhP25/set. According to some women around, it will take a person 6 days to produce a set of coaster. The PO has problem with their current lumber inventory (2,000 bd. ft in the kiln dryer) because the wood-processing workshop had stopped operation as the carpenter had left and brought with him the workshop tools, which accordingly are his personal property. Workshop is left only with a band saw. Mang Cading informed the group that there are a few PO members who have been trained in carpentry and woodworks but they are now working individually on their own in the barangay. If RUP will be brought back, the PO desires that the government will change its policy of not allowing the sale of lumber outside Palawan.

50

The PO also sees frequent changes in DENR policies as a problem. They also see “sweeping punishment if one commits mistake” as not good. They think that penalty should not include innocent POs, but should only apply to those who had committed mistake. Too high forest charges on lumber cut through salvage cutting (through their RUP) are also a problem. This reduces income of the PO. The PO cannot protect the forest anymore because of lack of capital. They have resources in the forests but no capital. The PO invested around PhP 150,000 in COOP Bank. One big problem currently being faced by the PO and other POs currently holding CBFMA in Palawan is the problem brought about by the zoning of the province of Palawan based on the SEP law of Palawan. The problem with the zoning is that if it is applied to their CBFMA site, almost 70% of the area will be under the core zone where according to the SEP law, no activity can be undertaken and it is purely reserved for conservation. PCSD called for a meeting with the PO Federation in Dec 2003 and explained about the core zone and their plan to implement and enforce the system. The PO pointed out that if no activity is allowed in the core zone who will manage this core zone. They negotiated for the PCSD to allow them to extract NTFP in exchange for the POs work to protect and guard the forests. No final decision yet on whether or not PCSD will allow this. With regards to microlending scheme, a group of 15 women received a total of P10,000 for handicraft making. Not all the women are still engaged in handicraft making, only a few, while the rest have been involved in seaweed planting. This was due to the low market demand. In Concepcion, the barangay captain mentioned that the source of livelihood of the people are from fishing and almaciga collection. Around 15-20 people from Concepcion is now planting seaweed in Green Island (they need to go there with small boat). Cading mentioned that due to ACM, it has been easier for them to understand and follow the procedures and requirements set by different institutions. Afternoon: Meeting with women and other PO members Issues and problems raised wee pertaining to the cancellation of RUP; their inability to maintain their plantations which were established at a total cost of PhP6.2M; need for financing and training for their weaving project; DENR granting permit to collect rattan to business people who in turn bring in people from far away barangay (including the indigenous Tagbanua from Aborlan) who later encroached the CBFM site of the PO and collected young rattan (It was difficult for the PO to argue with and put up a case against the IPs because they would like to maintain good relationships with them); no equipment in the processing workshop for lumber; need to do a little value adding to rattan by using sizer and splitter; need to have guidelines in farming

51

seaweeds in the sea, for example use of space; need to have structures and pipes for water for domestic and agricultural use. We learned that many people in the barangay have recently engaged in seaweed planting. The activity started a year ago. In San Rafael, around 50-60 people are in the business. Besides fishermen, farmers have also planted seaweed during dry season. It can only take place in the coast of San Rafael and Tanabag, and not in Concepcion as the wave is too big. Harvesting can be done every 2-3 months. For 20 lines, the capital needed is around Php 1,000 (each line is 50 meter long). After 3 harvests, the line has to be replaced. Merlyn mentioned that she needs around one hour per day to maintain her seaweed. For her 20 lines, she can harvest around 200 kg dry weight of seaweed in each harvest. The problems that they observed so far have been the space on the coast (not everybody can plant due to space inavailability), and the fluctuation in the price (Php 28, 35, and 34 per kg dry weight). Sunday, 25 January 2004 – San Rafael Morning: Visit to the CBFMA site. Participant: PG, HH, Ted, Cading and three women members of the PO. The whole morning was spent visiting the forest. Sites of interest visited in the forest include a plantation of Gmelina planted by Mang Cading under an old reforestation scheme in the 1980s. The plantation was accordingly planted for protection of the soil. As such the plantation was established in a steep slope. Issue raised was the reason why the plantation was established in a site where it could not grow well for utilization purposes.

Cading took us to a site within the CBFM area where a mango tree was being cut recently. The mango tree was planted by a Batak, therefore according to the Batak’s custom, the tree belonged to him.

52

As he felt that he did not have control to this tree, and because he lives far from this site, he sold his tree to an outsider for Php10 and the buyer fell down the tree. Cading mentioned that the lumber was used to make palet.

Another site visited is the source of water supply of San Rafael. Mang Cading showed the source of abundant water but cannot be tapped because of lack of structures and pipes to bring the water to the barangay. They have been depending on spring water. The people of the barangay had expressed desire to have water not only for the houses but also for their farms. During dry months the people cannot plant in their farms because of lack of water. The group also visited the mahogany plantation of the PO which is a part of their comprehensive site development contract with DENR. Vines are already invading the trees and affecting their growth. The mahogany plantation is around 7 years old and the trees can be harvested if they are 15 years old, according to Mang Cading. A natural forest where assisted natural regeneration is being conducted is also visited. In this area, the Bataks have requested the PO not to remove the vines on the big trees as they use these large vines to climb the trees to gather honey. The vine also produces flowers, which attract honey bees. Cading also explained that the PO did not extract almaciga anymore. He assisted the Batak PO in processing the transport permit of the almaciga that the Batak extracted. The Batak gave him the transport money and the total forest charges that they have to pay for the almaciga (around Php 350 per permit). The group also visited the Tagbanuas and their village. Meeting with Leo Paclibar, Fishermen Association Leo is vice president of the fisherman association of San Rafael. They call themselves Samahan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda (Small scale fisherfolk association) and they were helped by Haribon Foundation to organize. It was prompted by high incidence of destructive fishing activities, such as bombing, the use of cyanide, etc. The association has a motorboat, which they use in patrolling the sea against illegal activities. There are also similar organizations in the other barangays and they can easily coordinate actions through radios. Their association is also being assisted and provided resources by the Fisheries Resources Management Project under the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and the Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project. Leo mentioned that their association is still patrolling the coast at the moment. He mentioned that the illegal fishing activities are rare now. The records of their monitoring were maintained by their secretary(?). Leo used to be very active in forest management during the ACM. He joined many survey and inventory works for the preparation of management plans for the CBFMA sites. Because there are not much activities in the forest, Leo has also engaged in seaweed planting. Aside from provision of income, seaweed farming has other advantages, according to Leo. He pointed out that fishes are attracted to seaweed so that more fishes can be found in the coastal areas. Coastal areas are cleaner as people

53

have to maintain their seaweed plots. At the moment, they have to bring the dry seaweed to the buyer at Puerto Princesa themselves (Leo provided the address of the buyer), per household, and there has been no effort to coordinate the transportation among the barangay residents. His wife thought it would be best if the buyer comes to the barangay.

Seaweed that were just being harvested. Once the seaweed are released from the rope, they will be sun dried. The colour will change to white and after they are really dry, they will be transported and sold to the company in Puerto Princesa City.

Afternoon: Ocean Aquamarine Products Enterprises – Joemar (Boy) Raco – Broker of Sea weeds and other marine products, Puerto Princessa Seaweeds are sent to Manila to the mother company. Wong Cheung Sha is the name of the manager based in Manila. Raco has been in the sea weed business for 6 years; sea weeds business can be affected by a lack of supply due to sea weeds diseases or a market recession due for instance last year SARS which made Hong Kong people to stay at home instead of eating in restaurant. Another factor that affects the seaweed is the quality of the river water that enters the sea. As far as Raco knows, most of the seaweeds are going to Hong Kong. Their companies are specialised in sea products, such as cuttle fish, shark fins, squid, etc., and not limited to seaweed only. Boy mentioned that they didn’t go to the barangay and collect the seaweeds themselves because the local people sometimes asked for money, as cash advance for seaweeds which are yet to be harvested.. They tried to maintain the same price for seaweeds but the qualities of the seaweeds brought to them sometimes were not high. Subsequently lower price was offered to the ones that were not completely dried, etc.

54

Boy provided the name and address of his supervisor in Manila. Monday, 26 January 2004 – Puerto Princesa City Participants: Herlina Hartanto (HH), Philippe Guizol (PG), Ted Villanueva (TV), Doodee Devanadera , and Suzy Estanol. 9.00AM Meeting with Mr. Ragelio Daquer, City ENRO and staff (For. Gino de

Guzman, Noel , and Minmin) City ENRO, which is in charge of the forestry projects and activities devolved to the LGU, expressed interest on the livelihood part of the CIRAD-CIFOR project. They currently have livelihood projects in the protected areas that they manage with funding from UNDP. He also expressed the need to respect the traditional resource use of the indigenous people. Nevertheless, the traditional practices such as kaingin (slash and burn) and almaciga tapping can be harmful. In Irawan watershed, the area planted in 1993 was already used for kaingin. The City ENRO expressed concern about the current lack of active participation of the PO members in their CBFM. He is also concerned that the PO is too focused on utilization only. He said that the PO should refer back to their strategic and annual plans to see what other things they can do other than utilization. He cited the case of Irawan watershed in which the rights to manage were given to the Local Government. Nevertheless, the rules and regulations are being coordinated with DENR. Livelihood activities for the local people were organized with UNDP fund; the communities are currently being organized. 10.00 AM Meeting with Atty. Virgilio B. Tiongson (PENRO); CENRO; Felizardo

B. Cayotoc (Provincial DENR Coordinator); and Ms. Emy Cojamco (PENRO Staff)

One issue discussed with the PENRO is the cancellation of resource utilization permit of the PO. He underlined the fact that despite the cancellation of the permit PO should continue with their forest management activities. The idea was for the PO to plant rather than extracting standing trees which they did not plant. He also clarified that the soil in Palawan is acidic and shallow (which explained why mahogany is growing slowly), but the island has not been disturbed by typhoon and earthquake. Regarding the problems that may be brought by the ECAN zoning of the province of Palawan, he said that the problem is being addressed properly by the different sectors who continuously discuss this in various forums. Zaldy added that PCSD held a meeting with the PO Federation in Dec 2003. The issue on core zone and its implications on the almaciga extraction by the IPs were also discussed at the CBFM Provincial Technical Working Group. There is a need, however, to address the issue with the higher officials of PCSD because of the policy implications. The NGO representative at the PCSD council, Offie Bernadino, has been asked to raise the issue as well during one the council meeting. Zaldy emphasized the possible savings that the DENR can realize if they pass the forest protection work to communities.

55

According to him, current estimate of DENR for protection work is PhP 1,000.00/ha/year. PENRO mentioned that the total number of CBFM sites have increased to 39 sites. Covering a total area of 74,000 hectares. They had to stop issuing more agreements, despite the applications, so that they can focus their attention on the existing CBFM areas. There were several investments for CBFM such as coffee plantations; banana and pineapple plantations (to the CBFM in Roxas, possible given to Aborlan). 11.00 AM Discussion with Felizardo (Zaldy) B. Cayotoc (Forester) Zaldy explained that the wood recovery permit will be issued by CENRO for the volume of 5 m3, and by PENRO for the volume of 15 m3. The PCSD establishes core zone based on aerial photographs which are not validated on the ground. The first version of ECAN includes critical watershed, area of high elevation, moist forest, etc. Using the criteria, most of Palawan area falls into second and third categories. Relevant rules and regulations on ECAN are PCSD Resolution #94-44 (Resolution adopting the guidelines in implementing ECAN), and PCSD Resolution #99-144. In their next annual working plan, STCMPC can harvest minor forest products (such as honey, rattan, bamboo, almaciga). Whether or not they can harvest dead wood will depend on the progress with the suspension. Zaldy also mentioned that DENR staffs on the ground are very few. It is a key issue, which should be taken into account. There are 7 CBFM Desk officers; in average 1 officer handles 10 CBFM areas. The CBFM Provincial Technical Working Group has been meeting regularly. The structure: Chairman : Provincial ENRO Vice Chairman : PENRO Members : PCSD staff, City ENRO, Conservation International, ELAC, EWW (assisting institution, acting secretary). They invite other institution, upon request, such as Department of Agriculture. In the next meeting they will discuss the issue of the core zone. Zaldy provided us with a copy of forest charges for almaciga and rattan (DAO 2000/63). 01.00 PM Meeting with Mr. Tex Racuya, PCSD The group went back toTex to clarify some items being asked in the application to conduct research and bioprospecting activity in Palawan.

56

Tex also provided the group with electronic copies of the PCSD Resolution # 94-44 and 99-144 which contain the implementing rules and regulations of ECAN. 02.00 PM Meeting with Palawan Corridor Strategy Development Project, Conservation

International Palawan This project has resources and very professional staff. They are collecting data they store in SIG (Arc-view) in order to be used by decision makers. CI started their activities in Palawan province-wide since July 2002. Their mission is more towards conservation and protection of natural ecosystems. They tried to identify conservation priority areas in Palawan. Methods used for this purpose include rapid biodiversity assessment and the use of secondary data collected by other institutions (including the data collected through the Community Based Monitoring System/CBMS of the Provincial Government). Workshops for priority setting were conducted in July 2002 and November 2003. With their SIG they produce for instance future scenarios of natural resources degradation. With regards to the CBMS data, they stored the data in their Palawan Biodiversity Corridor Database. The CBMS data used so far were the data of year 2000 that only include municipality Bataraza, Brooke’s point, Espanola, Rizal, and Quezon. The data include population density, population growth, migration in the period of 1995-2000, income per capita, number of employment (male, female), employment agriculture, forestry, human development index, etc. They are currently waiting for the 2003 data that should be available from the Provincial Government very soon. The staff provided us with the electronic version of the map showing the 32 CBFM areas in Palawan and the CBMS data they had. Action: We should invite Conservation International to participate in the project’s activities, such as workshops, etc. We should consider inviting one of their staff to the CORMAS training. 03.00 PM Meeting with Mr. Benny Postrado, Mr. Roel Rodriguez, Budyong Rural

Development Foundation Inc. (BRDFI) Benny explained that the partnerships between BRDFI and the PO on woodworks and furniture making was funded by HELVITAS with counterpart budget from LGU of Pesos 350,000. The project started in 29 May 2002. They have produced tables, chairs, cupboard (mixed with buho materials with traditional design), etc. They also aimed for other markets outside Palawan. Problems so far include lack of continuity of raw materials (with the ban on extraction of deadwood from CBFM areas). High forest charges (that made their products less competitive). Benny also explained that DENR also did not allow the export of ipil-based (Instia bijuga, hardwood species that are abundant in Palawan) finished products outside Palawan for commercial purposes. They allow transportation if it is in small quantity.

57

Besides ipil, Gmelina is also good for furniture. Many Gmelina-based furniture is sold in Mindanao (not sure the situation in Palawan). In CBFM area, Cading has the Gmelina plantation and the trees are ready to be harvested. Some trees have been harvested [other resource person mentioned that Cading did so because he needs money to ensure the harvest permit can be processed by DENR staff smoothly]. There is also other plantations within CBFM area that can be the source of lumber but the PO needs to check whether the trees are straight enough for this purpose. Rattan are also abundant in Palawan. There are many small brokers, not many big brokers. This has made the price not equal across traders. The market can be further improved. Rattan is also exported to Sabah. In Palawan, rattan is only being pre-processed, and the processing is done in Luzon (Pampanga). According to Benny, the PO BOAD is not interested in rattan and almaciga despite their abundance in the CBFM area. With regards to almaciga, the PO can not extract them because the almaciga trees are far from the village. With regards to honey, technology and market should be improved. Native honey bees can only produce on seasonal basis. Benny spent a lot of time with the Tagbanua in Aborlan. In general, what should be improved in Palawan is the marketing. Maria Cristina Guirero (linked with UNAC) did an NTFP market studies as a part of her responsibility as NTFP Task Force. She is based in Makati. Action: - Ask Doodee for Guirero’s email address. 05.00 PM Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC); Atty. Grizelda (Ghertie) Mayo-Anda Assistant Area Coordinator (former Coordinator), 271-E Malvar Street Palanca Compound Puerto Princessa City 5300 Palawan [email protected] Ghertie explained about ELAC work. They provided paralegal advice to the communities, help organizing the communities and provide Information and Education Campaign, and at the same time do advocacy to policy makers so that they can trust the people more. Ghertie felt that the enforcement of core zone will be difficult because many people still live in the area. People would need other livelihood so that they don’t depend so much on the resources from the core zone. In the case of IPs, they have protecting the old growth because they know it is important for their survival. Mining has not been a part of their culture, not like in Cordeleria. In Palawan, they mostly depend on NTFPs. With regards to providing incentives for the communities, the Sustainable Forest Management Bill is being suspended at the moment. The bill will exempt the communities from forest charges as they are seen as the protector of the forest. Currently, the communities are also facing difficulties at the checkpoint when transporting the forest products. The point has been called “cash point” as the people have to pay the officer at the point.

58

Due to the limited resources, partnerships between the people and different institutions are really keys. Despite all the frustation, it is the only way to manage the resources. Ghertie also mentioned that there has been an overlapping between different land use allocation system. By law, the local government unit is responsible for managing land and water. At the municipal level, the government must produce Comprehensive Land and Water Use plan (CLWUP) that should be developed in a participatory way (bottom-up), involves public consultation, and integrates different zonings. It has to be in line with the barangay development plan, considers ECAN. CBFM, and CADC. But this is usually not the case. The cost can be expensive. The only municipal that successfully produce CLWUP is the one in Bohol (Visayas) and Quilon (the new municipal in Palawan). For San Rafael, HELVITAS helped in the process of the development of the barangay development plan documents. ELAC undertook a policy study for Conservation International and already raised the need for the different zonings to be integrated. Mayor Hagedorn raised international funds, borrow loan from international organizations. In Bataraza, for example, the communities are affected by large scale mining. She also mentioned that the project should consider working in different sites in Palawan. Tuesday, 27 January 2004 – Manila Travel Puerto Princessa – Manila 16.00 PM Planning meeting with Ted Villanueva, HH, PG. Wednesday, 28 January 2004 – Manila Participants: Herlina Hartanto (HH) and Philippe Guizol (PG), Teodoro R. Villanueva (UPLB) 09.00 AM Meeting the Delegation of the European Commission to the Philippines – Ma. Rita R. Bustamante (Project Officer). PG and HH presented the LPF project. Rita Bustamante mentioned two EC projects related to our project: The Palawan Tropical Forestry Protection Programme (PTFPP) is a bilateral project, with a budget of 17 millions Euros from 1995 to 2002. A second phase will end this year in June 2004. This 9 years project contributed to the management of watershed and the preservation of forests in Palawan by emphasing on community based forest

59

management and environmental education. This project was under the umbrella of DENR and PCSD. Rita mentioned also the ‘Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao which aims to improve the livelihood of the upland farmers, through market, management of renewable resources, support to agriculture in the provinces of Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Compostela Valley, South Cotabato and Sarangani. This 7 years project (1998-2005) of 48,7 millions Euros is under the umbrella of the Ministry of Agriculture. The project also provides support for the communities to obtain tenure security. So far she observed that there has been no policy change as the result of the project. This is because the project aimed more towards improving policy implementation. Two other projects take place in Mindanao, one for the integration of former combatants, one to support the agrarian reform and enhance people livelihood. Rita Bustamante would appreciate that we provide her office regular updates of the project progress and our activities even though it is not a requirement. She confirmed also that the Delegation in Philippines has the project ‘UNDP small grant project support for tropical forests’ which promotes sustainable forest management by local stakeholders. The small grants up to 200.000 Euros can be provided. The grant just about to start; new staffs will come on board to specifically handle the grants. Actions: Send to Rita our technical progress reports by Email. Seek information about this project on websites and make contacts with the co-director Peter de Vere Moss. 11.00 AM Meeting the Philippine Chamber of Handicraft Industries, Inc. (Ricky) Ricardo A. Presa, Vice President for operation This chamber deals with the handicrafts, the furniture, house-wares and gift-wares; seasonal decorations as for religious celebrations. The associations started in 1995, had 1200 members before but reduced to 400 exporters now. The main reason is China entrance in the world trade. Competition is also came from Vietnam in the last seven years. They are productive with ceramics, bamboo products and furniture. Many industries were transferred to Vietnam as the manpower cost is 2,5 time lower. The comparative advantage of Philippines was design; as copying the design is a current practice in Asia and specifically in China, Philippines is losing its grips on the handicraft market. Its speciality remains the creativity (in the design) and to use other materials such as buho, nito, seagreass, rattan, abaca, etc. In the past, they used Philippine mahogany a lot for furniture. Due to its limited supply from different places in the country, they started to import mahogany. Their producers in Cebu already moved to Vietnam and they depended upon the supply from the Singaporean

60

supplier. The supplier already semi-processed the products based on the specifications that they requested. He thinks the Singaporean supplier gets the raw materials from New Zealand, Canada, and mostly Malaysia. In the 60s and 70s, Philippines used to export wood. In comparison with other sectors, in the Philippines, furniture and handicraft making is now in the second position, after agriculture, in providing income and employment. Furniture and handicraft making is usually done in between harvest. This industry provides a lot of jobs opportunities to farmers and their families and generates rural incomes. 85 % of the value is added value. Furniture and handicraft making contributed to around 14% of the overall industries in the country. At the local level, cottage industries can be found in many barangays. It is usually done at the household level, flexible (not like working in the factory with strict working time), and it is output-based. The usual practice was the exporters link with the barangay through intermediaries (artists or designers). They would choose the barangays that already have craftsmanship. The exporters can place the order for semi-finished products (if they aim for inclusive products and to avoid the product being copied), or finished products (if the cost would be cheaper). If we want to link up the barangay with the market, the best way is to have them to participate in the trade fair. This is the event where the buyers and suppliers meet. Exporters identify handicrafts presented in National fair, and then they can discuss with the village or the community who produces this item. That means communities who want to develop such activities should learn the market demand by presenting some sample of their potential products in fairs. In the Philippines, houseware and giftware fairs take place in April and October and furniture fair at late February to early March. In addition, there is also an International Trade Show that is usually attended by buyers from all over the world to check the products. He also explained about the process that an associated merchandising has to go through to get an order from overseas. After screening the products that they want to sell, they have the send the samples to their principal buyer in Europe. If there is an interests, they subsequently will be invited to make a presentation, usually in Hong Kong. Afterwards, negotiation can take place. The margin for the exporters are usually around 30-35%. The price of the product at the overseas store is usually 6x higher than that from the point of origin. For example, if the price for a set of rattan coaster that is being paid to the producer in the barangay is Php 25, the same product would be sold at US$ 5.4 in the overseas store. He mentioned that the challenges in linking up with the communities in furniture and handicraft making are trust (especially on the financial matter), maintaining the high quality of the products, and delivery time (especially with upland communities). What really matter is the people capacity and ability, more than the availability of raw material as people can always import materials. In Mindanao, for example, despite the abundance of raw material, the handicraft and furniture making did not take off. His experience suggests that the communities, which have access to a lot of natural resources, rarely meet the requirements to develop a sustainable cottage industry. In the case of Palawan, despite the distance from Manila, it is still possible to develop

61

cottage industries if there are suitable communities. They have one exporter (a lady) in their association who has been working with the communities in Coron Island in producing rattan basket. Action: Consider attending the National handicraft fair with PO members to develop ideas and contacts, 19-20 April 2004 Contact the member of the association who has been working with the communities in North Palawan. 03.00 PM Meeting with Franck Hébert Councellor for cooperation and cultural affairs and

Emmanuel Gorin scientific attaché, French Embassy. Participant: Philippe Guizol PG presented the LPF project, a copy of the project proposal has been given to them. The French Embassy would be happy to facilitate the institutional insertion of the project by providing its support if needed.

TRIP REPORT Philippines 28 March – 8 April 2004

Herlina Hartanto Itineraries: Sun, 28 March Travel to Manila Mon, 29 March Travel to Puerto Princesa City, Palawan PM Discussion with Ted Villanueva, Fe Mallion, Anita Frio, Doodee Devanadera, and Paulo Devanadera about the project in general and the workshop 1 Tue, 30 March AM Continue discussion on workshop 1 PM Start discussion on workshop 2 Wed, 31 March AM Continue discussion on workshop 2 PM Travel to San Rafael, prepare logistics for the workshop Thu, 1 April Workshop with local communities, Day 1

62

PM. Reflection and prepare for day 2 Fri, 2 April Workshop with local communities, Day 2 PM. Social night with communities, analyse the problem analysis produced by communities for day 3. Sat, 3 April Workshop with local communities, Day 3 PM. Travel to Puerto Princesa City Sun, 4 April Preparation of workshop with provincial stakeholders, revise the workshop design based on experience with workshop 1 Mon, 5 April Workshop with provincial stakeholders Tue, 6 April De-briefing with team on workshop 1 and workshop 2. Wed, 7 April Travel to Manila Thu, 8 April Leaving Manila Monday, 29 March Travel to Puerto Princesa City with Ted Villanueva (UPLB), Fe Mallion (UPLB), and Anita (Annie) Frio (consultant). After checking-in at Badjao Inn, discussion was held with the team, plus Doodee Devanadera, Suzie Estanol, and Paulo Devanadera. Suzie updated us on the travel arrangements, accommodation arrangements for the team during the workshop and between workshops, the confirmed participants of the two workshops, and the remaining things that need to be followed-up before the workshop (such as the menu for meals, stationeries, etc.). The team discussed and listed all the stationeries and other tools to be bought for the ice-breakers, evaluation, and games. HH explained about the project in general and laid out the project’s planned activities until August 2004. Fe led the discussion on objectives of the two workshops and HH explained about the processes and tools that were proposed for workshop 1 (with local people and Bataks). Additional issue was certificate of appreciation that should be distributed to participants. It was agreed that we will just show the sample at the workshop, and the certificates will be distributed by Suzie at later stage. It is confirmed that the food for the workshop will be catered by the women in San Rafael (coordinated by the wife of Mang Cading).

63

Tuesday, 30 March Discussions were centered on the design for workshop 1 and the afternoon session touched on the proposed design for workshop 2. The team realised that some of the participants for workshop 2 (Provincial stakeholders) would be junior staff, eg. The City ENRO. The provincial DENR will not be represented as well since the senior staff who are familiar with ACM project, Mr. Zaldy Cayatoc and Norma Cayatoc, are on vacation. Nevertheless, Tex Racuya, PCSD senior staff who also sit in CBFM Technical Working Group will attend the workshop. It turned out that we may be able to squeeze all the processes of workshop 2 into one day but the workshop will end around 7pm. This is preferable since we don’t know whether the participants will return the following day if the workshop is held for 2 days. Suzie will contact all the participants to confirm their participants and she will inform them about the change in the workshop duration. Revisions were made on the previous proposed design. Suzie and HH then visited the Skylight Apartelle, the venue for the workshop 2, to provide the staff with the room lay-out and to select the menu. The apartelle was new and the place is relatively well-maintained. The venue room is spacious, but there are two big pillars in the middle of the room. Wednesday, 31 March We went through the design for workshop 2 and worked on the details of the workshop. We discussed mechanisms to get commitment from the institutions for the vision statement and the agreed action plan, and considered the feasibility and usefulness of having a letter of support indicating individual support to be signed by the participants. The fact that the participants often did not share the results of the workshop to other staff or their superior was also discussed. After checking up from the hotel at around 11.30AM and had our lunch, we travelled to San Rafael. Ted and Fe started to translate and write in brown paper the workshop objectives, LPF project, etc. Suzie visited the three barangay councils and get the names of the participants, coordinated with the women who will prepare the food for the workshop, borrowed blackboard from Cading, etc. HH and Doodee made metacards from manila papers. Suzie updated us that there are about 20 people from San Rafael and Concepcion that have already confirmed their participation, but only 2 people will come from Barangay Tanabag. Residents from Tanabag were not interested to participate and the captain was not supportive because he thought that this workshop was related to CBFM. Suzie has explained that this is not the case.

64

Thursday, 1 April – Saturday, 3 April The team members facilitated the workshop session as per workshop design. I observed the processes and provided feedbacks whenever needed. The evening sessions were used to reflect on what happened in the day, the lessons learnt that can be used to refine the design of the following day and workshop 2. Details on the observations and reflections can be found in the attached workshop observation. One of the participants, Nan, was the Christian priest and he was also the president of the fishermen’s association. They got support from DENR Fisheries Resource Management Project (FRMP). Nan mentioned that the communities did not know that the seaweed planting would be seasonal in their place. They just experimented with seaweed planting. Several people in the barangay used to plant seaweed before and it was not seasonal in their old place then. In San Rafael, the seasonal for seaweed planting was September – February. During dry season, the seaweed did not grow well because of salinity (“ice ice” syndrome). Another problem faced was “lumut” that grew on the surface of the seaweed. Sunday, 4 April Return to Puerto Princesa and prepare for the second workshop. The prepared design was revisited and revised based on the experience and lessons learnt from conducting the first workshop. Monday, 5 April Workshop 2. Details on the observations and reflections can be found in the attached workshop observation. Tuesday, 6 April Three of the team members got diarrhea, most probably from the food served by the apartelle. De-brief of workshop 1 and 2 took place in the afternoon. The team rated the two workshops as successful and commented that the team worked together despite the fact that many members just met. It was felt that the schedule for workshop 2 was too tight because the processes supposedly for 2 days were packed into one day. Consequently, it left no sufficient time for participants to discuss and analyse the results of the exercises. It was suggested that 3R Analysis was a useful tool but more time should be allocated so the participants can level-off their understanding about what is meant by stakeholder, the terms “Rights”, “Responsibilities”, and “Benefits”. There was inconsistencies in the used of those terms among the participants which can be minimised if more time is available. I raised a question on why the participants from the NGO and government offices did not give their individual commitment to help the PO, although they participated throughout the workshop. Annie commented that their full participation was because they were assigned by their offices to participate. Doodee mentioned that it may be because some of them are actually not working in the three barangays, and because

65

they are just staff and therefore can not commit themselves as their bosses are the ones who made decisions. Nevertheless, there was a high commitment from City Planning office. Both officers who attended the workshop gave useful inputs on what City Planning can help and suggested that the communities, accompanied with the project staff, to present their problems to the Executive Council of the City. One staff suggested that the project should approach Mayor Hagedorn directly. I explained to her that both Philippe and myself have done so in January but we will definitely try to meet the Mayor again. The team also discussed about workshop report, and the follow-up actions that need to be carried out by the team in facilitating communities in addressing their issues. Immediate: Reporting: Suzie to finish encoding the workshop outputs in Tagalog. She will also include notes from Paulo on the plenary discussions, and get inputs from Doodee, and subsequently send the note to Fe by email. Fe will improve the Tagalog versions than she will send it to Suzie for distribution to participants. Fe will put together a workshop report in English, based on the materials from Suzie, and send it to Annie, Ted, and HH for feedbacks and inputs. Long-term: Action plan of the community to be repackaged and submitted for the City Office: the community should get the format for proposal, prepare the budget, focus their areas of concern. The project can help the communities to put together and submit the proposal. Doodee can accompany them to see the Mayor. Once the money comes in, there may be a need to organise the communities. Other funding agencies to be explored: Watson’s project. Livelihood for communities: piggery project that Annie mentioned to Nan. There is a need to gather information on how many households engaged in piggery and their interests to learn about new technology. Socio-economic assessment: the field researchers will be Suzie, Paulo, and several community members. Fe will need to train them beforehand and. Solar panel–powered computer: STCMPC is the member of the Co-op Bank who actually can provide some assistance.

66

III. Country Report Indonesia - Year I

Java Case Study - Collaborative Management in Teak Plantation Forest Community-Company Collaborative Management in Teak Plantation Forest in Central Java, Indonesia I. INTRODUCTION Perum Perhutani Background The state-owned company Perum Perhutani (PP) has managed Java’s 2.9 million- hectares of state forest since the 1960s. Teak (Tectona grandis) is the main planted timber species. The company is responsible for forest control, utilization and security. It is recognized as the main stakeholder, with minor involvement by others such as local communities living in and around the forests. Studies conducted by PP and others show these communities are economically poor, judging by their limited job opportunities, the scarcity of people of prime working age, and the little land owned for agriculture (the average per family is 0.25 Ha). To improve village welfare and restore the quality of forest resources, PP conducted several programs such as the ‘Prosperity Approach’ (tumpangsari) from 1972 to 1985, the Social Forestry program (Perhutanan Sosial) from 1986 to 2000, and the Forest Village Community Development program (Pembangunan Masyarakat Desa Hutan or PMDH) from 1994 to 2000. These programs sought to enhance community welfare, particularly farmers involved in timber plantations through the taungya system and raising cattle. However, none of the programs achieved their poverty-alleviating objectives, mainly because the user groups lacked the capacity to manage them properly and income was not distributed transparently. Perum Perhutani also faced considerable conflict with local people over land tenure when the reform era began in 1997. However, since 1999-2000, PP has worked with some NGOs and universities to create a participatory model to improve local welfare and manage the forest sustainably. In 2001, the company developed a new national program called Community Collaborative Forest Management (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat or PHBM). PHBM mostly focuses on empowering village organizations to manage the forest collaboratively with PP. Perum Perhutani’s board defined the PHBM program in regulation No. 136/Kpts/DIR/2001. The aim is to integrate social, economic and environmental objectives according to PP’s vision and mission. The objectives are: (1) to improve the sense of responsibility among PP, local people, and other parties with an interest

67

in sustainable forestry; (2) to enhance the role of PP, local people, and other interested parties; (3) to harmonize all forest management activities in line with regional development plans and social dynamics in villages; (4) to enhance the quality of forest resources and address specific site problems; and (5) to improve income to PP, villagers, and others with a legitimate interest. Levelling the Playing Field: project background The LPF project’s full title is ‘Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia’. In the LPF context, collaborative management means stakeholders actively participating in managing the teak forests, with their roles and duties defined and their concerns addressed. Given the power imbalance among stakeholders, the project aims to improve forest management by facilitating better coordination and communication, and boosting local livelihoods. The LPF project focuses on Perum Perhutani’s PHBM program. It studies awareness levels, documents multi-stakeholder processes and examines how participation is organized. Simultaneously, the project facilitates community involvement. This enhances local capability to implement the PHBM program. It also identifies multi-stakeholder views, perceptions and understanding of teak issues. This project is financed by the European Commission (EC) under the Tropical Forests budget line B7-6200/02/0642/TF. General activities in Year 1 Project preparation began in March 2004, with meetings in Bogor, Jakarta and Yogyakarta between the Faculty of Forestry at Gadjah Mada University (FoFGMU) and a CIFOR-CIRAD team. The two parties drafted an action plan, which they presented to the ‘LPF Regional Workshop on Methodology for Action Research and Its Implementation’. The workshop, held from 26-29 April 2004, then developed research methodology and a work plan to guide detailed activities and the information required to conduct the research. CIFOR, FoFGMU and Perum Perhutani signed a memorandum of understanding in Jakarta on 29 June 2004. This officially launched the LPF project and recognized the research team representing CIRAD, CIFOR, FoFGMU and PP. The project has three steps: (1) baseline study, (2) project intervention and (3) monitoring impacts. The baseline study was conducted in Year 1 (2004). The aim is to understand how PHBM performs from its outset; to recognize the community’s socio-economic issues; and, to understand the institutional and formal agreements involved. Socio-economic data was collected from villages involved in the PHBM program; the process of constructing and developing the program was described; problems associated with organizing PHBM were identified; and, steps suggested to complete the program’s implementation.

68

II. YEAR 1 operations: JAVA Case Study II.1. Site selection The forest area was divided into several management units (FMUs), locally called KPH (Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan) or PP forest districts. In Unit I Central Java, there are 26 KPHs managing 573,000 Ha of plantations. The main species is teak (Tectona grandis), which covers 53% or 307,600 Ha. Pine covers 33% or 190,000 Ha, agathis 5% or 27,800 Ha. A variety of other species grow on the remaining 8% or 47,700 Ha. Only 6 KPH units are categorized as profitable following a series of economic crises and high illegal logging rates from 1997-2000. These units subsidize the other 20 KPHs’ operational costs. The teak forests contain many poor villages that do not benefit much from this valuable timber resource. The situation demonstrates the need for a better and more collaborative system to achieve sustainable forest management and a better livelihood for forest dwellers. The PHBM initiative is expected to provide this new system. The project team selected KPH Pemalang and KPH Randublatung as their research locations after visiting several KPHs in Unit I and discussing the PHBM initiative and bio-physical aspects of forest resources with PP staff. Both KPHs are profitable and mainly planted with teak. They were selected for three reasons: (1) teak’s high economic value, underlining the need for sustainable management; (2) the threat posed by illegal logging, which strips out the teak and leaves behind ‘empty’ forest compartments; and (3) the need to replant degraded teak forests with support and assistance from local communities and other stakeholders. KPH Pemalang Total forest area is about 24,100 Ha. Most is classified as production forest and dominated by teak plantation (81 % or 19,600 Ha). As of 2003, about 4,390 Ha were degraded, including ‘empty’ forests following plundering since 1998. KPH Randublatung Total forest area is about 32,460 Ha. Some 31,260 Ha is classified as production forest and 1,200 Ha as non-production forest. Plantations cover about 22,180 Ha of the production forest; the balance is non-productive, including ‘empty’ land caused by forest plundering. Teak plantations account for 30,060 Ha or 92%. LMDH (Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan) is a community organization appointed by the company Perum Perhutani to implement its PHBM program. More details are in section II.2.6.2. In each KPH, we wanted two situations: the first with a well developed LMDH community group, and the second with an LMDH group yet to be set up. On this basis, the research project team selected Tanggel and Gempol villages in KPH Randublatung; and Surajaya and Gelandang villages in KPH Pemalang.

69

II.2. Baseline study II.2.1. Methods The LPF Regional Workshop in April 2004 discussed research methods and the information to be collected initially at each study site. These are detailed in the Workshop Report. The Year 1 project calendar required the baseline study to be conducted simultaneously in four villages. The following methods were used. Literature review In preliminary field work, the research team collected some basic information from secondary sources, such as official local government data, PHBM village agreements and PP documentation. Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder Analysis was used to identify stakeholders and enlist their support for developing a collective action plan. Stakeholders were identified in each of the four villages during the livelihood survey and through the PACT method (see below). They were then placed into several groups, as detailed below in Table 2. Key Informant (KI) Key informants were selected by choosing individuals who understood the issues well. The informants provided information on resources and resource use, institutional analysis of PHBM, and analysis of PHBM agreements. PHBM survey or census Interviewers consulted each respondent individually using different questionnaire. Forty respondents were selected on the following criteria: • 30 respondents representing farmers who worked in PP forest areas and were

dependent on forest resources (known as forest user group); • 10 respondents are representing LMDH community group board. The respondents were selected using stratified random sampling and purposive sampling methods. The former was based on stratifying land ownership and PP forest areas within the village community, while purposive random sampling was used to select respondents based on forest farmer typology inside the village. PACT (Pro-Active Conciliation Tool) The PACT method is used to understand stakeholders’ preferences and perceptions. In this project, we tended to know stakeholder preferences and perceptions on teak throughout its life cycle, from the forest right through processing, marketing and sales. This method combined in-depth individual interviews with analysis, followed by participatory workshops involving all stakeholders. The stakeholders included all types of people involved into teak issues. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) The research team decided to use focus group discussions to identify various social or cultural factors that needed to be taken into account in designing and implementing

70

the PHBM program. The focus group method was used to collect information about resources and their use, institutions, and formal and informal PHBM agreements. The method can be used to elaborate the data and complement information from key informants. Hopefully the information from the focus groups represented respondents’ viewpoints without the facilitator intervening. The selected participants were people who knew and understood the topic, and were familiar with their environment. The focus groups went through the following steps: Defining the objective so that all participants were clear about the purpose. Small group discussions where participants could focus more on the specific issue. Plenary discussion with the large group, where issues covered in the small groups were presented and re-discussed so that all participants could understand, criticize, and question. Conclusion and reflection. In the conclusion phase, participants reflected on what was done, expressed any concerns, examined and debated remaining questions. In the reflection phase, participants considered how their decisions and daily activities related to forest management. Role Play method Different institutions and individuals play various roles, and have different perspectives, power, communication styles and so forth. Understanding each others’ roles and perspectives can help in understanding why certain institutions or individuals behave in certain ways or make certain decisions. This understanding can provide a basis on which to improve communication, relationships and collaboration. Role playing can also provide insights into power relationships and communication patterns among different stakeholders. If done well, the exercise can increase participants’ self-confidence and empathy, and help them come up with guidelines or strategies to deal with the problems they all face. This method was implemented during the focus group discussion on resources and resource use in Glandang village. It was not used in the other three villages because forest resources were a sensitive issue. In these villages, PP’s forest security activities made the community disinclined to talk about forest resource use. Venn diagram Venn diagram is a participatory method used to identify which organizations/institutions the participants perceived as important, and the relationships among them, particularly the relationship with the LMDH. Supported methods or tools were used to make participants more active and reduce the gap between facilitator and participants in the focus group discussions in the four villages. For example: The Meta card method was used to give participants the opportunity to express their ideas or thoughts. The ice breaking method was used to refresh the group. The purpose was to help participants relax and reduce the facilitator’s dominant role. Participants or the facilitator could initiate ice-breaking. The aim was to help participants express feelings using pictures or games reflecting the exercise’s objectives.

71

II.2.2. Basic Information The baseline study also needed basic information about stakeholders, resource and resource use, livelihoods, institutions, and analysis on agreements. This information was collected during the preliminary field visit, the socio-economic survey and the livelihood survey. Secondary data was taken from the village monograph at provincial level, official government data, and Perum Perhutani’s offices from Unit I level down to sub-district level (Bagian Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan or BKPH) where the study villages were located. Table 1. Brief information about the research sites Name of village

Total administrative village area (ha)

Total PP area (state forest) under PHBM (ha)

Number of population (people)

Total productive labor* (%)

Main occupation (%)

Main level of education (%)

Tanggel 3.265 2.560 4.860 3.048 (63%) Farmer (46%) Farm labor (32%)

Elementary (66%)

Gempol 7.172 2,605 3,134 2,162 (69%) Farm labor (40%) Farmer (39%)


Glandang

648 320 2.810 2.207 (79%) Farmer (75%) Farm labor (13%)


Surajaya 570 546 (445 ha planted by teak)

7.644 5.715 (75%) Farmer (83%) Farm labor (14%)


* Productive labor is defined as people aged from 15 to 50 years old Sources: Village monograph data and BKPH office

72

Year 1 Activities Table 2. Activities Java case study - Year 1

Tanggel Gempol Glandang Surajaya Site selection KPH Randublatung KPH Pemalang Literature review PHBM, collection agreements, etc.

Methods Stakeholder analysis Observation Observation Observation Observation

Livelihood survey Survey Survey Survey and

Role Play Survey

Resource and Resource Use

Survey and FGD

Survey and FGD

Survey and FGD

Survey and FGD

Institution analysis FGD FGD FGD FGD

Agreements analysis KI and FGD KI and FGD KI and FGD KI and FGD

Policy exist Cros

s cut

ting

topi

c for

Java

Cas

e us

ing

PACT

met

hod

KI KI KI KI

Base

line s

tudy

Reports Comprehensive report will be produced in Year 2 Table 3. Actions implemented in Year 1

Time frame Java 2003-2004 (Year 1-LPF) Activities 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Literature review Baseline Study PACT and stakeholder analysis Livelihood survey Resource and Resource Use Institution analysis Agreements and Policy Reports

73

II.2.3. Results of the stakeholder analysis Stakeholders are listed and classified in Table 4. Table 4. List of stakeholders List of stakeholders by groups Community Local

government Perum Perhutani

Producer Middle-person

Farmer plant teak in their own land Forest farmer1 (Baronan) LMDH member Labor in PP2 (Banjar harian)

Head of village Head of sub-district (Lurah or Camat) Head of district (Bupati) Dinas Kehutanan Police dept in district (Polres) Police who assigned in PP (Pabin) District attorney State court in district

Head of forest district or KPH (Adm) Head of sub-forest district or BKPH (Kepala BKPH) PP Field Assistant (Mantri or Mandor) Forest police (Polhut)

Wood industry (big furniture maker) Small workshop Wood carpenter

Wood broker Wood collector (Bakul kayu) Truck owner Local NGO

1 Forest farmer or ‘forest user’ means a farmer who works on PP land under permit; they cultivate crops in young teak plantations and look after the trees at the same time. Permits are granted for two years. 2 Laborers who prepare and maintain land in PP teak plantation forests. In the PHBM study, the key stakeholders in each village were mostly LMDH members and forest farmers, numbering 10 and 30 respectively in the survey groups of 40. The PACT method identified a wider range of stakeholders whose interaction and roles in teak plantation management, timber production and marketing could be studies. In Year 1, three steps of the PACT method -- preparation, interviews and analysis – were implemented as part of the baseline study. Another two steps, validation and discussion, will be implemented through some workshops scheduled for Year 2 as part of the project intervention activities. II.2.4. Livelihood survey results The administrative area of all villages is mostly covered by state forests, consisting mainly of teak plantations (Table 1). The livelihood survey found significant numbers of productive workers were farmers and farm laborers with low education levels

74

(most had only elementary schooling). Low education levels can impede sustainable forest management because communities might lack adaptive capacities. Table 5. Respondent profiles in 4 villages Tanggel Gempol Glandang Surajaya Land ownership (ha/hh) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 Main occupation (%) Farmer (incl. farm labor)

46

94

87

85

Source of income (%) Farming activities Farm labor Fruit Livestock Logging Fuel wood Services and trader Construction labor Other

33 3 14 - 14 - 12 7 -

12 22 0.5 2 19 3 27 - -

56 19 - - - 0.8 10 3 -

5 8 - - - 14 31 - 20

Education (%) Elementary

66

84

88

51

Average Income per year (IDR)

6,000,000 8,600,000 3,850,000 4,660,000

Income per capita per year (IDR)

2,000,000 2,150,000 964,000 1,165,000

In this report, farmers are classified into three groups: farmer, farm laborer and forest farmer. A farmer is someone who owns land and is cultivating it for a living. A farm laborer is a landless farmer who is cultivating land under a profit sharing arrangement with the owner. A forest farmer, locally called ‘baronan’, is someone with a legal agreement with PP to plant crops in young teak plantations for two years. Agreements can be extended, but PP specifies the area. Forest farmers are also known as forest users, and are part of the forest user group or KTH (Kelompok Tani Hutan). Despite numerous people being of working age, most respondents had only basic education. This meant few job opportunities were generated within the village. The situation was self-perpetuating as parents with low education did not regard school for their children as a high-budget priority. To them, a farmer just needs basic reading and writing skills.

75

Below we describe the challenges the project will face in more detail. Glandang Village Village statistics suggested that Glandang residents owned an average of 0.12 hectares each. However, statistics derived from the survey showed the residents each had an average 0.2 hectares. Around 75% of the community owned only 0.6 hectares, although 87% of these village people were farmers. The figures showed that land ownership was very low and the cultivated areas did not produce enough to meet the villagers’ needs -- hence their high dependence upon the forests. From the survey we know that 56% of people earned their income from agricultural activities (rice fields, plantations and forests); 16% from providing farmhand services; 10% from trading; 0.8% from selling firewood; 3% and 4% worked as carpenters and farmhands respectively. The average household income was IDR 3.8 million RP per year. With an average four people in each family, per capita annual income was Rp 964,000. The description of income sources was revealing because the PHBM program would focus on cultivated areas and forests when only 4% of residents worked as farmhands. Cultivation under the PHBM program could be ineffective since few people would participate. Animal husbandry also had development potential, with the sector generating 6% of community income. PHBM activities would be very strategic if linked to animal husbandry. Selling farm produce was not a problem in Glandang, with traders always coming to the village. Transport also was not a problem, since 90% of the roads are sealed with asphalt and in good condition. The village’s economic activities was further supported by 16 shops and two households involved in making bamboo handicrafts. Communications were good, with phone lines to three households, four mobile phones and 125 televisions. Health facilities included a Community Health Center (Puskesmas), one midwife, and three traditional medical practitioners. The village also had one mosque and eight mushollas (small mosques). Surajaya Village Two shops, seven smaller shops (warung) and one local market underpinned economic activities in Surajaya. Around 90% of sealed and unsealed roads connecting the village with other settlements were in good condition. The village had seven schools (elementary and madrasah). Health facilities included a health clinic, one midwife, and two traditional medical practitioners. The village also had one mosque and eight mushollas (small mosques). Village statistics showed villagers owning an average 0.29 hectares each. The data we collected showed this included 0.11 hectares of rice fields per family, 0.12 hectares of dry fields, and 0.06 hectares of household garden. The PHBM program provided an average additional 0.125 hectares per family. Around 58% of respondents worked as farmers and 27.5% as farmhands. In total, 85% of the 40 respondents in the survey group worked as farmers. Families did not own enough land to meet their needs, however, and they relied on state-owned land to cover shortages.

76

The survey also revealed that 25% of people earned their income from agricultural activities (rice fields, home garden, and forests); 8% from providing farmhand services; 21% from non-agricultural pursuits; 31% from services and trades; and 6% from collecting and selling firewood. Forest-based activities such as firewood and gathering teak leaves contributed 8% of farmers’ income. The average income was Rp 4,660,000 per average four-person family per year, translating to a per capita income of Rp 1,165,000. Trading and firewood both had development potential, although firewood would have to be organized within the LMDH in cooperation with traders. Cooperation between LMDH and traders would be important if the PHBM program was to succeed in Surajaya. Tanggel Village Land ownership was an average 0.4 hectares per family, and around 46% of respondents worked as farmers. Families did not have enough land to meet their needs, and they relied on the forests to cover shortages. The survey shows that 33% of people earned their income from agricultural activities (rice fields, home garden, and forests); 12% worked as drivers; 14% from cultivating oranges; 7% worked as construction laborers; 14% gathered teak from state-owned forests; and 2.6% worked as farmhands. The average income was Rp 6,000,000 per family per year. With an average three people in each family, per capita annual income was Rp 2,000,000. The income sources were interesting because PHBM would actually focus on cultivation and forest areas when less than 3% of Tanggel residents worked as farmhands. Cultivation under the PHBM program could be ineffective since only few people would participate. Oranges were a potential commodity, since they generated 14% of the village’s income. PHBM activities would be very strategic if linked to further orange cultivation. Fourteen per cent of respondents admitted their income came from plundering teak timber, to the village’s detriment. PHBM should be able to suppress plundering, with the community interested in benefit-sharing programs. Selling farm produce was not a problem in Tanggel. Traders always came to the village to buy produce, but they paid low prices because there was no local market alternative. PHBM was expected to improve commodity prices. Sixteen shops, six small restaurants, twelve small-scale furniture industries, and two medium-scale furniture industries supported Tanggell’s other economic activities. Around 70% of the sealed and unsealed roads connecting the village with other settlements were in good condition. The village had one satellite phone but not the common Telkom telephone line. There were five elementary schools and one madrasah (Islamic school). Health facilities included one Community Health Center, one midwife, one medical aide and one traditional medical practitioner. The village also had five mosques and 21 mushollas (small mosques).

77

Desa Gempol Each family owned an average 0.25 hectares and around 94% of respondents worked as farmers. Villagers did not own enough land to meet household needs, and relied on the forests to cover shortages. The survey revealed that 12% of people earned their income from agriculture and 22% worked as farmhands. Services and trades generated around 27% of village income; wood trading 19%; firewood 3%; cattle 2% and fruit-selling only 0.5%. Gempol residents were clearly highly dependent upon forest-based activities. Average income was Rp 8,600,000 per family per year. With an average four people in each family, the annual per capita income was Rp 2,150,000. As 22% of people worked as farmhands, cultivation under the PHBM program could be successful because many people were willing to participate in replanting and tending ‘empty’ forest areas where teak had been removed. Digging up buried wood generated a substantial 19% of village income, but it was hoped the community would not depend on this resource for income. Economic activities depended highly on markets outside the village. Gempol had only three small shops providing limited daily goods, and the nearest market was in Doplang, some 20 kilometres away. The community itself maintained the sealed and unsealed forest roads leading to Gempol. One of the community’s advantages was its willingness to construct its own buildings. Health facilities included a Community Health Center, one midwife, and one traditional medical practitioner. There were three elementary schools and the village had six mosques and four mushollas (small mosques). II.2.5. Resource and Resource Use In general two categories of resource information was collected: 1) resource availability; and 2) how the community used these resources. Below we summarize the survey findings from the four villages. Glandang Glandang, with a population of 2,810, had various used and unused resources available to generate income. The resources were rivers, springs, dams, rice fields, plantations, state-owned forests, community-owned forests, and socio-economic infrastructures such as shops, roads, education and health facilities. Four rivers surrounded Glandang: Waluh River, Glandang River, Jaganalan River, and Kali Putih River. Waluh River was major source of socio-economic and cultural activities. The mouth was dammed for water for the rice fields, and villagers exploited the river’s sand and stones, selling these and other non renewable resources for income. Most fresh water used in daily life came from wells. Every house owned a well for washing, bathing, and drinking. There were some public wells, such as the Walem well, which people working on Walem farm used to water rice fields and plantations.

78

The Rancah Wiru, Belik, and Sipedet springs also provided water for irrigation, as did small dams such as Kali Waluh dam and Jaganalan dam. Around 87% of Glandang residents worked as farmers. There were five types of rice fields: Bengkok; scaffolding; Jaganalan block fields; cistern fields; and fields on GG land. Their shapes and types indicated their ownership status. Bengkok and GG rice fields were owned by the government but used by village officials while on tenure. Farmers owned the cistern, Jaganalan block and scaffolding fields. There were also state-owned forests and home gardens where the community planted various hardwood trees such as teak, jackfruit, and oranges. Twenty-five hectares of these home gardens were located at South Munjul. Glandang people grouped state-owned forests, which were managed by PP and located within the village administrative area, according to their proximity to residential areas. Some forests had become empty dry lands due to plundering. The community used these dry lands to cultivate food plants, without permission from PP. Under the PHBM program, these empty lands were rearranged, their village use legalized, and the benefits shared. The PHBM model could be used to manage around 350 – 400 hectares of Perum Perhutani’s forests, but the program’s organization, rules, and norms had yet to be realised. The community’s dependence upon Perum Perhutani’s forest resources was very high. Before plundering cleared the timber, villagers went to the forests to gather firewood and teak leaves. They also asked the company for timber and medicinal plants, and used the area for intercropping. Around 90% of Glandang residents used these emptied lands for agriculture. Intercropping began in 1986 with each farmer involved receiving “baronan” or 0.25 hectares of land. The Glandang community began developing a negative relationship with the forest in 1998, when some members increased their plundering. From 1998 to 2000, teak trees as old as 40 years were illegally chopped down despite PP monitoring the forests. From 2001 to 2004, plundering became uncontrollable and the forests were cleared. At the beginning of 2004, when wood was no longer available, Glandang residents started to occupy empty dry lands. The PHBM program was introduced in July 2004, and was accepted by Glandang’s residents. Illegal occupation of forests by residents was PP’s main problem. PHBM would only be successful if the program could demonstrate fairness for the community. The utilization of forests should be arranged through a benefit-sharing scheme that is socially just and also fair for the forest resources. But shared benefits from teak could not be realized in the short term because all the timber has been plundered. Village residents are feeling the effects of deforestation, such as warmer air and less water in rivers and wells. Before plundering, rivers and wells supplied enough water to last a whole year. The community realized that it had to replant the forests around their village. It also wanted to protect and conserve rehabilitated forests.

79

Surajaya Surajaya has about 7,600 residents (1,900 families). The village had many income-generating resources: river sand and stones, water springs, state-owned forests, rice fields and dry fields, sugarcane plantations, animal husbandry, and the Waluh River. Residents used the river for bathing, washing, and fresh water in the dry season. The forest contained illegal sand and stone mines built and used by a small group of people since 1980. Springs supplying fresh water for irrigation could be found on plots 40 and 41 in the state forest. PP made a tank to conserve the water for villagers. Around 82% of Surajaya residents worked as farmers, 14% were farmhands, and the remaining 4% worked outside the agricultural sector. Agricultural activities comprised rice fields and dry field cultivation. Farming took place on privately owned land, communal village land, and state-owned forests. Dry fields were planted with palawija, cassavas, hardwood trees, and sugarcane grown in conjunction with a sugarcane farmers’ cooperative. State-owned forests accounted for 546 hectares and provided the community with daily supplies such as firewood, cattle food, teak leaves, construction timber, medicinal plants and land for planting palawija and cassava. The PHBM program would be implemented on no less than PP’s 546 hectares. It would begin with a focus on distributing the benefits from harvesting teak timber, but the LMDH had yet to focus on planting activities. The situation could jeopardize the program’s success since most LMDH board members only regarded PHBM as a benefit-sharing scheme whereas planting was the responsibility of the forest farmers, or KTH (Kelompok Tani Hutan). Tanggel Tanggel, population about 4,860, had various economic resources, including rice fields, home gardens, dry fields, cistern rice fields, a river, community forests, and state-owned forests. Residents used the river for bathing, washing, and fresh water. Rice fields were irrigated from cisterns. Wells built on the river’s edge provided the community with water. Some households also had wells and water tanks to conserve rainwater. Water supplies were generally limited, especially in the dry season. Around 46% of Tanggel residents worked as farmers. The village comprised 13 sub-villages where cistern rice fields, home gardens and dry fields were located. State-owned forests covered up to 2,560 hectares within the village administrative area. Tanggel villagers had a very close relationship with the forests, with 93% of respondents surveyed involved in planting, firewood gathering, and other activities. The forests provided teak tree stumps, firewood, teak leaves, cattle food, medicinal plants, and areas for shepherding. Forest use was also evident in teak timber plundering, while intercropping took place on 0.5 hectare forest plots. The Tanggel community and PP started developing a negative relationship in 1998 when timber plundering increased. Teak trees as old as 40 – 60 years were cut down

80

without permission from 1998 to 2001. From 2001 to 2004, the company suppressed plundering by confiscating illegal timber with assistance from local police. Tanggel residents have accepted the PHBM program well, particularly since the program includes PP sharing the benefits from teak. Villagers have felt the effects of deforestation, such as warmer air and less water in rivers and wells. Birds, which were abundant before plundering escalated, have disappeared from the forests. Residents did not understand that deforestation caused water supplies to dwindle, since drought was a common occurrence. Gempol Gempol has 3,134 residents, and many resources in the form of wells, rivers, rice fields, dry fields, state-owned forests, and community forests. Residents used nearby rivers for irrigation, washing cattle, bathing, washing, and fresh water. Almost every household had its own well. About 38% and 40% of villagers worked as farmers and farmhands respectively. Agricultural activities were carried out on privately owned land, state-owned forests, and on dry river beds (locally called gowok fields). Intercropping took place within the forest. The PHBM program would be implemented on around 2,605 hectares of forests, with LMDH established up to sub-village level to support the program. With Gempol located deep in the forest with limited access, the community used forest resources very intensively. Villagers went to the forest to gather firewood, medicinal plants, teak leaves, teak seeds, sengon (soft wood), kesambi (a tree suitable for making charcoal), sepang (a tree producing red dye), lamtoro (Leucaena glauca), and cattle food. The residents also used dry river beds, collected honey and teak worms, shepherded, gathered teak timber, and practised agriculture. Fallen teak trees buried for tens of years were often found around Gempol. PP could not claim these buried trees because they were within the village administrative area and not the state-owned forests. Villagers and PP have not clashed over digging up buried trees. Increased plundering from 1997 onwards soured the relationship between Gempol residents and Perum Perhutani. Teak trees as old as 40 – 60 years were cut down without permission in 1997 to 2001. From 2001 to 2004, PP suppressed plundering by confiscating illegal teak timber with assistance from local police. The PHBM program was introduced in Gempol in 2002 and was well accepted by the community. Illegal forest occupation by residents was the main problem the company needed to address. PHBM would only be successful if the program could demonstrate fairness in the forest’s utilization. This could be arranged through a benefit-sharing scheme that was socially just and also fair for the forest resources. Shared benefits for teak could not be realized in the short term since plundering has exhausted the resource.

81

II.2.6. Institutional analysis Institutions related to PHBM program were analyzed using information gathered from implementing the program at national, province, regency, and village level. In section II.2.6.1, we explain PHBM in more detail, then LMDH in section II.2.6.2, and Communication Forums (CF) in section II.2.6.3. II.2.6.1. PHBM Institution KPH Pemalang Work Program Participation The PHBM program was expected to improve welfare in communities living around the forests, through increased participation by all parties. A discussion with officials from Agriculture Service of Pemalang Regency (Dinas Pertanian Kabupaten Pemalang) revealed no plan to cultivate forests areas managed by LMDHs. This means the Agriculture Service did not have a special budget to support PHBM. As for the Forestry and Plantations Service (Sub Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan), a fund was set up in 2004 to support the LMDHs organizational capacity. This means the Service will actively participate in supporting community empowerment through the PHBM program. The Forestry and Plantations Service was also involved in cultivating cotton in several villages in accordance with LMDH requests. The cultivation program received local government grants as high as Rp 25 millions for 25 hectares of cotton fields. In the program, the local government cooperated with private enterprise working in textiles, namely PT SUKUN. Cotton has been a strategic commodity in Pemalang, which is renowned for producing the fibre in Central Java. The Indonesian textile industry’s demand is also strong, with 95% of cotton is still being imported. There was also a potential for cattle food, but no involvement at LMDH level in developing this sector. It seemed that the LMDHs’ potential had not been optimized in every village. LMDH work plans in Glandang and Surajaya were still highly focused on forestry activities such as planting, forest security, and sharing the benefits from timber. These community organizations need to diversify their activities to include farm produce, animal husbandry, plantations, industry and trade. In 2004, PP allocated Rp 10 million to evaluate PHBM’s implementation in Pemalang Regency. The Forestry and Plantations Service initiated the evaluations, which were conducted by the PHBM Communication Forum in according with its role as described in the Central Java Governor’s letter No. 24/2001. The forum was expected to be constructive and critical, and to recommend solutions if the PHBM fell short in its implementation.

82

Representation in PHBM Broad support for PHBM is yet to be achieved. Communication forums, for instance, did not involve private enterprise, traders, NGOs, and universities – only the community, government institutions, and PP. Traders and NGOs should be the most important element. Traders and the private sector could act as a bridge between government and community in marketing and providing capital. On the other hand, NGOs played a very important role in assisting the LMDH groups to be independent and capable organizations. PP’s use of NGO staff to implement PHBM in KPH Pemalang worked well as long as empowering the LMDH was not attempted in an instant. Steps should be taken to improve real participation, and communication forums at both regency and village level should involve traders, private sectors and NGOs. NGOs usually support changes, are able to promote more effective forums, and have the capacity to do the real work. Perum Perhutani’s Internal Readiness Maximum support from PP staff in KPH Pemalang was critically important but not all staff understood the PHBM program. Most believed field supervisors and the PHBM team were responsible for forming the LMDH groups. The result in Surajaya, for example, was that most LMDH boards considered PHBM as just a scheme for PP to share the benefits of timber with the board members. Most LMDH members did not feel they represented the group they came from. For example, village heads saw themselves as village members in LMDH, rather than representatives of a group such as forest farmers. This attitude needs to be corrected if the PHBM program is not to fail. KPH Randublatung Work Program Participation Some have considered PHBM to be a PP sectoral program, and so other government institutions did not feel responsible for its success and did not participate in it. Representation in PHBM As said earlier, many parties need to support the PHBM program – including KPH Randublatung. Timber traders in Randublatung indicated in interviews that they did not know about PHBM, nor understand its purpose and objectives because they had not been involved in the process. However, they were willing to support the program if PP asked them to get involved. II.2.6.2. LMDH (Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan) PP realized a formal, village-level institution was necessary if PHBM was achieve greater focus on forest security and sharing benefits. Community organizations called Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan, or LMDH, were duly established to legally represent village communities and sign the PHBM contract with PP. PP’s PHBM team initiated LMDHs in all villages, but awareness of the program is still weak in some places. LMDHs were formed very quickly in Surajaya and Glandang, in the course of single meetings with village representatives. In Tanggel and Gempol, LMDHs were formed through a quite democratic process, with the village communities choosing the boards by considering village elements such as BPD (village level lawmakers), village officials, respected figures, and young people. However these approaches meant the LMDHs’ legitimacy was very weak. Poor understanding about the LMDHs’ role, poor coordination between LMDH and other related institutions, and

83

poor management knowledge and communication will tend to create conflict in the near future. These issues will be addressed more deeply in project interventions in Year 2. II.2.6.3. Communication Forum (CF) Central Java’s Provincial Government was the first to respond to the PHBM program. The Governor issued decision letter No. 24/2001, concerning community involvement in managing forests. This regulation supported PHBM being introduced in Central Java. The regulation listed the provincial organizations/institutions involved: Provincial Government (Governor) PHBM Communication Forum at provincial, regency, district, and village level Related government institutions Head of Provincial Forestry Service Perhutani Unit I in Semarang At provincial level, parties to PHBM were more involved within the Communication Forum (CF). There was confidence in the forum’s capacity to help PHBM succeed. The forum’s provincial and regency tasks were as follows: To make suggestions in developing PHBM plans To monitor and evaluate PHBM’s implementation. To assist PHBM’s implementation. To report program results to the Governor (at province level) and to the Regent (for regency level) However, decision letter No. 136/2001 and decision letter No. 24/2001 did not clearly define the relationship between provincial, regency, district and village communication forums, with result that tasks, obligations, and responsibilities were not synchronized. Forum members and boards also tended not to communicate optimally. Routine and periodic meetings were not scheduled, with meetings only taking place if problems occurred or at PP’s request. Boards did not know each other, and members were not well briefed, with some having a poor understanding of the PHBM program. Communication forums were not coordinated between the province, regency, district and village levels, nor were communications between the levels established. This led to confusion since the provincial forum’s tasks were similar to the regency forum. Each forum did not set out its objectives clearly, and members always refer to regulations when activities actually need to be adapted to address the issues encountered by each village LMDH. Internal coordination and communication at each level needs to be improved and their tasks detailed through participative planning. Regency forums cannot simply set up the tasks of other forums without understanding each LMDH’s problems.

84

From the interviews, it can be concluded that successfully coordinating the PHBM program depends upon PP’s attitude toward the local governments – for example, whether or not PP is willing to disclose everything related to the program. PP needs to be frank about how much its economic activities contribute to the community’s livelihood and the Pemalang regency’s development. II.2.7. Formal agreement of PHBM Decision letter No 136/KPTS/DIR/2001, issued by the Perum Perhutani Monitoring Board, is the legal basis for implementing PHBM. The decision letter is effective in every state-owned forest PP manages in Java. It is general in nature, but the most important aspects can be found in Article 3, which sets out PHBM’s basic principles: 1. fairness and democracy 2. openness and togetherness 3. learning together and understanding each other 4. clarity of rights and obligations 5. economic empowerment of the people 6. institutional cooperation 7. participative planning 8. simplicity in systems and procedures 9. private companies acting as facilitators 10. compatibility of management and each area’s characteristics The regulation does not detail the PP Board of Directors’ authority or responsibility for implementing PHBM. Instead, PP’s central management in Jakarta delegated its authority to provincial and regency level institutions. Positive aspects of PHBM include: 1) The “hutan pangkuan desa” approach, which encompasses state forest inside village

administrative areas, was a breakthrough on earlier programs; 2) The “hutan pangkuan desa” approach provides territorial management, utilization, and

security that ensure community participation continues; 3) Government in Pemalang and Blora support the PHBM program; and 4) Sharing the timber benefits prompts LMDHs being organized. Weaknesses include: 1) Communication forums have not been very effective at every level; 2) LMDH boards still lack organizational capabilities; 3) The use of funds from timber cutting has not been very clear; and 4) The position of forest farmers is not clear and they do not benefit from the sharing

system because LMDH internal rules are not yet complete. Conceptually, the PHBM program is implemented well in Blora and Pemalang, with participatory problems only at lower levels. However, PHBM is not fully understood at village level nor by the LMDH organisations. For example, LMDH boards only understand PHBM as sharing benefits to board members, and that the board and PP field officers alone should guard forest security. This weakness of understanding reflects the fact awareness programs were not properly conducted. The LMDH and PP field officers simplified the benefit-sharing arrangement, but PP decided the 25:75 split in the company’s favour without involving the community.

85

The all-village study indicated that PP and the LMDHs had never discussed sharing the benefits of wood products from empty land. Gempol, Surajaya and Tanggel villages had received their share of the benefits, while in Glandang, the LMDH had only just been established and there were no compartments to be harvested. The LMDHs in Gempol and Tanggel defined how the benefit funds would be used, and it was observed that only board members received a share. Since 2004, the Gempol LMDH has based the shares on meeting/deliberation agreements, i.e. 12% from the shared benefit is for the LMDH board. Furthermore, the forest farmer user group (KTH) position is not clear, with no LMDHs defining how to distribute benefits to this group. It seems obvious that the distribution of shared benefits among stakeholders is not fair, particularly for the forest farmer who works in and depends on the forest. II.3. Intervention Only the baseline study was conducted in Year 1; intervention will take place in Year 2. II.4. Coordination and Capacity Building II.4.1. Regional Workshop The first Regional Workshop on Methodology for Action Research and Its Implementation was held in Bogor and Jakarta, 26-29 April 2004. Project team members, partners and collaborators attended. The objectives were: To discuss the project’s goals, outputs, outcomes and approach; To discuss and agree on methodologies, methods, and the implementation framework to allow comparisons across study sites; To finalise the Java and Palawan site work plans; and For the project team members, partners, and collaborators to get to know each other better, so as to work as an effective team. II.4.2. Training Training was intended to provide information to Gadjah Mada University social scientists and field facilitators. The information would help them implement the social methods used during LPF project’s baseline study, in particular the resource and resource use study (see section II.2.2). The methods were community mapping and role play. In addition, several other methods were also explained; i.e. pebble distribution (for resource and resource use study), institutional analysis (for institution study), Pro-Active Conciliation Tool or PACT (for stakeholder analysis), and future scenario and projection scenario (for the upcoming intervention stage). The materials came from the methods toolbox distributed during the LPF workshop in Bogor.

86

Site selection for Case Studies 2 and 3

Jepara Case: Promoting smallholder teak forests and local teak wood enterprises.

Jepara district is well-known as a major producer of export-oriented teak handicrafts and furniture for local and international markets. The activities are linked to the availability of teak from community forests or agroforestry (known as “jati kampung”) and Perum Perhutani (PP) teak plantations. Figure 1 illustrates wood resources supplied to Jepara workshops. PP, which manages approximately 600,000 ha of productive teak plantations, has found access increasingly difficult to control and illegal logging is becoming more and more common. On the other hand, there is no official data on the total cubic meters produced from jati kampong, which is inclined to be the “wood laundry” for illegal timber from PP plantations. The fate of Java’s teak is not only a matter of concern to PP, but other stakeholders as well, who benefit through employment opportunities in government agencies, forestry, wood industries, buyers, teak farmers, and so forth. Therefore, this project aims to help direct stakeholders to: 1) achieve maximize added value of teak in the Jepara furniture industry; 2) improve the value of jati kampung; 3) improve rural livelihoods; 4) sustain jobs in Jepara wood industries; 5) sustain forest resources and wood supplies; and 6) establish an independent institution that guarantees the timber’s origin. To achieve those goals, direct stakeholders are expected to take action to achieve the following outcomes: Better coordination and communication up and down the line from tree growers to furniture consumers; Recognize the importance and role of timber from agroforestry; Recognize the importance of small Jepara teak enterprises; Better teak prices for rural communities; Independent institutions defining and enforcing rules to monitor the chain of custody for quality control and conflict prevention among stakeholders; Adopt appropriate technologies to improve the efficiency of wood workers; New furniture designs to improve teak’s added value; and Stakeholder access to information about forest resources. The project is expected to conduct research and produce several outputs, for example: Facilitate and document stakeholder processes for sharing views about teak quality in Jepara; Produce relevant information to influence stakeholder decisions regarding forest resources, wood supply, jobs, market dynamics, income, and so forth;

87

Influence particular stakeholders to improve employment in small workshops and on farms; Produce information for consumers and buyers about the quality of Jepara teak products; and Influence local government agencies to create and maintain conditions conducive to improving the quality of teak products. In Year 2, the LPF project in Jepara will implement the baseline study; while project intervention and monitoring and assessment will be conducted in Year 3. Wood resources supplied to Jepara workshops are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Simplified diagram linking issues and activities

This study uses the teak market chain approach, adapting the method taken from Roda and Guizol (2003).

International market Domestic

market

Wood resource from PP

Wood resource from community f tIllegal

logs

Jepara

88

Figure 2: Teak market chain diagram

Furniture R t il

Supermarket EU US

Furniture R t il

S k t b

Furniture broker

Mechanized Wood Furniture i d t i

Perhutani Teak

Outside Java forest Borneo

Agroforestry Java

Illegal sources

Fi i hi

S i S ill

Wood Furniture workshops

Inte

rnat

iona

l mar

ket

Woo

d Fu

rnitu

re In

dust

ries

Fore

sts

Dom

estic

mar

ketin

g

Wood brokers

Wood retailers

Network unbalance

Hierarchy

Network balance

89

South Sumatra Case: Collaborative management in fast growing plantation for pulp Integrated long-term landscape management: taking into account different strategies The last decade has seen giant pulp and paper mills developed in Indonesia. Natural forests, industrial plantations, and out-grower schemes (tree-growing partnerships between companies and local communities) were all potential sources of raw materials, although now there are strong campaigns against exploiting natural forests to supply these mills. Companies are now trying to expand the plantation base by initiating tree-growing partnerships on community land. This helps the company to access land, avoid territorial disputes with neighbouring populations, and anticipate and prevent conflicts with the local community. However, the partnerships are hardly “fair” and equal. Power imbalances and a lack of landscape management negatively affect the land in different ways, creating long-term threats for communities and future generations. The challenge is how to integrate rural community development and industrial development in such a way that leads to good landscape management. Rural community development should take into account current local needs without drastically reducing future generations’ choices and development potential. Further, integrated landscape management should also take into account cross-issues, such as fire, pests, diseases and water. PT Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) is an industrial plantation forest company in South Sumatra. The company is a subsidiary of the Barito group, which supplies woodchips from Acacia mangium to its giant pulp and paper mill called PT Tanjung Enim Lestari (TEL). MHP, like many other companies, also develops partnerships with farmers to grow acacia under their social forestry schemes, i.e.: (1) MHBM (Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat) or managing forest with community where the plantation is established inside MHP concessions or on the state land; and (2) MHR (Mengelola Hutan Rakyat) or people forest management where the plantation is established on local people’s land. The main objectives are to use the occupied land productively, increase forest security, empower local communities and improve their livelihoods. The company wishes to collaborate in this project with other stakeholders to improve local livelihoods; manage planted forests sustainably to supply the pulp and paper mill; and prevent risks such as fire, droughts, diseases and conflicts. Collectively, the stakeholders will: 1) identify common interests on landscape management; 2) establish local institutions to define and enforce rules, and prevent conflicts; and 3) better communicate and coordinate among themselves to understand long term landscape dynamics, know issues and pathways for long-term wood supply, and discuss and develop scenarios for landscape management.

90

By the end, it is expected that the project will have achieved several outcomes, including: Facilitating processes for stakeholders to share their views and define issues about sustainable supply, livelihoods and landscape management; Facilitating stakeholders in expressing their knowledge, views and perceptions on landscape management; Developing models and scenarios taking into account multiple scales to improve understanding of landscape dynamics; and Facilitating stakeholders in identifying new landscape management options to meet the needs of pulp and paper mills, local community expectations and future generations’ opportunities. The illustration below shows integrated landscape management taking into account household, village and industrial strategies. Figure 3: Landscape management in different scales

The project will work at two integrated levels, i.e.: MHP plantation area and village landscapes. These two levels will allow us to explore the wood supply potential taking into account transport costs and constraints at village and household levels. In particular, it will explore the spatial interactions of social and economic parameters. Further, the number of villages studied should allow us to capture the diversity of situations within the MHP plantation area.

Mill

91

List of Acronyms BKPH Bagian Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan, company sub-districts

CF Communication Forum

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FoFGMU Faculty of Forestry at Gadjah Mada University

KPH Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan, forest management units.

KTH Kelompok Tani Hutan – forest farmers, or users

LMDH Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan, a community organization appointed by Perum Perhutani to implement the PHBM program

LPF Leveling the Playing Field project

MHP PT Musi Hutan Persada, an industrial plantation forest company in South Sumatra.

PACT Pro-Active Conciliation Tool

PHBM Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat, current Community Collaborative Forest Management program

PMDH Pembangunan Masyarakat Desa Hutan, Forest Village Community Development program 1994-2000.

PP Perum Perhutani, Java’s state-owned timber company.

92

IV. Country Report Malaysia - Year I I. BACKGROUND Malaysia, federation of 13 states forming a constitutional monarchy in South East Asia, comprising two distinct regions separated by some 650 km of the South China Sea. The regions are Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak and Sabah. Peninsular Malaysia comprises of 11 states occupying the southern half of the Malay Peninsula, bordered on the north by Thailand, on the south by Singapore, on the west by the Strait of Malacca, and on the east by the South China Sea (See Map 1). Malaysia has a total land area of 329,758 sq km (127,320 sq miles). The federal territory of Kuala Lumpur is Malaysia’s capital and largest city. Peninsular Malaysia has an area of 131,598 sq km (50,810 sq miles). Its topography is dominated by a series of mountain ranges, running from the north down half the length of the peninsula. Plants and Animals Malaysia’s tropical climate supports abundant and diverse plant and animal life. More than half the land area is covered in forest—mainly tropical rainforest, but also deciduous woodland in the mountains. Environmental Concerns Malaysia is home to some of the world’s richest rainforests and many other rich habitats, including at least ten distinct types of wetlands. Endemism is high, with 2,199 species found nowhere else on Earth. But an alarming 18 per cent of species are threatened and 3.2 per cent are endangered, including at least 78 endemic plant species. Population Malaysia has a population of 22,662,365 (2002 estimate), giving an average population density of about 69 people per sq km (178 per sq miles). Peninsular Malaysia is about seven times more densely populated than Sarawak and Sabah. About 43 per cent of the population is rural, 57 per cent urban (2000). The population growth rate, once among the highest in Asia, has declined steadily since 1960, and was 1.91 per cent in 2002. Malaysia has a very diverse population, reflecting its position on one of the major sea-route crossroads of Asia. Ethnic Malays, who originated in different parts of the peninsula and archipelagic South East Asia, make up about 47 per cent of the country’s total population. About 32 per cent of the population is Chinese, 9 per cent indigenous ethnic peoples of Borneo, and 9 per cent Indian. There are also small communities of Orang Asli, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Indonesians, and Europeans.

93

Map1: Malaysia The Orang Asli were the original inhabitants of the peninsula, but today comprise only a tiny minority of the population. Divided ethnically into the Jakun, who speak an archaic Malay, and the Semang and Senoi, whose languages belong to the Mon-Khmer family, the Orang Asli are primarily adherents of traditional religions. In Peninsular Malaysia about half the population is ethnic Malay (see Malayan Peoples) living mainly in the rural areas. About 30 per cent is Chinese, concentrated in the cities. The remainder is made up mainly of Indians, Pakistanis, and Tamils, many of whom work on the plantations. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing The agricultural sector is declining in importance in terms of its contribution to GDP (11.1 per cent, 2000) and export earnings (about 10 per cent in 1996, including processed products), but it is still an important source of employment. In 1999, 18 per cent of the workforce was involved in agriculture. About 13 per cent of Malaysia’s land is under arable production, and is farmed by a combination of smallholders and large plantation companies. Many smallholders are subsistence farmers, but the sector also accounts for much of Malaysia’s cash crop production and most of its food crops. Rice is the staple food crop, produced entirely by smallholders. Rubber (introduced in 1876), palm oil (1917), and cocoa (1950s) are the main export crops—Malaysia produces half the world’s palm oil and ranks third and fourth respectively in rubber and cocoa production. Smallholders account for about 50 per cent of palm oil and 25 per cent of rubber production.

94

The expansion of commercial logging, mainly in Sarawak, since the 1980s has made Malaysia one of the world’s largest timber exporters. The total output of roundwood in 2000 was 29.5 million cu m (1.04 billion cu ft). During the 1970s the fishing fleet was modernized and catches increased considerably; the fish catch in 1997 totalled 1.28 million tonnes. Government Malaysia has a federal form of government based on the 1957 constitution of the former Federation of Malaya, but including safeguards for the special interests of Sabah and Sarawak. It has been amended several times; amendments in 1974, 1984 and 2002 respectively established Kuala Lumpur, Labuan, and Putra Jaya as federal territories. The highest level of government machinery in day to day operation is the ministry in the federal government. Most of the important ministries have their representatives in the every state. Some of the more important ministries, especially with regards to the management of mangrove forest in Matang include the Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Ministry of National Unity and Society Development. The Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment house several departments among which, the Forestry Department, Department of Wildlife and National Park Department of Environment, and the Malaysian Timber Council. The first three departments develop policies on the management of their respective resources at the national level and have their respective representative in each state to directly manage the resources. The latter is more of a policy development body regarding the timber trade issues both nationally or internationally. The Ministry of Agriculture houses the Department of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia. While the Agriculture Department is more concerned with raising crops and animal husbandry, the Fisheries Development Authority is concerned with all fishing activities either freshwater or offshore. The two departments operate at both level national and state, through respective representative in each state. Another ministry that has interest over Matang Mangrove would be the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The specific department with concern in the local government will be the Department of Town and Rural Planning. The interests of aborigines people are handled by the Department of Aborigines Affairs in the Ministry of National Unity and Society Development.

95

II. OPERATION DONE IN 2004 (YEAR 1) During the two months (July and August) of 2004, several activities conducted were: An initial visit to the various dept especially forestry dept in Kuala Lumpur, research institution and European Union Representation in KL. The key outcome of the meetings was the Dept of Forestry demanded the project to be conducted in Matang Forest Reserve. And to consider the issue of indigenous community in Pahang. Methodological workshop in Puncak. The objective and the methodology had been revised in the team discussion. (Please refer to the workshop report) Site selection (Please refer to the following section) Project Planning II.1. Site selection II.1.1. Matang Mangrove, Perak Justifications Matang Mangrove forest is situated in the Perak. Perak, state in the north-western part of West Malaysia, bordering Thailand and the states of Kedah, Penang, Kelantan, Pahang, and Selangor, and fronting the Strait of Malacca. The provincial capital is Ipoh. Its area is about 20,720 sq km (8,000 sq mi) (See Map 2).

Map 2: Perak, Malaysia This Matang Mangrove management is a classical example of the multiple uses of forestry and estuarine ecological practice. The one hundred-year of management experience has focused on timber production while taking into consideration some other aspects such as conservation and protection of the mangrove and its environment.

96

While the dept has been successful in managing the forest sustainably to produce mangrove timber, fisheries production, depending on the mangrove ecosystem, seems to be unsustainable. There have been a lot of questions regarding the linkages between the fisheries and the mangrove ecosystem as also the evolution of water quality of the mangrove has been affected by the pollution in the upstream. Although the mangrove ecosystem looks sustainable, it is a component of a system which looks unsustainable. Locally, the livelihood of the fisherman is affected by the recommendation of the department of fisheries which regularly reducing the level of fish catchment. The livelihood of the charcoal manufacturing workers seems to be also an issue. While the foresters were managing the timber, as if the mangrove is in isolation, unknowingly they were also managing the fisheries and the mangrove is heavily affected by the pollution from the rivers, there is a need for integration in managing different ecosystem components. From the previous Malaysia Plan (RM8 and RM9), the sponsoring body for the research project in Malaysia has been emphasizing in inter-sectoral research project. A project like this will definitely get a lot support from the related agencies. Site description Matang Mangroves is situated in the administrative district of Krian, Larut / Matang and Manjung of the State of Perak in Peninsular Malaysia. It faces the Straits Of Malacca, forming a continuous belt of mangrove forest lying between the latitude of 4oN - 5oN and longitude 100o 2’E - 45’E. The whole area comprises of 19 independent gazetted forest reserves, collectively known as the MATANG MANGROVES. The Crescent-shaped mangrove reserve measures about 13 km wide in the middle and about 52 km between extreme ends of the northern coast of Perak. The total area of Matang Mangrove, excluding major waterways, is approximately 40,466 ha, which is about 93% of the whole mangrove area available in the state of Perak. This area is divided into Production Forest (29,794 ha) and Protective Forest (10,672 ha). The Island reserves were first gazetted in 1903. The first ‘management plan’ was then introduced in 1904 to regulate and control felling of island reserves. By 1906, the whole gazettment of Matang Mangrove was completed. The first comprehensive plan was introduced in 1950 (1950-1959) and revised once every 10 years. There exist 8 (eight) major forest types in Matang Mangrove: Accreting Avicennia Forest (Avicennia-Sonneratia Forest) Transitional New Forest (Lenggadai Forest) Rhizophora Forest Brugeiria parvifolia Forest (Berus Forest) Brugeiria gymnorhiza Forest (Berus Forest) Transitional Dryland Forest Dryland Forest Nypa Forest

97

The management plan for Matang Mangrove was developed to accommodate the following objectives: The Production of fuelwood – as firewood in the beginning, later on as raw material for charcoal manufacturing. Production of poles. Conservation and protection of its resource and environment in order to provide for the continuous existence of sufficient habitats for the proliferation of wildlife, the production of fisheries, recreation, education, research and other bio-diversity conservation. The forest is further designated to specific functional purposes, which includes timber production forest, virgin jungle reserve, old growth forest, research forest, education forest, ecotourism forest, archaeological reserve forest and seed production forest. As a result, 3,336 ha of the area was demarcated for functions other than timber productions (Table 1). Table 1: Areas of Non-Timber Forest Function of Matang Mangrove Production forest 29,794 ha Virgin Jungle Reserve 2,105 ha Research Forest 564 ha Bird Sanctuary 384 ha Ecotourism Forest 211 ha Educational Forest 33 ha Seed Stand 29 ha Archeological Site 10 ha Stakeholders The potential Stakeholders for this site will be Forest Dept, fishermen association, loggers, charcoal producers, seafood restaurants owners (market), market, tourist operators, local community, upstream residents and factories, scientist and NGO’s, nature lovers and academicians. Issues The key issue in Matang Mangrove is to understand the relationship between the economic generating activities and the physical resource of the mangrove. Fisheries generated about RM 267 million, of which RM 67 million came from the onsite hatcheries in the mangrove estuarines, while the remaining came from the off

98

site mangrove catch, in 2000. The production of charcoal and mangrove poles, however generated a much lower figure of RM 27 million a year. Such imbalance has attracted the economic activities towards aquaculture, while at the same time has increasing the pressure on the mangrove estuarine management system. While the forestry department has the sole responsibility to manage the mangrove forest, the fisheries department has been given the authority to look into the matters pertaining to fishing administration, and the local business activities are under the jurisdiction of the local municipality. The utilization of resource and benefits, however, extends beyond the boundary of the reserve, and so are the authorities related to some of these economic activities which seem not directly related to the forest and yet highly depending on the level of mangrove production. There appear to be an issue of integrated management and policy across different departments to deal with communication issue. Throughout the years, all the agencies involved recognize each other authorities within the area. While many individual acknowledge the interdependency of one another and are operating at an accommodating level, however, they are not fully coordinated. II.1.2. Pekan, Pahang Pahang, state in central West Malaysia. Pahang is the largest state in peninsular Malaysia, with its capital at Kuantan, the most important port on West Malaysia's eastern China Sea coast. Pahang comprises chiefly the basin of the Pahang River (Malaysia's longest river) and a mountainous jungle hinterland to the north-west; Mount Tahan, the highest mountain in the Malay Peninsula, is in Pahang (See Map 4). The sparsely settled population includes indigenous hill peoples as well as Malay peoples and Chinese. Area, about 35,965 sq km (13,886 sq mi); population (1991 census) 1,036,724. Pahang was subject to the Sumatran kingdom of Sri Vijaya in the 13th century, then in the 15th century was incorporated into the kingdom of Malacca under the control of neighbouring Johor. Johor's viceroys later became sultans of Pahang in their own right, and Pahang joined the British protectorate of the Malay States as a separate state. After World War II it was a founder member of the Federation of Malaya which preceded Malaysia. Modern Pahang is an important producer of rice, and has large oil palm and rubber plantations. There are extensive mineral deposits, and tin is mined at Sungai Lembing. Considerable oil and gas reserves are located off the coast of Pahang. According the Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA) an Orang Asli is defined as follows: “Any person whose male parent is or was, a member of an aboriginal ethnic group, habitually follows and aboriginal way of life, an aboriginal customs and beliefs and include a descendent through males of such person.” The Orang Asli primarily depends on forest for their survival and economic income. Over the years a lot of efforts have been taken to improve the livelihood of this

99

community. However, the progress was too slow and the successiveness remains questionable.

Map 4: Pahang, Malaysia Justifications This site has been proposed by the Department of forestry Malaysia, which is under the Ministry of Natural resources and Environment. The department of arborigene affairs, under the Ministry of rural and Regional Development has been informed and welcome the project. Discussion has been made at local level with the Director of department of Forestry and Director of department of aborigine affairs in Pahang. These Department are concerned by the socio-economic level of Orang Asli community in these area, which are relatively low since 60% of them still depends on forest for survival. Most of their living area (55%) is deep in the forest and hard to either reach or develop. In addition, there is a conflict of interest in the status of the land between the state government of Pahang and the Orang Asli community. Site description There is 31 Orang Asli’s villages around Hutan Simpan Pekan, Hutan Simpan Nenasi, Hutan Simpan Kedondong, and Hutan Simpan Resak. The population is about 11.000 people Orang Asli in Pekan; the department recommended to work on 4 villages. Each village has about 1.500 ha of forest, even though the land belongs to the State, but the people have the right to use the resources. People are no more living inside the forest but are still depending on forest resources as at least 60% of the people are depending on forest resources.

100

Stakeholders Orang Asli, Forest Department, the Orang Asli Department. Forestry department, villagers, traders, also other private stakeholders not yet identified, who are involved into forest and natural resources dynamics Issue The key purpose is to understand the underlying causes of poverty of these communities in order to be able to improve their livelihood. The forest and other natural resources have been affected by the past 30 years development, which certainly has an impact on these people. For the local government views there is a need for a more strategic development plan which considers all stakeholders. II.2. Initialisation A preliminary visit was made to Matang Mangrove during August 10 and 11 2004. A short report was included as Appendix 2a. A similar visit was also made to Pekan, Pahang during the month of September III. OPERATION PLAN FOR 2004-2005 (YEAR 1) The operation plan for year 1 of this project will be concentrated on the following activities (See Table 1): Throughout year 2004 the LPF project in Matang Mangrove will be concentrated on the base line study and trainings. The base line study, which includes secondary data collection, will be conducted from September 2004 until throughout Feb 2005. One of the activities in the base line study will be to attend the 100 years Matang Mangrove Management Conference in Ipoh on 5 – 8 October 2004. Such meeting will be a good platform for the team to introduce the project to the other stakeholders, and academic community, at large. PACT analysis will be conducted in March and April 2005 The livelihood study on Matang Mangrove will be conducted from April – June 2005. Two focus groups meetings will be conducted with the scientists. One will be done in February while the other one in June 2005. Two focus group meetings will be held with the communities in Matang in March and August 2005. Another visit to the Aborigines village in Pahang (the second project) will be conducted in January 2005. The secondary data collection for Pahang will be done during February – May 2005. The livelihood study in Pahang will be conducted during June – August 2005. Three regional trainings will be attended by the members of both Matang and Pahang projects:

101

The Regional CORMAS Training in Bangkok from 13 – 23 December 2004. The Regional Facilitation Training in Bogor from 31 January – 5 February 2005. The Regional Mediation Training in Kuala Lumpur in May 2005.

102

ANNEXES Preliminary Visit to Matang Mangrove, Perak August 10 – 11, 2004 Participants: Prof. Dato’ Dr. Nik Muhamad Abd. Majid Dr. Philippe Guizol Dr. Khamurudin Mohd Noor Mrs. Rosta Harun Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aziz Arshad Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Kamil Yusoff Assoc. Prof. Mohd Zain Jusoh Dr. Sharifah Noorazizan Syed Abd. Rashid Mr. Nadwan Trip Description The team left for Ipoh on early Tuesday (August 10) morning. The first stop was in Perak Forest Department HQ in Ipoh. The team paid a curtesy visit to the Director of Forest Office. Here the team was met by the Deputy Director of Perak Forest Department. The team then proceed journey northbound to Taiping, where they spent the night. During the evening of August 10, a team meeting was held. Dr. Philippe Guizol chaired the meeting. Among matters discussed during the meeting includes the work plan, baseline study and methodology stage (Please refer to Appendix 2a(i)). The attached pictures showed the team working hard over the dinner meeting. Day 2 (August 11) was filled with the trip into the Mangrove Forest. The day began with a briefing a Forest Ranger stationed in the Matang Forest Reserve. The remainder of the day was spent with a boat ride to several location in the Matang Mangrove which include some stops at several mangrove forest types, fish farms and cockrel harvesting areas. The team wrap up the trip to Matang Mangrove by spending about 40 minutes in the charcoal production facilities. Conclusion The trip was a success. The team was able to observe the mangrove forest from close range. Various economic activities tied up to the mangrove forest were visible too. The most important thing is that the team were able to better understand the intricate complication of various mangrove stakeholders needs.

103

TRIP REPORT Malaysia

4 to 8 April 2004 Levania Santoso (LS), Philippe Guizol (PG)

The trip’s main purpose was to re-initialize our partnerships in Malaysia with Universiti Putra Malayia (UPM) and others institutions to be able to implement the project titled “Leveling the Playing Field”, which has been accepted by EU end of last year. We prepared this project proposal, with Prof. Dato’ Dr. Nik Muhamad 5 years ago, and we needed to re-examine together the way we will make it as useful as possible in Malaysia. Sunday, 4 April 2004 Arrive at Kuala Lumpur Monday, 5 April 2004 Serdang - UPM Campus 08.00AM Meeting with Prof. Dr. Mohd. Hamami Sahri, Dean of the Faculty of Forestry,

UPM PG presented the project to the Dean. The Dean welcomed this new project, and mentioned that this is the first EU funding received by the faculty. He showed his interest on relationship between wood properties/industry and plantations. 09.00AM Meeting with UPM Team lead by Prof. Dato’ Dr Nik Muhamad Participants: Prof. Dato’ Dr. Nik Muhamad from Faculty of Forestry Dr. Khamuruddin Mohd Noor from Faculty of Forestry Prof. Dr Mohd Kamil Yusoff from the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies Dr. Rosta Harun from the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies Dr. Sharifah Norazizan Syed Abdul Rashid Faculty of Human Ecology PG presented the project to the team and we had a discussion about its implementation. He pointed out the potential key topics that can be addressed in the LPF project: Project about coordination of multi-stakeholder for forest management, that means about governance Focus on the landscape level with research on two cross-cutting decision levels: policies and markets The development and use of modelling and other tools to enhance understanding of the impacts of management of different stakeholders and to enhance information flow across stakeholders We agreed that Dr. Harun will attend the workshop in Bogor at the end of April, 2004. PG had a short discussion with Nayan Deep S. Kanwal about AMAP modelling development with Cirad. 11.30AM Meeting with UPM Deputy Vice-Chancellor for development Prof. Dr.

Makhdzir Mardan

104

PG presented the project to the deputy Vice Chancellor. The Deputy Vice Chancellor presented its ‘Rainforest Academy’ project he would like to present to EU. He decided to join the team during its visit to the EU Ambassador on Wednesday 7. The idea of “Rainforest Academy” was inspired by an article about the project ‘radeau des cîmes’ elaborated by Francis Halley a French Botanist. We discuss about the potential of this project to become a regional project within South East Asia. 12.00AM Meeting with UPM Vice Chancellor Prof. Dato’ Dr. Muhamad Zohadie PG presented the project to the Vice Chancellor, who welcomes the project. Action: PG and LS to prepare the MoU between CIRAD, CIFOR and UPM; and the project agreement between CIFOR and Faculty of Forestry, UPM. Tuesday, 6 April 2004 Serdang - UPM Campus 10.00AM Prof. Nik Muhamad, LS and PG worked on the MoU, project agreement,

project organization and budget. We decided to finalize the agreement on April 8, 2004.

Action: Prof. Nik Muhamad will discuss among the team about project operational in Malaysia. PG and Prof. Nik will do site selection in May or early June. 11.00AM Presentation by Dr. Rosta Harun Participants: Prof. Dato’ Dr. Nik Muhamad from Faculty of Forestry Dr. Khamuruddin Mohd Noor from Faculty of Forestry Prof. Dr Mohd Kamil Yusoff from the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies Dr. Harun presented her research on forest and indigenous people in Malaysia Peninsula “Transforming Environmental Worldview to An Environmental Ethics Approach: The Suku Temuan of Orang Asli’. We agreed to include Dr. Harun research in the project implementation in Malaysia. Action: PG and LS to look for a slot for Dr. Rosta to present her research during the methodological workshop in Bogor. Prof. Nik Muhamad will work on the budget allocation for 3 sites in Malaysia. 02.30PM Meeting with Dato’ Hj. Abdul Rashid Bin Mat Amin, Director General

of Forestry Department, Peninsular Malaysia Participants: Prof. Dato’ Dr. Nik Muhamad from Faculty of Forestry

105

Thang Hooi Chiew, Deputy Director General of Forestry Department, Peninsular Malaysia We had a long and fruitful discussion, which allowed us to clarify the purpose of the project. From this discussion it is decided that the DG will be part of the Steering Committee, that the field site in Kelantan as planed four year ago cannot be a priority of the Forestry Department nowadays due to political reason, however the Department will help the project to identify a new site. Action: PG to provide Prof. Nik Muhamad a letter for the Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia which requires access to sites for the project; and send an invitation/participant letter to the DG of the Forestry Department to be part of the Steering Committee member.

106

Meeting Report 2 August 2004 at 09.00 – 13:00 UPM – Malaysia Leveling the playing field project – budget in Malaysia Present Prof. Dato’ Dr Nick Muhamad, (PN), Philippe Guizol (PG), Dr Mohd Kamil Yusoff , Dr. Rosta Harun, Dr Norazizan, Sharifah, Dr. Noor, Khamuruddin Mohd. Topic Preparation of year 2 and year 3 budgets and also preparation of the field trip to Perak to identify the site about mangrove area. Summary of discussion with UPM team The purpose of the meeting was to share information about the budget; indicate the budget constraints of LPF project and share the information given by Thibaut Portevin from the European delegation at Jakarta. We have two budget constraints: We should keep the budget expenses within the headings of the budget indicated in the contract. That means we should be careful and wisely use per diem, staff time and Air travels as we are short on those lines. However, we have large amount of money on “Other cost and Services” line, which devoted to seminars or training, and local collaboration to support the project activities at field level. We can’t exceed the rate indicate in the budget, for instance per diem in Asia can’t exceed 135 Euros. The per diem will follow Cifor rates and our budget is within CIFOR rate. However, we agree to use UPM university rates as long as they didn’t exceed Cifor rates. We provide you the Cifor rates for Malaysia during the meeting. In table 1 below, the maximum rates from EC budget are indicated. We notice that these rates are large enough and should not be a constraint in Malaysia, except for the junior scientists. Other points: A first gross estimate of the maximal EC contribution in Malaysia to the budget Year 1, Year 2 and 3 is about 140.000 Euros for the two sites (individual trainings included). This would be revised at the end of year two according to the project progress. We should elaborate a comprehensive working plan for the two sites prior preparing the Year 2 budget. Those two working plans should be submitted by the end of this month. The working plan should also justify the proposed budget. We will present this

107

work plan and budget in our report to EC, report we should give to EC in September 04. All collective workshops and trainings will be managed by CIFOR-CIRAD from Bogor. About the cost of students which is higher in Malaysia than the one indicate in the budget, we suggest that the difference will be part of the UPM contribution, and will be indicated in the report as UPM contribution. UPM can charge the project for the cost (or a fraction of the cost) of its senior scientist’s staff time. We suggest a presentation as follow, which is closed from what UPM team proposed already. The project appreciate the strong contribution of the university for the senior scientists staff time that you proposed in your first budget; however, we would suggest to charge some part of it to the project, in order to support the University to finance the full cost of students (junior scientists) for field work activities, which can’t exceed 250 Euros per month (for EC budget point of view). The purpose of the budget given for the ‘coordinator’ is to compensate the University for the time spent in coordination; and it is not as a form of honorarium given to a specific individual.

108

PRELIMINARY SITE VISIT REPORT Site : Kuantan and Pekan, Pahang Trip Summary Date Time Activities Venue/Note 9/9/2004

12.30 pm 16.30 pm

- departure from UPM - arrived at Kuantan - check-in Hotel

Grand Continental

10/9/2004

08.15 am 09.15 am 10.30 am 11.15 am 12.30 pm 13.30 pm 19.15 pm

- meeting with the head of JHEOA Pekan (branch), Mr. Abdul Rahman Mat Sham - meeting with the Director of JHEOA Pahang, Mr. Abu Bakar Unus - trip to Forestry Department of Pahang (Deputy Director went out station) - check-out Hotel - arrived at Kg. RPS Runchang - arrived at Kg. Simpai - arrived at UPM

Main office (Kuantan) / Output 1 Main office (Kuantan) / Output 1 Main office (Bukit Sekilau) Grand Continental Output 2 Output 2

Preliminary Baseline Data Output 1 (Important facts and issues) There are 31 Orang Asli villages with a population number of 10 960 peoples in Pekan. Recommended villages for data collection are: Kg. RPS Runchang Kg. Simpai Kg. Wawah Kg. Arong

109

Their residential areas were not in the forest. However, majority of them still depends on forest for incomes and survival.* A lot of efforts and money have been spend in order to improve the socio economic status and livelihood of this community. However, the successiveness remains questionable with such a slow progress over the years. Current socio-economic status: 55 % of the population live in deep rural areas 60 % of the population depends on forest for incomes and survival Low level of self confidence-low social interaction with malay community Only a small number of researches have been conducted in this field (maybe none). This research are highly welcomed and supported by JHEOA. * Keep in view- type of forest product prior to peat swamp area? Output 2 (Visited villages) RPS RUNCHANG Head of village : RAHMAT BIN MANSOR Numbers of family : 385 Numbers of population : 1,811 Sub-ethnic : JAKUN Area : 1,619.43 HECTARE Occupation sector (1) Government: 0 % (2) Private: 20 % (3) Farmer: 30 % (4) Own business: 1 % (5) Forest: 49 %

SIMPAI Head of village: MARJAN BIN ARIS Numbers of family: 260 Numbers of population: 1,144 Sub-ethnic : JAKUN Area : 1,215 HECTARE Occupation sector (1) Government: 3 % (2) Private: 10 % (3) Farmer: 30 % (4) Own business: 2 % (5) Forest: 55 %

Note: - Basic infrastructures were fulfilled - Socio economic status still low - Easy to reach area (advantage for data collection) Evaluation and Conclusion This trip would be a corner stone for this research in order to have a good understanding and future cooperation with local agencies of Pekan and state agencies of Pahang. It also had provides a good vision on the current condition of Orang Asli community in Pekan. The outputs clearly support the prior issue and aim of the research which is ‘a need of a better development plan in improving the

110

livelihood of the Orang Asli’. Since it was only a preliminary visit, further visit and research are highly recommended.

111

V. Companion Modelling and Resilience of Ecosystems Training

Trainer

Monday 13 8h30-9h

9h-9h15 Welcome from Prof. Dr. Siriwat Wongsiri, head of dept. of Biology9h30-10h Introduction of participants, group photo

10h30-12h F. Bousquet Overview of the training

13h30-15h The Fish Banks Game

15h30-17h The Fish Banks Game

Tuesday 14 8h30-10h M.Antona The theory of natural resource management

10h30-12h M.Antona Policies and economic tools

13h30-15h Group work

15h30-17h F.Bousquet State of the art in the field of natural resource management modelling

Wednesday 15 8h30-10h C.Le Page Unified Modelling Language.

10h30-12h C.Le Page Group Work: UML of FishBanks

13h30-15h F.Bousquet The use of models for analysis and enhancement of resilience

15h30-17h F.Bousquet Introduction to companion modelling

Thursday 16 8h30-10h Louis Lebel Case study : resilience in the case of Ping watershed

10h30-12h Louis Lebel Case study : resilience in the case of Ping watershed

13h30-15h C.Le Page Case study : Causse Mejean

15h30-17h C.Le Page Case study : Causse Mejean

Friday 17 8h30-10h F.Bousquet Multi-agent modelling, principles

10h30-12h C.Le Page Multi-agent modelling, examples

13h30-15h G.Trébuil Case studies : Mae Salaep

15h30-17h G.Trébuil Case studies : Mae Salaep

Saturday 18 8h30-10h C.Le Page CherIng game

10h30-12h M.Antona CherIng game

13h30-15h Group Work on CherIng game

Monday 20 8h30-10h C.Le Page Conception of a role playing game

10h30-12h F.Bousquet Conception of a role playing game

13h30-15h Group work :Conceive a role playing game

15h30-17h Group work :Conceive a role playing game

Tuesday 21 8h30-10h Conception of role playing games, Asian experiences

10h30-12h C. Le Page Classification of role playing games

13h30-15h Group work :Conceive a role playing game (continuing)

15h30-17h Group work :Conceive a role playing game (continuing)

Wednesday 22 8h30-10h Group presentation of RPG conceived during the training

10h30-12h M.Antona Companion Modelling, Collective and Public action

13h30-15h Closing ceremony/Collective discussions

15h30-17h Perspectives

Registration

Time table Topic

112

VI. Agreements Regional Partnership Agreement between CIRAD and CIFOR Indonesia Memorandum of Understanding between CIRAD, CIFOR and Faculty of Forestry-Gadjah Mada University Memorandum of Understanding between CIFOR, Faculty of Forestry-Gadjah Mada University and Perum Perhutani Memorandum of Understanding between LPF project and PT Musi Hutan Persada (under process) Malaysia Memorandum of Understanding between CIRAD, CIFOR and Universiti Putra Malaysia (under process) Philippines Partnership Agreement between CIFOR and UPLB Foundation Memorandum of Understanding between CIRAD, CIFOR and DENR (under process)

113

VII. Scientific Paper Modeling multi-stakeholder forest management: the case of forest plantations in Sabah

Ph. Guizol and H. Purnomo

The underlying decision theory of forest management changed from decisions made by the forest manager, a single stakeholder, to a decision-making process, which involves a variety of stakeholders with different goals. From concept to implementation, forest professionals are in trouble because despite the potential of the technological progress, tools to facilitate multi-stakeholder decisions are lacking.

The paper proposes a framework to link social, economic, and biophysical dynamics using multi-agent simulation to explore scenarios of collaboration for forest plantations. The modeling is based on decision theories and we chose forest plantations for a simple model of forest dynamics. This framework allows the analysis of stakeholders’ (or agents’) decisions in interaction; it uses the concept of a value-added chain as a model of alliances. The added-value breakdown analysis is a tool, which is used at the forest-plot level as a mean of anticipating benefit sharing among the stakeholders before they decide to harvest; this also highlights the spatial variation. The framework can also take into account noneconomic-based relationships. Each stakeholder has explicit communication capacities, behaviors, and rationales; from the interaction of their individual bounded decisions emerges the decision process, which guides forest management.

The purpose of this modeling is to produce shared knowledge about dynamics to facilitate coordination among stakeholders; it is a learning tool about the complex decision systems of forest management. Our main hypothesis is that stakeholders, by creating a virtual world with researchers, will learn about the effects that their own decisions might have on themselves, others, and the environment. In the case of Sabah, we are at the stage of the first loop of learning, and scenarios need to be further tested with the stakeholders themselves. The forest plantation simulation, still a theoretical model, suggests that the development of sawmills adapted to plantation wood might offer a promising pathway for increasing added value and the benefits of many stakeholders, including local communities, and for improving forest landscape. Forest management planning is a process. Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) highlights the importance of local people and their participation in sustainable development. In forest plantations, this applies to local communities living in or near forest plantations. In Sabah, forest plantation stakeholders believe that many opportunities are provided for smallholder forest plantation development. A lot of logged over land is available for plantation. The Sabah natives have the possibility to obtain security over land and the rural people have the will to invest in forest plantations (to secure their ownership of land, to rehabilitate the landscape, to rehabilitate wildlife resources for hunting, and to invest for themselves and the coming generations). Nevertheless, they do not want to invest as long as wood prices are low. This situation is a major impediment to the development of small plantations.

114

The challenge is to create the conditions for co-development of plantation forests and downstream industries using plantation wood. On the one hand, investors will consider investments into downstream industries for plantation wood if mature plantations are available; but they might also postpone such investments as long as faster returns from natural forest logging exist. On the other hand, smallholders will not invest in plantations as long as they do not have a guarantee of better prices. Currently, SAFODA (Sabah Forestry Development Authority) has to export, at a low price, fast-growing wood produced on its own plantations as the existing paper mill in Sabah (Sabah Forest Industries, SFI) is too far away from the SAFODA plantations. Malaysia, the country where Sabah State is located, is situated right in the heart of Southeast Asia and is divided into two geographical sections: Peninsular Malaysia and the East Malaysian provinces of Sabah and Sarawak in North Borneo. Figure 1 shows the map of Sabah. The Sabah Legislative Assembly created SAFODA in 1976. Its mission is to develop highly productive forest plantations for the long-term supply of wood resources and improve the socioeconomic status of the state and country on a sustainable basis (SAFODA 2003). Currently, SAFODA manages about 100,000 ha of land in Sabah, located mostly in Bengkoka, Marudu, and Keningau districts. The forest area amounts to 31,000 ha. The planted species are Acacia mangium (28,000 ha) and rattan (2,100 ha). SAFODA and SFI encouraged small landowners, adjacent to their forest plantation areas, to grow trees. Currently, these smallholder plantations amount to 3,000 ha and 1,900 ha supervised by SAFODA and SFI respectively. Sabah State has already invested a lot in smallholders’ plantations and SAFODA estates. However, this development is in crisis as SAFODA faces problems in self-financing its development in the current context of low wood prices. It looks like more coordination and more bottom-up approach to the problem is needed between the Sabah plantation policy and smallholder development and wood-processing development. The goal of the model is to observe the impact of wood processing development on land use and income of different local stakeholders. The local government perceives the development of forest plantations in this part of Sabah as a means to improving the landscape and smallholder incomes. Today, most of the land, which has been logged over and is unused, is highly fire- prone (a lot of areas are covered with Imperata cylindrica, and large stocks of remaining deadwood). The development of smallholder plantations backed by different small-scale wood-processing industries (sawmills) could produce a variety of plantation systems. These plantations will reduce the areas’ fire proneness and would involve the local population in fire control. This research explores such scenarios of co-development of smallholder plantations and wood-processing enterprises. At the current stage, the research produced a scientific model with inputs from the stakeholders. It is mainly the stage of the conceptual model development with a preliminary simulation implementation. This paper presents the theory and model of multi-stakeholder decision process for forest management and a case study of forest plantations in Sabah. In the case study, the paper describes its context, the process and result of the simulation, and the use of simulation to envision scenario of forest plantations. At the end, we present first conclusions and next steps of the research.

115

FROM THEORY TO MODEL FOR MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS FOREST MANAGEMENT In this chapter, we argue that forest management planning used to be a process driven by the underlying theory of individual decision; this process focused more on forest dynamics. The new paradigm of sustainable forest management increases the scope of forest management by recognizing the environmental, social, and economic elements of forestry as well as the multi-stakeholder dimension of the underlying decision process. This dramatic change requires new approaches. We therefore propose a framework to represent interaction between socioeconomic dimensions and forest dynamics; this framework takes into account the critical role of communication patterns among stakeholders over the process of forest management. It uses the theory of the decision-making process; it is a complex system with, at the lower level agents equipped with a bounded decision process. We chose Multi-agent systems (MAS) to simulate forest management as this allows us to represent communicating agents, social rules, forest dynamics, and spatial dynamics.

Forest management planning and decision theories The underlying decision theory of forest management planning came from substantive rationality (Simon 1976). This is a deeply rooted perception of decision-making, which assumes that an objective is clearly stated, solutions are in restricted number and known, and the decision maker is free to find the optimal solution. The decision is rational as it is a coherent sequence of stages designed to reach this objective: Observation/intelligence activity objective/design deliberation/choice review/assessment of choice.

The process of forest planning from classic forestry textbooks is very well structured and looks the same: Owner objective data analysis decision action plan

Of course in details it is much more complex, but still linear, for instance: Land right update description of the forest and the forest plot characteristics (soil, species, topography, history etc.) definition of long-term production goals, choice of species plot classification and silviculture choices at the plot level productivity expectation, annual allowable cut (AAC), harvest design method operational planning of activities (maintenance, thinning, pruning, harvest) financial assessment.

This theory consists of matching the owners’ will with the potential of the forest to guarantee forest sustainability. It is a tool that evolved with the development of new technologies for environmental observation (satellite imageries, description of ecosystems), and data management (such as geographical information system, GIS). It is in use in many countries, such as in France by the state enterprise, which manages the national forests (Dubourdieu 1997). The flaws might be that, despite the development of technologies, forest management planning is a process driven mostly by understanding of the biological sub system

116

only, and the interaction between biological and social dynamics is not taken into account well. Other stakeholders’ objectives are seen as the social pressure (Dubourdieu 1997). When the social pressure increases, some participatory approaches might be introduced without fundamentally changing the nature of the decision model. National forest planning in the United States starts with an inventory, followed by a participatory process, which designs the desirable future state of the forest. The forest service then makes the final decisions, while it elaborates an action plan (Risbrudt 1999). Simon (1976) remarked that economic analysis rests on two assumptions: that the agent has as a specific goal the maximization of its profit and that it is rational. Rationality, or hard rationality, means also that the agent has all the information and solutions exist in a limited number. Under these conditions, Simon (1976) defined the rational agent as an agent who compares the different solutions to its goal and chooses rationally one with a method, such as cost-benefit analysis. Based on this hard concept of rationality multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) can be used to make decisions for forest management planning more effective (Tarp and Helles 1995). MCDM aggregates several criteria in one criterion; this is about choosing a type of compensation among the different criteria. Then, MCDM uses a method to find an optimal solution. It is an effective tool for helping make decisions when one perfectly rational stakeholder has multiple objectives, but it is not a tool for multi-stakeholder decision-making as it does not help stakeholders to agree on a type of compensation method. March and Simon (1971) identified limits to the rational decision theory. They observed that in the real world decision makers make decisions with a sub set of information, and do not try to find the optimal solution but a satisfactory one. Simon (1976) proposed the theory of bounded rationality in which decision makers have multiple constraints: limited information, limited time, and limited processing and memory capacities. In the real world, decision makers use simplified sets of rules or heuristics to make decisions. This theory does not consider situations with multi-stakeholders. In situations of uncertainty, Simon (1978) proposed the theory of the decision-making process, in which decision is the outcome of a complex system where multiple stakeholders can interact. The social network theory contemplates society as a complex structured system in which a stakeholder is a social entity, which can be a single person or a group with common resources and interests. The stakeholder behaves according to his/her interest but is constrained by a set of social norms (Crozier and Friedberg 1977). Social norms are a classification of world, things, people, and people’s relations with things (Weber et al 1990). In a social network, relations among stakeholders are critical as in all complex systems.

Modeling the decision process In our model, we recognize these different levels of decisions. On the first level, each agent has a bounded rationality. The agent makes decisions according to its goals. It is constrained by its social norms, its limited knowledge of the environment, and its relationship with other stakeholders. It also has some economic rationality.

117

A second level of decision is the outcome of a set of agents’ interactions (See Fig. 2) that these agents are able to communicate. This set makes up a social network. At this level, agents are coordinating their decisions and some form of negotiation process takes place. This decision has an effect on their environment. A phase of intelligence, review, and assessment allows stakeholders to modify some of their perceptions and behaviors, before a second loop starts. A type of forest management emerges from a number of these loops ⎯ it is the third level of decision process. This level is also for us a scenario that we can assess. The number of solutions in such a system is not discrete and outcomes are rarely optimal.

Basically, we define the initial conditions, the agents’ attributes and their relationships with other agents and (forest) resources, the forest dynamics, as well as the way agents are able to adapt to change; agents are at least reactive to environmental change, but they can also learn as during a process of evaluation, they can change their perceptions about the environment and other agents and add addresses of new agents in their list of attributes (See box 3 in Fig.2). Among agent attributes are agent goals, their perceptions of environment (resources and other agents), and their ability to communicate. Agents might also have as an attribute a bank account. We observe effects on the forest resources and on agent changes in attributes (perceptions, bank account, and address of other agents for example).

Within a model, we might have some rational agents, pure homo economicus agents, rationally bounded agents, as well as agents with strong social norms, which limit their decisions. However, in all cases at a higher-level forest management is a decision process or a complex system. In the following section, we describe in detail how we model agents with economic rationality.

Individual agent decisions, value-added chain, and multi-stakeholder decisions The agent’s ability to communicate is critical; it has as an attribute some addresses of other agents it knows and processes, which allow it to communicate. An agent might have an economic behavior. To model this specific behavior, we use the added-value chain theory. Agents in the model are anticipating the outcome of their decisions during the decision process. They evaluate this outcome against their goals. The value chain is a short-lived alliance among a variety of stakeholders to produce goods from forests. This concept allows us to integrate different decision levels and forces us to describe the communication patterns among stakeholders and the perceptions and goals that govern each stakeholder’s behavior. Usually, the value chain is reduced to the supply chain perspective of the view of an industry, which tries to secure its supplies. Here, we look at it in the other way from the forest; the value chain concept helps to anticipate before harvest the use of the wood and benefits that wood products will produce, what in the real world stakeholders in the forestry sector are doing, consciously or intuitively (Fig. 3). We assume that the decision to cut a forest plantation plot results from an agreement among key stakeholders. A piece of wood will be harvested and extracted from the plot if all key stakeholders along the value chain are satisfied with the system of alliances. If a key stakeholder as a woodcutter or road haulage contractor does not get what he/she really expects, wood will not be harvested and nobody will be paid. The common interest is to reach an agreement, but this is not always possible. Success or

118

failure of the negotiation depends on the negotiation process but also on forest plantation physical conditions. For instance, if the forest is far away from the market or a factory, transportation costs might be so high that satisfactory solutions for all cannot be found. This system of alliances is the result of negotiation among stakeholders who try to reach their own goals by applying process. It can change over space and at any specific location, it is a snap alliance as it can change over time according to stakeholders’ changing perceptions of the environment and relationships. This allows us to represent the interaction between forest dynamics and social issues as it links these changing alliances directly to the rate of harvesting, which affects the forest dynamics. The value-added breakdown analysis, which includes costs and added value at each stage, is a very simple and practical economic model that we use to analyze the contribution of each stakeholder to the final product price from wood standing value to the retail price of the final product. The coordination of the economic goals of diverse stakeholders through negotiation is the process used in this breakdown analysis. It bridges social and economic issues.

The structure of price breakdown, while analyzed at each forest-plot level of a map, shows in many cases some difference in structure according to the forest-plot location. This bridges economic issues to spatial structure (Fig. 4). Negotiations take place on each patch of the map, revealing links between economics and space.

Multi-agent systems for modeling the forest management decision process MAS are promising way to examine natural resource and environmental management issues (Bousquet et al 1999). The hallmark of MAS is the recognition of "agents", which are entities with defined goals, actions, and domain knowledge. Some degree of agent autonomy is central to the notion of multi-agent modeling (Weiss 1999). These interactions can be cooperative or selfish, with agents sharing a common goal or pursuing their own interests (Sycara 2000). Agents are entities within an environment, which they can sense, modify and improve. This collection of agents in interaction is not a sum of isolated entities but forms a society of agents.

Simulating the stakeholders’ activities and interactions requires a tool that is able to represent the individual’s knowledge, belief, and behavior. MAS has its roots in the emerging field of artificial intelligence. Hence, most of the early theoretical development of MAS evolved from computer-related work (Weiss 1999). Recognizing the close analogy between distributed artificial intelligence and individual-based modeling, several authors saw the potential for adopting MAS in natural resource management, particularly in areas where several stakeholders are sharing the control of renewable resources management.

The research used common-pool resources and multi-agent systems (CORMAS), a simulation platform specifically designed for renewable resource management systems. It provides a framework for developing simulation models of the interactions between individuals and groups that jointly exploit common resources. CORMAS facilitates the construction of a model by offering predefined elements, which the user can customize to a wide range of specific applications (CIRAD 2001).

119

We chose the CORMAS platform as it focused on interactions between social and resource dynamics, based on communication patterns spatially defined. In CORMAS, communicating agents are already predefined with a set of attributes and processes used for sending a message, which makes it easy to simulate communication. Effects on forest resources can be visualized on a simulated grid or map.

The use of scenarios The output of our MAS model, what we observe, is the emergence of a simulated forest plantation management. It is also a simulation of interactions between artificial social networks with an artificial environment. Policymakers as well as stakeholders should be able to assess the very long-term effects of their decisions, such as the establishment of plantations or wood-processing industries. Some major effects might occur beyond the normal periods of monitoring. Simulation is one way to examine this question, and it may be the only viable alternative if the system is large or complex. “Simulation” means making a simplified representation of a real-world situation, and animating it so that stakeholders can envision what the future situation might be. Simulation with MAS will be used within an action research process, which involves stakeholders in producing knowledge, assuming that collective action is more likely to occur based on a common representation of the environment. Interaction between simulation and stakeholders, including researchers, is also a learning process, which should influence long-term forest management. Researchers are already using scenarios in the field of forest management (Wollenberg et al 2000, Nemarundwe et al 2003). In the broader field of renewable resource management, other researchers already use simulation with MAS and role-playing games to allow mutual feedback between the real world and stakeholders and promote communication (Barreteau at al 2001).

Limits of the approach The distinction between a communicating agent and a noncommunicating agent is key. In Figure 1, some agents are not communicating and are part of the environment. As Holling (1999) remarks, there is a difficult trade-off between keeping the model simple enough for communication and complex enough for understanding. Stakeholders with researchers should reassess this distinction about agent communication capabilities at each loop because some agents can move from one condition to another (Fig. 5). We should be extremely cautious in assuming that with better information stakeholders will change their behavior to a more sustainable forest management and more equity. Whatever the number of loops we do and the details of our observations about stakeholders’ behaviors, behaviors of real-world actors are unpredictable. This kind of modeling helps us to open a bit the “black box” of decision processes and to communicate with stakeholders, but it cannot be used for prediction.

120

MAS SIMULATION

Simulation Method We identify stakeholders according to the following criteria of “who count matrix” namely proximity to the forest plantation, legal and traditional rights over the forest plantation, dependency on the forest plantation, and knowledge of forest plantation management (Colfer et al. 1999). Stakeholder characteristics were recognized through field visits and discussions. Researchers facilitated the discussion to establish stakeholder identities, their rationale, and their behavior and actions. These characteristics formed the basis for the MAS model subsequently developed. We obtained other biophysical an economy data from SAFODA and literature. At this stage, we have not incorporated real spatial data into the model. The model used a typical spatial configuration of forest plantations.

The development of a model has four key phases (Grant et al 1997): (1) forming a conceptual model is to state the model’s objectives, bind the system of interest, categorize its components, identify relationships, and describe the expected patterns of the model’s behavior; (2) Quantifying the model is to identify the functional forms of the model’s equations, estimate the parameters, and represent it in simulation platform ; (3) evaluating the model is to reassess the logic underpinning the model and compare model predictions with expectations; (d) using the model is to develop scenarios.

Simulation Results Identifying Stakeholders. The stakeholders identified, based on the criteria mentioned previously, are SAFODA, smallholders, buyers (for pulp and sawmill), the government. Table 1 describes the goals and strategies of those stakeholders. Constructing the Model. The conceptual model is illustrated in Figure 6. In the conceptual model, a sawmill which does not exist currently is added. Figure 6 describes that SAFODA and the smallholders grow Acacia in their plantations. Then they negotiate with a buyer to sell their timber. The buyer sends the wood he bought to mills. The wood for pulp is taken to the harbor for export if there is no pulp mill. The government observes the impacts of stakeholder interactions on the incomes of smallholders, pulp availability and landscape. If the sawmill exist then its primary goal is to improve its profits. In the model, the sawmill can be set up anywhere on the map. It produces a demand for wood at sawed-log price. The buyer takes into account the sawmill location to calculate the sawed-log price. The current study represents forest landscape as pixels, including the explicit location of SAFODA and smallholders’ plots, sea, road network, pristine forest, agricultural

121

land and the harbor. Each pixel represents an area of 25 ha. Figure 7 shows as an example a virtual map of forest landscape where SAFODA, smallholders, and the harbor are located. Small triangles represent smallholders. They can move during the simulation if they are not satisfied with the plot production where they are at the beginning of the simulation. We analyze growth volume model to represent plantation dynamics. Table 2 shows the dynamics of pulpwood growth volume, which is used in the simulation. At 10 years, mean annual incremental growth it is 14 m3ha-1. Figure 8 illustrates the interactions between agents as a sequence diagram of unified modeling language (UML). SAFODA has only pulp plantations, but smallholders might have small plots for pulpwood or also plots for sawed timber. When SAFODA has a plot ready to be cut, it sends a message to pulp buyers. If they are interested, negotiation between the buyers and SAFODA follows. The negotiation results between SAFODA and buyers will affect SAFODA’s strategy to replant during the following years. If SAFODA implements a benefit-cost analysis for each plot, it will then have two options: to grow or not to grow trees. If it uses a plant-cut-replant approach, it will grow tress regardless of income produced from the plantation. At the same time pulp and sawed timber buyers are looking for wood from smallholders. If the smallholders have plots ready to be cut, they will send a message to buyers and then negotiation follows. Negotiation about wood prices also occurs between buyers and mills. The smallholders also take into account outcomes of past decisions to decide about future activities. If they obtain good income from the plantation then they will expand it to new unproductive land.

The buyers propose prices to the tree growers i.e. SAFODA and the smallholders based on the prices they can sell the wood for, to mills or in the harbor for export. The wood transportation cost from plots to roads is higher than from the road to the mill. We developed a spatially explicit algorithm to compute the transportation cost. The algorithm calculates the cost distance between the plots and mills by considering the existence of the roads and their quality. If there is a road then the distance cost is lower than there is no road. Similarly, the better road quality is the lower the distance cost. The algorithm seeks the path where the distance cost is the lowest. It is done by looking the distance cost that is represented in eight cells surrounding the cell where the wood is located. If the cells have exactly the same distance cost then the algorithm looks at the surrounding those eight cells, and so forth.

Evaluating the Model. The study was planned to develop and verify the model. The dynamic responses implicit in many natural resource management questions add to the challenge of interpretation and testing (Barreteau at al 2001). We evaluated the present model using two criteria: (1) the logic of the model and its outcomes and (2) the similarity between predictions and expectations. The model met these criteria. The assessment that the model was reasonable was based on a systematic checking of all the relationships within the model, from the simplest sub model (forest plantation growth), to the more complex sub models (e.g., the agents’ communications). Finally, we assessed the outputs of the model. This assessment led us to the conclusion that the model complied with the patterns we expected before. Envisioning scenarios of forest plantations. Under the current scheme, after 10 years, the smallholders move to the sites close to the road network to maximize their

122

benefits in relation to transportation costs (Fig. 9). If existing plantations are not financially sustainable, the smallholders just abandon them. They leave their plots and look for new accessible plots closer to the main road. This will decrease the available wood for pulp, degrade the forest landscape, and decrease their income. Figure 10 presents a scenario with the establishment of a sawmill. The smallholders convert most of their pulpwood plots into sawed timber plantations. These sawed timber plots are commercially sustainable and give more income to the smallholders. The smallholders leave several plots, which are far away from the road network. The forest landscape is larger vis-à-vis a scenario where a sawmill does not exist.

CONCLUSIONS Policymakers should be able to assess the very long-term effects of their decisions, such as the establishment of plantations or wood-processing industries. Simulations, which involve stakeholders’ knowledge, are one way to examine this issue, as they allow us to represent the complex coordination of multiple individual decisions through a negotiation process and its effects on plantation resources or in terms of income generation.

We have proposed in this article a theoretical background, which supports a model of multi-stakeholder forest management and current ways to implement it with the CORMAS platform. It is a practical way to envision long-term scenarios of forest management involving multi-stakeholders. We have found the model to be useful for developing scenarios and observing the likely effects of each scenario on the forest landscape and on the well-being of stakeholders.

In the specific case of Sabah plantation model, setting up a sawmill adapted for processing small logs from plantations might be a large incentive for smallholders to develop plantations, including areas far from roads. The sawmills would increase the value of wood. The outcome, besides landscape management, is also better income for smallholders. Without a sawmill, smallholders move to sites close to the roadsides and abandon their remote plots. Thus, the wood supply to enterprises, smallholder income, and forest areas decline. Nonetheless, this work in Sabah is in the very early stage of an action research process that we will continue. In the next steps, we will involve the stakeholders more intensively towards a companion modeling process. Although we made our best in the representation of stakeholders’ behavior, we did not make formal knowledge elicitation and representation during the process of building the simulation. We will improve the agents’ learning process, coordination, and cooperation among them as well as the spatial representation of the area.

123

REFERENCES

Barreteau O, Bousquet F, Attonaty J. 2001. Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems, J. Artif. Societ. Social Simul. 4(2). Available at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/5.html, accessed 20 May 2001.

Bousquet F, Barreteau O, Le Page C, Mullon C, Weber J. 1999. An environmental modelling approach: the use of multi-agent simulations, 1999, in Blasco F, Weill A, editors. Advances in environmental and ecological modeling. Elsevier: pp 113-122, http://CORMAS.cirad.fr/pdf/gowith.pdf.

CIRAD (Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement). 2001. Natural resources and multi-agent simulations. http://cormas.cirad.fr/en/outil/outil.htm, accessed 25 February 2002.

Colfer, C.J.P., Brocklesby, M.A., Diaw, C., Etuge, P., Günter, M., Harwell, E., McDougall, C., Porro, N.M., Prabhu, R., Salim, A., Sardjono, M.A., Tchikangwa, B., Tiani, A.M., Wadley, R., Woelfel, J. and Wollenberg, E. (1999). The BAG: basic assessment guide for human well-being, Criteria and Indicators, Toolbox Series No 5. Bogor (Indonesia): CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research). Crozier M, Friedberg E, 1977. L’acteur et le systeme, Seuil, 500 p.

Dubourdieu J. 1997. Manuel d’aménagement forestier. Office National des forêts, Lavoisier Ed. 243 p.

Grant J.W., Pedersen E.K., Marin S.L. 1997. Ecology and natural resource management: system analysis and simulation. Reading, Mass. (USA): Addison-Wesley. 373 p.

Holling CS. 1999. Introduction to the special feature: just complex enough for understanding; just simple enough for communication. Conserv. Ecol. 3(2):1. www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art1.

March J.G, Simon H.A 1971. Les organizations. Paris, Dunot.

Nemarundwe N, de Jong W, Cronkleton P. 2003. Future scenarios as an instrument for forest management. manual for training facilitators of future scenarios. Bogor (Indonesia): CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), 31 p.

SAFODA (Sabah Forestry Development Authority). 2003. www.sabah.gov.my/kpsp/safo_index.htm, accessed 25 February 2003.

Risbrudt C.D, 1999. L’aménagement des forêts Nationales aux Etats Unis in L’aménagement Forestier, hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Revue Forestière Française, special issue, pp 317-321.

Simon H.A, 1976. From substantive to procedural rationality. in Latsis SJ, editor. Methods and appraisal in economics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 30-131.

Simon H.A, 1978. On How to Decide What to Do. The Belle Journal of Economics, 9, 494-507

124

Sycara K. 2000. Multi-agent systems (a subtopic of agents). American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/multi.html, accessed 19 September 2001.

Tarp P, Helles F. 1995. Multi-criteria decision-making in forest management planning: an overview. J. Forest Econ 1:3.

Weber J, Betsch J, Cury P. 1990. A l’interface hommes-nature: les resources renouvelables. CND, programme environment, colloque recherché et environment, Strasbourg, 24-25 September 1990, pp 39-50.

Weiss G, editor. 1999. Multi-agent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. Cambridge, Mass. (USA): MIT Press. 618 p. Wollenberg E, Edmunds D, Buck L. 2000. Anticipating change: scenarios as a tool

for adaptive forest management ⎯ a guide. Bogor (Indonesia): CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) 38p.

125

Notes: Authors’ addresses: Ph. Guizol: Centre de coopération Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), Bogor Indonesia. Email: [email protected]; H. Purnomo: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and Faculty of Forestry Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia. Email: [email protected]

Indonesia

Singapore

Malaysia

Fig. 1. Sabah location map.

126

Perceptions

Goal

CommunicationBehaviorBehavior

EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentOutcome of

decisionprocess

Actions

Naturaldynamics

and impacts

Decision-makingprocess

Evaluation

Changes in initial

conditions and

perceptions

Negotiationand individual

decisions

1 3

2

4

Fig. 2. Theoretical model of forest management with different decision levels.

Wood added-valuebreakdownanticipated

Share of stakeholder C

A

C

B

Share of stakeholder A

Share of stakeholder B

A, B and C are agents along thevalue added-chain; each of themexpects a share from wood addedvalue. They negotiate this sharewith other agents as the total value is limited by the marketprice. Each agent has an attributewhich is its perception of fairshare.

Perceptions

Goal

BehaviorBehavior

Negotiationand

individualdecisions

1

Fig. 3. Multi-stakeholder decisions and the value-added chain.

127

Environment

Harbouror sawmill

Wood price at mill gate

Village

Remote area

Harbouror sawmill

Wood price at mill gate

Village

Remote area

Forest plotForest

Transport costLogging costTaxes

Plantation cost and negotiation cost with villages

Fig. 4. Negotiation and spatial distribution.

Observed world

Simulations Model

Simulations

Observed world

Model

Observed world

Simulations Model

Simulations

Observed world

Model

Fig. 5. Simulation as a research action tool for companion modeling (modified after Bousquet et al 1999).

128

Fig. 6. An overview of the model.

129

Fig. 7. Representation of forest landscape. Large plots marked 1 are SAFODA forest management plots. The different gray areas relate to the plot wood stock, while black illustrates that the plot is ready to be cut. The small triangles represent smallholders located in their forest plots at the beginning (2). The black area at the bottom of the map represents the sea (3) and the harbor (7). In the top right of the large area marked 5 is the pristine forest. The white areas (6) represent land devoted to agriculture. The Y-shaped lines (4) are roads, with different gray colors relating to road quality and to different transportation costs

5

3

2

4 110

19

17

16

15 14

12

11

6

18 13

7

8

Legends:

1n: SAFODA forest management plots (age 1 to 10),

2: Smallholder plots,

3: Sea,

4: Road network,

5: Pristine forest,

6: Agricultural land,

7: Harbor, and

8: SAFODA field office.

7 7

130

Cell_Entities

SAFODAreplanting

Decision to cut

Decision aboutreplanting a plot level

SAFODA plan

Assesstransport cost

Cell_Entities

SAFODAreplanting

Decision to cut

Decision aboutreplanting a plot level

SAFODA plan

Assesstransport cost

MODEL

Buyer SAFODA

No

New offerNo

New offer

Buyer assesses

pulp wood price for plot SAFODA

decision Yes

Yes

SAFODA assessment

Next

plot Next

plot

Fig. 8. Sequence diagram of agent interactions during negotiation.

131

Fig. 9. Smallholders abandon their plantations and move to locations closer to the road as the arrows indicate,.

Fig. 10. Impact of a sawmill establishment scenario. A is a sawmill, L represents areas from which the smallholders left, and C represents areas converted into sawed timber plots.

A

CL

132

Table 1. The selected stakeholders and their goals and strategies Stakeholder Goal Strategy

SAFODA Improve its returns

By reducing its costs and increasing its revenue.

Smallholders To improve their well-being

They have lands and can expand the plantations. If the wood price is high enough, they expand their plantations for pulp or timber. If their wood pulp plantations are not commercially viable, they can convert them to timber wood plantation or other uses.

Buyers To improve their profits

They take care of logging and transportation costs. They need a margin of 20%.

Government Forest sustainability

More smallholders, more wood resources, and forest landscapes

Table 2. Wood growth for pulp wood plantations. Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volume (cm3ha-1) 0 5 15 25 35 50 70 100 120 140 Annual volume increment - 5 10 10 10 15 20 30 20 20

Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement and Center for International Forestry Research, “Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the

Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia”

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004

CONTENTS

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ----------------------------------------------------------- Page 1

SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES

PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO

31 AUGUST 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

SCHEDULE 1: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SPECIAL-PURPOSE

STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES

PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO

31 AUGUST 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------- 3 - 7



1

Independent Auditor's Report

No.: L.04 - 3733 - 05/Project CRD05 The management of Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (“CIRAD”), Center for International Forestry Research (“CIFOR”) and the representative officers of the European Community (the “Community”)

We have audited the special-purpose statement of activities of Project “Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia” (the “Project”) for the period from 19 August 2003 (inception date) to 31 August 2004. This special-purpose statement of activities is the responsibility of management of CIRAD. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this special-purpose statement of activities based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards established by the Indonesian Institute of Accountants. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the special-purpose statement of activities is free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the special- purpose statement of activities. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the special- purpose statement of activities. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

The accompanying special-purpose statement of activities was prepared for the purpose of complying with Article 16 (4) of Annex II of contract No. B7-6200/02/0642/TF between CIRAD and the Community, and is not intended to be a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in Indonesia.

In our opinion, the special-purpose statement of activities referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the revenue and expenses of the Project for the period from 19 August 2003 (inception date) to 31 August 2004.

Our audit was conducted for the purposes of forming an opinion on the special-purpose statement of activities taken as a whole. The supplementary information in Schedule 1 is presented for the purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the special-purpose statement of activities. Such information, except for that portion marked “unaudited”, on which we express no opinion, has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the special- purpose statement of activities and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects, in relation to the special-purpose statement of activities taken as a whole. The report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of CIRAD and CIFOR and the representative officers of the Community, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Siddharta Siddharta & Widjaja Registered Public Accountants Joseph Vittorio Pesik, SE, BAP Public Accountant License No. 04.1.0936

Jakarta, 5 August 2005

The accompanying special-purpose statement of activities is not intended to present revenue and expenses in accordance with accounting principles and practices generally accepted in countries and jurisdictions other than Indonesia. The standards, procedures, and practices to audit such special-purpose statement of activities are those generally accepted and applied in Indonesia.



2

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004 Euro

REVENUE 185,522)

EXPENSES Human resources (158,590)Travel (9,299)Equipment and supplies (23,476)Local office/project costs (10,105)Other costs, services (19,946)Administrative costs (15,499)Total Project expenses (236,915) Less: expenses borne by the Consortium of CIRAD and CIFOR 51,393) NET EXPENSES (185,522)

CHANGE IN NET ASSETS -)



3

SCHEDULE 1/1

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004

1. CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF EXPENSES

Euro

Contribution received by CIRAD: )

21 October 2003 362,465) Expenses incurred during the period from 19 August 2003 to 31 August 2004 (236,915)Less: expenses borne by the Consortium of CIRAD and CIFOR 51,393)

Net expenses (185,522) Contribution received in excess of expenses, as of 31 August 2004 176,943)



4

SCHEDULE 1/2

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004 2. INFORMATION ON BUDGET AND ACTUAL EXPENSES

Budget*

Actual expenses for the period from 19 August 2003 to 31 August 2004

Remaining budget balance – as of 31 August 2004*

Expenses attributable to the Community

Expenses borne by the Consortium

Portion contributed by

Nature of expenses Total CIRAD CIFOR Sub total CIRAD CIFOR Sub total Total Total the Community Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro 1. Human Resources

1.1 Salaries (gross amounts, local) 1.1.1 Technical/local experts

1.1.1.1 Social scientists 90,000 - 26,809 26,809 - 2,639 2,639 29,448 60,552 63,191)1.1.1.2 Assistant 38,400 - 1,492 1,492 - 47 47 1,539 36,861 36,908)1.1.1.3 Computer scientists (GIS, M.A. specialists)

65,000

-

8,651

8,651

-

1,460

1,460

10,111

54,889

56,349)

1.1.1.4 Information system/website specialist 6,000 - - - - - - - 6,000 6,000)1.1.1.5 Specialist of information to local people

12,000

-

561

561

-

-

-

561

11,439

11,439)

1.1.1.6 Junior scientists 9,000 - 2,861 2,861 - - - 2,861 6,139 6,139)1.1.1.7 National coordinators 36,000 - 6,009 6,009 - 377 377 6,386 29,614 29,991)

1.1.2 Administrative/support staff (secretary) 48,000 - - - - 4,158 4,158 4,158 43,842 32,000)1.2 Salaries (gross amounts, expat/int. staff)

1.2.1 Project leader 260,000 49,000 - 49,000 21,000 - 21,000 70,000 190,000 133,000) 1.2.2 Multi-agent specialist 80,000 - - - - - - - 80,000 56,000)

1.2.3 Conflict resolution, policy or assessment specification

50,000

5,133

-

5,133

2,200

-

2,200

7,333

42,667

29,867)

1.2.4 CIFOR board team 1 72,000 - - - - 2,268 2,268 2,268 69,732 -)1.2.5 CIRAD board team 2 66,000 - - - 4,730 - 4,730 4,730 61,270 -)

1.3 Per diems for missions/travel 1.3.1 Abroad (project staff)

1.3.1.1 Cities outside S.E. Asia as Europe 7,500 - - - - - - - 7,500 7,500)1.3.1.2 Cities in S.E. Asia Region 18,225 - 9,958 9,958 - 2,885 2,885 12,843 5,382 8,267)

1.3.2 Local (project staff) [rural area] 19,110 - 4,664 4,664 - - - 4,664 14,446 14,446)1.3.3 Seminar/conference participants

(in rural area local stakeholder participants) 12,000 - 1,688 1,688 - - - 1,688 10,312 10,312)Subtotal human resources 889,235 54,133 62,693 116,826 27,930 13,834 41,764 158,590 730,645 501,409)

* Unaudited.



5

SCHEDULE 1/3

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES (Continued) PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004 2. INFORMATION ON BUDGET AND ACTUAL EXPENSES (Continued)

Budget*






Nature of expenses Total CIRAD CIFOR Sub total CIRAD CIFOR Sub total Total Total the Community Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro

2. Travel

2.1 International travel 34,000 2,715 - 2,715 - - - 2,715 31,285 31,285)2.2 Regional travel 18,600 - 4,456 4,456 - - - 4,456 14,144 14,144)2.3 National travel 22,800 - 2,128 2,128 - - - 2,128 20,672 20,672)

Subtotal travel 75,400 2,715 6,584 9,299 - - - 9,299 66,101 66,101)

3. Equipment and supplies 3.1 Rent of vehicles 39,600 - 3,845 3,845 - 211 211 4,056 35,544 35,755)3.2 Furniture, computer equipment 23,900 - 3,874 3,874 - 1,500 1,500 5,374 18,526 12,026)3.3 Portable computer 35,000 - 10,758 10,758 - - - 10,758 24,242 24,242)3.4 Communication tools (video, camera) 8,000 - 3,288 3,288 - - - 3,288 4,712 4,712)

Subtotal equipment and supplies 106,500 - 21,765 21,765 - 1,711 1,711 23,476 83,024 76,735) 4. Local office/project costs

4.1 Vehicle costs 13,000 - - - - 535 535 535 12,465 13,000)4.2 Office rent 52,800 - - - - 3,702 3,702 3,702 49,098 -)4.3 Consumables - office supplies 17,580 - 2,187 2,187 - 1,000 1,000 3,187 14,393 15,393)4.4 Other services (tel/fax, electricity, maintenance) 47,800 - - - - 2,681 2,681 2,681 45,119 -

Subtotal local office/project costs 131,180 - 2,187 2,187 - 7,918 7,918 10,105 121,075 28,393)

* Unaudited



6

SCHEDULE 1/4

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES (Continued) PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004

2. INFORMATION ON BUDGET AND ACTUAL EXPENSES (Continued)

Budget*






Nature of expenses Total CIRAD CIFOR Sub total CIRAD CIFOR Sub total Total Total the Community Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro Euro 5. Other costs, services

5.1 Publications 5.1.1 Book 11,000 - - - - - - - 11,000 11,0005.1.2 Reports 28,000 - - - - - - - 28,000 28,0005.1.3 CD Rom 7,000 - - - - - - - 7,000 7,000

5.2 Studies field site mediators & NGO’s 63,000 - 2,582 2,582 - - - 2,582 60,418 60,4185.3 Auditing costs 48,000 - - - - - - - 48,000 48,0005.4 External evaluation costs 50,000 - - - - - - - 50,000 50,0005.5 Translation document 20,000 - 78 78 - - - 78 19,922 19,9225.6 Financial services (bank guarantee costs etc.) 4,800 - - - - - - - 4,800 -5.7 Costs of conferences/seminars 168,000 - 17,286 17,286 - - - 17,286 150,714 150,714

Subtotal other costs, services 399,800 - 19,946 19,946 - - - 19,946 379,854 375,054 6. Subtotal direct eligible project costs (1 - 5) 1,602,115 56,848 113,175 170,023 27,930 23,463 51,393 221,416 1,380,699 1,047,692 7...Administrative costs (7% of total costs +

.contributions) 112,148 9,760 5,739 15,499 - - - 15,499 96,649 96,649

8. Total eligible project costs (6 + 7) 1,714,263 66,608 118,914 185,522 27,930 23,463 51,393 236,915 1,477,348 1,144,341 9. Contingency reserve 85,713 - - - - - - - 85,713 80,853 10. Total costs (8 + 9) 1,799,976 66,608 118,914 185,522 27,930 23,463 51,393 236,915 1,563,061 1,225,194

* Unaudited.



7

SCHEDULE 1/5

CENTRE DE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE EN RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT AND CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH, “LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD: FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO SPECIAL-PURPOSE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES PERIOD FROM 19 AUGUST 2003 (INCEPTION DATE) TO 31 AUGUST 2004

3. INFORMATION ON LOCATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Original documents related to this Project are kept at CIFOR’s headquarter in Bogor, Indonesia.

LPF/04/2004

Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia

The project is working in contexts where multi-stakeholders with different views and power act on forest management. The project aims to improve the forest management by facilitating stakeholders’ coordination and capacity building. It will develop approaches and tools for stakeholders to share views and create condition to manage the forest together.

Centre de coopération Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) are managing this project with three partners, universities well known for their involvement in forest management research, which are Gadjah Mada Univerisity (UGM), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). This first year (2004), after building a common methodological framework with the projects’ partners, the project started focusing on two of the three locations.

In Palawan (the Philippines) the project is working in the former CIFOR’s Adaptive Co-Management (ACM) project field site, where the government has devolved the rights and responsibilities to manage forests to the People’s Organisations through a Community Based Forest Management framework. In Java it will set up field work to help Perum Perhutani to put in force a similar program locally called PHBM, whose aim is to improve the forest management of their teak plantations by sharing both benefits and control with the villagers. The field work in Malaysia will start in the second year.

Http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/lpf

About CIRADCentre de coopération Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) is a French scientific organisation specialising in agricultural research for development for the tropics and sub-tropics. It is a State-owned body, which was established in 1984 following the consolidation of French agricultural, veterinary, forestry, and food technology research organisations for the tropics and subtropics. CIRAD’s mission is to contribute to the economic development of these regions through research, experiments, training and dissemination of scientific and technical information. The Centre employs 1800 persons, including 900 senior staff, who work in more than 50 countries. CIRAD is organised into seven departments: CIRAD-CA (annual crops), CIRAD-CP (tree crops),CIRAD-FLHOR (fruit and horticultural crops),CIRAD-EMVT (animal production and veterinary medicine), CIRAD-Forêt (forestry), CIRAD-TERA (land, environment and people), and CIRAD-AMIS (advanced methods for innovation in science).CIRAD operates through its own research centres, national agricultural research systems and development projects.

About CIFORThe Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is a leading international forestry research organization established in 1993 in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR is dedicated to developing policies and technologies for sustainable use and management of forests, and for enhancing the well-being of people in developing countries who rely on tropical forests for their livelihoods. CIFOR is one of the 15 Future Harvest centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). With headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR has regional offices in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Zimbabwe, and it works in over 30 other countries around the world.

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Office addressJalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang

Bogor Barat 16680 - IndonesiaTel: +62(251) 622 622

Fax: +62(251) 622 100E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.cifor.cgiar.org

Mailing addressP.O. Box. 6596 JKPWB

Jakarta 10065 - Indonesia

IndonesiaFaculty of ForestryGadjah Mada University (UGM)

MalaysiaFaculty of ForestryUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)

PhilippineCollege of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)

Annual Report 2004Year 1


Annual R

eport 2

004 | Y

ear 1


By LPF TeamPhilippe Guizol, Herlina Hartanto, Herry Purnomo and Levania Santoso(in alphabetical order)

cover report biru [vanny] · lpf/04/2004 levelling the playing field: fair partnership for local...

Documents