Download - Managing Ganoderma for Sustainable Plantation Forests in ... · Managing Ganoderma for Sustainable Plantation Forests in Indonesia Abdul Gafur, ... Acacia mangium – a historical

xlix

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF INDONESIAN FORESTRY RESEARCHERS (INAFOR)

Invited Paper

Managing Ganoderma for Sustainable Plantation Forests in Indonesia

Abdul Gafur, Budi Tjahjono and Marthin Tarigan

RGE Fiber R&D, Pangkalan Kerinci 28300, Indonesia Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Paper prepared for The First International Conference of Indonesian Forestry Researchers (INAFOR)

Bogor, 5 – 7 December 2011

INAFOR SECRETARIAT Sub Division of Dissemination, Publication and Library

FORESTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Jl. Gunung Batu 5, Bogor 16610

mailto:[email protected]


l

Managing Ganoderma for Sustainable Plantation Forests in Indonesia

Abdul Gafur, Budi Tjahjono and Marthin Tarigan

RGE Fiber R&D, Pangkalan Kerinci 28300, Indonesia Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

The reforestation effort in Indonesia is aimed at sustaining the supply of forest products while

conserving the natural forests. This will maintain not only their economic importance, but also

environmental and social roles. The Ministry of Forestry has set a development of plantation

forests, both industrial and community-based plantation forests. In line with the policy, industrial

plantation forests of fast-growing species, especially acacias and eucalypts, are being established

on a large scale basis. A number of diseases have since been recorded. Root-rot is the most

economically significant disease of Acacia mangium Willd. Elucidation of the identity of the

causative organisms is very critical to develop its control strategies. Morphological and molecular

characterizations have identified Ganoderma philippii Karst. as the fungal species most commonly

found associated with the disease in A. mangium and eucalypt plantations. Components of

integrated disease management including cost-effective and environmentally friendly biocontrol

measures using Trichoderma and Gliocladium are also discussed in this paper.

Introduction

The Government of Indonesia has developed forest plantation programs as an anticipation to the

ever increasing global wood demands. Since mid 1980s the area of both industrial and

community-based forest plantations in Indonesia, particularly those of short-rotation species, has

increased dramatically. Arisman and Hardiyanto (2006) stated that by 2006 industrial forest

plantations already covered nearly 2.5 million ha, with various tree species being planted for wood

and pulp production. This is aimed at providing the supply of forest products while at the same

time maintaining the natural forest. Dependence upon exploitation of natural forest will

eventually have to be terminated. Natural forests should be preserved and valued for their

ecological functions and benefits. To fulfill this requirement, development of new plantation

forests in responsible ways is very important. It is expected that through this program, not only



li

the economic importance of the forests, but their environmental and social roles will also be

maintained.

As stated above, plantation forests of fast-growing species, especially acacias and eucalypts, are

being established on a large scale basis. One challenge has been to maintain high survival and

productivity of the trees. Disease is considered a limiting factor in plantation forest production.

Root rot (especially red root rot) is considered a major disease of acacias (Gafur et al. 2007;

Golani et al. 2007; Lee 2000; Old et al. 2000; Sankaran et al. 2005; Wingfield et al. 2010). Acacia

mangium Willd. and A. crassicarpa Cunn. ex Benth are important species planted primarily for fiber

production in Indonesia and elsewhere in South East Asia. Ganoderma root rot disease is also

found on different species of eucalypts although at present it occurs in lower magnitudes,

(Coetzee et al. 2011; Francis et al. 2008; Gafur et al. 2010).

Disease Symptoms and Signs

Diseased acacia trees usually show a rapid decline, evidenced by off-color and sparse foliage

wilting, and death (Figure 1 top). Recently infected roots are covered with a red-coloured

rhizomorphs and white mycelium (Figure 1 bottom, left). Fruiting bodies are occasionally

observed at the bases of dead trees (Figure 1 bottom, right). Foliage yellowing and senescence

usually precede tree death. As infected woody materials (roots, stumps and other debris)

remaining in or on the soil continue to build-up, root rot incidence increases in the following

rotations. In the case of the Eucalyptus, roots have identical signs of infection including red

rhizomorphs and the typical mottled pattern of mycelial growth below the bark. Fruiting bodies

are sometimes also found on trees with roots having these symptoms. The current level of

damage and incidence of this disease requires that effective management be developed to secure

sustainable production of plantation forests in Indonesia. This is, however, not easy. Effective

control strategies for root rot disease are not simple once the disease infects plants. Field

management is complicated by the fact that its pathogen survives in the soil and on the woody

debris between rotations. The discussion focus of this paper is the pathogen responsible for root

rot disease in plantation forests with the emphasis on acacia and eucalypt plantations and options

for its control in the field based on currently available information.

lii

Figure 1. Symptoms and signs of Ganoderma root rot on Acacia mangium. Young trees showing

yellowing and wilting of leaves (top, left), dead trees (top, right), roots covered with red-coloured

rhizomorphs and white mycelium (bottom, left), and fruiting bodies of Ganoderma philippii

(bottom, right).

The Causal Agent

In the past studies on fungal identification were based heavily, if not solely, on morphology of

reproductive structures such as fruiting bodies or spores, whose presence in nature is

unfortunately not always observed (Gafur et al. 2011a). Recent advancements in molecular

biology, however, have enabled researchers to integrate morphological and molecular

characteristics for identification purposes. While morphology has long been used extensively in

taxonomy, the more recently developed molecular approaches provide excellent ways of

identifying the vegetative stages of fungi (Coetzee et al. 2011; Gafur et al. 2011c).

The causal agent of red root rot disease in acacia plantations had been linked to different fungal

genera. Recent reports, however, indicated that in tropical areas the disease is caused by

liii

Ganoderma spp. (Gafur et al. 2007; Glen et al. 2009; Golani et al. 2007; Lee 2000; Mohammed et

al. 2006; Old et al. 2000). Ganoderma root rot is also known to affect Eucalyptus (Francis et al.

2008; Gafur et al. 2010) although the causal agent of the disease has not been exactly identified

(Old et al. 2003). In this paper discussion on the pathogen responsible for root rot disease in

acacia and eucalypt plantations is primarily based on the work done by Coetzee et al. (2011) who

employed both morphological and molecular approaches. During the study they examined a total

of 189 isolates obtained from the newly infected roots of A. mangium trees, 6 from Eucalyptus

roots and 2 from fruiting bodies formed at the base of trees associated with infected roots. This

represented one of the largest single collections of isolates from newly infected A. mangium roots

in root rot centres in Indonesia to the authors‘ knowledge.

Based on their investigation Coetzee et al. (2011) revealed that Ganoderma philippii Karst. is the

fungal species most commonly found associated with root rot disease in A. mangium plantations

in Riau. DNA-based identification of the collected isolates showed that 97 percent of them

represented a single species, G. philippii. Some other basidiomycete species such as G. mastoporum,

Phellinus noxius, and Tinctoporellus epimiltinus are also isolated from infected roots. The researchers

also reported that DNA sequence comparisons and phylogenetic analyses showed that G. philippii

is also the causal agent of the disease on eucalypts. This has been the first report of G. philippii

causing root rot on Eucalyptus in Indonesia so far.

Disease Management Options

As mentioned earlier there has not been any single effective control of Ganoderma in the

plantation forests. Controlling root rot disease is also difficult because the pathogen survives on

the woody debris and/or in the soil. Thus, it is suggested that compatible components of

integrated disease management be implemented to manage the disease in plantation forests. As

chemical treatments are economically inefficient and environmentally not preferable (Gafur et al.

2011b; 2011d), silvicultural practices and limiting the growth and spread of the pathogen are

potential options. Similarly, cost-effective and environmentally friendly biocontrol measures

employing consortium of different functional groups of synergistic microorganisms have been

considered as an important component of root rot disease management in plantation forests

(Gafur et al. 2011b; 2011d).

In one of their experiments Gafur et al. (2011b; 2011d) indicated that Ganoderma incidence in

naturally regenerated A. mangium plots is lower than that in planted plots of the same rotation.

liv

Differences in root architectures are considered to be one of the determining factors in this case.

Early space competition may have forced the roots of naturally grown stands to penetrate deeper.

Also, naturally regenerated stands seem to have a more differentiated structure of tap roots

compared to nursery-raised seedlings. Stands with more vertical and reduced lateral roots have a

higher chance to escape the disease in the field.

Trials in two different locations in Riau (Baserah and Logas) reveal that de-stumping in general

reduces incidence of Ganoderma root rot in plantation forests (Figure 2). This has been proven

particularly in A. auriculiformis, Eucalyptus pellita, and hybrid eucalypt plots. In A. mangium sites,

however, de-stumping fails to decrease disease incidence (Gafur et al. 2011b; 2011d). This might

have been due to the fact that in the experiments only big sized roots were removed (partial de-

stumping), whereas smaller wood debris remained in the field as food base for the pathogen.

Another option for field control of Ganoderma disease is the implementation of the cost-

effective and environmentally sound management of biological control measures using

consortium of synergistic microorganisms. For example, in a trial site it was revealed that

Trichoderma reduces Ganoderma incidence by 4.9%, whereas in another location Gliocladium

decreases Ganoderma incidence by 6.7% (Gafur et al. 2011b; 2011d).

"Partial" Destumping

9.8

6.68.5

5.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Non Destumping Destumping

Treatment

Dis

ease In

cid

en

ce (

%)

Baserah Logas

lv

Figure2. Partial de-stumping in general reduces incidence of root rot disease.

Conclusions

Ganoderma root rot in plantation forests, especially A. mangium and eucalypts, is primarily caused

by G. philippii. The disease represents the major disease in plantation forests. There are,

however, options for field management of the disease employing silvicultural practices and

consortium of different functional groups of synergistic microorganisms as biocontrol agents.

These are considered as the key components of root rot disease management in plantation forests

in Indonesia.

References

Arisman H, Hardiyanto EB. 2006. Acacia mangium – a historical perspective on its cultivation. In: Potter K, Rimbawanto A, Beadle C, editors. Heart rot and root rot in tropical Acacia plantations. Proceedings of a workshop held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 7-9 Februay 2006. Yoghyarta, Indonesia: ACIAR, Canberra. pp. 92.

Coetzee MPA, Golani GD, Tjahjono B, Gafur A, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ. 2011. A single dominant Ganoderma species is responsible for root rot of Acacia mangium and Eucalyptus in Sumatra. Southern Forests. In press.

Francis AA, Beadle C, Mardai, Indrayadi H, Tjahjono B, Gafur A, Glen M, Widyatmoko A, Hardyanto E, Junarto, Irianto RSB, Puspitasari D, Hidayati N, PeggG, Rimbawanto A, Mohammed CL. 2008. Basidiomycete root rots of paper-pulp tree species in Indonesia – identity, biology and control. Presented at the 9th International Congress of Plant Pathology, Turin, Italy, August 24 – 29, 2008.

Gafur, A, Tjahjono B, Golani GD. 2011a. Ganoderma root rot of fiber plantations: Pathogen and options for field control. Proceed. Third MPOB-IOPRI International Seminar: Integrated Oil Palm Pests and Diseases Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 14, 2011:204-209.

Gafur A, Tjahjono B, Golani GD. 2011b. Options for field management of Ganoderma root rot in Acacia mangium plantation forests. Presented at the 2011 IUFRO Forest Protection Joint Meeting, Colonia del Sacramento, Uruguay, November 8 – 11, 2011.

Gafur A, Tjahjono B, Golani GD. 2011c. Penyakit akar Ganoderma pada tanaman kehutanan: Patogen dan opsi pengelolaannya. Presented at the National Symposium on Ganoderma, Bogor, Indonesia, November 2 – 3, 2011.

Gafur A, Tjahjono B, Golani GD. 2011d. Silvicultural options for field management of Ganoderma root rot in Acacia mangium plantation. Presented at the 4th Asian Conference on Plant Pathology and the 18th Australasian Plant Pathology Conference, Darwin, Australia, April 26 – 29, 2011.

Gafur A, Tjahjono B, Golani GD. 2010. Pests and Diseases of Low Elevation Eucalypts: Diagnose and Control. Pangkalan Kerinci, Indonesia. APRIL Forestry R&D, PT RAPP. 40 p.

lvi

Gafur A, Tjahjono B, Golani GD. 2007. Fungal species associated with acacia plantations in Riau, Indonesia. Presented at the 2007 Asian Mycological Congress, Penang, Malaysia, December 02 – 06, 2007.

Glen M, Bougher NL, Francis AA, Nigg SQ, Lee SS, Irianto R, Barry KM, Beadle CL, Mohammed CL. 2009. Ganoderma and Amauroderma species associated with root-rot disease of Acacia mangium plantation trees in Indonesia and Malaysia. Australasian Plant Pathology 38:345-356.

Golani GD, Tjahjono B, Gafur A, Tarigan M. 2007. Acacia Pests and Diseases: Diagnose and Control. Pangkalan Kerinci, Indonesia. APRIL Forestry R&D, PT RAPP. 68 p.

Lee SS. 2000. The current status of root diseases of Acacia mangium Wild. In: Flood J, Bridge PD, Holderness M, editors. Ganoderma diseases of perennial crops. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. pp. 71-79.

Mohammed CL, Barry KM, Irianto RSB. 2006. Heart rot and root rot in Acacia mangium: identification and assessment. In: Potter K, Rimbawanto A, Beadle C, editors. Heart and root rot in tropical Acacia plantations. Proceedings of a workshop held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: ACIAR, Conberra. pp. 26-33.

Old KM, Lee SS, Sharma JK, Yuan ZQ, editors. 2000. A manual of diseases of tropical acacias in Australia, South-East Asia and India. Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. 104 p.

Old KM, Wingfield MJ, Yuan ZQ. 2003. A manual of diseases of Eucalyptus in South-East Asia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. 98 p.

Sankaran KV, Bridge PD, Gokulapalan C. 2005. Ganoderma diseases of perennial crops in India – an overview. Mycopathologia 159:143-152.

Tjahjono B, Gafur A, Tarigan M, Nasution A, Golani GD. 2009. Application of Trichoderma in the nursery and field to combat Ganoderma root rot: Progress and challenges. Presented at the ACIAR Workshop on Disease Management Strategies for the Rural Sector that Help Deliver Sustainable Wood Production from Exotic Plantations, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, May 04 – 08, 2009.

Wingfield MJ, Slippers B, Roux J, Wingfield BD. 2010. Novel associations between pathogens, insects and tree species threaten world forests. New Zealand Journal of Forest Science 40 suppl.:S95-S103.

lvii


Invited Paper

Genetic Conservation andTree Improvement

Eko Bhakti Hardiyanto

Faculty of Forestry Gadjah Mada University

Yogyakarta Indonesia





lviii

Genetic Conservation andTree Improvement Eko Bhakti Hardiyanto

Faculty of Forestry Gadjah Mada University

Yogyakarta Indonesia

lxii


Invited Paper

Promoting Research on Indonesian Community Forestry Practices Towards

Global Issues

Mustofa Agung Sardjono

Professor of Social Forestry, Faculty of Forestry Mulawarman University (2000 to present)/Core Staff Member of the Center for Social Forestry (CSF) (1997 to present) /Editor in Chief International Journal of Social Forestry.(2008 to present)/ Presidium Head of East Kalimantan Forestry Council (2009 to present)





lxiii

Promoting Research on Indonesian Community Forestry Practices Towards

Global Issues

Mustofa Agung Sardjono

Professor of Social Forestry, Faculty of Forestry Mulawarman University (2000 to present)/Core Staff Member of the Center for Social Forestry (CSF) (1997 to present) /Editor in Chief International Journal of Social Forestry.(2008

to present)/ Presidium Head of East Kalimantan Forestry Council (2009 to present)

Community Forestry, a New Term for Traditional Practices in Indonesia 1. It is widely perceived that social/community forestry was initially introduced by the National

Commission of Agriculture in the middle of the 70`s of the last century during the

commonwealth meeting in India (see e.g. Arnold, 1992). In ddition to that the 8th World

Forestry Congress in Jakarta 1978, where Forest for People was used as the main theme, has

been acknowledged as the starting point of the social/community/agro-forestry. The

statement of Jack Westoby (1986) as cited by Messerschmidt, (2000): “Forestry is not about trees,

it is about people. And it is about trees only in so far as trees can serve the needs of the people” is very

popular among community forestry researchers or activists and inspiring debates or

arguments in many events.

2. However, it should be clearly underlined to avoid misunderstanding that community forestry

(or in other various names popularized since that time) is originated from foreign concepts

and initiatives. Community forestry is just a new term of local existing practices. Various

forest and forest products management systems have been practiced specifically among

local/traditional communities or villagers in many developing countries, including in

Indonesia. Hundreds of local/traditional practices, which have been implemented up to now

by many community groups from Aceh until Papua, are identified. The practices are

commonly in integration with traditional institutions (e.g. wisdoms) and become local cultural

identities in many regions of the country.

3. Why is that so? Undoubtedly, forest ecosystem generally in regions of developing or under

developed countries, such as Indonesia, becomes a living space of hundreds of local forest

dependant groups, what so called local communities. They are an integral part of the

ecosystems, and therefore their daily life, living and surely its cultures or customs must be

tightly embedded with direct or indirect surrounding environment, including related to

lxiv

resource as well as land utilization. Their existence and occupation in the forests, in many

cases, have been much longer than the establishment of the country, moreover forest

determination. Probably, they would not be physically found in certain corners of the forests,

e.g. because people are used to moving from one to other places (nomadic), but their

traditional marks which means also possible claims on lands and resources still exist and have

to be respected.

4. Unfortunatelly those practices have not been legally accommodated and seriously promoted

by the Government (c.q. Ministry of Forestry/MoF) in order to achieve sustainable forest

management. Instead of accommodating such local traditional community forestry practices

since the middle of the 90`s, the MoF has developed and officially introduced different `new`

concepts or schemes such as Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm (Community Forest), Hutan

Desa/HD (Village Forest), Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR (Community based Tree Plantation)

and certainly Hutan Rakyat/HR (Private Forest) outside the forest area.

Factors for Reluctances to Accommodate Traditional Community Forestry 5. Introducing new concepts of community forestry does not mean wrong at all. However, for

sure, logical efforts would be more difficult (or more challenging), more expensive (from

both views - financial and time consuming) and ineffective in some ways (e.g. to participate

community), because community forestry has been closely related with preferences, needs

and indeed local specific cultures of forest users. In fact, after more than one and a half

decades Indonesia as one of internationally well known forests rich countries and main

reference failed to show its best performance in developing and promoting community

forestry schemes.

6. According to official progress data and only for three main community forestry official

schemes (HKm, HTR, and HD) until September 2011 there were only around 20.0 – 37.0%

of the target area could be verified, 8.0 – 14.0% have been established, and of which only 2.0

to 3.0% are already permitted to be operated in only some of the 13 (HD) and from 24

(HKm) targeted provinces (Ministry of Forestry, 2011).

lxv

Table 1. Achievement of Indonesian Community Forestry Programmes in Indonesia (Until September 2011)

Description HKm (since 1995)

HTR (since 2007)

HD (since 2008)

a. Official Target (until 2014)

2,000,000.00 HAs

5,400,000.00 HAs

500,000.00 HAs

b. Verified Areas 402,596.00 HAs - 181,541.00 HAs

c. Established Areas 170,820.00 HAs - 65,234.00 HAs

d. Permitted Areas 41,330.00 HAs 90,414.00 HAs 10,310.00 HAs

e. Location 24 Provinces NA 13 Provinces

Source: Ministry of Forestry (2011); Notes: NA (= Data not Available), Has (= Hectares)

7. There are some factors subjectively considered as the main separate or collective reasons for

the reluctances to accommodate local practices as official community forestry schemes,

namely:

(a) Although political reformation has been taken place since 1998, there are still many

forestry decision makers and planners who strongly keep conventional forestry

principles in term of among others: controlling rather than facilitating, unilateral rather

than participatory decision making, centralistic rather than decentralized or devoluted

management, target rather than process orientation, and single rather than multi-

products/services of the forests (see Campbell, 1997; in Suhardjito, et al., 2001);

(b) Academic forest technocrats including those who are working in bureaucracy are

commonly under-estimating the capacities of lower capitalized local community groups,

with assumptions that forestry management is very difficult business and should be

operated based on well educated and professional personals. They neglect traditional

community practices with main reasons that those empirical experiences can not be

improved to be commercial and benefitial forest management system under recent

circumstances (e.g. markets); and

(c) Many forestry governmental apparatuses or top decision makers/planners worry that

accommodating local community forestry practices means accepting traditional rights

and claims on land/resource tenure issues within state forest areas and reducing

political government charisma. Furthermore, creating more space for the participation

of local communities becomes contra-productive, instead of improving well-being and

lxvi

may leads to ecological destruction. Experiences with small scale forest utilization

permits of the districts short after reformation are used to legitimate that reason;

(d) It is widely perceived that community forestry in general or even more local practices

can only reach subsistence economic orientation level or they cannot be promoted to

higher commercial level, especially to support big-scale forest industries and income

generation of the country.

8. All of the above reasons of rejecting traditional practices seem rather tendentious and indeed

need to be further observed, but definitely difficult to be proved. Nevertheless wasting

community forestry practices especially those that have been effectively implemented in many

regions of this countries means ignoring theoretical understanding of community forestry and

avoiding best opportunities to succeed, i.e.:

(a) The term `community` used in community forestry should not be understood

absolutely as villagers or other officially legal groups (cooperative, corporation, etc)

which are found in the regulations. Community in this case has wider concepts,

including possible participation of independent traditional groups, tribal communities,

or even individual of forest users;

(b) While, `forest` or `forestry` in generic term of community forestry should not be

merely implemented within boundaries of `state forest areas` or used for purely forest

tree management concepts as they have been perceived improperly so far. However it

covers also wherever wild or cultivated trees and other woody plants based land

management exists purely or in combination with agricultural elements (agro-forestry);

(c) Community forestry should not too much demand people to do technical and

administrative complex procedures/mechanisms, but how to secure `fairness` and

`securities` of mostly poor people to get an access, to participate, to benefit and to

keep their independencies from outside pressures for their existence and better life

from the forests.

Classification and Examples of Indonesian Community Forestry Practices 9. There have been already many research activities conducted in Sumatra, Kalimantan and

other islands outside Java, in order to identify and/or to learn various forms of

local/traditional forest management (see e.g.. Seibert and Sardjono, 1985; Michon, et al.,

lxvii

1986; Sardjono, 1990; Zakaria, 1994; Awang and Yuniati, 1998; Suharjito, et al., 2001;

Purwanto and Waluyo, 2000). Because of diverse practices, it has been considered necessary

to classify them into three main groups (Sardjono and Samsoedin, 1997; Sardjono, 2004;

modified): (1) Traditional use of natural forest stand; (2) Traditional tree-gardening; and (3)

Traditional utilization of non-timber forest products.

10. First group, Traditional use of natural forest stand: reflects different practices for

protection, utilization and development of natural forest for multi-purposes such as timber,

non-timber (including hunting), agricultural activities (part of the forest area), and ecological

services (e.g. water). This activity is in general for collective or communal own needs and

usually also implementing traditional rules. Some examples from Kalimantan are called as

Tana‘Ulen (Dayak Kenyah in Apo Kayan/Bulungan District, in Batu Majang/West Kutai of

East Kalimantan); Pulung Kayu (Dayak Kenyah in Ritan Baru/Kutai Kartanegara District);

Hutan Adat Bengkut (among Paser ethnic group in Sepan/Paser District); Tana‘ Basa (Dayak

Long Ilu/Nunukan District), Rima Magokng Utatn Torutn (Dayak Simpakng/Ketapang in

West Kalimantan). Practices from Sumatra are Hutan Ulayat Nagari (ethnic group of

Minangkabau/West Sumatra) and probably there are still many other practices;

11. Second group, Traditional tree-gardening: covers different forms of planting and

maintaining practices of trees or woody-plants with/without agricultural plants and/or

animals surrounding farmlands or settlements for single or multi-products of timber, non-

timber and services, either for subsistence or commercial purposes, under local traditional

rules. Examples from Kalimantan, are Simpukng/Munant (Dayak Benuaq and Dayak

Tunjung/Kutai Barat District); Rondong or Lembo (Suku Kutai/Kutai Kartanegara District);

Stan Gu‘ (Dayak Gaai/Berau District); Tembawakng (Dayak in West Kalimantan). Practices

from Sumatra: Repong Damar (Krui/Lampung), Kebun Kemenyan (Tapanuli/North

Sumatra Utara); Wanatani Karet (Jambi and Riau); Parak (in Maninjau/West Sumatra Barat),

Pekarangan (Masyarakat Melayu/Deli Serdang-North Sumatra); and

12. Third group, Traditional Utilization of Non-Timber Forest Products consists of

different practices of utilization and culture of some non-timber forest products, either in

natural forests or forest gardens especially for commercial purposes under local traditional

rules. It should be mentioned that trades of non-timber forest products have been started

since more than one century (see e.g. Peluso, 1983; Zakaria, 1989). Some example activities

from Kalimantan are Kebotn We‘ or Gai (Dayak Benuaq, Dayak Tunjung and Dayak

Benuaq/West Kutai); Rattan (Paser/Paser District); wild-honey bee (in many districts such as

lxviii

Kutai Kartanegara, West Kutai, Malinau, and Paser); Aloe-Wood (in Bulungan district); bird-

nests (in Districts of East Kutai, West Kutai, Malinau, Paser, and Berau); Damar resin (in

Districts of Malinau, West Kutai). Meanwhile, practices from Sumatra e.g. Empus Kemiri or

candlenut (East-NorthernAceh); Palak or nutmeg garden (in South Aceh); Kebun Kemenyan

or Styrax benzoin (ni Simasom, NorthTapanuli); Uncaria gambir resin (in West Sumatra);

cinnamon bark (Maninjau community in West Sumatra); Batu Banana (Melayu community in

Jambi).

13. It is very important to be warned that nowadays many of such traditional practices in

different regions of Indonesia have been threatened by economic infrastructure development

or innovations of modern perennial crops plantations (oil palm, rubber, etc.) which gain more

technical and political supports from the governments. Another hand data or information

related to those practices is practically unavailable or still very limited. The disappearing of

such traditional land and resource use practices is considered as partly lost of local cultural

identity as well as local wisdoms, which might be needed for human life in the future

generation.

Further Research Needs and Global Interests on Community Forestry

14. General research topics and technological development on social/community forestry among

international scientists are mostly concentrated on institutional strengthening, capacity

building, collaborative management, community participation, conflict resolution and

economic valuation or trades of different products or ecological services (including carbon).

However, the main objects of the research in such social/community forestry are mostly

related with tree plantation, reforestation and rehabilitation or in the frame of global climate

change programs. Meanwhile, technical biophysical aspects are very limited and they have

been considered already over or nothing different with conventional forestry.

15. Considering its applications under very complex and local specific socio-cultural condition of

Indonesia, such topics are still attractive but probably less useful for answering local

community needs. Many of foreign researchers in Indonesia are even more interested to

learn in details and to cover more comprehensive aspects of local traditional community

forestry, because they realize that those practices offer more challenges and more

characteristic findings, even in order to support global issues.

lxix

16. Since traditional practices are socio-culturally embedded possible involvement of them in

global environmental issues like carbon trades should also be initiated with e.g. sociological

elements of the practice circumstances, which are considered even as one of the weaknesses

found in forestry research, such as concepts of society and social objectives; social systems;

social order; social cycles; and resource flows. Only through full understanding of these

sociological elements technical, institutional and managerial aspects of community forestry

can be precisely observed and then formulated.

Closing Remarks: CF Practices as Promising Approach to Global Issues

17. For decades different but unfortunately partial research had tried to adapt and even to serve

policy dynamics and unclear political interests in forestry. Therefore, there are practically very

limited results that have been adopted or accommodated and implemented. Why? Because no

single concrete and comprehensive conclusion can be drawn to ensure policy makers and

planners in order to solve very intractable problems of the forests. Beside that, community

especially forest dependants will never get any benefits from the research and even they can

be threatened under wrong but popular policies. Similar cases will be happened if research

Forestry Science (Silviculture,

Forest Ecology, etc)

Forest Politics (Policy Analysis,

Good Governance, etc)

Forest Sociology (Social Systems, Social Order, Re-source Flows, etc)

Social/ Community

Forestry Practices and

Schemes

Management Aspects

(Economic Efficiency, Ecological Integrity)

Sustainable Resource and

Community

Welfare

Policy Aspects (Social Equity,

Cultural Identity)

Figure 1. Scope of Research in Social/Community Forestry

Basic Elements Development Targets

lxx

only follows global interests (e.g. climate changes and green house effects issues), which

might be oriented dominantly in forestry policies and decision making in recent years.

18. Various CF practices which are broadly being implemented in Indonesia have still offered

many scientific puzzles that need to be answered through multidisciplinary research including

forestry. This has to be underlined since lesson learnt from sustainable forest management

(SFM) performance (through certification process) shows in general weak points in social

aspects. And community forestry schemes still have to face constraints in its

implementations. If we do believe that SFM is one of the key solutions of the global issues

incl. in climate changes, we have not to waste our time any longer to start up as optimum as

possible in observing CF practices, while they still exist in front of us.

REFERENCES

Arnold, J. E. M. 1992. Community Forestry. Ten Years in Review. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Awang, S. A., S. Yuniati. 1998. Belajar dari Kearifan Rakyat dan Penilaian Kebutuhan Kebijaksanaan Pengembangan Kehutanan Masyarakat (Studi Kasus Krui dan Jambi). In Awang, S. A., M. A. Muhshi, Y. Nugroho. 1998. Menggali Potensi Bersama untuk Memekarkan Community Forestry Menjelang Abad 21. Ujung Pandang: FKKM – PT. Inhutani I.

Messerschmidt, D. 2000. Discussion Notes on Social/Community Forestry. Social and Community Forestry is about People. Samarinda: Center for Social Forestry, Unmul.

Michon, G; F. Mary; J. Bompard. 1986. Multistoried Agroforestry Garden System in West Sumatra Indonesia. Journal of Agroforestry System 4(1986), 4.

Ministry of Forestry. 2011. Kehutanan Masyarakat dan Tantangan Legalitas Kayu. Jakarta: Directorate General of Forest Business Development, Ministry of Forestry.

Peluso, N. 1983. Markets and Merchants: the Forest Products Trade of East Kalimantan in Historical Perspective. M.Sc. Thesis. Cornell University. Ithaca/New York.

Purwanto, Y. and E. B. Waluyo. (Eds.). 2000. Kebijakan Masyarakat Lokal dalam Mengelola dan Memanfaatkan Keanekaragaman Hayati Indonesia. Proceeding of Ethnobotany National Seminar III 1998. Jakarta: LIPI – KEHATI Foundation.

Sardjono, M. A. 1990. Die Lembo Kultur in Ost-Kalimantan. Ein Modell fuer die Entwicklung agroforstlicher Landnutzung in den Feuchttroppen. Dissertation. Universitaet Hamburg. Ham-burg.

Sardjono, M. A. 2004. Mosaik Sosiologis Kehutanan. Masyarakat Lokal, Politik dan Kelestarian Sumberdaya. Yogyakarta: Debut Press.

Sardjono, M. A. and I. Samsoedin. 1997. Program Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasiskan Masyakat di Kalimantan Timur. Project Document PHBM-Kaltim No. 2/1997. Jakarta: Yayasan KEHATI-McArthur Foundation.

lxxi

Seibert, B. and M. A. Sardjono. 1985. Report of Survey to South and West Sumatra. Visiting Agroforestry and Forest Plantation Areas. GFG Report No. 3/1985/25-32.

Suhardjito, D. A. Khan, A. A. Djatmiko, M. T. Sirait, S. Evelyna. 2000. Karakteristik Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasiskan Masyarakat. Yogyakarta: Aditya Media.

Zakaria, R. Y. 1994. Hutan dan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat Lokal. Jakarta: Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI).

lxxii


Invited Paper

Kebijakan Kehutanan: Masalah, Penelitian dan Diseminsinya

Prof Dr Ir Bambang Hero Saharjo

Dekan Fakultas Kehutanan, Institut Pertanian Bogor





lxxiii

Kebijakan Kehutanan: Masalah, Penelitian dan Diseminsinya

Prof Dr Ir Bambang Hero Saharjo

Dekan Fakultas Kehutanan, Institut Pertanian Bogor Assalamu‘alaikum Wr. Wb, Salam Sejahtera bagi Kita Semua, Pertama-tama kami sampaikan terimakasih kepada Panitia Penyelenggara Pertemuan Internasional Peneliti Kehutanan Indonesia (INAFOR 2011) yang telah menyelenggarakan kegiatan penting ini. Kami merasa sangat terhormat dapat berpartisipasi dalam memberikan pengantar pertemuan ini dengan thema: ―Kebijakan Kehutanan.‖

Sudah cukup lama, kita, para peneliti, dianggap kurang dapat memberi kontribusi dalam pembangunan kehutanan. Mungkin tidak banyak orang yang menyadari bahwa peran dibalik berbagai hasil pembangunan, kemajuan atau keberhasilan adalah ilmu pengetahuan dan pengalaman. Pengetahuan diproduksi dari waktu ke waktu dan hasil penelitian dapat dipergunakan sebagai alat atau kriteria untuk menyeleksi mana pengetahuan yang selayaknya digunakan dan mana pengetahuan yang tidak lagi diperlukan.

Demikian pula maju-mundurnya peran sosial-ekonomi kehutanan. Dibaliknya pastilah terdapat ilmu pengetahuan yang dapat menjelaskan mengapa pasang-surut sosial-ekonomi kehutanan itu terjadi.

Uraian ringkas berikut ini mengupas persoalan‐persoalan pokok dalam pembangunan kehutanan berdasarkan pendekatan kebijakan dan ekonomi kehutanan, solusi-solusi yang diperlukan, serta kritik penelitian.

Para Hadirin Yth,

Berdasarkan peta penunjukkan kawasan yang dimutakhirkan dengan perkembangan pengukuhan kawasan dan hasil revisi tata ruang provinsi sampai dengan April 2011, kawasan hutan dan perairan seluruh Indonesia seluas 130,68 juta Ha atau 68,4% dari luas daratan. Kawasan hutan tersebut relatif tidak berubah dalam 30 tahun terakhir, namun secara umum berbagai fungsi hutan telah menurun – baik fungsi ekonomi, sosial dan fungsi lingkungan, dan dalam waktu yang sama, secara ekonomi, peningkatan peran hutan tanaman telah menggantikan hutan alam, termasuk peran ekonomi industri pulp dan kertas yang menggantikan peran ekonomi industri kayu pertukangan. Hal itu menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan ekonomi pembangunan nasional – termasuk kebijakan kehutanan, tidak mampu mempertahankan keberadaan hutan secara berkelanjutan – kualitas hutannya menurun, meskipun luas kawasan hutan relatif tetap.

Terhadap situasi demikian itu, kajian kebijakan kehutanan dalam menentukan masalah biasanya berangkat dari beberapa pendekatan: teknis maupun perilaku semua orang atau lembaga yang secara langsung maupun tidak langsung menjadikan perubahan fungsi hutan tersebut. Di dalam ilmu kebijakan, menentukan masalah penelitian menjadi bagian sangat penting, terutama terkait dengan dua hal. Pertama, masalah penelitian tidak obyektif, melainkan subyektif. Kedua, apabila ada kesalahan dalam menentukan masalah penelitian – terutama untuk penelitian yang dilakukan guna mengetahui solusi apa yang diperlukan – peneliti akan merumuskan solusi keliru.

lxxiv

Mengapa masalah penelitian kebijakan subyektif? Seseorang yang menggunakan ilmu teknologi akan menemukan masalah teknologi, misalnya kegagalan membangun tegakan hutan tanaman disebabkan oleh tidak dikembangkannya teknologi benih, sehingga benih yang disemaikan kualitasnya rendah. Seseorang yang menggunakan ilmu ekonomi akan menemukan masalah harga dan pasar, untuk menjawab mengapa di suatu tempat hutan rakyat tidak berkembang. Demikian pula seseorang yang menggunakan ilmu kelembagaan (institusi) akan menemukan masalah hak atas tanah, kontrak, informasi yang asimetris untuk menjawab mengapa hutan rakyat di suatu tempat berkembang dan di tempat lain tidak.

Meskipun masalah penelitian subyektif, namun tetap dapat diketahui bahwa masalah yang dirumuskan dalam suatu penelitian, keliru. Misalnya, karena tidak dapat menjawab tujuan penelitian. Sebagai contoh, apabila tujuan penelitian akan mengembangkan hutan rakyat di suatu tempat. Perlu diketahui situasi dan kondisi di tempat itu yang menjadi hambatan, mengapa hutan rakyat di tempat itu tidak berkembang. Misalnya akses pasar lebih penting untuk diperhatikan daripada teknologi. Dengan demikian, penetapan masalah itu kontekstual, artinya sangat tergantung pada situasi dimana masalah itu terjadi. Oleh karena itu masalah bersifat subyektif.

Hal‐hal tersebut sangat penting untuk difahami. Pada prinsipnya, masalah penelitian – terutama penelitian yang menghasilkan pengetahuan untuk membuat atau memperbaiki kebijakan

kehutanan – bukan lahir dari pertanyaan peneliti akibat ketidak‐tahuannya. Sebaliknya, peneliti bertanya karena pengetahuannya mengenai ―keadaan sesungguhnya di lapangan‖ serta telah

membaca berbagai publikasi dan jurnal di bidangnya, sehingga mengetahui pertanyaan‐pertanyaan

yang belum terjawab oleh para peneliti lainnya, pertanyaan‐pertanyaan masyarakat yang segera memerlukan jawaban, atau pertanyaan para pembuat kebijakan.

Pertanyaan bagi peneliti: Apa yang sesungguhnya dapat dilihat peneliti di lapangan? Jawaban

peneliti akan sangat tergantung seberapa banyak jenis kerangka‐pikir yang dimilikinya. Seberapa

tahu peneliti tentang konsep ekonomi, politik, kelembagaan, sosial sebagai suatu alat atau ―kaca‐mata‖ untuk menafsirkan apa dibalik terjadinya rendahnya kualitas bibit di lapangan, misalnya. Apabila tidak ada upaya untuk memperkaya teori dan konsep di dalam pikiran peneliti, yang dilihatnya akan selalu sama. Terkait dengan hal ini ada pepatah: ―When the only tool you have is a hammer, everythings looks like a nail‖.

Para Hadirin Yth,

Dalam menjalankan penelitian kebijakan kehutanan perlu diperhatikan setidaknya dua hal. Pertama, masalah kebijakan itu abstrak atau berada di balik peristiwa. Masalah itu ada di dalam

perilaku orang‐orang dan bukan menempel pada benda‐benda. Misalnya – dalam ilmu kebijakan – bukan kualitas bibit rendah yang kita sebut sebagai masalah, masalah adalah perilaku orang yang menyebabkan produksi bibit berkualitas rendah. Kalau bibit kualitas rendah ditentukan sebagai masalah, solusinya adalah memproduksi bibit berkualitas tinggi. Dan hal ini tidak pernah bisa

dilakukan tanpa ada jawaban atas pertanyaan: mengapa orang‐orang memproduksi bibit berkualitas rendah?

Kedua, tujuan penelitian kebijakan kehutanan untuk menjawab pertanyaan ―what shoud be done‖. Pertanyaan ini bisa dijawab melalui pengenalan subyek atau pihak yang terlibat langsung, misalnya petani hutan, pengusaha, penentu kebijakan, dll. Dalam hal ini, yang perlu diteliti adalah aliran

informasi, interpretasi, pengetahuan‐pengalaman dan kapasitas para subyek penelitian tersebut. Seseorang pengambil keputusan setelah mendapat informasi akan menginterpretasikan informasi itu dan mengambil keputusan. Pengambilan keputusannya akan sangat tergantung pada

pengetahuan‐pengalaman yang ia miliki, tingkat kepercayaan informasi yang ia terima, dan

lxxv

pertimbangan manfaat‐pengorbanan yang ia buat dan oleh karena itu sangat tergantung pada sumberdaya yang ia miliki seperti kewenangan, waktu maupun anggaran.

Untuk memahami lebih jauh bagaimana menjawab tujuan penelitian kebijakan kehutanan, peneliti

perlu mempelajari ilmu‐ilmu sosial, seperti ekonomi, kelembagaan, kebijakan, (ekologi) politik,

dengan berbagai metoda analisis seperti teori kontrak, principal‐agent, analisis diskursus (wacana), analisis aktor, dll. Ketika kita memasuki ranah penelitian ini, dengan menggabungkannya dengan

pendekatan‐pendekatan teknologi, kita akan tahu betapa ilmu benar‐benar sedalam dan seluas

samudra. Baru dapat dirasakan bahwa banyak hal yang tidak diketahui peneliti tentang latar‐belakang suatu peristiwa atau kejadian tertentu. Dan hal demikian itu sangat baik. Yang kurang baik adalah: (bahkan) peneliti tidak tahu apa yang tidak diketahuinya.

Para Hadirin Yth,

Perkembangan hutan rakyat yang terjadi dalam 10 tahun terakhir sebenarnya merupakan

fenomena baru, di tengah‐tengah rasa pesimis melihat kegagalan upaya pelestarian hutan alam. Hutan rakyat yang lebih berkembang di P Jawa juga menghadirkan penafsiran – terutama oleh peneliti yang menggunakan pendekatan ekonomi dan kelembagaan, bahwa kepastian hak atas tanah dan tingginya permintaan kayu telah mendorong kenaikan harga kayu dan telah mendorong pasokan kayu oleh rakyat.

Dengan adanya kepastian hak‐hak atas tanah, masyarakat dapat secara positif merespon permintaan kayu dengan melakukan penanaman pohon, karena terdapat kepastian hasil yang akan diperoleh. Tafsiran demikian itu memberi kontribusi perbaikan kerangka pikir yang dianut kalangan rimbawan pada umumnya saat ini, bahwa permintaan kayu yang tinggi menjadi penyebab kerusakan hutan. Kerangka pikir rimbawan ini melahirkan program prioritas yaitu restrukturisasi industri perkayuan dengan argumen hutan akan lestari apabila permintaan kayu sama dengan pasokan kayu secara lestari. Perkembangan hutan rakyat di P Jawa menolak argumen itu. Justru permintaan kayu sangat penting untuk dapat menopang harga agar dapat naik, yang menjadi stimulus terjadinya pasokan kayu, sehingga kerusakan hutan bukan akibat

permintaan kayu yang tinggi, melainkan akibat hak‐hak atas kawasan hutan yang bermasalah. Persoalannya, mengapa perkembangan hutan rakyat di P Jawa tidak menjadi pembelajaran bagi upaya pelestarian hutan secara nasional? Hal itu disebabkan oleh masih kurangnya digunakan pendekatan ilmu kebijakan dalam menentukan masalah-masalah kehutanan.

Persoalan pembelajaran demikian itu juga terjadi dalam pembahasan kebijakan mengenai masalah-masalah seperti: meluasnya konversi hutan, sulitnya upaya untuk mewujudkan kelestarian hutan (kayu) maupun hasil hutan non kayu, rendahnya hasil rehabilitasi hutan dan lahan, tidak berkembangnya perhutanan sosial, hambatan pengelolaan kawasan konservasi, dll.

Pada umumnya dalam pembahasan mengenai beberapa persoalan kehutanan di atas tidak digunakan pendekatan sosial-ekonomi dan kebijakan, melainkan pendekatan hukum dan administrasi. Oleh karena itu, masalah yang dihadapi diselesaikan dengan cara paksa, yang mengandalkan bekerjanya rantai birokrasi, tingginya intensitas pengawasan dan bekerjanya penegakan hukum. Akibat pendekatan ―cara paksa‖ itu diperlukan banyak jenis dan jumlah peraturan untuk memenuhi pedoman pelaksanaan kerja di lapangan. Akibatnya peraturan berisi langkah-langkah manajemen dan metoda, padahal keduanya harus fleksibel sesuai kondisi di lapangan. Isi peraturan seperti itu seringkali menjadi apa yang disebut ―policy trap‖. Apabila dilaksanakan tidak sesuai dengan kondisi di lapangan dan apabila tidak dilaksanakan dianggap melanggar hukum.

lxxvi

Intesitas pengawasan sudah dilakukan, tetapi karena sangat banyak lembaga dan unit kerja perlu melakukan pengawasan maka pelaksanaan sangat tidak efisien dan menghasilkan ekonomi biaya tinggi. Laporan Asosiasi Pengusahaan Hutan Indonesia (APHI) Kalimantan Tengah menyebutkan bahwa dari 20 IUPHHK-HA, berdasarkan data 2009 dan 2010 dilaporkan telah dilakukan pengawasan per tahun oleh rata-rata 58 orang dengan kisaran antara 6 sampai dengan 172 orang per IUPHHK-HA. Waktu rata-rata pemeriksaan per IUPHHK-HA per tahun dilakukan selama 98 hari dengan kisaran antara 15 sampai dengan 270 hari.

Jumlah dan lama waktu pengawasan tersebut sama-sekali tidak mencerminkan efektivitas hasil pengawasannya, bahkan menimbulkan terjadinya ekonomi biaya tinggi. Tipe kebijakan demikian itu ditengarai sebagai penyebab mengapa pengembangan perhutanan sosial yang berbasis masyarakat tidak berkembang.

Para Hadirin Yth,

Seberapa besar hasil penelitian digunakan sebagai dasar pengambilan keputusan, pembuatan

kebijakan ataupun praktek‐praktek di lapangan? Sejauh ini belum ada penelitian tentang hal ini.

Namun demikian, secara umum pengetahuan baru dari hasil‐hasil penelitian tersebar melalui

berbagai bentuk komunikasi, rapat‐rapat, maupun berbagai hubungan informal. Biasanya, para penentu kebijakan mempunyai jaringan tersendiri untuk mendapat informasi yang menjadi dasar

keputusan yang di buat. Demikian pula praktek‐praktek di lapangan diubah atau diperbaiki melalui segenap informasi dan interpretasi atas informasi itu oleh para pelaku di lapangan.

Dalam kondisi demikian itu, hubungan antara peneliti, hasil penelitian dan pembuatan kebijakan atau para pelaku di lapangan tidaklah linier. Di balik hasil penelitian adalah kerangka pikir bahkan

ideologi yang biasa disebut diskursus (discource). Diskursus ini dibawa oleh aktor‐aktor atau disebut epistemic community dengan jaringannya, kedua unsur itu tidak lepas dari adanya kepentingan atau

politik yang menjadi dasar aktor‐aktor bertindak. Dalam kondisi demikian itulah terjadi proses penyaringan informasi dan pengetahuan. Ada informasi dan pengetahuan yang digunakan dan ada yang ditolak. Disadari atau tidak, proses penyaringan itu dilakukan untuk mmpertahankan diskursus beserta aktor dan jaringannya.

Realitas demikian itu ada, dan para peneliti perlu memahami bahwa informasi dan pengetahuan adalah bagian dari kekuatan atau (sumber) kekuasaan. Ia sama sekali tidak bersifat netral, karena setiap teori, dalil dan konsep lahir di dalam ruang dan waktu yang tidak bebas dari kepentingan. Penerapan teknologi tertentu bahkan dapat menimbulkan atau meningkatkan kesenjangan antara yang kaya dan yang miskin. Dalam kondisi tertentu, teknologi juga menimbulkan ketergantungan petani yang umumnya miskin terhadap sarana produksi, dan dalam kondisi demikian itu upaya meningkatkan produktivitas hutan bahkan upaya melestarikan hutan, patut dipertanyakan. Namun, meskipun begitu, tanpa ada pengembangan teknologi, kapasitas manusia untuk dapat mendayagunakan sumberdaya alam dan kapasitas atau daya dukung sumberdaya alam untuk mendukung kehidupan manusia juga akan terbatas. Di sinilah suatu titik dimana peneliti perlu bertanya dimana ia sedang berdiri, apa yang sebenarnya ia lakukan, dan untuk siapa ia melakukan itu.

Tantangan bagi peneliti bukan hanya menyelesaikan pergulatan untuk menentukan posisi dirinya,

tetapi juga melayani tuntutan berbagai pihak yang memerlukan hasil‐hasil penelitian. Untuk menghadapi tantangan yang kedua itu, dalam penetapan topik/tema penelitian sebaiknya dilaksanakan dengan menggali permasalahan dan pandangan dari berbagai pihak seperti masyarakat (lokal), para birokrat, kalangan bisnis, maupun akademisi dan lembaga swadaya masyarakat (LSM). Pendekatan atau kerangka pikir yang digunakan untuk menelaah isu tertentu

lxxvii

sejauh mungkin dilakukan secara komprehensif (teknologi, ekonomi, sosial, dan institusi). Dengan demikian, penelitian dilaksanakan berdasarkan pertimbangan yang cukup, baik dari segi pendekatan/substansi maupun representasi aktor yang dilibatkan. Untuk itu pelaksanaan penelitian perlu ditopang oleh manajemen penelitian secara progresif, agar terhindar dari status hasil penelitian dan Lembaga Penelitian saat ini yang dianggap sebagai kadaluarsa atau sulit berkembang.

Disamping proses pelaksanaan penelitian, strategi diseminasi hasil penelitian juga sangat penting agar pengetahuan baru hasil penelitian masuk dan menjadi bagian dari diskursus para penentu

kebijakan. Strategi diseminasi itu sendiri ditentukan oleh karakter aktor‐aktor yang menjadi sasaran utama hasil penelitian, misalnya cukup dilakukan secara formal dan tertutup atau secara terbuka agar masyarakat ikut memberi pertimbangan pentingnya diadopsi hasil penelitian tersebut. Disamping itu, strategi diseminasi hasil penelitian juga ditentukan oleh kekuatan argumen hasil penelitian apakah didasarkan pada landasan ilmiah yang kuat atau keberpihakan yang kuat. Pilihan bagi Lembaga Penelitian dalam melakukan diseminasi hasil penelitiannya dapat berupa: pembuatan policy brief, lobby, petisi atau aksi langsung di lapangan.

Para Hadirin Yth,

Pada tingkat lanjut, para peneliti dituntut untuk menghasilkan kebaruan (novelty) dalam setiap

penelitian yang ia lakukan, artinya, ia harus benar‐benar mampu membuat pertanyaan penelitian yang ―layak‖.

Sayangnya, pertanyaan‐pertanyaan yang keliru atau kadaluarsa masih sering dijumpai dalam pelaksanaan penelitian. Para peneliti seringkali menjawab pertanyaan mereka sendiri dan bukan pertanyaan di dunia nyata yang menjadi topik penelitiannya. Mereka seringkali tidak merasa perlu

komunikasi dengan pelaku‐pelaku atau bahkan tidak merasa perlu membaca referensi dan langsung merumuskan pertanyaan penelitian sesuai apa yang dipikirkannya. William N Dunn, ahli kebijakan publik, menyatakan kondisi demikian itu sebagai ―pemikiran logis tetapi tidak terpakai‖.

Bagi para penentu kebijakan, memecahkan masalah yang salah akan membuat kondisi jauh lebih

buruk daripada dibiarkan saja. Sehingga bukan hanya sumberdaya penting digunakan sia‐sia, tetapi juga dapat menghasilkan kondisi lebih buruk daripada yang terjadi sebelumnya, karena menghasilkan masalah lebih serius – akan timbul komplikasi penyakit – sebagai hasilnya.

Lima faktor sebagai penyebab, sehingga para peneliti atau pengambil keputusan senantiasa

memecahkan masalah yang salah, yaitu: konsultasi dengan orang‐orang yang tidak tepat, selalu berkaca pada masalah di masa lalu, lebih memperhatikan gejala daripada penyebabnya, terlalu banyak berfikir administratif daripada fungsional, serta hanya terfokus pada bidang atau unit kerja tertentu. Terkait hal ini, rapat – sebagai ajang pengambilan keputusan – biasanya menjadi suatu

ritual atau gerakan reflek dengan agenda menjawab pertanyaan‐pertanyaan yang keliru tersebut.

Untuk kasus pengambilan keputusan dalam bentuk pembuatan peraturan, kelima faktor di atas paling banyak terjadi. Biasanya pembahasan lebih banyak kearah kesesuaian koridor hukum, namun secara substansial sangat lemah, bahkan seringkali hasil peraturan yang dibuat tidak mempunyai hubungan dengan penyebab terjadinya persoalan. Peraturan ada dengan membawa logikanya sendiri, tidak terkait dengan peristiwa yang harus diintervensi. Adanya peraturan adalah demi peraturan itu sendiri. Adanya peraturan menjadi tujuan akhir dan biasanya timbul masalah baru, yaitu tambahan birokrasi. Persoalan tetap menjadi persoalan dan bahkan bertambah. Peraturan ada hanya karena dituntut keberadaannya.

lxxviii

Demikian itu adalah sejumlah tantangan yang secara umum dihadapi baik oleh peneliti maupun penentu kebijakan. Diharapkan pemaparan singkat ini dapat memberikan inspirasi, betapa penelitian kebijakan kehutanan sangat penting, namun apabila menjawab masalah yang keliru dan hasilnya digunakan sebagai dasar pengambilan keputusan akan menambah masalah baru yang lebih serius. Semua itu dapat dihindari apabila manajemen penelitian memungkinkan para peneliti dapat memahami berbagai kerangka pikir, pendekatan dan konsep, serta pandangan pengguna hasil penelitian (user) agar masalah yang diteliti sesuai dengan tujuan yang akan dicapai.

lxxix


Invited Paper

Roles of Growth and Yield Modeling in Sustainable Forest Management

Udiansyah

Department of Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, University of Lambung Mangkurat





lxxx

Roles of Growth and Yield Modeling in Sustainable Forest Management

Udiansyah

Department of Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, University of Lambung Mangkurat

1. Introduction

Predicting future growth and yield of managed and unmanaged stand is absolutely essential to

credible forest management planning. While few foresters aspire to the biometrician‘s love of

statistics, it is important that they be familiar with yield estimation, for these are key number

underpinning the management plan and the amount of cutting on the forest. Moreover, in

many cases there are no adequate, documented empirical models available to estimate yield.

Foresters are then frequently called on to make, or approve, best guess, subjective estimates of

yield, and they can hardly afford to be ignorant of the art of making such estimates.

In classical text book on forest management, there are three essential elements of a

prescription for forest, such as:

A land type classification, which describes parcel or type of land by location, timber size,

stocking, species, soils, slope, and other land attributes.

A management ―activity schedule‖ describing the timing, methods, and conditions by which

the vegetation and other resources will be manipulated or disturbed to achieve desire

outcomes, including: logging rules, a timber thinning and harvest schedule, and regeneration

techniques for the next tree crop.

A quantitative growth and yield projection, which numerically describes how much timber is

expected for commercial harvest: specifically, volumes removed at each thinning and final

harvest entry for both the existing and subsequent regenerated stands.

Even though the growth and yield modeling is very important, but many biometricians is not

consistent in their field. Why? We can ask to them here right now.

lxxxi

2. Factors Affecting Growth and Yield

The factors most closely related to growth and yield of forest stand are: age or time, site quality,

management regime, stand density, and species composition. The age/time, site quality, and stand

density are widely considered. The management regime and species composition is very difficult

to control. Based on some researches, the age/time, site quality, and stand density have found

that these three factors affect growth and yield significantly (Balston and Korstian cited by

Ramoran, 1985)

Stand Age

Stand age is one of the most important independent variables in yield prediction. This is readily

available in even=aged stands or planting forests where age can be easily determined from the

date of planting to period of measurement. For uneven-aged stand, where mixture of trees

species of different age classes abound, age is undeterminable and has no valid meaning (Moser,

1972)

As a result, age for the dipterocarp forest is measured (in years) from the date the stand was

logged (Canonozado, 1976) and that is termed ―years elapsed after logging‖ or yeal as coined by

Revilla in 1974 or from the date of plot establishment to time of measurement (Ramoran, 1985).

Stand Density

Husch et al. (1972) defined stand density as the quantitative measurement of a stand in terms of

square feet of basal area, number of trees or volume per hectare. Ideally, stand density

expressions are correlated with stand growth and yield (Avery, 1994).

The most widely used expression of stand density is basal area on a per hectare basis, for it is

easily determined in the field and readily converted to stand density expression. Basal area is

defined as the total cross sectional area the trees measured at diameter breast height.

Site Quality

The rate at which a forest stand will grow and the amount of wood it will produce is determined

in part by the productive capacity of the site. This capacity is generally termed as site quality and

is commonly expressed in units of site index (Wiley, 1978)

lxxxii

Site index is determined by obtaining the average of the total height of dominant trees in well-

stocked even-aged stands at a specified index age. If no suitable trees of the desired species are

present, estimates of site index may be based on other indicators of potential growth. The

environmental factors (climatic, biotic, edaphic, and physiographic) are interesting and powerful

means of estimating site index.

In the uneven-age forest where tree age is generally undeterminable, diameter is usually

substituted for age (Revilla, 1974). Revilla et al. (1978) recommended four alternative ways of

determining site quality, to with:

Mean total height (MTH) of the most dominant residual crop trees in a plot;

Mean annual total height growth (MATH) of the dominant crop trees;

The site index of a preponderant secondary tree species established after logging operation;

and

Classification of the site into few broad qualitative classes based on plot indicator,

topography, elevation or soil type.

Of the four alternatives cited above, the MTH is the most popular method of measuring site

quality.

3. Permanent Sample Plot

Establishment of growth and yield model is needed time series data. Data can be gathered from

Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) on Permanent Sample Plots established.

The Ministry of Forestry did a great correct policy regarding growth and yield modeling. The

Ministry required that all forest concessionaires establish permanent sample plots on its area.

Through the permanent sample plot can be obtained data for growth and yield model and

increment of the stand. One of the principles of forest management requires that the volume of

timber that is harvested should be only the increment of the stand. Otherwise, if the cubic meter

of timber harvested is more than the increment, this will create a threat to the sustainability of the

forest. So, growth and yield study must be done in order that forest planning can be

accomplished properly.

lxxxiii

In 1990‘s, all company have developed permanent sample plots. The plots were divided two

categories. These are with and without timber stand improvement.

Now a day how is the status of the permanent sample plots? I did research in Sumatera and

Kalimantan on permanent sample plot. In Sumatera, the plot already changed to palm oil

plantation and in Kalimantan the plot already damaged due to illegal logging.

4. Growth and Yield Models Vs Financial Analysis

Policy should be based on the academic or research result reason. As we know that the

Indonesian Selective Logging using an assumption that the diameter increment is one centimeter

a year. Is this assumption correct? But, why the cutting cycle of the system not changed? This is

really ignorant the research result on forest management. It is possible that cut the trees on the

stand higher than increment of the stand.

Through the growth and yield model, the volume of stand can be predicted. If the model is good

surely the actual and the prediction result is not significant different. This figure can be used to

calculate the financial analysis with some management regimes.

Logically, the best treatment should result in the highest increment or growth. Consequently, the

yield of stand is bigger, but, in the treatment, there is cost as an input. To determine whether the

treatment method is profitable or not, a financial profitability can be conducted together applying

growth and yield model. It will benefit for the company and also the government as a basis for

the regulation.

An example growth and yield model for different treatment of the residual stand. There are three

treatments, called FTSI, MTSI, and NTSI.

For FTSI Vn = exp[ln(V1)(T1/T2)+1.108561656 {1-(T1/T2)}]

For MTSI Vn = exp[ln(V1)(T1/T2)+1.1284655679 {1-(T1/T2)}]

For NTSI Vn = exp[ln(V1)(T1/T2)+0.815439611 {1-(T1/T2)}]

when the model above is applied to initial stand, the predicted yield will be as shown in Table 1.

lxxxiv

Table 1. Standing stock expected using growth and yield model (in cubic meter/ha)

TREATMENT CUTTING CYCLE (YEAR

30 35 40

FTSI 446 458 467

MTSI 519 534 546

NTSI 350 358 364

Source: Udiansyah (1999)

It is assumed that the standing stock that should be left is a maximum of 150 cubic meter and

using an exploitation factor of 10% of the original stand. The recommended maximum cuts for

the stands for the different cutting cycles using different TSI treatment are shown in table 2.

Table 2. Yield of the stand by different TSI treatments and different cutting cycle period

TREATMENT CUTTING CYCLE (YEAR

30 35 40

FTSI 251 262 271

MTSI 317 331 342

NTSI 165 172 178

Source: Udiansyah (1999)

Based on the financial analysis, the NTSI is more profitable even though the stand volume is

small. It is due to some input such as labor for refining, liberation, enrichment planting, tending,

and herbicide as a cost.

So financially, the company do not willing to do timbers stand improvement in their area. In

Indonesia Forestry Congress last month has recommended to improve land productivity. How

does it‘s implemented for uneven-age forest. It will so hard.

But if the government will do the TSI, it is good for the development of economy due to here

there is job creation and other multiplier effect. Then, in the MTSI will more profitable if the

cutting cycle changing to be 30 years.

lxxxv

5. Conclusions

Growth and yield model is important in forest management and can be used by the ministry

of forestry in their policy.

The Ministry of Forestry already did a right way regarding growth and yield model to require

the company to establish permanent sample plots. But, now a day the permanent sample plot

that was required before to the company damage.

The model can be used to help the calculation of financial analysis for the company.

6. References

Avery, T.E. and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurement. Fourth Edition. New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc

Canonizado, J. A. 1976. Yield Prediction Function for Cut-Over Dipterocarp Stand. Unpublished MS Thesis. The University of the Philippine Los Banos.

Ramoran, R. B. 1985. A Yield Prediction Model for Logged-Over Dipterocarp Stands of an Area in Northern Luzon. Unpublished MS Thesis. The University of the Philippine Los Banos.

Udiansyah, 1999. Growth and Yield Modeling For Logged-Over Dipterocarp Stands Using Implicit and Average Stand Models. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. The University of the Philippine Los Banos.

Download - Managing Ganoderma for Sustainable Plantation Forests in ... · Managing Ganoderma for Sustainable Plantation Forests in Indonesia Abdul Gafur, ... Acacia mangium – a historical

Top Related