levelling the playing field: southeast asia levelling the ...€¦ · levelling the playing field...

132
LPF Project South Sumatra Case Study Levelling the Playing Field Improving Partnership in Pulp Forest Plantation to Benefit the Poor and Reduce Conflict LPF Team members: San Afri Awang, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana, Philippe Guizol, Patrice Levang, Soaduon Sitorus, Nawa Murtiyanto and Yuli Susanto LPF/05/2005

Upload: others

Post on 06-Apr-2020

27 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

LPF Project South Sumatra Case Study

Levelling the Playing FieldImproving Partnership in Pulp Forest Plantation to Benefit the Poor and Reduce Conflict

LPF Team members:San Afri Awang, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana, Philippe Guizol, Patrice Levang, Soaduon Sitorus, Nawa Murtiyanto and Yuli Susanto

LPF/05/2005

LPF Project So

uth

Sum

atra Case Stu

dy - LPF team

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.

Office addressJalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang BarangBogor Barat 16680 - IndonesiaTel: +62(251) 622 622Fax: +62(251) 622 100E-mail: [email protected]: www.cifor.cgiar.org

Mailing addressP.O. Box. 6596 JKPWBJakarta 10065 - Indonesia

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 University (UGM), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM).

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

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

IndonesiaFaculty of ForestryGadjah Mada University (UGM)

MalaysiaFaculty of ForestryUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)

LPF Implementation in South Sumatra Country Report Outline

San Afri Awang, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana, Philippe Guizol, Patrice Levang, Soaduon Sitorus,

Nawa Murtiyanto and Yuli Susanto

Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia Sponsored by European Commission (EC) under the Tropical Forests Budget Line

Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 1 II. OPERATIONS DONE IN 2005 (YEAR 1) ........................................................................ 2

2.1. Implementation of LPF in South Sumatra ................................................................. 2

2.1.1. Stakeholders Communication and Agreement ..........................................2 2.1.2. Project Implementation plan ...................................................................2

2.2. Baseline Study ......................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1. Forest resource conditions and landscape management types: methods and findings...............................................................................................10

2.2.2. Analysis of MHP long-term sustainability wood supply..........................14 2.2.3. Social Conflict and Local Organization Aspects: Forest Partnership

Programs.............................................................................................23 2.2.4. Communities and their livelihood: Socio-economic survey of the Rambang

Dangku sub-district (South-Sumatra).....................................................45 2.2.5. Summary of Household Livelihoods Survey. .........................................56

2.3. Intervention Stage .................................................................................................... 61

2.3.1. Multi-Stakeholders Forum....................................................................62 2.3.2. MAS RPG development entitled “Livelihood Strategy: A Game Approach

to Community-Company Partnership in Forest Plantations”....................63

List of Annexes: Annex 1. Logical framework matrix (logframe) ................................................................. 74 Annex 2. Activity Table ...................................................................................................... 77 Annex 3. Summary of Discussion between PT Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) and Levelling

the Playing Field (LPF) Project ........................................................................... 78 Annex 4. Trip Report to PT. Musi Hutan Persada, South Sumatra, Indonesia (23-26

November 2004) .................................................................................................. 81 Annex 5. Summary of Discussion Livelihood Survey in MHP, South Sumatra ................. 91 Annex 6. Trip Report to Muara Enim District and PT. Musi Hutan Persada, South Sumatra,

Indonesia (21-25 March 2005) ............................................................................ 93 Annex 7. Trip Report to MHP and South Sumatra 11-15 July 2005 - Developing Multi-

stakeholder Forum “Sebahu Sejalan” .................................................................. 99 Annex 8. Memorandum of Agreement.............................................................................. 102 Annex 9. Formateur meeting of Forum Sebahu Sejalan 12 July 2005-08-19 ................... 108 Annex 10. The constitution of Forum Sebahu Sejalan. ....................................................... 113 Annex 11. Social Capital of MHBM and MHR Model....................................................... 117 Annex 12. List of contact persons of LPF implementation in South Sumatra ................... 121 Annex 13. Composition of the team Year 2 ........................................................................ 122 Annex 14. Financial expenditure for Year 2 ....................................................................... 123 Annex 15. Cost estimate for Year 3 .................................................................................... 124

List of Tables: Table 1. Activities of initialization stage Table 2. MHBM input and output for each stakeholder Table 3. MHR input and output for each stakeholder Table 4. Tentative work plan and schedule for 2005 Table 5. Forest area in South Sumatra Province Table 6. Land status of MHP’s area Table 7. Land use of MHP Table 8. The development of MHBM partnership program of PT MHP Table 9. The Development of MHR partnership program of PT MHP Table 10. The structure of MHP’s forest plantation (Botha, 2003) Table 11. Growth of Acacia at MHP’s permanent sample plot (After Susilo 2005) Table 12. Acacia stand table taken from Subanjeriji PSPs (after Wahyono 1995) Table 13. Rough estimation of total MHP’s pulpwood production (m3) Table 14. TEL mill specification Table 15. Pulpwood sold by MHP to TEL Table 16. MHP’s wood pulp production under different conditions Tabel 17. Brief description of village MHBM organization in community Ex-Marga

Rambang Niru Table 18. Comparing income per capita per day Tabel 19. Calculation of production fee distribution per hectare (Rp 2,500 per m3) Table 20. Calculation on management fee (1% of contract goes to MHBM) per hectare

(without transportation activity) Table 21. Calculation on management fee distribution/allocation per hectare (without

transportation activity) Table 22. Calculation of management fee and production fee distributions per hectare

(without transportation activity Table 23. Calculation on Management fee and Production fee distributions in each

stakeholder1 per hectare (without transportation activity) Table 24. Differences between MHR – MHBM scheme Table 25. Brief Description of MHR Organization/ Group Table 26. Annual income and contribution of MHP at village level List of Figures: Figure 1. MHP location map Figure 2. LPF framework Figure 3. Forest plantations in South Sumatra (MoF 2003) Figure 4. TGHK map of South Sumatra (MoF 1998) Figure 5. The simplified organization structure of MHP Figure 6. Forest plantation organization of MHP Figure 7. Acacia growth at MHP’s permanent sample plot Figure 8. TEL wood processing system Figure 9. Supply and demand of the pulpwood Figure 10. Developing pattern of community on Marga Rambang Niru (grey boxes

represent Nucleous village, and white boxes represent Non nucleous village) Figure 11. Organization structure of village MHBM

1 For stakeholders in the village within HTI area, comulative fee divided into four villages, other

stakeholders in the village out side of HTI area divided into five villages.

Figure 12. Relation pattern among nucleous village and village within HTI area In the umbrella MHBM organization of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru

Figure 13. Management fee distribution Figure 14. Production fee distribution Figure 15. Structure of MHR Organization/ Group Figure 16. Example of MHR area Figure 17. The sketch of village location relative to MHP Figure 18. Number of livelihood sources per HH in %. Figure 19. Distribution of annual income per HH Figure 20. Contributions of sources of revenue to total income (2005) Figure 21. Distribution of benefit from MHP

1

I. BACKGROUND Year 2005 is the first year of LPF project implementation in South Sumatra, Indonesia. The project is situated in the context of partnership between a big Acacia mangium forest plantation company that is Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) and communities surrounding the plantation. The partnership was developed to mitigate the conflict over land uses between the company and local communities in 1990s. However, the interests, knowledge and demands of the communities and the company are evolving, which undermine the partnership. The purposed of the project is to facilitate fairness and improvements of the partnership between MHP and the communities. In this year, we carried out the initialization stage/baseline study and the preliminary intervention stage. During the initialization stage, we identified and consulted the relevant stakeholders including the communities surrounding the plantation, MHP and local governments. We visited the site and reviewed existing projects and literature related to the project implementation. As a result, we could identify stakeholders’ demand and establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with MHP to implement the project. The baseline study comprises four aspects i.e. 1) forest resource conditions and landscape management types, 2) analysis of MHP long-term sustainability wood supply, 3) institution and partnership, 4) and local livelihood and local history. These studies improved the project implementation plan which is an evolving document, equips and guides the project intervention stage and create a baseline, which is a tool to support the project purpose. The preliminary intervention stage in the form of establishment of multi-stakeholder forum was carried out at district level was executed with full supports of the stakeholders. The forum came from the workshop, which previously aimed at “ritually and formally” initiating the project implementation. This forum was namely Forum Sebahu Sejalan, the acronym of local words that mean “together to establish forest and to sustain livelihood”. The project facilitated the written agreement of the constitution and work plan of the forum.

The project is also developing computer based role playing game (RPG) with CORMAS platform to facilitate the communities to improve their livelihood strategy in the future. The communities have several options to do among other are to collaborate with MHP to plant Acacia mangium or not to collaborate with MHP, which means to plant rubber or to plant oil palm if they have land.

This report describes the capacity building and coordination meeting activities for year 2005 as well as the operation plan for year 2006. In the annex we attach trip reports, financial expenditure for year 1 and cost estimate for year 2.

2

II. OPERATIONS DONE IN 2005 (YEAR 1) INITIALISATION STAGE/BASELINE STUDIES 2.1. Implementation of LPF in South Sumatra

2.1.1. Stakeholders Communication and Agreement During the initiation we carried out five stakeholders consultation’ meeting and site visits. These activities aimed at identifying stakeholders, their demand, building trusts and formulating the project implementation plan. Table 1 provides the list of activities, method used, team involved and the main results during the initialization stage. Table 1. Activities of initialization stage

Date Activity type Method used Team involved Main results 19 Sept 2004 Consultation

meeting at CIFOR office

Presentation and discussion

Hardjono Arisman (MHP key person), Philippe Guizol (LPF), Herry Purnomo

- Shared understanding of the problems from different angle - Preliminary agreement of the collaboration

23-26 November 2004

Consultation and coordination meeting in Muara Enim

Discussion Philippe Guizol, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana

Certainty that we are going to have MHP as one of LPF site

24 Feb 2005 Research Consultation meeting at CIFOR office

Discussion Philippe Guizol, Herry Purnomo, Patrice Levang, Edo Sitorus

- Shared understanding of LPF framework and livelihood survey - Livelihood survey rough schedule

4-5 March 2005

Research coordination in Muara Enim

Presentation and discussion

Herry Purnomo, San Afri Awang and Wahyu Wardhana

- Improvement of research proposal - Agreement on purpose and schedule for MHP visit (21-25 March) - Wahyu to translate the research proposal to Bahasa Indonesia UGM to send letter to Bupati Muara Enim and MHP

21-24 March 2005

Consultation meeting with the MHP stakeholders at Muara Enim for initiating multi-stakeholder forum

Herry Purnomo, San Afri Awang and Wahyu Wardhana

Muara Enim, South Sumatra

- Agreement and suggestions from the main stakeholders to have the forum

2.1.2. Project Implementation plan A. Introduction

Cooperation among various stakeholders in the management of common pool resources is a widely accepted management strategy. Musi Hutan Persada, a big forest plantation company located in South Sumatra, Indonesia, has established cooperation with local communities.

3

This cooperation was developed to directly respond the conflict over land uses between the company and local communities. However, the interests of the communities and the company are evolving, as well as biophysical aspects. How to make such a cooperation viable over the long term is the question for all involved stakeholders.

A.1. Context Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) is an Acacia Mangium plantation company placed in South Sumatra. MHP is a joint venture company among a state own company of Inhutani II and private companies of Barito Pacific Timber, Muktilestari Kencana and Marubeni Corporation. MHP runs under the Indonesian Minister of Forestry Decree No. 38/Kpts-II/1996, dated January 29, 1996. The total extent of MHP plantation is 296,400 ha positioned in three disjoint forest groups i.e. Benakat (198.741 ha), Subanjeriji (87,354 ha) and Martapurea (10,340 ha) as illustrated in Figure 1. Administratively, MHP locates in five different districts i.e. Muara Enim, Lahat, Musi Rawas, OKU and Muba.

LAHAT

BANYU ASINMUSI RAWAS

OGAN KOMERING ILIR

MUSI BANYU ASIN

MUARA ENIM

OGAN KOMERING ULU

PRABUMULIH

PALEMBANG

100 0 100 200 Miles

S

N

EW

Figure 1. MHP location map The community surrounding MHP mostly is traditional farmers. The others are MHP workers, traders and local government officials. The farmers grow rubber plantation, field rice and Acacia Mangium plantation in collaboration with MHP. The local people are used to have ‘Marga’ concept to organize among themselves. ‘Marga’ is a traditional institution with a land, rules and norms to manage their resources. The ‘Marga’ system is led by a trusted leader coming from the bloodline of the previous leader. Since 1982 this system was replaced by the concept of ‘Desa’, which is a line structure of local government. Currently ‘Desa’ is a formal system of village organization, but ‘Marga’ system still exists informally. A ‘Desa’ consists of several ‘Dusun’, and each ‘Dusun’ comprises of several ‘Talang’. Since the early 1990’s the Indonesian’s pulp & paper have expanded very rapidly. Expansion was temporarily held in 1997 due to the economic crisis. However, by 2000 several projects were reinstated and completed. Riau Andalan Pulp & Paper (RAPP) completed their expansion in 2001, while Tanjung Enim Lestari (TEL) mill was specially made in 2000. TEL, where MHP provides all the pulp wood, has pulp production capacity of 450,000 AdMt (Air Dry tons)/year (Botha 2002). Disputes over lands between local and customary communities and forest companies during Soeharto era (New Order regime, 1966-1998) were very much restricted. The local army and

4

government suppressed the disputes. Soeharto’s resignation in May 1998 constituted the beginning of the customary community movement to demand the re-run of their customary rights including communal land rights. The conflicts between the local communities and the companies occurred in connections with (1) the land appropriation process; (2) environmental impacts; and (3) recruitment of employees (Sakai 2002). In 1998, Indonesia faced economic, social and political crisis. The crisis influenced all sectors of development including MHP forest plantation that established two years before. The villages surrounding the plantation asked for more benefits from MHP. The conflicts between villagers and MHP appeared. As a result, two cooperation schemes emerged, which are ‘Managing Forest with Community’ (MHBM or Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat), which is partnership program in the concession land, and ‘People Forest Management’ (MHR or Mengelola Hutan Rakyat), which is partnership program in the community’s land. Table 2 and 3 decribe in brief summary of MHBM and MHR

Table 2. MHBM input and output for each stakeholder

Stakeholder Input: What they do Output: What they get Remarks Company - Concession land, which is

formally state land allocated by the government - Planted trees - Infrastructure such as road - Transaction (negotiation) costs

- Security of land - Reduce conflicts - Good image

- MHP is known as the best plantation company who does partnership with local community

Community - Claims based on their traditional rights on the plantation land - Transaction (negotiation, organization) costs -Control land access

- Production fee amounts to Rp. 2,500 (or 25 cent USD) per m3 - Management fee (1%) going to MHBM organization taken from the company employee’s salary who work in concession under MHBM scheme. - Employment - Contracts - Institution of MHBM

The company promise to prioritize MHBM members for the employment and contract but they do not fulfill them in most of the time

Local government - Legalize the MHBM contract (Head of sub district) - Facilitate the conflict and negotiation between the company and communities. - Land to be allocated to the company.

- Legal incomes form taxes - Undocumented incomes for some government officials - Some government official (head of village and sub-district) receive small amount of money from the production fee

State land is co-managed by the governments (central and local)

5

Table 3. MHR input and output for each stakeholder Stakeholder Input: What they do Output: What they get Remarks Company - Seed and all costs for

establishing plantation - Transaction cost (evaluate the community’s proposal)

- 60 % of sold harvesting products at mill gate after subtracting with cost of establishment and transportation - Security of the concession land - Good image

- MHP is known as the best plantation company who do partnership with local community

Community - Land - Transaction costs (making proposal, negotiation) -Land access control

- 40 % of sold harvesting products after subtracting with cost of establishment - Employment in their own land - Opportunity to sell their land.

- The community may sell their land to outsiders who want to collaborate with the company to grow trees. This could be the negative impact of MHR.

Local government - Legalize the MHR contract (Head of sub district) - Facilitate the conflict that may emerge between the company and communities.

- Good image The local government will receive good image if unemployment and degrade land is reduced in their region.

A.2. Problems MHBM area now is amounting to 80,000 Ha; meanwhile MHR area is amounting to 5,000 Ha. MHBM was set up when it was already planted to avoid conflicts. While, the MHR was set up when there was no plantation yet. It is based on the proposal of individual person to MHP to plant trees in his/her land, regardless the land status. It can be seen as an extension of MHP plantation, since MHR area located outside MHP’s concession area. The problems that have been identified so far regarding MHBM and MHR are (1) how to maintain the MHBM and MHR in the long term giving the complexity and dynamic of the cooperation; (2) how to improve the welfare of the stakeholders, particularly the communities; and (3) how to settle the land status to give more certainty for long term cooperation. A.3. Goals, Objectives and Purposes The LPF project in general has three overall objectives (as in annexe 1 of the contract with EU):

Promote good governance and conflict solving processes for forest management and land use in Southeast Asia’

Look for opportunities to improve local people livelihood from poverty towards a real prosperity thanks to forest management’

Enhancement of forest sustainability. A key result of LPF project in general is the improved stakeholders’ capacity to adapt to change. Consistently with the LPF project, in this site the project has three overall objectives i.e. promote good governance, look for opportunities to improve local people livelihood and enhance sustainability of forest and renewable resources. To achieve this objective the project intends to:

6

Improve capacities of stakeholders to negotiate and come up with agreements and/or to re-negotiate rules and agreements on forest management as partnerships.

Participate or create forums for stakeholders to communicate and share views at different levels.

Produce practical guidelines and tools to facilitate collective action for forest or renewable resources management.

A.4. Organization of the project The project is an action research project, so a field coordinator is a necessary condition to the success for the project. The field coordinator will be located in one of the chosen district among Muara Enim, Lahat, Musi Rawas, OKU and Muba Districts. The field coordinator shall experience in the action research and have a good network with various stakeholders in those districts. CIFOR, UGM and MHP researchers will collaborate to achieve the project goal. B. Project Framework Figure 2 explains the LPF project’s framework, in which there are two layers of processes i.e. village level and district level. Market and policies influence and pressure the stakeholders at both levels. At the village level, a learning loop of “Reflection-Plan-Action-Monitoring” takes place to do with micro projects that will be determined by local stakeholders. At the district level, a multi-stakeholder forum will be formed to interact and discuss their interests. A representation from village level will be part of the multi-stakeholder forum at district level. These two levels of fora communicate, interact and learn each other.

Figure 2. LPF framework

7

The project will conduct three major steps i.e. 1) initialization and baseline study, 2) intervention, 3) monitoring. During the ‘baseline study’ the project will conduct biophysical and social surveys. In this step the project will provide information on market, renewable resources and policies to stakeholders at village and district levels as well as interact with market and policies at the macro scale. In the ‘intervention’ step the project will facilitate stakeholders to help a group to achieve their goal while functioning as a group (Braakman and Edwards 2002) and provide information as requested. The last step is ‘monitoring’ the progress and impacts in collaboration with the major stakeholders. Modelling and role-plying game activities will contribute to the learning processes at village and district levels, which are written in separate documents. The project activity aims at triggering the social process of sustainable forest management, which comprise sharing view, common long-term objectives, co-design integrated management scheme, choosing management organization and implementation & monitoring. Having clear picture of tenurial problems on tree and land as well as democratic and transparent decision making processes are necessary conditions for all stakeholders to participate in the fair partnership. The project planning and evaluation of LPF in South Sumatra follows the logical framework matrix (logframe) in Annex 1. C. Work Plan and Schedule Table 4 provides the work plan for year 2005. For the years 2006 and 2007 the project will mainly be working on facilitation and monitoring. Table 4. Tentative work plan and schedule for 2005 Steps Activities Methods Outputs Timetable Conducted

by (1) Preliminary visit

Field visit and discussion

Revision on project work plan 23-27 November 2004

PG, HP, WW

(2) State of the art (collecting and analyzing secondary data)

Literature study

A report contain of: 1) Forest resource conditions and landscape management types (WW) 2) Analysis of MHP long-term sustainability wood supply (WW, HP) 3) Institution and partnership, incl. marga system (HP, Fachrurrozi) 4) Local livelihood & local history (SAA)

March 2005 SAA, HP, WW

Initialization and Baseline study

(3) Baseline survey at village level

Livelihood study

Socio economic survey; Qualitative survey on selected villages; Household survey

Report on households strategies: a typology of households (JM)

April to July 2005

JM, Expert for methodology (Patrice Levang)

8

(4) Actors identification and institutional analysis

Focus group discussion; Who count matrix;

Report on stakeholders involved and institutional existed

village strategy

April

All team (coordinate by HP)

(5) Villages selection

Literature study; Site visits

Report on the typology of villages from secondary data which taking into account spatial issues (JM)

Synthesis of villages to be studied (types and number of villages) (HP, WW, PG)

April 2005 PG, HP, WW, SAA, JM

(6) Creation of multistakeholder forum at district level

Workshop July 2005

(7) Model and RPG development

Companion modelling

Model and game on research site (South Sumatra)

July 2005 All team (coordinate by HP, PG, WW); invite Paolo

(8) Facilitation workshop at villages level and district level

Visioning

Report of implementation August 2005 All team

Intervention

(9) Capacity building

Workshop Report of implementation All team

Monitoring

(10) Participatory monitoring/project monitoring

All team

D. Bibliography Awang SA. 2004. Dekonstruksi Sosial Forestri: Reposisi masyarakat dan keadilan lingkungan. Yogyakarta: Bigraf Publishing. Axelrod R. 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage. Thousand Oaks CA, (1994)

9

Botha P. 2002. Sustainable Wood Supply Is Possible within Indonesia’s Pulp & Paper Industry. Seawood Consulting Engineers. Unpublished Report. Braakman L, Edwards K. 2002. The Art of Building Facilitation Capacities: A Training Manual. Bangkok: RECOFTC

Ostrom O, Gardner R, Walker J. 1994. Rules, Games, & Common-Pool Resources. Michigan: The University of Michigan. Sakai M. 2002. Land Resolution in the Political Reform at the time of Decentralization in Indonesia. Journal of Antropologi Indonesia. Special Volume: 15-32

10

2.2. Baseline Study

2.2.1. Forest resource conditions and landscape management types: methods and findings

A. General Forest Resource and Industrial Plantation Development in South Sumatra Province In South Sumatra, the official forest land covers 37% of the total province area. Most of the forest land area is the limited production forest, which covers (also) 37% of the total forest land of South Sumatra. Musi Banyuasin district is the district with the largest forest area (up to 56%). More information about the forest land is described in table below.

Table 5. Forest area in South Sumatra Province

ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % ha %Ogan Komering Ulu 1,467,900 151,021 10 50,950 3 45,931 3 68,682 5 0 0 313,548 21Ogan Komering Ilir

2,136,700 102,159 5 4,828 0 9,886 0 645,100 30 188,913 9 953,886 45Muara Enim 957,500 71,700 7 9,440 1 30,105 3 189,115 20 66,887 7 367,247 38Lahat 771,900 141,100 18 52,829 7 11,881 2 41,747 5 0 0 247,557 32Musi Rawas

2,151,300 1,842 0 251,292 12 24,480 1 301,485 14 50,072 2 631,104 29Musi Banyuasin 1,435,800 10,207 1 83,350 6 90,396 6 497,921 35 126,406 9 808,280 56Banyuasin 1,183,300 58,646 5 259,129 22 0 0 69,000 6 56,054 5 452,799 38total 10,104,400 536,675 5 711,818 7 212,679 2 1,813,050 18 488,332 5 3,774,421 37

District Area District /

City / Province

Inconvertable Forest total

Protected Fores Natural Conservation Limited Production Forest Production Forest Convertion Production Forest

Source : South Sumatra Statistics 2003

Based on the data from Ministry of Forestry (www.dephut.go.id) currently there are five industrial plantation (HTI) being registered and legal as an investor operate in South Sumatra (see the map is attached). However among those five HTI, only one that already established namely PT Musi Hutan Persada (MHP). Since 1999 MHP has been supplied the HTI pulp logs to PT Tanjung Enim Lestari in Muara Enim approximately 2 million m3 per year. PT MHP runs under the Indonesian Minister of Forestry Decree No. 38/Kpts-II/1996, dated January 29, 1996. The total extent of MHP plantation is 296,400 ha positioned in three disjoint forest groups i.e. Benakat (198.741 ha), Subanjeriji (87,354 ha) and Martapurea (10,340 ha). The area in PT MHP is planted with fast growing trees as a main product i.e. Acacia Mangium (95%) and the rest of them are Eucalyptus Urophylla, Pinus Merkusii, Paraserianthes Falcataria, Gmelina Arborea, Meranti etc.

11

Figure 3. Forest plantations in South Sumatra (MoF 2003) The areas of PT MHP are located in six districts and the biggest area is located in Muara Enim District which covers up to 70% of total area of PT MHP. The detail area by district can be summarized as follows:

Region (Ha) Area Districts Muara Enim

Ogan Komering Ulu North

Ogan Komering Ulu East

Lahat Musirawas Musibanyu-asin

Total

Effective production 96,840 6,081 2,543 27,225 44,161 16,650 193,500

Not effective for production

1. Conserved areas

2. Buffer Zone

3. Infrastructure

4. Multipurpose Trees

5. Local Main Species

50,415

3,842

5,599

2,741

1,981

3,142

189

186

126

90

2,094

126

279

84

69

0

136

367

192

80

20,519

1,470

2,170

980

700

4,202

331

551

177

89

80,372

6,076

9,152

4,300

3,000

Total 161,400 9,814 5,186 28,000 70,000 22,000 296,400

Source: PT MHP brochure 2002

12

B. Forest Resources and Land use of PT Musi Hutan Persada Before 1990 the vegetation condition in PT MHP area is dominated by alang-alang (Imperica cylindrica) since 1990 PT MHP started to plant and managed the land by planting Acacia Mangium. The land status in PT MHP is described in Table 6. Table 6. Land status of MHP’s area Land Status Area (ha) %

Production Forest 359,878 88

Limited Production Forest 40,938 10

Conversion Forest 6,408 2

Total 407,224 100

Source: TGHK maps of Ministry of Forestry 1995. It is clear that PT MHP from TGHK maps are located on area that being declared as state forest land. However in 1999-2000 conflicts emerged about land status, the TGHK maps used to delineate and define the PT MHP is not fully consistent with the field reality; some areas declared as a state forest (TGHK) are claimed by communities as adat land. This is supported by the information that the state forest land boundaries is only 28,466 ha is being marked of gazzetment and mapped in detail (see the TGHK maps in detail). Based on Landsat Imagery taken in 2001 the concession area can be classified as follows 153,703 ha (35%) is plantation forest, 75,915 ha (19%) and others 177,606 ha (43,62%) are rubbers, cultivated area, settlements, transmigration and other land cover types. The land use management of lands at PT MHP can be summarized as follows: Table 7. Land use of MHP

No Land use Area (ha) % 1 Plantation 193,500 65.3 Benakat 127,327 Subanjeriji 60,092 Martapura 6,081 2 Protected area 86,448 29.2 Buffer Zone 6,076 Conserved area 80,372 3 Infrastructure 9,152 3.1 4 Multipurpose tree species 4,300 1.4 5 Local main species 3,000 1 Total 296,400 100,0

Source: MHP leaflet; Srihadiono and Hutomo 2004

13

Figure 4. TGHK map of South Sumatra (MoF 1998)

Boundary marking according to official land status in PT MHP was started in 1995. However, it could not be completed due to the political context of reforms as decentralisation and also as a part of PT MHP land is claimed by some communities.

The topography of PT MHP is mostly flat. Flat land covers 290505 ha (71%) on which 95059 ha is extremely flat (0-8%). Only 21660 ha (5,32%) are slightly hilly (15-25%).

The land types are dominated by inceptisol, ultisol and entisol. PT MHP area is part of Musi Catchments System.

C. Partnership in the develoment of Industrial Plantation

Since 2000 PT MHP has developed the partnership program or collaborative program as a response coming out from the conflict and land claimed cases. This program enable the participation of the community as a partner works with PT MHP together to develop the plantation in PT MHP area called 'Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat' (MHBM) and outside PT MHP area 'Mengelola Hutan Rakyat' (MHR).

14

Table 8. The development of MHBM partnership program of PT MHP

Area Plantation (in ha) Unit

2001 2002 2003

Subanjeriji 48,462 19,813 3,133

I Martapura 0 0 0

II Merbau 34,412 4,702 0

III Gemawang 14,050 3,571 0

IV Caban 0 1,315 0

Sodong 0 10,225 0

Pendopo 0 0 0

VI Lubuk Guci 0 3,064 0

Total 96,924 42,690 3,133

Source: PT MHP based on agreement act between MHP and Communities up to 2004

The total area that the MHBM program being implemented is approx 80000 ha and most of it is located in Muara Enim District and involving almost 6 sub districts and 30 villages more. The MHR programs has been almost 5000 ha and based on field visit the location of MHR program are mixed inside PT MHP (Part of) which mean for the area that has not been managed by PT MHP but it is part of MHP boundaries and outside PT MHP (outside PT MHP boundaries).

2.2.2. Analysis of MHP long-term sustainability wood supply A. Introduction The organization structure of MHP is given in Figure 5. The area managers and operation head are those who manage the tree plantation in the field. In most cases the have a bigger chance to interact with the neighboring villagers.

15

Table 9. The Development of MHR partnership program of PT MHP

Area Plantation Unit

2001 2002 2003

Subanjeriji

I Martapura 238 - -

II Merbau - 501 552

III Gemawang 639 831 301

IV Caban 27 22 96

V Sodong 1 299 291

Pendopo

VI Lubuk Guci - 426 361

VII Baung Utara - 272 197

VIII Tebing Indah - - -

IX Semangus - - -

Lematang

X Keruh I 49 203

XIII Lantingan - - -

XIV Serai 429 375

XV Keruh - - -

Total 905 2,829 2,376

Source: PT MHP based on agreement act between MHP and People/Group Communities up to 2004

16

Figure 5. The simplified organization structure of MHP MHP provides direct full time employment to 2,262 people within the various departments and operational areas. Contract workers make up a further 6,000 to 8,000 person (Botha 2003). B. Forest Management B.1. Forest Plantation Structure The forest complexes of Benakat, Subanjeriji and Martapura are divided into 15 operational units (Figure 6). Each operational unit then is divided into blocks of 5,000 ha; each block comprises of 1,000 – 5,000 sub-blocks; each sub-block comprises of 50-75 ha of planting/harvesting segments. The division is as below

1. Martapura forest group : 1 operational unit, 2 management blocks and 5 sub blocks

2. Subanjerisi forest group : 5 operational unit, 16 manegement blocks and 50 sub blocks

3. Benakat forest group : 9 operational unit, 32 management blocks and 105 sub blocks

The extents of segment areas may vary depend on the biophysical and natural conditions in the field. Each unit, block and sub-block led by a person in charge (kepala). This person in charge is responsible to manage the area according to target plan, which is developed by the company.

Board of Directors

GM Administration

GM Operations

HRD Finance

Accounting General matters Area Managers

Operation Heads

Deputy GM Operations

17

Figure 6. Forest plantation organization of MHP PT MHP area comprises 65% of Acacia mangium plantation, 29 % of protected areas, infrastructure 3 % and 2.5 multipurpose and local main species . MHP began planting Acacia in 1990/1991, which amounts to 27928 ha. The second rotation started in this year using superior Acacia mangium. The local tree species planted in the MHP area are sungkai (Peronema canescens) and meranti (Shorea spp.).The area that being planted by PT MHP with Acacia Mangium can be summarized as follows

NO Year of Plantation Area (ha)

1 1990/1991 27,928

2 1991/1992 50,215

3 1992/1993 24,025

4 1993/1994 35,427

5 1994/1995 24,896

6 1995/1996 14,151

7 1996/1997 14,276

8 1997/1998 2,609

total 193,527 Source : PT MHP 2002 (plantation report) MHP’s forest plantation does not distribute equally to the age of planting or harvesting. In May 2004 MHP claimed harvesting and re-planting of Acacia amounted to 45,090 ha. Planting claim was carried out in the logged-over area. Botha (2003) reported the recent structure of the MHP’s forest plantation as in Table 10. He got this figure from Tony Wood the general manager of MHP. This figure explains the harvested area for each year varies depend of the plantation age.

Forest complex (Benakat, Subanjeriji and Martapura)

15 Operational Units

Block (each 5,000 ha)

Sub-Block (each 1,000-1,500 ha)

Planting/harvesting segment (each 50-75 ha)

18

Table 10. The structure of MHP’s forest plantation (Botha, 2003)

Year of planted

Age % total 193,000 ha

Estimated area own concession

Estimated area of community projects (MHR)

2002 3 11 21,230 2,000 2001 4 7 13,510 2,000 2000 5 7 13,510 1999 6 1 1,930 1998 7 6 11,580 1997 8 9 17,370 1996 8+ 12 23,160 1995 or before

8+ 47 90,700

Total 193,000 4,000 B.2. Growth of Acacia Acacia is a fast growing species. To measure the growth, a permanent sample plot (PSP) has established in year 1995 by MHP located at Compartment 46 PU 84, Unit IX/Semangus-Cawang. There are 86 tree planted in 3x4 space with un-mechanized land management. The topography of the plot is flat. Table 11 and Figure 7 illustrate the growth of Acacia at MHP’s permanent sample plot. The tree diameter grows fast until year five, and then grows slowly. However, the tree height grows fast until the year eight; as a result the tree volume grows highly until the year eight. Table 11. Growth of Acacia at MHP’s permanent sample plot (After Susilo 2005)

Year 3 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Perimeter (cm) 47.5 69.1 73.1 78.8 85.5 Diameter (cm) 15.1 22.0 23.3 25.1 27.2 Height (cm) 12 15 18 21 23 Volume/plot (m3) 7.1 16.7 21.1 23.1 28.0 Volume/ha (m3) 71 167 211 231 280

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3 5 6 7 8

Age (year)

Diameter (cm)Volume (m3/ha)

Figure 7. Acacia growth at MHP’s permanent sample plot

19

From this figure it’s clear that for each hectare plantation MHP can potentially get 280 m3 of pulpwood. However, it’s well-known that trees in the PSP usually represent the best trees with the best treatments. So that, in the following session we will consider this figure as the best possible tree stumpage of MHP’s forest plantation. This figure is also true in the case of MHBM and MHR. Based on periodic measurement on four permanent sample plots in Subanjeriji area, South Sumatra, Wahjono (1995) in Tiryana (2005) developed growth model of stand diameter and stand height of Acacia mangium such as follows: D = 30.15259928 - 59.491371 (1/A); R2 = 84% H = 27.08193211 - 51.866813 (1/A); R2 = 79% Where D = diameter at breast height of stand (DBH, cm) H = stand height (cm) A = stand age (year) This equations produce stand table (Table 12) that less optimistic than the PSP reported by Susilo (2005). This difference of year of measurement may cause the difference of tree diameter and height. Susilo measured PSP more current that what Wahyono did. Table 12. Acacia stand table taken from Subanjeriji PSPs (after Wahyono 1995)

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Perimeter (cm) 1.3 32.4 48.0 57.3 63.5 68.0 71.3

Diameter (cm) 0.4 10.3 15.3 18.3 20.2 21.7 22.7

Height (cm) 1.1 9.8 14.1 16.7 18.4 19.7 20.6 B.3. Pulpwood Production Estimation The rotation of Acacia in MHP generally is eight years. The best trees can provide 280 m3/ha in the field. The company cannot get all this stumpage sold to a mill. Assume that the exploitation factor is 0.75 then estimation of pulpwood production is given in Table under condition A. But, if we believe only 80% of stumpage in the PSP can actually happen in the plantation then pulpwood production is given under condition B (Table 13). Table 13. Rough estimation of total MHP’s pulpwood production (m3)

Year of planted

Estimated area of MHP concession

MHR area Harvested year

MHP production under condition A

MHP production under condition B

MHR production under condition A

MHR production under condition B

2002 21,230 2000 2010 4,458,300 3,566,640 420,000 336,000 2001 13,510 2000 2009 2,837,100 2,269,680 420,000 336,000 2000 13,510 0 2008 2,837,100 2,269,680 0 0 1999 1,930 0 2007 405,300 324,240 0 0 1998 11,580 0 2006 2,431,800 1,945,440 0 0 1997 17,370 0 2005 3,647,700 2,918,160 0 0 1996 23,160 0 2004 4,863,600 3,890,880 0 0 1995 or before

90,700 2003 or before

19,047,000 15,237,600 0 0

20

C. Supply and Demand of MHP’s Pulpwood C.1. Pulpwood Demand of PT. Tanjung Enim Lestari TEL is the only pulp mill in Indonesia, currently considered to have a sustainable wood supply. TEL was designed to process Acacia in a fresh state (50% moisture content) from MHP plantation. TEL is located near Palembang, South Sumatra. The plant is equipped with state-of-the-art technology. The mill was commissioned in 1999 to produce 100% of Acacia pulp (Botha 2003). The specification of TEL is given in Table 14. Table 14. TEL mill specification

Wood raw material Wood species: Acacia mangium Age (average): 6-8 years Wood moisture average: 50% Log length: Min. 1.4 m

Max. 3 m Log diameter: Min 7 cm

Max. 60 cm Wood consumption Annual pulp production: 450,000 Adt Annual wood consumption: 2,500,000 sob m3

The pulp mill has two wood processing lines (debarking and chipping), one continuous digesters and one pulp line. Figure 8 describes the wood processing from pulpwood to pulp. The mill does not produce paper.

Figure 8. TEL wood processing system

21

C.2. Pulpwood Supply MHP sell its pulpwood production Tanjung Enim Lestari (TEL) mill. TEL, where MHP provides all the pulpwood, was specially made in 2000. TEL can produce 450,000 – 1 million Adt2 pulp every year. Table 15 lists realization of the pulpwood sold by MHP to TEL. Table 15. Pulpwood sold by MHP to TEL

No. Year Total (million GMt3) Remark 1 2000 1.5 Realization 2 2001 1.8 Realization 3 2002 1.9 Realization 4 2003 2.2 Realization 5 2004 2.4 Year 2004 target

Source: Leaflet of sustainable forest management (MHP n.d.) Table revisits rough estimation of MHP’s production under condition A and B including wood pulp coming from MHR’s areas. If we assume the TEL’s wood demand will be constant at the level of 2.5 millions m3 of wood pulp then MHP will be experiencing with surplus and deficit of supplying wood pulp to TEL (Table 16 and Figure 9). The ultimate deficit of wood pulp for supplying TEL occurs in year 2006. Table 16. MHP’s wood pulp production under different conditions

Harvested year MHP's production under condition A

MHP's production under condition B

Supply status

2004 4,863,600 3,890,880 + 2005 3,647,700 2,918,160 + 2006 2,431,800 1,945,440 - 2007 405,300 324,240 - 2008 2,837,100 2,269,680 +/- 2009 3,257,100 2,605,680 + 2010 4,878,300 3,902,640 +

2 Air Dry Ton; to measure pulp weight with maximum of 10% moisture content. 1 Adt pulp = 4.12 GMt = 4.71 m3 log. 3 Green Metric Tons; to measure log weights without moisture content compensation. 1 GMt = 1.143 m3 log.

22

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Woo

dpul

p pr

oduc

tion/

cons

umpt

ion

(m3)

MHP production under condition A MHP production under condition BTEL's wood demand

Figure 9. Supply and demand of the pulpwood D. References Botha P. 2003. CIFOR Pulp Mill Study: PT. Musi Hutan Persada and PT. Tanjung Enim Lestari. Unpublished report. Srihadiono UI, Hutomo S. 2004. Hutan Tanaman Acacia mangium & Kesejahteraan Masyarakat. Palembang: PT. Musi Hutan Persada Susilo J. 2005. Analisis Kelayakan Kemitraan (Partnership) Perusahaan-Masyarakat: Studi Kasus pada PT. Musi Hutan Persada. Sumatra Selatan. Thesis. Bogor: Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University. Tiryana T. 2005. Growth, Yield and Economic Rotation of Plantation Forests in Indonesia. Bogor: unpublished paper.

23

2.2.3. Social Conflict and Local Organization Aspects: Forest Partnership Programs A. Background There are many problems in the process of forestry development in Indonesia. The initial concept of forestry development was to increase the role of natural forest resource toward Indonesia economics development. Forestry has also responsible in creating job opportunity through building timber industry such as pulp and paper factory, plywood and sawntimber industries, and industry plantation forest (HTI). Private forest concession or HPH is one forest management model in Indonesia which was also increase job opportunity to community. In the beginning of 1950s forest management model in Java can be called as very good one, but since 1990 until now the performance of Java forest decreased by potency of wood and forest empty land are increased year by year. At the same time, however, income generating of people who are living in and around state forest in Java never changed, and in fact that seems getting worse, and also many people are living under poverty line. It is big problem faced by government of Indonesia and people. Forestry development was influenced by government political regime. In the New Order4 era the political of natural resources, included forest resource, have been pushed and exploited toward collecting money for national development. The effect of this political system was destroyed the resources and then the environment was inbalance and also occured masive deforested in Indonesia. We can conclude that so far, there are two extrem situations caused by political economic of forest resource exploitation in Indonesia such as : (1) Increasing deforested area is around 2.0 millions hectare per year, (2) conflict of forest land ownership among local community and Forestry Department. To restore deforested area, Forestry Department increased their efforts to do forest rehabilitation started from 1980 until land and forest rehabilitation movement 2004. Forestry department aware that to get rehabilitation more successful the involving of local community can not be avoided and the community must be participated actively. Meaning that the approach of the rehabilitation program should be changed. One option of forest rehabilitation model is so called industry plantation forest program (HTI). This program implemented by PT.MHP in South Sumatera Province. Total clean forest area of MHP is about 200.000 hectares and MHP will produce wood of Accasia mangium. Total production of wood is about 2.3 million m3, and it is as intake material for pulp industry of PT.TEL (Tanjung Enim Lestari). Since beginning of 2002 the MHP was developed a new patnership model of planting system where local community were organized and get benefits from benefit sharing system. This model expected that is a way to solve social conflict and land conflict problems. There are two models with involving the community in MHP such as: (1) MHBM (community patnership forest development program), and (2) MHR (forest development by community group). This research will be focused on social conflict, local organization, and local political problems in Muara Enim District. A.2. Problem Formulation As mentioned above, forestry development in Indonesia has been changed the paradigm--- from timber management toward community based forest management paradigm. In the sustainable forest management (SFM) the role of community can not be avoided. SFM is strengthened to forest management which has sustain characteristic, with quarantee that is the forest resource will sustain in production,ecology, and social-culture of local community (LEI, 1993:24). 4 Orde Baru, a government regime under former President Soeharto

24

Problem formulation among PT.MHP and local community who are involved in PHBM and MHR program such as: (1) How can social conflict be understood by MHP, and in which condition local political becomes a power to bargain the community needs? (2) How can benefit sharing be done in MHBM and MHR program? (3) How can we describe social system and local organization views in the community of ex Rambang Niru related to the MHBM and MHR program in PT.MHP? A.3. Theoritical framework A.3.1. Social environment Human has two positions in the social context such as: (1) Human as individual creature. This position gives meaning that human has different capability one to other, either positive or negative behavior. Capability of a human will determine his/her existence ; (2) Human as social creature. This position gives meaning that human as an individual creature needs other individual everywhere, in all situation of life. Human can not be living without doing relationship with other human. The pattern of this relationship then understood as social environment or community environment. Social environment understood as an arena for many social interaction among community members, among community groups and among member and community groups, and also interaction of behavior, social value and social norm which have established within the society (Kantor Meneg LH 2002). Social environment needs interaction among community and nature environment, therefore, as arena for living and community interaction with social behavior, social value and social norm are exist within the society. Two community interaction models mentioned above require three integrated fundamentals such as social defense system, social carrying capacity system, and social collectiveness system. Social defense system is community capability for life with utilize social carrying capacity and social collectiveness, then of course deal with capability of community to do sellf-recovery after get an damage and disaster, either natural disaster or social disaster. Social carrying capacity is a capability of region (ecosystem) to support community life and community member harmony within the system. Social collectiveness is a human capability either as an individual or as social creature living harmony within the same ecosystem. A.3.2. Social system and local political ”Marga” Environment of social Marga is one example from social category that is based on genetic relationship or kinship (kinship based relationship). Other example are nucleus family, etnic, etc. Other form of social category that is based on sameness of settlement (territorial based relationship). Social environment of ”Marga” was understood has strong integrity caused social environment functioning as media for internal integration, reproduction and socialization development media, and also as a creativity development media. In previous government regime, social environment of Marga assumed as one of etnic group or isolated community. It is caused of assumption that the Marga system always known as a group of people who are living in remote area with less transportation infrastructure, isolated area, less development area, and primitive community. Total population is less but separated in the large area. People using simple technology for utilizing natural resourse use. The basic need for dayli living, especially food and house are subsistence and collected from natural forest directly.

25

The general characteristic of socio-cultural noted by frienship and kinship integrity and also based on strong regionalism. This situation can be known from less cultural context of etnic Marga with other community who have no blood relationship. The effect of this integrity that the community can not be developed their social environment and rather late developing than other community groups. Beside that, culture development is adaptif only with his millieu and more selective to the culture acculturation. The point is that social system of Marga has high vulnarebality rate to do culture shock, which was caused by external cultural pressure—especially in global era. Maybe the impact of it that social system will unstable and collaps. If it is happened, therefore, the cost for social recovery is needed and bigger. Political system is understood as a system that is decide that special activity is done by means to reach community interests. In doing so, political system highly related with political structure covered relationship among community members and among community and government. Traditional community political structure is still strong enough influenced by kinship model. Based on that explanation, we know that marga political system connecting to the policy in the marga community, in term of who and how the policy is. Because marga communty social system development was slow, so that marga community political system were still authorized by informal social leaders in the village. This view based on kinds of legitimation that leader legitimation more determined by kinship clan model and good track record, rather the capability leader owned. A.3.3. Community patrnership forest development program (CPFDP)

MHBM program or CPFDP is a patnership program issued by PT.MHP in the management of industry plantation forest which contracted by government5. This program efforts to more involve local community in the process of HTI management organized in MOU. This program was introduced to community since beginning 1999. The objectives will be reached by MHBM program as follows: • Improve community welfare through increase people income, increasing job opportunities

and business in HTI activities. • Assist developing facilities and economic infrastructure • Give awareness to community around the forest, hoped that they will increase to do

collective action in sustainable forest management The principles should be implemented in MHBM program that are community empowerment through involving local community in all processes of tree planting patnership model among MHP and group of people, Location of MHBM is state forest land, kind of benefits got by people were working fee, management fee, and production fee. Mix cropping model was used to develop HTI, especially paddy. A.4. Reseacrh Method The method used was qualitative interpretative.This method is strengthen to the giving meaning field data. Valid data is is not based on visual field observation only, but also based on researcher and respondens interpretatives.Research was done by guidance questioner and it could be changed depend on actual field conditions. This was done means to improve

5 Based on Ministry decree No. 38/Kpts-II/1996 , 29 January 1996

26

research fleksibility which is common happen in each research so far. The changes of quidance based on kinds and patters of data, to avoid less data validity Research was carried out in some villages which already as targeted area under MHBM and MHR (community forest management) programs. Those area organized by unambrella organization of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru, which is located in sub-district Rambang Dangku, Muara Enim Regency. This organization composed by 9 villages where four villages located within HTI area i.e. Jumenang, Aur Duri, Gemawang, dan Subanjeriji. Other five villages located in outer HTI area of MHP i.e. Tanjungmenang, Kasih Dewa, Tebat Agung, Gerinam, and Lubuk Raman. Data collecting done by depth interview, participatory observation, and using secondary data. Research sample consist of two sources of data namely actors and land. Actor sample taken with snow ball model, but started by determining who are the key informants (KI). Key informants taken from board and members of MHBM and MHR, informal leaders, government staffs and MHP staffs which involved in MHBM and MHR programs directly . Total respondens depend on how much and how deep information will be collected under snow ball approach. Interview would be stoped when all information collected have been saturated. All respondents should be involved in both activities MHBM and MHR. Data was analyzed with making categorization on issues relevant. Categorization started with compare all data collected based on the aspects which were investigated and then integrate data characteristics into reseacrh aspect. Categorization was guidanced by two situation, first by theoritical framework and meaning interpretation as human subjective perspective. B. Social and Local Political System in ”Ex-Marga Rambang Niru” Ex- Marga Rambang Niru community located in Rambang Dangku sub-district, Muara Enim Regency, South Sumatera Province. The name of Rambang Dangku composed by two communitries marga such as Marga Rambang Niru and Marga Empat Petulai Dangku. Previously, both community marga as groups of people which have done on slash and burn activities. Many years a go, slash and burn community moved from one to other places, there was no permanent settlement of them, every 3-5 years those community moving to other places. Each slash and burn group consist of more than ten families. The locations were accupied by slash and burn families called ”area of talang”. According to many activities in development process, among group of talang establish their common boundary and those people staying and living permanently. This grouped model approach stoped when village institution established. In some places up to now still find out that many talang within the village territorial but they were settled permanently. Previously slash and burn area of Rambang Niru were covered several villages such as: Jumenang, Aur Duri, Gemawang, Subanjeriji, Tanjungmenang, Kasih Dewa, Tebat Agung, Gerinam, and Lubuk Rahman, and then added by six transmigration villages area. While swiden agriculture area of marga Empat Petulai Dangku were covered villages of Banoayu, Kuripan, Muara Niru, Gunung Raja and 5 transmigration villages. B.1. Social System of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru Community of Ex-marga Rambang Niru as an example of people who were living close by rivers. Long time ago, rivers as a basis for all community activities and people moved out from a swiden area to other to looked for pieces of land for crops cultivation and their living security. Those kind of interactions done by community, that was also supported by nature of thinking and view that forest resources as source of living. The view of people influence pattern of community living over the time. The traditional views sustainibility caused by less

27

dynamic of people due to geographyc constraint, that also caused by less contact with external world so that the information had been limited. The activity of swiden agriculture will be stoped if one or all members of family have alternative source of income i.e : income from rubber trees and working in town. The pattern of settlement was also changed by built permanent housing in centre village or along the main road which already developed by HPH and HTI companies. Changing, slowly but sure, of the community of Ex-marga Rambang Niru can not be avoided the cultural assimilation processes from others different culture. Cultural assimilation gives the effect to the reducing and loss of original ”adat marga” value. Cultural assimilation begun by spreading out of Islam religion to Sumatera island, and continued by meeting cultural come from Java and China. The changing of Marga cultural can be seen pricisely in the contexts of houses construction models now compared with housing model in talang as an oldest one. Disapearing of adat marga value was also stated by community informal leaders in Rambang Dangku sub-district. Adat value which still followed that were only connected with land distribution system, where the group of males have good and dominant position in term of decision making process, either position or portion in case of property distribution.

Settlement pattern and permanent housing model in village

Settlement pattern and housing model in Talang area

28

Although adat marga value degraded, but social informal leaders still have legitimation within the community---- in some extend more than formal leader roles (village headmen and head of sub-district). Based on field observation, that was happened because most of community were not trusted to the government. Community didn’t trust to government because most of government policies were not accomodated to the problems of people or less profit for the community. Based on kinship approach the community of Rambang Niru can be grouped into two villages such as: (1) nucleous village and (2) non-nocleous village. Can be called as Nucleous village if the ancestor of this village as the founding fathers of community, then their children and next generation living in around of this village. Nucleous villages are: Jumenang, Kasih Dewa, and Lubuk Raman. Non-nucleous village can be understood as villages that most of community come from nucleous villages i.e: Tanjung menang (ancestor from Jumenang); Tebat Agung (ancestor from Kasih Dewa); Subanjeriji and Gemawang (ancestor from Jumenang and Lubuk Rahman); Gerinam as extended village from Tebat Agung and Kasih Dewa; Aur Duri (ancestor from mixing among Marga Rambang Niru and Marga Empat Petulai Dangku). Figure 10. Developing pattern of community on Marga Rambang Niru (grey boxes represent

Nucleous village, and white boxes represent Non nucleous village) B.2. Local political system Ex-Marga Rambang Niru Local political system understood as a system that is found within society related to decision making process about community interest, either direct or indirect interests. Local community political system Ex-Marga Rambang Niru hold by two main actors, such as: (1) actors related to economy activities; and (2) actor related to informal leader (social actors). Actor economy is a member of community which has more opportunity to access and also to influence many kinds of economy activities in the village. This actors can as social actor which has double role either as merchant or as people who has job as success merchant. Informal community leader in ex-Marga Rambang Niru authorized by original clan from Marga Rambang Niru which stay in nucleous village. It can be stated that the centre of authority in this Marga was Jumenang village. It was poited out with: first, the all board members of MHBM organization as Payung Ex-Marga Rambang Niru stayed in Jumenang Village. Second, in Jumenang village was also established a group of MHBM Puyang Tana Putih, as an ancector of original community from Jumenang. Almost all decisions making on

Desa Jumenang

Desa Kasih Dewa

Desa Lubuk Rahman Desa Gemawang

Desa Subanjeriji

Desa Tanjungmenang

Desa Tebat Agung Desa Gerinam Desa Aur Duri

29

organisation of MHBM Ex-Marga Rambang Niru issued to give advantage for MHBM group of Puyang Tana Putih, although those decision would be affected to eight villages. This condition differences with the role of social leader in non-nucleous village where its legitimation efective in his village only. The role of political party and its political actors were not influential in the community. Their relationship efective only in the general election on 2004. Beyond that there was no communication and contact among political actors and community of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru. Those community also aware that political party could not be used as a vehicle toward social welfare of the community. In the community oppinion, political party as same as with deception or unhonesty. The existence of government institution also has no strong legitimation in the community. All community respect to government institution because they need public services from government rather they need leadership system which capable to give the community services. The role of government institution related to the MHBM program implementation only in term of giving land title recognition (SKT) where it was needed by community when they want to be a member of MHBM organization. Alot of SKT which were issued by village government not the same with the reality exist. Head of village didn’t know exactly SKT territory, so that later, the conflict of land status within community increase. C. Community Patnership Forest Development Program of Community Ex-Marga Rambang Niru (MHBM) C.1. Communication among community and PT. MHP Community Ex-Marga Rambang Niru stated that the existence of PT.MHP has given some advantages to the people such as: developing road transportation to increase community economy activities and job opportunity available for local community. Besides open job opportunity and open access on economic, the existence of PT.MHP was also supported to the improvement of quality and quantity facilities for mosque, bridge rehabilitation, and sport facility rehabiltation. MHP was also supported finacial for some community activities. Based on the field information, other activities such as training on agribusiness, cattle raising, that were also improved the income of people. Conclusion that communication pattern among community and MHP just matter of business where MHP has high authority and community still has less power to manage forest management fairly. There was no equal patnership in their conection. Unequal patnership pattern can be seen in case of both parties position. In case of working distribution i.e : land preparation, planting and maintaining Acacia mangium, MHP position as holder authority to give job opportunity to the community, and MHBM group as worker group to do all plantation acctivities. All regulations related to the working on plantation (method and budget) were determined by MHBM, there was no community participation at all. To get the job, therefore, MHBM group should propose to MHP manager in unit level. When MHP could not take care of needs of communities to get those job, the community started to do social resistance. Form of social resistance has been happened that were anarchism, terror, taking of hostages of truck etc. C.2. MHBM and local organizations MHBM organization is a form of community organization collaborating with MHP to do implementation scenario of MHBM program or projects. MHBM organization in the

30

community of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru composed by two forms such as: (1) Village MHBM organization, and (2) Umbrella MHBM organization of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru. This umbrella MHBM organization is a place for merger all village MHBM organization which guided by four coordinators live in Jumenang village. The name of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru was selected based on an agreement of community when socialization and forming of MHBM organization done by MHP. The agreement was based on thinking that all location of MHBM as ex-swiden agricultural activities area of Marga Rambang Niru. That the reason why village MHBM organization which was mergered grouped based on locations into two organizations such as: (1) village MHBM organization in the HTI area (i.e : Subanjeriji, Gemawang, Aur Duri, Jumenang), and (2) village MHBM organization out side of HTI area (i.e : other five villages). Function of MHBM organization so far, just as bridging for communication among member of MHBM and field manager of MHP in the unit level. Part of community assume that MHBM organization is actually as an interest group representative from MHP and also as speaker of MHP in the frame of making community keep silent, save social security, and persuade community, so that those all communities don’t want to annoy the interest of MHP. Most other communities don’t know what, who, and how MHBM organizations is. Those things to be a background raising some village MHBM organization internal problems. Each kind of MHBM organization managed by committee in village level, and they have different structure and board of organization. There are 20 members in each working unit team. The structure of organization can bee seen in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Organization structure of village MHBM The membership of village MHBM organization based on two considerations namely: (1) people who has relation with the ancestor based on previous utilization swiden agricultural land ownership; (2) all people who live in the village. Average land distribution for each member was 2 ha, either member come from ancestor linkages or ordinary people live in village. Brief condition of MHBM organization can be depicted in Table 17.

Board of MHBM organization

MHBM working group

MHBM working group

MHBM working group

MHBM working unit MHBM working unit MHBM working unit

MHBM member MHBM member MHBM member

31

Tabel 17. Brief description of village MHBM organization in community Ex-Marga Rambang Niru

No Villages Land area Total group Total member per each group

Scope of member

1 Subanjeriji ± 5700 Ha 27 working group

20 – 25 people All community member

2 Gemawang ± 4000 Ha

1 group 350 households All community member

3 Aur Duri ± 1200 Ha

13 groups 25 people All community member

4 Jumenang 1.000 Ha 30 groups 20 – 25 people All community member 5 Tanjungmenang - 2 groups in

Subanjeriji and 3groups in Gemawang

25 households

All community member which have previous swiden agricultural land in village within HTI area

6 Kasih Dewa - - - All community member which have previous swiden agricultural land in village within HTI area (Subanjeriji, Gemawang, and Aur Duri)

7 Tebat Agung - - - All community member which have previous swiden agricltural land in village within HTI area

8 Gerinam - - - All community member which have previous swiden agricultural land in village within HTI area (Gemawang and Aur Duri)

9 Lubuk Rahman - - - All community member which have previous swiden agricultural land in village within HTI area (Subajeriji, Gemawang, and Aur Duri)

According to Table 17 can be satated that there were different treatment relation with MHBM membership: For village MHBM organization within HTI area, the membership consists of all community members. For village MHBM organization out side of HTI area the membership was determined by previous swiden agricultural land ownership. Although in internal agreement of MHBM umbrella organization of Marga Rambang Niru could not recieved member of group come from ordinary people, but board of MHBM umbrella allowe the people to be a member of this group with goal to maintain social harmonization. Other different also seen by the community out sider of HTI area namely membership status that was determined by coordinator of MHBM umbrella organization of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru and board of village MHBM organization within HTI area. Village out side of HTI area have no village MHBM organization and its member of community which has previous swiden agricultural land become a member of village MHBM organization within HTI area automatically. Besides that, the community member come from out side of HTI area was also got difficulty in term of getting information available in umbrella MHBM organization, less participation in meeting and coordination, and also some proposal in meeting had been negated by board of umbrella MHBM organization. Those things caused disharmonization by board and membersMHBM organization out side of HTI area, and this situation will cause some horizontal conflicts which will give the negative impacts for wider social interaction. This

32

fenomena and analysis based on the valuing of unfairness which has been felt by community out side of HTI area addressed to the benefit sharing where it was based on ambiguity among basic idea (village classification: nucleous and non-nucleous village) with profit distribution (village classification: village within HTI area and village out side of HTI area). Jumenang is a village which got many advantages under scenario of MHP program implementation because this village in the position both as nucleous village of community Marga Rambang Niru and also as village within HTI area (see Figure 12) = nucleous village of Marga Rambang = village within HTI area Niru

Figure 12. Relation pattern among nucleous village and village within HTI area In the umbrella MHBM organization of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru

Some main problems faced by MHBM organization as follows: • Lack of community understanding to the detail MHBM program and implementation

mechanism. These were caused less of trust to the board of MHBM organization • The minimum capability of board human resource as source of problems in concept

distribution and MHBM program implementation. In several villages, therefore, MHBM organization was stagnant and doesn’t work at all. There was no empowerment activities for MHBM organization

• Lack of effort from board of MHBM to do forest security and socialization to the members, and also lack of networking dialogue with other MHBM organization

• There was no provided capital which can be used to do finacing cultivation and maintaining Acacia mangium plantation

C.3. MHBM program implementation MHBM program implementation started with socialization activity from MHP to community. Concepts and technical perspectives were introduced in the socialization. Others material were introduced as like rights and responsibility among community and MHP, and also all benefits will be taken from MHBM program. Intensif socialization done only in the community Ex-Marga Rambang Niru which their village located within HTI area. Others village located in out side of HTI area were not gotten enough attention from MHP. There was happen inbalance information among both village in and out HTI area. This is the initial problem why community who lives in out side of HTI area quite jealous with village within HTI area. Besides that, misscommunication was occured among MHP and MHBM organization with community, in case of different understanding that actually MHBM program was

Gemawang village

Aur Duri village Jumenang village

Subanjeriji village

Kasih Dewa Village

Lubuk Rahman village

Tanjungmenang village Tebat Agung village Gerinam village

33

strengthened to benefits distribution, it was not land reform MHP to the commounity. Disadvantage situation was rided by other member of community to get personal interest through sent the wide negative information. By doing so the implementation of MHBM program become chaos and more confuse. MHBM program implemented based on legal-formal agreement among MHBM organization and PT.MHP through community development (CD) unit. Although the agreement already prepared by both parties, but analysis on the text and contents of agreement were found out some critical items which were not gave more benefits to the community. The content of articles which were problematics as follows: • Article 2 (item 5) state that if there is land desputing from other community, it will

become responsible of MHBM organization. Data collected from respondens and key informants shown that land desputing always exist while land status which was managed by MHP and also conflict land claimed by local communities can not be finished by central government

• Article 5 describe the huge authority of MHP in determining implementation MHBM program, but the process to formulate budget in tree plantation was not transparent. Alot of questions from community about benefits will be taken by community

• Article 10 (item 1) state that there is mistake in meaning interpretation. In this item 1 should not right but authority of first stakeholder. This problem will gives the MHBM organization more job and activities than MHP

• Article 11 (item 2) there was no arrangement about total financial loss, who will responsible or who not among MHBM organization and MHP.

In the field implementing of the MHBM program, it was disappointed because the agreements were not worked well. MHP was not opened to the MHBM organization, very view job opportunity offered to the MHBM organization. MHBM also can not access to the year operational planning, working contractual, and document for finishing work approved by MHP. Some problems occured in the implementation process of MHBM as follows: • Involving the third party as investor has caused limited space for MHBM organization to

do tree plantation. The problem was MHBM organization doesn’t have any capital to involve in working patnership with MHP

• MHP staff (in block and unit level) gives the working order contractual leter to the outsider investor without getting permission from MHBM organization. Some respondens stated that in this process occured collution among them, investor was also gave some couple of money to MHP staffs

• Based on respondent information, also happened fictitious in document for finishing work approved by MHP to get implementation budget without doing planting trees or that only doing planting in view area of HTI

• In the form of money, the daily income earn from MHBM activities less than income from working in rubber tapping. The price of basic needs for living were also high. Those all were problematics.

34

Table 18. Comparing income per capita per day

Items Rubber farmer Worker in MHBM Kind of job Tapping Wedding Area 1 ha 0, 2 ha Results Around Rp 30.000,- Araound Rp 16.000,-

We can conclude that MHBM implementation can not be implemented well because MHBM organization have no enough capital to do preparing tree cultivation, lack of MHBM organization empowerment, and lack of attention about simply procedure on implementation of program. C.4. Benefit Distribution and Its Problem One important problem in the implementation of MHBM and MHR that is benefit distribution from these programs. Based on MOU agreement, MHP will gives three kind of financial benefits to community through MHBM organization such as: (1) work services; (2) management fee; and (3) production fee. Work services are a kind of fee which can be gained directly by community if they involved as a worker in the cultivation processes. Management fee is a kind of fee will be gained as much as 1% from MHP working contracted through MHBM organization, it means that the MHBM organization got sharing income from external investor, even in the situation that planting trees done by MHBM itself. Production fee is a kind of fee of Rp 2,500 per m3 log gained from MHP and given to the MHBM organization. Most respondents stated that since 2000 they never got benefits directly from those three kinds of services. That were caused by two main reasons such as: (1) Acacia mangium is not harvested yet because not mature yet, so that scenario Management fee and production fee were not implemented yet, and (2) the access of MHBM organization to involve in MHBM and MHR program implementation quite late. In daily practical, the implementation of MHBM activities (land clearing, land preparation, planting, maintaining) were dominated by MHP staffs, that were collaboration with external investor. In this case member of MHBM works with investor, and it is true that the income become decreasing. There was no serious problems in the internal MHBM organization right now, especially linked with common budget in MHBM. Production fee is still waiting for tree harvesting, maybe in the next 2006 MHBM will receive money from MHP because timber from MHBM program started its harvesting. According to field data was collected, coming problems in MHBM have been indicated by transparency issues of financial management. Decreasing rate of community trust either to coordinator of umbrella MHBM organization or to village MHBM organization will influential to social life in each village. Those problems will become big issues of “time bomb” which at any time can explosive and cause high financial loss. The forms of conflict which will be occurred that is land encroachment by community members, they fell there is no benefit for them, conflict among members, conflict among member and board of MHBM and conflict among stakeholders (community and government, community and MHP). Land encroachment in some places has been occurred and it was caused by two things such as: (1) aggregate people frustration because they didn’t get the same opportunity to gain benefit from PHBM program implementation. This condition will be more difficult if the encroacher has evident that their ancestor have previous swidden agricultural land within HTI area; (2) land encroachment done by community because influenced by benefits calculation in

35

term of production fee only. This second problem generally happen because of : (1) limitation on mobility of village MHBM organization board in forest security activity; (2) weak of MHBM organization activity; (3) people collaboration with government village staff, MHP staffs; (4) utilizing empty forest land. Benefit distribution of MHBM program become main issue. Below is the analysis of benefits distribution gained by each stakeholder involved in the MHBM program implementation.

Figure 13 : Management fee distribution

(Case : Management fee, June s/d December 2003, total Rp 18.284.237,-) Based on field observation, those financial utilization were not optimal yet. A part of fund was used to buy a motorcycle as down payment by board of village MHBM organization within HTI area, and other fund was used as salary for board of MHBM in umbrella level and village level. While in out side HTI area, fund was used for public facilities renovation, but also given to the village government staffs as salary. Generally known that either community or board of MHBM organization have no good planning in term of fund utillization which gained from management fee.

30% Rp 5.485.271,-

5 villages out side of HTI area

70% Rp 12.798.966,-

4 villages within HTI area

6% Rp 1.097.054,-

Each village out side HTI area

7% Rp 1.279.896,-

Each village MHBM Organization

11% Rp 1.919.854,-

Umbrella MHBM Coordinator

11% Rp 1.919.845,-

BPRD

7% Rp 1.279.896,-

Sub-district

14% Rp 2. 599.793,-

Village t

Rp 18.284.237,-

Umbrella MHBM organization

100%

3,5% Rp 639.948,-

Each village government

2,75% Rp 479.961,-

Each BPRD

36

The using of production fee will be illustrated in Figure 14. Note: Calculation based on 1 m3 of wood harvested in MHBM area. The calculation still remain Rp 260,- of unused6

Figure 14. Production fee distribution (Based on agreement in umbrella MHBM organization,Ex-Marga Rambang Niru)

Since this research done on july 2005, the wood harvesting in the MHBM area was not executed yet so that there was no production fee from MHP to umbrella MHBM organization Ex-Marga Rambang Niru. But proxy calculation can be used with assumption that wood production will reach around 200 m3 per ha, then proxy income from production fee around Rp 500.000 per ha for MHBM organization. Under the same scenario as like figure 14, the expectation income of MHBM organization can be drawn as seen in Table 19.

6 Allocation expected for village government within HTI area

0,08% Rp 20,-

2% Rp 50,-

Community out side of HTI area

80% Rp 2.000,-

MHBM member

2% Rp 50,-

Fee on village MHBM organization

4% Rp 100,-

Board of village MHBM organization

Umbrella MHBM organization coordinator

0,08% Rp 20,-

Head of sub-district

Rp 2500,-

Production fee

100%

37

Tabel 19. Calculation of production fee distribution per hectare (Rp 2,500 per m3)

No Stakeholders Persentage Production fee 1 MHBM member 80.0 % Rp 400.000 2 Fee for village MHBM organization within HTI area 2.0 % Rp 10.000 3 Board of village MHBM 4.0 % Rp 20.000 4 Coordinator of MHBM umbrella 0,8 % Rp 4.000 5 Village government within HTI area 6 BPRD within HTI area 10,4 % Rp 52.000

7 Sub-district 0,8 % Rp 4.000 8 Village out side of HTI area 2.0 % Rp 10.000 100% Rp 500.000

Calculation on benefits distribution fund from management fee per is given in Table 20. Table 20. Calculation on management fee (1% of contract goes to MHBM) per hectare (without transportation activity)

Activities Unit value Total Land clearing 1 kali Rp 750.000 Rp 750.000 Planting 1 kali Rp 175.000 Rp 175.000 Weeding 3 kali Rp 85.000 Rp 255.000 harvesting7 200 m3 Rp 47.000 Rp 9.400.000 Rp 10.580.000

Table 21. Calculation on management fee distribution/allocation per hectare (without transportation activity)

Multistakeholders Management fee 1 MHBM member - - 2 Fee on village MHBM organization within HTI area - - 3 Board of village MHBM 28% Rp 2.962.400 4 Coordinator of MHBM umbrella 11% Rp 1.110.900 5 Village government within HTI area 14% Rp 1.481.200 6 BPRD within HTI area 11% Rp 1.110.900 7 Sub-district 7% Rp 740.600 8 Village out side of HTI area 30% Rp 3.174.000 100% Rp 10.580.000

Source: primary and secondary data, 2005 Those tables of financial allocation content unclear meaning for basic calculation in each stakeholder. Problems was also come from meaning of “village community out side of HTI area”, is that included all community in out side of HTI area? During data collected, information related to the basic calculation and allocation did not get well because all statement of respondents were not clear, they also informed to researcher based on second opinion. There were many perseption about definition of village community out side of HTI area, each village has their own definition. Based on that, therefore, in this time we can not bring the conclusion about that. Besides that, based on above calculation then we can took a distribution pattern of benefit sharing on MHBM program which was executed by community of Ex-Marga Rambang Niru and MHP. It can be seen in Table 22. 7 Using system of ”tebang lebung/ kingkong”

38

Table 22. Calculation of management fee and production fee distributions per hectare (without transportation activity)

Multistakeholders Production fee Management fee Total fee 1 MHBM member Rp 400.000 - Rp 400.000 3,6% 2 Fee on village MHBM

organization Rp 10.000 -

Rp 10.000 0,1% 3 Board of village MHBM Rp 20.000 Rp 2.962.400 Rp 2.982.400 26,9% 4 Coordinator MHBM umbrella Rp 4.000 Rp 1.110.900 Rp 1.114.900 10,1% 5 Village government within HTI

area Rp 1.481.200 6 BPRD within HTI area

Rp 52.000 Rp 1.110.900

Rp 2.644.100 23.9%

7 Sub-district Rp 4.000 Rp 740.600 Rp 744.600 6,7% 8 Village community out side of

HTI area Rp 10.000 Rp 3.174.000 Rp 3.184.000 28,7% Rp 500.000 Rp 10.580.000 Rp 11.080.000 100%

Source: primary and secondary data, 2005. At the moment we can conclude that village community out side of HTI area will get biggest distribution fees, and the other village MHBM organization will get smallest distribution fees. Fee recieved by MHBM member just come from MHBM organization and not yet come from working fee/services. Based on observation, the minimum involved of MHBM member caused by: (1) low trust of MHBM member to village MHBM organization and coordinator umbrella MHBM organization Ex-Marga Rambang Niru. According to respondents opinion, all MHBM organization were lack of transparency in term of access on activity and financial report, (2) There was no guarantee that follow MHBM program will increase the benefits for them. Table 23. Calculation on Management fee and Production fee distributions in each stakeholder8 per hectare (without transportation activity)

Allocation fees Multistakeholders Comulative Stakeholder 1 Member village MHBM 3,61% 3,61% 2 Fee on village MHBM organization within HTI area 0,09% 0,02% 3 Board of vilage MHBM within HTI area 26,92% 6,73% 4 Coordinator MHBM umbrella 10,06% 10,06% 5 Village government within HTI area 23.87% 5,97% 6 Sub-district 6,72% 6,72% 7 Village community out side of HTI area 28,74% 5,75% 100%

Source: primary and secondary data, 2005 Table 23 show that coordinator of umbrella MHBM organization Ex-Marga Rambang Niru become a stakeholder who will gets biggest benefits distribution, and other village MHBM organization will gets smallest benefits distribution. If we considered based on fairness and proportional principles among right recieved and responsibility should be done, we can see a gap of results and benefits in the implementation of MHBM program in Ex-Marga Rambang Niru as follows:

8 For stakeholders in the village within HTI area, comulative fee divided into four villages, other

stakeholders in the village out side of HTI area divided into five villages.

39

• MHBM organization gets smallest benefits allocation, and it was not fit with his responsibility as an institution to do community welfare. However, an organization needs financial support to improve their role

• Government institution gets big benefits distribution compared with his role in the executing MHBM program. In case of making problem solving, the government can not solve the problems properly

• Needs synchronization about benefits taken by coordinator of umbrella MHBM with board of village MHBM organization. Based on reality that both parties vis a vis with community and field problems directly

• Benefits recieved by village community out side of HTI area need to adjustment, with consideration that out side of HTI area also still exist nucleous village Ex-Marga Rambang Niru. This aimed to look for the middle way solution, hoped that there is no horizontal conflict among people.

C.5. Improving MHBM MHBM program implementation had been carried out, effort to give opportunity on local community participating in industry planting forest management. Problems which emerge in the implementation process were not seen as total fail, but all kinds of weaknesses should be renovated to avoid more tricky problems. As a program which has goal to increase community welfare, MHBM program should be continued but conducive environment is needed. There are five steps needed to increase community welfare. The first step is to do elaboration of big problem exist namely making clear the area of HTI managed by MHP. To solve this problem MHP should call central government such as Forestry Department and National Agrarian institute. Clear land territory expected that will gives guarantee for social psychology of community Ex-Marga Rambang Niru. Right now most community trust that concession land for HTI managed by MHP was their previous swidden agricultural land which based on adat rights become individual land right or their ancestor right. Hoped that clear land status of MHP / HTI area will also guarantee the continuing of living for long period of time. The second step is to do empowerment for community as a whole, board of MHBM organization, and MHP staffs related to MHBM program. The objective of empowerment step is to create strong actors in MHBM program which is able to realize the objectives of MHBM. Empowering step consists of four basic elements such as: (1) change in planning, focused on each policy based on potential analysis perfectly; (2) participation, focused on open access to information in MHP and people involved in the decision making process on policy; (3) autonomy, based on willing to give space for all stakeholders without any presure one to other, so that everybody can participate optimally; and (4) sustainability, to give guarantee over the time and trans generation. The third step is to review and anaysis contens of MHBM agreement act and all internal agreements of MHBM organization, before executing of second timber harvesting done. Several contens of MHBM agreements have had unequalized authorization, responsibility, rights and benefits distributions which those are potentially emerge some new problems seriously while second steps harvesting done in the HTI area. The objective of this step is to answer the confusing about MHBM operational and increase communities trust, and gives legality --- recognition and law protection---- for all stakeholders involved in MHBM program. Other problems should be changed that addressed to the production fee and management fee, information and financial management transparency, stabilizing of MHBM organization capital, clear communication mechanism, clear executing mechanism and

40

responsibility of MHBM activities, and balance and proportional among benefits distribution and duty and responsibility of each stakeholder. The fourth step is to do socialization of MHBM program to all stakeholders involved about strengthening the basic principles of MHBM program i.e : make people understand that MHBM program just focused on sorts of benefit distribution within HTI management, and it was not an activity to do forest land distribution from MHP to member of community. Besides that, all stakeholders should formulate, stabilize, and common egreed about environmental basis will be used in the process of doing benefits distribution, should stakeholders be use community psychosocial environment as a basic approach (i.e :Ex-Marga Rambang Niru or ex-swidden agricultural land) or physical environment as basic approach (i.e: within HTI area or out side of HTI area). The approaches important to be selected because in the next future all stakeholders need to do reposition PHBM program, give more legitimation of MHP and MHBM as main active stakeholder, and this MHBM program prepare space to build communication activities among stakeholders. The fifth step is to propose some tactical solutions addressed to MHBM and MHR programs as follows: • To do repairing and control to all stakeholders who did not follow MHBM agreement (i.e:

either MHBM organization or MHP staffs). This step aims to do shock therapy so that emerge frighten effect to each stakeholder. Expected that the management of timber harvesting in 2006 will be implemented well and can give advantages to all stakeholders proportionally.

• Preparing transportation and communication facilities to MHBM boards so that they can carry out and manage the MHBM organization well.

• Taken action against strongly all stakeholders who did negative action which inflict an image of MHBM pogram i.e : corruption and nepotism by a person in a certain capacity in the field MHP management, a person in doing forest firing or land forest occupation illegally within community.

The five steps mentioned above are a set of solid activity and can be done step by step based on priority selected without marginalize all developing possibility exist in the community. Those steps a head have long objectives to give guarantee of local community welfare, MHBM programs sustainability, legality exist of MHP in Rambang Niru region, and avoid horizontal and vertical conflicts which will highly possible occured immediately. D. People Forest Management Program (MHR) D.1. Introduction MHR (Forest management by the people) is one of the programs issued by PT. MHP that aimed to improve local community welfare by expanding the area of HTI plantation on people owned land. The goals of MHR programs are not different from the goals of MHBM programs, those are: • Improving community welfare through increase of income, expand of work opportunities

in HTI environment. • Help in providing adequate economic facilities. • Develop awareness among people surrounded forest area to behave positively in relation

with conservation of forest resources (forest security function). The principal foundation developed by MHR is utilization of the community on a co-operational relationship (partnership) by giving them opportunities to participate in the

41

developmental activities of HTI. MHR working area are laid on personally or socially owned land. The people earn benefits continuously in the form working fee; and production fee. MHR program are carried out as agroforestry system. Principally, there are similarities between MHR and MHBM programs. But there are also several differences between the two schemes, as listed in the following table: Table 24. Differences between MHR – MHBM schemes

MHR MHBM Membership General people of the society People who own previous swidden

agricultural land Land area status Owned by people Land area of PT. MHP Type of cooperation Individually or group MHBM Organization Activity actor Land area owner MHBM Organization members Post harvest rules of crops sharing

40% nett profit for MHR participants

Production fee of Rp 2500/m3 for MHBM organization and received after 2nd cycle

Source : Primary data D.2 Research Method Based on the descriptions, further research on MHR programs located near the area of HTI- PT. MHP. This research use post-positivis method. This method focuses on interpretation of data obtained. Significancy of the data is not only based on visual observation but also on comprehension of either the researcher or the respondents. This research was carried out using combination of temporary questions which are possible to alter, suiting data condition on the field of study. The aim is to increase research flexibility that frequently face unpredictable condition on the field of study. But even though temporary designed, the alteration of question guides are based on pattern and type of data obtained, in order to avoid decrease of data validity. The research was located in MHR programs targetted villages in the territory of Unit I Subanjeriji and Unit VI Lubuk Guci, which were represented by MHR organization/ groups. Among all villages of the two territories, Village of Talang Ubi Barat, Talang Ubi Selatan, Subanjeriji, Aur Duri, Kasih Dewa, and Lubuk Rahman were chosen as research samples. Data were obtained using deep and secondary data analysis. Research samples consist of two objects, the actor and the land area. Samples of actors are determined by snow ball effect technique, that preceeded by the determination of key informant. Category of key informant is the board and member of MHR organization, society elder, government officer, and MHP employee that directly involved in the implementation of MHR programs. Land area samples are land area in which MHR programs are implemented. Data analysis were carried out using inductive method, that is specific data analysis on the field of study by making categories along with research process, without waiting until all data were collected. The categorization was started by comparing the suitable data with the aspect researched, then integrate the characteristic of the data to the aspects researched. The categorization is guided by two factors, temporary theoretical basic and subjective interpretation of the human samples.

42

D.3. MHR Organization MHR Organization is an organization of the community that individually develop cooperation in land area utilization with PT. MHP. Activities of MHR organization were divided into internal and external activities. The internal activities were not carried out the way it supposed to be. There has not been any well arranged administration, board structure with well defined authority and obligations, nor any well-described working plans.

Figure 15. Structure of MHR Organization/ Group Based on information obtained and observation, membership of Village MHR Organization were based on the consideration of land owning, that proved by legal certificate. In several villages, this legal certificate requirement causes problems because of the different perceptions on the legality of the certificate. For some people, legality is minimally shown by possessing land certificate. But for some other a confirmation letter (SKT) from the village headman is enough. The SKT open the door for general people, either who has previous shifting cultivation land or not, to take part in MHR program. Table 25. Brief Description of MHR Organization/ Group

No Village Total Land Area

Amount of members Scope of Membership

1 Talang Tambur

± 31 Ha 12 persons Member MHR come from one big family

2 Simpang Raja 61,58 Ha 6 persons Member MHR come from one big family

3 Subanjeriji ± 300 Ha 30 persons People who has previous shifting cultivation land area

4 Aur Duri ± 50 Ha 20 persons Group of land owner based on previous shifting cultivation land area. Other information this area belong to state

5 Kasih Dewa 175 Ha, 50 Ha burnt 125 Ha left

6 groups with 25 persons per group

Every household that own ± 2 Ha land area

6 Lubuk Rahman

180 Ha, 42 Ha burnt 138 Ha left

6 groups, 25 persons per group

All area of MHR owned by people

External activities are related to PT. MHP. MHR Organization has only been a communication bridge between organization members and the company. This condition frequently leads board of MHR organization to conflicting dilemma of society demand and company demand.

MHR Organization Board

Individual / Members of MHR

Individual / Members of MHR

Individual / Members of MHR

43

D.4. Implementation of MHR Activities and Its Problems MHR program are implemented through several stages. First, socialization of the programs to the society, including explanation of cooperation principals, distribution of rights and obligations between society and the company, also benefits they can obtain. Second, is determining the working area. Which have to fulfil criteria required by the company. Those criteria are economical width of an area, relatively easy topographic condition, road access is an advantage. Beside those criteria, several administrational procedures must also be fulfilled. Personally owned land area are not in legal conflict , supported by legal proves of land area possessed. If land status are clear and there were no conflict with other people, then the society can send a proposal for managing MHR to PT. MHP field manager. Next step after the proposal for MHR management has been approved, a meeting is held to discus the formulation of Agreement Act between company and the participant. After the agreement made, next step is putting signature on the agreement act by the two sides involved. From the society, the signing was done by land area owner (head of the family) or representation of the group pointed by the society. PT. MHP is represented by chief of the local unit. For the actual implementation, PT. MHP issued SPK based on Operational Plan (RO) and Annual Working Plan (RKT) to MHR Organization/ individual participant as guidance in various levels of the programs. Based on information obtained, MHR organizations tend to issue SPK to third party to carry out the work from land cleaning until tree logging, rather than MHR participants which work were done by each owner using their relatives as workers. Work payment will be given to MHR Organization/ individual participant after each stage of the activities are accomplished, either technically or administratively, reported on working finishing document. Various problems encountered by MHR Organization are quite similar to MHBM Organization, ranging from limited ability of the human resources, weak communication and internal coordination, and limited capital to carry out the SPK. For individual participants, problem encountered is limited time to accomplish MHR activities. It occurs because beside managing their owned land area utilized for HTI, also for rubber plantation. For the society, HTI is an extra income or investation aside from rubber trees. D.5. Distribution and Benefits Distribution of crops as well as other benefits is one of the most important issue in the implementation of MHR. Based on the Agreement Act, PT. MHP will give two financial benefits to the community through MHR Organization; work payment and benefits sharing. Work payment is payment that directly received by the society as a reward for accomplishing each program components in the field. In the other hand, benefits are share of crops received by MHR Organization/ individual participants from total plantation crops. It is the nett profit after minus by total HTI development cost spent by PT. MHP. The cost of HTI development is burdened to the community and MHP as a replacement compensation for the cost spent by PT. MHP to provide seed, fertilizer, land preparation cost, planting, maintenance, and logging. It has been decided as much as 40% for MHR participants and 60% for PT. MHP. Until this very moment, there has not been any benefits that directly enjoyable by the community for the work they have done. The reason is the age of the trees are not sufficient

44

enough to be harvested. Hence, distribution of tree crops between PT.MHP and the society has not been realized yet.

Figure 16. Example of MHR area D.6. MHR Projection Previously we has described MHR program implementation which utilize society owned land area to be managed with HTI system in order to bring profit for each side. For the community, MHR programs have double functions; land area optimization (cost efficiency) and guarantee of market availability for the crops. Beside, the society can also have work opportunities and partnership with the company. For the company, ths program brings additional values such as forest management efficiency, guarantee of product quantity, and expansion of territorial security. Beside, the company can also take benefit in the efficiency of social cost, because MHR program as arena for intensify communication between company and the community. Nevertheless, the society still demand transparency in financial management (cost spending) which is carried out by the officer of MHR land area. All this time, the society find difficulties in obtaining information of how much cost spent for managing HTI using MHR scheme each owner or each hectare. This demand should be seriously responded by the company because it deals with percentage of benefits sharing with the community. Second problem is strong control of administrational requirements using same standards for all territories. It is aimed to avoid social horizontal conflict because of land area encroachment action among the people in the society. Third problem that should get priority is increasing/ improving ability of the society/ MHR participants to optimize their role in HTI management, either directly related to MHR-HTI territory or socio system. The empowering is aimed at MHR Organization and MHR program participants. Its goal is to create reliable “guards” of MHR program, so the goals of the programs can be achieved yet continuously. The last problem is related to the transparency of money spent for maintaining the trees. The group of community didn’t trust to the MHP local unit manager who managing the budget for MHR program. People need more transparency for all budget spent. If there is no transparency, therefore, people don’t want to continue MHR program.

45

2.2.4. Communities and their livelihood: Socio-economic survey of the Rambang Dangku sub-district (South-Sumatra) By Patrice Levang and Soaduon Sitorus The survey concerned 9 villages of the sub-district Rambang Dangku, involved in the MHBM (Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat9) scheme developed by the Acacia mangium growing company MHP (Musi Hutan Persada).

The kecamatan or sub-district of Rambang Dangku was created in 1983 with the enforcement of law n°5/1979 concerning the unification of village administration and the end of the marga system. Rambang Dangku is the merger of two former margas: Rambang Niru and Empat Petulai Dangku. Nowadays the kecamatan counts 25 villages, 9 belong to the former marga Rambang Niru, 9 belong to the former marga Empat Petulai Dangku, 7 villages are former transmigration units regrouping migrants from Java and local people from both former margas. The MHBM program has been initiated by MHP soon after some violent clashes with local communities claiming land seized by the Company during the Suharto era. In the kecamatan Rambang Dangku, four villages are directly concerned by the scheme as part of their territory is used by the Company for Acacia plantations. These villages are: Jemenang, Gemawang, Subanjeriji and Aur Duri. Five more villages have been involved at a lesser extent in the scheme because of individual claims of some villagers. These villages are: Tanjung Menang, Kasih Dewa, Tebat Agung, Lubuk Raman and Gerinam. All other villages of the kecamatan have not been included in the scheme either because they belong to the former marga Empat Petulai Dangku whose territory is outside the MHP concession or because they are former transmigration units with well defined land status. However, in some ex-transmigration villages, it happens that individuals of local origin also claim land developed by MHP but outside the present village boundaries. Most inhabitants of Aur Duri belong to the former marga Empat Petulai Dangku but the present village area has been gained outside the traditional marga territory. A. Historical background The native people of the area belong to the Rambang ethnic group, named after the Rambang River. The group has its own language, the bahasa Rambang, close to Melayu with many dialectal variations, and occupies a vast area going from Prabumulih to Sugih Waras. Inquiries about the historical background of communities is a difficult exercise because of the lack of written sources and the little interest of communities in the matter10. Following information has been obtained from various sources but could not always be crosschecked. Therefore it should be handled with utmost care. The founding fathers of the marga Rambang Niru belong to four well defined clans or puyang:

Puyang Tanah Putih, which is considered as the leading clan (especially by its members) because it descends from a male founder.

The three other clans: Siak, Kiayi and Lubuk Kapas descend from younger sisters of the mythic founder of

the Puyang Tanah Putih. Unlike the other clans who claim land in the name of the

9 Managing Forest with Communities. 10 However with the recent revival of former customary rules –especially those dealing with territoriality- the situation totally reversed and history even turned into a sensitive matter.

46

marga or the village, the Puyang Tanah Putih have specific claims in addition to the others.

Over time, the clans have been roaming the upper watersheds of the Suban and Rambang Rivers before settling down in Tanjung Ringgit. The group moved again to Jemenang Lama in 1878 (?), in the vicinity of the nowadays transmigration village of Air Talas. Before founding the village of Jemenang at its present location of Jelinge around 1913-14, the village moved to Talang Longgo, Talang Suban Taos, Talang Pa Terdin and Talang Hulu Bere. The four oldest villages of the marga Rambang Niru are :

Jemenang Tebat Agung Kasih Dewa; because of its small size Kasih Dewa lost its village status in 1997 and

was merged with Tebat Agung. Since 2000, it regained its village status. Lubuk Raman; its inhabitants do not descend from one of the four founding clans of

the marga Rambang Niru and therefore have not always been recognized as rightful members of the marga.

The more recent villages are:

Gerinam; a former hamlet of Tebat Agung, founded around 1912-13. Tanjung Menang; founded around 1920-1930. Gemawang; a hamlet of Jemenang since 1959 which became officially a village in

1972. Subanjeriji; remote oil extraction plant since the 1930’s, the location has been

intensively cleared by forest squatters from diverse origins in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.

Aur Duri; the first inhabitants originating from Rambang Kapak Tengah settled in Talang Kemis in 1946-1950. They were joined by numerous forest squatters from the marga Empat Petulai Dangku in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Aur Duri is an official village since 2002.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the area was still underpopulated. Only four villages existed at the time: Jemenang, Tebat Agung, Kasih Dewa and Lubuk Raman. Often divided into numerous hamlets (talang), each village (locally called dusun) was under the leadership of a krio. The krio enjoyed extensive powers over the community as administrative village head, as customary leader and as master of the land. The krio reported to the pasirah (or also called patih or depati) head of the marga. The pasirah reported to the demang (or wedana), who in turn reported to the Dutch resident in Palembang11. Villages and hamlets were exclusively located on river banks and depended on swidden upland rice cultivation for their staple food. Every ten years, hamlets shifted in the search of new lands for swidden cultivation. The collection of damar, rattan, gold and other forest products provided some cash to the villagers. Rubber, introduced at the beginning of the 20th century, soon replaced all other cash procuring commodities. The quick development of smallholder rubber plantation had a strong impact on economic differentiation among villagers. It also helped to fix the population close to the rubber plantations. The building of the railway in 1912 started to open up the hinterlands of South Sumatra. However the Mura Niru station was still far from most hamlets and the main outlet for agricultural production was still through waterways. 11 The Sultanate of Palembang was the first of Sumatra to be put under direct rule by the Dutch in 1823.

47

Around 1930, the BPM (Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij) started prospecting the Subanjeriji area and later realized two drills in Jemenang (Bor 1 and Bor 2). The road to Subanjeriji was opened in 1932 and many local people found job opportunities with the oil company. The Second World War brought major disruptions to the area. Elderly people remember well the hard times of insecurity and food shortages. From 1942 until the end of the war, many families fled from the villages in order to seek refuge in remote hamlets in the forest. With the end of the war and the Independence of Indonesia, many farmers started to gain new swiddens from forest reservations. The boswesen, or protected forest areas under the Dutch rule, became favorite objectives for land hungry farmers. The boswesen of Aur Duri and Subanjeriji were actively cleared from 1950 onwards. In 1965 most of the forest had been replaced by rubber plantations, secondary forest re-growth or Imperata grasslands. In 1975-76, the Ministry of Forests implemented the first reforestation projects in the area. Most projects were implemented on boswesen, but as limits were unclear village land (common or private property) was often included in the reforestation projects. As the contractors in charge were guarded by armed military personal, villagers did not dare interfere. Reforestation projects were carried on until the beginning of the 1980’s but with little result. Most Acacia, Eucalyptus, Paraserianthes and Pinus plantations did not survive the first fires. 1980-81 saw the beginning of the PPKR (Pola Pengembangan Karet Rakyat) or SRDP (Smallholder Rubber Development Project) funded by the World Bank. Lubuk Raman was the first village involved in the SRDP programme, and it was soon followed by the other villages of the marga Rambang Niru. All villagers agree to say that the implementation of the SRDP programme had a tremendous impact on the development of the area. From 1983 until 1986, the PTPN VII plantation company developed more or less 10 000 ha of palm oil subdivided into 8 transmigration units in the kecamatan Rambang Dangku. The land affected came from marga and village land (both common and private property). Families whose land was taken were given priority in the transmigration scheme as well as families in need. 60% of the lots were marked up for local people, 40% were given to outsiders. Each family received 2 ha of oil palm under a credit scheme and 0.25 ha of home lot. The two projects –SRDP and Transmigration- are unanimously considered as main achievements of the Suharto era. A new project, started by Inhutani in 1988-89 was first welcomed by the communities. In order to promote forestry plantations and to prevent recurrent fires, Inhutani proposed local people to plant forest trees in alleys alternating with rubber plantations. About a hundred farmers were invited to Palembang for a 28 days long training period. However, the project was never implemented. Local people heard that Inhutani gave up the project, which was taken over by Barito Pacific in 1990, and later renamed MHP. In 1991-92 contractors started clearing land for MHP12, guarded by armed military personnel. Local people were no longer involved in the deal. All the land was to be converted into Acacia mangium plantations. Where rubber trees were clearly visible and still in production, farmers were granted enclaves in the MHP concession. But former swiddens –though recognized as landed property under customary laws- were not recognized under national law and converted into Acacia plantations. Nobody dared interfere. 12 MHP was officially granted a 34 years lease (plus 8 years) on state land. However, part of this land had a status of protected forest (boswesen), part had a status of village land (tanah marga, tanah desa), part was privately owned.

48

In 1998 the Suharto rule came to an end. Reformasi became the main buzzword. Local communities started to claim their land back from MHP. In the absence of reply from MHP some decided to revert to more violent actions. B. Multiple and conflicting claims The communities in the kecamatan Rambang were the first to make use of arson, to confiscate cars and to hold employees for ransom. Rambang Dangku followed the movement in 2000. Villagers from Gemawang demonstrated at MHP unit 3 and burned down a Blok office. Two months later villagers from Lubuk Raman burned down another Blok office close to Jemenang, including a bulldozer, an excavator and a timber jack. Four people were summoned by the police but 500 came to the police station, and went on demonstrating to the local assembly and to the Bupati office. No action was taken against the perpetrators. Some demonstrations even proved directly useful. For instance, after burning some stocks of Acacia at the pulp factory, local communities obtained from PT. Tel employments for 250 people from 12 villages in the vicinity. Fearing further more violent demonstrations, MHP employees already packed their belongings and were ready to abandon the sites. Local authorities being unable to stop the movement, the directors of MHP in Jakarta decided to come to Rambang Dangku in order to negotiate an agreement with local communities. Pak Haji Rustam, a local notable, declared himself ready to put an end to the demonstrations if MHP agreed to involve local people in the production process. Pak Haji Achmat Tajudin and Pak Amirz Thohalim were asked for help by Pak Haji Rustam. In the meantime, villagers from Lubuk Raman and Aur Duri burnt down two stocks of Acacia in two different actions. Pak Haji Rustam convened a meeting bringing together village heads, customary leaders, former village heads, former krio, former pasirah and former marga representatives of Jemenang, Gemawang, Gerinam and Tebat Agung. All people present came to the agreement that the villages of Lubuk Raman, Gerinam, Subanjeriji and Aur Duri were not entitled to claim village land from MHP as none of their village land had been seized by MHP. Only individuals now living in these villages and who had been cultivating swiddens in the MHP concession were eligible to claims. Disappointed by this agreement, people from Lubuk Raman and Aur Duri decided carry on demonstrations. The former decided to stop action after a strong lobbying from the people of Jemenang and Tebat Agung. The latter only calmed down after a mob of 100 or 200 people from Jemenang threatened to burn down Aur Duri. Violence came to an end and the MHBM programme was enforced. Four villages were directly involved –Jemenang, Gemawang, Aur Duri and Subanjeriji- and five villages were added as outsiders - Tanjung Menang, Kasih Dewa, Tebat Agung, Lubuk Raman and Gerinam. Divergences are not yet settled but everybody agreed to wait for the outcome of the MHBM program in 2006. Then, everything will have to be renegotiated. C. Vanishing customary rules South Sumatran ethnic groups never developed strong adat or customary rules as the Minangkabau in the West or the Batak in the North. Elderly people resent that the younger generation no longer respects adat. However, in our focus groups, even elderly people generally proved unable to reach a consensus on most customary rules even those concerning important matters like inheritance, tenure or governance.

49

Since 1983 no customary chief or malim has been elected anymore. Until 1983, a malim was chosen in each village by four representatives of each clan with the help of some magic practices. All the malim chose among themselves a pemangku adat, or customary representative at the marga level. Since 1983, the malim are simply chosen by the head of village and are thus merely considered as subalterns. Most of their former prerogatives have been taken over by the village administration or the judicial system, both religious and civil courts. From the traditional inheritance system, the only rule still respected by all is the “tunggu tubang”. The eldest son among siblings is the main “heritage holder” or “tunggu tubang”. In clear the eldest son inherits at least the house of his parents. All other goods are considered of lower rank (harta ringan) and are distributed among all siblings, male and female. Cattle and jewelry generally goes to the girls, plantations to the boys. However no clear rule seems to apply, generally circumstances dictate. Concerning land tenure, traditionally the marga Rambang Niru recognizes four types of land status/ownership: Boswesen (register 26-27) or protected forest area; this land still covered by primary forest

was set aside by the Dutch colonial administration as forest conservation areas. Boswesen were considered as State land and were free of claims from the margas. Intruders were prosecuted by the Pasirah or the forest police.

Tanah pasirah (or tanah marga); this specific status was given to a land unit also called “sawah sewaan” of more or less 1000 ha located at the border of the marga Rambang Niru with the marga Rambang. This land belonging to the marga Rambang Niru was once cleared without permission by people from Sugih Waras. In compensation for this fraudulent act the squatters agreed to pay a yearly rent to the Pasirah of Rambang Niru. It was then decided that 60% of this rent would go to the marga and 40% to the wedana (equivalent of nowadays bupati) as honoraria.

Tanah dusun (or tanah desa); covers all the territory of the village and was controlled by the Krio (or head of dusun). In order to open a ladang on village land, any individual had to pay the “pancung alas” to the Krio: one plate of white rice, one egg, one coconut and one Ringgit. Once the pancung alas paid, the farmer was granted a usufruct right. If the land was no longer used for three consecutive years, the farmer lost his usufruct right and the land returned to the Krio.

Tanah puyang; is a part of the village territory controlled by one specific clan (or puyang). This case happens where historically one large area was cleared by a specific clan.

Tanah perorangan or private land is not a traditional category of land ownership but only of

temporary usufruct. However, over time, with the increase in population pressure and the shortening of the fallows, usufruct rights became permanent and were soon considered as property rights. Nowadays most people even ignore that the Krio had once the right to reallocate unused land.

Considering the preceding categories, MHP is presently faced with four different levels of land claims: • Individual claims over small plots of land by people considering that MHP is unduly

occupying land formerly cropped by their parents or grand parents. • Clanic claims over rather large land units by representatives of the clans constituting the

marga Rambang Niru. • Collective claims over large land units formerly under the control of the village or the

marga.

50

All claims do not have the same strength or legitimacy. Some are undeniable, like the claim of the Puyang Tanah Putih, which is located around an ancient and well known graveyard. Others, located in the vicinity of villages or former hamlets can be confirmed by many witnesses. The most problematic are individual claims because they are based on limited testimonies made by the second or third generation after the supposed owner, and in areas where Acacia growers have long bulldozed all traditional limit markers. Even more problematic are claims over areas formerly included in boswesen, where under State law as well as adat law no one was supposed to open a swidden. For all these reasons, local communities do not present a united front. Members of other clans strongly resent the fact that the Tanah Putih clan runs for himself while claiming 1500 ha around the graveyard of the founding father of the marga. Village elites are ready to fight for the recovery of village land but are suspicious about the countless and overlapping individual claims, especially those made by people no longer living in the village concerned by the claim. Over all, the elites of the marga Rambang Niru are refusing to support the claims made by what they consider as illegal occupants on boswesen. To them, supporting the squatters would be tantamount to legalizing a theft. Of course, those most directly concerned have a diverging opinion. D. Village profiles Because of differences in historical background and accessibility, the villages surveyed present quite heterogeneous profiles. Jemenang Along with Tebat Agung, Jemenang can be considered as the historical centre of the marga Rambang Niru. Most marga elites are living either in Jemenang or Tebat Agung. Because to its location close to MHP, Jemenang is primarily concerned with land claims, both clanic and at village level. Jemenang count 813 families and nearly 3000 inhabitants. Two hamlets are located at a distance from the center of the village. One of these hamlets, located around the palm oil processing plant is inhabited by immigrants mainly factory workers, in all other quarters natives are largely dominant. The crowded center, with its numerous cars and motorbikes looks quite urban. However, rubber and oil palm remain the main sources of income for the large majority of inhabitants. One fourth of the families benefit from an additional salaried income. Economic differentiation has been strong in recent years and nine families already own private cars. Six contractors are regularly working with MHP. Jemenang claims between 2000 and 3000 ha Gemawang Gemawang officially parted from Jemenang in 1972. Located on the gravel road to Subanjeriji, Gemawang counts 440 families and 1800 inhabitants. The village hosts about 20% immigrants from Java and other areas of Sumatra, but most of these are not yet considered as permanent settlers13 and thus not officially recorded. The village looks much more rural than Jemenang. Rubber is the main source of income for nearly all families. Only few families benefit from an additional salaried income. Five contractors with MHP benefit from higher income opportunities. Seven families own private cars. Gemawang claims about 1000 ha. Subanjeriji With its 684 families and more than 3500 people dispersed among 25 hamlets, Subanjeriji has this typical look of frontier towns. About two thirds of the population belong to the Rambang 13 Most of them are rubber tappers contracted on a harvest share basis. They are generally living on the plantations and not in the village.

51

group (various margas), all others are immigrants from Java and other locations in Sumatra. Rubber is the main income for 60% of the families. About 30% are working regularly or occasionally for MHP. Eight contractors are involved with MHP. Four families own private cars. Subanjeriji has been opened “illegally” on State land (forest land or Pertamina) and thus only some individual claims have been recorded (about 60 ha). Aur Duri With 525 families and 2100 people Aur Duri looks similar to Subanjeriji though less dispersed. About 60% of the families are natives mostly from the marga Empat Petulai Dangku, 20% are migrants from Java and 20% from other areas of Sumatra. Rubber is the main income for the majority of the population, only few families benefit from additional salaried income. Three contractors work with MHP. Four families own private cars. Aur Duri claims land in between 1300 and 2000 ha. This land is considered as former swiddens. However land status is disputed as all of Aur Duri has been opened “illegally” on boswesen. The subject is very sensitive and source of disagreement (and conflict) with neighboring villages. Lubuk Raman With 892 families and 3540 inhabitants, located on both sides of the main road to Prabumulih, Lubuk Raman is a wealthy desa-kota. Education level is quite high and the village claims over 500 university graduates. Though 22% of the families benefit from a salaried income, rubber and oil palm are still the main sources of income. Four contractors are still working with MHP, the figure was once up to 15. Nineteen families own a private car. About 600 individuals claim land on one or more of the four insider villages. According to village authorities, about two thirds of these claims might be legitimate. Tebat Agung Located on the main road close to the Niru railway station, Tebat Agung with 936 families nearly 3900 inhabitants is the oldest and biggest village of the sub-district. At the crossroads to Subanjeriji and to Lematang, Tebat Agung is a busy desa-kota. Two thirds of the inhabitants are natives, 15% Javanese and 10% of neighboring areas of Sumatra. Rubber and oil palm are the main source of income for natives, and nearly half the families benefit from a salaried source of income. Seventeen contractors work with MHP. Fifteen families own a private car. Apart some individual claims Tebat Agung only supports the village claims of Jemenang. Kasih Dewa Though being an ancient village, Kasih Dewa was merged with Tebat Agung and only recently regained its village status. Therefore village statistics are still under collection and presently official figures do not make sense. About 80 % of the inhabitants belong to the marga Rambang Niru. A bit further away from the main road, Kasih Dewa looks less urban than Tebat Agung. Rubber is the main source of income, only few families benefit from wage labor. The village has no contractor active with MHP. Only 3 families own a private car. About 25 people claim 20 ha. Gerinam As a partition from Tebat Agung, Gerinam with 197 families and 978 inhabitants is the smallest village of the sub-district. Partly rural with rubber as main source of income, Gerinam also looks urban with 40% of its families working for PT. Tel or its subsidiaries. Only one contractor is working with MHP, and nobody owns a private car. About 120 individuals claim land in Gemawang and Subanjeriji.

52

Tanjung Menang Located at some distance from the main road, Tanjung Menang with 258 families and 922 inhabitants looks typically rural. The population is native at 95% (5% are Javanese) and depends nearly exclusively on rubber. Very few benefit from salaried jobs. The village has no contractor working for MHP and only one family owns a private car. The village supports the claim of the Puyang Tanah Putih and several individual claims in Plawi (30 ha) and in Subanjeriji (30 ha). E. Household economy Rubber, and to a lesser extent oil palm, are the main sources of income for the vast majority of the population. Food crops are quite marginal in the area, irrigated rice fields are anecdotal and upland rice is no longer cropped in swiddens. However upland rice is still intercropped with rubber during the first year of the creation of a new plantation –or rejuvenation. Old mixed orchards (durian, duku and others) can be seen from place to place. Recently, attracted by high market prices, some people developed Citrus plantations, but total areas remain very low at the village level. On average, two thirds of the families own between one and two hectares of rubber plantations. In every village some rich families own more than 10 ha of rubber plantations. The SRDP scheme proved very successful and jungle rubber has nearly totally been replaced by clonal plantations. Locally, the cost for developing one hectare of rubber plantation varies between 5 and 7 million rupiah. Contractors even propose “ready to tap” packages for 7 to 9 million rupiah. People lacking land and/or capital to develop their own plantation find employment as tappers on a harvest share basis (50% for the tapper, 50% for the owner). On average, for a half day work a tapper collects 20 kilogrammes of rubber at an average price of 6000 rupiah/kg. Thus even a landless tapper gets a 60000 rupiah return to the man-day14. An owner tapping his own trees gets double this amount. As a consequence, rubber fixes the opportunity cost of labor at quite a high level. Locally, no blue nor white collar job can match rubber incomes. More than one graduate decided to give up office work in town and returned to the village. Whenever possible families combine salaried income (local factories, processing plants, civil service) and agriculture. In villages close to the main road, up to 30% of the families benefit from a salaried income. In more remote villages this proportion can drop to 5%. In transmigration villages where the PTPN developed plantations, oil palm also contributes to family income. Local people generally moved out of the transmigration villages and returned to their village of origin. However they entrusted their oil palm plantation to their Javanese neighbors on a harvest share basis. Oil palm plantations present the advantage of requiring very little labor, two man-days per hectare and per month are generally enough for harvesting. Returns are similar to rubber but more fluctuating along the year. Unfortunately, because of the malfunctioning of the cooperative, oil palm plantations no longer benefit from regular fertilization and yields dropped tremendously. Employment with MHP was nearly inaccessible before reformasi. The company preferred hiring employees and contractors from outside the area which was deeply resented by local people. Since reformasi more local people were given job opportunities as salaried employees with MHP, and even more with PT. Tel, the pulp and paper factory. Every dry season, MHP recruits many temporary fire guards taking shifts in the numerous towers of the plantations. Since the start of the MHBM program, local people are also given priority for contracts with MHP for plantation management, from clearing to harvesting. This opportunity was seized by 14 Even to half a man-day as tapping generally starts at dawn and finishes latest at noon.

53

a handful of entrepreneurs in every village of the area. Those who already owned the capital bought trucks and equipment in order to get contracts from MHP. Those –more numerous- who lacked the capital borrowed it at usurious rates (20% interest over 3-4 months). Because of the tight contracts proposed by MHP and the high interest rates of local loan sharks, the daily wages proposed to workers by local contractors are generally very low. On average, a worker can earn 25000 to 30000 rupiah for a full day’s hard work, to say half what a rubber tapper can make in a half day. As a consequence, local people are little interested in daily wages proposed on Acacia plantations especially all maintenance works. Contractors generally have to hire outside workers for maintenance jobs. Harvesting operations are better paid and are the favorite of local people. Some contractors –especially those who already owned capital- took advantage of the opportunity offered by MHBM. In a short period of time they turned into wealthy entrepreneurs owning sometimes up to 6 trucks or more. However this strong and rapid economic differentiation also had negative impacts. Formerly respected village elite more than often turned into despised nouveau riche. F. Perceptions about MHP Because of the way it all started, perceptions about MHP have always been rather negative. Having to watch bulldozers guarded by army men clearing their village land without compensation or even permission has long been resented by local people. The lack of concern for local people by the MHP management during the Suharto era, their often arrogant and despising attitude also left many scars. Insults like the famous “pribumi hanya sekedar sampah” (local people are nothing more than trash) once uttered by a high ranking MHP officer are still all memories. Fortunately since reformasi and the MHBM program, perceptions have evolved. The Community Development division made huge efforts to approach local people and these numerous contacts had a tremendous positive impact on perceptions. However, local people still have mixed feelings about MHP. To some, MHP is of no benefit but just an obstacle to increasing their landed property on what they claim to be their traditional land. To them, the best would be for the company to leave. More numerous however are those who consider MHP as a milch cow. To them the company should take care of the road, make cash donations for village needs and for religious needs, provide development funds, etc. When asked why the company should substitute to the State, some say that MHP was given many advantages by the State, it is only fair to pay them back now. Only a minority considers working together with MHP as a viable option. This minority is made up of salaried employees and of contractors. Both groups are very limited in number and won’t dare to oppose the majority in case of a conflict with MHP. G. Perceptions about MHBM MHBM has been proposed to local people without much possibility to discuss or modify the concept. This top down approach has also been resented by some. There is also a strong –and justified- feeling that MHBM has only been proposed to local people in order to save the company’s assets after the violent demonstrations of 2000. To us there is a deep misunderstanding about the program between the management of MHP and local people. To the former, the opportunity given to local contractors to trust all plantation works from clearing to harvesting is a huge gift. To the latter, the 2500 rupiah royalty per cubic metre paid back to communities is no more than a charity. Indeed, from the point of view of MHP, the MHBM program is a formidable gift to local people. Before MHBM all the plantation work was done by five big Chinese contractors from Palembang. Since MHBM, all this work is done by more than a hundred local contractors. The increase in transaction cost has been tremendous. To the promoters of the program –

54

inside the company- this was a little cost to save the company’s assets. However, local people consider this gift in a different way. As a matter of fact, only some individuals in the community benefited from the gift. The larger number of daily workers hired by the contractors did consider the wages offered as a gift. Thus, from the point of view of local communities, the only gift within reach of all is the royalty offered by the company. Communities make a quick calculation. At 2500 rupiah per cubic, an hectare of land would procure 500 000 rupiah15 after 6 to 7 years. The same plot of land planted with rubber would after 6 to 7 years provide the same amount but monthly and during at least 20 years. As a consequence, nobody is really interested in Acacia. If the company insists in planting Acacia, the communities will ask for a strong increase of the royalty. A better solution –in the eyes of the communities- would be to organize a MHBM program with rubber instead of Acacia as the main commodity. H. Conclusion: a time bomb Locally the situation is explosive. Many contacts have described it as a time bomb. The latent conflicts are not only between communities and the company but also between villages and among communities themselves. For the time being, everybody is waiting for the distribution of the royalty in 2006. The total amount to be distributed is huge, but considering the large number of people involved everybody’s share might be pathetic. Thus, the sharing out will be determining and should be fixed quickly. Reaching a consensus will not be easy. Local people are not eager to share the manna with outsiders, the share of villages close to MHP is not the same as those of villages further away, claims by squatters are not recognized by traditional communities, etc. Negotiations with MHP for the next round will be difficult as most people are not interested by present conditions of the deal. Finding representatives from local communities will also be difficult. As different villages have different problems and as adat is relatively week, no marga representative will be considered as legitimate by all. There is quite a consensus that each village should be represented by at least two persons: the village head and the head of the BPD. One thing is clear, it’s high time to organize coming negotiations in order to avoid that latent conflicts become violent. LPF could help, the need is evident the opportunity is excellent. I. Persons contacted and interviewed: MHBM coordinators for kecamatan Rambang Dangku

Amirz Thohalim, Ketua kelompok Haji Achmat Tajudin Ir. Trisno Machadi Kardiono

MHP management

Moch. Taviv, MHP Plantation and Development General Manager Aminullah, MHP Community Development Susatyo Utomo, MHP/MHBM Purba, Kepala Unit 3 Gemawang MHP

Local authorities

Yoseph Manjan, Camat Rambang Dangku Kandar Asmanto, Kepala Desa Jemenang

15 For an average 200 m3 per hectare of Acacia mangium.

55

Cik Jenang, Kadus 5, desa Jemenang Aswin YN, Kepala Desa Gemawang Hardi Lekson, Kaur pemerintahan desa Gemawang Usmanto AS, Kadus 1, desa Gemawang Agus Sanam, Ketua Adat desa Gemawang Amindra, Kades Aur Duri Sunardi, LKMD Aur Duri Arneli, Kadus Aur Duri Arman, Ketua BPD Aur Duri Yudi Hariansyah SP, Tokoh Aur Duri Tomi Irawan, Kades Lubuk Raman Rusdianto, Kades Gerinam Zaidin, Tokoh masyarakat Gerinam Hartoyo, Sekdes Subanjeriji Aliojan R, Kades Tebat Agung Matlian CB, Sekdes Tebat Agung Sumarhan, anggota BPD Tebat Agung Saropil Iswar, Kades Kasih Dewa Amat Elpi, Kades Tanjung Menang

Former Marga representatives and customary organizations

Ayib Yadan, ex Sekretaris Pasirah Rambang Niru Ayib Hanan, ex Sekretaris Pasirah Rambang Niru Caram, Tokoh adat (puyang Tanah Putih) Cik Nagus, Ketua adat desa Jemenang

56

2.2.5. Summary of Household Livelihoods Survey. A. Locations and Method

In order to assess the livelihood options and strategies available at household (HH) level in MHP, we carried out a HH survey of communities in Rambang Dangku Sub District, Muara Enim District, South Sumatera. In July-August 2005, 8 villages were visited with 334 HHs made up of 1,418 individuals. The average size of HH is 4.2 persons per HH. Figure 17 illustrates the relative position of the villages to MHP

Figure 17. The sketch of village location relative to MHP We applied random sampling to determine the HH samples to be interviewed. The number of representative HHs in each villages to be surveyed were Subanjeriji (42 HHs), Gemawang (43 HHs), Aurduri (40 HHs), Jemenang (44 HHs), Tanjung Menang (41 HHs), Tebat Agung (41 HHs), Gerinam (40 HHs), and Lubuk Raman (43 HHs). B. Findings B.1. Sources of Incomes

We noticed 37 kinds of village sources of incomes fall under four clusters, which are: • Rubber16 cluster. The HHs’ members:

a. own and manage rubber, b. own rubber which are managed by others, c. are just rubber worker;

• Other farming cluster. The HHs’ members a. own and manage oil palm, b. own oil palm plantations which are managed by others,

16 It means smallholder rubber plantation

8 7

6

5 4

32

1

Prabumulih

M. Enim

Legend:

Road Boundary of Boswesen

(state forest) MHP plantation Capital of Rambang

Dangku Sub District

Village 1. Subanjeriji 2. Gemawang 3. Aurduri 4. Jemenang 5. Tanjung Menang 6. Tebat Agung 7. Gerinam 8. Lubuk Raman

Niru

Basecamp of MHP

57

c. are just oil palm workers, d. are citrus fruit, chicken, cow, buffalo, goat and other-farm.

• MHP cluster. The HHs’ members: a. are MHP-labor, b. are permanent-staff of MHP, c. are short contract-staff of MHP, d. are permanent staff of MHP partners, e. are short contract-staff of MHP partners, f. are car rental (by MHP), g. are car rental (by MHP’s partners), h. are contractors of MHP;

• ff farm cluster. The HHs’ members: a are farm-daily workers and off-farm-daily workers b are permanent staff of other company, c are under short contract with other company, d are retailer, skilled labor, civil servant, retire, other contractor, handicraft

maker, obtaining the money sent by their relatives, grant-donate, honorarium, car rental (by other company), house rental, asset sellers, and other off-farm.

From the survey, we found the number of HHs who:

• own and manage rubber by themselves are 49% of HH respondent, • own-rubber but managed by the others17 are 16% of HH, • are rubber worker18, are 21% of HH, • are farm-daily labor are13% of HH, • are retailer, are 11% of HH.

In other kinds of income sources contribute are 3%-8.0% of HH. Only 7% HH obtain cash income as staff of MHP (permanent staff and short-contracted), 6% HH are MHP's labors, 4% HH are contractor at MHP, and only 1% HH rent car to MHP. 2% HH obtain cash income from staff of MHP partner (permanent staff and sort contract), and only 1% HH obtain rent car from MHP partner.

Some of the HHs has more than one source of income. Figure 18 describes the percentage of HHs who has 1-7 sources of incomes. The large majority has 1 or 2 sources of livelihood and most of them are dependent on rubber plantations.

B2. Income Distribution

HHs annual incomes show a large disparity of income level: the smallest is 1.7 millions rupiahs19, while the largest is 540 millions rupiahs. The median annual income is 14 millions rupiahs (Figure 19).

17 HHs with rubber small plantation but it is managed by the other HH 18 HHs who work for someone else’ rubber small plantation 19 1 Euro is equal to about 12,000 Indonesian rupiah (IDR)

58

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7K

ind

of li

velih

ood

per H

H

% HH

Figure 18. Number of livelihood sources per HH in %

-255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550

0.3 3.9 7.5 11.1

14.7

18.3

21.9

25.4

29.0

32.6

36.2

39.8

43.4

47.0

50.6

54.2

57.8

61.4

65.0

68.6

72.2

75.7

79.3

82.9

86.5

90.1

93.7

97.3

Ann

ual i

ncom

e pe

r hou

seho

ld (m

illio

ns ru

piah

)

% KK

Figure 19. Distribution of annual income per HH20

20 Extreme poverty generally is defined as having income less than USD 1 per day; if we accept this definition the income for a household/year is equal to 1 USD/day X 4.2 (persons/HH) X 365

59

Thirty-three HHs with the lowest income (less than 5.3 millions rupiahs) are farmers who do not have their own rubber farm. They have only one source of income. They work with less than 2 ha of land. They are simple workers, the land belong to someone else. This arrangement is known as pemaroh, which means they share by half-half of the harvesting products with the land owners. Only six HHs have the productive rubber farm. Thirteen HHs act as pemaroh karet, with sharing benefit with the land owners. Ten HHs work as daily labor, one of them works as MHP’s labor. Eight HHs are depending upon the money delivered by their children or relatives. None of this being MHP’s staff. Thirty-three HHs with the highest income (39.7– 538.6 millions rupiahs) are agro-businessmen who own land up to 69 hectares. They are also MHP contractors. Generally these HHs have three sources of incomes, some incomes comes from rubber plantations others from contracts with MHP’s about field operations. Thirty-one HHs own productive rubber small plantation. Eight HHs get payments from MHP; of these eight HHs two of them are MHP’s staff. Nine HHs as traders and the other nine are the MHP’s contractors. The richest five HHs who make money more than 140 millions rupiahs are MHP’s the contractors and at the same time own large rubber farming. We can conclude that the rubber farming is very important both for the poorer and the richer in villages surrounding MHP. B.3. MHP’s Impact on Community’s livelihoods Thirty seven kind of source income are cagegorized into 18 (future 20). The first main source of cash income of community Rambang Dangku is smallholder rubber plantation that contributes 49% of total income. The second main source of income support 77% HHs. The second main of income only support 4% HHs. On the contrary, of the contribution of MHP labor that is only 2.8% fall into 6% HHs. So, we can conclude that the contribution of MHP for community are enjoyed by the small groups. Table 26 shows the mean annual income per HH in the nine villages and the contribution of different source of income to the community livelihood. Even though, the percentage of the MHP’s contribution in Subanjeriji and Gemawang is equal, the incomes per HH is very different in nominal value (18 and 47 millions). The labors benefit more from MHP’s contribution in Subanjeriji than in Gemawang, where the contractors and the car rental companies takes more advantages from MHP. Subanjeriji HHs have income with ‘mean’ close to ‘median’, which is 14 millions per HH per year. This tells us that the income distribution in Subanjeriji is better than the income distribution in Gemawang and the other villages.

days/year X 10,000 rupiahs/USD = 15.3 million rupiahs. In MHP surrounding villages, from this figure we can roughly estimate more than 30% of the HHs are facing extreme poverty.

60

Sources of Revenue

Money delivery0.5%

Retailer3.7%

Oil palm1.2%Livestock

3.2%Other farm

0.5%

Wage labor2.7% Daily labor

2.2%

Grand-donate1.1%

Staff of other company6.6%

Car rental by MHP partner2.3%

Staff MHP of partners0.9%

Car rental by MHP3.0%

Contractors of MHP10.3%

Rubber49.3%

Other off-farm5.0%

Permanent staff MHP3.0%

MHP labor2.8%

short-contract staff MHP1.7%

Figure 20. Contributions of sources of revenue to total income (2005)

Table 26. Annual income and contribution of MHP at village level

Village Mean Income/HH/year % MHP % Rubber % other farm % other off-farm

Subanjeriji 17,892,478 53% 33% 2% 12% Gemawang 46,784,300 53% 41% 2% 5% Aurduri 18,089,471 7% 83% 2% 9% Jemenang 19,696,514 20% 45% 7% 28% Tanjung Menang 19,530,627 8% 76% 4% 12% Tebat Agung 19,400,763 7% 31% 2% 61% Gerinam 11,032,552 0% 28% 2% 70% Lubuk Raman 27,731,379 3% 59% 17% 22% Mean 22,704,709 24% 49% 5% 22% In Subanjeriji, MHP benefits directly and indirectly to the whole community. In Gemawang, the benefit is enjoyable by few businessmen and elites. So that, for the whole community, MHP means more in Subanjeriji than in Gemawang. The most important source of income in Gemawang is rubber farming, and MHP is the second one. Aurduri Village (see Figure 17) is located in close proximity to MHP camp, but it has bad road access. Jemenang Village is located in the middle, and has good road access. It’s position and good access makes better livelihood options for its community, even though rubber farming still becomes the most important income source. TEL – the pulp mill - acts as the main source of income for Gerinam Village community. The community gets less from rubber since most of their rubber plantations are not yet productive and small. Some rubber plantations have been destroyed by fired during the dry period. Their land has been transferred to TEL. Tebang Agung and Lubuk Raman Villages are pseudo-

61

cities. They are located close to a big road, so the villagers have many options for their source of incomes. However, rubber is still the primary sources of incomes. The relative (percentage) contribution of MHP for Subanjeriji and Gemawang are equal and among the biggest one. The second one is to Jemenang, Aurduri, Tanjung Menang and Tebat Agung. While Gerinam and Lubung Raman experience the smallest contribution of MHP. However, if we look at the nominal value (cash), Gemawang experience the biggest MHP contribution, while Subanjeriji experiences the second one (Figure 21).

Distribution of benefit from MHP

Subanjeriji22%

Gemawang57%

Aurduri3%

Jemenang9%

Tanjung Menang4%

Tebat Agung3% Lubuk Raman

2%

Gerinam0%

Figure 21. Distribution of benefit from MHP

2.3. Intervention Stage The intervention stage was done primary at the preliminary level. Field visits, discussing and dialogues with the stakeholders produced common understanding of the requirement of developing an institution for communicating, articulating and negotiating the interests of the stakeholders. We together formulated as a multi-stakeholder forum at district level namely “Forum Sebahu Sejalan”. The South Sumatra LPF project perceived the creation of the forum as the intervention to the needs of better communication and facilitation in the area where the project is working.

62

2.3.1. Multi-Stakeholders Forum In April 2005 we facilitated the establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum during two-day workshop (Annex 7). Forum was named Sebahu Sejalan, which is an acronym of Serasan Membangun Hutan Sekundang Sejahtera Berkelanjutan (in Bahasa Indonesia) or “together we establish forest for sustainable well-being” (in English). The forum is located in Muara Enim District. More than sixty representatives from local communities, customary leaders, MHP’s representatives, village & sub-districts government leaders, government sectoral leaders joined the workshop. The workshop was opened by the head of Muara Enim District (Bupati), and followed by speeches of local community representatives and MHP, which signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to support LPF project (Annex 8).

The forum, which headquarters in District Muara Enim, can have branches in villages as needed. To guide the forum operation, the workshop participants formulated the forum formateur (Annex 9) and constitution (Annex 10) that contents among others vision, mission and function of the forum. Vision of the forum is a platform for various stakeholders to share, discuss and negotiate for achieving equity and well-being of all stakeholders in managing and benefiting from forest (Article 4 of the constitution). Missions of the forum (Article 5) are (a) to manage information transparently and fairly of industrial forest plantation of MHP; (b) to level the partnership among various stakeholders to achieve well-being of all; and (c) To seek, develop and create business opportunities for all stakeholders’ interests and regional development with prioritizing local communities’ roles. Article 7 lists the functions of forum as (a) facilitator of its members and others; (b) problem solver; (c) supporter of social forestry program; (c) capacity builder; and (e) network developer. Forum Sebahu Sejalan, supported by LPF team, facilitated the planning process and intervention towards better partnership. The forum identified problems to be solved. They are categorized into short, medium and long terms. In the short term, the forum has two programs as follows (a) Developing institutions for managing the production fee; and (b) Enhancing community access to employment. MHP was going to distribute production fee i.e. Rp 2,500 per m3 to MHBM members. However, since the MHBM institution is weak MHP faces difficulty to deliver the fee. Each MHBM has its own organization; however, how community members attach to MHBM is not very clear. MHP was afraid if the fee would only be enjoyed by the MHBM elites, who were commonly also village elites. Having a clear rule-in-use on how to distribute production fee was very important to avoid conflict among community members. Job is an important issue. MHBM program has succeeded to change job contracts such weeding, planting and harvesting were previously enjoyed by people in Palembang, the capital of South Sumatra, and even Jakarta. Now the people in Rambang Dangku Sub-District get the job contracts. However, again the contracts are enjoyed by village elites and seldom to have better impact to grass root people. In the medium term, say five years, there are three programs were planned i.e. (a) improvement of MHBM scheme for the next rotation; (b) extending the area extent of MHR and its benefit; and (c) Improving market access for the community products. Even though, the people would acknowledge the current agreement on MHBM, they like to have a new agreement in the rotation of acacia concerning on the amount of fees and job opportunities. The extent of MHR, which we usually recognize as a true partnership, is only five thousand hectares. In the future, the local communities want to have more MHR areas. The last program concerns on having more market access for community’s agricultural products such as eggs, vegetable etc.

63

In the long term, there are three programs were planned i.e. (a) integration with the regional and local development policies; (b) sustainability of the plantation and its product; and (c) land certainty. The local government of Muara Enim Districts developed vision called Gerbang Serasan, which among others aims at developing good governance, self-finance, life quality improvement and culture security. All stakeholders agreed on sustaining forest plantation of MHP. However, it shall go along with equity with local communities as well as clarity and certainty of land right.

2.3.2. MAS RPG development entitled “Livelihood Strategy: A Game Approach to Community-Company Partnership in Forest Plantations”

1Guizol, P. and 2H. Purnomo

1The Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) Bogor, 2Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor, E-Mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Forest plantation; partnership; game theory; local community; scenario.

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Cooperation among various stakeholders in forests management is a widely accepted management strategy. Musi Hutan Persada (MHP), a big forest plantation company located in South Sumatra, Indonesia, has established cooperation with local communities. This cooperation was developed to directly mitigate the conflict over land uses between the company and local communities. However, the interests and demands of the communities and the company are evolving. How to keep living such cooperation over long term is a concern for all stakeholders. We implemented role-playing game approach using a multi-agent system, to observe the resilience of the current cooperation. Different steps were used: a share representation of the cooperation with the stakeholders, a role-playing game and collective assessment of the game. The research examined institution emergences during the role-playing game, and developed scenarios to increase the resilience of the cooperation, which is expected to improve both forest attributes and stakeholders’ welfare.

The game concerns the communities nearby the forest plantation. The game is taken from the case of MHP. Since it uses the implicit reality, it may, however, apply to other communities who live nearby forest plantations. The use case diagram of the game is shown in Figure 1. The figure shows the boundary of the system, which is a community-company forest plantation partnership. Two categories of actors are involved in the partnership, which are communities and company. The role of communities is played by communities who live in the surrounding of the forest plantation managed by MHP. While MHP plays its role. The communities may participate in the partnership by different ways: a) by growing small-scale Acacia mangium (out-grower scheme), b) growing new rubber, c) maintaining old rubber, d) growing oil palm, e) working as labor for MHP, f) growing mix small plantation and g) seeking rent by their own. The company manages its big plantation, participate in the partnership and manage its employees.

64

Figure 1. Use Case Diagram of the Game

This role-playing game gave insights to players that collective investment is necessary to improve their future livelihood. Learning process took place when the game players discussed, played and analyzed the game. A. INTRODUCTION Principle 22 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development highlights the importance of local people and their participation in sustainable development. In forestry, this applies to indigenous people or forest communities living in or nearby forest concession areas. These approaches often involve different ways of empowering local communities by allowing them to be actively involved in planning and decision-making processes. A.1. Context

Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) is an Acacia mangium plantation company located in South Sumatra. MHP is a joint venture company composed of the state own company Inhutani II and private companies: Barito Pacific Timber, Muktilestari Kencana and Marubeni Corporation. MHP runs under the Indonesian Minister of Forestry Decree No. 38/Kpts-II/1996, dated January 29, 1996. The total extent of MHP plantation is 296,400 ha organized in three disjoint forest groups in South Sumatra.

Figure 2. MHP’s Forest Plantation concession Located in South Sumatra Province (inset Indonesia)

Communities surrounding MHP are mostly made up of traditional farmers. Other actors are MHP workers, traders and local government officials. The farmers grow rubber plantation, field rice and Acacia mangium plantation in collaboration with MHP. The local people were

65

used to organize themselves according to the ’Marga’ system. ‘Marga’ generated rules and norms that applied on resources of a specific territory. ‘Marga’ is a traditional institution which developed within the communities from generation to generation. However, after 1975 communities were not bounded by Marga rules anymore. It explains why nowadays collective actions for livelihood are rare.

In 1998, Indonesia faced economic, social and political crisis. The crisis influenced all sectors of development including MHP forest plantation which was established two years earlier. Villages surrounding the plantation were asking MHP for more benefits. Then conflicts between villagers and MHP appeared. As a result, MHP offers two cooperation schemes: ‘Managing Forest with Community’ (MHBM or Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat) and ‘People Forest Management’ (MHR or Mengelola Hutan Rakyat).

MHBM area is currently about 40,000 ha, and the MHR area is about 4,000 ha. MHBM partnership scheme provides fee to communities from the existing plantation of MHP’s concession land. The fee amounts to 2,500 rupiahs21 per cubic meter of log. Although, MHBM is named partnership scheme, it seems to be more a direct aid from MHP to the communities. MHR scheme is closer to partnership spirit with small-holder plantation as out-grower scheme. Individual persons or groups can propose to MHP to plant trees on their own land, regardless the land status. If MHP approves, then MHP will provide all establishment and maintenance costs for small plantations of 2 to 100 hectares. The profit sharing is 60% to MHP, and 40% to the individuals or groups. A.2. Method

The goal of the game is to contribute to improved community livelihood by giving insights to the communities to construct their livelihood strategy. The objectives of the game are (a) to share knowledge with local communities about livelihood strategy; and (b) to help collective decision making on self organization and coordination among the community members to achieve their common goal.

The game modeling follows the steps of (a) representing the MHBM and MHR in game; (b) testing, engaging the stakeholders and refining the model; (c) role-playing game; (d) develop future scenarios; and (e) develop rational collective plan and actions. This process is still continuing and has not been completed yet; the paper only represents the first and a part of second steps only.

This research used ‘companion modeling approach’ with a modeling tool namely CORMAS (Common Pool Resources and Multi-Agent System). CORMAS is a multiagent simulation platform specifically designed for renewable resource management systems. (CIRAD 2001).

Visiting sites and having discussion with the related stakeholders were conducted prior to developing the game. This game was planed to be played at the community level, so that world is viewed from the community perspective. The stakeholders were identified according to the following criteria: proximity to the forest, legal or traditional rights over the forest and dependency on the forest.

The realism of the game is implicit reality. It means the RPG is based on the simplified representation of actors, resources and land management in the case of MHP, which is relevant to the players. The implicit reality in the case of MHP give more advantages compared to explicit reality in terms of (a) not touching the sensitive issues for some

21 1 US$ = 10,000 Indonesian Rupiahs (IDR)

66

community members such as the land boundary between the communities and MHP; (b) flexibility to play. B. FOREST PLANTATIONS AND GAME B.1. Forest Plantations, Pulp Industries and Land Disputes

Since the late 1980’s the Indonesian’s pulp & paper have expanded very rapidly. Expansion was temporarily held in 1997 due to the economic crisis. However, by 2000 several pulp mill projects were reinstated and completed. Riau Andalan Pulp & Paper (RAPP) completed their expansion in 2001, while the mill Tanjung Enim Lestari (TEL) that MHP is fully supplying with pulp wood from plantation, was specially made in 2000.

Disputes over lands between local and customary communities and forest companies during Soeharto era (New Order regime, 1966-1998) were very much restricted. Prior 1998, the local army and government could control by force the disputes. Soeharto’s resignation in May 1998 was the beginning of the customary community movement to demand the rerun of their customary rights including communal land rights. The conflicts between the local communities and the companies happened with (1) the land appropriation process; (2) environmental impacts; and (3) recruitment of employees (Sakai 2002). B.2. Multiagent Simulation and Game Forestry planners should be able to assess the very long term impacts of their decisions, such as the establishment of plantations or cooperation among various stakeholders. Some major impacts might occur beyond the normal periods of monitoring. Simulation is one way to address this question, and 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 might envision what the future situation might be. Multiagent simulation (MAS) is a promising way to examine natural resource and environmental management issues (Bousquet et al. 1999). Cooperation among agents can only naturally occur when an individual agent cannot pursue its goal on its own. They communicate among themselves to try to seek cooperation to achieve a shared goal (Ossowski 1999, Weiss 1999). Agents may have different economical, social or political interests in establishing cooperation. Cooperation is a dynamic concept; it means once it is established it is just for a limited time. Cooperation will evolve over time. Cooperation may or may not survive in facing the complexity and evolving world. Axelrod and Cohen (1999) revealed the need to have adaptive capacities for each stakeholder involve in the dynamic of the system.

The world complexity is increasing in parallel with information and communication technology revolution. Most forest stakeholders have better access to information. They view themselves and the others with more variables than before. With better information they may challenge the existing cooperation and institution they set before to improve them. Cooperation should be adaptive to changes but needs also to have some degree of resilience to be effective in a dynamic world. Game is useful approach to examine this cooperation.

In a general term, a game is an action that triggers a reaction and then this reaction triggers another action. In a specific meaning Huizinga (1951 in Commod 2004) defined a game as (a) a free activity; (b) having imaginative components; (c) without materials that directly involve with its players; (d) bounded by space and time; (e) triggering group discussion; and (d) outside the normal life. Behind a game is a game theory, which is a theory to explain how

67

rational individuals make a decision when they are mutually interdependent. The basic assumptions of the players in the theory are individualism, rationality and interdependency (Romp 1997). Role-playing Game (RPG) is a game that is specifically designed for the interaction between players based on the roles they play. Through RPG we can observe the way roles are played and the impacts of the played game on players and environment. During the game, each role player is allowed to do collective action, to contribute to create new institutions or rules among the players or to achieve common goals. When the game is over, each player then can analyze the lesson learnt from the game and compare it to the real world. The realism of the game includes (a) Explicit reality: RPG represents the real situation of actors and their resources; (b) Implicit reality: RPG represents the simplified situation of actors and their resources; (c) Virtual world: RPG is based on an issue, which is not necessary related to specific actor or resource (Commod 2004). C. Game Development

We identified two typed of stakeholders in the game, which are (a) Communities with land and without land and (b) MHP that own a concession land planted with Acacia mangium. At this stage we focused more on the roles of the communities in the partnership rather than MHP. C.1. Spatial Setting of the Playing Field

Figure 3 describes the spatial setting of the game. The landscape comprises of 25 cells made of 5x5 cells. Each cell represents the area of 10 ha. There are two land categories i.e. company forest plantation of Acacia and community’s land of small and old rubber plantations, which are unproductive.

Figure 3. Game Spatial Setting with Community’s land (bottom) MHP’s Forest Concession Land (top) C.2. Players and Their Decision Spaces

There are two categories of players, which are villagers with or without land. They are all located in the community land. The game is played with six persons of land owners (LO) and four persons of non land owners (NLO). The proportional numbers of the LO and NLO aims at balancing their power and reflect the reality in the field.

68

LO may manage their land, participate in MHBM and work for the company or become company’s labors. These three options are not mutually exclusive. It means they may choose more than one option at the same time. The first option, managing the land, comprises three sub-options i.e. keeping the old rubber trees, selling the land or converting into Acacia mangium, oil palm, and new variety of rubber or mixed plantation.

For NLO, the options are not as many as LO. NLO may participate in MHBM or be company’s labor. Both LO and NLO may also become free riders or rent seeker in this game, or in the local dialect it is called ‘preman’. This man or woman take or steal fee from other community works. They do nothing, except brokering the relation between community and company in a negative way. Table 1 shows investment (I) and return (R) from managing the land for 20 years.

Table 1. Investment, return (I,R) in millions Indonesian Rupiahs

MHBM MHR Old Rubber

New Rubber Oil Palm Mix

plantation Year I R I R I R I R I R I R

1 0 0 2 0 0 0 60 0 90 0 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 90 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 90 2 0 8 0 5 0 80 0 0 0 60 0 90 2 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 60 0 90 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 90 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 90 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 72 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 72 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 72 2 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 72 2 0 16 0 5 0 80 0 0 0 48 0 72 2 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 72 2 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 54 2 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 54 2 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 54 20 600

C.3. Class Diagram

Figure 4 shows the static class diagram of the model. It comprises classes of communities, which are aggregation of households, and a company that manages the big Acacia plantation and other land uses such as protection forest. The households are associated with several land uses. The households are associated also with jobs generated by the company and the rubber plantations as well as rent seeking behavior.

69

Figure 4. The Class Diagram of the Game C.4. Playing the Game In the initial stage each player has 10 million rupiahs as their first liquid resources. As soon as the game is starting the LO has a cell to decide. NLO has to decide whether they participate or not to MHBM. Then LO has to choose what kind of land management option is going to take. As describe in Table 1, each option has consequences in terms of investment and return. The game is designed to be played following the sequence A, B and C. The general challenge for the players is to maximize their total returns in twenty time steps. The Scenario A is designed with no communication among the players. In scenario B, players are divided into two groups (NLO and LO) each group is organized into communication and collaboration sub-groups. With scenario C, all players are in the same group with communication and perhaps collaboration. The company can afford that only four players participate to MHR scheme during the game. If there are more than 4 players, the company will take randomly those involved into MHR. Landscape diversity is calculated by the cell average diversity. The cell diversity is calculated from the number of neighbors with same land uses. The cell diversity determines the fire likelihood in the area. If a cell has low cell diversity and it is planted with Acacia then the probability of fire is high. The fire spread out through the Acacia plantation with edge connected. During and after the game, the game facilitator observes the return to the players, land diversity and the emerging institutions in A, B and C game scenarios. The facilitator and the players can discuss the institutions that emerge if any during the game.

70

D. Results and Discussion

At this stage the game was tried out by ten voluntary students of Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor. To simplify the analysis, the players considers only management of land as the solely source of income. We also did not involve the cost of money e.g. commercial (bank) and non-commercial rates.

Figure 5. Scenario A: four players participate in MHBM scheme and the other four players participate in MHR scheme D.1. Scenario A: No communication among the game players

The players who take roles as communities do not have enough capital to invest into their land. As a result six players tried to grow Acacia in MHR scheme, but only four were accepted by MHP (Figure 5). Four players located in the concession land follow MHBM scheme. The total net revenue for 20 year amounts to less than 800 million rupiahs for ten players (see Figure 6 Scenario A). It means each player got per year 4 million rupiahs or US$ 400.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Year

Net

reve

nue

(mill

ions

ru

piah

s)

Scenario AScenario BScenario CScenario C1

Figure 6. The Total Net Revenue Collected by 10 player during 20 years (in million Rupiahs) for Scenario A, B, C and C1 D.2. Scenario B: Communication and collaboration within each group of players

In Scenario B, the players landless or with land could communicate and collaborate within their groups. After discussion, they came up with two kinds of strategies. The communities

71

without land stay in the MHBM scheme. The communities with land agree to invest all their money into rubber plantation (Figure 7 cell 23). Establishing rubber plantation needs 60 million rupiahs investment, and it could be obtained through pooling money from the six players. At the end, after 20 years their net return was better than what they would get by investing in MHR (Figure 6 Scenario B).

Figure 7. Scenario B: six players with land pool their money to invest in rubber plantation D.3. Scenario C: Communication and collaboration among all players

In this scenario, all ten players, could communicate and collaborate. They discussed the strategy to play. Finally, they came up with strategy to collect the 10 players’ money to invest into oil palm, which need 90 millions rupiahs. After 20 year they obtained about 1,200 millions rupiahs (Figure 6 Scenario C).

Figure 8. Scenario C; nine players pool their money to invest in oil palm plantation

The game was iterated twice. In the second replication the players had different ideas on the Scenario C, but not on A and B. Instead of investing all their money in oil palm, they decided to have two kinds of investments i.e. rubber plantation and MHR (Figure 9). As a result, after 20 year, their net revenue was higher than in previous scenarios (Figure 6 Scenario C1).

72

Figure 9. Scenario C1: six players invest in rubber plantation, and the other four players invest in MHR

The land diversity of scenario A, B, C and C1 was respectively 40.8, 27.9, 27.6 and 34.9. We assumed that land outside MHP forest is homogeneous, and that even though planted with Acacia (Scenario A) it would increase the diversity. However, the probability of not getting fire during the period of community investment is higher on Scenario B and C. If fire would burn some MHP’s plantation plots then it would also burn all the MHR plots connected by edge to fire. During the game fire did not happen in the area.

The game shows that the communication and collaboration among the players, which represented the community members, could produce more options for the communities. They can share their resources to improve their livelihood. Through this collaboration, a collective investment can emerge. It is easy to see that rubber plantation is more profitable than MHR scheme; however, currently people in South Sumatra can not renew their small rubber plantation due to a lack of capital of 6 millions per hectare. If they can anticipate the net return of collective investment they may realize that they have actually some possibility to renew their old and small rubber plantation.

If this collective action widen to community without land who are currently working for MHBM scheme, their net return will be even higher. In the first game iteration they collaboratively planted oil palm, but in the second game iteration they modified into planting rubber and participating in MHR scheme in parallel. So we can see the learning process through playing the game. We cannot tell that if they collaborate then automatically an optimum solution will emerge. But through time the optimum solution will be approached. Outcomes of the game may suggest to the community members some ideas of institutional arrangement to facilitate maintain and enforce collective actions. E. Conclusion and future works This work is in progress and needs to be revised in the future. However, it shows a method which allowed an exploration of community-company partnerships over a long period of time by the stakeholders themselves. We expect that this method will contribute to make these partnerships more transparent for all stakeholders and by the way more viable. From this work we can already conclude (a) CORMAS is a useful platform to develop this simple spatial explicit role-playing game (RPG); (b) Collaboration and communication can facilitate future community livelihood improvement , (c) Best solutions need to be learned through time. (d) This RPG can help the players to anticipate potential future outcomes of their own decisions. The future steps of this work are the following activities: (a) To facilitate the company to anticipate possible issues as for example the situation in which community

73

members would not be interested to grow Acacia under MHR scheme,; (b) To play the game with the real stakeholders i.e. the communities and MHP. F. References Axelrod, R. and M.D. Cohen (1999), Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. The Free Press, 184 pp., New York. Botha, P. (2002), Sustainable Wood Supply Is Possible within Indonesia’s Pulp & Paper Industry. Seawood Consulting Engineers. Unpublished Report. Bousquet, F.O. C. Barreteau, C. Le Page and C. Mullon (1999), An environmental modeling approach: the use of multi-agent simulations, In Advances in Environmental and Ecological Modelling, (Edited by F. Blasco and A Weill), Elsevier, Paris. CIRAD (2001), Natural resources and multi-agent simulations. http://cormas.cirad.fr/en/outil/outil.htm, Last Accessed February 25, 2002. Commod (2004), Companion Modelling and Resilience of Ecosystems in Southeast Asia: Principles and Tools. Chulalongkorn University, Thailand: Companion Modelling Training Materials, 13-22 December 2004. Ossowski, S. (1999), Co-ordination in Artificial Agent Societies: Social Structures and its Implications for Autonomous Problem Solving Agents, Springer, Berlin. Romp, G. (1997), Game Theory: Introduction and Applications, Oxford University Press, 284 pp., Oxford. Sakai, M. (2002), Land Resolution in the political reform at the time of decentralization in Indonesia, Journal of Antropologi Indonesia. Special Volume: 15-32 Weiss, G. (Ed.) (1999), Multi Agent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

74

ANNEXES Annex 1. Logical framework matrix (logframe) Project Description Indicators Source of Verification Assumptions Overall objective: To contribute to improved livelihood of communities and sustainable forest plantation in South Sumatra

1. Better livelihood opportunities and/or income for the communities

2. All stakeholders feel secure about access to resources

3. Nutritional status is adequate among local populations

1. Comparison of the baseline study and the project monitoring in year 2 and 3, conducted by the LPF South Sumatra team

2. Selective C&I monitoring

Purpose: Improved (fair) partnersip between MHP and the communities

1. Mechanisms for sharing benefits are seen as fair by the local communities and company

2. Examples of better agreement exist

Selective C&I monitoring

Market for Acacia mangium based products is promising. Initial partnership need improvements, issue of fairness

Results: 1. Diagnostic of the partnership

initial conditions 2. Improved capacities of

stakeholders to (re)negotiate and come up with agreements.

3. Effective forums for stakeholders to communicate and share views at village and district levels.

4. Guidelines and tools to facilitate collective action for better partnership

1. Benefice sharing, understanding of the partnership, good information about the partnership

2. Effective mechanisms exist for two-way communication related to forest management among stakeholders

3. Level of conflict is acceptable to stakeholders

4. Opportunities exist for local and forest-dependent people to receive employment and training from forest companies

Baseline survey Selective C&I monitoring

1. Public awareness advocacy and forest certification scheme maintain pressure to all stakeholders for the improvement of community livelihood

2. Indonesian national policy is conducive for betterment of community livelihood

75

Project Description Indicators Source of Verification Assumptions Activities: 1. Collecting and analyzing

secondary data (provide the state of the art)

2. Conduct baseline survey of forest resources, household and institution.

3. Capacity building 4. Model and RPG development

for envisioning the partnership

5. Facilitate village member to have institutions to discuss and solve their problems

6. Facilitate multistakeholder forum at district level for the improved partnership

7. Participatory monitoring/project monitoring

Sufficient supports from the company and local government

MHP logframe in the LPF logframe

Indicator achievement status (scale 1-5)

Activities done/on going

Activities need to be done and by who

Source of verification

Remarks

1. Key actors demand for project intervention identified or confirmed on 6 contrasted strategic locations

5 (done) - visits MHP, local government and villages - Workshop in Subanjeriji camp - FGD in Muara Enim as a part of the forum establishment - Discussions

• Trip reports • Workshop

reports

2. Role of natural resources in relation to peoples income understood and acted upon by researchers, company and or local government

2 - Livelihood survey - Socio-economic survey - MHBM/MHR agreement analysis - Analysis of institutions including MHBM/MHR, villages and marga

- Communicating/sharing the survey results to the other stakeholders through monthly forum meetings - Develop digital maps of road, plantation - Financial analysis for the partnerships (including cost of transportation).

• Trip reports • Survey

report

Mostly only by researchers; need to communicate with the others

3. Community representative makes more proposals about environmental livelihoods

0 - Make people articulate their interests and formalize their proposals

-

76

4. Community acts less as individuals and forms and nominates representatives

1 - Establishment of board and protocol of forum Sebahu Sejalan.

- to make forum effective at all levels

• Workshop reports

• Protocol and organization structure of the forum

5. Community acts on list of environmental priorities

0 -

6. A current or potential partner indicates forward contract for new environmental product

0 - to improve the partnerships - CDM Financial analysis in space (far away from the mill, high transportation cost). - Multipurpose trees (Acacia for timber)

-

7. Scientists able to communicate and influence development actors by use of simple simulation approaches

2 Develop MAS RPG - Implement RPG in the field - Communication with the other actors - Communication of financial aspects

• Annual report

• MODSIM 05 CD and http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim05/

8. Institutions publish or communicate more on environmental stewardship approaches and methods.

1 - Internalize MHP experiences in student lecturing in UGM (common property, land use conflicts) and IPB (modeling and new type of forest management)

- Publications (including IASCP 2006) - MODSIM 2005 - Journal articles - Newspapers - Conferences (Asian-EU Env. Forum, forest industry restructuring etc.)

- Lecture and presentation materials

77

Annex 2. Activity Table

Date Activity type

Activity Method used Team involved Main results Report status

19 Sept 2004

Initialization Consultation meeting

Presentation and discussion

Hardjono Arisman (MHP key person), Philippe Guizol (LPF), Herry Purnomo

Shared understanding of the problems from different angle Preliminary agreement of the collaboration

The meeting report is available

23-26 November 2004

Initialization Coordination Presentation and discussion

Philippe Guizol, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana

Certainty that we are going to have MHP as one of LPF site

The travel report is available

24 Feb 2005

Initialization Consultation meeting

Discussion Philippe Guizol, Herry Purnomo, Patrice Levang, Edo Sitorus

Shared understanding of LPF framework and livelihood survey Livelihood survey rough schedule

The meeting report is available

4-5 March 2005

Initialization Research coordination

Presentation and discussion

Herry Purnomo, San Afri Awang and Wahyu Wardhana

Improvement of research proposal Agreement on purpose and schedule for MHP visit (21-25 March) Wahyu to transate the research proposal to Bahasa Indonesia UGM to send letter to Bupati Muara Enim and MHP

Improvement of research proposal is available

21-24 March 2005

Initialization Consultation meeting with the MHP stakeholders at Muara Enim for initiating multi-stakeholder forum

Herry Purnomo, San Afri Awang and Wahyu Wardhana

Muara Enim, South Sumatra

Agreement and suggestions from the main stakeholders to have the forum

The report is available

11-14 April 2005

Intervention Establishment of multi-stakeholder forum

Bilateral dialogs and district workshop

Herry Purnomo, San Afri Awang and Wahyu Wardhana

Multi-stakeholder forum at District level namely “Sebahu Sejalan” established

The report is available

7-13 May 2005

Research coordination, Manila and Palawan

Workshops LPF team and steering committee

LPF coordination meeting

11-15 July 2005

Intervention Facilitating Multi-stakeholder Forum “Sebahu Sejalan” in Muara Enim

Meetings and discussion

Dr. San Afri Awang, Dr. Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana MSc. and two research assistants

Establishment of forum constitution, organization, work plan and budgeting. TOR and budget for field coordinator are formulated

The report is available

15-25 July 2005

Baseline Survey on socio-politics

Survey and dialogs Dr. San Afri Awang and two research assistants

Socio-politic condition on Rambang Dangku sub district communities

The report is available

July – August 2005

Baseline Livelihood survey

Dialogs and Survey Dr. Patrice Levang, Edo Sitorus and Research assistants

Profile of community livelihood, MHP contribution and community aspiration are available.

The report is available

August -Sept 2005

Intervention (preparation)

MAS RPG development

System analysis, programming and preliminary testing

Philippe Guizol and Herry Purnomo

Paper and model entitled “Playing the game: community-company partnerships in forest plantation” developed

Paper and model are available and ready to be presented during MODSIM international conference in Melbourne December 2005

78

Annex 3. Summary of Discussion between PT Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) and Levelling the Playing Field (LPF) Project Date and Venue: Saturday, 19 September 2004, DG Room, CIFOR Bogor Participants: Hardjono Arisman (MHP), Philippe Guizol (LPF), Herry Purnomo (LPF) Agenda: Possibilities to conduct LPF research at MHP South Sumatra A. Introduction Meeting was aimed at introducing LPF project to a key MHP’s person and finding possibilities to collaborate with MHP to conduct research in its area. MHP is a Acacia mangium plantation concession amounting to 296,400 Ha, which consists of Mertapura, Subanjeriji and Benakat forest groups in South Sumatra. MHP formally is run under a decree of Ministry of Forestry No. 038/Kpts-II/96 dated 19 January 1996. MHP is a joint venture between PT Enim Musi Lestari (subsidiary of Barito Pacific Group) and PT. Inhutani V (a state owned company). MHP develops initiatives of MHBM (collaborative management at MHP concession) and MHR (collaborative management at community’s land) schemes to promote partnerships between MHP and local communities. B. Discussion Results B1. LPF Project and General Issues

1. Philippe Guizol (PG) gave a short power point presentation of LPF Project. 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 a means with which to manage the forest together. The project is is/will be located in three countries and six sites. MHP is proposed as one site of LPF project by our partner in Indonesia, which is UGM University Gadjah Mada (Dr. Sofyan P. Warsito and Sanafri Awang). Hardjono Arisman (HA) commented that it is a very interesting project. He explained currently MHP is working on MHBM and MHR that involve local communities, local government, non-government organizations (NGOs) and the company. LPF project can research how the performance of this partnership during and after one cutting cycle (about eight years). Are they will be working well or not? MHP itself now is testing the partnership in thinning that yields 5-10 m3/Ha. Is profit sharing working well in thinning? HA mentioned that if we harvest all trees at once it will probably shock local communities.

2. We then discussed the related institutions to support MHBM and MHR. ‘Marga’ is a

traditional institution lives in the communities from generation to generation. However, HA mentioned that after 1975 the system is not tied the communities anymore. The norms and rules of Marga do not bind the communities except for ceremonial purposes (e.g. marriage). One Marga comprises several villages (desa). Many villages want to be independent form Marga. Local communities participate in MHBM and MHR through working groups (Unit Kelompok Kerja). A working group might be formed by sub-village (dusun) or group of people. The problems of local elites frequently exist in Marga system as well as every group. The elites use the Marga for their own business that driven by financial motivation. The money to run the organization is owned by individual not by group. It creates power imbalance in decision-making processes. Marga look likes a small kingdom. PG revealed that Marga is a living institution that evolve from time to time to respond the environment situation.

79

3. Currently an NGO namely 'Yayasan Kaffah' is working in MHBM and MHR areas. The NGO is led by Prof. Fachrurrozy Syarkowi from Sriwijaya University. He is specialist at rural economic development (HA). We should discuss with him for further elaboration of the MHP’s site (PG)

4. The questions to MHBM and MHR are how to share the costs and benefits of them (HA)

and how to settle the land status to give more certainty for long term collaboration (PG). MHBM area now is amounting to 80,000 Ha; meanwhile MHR area is amounting to 5,000 Ha. MHBM partnership was set up when it was already planted to avoid conflicts. While, the MHR was set up when there was no plantation yet. It is based on the proposal of individual person to MHP to plant tress in his/her land, regardless the land status. It can be seen as an extension of MHP plantation, since MHR area located outside MHP’s concession area.

5. PG questioned if MHP would like supply more pulp wood to PT Tanjung Enim Lestari

(TEL) or TEL increases the capacity, what then MHP would like to do. Where is the land for this purpose? HA explained that it can be achieved through an intensification of the MHP’s concession. He believes there still some MHP’s concession areas which are not planted.

6. HA mentioned that the partnership does not only aim at producing pulp wood but also

timber. That is why they are now observing the other alternatives such as growing rubber and palm oil. PG pointed out that if the partnership works only for one cycle it will cost for every body (the communities and the company).

7. PG was also concerned about the landscape management of the tree plantation regarding

fire. Practically the question is not so much who set the fire as it will happen anyway but the question should be why the fire can spread easily across the landscape. There is a landscape architecture that is sensitive or insensitive to the spread up of fire.

8. PG mentioned that there are several tools that can be used during the project execution

e.g. CORMAS and PACT. Herry Purnomo (HP) would plan to explain the use of CORMAS in plantation in Sabah.

B.2. CORMAS Modelling 1. HP made a short presentation entitles ‘Modeling Multi-Stakeholder Forest Management:

The case of forest plantations in Sabah’. He explained the use a modelling tool namely CORMAS (Common Pool Resources and Multi-agent System) to model stakeholders’ communication, interaction and actions. Even though, the case was taken from Sabah, Malaysia it is highly relevant to other plantations. SAFODA (Sabah Forestry Development Agency, a state owned company), was created in 1976. Its mission is to develop highly productive forest plantations and the improvement the socio-economic status. Currently SAFODA manages about 100,000 ha located mostly in Bengkoka, Marudu and Keningau districts. The planted species are Acacia mangium. The smallholder plantations amount to 4,900 ha supervised by SAFODA and SFI (Sabah Forest Industries). The Sabah plantation faced the problem of low price of pulp wood plantation as well as the sustainable plantation.

2. The presentation illustrated the potential use of CORMAS in modelling that involves

complex interactions among various stakeholders/actors and biophysical systems. CORMAS can be used to test the hypotheses, envision scenarios for the future, and act as learning and negotiation tools. CORMAS is able to articulate the ways the stakeholders believe, reason, act and learn. In Sabah case, CORMAS was used to test the impact of

80

sawmill establishment to the incomes of smallholders, sustainability of plantation and the landscape. PG added that CORMAS can also be used to observe how a fire spread out thorough the landscape.

3. HA said that it is an interesting tool that can be used in MHP research. MHP has a digital

GIS that can be used for it. There is discussion whether the use of real data will help or not, considering that some people are reluctant to discuss anymore if it is about their lands and belongings. However, to convince people about something using a real data will help much. PG underlined that there is possibility for MHP’s persons to participate to CORMAS trainings. MHP’s persons should be part of the modelling processes.

C. Follows Up 1. The LPF project and MHP will figure out whether a MOU is needed for the research. 2. The LPF project will draft the research proposal at MHP site. 3. The LPF project will make a visit to MHP.

81

Annex 4. Trip Report to PT. Musi Hutan Persada, South Sumatra, Indonesia (23-26 November 2004) I. Researchers: Dr. Philippe Guizol, Dr. Herry Purnomo, Ir. Wahyu Wardhana, MSc II. Visit Purpose:

To identifiy the plantation stakeholders To understand past and relevant research and development To identify issues for further research

III. Agenda

Date Time Agenda 23 Nov (Day 1)

12.30 Arrived at Palembang airport

12.30 – 15.00 Trip to MHP Office in Niru 15.00- 16.30

Arrived at MHP Office in Niru Discussion about the schedule and presentation of the

LPF project to MHP staff 16.30 – 18.00 Trip to Camp Suban Jeriji 18.00 – 19.30

Arrived at camp Suban Jeriji Personal activities

19.30 – 20.30 Dinner with MHP staff 24 Nov (Day 2)

08.30 – 11. 00

Meeting with MHBM participant Discussion about MHBM include the Marga system

11.00 – 12.00 Lunch and pray 12.20 – 13..30

Trip to MHR participant Pak Cikdan and look the madu (honey)

13.30 – 14.30

Arrive at Pak Cikdan Meeting and Discussion with Pak Cikdan, represented by

son’s of Pak Cikdan 14.30 – 16.00 Trip to Lubuk Guci 15.30 – 16.00

visit on the way to Lubu Guci the MHR area belongs to

Suhaimi Discussion with Suhaimi

16.00 – 17.00

Discussion with head of unit VI of Lubuk Guci in area of Agrotrisula demplot, the meeting is also with one of the head of MHBM and MHR in unit VI

17.00 – 20.00 Trip back to Camp Suban Jeriji 25 Nov (Day 3)

08.00 – 08.30 Wrapping up and Trip to Subanjeriji village

08.30 – 10.00 Meeting and discussion with head of Subanjeriji and members of MHBM of Subanjeriji

10.00 – 10.30 Trip to Acacia research sawmill centre 10.30 – 11.00

Visit and looking around, have a small discussion with people in sawmill

11.00 – 12.00 Trip to Gemawang village 12.00 – 13.00

Meeting and discussion with head of Gemawang village, members of MHBM and MHR

13.00 – 14.00 Trip to MHP office in Niru

82

14.00 – 15.00

Tour visit to pulp mill factory

15.00 – 17.30 Trip to Palembang

17.30 – 19.30

Visit to Pak Fachrurozi house and meeting with Prof. Fachrurrozi

26 Nov (Day 4)

09.30 – 10.30

Meeting and visit Bappeda to discuss about Bappeda views about regional development

10.30 – 11.00 Visit BPS library to find the literatur about regional statistics 11.00 – 13.30 Visit and meeting with SSFMP 13.30 – 14.30

Back to Hotel and checkout

14.30 – 16.00

Discuss the proposal and general working plan with CD staff of MHP

16.30 – 17.30

Find the books about hukum, adat or marga system in bookstore

Go to airport 19.00 Back to Jakarta

Note:

MHBM is acronym of Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (Managing Forest with Community)

MHR is acronym of Mengelola Hutan Rakyat (People Forest Management)1 IV. Minutes on 24 Nov (Day 2) 4.1. Meeting with MHBM partnership

Location: Camp Suban Jeriji MHP 24 November 2004 Moderator : Dr. Ir. Untung Iskandar (MHP research advisor) Notulen : Wahyu Wardhana The meeting was started with the introduction by Untung Iskandar and continued by

the explanation of LPF project by Phillippe Guizol and translated by Herry Purnomo. Other participants

No. Name Organization 1 Alip Selam Head of Merbau I 2 Amir Thohalim Coordinator of MHBM Kecamatan Rambang 3 Hasan Abidin Head of MHBM Desa Jumenang 4 Hepi Eryon Secretary of MHBM Desa Jumenang 5 Erwin Dunovan MHP 6 Susatyo Utomo R&D MHP 7 Usman Gani Head of MHBM Aur Duri 8 Sabirin -

83

Summary of the meeting LPF project (explained by Phillipe Guizol) The LPF project is a project funded by EU which is carried out by CIRAD/CIFOR with partnership of three universities in ASIA (Indonesia – UGM, Philippines – UPLB, and Malaysia – UPM) each of country has their own specific issue, but the similarity is about the co-management and partnership. The project aims to learn about the partnership and co management of natural resources and develop the methodology to understand the processes using some tools (CORMAS, PACT etc.) and how it will be in long term.

Comment from MHP staff We open positively for the LPF project because we hope it will improve our partnership system with community. We understand that the MHBM and MHR system are needs to be improve so we open ourself for critics and suggestion for improvements especially for the long term views.

Comment from Community Community open and hope that they will get ability and skill especially how to negotiate how to deal with the issue long term, critical situation of second rotation and how it will be after second rotation. Community worried about the implementation is it going to be continued after second rotation or not

Comment form Pak Amir (ex head of Marga system) Marga system is a kind of community (like big family) which is lead by the head of marga who are believed and trusted by the community and it is by offspring. This community have an adat land which is every year has to give a kind of donation (sedekah) as a reflection of syukur of god bless. The adat land can be prove by the leader or community in the field.

Conclussion The research with MHP, we are now still in in the pre-eleiminary and we are going to formulate the proposal with MHP together so we hope that we can more in focus of what is the issue in MHP.

4.1. Meeting with Pak Cikdan family, one example of MHR (ordinary people)

The Cikdan familiy has 23 ha of MHR start in 2002. Pak Cikdan have 7 children and the total of their land is 150 ha of their claimed land because their land is within state forest (inside MHP as enclave). Cikdan family is also has a honey bussines with MHP. MHP buy Rp 10000/kg of honey and sell it again to the market. MHP contribution is from seedling weeding up to maintenance. And the Cikdan family will get from the weeding every 3 months Rp. 1 juta rupiah. Usually Cikdan familiy hire the people from outside to handle the maintenance activities like weeding, thinning etc. MHP also responsible to make a fire break which is part of their activities to prevent the fire. The Cikdan family critics the MHP operasional should be more pro active to respon the complaint and request from MHR problem.

4.3. Meeting with Pak Suhaimi, one example of MHR (rich people); Location Desa Talang

ubi Selatan Lubuk Guci Unit VI.

84

The land is 43,91 ha and it plant in 2002. Pak Suhaimi is a rich people who owned many land and it is one of the example in the unit VI where in average the people in this area are rich people and they hire the outside people to do the MHR activities and we can say Pak Suhaimi like a middle man or contractor. The motif to follow the MHR schemes is to get benefit revenue from MHR activities.

4.4. Meeting with head of Unit VI Lubuk Guci and head of MHBR Ds Talang Ubi Location

Demplot AgroTrisula, Lubuk Guci

There is also a dam built for water conservation and Elephant conservation area which is there are 2 elephants. MHBR Ds Talang Ubi is about 4000 ha, some people are interested with agrotrisula but some problems are mainly in the marketing the products but in Ds Talang Ubi is not a problem because it is closed to the market (locally). Another problem of Agrotrisula is that because the lack of capital and the effort to self trial because in general the people around MHP is not an agrculturis.

V. Minutes on 25 Nov (Day 3) 5.1. To Meet Pak Rachmat (Division Head of MHP Research and Development) to ask for

the growth and yield data. However, the data was not in his office anymore. He suggested to go to Planning Division.

5.2. To meet Pak Marpaung (the Manager of Planning Division) to ask for growth data and

discussing the planning process. Pak Marpaun in brief explained the planning process. However, again the growth data was not in his office, the data was in Camp Niru.

5.3. To meet Pak Bastian (the Head of Transport, Logging and Wood Measuring Division),

to thank and say good bye. 5.4. To visit Village Head of Subanjeriji i.e. Pak Bambang Suryadi. He was accompanied by

Pak Bataharusin, Dusun Head of Sinar Harapan Kec. Rambang Pak Manyadi, Dusun Dua Head, Subanjeriji, where the MHP office is located. Pak Tonsa, community leader, the son of Toming Tribe Leader. This tribe

included the isolated small communities.

Before MHP coming, the Marga sistem existed in Rembang Niru and Malatang. Rembang Niru comprised eight villages e.g. Subanjeriji, Jumenang and Gumawang Villages. In the past, big groups formed a Marga. In 1974, Marga system had been eliminated. Its asset was given to Desa that had its own regulations (AD/ART) under a sub-district (kecamatan). The elimination was implemeted in 1982 Law. In 2000 BPRD (Badan Perwakilan Rakyat Desa; Village Community Representation Body) was formed. It acts as ‘small marga’. MHP came into the area in 1990. Before its coming, there had been reforestation/regreening program in 1976-1989. To date, we can see only few reforestation areas with trees of Pine, Eucaliptus and Acacia auriculiformis. These trees belong to the Ministry of Forestry Office, so that none can take them. The communities perceive the coming of MHP in positive and negative ways. The positive impacts involve:

85

o The majority of communities have jobs or income certainty. They don’t go to be overseas workers (TKI, Tenaga Kerja Indonesia) or doing urbanization. About 80 % of communities (men and women) working at MHP as labours. The others are farmers, MHP organic staff and oil company workers.

o Infrastructure and transportation are available

The negative impacts and situation involve: o The communities have not been yet prosper. If a community member is sick

(e.g. cancer), she/he has to sell her/his rubber plants. o They work today for tomorrow only. No other incomes. o In the past, all plantation are healthy. To date, the rivers have no water.

Acacia mangium consume a lot of water. o Since the era of New Order, Reform, Gotong Royong and Indonesia Bersatu,

Desa Subanjeriji has been producing devisa for the state and other villages. However, there is no electricity until now.

PLN (the state own electricity company) operates until Gemawang, but this is only 16 km from Subanjeriji

PLN may operate in Subanjeriji if MHP also comsume it. But MHP does not want PLN electricity because its bad quality in terms of frequently suppy is interupted.

o The governor of South Sumatra mention that MHP should improve the community welfare.

o Fifty percent of students at preliminary school (SDN) coming from MHP staff family. But MHP does not want to make their own preliminary school. Currently, there are 500 students located in 6 rooms, from class 1 to 6. There are four teachers including the school head. All the terachers are state civil servants (PNS). MHP has built junior high school namely SMP Wanalestari.

The religions of the communities are Islam, Christian and Kong Hu Cu. There are about 700 household in the village of Subanjeriji. The village area is registered as a forest state. The total area of Subanjeriji is 14,000 Ha.

Land use Area (ha) MHBM 6500 MHR 500 Others: 7000 Inhutani area 600 Oil palm 50-10022 Non productive land 2000 Rubber plantation Kampung river Paddy field Total 14000

They illustrated the future scenario as

o Positive: It can be better in the next 20 years, just only how to improve the

cooperation with the communities. There is a opportunity of exporting the communities’ products.

22 Rate or addition the oil palm area per year

86

The production fee of MHBM can be used as capital for an investment

o Negative: There will a conflict between the communities and MHP. The MHP dependent communities will be suffer.

Scheme of MHBM will give the communities operational, management, production fees. There is concern for everybody regarding how to distribute the fees, particularly the biggests fee i.e. production fee, among the community members and the related organizations. The production fee amounts to Rp. 2500 per m3. The Subanjeriji village elites propose it as below.

Stakeholders

Cash in (Rupiah/m3)

Cash out (Rupiah/m3)

Percentage

For one cutting cycle23 (in million Rp)

For one year (in million Rp)

MHP MHBM production fee 2500 Village account (kas desa) 150 6 195 27.9 Other related organizations (BPRD, LKMD, village gov. officials, MHBM managers, head of working groups and head of sub district)

350 14 455 65.0

MHBM members (700 households, organised in 4 units of 30 working groups/unit)

1000 40 1300 185.7

Villages outside Subanjeriji 1000 40 1300 185.7 Total 2500 2500 100 3250 464.3

The communities predicted that for each hectar Acacia mangium plantation will produce 200 m3 wood. So in total there will be 6500 ha x 200 m3 x Rp 2500 = Rp 3,250,000,000 coming to the communities and the others for one cutting cycle of Acacia mangium. To the communities only there will be 40% of it or Rp 1,300,000,000 for one rotation. Theoritically the communities of Subanjeriji get 185.7 millions annually. But the fee will be distributed in the cutting cycle. The first cutting cycle will be in 2006. It is for the planted mangium in 1999. Comparing the money coming from the government, which is 10 million annually, it means a lot. The government money must be spent for something physically (6 millions) and non physic (4 millions). Actually they should receive 12 millions, but 2 million is used for the ‘administrative’ problem. “To enforce the fair benefit sharing the communities do not have any means except violence/conflict/riot”, the village head told us. They only know “jungle law” (hukum rimba). Regarding this situation, there is need of

Tranformation to ideal function of MHBM/MHR Healthy conditions for benefit sharing

23 one cutting cycle assumely has 7 years.

87

The MHP plantation comprised in three disjoint management areas i.e. Subanjeriji (Region 1), Pendopo (Region 2) and Pematang (Region 3). Dry season came in 1996-1997, and it will come again approximately in 2007. There is no anticipation yet for dry season in correspond to the water availability.

5.5. To visit Acacia Sawmill Workshop of MHP, to meet Pak Syarbani at Acacia for timber age more then eight years. Currently, the the sell the sawmill workshop products to Ponorogo, East Java. The workshop was built last year. It is a research scale. MHP provides 56 x 50 ha Acacia plantatio specifically for timber. The workshop is a joint venture with a Jakarta company. Pak Satyo while in the car to Yayasan Kaffah explaining that the President Director of MHP is Pak Judarso. Pak Judarso now is doctoral student at IPB. He was born in Lumajang, East Java. While Pak Hardjono Arisman is the director of PPH (Penanaman dan Pengembangan Hutan; Forest Planting and Development)

5.6. To visit the training ground of Yayasan Kaffah (Pak Willi Herdani, Iskandar)

The current training on group building is conducted every two weeks. The clas we saw was ‘Karang Taruna” of Haur Duri Village.

The participants is about 20 persons. The topic of the training generally is about ‘Agrotrisula’. It means ‘fast annual

crops, livestock and fishery’. The training was started in 2002. After the training the participants develop proposal to MHP for funding. MHP

usually would like to start from the small scale first to minimize the risk. No impact to the communities if the proposed project does not work after it is funded.

5.7. To visit Desa Gemawang to meet Pak Aswin (the village head), Pak Akiar (the MHBM

head), Juliansyah (the MHBM secretary) The village ares is 8500 ha, comprises three dusun i.e. Gemawang I, Gemawang

II and Lang Satan. The village has 630 households. There are still many Marga lands

There is jelousy of the commuties to MHP There is 2800 ha of MHBM in two units (Unit 3 dan Unit 4), and there is no

MHR yet. The MHBM was preliminary started in 2001, and intensively started in 2002. There are 19 working groups, and approximately 25 household for each working group. The village area and the MHBM is elaborated as below,

Land use Area (ha) MHBM elaboration MHBM 2800 #units 2 #working group/unit 19 #households/working group 25 MHBM area per household (ha) 2800/2/19/25 = 2.9 MHR - Rubber 1000 Others 4700 Total village area 8500

88

The fee planning distribution per m3 Acacia is Rp 2000 for the communities and Rp 500 for the village government

The glad and sad points of MHBM o Glad points: the involvement of the farmers; job availability o Sad points: no office for the MHBM; the previous leader get

motorcycle not the current one. Actually the motorcycle is not for the leader in person, but for the MHBM whoever the leader is.

The first cutting cycle will be in 2006 for the 1999 plantation (?)

Marga acts as a coordinator of MHBM in which Pak Amir Thohalim is the

leader Rambang Niru Marga, the umbrella of MHBM o Five villages outside MHP area; the will get a part of Rp 500 for each

m3 Acacia wood. o Four villages inside the MHP area

They receive annual budget of 10 million rupiah from the government. The clear water (air bersih/PAM) has been in the village, coming from

District of Muara Enim. For the future there is a sensitive problem that is money coming from the

production fee. The main activity now is rubber plantation, the others are trading, labor,

paddy field farming. Before the coming of MHP they are farmers, loggers and traders

The river condition is OK. There are two main rivers i.e. Sungai Niru and Sungai Birik.

Pak Satyo (MHP staff) mentioned that people’s wood, wood that is coming from the community land, priced by MHP in the road that ready to transport is Rp 68000/m3. The communities said that the price in Simpang 32 is Rp 125000/m3. But the communties are facing the difficulties to bring their wood to Simpang 32.

Issues of community forest registration o To solve ‘enclaved land’ there is a need to register community forest

at MHP areas, so that they have incerntives to grow. o IPKM (Ijin Pemanfaatan Kayu Masyarakat or Permit to utilize

community forest) is issuing by Dinas Kehutanan II (Forest District Unit).

5.8. To see from the outside the TEL (Tanjung Enim Lestari Pulp & Paper Company) and

discuss with Pak Tarudin, selling division of MHP The area of TEL is 12 ha for the plant, and 3 ha outside the plant. TEL’s capacity is 1500 top pulp/day. In-take 6000 ADT/day. For one year

1500 ton x 360 days = 540,000 ton/year Every day is about 400 trip using 360 trucks (big and small).

5.9. Visiting Prof. Fachrurrozy (RZ)

PG introduced the LPF project to RZ and the others RZ question whether there is an action research. PG mentioned ‘yes’, with

understanding of local processes. RZ revealed that the price for rubber and oil palm are getting higher, so that the

spirit of community involvement in Acacia plantation is changing. On Agrotrisula, in which RZ was the initiative, there is a good adoption by the

community in terms of technical skills. But problem is in the marketing.

89

Agrotrisula training focuses to the local farmers. It is better than the formal training.

MHP has allocated 250 millions rupiah to the farmers through a cooperative he led.

RZ suggested o MHP or other firms can make a pilot project, then the government can

provide the system and spread out the innovation o The transport situation in MHP as well as in South Sumatra in general

has is problematic. He had suggested to build a modern harbord in connected with Musi River. PG suggested to use CORMAS modelling to learn and find possible scenarios of this problem. RZ mentioned it will need 540 million USD to develop a harbor. PG said his experience in Jepara, which is starting from the market and going back to the resources.

VI. Minutes on 26 Nov (Day 3) 6.1. To meet Pak Aris Munandar, Head of Land Use of Bappeda (Regional Planning

Agency) Palembang He explained basically the spatial planning is to minimize the land conversion. Land status changing depends on the permission of the Ministry of Forestry,

eventhough now we are facing the decentralization era. Each forest has to be clear in term of its use; not only mentioning it must be

forest. The communities and the development need land. Pak Aris Munandar suggested to us to discuss further with Pak Mustowani, he

head of strategic planning of South Sumatera. Ibu Yanti, Pak Mustowani’s staff, copied the strategic document (Renstra).

6.2. To meet Fire Project, headed by Dr. Karl-Heinz Steinmann (EU-Co Director)

PG explained briefly the LPF project and the possibility to use CORMAS in fire scenario.

KHS mentioned that the project developing participatory land use planning in 3 districts: Banyuasin, Musi Banyuasin and OKI.

Bambang Hero of IPB was studying fire in MHP This 2rd EU fire project was started last year. The first project was more fire

figting orientation. The second is to do more with fire prevention, integrated management and law enforcement.

They will have fire rating season. Data availble for 15 villages, including gender data. Conflict management will be developed in the areas.

6.3. To discuss with Pak Satyo and Pak Erwin (MHP staff) on the coming research.

Village selection using village topology o Villages in MHBM scheme

Marga, village, working group Road access Welfare level (economy, population and education

o Villages in MHR scheme Institutions Distance to the road (in terms of factory and market) Level of MHR land ownership. If it is very big then MHR is

mengelola hutan raja (managing the king forest)

90

Outline for the research proposal

o Introduction: Background and Objectives Goals

• How the stakeholders to adapt the change Resources Outputs Outcomes

o Concepts Collaboration, land use and conflicts Renewable forest management Social dynamics and adaptability

o Methods o Activities, work pland and schedule

91

Annex 5. Summary of Discussion Livelihood Survey in MHP, South Sumatra Date and Venue: Thursday, 24 February 2005, CIFOR Café Bogor Participants: Patrice Levang, Edo (Suaduon) Sitorus, Philippe Guizol, Herry Purnomo Agenda:

Discussion of the LPF framework TOR for livelihood survey, time Schedule, what to do, with whom and when

A. Introduction

Meeting was aimed at brainstorming of LPF project framework and start thinking of livelihood survey in South Sumatra. HP prepared the draft of research proposal for LPF implementation in South Sumatra for the discussion and rough maps of MHP and its surrounding districts

B. Discussion Results Discussion the LPF framework 1. Philippe Guizol (PG) gave a short description of LPF project. Based on the LPF

framework LPF will do an action research at village and district levels. The overall project goal is to improve the fair partnership among involved stakeholders. At village level we need a clear picture of the livelihood of the communities and their strategy. Therefore we collaborate with Patrice Levang (PL) and Edo who have already done a similar works in other areas.

2. PL questioned whether the project also deals with the land tenure problem, or perceives

MHP is already given in that area. The way we perceive the problem influences how we enter into the area. If we always go to the villages with MHP persons, then the communities will feel that we are in MHP side. PG mentioned that now we are focusing on improving the partnership between the communities and the company. Tenure problems can be used to renegotiate of the partnership arrangement, so that it will more fair for communities.

Livelihood Survey 1. Surrounding MHP there are 83 villages. LPF project need to know the portrait, diversity

and dynamic at village and household levels regarding their livelihoods. 2. Edo may go to MHP in the end of March, while PL may go in the end on May or June

2005. It will be better if Edo go first to have ideas on villages and villages surrounding MHP, before they go together according to PL’s time availability.

3. PL and Edo will be working for LPF for three months with the following time schedule:

one month for the idea, one month for independent study and one month for reporting. TOR must be clear on April 2005, after the March visit.

4. The local coordinator for LPF South Sumatra should be appointed in July 2005 to

facilitate the coming of Bogor based researchers among others. The local coordinator will be based on one of the districts surrounding MHP. The local coordinator will be appointed for two year duration. PG asked HP if HP could also discuss this candidate

92

with Bambang Hero. PG also mentioned Bayu who previously work for EU project in Tanimbar as one of possible candidate. HP will discuss this local coordinator with UGM team.

C. Follows Up

- PG and HP will prepare the detail TOR for PL and Edo in April 2005. - HP will explore the permits for their surveys and discuss it with UGM team

93

Annex 6. Trip Report to Muara Enim District and PT. Musi Hutan Persada, South Sumatra, Indonesia (21-25 March 2005) I. Researchers: San Afri Awang (SAA), Herry Purnomo (HP) and Wahyu Wardhana (WW) II. Visit Purposes:

To initiate the formation of multistakeholder forum at Muara Enim To deepen understanding of MHBM, MHR and land system in MHP and its

surrounding. III. Agenda

Date Time Agenda 21 Mar (Day 1)

11.30 Arrived at Sultan Badarudin airport Palembang

11.30 – 13.00 Trip to Muara Enim 13.00- 15.00

Arrived at MHP Office in Niru; Discussion with o Pak Aminullah, Division Head of Community

Development of MHP o Pak Muhono, Head of District Forestry Unit (FDU,

Dinas Kehutanan Kabupaten Muara Enim) 15.00 – 17.00 Trip to Muara Enim and stay in Swarna Dwipa Hotel 22 Mar (Day 2)

09.30-10.00

To meet Pak Satyo, R&D socio-economic MHP

10.00 – 12.00 Visit District Libary 12.00 – 13.00 Visit Office of FDU 13.00 – 15.00

With Pak Muhono, to visit and discuss with the District Secretary (Sekda) of Muara Enim i.e. Pak H.M. Akip Yoenoes.

15.30 – 16.30 To discuss with Pak Satyo at Hotel regarding the village selection.

19.00 – 20.00 23 Mar (Day 3)

08.00 – 10.00 Internal discussion on MHP research aspects: Sociology and Modelling approach.

10.00 – 13.00 Trip from Muara Enim to Camp Niru of MHP; At Camp Niru asking for more data espcially the maps

13.00 – 15.00 Trip from Camp Niru to Camp Subanjeriji 15.00 – 17.00 Discussion with Pak Satyo on MHBM systems 24 Mar (Day 4)

08.00 – 11.00 Discuss with Subanjeriji MHBM representatives

11.00 – 13.00

Trip and visit Pak Amir Thohalim, the Coordinator of MHBM Rambang Dangku

14.00 – 15.00 Visit Unit Lubuk Guci of MHP to meet Pak Yanto to discuss MHR

15.00 – 18.00 Going to Palembang 21.00 – 22.00 Discussion of MOU draft between CIFOR-UGM and MHP 24 Mar (Day 4)

08.00 – 10.30

Discuss with Pak Harjono Arisman, Prof Facururrozy, Pak Satyo and another MHP person.

Afternoon Back to Jakarta /Yogyakarta Note: MHBM is acronym of Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (Managing Forest with

Community) MHR is acronym of Mengelola Hutan Rakyat (People Forest Management)

94

IV. Minutes 21 March (Day 1) Meeting with Pak Aminullah, Division Head of Community Development of MHP Pak Muhono, Head of District Forestry Unit. a. Amin said that MHP is not only discussing the collaboration with the communities, but

also implementing the collaboration. LPF can help MHP in this matter with the experiences from other areas, which MHP does not know much. SAA mentioned the importance of upstreaming policy from the micro level to district level.

b. Muhono charaterized people of Muara Enim with five basic charateristics i.e. jeleous, not

dilligent etc. He refered to Kumala Motik, a rich national busineswoman coming from this area. Pak Muhono did not receive any letter from UGM concerning this visit. SAA told him that we did not have his fax number. The letter from UGM adrressed Bupati, then from the Muara Enim government secretary (Sekda) went to Head FDU. Bupati was in Beijing for official trip. HP mentioned the importance of having multistakeholder forum at district level regarding the upstreaming policy.

c. Muhono proposed LPF visitors to meet the Sekda to discuss to discuss about the forum

and who will be invited to the forum. Muhono proposed Thursday to discuss the idea of the forum among government institutions.

d. Amin underlined that the communities need capital (money) to be able to get contracts

from MHP. Currently MHP is contracting persons/companies outside the communities due to readiness to work out the jobs. The communites do not have money to buy equipments for works and food for their families during their period of works. MHP pays the offered jobs is they are done, not at the beginning. While the communities need money at the beginning for the equipments and their families at home. Amin hopes that banks can tackle this matter by proving capital to the communities.

e. SAA/HP were surprised why MHP cannot provide the equipments or capital to

communities that will be paid back later on after the accomplishement of the jobs. Amin told us it is the MHP policy that always pay after jobs done.

22 March (Day 2) Visited Muara Enim District Library a. Seeking books, newsletter and other publications related to the local customary of Muara

Enim District. The library gave us books entitled “Kumpulan Cerita Rakyat Muara Enim (Collection of Muara Enim Folklore). SAA made a copy of a report.

b. HP then visited the office head of the library (Kepala Kantor) i.e. Dra. Romlah Zulhimi.

She mentioned that there are 70 folklore of Muara Enim still not yet published. If CIFOR or other organizations would like to publish this folklore, she welcomes. The library welcomes if we have publications to give.

Discussed with The District Secretary and Head of FDU at PEMDA office a. The Sekda (Akip Yoenoes) told us that after the reform era (reformasi) in 1998, people

demonstrations are very common. Sometimes the demos are uncontrroled. b. The multistakeholder workshop must be under Pak Bupati’s permission, which was in

Beijing for official visit. We should stage the workshop in a big scale. The problem of community-company partnership are already known. The most important is how to solve the problems.

95

c. We then discussed who will be invited. After the discussion we propose to invite:

Head of District (Bupati); to give the speech on the role of the government Banks (e.g. Bank of South Sumatra/BPD and BRI) Forestry District Unit (Dinas Kehutanan) Muara Enim District Parliament (DPRD), Komisi A (Land Conflict) and Komisi B (Agriculture

and Forestry) Yunial Komar (?) of the behalf of Paguyuban Masyarakat Peduli Hutan Sumatra

Selatan. Village and sub-district heads

d. The Sekda explained the forest in the past was institutionalized under “hak ulayat” or

“marga”, which was nicely encapsulated in words of “rimbo sekampung hutan peramuan”. It means forest for community and used by community. However, the acts of 5/79 (pemerintahan desa or village government), 5/74 (pemerintahan daerah or regional government), 22/79, 5/60 (Agraria) and regulation of 32/2004 have been undermining the marga system.

e. The Muara Enim District has launced development concepept called “Gerbang Serasan”. It is the acronym of “Gerakan Pembangunan Seia Sekata” or Collaborative Development. This concept is available at Bappeda of Muara Enim as well as on Internet http://www.muaraenim.go.id/nav5.asp.

f. Local competitive trees (tanaman unggulan lokal) of Muara Enim are tenam, meranti, jelutung, merbau and pulai.

Afternoon Discussion with Pak Satyo a. MHBM has a bulletin called “Gelora MHBM”. The number of MHBM is 18, covering

80 000 Ha. Pak Satyo mentioned that the MHBM consist of several types i.e. Ex Marga Village Community Big family (puyang) Set of villages, which is named under one village

b. The MHBM persons are not able to get contract offered MHP’s jobs due to lack of

capital. As a result the jobs is taken by local contractors, which are not involve in MHBM. The community has not attitude to be “capitalists”.

c. MHR is distinguished due to the area extent

Big, about 200 Ha Medium, about 20 Ha Small, 1-2 Ha

d. SAA underlined that MHP should address the gap problem between big/rich MHR and

small MHR. 23 March (Day3) Discussion with Pak Kaini, Pak Meidi Martanto (Suban Jeriji MHBM), Pak Untung Alpan and Pak Satyo a. Pak Kaini told us that word “Rambang” means river. There are four rambangs involve in

MHP, which are Rambang Niru, Lubai, Kapak Tengah I and Kapak Tengah II. MHBM Rambang Niru (also called Rambang Dangku) cover 9 villages, which 4 villages inside MHP area and 5 villages outside MHP area. The 5 village inhabitants were previously located in 4 villages inside MHP, then they moved outside.

96

b. There was a forest concession company (HPH) in this area. In 1970 many swidden agriculture took place. Oil companies e.g. Bristish Petroleum Maskapiai, Permina dan Pertamin operated started in 1970. The last two companies then merged into Pertamina and exists in the area until now.

c. There are several community types in this area

Swidden agriculture (not exist anymore) Farmers who have land in MHP area, the land then becomes ‘talang’ Farmers stay in the village surrounding MHP, but have ‘talang’ outside the MHP’s

area with the plants of rubber, coffee, durian and paddy. d. The application proposals for MHR annually cover the area of 40 000 Ha, but MHP can

only approve 2 000 Ha. MHP do not benefit financally from the MHR system. The communities involved in MHR may get 7 millions rupiah per Ha for 8 years, so annually they will get 80 000 rupiahs per month per Ha. Meanwhile Pak Satyo mentioned the communities need the monthly income 600 000 rupiah.

e. MHBM Rambang Dangku is coordinated by Amir Thohalim, Ahmad Tajudin, Ir. Trisno

and Kardiono. These persons stay in Village of Jumenang, the core village in the past. f. HP mentioned that conflict among villages can be an opportunity to revitalize the marga

institution. We may perceive the conflict from different point of views. While Pak Kaini hopes there will be letter of decree for who from 5 villages that have rights on MHBM production fee. Pak Untung Alpan said that the total area of MHBM in the filed is 32 000 Ha, not 80 000 Ha as mentioned by Pak Satyo previously.

24 March (Day 4) Discussion with Pak Amir Thohalim, the coordiantor of MHBM Rambang Dangku a. Pak Amir mentioned that Marga was threatened by Act 5/74. Act 1/79 resulted ‘Krio’ (a

traditional system) was replaced by “Kepala Desa”. b. Desa Jumenang comprises 5 kampungs i.e. Kampung 1, Kampung 2, Kampung 3,

Kampung 4 dan Kampung Subanjeriji. He claims that lands from Jemenang to Gemawang is part of Jemenang. The situation can be illustrated as below,

c. The land was ex reforestation (reboisasi) with Acacia mangium, pine and Eucaliptus sp.

In general the land is governed by Village head, sub district head and district head. d. Production fee of MHBM for the communities was proposed by Pak Amir to increase 10

times, becoming 20 000 – 25 000 rupaih per m3. He also questioned 4.6 billion rupiahs that was received by Pak Yuniar Komar, for the compensation of 12 050 ha of the land Pak Komar represented. Pak Amir said that there are three perceptions regarding the MHBM production fee i.e.

Each individual person receive the money Going to village patty cash (kas desa) They want land not money.

Jemenang Gemawang Suban Jeriji

Rubber, unproductive land

Acacia mangium

97

e. In the past the communities agreed to receive only 2 500 rupiahs due to misinformation

given by MHP, mentioning that the price of the Acacia is very low. Now the communites realize that the price much higher that that, so the deserve to get much more.

f. Pak Amir mentioned that the reseach that are demanded by the communities is cocerning

on Land issues Profit sharing between the company and the communities Arrangement of the next rotation of Acacia mangium

Internal car discussion on the impact of withdrawing Barito Pacific from MHP Pak Satyo informed us that Barito Pacific will sell their share in MHP to Marubeni (Japanese company). We discussed the possible impact of this transaction on company-community partnership, MHP staff etc. Internal discussion on MOU between CIFOR-UGM and MHP At night in Palembang we discussed the concept of the MOU in order to smoothen the project. 25 March (Day 5) Discussion with Pak Harjono, Pak Satyo (MHP) and Pak Fachrurrozy (MHP research advisor) a. Pak Harjono welcomed us to MHP and Palembang. b. SAA explain the research and the our trip to district of Muara Enim and MHP

surrounding villages to the discussion participants. c. Pak Fachrurrozy outline the role of the market. He told us the need to do ‘mental switch’

from rubber traditional farmers into commercial farmers. Market can be a generator of productivity at village and district level. The productivity may increase of 50-70 %. LPF can be a platform to level the playing field, so that the policy makers can contribute to level the playing field for community benefits.

d. Pak Fachrurrozy mentioned at village level, we need social anthropological approach,

while at district level we need market approach. HP said that a institution approach is also important. Market is an approach based on neo-classical thinking. We need to integrate different approaches.

e. Pak Harjono told us the he desperate with the way the government works. For intance he

needs to wait 7 months for the completion of the small sawmill permission. He mentioned it is very important to have a good communication with all stakeholders, otherwise it’s difficult to have something running. MHP structure is arranged also to meet the government administrative i.e.

Unit ~ Sub district Block ~ Village (dusun) Sub block ~ Talang

Each of this unit has section of community development. f. For the multi-stakeholder workshop we agreed to have Pak Bupati (Drs Kalamudin) is

very important. We place Pak Bupati to give a keynote speech. g. For the MOU between CIFOR-UGM and MHP, Pak Harjono principally OK, he would

like to add

98

Opportunies for MHP staff to participate LPF training in Indonesia or outside He propose to put ‘Yayasan Kaffah’ in the MOU. Both SAA and HP would

like to discuss this with Philippe Guizol.

h. Pak Fachrurrozy underlined the inclusion of tax intruments. We should play with this intrument. He also mentioned that we need to separate problems in timeline categories i.e.

Long term problems Medium-term problems Short-term problems

If we do not categorize then we will confuse ourselves and the other stakeholders. He also will be enjoyed if he is invited to LPF meetings inside and outside Indonesia.

99

Annex 7. Trip Report to MHP and South Sumatra 11-15 July 2005 - Developing Multi-stakeholder Forum “Sebahu Sejalan” Participants: Dr. San Afri Awang, Dr. Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana MSc. and two research assistants. Objectives of the visit:

a. Discussing the MOU among MHP-CIFOR-CIRAD-UGM b. Strengthening the forum c. Continuing the data and information search regarding the action research of

“Levelling the Playing Field” in South Sumatra d. Searching for the LPF field office in Muara Enim

Monday, 11 July 2005 1. Departing from Jakarta at 11 AM 2. Discussion MOU among MHP-CIFOR-CIRAD-UGM

San Afri Awang (SAA), Herry Purnomo (HP), Wahyu Wardhana (WW), Harjono Arisman (HA) and Prof Fachrurrozy (FR), research adviser of MHP, participated the discussion.

FR started discussion by mentioning the problem of Julia Maturana, who published the research concerning MHP without previously discussed with MHP. FR proposed to have three level of discussion on LPF research results i.e. among the researchers, between the researchers and MHP, and among the researchers, MHP and public. SAA and HP were basically agreed on having communication on everything related to the research outputs. However, the researchers will carried out the research in a neutral way.

FR also said that Yunial Komar (YK), head of PBB party in South Sumatra Province and head of Rambang Kapak Tengah Community Organization, is entering Sriwijaya University as a PhD student. FR will be his supervisor. HP mentioned it could become opportunity to have a discussion with YK.

HA proposed to specifically mentioned MHBM and MHR on the MOU. HP and WW mentioned the difficulties to get data on forest stand stock of MHR forest plantation. HA suggested to contact M. Taviv, Ismantri, Hana and Hanif regarding this matter. HA explained MHP is entering the process of SPHTL (Sustainable Forest Plantation Management) and SML (Environmental Management System) certifications. Both processes require good control of the MHP reports and documents.

SAA explained that SEKDA (Muara Enim District Head Secretary) are in doubt in supporting the forum. FR underlined the importance of understanding the implication of the forum to the government officers’ illegal revenues. FR proposed tactics as below:

o It should be stressed that what we are doing is the world concern. The world campaigned social forestry now.

o The government officers will not be willing to be utilized by MHP. Therefore, it needs international persons (French guys) to open their perspectives.

o To involve more related stakeholders such as religion leaders. HA suggested to work with the communities first if the local government is reluctant

to contribute. If this works then we could involve the local govt. for the legitimating. Very often, the govt. only considers the short term result. They are not visionary. FR added that with this forum the mistakes made by the local govt. in the past can be unwrapped. HA mentioned there is no need to be hurry to involve directly the local

100

govt., however, we need to keep inform them. A perfect time of their involvement should be investigated.

FR mentioned that ‘Kumis Kucing’ and ‘Nilam’ can be cash crops for the communities. They can be investigated by the researchers. HA mentioned again that forum is needed at different levels, from sub-blocks, blocks and units. They may match to different levels of community/govt. organizations such as kampong, village, sub-district and district. Problems can be solve at the different levels.

MOU was revisited, we agreed to rephrase some wording, particularly in regard to their concern on publication of the research which targets the general public, not the researchers and academia. Appendix 1 provides the revised MOU.

3. Interviewing the candidate of the local Coordinator

SAA, HP and WW have collected two CVs for the local coordinators that are Ahmad Muhaimin and Renaldi. Their CVs are attached in Appendix 2. We supposed to meet them in Palembang. However, we could only interviewed Renaldi. Muhaimin could not come.

From the interview process we came up with the following conclusion o He has long experiences in facilitating communities o He can be a connector among different stakeholderrs o Renaldi has a capacity to be a local coordinator o He, however, cannot speak English well.

Tuesday, 12 July 2005 Forum ‘Sebahu Sejalan Formateur’ Meeting

The meeting took place at Camp Niru of MHP, Tanjung Enim. It took about 2.5 hours drove from Palembang. The meeting was participated by local communities, MHP, local govt. and LPF persons (SAA, HP and WW). SAA chaired the meeting.

The meeting was successfully to a. Chart the structure of the forum organization b. Fill it with the person in participatory way c. Make constitution of the forum (Anggaran Dasar).

The minute of the report is provided in Appendix 3. Wednesday, 13 July 2005 Activities at Camp Pendopo of MHP

HP and WW to meet and discuss with Hana and her staff regarding the maps, forest stand table, MHP’s organization, MHR and MHBM documents etc. HP and WW then read and studied the documents

SAA to go to the villages to discuss MHR with the local communities. In the evening SAA, HP, WW and Pak Satyo (MHP staf) discussed the local

coordinator TOR and budgeting strategy to function the LPF secretariat. Appendix 4 provides the TOR and the budget of the secretariat and its source of contribution.

Thursday, 14 July 2005 1. HP and WW were looking for Field Office in Muara Enim

a. They were going from Pendopo to Muara Enim b. In Muara Enim HP and WW went to the Forestry Office District to give the

forum workshop and meeting reports. They met Mulyadi, the vice of the head of the office. With Mulyadi, HP and WW investigated three houses for secretariat. The rent for the houses ranged from 8 million – 17 million rupiahs per year.

c. HP and WW went to SEKDA office to give the forum workshop and meeting reports, and then went back to Palembang.

101

2. SAA and two research assistants went to Subanjeriji and its surrounding to continue to do

research particularly in regards to socio-political contexts of the communities. Friday, 15 July 2005 1. HP went back to Bogor 2. WW went to Sriwijaya University searching for oil palm and rubber economy literature. 3. SAA with two research assistants continued research in Subanjeriji. SAA and WW went

back to Yogya on Saturday 16 July, and the assistants would spent one more week in the field.

102

Annex 8. Memorandum of Agreement BETWEEN PT MUSI HUTAN PERSADA, THE FORESTRY DEPARTMENT OF CIRAD, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESERACH, FACULTY OF FORESTRY, UNIVERSITY OF GADJAH MADA FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT “Levelling the Playing Field: Fair Partnership for Local Development to Improve the Forest Sustainability in Southeast Asia” Parties to the Agreement - PT Musi Hutan Persada (hereinafter called “MHP”), having its headquarters at Jl.

Residen H. Abdul Rozak No. 99, Palembang 30114, South Sumatra, represented by its Director for Forest Planting and Development, Mr. Hardjono Arisman;

- The Forestry Department of the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche

Agronomique pour le Développement (hereinafter called “CIRAD-forêt”), Programme Arbres and Plantations, having its headquarters at Montpellier, Campus International de Baillarguet, TA10/B, 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, represented by Cirad Resident Regional Director for Insular Southeast Asia, Dr. Jean-Guy Bertault;

- The Center for International Forestry Research (hereinafter called “CIFOR”), having

its headquarters at Bogor Indonesia (mailing address: P.O Box 6596 JKPWB Jakarta 10065), represented by its Director General, Dr. David Kaimowitz;

And: - Faculty of Forestry University Gadjah Mada (hereinafter called “FoF-UGM”), located

at Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, represented by its Dean, Prof. Dr. Ir. Mohammad Na’iem.

1.1. Preamble WHEREAS CIRAD-forêt, CIFOR and FoF-UGM have submitted a Proposal for the Project “Levelling the Playing Field: Fair partnership for local development to improve the forest sustainability in Southeast Asia” to the European Commission (EC) under the Tropical forests budget line B7-6200/02/0642/TF. WHEREAS the Project referred to above has been selected by the European Commission for funding by decision of 18 December 2002. WHEREAS the CIRAD-forêt had decided and agreed to execute and perform the Contract to be awarded by the Commission for the Project. WHEREAS the Parties wish to affirm their intention to cooperate, throughout the implementation of the Project, in: i) identifying conditions, mechanisms, and tools to promote fairness partnership in the forest plantation management; ii) improve communication and

103

coordination among the related stakeholders, and ii) exploring opportunities to improve local people’s livelihood and sustainability of the forest plantation. Therefore, the Parties hereby agree as follows: Article 1 - Definitions Unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms whenever used in this Agreement have the following meanings: (a) “EC” means the European Commission of the European Community, Brussels, Belgium; (b) “Contract” means the Contract signed by CIRAD-forêt with the EC, to which this

Agreement refers; (d) “Effective Date” means the date on which the Contract comes into force and effect; (e) “Parties” means CIRAD-forêt, CIFOR, FoF-UGM, MHP; (f) “Co-ordinator” means the forestry department of CIRAD, the Party in charge of signing

the Contract with the EC; (g) “Partners” means the local Universities or Organisations in charge of implementing the

Project together with the Parties; (h) “Project” means the project “Levelling the playing field: Fair partnership for local

development to improve the forest sustainability in Southeast Asia”. Article 2 – Purpose The purpose of this Consortium Agreement is to specify the organisation of the work among the Parties, to organize the management of the Project, to define the rights and obligations of the Parties and to set out rights and obligations of the Parties supplementing but not conflicting with those of the Contract. Article 3 – Parties’ general obligations for the implementation of the Contract 3.1 Without prejudice to any other obligations under this Consortium Agreement, the

Parties shall take all necessary measures to perform, fulfil, promptly and in due time all their obligations so that the Project is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract, including its annex, and the Consortium Agreement.

3.2 CIRAD, CIFOR, FoFUGM should implement the research independently and be

neutral. 3.3 As Project Co-ordinator, the forestry department of CIRAD is in charge of the Co-

ordinator’s functions pursuant to the Contract with the EC. 3.4 FoFUGM shall provide to CIFOR and CIRAD, as appropriate, with the deliverables,

information, and reports as CIFOR and CIRAD requires in order to perform their duties under the Contract signed with the EC and the Consortium Agreement.

3.5 Each Party undertakes:

104

i. to notify the other Parties promptly of any delay in performance or of any event that may impact the Project;

ii. to inform the other Parties of relevant communications it receives in relation to

the Project; iii. to ensure the accuracy of any information or materials it supplies to the other

Parties and to promptly correct any error therein of which it is notified. The recipient Party shall be responsible for the use to which it puts such information and materials;

iv. to act at all times in good faith and in a manner that reflects the good name,

goodwill and reputation of the other Parties and in accordance with good business ethics;

v. to participate in a co-operative manner to the meetings of the different bodies

under the Contract and not to exercise veto rights, which are absolute or inappropriate.

Article 4- Organisation of the Project The Project is structured as given in annex I of the Contract. It comprises namely: 4.1 Project leader The project leader is Mr. Philippe Guizol Address: C/O CIFOR P.O Box 6596 JKPWB Jakarta 10065 Indonesia Phone number: 62 251 622 622 ext. 308 Fax number: 62 251 622 100 Email: [email protected] The project leader acts as the scientific and administrative person in charge of performing the implementation of the Project. 4.2 CIFOR Project Manager The scientific person in charge of the project for CIFOR is Dr. Markku Kanninen Address: P.O Box 6596 JKPWB Jakarta 10065 Indonesia Phone number: 62 251 622 622 ext. 707 Fax number: 62 251 622 100 Email: [email protected] 4.3 Management Team The management team is composed of resource persons and representatives from the forestry department of CIRAD and CIFOR. Its aim is to control and approve the annual budget based on the overall budget, and to act as an internal controller about the project management and administrative aspects. 4.4 Steering Committee The role of the Steering Committee is to bring strategic, scientific and organizational advices to achieve the project goals. Steering Committee is composed of resource persons and representatives from the forestry department of CIRAD, CIFOR, the participating countries of the project, and other resource persons. In the case of the Indonesia, the Steering Committee member will be represented by Ministry of Forestry, with FoF-UGM participating in each meeting and providing reports on the progress of the work.

105

Article 5 - Specific tasks of CIFOR CIFOR shall be the intermediary between MHP and FoF-UGM, and the project Co-ordinator and shall perform all tasks assigned to it as described in the Contract and hereunder. In particular, and subject to the continued availability of funds from the EC and/or other sources, CIFOR shall be responsible for: i. having the responsibility for financial and progress reporting to CIRAD-forêt; ii. receiving advance payments and transferring sums allocated to FoF-UGM in

accordance with the agreed budget and financial requests from the project leader. iii. providing scientific supports for the project implementation. Article 6 - Specific tasks of FoF-UGM and MHP FoF-UGM shall have the following function: i. prepare workplans in consultation with the other Parties; ii. lead the implementation of the project in Jepara in coordination with the local

institutions, upon agreement of the Co-ordinator; iii. in the scope of the task under Article 6.i., FoF-UGM is responsible for supervising and

monitoring the work of the FoF-UGM team and local consultants. iv. provide to CIFOR annual technical and financial reports including budget forecast

before September of each year, and shall be fully responsible for the services performed.

v. tap the assistance of concerned offices of MHP in the implementation of the project; vi. assist the MHP in formulating policies and in reviewing proposed and existing policies

in environment and natural resources; vii. provide the MHP with information to serve as basis for policy decision and actions

regarding community based forest management, forest standing stock and supply. In relation to this agreement, MHP shall have the following function: i. nominate suitable officer who will actively participate in the project, i.e.:

a. Mr. Susatyo Hutomo (Socio-economic, R & D Division) b. Mr. Erwin Donofan (Agribusiness, Community Development Division) c. Mr. Untung Alfan (Social Forestry, Community Development Division)

ii. provide data and information, and necessary assistance to the implementation of the project;

iii. provide accommodation in MHP camp and local transportation (from MHP camp to village, and from village to meeting venues, as planned)

iv. assist in the dissemination of project findings to key policy makers in Indonesia; v. coordinate with the relevant offices, provincial and community-level in District of

Muara Enim to support and actively participate in the implementation of the project on the ground.

vi. participate in the LPF research coordination meetings as well as discussions of LPF research outputs and disseminations.

Article 7 - Budget and payments 7.1 CIFOR is responsible for collecting all contributions and costs incurred by FoF-UGM and MHP in connection with the performance of their duties under this Agreement and the implementation of the Project. CIFOR is given a specific provision under the budget for the management of the Project to fulfil these tasks.

106

7.2 Each year in early September, CIFOR will forward to the forestry department of CIRAD a financial statement including FoF-UGM expenses with all supporting documents for the period of one year of implementation of the project ending 18th of August. The financial statement will detail the total amount (EC grant and co-funding) under the responsibility of CIFOR for each line of the project. It will be included in the request sent to the EC for payment. 7.3 As requested by EC, an annual Audit will be carried out for every 12-month of implementation after the start of the Operation by:

KPMG (Siddharta Siddharta & Widjaja) 33rd Floor Wisma GKBI 28, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Jakarta 10210 Indonesia Tel: 62 (21) 574 2333; 574 2888 Fax: 62 (21) 574 1777; 574 2777

7.4 FoF-UGM bank account data and number are given below: Bank name : BNI Cabang UGM Yogyakarta Account number : 228.005714997.002 Account name : Dekan Fakultas Kehutanan UGM Bank address : Kampus UGM Bulaksumur Yogyakarta Article 8 – Reporting Reporting to the EC is handled and supervised by the project leader in accordance with annex I of the Contract and Project planning. In addition to its own reporting obligations to the project leader, CIFOR is responsible for collecting the Partners’ contribution including technical, financial and budget forecast reports to the Project as specified under Article 6.ii. Article 9 - Commencement, Modification and Termination of the Agreement 9.1 This Agreement shall come into force and effect on 1 June 2005. 9.2 Modification of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including any modification

of the work programme, may only be made by written agreement among the Parties and shall not be effective until mutual agreement.

9.3 This Agreement shall terminate at the end of Contract and after all Parties have fulfilled their obligations under the Contract and the present Agreement. The E.C. Contract operation’s duration of execution is 48 months (forty eight months).

Article 10 – Research Output Discussion To maintain the coordination and harmony among parties, the research outputs, depending their nature, follow three levels of discussions i.e. among the researchers; between the researchers and MHP; and among the researchers, MHP and public. Article 11 – Intellectual property rights Any intellectual property rights brought by one of the Parties for the implementation of the Project shall remain the property of that Party. Any intellectual property right, data and information resulting from research or any other activities conducted under this Agreement shall be jointly owned by the Parties including MHP and the Parties shall be free to use the material for non-commercial purposes free of

107

royalties and without prior permission. All publications in any form which use material or data arising from work carried out under this Agreement will acknowledge the contribution of the Parties and the contributions of the EC as necessary to fulfil contractual obligations with the EC. Article 12 - Law Governing Contract This Agreement, its meaning and interpretation, and the relation among the Parties shall be governed by the French Law. Article 13 – Force majeure a) For the purposes of this Agreement, “Force Majeure” means an event which is beyond the

reasonable control of a Party, and which makes a Party’s performance of its obligations hereunder impossible or so impractical as reasonably to be considered impossible in the circumstances, and includes, but is not limited to, war, riots, civil disorder, earthquake, fire, explosion, storm, flood or other adverse weather conditions, strikes, lockouts or other industrial action (except where such strikes, lockouts or other industrial action are within the power of the Party invoking Force Majeure to prevent), confiscation or any other action by government agencies.

b) Force Majeure shall not include (i) any event which is caused by the negligence or intentional action of a Party or such Party’s agents or employees, nor (ii) any event which a diligent Party could reasonably have been expected to both (A) take into account at the time of the conclusion of this Contract and (B) avoid or overcome in the carrying out of its obligations hereunder

c) Force Majeure shall not include insufficiency of funds or failure to make any payment required hereunder

Signed on:_______________________ For MHP For Department of Forestry CIRAD

Mr. Hardjono Arisman Dr. Jean-Guy Bertault Director, Forest Planting and Development

CIRAD Resident Regional Director for Insular Southeast Asia

For CIFOR For Faculty of Forestry UGM

Dr. David Kaimowitz Prof. Dr. Ir. Mohammad Na’iem Director General Dean

108

Annex 9. Formateur meeting of Forum Sebahu Sejalan 12 July 2005-08-19

LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD : FAIR PARTNERSHIP FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE THE FOREST SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS FORMATOUR MEETING OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM OF MUSI HUTAN PERSADA KABUPATEN MUARA ENIM SUMATERA SELATAN Workshop series in Indonesia No. 2 REPORT PROCESS FORMATUR MEETING OF FORUM SEBAHU SEJALAN Venue : Meeting Room Musi Hutan Persada, Camp Niru Kabupaten Muara Enim, South Sumater Province, Indonesia 12 Juli Herry Purnomo, San Afri Awang, Wahyu Wardhana Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) Indonesia Centre de cooperation Internationsle en Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (CIRAD) Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) FORMATUR MEETING OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM OF MUSI HUTAN PERSADAKABUPATEN MUARA ENIM SUMATERA SELATAN TUESDAY, 12 JULY 2005 Partisipan : San Afri Awang, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana, Susatyo Hutomo, Amirullah, Ingram Indra, Marjono, Nazuri, Amir Thohalim 1. Registration and Opening Ceremony The registration of the participant starts at 11.00, and followed by opening ceremony process of formatur forum sebahu sejalan. The participant are members of the formatur that has been given a mandate from forum sebahu sejalan in previous meeting (12-13 April). The formatur meeting facilitated by San Afri Awang from LPF project.

109

2. Facilitation and discussion of the board of the forum Meeting starts by giving the input and views about the structure and membership of the forum sebahu sejalan. The meeting is facilitated directly by San Afri Awang representing LPF project as mandate from forum sebahu sejalan. The opening led by San Afri awing : Before talk and discuss about Basic Constitution of the forum better if we agree that the output of the forum, during workshop there are a lot of alternative and proposed even existing opinion. Unfortunately when I’m communicate the result to local government (sekda), the respon is quite not satisfying and they questioning whether this forum is required the local government to be involve in. From this point of view my question is that Is it necessary to involve the local government or even sub district so I proposed this and let the forum to discuss to explore it. Mr. Ingram Indra In person I think we need this kind of forum, I understand that sub district is also busy so I proposed that the board of the forum are anyone who are can be independent. Mr. Amir Thoalim I think the one who can be independent is head of MHBM, tokoh adat and others with requires that they should understand about MHBM history. Do we need to make the decision at this time or we can postpone the forum ? Mr. San Afri Awang As we know that we are up to this step if we postpone the forum it will spend the enery and useless. I will give it back to forum Do we agree that someone who can be independet and understand about MHBM become the board of the forum ? Mr. Nazuri I think we need to look someone from inside MHBM because on the other side there are someone who does not like MHBM Mr. San Afri Awang Can you explain clearly about what is the meaning of ‘does not like MHBM’ ? Mr. Aminullah There are some changing paradigm in MHP so it is become a surprise for our friend in MHP especially for the team who are involve in the field. At top level management the staff has already understand while for the field staff are different meaning that there are reduction of the income of the staff because MHBM program. Mr. San Afri Awang If we interpret from Mr Aminullah opinion we should find the people who have a commitment with MHBM, what do you think Herry ? Mr. Herry Purnomo I whish this forum can be a catalyst for the others, CIFOR hopes that we can establish the secretariat and local coordinator in this area and may be if it is necessary we can publish the bulletins for disseminate the information and communication Mr. San Afri Awang So first we agree that we will choose the independent one it mean it is not birochrat but people who understand MHBM whether chief or head or tokoh adat. Can we break this forum and we can continue after pray this afternoon ?

110

The forum agree to break meeting to let some members to pray and lunch. 3. Continuation Then the meeting starts at 12.30 Mr. San Afri Awang Ok… shall we continue the discussion,…. So what kind of the criteria being members of MHBM? Mr. Amir Thoalim I think first is someone who open the area or eks HTI and second are they are who guard the HTI area. Mr. San Afri Awang Wait the moment my question is the this structure is agreed by everyone or need to simplify again?. Forum is not a permanent organization. Forum is just a platfom to communicate and we hope that it is going to be efficient and fast. Mr. Ingram Indra I think the forum structure is good and it is simple so lets continue to decide who is the board? Mr. San Afri Awang So what do you think do you agree to have this kind of structure? But for the division we will pending. Mr. Marjono If the forum consider to be soft structure then the fund will also soft too. Perhaps if it is difficult to find an independent one then Dinas Kehutanan can give us an input. The board can also be involve into the farmer user group. Mr. San Afri Awang From the workshop last few days Dinas has already inform that no one or no person can be involve in this forum so it is up to people at the area of MHBM. Mr. Susatyo Hutomo From those kind of structure we can set the promotor. The promotor can move and perhaps coming from small team in the unit will also active to improve with MHBM Mr. San Afri Awang Do we need to fill in the forum structure, if yes from which level?. We can define the component of the forum, I proposed someone from MHP, community, government and LPF. My question is do we need a local coordinator? Mr. Herry Purnomo There is 4 component that we have already so what we need is a local coordinator and secretariat or office of the forum so we can maximize the forum and inform what we have done. Mr. Amir Thoalim I think someone independen is they who have commitment about MHBM and work very hard for forum. I think not so many of them understand very well about MHBM. MHBM is born from the community pressure and I think I will recommend Mr Aminullah as head of the forum.

111

Mr. San Afri Awang So what do you think? Are we going to decide to appointed someone who will be in the board of the structure right now? The meeting then agree to set the structure of the forum sebahu sejalan as follows I. Penasehat : Bupati

Ketua DPRD Muara Enim Direktur Utama PT. MHP Direksi PT. TEL Kepala Dinas Kehutanan Muara Enim

II. Pelaksana Umum 1. Ketua : Aminullah, SH 2. Wakil ketua : Amir Thoalim 3. Sekretaris : LPF Program ( Wahyu Wardhana, S.Hut, M.Sc) 4. Wakil Sekretaris : Drs. Ingram Indra 5. Bendahara : Ir. Untung Alfan 6. Wakil Bendahara : Ir. Susatyo Hutomo III. Pelaksana Wilayah A. Wilayah Pendopo/Unit VI

a. Koordinator : Edi Susanto b. Anggota : Latief Thohir

B. Wilayah Rambang Dangku a. Koordiator : Amir Thoalim b. Anggota : H. Ahmad Tajudin

C. Wilayah Rambang a. Koordiator : Alamudin b. Anggota : Isman Prambudya

D. Wilayah Lumbai a. Koordiator : b. Anggota :

E. Wilayah Lawang Kidul a. Koordiator : b. Anggota :

F. Wilayah Tanjung Agung a. Koordiator : Nazuri, SH b. Anggota : Reka Bustaman

G. Wilayah Gunung Megang/Benakat a. Koordiator : Marjono b. Anggota : Sobri

IV. Bidang 1. Bidang Organisasi

2. Bidang Kehumasan 3. Bidang Pendidikan dan Litbang 4. Bidang Pelayanan Umum dan Penyelenggaraan Rapat 5. Bidang Keamanan

Next agenda is the presentation and discussion of AD/ART (Basic Constitution) of the forum that will be presented by San Afri Awang

112

4. Discussion and Presentation AD/ART (Basic Constitution) of the forum The presentation and discussion is facilitated by San Afri awing, it is the continuation related with previous session : Is the second section need more further elaboration?. The objective is not clear do we need a further discussion. And what will the forum will support ? And what is the meaning of the forum function? Mr. Herry Purnomo The support here means that the implementation of the hope and wishes about MHBM program Mr. San Afri Awang The support means that the support to the stakeholders in the community program. The community will have a broader context, as I thought that the support will about for 80.000 ha that is going to achieve in the MHBM program in MHP. So the forum will be a platform for communication between community and MHP Mr. Susatyo Hutomo Community want more MHBM implementation in many places however MHP has limitation in funding and human resources to implement as community wishes. Mr. San Afri Awang The discussion about section 8b will be set by each parties means that to avaoid the conflict at unit level Mr. Susatyo Hutomo The membership of MHBM in implementation that not all of all village people are members of MHBM I think we need more elaboration further. Mr. Herry Purnomo Do we need another item for other parties outside? Mr. San Afri Awang The discussion about section 9 if we consider the content of the structure so at least there are 4 division is required, so do you think it is enough? Mr. Susatyo Hutomo From those 4 section I think we need a unit coordinator. In section 10c do we need a other funding from other instution who can help the forum? Mr. Herry Purnomo Do we need PT TEL involve in our forum consider that they are not involve the process Mr. San Afri Awang So do we need to delete the PT TEL in this section? And we just let inform and coordinate the forum to them. And Next the question is for the section 11 is it enough for only 2 years for the board and do we need to have a comparative study between LPF network? The meeting agree for do decide the basic constitution (AD/ART) of forum Sebahu Sejalan.

113

Annex 10. The constitution of Forum Sebahu Sejalan ANGGARAN DASAR (AD) FORUM SEBAHU SEJALAN, KABUPATEN MUARA ENIM Keputusan penting dari workshop (lokakarya/rapat formatur) tanggal 12-13 April 2005 di ruang pertemuan Kabupaten Muara Enim yang dilaksanakan oleh tim UGM-CIFOR (LPF Program) dalam rangka melaksanakan penelitian aksi terkait dengan program pembangunan Hutan Tanaman Industri PT.MHP dan program MHBM dan MHR, adalah terbentuknya Forum Multi Pihak Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) di Kabupaten Muara Enim. Dalam rangka menjalankan Forum Multi Pihak tersebut maka diperlukan aturan main dasar yang harus diperhatikan dan dilaksanakan. Aturan dasar tersebut dituangkan di dalam Anggaran Dasar (AD) Forum Sebahu Sejalan sebagai berikut. NAMA FORUM Pasal 1

(a) Forum multi pihak dalam lingkup program MHP ini disebut Forum Serasan Membangun Hutan, Sekundang Sejahtera Berkelanjutan.

(b) Untuk memudahkan sebutan terhadap forum tersebut maka disingkat dengan nama FORUM SEBAHU SEJALAN (FBS).

KEDUDUKAN DAN TEMPAT Pasal 2 Forum Sebahu Sejalan (FBS) berkedudukan di Kabupaten Muara Enim. Jika diperlukan dapat membentuk dan menetapkan Cabang Forum Wilayah (CFW) tertentu di dalam wilayah Kabupaten Muara Enim Pasal 3 Tempat kegiatan Forum disebut Sekretariat Forum Sebahu Sejalan (SFBS) yang untuk pertama kali ditetapkan di Ibu Kota Kabupaten Muara Enim, atau tempat lain yang ditetapkan oleh Pengurus Forum Sebahu Sejalan. VISI FORUM Pasal 4 Visi Forum Sebahu Sejalan adalah sebagai wadah musyawarah para pihak untuk mencapai keadilan dan kesejahteraan bersama dalam mengelola hutan. Pasal 5

(a) Mengelola informasi secara transparan dan adil dalam pengelolaan Hutan Tanaman Industri (HTI) PT. Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) bersama rakyat dan masyarakat

(b) Mengembangkan kesetaraan para pihak dalam bermusyawarah untuk mendapatkan jalan keluar bagi kesejahteraan bersama.

(c) Mencari, mengembangkan dan menciptakan peluang-peluang bisnis untuk kepentingan para pihak dan pembangunan daerah dengan mengedepankan peran komunitas lokal.

114

TUJUAN DA N FUNGSI FORUM Pasal 6 Tujuan Forum Sebahu Sejalan adalah meningkatkan silaturahmi antar pihak-pihak yang terkait dengan program pembangunan HTI di wilayah kerja PT.MHP, sehingga menghasilkan kesepahaman, keadilan, keterbukaan, dan pertanggungjawaban yang proporsional dari masing-masing pihak terkait. Pasal 7 Fungsi Forum Sebahu Sejalan adalah sebagai

(a) Pelayanan dan fasilitasi baik ke dalam maupun ke luar (b) Pemecahan masalah (c) Pemberian dukungan kepada para pihak dalam program kemasyarakatan (d) Peningkatan kapasitas (capacity building) (e) Pembangunan jejaring silaturahmi antar pihak

KEANGGOTAAN FORUM Pasal 8 Keanggotaan Forum Sebahu Sejalan berasal dari :

(a) Semua warga masyarakat peserta program MHBM (Mengelola Hutan Bersama Masyarakat) dan MHR (Mengelola Hutan oleh Rakyat)

(b) Aparatur pemerintahan desa, Kecamatan dan Kabupaten yang ditetapkan oleh instansi masing-masing.

(c) Tokoh adat, tokoh masyarakat dan tokoh agama, yang dipandang perlu dan mampu mengembangkan forum

(d) Peneliti dan pengajar yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan forum. (e) Petugas PT. MHP dan PT. TEL (f) Pihak-pihak lain yang dianggap perlu oleh forum

PELAKSANA ORGANISASI FORUM Pasal 9

(a) Pelaksanaan kegiatan Forum Sebahu Sejalan (FBS) dilaksanakan oleh pimpinan kolektif forum yang terdiri paling sedikit dari unsur-unsur Ketua, Wakil Ketua, Sekretaris, Wakil Sekretaris, Bendahara, dan Wakil Bendahara.

(b) Paling sedikit Organisasi Forum di dukung oleh 4 seksi atau bidang: organisasi, hubungan masyarakat, pendidikan dan latihan , dan koordinator Wilayah.

PENDANAAN Pasal 10 Pelaksanaan kegiatan forum memerlukan dana yang berasal dari :

(a) Instansi pemerintah yang tidak mengikat. (b) Perusahaan PT. MHP dan PT. TEL yang tidak mengikat. (c) Dana-dana lain yang syah menurut hukum yang berlaku dan tidak mengikat.

115

(d) Sumbangan dari anggota forum.

PERIODE KEPENGURUSAN FORUM Pasal 11

(a) Kepengurusan Forum Sebahu Sejalan (FBS) selama 3 tahun. (b) Setiap tahun pengurus FBS mempertanggungjawabkan pelaksanaan kegiatan forum. (c) Pengurus Inti seperti Ketua, Sekretaris dan Bendahara di pilih oleh tim Formatur

dalam satu forum musyawarah setiap 3 tahun sekali. (d) Forum musyawarah dihadiri oleh perwakilan anggota forum secara proporsional.

PENUTUP Pasal 12

(a) Semua ketentuan yang belum ditetapkan dalam AD ini akan ditetapkan dan diperjelas dalam Anggaran Rumah Tangga Forum Sebahu Sejalan.

(b) Apabila ada perubahan dan penyempurnaan tentang AD, maka perubahan tersebut ditetapkan dalam forum musyawarah 3 tahun sekali.

Struktur Organisasi Forum Sebahu Sejalan

Sekretariseksekutif

Penutup Setelah ada kesepakatan mengenai susunan pengurus, struktur forum, dan AD/ART forum maka acara diskusi diakhiri dengan penandatanganan akta kesepakatan bersama Forum Sebahu Sejalan (FSS) pada pukul 16.00.

116

Keputusan Formatur tentang Pengesahan Anggaran Dasar, Struktur Organisasi dan Kepengurusan Forum Sebahu Sejalan Mengingat : Hasil-hasil workshop forum multi pihak PT. Musi Hutan Persada Kabupaten Muara Enim tanggal 12-13 April 2005 yang difasilitasi oleh penelitian aksi Program LPF- CIFOR-UGM. Menimbang : Masukan dan analisis hasil rapat tim Formatur Forum Sebahu Sejalan di

kantor MHP Niru pada hari Selasa tanggal 12 Juli 2005. Memutuskan : Pertama : Mengesahkan Anggaran Dasar (AD) Forum Sebahu Sejalan Kedua : Mengesahkan Struktur Organisasi dan Kepengurusan Forum Sebahu Sejalan

Ketiga : Keputusan ini segera dilaksanakan oleh jajaran kepengurusan Forum Sebahu

Sejalan Keempat : Apabila ada kekurangan dan kesalahan, maka akan diperbaiki kemudian Demikian keputusan tim formatur ini dibuat dengan sesungguhnya dan penuh kesadaran dan tanggung jawab. Niru, 12 Juli 2005 Tim Formatur 1. Drs. Edi Susanto ( ) 2. Alamudin ( ) 3. Nazuri, SH ( ) 4. Ir. Susatyo Hutomo ( ) 5. Amir Thohalim ( ) 6. Drs. Ingram Indra ( ) 7. San Afri Awang ( )

117

Annex 11. Social Capital of MHBM and MHR Model By San Afri Awang Faculty of Forestry, Gadjah Mada University (FOFGMU) It is a traveling report started on July 11 to July 16, 2005 in a bundle of LPF programme research on the MHP Industrial forest plantation. This report consists of two kind of activities such as the process of “forum Sebahu Sejalan” establishment, create the board of forum, and data colleting in the community level, local organization, and key actors who are involved in the MHBM and MHR programe. As we know that since April 12-13, 2005 the team of LPF program, member team of Cifor and Faculty of Forestry Gadjah Mada University (FOFGMU) have done a workshop of multistakeholders role and problems linkaged with PT.MHP in Muara Enim District level. One important conclusion from that workshop was to solve the problems among MHP and group of people, and for those all of workshop participants were recommended to build a special forum for MHBM and MHR communication. Day 1: July 11, 2005 From Yogyakarta started at 07.15 a.m to Palembang. At 2.00 p.m the meeting has been done among Mr. Hardjono Arisman and Mr. Fahrurozi represented of MHP and a team of LPF Wahyu Wardhana, Hery Purnomo and S. Awang. The meeting was focused on the subject of MOU among MHP-CIRAD-CIFOR- FOFGMU. The subject to be discussed during the meeting were:

(1) Related to the data collected and its analysis with respect to the intellectual property right. The team of MHP proposed that they also have opportunity to use some data from the LPF research. The meeting was concluded that MHP is also has right to use the data and analysis without a formal permit.

(2) In term of publishing data from the result of the research, MHP team proposed that not all information and data to be presented in the community level because almost occurred protest from social actors if there are some information are missed.

(3) Mr.Fahrurrozi appeal to the team of LPF that he some time invited in the national and international LPF meeting. We can’t decide this subject because it is depend on the CIRAD-CIFOR policy, budget limitation and opportunity.

(4) Agreement of MOU will be signed by all parties after completed by LPF team. Day 2: July 12, 2005 The activity of day 2 focused on the committee “forum Sebahu Sejalan” meeting in camp MHP Niru. There are 7 committee members such as Alamuddin, Nazuri, Ingram Indra, Susatyo Hutomo, Edi Iswanto, Untung Alfan, San Afri Awang. There were 2 members did not follow the meeting namely Edi Iswanto and Alamuddin. Meeting in Niru started at 11 a.m to 4 p.m. There were two agenda of meeting have been done such as the arrangements of personnel within the organization of forum Sebahu Sejalan, and formulation the basic regulation for program implementation. Conclusion of the meeting that Mr. Aminullah from MHP is designated as a chairman of Forum Sebahu Sejalan, and also local coordinator of LPF program awarded in the posisition as a secretary of forum. After meeting in Niru we moved to the other MHP office in Km 10, Pendopo.

118

Day 3, July 13, 2005 Day 3 in MHP, I went to a group of people which has been organized under MHBM Talang Tumbur in unit VI Benakat. Before met with MHBM Talang Tumbur I met a community development team (MHP team) in Unit VI pak Tugino and pak Cipto. We met with pak Tumiran and pak Marzuki as a board of MHBM Talang Tumbur. Started at 11 a.m, I was collected data and information from pak Tumiran and pak Marzuki. The issu is addressed about the story of land authority among people and MHP enterprise. Others data were collected regarding to the process in which way local people of Talang Tumbur could become a part of MHBM and MHR program in the region of Unit VI, and in some extend land dispute among local people and MHP to be a big problem in relation of them. The nature of thinking addressed to the data and information from Talang Tumbur based on the data collected are:

(1) people felt happy followed MHBM and MHR program. Some problems still exists there such as why the area of forest which is planted was not in whole area at the same time. According to planning this Group of MHBM has 320 ha but since 2002-2004 the area which have been planted just 160 ha of Accasia mangium, there is no well information about when the rest of area will be planted. If it is the case, therefore, the group will not harvest the timber in all area of MHBM. It meant that the management fee of Rp 2.500 per m3 log shared by PT.MHP could not received all by group of MHBM.

(2) In case of MHR, there is a family in Talang Tumbur followed this program for 10 ha of Accasia mangium. But other people as member of MHR, he gets 2 ha of Accasia mangium only because land ownership limitation.

(3) Big problem is faced by MHP deal with land claimed by local people in Talang Tumbur. Before MHP come to this area, people have opened the state forest land for agriculture activities for 320 ha. When MHP implemented their business those area of 320 ha was claimed as part of MHP domain. People proposed that area should be a part of MHR program. It is not under MHBM program.

(4) There was no weeding activity in the area of MHBM of 160 ha. The reason is the cost for weeding too low and because of it since the beginning of 2002 there was no weeding activities for all area of MHBM.

Day 4, July 14, 2005 At 10.30 a.m of day 4, I went to a group of MHBM and MHR in Simpang Raja, Benakat. I met with a chairman of MHBM and also met a person who has 51 ha of Accasia mangium plantation as MHR. The chairman is also has 10 ha of Accasia mangium belong to MHR program. The trees are growing very well and the people looks happy with this kind of program both for MHBM and MHR. Before MHBM and MHR program implemented in the Simpang Raja (Lubuk Guci), most of the forest area which is managed fully by PT.MHP always destroyed by other people through forest fire accident. This problem arise because there is no shared benefits among local people and MHP. As we know in the field that the area of forest already occupied by local people before MHP coming in 1993. According to local traditional regulation (adat), all the land who has opened and used for several years by local people, those land will be owned by them. For while the MHBM program is accepted by a group of MHBM member. A basic problem is come up dealt with MHR program. Around 6 persons as member of MHR in Simpang Raja presenting their feeling and analyzing focused on the benefit sharing system.

119

As we know that the sharing in MHR is about 40% for people and 60% for MHP. The all production inputs is MHP responsible and all plantation activities done by member of MHR group. The sharing will be done after all cost of production is calculated and that cost must be done by fairness play. Every cost which is used for plantation should be known by a chairman of MHR group. People needs more well trust and partnership and also transparent for all process of plantation, maintaining, and of course harvesting and marketing of wood. These kind of activities should be more developed and discussed among a group of MHR and field MHP manager. Day 5, July 15, 2005 A lot of information stated that there are many problems addressed to the role of field MHP staff, especially related to the contract system on land preparation, planting, maintaining, weeding, ect. According to the rule the contract system should be done among a chairman of MHBM group and MHR group with MHP unit manager. Normally it was working but at the same time the chairman of MHBM doesn’t have any capital to do the work on land preparation, planting, weeding ect. Because lack of capital, therefore, the chairman returning the contract to the MHBM unit manager. It is matter of difficulty where the unit manager faced in the skenario of MHBM and MHR. In one side of thinking he should improve the welfare and income of local people, but in other local people can’t do anything without capital supporting. Manager wondering that the work must go on whatever problem are there. For that reason, the unit manager in some extent looking for an alternative so that the job is not tackled by MHBM group any more, but the job will be executed by local businessman who has a couple of money to do land preparation, planting, and weeding. In this case, the contract of work happened among local businessman and MHP. Member group of MHBM then, to be a labor on this system. As a consequent of it, the benefits of this work system not go to the local people but taken by local businessman. To get more valid information about above problems, I went to head of plantation block in Tomon Unit III Gemawang. The head of block mentioned that he at the beginning of the work always offered to the chairman of MHBM group that there was some plantation activities should be done by the group, but there was no response from member of group to do that. Almost happen that the labor of plantation were taken from other village even from other province such as South Sumatera and Lampung. Why it is occurred in this place? Because the income from job in MHP lowest then income from tapping rubber latex. Main income of local people is coming from selling the latex. The price of latex is about Rp 6000-Rp 8000 per kg. Working in the plantation will get only Rp 15.000 per day but with hard work. Day 6, July 16, 2005 In the July 15 afternoon I went to Palembang and stay a night in the hotel. At July 16, 2005 morning I leaved from Palembang to Jakarta and Yogyakarta. Important Remarks 1. There is a traditional term so called “lokak”. Lokak means everything has considered as

an opportunity to get money. Most of MHP staff in the field level saw that contract system for planting and weeding as a kind of “lokak”. Lokak related to the increasing of people income so that it will be a source of conflict within the community and MHP staff.

2. MHP Staff internal supporting were not conducive. It will be seen in indicators as follows: (a) there is image in MHP internally that MHBM and MHR programs were not collective action, because the divisions of production, transportation, and plantation tree were still working unintegrated with approach of MHBM and MHR; (b) Working process in MHBM and MHR reduced the “lokak” as a source of additional income so far. In such away, actors of MHPwill not willing to support this program; and (c) the implementation

120

of MHBM and MHR will be destroyed by management “ lokak” and the goal of project will not be realized

3. Monoculture system in Accasia mangium plantation was not given other additional income except from wood only. Meaning that there was no intercropping among the trees line. For the next, however, intensification of land use model must be developed within monoculture system.

4. Conflict resolutions. a. Many land claim conflict from local people. Part of MHP forest area was declared as

their owned. To solve this conflict, the MHP team tried to hold the elite local actors and making understanding of problem and sharing benefits.

b. There was no standard procedure and a system regularly to solve the conflict in MHP. All the conflict have been solved due to role of field MHP staff performance. The staff built the trust with local people and people believe to the staff because he come from “orang lokal”. But when the staff is replaced his job to another place, the conflict is coming again.

5. A group of MHBM received 1% from total contract of work from each MHP activities. 6. A group of MHBM will be received sharing benefits of Rp 2.500/ton wood from MHP. 7. Total area of MHBM until 2005 is 33.800 ha, and MHR is about 9.000 ha. According to

planning total area of MHBM will be realized about 80.000 ha. 8. Head of plantation block is also, in some location, as a local businessman and hold the

contract. People didn’t agree with this situation. 9. A group of MHBM doesn’t has any capital to do planting and weeding activities. 10. Based on the fact in the field that the MHBM and MHR were not able to call as an

approach of Community based forest management (CBFM). The model could be called as Partnership-Industrial Plantation Forest Agreement (PIPFA).

Closing remarks This report connected to the process of action research in MHP by CIFOR, CIRAD and UGM. This is not final report for this research because detail data still collected and analyzed by sub team of CIRAD and UGM. CIRAD will be analyzed socio economic analysis at household level, and then UGM will analyze the issue of local politics and institution perspective. Social capital of MHBM and MHR group needs for help. There was no activities within the group, within the member of group so that we cannot considered that the group oh MHBM and MHR in general already under well managed and well organize. MPH was not focused on group of MHBM and MHR empowerment. It is really lack of attention from MHP team so far.

121

Annex 12. List of contact persons of LPF implementation in South Sumatra

Name Organization Phone/Fax Email Akip Yoenoes, Drs, MSi.

Government District Secretary of Muara Enim Jl. Jend. A. Yani, Muara Enim

Off. Tel. 0734 421140 Home Tel. 0734 421159 HP: 08117801801

Amir Thohalim Coordinator MHP Rambang Niru

HP: 0813 67648525

Erwin Donovan Community development of MHP

HP: 0813 67539196

Facrurrozie Sjarkowi, Ph.D

Research Advisor MHP; Sriwijaya University

HP: 0812 7125847 [email protected] [email protected]

Hardjono Arisman Director PPH MHP, Jl. Residen H. Abdul Rozak No. 99 Palembang 30114

Tel: 0711-718101 Fax: 0711 718102 HP: 0811 711569

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Herry Purnomo, Dr. CIFOR Bogor, Sindang Barang Bogor 16680

Tel: 0251- 622622 Fax: 0251- 622100 HP: 0812 979 6360

[email protected]

Karl-Heinz Steinmann, DR

EU Co-Director South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 2837 PO. BOX 1229 Palembang 30129 www.ssffmp.or.id

Tel: 0711-377821 Fax: 0711 353176 HP: 0813 67711874

[email protected] [email protected]

Levania Santoso CIFOR Bogor, Sindang Barang Bogor 16680

Tel: 0251- 622622 Fax: 0251- 622100 HP: 0811 145874

[email protected]

M. Aminullah SH Head of Community Development of MHP – Camp Niru

Tel: 0711-718101 Fax: 0711 718102 HP: 0816 38 3400

[email protected]

Muhono Head of Forestry District Unit of Muara Enim

HP: 0815 3555104

Philippe Guizol, Dr. LPF Project Leader CIRAD at CIFOR Bogor, Sindang Barang Bogor 16680

Tel: 0251- 622622 Fax: 0251- 622100 HP: -

[email protected]

Romlah Zulhimi, Dra

Head of Muara Enim Public Library.

Tel: 0734 422380 HP: 08127873513

San Afri Awang, MSc, PhD candidate

UGM Yogykarta Fac. of Forestry Yogyakarta 55281

Tel: 0274- 548815 Fax: 0251- 550541 HP: 0811 267010

[email protected]

Satyo Hutomo, Ir. R&D Social and economy of MHP

HP: 0813 67481550

Untung Alpan, Ir. Community development of MHP

HP: 0812 7395173

Wahyu Wardhana, SHut, MSc.

UGM Yogykarta Fac. of Forestry Yogyakarta 55281

Tel: 0274- 548815 Fax: 0251- 550541 HP: 0811 7950713

[email protected]

Yunial Komar - Paguyuban Masyarakat Peduli Hutan Sumatra Selatan -Head of Bulan Bintang Party, South Sumatra

HP: 0818 650036

Yusdi Herley, SH, MM

MHP Palembang Tel: 0711-718101 Fax: 0711 718102 HP: 0812 710 4230

122

Annex 13. Composition of the team Year 2 For the second year of activities (2006) the team will be accompanied by a field coordinator. The field coordinator will function to facilitate the intervention stage at local level. So the overall team will comprise • Dr. San Afri Awang (UGM) • Dr. Herry Purnomo (CIFOR) • Mr. Wahyu Wardhana (UGM) • Dr. Philippe Guizol (CIRAD) • Mr. Susatyo Hutomo (MHP) • Mr. Erwin Donovan (MHP) • Mr. Untung (MHP) • Mr. Rennaldi (Field coordinator)

123

Annex 14. Financial expenditure for Year 2

Expenses Unit Unit rate IDR

Number of units

planed activities

Cost of planed

activities Cost of activities

Computer scientists Pers-month 10 000 000 2,50 25 000 000 25.000.000

Finance Staff Pers-month 2 500 000 1,00 2 500 000 2.500.000 National coordinators Pers-month 20 000 000 0,75 15 000 000 15.000.000

Subtotal

Human Resources

42 500 000 42.500.000

Air tickets flight 12 000 000 13.627.450Per diem Rural area day 250 000 30,00 7 500 000 17.250.000National

travel Workshop 5.013.500

Subtotal Travel 19 500 000 35.890.950Rent of vehicles day 300 000 8,00 2 400 000 5.240.000Equipment

and Supplies Consumables - office supplies

for FOFGMU and field activities pers-month 1 000 000 1.033.700

Office space at FOFGMU, use of electricity, use of filed instruments, secretarial support

Subtotal

Equipment and supplies

3 400 000 6.273.700

Students month 2 500 000 2,00 5 000 000 9.263.800Others

Subtotal Other costs, services 5 000 000 9.263.800

TOTAL 70 400 000 93.928.450

124

Annex 15. Cost estimate for Year 3

BUDGET

Expenses Unit Unit rate IDR

No. of units

planed activities

Cost of planed activities (LPF

to UGM) Expected MHP

contribution Direct

contract with CIFOR

Total

Computer Scientist

Month 10,000,000

2.0 20,000,000 20,000,000 Salaries Technical / local experts National

Coordinator Month 20,000,00

0 2.0 40,000,000 40,000,000

Subtotal Human Resources 60,000,000 0 0 60,000,000

Air tickets flight 1,600,000 14.0 22,400,000 22,400,000

Cities (Jakarta, Palembang)

day 700,000 10.0 7,000,000 7,000,000

Muara Enim day 450,000 17.0 7,650,000 7,650,000

Per diem

Rural area day 250,000 17.0 4,250,000 4,250,000 Natio

nal T

rave

l

Subtotal Travel 41,300,000 0 0 41,300,000

Rent of vehicles

day 700,000 20 14,000,000 11,000,000

Satelite imagery

10,000,000 19,600,000 29,600,000

Office rent 20,000,000 14,000,000 34,000,000

Communication tools (handycam, camera)

3,500,000 3,500,000

Consumable office supplies 4,000,000 4,000,000

Operational cost for local office 21,000,000 21,000,000 Equi

pmen

t & S

uppl

ies

Subtotal Equipment and supplies 31,500,000 60,600,000 14,000,000 103,100,000

Field Site Mediator (FSM)

day 300,000 24 7,200,000 7,200,000

Field Coordinator

month 5,200,000 12 62,400,000 62,400,000

Computer Scientist Assistant

month 3,500,000 2 7,000,000 7,000,000

Finance Staff month 3,000,000 1.5 4,500,000 4,500,000

FGD event 2,000,000 10.0 10,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000

Local experts

Workshop event 4,000,000 4 8,000,000 8,000,000 16,000,000

Othe

rs

Subtotal Other costs, services 29,500,000 25,200,000 62,400,000 117,100,000

TOTAL 162,300,000 85,800,000 76,400,000 321,500,000

LPF Project South Sumatra Case Study

Levelling the Playing FieldImproving Partnership in Pulp Forest Plantation to Benefit the Poor and Reduce Conflict

LPF Team members:San Afri Awang, Herry Purnomo, Wahyu Wardhana, Philippe Guizol, Patrice Levang, Soaduon Sitorus, Nawa Murtiyanto and Yuli Susanto

LPF/05/2005

LPF Project So

uth

Sum

atra Case Stu

dy - LPF team

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.

Office addressJalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang BarangBogor Barat 16680 - IndonesiaTel: +62(251) 622 622Fax: +62(251) 622 100E-mail: [email protected]: www.cifor.cgiar.org

Mailing addressP.O. Box. 6596 JKPWBJakarta 10065 - Indonesia

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 University (UGM), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM).

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

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

IndonesiaFaculty of ForestryGadjah Mada University (UGM)

MalaysiaFaculty of ForestryUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)