COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT: A CASE STUDY FROM SUMATRA

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT: A CASE STUDY FROM SUMATRA

2 COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT: A CASE STUDY FROM SUMATRA Despite tremendous efforts to protect natural forest, and promote sustainable management of forest resources, Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) is still facing eternal pressures which put at risk the conservation efforts, part of the Forest Conservation Policy implemented since Indeed, illegal logging, etraction and poaching, encroachment, slash and burn for agricultural epansion and subsistence farming are main threats to the forest ecosystems in an around concessions. To address these challenges, APP invested a lot of effort in developing community-based programs following the assumption that engaging with communities within and around concessions changes the dynamics between the company and villages, moving from a history of conflictual relationship to a collaborative approach were communities are considered as strategic partners with valuable knowledge on the forest environment. In addition, APP is convinced that when communities secured their incomes and improved their livelihood, they are less tempted to further degrade natural forest to epanding crops, mainly palm oil. Hence investing in supporting local development offering benefits to local communities and engaging them in partnerships, helps achieving APP s objective of promoting a sustainable business supporting forest protection, while at the same time improving local livelihood and securing APP s economic performance.

3 KEY FINDINGS Transitions, a consultancy team, specialized in sustainable development, was commissioned to assess the synergic effects of different communitybased programs, outlining successes and challenges in the implementation, and understanding people s perception of social, economic and environmental impacts of these programs. This assessment was done through cases studies conducted in four villages in the Provinces of Riau, Jambi and South Sumatra. Four types of community-based programs have been implemented by APP and its independent suppliers in these villages: The various community-based program have largely contributed to improving relationship between community members and the company; They resulted in diverse job opportunities and income generating activities at village level; Villagers have easier and better access to loan for production with lower interest rates; Horticultural commodities, aquaculture and livestock production in villages improves food security and ensures lower prices; Frequency and intensity of fire in villages have significantly reduced compare to average rates; Women have the opportunity to take part in agricultural activities and epress their voices within community; DMPA fund have contributed to operationalized newly established Village Enterprises/BUMDes; Ownership, monitoring and institutional arrangement of the DMPA program is higher compare to previous CSR programs; DMPA (Desa Makmur Peduli Api Integrated Forestry and Farming System), MPA (Masyarakat Peduli Api Community Fire Patrols), KMPH (Kelompok Masyarakat Peduli Hutan Community Forest Security Patrols) HHBK (Hasil Hutan Bukan Kayu Non Timber Forest Products). The study also refers to the CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) activities implemented by the company in villages prior to the establishment of the DMPA in 2016, in order to identify what has changed between the past approach and the newly established initiatives. Village Fire risk DMPA DMPA MPA KMPH HHBK CSR 1- Low 2- Medium 3- High 4- Etreme implementation starting date Pinang Sebatang Barat Siak, Riau Mandiangin Siak, Riau Dataran Kempas Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi Pagar Desa Musi Banyuasin, South Sumatra Oct Dec Sep Nov Table 1: Community-based programs established by APP and independent suppliers in the 4 villages

4 RESEARCH SITES The four villages are located inside to a 5 km radius around an APP suppliers concession. Most of the villagers are smallholders growing oil palm on 2ha land plots. Some still have rubber gardens but are converting it into oil palm plantations. Land availability is limited, and people are struggling to rely on their palm and rubber production. The majority of villagers are therefore obliged to work as labor force in bigger farms or industrial plantation. A smaller proportion of villagers also don t own land (especially new comers) and are therefore relying on off farm activities to make a living. Only, few farmers were already involved in horticultural and livestock activities prior to the DMPA deployment. Village DMPA Beneficiaries MPA KMPH HHBK CSR Indirect Direct Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Pinang Sebatang Barat Horticulture Aquaculture Goat breeding Forest Fire Patrol, socialization 5 Fishery inside the concession 6 Riau Berbuah (fruit garden) Ekonomi Kerakyatan (provision of seedlings & fertilizers) 10 Mandiangin Horticulture Goat & cow breeding Aquaculture 28 Forest Fire Patrol, socialization 9 Cow breeding Dataran Kempas Horticulture Aquaculture Red ginger (Women Group) Sheep & goat breeding 350 Forest Fire Patrol, socialization 20 Feeding grass collection in the concession 200 Cow breeding Compost production 20 Pagar Desa Horticulture Fruit garden Cow breeding 56 Forest Fire Patrol, socialization 18 Community Forest Security Patrol, socialization 8 96 Table 2: Activities under each initiatives and number of direct/indirect beneficiaries

5 PERCEIVED IMPACTS 1. Perceived economic impacts Most of villagers seek for additional revenues while job opportunities inside villages are limited. People feel that the different programs have generated an all-new set of job opportunities and income generating activities inside villages. Beneficiaries also eperience easier and better access to loans for production with lower interest rates. Villagers also welcome the positive effects of the development of horticulture in their villages: Prices of vegetables and fruits decreased since products are grown and available in villages. This domestic availability supports improved food security of villages. MPA AND KMPH DMPA LIVESTOCK DMPA AQUACULTURE DMPA HORTICULTURE Beneficiaries of the MPA and Beneficiaries of the animal Beneficiaries of the aquaculture Beneficiaries of the horticulture KMPH appreciated the additional husbandry program do not feel programs have been able to sell program have improved their revenues generated by the any direct benefit yet since the their production, but the benefice production and increased their patrolling activities. Money earned program is still in its early stage. returned has not yet been used revenues. Some beneficiaries from being a patrol team member However, livestock generates by other potential beneficiaries, can now do savings and invest (as well as zero fire bonuses) nicely indirect benefit through the since not enough fishpond in infrastructures to scale up supports the overall household production of manure. Members infrastructures are available in the productivity. Suryono in the economy. are either using manure to villages yet. village of Pinang Sebatang reduce their own consumption of Barat, is an eample of individual chemical fertilizers (up to 50%) or entrepreneur: he now employs 5 selling it as fertilizer to others. In workers on his farm, creating new Dataran Kempas, the Karya Trans job opportunities in the village. Mandiri Farmer Group is planning Revenue from horticulture can be to produce fermented natural higher than the one generated manure for commercial distribution from oil palm. from its sheep flock. Goats being produced locally, it also reduces cost for village events.

6 2. Perceived impact on reducing fire and on the environment 3. Perceived relationship improvement with the company LAND CLEARING PRACTICES PERCEIVED IMPACT People feel that the programs contributed to smoothen the relationship and communication between the village community and the company. Villages Villagers admitted that the usage of fire for land clearing was a common practice in the past. Fire was perceived as the cheapest and most efficient way to clear land and fertilize soils. Now they are no longer using fire due to strong law enforcement since Instead they clear the land manually and gather left overs into alleys while letting organic matters decompose (sometimes with the help of chemicals addition). In some cases, people use controlled fires. These fires are undertaken under the supervision of the MPA patrols. People feel that the programs have an impact on reducing the intensity and frequency of fire events around their villages. They mostly attribute this achievement to the MPA patrols. Village patrols are not only acting as the eyes in the village for early fire detection, but they also socialize information on risks attached to fire. Villagers mentioned that the reduction of fires is having a clear impact on the air quality in their village and their health. Beneficiaries of the horticultural program, mentioned that land intensification practices does not require the usage of fire any longer since horticultural land is under permanent cultivation. People have changed their mindset and 4. acknowledged the previous conflictual relationship with the company due to land claims and boundaries disagreements. Villagers now have direct interactions with company staffs visiting the villages on a regular basis. In the past the lack of interaction worsened miscommunication between both parties (increasing the risk of conflict). Village facilitators are playing a crucial role as an interface between the program beneficiaries and the company staffs. Last but not least, the company is much more responsive now to requests from the villagers side by providing on-spot consultation and support (e.g. discussion with community, to prepare agricultural land, build water storage and irrigation canals, improved road access to individual farms etc. ) Perceived social impact Beneficiaries feel that the programs have generated a new dynamic at village level. They learned to be more disciplined and feel that it has strengthened cohesion among beneficiaries. In Dataran Kempas, new Farmer Groups have been established following the launch of the DMPA program. In that same village, beneficiaries of the aquaculture program stated that youth are now also interested in contributing and guarding the fish ponds instead of hanging around in the village. Women feel proud to be involved in agricultural activities and are satisfied that their role is no longer restricted to household tasks. practices from land clearing to land management. People realize that their village potential had not been optimized yet and that things can be done to maimize village resources in order to become self-sufficient. Beneficiaries of the horticultural program are now changing their mindset by having a continuity in the production (e.g. chili) and not to rely on seasonal production anymore.

7 Improved relationship, the eample of the HHBK program Under the HHBK program, members can access the concession area without fearing of being reprimanded. In Pinang Sebatang Barat, members can access the area (PT. Arara Abadi) for fishing. Besides legal access, beneficiaries also received fishing nets from the company. In Dataran Kempas, beneficiaries can access the plantation area for collecting feed grass for their livestock. Members of the HHBK program also play a role in early fire identification.

8 DMPA INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 1. Farmer Groups vs individual members beneficiaries As demonstrated in table 2, the number of direct beneficiaries is higher when loans are contracted by Farmer Groups instead of individual members within Farmer Groups. In Dataran Kempas for eample, Farmer Groups have been established to participate in the DMPA program and gather around 350 beneficiaries. In Pinang Sebatang Barat - where loans are contracted by individual there are only 19 direct beneficiaries. However, in this model, Farmer Groups members managed to scale up their production and then hire on-farm employees (indirect beneficiaries). When contracted by the Farmer Groups, the DMPA loans are higher and the potential for rapidly scaling up the activity is increased (through the establishment of small scale industries). The collective ownership of the program is also higher. 2. Fund management: Village Entreprise (BUMDes) vs Farmer Groups 3. DMPA vs traditional CSR In most of the cases, the fund provided by the company for the DMPA program has been allocated to the Village Enterprise (Badan Usaha Milik Desa BUMDes). Every village in Indonesia is required to establish BUMDes but only few are operational and even less already have a budget allocated to it. DMPA has been an opportunity for villages to operationalize the BUMDes and Past CSR support provided by the company, took the form of livestock and seedlings provision. Monitoring from the company side was limited. Ownership of the program was poor as beneficiaries did not have to report back in case of failure. Support was provided on periodic basis with no institutional arrangement. channel funds from outside. Beneficiaries of the DMPA program contract a loan directly through the BUMDes (in-kind) and have to return it after the first profit has been generated from their activities. Loans from this revolving fund can then be contracted by others therefore scaling up the program impact. This loan system through BUMDes is the most efficient since it is accessible to every villagers as a service provided by village authorities. Under DMPA, ownership of the program is higher, since people are contracting loans and feel responsible for it. Institutional arrangement is also more efficient. Under CSR, beneficiaries were provided with seedlings, whereas under DMPA, they receive packages (seedlings/fertilizers or fish juveniles/ fish food), reducing initial costs and allowing for a faster scale up in activities. Follow up, monitoring and communication are also more efficient under In the case of Pinang Sebatang Barat, the DMPA fund is instead transiting through eisting Farmer Groups. As a result, it appears that the risk of the fund remaining in a closed circle of beneficiaries would be higher, resulting in DMPA. Participation of beneficiaries in the selection of activities is improved under DMPA as villagers are involved in the process (Focus Group Discussion) in order to identify preferred activities. a less inclusive program. Under CSR, the process was top-down with less or no consultation.

9 OVERALL CHALLENGES LESSONS LEARNED 1. Trainings and capacity building Farmer Groups organizations is the best way to reach out a higher number of beneficiaries Members of the MPA patrols received trainings on first interventions in the occurrence of fire. They feel proud for having been able to apply what they have learned, either in their own villages or in neighboring villages in which the company asked them to provide support to etinguish a fire. Heads of the patrols have already been trained on book-keeping. with villages and for the program to rapidly scale up higher loans and seed fund; The company should invest as much as possible in facilitating the establishment of Farmer Groups and provide institutional capacity building; DMPA fund transiting through BUMDes should become a standard procedure for more equity in accessing loans and higher inclusiveness; More trainings are required especially on specificities of each sub-activity; Out of the 31 villagers interviewed, 78% had received a training. However, trainings are not always targeted for beneficiaries activities and are sometimes organized jointly for all programs beneficiaries without paying attention to program specificities. Trainings provided are considered to be too general Village facilitators capacity needs to be strengthened in order to provide agricultural etension service at village level; Establish Centre of Ecellence to accompany farmer champions who would be responsible for training new beneficiaries at village level. and not covering all aspects of the programs. 2. Access to market One of the main constrains for beneficiaries of the horticultural program is the limited access to reliable markets. Beside the successful eample of Pinang Sebatang Barat where beneficiaries can sell their products directly to the Perawang mill due to good market information and its strategic location close to the industrial site (access to the site has been eased by the company), the other villages are rather isolated and road access is a challenge. So far, horticultural production in the 3 other villages is only being marketed on site inside the villages.

10