MAARIT H. KALLIO a, MARKKU KANNINEN a & DEDE ROHADI a b a Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Cirad-Dist Bib Lavalette] On: 11 February 2013, At: 07:39 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Forests, Trees and Livelihoods Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: FARMERS' TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA CASE STUDIES IN THE PROVINCES OF CENTRAL JAVA, RIAU, AND SOUTH KALIMANTAN MAARIT H. KALLIO a, MARKKU KANNINEN a & DEDE ROHADI a b a Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia b Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA), Bogor, Indonesia Version of record first published: 16 May To cite this article: MAARIT H. KALLIO, MARKKU KANNINEN & DEDE ROHADI (2011): FARMERS' TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA CASE STUDIES IN THE PROVINCES OF CENTRAL JAVA, RIAU, AND SOUTH KALIMANTAN, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 20:2-3, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently

2 verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

3 Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2011, Vol. 20, pp A B Academic Publishers Printed in Great Britain Farmers tree planting activity in Indonesia - case studies in the provinces of Central Java, Riau, and South Kalimantan MAARIT H. KALLIO 1, MARKKU KANNINEN 1, DEDE ROHADI 1,2 1 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia 2 Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA), Bogor, Indonesia Abstract The differences in socio-economic and perceptional characteristics between tree planting and nontree planting farmers were analysed in four case studies from three provinces in Indonesia. For each case study, the paper describes: a) the reasons for planting or not planting trees, b) how the income received from wood was used, c) the main disadvantages related to tree planting, and d) farmers willingness to continue tree planting under the current arrangements. The tree planters were mainly the farmers with more land; higher value of total assets; and with more active participation in farmer s groups or other social organizations. Long rotation length, lack of capital, low wood prices, and poor access to production inputs or markets affected farmers willingness to plant trees in the future. Policies are needed that are conducive to the establishment of markets for fiber and timber with fair and reasonable pricing structures. Key words: Acacia mangium Willd., Anthocephalus cadamba Miq., disadvantages, socio-economic, Swietenia macrophylla King, Tectona grandis L.f. Introduction In Indonesia, wood is mostly extracted from their vast forests, which in 2010 covered an area of M ha (FAO 2010). During the last decades however, Indonesia s forest area has declined at concerning rates. Rate of forest loss between the year 2000 and 2005 was 1.9 M ha per year (FAO 2007). It is unlikely that Indonesian natural forests can continue to meet the growing demand for wood (Potter and Lee 1998). In order to increase timber and fiber production, and to enhance environmental services, planted forest has become increasingly important in the region. The area of plantation forest in Indonesia was 3.4 M ha in 2005, making it the largest in Southeast Asia (FAO 2006), yet the Indonesian wood-based industry still faces a shortage of wood. This challenge is recognized by the Indonesian government, which is promoting tree planting programs, including smallholder tree planting. For example it has plans to establish PO Box BOCBD Bogor 16000, Indonesia 2 PO Box 165 Bogor 16610, Indonesia Corresponding author: Maarit Kallio, m.kallio@cgiar.org, CIFOR, PO Box BOCBD Bogor 16000, Indonesia. Tel. +62 (251) , Fax. +62 (251)

4 192 KALLIO ET AL. M ha of new smallholder tree plantations in state production forest by the year 2016 (van Noordwijk et al. 2007). This program is called Community Plantation Forest or Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (HTR), and it is planned to involve about 360,000 rural households (Emila and Suwito 2007). Early reports from the HTR program indicate low actual planted areas (Schneck et al. 2009). This is mainly attributed to failures in selecting eligible land, difficulties in defining the legal arrangements for the different models and loan systems of the program, and to general unattractiveness of the program as a livelihood option for the farmers (Schneck et al. 2009). In addition to the government, other actors such as private companies and NGOs also support smallholder tree planting in Indonesia. Similar expansions in plantation areas have occurred in other Asia-Pacific countries; including China, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and others which have responded to increasing demand for industrial wood by promoting investments in plantation development (Enters et al. 2004, Barr and Cossalter 2004, MARD 2000). In order to implement tree planting programs more effectively, it is important to learn from previous smallholder tree planting experiences. Farmers in Indonesia have a long history of tree planting and allowing trees to regenerate naturally in their land (Wiersum 1982, Nibbering 1999, Slender and Lasco 2008). Trees are commonly grown between annual crops and in a large variety of other agroforestry systems (Wiersum 1982, Michon and de Foresta 1997, Nibbering 1999, Manurung et al. 2008), and as dedicated woodlots (Nibbering 1999). The real extent of smallholder tree planting in Indonesia remains unknown due to a lack of data (FAO 2006). In the tropics, farmers often plant trees for economic reasons (Amacher et al. 1993, Current et al. 1995), but trees can also be planted as safety nets (Chambers and Leach 1989), for subsistence use (Scherr 1997), for environmental services (Evans 1992, Leakey & Tchoundjeu 2001, Shackelton et al. 2007), or for cultural and aesthetic reasons (FAO 1993). The government s major driving force for promoting tree planting programs including the HTR is to increase timber and fiber resources, whilst for the farmers there is an expectation for additional sources of income. Yet, it is questionable whether tree planting for timber or fiber is an economically attractive land-use option for the farmers as it is currently being practiced. The success of tree planting under different arrangements varies, and there are several examples of constraints that farmers in the tropics may face. Such constraints include: unfair or unclear benefit sharing or user rights in cases of company-community partnerships (Nawir and Santoso 2005), general suitability of tree planting as a livelihood option (Arnold 1997), market-related barriers, institutional or policy barriers (Barr et al. 2006), cultural aspects (Hyman 1983), and environmental or technical aspects (Van Noordwijk et al. 2007). For example, Byron (2001) pointed out that smallholder tree planting can only be successful if all the keys of successful tree planting are in place (i.e. not being constrained by the abovementioned factors). Planting trees for timber production requires a long time period before reaching harvesting age (depending on species), making tree planting a long-

5 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 193 term investment with little or no intermediate returns on investment. Even the relative short rotation length of 5 7 years of acacia (planted for fiber production) can be longer than the rotation length of an alternative land use option. Such a waiting period prior to harvesting is a disincentive to poor farmers, who are highly dependent on their limited farm resources (Dewees and Saxena 1997). Only the farmers with on-farm food supply, off-farm income sources or access to affordable loans are able to cope with the extended payback period between tree planting and harvesting (Arnold 1997). Several studies in the tropics have analysed the socioeconomic and perceptional factors that influence farmers decisions to plant trees. Tree planting farmers are generally those with the following characteristics: high enough income, necessary material and technology (Hyman 1983, Byron 2001), enough land with secure land and resource tenure (Salam et al. 2000, Simmons et al. 2002, Summers 2004), limited labour; but enough for tree planting (Arnold and Dewees 1997, Ravindran and Thomas 2000), suitable skills and knowledge (Byron 2001), interaction with other farmers; such as farmers groups (Sen and Das 1988, Mahapatra and Mitchell 2001). In addition, many other factors can affect the farmers planting and management activity, including environmental factors such as site quality (Kumar 2003, Jagger et al. 2005), access to markets (Ravindran and Thomas 2000, Arnold 2001, Scherr 2004), the physical location of the land, or the farmers living location (Dewees and Saxena 1997). If targeted well, external actors who promote tree planting and provide incentives can be an efficient way to encourage the farmers to plant trees (Carnea 1992, Salam et al. 2000, Simmons et al. 2002, Enters et al. 2004). There is some information available about industrial-scale tree planting involving farmers in Indonesia, including partnership planting with companies (e.g. Tyynelä et al. 2002, Nawir and Santoso 2005) and HTR planting (Van Noordwijk et al. 2007, Hakim 2009, Schneck 2009). However, very little empirical data are available regarding the possible factors affecting farmers decisions to plant trees. Considering the large scale panned for small-holder tree planting under the HTR program, and the low actual planted areas, more data on the factors affecting farmers decision to plant trees is needed if tree planting is to be expanded successfully. This paper aims to provide such data; firstly by analysing the differences in the socio-economic and perceptional characteristics of tree planters and non-tree planters in four case studies. Secondly, by analysing how farmers planting different industrial wood producing species under varying external support arrangements (or without any support), different market conditions and land-use competition, varied in their willingness to continue tree planting. In this context, the socioeconomic and perceptional characteristics

6 194 KALLIO ET AL. of farmers willing or not willing to continue acacia planting -under current arrangements were analysed. Thirdly, a description of the following in each of the case study sites is provided: a) the reasons for planting or not planting trees, b) how the income received from wood is used, c) and the main disadvantages related to tree planting. The wide range of industrial wood tree planting arrangements in Indonesia s numerous islands (with varying access to markets and production inputs etc. ) provides an ideal setting to test this paper s aims. The case studies did not represent exactly the same arrangement as HTR, as trees were not planted in the state land, but in farmers private land or village land. However, the lessons learnt from this study could guide the implementation of future and current treeplanting programs, and assist policy makers to target forest policy goals more efficiently. Methods Site selection and description In this paper, case studies from three of the five major islands of Indonesia are included; Java, Kalimantan and Sumatra. Based on Rapid Rural Appraisals, seven villages were selected as study sites, of which four case studies were formed (Table 1). The villages were selected because they all were active in tree planting for timber or fiber production, and in addition, they varied in the species planted, the external support arrangements, the market conditions, the land-use competition, and the length of tree-planting experience. The three villages in Riau Province (Sumatra) Lubuk Kebun, Rambahan, and Situgal were closely located and had similar general conditions; thus these villages were considered as one case study while conducting our analyses. In these three villages the study focus was on acacia (Acacia mangium Willd) partnership plantation program between the farmers and multinational pulp and paper company. In this partnership each participating farmer had received a minimum of two hectares of village land from the village authorities, which they had leased to the company to plant, manage and harvest acacia for pulp production (starting in 1996). At the end of each rotation, farmers received the amount of money that was agreed to beforehand from the company. Acacia is fast-growing species with each rotation for fiber production set at six years. At the time of this study, the plantations were on their second rotation. The main land-use competition for acacia planting in the area was rubber, oil palm, and agriculture. In Ranggang Village, South Kalimantan Province, the study focus was on mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) planting. The local government provided mahogany seedlings for farmers since 2003 in order to encourage the farmers to plant trees in their private land. All silvicultural management was conducted by the farmers. There was a market for mahogany in Ranggang Village to supply

7 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 195 a furniture company that was located in the neighboring sub-district. Mahogany is a moderately fast growing species, and farmers planned to harvest the timber between 10 and 25 years. At the time of this study, the plantations were on their first rotation. In this area the main land-use competition for mahogany planting was rubber and agriculture. In the Asem Jaya Village, South Kalimantan Province, the study focus was on kadam planting (Anthocephalus cadamba Miq.) in farmers private land. The kadam seedlings were supplied by a plywood company which, at the time of the plantation establishment (starting in 2003), promised markets and income. However, currently the market for kadam timber was unsecure because the company providing the seedlings went out of operation. The silvicultural management in the village was conducted by the farmers. Kadam is fast growing species, but the farmers did not have a planned rotation length because of the lack of markets. At the time of the study the plantations were on their first rotation. In this area the main land-use competition for kadam planting was rubber and agriculture. The two villages in Central Java Rejosari and Sendangijo were also grouped as one case study because they had similar conditions related to the species planted, external support arrangements, market conditions, land-use competition, and length of timber tree planting experience. In the two villages, the study focus was on teak planting (Tectona grandis L.f.) in farmers private land. In both villages, farmers planted either self-initiated or they had received the seedlings from the government. The silvicultural management was conducted by the farmers themselves. Marketing teak was easy for the farmers in these villages because they could sell even individual trees to the local middlemen who then harvested and transported the wood. Teak is a moderately slow growing species, and the farmers planned to harvest timber approximately at the age of 20 years and older depending on their needs for income. At the time of this study, the plantations were on their first rotation. The main land-use competition for teak planting in the area was agriculture. Respondent selection Key informant interviews and wealth ranking were conducted in the villages in order to identify for the purpose of sampling who were the tree planters and non-tree planters, as well as to determine the respondent selection from different wealth categories. The three different wealth categories were; poor (1), moderate (2), and wealthy (3), and the ranking to the groups was done using village statistics and the criteria determined by the key informants. The local key informants joining the participatory events included officials at the village, commune, and farmers group levels. For the household surveys the aim was to select the respondents randomly, in proportion to their wealth ranking. However, modification for the sampling was done because random sampling would not have guaranteed a representative

8 196 KALLIO ET AL. TABLE 1 Characteristics of the selected sites Case study 1 Case study 2 Case study 3 Case study 4 Island Sumatra Kalimantan Kalimantan Java Java Province Riau South Kalimantan South Kalimantan Central Java Central Java District Kuansing Tanah Laut Tanah Laut Karanganyar Wonogiri District coordinates S 0º00' S 1º00' S 3º30' S 4º11' S 3º30' S 4º11' S 07º28' S 07º46' S 7º 32' S 8º 15' E 101º02' E 101º55' E 114º30' E 115º23' E 114º30' E 115º23' E 110º40'- E 10º70' E 110º 41' E 111º18' Sub-district Logas Tanah Darat Jorong Takesung Gondang Rejo Selogiri Village Lubuk Kebun Asem Jaya Ranggang Rejosari Sendangiijo Rambahan Situgal Sub village Genjikan, Sosogan Kedung Banteng, Jethis Species Acacia mangium Willd. Anthocephalus Swietenia macrophylla Tectona grandis L.f. Tectona grandis L.f. cadamba Miq. King Length of Second rotation First rotation First rotation Started in 1976 Started in 1973 experience Started 1996 Started 2003 Started 2003 Respondent selected

9 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 197 number of tree planters. This is why farmers planting mahogany and kadam were selected purposively. The tree planters in Central Java and Riau, and all the non-tree planters, were selected randomly in proportion to the wealth ranking. Tree planters and non-tree planters in this study were defined for each study site with different species separately. In the three villages in Riau we divided the farmers into acacia planters and non-acacia planters; in Asem Jaya Village into kadam planters and non-kadam planters; in Ranggang Village into mahogany planters and non-mahogany planters; and in the two villages in Central Java into teak planters and non-teak planters. Most of the farmers in all the villages planted several other tree species on their land (mainly fruit trees, and in South- Kalimantan and Riau also rubber; Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg), however the fruit trees, rubber or other not primarily wood producing tree species were not included in the analyses because this study was focusing on species that were planted primarily for timber or fiber production. This means that while we refer to tree-planters, we are referring to farmers planting acacia, kadam, mahogany or teak; and while referring to non-tree planters we mean farmers not planting these species. In total 412 farmers were interviewed; including 78 acacia planters, 39 non-acacia planters, 31 kadam planters, 36 non-kadam planters, 45 mahogany planters, 57 non-mahogany planters, 67 teak planters, and 60 non-teak planters. Interviews Socio-economic and silvicultural questionnaires were used for interviews. The questionnaires were tested and modified before implementing. Interviews were conducted at farmers houses by trained enumerators. The socio-economic questionnaire included questions on the farmer and household characteristics, such as; the number of the household members, age, education, occupation, land ownership, income sources, yearly expenses, total assets, participation in farmers groups or other social organizations. The silvicultural questionnaire included questions on farmers reasons for planting or not planting trees; farmers attitudes towards tree planting; farmers willingness for continuing tree planting under the current arrangement; and disadvantages related to tree planting. Descriptive statistics, chi square and Mann-Whitney-tests were used for the analyses. The socio-economic, perceptional, and market related variables used in this study were drawn from a range of studies referred to previously in the introduction. The selected study sites provided us with the possibility to address the research questions under four different settings of tree planting for timber or fiber production, but the aim was not to statistically compare the four species or the socio-economic differences between the four groups at the different sites. The analyses on the differences in tree planters and non-tree planters socioeconomic and perceptional characteristics were presented for each case study separately.

10 198 KALLIO ET AL. Results Differences in the socio-economic and perceptional characteristics of tree planters and non-tree planters This study showed that tree planters and non-tree planters varied in their socioeconomic characteristics (Table 2). In all four cases the tree planters owned larger land areas than the non-tree planters. In three of the four cases (acacia, mahogany, and teak) tree planters had higher value of total assets and were members of farmer s groups (i.e. groups of farmers having regular meetings on farming related issues) more often compared to the non-tree planters. Mahogany and acacia planters also had higher total yearly expenses and were more likely to be members of other social organizations (such as religious, political, rural development, or womens groups) compared to non-tree planters. Teak and acacia planters were older on average, than farmers not planting these species. Mahogany planter s most important income source came more often from on-farm sources compared to non-mahogany planters. The other people s attitudes toward tree planting variable was more important to mahogany planters in deciding whether or not to plant trees than for non-mahogany planters. Acacia planters also had more household members than non-acacia planters. No significant difference was found between the number of income earning household members, years joining the farmers group, years of education, or attitudes of tree planters and non-tree planters. Farmer s reasons for planting or not planting trees Farmers typically indicated more than one reason for planting trees, but the main reason for planting in each case study was economic (Table 3). Economic reasons for planting trees was cited by 46% of acacia planters, 83% of kadam planters, 86% of mahogany planters, and 58% of teak planters. One third of the acacia planters mentioned the existence of the acacia partnership, following the other farmers or social pressure to be the reasons for planting. Environmental reasons for tree planting was mentioned by 33% of the teak and mahogany planters, 23% of the kadam planters and only by 13% of the acacia planters. In Java 22% of the farmers mentioned that they planted teak because the land was more suitable for teak than for agriculture, and 27% mentioned that they wanted to make use of bare land (i.e. land with limited use; mainly because of a lack of labour, resources, or suitability for agriculture). Farmers planting teak and mahogany also often mentioned that trees were planted in order to provide wood for their own construction needs. In the three villages in Riau the reason mentioned by farmers for not participating in the acacia partnership program with the private company was that their households were new and they could not join the program when it was established because they were not married at the time. These new households

11 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 199 TABLE 2 Comparison of the socio-economic and perceptional characteristics between (a) the acacia planters (n=78) and the non-acacia planters (n=39); (b) the kadam planters (n=31) and the non-kadam planters (n=36); (c) the mahogany planters (n=44) and the non-mahogany planters (n=57); (d) and the teak planters (n=67) and the non-teak planters (n=60). Acacia Non-Acacia Kadam Non-kadam Mahogany Non-mahogany Teak Non-teak planter planter planter planter planter planter planters planters Variable Mean ± std Mean ± std p Mean ± std Mean ± std p Mean ± std Mean ± std p Mean ± std Mean ± std p Age of farmer (years) ± ± 5.80 *** ± ± NS ± ± NS ± ± *** No household members 4.29 ± ± 0.96 *** 4.10 ± ± 1.54 NS 3.70 ± ± 1.44 NS 4.37 ± ± 1.52 NS No income earning household members 1.35 ± ± 0.45 NS 1.77 ± ± 1.17 NS 1.68 ± ± 0.71 NS 2.66 ± ± 1.10 NS Total land area (ha) 4.95 ± ± 2.19 *** 3.05 ± ± 1.82 * 3.37 ± ± 1.14 *** 1.10 ± ± 0.27 *** Total value of assets (millions of IRp) ± ± *** ± ± NS ± ± *** ± ± *** Total expenses/capita (millions of IRp/year) 5.36 ± ± 4.27 *** 3.55 ± ± 2.07 NS 4.88 ± ± 2.75 * 3.22 ± ± 1.64 NS Years joining the farmers group ± ± 5.18 NS 8.07 ± ± 7.17 NS 9.76 ± ± 5.38 NS 5.40 ± ± 2.68 NS Education (years) 5.54 ± ± 3.52 NS 6.86 ± ± 3.07 NS 7.76 ± ± 2.29 NS 7.96 ± ± 3.11 NS Joins in farmers group (%) *** NS *** *** The most important income source from off farm (%) NS NS *** NS Joins in social organization (%) *** NS *** NS Favorable or very favorable attitudes towards tree planting (%) NS NS 95.2 ND NS Other peoples attitudes towards tree planting very important for decision to plant trees (%) NS NS *** NS Note: for the total assets in Java, furniture was not included; NS 0.05 * 0.05, ** 0.01, *** 0.001

12 200 KALLIO ET AL. TABLE 3 Farmers reasons for planting industrial wood trees (a) and for not planting industrial wood trees (b). Figures show the percentage of farmers citing the given reason to plant or not plant trees. (a) Reason for planting industrial Acacia Kadam Mahogany Teak wood trees planters planters planters planters (%) (%) (%) (%) Savings/investment Building material Fuel wood Wood price/existing markets Incentives Told by the company/participate in a program/ follow the other farmers/social pressure Environmental reason (prevent erosion, greening, water conservation ) Hobby/satisfaction Characteristics of wood as an asset (can be sold little by little) Land border/for land security Land suitable for teak Low labour requirements Use the bare land Difficult access to the land (b) Reasons for not planting industrial wood trees Prefer rubber trees Prefer agriculture No land No seedlings Not profitable/no resources No help/incentives No markets New household Do not like tree planting Farmer sick Long rotation No time/labour Land not suitable Land too far/too near the road Already family member planting New comer in the village Remark (a): Farmers could mention several reasons for planting. Data from acacia planters (n=78), kadam planters (n=30), mahogany (n=43), and teak planters (n=67) Remark (b): Farmers could mention several reasons for not planting. Data from acacia planters (n=25), kadam planters (n=21), mahogany (n=50), and teak planters (n=60)

13 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 201 also often indicated that they did not have land. The main reason for the non-tree planters in Asem Jaya village for not planting kadam was that they preferred to plant rubber, which provided regular income. In the mahogany and teak planting villages, farmers who did not plant trees mainly did not have land (Table 3). In fact, according to our observations and key informant interviews in the two Java villages, almost all the farmers who owned land planted or allowed natural regeneration of at least some teak. Trees mainly acted as saving accounts, as most of the tree planters (83% of the acacia planters, 85% of the kadam planters, 84% of the mahogany planters, and 80% of the teak planters) used or planned to use the income received from wood for anticipated expenditures, such as for school fees. Almost all acacia planters (95%) and most of the kadam planters (74%) also used or planned to use the income from wood for daily consumption. More than half of the acacia planters also had used or planned to use the income as a safety-net for unexpected expenditures. (Figure 1) Disadvantages related to tree planting The most often cited disadvantages related to tree planting by the acacia planters were the slow growth or long rotation length. Low price received for the wood or unfair benefit sharing were also often cited by the farmers. Long rotation length was mentioned because rubber planting, the most popular land use option in this area of Sumatra, provided regular income to farmers. Half of the acacia farmers could not name any disadvantage, as they had never seen their plantation or Figure 1. Previous or planned use of income received from industrial wood. Percentages of the farmers mentioning a specific use, acacia planters (n=76), kadam planters (n=27), mahogany planters (n=37), and teak planters (n=67). Farmers could mention several uses.

14 202 KALLIO ET AL. they did not even know where it was physically situated. This was because the two hectares of land that the farmers had received existed on paper, but it was not known specifically where the farmers land was within the acacia plantation. The lack of knowledge related to the plantation could be a disadvantage in itself (Table 4). The most cited disadvantage related to tree planting mentioned by kadam planters was the lack of capital, fertilizers, and markets. The lack of markets was cited to be the main problem related to kadam planting, even during the participatory interviews. (Table 4) In the mahogany planting villages markets were not cited as a problem, however tree planting had not yet reached optimal production levels and the most cited disadvantages were access to production inputs such as fertilizers and poor silvicultural management (Table 4). The two villages in Java with experience in timber tree planting since the 1970s showed a case where markets and production inputs were already available for farmers. In these villages most farmers (67%) said that they did not face any disadvantage related to tree planting. In the rare cases where farmers did cite disadvantages, these were mainly disturbances caused by fire, pests (mainly larva), disease (mainly fungus), or browsers (livestock) (Table 4). TABLE 4 Percentages of farmers mentioning a specific disadvantage related to industrial wood tree planting Disadvantage Acacia Kadam Mahogany Teak planters planters planters planters Riau South South Central (%) Kalimantan Kalimantan Java (%) (%) (%) Lack of fertilizers (difficult to get) Lack of knowledge/capacity Low management Fire Slow growth/long rotation/not suitable soil Pest/decease/browsers Environmental (water shortage, flooding) Lack of capital Marketing Low price/unfair benefit sharing No knowledge on price Not clear contract Community not involved Competition with other land use practices Don t know/never seen the plantation No disadvantages Remark: Farmers could mention several disadvantages. Data from acacia planters (n=78), kadam planters (n=30), mahogany (n=42), and teak planters (n=67).

15 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 203 Farmers willingness to continue tree planting Acacia planters were the group least satisfied with the current land use system. Almost half of the farmers (44%) were unwilling to continue under the partnership. The farmers not wanting to continue under the partnership had less household members contributing towards household income, and joined fewer years in the farmers group. Farmers not willing to continue acacia planting also had higher levels of education, and although not significant, they also had a higher value of assets compared to the farmers that wanted to continue acacia planting (Table 5). More than one-third of kadam planters (39%) did not want to continue planting under the current arrangement. The field team even observed that some of the kadam planters with enough resources had cut some of their stands and replaced them with rubber trees. The reasons given were economic, as farmers were not confident in the future market for their kadam wood (the company that initially supported kadam planting and promised to buy the wood was bankrupt). The population was too low for conducting further statistical analysis between the socio-economic or perceptional characteristics of the farmers willing to continue under the kadam arrangement and those that did not. In the mahogany and teak planting villages (where markets were available) almost all the farmers wanted to continue tree planting (mahogany 88% and teak 98%). TABLE 5 Socio-economic and perceptional characteristics of the acacia planters that were willing or not willing to continue acacia planting under the current arrangement Variable Willing to continue Not willing to continue (n = 44) (n = 34) Mean ± std Mean ± std p Age of farmer (years) ± ± NS Number of household members 4.29 ± ± 1.44 NS Number of household members contributing to income earning 1.48 ± ± 0.52 * Total land area (ha) 5.00 ± ± 1.94 NS Total value of assets (millions of IRp) ± ± NS Total expenses/capita (millions of IRp/year) 4.72 ± ± 3.48 NS Years joining the farmers group ± ± 2.70 *** Education (years) 4.59 ± ± 3.59 * Joins in farmers group NS The most important income source from off farm NS Joins in any social organization NS Favorable or very favorable attitudes towards tree planting NS NS 0.05 * 0.05, ** 0.01, *** 0.001

16 204 KALLIO ET AL. Discussion As was found in other studies (Emtage and Suh 2004, Simmons et al. 2002, Mahapatra and Mitchell 2001, Byron 2001, Salam et al. 2000), this study showed that tree planters and non-tree planters varied in their socio-economic characteristics. In all four case studies the tree planting farmers owned larger land areas compared to non-tree planters, a pattern found in other studies (Salam et al. 2000, Summers 2004). It was also found that acacia, mahogany, and teak planters had higher total value of assets compared to non-tree planters. It is often the case that the farmers with limited land and resources prefer agriculture (or off-farm employment) over tree planting, for food security reasons (Thacher et al. 1997, Kumar 2003, Roder et al. 1995), and because tree planting requires high capital inputs such as seedlings, fertilizers, and herbicides. In addition, farmers with more resources could better afford the long waiting period before receiving the income from wood. For the poor farmers, the lack of capital can be a major constraint to tree planting (Byron 2001). In Java it could be feasible that teak planters had more assets because they had already planted teak for a few generations (sometimes approximately 40 years), and thus had gained more income from teak planting than the non-tree planters. But this contribution of income related to teak planting in farmers total income requires further, focused research. Participation in social organisations including farmers groups is recognised as being beneficial to farmers who learn new or improved practices (Bebbington 1996). In our study, acacia, mahogany, and teak planters were more likely to be members of a farmer s group than the non-tree planters. Communicating with other tree planters could have encouraged these farmers to plant trees. For example mahogany planters were more influenced by other peoples attitudes while deciding whether or not to plant trees than non-mahogany planters. The mahogany planters were mainly from two sub-villages and of Javanese origin, which perhaps made it natural for them to be closely organized and influenced by each other. There were also motivated and skilled key persons in the farmers group with well tended mahogany stands, advising farmers on mahogany planting. Often, farmers closer to retirement are more open to participating in tree planting, because they have lower household needs, and tree planting requires relatively low labour (Dewees 1992). In addition, in many areas such as found by Preston (1989) in Central Java, and Dewees and Saxena (1997) in Kenya, farmers plant trees because they have land available, but they are facing labour shortages for agriculture as most of the labour is used for off-farm employment. In this study, teak and acacia planters were significantly older than the non-tree planters. In the teak planting villages of Central Java, young people were often working as migrant labourers in other parts of Java, leaving less labour available for agriculture which could contribute towards more tree planting. Some of them later returned to the village after saving money earnt as migrant labourers, and bought or inherited land where they were able to plant trees. In the three villages

17 FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 205 in Riau, the non-acacia planters were the ones that did not have the opportunity to join the partnership program at the time of the implementation, as they were new households, young and recently married. Tree planters have been found to be more educated than non-tree planters (Nkamleu and Manyong 2005), but in our study there was no statistically significant difference found. Likewise, farmers attitudes towards tree planting have been found to affect their decision to plant trees (Mahapatra and Mitchell 2001), but in this study there were no statistically significant differences found between the attitudes of tree planters and non-tree planters. Farmers typically indicated more than one reason for tree planting. But as found in previous studies (Amacher et al. 1993, Salam et al. 2000), our study showed that the main reason for planting trees in each case-study was economic. The species with the longer rotation lengths teak and mahogany were seen to contribute more towards environmental services such as water conservation and erosion control. This could be because teak and mahogany farmers were probably more aware of the environmental advantages of tree planting because of their long term experiences (in the case of teak planters), and in the case of mahogany planters because of information derived from the active farmer s group. Furthermore, in the Java case-study several farmers mentioned that they planted teak to make use of bare land or land unsuitable for agriculture, strengthening other study s findings that farmers tend to plant trees in less productive or marginal lands (Hyman 1983, Nibbering 1999, Jagger and Pender 2003). The income gained from tree planting can contribute to farmers daily consumption, but trees also act as farmers saving accounts and safety nets (Chambers and Leach 1989, Van Noordwijk et al. 2008). In West Java Manurung et al. (2008) found that in traditional agroforestry systems the amount of timber species planted increased when the farmers anticipated additional income requirements in the medium to longer term. The household economic situation and rotation length of the species possibly affected the planned end-use of the income received from wood. Mahogany and teak planters with longer rotation lengths and higher value of household assets planned to save income derived from wood for future anticipated expenditures; whilst acacia and kadam planters with shorter rotation and less household assets planned to use their income from wood for daily consumption and urgent needs (in addition to future anticipated expenditures). Teak in particular was used as a farmers saving account, because even individual trees were sold when income was needed. This was only possible because of long established markets and the presence of middlemen. As pointed out by Byron (2001), smallholder tree planting can only be successful if all the keys of successful tree planting are in place (secure property rights to land and tree crops; a viable production technology; capacity for crop protection; and access to markets). This was also emphasized by our study, especially in the sites where timber or fiber tree planting activity was still developing. Long rotation length, lack of capital, low wood prices, and poor access to production inputs or markets were cited as being the main

18 206 KALLIO ET AL. disadvantages for tree-planting, and these influenced farmers willingness to continue tree planting. Acacia planters wanting to end their involvement in the partnership program had less income earning household members and years as members of farmer s groups compared to the ones willing to continue planting under the partnership. They also had higher levels of education, and a higher value of assets. According to the key informant interviews and household surveys, it seemed that other land use options than acacia planting such as rubber or oil palm planting were more profitable in the area, but the farmers with inadequate resources did not have the ability to change their land use. In addition, as the land used for the acacia planting was village land, and the resources for the silvicultural management came from the company, the farmers with less resources probably found it better to join the partnership than to be left out. conclusions Several lessons in what should be taken into account while expanding HTR or other smallholder tree planting programs can be drawn from this study, with application in Indonesia or other areas with similar conditions. Firstly, if the aim is to involve farmers with fewer resources to plant trees for timber or fiber, then new mechanisms to support them over the long waiting period before receiving income from the trees should be developed or existing mechanisms improved; such as loaning systems, or application of agroforestry systems. Especially in the case of acacia planting, the long rotation length (compared to rubber) was cited as a disadvantage, and so the acacia planters with limited resources would benefit from such mechanisms to support them while waiting for the harvest revenue. Secondly, policies are needed that are conducive to the establishment of markets for fiber and timber with fair and reasonable pricing structures. For example, in the case of kadam, better access to markets and reasonable prices could make kadam planting a more attractive land use option, as currently several farmers with available resources were converting their kadam plantations to rubber or oil palm plantations. Thirdly, farmers planting under company-community partnerships should be provided with better knowledge and skills to negotiate fairer contracts. This would specifically benefit the acacia planters that often mentioned that they did not receive good prices, or that the benefit sharing between the company and the farmers was unfair. Finally, government intervention to assist in providing access to production inputs such as fertilizers would help to promote tree planting. This was especially the case for the mahogany and kadam planters who mentioned that the lack of fertilizer availability was a disadvantage related to tree planting.

19 Acknowledgements FARMERS TREE PLANTING ACTIVITY IN INDONESIA 207 This paper uses data collected in the collaborative research project Strengthening Rural Institutions to Support Livelihood Security for Smallholders Involved in Industrial Tree-planting Programs in Vietnam and Indonesia, financed by the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. We thank the staff of the Forestry Research Institute of Banjarbaru, the staff of the Forestry Research Institute of Kuok, as well as Wahyu Catur Adinugroho, Entin Hendartin and Nani Djoko for the great help in data collection. We also thank Philip Manalu for the help with data management, Haruni Krisnawati for valuable input throughout the course of the work, and Nicholas Hogarth for comments on the manuscript. References Amacher G.S., Hyde W.F. and Rafiq M Local adoption of new forestry technologies: an example from Pakistan s northwest frontier province. World Development 21 (3): Arnold J.E.M Forestry, poverty and aid. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 33. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Arnold J.E.M. and Dewees P.A Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. Earthscan Publications, London. Barr C. and Cossalter C China s development of a plantation-based wood pulp industry: government policies, financial incentives, and investment trends. International Forestry Review, 6 (3 4): Barr C., Resosudarmo I.A.P., Dermawan A. and McCarthy J Decentralization and forest administration in Indonesia: implications for forest sustainability, community livelihoods, and economic development. CIFOR. Bogor, Indonesia. Byron N Keys to smallholder forestry. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 11 (4): Carnea M.M A Sociological framework: policy, environment and the social actors of tree planting. In: Sharma, N.P. (ed.) Managing the world s forests. Looking for a balance between conservation and development. Kendal/Hunt Publishing Company. Iowa. Pp Chambers R. and Leach M Trees as Savings and Security for the Rural Poor. World Development 17 (3): Current D., Lutz E. and Scherr S Costs, benefits, and farmer adoption of agroforestry. World Bank Environment Paper, No. 14. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Dewees P.A Social and Economic Incentives for smallholder tree Growing: A case Study from Muranga district Kenya. Community Forestry Case Study Series No. 5. FAO, Rome, Italy. Dewees P.A. and Saxena N.C Tree planting and household land and labour allocation: case studies from Kenya and India. In: Arnold J.E.M. and Dewees P.A. (eds) Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. Earthscan, London. p Emila and Suwito Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (HTR) Agenda baru untuk pengentasan kemiskinan? Warta Tenure 4: Emtage N.F. and Suh J Socio-economic factors affecting smallholder tree planting and management intentions in Leyte province, Philippines. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 3 (2): Enters T., Durst P.B., Brown C., Carle J. and Mckenzie P What does it take? The role of incentives in forest plantation development in Asia and the Pacific. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, FAO, Bangkok.

20 208 KALLIO ET AL. Evans J Plantation forestry in the tropics. Tree planting for industrial, social, environmental and agroforestry purposes. 2nd edition. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 403p. FAO The challenge of sustainable forest management. What future for the world s forests? FAO, Rome. FAO Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis, by Del Lungo A., Ball J. and Carle J. Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper 38. FAO, Rome. FAO State of the World s Forests FAO, Rome. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment Country Report Indonesia. FAO, Rome. Hakim I Kajian kelembagaan dan kebijakan hutan tanaman rakyat: sebuah terobosan dalam menata kembali konsep pengelolaan hutan lestari. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan. 6 (1): Hyman E.L Loan financing of smallholder tree farming in the provinces of Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur, the Philippines. Agroforestry Systems 1 (3): Jagger P. and Pender J The role of trees for sustainable management of less-favored lands: the case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics 5: Jagger P., Pender J. and Gebremedhin B Trading off environmental sustainability for empowerment and income: woodlot devolution in northern Ethiopia. World Development 33 (9): Kumar A., Sinha A.K. and Singh D Studies of Eucalyptus plantations under the farm forestry and agroforestry systems of U.P. in Northern India. Forests, Trees, and Livelihoods 13: Leakey R.R.B. and Tchoundjeu Z Diversification of tree crops: Domestication of companion crops for poverty reduction and environmental services. Experimental Agriculture 37 (3): Mahapatra A.K. and Mitchell C.P Classifying tree planters and non planters in a subsistence farming system using a discriminant analytical approach. Agroforestry Systems 52 (1): Manurung G.E.S., Roshetoko J.M., Budidarsono S. and Kurniawan I Dudukuhan Tree farming Systems in West Java: How to mobilize Self-Strenghtening of Community-Based Forest Management? In: Snelder D.J. and Lasco R.D. (eds). Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services. Lessons from Asia. Springer Michon G. and de Foresta H Agroforests: pre-domestication of forest trees or true domestication of forest ecosystems? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 45: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) Task Force I Report: Clarification of The Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program. Hanoi. Nawir A.A. and Santoso L Mutually beneficial company-community partnerships in plantation development: emerging lessons from Indonesia. International Forestry Review 7 (3): Nibbering J.W Tree planting on deforested farmlands, Sewu Hills, Java, Indonesia: impact of economic and institutional changes. Agroforestry Systems 46 (1): Nkamleu G.B. and Manyong V.M Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices by farmers in Cameroon. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 4 (2): Potter L. and Lee J Tree planting in Indonesia: Trends, Impacts and Directions. CIFOR Occasional Paper No 19. Preston D.A Too busy to farm: Under-utilisation of farm land in Central Java. Journal of Development Studies 26 (1): Ravindran D.S. and Thomas T.H Trees on farms, stores of wealth and rural livelihoods insights and evidence from Karnataka, India. International Forestry Review 2 (3): Roder W., Keovoualapha and MAnivanh V Teak (Textona gandis), fruit trees and other perennials used by hill farmers of northern Laos. Agroforestry Systems 29: Salam M.A., Noguchi T. and Koike M Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems 50 (1): Scherr S.J Meeting household needs: farmer tree-growing strategies in western Kenya. In: Arnold J.E.M and Deewes P.A. (eds) (1997) Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. Earthscan, London. Pp Scherr S.J Building opportunities for small-farm agroforestry to supply domestic wood markets in developing countries. Agroforestry Systems (1):