APP s community-based conservation and livelihood support. A case study in Riau, Jambi & South Sumatra

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "APP s community-based conservation and livelihood support. A case study in Riau, Jambi & South Sumatra"

Julia Doyle
6 years ago
Views:

1 APP s community-based conservation and livelihood support A case study in Riau, Jambi & South Sumatra

2 Outline I. Study background II. Study results a. DMPA: what works? b. Perceived impacts c. Challenges III. Lessons learned

3 I. Study background

4 Rationale & expected outcome Identify synergic effect of various community-based initiatives established by APP at village level as part of the FCP Check if those measures are fulfilling the overarching objective of reducing forest degradation Assess acceptability, perceived impacts & community s engagement Answer stakeholders request to conduct this assessment (SAF May 2016) What do we expect from this presentation? Stakeholders feedback on: Process / methodology Lessons learned / recommendations How to best measure the impacts

5 Methodology Fieldwork between 20 th Feb. & 2 nd Mar in: Riau: Pinang Sebatang Barat & Mandiangin Jambi: Dataran Kempas South Sumatra: Pagar Desa Inside to 5 km radius with HTI Study conducted by Transitions with logistical support from APP SSE & Sinarmas Forestry In every village 10 individual interviews with beneficiaries: randomly selected 40 ½ day FGD with beneficiaries (in average 16 people & 34% women) Informal discussions with village officials Local NGOs representatives invited as observers (Setara in Jambi)

7 Community-based initiatives 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 Voluntary FCP policy Also referred to past CSR programs implemented prior to DMPA in 2016 to check what has changed from past approaches to new initiatives

8 Villages profile Location Typology Fire risk 1- Low 2- Medium 3- High 4- Extreme DMPA Month/year of DMPA implementation MPA KMPH HHBK CSR Pinang Sebatang Barat, Siak, Riau Mix community 1 Oct Mandiangin, Siak Riau Dataran Kempas, Tanjjabbar, Jambi Mix community Mix community 3 Dec Sep Pagar Desa, Muba, South Sumatra Local indigenous 3 Nov. 2016

9 Land use Majority of oil palm smallholders: ± 2ha Smaller proportion have rubber gardens but largely converting it into oil palm < 1% already involved in horticulture & livestock prior DMPA Limited land availably Limited investment capital Cannot rely on rubber & palm fruit production Farm & off-farm jobs Supportive of any initiatives promoting employment and intensification of agricultural practices

10 Programs profile Beneficiaries Members Members Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Pinang Sebatang Barat DMPA MPA KMPH HHBK CSR Forest Fire 5 Fishery Patrol inside the Socialization HTI Horticulture Aquaculture Goat breeding Mandiangin Horticulture Goat & cow breeding Aquaculture Dataran Kempas Horticulture Aquaculture Red ginger (Women Group) Sheep & goat breeding Pagar Desa Horticulture Fruit garden Cow breeding Direct Indirect Forest Fire Patrol Socialization Forest Fire Patrol Socialization 56 Forest Fore Patrol Socialization 6 Riau Berbuah (fruit garden) Ekonomi Kerakyatan (provision of seedlings & fertilizers) 9 Cow breeding 20 Feeding grass collection in the HTI 18 Community Forest Security Patrol Socialization 200 Cow breeding Compost production Cow breeding 96

11 II. Study Results a. DMPA: what works best?

12 DMPA Institutional Arrangement

13 DMPA beneficiaries Through Farmer Groups (FG) Dataran Kempas & Pagar Desa Through certain individuals within FG Pinang Sebatang Barat & Mandiangin Higher collective ownership high number of beneficiaries e.g. Dataran Kempas: FG established for livestock, aquaculture, horticulture & red ginger production ± 350 beneficiaries Credit channeled through individuals less direct beneficiaries e.g. Pinang Sebatang Barat 19 direct beneficiaries (± 21indirect beneficiaries) Small scale industries Individual farms FG well structure and well-established schedule & task Less inclusive Higher loans & rapid scaling up potential Smaller individuals loans

14 DMPA fund management : BUMDes vs Farmer Groups BUMDes Farmer Group e.g. Pinang Sebatang Barat Opportunity for villages to absorb DMPA fund & operationalize newly established BUMDes Beneficiaries contract loan through BUMDes (in-kind) Reimbursement: after first profit (+ 10% for operational costs) Scale up: loans can then be contracted by others (revolving fund) Beneficiaries contract loan through Farmer Groups Closed circle which not everyone in the village is aware of More efficient & inclusive system Risk to be less inclusive (greater risk of interference by few members)

15 DMPA vs traditional CSR CSR DMPA Top down approach Participative & bottom up approach Livestock & seedlings provided to FG or individuals Packages provided to FG or individuals (seedlings/fertilizers or fish juveniles/fish food) No follow up & limited monitoring More efficient follow up & monitoring Poor ownership of the program (no need to report back in case of failure) Higher ownership of the program (through loans) Support provided on a short term periodic basis with no institutional arrangement Institutional arrangement (BUMDes etc)

17 II. Study Results b. Perceived impacts

18 Perceived economic impact (1) More diverse job opportunities & income generating activities in villages Easier & better access to loan with lower interest rates more flexible & accessible than conventional loans Lower prices for vegetable and fruits produced locally domestic availability contributing to food security MPA/KMPH Additional revenues generated by patrolling activities + incentive for 0 fire Improved household economy

19 Perceived economic impact (2) DMPA livestock No direct benefit perceived yet program still in its early stage But indirect benefit through production of animal manure Personal usage as fertilizer reduce up to 50% use of chemical fertilizers Selling of goats and sheep manure IDR /sac dry manure IDR 1.000/L liquid manure Village industrial scale Dataran Kempas DMPA aquaculture Benefice returned to the BUMDes in Pinang Sebatang Barat & Mandiangin but not yet benefited others not enough fishpond in the two villages Dataran Kempas organized through FG but production too recent and people had not sold their production yet DMPA horticulture Economic benefits for certain individual beneficiaries improved production & easy access to market + creating employment on farms In other villages horticultural programs facing challenges high initial start capital to be invested by individuals or FG beside initial loan

20 Perceived impact on fire and the environment Past experiences Frequent usage of fire for land clearing Cheapest & most efficient way of land clearing Villagers affected by fire events in 2015 Health issues due to haze Decreased agro production and reduced economic activities Current Practice Left overs gathered into alley Organic matters decompose by itself, or with help of chemicals Alright for planting oil palm or rubber trees but challenging for horticulture In some cases controlled fire Perceived impact Attribute fire intensity and frequency reduction to MPA, law enforcement & horticultural practices Patrolling & fire prevention socialization Horticulture does not require land clearing anymore Perceived positive impact on improved air quality & health

21 Perceived relationship improvement with company Previous conflictual relationship with company due to land claims and boundaries disagreements Beneficiaries agree initiatives contributed to improve relationship Regular direct interactions with company staffs Improved communication Village facilitators play a crucial role as an interface between program beneficiaries and company staffs Company more responsive to demands from the villagers side e.g. in Pinang Sebatang Barat & Mandiangin, provided support to prepare agricultural land, build water storage, irrigation canals & improved road access to farms etc.

22 Perceived relationship improvement with company Example of the HHBK program Registered members can access HTI with ease without fearing of being reprimanded In Pinang Sebatang Barat, registered beneficiaries can access the rivers inside PT. Arara Abadi for fishing (Besides legal access, they also received fishing nets from the company) In Dataran Kempas, beneficiaries can access the plantation area for collecting feed grass for their livestock Members also play a role in early fire identification

23 Perceived social impacts New dynamics at village level; More organized Increased cohesion among program beneficiaries (particularly in new FG established) youth also interested in taking part in activities People realizing that village potential had not been optimized; Maximize village resources to become self-sufficient Mindset switch to reach continuity in production (e.g. chili) and not to rely on seasonal production anymore Women feel proud to be involved in agricultural activities and not restricted to household task

24 Beneficiaries participation Beneficiaries satisfied with process of activity identification during early implementation stages (through FGD) According to respondents, the process has been transparent and all requests have been considered During the socialization exercises head of the various FG and programs were appointed through voting process

25 II. Study Results c. challenges

26 Access to market Successful in one case: Pinang Sebatang Barat where beneficiaries of the horticultural program sell their products to Perawang mill due to strategic location close to the industrial site People no longer rely on brokers Direct access However in the other villages Limited access to profitable markets for horticultural products Road access is a challenge Horticultural production only marketed inside respective villages

27 Adequate trainings Out of 31 beneficiaries of the DMPA program interviewed, 78% had received some kind of trainings; Not always targeted for beneficiaries activities Organized jointly for all programs beneficiaries without paying attention to program specificities Too general Beneficiaries would like to receive more trainings in relation with their specific activities Their requests are not yet optimally been accommodated

28 III. Lessons learned

29 Strengthen Farmer Groups Higher loans and start capital under Farmer Groups Increased scaling up potential Greater impact in the short & medium term Invest as much as possible in facilitating establishment of FG Ensure capacity building of Farmer Groups Some people do not dare to contract a loan (too afraid to fail) Being organized in FG minimize risk of individual failure and strengthen confidence of members

30 Efficient fund allocation & trainings DMPA fund should transit through BUMDes standardized procedure fairness and accessible to everyone Could be complemented with additional sources (e.g. Dana Desa) increase scaling-up potential In certain cases, initial investment capital from farmer side still high loans could be accompanied with support in the provision of adequate equipment to optimize production important especially in the horticulture sector people still reluctant to convert part of their OP to experiment horticulture More trainings required especially on specificities of each sub-activity; horticulture, livestock, composting, aquaculture Exposure to professionals village facilitators capacity needs to be strengthened professional agricultural extension providers should be hired Center of excellence, Farmers Champions

31 Thank you for your attention

INTEGRATED FORESTRY & FARMING SYSTEM (IFFS)

INTEGRATED FORESTRY & FARMING SYSTEM (IFFS) WHAT INSIDE 02 03 04 05 07 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND THE IFFS CONCEPT THE SIX PILLARS VILLAGE BENEFICIARIES PRIORITY CRITERIA TARGET VILLAGE 09 12 IFFS PROGRESS