conditional land tenure in watershed protection forest suyanto the land tenure center’s forum...
TRANSCRIPT
Conditional Land Tenure in Watershed Protection Forest
SuyantoThe Land Tenure Center’s forum “Designing Pro-Poor
Rewards for Ecosystem Services,” April 7-8, 2008, on the University of Wisconsin campus, Madison, WI.
Background• In many parts of Asia, government
owns and controls most of forest area. This condition obstructs local people’s access to forest as their important resources for their livelihoods and condemns them to poverty more deeply.
• Land tenure can be an attractive incentive for farmers to get engaged in sustainable management of protected forest land.
Four Criteria in Developing Reward for Environmental
Services Mechanisms: (van Noordwijk et al 2006)
• Conditional: based on real cause-effect relations between land use and environmental services
• Realistic: WTA < Reward < WTP
• Voluntary: adaptive and reflect effective voice of communities and balanced negotiation power at all levels
• Pro-poor: understand the relations between poverty and ES provision and to develop pro-poor mechanisms
Research Site: Sumberjaya 55,000 ha sub-district comprising a 55,000 ha sub-district comprising a
40,000 ha upper Way Besai 40,000 ha upper Way Besai watershedwatershed
Land status: about 40% protection Land status: about 40% protection forest and 10% national park forest and 10% national park
in reality forest cover <10%in reality forest cover <10% 2004: 87,000 people 2004: 87,000 people Density: 161 people/km Density: 161 people/km 22
Coffee is a major cropsCoffee is a major crops Agroforestry system (shade coffee & Agroforestry system (shade coffee &
fruit trees) could maintain watershed fruit trees) could maintain watershed functionfunction
Research Site: Sumberjaya
Current public investment scheme: land rehabilitation
Hydro Electric Company, 90 MW
Potential mechanisms for reward transfer in near future A benchmark for conflicts of forest-watershed functions in Indonesia
“Myth-understanding” regarding watershed functions led to often violent evictions of thousands of people
• Provided for secure tenure through long term lease contracts with farmer groups in protected forest land
• Requirements of farmer groups:•Plant multi-story agroforestry trees with coffee on deforested protected forest land
•Protect the soil with soil and water conservation measures
•Protect remaining forest area
Conditional land tenure (HKm)
Tree Planting per Ha in 2000-2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Nu
mb
er
of
tre
e p
lan
tin
g p
er
he
cta
re
Timber Tree MPTS Shade
1994 1997
2000
Reduced FireReduced Fire
Sources of Income in Way Besay Watershed Lampung in 2004
Income inequity in Way Besay Lampung in 2004
Income's coefficient Pseudo
Sharesconcentrat
iongini ratio
A. Farm Income
Coffee garden at State land
0.41 0.99 0.37
Coffee garden at Private land
0.14 1.78 0.67
Rice field 0.06 0.88 0.33
Others Farm income 0.11 1.02 0.38
B. Non Farm 0.1 2.22 0.84
C. Wage
Agriculture 0.13 -0.33 -0.13
Non Agriculture 0.03 -0.06 -0.22
d. Others
Transfer 0.02 0.21 0.08
e. Total Income 0.38
Perceived tenure security on forest land relative to private land (household survey)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
Tenure securitybefore reformation
Tenure security afterreformation
Tenure security HKmpermit approved %
sec
urity
rela
tive
to p
rivat
e
HKM permit eviction HKMpermit no eviction
Conclusions and Implications
•HKm program appears targeted to poorer households
•The program appears to promote investments in tree planting
•Over time these investments may increase participants’ income and provide environmental benefits
•Conditionally is important element in PES
Sources for this presentation
Projects: 1. Property Rights, Environmental Services
and Poverty in Indonesia (BASIS-ICRAF-IFPRI-MSU).
2. RUPES Actions Research In Sumberjaya, Lampung
3. Suyanto.et al (2007). Poverty and Environmental Services: Case Study in Way Besai Watershed, Lampung Province, Indonesia. Ecology and Society. 12(2):P. 13