Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

ound, the Perhutani again hired Bogoran villagers to plant pine seedlings and allowed them to plant
food crops in newly planted areas under the tumpang sari system until the canopy would close on
the third year while they looked after the seedlings. In some areas where the pine seedlings died, the
farmers planted sengon with coffee and cassava but, because there was no clear agreement on this,
Perhutani had these cut in 1998.
After the reformasi, Perhutani field staff asked the Bogoran villagers to replant on looted state
forestlands. Prior to planting, the villagers asked permission to cut the remaining trees and use the
proceeds for improving their village road. Perhutani permitted them to cut 100 trees. At the time, some
local Perhutani staff and police officers reportedly informed the farmers that they could earn money
by cutting pines trees on state forestlands and bringing the wood to local traders. The farmers who
were involved got paid Indonesian rupiah (IDR) 20,000–30,000 for each tree felled and delivered to the
traders who in turn paid off the Perhutani staff and police. This pattern led to the loss of over 300 ha of
pine forests in Bogoran in 1998–2000. At the time, the state forests were heavily looted and Perhutani
lost its control over state forest lands. Following the looting, several Bogoran villagers started planting
on barren state forestlands in and around the village. As of 2002, around 90 ha of state forestlands have
been planted.
Perhutani forestry program and Wonosobo district forest policy
In 2000, the Central Perhutani adopted collaborative forest management (PHBM) as the new Perhutani
management approach. The main feature of PHBM is the introduction of the timber profit-sharing
agreement, which gives 25 % of the timber sale to the communities for their labor on state forest lands.
With 70% of its population dependent on forestlands, forest plunder and land use conflicts were high on
the Wonosobo District’s agenda. In 2001, on the strength of the 1999 decentralization policy, the district
government passed the District Regulation on Community-based Forest Management (PSDHBM),
which was formulated through a multi-stakeholder consultation process with NGOs and initially the
Perhutani (which later withdrew from the group). PSDHBM provided the basis for giving greater
tenurial rights to communities working on state forest land through a 30-year tenurial agreement.
The production-sharing scheme is 70% for the community and 30% for the district government. The
guidelines gave priority to farmers with existing ownership of lands less than 0.3 ha. Both the Perhutani
and MoF, however, contested the regulation since it threatened their control of the forests.
Bogoran is one of three villages selected as a pilot area for the implementation of PSDHBM, through
the Wonosobo Multi-Stakeholder Team. In 2002, as the piloting of the implementing guidelines of
the PSDHBM was in progress, Perhutani started lobbying with central government for the district
regulation’s cancellation. Perhutani also campaigned against the PSDHBM process in the communities,
claiming it lacked legal backing from the central government, and unlike Perhutani, did not assure a
25% share for communities. The local communities were divided over the more substantial benefits
offered under PSDHBM as compared to the assured benefits under PHBM. In 2005, the Ministry of
Interior revoked the Wonosobo district government’s PSDHBM regulation.
The risk of insecure tenure to the state forestland confronted the Bogoran farmers in 2004, when a
timber trader, who claimed to be backed by Perhutani, forced them to clear-cut a 6-hectare block in state
forestlands and to give him 30% of the revenue. Perhutani officers denied that they ordered the trader, but
admitted that the state forest block in question was targeted for planting that year. Farmers planted this
barren block in 1999 with sengon, then valued at 20 million rupiah (US$ 2,300). In the end, the farmers
had to relent to the timber trader’s demands. Without an approved CBFM District Regulation, district
government representatives could not stop the land clearing. Most of the Bogoran farmers accepted
the situation and devised a sharing arrangement: 90% of the proceeds for the farmers who tended the
block and the rest to be distributed among the village government, the youth organization and the Block
Sijambu forest farmer group. However, this sharing arrangement did not materialize as the trader insisted
on his 30% share by threatening farmers with arms. Until this incident, difficulties of Wonosobo farmers
who actively managed state forestlands had largely been legal and procedural in nature.
163