Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
586 learning together with other members and even receiving new knowledge form other actors
outside the group that perhaps useful to enhance their ability to manage kaliwu. In other words, they are engaged in a situation where the new integrated knowledge is produced.
Lastly, farmer group could become the tool for farmers to push informal institution like social taboos to be recognised by promoting it into the formal legislations. In addition to this,
politically saying that using farmer group, the local could make a conversation about significant maters such as clearly defined boundaries of the resource base; congruence
between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions; collective-choice arrangements monitoring systems; graduated sanctions; conflict-resolution mechanisms;
minimal recognition of rights to organize; and the nesting of local institutions with other local, regional, and governmental institutions Becker Ostrom, 1995. Therefore, once those
strategies have done, it is likely that the farm forestry kaliwu become stronger to exist in a long period of time.
4. COCLUSION
Local knowledge is a subject matter that often comes along with the relation in between human and its environment. The local is assumed that they have their own knowledge
transferred from their ancestors to manage the lands that they belong to. The more intensive the local interact with the ecology surround them, there would be the more traditional
ecological knowledge is produced. Farm forestry kaliwu is one of the manifestations of local knowledge applied in Sumba. It is believed that such system has contributed significantly to
provide food and firewood as well as preserving water resource. However, in order to boost its benefits as well as to sustain such management systems, the role of farmer group and the
social taboos need to be optimized. Farmer group should be put as the pivotal point to
increase farmers’ capacity. Learning process, sharing experience and information, and constructing the new knowledge could be facilitated by this organization deliberately.
Furthermore, farmer group could open the diplomatic access for its members to interact and negotiate with another actors outside the group. This could be used as a tool for farmers to
have inputs whether technical technologies or financial or non-technical scientific knowledge assistance. In addition, the role of social taboos needs to be legalized by
promoting it into the formal legislation; at least this is applied in the lower level of local government institution such as village regulation. This admission would assist such informal
institution to be recognised and perpetuated. Within this scenario, local knowledge, which is traditional, and scientific knowledge would meet each other and make up the new hybrid
integrated knowledge. Hence, it is not necessary to debate both indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge, but going beyond dichotomy of those knowledge is better in order to
productively engage local knowledge in development as well as making greater autonomy for local people to do so.
REFERENCES
Awang, S.A. 2003. Politik kehutanan masyarakat. Yogyakarta: Center for Critical Social Studies Kreasi Wacana.
Awang, S.A. 2006. Peran para pihak dalam melestarikan hutan rakyat: Special kasus Kabupaten Gunungkidul. Paper on a workshop: Gunungkidul menuju sertifikasi hutan rakyat
lestari. Wonosari Gunungkidul. Becker, C.D., Ostrom, E. 1995. Human ecology and resource sustainability: the
importance of institutional diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26, 113-133. Berkes
, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. Taylor
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
587 Francis, London.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Colding, J., Folke, C. 2001. Social taboos: τInvisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications, 112, 584-600.
Datta, F.U., Dodu, T., Ataupah, H., Osa, D.B., Temu, S.T. 1994. Laporan hasil penelitian analisis agro-ekosistem hutan keluarga sebagai komponen lingkungan di desa-desa sekitar kawasan
hutan di Pulau Sumba. Pusat Studi Lingkungan, Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Nusa Cendana.
De Foresta, H., Michon, G. 1997. The agroforest alternative to Imperata grasslands: when
smallholder agriculture and forestry reach sustainability. Agroforestry Systems. 36,105-120. Ericksen, P., Woodley, E., Cundhil, G., Reid. W., Vicente, L., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Mogina,
J., Olsson, P. 2005. Using multiple knowledge systems: benefits and challenges. In Capistrano, D., Samper, C., Lee, M., Raudsepp-Hearne, C. eds Ecosystems and human
well-being: multiscale assessments. 4, 85 –117. Island Press. Washington.
Garret, H.E.G., Buck, L. 1997. Agroforestry practice and policy in the United States of America. Forest Ecology and Management 91, 5-15.
Gold, M. A., Rietveld, W. J., Garrett, H. E., Fisher, R. F. 2000. Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts, and practices for the USA. In H.E. Garrett, W.J. Rietveld, and
R.F. Fisher, ed., North American Agroforestry: an Integrated Science and Practice, 63-76. ASA, Madison,WI.
Hardjosoediro. 1980. Pemilihan jenis tanaman reboisasi dan penghijauan hutan alam dan hutan rakyat. In San Afri Awang, et al. 2001. Gurat Hutan Rakyat di Kapur Selatan.
Pustaka Kehutanan Masyarakat. CV. Debut Press, Yogyakarta. Harrison, S., Herbohn, J., Niskanen, A. 2002, Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and
family forestry: what’s in a name? Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 11, 1
–11. Lebel, L. 2013. Local knowledge and adaptation to climate change in natural resource-based
societies of the Asia-Pacific. Mitigation Adaptation Strategy Global Change, 18, 1057
–1076. DOI 10.1007s11027-012-9407-1.
Naess, L.O. 2013. The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4, 99
–106. doi: 10.1002wcc.204 Nawir, A.A., Kassa, H., Sandewall, M., Dore, D., Campbell, B., Ohlsson, B., Bekele, M.
2007. Stimulating smallholder tree planting – lessons from Africa and Asia. Unisylva 58
288, 53-58. Njurumana, G.N.D. 2006. Pendekatan rehabilitasi lahan kritis melalui pengembangan
Mamar: studi kasus Mamar di Kabupaten Timor Tengah Selatan. Prosiding Sosialisasi Hasil Hasil Penelitian dan pengembangan Kehutanan. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hutan dan
Konservasi Alam. 14 Februari 2006. Kupang.
Njurumana, G.N.D., Takandjanji, M., Pamungkas, T.Y. 2003. Kajian penerapan sistem Kaliwu dalam pengelolaan tata air di Sumba Barat. Bulletin Penelitian Hutan, 642. Pusat
Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kehutanan. Bogor. Indonesia.
Njurumana, G.N.D., Butar Butar, T., Harisetijono, Oematan, O.K. 2004. Revitalisasi kearifan lokal dalam mendukung rehabilitasi lahan di wilayah semi arid. Prosiding
EskposeDiskusi Hasil-hasil Penelitian Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kehutanan Bali dan Nusa Tenggara, Waingapu, 4 Desember 2004. Published by Pusat Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam, Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kehutanan, Departemen Kehutanan. Bogor. December 2004, 88-106.
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
588 Njurumana, G.N., Susila, I.W. 2006. Kajian rehabilitasi lahan kritis melalui pengembangan
hutan rakyat berbasis sistem Kaliwu di Pulau Sumba. Jurnal Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam, 31 Bogor.
Njurumana G.N.D., Raharjo S.A.S., Pujiono E., Prasetyo B.D., Rianawati H., Puspiyatun, R.Y. 2009. Pengembangan agroforestry berbasis masyarakat dalam mendukung
ketahanan pangan. Laporan Penelitian: Program Insentif Riset untuk Peneliti. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Kupang. Not published.
Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A. 2010. Smallholder timber plantation development in Indonesia: what is preventing progress? International Forestry Review, 124, 339-348.
Schirmer, J. 2007. Plantations and social conflict: exploring the differences between small- scale and large scale plantation forestry. Small-scale forestry. January 2007, 437-449.
Simon, H., 1995. Hutan jati dan kemakmuran. In San Afri Awang, et al. 2001. Gurat Hutan Rakyat di Kapur Selatan. Pustaka Kehutanan Masyarakat. CV. Debut Press, Yogyakarta
Sukara, E. 2014. Tropical forest biodiversity to provide food, health and energy solution of the rapid growth of modern society. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 803-808.
Suprapto, E. 2010. Hutan rakyat: Aspek produksi, ekologi, dan kelembagaan. Paper presented in Seminar Nasional Kontribusi Pengurangan Emisi Karbon dari Kawasan Hutan yang Dikelola
Masyarakat secara Lestari dan Berkelanjutan. Seminar was conducted by FWI in Grand Cemara Hotel Jakarta, 29 July 2010. www.arupa.or.id.
Suryanto, P., Widyastuti, S.M., Sartohadi, J., Awang, S.A., Budi. 2012. Traditional knowledge of homegarden-dry field agroforestry as a tool for revitalization management
of smallholder land use in Kulon Progo, Java, Indonesia. International Journal of Biology, 42, 173-183.
Warta Kebijakan, 2003. Perhutanan sosial. Center for International Forestry Research Cifor. Edition 9 February. CIFOR. Bogor. Indonesia.
Y umi, Sumardjo, Gani, D.S., Sugihen., B.G. 2012a. Local institutions support in farmers’s
learning for implementing sustainable private forest management in Gunung Kidul District, DI Yogyakarta Province and Wonogiri District in Central Java Province. Jurnal
Penyuluhan, V82, 141-157. Yumi, Sumardjo, Gani, D.S., Sugihen., B.G. 2012b. Farmers’ learning support institutions
in sustainable private forest management: the cases in Gunung Kidul District in DI Yogyakarta Province and Wonogiri District in Central Java Province. Jurnal Penyuluhan, 8
1 Maret 2012, 15-28.
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
589
POSTER A5 - Integrated Bio-Cycles Farming System For Green Prosperity
Cahyono Agus
1 1
Faculty of Forestry UGM, Yogyakarta,55281 Indonesia KP4 UGM University Farm, Yogyakarta, 55551 Indonesia
Corresponding Email: cahyonoagusgadjahmada.edu, acahyonougm.ac.id
ABSTRACT
Tropical ecosystem in Indonesia has a high biomass productivity but still less in economic values. Integrated Bio-cycle Farming System IBFS is an alternative system which
harmoniously combines agricultural sectors agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fishery, plantation estate, horticulture etc. and non-agricultural aspects industry, household,
infrastructure, market place etc. on landscapes ecological management. The key characteristics of IBFS developed in UGM University Farm are i an integration of agriculture
and non-agriculture sector, ii value of environment, aesthetics and economics, iii rotation and diversity of plants, iv artificial and functional bio-technology, nanotechnology, pro-
biotic, v management of closed organic cycle and integration in an integrated area among ICM, IPM, IMM, INM, IVM, vi management of integrated bio-protection and ecosystem
health management, vii landscape ecological management, agropolitan concept, viii specific management of plant and ix holistic and integrated system. The cycle of energy, organic
matter carbon, water, nutrient, production, crop, plant, materials and money was managed through 9R reuse, reduce, recycle, refill, replace, repair, replant, rebuild, reward to obtain
optimal benefits for global environment and livelihood. The system has a sustainable multi- functions and multi-products, namely: food, feed, fuel, fibre, fertilizer, biopharma, water,
energy, oxygen, edutainment, eco-tourism etc. They will meet the expected basic need for daily-, monthly-, yearly-and
decade’s income at short-, medium- and long- term periods. IBFS was expected to provide additional benefits for all organisms and their environment, through
there cycling of organic waste into renewable resources to produce high-value production, such as organic fertilizer liquid and solid, animal feed, and sources of bio-gas energy. The
program is conducting based on three main pillars: personality empowerment, community empowerment and institutional empowerment. Implementation of this program will be able to
increase empathy, caring, multidisciplinary cooperation, the personality, the contribution of regionalnational competitiveness and encourage learning communitysociety. The program is
also implemented in co-creation, co-finance, sustainable and flexible in cooperation networks of ABCG Academic, Business, Community, Government. IBFS has a good prospect for
green prosperity through sustainable economic, environment and socio-culture aspect. Keywords: bio-cycles, green prosperity, integrated farming, sustainable development, tropical
region
1. INTRODUCTION
