230
Institutions and Marketing Margin
Channel 1 Channel 2
Channel 3 2. Middlemaen
a. Selling Price Rpkg 16200
b. BC Ratio 2.64
3. Villlage Traders a. Selling Price Rpkg
16649 16649
b. BC Ratio 0.62
1.34 4. Wholesalers
a. Selling Price Rpkg 18800
18800 18800
b. BC Ratio 2.32
2.32 3.33
5. Exporters a. Selling Price Rpkg
21300 21300
21300
Referring to the ratio of the pricerevenue to the cost or the ratio of benefit to the cost occured in each marketing institutions, marketing coffee has not
run efficiently Table 1. Farmer share is relatively small Farmer share received by farmers in Vietnam, approximately 90 and the benefit-cost
ratio of each marketing institution is unequal distributed. Farmer share is relatively small because the market structure is more oligopsony, farmer
groups have not been functioning well and the quality of the coffee is relatively low.
3.1.2. Efficiency of coffee farming Farm efficiency is indicated by the value of the revenue-cost ratio or benefit-
cost ratio, if the value of the revenue-cost ratio is greater than one or the benefit-cost ratio is greater than zero then the farm is profitable or efficient.
Table 2 shows that coffee farming in all sizes either small, medium or broad is profitable or efficient. In general, the level of Coffee farming efficiency
is low when it is compared to the benefit-cost ratio of coffee in the other countries. This is mainly due to the relatively low productivity which is
generally less than 2 tons per hectare. It appears that for the medium farmers, their farming have the highest benefit-cost ratio which means the most
efficient farming. This is because that farming also have the largest productivity, about 1.6 tons per hectare and the cost is relatively small
Table 2. Analysis of coffee farming efficiency according to the scale farming
No. Kategori Lahan Revenue
Cost Benefit
RC BC
1. Small 26,616,667
11,343,945 15,272,722
2.35 1.35
2. Medium 27,268,617
10,889,658 16,378,959
2.50 1.50
3. Large 21,220,344
9,668,075 11,552,269
2.19 1.19
231
3.2. Analysis of coffee farming role to household economy In general, both the small, medium and large farmer households run
multiple livelihood to meet the needs of their household Table 3. For all type of the farmer households, coffee farming has an important role to the
household income. Income from coffee farms provide the largest contribution 50 to the household income of coffee farmers. In contrast
to the large farmer households, for both small and medium farmers households, the second major source of income is from non-agricultural
sector; while for the large farmer households, the second-largest source of income is from agriculture non coffee.
Table 3. Income stucture of coffee farmer household according to the scale
farming
No Household Income Small
Medium Large
1 On farm Coffee 9,071,972 59
22,660,040 56 41,206,236,6 64.43 2 On farm non Coffee
2,634,067 17 7,250,471 18 17,874,850,00 27.95
3 Off farm 200,000
1 305,882
1 316,000,00 0.49
4 Non Farm 3,500,000 23
9,996,206 25 4,555,000,00 7.12 Total Income
15,406,039 100 40,212,599 100
63,952,087 100.00 Net Income
-6,872,794.5 11,477,799.03
21,800,911.65
With these their income, the small farmer household can not meet all the household expenses so that the annual net income is negative and does not
have the ability to invest. Therefore, according to welfare standards of the World Bank, a small farmer households in the category of poor household.
The opposite to the small farmer, medium and large farmer households have a positive net income. However, only about 25 percent of these household
that are able to make investments that are usually in the form of investments in land and the fingerlings.
Providing different results when using expenditure indicators, based on indicators such spending, not only small farmer households are included in
category of poor household but also the medium farmers households are. As seen in Table 4. In the structure of household expenditures, only large
farmer households who have the biggest expenditure for tertiary needs and not to meet the primary needs. While in pattern of household expenditure
of small and the medium farmers, the biggest households expenses is to meet the needs of primary
232 Tabel 4. Average Expenditure of Coffee Farming Household per Year
Acoording to the Scale Farming
No Household Expenditure
Small Rp Medium Rp
Large Rp 1 Primary
8,489,833.33 38.16 11,715,623.53 41.07 12,584,075.00 32.82 2 Secunder
7,422,333.33 33.37 9,819,323.53 34.43 10,120,850.00 26.39 3 Tersier
6,333,333.33 28.47 6,988,088.24 24.50 15,639,750.00 40.79 Jumlah
22,245,500.00 100.00 28.523.035.29 100.00 38.344.675.00 100.00
4. Conclusion and Policy Implication
The level of sustainability of coffee plantation in Lampung quite worry considering the efficiency of coffee plantation at the farm level are
relatively small due to the relatively old age of the plant so that the productivity is relatively low; inadequate post-harvest technologies so that
coffee quality are relatively low; marketing efficiency are relatively low due to institutional at the farm level has not been functioning well and the
market structure is not perfectly competitive so that the farmer is a price taker and also the ability of farmers to invest are relatively low.
By considering the conclusion, there are some recommendation to encourage the sutainability of the coffee plantation in West Lampung:
a. increase the accesibility of the coffee farmer to the cheaper credit
especially for using teh replanting op the coffee trees b. empowerment the farmer group cooperative to increase the bargaining
position of the farmer in the price determination; c. doing the training to increase the knowledge and skill of the coffee in
post harvesting to get the value added
5. References
[1] [AEKI] Asosiasi Eksportir Kopi Indonesia. 2014. Industri Kopi Indonesia
. [serial online] 2014 [cited 2014 Mey 16]. Available at: http:www.aeki-aice.orgpageindustri-kopiid.
[3] [BPS Kabupaten Lampung Barat] Badan Pusat Statistik Lampung Barat. 2013. Lampung Barat Dalam Angka. Lampung Barat ID: BPS
Kabupaten Lampung Barat.
233
The importance of biodiversity conservation and livelihood of customary community approaching in national park
management in Indonesia
Nandi Kosmaryandi
1
, Sambas Basuni
2
, Lilik B. Prasetyo
3
, Soeryo Adiwibowo
4
1,2,3
Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, 16680, Indonesia
4
Faculty of Human Ecology, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, 16680, Indonesia Corresponding author: nandi_kipb.ac.id
Abstract
Criteria for the establishment of National Park in Indonesia are aimed at benefiting the purpose of ecological sustainability of the area on
scientific basis. But the establishment of national park in Indonesia often neglected the sociocultural aspects. This phenomenon causes overlapping
between national park territory and customary territory that creates social due to disharmony of criteria in the zonation pattern and spatial pattern of
traditional community. Three important findings are found through an approaching the importance of biodiversity conservation and livelihood of
customary community. First, the sustainable use of natural resource would be in place where customary community still keeps their traditional way of
life particularly that in relations to conservation. Second, the park zonation policy does not take into account the values, norms and livelihoods of the
customary community. Third, the regulations and criteria for park zonation hinder the traditional access and control of customary community over
national park. The last two mentioned factors could potentially create conflicts between customary community and the park management.
Keywords
biodiversity conservation, customary community, national park
1. Introduction
Indonesia has stipulated about 23 28 million of hectares of its forest areas as conservation protected areas. Establishment of these areas was
implemented on forests which have significance in biodiversity conservation. Therefore, criteria on ecological condition and natural
phenomena were used as based to select location of protected areas. These criteria have caused sociocultural negligence, so that forest areas were
considered as empty from human settlement. This has caused problems in protected areas management. Borrini-Feyerabend et al [1] mentioned that
many protected areas were established on region and resources that become
234 community common property and stated by the government as nobody’s
property terra nullius. Approximately 57 of all protected areas in Indonesia are managed as
national parks. National park is protected area with natural ecosystem, managed on zoning system and use for research, science, education,
supporting cultivation, tourism, and recreation Act No. 51990 concerning Conservation of Biological Resources and Its Ecosystem, and Government
Regulation No. 282011 concerning Management of Nature Reserve Area and Nature Preservation Area. Based on this definition, forms of utilization
space allocation implemented is designed for communities outside national parks, such as scientists or tourists. Therefore, space necessity of the people
living and day to day interacted with natural resources in the forests areas was not defined.
Problems in the establishment and management of protected areas with regard to communities have been acknowledged by international
community. The International Union for Conservation of Nature IUCN in the fifth World Park CongressWPC on September 2003 in Durban, South
Africa, resulted in the Durban Accord that related with rights acknowledgement of indigenous, traditional, and mobile people who reside
in the protected areas [2]. The problem was negligence of existence and
rights of customary communities as the “owner” of areas that has been passed by generations. In fact, based on the historical chronology of the
protected areas, the protected areas came later than utilization of the same areas as livelihood sources of the customary communities, where locations
were called as customary forests hutan adat, customary land tanah ulayat or customary territory wilayah adat.
The objectives of this research is to analyse of the importance of biodiversity conservation and livelihood of customary community to
achieve effectiveness national park management where located in customary teritorry.
2. Materials and Methods
Two national parks in Indonesia i.e. the Wasur National Park WNP and the Kayan Mentarang National Park KMNP that have overlapping areas
with customary territories were studied. The field research was carried out during period of October 2008 to July 2011 in relation with participatory
planning activities for park zonation. Literature review, in-depth interviews,
