Index of /ProdukHukum/kehutanan
Improving the enabling conditions for sustainable
management of sandalwood forest resources in East Nusa
Tenggara Province, Indonesia
PD 459/07 rev.1 (f)
Case study of Sandalwood in TTS
District
Don Gilmour
22 April 2010
Approach to case study
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Carried out a series of semi-structured
interviews with key informants in 7 villages.
Analysed District regulatory framework.
Compared farmer perceptions with policy.
Collected information on status of
Sandalwood resource in TTS District.
Explored aspects of Sandalwood market.
Proposed recommendations.
Findings-farm land (silviculture)
All farmers had some S on their farms (average
10?) mostly natural regeneration.
Most had planted some S in past 10 years
(mostly 3-10 seedlings; some 20-100).
Mortality fairly high (maybe 70%).
All know about importance of host trees (chilli
and crocus)—but host trees often not maintained.
Findings-Farm land (Regulatory
framework)
Most said that that they needed a certificate
from village head to certify ownership of S
before selling.
All said that no tax on S was payable to
government.
Findings-Farm land (Regulatory
framework)
Four threads running through recent reforms:
1. Changes to FM objectives (SFM and socioeconomic), which lead to
2. Changes in regulatory framework that define
role of govt vis a vis community
3. Changes to tenure arrangements (partial), and
4. Changes in governance (paradigm shift) to
implement other changes (just beginning).
Governance
Tenure
Capacity
building
Regulatory
framework
Forest Management
Objectives
(SFM
+
Improved livelihoods)
Findings-Farm land (Incentives)
Only a few had sold S in past 10 years-tend to
be keeping it until trees are larger and for
special occasions.
All informants said that they needed technical
advice and guidance to manage their S more
effectively (good seedlings, host trees, etc.).
Few mentioned financial incentives (people are
aware of the high value of S and this is
sufficient incentive as long as they can keep the
benefits themselves).
Findings-Farm land (Stealing)
Most felt they had sufficient security of tenure
to prevent stealing.
Some stealing reported-often by family
members (hard to manage).
One village had a local system of fines.
If powerful outside agencies (army, police and
others) insist in buying S people feel powerless
to refuse.
Stealing may become more of a problem when
the present crop of small trees matures.
Findings-State Forest Land
Almost all S (and other valuable trees) gone
from S.F. land.
All people expressed doubt that they could help
protect S on S.F. land—because of lack of
sense of belonging.
Some offered suggestions on the conditions
needed for communities to be effective
managers of S on S.F. land.
Status of Sandalwood in TTS
If average of 10 S trees (all sizes) per farm,
then could be about 600,000 S trees in District
(most in small sizes < 20 cm circum).
Mother tree survey carried out in 23 villages
(9.6% of villages in District) with about 50% of
village area covered by survey.
By extrapolation, about 29,700 mother trees in
District (generally > 10 years old).
Market situation
Buyer in Soe (only one in District) advised that
he collects 2.5 to 3 tonnes S per month—would
like to collect more.
Oil producer in Kupang advised that most of his
S comes from Timor Leste—little available
from ENT.
Summary of key findings
Villagers feel few policy constraints in
planting or selling S.
They want technical support from government
to improve their capacity to manage S.
There is a large and expanding resource of S
on private land-it is well distributed across size
classes so is a viable population (but mostly in
very small size classes).
Recommendations
Focus attention (budget and technical support)
in short-medium term on S on private land (S.F.
land a second priority).
Review regulatory framework to remove any
remaining constraints that inhibit people from
investing in S production.
Include article stating that people who grow S
receive 100% of the financial benefit.
Allow the market to dictate S price (no
government price fixing).
Recommendations
Mobilise technical support to farmers to
improve their ability to grow S.
Carry out awareness raising (all stakeholders)
to advise on rights and responsibilities).
Review institutional arrangements in
government to support transition from
policing/licensing to facilitating community
empowerment and development.
Terima Kasih
management of sandalwood forest resources in East Nusa
Tenggara Province, Indonesia
PD 459/07 rev.1 (f)
Case study of Sandalwood in TTS
District
Don Gilmour
22 April 2010
Approach to case study
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Carried out a series of semi-structured
interviews with key informants in 7 villages.
Analysed District regulatory framework.
Compared farmer perceptions with policy.
Collected information on status of
Sandalwood resource in TTS District.
Explored aspects of Sandalwood market.
Proposed recommendations.
Findings-farm land (silviculture)
All farmers had some S on their farms (average
10?) mostly natural regeneration.
Most had planted some S in past 10 years
(mostly 3-10 seedlings; some 20-100).
Mortality fairly high (maybe 70%).
All know about importance of host trees (chilli
and crocus)—but host trees often not maintained.
Findings-Farm land (Regulatory
framework)
Most said that that they needed a certificate
from village head to certify ownership of S
before selling.
All said that no tax on S was payable to
government.
Findings-Farm land (Regulatory
framework)
Four threads running through recent reforms:
1. Changes to FM objectives (SFM and socioeconomic), which lead to
2. Changes in regulatory framework that define
role of govt vis a vis community
3. Changes to tenure arrangements (partial), and
4. Changes in governance (paradigm shift) to
implement other changes (just beginning).
Governance
Tenure
Capacity
building
Regulatory
framework
Forest Management
Objectives
(SFM
+
Improved livelihoods)
Findings-Farm land (Incentives)
Only a few had sold S in past 10 years-tend to
be keeping it until trees are larger and for
special occasions.
All informants said that they needed technical
advice and guidance to manage their S more
effectively (good seedlings, host trees, etc.).
Few mentioned financial incentives (people are
aware of the high value of S and this is
sufficient incentive as long as they can keep the
benefits themselves).
Findings-Farm land (Stealing)
Most felt they had sufficient security of tenure
to prevent stealing.
Some stealing reported-often by family
members (hard to manage).
One village had a local system of fines.
If powerful outside agencies (army, police and
others) insist in buying S people feel powerless
to refuse.
Stealing may become more of a problem when
the present crop of small trees matures.
Findings-State Forest Land
Almost all S (and other valuable trees) gone
from S.F. land.
All people expressed doubt that they could help
protect S on S.F. land—because of lack of
sense of belonging.
Some offered suggestions on the conditions
needed for communities to be effective
managers of S on S.F. land.
Status of Sandalwood in TTS
If average of 10 S trees (all sizes) per farm,
then could be about 600,000 S trees in District
(most in small sizes < 20 cm circum).
Mother tree survey carried out in 23 villages
(9.6% of villages in District) with about 50% of
village area covered by survey.
By extrapolation, about 29,700 mother trees in
District (generally > 10 years old).
Market situation
Buyer in Soe (only one in District) advised that
he collects 2.5 to 3 tonnes S per month—would
like to collect more.
Oil producer in Kupang advised that most of his
S comes from Timor Leste—little available
from ENT.
Summary of key findings
Villagers feel few policy constraints in
planting or selling S.
They want technical support from government
to improve their capacity to manage S.
There is a large and expanding resource of S
on private land-it is well distributed across size
classes so is a viable population (but mostly in
very small size classes).
Recommendations
Focus attention (budget and technical support)
in short-medium term on S on private land (S.F.
land a second priority).
Review regulatory framework to remove any
remaining constraints that inhibit people from
investing in S production.
Include article stating that people who grow S
receive 100% of the financial benefit.
Allow the market to dictate S price (no
government price fixing).
Recommendations
Mobilise technical support to farmers to
improve their ability to grow S.
Carry out awareness raising (all stakeholders)
to advise on rights and responsibilities).
Review institutional arrangements in
government to support transition from
policing/licensing to facilitating community
empowerment and development.
Terima Kasih