Nakama E. & Masuda M. Factors for participatory forest rehabilitation activities in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: Case study of T village, Samboja sub-district, Kutai Kartanegara district

(1)

NAKAMA Eiichiro & MASUDA Misa

1. Introduction

After the fall of the Seoharto’s dictatorship in 1998, the era of Reformasi started in Indonesia. Respect for democracy and human rights were encouraged and promoted. The Forestry Law of 1999 acknowledged the existence of customary forest land (Wollenberg & Kartodihardjo, 2002). Local people supported by the NGOs took advantage of this law and claimed land rights that derived from traditional custom (Hak adat) and the historical evidences of shifting cultivation and/or settlement. They started insisting on their land-rights within state forests, such as Production Forest (Hutan Produksi) mainly for concession areas of private logging companies and/or estate enterprises, Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung) and Conservation Forest (Hutan Konservasi) including National Parks.

In addition, fiscal decentralization (Law, UU No.25) and regional autonomy (UU No.22) in 1999 transferred considerable authority over political and financial decisions to the district (kabupaten) from the center (Wrangham, 2002). This socio-economic confusion from political transition accelerated the degradation of forest lands.

Reforestation fund (Dana Reboisasi, DR) levied on round-wood production that had mostly been loaned logging companies before the fall of Seoharto. After decentralization, 40% of the DR budget was granted to regional governments (Governmental Regulation, PP No.35, 2002). The district level governments in East Kalimantan became responsible for large amount of budget of DR. Nevertheless, it was difficult to secure lands for plantation due to the land-ownership conflicts. In order to solve this problem, local people who claim vested rights should be involved in the rehabilitation program. Community-based approach should be undertaken to reduce potential fire sources and to enhance fire management activities. (Toma, 2003). Participatory forest rehabilitation activities has been expected but not yet implemented well on the ground in East Kalimantan.

In 2000, Working Group for Forest and Land Rehabilitation (KKRHL) was organized by the forestry related agencies such as local governments, universities, companies, NGOs and GTZ in East Kalimantan. KKRHL

supervise the properly management of the DR program and the evaluation of the DR activities.

In this study, in order to identify the factors for participatory forest rehabilitation activities and also the barriers, a case study was conducted in one village where the forest rehabilitation project being implemented by the villagers.

(2)

2. Study site and Methods

The studied T village is located about 30 km north of Balikpapan with its total area of 3,000 ha (Figure 14.1). The lowland natural forest in this area has already been seriously degraded by logging activities, slash-and-burn and forest fire. At 2003, the vegetation was mostly dominated by alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica) grass lands (Figure 14.2).

Figure 14.1.

Location of the study site, T village. Map source: Spatial arrangement planning of East Kalimantan provincial government.

Source: Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi, RTRWP

Figure 14.2.

Vegetation of the study site, T village was mostly dominated by alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica) grass lands.

There were 250 households with 11 neighborhood associations (Rukun Tetangga, RT) that function as administrative unit below village level. The population in this village is composed of mostly those who

(3)

resettled from the Bukit Soeharto Protection Forest in 1990 by the instruction of the provincial government (Figure 14.1). When the participants resettled to this village under the instruction of the provincial government, they were granted land-ownership certificate (sertifikat kepemilikan tanah).

Field survey was carried out from July to August 2003. Key informant interviews and direct interviews were conducted to total household samples of 77 (31% of the total households in T village), including 29 households who participated in planting activities and 48 households who did not. This social survey was conducted about land tenure issues, motivation to participate in rehabilitation, and annual income. In addition to the social survey, height and diameter of the planted trees in 8 sample plots were measured. This 8 sample plots were selected as a representative of the each planting species and the each planting and tending methods. GPS ground survey of the Location of the Plantations, roads, houses and etc. was also conducted.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Brief of planting activities

The planting activities by the villagers was started out as the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities (Kegiatan Pengembangan Areal Model Hutan Rakyat) by the Ministry of Forestry, implemented by the Institute for Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation (Balai Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Konservasi Tanah, BRLKT) Mahakam Berau branch office funded by the DR in 2001.

BRLKT selected one farmer group “AM” in the T village to participate in the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities. In December 2001, thirty-six households from AM planted trees. The members of the farmer group “AM” was mostly belonged to RT2. In RT2, 26 (70 %) out of all 37 households had participated in the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities; another 3 participants belonged to Other RTs, and remain 7 participants did not stay in the T village in 2003.

Species and number of seedlings were fixed and prepared in advance by BRKLT: Teak (4,800), Sungkai (5,200), Durian (2,750), and Rambutan (2,250) (Figure 14.3). BRLKT granted and distributed those tree seedlings and maize seeds for intercropping to each participant. The subsidies also provided for the labor cost of land preparation, plantation and initial tending. Six months later, tree seedlings, maize seeds and subsidies were provided for supplementary planting. That was the final support.

Total planted area was 25.0 ha, and the each planted area of each participant ranged from 0.25 to 1.25 ha (Figure 14.4). Many participants planted trees in their farm land. Spatial arrangements of trees and crops were:depend on the participants. There were only trees, trees intercropping with banana and maize, or trees alley cropping in and around their pepper gardens. The average of survival rate after planted 19 months in Teak (Tectona grandis) was 78%, Durian (Durio sp.) 77%, Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum) 71% and Sungkai (Peronema canescens) 13% based on the interview to the participants.

(4)

A. Teak (Tectona grandis) B. Durian (Durio sp.)

C. Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum) D. Sungkai (Peronema canescens)

(5)

"#$#%&'())* +,$,-.'/

Figure 14.4.

Location of the plantation of the participants in T village. Point and line data source: GPS ground survey,

Source: Topographic map, scale 1:50,000 by the National Coordinating Agency for Surveys and Mapping (Badan Koordinasi Survei dan Pemetaan Nasional, BAKOSURTANAL) Indonesia.

3.2. Ownership of the planted trees and certainty of future harvest

Tree planting activities need long time till harvest. So, clear benefits to the participants should be introduced, and announced to them before and during the tree planting activities. This Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities program ensured clear ownership of the planted trees to the participants. So, each participant agreed the scheme of the program and participated in the tree planting activities with the motivations, shown in Table 14.1.

So, it is reasonable that the motivations that “For environmental concern” was only 7%. Neverethless, it is interesting that the motivations that “Followed the other group members” ranked second (28%).

Table 14.1.

Motivation for participating in Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities.

Motivation for Participation Percentage (%)

1 Future harvest of timber and fruits 66

2 Followed the other group members 28

3 Aimed at utilizing their own fallow land 17

4 Grants and subsidies from the government 14

5 For environmental concern 7

(6)

3.3. Organizational matter

Without a good organization of participants, governmental supports may not be implemented. From the provision of BRLKT, participant of the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities should belong to a farmers group.

Despite the fact that there were 6 farmer groups in the T village, only one farmer group “AM”, those members were mostly belong to RT2, was selected as an implementer of the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities. Other 5 farmer groups did not selected. This is due to the fact that AM was well-organized than others (Figure 14.5) and AM has over past years of experience of receiving governmental grants. In addition, one of the members in AM had trustful relationship with the officers in

BRLKT.

Figure 14.5.

Meeting of the farmer group “AM” in T village.

3.4. Factors to participate in tree planting activities comparing the households in

R T 2

_,

Heads and Other

R T s

Seventy-five percient of the 37 households in RT2 and 3 Heads from Other RTs participated in the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities. On the otherhands, the sample 37 households in Other RTs, even if some of them were upper-income earner, none of them (0%) participated in the tree planting activities (Table 14.2).

(7)

Table 14.2.

Classification of households by their annual income and their participation to the tree planting activities.

Class Number of households Participation in tree planting program

RT2 Total RT2 Total

Others Heads Others

A 10.0 up 7 2 8 17 6 (86%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 8

B 5.0 - 10.0 11 1 13 25 8 (73%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 9

C 2.5 - 5.0 12 0 8 20 9 (75%) 0 (0%) 9

D 0.0 - 2.5 7 0 8 15 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 3

Total 37 3 37 77 26 (70%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 29

Annual income of households (Rp.

1,000,000)

Heads

Other RT's Other RT's

Note: RT2: neighborhood association No.2, Heads: Head, the Sub Head and the Receiver of the village Others: 37 households were random sampled from remained 210 households

Comparing the average of annual income, it was not significantly different between RT2 and Other RTs except the Heads (Figure 14.6). This means that financial availability of the households is no more important factor than organizational matter as mentioned above to participate in the tree planting activities.

! ""#$ %& '"() * +& ,-. /01 2221 2223 2 4 02 04 52 54 62 64 72

-85 9+$:; <=>+?&-8; !%%&.$'?;

8#@+ABC?$*+?_’; 9DEB=+;=&2/24

F$(>&.$'? D=#:+"=_’;&=B=+;=

2/24

a

b

a

! ""#$ %& '"() * +& ,-. /01 2221 2223 2 4 02 04 52 54 62 64 72

-85 9+$:; <=>+?&-8; !%%&.$'?;

8#@+ABC?$*+?_’; 9DEB=+;=&2/24

F$(>&.$'? D=#:+"=_’;&=B=+;=

2/24

a

b

a

Figure 14.6.

Annual income distribution among households in RT2, Heads and Other RTs. a, b: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

Comparing the average of owned land area, it was not significantly different between RT2 and Other RTs except the Heads (Figure 14.7). This means that available land of the households is no more important factor than organizational matter as mentioned above to participate in the tree planting activities.

(8)

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

.-78/ 9$(%: !;+$)&78: <''&=(>): 8?@$ABC)(D$)_’: 9EFB;$:;&-G-2

H(I+&=(>) E;?%$#;_’:&;B;$:;

-G-2

a

b

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

.-78/ 9$(%: !;+$)&78: <''&=(>): 8?@$ABC)(D$)_’: 9EFB;$:;&-G-2

H(I+&=(>) E;?%$#;_’:&;B;$:;

-G-2

a

b

Figure 14.7.

Owned land area distribution among households in RT2, Heads and Other RTs. a, b: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

3.5. Factors to participate in tree planting activities within the households in RT2

Within RT2, 70 % of the households participated in the tree planting activities. On the other hands, 30 % did not. All the participants belong to the farmer group AM. On the other hands, all of the non-participants did not.

Comparing the average of annual income, the participants earned higher annual-inocome than the non-participants but not significantly (Figure 14.8). This means that financial availability of the households is not so much important factor to belong to the farmer group AM and participate in the tree planting activities.

! " #! #" $! %&'()*+,-.-)*',/ 0*+,-.-)*',/ 1 ''2* 34 -'.& 5 64 78) 9#: !!!: !!!; 1334)*-+/

<2=6>(?+*56+_’/

@AB(,6/,4!9!"

C*.D4)*-+

A,2E6',_’/4,(,6/,

!9!"

a

! " #! #" $! %&'()*+,-.-)*',/ 0*+,-.-)*',/ 1 ''2* 34 -'.& 5 64 78) 9#: !!!: !!!; 1334)*-+/

<2=6>(?+*56+_’/

@AB(,6/,4!9!"

C*.D4)*-+

A,2E6',_’/4,(,6/,

!9!"

a

Figure 14.8.

Annual income distribution between participants and non-participants. a: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

Comparing the average of owned land area, the participants had significantly higher land area than the non-participants (Figure 14.9). This means that owned land area of the households is crucial factor to belong

(9)

to the farmer group AM and participate in the tree planting activities. Of course land availability was a key for participating in the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities. From the provision of BRLKT, participant of the activities should prepare enough lands for tree plantation with land-ownership certificate.

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

78#9:();<=<:(#;> ?();<=<:(#;> @AA&:(<)>

BCD$E9F)(G$)_’>

HIJ9;$>;&-K-2

L(=+&:(<)

I;C%$#;’>&;9;$>;

-K-2

a

b

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

78#9:();<=<:(#;> ?();<=<:(#;> @AA&:(<)>

BCD$E9F)(G$)_’>

HIJ9;$>;&-K-2

L(=+&:(<)

I;C%$#;’>&;9;$>;

-K-2

a

b

Figure 14.9.

Owned land area distribution between participants and non-participants. a, b: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

Comparing the owned land area between participants and non-participants within RT2, minimum 1.75 ha of owned land area was crucial for participating in the tree planting activities (Figure 14.10). As an exception, only one household (A) who had enough lands did not participate in the Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities. It may due to the fact that she owned a chicken farm and earned upper-income so she did not have interests on the income from the tree planting activities. On the other hands, two households (B and C) who did not have enough lands could participate in the tree planting activities. It was because that they could borrow lands from their relatives.

! " #! #" $!

! # $ % & " ' ( ) *

+,-./012-/023.20405206 7 --82 10 9-:; < .0 40 => ?#@ !!!@ !!!0 6 A23B9:9>2-BC D;-0>23B9:9>2-BC A C B ! " #! #" $!

! # $ % & " ' ( ) *

+,-./012-/023.20405206 7 --82 10 9-:; < .0 40 => ?#@ !!!@ !!!0 6 A23B9:9>2-BC D;-0>23B9:9>2-BC A C B

Figure 14.10.

Relationship between owned land area and annual income of each household in neighborhood association No.2 ( RT2 ) and participation to the tree planting activities.

(10)

In depth analysis of the characteristics of the 11 non-participants of RT2 are: 3 are old households; 2 are widows; 2 are wives whose husbands work away from home, 2 women are chicken farmers, one is daily worker and the last one is a wife whose husbands are sick. They did not have enough lands for tree plantation and also did not have man-power to participating tree planting activities. They, therefore, did not belong to the farmer group AM and did not participate in the tree planting activities.

Participatory plantation programs from the government, NGOs or another institutions should not enforce them to participate in the timber tree planting activities. They, relatively poor and the most vulnerable segments of community should be considered in the aspects of supporting their livelihoods.

3.6. Planting and tending methods

There were two types of the plantation from the point of tending methods. In type A, agro-forestry continued after the termination of subsidies and managed intensively with fertilizer and herbicide. In type B, the plantation was abandoned after the termination of subsidies. Heights of the Teak (Figure 14.11) and Durian (Figure 14.12) seedlings in type A were significantly larger than that of type B. Trees in type B were mostly covered with weeds. Thus, agro-forestry by local people can be effective for tending the planted trees and ensure good growth (Figure 14.13).

!

"

#

$

%

&'

&"

&()

&(*

&#

+

,-.

/0

12

3

4 !

"

#

$

%

&'

&"

&()

&(*

&#

+

,-.

/0

12

3

4 567,1)8

9:;0-;<:<=

>.?:@A:?,=0?6

567,1)8

9:;0-;<:<=

>.?:@A:?,=0?6

567,1*8

B-00B,10,;C-;.

567,1*8

B-00B,10,;C-;.

>

D

9 ₉

E111F1111'(G111111111111'%"11111111111111(H1111111111111'II11111

""(

&>37B,

Figure 14.11.

Average height of the Teak trees in the 4 sample plantations (S1, S2, S3 and S4) after planting 1.5 years. a, b, c: P < 0.01 (t-test). Bars mean SD.

(11)

!

!"#

$"!

$"#

%"!

%"#

&$

&#

&'

&(

)

*+

,

-.

/0

1

2 !

!"#

$"!

$"#

%"!

%"#

&$

&#

&'

&(

)

*+

,

-.

/0

1

2

3

4

5 ₅

6///7/////89///////////////////(://////////////////$9///////////

#9

;<=*/>?

@AB.+BCACD

>,EAFGAE*D.E<

;<=*/>?

@AB.+BCACD

>,EAFGAE*D.E<

;<=*/H?

I+..J/.BK+B,

;<=*/H?

I+..J/.BK+B,

&31=J*

Figure 14.12.

Average height of the Durian trees in the 4 sample plantations (S1, S5, S6 and S4) after planting 1.5 years. a, b, c: P < 0.01 (t-test). Bars mean SD.

Type A: Continuous Agro-forestry Type B: abandoned after the termination of subsidies

Figure 14.13.

Two types of the plantation from the point of tending methods. Teak (Tectona grandis) trees.

(12)

3.7. The role of the local environmental NGOs

BEBSiC, Samarinda (local environmental NGO) joined this Social Forestry Model Area Development Activities from the beginning. BEBSiC supported capacity building activities such as plantation technique training. BEBSiC played important role as a mediator between the governments and participants to solve field level problems.

In the year of 2003, BEBSiC started new project to support rehabilitation activities and improve livelihood of local people through strengthening their organization by participatory learning and action (PLA) approach. The new project targeted farmers group, members are mainly men, and also women group by the gender aspects. In this aspect, women who had not participated in the tree planting project can take part in the new project. New project for women are small scale chicken farming, making snacks and soybean milk in order to get income. BEBSiC is building up trustful relations with local people through long-stay or short-stay many times. Nevertheless, Activity area of the local NGO is limited and could not cover all the area and all the people in the T village. There are another 10 neighborhood associations. Until then, BEBSiC covered only one neighborhood association No.2 (RT2).

Figure 14.14.

Participatory learning and action (PLA) approach

4. Conclusion

Timber trees need long time till harvest, so usually the incentive for local people to plant trees was low. Local people cannot afford to make investments in tree planting activities because they have to earn their daily bread. Therefore initial governmental grants/subsidies and/or another support schemes are necessary for local people to start tree planting activities.

In this case study, factors for participatory forest rehabilitation activities in East Kalimantan were as follows:

1) legal status for land-ownership and benefits from rehabilitated forests;

(13)

organization of farmer group and mutual trust with the local government to receive governmental supports;

3) Towards the community-based forest rehabilitation, the poor and the most vulnerable segments of community should be considered in the aspects of supporting the livelihoods, rather than enforcing them to participate in the timber tree planting activities;

4) Agro-forestry by local people can be effective for tending the planted trees and ensure good growth; 5) local environmental NGO will play a key role for the success of the program.

Without those conditions, participatory forest rehabilitation cannot be succeeded. Solving conflictions on land tenure caused by the rapid process of decentralization should be a starting point for rehabilitating forests in the region.

References

Wollenberg, E., & H. Kartodihardjo, 2002. Devolution and Indonesia's New Forestry Law. In C. J. P. Colfer & A. P. Resosudarmo (ed.). Which Way Forward: People, Forests, and Policy Making in Indonesia. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.

Wrangham, R., 2002. Chaning Policy Discourses and Traditional Communities, 1960-1999. In C. J. P. Colfer & A. P. Resosudarmo (Eds.), Which Way Forward: People, Forests, and Policy Making in Indonesia. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.

Toma, T., 2003. Paper for AKECOP workshop on Restoration of Degraded Forest Ecosystem in South East Asia -Role of Agoroforestry in Restoration-, Lessons from Forest Rehabilitation through Agroforestry Trials in lowland Kutai, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

(1)

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

.-78/ 9$(%: !;+$)&78: <''&=(>): 8?@$ABC)(D$)_’: 9EFB;$:;&-G-2

H(I+&=(>) E;?%$#;_’:&;B;$:;

-G-2

a

b

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

.-78/ 9$(%: !;+$)&78: <''&=(>): 8?@$ABC)(D$)_’: 9EFB;$:;&-G-2

H(I+&=(>) E;?%$#;_’:&;B;$:;

-G-2

a

b

Figure 14.7.

Owned land area distribution among households in RT2, Heads and Other RTs. a, b: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

3.5. Factors to participate in tree planting activities within the households in RT2

! " #! #" $! %&'()*+,-.-)*',/ 0*+,-.-)*',/ 1 ''2* 34 -'.& 5 64 78) 9#: !!!: !!!; 1334)*-+/ <2=6>(?+*56+_’/ @AB(,6/,4!9!"

C*.D4)*-+ A,2E6',_’/4,(,6/,

!9!"

a

! " #! #" $! %&'()*+,-.-)*',/ 0*+,-.-)*',/ 1 ''2* 34 -'.& 5 64 78) 9#: !!!: !!!; 1334)*-+/ <2=6>(?+*56+_’/ @AB(,6/,4!9!"

C*.D4)*-+ A,2E6',_’/4,(,6/,

!9!"

a

Figure 14.8.

Annual income distribution between participants and non-participants. a: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

(2)

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

78#9:();<=<:(#;> ?();<=<:(#;> @AA&:(<)>

BCD$E9F)(G$)_’>

HIJ9;$>;&-K-2

L(=+&:(<)

I;C%$#;’>&;9;$>;

-K-2

a

b

!" #$% &' ( #% &( )$( &* +( , -. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

78#9:();<=<:(#;> ?();<=<:(#;> @AA&:(<)>

BCD$E9F)(G$)_’>

HIJ9;$>;&-K-2

L(=+&:(<)

I;C%$#;’>&;9;$>;

-K-2

a

b

Figure 14.9.

Owned land area distribution between participants and non-participants. a, b: P < 0.05 (HSD-test and t-test). Red box means lower and upper quartile. Blue bars mean SD.

! " #! #" $!

! # $ % & " ' ( ) *

+,-./012-/023.20405206 7 --82 10 9-:; < .0 40 => ?#@ !!!@ !!!0 6 A23B9:9>2-BC D;-0>23B9:9>2-BC A C B ! " #! #" $!

! # $ % & " ' ( ) *

+,-./012-/023.20405206 7 --82 10 9-:; < .0 40 => ?#@ !!!@ !!!0 6 A23B9:9>2-BC D;-0>23B9:9>2-BC A C B

Figure 14.10.

Relationship between owned land area and annual income of each household in neighborhood association No.2 ( RT2 ) and participation to the tree planting activities.

(3)

3.6. Planting and tending methods

!

"

#

$

%

&'

&"

&()

&(*

&#

+

,-.

/0

12

3

4 !

"

#

$

%

&'

&"

&()

&(*

&#

+

,-.

/0

12

3

4 567,1)8

9:;0-;<:<=

>.?:@A:?,=0?6

567,1)8

9:;0-;<:<=

>.?:@A:?,=0?6

567,1*8

B-00B,10,;C-;.

567,1*8

B-00B,10,;C-;.

>

D

9 ₉

E111F1111'(G111111111111'%"11111111111111(H1111111111111'II11111

""(

&>37B,

Figure 14.11.

Average height of the Teak trees in the 4 sample plantations (S1, S2, S3 and S4) after planting 1.5 years. a, b, c: P < 0.01 (t-test). Bars mean SD.

(4)

!

!"#

$"!

$"#

%"!

%"#

&$

&#

&'

&(

)

*+

,

-.

/0

1

2 !

!"#

$"!

$"#

%"!

%"#

&$

&#

&'

&(

)

*+

,

-.

/0

1

2

3

4

5 ₅

6///7/////89///////////////////(://////////////////$9///////////

#9

;<=*/>?

@AB.+BCACD

>,EAFGAE*D.E<

;<=*/>?

@AB.+BCACD

>,EAFGAE*D.E<

;<=*/H?

I+..J/.BK+B,

;<=*/H?

I+..J/.BK+B,

&31=J*

Figure 14.12.

Average height of the Durian trees in the 4 sample plantations (S1, S5, S6 and S4) after planting 1.5 years. a, b, c: P < 0.01 (t-test). Bars mean SD.

Type A: Continuous Agro-forestry Type B: abandoned after the termination of subsidies

Figure 14.13.

Two types of the plantation from the point of tending methods. Teak (Tectona grandis) trees.

(5)

3.7. The role of the local environmental NGOs

Figure 14.14.

Participatory learning and action (PLA) approach

4. Conclusion

In this case study, factors for participatory forest rehabilitation activities in East Kalimantan were as follows: 1) legal status for land-ownership and benefits from rehabilitated forests;

(6)

organization of farmer group and mutual trust with the local government to receive governmental supports;

4) Agro-forestry by local people can be effective for tending the planted trees and ensure good growth; 5) local environmental NGO will play a key role for the success of the program.

References