Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Making a bridge between livelihoods and forest conservation: Lessons fromnon timber forest products' utilization in South Sumatera, Indonesia

Jun Harbia, James Thomas Erbaughb, Mohammad Sidiqc, Berthold Haaslerc,Dodik Ridho Nurrochmatd,⁎

a Forestry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Muhammadiyah University of Palembang, Indonesia and Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, Chinab School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USAc Biodiversity and Climate Change (BIOCLIME), Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Germanyd Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Biodiversity conservationForest management unitsLivelihoods improvementNTFPs utilization

A B S T R A C T

Promoting forest conservation as well as the well-being of forest proximate people requires an appropriatebalance of regulation, enforcement, and incentives. When regulation and enforcement are minimal, economicincentives for low-intensity and non-deleterious forest use can provide conservation and livelihood benefits. Onemanagement option for promoting low intensity and non-deleterious forest use includes the harvest and pro-duction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs). This research identifies and examines strategies to promotesustainable livelihoods in a conservation landscape. We assess Pangkalan Bulian Village, Musi BanyuasinDistrict, South Sumatra Province using the Community Livelihood Appraisal and Product Scanning (CLAPS)method to describe potential commodities and conduct value chain and market analyses on downstream sectors.Data collection included in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and household surveys disseminatedthrough snowball sampling. We find that rattan is a priority NTFP due to the presence of abundant raw mate-rials, trained human resources, and potential markets. Actors involved along the value chain are collectors, localbrokers, large collectors, small processors, large processors, retailers and end consumers. Profit margins earnedalong each link of the value chain are around 25%. Thus, we encourage rattan harvest and production as a low-intensity and non-deleterious forest use that can simultaneously benefit local livelihoods and forest conservationin a landscape where protected area rules and regulations are difficult to enforce.

1. Introduction

The relationship between forest conservation and the well-being offorest proximate people is of crucial concern to conserving biodiversity,reducing carbon emissions, and promoting sustainable development(Kanowski et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2011). In this text, we use themost formal interpretation of forest proximate people: human actorswithin communities that directly rely on forest landscapes for com-mercial and/or subsistence needs (Newton et al., 2016). Without spe-cific regulation, enforcement, and incentives, forest proximate com-munities tend to reduce forest cover in order to provide short-term aswell as long-term benefits (see Nurrochmat et al., 2017); however, withthe appropriate set of rules and norms, communities are able to con-serve forests while benefiting directly and indirectly from forest areas(Birgiantoro and Nurrochmat, 2007; Roslinda et al., 2012; Adalinaet al., 2014).

Forest use can be categorized as consumptive and indirect

(Gregersen, 1995) as well as deleterious and non-deleterious. Con-sumptive forest use refers to the collection of extractive goods from aforest: timber, fruit, fodder, bushmeat, etc. Indirect uses include ac-tivities that do not result in extraction, including recreation, tourism,education, intercropping, etc. (see Darusman et al., 2001). Deleterioususes decrease or otherwise alter forest cover, a common metric used tomeasure the efficacy and success of conservation programs (Blackman,2013). Non-deleterious uses are those which do not reduce forest ca-nopy cover. Fig. 1 presents a conceptual model for considering the in-tensity of consumptive use and the percent change in forest cover.

We provide the consumptive intensity and percent forest coverchange curve –as one of the important indicators for an alarming si-tuation of forest conservation- in order to outline how, as intensity ofconsumptive forest use increases, the percent of altered (i.e. removed,replaced, etc.) forest cover similarly changes. Two interrelated theoriesof intensification and land cover change form the basis of this curve.First, the relationship between population and agricultural land

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.011Received 28 February 2017; Received in revised form 20 May 2018; Accepted 23 May 2018

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: jerbaugh@umich.edu (J.T. Erbaugh), mohammad.sidiq@giz.de (M. Sidiq), berthold.haasler@giz.de (B. Haasler), dnurrochmat@ipb.ac.id (D.R. Nurrochmat).

Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

1389-9341/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

T

(Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011); second, the relationship between nat-ural ecosystems and forest frontiers with land-use intensity (Foley et al.,2005). Although the nature of these relationships can vary across timeand location (Ashraf et al., 2017), each of these conceptual models il-lustrate that in a complex situation of forest tenure (see Nurrochmatet al., 2014), an increase in land-use intensity –which is influenced bypower and interests of actors (Maryudi et al., 2018; Maryudi andSahide, 2017) is directly related with land cover change. Further, eachof these instances posit shifting marginal change along the curve. In theexample we provide (Fig. 1), the intensity of consumptive forest usedemonstrates shifting marginal change in the percent of altered forestcover, until no more forest cover can be altered (i.e. complete defor-estation). While we recognize the simplified nature of this curve, we useit as a conceptual device to illustrate how increasing intensity of con-sumptive forest use results in increasing forest cover change and evencomplete deforestation due to forest conversion into other land uses,e.g. plantation (see Susanti and Maryudi, 2016; Prabowo et al., 2017).

As consumptive intensity moves from I1 to I3, the amount of forestcover that is altered increases. Thus, assuming static forest cover is themost “conservation friendly” state, activities within I1 include forestuses that are best aligned with conservation. Such activities includeindirect uses, such as recreation, tourism, or education (see Ekayaniet al., 2014), in addition to the low intensity collection of many non-timber forest products, such as honey, mushrooms, fruit, fodder, andetc. (e.g. Dave et al., 2017; Ingram et al., 2017). Consumptive uses in I2alter a greater amount of forest cover than natural processes, indirectuses, or low-intensity consumptive use. I2 forest uses may include in-tercropping, low-levels of selective logging, or intensified collection ofproducts from I1 (Bhagwat et al., 2005, van der Werf et al., 2009). Fi-nally, consumptive uses in I3 greatly affect change in forest cover frombaseline. Forest uses in I3 generally refer to the harvest of wood pro-ducts, and so represent more intensive selective logging through clear-cutting or complete deforestation. However, I3 uses may also includeexcessive collection of products from either I1 or I2. Forest use intensityis not entirely determined by a given product, but by the combinationof the product and the extent to which it is harvested (Arnold and RuízPérez, 2001).

To align the forest use of forest proximate people and conservationagendas, lower-intensity use is crucial. To promote low-intensity forestuses, states and communities often rely on a combination of statemandated policy and enforcement (see Maryudi, 2016), market in-centives, and community management (Agrawal and Lemos, 2007). Forthe conservation of forests, these three methods for promoting forestconservation can be grouped, broadly, into regulation/enforcement oreconomic incentives for indirect and low-intensity forest use.

A growing body of literature that examines protected area impacts

on reducing deforestation provides substantial evidence that protectedareas in Indonesia (Gaveau et al., 2009; Shah and Baylis, 2015) andaround the world have reduced deforestation (Nolte et al., 2013;Ferraro et al., 2015). It is very important to make a bridge betweenlivelihood and forest conservation because “treat” from human activ-ities is often recognized as a proxy for a set of regulations and en-forcement aimed to conserve forest area and reduce human impact;indeed, protected area assignment cannot effectively conserve forestareas if it allows and/or promotes high intensity consumptive uses(Wilkie et al., 2001). However, aligning livelihood opportunities forproximate forest people provides another avenue to conserve forestlands that can reach beyond territorialization, regulation, and en-forcement (Vang-Rasmussen et al., 2017) as well as formalization(Erbaugh et al., 2016).

By aligning the livelihood opportunities and incentives for forestproximate people with consumptive but non-deleterious forest use,community managed forests have demonstrated the ability to conserveforest land at a level on par with protected areas (Miranda et al., 2015;Porter-Bolland et al., 2012). This “alignment” of opportunities and in-centives is particularly prurient for conservation landscapes that lacksufficient regulation and enforcement necessary to deter forest prox-imate people from consumptive and deleterious forest use.

The Meranti1 Protection Forest (MPF), located in the Meranti Pro-duction Forest Management Unit (FMU) in Batang Hari Leko sub-district, Musi Banyuasin district is one of a number of protection forestsin South Sumatra. “Protection forests” are a particular classification ofland use type, defined and managed by the state (Law 41/1999). TheMPF is adjacent to Dangku Wildlife Reserve, which is part of theDangku Bentayan Conservation FMU. The Dangku Bentayan landscapehas a very high level of biodiversity (Prasetyo et al., 2014; Ministry ofForestry, 2014), including the Sumatran tiger (Imada et al., 2013;Mahanani and Pitria, 2013). However, the landscape is currently underthreat from conversion for other land uses, including poaching, illegallogging and wildlife trading (Kumar and Shahabuddin, 2005).

Although the MPF and other regions within the Dangku BentayanConservation FMU have been designated as protected areas, regulationand enforcement have not been sufficient to appropriately conserveforest cover. Based on law No. 41/1999 on forestry, deforestationwithin protection forests is prohibited. However, the MPF is locatedwithin an FMU where there exist overlapping claims on 38.5% of itsland area (Napitu et al., 2017). Overlapping claims make regulating andenforcing limited human impact in the protection forest area difficult(see Nurrochmat et al., 2012; Nurrochmat et al., 2014), often leading toa misalignment between forest use and forest conservation (Gaveauet al., 2017).

In similar contexts, where protected area regulation and enforce-ment are outweighed by consumptive economic forest uses, non-timberforest products (NTFPs) have demonstrated an ability to align forest useand conservation (Ticktin, 2004). NTFPs encourage communities toconserve forest landscapes in order to receive both short- and long-termbenefits for livelihoods, food, and health security (FAO, 1999). In thismanner, NTFPs can support sustainable forest management and con-servation strategies (Arnold, 2002), while providing alternative sourcesof cash income for the rural poor (Dash et al., 2016; Ros-Tonen andWiersum, 2005; Ndangalasi et al., 2007; Giliba et al., 2010; Kar andJacobson, 2012). Furthermore, NTFPs contribute significantly not onlyto the livelihoods of rural residents (Sunderlin et al., 2005; Wunder,2003; Wunder et al., 2014; Neumann and Hirsch, 2000; Steele et al.,2014), but also to those who are less formally forest proximate people(Newton et al., 2016). That is, people and communities who ownhomesteads, live in open spaces within towns, or on the urban per-iphery (Kaoma and Shackleton, 2015).

Planning for livelihood improvement requires analytical tools and

Fig. 1. Consumptive intensity by % forest cover change.

1 In Indonesian context, Meranti refers to all trees of the family of Dipterocarpaceae.

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

2

methods for assessing local sustainability. Strategies for such schemesinclude follow-up plans, which are necessary for a variety of stake-holders, especially governments, in the form of economic instrumentsthat can promise “win-win” solutions for both biodiversity conservationand human (local) livelihoods (Rode et al., 2016) through the proces-sing of NTFPs. Thus, this research examines potential NTFP alternativesfor a village in the Dangku Bentayan Conservation FMU (Table 1).

Through this case study of alternatives for community managedNTFPs, our research provides insight into the livelihood options forforest proximate people within a conservation landscape that are con-sumptive and non-deleterious. We thus provide information on how toalign local livelihood and conservation benefits for FMUs acrossIndonesia, or with a similar tension between protected area regulation,enforcement, and economic incentives. The objectives of the study are:1. To analyze typical local livelihoods in a village adjacent to a pro-tected area. And, 2. To formulate strategies for providing sustainablelivelihoods under protected area management.

2. Study site overview

The study site, Pangkalan Bulian village, is located within theMeranti FMU and Dangku Wildlife Reserve landscape. More generally,Pangkalan Bulian village is located in Musi Banyuasin district, in SouthSumatra province (Fig. 2).

Pangkalan Bulian villages covers an area of 554.21 km2, with apopulation of approximately 2526 people (BPS, 2015; BPS MusiBanyuasin, 2015). The village's 546 households are comprised of 1206males and 1320 females. Primary livelihood strategies within PangalanBulian include plantation forest development, agriculture, palm oil andrubber plantations, as well as kerosene and gas mining. Satellite imageanalysis in 2016 show the amount of pressure on forests where theremaining forest cover area is about 64% of secondary forest withmedium and low density. While the use for agriculture and gardens,especially rubber reached, 16% (Yunardy et al., 2017). This pattern ofclearing land for tree plantations, especially rubber and oil palm, is acommon driver of deforestation in Sumatra (Miyamoto, 2006; Fieldet al., 2009; Euler et al., 2017). Beyond these livelihood activities,members of Pangkalan Bulian often use NTFPs for both subsistence andcommercial activities.

In Pangkalan Bulian, rattan is gathered and sold as a raw materialfor producing handicrafts and furniture. Wild rattan growing in MPFcovers a total area of approximately 5000 ha. Local people harvestrattan for subsistence and sell it to generate income. Rattan consumersor users are distributed throughout rural and peri-urban areas as well ascities.

In addition to rattan, villagers also sell honey, which provides sea-sonal employment opportunities. Apis dorsata giant honey bees producehoney in Sialang trees in most parts of MPF and Dangku WildlifeReserve (Suhesti and Hadinoto, 2015). There are eight harvesters in thevillage, each of whom harvests 1–4 Sialang trees. Each tree contains25–120 nests/colonies, while each nest/colony can produce from 20 to40 kg of honey per season. There can be 2–3 harvests a year depending

on seasonal conditions. The number of wild flowers providing sourcesof nectar has begun to decrease and affect honey production.

Rubber trees constitute a special category of NTFP, as rubber is amajor source of income for many rural people in South Sumatra, in-cluding villagers in Pangkalan Bulian. The trees produce latex, whichlocal people tap every day from the approximately 500 ha of rubberplantations owned by the community.

Although the harvest and sale of durian provides a viable productfrom low-intensity forestland use, it is not a feasible alternative formany village members. The 2015 fires that occurred across Sumatradepleted the mature durian trees. Few fruiting trees still remain.

Other types of NTFPs such as pandanus, cikai,2 tassel, and bittercharm are found in this village, but are neither abundant nor widelyharvested or sold.

3. Materials and methods

Data were collected on the natural, physical, financial, human andsocial aspects of the community. Using the Sustainable LivelihoodsFramework (SLF) (Chambers and Conway, 1992; DFID, 1999), weadopted a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (DFID,2001). We collected data using a survey form filled out through twofocus group discussions (FGDs) of 10–25 people, 10 individual in-depthinterviews, 10 key informant interviews, and field surveys using Com-munity Livelihood Appraisal and Product Scanning (CLAPS) meth-odologies (Tarigan et al., 2015). We also conducted value chain andmarket surveys to select NTFPs for study, in order to describe the fullrange of activities required for bringing products or services fromconception, through the intermediary phases of production (transfor-mation and producer services inputs), up to delivery to end consumers(Velde et al., 2006; Kaplinsky, 2000).

Data from the FGDs, key informant interviews and field surveyswere analyzed qualitatively using strength-weakness and opportunity-threat (SWOT) analysis. The qualitative data were also analyzed col-lectively with participants during data collection using CLAPS.According to CLAPS methods, there are five categories of factors thatdetermine superior products: the abundance and distribution, the dif-ficulty level at harvest, the distance from the public, ease of production,and the relationship with the forest management. We scored each ofthese factors based on information gleaned from our data collectionmethods. We then used the SLF to analyze local livelihood systems inPangkalan Bulian, and SWOT analysis to formulate appropriate strate-gies for improving community livelihoods within a framework of bio-diversity conservation.

This study will provide a strategy to promote the most prospectiveNon Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) that is able to become a bridgebetween livelihoods and forest conservation based on the local needs(Fig. 3).

NTFPs gave multiple benefits for local people such as daily needs forfood, feed, housing materials, etc. (subsistence), reserved assets toharvest when people need cash (savings), and products to sell (gen-erating income). NTFPs are also an important part to implement con-servation strategy. According to Law 32/2009 on EnvironmentalManagement and Protection, conservation has three main components:protection, preservation, and utilization of natural resources. Besidesnon-extractive activities (ecotourism, education, etc.), utilization ofNTFPs are usually also allowed in protected forest area (seeNurrochmat et al., 2017).

Table 1NTFPs in Pangkalan Bulian Village.

No NTFP Utilization Starting use intensity

1 Rattan Crafts, raw material I12 Cikai Household furniture I23 Tassel Crafts I14 Pandanus Crafts I15 Bamboo Crafts I16 Rubber Sales I27 Sialang honey Sales, own consumption I18 Durian Sales, own consumption I19 Bitter charm Sales, traditional medicine I1

2 Indonesian – langkap (Arenga obtusifolia).

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

3

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Typical livelihoods of communities living adjacent to protected areas

Protected area and community livelihood linkages are based oninternal and external factors that impact community socioeconomicactivities (Stone, 2013). In this regard, DFID (1999) suggested thatinternal factors refer to the context of livelihood capital assets includinghuman, natural, physical, financial, and social capital; and externalfactors affecting livelihoods are the vulnerability contexts in whichhouseholds live, including the dimension of exposure to externalshocks, stresses, and risks, and the dimension of defenselessness.

A community living adjacent to the MPF and Dangku WildlifeReserve landscape in Pangkalan Bulian provides the context on which

this study's discussion focuses. In general, households in the study areahave been engaged in farming, hunting, fishing, and in many casesartisanal kerosene mining. Rubber crops are a predominant livelihoodsource for the community. However, findings from this study revealearnings from rubber crops are in decline, with unstable prices drivingthis trend. There are no farmer groups or cooperatives in the village,and as consequence individual farming households often have no al-ternative but to accept whatever prices are offered by middlemen orfactories for their raw product (latex).

This study adopted qualitative variables from Mahdi and Schmidt-Vogt (2009), including human capital assets determined using laborand education variables; natural capital assets using forest resource andland variables; physical capital assets using irrigation infrastructure,road infrastructure, farming inputs, and processing variables; financialcapital assets using cash income, credit and tax subsidy variables; andsocial capital assets using equity and institutional participation vari-ables.

4.1.1. Internal factors: livelihood assetsWe analyzed and interpreted the data collected through CLAPS

surveys, focus group discussions, household interviews, key informantinterviews, and secondary data in light of a community capital frame-work (Fig. 4, Table 2).

Human capital assets were relatively low. Currently, village mem-bers receive some income from rubber and kerosene, and there are afew personal money lending services (tauke). Primary income sourcesare primarily from natural resource extraction and harvest, includingrubber and traditional kerosene mining. Some people work on a sea-sonal basis, crafting rattan and harvesting honey. Some additional ca-pital is obtained from investors, more often than not these investors arecertain families in the village who act as brokers. Poor households inthe village have little access to education. Although some local in-stitutions provide scholarships and skills training for children, however

Fig. 2. Study site (BPS, 2015; Ministry of Environment and Forestry, 2015).

Livelihoods Forest conservation

Protection

Preservation

Subsistence

Savings

utilizing securing

Selected NTFP

Income UtilizationSWOT

NTFPs

Fig. 3. Logical framework of study.

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

4

their scope is extremely limited.Most villagers only being educated to elementary school level and

none having attended higher education. The community is also vul-nerable to health issues because of its exposure to unhealthy environ-mental conditions, and the threat of smoke from forest fires that nowbreak out almost every year. The village has only one midwife and twotraditional healers, and has no community health center.

Natural capital is relatively high. Diverse resources in the village

include forest products, including fruits and vegetables, medicines,honey, and wood for building. Land ownership levels are very low.Much of the land surrounding the village is classified as state forest andis managed by large companies granted concessions by the government.Local people are only allowed access to harvest NTFPs. There are sevendominant NTFPs available for harvest: rattan, sialang honey, cikai,tassel, pandanus, bamboo and pasak bumi. Based on the CLAPS method,rattan is NTFP with the highest score (Table 3).

Physical and financial capital are both low, and they constitute amajor constraint for pursuing alternative livelihood activities within thevillage. There is no access to electricity from the public sector, whilesanitation systems and water supplies are poor. Most people's activitiesare hampered by the lack of information and communications. The poorcondition of roads to the market and the city exacerbate connectivityand production issues. The complementary issue of low financial capitalalso demonstrates the simultaneous need and difficulty of finding sui-table livelihood alternatives within Pangkalan Bulian village. Given thelack of assets and credit that community member face, any low-in-tensity alternative that contributes to livelihood strategies will have tobe easily accessible and relatively inexpensive to harvest, propagate,and produce.

In terms of social capital assets (Bebbington, 1999), the village wasonce a population center during the Sriwijaya dynasty, a history thathas influenced governance and livelihood systems as well as other ac-tivities. Our data collection indicate a high level of local pride whichcontributed to a sense of community, purpose, and communal well-being. Such social capital can make it easier to introduce new tech-nologies and systems either through existing institutions or the for-mation of new ones (Bebbington, 1999).

4.1.2. External factor: forest management contextForestry Law No. 41/1999 provides for the establishment of Forest

Management Units (FMUs) to facilitate the preservation of forest areasas permanent forests as a basis for sustainable forest management. Inaddition, FMUs were developed as a strategic solution for conflict re-solution (Baplan, 2006; Kartodihardjo, 1998; Kartodihardjo, 2011;Kartodihardjo et al., 2011), and as a key element of forest governancereform for managing and reforming the domestic forestry sector, andembracing REDD+ and related initiatives (Kim et al., 2015; Sahideet al., 2016).

Under Law 23/2014 on Regional Governance, which came into ef-fect in 2016, forestry sector governance is shared between central andprovincial governments. Under this regulation, the authority to estab-lish FMUs will remain with the central government; however, authorityover management has shifted from the district to the provincial level. Inthis regard, authority over forest management relates mainly to FMUs.However, Steni (2016) reveals that there are no fundamental changesregarding licensing regimes in the new regional governance law. Forexample, business permits for non-timber forest product utilizationremain under Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), provincial

Fig. 4. Capital assets of the community living adjacent to the protected area inPangkalan Bulian village, Musi Banyuasin district.

Table 2Capital assets in Pangkalan Bulian.

No. Capital asset anddevelopment variables

Conditiona

1 Human capital assets

- Labor- Education

Low (30)

- Farmers and kerosene miners- Majority only graduating from elementaryschool

2 Natural capital assets

- Forest resources- Land

Medium (57)

- Potential products, especially NTFPs(rattan)

- Land ownership is low, but forestmanagement access is available bythrough utilization of NTFPs

3 Physical capital assets

- Irrigation infrastructure- Road infrastructure- Farming inputs- Processing- Electricity- Communication

Low (25)

- No irrigation infrastructure- No sealed roads- No intensive cultivation- No processing facilities- No grid connection, members only usegenerators

- Very weak network, connection onlyavailable at specific points

4 Financial capital assets

- Cash income- Credit- Tax subsidies

Low (20)

- Bonded labor system (Tauke) still in place- None- None

5 Social capital assets

- Equity- Institutionalparticipation

High (70)

- High levels of togetherness, custom, andkinship

- Existing institutions include customaryadat council, village governance, youthorganization, mosque committee, etc.

a Based on the CLAPS survey, focus group discussions, information from keyinformants and secondary data.

Table 3CLAPs Score (NTFPS Product).

No NTFPs Criteria Final score

a b c d e

1 Rattan 3 3 3 3 3 152 Sialang Honey 2 3 3 3 3 143 Cikai 1 3 3 3 3 134 Tassel 1 3 3 3 3 135 Pandanus 1 3 3 3 3 136 Bamboo 3 3 1 3 3 137 Bitter Charm 1 3 3 1 3 11

Note: a: Abundance and distribution of product, b: Relative difficulty of harvest,c: Distance from population center, d: Ease of propocation, e: Alignment withforest conservation and current management strategies.

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

5

and district/municipal government authority.Conversely, referring to Minister of Home Affairs Regulation 61/

2007 on Technical Guidelines for Managing the Finances of PublicService Agencies, FMUs can implement the Sub-National Public ServiceAgency Financial Management Scheme (PPK-BLUD). Even though thisis relatively new, production forest and protection forest FMUs with aregional government agency (SKPD) or regional technical im-plementation unit (UPTD) status may apply the PPK-BLUD scheme tothe management of their finances (Ministry of Forestry, 2013). Thus,FMU management is not necessarily a “one-size fits all” policy, butrather, it varies from location to location and over time.

4.2. Strategies for ensuring sustainable livelihoods in protected areas

4.2.1. Promising NTFPs in the protected area: RattanStone (2013) recognizes the crucial role NTFPs can play in liveli-

hood development and resource conservation in the context of a pro-tected area such as the MPF Dangku landscape. In this case, rattan is apromising local NTFP, the utilization of which has great potential forindividuals and groups in respect to the ecological and social aspects ofprotected area management.

Rattans include over 600 palm species that grow through and overother vegetation (Hirschberger, 2011) in wet tropical forests(Januminro, 2000), including the intact forest in MPF. Rattan, as aproduct derived from these climbing palms, has a relatively highcommercial value. In addition to being a source of foreign exchange, itis exploited as a livelihood source for surrounding communities.

Table 4 presents the results of a value chain survey on the con-tributions of different rattan species for collectors in Pangkalan Bulian.Using CLAPS, priority products were selected by assigning scores toNTFPs available in the village based on several criteria including: theirabundance and distribution, levels of difficulty involved in their har-vest, their distance from the village, their ability to reproduce, and theirrelationship with prevailing forest management.

Indonesia produced 26,854 tons of rattan in 2013 (MoF, 2014), andIndonesia is the world's largest rattan producer, currently producing anestimated 80% of the raw materials used in rattan products (Myers,2015). Indonesia's market share of rattan production has increasedconsistently, from 14% in 2006, to 69% in 2010 (UN Comtrade, 2018).

South Sumatra is one of the areas with a high abundance of rattanspecies. According to the South Sumatra Forestry Office (2015) thehighest percentages of rattan are found in permanent production forest(47%), natural forest (23%) and protected areas (14%). Nearly 90% ofrattans in Indonesia are found in natural forests where harvesting re-mains limited (Myers, 2015). This indicates that with the rattangrowing in South Sumatra – which amounted to 120,586 tonnes in 2015– opportunities remain for developing rattan industries. There arecurrently around 400 rattan crafts' persons in South Sumatra with eachSME having a furniture production capacity of 10 units every 5 days.

These are located in all districts in South Sumatra and involve 601households – 546 of which produce for personal use while 55 producefor sale – harvesting rattan in forest estate areas (BPS, 2014).

Rattan processing in Indonesia involves around 297 species (9genera) (Witono, 1999). Fifty of these species have economic value(Hermansjah, 1982), but only 10 are found in Pangkalan Bulian village(Table 4). Of these ten species, four are currently being harvested andsold.

Value chain analyses have emerged in the new research agenda forNTFPs (Jensen, 2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation by actors inthe market for NTFPs cannot be fully understood without a properunderstanding of the position and behavior of actors in the NTFP valuechain (Velde et al., 2006).

Our research indicates that rattan from Pangkalan Bulian passesthrough several different hands before ultimately arriving in those ofthe end consumer (Fig. 5).

Further, we find that the more stages passed along the value chain,the higher the price of the end product (see Table 4). Profit margins ateach stage are around 25–30% (calculated using full costing). This in-dicates an opportunity for the community to increase its profit marginby processing rattan directly on a larger scale rather than using tradi-tional methods.

The lengths of value and supply chains in rattan businesses are in-fluenced by rattan's characteristics. Rattan grows naturally in forestsand in villages that are often difficult to access using transport. Thisaffects rattan harvesters' ability to access markets that are typicallylocated in cities. Transport costs make selling rattan cost prohibitivewith the quantities of supplies involved. Harvesters, who gather NTFPsin protected forest areas, are the people most instrumental in formingrattan trade or marketing chains. In Pangkalan Bulian, five harvestersbegan doing so in 2014, with a harvest coordinator providing a boat fortransportation.

According to Myers (2015), communities often consider rattanharvesting to be an alternative employment for supplementing income.However, the viability of rattan production across Indonesia, and spe-cifically in Pangkalan Bulian indicate an opportunity to expand thecontribution this NTFP makes to local livelihoods. This expanded con-tribution can promote less intense forest uses over those uses that aremore intensive and deleterious.

Collectors are individuals or groups of people who buy harvestedrattan and sell it. Collectors can be found at the village, sub-district, anddistrict levels and they may operate across district, province, or islands.Collectors operating from the district capital, Sekayu, include inter-is-land traders, who supply rattan to Cirebon in West Java or to medium-scale furniture producers in Lubuk Linggau and Prabumulih in SouthSumatra.

Rattan entrepreneurs in Indonesia are often involved with theIndonesian Rattan Furniture and Handicraft Association (AMKRI) and/or the Indonesian Furniture Association (ASMINDO) as well as with the

Table 4Value chain prices for rattan from Pangkalan Bulian.

No Local name Scientific name Village collectors Sub district collectors District collectors Industries in Java (IDR per quintal)

1 Sega Aira Calamus exilis Griff – – 120,000 600,0002 Mangana Korthalsia echinometra Beccari – – 110,000 700,0003 Semambua Calamus scipionum Loure – – 110,000 700,0004 Sega Putiha Calamus heroideus Bl. – – 130,000 750,0005 Getah Daemonorops rubra Mart. 50,000 150,000 200,000 600,0006 Seni/Peledas Calamus javensis Bl. 150,000 300,000 330,000 1,000,0007 Lacak Calamus crinatus Bl. 150,000 300,000 340,000 1,200,0008 Selinit Calamus optimus Becc. 250,000 400,000 500,000 2,000,0009 Manau Φ > 3.3 mma Calamus manan Miquel – – 7500/bail 13,000/bail10 Manau Φ < 3.3 mma Calamus manan Miquel – – 11,000/bail 17,000/bail

All prices are in Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) and come from primary research in 2016 (USD 1= IDR 13,361 according to the foreign exchange rate of Bank of Indonesia(Indonesian Central Bank).

a Pangkalan Bulian rattan species not harvested or sold.

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

6

Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of Cooperatives andSMEs and the Ministry of Industry and Trade at the district, provincialand national levels. The community could join these associations inorder to scale up its business.

Indonesia's rattan industry is centered in Java, though raw materialscome from islands outside Java (Myers, 2015). Destinations for theinter-island rattan trade are Java (57%), Makassar (31%), and otherregions (12%). Statistical data show the trade in rattan from Kali-mantan has fallen since 1995, to only around 291,992 tons (0.13%).The demand is currently met with rattan from Sulawesi at193,955,984 tons (99.60%) and other regions at 471,663 tons (0.83%).The highest area for sales is Surabaya at 192,540,661 tons (98.97%),Jakarta 1,364,319 tons (0.7%), and other areas 814,659 tons (0.33%)(Januminro, 2000).

Indonesia exports raw and semi-finished rattan to Hong Kong,Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands and Spain. Themain export destinations for finished products are Japan, USA, Taiwan,Singapore, Korea and Hong Kong (Agus, 2001). Global market demandfor raw rattan in 2006 was approximately 1.64million tonnes (SetaraFoundation, 2011).

Professional institutions, such as employer associations, researchorganizations, and governments have yet to address individuals whoharvest rattan. Our analysis indicates that policies to support thecommercialization of rattan would also need to be tailored to each stageof the value chain (Velde et al., 2006). Growth-based poverty reductionapproaches have focused on the private sector, and particularly onsmall and medium enterprises, such as those involved in rattan chains(Tieguhong et al., 2015).

4.2.2. Livelihood strategies for the protected areaFrom the SWOT analysis, we determined strengths versus weak-

nesses (SW), as well as opportunities versus threats (OT), for increasingrattan production by matching and converting internal and externalfactors (Table 5).

The SW strategies are aimed mainly at those characteristics found inthe case study that indicate advantages and disadvantages over others,providing a possible internal strategic planning framework. Meanwhile,the OT strategies principally try to determine elements in the en-vironment that could be advantageous or cause trouble in terms of anexternal strategic planning framework. Finally, the SW and OT strate-gies were combined into a complete strategic planning framework bytaking both internal and external factors into consideration.

Livelihoods are considered sustainable if they can respond to and

recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance capabilities,assets and activities, both now and in the future, without damagingnatural resources (Tarigan et al., 2015). Based on the SWOT analysisand Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) outcomes, we propose astrategic planning framework for NTFP enterprises in the village thatfocuses on clarifying internal strength-weakness strategies and externalopportunities with biodiversity conservation and livelihoods as itscomprehensive targets.

The essential focus of many rural livelihood development policiesare the institutions, rules and customs, land tenure, markets and stateagencies (Bebbington, 1999). Rules and support programs can en-courage community development, while changing livelihood strategiescan mean that households, in response to changes in the natural re-source management context, increasingly search for non-agriculturalsources of income and gain more direct access to capital assets (Mahdiand Schmidt-Vogt, 2009).

Developing rattan processing businesses is essential for shiftingvillagers' habit of harvesting and selling raw materials. Harvestersshould be directed toward creating small industries to shorten thesupply chain, and to start cultivating rattan. This would prevent rawmaterial shortfalls, destruction of natural forest, and any conflicts withforest conservation interests as happened in the Lambusango ForestReserve on Indonesia's Buton Island (Widayati and Carlisle, 2012).

There are many opportunities for providing added value along thevalue chain. Alternatively, the value chain could be shortened in orderto increase profit margins. The way to do so is for villagers to producerattan products themselves using the cane they harvest. Previous re-search has found that farmers who participate in downstream valuechain activities for small and medium enterprise furniture businessesprovide an increased amount of raw material for furniture production(Erbaugh et al., 2016). Should this finding hold for rattan processing inPangkalan Bulian, village members may benefit from an increase inrattan processing and thus be incentivized to harvest or propagaterattan.

For the Pangkalan Bulian village to increase rattan production, wesuggest the following: 1) FMUs and the community rehabilitate rattanplants to ensure a sustainable supply of raw materials. Rehabilitation iscarried out while maintaining existing trees in protected forests. This iswhat made the difference with agroforestry systems (García-Fernándezand Casado, 2005). In this process, only the enrichment of rattan spe-cies is carried out while maintaining the natural condition of the pro-tected forest without damaging the existing ecosystem structure. Inaddition, the rattan types will be endemic species that are fast growing

Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Scheme 4 Scheme 5

Harvester Harvester Harvester Harvester Harvester

Village collector Village collector Village collector Village collector Traditional Craftsman

Sub district collector Sub district collector Sub district collector Traditional craftsman

District collector District collector District collector

Large-scale industry in Java

Large-scale industry in Java

Small-scale craftsman in South Sumatra

Traders in all areas of Indonesia Export Retailer

Retailer

Fig. 5. Rattan value chain schemes.

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

7

and can be used as a processed material (Peters et al., 2013); 2) improvethe quality and technique of harvesting. The harvesting technique givesstronger adverse effects on understorey vegetation density, includingtree saplings and seedlings (Widayati and Carlisle, 2012). Besides that,the quality of processed products must meet consumer standards; 3)establish partnerships with third parties (banks and investors) for fi-nancial/venture capital support to increase capacity (to this end, workplans and feasibility studies will be necessary before submitting anyproposals) (Moktan et al., 2016); 4) increase business managementcapacity to become more efficient and effective (Scheba and Mustalahti,2015); and 5) hold stakeholder business meetings with manufacturers,financiers, processors, and traders/retailers. Such steps would improveconservation, as well as the utilization and preservation of genetic re-sources (Kalima and Jasni, 2010).

5. Conclusion

To ensure local well-being while promoting forest conservation, anappropriate balance of regulation, enforcement, and incentives are re-quired to promote conservation agendas and local livelihoods. TheDangku Bentayan conservation FMU has experienced rapid forest coverloss over the past decade. Overlapping claims have made it difficult forregulation and enforcement to enforce only indirect or low-intensityforest uses. This research investigates possible economic alternatives forincentivizing low-intensity and non-deleterious forest use for commu-nity members living in the conservation landscape. Through the carefulinvestigation of economic alternatives, we find that rattan may providea low-intensity, non-deleterious forest use option for people and com-munities adjacent and within the Dangku Betayan conservation FMU.

Rattan collection and production promotes low-intensity, non-de-leterious forest use that contribute to promoting low-intensity, non-deleterious forest use that yields a high-value NTFP for members ofPangkalan Bulian village. Rattan is readily available, and its collectionmaterials are in plentiful supply and are relatively accessible to thecommunity. Factors supporting the choice to process rattan are villa-gers' processing capacity and a high market demand for rattan products.

The study discusses value chains, market potential and the possiblebusiness opportunities afforded by adding value at each point along thevalue chain. Several comprehensive strategies are discussed, with col-lectors expected to switch immediately to become rattan processors aswell as collectors. Strategic steps to take include FMUs and the com-munity rehabilitating rattan plants to ensure sustainable raw materialsupply; improving the quality and quantity of products; building part-nerships with banks and investors for venture capital support; makingbusiness management more efficient and effective; and marketingthrough business meetings with manufacturers, financiers, processors,traders and retailers.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the funding support from BIOCLIME ProjectNumber 2012.9013.9-001.00, a joint project between Indonesian andGerman government on biodiversity and climate change (BIOCLIME)which is supported by GIZ on behalf of German Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety(BMUB); the Muhammadiyah University of Palembang's Forestry StudyProgram for providing technical support; and all the communitymembers and traders who participated in this study. For the writing andimprovement of this manuscript, we would like to thank our anon-ymous reviewers and C. Liao for their thoughtful comments.

References

[BPS] Badan Pusat Statistik Musi Banyuasin, 2015. Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin DalamAngka. In: Sekayu.

[BPS] Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Sumatera Selatan - South Sumatera Central StatisticsAgency, 2014. Sensus Pertanian 2013. (Palembang).

[BPS] Badan Pusat Statistik/National Statistics Agency, 2015. Batasan Desa 2014.(Jakarta).

[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization, 1999. Toward a harmonized definition of non-wood forest products. Unasylva 198.

[MoEF] Ministry of Environment and Forestry, 2015. Penutupaan Lahan 2014. (Jakarta).[MoF] Ministry of Forestry, 2013. Financial Management Pattern for Sub-National Public

Service Agency towards Independent Forest Management Units. (Jakarta).[MoF] Ministry of Forestry, 2014. Statistik Kementerian Kehutanan Tahun 2013.

(Jakarta).[Pemprov Sumsel] Government of South Sumatra Province, 2015. Pemerintah Galakkan

Furnitur Rotan. http://www.sumselprov.go.id/index.php?module=industridetail&id10-, Accessed date: 20 April 2016.

Adalina, Y., Nurrochmat, D.R., Darusman, D., Sundawati, L., 2014. Harvesting of non-timber Forest products by the local communities in mount Halimun-Salak NationalPark, West Java, Indonesia. JMHT Vol. XX (2), 103–111. August 4. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.20.2.103.

Agrawal, A., Lemos, M.C., 2007. A greener revolution in the making?: environmentalgovernance in the 21st century. Environ. Sci. Policy Sust. Dev. 49 (5), 36–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.49.5.36-45.

Agus, 2001. Perdagangan Komoditi Rotan Indonesia di Pasar Domestik dan Jepang:Analisis Dampak Perubahan Faktor Ekonomi. Postgraduate dissertation. BogorAgricultural University, Bogor.

Arnold, J.E.M., 2002. Identifying Links between Forests and Poverty. ECTF/IIED Forestryand Poverty Reduction Workshop.

Arnold, J.E.M., Ruíz Pérez, M., 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropicalforest conservation and development objectives? Ecol. Econ. 39, 437–447.

Ashraf, J., Pandey, R., de Jong, W., 2017. Forest policy and economics assessment of bio-physical, social and economic drivers for forest transition in Asia-Pacific region.Forest Policy Econ. 76, 35–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.008.

Baplan [Badan Planologi Departemen Kehutanan], 2006. Penyusunan kriteria danstandar pembentukan KPH. Departemen Kehutanan RI, Jakarta.

Bebbington, A., 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant via-bility, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Dev. 27 (12), 2021–2044.

Bhagwat, S.A., Kushalappa, C.G., Williams, P.H., Brown, N.D., 2005. A landscape ap-proach to biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the western Ghats of India.Conserv. Biol. 19 (6), 1853–1862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00248.x.

Birgiantoro, B.A., Nurrochmat, D.R., 2007. Pemanfaatan sumberdaya hutan oleh ma-syarakat di KPH Banyuwangi Utara. J. Manajemen Hutan Tropika 13 (3), 172–181.

Blackman, A., 2013. Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using

Table 5SWOT analysis and SW-OT strategies.

Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W) SW strategies

▪ The high availability of raw materials▪ Rattan is a durable product▪ Human resources have been given operational andmanagement training

▪ Regulation that stipulates FMUs as managers of stateforests

▪ Product quality standards remain low▪ There is no intensive cultivation▪ The lack of road infrastructure, electricity (energy)and information

▪ Reinforce cooperation between FMUs and thecommunity in processing rattan

▪ Improve quality and product innovation▪ Request support from relevant parties in improvinginfrastructure

▪ Apply intensive cultivation

Opportunities (O) Threats (T) OT strategies

▪ High demand▪ Support from various parties (Government, NGOs anduniversities)

▪ Government rules for the utilization of NTFPs

▪ Competition from synthetic products from Japan ▪ Improve quantity, quality and productinnovation

▪ Increase production efficiency▪ Hold business meetings between stakeholders

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

8

remote sensing data: an introduction and practical guide. Forest Policy Econ. 34,1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.006.

Chambers, R., Conway, G.R., 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts forthe 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Department for InternationalDevelopment, London.

Darusman, D., Wijayanto, N., Suharjito, D., Nurrochmat, D.R., Ichwandi, I., Bahruni,Hardjanto, Hero, Y., Sudaryanto, 2001. Resiliensi Kehutanan Masyarakat di Indonesia.In: Darusman (Ed.). Fakultas Kehutanan IPB - The Ford Foundation. Debut Press,Yogyakarta.

Dash, M., Behera, B.H., Rahut, D.B., 2016. Determinants of household collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and alternative livelihood activities in Similipal TigerReserve, India. Forest Policy Econ. 73, 215–228.

Dave, R., Tompkins, E.L., Schreckenberg, K., 2017. Forest ecosystem services derived bysmallholder farmers in northwestern Madagascar: storm hazard mitigation and par-ticipation in forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 84, 72–82.

DFID. 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.html#6.

DFID [Department for International Development], 1999. Sustainable LivelihoodsGuidance Sheets. Department for International Development. (London).

Ekayani, M., Yasmin, R., Sinaga, F., La Ode, M.M., 2014. Wisata alam Taman NasionalGunung Halimun Salak: solusi kepentingan ekologi dan ekonomi. J. Ilmu PertanianIndonesia 19 (1), 29–37.

Erbaugh, J.T., Nurrochmat, D.R., Purnomo, H., 2016. Regulation, formalization, andsmallholder timber production in northern Central Java, Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 91,867–880. (Springer). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0037-6.

Euler, M., Krishna, V., Schwarze, S., Siregar, H., Qaim, M., 2017. Oil palm adoption,household welfare, and nutrition among smallholder farmers in Indonesia. WorldDev. 93, 219–235.

Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M., Miteva, D.A., Nelson, J.L., Pattanayak, S.K., Nolte, C., Sims,K.R.E., 2015. Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services andpoverty by integrating modeling and evaluation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406487112.

Field, R.D., van Der Werf, G.R., Shen, S.S., 2009. Human amplification of drought-in-duced biomass burning in Indonesia since 1960. Nat. Geosci. 2, 185–188.

Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S.,Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., 2005. Global consequences ofland use. Science 309 (5734), 570–574.

García-Fernández, C., Casado, M.A., 2005. Forest recovery in managed agroforestry sys-tems: the case of benzoin and rattan gardens in Indonesia. For. Ecol. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.04.013.

Gaveau, D.L., Epting, J., Lyne, O., Linkie, M., Kumara, I., Kanninen, M., Leader-Williams,N., 2009. Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation inSumatra. J. Biogeogr. 36, 2165–2175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02147.x.

Gaveau, D.L., Pirard, R., Salim, M.A., Tonoto, P., Yaen, H., Parks, S.A., ... Mcelwee, P.,2017. Overlapping land claims limit the use of satellites to monitor no-deforestationcommitments and no-burning compliance. Conserv. Lett. 10 (2), 257–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12256.

Giliba, R.A., Lupala, Z.J., Mafuru, C., Kayombo, C., Mwendwa, P., 2010. Non-timberforest products and their contribution to poverty alleviation and forest conservationin Mbuluand Babati Districts-Tanzania. J. Hum. Ecol. 31 (2), 73–78.

Gregersen, H.M., 1995. Valuing Forests: Context, Issues and Guidelines. vol. 127 FoodAgriculture Org.

Hermansjah, A., 1982. Mengenal rotan sebagai hasil hutan non-kayu. Ditla RimbaMagazine, Jakarta VIII (55).

Hirschberger, P., 2011. Global Rattan Trade: Pressure on Forest Resources.Imada, I., D'Arcy, L., Sabillilah, Gatot, Sulaiman, Nugroho, 2013. Dangku Landscape

Protection: Empowering Stakeholders through Awareness Raising andMultistakeholder Patrolling. In: [Report] 21st Century Tiger.

Ingram, V., Ewane, M., Ndumbe, L.N., Awono, A., 2017. Challenges to governing sus-tainable forest food: Irvingia spp. from southern Cameroon. Forest Policy Econ. 84,29–37.

Januminro, C.F.M., 2000. Rotan Indonesia. Kanisius, Yogyakarta.Jensen, A., 2009. Valuation of non-timber Forest products value chains. Forest Policy

Econ. 11, 34–41.Kalima, T., Jasni, 2010. Population abundance level of rattan species in Batu Kapar

protection Forest, North Gorontalo. J. Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam. VII (4),439–450.

Kanowski, P.J., McDermott, C.L., Cashore, B.W., 2011. Implementing REDD+: lessonsfrom analysis of forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14 (2), 111–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007.

Kaoma, H., Shackleton, M.C., 2015. The direct-use value of urban tree non-timber forestproducts to household income in poorer suburbs in South African towns. ForestPolicy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.005.

Kaplinsky, R., 2000. Spreading the gains from globalisation: What can be learned fromvalue chain analysis? In: IDS Working Paper. 110.

Kar, S.P., Jacobson, M.G., 2012. NTFP income contribution to household economy andrelated socio-economic factors: lessons from Bangladesh. Forest Policy Econ. 14(2012), 136–142.

Kartodihardjo, H., 1998. Peningkatan Kinerja Pengusahaan Hutan Alam Produksi MelaluiKebijaksanaan Penataan Institusi. [dissertation]. Postgraduate Program, BogorAgricultural University, Bogor (ID).

Kartodihardjo, H., 2011. Penanganan Konflik Kehutanan: Peran dan Pengalaman DewanKehutanan Nasional. In: Forum DKN untuk Mediasi Konflik. Presented at the FifthIndonesian Forestry Congress (KKI), 21-24th November 2011. Jakarta.

Kartodihardjo, H., Nugroho, B., Putro, H.R., 2011. Forest Management Unit Development

(FMU): Concept, Legislation and Implementation. Ministry of Forestry, FORCLIMEForest and Climate Change Programme, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Kim, Y.-S., Bae, J.S., Fisher, L.A., Latifah, S., Afifi, M., Lee, S.M., Kim, I., 2015. Indonesia'sForest management units: effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation?Forest Policy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.004.

Kumar, R., Shahabuddin, G., 2005. Effects of biomass extraction on vegetation structure,diversity and composition of forests in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Environ. Conserv.32, 248–259.

Lambin, E.F., Meyfroidt, P., 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, andthe looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 (9), 3465–3472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108.

Law 41/1999 on Forestry. Government of Indonesia. Jakarta.Mahanani, A.I., Pitria, J., 2013. Informasi Kawasan Konservasi, Balai KSDA Sumatera

Selatan. South Sumatra Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA),Palembang.

Mahdi, Shivakoti G.P., Schmidt-Vogt, D., 2009. Livelihood change and livelihood sus-tainability in the uplands of Lembang subwatershed, West Sumatra, Indonesia, in achanging natural resource management context. Environ. Manag. 43, 84–99.

Maryudi, A., 2016. Arahan Tata Hubungan Kelembagaan Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan(KPH) di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan 10 (1), 57–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/jik.12632.

Maryudi, A., Sahide, M.A.K., 2017. Research trend: power analyses in polycentric andmulti-level forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 81, 65–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.003.

Maryudi, A., Nurrochmat, D.R., Giessen, L., 2018. Research trend: Forest policy andgovernance – future analyses in multiple social science disciplines. Forest PolicyEcon. 91 (2018), 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.007.

Miranda, J.J., Corral, L., Blackman, A., Asner, G., Lima, E., 2015. Effects of protectedareas on forest cover change and local communities: evidence from the PeruvianAmazon. World Dev. 78, 288–307.

Miyamoto, M., 2006. Forest conversion to rubber around Sumatran villages in Indonesia:comparing the impacts of road construction, transmigration projects and population.Forest Policy Econ. 9, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.01.003.

Moktan, M.R., Norbu, L., Choden, K., 2016. Can community forestry contribute tohousehold income and sustainable forestry practices in rural area? A case study fromTshapey and Zariphensum in Bhutan. Forest Policy Econ. 62, 149–157.

Myers, R., 2015. What the Indonesian rattan export ban means for domestic and inter-national markets, forests, and the livelihoods of rattan collectors. Forest Policy Econ.50 (2015), 210–219.

Napitu, J.P., Hidayat, A., Basuni, S., Sjaf, S., 2017. Mekanisme akses pada hak kepemi-likan di kesatuan pengelolaan hutan produksi meranti, Sumatera Selatan. J.Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Kehutanan 14 (2), 101–118.

Ndangalasi, H.J., Bitariho, R., Dovie, D.B.K., 2007. Harvesting of non-timber forest pro-ducts and implications for conservation in two montane forests of East Africa. Biol.Conserv. 134, 242–250.

Neumann, R.P., Hirsch, E., 2000. Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products:Review and Analysis of Research. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor,Indonesia.

Newton, P., Miller, D.C., Byenkya, M.A.A., Agrawal, A., 2016. Who are forest-dependentpeople? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested re-gions. Land Use Policy 57, 388–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.032.

Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K.M., Soares-Filho, B.S., 2013. Governance regime andlocation influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the BrazilianAmazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 (13), 4956–4961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214786110.

Nurrochmat, D.R., Hasan, M.F., Suharjito, D., Budiaman, A., Hadianto, A., Ekayani, M.,Sudarmalik, Purwawangsa, H., Mustaghfirin, Ryandi, E.D., 2012. In: Nurrochmat,Hasan (Eds.), Ekonomi Politik Kehutanan. Mengurai Mitos dan Fakta PengelolaanHutan, Second edition. INDEF, Jakarta revised version.

Nurrochmat, D.R., Darusman, D., Ruchjadi, D., 2014. Rekonstruksi sistem tenurial ke-hutanan. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian dan Lingkungan 1 (1) (April 2014).

Nurrochmat, D.R., Nugroho, I.A., Hardjanto, Purwadianto, Maryudi, A., Erbaugh, J.T.,2017. Shifting contestation into cooperation: Strategy to incorporate different in-terest of actors in medicinal plants in Meru Betiri National Park, Indonesia. ForestPolicy Econ. 83 (2017), 162–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.005.

Peters, C.M., Thammavong, B., Mekaloun, B., Phearoom, N., Ratanak, O., Ledecq, T.,2013. Growth of wild rattans in Cambodia and Laos: implications for management.For. Ecol. Manag. 306, 23–30.

Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M.R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S.,Reyes-García, V., 2012. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: anassessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag.268, 6–17.

Prabowo, D., Maryudi, A., Senawi, Imron, M.A., 2017. Conversion of forests into oil palmplantations in West Kalimantan, Indonesia: insights from actors' power and its dy-namics. Forest Policy Econ. 78 (2017), 32–39.

Prasetyo, L.B., Damayanti, E.K., Moy, M.S., Purnama, Sumantri, H., Haasler, B., Zulfikhar,2014. A Framework on Biodiversity Indicators and Parameters for MultipurposeMonitoring System in South Sumatra. Biodiversity and climate change (BIOCLIME)project. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Palembang.

Rode, J., Wittmer, H., Emerton, L., Schroeter-Schlaack, C., 2016. Ecosystem service op-portunities: a practice-oriented framework for identifying economic instruments toenhance biodiversity and human livelihoods. J. Nat. Conserv. 33, 35–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.07.001.

Roslinda, E., Darusman, D., Suharjito, D., Nurrochmat, D.R., 2012. 2012. Analisis pe-mangku kepentingan dalam pengelolaan Taman Nasional Danau Sentarum

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

9

Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan Barat. J. Manajemen Hutan Tropika. 18 (2),78–85.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Wiersum, K.F., 2005. The scope for improving rural livelihoodsthrough non-timber forest products: an evolving research agenda. For. TreesLivelihoods 15, 129–148.

Sahide, M.A.K., Maryudi, A., Supratman, Giessen, L., 2016. Is Indonesia utilising its in-ternational partners? The driving forces behind Forest Management Units. ForestPolicy Econ. 69, 11–20.

Scheba, Mustalahti, I., 2015. Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest man-agement in Tanzania. Forest Policy Econ. 60, 7–18.

Setara Foundation, 2011. Indonesian Rattan Sub-Sector. (Jakarta).Shah, P., Baylis, K., 2015. Evaluating heterogeneous conservation effects of forest pro-

tection in Indonesia. PLoS One 10 (6), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124872.

Steele, M.Z., Shackleton, C.M., Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah, Radloff, 2014. The influenceof livelihood dependency, local ecological knowledge and market proximity on theecological impacts of harvesting non-timber forest products. Forest Policy Econ.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.01.

Steni, B., 2016. Review of the New Local Government Law. Institut Penelitian InovasiBumi (INOBU), Jakarta.

Stone, M.T., 2013. Protected Areas, Tourism and Rural Community Livelihoods inBotswana. ProQuest LLC, United State.

Suhesti, E., Hadinoto, 2015. Hasil hutan bukan kayu madu Sialang di Kabupaten Kampar(Studi Kasus: Kecamatan Kampar Kiri Tengah). J. Wahana For. 10 (2).

Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., Wunder, S.2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview.World Dev. Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 1383–1402, 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004.

Susanti, A., Maryudi, A., 2016. Development narratives, notions of forest crisis, and boomof oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Forest Policy Econ. 73 (2006), 130–139.

Tarigan, J., Setiawan, A., Tobing, M., Sidiq, M., 2015. Guideline for Training and SurveyCommunity Livelihoods Appraisal and Product Scanning (BIOCLIME) Project.Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Palembang.

Thompson, M.C., Baruah, M., Carr, E.R., 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environ-mental governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14 (2), 100–110.

Ticktin, T., 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. J.Appl. Ecol. 41 (1), 11–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00859.x.

Tieguhong, J.C., Ingrame, V., Mala, W.A., Ndoye, O., Grouwels, S., 2015. How govern-ance impacts non-timber forest product value chains in Cameroon. Forest PolicyEcon. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.003.

UN Comtrade, 2018. Rattan Used Primarily for Plaiting of Indonesia. https://comtrade.un.org/data/, Accessed date: 28 February 2018.

van der Werf, G.R., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Olivier, J.G.J., Kasibhatla, P.S., Jackson,R.B., ... Randerson, J.T., 2009. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat. Geosci. 2(November), 737–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo671.

Vang-Rasmussen, L.V., Watkins, C., Agrawal, A., 2017. Forest contributions to livelihoodsin changing agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest Policy Econ. 84 (May), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.010.

Velde, D.W., Rushton, J., Schreckenberg, K., Marshall, E., Edouard, F., Newton, A.,Arancibia, E., 2006. Entrepreneurship in value chains of non-timber forest products.Forest Policy Econ. 8, 725–741.

Widayati, A., Carlisle, B., 2012. Impacts of rattan cane harvesting on vegetation structureand tree diversity of conservation forest in Buton, Indonesia. For. Ecol. Manag. 266,206–215.

Wilkie, D.S., Carpenter, J.F., Zhang, Q., 2001. The under-financing of protected areas inthe Congo Basin: so many parks and so little willingness-to-pay. Biodivers. Conserv.10 (5), 691–709.

Witono, J.R., 1999. Konservasi rotan Indonesia di Kebun Raya Bogor. Prosiding II: SeminarHasil-hasil Penelitian Bidang IImu Hayat. Pusat Antar Universitas Ilmu Hayat IPBBogor, pp. 230–242.

Wunder, S., 2003. Native tourism, natural forests and local incomes on Ilha Grande,Brazil. In: Gossling, S. (Ed.), Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: A PoliticalEcology Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 148–177.

Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B. 2014. Livelihoods, and conservation: broadening theempirical base. World Dev., pp. 1–1.

Yunardy, S., Kunarso, A., Harbi, J., Nugroho, D., Kamil, W., Sutanto, H., Travolindra, Y.,Setiawan, H., Haasler, B., 2017. Rancangan Teknis Rehabilitasi Hutan LindungMeranti Sungai Merah di KPHP Meranti-Provinsi Sumatera Selatan. GIZ-Bioclime,Palembang.

J. Harbi et al. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2018) 1–10

10