Hari Kaskoyo Resume of Special Seminar On July 30, 2014 Rev AJ3revHK3

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD
7/301, 2014
Purpose of presentation: To get comment on the progress of my PhD dissertation content.
Community Forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm) Program

implementation in protection forest and its outcome in protection forest
for sustainable livelihood of local people: A case study in Lampung
Province, Indonesia.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Indonesia Forest Policy and Forest Management of State Forest
Indonesian state forests, in addition to its global salience for carbon sequestration as well as
biodiversity, play diverse significant roles for local people living in and around the forest,
including a wide spectrum goods and services (Wollenberg et al. 2004; Sunderland et al. 2013).
According to Directorate General of Forestry Planning in Forestry Statistic of Indonesia 20123,
the state forest area in Indonesia amount to 1332,418549,98508.4108 ha consisting of
1287,,22030,07410.1077 ha of terrestrial forest area and 5,519,8,975433.31 ha as of water area
(Table 1). Based on Forest Act no. 41 on 1999, Indonesias state forests are divided into
Production Forest (Hutan Produksi), Conservation Forest (Hutan Konservasi) and Protection
Forest (Hutan Lindung). Production forest is state forest area that has main function for
production of forest yield such as timber and non-timber forest product. Production forest
consists of limited production forest, fixed production forest and convertible production forest.
Conservation forest is state forest areas with certain characteristics, which has the basic function
of preserving the diversity of flora and fauna and the ecosystem, and consist of sanctuary reserve
area, nature conservation area and hunting park. Protection forest is one type of Indonesian state
forest that functions as a safety shield for life-support systems, such as the water cycle, soil
fertility and climate, while also being a livelihood source for the nearby communities.
Table 1. Extent of forest area, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystem of Indonesian state
forest based on forestry ministerial decree.
No.
Forest function
Forest Area (ha)
1. Conservation forest (land and water area )
27,331,540.18
2. Protection Forest
30,008,293.45
3. Limited Production Forest
28,302,771.15
4. Fixed Production Forest
28,890,431.18
5. Convertible Production Forest
18,016,472.12
Total Area
132,549,508.08
Source: Ministry of Forestry (MoFor), 2013
During the last two decades, annual deforestation rate of the countrys forests increased from the
already devastating rate of 1.5-1.6 million ha in 1985-1997 to 2.1 ha in 1997-2001 and then to

7/301, 2014
2.83 million ha in 2001-2003 (Wrangham 2002, Safitri 2006). During 2010-2012 the
deforestation rate of Indonesia state forest decrease to 330,193.8 ha/year for all state forest and
20,895.2 ha ha/year for protection forest (MoFor, 2012).
Protection forest is managed under Provincial and District Government. In accordance
with Ministry of Forestry Act No. 256/Kpts-II/2000 dated 23 August 2000, protection forest
in Lampung Province covering 317.615 ha (31.61% of the total forest area in Lampung),
which is divided into 27 registers (Lampung Provincial Forestry Office, 2008). Among the
state forests in Lampung Province, protection forest is the most extensive forest is managed
by local governments.11.1.2 Community Forestry in Indonesia
During the last two decades, the annual deforestation rate of the countrys forests increased from
the already devastating rate of 1.5-1.6 million ha in 1985-1997 to 2.1 ha in 1997-2001 and then
to 2.83 million ha in 2001-2003 (Wrangham 2002, Safitri 2006). Alleviating the deforestation
problem of the country state forest in general and the protection forest in particular has been a
daunting task because of, among other issues, the high number of poverty-stricken local people
living in and around the forest who depend on it for their survival. Among the total 220 million
population of Indonesia, 48.8 million live in and around the forests, of which approximately 10.2
million are believed to be living below the poverty line (Wollenberg et al. 2004). In the past,
Indonesian forest policies intended to conserve resources failed because of the poor people living
in and around forest were not involved in government forest management program. This resulted
in a lose-lose situation in which policies caused recurrent conflicts and worsened local poverty,
whereas the state forest land itself continued to be degraded (Suyanto et al. 2007).
Convinced by the need to bring local people to the front line to resolve the problems, the
Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (MoF) has been setting up policies for community forest (CF)
programs with varieties of names and approaches in its state forests (Safitri 2006). The CF
programs have been promoted as innovative and potential approaches to improved forest
management and conservation strategies with a comprehensive blend of ecological and socioeconomic objectives (Maryudi et al. 20112). Over 2 decades community forestry (CF) in
Indonesia started in by involving communities in forest management and accompanied by forest
companies (Colchester, 2002; Fay and de Foresta, 1998). CF is very connected to alleviating the
poverty of and empowering the forest users and improving the condition of the forest (Maryudi
et al., 20112). CF in state forest have many forms depend on the forest type such as
Collaborative Forest Management, Community Forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm), Village
Forest (Hutan Desa/HD), Community Forest Plantations (Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR), and
Customary Forest (Hutan Adat). These land use zones are designed to increase the economic
stake which local people may have in the national forest estate and to thereby promote greater
levels of community forestry protection as a means of combating illegal logging and reducing
deforestation and forest degradation (MoFor, 2008; IFCA, 2007).
HKm is the one of CF program that was established by Indonesias government at the state
forest and the objective of the program is to empower local communities by granting them the
right to utilize protection forest land (Arifin, 2006), to practice sustainable forest management,
thereby sustaining forest functions and the environment and improving social well-being
(Pender, J. et. al., 2008). HKm is one of the two forms of CF scheme that can be implemented in
protection forest that have permanent watershed protection status, the other one being HD
(Akiefnawati et.al. 2010). The program commenced in 1995 after the central government issued

7/301, 2014
Ministry of Forestry Decree no. 622/Kpts-II/1995 that focused on involving community around
forest in the rehabilitation of degraded forestland on production and protection forest (Jeffrey Y.
Campbell, 2002; Fay and de Foresta. 1998). At this time, forest management still put greater
company so that this program was less successful. After financial crisis in 1998, management
forest by participation of community sound stronger than before (Arifin et al. 2009). Local
communities previously completely marginalized or involved merely as workers in forest
rehabilitation activities, were given the opportunity by the government to obtain rights to manage
state forests. In particular, after the financial crisis in 1998, management of forest by
participation of community received even more attention than before (Arifin et al. 2009).
Compared to HKm, HD is still very juvenile and is implemented only in very small aerea. It was
first established in 2008 after the central government issued Ministry of Forestry Decree no.
P.49/Menhut-II/2008. Until 20111, only 3 licensing of Village Forest were issued by Indonesia
Government, there are in Jambi, South Sumatra and South Sulawesi Province and around 43% of
HKm area in 2012 (Table 2). This is why this study will only emphasise on HKm.
Under the HKm program, groups of households in local communities may apply for permits
for managing state forestland. As defined by the Indonesia forestry law, therefore, HKm permits
are community forestry contracts in which the Indonesia government grants limited duration
rights to forest estate land provided that the communities abide by management requirements
(Arifin et al. 2009). To obtain a permit, farmers are required to form recognized farmers
organizations and to follow management guidelines that local forestry officials approve as being
protective of the watershed functions of the landscape. The farmers organization must establish
internal regulations to ensure management of the forest area according to prevailing laws; use
participatory procedures for decision making, conflict resolution, and organizational
management; be recognized by the community through the village administrative head; and
prepare a location plan indicating the area to be managed, protection and cultivation blocks, and
the period and plan for managing the area (Pender et al. 2008). A permits has maximum of 35
years period (Arifin et al. 2009) and can be extended to each 5 years after be evaluated.
CF scheme that can apply in protection forest that have permanent watershed protection status
are HD and HKm (Akiefnawati et.al. 2010). HD has established since 2008 after the central
government issued Ministry of Forestry Decree no. P.49/Menhut-II/2008. Until 2011, only 3
licensing of Village Forest were issued by Indonesia Government, there are in Jambi, South
Sumatra and South Sulawesi Province.
It is in this context that Hutan Kemasyarakatan (HKm), one of the aforementioned CF programs,
was promulgated in 1995 after the central government issued Ministry of Forestry Decree no.
622/Kpts-II/1995. The decree focused on involving the communities around forests in the
rehabilitation of degraded protection and production state forestland (Fay and de Foresta 1998).
Local communities previously completely marginalized or involved merely as workers in forest
Table 32. Progress of Community Forestry program in Indonesia until 2012
No.
Community Forestry Scheme
Unit
Area (ha)

7/301, 2014
1.
Hutan Kemasyarakatan (HKm)
2.
Hutan Desa (HD)
3.
Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (HTR)
Source: MoFor, 2012
44
44
112
178,120
76,924
700,831
1.1.3. Community forest in Protection forest of Lampung

In accordance with Ministry of Forestry Act No. 256/Kpts-II/2000 dated 23 August 2000,
protection forest in Lampung Province covers 317.615 ha (31.61% of the total forest area in
Lampung), which is divided into 27 registers (Lampung Provincial Forestry Office, 2008).
Among the state forests in Lampung Province, protection forest is the most extensive forest is
managed by local governments.
Therefore the successful management of protection forest will give good results for the local
government especially with regard to environment. However, until now Despite being
extensively managed by local governments, the protection forest in of Lampung Province has
suffered significant damage. As shown in In Table 23, the level of deforestation and degradation
of Protection Forest in Lampung province is very high (82.05 %). This is despite that fact that
the forest is of great social and environmental value for the population of the province. Different
factors have been attributed to this high rate of while its functions are very importance. Fforest
deforestation and degradation has been caused by various problems such asincluding
encroachment, forest fires and illegal logging (IFCA, 2007).
Table 23. Forest state cover condition in Lampung Province
No.
Forest function
1.
2.
3.
Conservation Forest
Protection Forest
Limited Production
Forest (HPT)
Fixed Production Forest
Total
4.
Covered
(Ha)
(%)
140.700
32,68
4 4.400
13,98
5.000
14,99
8.200
198.300
4,28
20,38
Forest cover category

Non Covered
(Ha)
(%)
193.244
44,89
260.600
82,05
26.558
79,62
161.600
642.002
84,28
65,97
No Data
(Ha)
(%)
96.530
22,42
12.615
3,97
1.800
5,40
21.932
132.877
11,44
13,65
TOTAL
(Ha)
430.474
317.615
33.358
(%)
100
100
100
191.732
973.179
100
100
Source: Forestry Office of Lampung Province, 2011

In Lampung, HKm program was implemented in 1995 by released Forestry Ministry Decree
622/1995 through several pilot projects in a few villages (Safitri 2006). In this program, local
community was recruited as only a laborlabour in planting activities. However, the project had
no significant influences on local forestry policy as well as community livelihood. In the same
period, the Lampung Forest Service still relocated people from forest land and forest using
repressively. In late 1999, the Ministry of Forestry change the scheme by launched decree
677/1998, granted five licenced for forest villagers to manage 3,870 ha of state forestland (Safitri
2006). In this time, HKm program was implemented in all state forest (conservation, production,
and protection forest), and the two farmer groups in Forest Park Wan Abdul Rachman
(conservation forest) and 5 farmer groups in protection forest, are the first HKm permitted
farmer group in Indonesia (Indrawirawan et al. 2003). Through the program, the local

7/301, 2014
community was given an opportunity to participate to manage the state forest. By make a farmer
groups, local people could submit the HKm permit to ministry of forestry through head of district
or province governance. The progress of HKm program until September 2013 is listed below.
1.1.2 Community Forestry in Indonesia

During the last two decades, the annual deforestation rate of the countrys forests increased from
the already devastating rate of 1.5-1.6 million ha in 1985-1997 to 2.1 ha in 1997-2001 and then
to 2.83 million ha in 2001-2003 (Wrangham 2002, Safitri 2006). Alleviating the deforestation
problem has been a daunting task because of, among other issues, the high number of povertystricken local people living in and around the forest who depend on it for their survival. Among
the total 220 million population of Indonesia, 48.8 million live in and around the forests, of
which approximately 10.2 million are believed to be living below the poverty line (Wollenberg et
al. 2004). In the past, Indonesian forest policies intended to conserve resources failed because of
the poor people living in and around forest were not involved in government forest management
program. This resulted in a lose-lose situation in which policies caused recurrent conflicts and
worsened local poverty, whereas the state forest land itself continued to be degraded (Suyanto et
al. 2007).
Convinced by the need to bring local people to the front line to resolve the problems, the
Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (MoF) has been setting up policies for community forest (CF)
programs with varieties of names and approaches in its state forests (Safitri 2006). The CF
programs have been promoted as innovative and potential approaches to improved forest
management and conservation strategies with a comprehensive blend of ecological and socioeconomic objectives (Maryudi et al. 2011). Over 2 decades community forestry (CF) in
Indonesia started in by involving communities in forest management and accompanied by forest
companies (Colchester, 2002; Fay and de Foresta, 1998). CF is very connected to alleviating the
poverty of and empowering the forest users and improving the condition of the forest (Maryudi
et al., 2011). CF in state forest have many forms depend on the forest type such as Collaborative
Forest Management, Community Forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm), Village Forest (Hutan
Desa/HD), Community Forest Plantations (Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR), and Customary Forest
(Hutan Adat). These land use zones are designed to increase the economic stake which local
people may have in the national forest estate and to thereby promote greater levels of community
forestry protection as a means of combating illegal logging and reducing deforestation and forest
degradation (MoFor, 2008; IFCA, 2007).
CF scheme that can apply in protection forest that have permanent watershed protection status
are HD and HKm (Akiefnawati et.al. 2010). HD has established since 2008 after the central
government issued Ministry of Forestry Decree no. P.49/Menhut-II/2008. Until 2011, only 3
licensing of Village Forest were issued by Indonesia Government, there are in Jambi, South
Sumatra and South Sulawesi Province.
It is in this context that Hutan Kemasyarakatan (HKm), one of the aforementioned CF programs,
was promulgated in 1995 after the central government issued Ministry of Forestry Decree no.
622/Kpts-II/1995. The decree focused on involving the communities around forests in the
rehabilitation of degraded protection and production state forestland (Fay and de Foresta 1998).
Local communities previously completely marginalized or involved merely as workers in forest

7/301, 2014
Table 3. Progress of Community Forestry program in Indonesia
In general, environmental policy analysis, among other efforts, is intended to present the
social and environmental outcomes of given policies in the hope that better decisions will result
when people have better information on which to base their decisions (Loomis and Helfand
2001). In the case of HKm, the latter has been addressed by different studies. For example, a
study conducted by Pender et al. (2008) found that the HKm program in protection forests in
West Lampung reduced deforestation. Farmers also improved forest stocking through enrichment
planting, which could also serve as shade trees for their main crop, i.e., coffee. Similarly, Mahdi
et al. (2009) reported that the watershed management program related to the HKm program in
protection forest has greater contributed to the alleviation of loss of forest cover as well as
decreased water flow and soil erosion. Despite these and similar study focuses on the
implementation and forest outcome of HKm, the livelihood impact of HKm in protection forest
on participant farmers hardly been investigated.
Table 4. Progress of HKm program in Lampung until September 2013
No.
District
HKm area
Amount of
(Ha)
HKm permitted
1. Lampung Barat
6.562,63
26
2. Lampung Utara
5.330,00
5
3. Tanggamus
14.608,52
14
4. Lampung Tengah
5.792,00
24
5. Way Kanan
1.295,00
1
TOTAL
33.588,15
70
Source: Forestry Officer of Lampung Province, 2013
Amount of HKm
farmers (HH)
7.509
2.773
5.722
3.574
623
20.251
HKm is the one of CF program that was established by Indonesias government at the state
forest and the objective of the program is to empower local communities by granting them the
right to utilize protection forest land (Arifin, 2006), to practice sustainable forest management,
thereby sustaining forest functions and the environment and improving social well-being
(Pender, J. et. al., 2008). HKm has established since 1995 after the central government issued
Ministry of Forestry Decree no. 622/Kpts-II/1995 that focused on involving community around
forest in the rehabilitation of degraded forestland on production and protection forest (Jeffrey Y.
Campbell, 2002; Fay and de Foresta. 1998). At this time, forest management still put greater
company so that this program was less successful. After financial crisis in 1998, management
forest by participation of community sound stronger than before (Arifin et al. 2009). HKm
regulatory changes to improve implementation in the field is still encountering many obstacles,
especially relating to farmers and local governance. HKm regulatory has changed in seven times,
and the last revision of Act is P.52/Menhut-II/2011.

7/301, 2014
Under the HKm program, groups of households in local communities may apply for permits
for managing state forestland. As defined by the Indonesia forestry law, therefore, HKm permits
are community forestry contracts in which the Indonesia government grants limited duration
rights to forest estate land provided that the communities abide by management requirements
(Arifin et al. 2009). To obtain a permit, farmers are required to form recognized farmers
organizations and to follow management guidelines that local forestry officials approve as being
protective of the watershed functions of the landscape. The farmers organization must establish
internal regulations to ensure management of the forest area according to prevailing laws; use
participatory procedures for decision making, conflict resolution, and organizational
management; be recognized by the community through the village administrative head; and
prepare a location plan indicating the area to be managed, protection and cultivation blocks, and
the period and plan for managing the area (Pender et al. 2008). A permits has maximum of 35
years period (Arifin et al. 2009) and can be extended to each 5 years after be evaluated.
1.2 Research Problem

In general, environmental policy analysis, among other efforts, is intended to present the policy
formulation and implementation process as well as social and environmental outcomes of given
policies in the hope that better decisions will result when people have better information on
which to base their decisions (Loomis and Helfand 2001). In the case of HKm in Indonesia,
different, researches has been conducted to understand one aspects of the aforementioned policy
analysis. Most of this researches, however, have been conducted in production forest. For
example, Djamhuri (2008) reported that although incomplete, HKm program in production
forests in Gunung Kidul central Java is a useful approach toward establishing an effective
incentive structure and provide a net gain to community member for transfer of forest
management rights from the state to community member. HKm members in production forest of
Gunung Kidul only have better represented in social capital than non-members (Kraaijeveld,
2013). There have also bee, researches conducted in protection forest, albeit limited and only
emphasising one aspect of the policy analysis. Pender et al. (2008) studied the environmental
outcome from HKm which he found that the HKm program in protection forests in West
Lampung reduced deforestation and farmers also improved forest stocking through enrichment
planting, which could also serve as shade trees for their main crop, i.e., coffee. Similarly, Mahdi
et al. (2009) supported the positive environmental outcome from HKm by explaining that
watershed management program related to the HKm program in protection forest has greater
contributed to the alleviation of loss of forest cover as well as decreased water flow and soil
erosion. With respect to implementation, Arifin et al. (2009) reported that attention against
farmer's biggest concern in the community forest for forest protection is a long term contract,
although the limitations of land use and the number and types of crops grown. Despite these and
similar study focuses on one dimension of the policy analysis, there is lack of comprehensive
study on the implementation as well as social and environmental outcome. MoreoverIn addition,
the effects of HKm program on participating farmers is hardly investigated. This is particularly
important and timely given that HKm regulatory changes to improve implementation in the field
is still encountering many obstacles as witnessed by its seven times revision since the
commencement of the program. Moreover, the current global focus on Indonesian forests to
minimize its forest degradation and deforestation by alleviating underlying causes specially by
synergizing conservation with development, through different policy intervention of which

7/301, 2014
REDD+ being the latest one means that the study contributes not only to local and national level,
but also to international discourses.
However, almost two decades, implementation of HKm in the field is still encountering many
obstacles. HKm program in Indonesia has attracted some researcher but less attention especially
relating to impact of local community livelihood in protection forests. There are several studies
that have been done with regard to HKm program in Indonesia. Arifin et al. (2009) reported that
attention against farmer's biggest concern in the community forest for forest protection is a long
term contract, although the limitations of land use and the number and types of crops grown.
Also farmers can expect to harvest timber on the land even though they are prohibited to cut
them down (Kaskoyo et al. 2014). Another study conducted by Ota (2011) on HKm in the
production forest in Yogyakarta reported that heightens HKm deforestation because forest land is
used for growing crops. This is in contrast with the results of the study by Pender et al (2008)
who reported that the HKm program in protection forests in West Lampung, reduced
deforestation since farmers HKm planted enrichment plant that could serve as the main crop
plants (coffee) shade. Additionally HKM program could increase the price of land around the
HKm area. Djamhuri (2008) reported that although incomplete, HKm program in production
forests in Gunung Kidul central Java is a useful approach toward establishing an effective
incentive structure and provide a net gain to community member for transfer of forest
management rights from the state to community member. HKm members in production forest of
Gunung Kidul only have better represented in social capital than non-members (Kraaijeveld,
2013). Mahdi et al. (2009) reported that watershed management program related to HKm
program in protection forest has greater changed the loss of forest cover, decreasing water, and
increasing soil erosion. The effects of farmers livelihood program to attendees HKm especially
in protection forests are still unclearly explained.
This study, therefore, aims to investigate how impact of HKm program in protection forest on
local livelihood. This study used a comprehensive livelihood analyses based on a sustainable
livelihood (SL) framework to access the performance HKm farmer household to manage the
protection forest. In order to address the aim, we analyse the livelihood of HKm farmers in
protection forest of Lampung Province, Indonesia by measuring access to capital assets and by
analysing livelihood strategies.
1.3 Research Objectives

This study, therefore, aims to investigate the implementation and outcomes from HKm program
in protection forest of Lampung Province, Indonesia. In the process, the study also intended to
introduce a modified Sustainable Livelihood Framework (MSLF) that can be utilized in
conservation and development studies in protection forests or forest under similar forest policy
and management objective. The specific objectives of the study are: My dissertation aims to
clarify the present situation of HKm and its challenges to improve the program. Concrete
objectives are: to clarify the socio-economic situation of the participants, to describe vegetative
condition of participants HKm area, to detect the difficulties the farmers faces in forest
management activities, and to examine the significance of the program for the participants.
The research objectives are:

7/301, 2014
1. To investigate implementation progress of HKm program in Indonesian protection forest;
2. To understand the local community constrain on HKm program implementation,
3. To assess the livelihood impact of Hkm on participant farmers as well as on forest condition
using SLF;
4. To examine how external factors such as provincial and district government policies as well as
other projects are affecting local people forest management in HKm scheme and;
5. To findBased on findings of out the potential and constraints of HKm scheme for economic,
social and ecological synergy and make sound policy recommendation.
To introduce a sustainable livelihood framework that can be applied for protection forest.
6.
1.4 Structure of Dissertation

1.4 Structure of Dissertation
This dissertation consistThis dissertation consists of 6 seven chapters include this
chapterincluding the introduction. Following this introduction, chapter 2 reviews the literature of
the most relevanton relevant themes and issues in thisfor the study. In particular, a thorough
review of state forest policy, community forestry, and sustainable livelihoods is provided as well
as research frameworkcriticize of sustainable livelihood framework. Chapter 3 details the
methodology of research. Chapter 4, the finding of recently condition of HKm program is
explained. Chapter 5
. The results on implementation process of HKm, its social and
environmental outcome as well as challenges and opportunities of HKm are covered from
chapter 4-6. Core findings and policy implications for improving HKm is presented in the last
chapter, chapter 7.

7/301, 2014
Chapter 6
Chapter 5
Impact on Local Livelihood
Objective 1
Figure 1. Structure of the dissertation
Chapter 4
Present State of Community Forestry and Its challenges
Objective 2
Objective 3

7/301, 2014
2. Conceptual and Research FrameworkTheoretical Framework

2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.1.1 Community forestry
Community forestry (CF) is known by different names in many region such as South Asia,
Southeast Asia, and Africa. For example, it is Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India,
Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) in the Philippines, Community Forestry in
Nepal, village Forestry in Laos (Balooni and Inoue 2007; Pulhin and Inoue 2008) and
Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia (Mohammed and Inoue 2012a). In Indonesian too,
there are different forms of community forestry which include collaborative forest management
(Kemitraan), community forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm), village forest (Hutan Desa/HD),
community plantations forest (Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR), and customary forest (Hutan Adat).
All these, in fact, have varying connotations because there are different degrees and levels of
peoples participation in forest management and the decision-making process in these countries
as well as within the country depending on the states willingness to move away from the
command and control approach (Balooni and Inoue 2007).
The different forms of CF in Indonesia also have distinctive character and legal basis. HKm
is the states forest, managed by peoples group, mainly utilized for the empowerment of the
local people as well as to practice sustainable forest management on production forest and
protection forest lands (Arifin 2006; Pender et al. 2008; Nanang and Inoue 2000). The legal basis
of HKm is the Minister of Forestry Regulation Number P.37/Menhut-II/2007 in conjunction with
Number P.52/Menhut-II/2011. Kemitraan is formally recognize local people and civil society
organizations such as NGOs can be formal partners in conservation forest management based on
Minister of Forestry Regulation Number P.19/Menhut-II/2004 (Kubo 2008; Kubo and Supriyanto
2010). Village Forest (HD) is the national forest estate managed by formal village organization
that plans, manages and allocates benefits derived from the production and protection forests.
The management is not exclusively focused on utilization of forest resources, but includes
responsibilities to preserve the life-supporting functions of the forest (Akiefnawati et al. 2010).
The Legal Basis for HD is Minister of Forestry Regulation Number P.49/Menhut-II/2008 in
conjunction with Number P.53/Menhut-II/2011. Community plantation forest (HTR) is a timber
plantation established in degraded production forest areas by individuals, households, or village
cooperatives to improve the productivity potential of the forest through enrichment planting and
the application of appropriate silvicultural practices as well as to support timber plantation
development in the state production forest, whereas other community forestry schemes are
located largely outside of the state forest (Obidzinski and Dermawan 2010). HTRs license is in
accordance to the Minister of Forestry Regulation Number P.55/Menhut-II/2011 concerning
Procedure of Requesting IUPHHK-HTR within the Plantation Forest. Hutan Adat is forest inside
the state forest which community practices customary law (Nanang and Inoue 2000). The legal
basis of hutan adat is basic forestry law no 41/1999.
2.1.2 Livelihood and Sustainable livelihood

Livelihood has a variety of definition such as the means of gaining a living (Chambers, 1995) or
a combination of the resources used and the activities undertaken in order to live (Scoones, 2009)

7/301, 2014
as well as a multifaceted concept, being both what people do and what they accomplish by doing
it, referring to outcomes as well as activities (Niehof, 2004). In practice, people are involved in a
complex mixture of decisions and activities focused on acquiring, utilizing and managing
resources (material and social) and maintaining relationships (institutional and personal among
others), and a combination of these activities in the context of uncertainty (vulnerability) and
outcomes that are achieved are considered as livelihood (Long, 2004a). It comprises the
capabilities, assets and activities required for obtaining a means for living (Warner, 2003; Cramb
et al., 2004). A livelihood is the means that a household uses to achieve sustainable well-being
(Messer and Townsley, 2003). It is a set of flows of income, from hired employment, selfemployment, remittances or from a seasonally and annually variable combination of all these
which is sufficient to avoid poverty and increase the well-being of individuals and society as a
whole (Ahmed and Lipton, 1997). It is multi-dimensional, not based only on income but also on
access to infrastructure and services, resilience to environmental, economic and political shocks,
meaningful participation in decision-making processes and inclusion in legal and judicial
systems (Vermeulen et al., 2008).
The sustainable livelihoods idea was first introduced by the Brundtland Commission on
Environment and Development, and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development expanded the concept, advocating for the achievement of sustainable livelihoods as
a broad goal for poverty eradication (Krantz, 2001). The Department for International
Development (DFID) has become an authority on Sustainable Livelihoods and is cited through
much of the literature on Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches (SLA). For DFID, a livelihood
comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities
required for a means of living (DFID, 1999). The DFID definition draws on the foundational
work of Carney (1998), Chambers and Conway (1992) and others and can be understood as the
definitive contemporary conceptualization of livelihoods as is evident in the similar ways in
which the term is defined by Scoones (1998), Toner (2003), Soussan et al (2003) and other
scholars who have written in the area of sustainable livelihoods.
The concept of livelihood for the poor emerged from the Brundtland commissions
sustainability report, which argued for balanced development, with equal emphasis on ecological
and social aspects (WCED 1987). The report opened up a new method for poverty reduction,
especially since the previous approach of integrated rural development has had little or no impact
on poverty reduction (Ashley and Carney 1999; Chambers 1995; Bebbington 1999). The
poverty-focus of sustainable livelihoods literature reflects the greater aim of global poverty
reduction, but it produces an unfortunate side-effect, in that it appears to suggest that only the
poor have livelihoods, which they try to sustain over their lifetimes, whilst the non-poor have
lifestyles, which can evolved alter over the course of their lives. This model presents the basic
dynamics of livelihoods; something that is inevitably complex given the array of the factors that
influence livelihood choices. Within this complexity, however, is a simple core set of contentions
and relationships. These are summarized here and are further elaborated in the explanation of the
model.
2.1.3 Livelihood/Capital Asset

Livelihood, refer to Ellis (2000), understood as the assets (natural, physical, human, financial,
and social capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutional and social
relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household. People draw

7/301, 2014
on a set of capital assets as a basis for their livelihoods. Carney (1998) identifies five: human,
natural, financial, physical and social (see glossary for an explanation of each). The capitals
available to individual households reflects their ability to gain access to systems (the resource
base, the financial system, society) through which these capitals are produced.
Internal factors are the five capital assetshuman, natural, physical, financial and social
which a household has access to. This categorization is assumed to be a settlement for the
various lists of assets identified by different researchers (Ellis, 2000). Access to these assets is
influenced by external factors. Natural capital refers to environmental resources such as land,
water, and biological resources whereas physical capital stands for those assets created by
production processes such as buildings, roads, farm equipment, tools and irrigation canals (Ellis,
2000). Human capital refers to labor together with its education level, skill and health (Carney,
1998). Financial capital measures the availability of cash or the equivalent that enables people to
adopt different livelihood strategies (DFID, 1999). It can be in the form of savings, loans or other
transfers (ibid). Social capital refers to the social resources upon which people draw in (e.g.
social networks, membership in formal and informal groups, and participation in relationships of
trust, reciprocity and exchanges) (DFID, 1999).
The transforming structures and processes include the institutions, policies, and
organizations that determine access to assets, returns to livelihoods strategies, and terms of
exchange between different types of capital (DFID, 1999). Ellis (2000) considered them as
critical mediating factors that inhibit or facilitate households exercise of capabilities and
choices. They are distinct from the vulnerability context as they are predominantly endogenous
to the social norms and structures of which households are a part (ibid).
2.1.4 Policy, institutional and economic context

External factors are the vulnerability context and the transforming structures and process.
Vulnerability comprises the risks, stresses, emergencies, and contingencies to which a household
can be exposed (DFID, 1999). The access to assets and the scope for their application are
influenced by the structural context, which encompasses laws, policies, institution, and
governance. The structural context also has an impact on livelihood strategies.
Many local and external factors that influence livelihoods include markets, the physical
environment and the social and political environment. These features are themselves inherently
dynamic and livelihoods are vulnerable to the shocks (sudden changes of state) and trends in
these factors. The impact of these external shocks and trends will vary from household to
household. Some are more sensitive to their influence, whilst others are better able to absorb
their impact or respond to the opportunities they may offer. The character of these external forces
represents the vulnerability context within which the livelihood systems of different households
develop, whilst the ability of households to cope is their resilience in the light of these
vulnerabilities.
Livelihoods are also influenced by a wide range of external forces, both within and outside
the locality in which a household lives, that are beyond the control of HKm farmer. This includes
the policy and institutional dynamics of their local area, the wider region, their country and,
increasingly, the world as a whole (Ashley and Hussein 2000). We live in an era of increasing
globalizations. Its effects are felt by all, including people living in the remotest parts of the

7/301, 2014
developing world. These external factors are critical in defining the basic structure and the
operation of livelihood systems. For example, land tenure laws are crucial in determining
entitlements, and in consequence access, to land for cultivation, which in turn is a critical
determinant of the overall structure of livelihoods in rural areas, whilst prices and price
variability is critical (for some crops) in determining what will be grown on that land in any
particular season.
2.1.5 Livelihood strategies and outcomes

Within the sustainable livelihood framework (SLF), a sustainable livelihood asset endowment
define a households productive capacity and subsequently shapes its portfolio of livelihood
activities, or its livelihood strategy (Adhikari et al. 2004; Babulo et al. 2008). Livelihoods are
built from a series of choices over the use of these assets. This decision-making process can be
seen as a livelihood strategy, and although it is a continuous process there are always key
decision-making points, sometimes regular and seasonal, and sometimes occasional and
unexpected. Others are reactive (selling livestock during a drought), some have a constitutional
character (who is involved in which decisions) whilst others are major, structural decisions that
can re-define the whole nature of the livelihood (moving to the city or setting up a business).
What determines livelihood strategies adopted by households in tropical forest communities,
and how are extractive activities embedded in those strategies? For households that strongly
depend on non-timber forest products (NTFPs), the commercial value of those products, access
to markets, the nature of resource exploitation (management) and labor allocation are thought to
be the key factors that influence incomes and well-being (Belcher et al., 2005; Dorward et al.
2009).
Transforming structures & process
Human
Shocks
Trends
Seasonality
Natural
Livelihood
Assets
Vulnerability context
Financial
Social
Structures
- Levels of government
- Private
sector
- Law
- Policies
- Facilitates
Influence
- Incentives
- Institutions
Processes
Physical
Livelihood outcomes
More income
Increased well-being
Reduced vulnerability
Improved food security
More sustainable use of natural resource base
Livelihoods strategies
- Natural resources based
- Non-natural resources based
- Migration

7/301, 2014
Figure 2. Sustainable livelihood framework (adopted from DFID, 1999)
2.1.6 Livelihood sSustainability and HKmof Livelihood and CF

Performanceprogram in protection forest
Household livelihood sustainability refers to the ability of a household to deal with shocks and
stresses, and to maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets without jeopardizing the natural
resources base (Chambers and Conway 1992). In this framework, livelihood sustainability is
divided into four aspects (DFID 1999). First is environmental sustainability, which is achieved
when natural resources for livelihood support are conserved or enhanced over time. Second is
economic sustainability, which is achieved when a given level of income as well as expenditure
can be maintained or increased over time. Third is social sustainability, which is achieved when
social exclusion is reduced, and social equity enhanced. Fourth is institutional sustainability,
which is achieved when institutions for sociopolitical and resources governance have the
capacity to continue and perform their functions over the long term. Livelihood sustainability
indicators can also serve as indicators for assessing HKm performance (Campbell et al. 20032).
2.7 Problem with conventional SLF

Most of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) have emerged from organizations such as
DFID and IDS as well as scholars working in development area and hence main emphasis has
been given for the livelihood aspect. In this formworks, the sustainability of the natural resource
has been viewed mostly from the perspective of suitability of the wellbeing of local people.
Although such view is acceptable given that in most developing countries there is high
dependency on the forest by people living in and around the forest, it cannot be applied in
context such as Community forest implementation in protection forest. The first and most
important reason is the management model implemented in protection forests HKm is different
from most common community forestry strategies. In most community forest implementation,
the incentive to sustainably manage the forest is associated with property right change on the
forest in which local people are given management and use right. Hence the forest can be
considered as a natural capital for local people as well as a measure of environmental suitability.
In the case of HKm, however, it involves allocation of two lands inside the protection forest
with different property right regime, i.e., the cultivation land and the protection land. The
cultivation land can easily fit to what the conventional SLF call natural capital as local people
can sustainable utilize the good and services from the land. In the case of protection land,
however, local people are needed to protect it. The protection forest is only to be maintained to
provide environmental services that may or may not be significant for local people but vital for
national and global level. This is not to mean that local people will not get environmental service
from the forest, they may or may not, depending on the livelihood of the locality. The main point
here is one resource is definitely part of the livelihood strategy of local people while the other
may or may not but should be included in evaluating the overall outcome of the CF.

7/301, 2014
This argument is an extension of previous similar critics of the capital definitions commonly
used in SL approaches by Springate-Baginski and Blaikie, 2009. According to the two authors,
conventional livelihood models commonly conflate household and collective assets, and where
livelihood analysis relates to collective assets, it is essential to conceptually distinguish these
from private assets. The departure of this study from their critics is that in their case the
differentiation is based on whether the resource is individual or communal. In this study case,
however, in addition to hat it incorporates how the resource is related to local people livelihood.
2.8 Introduction a Sustainable Livelihood Framework for

protection forest
Based on the conceptual formwork discussed in section 2.1. and drawbacks of convention SL
approaches explained in section 2.2, a modified SLF that can be applied for context similar to
that of HKm implementation in protection forest is developed (Figure 32). As portrayed in the
framework, external factors such as policy and programs implanted in local arena changes the
livelihood capital as well as livelihood strategy of local people. Such intervention may be done
with the purpose of just improving the wellbeing of local people or to synergize the wellbeing of
local people with their role in sustainable environmental governance. The suitability of the later
can be assessed based how local people are managing and utilizing the different capital and
whether that is leading to improving the resilience of local people without exhausting the natural
resource based. That is basically what the DFID suitability analysis of livelihood aimed for. On
the latter case, which is also the interest of this study, in addition to sustainability of local people
livelihood which also incorporate the natural resource base, environmental sustainability is given
separate emphasis.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Approach
3.1.1 Research strategy- Case study
A case study is a research strategy which investigates a particular contemporary event such as
HKm program, in depth within its real life context. It relies on multiple source of evidence . I use
single case study with embedded unit analysis (Yin 2003). Two embedded unit analyses are
selected based on their major livelihood. The first one is coffee based livelihood while the
second one is rubber based livelihood.
3.1.2 Research design
Research design deals with a logical problem and not a logistical problem (Yin 2003). Before a
builder or architect can develop a work plan or order materials they must first establish the type
of building required, its uses and the needs of the occupants.
The work plan flows from this. Similarly, in social research the issues of sampling, method of
data collection (e.g. questionnaire, observation, and document analysis), design of questions are
all subsidiary to the matter of what evidence do I need to collect? Too often researchers design
questionnaires or begin interviewing far too early before thinking through what information they
require to answer their research questions. Without attending to these research design matters at

7/301, 2014
the beginning, the conclusions drawn will normally be weak and unconvincing and fail to answer
the research question.
2.2 Research Framework
Policy and implementation of program
Enabling and constraining environment:

Policy, central and local government, local institution, market, land tenure, forest management and technology
Livelihood strategies:
Agroforestry
NTFP cultivation
Animal husbandry
Off farm activities
Water resource management
Livelihood capital/assets:
Human, natural, social, physical, financial
ustainability

7/301, 2014
Policy and implementation of program
Enabling and constraining environment:

olicy, central and local government, local institution, market, land tenure, forest management and technology
Livelihood strategies:
Agroforestry
NTFP cultivation
Animal husbandry
Off farm activities
Water resource management
Livelihood capital/assets:
Human, natural, social, physical, financial
ustainability :
Environmental
Economic
Social
Institutional

7/301, 2014
Figure 32. A Sustainable Livelihood Framework for CF in protection forests Research

framework
2.8 Introduction a Sustainable Livelihood Framework for protection forest
Methodology
3.1 Research Approach
3.1.1 Research strategy- Case study
A case study is a research strategy which investigates a particular contemporary event such as
HKm program, in depth within its real life context. It relies on multiple source of evidence. I use
single case study with embedded unit analysis (Yin 2003). Two embedded unit analyses are
selected based on their major livelihood as well as external support of protection forest
management. The first one is coffee based livelihood and supported by NGO. Thewhile the
second one is rubber based livelihood supported by district government.
3.1.2 Research design
Research design deals with a logical problem and not a logistical problem (Yin 2003). Before a
builder or architect can develop a work plan or order materials they must first establish the type
of building required, its uses and the needs of the occupants.
The work plan flows from this. Similarly, in social research the issues of sampling, method of
data collection (e.g. questionnaire, observation, and document analysis), design of questions are
all subsidiary to the matter of what evidence do I need to collect? Too often researchers design
questionnaires or begin interviewing far too early before thinking through what information they
require to answer their research questions. Without attending to these research design matters at
the beginning, the conclusions drawn will normally be weak and unconvincing and fail to answer
the research question.
3.2 Selection of Study Site

Lampung is the southern province of Indonesia in Sumatra Island which is one of the first HKm
program implemented. HKm in Lampung Province started in 1999 with a total area of 495.2 ha.
In the year 2011 the existing permit HKm in Lampung Province are 35,718.61 ha. This study
was conducted in protection forest that HKm program implemented in Bukit Barisan Selatan
mountain, range span the west coast of Sumatra and form the upper watersheds of all the major
rivers in Lampung (Suyanto et al. 2007) useful as sources of hydroelectric power and as a source
of irrigation in the upper of 5 districts below so that its play an important role (Verbist et al 2005,
Kaskoyo et al. 2014). The three villages, Menanga jaya village, Tribudi makmur village, and
Tribudisyukur village, were purposively selected after preliminary discussions with HKm section
officers of Lampung Province Forestry. They informed us that farmers in three villages are

7/301, 2014
successful samples of protection forest managed farmer in Indonesia. Menanga jaya village laid
around the protection forest Register 24 Bukit Punggur and Tribudi makmur and Tribudi syukur
village laid around the protection forest Register 45b Bukit Rigis. Tribudi makmur village was
previously included administratively in Tribudisyukur village.
This study was conducted in two HKm farmer group areas, i.e. Bina Wana (BW) farmer
group area and Jaya Lestari (JL) farmer group area (Fig. 13). Site A is located in the BW farmer
group area, which is in Register 45b Bukit Rigis (8,295 ha), Tribudi Sukur and Tribudi Makmur
villages, KebunTebu Sub-District, Lampung Barat District. Site B is located in the Jaya Lestari
(JL) farmer group area, which is in protection-forest Register 24 Bukit Punggur (20,851 ha),
Menangajaya Village, Banjit Sub-District, Way Kanan District. The two farmer groups were
purposively selected for three reasons after preliminary discussions with Lampung Province
Forestry officers. The first reason is that the two sites are representative of many other upland
areas classified as protection forest in terms of their importance for local development (Verbist
et al. 2005). Secondly, the two sites are among the sites that have experienced high deforestation
particularly after the fall of the Suharto government during the 1999-2000 periods. Communities
used the authority vacuum to cut forests and replaced them with agricultural crops such as
coffee, cocoa, rubber, and palm oil (Miyamoto 2009). This demand for investigation of HKm
approach that demands involvement of local communities to be effective in terms of protection
of the forest. Finally, both study sites are in the Way Besay catchment area, which is useful for
hydroelectric power and as an irrigation water source for five lower-lying districts. Farmland
plots used by BW and JL farmer groups in protection forests were registers 45b Bukit Rigis and
24 Bukit Punggur, respectively. Detailed description of the characteristics of HKm permit area is
presented in Table 25 (Fig. 31, Table 25).
Table 5. HKm Farmer Groups Permits Areas
HKm
Sub
Farmer District
Distric Village
Group
t
Bina
West
Kebun Tribudi Syukur,
Wana
Lampung Tebu
Tribudi Makmur
Jaya
Way
Banjit Menanga jaya
Lestari Kanan
HKm Area (ha)

Cultivati Protectio
on block n block
45 B Bukit 470
175
Rigis
24 Bukit 1,003.5 291.5
Punggur
Register
Total
Area
(ha)
645
1,295
This study was conducted in two HKm farmer group areas; Site A is located in Bina Wana farmer
group area which reside in Tribudi Sukur and Tribudi Makmur Village, Kebun Tebu sub District,
West Lampung District and site B is located in Jaya Lestari farmer group area which reside in
Menangajaya Village, Banjit sub District, Way Kanan District. In the both of areas, high level of
deforestation and forest degradation was occurred since the fall of the Government of Suharto
Presidency. The rate of deforestation peaked in the 1999-2000 period, when farmers took
advantage of the fall of the Government of President Suharto and the relative freedom of the
early days of Reforms to expand coffee production in the protection forest. Communities cut the
forest and replaced by agricultural crops such as coffee, cocoa, rubber, and palm oil (Miyamoto
2006). These areas are representative of many other upland areas classified as protection forest
found along the mountainous of Sumatra (Verbist et al. 2005). Protection forest has a very

7/301, 2014
important function that is related to ecological function as watershed. Arable land of BW and JL
farmers group respectively in protection forest namely register 45b Bukit Rigis and 24 Bukit
Punggur. The both of study sites laid in Way Besay catchment area which useful as sources of
hydroelectric power and as a source of irrigation in the upper of 5 districts below so that its play
an important role. Trees species has a significant influence to maintain the function of forest.
Coffee crop mainly grown in monoculture system had a weakness compared to the rubber crop in
relation to the function of protection forest. Two farmers group were selected based on their
different combinations of three conditions: first, their trees crops mainly which was planted;
second, their mainly support on formed HKm farmer groups, and the last, HKm cooperate which
presence in HKm organization.
Sumatra Island
Site A is conducted in Bina Wana farmer group area in Register 45B Bukit Rigis (8,295 ha),
in Tribudisyukur and Tribudimakmur villages, Kebun Tebu Sub District in West Lampung
District, Indonesia. This area was selected because representative of coffee tree in protection
forest area and the HKm program has implemented since 2001 in this area with support from
Indonesia
ICRAF and several local NGOs which became active in 1998 (Pender et al. 2008; Arifin et al.
2009). Kebun Tebu sub District is a part of sub District Sumberjaya and as of the mid-1990s sub
District Sumberjaya was known as an area of intense land-use conflicts. Forest cover and
agroforestry are both very dynamic in the Sumberjaya area. The amount of forest in the area
declined from about 60% in 1970 to 32% in 1978 and to 10% in 1990 and 2000. Over the same
period, the area covered by coffee-based agroforestry systems increased from about 8% in 1970
to 20% in 1978 to about 63% in 1990 to about 70% in 2000. Coffee is grown in three production
systems in Sumberjaya: monoculture coffee, shade coffee, and multi-strata agroforests. Shade
coffee and multi-strata agroforests have been expanding since 1984 and now occupy about 36%
of the study area (Verbist et al. 2005).
Lampung province
A
Java Ocean
Hindi ocean
Figure : Location of the study site. A) Tribudi Syukur and Tribudi Makmur villages area; B) Menang

7/301, 2014
Site B is conducted in Jaya Lestari farmer group area in protection forest Register 24 Bukit
Punggur (20,851 ha) in Menangajaya village, Banjit sub district, Way Kanan District, Indonesia.
Site B was selected because representative for transition from coffee to rubber trees in protection
forest area. Most of HKm farmer in this area had already replaced the coffee crops to rubber.
Based on interviews results of staff from forestry office of Lampung province and way kanan
district, it was concluded that changes in crop cultivation in the land from coffee to rubber is
supported by the government because rubber crop is deemed to have advantage over coffee crop
in maintaining the function of protection forest. HKm program in Menangajaya village was
implemented in 2011 and mainly support by local government. There is no international NGOs
and only few local NGOs which working here. Almost in the same time deforestation and forest
degradation was occurred in this register. Cash crop has been planted by the communities
generally was coffee. However in 2005, rubber plant was cultivated by communities to replaced
coffee as a continuation of Forest and Land Rehabilitation National Program/Gerakan Nasional
Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (GNRHL) from Government since 2003.
3.3 Data Collection

Both quantitative and qualitative data will collect for the study. The field survey will conduct to
obtain primary data related to livelihood assets, livelihood strategies and change in external
context (policy, institutional and economic context) to know the livelihood sustainability and
HKm performance in West Lampung and Way Kanan district, Lampung Province, Indonesia.
Retrieval of data from the respondents will be done by two methods, questionnaires and
interviews.
In order to integrate this framework into my research, iI adapt the SLF in three consecutive
steps. First, we develop and apply a quantitative technique for livelihood changes measurement

7/301, 2014
at two separate sites, Bina Wana Farmer Group and Jaya Lestari Farmer Group, by identifying
and formulating indicators for access to capital assets. Identification and formulation of
indicators are derived from the variables which would be affected by changing the policy,
institutional and economic context. Table 1 recapitulates the capital assets and its indicator
Second, the responses of households to changes in access to capital assets as well as changes in
the natural resource management context are deduced from changes in their livelihood strategies.
Third, the trends of change in internal and external factors, and in livelihood strategies, are
linked to livelihood sustainability. Sustainability assessment is done qualitatively by correlating
changes and impacts with indicators of sustainability as formulated by the DFID (1999).
This research opens up a new dimension of measuring livelihood change both quantitatively
and qualitatively. Quantitative measurement in the form of indexing access to capital assets helps
us to follow the pattern of change in access to capital assets. Which assets are accessed more, and
who is better off, can be determined with a higher accuracy than by using only qualitative
methods, which was commonly done in livelihood analysis. Qualitative analysis, on the other
hand, captures information of the kind that lies beyond the scope of quantitative measurement.
The latter supports and strengthens the former technique.
Farmer respondents purposively will be taken in which groups of farmers who already have
HKM permission in the both of study sites. The total numbers of respondents are 2 groups of
farmers, each district will be taken 1 group of farmers. In each group, farmers will be chosen
randomly in 10 %, so the total respondent is 108 farmers (48 farmers in site A and 60 farmers in
site B). The perception of farmers about HKm, farmer institutions, management systems, and
social economic condition of farmers are taken from respondents.
Policy makers respondents (government official) in village, sub district, and district level
were taken on purposive policy makers as much as one to three people in each relevant agency in
the both of sites. Government official in Lampung province and national level also were taken.
Other stakeholder, each as two people, such as trading association, electricity company, NGO,
and Universities will be interviewed. PRA tools are used for socio-economic data collection.
Secondary data conducted to obtain data related to demography at the location of protection
forests, policies, reports, and other documents that related to stakeholder activities which are
located at HKm.
3.4 Data Analysis

The data was analyzed qualitatively and using descriptive statistics. SPSS ver. 17 was used to
analyze the data. Simple descriptive statistics, such as averages and percentages, are used to
summarize the livelihood capitals. For analyzing the significance of the change in livelihood
capital before and after the HKm program, one way ANOVA was utilized. Changes in livelihood
strategies were analyzed qualitatively. Changes in livelihood strategies were identified by
assessing the frequency of respondents answers concerning their response to changing natural
resource management context and the changes in access to capital assets. Livelihood
sustainability assessment was based on trends of change in the natural resource management
context and their impact on change in access to capital assets, and on change in livelihood
strategies. These parameters were then grouped according to the four aspects of sustainability:
environmental, economic, social, and institutional. Trends and impacts were assessed with
respect to their positive or negative effects on livelihood and protection forest sustainability

7/301, 2014
using DFIDs livelihood sustainability indicators. Livelihood sustainability indicators were also
the basis for assessing HKm management performance.
4. Present state of Community forestry and its challenges (Paper 1).

4.1 Formation of HKm farmer groups
Based on Forestry Ministry Decree No. 31/Menhut-II/2001, BW HKms contracts (permit
number 439/Kwl-4/Kpts/2000; 23 December 2000) are valid for an initial five-year probationary
period, and can then be extended for another 25 years after evaluation. In 2005, the five-year
HKm permit of BW group farmers was evaluated by a Lampung Barat District forestry officer.
The BW farmer group passed the evaluation and received a 25-year permit in 2006. After
Forestry Ministry Decree No. P.37/Menhut-II/2007 was issued by the Ministry of Forestry, the
25-year HKm permit for BinaWanaHKm farmer group was revoked and changed by Forestry
Ministry Decree No. SK. 434/Menhut-II/2007 and by Lampung Barat District Decree No.
B/1454/KPTS/III.05/2007 to manage 645 ha (470 ha cultivation block and 175 ha protection
block) of register 45B Bukit Rigis for 35 years.
The JL farmer group was proposed in 2009 and granted a permit by Forestry Ministry
Decree No. SK. 447/Menhut-II/2011 and by Way Kanan District Decree No. B 124/III.06WK/2011 to manage 1,295 ha (1,003.5 ha cultivation block and 291.5 ha protection block) of
register 24 Bukit Punggur. Most members of the JL group came from farmer groups who were
active in the national forest rehabilitation program/GNRHL in 2003. The group was developed
by officials of the Way Kanan District Forestry Office to be this HKm group. The JL farmer
group comprises nine subgroups and 600 farmers, who are residents of Menangajaya Village,
Banjit Sub-District, WayKanan District.
4.2 Forest management under HKm scheme

HKm management plan is divided into a general plan and an operational plan. The general plan
is the management plan for the HKm work area. It provides prescriptions for the preservation of
the HKm areas economical, ecological, and social functions for one management period. The
plan is prepared in a participatory manner and facilitated by the relevant authorities with training,
guidance, and other assistance. The plan may be revised by the permit holder and authorized by
the grantor. The operational plan is a more detailed elaboration of the general plan and includes
many activities to be implemented over the following one-year period. The operational plan is
also prepared in a participatory manner, facilitated by relevant agencies or other parties, and
approved by the head of the District Forestry Service.
Community participation in HKm as per the aforementioned management plans involves
utilization planning and implementation of forest management activities including boundary
demarcation, planting, maintaining, protecting, harvesting, processing, marketing, paying fees in
accordance with royalties for forest resources, and submitting yearly reports on the utilization of
HKm areas to the district government head. In addition to these in situ managements, they also
involved in protecting the forest from outsiders. Participants may be individuals or groups or
people may participate through cooperatives. Each participant is entitled to manage up to 4 ha of
state forest. The management period is 35 years and must be evaluated every five years...

7/301, 2014
4.3 Reason of farmer participation on HKm program

The four major reasons for farmers participation in HKm program were to get certificate/
permission, to follow government program, issues related to peace and to obtain assistance
respectively (Table 62). Most farmers do so to obtain HKm permits and can manage forest land
without concerns about being expelled by the government or other parties who want to use the
land. Because the government grants protection forest land, farmers will not lose their
investments in their farming. The other reason, which is also related to property right security
and safety, is, to follow governments program and also have peaceful relation with other
stakeholders. All respondents admitted that the land they till is government-owned protection
forest. Therefore, they say they are obligated to follow the program. If farmers do not abide by
the HKm program, their use of state forest land is considered illegal act, and they can be arrested
for encroaching on government land. Possibility of getting assistance from NGOs and other
actors as well as the training experience they obtain from involving in HKm was the next
important factors that motivated farmers to attend the program. Another reason for participation
is income generate from harvest NTFP and other crops (legally prohibited in protection forest)
and to preserve forest which provide harvest that benefit them...
Table 6. Farmers reasons for joining HKm scheme (Percentage of respondents)
HKm
Farmer
Group
Reason
Bina Wana
Peace
Income
Maintai
n forest
Follow
governmen
t program
Get
Get
assistance
certificate/ and experience
permission
12 (25.00) 11(22.92)
2 (4.17)
9 (18.75)
26 (54.17)
13 (27.08)
Jaya Lestari
15 (25.00) 7 (11.67)
3 (5.00)
20 (33.33)
13 (27.08)
12 (20.00)
Total
27 (25.00) 18 (16.67)
5 (4.63)
29 (26.85)
39 (81.25)
25 23.15)
4.4 Farmers perceptions of their role in HKm program

Following farmer group or government rules, growing and conserving trees, making terraces and
attending meetings were the four major activities that the farmers perceived to be their role in
HKm (Table 37). This is also in line with the above motivation to participate in the program.
Since most of the farmers participate to follow government program and to have secured right on
the land they cultivate, their perception of what they should do was also inline with fulfilling the
government requirements. Consequently most farmers perceived their role to be following HKm
government rules. In addition, the farmers also mentioned implementing group rules as their
major role. HKm group rules were created by the farmers at group meetings, where each member
has an equal right to state his or her opinion. Furthermore, the rules are set forth in the charter
and bylaws of farmer groups. HKm group rules include member obligations and rights.
Respondents stated that they had carried out obligations and already follow some of the

7/301, 2014
procedures listed in the regulations, building terraces and attend meetings held by groups and
subgroups. Overall, only a small percentage of farmers think they no role in particulars. Farmers
in this category are usually less active, and therefore know little about HKm activities. s.
Table 7. Farmers perceived role in HKm (in Percentage of respondents)
HKm Farmer Role
Group
Growing
Making
Attending Following
Coming up None
and
terraces
meetings farmer group with ideas
conserving
or government for
HKm
trees
rules
groups
Bina Wana
67
56
19
73
17
6
Jaya Lestari
25
3
17
38
17
7
Total
44
27
18
54
17
4.5 Frequent changes in HKm regulations and lack of capacity to implement it

HKm has established since 1995 after the central government issued Ministry of Forestry Decree
no. 622/Kpts-II/1995 that prevailing in protection and production forests. Community suggested
to the Head of Lampung Province Forest Office to be appointed as HKm participants.
Community participate on HKm utilization planning and implementation (planning, planting,
maintaining, protecting, harvesting, processing and marketing), maintaining the security of the
forest as well as enriching the forest trees. Participation can be done by individual, groups or
though cooperative and each participant are entitled to manage maximum 4 ha of forest area.
Management period is not limited but must be evaluation every 5 years. Unfortunately in term of
harvesting, community is allowed only collect non timber forest product and restricted to cut
down their timber which they plant thereby it will reducing the benefit to be gained of
community (Fay, Chip and Hubert de Foresta, 1998). Although there have been HKm program,
but in field implementation, CF still received less attention so that this program was
unsuccessful. Forest management is still dominated by large companies and public access is
restricted in many places even the expulsion of people and rooted the crops which planted
illegally include in Lampung province (Ota 2011).
After financial crisis in 1998, management forest by participation of community sound
stronger than before (Arifin et al. 2009). Political changes caused by the collapse of the Suharto
regime have an impact on forest management paradigm, shift from large companies to
community-based. Its makes impact also to CF program which the decree of HKm program to
later turned into a Decree no. 677/Kpts-II/1998 with addition which are: the addition of the
location of conservation forest on state forest but in particular zonation, community participation
through institutional cooperation that propose to the ministry of forestry and plantation, to do
traditional forest management, making Master Plan, Five year plan and Annual plan also making
HKm management to be conducted within 35 years. The decree changes to Decree no. 31/KptsII/2001 with changes in: the HKm location only in protection and production forest, time of
permits (permanent permits) was 25 years within 3-5 years temporary permit and the permanent

7/301, 2014
permit can be extended, the holder of temporary permit was the chairman of farmer group and
permanent permit was cooperative that have been formed during holding temporary permit,
management area consists 2 blocks (protection and cultivation blocks), management plans
consist general plan/ master plan for 5 years and annual operational plan, HKm management
consists of structuring the activities area, preparation of management plans, utilization,
rehabilitation, and protection.
Further the Decree changes to Regulation no. P.37/Menhut-II/2007 with several changes,
among others are: for HKm program in production forest the community was allowed to harvest
the timber as an end result of production, no temporary permit, more detailed in HKm activities
of the protection and production forest, the utilization of forest products in an integrated HKm
done with the pattern of agroforestry, the division of the block is removed, HKm work plan
consists of the master plans for 35 years period and the operational plan for one year period.
Then regulation is changed three times: the regulation no. P.18/Menhut-II/2009, P.13/MenhutII/2010, P.52/Menhut-II/2011 in terms of the verification team and more detailed explanation of
the rights HKm holder in protection and production forest.
Thus, regulations which related to HKm program has been changed in several times. These
changes certainly affected HKm activities in the field. Many changes of HKm regulatory have
both positive and negative impacts. Its negative impact is the promulgation of the regulations in
2001, HKm area which was located in Conservation Forest was banned, so some HKm areas in
the Forest Conservation become uncertain. Positive impact is the simple rules and the easier it is
understood by the local government and forest farmers. The new regulations or improvement of
an existing law to do with the purpose among others promote market development for tree
products; adopt low-cost, community-based extension strategies; focus research support; and
reduce regulatory disincentives (Current and Scherr, 1995).
HKm in Lampung Province started in 1999 with a total area of 495.2 ha based on the
second HKm regulation. At that time HKm can set policies on protection, production, and
certain zone of conservation forests. Several HKm groups have formed in Lampung
Province including at conservation forest which still yet unclear outcome. In the year 2011
the existing permit HKm in Lampung Province are 35,718.61 ha, which on the West
Lampung, North Lampung, Tanggamus, Central Lampung and Way Kanan district that is
fully listed in Table 28. Hkm target in Renstra 2010-2014 for Lampung Province are 68.900 ha
of 75 farmers groups.
Table 8. HKm Area in Lampung Province until 2011
Ministry of Forestry Decree
No
District/City
Number
Date
1.
West Lampung
434/Menhut-II/2007
11/12/2007
2.
West Lampung II 58/Menhut-II/2010
21/01/2010
3.
North Lampung
435/Menhut-II/2007
11/12/2007
4.
North Lampung II 446/Menhut-II/2009
4/08/2009
5.
Tanggamus
433/Menhut-II/2007
11/12/2007
6.
Tanggamus II
751/Menhut-II/2009
4/11/2009
7.
Central Lampung 53/Menhut-II/2010
21/01/2010
8.
Way Kanan
447/Menhut-II/2011
03/08/2011
Total
Wide (ha)
1,970.09
6,490.00
1,200.00
4,410.00
2,547.22
12,061.30
5,745.00
1,295.00
35,718.61

7/301, 2014
Source: Ministry of Forestry, 2011
Since its inauguration in 1995, the regulations for HKm have changed for about seven times
(Table 89). This instability in the institution has created confusion and different interpretation of
the regulation in the field. Such confusion were in relation to the commencement of the program,
limitation of HKm area of each farmer, forest resource royalti (PSDH) as well as type of
organization involved in HKm (Table 910)...
Table 9. Changes in HKm regulations
No
Year
Law Number
Type of Law
Title
Change on
1.
1995
622/KPTSII/1995
1998
677/KptsII/1998
Community
Forest
Guidance
Community
Forest
2.
Decision of
Forestry
Ministry
Decision of
Plantation
and Forestry
Ministry
3.
1999
865/KptsII/1999
Community
Forest
4.
2001
31/KptsII/2001
Decision of
Plantation
and Forestry
Ministry
Decision of
Forestry
Ministry
5.
2007
P.37/MenhutII/2007
Regulation of Community
Forestry
Forest
Ministry
6.
2009
P.18/Menhut-
Regulation of The 1st
Community
Forest
Management
Protection, production and

particular zones of
Conservation forests,
institutional cooperation,
Master Plan, Five-Year
Plan, and an Annual Plan,
within 35 years, traditional
forest management
Right to optimally use of
state forest for social &
econ. benefits jeopardizing
the environment
only in protection and
production forests, 5 years
temporary permits (farmer
group) and 25 years
permanent permits
(cooperative)
In production forests,
communities are allowed
to harvest timber; no
temporary permits;
unnecessary make
cooperative, more detailed
provisions for HKm
activities; agroforestry; no
block divisions; master
plans (35-year) and
operational plans (each
one-year periods)
Coordinator of verification

7/301, 2014
No
Year
Law Number
Type of Law
Title
Change on
II/2009
Forestry
Ministry
Change of
P.37/MenhutII/2007
Regulation of The 2nd

Forestry
Change of
Ministry
P.37/MenhutII/2007
Regulation of The 3rd
Forestry
Change of
Ministry
P.37/MenhutII/2007
team, scope of verification,

more detailed explanation
of the rights that HKm
participants have
Areas other than those
proposed by the district
may file as a candidate
location HKm
Additional prerequisite in
HKm proposals
7.
2010
P.13/MenhutII/2010
8.
2011
P.52/MenhutII/2011
4.6 Difficulties faced by farmers to implement HKm

4.6 Difficulties faced by farmers to implement HKm
The first important difficulty faced by farmers is related to knowledge of implementing the
aforementioned HKm program. They need guidance in HKm management such understanding
the rules, applying for HKm permits, demarcation of land, cultivation, processing, marketing etc.
In BW, assistance from NGO seemed to play key role in minimizing this problem. Second
problem faced by farmers is lack of seedlings. The last problem is related to lack of guideline.
.
Table 10. Treats to HKm implementation
Treat
Remark
Confusion
with
respect to:
Repeated 677/Kpts-II/1998;
HKm program
change of 865/Kpts-II/1999;
begins
regulation 31/Kpts-II/2001
P.37/Menhut-II/2007;
Limitation of HKm
Area of each farmer
Forest resource
P.52/Menhut-II/2011
royalti (PSDH)
HKm farmer
organization
Low
No of HKM section Staff
capacity
Average Yearly Budget
BW
JL
1999
2007
No
Yes
Not yet
Already
HKm farmer
group
4
IDR
100
million
HKm farmer group

and cooperative
2
IDR 32.5 million

7/301, 2014
5. Livelihood impact of Hkm on participant farmers as well as on

forest condition (Paper 2)
5.1 Current socioeconomic situations of HKm farmers
The socioeconomic situation of HKm farmers such as farmer age, ethnics, formal and informal
education, monthly income as well as cultivation area of farmer is summarized in Table 411. In
terms of farmers age, both HKm groups have farmers that are in their prime. This is very
beneficial for the HKm program, because farmers can easily perform most HKm activities. BW
farmer group is dominated by Sundanese, while JL is dominated by Javanese. Farmers migrated
into these areas as plantation labor..
Table 411. Farmer Groups Characteristics
Socioeconomic characteristics
Age
Ethnic
Education
Training
<25 - 50 years
> 50 years
Sunda
Jawa
Lampung Sumendo
C Packet
Elementary School
Yunior High School
High School
None
Maximum 2 times
More than 2 times
Maximum 1 million IDR
Monthly Income
More than 1 - 2 million IDR

More than 2 million IDR
Maximum 1 ha
More than 1 - 2 ha
Cultivation Area of
More than 2 ha
farmer
Non-HKm Area
HKM/ Non-HKm
Outside of Lampung Province
Origin of farmers
Outside of district
Born in district
Origin of cultivated Inherited from parents
land
Cleared forest
Purchased
HKm
Non-HKm
HKm
Non-HKm
HKm
Non-HKm
Proportion of farmers; (%)

Bina Wana
Jaya Lestar
38 (79.17)
52 (86.67)
10 (20.83)
8 (13.33)
40 (83.33)
9 (15.00)
6 (12.50)
36 (60.00)
2 (4.17)
15 (25.00)
1 (2.08)
0 (0.00)
21 (43.75)
30 (50.00)
12 (25.00)
21 (35.00)
14 (29.17)
9 (15.00)
11 (22.92)
28 (46.67)
24 (50.00)
28 (46.67)
13 (27.08)
4 (6.67)
35 (72.92)
36 (60.00)
25 (52.08)
45 (75.00)
10 (20.83)
18 (30.00)
13 (27.08)
10 (16.67)
3 (6.25)
6 (10.00)
10 (20.83)
5 (8.33)
40 (83.33)
8 (16.67)
0 (0.00)
39 (81.25)
1.23
10 (20.83)
19 (39.58)
19 (39.58)
19 (39.58)
12 (25.00)
17 (35.42)
14 (23.33)
27 (45.00)
9 (15.00)
18 (30.00)
3.33
22 (36.67)
24 (40.00)
14 (23.33)
18 (30.00)
12 (20.00)
28 (46.67)

7/301, 2014
Socioeconomic characteristics
Have cultivated
since
Renting
From government
Before 2000
land
2000 2007
After 2007
Proportion of farmers; (%)

Bina Wana
Jaya Lestar
0 (0)
2 (3.33)
0 (0)
0 (0)
25 (52.08)
29 (48.33)
22 (45.83)
21 (35.00)
1 (2.08)
10 (16.67)
$1 IDR 9,727
5.2 Current vegetation conditions of HKm area

Land tended by BW farmers is less dense than that tended by JL farmers, but it has more woody
trees and multi-purpose trees species (MPTs) per unit area (Table 612). BW farmers have more
coffee trees on their land because they still retain coffee as their main crop. Based on the results
of interviews with respondents, they keep many coffee trees because, despite varying coffee
prices, there is a promising market and they are already skilled in managing coffee. This
predilection for coffee in particular is likely to be a problem for timber tree management unless
farmers are allowed to periodically harvest timber trees, or unless tree planting and protection
requirements are strictly enforced (Pender et al. 2008)..
Table 512. Number of species and stem of Trees in HKm Area
Type of Trees or Crops
Species or HKm Farmer Group
stem
Bina Wana
Jaya Lestari
Woody
Species
14
17
Stem
112393
38568
Coffee
Stem
888572
1314060
Rubber
Stem
0
876040
Non-wood (include Coffee Species
20
7
and Rubber)
Stem
925376
2363401
Total
Species
34
14
Stem
1037769
2401969
Cultivated Area (ha)
470.0
1003.5
Average Woody density (stem/ha)
239
38
Average Coffee density (stem/ha)
1891
2182
Average Non-wood Density (stem/ha)
1969
2355
Average Total Density (stem/ha)
2208
2394
5.3 Changes in Livelihood/Capital Asset (Draft of Paper 2)

HKm program influenced community live nearby protection forest on accessed the livelihood
capital. To answer the question regarding to livelihood capital of HKm farmers, we examine the
important variables of the five livelihoods in sustainable livelihood framework.
The state of human capital, we analyzed the number of household, formal and non-formal
education of farmers household, labor and children going to school (Table 613). From this study,
it is clear that all of the people in the study area had received primary education and most of

7/301, 2014
them already finished secondary education in fact some of R farmers already graduated in higher
level. It is influence on their children education. The farmers understand that education can
improve their livelihood. They habilitate their children by sold their forest product result for
examples coffee and rubber. Even impact of HKm program relating to children going to school
is significance but there are also children who do not finish school in those who are M and P.
They are forced to help their parents work to supplement the family income or ease the burden of
parents with married...
To determine natural capital, we examine the rights and ownership of land, wide of land,
number of crops and trees, and secure possession of the rights and ownership and their planted
trees (Table 613). HKm farmer got their land on forest state area by heritage, bought illegally or
encroached before they join with HKm program. Most of Tribudisyukur and Tribudimakmur
HKm farmers cultivated smaller HKm area than Menangajaya farmers and vice versa for non
HKm area/private land. The R class has own land outer of forest state land (non HKm area) in
average more than 1 ha before program but P class not. The farmers used monoculture system
that has been practicing since they cultivated the forest land. They planted coffee crops and some
of them mixed by vegetables and also rubber trees for R class in Menangajaya village. For
maximize their crops production, the farmers did not plant forest trees.
Social capital have important role in management of forest resources and improvement of
livelihood (Nath and Inoue 2010). In term of social capital we explored number of organization
involved, position on HKm group, trust in people in village, trust in leader, mutual aid activities
and security feel of HKm management (Table 613). HKm program helped them to build social
capital among participant through making HKm group and meeting in their group. Participant
then developed social relationship among themselves and with ministry, provincial, and district
forestry officer also neighbours nearby the participants. In initial time NGO played important
roles in building social capital trough the formation of farmer group in Tribudisyukur and
Tribudimakmur village, whereas local goverment or Way Kanan district forestry officer played
important role in Menanga jaya farmers (Kaskoyo et al. 2014).
For physical capital we assessed house size, house condition such as wall and roof,
household appliances, car, motocycle, bicycle, and mobile phone (Table 813). Most of R class
farmer houses are brick walled and wood brick walled houses with brick roof houses, but the
changes in M and P class farmers significance than R class. For tin roof and brick roof house
significance change for all farmers. R and M class have either television with parabola antenna,
radio, and other house appliance but for P is significance change. The possession of motorcycle
is high for R and M farmer but for all R, M, and P are significance different. It is means that
motorcycle has an important role as a transportation tool. They used motorcycle to transport their
harvest, to go to market, to go to their land, etc. For R farmers, some of them have more than one
motorcycle. Mobile phone possession significance increase in all class. For P farmers the change
of mobile phone possession highest compare with R and M class. House appliances already were
had by R and M class and significance change for P class.
We examined livestock, saving, loans, annual income and expenditure, and food securities to
measure financial capital (Table 613). We observed that some people did not interested in on
livestock because has very busy on their agricultural activities. Limited land for farming and
fodder cultivation is another reason they are reluctant to raise. In addition, farmers would rather
trade than raising crops. Chicken is the most widely livestock owned by farmers. Only cows
were owned by farmers in the R class. Goats are also more bred by R class than others but the
increasing fewer than M class and P class. Goats began widely cultivated by HKM group Tribudi

7/301, 2014
syukur and Tribudi makmur villages after rolling relief of the Animal Husbandry Department and
District Forestry. In Tribudisyukur villages, based on information key person, from only 4 pairs
in 2007, now has more than 50 goats owned by farmers.
Table 613. Livelihood capital of HKm farmer
Wealth Ranking of HKm Farmers
Capital
Rich
Middle
Before
2013
Before
Human Capital
Mean of household size 2.96
3.06
2.78
(no.)
Education of household
Primary school (%)
46.8
42.6
53.2
Secondary school (%)
44.7
48.9
44.7
Graduate (%)
8.5
8.5
2.1
Training/Non formal (%) 12.8*
25.5*
10.6*
Labor
1.77
1.88
1.62*
Children going to school 100
100
70*
(%)
Natural Capital
HKm area (ha)
1.25*
1.95*
1.19*
Non HKm area (ha)
1.07*
1.6*
0.62*
Total Cofee trees (no.)
X
6575
X
Total Rubber trees (no.)
X
126.25
X
Wood trees in Non HKm X
123.625
X
area (no.)
Social capital
Number of organization 2.0
2.0
0
involved
Position in HKm group
(%)
Member
0
87.5
0
Caretaker in sub group 0
12.5
0
level
Caretaker in group level 0
0
0
Trust people in village (in 2.48
2.5
2.2*
scale 1,2,3)
Trust in leader (in scale 2. 82
2.93
2.72*
1,2,3)
Mutual aid activities (%)
100
100
100
Security of HKm area and 29.79*
100*
23.4*
trees
Physical Capital
House size (m2)
90.313*
100.313*
52.125*
Bamboo walled house (%) 0
0
2
2013
Poor
Before
2013
2.88
2.52
2.81
48.9
44.7
6.4
31.9*
1.81*
95*
63.8
36.2
0
8.5*
1.52*
51.1*
63.8
36.2
0
23.4*
1.69*
85*
1.30*
0.69*
3565.625
87
67.5
0.8
0.29*
X
X
X
0.8
0.31*
1910.625
20.625
50.438
1.813
2.0
1.813
75
12.5
0
0
93.7
0
12.5
2.25*
0
2.1*
6.3
2.06*
2.93*
2.5*
2.75*
100
100*
100
10.64*
100
100*
62.375*
0
30.25*
10
54.25*
3

7/301, 2014
Capital
Rich
Middle
Before
2013
Before
Wood walled house (%)
19.5
18.7
52.5*
Wood and brick walled 10
6.3
10
house (%)
Brick walled house (%)
70.5
75
35.8*
Wood roof house (%)
0
0
2.5
Asbestos roof house (%)
7.5
0
5
Tin roof house (%)
10*
0*
15*
Brick roof house (%)
82.5*
100*
87.5*
Car (%)
0
12.5
0
Motorcycle (%)
90*
100*
70*
Bicycle (%)
39.7
43.7
60*
Mobile phone (%)
50.5*
87.5*
12.2*
House appliances (%)
100
100
100
Financial Capital
Livestock
Cow (mean number)
0 (0)
0.125 (6.3) 0 (0)
Goat (mean number)
3.13 (62.5) 3.88 (68.7) 0.63
(30.2)*
Chickens (mean number) 7.813
6.813
5.86
(81.7)*
(68.7)*
(70.7)
Saving (%)
82.7*
93.7*
40*
Household with loans (%) 82.3
87.5
80
Number of loans
3
4
2.5
Mean annual income (Rp) XX
105218750 XX
Mean annual expenditure XX
66763750
XX
(Rp)
Food security (%)
Surplus
60
62.5
40*
Sufficient
27.5
25
11.3
Shortage
12.5
12.5
48.7
*
2013
37.5*
12.5
Poor
Before
60*
5
2013
50*
12.5
50*
0
0
0*
100*
0
100*
50*
56.2*
100
25*
5
10
10*
75*
0
50*
50
0*
62.2*
37.5*
0
6.3
0*
93.7*
0
93.7*
43.7
43.8*
81.2*
0 (0)
3.13
(62.5)*
5.688
(68.7)
50*
75
2.125
65621250
36593875
0 (0)
0.36
(12.5)*
3.05
(62.7)
10*
85*
2.75
XX
XX
0 (0)
1.81 (62.5)*
50*
6.3
43.8
0
20
80
0
25
75
3.125 (68.7)
18.7*
75*
1.875
33445375
20162027.5
Significant difference between before and after of each wealth class (P<0.05)
5.4 Change in 6.2 Livelihood strategy (Draft of Paper 3)

HKm farmers in study area already have the land in HKm area by heritage, bought illegally or
encroached before they join with HKm program. Some of them did it by sharing with other as a
worker. Under suitability in physically and climatic condition, they planted coffee as main crop
for their livelihood. All of them planted coffee as monoculture trees, some of them planted mixed
by vegetables such as cabbage, chili, carrot, and potato also at Menangajaya village mixed by
rubber trees before the HKm program implemented. The farmers planted, nurtured, and
harvested their crops in secret. Of information from key person, the uncertainty of land

7/301, 2014
management rights cause the farmers afraid to meet with forest officials and often have to give
money when they harvest their coffee. Indonesian governance didnt allow the farmers enter the
forest moreover manage the forest. As a result farmers are not calm and manage their community
forest land with no earnest. They planted coffee for fear potluck invest more will hurt them.
Similarly, when they harvested their crop, they harvested quickly even though immature coffee.
Coffee based cropping is primary livelihood strategy. Coffee trading is the second strategy
regarding to main livelihood strategy. The other major livelihood strategy is rubber cultivation
(Table 714)...
Table 714. Livelihoods strategies of respondents
No Livelihood Strategies
Rich
Middle
Before 2013
Before 2013
1.
Coffee based cropping (%)
100.0 91.5
100.0 97.9
2.
Rubber cultivation (%)
46.8
80.9
31.9
55.3
3.
Paddy cultivation (%)
19.1
19.1
8.5
10.6
4.
Fishery (%)
10.6
17.0
8.5
12.8
5.
Coffee trading (%)
44.7
55.3
19.1
25.5
6.
Rubber trading (%)
8.5
12.8
4.3
6.4
7.
Fruits trading (%)
12.8
17.0
8.5
8.5
8.
Vegetables trading (%)
10.6
10.6
6.4
8.5
9.
Goods consumer trading (%) 12.8
17.0
10.6
12.8
10. Local government officer (%) 12.8
12.8
6.4
10.6
11. Honor officer (%)
10.6
10.6
6.4
8.5
12. Hiring labor (%)
0.0
0.0
31.9
23.4
13. Livestock (%)
19.1
19.1
59.6
66.0
14. Craftsman (%)
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
15. Motorcycle taxis (%)
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
Poor
Before
100.0
10.6
6.4
4.3
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
87.2
34.0
2.1
14.9
2013
100.0
21.3
4.3
6.4
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
85.1
38.3
6.4
17.0
5.5 Forest Dependence (Draft of Paper 3)

Under constructionVulnerability context
6. Forest Dependence and Livelihood StrategiesSustainability of

HKm Program (Plan to draft of Paper 4)
6.5 Under constructionForest Dependence
6.2 Livelihood strategy

HKm farmers in study area already have the land in HKm area by heritage, bought illegally or
encroached before they join with HKm program. Some of them did it by sharing with other as a

7/301, 2014
worker. Under suitability in physically and climatic condition, they planted coffee as main crop
for their livelihood. All of them planted coffee as monoculture trees, some of them planted mixed
by vegetables such as cabbage, chili, carrot, and potato also at Menangajaya village mixed by
rubber trees before the HKm program implemented. The farmers planted, nurtured, and
harvested their crops in secret. Of information from key person, the uncertainty of land
management rights cause the farmers afraid to meet with forest officials and often have to give
money when they harvest their coffee. Indonesian governance didnt allow the farmers enter the
forest moreover manage the forest. As a result farmers are not calm and manage their community
forest land with no earnest. They planted coffee for fear potluck invest more will hurt them.
Similarly, when they harvested their crop, they harvested quickly even though immature coffee.
Coffee based cropping is primary livelihood strategy. Coffee trading is the second strategy
regarding to main livelihood strategy. The other major livelihood strategy is rubber
cultivation (Table 7)..
Table 7. Livelihoods strategies of respondents
No
Livelihood Strategies
Rich
Middle
Poor
Before 2013
Before 2013
Before 2013
1.
Coffee based cropping (%)
100.0
91.5
100.0
97.9
100.0
100.0
2.
Rubber cultivation (%)
46.8
80.9
31.9
55.3
10.6
21.3
3.
Paddy cultivation (%)
19.1
19.1
8.5
10.6
6.4
4.3
4.
Fishery (%)
10.6
17.0
8.5
12.8
4.3
6.4
5.
Coffee trading (%)
44.7
55.3
19.1
25.5
4.3
4.3
6.
Rubber trading (%)
8.5
12.8
4.3
6.4
0.0
0.0
7.
Fruits trading (%)
12.8
17.0
8.5
8.5
0.0
0.0
8.
Vegetables trading (%)
10.6
10.6
6.4
8.5
0.0
0.0
9.
Goods consumer trading (%)
12.8
17.0
10.6
12.8
2.1
2.1
10.
Local government officer (%) 12.8
12.8
6.4
10.6
2.1
2.1
11.
Honor officer (%)
10.6
10.6
6.4
8.5
2.1
2.1
12.
Hiring labor (%)
0.0
0.0
31.9
23.4
87.2
85.1
13.
Livestock (%)
19.1
19.1
59.6
66.0
34.0
38.3
14.
Craftsman (%)
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
2.1
6.4
15.
Motorcycle taxis (%)
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
14.9
17.0
Vulnerability context

7/301, 2014
7. Conclusions and policy implications

7.1 Conclusions
By introducing a Sustainable Livelihood Framework that can be utilized for community forestry
implementation in protection forest, This paperTthis study explored investigated the present
conditionimplementation of HKm program in Indonesia as well as its livelihood and
environmental outcome in Lampung Provinceand its livelihood as well as forest impact. The
papers study elaborated the process of formation of HKm implementation by exploring the
process of farmers formation, forest managements under HKm, farmers motivation for
participation in HKm programs and farmers perception of their role in HKm farmers group. It
also assessed the current socioeconomic conditions of the farmers and the vegetation they are
managing. Finally iIt elaborated the two treats for effective implementation of the program, i.e.
frequent change in regulation and farmers lack of capacity to implement it. It also
studyinvestigated the livelihood impact of HKm program in protection forest. Finally we
analyzed the sustainability of HKm program such as nature resource, economic, social and
institution dimension as well as environmental dimension.
The HKm approach to forest governance in Indonesia in general and at the study site in
particular is a complete shift from the previous centralized and command-control approach.
HKm provides a space for communities living in and around state forest to participate in forest
management. The HKm program was specifically started with production and protection forest
by the central government in 1995, when it issued Ministry of Forestry Decree no. 622/KptsII/1995. Prior to this regulation, members of local communities living in and around forest were
generally involved in forest management activity only as labor when establishing plantation and
rehabilitation activities. The HKm program decree, then, emerged after push from these
communities to participate in decisions related to state forest management activities and related
obtain benefits. Since then, a wave of regulations has been issued that have improved the
involvement of local people in forest governance. The latest regulation recognizes farmers need
to form an HKm group that will function to sustainably manage while obtaining benefits from
the protection forest. The groups then apply for a license of utilization business of HKm
(IUPHKm) to the district governance head or the provincial governance head in the case of
cross-district proposed areas. The application contents includes the name of the HKm group, list
of names and domiciles of HKm group members, livelihoods, organization structure, and also a
sketch of the HKm area containing the position, coordinate points, boundary, border estimation
and general overview of the forest condition. The district governance or provincial governance
head then submits to the Ministry of Forestry after approving the farmer proposals. After the
farmer proposal is accepted by Ministry of Forestry, the district governance head or provincial
governance head issue the IUPHKm. The IUPHKm period is 35 years and can be extended every
5 years after evaluation. After obtaining an IUPHKm, farmer groups are required to make a
further delineation of the work area; prepare a work plan for planting, maintenance, and security;
paying provisions of forest resources in accordance with the regulations; and submit an activities
report to the IUPHKm licensors. The HKm area is divided into two areas: the cultivation area
and protected area. While farmers can generate income from the cultivation area, they also have
to contribute to the conservation of the protection area.

7/301, 2014
In the initial time of HKm program implementation, the local community most as object (a
labor of planting activities than as subject. It is make that the program is unsuccessfully in
rehabilitate the state forest. After the political changes in 1998 affected the forestry sector,
implementation frequently change of regulation cause confuses of local people and local
governance. The farmers also need guidance in HKm management by other stakeholder
regarding to capabilities limitation of local governance even though law mandatory.
In order to improve the ongoing implementation of HKm, community empowerment of both
individuals and institutions must be developed so that people have the awareness and ability to
manage forests sustainably. Guidance by NGOs, universities, governments, and other
stakeholders is necessary to enable forest farmers to implement the HKm program well.
Technical guidance that could be provided to solve problems would be help in determining
boundaries, drawing up general and annual plans, nurseries, preparing reports, maintenance and
security, and calculating PSDH. If farmers can calculate the PSDH correctly, they will not suffer
losses and be periodically rewarded with harvests from the forest. In addition to technical
guidance, material and financial assistance such as measuring equipment for mapping land, soft
loans, seeds, and processing equipment will also improve the current implementation of HKm.
It will be necessary to study ministerial regulations such as those for HKm (P.52/MenhutII/2011), NTFP (P.35/Menhut-II/2007), and PSDH (P.18/Menhut-II/2007). This is because the
management of protection forests requires more energy than managing production forests,
especially in relation to the functions of protection forest so that NTFPs can be harvested.
Nevertheless, BW farmers still grow coffee which not includes NTFP in their HKm area.
Therefore in relation to PSDH, further studies should be done on commodities, the PSDH
amount that HKm farmers can receive, and how that benefits the management of protection
forests.
In addition, the functions of protection forests are important for water and soil fertility,
which makes the ecological aspect as important as the economic and social aspects. The number
of woody plants and trees planted by forest farmers is an important factor in maintaining the
ecological functions of HKm areas in protection forests. This needs to be coupled with the
assessment and sale of environmental services such as water and carbon sequestration.
Regulations related to carbon -Minister of Forestry P.30/Menhut-II/2009, P.36/Menhut-II/2009,
and P.20/Menhut-II/2012 should be implemented so that people can derive additional economic
benefit from managing HKm forests.
Theis shift from the command and control approach to the HKm program in protection
forest of Lampung province has improved the five major capital types of HKm farmers. The
HKm program has improved the natural capital of local people by providing use rights to
unoccupied land inside the forest for cultivation as well as by providing a 35-year contract
certificate for the use right that has enhanced the security of the land and any investment farmers
make in the land. The training that came in the package with the HKm implementation also
improved their human capital, especially in the area of forest conservation as well as improving
productivity of their HKm and private land. The increased availability of natural resource (land)
for production and the improved human capital that increased the productivity of the land also
improved the financial gain of the farmers as indicated by increases in income, percentage of
household with savings as well as the decline in number of loan and households with food

7/301, 2014
shortages. The financial gain also improved their physical capital, such as house condition as
well as possession of TVs and other items. The formation of groups for the implementation of
the HKm program and the frequent meetings that farmers have to undertake increased the social
interaction among farmers. This, however, appears to have had a negligible impact on other
forms of social capital, such as trust, among the farmers.
As the HKm program completely excludes the incentive mechanism (cultivated land) from
the forest, at this stage, the possibility of obtaining a win-win situation in terms of forest
conservation and rural development appears achievable. However, the possible increase in
population and possible expansion of demand for cultivated land may endanger the future
suitability of the HKm program. The current increased trend in the percentage of farmers sending
their children to school may have a positive impact on minimizing the prospective increase of
forest pressure on the forest. However, the future adjustment of the HKm program that considers
population forecasts as well as positive contributing factors, such as the possibility of future
generations being less dependent on the forest through other alternative livelihood strategies,
needs to be undertaken.
7.2 Policy implication

In order to improve the ongoing implementation of HKm, community empowerment of both
individuals and institutions must be developed so that people have the awareness and ability to
manage forests sustainably. Guidance by NGOs, universities, governments, and other
stakeholders is necessary to enable forest farmers to implement the HKm program well.
Technical guidance that could be provided to solve problems would be help in determining
boundaries, drawing up general and annual plans, nurseries, preparing reports, maintenance and
security, and calculating PSDH. If farmers can calculate the PSDH correctly, they will not suffer
losses and be periodically rewarded with harvests from the forest. In addition to technical
guidance, material and financial assistance such as measuring equipment for mapping land, soft
loans, seeds, and processing equipment will also improve the current implementation of HKm.
It will be necessary to study ministerial regulations such as those for HKm (P.52/MenhutII/2011), NTFP (P.35/Menhut-II/2007), and PSDH (P.18/Menhut-II/2007). This is because the
management of protection forests requires more energy than managing production forests,
especially in relation to the functions of protection forest so that NTFPs can be harvested.
Nevertheless, BW farmers still grow coffee which not includes NTFP in their HKm area.
Therefore in relation to PSDH, further studies should be done on commodities, the PSDH
amount that HKm farmers can receive, and how that benefits the management of protection
forests.
In addition, the functions of protection forests are important for water and soil fertility,
which makes the ecological aspect as important as the economic and social aspects. The number
of woody plants and trees planted by forest farmers is an important factor in maintaining the
ecological functions of HKm areas in protection forests. This needs to be coupled with the
assessment and sale of environmental services such as water and carbon sequestration.
Regulations related to carbon -Minister of Forestry P.30/Menhut-II/2009, P.36/Menhut-II/2009,

7/301, 2014
and P.20/Menhut-II/2012 should be implemented so that people can derive additional economic
benefit from managing HKm forests.HKm program give the impact on livelihood and forest. It is
necessary support by give facilities. Regarding to the forest
References
Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C. 2004. Household characteristics and forest
dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological
economics, 48(2), 245-257.
Ahmed, I,. and Lipton, M., 1997,. Impact of structural adjustment on sustainable rural
livelihoods: a review of the literature, IDS Working Paper 62, Brighton: IDS.
Akiefnawati R, Villamor GB, Zulfikar F, Budisetiawan I, Mulyoutami E, Ayat A, van Noordwijk
M. 2010. Stewardship Agreement to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
(REDD): Case study from Lubuk Beringins Hutan Desa, Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia.
International Forestry Review 12: 349-360.
Arifin B. 2006. Transaction cost analysis of upstream-downstream relations in watershed
services: lessons from community-based forestry management in Sumatra, Indonesia. Quarterly
Journal of International Agriculture 45: 361-376.
Arifin B, Swallow BM, Suyanto S, Coe RD. 2009. A conjoint analysis of farmer preference for
community forestry contract in the Sumberjaya Watershed, Indonesia. Ecological Economics
68:2040-2050.
Ashley, C., & Carney, D. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience (Vol. 7,
No. 1). London: Department for International Development.
Ashley, C., & Hussein, K. 2000. Developing methodologies for livelihood impact assessment:
experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa (pp. 1-61). Overseas Development
Institute.
Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., & Mathijs, E. 2008.
Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern
Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems, 98(2), 147-155.
Belcher, B., Ruz-Prez, M., & Achdiawan, R. 2005. Global patterns and trends in the use and
management of commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. World
development, 33(9), 1435-1452.
Balooni K, Inoue M. 2007. Decentralized forest management in South and Southeast Asia.
Journal of Forestry 105: 414.
Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural
livelihoods and poverty. World development, 27(12), 2021-2044.
Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? Papers
presented at the Department for International Development's Natural Resources Advisers'
Conference, July 1998. In Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make?

7/301, 2014
Papers presented at the Department for International Development's Natural Resources
Advisers' Conference, July 1998. Department for International Development (DFID).
Campbell, J. Y. 2002. Differing perspectives on community forestry in Indonesia. Which way
forward, 110-125, in C. P. Colfer and I. A. P. Resosudarmo (eds) Which Way Forward? People,
Forests and Policy Making in Indonesia, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future/ CIFOR/
ISEAS.Campbell 2002
Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M., and Zindi, C. 2002.
Household livelihoods in semi-arid regions: options and constraints. CIFOR.Campbell et al
2003
Chambers, R. 1995. Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? .Environment and
urbanization, 7(1), 173-204.
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the
21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK).
Colchester M. 2001. Bridging the Gap: Challenges to community forestry networking in
Indonesia. CIFOR, Indonesia. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/CF/Indonesia_CF.pdf.
Accessed 7 Jul 2010.
Cramb, R. A., Purcell, T., & Ho, T. C. S. 2004. Participatory assessment of rural livelihoods in
the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Agricultural Systems, 81(3), 255-272.
Current, D., & Scherr, S. J. 1995. Farmer costs and benefits from agroforestry and farm forestry
projects in Central America and the Caribbean: implications for policy (pp. 87-103). Springer
Netherlands.
DFID. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for International
Development, London.
Djamhuri, T. L. 2008. Community participation in a social forestry program in Central Java,
Indonesia: the effect of incentive structure and social capital.Agroforestry systems, 74(1), 83-96.
Dorward, A., Anderson, S., Bernal, Y. N., Vera, E. S., Rushton, J., Pattison, J., & Paz, R.
2009. Hanging in, stepping up and stepping out: livelihood aspirations and strategies of the
poor. Development in Practice, 19(2), 240-247.Dorward et al 2009
Ellis, F. (2000.) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University
Press.
Fay C, de Foresta H. 1998. Progress towards Increasing the Role Local Play in Forest Lands
Management in Indonesia. Southeast Asia Policy Research Working Paper, No. 27. International
Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia, Bogor, Indonesia.
IFCA. 2007. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia:
REDD methodology and strategies: summary for policy makers. Indonesia Forest Climate
Alliance,
http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/LITBANG/IFCA/Summary%204%20policy
%20makers_final.pdf
Indrawan D, Riza F, Pasya G, Rozi, Ismaison, Hariwibowo R. 2003. Studi Pendahuluan
Pelaksanaan Kebijakan Hutan Kemasyarakatan (HKm) di Provinsi Lampung. Watala,
http://www.watala.org/dataPDF/Studi%20Pendahuluan%20Pelaksanaan%20Kebijakan

7/301, 2014
%20Hutan%20Kemasyarakatan%20(HKm)%20di%20Propinsi%20Lampung.pdf.
Indonesian).
(In
Kaskoyo H, Mohammed AJ, Inoue M. (2014). Present State of Community Forestry (Hutan
Kemasyarakatan/HKm) Program in a Protection Forest and Its Chalenges: Case Study in
Lampung Province, Indonesia. Journal of Forest Science 30(1):15-29.
Kraaijeveld, L. D. 2013. The Impact of Community Forestry schemes on rural livelihoods.
Evidence from Gunung Kidul regency, Java, Indonesia.
Krantz, L. (2001). The sustainable livelihood approach to poverty reduction.Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency, 2, 42-98.
Lampung Provincial Forestry Office. 2008. Buku Data dan Informasi Kehutanan Provinsi
Lampung, 2008. Bandar Lampung. (in Indonesian).Lampung
Long, S. A. (2004). Livelihoods and CBNRM in Namibia: the findings of the WILD project.
Loomis, J., & Helfand, G. E. 2001. Environmental policy analysis for decision making.
Amsterdam,, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Mahdi, Shivakoti GP, Schmidt-Vogt, D. 2009 Livelihood change and livelihood sustainability in
the uplands of Lembang Subwatershed, West Sumatra, Indonesia, in a changing natural resource
management context. Environ. Manage. 43(1): 84-99.
Maryudi A, Devkota RR, Schusser C, Yufanyi C, Salla M, Aurenhammer H,
Rotchanaphatharawit R, Krott M. 2012. Back to basics: Considerations in evaluating the
outcomes of community forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 14: 1-5.
Messer, N., & Townsley, P. 2003. Local institutions and livelihoods: Guidelines for analysis.
Food & Agriculture Org.
Miyamoto M. 2006. Forest conversion to rubber around Sumatran villages in Indonesia:
comparing the impacts of road construction, transmigration projects and population. Forest
Policy and Economics 9: 1-12.
MoFor. 2008. IFCA 2007 Consolidation Report: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation in Indonesia, FORDA Indonesia, http://www.dephut.go.id/uploads/files/
IFCA_Consolidation_Report.pdf.
MoFor. 2012. Forestry Statistic of Indonesia 2012. Ministry of Forestry, http://www.dephut.go.
id/uploads/files/BUKU%20STATISTIK%202012.pdf MoFor 2008
MoFor. 2013. Data dan Informasi Ditjen Planologi Kehutanan tahun 2013. Kementrian
Kehutanan. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan, http://www.dephut.go.id/uploads/files/
11344b6e85e729de9f41f7ea44d58c72.pdf. (In Indonesian).
Mohammed AJ, Inoue M. 2012. Explaining disparity in outcome from community-based natural
resource management (CBNRM): a case study in Chilimo Forest, Ethiopia. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 55: 1248-1267.
Nanang M, Inoue M. 2000. Local Forest Management in Indonesia: A Contradiction between
National Forest Policy and Reality. International Review for Environmental Strategies 1: 175191.

7/301, 2014
Nath TK, Inoue M. (2010). Impacts of participatory forestry on livelihoods of ethnic people:
experience from Bangladesh. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23(11): 1093-1107.
Niehof, A. (2004). The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems.Food
policy, 29(4), 321-338.
Ota, M. 2011. Implementation of the Community Forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan) scheme and its
effects on rural households in Gunungkidul district, Java, Indonesia: an exploration of the local
agrarian context. ,19(3), 123-133.
Pender J, Suyanto S, Kerr J, Kato E. 2008. Impacts of the Hutan Kemasyarakatan Social Forestry
Program in the Sumberjaya Watershed, Lampung Barat District of Sumatra, Indonesia. IFPRI
Discussion Paper No. 00769.
Pulhin JM, Inoue M. 2008. Dynamics of devolution process in the management of the Philippine
forests. International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF) 1: 1-26.
Safitri MA. (2006.) Change without reform? Community forestry in decentralizing Indonesia. In
11th IASCP Conference. Bali.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis.
Soussan J, Blaikie P, Springate-Baginski O, Chadwick M. (2000.) Understanding livelihood
processes and dynamics. Livelihood-policy relationships in South Asia working paper, 1.Soussan
et al 2003
Sunderland T, Powel B, Ickowitz A, Foli S, Pinedo-Vasques M, Nasi R, Padoch, C. (2013.) Food
security and nutrition. The role of forests. Discussion Paper. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Suyanto S, Noviana K, Beria L. (2007.) Poverty and environmental services: Case study in Way
Besai watershed, Lampung Province, Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 12 (2).
Toner, A. (2003). Exploring sustainable livelihoods approaches in relation to two interventions in
Tanzania. Journal of International Development, 15(6), 771-781.
Verbist B, Dinata AE, Budidarsono S. 2005. Factors Driving Land Use Change: Effects on
Watershed Functions in a Coffee Agroforestry System in Lampung, Sumatra. Agricultural
Systems 85: 254-270.
Vermeulen, S., Nawir, A. A., & Mayers, J. (2008). Rural poverty reduction through business
partnerships? Examples of experience from the forestry sector. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 10(1), 1-18.
Wollenberg E, Brian B, Douglas S, Sonya D, Moira M. (2004). Why are forest area relevant to
reducing poverty in Indonesia? Governance Brief no. 4. CIFOR. Bogor. Indonesia.
Warner 2003
WCED 1987

Hari Kaskoyo Resume of Special Seminar On July 30, 2014 Rev AJ3revHK3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hari Kaskoyo Resume of Special Seminar On July 30, 2014 Rev AJ3revHK3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Community Forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm) Program

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

1.1.3. Community forest in Protection forest of Lampung

Forest cover category

Source: Forestry Office of Lampung Province, 2011

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

1.1.2 Community Forestry in Indonesia

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

1.2 Research Problem

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

1.3 Research Objectives

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

1.4 Structure of Dissertation

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Figure 1. Structure of the dissertation

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

2. Conceptual and Research FrameworkTheoretical Framework

2.1.2 Livelihood and Sustainable livelihood

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

2.1.3 Livelihood/Capital Asset

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

2.1.4 Policy, institutional and economic context

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

2.1.5 Livelihood strategies and outcomes

Transforming structures & process

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Figure 2. Sustainable livelihood framework (adopted from DFID, 1999)

2.1.6 Livelihood sSustainability and HKmof Livelihood and CF

2.7 Problem with conventional SLF

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

2.8 Introduction a Sustainable Livelihood Framework for

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

2.2 Research Framework

Policy and implementation of program

Enabling and constraining environment:

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Enabling and constraining environment:

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Figure 32. A Sustainable Livelihood Framework for CF in protection forests Research

3.2 Selection of Study Site

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

HKm Area (ha)

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

3.3 Data Collection

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

3.4 Data Analysis

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

4. Present state of Community forestry and its challenges (Paper 1).

4.2 Forest management under HKm scheme

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

4.3 Reason of farmer participation on HKm program

4.4 Farmers perceptions of their role in HKm program

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

4.5 Frequent changes in HKm regulations and lack of capacity to implement it

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Hari Kaskoyo, 3rd year PhD

Regulation of The 1st

Protection, production and