You are on page 1of 95

i

Upper Kapuas Basin Livelihood Study


Team WWF:
Hermayani Putra
Rudy Zapariza
Patria Palgunadi
Yuly
Ian Kosasih
Marius Gunawan

Team ICRAF:
Suseno Budidarsono
Gamma Galudra
Niken Sakuntaladewi
Arif Rahmanulloh
Bambang Soeharto
Janudianto
Dudy K Nugroho
Elok Mulyoutami

Final Report
November 2008

ii

Acknowledgment
We would recognize and thank ICRAF team for providing research for the successful
completion of this study.
A number of individual were involved in the study, to whom we would like acknowledge.
Abi Ismarrahman who took the lead during data collection in the field. Zulkifli, Vivin, Radin,
Anusapati, and Sri to accompany us as facilitators along survey in Kapuas Hulu. Ami and
Hendri as enumerator to collect and interview people in the villages. Mr. Kamil and Mr.
Wahyu from TNBK (Taman Nasional Betung Kerihun) who share the knowledge and
facilitate us in Nanga Bungan. Mr. Kolomba from Sayut to give us place when we are survey
in the most beautiful village in Kapuas Hulu. Also with Mr. Rudy Zapariza & Patria
Palgunadi from WWF-Putussibau who always share about the update data and the
information about Kapuas Hulu. Mr. Mufti from Agriculture Department to share data with
us.

iii

Glossary
AMDAL

Analisa mengenai dampak lingkungan or Environmental impact assessment

APL

Areal Penggunaan lain or Non forest zone

BKTRN

Badan Koordinasi Tata Ruang Nasional

BAPPEDA

Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah or Regional Development Planning


Board

BAPPEDALDA

Badan Pengelola dan Pendendaliaan Dampak Lingkungan or Region Agency on


Enviromental Impact

BCR

Benefit Cost Ratio

BP2HP

Balai Pemantauan Pemanfaatan Hutan Produksi or Institute of Observation on


Production Forest Concession

BPDAS

Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai or Watershed Management Institute

CBA

Cost Benefit Analysis

DAS

Daerah Aliran Sungai or Watershed

Dinas LHSDM

Dinas Lingkungan Hidup dan Sumber Daya Mineral or Regent Agency on


Enviromental, Energy and Natural Resource

DPU

Dinas Pekerjaan Umum or Regent Agency on Public Service

DisBun

Dinas Perkebunan or Crop Estate

DisHut

Dinas Kehutanan or Forest Province Agency

DisTan

Dinas Pertanian dan tanaman pangan or Regent Agency on Crops and Agriculture

DisHub

Dinas Perhubungan or Regent Agency on Transportation

EPWS

Environtment Payment for Watershed Services

GNRHL

Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan or National Movement for Forest
and Land Rehabilitation

GRDP

Gross Regional Domestic Product

ICRAF

International Centre Reseach for AgroForestry

IRR

Internal Rate of Return

HTI

Hutan Tanaman Industri or industrial timber plantations

HTR

Hutan Tanaman Rakyat or Forest People Plantation

KPMD

Kantor Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa or Village Community Development


Office

NGO

Non Government Organization

NTFP

Non Timber Forest Product

NPV

Net Present Value

PDAM

Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum or Domestic Water Province Company

PWS

Payment for Watershed Services

RTRWP

Rencana Tata Ruang and Wilayah Propinsi or spatial planning of provincial level

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................ iii
Glossary .......................................................................................................................................iv
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... v
Appendix .....................................................................................................................................vi
List of Figure................................................................................................................................vi
List of Table ................................................................................................................................ vii
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.

Payment for Watershed Services.............................................................................. 6

1.2.

Objectives and Scope of the study ......................................................................... 7

1.3.

Methodology............................................................................................................... 8

1.3.1

The study site ........................................................................................................ 8

1.3.2

Village Study and Household Survey: Sampling procedure ....................... 10

1.3.3

Data and Data Collection techniques .......................................................... 11

1.4.

Organization of the report....................................................................................... 13

II. UPPER KAPUAS BASIN IN A DECLARED CONSERVATION REGENCY....................... 14


2.1.

Physical Setting.......................................................................................................... 14

2.2.

Demography ............................................................................................................. 21

2.3.

Kapuas Hulu Economy ............................................................................................. 22

2.3.1.

Agriculture as the leading sector.................................................................... 22

2.3.2.

Industry and manufacturing ............................................................................ 24

2.3.3.

Government Budget......................................................................................... 24

2.4.

Land Tenure, Watershed management and the Stakeholders ......................... 26

2.4.1. Land Tenure Systems and Natural Resource Management in Upper Kapuas
Basin
26

2.4.2. Land Tenure Analysis ............................................................................................. 32


2.4.3. Stakeholders Identification Analysis .................................................................... 33
III. LIVELIHOOD IN UPPER KAPUAS BASIN........................................................................ 51
3.1.

Livelihood Strategies: An Overview........................................................................ 51

3.2.

Households Characteristics ..................................................................................... 55

3.3.

Landholdings and land uses ................................................................................... 57

3.4.

Other assets ............................................................................................................... 58

3.5.

Income and Expenditure......................................................................................... 59

IV. REVITALIZATION OF RIPARIAN ZONE AND TEMBAWANG ENRICHMENT: AN


ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................... 62
4.1.

Future development scenario of Upper Kapuas Basin: a review ...................... 62

4.2.

Financial and Economic Assessments: Scope of Work and Analytical Tools... 63

4.3.

Revitalization of Riparian Zone................................................................................ 65

4.4.

Tembawang Enrichment ......................................................................................... 72

4.5.

Beneficiaries Perspectives: with and without intervention.................................. 74

V. CONCLUDING REMARK.................................................................................................... 76
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 83

Appendix
APPENDIX 1: The Tenure Form and Regulations in Upper Kapuas Watershed
APPENDIX 2: Household Survey Questionnaire
APPENDIX 3: Riparian Zone Development
APPENDIX 4: Tembawang Enrichment

List of Figure
Figure 1.
Th
e study Site : Upper Kapuas basin

Figure 2. Upper Kapuas basin

15

Figure 3. Land cover map in 2004

17

Figure 4. Spatial Planning by province Government In 2005

17

vi

Figure 5. Land allocation of Upper Kapuas Basin

19

Figure 6. Sketch of communities livelihood strategies in the three


sub catchments of Upper Kapuas basin

49

Figure 7. Plot Design of land use intervention to revitalize the degraded riparian zone of
Upper Kapuas Basin

59

List of Table
Table 1. List of sample villages, location and embedded watershed issues

10

Table 2. Sample villages and number of population and household sample by catchment

11

Table 3. Data required and Data Collection Techniques

12

Table 4. Land use Statistics of Kapuas Hulu regency and West Kalimantan Province, 2006 18
Table 5. Land use in Kapuas Hulu regency and Upper Kapuas Basin

19

Table 6. Demographic profile of Upper Kapuas Basin

21

Table 7. GRDP Kapuas Hulu regency 2003 2005

22

Table 8. GRDP per capita 2005 2006, West Kalimantan province


and Kapuas Hulu regency

23

Table 9. Government Budget of Kapuas Hulu Regency

25

Table 10. Rules and regulations on Local people Access based on


State Forest Classification in Upper Kapuas Basin

29

Table 11. Stakeholders Main task and Functions of Upper Kapuas Basin

33

Table 12. Stakeholders Perception on Upper Kapuas basin and the problems

37

Table 13. Summarize of Stakeholders of Upper Kapuas Hulu Basin:


mandate, interest and weakness

41

Table 14. Summary of Stakeholder Power in the Context of Land tenure

47

Table 15. Landscape situation in Sibau, Mendalam and Kapuas catchments

50

Table 16. Demographic Characteristics of Household sample

52

Table 17. Housing Condition

52

Table 18. Landholding size and land uses

53

Table 19. Kebun Distribution of Household sample, by type of kebun

54

Table 20. Transportation and Communication

54

Table 21. Household income by source of income

56

Table 22. Household expenditure by items

57

vii

Table 23. Riparian zone development scenario

63

Table 24. Cost of Establishment, labor requirement and return to labor


for riparian zone development

65

Table 25. Profitability of land use system for riparian zone development

66

Table 26. Estimated Expenditures and Labour Requirements of Riparian tree planting

67

Table 27. Tembawang enrichment scenario

68

Table 28. Cost of Establishment, labor requirement and return to labor


for tembawang enrichment

69

Table 29. Profitability of land use system for tembawang enrichment

viii

69

SUMMARY
Upper Kapuas basin is one of the pilot sites selected for implementation of Equitable Payment
for Watershed Services (EPWS) Programme, a WWF CARE consortium that implement a
new holistic approach of PWS that explicitly aims to balance poverty reduction with
conservation. The programme that is funded by DGIS (Government of the Netherland) and
DANIDA (Government of Denmark), tries to explore the trade-offs from a social angle, and
attempts to assess the viability of a business-case while promoting a socially just marketmechanism that delivers ecosystem conservation practices.
Series of studies have been
carried out in the early stage of the programme (Phase I), covering hydrological condition,
community livelihood, policy and legal context, and economic analysis focusing on cost and
benefit assessment.

Upper Kapuas basin and its three sub catchment (Kapuas Koheng, Medalam and Sibau), lies
at 112 50 00 114 12 00 East and 0 23 40 1 28 00 North. Administratively it is
situated within Kapuas Hulu Regency, in the northern part of West Kalimantan Province,
Indonesia, bordering to Sarawak Malaysia. It has an area of approximately 9800 km2,
covering 31% of Kapuas Hulu Regency. The area is the origin of most of the islands rivers,
Kapuas, Rejang and Lupar. Kapuas is the longest river in Kalimantan, encompassing two
provinces. Lupar River flows into Sarawak (Malaysia). The basin is classified as local
watershed, meaning that this watershed is located within one regency. Nevertheless, this
watershed has not been managed optimally. There is no management plan for the watershed
and no single institution or stakeholder play a role as a leading sector. Based on the existing
law, only forestry (UU no. 41 year 1999) considers watershed. It is because the law is within
forestry sector; there is a false understanding that watershed is the responsibility of Forestry
Department and less respond from other offices.
The main problem in the management of Upper Kapuas Basin is coordination and
synchronization of activities among stakeholders, across sector in the framework of integrated
watershed management. The Watershed Management Office is not able to convince that
watershed as an ecosystem should be the responsibilities of all stakeholders. That could be
one of the reasons why the Watershed Management Office is not able to develop the
watershed management plan. It is because there is no any formal institution to bridge this
stakeholder, the watershed forum in the provincial level was established.
Land tenure systems in Upper Kapuas Basin mostly use two different systems: statutory
system and customary system. These two systems have different rules, causing them to
dominate each other. This condition certainly not only affects stakeholders power
relationship, but also cause unclear of rules and institutions governing the land tenure
system. Most stakeholders access their differences by creating several local land regulation or
agreements, but they are still under dispute. Because 90.2% of Upper Kapuas Basin is
classified as state forest zone compared to 3.5% of non-state forest, there is a need to assess the
legal aspect of land access by local communities in state forest zone. Payment for Watershed
Services (PWS) depends on the incentives that will be given to local communities livelihood.
As most of the area is classified as state forest zone, legal aspect could hinder the possibility
for local communities to access the state forest zone and gain benefits for their livelihood.
Agricultural activities are the mainstay of economy of all villages visited during the field
study. In general, less permanent agricultural systems in the form of ladang and subsistence
in nature is one of the peoples sources of livelihood. Some people still practicing hunting and
gathering activities, such as fishing and gaharu collection. Tree based agricultural activities
such as smallholder rubber plantation, agroforestry, and tembawang are also found scattered

in the basin. Some people make their living from gold mining along the river in the upper
stream of Kapuas Koheng. They come not only from its vicinity villages, but also from
Puttusibau. In the downstream area with higher accessibility, some people practice more
permanent agricultural systems, such as irrigated paddy cultivation, food crop farming and
more market oriented.
Demographic characteristics of the study site were typical Kalimantan rural area; relatively
land abundance and scarce agricultural labor. Population statistics shows total population of
Kapuas Hulu Regency in 2007 was 216,918 inhabitants (5.1% of West Kalimantan) with 105
sex ratio (means there were 105 male populations per 100 female). Population density of
Kapuas Hulu was 7 persons per square kilometers (ps/km2) which is lower than West
Kalimantan Province (28 ps/km2), and is the lowest among the regencies in the province;
varies between 7 ps/km2 in Kapuas Hulu and 4,730 ps/km2 in Pontianak (the Province
Capital). As forest dominance regency, it is not too surprising that the population density in
Upper Kapuas Basin was also low (3 ps/km2). Agricultural density (population per hectare
of arable land) of Kapuas Hulu Regency is (4.6ps/ha) higher than in West Kalimantan
(2ps/hectare).
In the watershed understudy, agricultural density was less than 2 ps/ha, which is lower than
in the regencys and the provinces figures, It indicates that the availability of labor in the area
was relatively scarce. Looking at age structure, 65% of population in Upper Kapuas Basin
belongs to working age population (economically active population or age group of 15 years
old and above), and economically dependence population in the study site were 54%. This
circumstance might impede the introduction of intensive farming systems with high labour
requirement.
Agricultural production of the region consist of food crops (paddy, maize, tubers, and
vegetables), tree crops mainly rubber that mostly smallholder farm and oil palm
predominantly large scale operation, livestock (ruminant, pigs and poultry), and fresh water
fisheries. In general agricultural productivity is relatively low. Paddy production in 2004 was
57,667 ton with harvest area of 22,639 ha (irrigated paddy field was 9,602 and dry land paddy
or padi ladang was 13,037 ha). Smallholder rubber plantation in 2005 was 33,896 ha and the
production was 15,384.6 ton.
The household survey found that most of the household samples rely on agricultural activity
as their economic mainstay. More than two third rely on agricultural activities. Among
those who rely their livelihood on non agricultural activities as their main source of income
are engaged as civil servant, trader, carpenter, construction worker, gold mining, and home
industry. At the time of study, 23.8% of the family members of sample household are
attending school; most of them were in elementary level and few of them already in college.

There were family member never attending school before; 14.7% in Sibau, 10.2% and 15.8% in
Mendalam and Kapuas Koheng respectively. Proportion of the family member with higher
education level also low
Almost all the households control more than one plot of land. Average holding sizes per
household in the three sub-catchment are 3.18 ha in Sibau, 2.73 in Mendalam and 3.54 in
Kapuas Koheng. It is interesting to note that both in Sibau and Kapuas Koheng, which have
the maximum area per plot 20 and 30 hectare respectively, the study found plot that left idle
(fallow); 8.1% and 1.6% of their plot number respectively.
With regard to the land use system, most of plots were ladang and kebun. Ladang is mainly for
food crop cultivation while kebun is predominantly for tree crop cultivation. There were 78
plots (of 105 plots) used for kebun cultivation: gaharu cultivation is one of them and others
are, fruit base agroforestry, rubber based agroforestry and rubber monoculture. Larger
proportion of plot manage by household sample were rubber monoculture in Kapuas Koheng
and Mendalam.
Looking at sources of income, it is interesting to note that the more accessible the subcatchment, the larger proportion of income from off farm and services activities. Comparing
the three sub catchment under study, Kapuas Koheng is less accessible compare to the other
two sub catchment. The proportion of household income derived from agricultural activities
in Kapuas Koheng is the largest; contributed 42% of the household income. Similarly for
household income derived from extraction. While for household sample in Sibau, both
agricultural income and forest extraction income are the least compare to Mendalam and
Kapuas Koheng. Sibau has more road net work than Madalam and Kapuas Koheng. In
further detail, agricultural income contributed larger proportion of the household income.
At the expenditure side, as shown in Table 21 the largest expenditures were spent for food
consumption followed by transportation. From the household survey, the study found that
average household monthly expenditure were relatively low, ranging from Rp 713,000 to Rp
1,230,000 or US $ 76.6 to US $ 132.2.
Revitalization of Riparian Zone is to plant the degraded riparian zones in Upper Kapuas basin
(roughly 412 ha or 105 km in river length) with combination of trees that have deep roots
(anchoring function) and shallow roots (binding function) to maintain river banks stability.
Three main aspects to be considered to develop scenario for riparian zone development are:
biophysics characteristics, land tenure issue, and economic. Land tenure issues are mainly
relates to land status where the target area of development will take place. It includes state
controlled land such as state forest area and public land, and privately controlled land. The

locus of this will be the regulation to use the state forest land that already degraded. In many
cases the degraded riparian zone within state forest land status is difficult for people to take
any action, mostly because the regulation does not allow people to do so. On the other hand,
lack of resources from government side, hence Forestry Office, for such development
activities, might delay any urgent measures to stop further riparian degradation.
From profitability perspective, the Ex Ante farm budget calculation of all land use systems for
revitalizing the degraded riparian zone of Upper Kapuas Basin provide positive signal. All of
the proposed land use systems are profitable at 6% discount rate. Table 26. summarizes the
profitability parameters of all system proposed; the NPV are all positive sign, the BCR are not
less than 1, and IRR are ranging between 17% and 24%. By altering the discount rate to 15%
and 25%, all the proposed systems remain profitable at 15% discount rate, but not at 25%.
Developing agroforestry systems and enriching existing Tembawang systems is
recommendation come out from hydrological study. This activity focuses on providing
farmers with good planting materials of tree species that could provide additional economic
benefits to the local farmers. Farmers have indicated their interest on rubber (Hevea
brasilliensis), sugar palm (Arenga pinata), tengkawang (Shorea pinanga), rambutan and durian
(Durio zibethinus).
The Ex Ante financial analysis results of tembawang shows that Status Quo Scenario provides
the highest Return to Labor, Rp 152,101 per person day. It needs to be read with care, because
the systems only employ 11 person day/ha/year. From poverty alleviation point of view the
ststus quo scenario is not a good options. Natural replacement scenario is interesting, because
its establishment cost is the least among the other options (excluding status quo scenario). In
term of employment generation capacity, this scenario is not optimal. However, in the area
where labour scarcity is taking place, this option seems to be better than status quo scenario.
The other rubber based scenarios; Rubber Based 1 seems to be the best scenario. It provides
the highest Return to Labour, employs reasonably amount of labour. While other two rubber
based scenario are require more labour, meaning more employment opportunity generated,
but with Return to Labour not much different with the agricultural wage rate.
From
profitability perspectives, Rubber Based 1 is the best options.

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Payment for Watershed Services

The awareness to develop market mechanisms for the provision of watershed services has
become increasingly popular in watershed management in the last decade. It is believed to be
a promising way to better manage watershed and for financing of watershed protection
works. The mechanism is usually drawn up as Payments for Watershed Services (PWS) that
is essentially payments, rewards or compensations from users (watershed service
beneficiaries) to service providers for maintenance or provision of watershed services.
Upper Kapuas basin is one of the pilot sites selected for implementation of Equitable Payment
for Watershed Services (EPWS) Programme, a WWF CARE consortium that implement a
new holistic approach of PWS that explicitly aims to balance poverty reduction with
conservation. The programme that is funded by DGIS (Government of the Netherland) and
DANIDA (Government of Denmark), tries to explore the trade-offs from a social angle, and
attempts to assess the viability of a business-case while promoting a socially just marketmechanism that delivers ecosystem conservation practices.
Combining watershed
conservation to produce better environmental services with economic gains for the
community living in the watershed (as service providers or sellers) and the beneficiaries (as
service user or buyers) through sustainable used of the catchment area, the programme aims
to establish a financing mechanism that will deliver both sustainable natural resources
management and improved livelihood security.
Series of studies have been carried out in the early stage of the programme (Phase I), covering
hydrological condition, community livelihood, policy and legal context, and economic
analysis focusing on cost and benefit assessment. This report deals with livelihood study and
cost benefit analysis that were carried out by World Agroforestry Centre Southeast Asia
Regional Office with support from WWF Indonesia.

1.2.

Objectives and Scope of the study

Livelihood Study and Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) were conducted simultaneously, focusing
on two main concerns: (i) identifying the potential watershed services providers and (ii)
identifying the best land use change intervention. It is particularly important and essential for
the programme to understand who are the people involved in Upper Kapuas basin, how they
are using the land, how land use evolved, how this contributes to the core hydrological issues
and what compensation mechanism might be developed, if any, to better manage current
landscape in relation to current land uses.
Five research questions to be address therefore : (1) who are the potential providers of
watershed services?; (2) what is the livelihood status of the people who are living in the
target area?; (3) within these communities, who are the poor and why are they poor?; (4)
what is the likely cost of the desired land use changes on livelihoods of those people settled in
the critical areas (hot spots)of the catchment?; (5) what would be the viable options for
payments or compensations upstream? The first three questions are mainly but not limited
under the domain of Livelihood Study and the last two questions are mainly under CostBenefit Analysis domain. However, because most of the information for the Cost-Benefit
Analyses of the service providers was derived from the Livelihoods Study, the last two
questions were also covered by the Livelihood Study.
In further detail, the Livelihood Study comprises of three components:
First, macro setting the Upper Kapuas basin that includes physical characteristics of the study
area, economic performance, local (government) policies and regulations. This component
will provide the overall picture of the study site that describes any major trends that will
affect the farmers.
Second, village and livelihood analysis that covers: demography, land use and agricultural
practices, economic activities within livelihood environment context, infrastructure,
tenure arrangement (land status, tenure form, regulation, and potential conflict),
households income and poverty issues. This component of the study will provide
information to understand the current livelihood of the community living in the target
area, the land use systems, farm management practices and identify the opportunities
available for land use change through payments for watershed services.
Lastly, stakeholders analysis addressing two different groups: stakeholders analysis at
government level (LGU) and stakeholders analysis at community level and business
sector. This component of study will describe power to rule the area and jurisdiction,

power relationship between community and external, and the existing community
empowerment activities/program.
With regard to CBA, the main concerns are the most plausible interventions for alternative
land use management to conserve watershed as well as the cost and the benefit of these
interventions. The analysis, therefore, will consist of site assessment, constraint (tenure, labor
force, capital and market), opportunities, silviculture related issue, financial and economic
dimensions of the possible interventions.

1.3.

Methodology

1.3.1

The study site

Figure 1 presents map of Upper Kapuas basin and its three sub catchment (Kapuas Koheng,
Medalam and Sibau). Upper Kapuas basin lies at 112 50 00 114 12 00 East and 0 23
40 1 28 00 North. Administratively it is situated within Kapuas Hulu Regency, in the
northern part of West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, bordering to Sarawak Malaysia. It
has an area of approximately 9800 km2, covering 31% of Kapuas Hulu Regency. The area is
the origin of most of the islands rivers, Kapuas, Rejang and Lupar. Kapuas is the longest river
in Kalimantan, encompassing two provinces. Lupar River flows into Sarawak (Malaysia).

Upper Kapuas Basin

Indonesian part of
Kalimantan Island
(Borneo)

West Kalimantan
Province

Kapuas Hulu Regency

Figure 1. The Study Site : Upper Kapuas Basin


The study selected seven (out of 25 villages within Upper Kapuas Basin) to carry out in-depth
village study and household survey : three villages in Kapuas Koheng (out of the total 12
existing villages: Nanga Bungan, Sukamaju and Sayut ), two villages in Mendalam (out of
five : Datah Diaan and Tanjung Karang) and two villages in Sibau ( out of eight villages:
Sibau Hulu and Sibau Hilir). In selecting these sample villages, the study considered three

criteria: (1) the position of village within the sub catchment (upper lower), (2) vicinity
towards the hotspot, and (3) accessibility.

1.3.2 Village Study and Household Survey: Sampling procedure


Seven villages were selected for deeper assessment of communities livelihood residing in the
Upper Kapuas basin. These villages were selected according to their position within the sub
catchment, their vicinity to watershed hot spot, and its accessibility to urban-service centre.
Table 1 lists the sample villages and its criteria.

Table 1. List of sample villages, location and embedded watershed issues


Location
Watershed
Sub Catchment
Sample villages
within sub
Accessibility
issues
catchment
Kapuas Koheng

Nanga Bungan
Sukamaju
Sayut

Upper most
Middle
Lower

Gold mining
Gold mining
Riparian collapse

Very low
Low
Accessible

Mendalam

Datah Diaan

Upper

Low

Tanjung Karang

Lower

Forest
conversion to
large scale
plantation
Riparian collapse
Flooding

Sibau Hulu
Sibau Hilir

Upper
Lower

Riparian collapse
Riparian collapse

Accessible
Accessible

Sibau

Moderate

Village study and household survey were carried out simultaneously. Village study explored
general information of communities livelihood, current and historical land use practices,
current on-farm and off farm-activities, existing institutional arrangements, social and
physical infrastructures as well as access to public utilities. Information and data were
collected through observation, in-depth interview with purposively selected key persons, also
participatory rural appraisal through focus group discussion.

10

At household level, household survey collected households livelihood data, emphasizing on


household economy (employment, labor force, capital, and income), access to public utility,
and their perception on economically important of land use improvement/development for
maintain/restoring watershed functions. The study randomly selected 117 households for
interview, ranging between 15 an 20 household per sample village. Table 2 summarizes
number of population and number of sample household in respective sample villages.

Table 2. Sample villages and number of population and household sample, by catchments
Number of
Number of household
Catchment
Sample villages
household
sample
Kapuas Koheng
Nanga Bungan
134
9
Sukamaju
267
22
Sayut
225
20
Mendalam

Datah Diaan
Tanjung Karang

223
75

15
15

Sibau

Sibau Hulu
Sibau Hilir

346
312
1582

15
12
108

1.3.3

Data and Data Collection techniques

A combination of data collection techniques were applied in both Livelihood Study and CBA,
comprising of desktop study, intensive field survey and observation, Participatory Rapid
Appraisal (Focus Group Discussion) and household survey. Desktop study was applied for
collecting secondary data and information, such as physical and socio-economic
characteristics of the study site, which includes spatial data, statistical data and policy
documents. Quite a substantial amount of data and information were available from studies
reported by other agencies/institutes. Additional in-depth study for clarification was carried
out through in-depth with key informants, observation and focus group discussion. Table 3
summarizes data collection techniques used in the study according key issues.
Two interview formats were prepared for data collection. First, Semi Structured Interview
format that was used for colleting general data of Upper Kapuas Basin, both primary and
secondary data, through observation, in-depth interview with key informants and village
study.
Second, a structured interview format or questionnaire was used in household
survey. Data collected through household survey includes household characteristics,

11

household income, agricultural practices, other economic activities, housing condition and
access to public services.

Table 3. Data required and Data Collection Techniques


Key issues

Data required

Data collection techniques

potential providers of
watershed services

stakeholder characteristics and its


interest

(1) In-depth interview with key


informant and secondary data
analysis
(2) Focus group discussion

livelihood status of the


community

household characteristics,
household income, agricultural
practices and other economic
activities

(1) Household survey


(2) Direct observation
(3) Focus group discussion

poverty

household income, housing


condition, access to public services

(1) Household survey


(2) Direct observation
(3) Focus group discussion

cost of the desired land


use changes and the
possible positive
interventions

stakeholders interest to conserve


the watershed, prices data of the
necessary farm inputs, labor
requirements, tree growth,
production of the recommended
tree species

focus group discussion, secondary


data analysis, in-depth interview
with key persons and experts, farm
input price survey

the viable options for


payments or
compensations
upstream

Beneficiaries characteristics, the


probable benefit of land use
intervention

In-depth interview with key


person and experts, focus group
discussion, secondary data
analysis,

cost of the desired land


use changes and the
possible positive
interventions

stakeholders interest to conserve


the watershed, prices data of the
necessary farm inputs, labor
requirements, tree growth,
production of the recommended
tree species

focus group discussion, secondary


data analysis, in-depth interview
with key persons and experts, farm
input price survey

12

1.4.

Organization of the report

This report is organized as follow. Chapter II describes the overall picture of Upper Kapuas
basin, both the macro and local perspectives of key issues in watershed development within
the framework of EPWS. Chapter III discusses the livelihood of the communities as the
potential providers of watershed services and their interest in improving agricultural
practices for watershed development. Chapter IV focuses on plausible land use improvement
for watershed development in social and economics perspectives. This report will be
concluded with recommendation.

13

II. UPPER KAPUAS BASIN IN A


DECLARED CONSERVATION REGENCY

Kapuas Hulu Regency or Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu, within which Upper Kapuas Basin is
situated, has been declared as Conservation Regency since 2003 under the Bupati Decree No
144/2003. All development plans, therefore, should be aiming at or directed toward
conservation. The Bupati strongly forbids road construction in the national park for it has a
potential to destroy the conservation area. This is due to the large area of national park and
protection forest. Not to mention that the existing production forest provides the biggest
contributions to the economy of the region, strong commitment should be made to safeguard
the nature. What is targeted by EPWS programme conserving watershed seems to be in
line with or supported by the development agenda of the region. There has been a firm policy
foundation for testing EPWS concept in Upper Kapuas Basin.
This Chapter deals with the macro context of Upper Kapuas Basin, where EPWS initiatives is
being tested. By and large this Chapter is to understand the basin under study in the bigger
regional context in four parts: physical characteristics, demography, regional macroeconomic
context in which farmers lives, and lastly watershed management and its stakeholders.

2.1. Physical Setting


Geographically, Upper Kapuas Basin lies at 112 50 00 114 12 00 East and 0 23 40 1
28 00 North. Administratively, the area of basin lies within Kapuas Hulu Regency at
northeastern tip of West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, belongs to four districts
administration (Kecamatan Kedamin, Putussibau, Kalis and Manday) and Betung Kerihun
National Park Administration under the Ministry of Forestry, bordering to Sarawak
Malaysia in the north, to Embaloh Hilir District in the South, East Kalimantan and Central
Kalimantan in the east and Embaloh Hulu District to the west.

14

Upper Kapuas Basin consists of three sub-catchments (Kapuas Koheng, Mendalam and Sibau)
with a total area about 9800 km2 and each catchment covers 65%, 16%, and 19% of the whole
basin, respectively. The three main rivers in each catchment meet in Putussibau, the capital of
Kapuas Hulu Regency, West Kalimantan Province. The area is the origin of most of the
islands rivers, Kapuas, Rejang and Lupar. Kapuas is the longest river in Kalimantan,
encompassing two provinces. Lupar River flows into Sarawak - Malaysia (See Figure 2).

Upper Kapuas Basin

Kapuas Hulu Regency

Figure 2. Upper Kapuas basin

The topography of Upper Kapuas Basin encompasses plain, hill and mountainous area, with
elevation ranging from 30 2000 m above sea level. The upstream of this area is part of Muller

15

Mountain range and Kapuas Hulu Mountain range. Embaloh Group (85%) dominates the
geological unit of the area and the rest falls under the category of Kapuas Complex, Sintang
and Selangkai Stones and Lapung Volcanic. The soils of Kapuas Hulu belong to Ultisol
(Podsolic), Inceptisol (cambisol), Histosol (organosol), Gleysol (Glei humus), and Entisol
(Alluvial).
Af-aw climate (Koppen) is the typical climate of the area, which is isothermal tropical rain
climate with hot dry season. The average temperature is around 22 C and average rainfall of
3500-4500 mm per year. Wet months (or total monthly rain of above 200 mm) normally occur
for 10 12 months every year. Hydrological Assessment Report of EPWS Indonesia, noted,
based on rainfall data from Pangsuma Putussibau weather Station in 1996 - 2005, notes the
annual rainfall in Upper Kapuas basin is high, varying between 3300 - 4700 mm/year with an
average of 4100 mm/year1 (WWF-CARE International, 2007). The average monthly pattern
of rainfall also shows that Upper Kapuas basin is relatively wet throughout the year, with the
comparatively high monthly rainfall in November and December. The lowest monthly
rainfall occurred in March at around 300 mm per year.
In the northern part of Kapuas Hulu lies Betung Kerihun National Park, that is the origin of
most of the islands rivers, Kapuas, Rejang and Lupar. Kapuas is the longest river in
Kalimantan. The Lupar River flows into Sarawak (Malaysia). The river flow pattern varied,
from dendritic, parallel and trelis pattern in the northern part and southern part of Muller
Range, as well as anastosomic pattern in the alluvial plain (inundated areas). Betung Kerihun
National Park is a recognized hot-spot of biodiversity. It has a range of habitats, including
lowland Dipterocarp forest, wet hill forest, montane forest, moist forest, and swamp forest.
All are extremely bio-diverse, home to thousands of different plant and animal species, many
of them endemic to Kalimantan. They also represent some of the last-remaining natural
habitats on Kalimantan. Currently, forests in this area are under threat of being lost and
fragmented due to fire, logging and mining activities; which could cause (if not already has
caused) watershed functions degradation.
Land use in Kapuas Hulu Regency is predominantly forest. The result of land cover
classification analysis on 2004 Landsat image of hydrological study (WWF-CARE
International, 2006) shows, more than 90% of were forest cover, and only about 3% of the area
were crop land and agroforestry. This land cover map has an overall pixel-level accuracy of 77%.
The land cover patterns of the three main sub-catchments (Kapuas, Mendalam and Sibau) are
similar (Figure 3). Looking at the West Kalimantan Spatial Planning (RTRWP/Rencana Tata
Ruang and Wilayah Propinsi ) of 2004, approximately 56% of Upper Kapuas Basin is part of a
National Park, 36% of the area is under protection forest, 6% is under production forest

16

(limited and permanent) and only 2% or 214 km2 is free for other land uses including
settlement and agricultural cultivation (See Figure 4).

Figure 3. . Land cover map in 2004

17

Figure 4. Spatial planning by province in 2005

Land use statistics of Kapuas Hulu Regency shows similar land use pattern; forest is
dominant land use system in the region (See Table 4 and Table 5). It is interesting to note here,
forest area in Kapuas Hulu Regency is the highest in West Kalimantan Province, and 75.7% of
waste-abandoned land of the West Kalimantan Province lies in Kapuas Hulu.

Table 4. Land use Statistics of Kapuas Hulu Regency and West Kalimantan Province, 2006
Kapuas Hulu Regency
Percentage
of total
Kapuas
Hulu

Land use
Area
Settlements
Industry
Mining
Agricultural land

Percentage
of Provincial
figures

West
Kalimantan

16,509
375
242,663

0.55%

13.49%

0.01%
8.13%

7.75%
8.75%

122,350
2,030
4,840
2,774,022

Irrigated paddy field

4,134

0.14%

6.47%

63,872

Dry land paddy field

17,056

0.57%

4.63%

368,650

Ladang

43,505

1.46%

8.24%

527,944

30,549

1.02%

12.80%

238,701

147,419

4.94%

9.36%

1,574,855

Agroforesty
Plantation

18

Forest
Bush - grassland
Water body
Waste-abandoned land
Others

1,960,578
629,260
72,556
22,303
39,956

65.70%
21.09%
2.43%
0.75%
1.34%

31.56%
12.85%
21.65%
75.74%
13.47%

6,212,696
4,898,393
335,124
29,446
296,640

2,984,200

100.00%

20.33%

14,680,700

Source : Kalimantan Barat dalam Angka 2007

Table 5. Land use in Kapuas Hulu Regency and Upper Kapuas Basin
Land Use
National Park
Protection Forest
Peat land protection forest
Production forest
Converted production forest
Limited production forest
Non forest use land
River
Grand Total

Kapuas Hulu Regency


Area (km2)
10,825.2
8,045.6
45.8
1,578.7
992.5
4,598.7
6,161.2
582.5
32,830.2

%
33.0
24.5
0.1
4.8
3.0
14.0
18.8
1.8
100.0

Upper Kapuas Basin


Area (km2)
4,968
3,264.7
408.8
152.5
214.8
36.7
9,045.4

%
45.9
40.6
25.9
3.3
3.5
6.3
27.6

Looking at the land uses change in more detail one might understand how Upper Kapuas
Basin been manage. Forest has been one of the biggest sources of regency income. In the
Kapuas Hulu Regency Spatial Plan, it is mentioned that in 2001 there were 17 timber
concessions and timber plantation operated in sub districts Semitau and Hulu Gurung, timber
plantation companies in sub districts Manday and Putussibau. Many of these timber
concessions and timber plantations companies were closed down for either their permit were
finished, cannot be extended due to unsustainable management, or they had problems with
local communities causing not able to operate. In 2006, there were 8 timber concessions listed
in Kapuas Hulu Regency but only two of them were in operation, and in 2008 another timber
concession gets annual cutting permit in addition to the two timber concessions. Figure 5
describes land allocation of Upper Kapuas Watershed.

19

Figure 5. Land allocation of Upper Kapuas Basin

With the many timber concessions being closed and the government regulation to combat
illegal logging, many people do not have economic activity, particularly the ones in the buffer
zone areas. This has been the concern of the local government. Rubber has been one of the
main sources of economic income of the local people. About 70% to 90% of the people work
on rubber. But the government believes if communities only depend on rubber, their
economic condition will be the same. Therefore, the local government invites investors like
the oil palm companies. There are 21 oil palm plantations in APL areas. Sinar Mas, First
Borneo, and Salim Group are among the biggest oil palm investors. Approximately, oil palm
plantation occupies about 12% of land area or about 300,000 ha 350,000 ha. These oil palm
plantations started in 2007 and the permit will last for the maximum of 25 30 years. This
permit can be renewed once. The local government believes that oil palm plantation will
provide work, increase local economy, alleviate poverty, and generate multiplier effects.
Socialization has been made in sub districts and villages, and this year Salim group will build
oil palm factory with the capacity of 60 tons/day in Silet Hilir sub district. The Regency

20

Forestry Office has shown its concerned about the expansion of oil palm plantation that
potentially can be a threat to the forest.

2.2. Demography
Demographic characteristics of the study site were typical Kalimantan rural area; relatively
land abundance and scarce agricultural labor. As summarized in Table 6, population statistics
of Kapuas Hulu Regency (Pemerintah Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu, 2007) shows, total population
in 2007 was 216,918 inhabitants (5.1% of West Kalimantan) with 105 sex ratio (means there
were 105 male populations per 100 female). Population growth during six years (2000-2006)
was 2.24% per year; it was the highest in West Kalimantan Province; population growth rate
of West Kalimantan was 1.56% per year.
Population density of Kapuas Hulu was 7 persons per square kilometers (ps/km2) which is
lower than West Kalimantan Province (28 ps/km2), and is the lowest among the regencies in
the province; varies between 7 ps/km2 in Kapuas Hulu and 4,730 ps/km2 in Pontianak (the
Province Capital). As forest dominance regency, it is not too surprising that the population
density in Upper Kapuas Basin was also low (3 ps/km2). Agricultural density (population
per hectare of arable land) of Kapuas Hulu Regency is (4.6ps/ha) higher than in West
Kalimantan (2ps/hectare). It indicates that arable land available in Kapuas Hulu Regency
was relatively scarce than it was in West Kalimantan.
In the watershed understudy, agricultural density was less than 2 ps/ha, which is lower than
in the regencys and the provinces figures, It indicates that the availability of labor in the area
is relatively scarce. Looking at age structure, 65% of population in Upper Kapuas Basin
belongs to working age population (economically active population or age group of 15 years
old and above), and economically dependence population in the study site were 54%. This
circumstance might impede the introduction of intensive farming systems with high labour
requirement.

Table 6. Demographic profile of Upper Kapuas Basin


West
Kalimantan
Population

4,118,225

21

Kapuas Hulu
Regency
208,915

Upper
Kapuas
Basin
27,982

105.1

105.0

108.8

1.56%

2.24%

na

28.1

7.0

2.9

2.0

4.6

1.6

Economically Active Population

69.8%

na

65.0%1)

Dependecy Ratio

43.3%

na

53.9%

Sex Ratio
Population growth per year (2000-2006)
Population density (person/km2)
Agricultural density (person/hectare)

Sources :
1. West Kalimantan Statistics, 2007
2) Data Pokok Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu 2007
Note :
1) Estimated based on Kecamatan figures

2.3. Kapuas Hulu Economy


As EPWS programme would be using what is called as Business Case in introducing PWS
scheme in Putussibau, it is necessary to highlight the economy of the region in which Upper
Kapuas Basin situated. To understand the economy of Kapuas Hulu Regency, a simple
regional economic analysis was carried by distilling regional economic data available such as
Regional Income, Government Budget and other related productive sectors

2.3.1. Agriculture as the leading sector


Economic of a region can be seen from its Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) as sub
national GDP for measuring the size of regions economy. The GRDP is an aggregate value of
the final goods and services produced within the region for a particular year. It includes
regional estimates on the three major sectors including their sub-sectors. They are: (1)
agriculture, fishery and forestry, (2) industry sector, such as mining and quarrying,
manufacturing, construction, electricity and water, and (3) service sector, such as trade,
finance, transport, communication, storage, etc.
Table 7 present the GRDP of Kapuas Hulu Regency 0f 2003 2006, at 2000 constant price. The
value of GRDP of the region in 2006 was Rp. 1.02 trillion (US $ 108.7 million) with agricultural
sector was the main contributor the regions economy. In 2005 this sector increased by 4.1% to
50.5% as compared to 2004. The next significant contributor was trade sector (22. %); it was
2.3 % decreased from the previous year. While the other sector contributed less than 10%

22

respectively. Manufacturing and processing industry was less developed in the region. Even
in 2005 was decreased significantly to 1,8% from 2.8% of its contribution.
GRDP per capita is one of the aggregate macro indicators to measure the prosperity of the
people. In 2006, GRDP per capita Kapuas Hulu was US $ 538.5, slightly lower than GRDP per
capita of West Kalimantan (US $ 620.1). Compare to other regions in the Province, the region
in which Upper Kapuas Basin is situated, is relatively better See Table 8.
Table 7. GRDP Kapuas Hulu Regency, 2003 2005 (at year 2000 constant price)
2003

2004

2005

2006

1,015,913

996,137

999,995

1,032,646

120,013

107,227

101,729

108,700

47.6%

46.3%

50.5%

na

2. Mining and Quarrying

1.9%

1.9%

1.7%

na

3. Manufacturing Industries

2.3%

2.3%

1.8%

na

4. Electricity, gas & water supply

0.3%

0.3%

0.6%

na

5. Construction

7.2%

7.5%

6.9%

na

23.2%

24.3%

22.0%

na

7. Transport & Communication

2.3%

6.3%

2.9%

na

8. Finance, Leasing and Business Service

6.1%

6.3%

5.8%

na

9. Service

9.0%

8.9%

7.6%

na

GRDP Value (Million IDR)


US $ (000)

Proportion by Sectors (%)


1. Agriculture

6. Trade, Restaurant & Hotel

Table 8. GRDP per capita 2005 2006, West Kalimantan Province and Kapuas Hulu Regency
Summary
Regency
Minimum
Maximum
Urban
Minimum
Maximum
Kapuas Hulu Regency
Sources: West Kalimantan Statistics, 2007

23

2005

2006

263.9
691.6

272.7
715.2

593.2
1,056.2

633.1
1,107.7

521.4

538.5

Agricultural production of the region consist of food crops (paddy, maize, tubers, and
vegetables), tree crops mainly rubber that mostly smallholder farm and oil palm
predominantly large scale operation, livestock (ruminant, pigs and poultry), and fresh water
fisheries. There were also coffee, cocoa, pepper and coconut mostly in relatively small area.
Fruit production that mostly come from tembawang1 cosist of durian, rambutan, and
tengkawang
In general agricultural productivity is relatively low. Paddy production in 2004 was 57,667
ton with harvest area of 22,639 ha (irrigated paddy field was 9,602 and dry land paddy or padi
ladang was 13,037 ha). Smallholder rubber plantation in 2005 was 33,896 ha and the
production was 15,384.6.

2.3.2.

Industry and manufacturing

Industrial sector was less developed. There were few numbers of forest based industry
producing lumber, furniture, and other construction material; 66 companies with 88,282 cu-m
installed capacity and 325 labour employed. Others were small operation producing
handicraft, furniture and other household equipment..

2.3.3. Government Budget


The total government budget for fiscal year 2006 accounted for Rp. 520.12 billion
(approximately US $ 53.23 million). As presented in Table 9, it consists of largely Balance
Fund (deconcentration fund) from central government (97.5%) and only 1.7% of locally
derived regional income (Pendapatan Asli Daerah). Larger part of Balance Fund was Central
Allocation Fund or Dana Alokasi Umum (82.4% of the total revenue) that was granted by
central government to the region depend on the extent of the area and the population. While
1

'Tembawang' is a Dayak word use for the ancestral forests that they have protected for many generations.
Generally speaking, it refers to forests that include fruit trees and other valuable flora cultivated by the Dayak over
generations. Tembawang represents the management system practised by the Dayak tribe to establish gardens of
fruit and woody trees. The products of this effort are fruits like durian, langsat, rambutan, mango, tengkawang;
rubber of Hevea brasiliensis; timber for construction, charcoal and fuel wood; and also various plants that can be
used as local medicines.

24

Special Allocation Fund (Dana Alokasi Khusus) only 5.6%. The Special Allocation Fund is
basically development budget that is planned by central government and implemented by the
region. It reflects central governments priority in the development of the region.
At the expenditure side, it was 41.5% of the budget was allocated for routine expenditures
such as general administration and maintenance. Public services were budgeted for 48.4%
allocated. The government budget allocated to the Upper Kapuas Basin were mainly in the
form of governments apparatus salary, public services. Lack of data made makes this study
was not able to make detail assessment.

25

Table 9. Government Budget of Kapuas Hulu Regency, 2006


(million Rp)
520,152.07

%
100.0%

8,946.02

1.7%

507,286.86

97.5%

44,194.99
428,832.00
29,240.00

8.5%
82.4%
5.6%

5,019.87

1.0%

3,919.19

0.8%

EXPENDITURES

495,807.54

95.3%

Routine

216,023.55

41.5%

Public services

251,826.88

48.4%

18,088.52

3.5%

9,868.58

1.9%

24,344.54

4.7%

REVENUES
Regional revenue
Genuine Regional Income (tax, fee, retribution)
Balance fund (from central government)
National revenue sharing
Central allocation fund
Specific allocation fund
Provincial revenue sharing and aid
Other income

Revenue sharing and aid


Contingency
Surplus

2.4. Land Tenure, Watershed management and the Stakeholders


This section discusses on how watershed being managed in the context of land tenure system
and who are the potential stakeholders that potentially influence and affect the management
of watershed and the existing land tenure system in the study area. The objective is to seek
the current watershed management system and the stakeholders involvement to this system.
Another aspect that is included in this sub-chapter is the main tenure form aspect and its
major rules and regulations. This aspect determines the prerequisite condition whether legal
aspect could support or hamper the EPWS program.

2.4.1. Land Tenure Systems and Natural Resource Management in Upper Kapuas
Basin
Depending on the Dayak ethnics group subsist in the area, each village has different land
tenure system. Some of the systems are either influenced/adapted from national policies or
grown from community perspectives. Overall, there are two land tenure systems exist, which

26

operate simultaneously and not always compatibly in Upper Kapuas Basin management. The
first is the customary tenure system, based on the traditions of the Dayak adat law and handed
down from the ancestors. It is widely known that the adat law regulates a wide range of
issues from family relation and , marriage up to how to the use natural resources within their
domain. However, the following will focus on the tenure system, i.e., the rules and
institution governing the way land and natural resources are held, managed, used and
tranfered. The second is the administrative system governed by state rules and regulations.
Certain areas in upper watershed near or within the national park; are under state rules and
regulation especially regarding on access and use of land by local people.

Customary Land Tenure System


The rules of the customary tenure system are embodied in the knowledge of the village
elders. As long as tenure system is concerns, the elders refer to a "covenant" of the ancestors
that governs how natural resources can be used. Under the covenant, the land is inalienable
and must remain the property of the ancestors or their heirs. Members of the community, who
are descended from the same ancestral stock, will have equal access to land in relation to their
need. It is, however, possible for outsiders to gain access to land of the territory if they agree
to join the community and abide by the provisions of the covenant. Outsiders could only
borrow the land with the permission from adat elders as long as they respect local customs
and follow local norms. None of these people have attempted to obtain land for anything but
a single season of rice production. They could open reserve forest and use the land but do not
have the rights to transfer such as heritage.
Nevertheless, this covenant becomes gradually confusing. In some degree, outsiders could
own the land and have same access of land just like local people. For example, migrants from
Java in 1980s had obtained ownership right certificates from the village administration and
the area of this transmigrant, despite located within the territory of the Dayak people, is
beyond of customary law. These people do not need to follow local custom and tenure
arrangement. Even other ethnic of Dayak also could access the land and own different tenure
system from previous owner. Several conflicts have been recorded concerning on rules of
migrants/ different ethnics on access of land. Furthermore, since only the ancestor descendant
could access the land, land territory is important to be noticed by local people. However,
border disputes among different tribes have been found in this area and it is uncertain how
these disputes could be resolved. Each Dayak ethnic has no difficulty in marking its
territories boundaries but these boundaries are actually overlapped causing land access
disputes.

27

Ownership right began when certain families open the forest. This family then has the right
to either use the land or to transfer its use rights to another individual or family in the village.
The identity of the family who has primary rights to each cleared parcel in the territory is
known, as are the boundaries of these parcels, even in cases where the land is essentially
barren and has been put into long-term fallow. However, some local people, especially
migrants, tried to secure their access rights by registering their land through village
administration. They obtain letter of land provision signed by the village leader, thereby
converting their customary rights into freehold.
The transfer of use rights to land is common and involves a minimum of protocol. In fact,
such transfers are so easy and so common that it is quite difficult to determine that clear
primary rights to land in fact exist. Upon closer examination revealed that anyone who wants
to cultivate land to which his or her family does not have primary rights is expected to ask
permission of the primary rights holder. According to custom, no one who knew that the
primary holder was using land would ask for it, and the primary holder would never deny
permission to use land that was not needed. This system called borrow. The borrower can
only plant seasonal crops, while perennial crops or trees are prohibited to this land. There is a
consensus that whoever invests in the planting of trees becomes the primary rights holder for
that parcel. When dispute occurred, the adat elders at the village level will try to resolve it.
But when the disputes related to outsiders, then the temenggung (chief of tribe) will try to
resolve it based on local customs.
Another transfer system but not commonly used in practice is through purchase. However,
the transfer of most primary rights to land takes place through inheritance. Both men and
women have equal rights to inherit land as long as-and only for as long as-they continue to
reside in the territory. If they leave (for example, men might go to the city for long-term work,
or women might marry into another community), their land is passed to other members of the
family who remain in the villages.
The decision to open forest mostly requires a consensus decision by the village. In the past,
this decision was entirely up to the elders, in consultation with the population. Now, clearing
of any part of the forest the elders must submit the village's request to the officials of the
Forest Department (National Park and Forest Regency authorities), which insists that its
permission is required because the forested land in the village is part of the national domain.
Once a decision is made as to what part of the forest will be cleared, according to Dayak
tradition, the elders then distribute parcels among all the families who need land. In fact, in
recent years the Forest Department has refused all such requests especially within or nearby
the national park boundaries. In 2002, the Forest Department passed local land regulation for
adat people that the area of national park and several protected forest zone should be

28

protected and inaccessible for rice production system. The local land regulation is the result
of interactions between, on the one hand, the practices of state institutions that have power to
influence land decisions, especially from law; and, on the other hand, the room for maneuver
that, based on customary system, local people are able to obtain for themselves. Ironically,
this regulation is not all agreed by the adat elders and people.
In the past, the terminology of forest reserve according to customary law indicated an area
reserve for shifting cultivation (rice production). The local people were allowed to open and
cultivate this forest after elders and local people consensus. Today, this definition is mostly
still being practiced in lower watershed. However, unlike in lower watershed, the customary
system in upper watershed is greatly influenced by state interest to protect the forest. In this
area, the definition of forest reserve is changed into protected forest and therefore, customary
land tenure system has to be modified according to state rules and regulations. Several areas
intended for cultivated land are being classified as protected forest reserve.
In addition to these broad land tenure principles, the covenant defines numerous other rules
and interdictions. These include the requirement that each family should help each others
during opening forest/ burning season and there is a penalty for those who did not join the
fieldwork. The covenant also imposes restrictions on how and when non timber forest
products/ gold may be exploited to ensure a rational and sustainable exploitation of village
resources. And, it protects certain areas considered sacred, such as the lake/hill where the
endangered species are located or where the ancestors are buried.

State Land Tenure System


The analysis of state land tenure system covers government policies and regulations related to
natural resources and watershed management, especially in Upper Kapuas Basin. The state
land tenure system is mainly based on government legislation, but the analysis includes
policy statement from forest authorities in controlling people access. To help to analyze it, the
approach uses tenure form, existed in Upper Kapuas Basin, since each tenure form has
different rules and regulations. These rules and regulations are mostly derived from state
legislation, whereas the tenure form uses forest classification. Even though people access to
forest land is so limited, state rules still provide certain degree of access. Table 10 shows the
main tenure form and its rules.

29

Table 10. Rules and Regulations on Local People Access based on State Forest Classification
in Upper Kapuas Basin
Tenure Form
National Park

Protected Forest

Production Forest

Conversion Forest

Other uses

Rules and Regulations


The management uses zonation system,
consisting of sanctuary zone, wildlife zone and
use zone. Limited access for people and
plantation can be granted, but it is still
considered controversial. Several proposed
schemes for people access are traditional use
zone and forest community (HKm)
The purpose is to protect the hydrological
function of a forest. Reforestation is the main
objective, but people are allowed to gain non
timber forest product. Forest Community is
the only proposed schemes for people access.
People could access timber and non timber
product. But when the area is granted to forest
concessions, it is uncertain whether these
people could access it. Several proposed
schemes for people access are forest community
(HKm) and people plantation (HTR).
Mostly this area is granted for crop estate
plantation and big private plantation, but no
certain procedures how local people could get
this license.
Free hold title could be granted

Legal Basis
Law No 5/1990
Gov. Reg. No 68/1998
Law No 41/1999
Gov. Reg. No 3/2008

Law No 41/1999
Gov. Reg. No 3/2008

Law No 41/1999
Gov. Reg. No 3/2008

Law No 41/1999
Gov. Reg. No 3/2008

Law No 5/1960

Referring to Table 10, people have limited access to use state forest zone, particularly in the
national park, where access is only limited to the area of use zone and the kind of activities is
directly toward ecotourism.
The limitation of people access is due to the state policies recognize neither village territories
nor the local authority to manage lands which have not been titled, are not farmed
continuously, and are considered part of the national domain. For the most part, state
authorities have not concerned themselves with what happens on cultivated and fallow lands
that the village considers its own. Tensions between state and local tenure systems are more
common on forested lands. As described before, the territory of Dayak people includes a
forested area that plays an important role in the long-term resource management strategy of
the village. The Forest Authority believes equally strongly that villages do not and cannot
own such forests, which belong to the State. This view is driven in part by the sentiment that

30

the disappearance of the forests is largely due to slash and burn agriculture practiced by local
people. In reality, the government is more concerning on the issue that local tenure system
could obstruct investment especially when the government retains the authority to manage
such forests, including the right to grant permits to commercial woodcutters in production
forest. In 1980s-1990s, the commercial woodcutters mostly cut tembawang forest and create
bitter grievances for local people just like in Mendalam Sub-Watershed. From their
perspective, lands belonging to their ancestors are being subjected to rapacious exploitation
that is beyond their control, and they feel powerless to do anything about it.
Today, the local people has the power enough, especially when they were supported by
NGOs, to oppose any woodcutters to access their territories and successfully stop further
exploitation from timber concessions. For the Forest Department perspective, it creates the
situation of open access as no timber concessions exist in this area to control local people use
of forest. As a result, customary rules and authorities remain dominant, government
authorities have limited interference, and outside stakeholders are obliged to respect local
standards.
Unlike in production forest, states rules are more evidently found in the national park and
protected forest zones, in other word in upper watershed. Officially, the State allows villages
a nominal voice in the management of local forests in these areas. Certain degrees for local
people to access the national park zone and protected forest are allowed for example
collecting non-timber forest product, but local people could not own and plant any seasonal
crops. Perennial crops are allowed in protected forest but only for rehabilitation purposes.
They could not own these trees. It seems more likely that the Forest Department is more
concerning on protecting the forest from rice production cultivation. To support their
interests, forest authorities have created a spatial land zone which has been agreed by adat
institutions in 2002 in three villages, Datah Dian, Padua Mendalam and Bungan Jaya. This
spatial land zone has been agreed as a pact signed by both parties and acknowledged by
regency government.
The Forest Department also promulgates policies regulating villagers requests to clear forest
lands for agricultural purposes. Villagers have been informed that anyone caught setting fires
to clear land in the forest will be fined and/or imprisoned. In Kapuas Hulu Regency, such
restrictions are either unknown or ignored by the permit holders. The detail of the land
tenure system in each visited villages in Upper Kapuas Basin is presented in Appendix 1.

31

2.4.2. Land Tenure Analysis


The description above on land tenure system can explain three major issues for the programs:
1) who has access to natural resources, 2) are people willing to participate in the program
activities, and 3) how the benefits of the program activities will be distributed (Freudenberger,
1994).
1) Who has access to natural resources?
From the description, only the ancestor descendants could access the territory land. Each
different tribe of several villages has their own territory border. Outsiders could use barren
land or open a forest with the permission of adat leaders or land owner, but they could not
transfer the land. Moreover, these outsiders are not allowed to plant trees/ perennial crops in
that area since planting these crops could lead into land ownership. Clearly, it is only
ancestors descendant that could access the natural resource.
Therefore, clear territory border is quite necessity because local people will recognize which
forests/ barren lands are belongs to their ancestor lands. But the findings show that territory
border is still disputed among different tribes groups. No resolution mechanism are actually
could resolve these kind of disputes and more often, the local government is invited by the
local people to mediate and resolve it.
The description also shows that adat institution plays an important role on who has and who
do not have access to natural resource. Even the forest concession which has been granted by
the government such as in Mendalam Sub-Watershed could not operate when the adat
institution refuse their ancestor land become a timber concession area. In contrast, in different
area such as in Kapuas Koheng Sub-Watershed, gold mining activities by outsiders near the
river bank within the ancestor land are allowed by these adat institutions as long as they can
pay certain amount of money to the village administration/ adat institution and obey to local
customs. This rule has already been written in adat law.
2) Are people willing to participate in the program activities?
It seems that overlapping area between state forest zone and customary land may become an
obstacle to this program. In upper watershed nearby the national park, local people may not
be interested to participate if the area is located within the national park or reserve zone. The
pact between forest authorities and adat institutions would limit and prohibit local peoples
access and use to these areas. There is also a certain amount of disagreement which and
where exact location of forest reserves is located. For example, the forest authorities claim
that the area of forest reserve nearby the national park is beyond 2 km from the river bank.

32

On the other hand, adat institutions believe that the forest reserve is located beyond 5 km from
the river bank. Until now, this disagreement is still unsettled and the local people are
appeared hesitating to cultivate in this area.
Major concerns are not only about overlapping area and disagreement on forest reserve
location, but also territory border dispute among different tribe groups. A group of local
people tried to plant rubber trees in their land but these trees suddenly were cut down by
other different tribe group who claim the area as their ancestor land. Conflict on this latter
issue will impede any trees plantation programs.
Another important aspect is that there is certain rule to prohibit any users to plant perennial/
tree crops in borrowed land. This means that only the owner of the land who could plant
these crops.
3) How the benefits of the program activities will be distributed?
Most of the customary land is either under private ownership or communal ownership. It
would be easy to deliver any benefits if the located area is under private ownership.
However, this distribution will be difficult to deliver in communal ownership. For example,
tembawang (fruit trees) in communal ownership segregates trees and lands ownership.
Therefore, the benefits should be split for these persons. However, since this tembawang
could be inherited and gradually changed to individual ownership, clear ownership will be
hard to determine. Several conflicts have been identified regarding on tembawang ownership
and access. Therefore, there is need to review and harmonize land and tree tenure or
ownership. Clarification of tenure system in tembawang will not only improve investments
by local communities, but will also enhance contributions of trees to the economy and
peoples livelihoods.

2.4.3. Stakeholders Identification Analysis


Stakeholder is defined as any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake
(an interest) in or may be impacted/affected by a given approach to environmental
regulation, activities of another organization, or in how resources is managed. The
stakeholders of a watershed vary from one watershed to the others for activities at certain
watershed could differ from the others. The stakeholder analysis is divided into two levels,
first at government environment, and second at community level.

33

Government Institutions
Stakeholders of the Upper Kapuas Basin, their main task and functions and the existing
management of this watershed are discussed. These stakeholders, some of them are within the
provincial level but mostly they are within the regency level. In general, the function and
main task of these government stakeholders are based on state rules and regulations, but
some of them came from negotiations result with other stakeholders. Furthermore,
stakeholders perceptions on watershed are also studied.

1) Stakeholders Main Task in Watershed Management


The stakeholders, each of them has different mandate to manage the watershed. Table 11
below describes their main task and function in terms of watershed management.
Table 11. Stakeholders Main Task and Functions of Upper Kapuas Basin
Stakeholders

Main Task

Provincial Level
BPDAS (Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran
Sungai or BPDAS) Watershed Management
Office
BP2HP (Balai Pemantauan Pemanfaatan
Hutan Produksi) Region X Pontianak,
(Observation Unit of Production Forest
Concession)
BAPPEDA Provinsi (Provincial Development
Planning Board)
BAPPEDALDA (Regional Environmental
Impact Management Agency)
DISHUT (Provincial Office of Forestry)
Direktoral Jenderal Sumber Daya Air Propinsi
(Directorate General of Water Resource )
PDAM (Regional Water Company)

Technical implementing unit under the Directorate General of Land


Rehabilitation and Social Forestry, Department of Forestry.
Technical implementation unit under the Directorate General of
Forest Production, Department of Forestry.

Develop spatial plan and evaluate development planning


Monitor environment quality in the context of development
Planning and control forest zone management
Planning and implementing policy and technical standardization in
the context of water resource
Provide water for communities

Regency Level
BAPPEDA (Regency Development Planning
Board)
Dinas Kehutanan (Regency Office of Forestry)
Dinas Lingkungan Hidup, Energi dan Sumber
Daya Mineral (Regency Office for
Enviromental, Energy and Mineral Resource)
Kantor Perkebunan (Crop Estate Office)
Dinas Pertanian dan tanaman pangan
(Regency Office for Crops and Agriculture)

Technical office at regency level to assist Bupati (Head of Regency)


on development plan and regency policy
Develop technical policy and operational guidance in the context of
forest sector
Strategic plan and regency policy as well as technical
implementation in the context of environment, energy and mineral
resource
Develop technical policy and operational guidance in the crop estate
sector
Develop technical policy and operational guidance in the
agriculture sector

34

Table 11. (continued)

Stakeholders

Main Task

Dinas Perhubungan (Regencty Office for


Transportation)
PU (Public Work Regency Office

Provide transportation service

Kantor Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa


(Community Development Office)
PDAM (Regency Domestic Water Company)
Betung Kerihun NP

Develop technical policy and operational guidance in the spatial


development and settlement sector
Develop/strengthened village institutions and village economic.
Provide water service for communities
Technical implementing unit under the Directorate General of
Forest Protection and Natural Conservation, Department of Forestry

Among these stakeholders, three of them are technical implementing body under the Minitry
of Forestry. They are BPDAS (Balai Pengelola Daerah Aliran Sungai/ Watershed Management
Office), BP2HP (Balai Pemantauan Pemanfaatan Hutan Produksi/ Production Forest Monitoring Unit)
Region X Pontianak, and Betung Kerihun National Park. They implement their task as
indicated in the ministerial decree and are responsible to the Ministry of Forestry.
The BPDAS/Watershed Management Office has mandates to facilitate the institutional
development and to evaluate the management of watershed. These mandates include, among
other things, development of watershed management plan; information on watershed;
watershed management model; institutional and networking for management of a watershed;
as well as monitor and evaluate the management of a watershed. Unfortunately, this institute
has not developed a watershed management plan. Instead, it plays a more role on
rehabilitation of degraded forest and non forest area. This institution is involved a lot in the
GNRHL (National Movement on Land and Forest Rehabilitation) particularly in making a
tender to supply the GNRHL seedlings. In this GNRHL, this institution mostly coordinates
with the provincial and regency forest government. In this rehabilitation program, there is no
watershed prioritized to rehabilitate. The Watershed Management Office distributes the
seedling equally among the regencys.
The BP2HP (Observation Unit for Production Forest Concession Office), as indicated in the
ministerial decree, has main tasks among other things to provide certification for technical
labors in forest production, monitor and evaluate the implementation of sustainable forest
usage. Within this mandate, this BP2HP apparently also monitor the use of the area and the
security of ex timber concession/timber plantation area. This institution has also
responsibilities to socialize and prepare area for Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (Forest Plantation
manage by community). Although it has an important role particularly in the production
forest area, this institution has never been involved in watershed planning.

35

Unlike the other two technical implementing above, the Betung Kerihun National Park
management (tha park was declared as a national park in 1995) hold mandates to manage
800,000 ha of park area in terms of conserving the park resources and its ecosystem. The park
area has divided into sanctuary zone, wildlife zone (zona rimba), and use zone (zona
pemanfaatan). The park manager has also to improve not only the role and awareness of the
communities living in and around the park area and the local government towards
conservation, but also the well being of those communities. The Department of Forestry fully
finances the operational budget of this park. Generally speaking, the park manager is fully
responsible on the park area. Although this park covers 33% of Kapuas Hulu sub district or
55% of Upper Kapuas basin, this office does not know about the management of the Upper
Kapuas Basin.
The other stakeholders at the provincial level are responsible to the provincial governor and
the ones at the regency level are responsible to the Bupati, the head of Regency government.
Among these stakeholders are BAPPEDA Provinsi (Regional Development Planning Board)
at provincial level and BAPPEDA Kabupaten at regency levels. Both are responsible for
formulating development plan in their respective administrative area. The plan is basically
based on landscape and considers more on administrative area not on watershed. Other
functions of the planning agency are to evaluate the results of development plan, and to
monitor and control the implementation of master plan for regency development. These
functions are in questions. This planning agency seems to play more role as a budgeting
instrument and administration.
The provincial spatial plan of West Kalimantan Province was issued in December 2004 to
revise the previous 1999 spatial plan. This provincial plan functions, among other things, as
the basis to develop the regency spatial plan. Unfortunately, this provincial spatial planning
has not been approved by the National Planning Board (BAPPENAS). Consequently, the
Spatial Plan of Kapuas Hulu Regency that was issued in 2002, could not been implemented,
in particular the planned activities in the protected and production forest area. Local regency
government, therefore can only implement activities in the non forest zone with the total area
of 6,162.2 km2 or 18.8% of the total Kapuas Hulu Regency.
The other local organizations in the provincial and regency levels are technical institutions.
These institutions make their own plan as its respected mandates. The Regency Office of
Forestry for example, deals only with forestry sector. The Crop Estate Plantation Office deals
with plantation, the Regency Office of Environment, Energy and Mineral Resources deals
more on water pollution, environmental impact assessment (AMDAL), management of
mineral resources, the Regency Office on Crops and Agriculture deals with aspects related to
food crops, horticulture and livestock.

36

2)

Stakeholder Perception on Upper Kapus Basin.

Generally speaking the stakeholders in the provincial as well as in the regency levels consider
the forest condition and land coverage are in a good condition. They observe that flood hits
Putussibau twice a year (June/July and December/Jan). The flood stay for 3 to 4 days then
disappeared. The big flood is predicted to happen once every 10 years. In 2007 the flood had
reached 0.75 to more than 1 meter in height. This flood to some extent has disturbed
government activities for many of the government employee did not go to the office, but the
community living in Putussibau gets used to this flood. Instead of trying to work on the root
of the problem, they stock food and the traditional market will move to the location that does
not hit by the flood.
The stakeholders always relate forest and water. They believe there is forest there is water
and that deforestation leads to flood. But they, including the BPDAS, fail to explain why if
the forest is still in a good condition there is regular flood in Putussibau. None of these
stakeholders mentions about disturbance of watershed ecosystem, but the BAPPEDA
respondent. Although he was not so sure, he suspected the decreasing watershed function
due to illegal logging activities that caused forest degradation and illegal gold mining. In
general, these stakeholders seem do not have an understanding on this watershed ecosystem
in that watershed functions as a water regulator. If the watershed is disturbed, this can be one
of the caused of flood, landslides, erosion, sedimentation, and drought. Table 12 below
summarizes the perception of stakeholders toward Upper Kapuas Basin and the problems in
the watershed.

37

Table 12. Stakeholders Perception on Upper Kapuas Basin and the problems
Local Government
Administration level

Stakeholders Perceptions

Provincial Level
BPDAS (Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran
Sungai or BPDAS Watershed
Management Office)

The land coverage in Upper Kapuas Basin is in a good condition.


But there is a problem in Putussibau with an annual flood and a big
flood once in 10 year with a water level reached over 1 meter.
Office work has been disturbed but no one reported died because
of the flood. There is no management plan for Upper Kapuas Basin.

BP2HP (Balai Pemantauan Pemanfaatan


Hutan Produksi) Wilayah X Pontianak
(Observation on Production Forest
Concession Office)

Overall the forest is in a good condition. But for some reasons the
flood hits Putussibau annually. There is no management in Upper
Kapuas Basin.

BAPPEDA (Provincial Development


Planning Board)

Illegal logging and mining are the major problems. Lack of


coordination with Bappeda at regency level.

BAPPEDALDA (Regional Environmental


Impact Management Agency)

The river water has been polluted. There is not any management
plan for the watershed. Watershed Coordination Forum in the
province level has not functioned yet.

DISHUT (Provincial Office of Forestry)

Encroachment and oil palm expansion are the threat to


deforestation causing erosion and landslide. Working together
with customary authorities and promoting People Plantation Forest
(HTR) could halt these threats.

PDAM (Regional Water Company)

Illegal mining with using mercury has caused water pollution but
impact to the Kapuas river is quite low. The Kapuas Hulu Regency
Head issued a decree no. 144 year 2004 concerning development of
a team to tackle the illegal gold mining in Kapuas Hulu Regency.
This team has not well functioned and cooperation with authorities
could not stop this illegal activity.

38

Table 12. (continued)


Local Government
Administration level

Stakeholders Perceptions

Regency Level
BAPPEDA (Regency Development
Planning Board)

Illegal logging and mining destruct forest, causing major flood and
erosion.

Dinas Kehutanan (Regency Office of


Forestry )

Upland coverage (National Park, Production Forest, and protection


forest area) is in a good condition. But flood hits Putussibau twice a
year and it is predicted a big flood will hit this city once every 10
year. Kapuas Hulu is declared as a Conservation Regency, but it is
unclear how this regency should be managed.

Dinas LH, E, SD Mineral (Regency Office


on Enviromental, Energy and Natural
Resource)

A lot of illegal seasonal gold mining upland. Although there is no


water pollution yet, illegal mining potentially could damage water
quality.

Kantor Perkebunan (Crop Estate Office)

Generally speaking, land coverage in three sub watersheds is in a


good condition, particularly the ones located far from the river. The
area close by river is partly disturbed. Oil palm plantations, all of
them, are located in APL. There is

Dinas Pertanian dan tanaman pangan


(Regency Office on Crops and
Agriculture)

Nowadays, shifting cultivation is not an appropriate agricultural


practice. It is a threat to the environment. Local community
upstream practice shifting cultivation. Government has worked to
make them practicing permanent agriculture.

Dinas Perhubungan (Regency Office on


Transportation)

Dry season causes river water low. Putussibau can only be accessed
by road or air transportation from Pontianak and vise versa.

PU (Regency Office on Public Service and


Transportation)

Water level is very fluctuated. In the dry season there is not enough
water for river transportation. This migh relates to the land use
changes.

Kantor Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa


(Village Community Development Office)

The program focuses on the economic development of the local


communities but not on tackling the watershed problems

PDAM (Regional Water Company)

No problem with water quantity, but in terms of quality becoming


more problem due to erosion and landslides.

Betung Kerihun NP

The National Park is in a good condition. There is no management


plan for the watershed. Illegal mining is one of the major problem
and hard to handle. The park authority could only try to regulate
local people involed in this activity.

WWF

Local communities living upstream do not have capacity to


overcome the landslides in river bank.

39

3) Current management of Upper Kapuas Basin


Management of watershed is quite complex, involving many stakeholders with many
interests. This watershed management becomes an interesting issue since decentralization in
that regency government has to be able to finance the development in their region. Local
government is given a right to manage their natural resources within the watershed.
In Upper Kapuas Basin, management of this watershed becomes an interesting issue since
most of the watershed area is forest area and classified as national park, protection area, and
production forest area. The new government regulation related to spatial plan (UU no. 26 year
2006 and PP 26 year 2008) requires the approval of the spatial plan by BKTRN (National
Spatial Planning Coordination Agency) before it can be implemented. The implementation of
Regencys spatial plan is hindered because this regency spatial plan should refer to the
provincial spatial plan. This regency government can manage freely only the limited APL.
With the increasing number of people and its needs, the local government manages this
limited area for different purposes to earn maximum income for local development purposes.
Each office with its mandate tries to get a maximum benefit to support the development.
These institutions realize the needs to have integrated development plan in order to get
sustainable environment with sustainable benefits, but a lot to face in its implementation. The
Table 13 below provides general picture of different constraints faced by each institution
potentially involved in the management of Upper Kapuas Basin.
Upper Kapuas Basin is classified as local watershed, meaning that this watershed is located
within one regency. Nevertheless, this watershed has not been managed optimally. There is
no management plan for the watershed and no single institution or stakeholder play a role as
a leading sector. Based on the existing law, only forestry (UU no. 41 year 1999) considers
watershed. It is because the law is within forestry sector; there is a false understanding that
watershed is the responsibility of Forestry Department and less respond from other offices.
Although the mandate is in the Forestry Department, the Watershed Management Office as
an implementing agent has a mandate to coordinate, not to lead. In addition, the position of
this institute is a bit difficult for it is lead by the officer that has a lower position than Bupati,
the head of regency government.
In general, it could be stated that the main problem in the management of Upper Kapuas
Basin is lack coordination and synchronization of activities among stakeholders, across sector
in the framework of integrated watershed management. The Watershed Management Office is
not able to convince that watershed as an ecosystem should be the responsibilities of all
stakeholders. That could be one of the reasons why the Watershed Management Office is not

40

able to develop the watershed management plan. It is because there is no any formal
institution to bridge these stakeholders, the a watershed forum in the provincial level was
developed. The provincial governor issued a governor decree No. 56 year 2008 in July. This
provincial watershed forum is also a response of decentralization. The tasks of this forum
among others are initiating the development of watershed forum for Upper Kapuas Basin and
to make the publick aware of sustainable watershed management. This forum seems will take
over part of the task of Watershed Management Office. This forum, unfortunately, has not
functioned yet. It can only provide not more than suggestions.

41

Table 13. Summarize of stakeholders of Upper Kapuas Basin: mandate, interest and weaknesse

Institution

Mandate

Weakness in its implementation

Interest/expectation

Provincial Level
BPDAS(Balai Pengelolaan
Daerah Aliran Sungai)
Watershed Management
Office

Facilitate development of
watershed institution and evaluate
implementation of watershed
management.

Responsible to the
Department of Forestry

Development and evaluation


Do not have power to facilitate inter sectors to
form watershed institution
of integrated watershed management
plan (with watershed as a

Concentrate more on rehabilitation program,


particularly in provision of seedlings, and coordinate management unit, not administrative)
with regency Dishut in this rehabilitation program.

institution to manage the

Only provide suggestions to local government watershed is established

Watershed forum is expected


to be a focal point for Kapuas
Watershed.

BP2HP (Balai Pemantauan


Provide certification for
Pemanfaatan Hutan
technical labors in forest
Produksi) Region X
production, monitor and evaluate
Pontianak
implementation of management of
production forest and plantation
forest management

Responsible to the Department


of Forestry

BAPPEDA (Provincial
Development Planning
Board)

Coordination and synchronization among sectors are


not easy to do. The spatial plan developed by
BAPPEDA is based on landscape and considers more
on administrative area, not on watershed as a
management unit.

Develop and evaluate provincial


development plan

Have a good coordination only with All Forestry


Office

Watershed management plan


needs to develop
Involve in development of
watershed management plan and
evaluation

Coordinate related institutions in


watershed management plan

With the decentralization, this provincial BAPPEDA


has limited role in land allocation. It functions more as
an intermediary between regency and central
government
BAPPEDALDA (Regional
Environmental Impact

Coordinate the implementation of the


control towards ecological impact

Limited power

42

Develop programs to control


environmental impact watershed

Institution

Mandate

Weakness in its implementation

Interest/expectation

Management Agency)
Provincial Office on
Forestry

management.
Better coordination with Regency
Office on Forestry. Develop a
plan and implement watershed
management

Implement its decentralization


authority in forestry sector, i.e. to
protect and monitor the protected
forest

BAPPEDA (Regency
Development Planning
Board)

Develop and evaluate regency


development plan

The regency spatial plan is developed


based on landscape and considers more on
administrative area.

Does not have enough knowledge in


developing watershed management plan. The
Upper Kapuas Basin should be planned and
managed considering watershed as a
management unit.

Low enforcement for illegal logging


activities and illegal gold mining in
order to protect the watershed

Dinas Kehutanan
(Regency Office on
Forestry)

Manage the regency forest, leading


sector in forestry

Activities are concentrated in Gerhan


(forest rehabilitation)

Limited human resources to lead forestry


sector in the regency level

As the regency area is dominated by


conservation area, Conservation
Regency should be realized and there
should be an incentive from the central
government to the regency
government.

The work is concentrated in water pollution

Activities are concentrated on rehabilitation


(GNRHL), HTR, and HTI-rakyat (People - Pulp and
Paper Timber Concession) programs. These
programs are uncertain

Regency Level

Dinas LH, E, SD Mineral


(Regency Office on
Environment, Energy and
Mineral Resource)

Dinas Perkebunan (Crop


Estate Plantation Office)

Environmental impact
assessment

Tackle and control the


environmental pollution and
conservation of natural resources

Manage regency plantation,


particularly oil and rubber
plantations

Social problems such as community


claims over land

Limited transportation system and


expensive transportation cost to the inner area

43

Make a clear task for


environment, energy and mineral
resource

Involve LH in developing
watershed management plan

The state and private oil palm


plantation in highly expected to
help increase local economy
income.

Institution

Mandate

Weakness in its implementation

Interest/expectation

Dinas Pertanian dan


tanaman pangan (
Regency Office on Crops
and Agriculture)
Dinas Perhubungan
(Regency Office on
Transportation)

Development of agriculture, crop,


horticulture and animal husbandry

PU (Regency Office on
Public Service and
Infrastructure)
Kantor Pemberdayaan
Masyarakat Desa (Village
Community Development
Office)
PDAM (Regional Water
Company)

Control the public service, manage the


regency infrastructures, and settlement

Betung Kerihun National


Park

Manage the 800,000 ha park area in terms


of conserving the park resources and its
ecosystem

Managing road, river


and lake transportation;
o
Control the use of road

Unable to help preventing/controlling the


development of new settlement centre (pusat
pemukiman baru) along the river and road
that potentially disturb the environment

Need to have a watershed


management plan and policy to
support development of upland
poor.

The needs to have watershed


management plan for many villages
upland

The need to have policy to


support development of upland poor

River sedimentation that will


affect river transportation

Development of local potential and village


economic institution, and development of
community participation
Provide/manage drinking water

Cannot control consumers/ communities


who prefer to use river water for their daily
needs.

Limited human resources to safeguard


the park

Local community development


program is implemented together with local
village government, not with local
government institution.

Not able to contribute to regency


economic development yet (ecotourism has
not worked yet)

44

Good control over management of the


upstream for it affects the quality of
drinking water.

Being involved in planning and


implementation of watershed
management

Good coordination among


stakeholders in watershed
management

45

In general, there are two approaches in planning Upper Kapuas Basin. BAPPEDA made
a management plan based on landscape, considered more on administrative area taking
into consideration of development distribution. In this case, the Upper Kapuas Basin is
seen as part of regency area or consists of some sub-district area. The forestry sector, on
the other side, uses watershed as a management unit. Integrated management of
watershed, therefore for the border line of watershed does not always co-inside with
administrative boundary, there is high correlation between upstream and downstream.
The law no 23 year 1997 concerning on environment is expected to be able to coordinate
the management of this natural resources, but this law did not work effectively due to
the many laws issued in the reformation era that were more by sector, such as forestry
laws, plantation laws, management of water resources laws (UU Sumber Daya Air).
The Forestry Department in its law no 41 year 1999 specifically mentioned about
watershed. This Department, under the Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and
Social Forestry, is equipped with the Directorate of Watershed Management (Direktorat
Pengelolaan DAS) and its implementing unit (BPDAS) with a mandate to manage the
watershed sustainably. This has created misunderstanding of other stakeholders in that
the management of watershed is only a responsibility of the Department of Forestry.
The mandates of each stakeholder for different reasons face weaknesses in its
implementation, like forestry department can only facilitate and can not be the leading
agent, the stakeholders do not understand well about watershed ecosystem, the
watershed forum does not have any power to command only to advise, the lack of
resources to implement the mandates, etc. But overall, the main problems of natural
resources management within watershed area are coordination and synchronization of
stakeholders activities/programs. There are two aspects need to be coordinated to reach
common goals: the policy and the program activities. But this coordination will be
difficult to achieve if each sector is strongly bounded to the target of each sector.

Stakeholder Identification Analysis at Local Communities Level


This study shows that even though the customary authorities have power to affect
others in the context of land tenure, other actors have also certain influence in this
context causing changes on stakeholder power relationship on land tenure system. The
stakeholder identification analysis uses three categories:.
1) Which stakeholders who make rules concerning on resource management?
2) Which stakeholders who exclude others from resource access?

46

3) Which stakeholders who resolve conflict?


These categories pave the way for empirical analysis of stakeholder relationship
concerning on land tenure system: What institutions are involved in regulating land
tenure system? What roles do the authorities who have legal responsibility over land
and natural resources play? What is the concrete role of customary institutions? How are
the various types of institution called upon? Under what conditions and why? What
effects do these practices have in terms of conflict resolution? Does conflict resolution
scheme produce a level of regulation or, on the contrary, does it generate or perpetuate
tension and conflicts?

1) The Stakeholders who Make Rules Concerning on Resource Management


Many rules concerning on resource management, especially in lower watershed, is
under the customary system. As described in previously, this system usually include
primacy of first occupants, access to resources linked to community/lineage
membership, relatively easy access to cultivation rights for outsiders when land is
abundant, but rights differentiation between ancestor descendant and outsider, and
cultivation rights secured through labor and continuous use.
These principles are implemented and arbitrated by customary authorities. They have
the power to control their territorial such as allocate of land for cultivation/reservation,
administer a more or less sophisticated set of rules governing fishing, farming, and
gathering rights, grant access to resources to certain stakeholders only and may protect
the resources through bans on certain species, fish reproduction sites, calendar
regulations and so on. They also regulate access to land and resources and thus manage
the tension between land security as an individual good and land security as a
common good.
However, the power to manage natural resource is currently not in the hand of
customary institutions alone. Because of social and political change, and of the
intervention of the state and development projects, numerous actors are today involved.
When the customary land is located or near the boundaries of national park and
protected forest, forestry authorities influence and intervene the land regulations. In
terms of natural resource management, they mostly modify and change customary
system on the definition and application of rules and the allocation of rights, just like the
local regulation made in 2002 in Padua Mendalam, Datah Dian and Bungan Jaya

47

Villages. In this context, forest authorities involve in problems concerning protected


forests and national park.

2) The Stakeholders who could exclude others from Resource Access


Previous description shows that customary institutions have full control on determining
who have access to the natural resource. They could determine which areas that are
open for access and reject/ invite outsider to manage their ancestor territory land. For
example, the customary institutions could reject forest concession to exploit timber from
their ancestor territory, although this concession has legal permit from forestry
authorities. They also allow illegal gold miners to exploit their territories, despite this
act is against government law and approval.
However, in areas with many migrant communities, especially with better access such
as in lower-watershed, customary institutions influence is increasingly eroded. The
village administrative allowed this people to settle and farm the customary land and
moreover, receive land rights from them. Many migrant people are mostly Moslem and
they affect many customary people to convert their religion to Moslem. Consequently,
those people who convert are no longer considered as ancestor descendants, affecting
their rights of access to ancestor territory. In order to secure their land rights, they seek
village administrative protection and receive land rights provision, restructuring
village land tenure system just like in Sibau Hilir, Sibau Hulu and Sukajaya Villages.
Government sponsored of migrant settlement program in 1980s and 1990s also took
some customary land with limited involvement and customary authorities consent.
Through the village administration, the people from this program also receive land
rights. In this context, customary authorities have proved unable to control and regulate
the settlement of migrants, and are being further eroded by that massive influx. On the
other hand, government bodies at village level are increasingly being approached by
these migrant and converted people who seek land access and security.
3) The Stakeholders who could Resolve Conflicts
In this context, customary institutions are regulating land relations and conflicts within
customary territories. There, control over certain rituals, knowledge of buried
milestones marking territorial limits, etc. make it possible to examine claims of
anteriority and solve conflicts. Several hierarchies of conflict resolution are used, for
example, when the conflicts occurred concerning on land rights by local people, adat

48

elders of the village will mediate. On the other hand, when the land conflicts happened
between local people with migrants or different tribe groups, the temenggung (tribe
chief) will mediate. All of these mediation processes are based on customary system.
Problematic conflicts mainly concern the boundaries of these territories with other
different group ethnic ancestor land, such as in Tanjung Karang and Datah Dian
Villages. These conflicts often go back several decades and no overall customary
institution that can arbitrate them. The customary institutions tend to refer parties
involved in conflict to government official mediation, especially at regency level, but the
competing claims rely on different interpretations of history that can neither be proven
or refuted, therefore, creating uncertainties of the outcome.
In contrast, in the area where migrant population dominates such as in Sukajaya and
Sibau Hilir Villages, conflicts between migrants and customary people are usually
mediated by village administrative chief and the government administration. Migrant
people turn more and more to these people, marginalizing customary authorities and its
system. Table 14 below summarizes these power relationships.

Table 14: Summary of Stakeholder Power in the Context of Land Tenure


Stakeholders

Roles and Interventions

Comments on Power Relationship

Customary Institutions

Create land tenure rules and


access and act as arbitrator and
mediator of conflicts.

Unresolved conflicts concerning on


different territories boundaries,
unregulated massive influx of migrants,
and state supremacy on forest zone have
eroded the customary institution power to
control land tenure system.

Village Administrative

More concern on urban/


government development
program, but also occasionally act
as mediators related to the
program.

Migrants and converted religious local


people rely on village administrative on
land access, creating mutual alliances
among these groups, but marginalizing
customary authorities and by coincidence,
restructuring village land tenure system.

Forest Authorities

Intervene problems related to


national park and protected forest
zone, and restructure, by all
means, village land tenure system
based on state law.

Forest authorities, using state mandate,


modify and restructure village customary
tenure system. Potential conflict could
erupt as many customary people disagree
with the changes.

49

50

III. LIVELIHOOD IN UPPER KAPUAS


BASIN

This chapter examines livelihood strategies pursued by people and communities


residing in Upper Kapuas Basin to understand how they influence land use systems and
to find out the opportunities available for changing land use through payments for
watershed services. It draws attentions to the range of household economic activities
where they are engage in, and the data derive from household survey.
The study selected seven sample villages (out of 22 villages) within Upper Kapuas Basin
to be examined.
In each sample village, households sample were selected to be
interviewed using structured interview format (attached in Appendix).

3.1.

Livelihood Strategies: An Overview

In general, people residing in Upper Kapuas basin rely on combination of subsistence


agricultural activities and market-oriented crop and tree farming, hunting and
gathering. As been brought up earlier, Upper Kapuas Basin is characterized with
relatively land abundance and scarce agricultural labor; with agricultural density
(person-land ratio) was only less than 2 persons/hectare. Although agriculture is the
mainstay of the economy of the area, less permanent agricultural systems in the form of
ladang and subsistence in nature is one of the people peoples sources of livelihood (for
food production). It needs to note, all the settlements are situated along the riverside
and, for transportation reasons, most of the ladang with fallow rotation for food crop
cultivation are also practiced along the riverside in the basin. Depend on whether or not

51

the people practice proper conservation measure in their ladang, it might contribute the
degradation the watershed quality.
Hunting and gathering is also practiced by people in the upper part of the basin.
Extractive activities such as NTFP collection (gaharu, rattan, resin etc), and gold mining
along the upper stream of Kapuas Koheng sub-catchment, constitute source of
livelihood. These activities provide cash income for people. Fishing is another source of
livelihood too. The most popular fish to catch is Semah (Tor duoronensis). It has
relatively high economic value, and exported to Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Key
informants in the study site mentioned that at present it is hardly to find this species to
catch; one has to go to the most upstream to catch it. Many people from outside the
region also come for fishing this fish, as the price at the time of study was ranging from
Rp 300,000 (US$ 32) to Rp 500,000 (US$ 54) per kg at farm gate.
More permanent agricultural systems in the form tree based agricultural activities such
as smallholder rubber plantation, cocoa farming, mixed agroforestry systems, and
tembawang were found scattered in the basin. These kinds of tree cultivation, which
provide cash income for people, were mostly located in the riverside or not far away
from the riverside, especially in the area where river is the main transportation network
available, In downstream area, in the sample villages with higher accessibility close to
the Puttusibau urban centre, people practice irrigated paddy farming and market
oriented food crop agriculture (maize, vegetables).
The above is summarized in Figure 5 below that visualize the sources of livelihood of
the people in the selected villages.

52

Nanga Hovat
Nanga Bungan

Sibau
Datah Diaan
SIBAU
Sibau

Tanjung
Karang

MENDALAM
KAPUAS

Putussibau
Sayu
t

Sukamaj
u

Legend
Village

Gold mining

Ladang

Mature tapped
rubber

Sub village

Tembawang

Fishing

Newly established

Newly established
clonal rubber

Figure 5. Sketch of communities livelihood strategies in the three sub catchments of


Upper Kapuas Basin
In-depth interview and field observation gain general pattern of livelihood in relation to
the existing natural resources in Upper Kapuas Basin. As summarized in Table 15, the
study found that the land use pattern is ranging from intensive agriculture (vegetables,
irrigated paddy) system, especially in the area with high accessibility, tree based faming
systems , up to untouched natural forest.
The existing condition of the riparian zone in Mendalam sub catchment and Sibau sub
catchment have been an open area, where fallow rotation agriculture practices taking
place.
Newly established smallholder rubber plantations were also found in the sample
villages. Most of the rubber plantations were previously ladang where they used for
bush-fallow food crop agriculture. Once the ladang (that is usually community land)
converted to rubber plantation, the land status will change from common property to
become privately controlled land. Change in land status need to be discussed within
community beforehand.

53

Table 15. Landscape situation in Sibau, Mendalam and Kapuas catchments


Sibau
1907 km2

Mendalam
1579 km2

Kapuas
6315 km2

Land use

Forest, Tembawang systems,


Rubber systems, mixed-tree
systems, dry land
agriculture, shrubs, oil palm
plantation

Forest, Tembawang systems,


Rubber systems, mixed tree
systems (rubber, cacao and
fruit trees), shrubs, dryland
agriculture, oil palm
plantation

Forest, shrubs, fruit tree


systems, rubber systems,
dry-land agriculture

Riparian condition
Villages/
UpSub -villages stream

Many open areas


Sibau Hulu: Nanga Potan

Many open areas


Datah Diaan: Nanga hovat

Midregion

Sibau Hulu: Tanjung Lasa,


Tanjung Pandan

Datah Diaan: Pagung, Uma


Suling, Teluk telaga

Downstream

Sibau Hilir: Bua Manik,


Panggilingan

Tanjung karang;
Semangkok;
Nanga Sambus
Bukat, Kayan, Taman,
Melayu

Good condition
Bungan Jaya: Nanga Bungan,
Nanga Lapung; Tanjung
lokang: Tosoing loing,
Marang, Berarang
Sukamaju: Nanga Balang;
Metelunai; Beringin Jaya:
Nanga Keriau, Cempaka
Baru: Nanga Erak, Nanga
Enap
Sayut; Sukamaju: Pulau
Lunsara; Ingko Tambe;
Malapi: Suai
Punan, Bukat, Suru, Taman,
Melayu

Bukit Balio

None

Food crop: rain-fed paddy,


maize, groundnut,
cucumber, long bean

Food crop: rain-fed paddy,


maize, groundnut,
vegetables,

Tree-based systems: Cacao


(Theobroma cacao), rubber
(Hevea brassiliensis)

Tree-based systems/Kebun:
Pepper, rubber, rubber,
tengkawang, fruits, Jahe
(Zingiber officinale), kunyit
(Curcuma domestica)

Catchment area (km2)

Tribe

Bukat, Kantuk, Taman,


Melayu, Iban

Farmers group

KSM Tangke sio mambele,


Kelompok Lumut B erdaun

Main cultivated plants

Food crop : rain-fed paddy,


maize (Zea mays) sawi
(Brassica juncea), , cucumber
(Cucumis sativus), kangkung
(Ipomoea reptans), long bean
(Vigna sinensis )
Tree-based systems: Cacao,
rubber (Hevea brassiliensis),
pepper, tengkawang (Shorea
spp.), kayu belian
(Eusideroxylon zwageri)
Tembawang: Durian
rambutan, langsat (Lansium
domesticum), cempedak
(Artocarpus integer), jackfruit
and kelengkeng (Dimocarpus
longan)

54

Tembawang: Tengkawang
(Shorea sp.), durian (Durio
zibethinus), langsat (Lansium
domesticum ) rambutan
(Nephelium sp.), kelengkeng
(Dimocarpus longan)

NTFP: rattan, damar (Shorea


sp.), asam kandis (Garcinia
urophylla), sengkuang
(Dracontomelon dao)

With regard to tembawang (a community managed forest-like land use systems) that
consist of mix tree vegetation (fruit, timber, resin, medicinal, etc); it is unique in its
management. Depend on the ancestral rule embedded in each tembawang, the right of
each community member to access the tembawang is varies. It can be property of a tribe
living in a cluster of settlement; outsider has no right to get any benefit from it. It might
belong to group of people within a community. The other tenure form can be
individually controlled by core family of a certain tribe. However, most of the
tembawang has been very old, and economically has not been as the main contributor
for household income.

3.2. Households Characteristics


Table 16 summarizes demographic characteristics of sample households. Family size
ranges between 4 and 6 persons per household. Sex ratio varies between 93 male per
100 female in Sibau to 115 male per 100 female in Mendalam. Most of the household
mentioned that an agricultural activity is the main source of income; more than two
third rely on agricultural activities. Among those who rely on non agricultural activities
as their main source of income are engaged as civil servant, trader, carpenter,
construction worker, gold mining, and home industry.
At the time of study, 23.8% of the family members of sample household are attending
school; most of them were in elementary level and few of them already in college level.
There were family member never attended school is 13.9%. In Kapuas Koheng subwatershed about 15.8% of the family members never attained any formal education.
While in Sibau and Mendalam they are 14.7% and 10.2% respectively. Proportion of the
family member of the household samples with higher education level also low.
Looking at the housing condition, most of the household samples stay in wooden
houses. Most of the houses were with wooden floor. Not all houses were equipped
with toilet; In Sibau, there are 41% of the houses have toilet. While in Kapuas Koheng
and Medalam, there are only 27% of the houses equipped with toilet. The size of the
houses is ranging from 18 m2 to 175 m2 See the detail in Table 17.

55

Table 16. Demographic Characteristics of Household sample


Sibau

Mendalam

Kapuas
Koheng

Total

Population
Number of household sample

27

30

51

108

Number of family member

115

175

293

583

Family size

93

115

97

101

Agriculture

77.8%

86.7%

64.7%

74.1%

Non Agriculture

22.2%

13.3%

35.3%

25.9%

27.0%

21.1%

24.2%

23.8%

13.9%

14.3%

15.7%

14.9%

Sex ratio (male per 100 female)


Source of livelihood

Education
Household members attending school
Elementary
Junior Secondary School

4.3%

5.1%

5.5%

5.1%

Senior Secondary School

5.2%

1.1%

1.7%

2.2%

College

3.5%

0.6%

1.4%

1.5%

Education level
Not in schooling age

7.8%

10.8%

11.6%

10.6%

Elementary school

36.2%

52.8%

39.7%

43.0%

Junior Secondary School

19.8%

15.3%

18.8%

18.0%

Senior Secondary School

12.9%

9.7%

11.0%

11.0%

8.6%

1.1%

3.1%

3.6%

14.7%

10.2%

15.8%

13.9%

College
Never attending school

Table 17. Housing condition


Sibau

Mendalam

Kapuas
Koheng

Total

Number of houses

27

30

51

108

Floor size (ranges)

24 120 m2

20 140 m2

18 175 m2

18 - 175 m2

4.0%

20.0%

18.0%

14.8%

Building Material
Cement
Mix
Wooden

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

1.9%

96.0%

80.0%

78.0%

83.3%

0%

3%

8%

5%

100%

97%

92%

95%

41%

27%

27%

31%

Floor type
cement or tile
wooden
House with toilet

56

3.3. Landholdings and land uses


Table 18 summarizes land holding size and its land uses of the household samples.
Almost all the households control more than one plot of land. Average holding sizes per
household in the three sub-catchments are 3.18 ha in Sibau, 2.73 in Mendalam and 3.54
in Kapuas Koheng.
Looking at plot level, the area per plot varies between 0.25 hectare and 20 hectare in
Sibau; between 0.02 and 6 hectare in Mendalam and quite interesting in Kapuas Koheng,
which varies between 0.01 and 30 hectare. Both in Sibau and Kapuas Koheng, which
have the maximum area per plot 20 and 30 hectare respectively, the study found plots
that were left idle (fallow). They were 8.1% and 1.6% the plots controlled by farmers in
Sibau Kapuas Koheng respectively were left idle at the time of study. It need further
investigation whether the plot that left idle were due to lack of labour or it left idle due
to fallow rotation.

Table 18. Landholding size and land uses


Sibau

Mendalam

Kapuas Koheng

Household Sample (hh)

27

29

51

Plot number (plot)

62

68

122

Total area (ha)

85.75

79.27

180.42

Average area per household(ha)

3.18

2.73

3.54

Sum (ha )

85.75

79.27

180.42

minimum

0.25

0.02

0.01

maximum

20.00

6.00

30.00

average per plot

1.383

1.166

1.479

standard deviation

2.538

0.826

2.927

Descriptive Statistics

Land use (%)

plot

area

plot

area

plot

area

Irrigated paddy filed

1.6%

1.2%

2.9%

2.5%

2.5%

0.7%

Ladang /dry land farming

40.3%

17.2%

44.1%

41.3%

42.6%

50.2%

Kebun / tree-based systems

40.3%

57.1%

44.1%

49.8%

45.1%

44.8%

Tembawang

8.1%

5.2%

5.9%

5.0%

4.9%

3.0%

Homeyard

1.6%

0.3%

4.4%

2.5%

4.1%

0.6%

57

Fallow land

8.1%

5.8%

1.6%

0.6%

With regard to the land use system, most of plots were ladang and kebun. Ladang is
mainly for food crop cultivation while kebun is predominantly for tree crop cultivation.
In many cases, ladang system is fallow rotation agriculture with five to six years rotation.
Usually it is used for food crop cultivation mostly dryland paddy. While kebun, which is
used for tree cultivation, occupy relatively same proportion of ladang. As seen in Table
19, there were 78 plots (30.9% out of total plots controlled by the household sample) or
104.7 hectare (29.5% out of the total area controlled by the household sample) were used
for kebun cultivation; gaharu cultivation is one of them and others are, fruit base
agroforestry, rubber based agroforestry and rubber monoculture. Larger proportion of
plot manage by household sample were monoculture rubber.

Table 19. Kebun Distribution of Household sample, by type of Kebun


Sibau

Mendalam

Kapuas
Koheng
plot
area

Total
plot

Total
area

plot

area

plot

area

Gaharu
Fruit based Agroforestry

1
4

1.5
2.0

1
4

1.5
2.0

Rubber base Agroforestry

2.0

3.0

3.0

8.0

Rubber Monoculture
Other mix kebun

6.0

24

25.5

36

60.4

66

91.9

1.0

0.3

1.3

9.0

28

28.8

42

66.9

78

104.7

3.4. Other assets


Conoe and boat engine constitutes important asset for household living in Upper
Kapuas Basin, as most the settlement rely on river transportation. As seen in Table 20,
more canoe and boat engine belong to people in Kapuas Koheng and Mendalam subcatchments than in Sibau, which has better road network.
It seems, the lower accessibility of the area(less road network) the higher the people who
have canoe and boat engine. Few road networks available in Mendalam and Kapuas
Koheng sub catchments. While in Sibau, motor bike more dominant.

58

Table 20. Transportation and Communication


Sibau

Mendalam

Kapuas
Koheng

Total

Price (Rp 000


/unit)

Boat
Boat engine

2
2
6

2
1
10

3
5
32

7
8
48

600-700
250-1,000
6,000-20,000

Canoe

10

21

25

56

300-12,000

Motor-bike

16

15

38

5,000-22,000

Cell Phone

12

200-2,000

Bicycle

3.5. Income and Expenditure


Table 21 and Table 22 summarize household income and households expenditure
respectively. Looking at sources of income, it is interesting to note, the more accessible
the sub-catchment is, the larger proportion of income from off-farm and services
activities. As seen in Table 21, comparing the three sub catchments under study, Kapuas
Koheng is less accessible than the other two sub catchments. The proportion of
household income derived from agricultural activities in Kapuas Koheng is the largest.
Similarly for household income derived from extraction.
While for household sample in Sibau, both agricultural income and forest extraction
income are the least compare to Mendalam and Kapuas Koheng. Sibau has more road
net work than Madalam and Kapuas Koheng. In further detail, agricultural income
contributed larger proportion of the household income. In Sibau and Mendalam 37% of
household income were from tree farming. In Kapuas Koheng plantation contributed
42% of the household income.
Using Indonesia National Poverty Line, based on per capita income, which is Rp.
161,831 (US $ 17.40) per capita per month (BPS, March 2008), 54% of households sample
living in Kapuas Koheng are under poverty line. While in Sibau and Mendalam, 29.6%
and 40% of the households sample respectively are below poverty line. It shows that
access to economic centers in some extents contribute to the household income.
At the expenditure side, as shown in Table 21 the largest expenditures were spent for
food consumption followed by transportation. From the household survey, the studies
found that average household monthly expenditure were relatively low, ranging from
Rp 713,000 to Rp 1,230,000 or US $ 76.6 to US $ 132.2.

59

Table 21. Household income by source of income


Sibau
Agricultural

Kapuas
Koheng

Mendalam

Rp 000

Rp 000

Rp 000

39

226,600

43%

38

264,298

47%

84

376,245

58%

Food

9,880

2%

26,100

5%

28

88,780

14%

Livestock

15,750

3%

583

0%

19

4,733

1%

Tembawang

11

7,410

1%

27,180

5%

10,560

2%

Plantation

15

193,560

37%

20

210,435

37%

28

272,172

42%

12

32,624

6%

19

64,800

11%

38

131,568

20%

Gold Mining

0%

3,700

1%

20

99,748

15%

Forest products

0%

53,700

9%

17,000

3%

12

32,624

6%

13

7,400

1%

14

14,820

2%

37

266,050

51%

41

236,380

42%

23

145,830

22%

Farm laborer

10,800

2%

24,450

4%

2,400

0%

Construction laborer

18,000

3%

33,000

6%

21,600

3%

Trading

88,600

17%

75,400

13%

50,280

8%

Home industry

18,320

3%

15,600

3%

8,400

1%

10

10,900

2%

13

11,100

2%

300

0%

Extraction

Hunting

Off farm and services

Aid
Remittance

7,500

1%

34,200

6%

6,200

1%

Others

111,930

21%

42,630

8%

56,650

9%

88

525,274

100%

98

565,478

100%

145

653,643

100%

Total annual Income


Household sample (hh)

27

30

51

Minimum (Rp 000)

400

500

633

Maximum (Rp 000)

86,100

67,680

47,520

525,274

565,478

634,783

Average (Rp 000)

19,455

18,849

12,955

Standard Dev.

16,318

16,875

12,383

Sum (Rp 000)

Poverty

umber of
household sample
below poverty line
(per capita income
per month Rp.
161,831)

(29.6%)

60

12

(40.0%)

27

(54.0%)

Table 22. Households expenditure by items


Item

Sibau

Mendalam

Koheng

Total HH Expenditure ( Rp.000)

29,166

35,654

62,709

Monthly Expenditure per household


Rp 000
US $*

1,080
116.1

713
76.6

1,230
132.2

54%
9%
3%
12%
3%
14%
3%
1%

46%
9%
2%
5%
8%
27%
2%
1%

46%
7%
15%
7%
4%
17%
3%
2%

Item of Expenditure in %
Food
Cigarrete
Housing
Education
Health
Transportation
Clothes
Others

Exchange rate at the time of data collection was Rp 9,300 per US $

61

IV. REVITALIZATION OF RIPARIAN


ZONE AND TEMBAWANG ENRICHMENT:
AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

4.1. Future development scenario of Upper Kapuas Basin: a review


The hydrology assessment of EPWS programme in Indonesia identifies that
hydrological issues of Upper Kapuas Basin closely links to the quality and quantity of
river flow as an impact of forest lost. Stable and sufficient river depth is desirable for
boat transportation as many people in Upper Kapuas Basin use. Water quality issues in
the area are related to water turbidity due to erosion and sedimentation, as well as
pollution. The Public Water Service (PDAM) of Putussibau (the capital of Kapuas Hulu)
indicated that turbidity is a problem and most PDAM consumers are actually not using
piped water for drinking; they use it for other domestic purposes. People associated soil
erosion and sedimentation with logging and river bank collapse along the river.
Establishment of shortcuts for boat transportation has also added to the sedimentation
problem. Gold mining activities along the river also caused a substantial turbidity
problem. The hotspots areas of Kapuas Hulu Basins are in Sibau Hulu village of Sibau
catchment and Datah Dian village of Mendalam Catchment. These villages are the most
upstream villages in the basin and the location where most land use change by local
communities are occurring.
The study recommends the future development of reward mechanisms in the area could
be linked to activities that improve the (i) tree cover along river banks as well as (ii)
converting non-productive land, as these areas are contributing to sedimentation in the
river. The lack of existing hydrological data shows the important part of water and river
monitoring activities in the overall scheme. Three recommended activities are
revitalization of riparian zone, tembawang enrichment, and another activity to initiate
community based watershed management and river monitoring. The proposed
activities focus in Mendalam and Sibau catchments where degradation was observed to
be more prominent and existing local institutions are already strong.

62

The purpose of revitalization of riparian zone is to prevent and reduce river banks
collapse, thus reducing sedimentation in the river. Sedimentation is considered as as
part of the reasons in low quality of drinking water in Putussibau. Based on the 2004
land cover map, the degraded riparian zones in Kapuas Hulu basin has the size of
roughly 412 ha or 105 km in river length. With regard to tembawang enrichment, the
proposed activity focuses on providing farmers with good planting materials of tree
species that could provide additional economic benefits to the local farmers. Farmers
have indicated their interest on rubber (Hevea brasilliensis) and sugar palm (Arenga
pinata).
Community based watershed management and river monitoring is
recommended to be developed Mendalam sub catchment. In this scheme local
community are provided with financial payments to conduct activities that can protect
the riparian zones from collapsing. Full payment will be given on condition that over a
certain agreed period, the riparian zones and the river banks are intact. Thus, river
monitoring is part of the activities.

4.2. Financial and Economic Assessments: Scope of Work and Analytical


Tools
This chapter intends to assess the recommended activities from financial and economic
perspectives, focusing on the first two activities: revitalization of riparian zone and
tembawang enrichment. It is more to the methodological reasons for not including the
third proposed activity in the assessment at present. Initiative to develop community
based watershed management and river monitoring would be a complicated action
needed, and not clear yet what are the cost items and the benefit will be, and the
parameter of success needs to be defined.
The financial and economic assessment here applies broadly farm budget analysis based
on the recommended development scenario and the later findings of this Livelihood
Study. Three parameters will be used: profitability, cost of establishment and labor
requirements.
As long as profitability calculation is concerned, the appropriate measure of profitability
for long term investment is net present value (NPV), i.e., the present worth of benefit
(revenues) less the present worth of the cost of tradable inputs and domestic factors of
productions (Gittinger, 1992). Mathematically it is defined as:

63

where Bt is benefit at year t, Ct cost at year t, t is time denoting year and i is discount
rate. An investment (the practiced of coffee farming over 25 years since its
establishment) is appraised as profitable if NPV is greater than 0. The NPV is an
indicator for Return to Land. At the same time it is also been used to calculate return to
labor as an indicator of profitability for smallholders production incentives. It is
defined as the wage rate that sets the NPV equal to zero. Adjusting the wage rate until
NPV goes to zero can be used as a proxy for returns to labor since this calculation
converts the surplus to a wage rate. Returns to labor that exceed the average daily wage
rate, indicate that individuals with their own land will prefer this activity to off-farm
activities and it also justifies hiring non-family labor.
This study also applies internal rate of return (IRR) and Benefit -Cost Ratio (BCR) for
greater clarity. IRR is the discount rate that brings NPV to zero. Although IRR is
technically inferior to NPV for assessment of mutually-exclusive alternatives (Gittinger,
1982), but using makes the same point with greater clarity. While for CBR, the study
defines as the ratio of the present value (PV) of the revenues by the PV of the costs. A
BCR value greater than one indicates that discounted benefits exceed costs.
Cost of establishment is conceivably to measure how much money the project need to
spend for any land use change interventions. It is defined as the monetary value of as all
inputs used to establish the systems, whereas the term of establishment refers to
number of years to positive cash flow (Vosti etal, 1998). Technically, it is the discounted
cost of all inputs up to the year of positive cash flow, the number of year when the
system begins to provide positive return. Establishment cost is to be used as cash flow
constraint indicator to assess whether the investment required by the system is barrier to
adoption by smallholder
Regarding labor requirements, the assessment would like to know how many persondays are needed to implement the recommended land use change? Hence, number of
labor input for the establishment, number of labor input for operation and total labor
requirement. The answers of those questions are basically represent farmers constraint
of any agricultural activities; reflects constraint for farmers to adopt the technology of
combined with the assessment of labor market (Tomich et al, 1998. pp 69-70).

64

4.3. Revitalization of Riparian Zone


The recommended activity is to plant the degraded riparian zones in Kapuas Hulu basin
(roughly 412 ha or 105 km in river length) with combination of trees that have deep
roots (anchoring function)2 and shallow roots (binding function) to maintain river banks
stability.
Examples of trees that have moderate - deep roots are durian (Durio
zibethinus), petai (Parkia speciosa ), jati kertas (Gmelina arborea ), candlenut (Aleurites
moluccana), pasang (Quercus lineata), and mahagony (Swietenia macrophylla). Examples of
trees that have shallow roots are bamboo, semantung (Ficus padana), surian (Toona
surenii), and gamal (Gliricidia sepium). Wild coffee (Coffea canephora var. robinson) have
both properties of roots (Hairiah, et al. (2006).
Ideally, the proposed land use system should provide both ecological benefits for
community at large and economic returns for farmers involved in the programme. The
target side should be bush land, shrubs and grass land and crop land in the riparian
zone. The target community or farmers should be those who have the capacity to
effectively engage in long-term land use activities; the communities or group of farmers
residing in the vicinity of the target area. As much as possible, the technology applied is
adaptive enough to the local.

4.3.1. Lands use system scenarios


Three main aspects to be considered to develop scenario for riparian zone development
are: biophysics characteristics, land tenure issue, and economic.
Biophysical
characteristics are mainly slope to decide conservation techniques to be applied. Here
the study considers three slope classes: slope class 1 refers to flat area with 0%-8% slope,
(2) slope class 2 refers to gently undulating with 8%-25% slope, and lastly, slope class 3
refers to steep slope with more than 25% slope. Land tenure issues are mainly relates to
land status where the target area of development will take place. It includes state
controlled land such as state forest area and public land, and privately controlled land.
The locus of this will be the regulation to use the state forest land that already degraded.
In many cases the degraded riparian zone within state forest land status is difficult for
people to take any action, mostly because the regulation does not allow people to do so.
On the other hand, lack of resources from government side, hence Forestry Office, for

Hairiah et al (2006) developed two indicators that quantify the function of trees on slope tability:
(1) Index of Root Anchoring (IRA) and Index of Root Binding (IRB)

65

such development activities, might delay any urgent measures to stop further riparian
degradation.
From economic perspectives the study explores the viability of the land use system,
meaning that the land use change along the riparian should provide both economic and
ecological benefit. Operator will enjoy the financial return from the systems, while the
riparian is revitalized. Other aspects that closely link to this are the community and
people to whom the project would like promote as watershed service provider. From
this perspective the land use systems should socially acceptable.
Table 23 summarizes the development scenario to revitalize the degraded riparian zone
in upper Kapuas Basin. It is proposed to be implemented in Mendalam sub catchment,
for practical reasons. Basically there two category of state land: state forest area (it is not
always forested) and non forest area. There are various forest status embedded in state
forest land, from conversion forest (convertible to other land uses) to the more strict
regulation apply toward land use change, such as protection forest and conserve forest
such as national park. Although it is still open for discussion, the study deliberately
includes state forest area, with special attention on protection forest and the buffer zone
of Betung Kerihun National Park in the scenario. As a matter of fact, there are degraded
riparian zone take place within protection forest and also in the national park.
The development scenario that is designed in Figure 7, is basically addressing the land
conservancy measure to control erosion. Rigging and terracing with natural vegetative
strips (NVS) are the main important measure to be applied beside tree planting. Natural
Vegetative Strips (NVS) are narrow strips of naturally growing grasses and herbs
intentionally left unplowed along the contours of slope land farms. These strips serve as
buffers that prevent the soil from eroding during heavy rains and intensive cultivation
(Thapa, Garrity, and Cassel, 1998). Over time, these strips form stable terraces along the
contours. Naturally growing grass strips are usually indigenously grown and planted as
hedgerows by farmers in some part of Southeast Asia farmers (Garrity, 1993). The strips
filter pesticides, nitrates and soluble phosphorus, thus preventing runoff. Subsequent
land preparation and crop management become easier. Farmers are provided with food
foundation, and farms evolve into complex agroforestry systems, thereby increasing
productivity.
The NVS reduces the available cropping area by about 10 to 15%. However, the
cropping area utilized for strips basically depends on the steepness of the slope. The
steeper the slope, the greater the area used for strips. It is recommended to increase the
number of strips if the slopes are really steep. In principle the strips do not cause weed

66

problems as long as the farmers regularly maintain the NVS area and about 50 cm of its
surrounding through continuous cultivation. If the maintenance is good, no weed
problems will occur.
Concerning tree species, as has been discuss above, combination of tree species with
high root-anchoring-index (durian) and high root-binding-index (coffee) will gain land
conservancy measure. Within the riparian zone, it is recommended to have yielding
tress species to secure the financial gain for the operator, such as tengkawang and
rubber. The detail of scenario is presented in the Appendix 3 and Appendix 4.
Table 23. Riparian zone development scenario
Land status

Tenure scheme

Challenges

Conservation measures

Adoptability
Market
Regulation to
use state land,
and especially
state forest area

Ridging with NVS


Terracing with NVS
Tree planting: combination
of trees species with high
root-anchoring index and
high root- binding index:
Economically valuable
yielding tree species
durian, tengkawang, rubber
and coffee

Adoptability
Market
Willingness to
accept
Adoptability
Market
Willingness to
accept

Ridging with NVS


Terracing with NVS
Tree planting: combination
of trees species with high
root-anchoring index and
high root binding index
Economically valuable
yielding tree species
durian, tengkawang, rubber
and coffee

State land
Non forest area
Conversion Forest area
Production Forest
Limited Production Forest

Protection Forest
Buffer Zone of the
National park

Communal land

Land title
granted
Social forestry
(HKM, HTR,
PHBM)
Hutan Desa
Social forestry
(HKM, PHBM)

Decided by the
community
Hutan adat

Private land
NA

67

Figure 7. Plot Design of land use intervention to revitalize the degraded riparian zone of
Upper Kapuas Basin

4.3.2. Economic Assessment


The following assessment will address four dimension of the proposed scenario: (1) cost
of establishment, (2) labor requirement, (3) cash flow and (4) profitability. It is assumed
that all issues related to land tenure and legal aspect in using the land are already
settled. As an Ex Ante type of analysis, all prices used in the calculation is nominal
current price. The profitability calculation is based on a three hectare plot for all
scenarios. It is assumed that a single farmer could manage a three hectare plot
sustainably; producing cash income for their livelihood and simultaneously protecting
riparian zone. Each scenario is developed for 30 years time frame. The detail input output of all scenario are presented in the form of Input-Output Table as seen in
Appendix 3. Macro-economic parameters assumption used in the profitability
calculation are as follow: Exchange rate Rp 9,300 per US $, wage rate Rp 30,000/personday, real interest rate (interest rate minus inflation) 6% per annum.
Looking at the Cost of Establishment, as presented in Table 24, it seems that the
proposed land use systems are affordable for farmers to apply; ranging from Rp. 4.07
million per hectare for changing the land use systems in the privately controlled riparian

68

zone with slope class 3 (25% and up) to Rp. 5.99 million for changing the land use
systems in the privately controlled riparian zone with slope class 1 (0%-8% slope class).
Cost of establishment here is defined as the monetary value of as all inputs used to
establish the systems, whereas the term of establishment refers to number of years to
positive cash flow (Vosti etal, 1998). Beside, all of the proposed land use system will
gain positive cash flow at 4 and 5. It means, the proposed land used systems will start to
provide income in years 4 as the soonest and year 5 is the latest.
Looking at the labor requirement, to establish per hectare of the proposed land use
systems needs at least 187 person-day for privately controlled land with slope class 2
and the highest is on privately owned land with slope class 1. It is planned that on
privately controlled land with slop class less than 8% is allowed to plant dry land or
rain- fed paddy. At operational stage, the proposed systems require 36 53 person day
per hectare per year. Those estimate of labor requirements data indicate two things.
Firstly it indicate employment generating capacity of the proposed system in along the
riparian zone, and it means the proposed land use systems could generate income for
people surrounding. As seen in the Table 24. Returns to Labor of the proposed systems
are ranging between Rp. 81,000 and Rp. 92,000 per person-day; a reasonably higher than
the current agricultural labour wage, which was Rp. 30,000. Secondly, the estimate of
labour requirement figures indicates the number of labour needed to establish the
proposed land use systems per hectare. Looking back to the labor force available in the
basin, as been noted in the previous Chapter, agricultural density of the area under
study was relatively low. It was 2 person/hectare; means there is only 500 person-day
available for cultivation per hectare. Lack of labour could be the problem to implement
the proposed land use system.
From profitability perspectives, the Ex Ante farm budget calculation of all land use
systems for revitalizing the degraded riparian zone of Upper Kapuas Basin provide
positive signal. All of the proposed land use systems are profitable at 6% discount rate.
Table 25 summarizes the profitability parameters of all the proposed systems. The NPV
all the proposed systems have positive sign, None of the BCR less than 1, and IRR are
ranging between 22% and 27%. By altering the discount rate to 15% and 25%, all the
proposed systems remain profitable at 15% discount rate, but at 25% discount rate,
Privately/communal controlled land with slope class 8%-25% and slope class slope class
25% up, and the Degraded state forest area with slope class 0%-8% are not profitable.

69

Table 24. Cost of Establishment, Labor requirement, and Return to Labor for Riparian
Zone development
Land status and slope class 1)
Private 1

Private 2

Private 3

Forest 1

Forest 2

Forest 3

5,978

4,263

4,046

4,468

4,485

4,046

643

458

435

480

482

435

336

187

170

209

206

170

53

45

36

49

49

36

81,041

83,699

91,825

85,265

83,168

91,825

8.7

9.0

9.9

9.2

8.9

9.9

Cost of establishment
Rp 000/ha
US $/ha2)
Year to positive cash flow
Labor requirements
at establishment phase
(ps-day/ha)
at operational phase
(ps-day/ha/year)
Return to labor
Rp/person-day
US $/person-day

2)

Note
1) : Private 1: Privately/communal controlled land with slope class 0%-8%
Private 2: Privately/communal controlled land with slope class 8%-25%
Private 3: Privately/communal controlled land with slope class 25% up
Forest 1: Degraded state forest area with slope class 0%-8%
Forest 2: Degraded state forest area with slope class 8%-25%
Forest 3: Degraded state forest area with slope class 25% up
2) : Exchange rate : Rp 9,300/ 1 US $

Table 25. Profitability of land use system for Riparian Zone Development

Land status and slope class *)


Private 1

Private 2

Private 3

Forest 1

Forest 2

Forest 3

92,870

77,559

77,663

87,334

81,154

77,663

BCR

2.34

2.36

2.54

2.43

2.37

2.54

IRR

27%

22%

23%

23%

25%

25%

Net present value/NPV


(Rp 000)

70

In a nutshell, revitalization of degraded riparian zone is economically feasible to apply


land conservancy measures, combining ridging/terracing with NVS and tree planting of
high root-anchoring index and high root-binding index, which also economically
valuable yielding tree species. Such as durian, tengkawang, coffee and rubber.
Referring back to targeted area, the degraded riparian zones in Kapuas Hulu, which is
roughly 412 ha of 105 km in river length, the remaining questions are what does it cost
and what farmers will gain before the proposed intervention yielding any financial
benefit. Cost estimates is necessary for further action needed, and the benefit for
farmers at early stage of the intervention is also essential to be estimated. Assuming that
the implementation of the rehabilitation efforts will be done simultaneously, and the
year to positive cash flow will occur at year four, the following Table 26 presents the
estimates of total the expenditures during the first four years of the establishment,
labour requirements, and the proportion of labour cost. It needs to note that the figures
presented in the Table 26 does not include all the necessary indirect cost, such as farmers
meeting, project staff cost, farmers organization etc.
As seen in Table 26, the estimate of total expenditures during the first four years of tree
planting to revitalize the degraded riparian zone of Kapuas Basin is US $ 248,440. About
50% of this will be spent for farm labourer employed. During the first four year, it
requires 38,156 person-day, or about equivalent to 156 labourer, assuming 250 working
days per year per person.

71

Table 26. Estimated Expenditures and Labour Requirements of Riparian Tree planting
Slope Class 1
(247 ha)

Slope Class 2
(124 ha)

Slope Class 3
(41 ha)

Total
(412 ha)

Estimated total expenditure during establishment phase (nominal price)


(Rp 000)

(US $)

(Rp 000)

(US $)

(Rp 000)

(US $)

(Rp 000)

(US $)

Year 0

1,080,305

116,162

391,936

42,144

122,304

13,151

1,594,545

171,456

Year 1

295,981

31,826

73,830

7,939

24,610

2,646

394,421

42,411

Year 2

138,926

14,938

65,343

7,026

20,476

2,202

224,746

24,166

Year 3

58,731

6,315

28,630

3,078

9,417

1,013

96,778

10,406

Total

1,573,943

169,241

559,739

60,187

176,807

19,012

2,310,490

248,440

Proportion of direct labour cost


Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total

48.3%
56.8%
67.6%
79.5%
52.8%

39.8%
13.4%
65.6%
79.0%
41.3%

42.8%
13.4%
63.4%
78.7%
43.0%

45.8%
46.0%
66.6%
79.3%
49.3%

Labour requirement (person-day)


Year 0

17,407

5,193

1,743

24,344

Year 1

5,603

330

110

6,043

Year 2

3,131

1,428

336

4,896

Year 3

1,557

754

151

2,461

27,945

7,829

2,381

38,156

Note : Exchange rate : Rp 9,300/ US $

4.4. Tembawang Enrichment


Developing agroforestry systems and enriching existing Tembawang systems is
recommendation come out from hydrological study. This activity focuses on providing
farmers with good planting materials of tree species that could provide additional
economic benefits to the local farmers. Farmers have indicated their interest on rubber
(Hevea brasilliensis), sugar palm (Arenga pinata ), tengkawang (sorea pinanga), rambutan
and durian (Durio zibethinus). The area potential for this activity is in non-productive
land (shrubs and bush) and in existing crop land.

72

Table 27 present scenarios for tembawang enrichment. The focus of tembawang


enrichment is adding the existing tembawang with economically valuable yielding tree
species such as rubber, as the main cash crop plus tengkawang, durian and rambutan. It
includes tembawang with natural replacement, and combination of rubber trees with
other fruit trees.
Table 27. Tembawang enrichment Scenario
Number of
rubber trees
planted

Number of
Tengkawang
planted

Natural replacement scenario

Scenario

Number of fruit tress


planted
Durian

Rambutan

25

25

10

10
stumps/year

25

25

10

Rubber based 1 : Tembawang


with additional 150 rubber

150

50

50

25

Rubber based 2 : Tembawang


with additional 350 rubber

350

50

50

25

Rubber based 3 : Tembawang


with additional clonal rubber

550

25

25

10

Status quo scenario

The Ex Ante financial analysis results are presented in Table 28 and Table 29. Status
Quo Scenario is providing the highest Return to Labor, Rp 152,101 per person day. It
needs to be read with care, because the systems only employ 11 person day/ha/year.
From poverty alleviation point of view the status quo scenario is not a good options.
Other tembawang enrichment scenarios provide interesting figures. Natural replacement
scenario is interesting, because its establishment cost is the least among the other options
(excluding status quo scenario). In term of employment generation capacity, this
scenario is not optimal. However, in the area where labour scarcity is taking place, this
option seems to be better than status quo scenario. The other rubber based scenarios;
Rubber Based 1 seems to be the best scenario. It provides the highest Return to Labour,
employs reasonably amount of labour. While other two rubber based scenario are
require more labour, meaning more employment opportunity generated, but with

73

Return to Labour not much different with the agricultural wage rate. From profitability
perspectives, Rubber Based 1 is the best options.

Table 28. Cost of Establishment, Labor requirement, and Return to Labor for tembawang
enrichment
Status
Quo
Scenario

Natural
Replacement
Scenario

Rubber
based 1

Rubber
based 2

Rubber
based 3

Rp 000/ha

2,778

4,478

16,484

35,414

US $/ha*)

299

482

1,772

3,808

na

10

15

13

na

59

128

721

1,277

11

48

57

129

179

152,101

61,400

72,794

33,758

34,018

16.4

6.6

7.8

3.6

3.7

Cost of establishment

Year to positive cash flow


Labor requirements
at establishment phase
(ps-day/ha)
at operational phase
(ps-day/ha/year)

Return to labor (Rp)


Rp/person-day
US $/person-day *)

Note: *) Exchange rate : Rp 9,300/ 1 US $

Table 29. Profitability of land use system for tembawang enrichment

Status
Quo
Scenario

Natural
Replacement
Scenario

Rubber
based 1

Rubber
based 2

Rubber
based 3

15,582

16,676

18.918

3,353

6,725

BCR

Na

1.94

2.22

1.11

1.12

IRR

Na

Na

19%

9%

9%

NPV (Rp 000)

4.5. Beneficiaries Perspectives: with and without intervention


The study found difficulties to make a deeper study on the PDAM as beneficiaries of
Upper Kapuas Basin. Lack of reliable data available (in term of data consistency) and

74

also time available for data collection didnt allow the study team to make a deeper
investigation. However, base on the available technical report, a simple assessment was
carried as the following.
Depend on the quality and quantity of water in Upper Kapuas Basin, the PDAM, a
Public Domestic Water Company of Putussibau, as a potential buyer for watershed
services, will gain from the watershed conservancy measure. If the proposed land use
system has positive impact on water quality (reduce turbidity level) it certainly will
reduced the consumption of chemical expenditure in water purification. However, the
existing PDAM with six scattered inlets located in Putussibau, Kedamin, Semitau,
Selimbau, Jongkong and Bunut, would consider the proper place for target location of
the land conservancy measure. Without any measure to stop river bank collapse and
other sources of sedimentation and erosion, cost of water purification will increase
overtime. The 2007 corporate technical report noted that water production was 2.56
million m3, chemical used (for water purification) were: 35.8 ton of tawas (hydrated
aluminum potassium sulfate), 8.46 ton soda ash (Sodium carbonate) and 103 kg of
Chlorine. The figures would increase if water quality is not maintained.

75

V. CONCLUDING REMARK

Upper Kapuas basin is one of the pilot sites selected for implementation of Equitable
Payment for Watershed Services (EPWS) Programme, a WWF CARE consortium that
implement a new holistic approach of PWS that explicitly aims to balance poverty
reduction with conservation. The programme tries to explore the trade-offs from a
social angle, and attempts to assess the viability of a business-case while promoting a
socially just market-mechanism that delivers ecosystem conservation practices. The
programme is aiming at the establishment of financing mechanism that will deliver both
sustainable natural resources management and improved livelihood security by
combining watershed conservation to produce better environmental services with
economic gains for the community living in the watershed (as service providers or
sellers) and the beneficiaries (as service user or buyers) through sustainable used of the
catchment area.
The hydrological issues of Upper Kapuas Basin closely links to the quality and quantity
of river flow as an impact of forest lost. Stable and sufficient river depth is desirable for
boat transportation as many people in Upper Kapuas Basin use. Water quality issues in
the area are related to water turbidity due to erosion and sedimentation, as well as
pollution. The Public Water Service (PDAM) of Putussibau (the capital of Kapuas Hulu)
indicated that turbidity is a problem. People associated soil erosion and sedimentation
with logging and river bank collapse along the river. Establishment of shortcuts for boat
transportation has also added to the sedimentation problem. Gold mining activities
along the river also caused a substantial turbidity problem. The hotspots areas of
Kapuas Hulu Basins are in Sibau Hulu village of Sibau catchment and Datah Dian
village of Mendalam Catchment. These villages are the most upstream villages in the
basin and the location where most land use change by local communities are occurring.
This livelihood study and cost benefit analysis tries to link the hydrological problems
with the community residing in basin catchment, and assess the viability of the

76

proposed intervention to resolve the problems as identified in the hydrological study.


The concluding remarks of the study are as follows.

Macro setting of the basin and communities livelihood


Upper Kapuas basin and its three sub catchment (Kapuas Koheng, Medalam and Sibau)
lies at 112 50 00 114 12 00 East and 0 23 40 1 28 00 North.
Administratively it is situated within Kapuas Hulu Regency, in the northern part of
West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, bordering to Sarawak Malaysia. It has an area
of approximately 9800 km2, covering 31% of Kapuas Hulu Regency.
The main problem in the management of Upper Kapuas Basin is coordination and
synchronization of activities among stakeholders, across sector in the framework of
integrated watershed management. The Watershed Management Office, based in
Pontianak (Provincial Capital) is not able to convince that watershed as an ecosystem
should be the responsibilities of all stakeholders. That could be one of the reasons why
the Watershed Management Office is not able to develop the watershed management
plan. It is because there is no any formal institution to bridge this stakeholder, the
watershed forum in the provincial level was established.
Land tenure systems in Upper Kapuas Basin mostly use two different systems: statutory
system and customary system. These two systems have different rules, causing them to
dominate each other. This condition certainly not only affects stakeholders power
relationship, but also cause unclear of rules and institutions governing the land tenure
system. Most stakeholders access their differences by creating several local land
regulation or agreements, but they are still under dispute.
Since 90.2% of Upper Kapuas Basin is classified as state forest zone compared to 3.5% of
non-state forest, there is a need to assess the legal aspect of land access by local
communities in state forest zone. Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) depends on
the incentives that will be given to local communities livelihood. As most of the area is
classified as state forest zone, legal aspect could hinder the possibility for local
communities to access the state forest zone, and thus participate in the programme, and
therefore it is still doubtful whether or not the local community will gain the benefits
from the programme for their livelihood.
Agricultural activities are the mainstay of economy of all villages visited. In general,
less permanent agricultural systems in the form of ladang and subsistence in nature is
one of the peoples sources of livelihood. Some people are still practicing hunting and
gathering activities, such as fishing and gaharu collection. Tree based agricultural
activities such as smallholder rubber plantation, agroforestry, and tembawang are also
found scattered in the basin. Some people make their living from gold mining along the

77

river in the upper stream of Kapuas Koheng. They come not only from its vicinity
villages, but also from Puttusibau. In the downstream area, the sample villages are
closer to the Puttusibau urban centre with higher accessibility. Some people here
practice more permanent agricultural systems, such as irrigated paddy cultivation, food
crop farming and more market oriented.
Demographic characteristics of the study site were typical Kalimantan rural area;
relatively land abundance and scarce agricultural labor. Population statistics shows
total population of Kapuas Hulu Regency in 2007 was 216,918 inhabitants (5.1% of West
Kalimantan) with 105 sex ratio (means there were 105 male populations per 100 female).
Population density of Kapuas Hulu was 7 persons per square kilometers (ps/km2)
which is lower than West Kalimantan Province (28 ps/km2), and is the lowest among the
regencies in the province; varies between 7 ps/km2 in Kapuas Hulu and 4,730 ps/km2 in
Pontianak (the Province Capital). As forest dominance regency, it is not too surprising
that the population density in Upper Kapuas Basin was also low (3 ps/km2).
Agricultural density (population per hectare of arable land) of Kapuas Hulu Regency is
(4.6ps/ha) higher than in West Kalimantan (2ps/hectare). It indicates that arable land
available in Kapuas Hulu Regency was relatively scarce than it was in West Kalimantan.
In the watershed understudy, agricultural density was less than 2 ps/ha, which is lower
than in the regencys and the provinces figures, It indicates that the availability of labor
in the area was relatively scarce. Looking at age structure, 65% of population in Upper
Kapuas Basin belongs to working age population (economically active population or age
group of 15 years old and above), and economically dependence population in the study
site were 54%. This circumstance might impede the introduction of intensive farming
systems with high labour requirement.
Agricultural production of the region consist of food crops (paddy, maize, tubers, and
vegetables), tree crops mainly rubber that mostly smallholder farm and oil palm
predominantly large scale operation, livestock (ruminant, pigs and poultry), and fresh
water fisheries. There were also coffee, cocoa, pepper and coconut mostly in relatively
small area. Fruit production that mostly come from tembawang cosist of durian,
rambutan, and tengkawan. In general agricultural productivity is relatively low. Paddy
production in 2004 was 57,667 ton with harvest area of 22,639 ha (irrigated paddy field
was 9,602 and dry land paddy or padi ladang was 13,037 ha). Smallholder rubber
plantation in 2005 was 33,896 ha and the production was 15,384.6.
The household survey found that most of the household samples rely on agricultural
activity as their economic mainstay. More than two third rely on agricultural
activities. Among those who rely their livelihood on non agricultural activities as their
main source of income are engaged as civil servant, trader, carpenter, construction

78

worker, gold mining, and home industry. At the time of study, 23.8% of the family
members of sample household are attending school; most of them were in elementary
level and few of them already in college. There were family member never attending
school before; 14.7% in Sibau, 10.2% and 15.8% in Mendalam and Kapuas Koheng
respectively. Proportion of the family member with higher education level also low
Almost all the households control more than one plot of land. Average land holding
size per household in the three sub-catchment are 3.18 ha in Sibau, 2.73 in Mendalam
and 3.54 in Kapuas Koheng. Looking at plot level, the area per plot varies between 0.25
hectare and 20 hectare in Sibau, between 0.02 and 6 hectare in Mendalam and quite
interesting in Kapuas Koheng, which varies between 0.01 and 30 hectare. It is
interesting to note that both in Sibau and Kapuas Koheng, which have the maximum
area per plot 20 and 30 hectare respectively, the study found plot that left idle (fallow);
8.1% and 1.6% of their plot number respectively.
With regard to the land use system, most of plots were ladang and kebun. Ladang is
mainly for food crop cultivation while kebun is predominantly for tree crop cultivation.
There were 78 plots (of 105 plots) used for kebun cultivation : gaharu cultivation is one
of them and others are, fruit base agroforestry, rubber based agroforestry and rubber
monoculture. Larger proportion of plot manage by household sample were rubber
monoculture in Kapuas Koheng and Mendalam.
Looking at sources of income, it is interesting to note that the more accessible the subcatchment, the larger proportion of income from off farm and services activities.
Comparing the three sub catchment under study, Kapuas Koheng is less accessible
compare to the other two sub catchment. The proportion of household income derived
from agricultural activities in Kapuas Koheng is the largest. Similarly for household
income derived from extraction. While for household sample in Sibau, both agricultural
income and forest extraction income are the least compare to Mendalam and Kapuas
Koheng. Sibau has more road net work than Madalam and Kapuas Koheng. In further
detail, agricultural income contributed larger proportion of the household income. In
Sibau and Mendalam 37% of household income were from tree farming. In Kapuas
Koheng plantation contributed 42% of the household income
At the expenditure side, as shown in Table 21 the largest expenditures were spent for
food consumption followed by transportation. From the household survey, the study
found that average household monthly expenditure were relatively low, ranging from
Rp 713,000 to Rp 1,230,000 or US $ 76.6 to US $ 132.2.

79

Revitalizing the riparian zone


Revitalization of Riparian Zone is to plant the degraded riparian zones in Upper Kapuas
basin (roughly 412 ha or 195 km in river length) with combination of trees that have
deep roots (anchoring function) and shallow roots (binding function) to maintain river
banks stability. Three main aspects to be considered to develop scenario for riparian
zone development are: biophysical characteristics (slope and land cover), land tenure
issue, and economics.
Biophysical characteristics that are mainly slope class, to decide conservation techniques
to be applied. Here the study considers three slope classes: slope class 1 refers to flat
area with 0%-8% slope, (2) slope class 2 refers to gently undulating with 8%-25% slope,
and lastly, slope class 3 refers to steep slope with more than 25% slope.
Land tenure issues are mainly relates to land status where the target area of
development will take place. It includes state controlled land such as state forest area
and public land, and privately controlled land. The locus of this will be the regulation to
use the state forest land that already degraded. In many cases the degraded riparian
zone within state forest land status is difficult for people to take any action, mostly
because the regulation does not allow people to do so. On the other hand, lack of
resources from government side, hence Forestry Office, for such development activities,
might delay any urgent measures to stop further riparian degradation.
The economics aspects to be considered in assessing the proposed intervention in
revitalizing the riparian are : (1) cost of establishment, (2) labor requirement, (3) cash
flow and (4) profitability. Using ex-ante farm budget calculation using 2008 prices, the
study reveals:

1. Cost of Establishment per hectare to change the existing land use systems
to the proposed systems are ranging from Rp. 4.07 million (US $ 435) to
Rp. 5.99 million per (US$ 643). Cost of establishment here is defined as
the monetary value of as all inputs used to establish the systems, whereas
the term of establishment refers to number of years to positive cash flow.
Beside, all of the proposed land use system will gain positive cash flow at
year 4 and year 5. It means the proposed land used systems will start to
provide net income for the operators in years 4 as the soonest and year 5 is
the latest.

80

2. Looking at the labour requirement, it needs at least 187 person-day per


hectare to establish the proposed land use systems. At the operational
stage, the proposed systems require 36 53 person day per hectare per
year. The estimates of labour requirement indicate, there is employment
generating capacity of the proposed system. Thus the interventions could
generate income for people surrounding, with Returns to Labour ranging
between Rp. 81,000 ( US $ 8.7) and Rp. 92,000 (US $ 9.9) per person-day; a
reasonably higher than the current agricultural labour wage, which was
Rp. 30,000. This need to be understood with care. Because, the labour
requirement estimates needs to be confronted to the labor force available
in the basin. The study shows that agricultural density of the area under
study was less than 2 person/hectare. It means, there is only 500 personday available for cultivation per hectare per year (250 working day per
year). Lack of labour could be the problem to implement the proposed
land use system.
3. From profitability perspective, the Ex Ante farm budget calculation of all
land use systems for revitalizing the degraded riparian zone of Upper
Kapuas Basin provide positive signal. All of the proposed land use
system is profitable at 6% discount rate. The NPV are all positive sign, the
BCR are not less than 1, and IRR are ranging between 17% and 24%. By
altering the discount rate to 15% and 25%, all the proposed systems
remain profitable at 15% discount rate, but not at 25%.

Agroforestry development by tembawang enrichment


This is a recommendation come out from hydrological study. This activity focuses on
providing farmers with good planting materials of tree species that could provide
additional economic benefits to the local farmers. Farmers have indicated their interest
on rubber (Hevea brasilliensis), sugar palm (Arenga pinata ), tengkawang (sorea pinanga),
rambutan and durian (Durio zibethinus).
The Ex Ante financial analysis of tembawangdevelopent shows that Status Quo Scenario
(doing nothing) provides the highest Return to Labor, Rp 152,101 (US $ 16.4) per person
day. It needs to be read with care, because the systems only employs 11 person
day/ha/year. From poverty alleviation point of view the status quo scenario is not a

81

good options. Natural replacement scenario is interesting, because its establishment cost
is the least among the other options (excluding status quo scenario). In term of
employment generation capacity, this scenario is not optimal. However, in the area
where labour scarcity is taking place, this option seems to be better than status quo
scenario. The other rubber based scenarios, Rubber Based 1 seems to be the best
scenario. It provides the highest Return to Labour, employs reasonably amount of
labour. While other two rubber based scenario are require more labour, meaning more
employment opportunity generated, but with Return to Labour not much different with
the agricultural wage rate. From profitability perspectives, Rubber Based 1 is the best
options.

82

REFERENCES

Afifudin Y. 2006. Penilaian Ekonomi Agroforest Tembawang di Kabupaten Sintang dan


Sanggau, Propinsi Kalimantan Barat. Sekolah Pasca Sarjana Institut Pertanian
Bogor. 157p.
Badan Koordinasi Survei dan Pemetaan Nasional. 2007. Peta Administrasi Wialayah
Desa, Kecamatan, dan Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Propinsi Kalimantan Barat. 2004. Rencana Tata
Ruang Wilayah Propinsi (RTRWP) Kalimantan Barat. Pemerintah Propinsi
Kalimantan Barat. Pontianak.
Bagian Hukum Sekretariat Daerah. 2005. Kumpulan Hukum Adat di Kabupaten
Kapuas Hulu. Putussibau.
Balai Taman Nasional Betung Kerihun. 2002. Keselarasan Hak Adat dan Kawasan
Taman Nasional Betung Kerihun dalam Keputusan (Peraturan Adat) Suku
Dayak Kayaan Mendalam di Desa Padua Mendalam dan Desa Datah Dian
Kecamatan Putussibau Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu Propinsi Kalimantan Barat.
Putussibau.
Lusiana B, Widodo R, Mulyoutami E, Nugroho DA and van Noordwijk M. 2007.
Assessing Hydrological Situation of Kapuas Hulu Basin, Kapuas Hulu Regency,
West Kalimantan. Report from Rapid Hydrological Appraisal (RHA) Team to
Equitable Payments for Watershed Services, Phase 1: Making the Business Case
Project. World Agroforestry Centre. Bogor.
Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, and Weimer DL. 2001. Cost-benefit Analysis:
concepts and practice, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, new Jersey. 658p.

83

Cotula L (ed). 2006. Land and Water Rights in Sahel Tenure Challenges of Improving
Access to Water for Agriculture. IIED Issue Paper 139, London.
Departemen Keuangan Republik Indonesia. 2007. Realisasi APBD Tahun 2006
Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. Available from:
http://www.djpk.depkeu.go.id/apbd2006.php?jenis=Realisasi&kode=14.03Kab.+Kapuas+Hulu&satuan=3-Jutaan (Accessed: 20 October 2008)
Freundenberger K.S. 1998. Tree and Land Tenure Rapid Appraisal Tools. FAO: Rome,
Italy.
Fried ST. 1995. Writing for Their Lives: Bentian dayak Authors and Indonesia
Development Discourse. Faculty of Graduate School of Cornell University.
Garrity, D P. 1993. Sustainable land-use systems for sloping uplands in Southeast Asia
In Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics. American Society of
Agronomy Special Publication 56, Madison, Wisconsin, P 41-66.
Gittinger JP. 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. Second Edition,
Completely revised and Expanded. Economic Development Institute EDI World
Bank. Washington, DC.
Hairiah K, Widianto, Suprayogo D. 2006. Root effects on slope stability in Sumberjaya,
Lampung (Indonesia). Paper presented in International Symposium toward
Sustainable Livelihood and Ecosystems in Mountanious Regions Chiang Mai, 79 March 2006.
Hukum Adat Suku Punan Bungan dalam Masyarakat Adat Suku Punan Bungan Desa
Bungan Jaya. Putussibau.
Kaban MS HSE. 2007. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor P.03/Menhut-II/2007
tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Unit Pelaksana Teknis Taman Nasional.
Departemen Kehutanan.
Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu Dalam Angka. 2007. Biro Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Kapuas
Hulu. Putussibau.
Kantor Pemerintahan Desa Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. 2007. Buku Profil Desa Kecamatan
Putussibau Utara. Putussibau.
Kantor Pemerintahan Desa Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. 2007. Buku Profil Desa Kecamatan
Putussibau Selatan. Putussibau.
Kantor Pemerintahan Desa Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. 2007. Buku Profil Desa Kecamatan
Kalis. Putussibau.

84

Kantor Pemerintahan Desa Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. 2007. Buku Profil Desa Kecamatan
Embaloh Hulu. Putussibau.
Kantor Pemerintahan Desa Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. 2007. Buku Profil Desa Kecamatan
Embaloh Hilir. Putussibau.
Kantor Penelitian Pengembangan dan Informatika. 2007. Hukum Adat dan Budaya:
Dayak Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. Putussibau.
Ludvie A. 2008. Laporan Tahunan Balai Besar Taman Betung Kerihun Tahun 2007. Balai
Besar Taman Betung Kerihun. Putussibau.
Muchlis. 2008. Laporan Tahunan SKPD tahun 2007. Dinas Lingkungan Hidup, Energi
dan Sumber Daya Mineral. 2008. Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. Putussibau.
Pemerintah Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. 2003. Keputusan Bupati Kapuas Hulu No. 144
Tanggal 1 Oktober 2003. Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu sebagai Kabupaten
Konservasi. Putussibau
Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu No. 12 Tahun 2007 tentang Pengaturan
Kewenangan Desa di Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu. Putussibau.
Priambodo AA. 2007. Evaluasi Dampak dan Manfaat Gerhan 2004 2006. Provinsi
Kalimantan Barat. Laporan Akhir. PT. Hasta Swa Usaha Karya.
Propinsi Kalimantan Barat dalam Angka. 2007. Biro Pusat Statistik Propinsi Kalimantan
Barat. Pontianak.
Supardiyono. 1999. Pengetahuan Keanekaragaman Tumbuhan & Pemanfaatan Satuan
Lansekap Masyarakat Etnis Dayak di TN Bentuang Karimun dan
sekitarnya.Tesis S2 Program Studi Biologi, Universitas Indonesia.
Sutito A SB. 2006. Laporan Tahunan Balai Taman Nasional Betung Kerihun Tahun
Anggaran 2005. Balai Taman Nasional Betung Kerihun. Putussibau.
Thapa, Garrity, and Cassel, 1998. Assessment of Tillage Erosion Rates on Steepland
Oxisols in the Humid Tropics Using Granite Rocks in Soil Science Society of
North Carolina Proceedings, Vol.XLI.9 pp.
Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Budidarsono S, Gillison A, Kusumanto T, Murdiyarso D,
Stolle F, and Fagi AM. 1998. Alternative to Slash-and-Burn in Indonesia.
Summary Report and Synthesis Phase II. P 69-70. ASB ICRAF. Bogor.
Undang-Undang Hukum Adat Suku Dayak Taman Ketamanggongan Banua Sio. 2003.
Ketamanggongan Banua Sio.

85

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 23 Tahun 1997.


Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 26 Tahun 2006 and Peraturan Pemerintah
Republik Indonesia No. 26 Tahun 2008.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 41 Tahun 1999.
Vosti SA, Witcover J, Gockowski J, Tomich TP, Carpentier CL, Faminow M, Oliveira S,
and Diaw C. 1998. Sociecomic issues linked to best bet land use systems. Mimeo,
Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI). Washington, DC.
Waspodo. 2008. Rencana Kerja Tahun 2008. Balai Pemantauan Pemanfaatan Hutan
Produksi Wilayah X Pontianak.
WWF Indonesia. 2007. Peta Sebaran HPH Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu.
WWF Indonesia. 2007. Peta Sebaran HTI Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu.
WWF Indonesia. 2007. Peta Sebaran Perkebunan Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu.

86

87