[1]

1. Forest degradation in Java started with the reckless exploitation (forest mining) of forests by the VOC (Verenigde de Oost-Indische Compagnie) in the 18^th century. Javanese teak was exploited as a raw material to build the Grand Fleet of the Netherlands, including both trading ships and war ships. The exploitation stopped and VOC went bankrupt in 1796 due to corruption and mismanagement. Since then forest managment was taken over by the Netherlandsche-Indie colonial government (the forest was managed by Djatibedrijf and Boschwezen using German �academic� approach).
2. Boschwezen implaced basic regulations and a management system that has denied the people the right to access the forests land since 1854[2]. The system and regulations -more or less- are still applied to this day, including the denial of people�s rights to access forest land.
3. Forest Degradation on Java since 1950: This table represents forest cover inside and outside forest areas. (Forest area (kawasan hutan) is an area designated/gazetted as "forest" by the Forestry minister no matter what grows upon it. A forest area could be covered by grassland, critical land, on the other hand, non-forest area could be forested, e.g: private forest, community forest, etc.).




Province Forest Cover 1950 (ha) Forest Cover 1985 (ha) Forest Cover 1997 (ha) Forest Cover 2000 (ha) Forest Loss 85-97 (ha) % 1985  1997 Forest Loss 97-00 (ha) % 1997  2000 Forest Loss 85-00 (ha) % 1950  2000 1 Banten N.A. 178,984 148,001 80,027 30,983 17.3 67,974 45.9 N.A. N.A. 2 Jawa Barat + DKI N.A. 1,120,254 895,804 864,201 224,450 20.0 31,603 3.5 N.A. N.A. 3 Jawa Tengah + DIY N.A. 599,439 506,388 475,650 93,051 15.5 30,738 6.1 N.A. N.A. 4 Jawa Timur N.A. 1,020,525 884,056 455,622 136,469 13.4 428,434 48.5 N.A. N.A. Total 5,070,000 2,919,202 2,434,249 1,875,500 484,953 16.6 558,749 23.0 3,194,500 63.0




Source: Forest cover map 1997: GOI/World Bank, Land-cover map 2000: NFI/World Bank 2000, Forest-cover data 1997: UNEP/WCMC 2000, based on REPPPROT data.

4. Forest on Java are in critical condition and faces constant degradation. Java has lost 3.2 million hectares (63%) of its natural forests since 1950. The island of Java is 131,412 km² but only 18,755 km² (14%) is covered with forest. The worst degradation occurred in 1997-2000, when most of the 558,749 hectares (23%) were lost due to illegal logging. The degradation in the last 3 years (1997-2000) has been comparatively worst than the degradation over the last 12 years (1985-1997; 484,953 ha).
5. Forest Area on Java

Forest Area Unit I-Central Java Unit II- East Java Unit III-West Java and Banten Total Management unit (KPH) of Perhutani 20 units 23 units 14 units 57 units 1. Production forest a. Teak 311,647 595,778 193,259 1,100,684 ha b. Non-teak (mainly mahogany) 293,178 243,719 328,000 864,897 ha Production forest total 604,825 839,497 521,259 1,965,581 ha 2. Protection forest 41,684 305,050 240,418 587,152 ha Total Perhutani Area 646,509 1,144,547 761,677 2,552,733 ha 3. Conservation forest Managed by Ministry of Forestry National park, reserves, etc       442,198 ha Total Forest Area       2,994,931 ha




Source: Perum Perhutani Sepintas Kilas (Perhutani at A Glance), Jakarta, Juli-1993

6. Note on demography: In 1999[3], the population of Java was 116,324,536 and the population density was 887 ppls/km². There were 6,324 villages -with + 20 million forest dependent population-living on Perhutani�s forest areas.

 

Tenurial Problem and Social Conflicts

7. First of all, the root of this problem is the tenurial system. Other problems -if they are simplified- derive from the tenurial problem. Land ownership is not well distributed or well managed. Perhutani�s forest management does not integrate economic/social/cultural/political condition around it. Perhutani�s forest area, perhutani�s policy, and management system is a separate world from other places on Java. Poverty, unemployment and insufficient farming land are not the main concerns of Perhutani, as its officials like to say, "Perhutani is not a social institution."
8. Tenurial problem: Perhutani manages a very vast area in the most populated island in Java, where most of the population are farmers. Perhutani -the state, actually- deny farmer�s (including forest farmer�s) right to own/manage sufficient productive land. While average farmer�s land is only 0.5 hectares/family, Perhutani manage almost 2 million hectares of arable land. The solution offered is Forest-Land Reform, but the state is reluctant to distribute its power and economic profit of managing/regulating forest/land on Java.
9. For further reading on why Perhutani is not integrated in decentralized political system please find it in DtE Newsletter on Wonosobo Community Based Forest Resource Management.
10. In short, this tenurial problem -including the denial to forest production sharing[4]- creates derivative problems such as, structural poverty, social conflict, land conversion to farmland (forest encroachment), and off course illegal logging. We see this derivative problem as an expression of peasant�s "day-to-day resistance". In the course of this historic resistance (since 18^th century) elements of this social banditry turn to capital banditry. Illegal logging, especially, has become more and more sophisticated, well organized, and better funded. Forest disturbances - Perhutani�s label for this resistance- is increasing all the time, especially after the downfall of the New Order government under Soeharto in 1998.




No. Province Agrarian Conflicts in Production Forest Area 1970-2000 Qty. of Case Areal (ha) 19 East Java 4 221,341.0 20 Central Java 3 820.0 21 West Java + Banten 22 6,241.6 22 DKI Jakarta N.A.  N.A. 23 DI Jogja N.A.    N.A. TOTAL 29 228,402.6




Source: Data Base Sengketa Agraria KPA Agrarian Conflict Data Base�Agrarian Reform Consortium (2000).

Perhutani�s Losses due to Forest Disturbance 1995-1999

No. Item Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 Trees theft tree 200,273 202,192 202,947 1,097,716 3,179,973 x Rp 1,000 3,525,140 3,369,919 2,960,537 49,243,567 55,851,084 2 Sawn timber theft m3 5 36 11 155,246 285 x Rp 1,000 - 4,042 854 71,550 16,222 3 Fuel-wood theft sm - - - - 46 x Rp 1,000 - - - - 103 4 Other theft - - - - - - x Rp 1,000 - - - 18,002 35,467 5 Forest encroachment ha 629 715 1,849 15,104 15,378 x Rp 1,000 39,044 10,126 24,531 236,958 223,700 6 Seedling/young trees destruction ha 10,172 109,263 16,662 110,827 336,168 x Rp 1,000 9,530 66,110 12,993 2,040,242 1,847,798 7 Forest fire ha 8,663 5,686 373,782 7,063 374,944 x Rp 1,000 111,886 49,070 452,886 54,841 194,345 8 Illegal cattle ranching ha 148 137 91 53 843 x Rp 1,000 2,931 4,200 3,080 4,030 13,587 Total x Rp 1,000 3,688,531 3,503,467 3,454,881 51,669,190 58,182,306




Source: Forest Security, Agrarian, and Public Relations Bureau of Perhutani, 2000



11. Illegal logging is not merely criminal action: illegal logging is generated by 3 situational conditions, namely the tenurial problem/social conflict, weakness of law enforcement/corruption, and overcapacity of wood-processing industries. Look at the �disturbance� table again, before 1998 illegal loggers steadiliy harvest about 200,000 trees annually. It became 15 times that in 1998, and Perhutani�s target is "Making sure that the rate of forest theft becomes normal again, a rate of 200,000 trees lost annually."
12. The scale of illegal logging (trees quantity).
    
    

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Unit I (Central Java) 112,803 107,400 124,754 1,850,698 2,475,181 Unit II (East Java) 79,176 86,067 68,310 491,641 587,936 Unit III (West Java) 8,294 8,725 9,882 98,103 116,856 Total 200,273 202,192 202,946 2,440,442 3,179,973






Source: Perhutani Statistic Book (2000)

13. Note that for the loss of 3,179,973 trees (1999), Perhutani reported a financial loss of as much as Rp 55.8 billion, which means that each stolen trees was priced only Rp 17,600 (US $ 1.76 ). This explains why Perhutani still make a profit each year, Perhutani did not report their actual loss, but only nominal loss based on an out-of-date standard loss tarrif.
14. This �illegal logging� is a combination of social resistance, corruption, well organized local banditry, unporfessional industrialist investment, and perhutani & police officer involvement. In 1999, illegal loggers harvested 3,2 million trees from Perhutani�s forests, transported 1,2 million m³ of wood from the forest to the wood industry through public roads. There are hundreds of Perhutani and Police check posts everywhere along this public road, how could these illegal loggers operateso smoothly? This indicates a network of corruption.
15. Illegal logging and trading techniques: developed over many years, the skill of making a fake pass has became more sophisticated[5]. Supported by corruption, bribery, and "informal" levy, illegal loggers and traders could do their business without any significant hindrance[6].
16. Tenurial problems have created social resistance and social conflict, expressed as forest disturbance-especially forest theft. Perhutani has tried to repress the �crime�, spawning a vicious cycle of conflicts as a direct consequence i.e action-reaction and revenge. An expert once said that the only sustainable product from Javanese forests is conflict and violence.

Violence Cycle in Forest of Jawa

Acts of Violence Toward Civilians by Perhutani

No Date Management Unit Violence Type Source Victim/Impact D I B R Rp O 1 01-Mar-98 Banyuwangi Utara Shooting SP 5/3/98 1 2 28-Jun-98 Randublatung Shooting ARuPA-SP 24/7/98 2 1 3 27-Okt-98 Purwodadi Shooting SP 29/10/98 5 4 18-Jul-99 Semarang Shooting SP 1 3 5 01-Jan-00 Probolinggo Shooting SU 30/5/01 1 6 01-Jul-00 Semarang Shooting Bernas 01/01/00 1 7 05-Nop-00 Cepu Shooting IO 6/11/00 1 8 01-Des-00 Cepu Shooting ARuPA 1 9 31-Mar-01 Banyumas Barat Shooting KP 6/4/01 1 10 18-Apr-01 Nganjuk Shooting KP 27/4/01 1 11 18-Jun-01 Saradan/Nganjuk Shooting RP 19/7/01 1 12 01-Nop-01 Majalengka Shooting PR 8/11/01 1 13 18-Jan-02 Banten Destruction KT 19/1/02 2 14 26-Jan-02 Banyumas Timur Torturing KR 29/01/02 1 15 29-Apr-02 Blora Shooting KR 1 16 14-Okt-02 Cepu Torturing JP 1 17 02-Mar-03 Saradan Shooting KP 3/3/03 1 18 03-Mar-03 Pasuruan Shooting JP 4/3/03 1 19 01-Apr-03 Rembang Shooting ARuPA 1 TOTAL 8 19 2 0 0 0




Acts of Violence Toward Perhutani by Civilians


No Date Management Unit Violence type Source Victim/Impact D I B R Rp O 1 01-Mar-98 Banyuwangi Utara Destruction SP 5/3/98 1 2 15-Apr-98 Jepara Destruction SP 17/4/98 2 3 28-Jun-98 Randublatung Destruction ARuPA-SP 24/7/98 1 8 4 28-Jun-98 Randublatung Torturing ARuPA-SP 24/7/98 1 5 24-Jul-98 Malang Destruction SP 27/7/98 2 6 27-Okt-98 Purwodadi Destruction SP 29/10/98 3 7 01-Feb-99 Banten Destruction SP 17 8 25-Sep-99 Purwakarta Destruction SP 1 9 01-Mei-00 Indramayu Destruction KP 126/00 1 10 05-Nop-00 Cepu Destruction ARuPA 3 11 31-Mar-01 Banyumas Barat Torturing KP 6/4/01 1 12 31-Mar-01 Banyumas Barat Destruction KP 6/4/01 3 13 17-Apr-01 Nganjuk Hostage KP 27/04/01 1 person 14 17-Apr-01 Nganjuk Destruction KP 27/04/01 1 15 18-Apr-01 Nganjuk Destruction KP 27/04/01 3 16 18-Jun-01 Saradan/Nganjuk Torturing RP 19/7/01 1 17 01-Nop-01 Majalengka Torturing PR 8/11/01 1 18 29-Apr-02 Blora Destruction KR 1 19 29-Apr-02 Blora Torturing KR 1 20 02-Mar-03 Saradan Destruction KP 3/3/03 1 2,000,000 3 motorcyles 21 01-Apr-03 Rembang Destruction ARuPA 3 TOTAL 0 6 50 0 2,000,000

Source: Compilation of ARuPA�sdigital clipping and reports (1997-2003)

D = Death
I = Injured/wounded (person)
B = Building/outpost destroyed (unit)
R = Refugee (person)
Rp = Finansial lost (rupiah)
O = Other lost (specific unit)


Source:

SP= Suara Pembaruan
KP = Kompas
RP = Republika
KR = Kedaulatan Rakyat
PR = Pikiran Rakyat
SU = Surabaya Post
KT = Koran Tempo
IO = Indonesian Observer
JP = Jawa Pos



Socio-Ecological Aspect

17. Illegal logging impact on forest sustainability: by maintaining the annual harvest target without resolving the illegal logging problem, in 1998 and 1999, Perhutani has overcutted as much as 484,000 m³ and 570,000 m³. A good forester should implement logging moratorium and attempt to settle illegal logging (unplanned harvest) problems before s/he can start the harvest again.

No Perhutani Standing Stock Quantity (m3) 1998 1999 1 Previous Standing Stock 37,260,806 35,468,493 2 Increment (y) Reforestation increment 36,244 45,498 Stand increment 1,019,288 1,002,596 Total 1,055,532 1,048,094 3 Harvest and degradation (x) Annual allowable cut 402,999 406,040 Illegal logging 1,119,318 1,172,758 Degradation 17,345 39,441 Total 1,539,662 1,618,239 4 Overcutting (x � y) 484,130 570,145 5 Final standing stock 35,468,493 34,263,885


(Source: Research & Development Departement of Perhutani, 2000)

 

18. Producing profit by exploiting inheritance: Perhutani�s profit has generated by inherited old teak forests planted around 1918-1940s, before Perhutani existed. Perhutani started to plant teak in 1972, the oldest one will be around 30 years old now, while teak is harvested at least at 60 years old. The structure of the forest in 1997 is like this:





Age class I is plantation with 1-10 years old plantation, age class II is 11-20 years old, and so on.

This age distribution graphic shows that Perhutani�s teak stand is dominated by young plantations. It takes two more graphic (1977 and 1987 age distribution) to see if the stands are getting younger each decade, which means: Perhutani is successful in harvesting, successful in re-planting, but fail to make each age class reach maturity (usually because of illegal logging).

19. Perhutani fail to manage and protect public resources. This table explains areas managed by Perhutani, compared to the areas in very critical condition.

Forest Area in Very Critical Condition




Forest Status Perhutani's Area Outside Perhutani's Area Production Forest 1,811,814 Protection Forest 627,937 Conservation Forest 442,198 Total 2,439,751 442,198 Very Critical Condition Production Forest 370,130 Protection Forest 191,200 Conservation Forest 68,375 Total 561,330 68,375 % Very Critical Condition Production Forest 20.4 Protection Forest 30.4 Conservation Forest 15.5 Total 23.0 15.5


Source: Hariadi Kartodihardjo presentation (2003). The data differs from Perhutani�s, howover it is unknown whose whose is correct.

300,000 ha of barren land in Perhutani�s areas have gone unplanted since 1982, now there are 561,330 ha unplanted that will increas if illegal logging and social conflicts are not resolved. 30% of protection forests on Java -under Perhutani management- are in very critical condition.

Source: Hariadi Kartodihardjo presentation (2003)

20. Disaster, flash flood/lanslide (green dot), and flood (blue dot) are the direct results. There were 16 big floods/lanslides and 6 floods from 1998 to January 2003. Perhutani has been sued by two community groups in Garut (West Java), and Mojokerto (East Java) for causing landslides which destroyed houses, and caused several deaths. Landslide in Garut, known as the Mandalawangi disaster, destroyed 142 houses and 200 other houses were in danger of following landslides, 1,796 people became refugee, and 21 people died[7].


Socio-Economic Aspect:

21. Perhutani is not a social institution, its goal is to produce timber as "sustainable" as possible, making profit as much as possible. Are these goals achieved? If it is achieved, on whose expense? It is achieved. Perhutani produce a steady 400,000 m³ of timber annually, but with overcutting. Perhutani also booked a profit of as much as 90-180 billion rupiah annualy (I read somewhere, couldn�t find the source, that even after the explotion of illegal logging in 1998, Perhutani keep booking 200-210 billions rupiah of profit in 2001). Big money? Not at all!




Year Nominal (x Rp 1000) profit/hectare *) (Rupiah) 1993 90,127,000 45.853 1994 151,524,000 77.089 1995 175,010,000 89.037 1996 153,388,000 78.037 1997 178,960,000 91.047 Average 1993-1997 76,212




*) total profit divided by total area of production forest (1,965,581 ha).

Source: calculated from Perhutani Statistic Book. (1998)

Perhutani made average profit only Rp 76,212/ha annually, or US $ 7.60 cents/hectare annually. Compared to cassava farmer�s economic productivity, whose annual profit is at least Rp 2,000,000/hectare, Perhutani�s economic profit is nothing!

 

22. Succes in planting, yes, that�s one of the positive achievement of Perhutani. But look again, on whose expenses? Who plants the tree? Perhutani? Nope, poor landless farmers used by Perhutani as cheap labour. Driven by the need of the land, farmers willingly plant teak seedling for Perhutani with very low wage, in the worst case they even didn�t get the payment at all. Farmers could plant cash crops -corn/peanut/rice- between teak rows for first 3 years, before the teak�s crown shades their crops. Mutual benefit? Exploitation del�homme par homme? Let�s do the counting:



Farmers' input for each hectare of plantation Income from Perhutani for each hectare Job Item time spent (man-days) Rupiah Rupiah Perhutani's Wage Standard 24,000 Contractual payment Land clearing 46 414,000 1st soil preparation 133.71 1,203,390 100,000 Soil preparation payment 2nd soil preparation 38 342,000 Material for sign-stick 9,000 Making sign-stick 2 18,000 Setting-in sign-stick and making teak rows 4 36,000 11,110 Making and setting-in sign stick Seedling transportation 14.81 133,290 11,110 Seedling transportation Plating 31.15 280,350 11,110 Planting Farming tools 33,333 1,722,800 Cash crops harvest Total farmer�s input 2,469,363 1,880,130 Total income




Source: Survey in five villages in Randublatung, Blora, Central Java

From this table we could see that farmers subsidized Perhutani Rp 590,000/ha in three years, it is around Rp 200,000 (US $ 20) for each hectare of plantation annually, an amount bigger than Perhutani�s annual profit/ha. This also explain how Perhutani produce profit annually.

 

Corruption and inefficiency

23. To hunt corruption is like ghost-hunting. Everybody said there are a lot of corruptions everywhere, but nobody really saw it.
24. There are several kinds of corruption involving all levels of Perhutani officials. Budgetary corruption, corruption in assisting illegal logging or freeing illegal loggers, and corruption to the farmers.
25. President Director and R&D Division Head are now suspects in an corruption and inefficiency case. The trial may be held soon.
26. ARuPA�s surveys found out that a lot of farmers received less then Perhutani�s low standard wage.

Alternative option

27. Community based forestry management in Java proved that, generally, when community have access to the forest, when they have �freedom� to manage the forest, their forests are far better managed than Perhutani�s. People�s forest (community forest/hutan rakyat) which is forest in private land or communal land are even more productive than Perhutani�s. People�s forest are the only areas safe from illegal logging. Not even one tree was raided.
    

Forest Area Total Production Area Productivity   m3/year hectare m3/ha/year Perum Perhutani Unit I 713.38 646.07 1.10 Perum Perhutani Unit II 865.11 1,126.95 0.77 Perum Perhutani Unit III 283.31 792.47 0.36 People�s forest 895.37 391.32 2.29


Source: ARuPA�s compilation, 2001

Additional Information

28. Forest-cover type of Java



29. Forest-cover type of provinces in Java