Basic Information about Production Forests on Java

[1]

 

Forest History and Current Condition

  1. Forest degradation in Java started with the reckless exploitation (forest mining) of forests by the VOC (Verenigde de Oost-Indische Compagnie) in the 18th 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.).


  4.  

     

    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.

  5. 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).
  6. Forest Area on Java
  7. 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

  8. 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.
  9.  

    Tenurial Problem and Social Conflicts

  10. 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."
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 18th 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.


  14. 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

  15. 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."
  16. The scale of illegal logging (trees quantity).

  17. 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)

  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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].
  21. 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.
  22. 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

  23. 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.
  24. 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)

     

  25. 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:



  26. 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).

  27. Perhutani fail to manage and protect public resources. This table explains areas managed by Perhutani, compared to the areas in very critical condition.
  28. 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)

  29. 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].

  30. Socio-Economic Aspect:

  31. 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!


  32. 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!

     

  33. 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:

  34.  

    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

  35. To hunt corruption is like ghost-hunting. Everybody said there are a lot of corruptions everywhere, but nobody really saw it.
  36. 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.
  37. President Director and R&D Division Head are now suspects in an corruption and inefficiency case. The trial may be held soon.
  38. ARuPA�s surveys found out that a lot of farmers received less then Perhutani�s low standard wage.
  39. Alternative option

  40. 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.
  41. 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

  42. Forest-cover type of Java
  43. Forest-cover type of provinces in Java

Forest-cover Type of Provinces in Java (2000)

Province

Primary Dryland

Forest

Secondary Dryland Forest

Primary Mangrove Forest

Secondary Mangrove Forest

Plantation Forest

Total

(ha)

(ha)

(ha)

(ha)

(ha)

(ha)

Banten

24,956

22,357

0

1,097

31,618

80,027

Jawa Barat+DKI

0

330,157

0

681

533,363

864,201

Jawa Tengah+DIY

59,235

91,774

0

2,772

321,869

475,650

Jawa Timur

156,329

145,687

3,413

2,502

147,691

455,622

Total

240,520

589,974

3,413

7,052

1,034,541

1,875,500


Source: Land-cover maps Ministry of Forestry 2000: NFI/World Bank 200



[1] A compilation of ARuPA and Forest Watch Indonesia-Java Node baseline database. Prepared by Rama Astraatmaja.
[2] Agrarische wet (Agrarian Law) which was enacted in 1870 made this prohibition stronger.
[3] Biro Pusat Statistik (National Statistic Office).
[4] Perhutani started to implement the Production Sharing scheme in 2002. This scheme is mereley a  tool to reduce illegal logging by local people in an area which is planned to be harvested by Perhutani. In one village which was surveyed by ARuPA, Perhutani promised villagers that they will share 25% of the harvested logs. Using Perhutani�s formula, villagers actually recieve cash for only  0.16% of the teak base-price.
[5] http://www.arupa.or.id/download/06.htm
[6] Jessica Lawrence�s study case in Trading in Credibility.
[7] IntipHutan (Forest Watch Indonesia, 2003)