From conflict to sustainable land use Fahmuddin Agus, Soil Research - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
from conflict to sustainable land use
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

From conflict to sustainable land use Fahmuddin Agus, Soil Research - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 08, 2023 367 likes •808 views

Sumber Jaya (Lampung, Indonesia): From conflict to sustainable land use Fahmuddin Agus, Soil Research I nst it ut e and ASB, Bogor, I ndonesia wit h cont ribut ions f rom Gamal Pasya (BAPPEDA Lampung/ I CRAF), Suyant o, Suseno, Kusuma Wij aya,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Sumber Jaya (Lampung, Indonesia):

From conflict to sustainable land use

Fahmuddin Agus, Soil Research I nst it ut e and ASB, Bogor, I ndonesia wit h cont ribut ions f rom Gamal Pasya (BAPPEDA Lampung/ I CRAF), Suyant o, Suseno, Kusuma Wij aya, Meine van Noordwij k, Desi Suyamt o, At iek Widayat i, Desi Suyamt o (I CRAF), Bruno Verbist (KU Leuven, Belgium) Kurniat un Hairiah, Didiek Suprayogo, Widiant o (Univ. Brawij aya) Af andi (Univ. Lampung) Kasdi Subagyono, Ai Dariah, Maswar, Set iari (Soil Research I nst it ut e)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Coverage

  • Land use system
  • Land use scenarios
  • Negotiation as a prerequisite for

sustainable land use

  • Research findings on coffee based

farming systems

  • RUPES Mechanism for what and how
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Land Uses and Conflicts in Sumberjaya

slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Land use status in Sumberjaya

Land Use Area (ha) % Paddy field 2,447 4.5 Home garden 2,051 3.8

Multi-strata farming

2,150 4.0 Shifting cultivation 1,835 3.4 Fallow/abandoned 753 1.4 State forest land 31,571 58.3 Plantation 12,449 23.0 Others 938 1.7 Total 54,149 100

Source: West Lampung monograph, 2001.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Actual Land Use in Sumberjaya

20 40 60 80 100 1970 1978 1984 1990 2000 year land use (%)

Permukiman Saw ah Kopi multistrata Kopi mono kultur Kopi muda Padang rumput Perladangan berpindah Hutan baru dibuka Belukar Hutan

Settlement Paddy field Multistrata coffee Sun coffee Young coffee Savanna Shifting cultivation Cleared forest Bush Forest

slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9

In mid 90s, coffee plants were replaced with Calliandra calothirsus

CONFLI CT

1997: Famers replanted coffee, but with tenure uncertainty

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Land use scenarios Trade-offs Current land use Multistrata coffee: Livelihood Environment Sustainability Annual upland: Livelihood? Environment? Sustainability? Seconday Forest: Livelihood? ‘Environment’

Combination of above

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Forest -- Degradation ---- Restoration--- (Agro)forest Climax Benefits

C Soil loss Restoration of Forest Functions

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Negotiation Support System For Sustainable Land Use

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Negotiation Support System for Sustainable Land use

negotiated natural resource management agreement performance indicators actors, stake- holders Plots (land use s.s.) Matrix (filter) Roads/streams landscape mosaic resource interactions agreed changes spontaneous change

new components & technologies

Negotiation

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Research Findings

slide-15
SLIDE 15

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

NF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Multi Gliri Paras

Coffee Monoculture, years

Run Off (mm/year)

0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.0 13.5 15.0

Soil loss (mm/year)

RunOff Erosion

Agroforestry

  • 1. Run off and soil loss (Bodong sites)
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Ratio of Erosion to Runoff, Bodong site

mm of soil loss per mm of run off water

0.002 0.036 0.013 0.025 0.010 0.005 0.008 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040

N F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 2 M u l t i G l i r i P a r a s .

Coffee monoculture

Erosion : Run off

Time, years

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Bench terrace and hedgerows effects on soil loss in Jember (East Java), 31% slope, 2,768 mm annual rainfall (Coffee and Cacao Research Inst, 1998) Treatment Soil loss (t ha-1 yr-1) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Control 25.80 a2) 17.75 a 0.55 a 0.88 a Bench Terrace (BT) 1.51 b 1.17 b 0.35 a 0.82 a BT + L. leucocephala 3.03 b 1.19 b 0.28 a 0.82 a BT + V. zizonioides 1.90 b 0.61 b 0.28 a 0.83 a BT + M. macrophylla 0.33 b 0.88 b 0.21 a 0.83 a

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Rorak NVS Multistrata

Graded terrace Sediment pits/ rorak Partial weeding Multistrata

Alternative management techniques

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • 2. Variation in soil loss

Location Rain fall slope/ Altitude Soil loss (t/ha) Soil Family Typic Paleudults, clayey, kaolinitic, isohiperthermic Oxic Dystrudept, very fine, kaolinitic, isohiperthermic Oxic Dystrudept, very fine, kaolinitic, isohiperthermic 37.21 0.42 0.02 Bodong* / 458 mm Tepus 434 mm Laksana 571 mm 60-70% 830 m 57-66 % 820 m 56-68 % 820 m

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Tepus Bodong Laksana

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Ruang pori total (% vol) 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 Tepus Laksana Bodong BD (g/cm3) 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Kedalaman tanah (cm) 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 Tepus Laksana Bodong Soil Depth (Cm) Total pore (%)

Total pore and BD (Tepus, Laksana dan Bodong)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Soil Depth (Cm) Soil Depth (Cm)

Permeabilitas (cm/jam)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Kedalaman tanah (cm) 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 Tepus Laksana Bodong Pori drainase cepat (% vol.) 10 15 20 25 30 35 Kedalaman tanah (cm) 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 Tepus Laksana Bodong

Permeabilitas (cm/jam)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Kedalaman tanah (cm) 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 Tepus Laksana Bodong Pori drainase cepat (% vol.) 10 15 20 25 30 35 Kedalaman tanah (cm) 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 Tepus Laksana Bodong

Core sample measurement of soil permeability and drainage pore

Drainage pore (%) Permeability (Cm/hour) Soil Depth (Cm) Soil Depth (Cm)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Where to prioritize conservation implementation under limited resources ?

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • 3. Map of erosion prone sites

Negligible Low Medium High

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Where to allocate the forest reserve to minimize sedimentation?

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Riparian Forests

Forests Settlements

Fraction = 0.25

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Forests on Steep Slopes

Forests Settlements

Fraction = 0.25

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Random Forests

Forests Settlements

Fraction = 0.25

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Effectiveness of Forest Reserve Allocation on Sediment Loss (FALLOW Simulation)

10 20 30 1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100

Year Sediment Loss (t/ha) Riparian Steep Slopes Ridge Top Random Remote

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Other prospective conservation measures

Arachis pintoi as cover crop

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Farmer’s perception of selected conservation techniques

Conservation technique Function

Erosion control Bench terrace Contour ridging Sediment pit (rorak) Arachis pintoi (cover crop) Partial weeding Ridge Reduce weeding Low cost & simple Improved soil fertility Increase/accumulate

  • rganic matter

Fodder Maintenance soil moisture

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Early (2 Months after planting) growth of A. pintoi Establised (Six months after planting) A. pintoi

Farmers test of Arachis

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Farmers adaptation to Nilam/Patchouli (Pogostemon cablin Bth) hedgerows

slide-35
SLIDE 35
slide-36
SLIDE 36

Profitability of Different Land use in Sumberjaya

Returns IRR NPV NPV to Labour at financial at financial price at social price price Rp.000 Rp.000 Rp (%)

  • 1. Coffee Monoculture in Protection forest
  • a. pionir - traditional
  • 1,881
  • 541

6,176 4.9

  • b. semi intensif

24 5,730 8,016 15.1

  • 2. Simple shade coffee
  • a. with comercial crops at low layer

6,994 15,684 13,501 31.8

  • b. without comercial crops at low layer

2,443 7,485 9,927 21.4

  • 3. Coffee Multistrata with fruit trees
  • a. with comercial crops at low layer

15,342 33,510 18,771 36.5

  • b. without comercial crops at low layer

10,853 25,476 15,683 29.3

  • 4. Coffee Multistrata with Timber trees
  • a. with comercial crops at low layer

7,496 15,981 13,924 32.2

  • b. without comercial crops at low layer

3,501 9,329 8,933 23.3

Source : Budidarsono and Wijaya (2004)

Profitability (Returns to land)

slide-37
SLIDE 37

How could we best facilitate sustainable land use management?

slide-38
SLIDE 38

CARBON,Watershed BIODIVERSITY, ES Multistrata systems

REWARD MECHANI SMS

Trade off between Livelihood and Enveronmental Services

  • f Coffee Multistrata )

Poor Beneficiaries of multifunctionality at global and local levels : C seq, biodiversity, erosion/flood redxn

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Possible RUPES Mechanisms in Sumberjaya

Activities Services Possible Rewards Buyer

HKm (multistrata, conservation) Water quality, water flow, C, Biodiv. Tenure, farmer preferred planting materials, facilitation of cons. technologies Community/Govt, PLTA, International community(??)

River care/riparian Water quality Village development, etc. PLTA

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Institutional Partnership/Forum Development To Support Multi-level Negotiation

Activities Negotiation Level Partners

Proposal for HKm, Dialog Forum of Way Besai Watershed, TAC RUPES Initial HKm certification 5 yr, Criteria and indicator

  • n HKm 25 yr, Multi-

stakeholder Team for Spatial and Land use Policy Voluntary Working Group for Natural Resources and Environmental Mngt. Provincial Level Local NGO (Watala, etc) International Org, NGO, University, LGUs, Land tenure WG, KPSDA (land use, tenure, conflict and status), (Dialogues, policy inputs National level MoF, MoA, MOHA, International

  • Org. ,

Sub-district CBO (Farmer groups) Local NGO (Watala, etc), NARS International org, University, LGUs District/ Kabupaten CBO (Farmer groups) Local NGO (Watala, etc) International org, University, NARS, LGUs, DPRD (peoples’ representatives)

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Conclusions

  • Erosion and runoff are significantly reduced

as coffee and other tree canopy, soil cover and litter layer develop. Conservation intervention, in addition to coffee, is necessary for selected sites with low soil permeability/low porosity.

  • Multistrata coffee system is the closest to

forest in providing environmental services and can also provide reasonable livelihood to people living on forest margin such as sumberjaya.

slide-42
SLIDE 42
  • Facilitation of the bottom-up development
  • f multistrata and other conservation
  • ptions, thereby accelerating the

restoration of forest functions, seems to be the wisest way forward.