1. Niken Sakuntaladewi, Meine van Noordwijk, Fahmuddin Agus, Elok Mulyoutami The 2 nd World Congress of Agroforestry Nairobi, 24 – 28 August 2009 “Agroforestry – The Future of Global Land Use” Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian Department of Forestry Indonesia

2. Total land area: 190 million ha State forest area: 120 million ha POPULATION Total: 220 million people (2005) 48.8 million people (12%) live in & around forest area, mostly farming ~ swiddening. 10.2 million people are in a poor econ. condition INDONESIA – GENERAL PICTURE 120 million ha State Forest  Protection forest (26%): HKm, Village Forest  Production forest (53%): HKm, Village Forest, People Plantations  Conservation forest (21%)

3. SWIDDEN AGRICULTURE 1. Land preparation 2. Planting paddy rice, corn 3. Planting rubber/rattan 6. Rubber Agroforest 4. Harvesting 7. Fallow period 5. Planting paddy rice, corn, leave rubber/rattan grow Intensive tree crops > > < < > < <

4. SWIDDEN CULTIVATION  Definition: land that is cleared of woody vegetation for temporary production of staple food crops mixed w/ other annual trees and or perennials useful for local use and/or markets.  Characteristics: alternate food crops and perennial/annual vegetation, temporary production of staple food crops, fallow period.  Length cycle: varies, 30 – 50 yrs (intensive tree crops - rubber)

5. SWIDDEN CULTIVATION A. ‘ Swidden Cultivation ’ is changed voluntarily into ‘intensive tree crops - rubber/coffee etc or rice field (Jambi, Central Kalimantan) B. ‘ Swidden Cultivation ’ is being stopped with government policy before other alternative is ready (Halimun, West Java) C. ‘ Swidden Cultivation ’ is still important for local economy and is accepted by the local government (Papua) Three Policy Domain with regard to swidden systems and their transformations

6. SWIDDEN CULTIVATION Research findings Source: Tomich at al.1999; Palm et al.2005 STRATU M PARAME TER LAND USE TYPE SECOND FOREST RUBBER AF RUBBER MONO Tree d: >= 10cm # individu12.412.7 ns12.3 ns # sp9.66.01.5 # fam8.05.31.4 Saplings h: > 1.5m d: < 10cm # individu18.218 ns5.3 # sp11.210.6 ns2.0 # fam8.88.0 ns1.8 Seedlings h: <1.5 m # individu45.660.9 ns52.2 ns # sp15.415.7 ns8.5 # fam11.311.96.8 Plot size 0.32 ha 0.2 ha LAND USECARBO N (t/ha) PLANT SP/plot Primary forest254120 Rubber forest11690 Monoculture oil palm 9125 Shrub (+8 yr fallow) 7445 Vegetable216 Cassava415 Imperata fallow 215 d: diameter; h:heigh Source: Made Hesti Lestari Tata, 2008

7. SWIDDEN CULTIVATION Research findings Dynamic system Has continued technological innovation and further adaption Has economic rational in returns to labor Provides/can be environmentally sound Culturally accepted ( Fox. 2000, Mertz. 2000, Noordwijk et al. 2008, Nugraha. 2005, Palm et al. 2005, Tomich et al. 1999) Tembawang Oil Palm Paddy rice Oil palm & paddy rice Tembawang

8. SWIDDEN CULTIVATION IN REDD SCHEME Decreasing C-Stock (Increasing C- emission) Neutral for C-StockIncreasing C-Stock (Reduced Emission) State Forest Swidden Forest (international defn.) REDD REDD + Shorter cycle Longer cycle in fallow rotation  AF  Permanent AF Forest (International Definition for Kyoto protocol under UNFCCC): 1) Tree crown cover (10-30%), tree height (2-5 m), 2) but this is potential rather than actual, 3) ‘temporarily unstocked forest’ is still forest as long as trees are expected to grow Swidden agriculture & its dynamics in scheme  REDD

9. THE CONCERN ~ SWIDDEN AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT Driver of deforestation Backward agricultural practice & culture No support for economic growth Smoke (from burning) affect health, hinders sosec. actv., affect relationship w/ neigboring countries No adm. boundary  difficult for the GoI to plan for national development Not suitable for current condition  permanent cultivation SWIDDENERS Fallow  improve soil fertility Burning  cheap techn. for land preparation. Fulfill (part of) the family needs Involved local knowledge/wisdom Customary boundary Smoke was never a problem, before, why now? Is there any agric. practice that brings the soil fertility back at a low cost?

10. Swidden Cultivation ~ Timber Plantation  Not natural and not permanent forest  Tree cover  Deforestation and degradation ~ qualitative term

11. INDONESIA FORESTRY & REDD An Overview Adm.requiredHKm /PP Customa ry forest Private Forest Village Forest Copy of Ministerial Decree (permit for HKm/PP or a manager for Cust.Forest) VV Recom. from loc. govt. to implement REDD VVVV Land certificate or paper from local govt. indicating land ownership/manager VOffc. paper ~ manager VF Fulfill govt. criteria for REDD location**) VVVV Have a plan to implement REDD VVVV Forest defn: an ecosystem within a landscape dominated by trees Location for REDD (~ swidden): HKm area; people plantations area; customary forest; private forest; village forest REDD implementer: managers /owners/permit holders of the above REDD locations Ministerial Decree no. 30 year 2009 on REDD **) data and information of forest area & C-stock; bio-physic & ecology; threat to forest resources; socio-econ & culture; economic feasibility; governance

12. SWIDDEN IN REDD SCHEME: SOME CHALLENGES Swiddening is not a driver of deforestation (~International forest definition & scope of REDD), but forest institutions do not interpret it this way It is important not only to concentrates on sustainable forest management but also sustainable livelihood side It requires a landscape-scale assessment rather than focus on ‘forest’ for intensifying agriculture and short-cycle tree plantations in one part of the landscape and increasing management cycle lengths (extensifying forest management) elsewhere can contribute to overall emission reduction

13. SWIDDEN IN REDD SCHEME: SOME CHALLENGES The voice and perceptions of local stakeholders involved in swiddens and its alternatives need to be heard. The strong perceptions and values of dominant ‘public/policy ecological knowledge’ prevent a fact-based approach Current implementation procedures for REDD in Indonesia focus on forest management and planning procedures that are difficult to achieve for local stakeholders. A stronger focus on outcome- base approaches and less reliance on input-planning is needed to bring local stakeholders on board.