Ketapang Community Carbon Pools (KCCP) is part of the Southeast Asia Community Carbon Pools initiative managed by Fauna and Flora International (FFI) Indonesia Programme. Situated in Ketapang district of West Kalimantan, the goals of KCCP are to conserve the habitat of the endangered Bornean orangutan (Pongo Pygmaues wurmbii) (Rawson 2013) and to reduce GHG emissions. The core strategy is to secure community tenure rights and strengthen forest governance.

The forest landscape of Ketapang is both highly threatened and biodiversity rich (FFI–Indonesia Programme 2009). The forests are mostly managed under customary law by local Dayak and Malay communities, but are formally part of the forest zone (kawasan hutan), which is under the purview of the State (see Box H). The lowland and peat swamp forests within KCCP areas are primarily threatened by: illegal and unsustainable logging; conversion to oil palm plantations; the establishment of timber plantations, which often begins through clear cutting of natural forests; mining; and the development of plantation crops (sugar cane). Threats to forests in KCCP come from large-scale external actors and from within the area, i.e. from small-scale activities such as swidden agriculture and forest fires (uncontrolled burning for land clearing) carried out by members of the community themselves (personal communication from KCCP senior staff, 2013; Wati 2014).

To fend off large-scale external actors, the initiative is seeking first to obtain hutan desa (HD, or village forest) tenure status for these villages, that is, community management rights over village forests situated within the forest zone (kawasan hutan), before advancing to REDD+. Thus, KCCP seeks to integrate a top down policy (i.e. internationally-driven REDD+ embraced by the national government) and a bottom-up initiative (i.e. the HD process initiated at the village level). Seven villages are currently participating in KCCP.

19.1 Basic facts: Where, who, why and when

19.1.1 Geography

Ketapang is the largest of the 14 districts/townships in West Kalimantan. It has a total area of 31,588 km2 and includes 20 subdistricts (BPS Ketapang 2014). Most of KCCP’s villages are found along the Pesaguan, Tayap and Pawan rivers (see Figure 19.1). The upstream settlements are inhabited by Dayaks, and Malays live in downstream villages. The upstream communities are dependent on river transportation, while roads provide the major transportation means for downstream communities.


Figure 19.1 Map of the KCCP REDD+ initiative.

Data sources: FFI, CIFOR, GADM and World Ocean Base.

Nine villages were originally proposed for HD status. The proposal for two villages was turned down early on, so these two villages have been dropped from KCCP. KCCP proposed that 104,162 ha of Ketapang lands in a total of seven villages be verified and converted to HD. This includes four forest blocks ranging in area from 1083 to 61,000 ha. The areas proposed for conversion to HD are on lands covering several types of MoFor land-use classifications: production forest, conversion forests, protection forest and limited production forest (see Box H).1 A total of three blocks, in which there are four villages (i.e. four HDs), have been approved, covering 6890 ha. One block of forests, in which there are three villages (i.e. three HDs), was only partially approved: 7435 ha encompassing 2 villages (i.e. two HDs). The HD over forests of the third village has not been approved. The largest HD area approved so far is 6825 ha.

Forest type and deforestation

Two types of forests are dominant in Ketapang. They are (i) secondary, lowland peat swamp forests downstream of the Pesaguan River (i.e. downstream villages) with deep peat soils, and (ii) dipterocarps on the mineral soils upstream of the Pesaguan and Tayap Rivers (i.e. upstream communities).

FFI assessed, monitored and recorded the change of forest and land cover in the area before focusing on forest carbon and the establishment of KCCP. They analyzed deforestation and forest degradation based on 2000, 2004 and 2008 remote sensing data. Spectral un-mixing was used to detect logging trails or removal of individual tree crowns. Communities participated in ground truthing of deforestation and surveys of high conservation value forests. The result of this analysis and of these biodiversity surveys highlighted the severity of the threat and fragmentation of forests in Ketapang. Measurement of the deforestation rate in the initiative has not been completed. KCCP uses the reported deforestation rate at the district level of 74,590 ha annually (Adhikerana and Sugardjito 2010). This figure was derived using analysis of forest cover change between 2000 and 2005.

Political and economic setting

The district’s economy is primarily based on agriculture, mining and forestry. Rice (to fulfil subsistence needs) and rubber production (generating cash) are both important sources of livelihood for villagers. Oil palm and rubber are the two major traded agricultural commodities. While gold has been an important target of mining activities, there is emerging interest in bauxite. Small-scale illegal mining activities – mostly by outsiders – occur in some KCCP village areas. Until about a decade ago, there was a lot of timber extraction in Ketapang, with logs exported directly to Java and Singapore. While production appears to have declined since, we observed logs being transported daily out of Ketapang. Logs were being harvested from areas that will be converted to timber plantations as well as from other areas.

The peak of logging activities occurred in 1999–2001 when, due to decentralization, bupati (district heads) began to issue permits to cooperatives or individuals to boost district income. For communities, that period was perceived as a ‘victory’ as they could finally directly benefit economically from forests after serving merely as spectators on land claimed as theirs for so long. That period marked a shift, albeit temporarily, from the days of large concessions to logging activities based on small-scale licenses. However, these activities only led to temporary prosperity, as the proceeds were not reinvested into productive activities. When these licenses expired, people switched to rubber cultivation. Aside from providing a source of income, planting rubber trees showed active management and provided de facto proof of tenure.

Tensions over land rights sometimes occur between local communities and outside actors. They often occur due to the inconsistency between de jure and de facto tenure conditions, resulting in ambiguities of who has the right to a certain piece of land. As is common across Kalimantan, villagers of our study villages claim customary rights over their inherited lands without legal land title. Only a few people have formal land documents, and most of the forests in the study villages are formally under the purview of the State. Villagers are often unable to assert their land claims in the face of government-backed land-use changes.

The majority of villagers in one KCCP village were against the establishment of oil palm plantations and were supported by their adat (customary) leader and their village head. This opposition occurred even though the district government had already allocated part of their village area for conversion to oil palm. Eventually, in 2013, the adat leader gave consent for the establishment of oil palm in their area. Nevertheless, the village head and the majority of the villagers are still adamant that the oil palm company should not operate there. The adat leader was reportedly ‘befriended’ by the company and was told he would get a lot of money by selling his land to the company. The village head, however, kept his commitment to maintain village forests to maintain the traditional way of life, i.e. practicing swidden agriculture, gathering NTFPs and hunting. Although village communities mostly remain a tight-knit society, elite capture occurs in various forms.

Large-scale agricultural expansion (namely oil palm), timber plantation, smallholder agriculture (swidden and rubber), small-scale illegal logging and mining put pressures on the district’s forests. The oil palm threat to forests was observed in another KCCP village. Logging operations occurred in this village until the mid-2000s. The entire village territory is under the jurisdiction of MoFor and was designated as production forests for conversion, making these logged-over forests available for conversion to other uses (FFI 2012b). In the draft provincial spatial plan, the area was reclassified as an area for other land use (APL) under the jurisdiction of the district. Prior to the finalization of the spatial plan, however, the district government issued permits for the establishment of oil palm plantations in areas adjacent to the KCCP initiative area.

A mining company also began to operate in the area, some of which overlapped with the area under the oil palm license. The overlapping claims led to conflict between the two companies (Fachrizal 2014). Most of the land area of that village has now become part of an oil palm concession and the company has plans to extend its area further. To block this expansion and future developments threatening forests, in 2009 FFI facilitated an HD proposal to MoFor for part of the village area. MoFor granted the HD working area license to this village in 2011.

19.1.2 Stakeholders and funding

The principal proponents of the KCCP initiative are the HD legal entities, i.e. the village communities holding the HD rights. KCCP is facilitated and managed by FFI–Indonesia, a private NGO. Since 2008, FFI has worked in collaboration with various organizations to implement KCCP. Those working on community development, capacity building or social aspects include local NGOs such as Dian Tama, Titian, RMI (Rimbawan Muda Indonesia), LATIN (Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia), ASRI (Alam Sehat Lestari), Yayasan Palung, PRCF (People Resources and Conservation Foundation) and the University of Indonesia. Various other entities have also assisted KCCP on technical aspects, including Tanjung Pura University, Deltares and Forest Carbon. Some of these partnerships have since ended (e.g. with Dian Tama in mid-2010), while others have continued.

The total budget amounts to roughly USD 600,000, funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Australian Aid (AusAid), CLUA (Climate and Land Use Alliance), the European Union (EU), USAID Orangutan Conservation Service Program (USAID-OCSP), and UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK-FCO).

FFI also works closely with the district, provincial and national governments as they each play a critical role in the process of HD. These government entities provide in-kind support, including time spent and costs borne by district and MoFor staff involved in the process. The head of the district forestry service has been very supportive of the process.

19.1.3 Motivation

Building on its previous focus on the conservation of orangutans and biodiversity, FFI decided to combine those goals with climate change mitigation. Other co-benefits aimed for are: poverty reduction, community development, sustainable forest management, improved governance and application of the rule of law. FFI were inspired by the Bali Road Map in 2007 (UNFCCC 2007) and believed that the sale of carbon credits could finance activities to reduce the grave threats facing orangutans due to forest conversion. They developed a proposal for REDD+, including villages based mainly on their biodiversity value, the level of threat to orangutan habitat from conversion to oil palm or other land uses, and the willingness of communities to protect their forests.

Two key issues had to be resolved in order to meet these objectives. First, there is lack of clear tenure for communities. Formal state ownership of village lands prevents the communities from having a legally recognized right to manage village forests. Clear tenure is a prerequisite for the ability to exercise the right of exclusion (to manage external threats)2 and for any PES or REDD+ undertaking (i.e. to identify the local bearers of rights to a stream of income and responsibility for fulfilling performance-based arrangements). Securing community management rights is the first step towards a community-based REDD+ initiative. MoFor Regulation 49 of 2008 regarding HD or village forest paved the way for formal designation of a village forest area (as the HD of a village community) and for that village community to subsequently secure management rights over its forests (see below). FFI seized this opportunity by facilitating the process of HD application for the KCCP villages. Formally legitimate management rights will both empower and oblige village communities to manage natural forests sustainably.

Subsequent to initiating the process of obtaining HD tenure status, FFI seeks to introduce community-based REDD+. In accordance with state ownership of forests in the forest zone, carbon tenure is held by the State. The State however, can relinquish its carbon rights by awarding licenses to entities holding the management rights of that area. In this case, the community holding the HD management rights is eligible to apply for a carbon license.

The size of HD areas are relatively small (i.e. between 600 and 6825 ha, compared with areas under ERC licenses – see Chapters 18 on Katingan and 20 on Rimba Raya). There is thus an issue of economy of scale in establishing a community-based REDD+ project over a single HD. An adequate level of carbon emission reductions would need to be generated to be traded or to attract funding, and a small area will arguably achieve limited reductions. In addition, the costs of preparing a PDD and carbon verification are substantial. Targeting a larger block of forests across several HDs and applying carbon verification for the entire block will address these issues. Clusters of HD areas will be ‘pooled’ together to form a REDD+ community carbon pool (i.e. KCCP). Ultimately, funds raised from carbon emissions reductions from the initiatives are expected to support the conservation goals of the area.


Young oil palm plantation. (Dian Intarini/CIFOR)

Local communities’ motivation in pursuing the HD were influenced by their ‘closeness’ to forests. Dependence on forests of villages upstream of the major rivers and those downstream along the coastal areas differed, which determined the degree of interest they had in participating in HD. The former village head of a downstream village was aware that the village’s peat forests were rich in biodiversity and that self-management would bring more benefits to the village compared to the conversion to oil palm plantations. Upstream, people from non-peat villages that were more dependent on forests expressed interest in obtaining HD management rights as they feared that the forest company in their area would clear cut their forests, thereby threatening their traditional agricultural practices. Similarly, one village was keen to obtain customary management rights as a way of improving tenure for their forests. The District Forestry Service advised the village to communicate with FFI, which subsequently led to that village joining KCCP.

19.1.4 Timeline

FFI Indonesia began work in Ketapang in 2003 focusing on the conservation of the habitat of orangutan and other vulnerable species in the area (Figure 19.2). Their work in KCCP is implemented in two phases: (i) preparatory or development of the initiative for a period of five years (2009 to end of 2013 or early 2014) and (ii) implementation phase. The preparatory phase includes the two crucial steps of obtaining HD tenure through MoFor’s designation of HD working areas and obtaining HD management rights from the governor. The implementation phase focuses on REDD+ intervention activities.


Figure 19.2 Timeline of the KCCP REDD+ initiative.

A large part of the work was focused on intensive activities surrounding the HD application process, both at the national, local and subnational levels. MoFor granted HD working area licenses for six villages in the second half of 2011 (Figure 19.2), completing the first step in the process of securing HD tenure. Emphasis is now placed on the second and last step of the process, i.e. obtaining the governor’s management rights approval.

A PDD covering contiguous HD areas in three KCCP villages (see below) was drafted in 2012 to meet VCS criteria. It was estimated that over the first 10 years, some 800,000 tCO2e in emissions reductions will be achieved annually from the proposed area of some 28,000 ha (FFI 2012a). This would be equivalent to 28.5 tCO2e/ha/year. Community members were directly involved in the data gathering of biomass data to estimate baseline carbon stocks in the area.

The baseline is calculated by modeling planned deforestation based on typical oil palm conversion practices in the region derived from environmental impact assessment data and FFI’s interpretations of satellite imageries. The base year for estimating an REL for the study site is 2010. In this contiguous forest block, a conservative figure of 1000 ha/year conversion to oil palm is used (FFI 2012a). As of the writing of this chapter (October 2014), this PDD has not yet been finalized.

In 2012, a Plan Vivo project idea note (PIN) was drafted for one, non-peatland (upstream) KCCP village. Aboveground carbon stock of secondary forest and mature agroforestry in this area is estimated at 58.62 (+/- 15.52) tC/ha (FFI 2012b).

2013 marked the beginning of REDD+ implementation in four KCCP villages. Activities include land-use planning, delineation of a protection zone of forests and community-based forest monitoring. In September, FFI began interventions in the first pilot village (Figure 19.2).

19.2 Strategy for the initiative

In facilitating KCCP, FFI simultaneously embraces bottom-up and top-down approaches. The foundation of KCCP is the HD entities. Thus, community engagement is a core element, not only in the process of obtaining HD licenses but because a community-owned initiative is essential to ensuring the establishment, support and continuity of KCCP. Community commitment is also important because forest threats come from both external and internal actors. FFI and communities are also involved at the local, subnational and national institutional arena of addressing deforestation, REDD+ and forestry policy consultation processes.

FFI uses a strategy that is centered on four elements: increased clarity and security of tenure over communities’ village forests; contributing to achieving Indonesia’s GHG emissions reduction targets (see Box H); conserving forests for endangered orangutan and other threatened species; and securing long-term funding for these conservation efforts through carbon financing. Funds generated will be used to fund KCCP’s activities and support villagers’ alternative livelihoods (FFI 2012a). FFI envisions that community management rights will likely lead to improved forest management when and if they result in tangible (e.g. financial or livelihood support) benefits to communities (FFI 2012b).

In the preparatory phase, activities included: institutional development by securing HD tenure; conducting FPIC; establishing collaborative management institutions; developing a PDD; seeking potential carbon markets; measuring carbon potential; training and planning in fire prevention, canal blocking and rewetting; and securing a REDD+ permit. Implementation included: monitoring and patrolling forests; activities that reduce net carbon emission directly or indirectly (e.g. canal blocking, rewetting and reforestation in downstream villages, and a particular forest management or livelihood activity that helps communities move away from carbon-emitting activities in upstream villages); carbon trading; and dissemination of knowledge gained.

HD management rights were acquired following a two-stage approach. The first step was to obtain MoFor’s approval for an HD working area, i.e. the formal designation of a particular area of forests within the forest zone as an HD of a particular village community. The process involves stakeholders from local to national levels from the start of the initiative. It began with FFI’s facilitation of a series of dialogues with communities and central, provincial and district governments on HD and REDD+.3 For each participating village, FFI facilitated the formation of an HD team, which was tasked with, among others, identification of boundaries of the proposed HD area, preparation of a work plan and protection of the area. The village head submitted the HD proposal to the bupati for verification of the proposed HD working area. Subsequently, the bupati provided a recommendation for MoFor’s consideration; MoFor then either entirely or partially approved or rejected the HD working area.

The second step was to secure the HD management rights from the governor. This grants the community the authority and rights to use and manage forest resources within the HD working area. The management rights must be obtained within two years of the approval of the HD working area, but management plans and forest protection activities can be carried out immediately after the HD working area is approved.

The village can only submit a request for right of management to the governor after it formulates a village regulation on the management of the HD. The duration of the HD working area license and management rights are 35 years and can be extended.

Once an area is designated as an HD through a ministerial decree, that particular area will remain a category in the forest zone (i.e. as a production or a protection forest) for the duration of the license and is less likely to be classified as ‘land for other uses’ including for the extension of oil palm permits in the area. To ensure a strong and secure status of the areas allocated for HD, FFI and the HD teams were actively involved in the district’s spatial planning processes. Incorporation of HD areas into the district spatial plan means that they are on the map that is used as a reference in any land-based development in the district. Thus the initiative ensured that planned conversion to oil palm or other uses was avoided.

Six villages have been awarded HD working area status over a total of 14,325 ha of forests by MoFor.4 The proposal for the seventh village, covering an area of 14,000 ha of forest, is still being considered. At the time of writing this chapter, all six villages with HD working area licenses are in the process of obtaining their HD management rights from the governor. CIFOR conducted field research in four of the seven villages (KET1, KET2, KET3 and KET4). Partly due to limited resources, FFI currently focuses their REDD+ intervention activities in four villages and plans to work in the remaining villages later on.

KCCP is pursuing different REDD+ approaches across villages due to their different characteristics. For example, implementation of a pilot community-based PES, the Community Forest Ecosystem Services, has just started under Plan Vivo in the HD area of one upstream village in 2014. REDD+ activities in this village are most advanced among the KCCP villages. A benefit-sharing scheme PES-trial is currently being piloted in this village, where FFI provides about USD 10,000/year to the village. The benefit-sharing agreement of this support is as follows: 10% will be used for social activities (orphanage, disabled people, religious activities), 10% for landowners/managers (farmers’ groups), 5% for health services, 70% for operational management of HD (training in capacity building and income generating activities, women´s activities, forest patrols, nurseries for reforestation, the HD team), and 5% for preserving traditional culture and customary systems.

Since 2010, together with two local NGOs, FFI has been facilitating work on avoiding forest conversion from oil palm over a block of contiguous peat swamp forests situated in three other villages (see above). HD REDD+ efforts are now being intensified due to increased threats to biodiversity within these forests from potential expansion of oil palm plantations.

19.3 Smallholders in the initiative

We collected primary data using household and village-level surveys in four (KET1, KET2, KET3 and KET4) of the seven KCCP villages from June to August 2010. We also conducted follow-up interviews and a desk review.

Village structure of the four study villages is similar to other villages across Indonesia, although the role of informal leaders in village governance varies in intensity. Village governments comprise of the village head (kepala desa), village secretary (sekdes) and administrative heads (kepala urusan). There is also a village council (badan perwakilan desa). In KET1 and KET2 villages, the customary leadership and institutions are considered to be the most important. In KET3, the village council plays a large role in village decisions. In KET4, the village government is prominent. Our surveys found that women in all four villages felt that they were not sufficiently represented in their village decision-making bodies.

Basic educational and health services are accessible in all study villages and there has been some observed improvement during the course of the research. In 2010, elementary schools were operational in all villages. Only one village did not have a secondary (junior high) school; children attended secondary school in a neighboring village. By 2014, however, a secondary school was established in this village. The average years of school attendance in all villages was between 5 and 6 years, or elementary school (Table 19.1). Two villages did not have operational health centers, but villagers had access to health services provided by a mantri swasta (private health practitioner) who lives in the village. In the same year, a supporting public health clinic (pelayanan puskemas pembantu) was established in one of the two villages.

Table 19.1 Socioeconomic characteristics of households interviewed in 2010.





Number of households sampled





Household average (SD)

Number of adults

3 (1.2)

3.2 (1.3)

3.8 (1.7)

3.6 (1.6)

Number of members

4.7 (1.9)

5.3 (2.1)

5.1 (2)

5.2 (2.4)

Days of illness per adult

12.7 (37.9)

6.5 (16.9)

11 (29.2)

9.2 (24)

Years of education (adults ≥ 16 years old)

5.5 (3.1)

5.1 (2.2)

5.5 (3.2)

6.1 (4.1)

Total income (USD)a

3,039 (2,115)

7,314 (18,746)

2,729 (3,103)

1,960 (1,694)

Total value of livestock (USD)b

182 (209)

221 (480)

1,801 (7,827)

1,057 (1,366)

Total land controlled (ha)c

8.9 (10.9)

28.1 (89.7)

2.9 (5.1)

1.9 (1.8)

Total value of transportation assets (USD)

550 (507)

1,593 (3,022)

829 (1,883)

484 (725)

Percentage of households with:

Mobile or fixed phone










Piped water supply





Private latrine or toilet





Perceived sufficient income





a Total annual income (12 months prior to survey) from agriculture, livestock, business, wage labor and other sources (remittances, subsidies, pensions), net of costs, in USD; currency converted using yearly average provided by the World Bank.

b Total livestock value at the time of interview.

c Total area of agricultural, forest, other natural habitat and residential areas controlled by the household, either used or rented out.

Several sources finance the improvement of public facilities and roads. They include district programs, PNPM, local parliament’s constituency allocations (aspiration fund), the village budget and the private sector. The district mining and energy agency provided electricity support for a selected number of households with school-age children and in the home of the village head in two study villages. More than half of the households sampled had access to electricity (See Table 19.1). Clean water installation was built in these two villages by a timber plantation company and through the PNPM program, respectively. In the other two villages, households had their own well or depended on stored rainwater. Cemented pathways or village roads were seen in all study villages. In one village, a big road was built using a local parliament’s aspiration fund. In another village, the establishment of a timber plantation resulted in the construction of a new road that connects the village to the Trans Kalimantan road. This timber plantation replaced an earlier timber concession that had been operating in the area. Their operations resulted in the opening of a network of logging roads. Although mainly accessible during the dry season, logging roads are useful for villagers as they provide access to the adjacent subdistrict or town. PNPM funded the building of bridges in three study villages.

Road construction has affected the livelihoods of villagers in the two upstream villages (KET1 and KET2). Until 2010, rivers were the primary means of transportation. Development of the Trans Kalimantan road has had a huge impact on the villages’ economy. People from one village sold bananas, durian and other forest products to the neighboring province of Central Kalimantan and benefitted from access provided by that road. By sending rubber latexes directly to Pontianak, the capital province of West Ketapang, local middlemen from the other upstream village cut the market chain and obtained more value from their sale.

Agriculture was an important source of income in all of the four study villages (Figure 19.3, Figure 19.4 and Table 19.2). The proportion of households engaged in agriculture as a primary and secondary livelihood was quite substantial in all villages, and was highest in KET2 and lowest in KET3. Rice is a major commodity in these villages; rubber is also an important commodity in KET1 and KET2 – the large income share from businesses in KET2 reflect middlemen’s income from rubber trading. Villagers in KET1 adopted rubber after the timber concession ceased to operate and communities could no longer depend on income from logging activities and had to shift to other income sources. Prior to rubber they depended on swidden rice farming (ladang) and forest products. Villagers in KET3 and KET4 were mostly engaged in permanent rice farming, although some have recently begun to cultivate rubber.


Figure 19.3 Sources of income for all households in sample (n = 132).


Figure 19.4 Sources of income for average household by village (+/- SE) (n = 132).

Table 19.2 Indicators of household forest dependence based on the 2010 survey.





Number of households sampled





Household average (SD)

Share of income from forest

6.55 (19.08)

2.02 (5.96)

6.22 (22.60)

0.06 (0.34)

Share of income from agriculture

67.73 (36.94)

81.27 (27.38)

18.84 (38.10)

61.19 (36.26)

Area of natural forest cleared (ha)a

0.41 (0.90)

1.11 (1.73)

0.08 (0.25)

0.21 (0.50)

Area of secondary forest cleared (ha)a

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

Area left fallow (ha)b

3.67 (2.92)

1.72 (1.62)

1.23 (0.71)

1.67 (0.88)

Distance to forests (minutes walking)





Percentage of households

With agriculture as a primary or secondary occupation (adults ≥ 16 years old)c





With a forest-based primary or secondary occupation (adults ≥ 16 years old)d





Reporting increased consumption of forest productse





Reporting decreased consumption of forest productse





Obtaining cash income from forest productsf





Reporting an increase in cash income from forestf





Reporting a decrease in cash income from forestf





Reporting fuelwood or charcoal as primary cooking source





Leaving land fallowg





Clearing forestg





Reporting decreased opportunity for clearing forestg





Clearing land for cropsg





Clearing land for pastureg





a Average no. of hectares cleared over the past two years among households that reported clearing of any forest.

b Average no. of hectares left fallow among households that reported leaving any land fallow.

c Percentage of households with at least one adult reporting cropping as a primary or secondary livelihood.

d Percentage of households with at least one adult reporting forestry as a primary or secondary livelihood.

e Percentage of households among those that reported any consumption of forest products over the past two years.

f Percentage of households among those that reported any cash income from forest products over the past two years.

g In the two years prior to the survey.

Oil palm and mining are contributing to the local economy. Logging activities that had started in the area of KET3 six decades ago have now ceased, and the area is now the only lowland secondary forest that provides suitable habitat for releasing orangutan in Ketapang (personal communication from Indonesia program director, International Animal Rescue, 2013). The threat to forests in the area has now shifted from logging to oil palm and (often illegal) mining. The Ketapang District Land Office (Kantor Pertanahan Kabupaten Ketapang) has approved initial licenses (izin lokasi) for oil palm establishments for two companies in the KET3 village area (FFI 2012a). Oil palm companies are also lining up to establish plantations in KET2 and KET4 villages. In addition to agricultural production, illegal gold and other mineral mining (note the high income share from wage labor in mining) are boosting the village economy of KET3. These activities attract outsiders and pose a threat to forests in the area.

Forests remain important for villagers. The two upstream villages were more reliant on forests than the downstream villages, and continued to use forests to practice swidden agriculture. A substantial percentage of households in the two villages had cleared forest in the two years prior to our fieldwork. Villagers also collected NTFPs and hunted. A substantial portion of households in these two villages earned cash income from forests. However, in all four villages, forest-derived income was small compared to non-forest income, even in the upstream villages. In the 12 months prior to data collection in 2010, NTFP harvests such as durian were relatively poor due to unusual weather. Similarly, hunting during the same period was not good.

There was significant support from local and national government programs and the private sector for communities’ land-use activities and/or forest cover between 2010 and 2013. Rubber seedlings were distributed through transmigration-related and reforestation activities in one of our study villages. MoFor provided a nursery in KET1 to support community agroforestry (Kebun Bibit Rakyat, KBR). Agricultural support (hand tractor, fertilizers and seeds) and fishery support (fishing equipment, boats and fishpond establishment) were provided to KET3 and KET4. In addition, a food estate project involving rice field expansion and the development of irrigation systems are planned in KET3 and KET4. In KET3 and KET4, PNPM provided credits exclusively for women to help this particular group establish agricultural plots.

19.4 Challenges facing the initiative

KCCP has faced three major challenges. The first is land tenure uncertainty. State lands which, in reality, are used and claimed by communities, invite different interpretations of who has actual rights over them. Government issuance of licenses to use or convert forest lands on community-claimed lands can lead to conflict. This in turn can reduce incentives to protect forests. For REDD+ to be effective, clear tenure rights are a necessary, although not sufficient condition (see, for example, Resosudarmo et al. 2014a).

The second major challenge has been the protracted process of obtaining HD tenure. The HD working area license and the HD management rights are obtained through steps that involve stringent formal verifications. The entire process of obtaining the HD working area license for each of the intervention villages, with intensive facilitation and support from FFI throughout the entire process, has taken two years. At the time of writing (October 2014), however, none of the villages have yet obtained HD management rights from the governor – the next and last crucial step to secure HD tenure. Villagers are thus beginning to question whether they will actually get management rights over their village forests and subsequently receive REDD+ benefits. In the meantime, oil palm companies are promising higher financial returns to village decision makers. These dynamics can easily erode the enthusiasm of communities towards HD and REDD+, and ultimately have implications for their interest and ability to conserve their forests. Due to increasing threats to these forests and the declining confidence within communities, FFI is working hard to encourage the governor of West Kalimantan to award HD tenure status to the villages.

The third major challenge concerns the internal dynamics in the villages and the different dynamics across the villages. Despite sharing a similar culture, communities are pluralistic entities in which people do not always have similar preferences and objectives. For example, a segment of the community may support HD and REDD+, while another may prefer other forms of development. This was clear in one study village, where the community split into two polarized views. One group wanted to conserve forests, while the other wanted to have oil palm development. Those who wanted oil palm attempted to influence the conservationists and those who were unsure about HD and REDD+. Moreover, there are elites who do not always represent the majority voice of the community. Engaging with such a community requires an understanding of its internal dynamics, adequate resources and patience. Moreover, KCCP involves the pooling of villages. Different dynamics across the villages (e.g. external vs internal threats, types of threats, effective village governance) requires alignment and intensive facilitation.

19.5 Lessons from the initiative

KCCP is the product of a creative undertaking to combine opportunities arising from two policy developments. One is internationally driven REDD+ that has been adopted by the Government of Indonesia through its various REDD+ policies and regulations (See Box H) reflecting a top-down approach. The other, facilitated by the national government policy on HD, is the bottom-up, participatory approach for increased clarity and security of local communities’ rights over their village forests. The participation and engagement of community is the essence of the entire HD process.

Ideally, national REDD+ policies and implementation of HD should be complementary to each other, yet the case of KCCP shows that they are not. The process of obtaining HD licenses is cumbersome, technical, time-consuming and costly so it poses mountainous obstacles to the process of enabling REDD+ on the ground. Moreover the process is complex and requires intensive communications with people at various scales in government, including in the capital city Jakarta; it is impossible to imagine how a highly motivated community could navigate this complex process on its own. The case of KCCP illustrates the indispensable role played by an organization such as FFI, and as well the urgent need for the government to streamline the process of obtaining the HD tenure status if it is truly committed to enabling the development of REDD+ on the ground. This case also shows that pressures against interests in conserving forests are strong, and thus the implementation of good policies such as HD should be guarded and supported, and if possible, made simpler and more amenable to bottom-up implementation so as not to lose the faith of communities.

FFI’s success in raising local communities’ awareness of the need to protect orangutans and to sustain their adat way of life, and in turn to affirm their willingness to protect their forests from outside interests through HD, was not achieved instantaneously. The dedicated hard work of the FFI staff, as well as their close personal relationship with people in the communities has played a crucial role in motivating them to participate in KCCP.

19.6 Acknowledgments

We would like to convey our heartfelt thanks to all of the community members and leaders from the study villages for allowing us to gain some insight and learn from their experiences, and for their time, support and friendship during our study, without which this research would not have been possible. We are grateful for the support provided by our FFI colleagues: Ahmad Kusworo, Darmawan Liswanto, Sugeng Raharjo, Rahmawati, Joseph Hutabarat, Happy Hendrawan, Lorens Arang, Andy Priyo S, Darkono Tjawikrama, Edy Nurdiansyah, Erik SM and Aseng Tan, Yanta, and Abdurahman AL Qahdri of Kawan Burung Ketapang Club and Sulhani of Yayasan Titian. Thanks to Muhammad Agus Salim, Uji Pribadi and Astrid Bos of CIFOR, who provided maps for the field research and for this chapter. We are indebted to the Ketapang Government for their support. We are grateful for the dedication and perseverance of our field team members and data encoders: Aar Lesmana, Arnest Ben Gurion, Meyrisia Lidwina, Jhon Roy Sirait, Merlinta Anggilia and Tina Taufiqoh. We would also like to thank Claudio de Sassi for providing the graphs and tables, and Ahmad Kusworo of FFI, and Stibniati Atmadja and Agus Djoko Ismanto of CIFOR for reviewing the draft of this chapter.

1 Production forest can be legally used for timber extraction. Conversion forest can be legally zoned for conversion to other uses outside of forestry, such as for agricultural development.

2 Interview with an FFI senior staff member based on his observations, 2013.

3 For example, in 2010 FFI hosted workshops in Ketapang and in Pontianak on HD and REDD.

4 MoFor Decrees 493, 494, 495, 586, 587, 588 of 2011.


Box H
REDD+ in Indonesia: The national context