LAND TENURE CONFLICT ON WET LAND CONSERVATION (Case studies at wildlife conservation of Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget, , )

Mahrus Aryadi1, Hamdani Fauzi2,Titien Maryati3, & Asysyifa4 Faculty of Forestry, University of Lambung Mangkurat, South Kalimantan, Indonesia 1email:[email protected]; 2email:[email protected] ; 3Email: [email protected];[email protected]

Abstract This study aims to explore the history and forms of land use by communities in the conservation areas of Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget wildlife conservation; and an inventory and identify the causes of forest land conflicts in the conservation areas of Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget. Land use form of the community at wet land ecosystem is one of adaptation strategy in accord with the change of land function. Wildlife conservation of Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget is part of Indonesia government strategy to conserve fauna and their live, especially Bekantan (Nasalis larvatus) and Kera Ekor Panjang (Macaca fascicularis). The land ownership system were controlled without any proof of ownership, but is recognized by all members of the community. These are three forms of land use such as: paddy rice, pond and agroforestry homegarden. Some problem faced on these area are land tenure conflict and land occupation. These issues has threatened the existence of wet land ecosystem on wildlife conservation. Changes in function of the area and the need for land by local communities has led to protracted social conflict between communities and government. There are 3 (three) causes of the using of the conservation area i.e. there is no clear border area, the lack of law enforcement, and the tendency of society to maintain the use of conservation land for social and economic activities. Keywords:Land Tenure, Conflict, Land Use, Wetland, Conservation

1. INTRODUCTION Based on the substantial functions, forest areas are divided into: a) conservation forest areas; b) protected forest areas; and c) production forest Under the provisions of Law No. 41 Year area. 1999 on Forestry, we know the classification of forests that a forest is a particular area designated According to the Decree of the Minister of or set by the Government to be protected as a Forestry number SK.435 / Menhut-II / 2009dated permanent forest. In general explanation, it is June 23rd, 2009 on the appointment of Forest mentioned that in order to obtain optimum Areas of South Kalimantan Province, the width benefits from forests and forest areas for the of the area in the province of South Kalimantan welfare of society, then in principle all woods is ± 1,779,982 ha. Of the forest area, there is and forests can be utilized with regard to the aconservation area of ± 100,001.668 ha covering nature, characteristics and vulnerability and it is the area of Teluk Kelumpang nature reservation not justified to alter its substantial functions. (CA), Selat Laut CA, Selat Sebuku CA, Gunung

29

Kentawan CA, Teluk Pamukan CA,Sungai Bulan managed properly, it can have positive impacts CA, Pulau Kembang Natural Tourism Park for the realization of social welfare, but when (TWA), Pleihari Tanah Laut TWA, Pulau less able to be managed it can be bad for peace, Kaget wildlife conservation, Pulau Bakut harmony of social life in the region. This wildlife conservation and Kuala Lupak wildlife community powerlessness can lead to widening conservation. the gap between the community and other communities, and between communities and The areas of Kuala Lupak wildlife stakeholders parties of Kuala Lupak wildlife conservation and Pulau Kaget are included as conservation and Pulau Kaget which in turn can one of the representatives ofmangrove swamp lead to prolonged social conflicts. Therefore, forest ecosystems dominated by vegetation types empowerment may be one solution to the of Rambai (Soneratia alba),Panggang (Ficus sp), conflict that is effective in the management of Rengas (Gluta renghas), Nipah (Nypa fructicans). the protected areas of wet land ecosystems of While the types of faunas that inhabit this region Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget wildlife are Proboscis (Nasalis larvatus) which becomes conservation. the mascot faunaof South Kalimantan, Long- tailed monkeys (Macaca fascicularis), monkeys This study aims to explore the history and (Presbytiscristata), Bangau Tongtong (Leptotilos forms of land use by communities in the javanicus), and others. Protection of the diversity conservation areas of Kuala Lupak and Pulau offloras and faunas that live in the mangrove Kaget wildlife conservation; and an inventory forests and lowland forest is the value of the and identify the causes of forest land conflicts in conservation area. the conservation areas of Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget sanctuary. The benefits obtained from this Based on the results of the research conducted study enrich scientific repertoire about by Ilham.W., Et al (2011) that although Kuala understanding the forms of land use by Lupak wildlife conservation and Cagar Kaget are communities in the conservation area, the conservation areas that should be sterile from the characteristics and patterns of forest land land utilization and use by the public, but the real conflicts. facts indicate the occurrence of illegal land tenure for the build of wild fishing ponds, rice fields and other supporting infrastructure 2. LITERATURE REVIEW facilities of ± 2,000 ha (60.46% of the area of According to Fuad and Maskanah (2000), 3307.96 ha). According to Fuad and Maskanah conflicts are clashes that occur between two or (2000), extensive forests requires intensive more parties, which are due to the difference in management, amid the demands of life, it is not value, status, power, and resource scarcity. While uncommon to raise the problems of life, which in according Miall et al. (2002) Conflicts are turn can lead to social conflicts. Conflicts are interistic aspects and can no be avoided in social inevitable in the management of Indonesia's change. Conflictsare expressionsof heterogeneity, forest resources. interests, values, and beliefs that emerged as a Social conflicts occurring and not managed new formation caused by social changes that can have an impact on the community and the appear in contrary to the obstacles inherited. But lack of productivity of the community itself as the way we handle conflicts is a matter of habit well as related parties, because the social climate and it is possible to change the response of the of the environment is not conducive. Conversely, habits and make determinations of right choices. if, when the potential for social conflicts can be Conflicts are difference in perspective. It

30

could simply be a complaint to the extent of converted illegally by the community. violence and war. Walker and Daniels peel Previous studies examine more on the carefully the various definitions of technical and biophysical aspects on peat swamp conflictswhich show that conflicts turned out to forests as Ilham (2011) did, entitled "Design of be a discourse that is socially constructed and Conservation Forest Management Unit (FMU) can be viewed from various angles (Walker and Kuala Lupak Barito Kuala" which recommends Daniels, 1997). the development direction for the conservation Fuad and Maskanah (2000) also state that forests for wildlife conservationsand acreage in forest resource conflicts often seen(although the area that is used for other purposes wisely there are still many invisible) are ones between managed as a part of the KPHK territory. A communities within and on forest edges, with rresearch by Suyanto (2009) emphasizes aspects various parties outside considered to have an of the potential diversity of medicinal plants that authority in the management of forest resources. are located in the swamp forests in South Wulan et al. (2004) stated that based on the Kalimantan. Meanwhile, Ali. (2008) examines results ofthe analysis of articles in the media, the potential of Floras and Faunas in swamp there are at least five major causes of conflicts in forestsin . the concession area, plantation and conservation A study by Fauzi (2011) which examines the areas, namely forest encroachment, illegal pattern of Agro forestry in community forestsin logging, environmental destruction, regional Peat Swamp Land show that forests plants’ boundaries or access and area conversion. growth planted with agroforestry patterns have Environment and natural resource increased due to nutrient inputs indirectly upon management requires the ability to deal with fertilization of agricultural crops. Budiningsih conflicts (Mitchell et al. 2000). Meanwhile, the (2011) who conducted research on the main factors causing conflictsin conservation development of the financial aspects of Jelutong areas such as protected forests and national parks (Dyera spp) in swamp forest found that the are encroachment and illegal logging. This business is feasible to be developed. happens due to the establishment of a Fauzi (2009) examines the socio-economic conservation area usually done unilaterally by situation in and around the forest area of wetland the government without involving the public. As forests in Barito Kuala region known that in a result, there are misunderstandings arising from general, the income of the people are poor the public and the relevant parties. In some cases, 46.15%and near-poor23.08%. the community's the establishment of protected areas or national dependence on forest land is high with a score of parks often forces people to move to another 15.87.the community usesthe swamp forest land place. Encroachment becomes a major issue for the benefits of agricultural crops such as because people still think that the land they open paddy cultivations and plantation. Aryadi (2011) for farming is their right though it has been examines the empowerment of communities in determined to be a protected area (Wulan et al. swamp forest management which recommends 2004). the needs for the support and commitment of all Until now there has been no research on the stakeholders (government, private, business resolution of land conflicts in wetland people, environmentalists and ecosystems, especially in conservation areas in community),especially in terms of funding and South Kalimantan, but the facts indicate that a lot participatory development. of conservation areas are occupied, cleared and

31

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 The Terms of the Forest Land Use The approach used is a mixture of quantitative Zone and qualitative approaches to the nature of the case study (Case study). The method used for Based on the determination of forest areas by this study intends to get a picture or a description the government, in KualaLupak and Pulau Kaget of the land conflicts, conflict resolution models Wildlife conservationsare protected areas, based on community empowerment in the Indonesian Government Regulation No. 6of 2007 management of wetlands conservation area on Forest Management and Forest Management ahead. The results of preliminary observations Planning, and Forest Utilization mention that a indicate that community-controlled land has been protected forest is a forest area, due to the cultivated for agricultural cultivation and fish physical state of the region needs to be fostered ponds, and not a few which are left untouched. and maintained as a forest by covering its The conservationareas in this study are Kuala vegetationsconstantly to the hydrology interests Lupak and Pulau Kaget wildlife conservations. thatare regulating water supply, preventing Based on the interview, the location of this floods and erosion and maintaining soil research is in the villages of Kuala Lupak and durability and fertility bothin the forest area Sungai Telan Besar (Kuala Lupak wildlife itsellf and the surrounding forest area affected. conservation area) and the village of Muara To keep the protected forest areas Tabunganen (Pulau Kagetwildlife conservation functioningwell, then in the protected forest area). areas activities that lead to the undermining of The data were collected through in-depth protection should not be carried out.The results interviews, focus group discussions and of direct observations in the field at the time of documentation. The in-depth interviews were the study appear that in the protected forest area conducted on informants who have the and production forest, therehas been no activity knowledge and experience regarding the use of conducted by community particularly forest conservation areas by communityand land clearing for farming activities and livestock conflicts.The focus Group Discussion was grazing. conducted on community leaders and employees The interaction between society and the of BKSDA of South Kalimantan Province. The forests Wildlife Kuala Lupak and Pulau Kaget data analysis was based on the opinion of Miles produce three (3) forms of activity, namely: the and Huberman(1992), that the analysis of clearing of forest land into rice field, the clearing qualitative data includes data reduction, data of forest land into farms, and the clearing of presentation, and conclusion drawing, the three forest lands into the yard. These interaction lines of data analysis will be a reference in this activities are particular regarded to the use of paper. The data obtained from the results of field forest land which became a problem for the land observations, in-depth interviews with conflict, as it is conducted in forest areas respondents as well as the study of literature whereas according to the Basic Forestry Law No. were analyzed based on three lines of the 41 of 1999 and Act 18 of 2013 suggests that all qualitative data analysis. The analysis of kinds of usage and utilization of forest products quantitative data is a continuing, repeatedly and must have the permission. The use of forest land continuously effort. by the community in the research area were grouped into the category of the land use.

32

4.1.1 The land clearing for the rice fields village of Kuala Lupak and Telan Besar Village, are rainfed mostly located in the village of Until the 1990s conservation areas have not Tabunganen Muara and Tabunganen Kecil. been processed intensively by the population as paddy fields. However, in 1992 this region began Non-technical irrigated rice fields with the to be used with the approval of the community area of 40 ha are planted once in a year, while for sub-district officials refer to the Agrarian Law of the rice fields with the area of 60 ha are planted 1970 with an excuse to take advantage of the twice in a year. Meanwhile, the rainfed with the productive abandoned land , especially in the area of 510 ha is only planted once in a year north. Then, it the massive development is while for the rest of the area is free. For the free conducted by about 300 farmers with area up to area, according to the subjective argumentation, 3 hectares. it is caused by some factors such as the production cost which is increased and it does Rice fields contained in the village covers an not balance with the selling price, and the field area of 1,310 ha which consists of two systems, productivity which decreases because of the coal namely the non-technical irrigated rice fields of mine waste pollution. The forest land data which 100 ha and rainfed area of 1,210 ha. Non is used for the rice fields can be seen in the Table technical irrigation rice field can be found in the 1. Table 1. Conservation areas used by the society for the Rice Fields Non-Technical Farmers Rice Field The ownership No. Villages Raifed Rice Field (KK) area (ha) average Irrigation 1. Sungai Telan 117 43 62 105 0,90 2. Kuala Lupak 148 55 38 93 0,63 Tabunganen 3. 112 418 0 418 3,73 Muara Total 377 516 100 616 1,75 Source: Village profile (2014)

Rice field farming is the primary livelihood of productivity in this region makes people tend to the society to fulfill their need i.e. foods. While retain their field areas. According to the for the fisheries and plantation are the secondary information from the society and other informal livelihood which have rules in supporting the leaders, most of people who process their rice fulfillment of the other needs such as side dishes, fields in the Pulau Kaget do not have alternative clothes, kitchen supplies, health, housing, businesses. cigarettes and others.

Productivity of paddy fields in general ranges 4.1.2 The clearing area for fishpond between 6-7 tin dry rice / the entire stock or Wildlife of Kuala Lupak region has been equal to ± 2.5 tones / ha. Meanwhile, the cleared for farming based on interviews reach residents who seek the rice fields on the Pulau 2,083 ha (63% wider Wildlife Kuala Lupak). Kaget obtain a higher yield of rice with dried rice Utilization of land for the pond is done by clear- productivity tin 13-15 / the entire stock or 5.4 cutting of existing vegetation and disturb the tons / ha. The high level of the rice fields

33

presence of birds and proboscis monkeys, society with the processing area about 1-3 ha/ because the tenants pond view that the presence family. They (the owner/ farm workers) stay of these animals is regarded as an enemy that around their pond in order to keep their ponds must be destroyed due to be pests that can reduce saves. their yields.

Clearing of land for farms is started in 1997 4.1.3 The Clearing Land for agroforestry yard conducted by immigrant communities who Agro forestry yard pattern contained in migrated from Sungai Danau dominated by villages such as planting durian, coconut, Buggies. At first, the people reject their presence jackfruit in the yards around the house residence by opening activity of the pond, however, by the with a mixture of Gliricidia plants, pepper, lure of lucrative business, a lot of people try to coconut or banana. In this pattern, durian and do that. Local residents do not have knowledge jackfruit are used for trade while crops such as of aquaculture activities and adequate skills so coconuts and bananas, cassava just for meeting that sometimes they cannot wait the producing the families' need. The Gliricidia plants that exist time, and on the other hand, for the urgent needs, in this pattern are cultivated as cover crops they sell their "ponds" to the Buggies settlers, which also serve as fodder. The area of land for government officials and businessmen from cultivation in the yard, as can be seen in Table 2. and Marabahan. The total area of the active pond until 2014 is about 1.657 ha which has been parted by the Table 2. Forest land used for agro forestry yard Residents No. Village Are of the yard (ha) The ownership average (KK) 1 Kuala Lupak 234 69.5 0.30 2 Sungai Telan 344 96.25 0.28 4 Tabunganen Muara 270 425 1.57 Total 848 590,75 0.71 Source: Village profile (2013)

4.2 The Cause of Land Conflict environment (forest) which is different with the general habitation which are not placed in a Based on the interview result, there are 3 forest. Meanwhile, the respondent who (three) causes of the using of the conservation understand about the area regulation are 8.74%. area i.e. there is no clear border area, the lack of law enforcement, and the tendency of society to The knowledge they get from the media (print maintain the use of conservation land for social and electronic), flyers or dissemination by the and economic activities. Factors that cause the competent authority in this case is the Forest most common conflicts in various regions is Service and Resort Barito Kuala and Wildlife of unclear boundaries for the people in the Kuala Lupak / Pulau Kaget, and a combination surrounding forest (43.18%). of resources which is mentioned. Unfortunately, the information they get is not detail yet so that The result of the questionnaire shows that even if they know that their village is in forest 91.26% of societies do not understand about the area, but they do not know the border line border because they are living in the special

34

because the boundary field is rare. forest area, the development of the forest development can be wasted. This reality illustrates that the source of knowledge about forest governance rules by the Encroachment is the cause of forest conflicts public from the media indicate that the that took second place (23.86%). Encroachment submission of such information is still sporadic, on protected areas is more directed at planting less deep, less intensity and it is not continuous. subsistence crops and food crops and plantation This condition can be concluded that the crops (cash crop) and it has came into the land dissemination of information on forestry rules tenure efforts to purchase land in the derived from the media that has been used is not "underhand" term. Encroachment occurs because enough to provide in-depth information to the the conservation of the Kuala Lupak and Pulau public. Kaget have the wide areas with supervision which has not been optimal. Currently the The unclear boundaries between land farming community is experiencing a "fever" to conservation area with village needs to be given sell the land for aquaculture. High prices of the serious attention, especially from the government. land has encouraged people to sell most of the Boundaries and access issues are nothing new in land, both of their own or land ownership or the the world of forestry. This has been expressed by by taking them from forest. many previous researchers (Anau, 2002; Orstom, 1999; Moeliono and Fisher, 2003; Suporahardjo According to BKSDA South Kalimantan and Wodicka, 2003). The question that arises is (2013), encroachment by the public to the where the limits which must be obeyed? What clearing of the pond over 2 years has been are the limits set by the government or the carried out through pre-emptive approach boundaries recognized by the local community? (identification of the problem, the local government policy support and enhancement of Boundary issues will continue to arise when human resources; Preventive (routine patrol, there is no proper solution. It is important counseling and active interaction area managers); thought of a way out to resolve the boundary and repressive (field operations approach by conflicts in forest areas. Obscurity land local police and rangers). boundaries are often exploited by some unscrupulous people to claim land with an area Generally, the tenure on the conservation of which is out of the sense, as it is happened in the forests in Kuala Lupak And Pulau Kaget village of Kuala Lupak, there are people who community is not a mistake because the fact says claim that they have forest land area of ± 300- that the villagers consider that the forest is a gift acres. form God that can be used by anyone. The world developments which more focus on the economic It is recognized that the forest is not the only aspects become a reason by certain society to the form of land management. Other forms of clearing the field into the conservation area. land management could be agriculture, livestock, fisheries and plantations. Traditionally, the Some important points which can be concern various forms the common management of is to protect the area of the Kuala Lupak and competition in acquiring land. Competition about Pulau Kaget wildlife include: strengthening the the forest boundaries often makes a conflict institutional and human resource adequacy, between the government and the public or socialization and internalization, strengthening private. Therefore, the presence of the clear regional boundaries, improving human resources forest boundaries is very important. According to for local communities in the management of Simon (2009), if there is no fixed border of the productive wetlands, conflict resolution and fair

35

law enforcement. It is important to reduce the flora and fauna, especially Bekantan (Nasalis potential for land conflict is to provide an larvatus). Kuala Lupak evolve in line with the opportunity for local communities to participate change of its function into the conservation area. in managing the land surrounding them through Forms of the land use consists of clearing land social engineering approach. According Aryadi for fields, land clearing for farms, and land et al (2014), social engineering stress to build a clearing for home gardens. Changes in function common interest, togetherness and openness of the area and the need for land by local between community leaders and community communities has led to protracted social conflict members with a facilitator candidates activities. between communities and government. Based on the interview result, there are 3 (three) causes of the using of the conservation area i.e. there is no clear border area, the lack of CONCLUSION law enforcement, and the tendency of society to maintain the use of conservation land for social and economic activities. Factors that cause the Conservation forests and wildlife of Kuala most common conflicts in various regions is Lupak and Pulau Kaget is one of the Indonesian unclear boundaries for the people in the government's efforts to maintain and protect the surrounding forest (43.18%).

REFERENCES

1) Anau, N., Iwan, R., Heist, M. van, Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Limberg, G., Sudana, M., & dan Resource Management. International Wollenberg, E. (2002). Negotiating more Development Research Centre (IDRC) – than boundaries: Conflict, power, and Ottawa, Canada. agreement building in the demarcation of 6) Budiningsih, K. (2010). Community village border in Malinau. In: Technical Forest Tenure in . Galam Report Phase I 1997-2000. ITTO Project Journal, 7(3), 82-93. PD 12/97 Rev.1.(F) Forest, Science and 7) Engel, A., & Korf, B. (2005). Sustainability: The Bulungan Model Techniques of Negotiation and Mediation Forest, 131-156. CIFOR, Bogor. for Natural Resource Management. The 2) Anonymous. (2009). Forestry Ministerial International Social Forestry Journal 4(3), Decree No.435/Kpts-II/2009 on 17-31 Appointment of Forest Areas of South 8) Fauzi, H. (2012). Analysis of Socio- Kalimantan. Ministry of Forestry. Jakarta Economic Condition of Forest Area 3) Anonymous. (2011). Facts and Data Communit y Around PFMU Banjar. Hutan Forest Development in South Kalimantan. Tropis Journal, 13(28), 125-136. South Kalimantan Forest Service. 9) Fearnside, P. M. (2000). Global warming and tropical land-use change: greenhouse 4) Biezefeld, R. (2004). Discourse shopping gas emissions from biomass burning, in a dispute over land in rural Indonesia. decomposition and soils in forest Ethnology Journal 43(2), 137–154. conversion, shifting cultivation and 5) Buckles, D. (2009). Cultivating Peace: secondary vegetation. Climatic Change,

36

46(1-2), 115–158. Resolving Conflict (2nd Edition). San doi:10.1023/A:1005569915357. Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. 10) Feder, G., & Feeny, D. (1991). Land tenure 19) Ostrom, E., & Schlager, E. (1996). The and property rights: theory and implications formation of property rights. In: Hanna for development policy. The World Bank S, Folke C, Mäler KG, eds. Rights to Economic Review, 5(1), 135–153. nature: ecological, economic, cultural, and doi:10.1093/wber/5.1.135. political principles of institutions for the 11) Fisher, S., Abdi, D. K., Ludin, J., Smith, environment. p. 127–156. Washington, R., Williams, S., & dan Williams, S. DC: Island Press. (2001). Managing Conflict: Skills and 20) Palmer, C., & Engel, S. (2007). For better Strategies for action. The British Council, or for worse? Local impacts of the Indonesia. decentralization of Indonesia’s forest sector. 12) Fortman, L. (1985). The tree tenure World Development, 35(12), 2131–2149. factor in agroforestry with particular Retrieved from reference to Africa. Agroforestry Systems, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.0 2(4), 229–251. 2.004 13) Galudra, G., Sirait, M., Ramdhaniaty, N., 21) Ramirez, R. (1999). Stakeholder analysis Soenarto, F., & Nurzaman, B. (2005). and conflict management. In Cultivating History of land-use policies and peace: conflict and collaboration in natural designation of Mount Halimun–Salak resource management (pp. 101–126). National Park. Manajemen Hutan Tropika International Development Research Center: Journal, XI(1), 1–13. Washington, DC. Retrieved from 14) Johnson, J. E., Creighton, J. H., & Norland, http://books.google.co.id/books?hl=en&lr= E. R. (2007). An international perspective &id=RYQcQxmSNxUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1 on successful strategies in forestry 01&dq=Forestry+Land+Conflict&ots extension: a focus on extensionists. Journal 22) Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a of Extension, 45(2), 16–19. Retrieved from decision: the analytic hierarchy process. http://www.joe.org/joe/2007april/a7p.shtml European Journal of Operational Research, 15) Jovan, M. (2010). State Losses Due to 48(1), 9–26. Retrieved from Illegal Logging in Banjar Regency. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377- The International Journal Social Forestry, 2217(90)90057-I 8(2), 171-172. 23) Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Koike, M. 16) Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R. (2000). Understanding why farmers plant A., Leisz, S. J., Lam, N. T., & Vien, T. D. trees in the homestead agroforestry in (2009). Swidden change in Southeast Asia: Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems, 50(1), understanding causes and consequences. 77–93. doi:10.1023/A:1006403101782. Human Ecology, 37(3), 259–264. 24) Suyanto. (2009). Some Threats to Forest doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9245-2 Protected Areas in 17) Castro, A. P., & Nielsen, E. (2003). South Kalimantan. Hutan Tropis Journal, Natural resource conflict management 10(27), 262-276. case studies: An analysis of power, 25) Van Noordwijk, M. (2002). Scaling trade- participation and protected areas, 207-230. offs between crop productivity, carbon FAO, Rome stocks and biodiversity in shifting 18) Moore, C. W. (1996). The Mediation cultivation landscape mosaics: the Process, Practical Strategies for FALLOW model. Ecological Modelling,

37

149(1), 113–126. doi:10.1016/S0304- 3800(01)00518-X. 26) Yasmi, Y. (2003). Understanding conflict in the comanagement of forest: A case of Bulungan Research Forest. International Forestry Review, 5(1), 38-44

38