Assessing the Sustainability of NTFP-Based Community Enterprises: A Viable Business Model for Indonesian Rural Forested Areas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Study Area
2.2. Samples of Research
2.3. Data Sources and Collection
2.4. Estimation of Value Chain, Supply Chain, and Financial Viability
2.5. Sustainability Index
3. Results
3.1. Financial Feasibility and Performance of Small Forest Enterprises
3.2. Value and Supply Chains
3.3. Description of SFE Conditions
3.3.1. Production of Essential Oil
3.3.2. Production of Honey (Wild Bee—A. mellifera and Stingless Bee—T. leaviceps)
3.3.3. Saps Processing
3.3.4. Wood Charcoal Production
- The one-day process of supplying wood raw materials to the furnace;
- Burning process lasting approximately four days;
- Cooling and packing process for three to four days.
3.3.5. Production of Skewers
3.3.6. Production of Liquid Smoke
3.4. Sustainability Status of SFEs
4. Discussion
4.1. Promoting Adaptable Forest-Based Enterprises and Jurisdiction Approach
4.2. Cross-Production System: Facilitate the Ability of Individuals with Public and Private Goals to Work Together
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
No. | Attributes | Scoring | Bad | Good | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecological dimension | |||||
1 | Liquid and solid waste products | 0; 1; 2; 3; 4 | 0 | 4 | Waste (solid and liquid) by process and ability to handle: much and not handled (0); little and unaddressed (1); much and can be handled (2); little and manageable (3); none (4) |
2 | The result of pollution, carbon, and harmful substances | 0; 1; 2; 3; 4 | 0 | 4 | Water and water emissions by process and ability to handle: many and not handled (0); few and unaddressed (1); many and can be handled (2); few and manageable (3); none (4) |
3 | The production process produces odors | 0; 1; 2; 3; 4 | 0 | 4 | Many and unaddressed (0); few and unaddressed (1); many and can be handled (2); few and manageable (3); none (4) |
4 | Land carrying capacity | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Very critical (0); critical (1); prone (2); safe (3) |
5 | Energy use | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Energy use in business (production and others): none (0); low (1); high and conventional (2); high and renewable (3) |
6 | Exploitation of resources and land | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | The need for raw materials/business processes that require the exploitation of SD and land: none (0); low (1); high (2) |
7 | Exploitation practices that are not environmentally friendly | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Land burning, excessive logging, etc.: none (0); low (1); high (2) |
8 | Positive influence on the environment | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Assisting with land rehabilitation, ecological cycles, etc.: none (0); low (1); high (2) |
9 | The level of dependence on environmental quality | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Business dependency on raw materials, resources, land, environmental quality, weather/climate, etc.: none (0); low (1); high (2) |
10 | Compatibility of business with natural factors | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Natural factors such as weather, climate, soil fertility, altitude: none (0); low (1); high (2) |
11 | Chemical use | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | None (0); low (1); high (2) |
Economic/business dimension | |||||
1 | Product legality | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Requirements for marketing the product legally: none (0); exists but incomplete (1); complete (2) |
2 | Sustainability of raw material availability | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Difficult (0); available, but limited (1); available all year round (2) |
3 | Processing technology capability | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | All conventional (0); semi-automated (1); limited/less automation (2); sufficient machines (3) |
4 | Production capacity | Stopped (0), by order (1), sideline (2), routine (3) | |||
5 | Supply chain/product chain | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | long and hidden (0); long and open (1); short and hidden (2); short and open (3) |
6 | Presale processing | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | E.g., packaging: none (0); some (1); much (2) |
7 | Information and communication technology (ICT) | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Use of ICT in business, e.g., online sales, marketing, payments, digital advertisements, online stores, and virtual communities: none (0); some (1); much (2) |
8 | Market reach | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Current market: local/national (0); national/regional (1); international/export (2) |
9 | Marketing | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Extent of marketing activities carried out, e.g., promotion, branding, positioning: none (0); low (1); high (2) |
10 | Yield/salary/wages | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | None (0); low (1); sufficient (2); appropriate (3) |
11 | Financial management | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Division of tasks, financial accounting: none (0); some (1); much (2) |
12 | Ability to access capital | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Adequacy of requirements and knowledge for access to capital, ex-investors, cooperatives, banking: cannot (0); maybe (1); very likely (2) |
13 | Government subsidies and assistance | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Subsidies and assistance from the government, e.g., district government, FMU: none (0); some (1); substantial (2) |
14 | Subsidies and assistance from donors/external parties | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Subsidies and assistance from donors/other external parties, e.g., investors, cooperatives, banks, NGOs, local private companies: none (0); some (1); substantial (2) |
15 | Financial feasibility | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Profitability indicators, e.g., NPV, Net B/C, IRR: not feasible (0); feasible with notes (1); feasible (2) |
16 | Selling price | (0) Much below average; (1) below average; (2) same; (3) above average; (4) well above average | |||
Social, human dimension | |||||
1 | Conflict between communities | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Revealed (0); latent (1); none (2) |
2 | Team cohesiveness | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | None (0); low (1); sufficient (2); much (3) |
3 | Leader and member commitment and motivation | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Commitment shown by the leader and members to implement the project efficiently and effectively: none (0); some (1); high (2) |
4 | Understanding of the leader and members of the vision, mission, goals, rules, and group management | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | No (0); low (1); sufficient (2); much (3) |
5 | Participatory project implementation | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Implementing activities with active community participation: none (0); some (1); high (2) |
6 | Formal education | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Dominant formal education level of group members: no school (0); elementary (1); junior high school (2); higher education/graduate (3) |
7 | Environmental knowledge | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Level of knowledge about environmental and forestry issues: none (0); some (1); much (2) |
8 | Technical knowledge | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Level of knowledge about technical (processing), entrepreneurial, and innovation competence issues: none (0); some (1); much (2) |
9 | IT and marketing knowledge | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Level of knowledge about IT and online and offline marketing (promotion and sales) issues: none (0); some (1); much (2) |
10 | Organizational capacities | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Group ability to organize members, e.g., minimizing internal conflict, leadership, and empowering members: none (0); some (1); high (2) |
11 | Leadership ability | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Chairperson’s ability to lead and manage the business: none (0); some (1); high (2) |
12 | Access to information and knowledge | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Information on innovation (science and technology development), cooperation and market opportunities, assistance and subsidies, product prices, value chains: none (0); low (1); enough (2); high (3) |
Institutional and administrative dimensions | |||||
1 | Supporting local regulations (regional/village/group regulations) | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Village/group regulations governing businesses: none (0); existing but not implemented (1); exists and is applied (2) |
2 | The concern and contribution of the village government for and to businesses/groups | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Assistance activities/funds, facilitation and motivation, monitoring and evaluation, etc.; none (0); low (1); enough (2); high (3) |
3 | Communities bargaining power in decision making | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | None (0); low (1); enough (2); lots (3) |
4 | Clarity of business planning and development | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Existence and implementation level of business work plan: none (0); there is no implementation (1); exists but is not referenced (2); exists and is referred to (3) |
5 | Rules of the village/region that govern operations | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Village/regional regulations governing business management: none (0); incomplete (1); there are (2) |
6 | Business/group/organization legality | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Requirements to operate legally: none yet (0); incomplete (1); complete (2) |
7 | Existence of professional assistants | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Persons who intensively monitor: none (0); there but not intensive (1); existing and intensive (2) |
8 | SOP (Standard operational and procedures) | 0; 1; 2; 3 | 0 | 3 | Availability and application of SOP: not available (0); available but not applied (1); available and minimal implementation (2); available and maximum applicability (3) |
9 | Existence of business administration | 0; 1; 2 | 0 | 2 | Financial books (assets, cash flow, debts), secretariat, etc.: none (0); enough (1); complete (2) |
References
- De Royer, S.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Roshetko, J.M. Does Community-Based Forest Management in Indonesia Devolve Social Justice or Social Costs? Int. For. Rev. 2018, 20, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MoEF. The State of Indonesia’s Forests 2018; Ministry of Environment and Forestry: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
- Harbi, J.; Cao, Y.; Milantara, N.; Gamin; Mustafa, A.B.; Roberts, N.J. Understanding People−forest Relationships: A Key Requirement for Appropriate Forest Governance in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widianingsih, N.N.; Theilade, I.; Pouliot, M. Contribution of Forest Restoration to Rural Livelihoods and Household Income in Indonesia. Sustainability 2016, 8, 835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahdi; Shivakoti, G.P.; Schmidt-Vogt, D. Livelihood Change and Livelihood Sustainability in the Uplands of Lembang Subwatershed, West Sumatra Province of Indonesia, in a Changing Natural Resources Management Context. Environ. Manag. 2016, 43, 84–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chambers, R.; Conway, G.R. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. In IDS Discussion Paper; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1991; Volume 296. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, A.; Yadama, G.; Andrade, R.; Bhattacharya, A. Decentralization and Environmental Conservation in Joint Forest Management; CAPRi Working Paper 53; Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi): Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Yadama, G.; Andrade, R.; Bhattacharya, A. Decentralization and Environmental Conservation: Gender Effects from Participation in Joint Forest Management; CAPRi Working Papers 53; Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi): Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Frey, G.E.; Charnley, S.; Makala, J. Economic Viability of Community-Based Forest Management for Certified Timber Production in Southeastern Tanzania. World Dev. 2021, 144, 105491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nath, T.K.; Jashimuddin, M.; Inoue, M. Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) in Bangladesh; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Takahashi, R.; Todo, Y. Impact of Community-Based Forest Management on Forest Protection: Evidence from an Aid-Funded Project in Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, M.; Isozaki, H. People and Forest-Policy and Local Reality in Southeast Asia, the Russian Far East, and Japan, 1st ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Alphen am Rhine, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ianni, E.; Mattenet, M.; Geneletti, D.; Malizia, L.R. Community-Based Forest Management in the Yungas Biosphere Reserve, Northern Argentina. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2010, 12, 631–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbuvi, M.T.E.; Kungu, J.B. A Transforming Traditional Community Based Forest Management: The Case of Loita Community Forest, Kenya. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toft, M.N.J.; Adeyeye, Y.; Lund, J.F. The Use and Usefulness of Inventory-Based Management Planning to Forest Management: Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal. Policy Econ. 2015, 60, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayrak, M.M.; Marafa, L.M. REDD+ as a Vehicle for Community-Based Forest Management? Critical Insights from Vietnam. Small-Scale For. 2020, 19, 57–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, M.R.; Moeliono, M.; Mulyana, A.; Yuliani, E.L.; Adriadi, A.; Kamaluddin; Judda, J.; Sahide, M.A.K. Assessing the New Social Forestry Project in Indonesia: Recognition, Livelihood and Conservation? Int. For. Rev. 2018, 20, 346–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilmour, D. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental Governance. Annu Rev. Env. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tole, L. Reforms from the Ground Up: A Review of Community-Based Forest Management in Tropical Developing Countries. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 1312–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maraseni, T.N.; Bhattarai, N.; Karky, B.S.; Cadman, T.; Timalsina, N.; Bhandari, T.S.; Apan, A.; Ma, H.O.; Rawat, R.S.; Verma, N.; et al. An Assessment of Governance Quality for Community-Based Forest Management Systems in Asia: Prioritisation of Governance Indicators at Various Scales. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 750–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bong, I.W.; Felker, M.E.; Maryudi, A. How Are Local People Driving and Affected by Forest Cover Change? Opportunities for Local Participation in REDD+ Measurement, Reporting and Verification. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0145330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fry, B.P. Community Forest Monitoring in REDD+: The ‘M’ in MRV? Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojanova, S.; Cvar, N.; Verhovnik, J.; Božić, N.; Trilar, J.; Kos, A.; Stojmenova Duh, E. Rural Digital Innovation Hubs as a Paradigm for Sustainable Business Models in Europe’s Rural Areas. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harbi, J.; Cao, Y.; Erbaugh, J.T.; Widagdo, F.R.A.; Mauri, J.; Supriyanto; Milantara, N. Three Generations of Forest Peoples’ Empowerment in Indonesia: Process towards Sustainable and Equitable Forest Management. J. Manaj. Hutan Trop. 2020, 26, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MoEF. Permen LHK Nomor P.83 Tentang Perhutanan Sosial; Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Heripan, H.; Taqwa, R.; Putro Priadi, D.; Milantara, N.; Harbi, J. Implementation of Social Forestry Policy around The Meranti Sungai Merah Protection Forest Area. Sriwij. J. Environ. 2019, 4, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erbaugh, J.T. Responsibilization and Social Forestry in Indonesia. Policy Econ. 2019, 109, 102019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatem, S.M. Connecting Social Forestry to Conservation Policies in Tanah Papua. For. Soc. 2019, 3, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wulandari, C.; Kurniasih, H. Community Preferences for Social Forestry Facilitation Programming in Lampung, Indonesia. For. Soc. 2019, 3, 114–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harrison, S.; Herbohn, J. Financial Evaluation of Forestry Investments: Common Pitfalls and Guidelines for Better Analyses. Small-Scale For. 2016, 15, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinhold, K.; Darr, D. The Processing of Non-Timber Forest Products through Small and Medium Enterprises—A Review of Enabling and Constraining Factors. Forests 2019, 10, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanchez Badini, O.; Hajjar, R.; Kozak, R. Critical Success Factors for Small and Medium Forest Enterprises: A Review. Policy Econ. 2018, 94, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martawardaya, B.; Rakatama, A.; Junifta, D.Y.; Maharani, D.A. Green Economy Post COVID-19: Insights from Indonesia. In Development in Practice; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2022; pp. 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Ahn, H. Assessment of Process Improvement from Organizational Change. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leidecker, J.K.; Bruno, A.V. Identifying and Using Critical Success Factors. Long Range Plan. 1984, 17, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasaribu, G.; Winarni, I.; Gusti, R.E.P.; Maharani, R.; Fernandes, A.; Harianja, A.H.; Saragih, G.S.; Turjaman, M.; Tampubolon, A.P.; Kuspradini, H.; et al. Current Challenges and Prospects of Indonesian Non-Timber Forest Products (Ntfps): A Review. Forests 2021, 12, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harianja, A.H.; Adalina, Y.; Pasaribu, G.; Winarni, I.; Maharani, R.; Fernandes, A.; Saragih, G.S.; Fauzi, R.; Tampubolon, A.P.; Njurumana, G.N.; et al. Potential of Beekeeping to Support the Livelihood, Economy, Society, and Environment of Indonesia. Forests 2023, 14, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sofyan, A.; Retnowati, R.; Istiadi, Y. Utilization of Non-timber Forest Products (Pine Resin and Resin) For Community Empowerment. J. Sci. Innova. 2021, 4, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simangunsong, B.C.H.; Manurung, E.G.T.; Elias, E.; Hutagaol, M.P.; Tarigan, J.; Prabawa, S.B. Tangible Economic Value of Non-Timber Forest Products from Peat Swamp Forest in Kampar, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2020, 21, 5954–5960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miina, J.; Muttilainen, H.; Vornanen, J.; Vanhanen, H. Supply Chain Actors’ Perspectives Concerning the Cultivation of Specialty Wood-Decay Mushrooms in Finland. Forests 2023, 14, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasparinetti, P.; Brandão, D.O.; Maningo, E.V.; Khan, A.; Cabanillas, F.; Farfan, J.; Román-Dañobeytia, F.; Bahri, A.D.; Ponlork, D.; Lentini, M.; et al. Economic Feasibility of Tropical Forest Restoration Models Based on Non-Timber Forest Products in Brazil, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Peru. Forests 2022, 13, 1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peerzada, I.A.; Chamberlain, J.; Reddy, M.; Dhyani, S.; Saha, S. Policy and Governance Implications for Transition to Ntfp-Based Bioeconomy in Kashmir Himalayas. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, L.; Lo, K. Non-Timber Forest Products as Livelihood Restoration in Forest Conservation: A Restorative Justice Approach. Trees For. People 2021, 6, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunz, Y.; Steinebach, S.; Dittrich, C.; Hauser-Schäublin, B.; Rosyani, I.; Soetarto, E.; Faust, H. ‘The Fridge in the Forest’: Historical Trajectories of Land Tenure Regulations Fostering Landscape Transformation in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Policy Econ. 2017, 81, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumsel, D. Rencana Pengelolaan Hutan Jangka Panjang KPH Wilayah XIII Lakitan-Bukit Cogong Tahun 2022–2031; UPTD KPH Wilayah XIII Lakitan Bukit Cogong; Dinas Kehutanan: Palembang, Indonesia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Gittinger, J.P. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects, 2nd ed.; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Kadariah, K.L.; Clive, G. Evaluasi Proyek Analisis Ekonomis, 2nd ed.; Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Pitcher, T.J.; Preikshot, D. RAPFISH: A Rapid Appraisal Technique to Evaluate the Sustainability Status of Fisheries. Fish Res. 2001, 49, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fauzi, A. Teknik Analisis Keberlanjutan, 1st ed.; PT.; Gramedia Pustaka Utama: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hartono, T.T.; Kodiran, T.; Iqbal, M.A.; Koerhendrajana, S. Pengembangan Teknis Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH) Untuk Penentuan Indikator Kinerja Perikanan Tangkap Berkelanjutan Di Indonesia. Bul. Ekon. Perikan. 2005, VI, 65–76. [Google Scholar]
- Fauzi, A.; Anna, S. Pemodelan Sumber Daya Perikanan Dan Kelautan Untuk Analisis Kebijakan, 1st ed.; Gramedia Pustaka Utama: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Pitcher, T.J.; Lam, M.E.; Ainsworth, C.; Martindale, A.; Nakamura, K.; Perry, R.I.; Ward, T. Improvements to Rapfish: A Rapid Evaluation Technique for Fisheries Integrating Ecological and Human Dimensionsa. J. Fish Biol. 2013, 83, 865–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fauzi Dzikrillah, G.; Anwar, S.; Hadi Sutjahjo, S. Sustainable of Rice Farming in Soreang District of Bandung Regency. J. Pengelolaan Sumberd. Alam. Dan Lingkung. 2017, 7, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanagh, P.; Pitcher, T.J. Implementing Microsoft Excel Software for Rapfish: A Technique for the Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Status; Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
- Yalegama, S.; Chileshe, N.; Ma, T. Critical Success Factors for Community-Driven Development Projects: A Sri Lankan Community Perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 643–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khang, D.B.; Moe, T.L. Success Criteria and Factors ForInternational Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework. Proj. Manag. J. 2008, 39, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kannan, D. Role of Multiple Stakeholders and the Critical Success Factor Theory for the Sustainable Supplier Selection Process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 391–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokorny, B.; Sabogal, C.; Jong, W.; Pacheco, P.; Porro, N.; Louman, B.; Stoian, D. Challenges of Community Forestry in Tropical America. Bois Et Des Trop. 2010, 303, 54–66. [Google Scholar]
- [BSN] Badan Standardisasi Nasional. Standar Nasional Indonesia (SNI) 3545:2013; The National Standardization Agency: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Nurkholifah, V.; Rinarti, M.; Prasetya, H.; Hasanudin, U.; Niswati, A.; Hidayat, W. Karakteristik Arang Dari Limbah Kayu Karet (Hevea Brasiliensis) Dan Tandan Kosong Kelapa Sawit (Elaeis Guineensis). In Seminar Nasional Konservasi; Hakim, L., Huda, Z., Wahono, E.P., Meliyana, Suharti, B., Nirmala, T., Tantalo, S., Hartono, M., Eds.; LPPM Universitas Lampung: Lampung, Indonesia, 2020; pp. 235–240. [Google Scholar]
- Goenadi, D.H.; Santi, L.P. Controversy on Biochar Application and Quality Standard. J. Sumberd. Lahan. 2017, 11, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, Y.; Jang, J.H.; Hidayat, W.; Lee, A.H.; Lee, S.H.; Chae, H.M.; Kim, N.H. Carbonization of Reaction Wood from Paulownia Tomentosa and Pinus Densiflora Branch Woods. Wood Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 973–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kambo, H.S.; Dutta, A. A Comparative Review of Biochar and Hydrochar in Terms of Production, Physico-Chemical Properties and Applications. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 359–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.V.; Lv, J.H.; Vu, T.T.H.; Zhang, B. Determinants of Non-Timber Forest Product Planting, Development, and Trading: Case Study in Central Vietnam. Forests 2020, 11, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brandão, F.; Piketty, M.G.; Poccard-Chapuis, R.; Brito, B.; Pacheco, P.; Garcia, E.; Duchelle, A.E.; Drigo, I.; Peçanha, J.C. Lessons for Jurisdictional Approaches From Municipal-Level Initiatives to Halt Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Essen, M.; Lambin, E.F. Jurisdictional Approaches to Sustainable Resource Use. Front Ecol. Env. 2021, 19, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demopoulos, K.; Indrarto, G. Jurisdictional Approach to Sustainability: Lessons Learnt from Private Sector Action in Aceh Tamiang, Indonesia; Tropical Forest Alliance: Bogor, Indonesia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Shackleton, S.; Shanley, P.; Ndoye, O. Invisible but Viable: Recognising Local Markets for Non-Timber Forest Products. Int. For. Rev. 2007, 9, 697–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foundjem-Tita, D.; Duguma, L.A.; Speelman, S.; Piabuo, S.M. Viability of Community Forests as Social Enterprises: A Cameroon Case Study. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seymour, F.J.; Aurora, L.; Arif, J. The Jurisdictional Approach in Indonesia: Incentives, Actions, and Facilitating Connections. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 503326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunggio, I.; Gunawan, H. An Overview on the History of National Park Management Policy in Indonesia. J. Anal. Kebijak. Kehutan. 2009, 6, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
- Chamberlain, J.; Small, C.; Baumflek, M. Sustainable Forest Management for Nontimber Products. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hendarto, K.A.; Desmiwati, D.; Danu, D.; Syamsuwida, D.; Yuniarti, N.; Siregar, N.W.; Aminah, A.; Nugraheni, Y.M.M.A.; Cahyono, D.D.N.; Hidayat, A.R. Farmers’ Economic Perceptions of Demonstration Plot Development of Kaliandra (Calliandra Calothyrsus Meisner) Biomass Energy at Parungpanjang Research Forest: Findings from a Focus Group Discussion. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 415, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Luna, C.C.; Calderon, M.M.; Cruz, R.V.O.; Tolentino, E.L.; Carandang, W.M. The Economic Value of Calliandra Calothyrsus in Watershed Rehabilitation in Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, Philippines. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2020, S1, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdulah, L. The Growth and Yield of Calliandra Callothyrsus Trees as Biomass-Based Energy Feedstock. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 308, 012078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ichsani, A.R.; Buhanuddin; Latifah, S. The Effect of Mixing Peat and Chicken Manure to Caliandra Callothyrsus Growth. J. Hutan Lestari. 2021, 9, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Type of SFE Activity | Species of Raw Material | Location (Name of the Village) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Essential oil production | Lemongrass (Cymbopogon nardus) | Megang Sakti 4 |
2 | Honey production | Wild bees (Apis mellifera) | Rejosari |
3 | Honey production | Stingless bees (Tetragonula leaviceps) | Mekarsari |
4 | Saps processing | Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) | Lubuk Rumbai |
5 | Wood charcoal production | Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) | Jajaran Baru 1 |
6 | Skewer production | Bamboo (Dendrocalamus asper) | Marga Puspita |
7 | Liquid smoke production | Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) | Lubuk Rumbai |
No. | Goals | Type and Source of Data | Techniques and Tools for Data Analysis |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Profiling of local business conditions | Primary: semi-structured questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and observation. Secondary: Planning document (RPHJP, RTRW—Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah/Regional spatial plans), report of the FIP 2 project, laws, and regulations. | Tabulation, reduction, and description |
2 | Wider exploration of potential and growth of NTFPs | Primary: semi-structured questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and observation. Secondary: scientific references and activity reports. | Market and demand (M&D) and financial feasibility |
3 | Sustainability categorization | Primary: structured questionnaires and in-depth interviews. | MDS-RAPForest |
No. | Indicators | Categories |
---|---|---|
1 | Stress Value | S-Stress Value < 0.25 (the lower, the better) |
2 | Squared correlation value (RSQ) | RSQ lower than 1 |
3 | Sustainability index and state | 0.00–25.00 = bad/not sustainable 25.01–50.00 = low/less sustainable 50.01–75.00 = sufficient/quite sustainable 75.01–100.00 = good/very sustainable |
Product of SFEs | Citronella Oil | Stingless Bee Honey | Wild Bee Honey | Rubber | Wood Charcoal | Skewers | Wood Vinegar |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Business feasibility expectations with independent investment costs | |||||||
NPV | 35,515.88 | 324.20 | 2709.63 | 3185.41 | 18,208.64 | 14,777.02 | 762.70 |
IRR | 43% | 13% | 13% | 12% | 45% | 49% | 29% |
Net B/C | (50.62) | (0.10) | (0.89) | (43.57) | (1.23) | 71.86 | 9.66 |
Feasibility status | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible |
Business feasibility with investment costs resulting from government subsidies and FIP 2 program | |||||||
NPV | 6733.32 | 188.76 | 18,243.93 | 1383.53 | 16,201.35 | 305.59 | 427.16 |
IRR | 93% | 114% | 21% | 13% | 247% | 40% | 150% |
Net B/C | 60.81 | 29.38 | 0.78 | 17.48 | 78.80 | 14.14 | 116.26 |
Feasibility status | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible | Feasible |
No. | Cost Component | Volume | Unit | Unit Cost (USD) | The Amount of Costs (USD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Buying raw materials | 2000 | kg | 0.57 | 22,857.14 |
2 | Labor | 4 | people | 7.14 | 571.43 |
3 | Solar | 10 | liter | 0.71 | 142.86 |
4 | Electricity | 1 | day | 0.36 | 7.14 |
5 | Transportation | 1 | package | 7.14 | 142.86 |
Total | 23,721.43 |
Indicators | All Dimensions | Ecology | Economics | Social and Human Resources | Institutional and Administrative |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stress Value | 0.12633 | 0.14051 | 0.13115 | 0.16609 | 0.13747 |
Squared Correlation (RSQ) | 0.95624 | 0.95228 | 0.93725 | 0.94243 | 0.93851 |
No | Type of SFE Activity | Sustainability Index (%) | Category (Based on All Indices) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | All | All | ||
1 | Essential oil production | 75.71 | 60.34 | 88.24 | 43.95 | 67.94 | quite sustainable |
2 | Production of honey | 87.59 | 53.31 | 62.92 | 56.04 | 63.91 | quite sustainable |
3 | Production of honey | 89.84 | 87.38 | 88.43 | 69.60 | 87.53 | very sustainable |
4 | Rubber processing | 62.68 | 41.54 | 75.46 | 40.44 | 57.64 | quite sustainable |
5 | Wood charcoal production | 64.47 | 45.39 | 53.88 | 36.30 | 53.82 | quite sustainable |
6 | Production of skewer | 73.97 | 47.32 | 55.37 | 38.41 | 51.78 | quite sustainable |
7 | Liquid smoke production | 78.25 | 52.03 | 60.51 | 11.31 | 58.24 | quite sustainable |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Harbi, J.; Cao, Y.; Milantara, N.; Mustafa, A.B. Assessing the Sustainability of NTFP-Based Community Enterprises: A Viable Business Model for Indonesian Rural Forested Areas. Forests 2023, 14, 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061251
Harbi J, Cao Y, Milantara N, Mustafa AB. Assessing the Sustainability of NTFP-Based Community Enterprises: A Viable Business Model for Indonesian Rural Forested Areas. Forests. 2023; 14(6):1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061251
Chicago/Turabian StyleHarbi, Jun, Yukun Cao, Noril Milantara, and Ade Brian Mustafa. 2023. "Assessing the Sustainability of NTFP-Based Community Enterprises: A Viable Business Model for Indonesian Rural Forested Areas" Forests 14, no. 6: 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061251
APA StyleHarbi, J., Cao, Y., Milantara, N., & Mustafa, A. B. (2023). Assessing the Sustainability of NTFP-Based Community Enterprises: A Viable Business Model for Indonesian Rural Forested Areas. Forests, 14(6), 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061251