Nur Laila, Kukuh Murtilaksono, Bramasto Nugroho


Upstream and downstream institutional partnerships in Cidanau watershed had been built in 2005 using payment for environmental services (PES) approach. Among stakeholders, partners involved in the mechanism are Krakatau Tirta Industri (KTI) Company as a water beneficiary for commercial use and up-stream farmer groups as a service provider, and facilitated by a multistakeholder watershed forum namely Forum Komunikasi DAS Cidanau (FKDC). The farmers were paid for their role in conserving land and maintaining of tree stand in accordance with number of trees and contract period which is agreed by both parties. The study aims
to formulate partnership institution which is intended by both parties for the sustainability of Cidanau water supply. This is a qualitative research with a case study approach. Data analysis in general was referred to Institutional Analysis Development (IAD) which was developed by Ostrom (2008). This research applied purposive sampling and snowball sampling. The result of the research shows that majority of land ownership of the involved farmers is private property which is cultivated to meet their daily need. In the first period of contract (2005-2009) there were 4 farmer groups involved but 2 groups ceased to be the members of PES; and in the second period (2010-
2014) there were 5 PES groups signed the contract including extended groups. Improvement is necessary in order to achieve optimum benefit of Cidanau water supply and involving parties. Apart from the mechanism rule, institutionalization of FKDC needs to be improved and strengthened in manifesting partnership institution of Cidanau water supply. The necessary approach to prevent contract discontinuation in other village as has been experienced in Cibojong and Kadu Agung villages area) invidual approach for heterogenous types of farmer communities, b) establishment of village alternative financial institutions, c) possibiliy of thinning certain diameter of
trees, d) assessment of the incentive to farmer groups as environmental service providers.


Payment for environmental services; institution; partnership; Cidanau watershed; farmer

Full Text:



Arsyad, S. (2010). Konservasi tanah dan air (2nd ed). Bogor : IPB Press.

Asdak, C. (2010). Hidrologi dan pengelolaan daerah aliran sungai (5th ed). Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Laskmidewi, A. TP. AA. (2010). Pengaruh faktor kekompakan, motivasi dan peran kepemimpinan ketua kelompok terhadap keberhasilan usaha perikanan. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis 4(2),71-160.

Bungin, B. (2011). Penelitian kualitatif komunikasi, ekonomi, kebijakan publik dan lmu sosial lainnya (2 ed). Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Hariadi, S.S. (2005). Revitalisasi kelompok tani sebagai media penyuluhan pertanian era globalisasi. Jurnal Ilmu-ilmu Pertanian 1(2),83-93.

Hermanto. & Swastika, D.K.S. (2011). Penguatan kelompok tani : Langkah awal peningkatan kesejahteraan petani. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Pertanian 9(4),371-390.

Irawan, P. (2006). Penelitian kualitatif dan kuantitatif untuk ilmu-ilmu sosial. DIA Jakarta : FISIP UI.

Keser, C., & Wilingner, M. (2007). Theories of behavior in principal-agent relationships with hidden action. European Economic Review 51(6),1514-1533.

Maila, M.W., & Loubser, C.P. (2003). Emancipatory indigenous knowledge systems: implications for environmental education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education 23(4),276-280.

Menard, C. & Shirley, M.M. (2008). What is new institutional economics. In Menard, C., & Shirley, MM (Ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Heidelberg : Springer Verlag.

Nugroho, B. (2003). Kajian institusi pelibatan usaha kecil menengah industri pemanenan hutan untuk mendukung pengelolaan hutan produksi lestari [disertasi]. Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor.

Ostrom, E. (2008). Doing institutional analysis: Digging deeper than market and hierarchies. In Menard, C., & Shirley, MM (Ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics Berlin: Springer Publishing.

Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., & Platais, G. (2004). Can payments for environmental services help reduce property? An exploration of the

issues and the evidence to date from latin America. World Develoment 33(2), 237-235.

Place, F., Otsuka, K., & Scherr, S. (2004). Property right, collective action and agroforestry (pp.18-21). In Dick, RM.,&Greogrio,MD, (Ed.), Collective Action and Property Rights for Sustainable Development. USA: IFPRI and


Reed, MS., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90,19331949.

Swanson, T., & Timo, G. (2000). Analysis propery rights issues involving plant genetic resources: implication of ownership for economic efficiency. Ecological Economics. 32,75-92.

Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-right regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analyasis. Land Economics 68(3), 249-262.

Slamet, Y. (2006). Metode penelitian sosial. Surakarta: LPP UNS dan UNS Press.

Soekartawi. (1993). Pembangunan pertanian. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Sugiyono. (2010). Memahami penelitian kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, BM. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Refrieved from www.ischool.uxexas. edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf [22 januari 2013].



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2014 Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan

Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan Indexed by:


Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan (JPSEK)
eISSN : 2502-4221 pISSN : 1979-6013
JPSEK is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.