PEOPLE AND FOREST-BASED LIVELIHOODS IN KAIMANA DISTRICT: PLANNING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Gill Shepherd, Yunus Yumte IUCN Poverty and Landscapes Theme Lead,

with staff from PEMALI, Kaimana and PERDU, Manokwari 

1.    Introduction

We believe that there are around 18,000 people[1] in the area under study (the western and northern areas of Kaimana Kabupaten, including Buruwai, Kambrau, Teluk Arguni Atas and Teluk Arguni Bawah districts). The 40-odd settlements range in size between 40 and 100 households, and typical household size is around 7.5.  This would suggest that there are about 2,400 households in the area.

Almost all villages are located on the rivers which flow down into the large inlet from the Arafura Sea which runs northwards past Kaimana town, or on the sea itself. (see map). The lower reaches of all the rivers are tidal, and the mixture of fresh and salt water provides a good habitat for mangroves.  Smaller numbers of villages live much higher on these rivers beyond the tidal area.

All households in all villages rely on the forest for hunting (a very important protein source given the almost total absence of domestic animals), for non-timber forest products and for timber.  Some villages fell timber almost entirely for domestic use (e.g. Kensi), while others also make an income from felling timber for sale and chain-sawing it into planks (Esania and Guriasa). Some villages have commercialised the collection of NTFPs (Kensi) much more than others. 

A second key use of the forest is for agriculture. Plots can only be farmed for 2 years before soil fertility drops and weeds infest the site, and a new plot (or a rested fallow plot) must be cleared.  The forest restores soil fertility in the absence of bought fertilisers, and over time natural forest becomes in part an agroforest as fruit trees and other tree crops such as cocoa begin to grow up.

Finally mangrove forests, in the areas where they grow, are an essential support for fish, shell-fish and prawns, since they provide a nursery area for young fry. The adjacent swampy land offers the right growing conditions for sago, the staple carbohydrate for the people of rural Kaimana district.

If the people of the four districts we are analysing are to be able to continue with their current livelihoods while they slowly get the chance of more education and become more employable in the local economy, they need a transition period in which those livelihoods are protected.  We suggest something like a 25 year period of time.

The sections below help us to calculate the amount of land that the population will need to continue with and improve those livelihoods. Since this part of the Kabupaten is structured by the existence of numerous rivers, which must be used for transport in the absence of a road network, this land needs to be in the form of an adequate buffer which runs along the river banks and extends far enough inland to provide for all needs.  

2.    Agriculture

Each household currently owns an average of 4-6 agricultural plots, often quite widely spread apart which consist of

(i)            a sago area containing 1-2 separate household plots

(ii)           2-3 agricultural plots which have been farmed in the past and are currently resting to regain their fertility. They are meanwhile playing host to tree crops such as cocoa, nutmeg, durian, and coconut etc, originally planted at the same time the plot was cleared and planted with food crops.

(iii)          1 active food plot which will be in use for about 2 years before weeds encroach and tree crops begin to shade out food.

Each plot is no more than 0.5 ha in size, so total holdings per household are currently about 2.5 ha.

Because there is a push for more intensive nutmeg production in Kaimana district, and because some other tree crops are doing quite well, agricultural plots are slowly becoming more intensively cultivated agroforestry plots. This means that a plot will not offer sufficient space for all the household’s food needs the next time it is cultivated for food, and an additional area may need to be cleared. Over time the trees will grow too large for any crops to be grown underneath them. The implications for this in the future are that each household will have to slightly increase its holding, so after 10 years an average holding of 3 ha may become the norm, and even more later for at least some farmers.  

At the same time the indigenous population is growing at a rate of 1.67% a year.

Population growth at 1.67% growth rate	Individuals	Households	Average ag. land holding	Area need for agriculture
Now	18,000	2,400	2.5 ha	6,000 ha
After 10 years	20,220	2,890	3.25 ha	9,390 ha
After 20 years	23,850	3,410	4.0 ha	13,640 ha
After 25 years	25,910	3,700	4.5 ha	16,650 ha

This means that, to support the indigenous population over, say, the next 25 years, a total of 16,650 ha for agriculture has to be set aside, or just over 166 km².

This area has to be composed of a mixture of types of land. Each household needs about a quarter of its holding to be in swampy areas, for sago, and about three quarters to consist of slightly higher, drier land where tree crops and food crops can flourish. Since longboats will continue to be the main means of transport for local people in this region for much of the next 30 years, most of the land, as before, needs to be within walking distance of the rivers.

In Esania and Kensi, agricultural lands were all within 3 km of the village, but in the case of Guriasa, the nearest sufficiently fertile agricultural land is 15 km inland. Though the main village remains close to the river for transport purposes, particularly for the sale of sawn timber to middle-men, farmers have to go for several days at a time to their farm-land to cultivate and bring produce back.

3.    Community Logging

In Papua, a standard logging intensity is about 20 m3 or 5 stems, per ha.

Under the previous Papua plan for local community participation in logging, it was assumed that communities could log at a rate of 1,000 ha a year (10,000 ha over 10 years).  Such a scale is much too large for most communities to manage themselves – they cannot manage without contracting in a logging company, because a capital-intensive rather than labour intensive logging method is essential at this scale. (Minimum fellings of 5,000 stems a year/ 100 stems a week would be required.)  Such contracts have always been at very disadvantageous rates to local people.

However, portable sawmills offer an alternative, and so in fact do chain-saws. According to the PNG community logging manual[2], an absolute economic minimum for a portable sawmill is a daily output of 1.2 m³ sawn timber. This would work out at about 36 m³ a month / 432 m³ a year of sawn timber.  At a 40-45% recovery rate this is the equivalent of 960-1080 m³ of felled logs, 240-270 trees (assuming 4 m³ to a tree – the given figure in Papua) or 48-54 ha a year.  In area terms this represents about 0.5km² a year.

Marthen Kayoi, DisHut Jayapura is of the opinion that community groups with a portable sawmill could aim at 2500 ha a year over 10 years - i.e. 250 ha / 2.5 km² a year.  At 5 trees a ha, this is the equivalent of 1250 stems  - 5000m3 a year. This is 5 times the volume of the minimum set out in the previous paragraph, and might be a medium term, but not a short term goal for many communities.

However, in Kaimana district there is a very big experience range in current methods of logging using chainsaws.

·         Kensi has only 3 men able to use a chainsaw among 40 households – and only 2 chainsaws. They sell no timber commercially, but mainly use what they cut for domestic purposes or sell it to a neighbouring village.  Total cut is only about 150 stems a year. If cutting at a sustainable rate of 5 stems per ha, they are cutting over 30 ha / 0.3 km² a year.

·         In Esania there are about 17 chainsaws (among 70 households). Perhaps 350 trees are felled for commercial purposes and 200 for domestic needs – 550 stems.  This represents efforts over 110 ha / 1.1 km² per year.

·         In Guriasa all 40 households have chainsaws, and there is a middleman in the village so they have been felling heavily. They felled about 2,500 trees last year for commercial purposes and 200 for domestic purposes – a total of  2,700 stems.  If they kept felling density to 5 stems a ha, for sustainability purposes, this would represent felling over an area of 540 ha / 5.4 km² per year.

	Number of trees felled per year at present 2009	Annual forest area needed now 2009	Likely annual forest area needed by 2015	Likely annual forest area needed by 2020	Likely annual forest area needed by 2025	Total number of km² Needed by 2025
KENSI	150	0.3 km².	1.0 km²	2.0 km²	2.5 km²	27.8 km²
ESANIA	550	1.1 km²	2.0 km²	2.5 km²	3.0 km²	38.6 km²
GURIASA	2,700	5.4 km²	5.4 km²	5.4 km²	5.4 km²	86.4 km²
Total						152.8 km²
Village average						Say 40 km²

There are 40 villages in the area under study, with widely varied access to forest suitable for community logging and, as with these three villages – widely varying logging skills. If we take 40 km² as the average area needed by a village for community logging till 2025, and assume that some villages need more than this and some less, we calculate that a total of 1,600 km² will be logged by villagers over the next 15 years.

Location of community logging areas

In all three villages worked in, Esania, Kensi and Guriasa, the community logging area is still conveniently close to the village.

• In Kensi (where only logging for domestic purposes is currently taking place, and where only three men know how to use a chain-saw) it is only 2 km to the nearest logging areas.
• In Esania, where about a fifth of individual households own a chainsaw  (and where there are also some marga(clan) -owned chainsaws), it is about  3 km to the community logging areas at the moment.
• In Guriasa, where all 40 households in the village own a chainsaw, and where small-scale logging to sell to a middle-man is well-advanced, villagers try to get as near their logging site as possible by longboat, to facilitate log-transport. On foot, this area is about 4 km away.  

4.    Hunting areas

Hunting areas are in general a good deal further away than community logging areas.  It is also clear from interviews that hunters not only travel inland up to 12 km, but also range along the rivers in their longboats to remoter areas good for hunting.

·         Kensi hunters have to travel on foot and by longboat to get to their hunting areas. (They live about 5km inland from the river where they keep their longboats). They travel along the river about 10km in longboats, and from the point were they go ashore they have to walk inland 4-8 Km.

·         Esania hunters also travel by longboat along their river to hunting areas on the opposite bank, where there are no villages. Time/distance was not specified.

·         Guriasa hunters walk 10-12 km to areas where hunting is possible, or go about 15 km along the river by longboat.

It is impossible to calculate the sizes of area needed for hunting, since these are dictated by animal ranges – and the need for them to have corridors in which to move about safely - rather than human use.  We suggest that a well forested strip along the river banks, extending back on average perhaps 10-12 km (with local variation) , would serve both for hunting and for careful low-intensity community logging and the gathering of NTFPs. Villagers would have an incentive to log with care and to maintain the ecological values of the forest since those values would also enable them to go on hunting productively.

5.    NTFP areas

Fairly low value NTFPs such as forest fruits, wild green vegetables and honey seem to be readily available in both the areas where agricultural plots lie fallow and in slightly remoter community logging areas. They could be gathered as before in such a 10-12 km strip.

A few villages (Kensi, for instance in our village sample) specialise in the collection of a few specific high value NTFPs which come from very remote areas indeed – probably beyond the borders of Kaimana Kabupaten, in fact.

• Lawang trees are found 3 days’ walk from Kensi, and villagers stay in the area a month while they process the oil.
• Gaharu (Eaglewood) involves searches over great distances.
• Masohi trees are sought for their medicinally valuable bark.

We do not suggest that we attempt to factor in these remote NTFP-gathering areas in our security plan for local people.

6.    The nature of forest dependence in Kaimana

In April and May 2009 we conducted short but intensive activities in our three study villages, Esania, Kensi and Guriasa, to understand better the nature of their dependence on forests.

The full report will be available next month, but some brief findings are presented here, in the following three pages. It is important to be aware in this area that cash income, though of course vital, is not the only or even the main income.  It is also worth noting that only tiny fractions of the annual income – about 3% on average – come from non natural-resource-based activities.

In every case presented here, the value of the non-cash components of people ‘s livelihoods is at least as high as the cash components and usually higher.  And whether the components are characterised as from forest, from agriculture or from fishing, all highly dependent on the forest in one way or another.

In Esania, men earn about 50% of their annual income from cash, and 50% from non-cash components.   Women earn about 45% of their income in cash and 55% in non-cash items. Assuming an average village cash income of about $600 a year, it means that an additional $600-700 a year from the forest in consumptions items.

The picture is very similar in Guriasa.

In Kensi, men get only 43% of their income from cash, and 57% from non-cash income, while women get only 41% of their income from cash and the rest (59%) from consumption items worth $800-860 in value.

The charts show that though men often derive more cash from forest activities than women do, while women have a stronger cash interest in agriculture than men, the non-cash value of forest for women is high – and sometimes higher than that for men.

Villages vary greatly in the kinds of income they make from forests, however. Kensi has specialised in the gathering of high value non-timber forest products, and hardly undertakes logging at all. In Guriasa, every single household cuts timber to sell.

Agriculture varies, as a component of cash and non-cash incomes, between 35% and 45% ($400-630), depending on the extent to which the forest can supply other incomes.

Fishing for both cash and subsistence is extremely important in all three villages (all on rivers, not the sea). The total value of fishing to annual income averages about 17%, around $200-250 dollars in cash and non-cash.

7.    How much land is needed and how much is available?

The dryland areas (i.e. not islands or the marine areas which fall within district boundaries) of Buruwai, Kambrau, Teluk Arguni Atas and Teluk Arguni Bawah total 8,405 km².  (See map at end). We suggest that a buffer area 12km in width be extended all along both banks of the main rivers in these districts so that the highly forest-based livelihoods of the indigenous people in these areas can continue, while education and other government assistance (such as agricultural extension) slowly help them to exit from poverty. 

This means that other commercial forest-based ventures in these areas would be located further inland. Such a buffer would make almost all of Kambrau a community area, but there would be some land available for commercial activity in the higher areas of Buruwai, and quite a lot in Teluk Arguni Atas and Teluk Arguni Bawah.

We see several advantages to such a plan, in addition to livelihood security and better sources of income for local Papuans.

• The right kind of logging regime can have considerable conservation benefits.

• It may be that such areas will be able in due course to fall within the criteria for carbon payments through REDD.

• Careful and conservative use of the riverine areas will protect fisheries, which are a vital source of cash and protein throughout the area, and will also keep water in springs and wells clean. Arguni Bay and the Arafura sea are among the most valuable fishing areas in Papua and the region, and well deserve these protective measures. 

---

[1]  On the basis of the three villages we worked in intensively, we assume an average of 60 households to a village, and an average household size of 7.5 – 450 people to a settlement. Since there are currently close on 40 villages in the area which falls within the LLS Kaimana landscape, we can judge the total population at about 18,000 for 2009.

[2] “Small-Scale Sawmilling Information Pack” Published by The Papua New Guinea Eco-Forestry Forum. (P.O. Box 590, Kimbe, West New Britain Province, PNG)

Tel: 983 5464 Fax: 983 5852 Email: teff@global.net.pg

Website: www.ecoforestry.org.pg  1st Edition - February 2001

Read More

Potret Sekilas Kampung Gaka, Distrik Buruway Kabupaten Kaimana

Kampung Gaka termasuk kampung tua diwilayah sungai buruway ini. Menurut sejarah Gaka diambil dari bahasa “Madewana” yang berarti mengikuti bintang. Sama seperti kampung Tiari, masyarakat kampung Gaka juga berasal dari suku besar “Madewana”. Kampung ini sebelumnya bergabung dengan kampung Guriasa sebagai satu wilayah administrasi. Namun dimekarkan pada tahun 1992. Kondisi wilayah sedikit berbeda dengan kampung tairi, karena sungai yang mengalir di wilayah Gaka adalah sungai air tawar sehingga ada perbedaan vegetasi hutan sungainya. Dimana sudah jarang ditemui tanaman nipah ataupun mangrove. Vegetasi pantai lebih didominasi rumput sungai, pohon-pohon pinggir sungai seperti ketapang dan pandan serta hutan sagu milik masyarakat.

Penghidupan masyarakat di kampung Gaka tidak terlalu jauh berbeda dengan masyarakat di Kampung Tairi. Pada dasarnya mereka adalah petani yang berkebun, memanfaatkan hasil hutan dan sungai untuk mendukung penghidupannya. Ubi-ubian dan sagu merupakan makanan pokok bagi masyarakat di kampung ini. Yang menarik adalah beberepa pekerjaan disektor pembangunan fisik. Dimana masyarakt Gaka beberapa ada yang mengumpulkan batu dan pasir untuk dijual pada proyek-proyek pembangunan fisik di kampung. Beberapa diantaranya bekerja sebagai tukang servis perahu. Menurut penuturan beberapa masyarakat yang bekerja pada pengumpulan batu/pasir dan servis perahu bahwa ini lebih menguntungkan dibandingkan mereka membuka kebun atau menebang kayu di hutan. Batu satu tumpukan seperti pada gambar dihargai Rp. 850,000.

Masyarakat kampung Gaka memang sangat pandai dalam membuat perahu dan memberikan hasil perahu yang baik yang sudah diperhatian kualitas dan kemampuannya untuk mengarungi lautan maupun sungai di kaimana. Hasil yang diperoleh dari kegiatan ini pun sangat menjanjikan karena nilai uang tunai yang diterima cukup besar berkisar antara 1 – 5 juta untuk satu kali servis sebuah perahu. Namun untuk jasa ini hanya beberapa keluarga saja yang mahir dan dianggap ahli di kampung, sedangkan masyarakat lain masih menggantungkan hidupannya pada sumber daya hutan dan kebun yang dimiliki.

Hasil identifikasi menunjukan bahwa wilayah sudah sejak tahun 2007 ditinggal oleh perusahaan PT. Prabu Alaska. Dan beberapa wilayah kampung ini merupakan areal bekas tebangan. Penebangan pada wilayah adat kampung Gaka ini dimulai pada tahun 2002 sampai tahun 2007, dan masyarakat mengaku bahwa sudah tidak menerima kompensasi lagi setelah tahun 2007. Fakta menarik bahwa, hampir semua mesin diesel-lampu, motor tempel dan chain-saw yang dimiliki masyarakt sekarang uangnya berasal dari pembayaran kompensasi perusahaan atas wilayah adat mereka.

Menyinggung mengenai isu sawit, masyarakat secara terang-terang dan langsung menolak rencana ini. Mereka menuturkan bahwa lebih mau menerima perusahaan HPH dibanding Perusahaan sawit. Mereka mengakui bahwa beberapa orang yang tinggal di kota mengatasnamakan masyarakat telah menandatangani kesepakatan untuk pembebasan lahan untuk sawit, namun masyarakat yang dikampung secara keseluruhan menolak rencana ini.

Potensi Hutan di Kampung Gaka
Hutan merupakan bagian dari hidup masyarakat di kampung Gaka. Hutan menyediakan makanan, bahan bangunan, bahan ornament/kerajinan, dan obat-obatan bagi masyarakat di kampung Gaka. Hasil hutan kayu dan bukan kayu sangat melimpah, nampak jelas bahwa kayu memberikan pengaruh yang cukup signifikan bagi penghidupan masyarakat di Gaka. Selain untuk bahan bangunan dan perahu, kayu juga digunakan untuk bahan bakar dan beberapa diantaranya juga merupakan obat bagi masyarakat. Ada juga kayu yang dianggap keramat karena merupakan saksi sejarah peradaban kampung di masa lampau. Hasil kayu berupa kayu gergajian dan perahu merupakan sumber hutan yang memberikan pengaruh sangat signifikan bagi penghasilan uang masyarakat terutama lelaki di Gaka.

Untuk hasil hutan yang menarik adalah kulit kayu yang digunakan ibu-ibu untuk kerajinan tangan berupa tas/nokeng. Hampir semua ibu-ibu dikampung Gaka ini pandai dalam membuat tas tradisional ini dan ini direkomendasikan sebagai salah satu potensi yang bisa diintervensi. Mengingat nilainya yang cukup menjanjikan dan peminat yang banyak di kota.

Read More

Potret Sekilas Kampung Tairi, Distrik Buruway, Kabupaten Kaimana

Kampung Tairi merupakan salah satu kampung di wilayah Kabupaten Kaimana, tepatnya di Distrik Buruway, Kabupaten Kaimana, Propinsi Papua Barat. Kampung ini berada dipinggir sungai Buruway. Wilayah ini cukup luas dengan dengan luas wilayah adat sampai bersinggungan dengan wilayah kabupaten Fak-Fak. Kampung ini mengalami pemekaran menajdi kampung defenitif pada tahun 1992, sebemumnya urusan administrasi desa bergabung dengan Kampung Esania. Seluruh masyarakat kampung ini berasal dari suku besar “Madewana”, yang mendiami hulu sungai buruway. Bahasa asli yang digunakan pun bahasa Madewana. Menurut sejarah, wilayah kampung ini milik Marga Onobora, selanjutnya Marga Onobora mengajak marga-marga lain dari kampung sebelan untuk datang dan hidup bersama di kampung Tairi yang sekarang.Sekitar 78 Kepala Keluarga Berada di kampung ini dengan jumlah penduduk lebih dari 350 orang.

Sebagian besar masyarakat kampung masih memiliki pola penghidupan traditional, dengan membuka kebun, berburu dan memancing ikan/udang di sungai. Mata pencaharian atau pekerjaan mereka adalah petani, dan hanya beberapa yang menjadi aparat desa. Dari hasil penerapan alat bantu analisis kesejahteraan, nampak jelas bahwa hasil hutan dan hasil pertanian/perkebunan memberikan pengaruh penting bagi penghidupan masyrakat di tempat ini.

Berdasarkan status kawasan, wilayah ini merupakan wilayah hutan produksi (Tetap, terbatas dan konversi) sehingga menjadi incaran perusahaan. Potensi kayu yang cukup menguntungkan secara ekonomi mendorong PT. Hanurata Berinvestasi di daerah ini, dan sekarang sedang melaksanakan penebangan (BLOK RKT) di wilayah adat masyarakat Tairi ini. Dan dari hasil wawancara dengan masyarakat disini, sebagian dari mereka yang wilayah adatnya sedang diambil kayunya oleh PT. Hanurata telah mendapatkan kompensasi, namun besarannya tidak disebutkan karena ini sangat sensitive dan bisa menjadi pemicu konflik internal di dalam masyarakat sendiri.

Untuk masalah legalisasi kayu dan ijin pemanfaatan kawasan, masyarakat mengakui sangat mendukung pengurusan kepastian kawasan kelola dalam rangka pengeloaan hutan berbasis masyarakat, namun perlu dipastikan bahwa hasil-hasil yang diusahakan oleh masyarakat ada pasarnya dan menguntungkan secara ekonomi kepada masyarakat. Secara cepat pengkajian HHBK membarikan rekomendasi bahwa intervensi kepada pala, udang, kepiting dan pinang akan memberikan pengaruh yang cukup signifikan kepada penghidupan masyarakat. Karena ada pasar dengan nilai ekonomi yang cukup baik di kota kaimana. Pala sendiri selama ini merupakan salah satu sumber pendapatan tunai masyarakat di kampung Tairi ini.

Waktu tim di kampung Tairi ada kunjungan Kepala dsitrik dan tim ke kampung, dan beliau menyampatkan diri untuk berdiskusi dengan masyarakat. Diskusinya seputar pembangunan dan perkembangan di kampung. Dan beliau sempat menyinggung masalah rencana masuknya perusahaan sawit di wilayah tairi. Menurut Pak Kepala Distrik “Perusahan Akan datang ber diskusi secara langsung dengan masyarakat dengan didampingi pihak pemerintah, dan apabila masyarakat tidak setuju, mereka akan berusaha mencari tempat lain”.

Potensi Hutan Kampung Tairi
Hasil kajian ini menunjukan bahwa hutan memberikan kontribusi besar bagi penghidupan masyarakat kampung tairi hal ini ditunjukan dengan peletakan biji-bijian pada hasil hutan yang cukup banyak. Hasil hutan memberikan manfaat tidak hanya untuk penggunaan atau konsumsi masyarakat sendiri secara langsung, namun juga memberikan manfaat ekonomi berupa uang tunai. Hasil hutan yang memberikan pengaruh besar bagi pendapatan uang tunai masyarakat kensi yaitu kayu. Kayu diolah menjadi kayu gergajian dan perahu/long boat lalu dijual dengan harga yang cukup terjangkau. Kayu-kayu yang dimanfaatkan masyarakat Tairi antara lain: Merbau, Marsawa, Ketapang, Baranda, Kayu Bunga, Kayu Bawang, Kayu Matoa, Kayu Bugism Dan Kayu Cina. Hampir semua lelaki dewasa di kampung Tairi bisa mengoperasikan Chain-saw untuk menebang pohon dan membagi batang. Dari hasil identifikasi peringkat kesejahteraan, ditemukan fakta bahwa sekitar 15 KK memiliki chain-saw.

Selain hutan tanah darat, pada beberapa titik ada juga hutan mangrove, hutan nipah dan hutan rawa sagu. Ketiga hutan ini cukup memberikan pengaruh kapada penghidupan masyarakat terutama pada penyediaan makanan. selain hasil hutan kayu, ada juga hasil hutan bukan kayu yang tidak kalah potensinya, hasil hutan bukan kayu untuk makanan, binatang buruan, bahan bangunan, ornament/hiasan dan obat-obatan cukup banyak dihutan. Sebagian besar diantaranya masih tetap dimanfaatkan oleh masyarakat secara langsung.

Potensi Kebuh di Kampung Tairi.
Hasil kegiatan rangking kesejahteraan menunjukan bahwa sekitar 70% masyarakat kampung tairi adalah petani. Dan pola bertani meraka masih bersifat tradisional dan cenderung berpindah ketika kebun tersebut dianggap sudah tidak mampu memberikan nutrisi secara baik bagi tanaman jangka pendek yang ditanam seperti ubi-ubian dan sayuran. Hasil dari berkebun ini sangat berpengaruh pada penghidupan keluarga terutama pada pemenuhi kebutuhan pangan harian keluarga. Masyarakat kampung tairi sangat rajin untuk berkebun.

Read More