...

Performances of the Cocoa Farming Models in Cocoa Bean Supply

by user

on
Category:

agriculture

8

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Performances of the Cocoa Farming Models in Cocoa Bean Supply
Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2015
Performances of the Cocoa Farming Models in Cocoa Bean
Supply Chain: A Case Study of Gapoktan Resopammase in South
Sulawesi, Indonesia
Yulismulianti Yasin (Corresponding author)
Center for Plantation Based Industry, Agency for Research and Development of Industry,
Ministry of Industry, Makassar, South Sulawesi, 90231, Indonesia
Telp: +62-411-434700 Fax: +62-411-441135 E-mail: [email protected]
Mursalim
Department of Agricultural Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hasanuddin University,
Makassar, South Sulawesi, 90245, Indonesia 90245
Telp: +62-411-586014 Fax: +62-411-586014 E-mail: [email protected]
Muh. Ruslan Yunus
Center for Plantation Based Industry, Agency for Research and Development of Industry,
Ministry of Industry, Makassar, South Sulawesi, 90231, Indonesia
Telp: +62-411-434700, Fax: +62-411-441135, E-mail: [email protected]
Yansor Djaya
Department of Economics and Development Studies, Faculty of Economy, Hasanuddin
University, Makassar, South Sulawesi, 90245, Indonesia
Telp: +62-411-585035 Fax: +62-411-585035 E-mail: [email protected]
(Received: April 1, 2015; Reviewed: April 15, 2015; Accepted: May 27, 2015)
Abstract: The research objectives are to evaluate the performances of three cocoa farming
models in “so called Gapoktan”(Combined Farmers Groups) of Resopammase’s cocoa supply
chain, located in Larompong District, Luwu Regency, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia.
Resopammase has organized around 16 of cocoa farming groups (called poktan), a kind of
village cooperative to produce quality and fermented cocoa beans since several years ago
to supply for PT. Bumi Tangerang Mesindotama in Tangerang, Banten Province. Data for
this researh were derived from field survey, expert survey, and literature study. Evaluation
uses Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The major finding of this research is that,
the cocoa farming model in which the cocoa smallholders sell their cocoa beans in the form
of wet- cocoa beans to the poktan, which in turn processes the wet-cocoa beans into dry
fermented cocoa beans in the Cocoa Processing Center (CPC) before delivering the cocoa
beans to Resopammase, has the highest overall priority level in performances (0.699),
compared to the other two that have the priority levels of.0.196 and 0.136, respectively.
The criteria in evaluating the models are respectively quality of the cocoa beans (0.343),
continuity of supply (0.216), cocoa farming management (0.194), cost efficiency (0.147), and
responsiveness to handle any complaint about quality of the cocoa bean produced (0.099).
For the policy makers, this finding can be used as one of the references in the efforts to
improve quality and increase production of the cocoa beans of the Indonesia’s cocoa farming
parallel to the increase in cocoa farmers’ income.
Keywords: Cocoa farming model; performances; supply chain
[ 79 ]
International Journal of Agriculture System (IJAS)
1. Introduction
Since the imposition of export duty
up to 15 % policy on the raw cocoa beans
exported, effectively since 2010, and the
downstream policy of cocoa industry issued
in 2010, the structures of the Indonesia’s cocoa production has shifted a part from cocoa bean- oriented commodity to some other
cocoa- derivated products, both intermediate products, e.g. cocoa liquor, butter, cakes,
and powder, and end products, e.g. chocolate
foods and drinks. During the period of 20102012, cocoa beans exported from Indonesia
has decreased from 432.4 thousand ton in
2010 to 210.1 thousand ton in 2011, and then
to 163,5 thousand ton in 2012. In the same
period export of the cocoa based products has
increased from 119,2 thousand ton in 2010 to
195,4 thousand ton in 2011, and 215,7 thousand ton in 2012 (Kemenperin, 2013). The
shifts of the cocoa production structure, of
course, will increase the demand side for raw
cocoa beans specified for cocoa based and
chocolate products. With the cocoa production of 440 thousand ton in 2011/2012, Indonesia contributed for 10.77 % of the world
total cocoa production of 4,085 thousand ton
(ICCO, 2014).
However, the increase in the demand
has not been fully followed by improvement
in cocoa bean quality and supply side (Kemenperin, 2013 and Syadullah, 2012). According to Sikumbang (2013), Indonesia in
2014 was predicted to import around 100
thousand ton prime cocoa beans, especially
from Ghana to fulfill the installed capacity of
the domestic cocoa processing industry. For
the cocoa processing industry, sufficient supply of raw cocoa beans both in quality and
[ 80 ]
quantity is a prerequisite to maintain production in an economic scale. The low in quality
is indicated by relatively high moisture, and
moldy beans contents, and waste and foreign
matters of the cocoa beans especially those
produced by cocoa smallholders. Most of the
cocoa beans has been non-fermented also.
As stated by Minifie (1999), only quality
and fermented cocoa beans can be processed
to chocolate foods and drinks with a specific
chocolate flavor.
In spite of this such condition, there are
several cocoa production centers which have
started to produce quality and fermented cocoa beans in response to the increase in the
demand of the quality and fermented cocoa
beans. Among of those production center is
one located in District of Larompong, Luwu
Regency, South Sulawesi Province of Indonesia (Yunus et al., 2012).
Resopammase, in so called gapoktan
in Luwu Regency of South Sulawesi Province has orginized several cocoa farmer
groups, called poktan, a kind of village cooperatives to produce quality and fermented
cocoa beans since 2006, under technical assistance of Resopammase both for on-farm
and after harvest. Resopammase collects the
cocoa beans received from the cocoa smallholders or from the poktan (buying by cash),
which in turn sell the cocoa beans to PT.
Bumi Tangerang Mesindotama, a cocoa processing industry, in Tangerang, Banten Province. Therefore, the marketing aspect is not
a problem for the cocoa smallholders. The
prices received by the cocoa smallholders
or the poktan from Resopammase depend on
the quality of cocoa beans produced (Yunus
et al., 2012)
Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2015
In providing cocoa beans to
Resopammase, the cocoa smallholders either
individually or in a group use three different
types of cocoa farming models. The types
show how the cocoa smallholders process
and deliver their cocoa to Resopammase.
This farming models will eventually form
the Resopammase cocoa supply chain in
supplying cocoa beans to the buyer, in this
case PT. Bumi Tangerang Mesindotama
(Dinas Perkebunan, Provinsi Sulawesi
Selatan, 2011). Supply chain is an integrated
logistic system in providing goods from
raw materials to end-products (Indrajit and
Djokopranoto, 2002).
Different from the general cocoa bean
supply chains (Sri Mulato, 2012), or the
general cocoa marketing channels (Ali and
Rukka, 2011), the cocoa bean supply chain
in the Resopammase case does not involve
cocoa village collectors and cocoa district
collectors as well. The only actors involve
in the supply chain are cocoa smallholders, poktan, Gapoktan Resopammase, and
PT. Bumi Tangerang Mesindotama (Dinas
Perkebunan, Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan,
2011).
Assuming that the three cocoa farming
models have their own characteristics, thus
their own performances, this research deals
with evaluating the performances of the
three models in the Resopammase’s cocoa
bean supply chain.
2. Research Methods
2.1 Site
The case study is at Gapoktan Resopammase, located in District of Larompong,
Luwu Regency, South Sulawesi Province,
one of the primary cocoa production centers
of Indonesia. The field survey and data collection was conducted from September to
October 2014.
2.2 Data
Data required for the research was derived from field survey, expert survey, and
study of the literatures on the matters i.e.
research articles from scientific journals,
text books, and research or reports issued
by Dinas Perkebunan (Local Office for Estate) South Sulawesi. Expert survey was
conducted through in- depth interview with
cocoa experts, facilitated with a questionnaire. The experts include two researchers,
one business actor, and one policy maker
from provincial government institution. All
the experts have experiences in cocoa fields
between 10 and 20 years.
2.3 Evaluation method
Method used to evaluate the performances of the cocoa farming models in
the Resopammase’s cocoa supply chain is
Analytic Hierarchy Process or AHP method
(Saaty, 2008, and Marimin and Nurul Maghfiroh, 2011). The steps to decompose the
evaluation are as follows: 1) define the problem and determine the kind of knowledge
sought, 2) structure the evaluation hierarchy
from the top with the goal of the evaluation
then the objectives from a broad perspective,
through the intermediate levels (criteria on
which subsequent elements depend) to the
lowest level (which are the three cocoa farming models); 3) construct a set of pair wise
comparison matrices; each element in an
upper level is used to compare the elements
[ 81 ]
International Journal of Agriculture System (IJAS)
immediately below with respect to it; use the
priorities obtained from the comparisons to
weigh the priorities in the levels immediately below; do this for every element and then
for each element in the level below, add its
weighed value and obtained its overall priority, 5) continue the process of weighing and
adding until the final priorities of the models
in the bottom most level are obtained, and
6) check the consistency ratio of each pairwise comparison set matrix (CR <0.10). For
quick and accurate calculation, the steps 3 to
6 use Expert Choice software.
In the Resopammase case study, the
problem is how to evaluate the performances
of the three cocoa farming models, while the
objective is to determine the performences
of the models, i.e. the priority levels. The
fundamental scale, definition, and explanation for pairwise comparison, from 1 to 9
refers to Saaty’s pairwise comparison scale
(2008). The higher the scale, the stronger
importance of one element over another, and
vise versa.
The criteria and subcriteria to evaluate the performances of the cocoa farming models refer to experts opinions and to
Iphov Kumala (2014), Retno Astuty (2012),
Saragih (2002), and Fajariyanto et al. (2012)
works, with some modifications considering the Resopammase case. Definition of
each criteria and subcriteria refer to KBBI
on line (2014), BSN (2008), Chopra and
Meindl (2001), Kementan (2009), Retno Astuty (2012), and Iphov Kumala (2014), also
with some modifications. The scale values
for each pairwise comparison matrix were
given by the experts through direct judgement method.
[ 82 ]
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Cocoa Farming Models Features
In the first cocoa farming model, each
cocoa smallholder processes their cocoa individually in their farms (i.e. fermentation,
drying, and sortation), and sell directly the
cocoa beans they produce in a relatively
low quality, and small quantity to Gapoktan
Resopammase. For now, their poktan have
seemed in “inactive” status for some reasons. mostly because of the less attention of
the smallholders to practice good farming
and processing and probably “more flexible”
for the smallholders in running this type of
business model.
The cocoa smallholders even may
“choose” to sell their cocoa beans to the brokers who are mostly called tengkulak with
the price determined by the tengkulak as a
compensation for repaying the credit they
received before from the tengkulak. Due to
the relatively low in quality, Resopammase
requires to further processes the cocoa beans
from the cocoa smallholders especially drying (to reduces the moisture contents of the
cocoa beans) and sortation. Slightly different from the first model, in the second model
the cocoa smallholders sell by cash payment
their dry cocoa beans they produce to the
poktan, where they are the members. The
poktan collects the cocoa beans and do further processing if required especially drying
and sortation before delivering the dry cocoa
beans to Resopammase. The third model is
totally different from the two other models.
At the same day after harvesting the cocoa
pods collectively in their farms, the cocoa
smallholders deliver soon their cocoa to the
poktan, where they are the members, in the
Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2015
form of wet-cocoa beans (paid by cash) for
fermentation to take place. The poktan then
do fermentation, drying, and sortation in
the Cocoa Processing Center (CPC) or Unit
Pengolahan Hasil (UPH) in a relatively big
quantity. At this time, the number of poktan
joining in the Resopammase’s cocoa supply
chain is 6 poktan in the first model, 3 poktan
in the second model, and the rest 7 poktan in
the third model of the total 16 poktan.
The finance to support the poktan activities comes from the revenue received in
buying transaction of cocoa with the cocoa smallholders and in selling transaction
of cocoa with the Gapoktan Resopammase,
especially for the second and the third cocoa
farming models. For the third cocoa farming model, for example, the sum of the price
deduction imposed to the wet-cocoa beans
in the buying transaction and the profit margin in the selling transaction is calculated as
poktan’s profit.
The amount will be returned back to
the cocoa smallholder as a profit sharing
and the rest to the poktan for working capital accumulation, each 50 % of the amount.
For the cocoa smallholders besides receiving cash payment for the wet-cocoa beans
they deliver to the poktan in every transaction, they also will receive profit sharing as
a characteristic of a cooperative institution.
The price deduction imposed to the wet-cocoa beans is more and less equivalent to the
predicted total processing costs to convert
the wet cocoa beans to dry fermented cocoa
beans. The cocoa smallholders who work
part time in the CPC will also receive salary,
according to their works.
Table 1. Definition of criteria and sub-criteria
No
1.
Criteria and Sub-criteria
Continuity of supply
 Plant conversion
 Application of GAP
 Application of GMP
 Agro climate
2.
Cocoa bean quality
 Clone
 Application of GAP
 Application of GMP
 Agro climate
3.
Responsiveness
4.
Cost efficiency
 Production cost
 Transportation cost
5.
Cocoa farming management
 Human resources
 Capital
 Technology
Definition
The availability of the cocoa supply in quantity for a certain period
Cocoa plant conversion to other plants
A system covering the minimum requirements for on-farm;
(plantation to pod harvesting)
A system convering the minimum requirement for after-harvest;
(processing of cocoa pods to cocoa beans)
A condition related to the climate, that may affect plantation,
climate, rainfall, season, harvesting etc.
Characteristics of the cocoa beans related to quality
A group of cocoa plants in one species, multiplied by vegetative
means with different characteristics, but uniform, and stable. (eg.
Clone GT-1, BPM-1, Sulawesi 1, etc.).
See Continuity of supply
See Continuity of supply
See Continuity of supply
The ability of the model to respond and handle any Resopammase
complaint regarding to the quality of the cocoa beans produced.
Efficiency in costs to produce cocoa beans
Efficiency in production cost (on farm and after harvest)
Efficiency in transportation cost to deliver the wet or dry beans to
the Resopammase’s destination
The ability of the model to define, organize and coordinate
production factors (human resources, capital, and technology)
Cocoa smallholders or poktan staff involving in the model
Capital or investment required to run cocoa farming (offfarm and after harvest)
Technology of cocoa plantation, farming and processing.
[ 83 ]
International Journal of Agriculture System (IJAS)
3.2
Criteria and Subcriteria
There are five criteria (with 13 subcriterias) in all defined in this research to
evaluate the performances of the three cocoa farming models. Those criteria respectively are continuity of the cocoa bean supply, cocoa bean quality, responsiveness, cost
efficiency, and management of the cocoa
farming. The only criteria which does not
have sub-criteria is responsiveness criteria.
Definition of each criteria and sub-criteria is
given in Tabel 1.
3.3
The Priority Levels of the Criteria,
Sub-criteria and Farming Models
The priority levels of the criteria with
respect to the model performances are shown
in Table 2, whereas of the sub-criteria with
respect to the criteria are in Table 3.
Table 2. The priority levels of the criteria with respect to the model performances
Criteria
Priority level
Continuity of supply
0,216
Quality
0,343
Responsiveness
0,099
Cocoa farming management
0,194
Cost efficiency
0,147
CR
0,0048
As shown in Table 2, the first priority
criteria in evaluating the model performance
is cocoa bean quality (0.343), followed by
continuity of the supply (0.216), cocoa farming management (0.194), cost efficiency
(0.147), and finally responsiveness (0.099).
As stated before, the classical problem
of the Indonesia’s cocoa is the low in quality, especially those produced by the cocoa
smallholders. As well known, the “automatic detention”, a price penalty in London
[ 84 ]
and New York terminals for most cases of
the cocoa beans exported is caused by the
low in quality (Rahmadi, 2009). Generally,
cocoa from Indonesia has been used just for
blending to attain certain flavors or just to
squeeze the butter content. Study by Yunus
and Yulismulianti (2010) showed the importance to place the cleaning and sortation step
for the raw cocoa beans reception as a critical control point in the cocoa processing industry. This is to ensure that the cocoa beans
are free or are in safe levels from molds, insects, wastes, and any infestation, and free
from foreign matters. In fact, Kumala et al.
(2014) in their research on analysis and risk
mitigation of sustainable cocoa agroindustry supply chain found that two of the top
three high risks in the cocoa supply chain are
cocoa bean quality followed by supply. The
analysis uses Fuzzy AHP. The factors, as
sub-criteria that may affect the quality consist of application of Good Agriculture Practice or GAP for on-farm (0.525), aplplication
of Good Manufacturing Practice or GMP for
after harvest (0.312), agro-climate (0.107),
and cocoa clones (0.056).
As stated before, to maintain production at an economic scale, the cocoa processing industry requires continuity in the
supply of the cocoa beans. Similarly, for the
firms, even gapoktan which do cocoa trading usually need the continuity of the supply to run their business at the economic
scales. Moreover, while the world demand
for cocoa is proyected to increase at 2-4 %
a year (Faiz and Sumarna, 2013), there has
been a tendency the Indonesia’ cocoa bean
production has decreased or stagnant (Kemenperin, 2013) and a tendency some cocoa
Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2015
farmers converting their cocoa plant to other
plants during the last few years (Sikumbang,
2013). The factors or sub-criteria that may
affect the continuity of the supply are aplication of GAP (0.653) and GMP (0.140), agro
climate (0.112), and cocoa plant conversion
(0.096).
The abilty of the cocoa farming management to well define, orginize, and coordinate production factors under its control
contributes to create good farming performances (Kementan, 2009). The factors or
sub-criteria that may affect the cocoa farming
management are human resources (0.633),
processing technology (0.188), and capital
(0.179). Saragih (2012) in his research dealing with the development strategy for the cocoa smallholders in Asahan Regency, South
Sumatera Province of Indonesia concluded
that the factors affecting the strategy by rank
are human resources, marketing, and technology, respectively.
Cost efficiency in this Resopammase
case study covers efficiencies in production
cost and transportation cost, while responsiveness focuses only on response of the
cocoa smallholders or the poktan to handle
any complaint from Resopammase regarding
quality of the cocoa beans they produce and
deliver to Resopammase. The factors or subcriteria that may affect the cost efficiency are
efficiency in production cost (0.778), and efficiency in transportation cost, the total costs
for delivering the cocoa beans from farms to
Resopammase’ s destination (0.222).
The slightly more important of the cocoa farming management criteria over the
cost efficiency and responsiveness, may be
explained that if the cocoa farming is well
managed, the probability for the cocoa farming to improve the efficiency and responsiveness will also be higher. It is similar for
the more important of the quality criteria
over the responsiveness. If the cocoa farming is able to produce quality cocoa beans,
then the probability to handle the complaint
regarding quality properly and quickly will
also be higher.
The importance of climate factors towards cocoa yields both quality and quantity have been studied broadly (Anshari,
2002 and Basri Zainuddin, 2010). The nature condition related to climate may effect
seasons, rainfall, plantation, harvesting, etc.
Studies conducted in Nigeria, Ghana, and
Cote D’Ivoire showed that there is a long
run equilibrium relationship between cocoa
yield and rainfall with a different speed of
adjustment to the equilibrium (Amos and
Thompson, 2015, and Kenneth and Insah
Baba, 2011).
Cocoa plant materials can be provided
through two ways namely seedling and clonal. The latest has become important in cocoa
farming due to its uniform cultivation and
genetically vigor-performances against Helopeltis sp., CPB and VCD attacks (Wahyudi and Misnawi, 2008). Some of the cocoa
clones recommeded include PBC-123, Sulawesi 03 and ICCRI-07 to improve quality
of the cocoa beans produced by the smallholders. The priority level of the cocoa farming models with respect to the sub-criteria is
shown in Table 4.
3.4
The overall priority level
In the end, the overall priority levels
for each of the cocoa farming model is given
[ 85 ]
International Journal of Agriculture System (IJAS)
Table 3. The priority level of the sub-citeria with respect to the criteria
No.
1. Quality
Criteria and Sub-criteria




2.
3.
4.
Cocoa clones
GAP
GMP
Agro-climate
Supply continuity
 Cocoa plant conversion GAP
 GAP
 GMP
 Agro-climate
Cocoa farming management
 Human resources
 Capital
 Processing technology
Cost efficiency
 Production cost
 Transportation cost
Priority Level
0,056
0,525
0,312
0,107
0.096
0.653
0,140
0,112
0,633
0,179
0.188
0,778
0,222
CR
0,0200
0.0009
0.0020
0,0000
Table 4. The priority level of the cocoa farming models with respect to the sub-criteria
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Criteria dan Sub-criteria
Supply continuity
 Cocoa plant conversion
 GAP
 GMP
 Agro-climate
Quality
 Cocoa clones
 GAP
 GMP
 Agro-climate
Responsiveness
Cocoa farming management
 Human resources
 Capital
 Processing technology
Cost efficiency
 Production cost
 Transportation cost
Priority Level
Cocoa Farming Cocoa Farming
Model I
Model II
0.153
0.205
0,155
0.287
0.147
0.183
0.075
0.173
0.288
0.300
0,161
0.197
0.163
0.252
0.202
0.206
0.089
0.142
0.168
0.290
0.136
0.110
0.086
0.177
0.096
0.147
0.064
0.232
0.074
0.228
0.073
0.224
0.074
0.214
0.071
0.249
in Table 5. Each cocoa farming model has
an overall priority level corresponding to its
“fit” to all model performance judgments
about the criteria. The CR < 0.10 in Table 2
to Table 5, indicating the consistency of all
[ 86 ]
Cocoa Farming
Model III
0.642
0.558
0.670
0.753
0.412
0.642
0.584
0.592
0.769
0.542
0.756
0.736
0.757
0.704
0.698
0.703
0.709
0.680
CR
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.070
0.002
0.020
0.001
0.004
0.007
0.020
0.004
0.002
0.010
0.040
0.050
0.000
0.020
0.050
the criteria levels.
By ranks, the third cocoa farming model
has the highest overall priority level (0.699),
followed by the second model (0.196), and
the first model (0.136), as also shown in its
Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2015
priority levels againts all criteria and subcriteria (Table 4). The third cocoa farming
model lead the two other models in technical, resources, and institutional aspects.
Table 5. The overall priority level of cocoa the
farming models.
Cocoa farming models
Priority level
Cocoa Farming Model I
0,136
Cocoa Farming Model II
0,196
Cocoa Farming Model III
0,699
CR
0,010
Different from the two other models,
the first model is facilitated with a CPC, as
mentioned before, and standard operation
prosedures (SOPs) for both on-farm and after harvest. Those procedures cover the basic
principal of GAP and GMP. Only the third
and the second models, more specially the
third model, apply the procedure consistently, while the first model does not, indicated
by the cocoa bean resulted in by the first
model relatively low in quality.
As stressed by Sri Mulato (2013), the
CPCs in poktan have very important roles
for producing dry cocoa beans which comply
with the SNI 2323:2008 standards, and even
to increase productivity levels. According to
Sri Mulato (2013), the CPCs integrate technology, infrastructures, human resources,
and transformation of the attitude from “traditional business” to “industrial business”.
Subekti (2010), who investigated the low in
productivity level of the cocoa farming in one
village of District of East Sentani, Regency
of Jayapura, Papua Province of Indonesia
concluded that the main factors affecting on
that low productivity are the plantation area,
capital, and working intensity, as well as the
frequency of the cocoa smallholders attending trainings related to cocoa plantation and
processing. The decline in the cocoa production in Nigeria since the 1980’s, as stated by
Osas et al., (2010) is also due to non adoption of improved farming practices besides
insect, pest, and diseases.
For the cocoa smallholders in the third
and the second models, again more specially
in the third model, the existence of poktan is
considered very beneficial. The function of
the poktan is not only as a “place” to discuss
and decide the schedules for farm cleaning
(plant bug and diseases prevention) and cocoa harvesting and to take trainings, but also
as a business cooperative institution.
The latest is to improve the bargaining position of the cocoa smallholders in
marketing aspect. As stated by Kumala et
al. (2014), the strategy to improve the selling price of cocoa beans is by strengthening
institutional, and application of GAP, and
GMP consistently. In strengthening institutional of the cocoa smallholders is educating
smallholders to have good technical skill and
marketing aspect as well in a parallel linkage
(Arsyad et al., 2014).
To improve the quality of the cocoa
beans, Syadullah (2012) recommends that
the government revenue from the cocoa bean
export duty is returned back to cocoa farmers
(including the cocoa farmers involve in the
first and the second cocoa farming models
in this research) in the form of improved and
adequate infrastuctures (CPCs) in the cocoa
production centers as well as provision of
higher quality seeds and better counseling.
[ 87 ]
International Journal of Agriculture System (IJAS)
Performances of The
Cocoa Farming Models
Cocoa Plant
GAP GMP
Conversion
(0,653) (0,140)
(0,096)
AgroClimate
(0,112)
Cocoa
GAP GMP
Clons
(0,525) (0,312)
(0,056)
Criteria
Responsiveness
(0,099)
Quality
(0,343)
Supply Continuity
(0,216)
Goal
AgroClimate
(0,107)
HR
(0,633)
Cocoa Farming Management Cost Effeciency
(0,147)
(0,194)
Capital
(0,179)
Processing
Technology
(0,188)
Production
Cost
(0,778)
Transportation
Cost
(0,222)
Subcriteria
Cocoa Farming Model I
(0,136)
Cocoa Farming Model II
(0,196)
Cocoa Farming Model III
(0,699)
Figure 1. The hierarchical structure of the farming model performance problem
Compared to the first cocoa farming
model, the second model is more potentially
to be converted to the third model, if the second model is facilitated with CPSs.
4. Conclusion
Of the three cocoa farming models in
the case of Resopammas’s cocoa bean supply chain, the third model where the cocoa
smallholder deliver their cocoa in the form
of wet-cocoa beans to the poktan for further
processing (i.e. fermentation, drying, and
sortation) to produce dry fermented cocoa
beans has the highest overall priority level
in performances, compared to other two.
Criteria to evaluate the performances cover
continuity of the cocoa bean supply, cocoa
bean quality, responsiveness, cost efficiency,
and cocoa farming management. The model
is suggested to be duplicated or developed
in every poktan and gapoktan (including in
other cocoa production centers) in order to
improve cocoa quality according to the standard requirements, supply continuity, and
bargaining position of the cocoa smallholders in marketing aspect as well. For policy
[ 88 ]
makers, this finding can be used as one of the
references for the Indonesia’s cocoa farming
development in order to improve quality and
increase production of the cocoa beans of the
cocoa smallholders parallel to the increase in
the cocoa farmer’s income.
References
Ali, D and R.M Rukka. (2011). Peran Pedagang Kakao dalam Peningkatan Efesiensi Pasar di Sulawesi Selatan, Jurnal
Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian. 8(1):16-23
(In Indonesian).
Amos. T.T and O.A. Thompson. (2015). Climate Change and the Cocoa Production in the Tropical Rain Forest Ecological Zone of Ondo State, Nigeria.
Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 5(1):36-41
Anshari. (2002). Evaluasi Kebutuhan Agroklimat Tanaman Kina (Cinchona sp.)
dan Potensi Pengembangannya di Kabupaten Bandung. Skripsi. Fakultas
Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan
Alam. Institut Pertanian Bogor. Unpublished (In Indonesian).
Volume 3 Issue 1, June 2015
Arsyad, M., A. Nuddin, M.Y. Zamhuri, S.
Yusuf. (2014). The Poverty Reality
of Coastal and Agriculture: How Severe the Seaweed Farmers and Cocoa
Smallholders Are? International Journal of Agriculture System, 2(2):119131.
Basri Zainuddin. (2010). Mutu Biji Kakao
Sambung Samping, Media Litbang
Sulteng III (2) : 112 - 118, (In Indonesian).
BSN. (2008). SNI 2323-2008 Biji Kakao,
Badan Standardisasi7 Indonesia (In
Indonesian).
Chopra S,. and P. Meindl,. (2001). Supply
Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation, third ed., Stanford University, New Jersey.
Dinas Perkebunan Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan dengan Universitas Hasanuddin.
(2011). Program Peningkatan Nilai
Tambah, Daya Saing, Industri Hilir,
Pemasaran Ekspor Hasil Pertanian untuk Pengembangan Mutu Kakao Fermentasi Pola Isentif, Laporan Akhir
Pendampingan Perguruan Tinggi,
Makassar (In Indonesian).
Faiz, A and Sumarna. (2013). Kebijakan
Pemerintah dalam Mendukung Program Hilirisasi Industri Kakao Nasional, Prosiding Seminar Nasional
Teknologi Industri Kakao dan Hasil
Perkebunan Lainnya, 27 Nopember
2013:1-14 BBIHP Makassar (In Indonesian).
Fajariyanto D.E., D. Hidayati and M, Ulya.
(2012). Implementasi GMP (Good
Manufacturing Practice) pada Produksi Biji Kakao Kering di PT. Perkebu-
nan Nusantara XII Kediri. Program
Studi Teknologi Industri Pertanian
Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Trunojoyo (In Indonesian).
ICCO. (2014). ICCO Quarterly Bulletin of
Cocoa Statistics, Vol. XL, No. 1, Cocoa year 2013/14
Indrajit, R.E. and R. Djokopranoto, R.
(2002). Konsep Manajemen Supply
Chain, Cara Baru Memandang Mata
Rantai Penyediaan Barang. Grassindo.
Jakarta (In Indonesian).
Iphov Kumala,. Yandra,. D. Syah and Marimin. (2014). Analisa dan Mitigasi
Risiko Rantai Pasok Agroindustri Kakao yang Berkelanjutan, Jurnal Industri Hasil Perkebunan, 10(1):69-79 (In
Indonesian).
KBBI online. (2014) KBBI Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia versi 1.3 (April
2014), http://www.kamus-kbbi.com/
kbbi/) (In Indonesian).
Kemenperind. (2013), Hilirisasi Industri
Pengolahan Kakao. Direktorat Jenderal Industri Agro. Kementerian Perindustrian, Jakarta (In Indonesian).
Kementan. (2009). Pedoman Penumbuhan
dan Pengembangan Kelompok Tani
dan Gabungan Kelompok Tani, Jakarta. Kementrian Pertanian. (In Indonesian).
Kenneth. O.B. and Insah Baba. (2011). An
Empirical Analisis of the Impact of
Climate Change on Cocoa Production
in Selected Countries in West Africa.
Journal of Sustainable Development in
Africa,13(8):24-48.
Marimin and Nurul Maghfiroh. (2013). Aplikasi Teknik Pengambilan Keputusan
[ 89 ]
International Journal of Agriculture System (IJAS)
dalam Manajemen Rantai Pasok. IPB
Press, Bogor (In Indonesian).
Minifie, B.W. (1999). Chocolate, Cocoa and
Confectionary: Science and Technology, Westport Connecticut: AVI Pub.
Osas, Uwagboe. E., O. Babalola M.I. Umanah and E.U. Asogwa (2010). Cropping Practices of Cocoa Farmers in Nigeria. International Journal of Science
and Nature 1(2): 267-271.
Rahmadi, A (2009). Cocoa Commodity
Safety Review Faperta. Available online at: unmul.ac.id/arahmadi/tulisan/
Cocoasafety.pdf. accessed 10 January
(online) https://dedidoank.files.wordpress.com/ accessed 20 October 2012
(In Indonesian).
Subekki, I. (2010). Tingkat Produksi dan
Pendapatan Petani Kakao (theobroma
cacao l) Suku Asli Papua Di Kampung
Yokiwa Distrik Sentani Timur Kabupaten Jayapura. Fakultas Pertanian &
Teknologi Pertanian Universitas Negeri Papua Manokwari (In Indonesian).
Syadullah, M. (2014). Dampak Kebijakan
Bea Keluar Terhadap Ekspor dan Industri Pengolahan Kakao. Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, 6(1): 53-
2010
Retno Astuty. (2012). Pengembangan Rantai
Pasok Manggis di Kabupaten. Bogor.
Jawa Barat. Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. Institut Pertanian Bogor (In Indonesian).
Saaty, T. L. 2008. Decision making with the
analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1):83-98
Saragih, F,A. (2002). Kajian Pengembangan
Agroindustri Kakao Rakyat di Kabupaten Asahan. Skripsi. Fak. Teknologi
Pertanian. IPB. Bogor. (In Indonesian)
Sikumbang, Z. (2013). Produksi minim,
2014 perlu impor kakao 100 ribu ton.
Kamis, 14 Maret 2013 | 12:30. Kominfo Jatim, accessed 4 November 2013
(In Indonesian).
Sri Mulato. (2013). Pengembangan Teknologi Pasca Panen Pendukung Upaya Peningkatan Mutu Kakao Nasional, Pusat
Penelitian Kopi dan Kakao Indonesia
68 (In Indonesian).
Yunus, M.R., Medan Yumas and Kalsum.
(2012). Price Incentive Analysis In
Producing Fermented Cocoa Beans
At Farmer Level: A Case Study In
Larompong District Cocoa Production
Center, Luwu Regency of South Sulawesi Province, Jurnal Industri Hasil
Perkebunan, 7(1):8-15.
Yunus. M, R. and Yulismulianti. (2012). Application Of The HACCP Principles In
Manufacturing Process Of Cocoa Butter And Cakes (A Case Study at PT.
MBCI Makassar), Jurnal Industri Hasil Perkebunan, 5(1):51-62.
Wahyudi, T and Misnawi. (2008). The World
Scenario of Cocoa Production and
Consumption, the 2nd International
Plantation Industry Conference and
Exhibition, UiTM Shah Alam, Selangor Malaysia, 19-21 Nov. 2008: 1-39.
***
[ 90 ]
Fly UP