Cultural Practices and Economic Realities: The Shifting Livelihood Dynamics of Agroforestry in Sumatra.
On the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, many rural communities have traditionally practiced agroforestry to support subsistence and semi-commercial livelihoods. Yet as rural livelihoods evolve in association with new contexts, land areas under agroforestry cultivation are increasingly declining. The factors shaping the changing livelihood patterns of these communities are myriad. Livelihoods are forged in dynamic socioeconomic arenas that are responsive to and shaped by a complex web of macro processes, delineations of the physical environment, and embedded practice.
This article follows a livelihoods approach to explore these dynamics and understand the changing role of agroforestry in the livelihoods of rural Sumatran communities. It will begin with a discussion of the theoretical value, objectives, and parameters of livelihood approaches and how such analytical frameworks assist us in understanding the factors that shape the livelihoods of people experiencing poverty. As they have conventionally been applied, livelihoods approaches attempt to support a holistic understanding of the resources people require to create livelihoods and how they exploit these resources to meet their material needs. If applied correctly, livelihoods approaches can go beyond the simplistic view of people as strategic actors who intentionally exploit the assets to which they have access and allow us to understand the influence of predefined framing conditions, or structures, on shaping the livelihood patterns of people with low incomes.
Notably, people’s agency has the potential to reproduce or transform many of the structures that shape it, such as customary institutions and socially embedded practise, resulting in sociocultural transitions that, in turn, reinforce broader trends (Jakimow 2012, 1277).
Critical in this process are the social relations enacted at the local level, often within ethnic, class, or kin groups, which can determine a group’s level of access to or exclusion from essential livelihood resources. Viewed as such, livelihoods become understood as “situated practice” (Hall, Hirsch, and Li 2001, 147), and livelihoods analysis explores how human agency interacts with framing conditions to produce livelihood patterns.
The broader framing conditions of land use change in Indonesia, affected by political transition, economic development and global market fluctuations, and the advancement of agrarian capitalism, have decisively delineated the context in which rural Sumatran communities operate.
Two case studies will be examined to further situate these livelihood dynamics: the rubber agroforests in Bungo district, Jambi province, and the damar agroforests of the Krui area in Lampung province. These local-level analyses are essential in providing a more precise picture of each area's framing conditions. Still, they are also valuable in illustrating how people respond to these conditions in ways that reproduce or transform their socioeconomic conditions. These case studies are thus valuable for demonstrating how agency interacts with predefined structures to produce livelihood outcomes.
These analyses make clear how the livelihoods role of agroforestry in rural Sumatran communities is changing alongside their framing conditions, and how they are occurring in response to the agency of local people, which is being driven by changing aspirations and economic imperatives. Local people follow livelihood patterns presented by their particular framing conditions, changing aspirations, and economic imperatives. That is to say, most rural Sumatran smallholders are not autonomously choosing livelihood patterns based on agroforestry, monoculture, or non-farm sources. They are also rarely driven by intentional ecological values. Rather, rural smallholders are directed towards livelihood patterns preconditioned by structural components and power relations, which dictate which assets they have access to and, subsequently, the livelihoods they maintain. Social institutions and values are important in this process, however these aspects are subject to revision under these broader forces.
Viewed in this light, it becomes clear that rural Sumatran communities operate within a context that predefines their livelihood options. These forces produce new economic imperatives and social aspirations, which in turn are transforming traditional values, institutions, and practices. People do not choose their livelihoods and pursue them autonomously from their context. Rather, predefined contexts set livelihood opportunities, and people respond to them in a fashion that maintains or improves their condition. In doing so, social values change, and so too do local-level structures that regulate social practice, which in turn reinforce broader trends.
Within this context, no livelihoods are perpetually “sustainable” as conventional livelihoods approaches intend, as they are constantly changing and being forged anew – and increasingly so in the modern world. Agroforestry emerged as a livelihood practice in response to the framing conditions of a particular time and place, and likewise, its role continues to evolve in response to these changing conditions.
Origins, Theory and Critique of Livelihood Approaches
Livelihood approaches: intellectual origins and theoretical bases
The intellectual origins of livelihoods approaches to development – which emphasise micro-level, people-centred development – can be traced as far back as the 1960s. For decades, however, their influence remained firmly overshadowed by discourses that viewed poverty and its eradication in macroeconomic terms, from the dependency theory that characterised the 1960s and 1970s to the era of neoliberal structural adjustment in the 1980s and 1990s (Scoones 2009, 173).
Amidst the dominance of the Washington consensus, however, academic engagement with participatory, people-centred development remained dynamic. Prominent among this was Amartya Sen’s notions of capabilities and freedoms, and Robert Chambers’ rapid rural appraisal techniques, published throughout the 1980s (Amekawa 2011, 120). Weaved throughout this discourse was the realisation that, whilst economic growth may be a fundamental factor in poverty reduction, the relationship is not purely causative; rather, it is the capacity of those experiencing poverty to exploit the opportunities in economic growth that determines poverty reduction (Krantz 2001, 2). Understanding poverty and identifying its solutions thus necessitated local-level “actor-oriented” perspectives (de Haan and Zoomers 2005, 28), which addressed the on-ground realities of people experiencing poverty, including the limits and constraints that they faced in meeting their needs and the ways in which they went about overcoming these.
Livelihoods approaches further evolved when the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ entered the lexis with the environmental movement that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These perspectives overlapped with broader concerns about the linkages between poverty and the environment, including the coping strategies and livelihood adaptations that long-term environmental change would necessitate from rural populations with low incomes (Scoones 2009, 174).
It was within this academic and policy context that, in 1992, Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway published an influential working paper for the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), which proposed the following – and now much-cited – definition of a sustainable rural livelihood:
“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term.” (as cited in Krantz 2001, 1).
This paper represented the beginning of what is now referred to as the ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Approach’ (SLA). Over the next decade, the approach's influence grew in policy and academic circles as the “formulaic solutions” that dominated previous decades began to be challenged (Scoones 2009, 176).
As the approach gained traction with an increasing number of development agencies and organisations, the need to operationalise it grew. Subsequently, several frameworks emerged to make the application of the approach in formal development interventions less ambiguous.
The most prominent of these were those developed by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and an ensuing version by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), however guidance papers on implementing the approach have been published by various government, multilateral and non-profit organisations.
These publications, and the subsequent literature (see, for example, Baumann 2012; Allison and Horemans 2006; Carney 2003; and Goodrich 2001), start with the view that people’s lives are a pursuit to attain livelihoods that are secure and sustainable for themselves and for their families (Goodrich 2001, 1). In order to do this, they utilise a combination of tangible and intangible assets (physical, financial, social, human and natural) to compose livelihoods strategies. Multiple strategies are usually employed to form complex and dynamic ‘livelihood portfolios’, which are constantly adjusted and created according to the assets people have access to. They may comprise short-term strategies (‘coping’) and/or long-term strategies (‘adaptation’) (Allison and Horemans 2006, 759). Rural livelihood strategies were broadly grouped into three categories: agricultural intensification and/or extensification, livelihood diversification, and migration (Scoones 1998, 3).
The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach recognises that access to capital assets is helped or hindered by external factors, such as policies, institutions and processes (PIPs), and what is referred to as the ‘vulnerability context’, which comprises seasonality, trends and shocks (Allison and Horemans 2006, 759). A sustainable livelihoods analysis thus seeks to grasp how people combine various assets within dynamic historical and institutional contexts in the pursuit of sustainable livelihoods (Scoones 1998, 9). In so doing, Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) approaches demand explicit micro-macro linkages between local activities and regional and national levels (Hussein 2002, 41). In sum, an SL analysis considers the assets to which poor people may or may not have access, how they use these assets to create a livelihood, and the contextual factors that help or hinder this process.
Despite the proliferation of frameworks and guidance papers, the literature generally stresses the context-specific and flexible approach required when adopting the SLA: the approach, it is argued, should be viewed as a “way of thinking about development” (Carney 2003, 48) based on a set of core principles (Baumann 2012, 10) rather than a clear-cut methodology. Thus it is routinely stressed that the frameworks should serve as guides only, rather than explicit blueprints or formulas (Carney 200, 48). The SLA is, therefore, viewed as a set of guiding principles as well as an analytical framework (Allison and Horemans 2006, 758).
The technocratic and normative evolution of livelihoods approaches
In subsequent years, livelihoods approaches became increasingly central to bilateral and multilateral development programming, leading to a technocratic institutionalisation of the approaches, or what has been referred to as the “sustainable livelihoods brand” (Scoones 2009, 179). Indeed, the sustainable livelihoods trend created an intellectual discipline and community of applied practitioners, leading to scholarship analysing and comparing theoretical underpinnings and practical approaches (see Carney 2003; Hussein 2002; and Krantz 2001).
The evolution of livelihoods approaches has therefore been shaped very significantly by their central role in development programming and the consequent imperative to functionalise them for a myriad of uses, including research, policy design, monitoring and evaluation, operational indicators and poverty reduction strategy papers (Scoones 2009, 179; see also Hussein 2002; and Krantz 2001). Further to this technocratic practice, the institutionally driven progression of the sustainable livelihoods “brand” has caused it to become associated with normative tenets, such as bottom-up, people-centred, participatory approaches that focus on agency and capabilities rather than needs and dependency (Scoones 2009: 180). This has led to the functioning of “livelihoods perspectives as discourse, as well as methods and analytical tools” (Scoones 2009, 184).
The problem with this is that it is heavily based on an assumption of rational decision-making, which leads to a risk of overemphasising intentional human agency. Instead of being passive victims, livelihoods approaches conventionally seek to represent people as the “prime force of development” (Amekawa 2011, 134) who “play active roles in achieving their livelihoods by continuously exploiting opportunities” (de Haan and Zoomers 2005, 38). From this perspective, “The actor is the unfettered individual, pursuing rational livelihood strategies that are dependent only on the amount of absolute capital at their disposal” (Jakimow 2012, 1275). As such, SLA poverty reduction initiatives are founded on “technical fixes for rational individuals” (Jakimow 2012, 1275) who are relatively uninfluenced and unencumbered by structural conditions such as broader processes, the physical environment, embedded discourse and practice and socioeconomic power relations (de Haan and Zoomers 2005; Scoones 2009, 191). That is, despite cursory acknowledgement of contextual factors – policies and institutions, shocks and trends – livelihoods approaches, as they have conventionally been conceptualised, assume that people operate with an intentionality independent of influential (or regulatory) framing conditions.
In reality, whilst human agency is important in determining livelihood trajectories – indeed, people bring intention and purpose to the lives that they pursue – this agency is predefined and regulated by structural conditions (Jakimow 2012, 1276; de Haan and Zoomers 2005, 41). Structures not only determine the livelihood resources to which people have access but also shape the intentions, meanings and aspirations that guide people in their livelihood pursuits.
Framing conditions are multiple and occur at different scales. Broader, transformative processes at the macro-scale (global capitalism, deagrarianisation) and systems of governance (policy, legislation, institutions and enforcement) interact with delineations of the physical environment (geographical characteristics, distance to markets), and socioeconomic practice and discourses at the local scale (values and institutions, divisions of class, gender and ethnicity) that regulate behaviours and interactions (Jakimow 2012, 1274; Potter and Badcock 2004, 342).
Importantly, agency has the potential to reproduce or transform many of the structures that shape it, resulting in a continuous and often circular interaction: as structural conditions change, so too do intentions and aspirations, resulting in changes to sociocultural institutions that subsequently reshape intentions and aspirations (Jakimow 2012, 1277).
Essential to this process is the social relations enacted at the local level, often among people of the same class, kin or ethnicity, in a process termed “intimate exclusion” (Hall, Hirsch and Li 2011, 145). It is out of this continuous and dynamic interaction of structure and agency that livelihood patterns – rather than autonomous and rational strategies – emerge.
Thus, instead of simply focusing on the “intentionality” of actors, a more meaningful exploration of livelihoods should examine the ways in which predefined, yet continuously shifting, structures shape people’s purposeful livelihood decisions, and conversely the ways in which many of these structures are open to revision by “counter-trends emanating from below” (Jakimow 2012, 1285).
This enables us to move past a static, provincialised analysis of livelihoods (Jakimow 2012, 1285). Further, by looking at broader processes of interaction, reproduction and transition, we are offered a more formulaic understanding of the ways in which livelihood patterns are forged and transformed. It will enable us, that is, to understand livelihoods as the dynamic, situated practices that they are.
The macro-dynamics of land use change in Indonesia
In light of these theoretical considerations, exploration of the livelihoods of rural Sumatran communities that have traditionally practised agroforestry must begin with an initial exploration of the macro-dynamics of land use change in Indonesia. These dynamics, driven by processes of political transition, economic development and the fluctuations of the global market, are characterised by the advancement of agrarian capitalism and delineate the conditions in which rural Sumatran communities operate. Indeed, the role of agroforestry in the livelihoods of rural Sumatran communities has shifted over the last two centuries in association with the broad transition from extensive subsistence cultivation to intensive commercial agriculture. Crucially, it may be argued that the same trajectory towards agrarian capitalism that caused the proliferation of agroforestry systems has more recently contributed to their decline.
Generations of Sumatran farmers have operated within an erratic context of market turbulence and political transition – from the exploitative colonial era and the centralised, dictatorial Suharto regime, to the decentralisation of the reformasi period (Potter and Badcock 2004, 341; Kusters 2009, 91). At the turn of the nineteenth century, the rural landscape of Sumatra was dominated by vast areas of forested land and areas under shifting cultivation practised by local populations (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 325). Low population density and the relatively nutrient-deficient tropical soils favoured swidden farming. Historically, these agricultural systems involved clearing areas of bush-fallow or forest using slash-and-burn techniques, which were then planted with annual crops for two to four seasons. Following this, the land was left to fallow for several years, which, if left unused for decades, eventually became secondary forest (Otsuka et al. 2001, 86). Upland rice cultivation for home consumption was usually incorporated into these systems.
Although local populations had been cultivating trade crops for centuries, the Dutch colonial enforcement of cash crop cultivation for export witnessed the real beginnings of the departure from shifting cultivation as it had traditionally been practised. Early programs implemented by the Dutch involved strict land use regulations that compelled farmers to use a portion of their land to cultivate a cash crop for government export (Szczepanski 2002, 234). Relative to the more central areas of Java that the colonial administrators focused most heavily on, land in the more remote regions of Sumatra was left to be managed by customary adat systems (Szczepanski 2002, 235). Nonetheless, many areas of Sumatra were compelled to participate in the cultivation and trade of cash crops, including coffee in upland West Sumatra and tobacco in areas of the northeast coast (Potter 2001, 308).
The introduction of several exotic species of cash crops in the early twentieth century furthered the transition towards more sedentary agricultural practice in many parts of Sumatra. For example, when rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) from Brazil was introduced, it was easily incorporated into traditional swidden systems and gave rise to the new ‘traditional’ cultivation system of rubber agroforestry that dominated much of the agricultural landscape of Sumatra for decades to come (Potter 2001, 308; Feintrenie and Levang 2011, 36). Increased international market demand for commodities such as natural latexes and resins resulted in a boom in production among smallholders.
The trend was further encouraged by formal and traditional tenets that conferred property rights on individuals who planted trees on common land (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 328). Under such conditions, individual community members had strong incentives to clear forest land and plant commodity tree crops (Otsuka et al. 2001, 85). The trend towards sedentarisation and commercialisation subsequently came to incorporate the transition of land tenure institutions from shared family ownership towards individualised possession rights (Otsuka et al. 2001, 86). The primary forests of Sumatra thus succumbed to the persistent expansion of agroforests well before the proliferation of industrial monoculture (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 328).
Following Indonesia’s independence in the mid-twentieth century, forest conversion and agricultural intensification increased rapidly, particularly under the New Order regime of President Suharto. Sumatran agroforest farmers found their interests ignored under the authoritarian regime (Potter and Badcock 2004, 342), which prioritised centrally-driven macroeconomic growth through increased agricultural output and private sector investment.
The Basic Forestry Law of 1967 brought all lands outside of Java and Bali, except those under permanent cultivation, under the control of the Ministry of Forests and Estate Crops. This amounted to seventy per cent of the country’s land, which provided the government with unprecedented scope to exploit significant tracts of traditional land used by local people (Potter 2001, 310; Szczepanski 2002, 242). Despite the recognition of customary forest, the Law asserted that it was considered state forest land, placing the power to grant or withhold recognition of user rights and ownership firmly in the hand of the state (Szczepanski 2002, 243). Guided by the imperative of economic development, the Law precluded private or community ownership or land rights of forestlands but allowed concessions for state and private enterprises (Szczepanski 2002, 242).
Coinciding with these policies from 1970 onwards was the extension of the transmigration policy, which led to significant population growth. The transmigration policy aimed to relocate people from the more densely populated areas of the country, such as Bali and Java, to those less densely populated, such as Sumatra and Kalimantan (Resosudarmo et al. 2012, 3). Crucially, the government’s forest and land use policies facilitated transmigration as they made the lands of local Indigenous people significantly vulnerable to appropriation (Szczepanski 2002, 246). Transmigrants were generally unused to the extensive agricultural farming systems employed in the outer islands such as Sumatra, instead utilising intensive farming techniques that depleted the tropical soils of their nutrients (Szczepanski 2002, 246). As such, they were often favourably positioned for government policy and monetary support, which favoured irrigated wet rice, cloned rubber varieties and certified oil palm saplings (Potter and Badcock 2004, 342). The completion of the Trans-Sumatran highway and the state-sponsored rise of commercial logging in the 1970s further opened Sumatra to unprecedented economic and social change (Villamor et al. 2014, 826).
In 1984, the formalisation of the Tata Guna Hutan Kesepakatan (TGHK) land use classification policy reaffirmed the state’s claim to land and signalled the beginning of the government’s strategy to lease out large areas of ‘state forest’ to logging, plantation and mining companies, including considerable tracts traditionally managed and claimed by local communities (Kusters 2009, 97). Under the policy, forest land was differentiated between production, conversion, protection and conservation forest classifications (Kusters 2009, 97). The planning process of the TGHK was heavily centralist and paid insufficient attention to actual land use (Soetarto 2001, 1), which meant that many areas under traditional land use, including anthropogenic forests, overlapped with land designated for other uses. The marginalisation of traditional agricultural systems was exacerbated by government denigration and rejection of their existence as areas under land use.
As land availability declined with increasing demographic pressures and tenure rights over swidden land became ever more vulnerable, Indigenous populations were further prompted to intensify their systems towards agroforestry. In these conditions, agroforests offered a comparative advantage over shifting cultivation in relation to net revenue and the degree of land rights inferred (Otsuka et al. 2001, 89), prompting a clear trajectory in the livelihoods of local populations.
Although transmigration was scaled back in mid-1997 and cancelled as government policy in 2000 due to domestic and external criticism (Szczepanski, 2002: 246), local agroforest farmers continued to operate in a context of growing population pressure and government policies that favoured agricultural intensification over the extensive traditional systems of swidden and agroforestry throughout the Suharto period and beyond.
The reformasi period that followed the fall of the Suharto regime in May 1998 furthered the agricultural intensification of previous decades. The period witnessed the decentralisation of governance and the dispersal of authority for forests from the central to lower levels of government. Since decentralisation, districts and provinces have been responsible for developing their own revenue sources and have benefited from agricultural income generated in their localities in ways they were not able to do so before decentralisation (Feintrenie, Schwarze and Levang 2010, 39; Kusters 2009, 92).
People became increasingly empowered in asserting their rights over natural resources and could demand compensation from companies looking to exploit local resources. The “logging rush” that resulted, however, did not result in equal benefits, with most of the profits flowing to companies and local elites (Kusters 2009, 100).
Such was the frenzy immediately following decentralisation that the Ministry of Forestry changed its position to the forestry sector in 1999 with the issuing of the Indonesian Forestry Law No. 41. The Law reasserted the state’s claim over the forest zone and its responsibility for the management of forest resources (Kusters 2009, 94).
Amidst this context, economic globalisation has continued to promote export-oriented national policies, and local government interests have ensured their willing participation in the process. Although most tree crops in Indonesia continue to be cultivated by smallholders rather than large-scale companies, the rapid spread of monospecific oil palm plantations since the late 1990s contributes to a paradigm shift towards industrial-scale and export-oriented agricultural production systems (Villamor et al. 2013). Forest conversion to monospecific oil palm plantations began to spread rapidly in the late 1990s. Indeed, since 2008, Indonesia has been the world's largest palm oil producer, accounting for fifty-eight per cent of global production in 2021.[1] Notably, most of the country’s oil palm plantations are in Sumatra (Feintrenie 2012, 5).
These broader, transformative processes have clearly defined the conditions in which the livelihoods of rural Sumatran communities are constructed. Yet these framing conditions interact in with more localised structures to produce dynamic and unique livelihood outcomes. Two specific case studies will now be explored to obtain a deeper understanding of these interactions. Both case studies will incorporate an overview of broad trends in the region, followed by an analysis of how local people within distinct structural components produce livelihood patterns.
The Rubber Agroforests of Bungo District, Jambi
Background
Bungo district is located in the foothills of the Bukit Barisan mountain range, which forms part of the Kerinci Seblat National Park, the largest park in Sumatra. The district is configured with a mosaic of forests, agroforests and monoculture tree plantations. As such, the economy relies primarily on agriculture – dominated by rubber and oil palm production – with a significant contribution from smallholders. Industrial coal mining also contributes to the local economy (Feintrenie and Levang 2011, 37; and Martini et al. 2010, 5).
The majority of the district’s rubber latex comes from smallholder agroforests. Beginning their real expansion in the early twentieth century, and facilitated by policies that assigned property rights to land where rubber trees had been planted, these systems maintain a high level of biodiversity and ecological functions (Villamor et al. 2014, 826). As such, they formed an “ecological corridor” along the edge of the protected park areas, attributing the systems with a value that continues to be highly regarded by conservationists (Martini et al. 2010, 5).
These smallholdings, often referred to as ‘jungle rubber’, usually combine rubber trees with timber and fruit trees, food crops, building and craft materials, and perennial cash crops (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 324). Since the mid-20th century, the dominance of these complex rubber agroforests has been challenged by other land use systems (Feintrenie and Levang 2011, 37). In the same way that local people shifted from upland rice cultivation to rubber agroforests in response to market and policy incentives, many locals have more recently been converting their agroforests to monocultures of rubber and oil palm. Although rubber agroforests and monoculture rubber plantations continue to dominate the landscape, recent years have witnessed the rapid spread of large-scale, company-owned oil palm plantations (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 325), accelerating the shift from traditional agroforests to monoculture plantations of rubber and oil palm significantly over the last five decades.
Macro processes
In addition to the broad macro-processes discussed earlier, international market demand for natural rubber and oil palm has been important in shaping the livelihood trajectories of local communities in Bungo. Indeed, the profitability of monospecific rubber and oil palm compared with the cultivation of jungle rubber and rice has incentivised large numbers of local farmers to convert their rubber agroforests into more intensive plantations of these cash crops (Lehebel-Peron et al. 2011, 82).
Notably, the economic volatility that impacted the region following the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global economic crisis did not deter farmers from producing agricultural commodities for export but rather prompted them to diversify their strategies with several cash crops. Rather than integrating crops into agroforest systems to achieve this diversification, local smallholders are increasingly opting to isolate the various crops in separate plots (Feintrenie, Schwarze and Levang 2010, 43).
Capital assets and physical constraints
In addition to macro-scale processes, the physical constraints and capital assets that people begin with are crucial in shaping livelihoods. In Bungo, the main factors that determine the extent to which agroforestry continues to play a livelihood role include access to financial capital, technical knowledge and infrastructure (Therville et al. 2011, 24).
Access to financial capital is an important determinant of livelihood patterns in Bungo. One of the major benefits of agroforestry compared with monoculture alternatives is the relatively low financial risk involved. Not only do agroforests require low establishment and maintenance costs, but they are less vulnerable to pests and vulnerability to price fluctuations than monospecific agriculture. Compared to rubber and oil palm monocultures, however, their economic returns are much lower (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 330).
A situation therefore emerges where those farmers who are able to afford the starting capital for input costs, such as high quality seedlings and fertilisers, move away from agroforestry practices towards intensive systems, whilst those without adequate financial capital maintain their traditional systems (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 386).
Access to technical knowledge is another important determinant of the livelihood patterns of communities in Bungo. Intensive rubber and oil palm cultivation requires new technical knowledge and skills that many farmers who have practised traditional forms of agriculture do not have. The role of large companies and government programs in disseminating knowledge and supervision is vital, leaving many smallholders in a situation where they have to wait for market opportunities to come to them and bring with them technical knowledge (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 386).
The accessibility of a community via road is an important prerequisite for market involvement, as road connection reduces the distance to centres of trade and economic activity. Oil palm production relies on adequate road connection from the plantations to processing plants since fresh fruit bunches acidify quickly and must, therefore, be processed within 24 hours of cutting (Therville et al. 2011, 23; Potter 2001, 311). Indeed, the accessibility of a village via infrastructure is the main driver of oil palm expansion into most areas of the district, and not the reluctance of local farmers (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 383). Thus, access to economic centres by road is a prerequisite for involvement in new economic opportunities, such as oil palm.
Access is associated with the geographical and physical characteristics of villages in the district. For example, villages at the piedmont of the Kerinci Seblat Range are the most isolated from district centres, often not yet connected to asphalted roads and have little access to markets and services, including electricity and phone networks. These villages are considered poor and tend to be characterised by the presence of rice paddies (their main source of food) and rubber agroforests (their main source of income) (Villamor and Noordwijk 2011, 27). Conversion of agroforests to monoculture plantations is subsequently low in these zones. Areas between the piedmont and eastern alluvial plain are ‘intermediate’ in terms of their access to infrastructure, markets and technical knowledge and, as such, are characterised by the presence of agroforests but also of monoculture plantations of rubber and oil palm. Here, rice paddy fields have been left to fallow since the late 1990s when local farmers began to favour rubber cultivation. Villages on the eastern alluvial plain are the most developed and have access to asphalted road networks, electricity and local markets. A high intensification of rubber and oil palm exists, large palm oil companies are present, and transmigration sites are typically located close to these villages (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 384; and Therville et al. 2011, 20).
Access to financial capital, technical knowledge, and infrastructure is, therefore, vital in determining the livelihood patterns of local people. Importantly, an uneven distribution of these assets at the outset, due to factors such as geographical characteristics, leads to intra-district and communal differentiation that is only reinforced over time (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 332). Pre-structured conditions, that is, have a significant influence on the livelihood patterns of local communities.
Access, power and exclusion
It is important to note here that framing conditions are not static and access to many livelihood assets is regulated by relations of power. These include those enacted by government, agribusiness, and local elites, as well as the intimate social relations that play out at the local level (Hall, Hirsch and Li 2011, 145). Within these dynamics, power is employed to determine who is included in or excluded from particular opportunities. As such, the livelihood patterns of local smallholders are decisively shaped.
On a basic level, the role of government in providing access to technical knowledge, agricultural inputs and financial capital is crucial in facilitating access to new market opportunities. Particularly in decentralised Indonesia, it is within the interests of the local government to provide these as agribusiness activities contribute to district government revenue (Martini et al. 2010, 14). In Bungo, clonal rubber plantations are promoted by local governments through several schemes, which fund inputs such as planting materials and fertiliser, or facilitate access to technical information and credit.
In contrast, rubber agroforests attract little government support, and tenure rights typically remain unrecognised in the face of private palm oil expansion, which often encroaches on agroforest smallholdings under state granted concessions (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 330; and Martini et al. 2010, 13).
These government policies are crucial in determining the agricultural practices of local farmers as when local people have access to the requisite financial and technical capital, they tend to move towards intensive systems. Indeed, in one study of the district, all small farmers adopted clonal seeding varieties and intensive techniques when establishment costs and related risks were taken on by a third party (Feintrenie and Levang 2009, 329). Government interests, therefore, are crucial in shaping the livelihood limitations and opportunities of local communities. The livelihood decisions of local people, that is, cannot be viewed in isolation of the powerful, regulatory agency of the government.
Government policies also facilitate the extent to which agribusinesses regulate inclusion in new market opportunities. Under President Suharto, state supported agribusiness development included smallholder producers in arrangements known as Nucleus Estate and Smallholder (NES) schemes. These smallholder-company joint venture schemes involved state subsidies and free land for companies to maintain refineries on estates surrounded by smallholdings (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 380). In Bungo, the first oil palm plantation under the scheme was introduced in 1983 (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 386). Small farmers were tied to the plantation supply chain as a result of a condition of obtaining credit for inputs and these “plasma” farmers were required to sell their fruit directly to the central estate mills (McCarthy et al. 2012, 563).
The introduction of a second phase Koperasi Kredit Primer untuk Anggota (KKPA) scheme followed a similar logic, where a contract was signed between a company, smallholder cooperatives and banks under government supervision. Under the contract, smallholders delegate their land to the company, which establishes, maintains and harvests the crops, and are paid a percentage of the harvest revenue after input costs are deducted (Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 386).
Progressively, however, the state withdrew its direct support of smallholder inclusion in line with broader policy approaches that favoured less state involvement. The decline of state support and subsidies meant that domestic banks were reluctant to provide credit to smallholders, and companies were unwilling to guarantee loans. Oil palm companies were reluctant to invest in this climate, which pushed the government into further economic liberalisation which allowed companies direct control over larger areas of production. In this context, companies were able to maximise quality and profits and were less incentivised to include smallholders in their production systems. Since then, the preference of large private palm oil companies has typically been to control larger plantation areas and to move away from the problematic smallholder model (McCarthy et al. 2012, 557).
The government and the private sector continue to play powerful roles in determining which communities are caught up in the trend towards agricultural intensification. Land saturation is compelling companies to expand into more remote areas of the district, and the development of infrastructure, such as expanded road networks and new processing plants, will necessarily follow (Therville et al. 2011, 28). The interests and imperatives of these powerful actors thus delineate the context in which local people operate and, as such, are crucial in shaping livelihood trajectories in Bungo.
Intimate exclusion in Bungo
Within the context set by these actors, dynamic social relations take place that further regulate access and exclusion to livelihood opportunities. Indeed, throughout the period described above, a process of “accumulation and dispossession” has occurred, which has led to deepening socioeconomic differentiation within the district and within communities (Hall, Hirsch and Li 2011, 145).
The first NES schemes were introduced by the transmigration policy and, as such, heavily involved migrants from Java, who were provided with a house, 3.25 hectares of land and credit from the government to establish oil palm smallholdings. Transmigrant projects were able to encroach on village forest land since the village boundaries were unclear, making the land under the use of the Indigenous Malayu vulnerable to appropriation. To prevent this encroachment, many local villagers converted forest land to agricultural land by planting rubber tree crops, bringing large areas of communal forest land around transmigration sites under individual ownership according to customary institutions (Miyamoto 2006, 8).
Most of the Melayu farmers eschewed offers to join early oil palm schemes due to their mismatch with traditional practices. They subsequently remained outside of the palm oil economy and continued to maintain their agroforests. Although Melayu smallholders were deliberately targeted in the following phase of KKPA schemes, the outcomes were disproportionate owing to differences in government participation, and the agency of village leaders and landowners. Thus, as oil palm smallholdings matured and became productive, distinct class divisions began to emerge between the poorer, predominantly Melayu farmers who practised traditional agriculture and smallholders who were established within the palm oil economy (McCarthy et al. 2012, 559). The latter, composed of successful transmigrants, affluent villagers and district elites, had access to social networks, marketing systems and credit to buy up oil palm entitlements and further expand their production. District systems of “accommodation and exchange” were firmly established as local coalitions of government actors, village elites and private companies participated in the rush to expand their oil palm landholdings (McCarthy et al. 2012, 559). Within this context, government arbitration of competing claims to land was influenced by powerful interests at the expense of economically disadvantaged Melayu smallholders (Wibowo 2006, 403).
Throughout this process, ordinary Melayu villagers were increasingly drawn into the cash economy whilst simultaneously receiving diminishing returns from smallholdings that were declining in productivity. Land prices grew rapidly, and farmers unable to afford to intensify their systems were forced to sell their land. Land sales continue today, driven by economic distress, but also in response to new economic imperatives, such as education and medical expenses, and consumer aspirations (Wibowo 2006, 403; and McCarthy et al. 2012, 559).
The process of accumulation and dispossession has thus become systematic as the context has shifted from a site of opportunity to one of compulsion (Hall, Hirsch and Li 2011, 146-7). Once landless, many of Bungo’s original inhabitants have been compelled to sell their labour, in some cases ending up as workers for the migrants who assisted their displacement in the first place (Martini et al. 2010, 14).
Sociocultural transformations
Sociocultural transformations both result from and reinforce the processes described above. Most of the district’s communities have not been isolated from recent decades' dominant global and national discourses that emphasise development, economic growth, prosperity and consumerism. Moreover, the “demonstration effect” of successful smallholders is a key factor in a changing social logic that reframes social status in relation to cash income, education and material possessions (Therville et al. 2011, 30).
Further, larger numbers of people are becoming integrated into the cash economy and are becoming less dependent on forests for their survival. Economic returns from agroforests no longer seem sufficient to meet the new economic priorities of local populations (Therville et al. 2011, 30).
As behaviours and aspirations change, so too do people’s socioeconomic and sentimental attachment to the forests (Feintrenie, Schwarze and Levang 2010, 36). Thus, the changing social logic evident at the local level is one that favours economic development and prosperity at the expense of forest preservation.
The competing conservation discourse within this milieu is worthy of note. Indeed, concerns over biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions from the international community have led to involvement from international and domestic non-government organisations and, increasingly, international and national government agencies. As a result of the “buffering function” of Kerinci Seblat National Park, villages with agroforests on the periphery of the Park have received particular attention.
Indeed, in Bungo district there has been an established period of interaction between research institutes, NGOs, community groups and government, and the district has been the site of a number of benchmark conservation programs (Martini et al. 2010, 15). This engagement has contributed an important counter to the dominant discourse that characterises agroforestry as a backward and unprofitable enterprise.
The village of Lubuk Beringen is a specific example of the influence of conservation discourse on the maintenance of ecologically friendly livelihood pursuits, such as agroforestry. The village remains surrounded by protected forests. Subsistence rice cultivation continues and rubber agroforestry is the main source of income. Social ties among villagers remain strong, and social differentiation is limited (Villamor and Noordwijk 2011, 26; and Feintrenie, Chong and Levang 2010, 384). Lubuk Beringen is one of the villages most frequently visited by conservation agencies in the district and has been involved in a number of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) since the early 1990s (Martini et al. 2010, 15; and Villamor et al. 2013). In 2014, the village piloted a scheme to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) through the hutan desa village forest mechanism. This government mechanism, awarded by the Minister of Forestry, granted the village rights to manage forest areas and provided the community with security to obtain income from their forests and agroforests in a manner in keeping with traditional practices (Villamor et al. 2014, 826).
Lubuk Beringen presents an illustration of how access to human capital, including environmental knowledge and awareness of land tenure rights, facilitated by regulating actors can shape livelihood trajectories in unique ways. Villagers in Lubuk Beringen are highly aware of the social and environmental costs of converting natural and anthropogenic forests into monospecific plantations and, as such, have a resilient conservation ethic that operates within strong social norms (Villamor and Noordwijk 2011, 43). Notably, in 2010, the village had been approached by oil palm companies several times but rejected all offers because the villagers considered them to be of no value (Martini et al. 2010, 15).
Whilst the presence of conservation actors significantly influenced the livelihoods trajectory of Lubuk Beringen’s villagers away from intensive monoculture, specifically through contribution to human capital, it must be noted that the initial isolation of the village from the district centre also likely played a role. The village, one of the most isolated in the district, lacks connection to developed road networks and, before the development of a hydropower scheme under an ICDP, lacked electricity. In light of the association between access to infrastructure and new market opportunities discussed in the earlier section, it is likely that the conservation agenda interacted with existing structural constraints to prevent Lubuk Beringen’s inclusion in the compulsive trend towards agrarian capitalism.
Broadly, however, the case of Lubuk Beringen suggests that discourses and economic opportunities that compete with the aspirations associated with monoculture may have some impact on the livelihood pathways of local communities.
The impact of conservation initiatives illustrates how a counter-discourse, combined with certain structural constraints, can further embed traditional values, institutions, and practices to shape livelihood patterns that diverge from the more dominant trends. Micro-specific framing conditions also play a role in shaping livelihood trajectories.
The damar agroforests of Krui, Lampung province
Background
The Krui area, located in Lampung province in southwest Sumatra, is a narrow coastal strip bounded by the Indian Ocean and Bukit Barisan National Park, a protected area of forest with a high biodiversity value. Buffering the southwest of the Park is an extensive agroforest zone that features the damar tree (Shorea javanica) (Kusters 2010, 323; Wollenberg et al. 2001, 13). The official name of the area is Pesisir, but it is commonly referred to as ‘Krui’ after the small port town that represents the region’s economic hub and main damar market (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 320).
Swidden farmers in Krui began their domestication of damar in the nineteenth century but began extensive planting of the tree in complex agroforest systems in the 1930s. Demand for damar resin, primarily used for paint and varnish, has been relatively stable since then, largely because Krui is one of the only global suppliers and no alternative product of the same quality has been found. The damar agroforest systems, referred to as repong damar, are typically the final stage in a managed sequence, which begins with forest clearing and the planting of rice and damar seedlings within the first two years. The planting of perennial cash crops, such as coffee, cacao and black pepper, follows, forming an important source of immediate income. Repong damar is intensively cultivated from the third to tenth years, at which point the damar canopy closes in and the trees mature to be productive, which occurs after around 20 years. Damar subsequently represents a long-term investment that gives rise to the local adage that “farmers plant damar for their children and grandchildren” (Feintrenie, Schwarze and Levang 2010, 39; Wollenberg et al. 2001, 15). There is no significant seasonality for the harvesting of damar resin and it is typically harvested every three to five weeks (Feintrenie, Schwarze and Levang 2010, 39).
The majority of Krui’s population is constituted of smallholder farmers who rely on a combination of damar and agricultural production for subsistence and income. As such, damar is the primary livelihood source for most of the villages in the region, although other farm and non-farm income sources are utilised by local people, and on an increasing basis (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 15-16). Although the area is a combination of state and private forest land, the majority of households treat state forest as communal land open to be cleared to become private holdings (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 320).
Like the rubber agroforests of Bungo, the damar agroforests of Krui are valued for their ecological services. They have been recognised nationally and internationally as pioneer systems for community forest management. Thus, similar to parts of Bungo, concern for the preservation of repong damar includes research institutes, NGOs and state agencies with conservation agendas (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 17). As such, Krui is notable for the relatively strong conservation ethic that exists (Kusters 2009, 141). However, like the Bungo district, sentimental and cultural attachment to this is changing in the face of new economic opportunities and aspirations.
Macro processes
Relative to other parts of Sumatra, including Bungo, the damar agroforests of Krui have withstood the conversion to more profitable export crops, including oil palm. Nonetheless, a general trend towards monospecific plantations is evident, and will likely continue to gain traction. Indeed, in some areas, perennial cash crops, such as coffee, pepper and cacao, have become the main agricultural products, and damar trees are being planted more as markers of land rights than for resin production (Feintrenie, Schwarze and Levang 2010, 39). Thus, although significant heterogeneity exists in the economic activities of communities throughout Krui, there is a broad trajectory of a decline in the significance of damar income in household income portfolios (Kusters 2009, 129).
International market fluctuations have contributed to this trend. Most of the expansion of short-term perennial cash crops took place in response to the sudden increase in prices of export commodities, such as pepper, in the wake of the 1998 Asian financial crisis. Inspired by fellow villagers who were suddenly producing high incomes, and potentially facilitated by the decreased monitoring of encroachment following the end of Suharto’s regime, increasing numbers of small farmers began to clear land to plant coffee and pepper. The increased prices lifted the local economy, resulting in a rapid increase in purchasing power and increased consumption opportunities. Combined with the political reforms taking place around the same time, future expectations and aspirations were fuelled. With the decrease in global prices and normalisation of the exchange rate that followed, local incomes declined again. Consumption habits and economic aspirations, however, are said to have remained high. This illustrates the long-term impact that macro-scale events can have on behaviour patterns, including social values and aspirations (Kusters 2009, 139). That is, local farmers, influenced by international processes, responded by following particular livelihood pathways.
A boom in small and medium scale logging operations in the reformasi period also contributed to the conversion of many agroforests in the Krui area. In addition to a rapid increase in the price of damar timber during this period, the logging boom was fuelled by the effects of the policy vacuum that immediately followed decentralisation, which resulted in a relaxation of access controls in protected areas of forest (Kusters 2010, 325).
Economic opportunities, framed by macro-scale processes, have thus contributed to the beginnings of a trajectory towards household income strategies that are more profit-oriented (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 50). The Krui area is nonetheless unique in its continuing practice of agroforestry, and many villages in the area still derive their main source of income from their repong damar (Kusters 2008, 368). Despite these general patterns, a high degree of variation exists in the livelihoods role of repong damar throughout the area. Those that can be attributed to physical constraints and capital assets will be explored below.
Capital assets and physical constraints
The heterogeneity in economic activities and livelihood patterns can be largely associated with geographical characteristics and physical constraints particular to different villages. Although damar is cultivated to a certain extent throughout the Krui area, variances in the ways in which the cultivation has been incorporated into the livelihoods of smallholders are the result of differences in their initial structural conditions (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 331).
The village of Penengahan in Central Pesisir, for example, has the greatest extent of mature repong damar in the district. The village has a high population density and ethnic homogeneity and is situated on steep terrain near the national park. As such, land available for new agricultural activities is scarce, and options for cultivating staple crops, such as rice, and short-term perennial cash crops are limited. Furthermore, the village is close to the market town of Krui and the main road (10 to 15 minutes by car), which has created strong ties with damar traders in town. As a result, farmers in Penengahan have a comparative advantage in cultivating and trading damar, and use their income from damar to buy rice for consumption. As such, income from the sale of damar forms the basis of income and food security in Penengahan (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 331).
Subsequent to these factors, Penengahan has a strong damar tradition and identity. The village has strong, formal social institutions, handled by an adat leader, for dealing with damar-related conflict, land allocation and theft (Wollenberg et al. 2011, 62). Social taboos on cutting damar trees planted by ancestors continue to regulate the economic behaviours of villagers, as does the continuing social requirement of maintaining repong damar for future generations (Kusters 2009, 138).
Thus the deeply embedded damar culture in Penengahan strengthens the status and identity connected with damar cultivation, which reinforces the economic incentives that prompt local smallholders to cultivate damar (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 73).
In North Pesisir, the village of Melaya demonstrates less homogeneous participation in damar cultivation and trade. Although farmers have historically grown damar, they are less dependent on it as a source of income than villagers in Penengahan. This relates to a lower population density which leaves relatively ample areas of land available for agricultural cultivation, in addition to the fact that the village was, until the 1990s, further from the Krui market (around 45 minutes to one hour by car), making it less accessible than Penengahan and resulting in weaker connections with traders. Topographically, Melaya also provides more flat areas conducive to wet rice cultivation. These factors have subsequently led to a greater tendency to cultivate rice for subsistence and trade short-term perennial crops, such as coffee, cloves and pepper, for cash income, which constitute higher income sources than supplementary income from damar. The higher amount of food security that rice production provides Melaya’s villagers increases their ability to invest in short-term perennials that are of higher risk and higher value. Moreover, the availability of land in Melaya means that plots are located closer to farmers’ homes, an important factor in labour-intensive crops such as rice and short-term perennials. Further, the higher market transportation costs in an isolated area like Melaya make short-term perennial crops, which are more valuable by weight and volume than damar resin, the most viable and profitable option for farmers (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 60). Farmers in Melaya have therefore been more likely to convert their damar agroforests into plantations of short-term perennials, as they view the latter as “close functional substitutes” for damar in their income portfolios. These factors explain the large number of households who converted their agroforests into plantations for short-term perennials in response to a growth in clove prices from 1969 to 1980 (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 331).
The low population density in Melaya also made it more conducive to immigration. Melaya is characterised by its large coffee plantations that are cultivated by a sizeable population of Javanese migrants who settled in the more hilly, inland areas of the village in the 1970s and 1980s (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 324; Wollenberg et al. 2001, 45). The migrants’ preference for cultivating coffee is attributable to their lack of familiarity with damar, in addition to the relatively quick returns on investment that short-term perennial crops offer (Wollenberg et al. 2001 60). Their presence may be an additional factor in the shorter term perspective evident in the agricultural activities in Melaya.
Although damar does play a role in the economy and culture of Melaya, and social values exist in relation to the maintenance of repong, they are less embedded than in Penengahan due to factors specific to the locality.
A third village located in southern Pesisir, Negeri Ratu Ngaras (known locally as Ngaras) reveals a different engagement with damar cultivation. Like Melaya, Ngaras was isolated from the Krui market town until the mid-1990s and, as such, lacked social capital with damar traders. The majority of land in the village is more suitable for wet rice cultivation, and the major cash crop until the 1970s was rattan, cultivated from large areas of natural forest that surrounded the village. Although damar is valued and cultivated in Ngaras, it was introduced more recently and is thus less central to the social identity and income strategies of the villagers than in central Pesisir. Ngaras has also been more exposed to high in-migration and commercial interests than the other two villages, further weakening any embedding of traditional damar culture. A large Javanese population lives in the area, and the village has had at least one Javanese government leader. In the 1970s, the area was an active timber concession and, in the 1990s, farmers began to face increasing pressure to convert their repong to oil palm. Indeed, by the end of the decade, most of the damar agroforests in Ngaras had been cleared for plantations of oil palm (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 332-4).
Structural characteristics have thus played a significant role in shaping the livelihood patterns of local communities in Krui. The roles of various actors in regulating access to livelihood opportunities are additionally important factors that will be explored below.
Access, power and exclusion
The Bungo district case study demonstrates the role of government policies and actions in shaping the livelihoods of local smallholders, particularly in relation to land tenure and access to resources. The Krui area presents a relatively unique instance in which the government has assisted in supporting the traditional land use practices of damar agroforest farmers. This support is represented by the Kawasan dengan Tujuan Istimewa-Krui (KdTI-Krui) land tenure decree, which was issued in 1998.
Prior to the issuing of the decree, communities in the Krui area were facing the same land pressures as many other rural Sumatran communities. Under the Suharto regime, the government began the process of industrial-scale exploitation of the area’s resources by leasing out large areas designated as state forest zones to logging and plantation companies, including oil palm (Kusters 2009, 167). Many of the repong damar were included in these demarcations, creating significant concerns among the local population (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 332). Farmers who were alert to the threat of eviction during this period subsequently postponed planting fruit and damar trees on their plantations. As more local communities were denied access to demarcated areas, a number of disputes broke out between villagers and commercial interests sponsored by the state (Kusters 2009, 121).
In an attempt to resolve these disputes, and pressured by an alliance of research institutions and NGOs, the Minister of Forestry issued the KdTI-Krui decree in January 1998. The decree enabled communities to apply for special legal user rights over agroforests that were located in zones designated as state forest (Kusters 2007, 427), thus intending to incentivise local people to continue specialising in the cultivation of damar (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 332). The decree was lauded as an innovation in Indonesia’s forest policy as it was the first acknowledgement from the Indonesian government of local user rights on areas designated as state forest land (Kusters 2009, 114).
The KdTI-Krui case notably illustrates an instance of government support for the continuation of agroforestry activities in the area. Interestingly, however, none of the communities included in the decree had formally registered their user rights by 2005. This was in part because information regarding the decree was not disseminated by the local forest services, and community representatives were thus never encouraged to register their concession rights. As such, many agroforest farmers have limited knowledge and understanding of the state’s claim to land and their user rights to it (Kusters 2009, 123).
Despite the lack of formal engagement, the decree did have an impact on the livelihood behaviours of local agroforest farmers, albeit less directly than originally planned. What, in fact, mattered most to farmers, and what impacted their behaviour the most, was the fact that since the decree was issued, the government had stopped sponsoring large-scale industrial expansion in the area, and subsequently, the threat of appropriation decreased. Thus, it has been the government’s passive behaviour that has been central to restoring local villagers’ feelings of tenure security and their continued investment in repong damar (Kusters 2009, 168).
The fact, however, that the user rights of agroforest farmers in the Krui area are only de facto and not de jure means that they remain vulnerable when commercial interests return to the area (Kusters 2009, 169). This is indeed a possibility. Despite the maintenance of the agroforests since the decree, the responsibility of local governments to raise their own revenue is still a reality that ensures a strong incentive to exploit forest land. Indeed, in recent years there have been reports of dialogue between the local government and oil palm and timber plantation companies (Kusters 2009, 123). In areas like Ngaras, where damar culture is less strong than other villages, timber concessions and oil palm plantations are already present. In the face of demographic pressure, vacant agricultural land is becoming increasingly scarce throughout the Krui area. It is clear that powerful interests remain present in converting the agroforests to more profitable land uses. Given the lack of lands officially registered under the decree and ignorance of the decree at village and government levels, it is possible that these interests may overcome local interests (Kusters 2009, 169). In these circumstances, it is possible that the role of government will trend towards greater facilitation of commercial interests and exclusion of local smallholders, as has been evident in other areas of Sumatra.
Intimate exclusion in Krui
The process of land dispossession in Krui is largely the result of the interface between traditional inheritance institutions and new land pressures and economic imperatives.
Similar to other areas of Sumatra, traditional inheritance systems in Krui avoid land division by conferring the majority of inherited land to the eldest son. As a result, younger sons are compelled to find new land to cultivate. In traditional contexts where land available for agriculture was relatively abundant, young farmers were typically able to do this. Yet as available agricultural land becomes increasingly scarce – a combined result of demographic and commercial pressures, in addition to delineations of land for protected areas of national park – young farmers are finding their options decreasing (Kusters 2010, 323).
Coinciding with this process is the erosion of traditional social values according to which the eldest son who has inherited damar repong is obliged to provide for his extended family (Kusters 2009, 133). Traditionally, younger sons also had the option of working on family members’ repong but this practice is declining alongside other social obligations (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 325).
An increasing degree of social differentiation is thus occurring in relation to access to land, damar tree assets and agricultural income (Wollenberg and Nawir 2005, 325). Perhaps as a form of “covert protest action” against their exclusion (referred to by some as “weapons of the weak” (Hall, Hirsch and Li 2011, 158)), young men have been identified as the main culprits for increasing damar thievery in the area. Indeed, theft of damar resin particularly occurs within extended families. This is likely due to the fact that extended family members still feel entitled to a portion of the yield of their ancestral agroforest, even though the son who has inherited the land no longer feels compelled to support them (Kusters 2009, 134).
Young farmers without inherited land are, therefore, finding themselves in conditions where they are unable to forge adequate livelihoods based on agroforestry and are, in many cases, being driven to seek non-farm sources of income. Limited non-farm income possibilities in the Krui area often drive them to seek employment on Java (Kusters 2010, 337).
As market imperatives increase in Krui and powerful regulating actors, such as the government, contribute to their facilitation, it is conceivable that the processes of accumulation and dispossession among intimates will only increase.
Sociocultural transformations
The processes of intimate exclusion addressed above touch on the sociocultural transformations that are occurring in the Krui area. Crucially, these transitions are affecting the aspirations of an increasing number of villagers and reinforcing the beginnings of a trend away from livelihood patterns based on the damar agroforests.
The strong social identity attached to damar cultivation in areas of Krui is one of the most important factors that has allowed a large area of damar agroforests to survive conversion to this point. The social values and formal institutions that are associated with this identity are potent influences that shape behaviours and livelihood patterns, even to the extent of mediating the influence of competing economic incentives (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 5). Yet, the protection and maintenance of these social values relies on stable conditions that allow people to expect damar to be a vital income source in the future. In the context of economic development, improved infrastructure, higher levels of education, and increased opportunities to participate in more profitable, intensive forms of agriculture, incomes are becoming more cash-based and/or non-agricultural (Wollenberg et al. 2001, 50).
The social logic of younger generations, who place a higher status on livelihoods in the non-agricultural sector, is reinforcing the sociocultural transformation taking place. The opportunity to earn cash income is causing increasing numbers of young men and women to leave Krui to seek work in urban areas, mainly on Java. Crucially, many young people who have finished senior high school feel too ashamed to work as farmers, and many also find living in the village boring (Kusters 2010, 334).
Thus despite the continuing cultural attachment to repong damar in many Krui communities (which is notably unique relative to other areas of Sumatra), the number of people with such attachment is declining. Subsequently, the area faces the same trajectory away from agroforestry towards greater integration into the cash economy. Local livelihoods are being shaped accordingly.
Livelihoods as Situated Practice
Livelihoods are best understood as practice situated within predefined framing conditions. Framing conditions not only delineate the options available to local people but also shape the aspirations and intentions that inform their agency. In turn, people use this agency to engage in socioeconomic dynamics at the local level, which has the potential to reinforce broader trends.
Two case studies were utilised to illustrate these dynamics.
The analysis of Bungo district shows that traditional agroforest farmers are operating within a rapidly changing context. This context is characterised by new economic opportunities, to which access is regulated by structural constraints, powerful actors, and socioeconomic dynamics at the local level. By looking at these contextual factors, it becomes clear that the livelihood trajectories of local smallholders are largely predefined by the conditions in which they find themselves. These forces produce new economic imperatives and social aspirations, which in turn transform traditional values, institutions, and practices, including those that assisted in maintaining the practice of agroforestry. Driven by their new imperatives and aspirations, local people use their agency to respond to, engage in, and reinforce the broader processes at play. The impact of conservation initiatives in some areas of the district illustrates how a counter-discourse, combined with particular structural constraints, can reinforce traditional values, institutions and practices to shape livelihood patterns that diverge from the more dominant trends.
The Krui case similarly illustrates the role of framing conditions in shaping the livelihood patterns of local agroforest farmers. In Krui, geographical and structural constraints play a clear role in determining the extent to which damar agroforests are incorporated into people’s livelihood strategies. In contrast with Bungo, the Krui government has been less supportive of large-scale commercial activities since the late 1990s. This has facilitated a perception of land tenure security, thus encouraging local farmers to continue long-term investments in their agroforest systems. Subsequently, the compulsive accumulation and dispossession among intimates, as was evident in Bungo, is less apparent in Krui. Increasing land pressures and economic interests in the area may, however, ultimately spark this compulsion. Changing aspirations and social logic, which place greater status on cash income to enable access to education and consumer goods, contribute to the erosion of social value and identity associated with the cultivation of damar, which have successfully maintained the damar agroforests.
Rural Sumatran communities are thus operating in a context that predefines their livelihood options. They are not strategically choosing their livelihoods and pursuing them in a manner that is autonomous from this context. Rather, their conditions shape their options and aspirations, and they operate from within these structures. Conventional livelihood approaches that aim for “sustainable” livelihoods may, therefore, be fighting a rearguard battle, as livelihoods are constantly changing and being forged anew in response to their changing contexts. Crucially, these transitions will only increase in the modern world.
Bibliography
Allison, E. and B. Horemans, (2006). ‘Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach into fisheries development policy and practice’, Marine Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 757-766.
Amekawa, Y. (2011). ‘Agroecology and Sustainable Livelihoods: Towards an Integrated Approach to Rural Development’, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 118-162.
Baumann, P. (2012). ‘Improving access to natural resources for the rural poor’, Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) Working Paper 1, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
Carney, D. (2003). Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change, DFID: London.
de Haan, L. and A. Zoomers (2005). ‘Exploring the Frontier of Livelihoods Research’, Development and Change, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 27–47.
Feintrenie, L. (2012). Transfer of the Asian model of oil palm development: from Indonesia to Cameroon. World Bank conference on land and poverty, April 23-25, Washington DC.
Feintrenie, L. and P. Levang (2011). ‘Local Voices Call for Economic Development Over Forest Conservation: Trade-Offs and Policy in Bungo, Sumatra’, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 35-49.
Feintrenie, L. and P. Levang (2009). ‘Sumatra’s Rubber Agroforests: Advent, Rise and Fall of a Sustainable Cropping System’, Small-scale Forestry, Vol. 8, pp. 323–335.
Feintrenie, L., S. Schwarze, and P. Levang (2010). ‘Are local people conservationists? Analysis of transition dynamics from agroforests to monoculture plantations in Indonesia’, Ecology and Society, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 37-52.
Feintrenie, L., W. K. Chong and P. Levang (2010). ‘Why do Farmers Prefer Oil Palm? Lessons Learnt from Bungo District, Indonesia’, Small-scale Forestry, Vol. 9, pp. 379–396.
Hall, D., P. Hirsch and T. M. Li (2011). Powers of Exclusion: land dilemmas in Southeast Asia, Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Goodrich, R. (2001). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a summary of research in Mali and Ethiopia, Institute of Development Studies: Sussex.
Jakimow, T. (2012). ‘Serious Games in Livelihood Analysis: Reflections from the Case of Agricultural Wage Labourers in Andhra Pradesh, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1274-1287.
Krantz, L. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction: An Introduction, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency: Stockholm.
Kusters, K. (2007). ‘Towards Solutions for State vs. Local Community Conflicts Over Forestland: The Impact of Formal Recognition of User Rights in Krui, Sumatra, Indonesia’, Human Ecology, Vol. 35, pp. 427–438.
Kusters, K. (2009). Non-timber forest product trade : a trade-off between conservation and development : assessing the outcomes of non-timber forest product trade on livelihoods and the environment, with special emphasis on the damar agroforests in Sumatra, Indonesia, PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 233p.
Kusters, K. (2010). ‘Which Role for the Non-Farm Sector in a Forested Landscape? Lessons from Krui, Indonesia’, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 319-340.
Kusters, K., M. Ruiz-Perez, H. de Foresta, T. Dietz, M. Ros-Tonen, B. Belcher, M. Manalu, A. Nawir, and E. Wollenburg (2008). ‘Will Agroforests Vanish? The Case of Damar Agroforests in Indonesia’, Human Ecology, Vol. 36, pp. 357-370.
Hussein, K. (2002). Livelihoods Approaches Compared: A Multi-Agency Review of Current Practice, DFID: London.
Lehebel-Peron, A. (2011). ‘Rubber Agroforests’ Profitability, the Importance of Secondary Products’, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Martini, E., et al.. (2010). Rubber agroforests and governance at the interface between conservation and livelihoods in Bungo district, Jambi province, Indonesia. Working paper 124. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre. 53p.
McCarthy, J., et al. (2012). ‘Swimming Upstream: Local Indonesian Production Networks in “Globalized” Palm Oil Production’, World Development, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 555–569.
Miyamoto, M. (2006). ‘Forest conversion to rubber around Sumatran villages in Indonesia: Comparing the impacts of road construction, transmigration projects and population’, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 1-12.
Otsuka, K., S. Suyanto, T. Sonobe, and T. Tomich (2001). ‘Evolution of land tenure institutions and development of agroforestry : evidence from customary land areas of Sumatra’, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 25, pp. 85-101.
Resosudarmo, B. P. et al., (2012). ‘Forest Land Use Dynamics in Indonesia’, Working Paper No. 2012/01, Australian National University Working Papers in Trade and Development.
Potter, L. and S. Badcock (2004). ‘Tree crop smallholders, capitalism, and adat: Studies in Riau Province’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Potter, L (2001). ‘Agricultural intensification in Indonesia: outside pressure and indigenous strategies’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 42, No. 2/3.
Scoones, I. (2009). ‘Livelihoods perspectives and rural development’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 171-196.
Scoones, I. (1998). ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis’, IDS Working Paper 72.
Soetarto, E. et al. (2001). Decentralisation of Administration, Policy Making and Forest Management in Ketapang District, CIFOR: Jakarta.
Szczepanski, K. (2002). ‘Land policy and adat in Indonesia’s forests’, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, Vol. 11. No. 1, pp. 231-255.
Therville, C. L. Feintrenie and P. Levang, (2011). ‘Farmers’ Perspective about Agroforests Conversion to Plantations in Sumatra. Lessons Learnt from Bungo District (Jambi, Indonesia)’, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 15-33.
Villamor, G., et al.. (2014). ‘Agroforest’s growing role in reducing carbon losses from Jambi (Sumatra), Indonesia’, Reg Environ Change, Vol. 14, pp. 825–834.
Villamor, G. et al.. (2013). ‘Gender influences decisions to change land use practices in the tropical forest margins of Jambi, Indonesia’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer: Netherlands, DOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9478-7.
Villamor, G. and M. van Noordwijk (2011). ‘Social role-play games vs individual perceptions of conservation and PES agreements for maintaining rubber agroforests in Jambi (Sumatra), Indonesia’, Ecology and Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 27-47.
Wibowo, L., et al. (2013). ‘Policy Under Pressure: Policy Analysis of Community-Based Forest Management in Indonesia’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.398-405.
Wollenberg, E. and A. Nawir (2005). ‘Turning Straw into Gold: Specialization Among Damar Agroforest Farmers in Pesisir, Sumatra’, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 317-336.
Wollenberg, E. et al.. (2001). Income is Not Enough: The Effect of Economic Incentives on Forest Product Conservation, CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia.
[1] https://www.sei.org/features/zero-palm-oil-deforestation/
