Factors influencing swidden farmers’ access to information and resources in Kalimantan, Indonesia

Maarit Kallio, Moira Moeliono, Cynthia Maharani, Willy Daeli, Kharisma Tauhid, Maria Brockhaus, Grace Wong, Egkamat

ASFCC

ASEAN-SWISS Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC)

Funded by Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) Partnership project that aims to support the ASFN (ASEAN Social

Forestry Network) and the ASEAN countries in the arena of social forestry and climate change by research, capacity building and policy recommendations.

Phase 1 (2011-2013); Phase 2 (2014-2016) Indonesia, Vietnam, Lao PDR

Forested, upland/hilly areas, remote, not easily accessible, national park close, REDD+ and many other projects

Shifting cultivators

Ethnic diversity

• Rapid changes in land use

• Oil palm (Indonesia)• Corn (Laos, Vietnam)• New/expansion of roads

Research (continued)

Our research is asking the following questions: • What are the temporal and spatial scales of

resource management in swidden systems and their implications to livelihoods, food security and carbon stocks?

• What are the existing social networks (information and benefit sharing) of swidden communities ---learn for REDD+ reporting/benefit sharing/monitoring?

• What are the organizational perceptions of REDD+, DD, and what are relevant existing networks and power relations (sub-national)?

Hypotheses

The existing networks are not well understood, and there could be networks useful for REDD+ MRV and benefit sharing.

Households’ socio-economic characteristics, personal relations, and migration patterns influence their access to external interventions (extension, development interventions, REDD+, PES) and to other existing information and resource exchange networks.

Origin and migration patterns of the household influence household’s access to information and resources.

Focus of this study

How do household characteristics influence households’ access to (a) extension services; (b) development interventions; (c) agricultural inputs; (d) Customary Land-use System?

How do household characteristics influence households’ connectedness with the key people related to selected information and resource exchange systems?

General socioeconomic characteristics

Status in the village Joins in farmers group Gender of the respondent Household member attended a senior high-school or

university Age (years) Highest level of education of the household head (female

and/or male) (years) Total value of assets (millions of IDR)

Origin and migration

Origin

Originate in the village (respondent & partner)

Lives in the longhouse (household)

Migration

Lived outside the village (in any place)• Respondent, partner,

household member & extended family member

Lived outside the village in an urban area

- Respondent, partner, household member & extended family member

Personal relations -kinship

Respondent/household immediate family with the:

• longhouse leader • traditional leader • community leader • hamlet leader • village leader • any other leader

Characteristics of the sites

Village 1 Village 2 Village 3

Location (remote/relatively easy access)

Relatively easy access

Remote Relatively easy access

Rural/urban/in transition Transition Rural Transition

Proximity to nearest town Submerged Relatively far Relatively close

Proximity to Malaysia Border (very close)

Relatively far Border (very close)

National park Bordering Bordering Bordering

Oil palm/not Oil palm No oil palm Oil palm

Lives in longhouse (%) 13 53 69

METHODS

Focus Group Discussions• Gender and age specific (men, women, and young

people)• Understanding of: 1. The environmental, economic and social characteristics of each

site2. The existing resource and information exchange systems and

embedded networks (within the community and beyond); including when, with whom, how and why the resources were exchanged

Household surveys 

Name of the system

Criteria 1 - Actors (potential)

Criteria 2 - Benefit sharing Criteria 3 - Monitoring and reporting

Criteria 4 - Land-use change

1. Fertilizers and Herbicides (Agricultural inputs)

Community members, members of local rubber farmer organization, local trader, sellers in larger towns, relatives and other people in Malaysia or other places, private sector/companies, government.

Fertilizers, herbicides and information on their availability or use.

Monitoring by local communities. In case of government subsidies (e.g. fertilizers for rubber), reporting by the village head.

Strong link to land-use change due to ability of these products to make the agriculture more permanent and improve the productivity.

2. Customary Land-use

Local leaders, community members, government officials, private companies.

Land, information on land (land boundary, new swidden locations), labour exchange, other benefits.

Annual ritual where information is shared on the activities; customary meetings with the Tumenggung (higher level customary leader).

Strong link to land-use.

Knowledge - REDD+ and PES

Involvement - extension and development

More likely to be visited by an extensionist if:

The respondent had a formal or informal status in the village (sig. in Village 1)

If the respondent was NOT an immediate family member with the traditional leader (Village 2)

If the household head was a male (sig. in Village 2) Extended family member lived outside the village (in any

area) (sig. in Village 1) Extended family member lived outside the village in an

urban area (sig. in Village 1)

Involvement - in selected systems 1: agricultural inputs and system 2:

Customary Land-use

Important people - example

More likely to have more connections to “the most important people” related to the

customary land use system if:

The respondent was from the village (originated in the village) (Village 2)

The education level of the household head was higher (Village 2)

Household member had lived outside the village for education (Village 1)

Conclusions

Origin, migration (lived out/not), gender, education, status, remoteness, connections to leaders; had some influence on household’s access to external interventions, and to the level of connections to the important people (related to the selected information and resource exchange systems).

There were variation between the sites on which of the above factors were significant.

Implications for REDD+ and PES

REDD+ and PES projects need to take account:

• female headed households• household’s whose head may be migrated

(temporarily/permanently) at the time of the project establishment

• households who originate in another place (may be out of some of the information and resource networks)

• households with no formal or informal status in the village in the activities (avoid elite capture)

• households that live more remotely/not easily reachable (e.g. longhouse vs. individual house)

• potential conflicts/personal preferences – influence on information & resource exchange

Few more points

Qualitative analyzes to be done

More SNA to be done – effectiveness of the networks

Comparative analyses between the 9 villages and three countries

Thank you!