Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur Indonesia

Towards Wellbeing

Monitoring Povertyin Kutai Timur

Indonesia

November 2009

A joint report compiled by the research teams of the Government of Kutai Timur, PT. KaltimPrima Coal and the GTZ supported project Capacity Building for Local Governments in East Kalimantan (CB Kaltim) and the Forest and Climate Change Programme (FORCLIME).

Designed by Rja Alfian - DesignadPrinted by Matahari IndonesiaPhotographs © Protected Forest Management Board Wehea

Published by: GTZ (Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH)- German Technical Cooperation - Menara BCA 46th Floor Jl. MH. Thamrin No. 1 Jakarta 10310 Indonesia

November 2009

ISBN 978-979-25-7575-0

Foreword

Improving people’s wellbeing is the ultimate goal of development. German Techni-cal Cooperation (GTZ), as a partner for the future worldwide, maintains its corporate goal in line with that objective. On behalf of the German government, GTZ promotes

sustainable development practices, i.e. to support the “Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs) which are the key reference framework for international development policies, at the heart of which lies the issue of poverty reduction.

Nested Spheres of Poverty (NESP) is a methodology which facilitates improved under-standing about and measurement of wellbeing and poverty as well as the interaction among its various spheres such as the social, economic, ecological and institutional dimensions. The unique point of the NESP approach is its holistic way of addressing poverty and wellbeing. It allows local governments to link the spheres with the public services provided, as well as to inform the planning and monitoring systems of local development.

The results of the NESP survey presented here are very significant for future local de-velopment in Kutai Timur. It can be used not only to understand the current wellbeing, its conditions and determinants (the “core”) but also to anticipate the opportunities and threats (the “context”).

The wellbeing data is also relevant for the priority areas of German development cooperation in Indonesia, including the two GTZ supported programmes of Decen-tralisation/Good Governance, as well as the Forests and Climate Change Programme (FORCLIME). Through the project Capacity Building for Local Governments in Kaliman-tan Timur (CB Kaltim), the Good Governance/Decentralization programme is cooperating with Bappeda Kutai Timur to utilize the information on the core and context of wellbeing for local development planning. Meanwhile, FORCLIME and its local counterparts intend to use the data from NESP as a baseline for the REDD (Reducing Emissions from De-forestation and Forest Degradation) activities which support Indonesia’s efforts in climate change mitigation within the Forestry sector.

We would like to express our deep appreciation to the Local Government of Kutai Timur, as well as to PT. Kaltim Prima Coal for their significant commitment and contribution during this process which started in 2007 and lasted until early 2009. We hope the local government and PT. KPC, as local stakeholders, will optimize the utilization of the data to improve people’s living conditions on a sustainable basis.

Manfred Poppe Rolf Krezdorn

V

Foreword

P.T. Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) responded positively to an offer from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GTZ) and the Government of East Kutai Regency in early 2008 to support a

Monitoring Survey of People’s Welfare in the East Kutai Regency which took place in 2008/2009. KPC had a great commitment to support the survey and ensured that its preparation and implementation on the field, data processing and reporting were well undertaken in order to provide accurate information that can be used by the local government, communities, KPC’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program, and other interested enterprises.

The main objective of the survey is to provide an overview of people’s welfare in all villages of East Kutai Regency to be used by the local government in developing a more integrated regional plan and budget. However, KPC can also use this information as a valuable input for the development and evalua- tion of its community development programs as part of KPC’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

In the effort of accelerating its regional development and improving the people’s welfare, the Government of East Kutai Regency calls for support from all parties and stakeholders. This is in line with KPC’s commitment to support Public Social Private Partnership (PSPP) therefore the programs of regional development and community welfare enhancement can be collabo-rated with multi-parties, including private sectors/enterprises. Under this part-nership, KPC wishes the survey can portray the welfare conditions of the community in the East Kutai Regency that will be beneficial, not only for KPC, but also for other companies in implementing their community development programs in more efficient and effective manners and simultaneously are in accordance with more accountable, participative and transparent regional development programs.

Last but not least, we would like to thank the Government of East Kutai and GTZ who provided KPC with an opportunity to participate in this survey. Hopefully, this survey will not end up merely as a report but its information will be used for regional development and community welfare enhancement programs in East Kutai Regency.

Endang RuchijatCEO P.T. KPC

VI

Foreword

Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

We are very grateful to the Great Unity, God, for His blessing that enabled us to accomplish the 2008 Monitoring Survey on People Welfare in East Kutai. The survey was conducted by the Govern-

ment of East Kutai Regency in cooperation with the GTZ supported project Capacity Building for Local Governments in East Kalimantan (CB Kaltim/Pro-bangkit) and PT Kaltim Prima Coal (PT KPC), and supported by Bikal NGO, Wawasan NGO and STIPER-East Kutai. This multi-stakeholder cooperation is actually a manifestation of awareness that all elements - the government, private sectors, communities and universities - should be responsible for people’s welfare improvement.

The Government of East Kutai Regency is concerned with this survey in order to: (1) obtain information directly from the community on developmental achievements in East Kutai; (2) obtain information on developmental achieve-ments and problems faced by East Kutai’s people that will be processed as a refe-rence for future development programs. Such information will be more likely to meet people’s needs; (3) improve the existing welfare indicators which mostly come from the national level and in many cases do not fit to the local condition, meanwhile the survey adopts welfare indicators from the local level.

On this occasion, as the Regent of East Kutai, I have a commitment to utilize the data from this survey as the basis for developing more effective planning in the future. Therefore, I insist that all government agencies of East Kutai use the results of the survey as planning basis relevant to their own institu-tions.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the government agencies of East Kutai, particularly Bappeda (the Regional Development Planning Board) of East Kutai that has coordinated the survey, CB – East Kalimantan, PT KPC, Bikal NGO, Wawasan NGO, STIPER-East Kutai, sub-district apparatus, and village data collectors who actively contributed to the survey.

Wassalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

VII

Table of contents

Foreword VAcknowledgements XGlossary XI Executive Summary XIII • Chapter 1. Introduction 1 • Chapter 2. A Brief Overview of Kutai Timur 5 • Chapter 3. Poverty and Wellbeing: A New Concept 9 Poverty or Wellbeing? 9 Poverty Is More than Low Income 9 Poverty and Wellbeing Have Many Dimensions 10 Poverty Is Dynamic 11 Trade-Offs Between Poverty Spheres 11 • Chapter 4. Methods 13 Institutional Arrangements 13 Developing The Poverty and Wellbeing Monitoring System 13 Field Methods 13 Calculating And Comparing Indices 13 • Chapter 5. A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing 15 Health and Nutrition 15 Wealth 17 Knowledge 18 Natural 19 Economy 21 Social 23 Political 24 Infrastructure and Services 26 • Chapter 6. Why Are Some People Poor in Kutai Timur? 31 • Chapter 7 What Has Been Done in Kutai Timur? 37 • Chapter 8 Conclusions 39

Annex 1 Questionnaire for Poverty and Wellbeing Monitoring 43Annex 2 Wellbeing per Sub-District (Bar Diagrams) Annex 3 Wellbeing per Sub-District (Pie Diagrams)

This report is the result of a close cooperation between the district government of Kutai Timur, PT Kaltim

Prima Coal and the GTZ supported project ‘Strengthening Capacity of Local Govern-ments in East Kalimantan (Pengembangan Kapasitas Pemerintahan Daerah di Kaliman-tan Timur, ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim). The enthusiastic involvement of persons from all three organisations has been instrumental in initiating, implementing and processing the extensive household wellbeing survey throughout Kutai Timur. Since well over 500 persons were in the effort to produce this report, it is not possible to mention them one by one without the risk of omitting some of them. At the district level, representatives from a wide range of technical agencies, staff from the national statistics agency, the NGOs BIKAL (Bina Kelola Lingkungan), Wawasan and Stiper Kutai Timur as well as PT KPC have been engaged in the various sta- ges of the conceptualisation, preparation and implantation of the survey.

At the sub-district and village level, the suc-cessful implementation of this survey would have been impossible without the tireless involvement of the sub-district staff and the large group of village enumerators.

We thank all staff from the GTZ suppor-ted projects ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim and FORCLIME projects who had the vision to make the data obtained through the house-hold wellbeing survey available to the wider public. A special thanks to staff of the Kutai Timur Regional Planning Agency (BAPPEDA) and ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim staff for their kind support, access to their data and quick response to questions and the FORCLIME senior staff for providing the opportunity and financial support to compile this report.

X

Acknowledgements

Glossary

BKKBN Badan Koordinasi Keluarga Berencana Nasional (National Family Planning Coordination Agency) BLT Bantuan Langsung Tunai (Direct Cash subsidies)BMZ Bundes Ministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop ment, Germany)BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (National Statistics Agency)CIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchGDP Gross Domestic ProductGerdabang Agri Gerakan Pembangunan Daerah Agrobisnis (Movement for District Development through Agribusiness)GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit HDI Human Development IndexHPI Human Poverty IndexIDR Indonesian RupiahIMF International Monetary FundKPK Komite Penanggulangan Kemiskinan (Poverty Alleviation Committee)NESP Nested Spheres of Poverty (natural, economic, social and political spheres)PRS Poverty Reduction StrategySWB Subjective WellbeingUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development Programme

XI

Executive Summary

This report compiles the information collected in a comprehensive well-being survey jointly implemented

in Kutai Timur by the district government, the GTZ supported ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim project and PT Kaltim Prima Coal. Some 50 indicators on household condi-tions and poverty were measured in over 14,000 households in 134 villages1. The results of this survey are presented in this report.

The poverty model used in this survey does not consist of one single poverty or wellbeing indicator but uses the Nes- ted Spheres of Poverty concept which encompasses multiple dimensions of poverty. The information obtained is, as much as possible, presented in maps and tables to provide a visual overview of the conditions in Kutai Timur. As the data of this survey provide important input to the district planning process, the data is mainly analyzed at the village level, the level which the district government uses in its planning process.

• The core values (health, knowledge and material wealth) in the majority of villages are moderate to good

• In one third of villages, the knowledge sphere is in critical condition

• 43% of villages face critical conditions in the natural sphere

• The main sources of livelihood are farming, company employment and

• casual labour• In 62% of villages, the economic

sphere is still critical • The situation in the social and political

spheres is relatively good, with 10% and 20% of villages showing critical conditions respectively

• Over 60% of villages still suffer critical conditions regarding the infrastructure and services sphere, especially re-mote villages

Based on the survey and the secondary data, the following observations can be made in Kutai Timur:• Basic government services (health

care and education) are reaching an increasing number of people. How-ever, the number of school-going age children that drop out of school needs special attention as it is relatively high (12.6%)

• Economic opportunities are increasing, especially around the district capital and areas where mining com-panies are operating

• The district government has a strong focus on improving education, a long term investment to address poverty and improve peoples’ opportunities to escape poverty. Secondly, it focuses on agriculture, the main source of income for more than 50 % of the po-pulation

In general, since decentralisation began, the condition of households in Kutai Timur has improved. The network of government services is expanding and economic op-portunities have increased. This progress has benefited everybody. People living in remote areas still face more challenges, mainly due to limited (road) infrastructure, access to services and income generating opportunities. Vulnerable households (those headed by single women, widows or those including orphans or disabled persons) are at greater risk and their situa-tion is often worse than other households.

The main driver for local development has been palm oil plantations and coal mines. The expected trickle down effect, to improve the economic conditions of the people, has not always been achieved. Economic progress is still confined to the direct surroundings of the major growth centres (district capital and areas were companies are operating). The trade-

Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia

1) The total number of villages in Kutai Timur is 135. The survey could not be conducted in 1 village therefore the findings are based on the data from 134 villages. XIII

off of this development model is that the influence of fluctuating prices in the world market, which is beyond the control of the district government, is big. Too great a reliance on only one commodity puts the local economy in a precarious situation.

The other trade-off is between economic development and maintaining good con-ditions in the natural, social and political spheres. Many villages are starting to experience increased difficulties in ob-taining good quality water for household use. Likewise, uncertainty with regards to land rights, an essential production asset for farmers, is increasing.

To conclude, it can be said that the general condition of people in Kutai Timur has improved, though it has not yet reached everybody. Increased attention towards achieving a more equitable dis-tribution of opportunities and services is needed to avoid an (unhealthy) increase in disparity between one community and other communities and between commu-nity members and community elite. The progress has come at the cost of environ-mental degradation, though currently, the conditions are still relatively good. How-ever, increased care should be taken to halt ongoing degradation and avoid major future degradation as the environmental, social, political, and eventually, economic costs will be significant.

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 1Introduction

In August 2006, the President of In-donesia announced that poverty had reduced from 23.4% in 1999 to 16%

in 2006 (Anon. 2006a). Just before this announcement was made, fuel prices had risen significantly, therefore, logically, it was expected that the number of poor people would increase. The result was a re-emergence of the debate on poverty figures and definitions of poverty (Anon. 2006a, b, c; Khomsan 2006; Agusta 2006; Lesmana 2006; Sugema 2006). In Indo-nesia, a number of different indicators have been used over time to measure poverty, these include: • The National Statistics Agency (BPS)

uses regionally determined poverty lines related to household consump-tion. According to BPS figures in March 2008, the poverty line for East Kalimantan was IDR 205,255 in rural areas whilst in urban areas, it was IDR 257,862 per capita per month.

• The former National Family Plan-ning Coordination Agency (BKKBN) measured poverty in terms of a family’s basic needs, such as clothing, housing and food consumption, and categorised them into levels of pros-perity, e.g. pre-prosperity, prosperity I, prosperity II.

• The Compensation Programme for re-duced fuel subsidies (BLT). BPS iden-tified poor households with input from village leaders and then surveyed ten-tative poor households. The 2005 pro-gramme aimed to determine house-holds eligible for direct cash subsidies as compensation for increased fuel prices. Households were selected based on a Rp. 150,000 per capita per month poverty line and according

to centrally determined criteria related to basic needs such as housing, food consumption and water. This pro-gramme was implemented for 2 years (2005 – 2007) and re- implemented in late 2008.

• The district’s own data collection in support of their self-sufficiency initia-tive; Movement for District Develop-ment through Agribusiness (Gerda-bang Agri).

Despite all these measurement systems, poverty in remote areas is often not cap-tured (Ediawan et al. 2005). Sometimes, this is because people in remote areas may have relatively high cash incomes but remain very vulnerable because of the lack of access to basic services and an enabling context, meaning the natural, economic, political and structural spheres which influence people’s core wellbeing (see Sitorus et al. 2004 for an example of the Punan in East Kalimantan). This results in policies which do not address the specific problems of poor people in remote areas, namely the people living in and around forests.

Because of these different definitions of poverty and the resulting discrepancies between the number of poor people, it is not surprising that the Indonesian Go-vernment’s efforts over the past three decades in effectively addressing pover-ty have been unsuccessful. Poor people remain highly vulnerable to changes in economic, social and political conditions and natural disasters occurring in diffe-rent regions. Weaknesses in the poverty eradication strategies have been: cen-tralised policies, too much focus on cha-rity, a focus on macroeconomic growth, an economy orientated viewpoint of po-verty, positioning communities as objects, and assumptions that poverty problems and management are uniform throughout the country (see KPK 2003 or Paul Polak 2008 “Out of Poverty: What Works when Traditional Approaches Fail” Page 34-48).

The period from 1976 to the mid 1990s saw a gradual decrease in the number of


1

1976 1978 1980 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Year

50

40

30

20

10

0

poor. The number increased significantly after the economic and political crisis in 1997 – 1998. In 1998, the number of poor people in Indonesia rose to approximately 24.2% of the total population compared to only 11.3% in 1996 (Figure 1). This sharp increase, resulting from the economic and political crisis of 1997–1998, forced the Indonesian Government to drastically change economic policies and reform the government system. The decentralisation policy of 1999 was part of these reforms. With decentralisation, local governments were given greater authority to develop locally specific policies, but they were also given the responsibility for poverty alleviation in their districts.

At the national level, succeeding presi-dents issued a series of poverty alleviation policies that have now been coalesced into three types of policies shaping dis-tricts’ current interest in poverty. (1) The national drive to develop and implement a Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) as imposed by the IMF. Among other things,

the PRS established Poverty Alleviation Committees (KPK) responsible for creating poverty alleviation strategies at the district, provincial and national levels. (2) National assistance programmes intended to promote food security and reduce economic vulnerability. The na-tional assistance programmes provide im-portant subsidies, such as for rice, relying on the district to distribute benefits fairly. (3) Districts’ own interest in creating self-sufficient, prosperous villages to main-tain the financial viability of the district. The districts’ interest in improving village self-sufficiency has driven districts to lead empowerment and prosperity movements and community forestry programmes. These, however, are not necessarily targeted at specific groups of the poor, but rather are a drive for general economic development.

From 2003 to 2007, CIFOR implemented the BMZ funded project ‘Making local governments more responsive to the poor: Developing indicators and tools to sup-

Chapter 1: Introduction

Source: BPS (2008; 2004a, b)

2) The first figures are from 1984 with measurements covering the years 1976 to 1984 using the Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (Susenas) consumption module. Poverty was defined as the inability to fulfill basic requirements, using poverty line measurements. The national poverty line measurement is the number of Rupiah needed by individuals to consume the equivalent of 2100 kilocalories per person per day and to fulfil non-food requirements such as clothing, healthcare, education, transport and a number of other goods and services. With everchanging patterns of consumption and rising prices, the poverty line was adjusted every year to keep up with developments.

Figure 1. Proportion of poor people in Indonesia2.

2

port sustainable livelihood development under decentralisation‘. This project was implemented in cooperation with the local governments of Kutai Barat and Malinau, Indonesia and Pando in Bolivia. It applied a participatory learning approach for im-proving the understanding of trends in local poverty and wellbeing and for developing local monitoring and planning tools to strengthen local governments’ poverty alleviation efforts. This project resulted in the publication of a sourcebook for local governments (Albornoz et al, 2007), site reports (Gönner, 2007; Moeliono, 2007) and a manual on the poverty monitoring system developed in Kutai Barat, Indone-sia (Cahyat, 2007).

The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tech-nische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) began the implementation of the project ‘Strengthe-ning Capacity of Local Government in East Kalimantan (Pengembangan Kapa-sitas Pemerintahan Daerah di Kalimantan Timur, ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim) in 2006. This project is implemented at the district level in Tarakan and Kutai Timur and, dur-ing the later stage, in Bontang and at the provincial level. This project focuses on building the capacity of local government to support the fulfillment of basic needs, local economic development and preven-tion of corruption. In developing the pro-

ject strategy, the poverty monitoring sys-tem that had been implemented in Kutai Barat was adopted in order to generate basic data on the local wellbeing, an important prerequisite for improved plan-ning that better targets the basic needs of the population. The key partner in the approach is the local government, whilst involving other local stakeholders with the focus being on improving the wellbeing of communities. In the case of Kutai Barat, several local NGOs were involved in the preparation and implementation of the survey, whereas, in Kutai Timur, a private company and a local NGO were involved.

The ongoing discussion concerning cli-mate change and the initiation of pilot projects in several areas in Indonesia has drawn attention to the need for accurate and up-to-date information concerning the condition of communities living in forested areas. The NESP concept is considered an appropriate approach to generate the necessary socio-economic baseline data. Presently, the partnership is planning to conduct training on the methodology for its local NGO network and FORCLIME is planning to use the approach to generate REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation)socio-economic baseline data in the pilot districts of the programme.


3

4

Jawa 26 % Timor 4 % Bali 1 %

Bugis 21 % Lombok 2 % Batak 1 %

Kutai 20 % Wehea 2 % Madura 1 %

Banjar 7 % Makkasar 2 % Modang 1 %

Toraja 4 % Basap 2 % Kelompok Lain 3 %

Kenyah 4 % Kayan 1 %

CHAPTER 2A Brief OverviewOf Kutai Timur

Kutai Timur was established in 1999, when the district of Kutai was di-vided into three districts and one

municipality. The new district still covers a vast area (3.5 million ha.), comprising of some more easily accessible areas along the coast of East Kalimantan, and some remote areas in the northern and western part of the district (see figure 2). The more easily accessible areas have experienced three major periods of development, starting in the late 1960s, with timber exploita-tion, followed by the development of palm oil plantations and most recently coal exploitation. These developments have resulted in more infrastructure develop-ment in the coastal, flatter areas and an

influx of people from other parts of Indo-nesia utilizing the economic opportunities which ensue.

Developments in the more hilly and mountainous western and northern part of Kutai Timur have been slower and, until today, some parts are still difficult to reach. These areas are still predominantly inhabited by Kutai and Dayak people, two indigenous groups in this area.

Ethnic GroupsBecause of the high influx of people, at present the population of Kutai Timur is made up of many different ethnic groups (see Table 1). This includes a large num-ber of people who migrated from other parts of Indonesia to Kutai Timur. This is demonstrated by the fact that the two dominant ethnic groups are Javanese and Bugis. The Kutai people are the native inhabitants of this area.

The establishment of a new administra-tive centre for the district government in Sengata and the expansion of the palm oil and the coal mining industries have


Source: Survey data ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim, Pemerintah Kabupaten Kutai Timur, PT Kaltim Prima Coal, 2009

Table 1. Ethnic majority within households

5

3) The official map for the current 18 sub-districts has not yet been released because the boundaries have not yet been fully m

apped. The new sub-districts, not

included in this map, are: S

engata Selatan, Teluk P

andan, Rantau P

ulung (originally part of Sengata), K

arangan, Kaubun, Long M

esangat and Batu A

mpar

Figure 2. Adm

inistrative map of K

utai Timur 3

Source: B

AP

PE

DA

/Planning A

gency of Kutai Tim

ur, 2008

6


Figure 3. Population growth in Kutai Timur (2000 – 2007)

Source: BPS Kutim, 2008

resulted in a rapid increase of the total population of Kutai Timur (see figure 3). One third of the population of Kutai Timur is concentrated around Sengata and some of the more easily accessible sub-districts (Muara Ancalong, Muara Beng-kal, Muara Wahau and Sangkulirang).

The implementation of the decentralisa-tion law increased the local governments’ role and responsibilities in regional development. The district government became responsible for delivering public services, e.g. education and health care. It also received increased authority to manage natural resources including issuing per-mits for natural resource exploitation (tim-ber and mining) and it had to establish a complete new government structure.

The new district government recognized the agricultural potential of the area and the fact that the majority of people are working in agriculture. In an effort to sup-port agricultural development as a means to improve people’s livelihood in 2001, the new district head, assisted by the Pusat Studi Pembangunan Pertanian dan Pede-saan (Study Centre for Agrocultural and Rural Development) from the Agrocul-tural Institute in Bogor, launched the local movement for agribusiness development (Gerdabang Agri). This movement was aimed at increasing economic possibili-ties for the people as a means to improve peoples’ wellbeing. The strategy was to recruit agricultural engineers and post them in communities to advise on local agricultural potentials and development possibilities.

7

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Tahun

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

Chapter 2: A Brief Overview Of Kutai Timur

Box 1: Kutai Timur at a glance

Official establishment of district

October 1999

Population 208,662 personsArea 35,747.50 km2

Population density 5.8 jiwa/km2

Population growth 6.05 % per tahun (2000-2007)Number of sub-districts 18Number of villages 135Land status 70.8 % of area is state forest land Literacy rate 94.7 %Life expectancy 68.08 yearsMean years of schooling 7.57 yearsPoverty (BPS) 14 % (2005)Poverty (BKKBN) 15.2 % (2008)Poverty (BTL) 48.3 % (2008)Economy Swidden agriculture, coal mines, palm oil plantations,

fisheriesGDP IDR 18.1 trillion or USD 1.8 billion p.a. Annual district budget 2007 IDR 1.48 trillion or USD 148 million

Source: BPS Kutim, 2008 * 1 USD = IDR 10,000 (June 2009)

8

CHAPTER 34 Poverty And WellBeing:A New Concept

Poverty or wellbeing?

Understanding wellbeing and pover-ty is the first step to reducing po-verty. Meaningful definitions are

important in order to identify the causes of poverty, the objectives of poverty reduction, and the scope of what should be done.

Declining poverty means increasing well-being. Both terms are interwoven and look at the same problem from two different sides. A broad definition of poverty comes very close to ‘a lack of wellbeing’, so both terms are used almost interchangeably. For instance, if a person completely lacks wellbeing, she is in poverty. On the other hand, if she is in a state of high well being, her life is characterized by prosperity, happiness and satisfaction.

Although this definition is not conven-tional, it is useful when combining different national concepts and helpful when assessing and analysing the various dimensions of poverty. Furthermore, ‘po-verty’ often has a negative connotation of passivity, incompetence or backwardness and the use of the term can be offensive or demeaning. The term ‘wellbeing’ allows a discussion of poverty in more positive terms. Hence, ‘poverty’ should be read as a ‘lack of wellbeing’ and ‘wellbeing’ as ‘reduced poverty’.

Poverty is more thanlow incomeFor many years, being poor was defined as not having enough money. Many coun-tries continue to measure poverty only in terms of income, consumption or access to services. Even today, one of the most well-known poverty definitions is the po-verty line of a minimum income of US$1 per day. The World Bank continues to use this standard for its global comparison of poverty (World Bank 2000/01, 2002).

Of course, money is important. It is used to pay for food, medicine or education.

Box 2: Who is officially poor?

On a global scale, the World Bank and the UN define extreme economic poverty as having an income of less than $1 per day in purchasing power parity. The Human Development Index (HDI) of UNDP (e.g. UNDP 2005) measures three fields: longevity, knowledge and a decent standard of living. Longevity is measured by the percentage of people who die before age 40; knowledge is measured by adult literacy combined with the gross enrol-ment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools; and standard of living is measured by real GDP/capita. The Human Poverty Index (HPI) uses the same fields, but measures standards of living in terms of access to safe water and health care, and by the percentage of underweight children younger than five.

In Indonesia, the poor are defined by poverty lines of 2100 kCal of daily food consump-tion (plus non-food consumption) equalling about 136 – 150,000 Rp of monthly per capita consumption (BPS). Wellbeing was defined by BKKBN using a five ‘prosperity’ (kesejahteraan) strata adopting a basic needs approach. Families living in the ‘Pra Sejahtera’ stratum were considered as extremely poor, those in ‘Sejahtera I’ as poor (Cahyat 2004).


4) This chapter is reproduced with permission from CIFOR. It was first published by CIFOR in Gönner et al. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Barat, Indonesia and Moeliono et al. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring Poverty in Malinau, Indonesia. 9

To capture all these facets of poverty and wellbeing, a multidimensional concept is necessary. One approach is the Nested Spheres of Poverty (NESP) model (Gön-ner et al., 2007). In the NESP model, poverty and wellbeing are constituted by different spheres, or aspects of daily life. The central sphere of the model is subjec-tive wellbeing. The core spheres that influ-ence this subjective wellbeing are health, wealth and knowledge. These – and there-fore indirectly also subjective wellbeing – are influenced by context spheres. By these we mean nature, economic, social and political aspects of life that directly or indirectly influence the core spheres. The context spheres, in turn, are influenced by external structures and services.

Graphically,the NESP idea can be repre-sented as a series of concentric circles (see Figure 4). The centre is formed by subjective wellbeing (SWB), surroun-ded by core aspects of poverty, including basic needs, and the context that enables the poor to escape from poverty.

Figure 4Nested Spheres of Poverty (NESP)

Services

Structures

Natura

l Economic

Wea

lth Health

Knowledge

SWB

Spher

eSphere

Social

Spher

e

Politic

al

Sphere

But money alone is not sufficient. Families could have enough relative income, but lack access to healthcare, clean drinking water or formal education. In other cases, a family may have little cash income, but meet all of its subsistence needs. Does this automatically mean that the family is poor?

Over the last two decades, poverty con-cepts have changed from the simple consideration of income or consumption to definitions that include multiple dimen-sions of deprivation and wellbeing. Today, despite the 1 $ index mentioned above, leading development organisations like the World Bank and UNDP also apply poverty definitions that comprise aspects such as basic needs, self-determined lifestyles, choices, assets, capabilities, social inclusion, inequality, human rights, entitlement, vulnerability, empowerment and subjective wellbeing5.

Poverty and wellbeing havemany dimensions Poverty is a lack of various things. It may mean a lack of sufficient income to meet household needs or shortage of assets to provide stability or cope with changes such as the loss of a job, illness or other crises. It may mean that other basic needs, such as health, education or housing, are inadequate. But poverty is also subjec-tive, and may be caused by feelings, such as deprivation, vulnerability, exclusion, shame, or pain. A person can feel poor if her wellbeing declines, or if she compares herself to others who are better off.

Poverty is most severe when one not only feels poor, but also lacks the means to get out of poverty. Poverty is not only “ha-ving no fish”, it is also “not knowing how to fish”, ”not knowing where to fish”, “not having a rod and line” or “lacking the right to fish.” In addition, often there simply are no fish, because there is no pond, or the pond has dirty water. For many poor peo-ple, capabilities, opportunities or the free-dom to escape poverty do not exist: they are trapped in poverty.

5) The capability approach was developed by Nobel Prize Laureate Amartya Sen (e.g. Sen 1993, 1997, 1999). The approach was also used by Narayan et al. (2000a, b, 2002) in the World Bank’s ‘Voices of the Poor’ study.

Chapter 3: Poverty And Wellbeing: A New Concept

10

Subjective wellbeing (SWB) is highly in-dividual and emotional. It does not have a constant value, but varies with moods and circumstances. People compare their standard of living with that of others or with their own prior wellbeing. Personal feel-ings of happiness, safety, inclusion and contentedness also contribute to the over-all subjective wellbeing. It also includes other forms of wellbeing like bodily well-being, social wellbeing, having self res- pect or feeling safe and secure.

The core of the model includes ‘basic needs’, such as food, health, housing and education. It also comprises of general individual capabilities (i.e. skills and physical condition) to get out of poverty. In the NESP model, basic needs and in-dividual capabilities are aggregated into three categories: health, adequate wealth and knowledge (both formal and informal or traditional). The core is also what most local people in the Indonesia study ex-pressed as the principal aspects of poverty. Together with subjective wellbeing, it is a good measure of the poverty or wellbeing of a household.

The context consists of five spheres. The natural sphere includes availability and quality of natural resources. The economic sphere covers economic opportuni-ties and safety nets. Social capital and cohesion, but also trust and conflicts make up the social sphere. The political sphere comprises of rights and participation or representation in decision making, em-powerment and freedom. The outer layer of the NESP model is the fifth sphere, which influences the other four: services and (infra) structures, often provided by government agencies, NGOs, develop-ment projects or the private sector. The context is the enabling environment for supporting self-driven attempts to escape poverty.

The categories presented in the NESP model are intentionally comprehensive. For any given setting, a local govern-ment may wish to define the spheres and their indicators according to their own

priorities.

Poverty is dynamicThe dynamics and causal links between the spheres of poverty is reflected by the different layers of the NESP model. Sub-jective wellbeing has a very momentary nature. It often fluctuates due to many influences. But, subjective wellbeing is also correlated with the combined core aspects. Hence, improvement of core wellbeing generally leads to improved subjective wellbeing. By the same token, low wellbeing in the core usually means low subjective wellbeing.

On a longer time scale, both core well-being and subjective wellbeing are in-fluenced by the context. For instance, knowledge increases as a result of im-proved education, health problems grow because of environmental pollution, sub-jective wellbeing declines due to social conflict. Hence, there is a strong causal link from the outside towards the centre.

Successful poverty reduction needs to address the dynamics of poverty. Sustai-ning wellbeing means creating opportuni-ties and ‘freedom for development’ (Sen 1999) for people, but it also means reduc-ing vulnerability to avoid people falling (back) into poverty and getting chronically trapped.

Trade-offs betweenpoverty spheresIn many cases, economic development is not sustainable and comes at the ex-pense of the natural or social spheres. Such trade-offs become easily visible in the NESP representation and can opti-cally alert decision-makers. Figure 5, on the page overleaf, shows an illustrative example of the positive economic sphere being accompanied by a critical natural sphere, critical health, wealth and subjec-tive wellbeing.


11

I & S

N E

S P

W H

K

SWB

Figure 5.Trade-offs among wellbeing spheres

12

CHAPTER 4Methods

This project builds on the approach already developed in Kutai Barat as part of the BMZ project CIFOR

‘Making local governments more respon-sive to the poor: Developing indicators and tools to support sustainable livelihood development under decentralisa-tion‘. Some adjustments in the methods had to be made as a result of differences in local conditions. The following sec-tion provides a brief overview of the field methods used.

Institutional arrangementsTo provide in-depth data on the conditions of communities in Kutai Timur, as a base-line for regional development planning, the GTZ supported project ProBANGKIT suggested conducting a district wide po-verty monitoring survey to the Kutai Timur district government. The main agencies involved were the regional planning agen-cy and the national statistics agency. GTZ provided facilitation of the process, the technical assistance and the training. PT Kaltim Prima Coal supported the imple-mentation of the surveys by involving several of their staff members and providing logistical support.

Developing the poverty and wellbeing monitoring systemSeveral sources were used to develop the Kutai Timur specific dimension of poverty and wellbeing:• Government staff’s perceptions of

poverty and wellbeing (collected du-ring workshops)

• The local people’s perceptions of local conditions in Kutai Timur, based on discussions in 9 villages

• Official poverty and wellbeing models used in Indonesia (BPS, BKKBN)

• The NESP model developed by the BMZ project, CIFOR

Based on the above sources, the first list of wellbeing indicators was developed. This list was then used during a trial in 8 villages covering 1,300 households. Based on the results of this trial, the set of indicators was evaluated. As a result, some indicators were dropped as they did not provide purposeful information and some new indicators were proposed for the second trial. The revised list of indica-tors was tested in the second trial which covered 6 villages and 428 households.

Field methodsThe survey, which covered 18 sub-dis-tricts and 134 villages6, was conducted from November 2008 till January 2009. Preparation for the survey, training of the monitoring team and training of trainers, started in mid-2008.

The survey covered a total of 14,011 households, sampled according to the fol-lowing principles: • In villages with 20 households or less,

a census was conducted• In villages with 21 – 60 households,

20 randomly selected households were interviewed

• In village with more than 60 house-holds, one third of all households were surveyed

In each house, an adult household mem-ber was interviewed by a trained village assessor using the standardized ques-tionnaire (see Annex 1).

Calculating andcomparing IndicesFor all indicators applied in the house-hold survey, a simple scoring system was used:

6) The total number of villages in Kutai Timur is 135. The survey could not be conducted in 1 village therefore the findings s are based on the data from 134 villages.


13

Figure 6. Colour coding of Indices: If the condition of the respective indicator is critical (see figure 6, red), it is given 1 point, an intermediate condition (yellow) was awarded 2 points and a good con-

Critical

Intermediate

GoodFigure 6. Colour coding of Indices

dition (green) was given 3 points. Some indicators only included critical or good conditions. For most indicators, condi-tions were assessed on the basis of the respondents’ answers. The only excep-tions were the condition of the house and the assessment of household assets which were both measured according to the assessor’s direct observation rather than the respondents’ statements.

The indices for the nine spheres of the NESP model (see chapter 3) were calcu-lated as normalised totals of the respec-tive indicators for each sphere. Also, for the indices of each sphere, the same colour coding system as above is used for better visualization of the results.

Chapter 4: Methods

14

CHAPTER 5A Portrait OfHousehold Wellbeing

The results of the monitoring survey carried out in 134 villages between November 2008 and January 2009

provide a picture of household condi-tions in Kutai Timur. This comes almost 10 years after decentralisation was en-dorsed. Similar to the findings for Kutai Barat (Gönner et al. 2007), the most significant improvements in peoples’ condi-tions have occurred in the areas closer to the district capital. Obstacles to economic development and service provision are higher in the more remote areas. Often, there is a clear trade-off for remote areas where economic opportunities and services are limited, but the conditions within the natural sphere is better than in the more accessible and densely populated

areas. In Kutai Timur, respondents from a number of remote areas indicated that the natural sphere is in an intermediary or critical condition. This is a reflection of recent changes resulting from increased economic activities (palm oil plantation development and the mining industry). Nonetheless, forests in these remote parts of Kutai Timur are still relatively abundant.

In the following section we will summarize the major findings at the village level and trend for each sphere. The main source of information is the survey data, com-plemented with general information and observations in the area. Table 2 provides an overview of the indicators used for each sphere. The full questionnaire can be found in annex 1.

HEALTH AND NUTRITION

Where are healthand nutrition critical?In general the health condition in the villages is moderate to good (see figure 7). There are only 9 villages (7% of the

Sphere IndicatorsSubjective Wellbeing Feeling of wellbeing, being poor, happinessHealth Incidence of serious illness, access to medical services,

sufficiency of staple food, access to clean waterWealth Housing conditions, family assetsKnowledge Education level of household, school attendance, skills,

access to vocational trainingNatural Environmental degradation, occurrence of disasters, wa-

ter quality, occurrence of indicators speciesEconomic Main source of livelihood, purchasing power, income op-

portunities, family savingsSosial Incidence of conflict, mutual trust, level of

community self-helpPolitical Level of aspiration incorporated into government policy/

programmes, land tenure, access to information, adher-ence to local regulations

Infrastructure & Services Access and quality of education, quality of health servic-es, infrastructure, access to training/extension

Table 2: Overview of indicators for each sphere


15

total number of villages) where the health situation is critical. These villages are not limited to remote areas, but also found in the areas closer to the district capital, e.g. Teluk Sangkima which is less than 1 hour’s drive from the district capital. In four of these villages, the majority of the population is Basap.

Why are health and nutrition criti-cal in these areas?The critical health situation is related to limited access to health services. In the village with a critical health situation, over 75 % of the households stated that they did not receive medical services.

In the majority of the villages, a quarter or more of households reported that they had a family member that was seriously ill during the last 12 months. Only few households have difficulties in fulfilling the household requirements for staple foods, although some households occasional- ly can not supplement their meals with

protein or vegetables. In most villages, over fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they have temporary problems to obtain water. This problem is experienced by more remote villages, but also by many villages close to the district capital.

What are the general trends?• Due to increased economic opportu-

nities, villagers now encounter fewer problems in obtaining their staple foods. However, economic develop-ment, mainly plantations and mining, have decreased the possibilities for obtaining protein from hunting or fishing since the environment has significantly changed.

• These developments also frequently have a negative effect on the avai-lability of water for the communities. The quality of the water may be espe-cially affected if appropriate measures to avoid erosion and run offs are not considered, thus resulting in murky

Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing

Figure 7. Health condition of all Villages in Kutai Timur

16

water and siltation. High use of herbi-cides in the palm oil plantations over prolonged periods of time will also im-pact the water quality.

• The public healthcare infrastructure is gradually improving. In the district capital, a hospital has been construct-ed and is being expanded. All sub-dis-tricts have a health clinic, staffed by a doctor and one or more medical staff. One remaining problem is in providing health services to remote, difficult to access villages and in ensuring that medical staff spend the majority of their time at the health clinic and on visits to surrounding villages rather than elsewhere.

WEALTH

Where is wealth low?The majority of households have an inter-mediate material wealth condition. Villages with critical material wealth conditions are

found in 12 sub-districts. This does not only include some of the more remote areas, but also villages found close to the district capital. It is only the sub-district of Sengata Utara, the district capital, and location of PT Kaltim Prima Coals mining operations, that all four villages experi-ence good material wealth conditions. The worse conditions are in the Sandaran sub-district where 5 out of 7 villages have a critical material wealth situation.

Twenty eight percent of villages have good material wealth conditions. These villages are spread across the district, however, a majority of these villages tend to be in areas with large scale economic operations, such as mining or palm oil plantations.

Figure 8. Material wealth condition of villages in Kutai Timur


17

Why is wealth low in these areas?In many areas of Kutai Timur, economic opportunities are still limited, especial-ly in terms of finding regular sources of income. The upper-scale employment opportunities can often not be acquired by local people due to a lack of adequate skills or training. Meanwhile, farmers ex-perience problems in marketing their products thereby making it difficult to generate an additional income. This situation is reflected through the fact that in most villages where people have limited material wealth (motorbike/motorized boats), they also have difficulties in pur-chasing basic items such as sugar (indi-cator for the purchasing power).

In some cases, people do have more purchasing power. How they use this purchasing power is a matter of choice. In several villages, few households have transport means (which can be considered an economic productive asset) but the number of the households possessing a television set (consumptive asset) is far higher.

It is difficult to assess whether households invest some of their income elsewhere, as a result of the economic opportunities in their village being limited.

What is the general trend?Remote villages face limited economic opportunities, amongst others, because of the difficulties in obtaining fuel. The high price of fuel results in high transpor-tation costs that, in turn, influence pur-chasing power. Until recently, the palm oil sector and the coal mining industry were booming because of the high prices paid for the commodities. This provided opportunities for communities living close to these operations. These opportunities are often limited to irregular unskilled labour with low payment. Households deriving their livelihood from agriculture, cash crops or fisheries still face problems rela-ting to efficient production and marketing.

Additional income is commonly used to improve housing, and consequently other assets (transport or TV). The recent global crises and its impact on the price of palm oil have demonstrated that dependence on one commodity or economic activity is risky.

KNOWLEDGE7

Where is knowledge low?In more than one third of the villages, the knowledge condition is critical. This situation is found in all sub-districts except for Sengata Utara. The situation is worse in the sub-districts of Sangkulirang and San-daran where more than 75% of the villages experience critical knowledge conditions (see figure 9).

Why is knowledgelow in these areas?One important condition affecting the level of education is the dispersed distribu-tion of the population. This often results in relatively long travelling distances to schools, increasing the difficulties in attending school. Lack of economic opportunities further reduces the chances of children attending school since children maybe requested and needed to assist the household in making ends meet.

What are the general trends?• The level of education of adults in

many villages is elementary school or less. In half of the villages, more than 50% of respondents reported that the highest level of education in the house-hold was elementary school. School attendance for their children, the next generation, is generally improving. However, the survey found that the overall drop out rate is still 12.6 %, which remains quite high. It will take time for current efforts aimed at improving the knowledge condition to show results.

• Almost all villages have, at least,

7) The term knowledge refers not only to formal education level but also to general skills and opportunities for vocational s training.


18

elementary school facilities. All sub-districts have at least one junior high school. The possibilities for parents to send their children to junior high school depend on their economic status and the distance (travel time and costs).

• A majority of respondents stated that they have limited skills with which to earn an additional income added to the fact that, so far, opportunities to acquire new (income generating) skills are limited. These opportuni-ties are especially important for the older generations who have limited formal education to rely on in order to improve their economic situation. Other generations will also be able to reap the benefits of better training opportunities and thus increase their chances of pursuing higher education.

NATURAL

Where is the naturalsphere low?Overall, in 43% of the villages, the natural sphere is in critical condition. The villages with a critical natural sphere are found in all sub-districts (except in Sengata Utara). The worse condition is found in the sub-districts of Busang, Muara Bengkal and Kaubun, where over 70% of villages are experiencing critical conditions in the natural sphere. The best natural sphere conditions are found in the Sangkulirang sub-district with over half of the villages enjoying good natural sphere conditions (see figure 10).

Why is the natural spherelow in these areas?The main factor influencing the natural sphere in Kutai Timur is the ongoing development of (large scale) economic activities. These activities are supposed to

Figure 9. Knowledge condition of villages in Kutai Timur


19

increase peoples’ welfare, but, the trade-off is that these activities often have a negative impact on the natural environ-ment. The indicators to measure the status of the natural sphere include the respondents’ general assessment of their environment. In more than half of the villages, a majority of households stated that their environment was seriously de-graded. Some caution is needed when interpreting this data since the statements often relate more to processes of degra-dation than an accurate assessment of the percentage of the village territory that has been affected.

As a result of this environmental degra-dation, the water quality has also been affected. In two thirds of the villages, the majority of respondents said that the water for household use needs some treatment due to the sediment load. This indicates increased erosion. According to the respondents, however, the environ-mental degradation has not yet reached critical levels, causing major natural

disasters. They mentioned that some disasters occured (esp. flooding and some wild/forest fires), but the damage caused so far is still limited.

What are the general trends?• In over 40% of the villages, the envi-

ronment is degraded. This includes the forests, beaches, sea, rivers and lakes. One contributing factor is the recurrent wild fires in these areas, with the worst events in 1982/83 and 1997/98. The degradation of the envi-ronment is further aggravated by the large scale economic development (palm oil plantations and coal mining).

• The degradation causes increased flooding, land slides, wild fires and pest outbreaks. It also affects indica-tor species that require good environ-mental conditions (e.g. orangutans, proboscis monkeys, hornbills and lesser adjutant). These species are increasingly rare.

• Large companies continue to expand

Figure 10. Natural sphere condition of villages in Kutai Timur


20

their operations. This will result in further impacts on the environment. If not carefully planned and monitored, these economic developments will have a negative impact on the envi-ronment, decrease options for the communities and affect their long-term wellbeing (due to reduced envi-ronmental quality)

ECONOMY

Income sourcesThere are three main strategies for households to fulfil their basic needs and/or generate income: agriculture, (perma-nent) employment, casual labour often supplemented with other sources of in-come (see table 3).

Agriculture, mainly for subsistence, is often complemented with other activities depending on opportunities available.

Permanent employment in companies is often the sole source of income for house-holds, because it limits the time avail-able for other activities and the source of income is considered guaranteed. House-holds deriving income from casual labour often engage in other economic activities if possible.

Agriculture and casual labour represent the main sources of livelihood in almost all areas of Kutai Timur, except in Senga-ta. The most important sources of income can be divided according to locality, such as:• Most company employees live in

Sengata Utara, Sengata Selatan, and Bengalon (areas with coal mining operations)

• Perennial cash crops are found in Busang, Kombeng, and Muara Wahau (areas with palm oil plantations)

• Fisheries are common in Muara Bengkal, Sangkulirang and Sandaran (in Muara Bengkal; fresh water fishe-

Income source PercentageAgriculture 38.4

Company employee 25.6

Casual labour 23.2

Small shop 9.9

Cash crops (perennial) 9.3

Civil servant 6.6

Trade 6.5

Services 5.4

Fish 4.4

Honorarium for village leaders 3.8

Animal husbandry 3.7

Timber 3.0

Non-timber forest products 1.1

Aquaculture (fish, shrimps, seaweed) 0.4

Others 3.2

Table 3. Relative importance of income sources *)

*) Measured in percentage of households who reported an income source as one of the three most important sources


21

ries, and in Sangkulirang and Sanda-ran; maritime fisheries)

• Small shops and trade are dominant in Bengalon, Sangkulirang and Muara Bengkal

• Timber and NTFP are not important sources of income. Illegal timber felling and processing was once important for a number of areas but stricter law enforcement has closed the possibili-ties associated with timber processing and trading

• Aquaculture has a big potential in this area (esp. in the sub-districts of Teluk Pandan, Sengata Selatan, Sengata Utara, Bengalon, Sangkulirang, Kalio-rang, and Sandaran), but is still a new enterprise. So far only 2% of house-holds derive an income from aquacul-ture.

Where is the economicsphere low?The economic condition in a total of 83 villages (62%) is critical, whilst 22% of the villages are experiencing a good economic situation. The best economic conditions are found in the villages of the sub-districts of Sengata Utara (100% good) and Sengata Selatan (75% good). These areas are the closest to the district capital and PT Kaltim Prima Coal’s operations. In three sub-districts, Sandaran, Teluk Pandan and Rantau Pulung, all villages have a critical economic condition (see figure 11).

Why is the economic sphere low in these areas?At the household level, more than 50% of respondents expressed problems in obtaining a sufficient income to meet their needs. This can be related to income; one third of households have no regular source of income. This results in with a reduced purchasing power (a problem for a quarter of the households) and the

Figure 11. Economic sphere of all villages in Kutai Timur


22

inability to set money aside (more than half the households are not able to save money). Recently, Kutai Timur has experienced a dramatic increase in population. People have been attracted by the prospect of economic opportunities in the area, i.e.: the mining industry and palm oil planta-tions. However, apparently, the oppor-tunities are not as promising as people had anticipated. Those who were able to secure a steady job in the mining industry are among those who are better off, and the economic sphere conditions in the mining areas are good. In areas with more palm oil plantations, it is more difficult to secure regular employment. The percent-age of households employed in Sengata Utara (60%), Sengata Selatan (38%) and Bengalon (27%) are significantly higher than in the areas where palm oil plan-tations are operating (Kombeng 15%, Telen 14%, Muara Wahau 13%, and Batu Ampar 10%). Often, only casual labour is available in the plantations which results in irregular income; during some periods, income may be sufficient, whilst during other times, there may be no income at all.

In addition, the global crisis has had more impact on the palm oil industry and price than on coal mining. Thus, people have fewer temporary employment options while alternative income sources are limited. This could be the result of locations being too remote, leading to high costs to reach them, or due to the lack of available natural resources and land since it has been converted into palm oil plantation.

What are the general trends?The district has two important pillars for regional development: (1) support for large scale economic development, based on the potential in the area: coal deposits and vast, relative flat areas close to the coast facilitating transport of pro-ducts. (2) Development of village level agribusiness. Recently there have been some protests by community members

because the palm oil companies that had promised to develop smallholder palm oil plantations have not fulfilled their prom-ises. This results in decreased availability of natural resources and land for the com-munities added to a lack of steady income from a cash crop.

Development of the mining sector may have a positive economic impact in the short-term, but long-term impacts must be anticipated in order to avoid a later drop in the economic conditions of people that are permanently based in the areas of mining operations.

Infrastructure development, which is es-sential to promote and make local agri-business a viable economic option, has been slow and dependent on company operations. This can be disadvantageous in some cases, for example; logging com-panies constructed roads to access their timber concessions but, since those com-panies have ceased operations, the roads have not been maintained and are now in a state of disrepair.

SOCIAL

Where is the social sphere in critical condition?In general, the condition of the social sphere is intermediate (24% of villages) to good (66% of villages). In only 13 villages is the social sphere in a critical situation. (see figure 12). Once again, all villages in the two sub-districts closest to the dis-trict capital (Sengata Utara and Sengata Selatan) show the most positive results for the social sphere conditions. The same is true for villages in the Kombeng sub-district.

Why is the social sphere in a critical condition in these areas?The indicators measuring the status of the social sphere include land disputes,


23

mutual trust and cooperation in village self-help. Although a high number of respondents expressed that they feel they have weak rights to the land (see the po-litical sphere below), apparently, presently the number of conflicts over land is rela-tively low. One exception is the villages of the Long Mesangat sub-districts, where the majority of respondents stated that there are often land disputes.

What are the general trends?Although many villages in Kutai Timur are facing rapid changes, the indicators for the social sphere show that, so far, people have adjusting. Trust and cooperation amongst villagers remains good and the number of land disputes in general seems low. It can be anticipated that with the rapid development and ongoing influx of people to the area, the population increase will continue. Combined with the expansion of large scale economic activi-ties, this is likely to increase the pressure on land. If not anticipated, these increa-

ses may cause problems in the commu-nities. For instance, community members often have conflicting views on the benefits or negative impacts of large scale operations. These different views can cause division and sometimes decrease mutual trust. This can be further aggra-vated by conflicts over land.

POLITICAL

Where is the political sphere in critical condition?In two thirds of all villages, the political sphere is in an intermediate condition. 20% of villages report that their political sphere in critical condition. These villages are located in 13 (out of the 18) sub-dis-tricts. One particular case is in the Teluk Pandan sub-district where two thirds of villages (4 out of 6) are in critical condi-tion. Sengata Utara is the only sub-district where the condition of the political sphere for all villages is good (see figure 13).

Figure 12. Social sphere condition of villages in Kutai Timur


24

Why is political sphere in critical condition in these areas?In most case, a critical condition is linked to land tenure issue. In almost one quarter of villages, more than half the households felt that they have no certainty of tenure at all. In many other cases, people felt that they had some recognition of their rights but that their position is weak.

A special case is Teluk Pandan sub-dis-trict where villages are located in the Kutai National Park and there remains much uncertainty on the issue of land owner-ship. Inhabitants of the land recognize that they occupy the land illegally, even though they have been there for many years. This situation results in a critical condition with regards to the political sphere, since two of the four indicators for the political sphere are negatively affec-ted: the people have insecure land tenure and they perceive that the government is not accommodating their aspirations to le-galize their presence in the national park.

Generally, another cause for a critical con-dition of the political sphere is the feeling of isolation and of a lack of government attention. This is due to their distant and remote location from the district capital and the ensuing limited or no access to in-formation, including from the government.

In approximately 50% of the village, more than a quarter of the respondents stated that they have no access to information (television, newspaper or radio). Most often, the television is the main source of information, which covers little local infor-mation.

What are general trends?• Government staff at both the district

and the sub-district level includes more local personnel. Having family members or friends in govern-ment agencies lowers the threshold for people to contact them. Also, there is more chance of people interacting with government staff outside the for-mal setting of the office (during family

Figure 13. Political sphere condition in villages in Kutai Timur


25

or religious activities). This enables people to access information related to government policies and programmes both through official channels but also through informal networks. Some groups, e.g. the Basap, face a prob-lem as they are lagging behind in edu-cation. It is therefore more difficult for them to enter government services. This, combined with the often remote location of their villages, results in less access to government information and programmes.

• Communication networks are rapidly expanding with the mobile network covering almost all sub-districts. Thus even if people have limited access to information from the mass media, an alternative channel is available.

• Land tenure remains a difficult issue, especially with expanding large scale economic operations, people face increased uncertainty in accessing land, an essential productive asset for farmers. One mechanism that has been attractive to villagers is to form cooperatives and establish joint ventures with palm oil plantations. In this way, villagers hoped to establish secure rights over their smallholder plantations at least. However, not all schemes have lived up to this expec-tation.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Where are infrastructure and services in critical condition?Two thirds of all villages in Kutai Timur face critical conditions with regards to the infrastructure and services sphere. The situation is most critical in the remote areas, exemplified by the condition in the sub-districts of Busang and Karangan where the condition for the infrastructure and services sphere in all villages is criti-cal.

Why are infrastructure and services in critical condition?In many of the remote areas, a major fac-tor affecting this sphere is physical access to services. The dispersed location of the villages increases the problems for the district government to provide sufficient services. Transport infrastructure is often limited or in bad condition adding to the problems of access to services, which are still concentrated in the sub-district capital. In many villages, the respondents stated that they still face difficulties in ensuring that their children attend junior high school (again due to the long dis-tances and expensive transport costs between the village and the school). At this point in time, the physical access to education is the main concern of the villagers. When asked about the quality of the present education, generally, people were relatively satisfied.

For some of the remote areas, access to health facilities is still limited (e.g. in Sangkulirang, Bengalon, Sandaran and Busang). In some cases the concern about health care was related to the qua-lity of the service provided, for instance in several sub-district capitals where the health centres are located.

Another indicator for service provision was the opportunity for villagers to im-prove their skills through training or ex-tension services. In more than 50 % of the villages, three quarters of the respon-dents said that they had not received any training or extension. For extension work, it should be understood that providing training and extension is often more effec-tive if provided to smaller groups. In this way, the transfer of information or skills will be more effective, but the downside is that the number of people reached is small.


26

What are general trends?Education infrastructure and servicesAn important programme of the district government of Kutai Timur is to improve education. A first step towards this goal is the commitment to allocate 20% of the budget to education. In 2006, a total of 202 billion Rupiah was allocated to edu-cation. This total increased to 262 billion Rupiah in the 2007 budget. The district government has been very actively cam-paigning for a minimum of 12 years of basic education (higher than the national policy aiming for minimum 9 years of basic education).

In terms of education infrastructure, the district government has implemented the following programmes:• Construction of new schools• Rehabilitation of school buildings• Establish senior high school with

national / international standard• Establishment of Agricultural College

(STIPER) in Sengata• Assistance to private schools.

Other programmes focused on impro-ving access to and the quality of edu-cation; recruitment of more teachers, further education for teacher, competence exams for teachers, financial support for school’s operational costs and incentives for teachers (additional honorarium and vehicles for headmasters). These programmes aimed at ensuring there are sufficient schools and teachers within acces-sible distances to each village. Although significant efforts have been made to stimulate education, the survey showed that still 12.6% of households have chil-dren that drop out of education. It is not clear whether this is a result of a lack of facilities, especially in remote areas, or caused by a lack of emphasis by parents on sending their children to school. The survey found that the drop out rate is higher for boys. This could sug-gest that boys are required to assist their parents in fulfilling the basic household needs.

Health facilities and services have im-provedSince the formation of Kutai Timur district, the number of sub-districts was 5, then, the number increased to 11 and now there are a total of 18 sub-districts. The district government has succeeded in increa-sing the number of health clinics in accor-dance with the growing number of sub-districts. Presently, each sub-district has a health clinic. Also, all these health clinics have, at least, a general practitioner, and some even have a dentist. The number of paramedic staff has also increased. The number of government and private health facilities and the number of doctors in Sengata has increased significantly.

Access to information improved Over the last few years, the mobile phone network has rapidly expanded. This has opened a new channel for access to infor-mation. Although the government has not yet designed a strategy to use this new possibility to the full extend, at least this development increases the possibilities for village leaders and sub-district staff to communicate with the various agencies of the district government. It also facilitates people to obtain more information about commodity prices and other opportunities.

Wellbeing at sub-district levelIn this section, we analyze whether certain sub-districts have significantly different general conditions from other sub-districts. One way to examine this is to calculate the aggregate value per sub-district based on the score in all the villages in the sub-district. The score is calculated for all spheres of the core (subjective wellbeing, health, knowledge and material wealth) and all spheres of the enabling context (natural, economic, social and political). The results are shown in figure 14.

The aggregated data for the core and con-text indices at the sub-district level indi-cates that the situation is not very different across most sub-districts. This is because the worse conditions found in some of the


27

sub-district villages may be balanced by better circumstances in other villages in the same sub-district. In the sub-district closest to the district capital, the condi-tions are overall significantly better than in the other sub-districts. On the other hand, Sandaran, one of the most remote sub-districts, is the extreme opposite.

Another way to assess the condition at the sub-district level is to calculate the scores for each sphere at the sub-district level. This allows an assessment of whether certain sub-districts are worse off than oth-ers. It also allows an analysis of whether there is a geographical pattern among critical scores within certain spheres. The detailed scores per sphere for each sub-district are presented in table 4. The three most critical sub-districts for each sphere are highlighted in bold.

Similarly to figure 14, the results in table 4 illustrate that the Sandaran sub-district score in many spheres is amongst the lowest. Surprisingly, the score for the

Teluk Pandan sub-district, a relatively easily accessible area, is also low. As explained on page 21, Teluk Pandan is a special case of people occupying land in Kutai National Park. Many of these peo-ple are recent migrants and legally, their position is at best uncertain and the basis for development support is also weak.

Table 5 summarizes the largest differences found between the scores for the eco-nomic and the natural spheres. This is to assess in how far the often encountered trade-off between economic development at the expense of the natural sphere is evident in Kutai Timur.

The conditions in Kutai Timur are typical of the development pattern in many (rela-tive) remote forested areas, where the most rapid development is concentrated around the main (capital) centre. This rapid development has a negative impact on the natural sphere whilst areas within the periphery of the district often enjoy better conditions for the natural sphere,


Figure 14. Core and context values in the 18 sub-districts of Kutai Timur

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0 0 0 0 0

Cor

e

Context

KaranganL. Mesangat

Batu Ampar Kaubun

Bengalon

M. WahauKombeng

SengataSelatan

SengataUtara

TelukPandan

RantauPulungM. Ancalong

Sangkulirang

Sandaran

Telen Busang Kaliorang

28

Sub-district Difference Trade-off due to

Sengata Utara 1.87 District capital, coal mining

Sengata Selatan 1.62 Close to district capital, coal mining

Long Mesangat 1.58 Oil palm plantation development

Kaliorang -1.0 Intact environment but little economic development

Sanglukirang -1.4 Intact environment but little economic development

Sandaran -2.4 Intact environment but little economic development

Table 5. Sub-districts with largest difference between the economic and natural spheres


SWB H K W N E S P I&S

Muara Ancalong 0.54 0.65 0.48 0.52 0.35 0.50 0.64 0.45 0.39

Muara Wahau 0.57 0.65 0.52 0.60 0.38 0.51 0.72 0.54 0.38

Muara Bengkal 0.54 0.62 0.41 0.55 0.30 0.46 0.52 0.51 0.51

Sengata Utara 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.75 0.53 0.69 0.72 0.67 0.51

Sangkulirang 0.55 0.69 0.41 0.57 0.62 0.48 0.71 0.53 0.50

Busang 0.51 0.57 0.43 0.59 0.34 0.47 0.65 0.48 0.24

Telen 0.42 0.59 0.43 0.49 0.35 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.32

Kombeng 0.59 0.61 0.52 0.63 0.39 0.49 0.74 0.52 0.47

Bengalon 0.69 0.70 0.55 0.66 0.51 0.51 0.62 0.45 0.41

Kaliorang 0.52 0.61 0.43 0.52 0.49 0.39 0.75 0.43 0.34

Sandaran 0.42 0.47 0.37 0.33 0.49 0.25 0.64 0.36 0.23

Sengata Selatan 0.68 0.76 0.49 0.58 0.38 0.57 0.75 0.58 0.61

Teluk Pandan 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.71 0.39 0.40

Rantau Pulung 0.54 0.65 0.49 0.53 0.44 0.34 0.72 0.54 0.38

Kaubun 0.57 0.60 0.50 0.58 0.34 0.45 0.75 0.50 0.27

Karangan 0.59 0.55 0.46 0.56 0.42 0.38 0.58 0.37 0.21

Batu Ampar 0.61 0.69 0.46 0.58 0.38 0.33 0.70 0.47 0.37

Long Mesangat 0.59 0.59 0.48 0.54 0.36 0.52 0.64 0.45 0.28

Average 0.56 0.63 0.47 0.55 0.42 0.45 0.66 0.48 0.38

Table 4. Wellbeing scores by sub-district and sphere *)

29

*) SWB=Subjective wellbeing, H=Health, K=Knowledge, W=Wealth, N=Natural sphere, E=Economic sphere, S=Social sphere, P=Political sphere, I&S=Infrastructure and Services

but are lagging behind economically. One exceptional case in Kutai Timur is the sub-district of Long Mesangat. This sub-district is relatively remote, but its economic deve-lopment is comparatively good, although it is at the expense of the environment. Palm oil development has just started in this area, therefore creating many employment opportunities

Looking more closely at the sub-district level data, the index for the natural sphere in Sengata Utara seems rather high con-sidering that the natural conditions there are poor when compared to more remote sub-districts with better natural conditions but lower scores. The actual situation is that Sengata Utara is the most densely populated part of Kutai Timur, with rapid development, very little forest left, and rivers with high sediment loads. One possible explanation could be that the

people of Sengata Utara are generally more positive about their circumstan-ces or, another reason could be that the condition of the natural sphere has not changed much over the last few years. Another possible explanation is that most of the environmental degradation resul-ting from mining around Sengata is confined to specific areas which are sel-dom visited, whereas in other areas, the operations are more open and visible.

Similarly, in some of the more remote sub-districts, respondents rated the con-ditions of the natural sphere as relatively low. This again may reflect recent (rapid) changes in the conditions and not neces-sarily the overall conditions of the natural sphere which may remain relatively good compared to other areas (such as, for example, Sengata Utara).


30

CHAPTER 6Why Are Some People Poor In Kutai Timur?

Poverty and ethnicity

As described in chapter 2, there are many different ethnic groups in Kutai Timur. A total of ten ethnic

groups make up 90% of the total popu-lation. These are: Java, Bugis, Kutai, Banjar, Toraja, Kenyah, Timor, Lombok, Wehea, and Makassar. The aggregated index of these major ethnic groups shows that none is in critical condition (see table 6). The conditions of some of the smaller ethnic groups (Basap, Lebo and Kaili), however, appear to be worse. In the case of the Basap and Lebo, original inhabi-tants of Kutai Timur, the remote location in which they live also contributes to their lower wellbeing. The Kaili, who migrated from Sulawesi, report that four spheres are in critical condition.

Poverty and migrationWhen analyzing the relation between the number of years people have been residing in Kutai Timur and their wellbeing, there is a slight tendency for longer term residents to report better scores. However, none of the groups express critical values in the core or context spheres. It seems likely that, for many migrants who move to Kutai Timur, their wellbeing actually improves given the range of opportunities and resources present in the district. As table 7 illustrates, new arrivals (with less than one year of residence in the district) still experience critical condi-tions in the economic sphere. Over time, conditions appear to improve as reflec-ted by the long term residents who have the highest score for the wealth sphere. This indicates that they have been able to accumulate sufficient surplus to acquire

household assets.

This analysis is only possible for whole households. There is no separate data for migrants who temporarily live within another household. On the one hand, these migrants may have similar or slight-ly better circumstances, as they might receive help from their host. On the other hand, the condition of the host might de-teriorate due to the additional burden of additional persons that need to be sup-ported. The number of people that migrate to Kutai Timur is a significant proportion of the total population. As figure 15 shows, more the 25% of the population has lived less than 9 years (since 2000) in Kutai Timur.

When the palm oil business and coal mining were still expanding and the pros-pects were positive, the district govern-ment was supporting and encouraging migrants to come to the area, in order to fulfil the labour demands. In times of eco-nomic downturn, such as after the global crisis, those people that have recently moved to the area, and have little eco-nomic reserves, will be especially vulner-able.

Figure 15.Division of population of Kutai Timur based on length of residence in the area


31

Chapter 6: Why Are Some People Poor In Kutai Timur?

Table 6. Wellbeing index for each sphere among different ethnic groups*)


SWB H K W N E S P I&S Core Context Aggre-gate

Jawa 0,652 0,698 0,549 0,655 0,476 0,563 0,722 0,554 0,508 0,646 0,563 0,610

Bugis 0,620 0,665 0,523 0,592 0,503 0,517 0,695 0,537 0,471 0,605 0,548 0,584

Kutai 0,577 0,669 0,469 0,587 0,462 0,492 0,613 0,500 0,521 0,588 0,519 0,557

Banjar 0,689 0,737 0,536 0,694 0,500 0,597 0,695 0,575 0,546 0,662 0,585 0,626

Toraja 0,737 0,708 0,637 0,726 0,516 0,658 0,747 0,615 0,504 0,701 0,608 0,664

Kenyah 0,492 0,551 0,460 0,546 0,422 0,434 0,628 0,488 0,359 0,521 0,466 0,491

Timor 0,547 0,596 0,500 0,531 0,469 0,428 0,664 0,502 0,351 0,543 0,486 0,517

Lombok 0,596 0,629 0,436 0,563 0,491 0,400 0,754 0,499 0,432 0,553 0,515 0,542

Wehea 0,408 0,584 0,533 0,438 0,449 0,426 0,647 0,485 0,355 0,537 0,472 0,516

Makassar 0,654 0,672 0,547 0,603 0,517 0,533 0,697 0,621 0,480 0,634 0,568 0,613

Basap 0,458 0,493 0,282 0,356 0,537 0,255 0,646 0,392 0,268 0,402 0,416 0,415

Kayan 0,692 0,579 0,586 0,633 0,455 0,511 0,593 0,534 0,615 0,595 0,542 0,567

Bali 0,507 0,648 0,434 0,559 0,483 0,419 0,863 0,516 0,402 0,553 0,536 0,548

Batak 0,791 0,781 0,669 0,775 0,518 0,746 0,708 0,666 0,611 0,753 0,653 0,709

Madura 0,535 0,620 0,409 0,508 0,511 0,382 0,716 0,495 0,438 0,512 0,509 0,515

Modang 0,505 0,620 0,512 0,533 0,329 0,558 0,567 0,437 0,422 0,568 0,459 0,518

Kaili 0,443 0,506 0,452 0,341 0,604 0,241 0,695 0,356 0,339 0,474 0,447 0,480

Lebo 0,446 0,611 0,396 0,519 0,500 0,361 0,648 0,444 0,367 0,542 0,464 0,515

Table 7. Scores for each sphere among groups with different length of residence in Kutai Timur *)

SWB H K W N E S P I&S Core Context

< 1 tahun 0,622 0,645 0,521 0,501 0,537 0,458 0,708 0,531 0,487 0,561 0,538

1-3 tahun 0,631 0,682 0,516 0,565 0,476 0,500 0,707 0,536 0,495 0,591 0,543

3-9 tahun 0,627 0,678 0,518 0,603 0,478 0,525 0,680 0,542 0,480 0,606 0,542

> 9 tahun 0,611 0,666 0,516 0,615 0,483 0,519 0,680 0,530 0,486 0,613 0,540


32

Disadvantaged householdsJust over 10% of the households have at least one member who is a widow, widower, an orphan or disabled. These households, on average, have lower well-being scores, especially in the wealth and health spheres. Their economic chances are also less than those of other house-holds (see table 8). 7.7% of households in Kutai Timur are led by a woman. House-holds led by men are better off and have better economic, social and political chances than those led by women.

Household size The impact of household size on its well-being is not very clear. Households with 3 to 4 and 5 to 6 members show slightly better conditions than the very small or big

households. This is especially relevant in the economic and wealth spheres.

Perception of localstakeholders on factorsinfluencing householdwellbeingIn the early stage of the programme, rep-resentatives of various government agen-cies were asked on what they regarded as the underlying causes of poverty. During the same phase, focus group discussions were conducted in seven villages to grasp a better understanding of the perceptions of villagers on causes of poverty. A list of the most commonly mentioned causes by government officials is provided in table 10. Table 11 presents the results of the discussions held in the seven villages,


Table 8. Impact of number of vulnerable persons (widows, widowers, orphans, disabled persons) on household wellbeing spheres *)


Table 9. Impact of household size on spheres of wellbeing *)


1 - 2 0,531 0,625 0,397 0,485 0,485 0,425 0,681 0,487 0,449 0,527 0,509 0,540

3 - 4 0,631 0,688 0,507 0,621 0,485 0,537 0,685 0,542 0,492 0,518 0,548 0,590

5 - 6 0,631 0,675 0,524 0,640 0,485 0,538 0,685 0,544 0,496 0,616 0,549 0,584

7 or more 0,597 0,633 0,538 0,595 0,469 0,490 0,671 0,513 0,471 0,588 0,524 0,558


> 1 0,486 0,589 0,490 0,522 0,474 0,391 0,650 0,476 0,458 0,537 0,490 0,516

1 0,505 0,584 0,483 0,525 0,477 0,404 0,660 0,473 0,457 0,549 0,499 0,531

none 0,631 0,680 0,521 0,620 0,483 0,534 0,685 0,540 0,490 0,618 0,587 0,588

Total 0,615 0,669 0,516 0,609 0,482 0,519 0,682 0,532 0,486 0,610 0,541 0,581


33

and represents the different conditions of the villagers in Kutai Timur; geographical distribution, population size, ethnicity, ge-neral economic conditions, main sources of livelihood. The main causes of poverty mentioned relate to work ethics, access to basic services (esp. health, education), delivery of the right services to the villages (information dissemina-tion, extension, appropriate skill training). Furthermore, another cause mentioned is the lack of economic opportunities (esp.

Chapter 6: Why Are Some People Poor In Kutai Timur?

stable income, better prices for pro-ducts) to enable people to fulfil their basic needs, to purchase production inputs or to set some money aside. It is interesting to note that government officials men-tioned the lack of (secured) access to natural resources as one of the causes of poverty. From their experience, villagers mentioned that large family size and family composition (e.g. headed by widow, included orphans or disabled persons) are causes of poverty.

34

Sphe

rePo

vert

y ca

uses

Sub

ject

ive

Wel

lbei

ng•

Sub

sist

ence

orie

ntat

ion

• A

path

y•

Lack

of s

elf c

onfid

ence

•

Lack

of o

ppor

tuni

ty

• N

o ch

ance

to e

xpre

ss o

pini

onH

ealth

& N

utrit

ion

• La

ck o

f hea

lth s

ervi

ces

• Lo

w le

vel o

f hea

lth•

Nut

ritio

nal n

eeds

not

fulfi

lled

• C

anno

t acc

ess

nece

ssar

y he

alth

car

e (la

ck o

f m

oney

)•

Pro

blem

s to

fulfi

l bas

ic n

eeds

(foo

d an

d

hous

ing)

• H

ealth

ser

vice

is n

ot p

rovi

ded

equa

lly

Wea

lth•

No

regu

lar e

mpl

oym

ent o

r reg

ular

inco

me

• La

ck o

f (fa

mily

) ass

ets

• N

o pr

oper

hou

sing

•

Diffi

culty

to fu

lfil d

aily

nee

ds•

No

acce

ss to

cap

ital

• In

abili

ty to

incr

ease

fam

ily a

sset

s•

Can

not

pro

vide

ass

ista

nce

to o

ther

s in

nee

d•

Dep

ende

nce

on o

ther

peo

ple

Kno

wle

dge

• La

ck o

f ski

lls o

r exp

erie

nce

to d

evel

op

ente

rpris

es•

Low

leve

l of e

duca

tion

• C

an n

ot a

fford

edu

catio

n fo

r chi

ldre

n•

Edu

catio

n sy

stem

not

mee

ting

peop

les’

nee

ds

• La

ck o

f non

form

al e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

• La

ck o

f spe

cial

izat

ion

in o

ne b

usin

ess

• La

ck o

f em

pow

erm

ent

Sphe

rePo

vert

y ca

uses

Nat

ural

sph

ere

• Li

mite

d na

tura

l res

ourc

es•

Lack

of i

nnov

atio

n in

pro

cess

ing

natu

ral

reso

urce

s•

Lack

of a

cces

s to

nat

ural

reso

urce

s•

Lim

ited

natu

ral r

esou

rces

bec

ause

of o

vere

x-pl

oita

tion,

fire

s an

d na

tura

l dis

aste

rs•

No

owne

rshi

p of

nat

ural

reso

urce

s•

Vuln

erab

ility

(due

to fl

oods

, pes

ts, h

igh

wav

es

at s

ea)

• A

cces

s to

nat

ural

reso

urce

s is

mon

opol

ized

• P

ollu

tion

• To

o m

uch

relia

nce

on n

atur

al re

sour

ces

Eco

nom

ic s

pher

e•

Uns

tabl

e ec

onom

y an

d lo

w in

com

e•

Lim

ited

acce

ss to

cap

ital

• S

ubsi

sten

ce li

velih

ood

• La

ck o

f wor

k et

hics

• In

abili

ty to

use

ava

ilabl

e na

tura

l res

ourc

es•

Lack

of e

mpl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

• La

ck o

f pro

duct

ion

mea

ns•

Wom

en h

ave

no a

cces

s to

cap

ital

Soc

ial s

pher

e•

Do

not a

dher

e to

cus

tom

ary

and

relig

ious

ru

les

• La

ck o

f sol

idar

ity•

Lack

of w

ork

ethi

cs, A

path

y•

Hig

h nu

mbe

r of h

ouse

hold

mem

bers

• (fa

mily

) Con

flict

s•

Ineq

ualit

y an

d je

alou

sy•

Con

sum

eris

m•

Lack

of r

ecog

nitio

n of

role

of w

omen

• R

esis

tanc

e to

new

idea

s / i

nfor

mat

ion

• C

usto

ms

limit

econ

omic

act

iviti

esIn

frast

ruct

ure

and

Ser

vice

s•

Lim

ited

capa

city

•

Lack

of a

cces

s to

mat

eria

ls•

Lack

of i

nfor

mat

ion

• Li

mite

d tra

nspo

rt in

frast

ruct

ure

• P

hysi

cal i

sola

tion

Pol

itica

l sph

ere

• D

iscr

imin

atio

n in

gov

ernm

ent s

ervi

ces

• C

orru

ptio

n•

Lack

of m

otiv

atio

n of

sen

ior o

ffici

als

• D

evel

opm

ent p

riorit

ies

have

not

bee

n

inte

grat

ed y

et

Sou

rce:

Wor

ksho

p on

per

cept

ions

on

caus

es o

f pov

erty

, dis

trict

gov

ernm

ent K

utai

Tim

ur, O

ctob

er 2

007

Tabl

e 10

. Per

cept

ions

of

gove

rnm

ent

offic

ials

on

cau

ses

of p

over

ty in

Kut

ai T

imur

35

SpherePoverty causes

Subjective W

ellbeing•

Lack of work ethics

• Lack of inform

ation•

Large families

• B

ad managem

ent of household finances H

ealth & N

utrition•

Lack of access to health services•

Low level of health

• Lack of w

ater and toilet facilities•

Nutrition: lack of right nutrition, and too few

m

eals per day•

Not enough m

oney to obtain medical care or

go to hospital•

Health service not good enough

Wealth

• Lack of purchasing pow

er to obtain: -B

asic needs (food, housing, -------education,clothing) -P

roduction means (agricultural equipm

ent or inputs)•

Lack of savings or family assets

Know

ledge•

Low level of education of the older generation

• D

ifficult access to education•

Lack of money to purchase goods essential

for education (books, bags etc) or to continue education

• Lim

ited skills

Political sphere

• Lack of aid and assistance from

the government

• Lack of inform

ation and extension•

Lack of services•

Lack of empow

erment

• N

egative impact from

fight against illegal logging

Table 11.Perception of respondents in 7 villages on poverty causes in K

utai Timur

Source: Focus group discussion in 7 villages

Natural sphere

• N

atural disasters (land slides, floods, pests, w

ild fires)•

Low soil fertility

• D

eteriorating natural resources E

conomic sphere

• Irregular incom

e•

Low incom

e or low prices for produce

Social sphere

• Large fam

ily size•

Disadvantaged fam

ilies (widow

s, widow

ers, orphans, disabled persons)

• C

onflict and jealousy•

Change in lifestyle

Infrastructure and S

ervices•

Lack of access to water

• Lack of electricity

• Lack of schools

• Lack of roads

• N

o market

36

CHAPTER 7What Has Been Done In Kutai Timur?

Since decentralisation, district go-vernments in areas rich in natural resources, like Kutai Timur, have

seen a dramatic increase in their annual budgets. The annual budget provides the district government with substantial means to address poverty. The district government has to decide on the best strategy to alleviate poverty, should they concentrate on special programmes tar-geting the poor households, or poor vil-lages? Or should they focus on increasing the general standard of living, assuming that poor households would equally benefit from these improvements?

The district poverty alleviation committee has listed all government programmes that aim to improve the wellbeing of people of Kutai Timur. Table 12 provides an over-view of the programmes that have been implemented in 2007 and 2008. It shows the total budget for the various sectors that support improvement of livelihoods in Kutai Timur. The majority are general programmes, not specifically targeting poor households. Within this budget-line, there are several programmes that explicitly focus on poor households.

A substantial amount of budget is allo-cated to the core spheres of wellbeing, knowledge (education and labour/skill development), health and material wealth (aid for the improvement of houses of poor households under empowerment). The remaining budget is related to providing enabling conditions with regards to the development of economic activities and infrastructure & services (irrigation, village infrastructure).

In 2007, the budget for education inclu-ded a significant amount for building and repairs in schools (almost 70% of the budget). The remaining budget was spent on improving the quality of the education, through the purchase of educational mate- rials, computers, development of libraries and further training for teachers. In 2008, a similar percentage of the budget for health care was spent on developing the infrastructure (health clinics) and the remaining budget was allocated to the provision and improvement of the health services.

Most of the government programmes do not specifically target poor households. In the case where the majority of house-holds in a village experience similar con-ditions and constraints to increase their wellbeing, general programmes will be equally effective as it is highly likely that any household involved in or benefiting from the programme will be a poor house-hold. However, if there is only a small number of poor households in a village, general programmes may not be enough to address the specific needs and con-ditions faced by the poorer households. They generally experience significant obstacles to access or benefit from general programmes. These include, among others, lower education levels and limited skills, less involvement in the decision-making process at the village level, less time available as they may be too occupied with obtaining and fulfilling their daily needs.

In 2007, the Kutai Timur district govern-ment had several programmes targeting poor households: assistance for health service costs, support for economic activi-ties and free distribution of solar panels (mainly targeting isolated communities). The budget allocated to the programme specifically for poor households increased significantly in 2008 (almost four times higher than in 2007), it also included a wider variety of activities. In addition to the programme activities implemented in 2007, in 2008, the programme further


37

SECTOR 2007

(x Billion Rp.)

Programmes aimed at poor households

(x Billion Rp.)

2008

(x Billion Rp.)

Programmes aimed at poor households

(x Billion Rp.)

Education 90.2 69.2Health 5.0 1.1 19.9 2.3Labour 4.9 1.3Empowerment 9.5 54.1 2.9Social Welfare 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.2Agriculture 22.6 41.2 1.5Fisheries 5.6 13.4Tourism 1.5 1.2Energy & Mining 9.4 0.5 9.2 1.1Irrigation 7.4 2.9Industry, trade & cooperatives

3.9

TOTAL 157.7 3.1 218.5 11.2

Source: KPK Kutai Timur, 2009

included support for the improvement of housing of poor households. Another interesting programme, which should benefit the poor households, is land redistribution. This should provide poorer household with better and more secure access to an important means of produc-tion; land. We have, however, no detailed information on the exact implementation of the programme. As with other general programmes to improve the standard of living, if land redistribution is not specifi-cally targeting the poor, and the imple-mentation is not done properly, such a programme may actually have the perverse result of providing cheap land

to the better-off at the expenses of the poorer households, the intended benefi-ciaries of the programme.

The district government of Kutai Timur is allocating a significant amount of money to raise the standards of living of the people in Kutai Timur and alleviate po-verty. Since this survey is just a snapshot, it is not yet possible to conclude how effective these efforts have been. Some results can be observed in a short time frame, such as the health conditions. Others will need more time to bear fruit, such as the increase in the level of education.

Chapter 7: What Has Been Done In Kutai Timur?

Table 12. Government programmes aimed at improving livelihoods in Kutai Timur in 2007 and 2008

38

CHAPTER 8Conclusions

Why are some people poor in Kutai Timur?A summaryThe causes of poverty are manifold and multilayered. Some causes can be identi-fied at the household level, for example, low education level and limited motivation from parents to stimulate their children into continuing education. Other causes are related more to the programmes, poli-cies and actions of institutions at the sub-district and district levels. For example, efforts to establish more schools in order to decrease distances to schools, or, the granting of permits to companies which has both positive (e.g. employment) and negative (conflicts over land) impacts. Yet others are beyond the control of any local stakeholder, like, for example, the impact of the global crisis.

Macro-level causes (international/na-tional level) that affect people in Kutai Timur:• Volatile resource prices on the world

market, primarily palm oil and coal prices

• Severe prolonged droughts related to the year of El Niño

• Increased cost of living, due to the economic crisis, may particularly affect prices in remote areas

• Unclear policies and power divisions, resulting in reduced capability of dis-trict government to develop local stra-tegies to meet specific local conditions

Meso-level causes (district level)• Limited technical capacity in govern-

ment agencies• Unclear planning process and identifi-

cation of development needs• Corruption/inefficient use of funds

available• Limited (road) infrastructure, unequal

distribution and quality of infrastruc-ture

• Lack of enforcement of legal obli-gations of commercial companies (mining, palm oil), resulting in

- Excessive environmental degradation - Pollution - Conflicts over land and resources• High cost of providing services to

remote areas with a low population density

• Heterogeneity of population, resulting in wider range of development needs and related specific development programmes.

Micro-level causes (village and house-hold):• Physical isolation• Individual vulnerability (widows, wi-

dowers, orphans, disabled persons)• Lack of knowledge and appropriate

skills• Limited economic opportunities• Decreasing social coherence and

related decreased bargaining power • Mobility of households and household

members (in search of better economic opportunities, but may cause at least temporary decrease in house-hold wellbeing)

What are the poor’s chances of escaping poverty in Kutai Timur?

At the initiation of decentralisation, one of the main reasons given for decen-tralisation was to improve services to the people and enable the development of policies and programmes better suited to the local circumstances. In Kutai Timur, since decentralisation, services have im-proved significantly. However, the services do not yet reach all parts of Kutai Timur.


39

Remoteness not only results in higher costs and greater difficulty in developing infrastructure (health clinics, schools), it also results in greater challenges to ensure staff are willing to work in these remote locations. The survey has shown that many households are still more con-cerned with physical access to services, than the quality of the services. The go-vernment has made significant progress in making services more accessible to communities. It also continues effort to improve the services provided (by further training for teachers, increased dispatch-ing of dentist, etc.)

Decentralisation in Kutai Timur has brought some rapid development and provided some new economic opportuni-ties. Business has expanded and so have opportunities for employment. The gene-ral development paradigm followed is that attracting companies will bring the direct benefit of employment, with increased opportunities for local enterprises/entre-preneurs, as well as support towards road infrastructure development that the com-pany needs for its operations and which

benefits nearby communities.

The survey indicated that in over 60% of villages, the economic sphere is critical. As there is no earlier data for comparison, it is difficult to conclude whether or not opportunities have increased. It maybe that conditions were worse some years ago and have just started to improve.

Some households have benefited not only economically, but have also got better access to services. The ongoing influx is also an indication that the op-portunities available in Kutai Timur are interesting to people from other parts of Indonesia. However, the opportunities are not felt by all household. It will be an im-portant task for the district government to deve-lop policies and programmes and guide other actors that have significant impact on local development (esp. com-panies) to recognize this fact. Increased disparity, either between households in the same village or between neighbour-ing villages may affect other wellbeing spheres, especially. the social and politi-cal ones.

Box 3 Increased vulnerability due to climate changes?

Impact of forest clearing and climatic changes on the people of Long Segar

Dr. Carol Colfer has conducted long term anthropological research in Long Segar since 1979, concerning changes that have occurred over time in the landscape, its impact on the Dayak people and the strategies people have used to deal with the changes.

Based on her research, Dr. Colfer concluded that rice yields have gradually decreased. This reduction in rice yields is less related to reduction of land availability (resulting in shorter fallows, lower soil fertility and more weed problems), but largely caused by climatic conditions.

She states that, although her study can not conclusively prove this, it is likely that the forest clearing activities that are drastically altering the landscape also have a causal link to the unusual weather patterns documented in Long Segar.

The coping strategy of the people is to supplement their subsistence needs that they fulfil from the produce of their rice field with wage labour. Dr. Colfer draw attention to the need for secured tenure of the local people to avoid that they become landless rural proletariat that can only sell its labour and which has a weak bargaining position. Conditions in many other villages in the area are similar to the conditions in Long Segar.

Source: Colfer, 2008, “The Longhouse of the Tarsier: Changing Landscapes, Gender and Wellbeing in Borneo”

Chapter 8: Conclusions

40

This, in turn, may increase conflicts and vulnerability. Those most affected will be the people who are already worse off, those with no regular income, weak political representation and connections and little material assets to allow them to invest in resolving conflicts or using available opportunities.

Another development that is gradually increasing peoples’ vulnerability is degradation of the environment. If environmental degradation is accompanied by (substantial) economic benefits to all, people might be less concerned about the initial deterioration of their environ-ment and have sufficient means to access alternatives to fulfil those needs that they originally obtained from their environment (e.g. water, protein, fire wood). Fortunately, since the catastrophic fires of 1997/98, no major natural or man-made disaster has occurred.

Concluding, it can be said that the general condition of people in Kutai Timur has im-proved. It has not yet reached everybody. Increased attention to achieve a more equitable distribution of opportunities and services is needed to avoid an (unhealthy) increase in disparity between communities and community members. The progress has come at a cost, which is environ-mental degradation. Luckily enough, the conditions are still relatively good, but

increased attention should be paid to halt ongoing degradation and avoid major future degradation as the environmental, social, political, and eventually economic, costs will be significant.

One initiative to assist the district government in considering environmental impacts and innovative ways to support local development without causing envi-ronmental degradation is the coopera-tion between the district government and The Nature Conservation. Since 2003, based on survey data from TNC, the dis-trict government realized that the forests of Wehea contain important biodiversity, provide important environmental services (watershed protection) and are important to the local communities. The district government and TNC are trying to change the status of the production forest in this area to protected forest and develop tourism to the area.

So far, the district government of Kutai Timur has had little exposure to the initia- tives related to mitigation of climate change and REDD pilot projects. Innova- tive approaches used to tackle this issue could assist in reducing environmental degradation, maintain essential environmental services of importance to local communities and also benefit local development.


41

42

References

• Agusta,I. (2006) Kemiskinan dan Kebijakan Opini Kompas, 22 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/22/opini/2894551.htm

• Albornoz, M.A., Becker, M., Cahyat, S., Cronkleton, P., de Jong, W., Evans, K., Fuentes, D., Gönner, C., Haches, R., Haug, M., Iwan, R., Limberg, R., Moeliono, M. and Wollenberg, E. (2007) Towards Wellbeing in Forest Communities: A source book for local governments. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 90 hal.

• Anon., (2006a) Data Kemiskinan Diragukan: Wapres: Data-data itu Benar. Kompas, 19 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/19/utama/2891993.htm

• Anon., (2006 b) Data Kemiskinan: Anggurnya Baru Kantongnya Lama. Kompas, 23 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/23/Politikhukum/2900103.htm

• Anon., (2006c) Sajikan Data Sebenarnya: BPS Laporkan Mutasi Kemiskinan yang Terjadi Sejak Maret 2006. Kompas, 25 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/25/ ekonomi/2903590.htm

• BAPPEDA Kutai Timur (2007) Penyusunan Data Basis Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (IPM) Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Tahun 2007. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Kabupaten Kutai Timur & Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Sengata, Indonesia

• BPS (2004a) Data dan Informasi Kemiskinan Tahun 2003. Buku 1 Propinsi. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Jakarta, Indonesia

• BPS (2004b) Data dan Informasi Kemiskinan Tahun 2003. Buku 1 Kabupaten. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Jakarta, Indonesia

• BPS (2008) Profil Kemiskinan Di Indonesia Maret 2008 http://www.bps.go.id/releases/files/kemiskinan-01jul08.pdf

• BPS Kutim (2008) Kabupaten Kutai TImur dalam Angka 2008. Badan Pusat Statisitik Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Sangatta, Indonesia, 2008

• Cahyat, A. (2004) Bagaimana Kemiskinan Diukur? Beberapa model penghitungan kemis-kinan di Indonesia. Governance Brief no. 2. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

• Cahyat, A., Gönner, C., and Haug, M. (2007) Assessing Household Poverty and Wellbeing - A Manual with Examples from Kutai Barat, Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 2007

• Colfer, C.J.P. (2008) The Longhouse of the Tarsier: Changing landscapes, gender and well-being in Borneo. Borneo Research Council (Monograph Series no. 10) Phillips ME, USA

• Ediawan, A., Wells, A. and Shepherd, G. (2005) Keterkaitan Kemiskinan dan Kehutanan di Indonesia: Apa buktinya? Bagaimana menguatkan targeting terhadap masyarakat miskin di dalam dan sekitar hutan? Briefing paper no. 2 Center for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) and Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Jakarta, Indonesia

• Gönner, C., Cahyat, A., Haug, M., Limberg, G. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring po-verty in Kutai Barat, Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/.../BGoenner0701Ina.pdf

References

43

• Gönner, C., Haug, M., Cahyat, A., Wollenberg, E., de Jong, W., Limberg, G., Cronkleton, P., Moeliono, M., and Becker, M. (2007) Capturing Nested Spheres of Poverty: A model for multidimensional poverty analysis and monitoring. Occasional Paper no. 46. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia (http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/detail?pdf=2255

• Khomsan, A. (2006) Yang Disebut Orang Miskin. Opini. Kompas, 25 Agustus. http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/25/opini/2903405.htm accessed ...

• KPK (2003) Dokumen Intern Strategi Penanggulangan Kemiskinan. Sebuah kerangka proses penyusunan strategi penanggulangan kemiskinan jangka panjang. Komite Penanggulangan Kemiskinan (KPK), Jakarta, Indonesia

• Lesmana, T. (2006) Tidak Ada Data Sahih di Republik Ini. Opini. Kompas, 24 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/24/opini/2895600.htm

• Moeliono, M., Limberg, G., Gönner, C., Wollenberg, E., Iwan, R. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring Poverty in Malinau, Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

• Narayan, D. and Petesch, P. (2002) Voices of the Poor: From many lands. World Bank and Oxford University Press, New York, USA

• Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Kaul Shah, M., and Petesch, P. (2000a) Voices of the Poor: Crying out for change. Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York, USA

• Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., and Koch-Schulte, S. (2000b) Voices of the Poor: Can anyone hear us? Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York, USA

• Sen, A.K. (1993) Capability and Wellbeing. In Nussbaum, M.C. and Sen, A.K. (eds) The Quality of Life, 30-53. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK

• Sen, A.K (1997) Editorial: Human capital and human capability. World Development 25(12):1959 - 1961

• Sen, A.K. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

• Sitorus, S., Levang, P., Dounias, E., Mamung, D., and Abot, D. (2004) Potret Punan Kalimantan Timur. Sensus Punan 2002-2003. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

• Sugema, I. (2006) Data yang Mematikan. Opini. Kompas, 22 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/22/opini/2894501.htm

• World Bank (2000/01) World Development Report (WDR) 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. World Bank, Washington DC, USA

• World Bank (2002) A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies. World Bank, Washington DC, USA


44

ANNEX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR POVERTYAND WELLBEING MONITORING

Household Survey Wellbeing Monitoring Kutai Timur District 2008 Village House hold

Name Date

Name of HH head Village Code (Var 1a)

Village Sub-district code (Var 1b)

Sub-district Sexe of household head (Var 2) Name of Surveyor Male Female

General Interviewinformation

Household members are all persons that live in the same house or persons still supported by the family

Var 3 How many members has your household?Var 4 How many families live in this household?Var 5 How many adult male household members are still alive?Var 6 How many adult female household members are still alive?Var 7 How many male children (below age 17 years) are still alive?Var 8 How many female children (below age 17 years) are still alive?

Var 9 What is the main ethnic group in this household?

1. Basap 2. Modang 3. Wehea 4. Kayan5. Kutai 6. Lebo 7. Kenyah 8. Bugis9. Makasar 10. Toraja 11. Jawa 12. Banjar13. Timor 14. Kaili 15. Lombok/Sasak 16. Batak17. Bali 18. Madura 19. Suku lain

Var 10 Are there any orphans, widowers, widows or handicapped persons in this household?

1 Yes, more than one person

2 Yes, one person

3 No

!

Household number

Write the number in thisBasic Information on Household

Encircle the choosen answer below! Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer

Annex 1 : Questionnaire For Poverty And Wellbeing Monitoring

45

Var 11 How long has this household been living in Kutai Timur?4 Less than 1 year

5 Less than 1 year

6 Between 1 - 3 years

7 Between 3 - 9 years

8 More than 9 years

Var 12 Is yours a prosperous household?1 No, it is not prosperous

2 Fairly

3 Yes, it is prosperous

Var 13 During the last 12 months, has any household member been seriously ill?

4 Yes

5 No

Var 14 How was medical service (doctor, nurse, paramedical) when the household member was ill?

6 Seldom receive medical service

7 Usually receive medical service, but not always good enough to cure illness

8 Always receive medical service and always get cured

Var 15 During the last 12 month, how did your household fulfill its staple food?

1 There were times we did not eat rice

2 We always ate rice but sometimes have no side dishes (protein, vegetables)

3 We never have problems to eat rice with side dishes (protein, vegetables)

Var 16 Can your household obtain clean water (not necessarily from PDAM/ government water utility)?

4 We can not or it is always a problem

5 Sometimes we have problems

6 We never have a problem


Nutrition & Health


Var 17 Do you consider your household to be poor?7 Yes, it is poor

8 Fairly

9 No

46

Var 18 What is the highest education level among the adult household members (including the household head)?

1 Primary school (SR/SD/MI) or packet A or lower

2 Junior high school (SMP) or passed packet B

3 Senior high school (SLTA or MA) or passed packet C or higher

Knowledge

Var 19 Are there any children aged between 7 - 16 years old in your household attending school (children funded by your house-hold)?

4 Not all attend school

5 All attend school

6 No children aged between 7 - 16 years

Var 20 Are there any household members with off-farm qualifications (traditional healing, mechanic, carpentry, handicrafts,driving etc.)?

7 None

8 One or more persons

Var 21 Are there any household members that have had the opportunity to increase their knowledge or skills relevant for work?

1 Very difficult, no opportunities

2 Possible, but not easy

3 Easy, many opportunities


Wealth

Var 22 (PLEASE ASSESS FOR YOURSELF, DO NOT ASK) What is the quality of the respondent’s house (owned, rented or borrowed)?

4 Below standard

5 Standard

6 Above standard

Var 23 Does your household have sufficient clothes for daily use and for special occasions like religious celebrations, go to the mosque/church or attend parties etc?

7 Not enough for daily activities or special occasions

8 Enough for daily activities and special occasions


47

Var 24 a-b

Does your household own one of the following items (Please choose more than one)? (FOR THOSE THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW/CAN SEE FILL IN DIRECTLY)

a Motorbike or motorized canoe b TV

Var 25 During the last 12 months, has your household ever experienced difficulties buying sugar?

1 Yes

2 Never

Economic Sphere

Var 26 Are there any children aged between 7 - 16 years old in your household attending school (children funded by your house-hold)?

a Civil servant i Agriculture

b Company employment j Perennial cash crops (oil palm, cocoa, coffee, bananas, rubber, oranges)

c Casual labour k Timber

d Village leader honorarium l Non timber Forest Products

e Small shop m Aquaculture (shrimp, fishponds

f Trade n Freshwater fisheries

g Services o Others (explain)

h Animal husbandry

Var 27a (PLEASE FILL YOURSELF, NO NEED TO ASK) How many sources of income has the respondent?

3 One

4 More than one

Var 27b Is it a stable source of income?5 No there is no stable source

6 Yes



Var 28 What are the opportunities to generate income in this area, as a civil servants, fishermen, farmer, trader, services or from other income sources?

7 It is difficult to make enough money

8 It is easy to obtain sufficient income

9 It is easy even to get a big income

48


Var 29 During the last 12 months, could your household save money?1 No

2 Yes but not regularly

3 Yes and routine / always

Var 30 Are the (village, sub-district, district) government decisions reflecting your household's aspirations (opinion, interest)?

3 No

4 To some extend

5 Yes in general

Political Sphere

Var 31 How secure is your household’s tenure of land in your village?6 There is no certainty at all

7 Some certainty, but the position of the people is weak

8 Guaranteed and the position of the people is strong

Var 32 Does your household have daily access to news and information from the TV, newspapers or radio?

1 No

2 Yes, from one source of information

3 Yes from more than one source of information

Var 33 How is the implementation of local regulations in your village?4 They are seldom followed, and there are no sanctions

5 They are sometimes followed, but there are sanctions

6 Usually the people follow the regulations

Var 34 During the last 12 months, have there been land disputes or other conflicts that involved the villagers?

7 Often

8 Sometimes

9 Seldom

Social Sphere

Var 35 How are the feelings of mutual trust among the villagers?1 Some trust each other, but some are suspicious

2 Most people trust each other


49


Var 36 If there is gotong royong/ community self help, how many house-holds participate?

3 Less than half

4 Approx. half

5 The majority

Natural Sphere

Var 37 How is the environment (forest, beaches, lakes, rivers etc.) in your village at this moment (not only in the settlement)?

6 More the half degraded and polluted (many trees cut, mangroves converted to ponds, species becoming rare etc.)

7 Half of the area is degraded and polluted

8 Less than half is degraded and polluted

Var 38 During the last 12 months, has your village experienced flooding, landslides, forest fires or pests?

1 Yes, with major damage

2 Yes, with major damage

3 Never

Var 39 Can the water (river, lakes, springs) in your village area (includ-ing outside the settlement) be used for drinking water or cooking?

4 The water can not be used

5 It can be used but needs treatment first (let it settle or add tawas)

6 The water can be used directly (only needs to be boiled)


Var 40 Are there still orangutans, proboscis monkeys, hornbills or lesser adjutants (USE LOCAL NAMES) in the forest, mangroves, swamps, lakes around this village?

7 No more

8 Yes but few

9 Yes there are still plenty

Var 41 Do you consider your household to be happy?1 No, it is unhappy

2 Reasonable happy

3 Yes, it is happy

50


Var 42 How difficult is it for the villagers to get to the closest junior high school (SMP)?

4 A bit difficult

5 Reasonable happy

Var 43 What is the quality of the education in the school where children in this village usually go?

6 Not good enough

7 Reasonable

8 Very good

Var 44 What is the health service like where the villagers usually go?1 Not good enough

2 Reasonable

3 Very good

Var 45 What is the quality of the roads / bridges that connect your village to the sub-district capital?

4 There are none or in bad condition

5 There are and in good condition

Var 46 During the last 12 months have there been any training, extension, courses or facilitation of enterprises in your village?

6 No

7 Yes, 1 -2 times in the last year

8 More than 2 times in last year

Infrastructure and Services

Gender Equality

Var 47a Are there any boys between 7 - 16 years in the household who do not attend school (children that are paid for by the house-hold)?

1 Yes, there are that do not attend school

2 All attend school

Var 47b Are there any girls between 7 -16 years in the household who do not attend school (children that are paid for by the household)?

4 Yes, there are that do not attend school

2 All attend school


51


Var 48a What is the highest level of education of any adult male in the household?

6 Elementary school (SR/SD/MI) or packet A or less

7 Junior high school (SMP / MTs) or passed packet B

8 Senior high school (SLTA / MA) or passed packet or higher

Var 48b What is the highest level of education of any adult female in the household?

1 Elementary school (SR/SD/MI) or packet A or less

2 Junior high school (SMP / MTs) or passed packet B

3 Senior high school (SLTA / MA) or passed packet or higher

Var 49a What was the age of the husband when you got married?1 14 years or younger

2 14-18 years

3 Over 18 yearsr

Var 49b What was the age of the wife when you got married?4 14 years or younger

5 14-18 years

6 Over 18 yearsr

Var 50 Does any adult female household member contribute to the household income?

7 No

8 Yes, but not important

9 Yes and very important

Var 51 What is the role of the women in decision making in the neighbourhood?

1 They are never involved

2 They are seldom involved

3 They are often involved


52

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

MU

AR

A B

AH

AU

MU

AR

A A

NC

ALO

NG

MU

AR

A B

ENG

AL

SEN

GAT

A U

TAR

A

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

SAN

GK

ULI

RA

NG

BU

SAN

G

AN

NEX

2

Wel

lbei

ng p

er s

ub-d

istri

ct (b

ar d

iagr

ams)

LAM

PIR

AN

2

Kes

ejah

tera

an P

er K

ecam

atan

(Dia

gram

Bat

ang)

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

LAM

PIR

AN

2

Kes

ejah

tera

an P

er K

ecam

atan

(Dia

gram

Bat

ang)

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

TELENK

OM

BEN

G

BEN

GA

LON

KA

LIOR

AN

G100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

SAN

DA

RA

N

SENG

ATA SELATANA

NN

EX 2 W

ellbeing per sub-district (bar diagrams)

LAM

PIRA

N 2

Kesejahteraan P

er Kecam

atan (Diagram

Batang)

SWB H

K W

N E S P 1&

SSJS K

S PGT M

A E S P P&

PSW

B H K

W N

E S P 1&S

SJS KS PG

T M A

E S P P&P

SWB H

K W

N E S P 1&

SSJS K

S PGT M

A E S P P&

P

SWB H

K W

N E S P 1&

SSJS K

S PGT M

A E S P P&

PSW

B H K

W N

E S P 1&S

SJS KS PG

T M A

E S P P&P

SWB H

K W

N E S P 1&

SSJS K

S PGT M

A E S P P&

P

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

KA

UB

UN

KA

RA

NG

AN

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

BAT

U A

MPA

RLO

NG

MES

AN

GAT

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

100

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0

0

TELU

K P

AN

DA

N

RA

NTA

U P

ULU

NG

AN

NEX

2

Wel

lbei

ng p

er s

ub-d

istri

ct (b

ar d

iagr

ams)

LAM

PIR

AN

2

Kes

ejah

tera

an P

er K

ecam

atan

(Dia

gram

Bat

ang)

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

SWB

H

K

W

N

E

S

P

1&S

SJS

KS

P

GT

M

A

E

S

P

P&P

Teluk Pandan

Rantau P

ulung

Kaubun

Batu A

mpar

Karangan

Long Mesangat

AN

NEX 3

Wellbeing P

er Sub-D

istrict (Pie D

iagrams)

LAM

PIRA

N 3

Kesejahteraan P

er Kecam

atan (Diagram

Bundar)

I&S/P&

P

N/A

E

SP

W/

MH

/K

S

K/

PGT

SWB

/ SJS

I&S/P&

P

N/A

E

SP

W/

MH

/K

S

K/

PGT

SWB

/ SJS

I&S/P&

P

N/A

E

SP

W/

MH

/K

S

K/

PGT

SWB

/ SJS

I&S/P&

P

N/A

E

SP

W/

MH

/K

S

K/

PGT

SWB

/ SJS

I&S/P&

P

N/A

E

SP

W/

MH

/K

S

K/

PGT

SWB

/ SJS

I&S/P&

P

N/A

E

SP

W/

MH

/K

S

K/

PGT

SWB

/ SJS

Date post:	31-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rj-alfian
View:	220 times
Download:	1 times

Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur Indonesia

Documents