Saninten Village Report

August 2005

Patrick John Large, Intern

Rural Poverty and Environment Program Initiative

International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

based on research conducted in collaboration with LATIN, Indonesia

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................1 2.0 VILLAGE PROFILE........................................................................................4

2.1 Location, Accessibility, and Administrative Units .......................................4 2.2 Village Geography (Area, Topography, Land Use and Major Features)....8 2.3 Village Population....................................................................................10 2.4 Access to Services and Infrastructure .....................................................11

2.4.1 Access to Education........................................................................11 2.4.2 Access to Health Services...............................................................12 2.4.3 Access to Religious Facilities ..........................................................13 2.4.4 Access to Markets for Agricultural Outputs .....................................13 2.4.5 Access to Water ..............................................................................13 2.4.6 Access to Extension and other Production Services .......................15 2.4.7 Communication Infrastructure .........................................................16 2.4.8 Shops and Businesses....................................................................16

2.5 Current Livelihood Activities in Saninten Village......................................16 2.5.1 Natural Resource Based Livelihood Activities .................................17

2.5.1.1 Agro-forestry ...........................................................................17 2.5.1.2 Paddy Cultivation ....................................................................18 2.5.1.3 Horticulture .............................................................................19 2.5.1.4 Stone Digging .........................................................................19

2.5.2 Non-Natural Resource Based Livelihood Activities .........................20 2.5.2.1 Harvesting Wage Labour ........................................................20 2.5.2.2 Tree Cutting ............................................................................20 2.5.2.3 Trading Agricultural Products..................................................21 2.5.2.4 Local Construction Wage Labour............................................21 2.5.2.5 Services ..................................................................................22 2.5.2.6 Door-to-door Small-scale Trading (Baluk)...............................22 2.5.2.7 Operating a Small Shop (Warung) ..........................................22 2.5.2.8 Pensions .................................................................................22 2.5.2.9 Local Industry .........................................................................23 2.5.2.10 Migration ...............................................................................23 2.5.2.11 Remittances..........................................................................24

2.6 Common Property Resources .................................................................24 2.7 Development Activities in the Last 10 Years............................................26

2.7.1 Infrastructural Development ............................................................26 2.7.2 Agro-forestry Development .............................................................26 2.7.3 Institutional Development ................................................................27 2.7.4 Ecological Development..................................................................27 2.7.5 Community-based Planning ............................................................27

2.8 Land Tenure and Ownership ...................................................................29 3.0 VILLAGE WEALTH RANKING ....................................................................35

i

4.0 VILLAGE LIVELIHOODS – PAST AND PRESENT .....................................40 4.1 Changes to the Relative Importance of Main Income Sources ................41 4.2 Emergence of New Activities ...................................................................42 4.3 General Factors that have Worsened......................................................43 4.4 General Factors that have Improved .......................................................43 4.5 Changes to Natural Resource Access.....................................................44

5.0 AGRO-FORESTRY ACTIVITIES..................................................................45

5.1 Agro-forestry Land Use Systems.............................................................45 5.2 Seasonal Calendar ..................................................................................48 5.3 Changes in the Pattern of Commodity Types ..........................................50 5.4 Changes Affecting Crop Yields................................................................50 5.5 Costs of Production .................................................................................52 5.6 Extension Services ..................................................................................54 5.7 Problems and Challenges of Marketing and Sale Prices.........................54 5.8 Matrix Ranking of Primary Agro-forestry Commodities............................56

6.0 LOCAL NON-FARM AND MIGRATION ACTIVITIES ..................................59

6.1 Relative Importance of Non-farm Activities to Saninten Livelihoods........60 6.2 Seasonal Wage Labour in Agro-forestry..................................................62 6.3 Skilled Agro-forestry Trade: Operating a Chainsaw.................................63 6.4 Small- and Large-Scale Trading of Agricultural Outputs..........................64 6.5 Skilled and Unskilled Construction Labour ..............................................64 6.6 ‘Service’ Activities....................................................................................65 6.7 Baluk Trading ..........................................................................................66 6.8 Warung Businesses.................................................................................67 6.9 Generating an Income Outside of the Village: Migration Activities ..........67 6.10 Receiving Income Support from Adult Children: Remittances ...............69

7.0 INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR EFFECT ON LIVELIHOODS ..........................69

7.1 Pemerintah Desa (PEMDES) – Village Government ...............................70 7.2 Badan Perwakilan Desa (BPD) – Village Representative Agency ...........70 7.3 LPM – Community Empowerment Organization......................................70 7.4 Women’s Group: Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK).................71 7.5 Badan Pembina Potensi Keluarga Besar (BPPKB) .................................71 7.6 Religious Group: Kelompok Pengajian ....................................................71 7.7 Youth Group: Karang Taruna ..................................................................71 7.8 Producers’ Cooperative: Koperasi Sinar Gunung Karang .......................72 7.9 Small-scale Producer Groups: Merpati and Karang Taruna Lestari ........72 7.10 Petugas Penyuluh Lapangan (PPL) – Field Extension Officers.............73 7.11 Non-governmental Organization: LATIN................................................74 7.12 Kelompok Tani Hutan – Forest Farmer Groups.....................................75 7.13 FPHD-S – Village Forest Observer Forum of Saninten .........................75 7.14 State Forestry Corporation: Perhutani ...................................................76

8.0 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................76

ii

List of Figures Figure 1. The Livelihoods Model ...........................................................................2 Figure 2. Banten among 32 Provinces of Indonesia .............................................4 Figure 3. Banten among 6 Provinces of Java .......................................................4 Figure 4. Pandeglang among 6 Districts of Banten Province................................5 Figure 5. Kaduhejo among 26 Sub-districts of Pandeglang District ......................5 Figure 6. Saninten Village in Relation to Bordering Administrative Units ..............6 Figure 7. Settlement Pattern of 13 Kampungs within Saninten Village .................7 Figure 8. Land Use in Saninten Village.................................................................9 Figure 9. Household Distribution by Kampung....................................................10 Figure 10. Population Distribution by Age and Gender – Saninten.....................11 Figure 11. Population Distribution by Age and Gender – Indonesia ...................11 Figure 12. Distribution of Private Land in Saninten .............................................30 Figure 13. Distribution of Households by Participatory Wealth Rank..................35 Figure 14. Land Use Systems by Household......................................................45 Figure 15. Total Village Income Generation by Land Use System......................46 Figure 16. Annual Income on ‘Village Land’ by Agro-forestry Commodities .......47 Figure 17. Annual Income on ‘Perhutani Land’ by Agro-forestry Commodities...47 Figure 18. Distribution of Village Households by Livelihood Activity Mix.............61 Figure 19. Total Village Income Generation by Non-farm Activity.......................61 Figure 20. Non-farm Activities – % of Income and % of Households ..................62 Figure 21. Distribution of Households by Livelihood Strategy Typology .............79

List of Tables

Table 1. Accessibility to Major Centres .................................................................7 Table 2. Land Use in Saninten Village ..................................................................8 Table 3. Water Sources and Infrastructure by Kampung ....................................14 Table 4. Profitability of Land Use Systems .........................................................46 Table 5. Seasonal Calendar of Agro-forestry Activities in Saninten Village ........49 Table 6. Pests and Diseases Affecting Primary Agro-forestry Commodities.......51 Table 7. Sources of Seedlings Ranked by Relative Importance .........................52 Table 8. Sale Prices for Agro-forestry Commodities ...........................................56 Table 9. Matrix Ranking ......................................................................................56 Table 10. Average Income per Household by Non-farm Activity.........................62

List of Images

Image 1. Fruits of durian, petai, and melinjo .......................................................18 Image 2. Wet rice paddy .....................................................................................19 Image 3. Horticulture plot....................................................................................19 Image 4. Land after stone extraction...................................................................20 Image 5. Stone awaiting pick-up.........................................................................20 Image 6. Tree-cutting on ‘village land’ ................................................................21

iii

Image 7. Seedlings supplied by DISHUTBUN for a water rehabilitation project .27 Image 8. Rice cultivation in ‘Natural Forest’ ........................................................34 Image 9. Encroachment of ‘Natural Forest’.........................................................34 Image 10. Wood and bamboo weaving house....................................................36 Image 11. Agro-forestry on ‘village land’.............................................................41 Image 12. Participatory matrix ranking................................................................56 Image 13. Processing jamu ................................................................................73

Acronyms and Indonesian Translations BPD: Badan Perwakilan Desa –Village Representative Organization (Parliament) BPPKB: Badan Pembina Potensi Keluarga Besar – Family Potential Organization DISHUTBUN: Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan – Foresty & Plantation Agency DISTAN: Dinas Pertanian – Agricultural Agency DISTERN: Dinas Peternakan – Animal Husbandry Agency FPHD-S: Forum Pemerhati Hutan Desa-Saninten – Village Forest Observer Forum of Saninten JFM: Joint Forest Management KTH: Kelompok Tani Hutan – Forest Farmer Group LATIN: Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia – The Indonesian Tropical Institute LED: Lembaga Ekonomi Desa – Village Economic Institute LPM: Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat – Community Empowerment Institute PEMDES: Pemerintah Desa – Village Government PHBM: Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat – Community-based Forest Management PKK: Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga – Family Welfare Establishment PMDH: Pembinaan Masyarakat Desa Hutan – Forest Village Community Establishment PPL: Petugas Penyuluh Lapangan – Field Extension Officer PS: Perhutanan Social – Social Forestry PUSKESMAS: Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat – Community Health Centre baluk: informal trading done by women Desa: village gotong-royong: communal work jamu: herbal medicine Kabupaten: district Kampung: village sub-units Kecamatan: sub-district Kelurahan: village Lurah: head of the village Mesjid: mosque Mushollah: prayer building ojeg: motorcycle taxi Propinsi: province warung: small shop

iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION The following village report represents the first output of a wider research project that examines the linkages between micro-level livelihood realities and the macro-level policy and institutional context. The project is based on a rural case study site of Saninten village in western Java, Indonesia where the collaborating research partner, LATIN, has been pursuing on-going work in community planning and participatory action research for good forest governance. The conceptual foundation for this research project is provided by a livelihoods framework (Figure 1) that sets out several contentions and relationships. Individuals and households draw upon their available assets (natural, human, physical, financial, social) to engage in activities (farm, off-farm, non-farm) which in turn generate an ‘income‘ (goods, services, cash). This simple core model lies at the heart of poverty reduction as it encapsulates the ultimate need for households to have the capacity to participate in productive activities that enable them to generate an adequate and secure standard of living (Ellis, 2001). This apparently simple exchange involving the utilization of assets to produce an income through the medium of a livelihood activity is of course incredibly complex in reality. Livelihood security and success is continually mediated by a great number of external forces beyond the immediate control of the household. These forces are critical in defining the basic structure and operation of livelihood systems, and their dynamic nature create the conditions whereby livelihoods change through coping or adaptation (Soussan et al, 2001). While external forces can take on many forms, such as the ‘shock’ of a natural disaster which destroys productive assets or the long-term ‘trend’ of consistently declining market prices which limits net incomes, the focus of the current research is upon the policy and institutional environment both within and outside the local community. The emphasis given to these factors is based on several key assertions. First, policy and institutions have a clearly pervasive and fundamental influence on the nature of livelihoods, shaping the capacity of households to gain access to assets and activities. For example, the rules, regulations and laws of land tenure are crucial in determining access to land (‘natural capital’), which in turn critically shapes rural livelihoods. Second, the policy and institutional context is an area where significant and sustainable change can be feasibly affected in support of livelihoods. Local institutional structures, which are powerful in their direct contact and sustained presence, can be created or reformed to enhance livelihoods. This is not to deny the often rigid nature of local customs, traditions, and social relations but to highlight the potential for local institutional change evident from many positive experiences with community-based initiatives. External policy and institutions, while often even more difficult to alter, are nevertheless vital target areas for achieving sustainable livelihoods, as evident from a growing emphasis on

1

generating policy influence from research results. Moreover, the central structures in the external policy environment – government and civil society – have definite, although contested, accountabilities that provide a firm basis for advocacy in the name of improved livelihood support and poverty reduction.

Figure 1. The Livelihoods Model

2

Finally, policy and institutions are absolutely key to Joint Forest Management (JFM) and forest governance, which are central issues for both LATIN programming and the livelihoods of Saninten village themselves. As was the case with other forest-adjacent communities in Indonesia, particularly in Java, local people from Saninten began accessing the state-owned forest land that lies within their village boundaries as early as 1997 through a ‘Social Forestry’ program. Since that time local people have been enmeshed in an incremental process of negotiating use and management terms with the state forestry corporation, Perhutani, through an official JFM program* and mediated by NGOs such as LATIN. Exploring the relationship between forest-based livelihoods and the policy and institutions that mediate their success is therefore a central focus of the research. The overall goals of the research are thus as follows: to examine in detail the livelihoods (assets, activities, incomes) of

Saninten households to understand the policy and institutional context of livelihoods at the

village level with emphasis on the factors that limit access to key assets to understand the policy and institutional context of livelihoods at the

external level (state and civil society) to make micro-macro linkages between local livelihood realities and

external policy and institutions The research process can be divided into two major components – fieldwork and a literature review of relevant policy documents. The first component is further divided into the collection of qualitative data through focus group discussions and informal key informant interviews and the collection of quantitative data using a sample survey. The current report summarizes findings from the qualitative-based fieldwork, although it draws at times on basic quantitative date from the sample survey. Additional papers will present further statistical analysis of the quantitative data and synthesis analysis of micro-macro links. This report is structured around six guidance sheets that were used for qualitative data collection, each of which outlined various information needs pursued through either a focus group or informal interviews. The first is a profile of Saninten village outlining its location, geography, population, services, main livelihood activities, common property resources, development initiatives, and land tenure and ownership. The second section describes a wealth ranking exercise conducted in the village. The third section, ‘Village Livelihoods – Past and Present’, examines livelihood activity patterns and major changes. The fourth section explores issues concerning the primary livelihood activity of agro-forestry. The fifth section investigates migration and other non-farm activities, while the final deals exclusively with the effect of institutions on livelihoods. * In Bahasa Indonesian, the program is known as PHBM (Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat), which can be translated as Community-Based Forest Management

3

2.0 VILLAGE PROFILE 2.1 Location, Accessibility, and Administrative Units Saninten village is located within the province (Propinsi) of Banten, which is one of the 32 administrative regions of Indonesia (Figure 2), and one of six on the ‘inner island’ of Java alone (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Banten among 32 Provinces of Indonesia

Figure 3. Banten among 6 Provinces of Java

J

Banten

Banten

Within the six district (Kabupsub-districts (KFinally, SaninBayumundu, MSukamanah, a

akarta

West Java

Central Java

Yogyakarta

East Java

administrative units of Banten province, Saninten is located in the aten) Pandeglang (Figure 4). This area is further divided into 26 ecamatan) with Saninten belonging to Kaduhejo (Figure 5).

ten is one of nine villages (Desa) within Kaduhejo – Saninten, andalasari, Sukasari, Palurahan, Campaka, Banjarsari,

nd Kadugemblo.

4

Figure 4. Pandeglang among 6 Districts of Banten Province

Cilegon (city)

Serang Tangerang

Tangerang (city)

Figure 5. Kaduhejo among 26 Sub-distric

s

Panimbang

Pageleran

Cisat

Cikedal

t

Labuan

Cimanggu Cibaliung

Saninten shares its borders with a total of seven oBeyond the mountain peak of Gunung Karang to tKabupaten of Serang. To the west are two Desas

Lebak

Pandeglang

ts of Pandeglang District

l

g i

Pandeglang

Cadas Sari Karang Tanjung

Kaduhejo

Patia

a

Mandalawangi

k

thh w

Cikeusi

Cigeuli

er villages (e north lays ithin the sa

Munju

Angsana

Fthm

Picun

igue ne K

Bojong

reee

Saket

6). ighbocama

Cipeucang

uta

Cimanuk

Banjar

Menes

Jipu

ring n of

5

Kaduhejo – Bayumundu and Mandalasari. Along the southern border are two more Kaduhejo Desas – Sukasari and Palurahan – as well as Kelurahan (village) Saruni to the southeast, which belongs to the adjoining Kecamatan of Pandeglang. Finally, to the east is Kelurahan Pagerbatu, also belonging to Kecamatan Pandeglang.

Figure 6. Saninten Village in Relation to Bordering Administrative Units

main (motorable) village road

peak of Gunung Karang; Kab. Serang

Desa Bayumundu; Kec. Kaduhejo; Kab. Pandeglang

Desa Saninten Kelurahan Pagerbatu; Kec. Pandeglang; Kab. Pandeglang

Desa Mandalasari; Kec. Kaduhejo; Kab. Pandeglang

Kelurahan Saruni; Kec. Pandeglang; Kab. Pandeglang

Desa Sukasari; Kec. Kaduhejo; Kab. Pandeglang

Desa Palurahan; Kec. Kaduhejo; Kab. Pandeglang

6

Motorable roads connect Saninten to adjacent villages and further to other key locations (see Figure 6). While these roads are in need of repair to varying degrees along different sections, the north-south routes provide adequate access to the base of the mountain where there is a main paved road leading on to various major centres (Table 1).

Table 1. Accessibility to Major Centres Destination Dist. (km) Time Mode of Trans. and Hrs. Kec. Capital 2.5 7 min. Ojeg*: 06.00-20.00 Kab. Capital – Pandeglang city 10 15 min. Angkot#: 05.00-21.00 Province Capital – Serang city 35 60 min. Bus: 04.00-20.00 Country Capital – Jakarta 115 3 hrs. Bus: 04.00-20.00 Within the village itself there are a total of 13 Kampungs (Figure 7). These smaller hamlets or sub-villages often have strong social and kin relationships and range in size from 12 to 145 households. For official administrative purposes each household also belongs to one of 21 Rukun Tetangga (RT-‘neighbourhood’) that are further clustered into three Rukun Warga (RW).

Figure 7. Settlement Pattern of 13 Kampungs within Saninten Village

main village road settlement area

Paku Haji

Cikupa Landeuh

Cikupa Tengah

Cikupa Masjid Cikupa Petir

Cikupa Karoya

Campaka Salam

Sukamanah

Cidahu Malang

Malangsari

Kayu Ambon

* motorcycle taxi # vans used as public transportation

7

2.2 Village Geography (Area, Topography, Land Use and Major Features) Saninten village is situated upon a slope of Gunung (mountain) Karang and thus its total land area of 872.07 hectares forms a triangular shape that steadily increases in elevation. The land area from approximately 300 m to 700 m is designated as ‘village land’ held under private ownership and used for dryland agro–forestry, paddy, stone extraction, village housing, non-settlement buildings (schools and religious facilities), and roads and pathways. The area beyond 700 m to the peak of the mountain at 1,772 m is designated as ‘forest land’ under the official ownership of Perhutani (the state forestry corporation) and is sub-divided into the classifications of ‘Limited-Use Forest’, ‘Limited Production/ Rehabilitation Forest’, and ‘Natural Forest’. A tabulation of these land uses is provided below (Table 2).

Table 2. Land Use in Saninten Village dryland agro-forestry 495.00 paddy 20.00 village housing 35.00 non-settlement buildings 6.20 other 12.00

‘Village Land'

sub-total 568.20 ‘Limited-Use Forest’ 97.20 ‘Limited Production/Rehabilitation Forest’ 42.96 ‘Natural Forest’ 163.71

‘Forest Land'

sub-total 303.87 Saninten Land TOTAL 872.07

There are two major rivers that partially border Saninten – to the west is Citulang River and on the east lays Cinunggal River. There are also three other rivers located entirely within the Saninten village area – Cipurut/Ciguha Putih and Cikoneng, both originating from the forest area, and Cisumur originating from village land above Kampung Campaka. Finally, there are two springs located in the forest area (Cingahalang in the ‘Natural Forest’ and Cijalaksana in the ‘Limited Production Forest’ area) and two more springs on ‘village land’ (Cikupa and Citaman, both near Kampung Cikupa Mesjid). Figure 8 shows these water sources as well as the major land uses in Saninten village.

8

Figure 8. Land Use in Saninten Village

9

Citulang

Natural Forest

Dryland – Perhutani

Agro-forestry Plantation – Perhutani Agro-forestry Plantation – Village Land Wet Rice Paddy

Dry Rice Paddy

Stone Digging

Settlement (housing and non-sett. buildings) Border of Perhutani Land

River

Spring

Cinunggal

Block Kawati

Cipurut

Ciguha Putih

Citaman

Cikupa

Cijalaksana

Cingahalang

Cisumur

Cikoneng

2.3 Village Population Saninten has 813 households with a total population of 4,687 persons (2,479 male; 2,208 female)*. The households are spread across thirteen Kampungs with the largest concentration in Salam and the smallest in Paku Haji (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Household Distribution by Kampung

Malangsari

Malang

Cidahu

SalamCikupa

Karoya/Petir

Cikupa Masjid

Cikupa Tengah

Cikupa Landeuh

CampakaSukamanah

Paku Haji Kayu Ambon

Saninten village has quite a young population with approximately 50% of residents under the age of 20 (Figure 10). This characteristic distinguishes Saninten from Indonesia as a whole, which tends to be more evenly distributed through younger age ranges (Figure 11). However, both are similar in showing a consistent decline in population numbers as age increases. The people of Saninten primarily speak Sundanese, but most also understand the national language of Bahasa Indonesian. No significant in- or out-migration was noted for Saninten village, and thus population change has come about only through natural increase. * population figures come from a 2004 electoral census

10

Figure 10. Population Distribution by Age and Gender – Saninten

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

age

rang

e

total population

Female PopMale Pop

Figure 11. Population Distribution by Age and Gender – Indonesia

0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

age

rang

e

total population

Female PopMale Pop

2.4 Access to Services and Infrastructure 2.4.1 Access to Education Saninten is well served by a single kindergarten and three elementary schools (Sekolah Dasar-SD) located at the Kampungs of Sukamanah, Cidahu and Cikupa

11

Landeuh. In addition to the physical presence of these schools, which run from Class 1 to Class 6, access to early education is further facilitated by relatively minimal fees that allow the wide majority of village children between the ages of 7 and 12 to attend. Such positive access to basic educational services is reflected in data from the random sample of 274 individuals collected during this research project, which revealed a full 100% attendance rate for SD schooling. In order to continue their education into middle school (Sekolah Menengah Pertama-SMP), local youth must travel down the main village road and beyond the lower border of Saninten to the community of Rokoy located at the base of the mountain (approximately 2 km; 5 minutes by ojeg). There are also many other SMP options along the major road toward and in the city of Pandeglang, as well as in other communities. However, accessibility to these educational institutions, which run from Class 1 (year 7) to Class 3 (year 9), is greatly reduced by the much higher school fees and the additional expenses that must be incurred to accommodate travel, as students must be able to afford the daily costs of paying for an ojeg. This prohibitive nature of accessing education beyond the elementary level is also supported by the sample data, which shows that of those within the SMP age range of 13-16 years old, only 24% currently attend such a school. This figure rapidly decreases with age, as only 16% of 17-30 year olds, 9% of 31-40 year olds, and 0% of those 45 and over reported having completed SMP. This does however highlight a positive trend in that educational achievement appears to be increasing among the younger generation. Further education into upper middle school (Sekolah Menengah Atas-SMA), which runs from Class 1 (year 10) to Class 3 (year 12), and college can be accessed in Pandeglang and other major centres. However, the research found virtually no instances of local people attaining such educational standards. 2.4.2 Access to Health Services There are no formal health centres or medical clinics located within the village of Saninten itself. However, local people do use various home remedies, including jamu (herbal medicinal drinks), to maintain their health. There are also several midwives, who greatly support local women with child bearing, and other informal caregivers. For formal health services, local people access a Community Health Centre (PUSKESMAS – Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat) located near the Kecamatan capital, approximately 2.5 km from Saninten village. This Centre deals primarily with minor illnesses and ailments, and offers a first aid service in case of emergency. PUSKESMAS is under the direction of a ‘mobile’ doctor, although he is not always on duty due to work commitments in other locations. Several nurses are thus responsible for day-to-day operations.

12

For more serious cases of ill health, Saninten residents access services at a major hospital located in Pandeglang city, approximately 10 km from the village (15 minutes by local transportation). 2.4.3 Access to Religious Facilities The people of Saninten are almost exclusively Muslim and religion plays a central part in their lives. There are seven Mesjids (mosques) and nine Mushollahs (prayer buildings) spread throughout the village in various Kampungs. There are also four Islamic elementary schools (Madrasah), which are attended daily by village children in the afternoons following their secular education. As with the SD schools, fees for this education are kept to a minimum in order to maximize accessibility. Finally, there are eight Pondok Pesantren (Islamic schools for the study of the Qur’an). 2.4.4 Access to Markets for Agricultural Outputs There are no physical markets within the village of Saninten itself that local people could easily access in order to sell their agricultural outputs, and due to asset requirements (owning a truck) and related costs individual households do not transport their own produce to external markets. Thus, a system common to many rural communities prevails wherein the task of marketing farm outputs is undertaken by private traders. These intermediate buyers or ‘middlemen’ purchase a wide variety of commodities from local producers and transport the goods to markets in Pandeglang, Serang, Jakarta and other major cities. 2.4.5 Access to Water There are a total of seven water sources located entirely within Saninten – three rivers (Cipurut/Ciguha Putih, Cisumur and Cikoneng) and four natural springs (Cingahalang, Cijalaksana, Cikupa, and Citaman) (see Figure 7). There are also another five sources located in relatively close proximity to the village – Citulang, originating from the Bayumundu village area and flowing along part of the western border of Saninten; Cihideung, also originating from Bayumundu; Cinunggal, flowing along nearly the entire length of the eastern border; Cirabak; and Cibojong. Of these twelve separate internal and external water sources Saninten residents currently access nine (Table 3). Water is transferred from the sources through a mix of metal, plastic (PVC), and bamboo piping to several reservoir points in various places throughout each Kampung, and finally into holding tanks within each house. Up until now, each respective Kampung has managed its own water infrastructure independently – self-funding its construction and by agreement appointing and employing one or two workers to be responsible for its maintenance. Based on such a system, where each Kampung has a separate infrastructure connecting itself to one or more water sources, there are fifteen distinct primary lines that when combined consist of a total of 64.5 km of piping.

13

Table 3. Water Sources and Infrastructure by Kampung Piping type Kampung No. of

households using source

Name of water source

Est’d distance btwn. source and Kampung

Plastic/ Metal

Bamboo Problems/obstacles

Cijalaksana 4.5 4.0 0.5 Slow rate of flow Campaka 86 Citulang 5 0 5 Instable rate of flow Cingahalang 5 5 0 So far so good Ciguha Putih 2.5 2.5 0 -

Salam 145

Citulang 4 1 3 - Malang 49 Cihideung 6.5 3 3.5 Water source lies out of Saninten

village; instable flow; need for bamboo replacement

Citulang 5 0.5 4.5 Instable rate of flow; need for annual bamboo replacement

Malangsari 50

Cirabak 5 2.5 2.5 PVC 1 ¼ inch Cisumur 1 1 0 Iron 1 ½ inch; weak source Cidahu 104 Cihideung 7 2 5 Instable rate of flow; need for

annual bamboo replacement Sukamanah 47 Cihideung 7 1 6 Instable rate of flow; need for

annual bamboo replacement Cikupa Mesjid 70 Citaman 2.5 1 1.5 In Cikupa there are two sources

near the Kampung; slow rate of flow; at the moment still channelled to several houses

Cikupa Karoya and Cikupa Petir

86 Citulang 6.5 0.5 6.0 Still using bamboo channel; need for annual replacement

Cikupa Landeuh 46 Cibojong 1.5 1 0.5 Instable rate of flow Kayu Ambon 42 Cisumur 1.5 1.5 0 Instable rate of flow 11 Kampungs 725 9 water

sources; 15 primary lines

64.5 26.5 38 Data does not yet include houses each containing 2 or 3 families

The overall availability of water for household needs is a growing concern in Saninten village. Local observations suggest that the rate of flow of many sources has been consistently decreasing over the past decade or more. For example, in 1985 Cisumur satisfied the household needs of six Kampungs as well as the irrigation of 10 hectares of paddy. Today the same source serves only the partial needs of a single Kampung and provides no irrigation water at all. Water availability is of particular concern in the dry season, during when households have reported suffering from an overall lack of water for domestic use. The primary cause of declining water availability is believed to be the degradation of vegetation surrounding the sources, particularly those located within ‘village land’, but also those found or originating in the forest. Currently, only three water sources were reported to be fulfilling consumption demands – Cihideung, Citulang, and Cingahalang – all of which lie within the forest at a distance of 4-7 kilometres from the main settlement areas of the village. In addition to the basic availability of water, the quality of the infrastructure that supplies water to Saninten households is also a concern. Perhaps the greatest challenge to maintaining this infrastructure is its reliance on bamboo (60% of total

14

piping), which requires annual replacement. Clearing clogs and debris is another significant maintenance problem, especially during the rainy season. These challenges are compounded by the vast extent of piping, with the majority of fifteen separate lines consisting of 4-7 km of pipe. Based on these recognized problems village-level planning has identified and promoted several strategies to improve access to water. The first involves regenerating vegetation around water sources through planting trees and multi-function shrubs. Specifically, sources originating on village land (Cisumur, Cikupa and Citaman) have been targeted for immediate reforestation, while encouraging tree-planting activities in the forest area has also been emphasized. In terms of the water supply infrastructure itself, new construction and reform have been proposed to replace the current system. Physical change involves building major lines from the sources using 3-inch diameter iron piping covering 6 km, directing the water from these lines into a primary storage tank located at the village border, passing the water on to the various Kampungs through 1.5-inch diameter PVC piping over 2-3 km, and finally directly to each household. This method would shorten the total amount of required pipe from the current 64.5 km to only 10-15 km, which would alleviate much of the pressure on maintenance. To reflect this more communal physical system, institutional management would be reformed to come under the authority and responsibility of village administration. 2.4.6 Access to Extension and other Production Services Saninten residents have limited contact and interaction with field extension officers (Petugas Penyuluh Lapangan) from three governmental agencies. With virtually no livestock in the village aside from a few goats and several buffalo purchased communally for religious festivals, limited involvement of the PPL from the Animal Husbandry Agency (Dinas Peternakan) is not surprising. However, plans for bee keeping and a cow-raising program have been proposed but not realized. The services of the PPL from the Agriculture Agency (DISTAN – Dinas Pertanian) are also relatively narrow in scope. This is largely due to the classification of cultivation within Saninten, which is considered as agro-forestry rather than ‘agriculture’. The Agency is however supporting a group of jamu (herbal medicine) producers in their cultivation of medicinal plants and associated activities, and has in the past supported programs to supply manure and to introduce new crop types such as ‘durian Bangkok’. The most prominent extension service provider is the Forestry and Plantation Agency (DISHUTBUN – Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan). It plays a key role in providing seeds and seedlings for various commodities grown in Saninten; like DISTAN they are also supporting the jamu producers; and they have provided seedlings for the water source rehabilitation referred to above. As well, DISHUTBUN has in the past supported programs and provided aid for the

15

cultivation of many different commodities (banana, coffee, coconut, durian, cloves, breadfruit, melinjo, rambutan, longan, albazia, and pangalek). As the vast majority of local farmers use no fertilizers or pesticides in their agro-forestry practices, there are no input supply services in the village. Credit supply services have been provided mainly through informal means such as borrowing from friends, neighbours, middlemen or moneylenders. However, this is beginning to change with the revitalization of a local co-operative, Koperasi Sinar Gunung Karang, which has been largely inactive since its establishment in 1998. Currently the co-operative is in the process of becoming the Lembaga Ekonomi Desa (Village Economic Organization), which will offer savings and loan services. 2.4.7 Communication Infrastructure While there are no physical phone lines within Saninten, the surge of wireless communication service expansion throughout Indonesia is having an impact. The use of mobile phones for speaking or text messaging is on the rise in the village, facilitated by adequate reception and connections. 2.4.8 Shops and Businesses There is an abundance of warungs (shops) throughout the village in every Kampung, where local people can purchase basic consumer goods. This is supported by data which reveals that owning a small warung is a relatively prevalent livelihood activity. There are also several small food stalls serving hot snacks, particularly near the schools. 2.5 Current Livelihood Activities in Saninten Village Livelihood activities are the work or jobs that individuals engage in to generate a benefit for themselves and their families. They are the practical things people do on a daily basis – cultivating a crop, raising livestock, fishing, gathering resources from the forest, labouring for a wage, sharecropping, operating a small business, working at a government office, trading, and so on. In order to achieve these activities, individuals draw on the assets they have available to them – the land they own, borrow or rent; their animals; lakes and forests; their labour and knowledge; their tools and machinery; their access to credit; their social supports and so on. The working members of a family combine their respective livelihood activities into a ‘livelihood strategy’ for their household. What is increasingly recognized is that the livelihood strategies of rural households are highly diversified (Reardon, 1997; Ellis, 2000), as multiple members engage in separate activities at the same time, individual members engage in multiple activities at different times (especially seasonally), or both. The outcome or result of each activity is an ‘income’ – cash, goods, or a service. Conventionally, as is done by the current research, this is quantitatively measured as a cash figure earned in one year, including a proxy calculation of outputs produced but directly consumed and items

16

received in-kind. However ‘reproductive’ or ‘domestic’ work, most often performed by women, certainly fits the definition of a livelihood activity; requiring certain assets, mediated by social relations and institutions, functioning as a regular undertaking, and producing a very noticeable benefit. The categorization of livelihood activities can take on many forms from broad to specific definitions. Conventionally, as is done here, a distinction is made between ‘farm’ or natural resource based activities and ‘non-farm’ or non-natural resource based activities. The former are most often at the core of rural communities and have been the central focus of study for many years. The latter are increasingly prevalent, revealing the diverse nature of rural livelihoods. While much more detail will be provided on the livelihood activities and strategies of Saninten households in both the current report and future papers, it is useful to provide here a basic description of the primary livelihood activities in the village. 2.5.1 Natural Resource Based Livelihood Activities Natural resource based livelihood activities are dominated by the fundamental ‘farm’ activity of agro-forestry. However, there are also three additional minor activities included under this category. 2.5.1.1 Agro-forestry Saninten is a forest-based community situated upon a relatively steep mountain slope with limited access to water. Such natural features largely define cultivation practices which can be considered as ‘agro-forestry’. This livelihood activity has the highest participation rate in Saninten, with 78% of households involved in some form of agro-forestry cultivation. All agro-forestry is entirely rain-fed and uses virtually no external inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers. In order to respond to a central objective of understanding the impact of gaining access to ‘Perhutani land’ on the income and livelihoods of Saninten households, this research categorized agro-forestry on private land and agro-forestry on ‘Perhutani land’ as separate categories. This also, however, reflects a difference in cropping patterns. Agro-forestry on ‘village land’ is highly diversified in terms of commodities, incorporating multiple tree species on a single plot. Generally the most numerous crop is banana, which due to its relatively short fruiting cycle can be harvested on a regular basis thus providing a steady and secure source of income. Then there are a number of large fruit trees – durian (Durio Zibethinus: a large thorny fruit grown throughout southeast Asia); petai (Parkia Speciosa: a long flat bean with bright green seeds popular in Indonesian cooking); melinjo (Gnetum Gnemon: small oval fruits that grow in a cluster and contain kernels that are ground and fried as ‘chips’ for snacks) (Image 1); cloves (used as a main ingredient in Indonesian cigarettes); and coconut. Avocado and jengkol

17

(Archidendron Pauciflorum) are grown on a more limited basis. Farmers also grow other non-fruiting tree species for their timber, including albazia, somsi, and mahogany, and may cut fruit trees to earn an income from the lumber. Finally, coffee is widely cultivated on ‘village land’ as the plants mature relatively quickly and they are suited to grow in shady conditions underneath the large fruit trees. Based on a random sample of forty households contacted through this research, a total of 40% own and cultivate ‘village land’.

Image 1. Fruits of durian (Durio Zibethinus); petai (Parkia Speciosa); and melinjo (Gnetum Gnemon)

Agro-forestry on ‘Perhutani land’ differs not only by ownership status but also by its actual cropping patterns. When local people began accessing this land around 1997 its condition was virtually barren, as Perhutani had cut the vast majority of mahogany and other trees. Farmers have begun to re-plant the areas with many of the same large fruit trees grown on ‘village land’, but these require extended periods to mature. Thus what prevails is a cropping system highly dominated by bananas, which can produce a more immediate income source from their short harvest cycle. Coffee is also grown for similar reasons, as the seedlings can mature to a fruit-bearing stage within two years. Avocado and melinjo are the only other current sources of income on ‘Perhutani land’, likewise due to their relatively short maturation period of approximately 5-7 years. Thirty-five percent of Saninten households access and cultivate ‘Perhutani land’. A final agro-forestry category is used by this research to differentiate another tenure arrangement – ‘sharecropping’. In this system a household manages another person’s private land under an informal agreement regarding rights to earn an income from each crop. The most common form exists where the sharecropper is allowed to cultivate bananas in exchange for managing and harvesting the large fruit trees for the income benefit of the land owner, although the sharecropper may also be given small percentages of these harvests as well. One quarter of Saninten households have access to land through such arrangements. 2.5.1.2 Paddy Cultivation The cultivation of rice in both wet and dry paddies is done only on a limited basis within Saninten. In fact, local people suggested that the official listing of paddy

18

land as 20 hectares may now be an overestimation. This is largely a product of natural features, particularly a lack of water. Within the sample of 40 households, only a singe individual was engaged in cultivating wet rice, and this was done under sharecropping arrangements wherein the respondent managed production on another person’s land in exchange for half of the total harvest output. Overall, rice cultivation is done on a small-scale, mainly for consumption rather than sale (Image 2).

Image 2. Wet rice paddy 2.5.1.3 Horticulture Horticulture was recently introduced to Saninten and is currently functioning on a small plot of 0.35 hectares. This activity involves the cultivation of numerous specialty crops such as eggplant and bok choy (Image 3). The landowner employs several local individuals on a wage basis to manage production and markets the outputs through personal connections to buyers in major centres. One of the labourers/managers reported that the main constraints to production included a poor supply of water and a lack of technical knowledge concerning the various crops. The individual also reported an income for this activity that was relatively quite high and also secure, being regularly provided on a monthly basis. However, this remains a minor activity for the village as a whole, although there may be an opportunity for expansion under the right conditions. Image 3. Horticulture plot 2.5.1.4 Stone Digging Aside from agro-forestry and farming the only main income-generating activity in Saninten based on natural resources is the extraction of stone. This takes place on ‘village land’ near the Cikupa settlement (see Figure 7). The stone is extracted by hand and collected at a common point adjacent to a primary road (Images 4 and 5). The stone is then sold to an external buyer who arranges its pick-up and delivery using a large truck. Those engaged in this activity suggested that it did not have a significant negative impact on the land, as either the land was of poor quality to begin with due to the stone or because the soil could be regenerated after the stone was removed. They also stated that the activity was very physically

19

demanding. Based on reported income figures, stone digging is much less profitable on a per hectare basis than typical agro-forestry on ‘village land’. However, this may be an unfair comparison if the land is truly not viable for agro-forestry production, and thus extracting stone is the better livelihood activity option.

Image 4. Land after stone extraction Image 5. Stone awaiting pick-up

2.5.2 Non-Natural Resource Based Livelihood Activities The prevalence of ‘non-farm’ income sources in Saninten village, with 75% of households engaged to some extent in an activity outside of core agro-forestry, strongly confirms the diversity of livelihoods in rural communities and the necessity of casting a wider view to understanding and supporting rural livelihoods that goes beyond a narrow focus on ‘farming’. These activities can often be difficult to categorize as they involve many different tasks and services. The current research has recognized eleven separate categories of non-farm activities. The first three of these relate strongly to the central ‘farm’ activity of agro-forestry, while the latter eight are entirely independent. 2.5.2.1 Harvesting Wage Labour The significance of agro-forestry to Saninten is reflected by the supplementary livelihood activity that it creates in the form of harvesting labour. Unlike sharecropping which provides access to land, this livelihood activity is strictly labouring work done mainly by younger males in exchange for a wage. It is organized according to the harvest seasons of major crops (durian, petai, cloves, coffee), which peak at specific times thus generating a demand for seasonal labour. This activity is not very prevalent, involving only 15% of households, and it does not provide a significant amount of income. 2.5.2.2 Tree Cutting Another forestry-related livelihood activity present in Saninten involves cutting trees, mainly for private individuals (Image 6). The skilled trade of operating a

20

chainsaw to cut trees and process them into timber is a relatively high-paid activity, but it requires access to an expensive machine and the work can fluctuate depending on demand for such services. The sample data revealed two middle-aged males (5% of households) engaged in this lead chainsaw work. Other men are occasionally employed by these leads on a wage labour basis to assist them.

Image 6. Tree-cutting on ‘village land’ 2.5.2.3 Trading Agricultural Products ‘Middlemen’ serve the primary marketing function for the village, purchasing agricultural products from local farmers, arranging transportation, and re-selling the goods to markets in larger centres. This activity ranges widely, from those who trade in almost all of the commodities produced in Saninten on a large scale to those who deal in only a few commodities on a small scale. The main difference between the two is the amount of working capital available to the household. Poorer households purchase coffee or bananas in relatively small amounts to be transported and sold to earn a relatively minimal profit, while wealthy households have the finances to purchase large amounts of all commodities consistently throughout the year and thus they can earn a substantial profit. This relationship between the level of working capital and the rate of return poses a dilemma – trading offers an exit out of poverty based on its profitability, but being poor restricts a household’s access to the activity. Thus, what is commonly observed is a correlation between land ownership and profitability in trading, where those with large amounts of land have transferred their attendant high incomes from cultivation into the necessary working capital for a lucrative trading business. Overall, trading occupies approximately 7.5% of households on a large scale and 7.5% on a small scale. 2.5.2.4 Local Construction Wage Labour House construction is undertaken by young men at intermittent times during the year depending upon the demand for such labour. The men earn a daily wage based upon their skill level. An unskilled labourer earns approximately 15,000 rupiah (Rp) per day and tends to be employed for a shorter period (5 to 7 months per year), while a skilled tradesman can earn up to Rp 35,000 per day and is

21

generally active for a longer length of time (10 to 11 months per year). This is a relatively limited activity in Saninten with 12.5% of households engaged. 2.5.2.5 Services Several unique livelihood activities, sharing the common characteristic of providing some form of assistance to others, are grouped under the category of ‘services’. These include electrical repairs and installation, maintaining water supply infrastructure, driving an ojeg, tailoring, acting as a midwife, carpentry, and so on. The frequency of these small-scale activities is fairly regular for a rural community, with approximately 15% of households having at least one member involved. Each of these activities requires specific ‘human capital’ in the form of skills or training such as the knowledge and experience to be an electrician, a tailor, or a midwife. Many of those reporting this type of activity gained their skills and experience from outside of the village, training and working in nearby larger towns and cities and returning to Saninten to continue their trade. Several also require specific ‘physical capital’ such as certain tools, a motorcycle, a sewing machine, and so on. 2.5.2.6 Door-to-door Small-scale Trading (Baluk) Women regularly engage in selling vegetables and other small products door-to-door throughout the various Kampungs. In Saninten, the women are known as ‘baluks’, a term associated with the calling out they do to announce their presence to their customers. This is the most dominant income-generating activity for women outside of their contributions to agro-forestry, involving 17.5% of households. A woman earns a net income on average of Rp 5,000 per day and often works 6 to 7 days per week. As such, it is a relatively low paying activity on a daily basis, but secure as it provides a steady source of income, and cumulatively significant as the stable income adds up over the course of a year. 2.5.2.7 Operating a Small Shop (Warung) Small shops (warungs) selling a variety of consumer goods are common throughout each of the Kampungs. These provide a regular source of income for approximately 10% of Saninten households. This activity is also dominated primarily by women. The shops mainly operate from the household rather than a separate building. These businesses are fairly lucrative, earning approximately Rp 2 to 3 million per year, but they also require initial investment and operating capital and are thus generally limited to better-off households. 2.5.2.8 Pensions The receipt of pensions is very limited in Saninten, but for those who receive one it can be a very substantial source of annual income. Among the 40 sampled households a single male individual received a monthly pension from the army in the amount of Rp 475,000.

22

2.5.2.9 Local Industry Any type of industry is extremely limited within Saninten. However, it is not completely absent as a single household reported operating a coffee grinding business out of a small building adjacent to their home. This particular family was considered among the wealthiest in the entire village, suggesting that this non-farm activity was highly profitable. Further investigation confirmed this assumption, revealing that the total annual income of the coffee processing business was on par with the highest paid activities in Saninten – agro-forestry production on approximately two hectares of ‘village land’ and large-scale agricultural trading. Yet the nature of accessing this activity is highly similar to trading, since the ability to take it up is largely dependent upon the availability of investment capital. Thus, the characteristics of this specific household mirrors those of the large traders in that it also has a relatively large base of ‘village land’ from which it was able to extract surplus profits for investment. Poor households lacking any means to amass savings, living instead on a subsistence basis, are therefore highly restricted from engaging in this type of activity. 2.5.2.10 Migration Whereas the previous six livelihood activity categories involved non-farm work conducted locally, the final two sources of income are earned outside of the community. The first category is migration carried out almost exclusively by male heads of households on a circular basis wherein the individual will regularly leave the village for a certain period of time to earn an income. There are many distinct forms of this migration differing by destination, length of time away, and activity. The first basic pattern is daily migration to a relatively close city for the purpose of informal trading. An example of this comes from two respondents who each reported a small-scale coffee-selling business that involved purchasing bulk wholesale amounts of ground coffee, packaging it in small bags (1/2 litre), and travelling on a daily basis to the cities of Serang (35 km) and Rangkasbitung (28 km) to sell the packages informally on the street. The second basic form involves migrating to the capital city of Jakarta (115 km; 3 hours) for longer periods of time (a week, a month, or several months). The types of activities that migrants perform in Jakarta are highly diverse, as would be expected from a major urban centre. However, the most dominant activities for migrants are construction and other wage labouring, informal trading, and working as security guards under formal arrangements. The final form is distinguished by an even greater length of time spent away from the resident household and the permanent nature of the activity. This form may nearly be considered among the final activity category, ‘remittances’, but remains classified as ‘migration’ by the fact that it involves the income-generation of the household head and that this individual continues to return to the village. An

23

example of this is given by a household whose female head and children reside within Saninten, but whose male head has a permanent job in an automotive plant in Palembang, Sumatra, returning only every six months to one year. The random sample data of this research suggests that approximately 20% of Saninten households have at least one member engaged in one of these forms. 2.5.2.11 Remittances The final livelihood activity category is based upon a spatially expanded concept-ualization of the household, which incorporates non-resident members who make regular contributions to total household income. These members are most often children who have moved out of the resident household on a permanent basis. The remittances transferred by these individuals constitute a portion of the resident household’s income portfolio, and are thus considered as a livelihood activity (source of income). Examining remittance activities reveals interesting insights into permanent migration patterns, particularly of young people, and the social relationships between kin. Remittances are a unique livelihood activity in that they are nearly always limited to older households with adult children, except in cases where the remitter may be another type of relative. Thus, access to remittances is generally less dependent on the resident household’s own assets, but more on its ‘stage of growth’ and the remitting household’s assets. Of course, where they are children, the assets of the remitting household may have been derived from those of the resident household. Remittances are often of significant importance to elderly households who lose alternative means of generating an income for themselves. In Saninten, the most common form of remittance is in fact such transfers from adult children to ‘old’ households. The majority of remitting children live permanently in Jakarta, symbolizing the prevalent trend throughout Indonesia of rural-to-urban migration by young people. Many remitters have also moved to other urban centres such as Serang, Bogor, and Sukabumi, as well as other rural communities. The activities that remitters conduct are as diverse as their permanent migration locations, including factory work, driving public transportation vehicles (angkots), motorcycle taxis (ojegs), and delivery trucks, skilled trade work, maid and household services, working in small shops and businesses, farming and so on. Remittances are not very significant in Saninten, as only 20% of households receive such contributions. As well, the income is generally provided in small amounts that are of limited relative importance to the total annual income of the resident household. 2.6 Common Property Resources Strictly speaking there is no ‘common property’ within Saninten, as all land and the resources they contain are officially owned by either private individuals (‘village

24

land’) or by the state forestry corporation (‘Perhutani land’). The key issue is thus the manner by which households gain access to productive resources generated on land that is not their own through communal systems. Water resources in Saninten, including rivers and natural springs, are located across all land types. These can be considered to be held in common by the community in the sense that all members of the village have rights of free access. In fact, Saninten households assert such rights over water sources located outside of their village as well. The infrastructure that supports water supply may also be considered a common asset, as all members of a Kampung contribute financially to its maintenance. Yet the utilization of water resources is not entirely communal or egalitarian, particularly as related to natural springs which emanate from specific locations. As an example, the owner of a portion of ‘village land’ containing a spring currently uses the water source to cultivate wet rice paddy. That individual is free to use as much water as desired for such irrigation purposes, regardless of the condition of water availability for other households’ domestic or agricultural needs, because he owns the property. And other individuals could not freely access the source without some form of agreement with the landowner. Thus, there is a measure of private entitlement to water in particular instances. Similar issues could exist around springs and rivers originating on land officially owned by Perhutani, although there remains a strong collective spirit regarding their use and management as evident from the community-based planning to improve these resources discussed above. The forest areas officially owned by Perhutani are clearly a resource of central importance to Saninten residents. However, the land itself cannot be considered common property as it is not held collectively by the village under customary access rights, but rather strictly controlled by a state corporation that has worked to restrict and limit such access. Even the relatively recent concessions given to local people to cultivate ‘Perhutani land’ are not done on an open access basis but through specific arrangements with individuals and small groups. However, there is a measure of common access to certain products of the forest. In particular, the collection of firewood seems to be open to all Saninten residents. In fact, such collection is also allowed on private ‘village land’ through a system of communal reciprocity. However, there are subtle but strict rules governing this practice, allowing only specific collecting and culling activities. To a certain extent, sacred places may also be considered as common property. Although these eleven unique sites are located on specific plots of private and ‘Perhutani land’, there is a general sentiment among Saninten residents that they belong to the community as a whole, being representative of their common heritage. As with water, this attitude is reflected by the focus on improving devotional tourism as an objective for community development through recent participatory planning initiatives.

25

2.7 Development Activities in the Last 10 Years A number of significant development activities have taken place in Saninten over the past ten years, initiated and supported by different organizations and focusing on various objectives. 2.7.1 Infrastructural Development Saninten has a relatively well-developed physical infrastructure, much of which has reached its standard over the past decade. While roads began to be built in the 1980s, their expansion and improvement (asphalting) have occurred relatively recently, mainly based on Dutch funding aid. Schools were also originally built around the same time as the roads, but have been significantly upgraded and rehabilitated lately. Specifically, the Indonesian government financed a development project for the village’s nursery school, while the community itself supported the rehabilitation of the SD school in Kampung Cikupa in 2005. Several small bridges have been constructed throughout the village with the most recent being in Kampung Cidahu in 2005. In 2004 the local government was successful in eliciting improved electrical infrastructure, which was originally installed in 1991, through a program from the Mining and Energy Agency (Dinas Pertambangan dan Energi) and has requested additional aid for 2005. Finally, the community is currently working together to construct new gutters along the main roads. Through recent community planning, Saninten residents have identified several infrastructural development initiatives for the future. These include the construction of new water supply infrastructure, new worship facilities (mosques and mushollas), new religious education facilities (three Madrasah Diniyah), a new village road axis, and rehabilitation of the two additional SD schools. It is key to note that these types of physical development activities are often carried out through a collective labour system known as Gotong-Royong Masyarakat. This communal system of reciprocity involves work projects organized on a regular basis by Kampung leaders and requires that every household in the Kampung participate on a rotating basis. This is a very effective system that reveals the strength of ‘social capital’ in the village. 2.7.2 Agro-forestry Development As described above, the Forestry and Plantation Agency (DISHUTBUN) has implemented many programs and provided aid in support of cultivation practices on private ‘village land’. In particular, they have provided seeds for both timber and fruit tree species for the period 2003-2005. Issues regarding development and changes in agro-forestry on ‘Perhutani land’ are dealt with in a later section.

26

2.7.3 Institutional Development Institutional development is perhaps the area in which Saninten has most greatly excelled in the past decade, as many new organizations and groups have been formed. The village government (PEMDES) and Lurah Rojak (Head of the Village) helped establish a local parliament (BPD), which now facilitates public activity and supports local planning. Under Perhutani’s ‘Social Forestry’ program, nine Forest Farmer Groups (KTHs) were formed to organize the cultivation practices of members. A Village Forest Observer Forum for Saninten (FPHD-S) was established to facilitate activities related to forest management and has subsequently been very successful with a number of initiatives. A group of women jamu producers (Merpati) and a group of bamboo craftsmen (Karang Taruna Lestari) who make containers for the product were formed in 2004 with the support of LATIN, the main NGO active in the village. Finally, a co-operative (Koperasi Sinar Gunung Karang) was initially established in 1998 and revitalized in 2005 with financial support from Perhutani and guidance from FPHD-S. 2.7.4 Ecological Development The Village Forest Observer Forum for Saninten was recently successful in collaborating with DISHUTBUN to initiate a water rehabilitation project involving the replanting of trees around a natural spring in the Cikupa settlement area (Image 7). 2.7.5 Community-based Planning Perhaps the most significant develophas been a process of community-banon-governmental organization LATINIndonesian Tropical Institute), based LATIN selected Saninten as an approprogram, based on several criteria – the Head of the village showed an intSaninten was recommended by officiany potential conflict could be managwith an NGO.

Image 7. Seedlings supplied by DISHUTBUN for a water rehabilitation project

ment activity to occur over the past ten years sed planning initiated and facilitated by the (Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia – The

in Bogor. This work began fairly recently after priate location to pilot a community planning

Saninten had active Forest Farmers Groups, erest, local people saw LATIN as an investor, als at the district level, LATIN perceived that ed, and Saninten was not currently working

27

LATIN began its work by introducing and socializing the idea of community planning to the village. A key component of this was an exposure trip and comparative study where six Saninten residents were invited to another of LATIN’s sites to learn about the process. These individuals thus gained a greater understanding of community planning which they could draw on to explain to other village members. LATIN subsequently organized two major participatory data collection activities carried out jointly between local people, the village government, and Perhutani officials that together took five months to complete (July-November, 2004). The first of these was a participatory mapping activity used to confirm the area of forest management responsibility under the administration of Saninten, to collect information on natural resource potential, and to understand the associated issues and problems in the forest area. Field-level mapping was enhanced by the use of GPS (global positioning system) and GIS (geographic information system), which after rounds of drafts and community reviews ultimately served to produce a series of maps – a village administrative map showing borders between Saninten and its neighbours and between ‘village land’ and ‘Perhutani land’; a sacred place map showing devotional sites; a water use map showing pipes and sources; and a land use map (see Figure 8 above). The second activity was a participatory inventory used to collect further data on resources in both the village and forest areas and their associated problems and opportunities in terms of local development. Specifically, the activity was designed to inventory various categories of potential – land resources (forest and village), water resources, cultural resources (devotional sites), social resources (institutions), and human resources (population, local knowledge). The central technique used was a transect walk through the village. The processing and analysis of the collected data was conducted collaboratively with various local stakeholders through a series of village-level deliberations and discussions. In January 2005 a major village workshop was organized to build off of the findings and to subsequently identify the core problems in forest management and the expectations of local people regarding their involvement in forest management, particularly in relation to the changing policies and practices of Perhutani. The final output of this process was an integrated five-year (2005-2010) development program plan for Saninten consisting of an ‘Activity Program Plan for Forest Management’, a ‘Program Plan for Rural Development’ (three programs: improving water supply infrastructure, enhancing local institutions, and developing devotional tourism), and a list of ‘Agreements’ in forest management (on boundaries, planting activities, soil use, the use of resources, protection and guarding of the forest, disaster prevention, and group organization). Thus, this process of planning has set in motion a strategic pursuit of future development activities grounded and directed by local people. The information collected and documents produced can be used by the head of the village and

28

other stakeholders as sound evidence to elicit support from district agencies, as has already been achieved with the water source rehabilitation project cited above which was a component of the ‘Program Plan’ that was subsequently put into action by gaining support from DISHUTBUN. The implementation of further development activities will certainly continue to emerge from this sound planning. 2.8 Land Tenure and Ownership As discussed above, Saninten contains two distinct land areas each with its own system of land tenure and ownership. ‘Village land’ is privately owned by individual households. Access to this land is primarily gained through inheritance from fathers to sons, which reflects the male dominated structure of land ownership and management. Women access land through their husbands, but can take on ownership rights in instances of widowhood. Men primarily control decision-making regarding the household’s use of its land, although women are certainly not voiceless and they contribute a great amount to agro-forestry. ‘Village land’ can be bought and sold, but this appears to rarely occur. Land can also potentially be rented out, but this likewise appears to happen very infrequently, as no households reported any rental activity. Thus, the only alternative means of accessing ‘village land’ is by the sharecropping system described above, where households gain certain use rights over plots of land through informal arrangements with the owner. There is no transfer of ownership in this system, but rather a granting of access over an undetermined period on the basis of a social relationship. The unwillingness of the actual owner to fully release the land, along with the general absence of land renting and sales, emphasize the high value placed on private land ownership. The availability of ‘village land’ is quite limited, as evident from the data collected during this research which reveals that only 40% of households own private land. Relative to its total population, Saninten has a potential land availability of 0.63 hectares per household. However, land is not owned on such an equitable basis, as its distribution reveals significant concentrations of land in the hands of individual households. Sample data shows that of the 16 households owning ‘village land’, six (37.5%) collectively own only 1.33 hectares between them (average of 0.22 ha per household), while at the same time there are single households owning 1.5, 2, and 10 hectares to themselves (Figure 12). The scarcity of ‘village land’ is also clearly evident from the nature of local demands for greater access to ‘Perhutani land’. Local use of forest land is of course at the core of this research project, as it concerns examining how institutions (formal and informal rules and regulations and the organizations and social groups that enforce them) mediate a household’s access to ‘natural capital’ (forest land), which can be used to achieve a livelihood activity (agro-forestry) and to subsequently produce an income and livelihood security. The process by which access to forests has been gained and lost has a turbulent history in Java.

29

Figure 12. Distribution of Private Land in Saninten

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000ha

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7total landnumber of landowners

Local communities once accessed forests under a system of common property, where forests were collectively managed as an open resource. The dominance of the Dutch East India Company in the 17th and 18th centuries did little to disrupt this access and use pattern, as their attentions were entirely focused on the commercial exploitation of teak rather than the subsistence-based forestry activities of small communities. This began to change however in the late 18th century with the rise of the Dutch colonial state, which asserted exclusive legal rights of ownership to forest land and trees while concurrently restricting the customary and traditional rights of local people. Thus, access to forests for land and forest products were severely curtailed. During the period of instability that accompanied the struggle against colonial rule and the subsequent organization of a newly independent state, social movements led many forest-based communities to reclaim access to forests and to demand the institutionalization of their rights to the land. This was short lived however as the ‘New Order’ government, which had prevailed over the PKI communist party in 1966, re-imposed strict control. The formation of Perhutani following independence provided an effective means of regulation through an administrative system that reached into the communities with local officials, guards, and ‘forest police’. Demands for forest access continued to be placed on Perhutani and the government, who eventually began to concede to the necessity of dealing with the problem. In the 1970s, Perhutani thus instituted the ‘Ma-Lu’ and ‘Prosperity Approach’ programs, which attempted to stimulate livelihood activities on private village land in order to offset demands on forest resources. This was followed in 1982 by a similar program called Forest Village Community Development (PMDH –

30

Pembinaan Masyarakat Desa Hutan) that utilized the broader strategies of ‘integrated rural development’. Yet these programs failed to meet their ultimate goal of diverting the claims of local people for improved forest access by generating alternative income sources. Due to such failures and the continued pressure for greater land access, Perhutani adopted a ‘Social Forestry’ (PS – Perhutanan Sosial) program in the late 1980s as a new attempt to manage the relationship between communities and forest resources. Having only ever accessed forests through a communal system, or subversively under colonial and post-colonial rule, local people gained their first ‘official’ access to forest land through the ‘Social Forestry’ program. However, the scale of program implementation was very limited, involving the participation of relatively few villages compared to the total number of communities within Perhutani’s area and the apportioning of only small tracts of land for a restricted number of individuals at a rate of 0.25 hectares per person. The quality of the land provided was also quite poor having already been clear-cut. In fact, the low value of the land in such a degraded condition is perhaps one of the most significant facilitating factors for the adoption of the program, as it provided Perhutani with an incentive for land rehabilitation at a low cost. Thus, ‘Social Forestry’ became a means for Perhutani to achieve their goal of reforesting their land by giving the task over to local people. Of course Perhutani also set a goal of raising forest-villagers’ incomes through ‘Social Forestry’, as it had attempted with earlier programs. The basis of this objective was set in the increased access to ‘natural capital’ (forest land), which recipients were able to use to cultivate their own crops between rows of main Perhutani trees (mainly teak and mahogany) that they had previously re-planted. Achieving this access first required that interested participants within a village form a Forest Farmer Group (Kelompok Tani Hutan) that would subsequently be given usufruct rights over a particular plot of ‘Perhutani land’ (Lindayati, 2000). It is critical to note the specific distinction between access and use concessions and tenure and ownership rights that existed under the ‘Social Forestry’ program. While Perhutani increasingly recognized the necessity of a program that responded to local subsistence and cash income needs, and the attendant farmer demands for a measure of security in accessing forest resources, this never amounted to transferring ownership. In fact, Perhutani was extremely clear that the program should never question the state’s ownership and control of forests and the tenure rights they held over all forest land. Thus, ‘Social Forestry’ opened access to local people, but on uncertain terms that could not easily be defended. In Saninten, the program was not implemented until 1997, when Perhutani, through its local representative (Mandor – foreman), communicated to certain individuals that a limited amount of forest land would be made available for local use. This news was then selectively spread through the village and an informal registration was taken orally by a village representative. Perhutani subsequently

31

announced that they would hold a distribution day when 14 hectares of forest land would be allocated to interested individuals. On the day, many people came to measure and mark the land along with Perhutani, but only 56 persons ultimately received access to land (on a first-come first-served basis) with four persons each managing one hectare. As required, the recipients were formed into three Forest Farmer Groups (KTH) and each appointed a leader to represent the group in their contact with Perhutani. Farmers were later supplied mahogany seedlings and informed of spacing requirements for re-planting. A key informant from the village reported that after these initial activities Perhutani met with the three group leaders to sign a contract stating that they had given each group Rp 30,000 for tree planting. This is the only official contract that the KTHs have with Perhutani, and it does not address any issues of tenure, ownership, or the rules and regulations of access and use. Several additional meetings with Perhutani took place in which they informally discussed the potential for penalties against improper cultivation practices, possible future rules on crop-sharing, and 60-year access rights. Perhutani also supplied other seedlings to the farmers, including petai, melinjo, coffee, and pineapple. The same basic process of land distribution through the program repeated itself in 1998 with an additional 6 hectares. Thus, a fourth KTH was created, bringing the total number of households with access to ‘Perhutani land’ to 80. In addition to understanding the broad policy shift of Perhutani to grant forest access to local people and the general implementation pattern of the policy, it is also critical to note the finer details of how access was conferred to specific households. A key informant interview suggests several central factors that facilitated this initial distribution. First is the importance of social, interpersonal relationships in communicating the information required to gain access. The research revealed that the crucial stage of informing village members about the program was done between family – from the Mandor, Perhutani’s local representative, to his brother, a respected figure among farmers who resides in Kampung Salam. The farmers’ representative subsequently communicated the message orally, primarily to his friends, family, and fellow Kampung members. The second key factor is the location of the Kampung, as those furthest from the opened forest land in Block Kawati (see Figure 8) were unlikely to be interested in the new access due to the distance they would have to travel to maintain the land. Together these two factors account for the initial distribution of the first 80 households, estimated as follows: 60% from Salam, 20% from Malang and Malangsari, 18% from Sukamanah, and 2% from Campaka. The majority to have thus gained access came from Kampung Salam, being socially closest to the farmers’ representative and physically closest to the actual forest land. The final factor of significance relative to gaining new access to land through Perhutani’s program involves migration. Several households reported that they

32

were not able to receive land because they were away from the village conducting seasonal migration activities on the distribution days. This provides a specific example of the way in which programs can often, if inadvertently, exclude those households dependent on migration for their livelihoods. During the period of socio-political instability that emerged in the wake of the resignation of President Suharto in May 1998, forest encroachment and illegal logging began to mount throughout Java on an unprecedented scale. In response to these pressures and reflective of a growing democratic paradigm, Perhutani officially adopted Joint Forest Management (PHBM – Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat) in 1999 as a new approach to managing the relationship between local people and their forest resources. Yet the precise nature of this policy, such as the rules and regulations governing access to forest land and the relationship between Perhutani and local communities, was highly vague. For many, this initial policy statement was thus considered to be less a direct action strategy and more a sign that Perhutani had lost control in several areas; an attempt by them to appease the public and to stall encroachments. It also signified the fact that Perhutani was now more open to alternative strategies to cope with the problems they were yet able to solve. The opportunity that PHBM thus offered for a new model of community forest access was taken up primarily by NGOs, who sought to promote multi-stakeholder processes and collaborative management structures as a means of achieving the genuine involvement of local people in the management of ‘Perhutani land’. PHBM therefore attempts to go beyond the ‘Social Forestry’ focus on land rehabilitation and tree planting to institutionalized systems of local participation in forest management, the ultimate aim of which is greater security of resource tenure and local land rights. The most successful case of PHBM implementation has occurred in Kabupaten Kuningan, West Java, where political support of the head of the district (Bupati) has been combined in effective multi-stakeholder processes with NGOs and governmental agencies to achieve many official signed ‘agreements’ on forest use between Perhutani and communities, and the involvement of 100 villages in PHBM. The agreements outline the terms and conditions of management and rules of profit-sharing, where local people earn the majority of revenues from mixed agro-forestry cultivation while Perhutani retains the bulk share of revenues from timber. Official PHBM policy however remains uncertain, being selectively applied to specific villages and locations that have taken determined action, rather than universally implemented over all areas. While the fundamental basis of the program may be similar, its form and function from village to village is entirely unique. This is primarily a result of continued opposition to the program by mainstream Perhutani officials, who maintain strong beliefs in conventional forest management characterized by central control of valuable forest production. In particular, while PHBM is incrementally making progress toward greater forest access and use for local benefits, the relinquishing of land ownership and tenure

33

still seems improbable. Co-management structures therefore seem to be the most promising strategy, offering a middle ground in forest ownership, tenure, access and use between local people and the state. In Saninten, the adoption of PHBM policy has thus far caused only limited changes to tenure of ‘Perhutani land’ as first implemented under ‘Social Forestry’. The Pandeglang district has certainly not experienced the same level of activity surrounding PHBM as the Kuningan district has. Changes in Saninten mainly revolve around local attitudes concerning the potential for long-term tenure and more equal relationships with Perhutani. Knowledge of the opportunity for improved and official profit-sharing and greater local control of forest management have increased due to exposure to PHBM concepts. However, no official agreement has been signed. Instead, community planning activities undertaken thus far provide a firm basis from which to seek such partnerships with Perhutani as well as local government. One final form of land access that occurs within Saninten is the illegal use of Perhutani-owned forest land. Of course, this activity has no tenure or ownership basis, but rather functions through entitlement claims of local people to the forests within their village. The research observed a large portion of ‘Natural Forest’ cleared of primary trees for the cultivation of crops such as corn, rice, onions, and beans (Images 8 and 9). Under current policy conditions, Perhutani has yet been able to curb such encroachment. This is of course a difficult issue with a long history rooted in the conflict between the land needs of the rural poor and forest conservation objectives.

Image 8. Rice cultivation in ‘Natural Forest’ Image 9. Encroachment of ‘Natural Forest’

34

3.0 VILLAGE WEALTH RANKING A wealth ranking exercise was conducted with two key informants from Saninten village. The purpose of this research activity was to understand local criteria for distinguishing wealth, to investigate changes in household wealth status and the perceived cause of such changes, and to collect data on a key variable (participatory wealth rank) for respondent households in the sample survey. In other research contexts this exercise has formed the basis of a stratified random sample, where all households in a village are ranked and separate samples are drawn from each wealth category. However, in the current case the total number of households in the village (813) made this unfeasible. Therefore, a random sample of 40 households was first drawn from a sample frame of all Saninten households and these were then used for the exercise. The next step after initial sampling was to identify several key informants. The two individuals selected are active and informed community members and the research team felt confident in their knowledge. To begin the exercise, the team explained to the participants the nature and purpose of the exercise, outlining the importance of understanding wealth differences. We then provided them with 40 small cards identifying each sampled household (by the father’s name) and asked them to consider each household carefully and rank them into one of three wealth categories. Once this was complete, the team verified the rank of all households with the informants. Having expected a more or less equal distribution of households between the three ranks, the ranking of only two households in the wealthiest category was initially a concern (Figure 13). The team discussed this pattern with the informants who

Figure 13. Distribution of Households by Participatory Wealth Rank

poor47.5%

middle47.5%

wealthy5.0%

35

justified their decisions by explaining that the distribution represented their village, as there are in fact very few wealthy households. Since these groupings were not to be used for subsequent sampling, the team accepted the validity of the informants’ decision and moved on to discussing the criteria used to distinguish between wealth levels. The criteria used by the informants to rank the households were quite diverse, with no single indicator explaining wealth. Housing condition was used as a basic representation of wealth, with those residing in houses made primarily of wood and

bamboo-weaving with clay tile roofs (Image 10) falling in the ‘poor’ category. Yet this was not a defining variable as there were many ‘poor’ households with structures made mainly of cement. Overall, greater wealth was associated with better house conditions and size. Likewise, the ownership of other physical capital, such as scooters and motorcycles, televisions, furniture, and propane cooking stoves, was also considered a sign of greater wealth.

Image 10. Wood and bamboo weaving house Land ownership was another key criteria of wealth. In general, ‘poor’ households have the most constrained land access profiles, with each household falling into one of four groups – completely landless, owning only a limited amount of private ‘village land’ (less than 0.30 ha), dependent on small plots of ‘Perhutani land’ which remain much less productive and profitable than ‘village land’, or earning crop incomes only through sharecropping arrangements. ‘Middle’ and ‘wealthy’ households generally own larger amounts of ‘village land’ and have more diverse sources of land tenure, often combining private, Perhutani, and sharecropping land to produce greater farm outputs and attendant incomes. Land size is of course a sign of wealth because it signifies the relative production levels from agro-forestry and resulting ‘farm incomes’ that can be generated. Yet the amount of land and the amount of farm output are not always perfectly correlated, as ultimately that relationship depends upon the productivity of the land, which in turn depends on several factors. First, productivity is dependent upon labour inputs, or the availability of ‘human capital’ to actively cultivate and maintain the land. Thus, there were several households with relatively large plots of land classified as ‘poor’ because they are unable to take advantage of their ‘natural capital’ (their land base) due to a low quality of labour (sickness, disablement, age) or quantity of labour (single head of household, no adult children). The opposite was also true, where young and active households were prospering more than might be expected on a minimal land base. Second, productivity can be hampered by poor land quality, such as where the presence of large amounts of stone limits

36

the farmer’s ability to cultivate. Finally, productivity in the unique activity of agro-forestry can be largely dependent upon the maturity and number of large trees existing on a given piece of land. In this livelihood system, it in fact may be better to think not only of land as key ‘natural capital’ but also of particular trees, since they are themselves distinct assets with the ability to produce significant incomes. That being said, in most cases greater land size was deemed a sign of wealth, with those with the largest plots of land considered among the wealthiest in the village. However, while land was key, it was not considered an entirely defining criterion, as several ‘middle’ households were completely landless. Another key criterion was thus the livelihood activities that a household engages in besides own-account agro-forestry cultivation. ‘Poor’ households tend to conduct low-paying seasonal wage work such as agricultural harvesting or local unskilled non-farm labouring, or provide a small-scale service such as tailoring. The female heads of the household often engage in door-to-door selling of vegetables and other commodities (baluk) as a supplementary livelihood activity, while male heads tend to migrate to Jakarta and other cities to participate in the informal market, selling goods on the street or working as wage labourers. The non-farm activities of ‘middle’ households are more secure and more profitable, including chainsaw work, skilled labour in house construction, electrical repairs and other trades, driving an ojeg, operating a small shop and receiving a pension. What most of these have in common is a requirement for ‘physical capital’, such as a chainsaw, scooter, tools or the structure for a shop, which again highlights the conundrum discussed above – the dependence of the poor only on their labour restricts them to low-paying activities, while the greater asset ownership of wealthier households provides them with more profitable livelihood opportunities. ‘Middle’ households also tend to have more diverse livelihoods, combining several non-farm activities for a greater total household income. ‘Wealthy’ households engage in only a single non-farm activity of trading. As discussed above, this activity requires a significant amount of working capital but is highly profitable. A final unique criterion used to define the two ‘wealthy’ households was the fact that they had been to Hajj, the great pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims are expected to make once in their lifetime. Particularly for a household from a small rural community, the ability to afford such an expensive trip and to thus attain the title of Haji is a strong symbol of significant wealth. Overall, the distinctions made by the informants between categories of wealth ultimately amounted to differences in the ‘livelihood strategies’ of households – the way in which they combine livelihood activities to earn a total income. No single criterion defined wealth, but rather the informants based their ranks on each household’s income-generating activities and living conditions. As a result, the exercise was a highly effective means of beginning to understand the livelihood strategy typologies within Saninten village at each wealth level. For example,

37

within the ‘poor’ category it was clear that there was a ‘landless poor’ group dependent entirely on low-paid labouring activities both within the village and in migration locations, another group relying primarily on limited access to ‘Perhutani land’, and a handful of households with sufficient ‘village land’ but with constrained productivity due to poor health or old age. The technique thus greatly informed later analysis based on a full exploration of livelihood activities and incomes conducted through the sample survey, which is provided in another report. It is interesting to note that this later data collection and analysis revealed several inconsistencies between the participatory wealth rank and an income tercile rank based on the household’s total annual income. This required investigating why the informants considered a certain household in one wealth category when in fact they earned an income at another range. First, two households were ranked as ‘poor’ that actually earned middle range income (Rp 5 million to 12 million). The first of these had only a marginally better income than the low range (less than 5 million rupiah) and thus the ‘poor’ rank seems mainly based on a minor misjudgement of its actual income, since the male head earns significant wages from managing horticulture which perhaps the informants did not appreciate as it is a new activity to the village. The second household depends primarily on migration activities, which the informants likely considered marginal; however, in this case it is quite profitable since it involves an established business. The bulk of the discrepancies between the participatory wealth rank and the tercile rank based on actual income fell within the ‘middle’ category. Four households shifted down as they proved to earn incomes below Rp 5 million. For two, the reason for the misjudgement seems to be the opposite of above; that in fact the migration activities that these households depend highly upon are in practice not very profitable. The third household was most likely considered of ‘middle’ wealth due to its ‘village land’ ownership, but it was not generating expected incomes due to the increasing age of its members. The final seems to have involved a misunderstanding concerning the nature of the household’s non-farm activities. Four additional households shifted up to a ‘wealthy’ grouping as they reported incomes greater than Rp 12 million. The reason for their initial exclusion from the ‘wealthy’ rank appeared to be a result of the informants’ criteria that this category be reserved for only those elite having gained the title of Haji. Upon further discussion, it was agreed that the additional four did share similar characteristics with the two original Haji households. The wealth ranking exercise also included a discussion with the informants concerning potential movements between these levels for individual households over time. This is critical to identifying potential paths out of poverty and to understanding the factors that cause poverty to increase or persist. All households could potentially improve their wealth by gaining greater access to land, but this strategy is very limited. Due to its minimal availability there are very few opportunities to purchase land within Saninten, and thus inheritance is

38

generally the only viable option for expanding ‘village land’. Gaining access to land through sharecropping can certainly increase household income, but it is not a substitute for private land expansion as the household earns a relatively small amount only from certain crops. This is why increasing access to ‘Perhutani land’ is so critical, as it provides often the only opportunity for poor households to engage in agro-forestry activities, that could in turn improve their well-being. In addition to its size, the productivity of land can also help to improve wealth. This is partly a function of labour and skill with younger households tending to be the most successful at increasing the intensity of their cultivation activities. For older households the opposite is true, as sickness and aging can reduce their available labour inputs, resulting in subsequent declines in production and incomes. Older households may also lose some of their land base to inheritance, but can also offset this loss through remittances from adult children. Land productivity and corresponding levels of income and wealth can also change based upon the stage of growth of the agro-forestry plantation system on a given plot. Tracing its basic evolution from a barren piece of land, this system begins with planting seedlings of the major tree species (durian, cloves, petai, melinjo). While these mature to their producing stage over 5-15 years, banana is cultivated at a relatively high level of intensity. At early and middle stages, the farmer may also choose to inter-crop coffee as well. Finally, the ultimate stage involves a maximum density of fully mature trees that each produce significant output amounts, combined with selective interspersing of banana (based on available sunlight) and coffee (which can tolerate the shadier conditions caused by the tree canopies). The movement toward this peak phase is driven by the incentive of profitability and fewer labour demands. Intensive banana cultivation requires significant inputs of labour, as trees fruit on a short time frame and then a new seedling must be planted, yet it earns relatively minimal profits of approximately Rp 4,000 per bunch. Large trees, on the other hand, require only one major harvest (two in the case of melinjo) and they tend to receive much higher prices. For example, due largely in part to their demand from the cigarette industry, cloves earn approximately 30 to 40 thousand rupiah per kilo, while petai, valued as a specialty food crop, can earn up to 50 thousand rupiah per bunch. Thus, a household’s wealth can increase through long-term investments in such high-value trees and their maturity over time. However, the opposite can also be true, as the income-generating ability of a household can significantly decline with the loss of mature trees to age or disease. These losses can be even more difficult to recover from than the shock of a drought or other disaster for farmers of annual crops, as regaining a valuable source of income in the form of a mature tree requires a time horizon of more than a decade. Due to the restricted opportunities for land expansion, the relatively minimal wealth improvements that can come from better labour productivity, and the long-term nature of increasing land productivity through maturing trees, improvements to wealth depend primarily upon non-farm activities. Because of their lack of assets,

39

the poor tend to be confined to activities of low remuneration while ‘middle’ households earn better incomes from more formal employment opportunities. The key then is to understand the barriers preventing the poor from accessing the non-farm activities typical of wealthier households. To access higher paid skilled trade jobs, the poor need to overcome a lack of training and associated costs. For other activities the main barrier is a lack of investment funds, which simply cannot be accumulated by the poor as their activities provide only for subsistence and not any savings. Access to credit could potentially remove this obstacle, allowing poorer households to invest in the assets required for more highly remunerated activities and subsequently facilitating a positive income trajectory. Finally the support of an organization can greatly assist wealth improvement. Specifically, association with the BPPKB in Saninten can open opportunities for the well-paid migration activity of acting as a security guard in larger cities. One of the most lucrative non-farm activities in Saninten is trading of agricultural products. Its high income provides a potential route out of poverty that is very attractive to poorer households. In fact, some attempt this activity on a small scale in hopes of improving their wealth. However, to achieve its maximum profitability trading must be done on a large scale, which in turn requires significant working capital and assets. Thus, moving up in wealth on the basis of adopting trading requires sufficient investment funds, which typically only households with large land bases are able to accumulate through their significant and sustained surplus production and incomes. 4.0 VILLAGE LIVELIHOODS – PAST AND PRESENT The third ‘guidance sheet’ used in this research to collect qualitative data outlined several general areas of concern regarding village livelihoods and how these have changed over time. These key areas of enquiry included the following:

• changes to main sources of income (livelihood activities) and their relative importance over the past 5-10 years

• the emergence of new livelihood activities and the cause of this process • general factors that villagers consider to have gotten worse over the past 5-

10 years and the cause(s) of such deterioration • general factors that villagers consider to have gotten better over the past 5-

10 years and the cause(s) of such improvement • changes to people’s access to natural resources over the past 5-10 years

(access to land for cultivation; fragmentation of landholdings; distance of holding from home; access to forests and forest products; access to water for agricultural and domestic purposes)

In order to gather the desired information, the research relied primarily on a focus group discussion conducted with six local respondents, supplemented by additional informal interviews and participant observation over the course of the fieldwork. For the most part, these discussions were based in broad terms

40

regarding the village level rather than patterns and changes of livelihood strategies at the household level, although the two are of course interrelated. 4.1 Changes to the Relative Importance of Main Income Sources Local respondents believed that the relative importance of different livelihood activities to the village as a whole had changed only slightly over the past decade. They expressed that agro-forestry cultivation has remained the most central source of income over several generations, producing the greatest amount of income for the village and forming the dominant activity in the majority of household’s

livelihood strategy portfolios. Changes within this activity category in terms of crop types have also been quite minimal. Farmers maintain the same basic system that they have for many years, which involves the cultivation of bananas and coffee interspersed with large fruit trees (coconut, durian, melinjo, petai, and cloves) at a mid-level of intensity, best described as mixed-cropping plantation agro-forestry (Image 11). Image 11. Agro-forestry on ‘village land’ – banana and

coffee among large fruit trees

The specific combination of tree species on any given plot of land is however very diverse. This type of system is much different than typical annual cultivation ‘farming’, as it involves a distinct time horizon. Farmers practicing intensive monocropping of such commodities as rice or maize make decisions year-to-year on what they will cultivate. For agro-forestry farmers, decision-making involves long-term investments since the fruit trees require 5-15 years before they even begin producing. So different plots of land are always at different stages regarding the maturity of fruit trees and combination of commodities. A minor change that has occurred within agro-forestry has been the introduction of avocado. Farmers reported adopting this crop based upon its short maturing period of less than five years, its ease of maintenance, and the demand for the crop through available markets. Respondents also felt that the importance of agro-forestry to the village as a whole had in fact grown based upon the expansion of access into ‘Perhutani land’. Specifically, for those who gained access to such land, agro-forestry became a more significant component of their livelihood strategy portfolios. The particular impacts of gaining new access to this ‘natural capital’ on the livelihood strategies and total incomes of different households are examined in another report that

41

provides a detailed analysis of the quantitative data collected through a random sample survey. The only other change noted for natural resource-based activities was an overall decline in paddy cultivation. While never a major livelihood activity, respondents reported that it had steadily decreased over the past decade due to the limited availability of water. Other agro-forestry related activities such as harvesting labour and cutting trees were considered to have maintained their relatively minimal, supplementary importance. The recognition of the continued centrality of agro-forestry for local livelihoods was weighed against an acknowledgement of the increasing importance of non-farm activities for the income and well-being of Saninten residents. As a general cause of this trend, the respondents identified steady population growth relative to limited land availability, as households without access to land have been ‘pushed’ into seeking out and adopting alternative livelihood activities. The most significant growth area in this respect has been migration, which was expanding rapidly until the Asian Economic Crisis of 1997 severely limited job opportunities in urban centres. However, economic recovery over the past seven years has again stimulated demand for labour in various industries, which is drawing in rural people in search of livelihood opportunities. Wider economic conditions also tended to have an impact on remittances, as they are largely derived from the economic success of adult children in larger urban centres. Locally based non-farm activities were also reported to have expanded. Operating a small shop (warung) has become more important as a livelihood activity in Saninten, as both a response to increasing demand for consumer goods from a growing population and as a result of cumulative savings and subsequent investment by individual households. Opportunities in house construction have also expanded based again on population growth as well as the increased affluence of certain sectors of the village. The respondents felt as well that there was a subtle rise in the number of service jobs, such as tailors, ojegs, electricians, and so on. Finally, it was observed that the number of individuals engaged in trading agricultural products had risen, as more people were trying to break into this lucrative activity by beginning on a small scale. Baluk work by women appeared to have remained relatively unchanged. 4.2 Emergence of New Activities While the importance of various livelihood activities has shifted somewhat, the appearance of genuinely new sources of income over the past decade has been quite limited. One exception is the recent introduction of horticultural crops on a small plot of land, which was a result of the entrepreneurial endeavours of a few individuals. The success of this activity is based primarily upon its marketing strategy, which relies on a personal linkage between the manager and an external buyer. This new farm activity could potentially be expanded given a few conditions.

42

For the most part, land quality is not a barrier; however, the farming system does require a more regular supply of water than typical agro-forestry, which currently cannot be supplied by irrigation. Horticulture also requires sufficient investment and working capital to meet its greater input supply needs, such as for seed and fertilizer. Finally, horticulture demands new knowledge of relevant crops and their maintenance, which is not readily available. All of these factors combine to increase the potential risk of adopting horticulture, and thus providing a significant obstacle to its expansion through the village. Another relatively recent livelihood activity is the extraction of stone from ‘village land’. The is partially a result of demand for such stone through this small-scale mining activity and partially based on the independent strategy of individual households to make use of their available resources. Finally, the cultivation of medicinal plants and their processing into herbal medicine (jamu) by a women’s group, as well as the crafting of bamboo containers by a group of young men, have both emerged with facilitation and support provided by LATIN. These activities remain on a relatively small scale for the village as a whole, but are promising micro-enterprise initiatives that are gaining support from government agencies. Aside from these examples, there were no other new activities reported to have become significant to livelihoods. 4.3 General Factors that have Worsened The respondents did not feel that many general factors had gotten worse in the village. Regarding agro-forestry cultivation, prices received for outputs have been relatively steady following the economic disturbances in 1997 and production levels have been maintained or have increased. However, there were reports of increased incidents of certain crop pests and disease, particularly an uncontrollable strain affecting durian trees. Bird flu has also wiped out the vast majority of poultry in the village, which used to be kept at a rate of approximately 6-10 birds per household. Fortunately there have been no reported cases affecting humans and other forms of illness have not worsened. The only other factor considered to have degraded was certain sections of the main roads. 4.4 General Factors that have Improved The factors that local people considered to have gotten better are strongly related to the development initiatives discussed above. Education buildings and the quality of educational instruction have improved, as well as access to health services through a nearby health centre and the hospital in Pandeglang. Public infrastructure has gotten better with new bridges and gutters. Electricity supply has also expanded, as has access to wireless telecommunication networks. Overall, the respondents felt that the wealth and well-being of Saninten had steadily improved. The reasons for this were mainly strong yields in agro-forestry

43

and the ability to access reasonably profitable non-farm income sources. For many households, increasing income generation and security was translated into improved housing conditions. 4.5 Changes to Natural Resource Access The most significant changes over the past 5-10 years relate to local people’s access to natural resources. Clearly a key change has been the opening of new access to land for cultivation through the ‘Social Forestry’ program, which the respondents confirmed as centrally important. However, they also reported substantial discontent with current institutional structures mediating that access. Specifically, local people desire much better coordination, collaboration, and agreements between themselves and Perhutani, the Kecamatan government, and the village government. They also expect improved transparency and honesty in their relationships with these stakeholders and ultimately better tenure rights and security in their use of the forest land. Fragmentation of landholdings is another area of concern as the availability of ‘village land’ per household continues to decrease. This is largely a result of steady population growth and the resulting demands for land resources. The problem of land availability is further exacerbated by inequitable distribution. Overall, gaining access to any type of land is an increasingly difficult pursuit. Forest encroachment and the loss of old-growth indigenous trees is another mounting problem within Saninten’s ‘Natural Forest’ area. As discussed above, large areas of land have been illegally cleared for the cultivation of crops such as maize, rice, and beans. In this particular instance, the lumber is not even used, as it is too difficult to transport down the lengthy distance to the village or for fear of reprisal from relevant authorities. Instead, the massive trees are simply burnt where they have fallen. In other cases, illegal logging has taken place where the specific intent is to acquire timber for personal use or for sale. The most immediate impact of such deforestation is the lost ability to retain moisture, which in turn causes damaging soil erosion and decreasing water availability. Thus, due to deforestation and other factors, access to water has declined considerably. Villagers understandably rate this as the most urgent issue they face. Poor water availability is compounded by the progressive deterioration of the village’s water supply infrastructure, which respondents reported as a critical element that has worsened over the past decade. Local planning efforts are therefore heavily focused upon improving the natural environment to enhance water availability and upon improving the collection and piping system. Finally, local people reported that the availability of firewood has remained relatively stable, although on the whole it has marginally declined and it can fluctuate during different periods. If a household cannot find firewood, they are

44

forced to purchase fuel for their cooking needs. Collecting firewood is almost exclusively an activity of women. 5.0 AGRO-FORESTRY ACTIVITIES In order to gain insight into the trends and emerging problems associated with agro-forestry production, the research again utilized a guidance sheet outlining a number of topics of potential concern. The relevant information was collected through a focus group discussion with farmers, as well as a number of informal interviews. The research team also conducted a participatory matrix ranking in which local participants judged their primary commodities against various criteria. The findings from these exercises as well as information from secondary sources and some basic statistical data from the random survey are presented below. 5.1 Agro-forestry Land Use Systems Agro-forestry is a central livelihood activity for Saninten village with 77.5% of households earning some form of income from cultivating crops through three distinct land use systems. The majority of households engage in agro-forestry through only one of these systems, although approximately 30% combine the use of two (Figure 14). In terms of total income generation, ‘village land’ is by far the most profitable system (Figure 15) with much higher annual earnings on both a per household and per hectare basis (Table 4).

Figure 14. Land Use Systems by Household

Sharecropping only

Village/Perhutani

Perhutani/SharecroppingPrivate/

Sharecropping

'Perhutani land' only

'Village land' only

45

Figure 15. Total Village Income Generation by Land Use System

Sharecropping

'Perhutani land'

'Village land'

Table 4. Profitability of Land Use Systems

Annual Income ‘Village land’ ‘Perhutani land’ Sharecropping per household 6,501,133 972,000 504,700per hectare 9,490,706 2,592,000 883,888

As explained above, the reason for these differences is due to the relative productivity of the systems. Agro-forestry on ‘village land’ is generally characterized as a more advanced cropping system, with mature, high-productivity trees producing a wide diversity of commodities (Figure 16), several of which are highly profitable (durian, petai, cloves). This type of system is the end result of a long-term investment in a particular plot of land and a particular group of trees. The productivity of agro-forestry on ‘Perhutani land’ thus far remains relatively minimal, as the farming system continues to function at a more basic level with banana largely dominating the few commodities currently generating an income (Figure 17). Yet the apparent limited nature of cultivation on ‘Perhutani land’ must not undermine its critical significance as a source of income both now and in the future. When one considers that prior to the land access granting of the ‘Social Forestry’ program such income did not exist at all, the injection of new earnings from producing crops on ‘Perhutani land’ has had a strong impact on village income and on the overall importance of agro-forestry livelihood activities to Saninten. More specifically, the new access has provided land and a source of crop income to many poor households that were previously landless, relying on minimal non-farm and migration activities. Moreover, we must recognize that the farming system on ‘Perhutani land’ is still in an early phase, and as it advances to

46

the point where large fruit trees mature the land will begin to be as productive and profitable as ‘village land’ is currently.

Figure 16. Annual Income on ‘Village Land’ by Agro-forestry Commodities

banana

coconut

coffee

durian

cloves

timber

petai

melinjo

Figure 17. Annual Income on ‘Perhutani Land’ by Agro-forestry Commodities

banana

coffee

avocado

melinjo

47

The minimal per hectare earnings from sharecropping are reflective of the rules of the system, which allow the user to earn an income only from particular commodities rather than all of the crops on the land base. Sharecropping proved to be thus only a supplementary activity, utilized by otherwise landless households as a means of earning a small income in addition to primary non-farm activities or for gaining access to land to grow food for home consumption. In some cases it was also used as an extension of regular agro-forestry activities for households with another source of land. 5.2 Seasonal Calendar The diversity of agro-forestry commodities grown in Saninten translates into a very diverse annual production schedule (Table 5). While it does involve certain peak periods, the harvesting of bananas occurs on a fairly consistent basis over the course of a year. Respondents recognized this as a key strength of bananas, as they are able to provide a regular source of income and that cumulatively this income adds up to a significant proportion of total annual household income. Coconut similarly produces on a regularly patterned schedule. The large fruit trees (durian, melinjo, petai, cloves) on the other hand have very specific fruiting periods that rise from relatively minimum production levels to reach a maximum. This can create associated demands for labour during prime harvesting periods, thus providing a limited amount of work for individuals at those times. Fortunately, these harvests are well spaced through the year such that Saninten residents do not face the extreme peaks and lows of production and income security that most farmers of annual crops must confront. Instead, a diverse agro-forestry system provides a measure of income smoothing, as a household can receive more or less regular earnings by shifting harvests from one commodity to the next over the year. This characteristic is therefore another advantage of the advanced agro-forestry stage.

48

Table 5. Seasonal Calendar of Agro-forestry Activities in Saninten Village Month January

Haji Feb. Silih Haji

March Safar

April Mulud

May Silih

Mulud

June Juma-dilawal

July Juma-dilakhir

August Rajab

Sept. Rewah

Oct. Ramadan

Nov. Sawal

Dec. Silih

Sawal Rainfall maximum rainfall medium minimum dry season minimum medium maximum rainfall Harvesting Cycles of Primary Commodities (Fruit Trees) Banana minimum production medium max. minimum production maximum Coconut no specific harvesting cycles; steady production over the course of a year Coffee medium max. Durian medium max. minimum Melinjo medium max. medium max. Petai minimum production medium max. Cloves medium max. Avocado medium max. Jengkol minimum medium max. Jackfruit medium max. minimum minimum production Paddy Cycles Wetland rice maintain harvest cultivate harvest maintain Dryland rice maintain harvest cultivate plant Festivals and Religious Activities Devotional visits medium max. minimum ‘Party’ season minimum medium Max. medium Buffalo Ceremony purchase maintain slaughter lottery Celebrations steady occurrence steady occurrence

49

5.3 Changes in the Pattern of Commodity Types As discussed above, Saninten farmers reported virtually no changes in their selection of commodity types for agro-forestry over the past decade or more. No particular crop has been abandoned, and the only new species to have been adopted is avocado. As well, the relative importance of commodity types has also been maintained with a more or less regular distribution of species based on their perceived usefulness (see explanation of matrix ranking below). Of course there is a significant difference between the distribution of commodity types for the village as a whole and the mix of crop types on a particular plot of land. The latter is really a case-by-case scenario, depending upon the specific household’s land use strategy. One household may own a plot of land with several large petai trees interspersed with a limited number of coffee plants; another may own land with a wide variety of mid-maturity species; while another may specialize more in intensive banana cultivation. As opposed to conventional mono-cropping farming, the agro-forestry system in Saninten is widely differentiated from one household to the next. Overall, however, there is a basic pattern to the system that is very important to understand. As described above, this involves several phases toward a peak of maximum productivity. This staged process largely explains the difference in commodity mixes between ‘village land’ and ‘Perhutani land’, with the former involving a wide variety of commodities (see Figure 16), while the latter thus far produces incomes from only a few crop types (see Figure 17). This also suggests that ‘Perhutani land’ will continue to become more profitable and have a greater impact on local incomes. 5.4 Changes Affecting Crop Yields In general, the respondents felt as though production amounts from agro-forestry cultivation had steadily improved over the past decade or more. Rather than attribute such changes to either climatic factors or particular physical enhancements, local people felt that yield gains were largely the result of their improved ability to manage their land base in a more productive and intensive manner. Of course the wide diversity of agro-forestry practices across the village does not make such identified yield increases true for all households and certainly there are many observed challenges to production. As with all farming systems the presence of pests and diseases provides a common threat to the success of agro-forestry production in Saninten village. Respondents described a number of these problems affecting their primary commodities (Table 6). Fortunately the majority of these are not considered to be overly severe, either being accommodated by practical strategies to limit their

50

effect or simply accepted as causing minimal losses. The exception to this is the malang disease that affects durian trees, which was recently introduced to the village. Characterized by growths on the stems that inhibit both leafing and fruiting and eventually cause the tree to die, this disease has spread through particular sections of ‘village land’ and forced farmers to cut many trees to prevent further transmission. It is uncertain how the disease was introduced into Saninten, but it is possible that this occurred through the adoption of new durian varieties from external sources. Table 6. Pests and Diseases Affecting Primary Agro-forestry Commodities

banana coconut coffee durian melinjo petai cloves avocado pests caterpillars

(ulam) caterpillars (ulam)

caterpillars (uter-uter)

stem-attacking insect black ants

caterpillars termites black ants

termites black ants

caterpillars stem-attacking insect

diseases ganjur:

plant dies flowers fail

to form fruit malang:

tree dies flowers fall

off the tree

flowers fail to form fruit ambrang: fruits drop from the tree before maturing

pendul: flowers fall off the tree

fruits drop from the tree before maturing

While water availability, supply and management is a major concern for domestic needs, this does not translate to the production needs of agro-forestry. The dependence of the cultivation system on rainfall was not cited as a limiting factor for production levels. Mainly this was simply due to the fact that rainfall levels were considered to have been adequate over the past decade. In addition, agro-forestry tends to be more resilient to fluctuations in rainfall patterns than most annual farming systems due to the physiology of the fruit trees. The exception to this is with seedlings, which are more susceptible to low moisture levels. Declines in soil quality and fertility are often the cause of decreasing output levels in conventional farming systems. However, this again appears to not be the case for the agro-forestry system in Saninten. As it relies very little on any type of external inputs, the system has not been affected by price changes and associated use patterns of chemical fertilizers. Rather, the fertility of the red loamy soil has been maintained by organic material provided by forest litter and other sources. The crop diversity of the system also helps avoid the nutrient loss that can occur in mono-cropped systems. Soil erosion is a concern for production in certain sections of the village that have been largely deforested. Without a relatively dense growth of tree and shrub

51

vegetation the soils of the various land types, which have evolved a structure associated with forest cover, are particularly prone to depletion during the rainy season. This problem is mainly confined to areas in the ‘Natural Forest’ that have been illegally clear-cut and sections of ‘Perhutani land’ that have likewise been deforested. 5.5 Costs of Production As described above, agro-forestry in Saninten is a very low-intensity system in that the vast majority of farmers use no physical inputs in the form of chemical pesticides or fertilizers whatsoever. Thus, agro-forestry farmers do not face the same challenges of accessing input supply markets, fluctuating prices and changing governmental support through subsidies that conventional farmers confront in their production management. However, Saninten households do require other types of inputs and they must manage other costs of production. The primary inputs for agro-forestry are seedlings of the various tree species used for cultivation. Farmers reported accessing these seedlings from five key sources (Table 7). The most important source for the majority of commodities is neighbouring households. Local people explained that if they wanted to plant new seedlings, the most common means of acquiring them would be to simply approach other households to either request if they had extras or to ask if they could take a cutting from an existing tree. The mechanism of reciprocal exchange between Saninten agro-forestry farmers is central to their production system, highlighting how ‘social capital’ can translate into a practical asset by reducing the costs of production. A local anecdote to support this process suggests that the majority of petai trees now in existence in Saninten originated from a particularly strong and productive tree from which many people took cuttings.

Table 7. Sources of Seedlings Ranked by Relative Importance Source banana coconut coffee durian melinjo petai cloves avocado mahogany neighbours 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 self 2 2 2 1 2 - - 2 2 purchase - 1 - - - 2 2 - - DISHUTBUN - - 3 - 3 3 - - - Perhutani - - 4 - 4 4 - - 3

The free and open sharing of seedlings does not necessarily imply that they have little value due to an overabundant supply, although this is certainly a facilitating factor since the taking of cuttings has few limits. Rather, the system is embedded in local customs, institutions, and social relations between households that mediate the exchange of valuable inputs. This fact is particularly evident with banana seedlings, which are limited in supply due to challenges of propagation (one cannot simply take a cutting but must wait for a new sucker growth from the

52

base of the tree) and high in demand due to their relatively short maturation period (banana seedlings grow and produce fruit within one year, after which a new seedling must be planted); thus generating a high value for each seedling. Yet the primary source of new banana seedlings is another household. The second most important source of seedlings is through self-production. This technique is the same as that above, except that the individual utilizes his or her own trees to take cuttings or suckers for new plantings. This is a central means of accessing seedlings for many key species. The third source of seedlings is the market. Farmers resort to this option only in certain cases with particular species. For coconut, market purchase is the primary option due to the difficulties of propagation. For petai and cloves the main reason is to ensure healthy, productive specimens, since these are highly profitable cash earners and thus worth a more determined investment. The final two sources are governmental bodies, the Forestry and Plantation Agency and Perhutani, which occasionally supply seedlings through aid programs. The main costs of production that agro-forestry farmers must accommodate are for labour inputs, including payments for land maintenance (weeding) and harvesting. The total of these costs is a function of land size, available labour, and relative wealth. Households with large landholdings clearly require greater labour inputs than those with small landholdings, and they generally can afford these costs due to the correlation between total land ownership and wealth. However, even those with smaller plots may opt to purchase labour if they have the financial means from another livelihood activity. In another case, the purchasing of external labour may be forced by the absence of internal labour, such as among elderly individuals or those with poor health. Overall, therefore, these costs are highly varied, with the amount for each household dependent upon a combination of these three variables. The method used for purchasing labour is critical to note as it again highlights the strength of communal reciprocity within Saninten. In order to conduct regular land weeding and cleaning, a farmer will employ the services of the community through a system of gotong-royong (collective work), in which a group of individuals usually from the same Kampung will organize to do the work and allow the profits to be transferred to a common pool for a larger purpose. Gotong-royong kerbau collects funds for the purchase of a buffalo communally owned, maintained and consumed for the religious holiday of Idul Fitri, while gotong-royong masyarakat earns funds for other community development initiatives such as the purchase of water pipes, improvements to community buildings, savings for the community treasury, and so on. This is a highly effective means of recycling income flows within the community.

53

5.6 Extension Services The final factor investigated regarding the productive capability of agro-forestry was the availability of extension services. The role of extension agencies in relation to the livelihoods model is to provide farmers with enhanced ‘human capital’ in the form of agricultural knowledge and practices, and occasionally ‘physical capital’ in the form of tools or equipment. In this manner, extensionists can become ‘agents of change’ in introducing new methods to improve the security of farm activities and the productivity of the cultivation system. In Saninten, the most prominent extension provider is the Forestry and Plantation Agency (DISHUTBUN). However, their support mainly comes in the form of small aid supply of seedlings and financial support for certain projects, rather than regular information and training to improve cultivation practices. Respondents therefore felt that in order to have a significant impact on agro-forestry production levels, extension services would have to be expanded to a broad-based program that would transfer information and ‘best practices’ such that local knowledge could genuinely be enhanced. 5.7 Problems and Challenges of Marketing and Sale Prices As equally important as production to the economic success of any farming system are marketing mechanisms and sale prices, which transform physical farm outputs into a cash income that can subsequently be channelled according to the household’s ‘income strategy’ toward social payments, consumption, investment, or inputs. Thus, the quality of marketing services and the relative profits they provide to the farmer have a substantial influence on the household’s ‘income security’ and their ability to overcome poverty. It was therefore critical to understand the problems and challenges that these factors create for the stability and prosperity of agro-forestry livelihood activities in Saninten. As described above, the marketing mechanism for agro-forestry outputs that predominates in Saninten village is a system of private traders. The majority of farmers depend upon these ‘middlemen’ as their sole marketing outlet because they are unable to access main markets by themselves due to a lack of personal transportation. This system is not unusual nor is it necessarily a negative scenario, as it would be unfeasible and inefficient to consider a system in which all small producers transported and marketed their own goods independently. The key is how equitably the system shares profits between the producers and the intermediate buyers, particularly given the fact that farmers are often captive, having limited marketing options. The most significant factor influencing the distribution of profits is the degree to which the traders either act competitively or as a monopoly in setting the prices

54

for the farm outputs they purchase. In a system with many traders competition is intense, which tends to result in higher prices for farmers but lower profits for traders as they compete amongst themselves to attract the greatest number of producers. When the system is dominated by only a few buyers a monopoly scenario can easily emerge wherein the traders can generate high profits for themselves by purposely setting low prices knowing the farmers have no alternative options. This latter situation can also occur among a relatively large number of traders if they collude together to minimize their purchase prices. The conditions in Saninten appear to primarily reflect a monopolistic scenario. Respondents reported that there are only a limited number of major traders operating in the village, which is supported by the random sample survey that revealed only 7.5% of households engaged in this activity. As well, trading is by far one of the most lucrative livelihood activities in the village, suggesting that the ‘middlemen’ are earning high profits based on keeping sale prices relatively low. While particular collusion was not cited as a major complaint of farmers, informal associations are certainly working in the favour of the buyers. Yet the marketing situation seems to be changing, as the incentive of profitability is drawing new actors into the business of trading. As the number of buyers increases, a possibility emerges of better prices for farmers. However, this has yet to have made a significant impact as the capital wealth requirements to adopt trading continues to limit the scale of new trading activities. What is currently absent from Saninten is a farmer’s co-operative or another marketing institution that could provide marketing services and enhance farm incomes by effectively ‘cutting out the middleman’. This would require significant institutional development and investment to create such an organization. However, in the long run it could result in substantial improvements to the ‘income security’ of households engaged in agro-forestry. The practical aspects of selling farm outputs in Saninten involves two options – farmers can either sell their produce pre-harvested (still on the tree) or post-harvested (from their home). Of course, the former receives lower prices as it does not include compensation for the labour inputs of harvesting. The average prices of each main commodity are listed below (Table 8). The respondents reported that banana, coffee, durian, melinjo, petai and cloves were all easily sold either on the land or at home. Coconut was said to be difficult to sell off the tree, while the opposite was true for avocado. Overall the farmers felt that prices had remained relatively stable over the past decade.

55

Table 8. Sale Prices for Agro-forestry Commodities Avg. Price banana

(per bunch) coconut (per fruit)

coffee (per kg)

durian (per fruit)

melinjo (per kg)

petai (per bunch)

cloves (per kg)

avocado (per kg)

‘on the land’ Rp. 3,000 Rp. 300 Rp. 2,500 Rp. 2,500 Rp. 3,000 Rp. 40,000 Rp. 20,000 Rp. 750 ‘at home’ Rp. 5,000 Rp. 400 Rp. 4,000 Rp. 4,000 Rp. 4,000 Rp. 50,000 Rp. 30,000 Rp. 1,000

5.8 Matrix Ranking of Primary Agro-forestry Commodities Agro-forestry in Saninten involves a wide diversity of commodities cultivated together to produce an integrated system. Farmers thus make purposive choices to select certain combinations of tree varieties based on their relative preferences. In order to understand the complexities of this decision-making and the criteria used to select certain species the research used a matrix ranking exercise with a group of farmers to compare and contrast the benefits and challenges of eight main tree types. The exercise began by placing a leaf sample of each of the eight main species, plus two timber species (somsi and mahogany), at the top of a large sheet of poster paper (Image 13). The research team then explained to the farmers a

desire to understand the differences between the various crops and how some are better or worse than others according to certain criteria. We then requested that they list some of these criteria, suggesting some options for clarity. Then for each criterion we discussed relative comparisons across the tree types and the participants subsequently provided a rank. The results of this exercise are presented below (Table 9).

Table 9. Matrix Ranking

Image 12. Participatory matrix ranking

Criteria banana melinjo petai durian cloves coffee avocado coconut maintenance 6 2 4 3 1 7 8 5 food source 1 4 5 6 8 2 7 3 processing 8 2 7 4 3 1 6 5 price 6 4 1 3 2 5 7 8 ease of selling 1 6 2 4 3 7 5 8 ‘importance’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

56

In total, the group used six different criteria to rank the commodities. The first considered the difficulties of care and maintenance, with the highest being the most susceptible to problems and the lowest being the hardiest, most resilient species. The second measured the importance of the outputs as a food source for home consumption. The third ranked the labour and difficulties involved in processing the outputs, with the high ranks signifying the most involved and demanding techniques. The fourth and fifth criteria considered marketing factors, ranking the best-priced crops and the easiest to sell. The last criterion was an overall composite of factors measuring the ‘importance’ of the crop. Based on these criteria, bananas were ranked as the most ‘important’ crop. They are considered by farmers as very hardy trees that, once planted, require little regular maintenance and are only rarely prone to disease. Banana is also planted in high density per land unit which makes it a prominent crop. Its continuous cropping cycle over the year makes banana cultivation a relatively labour intensive activity. However, this characteristic also translates into the substantial benefit of providing a regular supply of income, which cumulatively sums up to a significant annual total, even if the price per unit is not considered to be very high. Banana is also highly valued for being the most primary source of food, for having the least post-harvest processing requirements, and for being the most easily sold to available traders. Melinjo was ranked as the second most ‘important’ crop for several specific reasons similar to bananas. Its relative significance is primarily due to its ability to produce two harvests annually, the density of its cropping, its reasonable sale price, and its capacity to provide both an income and a food source. However, melinjo cultivation also faces several key challenges. First, farmers find the trees difficult to maintain as flower buds and young fruit are prone to dropping off before fully maturing. Second, melinjo requires lengthy processing – peeling the external skin to extract a kernel, cracking the kernel to collect the inner seeds, grinding the seeds into flour, and occasionally frying the flour to make snack chips. Finally, it can be difficult to find a buyer to sell the outputs. Petai and durian are ranked as the third and fourth most ‘important’ commodities respectively, each for similar reasons. Both entail limited maintenance practices and are quite resilient, although durian currently faces a particular disease threat; they provide a seasonal supply of a specialty food to the household; they require similar labour inputs for harvesting, but virtually no post-harvest processing; and they are easily sold to local commodity buyers. But perhaps the greatest incentive for growing these two species is their profitability, as they combine high prices from related market demand and substantial production per tree. The major obstacle to realizing such profits however is that each of these large fruit trees requires up to fifteen years to mature, thus needing a long-term investment.

57

Cloves are similar to petai and durian in that they are also highly profitable, receiving high prices from the demands of the cigarette industry. Cloves have the additional benefit of maturing in only half the time of these trees, producing after seven years from a seedling stage. However, growing cloves can also be quite difficult. Farmers reported that cloves are the most delicate of their trees, requiring continual care and maintenance, they are the only commodity that cannot be used as a food source, and in order to receive the best prices cloves must be dried before sale. Coffee is one of the less preferred and less ‘important’ crops in Saninten agro-forestry. Discussions revealed that coffee is grown mainly on a limited basis for the purpose of home consumption. While the crop is valued for requiring little maintenance and receiving a reasonable sale price, it is not cultivated on a large scale due to its high processing requirements. This complicated process involves multiple phases of drying and splitting to separate different sections of the bean, and grinding for end use. Local people also find this commodity more difficult to sell, which further encourages production only for home consumption. The cultivation of avocado is relatively new to Saninten farmers and thus it has yet to gain in significance to overall production, being almost entirely confined to ‘Perhutani land’. One of its most important characteristics is its low maintenance, which is a key labour-saving benefit since ‘Perhutani land’ lies at a far distance from the settlement areas. It is also valued for its relatively rapid maturation period of five years, which is a significant advantage to generating an income as soon as possible from barren land. Finally, farmers find avocado easy to market as there are currently many buyers wanting to purchase the commodity ‘off the land’. At the same time, avocado has quite a low profitability rate earning only 1,000 rupiah per kilogram, although this can be somewhat compensated by production per tree and the density of plantings. Overall, avocado is being grown as a low-maintenance supplementary crop on ‘Perhutani land’, which may be phased out as the cropping system advances. Coconut was considered the least ‘important’ commodity for the village as a whole. Farmers felt that the crop was easy to maintain, required minimal processing, and was among the few fruits regularly consumed by households. However, there are major problems with coconut cultivation associated with its marketing. First, the production schedule of coconuts, which involves minimal output levels spread over the year, provides a significant obstacle to selling since traders will generally only ship products in bulk amounts in order to manage transportation costs. It is therefore very difficult for a household with a limited number of trees to actually earn a cash income from selling small quantities of coconuts on a monthly basis. The other issue is coconut’s low price per fruit of only Rp 400.

58

Yet based on additional informal interviews and the subsequent random sample survey, the priority given to coconut in the matrix ranking based on its low price may have been overly low. As with all commodities, price per unit is not the same as the profitability of a given tree or the profitability of a crop over a year. For example, a single melinjo tree might produce approximately ten kilograms of fruit per harvest earning a total annual income of Rp 60,000 (10 kg x 2 harvests x 4,000/kg), while a single coconut tree could produce 20 fruit per month earning a greater total income of Rp 96,000 (20 fruit x 12 months x 400/fruit). The effect is similar to banana in that incomes from regularly producing crops can cumulatively sum up to amounts similar to the single-harvest earnings of other commodities. Thus, for households with a significant number of coconut trees on their land, profits from this crop can form a substantial portion of their total agro-forestry income. Overall, the matrix ranking provides a comprehensive view of the agro-forestry decision-making of Saninten farmers. It greatly helps to explain the basis for the diversity of the cropping system, highlighting the relative advantages of main crop types and the internal logic of selecting different species. It also again justifies farmer motivations for advancing towards an integrated farming model based upon relative roles for a number of crops. Bananas are central as they provide a regular and sustained source of income over the year as well as a fundamental food source. The four large tree species are primarily valued for their profitability, their key characteristic being the ability to generate cash incomes. Coffee, avocado, and coconut are basically supplementary crops, providing both additional incomes and seasonal food. 6.0 LOCAL NON-FARM AND MIGRATION ACTIVITIES Prominent research has increasingly recognized that rural livelihoods are highly diverse, as households combine multiple activities to generate a total annual income. No longer is the focus dominated by a view of rural people as ‘peasant farmers’, but rather “rural families increasingly come to resemble miniature highly diversified conglomerates” (Cain and McNicoll, 1988). With only limited changes occurring within ‘farm’ activities the main avenue for this process of diversification are ‘non-farm’ livelihood options, which provide alternative sources of income to rural households. While the research team expected agro-forestry to be a significant activity within Saninten village, we also assumed that non-farm activities would be common and were interested in their role within household livelihood strategies, how individuals gain access, and any associated problems and issues. The research therefore incorporated an investigation of these factors through several informal interviews and participant observation. The following presents findings from this component, complemented by some basic data from the sample survey.

59

6.1 Relative Importance of Non-farm Activities to Saninten Livelihoods The non-farm activities of Saninten households include construction, various ‘services’ (electrical repair, driving an ojeg, tailoring, midwifery, etc.), door-to-door trading (baluk), operating a small shop (warung), several forms of migration, and receiving remittances. For the purpose of comparison, tasks associated with agro-forestry but distinct from own-account production are also considered non-farm activities, including harvesting wage labour, tree cutting, and trading agricultural products. All of these activities have been briefly described above. The importance of non-farm activities relative to farm activities can be measured in a number of ways. At the village level, 77.5% of households are engaged in agro-forestry through some form of land use system, while 75% have at least one member conducting a non-farm activity. Drawing on mutually exclusive categories the significance of non-farm activities becomes even more apparent as 23% of households are entirely reliant on them for their income, 15% are almost completely dependent on them except for limited earnings from sharecropping, and 40% combine them with more significant agro-forestry activities (Figure 18). Non-farm activities also account for an amazing 58.6% of total village income generation. Among non-farm activities alone, the greatest contributors to total village income generation include migration, large-scale trading, and local industry (Figure 19). However, the distribution of that income across households is highly unequal, as only 22% of households engage in these top three activities to earn 54% of the total non-farm income (Figure 20). The key issue here is that the most profitable non-farm activities also tend to involve the fewest number of households (Table 10), suggesting that there are considerable obstacles to accessing more highly remunerated livelihood options. As has been discussed above, this is a fundamental crux of the challenge of poverty alleviation in relation to livelihood diversification and the adoption of non-farm activities. Simply put, the poor stay poor because they are limited in their choice of activities to lower-paid options such as harvesting, informal and small-scale trading, marginal services, and labouring; while the rich get richer based on their ability to transform current wealth into increasing future gains.

60

Figure 18. Distribution of Village Households by Livelihood Activity Mix

farm only

non-farm onlyfarm/non-farm

limited sharecropping/

non-farm

Figure 19. Total Village Income Generation by Non-farm Activity

Large-scale trading

Construction

Service

Pension

Migration

BalukWarung

Local industry

Small-scale trading

Tree CuttingHarvestingRemittances

61

Figure 20. Non-farm Activities – % of Income and % of Households

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Remitta

nces

Baluk

Harves

ting

Service

Small-sc

ale tra

ding

Waru

ng

Tree cu

tting

Constr

uctio

n

Pensio

n

Loca

l indu

stry

Migrati

on

Large

-scale

tradin

g

% of households% of income

Table 10. Average Income per Household by Non-farm Activity Non-farm activity Avg.

income/hh % of households

Local industry 21,000,000 2.5 Large-scale trading 11,833,333 7.5 Pension 5,700,000 2.5 Tree cutting 4,800,000 5.0 Migration 4,003,750 20.0 Construction 3,598,600 12.5 Warung 2,730,000 10.0 Service 1,860,800 15.0 Baluk 1,514,286 17.5 Small-scale trading 626,667 7.5 Harvesting 570,333 15.0 Remittances 536,875 20.0

6.2 Seasonal Wage Labour in Agro-forestry Working as a harvest labourer is one of the most minimal sources of annual income, as a household can generally earn only Rp 550,000 a year by engaging in this activity. This is a result of both low daily wages, suppressed by the

62

abundant supply of potential labourers, and limited frequency, with demand for such work peaking for only brief seasonal periods. Thus, earning an income from harvesting is primarily a survival strategy of the ‘poor’, undertaken by male members for subsistence purposes. The decision to work as a harvest labourer is driven less by choice than by necessity, as households who engage in this activity have very limited alternative income sources, either farm or non-farm. As confirmed by the random sample survey, households that harvest do so because their main income source is so minimal, whether it be unproductive ‘Perhutani land’, a limited sharecropping system, or the female head’s baluk activities. Overall, harvesting is most often a component of a diverse livelihood strategy, as poor households tend to combine several marginal activities in order to survive. The level of demand for harvest labour is not only dependent on seasonal variables but relative village prosperity as well. Only wealthier households can afford to purchase labour, while the poor will tend to find a way to utilize their own labour to harvest their crops. Thus, the increasing wealth of certain sectors of the village can lead to associated increases in harvest labour demand. However, respondents reported that such change has been only minimal with Saninten, with the availability of harvest work having remained relatively level. 6.3 Skilled Agro-forestry Trade: Operating a Chainsaw Operating a chainsaw to cut and process timber for private individuals is among the more profitable non-farm activities, earning an individual approximately Rp 5 million per year. As such a positive opportunity, it is important to understand the process, mechanisms, and asset requirements that facilitate adoption of this activity. The team spoke with two lead chainsaw operators who explained several necessary factors. First, experience and knowledge of the skill (or ‘human capital’) must be gained. For one individual, this occurred through working with a brother who was already engaged in the activity, while the other developed his ability by working at a lumber-processing mill. The second factor is gaining access to the ‘physical capital’ of a chainsaw, which in turn requires ‘financial capital’ in the form of credit or savings. The first household is able to rent a machine, while the second saved earnings from his mill job to purchase one outright. Thirdly, there must be demand for your service within the village. This can be one of the most difficult aspects of the work because the availability of work fluctuates greatly. Overall, however, the respondents felt that they had been occupied fairly regularly. Finally, a linkage to markets is essential since they are expected to sell the finished outputs, which for both individuals was facilitated by personal connections. The lucrative nature of this activity meant that it was the sole activity for one household, and supplemented only by the baluk work of the female head for the other.

63

6.4 Small- and Large-Scale Trading of Agricultural Outputs The activity of trading agricultural products has an immense range in profitability from a barely minimal undertaking to the one of the highest annual income earners. On the low end, households purchase only specific commodities, and sometimes only at particular times. For example, one respondent reported that he bought approximately 90 kilos of coffee ‘on the land’, which he then harvested, processed, and transported to the nearby city of Pandeglang to sell, earning a net profit of only Rp 250,000. Another respondent combined trading of bananas with regular migration movements, transporting approximately 60 bunches per month to the provincial capital, Serang, where he worked in the informal economy. Over a year, this activity earned the household Rp 600,000. Like harvesting wage labour, this type of small-scale trading is thus very much a survival tactic of poor households. Those that undertake the activity are generally landless and without any significant non-farm pursuit. Small-scale trading is incorporated in diverse livelihood strategies including other low entrance barrier activities such as harvesting, baluk work, sharecropping and migration. On the high end, trading and the characteristics of traders are completely opposite. Annual incomes are very high with leading traders reporting earnings between Rp 7 and 22 million. This large-scale trading involves a wide diversity of commodities on a regular and sustained schedule. For example, one of the most prominent traders buys and sells coconut and banana consistently throughout the year, as well as durian, petai, melinjo, and cloves during their peaks. Large-scale traders are rarely involved in other non-farm activities, mainly because there is simply no need for such additional incomes. Rather, they hold substantial ‘village land’ in a range of 0.5 to 1.5 hectares. This ‘natural capital’ advantage is the key factor defining this activity as an income accumulation tactic of ‘better-off’ households. Even without their trading income, trading households would be considered ‘wealthy’ based solely on the income earned from their ‘village land’. Thus, as a process, these households have been able to amass savings from their significant income generation through private agro-forestry, which they have transferred into working capital and investment for trading. Due to its high profitability, this activity in turn has led to even greater income generation. Large-scale trading is therefore clearly a means for wealthy households to become wealthier. 6.5 Skilled and Unskilled Construction Labour The prevalence of construction work within a smaller rural community at first seemed to be somewhat unusual. However, its significance reflects factors of

64

change in the village with regard to both steady population growth and the increasing affluence of certain sectors of the community, which together create demand for new housing and the skilled and unskilled labour to build it. The respondents felt that these changes were a relatively new trend. Annual incomes from construction range from Rp 1 million to Rp 7 million, depending upon the amount of time worked over a year and the rate of pay. Differences between these variables proved to separate two distinct categories of households. First are the more skilled labourers, who reported working for longer periods and earning higher wages. Most often the skills and experience are gained outside of the community. Key characteristics that these households share are that they are ‘young’ and landless, which can often be related since land inheritance is often reserved until later stages. With limited alternative opportunities, these households come to depend entirely on construction labour. Even potential activities of the female head are absent since at a ‘young’ stage the household generally has dependent children. Their reliance on a single activity makes these households vulnerable, for even though the more skilled individuals can earn incomes in a ‘middle’ wealth range, the availability of work is highly insecure. Demand for construction labour in a small village can quickly evaporate, leaving these households with few alternatives and often forcing them to migrate in order to utilize their labour and skills for income generation. The other category involves secondary labourers, who adopt occasional construction work in the same manner as harvesting. For these households, construction labour provides a supplementary seasonal income source in addition to earnings from other low entry activities. In addition to male heads of ‘young’ households, this type of work occasionally involves sons or son-in-laws of ‘old’ households. 6.6 ‘Service’ Activities ‘Service’ is the most diverse livelihood activity category, incorporating a wide range of income sources with varying profitability. In general, they share the common characteristic of requiring specific ‘human capital’ (knowledge and skills), ‘physical capital’, or both. However, other factors mainly differ. As with many non-farm activities, the adoption of a service task often appears to be driven by landlessness and the attendant inability to produce farm incomes. For example, respondents reported taking up tailoring, electrical repair work, and maintaining water supply infrastructure primarily because they lacked access to land. On the other hand, for those with land, income from a service activity is usually supplementary to a main agro-forestry source. This typically occurs with sons and son-in-laws acting as ojeg drivers, although it also includes a case where a female head performed mid-wife duties. The key difference between the

65

groups means that for the former the service activity is more central to their overall livelihood strategy, while for the latter it is a more minor addition. Yet regardless of the incentive to adopt a service activity and its relative importance to the household, success in terms of returns depends on the nature of the specific activity. The individual engaged in electrical repairs reported high wages but inconsistent demand; the mid-wife is well paid for her specialty services but is likewise dependent on fluctuating demand; the tailor earned relatively marginal annual net profits; the maintenance person was fortunate to receive a guaranteed monthly income of Rp100,000; and the ojeg drivers reported minimal incomes due to high competition. The key to engaging in particular services is gaining skills through training or relevant experience. Using the examples of the electrician and the tailor, skill development usually occurs outside of the village and local people then bring the activities back to the community. Often the individuals maintain linkages to the external market, straddling different locations by working within the village when there is demand for their services and shifting outside when there is not. 6.7 Baluk Trading Door-to-door vending of vegetables and homemade snacks is the primary female-dominated activity. As described above, the rate of pay is low, as women earn roughly only Rp 5,000 per day. However, the consistency of the activity, with women working up to 6 days a week throughout the year, provides for an accumulation of income that amounts to a significant sum. Nevertheless, baluk work is still considered a marginal activity with low annual profitability, particularly relative to the amount of time and labour involved, representing a survival strategy of poor and lower-middle households. Households engaged in baluk trading rarely own ‘village land’, although they may have access to a small amount of ‘Perhutani land’ or may be involved in sharecropping. Thus, as with many of the non-farm activities cited above, the adoption of baluk is at least in part driven by landlessness and low farm incomes. With few viable alternatives to agro-forestry, baluk work has become a key income source for the poor. For those engaged in the work, baluk income represents between 24 and 55 percent of total annual income, combined with one or more additional activities such as harvesting, small-scale agricultural trading, service, or migration. In order to initially begin the activity an individual requires a base amount of working capital. Respondents reported that for some this came from savings from previous activities, while others resorted to borrowing from moneylenders. The latter option can pose problems since interest payments can be exorbitantly

66

high and it can be challenging for poor households to manage debt conditions. Given this scenario, the development of institutional support to provide credit to women for baluk work could have a significant impact, as it could enhance the efficiency and security of what is a very significant source of income for the poor. 6.8 Warung Businesses Operating a small shop or warung is another female-dominated activity, although it differs from baluk work in almost all respects. The activity is more profitable, earning on average Rp 2,730,000 per year, and it involves much less physical labour. As well, entrance to the business is restricted to better-off households with an alternative key income source that is able to produce the greater savings necessary to invest in a small shop. To a certain extent this is similar to the scenario of large-scale trading, as it involves a process of transforming current livelihood success into increasing future income generation. Yet in this case the driving activity is less often private agro-forestry but a profitable non-farm activity, particularly migration. This is confirmed by an informant who reported that the investment required to start up her shop was provided by her husband’s income from working as a security guard in Jakarta. The key challenge to the success and relative profitability of these small shops is the risk of increasing competition. The incentive of high incomes combined with the ability of wealthier households to invest has led to an expanding number of shops. At the same time, the market for the products sold by the warungs remains the same. Thus, the entrance of new suppliers tends to dilute the total sales and profits for each shop. 6.9 Generating an Income Outside of the Village: Migration Activities While the mobility of rural people is certainly not a strictly modern phenomenon, labour migration has increasingly become the norm rather than the exception for rural communities and migration activities have become central to the livelihood strategies of the majority of rural households in developing countries. In the Indonesian context, cyclical migration involving temporary mobility on regularized patterns is commonly practiced by rural people as part of their multi-spatial livelihood strategies. The research team was particularly interested in examining this activity, specifically its relationship with natural resource management at both the household and community level. The basic patterns of migration have been discussed above. To reiterate, there are three categories defined by location, activity and length of stay: daily movement to relatively nearby cities to engage in informal trading of coffee or other consumer products; monthly migration primarily to Jakarta for employment as a construction labourer, security guard, factory worker, retail salesperson, or

67

informal trader; and long absences to distant locations for more permanent work. In all cases this is an entirely male-dominated activity. There is a tendency in migration studies to discuss the causes of movement in relation to ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. ‘Push’ motivations result from a lack of livelihood options in the home location, particularly landlessness, which is true for Saninten since all migrant respondents reported owning no ‘village land’ and only a few access thus far unproductive ‘Perhutani land’. ‘Pull’ incentives encompass the lure of higher-paid activities in urban sites, which is also accurate for Saninten as migration is among the most profitable non-farm income sources. However, there are stark differences in economic returns, with formal and secure jobs (permanent shop, security guard, factory work) earning much more than informal and unstable activities (labouring, small-scale trading). Thus, for many households migration acts only as a survival strategy providing minimal returns in order to subsist, while for others it leads to an accumulative income trajectory. The key to this distinction is the relative access to opportunities for different households. In general, the poor are limited in their choices by a lack of assets, often having only their labour to sell. This leads them to adopting lower paying options such as construction labouring and informal trading. For similar reasons as the scenarios of large-scale trading and warungs, asset-wealthy households on the other hand typically have greater access to highly remunerated migration activities. This dichotomy in turn suggests that migration has a limited impact on poverty reduction since the poor at best subsist from such activities. Yet this is not necessarily the case since access is not always solely based on current wealth. A very significant example of this in Saninten involves the BPPKB organization, which can open opportunities to the well-paid job of a security guard for even the poorest of individuals. The key here is not wealth but social relationships with members of the organization and its institutional support. Migration entails several economic and social challenges. The success of migration is highly dependent upon wider economic conditions in the nation as a whole and urban places in particular. Thus, demand for migrant labour continually fluctuates and with major shocks, such as the Asian monetary crisis, the work can evaporate completely. Migration can also be very difficult on the family, as the absence of male heads places an increased burden on women. Migration can affect the ‘social capital’ of a household by limiting social relationships with neighbours. This can also have a financial cost, as migrants must financially compensate the village if there are absent from communal maintenance activities such as gotong-royong masyarakat. Absence from the community can also limit access opportunities, as several respondents reported missing out on the potential new access to ‘Perhutani land’ through the Social Forestry program because they were away from the village pursuing migration.

68

For households engaged in the activity, migration is a critical component of their livelihood strategy producing between 50 and 100 percent of total annual income. The most common accompanying activities are the female-dominated tasks of baluk and warung. Three respondent households also reported combining migration with managing agro-forestry on ‘Perhutani land’. The team drew on these cases to examine the relationship between farming and migration. The nature of this relationship has not yet been widely investigated in research on rural livelihoods, and thus the team had hypothesized several potential points of concern, including how migration affects total income and associated inputs and investments for ‘farming’, changes to natural resource management practices where ‘farming’ becomes increasingly ‘part-time’ to migration, and the possible role of migrants as ‘agents of change’ in agriculture. In general, the findings from the few cases combining migration and agro-forestry did not meet these expectations. There was no evidence that households used income from migration to pay for agro-forestry inputs, since there are virtually none, or to invest in production, which is also highly rare for any agro-forestry farmer. There were also no reports of specific changes to cropping patterns influenced by the timing of migration. There was a fairly major concern, however, with regard to the availability of labour and the related intensity of cultivation given the regular absence of the male head. The challenge is managing time and labour between migrating and the regular maintenance and production requirements of agro-forestry. This is particularly critical for ‘Perhutani land’ as its low-level stage demands higher inputs of labour. 6.10 Receiving Income Support from Adult Children: Remittances Remittances are the most minimal source of non-farm income, providing on average approximately Rp 500,000. They are also invariably a supplementary source, contributing only 5 to 12 percent of total annual income. This financial source is restricted to ‘old’ households since it comes from adult children. The total amounts are generally a product of the number of children and each child’s relative economic success. All wealth categories can receive remittances, as the activity is not dependent on the assets of the resident household but rather on those of the sender. Remittances are also therefore combined with all other major activities, both farm and non-farm, with no particular characteristic other than the stage of growth of the household separating those that receive remittances and those that do not. 7.0 INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR EFFECT ON LIVELIHOODS The final ‘guidance sheet’ used to direct qualitative data collection focused upon understanding the institutional factors that either inhibit or encourage people from taking advantage of livelihood options or creating livelihood opportunities. The

69

basic means of gathering this information was to identify each village organization and to discuss how they either helped or hindered the successful achievement of particular livelihood activities or the general well-being of village households. Due to time constraints for the research, a specific focus group was not organized around this issue. Rather, data collection involved informal interviews and reviewing previous participatory work done by LATIN. The following presents the findings of this component, listing each recognized organization and discussing their influence on village livelihoods. 7.1 Pemerintah Desa (PEMDES) – Village Government The village government, led by a Lurah (Head), was considered to play a central role in maintaining and enhancing the general quality of life for Saninten households. The administrative function that the Lurah provides is key to the efficient management of the village and he is a critical source of support and protection in times of stress such as when a villager falls ill. The organization is also at the heart of the planning and implementation of general development activities, such as road construction and maintenance, bridge building, school rehabilitation, procuring inexpensive electricity installation and supply, and building roadside gutters. Finally, PEMDES and the Lurah are responsible for coordinating with the upper level Kecamatan (sub-district) government and many other related organizations. Overall, this institution is at the core of political and administrative life in Saninten and the Head holds a significant amount of prestige and influence. 7.2 Badan Perwakilan Desa (BPD) – Village Representative Agency In addition to the village government there is also a local representative agency or ‘village parliament’, which serves similar functions. This institution serves to facilitate various aspects of public activity, may be involved in local development planning and management activities, and coordinates with other organizations. However, on the whole considered to be as significant to local well-being as the ‘village government’, but instead serves official purposes and advisory roles. 7.3 Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LPM) – Community

Empowerment Institute Similar to the mandates of PEMDES and BPD, the central goal of the LPM is to identify potential areas of development that could benefit the community and to subsequently guide the design and implementation of projects. This planning revolves around initiatives of poverty reduction, improving health, and conserving the environment. However, the support that this organization is intended to provide to the government is considered to be only minimal.

70

7.4 Women’s Group: Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK) The PKK, or Family Welfare Movement, is a women’s group established throughout Indonesia by the ‘New Order’ government. Other than religious groups, the PKK was the only mass organization that village women were permitted to join under that government’s authority. The state viewed the role of this institution as central to promoting and implementing its official plans at the local level. However, the collapse of the regime has substantially altered the nature and activities of the PKK. In various locations throughout Indonesia, the opportunity that such a group provides was strongly taken up for such purposes as raising awareness of human rights at the village level, promoting and managing community health services, and developing family planning. Yet the activities of PKK groups across thousands of villages are entirely location specific and in most cases they continue to function under the top-down structure they were founded upon, awaiting central direction before taking any action. Within Saninten it appears that the group is not significantly active in any particular area, although it can at times lend support to development activities. 7.5 Badan Pembina Potensi Keluarga Besar (BPPKB) The BPPKB is primarily a social organization made up of prominent and influential local leaders. The role of the organization is viewed as one of providing moral support and guidance to local development initiatives. As mentioned above, BPPKB serves a particular function of facilitating migration for males from the village by managing large contracts to provide security guards to businesses and industries in major cities. Thus, developing ‘social capital’ by linking to this organization can lead to lucrative livelihood opportunities for rural households. Forming relationships with the powerful individuals in charge of the organization requires careful management of social linkages. 7.6 Religious Group: Kelompok Pengajian Religious groups for both men and women are present in each Kampung throughout Saninten village. The groups organize weekly activities held at night where from 20 to 60 members listen to religious speeches or teachings given by respected figures. The groups are highly valued for their role in promoting and maintaining religious values and customs on a regular basis. 7.7 Youth Group: Karang Taruna The Saninten village youth group, Karang Taruna, is mainly a social organization that coordinates sports activities (football matches) for young people. The group

71

does not have any significant influence on village livelihood activities, although there is potential to develop the organization for wider purposes. 7.8 Producers’ Cooperative: Koperasi Sinar Gunung Karang Saninten’s producers’ cooperative, Koperasi Sinar Gunung Karang, was established as a corporate body in 1998. This institution is responsible for various economic services, including providing farmers with access to loans, acting as a savings body, and offering a market outlet for the sale of agricultural products. Such potential activities, however, have been minimal over the past six years as the organization has not been able to effectively develop. Fortunately the body was revitalized in 2004 and is currently in the process of planning and executing its support strategies under the new name of the Lembaga Ekonomi Desa (LED) – Village Economic Organization. The cooperative now has 60 active members under four managing personnel and staff. The organization has received financial support in the form of a capital loan from Perhutani and is benefiting from the continued assistance of LATIN. While the cooperative has been in official existence for seven years, its limited action means that local people do not feel as though it is an important source of support for their livelihoods. However, this should not negate the organization’s considerable future potential particularly as it relates to the core livelihood activity of agro-forestry, which involves 78% of households. Access to ‘financial capital’ in the form of loans on fair terms could enhance agro-forestry by allowing greater investment in productive capacity, such as in purchasing improved varieties of seedlings. Moreover, the development of an effective marketing system could greatly increase agro-forestry profits by competing with the system of private traders to provide farmers with fairer prices for their outputs. In general, a savings function could benefit all villagers and the provision of loans could span to supporting non-farm activities as well, such as baluk work or services. 7.9 Small-scale Producer Groups: Merpati and Karang Taruna Lestari Two small-scale producer groups have recently been established in Saninten under the impetus and direction of LATIN. The first is a group of women, known as Merpati (doves), organized around the cultivation of medicinal plants and their processing into herbal drinks (jamu) (Image 14). LATIN organized training for the group’s seventeen members, who subsequently self-financed their production efforts. Currently the group produces approximately 120 bottles of jamu per month, which they market to areas throughout the Kabupaten Pandeglang area, as well as to Serang, Jakarta, and Tangerang. Merpati also receives technical support from the district forestry/plantation and agricultural agencies and is awaiting licensing from the Health Department. While it provides critical

72

organizational support for its members to succeed in their livelihood activity of producing jamu, the organization does not offer significant benefits for the village

as a whole, and is therefore not considered among the most important institutions at that level. This may change however as future development and expansion of the group is already in process with probable support from the Industry Department and their approval of packaging methods, and efforts toward creating an umbrella organization of jamu producers.

The second producer group is a partner to the first, crafting bamboo containers for the jamu. Like the women of Merpati, the fourteen young male members of Karang Taruna Lestari received training and support from LATIN and subsequently established their activities through their own capital. Together the groups face significant challenges in their marketing, as they remain highly dependent on external demand for their specialty product. In addition, their production is impeded by very limited working capital. This could perhaps be partially alleviated by fair loans, such as could be offered by a revitalized LED.

Image 13. Processing jamu

7.10 Petugas Penyuluh Lapangan (PPL) – Field Extension Officers The purpose of any extension agency is to provide assistance in the form of knowledge, training, ‘best practices’, or particular technology to enhance farm livelihood activities, either crop or livestock. Thus, in addition to input suppliers, credit sources, and marketing outlets, these institutions can have a critical impact on rural livelihoods. The farmers of Saninten have contact with field officers from three such extension agencies – Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan (Forestry & Plantation), Dinas Pertanian (Agriculture), and Dinas Peternakan (Animal Husbandry). As has been discussed above, the activities of these Agencies are limited within Saninten and therefore local people do not consider them to be centrally important to supporting their livelihoods. The Animal Husbandry Agency has probably the least involvement in the community, as raising livestock is limited to a very small proportion of households keeping goats. The Agency allegedly has plans for bee keeping and cattle raising projects, but neither has been realized. The Agricultural Agency likewise plays a minimal role in the community as a whole, providing technical support

73

through occasional visits only to Merpati for their livelihood activity of cultivating and processing medicinal plants. Based on the classification of the majority of ‘farm’ production within Saninten as ‘agro-forestry’, the most important extension institution is the Forestry and Plantation Agency (DISHUTBUN). Yet even this organization is not considered extremely helpful by farmers due to the irregularity of its involvement and interaction. Rather, support from DISHUTBUN appears to tend toward single injections of aid, such as contributing certain amounts of seed for various commodities at particular times or by providing seedlings for a specific project of rehabilitating the land around two water sources. This is not to say this type of support is not appreciated or important, but that local people also desire sustained services from DISHUTBUN in the form of knowledge transmission and training to enhance their agro-forestry practices. Given the current centrality of farm activities to Saninten, and their increasing importance with the expanding use of ‘Perhutani land’, such a change in terms of institutional support could have a highly significant impact on local livelihoods. 7.11 Non-governmental Organization: LATIN LATIN’s involvement in the community is a fairly recent occurrence, coming to Saninten in early 2004 to pursue ‘ecosystem-based forestry planning’. The activities carried out by the organization thus far are described in detail above (see 2.7 Community-based Planning). The importance of LATIN to local people appears to be growing, as respondents reported an increased confidence in forest management based on the group’s work. LATIN also facilitates and assists several other institutions, including the emerging LED (Village Economic Organization), the two small producer groups, and the Forest Farmer Groups (KTH). The organization is also actively coordinating with additional institutions at the district, province, and even national levels. LATIN is creating various influences on local livelihoods. By facilitating broad-based community planning, the organization has assisted the village in creating a program for rural development that is currently being pursued. This is resulting in improvements to well-being in terms of water supply (replanting forest areas, rehabilitating water springs, reconstructing water supply infrastructure and improving water management systems), village income generation (developing devotional tourism management), and physical infrastructure (constructing a building for children’s religious education, a road to the forest border, gutters flanking the road, and alleys/paths in six Kampungs). The group’s primary concern and area of specialization is the forest, which has led to significant improvements in overall forest management. More specifically, the organizational support provided by LATIN is critical to the particular livelihood activity of agro-forestry cultivation on ‘Perhutani land’. As has been continually highlighted

74

above, the security and sustainability of this livelihood activity are incredibly important to Saninten as a whole, particularly considering extremely limited land availability and the constraints to alternative non-farm livelihood options, as well as the great potential of agro-forestry production as proven by the significance of incomes from ‘village land’. Therefore, supporting farmers cultivating ‘Perhutani land’ to have better rights and improved profit-sharing terms is essential. 7.12 Kelompok Tani Hutan – Forest Farmer Groups As described above, four Forest Farmer Groups were originally formed in 1997 and 1998 as per the requirements of the ‘Social Forestry’ program. The purpose of the group was to collectively manage the portion of ‘Perhutani land’ allotted to them, with each group consisting of 20 members utilizing 5 hectares (1/4 ha per farmer) and headed by an elected leader. The groups have thus become the primary institutional means for farmers to support themselves in their livelihood activity of cultivating ‘Perhutani land’. Forest-farmers consider their relevant KTH very important to their farm activities. They look to the group as a means of collective action in their advocacy and relationships with Perhutani. In particular, they rely on the group for its critical organizational capital in negotiating agreements with Perhutani concerning long-term tenure and use rights and terms of profit-sharing. The strength and importance of the groups are likely to increase as they continue to receive support from other institutions and as they develop within themselves to form an umbrella organization known as Lembaga Masyarakat Desa Hutan (Forest Village Community Organization). 7.13 Forum Pemerhati Hutan Desa-Saninten (FPHD-S) – Village Forest

Observer Forum of Saninten The Village Forest Observer Forum is quickly becoming perhaps the most vital community-based organization in Saninten. The formal nature of the body is enhanced by its official legal status through recognition by the village Head as well as by a growing recognition among the village population in general. FPHD-S is taking a central role is supporting other institutions, which in turn directly enhance livelihoods, such as the KTHs, the two small producer groups, and the revitalized cooperative. It has also worked in collaboration with LATIN to facilitate forest management activities and on rural development initiatives, specifically collaborating with DISHUTBUN to implement a water source rehabilitation project. Finally, the group has taken on mediation and coordination responsibilities, resolving a dispute over water use with a neighbouring village and regularly corresponding with related institutions. Thus, although the Forum may not yet be extremely well known among the general village population, it is increasingly become a key source of support for local livelihoods.

75

7.14 State Forestry Corporation: Perhutani The state forestry corporation, which officially owns all of Saninten’s ‘forest land’ (35% of the total land base), is a highly influential institution. Perhutani is a source of seedlings for all agro-forestry production, it has provided a capital loan to the revitalized cooperative, and it holds ultimate authority over forest management, which can impact water security for Saninten residents. But most importantly for village livelihoods is the way in which Perhutani mediates local access to the critical ‘natural capital’ in the form of Saninten’s forest resources. This issue represents the very core of this research, linking an institution and its policy to the livelihood options of rural households. As has been described, this process has entailed a reluctant granting of land by Perhutani to certain households, thus providing the fundamental basis for pursuing new farm activities that in turn could enhance livelihood security and reduce poverty. However, the terms of this system as it has evolved from ‘Social Forestry’ to ‘Joint Forest Management’ continue to be negotiated and formal agreements have not been acquired. Thus, further development of collaborative structures and processes between Perhutani and the Forest Farmer Groups is required in order to continue enhancing and securing agro-forestry livelihood activities on ‘Perhutani land’. Forest-farmers greatly appreciate the influence of Perhutani on their livelihoods, recognizing that its potential policy and directions form a central factor of uncertainty and risk for their household. 8.0 CONCLUSION Collectively, Saninten households engage in a total of seventeen distinct livelihood activities, each of which requires particular combinations of assets and is mediated by particular institutions. Based on these factors different households have either greater or lesser access to the activity and its ability to generate a certain level of ‘income’. The outcome for each household is the incorporation of one or more activities in a ‘livelihood strategy’ portfolio that sustains the relative wealth and well-being of the family. The key to a livelihoods analysis is understanding this process and how different household types depend on different combinations of activities based upon their access profile. The qualitative data collection pursued for this research provided such an understanding and pointed to the identification of a number of livelihood strategy typologies. The wealthiest households in the village are those who through inheritance or otherwise have gained considerable amounts of the critical ‘natural capital’ of ‘village land’. With this asset they have engaged in private agro-forestry as their primary livelihood activity. The capacity of such production to generate high annual incomes has allowed these households to amass savings, which they have then translated into investment funds for further lucrative non-

76

farm activities, either large-scale trading of agricultural products or local industry, thereby often doubling their wealth. Thus, the ‘wealthy’ have constructed livelihood strategies with dual farm and non-farm activities, each equally important for their total annual income, only occasionally supplemented by another source such as ‘Perhutani land’, a warung, or remittances. A second category of households closely mirrors this group, having accessed similarly large amounts of ‘village land’. The distinction is that these households have not taken advantage of their agro-forestry profits to engage in another lucrative activity. Investment in a new activity entails significant risk, which this group may be unable or unwilling to accommodate, particularly when their already substantial ‘middle’-level income generated from large land sizes dampens incentives from further wealth accumulation. Alternatively, the household may have greater expenses and thus fewer savings for investing. For whatever reason, this group is entirely agro-forestry dependent, constructing unitary livelihood strategies from their single activity of cultivating ‘village land’, although they sometimes take on sharecropping as an extension of this activity. Although they earn similar ‘middle’ range incomes, another group of households is basically the exact opposite of this second category. Owning no ‘village land’, these households depend almost entirely on non-farm activities. For some, this livelihood strategy pattern consists of only a single highly paid activity such as skilled construction work or tree cutting. For others it involves two activities of medium profitability, particularly where lucrative migration or a local ‘service’ has allowed for sufficient savings to be invested in operating a warung. A limited percentage of these households whose main non-farm activity is based within the village also take on sharecropping tasks, primarily as a means of producing food (bananas) for home consumption. An even smaller number may also have access to ‘Perhutani land’. The key asset for this group is thus not ‘natural capital’ as it is for the ‘middle’ agro-forestry dependent households, but ‘human capital’ in the form of their labour and skills. The non-farm activities they rely upon demand certain levels of expertise – the trade skills of cutting and processing timber, of constructing houses, of installing electrical infrastructure, of acting as a security guard; or the business skills to operate a shop either within the village or in a migration location. The activities also often require some form of ‘physical capital’ in the form of tools or a building for the shop, and ‘financial capital’ in the form of savings or working capital. The access that this group has to such assets thus separates them from another group of ‘poor’ landless households, allowing them to take advantage of lucrative non-farm opportunities to generate significant incomes, while the ‘poor’ are confined to activities of low remuneration due to their lack of assets.

77

The ‘poor landless’ are a dominant group in Saninten, including approximately one quarter of all households. Their livelihood strategy portfolios generally consist of non-farm activities with low barriers to entry, such as harvesting, small-scale trading, unskilled construction labour, service work, baluk tasks, and migration. The low asset requirements of these activities are mirrored in their income generation, which tend to be only at a subsistence level. Overall this group is among the most vulnerable, suffering from no ‘natural capital’ and limited ‘human’, ‘physical’ and ‘financial’ assets, which greatly restricts their livelihood options and confines them to minimal income generation. Another ‘poor’ group mirrors the key characteristic of the ‘poor landless’ in that they too depend on a combination of marginal non-farm activities due to a complete absence of ‘village land’ ownership. However, the two groups differ in one fundamental respect – the latter have gained access to critical ‘natural capital’ through the ‘Social Forestry’ program which they have subsequently utilized to generate farm incomes. For these households, the change is reflected in livelihood strategy portfolios that combine the cultivation of ‘Perhutani land’ with their previous non-farm activities, such as harvesting, baluk work, and migration. For many, this shift has caused a concurrent and progressive withdrawal from such non-farm endeavours, as they grow more confident of the potential of their agro-forestry opportunities. Given that the tactic of most forest-farmers is to develop their land through evolving phases toward a stage parallel to current cultivation on ‘village land’, and given the confirmed profitability of that production system, their expectations of greater wealth are well founded. The final category of households face a challenge that reflects the importance of having multiple assets. Households in this group have adequate ‘natural capital’ in the form ‘village land’, but are constrained in producing relative agro-forestry incomes by a lack of ‘human capital’ due to old age, ill health or disability. These households are thus also highly vulnerable as the low quality of their labour greatly limits their livelihood options. Escaping their ‘poor’ wealth level is therefore extremely difficult. While there are certainly other permutations of livelihood activities, these six basic livelihood strategy typologies seem to accurately cover the majority of Saninten households. Based on data from the sample survey, ‘poor’ groups dominate the village making up 56% of all households (Figure 21). For each group, the challenges, changes, and threats to be expected of the various livelihood activities will differentially impact their respective livelihood securities. The ‘wealthy’ group by nature are the least vulnerable, being buffered by their lucrative activities. However, any changes affecting production of ‘village land’, either negative or positive, will ripple through their livelihood strategies. As well, shifts in the structure of agricultural marketing, such as potentially exists with the development of a cooperative body, could impact the profitability of their trading.

78

Figure 21. Distribution of Households by Livelihood Strategy Typology

Middle: 'non-farm'-dependent

Poor: 'non-farm'-dependent

Poor: 'Perhutani land' + 'non-farm'

Middle: agro-forestry-

dependent

Poor: agro-forestry-dependent,

but ltd. labour

Wealthy: large 'village land' + trading/local

industry

‘Middle’ agro-forestry dependent households are also quite resilient, as their ownership of significant amounts of ‘village land’ affords them the security of private farm production. Positive changes to this activity, such as better prices for outputs through an improved marketing system or higher production based on enhanced knowledge transmitted by more regular extension services, could increase their wealth and livelihood security. Alternatively, threats to agro-forestry from pests and diseases, declining prices, loss of soil fertility and so on could cause these households to grow poorer. Moreover, some risk falling into the last category of ‘poor’ agro-forestry-dependent as they age, releasing portions of their sizable land to inheritance and losing the quality of their labour. Together the ‘middle’ and ‘poor’ non-farm dependent groups make up a large portion of households with 45%. This observation is very important since it is too often assumed that the vast majority of rural households are highly dependent on natural resource-based activities. More determined efforts need to be put into understanding the challenges of this diverse set of activities and working toward supporting them better. Strong insights emerge from comparing the relative success of each group, questioning how one has been able to access activities of higher remuneration while the other is confined to poorly paid tasks. What this suggests is the need for greater micro-enterprise support that could enhance non-farm livelihood opportunities by increasing access to various key assets –

79

‘human capital’ through training and skill development, ‘financial capital’ from credit and loans, and ‘physical capital’ in the form of tools, equipment, or necessary infrastructure. The role of migration as an alternative activity option and the various effects it creates must also be fully acknowledged, Given the constrained availability of land against a consistently increasing village population, the significance of non-farm and migration activities in Saninten is likely to only increase further in the future. Yet improving livelihood opportunities for the poor is not solely confined to enhancing non-farm options. Rather, the process of opening new access to ‘natural capital’ through the policy of an institution, Perhutani, is generating a critical impact on the livelihood strategies of a significant number of poor households. The challenge that remains is ensuring that those livelihood activities remain secure and that they develop to assist the poor in overcoming their vulnerability. This in itself is a highly complex and difficult task, involving concerted efforts toward greater coordination between local people and Perhutani under the banner of Joint Forest Management. Institutional factors are absolutely central, as the ultimate security of the activity of cultivating ‘Perhutani land’ for the ‘poor’ depends upon effective negotiation and collaboration among the Forest-Farmer Groups (KTH), Perhutani, and other relevant organizations, including LATIN as a facilitator. Although the process may be incremental, the movement toward written agreements that secure land rights and benefit-sharing for local people is essential in making a sustained impact on the livelihoods of poor rural households in Saninten village.

80

Bibliography Cain, M. and G. McNicoll. (1988) “Population Growth and Agrarian Outcomes” in Lee, R. et al (eds.) Population, Food, and Rural Development. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ellis, Frank. (2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Frank. (2001) “Rural Livelihoods, Diversity and Poverty Reduction Policies: Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi and Kenya.” LADDER Working Paper No. 1. www.uea.ac.uk/dev/odg/ladder Reardon, T. (1997) “Using Evidence of Household Income Diversification to Inform the Study of the Rural Non-farm Labour Market in Africa” in World Development 25 (5): 735-747. Soussan, J., P. Blaikie, O. Springate-Baginski, and M. Chadwick. (2001) “Understanding Livelihood Processes and Dynamics.” Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia, Working Paper 7. www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/prp/pdfdocs/livelihoodspaper

81