View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Resilience in a communitythe story of Orang Asli of Royal Belum-Temengor Forest Complex, Perak
Rural Research & Planning Group (RRPG) 5th International Conference and Field Study in Malaysia 2014, 26-28 August, INFRA Bangi, Malaysia
Khairul Hisyam Kamarudin . Ibrahim Ngah . Khamarrul Azahari Razak . Mohd Safuan Ibrahim . Anwar Harun
content Some thoughts on ‘resilience community’
Orang Asli of Royal Belum-Temengor
Stories of two communities
Conclusion
Royal Belum State Park andTemengor Forest Complex (RBTFC) associated with the conservationof its mega biodiversity resources inMalaysia.
Recently, RBTFC came into thelimelight UNESCO worldheritage site.
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/05/10/Dream-of-Unesco-listing-for-Belum-forest-Najib-calls-for-study-of-forests-heritage-and-economic-val/
PLUS 1
“Indigenous people and their communitiesand other local communities, have a vitalrole in environmental management anddevelopment because of their knowledgeand traditional practices. States shouldrecognize and duly support their identity,culture and interest and enable theireffective participation in the achievementof sustainable development”
(Earth Summit, 1992: 13) PLUS 2
Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) – recognition from Earth Summit (1992)
Adherent to sustainable development principles
Modernization/ Development
Disappearance of traditional values and practices
Threaten the local biodiversity and resources
Create further new problems
Abandonment of traditional practices and knowledge on
resource management
Infrastructure development and support services
Housing quality, job opportunities, income
Conservation / carrying capacity / limit to growth?
Training, human capital development
vs
PLUS 1
PLUS 2
Where to go from here?
Orang Asli (Orang Asal) the oldest community ever known to inhabit thepeninsular land, (historical record dated back to 25,000 years ago), live ininterior rural area with an intimate contact to nature.
RBTFC context associated with high levels of poverty and low levels ofdevelopment.
Community’s ability to surviveresiliently in today’s socio-economicenvironment jeopardized in along term? if they failed to solvethe current internal and/or externalsocio-economic weaknesses bringin the interest for study (on resilientcommunity).
Big Q: have the nature
and its inhabitants (theOrang Asli in this context)being included in theregional conservation anddevelopment plan?
Some thoughts on resilience community
Arise from the need to develop understandingon how people would respond to internal andexternal disturbances, either caused by naturalor human-induced disasters.
Rural communities facing complex socio-political and economic disturbances drasticdrop of rubber price affected the farmers,small holders, and workers caused farmersto abandon their rubber plantations forcingthem to migrate to search for alternativemeans of living.
Community resilience and vulnerability measure using economic, social and environmental capitals.
Source: (an adaptation from Wilson, 2010)
a ‘resilient community’ can be described as a community which is able to create and maintain the balance needs in economy, social, and environmental capitals in a long run
(Kamarudin et al., 2014: 170)
Orang Asli of Royal Belum-Temengor
Area Name of Kampung Population Area Name of Kampung Population
RPS Banun Sungai Banun 122 RPS Kemar Penderas 120
Kabel 51 Banun 99
Sungai Raba 143 Bal 693
Desa Permai 24 Chuwau 178
Pengkalan Permai 68 Akei 188
Desa Damai 113 Katong 351
Cadak 20 Lediau 159
Desa Ria 87 Senangit 225
Semelor* 159 Lerlar 235
Sungai Tekam 83 Badak 185
Pulau Tujuh 87 Shah 255
Sungai Chuweh 97 Ralak 294
Sungai Tebang 131 Rantau 522
Selaor 113 Jarau Lama 299
Sungai Kelab 75 Jarau Baru 117
Sungai Tiang* 409
Desa Pelancongan 143
Sungai Chiong 234
Charok Bus 100
Sungai Kejar 397
Total 2656 Total 3920
Sou
rce: JAKO
A G
erik , Perak (2
01
4)
Stories of two communities
Village (or Kampung) Population Number
of
families
Male Female Total
Semelor 85 74 159 30
Sungai Tiang 191 218 409 83
Village (or Kampung) Sub Ethnic Religion TOTAL
Jahai Temiar Islam Christian Bahai Animism
e
Semelor - 159 80 - - 79 159
Sungai Tiang 409 - 49 47 43 - 409
Field study and data collection
Observation of
Community’s
Resilient Issues
Proposed Specific Indicators at Community Level
Economic
Capital
(12)
a. Average household income
b. Do households have more than one source of income?
c. Has there been a need for the household to develop multiple sources of income?
d. Has there been any significant change in the main employment sector in the last 20 years?
e. How stable are the existing employment sectors?
f. What are the prospects for ongoing/future economic development and employment
sectors?
g. Do households depend on money from relatives living and working outside of the
community?
h. Is the community receiving government welfare support/funds/subsidies? If yes, how
important are they to the community?
i. Are there opportunities for new businesses to be developed? Is there any prospect for
tourism-related activities?
j. What are the potentials tourism development might offer to the community?
k. Who makes the decisions within the community on matters of economic activities?
l. Are locally produced goods only sold locally?
Observation of
Community’s
Resilient Issues
Proposed Specific Indicators at Community Level
Social
Capital
(10)
a. Is training in relevant skills and knowledge available to community members?
b. Are local knowledge or skills passed on from the older to the younger generation?
c. Is there any knowledge or skills passed on from the younger to the older generation?
d. Is there any authority in local/indigenous knowledge still available in your community? If
yes, how is his/her knowledge useful in addressing local problems?
e. Which stakeholder groups are involved in decision-making?
f. Do those who can participate actually participate in decision-making?
g. Would those with opposing viewpoints be allowed to participate in decision-making?
h. Do young people get involved in decision-making process?
i. Do young people think differently/have different ideas as compared to older people?
j. Do young people get involved in developing new opportunities/projects in the community?
Observation of
Community’s Resilient
Issues
Proposed Specific Indicators at Community Level
Environmental
Capital
(10)
a. Is everyone involved in planning the use of natural resources in the community?
b. Does the environment pose limitations on the community?
c. Are water resources of good quality?
d. Are water resources sufficient for local needs?
e. Are water resources distributed fairly?
f. Are soils of good quality?
g. Are soil resources managed sustainably?
h. What are the main environmental issues/problems occurring in your village?
i. How does the community react/respond to these issues/problems?
j. Are there important traditions/taboos which would influence the management of
community resources?
Result & Discussions
Proposed Specific Indicators Findings/Results Remarks/Comments
• Average household
income
100% live in poverty
(<RM600)
WEAK: High incidence of poverty.
• Do households have
more than one source of
income?
15% have more than one
source of income
85% have only one source of
income
WEAK: High level of dependence
on single source of income.
• Has there been a need
for households to
develop multiple sources
of income?
100% agreed that they need
to develop multiple sources
of income
STRONG: High level of perception
on the need to develop multiple
sources of income.
• Has there been any
significant change in the
main employment sector
in the last 20 years?
63% maintain doing the
same jobs for the last
20 years
37% change jobs
WEAK: Most respondents remain
in traditional/forest-related jobs
(which offered a low, short term,
and unstable income).
• How stable are the
existing employment
sectors?
54% said that they are
unstable
37% said that they are
stable
9% were not sure
WEAK: Most respondents believe
that their existing employment
sectors could not offer stable
employment
• What are the prospects
for ongoing/future
economic development
and employment
sectors?
69% mentioned about
the lack of prospects
23% were still confident
8% were not sure
WEAK: High level of dissatisfaction
among respondents regarding the
prospects of the employment
sectors
• Do households depend
on money from relatives
living and working
outside of the
community?
23% said yes
77% are not receiving
money from relatives
outside
WEAK: Low number of family
members living and working
outside of the villages.
Proposed Specific Indicators Findings/Results Remarks/Comments
• Is the community
receiving government
welfare
support/funds/subsidies?
If yes, how important are
they to the community?
100% said yes (i.e. welfare
payment for low household
income)
WEAK: High level of dependence on
government welfare support
(mostly financial). *NGOs are also
directly involved in supporting
these communities.
• Are there opportunities
for new businesses to be
developed? Is there any
prospect for tourism-
related activities?
85% were optimistic
with development of
new businesses
92% were positive about
the future prospects of
tourism
STRONG: High level of optimism
towards planning and developing
new form of businesses, in
particular tourism-related activities.
• What are the potentials
tourism development
activities might offer to
your community?
69% emphasized on job
creation and income
generation
31% were looking for
training and
conservation of local
resources
STRONG: Majority of respondents
were aware of economic potentials
offered by tourism.
• Who makes the decisions
within the community on
matters of economic
activities?
85% said it was made by
the village council (JKKK)
15% did not specify any
answer
STRONG: Strong local leadership
and organization in decision-
making process.
• Are locally produced
goods only sold locally?
62% of products are
internally/locally
consumed
38% are sold to the
external market
Local produce is still
sufficient to cater local
market.
New opportunity for tourism
to be marketed internally and
externally.
Findings from the Economic Capital Survey (Both Villages)
A photo of the village houses in Kampung Sungai Tiang; only in
deteriorating state and have not experienced significant physical
improvement since 10 years ago.
Proposed Specific Indicators Findings/Results Remarks/Comments
• Is training in relevant skills
and knowledge available to
community members?
92% received
training
8% did not
receive training
STRONG: Majority have received/were
given training in relevant skills (i.e. bee
farming, boat engine maintaining,
porter servicing, and sewing).
However, there was a lack of follow-up
and/or continuous guidance after
training.
• Are local knowledge or
skills passed on from the
older to the younger
generation?
100% said yes STRONG: High level of knowledge/skills
transfer; mainly for survivability (i.e.
knowledge of the forest, use of plants
for medication, crafts, traditional
songs, and dances).
• Is there any knowledge or
skills passed on from the
younger to the older
generation?
92% said yes STRONG: Mainly on the use of
technology (i.e. mobile phones and
electrical appliances).
• Is there any authority in
local/indigenous
knowledge still available in
your community? If yes,
how is his/her knowledge
useful in addressing local
problems?
100% said yes STRONG: Authorities in SME (or IKS in
Malay) maintain their roles in guiding
youths to learn about their
environment for economic survival.
• Which stakeholder groups
are involved in decision-
making?
100% said all are
involved
STRONG: High level of openness and
democracy.
Findings from the Social Capital Survey (Both Villages)
Proposed Specific Indicators1 Findings/Results Remarks/Comments
• Do those who can
participate actually
participate in decision-
making?
92% said yes
8% said no
STRONG: High level of local stake-
holding representatives in decision-
making processes.
• Would those with opposing
viewpoints be allowed to
participate in decision-
making?
52% did not have
any problem with
that
24% normally
would follow the
majority
24% were not
sure
STRONG: High level of tolerance, and
also voice of majority play crucial role in
dealing with dispute or opposing
opinions.
• Do young people get
involved in decision-making
process?
92% said yes
8% were not sure
STRONG: High level of youth
participation;
community welcomes new ideas from
young people, shared their views and to
strengthen community togetherness.
• Do young people think
differently/have different
ideas as compared to older
people?
77% agreed that
young people
have different
way of thinking
23% disagreed
Younger generations were exposed to
basic education and the outside world.
For others, it is more convenient to just
follow decisions made by the elders.
• Do young people get
involved in developing new
opportunities/projects in the
community?
100% said yes, in
relations to
trainings
STRONG: High level of involvement in
local economic projects, such as bee
farming, rubber tapping, and porter
services.
Training - Kelulut beehives in Kampung SemelorFree time activities in Sungai Tiang
Findings from the Environmental Capital Survey (Both Villages)
Proposed Specific
Indicators
Findings/Results Remarks/Comments
• Is everyone involved
in planning the use of
natural resources in
the community?
85% said yes
15% were not sure
STRONG: High level of
involvement in planning the use
of local resources.
• Does the
environment pose
limitations on the
community?
100% agreed with
issues of
environmental
limitations.
WEAK: There were complains
about smugglers/trespassers
from Thailand coming and
stealing gaharu, and killing
wildlife.
• Are water resources
of good quality?
92% said no
8% said yes
WEAK: Low water quality; water
level is low during dry seasons
and water is murky during raining
seasons.
• Are water resources
sufficient for local
needs?
92% mentioned about
insufficient supply of
clean water
8% were not sure
WEAK: Low water capacity to
cater the local needs.
• Are water resources
distributed fairly?
85% disagreed
15% mentioned only a
small portion of the
community received
water through the
pipelines
WEAK: Poor level of water
distribution for each village. Most
water distribution systems were
built on individual
initiatives/funding.
Proposed Specific
Indicators
Findings/Results Remarks/Comments
• Are soils of good
quality?
100% agreed STRONG: High level of soil fertility.
• Are soil resources
managed sustainably?
38% manage their land
properly
62% do not
WEAK: Poor management of soil
resources; this is mainly due to constant
threats from animals (i.e. elephants
destroying their farms).
• What are the main
environmental
issues/problems
occurring in your village?
40% mentioned about
illegal poachers stealing
gaharu
40% mentioned about
threats from wild elephants
20% mentioned about
excessive logging and illegal
fishing
Majority agreed with the issues of illegal
poachers/trespassers and threats from
wild elephants.
• How does the
community
react/respond to these
issues/problems?
Building electric fences
Reporting to Park Rangers.
Building electric fences surrounding
their farms.
Reporting to Park Rangers if they
spotted trespassers or poachers.
Current measures were found to be
ineffective to tackle the problems.
• Are there important
traditions/taboos which
would influence the
management of
community resources?
The importance of gotong-
royong, sewang, forest
resources harvesting, and
shifting farming – 23%
respectively
8% did not specify any
STRONG: Strong sense of belonging and
togetherness in protecting the local
environment.
Supply of water is shared among a few houses in Kampung Sungai Tiang
Weak Economic Capital
Weak Environmental
Capital
Strong Social Capital
Conclusion
Community resilience/vulnerability
represented by economic, social, and environmental
capitals of the two villages. Source: (Research Fieldwork,
2014)
Main Sponsor
Co-Sponsor
Rural Research & Planning Group (RRPG) 5th International Conference and Field Study in
Malaysia 2014, 26-28 August, INFRA Bangi, Malaysia
National Conference on Royal Belum 201402-03 December 2014, Belum Rainforest Resort, Gerik(www.utm.my/royalbelum/)
Recommended