permana

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesia

A case study on community transformation and local resource use in Berau, East Kalimantan

Economische ontwikkeling, milieudruk en duurzaamheid in Indonesi

Een case studie over de transformatie van gemeenschappen en het gebruik van natuurlijke hulpbronnen in Berau, Oost-Kalimantan

(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)

Pembangunan ekonomi, tekanan terhadap lingkungan hidup dan keberlanjutan di Indonesia

Sebuah studi kasus mengenai transformasi masyarakat dan penggunaan sumberdaya alam lokal di Berau, Kalimantan Timur

(dengan ringkasan dalam Bahasa Indonesia)

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het

besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen

op vrijdag 9 november 2012 des middags te 12.45 uurdoor

Rizki Pandu Permanageboren op 15 januari 1976

te Bogor, Indonesi

Promotor : Prof. dr. E.B. Zoomers

Co-promotoren : Dr. P.P.M. Burgers

Dr. M. J. Titus

Dit proefschrift werd mogelijk gemaakt met financile steun van De Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO/WOTRO) en de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW).

ISBN 978-90-6266-309-5

Graphic design and layout by Eko Prianto [[email protected]]

Photos by Rizki Pandu Permana

Copyright: Rizki Pandu Permana, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University 2012. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Dedicated to Dr Milan J Titus (1939-2011)

Contents

List of Figures and Tables xi

Glossary xv

Preface xix

1. Introduction 11.1 Background 21.2 Analytical framework 51.3 Berau, one of the last resource frontier areas in Indonesia 51.4 Research aim and research questions 101.5 Methodology 111.6 Thesis structure 14

2. Linking Farming Communities and the Sustainability of Local Natural Resources 172.1 Introduction 182.2 The three pillars of sustainability: ecology, economy and society 182.3 Early society versus nature thinking 202.4 The role of institutions and culture 232.5 Farming communities and their social transformation 242.6 Livelihood strategies in the farming communities 272.7 Sustainability as part of complex dynamic development 302.8 Concluding remarks 32

3. Regional Development Processes and Issues In an East Kalimantan Resource Frontier Area 333.1 Introduction 343.2 Politics and policy developments: From New Order

to decentralization 353.3 Development through the management of natural resources 38

3.3.1 Forest extraction 393.3.2 Coal Mining 44

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiaviii

3.3.3 Estate crops 463.3.4 Coastal and marine-based activities 47

3.4 Development and population growth 513.5 Beraus economic situation 533.6 Land cover changes and pressures on natural resources 553.7 Conflicts over natural resource management 603.8 Conclusion 60

4. Impacts of Forces of Change On the Transformation of Berau Farming Communities 634.1 Introduction 644.2 Community as a unit of analysis 654.3 Tribal Farming Communities 66

4.3.1 Dynamics in resource use systems 694.3.2 Land tenure 754.3.3 Access to market 764.3.4 Technological innovation and commercialization 774.3.5 Social differentiation 784.3.6 Conflict over resources 80

4.4 Peasant Farming Communities 814.4.1 Dynamics in resource use systems 834.4.2 Land tenure 854.4.3 Access to market 864.4.4 Technological innovation and commercialization 874.4.5 Social differentiation 884.4.6 Conflicts over resources 90

4.5 Pioneer Farming Communities 914.5.1 Dynamics in resource use systems 944.5.2 Land tenure 994.5.3 Access to market 1004.5.4 Technological innovation and commercialization 1014.5.5 Social differentiation 102

4.6 Coastal Communities 1044.6.1 Dynamics in the resource use systems 1054.6.2 Resource access 1094.6.3 Access to market 1104.6.4 Technological innovation and commercialization 1114.6.5 Social differentiation 1114.6.6 Conflict over resources 114

4.7 Forces of change in the farming communities 1164.8 Responses and flexibilities of the farming communities 1164.9 Conclusion 121

A case study on community transformation and local resource use in Berau, East Kalimantan ix

5. Internal Differentiation and Responses Within the Farming Communities 1235.1 Introduction 1245.2 Classification of strategy groups within the farming communities 1255.3 General characteristics of the farming communities 1295.4 Resource access and acquisition 1345.5 Involvement in the market system 1385.6 Management of resource use systems 1405.7 Income distribution and diversification 1465.8 Conclusion 152

6. Sustainability of Resource Use Systems 1596.1 Introduction 1606.2 Assessing sustainability resource use systems 1606.3 Variation of resource use systems in the farming communities 1636.4 Shares of resource use systems to total income 1646.5 Marketing potential of commodities 1676.6 Level of income inequality 1706.7 Institutional arrangements in resource use system 1756.8 Impacts on ecosystem and biodiversity conditions 1776.9 Comparison of sustainability in the farming communities 1826.10 Conclusion 188

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 1937.1 External forces of change in Berau 1947.2 Social transformation and flexibility of the farming communities 1957.3 Internal differentiation and responses at household level

within the farming communities 1997.4 What about the sustainability of resource use systems

in the farming communities? 2027.5 Towards sustainable local natural resources 2047.6 Policy implications for local government 2097.7 Final conclusions 216

References 219

Appendices 235Appendix A. ANOVA from the cluster analysis 235Appendix B. Computation of Gini coefficient and correlation 239Appendix C. Procedures for assessing the sustainability aspects 242

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiax

Summary 243

Ringkasan 253

Samenvatting 263

Curriculum Vitae 275

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1-1. Analytical framework of research 6

Figure 1-2. Map of Berau 7

Figure 1-3. Population and population density in Berau subdistricts, 2007 (Source: BPS Berau 2008) 9

Figure 3-1. Advertisement in The New York Times in 1969 invites foreign investors to do business in Indonesia (Source: Roem et al. 1982) 36

Figure 3-2. Gross regional domestic product of Berau, 20002007 (Source: BPS Berau) 40

Figure 3-3. Aquacultures development in Berau (Source: Berau Fishery Office 1998-2005) 50

Figure 3-4. Population growth in Berau from 1971 to 2007 (Source: BPS Berau) 52

Figure 4-1. Research sites 67

Figure 4-2. The number of boats and fish production in Berau 113

Figure 5-1. Mean values for indicators and strategy group classification in the farming communities 131

Figure 5-2. Distribution of households according to strategy group and type of community 132

Figure 6-1. Price movements of some agricultural commodities in Indonesia from 1995 to 2008 (Source: FAOSTAT 2011) 168

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiaxii

Tables

Table 3-1. Timber concession holders in Berau, 2008 41

Table 3-2. Estate crop companies in Berau (as per September 2009) 48

Table 3-3. Revenue shares at all government levels before and after decentralization policy applied 54

Table 3-4. Source of revenue of Berau, 19952007 (in billion IDR) 56

Table 3-5. Land cover changes in Berau, 19902005 58

Table 4-1. Area and population of research villages in the tribal farming communities, 2007 68

Table 4-2. Area and population of research villages in the peasant farming communities, 2007 82

Table 4-3. Farm gate and market prices, 2009 87

Table 4-4. Area and population of research villages in the pioneer farming communities, 2007 92

Table 4-5. Area and population of research villages in the coastal communities, 2007 104

Table 4-6. Main fish commodities in Berau, 2007 106

Table 4-7. Characteristic and dynamics of resource uses systems in Berau farming communities 117

Table 4-8. Responses of the farming communities in Berau 119

Table 5-1. Research villages 125

Table 5-2. Indicators and weight indices used for classification within the farming communities 126

Table 5-3. Age, education and ethnicity composition of the farming communities 133

Table 5-4. Land use patterns and average acquisition (in ha) by type of strategy group and community 137

Table 5-5. Level of involvement in market systems among strategy groups in the farming communities 139

Table 5-6. Differentiation of response patterns among successive strategy groups in the farming communities 141

Table 5-7. Share of income per household per year in the farming communities (in IDR) 148

A case study on community transformation and local resource use in Berau, East Kalimantan xiii

Table 5-8. Comparison of characteristics of household strategy groups in all farming communities 153

Table 6-1. Resource use systems in Berau farming communities 163

Table 6-2. Shares of total income of the farming communities 164

Table 6-3. Income distribution analysis in the farming communities 172

Table 6-4. Comparison of sustainability aspects of resource use systems in the tribal farming communities 183

Table A.1. ANOVA from the cluster analysis using 3 groups in each type of farming community 235

Table A.2. ANOVA from the cluster analysis using 4 groups in each type of farming community 237

Table B. Result of income distribution analysis in Berau farming communities 240

Table C. Description of sustainability aspects in the scoring system 242

Abbreviation Indonesian English

APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah

Local government revenues and budget

APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Nasional

National government revenues and budget

APL Area Penggunaan Lain Other Land Use Area

BAPPEDA Badan Perencana dan Pembangunan Daerah

Regional Planning and Development Agency

BP Badan Pengelola Management body

BPS Badan Pusat Statistik Statistics Office

BUMN Badan Usaha Milik Negara State-owned enterprises

CPO Minyak Sawit Mentah Crude palm oil

DAK Dana Alokasi Khusus Special Allocation Fund

DAS Daerah Aliran Sungai Watershed / river basin

DAU Dana Alokasi Umum General Allocation Fund

Dishut Dinas Kehutanan District Forestry Office

DR Dana Reboisasi Reforestation Fund

FGD Focus group discussion

GRDP Gross regional domestic product

Ha Hektar Hectare

HGU Hak Guna Usaha Use rights

HKM Hutan Kemasyarakatan Social forestry

HL Hutan Lindung Protection forest

HP Hutan Produksi Production forest

HPH Hak Pengusahaan Hutan Natural forest concession

HPHH Hak Pengusahaan Hasil Hutan Forest product management right

HPHTI Hak Pengusahaan Hutan Tanaman Industri

Timber plantation forest

HPK Hutan Produksi Konversi Convertible production forest

HPT Hutan Produksi Terbatas Restricted production forest

Glossary

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiaxvi


HR Hutan Rakyat Community forest

HTI Hutan Tanaman Industri Timber plantation

HTR Hutan Tanaman Rakyat Community timber plantation

IDR Rupiah Indonesian rupiah

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPK Izin Pemanfaatan Kayu Permit for timber utilization

IPKTM Izin Pengelolaan Kayu Tanah Milik Permit for timber management on private land

IPPK Izin Pengusahan dan Pengelolaan Kayu

Permit for timber management

IUP Izin Usaha Pertambangan Mining license

IUPHHK HA Izin Usaha Pengelolaan Hasil Hutan Kayu untuk Hutan Alam

Permit for timber forest management in natural forest

IUPHHK HT Izin Usaha Pengelolaan Hasil Hutan Kayu untuk Hutan Tanaman

Permit for timber forest management on timber plantation

Kaltim Kalimantan Timur East Kalimantan

Kanwil Kantor Wilayah Provincial office

KCDA Kecamatan Dalam Angka Sub-district in figures

KP Kuasa Pertambangan Mining license

MoU Memorandum of understanding

MPA Marine Protection Area

NES Nucleus estate system

NGO Non-governmental organization

PAD Pendapatan Asli Daerah Regional revenue

Permenhut Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Ministry of Forestry Decree

PIR Pola Inti Rakyat Nucleus estate system

PKP2B Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara

Coal mining license agreement

PLTU Pusat Listrik Tenaga Uap Steam power plant

PT Perseroan Terbatas Limited company (Ltd.)

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus

RTRW Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah National spatial planning

RTRWK Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kabupaten

District spatial planning

SD Sekolah Dasar Primary school

SK Bupati Surat Keputusan Bupati Head of district decree

SMA Sekolah Menengah Atas Senior high school

A case study on community transformation and local resource use in Berau, East Kalimantan xvii


SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama Junior high school

TNC The Nature Conservancy

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

WWF World Wildlife Fund

Terminology DescriptionCentral government/National authority

Unless indicated otherwise, the governing authorities of Indonesia.

Consumable Activities that generate food from animals and vegetables for self-consumption. Includes hunting, livestock, collecting vegetables and planting vegetables.

Farm activities Activities to generate incomes from land-based agriculture and fishery sectors. Includes activities on own-account land, own-occupied land and rented/shared land. In this book, the identified activities are: shifting cultivation, rice cultivation, upland cultivation (ladang), perennial crops cultivation, sea fishery, stationary lift net (bagan), aquacultures and (to some extent) livestock keeping (for sale). All these farm activities are also included in resource use systems.

Farming community Considering the emphasis on productive systems and responses, and the local social conditions, a farming community is classified according to the characters of the main livelihood types and the dominant types of production relation. In this research, a farming community is two or three villages that were chosen based on the similarity of these characteristics. This is of course not to suggest that the communities are homogeneous entities, because they may still be internally differentiated and may incorporate various types of production relations. However, the classification remains valid as long as it is based on their dominant types of relations.

Forces of change Political, economic and population developments that have dynamic impacts on the communities and the environment.

Household/family A social unit that shares the same dwelling and the preparation and consumption of daily meals. The members of the unit also share incomes and resources, and coordinate some economic decisions.

Local government/Local authority

Unless indicated otherwise, the governing authorities of Berau District.

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiaxviii

Terminology DescriptionNon-farm activities Activities that derive incomes from sectors other than agriculture

and fishery. Includes off-farm and non-farm incomes derived from working for government institutions and private companies, and as kiosk owners, middlemen, taxi drivers, teachers, nurses, doctors and others. These activities, however, are not included in resource use systems. Some non-farm activities are included in resource uses systems namely gold mining, wage labour/share cropping, forest products gathering and hunting because the income is generated directly from natural resources.

Resource use system A farm or non-farm activity that generates an income from natural resources. Includes activities practised through cultivation or gathering, and performed individually or communally.

When I started my PhD in 2006, I never dreamed that my journey towards its completion would have so many ups and downs. Life is like a roller coaster ride certainly applies to that particular phase of my life. Yet Ive never regretted returning to the Netherlands, where Ive been lucky enough to enjoy and benefit from the very scientific yet fun academic environment at Utrecht University, wonderful research trips to Berau and meeting so many interesting people from various backgrounds some of whom appeared from nowhere at just the right moment. It was some of them who opened various doors for me, induced life-changing experiences and shaped my present life.

One of these good people is Dr Milan J. Titus, to whom I dedicate this thesis. This is the only form of appreciation I can give to the person who gave me the opportunity to do this research and who provided me with my first life-changing experience in Utrecht, both personally and professionally. I still remember our first meeting in Indonesia and being pleasantly surprised at how advanced his Bahasa Indonesia was, which he spoke with a slightly Javanese accent. But later, it was his knowledge of and passion for science that amazed me even more. I may not have been his best student, but he was certainly the best teacher and tutor Ive ever had. I will always be indebted to him for that.

All these years, Pak Milan has helped me to open my eyes to my own country, Indonesia. Ive never met anyone as enthusiastic as he is when talking about Indonesia: he loves the country and has deep knowledge of it. He made me see how great Indonesia is and why so many people love it. He opened my eyes and mind to a country that I had neglected and taken for granted.

Thank you and rest in peace, Pak Milan.

Preface

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiaxx

I also owe a lot to Dr Paul Burgers. He instilled in me the perspective of a good and proud social scientist, who often has to stand alone in the middle of a crowd of people who have different ways of thinking. Pak Paul was a great supervisor, working partner and friend, someone with whom I discussed forestry, social-economy, carbon issues, world politics, sports, the best kebab in the Netherlands, rendang, nasi goreng, coffee, jokes and much, much more. He often said that Im more Dutch that he is but he never realized that I learned that lesson from him. In fact, his love of Indonesia has led him to absorb many Indonesian ways of thinking. Im grateful that our professional work continues, even though my PhD project is finished.

Prof. Dr Annelies Zoomers is another person who made a huge contribution to my project and the finalization of my thesis. The vast amount of support she gave me, particularly after Pak Milan passed away, is really appreciated. I will never forget the long, deep discussions we had, contributing to a common understanding on some issues. I learned from her unexpected questions that forced me to think about and present my argumentation more clearly. And then there was her amazing support when I was stuck in ludicrous moments during my PhD period. I really thank her for that.

This PhD research was made possible by the multidisciplinary East Kalimantan Project funded by WOTRO (Science for Global Development), which is a subdivision of NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research). The project was a cooperation of several organizations in the Netherlands (Utrecht University, ITC International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Undersea Research, NIOO Netherlands Institute for Ecology) and Indonesia (LIPI Indonesian Institute of Sciences, BAKOSURTANAL, LAPAN, DESDM, Bandung Institute of Technology, and University of Mulawarman).

I thank Prof. dr. Piet Hoekstra, Dr Ton Hoitink, Ayi Tarya, Dr Frans Buschman, Dr Wiwin Ambarwulan, Achmad Aditya, Marjolijn Christianen, Rikardo Simarmata, Rini Kusumawati, Bambang Gunawan and other scientists for the great scientific experiences and friendships that gave me during the project. I hope our professional relationships will continue in the future.

I received enormous help from people I did not even know before I arrived in Berau. Im greatly indebted to Abdul Hamzah, Viktor, Catur Sulis, S.N. Andayani, Vienie Deddy, Hendri, Achyar, Iswan Nurhasan, Setiyasih, Sumanto, Catur Suroso, Faisal Kairupan, Agus Herdianto, Fahrizal Nashr, Indah Astuti, Ebe Bun and Arif Hadianto for their excellent assistance and help during the

A case study on community transformation and local resource use in Berau, East Kalimantan xxi

fieldwork. And I thank all the people and respondents in the site villages for their sincere hospitality and support.

I also received support from the government of Berau District (Bupati Office, Planning and Development Office, Forestry Office, Estate Crop Office, Fishery Office, Revenue Office, and Statistical Office), The Nature Conservancy Berau Office, World Education, and World Wildlife Fund Berau Office in the form of background information and outstanding knowledge on the issues. I also thank the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and its staff for their hospitality and their scientific and administrative support during my research in Indonesia; special thanks go to Dr Suyanto, Dr Meine van Noordwijk, Dr Beria Leimona, Betha Lusiana, Dr Atiek Widayati, Vinny Iskandar, Noviana Khususyiah, Nikmatul Khasanah, Retno Setyowati and Degi Harja.

The Netherlands would not have been my favourite place to be without the presence of some good companions. Colleagues and great friends at the university kept me going during the hard times and made the process easier for me. I especially thank Dinu Abdella, Ari Susanti, Suseno Budidarsono, Femke van Noorloos, Ty Pham, Tram Nam Tu, Claver Rutayisire, Yoseph Nkurunziza, Ignace Kabano, Dieudonne Rugenda, Raziah Ahmad, Martin Zebracki, Antony Ongayo, Lucia Goldfarb, Joris Schapendonk, Phuc Nguyen, Marike Bontenbal, Efsane Luleciler, Edo Andriesse, Bram van Helvoirt, Henk Huisman, Guus van Westen, Otto Verkoren and Paul van der Lindert for all the discussions and great times we had together.

Many other friends in the Netherlands also made me feel at home. It would be a very long list were I to write them all down, so Ill name just a few: Riza Nugraha, Bernadette Budhawara, Kiki Kushartanti, Grace Wangge, Irene Hadiprayitno, Bastian and Elisabeth Westbrock, Raden Wahyuningrat, Mia Wibisono, Risma Ikawaty, Audy Joinaldy, Trisna Putra, Priyadi Family, Malik Batubara, Edi Husaeni, Charlie Raya, Meli Sari, Hery Setiaji, Asmara Sumitro, Ngurah Wirawan, Nanda Noor, Ella Enira, Geng Bijlmer, Yustina Artati, Ibu Dewi, Agung Salamah, Yurdi Yasmi, Nike Widayanti, Geng Geulis, Pipit Kartini, Rahmilyna Putri, Benedicta de Fretes, Annisa Riyadi, Adept Widiarsa, Marcin Zielinski, Bas de Koning, Sietske Bruning and Thomas Dirkmaat. Thank you all so much for your warm friendship and for telling jokes, throwing parties and sharing so many delicious meals.

In Indonesia, I should like to thank Dede Wiliam, who opened the first door to my journey: our conversation on Yahoo Messenger was what set me off on that journey. Wiwin Erikawati and Muhi Usamah for great support during the

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesiaxxii

research. And Ill never forget the hospitality provided by Pak Sofyan, Ibu Nana, Ryan Gozali, Pak Muhammad Salim and the Kelay caf family during my stay in Berau. Two good friends Haris Iskandar and Rahajeng Pratiwi also helped me to continue my life journey in Indonesia during the last stage of my PhD. I owe you guys a lot. Thank you!

Finally, I thank my family. I am the luckiest man in the world to have such a loving and caring wife as Antie Nugrahani. What I put her through was not so normal for a couple who had just got married. It was her understanding and support that kept me running, and sometimes panting towards the finish line. Thank you for believing in me, Antie. When our baby daughter Deandra grows up, she will be proud to have such a wonderful mum like you. My thanks also go to my mother, father, sisters and in-laws, all of whom believed in me and encouraged me to go for something that I really wanted. Thank you all so much for supporting me in 2006 when I decided to quit my job and go back to school. I love you all!

1. Introduction

Economic development, environmental stress and sustainability in Indonesia2

1.1 Background

This thesis presents the results of research into the use of natural resources in Berau District, Indonesia, where the environment is considered at risk. Policy change, rapid economic development and the inflow of various population groups are having important implications for the access to and control by populations, forest products, land, marine products and other natural resources. Being one of the last resource frontiers in Indonesia, the district has recently been exposed to increasing in-migration and to massive interventions both by government policies at the central and district level and by corporate sector activities. Faced with these forces of external origin, the local population had little choice but to adapt their livelihoods and social and demographic behaviour to the changing conditions. The research looked at the effects of increasing environmental stress on sustainable resource use and peoples responses and capacity to build sustainable livelihoods. In this thesis, these responses are described and analysed in relation to the sustainability of natural resource use at the community level as influenced by the decisions made at the household level. Understanding the link between population and the environment and, more particularly, the multidimensional notion and context-related interpretation of sustainability were the main objectives of this study.

To the extent that attention has been paid to the link between population and the environment, large groups of scholars have long been concerned about the increasing stress between population needs (e.g. food production, energy consumption) and the environment. In his An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), Thomas Robert Malthus stated that the human population would grow at a far faster rate than the populations ability to produce food. He predicted that there would be famines and wars over territory as nations sought to increase their capacity to produce food for people. Garrett Hardin provided a highly influential examination and discussion of the link between population pressure and natural resources in The Tragedy of the Commons (1968). The article demonstrated how population pressure is directly linked to the dwindling of common resources. The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and solely and rationally according to their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyones long-term interest for this to happen.

With regard to environmental issues in international debates, the Club of Romes publication The Limits to Growth: A Global Challenge was very important (Meadows et al. 1972). This global think-tank stressed, in a

A case study on community transformation and local resource use in Berau, East Kalimantan 3

neo-Malthusian way, how existing trends of rapid population growth, food production and industrialization would result in the depletion of natural resources and the pollution of the environment. In todays discussions about climate change, much prominence is also given to population growth and the risk of increasing stress between population and the environment. Emphasis is given to new scarcities such as the increasing pressures between non-renewable energy and natural resources, and human over exploitation. The pollution and increasing scarcity of natural resources (e.g. land, forest and water) are assumed to threaten human health and welfare (Zoomers 2012).

In discussions on sustainability and the use of natural resources, much attention is thus paid to the risk of population growth and overpopulation, often resulting in doomsday scenarios of situations of scarcity, conflict and/or human displacement (environmental refugees). The assumption of the negative relation between population and environment has increasingly been responded to by other scholars. An important example is the study by Esther Boserup (1965), who stressed that people are able to adapt to population pressure by intensifying agricultural production. This study showed that technological change and innovation will help people to deal with growing population pressure, which will not necessarily result in crisis situations as predicted by Malthus. In addition, Elinor Ostrom played a crucial role in contesting Hardins ideas about the tragedy of the commons by stressing the importance of institutions and showing how traditional communities were capable of setting the rules necessary for sustainable resource exploitation (Ostrom 1990). Scholars working on livelihoods research have stressed, mainly in the context of the poverty debate, the importance of human agency, that is, peoples flexibility and capacity and their capabilities to adapt.

Sustainable development is usually referred to in terms of a balanced pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment. The term was used by the Brundtland Commission, which coined what has become the most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development, namely as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland et al. 1987).

Whereas debates about sustainability were initially mainly focused on environmental sustainability, more attention is now paid to the social, cultural, economic and political aspects of sustainability. Increasing attention is also being paid to peoples capacity to build sustainable livelihoods. The generally accepted definition of sustainable livelihood is: A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance


its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, without undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway 1991 in Zoomers 2012).

In the 21st century, it is increasingly acknowledged that global sustainability problems cannot be approached with a traditional and linear, mechanistic method: economic, ecological, social, technological and cultural processes, at both the local and the global level, have to be considered in combination, and harmony at these levels is important if we wish to bring about global sustainability (Gocz et al. 2007).

At the local level, sustainability has also been defined in terms of sustainable community development (Hamstead and Quinn 2005). The concept focuses on the community or local economy as the primary locus of action, while integrating the concept of ecological sustainability. Through this concept, the dynamic relationship between the local economy and its environment can be explored and understood.

Many studies have shown that there is an intricate relationship between community development and natural resource use, which are influenced by a multitude of factors such as economic development, global market demand, population dynamics and higher level policies (Chimhowu 2002, Wadley and Mertz 2005, Jakobsen et al. 2007, Koczberski and Curry 2005, Soini 2005, Verbist et al. 2005). These macro- and meso- level factors have profoundly influenced the socioeconomic dynamics at the community level and the pressures on the local environment.

As even the most remote areas become integrated, or even incorporated into wider social, economic and political systems, externally induced factors are becoming increasingly important in understanding changes in the natural environment in general. However, the extent to which these factors contribute to the speed and direction of certain ecological transformations is often not sufficiently understood. Depending on their expertise and interests, researchers tend to overemphasize the impact of the formal system, while underestimating traditional practices in managing resources, or vice versa. In other words, insufficient attention has been paid to the way in which socioeconomic transformations at the local level (ranging from social differentiation to changing household strategies) that affect the sustainability of local resource use, are a result of growing globalization and commercialization.

Proper understanding requires an approach that provides insight into the most important internal and external conditioning factors, which influence both


long- and short-term ways to build up a livelihood in the various types of local communities and among the different socioeconomic groups living in these communities. These various types of communities represent the richness and complexities of reality.

This thesis mainly focuses on the nature of the processes leading to changes in the use of natural resources, namely development policy at the national and/or local level, economic development, and population changes that influence the transformation and pursuit of livelihood security at the local level. It emphasizes issues of local resource use, as these have a direct impact on the environment through deforestation, land degradation, erosion, overfishing, etc. It identifies sustainable local management systems that might be relevant within the current decentralized form of resource management policy in Indonesia.

1.2 Analytical framework

When studying the interactions between communities and natural resources in a regional context, a clear distinction should be made between the various analytical elements and processes involved. Four major elements or levels are identified in the analytical framework presented in figure 1-1.

The first element is related to the forces of change affecting the regional economy, social and ecological conditions. The second element includes the types of people/communities involved and the major processes of transformation occurred. The third element concerns the role of natural resource use systems and the impact of responses from elements 1 and 2. The fourth focuses on the impact of changing resource use on local and regional social, economic and environmental conditions. The various elements in each of the analytical levels are related through causal relationships and feedback mechanisms. They are also embedded in the regions environmental conditions.

1.3 Berau, one of the last resource frontier areas in Indonesia

We carried out our research in the Berau river basin, which is known for both the originality and the diversity of local forms of natural resource management. The various areas that form the basin have an exceptional biological and cultural diversity. In addition, the rapid pace of socioeconomic transformation in recent


years provided interesting opportunities to study the environmental impacts and the possibilities of applying socially and economically sound conservation strategies in managing local resources.

Berau is located in the north-eastern part of Kalimantan (Borneo Island) (figure 1-2). It covers an area of 34,127 km2 (BPS Berau 2008), embracing the extensive hinterlands of the Segah and Kelai rivers, which merge into the Berau river, about 50 km from the estuary. This riverine system provides crucial communication arteries throughout the district by linking the interior with the coast. It also forms the main transport route for fresh water, sediments and other materials affecting the coastal zone.

Environmental conditions/regional context

Major forces of changes(Global/national level):- National policies- (Global) market demand- Corporate sector investments- Migration (in and out)

Dynamics at district level:- Economic development- Population growth

Dynamics at community level:- Social transformation- Livelihood strategies- Changing resource use systems

Natural resource use systems:- Land use patterns (and changes)- Environmental pressures

Local and regional consequences:- Sustainability impacts- Livelihood security- Economic performances

Feedback

Climate

Figure 1-1. Analytical framework of research


Fig

ure

1-2

. Map

of B

erau


Mantel (2001) divided Berau into four main types of landscape: flat land, sloping upland, steep land and complex landforms. The flat land includes the coastal zone in the eastern part, which is of considerable length and diversity, as dozens of small islands and coral reefs are scattered along the shore. Most of this coastal area was originally covered by mangrove forest. The sloping uplands are found mainly in the north-eastern part of Berau. The interior of the district is dominated by steep land that consists of hills and mountain ranges rising to over 2,000 metres above sea level in the western part. This interior area was once largely covered with primary rainforest. Finally, a mountainous limestone landscape with complex landforms dominates the southern part of the district.

The district is situated between three other districts: Bulungan District to the north, Malinau District to the west and East Kutai District to the south. Berau is divided into 13 subdistricts, nearly all of which are sparsely settled. Kelay subdistrict covers the largest area, followed by Segah subdistrict. The capital Tanjung Redeb occupies the smallest area, and is by far the most populous centre.

The population distribution in the subdistricts is far from equal (figure 1-3). The highest population concentration is in the most urbanized areas, such as Tanjung Redeb (2,168 inhabitants per km2) and in neighbouring Sambaliung and Teluk Bayur, while the lowest concentration is in Maratua subdistrict (0.77 inhabitants per km2). Sambaliung subdistrict has a fairly large population, but the density is low, because of the large size of its administrative area. Besides, the population in Sambaliung is mainly concentrated in the border areas of the neighbouring urban centre of Tanjung Redeb.

The population of Berau is composed of various Indonesian ethnic groups. Prior to the successive migration waves, the population consisted mainly of indigenous Malay/Berau (Orang Banua) and Buginese, who occupied the lower sections of the river basins and strategic locations at the Berau river confluences. They mostly engaged in subsistence agriculture (wet and dry rice cultivation) and local trade activities. A small minority consisted of Chinese traders, who lived in the urban centres and were mostly engaged in inter-regional trade.

The population inhabiting the densely forested areas in the hinterland were native Dayaks (Gaai, Kenyah and Punan), who were hunter-gatherers and shifting cultivators. Some of them now live close to the urban areas and practise a more permanent type of agriculture. Finally, Bajau sea nomads settled in the coastal areas together with Buginese migrants.


Fig

ure

1-3

. Pop

ulat

ion

and

pop

ulat

ion

dens

ity

in B

erau

sub

dist

ricts

, 200

7 (S

ourc

e: B

PS B

erau

200

8)

Sub

-dis

tric

t

Talis

ayan

Kelay

Tuba

anBid

uk - B

iduk Pu

lau D

eraw

an

Mar

atua

Sam

baliu

ng Tanju

ng Re

deb Gu

nung

Tabu

r

Sega

hTe

luk Ba

yur

Batu

Putih

Biata

n

60,0

00

Pop

ulat

ion

Popu

latio

n de

nsity

50,0

00

40,0

00

30,0

00

20,0

00

Population number

10,0

0052

02

8587

0

Population density (people/km

2

)

0300

600

1,20

0

1,50

0

1,80

0

2,10

0

2,40

0

0.85

4.78

8012

2.08

1408

5

7.09

6725

1.3

5193

3.14

4538

3.17

1633

0

92.9

431

810.

77

2433

1

10.1

2

5152

4

2168

.52

5952

2.51

6739

2.24


Although timber concession companies have been active in Berau since the 1970s and the coal mining company, which started in colonial times, was revived in the 1980s, few local people engage in these sectors, as the companies employed contract labour from outside (mainly Javanese labourers). The latter group has increased even further since the implementation of the first transmigration programmes in the 1980s. The majority of the households in Berau still depend on primary activities, namely rice cultivation and upland food crop farming in the flat areas, mixed-forest gardening, shifting cultivation and traditional hunting and gathering in the hinterland, and aquaculture and sea fisheries in the coastal areas.

1.4 Research aim and research questions

The primary aim of the research was to get an insight into the dynamics of the main types of natural resource use under conditions of major forces of change, namely changing national and local policies, advancing processes of economic development and increasing population pressure. We paid ample attention to the role of contextual factors at both the macro and regional levels of analysis, such as government policies, market forces, corporate sector investments and technological innovations.

We then switched our focus to unravelling the intricate relationships between these macro- and meso-level processes and the responses at the community and household levels, that is, at the level of the decision-makers among the local population. The impacts of the processes of change are later described in terms of social transformation in the different types of communities, including their internal differentiation and the livelihood strategies of the households. Considering the differences in flexibility of the various actors or strategy categories with respect to increasing pressures upon their respective livelihood conditions, different outcomes may be expected for the sustainability of the applied resource use systems.

Based on the general research aim and problem definition, we formulated the following research questions:

1. How do the external forces of change (if any) affect the resource dynamics at the regional/district level? a. What are the major drivers/determinants of resource dynamics at the

regional/district level?


b. What are the impacts of these drivers/determinants on the main economic, social and ecological developments at the regional/district level?

2. What is the impact (if any) of these external forces of change on the different types of farming communities?a. What are the demographic and other characteristics of the various

farming communities in the research area? b. What are the characteristics of their resource use systems? c. How these resources are use systems changing in each type of farming

community?3. What is the impact of these changes on the farming communities with

respect to their resource use management?a. How do the differentiations appear within the farming communities?b. Which livelihood strategies can be distinguished within the farming

communities? c. To what extent do these livelihood strategies reflect the variety in local

social, economic and environmental conditions?d. How do the livelihood strategies demonstrate the various responses in

coping with the external forces of change?4. Do these developments and the communities responses affect the

sustainability of their local resource use systems? If so, in what way?a. What are the economic, social and ecological characteristics of

resource use systems in each farming community in relation to sustainability?

b. Which resource uses system is considered sustainable in specific local conditions in each farming community?

5. What conclusions can be drawn from the research results with respect to the feasibility of present resource management policies and practices in the area?

1.5 Methodology

We started by exploring the current debate on the sustainability of local livelihoods and resource management in general and in the region in particular. Based on a literature study and a discourse analysis, we identified the various discourse lines as well as respective key concepts on the sustainability of local community livelihoods and resource use systems. We assumed a significant causal relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics of households and communities and the sustainable use of existing resources. We applied a systematic comparison of the local resource


management systems and the livelihood strategies in the different settings of the research areas, to study the effects of socioeconomic changes on sustainable management of the natural resources.

Our research activities also included a first phase of analysing existing secondary data in the Netherlands and Indonesia. We also carried out a baseline field survey to develop a more empirical basis for later analysis. This included qualitative data gathering through formal and informal in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and household surveys. We gathered these data in order to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the processes that are taking place in the research area, and to put the empirical data in their proper context. We combined data collection at the regional level of resource governance with observations and interviews with various key persons involved in the management at the local and the regional levels.

We carried out our first field research in AugustOctober 2007 in 11 villages that we had selected purposively from all over the district. We used secondary sources of literature and discussions with local government officers and NGOs in Berau to collect basic information about these villages. Our selection principle was that each village should represent several types of farming communities1.We classified the majority of the farming communities in the district into at least four types based on their major social and production characteristics. The four types are: subsistence-oriented tribal farming communities, semi market-oriented peasant farming communities with permanent agriculture, the relatively unstable pioneer farming communities, and the coastal communities, which mainly subsist on fishery.

We selected three Dayak villages in the upper Segah river area in the western part of Berau as representing subsistence-oriented tribal farming communities, and two villages in the central part of Berau as representing semi-market oriented peasant farming communities. We chose two pioneer or migrant farming communities in the southern part of Berau, close to the Kelay river; one is a government-sponsored transmigration village, the other a spontaneous migration village of Dayak Kenyah people. The last type is represented by four villages in the coastal zone of the eastern part of Berau, where fishing is the main type of livelihood.

Focus group discussions were organized in each of these 11 villages by bringing together different households from different backgrounds to discuss their

1 The complete analysis of this classification is presented in Chapter 4.


experiences in managing local resources, identify shared views, and offer accurate information on current land use patterns, policies and regulations. We also used the data to analyse the impacts at the community and the household level. Furthermore, we held in-depth interviews with selected key informants and specific resource persons, including local people, heads of adat (customary law), village heads, middlemen, team leaders (e.g. of a gold mining group), and district and sub-district government staff. We conducted these in-depth interviews to generate more detailed information about specific issues discussed during the focus group discussions.

Later, we conducted structured household surveys to generate more detailed information at the household level on livelihood strategies and other related matters, including the households income and demographic characteristics. We carried out this survey from October 2008 to January 2009 in eight villages out of 11 previous eleven villages, which represented the four types of farming communities as mentioned before. In each community type, the household survey was conducted among 4042 households.

The drawing of the household sample, however, was not intended to obtain a sample representing the exact composition of the community population, but was aimed at acquiring insight into the decision-making processes in the various types of households involved in the respective resource use systems. In order to collect sufficient data from each of the household types, a purposive random selection was drawn covering each of the types identified before with the help of informants. Only in this way it was possible to compare, for example, the various livelihood strategies of different types of households with very different frequencies of distribution, and that otherwise might have remained outside the sample.

We classified the households in each type of farming communities on the basis of a cluster analysis. Using the cluster analysis, we could make a classification of households in four groups that allowing us to make a distinction between households aiming at survival; households focusing on consolidation (making a subdivision between starters and people in an advanced stage); and finally a group aiming at accumulation (see chapter 5).

Finally, it should be noted that, since this study focused on changing resource use systems and their sustainability impacts, the emphasis was on analysing production systems and the related response patterns at the community and household levels. Consequently, socioeconomic and socio-spatial aspects of differential developments and response behaviour prevailed in this comparative


study, although socio-cultural explanations were certainly not neglected in case they play a relevant role.

1.6 Thesis structure

This thesis comprises several chapters and sections dealing with the research context and problems, the theoretical framework, the forces of change at the regional and local levels, the empirical findings and analyses, and the comparative conclusion, which comprises a synthesis and overview of the main processes and their policy implications.

This chapter has presented the background to the study, described the research area, and explained the research objectives, the research questions and the methodology used.

The theoretical background is explored in Chapter 2. It presents an overview of relevant theories and concepts within an analytical framework that links the main forces of change and their impacts on the dynamics at the community level with the sustainability of the related resource use systems.

Chapter 3 describes the major determinants of change at the national and district levels. It also positions Berau within the context of economic and political developments at the national level. Starting with the description of political processes from the starting New Order era up to the current modern decentralization policy, the chapter discusses the major policy changes at both the national and district levels, including their impacts on economic sector development in the district. The description here focuses on large-scale developments that significantly influence the districts economic and environmental conditions, such as forest exploitation, estate crops, mining and fishery activities. Finally, the chapter presents the impacts of these development processes at the district level on population growth, economic development, environmental conditions, social changes and conflicts.

Under these macro- and meso-level processes, many communities faced the full force of externally induced changes in their livelihood conditions and perspectives. Chapters 4 and 5 explore these changes and dynamics at the community level. Chapter 4 focuses on the social transformations in the different types of farming communities due to external forces of changes. This includes the dynamics of their resource use systems in relation to access to markets, access to resources, level of commercialization and technological


innovation, and social differentiation. This chapter also shows the different responses and flexibilities of the farming communities to the major forces of change. In Chapter 5, the analysis is narrowed down to the internal differentiation within the farming communities, which are classified on the basis of their livelihood strategies in coping with the forces of change. Here, the diversity of responses shows that the communities are not homogeneous entities and may react quite differently to major factors of change.

All the resource use systems, however, have different potentials for either improving or degrading the environmental conditions in the respective areas of the communities. Chapter 6, therefore, compares the sustainability potential of the various resource use systems in each farming community by assessing their economic, social and ecological dimensions.

Chapter 7 presents a general discussion and the main conclusions of the research. It summarizes the different responses among the various farming communities in coping with the main forces of change, and presents reflections on the main determinants of these responses against the background of the theoretical framework described in Chapter 2. The conclusion also makes recommendations for improving communities resilience and discusses the implications for the formulation of local development policy.

2. Linking Farming Communities and the Sustainability of Local Natural Resources


2.1 Introduction

The sustainability debate has grown over the years. Different concepts have been provided in order to define what must be available for future generations in order to meet the sustainability criterion (Inyang et al. 2009). Nevertheless, some people believe that more than 40 years after the term sustainability was introduced in Limits of Growth (1972) the world system is still not able to abandon the path of exploitative development and to follow that of balanced sustainable development (Gocz et al. 2007).

The discussion about sustainability has now moved from a linear, mechanistic approach to a more complex dynamic development approach that includes and combines all aspects and processes economic, social, ecological, technological and cultural. Moreover, the global debate on sustainability has also brought the discourse on the importance of this matter to the regional and local level; to local communities that are influenced by external social, economic and political forces, and that have to respond to these developments by transforming or adapting their social and economic livelihood systems in order to maintain the sustainability of their local natural resources system. In line with this, regional and local sustainability was increasingly considered the foundation of global sustainability (Gocz et al. 2007) and it was increasingly believed that understanding processes at the local level is not only relevant but can help in finding solutions at the global level.

2.2 The three pillars of sustainability: ecology, economy and society

The concept of sustainability became firmly rooted in policy and academic circles after the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987 (Mebratu 1998). The definition of sustainable development given in the report is now widely used and has set a standard for sustainability and sustainable development. It reads: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland et al. 1987). Its wide acceptance, however, does not mean that no other definitions have been introduced. The concept of sustainable development turned out to be open to numerous views, interpretations and definitions.

It is recognized that the influence of science, mostly natural sciences, has had a large impact on defining sustainability. Partly because of the Brundtland


definition, past and current discussions about the concept of sustainable development focus mainly on the generational aspects, that is, the fact that satisfying our needs should not affect the needs of future generations. As a result, ecological aspects and physical sustainability came to dominate the debate; the relationship between man and environment (nature) was put central. The preservation of natural resources, the maintenance of resource stocks in more stable amounts, and the maintenance of ecological processes and life support continue to be the main objectives of sustainability strategies and policies. In other words, the ecological approach to sustainability emphasizes the need and ability to prevent or reduce the destruction of the environment, by conserving natural resources, optimizing and enhancing the use of land and other resources, and preserving biodiversity either at the local or global level (DFID 1999).

However, sustainability also has an important social dimension when it refers to the allocation of access to resources within society. In other words, sustainability also has everything to do with the distribution of goods and services in relation to human needs and the allocation mechanisms among its population (Conway 1987, Leach et al. 1999). It means that social conditions should not exclude too many people from access to resources and facilities, and that principles of equitability should be safeguarded so as not to increase the differences in wealth between and within communities.

In this context, the capabilities approach developed by Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen should be mentioned. In essence, Sen (1981) argues that it is not the availability of resources per se, but the way that people can secure and sustain access to certain assets or resources. Thus, the social dimension of sustainability requires the maintenance of shared values and equal rights within community interactions, most of which are embedded in their cultures and religions. In the 1999, another book by Sen, Development as Freedom, showed that values, institutions, development and freedom are all closely interrelated. These values and rights can be enhanced by developing a strong civil society and through systematic community participation (Goodland 1995), as well as by performing group action and promoting local formal and informal institutions.

The third dimension of sustainability is the economic dimension, namely the viability and stability of economic pursuit related to natural resources, or the way in which capital is invested, maintained and kept. The economic dimension refers to the willingness to abandon, and the profitability of abandoning the path of exploitative exploitation.


The integration of these three dimensions is most relevant to a proper definition of sustainability (Sutton 2000). It should be kept in mind, however, that the three dimensions often overlap (see Conway 1985, Barbier 1987, Brown et al. 1988, Chamber and Conway 1991, Lele 1991, Goodland 1995). Economic and physical ecological aspects of sustainability, however, have stronger direct linkages with each other than with social aspects of sustainability. Social sustainability often has indirect linkages, even though in many cases they are a prerequisite for achieving ecological and economic sustainability. On the other hand, however, according to Lele (1991) the term sustainability is commonly related to ecological sustainability, and has a conjunction with the social conditions that influence mannature relationships.

It may thus be said that sustainable development requires a progressive transformation of economy and society. Physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies also pay attention to such aspects as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits, that is, to the social and economic dimension. Although development and physical sustainability (protection or conservation) are viewed as inseparable, there has been insufficient progress in making a shift from a rather exploitative path of development towards that of sustainable development.

2.3 Early society versus nature thinking

Sustainability is supposed to have strong links with demographic processes, as well as with economic, ecological and socio-political changes. In his Essay on the principle of population (1798), Malthus showed that sustainability is an unattainable goal, as population growth is constantly outpacing growth in food production, unless people are able to claim unused lands or intensify farming methods. As this takes a long time, it leads to poverty and probably to mass starvation (as a correction to overpopulation). The basic mechanism behind it is that, according to Malthus, the production potential of land is limited and production is susceptible to diminishing or stagnating returns, so that yields tend to increase only according to arithmetical principles, whereas population tends to increase according to geometrical principles. Consequently, this will lead to irreversible damage to the environment, since people will most likely deplete the lands that feed them. Malthus has had a major impact on sustainability thinking, as he was one of the first to recognise the importance of land as a scarce resource, the problem of diminishing or stagnating yields, and the role of population growth (Ayres 2008).


However, Malthus expected that the use of modern technology and inputs would develop within one generation and enable a huge increase in agricultural productivity; he also expected the development of techniques to control human population. Neo-Malthusians recognize that these developments have occurred, but still emphasize that population growth can be a major brake on economic growth. In relation to sustainability thinking, they argue that the use of modern technology might increase pollution and environmental degradation, and therefore increase both poverty and mortality levels. A similar neo-Malthusian view was presented by Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1970), who assumed that every individual on this planet has a net negative impact on his or her environment. Thus, high and unbalanced rates of population growth will have negative impacts on the environment (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971). Population growth has consequently become a major underlying factor of humanitys environmental problems (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2002).

Another line of thinking was sparked by Esther Boserup (1965), who argued that the impact of population growth will also depend on the capacity of people to adapt to the new situation. If, for example, population growth is caused by external factors, the growth rates may be too high to allow for timely adaptations in technology and social organization. But if people are faced from within with increasing pressures on resources, they will start to work harder and more regularly, change their work habits and increase productivity. She showed that under certain conditions, the relationship between population and sustainability may lead to positive impacts on agricultural intensification and increase agricultural output. Moreover, higher food prices, caused by increased population and resource scarcity, encourage investors and entrepreneurs to seek a solution. This solution is mainly sought in technology development. Increasing population density may also improve the division of labour, increase the spread of communication and education, and improve prosperity (Simon 1998).

A third line of thought evolved from Garrett Hardins Tragedy of the Commons (1968), in which he wrote Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all meaning that without policies to keep the growing population and their activities under control, the worlds open access resources will inevitably be eroded beyond the point of regeneration. The tragedy of the commons is a problem arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently in their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even though it is clear that it is not in anyones long-term interest for this to happen.


These three lines of thought continue to persist in the global debate on sustainability, simply because they show the possible disastrous impacts on ecosystems due to human behaviour. In such cases, it becomes inevitable that the pace of development of the resource exploitation system cannot keep up with population pressure and environmental degradation. Simon (1998), however, believes that this impact is still indeterminate, and will depend on demand, supply and technological know-how. The argument serves for the use of a variety of resources, such as water, land, fish, and non-renewable energy sources like oil and coal. Thus, to achieve a sustainable global society, major changes in population growth, consumption level and the use of technology have to be made.

This aspect can also be found in the economic developmentalist view on sustainability. Kuznetz (1955) can be considered the pioneer of the idea of how a country or state adopts more sustainable production when development takes place. The environmental Kuznetz curve is the graphical representation of Kuznetzs hypothesis that economic inequality and pollution increase over time while a country is developing, and then begin to decrease after a critical average income is attained. During the initial process, sustainable development is subordinated to economic growth objectives. After that, it makes way for more environmentally conscious behaviour and sustainable development becomes rooted in the countrys strategy. This could explain why many countries in the South conduct rather unsustainable forms of economic activities in the beginning, since development policy is focused on increasing the countrys income as rapidly as possible. However, there has been considerable criticism of the Kuznetz curve, as it would be too easy to believe that developing countries can initially ignore unsustainable practices, as they will be solved in the long run. Many developing countries could (and some already do) take various measures to protect or improve their environment, and such measures can have enormously positive implications for societal welfare (Carson 2005).

Another researcher, Daly (1992), believes that biophysical and ethic social conditions could limit the tendency toward unlimited economic growth, even in cases where growth is still desirable. According to Dalys steady state economic (SSE) approach, the flow of processes in economic growth is based on a linear loop (the throughput in Dalys terminology) because the economy is believed to be an open system rather than an isolated system. His line of reasoning is as follows. At first, economic growth might cause environmental degradation and create pollution as the loop begins with the depletion of resources; this is followed by the production phase, continues with a depreciation process and finally ends up with the creation of pollution through waste, which is re-restored to the environment. The depletion and the pollution


phases are considered disorders in the ecosystem that render the economy unstable and interfere with the life-support services provided by other kinds of natural biological cycles. If these supporting services diminish, it is appropriate to count them as a cost of growth in the development process, in order to make it sustainable. Finally, with the increase in wealth, improved technology and rising costs of environmental degradation, the sustainability issue becomes more pressing and necessary to be solved. This can be achieved through market mechanisms that promote sustainability by including environmental costs in production prices.

However, the weakness of the SSE approach is that it puts too much confidence in a proper functioning of the market as an open system that offers a maximum of efficiency and freedom of choice, whereas in reality shareholder capitalization and hence international competition tend to force producers to maximize profit by saving on production cost and charging part of these costs to the environment.

2.4 The role of institutions and culture

It is necessary to understand institutions in order to ascertain how local actors view a resource and to comprehend their motives for using it. This aids in determining how the use of the resources fits in the livelihoods of natural resource users. Leach and colleagues (1999) assert that institutions influence ecological change by shaping the ways that actors access, use, and derive well-being from environmental resources and services. Ostrom (2007) define institutions in the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework as the enduring regularities of human action in situations structured by rules, norms, and shared strategies, as well as by the physical world. Moreover, formal institutions are those that require outside enforcement by a third party. Examples include laws, policies and regulations. Informal institutions, conversely, are formed by mutual agreement or power relations, and can be endogenously enforced (Leach et al. 1999).

Crawford and Ostrom (1995) state that both formal and informal institutions are expressed in institutional statements. These statements cover a broad set of shared linguistic constraints and opportunities that prescribe, permit, or advise actions or outcomes for participants in an action situation (Ostrom 2005). This view is exemplified by Agrawal and Gibsons (1999) assertion that communities are made up of multiple actors who interact according to their own interests within a pre-set form of institutional arrangements that structure their


interactions. They observed that citizens do not necessarily immediately adopt conservationist norms that are introduced into a community by external actors. Agrawal and Gibson (ibid.) go on to assert that if a resource is to be managed effectively at the local level, local actors need to have authority and control over (1) making rules about the use, management and conservation of the resource, (2) implementing the rules that are created and (3) resolving disputes that arise during the interpretation and application of rules.

Institution also includes behavioural norms to which people conform in their daily lives (Imperial 1999). Sustainability largely depends on a certain culture or worldview that prevails in a society. Anthropologists have pointed to the conservational and sustainable use ethics of so-called indigenous communities as a worldview (Loomis 2000). The unsustainable use of resources is also possible. Egmond and Vries (2011) stated that our current civilization is characterized by social, ecological and economic crises. He presented a new quality of life whereby we change our rather unsustainable behaviour by finding shared values that respect integrated social, economic and ecological sustainability. If we do not, history has already taught us that the ability to expand beyond the limitations of social, economic and ecological sustainability tends to disturb the vulnerable local balance between population and resources, especially where population growth is due to external factors.

The concepts and theories discussed above all point to the fact that societies continuously change their behaviour under the influence of external forces, technological developments, population dynamics, institutions and the prevailing culture. Communities, households and individuals are affected by processes of change at a higher level, but they respond to these processes in a variety of ways. Various authors have stressed the community and household level as being the ultimate level, where the effects of larger and wider processes of change can be seen in reality, as communities, household and individuals respond to change in the way they construct their livelihoods.

2.5 Farming communities and their social transformation

The impact of external and internal influences on communities, households and individuals that rely on natural resources as part of their livelihood systems has received considerable attention in the sustainable development debate. Rural transformation and particularly social transformation are phenomena that can occur in a community at any time and that are usually


beyond the communitys grip. The transformation is usually caused by a multitude of factors, depending on local and external conditions, such as the commercialization of agriculture (which leads to a rural economy becoming involved in the market), demographic change, ruralurban integration, economic development, political changes, government interventions, increasing accessibility, better transport facilities, and (last but by no means least) increasing pressure on resources (Roberts 1978, Hinderink and Sterkenburg 1987, Ellis 1988, Bryceson 1996, Elson 1997, Ajami 2005, Cramb et al. 2009).

From the farmers point of view, this transformation process can be seen as a deliberate diversification of livelihoods in order to survive under uncertain economic conditions and to make their livelihoods more stable (Rigg 1997, Ellis 2000). The example of Iran (Ajami 2005) shows that the decreasing number of rural workers in agriculture and the increasing number of workers in non-agricultural jobs, such as trade, transport and mechanics, are strongly related to the wish to create an additional income for the household, besides that of the family farm. Ajami (2005) therefore postulated that both job diversification and changes in the production system have accelerated the transformation. In Indonesia this process has been generally noticed in the densely populated rural hinterland areas of the big cities of Java, where ruralurban interactions through circular migration and rural diversification have become ubiquitous (Hugo 1992, Manning 2000, Titus and Burgers 2008).

Ajami (2005) described three indicators of what he called the village transition, namely changes in the system of agricultural production, diversification of the occupational structure and shifts in social stratification. Furthermore, the transformation process at the community level is usually strongly related to the change in access to common pool resources, its institutional arrangements and how it influences social differentiation within communities. Influenced by all the external factors, the communities would experience the transformation or change of institutional arrangements. The possible changes include the translation of traditional customary regulation into more formal law, changes in resource allocation mechanisms (including land, labour, capital and production systems), and changes in social cohesion due to a decline in traditional customary and sharing mechanisms. Governments could use legal and formal regulations, for example, to reduce the use of customary law on specific resources. On the other hand, some traditional resource-sharing institutions might persist in commercialized farming communities, because they may acquire a new role on the basis of a more business-oriented type of production relations, such as sharecropping, land pawning and credit systems (Hsken and White 1989, Titus et al. 1994, Burgers 2008, Cardano 2012).


The transformation process generally first forces farming households to specialize in cash crops; households then invest their growing surpluses in both farm and non-farm activities, while wage labour tends to replace family labour. The decline in the use of family labour may also be caused by mechanization and the rise of non-farm activities (Roberts 1978, Hayami 1996, Ajami 2005). Wage labour may be a solution during the peak season (harvesting) in commercializing farm areas. In communities that are being integrated into the market economy, it may also become difficult for farm households to continue to telly on traditional types of subsistence production, so that selling their seasonal labour offers an opportunity to gain additional income (Thangchungmunga 1998). In a case study from Iran, Ajami (2005) showed the reduction of family labour in agricultural production, except for weeding and harvesting, which are labour-intensive activities. All these changes and the simultaneous increase in the demand for non-farm labour have reduced the number of labourers in agriculture.

The commercialization of agriculture is also apt to create a new division of labour in terms of gender relations. Men tend to specialize in cash crop production, while the women remain focused on subsistence production for the needs of the entire family (Bulow 1992, Eijkemans 1995, Preston 1998, in Rigg 2001). It also happens that the mechanization of agriculture excludes women from productive work and creates the masculinisation of agriculture, as presented by Rigg (2001), based on cases in Malaysia described by Scott (1985) and Koninck (1992), and cases in Thailand described by Parnwell (1996). Most of the time, this change turns the women from wealthier households into housewives who do more domestic work, while the poorer women find themselves marginalized and have to find an off-farm job (Rigg 2001). Another change, however, may be that the men are increasingly looking for jobs outside agriculture because of the reduction in the time needed for land preparation, while the women remain responsible for subsistence production (Trankell 1993, in Rigg 1997, Eijkemans 1995).

Transformation processes may also lead to more social differentiation within communities. One may think of the changing division of labour (see before), and of changes in social status due to differences in education or wealth. These shifts in social stratification, including social polarization, are also important indicators of the commercialization-related process of transformation (Ellis 1988, Ajami 2005). There are usually also shifts in economic power relations. Increasing state intervention in local administration together with the emergence of farmer elite could create more power-based differentiation in farming communities (Washbrook 1994). A case study on the Mizo Tribal Community in India (Thangchungmunga 1998), for example, showed that


the process of commercialization had created part-time farming groups in the communities; these groups emerged from the elite groups with a bond to the national hierarchy. With better access to the government, as well as to the agricultural commodity market, they had indulged in extensive land speculation, which caused a local shortage of cultivable land. And in Iran, the increase in the number of small and middle-class peasants was a result not only of land reallocation, but also of the improvements in technology and market integration (Ajami 2005). At a later stage, this could easily lead to the impoverishment of the poorer farmers, since their land might increasingly fall into the hands of small elite of economically more powerful middle-class farmers. These changes may also be accompanied by increasing rigidity in resource allocation and the progressive erosion of the reciprocity principles in the community.

The changes discussed above may also influence the use of common resources; population growth, for example, may lead to their over exploitation, particularly if access is open (Hardin 1968). Thus, as Hardin also noted (ibid.), privatization and state control, which limits communities access, are required in order to manage these resources more sustainably in the future. Environmental services now require farming communities to respond to these interventions. Jourdain and colleagues (2009) showed that if households are forced into such a programme through the top-down designation of protected areas, there is a reduction in environmental degradation in the targeted zones, but an increase in environmental degradation on the remaining part of their land-holding. This is mainly because these interventions change the communitys original resource-use arrangements. Ostrom (2007) argued that uniform government policies will not work when it comes to common pool resources. Instead, specific policies that fit with the local culture and institutional environment will work best (Ostrom 2008b).

2.6 Livelihood strategies in the farming communities

The increasing pressure on and the new opportunities arising in communities described above, can stimulate or even force households to develop several strategies during their lifetimes, particularly with respect to their livelihoods. Both necessity and choice play a role when households make decisions and follow certain strategies in building their livelihoods. Necessity refers to actions done in involuntary or distress conditions, such as eviction from land or natural disasters that make the households lose their resources or incomes, while choice refers to voluntary and proactive actions, including increasing farm or wage


income or using certain inputs and techniques to improve productivity. Both manifest themselves as strategies that are followed by households in the form of livelihood diversification (Ellis 2000, Kappel 2004).

In order to achieve their goals, people have to choose from the various types of capital that they have at their disposal and combine them into certain activities to meet the various needs of a household at different times (DFID 1999).In other words, people commonly develop a livelihood strategy, that is, a path towards meeting their daily needs, fulfilling their social and ceremonial obligations, and preserving or improving their productive and reproductive capacity. These strategies are also aimed at increasing the households level of production and consumption and food security, as well as at developing more sustainable types of natural resource management. The strategy concept also includes activities to cope with livelihood stresses and shocks and to handle the various limitations or opportunities people are facing (Reitsma, Dietz and Haan 1992, Ellis 1998, Scoones 1998, Zoomers 1999, White et al. 2002, Burgers 2004).

Most strategies are developed at the household level. Households are the basic unit of making decisions on adjusting livelihood strategies. However, this does not mean that households are more or less homogeneous groups in which all members are considered equal, driven by household-determined ethics, and bound by ties of kinship and obligation. In fact, households are often internally quite heterogeneous (Rigg 2001). It may therefore occur, for example, that one or more members prefer to intensify agricultural production and more labour is needed to achieve this goal, whereas other members prefer to engage in off-farm work.

Livelihood strategies are divided in the literature into various types, for example long-term and short-term strategies. Long-term strategies are developed in response to structural changes, risks and opportunities occurring within certain limits of probability (White et al. 2002), while short-term strategies are a response to sudden disturbances, such as a disaster, a bad harvest or a man-made crisis. Ellis (2000) and Carney (1998) divided strategies into natural resource based activities and non-natural resource based activities (including remittances and other transfers). Scoones (1998), however, classified livelihood strategies as agricultural extensive or intensive types, livelihood diversification types and migration-based types. Finally, based on the households position in the production structure, access to resources and capacity to produce a surplus, White (1991) identified three types of rural livelihood strategy (see also Titus 2002, Burgers 2004):


1. The survival strategy. This strategy is followed by households that lack of access to resources; these are categorized as marginal-farm or landless households. They look for activities that are easily accessible and generate sufficient income for daily subsistence purposes. With hardly any capital resources at their disposal and few skills, they can only expect to have low returns that often do not even cover their basic needs.

2. The consolidation strategy. This strategy is chosen by households that have more access to productive resources than survival households. Their agricultural production and income usually cover their basic subsistence needs, but they still have limited opportunity to improve the agricultural system or diversify into activities that would generate additional cash incomes. They usually prefer to maintain their production activities and standard of living, rather than to take the risk of investing in new types of agriculture or in some other business field.

3. The accumulation strategy. Households that adopt this strategy have a wide access to resources and other types of capital. They produce farm

Documents

permana