Factors influencing swidden farmers’ access to information and resources in Kalimantan, Indonesia
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Environment
-
view
126 -
download
1
Transcript of Factors influencing swidden farmers’ access to information and resources in Kalimantan, Indonesia
Factors influencing swidden farmers’ access to information and resources in Kalimantan, Indonesia
Maarit Kallio, Moira Moeliono, Cynthia Maharani, Willy Daeli, Kharisma Tauhid, Maria Brockhaus, Grace Wong, Egkamat
ASFCC
ASEAN-SWISS Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC)
Funded by Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) Partnership project that aims to support the ASFN (ASEAN Social
Forestry Network) and the ASEAN countries in the arena of social forestry and climate change by research, capacity building and policy recommendations.
Phase 1 (2011-2013); Phase 2 (2014-2016) Indonesia, Vietnam, Lao PDR
Forested, upland/hilly areas, remote, not easily accessible, national park close, REDD+ and many other projects
Shifting cultivators
Ethnic diversity
• Rapid changes in land use
• Oil palm (Indonesia)• Corn (Laos, Vietnam)• New/expansion of roads
Research (continued)
Our research is asking the following questions: • What are the temporal and spatial scales of
resource management in swidden systems and their implications to livelihoods, food security and carbon stocks?
• What are the existing social networks (information and benefit sharing) of swidden communities ---learn for REDD+ reporting/benefit sharing/monitoring?
• What are the organizational perceptions of REDD+, DD, and what are relevant existing networks and power relations (sub-national)?
Hypotheses
The existing networks are not well understood, and there could be networks useful for REDD+ MRV and benefit sharing.
Households’ socio-economic characteristics, personal relations, and migration patterns influence their access to external interventions (extension, development interventions, REDD+, PES) and to other existing information and resource exchange networks.
Origin and migration patterns of the household influence household’s access to information and resources.
Focus of this study
How do household characteristics influence households’ access to (a) extension services; (b) development interventions; (c) agricultural inputs; (d) Customary Land-use System?
How do household characteristics influence households’ connectedness with the key people related to selected information and resource exchange systems?
General socioeconomic characteristics
Status in the village Joins in farmers group Gender of the respondent Household member attended a senior high-school or
university Age (years) Highest level of education of the household head (female
and/or male) (years) Total value of assets (millions of IDR)
Origin and migration
Origin
Originate in the village (respondent & partner)
Lives in the longhouse (household)
Migration
Lived outside the village (in any place)• Respondent, partner,
household member & extended family member
Lived outside the village in an urban area
- Respondent, partner, household member & extended family member
Personal relations -kinship
Respondent/household immediate family with the:
• longhouse leader • traditional leader • community leader • hamlet leader • village leader • any other leader
Characteristics of the sites
Village 1 Village 2 Village 3
Location (remote/relatively easy access)
Relatively easy access
Remote Relatively easy access
Rural/urban/in transition Transition Rural Transition
Proximity to nearest town Submerged Relatively far Relatively close
Proximity to Malaysia Border (very close)
Relatively far Border (very close)
National park Bordering Bordering Bordering
Oil palm/not Oil palm No oil palm Oil palm
Lives in longhouse (%) 13 53 69
METHODS
Focus Group Discussions• Gender and age specific (men, women, and young
people)• Understanding of: 1. The environmental, economic and social characteristics of each
site2. The existing resource and information exchange systems and
embedded networks (within the community and beyond); including when, with whom, how and why the resources were exchanged
Household surveys
Name of the system
Criteria 1 - Actors (potential)
Criteria 2 - Benefit sharing Criteria 3 - Monitoring and reporting
Criteria 4 - Land-use change
1. Fertilizers and Herbicides (Agricultural inputs)
Community members, members of local rubber farmer organization, local trader, sellers in larger towns, relatives and other people in Malaysia or other places, private sector/companies, government.
Fertilizers, herbicides and information on their availability or use.
Monitoring by local communities. In case of government subsidies (e.g. fertilizers for rubber), reporting by the village head.
Strong link to land-use change due to ability of these products to make the agriculture more permanent and improve the productivity.
2. Customary Land-use
Local leaders, community members, government officials, private companies.
Land, information on land (land boundary, new swidden locations), labour exchange, other benefits.
Annual ritual where information is shared on the activities; customary meetings with the Tumenggung (higher level customary leader).
Strong link to land-use.
Knowledge - REDD+ and PES
Involvement - extension and development
More likely to be visited by an extensionist if:
The respondent had a formal or informal status in the village (sig. in Village 1)
If the respondent was NOT an immediate family member with the traditional leader (Village 2)
If the household head was a male (sig. in Village 2) Extended family member lived outside the village (in any
area) (sig. in Village 1) Extended family member lived outside the village in an
urban area (sig. in Village 1)
Involvement - in selected systems 1: agricultural inputs and system 2:
Customary Land-use
Important people - example
More likely to have more connections to “the most important people” related to the
customary land use system if:
The respondent was from the village (originated in the village) (Village 2)
The education level of the household head was higher (Village 2)
Household member had lived outside the village for education (Village 1)
Conclusions
Origin, migration (lived out/not), gender, education, status, remoteness, connections to leaders; had some influence on household’s access to external interventions, and to the level of connections to the important people (related to the selected information and resource exchange systems).
There were variation between the sites on which of the above factors were significant.
Implications for REDD+ and PES
REDD+ and PES projects need to take account:
• female headed households• household’s whose head may be migrated
(temporarily/permanently) at the time of the project establishment
• households who originate in another place (may be out of some of the information and resource networks)
• households with no formal or informal status in the village in the activities (avoid elite capture)
• households that live more remotely/not easily reachable (e.g. longhouse vs. individual house)
• potential conflicts/personal preferences – influence on information & resource exchange
Few more points
Qualitative analyzes to be done
More SNA to be done – effectiveness of the networks
Comparative analyses between the 9 villages and three countries
Thank you!