Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2010, V ol. 19, pp. 319–340
© 2010 A B Academic Publishers—Printed in Great Britain
Which role for the non farm-ctor
in a forested landscape? lessons
from Krui, indonesia
造诣造句
Koen Kusters*
University of Amsterdam and Center for International Forestry Rearch (CIFOR)
abstract
this article explores two interrelated premis. the first is that the non-farm ctor is of increasing importance to rural houhold. the cond is that non-farm growth reduces the pressure on natural resources. the article reports on an analysis of income trends in three villages in the Krui area, sumatra, Indonesia, by comparing houhold survey data from 1995 and 2004. Between the two yea
rs, neither the farm ctor nor the non-farm ctor showed sustained growth.Although the contribution of remittances to local incomes remained marginal, migration of unemployed and unmarried youngsters to urban areas has a positive effect on per capita incomes in the Krui area by decreasing the houhold size. With regard to the cond premi the analysis shows that incread engagement in local non-farm activities does not automatically result in smaller landholdings. Incread engagement in ex-situ non-farm activities, however, helps to reduce pressure on local forest resources.
鱼饵的制作方法和配方
introduction
the mainstream debate on conrvation and development is bad on the assumptions that agriculture is both the main threat to conrvation and the main engine for rural development. Conquently, a large body of literature exists on the possibilities to reform agriculture in such a way that it better fits conrvation goals. two main approaches are promoted. the first is to support environmentally friendly agricultural systems such as agroforests, in addition to protected areas (scherr and Mcneely, 2003; Ashley et al., 2006). the cond approach is to encourage agricultural intensification and to decrea pressure on protected areas by increasing the returns on existing agricultural land (Mellor, 2002; Green et al., 2005). Both approaches have practical problems. Agricul
tural systems with high biodiversity tend to be less productive than intensive agricultural systems (Van noordwijk et al., 1997) and may not be competitive when the opportunity cost of land and labour increas (Belcher et al., 2005). on the other hand, increasing the income per hectare of land through intensification can act as an incentive for agricultural expansion (Angeln and Kaimowitz, 2001) and may create other environmental damage as well, for example through the overu of
*e-mail address: K.Kusters@uva.nl
320 Kusters
pesticides. the development of the non-farm ctor may offer a solution in an area of relative land scarcity.
scholars studying rural livelihoods and, more particularly, rural livelihood diversification have stresd the importance of non-farm activities in rural houhold economies. the non-farm ctor is often claimed to have the potential to contribute to rural development (ellis, 1998; Haggblade et al., 2002; reardon et al., 2007). the growing importance of non-farm activities may be influenced by increasing land scarcity and environmental degradation, cultural and social changes that alter people’s perception of agriculture, and the emergence of new non-farm possibilities (rigg, 2005; 200
财税2016年36号文件6). Improved education and improved access and mobility are some of the key factors that create local and non-local non-farm opportunities (e, e.g. reardon et al., 2001; Barrett et al., 2001; and Lanjouw and shariff, 2004). Incread mobility has facilitated the ‘delocalisation’ of livelihoods, and an important part of the rural non-farm income may be in the form of remittances from rural-urban migration (De Haan, 1999).
the literature on livelihood diversification highlights a distinction between survival-driven non-farm activities on the one hand and opportunity-driven non-farm activities on the other (scoones, 1998; Davis and Bezemer, 2003; ellis and Allison, 2004; Bouahom et al., 2004; reardon et al., 2007). In the first ca (sometimes called distress-push diversification), people are pushed towards non-farm activities as they try to diversify their income sources in an attempt to reduce vulnerability and avoid falling deeper into poverty. In the cond ca (sometimes called demand-pull or progressive diversification), people are pulled towards non-farm activities as a respon to opportunities to accumulate houhold income.
Links between farm and non-farm income differ according to place and time, are dynamic and interactive and may extend in any direction (Davis, 2003). In the production sphere, the non-farm ctor may provide input for the farm ctor and vice versa. In the expenditure sphere, farm income
can be ud in the non-farm ctor and vice versa (reardon et al., 2002). the farm and non-farm ctors may be complementary, which means growth in one ctor will lead to growth in the other. they may also be substituting each other, which means that growth in one ctor would lead to a (relative) decline in the other. Whether the farm or the non-farm ctor is more likely to function as the initial motor for rural development is much debated. Many scholars em to agree that the rural growth linkage model, which suggests that agriculture is always the initial driver of rural development, is too narrow (e.g. ellis 1998; Davis 2003). some even claim that too much attention is being paid to agriculture as the motor for rural development. rigg (2006: 196), for example, writes, “the best means of promoting pro-poor growth in the countryside may have less to do with supporting small-holder farming […] and more to do with endowing poor people with the skill so that they can escape from farming, and, perhaps, escape from the countryside”. While authors such as rigg emphasi the potential of non-farm growth, some very recent publications return to an agricultural focus,
WHICH roLe For tHe non FArM-Ctor In A ForesteD LAnDsCAPe? 321and stress the need for agricultural investments to support rural development (e.g. World Bank, 2007).
there are veral ways in which non-farm ctor development may affect pressure on surrounding n
atural forest (Figure 1). First, pressure on natural resources may decrea when people move from farming to non-farm activities, and thus become less dependent on land. ellis and Allison (2004: 15) write, “…in most poor rural areas rural population growth on its own ensures increasing land sub-division, or expansion of the cultivated area into formerly protected areas, or incread off-take of trees for charcoal etc., despite rapid rates of urbanisation. Diversification thus occurs in part as a respon to natural resource scarcity, and in such a context may be considered beneficial to resource sustainability”. cond, when farmers invest their non-farm income in more intensive forms
保障的近义词
of agriculture (e.g. savadogo et al ., 1998), pressure on the natural forest
may decrea. third, pressure on land will increa when profits from the
non-farm ctor are invested in agricultural activities, leading to further expansion of farmland at the expen of natural forest (e.g. Demmer and overman, 2001).
the non-farm ctor in developing countries is generally thought to be growing in importance over time, while the relative importance of farming is thought to be decreasing (ellis, 1998; Haggblade et al ., 2002; rigg, 2006; reardon et al ., 2007). Bryceson (1996) calls this a process of ‘deagrarianisation’. others (e.g. Bouahom et al ., 2004) u the term ‘depeasantisation’ for the same
process. According to rigg (2006) a conquence of this process it that access to land is no longer a precondition for poverty alleviation. However, due to the lack of empirical data across intervals of time, understanding of the changing role of the non-farm ctor (and the impact thereof on forest areas and nature rerves) remains limited. It is therefore important to study the dynamics of livelihood strategies (ellis, 1998; scoones, 1998).
Indonesia – like many other countries in Asia – is urbanising. this not only means that people are temporarily or permanently migrating from rural areas Pressure on forest
Profit invested in
agricultural
intensification
今天小年>明晃晃的近义词Substitution of farmhope过去式
几点英语
activities
Profit invested in
agricultural expansion Pressure on forest
Non-farm income Figure 1. relationship between non-farm growth and agricultural pressure on forest
322 Kusters
to urban areas, but also involves shifts in activities in rural areas (rigg, 1998). the shifts may be most apparent in the denly populated rural areas clo to big cities, known as “desakota” regions (e, e.g. sui and Zeng, 2001). Booth (2002) compared incomes of Indonesian agricultural houholds in 1984 and 1993 by using data from the agricultural census. she found that the contribution of farm income (excluding income from agricultural wages) to the total income fell from 55% to 50%.1Moreover, the non-farm income of rural houholds grew much faster than the farm income. Houholds with smaller landholdings were found to rely more on non-farm activities. this could mean that land-poor houholds are pushed into non-farm activities, but it could also mean that houholds that become involved in non-farm activities purpofully move away from agriculture. Booth (2002) emphasis the fact that education is a prerequisite for more lucrative non-farm employment, but that only the richer houholds can afford to nd their children to condary and tertiary education.
the analysis of Booth (2002) was bad on census data from all over Indonesia. Although this does not allow for much qualitative detail, it provides a rich insight into the general patterns and differences between the various regions in Indonesia. With the ca study prented in this article I aim to complement Booth’s analysis by combining a quantitative approach with a qualitative one in order to explore the role of the non-farm ctor in rural livelihoods.
the study prented in this article focus on the Krui area of West Lampung, sumatra, Indonesia and is bad on houhold survey data from 1995 and 2004 and a wide range of open interviews. First I examine the premi that the importance of the non-farm ctor in rural areas is growing over time. I analy the changes in the contribution of the non-farm ctor in houhold income portfolios between 1995 and 2004, differentiating between villages and wealth groups. cond, I examine the premi that growth of the non-farm ctor reduces pressure on forest resources through decreasing people’s dependence on agricultural land.
In the following ctions I will introduce the rearch area and provide a short overview of the methods and definitions ud. the results and discussion ction describes the general changes in income portfolios in the area between 1995 and 2004, with attention to the differences between wealth groups and the role of education and accessibility in non-farm ctor development. As the stu
dy area is characterid by high levels of out-migration I parately address the role of remittances. In the last part of the results and discussion ction I explore the relation between the non-farm ctor and the size of the landholdings. In the conclusions I will draw more general lessons regarding the potential of the non-farm ctor to contribute to development and conrvation goals.
1For Lampung, the province in which the ca prented in this article is located, the contribution of farm income to the total income fell from 63.1% to 57.8%.
WHICH roLe For tHe non FArM-Ctor In A ForesteD LAnDsCAPe? 323 study area
the Krui area2lies between the Indian ocean and the Bukit Barisan latan (BBs) national Park in the Lampung province of sumatra. the main land-us in the area are the cultivation of paddy rice, coffee, pepper and damar trees (Shorea javanica K. & V.). trees are prent everywhere in the landscape, e.g., bordering the paddy fields and intercropped as shade trees in coffee and pepper plantations. Moreover, man-made damar agroforests covering approximately 50,000 ha are located between the national park and the ocean. Damar trees produce a commercially valuable resin, which is mainly ud as a component in paint (Michon et al., 2000). studies conducted in the area since the mid 1980s showed that the damar agroforests conrve soils, water systems, and a high diversity of
forest plants and animals (torquebiau, 1984; Michon and De Foresta, 1995; Michon et al., 2000), while providing a permanent and cure flow of cash income (Budidarsono et al., 2000; Michon et al., 2000; Wollenberg et al., 2001).
BBs is the third largest national park in sumatra and home to three highly endangered animal species: the sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris), the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and the sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). Although the agroforest zone helps to limit the accessibility of the national park, it does not prevent deforestation (Mary and Michon, 1987; Kusters et al., 2008) and BBs lost about 19% of its forest cover between 1972 and 2002, mostly due to agricultural encroachment (Gaveau et al., 2007). As land available for agriculture is scarce in the central Krui area, young farmers from this part of the area are partly responsible for agricultural expansion within the national Park (Kusters et al., 2008).3Conrvation in the area thus involves two challenges: (i) to maintain an environmentally friendly agricultural system with a high biodiversity value; and (ii) to protect the natural forest from further agricultural expansion. Issues pertaining to the first challenge are explored in depth in Kusters et al. (2007). this article is mainly concerned with non-farm ctor dynamics over time and space, and the role this ctor can play in tackling the cond conrvation challenge.
the southeast asian financial crisis and ‘reformasi’
In the late 1990s Indonesia experienced two major events that impacted the Krui area. First, in 1997 the country was hit by the southeast Asian financial crisis, during which the Indonesian rupiah lost most of its value against the us dollar. this led to much higher local currency prices for agricultural export 2the area’s official name is ‘Pesisir’, but it is commonly referred to as the ‘Krui area’ after the local town in the area.
3Between 1995 and 2003 population density in the Krui area ro between 20% and 40%. In 2003 the central part of the Krui area had a population density of around 260 inh/km2, while in the northern and southern areas it was only about 30 to 40 inh/km2.
