Tesis adalah karya ilmiah yang disyaratkan untuk lulus pendidikan jenjang S2. Disertasi adalah karya ilmiah mahasiswa untuk jenjang pendidikan S3 yang berupaya menciptakan suatu teori baru dengan menguji hipotesis yang disusun berdasarkan teori yang sudah ada. Disertasi berupa paparan diskusi yang menyertai sebuah pendapat atau argumen.
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD APPROACH FOR DRY-LAND AGRICULTURAL IN CENTRAL KALIMANTAN-INDONESIA (Case study in Sei Gohong Village, Bukit Batu Sub-district, Palangka Raya Municipality) Mayang Meilantina1) dan Bahing2) ABSTRACT. Agriculture sector has always been main development priority in economic development in Indonesia. Dominancy wet rice farming issues made people in dryland area is neglected. A better targeting of development interventions requires careful investigation of household behaviors and rural institutions. This study focuses on what constraints and possibilities in dryland area using sustainable livelihood framework. This is a case study that conducted in Sei Gohong Village. Literature review and open-ended interview conducted to collect primary data. Data is consolidated in Excel and descriptive statistics in SPSS is used. This resulted in analyses of local context, livelihood resources, policies and institutions, and livelihood strategies of different cluster of households. This research found that the closer land to housing, the more is possibility to develop on-farm activities. As a contrast and in spite have many lands; the further land from settlement and more fragmented lands, the more likely is households investing on off-farm activities. Financial constraint to start and run activities is recognized in all households. Limited technical knowledge is also recognized by households that depend on on-farm and off farm with non-regular income. Theses suggested in supporting on-farm or off-farm activities based on resources endowment, transforming financial support’s system, and providing technical assistance instead of material support. This research is not anticipated dominant diversification strategy in all clusters. Further research is required on the how to adapt specific characters of rural households in formal financial institutions, type of on off-farm activities to develop in different sites, and how each stakeholder could working together to balance technical and material assistant. Key words: On-farm, off-farm, livelihood resources, livelihood strategy.
INTRODUCTION Indonesia agriculture, especially outside Java Island, dominates by a rainfed agriculture under which dryland agriculture is included. In dryland areas, variation in amount and distribution of rainfall influence the crop production as well as socio-economic conditions of farmers. However, suitable technology has potential to increase dryland crop production greater than the corresponding increases in wet rice yields using similar technological inputs (Poffenberger, 1983). Amien (nd) claimed that in Kalimantan island, about 3.7 million ha are used for crops, whereas 1.1 million ha for lowland crops, and 1.7
million ha for upland agriculture, and the rest being used for agroforestry and plantations. Based on agro-ecological conditions, the agricultural area has potential to expand. Kalimantan suggested has capacity to support 7.7 million ha of plantations, 4.4 million ha of lowland agriculture and 4.7 million ha of upland crops (BPS, 2000 in Amien, nd). In Central Kalimantan, total area harvested is 133.065 ha wetland paddy and 81.415 ha dryland paddy in 2009 (BPS, 2011). A fundamental important of developments initiation has to be sustainable, not only ecologically but also organizationally, socially and financially (FAO, 1993). Increasingly, development
1) Staf Pengajar Jurusan Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian-Fakultas Pertanian-Universitas Palangka Raya 2) Staf Pengajar Jurusan Bahasa Inggris-Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan-Universitas Palangka Raya
76
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
planners and policymakers overlooked towards the dryland regions to find suitable technologies, and appropriate strategies and policies designed to stimulate productivity growth in rainfed areas (Bantilan et. al., 2006). Reorienting public policies and a better targeting of development interventions to dryland farmers are became urgent and demanding. Dryland area potentially plays dominant role in future agricultural production whereas irrigated areas, mostly in Java Island, are being limited and declined in Indonesia. Dryland area in Indonesia is shaping into many conditions due to great diversity of environmental and social contexts throughout archipelago. However, problems and possibilities in dryland area remain little studied and poorly understood. Therefore, insights study should be conduct, in particular to understand specific local situation, livelihood resources in different household, institutional process, and livelihood strategies to cope in dryland area. In Central Kalimantan, predominant issue in agricultural development occupy by wet-farming, peat land and other thematic topics, but not dryland agriculture. Appraisal and knowledge are very limited on household situation and problems in dryland agriculture. This leads into not well adapt specific features of dryland and local contexts into development policies which is mostly still dominated by wetland agriculture. Therefore, it is urgent to assess, to analyze current situation and to provide recommendations which helps better planning to support developing of dryland area in Central Kalimantan. METHODOLOGY This research is conducted in Central Kalimantan Province, 1 of the 33 provinces of Republic Indonesia.This is a case-study research that conducted in Sei Gohong Villages under administrative
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
jurisdiction of Bukit Batu sub-district, Palangka Raya municipality. Sei Gohong is choosing to cover not only effect of physical dryland into households’ livelihood strategy, but also for complexity in governmental management and ethnicity relationship. The village has two eminent ethnics, Dayaknese and Javanese. Each ethnicity has distinctive ways of living that reflected differences in asset and strategies to live in the rainfed areas. The chosen site is expected provide unique and interesting information on socio-cultural, institutional and structural process that influencing livelihood strategies to deal with constraints and problems in dryland area. This research is using both primary and secondary data. Primary data collected using semi-structural interview with households, government staffs, and NGOs officers in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia. Secondary data is compiling from publications and articles, governments reports and strategic plans, and NGOs documentations. A fieldwork to collect primary data of households in Sei Gohong village conducted between March-April 2011. Households representative choose randomly in each neighborhood association (Rukun Tetangga/RT) in both sites. Household data is collected using openended interview in 55 households in SG Trans and 50 households in SG Lewu. Data collected in household consist of 5 main section as in demography, livelihood activities, factor production ownership, land ownership and agricultural activity, constraints and problems on the conducting livelihood activity. Following village level data collection, a semi-structural interview conducted with the three tertiary government levels and NGOs officers in the respective area; including officer of Bukit Batu sub-district, Palangka Raya municipality and Central Kalimantan province. 77
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This research is aiming to reveal problems and strategies in enabling sustainable livelihoods for households in the dryland agriculture. The analysis and discussion starts with overview of local context, conditions and trends both in village and household levels. Furthermore, household resources is assessing both from general perspective as village unit and from different cluster of households. Livelihood resources in five different aspects, -human, natural, financial or economic, social and physical capital-, are assess to learn the impact into livelihood strategy. The third section explores policies and institutional settings in development planning which is critical to improve livelihood of households in dryland, especially households’ participation. The next section learns different livelihood strategies of four cluster household in the study area. The final section discusses several possible paths in promoting sustainable livelihood through improving livelihood and participation in institutional process of different cluster of households. A. Local Context, Condition and Trend Sei Gohong village is situated about 35 km from Palangka Raya, the capital of Central Kalimantan (CK) Province, and about 187 km to Sampit. The location that close to two major cities in CK has provide households in Sei Gohong with location advantages to access market and to sell their agricultural products. Closeness to urban area is also expected provide more opportunity to work on offfarm activities. Sei Gohong consists of 2 settlement areas which is an original Sei Gohong village and an ex-transmigration unit. These two sites separate for about 8 km but connected through provincial and village asphalt-road. In 2003, a 2.7 km short cut road developed to connect the two sites, especially since it was time of the
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
transmigration unit merged with original village that officially becoming one village. Situation in SG Lewu is exceptional case since land and housing layout and allocation was created carefully and on purpose by government. SG Lewu could better represent of local situation in many villages in Central Kalimantan, in particular land ownership and utilization. Sei Gohong ex-Transmigration Site (SG Trans) The Sei Gohong Transmigration Unit established as cooperation between DKI Jakarta province and Central Kalimantan province in 1997. It was assigned for 50 households from Jakarta and 200 local transmigrates from Central Kalimantan. The site located in Km. 38 of the main road between Palangka Raya to Sampit. Therefore, this site sometime called as “Sei Gohong Trans” or “Trans 38”. Furter, this site will be called as SG Trans in this paper. The area recognized as sandy land that would not suitable for farming, but to raise livestock. To accommodate this vision, the site designed as an exception than common layout in transmigration project which normally separating housing and farming land into considerable distances. In this project, each household receive one block land of 1.25 hectares that does not separated house and farming land. The farming land lies just behind the house (see Figure 4). Administratively, however, this land divided into 2 certificates; 50x50 m for housing and 50x200m for farming. This design has been very helpful and provides many advantages to develop onfarm activity as further become evident in this research. Hardly any vegetables and grass could grow in this area without fertilizer, especially organic fertilizer. The ideas to develop livestock production area fail to properly address continuous and long term feeding issues, -food or grass-, for pig, chicken, cow or goat. Therefore, this 78
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
program brings no satisfy results. All transmigrant participants from Jakarta were return home a year after placement in this site, after no more living allowance support from government. Sei Gohong (SG Lewu) Sei Gohong is an old village that develops gradually since 1890 up to present. The village status changed became Kelurahan in 1981 which also means the leader and staffs are government workers that appointed and not freely chosen by villager, as previously with title village. Total population of households in Sei Gohong Lewu is 138 households, majority people in this area are Dayaknese and Christian. Administratively, SG Lewu is organized under 2 neighborhoods (Rukun Tetangga) under category of hamlet hood 1 (Rukun Warga/ RW 1). SG Trans is organized in 4 neighborhoods as hamlet hood 2 (RW 2). Like most of Dayaknese villages that situated close to riverbank, Sei Gohong lies beside Rungan River bank and about 3 km from the provincial road that connected Palangka Raya and Sampit. This strategic position makes Sei Gohong’s port is becoming one of the busiest for unloading goods, especially rubber’s latex from upstream villages. Consequently, unloading rubber from boat to truck has provided temporary job and cash as rubber porter for villagers. Rubber is important source of income for people in Sei Gohong. People are still trying to grow and expand their rubber plantation both using their own capital and asking support from government. However, there are several problems related to rubber that people are facing such as land (no land, access to land, distance), soil type (sand and peat land) and fertility, labors, seedling, maintenance, crop competition, rain and fire, flooding, price and marketing. SG Lewu surrounded by many lakes, which is a very good place for
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
natural fishes production. Some of those lakes such lake bangamat, pehun, tintu, seha, bakung, kaja bunter, binti, bongkok, seha, galumbang, etc are famous as good places for people looking for fish. As consequence surrounded by lakes, some households in Sei Gohong depend and work as fisherman. Result of participatory rural appraisal that carried by YTS (2009) shows that about 30% households is mainly fisherman and this percentage is relatively stable over the years since 1960 up to present. B. Livelihoods Data reveals that there are 19 main livelihood activities that currently conducted by Sei Gohong villagers. The big five livelihoods, -vegetable farmer, fisherman, labor, gold seeker, and rubber tapper -, are conducted by 55% of the total. Those 19 main livelihoods are clustering into two main categories which is On-farm and Off-farm activity. Data shows that only 27% households depend and work in on-farm activities as their basic income. The 73% households that works on off farm activities is divided into more clusters to capture and to get better understanding of the households situations and constraints in different type activities. A four final household clusters is established. The off-farm irregular income is divided into natural and non-natural resources based activities to accommodate main livelihood activity such fisherman and gold seeker. Off farm regular incomes are sub-categorized as governmental staffs, private sector and religious workers. Further analysis is conducted in each of the 4 cluster. Most household have at least one supporting livelihood activity to help earn additional cash. However, there are some households who have two or three supporting livelihood. The number of households in certain livelihood would provide indication of the importance of particular activity to people. Therefore, data is reorganized to reveal occurrences of 79
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
different livelihood activities both as main and three livelihood activity that provide cash income for family. The clustering provides overview and reveals strong difference in the two sites, especially between on-farm and off-farm that rely on natural and non-natural resources based activity. These three clusters show very contrast pictures on number of households that works in the two sites. Almost half sample in SG Trans (40%) depends on on-farm activity while only 12% in original village. As a contrast, fifty percent households in SG Lewu rely on off-farm activity. This situation depicts in Figure 1.
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
Based on ethnicity composition, the 105 samples are 65 Dayaknese, 36 Javanese and 4 others ethnic. During data collection, on site observation also emphasize distinctive differences on onfarm and off-farm activity that conducted by these two ethnics. Each group has specific agricultural products or livestock that being grows. Although there is some exceptional, mostly Javanese farmer grows vegetables and raises variety of livestock such cow, duck and goat. As a contrast, most Dayaknese grows crop, fruits and plantation tree, and raise limited type livestock such pig and dog.
Figure 1. Percentage of main livelihood activities in 4 household clusters in Sei Gohong, 2011.
Source: Data compilation and analysis, 2011. Local chicken is the most familiar animal that being raised as supporting income in both ethnic. There are distinctive different on fishery activities as well. Mostly Dayaknese fishermen that live in SG Lewu work only to catch fishes in river
and lakes, no production activity involved or develop by them. However, those fishermen work for cash whereas majority yields for sell; only small part of catches fish that they used for consumption. On the other hand in SG Trans, people put effort 80
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
to build fish pond and raise fishes which is mostly serve for households’ consumption. Recently, there are government program launch in SG Lewu to raise fish in plastic-fish pond. Those fish pond located beside house to make easy maintain. Unfortunate, this programme cannot sustain since water circulation, feed, seedling and technical knowledge are constraints fisherman. Off-farm activities has similar pattern based on ethnicity as well, especially in private sector work. Off farm activities also show variation and short of specialization between the two ethnic. Dayaknese is used to work on house construction or made boat while Javanese more often works on road construction or labor in farming. Different private sectors
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
has also brings preference works. More Javanese people works on Rungan Sari expatriate’s settlement as gardener, cooker or cleaning services. As a contrast Dayaknese prefer to work on BOS Nyaru Menteng as security or field worker. Based on total occurrence both as main and supporting livelihood, the top ten livelihood activities are present in figure 2. In order of occurrence, raising local chicken, growing crops and fruits, vegetable farmer, and raising pig are most often activity conducted by villager in Sei Gohong. Off farm activities that based on natural resources such fisherman, rubber tapper and gold seeker are also appeared to be important activities that provide cash for people.
Figure 2. The top ten livelihood activities based on total occurrence in Sei Gohong, 2011.
Source: Data compilation & analysis, 2011.
C. Livelihood Resources 1. Human Capital Age of samples is stretching in a wide range from 18 to 87 years old. Mode of age is fall in range between 40 to 49 years which is occupying almost half of respondent. This type of demographic
structure classified as group of young-age structure. Based on BPS classification above, it can conclude that more than 68% of household sample is on productive age. Household size is also significantly wide from one until 11 children or memberships in a family. However, mode 81
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
of household size is fall equally in three groups with household’s size between four, five and six which about 66% of all samples frequent. Comparing education between head households and children shows a nice improving situation of education over generations. Most of the parents had only studied in elementary level (43%), but more than half of the children enjoy higher until university degree. Formal education and technical knowledge is quite different situations. Even though current education level is higher and improves over the generations, it is not necessary in line with technical knowledge improvement. About 87% farmers have admitted that technical knowledge in on-farm activities, -growing crow or raising livestock- are limited and they desire more information disseminate. Those people regretted their limited technical knowledge on farming which restraint and enforce to learn from scratch, learning doing. It is recognizing in area that Javanese people usually has higher knowledge on farming practice, focus and diligent which is in turn becoming successful farmer (a fisherman, 48 years). This is expected come from their experience in doing or expose into intensive farming system in Java islands while Dayaknese undertake extractive activities and practices slash and burn cultivation method (A priest, 42 years.). Most Javanese is originally worked in farming as logical strategy since they have only labor and land, limited capital and less access to credit in formal financial institutions. Farming provides them with agricultural product that they could both sell to gain cash and consume. As a contrast, Dayaknese have more livelihood option which is mostly extractive activity. Those activity, -seeking gold, selling timber, fishery-, provide them with bigger margin of income. Moreover, this income is allocated to buy agricultural
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
product that produce by Javanese. Therefore, this stigma is not properly considering rational and economical livelihood strategy in Dayaknese people. It is reflecting rational choice of livelihood strategy in each ethnicity. 2. Natural Capital There are several natural resources surrounding Sei Gohong that available to support households’ livelihood in different degree of free access such land, river and forest. People are utilized this for various activities such farming, fishery, seeking gold or traditional medicine, etc. Sei Gohong village is surrounding by many lakes that rich with various types of fishes. It is providing work opportunity and continuous support for local people as being fisherman. Previous discussion shows that 11 out of 55 interviewed households are depending on fishery activities as main income. Forest has been claimed provides diverse type of natural resources such tree and non-timber forest products (NTFP) for people surrounding area. Due to tighten control over illegalized cutting timber from central and local government since 1997 onward, local people and small-scale enterprise were dramatically reduced their work and dependency on timber activity (YTSa, 2009). Trend over years since 1960 until 2000 shows that fewer people both in SG Lewu and SG Trans who worked to collect NTFP such Kalanis, jelutung, latex, etc (YTSa, 2009 & YTSb, 2009). In the present time, access into forest around Sei Gohong is admitted still free and easy by local people (a traditional medicine seeker, 59 old). However, there is certain project area such for Orang Utan reintroduction programme that uneasy or need guard to access as for safety reason (a fisherman and root seeker, 48). This could be some evident that forest direct service to support local livelihood is getting less over the time both affected by government policies or non-governmental programs. 82
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
The others main capital holds by households is land. However, there are two distinctive situations of land access and availability in SG Trans and SG Lewu which is contrast to each other. In SG Trans, land layout is develop differently than others transmigration program which is assigned housing and farming in one geographical unit. As a result, people enjoy benefit in saving travel time and transportation cost as the farming land lies close behind the housing. In SG Lewu, as a contrast and as common situation in many villages in Central Kalimantan, more than one third of households have lands that situated in considerable distances from settlement which is taken more than one hour to access. In SG Trans, although access is not an issue, but there are at least two major problems of land that people have to face which is sandy land and flood. Certain area such in RT 5 is flooding all years long since there is no drainage to deliver excessive water to river. As a result, this neighborhood area was completely abandoned which only one household is left from the transmigration programme in this neighborhood. In this sandy land, fertilizer became one of important components to develop farming. A vegetable farmer (44 years) explained that without enough fertilizer, especially organic fertilizer, working in sandy land would bring no results or useless, no In SG Lewu, the situation is completely different as there are abundant available lands but it is situated in considerable distant from settlement. Growing vegetable or raising livestock are difficult due to additional cost to access land and time management. People should pull out effort and dedicate specific labor, time and money to maintain their land. Therefore, fewer households utilized the land for farming as demanding constant care and high investment with no guarantee of yield.
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
In SG Trans, most of the land is still in original size as previously design by government which is 1,25 hectares for each households. However, some family has divide or sell some parts of the land to his children whom establish new family. There is about 16% young family admitted that they have no land or just borrow from family or friend without pay rent within unlimited times. As a contrast, there are more than one third households who own land bigger than 1,25 hectares. Quite a contrast, those households that owned huge size of land which is mostly Dayaknese is not utilized for on-farm activities. They rather works on extractive natural-based activities such fishery, gold seeker or labors. Their decision is reflected a rational consideration whereas opportunity cost in farming is lower compare to others activities. As sign of ownership, those lands are usually plant with fruits or plantation trees such rubber, coconut, rambutan or durian fruits, etc. Physical land endowment also contributes to determine livelihood activities and labor allocation in the family. The closer land situated from house, the easier it is to maintain which is one of the keys in successful farming activity. Farming requires routine care which means daily or regular visit to observed and anticipated problems in the farm. Therefore, distance between physical land and house is important issue in most of agriculture activities. If physical land situated far from settlement, land will be more neglect or abandon. There is 35 households that owned lands but it is fragmented in some distance from settlement. Since land is fragmented, some efforts are needed to pull labors which is also drown out time and money in maintain the lands. One third households need engine mean as the land or fishery ground could only be reach by motor-bike, motorboat (kelotok), car or public transportation since it is too far. This is magnifying constraint to maintain the land 83
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
as most of household struggling with cash money to fulfill daily needs. Consequently, those land hardly visited; once every one or two months, or even within years. 3. Economic or Financial Capital Beside informal financial capital from relative and family, there are at least three other sources to borrow money in the study area; bank, farmer-group revolving fund, and middleman. A new option, Credit Union (CU), is being facilitated by YTS to operate in this place. Even though capital is very needed to start business and farming activity; discussions reveal that most households tend to avoid borrowing money. It is due to consequences of unpredicted results of agriculture activity and/or no-guarantee available. Farmers choose either to maximize the use of their saving/capital, or reduce production size. There are at least two major constraints that restricted small farmer to borrow money in formal financial system which access and installment system. In the previous years, bank only provided loan for civil servants or people who work in government related organizations. Only recently soft-loan credit skim has been widely introduced by government to facilitate improvement in agricultural production. Therefore, credit is hardly available and difficult to access by farmers. Applying credit in bank consider complicated, bureaucratic, and lengthy. Providing sufficient guarantee such land certificate is also difficult task for local farmer. It is common in local Dayaknese community that land ownership established through local recognition without formal governmental certificate. Therefore, household in SG Lewu have problem to provide certificate of land ownership when they applied credit in bank. A standard fix monthly payment from bank has been restrain farmer who have no fix income while the agricultural yield is unpredictable. This fix monthly payment is not well adapted with farmer
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
situations that grow different types of vegetables or livestock which has different harvesting period as well. Farmer who grows corn has different cash flow than farmer who plant cucumber; farmer who grows green bean differ than who grows cassava; farmer who raises pig has different financial course than farmer who raise cow; fisherman who looking fishes in lakes has different income than farmer who raise chicken broiler, etc. Therefore, enforcing a fix monthly payment would not rational since different activities provide cash differently; it can be in the next 40 days, two, three or six months, or even 1 until 3 years later. Despite government effort to provide cash and asset through farmer group, the capital injection is claimed not sufficient to cover production cost in farming. Contrary to public and government’s view, farming needs huge investment. Fertilizer is one of the most needed but expensive factor productions in sandy land such Sei Gohong. Different types of vegetables require various production cost, sometime Rp 5 M or € 403 was not sufficient (Titi, 2011). Most of household who depends in on-farm activities use informal institutions to borrowed money which are vegetable buyer, middleman or chicken supplier. Households who rely either on natural and non-natural based activities prefer to turn into family or relative whenever they need cash or others help. It is only government worker cluster that has access to formal financial institutions. 4. Social Capital Religion and ethnicity still plays critical social cohesion and support in Indonesia. Religion facilitated means to meet regularly which is allowed deeper interaction, develop familiarity and build trust with each other. Ethnicity establishes sense of belonging, closeness and better understanding through common language and culture. Those aspects contribute in 84
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
build strong social capital within people which they could turn for support and helped in time needed. A strong bound between religion and ethnicity is evident in Sei Gohong. The assume pattern appear to be true that most of Dayaknese is Christian and Javanese is Moslem. Family and relative are still an important shelter of security in shock, especially for young family and old people. It is still common that young families are still shared house and cost of living with their parents although had have children of their own. Farmer-group plays important roles whenever government and nongovernmental organizations are about to channeling support. Unfortunate, those groups were established for short term period and project oriented; for example group of jatropha farmer, patchouli, rubber, cow, pig, chicken, fish, etc. Farmer group mainly established as passive recipient of programme to receive material supports, and not technical support which is lacked and required to ensure adoption and sustainability of the programs within households. Many programs neglect the importance to design feedback channels and gather field experiences. 5. Physical Capital People in Sei Gohong village enjoy benefit of close to Palangka Raya, capital of Central Kalimantan, which is only 35 km. easy access to main road and close to Kahayan river bank. Although there is no regular-daily schedule of public transport from Palangka Raya to Sei Gohong, market is still considered close and accessible through unofficial public transport or selfvehicles. Exclusively, people in SG Lewu are also enjoying temporary jobs as porteras the port is located in the village, mainly porter of rubber latex. Surrounding by many lakes provide people with work opportunity as fisherman.
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
CONCLUSION Sei Gohong village has physical capital since situated close to Kahayan river bank and to main road that connected two major cities and markets in Central Kalimantan, Palangka Raya and Sampit. This physical advantage provides bigger opportunity for households to develop both on-farm and offfarm activities since market is close. Social capital is still strong in this area. Ethnic and religion show a solid bound to each other whereas 94% Dayaknese are Christian (61 out of 65) and 86% Javanese are Moslem (31 out of 36). Information of job opportunity is often more accessible and disseminate through social network, -family, ethnicity and religious bound-, such seeking gold, rising chicken broiler, or work in private sectors. Since there is no regular ethnicity meeting but consistent religious gathering, religion is expected has bigger and important role to induce change and determine livelihood activity in respective religion and ethnic. Although enjoying physical and social capital, there are several collateral problems facing by different cluster of households on various degrees of important in Sei Gohong. Those problems are related to natural capital, financial/economic capital, and human capital. Natural capital: Land and labor are two main resources that owned by household. Land endowment has two distinctive setting in Sei Gohong that affecting households’ activity. Land is sandy but situated close behind house in SG Trans. Farmers benefit in saving transportation cost and time to focus in maintained their farm. As a contrast in SG Lewu, which is represent most of the situation of local villages in Central Kalimantan, land is situated in considerable distance from settlement and it is not always fertile. Since people should decide on allocating their limited labor, on-farm activities are becoming the not feasible options for many households in cluster 2 and 3, although they have lands. Promoting onfarm activities is more reasonable directed to
85
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
households who have land close to their settlement such in SG Trans. Whenever land has considerable distance from housing, more off farm activities should be introduce to increase labor productivity and household income. Financial/economical capital: has been widely recognized as one of main constraints in 3 clusters households whom work in on-farm and off-farm activities with no regular income. Most households are facing problems to make both initial investment and production cost to run the business. Households in these clusters have not been utilized formal financial institutions to borrow money since access and installment systems are not favorable with their conditions. Adapting procedure & bureaucracy that meet specific characters of rural livelihood, -as farmer, fisherman or breeder-, will open capital access to increase production capacity or to start new activity. Human capital: Households that rely on on-farm and natural resources based activities indicate that technical knowledge is one of problems that limited their ability to increase the yield. Most of problems are related to pest and disease control and breeding technique. However, there are some farmer that acknowledge has technical issues since land preparation until marketing such low price and dependency with middleman. Those problems are often lacked of attention in government support programs which is more induce material than technical supports. REFERENCES Amien, Istiqlal. nd. Agro-Ecological Analysis for Agricultural Development in Indonesia. Center for Soil and Agroclimate Research, Bogor. Anderson. 2004. Chance, Change and Choice in Africa’s Drylands: A new perspective on policy priorities ARUN Prakarsa Inforindo . 2008. Analisis SNREA bagi RPJMN Tahun 20102014 Laporan Antara Tim Analisis SEA. Ministry of Environment (KLH), Ministry of National Development
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
Planning (BAPPENAS) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark (Danida). Bambang, Brodjonegoro. Nd. Three years of fiscal decentralization in Indonesia: Its impacts on regional economic development and fiscal sustainability. Department of Economics, University of Indonesia Bantilan, MCS., KPC Rao, K Singh, P Parthasarathy Rao, B Shiferaw, and R Padmaja. 2004. Strategic Assessments and Development Pathways for Agriculture in the Semi-Arid Tropics: Overcoming Poverty through Dryland Agriculture: A Strategy for India. Policy Brief No. 6. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). India Bantilan, MCS., P, Anand Babu, GV , Anupama, H, Deepthi and R, Padmaja. 2006. Dryland Agriculture: Dynamics, Challenges and Priorities. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). BPS
Kalimantan Tengah, 2011. http://kalteng.bps.go.id/sektoral-1.html Accessed on 17th Jan 2011.
Burger K, van den Berg, Marrit. Household consumption and natural disasters: the case of hurricane mitch in Nicaragua. (2008) Congress paper. Cleaver, Frances. 1999. Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development. Journal of International Development 11, p 597-612. Cornwall, Andrea. 2003. Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory Development. World Development Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1325– 1342. Darmawan, Rachmad Erland Danny. 2008. The practices of decentralization in Indonesia and its implication on local competitiveness. Public Administration-Public Governance study, School of Management and
86
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
Government, University of Twente. Enschede, the Netherlands DFiD, 2005. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction. Guidance Note 10. London, Department for International Development (UK) Fafchamps, Marcel. 1993. Sequential Labor Decisions under Uncertainty: An Estimable Household Model of WestAfrican Farmers. Econometrica, Vol. 61, No. 5 (Sep., 1993), pp. 1173-1197 FAO. 1993. http://www.fao.org/docrep /t0752e/ t0752e03.html. Accessed on 11th Jan 2011 Gaspersz, Peggy (2008). Sector Report: Agriculture Sector in Indonesia. Trade and Investment Manager, British Embassy Jakarta 72 Jansen, H.G.P., Pender, J., Damon, A., Wielemaker, W., Schipper, R. 2006. Policies for sustainable development in the hillside areas of Honduras: A quantitative livelihoods approach. Agricultural Economics, 34 (2), pp. 141-153. Jenning, Ray. 2000. Participatory Development as New Paradigm: The Transition of Development Professionalism. Conference Paper on “Community Based Reintegration and Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings” . Washington DC. Kruseman, G., R.Ruben, H. Hengsdijk, M.K. Van Ittersum. 1995. Farm household modeling for estimating the effectiveness of price instruments in land use policy. Netherlands Journal of Agriculutral Sciences 43 111-123. Laborte, A.G., Van Ittersum, M.K., Van den Berg, M. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of agricultural development: A modelling approach for Ilocos Norte, Philippines. Agricultural Systems, 94 (3), pp. 862873. Ligon, Ethan. (2008). Notes on the FarmHousehold Model
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
Van Den Berg, Marrit. 2001. Off-farm income, risk and agricultural production: A case study of smallholders in India’s semi-arid tropics. Wageningen University Van Den Berg, Marrit. 2002. Do public works decrease farmers' soil degradation? Labour income and the use of fertilisers in India's semi-arid tropics. Environment and Development Economics, 7 (3), pp. 487-506. Van Den Berg, Marrit., Kumbi, G.E. 2006. Poverty and the rural nonfarm economy in Oromia, Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 35 (SUPPL. 3), pp. 469-475. pVan den Berg, Marrit. 2010. Household income strategies and natural disasters: Dynamic livelihoods in rural Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 69 (3), pp. 592-602. Poffenberger, Mark. 1983. Changing Dryland Agriculture in Eastern Bali. Human Ecology, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1983. Reynolds, James F., D. Mark Stafford Smith, Eric F. Lambin, B. L. Turner II, Michael Mortimore, Simon P. J. Batterbury, Thomas E. Downing, Hadi Dowlatabadi, Roberto J. Fernández, Jeffrey E. Herrick, Elisabeth HuberSannwald, Hong Jiang, Rik Leemans, Tim Lynam, Fernando T. Maestre, Miguel Ayarza, Brian Walker. 2007. Global Desertification: Building a Science for Dryland Development. Science (3160 847. Roumasset, James. Nd. Rural Institutions, Agricultural Development, and ProPoor Economic Growth. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 1, No. 1 p. 56-73 Ruben, R., Van Den Berg, M. 2001. Nonfarm employment and poverty alleviation of rural farm households in Honduras. World Development, 29 (3), pp. 549-560. Saito, Fumihiko. 1998. Decentralization for Participatory Development in Uganda: 87
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
Limitations and Prospects. SocioCultural Research Institute of Ryukoku University. Japan Scoones, Ian. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihood: A framework for Analysis. IDS Paper 72 Singh, I., L. Squire, and J. Strauss. (1986) Agricultural Household Models: Extensions, Applications and Policy. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Singh, Inderjit, Lyn Squire, and John Strauss. 1986. A Survey of Agricultural Household Models: Recent Findings and Policy Implications. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank. Strauss, John., Duncan Thomas, Rand and UCLA. 1984. Human Resources: Empirical modeling of household and family decisions. Handbook of Development Economics, Volume III, Edited by J. Behrman and T.N. Srinivasan. Elsevier Science B.V. Tanaya, I GUsti L.P., McGregor, Murray. And Batt Peter. (2004). Buyer-Seller Relationship in Dryland Farming Supply Chains in Lombok Indonesia. Taylor, J. Edward & Adelman, Irma. 2002. Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, Evolution, and Extensions. University of California UNDP. 2007. http://www.undp.org/ drylands/policy-mdg-response.html. Accessed on 12th Jan 2011 Yayasan Tambuhak Sinta (YTSa). 2009. Dokumentasi Pengkajian Desa Partisipatif (PRA) in Sei Gohong Lewu. Palangka Raya Yayasan Tambuhak Sinta (YTSb). 2009. Dokumentasi Pengkajian Desa Partisipatif (PRA) in Sei Gohong Trans. Palangka Raya
88
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD APPROACH FOR DRY-LAND AGRICULTURAL IN CENTRAL KALIMANTAN-INDONESIA (Case study in Sei Gohong Village, Bukit Batu Sub-district, Palangka Raya Municipality) Mayang Meilantina1) dan Bahing2) ABSTRACT. Agriculture sector has always been main development priority in economic development in Indonesia. Dominancy wet rice farming issues made people in dryland area is neglected. A better targeting of development interventions requires careful investigation of household behaviors and rural institutions. This study focuses on what constraints and possibilities in dryland area using sustainable livelihood framework. This is a case study that conducted in Sei Gohong Village. Literature review and open-ended interview conducted to collect primary data. Data is consolidated in Excel and descriptive statistics in SPSS is used. This resulted in analyses of local context, livelihood resources, policies and institutions, and livelihood strategies of different cluster of households. This research found that the closer land to housing, the more is possibility to develop on-farm activities. As a contrast and in spite have many lands; the further land from settlement and more fragmented lands, the more likely is households investing on off-farm activities. Financial constraint to start and run activities is recognized in all households. Limited technical knowledge is also recognized by households that depend on on-farm and off farm with non-regular income. Theses suggested in supporting on-farm or off-farm activities based on resources endowment, transforming financial support’s system, and providing technical assistance instead of material support. This research is not anticipated dominant diversification strategy in all clusters. Further research is required on the how to adapt specific characters of rural households in formal financial institutions, type of on off-farm activities to develop in different sites, and how each stakeholder could working together to balance technical and material assistant. Key words: On-farm, off-farm, livelihood resources, livelihood strategy.
INTRODUCTION Indonesia agriculture, especially outside Java Island, dominates by a rainfed agriculture under which dryland agriculture is included. In dryland areas, variation in amount and distribution of rainfall influence the crop production as well as socio-economic conditions of farmers. However, suitable technology has potential to increase dryland crop production greater than the corresponding increases in wet rice yields using similar technological inputs (Poffenberger, 1983). Amien (nd) claimed that in Kalimantan island, about 3.7 million ha are used for crops, whereas 1.1 million ha for lowland crops, and 1.7
million ha for upland agriculture, and the rest being used for agroforestry and plantations. Based on agro-ecological conditions, the agricultural area has potential to expand. Kalimantan suggested has capacity to support 7.7 million ha of plantations, 4.4 million ha of lowland agriculture and 4.7 million ha of upland crops (BPS, 2000 in Amien, nd). In Central Kalimantan, total area harvested is 133.065 ha wetland paddy and 81.415 ha dryland paddy in 2009 (BPS, 2011). A fundamental important of developments initiation has to be sustainable, not only ecologically but also organizationally, socially and financially (FAO, 1993). Increasingly, development
1) Staf Pengajar Jurusan Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian-Fakultas Pertanian-Universitas Palangka Raya 2) Staf Pengajar Jurusan Bahasa Inggris-Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan-Universitas Palangka Raya
76
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
planners and policymakers overlooked towards the dryland regions to find suitable technologies, and appropriate strategies and policies designed to stimulate productivity growth in rainfed areas (Bantilan et. al., 2006). Reorienting public policies and a better targeting of development interventions to dryland farmers are became urgent and demanding. Dryland area potentially plays dominant role in future agricultural production whereas irrigated areas, mostly in Java Island, are being limited and declined in Indonesia. Dryland area in Indonesia is shaping into many conditions due to great diversity of environmental and social contexts throughout archipelago. However, problems and possibilities in dryland area remain little studied and poorly understood. Therefore, insights study should be conduct, in particular to understand specific local situation, livelihood resources in different household, institutional process, and livelihood strategies to cope in dryland area. In Central Kalimantan, predominant issue in agricultural development occupy by wet-farming, peat land and other thematic topics, but not dryland agriculture. Appraisal and knowledge are very limited on household situation and problems in dryland agriculture. This leads into not well adapt specific features of dryland and local contexts into development policies which is mostly still dominated by wetland agriculture. Therefore, it is urgent to assess, to analyze current situation and to provide recommendations which helps better planning to support developing of dryland area in Central Kalimantan. METHODOLOGY This research is conducted in Central Kalimantan Province, 1 of the 33 provinces of Republic Indonesia.This is a case-study research that conducted in Sei Gohong Villages under administrative
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
jurisdiction of Bukit Batu sub-district, Palangka Raya municipality. Sei Gohong is choosing to cover not only effect of physical dryland into households’ livelihood strategy, but also for complexity in governmental management and ethnicity relationship. The village has two eminent ethnics, Dayaknese and Javanese. Each ethnicity has distinctive ways of living that reflected differences in asset and strategies to live in the rainfed areas. The chosen site is expected provide unique and interesting information on socio-cultural, institutional and structural process that influencing livelihood strategies to deal with constraints and problems in dryland area. This research is using both primary and secondary data. Primary data collected using semi-structural interview with households, government staffs, and NGOs officers in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia. Secondary data is compiling from publications and articles, governments reports and strategic plans, and NGOs documentations. A fieldwork to collect primary data of households in Sei Gohong village conducted between March-April 2011. Households representative choose randomly in each neighborhood association (Rukun Tetangga/RT) in both sites. Household data is collected using openended interview in 55 households in SG Trans and 50 households in SG Lewu. Data collected in household consist of 5 main section as in demography, livelihood activities, factor production ownership, land ownership and agricultural activity, constraints and problems on the conducting livelihood activity. Following village level data collection, a semi-structural interview conducted with the three tertiary government levels and NGOs officers in the respective area; including officer of Bukit Batu sub-district, Palangka Raya municipality and Central Kalimantan province. 77
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This research is aiming to reveal problems and strategies in enabling sustainable livelihoods for households in the dryland agriculture. The analysis and discussion starts with overview of local context, conditions and trends both in village and household levels. Furthermore, household resources is assessing both from general perspective as village unit and from different cluster of households. Livelihood resources in five different aspects, -human, natural, financial or economic, social and physical capital-, are assess to learn the impact into livelihood strategy. The third section explores policies and institutional settings in development planning which is critical to improve livelihood of households in dryland, especially households’ participation. The next section learns different livelihood strategies of four cluster household in the study area. The final section discusses several possible paths in promoting sustainable livelihood through improving livelihood and participation in institutional process of different cluster of households. A. Local Context, Condition and Trend Sei Gohong village is situated about 35 km from Palangka Raya, the capital of Central Kalimantan (CK) Province, and about 187 km to Sampit. The location that close to two major cities in CK has provide households in Sei Gohong with location advantages to access market and to sell their agricultural products. Closeness to urban area is also expected provide more opportunity to work on offfarm activities. Sei Gohong consists of 2 settlement areas which is an original Sei Gohong village and an ex-transmigration unit. These two sites separate for about 8 km but connected through provincial and village asphalt-road. In 2003, a 2.7 km short cut road developed to connect the two sites, especially since it was time of the
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
transmigration unit merged with original village that officially becoming one village. Situation in SG Lewu is exceptional case since land and housing layout and allocation was created carefully and on purpose by government. SG Lewu could better represent of local situation in many villages in Central Kalimantan, in particular land ownership and utilization. Sei Gohong ex-Transmigration Site (SG Trans) The Sei Gohong Transmigration Unit established as cooperation between DKI Jakarta province and Central Kalimantan province in 1997. It was assigned for 50 households from Jakarta and 200 local transmigrates from Central Kalimantan. The site located in Km. 38 of the main road between Palangka Raya to Sampit. Therefore, this site sometime called as “Sei Gohong Trans” or “Trans 38”. Furter, this site will be called as SG Trans in this paper. The area recognized as sandy land that would not suitable for farming, but to raise livestock. To accommodate this vision, the site designed as an exception than common layout in transmigration project which normally separating housing and farming land into considerable distances. In this project, each household receive one block land of 1.25 hectares that does not separated house and farming land. The farming land lies just behind the house (see Figure 4). Administratively, however, this land divided into 2 certificates; 50x50 m for housing and 50x200m for farming. This design has been very helpful and provides many advantages to develop onfarm activity as further become evident in this research. Hardly any vegetables and grass could grow in this area without fertilizer, especially organic fertilizer. The ideas to develop livestock production area fail to properly address continuous and long term feeding issues, -food or grass-, for pig, chicken, cow or goat. Therefore, this 78
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
program brings no satisfy results. All transmigrant participants from Jakarta were return home a year after placement in this site, after no more living allowance support from government. Sei Gohong (SG Lewu) Sei Gohong is an old village that develops gradually since 1890 up to present. The village status changed became Kelurahan in 1981 which also means the leader and staffs are government workers that appointed and not freely chosen by villager, as previously with title village. Total population of households in Sei Gohong Lewu is 138 households, majority people in this area are Dayaknese and Christian. Administratively, SG Lewu is organized under 2 neighborhoods (Rukun Tetangga) under category of hamlet hood 1 (Rukun Warga/ RW 1). SG Trans is organized in 4 neighborhoods as hamlet hood 2 (RW 2). Like most of Dayaknese villages that situated close to riverbank, Sei Gohong lies beside Rungan River bank and about 3 km from the provincial road that connected Palangka Raya and Sampit. This strategic position makes Sei Gohong’s port is becoming one of the busiest for unloading goods, especially rubber’s latex from upstream villages. Consequently, unloading rubber from boat to truck has provided temporary job and cash as rubber porter for villagers. Rubber is important source of income for people in Sei Gohong. People are still trying to grow and expand their rubber plantation both using their own capital and asking support from government. However, there are several problems related to rubber that people are facing such as land (no land, access to land, distance), soil type (sand and peat land) and fertility, labors, seedling, maintenance, crop competition, rain and fire, flooding, price and marketing. SG Lewu surrounded by many lakes, which is a very good place for
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
natural fishes production. Some of those lakes such lake bangamat, pehun, tintu, seha, bakung, kaja bunter, binti, bongkok, seha, galumbang, etc are famous as good places for people looking for fish. As consequence surrounded by lakes, some households in Sei Gohong depend and work as fisherman. Result of participatory rural appraisal that carried by YTS (2009) shows that about 30% households is mainly fisherman and this percentage is relatively stable over the years since 1960 up to present. B. Livelihoods Data reveals that there are 19 main livelihood activities that currently conducted by Sei Gohong villagers. The big five livelihoods, -vegetable farmer, fisherman, labor, gold seeker, and rubber tapper -, are conducted by 55% of the total. Those 19 main livelihoods are clustering into two main categories which is On-farm and Off-farm activity. Data shows that only 27% households depend and work in on-farm activities as their basic income. The 73% households that works on off farm activities is divided into more clusters to capture and to get better understanding of the households situations and constraints in different type activities. A four final household clusters is established. The off-farm irregular income is divided into natural and non-natural resources based activities to accommodate main livelihood activity such fisherman and gold seeker. Off farm regular incomes are sub-categorized as governmental staffs, private sector and religious workers. Further analysis is conducted in each of the 4 cluster. Most household have at least one supporting livelihood activity to help earn additional cash. However, there are some households who have two or three supporting livelihood. The number of households in certain livelihood would provide indication of the importance of particular activity to people. Therefore, data is reorganized to reveal occurrences of 79
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
different livelihood activities both as main and three livelihood activity that provide cash income for family. The clustering provides overview and reveals strong difference in the two sites, especially between on-farm and off-farm that rely on natural and non-natural resources based activity. These three clusters show very contrast pictures on number of households that works in the two sites. Almost half sample in SG Trans (40%) depends on on-farm activity while only 12% in original village. As a contrast, fifty percent households in SG Lewu rely on off-farm activity. This situation depicts in Figure 1.
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
Based on ethnicity composition, the 105 samples are 65 Dayaknese, 36 Javanese and 4 others ethnic. During data collection, on site observation also emphasize distinctive differences on onfarm and off-farm activity that conducted by these two ethnics. Each group has specific agricultural products or livestock that being grows. Although there is some exceptional, mostly Javanese farmer grows vegetables and raises variety of livestock such cow, duck and goat. As a contrast, most Dayaknese grows crop, fruits and plantation tree, and raise limited type livestock such pig and dog.
Figure 1. Percentage of main livelihood activities in 4 household clusters in Sei Gohong, 2011.
Source: Data compilation and analysis, 2011. Local chicken is the most familiar animal that being raised as supporting income in both ethnic. There are distinctive different on fishery activities as well. Mostly Dayaknese fishermen that live in SG Lewu work only to catch fishes in river
and lakes, no production activity involved or develop by them. However, those fishermen work for cash whereas majority yields for sell; only small part of catches fish that they used for consumption. On the other hand in SG Trans, people put effort 80
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
to build fish pond and raise fishes which is mostly serve for households’ consumption. Recently, there are government program launch in SG Lewu to raise fish in plastic-fish pond. Those fish pond located beside house to make easy maintain. Unfortunate, this programme cannot sustain since water circulation, feed, seedling and technical knowledge are constraints fisherman. Off-farm activities has similar pattern based on ethnicity as well, especially in private sector work. Off farm activities also show variation and short of specialization between the two ethnic. Dayaknese is used to work on house construction or made boat while Javanese more often works on road construction or labor in farming. Different private sectors
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
has also brings preference works. More Javanese people works on Rungan Sari expatriate’s settlement as gardener, cooker or cleaning services. As a contrast Dayaknese prefer to work on BOS Nyaru Menteng as security or field worker. Based on total occurrence both as main and supporting livelihood, the top ten livelihood activities are present in figure 2. In order of occurrence, raising local chicken, growing crops and fruits, vegetable farmer, and raising pig are most often activity conducted by villager in Sei Gohong. Off farm activities that based on natural resources such fisherman, rubber tapper and gold seeker are also appeared to be important activities that provide cash for people.
Figure 2. The top ten livelihood activities based on total occurrence in Sei Gohong, 2011.
Source: Data compilation & analysis, 2011.
C. Livelihood Resources 1. Human Capital Age of samples is stretching in a wide range from 18 to 87 years old. Mode of age is fall in range between 40 to 49 years which is occupying almost half of respondent. This type of demographic
structure classified as group of young-age structure. Based on BPS classification above, it can conclude that more than 68% of household sample is on productive age. Household size is also significantly wide from one until 11 children or memberships in a family. However, mode 81
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
of household size is fall equally in three groups with household’s size between four, five and six which about 66% of all samples frequent. Comparing education between head households and children shows a nice improving situation of education over generations. Most of the parents had only studied in elementary level (43%), but more than half of the children enjoy higher until university degree. Formal education and technical knowledge is quite different situations. Even though current education level is higher and improves over the generations, it is not necessary in line with technical knowledge improvement. About 87% farmers have admitted that technical knowledge in on-farm activities, -growing crow or raising livestock- are limited and they desire more information disseminate. Those people regretted their limited technical knowledge on farming which restraint and enforce to learn from scratch, learning doing. It is recognizing in area that Javanese people usually has higher knowledge on farming practice, focus and diligent which is in turn becoming successful farmer (a fisherman, 48 years). This is expected come from their experience in doing or expose into intensive farming system in Java islands while Dayaknese undertake extractive activities and practices slash and burn cultivation method (A priest, 42 years.). Most Javanese is originally worked in farming as logical strategy since they have only labor and land, limited capital and less access to credit in formal financial institutions. Farming provides them with agricultural product that they could both sell to gain cash and consume. As a contrast, Dayaknese have more livelihood option which is mostly extractive activity. Those activity, -seeking gold, selling timber, fishery-, provide them with bigger margin of income. Moreover, this income is allocated to buy agricultural
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
product that produce by Javanese. Therefore, this stigma is not properly considering rational and economical livelihood strategy in Dayaknese people. It is reflecting rational choice of livelihood strategy in each ethnicity. 2. Natural Capital There are several natural resources surrounding Sei Gohong that available to support households’ livelihood in different degree of free access such land, river and forest. People are utilized this for various activities such farming, fishery, seeking gold or traditional medicine, etc. Sei Gohong village is surrounding by many lakes that rich with various types of fishes. It is providing work opportunity and continuous support for local people as being fisherman. Previous discussion shows that 11 out of 55 interviewed households are depending on fishery activities as main income. Forest has been claimed provides diverse type of natural resources such tree and non-timber forest products (NTFP) for people surrounding area. Due to tighten control over illegalized cutting timber from central and local government since 1997 onward, local people and small-scale enterprise were dramatically reduced their work and dependency on timber activity (YTSa, 2009). Trend over years since 1960 until 2000 shows that fewer people both in SG Lewu and SG Trans who worked to collect NTFP such Kalanis, jelutung, latex, etc (YTSa, 2009 & YTSb, 2009). In the present time, access into forest around Sei Gohong is admitted still free and easy by local people (a traditional medicine seeker, 59 old). However, there is certain project area such for Orang Utan reintroduction programme that uneasy or need guard to access as for safety reason (a fisherman and root seeker, 48). This could be some evident that forest direct service to support local livelihood is getting less over the time both affected by government policies or non-governmental programs. 82
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
The others main capital holds by households is land. However, there are two distinctive situations of land access and availability in SG Trans and SG Lewu which is contrast to each other. In SG Trans, land layout is develop differently than others transmigration program which is assigned housing and farming in one geographical unit. As a result, people enjoy benefit in saving travel time and transportation cost as the farming land lies close behind the housing. In SG Lewu, as a contrast and as common situation in many villages in Central Kalimantan, more than one third of households have lands that situated in considerable distances from settlement which is taken more than one hour to access. In SG Trans, although access is not an issue, but there are at least two major problems of land that people have to face which is sandy land and flood. Certain area such in RT 5 is flooding all years long since there is no drainage to deliver excessive water to river. As a result, this neighborhood area was completely abandoned which only one household is left from the transmigration programme in this neighborhood. In this sandy land, fertilizer became one of important components to develop farming. A vegetable farmer (44 years) explained that without enough fertilizer, especially organic fertilizer, working in sandy land would bring no results or useless, no In SG Lewu, the situation is completely different as there are abundant available lands but it is situated in considerable distant from settlement. Growing vegetable or raising livestock are difficult due to additional cost to access land and time management. People should pull out effort and dedicate specific labor, time and money to maintain their land. Therefore, fewer households utilized the land for farming as demanding constant care and high investment with no guarantee of yield.
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
In SG Trans, most of the land is still in original size as previously design by government which is 1,25 hectares for each households. However, some family has divide or sell some parts of the land to his children whom establish new family. There is about 16% young family admitted that they have no land or just borrow from family or friend without pay rent within unlimited times. As a contrast, there are more than one third households who own land bigger than 1,25 hectares. Quite a contrast, those households that owned huge size of land which is mostly Dayaknese is not utilized for on-farm activities. They rather works on extractive natural-based activities such fishery, gold seeker or labors. Their decision is reflected a rational consideration whereas opportunity cost in farming is lower compare to others activities. As sign of ownership, those lands are usually plant with fruits or plantation trees such rubber, coconut, rambutan or durian fruits, etc. Physical land endowment also contributes to determine livelihood activities and labor allocation in the family. The closer land situated from house, the easier it is to maintain which is one of the keys in successful farming activity. Farming requires routine care which means daily or regular visit to observed and anticipated problems in the farm. Therefore, distance between physical land and house is important issue in most of agriculture activities. If physical land situated far from settlement, land will be more neglect or abandon. There is 35 households that owned lands but it is fragmented in some distance from settlement. Since land is fragmented, some efforts are needed to pull labors which is also drown out time and money in maintain the lands. One third households need engine mean as the land or fishery ground could only be reach by motor-bike, motorboat (kelotok), car or public transportation since it is too far. This is magnifying constraint to maintain the land 83
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
as most of household struggling with cash money to fulfill daily needs. Consequently, those land hardly visited; once every one or two months, or even within years. 3. Economic or Financial Capital Beside informal financial capital from relative and family, there are at least three other sources to borrow money in the study area; bank, farmer-group revolving fund, and middleman. A new option, Credit Union (CU), is being facilitated by YTS to operate in this place. Even though capital is very needed to start business and farming activity; discussions reveal that most households tend to avoid borrowing money. It is due to consequences of unpredicted results of agriculture activity and/or no-guarantee available. Farmers choose either to maximize the use of their saving/capital, or reduce production size. There are at least two major constraints that restricted small farmer to borrow money in formal financial system which access and installment system. In the previous years, bank only provided loan for civil servants or people who work in government related organizations. Only recently soft-loan credit skim has been widely introduced by government to facilitate improvement in agricultural production. Therefore, credit is hardly available and difficult to access by farmers. Applying credit in bank consider complicated, bureaucratic, and lengthy. Providing sufficient guarantee such land certificate is also difficult task for local farmer. It is common in local Dayaknese community that land ownership established through local recognition without formal governmental certificate. Therefore, household in SG Lewu have problem to provide certificate of land ownership when they applied credit in bank. A standard fix monthly payment from bank has been restrain farmer who have no fix income while the agricultural yield is unpredictable. This fix monthly payment is not well adapted with farmer
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
situations that grow different types of vegetables or livestock which has different harvesting period as well. Farmer who grows corn has different cash flow than farmer who plant cucumber; farmer who grows green bean differ than who grows cassava; farmer who raises pig has different financial course than farmer who raise cow; fisherman who looking fishes in lakes has different income than farmer who raise chicken broiler, etc. Therefore, enforcing a fix monthly payment would not rational since different activities provide cash differently; it can be in the next 40 days, two, three or six months, or even 1 until 3 years later. Despite government effort to provide cash and asset through farmer group, the capital injection is claimed not sufficient to cover production cost in farming. Contrary to public and government’s view, farming needs huge investment. Fertilizer is one of the most needed but expensive factor productions in sandy land such Sei Gohong. Different types of vegetables require various production cost, sometime Rp 5 M or € 403 was not sufficient (Titi, 2011). Most of household who depends in on-farm activities use informal institutions to borrowed money which are vegetable buyer, middleman or chicken supplier. Households who rely either on natural and non-natural based activities prefer to turn into family or relative whenever they need cash or others help. It is only government worker cluster that has access to formal financial institutions. 4. Social Capital Religion and ethnicity still plays critical social cohesion and support in Indonesia. Religion facilitated means to meet regularly which is allowed deeper interaction, develop familiarity and build trust with each other. Ethnicity establishes sense of belonging, closeness and better understanding through common language and culture. Those aspects contribute in 84
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
build strong social capital within people which they could turn for support and helped in time needed. A strong bound between religion and ethnicity is evident in Sei Gohong. The assume pattern appear to be true that most of Dayaknese is Christian and Javanese is Moslem. Family and relative are still an important shelter of security in shock, especially for young family and old people. It is still common that young families are still shared house and cost of living with their parents although had have children of their own. Farmer-group plays important roles whenever government and nongovernmental organizations are about to channeling support. Unfortunate, those groups were established for short term period and project oriented; for example group of jatropha farmer, patchouli, rubber, cow, pig, chicken, fish, etc. Farmer group mainly established as passive recipient of programme to receive material supports, and not technical support which is lacked and required to ensure adoption and sustainability of the programs within households. Many programs neglect the importance to design feedback channels and gather field experiences. 5. Physical Capital People in Sei Gohong village enjoy benefit of close to Palangka Raya, capital of Central Kalimantan, which is only 35 km. easy access to main road and close to Kahayan river bank. Although there is no regular-daily schedule of public transport from Palangka Raya to Sei Gohong, market is still considered close and accessible through unofficial public transport or selfvehicles. Exclusively, people in SG Lewu are also enjoying temporary jobs as porteras the port is located in the village, mainly porter of rubber latex. Surrounding by many lakes provide people with work opportunity as fisherman.
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
CONCLUSION Sei Gohong village has physical capital since situated close to Kahayan river bank and to main road that connected two major cities and markets in Central Kalimantan, Palangka Raya and Sampit. This physical advantage provides bigger opportunity for households to develop both on-farm and offfarm activities since market is close. Social capital is still strong in this area. Ethnic and religion show a solid bound to each other whereas 94% Dayaknese are Christian (61 out of 65) and 86% Javanese are Moslem (31 out of 36). Information of job opportunity is often more accessible and disseminate through social network, -family, ethnicity and religious bound-, such seeking gold, rising chicken broiler, or work in private sectors. Since there is no regular ethnicity meeting but consistent religious gathering, religion is expected has bigger and important role to induce change and determine livelihood activity in respective religion and ethnic. Although enjoying physical and social capital, there are several collateral problems facing by different cluster of households on various degrees of important in Sei Gohong. Those problems are related to natural capital, financial/economic capital, and human capital. Natural capital: Land and labor are two main resources that owned by household. Land endowment has two distinctive setting in Sei Gohong that affecting households’ activity. Land is sandy but situated close behind house in SG Trans. Farmers benefit in saving transportation cost and time to focus in maintained their farm. As a contrast in SG Lewu, which is represent most of the situation of local villages in Central Kalimantan, land is situated in considerable distance from settlement and it is not always fertile. Since people should decide on allocating their limited labor, on-farm activities are becoming the not feasible options for many households in cluster 2 and 3, although they have lands. Promoting onfarm activities is more reasonable directed to
85
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
households who have land close to their settlement such in SG Trans. Whenever land has considerable distance from housing, more off farm activities should be introduce to increase labor productivity and household income. Financial/economical capital: has been widely recognized as one of main constraints in 3 clusters households whom work in on-farm and off-farm activities with no regular income. Most households are facing problems to make both initial investment and production cost to run the business. Households in these clusters have not been utilized formal financial institutions to borrow money since access and installment systems are not favorable with their conditions. Adapting procedure & bureaucracy that meet specific characters of rural livelihood, -as farmer, fisherman or breeder-, will open capital access to increase production capacity or to start new activity. Human capital: Households that rely on on-farm and natural resources based activities indicate that technical knowledge is one of problems that limited their ability to increase the yield. Most of problems are related to pest and disease control and breeding technique. However, there are some farmer that acknowledge has technical issues since land preparation until marketing such low price and dependency with middleman. Those problems are often lacked of attention in government support programs which is more induce material than technical supports. REFERENCES Amien, Istiqlal. nd. Agro-Ecological Analysis for Agricultural Development in Indonesia. Center for Soil and Agroclimate Research, Bogor. Anderson. 2004. Chance, Change and Choice in Africa’s Drylands: A new perspective on policy priorities ARUN Prakarsa Inforindo . 2008. Analisis SNREA bagi RPJMN Tahun 20102014 Laporan Antara Tim Analisis SEA. Ministry of Environment (KLH), Ministry of National Development
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
Planning (BAPPENAS) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark (Danida). Bambang, Brodjonegoro. Nd. Three years of fiscal decentralization in Indonesia: Its impacts on regional economic development and fiscal sustainability. Department of Economics, University of Indonesia Bantilan, MCS., KPC Rao, K Singh, P Parthasarathy Rao, B Shiferaw, and R Padmaja. 2004. Strategic Assessments and Development Pathways for Agriculture in the Semi-Arid Tropics: Overcoming Poverty through Dryland Agriculture: A Strategy for India. Policy Brief No. 6. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). India Bantilan, MCS., P, Anand Babu, GV , Anupama, H, Deepthi and R, Padmaja. 2006. Dryland Agriculture: Dynamics, Challenges and Priorities. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). BPS
Kalimantan Tengah, 2011. http://kalteng.bps.go.id/sektoral-1.html Accessed on 17th Jan 2011.
Burger K, van den Berg, Marrit. Household consumption and natural disasters: the case of hurricane mitch in Nicaragua. (2008) Congress paper. Cleaver, Frances. 1999. Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development. Journal of International Development 11, p 597-612. Cornwall, Andrea. 2003. Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory Development. World Development Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1325– 1342. Darmawan, Rachmad Erland Danny. 2008. The practices of decentralization in Indonesia and its implication on local competitiveness. Public Administration-Public Governance study, School of Management and
86
J-SEA (Journal Socio Economics Agricultural)
Government, University of Twente. Enschede, the Netherlands DFiD, 2005. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction. Guidance Note 10. London, Department for International Development (UK) Fafchamps, Marcel. 1993. Sequential Labor Decisions under Uncertainty: An Estimable Household Model of WestAfrican Farmers. Econometrica, Vol. 61, No. 5 (Sep., 1993), pp. 1173-1197 FAO. 1993. http://www.fao.org/docrep /t0752e/ t0752e03.html. Accessed on 11th Jan 2011 Gaspersz, Peggy (2008). Sector Report: Agriculture Sector in Indonesia. Trade and Investment Manager, British Embassy Jakarta 72 Jansen, H.G.P., Pender, J., Damon, A., Wielemaker, W., Schipper, R. 2006. Policies for sustainable development in the hillside areas of Honduras: A quantitative livelihoods approach. Agricultural Economics, 34 (2), pp. 141-153. Jenning, Ray. 2000. Participatory Development as New Paradigm: The Transition of Development Professionalism. Conference Paper on “Community Based Reintegration and Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings” . Washington DC. Kruseman, G., R.Ruben, H. Hengsdijk, M.K. Van Ittersum. 1995. Farm household modeling for estimating the effectiveness of price instruments in land use policy. Netherlands Journal of Agriculutral Sciences 43 111-123. Laborte, A.G., Van Ittersum, M.K., Van den Berg, M. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of agricultural development: A modelling approach for Ilocos Norte, Philippines. Agricultural Systems, 94 (3), pp. 862873. Ligon, Ethan. (2008). Notes on the FarmHousehold Model
Vol. 8 No. 2, Agustus 2013 (76-88)
Van Den Berg, Marrit. 2001. Off-farm income, risk and agricultural production: A case study of smallholders in India’s semi-arid tropics. Wageningen University Van Den Berg, Marrit. 2002. Do public works decrease farmers' soil degradation? Labour income and the use of fertilisers in India's semi-arid tropics. Environment and Development Economics, 7 (3), pp. 487-506. Van Den Berg, Marrit., Kumbi, G.E. 2006. Poverty and the rural nonfarm economy in Oromia, Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 35 (SUPPL. 3), pp. 469-475. pVan den Berg, Marrit. 2010. Household income strategies and natural disasters: Dynamic livelihoods in rural Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 69 (3), pp. 592-602. Poffenberger, Mark. 1983. Changing Dryland Agriculture in Eastern Bali. Human Ecology, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1983. Reynolds, James F., D. Mark Stafford Smith, Eric F. Lambin, B. L. Turner II, Michael Mortimore, Simon P. J. Batterbury, Thomas E. Downing, Hadi Dowlatabadi, Roberto J. Fernández, Jeffrey E. Herrick, Elisabeth HuberSannwald, Hong Jiang, Rik Leemans, Tim Lynam, Fernando T. Maestre, Miguel Ayarza, Brian Walker. 2007. Global Desertification: Building a Science for Dryland Development. Science (3160 847. Roumasset, James. Nd. Rural Institutions, Agricultural Development, and ProPoor Economic Growth. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 1, No. 1 p. 56-73 Ruben, R., Van Den Berg, M. 2001. Nonfarm employment and poverty alleviation of rural farm households in Honduras. World Development, 29 (3), pp. 549-560. Saito, Fumihiko. 1998. Decentralization for Participatory Development in Uganda: 87
Mayang Meilantina dan Bahing
Assessing Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Dry-land Agricultural in Central Kalimantan-Indonesia
Limitations and Prospects. SocioCultural Research Institute of Ryukoku University. Japan Scoones, Ian. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihood: A framework for Analysis. IDS Paper 72 Singh, I., L. Squire, and J. Strauss. (1986) Agricultural Household Models: Extensions, Applications and Policy. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Singh, Inderjit, Lyn Squire, and John Strauss. 1986. A Survey of Agricultural Household Models: Recent Findings and Policy Implications. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank. Strauss, John., Duncan Thomas, Rand and UCLA. 1984. Human Resources: Empirical modeling of household and family decisions. Handbook of Development Economics, Volume III, Edited by J. Behrman and T.N. Srinivasan. Elsevier Science B.V. Tanaya, I GUsti L.P., McGregor, Murray. And Batt Peter. (2004). Buyer-Seller Relationship in Dryland Farming Supply Chains in Lombok Indonesia. Taylor, J. Edward & Adelman, Irma. 2002. Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, Evolution, and Extensions. University of California UNDP. 2007. http://www.undp.org/ drylands/policy-mdg-response.html. Accessed on 12th Jan 2011 Yayasan Tambuhak Sinta (YTSa). 2009. Dokumentasi Pengkajian Desa Partisipatif (PRA) in Sei Gohong Lewu. Palangka Raya Yayasan Tambuhak Sinta (YTSb). 2009. Dokumentasi Pengkajian Desa Partisipatif (PRA) in Sei Gohong Trans. Palangka Raya
88