Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Migration and Land Use Change in the Forests Frontiers in Indonesia

204 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Presented by Paul Thung on Sep 19th, 2018 at FLARE Conference, Copenhagen

Publicado en: Medio ambiente
  • Sé el primero en comentar

Migration and Land Use Change in the Forests Frontiers in Indonesia

  1. 1. Paul Thung, Kartika Juniwaty, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett and Made Sanjaya 19th of September, 2018 FLARE Conference, Copenhagen MIGRATION AND LAND USE CHANGE IN THE FOREST FRONTIERS OF INDONESIA
  2. 2. OUTLINE • Migration and remittances in the global development agenda • Literature on migration and forests in Indonesia: gaps and openings • Key questions and two-pronged methodology • Research context – Malinau District, North Kalimantan • CIFOR’s place based research and observable land use change • Key finding 1 – Generational shifts in migration patterns • Key finding 2 – Effects on livelihood and labor • Key finding 3 – Observable impact on ‘trees’ rather than on ‘forests’ • Key finding 4 – State making in the frontiers as driving migration • Recommendations – demographic shift, context-specific modalities.
  3. 3. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE – GAPS AND OPENINGS • Narratives of environmentally destructive migrants and rates of deforestation and forest degradation - Secrett 1986 article in the Ecologist • Continuation of narratives – attempts to quantify effects of migration on forest cover change (see Darmawan et al. 2016 and Maertens et al. 2002) • But problems – attribute environmental destruction to the activities of migrants rather than underlying social, economic and political structures. Processes and mechanisms of change remain unexplored. And the ’net effects’ migration on environmental change not considered (Black et al. 2011, Hect et al. 2015, Thung and Juniwaty 2018). • But mostly focus on ‘in-migration’ and not on on ‘out-migration’, ‘circular migration’ etc. Important exception includes Nancy Peluso ‘Remittance forests’ - re-visiting research site in the context of growing female out-migration for care work in Hong Kong and Singapore and land use change attributed to the sending of remittance and domestic decision-making.
  4. 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS • Opportunity to address gaps through BMZ/BEAF funded comparative research project on migration and forests. • Main research questions: trends and trajectories of migration; mobility and remittances; effects on livelihood and land use change; implications for GIZ Forclime. • Research methods: 2-pronged – household survey in 8 villages in upper and lower Malinau, 30 per village (360 total respondents). Complemented with additional qualitative data collection – key informant interviews, follow up semi- structured interviews at household level, individual interviews, and FGDs (total + 200+) • Research site – Malinau District – GIZ Forclime operations and also CIFOR’s long-term, place based research site.
  5. 5. MALINAU • Long-term research site from 1980s to 2009 • 2009 – documenting the effects of decentralization on deforestation (Moeliono et al. 2009) “…what happened after decentralization and democracy reforms in Indonesia, when district governmetns gained new authority and local communiteis gained new rights”. Research concluded that “these local arrangements are fragile and flux…uncertainty accompanying new policies has created a window of opportunity for rapid resource exploitation” (xv-xvi). • In 2008, Wunder et al. (2008) describes “…the case of an unsuccessful attempt to establish a community conservation concession in the village of Setulang (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) to safeguard a biologically valuable area from predatory logging” in an article in Ecology and Society. • Deforestation focus, but supported by recent spatial data analyses?
  6. 6. KEY FINDING 1: CHANGES IN MIGRATION PATTERNS • GIZ expected out-migration to Malaysia. Historical ‘pelesai’. • But educational migration more prominent. And surge since 2001, around the time of implementation of decentralization. • 80% of migrants go for educational reasons • 90% of migrants receive transfers from home 9.52 9.17 16.22 44 0 10 20 30 40 50 1980 1990 2000 2010 Rural Site Remote Site Total Proportion of youth with tertiary education by cohort
  7. 7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY COHORT 21.31 30.23 13.48 6.2 1.47 1.25 2.01 1 31.14 13.96 50.56 45.74 52.94 62.5 51.01 47.77 3.28 13.95 4.49 12.4 14.71 17.5 42.28 45.27 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper n=61 n=86 n=89 n=129 n=137 n=160 n=149 n=201 1980 1990 2000 2010 None Primary school Secondary school Tertiary level
  8. 8. MIGRATION FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES [JKS(1]Maps need to be udpdated Destination of Youth Migrants from Lower Malinau Destination of Youth Migrants from Upper Malinau • In both research locations, high out- migration for educational purposes • Lower Malinau (rural)  diverse destinations, including Java • Upper Malinau (remote)  Malinau city, Samarinda, Tarakan (within Kalimantan) • Higher percentage of migrants from lower Malinau that enrol in senior high school (37%) than in upper Malinau (17%). But those from remote mostly migrate for higher education
  9. 9. TRANSFER OUT 175 education migrants 159 (91%) receive transfer from home 114 (72%) receive each month Median of transfer : IDR 800,000 7%-Once in few months 21% -infrequent 16 did not receive transfer Median of total expenditure of Transfer out households: IDR 2,500,000 IDR
  10. 10. PRICES (BASIC NEED)* *RESEARCH SITE CASE Research site Rice (medium quality) IDR 13.000/kg Sugar IDR 25.000/kg Chicken IDR 35.000/kg Eggs IDR 60.000/kg Dairy IDR 15.000/can Salt IDR 7.000/250 gram Gasoline IDR 18.000/liter National* Rice (medium quality) IDR 9.450/kg Sugar IDR 13.750/kg Chicken IDR 28.000/Kg Eggs IDR 22.000/kg Dairy IDR 12.000/can Salt IDR 3.500/250 gram Gasoline IDR 9.300/liter Differences  37%  81%  25%  172%  25%  100%  93% Why? • Access 1 day to the nearest urban area 1 hour to Malaysia border • Resources • Supply < Demand Trans Kalimantan Financial services • Local bank newly open
  11. 11. • Out of interviews with 23 current and returnee migrants: 10 reported that they received scholarship, 7 did not receive scholarship, while 6 was not asked this questions https://humas.kaltaraprov.go.id/pengumuman/view/3745/pe ngumuman-beasiswa-kaltara-cerdas-2018.html
  12. 12. UNEVENESS ACCESS TO SCHOLARSHIPS
  13. 13. • More diversified livelihoods in lower than upper Descriptive Statistics: Household Characteristics Lower Malinau Upper Malinau Variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Number of income sources 2.22 1.11 2.27 0.88 Main Source of Livelihood (%) Agriculture 36.11 48.16 48.89 50.12 Micro Enterprise 10.00 30.08 6.67 25.01 Casual Work 13.89 34.67 7.78 26.85 Remittance 1.67 12.84 1.67 12.83 Forest Product 1.11 10.51 5.00 21.85 Other 8.89 28.55 2.22 14.78 Salary 28.33 45.18 27.78 44.91
  14. 14. Outflow of funds: – On average, 28% of total expenditure is education cost in household with migrant – compared to 12% in non migrant household – Migrants household: In the lower Malinau spent 36%, while in upper Malinau 23% • No. different in non migrants household • Total monthly HH expenditure: 145-195 USD, average HH size: 6 persons, • Per capita monthly expenditure: 24-32 USD. 2 distinct groups among the households with youth migrants: • salaried jobs (teachers, officials, entrepreneurs; continuation); • forest &farm-based livelihoods (stretching resources and larger investment) Major expense for latter households • No evident loss in Labor
  15. 15. KEY FINDING 2: HOW ARE PEOPLE PAYING FOR EDUCATION? • Effects on livelihood differentiated by geography and previous sources of income. • Upper and lower Malinau – upper less diversified income and more dependent on forests.Descriptive Statistics: Household Characteristics Lower Malinau Upper Malinau Variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Forest Dependency Mentioning Forest Product as one of income sources (%) 2.78 16.47 26.11 44.04 Think that forest product is very important for livelihood (%) 53.98 49.98 88.27 32.27 Think that forest product is very important for livelihood, 5 years ago (%) 56.25 49.74 88.27 32.27 Number of types of forest product collected (%) 1.97 0.94 2.83 1.12 Sell timber (including Gaharu) (%) 2.77 16.47 13.88 34.67 Sell NTFP (%) 3.33 13.41 2.77 12.28 Sell Firewood (%) 0.50 7.40 0.00 0.00 Sell Bushmeat (%) 9.40 29.32 25.55 43.73 Sell Fruit (%) 3.30 18.00 0.50 7.45 Observation 180 180
  16. 16. KEY FINDING 3: OBSERVABLE IMPACT ON ‘TREES’ RATHER THAN ON ‘FORESTS’ • Upper and lower Malinau – diversified livelihoods, access to salary and uneven access to scholarships • Trees – Gaharu economy – questions of sustainability. Contribute to gaharu extraction but not to exploitation. • Swidden – not cease, but desire for more settled agriculture.
  17. 17. FOREST AND LAND COVER CHANGE IN MALINAU 1990 - 2017
  18. 18. KEY FINDING 4: WHAT’S DRIVING THE MGIRATION FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES • Different narratives – overwhelmingly interested to return. Aspire to combine swidden and non-agriculture. But also place-based narratives. • ‘Youth exodus’ from forestry and agriculture not founded in research areas. • Economic – income from previous migration, wages lead to increased opportunities • Political - ongoing processes of ‘state-making’ and ‘pemekaran’. Expectation of jobs opening up that would require qualified individuals . •
  19. 19. MINING
  20. 20. PEMEKARAN AND DEMAND OF CIVIL SERVANTS • Effects of decentralization - infrastructure and more connection to markets, bureaucracy and possibilities of jobs (PNS and casual work), secondary economy (shops, new sources of demand). • According to Governor of North Kalimantan, demand for PNS in North Kalimantan is 6000 people and only have 3500. • For now in 2018, they have requested 1,770 new opening for PNS jobs, however, the quota is 1,397 position. For Malinau District government, the quota is 230 position. https://sscn.bkn.go.id/lowongan
  21. 21. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS • Demographic shift – advantage and risk • Importance of contextual factors How to ‘manage migtation’? • Support systems • Some openings: • Eco-tourism in Setulang village • Restoration once mining jobs cease in Long Loreh village • Involvement of youth and FPIC in Apau Kayan village
  22. 22. cifor.org blog.cifor.org ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org THANK YOU

×