Agriculture development strategy needs changes (1)<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on upland farming.<\/p>\n
By Rusdian Lubis<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Nomadic and dry-land farmers have been blamed
\nfor the recent forest fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra. The
\nfarmers were responsible for 85 percent of the 5.1 million acres
\nof forests destroyed by fires, Kompas reported Oct. 22.<\/p>\n
Debates over the data and culprits aside, it is high time
\nto look at these two groups of farmers. So far, the upland areas
\nand their systems of agriculture seem to have been left untouched
\nby government policies.<\/p>\n
Dry-land farming is found in marginal lands with steep slopes,
\nor in lots which used to be forests. In some regions, this kind
\nof farming activity spreads to river catchments, causing critical
\nconditions to these areas. The results are predictable: During
\nthe dry season, we have acute problems of drought and forest
\nfires. In the rainy season, we have floods and severe erosion.<\/p>\n
Key characteristics of upland agriculture include diversity of
\nthe ecosystem and agronomy, from the intercrop horticulture
\nsystem to relatively more complex systems such as agroforestry
\nwhich mix food plant forestry and farming. At present, due to
\nshortages of funding and lack of technology, the upland
\nagricultural system generally produces very low yields. It is
\nstill done the traditional way, which is suitable to those who
\nlive at the subsistent level. Nevertheless, the diversity of the
\necosystem, theoretically, has the potential to be developed into
\na robust and sustainable agricultural system.<\/p>\n
During a discussion on the problems of the upland agricultural
\nsystem, Professor Hayami, an expert in agriculture-economics,
\nsuggested a number of modifications to existing development
\nstrategies for upland agriculture and forestry.<\/p>\n
First of all, we must modify our agricultural policy which has
\nbeen based on the package of \"input-technology-credit-extension\"
\naimed at the farmers. The program is more suitable for lowland
\nrice growing farmers, which is relatively more homogeneous both
\necologically and socio-economically. To complement the new
\npolicy, we need to develop an agricultural policy that is more
\nproblem-specific and more adapted to the ecological and socio-
\neconomical diversity of upland farmers.<\/p>\n
One alternative for implementing this strategy is by building
\na tripartite cooperation between farmers, researchers and
\neducators in various locations, which will develop prototypes of
\nupland agricultural technology. We must also relieve the educa
\ntors from administrative chores as well as from the duty of
\nchanneling the input into agriculture, so that they can concen
\ntrate on serving the needs of the farmers.<\/p>\n
Second, we must stimulate the market mechanism and the private
\nsector to handle the disbursement of credits, distribution of
\ninput and marketing of agricultural products. Certainly we cannot
\nrely on both of them for particular activities, such as trading
\nand planting seedlings, since these activities require strict
\nquality assurance. Privatization of supply of input and
\ndistribution of agricultural input is expected to reduce the
\nburden of administrative costs that have to be carried out by the
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Third, we must increase the role played by the government in
\nbuilding and improving infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and
\nmarket information. In order to improve efficiency, we must get
\nrid of regulations that allow for oligopoly or market concentra
\ntion.<\/p>\n
Specifically in the area of infrastructure, we can reallocate
\nthe funds that are meant for building irrigation system, to rice-
\nfield farmers--whose rice fields have lately been converted into
\nresidential plots--as well as lowland farmers, and use them
\ninstead for building infrastructures for upland farmers.<\/p>\n
Roads and bridges play an extremely important role in
\nsupplying input into, and marketing the products from, isolated
\nareas. This way, economically and ecologically there will be
\npositive impacts that will trickle down from the upland to
\nlowland areas, since the problem of sedimentation and the silting
\nup of the irrigation systems can be overcome.<\/p>\n
What might be the constraints for this development strategy?
\nThe first may come from population growth and competition in the
\nuse of the land by non-agricultural sectors, such as farming,
\nforests, industry and residential areas. This competition has
\nmade it difficult to fix the damages caused by dry-land
\nagriculture and nomadic farmers.<\/p>\n
This, in turn, has made a farming method that has been applied
\nfor hundreds of years without any significant impact on the
\nenvironment, now having such a disastrous consequence. As the
\nresult of increasingly short rotation and fallow periods, we have
\nseen that soil fertility has declined. Other resulting problems
\ninclude erosion, sedimentation in the headwater areas and forest
\nfires.<\/p>\n
The shortage of land has forced nomadic farmers to cut down
\ntrees in the forests. However, their area of activities is also
\nincreasingly limited by the expansion of the forest areas owned
\nby the state. A World Bank report in 1990 shows permanent forest
\nareas were estimated to be 26 million acres in 1967, but it was
\nestimated to be 113 million acres in 1983.<\/p>\n
According to existing regulations, only forest concessionaires
\nhave the right to reap the yields from the land they lease from
\nthe Ministry of Forestry. Local people are not entitled to the
\ncrops in these forests. Needless to say, nomadic farmers, who
\nlack capital or collateral, cannot afford to lease or buy land.
\nWorse, since those farmers are not allowed to pick the crops of
\nnon-timber in secondary forests owned by the state or
\nconcessionaires, they are not interested in preserving the forest
\nareas.<\/p>\n
The second constraint may come from the tradition of common
\nproperty, hak ulayat (land laws) or hak adat (general laws). In
\nmany areas, nomadic farmers cultivate the land in a rotating
\npattern, rotating both the location and the farmers (for example,
\nthose found in the Enrekang area of South Sulawesi). Communal
\nproperty right tends to destroy natural resources since there is
\nno sense of ownership. Hardin, an expert in ecology, calls this
\nthe \"Tragedy of Commons\". A general solution that may avoid the
\ntragedy would be to clarify property rights by both the state and
\nthe private sectors. However, the two solutions, as mentioned
\nbefore, give limits to the local people's participation in
\nbenefiting from the land.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/agriculture-development-strategy-needs-changes-1-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}