Transforming the Indonesian uplands<\/p>\n
At least 30 million people gain their livelihoods in Indonesia's
\nupland regions. Tania Li looks at developments there.<\/p>\n
Upland farmers in Indonesia have been viewed variously as
\ninnocent tribals, maintaining distinctive traditional ways of
\nlife; as peasant farmers, albeit perhaps rather inefficient ones;
\nas destroyers of the environment and illegal squatters; and, more
\nrecently, as expert environmentalists, holding the secret to
\nsustainability through their community-based resource management
\nsystems.<\/p>\n
Huge populations live in Indonesia's upland areas, dependent
\nupon fragile land and forest resources to which their
\nentitlements are generally insecure. Many have lived in upland
\nregions for generations, while others have migrated more recently
\nin search of land and livelihoods. Still others are attracted to
\nthe uplands as frontiers for the extension of commodity
\nproduction, often on a large scale. Where they survive at all,
\nupland forests are treated by government and industry as a
\nharvestable resource, while environmentalists lobby for
\nconservation of forests to protect their biodiversity potential.<\/p>\n
As these widely divergent perceptions indicate, there are at
\nleast three potentially conflicting interests at work in modern
\nIndonesia's upland regions: environmental conservation, economic
\ndevelopment through export promotion, and increased farming
\nactivity to meet local needs. Complex patterns of change are
\nbeing generated within the uplands, in response to, in spite of,
\nor simply on the margins of these externally driven agendas.
\nTransformations have resulted, in many cases, from the impact of
\ncapitalized agriculture and changing state-society relations on
\nupland people. In lowland Indonesia during the late 1960s and
\nearly 1970s, the widespread introduction of new strains of high-
\nyielding rice and new, industrially-manufactured chemical inputs
\nmade possible extraordinary increases in food crop production;
\nthe programs brought about equally extensive changes in lowland
\npolitics and society. Access to green revolution technologies
\nrequired new and administratively expensive credit programs.
\nThese often have worked to the advantage of middle and large-
\nscale farmers, thus enhancing rather than diminishing rural
\ninequality.<\/p>\n
Similarly, efforts to maximize farm profits encouraged farmers
\nin many lowland regions to introduce new and more restrictive
\nforms of labor organization, which often affect poor women most
\nseverely. The efficient distribution of inputs and the quick
\nmarketing of harvests have required massive investments in the
\nconstruction and improvement of roads. This, in turn, has
\nfacilitated the diffusion of new consumer goods, the movement
\nof investors into rural agriculture and the dissemination of new
\nlifestyles. Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, the success
\nof green revolution initiatives was accompanied by, and indeed
\ndependent upon, a significant expansion in state capacity. New
\nprograms required government intervention into rural communities
\non a scale and with a duration not previously seen in the
\nindependence era.<\/p>\n
Throughout the same period, upland areas in the hilly or
\nmountainous interiors of most of Indonesia's provinces were
\nundergoing economic, political and social changes of no less
\nsignificance. At least 30 million people gain their livelihoods
\nin upland regions through a mix of swidden farming, tree-crop
\ncultivation, forest extraction, fixed-field permanent
\nagriculture, and wage labor. As in the nearby lowlands, recent
\nyears have witnessed road construction, crop intensification,
\ncapital investment, deforestation and the movement of people and
\nideas on a significant scale. These developments have transformed
\nthe relationship of upland peoples to the environment, markets
\nand the state. In so doing, they have also opened the way for
\nfundamental changes in upland economy, polity and morality, as
\nrural people respond to new pressures and take advantage of new
\nopportunities.<\/p>\n
Emphasizing current changes does not mean, however, that
\nisolated, \"traditional\" people are encountering the modern,
\ncommercial world for the first time. Centuries of interaction
\nwith lowlanders, with the state, and with national and
\ninternational markets have been central to the formation and
\nreformation of upland cultures and practices, and their very
\nidentities as \"communities\". The majority of Indonesia's
\nagricultural exports (from the ancient spice trade crops to
\nmodern era rubber, cocoa, coffee, cloves, cashews) have always
\nbeen derived from upland regions, where they are grown by
\nsmallholder farmers as well as on plantations.<\/p>\n
Ironically, just as the agrarian revolution in upland
\nagriculture is proceeding apace, it is being masked by two
\nexternal agendas, each with rather strong rhetoric. The
\nIndonesian state continues to see uplanders as backward
\ntraditionalists, illegal squatters and agents of environmental
\ndestruction. Counterposed to this view, many environmentalists
\n(Indonesian and foreign) argue that \"traditional\" uplanders are
\narchetypal ecological farmers and conservationists, seeking only
\nto preserve \"their own\" institutions and practices. Both parties
\nmay overlook the extent to which uplanders have again
\nreformulated the image of themselves, and seek the benefits of
\nfuller citizenship. Their demands may include access to roads,
\neducation and health facilities. They are also likely to include
\ndemands for security of land tenure, and freedom from arbitrary
\ndisplacement in the wake of state projects designed to
\n\"modernize\" them.<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, as a development-minded state, the portrayal of
\nuplanders as isolated and traditional raises the question: how
\ncan these people be made modern? For many anthropologists, the
\nquestion has been: how can these unique and diverse ways of life
\nbe preserved? For ecologists, the question has been: how can
\nthese people gain more secure control over their resources, so
\nthat they can continue to manage them wisely, and so that the
\nrest of the world can learn from their example? For applied
\nscientists, the questions have to do more with sustainable ways
\nto increase productivity and stabilize the agro-ecosystem.<\/p>\n
A re-assessment of upland transformation must move beyond
\nthese pre-established agendas, and ask more searching questions
\nabout how contradictory pressures are experienced locally and how
\nthey are worked out in the context of everyday lives and
\npractices. If we are able to rid ourselves of the image of
\nuplanders as innocents or as victims, and treat them seriously as
\nagents contributing to the making of history, the questions
\nbecome: What history is desired? How exactly is it being made?
\nUnder what constellation of opportunities and constraints? What,
\nin short, are the processes through which agrarian change in the
\nuplands is occurring?<\/p>\n
Dr. Tania Li is Associate Professor of Social Anthropology at
\nDalhousie University, Canada. She is a Research Fellow at the
\nInstitute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/transforming-the-indonesian-uplands-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}