Economic Botany

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 136–147 | Cite as

Smallholder rubber and swidden agriculture in Borneo: A sustainable adaptation to the ecology and economy of the tropical forest

  • Michael R. Dove
Article

Abstract

This is a study of the role of Para rubber cultivation in a system of swidden agriculture in Indonesian Borneo. Such smallholdings produce most of Indonesia’s rubber, which is the country’s largest agricultural generator of foreign exchange. Rubber integrates well into Bornean systems of swidden agriculture: the comparative ecology and economy of Para rubber and upland swidden rice result in minimal competition in the use of land and labor — and even in mutual enhancement — between the two systems. Rubber occupies a distinct niche in the farm economy: it meets the need for market goods, while the swiddens meet subsistence needs. The intensity of production on these smallholdings is, as a result, characteristically low (and may even vary inversely with market prices). This reflects the independence of these smallholders from external economic and political influences, which has been the key to their historical success. The special virtues of such “composite systems” merit greater attention by development planners.

Key Words

rubber smallholder swidden agriculture Kalimantan or Borneo Indonesia Hevea brasiliensis 

Karet Rakyat dan Sistem Perladangan di Kalimantan: Suatu Adaptasi Yang Baik Terhadap Ekologi dan Ekonomi Hutan Tropika

Abstract

Penilitian ini mempelajari peranan karet rakyat sebagai pasangan bagi sistem perladangan di Kalimantan-Indonesia. Perkebunan karet rakyat merupakan penghasil utama karet Indonesia, yang merupakan penyumbang pertanian terbesar bagi devisa negara. Karet rakyat membaur dengan baik dalam sistem perladangan di Kalimantan: pembandingan ekologi dan ekonomi antara karet rakyat dan sistem perladangan menunjukkan persaingan yang minimum dalam pemakaian lahan dan tenaga kerja—dan bahkan saling menguntungkan—antara kedua sistem tersebut. Karet rakyat menempati kedudukan yang penting dalam ekonomi usaha para peladang: yaitu memenuhi kebutuhan barang-barang pasar, sedangkan sistem perladangan memenuhi kebutuhan pokok hidup. Intensitas produksi perkebunan karet rakyat oleh karena itu, brasanya agak rendah (yang kadang-kadang berbeda berbalikan dengan harga pasar). Hal ini menggambarkan ketidak-bergantungan petani karet pada pengaruh-pengaruh ekonomi dan politik dari luar, dan ini merupakan kunci sukses mereka. Hal-hal khususyang menguntungkan dari sistem terpadu inipatut mendapatkanperhatian yang lebih besar dari perencana-perencana pembangunan.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). 1985. Smallholder rubber production and policies: Proceedings of Workshop held at the University of Adelaide. ACIAR, Canberra.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, C. 1978. The natural rubber industry: its development, technology, and economy in Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  3. —. 1990. Changes in the economic position of workers on rubber estates and smallholdings in peninsular Malaysia, 1910-1985. Pages 25–49in P. J. Rummer and L. M. Allen, eds., The underside of Malaysian history: pullers, prostitutes, plantation workers. Singapore University Press, Singapore.Google Scholar
  4. —,and J. S. Jayasuriya. 1984. Problems of investment for technical advance: the case of Indonesian smallholders. Journal of Agricultural Economics 35:85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. —,and Muharminto. 1982. The rubber smallholder economy. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 18(2):86–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. —,and T. Tomich. 1991. Indonesian agricultural development: the awkward case of smallholder tree crops. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 27(3):29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Best, J. R. 1988. Change over time in a farming system based on shifting cultivation of hill rice in Sarawak, Malaysia. Agricultural Administration and Extension 29:69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boeke, J. H. 1953. Economics and economic policy of dual societies: as exemplified by Indonesia. Institute of Pacific Relations, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Booth, A. 1988. Agricultural development in Indonesia. Asian Studies Association of Australia, Southeast Asia Publications Series No. 16. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.Google Scholar
  10. Brunig, E. F. 1974. Ecological studies in thekerangas forests of Sarawak and Brunei. Borneo Literature Bureau (for Sarawak Forest Department), Kuching.Google Scholar
  11. Chamala, S. 1985. Transfer of rubber technology among smallholders in Malaysia and Indonesia: a sociological analysis. Pages 30–4in ACIAR.Google Scholar
  12. Chen Shanyang, Pei Shengji, and Xu Jiangcu. n.d. Indigenous management of the rattan resources in the forest lands on mountain environment: the Hani practice in the Mengsong area of Yunnan, China. Conference Proceedings, Kunming Institute of Botany, Kunming.Google Scholar
  13. Chin, S.C. 1982. The significance of rubber as a cash crop in a Kenyah swidden village in Sarawak. Federation Museum Journal 27:23–28.Google Scholar
  14. Colfer, C. J. P., D. W. Gill, and A. Fahmuddin. 1988. An indigenous agricultural model from West Sumatra: a source of scientific insight. Agricultural Systems 26:191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collier, W. L., and S. Tjakrawedaya. 1972. Smallholder rubber production and marketing. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 8(2):67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cottrell, A., D. Ip, and J. S. Western. 1985. Sociological perspectives on the rubber smallholder industry in Malaysia and Indonesia. Pages 16–21in ACIAR.Google Scholar
  17. Cramb, R. A. 1988. The commercialization of Iban agriculture. Pages 105–134in R. A. Cramb and R. H. W. Reece, eds., Development in Sarawak: historical and contemporary perspectives. Monash Paper on Southeast Asia No. 17, Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University.Google Scholar
  18. Dillon, H. S. 1985. Development of rubber smallholders in North Sumatra. Pages 116–126in ACIAR.Google Scholar
  19. Dove, M. R. 1980. The swamp rice swiddens of the Kantu’ of West Kalimantan. Pages 953–956in J. I. Furtado, ed., Tropical ecology and development. The International Society of Tropical Ecology, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  20. —. 1983. Theories of swidden agriculture and the political economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems 1:85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. —. 1984. The Chayanov slope in a swidden society: household demography and extensive agriculture in Western Kalimantan. Pages 97–132in E. P. Durrenberger, ed., Chayanov, peasants and anthropology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. —. 1985a. Swidden agriculture in Indonesia: the subsistence strategies of the Kalimantan Kantu’. Mouton, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. —. 1985b. The agroecological mythology of the Javanese, and the political economy of Indonesia. Indonesia 39:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drake, R. A. 1982. The material provisioning of Mualang society in hinterland Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  25. Eder, J. F. 1981. From grain crops to tree crops in the Cuyunon swidden system. Pages 91–104in H. C. Olofson, ed., Adaptive strategies and change in Philippine swidden-based societies. Forest Research Institute, Laguna, Philippines.Google Scholar
  26. Effendi, S. 1985. Improvement of smallholder rubber farming productivity in Indonesia. Pages 108–115in ACIAR.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, J. D. 1960. Iban Augury. Pages 73–98in B. E. Smythies, ed., The birds of Borneo. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  28. —. 1970. Report on the Iban. Athlone Press, London.Google Scholar
  29. Geddes, W. R. 1954. The Land Dayaks of Sarawak. Colonial Research Study No. 14. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
  30. Ghani, Mohd. N.A., O. S. Huat, and M. Wessel. 1986.Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A.L. Juss.) Muell. Arg. Pages 152–161in E. Westphal and P. C. M. Jansen, eds., Plant resources of South-East Asia. PUDOC, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Government of Indonesia (GOI). 1991. Statistik Indonesia: statistical yearbook of Indonesia. Biro Pusat Statistik (Central Bureau of Statistics), Jakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  32. Hecht, S. B., A. B. Anderson, and P. May. 1988. The subsidy from nature: shifting cultivation, successional palm forests, and rural development. Human Organization 47:25–35.Google Scholar
  33. Hudson, A. B. 1967. Padju Epat: the ethnography and social structure of a Ma’anyan Dajak group in Southeastern Borneo. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  34. Kahn, J.S. 1982. From peasants to petty commodity production in Southeast Asia. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 14(1):3–15.Google Scholar
  35. King,V.T. 1988. Social rank and social change among the Maloh. Pages 219–253in M. R. Dove, ed., The real and imagined role of culture in development. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.Google Scholar
  36. Lindblad, J. T. 1988. Between Dayak and Dutch: the economic history of Southeast Kalimantan, 1880-1942. Verhandelingen No. 134. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  37. McGrath, D. G. 1987. The role of biomass in shifting cultivation. Human Ecology 15(2):221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mary, F., and G. Michon. 1987. When agroforests drive back natural forests: a socio-economic analysis of a rice-agroforest system in Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems 5:27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muzzall, A. H. 1925. Native plantation rubber industry of Sumatra: Palembang District.In D. M. Figart, ed., The plantation rubber industry of the Middle East. Trade Promotion Series, No. 2. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  40. Padoch, C. 1978. Migration and its alternatives among the Iban of Sarawak. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  41. —. 1980. The environmental and demographic effects of alternative cash-producing activities among shifting cultivators in Sarawak. Pages 475–481in J. I. Furtado, ed., Tropical ecology and development. International Society of Tropical Ecology, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  42. —. 1988. Agriculture in interior Borneo: shifting cultivation and alternatives. Expedition 30(1):18–28.Google Scholar
  43. Peluso, N. P. 1983a. Networking in the commons: a tragedy for rattan? Indonesia 35:95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. -. 1983b. Markets and merchants: the forest product trade of East Kalimantan in historical perspective. M.Sc. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  45. Pelzer, K. J. 1948. Pioneer settlement in the Asiatic tropics: studies in land utilization and agricultural colonization in Southeastern Asia. Special Publication No. 29. American Geographical Society, New York.Google Scholar
  46. —. 1978a. Swidden cultivation in Southeast Asia: historical, ecological, and economic perspectives. Pages 271–286in P. Kunstadter, ed., Farmers in the forest: Economic development and marginal agriculture in northern Thailand. East-West Center, Honolulu.Google Scholar
  47. —. 1978b. Planter and peasant: colonial policy and the agrarian struggle in East Sumatra, 1863-1947. Verhandelingen No. 84. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  48. Purseglove, J. W. 1968. Tropical crops: dicotyledons. Longman, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
  49. Rambo, A. T. 1980. Fire and the energy efficiency of swidden agriculture. Asian Perspectives 23:309–316.Google Scholar
  50. Seavoy, R. E. 1980. Population pressure and land use change: from tree crops to sawah in Northeastern Kalimantan, Indonesia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 1:61–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas, K. D. 1965. Shifting cultivation and production of small holder rubber in a South Sumatran village. Malayan Economics Review 10:100–115.Google Scholar
  52. Tremeer, R. E. 1964. The early history of rubber planting in Sarawak, 1880-1910. Sarawak Gazette 90:50–52.Google Scholar
  53. Tsing, A. L. 1984. Politics and culture in the Meratus Mountains. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  54. Uljee, G. L. 1925. Handboek voor de Residentie Westerafdeling van Borneo. Visser, Weltevreden.Google Scholar
  55. Ward, M. W., and R. G. Ward. 1974. An economic survey of West Kalimantan. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 10(3):26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weinstock, J. A. 1983. Rattan: ecological balance in a Borneo rainforest swidden. Economic Botany 37:58–68.Google Scholar
  57. —,and N. T. Vergara. 1987. Land or plants: agricultural tenure in agroforestry systems. Economic Botany 41:312–322.Google Scholar
  58. Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the people without history. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Dove
    • 1
  1. 1.East-West CenterHonolulu

Personalised recommendations