Skip to main content

The ‘Capitalist Squeeze’ and the Rise and Fall of Sumatra’s Krui Agroforests

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Institut Pertanian Bogor carried out a comparative survey of smallholder oil palm and damar agroforestry in Krui in 2002, the only direct comparison of these distinct agricultural systems I am aware of. The results support the view of forest-farmers I interviewed, that damar agroforests have a larger net economic value through time, as compared to oil palm monocultures. In addition, and perhaps most importantly for labor-time constrained smallholders, the economic return on smallholder labor invested in the agroforests was double that of oil palm plantations (Contreras-Hermosilla and Fay 2005).

  2. 2.

    As more Krui agroforesters and their children seek urban work and leave their damar agroforests unattended, damar resin theft has increased (Kusters et al. 2008). My informants reported damar theft was rare and not a big problem, but acknowledged thefts contribute to reduction in the perceived profitability of the long-term investment required for damar agroforestry.

References

  1. Bernstein, H. (1981). Concepts for the Analysis of Contemporary Peasantries. In Galli, R. (ed.), The Political Economy of Rural Development, State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Budidarsono S., Arifatmi B., De Foresta H., and Tomich T. P. (2000). Damar Agroforest Establishment and Sources of Livelihood: A Profitability Assessment of damar Agroforest Systems in Krui, Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia, ICRAF-SE Asia, Bogor.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Colchester M., Ekadinata A., Fay C., Pasya G., Situmorang L., Sirait M., Van Noordwijk M., Cahyaningsih N., Budidarsono S., Suyanto S., Kusters K., Manalu P., and Gaveau D. (2005). Facilitating agroforestry development through land and tree tenure reforms Indonesia, ICRAF Southeast Asia Working Paper no. 2005 2, Bogor, ICRAF.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Colchester M., Jiwan N., Andiko S., Firdaus A., Surambo A., and Pane H. (2006). Promised land: Palm oil and land acquisition in Indonesia - Implications for local communities and indigenous peoples, Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Contreras-Hermosilla A., and Fay C. (2005). Strengthening Forest Management in Indonesian Through Land Tenure Reform: Issues and Framework for Action, World Agroforestry Center, Bogor.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Denevan W. M., and Padoch C. (1987). Swidden-Fallow Agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon, New York Botanical Garden, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Endert F. (1935). Het harsonderzoek in Nederlandsch-Indie. Tectona XXVIII: 249–332.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fay, C., and Sirait, M. (2002). Reforming the Reformists in Post-Suharto Indonesia. In Colfer, C. and Resosudarmo, I. (eds.), Which Way Forward? People, Forests, and Policymaking in Indonesia, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fay C., De Foresta H., Sirait M., and Tomich T. (1998). A policy breakthrough for Indonesian farmers in the Krui damar agro-forests. Agroforestry Today 10: 225–226.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geertz C. (1963). Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hansen M., Potapov P., Moore R., Hancher M., Turubanova S., Tyukavina A., Thau D., Stehman V., Goetz S., Loveland T., Kommareddy A., Egorov A., Chini L., Justice C., and Townshend J. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342(6160): 850–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hecht, S. B. (2014). Forests Lost and Found in Tropical Latin America: The Woodland ‘Green Revolution.’ The Journal of Peasant Studies:1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.917371

  13. Kusters K., De Foresta H., Ekadinata A., and van Noordwijk M. (2007). Towards Solutions for State vs. Local Community Conflicts over Forestland: The Impact of Formal Recognition of User Rights in Krui, Sumatra, Indonesia. Human Ecology 35: 427–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kusters K., Perez R., de Foresta H., Dietz T., Ros-Tonen M., Belcher B., Manalu P., Nawir A., and Wollenburg E. (2008). Will Agroforests Vanish? The Case of damar Agroforests in Indonesia. Human Ecology 36(3): 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li T. M. (2010). Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession. Current Anthropology 51(3): 385–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li T. M. (2014). Land’s End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier, Duke University Press, Durham.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Marsden W. (1783). The History of Sumatra, Thomas Payne and Son, London.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mary F., and Michon V. (1987). When agroforests drive back natural forests: A socio-economic analysis of a rice-agroforest system in Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems 5: 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Michon, G., and De Foresta, H. (1995). The Indonesian Agro-Forest Model. In Halladay, P., and Gilmour, D. (eds.), Conserving Biodiversity Outside Protected Areas: The role of traditional agro-ecosystems, IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Michon, G., De Foresta, H., Kusworo A., and Levang P. (2000). The Damar Agroforests of Krui, Indonesia: Justice for Forest Farmers. In Zerner, C. (ed.), People, Plants and Justice: The Politics of Nature Conservation, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Michon, G., De Foresta H., Levang, P., and Verdeaux F. (2007). Domestic Forests: A New Paradigm for Integrating Local Communities’ Forestry into Tropical Forest Science. Ecology and Society 12(2):1.

  22. Rappard F. W. (1937). Oorspronkelijke bijdragen: De damar van Bengkoelen. Tectona D1(30): 897–915.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Torquebiau E. (1984). Man-Made Dipterocarp Forest in Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems 2: 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Verhoef L. (1937). De toekomst der Nederlandsch Indiche harsen. Tectona XXX: 759–770.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vincent G., De Foresta H., and Mulia R. (2009). Co-occurring tree species show contrasting sensitivity to ENSO-related droughts in planted dipterocarp forests. Forest Ecology and Management 258(7): 1316–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walker A. (2004). Seeing Farmers for the Trees: Community Forestry and the Arborealisation of Agriculture in Northern Thailand. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 45(3): 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Watts, M. J. (1985). Social Theory and Environmental Degradation. In Gradus, Y. (ed.), Desert Development, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp. 14–32.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Waylen K. A., Fischer A., McGowan P. J. K., and Milner-Gulland E. J. (2013). Deconstructing Community for Conservation: Why Simple Assumptions Are Not Sufficient. Human Ecology 41(4): 575–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wolf E. R. (1957). Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wollenberg E., Nawir A. A., Uluk A., and Pramono H. (2001). Income Is Not Enough: The Effect of Economic Incentives on Forest Product Conservation, CIFOR, Bogor.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the forest-farmers, researchers, and activists that shared their knowledge and experiences with me during my time in Sumatra. Unfortunately, because of the dangers rural workers and environmentalists face in the countryside, they must remain anonymous. I thank the journal’s three referees for their constructive comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. Gilbert.

Ethics declarations

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Grants from the National Science Foundation (#1524490) and Wenner-Gren Foundation (#8676) funded this research.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilbert, D.E. The ‘Capitalist Squeeze’ and the Rise and Fall of Sumatra’s Krui Agroforests. Hum Ecol 45, 711–717 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9932-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Political economy of environmental change
  • Agroforestry
  • Deforestation
  • Oil palm
  • Indonesia