The Inequity Implications of Peatland Conservation Policies

Abstract

Implementation of conservation policies can result in negative impacts and exacerbate existing disparities, yet studies of these risks in peatland communities are minimal. This chapter identifies the equity implications of peatland conservation policies on local communities and suggests appropriate policy directions. The study is based on field work and a survey of 63 randomly selected households (22% of total households) in a multi-ethnic village of Riau Province, Indonesia that has both peatland and non-peatland. Analysis reveals that the make-up and efforts of the local firefighting group, the Masyarakat Peduli Api (MPA), do not include all villagers, suggesting that only specific villagers make an effort to participate in peatland conservation activity. Participation in Livelihood Improvement Programs is also limited, with high-earning households that own non-peatland benefiting the most, thus threatening to accelerate existing economic disparities. There is a strong need for policies and programs that mitigate and correct these disparities while taking into account the diverse nature of peat communities and fires.

11.1 Introduction

Peatland fires in Indonesia first became a serious problem during the El Niño events of 1997–1998. Human activity, such as burning to clear land and cigarette littering, can trigger large-scale peatland fires in dry conditions. An analysis of fire hotspots in 2009 conducted in 2013 found that 78% of fires began outside forest areas and the main reason for the spread of these fires was the development of land for agriculture (Okamoto 2013).

As worsening peatland fires continued to raise international attention in the 2000s, the Indonesian government enacted laws and regulations to manage and conserve peatlands. These include Environmental Protection and Management Law No. 32/ 2009, which prohibits all clearing of land by fire (either for opening up new land or managing existing fields), also known as the “zero burning policy,” and the 2011 Presidential Directive on the Promotion of Forest and Land Fire Management,¹ which stipulates the roles of local and national government entities² in forest and land fire prevention (Okamoto 2013).

While laws to conserve peatland were being developed, Indonesia’s largest ever peatland fire broke out in 2015, triggering multiple fires and causing haze-induced illnesses across the country and in neighboring countries. According to World Bank (2016), Indonesia’s agriculture and forestry sectors “sustained estimated losses and damages of US$8.8 billion (Rp120 trillion) in 2015.” The 2015 fires were expected to cause “additional losses of about US$800 million per year for the next three in the case of estate crops (e.g., palm oil, rubber, and coconut) and five years for forests.” The report noted that, “Damages to estate crops affected companies and small-holder farmers. Costs to food crops (US$1.7 billion) translate into lower incomes for farmers and possible impacts on food security.”

Realizing the need for cross-ministerial coordination and action to better manage peatland, President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) inaugurated the Peatland Restoration Agency (Badan Restorasi Gambut, BRG) in 2016. The BRG targeted more or less two million hectares³ of degraded and drained peatland for restoration using the “3Rs” approach, or Rewetting dry peatlands, Revegetating tree cover, and Revitalizing local livelihoods and economies. The BRG was under the direct control of the president from 2016 to 2020, and as of December 2020, an estimated 1.4 million hectares of peatlands had been restored.⁴

Since the BRG’s establishment, studies have focused on evaluating the results of the 3Rs approach. Research on peatland governance has demonstrated both positive and negative impacts on local livelihoods depending on socioeconomic environments, traditional livelihoods, and the ethnicity of individuals. For example, the zero-burning policy of 2009 extended to traditional farmers practicing small-scale fire-based agriculture, forcing them to abandon their cheap and easy land management method and look for alternatives (Nurlia et al. 2021). Smallholders who did not have large machinery needed to pay for labor to cut and stack all biomass on designated strip lines (Murniati and Suharti 2018; Watts et al. 2019). Although the BRG introduced a method to manage land without burning (Pengelolaan Lahan Tanpa Bakar, PLTB) in some villages, Daeli et al. (2021) found that overall, the policy negatively affected swidden farmers’ livelihoods. However, based on a field survey of swidden farmer communities in West Kalimantan, the researchers (Daeli et al. 2021) found that the impact of the zero-burning policy varied according to the ecological landscape and alternative livelihood opportunities of each location. Although previous research was conducted in less diverse swidden farmer communities, contemporary peatland communities are much more diverse due to an influx of migrant populations. In Riau Province, the percentage of migrants from Java increased significantly between 1980 and 1990 as a result of Indonesia’s transmigration policies (Koizumi and Nagata 2018). An analysis of the 2000 and 2010 population censuses reveals a rich ethnic and livelihood diversity in Riau Province (Koizumi and Nagata 2018). Thus, there is a need to further investigate the impacts of the zero-burning policy from the viewpoint of diversities as well.

The acceptance or rejection of peatland management based on the 3Rs approach also differs among ethnic groups and individuals due to different livelihoods and the distribution of costs and benefits. Ward et al. (2021) find that indigenous households are more likely to support rewetting projects than transmigrant households, while Knieling (2020) points to a general lack of interest in peat conservation by the community that was studied. As part of its Revitalization strategy, the BRG assumes that “the cultivation of peatland-friendly crops will improve the livelihoods of local people.” However, local livelihoods in peatland areas are not only on-farm (crop cultivation and wage labor on oil palm plantations) but also off-farm (including gold mining and fishing); it is therefore necessary to pay policy attention to such off-farm livelihoods (Silvianingsih et al. 2020; Nurlia et al. 2021; Januar et al. 2021). As an example, Thornton et al. (2020) demonstrates that conservation of the fishing environment supports an important livelihood culture in peatlands. Indeed, the 3R approach should pay ample attention to fishing activities, which are a traditional livelihood of the Malay living in peat swamp forest areas.⁵

A review of existing literature reveals both negative and positive impacts of peatland governance on local people. However, these studies are often not based on empirical research and tend to examine a single policy or a single ethnic community. This study aims to contribute to the literature by examining a multi-ethnic peatland community where the population engages in multiple livelihoods. It investigates the success of fire prevention programs and the accessibility and benefits of livelihood programs to empirically uncover any disparities in the impacts of peatland conservation governance in Indonesia.

11.2 Research Site and Methodology

11.2.1 Location and Geographical Features of the Study Site

The study site is R Village, located in Siak District, Riau Province, which faces the Straits of Malacca and is 154 km from the capital city of the province (Fig. 11.1). The R Village area was part of S Village until 2010, when it became an independent village (Fig. 11.2). The total area of R Village is 16,803 ha (BPS Kabupaten Siak 2017), and the total population amounts to 869 people, who live in 224 households (BPS Kabupaten Siak 2019). The village is selected for its ethnic diversity and distribution of both peatlands and non-peatlands. In addition, the village’s community-based fire control group (Masyarakat Peduli Api, MPA) has been attracting attention from outside the village in recent years due to its active peatland conservation activities through cooperation with external actors, which has become more active and appreciated since the BRG was established.

Fig. 11.1

The location of the study site

Fig. 11.2

An overview of the area around the study site

There are both mineral and peat soils in R Village. Mineral soil is located in the coastal area and river basins, and peat soils become thicker as one moves inland from the coastal area (Fig. 11.3). All lands in Indonesia are classified into one of two types. The first is forest areas (kawasan hutan, KH). This type represents an area of about 124 million ha, or two-thirds of Indonesia’s landmass, and it falls under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. The second group is non-forest areas (areal penggunaan lain, APL), which covers an area of about 64 million ha and is under the administration of the Indonesian National Land Office (Badan Pertanahan Nasional Republik Indonesia, BPN) (Siscawati et al. 2017). The settlements and farmlands of the local people in R Village are located along the coast and are designated as APL lands. About 500 ha of private oil palm plantations are also located in the APL zone. These oil palm plantations are owned by Chinese people living outside of R Village, and local villagers have worked as agricultural day laborers on the plantations since around 2000. The remaining inland forest and acacia plantations are designated as KH.

Fig. 11.3

Distribution of peatland in the study site

11.2.2 Ethnic Diversity of the Study Site

Malay people in the study site distinguish themselves based on the time of their migration. Indigenous Malays, or those whose families have lived in the village for several generations, are simply described as “Orang Melayu” (Malay people) or “Orang Melayu yang asli di kampung sini (indigenous Malay of this village).” On the other hand, “newcomer” Malays, who migrated from the middle and upper reaches of the Kampar River during the past few decades, are called “Orang Melayu Kampar (Kampar Malay people)” and are distinguished from the indigenous Malays in the study site.

In this chapter, I refer to the indigenous Malay as “local Malay” and the migrant Malays as “Kampar Malay” according to the local categorization. Official Indonesian statistics do not recognize this distinction, but locals differentiate people from the two groups based on their birthplace, personal history, and language intonation. This chapter follows this local distinction. In recent years, marriage between the local Malay and Kampar Malay have become common, and ethnic boundaries are blurring. However, the distinction between the two based on differences in accent still remains. In addition, Malays who migrated from outside village upon marriage in the past few decades also live in the village. They called themselves “Orang Melayu,” not “Orang Melayu Kampar,” but they are not indigenous to the study site. Thus, I refer to these more recent migrant Malays as “non-local Malay” to distinguish them from the “local Malay” and the “Kampar Malay.”

The major ethnic groups of the village are the local Malay and the Javanese, who migrated to the village voluntarily. The Javanese and Malays are both Muslims and there are many cases of intermarriage among these groups. Although intermarriage has blurred ethnic divisions in terms of lineage, the livelihoods, living spaces, social networks, and even the accents of the villagers are still ethnically divided. Traditionally, the local Malay preferred to engage in fishing activities in coastal areas and lived near mangrove swamp forests in the study site. In the 1990s, the Javanese began to cultivate agricultural crops in inland forest areas. Thus, they tended to build their houses about 1 km inland from the coast. A Javanese man who migrated from Java in the 1980s explained, “We [Javanese] are peasants (petani), and we opened the land for agriculture in R Village. The local Malay are fishermen and only began imitating us and gradually engaging in agriculture in the 2000s.”

Other ethnic groups living in R Village include the Kampar Malay people, who voluntarily migrated (merantau) from Pelalawan District to Siak District; the Minangkabau, who migrated from West Sumatra; the Batak from North Sumatra; the Bugis from Sulawesi; Chinese from other areas; the Sasak from Lombok; and the Suku Asli (see the footnote 6). The Malay live in the coastal areas of the study site, while the Kampar Malay people migrated from the Kampar River Basin in Pelalawan District to S Village in the 1980s and settled in the inland forest. Therefore, the local Malay consider the Kampar Malay to be migrants. The Kampar Malay fish in rivers and gather non-timber forest products in the inland forest, and they tend to build their houses inland near the rivers. These differences in traditional livelihood activities led to the formation of separate residential spaces for each ethnic group.

11.2.3 History of the Study Site: Changing Livelihoods and Ecology

Even before Indonesian independence, people known as Rawa and the local Malay lived in the area of S Village and southeast of S Village (in P Village). In recent years, the Rawa have started to call themselves “Suku Asli Anak Rawa” (hereafter “Suku Asli”).⁶

Because the local Malay people fished in the rivers and coastal areas for a living, they established a settlement in S Village.⁷ Suku Asli did not have permanent houses, but rather practiced semi-nomadic ways of life, in which they moved from place to place every few years and depended on hunting animals, gathering forest products, and cultivating swidden fields in the hinterland forest. The Indonesian government’s 1984 resettlement policy “settled” Suku Asli in permanent houses in the coastal areas of P Village. According to the policy, each household received a house, food, and 2 ha of agriculture land, and were encouraged to change their traditional way of life.

Since the 1980s, Javanese people from Java and other areas of Indonesia and Kampar Malay people from the middle and upper reaches of the Kampar River in Pelalawan District migrated to S Village to take advantage of logging opportunities. In addition, non-local Malay have voluntarily migrated to S Village for marriage.

During the 1980s, logging companies were granted concessions to operate in KH lands. According to Decision No. 173 of the Ministry of Forestry of 1986,⁸ a part of the coastal area inhabited by the local people of the study site is designated as non-KH. Local people in R Village report that until the early 2000s, the main livelihood of local people was illegal logging, followed by fishing.⁹ During the 1990s, Javanese people living in S Village (about five households) began to engage in agricultural activity in inland area on non-KH lands, while logging activity continued. The inland area is more suitable for agriculture than the swamp mixed with seawater soil of the coastal area. Particularly, since some non-peat soil is distributed along the river, the Javanese who were the first to start cultivating farmland tended to settle inland rather than along the coastline of S Village. As a result, the percentage of migrant Javanese was higher in R Village than in S Village at the time of this study.

In 1996, an acacia plantation company (Company A) received industrial forest plantation rights (Izin Usaha pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu Hutan Tanaman Industri, IUPHHK-HTI)¹⁰ for an area of 299,975 ha in Riau Province, including almost 8000 ha of production forest¹¹ in today’s R Village.

As Company A constructed large drainage ditches to establish plantations, the peatland became dry and flammable. Drying upstream also affected the downstream areas where local people live. The drainage of peatlands causes an irreversible lowering of the surface (subsidence) from peat shrinkage and biological oxidation, with the latter resulting in a loss of carbon stock (Hooijer et al. 2011). Interviews with local people reveal that fires have occurred often on local people’s agricultural land since the 2000s.¹² Logging continued in the areas surrounding R Village, except in Company A’s plantation site.

During the 2000s, the logging company stopped operating, labor opportunities decreased, and many local people previously engaged in logging in KH forests were forced to shift livelihoods. Some continued logging on their own, selling to other companies. ¹³ In 2005, the Presidential Instruction on the Eradication of Illegal Logging¹⁴ required the Ministry of Forestry and local governments to crack down on illegal logging in KH zones (Onda et al. 2014). As a result, almost no one in R Village has engaged in logging since the late 2000s. The loggers and the women who ran dining houses catering to them have since shifted their livelihoods to agriculture and agricultural and non-agricultural day labor¹⁵ (hereafter, day labor), and livelihood opportunities have decreased further.¹⁶ Since 2010, local Malay and Kampar Malay, whose main livelihood was fishing, have also shifted their livelihoods, to agriculture and day labor, due to the decline in fish catches. Since the development of acacia plantations, driftwood from the drains have made rivers shallow, worsened the river environment, and reduced the variety and quantity of fish. Fishing in inland lakes with wooden boats (kapal pompon) has also become impossible. In addition, the development of infrastructure following the independence of R Village made it easier for people to access inland areas, accelerating the agricultural cultivation there. Today, the main livelihood activities in R Village are day labor, agriculture, and fishing.

11.2.4 Frameworks for the Management of Peatlands

R Village is located in a “peat hydrological unit” (kesatuan hidrologis gambut, KHG). Government Regulation No. 71 of 2014 for the Protection and Management of Peat Ecosystems defined KHGs as “peat ecosystems located between two rivers, between a river and a sea, and/or in a swamp,” as depicted in Fig. 11.4. The concept of the KHG formed the basis of subsequent peatland conservation activities, and with the establishment of the BRG in 2016, KHG-led peatland governance commenced (Januar et al. 2021). The spatial planning of peatlands was carried out via KHG maps that demarcated protected and cultivated areas, as determined by the relevant ministries. The construction of drainage facilities on KHGs affects the whole area, revealing the need for the coordination of all actors involved in peatland conservation activities in individual KHGs. As such, based on existing regulations and policies, the BRG emphasizes cooperation among all actors, including international NGOs, plantation companies, local governments, and local people living in a KHG.

Fig. 11.4

A peat hydrological unit

The local regulations applicable to R Village reflect the regional and national peatland laws and policies. In 2018, Siak District promulgated the Green Siak District policy (Siak Kabupaten Hijau) to target sustainable resource management and economic growth.¹⁷ This policy also emphasized the collaboration of local governments, companies, local NGOs, and local people to fight peatland fires, and following its promulgation, the NGOs forum (Sedagho Siak) and a coalition of seven international/national companies was formed. In addition, a 2019 Riau Provincial Regulation requires companies to implement “3Rs-based peatland conservation” on their business sites and the surrounding areas. According to the regulation, companies and local governments must also organize and support the MPA, or firefighting group, and local people must participate in peatland conservation activities through organizations such as MPAs and NGOs.

11.2.5 Data Collection and Analysis

This study was conducted in two steps. First, I identify and analyze the key implementers and relevant stakeholders of peatland conservation activities in R Village. This involved a series of in-depth interviews with key players in the village administration, the village MPA, and community groups. Second, to clarify the participation and equity of peatland Livelihood Improvement Programs (LIPs) in the study site, a total of 63 randomly selected households (22% of total households) were surveyed. The households represent a total of 250 people, 129 men and 121 women, with an average of four people per household (two single-person households headed by women who had lost their husbands were included in those surveyed). The survey was conducted from April to August 2019. Questionnaires requested basic information about household members, land ownership, and employment. Information on land ownership, income, and ethnicity was then cross-referenced with LIP participation. Of the 124 heads and spouses of the 63 surveyed households, 65 self-identified as Malay (64 people [98.5%] are local Malay and 1 person [1.5 person] is Malay from West Kalimantan province).

11.3 Findings and Discussion

11.3.1 Peatland Fire Fighting and Conservation Activities in R Village

Peatland fires often occurred during the 2000s in Indonesia, and during the 2010s, they became more serious in R Village. Until 2012, the Forest Fire Brigade of the Forestry Department in Siak (Manggala Agni Daerah Operasi Siak) was the only entity focused on fighting fires at the village level. In that year (before state and local regulations required the organization of an MPA), a group of five volunteers set up a group to fight fires in R Village (relawan pemadam dari masyarakat). This group became the MPA in 2013. As of the time of this study, the MPA had not received any village budget funds, because MPAs are regulated as volunteer (sukarela) organizations for the prevention of forest and peat fires.¹⁸ A 2016 decision of the village head also states that MPA members do not receive any honorarium or wages because the MPA is a volunteer organization.¹⁹

Mr. S., the head of the R Village MPA since its formation in 2013, is a second-generation Javanese whose family migrated to S Village from Java in the 1980s. Until the early 2000s, Mr. S. was engaged in logging, but following the tightening of regulations, he retired from logging and began to engage in agriculture and day labor. Beginning in 2008, Mr. S. and his brother (the head of R Village from 2012–2017) began pushing for R Village to split from S Village. In 2010, R Village became independent and Mr. S.’s brother won the first village head election in 2012 and Mr. S. became the village secretary. Both remained in these positions until 2017. During this time, the non-Javanese villagers were dissatisfied with the Javanese dominance of the village administration and a rumor spread that the MPA was receiving large amounts of village budget to fight fires.

In the 2017 village head election, Mr. S.’s brother lost, and Mr. H. (an ethnic Kampar Malay) became the village head. Mr. S. stepped down from the village secretary and focused on peatland conservation activities as the head of the MPA. From 2013 to 2014, an MPA training project was implemented by the Firefighting Department of the Forestry Department and 15 new local people joined the MPA. The project provided firefighting training and firefighting equipment to each village MPA but did not provide regular financial support for them. Thus, the MPA must collect financial and material resources for peatland conservation through its own network (e.g., from NGOs and acacia plantation companies). In other words, the financial status of the MPA is based on its network with external actors and thus, the financial condition of the MPA is different in each village. Also, the number of MPA members is different in each village. In case of R village, the total number of MPA members is 24 people.²⁰

Village task forces (tim siaga bencana masyarakat or satgas relawan) were also established for each village (kampung) in Siak District in 2014 by regulation of the district head. In 2015, village task force in R Village established and received budget from the village fund (Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Kampung, APBKam²¹). In 2019, Rp17,300,000 was allocated from the APBKam. The five members of the task force are responsible for all disaster responses in R Village. Due to the different funding sources of the village task force and the MPA, it is difficult for the two to collaborate on fire prevention activities.²²

The MPA carries out peatland conservation activities in collaboration with a variety of actors both inside and outside the village. The MPA receives activity fees and equipment for firefighting from external actors. Each member of the MPA receives around Rp100,000 per day from external actors to patrol and implement peatland conservation programs. The MPA activity fee is almost same as the daily wage of a day laborer in the study site and therefore provides an essential economic incentive for the peatland conservation activity of the MPA. For the MPA’s firefighting efforts, the head of the MPA (Mr. S.) was nominated by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry for the Kalpataru Award for environmental conservation in 2019.²³ According to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.32/2016, “each concession holder is obliged to support the MPAs.” Thus, the acacia plantation companies in R Village support the MPA. The Green Siak policy of 2018, which aims to improve the livelihoods of the local people and to protect the environment in Siak District, also articulates the need for companies, NGOs, and local people to collaborate in peatland conservation. In R Village, the companies implement community development programs based on the 3Rs using their own budgets.

The MPA has cooperated with Company A, which has implemented village development programs as part of its CSR activities, since 2016. In 2016, Company A introduced a village fire prevention program (Desa Makmur Peduli Api, DMPA) in 14 villages. Under the program, each MPA conducts fire prevention activities jointly with Company A and attends monthly meetings at the company office. As mentioned above, companies are required to carry out 3Rs activity in villages adjacent to their plantations. The DMPA program introduced both fire prevention measures and Livelihood Improvement Programs, or LIPs. The village head and the secretariat (at the time, Mr. S. and his brother) participated in LIP meetings. In addition to Company A, Company R, which was also granted rights for an industrial forest plantation covering an area of 350,165 ha, has been implementing community development program in Riau Province to help alleviate poverty and improve quality of life through economic development, health, education, and social infrastructure programs.²⁴

The MPA in Village R has also cooperated with local NGOs in Riau Province since 2015. Environmental NGOs in Riau Province have been introducing projects related to peatland conservation at the village level since the large-scale peatland fires of 2015. The BRG also coordinates with NGOs in implementing the 3Rs.²⁵ The NGOs need to carry out and demonstrate the success of the programs within the budget and timeframes set by their donors. Thus, the selection of a liaison in each village is critical for the NGOs.

Mr. S. has acted as Village R’s liaison with NGOs since it separated from S Village in 2010, devoting himself to building active cooperation as the village secretary (2010–2017) and the head of the MPA (2012–). Even after stepping down from village administration, he continued in this role, acting also as an intermediary for the LIPs. Both companies and NGOs reported that, “If we ask Mr. S. to help to introduce the program to R Village, he mediates well and ensures a quick implementation.” Mr. S. also tends to choose the households who he believes have the best ability to carry out the programs to participate in them.

Following the establishment of the BRG, village cooperation with external actors became more active and diverse. These connections with external actors are a form of local peoples’ participation in peatland conservation through the MPA, as proscribed in the Riau Province Regulation of 2019, which aimed to achieve successful implementation of the 3Rs in villages through such cooperation. Although the MPA is active, there remains a lack of socialization and participation among members of the village, especially the local Malay. Thus, there is still room for further “integration of local knowledge and more inclusive community-based fire groups” (Thoha et al. 2018).

11.3.2 Livelihood Improvement Programs (LIPs)

Four groups were implementing LIP programs at the time of the study. These included three groups of chili farmers and one group of honey collectors. Interviews with the heads of each of the chili farmer groups revealed that there were five farmers groups in R Village before 2015, but three of those groups dissolved due to a lack of members and unity, and the former members shifted their livelihoods to non-agricultural activities, especially day labor.

The head of the first chili farmers group (Group A) is a Javanese man who migrated from Java around 1990. He engaged in logging until 2004, but began farming instead due to the declining forest resources and the enclosure of KH areas in the 2000s. When he began vegetable farming in 2009, he found it difficult to sell his product due to incomplete road construction. The independence of R Village in 2010 led to infrastructure investment and roads were constructed. Thus, brokers began to visit the village and he could sell vegetables. As a result, he started chili farming in 2014. In 2015, Company R implemented a LIP to support chili farming through Mr. S. The 10-member Group A became the implementer of the LIP. All the members own non-peatland and cultivate their own land and 80% of the members were Javanese in 2021.

The head of the second chili farmers group (Group B) is of Javanese and Malay heritage and migrated to R Village in 2000. He started to farm vegetables in 2010. In 2012, Company A introduced a CSR program through Mr. S., and Group B was formed with 19 members. The program was intended to reduce the amount of abandoned land in the area and develop the village community by improving the livelihoods of local people. Company A provided opportunities for local people to participate in chili cultivation workshops and distributed funds to pay for initial costs and fertilizer. In 2017, the village development program was grouped under the peatland conservation program and became a LIP implemented as part of the DMPA. But in 2017, only five members who owned non-peatland were farming chili. Others did not cultivate chili, instead earning a living in the non-agricultural sector. The reasons for this were that some did not have non-peatland, or they wanted to earn income daily instead of having to rely on the unstable income of each harvest season. In 2021, 68% of Group B members were Javanese.

The head of the third chili farmers group (Group C) is of Javanese heritage. Group C was formed in 2018, when the LIP was introduced by an NGO through Mr. S. and 25 local people joined the program. The head of the group participated in a chili cultivation training program sponsored by the NGO and received support for the initial costs of cultivation. Because this support was only for the first year, the members had to pay for their own expense after that. In 2019, there were only three members in this group. According to additional interviews conducted in 2021, Group C has been dissolved and the group head has already changed his occupation from farmer to day laborer.

The fourth group (Group D) is of honey collectors. The head of Group D, Mr. N., is a Kampar Malay who migrated from P District of Riau Province in 1988 and the core members of the group are his family members. The group had ten members at the time of its formation, but this number had grown to 26 by 2019. No group members are Javanese. Mr. N. is a brother of the current village head (2017–). He was a river fisherman until 2009; however, due to the declining size of his hauls from 2009 to 2017, he started to collect honey on a self-employed basis in the hinterland forest, including in the plantation area of Company A. Honey is collected by combing the sialang trees (see p. 54 in Chap. 3) after using smokes (asap), to make the bees docile. This method was a concern for Company A because it could potentially cause peatland fires. In 2017, Company A introduced its LIP to Mr. N.’s group of honey collectors through Mr. S. Through a mediation process facilitated by Mr. S., Company A gave the group permission—and a license—to collect honey in its acacia plantation area. Since then, only members of Group D have been able to collect honey inside the plantation area of Company A. All members of Group D enter the acacia plantation area together once per month.

11.3.2.1 Limited Participation in LIPs

Interviews with the four heads of the LIP groups revealed limited participation in LIPs. This is partially due to long-standing livelihood patterns according to ethnic background. As noted earlier, the local Malay tend to live in coastal areas and engage in fishing, Javanese tend to live inland for agriculture, and the Kampar Malay tend to live in inland forest areas, fishing in rivers and gathering non-timber forest products. Based on fieldwork in a neighboring village, Osawa (2016) explains that “each [ethnic group] did not encroach on the different landscapes of the others, as the economic basis of their lives was established in a particular space.” Such designated living spaces were observed in the study site. Some villagers also noted that although R villagers do not allow stereotypes based on ethnicity, each person tends to have a profession (profesi) according to their ethnicity. One noted, “Even if honey collection is appealing, if they don’t think it’s their profession, they won’t do it.”

As the traditional livelihoods of each ethnic group become less viable, the rigid boundaries of living spaces and livelihoods are fading to some degree. However, owning and/or buying land is another obstacle to LIP participation. Locals in R Village report that as population density increased due to the migration of Javanese and Kampar Malay in the 1980s, land prices also increased.²⁶ All members of the chili farmer groups have non-peatland, which is suitable for chili farming. According to the heads of the groups, the price of non-peatland land is twice that of peat land. Therefore, while rich local people can buy non-peatland and join the chili farmers group, those with lower incomes are not motivated to join the LIP. However, even if one can afford to buy land, it is not always desirable to do so. For example, although landless local Malay fishers could grow profitable chili crops and improve their livelihood if they buy non-peatland, they tend to shift their livelihood to day labor rather than agriculture. One local Malay explained, “It is too difficult for us to buy land. Even if we buy land, we prefer to get paid immediately rather than wait for the harvest season.” Households that own only peatland—and face the risk of peatland fire—also tend not to gain access to the chili LIP groups.

In the case of Group D, members collect honey from seven sialang trees that are owned by the group head (Mr. N.) and his family members. Mr. N. and his family members (who are all Kampar Malay) receive two thirds of the profits, while the workers, mainly neighbors of Mr. N., receive the remaining one third. Thus, the local Malay people, who engage in fishing and face diminishing livelihood returns due to degradation of the river environment, tend not to access the benefits of either the chili or the honey LIPs.

Similar to the findings of other studies (see Silvianingsih et al. 2020; Nurlia et al. 2021; Januar et al. 2021), this study finds that the chili farming LIPs in R Village do not pay sufficient attention to off-farm livelihoods, particularly fishing activities (as also found by Thornton et al. 2020). Thus, local Malay, who have historically not cleared peatlands for agriculture (Furukawa 1992) and now face deteriorating fishing conditions, tend to miss out on the benefits of LIPs. The study of R Village therefore suggests that a lack of ample attention to these groups may entrench or even accelerate existing economic disparities. The study also echoes Budiman et al. (2020), who conclude that it is important for programs to consider the inland fisheries.

11.3.2.2 Income, Land Ownership, and Ethnic Disparities among LIP Participants and Non-Participants

As mentioned previously, since the 2000s, the local people of R Village have been changing their livelihood activities from logging and fishing to day labor and agriculture. The survey revealed that agriculture accounted for less than one third of annual non-agricultural incomes. Of the 63 households surveyed, 34 were landowners and 29 were landless. Five households rented land from relatives or neighbors for free, bringing the total number of land-owning households to 39. A total of nine households possessed land from which nothing had been harvested. Eight of these nine households were cultivating oil palm trees that were less than five years old and thus not yet ready to harvest. Six of those eight had experienced crop burning due to fires. Such destruction of crops due to fire is a common economic burden for oil palm farmers for about five years until the crops reach a harvestable age (as it generates additional replanting costs). This helps explain why, like landless households, those who own only peatland also earn the bulk of their income from the non-agriculture sector.

The relationship between annual income and the amount of non-peatland owned indicates that high-income earners (excluding shopkeepers) tend to own non-peatland land and participate in the LIPs (see Fig. 11.5). The households participating in LIPs had relatively higher incomes than other households (although one household had an annual income of only Rp20,000,000 despite participating in an LIP, because the household had only been involved in the chili farmers group for less than three months at the time of the survey (in June 2019) and had yet to receive any profits). The annual income of households that do not own non-peatland is less than Rp40,000,000. They face the risk of losing their livelihood due to low productivities caused by peatland fire and prohibitive replanting costs. They make a living as day laborers and are the lowest income earners in R Village. Therefore, the households which face the risk of livelihood deterioration and are at the bottom of the income ladder do not access the benefits of LIPs and conversely, participants in the LIPs are high income earners.

Fig. 11.5

Relationship between annual income and the amount of non-peatland owned (n = 63)

To understand the characteristics of households based on differences in annual income, I examined the main source of income and the ethnicity of the head of household and spouse. In the analysis, 63 households were categorized by a median (27.1) annual income. The upper group (n = 31) was defined as above the median, while the bottom group (n = 32) was defined as below the median (including the median). The main sources of income for those in the upper group were agriculture (28%), self-employment, such as running a motorcycle repair or other shops (28%), village government officials or company employees (25%), and day labor (16%). Those in the bottom group were day laborers (48%), self-employed in hunter-gathering, fishing, logging, and construction (45%), and farming (10%). Those earning below median incomes were strongly dependent on day labor.

Next, households were analyzed based on whether they were indigenous people (local Malay or Suku Asli) or migrant (Kampar Malay, Javanese, and other migrants including non-local Malay). This variable was introduced because actor analysis revealed that the local Malay were not benefitting from peatland conservation governance, which is indeed indicated by the results depicted in Fig. 11.6. The households in which both the husband and wife are local Malays or Suk Asli are classified as “local Malay/Suku Asli households.” Households in which the husband or wife is local Malay or Suku Asli and the wife or husband is a migrant are classified as “semi-migrant households.”²⁷ All other households are defined as “migrant households.” After cross-referencing income level and indigenous, local Malay/Suku Asli households and semi-migrant households made up 71% of the household whose income is below the median. Conversely, the migrant households made up 90% of the ten highest earning households (Table 11.1).

Fig. 11.6

Ethnic distribution according to annual income and amount of non-peatland owned (n = 63)

Table 11.1 Descriptive statistics of annual income (n=63)

From the above analysis of the survey results, we have determined that (1) high-earning households that own non-peatland participate in the existing LIPs in R Village, (2) low-earning households primarily rely on day labor, fishing, and logging, and (3) the majority of local Malay/and semi-migrant households have incomes below the median. Given these factors, what happens when an LIP program is implemented? Let us remember that chili farming is suitable in non-peatland. Although profitability per hectare fluctuates with climate, on average, chili can generate 5–30 times more revenue per ha than that of other crops (see Table 11.2). Similarly, honey collection demonstrates tremendous income potential, with annual revenues measuring 2–4 times higher than those gained from other non-agricultural sectors (see Table 11.3). Notably, the annual earnings of the LIP participants from honey collection²⁸ amount to more than three times those from day labor, which has become the main source of income for local Malay since inland plantation developments have precipitated declines in fish catches. This disparity in revenue generation necessarily means that those participating in the LIPs can generate significantly more income than those who do not participate, potentially accelerating existing economic disparities in the village.

Table 11.2 Average production area and annual sales volume from crops (Rp1,000,000/ha)

Table 11.3 Average annual income of non-agricultural sectors

As described in the introduction, the government’s zero-burning policy resulted in uneven impacts and economic burdens depending on land ownership, livelihoods, and ethnicity. According to interviews with land-owning households in R Village, on average, Rp5,000,000/ha is needed for land preparation using only labor under the zero-burning policy. Land-owning households own an average 1.24 ha, excluding abandoned land. Therefore, the average cost of land preparation per household is Rp6,200,000. The average monthly income of landowner households is Rp2,600,000/household. The cost of land preparation is an economic burden on land-owning households. The PLTB technique (managing land without burning), which reduces negative impacts and contributes to all aspects of the 3Rs (Gunawan et al. 2020), is important for land-owning households to achieve the 3Rs of peatland restoration. However, the 24 landless households in R Village do not receive any benefit from the PLTB.

As we can see from these findings, not only is there an inequity in the negative impacts of peatland policies, but also in the benefits of programs like the LIPs. The LIP programs in R Village benefits certain villagers and not others, particularly those who are landless.

If we exclude the nine households involved in the MPA and LIPs, we find that the Gini coefficient of the annual income of the remaining 54 households was 0.40. On the other hand, the Gini coefficient of all 63 households’ annual income is 0.42. Therefore, peatland conservation programs have the potential to exacerbate existing economic disparities. This in turn affects the level of acceptance or rejection of the 3Rs. Thus, mitigation measures to enhance equity should be considered when implementing the LIP programs and other peatland policies.

11.4 Conclusion

This chapter first identified how—and by whom—peatland conservation is implemented in a multi-ethnic village that has both peatland and non-peatland soils. It found that the local firefighting group, the MPA, has been implementing active peatland conservation measures together with acacia plantation companies and local NGOs. The activity fees from external actors are essential for MPA members to maintain their livelihoods and motivation for peatland conservation. Although the MPA is active, there remains a lack of socialization and participation among all members of the village. Employing a household survey, the chapter then examined participation in LIPs. It found that low-earning households that face threats from peatland fires and deteriorating environmental conditions tend not to participate in LIPs, indicating that the programs do not pay adequate attention to non-farm livelihoods. It also found that, given who does participate in the programs and the benefits that can be attained from such programs, the LIPs have the potential to exacerbate existing disparities. Thus, the distribution of benefits from 3Rs programs as well as the implementation and intermediation of the MPA have accelerated existing economic disparities. The presence of income inequality may well destabilize the social and political situation in such villages, and consequently hinder economic growth.

This chapter reveals several challenges to sustainable peatland governance that need to be addressed. First, there is a need to re-examine the institutional characteristics of the MPAs as volunteer organizations, which are the key to peatland management at the village level. Second, it is recommended that households facing threats to their livelihood should be selected for participation in LIPs to mitigate economic disparities in peat communities. Third, even though ethnic boundaries are fading, understanding of ethnic differences, particularly vis-à-vis livelihood choices, should be considered when introducing LIPs.

Implementation of programs based on a more comprehensive approach can produce more equitable access and benefits for local people. For example, granting rights to collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in forest areas (KH) to all local people, not just members of an LIP, could be an opportunity to improve the livelihoods of villagers regardless of their land ownership status. This study used a field survey to examine a peat community that features a mixture of peatland and non-peatland farmers. However, there is a strong need to conduct additional empirical studies in peat communities that solely depend on agriculture in peatland.