Soil Conservation and Poverty: Lessons from Upland Indonesia

Society and Natural Resources, Volume 7, pp. 429-443 0894-1920/94 $10.00+ .00 Printed in the UK. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1994 Taylor & Francis Soil Conservation and Poverty: Lessons from Upland Indonesia JILL M. BELSKY Department of Sociology University of Montana Missoula, Montana, USA Soil conservation efforts in Indonesia since the Dutch colonial era have focused on in- troducing bench terraces—a costly soil conservation method for poor, upland farmers. Data from two villages in the Kerinci uplands of Sumatra illustrate that even with state underwriting of bench terrace construction, farmers across all economic strata still resist using this method. Why the state has not pursued alternative soil conservation approaches—especially ones that entail the "conservation farming " approach and that can better build upon the diversity of upland farming systems—is discussed in the context of the state's emphasis on productivist and commodity-led agricultural development and on broader geopolitical institutions and forces that perpetuate this approach. Given these constraints, state underwriting of soil conservation for poor farmers (i.e., providing "landesque capital" in Blaikie and Brookfield's 1987 termi- nology) suggests undue hope through economic remedies and the ability of the state to implement environmental and social reform, especially to benefit the poor. Keywords Indonesia, political ecology, political economy, poverty, soil conservation, terraces Since the Dutch colonial era, soil conservation efforts in upland Indonesia have empha- sized the introduction of bench terraces. However, the long-term use of agricultural terracing by dryland farmers on sloping lands in Indonesia (as well as throughout Southeast Asia) has been varied and often hotly contested (Pelzer, 1945; Chapman, 1975). Assess- ments of soil conservation efforts in Indonesia have gradually come to place great stress on the role poverty (including land tenure insecurity) plays in creating obstacles to the construction and use of bench terraces by poor farmers. This growing awareness has led to the creation of national programs involving public underwriting of terrace construction costs (Ramsay & Wiersum, 1974; Departemen Kehutanan, 1985; Carson, 1989); and to proposals for the state to reorient soil conservation to focus more on "conservation farming," which, among other benefits, can better build upon the diversity of upland farming systems in Indonesia (Hudson, 1988; Barbier, 1989; Arsyad, 1992). Using current and historical data from the Kerinci district in Sumatra, this article ex- amines the resistance of upland farmers to dry land terracing and shows that reasons for Received 26 October 1992; accepted 16 November 1993. The author thanks Stephen Siebert, Frederick Buttel, E. Walter Coward, Syafruddin (RLKT/Kabupaten Kerinci), Annet van Breugel, and three anonymous reviewers for their assistance. The research was funded by a Mellon Grant and Collaborative Fulbright Award, which the author shared with Stephen Siebert. Address correspondence to Jill M. Belsky, Department of Sociology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812-1047. 429 430 J. M. Belsky rejecting this method include, but are not limited to, constraints posed by economic factors (including insecure land tenure). The article then addresses the reasons why the state in colonial to postcolonial Indonesia has promoted a soil conservation technology that creates serious constraints for the majority of poor, upland farmers. Rather than merely representing an "inappropriate" technology choice (possibly based on limited informa- tion), the article argues that the state's soil conservation policy must be viewed within a broad political economy framework, the dominance of the productivist and commodity- led agricultural development paradigm, and the geopolitical institutions and forces that perpetuate this approach. Given these constraints, state underwriting of soil conservation for poor farmers (providing "landesque capital" in Blaikie and Brookfield's 1987 termi- nology) suggests undue hope through economic remedies and state action for the benefit of the poor. Sociological theories need to be less economically reductionist and question the capacity of the state to implement environmental and social reforms. Sociological Theories on the Relationship Between Soil Conservation and Poverty Beginning in the 1980s, there was an important analytical shift away from viewing agricultural change and soil conservation use as the result of behavioral and demographic variables to viewing the relationship as influenced by economic and structural factors. In Piers Blaikie's political economy approach to soil conservation (1985), limited access to and control over productive resources creates a "squeeze" on the poor household's ability to survive or reproduce itself, and to make investments in land capability. The "reproduc- tive squeeze" leads households to a number of strategies including diversifying economic activities, going into debt, outmigrating, and overexploiting soil resources to increase production levels (Bernstein, 1981). That poor farmers are (rightfully) more concerned about daily survival and the short- term benefits they can derive from mining soil resources, rather than the benefits they can obtain from investing in long-term conservation practices, has become a popular way to view soil conservation among social scientists from competing theoretical perspectives and even soil conservationists (for example, Watts, 1983; Redclift, 1984, 1987; Baker, 1984; Blaikie, 1985; Ashby, 1985; Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987; Chambers, 1987; Hudson, 1988; Stocking, 1988; Collins, 1987,1988; Repetto, 1985; Leonard, 1989; Barbier, 1990). While the political economy framework has been credited for bringing a powerful "sociology" back into human ecological studies (Ortner, 1984), it has also been subject to revision (even by Blaikie himself). Three issues are especially noteworthy. One, it has been criticized as overly anthropocentric and focused on social causality (Buttel & Sun- derlin, 1988), minimizing—indeed ignoring—the ways variations in particular physical environments and specific technologies affect producers' land use practices. This is dan- gerous because "ignoring ecological variation and aggregating across different technolog- ical innovations only serves ... to confound interpretation of farmer adoption behavior" (Ashby & Coward, 1980, p. 523). A second criticism is that theories focusing more or less exclusively on economic and structural factors often presume that all societies, and especially all agrarian groups, experience environmental degradation similarly as a result of their contact with capital- ism. This view insufficiently recognizes the variable ways peasants resist and alter capi- talist structures and respond to environmental disruptions. Three, the role of the state in political economy studies of soil conservation remains ambiguous. On one hand, the literature documents how state actions and policies have Soil Conservation and Poverty 431 caused great social and ecological disruptions (cf. in Africa: Anderson & Grove, 1987; Bernstein, 1981; Watts, 1983; Central and South America: Hecht & Cockburn, 1989; Faber, 1993; Asia: Poffenburger, 1990; Peluso, 1992). Various countries including In- donesia have used coercion and socially regressive policies to accomplish environmental goals (Thrupp, 1990; West & Brechin, 1991; Peluso, 1993). On the other hand, state assistance has been identified as critical to provide environmental assistance for the poor, such as underwriting expensive soil conservation methods (Brundtland Commission, 1987; English et al., 1984; Hudson, 1981). There is great question as to whether the state can effectively manage and centrally coordinate conservation efforts and whether it is willing or able to transform the status quo (Bryant, 1991). Moreover, it is also likely that national and/or international geopolitical and institutional forces (such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, nongovernmental organizations or the media) will further constrain if not shape the limits of reform. Thus, Bryant (1991, p. 165) observes, Evef a statn i e is receptive to the sustainable development argument, it may still be unable to implement reform. The literature often assumes that states are somehow omnipotent, and can easily "deliver" the ecological goods. One reform widely suggested as a means to include poor farmers in sustainable development efforts is a shift away from costly engineering models of soil conservation to less expensive, agronomically based methods. Soil conservation is typically divided into two general types: agronomic and engineering methods. Agronomic practices include ground covers, mulches, contour cultivation, strip crops, grass contour barriers or bunds, and various crop management techniques such as agroforestry systems. They seek to maximize ground cover and thereby protect the soil surface from raindrop splash as well as slowing the velocity of water runoff (Moldenhauer & Hudson, 1988; Sheng, 1981; Young, 1989). The greater attention to manipulating the land surface (i.e., maintaining dense vegetation cover) as opposed to soil and water themselves has led some specialists to emphasize land use and "conservation farming" as a key to achieving (soil) conservation goals (Hudson, 1988). The conservation farming approach also gains support for so- cioeconomic reasons because it generally entails lower capital

Load more