How Can Targeting of Poverty in and Near Forests Be Improved?

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

How Can Targeting of Poverty in and Near Forests Be Improved? Links between forests and poverty in Indonesia. What evidence? How can targeting of poverty in and near forests be improved? CESS-ODI Briefing Paper II, March 2005 Summary Available data of forests and poverty in Indonesia suffers from weak sampling in remote areas, lack of detail on the support that households derive from forests (particularly subsistence), as well as use of culturally inappropriate indicators. However, with available data, it is still possible to show that villages and households in and near forests tend to be worse off, in income- and non-income terms. Rural households below the poverty line are more dependent on forest income than those above. Poverty reduction programmes in Indonesia do not clearly differentiate approaches to tackling chronic rural poverty. The overall objectives are usually “empowerment of target groups“ or “increasing income of target groups”, but these are not quantified, and data collection on target group impact is limited. Programmes within the forestry sector, lack meaningful impact because the Ministry has neither the expertise nor the mandate for poverty reduction. Interests in conservation, and production often override the livelihood needs of local people. Interventions such as community-based forest management are designed to address all local stakeholders, so specific targeting of poor and vulnerable groups (including differentiated incentives) is often weak. Rehabilitation schemes are often weak in their understanding of how farmers can undertake tree-planting which benefits them as well as the degraded land to be reforested. Ways forward include enhancing the representation of remote areas and forest content in national data collection, poverty mapping to assist targeting at kabupaten or watershed levels, as well as greater use of participatory assessment to understand poverty and vulnerability in different contexts, and the role of forests in poor peoples’ livelihood strategies. Participatory approaches to identifying the poor will vary from area to area, depending on local culture and livelihoods systems. In some cases formal wealth ranking is appropriate (e.g. where inequality is high). In most areas, poverty and vulnerability need also to be understood in a more embedded way, in terms of secure access and control over land and natural resources. Implications for forest policy include reforms to spatial planning, differentiated management criteria and accessible decision-making structures. 1. Links between forests and poverty poor. The unit of analysis is the province. The analysis shows that there are 48.8 million a. How much envidence if there already? - people living in the national forest estate, of the Literature whom 9.5 million are poor. Meanwhile across Indonesia, only 27.1 million people live on land Many people observe an apparent link still with tree cover (much forest-estate land is between forest and poverty, but it can be treeless). Of these, 5.5 million are poor. relatively difficult to gather strong data to support this observation. Various studies also Sunderlin, et. al. (2000)2 argue that there are mention the high numbers of poor people in around 20 million people living in and near forest areas without pointing to empirical forests areas in Indonesia, of whom around 6 evidence. Studies that have tried to show a million depend on forest resources. link between poverty and forest in Indonesia include: b. Results from analysis by CESS Brown (2004)1 who analysed numbers of people living in the national forest estate in The limited availability of data showing the link Indonesia and, of these, numbers who are between poverty and forests constitutes the 1 main obstacle. This reflects lack of that villages in and near forest areas are government attention to the poor in forest worse off in terms of available infrastructure areas, as is evident from the failure to compared to those not close to forests and the accommodate poverty in forest areas within provincial average, and therefore poorer. This the National Strategy for Poverty Reduction data covers some 68,816 villages across the (SNPK). country. CESS-ODI, using formal national data, have Poor villages according to the availability of therefore attempted to analyse and infrastructure, comparing villages inside understand further the link between forests and outside forest areas, and the provincial and poverty in Indonesia (Seldadyo, 2003; average (2003) 3 Bachtiar et al, 2004) . 100 90 1) Correlating rural poverty with forest area 80 70 n 60 Variables used are percentage rural poverty e s r versus percentage forest cover, by province. pe 50 40 Although there is a weak overall correlation 30 between rural poverty and forest cover, the 20 correlation is most strongly seen in provinces 10 0 with high forest cover and high rural poverty Sumatera Jawa & Bali NT Kalimantan Sulawesi Maluku Papua INDONESIA Hutan (%) 62.98 40.74 66.51 76.74 58.33 76.61 90.02 60.89 Luar Hutan (%) 49.34 37.15 54.23 57.57 45.24 71.33 76.65 49.61 (0.77) [Quadrant 1], and provinces with low 52.94 37.97 56.43 65.76 48.60 74.03 85.51 53.16 Propinsi (%) forest cover and low rural poverty (0.72) 4 [Quadrant 2]. However, other data are 3) Poor households and forests: non-income needed to clarify the cause-and-effect variables relationship between poverty and forest. Here, 2003 Podes data from BPS is integrated The correlation between rural poverty and with , as well as 2003 data from the Family forest cover, by province (2003) Planning Agency (BKKBN) is used. Podes data is disaggregated according to location 60 (in/near and far from forest areas) and then 50 a integrated with BKKBN data on “pre-welfare” s Q4 Q1 40 and “welfare I” households.This data covers n di de i k 50,152,320 households across the country. 30 20 nd. mis The results of this analysis are as follows: % pe 10 Q3 Q2 • The percentage of poor households in 0 0 1020304050607080 villages in and near forests is greater that % wilayah hutan for villages far from forests. • This pattern is repeated across all areas, including Java. % % Pend. % Forest Wilayah Miskin di Coverage Hutan Desa Percentage of poor households according to % Rural 0.473 BKKBN criteria, comparing villages inside MEDIAN 35.56 19.30 Poverty (Pearson Corr) and outside forest areas, and the provincial average (2003) 80 2) Poor villages and forests: infrastructure and services 70 60 50 Here, 2003 Village Potential Data (Podes) n e s r from the Central Statistic Agency (BPS), is pe 40 used. Indicators include availability of: 30 transport, electricity, telephone, education, health, garbage disposal, markets and formal 20 credit institutions. The 2003 Podes data allows 10 0 these variable to be disaggregated and scored Sumatera Jawa & Bali NT Kalimantan Sulawesi Maluku Papua INDONESIA Hutan (%) 36.92 41.74 66.09 40.09 46.29 50.66 69.69 43.98 according to whether villages are in/ near Luar Hutan (%) 31.98 32.82 63.58 29.49 39.40 41.21 55.00 36.57 Propinsi (%) 32.94 33.90 64.15 31.89 40.89 43.19 62.27 38.09 forests, or far from forests. The analysis shows 2 4) Poor households and forests: income variables 5.00 4.50 4.00 Here Podes (2003) and 2002 National Socio- 3.50 Economic Survey (Susenas) data from BPS is 3.00 2.50 ase used. Podes data is disaggregated according t sen 2.00 Per to location (in/near and far from forest areas) 1.50 and then integrated with Susenas data (poor 1.00 households according to the provincial poverty 0.50 0.00 line). Due to a limited research budget, this NTB NTT Kalbar Sulsel Sulut Sultenggara Gorontalo Desa 2.2029 0.9999 4.6016 0.5549 0.2646 0.7175 0.4563 analysis only covers 43,294 households in Kota 0.1346 0.0000 1.1035 0.0000 0.0741 0.0743 0.0528 seven provinces: West Nusa Tenggara, East Nusa Tenggara, West Kalimantan, North Sulawesi, South Sulawesi, Southeast • In rural areas, poor household are more Sulawesi and Gorontalo. dependent on forest income that richer households; The results show that, consistent with BKKBN • However, overall, dependency on forest data, the percentage of poor households for income is apparently very limited, which is village in and near forest areas is higher likely to mainly a result of Susenas compared to those far from forest areas in sampling criteria (see Section 3). each of the seven provinces examined. Percentage household income from forests: Percentage of poor households according to poor vs. rich in seven provinces (2002) Susenas data, comparing villages inside and outside forest areas in seven provinces (2003) 5.00 4.50 100.00 4.00 90.00 3.50 3.00 80.00 ase t 2.50 rsen e 70.00 P 2.00 60.00 1.50 1.00 50.00 0.50 40.00 0.00 NTB NTT Kalbar Sulsel Sulut Sultenggara Gorontalo 30.00 Miskin 1.30 1.20 4.40 0.20 0.40 0.70 0.50 Tidak Miskin 0.00 0.30 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 NTB NTT Kalbar Sulut Sulsel Sultenggara Gorontalo Hutan (%) 89.34 86.66 85.03 72.04 81.73 81.91 79.17 Based on the analyses above, it can be Luar Hutan (%) 77.46 77.25 70.84 67.16 73.64 75.15 71.27 concluded that there is indeed a link between poverty and forests in Indonesia. However, 5) The contribution of forests to household tackling poverty in forest areas requires more income in-depth analysis, and stronger empirical evidence. This is needed to develop more Here, 2002 National Socio-Economic Survey effective and targeted poverty reduction (Susenas) data from BPS is used, covering policies for forest areas.
Recommended publications
  • Download the Case Study Here
    ENERGY SAFETY NETS INDONESIA CASE STUDY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Energy Safety Nets: Indonesia Case Study Marlistya Citraningrum, Melina Gabriella), J-PAL was researched and written by partners at the De- SEA (Poppy Widyasari), Kemenko PMK (Aghniya partment of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Halim, Juliyanto), Ministry of Social Affairs (Atin P), Business Universitas Indonesia (https://www.feb. Ministry of Social Affairs - Direktorat Jenderal Per- ui.ac.id/en/department-of-economics/) in Depok. lindungan dan Jaminan Sosial (Nurpujiyanto), Co- The lead researcher was Teguh Dartanto (teguh. ordinating Ministry for Human Development and [email protected]), with support from a team that Cultural Affairs (Nur Budi Handayani), LPEM (C. included Qisha Quarina, Rus’an Nasrudin, Fajar N. Hanum Siregar), Indonesian Institute of Sciences - Putra and Khaira Abdillah. P2E LIPI (Maxensius Tri Sambodo, Felix Wisnu Han- doyo), Pertamina (Gunawan Wibisono, R Choernia- We acknowledge with gratitude the financial di Tomo, Witdoyo Warsito, Zibali), PGN (Houstina support provided by the Wallace Global Fund. Dewi A, Saphan Sopian), PWYP Indonesia (Andri Prasetyo), The SMERU Research Institute (Asep The research team acknowledges the contributions Suryahadi, Widjajanti Isdijoso), TNP2K - National to this work of the following workshop attendees Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction and key interviewees: Bappenas - Ministry of Na- (Ruddy Gobel), Universitas Indonesia – Department tional Development Planning (Vivi Yulaswati), BKF of Economics (Adi Permana, Ambarsari Dwi Cahya- - Fiscal Policy Agency, Ministry of Finance (M. Y. Ni- ni, Aslamia Anwar, Canyon Keanu, Faizal R. Moeis, kho), BPPT - Agency for the Assessment and Appli- Fandy Rahardi, Rinayanti, Rini Budiastuti), Universi- cation of Technology (Agus Sugiyono), CERAH tas Indonesia - Faculty of Economics and Business (Adhityani Putri), Dewan Energi Nasional - National (Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • (COVID-19) Situation Report
    Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) World Health Organization Situation Report - 64 Indonesia 21 July 2021 HIGHLIGHTS • As of 21 July, the Government of Indonesia reported 2 983 830 (33 772 new) confirmed cases of COVID-19, 77 583 (1 383 new) deaths and 2 356 553 recovered cases from 510 districts across all 34 provinces.1 • During the week of 12 to 18 July, 32 out of 34 provinces reported an increase in the number of cases while 17 of them experienced a worrying increase of 50% or more; 21 provinces (8 new provinces added since the previous week) have now reported the Delta variant; and the test positivity proportion is over 20% in 33 out of 34 provinces despite their efforts in improving the testing rates. Indonesia is currently facing a very high transmission level, and it is indicative of the utmost importance of implementing stringent public health and social measures (PHSM), especially movement restrictions, throughout the country. Fig. 1. Geographic distribution of cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Indonesia across the provinces reported from 15 to 21 July 2021. Source of data Disclaimer: The number of cases reported daily is not equivalent to the number of persons who contracted COVID-19 on that day; reporting of laboratory-confirmed results may take up to one week from the time of testing. 1 https://covid19.go.id/peta-sebaran-covid19 1 WHO Indonesia Situation Report - 64 who.int/indonesia GENERAL UPDATES • On 19 July, the Government of Indonesia reported 1338 new COVID-19 deaths nationwide; a record high since the beginning of the pandemic in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Ntt) Tenggara
    EU-INDONESIA DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT EU-INDONESIA Delegation of the European Union to Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam Intiland Tower, 16th floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 32, Jakarta 10220 Indonesia Telp. +62 21 2554 6200, Fax. +62 21 2554 6201 EU-INDONESIA DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION COOPERATION EU-INDONESIA DEVELOPMENT Email: [email protected] http://eeas.europa.eu/indonesia EUROPEAN UNION Join us on DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN www.facebook.com/uni.eropa www.twitter.com/uni_eropa www.youtube.com/unieropatube EAST NUSA TENGGARA (NTT) www.instagram.com/uni_eropa EU AND INDONESIA and the Paris COP21 Climate Conference, constitute an ambitious new framework for all countries to work together on these shared challenges. The EU and its Member States have played an important role in shaping this new agenda and are fully committed to it. To achieve sustainable development in Europe The EU-Indonesia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) - the first of its kind and around the world, the EU has set out a strategic approach – the New European between the EU and an ASEAN country - has been fully put in place in 2016; it is a Consensus on Development 2016. This consensus addresses in an integrated manner the testimony of the close and growing partnership between the EU and Indonesia. It has main orientations of the 2030 Agenda: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership opened a new era of relations based on the principles of equality, mutual benefits and (5 Ps). respect by strengthening cooperation in a wide range of areas such as: trade, climate change and the environment, energy and good governance, as well as tourism, education and culture, science and technology, migration, and the fight against corruption, terrorism EU DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN INDONESIA and organised crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Snapshot (April - May 2013)
    INDONESIA: Humanitarian Snapshot (April - May 2013) Highlights The incidence and humanitarian impact of floods, landslides and whirlwinds increased in April and May Some 220,000 persons were affected or displaced in about 198 natural disasters during April and May – an increase since the last reporting period. Floods from Bengawan Solo ACEH River inundated parts six district RIAU ISLANDS in Central and East Java NORTH SUMATRA Provinces. The floods killed 11 EAST KALIMANTAN GORONTALO NORTH SULAWESI NORTH MALUKU persons and affected up to ten RIAU WEST KALIMANTAN thousand persons. WEST SUMATRA CENTRAL SULAWESI WEST PAPUA CENTRAL KALIMANTAN The alert level status of three JAMBI BANGKA BELITUNG ISLANDS SOUTH KALIMANTAN WEST SULAWESI SOUTH SUMATRA MALUKU volcanoes has been increased BENGKULU SOUTH SULAWESI SOUTHEAST SULAWESI to level 3: Mt Soputan (North PAPUA LAMPUNG Sulawesi), Mt Papandayan (in West Java) and Mt. BANTEN WEST JAVA Sangeangapi (in West Nusa CENTRAL JAVA Tenggara). EAST JAVA BALI EAST NUSA TENGGARA WEST NUSA TENGGARA Whirlwind, despite being the second most frequent disaster event, caused a comparatively smaller humanitarian impact than other disaster types. Legend 41 10 1 Disaster Events (April - May 2013) April 2013 104 NATURAL DISASTER FIGURES Indonesia: Province Population In million May 2013 94 Disaster events by type (Apr - May 2013) There are 198 natural disaster events 50 < 1,5 1,5 - 3,5 3,5 - 7 7 - 12 12 - 43 April period of April - May 2013. 40 Number of Casualties (April - May 2013) May 30 68 117 casualties April 2013 20 May 2013 49 Total affected population 10 0 220,051 persons Flood Flood and landslide Whirlwind Landslide Other The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations Creation date: 28 June 2013 Sources: OCHA, BPS, BMKG, BIG, www.indonesia.humanitarianresponse.info www.unocha.org www.reliefweb.int.
    [Show full text]
  • West Nusa Tenggara
    Program Baseline Report West Nusa Tenggara December 2017 INOVASI - Innovation for Indonesia’s School Children Ratu Plaza Office Tower 19th Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav 9, Jakarta Pusat, 10270 Indonesia Tel : (+6221) 720 6616 ext. 304 Fax : (+6221) 720 6616 http://www.inovasi.or.id Published in December 2017 Cover photo courtesy by Palladium The Innovation for Indonesia’s School Children (INOVASI) Program is a partnership between the governments of Australia and Indonesia. Working directly with Indonesia’s Ministry of Education and Culture, INOVASI is seeking to understand how student learning outcomes in literacy and numeracy can be improved in diverse primary schools and districts across Indonesia.INOVASI is working in a range of locations across Indonesia, and uses a distinctive locally focused approach to develop pilot activities and find out what does and doesn’t work to improve student learning outcomes. INOVASI is an Australia Indonesia Government Partnership – Managed by Palladium [email protected] www.inovasi.or.id www.facebook.com/InovasiPendidikanAIP Program Baseline Report West Nusa Tenggara ii Contents Abbreviations iv Tables v Figures 7 Chapter 1. Introduction 9 Chapter 2. Approach and Methods 10 Chapter 3. Education in West Nusa Tenggara 12 Chapter 4. Data Sources, Respondents and Data Collection 18 Respondents 18 Chapter 5. Baseline Conditions in West Nusa Tenggara 21 Approach to identifying problems and solutions 21 Stakeholders’ approaches to identifying problems 23 Stakeholders’ approaches to developing solutions 25
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Composite Measure of Regional Sustainable Development in Indonesia
    sustainability Article Development of a Composite Measure of Regional Sustainable Development in Indonesia Hania Rahma 1, Akhmad Fauzi 2,* , Bambang Juanda 2 and Bambang Widjojanto 3 1 Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Salemba, Jakarta 10430, Indonesia; [email protected] 2 Regional and Rural Development Planning, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia; [email protected] 3 Faculty of Law, Trisaksi University, Jakarta 10150, Indonesia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 28 September 2019; Accepted: 21 October 2019; Published: 22 October 2019 Abstract: Sustainable development has been the main agenda for Indonesia’s development at both the national and regional levels. Along with laws concerning the national development plan and regional development that mandate a sustainable development framework, the government has issued President Regulation No. 59/2017 on the implementation of sustainable development goals. The issuance of these recent regulatory frameworks indicates that sustainable development should be taken seriously in development processes. Nevertheless, several factors affect the achievement of sustainable development. This paper investigates how economic, social, and environmental factors could be integrated into regional sustainable development indicators using a new composite index. The index is calculated based on a simple formula that could be useful for practical implementation at the policy level. Three measures of indices are developed: arithmetic, geometric, and entropy-based. The indices are aggregated to be used for comparison purposes among regions in terms of their sustainability performance. Lessons learned are then drawn for policy analysis and several recommendations are provided to address challenges in the implementation stages. Keywords: regional sustainable development index; sustainable development; composite index; regional development goals 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Assistance for Recovery and Rehabilitation from Recent Disasters
    Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors Project Number: 52324-001 November 2018 Proposed Loan Republic of Indonesia: Emergency Assistance for Recovery and Rehabilitation from Recent Disasters Distribution of this document is restricted until it has been approved by the Board of Directors. Following such approval, ADB will disclose the document to the public in accordance with ADB's Public Communications Policy 2011. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 12 November 2018) Currency unit – rupiah (Rp) Rp1.00 = $0.000067 $1.00 = Rp14,731 ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank BAPPENAS – Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning Agency) BNPB – Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (National Disaster Management Agency) BPK – Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia EAL – emergency assistance loan MOF – Ministry of Finance TA – technical assistance NOTE In this report, “$” refers to United States dollars. Vice-President Stephen Groff, Operations 2 Director General Ramesh Subramaniam, Southeast Asia Department (SERD) Directors Vijay Padmanabhan, Urban Development and Water Division, SERD Sona Shrestha, Public Management, Financial Sector, and Trade Division, SERD Winfried Wicklein, Country Director, Indonesia Resident Mission, SERD Team leaders Yurendra Basnett, Country Economist, SERD Robert Boothe, Public Management Specialist, SERD Arghya Sinha Roy, Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Team members Priasto Aji, Senior Economics
    [Show full text]
  • Indonesia: Durable Solutions Needed for Protracted Idps As New Displacement Occurs in Papua
    13 May 2014 INDONESIA Durable solutions needed for protracted IDPs as new displacement occurs in Papua At least three million Indonesians have been internally displaced by armed conflict, violence and human rights violations since 1998. Most displacement took place between 1998 and 2004 when Indonesia, still in the early stages of democratic transition and decentralisation, experienced a period of intense social unrest characterised by high levels of inter-commu- nal, inter-faith and separatist violence. Although the overwhelming majority of 34 families displaced since 2006 have been living in this abandoned building in Mata- Indonesia’s IDPs have long returned home at ram, West Nusa Tenggara province, Indonesia. (Photo: Dwianto Wibowo, 2012) least 90,000 remain in protracted displacement, over a decade after the end of these conflicts. Many are unable to return due to lack of government as- sistance to recover lost rights to housing, land and property. In areas affected by inter-communal violence communities have been transformed and segregated along religious or ethnic lines. Unresolved land dis- putes are rife with former neighbours often unwilling to welcome IDPs back. IDPs who sought to locally in- tegrate in areas where they have been displaced, or who have been relocated by the government, have also struggled to rebuild their lives due to lack of access to land, secure tenure, livelihoods and basic services. Over the past ten years, new displacement has also continued in several provinces of Indonesia, although at much reduced levels. According to official government figures some 11,500 people were displaced between 2006 and 2014, including 3,000 in 2013 alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccination and Reiterated That Vaccination Does Not Guarantee 100% Protection Against the Virus
    Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) World Health Organization Situation Reportn - 70 Indonesia 1 September 2021 HIGHLIGHTS • As of 1 September, the Government of Indonesia reported 4 100 138 (10 337 new) confirmed cases of COVID-19, 133 676 (653 new) deaths and 3 776 891 recovered cases from 510 districts across 34 provinces.1 As of the same date, the number of people fully vaccinated per 100 population was 13.4 nationwide; DKI Jakarta reported the highest number among all provinces (56.3).2 • As of 29 August, the weekly case incidence per 100 000 population nationwide, in Java-Bali and non-Java-Bali regions were 48.6, 44.0 and 54.9, respectively. The weekly case incidence in non-Java-Bali region has remained at the level of high incidence over the past six weeks. • From 23 to 25 August, WHO supported the Ministry of Health to conduct a monitoring meeting to review the implementation of Intra-Action Review (IAR) recommendations. During the meeting, achievements in response were shared, persistent challenges and gaps were identified and recommendations for the ten pillars of the COVID-19 response were formulated (page 13). Fig. 1. Geographic distribution of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported in the last seven days per 100 000 population in Indonesia across provinces reported from 26 August to 1 September 2021. Source of data Disclaimer: The number of cases reported daily is not equivalent to the number of persons who contracted COVID-19 on that day; reporting of laboratory-confirmed results may take up to one week from the time of testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing, Land and Property Advisor to the Global Shelter Cluster HLP
    Housing, Land and Property Advisor to the Global Shelter Cluster HLP Scoping Mission Field Review Report Central Sulawesi and West Nusa Tenggara 20th– 30th May 2019 Background On 29th July 2018, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck off Lombok, province of West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Since then, four further earthquakes and multiple aftershocks have impacted the districts of North Lombok, East Lombok, West Lombok, Central Lombok and Mataram in addition to Bali and Sumbawa islands. BNPB estimated that 600 thousand people have been affected by the series of tremors, with over 85,000 houses listed as heavily damaged or destroyed and an even greater number mildly damaged, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in need of shelter and settlements assistance. On 28 September 2018 a series of strong earthquakes struck Central Sulawesi Province. The strongest of which measured at 7.4 and was just 10km deep with its epicentre in Donggala regency, close to the provincial capital Palu. The earthquake triggered a tsunami whose waves reached up to three meters in some areas, striking Talise beach in Palu and Donggala. The earthquakes, tsunami and resulting liquefaction and landslides have caused significant damage and loss of life in affected areas. Areas affected by the earthquake, tsunami, landslides and liquefaction suffered extensive damage of buildings and infrastructure. An estimated 65,000 houses have been impacted, with approximately 10,000 houses lost in areas requiring relocations and a further 10-15,000 houses heavily destroyed in sites that may allow for reconstruction. It is estimated that more than 35,000 households were left in need of emergency shelter support for a shorter term.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Economic Problems in Agricultural Development in East Nusa Tenggara and East Timor
    Ekonomi d<in Keuangan Indonesia Volume XLIV Nomor 1, 1996 Social Economic Problems in Agricultural Development in East Nusa Tenggara and East Timor Daniel D. Kameo Abstrak Pokok kajian dalam artikel ini menyangkiit dua hal. Pertama, kajian tentang berbagai hambatan sosial ekonomi yang menjadi tantangan dalam upaya pembangunan pertanian di Nusa Tenggara Timur dan Timor Timur dan kedua, identifikasi potensi sektor pertanian dan pemikiran altematif strategi pembangunan pertanian di daerab ini. Hambatan sosial ekonomi yang menonjol adalah kemiskinan, teknologi dan ketrampilan, kelemahan-kelemahan institutional, hambatan lokasional keterbatasan infrastruttur, kondisi alam, dan tekanan penduduk. Pada bagian akbir dari artikel ini dikemukakan altematif strategi kebijakan pembangunan pertanian di daerah semi-arit Nusa Tenggara Timur dan Timor Timur dan usulan topik-topik studi pendutung yang hasilrya dapat dipakai sebagai dasar yang kuat dalam penentuan berbagai kebijakan pembangunan pada umumnya dan pembangunan pertanian pada kbususnya di daerah ini. 33 Kameo I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Judging from some of the major social economic indicators and comparisons with other Indonesian provinces, one might easily conclude that East Nusa Tenggara and East Timor are regions that face major development problems in the future. One could also point to poor natural resources and harsh physical conditions as the underlying causes of this regional poverty. After twenty-five years of development efforts under the New Order government. East Nusa Tenggara is still one of the poorest provinces in Indonesia. It has the lowest per capita GRDP and purchasing power which is a reflection of limited output and low productivity. Subsistence agriculture-based activities still dominate the economy. In 1993, 22.7% of the rural population and 16.4% of the urban population lived under the poverty line (BPS 1994a).
    [Show full text]
  • Policy of Agriculture Development and Agriculture Field on Resource Farmers Gorontalo – Indonesia
    Int. J. Manag. Bus. Res., 8 (1), 184-198, June 2018 Policy of Agriculture Development And Agriculture Field On Resource Farmers Gorontalo – Indonesia Sastro Wantu1*, Usman Moonti2,Asmun Wantu3 1Department of Civics Education, Faculty of Social Science, University of Gorontalo, Indonesia 2Department of Econimic Education, Faculty of Econimic, University of Gorontalo, Indonesia 3Department of Civics Education, Faculty of Social Science, University of Gorontalo, Indonesia *Corresponding [email protected] Received: 29 April 2018 Accepted: 22 May 2018 Abstract:This research is the effort of correction of development policy aimed at (1) elaborating perspective on how local government policy in managing human resources in agriculture sector; (2). How has the contribution of farmers to employment so far?. Qualitative naturalistic approach is used to describe a phenomenon that has a unique character in regional development and agricultural employment in an effort to empower farmers' resources. The direction of development policy based on human resources in the agricultural sector has a tremendous opportunity as the main capital of the government and the real involvement of farmers in employment as from the outcome. The direction of regional development policy in developing the populist economy places the development core on agricultural development and the vast number of job opportunities requires reliable and competent farmers' resources in the field of agriculture in order to increase productivity and advance their welfare. This
    [Show full text]