ReportNo. 12874-IND Indonesia ImpactEvaluation Report lransmigration I (Ln.1318-IND) Transmigration11 (Ln.1 707/Cr.0919-IND) TransmigrationIII (Ln.2248-IND) Public Disclosure Authorized March22, 1994 OperationsEvaluation Departmnent
FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
MICROGRAPHICS
Report No: 12874 IND Type: IER
Documentof theWorld Bank Public Disclosure Authorized
Thisdocument has a restricteddistribution and may be used by recipients only in theperformance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosedwithout World Bank authorization V -
CURRENCYEQU1VALENIS (1992) US$1.00 Ruplah(Rp) 1.950 Rp I million = US$513
ACRONYMS,ABBREVIAIONS AND LOCALTRMS
AARD - Agencyfor A£ricufturalResearch and Development
Bangda - DirectorateGeneral of RegionalDevelopment BAPPENAs - ProvincialPlanning Agencies CRIA - Centerfor ResearchIn Agriculture DGE - DirectorateGeneral of Est. s DGFC - DirectorateGeneral of Food Crops FAO - Food and AgricuHtreOrganIation Gabah - Unmilledrice GOI - Governmentof Indonesia IFAD - internationalFund for AgriculturalDevelopment Inner Islands - Java, Madura,Ball and Lombok JMT - Junior Ministerfor Transmigration Kabupaten - District IUCN - internationalUnion for Conservationof Natureand NaturalResources MOA Ministryof Agriculture MOF - Ministryof Forestry MOT Ministryof Transmigration MOH Ministryof Health OED - OperationsEvaluation Department OuterIslands Sumatra,Kaiimantan, Sulawesi, Irlan Jaya and a number of smallIslands PAR PerformanceAudit Report PCR ProjectCompletion Report PIR - Domesticallyfinance estate projects PMU - ProjectManagement Unit, provides Inputsand labor compensationto farmers PRPTE - Govemment-financedtree crop developmentprogram PTP - Publiclyowned estate Repelita - Fivs-yeardevelopment plan SAR StaffAppraisal Report SRDP - SmaliholderRubber Development Project TSP - TripleSuperphosphate UNDP - United NationsDevelopment Programme WWF - World Wildlie Fund
GOVERNMEWOF IN1ONESIA FISCALYEAR
April 1 - March31
WEIGHTAND MEASURES
1 kilometer(km) 0.62 miles (mi) 1 square kilometer( = 100ha = 0.39 mP I hectare (lta) .47 acres (ac) 1 kilogram(kg) = 2.2 pounds (lib) 1 metricton (t) = 2,206pounds FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY THEWORLD BANK Washington,D.C. 20433 U.S.A Offic, OfOtlretor4,neral OpewalonsEvaluation
March 22, 1994
MEMORANDUMTO THE EXECUTIVEDIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:Impact Evaluation on MINONESIA TransmigrationI (Ln.1813-IND), TransmigrationII (Ln.l707/Cr.919-rND)and Transmizrationm (Ln.2248-IND)
Attachedis the ImpactEvaluation on INDONESIA- TransmigrationI (Ln.1813-IND), TransmigrationII (Loan 1707/Credit919-IND) and Transmigrationm (Loan 2248-IND) prepared by the OperationsEvaluation Department.
Attachment
Tnisdocument has a restricteddistribution and may be used by recipientsonly In the petformance of theirofficial duies. Its contentsmay not otherwise be disclosed wihout World Bank authoriation. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY IMPACrEVALUATION INDONESIA TRANSMIGRATIONI (LA.1318-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONII (L.1707/Cr.0919-lND) TRANSMIGRATIONi1 (LuM48-IND)
TABLEOF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ...... i BasicData ...... iii Executive Summary... 1. Backgound ...... 1 A. Historyof Transmigration...... B. The Proe%cts...... 2 .L The Trausmiagtion Sites .. 7 A. Location. 7 B. Topography. 7 C. SoilsandSoil Fertllity. 8 D. Surveys. 8 K Land Clearing .9 F. Water and Water Qualty. 9 G. Fuelwood .10 H. Roas .10 L Conclusion.10 M. The Transmgration Vllage. 11 A. Size and Population .11 B. Social Infrastructure.12 C. InstitutionalInfastructure .14 D. Socio-culturalRelations .15 E. Conclusion ...... 16 IV. The TransmtgratFamily .. 17 A. Origin of Settlers .17 B. Land Tenure .17 C. Income .18 D. Standard of Living .24 E. Conclusion.26 V. Agricultural Development .. 27 A. Land Allocationand Use ...... 27 B. Tree Crops .30 C. FoodCrops .34 D. Livestock.40 E. Sustainabsity.40 F. EconomicAnalysis .41 G. Conclusion.42 Vi. The Regionaland National Aspects .. 43 A. Regional Development .43 B. IndigenousPeople .45 C. Environment.46 D. Conclusion.49
This documenthas a restricteddistrbution and maybe usedby recipientsonly in the performanoeof their Iofficialduties. Its contents may nototherwise be disclosedwithout World Bank authodzation. I Page No. Annex I (Tables) 1. Population (By Sex and Religion) ...... 51 2. Education .52 3. Educational Facilities.53 4. Settler Perception of FamilyPlanning and Health Care Services .54 5a. Percentage of FamiliesSurveyed Who Have Suffered from Malaria .55 Sb. Families in which Members have suffered Illnesses other than Malaria 56 6. Number of Respondents using Village Cooperative ..... 57 7. Identity of Survey Respondents .58 8. Average Ages and Education Levels .59 9. Migration of Second Generation ...... 60 10. Survey Respondents who have not received Land Certificates .61 11. Average FamilyIncomes Compared to Incomc BenchmrE-.ks. 62 12a. Unearned Incomes .62 12b. Off Farm and Unearned Income Sources per Family.64 12c. Averagc Off Farm Incomes ...... 65 13. Home Improvements.66 14. Percentage of Families Owning Material Goods .67 15. Level of Satisfaction Among Sponsored Transmigrants .68 16. Level of Satisfaction Among Spontaneous Tramsmigrants.69 17. Respondents Perception of the Future .70 18. Land Utilization .71 19. Land Use Types .72 20. Food Crop Yields ...... 73 21a. Tree Crop Yields and Farmgate Prices .74 21b. FamilyLabor Days in Food Crop Production .75 21c. Non Family Labor Days in Food Crop Production .76 22. Capital Invest in Livestock ...... 77 23. Wood and Fodder .78 24. Transmigration I - Economic Rate of Return Calculation .79 25. Transmigration II - Econom;c Rate of Return Calculation.83 26. Transmigration IH - Economic Rate of Retur Calculation .85 Annex II Socioeconomic Survey of Transmigrats:Methodology .88 Annex III 1. Comments received from the Department of Transmigration.89 2. Comments received from PT Kresna Duta Agroindo .91 3. Comments received from PT Sari Aditya Loka .93 Maps: IBRD 25113, 25114 Figure in Text 4.1 FamilyIncome and Poverty Level .19 Tables in Text 2.1 Transmigration Sites and Areas. 7 4.1 Average FamilyIncome and Poverty Levels, 1992 .18 4.2 Average Annual Income, 1992.20 4.3 Distribution of the Average net Agricultural Incomes, 1992.21 4.4 Off-Farm Incomes, 1992 .22 4 5 Percentage of Families Owning Durables Goods .25 5.1 Allocation (ha) and Utilization (%) of Land .27 5.2 Crop Patterns .29 5.3 Cropping Intensities and Yields .34 5.4 Labor in Food Crop Framing ...... , .... 38 5.5 Economic Rates of Return .41 -i-
IACI EVALUATION
INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRATIONI (Lu.1318-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONU L1707/Cr.0919-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONm (Ln=48-IND)
PREFACE
The TransmigrationProgram is complexand controversial and has been undertaken for many reasons, prime amongst which has been to redress the inequitable distribution of resources and population in Indonesia. The program is also an instrument to harmonize a society which is ethnically,culturally and religiouslydiverse. These implicit geo-political objectives also need to be recognized when assessingthe transmigration projects.
OED audited the first project' in 1984 and a cluster of four projects in 1 99 1b In preparation for the latter, it was concluded that an audit was not an adequate instrument to review those elements of the projects which have been the most controversial, both within the Bank and in the international community. Critics have argued that considerable resources have been wasted in settling people who have not progressed beyond subsistence level, and with significantdamage to the environment - including loss of rainforest and wildlife, topsoils, and with major disruptioil to tribal peoples. Accordingly,it was decided that the technical and institutional effects of these Bank- supported projects would be evaluated by the cluster audit, and that the social, environmental and economic impact would be assessed by an impact evaluation, drawing upon a socio-economicsurvey, with detailed treatment of environmental issues and re-stimating the economic rates of return. Overall findings of both audit reports and this impact evaluation will be combined in an Overview which will summarize OED findings with respect to Bank-financed projects in support of the transmigration program.
This Impact Evaluation Report covers the first three Bank-supported transmigration projects. Thus, the projects evaluated here constitute only a small part of the Indonesian transmigration program as a whole. The evaluation draws on a socioeconomicsurvey specially commissionedby OED and carried out by Ms. Gillian Brovn and Mr. Hamid Ahmad, under the leadership of Mr. WilliamCollier, all of PT INTERSYS Kelola Maju. The survey was undertaken between 1992-93. The survey comprised structured interviewsof 300 familiesin 15 villages,stratified by sponsored and spontaneous settlers and supplemented with group discussions and unstructured interviews with village leaders in each village. The methodologyand main results of the survey are contained in an annex to this report.
a PerformanceAudit Report: Indonesia - Transmigration I (Ln.13184iND).OED Report No.5157. June 25, 1984. b PerformanceAudit Report: Indonesia - Transmlgration II (Ln.1707/Cr.919-IND), Transmigratlon III (Ln.2248-IND), TransmigrationIV (Ln.2288-IND)and SwampsRecnaratlon I (Ln.19584iND). OED Report No.11431. December 30, 199Q Xi- I The evaluationwas carried out by an OED teamcomprising Mr. NielsDabelsteinc and Mrs. KathrynMcPhail assisted by Messs. FriedhelmGoeltenboth, Anthony Whitten and Martinter Woort (al) consultants).Research assistance was proviled by Mr. Chris Hayesand Ms. VarshaMalhotra, whileMs. Isabel Alegre and Mrs. CarlaSanniento provided administrative support. Fieldvisits were undertakenboth to designthe surveyquestionnaire and to follow-upon the surveyresults through discussionswith transmigrants, village leaders, district and regionalgovernment officials, and officials in BAPPENAS,the Department of Transmigration,the Ministryof Environment,Ministty of Agricultureas well as severalnon-government organizations concerned with the environment. The report was sent to Governmenton January3, 1994;comments received are includedin Annex IIL Follow-upaction by the Bank'soperational complex has begun;a specialinvestigation of the impactof the projectson the Kubu tnrbebegan in June 1993,following the preliminaryfindings of the OED mission.
o Thefinal report was praparedby NielsDabelstein. IMPACrEVALUATION REPORT
INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRIMON I PROJECT (Loan 1318-IND)
BASICDATA SIEEr
KEYPROJECT DATA AppeiJsa1 Actualas % of Estmate Actual appraisalEsUmate TotalProJect Costs (US$m) 56.8 57.3 101 LoanAmount 30.0 30.0 100 DatePhyal ComponentsCompleted 07/81 10182 1258 EconomicRate of Retum(%) * 12 19 158 Numberof BenAefiaries(1983) 4,50 4,500 100 Instonal Peftrmanoe Fair
CUMULATIVEESTIMATED AND ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 AppraisalEstmate (US$ m) 1.0 6.5 16.0 23.0 28.5 30.0 AdualIUSSm) - 1.6 6.4 10.6 162 22.5 27.4 30.0 Actualas% of Appralsal(%) 0 25 40 46 57 75 91 100 Dateof FinalDlsbursementr, AprO13,1983
PROJECrDATES Apprs Atual
Boad ApprOval - 07/15176 LoanrledIt SIng 07121176 Effectiveness 10/19/76 03130177 losing Date 11130/81 12131182
STAFF INPUTS (staff weeks) Y3 FY FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 TOTAL Preappralsal 7.2 272.0 53.8 0.7 333.7 Appraisal 11.6 113.9 109.5 3.1 238.1 Negotatlons 7.8 0.6 8.4 Superivslon 47.4 44.0 33.3 21.4 34.4 20.7 13.8 0.9 1.1 0.7 217.7 Subtotal 7.2 283.6 167. 117.9 51.2 44.0 33.3 21.4 34.4 20.7 13.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 798.0 MISSIONDATA Month/ No. of Days In Speciaiizations Performance Type of 0 Year Persons Field Representedb Rating Trendd Problem Identification 06173 2 Preparation 0174 - Appraisai 11174 8 Apnralsai Follow-up 03/76 1 Apprabal Follow-up 09175 5 Appraisal Follow-up 05176 5 Supervision1 09/76 4 20 A,B,D 1 1 M,T Supervlieon2 08177 2 4 A.B 2 1 M Supervision3 02/78 4 24 A,B,D.F 3 2 M Supervision4 06/7P 3 9 A,B,D 3 1 M Supervision5 09/78 5 25 A,B,D,C 3 2 M,F Suoervision6 04/79 5 40 A.C,D 2 2 M,F Supervision7 01/80 4 16 AC,D 2 2 M,F SupervisIon8 07/80 5 25 A,C,D,E 2 1 M,F Supervision9 05181 4 24 A,C,D 2 1 'l,F Supervision10 02/82 6 30 A,C,D 2 1 M,F
TotalSupervisc^n 217
OTHERPROJECT DATA Borrower Indonesia ExecutingAgency DirectorateGeneral of Transmigration Fisca Year Aprl 1 - March31
Nam, of Currency(abbreviation) Rupiah(Rp) Appraisalyear average US$1.00= 415 Intesveningyears average 1.00 = 627 Completionyear average 1.00 = 650
Follow-onProlects Name TransmigrationII TransmigratlonliI TransmigrationIV "'rnsmigration V LoarnCreditNumber Cr.0919/ Ln.1707-IND 22484iND 228B-IND 2578-IND Amount(USS m) 67.0 / 90.0 101.0 63.5 160.0 ApprovalDate 05/29/79 03/22t83 0524/83 06/11/85
* Baturaiasettlement only. a CalculatedIn terms of monthsfrom the date of Boardapproval. b A = Agronomist B = AgriculturalEconomist; C = FinancialAnast; D C=iviEngineer; E - HealthSpecialist; F = ProcurementSpecialist c I = Problemfrse or minor problems;2 = Moderateprobleems; and 3 = Major problerr. d 1 = Improving;2 = Statlonary;and 3 = Deteriorating. e F = Financial;M Managerial;and T = TechnicaL .- v
IMPACTEVALUATION REPORT
INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRATION11 PROJECr (Loan 1707-IND/Credit919 IND)
BASICDATA SHEET
KEYPROJECT DATA Appraisal Actualas % of Estimate Actual apprasalEstimate TotalProlect Costs (USS m) 2420 140.1a60 LoanAmount 90.0 38.6 67 Cancellation 61.4c CreditAmount 67.0b 67.0 DatePhysical Components Completed 03185 04/87 Proportonthen Completed (%) 48 100 EconomicRate of Retun 12 0 Numberof Beneficiaries(1988) 30,000d 19,631 65 e InstitutlonalPerformance Poor
CUMULATIVEESlIMATED AND AtCTUAL DISBURSEMENTS FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 AppraisalEstimate (USS m) 0.3 0 19.5 52.0 87.0 115.0 152.0 157.0 157.0 Actual(US$ m) - 13.5 30.0 50.0 63.1 74.0 88.3 105.6 Actualas % of Appralsal(%) 0 69 58 57 55 49 56 67 I1 of FinalDisbursement Loan:July 6, 1987 CredIt:March 28, 1985
PROJECTDATES Appraisal Actual Ln.1707 Cr.0919 Ln.1707 Cr.0919
Board Approval - 05129/79 05/29179 LoalYCreditSigning - 06/01/79 06/01/79 Effectiveness 09/04179 09/04179 10/04179 10/04J79 - ClosingDate 12/31/85 12/31/85 1231/86 12/31/85
STAFFINPUTS (staffweeks) FY74 FY75 FY78 FY79 fflM FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY7 FY88 TOTAL Preappraisal 1.7 0.4 41.3 74.4 2.7 11.1 131.6 Appralsal 116.2 143.1 259.3 NegoIations 0.2 21.7 21.9 Supervision 12.3 70.6 50.4 50.5 28.9 72.9 18.9 19.4 9.1 4.0 337.2 Other 0.4 4.8 19.2 12.4 0.2 37.0 Subtotal 1.7 0.8 46.1 209.9 189.5 70.6 50.4 53.2 40.0 72.9 18.9 19.7 9.1 4.0 786.9 -vi I
MISSIONDATA Month/ No. of Days r Siations Performance Trend Type of Year Persons Fild Represented Rating h Problem
Preparation 11-12177 6 27 Appraisal 02t78 8 AppraisalFollow-Up 07/78 6 25 AppraisalFollow-Up 10/78 2 Supervision 1 06/79 3 29 a,b,c 2 1 T Supervision 2 08/80 1 n.a. b 2 1 T Supervision3 11/80 3 4 b,e 3 3 TMP Supervision 4 09/81 4 4 ab,e 3 1 TM Supervision5 09181 1 2 e 2 1 TM Supervision6 06/82 4 21 ab,c,e 3 2 OMT Supervision7 03/83 3 7 b,c,e, 3 2 OMT SupervIsion8 08/83 4 n.a a,b,d,e 3 2 OMT Suparvision9 02-03/84 5 n.a. a,b,d 3 1 TM Supervision10 02/85 3 14 a,b,e 3 2 TM Supervision11 10/85 3 4 Ab,e 3 TM Supervision12 04/86 2 n.a. a,e 3 TM Supervision13 11/86 1 n.a. a 2 TM
OTHERPROJECT DATA Borrower Indonesia ExecutingAgency Mnisntyof Transtnigre"on FiscaLYear April 1 - March31
Nameof Currency(abbreviation) Ruplah(Rp) Appraisalyear average USS1.00 = 625 Interveningyears average 1.00 = 935 Comletionyear average 1.00 = 1,640
Follow-onProlects Name TransmigrationIlIl TransmigrationIV TransmigrationV Loan Number 2248-IND 22884ND 2578-ND Amount (US$m) 101.0 63.5 160.0 ApprovalDate 03/22/83 05/24/83 06/11/85
a MajorImplementation dificulties necessitated substantial revision of the proJectIn 1982,which resultedIn revised estimatedproject cost of US$235.Q0 b The projectalso receivedon EECspecial crc.-it of US$5.5million. o US$36million of the loan was canceledon May21, 1986. Therewas an undisbursedamount of US$15.4mflilon of the loan which we- canceledon 07/07/87. d Reducedto 20,000during 1982remvision - see footnote . o Ninety-eightpercent of revisedbeneficiaries - seefootnote . a = agricuturist;b = agricuturaleconomist; c = anthropologist;d = ivestockspecialit; e - engineer. 8 1 = problem-freeor minor problem;2 = moderateproblems; and 3 majorproblems. h 1 = improving;2 = stationary;3 = deteriorating F = financial;T = technical; M = managerial;P = political;and 0 = other. -vi -
IMIPACTEVALUATION REPORT
INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRATIONm PROJECr (Loan 2248-IND)
BASIC DATASTU=
KEYPROJECTA Appraial Actualas % of Estimate Actual appraisalEstmrate Total ProjectCcwts (USSm) 187.3 131.0 70 LoanAmount 101.0 97 92 DataPhysial ComponertsCompleted 1286 128 153 EconomicRate of Retum(%) 14 25 178 Numberof Beneciaries (1989) SetlementComponent ZOoG 2,000 100 SBteSeiwtlon and Evauaton 300,000 214,930 38% InstitutionalPerformance fair
dUMULATiVEESTiMATED AND AGTUALDISBURSEMENTS FM FY84 FY85 FY6 FY7 FY88 FY89 AppraisalEstimate (US$ m) 5.00 35.00 70.00 93.00 101.00 Actual (US$ m) 0 16.78 39.22 51.88 76.87 &.18 9274 Actual as%ofApprabai (%) - 48 56 56 76 84 92 Dateof Final Disbursement. Janualy 10, 199
PROJECTDATES Appralsal Actual Board Approval 0323 LoanlCreditSigning 04/16/83 Effecveness 07/13/83 07/01/83 ClosingDate 0630/87 63088
STAFFINPUMS (sta wees) FY7S iPX FY79 FYOE FY81 F FY8E3EM EYii6 FY7 Fi FY89 0 TOTAL Preappralsai 3.6 3.9 12.3 44.6 692 20.6 164.1 Appaisal 90.8 90.8 Negotons 16.0 16.0 Supervison 0.8 3.8 24.9 18.6 21.1 20.4 19.9 15.0 0.1 124.7 Other 1.1 4.3 0.9 2Z7 4.0 13.0 Subtotal 3 5.0 12.3 48.9 70.1 114.9 23.8 24.9 1&6 21.1 20.4 19.9 15.0 01 39&6 - viii -
MISSIONDATA
MonthJ No.of DaysIn Speclaiizations Performance Trend Typeof 0 Year Persons Field Representedb Rating d Problem e Preparation Appraisal NOTAVAILABLE TO MISSION. PostAppraisal Supervision1 11/83 1 6 A 2 2 MTF Supervislon2 03/84 5 42 A,B,C,D,E 2 2 MTF Supervision3 09/84 1 10 B 2 2 MF Supervision4 12/84 1 10 B - - Supervision5 09/85 3 22 B 2 2 F Supervision6 03/86 4 32 A,B 2 2 M Supervision7 07/86 2 20 B - Supervision8 12/86 6 52 A,B,C,F,G 2 2 MT Supervision9 08/87 3 26 A,B 2 2 MT Supervision10 03/88 2 16 A,B 2 2 M
OTHERPROJECT DATA
Borrower Indonesia ExecutingAgency Ministzyof Transmigration FiscalYear Aprl 1 - March31
Nameof Currency(abbreviation) Rupiah(Rp) Appraisalyear average US$1.00= 700 Interventionyears average 1.00= Completionyear average 1.00= 1,700
Follow-onProlects Name TransmigrationIV TransmigratonV LoanNumber 22884iND 2578-iND Amount(US$ m) 63.5 160.0 ApprovalDate 05/24/83 06/11/85
* Baturaiasetrlement component a Estimate.Most missions combined supervison/appraisai of two or moreproJects. b A = AgricultureSpecialisl, B = CivilrrigationEngineer, C = MappingSpecialist; D = LivestockSpecialist; E = AgriculturalEconomist, F = Economist;F = Economist; G = RemoteSensing Specialist c 2 = Moderateproblems. d 2 = Stationary. e M = Managerial;T Technical;F = Financial. -ix-
IMPACr EVALUATION
INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRATIONI (Ln.1318-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONII (Ln.1707/Cr.0919-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONmI (Ln24$-IND)
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
1. Over the past sixteen years, the Bank has than estimated at appraisal (12 percent). The supportedthe TransmigrationProgram through PAR attributed this both to an appropriate seven loans, totallingUS$560.0 million for five technical package - based as it was on tree uplandtransmigration and two swampsreclama- crop development and to the institutional tion projects Loan 1318-INDin the amount of arrangements,which favored implementation US$30 million was the first Bank-financed by a singleproject agencyrather than by line project for the TransmigrationProgram. The departments. Actualcosts for Transmigration project,which was approvedin July 1976 and I were US$573 mitlioncompared to estimates closedin December 1982,was a pilot program of US$56.8million. The PAR for Transmigra- and consistedof the settlementof 4,500families tion II concludedthat the projectoutcome was at one site in Sumatraand rehabilitationof an unsatisfactory,19,631 families were settled in existingsite where 12,000families were already five sites rather than 30,000families in four settled. A second project (TransmigrationII) sites. The revisedERR was negative,in con- was approvedin May 1979and provideda loan trast to 12 percent estimated at appraisal. of US$90million (Ln.1707-IND) and a credf-of Reasonsincluded shortages of suitable lands, US$67 million (Cr.0919-IND)to support the an inappropriate technical package, which settlementof 30,000families in four sites,also in concentratedon annual food crops,and poor Sumatra,and upgradingof facilitiesfor a further institutionalarrangements with responsibility 4,000families. The projectclosed in December diffusedamong a n-mber of agencies.Actual 1986. Loan 2248-IND (TransmigrationII[) costs were US$140.1mitlion compared to whichwas approvedin 1983and closedin 1988, US$242.0mfllion at appraisaLUS$51.4 million provided US$101 million primarily for site was canceledbecause project scope was re- selection,since the experienceof Transmigration duced during implementation. The audit II has shownthe difficultyof selectingsuitable consideredthe outcomeof the settlementcom- sites. There was also a componentfor settle- ponentof TransmigrationIH to be satisfactory: ment of 2,000families at the samesite supported 2,000families were settled as plannedwith an by TransmigrationL ERR of about 11 percent; this project essen- tiallyfollow-r the same developmentstrategy 2. All three projectsexperienced delays in of Transnigration I. Actual costs were implementationdue to poor performance of US$131.0 million compared to US$187.3 contractors,inadequate site investigationduing millionat appraisal projectpreparation, and shortagesof counterpart funds. At project completion,the PAR for 3. OED undertookthis impactevaluatior. TransmigrationI found that the projectoutcome 6-10years after projectclosing. This includeji wassatisfactory. 4,500 families were settled in 11 a specially commissionedsurvey by local villagesand the ERR (17 percent) was higher consultantsof a sample of spontaneousand sponsored settlers in four project sites covered Transmigration I, average annual income for by these three projects, in order to determine 5000 sponsored families is 3$1,620,ranging the inpact of resettlement on the lives of the between US$1,490- 2,065. In Transmigration transmigrants and to obtain the views of the HI, prospects for similar income are good. settlers themselves. Average income for the 19,000 families in Transmigration II is US$614 ranging between Key Findings US$430 - 820. While this is above poverty level of US$460(equivalent to 320 kg of milled OVERA ASiWsE rice), it is below self sufficiency level of 4. This impactevaluation confirmsthe audit US$690 (480 kg). Average inccme of the findings that the outcome of Transmigration I spontaneous settlers range from US$715 in and HI projects was satisfactory,while that for Transmigration II, to US$1,066 in Transmigration II was not satisfactory. At full Transmigration I and US$1,221 in development, the first project has provided the TransrmigrationHI. Spontaneous transmigrants tranrmigrantswith a sustainableagricultural base have primarilysettled in TransmnigrationI and for substantial income and with no negative III, attracted by employment opportunities envronmental effects. The second project has rather than land. not provided a sustainablesource of income and has caused moderate to severe environmental 7. Principal reasons for higher incomes in damage. The third project will, like the first, Transmigration I were higher than expected provide the settlers a sustainable income while yields of rubber and a diversity of marketing having caused minor environmental impact. arrangements, which resulted in substantial price difference for rubber between the public 5. Transmigration I was conceived and and private sectors. The ownership of the tree implemented as a pilot project to demonstrate crop asset provided under the project on a the feasibilityof tree crops in the transmigration grant basis without repayment obligations program. However, a lower cost, annual food obviously contributed significantly to higher crop model was chosen for Transiigration II, to incomes in Transmigration I, and will do so in facilitate a major expansion of the program in the future in Transmigration II Repelita m before Transmigration I was com pleted. This in spite serious reservations by & Another concern surrounding the agriculturalists and soil specialists in the Bank Transmigration Program was the relative about the sustainabilityof the food crop model sources of incomes. The survey shows that under settlement conditions. Ihe Government transmigrants' sources of income differ of Indonesia and the Bank accepted this model considerably from SAR projections. Income on the grounds of lower unit costs in view of the from food crops is substantially lower than intended program expansion. In other words: expected while off fam income is much higher. the application the food crop model would In overall terms, in 1992, 70 percent of enable transmigration of about twice as many incomes in Transmigration I were obtained families as the tree cop model with the same from agriculture, about 40 percent for budget. Compared to a tree crop based model, TransmnigrationII, and 16percent for Transmi- this enabled a more significant contnbution to gration IIL In Transmigration II, income from lessening the population pressure in the inner annual food crops is only 62 percent of what islands.It did not, however,provide a sustainable was expected at appraisal, while off-farm agricultural production base for development of income is eight times higher than estimates. the settlement areas. Off-farmemployment is important for over two thirds of these familiesand 45 percent of total SOCIALIsSUS income is derived from this source. Off farm 6. INCoME.Have settler incomes increased employmentis much less important in Transmi- beyond subsistence levels? In all three project gration I, where 42 percent of respondents areas, income levels in 1992 were above SAR have income from non farm sources. By expectations and above the poverty line. In contrast, in the more recent sites in Transmi- gration III, where rubber trees are not yet the relative incomesand the age of the sites. mature, 97 percent of transmigrantsare em- In TransmigrationI, the oldest and most ployedoff farm. wealthy,45 percent of the familiessurveyed had a TV, 81 percent had a bicycleand 68 9. An interestingfinding from this evalua- percenta radio. In comparisonin Transmigra- tion, and one whichwas not evidentin the PCR tion I six percent had a TV, 70 percent a survey,is the diversityof off-farmincomes. In bicycleand 49 percent a radio. WrithinTrans- additionto pensions,which were importantin migrationII, in the oldestsite, KubangUjo, 10 TransmigrationI and at one site in Transmigra- percent had a TV, all familieshad a bicycle tion II only, the 1992 survey identified ten and 70 percenta radio. significantsources of off-farmincome, ranging from gold prospectingto incomefrom forests. 13. Al villageshave active women's organi- The most important,in value terms,were wage zations(PKK) which provided opportunity for labor in estate crops(Transmigration I and EII), regular savingsas well as social safety nets. trading (TransmigrationI and II), and wood- Each PKK received funds from the village working/crafts(Transmigration II and M). councileach year and this is investedin in- Women are activelyparticipating in off-farm come-generatingopportunities. Representa- work,mostly as traders. tives of the PKK attended village council meetingL Tle PKK also providesa focusfor 10. LIVING STANDARDS.A strildngfinding is provisionof other serviceswhich have been that these transmigrationsites have become veiy successful- notablythe mother and child livingcommunities, most of which have grown clinicsand the familyplanning services. considerablysince establishment. In 1989,the latest data which were available,the 6,500 14. STErri. PERCEM'ON.Transmigrants sponsoredfamilies in TransmigrationI and HI are very satisfiedwith their current situation. had grownto 7,960families, while 3,619sponta- In TransmigrationI and m, 95 percent were neous familieshad movedinto these communi- satisfiedor verysatisfied; while in Transmigra- ties. Manyof the resettlementsites, particularly tion A, the satisfactionlevel was 83 percent. in TransmigrationI, are thrivingvillages with a Almost all the settlers in TransmigrationI broad range of commercialactivities as well as expectthat their childrenwill have a future in socialand culturalentertainment. Where rubber the transmigrationsite; the corresponding is the principalcrop, growthhas occurredafter figure in TransmigrationII is 74 percent, commencementof substantialcash income from indicatingsomewhat less confidencein their rubber. In TransmigrationII the more modest future. The degree of satisfactionwas not growthis primarilyrelated to the absenceof a linked to income levels; some of the most strongcommercial crop base to generatesavings satisfied were living in vfllageswhere th: averageincomes were low. Settlerswere asked 11. The impactof differentincome levels is to rank the importanceof benefits - of which most clearly illustratedby housing standards, incomewas only one. The great majoritycon- whichafter an improveddiet, is the mostimpor- sideredthe schoolsto be the most important tant householdexpenditure: in Transmigration benefit,not onlywere education facilities more I, 82 percentof settlerssurveyed still livein the plentifl, but school fees were lower than in modestwood house providedinitially, while in Java or Bali and thus parents could affcrd to TransmigrationL 55 percent have been able to keep their childrenin schoollonger. build new homes, a substantialproportion of which are of brick, with tile roofs and glass 15. Settlers in TransmigrationI consider windows.Some have two storeys. themselveseconomically independent and self reliant.Eighty-nine percent indicated that they 12. The possessionof transportand durable wouldrely on their own resourcesfor expand- consumergoods is significantlyhigher in Trans- ing or replantng rubber rather than on migrationI than in TransmigrationII and IIL public/privateestate companies. In Transmi- Expenditureson consumptiongoods reflect both gration Um,and probablyreflecting the fact that income from rubber is only beginning to having provided a relatively high level of come on-stream, only 50 percent felt sufficiently income on an economically and environmen- secure to rely on own future resources. In tally sustainable basis. In contrast the food contrast, the settlers in Transmigration1I are not crop model adopted in Transmigration II did able to invest in tree crops due to low income not provide a sustainable base for develop- and uncertain agricultural prospects; only 13 ment. percent consider self financing an option while 85 percent are hoping/waitingfor private compa- 20. v state owned rubber processingplant, nies to develop some of their land to tree crops. PTP X, was established under Transmigration m and had monopoly on rubber purchased. 16. The relativelyhigh level of satisfaction in The monopoly was broken in 1991 by private Transmigration II, despite the low incomes and, traders offering prices 30-40 percent higher for many, not very promisingimmediate future is than PTP X; this has contributed to the high explained by the security of land ownership income levels. It, howveir, the PTP X is (despite the difficulty of obtaining land certifi- forced out of the market, the extension service cates) and house. These two assets are, for it provides wfll also disappear. many, more than they had hoped for in Java. 21. Intensive cultivation of mixed food 17. HosT COMMuNrrlFS.The relationship crops: rice/maize/cassava/legumeswas foreseen between the transmigrants and their host com- in Transmigration IL The cropping pattern munities is relatively harmonious. The main was based on a relatively high input/output problem was, and still is, land disputes between model with sharp labor peaks, requiring sophis- transmigrants and local communities which, in ticated management and timing. The cropping addition to creating tensions, has delayed land intensity was assumed to be 2.0. In practice, certification to transmigrants. The Department the mixed cropping system never developed as of Transmigration was responsible for securing intended because of a multitude of constraints: land certificates for all sponsored transmigrants poor soil conditions, feral animal and insect before transferring administration responsibility pests, inadequate access to markets, shortage to the local administration. At impact evalua- of capital, and poor extension service. This tion, the process has not been completed. evaluation found that the appraisal expecta- nons for food crop in TransmigrationH and HI i8. While local communities - in particular must be characterized as highly unrealistic if towns along the main transport routes -benefit not faulty. from increased economic activity, they also experience rapid population growth and in- 22. The per family investment was higher creased traffic intensity,which the towns are not in the tree crop based projects, US$15,500and equipped to accommodate. The result is poorly US$19,200 for Transmigration I and m re- managed and chaotic town development. The spectively against US$8,200 in the food crop necessary expansion of local administrative project.' But the economic rate of return is capacity, both quantitatively and qualitatively, substantially higher in tree crops: 19 percent has not taken place simultaneously with the and 25 percent against zero percent in the buildingof the new transmigration societies and food crops settlement.' Thus the higher cost expansion of existingones stimulatedby transmi- per familycan be justified on economic pro- gration. The main reasons are that local author- duction grounds. This does not take into ac- ities were seldom involved in planning or imple- count, however,consideration of the restricted mentation and that resources bypassed the number of families which could be transmi- District (Kabupaten) administration during grated at this higher unit cost unless there are implementation. means to reduce these costs to the government budget (through transfer to the credit or AGRICULTURALDEvELopMENT private sector systems with subsequent cost 19. The tree crop model applied in Transmi- recovery from beneficiaries). gration I and HI must be judged very successful - xiii-
23. A total of 1,575 km roads were con- 26. BANKPROCEDURES. The projects were structed under the three projects of which 116 prepared at a time when environmental consid- kn is all weather access roads, connecting the erations, in particular relating to rain forest sites to the Trans-Sumatran Highway. The were only emerging as major issues in the access and connecting roads are, by and :arge, Bank and the projects were prepared in accor- adequate to accommodate traffic; but their dance with then exdstingrules and regulations. maintenance has been very poor, effectively In all three cases, appraisal considered the isolatingmany villagesfrom their markets during environmental problems and risks and made the rainy season. Most roads were already in a recommendations and provisions for their state of disrepair at the close of the projects, alleviation through proper clearing methods. placing a heavy burden on local administrations. Had these recommendationsbeen followed by GOI and had the Bank undertaken intensive ENVIRONMENT supervision and insisted that all guidelines be 24. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.The Bank-support- adhered to-through loan suspension if neces- ed sites at Kuaming Kuning, Hitam Ulu and sary-less damage would have been done.d Kubang Ujo have had major negative and proba- bly irreversible impact on about 670 members 27. In general, the topography of the sites (more than 10 percent of the entire tribe) of is favorable to settlement and tree crop devel- indigenous people, the Kubu. Although the opment, but soils are only marginallysuitable existence of the Kubu in the area has been for annual cropping. Unfortunately, the poor known since project planning little effort has land management and bad site preparation has been made to deal with their problems. While further reduced the suitabilitydue to erosion, Bank regulations requiring attention to indige- soil texture changes and acceleration of leach- nous people during appraisal (OMS 2.34) were ing processes. only introduced in 1983, the issue should have been raised by supervision missions. The PIR- SusTmAunITY Trans oil palm development currently being 28. To settle the 19,000families in Trans- implemented is clearing the remaining forest migration II, about 26,000 ha logged over which has provided a livelihood for the Kubu. forest were cleared and developed in an annual food crop systemwhich is not economicallyand 25. DEFORESrATION.Under the three trans- environmentallysustainable under existingand migration projects evaluated, about 33,000 anticipated management levels. By contrast, in hectares of secondary or logged over forest were the TransmigrationI and HI areas, 7,000 ha of cleared to be replaced with annual crops and logged over forest was replaced by a sustain- with monoculture of rubber and (recently) oil able 7,000 ha. forest of rubber trees as the palm; maintenance of reasonable production economic basis for settlement. A similar area levels is unlikely in most annual cropping due to of grass- and scrub-land was also cleared for the difficulties in managingthe poor soils in this growing annual crops as a complement to the production systems. It may be argued that the main agricultural activity. Although most of loss of forest is marginal.' However, nationwide, these soils are also marginal for annual crops 30 - 50 percent of land prepared for transmigra- there is a greater proportion of more suitable tion has been forested (including logged-over soil/slope conditions at these sites; the better forest). Transmigration I had large areas of cash economy provides for a higher level of grass land. In the case of Transmigration II and inputs which improves the sustainabilitypros- 111,90 percent of the land allocated was covered pects somewhat. The rubber area has subse- with logged over forest. When the sites are fully quently expanded to more that 15,000 ha. developed, the forest loss will exceed the nation- al average for transmigration. There has been 29. The Government of Indonesia is now substantial progress made, with Bank assistance, relying on private sector investment in tree in mapping forest areas in various classifications crops for rehabilitation and second stage devel- according to clearly defined criteria as an aid to opment of many of the transmigration sites forest management and economic development. which were based on the food crop model, - xlv - including the Transmigration II area. From a police business arrangements with private societal point of view the private sector involve- developers, and physical development to ment in establishing a viable agricultural devel- avoid environmnentaldamage. opment is positive as it frees public funds for other investment. While this should prove U Securing formal land ownership should beneficialto transmigrants,the uncontrolled land receive high priority during project imple- clearing practices applied for plantation develop- mentation. While some delays are, caused ment as is presently executed hwas.the pa.ential by administrative bottlenecks, they are to cause severe environmentaldamage; any long- often caused by land disputes with original term negative environmental consequences will residents or usems Such disputes are prob- fall on the transmiigrant. It should further be ably unavoidable, but their effect can be borne in miad. that the transmigrants in these minimizedif proper surveys are conducted sites are extremely vulnerable: they are poor prior to s.,ie development and adequate with little prospects of improvingtheir situation and timely compensation provided for. without outside assistance, they are relatively poorly educated, their social network is new and a The establishment of new communities fragile, all of which renders them suscepti'bleto require well planned and prepared expan- exploitation by large well organized commercial sion of institutional capacity in the receiv- entities unless their interests are protected by a ing area. While central management may concerned agency. The P~R-Transsystem is de- be preferred for ease of implemnentation, signed to do just that, and appears to have the necessary buildingof local institutional sufficient built in checks and balances. capacity, both quantitatively and qualita- tively, cannot take place as long as the Lessons Learned resource flow bypass the local administra- tion. An implementation model where the U The upland food crop farmingmodel applied local administration assumes responsibility in Transmigration LI - and indeed in most simultaneouslywith the buildingof the new other transmigration projects -based on society, adequately supported and super- relativelyhigh input/output annual crops and vised by a central authority should be sophisticatedcrop rotation has proven unsus- considered. tainable in locations when soils are poor and difficult to manage, markets remote, access U Adequate attention must be paid to main- to credit limnited,and farmers inexperienced. tenance of infrastiucture, in particular to Any one of these factors is a major con- expanding the maintenance capacity of the straint. In combination, failure is very likely, localadministration commensurate with the Tree crop agriculture is more suitable to the investmentsassociated with the transmigra- environmenit and offers a sustainable eco- tion program. nomic activity for the transmigrants.eI rdrt rvetecoaheto * There is a need to protect the transniigrants forest or fragile land, future settlement from any possibility of exploitation and at programs or rehabilitation programs need the same time promote environmentally to plan for the growth of the communities sound development of tree crop-based agri- caused both by spontaneous transmigrants culture by both private and public sector and growth of transmigrant families. companies. In particular, it should be en- sured that transmigrantshave full ownership U The Bank's guidelines on indigenous 'n"_o- certiricate of their land, transmigrants must pie, OMS 2.34,jwere issued in 1983, i.e. be fully and impartiallyadvised of their rights after approval of the three operations and obligations vis a vis the developer, and reviewed in this impact evaluation rep-ort. the Mfinistry of Transmigration or other Still the issue should have been reviewed responsibl aecmuthvthcpciy by supervision missions and mitigating and authority to effectively monitor and action taken. Urgent effort is now needed -XV- to assist the Kubu to retain their traditional * Projects may be prepared and appraised in way of life. Such effort could be based on accordance with conventional wisdom aad the 1984 proposal to designate a forest area rules and regulations in force at the time. in Jambi the Duabelas Hills, a protected As implementationprogresses circumstanc- area for the Kubu. es often change and flexibility must be exercised by project management to adapt a During the eighties, partly based on the ongoing projects to such changes. This experience gained from transmigration pro- also applies to the Bank in supervising jects, the Bank has developed new guidelines projects, when accumulated knowledge on the environment, wildlands and indige- leads to new or revised guidelines and nous people. These operational guidelines regulations regarding important aspects of will be of no more use than the old ones development such as environment and unless the Bank makes all efforts to ensure indigenous people. When projects are as that they are stictly adheredto duringproject sensitive or controversial as transmigration, designand inlplementation.S vety close supervisionis a sine qua non.
a. 1992US$. b. The ERRcalcuation does not capturebenefits of relievingpopulation pressure on Java and environmentalcosts. c. FAO has calculatedthat the rate of deforestationIn Indonesiais cose to one million hectaresper year. Bank estimatessuggest that of this 200,000ha are ost through commerciallogging and flreloss; 250,000 ha to developmentprojects and 500,000 ha to smailhoiderconversion to agriculture,both local peopleand transmigrants. Indonesia,Sustainable Development and Forests,Land and Water,1988. d. The supervisionrequired would have hadto bevery muchmore intnsive than normalfor Investmentprojects due to the large number of sites In areas of diicult access. The main responsibilitywas with the supervising engineeringfirms employedby proJectagencies and financedfrom the bans/crediLt. In most years the annual supervisionby the Bankwas alreadytwo to seventmes the Bank average(see Basic DataSheets). e. The govemmentnow realizesthe limitationsof settlementswithout a sound agriculturalproduction base; it Is con^entratingon second-stagedevelopment of the food crop model sites with tree crop development,largely through privatesector/credit Investment f. The OMS2.34 was consideredexcessively protective of the interestsof indigenouspeople in that it Indicatedthat their wisheshad to be respectedregardless of other circumstances.This has sure beenmade more practicalin OD 4.20. This does not detract, however,from the obligationof the Banikunder this projectto become more directly concemedwth the situationof the Kubu. g. To Its credit In 1987the Mlnistry of Transmlgrationenunciated a strategywhich specified,Inter aiia, greater emphasisto environmentalaspects of developmentand respectingthe concemsof indigenouspeoples. The governmenthas also Instituted a comprehmnsiveenvironmental Impact assessment procedures for all development Investments IMPACr EVALUATIONREPORT
INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRATIONI (LD. 1318-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONII (La. 1707/Cr. 0919-IND) TRANSMIGRATIONIII (La. 2248-IND)
L BACKGROUND
A. Historyof Transmigrtion 1.1 With a total population of about 180 million, Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. The Indonesian archipelago includes more than 13,000 islands, totalling 1.9 million sq.km. About two thirds of the population are concentrated in Java, Bali, Lombok and Madura (the inner islands)which only cover about seven percent of the nation's land. Java alone, with about 20 million households, of which 85 percent are in rural areas, has a population density of about 775 people per km2, one of the highest in the world. This reflects in part the differences in natural resources between the inner and outer islands. Java, with its rich, alluvialsoils, can support a much higher population density than can the outer islands, which are characterized by either swampswith peat and acid sulphate soils or upland areas with podzolic soils of low natural fertility. On Java, agricultural holdingsare small (about 0.5 ha on average) and incomes are low, resulting in about 40 percent of the rural population livingbelow the poverty leveL Moreover, Javanese farmers have moved onto steep slopes and other areas, includingforest reserves, of questionable suitability for sustainable agriculture under traditional farming systems,causing environmental degradation. Meanwhile,vast areas remain uncultivated in the outer islands,which are less populated and contain a major portion of the country's natural resources, particularlyoil and timber. 1.2 Transmigration programs to marry the overpopulation of inner islands with the land under-utilization of outer islands have been supported by the Indonesian Government since the beginning of this century. Early transmigrationsunder Dutch colonial rule were primarilyin response to a need for plantation labor. Due to the decline of plantation investmentsin the 1930s, WW2, and the war of independence, little movement took place until 1950 when government sponsored transmigration resumed primarilyas a means to reduce population pressure in the inner islandsbut also to promote regional development, create employment, increase agricultural production and strengthen national unity. Although for manyyears the size and qualityof the programswere limited by shortages of funds, about 200,000 poor and landless farming families were resettled in the outer islands during the 1903-1980period through government-supported transmigration programs. 1.3 By the end of the seventies, the country's improved resources from oil revenues, combined with shortfalls in rice production and increasing land degradation in Java, prompted the govemment to expand the transmigration program significantly.Targets for the 1979-84and 1984-89 Five year Plans (Repelita m and IV) were set at 500,000 and 750,000 families, respectively. Although this ambitiousprogram was not fullyimplemented, due to budget constraints in the mid and late 80s, the Ministryof Transmigration now estimates that about 750,000families, or over 3.6 million people, have been resettled under various govemment-sponsoredprograms. About 62 percent of the migrantswent to Sumatra, 19 percent to Kalimantan, 14 percent to Sulawesiand five percent to other islands. In addition, over half a million families have moved spontaneously to outer islands. In all, some 1.3 million families,or about 6.5 million people, have migrated, most of them during the past fifteen years. The transmigration in Indonesia has been one of the largest resettlement programs in the world. 1.4 Transmigrantshave generallybeen recruited from poor rural households of Java, Madura, Bali and Lombok. Since 1975 approximatelyseven percent of sponsored transmigrants have been recruited among local people in the vicinityof the settlement sites. With the exception of small and unsuccessfulefforts to relocate urban squatters in the late 1960sand eariy 1970s,and the occasional use of transmigrationto resettle people displacedby natural disastersor major infrastructure projects, the transmigration program is voluntary. Most applicants for transmigration are young, landless, agricultural laborers. Recent research indicates that there may be an emerging shortage of agricultural labor in Java.' If the trend is confirmed, transmigration of skilled agricultural labor to settle marginal lands may not be appropriate. The issue warrants further investigation. 1.5 Resettlement under the Transmigration Program has been based on different farming systems:(i) i -.igation schemes,mostly developed under the Dutch but considerablyreduced after 1950 due to financial constraints; (ii) upland schemes to support an annual crop model under rainfed conditionsin slightlyundulated areas (slopes under eight percent); (iii) swamp reclamation schemes, aimed at rice production in coastal swamp lands; and (iv) cash crop schemes, smallholder schemes or nucleus estate, mostly based on tree crops (oil palm, rubber and coconut). During Repelita III (1979-84) 80 percent of transmigration settlements were in rainfed annual crop schemes and 20 percent were in swamp reclamation schemes. 1.6 Under the upland and swamps schemes, sponsored migrants are moved to the project area at government expense. On arrival they receive a small house on 0.25 ha of village land, 0.75 to 1.0 ha of cleared land (Lahan I) for food crop production, and an additional area of 0.75 ha to 2.25 ha (Lahan II) uncleared land for further development at a later stage. During the first years, settlers are provided with free agriculturalinputs and a subsistence package. They are expected to be self-sufficientat the end of the third year. Social services includingschools, health centers, places of worship, and potable water supply are also provided in the new villages. 1.7 Under the tree crop models, settlers receive a house and a garden plot of 0.25 ha; 0.75- 1.0 ha of cleared food crop land; 1-2 ha of tree crop land of which varying proportions are cleared and planted on arrival;2 and an additional one to two ha of uncleared land for later development. Agricultural input and subsistence packages are similar to upland schemes. State-owned Estate Enterprise (PTP) crop processingplants are integrated in the schemes. B. The Projects a Transmigration I Project(Ln 1318-lND) 1.8 The first Bank-supported Transmigration and Rural Development Project Luan (Ln. 1318-IND)for US$30.0million was approved in 1977 and completed in 1983. The project objective was to devise and implement two tree crop pilot schemes and consisted of the settlement of 4,500 familiesin Baturaja and the rehabilitation of an existingsettlement of 12,000families in Way Abung in South Sumatra.
A NowApproach to RuralDevelopment In Java:Twenty Five Years of VillageStudies. W. Collieret al. report submittedto ILOunder prolect G01-UNDP-ILO/NSI90/035. June1993.
2 Normally1 ha withrubber or 1.5- 2 ha withoil palmor coconut 1.9 The main features of the Baturaja scheme were the construction of ten village centers with 4,500 houses and adequate health and school facilities;construction of roads and tracks; block planting of 4,500 ha of rubber and its maintenance for six years; distribution of 4,500 heads of cattle and annual crop production inputs; provision for one year of food and other essential commodities; and the establishment of credit, extension and cooperative services. 1.10 The proposed Way Abung scheme to further develop the existingsettlement comprised roads and tracks; block planting of 2,500 ha of rubber (5,000 settlers receiving 0.5 ha each) and maintenance for sixyears; distribution of 5,000 heads of cattle to settlers not benefitting from rubber planting; health and education facilities;and expansion of agriculturalsupport services.
1.11 Incomplete information on topography and other environmental conditions had several design impacts:eleven instead of ten villageshad to be established, requiring considerable expansion of the road network. Lhe proposed roof water collection to augment ground water proved inadequate. The project instead had to construct small retaining dams and shallow wells. In Way Abung it proved impossible to acquire blocks for tree crops of land in suitable locations. Consequently, in stead of 5,000 settlers receiving 0.5 ha each, only Z700 farmers were given nearly 1.0 ha of rubber trees. 1.12 Project implementation was delayed initially by weak management and procurement problems compounded by poor contractor performance which also contributed to cost increases. Project management subsequently improved considerablyand the flexibilityand coordinative talent exhibited by the PMU was key in solvingthe problems, anticipated or otherwise, which are inevitable in an innovative project. 1.13 Project costs were relativelyhigh, amounting to an average of about US$8,000per family at baturaja, and US$2,200 at Way Abung. However, these high costs were more than offset by project generated benefits, leading to PCR restimated economic rates of return of 17 percent at Baturaja and 22 percent at Way Abung against appraisal estimates of 12 percent and 19 percent. 1.14 Considering that this was a pilot project it is unfortunate that the monitoring and evaluation program, for which careful provisionwas made under the project, only functioned the last three years of the project and data and analysiswere incomplete. 1.15 Findings of the Audit. The project did provide valuable lessons for future transmigration projects. However, as stated in the PAR;' this contribution was modest, reflected in the fact that five of the six follow-ontransmigration projects supported by the Bank are all designed differently in an effort to address different problems or search for new solutions, and have made very uneven progress. The more important lessons were: In a farming systembased on perennials, transmigrantscan become self-sufficientin food crops during the establishmentperiod and continue to raise food crops - at least as a subsidiary activity. * A multitude of variables need to be taken into account in the selection of village sites, and errors made in the time of selection are likelyto be costly since they have long lasting effects.
3 ProjectPerformance Audit Report: Indonesia -Transrnigralion I Projecl (Loan 13184IND). OED Report No.5157. June25, 1984. -4 -
That transfer of administrativeresponsibility from transmigration to local authorities is prone to disrupt extension services and, in particular, road maintenance. 1.16 The PAR raised doubt about the validity of the PCR conclusion that under certain conditionssustained food crop production on red/yellowpodzolic soils has been shown to be feasible under the project. It also questioned the replicabilityof the model with the relativelylarge farm size (5.0 ha), a high level of technical support and the absence of cost recovery even for the tree crop investmient.
X Transmigration II Project (Loan 1707-IND/Credit919.IND) 1.17 The project was intended as a model for the Repelita m Transmigration Program. Credit 919-IND for US$67.0million and Loan 1707-INDfor US$90.0million were approved on May 29, 1979. The project objective was to resettle about 30,000 families mainly from Java and Bali on four sites along the new Trans-Sumatra highwayin Jambi province and to upgrade the condition of about 4,000 familiesin an existingsettlement (Singkut). Project components included: land clearing, site preparation, construction of infrastructure, provision of agricultural supporting services and technical assistance to the Junior Ministry of Transmigration (JMT) to assist in the coordination of the overall program. Each transmigrant familywas to receive 3.5 ha of land, of which 2.0 ha (Lahan I) would be cleared by the project and would be suitable for food crops and the remaining 1.5 ha (Lahan II) for tree crops to be planted at a later stage. Transmigrants were also provided with a small house, subsistence food supplies for one year, input supplies for three years and cattle for draft power. The project was to be implemented over six years at a total cost of US$242.0million. 1.18 Project implementation was delayed by detailed site investigationswhich revealed that land with siopes suitable for food crops in the proposed project area were availablefor only 10,000 of the proposed 30,000 families. As a result, the project was reformulated in 1982 to settle about 20,000 families in the original and additional sites of both Jambi and South Sumatra provinces. In addition, the Lahan I was reduced from 2.0 to 1.0 ha and the Lahan I was expanded from 1.5 to 2.25 ha. The Singkut upgrading component was also revised downwardsdue to higher than expected cost per family. Following the reduction in scope, project funds were reallocated to correct the inadequacy of site selection and strengthen settlement planning for the program as a whole: eleven consulting firms were engaged to carry out site screening and evaluation studies for future transmigration projects, as well as technical advisorygroup to oversee the site study program. 1.19 At project completion in April 1987, two years behind schedule, 19,631 families (98 percent of the revised target) were settled and the related land clearing and infrastructure were completed. About 70 percent of the target number of cattle was distnbuted. Total project costs were US$140.1million, 60 percent of appraisal estimate, due mostly to the reduction in project scope.
1.20 As weak management and poor interagency coordination had been major flaws in past efforts to develop the Transmigration Program, a Presidential Decree, changing institutional arrangements,was issued in 1978. The main innovation of the Decree was the reallocation of budget funds and responsibility from the Directorate General of Transmigration to each of the various ministries responsible for their respective sectors. A coordinating Board, consisting of involved ministers,was to report directly to the President. 1.21 The new institutional arrangements proved unsatisfactory. The distribution of responsibilitiesamong various agencies,and continued poor interagencycoordination, resulted during project implementation in considerable managerial problems, this contributed to the formation of a I - new Ministry of Transmigration in 1983. The M&E unit was not established as planned and the systems developed by consultants to monitor financial and physical progress and to measure socio- economic impact were not instituted. 1.22 The PCR, issued in 1989,concluded that agriculturaldevelopment was ml ch slower than anticipated. Cropping intensities and food crop yields were significantlylower than estimated at appraisal due to inputs not being available on time, inexperience of farmers in the local soil and climatic conditions,poor pest control, and inadequate supporting services. In addition, Lahan II had not been developed as settlers had given preference to off-farm employment rather than the more risky agriculturaldevelopment in the production environment at the sites. The PCR re-estimated the project ERR at three percent, well below the appraisal estimate of 12 percent On the other hand, the PCR concluded that the site selection component had learned an important lesson in designing improved standards for site identification,screening and evaluation. 1.23 Findings of the Audit. The PAR in 1992 confirmed the findings of the PCR and estimated the ERR to be negative.4 It highlighted, though, that the traditional economic analysis applied was inadequate as it did not quantify one of the principal benefits - the reduction of population pressure in the inner islands,and it did not quantify the environmental costs involved. 1.24 The PAR noted that the Bank had some success in integrating environmental concerns into the planning process, but that, nevertheless,the projects have had a more severe impact on the environment than might have been the case if lessons from similar projects in land settlement had been applied and implemented. Trasmigrafon III Project (Loan 2248-IND)
1.25 As the experience of Transmigration I had shown the difficultyof finding sites suitable for large-scale settlements, the Bank agreed to support a project aimed at identifyingand planning sites for up to 300,000 families to be scttled during the end of Repelita III and the beginning of Repelita IV. The main objective of the project was to assist the government in improving its planning capability, a continuation and substantial enlargement of the planning program initiat. d under the Transmigration U Project The site screening and evaluation component was to be carried out in three phases: Phase I for basic land resources studies, regional planning and general site screening; Phase II for field studies and site evaluation; and Phase m for detailed engineering and final site planning. 1.26 The second objective was to expand the Baturaja settlement (started under the Bank- supported Transmigration I Project) by 2,000 families. The farm model was similar to that in Transmigration I except that the total area was reduced from five to 3.5 ha. Lahan I consisted of cleared 1.25 ha houselot and food crop area; LaWanI covered 1.25 ha to be developed by the settler at a later stage and Lahan m was one ha block planted rubber. 1.27 The main project components consisted of: (i) consultingservices for site selection and planning, including aerial photography, photo interpretation, topographic mapping, soil surveys and related studies; (ii) land clearing, construction of roads and village infrastructure, establishment of rubber trees and distnbution of heifers at the Baturaja site; and (iii) training, agricultural research
4 PerfoemanceAudit Report: Indonesia -Transmigration II (Ln.1707/0r.919-IND), Transmigration III (Ln.2248-4ND), TransmigrationIV (Ln.2288-IND)and Swamps Reclamation I (Ln.1958-IND). OED Report No.11431. December 30,1992. -6- and monitoring. The project was to be implemented over four years at a total cost of US$187.3 million,of which US$117.0million (65 percent) was for the site selection and evaluation component. Loan 2248-IND for US$101.0million was approved on March 22, 1983. 1.28 The site selection and evaluation component had a slow start and faced a number of implementationproblems, mostlydue to the difficultyof finding large tracts of flat land suitable for the predetermined and standard upland annual crop model. During implementation,tGe holdingsize and farm model was adjusted to local conditions. At project completion, sites had bten prepared for 115,500families or 38 percent of appraisal estimates. Costs were one third lower than anticipated. 1.29 The settlement in Baturaja was completed ahead of schedule, but rubber development was delayed by about two years and only about 15 percent of the cattle distributed due to the poor results of this component under TransmigrationI (for which an in-kindanimal recovery program was to supply the requirements for Transmigration E). Implementation of the program development component was delayed by about three years due to lack of government counterpart funds. At loan closingin June 1988, one year behind schedule, projects costs were US$131.0million, or 70 percent of appraiscl estimate, due to the reduction of the site selection program and depreciation of the rupiah. 1.30 The "CR, issued in 1989, concluded that although only about 20,000 families had been settled so far on sites selected and prepared during project implementation,the standards introduced under the site selection and evaluation component were expected to improve resource utilization and migrant welfare. However, the end of the oil boom, as well as the fact that most of sites were prepared on the basis of the annual food crop model, meant that the government might not be able to use the large stock of plans fully without substantial adjustments. The Baturaja development component achieved its objectives;the ERR was re-estimatedby the PCR and confirmed by the PAR in 1992 at 11 percent (14 percent at appraisal) despite lower area and yields of food crops but partly compensated by higher projections of rubber yields. As the rubber was provided on a grant basis, there was no direct recovery for the investment. The PCR also concluded that the training, ret.arch and environmental monitoringparts of the program development component had contributed towards improvingthe capabilityof project institutions. 1.31 The PAR by and large confirmed the PCR finckings.'
5 PARNo.11431 op.ct. -7 -
IL THE TRANSMIGRATIONSITES
A. lcatioln 2.1 The six Bank-supported sites of Transmigration I, IL and III all lie to the east of the Trans-Sumatra Highwaybetween Muara Bungo and Martapura: three in Jambi province (Kuamang Kuning, Hitam Ulu, and Kubang Ujo) and three in South Sumatra (Bingin Teluk L, Kelingi IV and Batumarta) (see Map IBRD 2,113). The sites were establishedover a period of some eleven years, and cover a total of some 100,0C3ha with a net area settled of 64,000 ha (Table 2.1). The sites lie 15-117km from the Kabupaten (District) capital. The highwayprovides the primary means of access to the sites, but only Batumarta is accessiblethroughout the year as the side roads to the other sites become impassableduring heavy rains. The highwayserves as a development corridor throughout Sumatra, and the Government has designated a 15 km strip on either side of this highway for transmigration use.
Table2.1: Transmigration Sites and Areas
SettlersArrived NetArea (ha) BatumaitaTransmigration l* 1977-81 2Z500 KuamangKuning* 1983484 26,250 HitamUlu 1983 22,400 KubangUjo* 1981 3,200 BinginTeluk I 1985 9,800 KeringiiV* 19&5 6,125 BatumartaTransmigration III* 1982-86 7,000 Total 64,075
* Sitessuuveyed for thisImpact Evaluatlon Source:PCR
B. Topogmphy 2.2 The Bank-supported sites are in the physiographic region known as the Jambi- Palembang-Plains, east of the Barisan Range which forms the mountainous spine along western Sumatra. The sites are mostly on low, undulating to rolling, monotonous tuffaceous plains that lie 35-150 m above sea level.' The slopes range between 5-25 percent in Kuamang Kuning and Kubang Ujo, and between 3-40 percent in Kelingi IV and Batumarta. The most dissected site is Kuamang Kuning where the most of land has slopes of less than 10 percent but about 23 percent of the area is strongly dissected peneplains, half of that area has slopes of 25-55 percent.
e Thesites are typical of the 76 recommendeddevelopment areas identi!ed bV RePPProt. g..
C. Soils and Soil Fertility 2.3 The soils in the Bank-supported transmigrationsettlements are only marginallysuitable for annual cropping.7 The soil types range from slighty to very strongly weathered soils with high acidityand low to moderate fertility, and pockets of swampy land. In nearly all the reports produced by consultants concerned with the project, it was stressed that the maintenance and improvement of these areas with naturally low fertility soils would require a great deal of skill as well as considerable and consistent inputs of capital and labor. 2.4 Under forest cover, a thin layer of organic material is maintained. However,on clearing, without very careful management,this organic layer is rapidlydepleted. Further, the base saturation of such soils is low and may be entirely saturated with aluminum. Therefore leaching is rapid and most soils have low to very low natural fertility. Soil reaction is acid. In such an acid soil toxic aluminum is readily released from the clay complexto reach root levels. High levels of aluminum at relativelyshallow depth effectivelylimits the root zone and water retention area for annual crops. 2.5 Natural soil fertility at most sites was low to moderate. The evaluation found that Kubang Ujo, KL3mangKuning and most of Batumarta, however tended to have more moderately fertile soils while Keling. IV has the most unsuitable soil cover with vast areas of swamps with poor drainage. Unfortunately, poor land managementsuch as bad site preparation has seriouslydamaged the natural fertility due to acceleration of leaching processes, erosion and soil texture changes in the upland sites. Indeed, in all of the units except Kubang Ujo, reports of declining yields can be associated with declining soil fertility. The need to renew the liming at a rate of 2-5 tlha, and the fertilizingat rates of up to 100 kg/ha urea, 100 kg/ha TSP, and 50 kg/ha KCL to obtain reasonable crop yields are clear indicators of moderate to low fertility of the soils in these sites. D. Surveys 2.6 Surveys prior to settlement identified qualities and constraints of the land pertaining to sustained agriculturalproduction and this was reflected in the Staff Appraisal Reports (SAR). Thus both the Bank and the Department of Transmigration were fully aware of the potential problems regarding fertility, erosion and pests and of the care that was required. However, neither of the parties was able to prevent lax implementation, and thus severe problems developed (section 5.48). 2.7 The Transmigration Advisory Group (TAG) of Transmigration m developed considerable local and expatriate expertise on the problems of agriculturaldevelopment on marginal soils and achieved considerable transfer of technology. Regrettably none of this was called upon and did not seem to be appreciated within GOI. The excesses of the 'plan-as-you-proceed' stage of transmigration (whichbrought the program and the Bank into such bad repute) occurred while this team was in place. The key problem was that it was placed at Directorate level and this Directorate (and the TAG) had no responsibilityfor monitoring implementation.
7 Forrainfed wet rice cultivation In bunds without terracing, slopes up to 2 percentor depressionssuch as InKelingi IV aresuitable. Slopes of 3-25percent are conditionally suitable provided they are terraced. For dryland arable cutivation,as usedin mostof the sitesvisited, slopes up to 8 percentare suitable without terracing and this coversmore than half of theland in thesites (see II.A.2), but even suitable slopes of 9-15percent require terracing. Fortree crop cultivation, slopes up to 40 percentcan be suitabledepending on thesoil. -9-
L LAnd Claring 2.8 Land clearingis an importantpart of the taigration program,and much has been written on the subjectin Indonesiaby envonmenalists, soil scientistsand economists. 2.9 All groups,except the contractor or subcontractor,generally favor manual or semi- mechanicalmethods over mchancal methodsusing relathvely heavy machiney. The mechanical methodsof land clearingof forestedareas for these tio ns ites undoubtedlyreduced the agriculturalpotential of the naturallypoor and fragilesoils. Poor blade work results in removalof the most fertiletop soil layer as well as promotingerosion. 2.10 Land clearingwith tracked bulldozers,and the skiddingof heavy logs during timber extraction,creates a thinbut denselypacked surface layer which hampers the infiltrationof water and preventsroot penetration for many yeas. It has often been said and written that the tractor operatorsshould be carefulytramed to ensure that theydo not destroythe preciouslayer of top soil by facilitatingits erosion or compaction.Unfortunately, these lessonshave rarely been translatedinto operationsin the field. 2.11 The effectsof the cleaing and burningpractices were as follows: . soil temperatureincreased . soil moistureregimes were altered . soil structuredeteriorated leading to heavyrun-off . leachingprocesses of essentialnutrients were accelerated 2.12 As the impactof poor clearingpractices in terms of compactionand disruptionof the top soil layer by heavyequipment became apparent towardsthe end of RepelitaII (1978),more appropriateground rules were established.Unfortunately their use in the field was patchyat best becausethey slowed down the progressof the contractorsand subcontractors,thereby reducing their profit margin.Thus even in the TransmigationII sitesthe land preparedfor the settlers wasnot as fertileor as wellprotected against erosion as it couldhave beem. To restore the meagerland quality is generallybeyond the capacityof the trausmigrantfarmer. F. Water and Water Quaity 2.13 Allsites receive sufficient rain during most of the year. The wet months(with more than 200 mm)occur in KuamangKuning between September and May,in KubangUjo betweenJanuary and April,Kelingi IV betweenSeptember and May,and in Batumartabetween December and April. In the few areaswhere the effectsof landclearing are not as serious,rainwater penetration is usually rapid and soil drainageis good on mostsites. 2.14 Interference with natural waterwaysduring site preparation has led to swampy, waterloggedand malaria-proneareas near seven of the 14 villagesvisited by the evaluationteam. This is almost certaily the main reason that malaria is the main health problem at all the traDsmigrationsites visited, affectig 40 percentof the TransmigrationII famfliesand 28 percentof the adult maleseach year. 2.15 The natural hydro-biologicalregimes are satsfactory as there is enough healthy groundwateravailable in mostof the unitsexcept for KelingiIV whichhas extensiveareas of natural swamps.Hence, drainageis necessar to enable nce cultivation. - 10-
2.16 Groundwater ;s the main source of drinkingwater in all sites, reached usingwells of 7-15 m depth. Altemative sources of water, such as from roofs and small reservoirs, are not used but, in Batumarta, many smalUreservoirs surrounded by wells were constructed by Department of Transmigrationparticularly in the drier corners of TransmigrationIII. Several of these reservoirsare also used for small irrigated rice fields. G. Fuelwood 2.17 It might be supposed that by carving transmigration settlements out of the forest, fuelwoodwould not be an issue. In Transmigration I & Im the forest of Lahan I and Lahan II was cleared, with the result that after d few years,when unrotted trees were no longer available,fuelwood shortages occurred, with settlers having to walk considerable distances to the nearest forest to find fuelwood. The survey showed that the older the settlement the further the settlers had to go to find fuelwood (Annex I-Table 24). In the Transmigration II settlements the Lahan II land was left uncleared and thus provided a source of fuelwood. Now that this land is being cleared and, at least in Kuamang Kuning, settlers are no longer allowedonto the land for fear of damaging1he young oil palms and have to seek fuelwood elsewhere. H. Roads 2.18 A total of 1575 km roads were constructed under the three projects: 116 km all weather access roads, connecting the sites to the Trans-Sumatran Highway, 431 km main village roads, connecting villagesin the sites, and 1028 km village roads/farm roads providing access to fields and plantations. Most sites have only one access road to the Trans-SumatranHighway. The connecting roads and village roads are by and large adequate to accommodate traffic, but they are very poorly maintained, effectively isolating many villages during the rainy season. Frequently, lorry weight exceeds the bridges' carrying capacity. 2.19 The maintenance of access and inter site connecting roads is the responsibility of the Kabupaten Public Works Department which has not yet carried out any maintenance work in any of the sites. I. Conclusion 2.20 The topography of most sites is favorable for settlement and tree crop development. However,soils have moderately to low fertilitywhich, together with the prevailingtopography, means that the areas will produce sustainable food crops yields only with careful management. Poorly managed land clearing has damaged the fragile environment and reduced the agricultural potential due to erosion, soil texture changes and accelerated leaching. These factors were well known at appraisal but were not adequately followed up during implementation. The technical assistance supported by the Bank was similarlynot targeted towards monitoring implementation. - 11 -
III. THE TRANSMIGRATIONVILLAGE A. Size and Population8 3.1 The Transmigration I villagesvary considerablyin size, from 300 to 1550 families, the average being 776. Villagegrowth rates since establishment in 1977-81vary likewise:from 10 percent to 210 percent. The fastest growth has been in the central village (Unit 2) where the main market for both Transmigration I and Transmigrationm has developed, while the slowest growth has been in a few villages with a high proportion of absent landlords. In Transmigration I several absent landlords are Javanese transmigrantswho have returned - mostly to West Java - letting their house and food crop lot to spontaneous transmigrants while hiring labor (often the lessee) to tend and harvest the rubber. 3.2 The Transmigration II villages are smaller, from 280 to 640 families, averaging 420 families. Growth since establishment in 1979-86 has been between eight percent and 56 percent. The growth is very unevenly distnbuted: five of the eight villagessurveyed grew by 7-11 percent. Kuamang Kuning 1, with a growth of 28 percent, is the central market village. Of the two units surveyed in Kelingi IVC one grew by 30 percent, while the other only grew by one percent. The difference is mainly because land for expansion is readily available in the first village while in the other more remote village land disputes over original allocatiens are still unresolved. Kubang Ujo settled in 1981 on reasonably suitable land had a remarkably high growth of 56 percent, again land has been readily available and Department of Transmigration has provided housing to spontaneous transmigrants. 3.3 Transmigration m was settled between 1982 and 1986. The two villages in the sample comprise 552 and 447 families. The villageshave grown 10 percent and 12 percent respectivelysince establishment. This area has attracted local transmigrants,both from outside the transmigration area and second generation transmigrants from Transmigration I. 3.4 The relationship between the age of a settlement and its growth is clearest in TransmigrationI and III: the growth occursafter rubber harvestinghas begun, i.e. the commencement of substantial cash income. The relationship between age and growth is less clear in Transmigration II, and growth seems to be more dependent on availabilityof sufficient land and the stimulus by Department of Transmigration providing a modest house (1/2 the size of the standard house) for spontaneous transmigrants as is the case in Kelingi and Kubang Ujo. 3.5 Village growth has three sources: (i) spontaneous transmigrantswho have moved at own expense (frequently to join relatives); (ii) children of transmigrantswho have left their parents house and established their own household; and (iii) traders and craftsmen from Sumatra or Java, attracted by business opportunities. 3.6 There are no standard rules regarding the management of spontaneous settlement. There is, however, a general pattern: the spontaneous transmigrantswho moved into the area at their own expense in the early davs of the settlement were offered the opportunity to take over the allocations of sponsored transmigra.itswho had given up and returned. These spontaneous settlers are to-day indistinguishablefrom sponsored settlers. Later arrivals either lived with relatives or were
8 The estimatesare based on village records supplemented by surveydata. Unfortunatelythe Village Records are notalways kept very accurately. in somevillages only landowners are recorded, leaving out several spontaneous transmigrantsand craftsmen. In somecases absent landlords are counted, in othersnot. . 12- allowed to build a small house on communal land and work as farm labor. In some villages they may be allotted 1 - 1/2 ha from communal land after a "trial period" of one year, while in other they remain landless or have only a small garden plot. 3.7 Second generation transmigrants,i.e. children of original transmigrants are beginning to settle as farmers. In most villages there is still sufficient spare communal land to allocate to this group, usuallyaround 112 ha per new family. In TransmigrationI the original standard holding of five ha of which only approximatelythree ha are utilized today leaves room for subdivisionto children, the smaller holdings in the two other sites renders subdivisionless feasiole.' 3.8 Traders and craftsmen are primarily attracted to the central market villages where business opportunities are the greatest. In most other villages such activities originate with a sponsored or spontaneous transmigrantswho, when businessexpands, sends for labor from their place of origin. 3.9 It can be concluded that robust village growth indicates that viable communities have been formed. However, the growth in some cases may have a negative environmental impact as spontaneous settlers encroach on forests or steep slopes. B. Social Infrastructure * Education 3.10 Transmigrantsconsider education of their children one of their highest priorities. Access to education at lower cost than in Java is often mentioned as a major contributing factor in deciding to transmigrate. Educational facilitiesare by the transmigrantsgenerally considered of high standard. See Annex I-Table 2. * Nursery Schools
3.11 In keeping with Javanese tradition pre-school children are cared for by the familyto the extent possible. The work load on the family,however, requires that mothers work in the field, at least during peak seasons, and off-farm employment is widespread amongh women. Thus nursery schools have been established in 10 of the 15 villages. Most nursery schools are organized by the Organization for Education and FamilyWelfare (PKK) and are held in private homes or community buildings. * Primary Schools (Sekolah Dasar)
3.12 In all villages primary schools were built as part of the initial basic infrastructure. Teachers are transmigrants, who in addition to teaching are farmers on a standard land allocation. The average teacher-student ratio is 1:21.5,ranging from 1:10 to 1:33The quality of education is by the transmigrants regarded as average to good with schools in Transmigration I receiving a slightly higher rating than the other two schemes. Complaints are confined to limited supplies of books. Although little or no funds for maintenance has been received from the Kabupaten for several years, school buildingshave in most villagesbeen maintained by Gotong Royong. Attendance is weUover 90 percent in all villages,and is about equal for boys and girls.
9 SubdMisionwas not envisagedIn any of the projects. -13 -
* Middle School (SMP) 3.13 Middle schools are not evenly distributed throughout the transmigration sites. Five of the 15 villageshad SMP while distances from the other villagesvaried between 2 and 15 Km (Annex I-Table 3). Although school fees are low, transportation cost can be very high: Rp.500-1000per day. Average teacher-student ratio is reasonable at 1:14, ranging from 1:10 to 1:19. In poorer families preference is given to educate boys to middle school level. * Hig School (SMA) 3.14 There are only two High Schoolswithin the four sites: in Baturaja 2, catering for both Transmigration I and Transmigration Im and in Kuamang Kuning 1. Thus distance to the schools are often prohibitive, in particular for children in Kelingi IVC and Kubang Ujo and the more remote villagesof Baturaja who have to travel 30-74 kmato the nearest high school which effectivelymeans boarding. Still, parents do take on the burden to see their children through this level. Interviews revealed that more girls attend high school than boys, even when the family can afford to send the boy(s). The attraction of becoming wage earners is stronger for boys and, in particular in Transmigration I education of boys is not seen as a priority as the rubber will provide economic security. Others though, see their higher income as the means to send their children through university,something they would never have dreamt about in their place of origin. * Health 3.15 Every village has been provided with a health sub center manned by one or more paramedics. Health centers (Puskesmas) are located so that maximumdistance from any village is approximately20km. All facilitiesare adequately manned and basic drugs are available. When health care beyond the capacity of Puskesmas is needed, distance (and cost), to higher level services are frequently prohibitive. Quality of health care is generally perceived as good (Annex I-Table 4). Although high turnover of medical doctors at health centers is considered a problem, post vacancies are infrequent and short. 3.16 Malaria is the main health problem followed by upper respiratory infections and skin diseases, typhus is also frequent. In Transmigration H 40 percent of families had seen one or more incidents of malaria during the past year. In Transmigration I and m the figures are 28 percent and 13 percent respectively (Annex I-Table 5). Malaria control measures consist of annual or, occasionally,semiannual sprayingof house and garden. DDT is the chosen insecticideand although its use may be warranted by the low cost, the gross lack of simple and necessary precautionary measures and information to villagers is likely to cause major health problems in the future. 3.17 Diarrhea and dysenterywere reported in ali the sites visited as common but not serious diseases, particularly of small children. This indicates that water-borne diseases, produced and propagated by the habit of using any running water for defecation (rather than a latrine) as well as for bathing, teeth cleaning, washing dishes, etc. is a problem. Some sites, such as Baturaja, with relatively rapid growth and dense population may face problems of water pollution. There are no installations for waste water treatment or drinldng water control and treatment on any of the sites, nor are there any plans for them. * Mother and Child Health Care (MCH) 3.18 MCH is provided at POSYANDU, (a monthlyclinic organized by PKK) in each hamlet of the villages. At the clinicchildren are vaccinated,pregnant women advised,and mothers educated about familyplanning, nutrition and child care. The services are provided by the public health system and volunteer workers trained by PKK. - 14-
C InstttioDa I tructe 3.19 Transmigration settlements were established under the mandate of the transmigration authorities and administrative responsibilities were transferred to local authorities after project completion. Already at the closing of Transmigration m in 1983 serious concerns were expressed about future maintenance of physical infrastructure. lhese concerns have proven well founded. 3.20 The transfer of administrativeresponsibility from Depa tment of Transmigrationto Local Authorities (Kabupaten) is a lengthy process (1-2 years) during which the village is left in limbo: funds for maintenance and for gratuities for teachers and village officials as well as grants for PKK are not released. The only public services functioning are the health care system (which is being managed by Ministryof Health also during project implementation) and the tax collection system.10 3.21 BANGDES funds for maintenance of public facilities like schools, health posts and village roads are allocated by the Kabupaten but managed by the village. In most villages the funds are either not yet forthcomingor inadequate. In all cases funds are supplemented by Gotong Royong (villagers'voluntary work or contribution in kind or cash). 3.22 Interviews with village heads leave the impression that the Kabupaten administration place higher priority on non-transmigrationvillages, in particular when allocation funds for repairing or improvingroads and bridges. 3.23 Several villages are prepared to provide the labor but are unable to fund the materials. A more flenble approach to maintenance than the standard all or nothing could be beneficially applied by Public Work Department providing the necessary road aggregates and tools. 3.24 The village heads elected while under Department of Transmigration responsibilityare not recognized by the Kabupaten until the village is gazetted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In some cases the Kabupaten has objected to the elected village head on administrative grounds (like lack of secondary education). Not surprisinglysuch rejections take place when there is a conflict between the transmigration village and "the outside world". * Village Cooperates 3.25 Each village has been provided with physical facilitiesfor a Village Cooperative (KUD). The formation of the Village Cooperatives was organized from the top-down, resulting in a lack of ownership by the members. Under Transmigration m a Farm Cooperative Center (FCC) was established to support KUDs in all three project areas. 3.26 The results of the cooperatives have been disappointing (Annex I-Table 6). Although most KUDs are still active in operating small shops, their intended main activities as providers of agriculturalinputs and marketing of outputs are very limited. About half (7) of the KUDs supplies seed and fertilizer but only two provide credit. Only one markets produce other than rubber while five operate small shops with basic goods; none of these, however, provides credit which puts them at a disadvantage vis a vis private shops.
10 Landtas are alsocollected from tanigrants whohave not received their land certicate. - 15 - 3.27 The main activity of the KUDs in TransmigrationI and mHhas been organizing harvesting(in some villages),collection, and accountingfor rubber sold to PTP X' The farmers considerKUD the instrumentof PTP X rather than their ownorganization. Only two of the seven KUDsivestigated in TransmigrationI & III are stillactive after a conflictin late 1992turned the farmersto privatetraders. 3.28 The main reasons for the poor performanceof cooperativeswere identifiedin the Departmentof TransmigrationPCR for TransmigrationmI and confimed by this evaluation: Lack of memberssense of ownershipas KUD organizersdid not involvemembers in planningand formationof the KUD. KUDmanagement lacking commercial, technical, administrative as well as managerial skills. Insufficientinfrastructure and transportfacilities. * Shortageof capital. * Women'sOrgnizations 3.29 As elsewhere in Indonesiawomen are well organized through the semi-volunteer organizationPKK The rctivitiesorganized by PKK varywidely, from the obligatoryPOSYANDU, to smaRlsavings schemes, women farmers groups, embroidery and paper flowermaking. 3.30 The PKMsare the women'svoice in localdecision making. The leaders(who are often wivesof villageleaders or civilserva1ts) take part in villageplanning and organizationas formal villageofficials. 3.31 The basic source of funds for PKK is BANGDES,however, in many villagesstill in transitionno funds are allocated. The organizationis raisingmoney through members'collective income-generatingactivities such as farmingcommunal land or sale of handicraftsin localmarkets. 12. Sodo-WCulturalRelatlons * SocialIntegration 3.32 In an effort to facilitatesocial integration with the localcommunities approximately five percent of transmigrantshave been selected from the vicinityof the transmigrationsite. These settlers received the standard transmigrantallocation of land, house, agricultural inputs and subsistencefood supply. 3.33 Social integrationwithin the transmigrationarea seems to have been smooth and intermarriageoccurs in most sites. Some differencesdo persist though. Javaneseis still the main languagespoken with BahasaIndonesia as the secondlanguage. Where localtransmigrants do not live on site, their childrendo not attend school in the unit. In some areas this lead to a certain amount of socialseparation, although not in a hostileway. Also, 'off-site transmigrants7are less inclinedto participatein Gotong Royongactivities, particularly those fromwhich they do not benefit directly(like schools).
t1 Publiclyowned Rubber Este and Factoryestabashed under Transmigratlon IIIto processrubber from both Tramgraton I andTransmigration lIl.
12 TransmigratlonIll Project Completion Report, Ministy of Transigratlon,February 1989. - 16- 3.34 The main area of concernis that quite a fewvlocal transmigrants prefer to live in their originalSumatran village outside the transmigrationarea and to travelin to work their land. Their housein the transmigrationvillage therefore is often unoccupiedfor longperiods. As it is not a local custom to have a garden around the house like in Java, many of the gardens are untended and overgrownwith alang-alang(Iupmta cylUdrca). Tis representsa severefre hazard in the dry season as during the prolonged1991 dry season,when large areas of rubber plantationsburned. * Reltos to Loa Conuntes 3.35 The relationshipbetween the tmigrants and their host communitiesis relatively harmonious. In the early days there was some tension between the transmigrantsand the local Melayu farmers as the latter were resentful of the level of resourcesspent on transmigrants. However,several local communities have benefitted, particularly from easier access to healthcare and schools,and, in fewercases, from improved communication to markets. 3.36 The main problem was, and still is, land disputes between transmigrantsand local communities.Ten of the 15 surveyedvillages reported !and disputes,some of whichwere quite severeleading to burningof crops. In fivevillages land disputesover up to 65 percent of the land are stil unresolved.' Althoughmost disputesarise from local claimsof "ancestralgrounds" some disputesare rooted in disadsfactionwith the levelof compensitioneven thoughthe claim to the land may have been establishedfor the sole purpose of claimingcash compensation.'4 In some villagesdisputes are between transmigrantsbecause of poor layout and measurementof plots. In Transmigrationm some disputesare betweentransmigration villages whose land overlap. 3.37 Even when compensationhas been acceptedand land titlesgiven to the transmigrants some transmigrantsfeel threatened. Thus, some transmigrantspay the land tax while the original usersof the land harveststhe rubber. 3.38 Thisis clearlya sensitiveissue and a potentialflash-point. The localclaims are rooted in traditionallaw and combinedwith the opportunityfor a substantialcash compensation while the transmigrantshave been promiseda specifiedarea of land as basis for the families'future livelihood. The centralgovernment has delegatedto the provincialauthorties to mediateland claims and while there is no evidenceof unjustdecisions, the mere fact that casesgo unresolvedbenefit the localusers and prevent the transmigrantsfrom usingthe land. 3.39 The mostsevere problems are in the oldestsites established in 1979-80and shouldhave been solvedwhile the siteswere still under Departmentof Transmigrationmanagement. E. Conclusion 3.41 The transmigrationsites havebecome living societies with relatively harmonious relationswith the surroundingcommunity. Many stes, particularlyin TransmigrationI, have grown considerablyand are thrivingvillages with a broad rangeof social,commercial and culturalactivities. Developmentin lowerincome Transmigration II sitesis has been slower. Integrationinto the local administrationhas been slowand manyland disputesare still to be solved.
I3 Transmigrationl: Units9 & 11; TransmlgrationIl: KuamangKunrng 5, KelingiIVC 6 and KubangUJo 1.
4 Whenlocal people becameaware of the pnned tnsmrallon site they planted native rubber trees on the proposed stes In order to claim a The compensationoffered by the govemmentwas deemed Inadequateand In sevea casesthe dspute hasremained unresoved, paiticularly for Lahan11 land which was not Immediatelyput to use by the t iansngrnL - 17 -
IV. THE TRANSMIGRANTFAMILY A. Orgn of Settlers 4.1 Over 90 percent of the settlers surveyed were of Javanese origin with Central Javanese constituting the largest group of 48 percent, followed by East Javanese with 30 percent, West Java with eight percent, Yogyakarta: five percent, Bali three percent and local transmigrants fve percent (Annex I-Table 7). In most villagesthe population is mixed in roughly the same proportion, with the exception that Balinese transmigrants are concentrated in a few villages and that two villages in Kelingi IV have disproportionately many local transmigrants. The reason for the latter is that local people already occupyingthe more fertle land were included in the scheme and given the standard allocation of land, house, inputs and subsistence allowance. 4.2 The age of the head of household at time of transmigrating was 30 years in Transmigration 1, 33 in Transmigration II and 36 years in Transmigration HI (Annex I-Table 8), this may be because it is becomingmore difficultto attract young people to transmigration. Also the level of education at the time of transmnigrationseems to have increased: In Transmigration I, 15 percent of heads of household had no education and only six percent had higher secondary education while in both Transmigration II & IIL less than 10 percent had no education and 10 percent had higher secondary. 4.3 The average familysize is 4.7 which is somewhat less than the national average 5.3. To what extent this is an indication of a real lower fertility rate is uncertain. It is more probable that familysize wili increase further as most women are still in the reproductive age. 4.4 The survey found that 23 percent of respondents' children (187) have established their own household. Of these only 33 percent have done so within the transmigration site. Twenty-eight percent had moved outside the site but stayed within the province while 39 percent have left the province. Of those who have left the site some 36 percent are attending higher education and at least some of them may return (Annex I-Table 9). B. Land Tenure
. 5 One of the main reasons given by most families questioned as to why they chose to transmigrate were that they would be given ownership of their own land and house (albeit with the expectation that the soilwould be of qualitycomparable with what they were used to in Java or Bali). The security of access to subsistenceand prospectsof increasingincome beyond that are fundamental issues for transmigrants. Land ownership is also critical for obtaining credit for investment in expanding agriculturalactivities. In the SAR for all three projects this was considered a critical issue and provisionswere made for processing land certificates.
4.6 The Department of Transmigrationwas responsible for securing land certificates for all sponsored transmigrantsbefore handing over the site to local administration. Certificates for House Plot, Lahan I and II are supposed to be issued five years after settling to enable the farmers to have collateral for credit. In the case of the Lahan Im (rubber) plot certificates were to be issued 6-7 years after planting (or when the rubber trees were mature for tapping). The survey showed that unfortunately the process has not been completed (Annex I-Table 10). In Transmigration L very few (6 percent) have received land certificates for Lahan m (the rubber plot) and the Candangan (Spare Land). 29 percent and 37 percent had not received certificates for Lahan I and II respectively. These figures are - 18- heavilyaffected by the situationin units9 and 11 where there are landdisputes with localpeople. In TransmigrationII, problemsare concentratedin KuamangKuning 5 and Kelingi IV- C6 where land disputeshas delayedthe processfor Lahan II. * In TransmigrationEll, no certificateshave been issue for Lahan m. The transmigrantsin Unit 16 have collectivelyrefused to accept any land certificates. The Lahan II land is overlappingwith Unit 15 and allocationsof Lahan m are less than one hectare each. The villageis still in transitionbetween Department of Transmigrationand MOHAand receivesattention fromneither. 4.7 A particularproblem was foundin KuamangKuning 5, where gold panningis a source of off farm income. Shorilyafter a mineralsurvey was conductedin 1992,the Kabupatenordered the villagehead to collectall landcertificates and hand them overto the Bupati'soffice. So far most transmigrantshave resistedfor fear of losingtheir landwith little or no compensation.The Bupati was not availableto this team for commenton this. 4.8 In all caseswith tenure/title problems villagers and village heads reported that theyfound little sympathyfor their problemsat the KabupatenOffice. Theseobservations are basedon the 15 villagessample. However,interviewees reported similar problems in neighboringvillages. As could be expectedspontaneous transmigrants find it more difficultto obtain land certificatesas they generallyhave been allowedto settle on communalland. C. Income 4.9 In all thiee project areas incomelevels are above the povertyline" and higher than expectedat appraisaL Due to the higher price of milledrice in TransmigrationII the indicative povertylevel for that locationis higherthan for TransmigrationI and IIL
Table4.1: AverageFamily Income and Poverty Levels, 1992 Rupiah TransmigrationI TransmigrationII TransmigrationIlIl Sponsored 3.157.202 1.198.150 1.534.502 Spontaneous 2.078.712 1.394.921 2.381.879 Average 2.833.655 1257.181 1.746.345 SARprojection 2.744.500 1.144.30Q 1.225.490 Povertyline 743.829 904.330 707.017 SelfSudficiency 1.115.743 1.356.495 1.060.525
Source:Survey Data, Annex I-Table 11.
t6 Forthe purposeof thisstudy the foUowing income benchmarks are wereestablished for eachsite: Povertyline: basic caorfic nerdsare met but Income is Insuicientto coverlighting, medicine, education and oter minimumsupport (320 kg of milledrice per capitaequivalent); Selfsufficiency (greater than 480 kg milledrice per capitaequivalent). - 19- 4.10 In TransmigrationII incomesare marginallyabove poverty level but belowself sufficiency leveLThe SARprojected income in TransmigrationU for 1992which would be belowself sufficiency leveL The 1986Review 1' reportedaverage annual income in uplandfood crop schemesto be Rp. 1,460,782in 19851. This is about 16 percenthigher than the comparableincome in Transmigration I. In 1985transmigrants received 15 percentof their incomeas Governmentassistance, which they no longerdo, thus, In TransmigrationII incomeshave barely changed between 1985 and 1992
Figure4.1: Average Family Income & Poverty Level (miliUonsRupiah)
IOffFa rin TotalAG ~2
Poverty Une
A B A a A 13 TRANS: I II III
A = SPONSORED B = SPONTANEOUS
4.11 Despite the reasonablyaccurate forecasting of total incomes,sources of incomediffer considerablyfrom expectations.Income from food crops is dramaticallylower than expectedwhile off farm incomeis substantiallyhigher. The ongoingestablishment of oil palm plantationwill most likelyimprove the agriculturalincome of TransmigrationII transmigrants.The varioussources of incomewill be discussedfurther below. 4.12 Table 4.2 summarizessurvey data on incomebroken down by sourceof incomeand by sponsoredand spontaneoustransmigrants. In all three casesthe incomeof sponsoredtransmigrants is higherthan expected:15 percent in TransmigrationI, three percent in TransmigrationII and 25 percentin TransmigrationUm As harvestof rubberwas expected to commencein 1993only, income fromtree cropsin TransmigrationIm shouldbe excludedwi en comparingto SAR. In that case the differenceis 15 percent.
16 TheTransmlgrationProgrminPerspectve-lndonesI:ChapterV.C.ReportNo.10929. WorldBank. July1988. t7 In 1985Income of Rp.789,612adjusted to 1992(1984=100; 1992=185). -20- 4.13 Spontaneoustransmigrants in the two youngest projects have incomeshigher than sponsoredtransmigrants. While the differenceis modestin TransmigrationU, it is considerablein TransmigrationII, primarilydue to a few local transmigrantswith rubber holdingsoutside the transmigrationsite. It can be safelyassumed that whensponsored transmigrants commence barvesting in 1993incomes from agriculture will increase to a levelslightly below the TransmigrationI leveland that off farmincome will diminish. Spontaneous transmigrants have higheragricultural income than sponsored,possibly because they have more eWperiencewith uplandfarming.
Table42: AverageAnmual Incorne, 1992 Rupiah
TotalAgrculture Off FarmIncome TotalIncome hrcome Transmigratlon1 (70 sponsored,30 spontaneous) Sponsored 2435.150 722.052 q.157.202 Spontaneous 1.630.074 448638 2078.712 Average 2193.627 640.028 2833.655 SARprojection 1744.500 0 2.744.500 TransmigratlonII (139Sponsored, 21 Spontaneous) Sponsored 661.634 536.516 1.198.150 Spontaneous 675.309 719.612 1.394.921 Average 663.429 560.548 1.257.181 SARprojection 1.073.500 71.430 1.144.900 TranamigrationIll (30Sponsored,10 Spontaneous) Sponsored 407.503 1.126.999 1.534.502 Spontaneous 1.517.941 863.939 2.381.879 Average 685.112 1.061.233 1.746.345 SARprojection 1.137.255 88.235 1.225.490
Note: AgriculturalIncome Include crops consumed valued at marketprices. Source:Survey Data, Annex I-Tables 11 and 12. 21 - a Income by Source
(I) AGRICULTURALINCOMEm 4.14 The percentageof the total famiFlyincome fi 'm agriculturevaries and dependson the area and the farm model TransmigrationI is the projectwith the highestagricultural incomes, primarilyderived from tree crops. The averageincomes from agriculture which are shownin Table 4.3 can be broken downas follows:
Table4.3: Distrlbution of theAverage Net Agricultural Income, 1992 Ruplah
TreeCrops FoodCrops Garden Lvestock Total Transmigration1 1,939,569 127,651 32,191 94,216 2,19Z627 TransrmgrationII 6,668 517,778 69,085 69,898 663,429 TransmigratlionIII 310,866 239,147 77,816 5723 685,112
Source:Suriy Data,Annex I-Table 11.
4.15 Tree Crops. Rubber is by far the most importantsource of incomein terms of both value and securityin TransmigrationI and m. The initialinvestment in one ha rubber providesa secure incomewell aboveself sufficiencyincluding a surplus for investingin expansionof rubber planting. The incomefrom rubber in TransmigrationI is well above SAR expectations,primarily becauseof a tappingregime more intensive than commonlyrecommended and practicedin plantation rubber estates. The sustainabilityof this practicehas been questionedbut prospectsmay not be as poor as previouslyconsidered (see the discussionin section5.9). 4.16 Other tree crops,Coffee and Jenkol (a memberof the Pihecolobiumfamily), provide insignificantincome in TransmigrationIL It wasexpected that these cropswould provide 10 percent of total income. 4.17 FoodCrops. Incomefrom foodcrops has not reachedthe expectedlevel, primarily due to poor soils and high risks. In TransmigrationI and HI food crops are largelygrown for home consumptiononly and constitute4 percentand 18 percentof total income. Incomefrom tree crops and off farmsources yield a higherreturn to labor. Food crops,therefore, usually contribute at best partiallyto the familyincome, at worst,they are subsistencecrops with the main source of income obtainedfrom outside agriculture Even in TransmigrationII where food cropsare the main source of farmincome, and represent49 percentof total income,the valueof food cropproduction is below the povertyline. 4.18 Garens. The incomefrom gardens was not envisagedto be veryimportant. However, potentialincome from the gardenis quite substantialas fruittrees ha 'e reachedtheir productiveage. The surveyshows that marketingof the produceis the mainconstraint; especially for the commonly grownfruit, rambutans,jackfruit, and pineapples.
18 Reference:Annex III-Table 11. 4.19 Uvestock In TransmigrationI livestockwas expected to contribute significantlyto family income. In tihe other two projects the benefit of cattle as draught animalsand manure providerswas included in farm budgets while potential sales value was not considered. As elaborated in section 5.67 the cattle program was a failure which is clearlyreflected in the low levels of income from this source. In Transmigration I there is a modest trading in cattle providing an insignificantincome. Farmers in Transmigration II and III are still buildingtheir stock. Only in two sites, Kelingi IV and Kubang Ujo were cattle reported to be utilized extensivelyas draught animals. 4.20 The importance of poultry is usually underestimated. Chicken and egg are consumed and sold in response to an immediate need for cash, many are bartered with neighbors for rice, fruit, or vegetables. Chicken constitute a form of revolvingfund, particularlyin the lower income villages. This makes it difficult to estimate accurately the income from poultry. 4.21 Goats are infrequently kept and are used as a source of savingwhich is more manageable by families with few resources.
(1i) OFF-FARM INCOME
4.22 Off-farm work is a major source of income. Its importance depends partly on the need to obtain income to supplement farm income, partly on the availabilityof worlk In tree crop sites the amount of off farm income is related to the age of the site. Forty-two percent of respondents in the older sites in Transmigration I, where rubber has been providing a substantial income for several years, have income from non farm sources, which provide 22 percent of total income, much of this is from trading. By contrast, in the more recent sites in Transmigration m, 97 percent of transmigrants obtain 60 percent of their income off farnL The majority work as estate labor. 4.23 Without off-farm work Transmigration II settlers' income would be below the poverty line. 71 percent of familieswork off farm and 45 percent of income is derived from this source Yet, the income from off farm work is considerablylower than in the two other sites. The types of work are more diverse than in the other two sites and more families,55 percent, have two or more sources of off farm income as compared to 38 percent in TransmigrationII and 10 percent in Transmigration L This is a clear indication of the scarcityof job opportunities in Transmigration IL
Table4.4: Off-Farm Income, 1992
AverageNumber of Famflies AverageOff Farm wfthOff FarmIncomes Incomeper Family Transmigration1 42% 640,028 TransmigrationII 71% 560548 TransmigrationIII 97% 1,061.233 Source:Annex I-Table 12.
4.24 Women's contribution to off-farm income was generally underestimated by the respondents. Information was hardly rolunteered and amounts only established after extensive questioning. The amount of the annual contnbution to income frequently appeared surprising both - 23 - to the headsof familiesand to the womenrespondents. Typical sources are saleof vegetablesdoor- to-door,traditional massage, traditional midwives and handicraftssuch as weaving,embroidery and sewing. 4.25 The key sourcesof off-farmincome are as follows. (i) Estate Crop Workersinclude the following: (a) Settlers in Kubang Ujo and Kuamang Kuning X, who work for the private companieswhich are openingthe LahanI' d of surroundingvillages. Daily wages are typicallyabout Rp 2,000for womenand Rp.Z500for men. (b) Settlersin TiansmigrationI and II workingas rubber tappers either for privateor publiccompanies or for individualsand settlers workingat the rubber factoryin Batumarta. (ii) CivilServants. Village officials and teachersmost nurses and staff at the villagehealth centers are sponsoredtransmigrants. (iii) Paid employment in Agriculture. Opportunities for paid employment in agriculture are limited;most farmers do not havecapital to employlabor. Theseopportunities are only availablein TransmigrationL where transmigrantincomes are sufficientto employ others;and in a few villageswhere there are large incomesearned from other sources. Particularlyin TransmigrationII does the gotong royong systemtake the place of employedlaborers. (iv) Incomefom the Forest. A small percentageof people mainlyin the most recently settledvillages in Transmigrationm makea livingfrom the forest. A numberare chain sawoperators, others make a relativelysubstantial income from findingincense wood whichcommands a veryhigh price. (v) Gold Prospecting. Gold is found around Kuamang Kuning and many achieve a substantialincome from this source. The reliabilityof this sourceis, however,uncertain. If commercialextracting is viable transmigrantsmay be barred from the small scale prospecting,but mayobtain an incomefrom mine labor. (vi) Craftsmen.Each villagehas carpenters,blacksmiths, builders, rattan furniture makers and other craftsmen.In the lessdeveloped villages work forcraftsmen is scarceand they often receivevery low wagesor paymentin kind. In the more developedvillages the craftsmenare more in demandand can make their livng from their trade. (vii) Merchants.In each villagesome families have either a mainor a supplementaryincome from trading. Most commonlythe familyhas a smallwarung (shop) in front of their house sellingstaple items such as tea, salt,rice, sugar,cooking oil, or dried fish. A few are largerscale merchantsdealing in timber,cattle, or rubber. (viii)Home Industry. Smallincomes, usually supplementary to another main incomesource, were madeby severalfamilies engaged in smallhome industrysuch as tempe and tahu production,krupuk production, making and sellingdried cassava, weaving sleeping mats, makingbaskets etc. Most sell their wares within the villageonly and incomesare generallysmall. - 24 - (ix) MigrantLabor. In villageswith restricted labor opportunities, many migrate to wherever work is available. Usually the head of the familyor one or more of the grown children migrate. Periods of migration vary from one week to two months. Migration is generally not continuous but undertaken as and when the need for money becomes sufficiently strong. Some village leaders will not give permission for their citizens to undertake employment migration as they consider the negative social impacts to outweigh the positive impacts on the familyeconomy. These negative effects are increase in illness brought in from outside, and increase in drinking and gambling. Discussionwith women revealed that in many cases men do not take care of their families while away. The money is easily spent, and that by the time the men come home, very little is left. This leads to a considerable amount of hardship and stress on the women. Some successful cases of employment migration include cases where parents have gone together to find work leavingolder children to work the land and look after younger children. Although this type of employment is still a feature of some of the less prosperous transmigrant villagesvery little data was collected first hand. Settlers who migrated were not available for interviews and were, therefore, not included in the sample. (x) Uneamed Income. Fifteen percent of transmigrantsreceive unearned income. With the exception of pensions, which benefit three percent of transmigration, the amounts are small. Other sources are rent from land owned in Java, assistance from parents or children. Supplements given to leaders of rubber tapping gangs have also been included in this category. D. Standard of Living
U Material Standard 4.26 The impact of different income levels is most clearlyillustrated by housing standards: In Transmigration II 82 percent of settlers surveyed still live in the modest house provided initially, though 60 percent have added rooms and 22 percent have put up additional building(s). In Transmigration I, 55 percent have been able to build new homes, 75 percent of which are brick and tile. Only 17 percent of new homes in TransmigrationII are of that standard. In Transmigration a, whichwas settled simultaneouslywith most sites in TransmigrationII, but where familyincome is well above self sufficiencylevel, 30 percent have been able to build new homes albeit of a slightlylower standard (33 percent brick and tile) than in Transmigration I (Annex I-Table 13). 4.27 Possession of transport and durable consumer goods are illustrated in Table 4.5. Transmigration I settlers have been able to increase their material standard of livingconsiderably. The difference between Transmigration U and m is less than could have been expected when comparing income levels, indicating that the higher level in Transmigration U has been achieved recently. - 25 -
Table4.6: Percernage of FamiliesOwning Durable Goods
Car* Motorcycle Bicycle V Radio Sewing Machine Transmigration1 4 30 81 45 6B 12 Transmigrationl 0 6 81 6 50 5 TransmigrationHiI 0 8 60 23 58 13 * Includingone truck Source:Survey data, Annex I-Table 14.
4.28 Respondentswere asked to rank material goods in order of importance. Home improvementsranked highestin TransmigrationI and II, while transportfacilites rankedhighest in Transmigration[II, reflectingthe isolationand poor roadsof this site. a Settlers Perceptions 4.29 Settlers were asked to express their opinion about their current situation. In TransmigrationI and m 62 percentwere verysatisfied and 33 percentsatisfied. In Transmigration II the levelswere 42 percent and 41 percent." The 1986ReviewO asked transmigrantswhether their incomeswere better, just as good,or worsethan before transmigration.Sixty-seven percent consideredthem better, 15 percentjust as good,and 16 percentworse. The two surveyresults are not directlycomparable. However, if "verysatisfied' in the 1992survey is equatedto "incomebetter" -n the 1986 survey,and 'satisfied' to 'income just as good! indicationsare that about the same proportionof transmigrantsin 1986and 1992are better off than theywere in Java and about twice as manyare at least as welloff The levelof dissatisfactionin the 1992survey was very lomr, of 300 respondentsonly one expresseda clear dissatisfactionwhile five percent were slightlydissatisfied. the differencein opinionsexpressed by sponsoredand spontaneoustransmigrants are marginaL 4.30 The relativelyhigh level of satisfactionin TransmigrationII despitethe lowincome and, for many,not verypromising immediate future is, by the transmigrants,explained to be the security of ownershipof land (despitethe difficultyof obtainingland certificatefor some of their land) and house which,for most,is more than they had hope for in Java An equallyimportant reason often stated is that childrenare able to obtain an educationat a higherlevel than their parents.
* Futore 4.31 Settlers in TransmigrationI considerthemselves economically independent and self reliant. Eighty-ninepercent of the respondentsindicated that theywould rely on their ownresources for expandingor replantingrubber ratherthan on public/privateestate companies.In Transmigration Im, only 50 percent felt sufficientlysecure to rely on own future resources. Judgingfrom the developmentin TransmigrationI, this perceptionwil probablychange once the rubber is in full production. The settlers in Transmigration II are not able to invest in tree crops due to low income
19 For deailsrefer to AnnexI-Tables 16 and 16
20 Op.cit -26. level and uncertain agriculturalprospects, only 13 percent consider self financing an eption while 85 percent are hoping/waitingfor private companies to develop their land for them. 4.32 The level of confidence in a future in the transmigration site is illustrated by the survey finding that in Transmigration II 26 percent of respondents wished that their children should be employed outside the transmigration site. The corresponding opinions in Transmigration I and Im were only 10 percent and 18 percent.' E Conclusion 4.33 In all three project areas income levels are above the poverty line and above SAR projections. In Transmigration I incomes are 34 times above the poverty level while in Transmigration II incomes are only slightly above this leveL When rubber tapping begins in Transmigration m, incomes will most likely become similar to those in Transmigration L Transmigrants'sources of incomediffer considerablyfrom SAR projections. Income from food crops is substantially lower than expected while off farm income is much higher. In Transmigration II, income from annual food crops is only 62 percent of what was expected at appraisal while off farm income is necessary for 71 percent of the settlers. Off farm employment is much less important in TransmigrationI, where 42 percent of respondents have income from non farm sources. By contrast, in the more recent sites in Transmigration Im, where rubber trees are not yet mature, 97 percent of tramsmigrantsare employed off farm. 4.34 The impact of different income levels is most clearly illustrated by housing standards: in Transmigration II, 82 percent of settlers surveyed still live in the modest wood house provided initially,while in Transmigration I, 55 percent have been able to build new homes, a substantial proportion of which are of brick, with tfle roofs and glass windows. The possessionof transport and durable consumer goods is significantlyhigher in Transmigration I than in Transmigration II and Im. Expenditures on consumptiongoods reflect both the relative incomes and the age of the sites. 4.35 Transmigrantsare very satisfiedwith their current situation. In TransmigrationI and m, 95 percent were satisfied or very satisfied; while in Transmigration II, the satisfaction level was 83 percent. The degree of satisfaction is not linked to income levels but rather to the security of land ownership and to the prospect of providingchildren with higher education. Settlers perceptions of their future, however, is closely linked to their current income level which is a reflection of their source of income.
2' SeeAnnex I-Table 17. - 27 -
V. AGRICULTURALDEVELOPMENT A. Land Allocation and Use 5.1 All sponsored transmigrants received a land allocation according to the standard established for the particular scheme as shown in Table 5.1. In all three schemes the house and garden plot and the Lahan I, food crop lots were, with few exceptions,cleared and ready for planting on arrival of the transmigrantswhile the Lahan II was to be cleared by the transmigrantsthem selves. The Lahan Im allocation in TransmigrationI and m was planted to rubber by the projects within the first two years of settlement. The percentage of land allocation in use in each categoly in each project (in 1992) is shown in Table 5.1.
Table5.1: Alocation(ha) and Uliztion (%)of La
TransmigrationI Transmigratlonll Transnigration lIl
Houseplot and garden 0.2592%ha 0.25100%ha 0.25100%ha Lahan1 0.75ha I ha I ha Foodcrop land 87% 91% 51% Lahan11 2 ha 2.25ha 1.25ha Mixedcrop land 40% 53%* 10%
Lahanil I ha - 1ha Rubberplantaton 82% 100% Cadanoan 1 ha - - Spareland 10% TOTAL 5.0 ha 3.5 ha 3.5ha 56% 67% 54%
- Includesland recently opened by privatecompanies but notyet haivested. Source:Sutvey Data, Annex I-Tables 18 and 19.
* House and Garden Plots
5.2 In all three projects the SAR expectation projected that the Garden lot would be intensely cultivated with a variety of vegetables, spices, legumes and fruit trees. The house and garden plots are in all cases 0.25 ha. The only people who did not use their gardens productively were the small percentage of local transmigrantswho chose to stay in their home village and travel in to cultivate the rest of their land. 5.3 As in Java, the area near the house is used to grow the daily vegetable and spice requirements for the family. Cassava is an inevitable feature of each garden. The transmigrants received a variety of seedlings for fruit trees in when they arrived. Trees which have proved successfulare rambutan, coconut, jackfruit, banana, papaya and pineapple. Other trees which have either failed completelyor have been only marginallysuccessful are citrus fruits and mango. -28- 5.4 Cocoa,coffee, cloves, cinnamon and pepperwere includedin someof the later packages given to tranamigrants;yields vary from villageto village. Only a few farmers have invested in increasingtheir production,mainly due to marketingconstraints.
O IahaI 5.5 The '00 percentutilization of Lahan I land projectedin the SAR has not materialized in any of the projectsas the requiredcapital and labor inputs have not been available. Off-farm e.nploymenthas yieldedhigher returns,and in TransmigrationI the need to grow food crops has been reducedbecause of highincome from tree crops. 5.6 Most of the land in the LahanI is used for growingfood crops for both subsistenceand cash. The type of crop variesbetween sites. Cassavais the principlecrop in KuamangKuning and KubangUjo due to the proximityof tapiocafactories. Whilethe cassavais still newlyplanted, it is inter croppedwith one cropof uplandrice. In the earlyBatumarta sites, some Lahan I land has been planted to rubber. Inter croppingwith rice takes place for a period of three years to prevent the intrusionof the wildalang grass. 5.7 In some areas, smallprojects have assistedfarmers in developingtheir Lahan I land. Projectsin the surveyarea includeda smallholderrubber project started in 1989in Keingi IV Unit 6, and a MarginalLand Projectin KuamangKuning Unit 10. * L-han I 5.8 The LahanI landwas cleared and ready for cultivationwhen transmigrantsarrived, the Lahan II land wasstill forestedand had to be clearedby the settlersthemselves. In Transmigration II thiswas predicted in the SARto takeplace as a Governmentsponsored second stage development. However,the Governmentnever produceda comprehensiveplan 'y 1982as requestedby the Bank. The clearingof forestedareas requires a considerablyamount of c pital and laborwhich many settlers do not have. The result is that a verylow percentageof the L han II has been opened. 5.9 Additionalreasons for the low Lahan II usage were (i) land which was not suitable (undrainedswamps in Batumarta16); (ii) unsettledland disputeswith local people (BatumartaUnit 9 & KuamangKuning 5); and (iii) landwhich is too far away(Kuamang Kuning Unit 13) 5.10 Three groupsof settlers have opened and are utilizingtheir Lahan II: (i) Farmersin the TransmigrationI area, who have managedto saveenough moneyafter tappingbegan in their one ha plantedrubber, to providethe capitalrequired open more of their land. Almostwithout exception, any further landwhich is opened is plantedto rubber. (ii) Farmersin KuamangKuning and KubangUjo whoseLahan II bas recently been plantedby privateoil palmcompanies. (iii) Farmersin KelingiUnit 2, who have managedto open their Lahan II land by their verystrong gotong royong system. Althoughthe incomesare not sufficientto providecapital for tree crop planting,the incomefrom food crops is sufficientfor their dailyneeds. Few are therefore lookingoutside agriculturefor additionalincomes - 29.
* Labat m 5.11 Lahan III land was planted with rubber by the state rubber company PTP X, and is handed back to the farmers after the sixth year when the rubber is ready to tap. All the transmigrants in Transmigration I and III received one hectare of land in this category on a grant basis. a Cadangan (Spare Land) 5.12 In Transmigration I the settlers received a third hectart of unopened land, usually referred to as Cadangan or spare land. In the earlier villages,the Cadangan has also been planted with rubber trees. Where topography permits, the Cadangan has been converted into 'padi sav ah" (bunded rainfed wet rice field), however, in most cases it is still unopened. * Communal lands 5.13 In a few viliageswhere suitable land is availablesmall irrigated or rainfed wet rice fields are established on communal lands.' This land is rather unevenly distributed; on average families have access to approximately0.1 ha communal land. Within villages this land is allocated to those willingand able to invest labor and capitaL In some cases sawah is cultivated by gotong royong. Although small in area the sawah is an important secure source of rice.
I CroppingPatterns 5.14 The cropping patterns vary considerablybetween the project areas. Table 5.2 shows the use of available land including non-owned land.
Table52: CropPattems (AreaIn use and peretage of landavaiable to famly)
Available' MixedFood Sawah Treecrop Ote2 Total InUse Transmigratlonl 5.1ha 0.63 0.15 2z0 0.03 2.87ha 56% 1Z4% 29% 40.4% 0.6% TransmlgrationII 3.6ha 121 0.18 1.15 0.01 2.55ha 33.6% 5.0% 31.9% 0.3% 71% TransmigratlonIII 3.7ha 0.39 021 1.53 0.01 214 ha 10.5% 5.7% 41.3% 0.3% 58% 'Availableland Includes communal land culivated 2 'OtherIs mainly recently opened land as yet unculved. Source:Survey data, Annex I-Table 19.
22 In virual evey Instancewhere topography iends tseltto thistype o developmt wheterin allocated, communalor reservelands, setles take advarte ofthe sawah potentia. - 30 -
5.15 The different patterns reflect the very different circumstancesin the three project sites. Transmigration I has the lowest total utilization rate reflecting the larger land allocation as well as the capabilityof investingin additional rubber trees. Industrial tree crop in Transmigration II is a very recent development. Only four of the eight sites surveyed had tree crops (oil palm) planted; in three of those transmigrants had an average of 2.4 ha planted to oil palm while in the 4th only 1.3 ha was planted. Additional sites are being cleared indicating that within a few years the majority of transmigrantswill have tree crops. In Transmigration III the smallness of the area used for food crops can be linked partly to availability of slightly larger area for sawah. The relatively low productivityand high incidence of pests yield a poor return to labor in dryland farmingwhile off farm employment is readily available. B. Tree Crops 5.16 Tree crops are considered to be extremelyimportant by the transmigrants. Whereas food crops provide most of the basic food requirements of the family,tree crops are seen as the means to raising their overall standard of living. The most attractive aspect of tree crops is that they provide a regular income on a sustainable basis. The most significanttree crops are rubber in Transmigration I and III and oil palm in Transmigration II. Both are very suitable for the types of land in the transmigration areas.
U Rubber 5.17 The state-owned company PTP X was contracted by the Transmigration I and III projects to open the Lahan m land and plant it to rubber. The Company would maintain the trees until ready for harvest and train the transmigrantsto tap. The land would be transferred back to the transmigrants and the Company would continue support by providing subsidized inputs and a guaranteed market through the village cooperatives. 5.18 The one-hectare plots provided to the Transmigration I settlers have been harvested since 1986-87. The SAR envisaged that in year 13 after settlement (1991-1993 for the sample villages)the average rubber holding would be three ha per family. The assumptionwas that planting of the second ha would take place before tapping of the first plot started (year 6 and 7) and the third ha would be planted in year 11-13). This assumption has not been fulfilled, mainly because credit facilities have not been available as foreseen. The transmigrants have expanded the area planted to rubber so that the average holding is now 2.06 ha. Expansion has generally only been initiated as sufficient cash savings have been generated 1-2 years after harvesting of the initial plot started. 5.19 Average yield is 2,466 kg dry rubber per ha per year, about twice as much as envisaged by the SARY The rubber plots are generally of good quality but the high yield is primarily caused by intensive tapping. This problem was recognized at an early stage, and considerable extension effort has been expended to reduce the problem. Farmers interviewed for this evaluation generally reported that they now followed the recommended regime of tapping every 2nd-3rd day. The same farmers' information on yields,income and labor days, however,indicate that intensive tapping is still practiced. The longer term consequences of this are not certain; it is assumed that productive life of the trees life will be shortened considerably. However, financial analysiscarried out in the PCR for Transmigration m suggested that over a period of 50 years the financial rate of return of
23 Averageyields of 3794kg cup lumpconverted to dry matterby conversionfactor 0.65. Payment to thefarmers by bothprivate traders and PTP X Is basedon 65 percentdry matter. - 31 - intensive tapping is 30.9 percent compared to 23.2 percent for the normal ta1 ping method assuming three planting cycles for intensive tapping against two plantingsfor normal. 5.20 Tapping in TransmigrationIII started only in 1992. It is notable though, that the farmers have been able to plant an additional 0.53 ha to rubber before having the cash income from the initial block. This has been possible because a relatively large proportion of transmigrants (mainly Sumatran) had capital with them when settling, and partly by virtue of high off farm incomes. Based on the information from the very few farmers in the survey sample that have started tapping, intensive tapping will be the rule rather than the exception. 5.21 The Transmigrantsin TransmigrationI and III are guaranteed a market for their rubber. The State Company PT? X established a crumb rubber processing plant financed under Transmigration III to serve both Transmigration I and Transmigration III. Village cooperatives (KUD) would act as middleman between the farmers and P? X. Outside the transmigration sites, however, private traders were paying 30-40 percent higher prices for cup-lump. The PTP X monopoly was well protected as private traders were not permitted in the transmigration site until 1991. 5.22 This system functioned until 1991 when, after strong protests by farmers supported by several newly elected village heads and coinciding with the departure of the last Department of Transmigration ~.aff, police allowed private traders into Baturaja. Once the PTP X monopoly was broken deliveries to the factory declined rapidly and in October 1992 the factory received virtually no rubber from the site.' Several village cooperatives sided with PTP X and were bypassed and eventually became inactive. A few KUDs looked after the interest of their members and worked for a compromise that would allow PTP X to surviveand provide an alternative to the private traders as well as extension service, fertilizer and tools. In January 1993 the District Authorities intervened and issued instructions that villagesmay only sell 25 percent of the harvest to private traders. With a price differential of some 30 percent it is not surprising thai many farmers do not follow this instruction to the letter. * Private Sector InvestmentIn Palm Oil
5.23 As noted in para 5.8 the Government did not initiate a second stage development in Transmigration II in 1982 as envisaged in the SAR. However during the past few years the Government has encouraged private sector investment in transmigrationsites under the PIR-Trans scheme. The impact evaluation found that oil palm is now emerging as a major tree crop in TransmigrationIL In Kuamang Kuning a private companyis establishinga nucleus estate systemwith a nucleus of 5,000 ha and a smallholder area of 20,000 ha. In Kubang Ujo, another is clearing approximately3,000 ha in conjunctionwith a considerablylarger (20,000 ha) scheme in the adjoining transmigration site, Pamenang. The companiesclear the land, plants the trees and eventually hand the land back to the transmigrant for maintenance and harvesting. 5.24 The companies act under an agreement with the Directorate General of Estate Crops (MOA). The companies develop a nucleous/smallholderoil palm estate with a ratio of 1-4 and establish an oil processing plant of commensurate capacity. The ratio is set by DGE to ensure that the plant will be dependent on smallholdersto supply raw materials. The company is responsible for
24 Project CompletionReport: Indonesia - TransmigrationlIl Project(Loan 2248-IND). OED ReportNo.8241. December31, 1989.
25 FromJanuary 1991 to Juty1992 capacity utilization at PTP X fellfrom 134percent to 25 percent. - 32 - land clearing,planting and maintenanceof oil palms until maturity (4 years) after which the transmigrants'smallholder plots, normally about 2 ha, are transferredto the transmigrant.When an inspectionby the DGE, the company,the transmigrantand a lendingbank has determinedthat the plot is satisfactorilydeveloped, the bank extendsa loan to the transmigrantcovering the cost of development.The cost is calculatedbased on a standardset by DGE. 5.25 After transfer,the responsibilityfor maintenanceand harvestrests withthe farmers.The onlyobligation of the privatecompany is to purchaseFFB at the pricesestablishes by DQE. Some companieswfll offer the transmigrantsto providetotal estate managementincluding harvest by paid laborwhich may or maynot be the ownerof the plot, whileothers willrely on KUD to supplyinput and organizeharvest and transport.Based on experiencefrom two PTP nucleous/smallholderestates transmigrantsshould obtain an incomebetween Rp. 600,000and Rp. 3,000,000per year. 5.26 The positiveeffect of the private companyimestment is, in part, offset by several negativefactors: 26 Land clearingis often done without regard to proper methodsand procedures. Large tracts are clear felledwithout consideration of slopes,streams and rivulets resultingin seriouserosion and cloggingof drainage. * No attempt is madeto harvestcommercial timber left partlyburned in the fields. An uncompletedsawmill in KuamangKuning indicates that harvestingwas planned but not executed. The systemhas no incentivesfor the companiesto harvest timber. * The incompleteclearing of trunksand debrs serouslycomplicates weeding, this is exacerbatedby the companynot allowingthe farmersto enter the area for fear they willdamage the young palms This is hamperingefforts to prevent youngplants beingovergrown by creepets,potentially reducing the sustainableincome from this source from the outset. It also preventsutilization of the large amount of felled wood for firewood. * i palms are planted on steep slopes and in swampybottom of depressions reducingpotential yield. * There is considerable confusion among transmigrantsabout the rights and obligationsof the transmigrantsand of the companywhen the land is handedback. None of the farmersinterviewed has a clear idea of how much the companyhas investedfor them in clearingand planting. They are not informedhow repayment wfllbe madeor when and how harvestwill be organized* 5.27 The PIR-Transsystem seem to have sufficientchecks and balancesbuild in to avoid exploitationof the tranmmigrantsThere is, however,a need to bette. informthe transmigrantsof the systemand their rights and obligations.
The' two companiesreferred to above hwe commrentedon the draft report Theircomments are attachedto this reportIn AnnexIil. OEDmaintns the citique of nd cbear practices,the resultsof which were evidentat the time of field sumvy (Februazy1993).
27 Unfortunately,as noneof the land Incuded In the survey had been handedback, It was not possibleto collect first hand iformaion on this - 33 - * Settlers' InvestmentIn Tree Crops 5.28 Problems faced by farmers who wish to invest further in tree crops are mainly financial: High initial capital investment * No incomefor severa;years during which time the landcannot be used for growing food crops * Lack of suitable credit facilities for farmers. 5.29 Settlers invest in tree crops primarilyin Transmigration I where profits from rubber are used to open and plant further areas with rubber trees. Some settlers even plant rubber trees in their gardens. This is particularly notable in Batumarta 2 which has large numbers of wealthier spontaneous migrants; and in Batumarta 7 which has a large number of transmigrantsfrom Bali. The lack of diversification,while currently extremely profitable, makes the farmers vulnerable should rubber prices fail further. Not only do farmers not have a fall-back cash crop, but they are also dependent on buying much of their basic food from outside. 5.30 Other investmentsin tree crops are smail and isolated. Crops which have been planted with the settlers own capital include cloves, coffee, cacao, cinnamon, and pepper. Although some farmers have made small profits from these trees, yields are low and the prices were too low to warrant further investment. This is in line with predictions made at the project planning stage. 5.31 Marketing of the produce is the main constraint to further investment in fruit trees. Production of rambutan, which growsextremely well throughout all the sites is much higher than the demand in accessible markets, and transport cost to more distant markets is prohibitive. 5.32 A successfulcrop is "Jengkol",which is now grown in all sites. Transmigrantswho have never eaten Jengkol before have incorporated it in their diet in interesting and unique ways. Some have even planted Jengkol trees in their Lahan I land. Melinjo (Gentum gnetom) also growswell in the transmigration areas, although it is not often marketed; the fruits, leaves, and flowers are important food sources and are well-likedby the Javanese. * Hazards and Pests 5.33 Fire is one of the major hazards for tree crops. The fast growing grass alang-alang, if left uncontrolled, is a major risk in the dry season. A number of farmers in the survey have suffered heavy losses from fires, most of them in Batumarta Unit 16 where 300 ha of young rubber trees, planted by the farmers themselveson Lahan I, were destroyed. 5.34 Pigs are responsible for destroying a number of oil palm trees in Kuamang Kuning. Control of pig damage to oil palm has been achieved by some settlers in certain units through fixing logs on either side of the young tree, or by wrapping barbed wire around the trunk, both methods prevent pigsfrom uprooting the trunk to feed on the roots. Interestinglythese control methods seem to have been developed locally,not provided by extension workers, and the news that this form of pig damage can be controlled has not been communicated even to all units of the same site. 5.35 Tapirs are reported as pests strippingthe bark of some 11,500young rubber trees on land adjacent to forest in Batumarta 16. Control of this problem is possibleby applying a distasteful, resin- based paint to the trunk to deter the tapirs. However, farmers have not been made aware of this possibilityby extension workers. - 34 -
5.36 Tree crop diseases are present but controllable and not considered a large problem. The development of a monoculture system in Batumarta and clear felling practices used in Kuamang Kuning may lead to an increase in the problem later. C. Food Crops in General 5.37 Food crops are integral parts of the farm models designed for the three transmigration projects. It was anticipated that food crops would provide sufficient to meet the daily food requirements of the transmigrant families,and that cash crops such as soya beans, cassavaand peanuts would be grown to raise the incomes of the transmigrants and to contribute to the nation's food production as a whole. In all three projects food crops areas are considerably smaller than anticipated in SARs as are cropping intensities and yields (Table 5.3).
5.38 The settlers in TransmigrationI were expected to cultivate extensively,rotating rice and legumes and fodder crops. No exact cropping intensity was indicated in the SAR, but the suggested cropping pattern would require a cropping intensityof approximately1.6. This cropping pattern, with which there was no experience under similar conditionselsewhere in Indonesia, did not materialize. Instead a traditional food crop pattern of rice, maize and cassava has developed and the cropping intensity is now on average about 1.2.
Table5.3: Cropping Intensities and Yields
FoodCrop Area ha. CroppingIntensity Yieldskgtha Project Project_ SAR1/ 1992 SAR 1992a SAR 1992 I TransmigrationI 1.0 .78 1.6 1.23 rice 1800 1200 cassava 12000 9600 Transmigration11 2.5 1.39 2.0 1.04 rice 1700 1440 cassava 12000 8570 TransmigratlonliI 1.25 .50 2.0 1.28 rice 2000 1650 cassava 15000 9980 J/ SARprojections for 1992. At Realizedcropping Intensities are basedon fieldmeasurement during survey. g The realizedrice yields are averages of dry andirrigated areas while the SAR yields wereassuming dry farming only. Source:Survey Dataq Annex I-Tables 19 and 20.
5.39 The SAR expectation for Transmigrition II was for intensive cultivation of mixed food crops: rice/maize/cassavallegumes.The cropping pattem was based on a high input/highoutput model with sharp labor peaks and requiring sophistica.ed management and timing. The cropping intensity was assumed to be 2.00. In practice, the mixed cropping system never developed to any degree because of a multitude of constraints discussed in detail below. The realized cropping intensity as - 35 - calculated for Transmigration II it is only half the expectation, partly due to the wide spread monoculture of cassava. 5.40 The TransmnigrationHI farm model was based on food cropping assumptionssimilar to those of TransmigrationI albeit on a smaller area. Also here the high input/highoutput model was not adopted. Yet this area has achieved the hieest average cropping intensity of about 1.3 made possible by the relativelysmall food crop area actually cultivated and the larger area with potential for padi sawah (para 5.13). 5.41 Tnis impact evaluation found that the Appraisal expectations for Transmigration II and HI must be characterized as highlyunrealistic or even faulty. The crop production calculation used for farm budgeting would require a cropping intensity of 2.0 rather than the maximumpossible 1.6. Yields for inter-cropped rice and maize were estimated at levels that could only be achieved in monoculture (rice: 1.7 - 2.0 t/ha and maize: 0.8-1.5 t/ha) and based on an assumption that soil quality would improve over the years. * Crops and Yields 5.42 Rice. Rice is the preferred staple food for settlers. Although most eat cassavaand maize when rice is not available, all prefer rice. Most rice is grown for home consumption, only a small percentage is sold or traded. The value attached to rice in the view of the transmigrantsis therefore much higher than its financial value, and thus greater risks can be taken growing rice. Wherever possiblesettlers have developed land outsiAetheir allocation into sawahs, before they have finished opening up their own land. Despite low yields and losses due to pest damage, settlers still continue to jow rice after they have ceased producing other food crops. Yields are generally low (Table 5.3) and vary considerablybetween sites: as high as 3.7tlha in Kelingi IV-C6 the only location where two crops are harvested per year under padi sawah conditions, and as low as 0.9t/ha in Kelingi IV-C2. 5.43 Cassava. Many settlers have adapted their diets so that cassava is a major source of carbohydrate. Transmnigrantsdescribe cassavaas a complete meal: the roots are eaten fresh or dried, the dried cassavais cooked and mixed with rice (to stretch the rice), or ground and used as flour, the leaves are a constant supplyof green vegetables. Despite this, cassavais still seen as an inferior food to rice. For home consumption it is often grown as a few bushes in the garden or on the borders of the land. Yield estimates are somewhatuncertain as most people dig a few roots as needed and there is no set harvest period; in general, however, the yields appear considerablylower that forecast at appraisal. In Kubang Ujo and Kuamang Kuning, cassava has become a cash crop sold to the nearby tapioca factories (para 5.54). As a cash crop, it is risky, as it is subject to huge yield and price variations depending on the season and the weather. In the long run cassava is soil nutrient depleting and will require costly fertilization 5.44 Maize. The third staple food is maize. The area with maize is small and difficult to calculate accurately as the maize is usually grown along the borders of a block of land or inter cropped with another crop. The yields in Transmigration It are, as expected rather low at .78t/ha, while in Transmigration I, where maize was not considered at appraisal, the yields are 1.46 t/ha. 5.45 Soybean and Peanut. Soybean and peanut potentially are profitable cash crops. Unfortunatelysoybean is subject to pest and disease attacks requiring cash input and labor to control. The risk is too high except for the mos' experienced farmers Thus production is generallylow, both in terms of yields and area cultivated. Only in Kelingi is soybean a significant crop. Peanut is a rminorcrop in all locations except Kubang Ujo. - 36 -
5.46 Other crops such as mung bean, pole bean, etc are grown for home consumption or for sale in local markets. The cost of inputs is not high and the profits are reasonable. Eggplant, watermelons,cucumbers and other garden vegetables are grown on a small scale. Garden vegetables are important sources of food for transmigrants. In addition to home consumption,garden vegetables are bartered with neighbors or traded on a small scale. Production and trading are usually undertaken by the women and little information on quantities was available. * Constraintson Food Crop Production 5.47 Soil fertility. The soils in the transmigration sites are inherently marginal (para 2.7). In addition to fertilizers for the first three seasons' food crops an averageof two tons of lime per ha was provided by Department of Transmigration for land preparation. Farmers have been unable to finance continued, adequate fertilization. In general, less than half of the requirecdfertilizer is applied. Further lime applicationis virtuallynon-existent. In most sites 3-5 t/ha may now be required to reestablish an acceptable ph level. None of the farmers interviewed considered they were able to finance reliming although they fully realized the need.3 Increased use of organic fertilizers may contribute to overcoming the problem of high acidity and associated aluminum toxicity. However, this is only practiced in a few locations due to the shortage of cattle and the high labor requirement for mulchingwith green manure. 5.48 The settlers from Central Java livingin Kubang Ujo have a tradition of using manure and compost, and of building terraces, and by these practices seem to have good prospect of developinga sustainable agriculturalbase. Yet even these farmers, with their relativelyhigh income for Transmigration II, have not been able to finance further limingof their land. 5.49 In October, 1992, the government announced an increase in the price of fertilizers of between nine percent for urea, to 25 percent for TSP and KCL Although the price of unmilled rice is also expected to rise, it is predicted that this will not be sufficientto compensate for the input cost increase. The subsidies on fertilizers will graduallybe further reduced. Although this is unlikely to negatively affect fertilizer use in the better production environment in Indonesia, it may be felt in nDrrginalareas such as transmigrationsites, where fertilizer production responses are less guaranteed d, * to a number of production variables.
5.50 Soil Conservation. In all the sites visited,with the exception of Kubang Ujo, soil losses was evident in food crop areas. Reasons for this are: the removal of all original vegetation, even in agriculturallyunsuitable areas inside the transmigration sites, such as the forests on peat swamps (Kelingi IV) and on quartz sand areas (Kuamang Kuning); * the removal of all original vegetation along rivers, rivulets and other water bodies; very little use of erosion control measures such as terracing, contour planting, boundary planting, silt traps, cover crop sowing, closed-canopyagriculture, etc.; * the lack of properly-planned drainage and irrigation systemswhere necessary or possible in Batumarta and Kelingi IV;
20 UmeIs producedin the area and is availableIn the ses, generallfor buildingpurposes. Thus supply should not be a probtem. -37-
the lack of coordination between removal of the original cover vegetation and the planting of the agriculturalcover crop; and population pressure on the peripheral marginalland, and the limitedcommunal land reserved within each unit for communityneeds, spontaneous migrants, and second- generation transmigrants. 5.51 Sheet, rillor gullyerosion, closelyrelated to productivityand environmentalquality, pose problems of varying severity in 10 of the 14 units visited. In general the settlers received land on which cover crops had been sown, but contour structures had not been provided, and in some cases not even cover crops had been sown. Even if the settlers had received well-cleared,well-prepared land, the soil characteristics of much of the area would have necessitated very skilled management and substantiallabor and cash inputs to maintain a sustainable,productive system under annual crops. 5.52 AU slopes that exceed eight percent require some form of simple soil conservation measure in order to reduce the flow of rainwater over the surface, and to lead excess surface water safely into protected stream channels. Although this was foreseen at appraisal, its execution was inadequate, and further inputs are required tG assist the settlers achieve what the contractors have not provided.' Soil conservation implies an ongoing commitment from the village to maintain the conservation infrastructure. Failure to maintain one part of the systeminevitably leads to the failure of other parts downstream. 5.53 The unnecessary damage to the topsoil layer during site preparation has reduced the .opportunitiesfor sustainableagriculture possibilitiesthrough topsoil compaction and acceleration of soil erosion processes. Any means of protecting and improving the topsoil layer should be adopted. For example, the organic waste from the tapioca factories outside the sites, currently only slowlypassed through open pits before being released into the next river as a highlyorganic broth, could be brought to the sites as a back-load to be used as manure and/or feed for animals. This, however,is not practiced. Large areas whichwere cleared but not immediatelycultivated have been colonized by alang-alang. The use of shredder machines to produce mulch to cover the areas of Lahan I and Lahan II would have lessened the impact of this grass and other weeds, and at the same time maintained the water regime in the top soiL but would, of course, incurred additional development costs. 5.54 Farmers' skifs. Although transmigrants are generally recruited from rural areas and agriculture has been their main source of income, few have managed their own land and even fewer have prior knowledge of appropriate upland farming methods. Although the technical ability of the farmers has undoubtedlyimproved, they have had little assistanceto improve their management skills. 5.55 The provisionof agriculul extensionservice is undoubtedly one of the most important ways of assisting the transmigrants adapting to their new environment. The quality of extension across the sites range from very poor to very good. In Kelingi, the quality of agricultural extension was mentioned as one of the reasons for the relative success of the farmers (particularly with the development of padi sawah and soybeans) despite the poor soil conditions. In other areas, farmers complained that their extension officers were too young with no practical experience, or that their experience was irrelevant, so that they knew little more than the farmers about upland farming. In some cases, such as Batumarta 13, the extension officer has been blamed for advising farmers to invest in growing citrus fruits, and for the ensuing losses of those who took his advice.
29 In Transmigration I and III, a consultancyIn 1988.89established demonstration areas (wlthsettler participation) of contour banks and vegetativebarriers to controleroslon. Very few farmershave appliedthese methods. - 38-
5.56 Veterinarians, are rarely if ever available,and this has likely contributed to the loss of over half of the cattle distributedO In addition, opportunities have been lost to introduce the settlers to the range of forest products available within their uncleared land. This include not just commercialitems, but also efficacious medicinalplants, wild food such as nuts and fruit, all of which could have given them far more flexibilityin dealing with the new and 'foreign' local situation. 5.57 Capital. Shortage of capital is one of the major constraints transmigrants have to face. The SARs realized the constraint, but paid scant attention to alleviatingit other than depending on Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) to open branches in each site, and to encourage savings schemes through Farmers' Associations. The problem is more severe for settlers depending on food crops, as both farmers and the BRI consider the risk of production loans too high. It is easier to obtain credit with to expand tree crops once farmers have established a regular return from the first block planted ha of rubber (at which time few farmers need or want credit). In Transmigration I only about 10 percent farmers had needed loans from Bank Rakyat Indonesia to open further land. 5.58 In KuamangKuning the only credit is availablefrom the private tapioca factory. In order to boost production the factory offered loans to enable farmers to plant cassava, the loans to be repaid over three harvests. The subsequent increase in production pushed prices down from Rp. 75/kg to Rp.201kg.,barely sufficient to cover repayment. As the factory holds land certificates as collateral, the farmers are caught in a credit trap and forced to grow cassava for 34 years with very little income generated. 5.59 Marketing. Extremely difficult marketing of produce is another major constraint to development of cash crops. One reason is distance to markets which affect fruit in particular. Another is lack of organization of collectionand transport of smallquantities from numerous farmers. Produce is primarilysold to merchants at the village market while cassava is sold to merchants in the field. The exception from this general picture is cassavagrown in Kubang Ujo and Kuamang Kuning and sold to the tapioca factories. Although a major role in marketing was envisaged for Village Cooperatives they have not been very active (see also para 3.30). 5.60 Labor. The average labor input to food crop farming is about 200 days per ha.3' Labor input per ha is remarkablyeven and the smallvariances are mainlydue to different cropping patterns, in particular the proportion of cassava. Total farm labor input were:
Table5.4: Labor In FoodCrop Framing
TransmigrationI TransmigrationII TransmigrationIII TotalLabor Input 168days 272days 100days perha 215days 194days 200days Source:Survey Data, Annex I-Table 22
30 Thisis in contrastto thecattle distribution projects in othertransmigration areas financed by theBank and IFAD whichhad good survival rates associated with a projectspecific technical assistance program.
31 SARprojections were: Transmigratgon I, 203 dlha; Transmigration II, 240 d/ha; Transmigration III, 283 d/ha -39 - 5.61 Interestingly,family labor for food crops constitutes only some 60 percent of labor input, the balance provided by paid labor (Transmigration I and III) or Gotong Royong which plays a significant role in Transmigration II, by providing 60 percent of non-family labor. This of course means that the familywill provide a similar amount of Gotong Royongwork to neighbors effectively raising familylabor input to 85 percent, or 230 person/daysin the average holding, slightlyless than one person year. In theory this should enable a family to expand the area under cultivation. However the return to labor is both higher and more secure in off farm employment. 5.62 Women provide about one third of labor and children about 10 percent. The survey found no evidence of child labor exploitation. In tree crops, children mainlyassist with planting and weeding. 5.63 Pestsand Diseases. The ravages of pests in the new settlements have becn very serious. The primary pests are not the anticipated species of planthopper or moth larvae so prevalent in developed rice areas, possiblybecause these pests have not yet reachcJ the *uewlydeveloped areas, or because the remaining forest and scrub areas have healthy populations of parasites and predators which help to control the pest populations. The worst pests in food crops have in fact been mammals,in order of importance: pigs, rats, and monkeys. 5.64 The most serious pests in all parts of the transmigration sites are pigs, and although quantitative data are lacking,many farmers complain that entire crops of cassava and young oil palm have been destroyed. The pigs uproot and eat crops and are aggressiveeven when they are not threatened. Fields have to be guarded 24 hours a day up to and during harvest season. Some crops, like maize, often have to be restricted to areas which can be easily supervised. The pig problem is so severe because, despite many ad hoc and formal attempts, there is no sanctioned, safe and widely acceptable way to control them. Most settlers, being Moslem, have a great distaste for pigs and prefer to have no contact with them. In this regard, it is interesting that the Balinese settlers, being Hindu, experience less pig damage than other because they trap pigs in nets and pits. The incentive for doing this is not just pest control but also to supplement their protein diet. Maintaining short vegetation in areas around the fields where the pigs cannot hide during the day is one control option, but it is unrealistic because of the labor required. 5.65 Pig damage could have been, and still could be, controlled using firearms. It is understandable that possession is not encouraged, but licenses can be obtained e.g by transmigrants who are retired members of the armed services and consistent hunting could have relieved a great deal of suffering and despair over the years. 5.66 Rats are the most widespread of the pests and can cause serious damage both to the livingcrops and to stored produce, although the settlers generallyregard them only as a nuisance, and of far less importance than pigs. Various rat poisons are available to the settlers but none is particularlyuseful unless used as part of an organized campaign over a wide area so that reservoirs of pests are eliminated. Likewise, occasional blitzes of nest digging,clubbing etc. have very short- term benefits. The rats are best controlled by coordinating the cultivation cycles so that there are distinct periods when little or no food is available to the animals. Also, ensuring a well-managed environment, controlling the growth of scrub, would help to produce a habitat in which the rats feel uncomfortable. Both these measures, however are difficult to implement in mixed cropping by a multitude of smaliholders in settlements developed from forest. 5.67 Monkeys,specifically long-tailed macaques, are nuisance pests whichcause only relatively little damage and against which there is little that can be done save scaring. -40 -
D. Livestock
* Geueral 5.68 All transmigrantswere supposed to receive one head of cattle to help mitigate three of the farming constraints by: (i) preparing land by draft ploughingreducing the labor requirement considerably,which in turn allows a greater area to be cultivated. (ii) providing manure as a cheap and very effective fertilizer also improving the soil structure. (iii) Representing lump sum savings. 5.69 As a result of low initial supply, diseases and poor husbandry less than 40 percent of farmers possess cattle (Annex I-Table 23). In Transmigration Im where cattle were to be obtained from offspring from cattle supplied to Transmigration I only 15 percent have cattle to-day. In all three sites those farmers who do have cattle on average have 2.5 head. 5.70 The failure of the cattle supply programshas been exposed thoroughly in the PCRs and PARs. Many settlers have no previous livestockexperience, and extension and veterinary services are very poor. Several farmers see cattle as more of a hindrance as they require a considerable labor input to keep them fed and watered.
* Poultry
5.71 Nearly all transmigrantfamilies keep poultry, mainlychicken. from two or three, to fifty or sixtyper family. Only a few of the larger chicken holders sell eggs regularly. Chicken are regarded as a type of security. When money is scarce the familywill manage by selling a chicken or exchange it with a neighbor for other produce. Poultry constitute a not insignificantsource of income although it is difficult estimate the exact contribution to household income. No record is kept of the number of chickens which were sold or bartered. * Goats
5.72 Surprisingly few goats were kept throughout the transmigration areas. The highest numbers of goats were found in the Transmigrationm area in Batumarta. Farmers in Units 13 and 16 found that goats thrived well in the area. In most other areas, farmers were of the opinion that goats were not suited to the conditions in the transmigration sites. E. Sustainability 5.73 Agricultural sustainabilityin the transmigration sites depends on a multitude of factors which can be summarized as follows: appropriate site selection, appropriate farm models, * adequate agriculturalskills amongst settlers, * adequate and appropriate technology, * provision of adequate inputs includingcapital, * access to markets, and * protection of the resources like soil and water. -41 - 5.74 As evident from the presentationabove TransmigrationI and EII appear to have reasonableprospects of sustainabilityas they are basedon a tree cropmodel, located on the best and mostlyundisputed land in the givenarea. Input, skillsand technologyfor rubber cultivationhave beenmade available,and distancesto the mainmarkets for both rubber and other cropsare relatively short. Bycontrast, most of the TransmigrationII siteshave poor prospectsof sustainabilitywithout further substantialinvestment. The food crop modelis inappropriatefor the sois in the selected sites,requires levels of skills,input and technologywhich the transmigrantsdo not have and which extensionservices have been unable to provide. On top of this accessto mostmarkets are poor. A particularlyproblematic site is KelingiIVC, with poor swampysoils which are likelyto becomecritical land withinfew years. The recent oil palm developmentby the privatesector maywell contribute to the establishmentof a moresustainable farm modeL However, the oil palm schemeswil not cover all transmigrantsin TransmigrationIL F. EconomicAnalysis 5.75 The economicanalysis as applieddoes not attempt to captureall the costs and benefits of transmigrationto society.Most importantly,the benefitsof reducingpopulation pressure on Java and the environmentalcosts have not been quantifiedand includedin the analysis. At best the economicanalysis serves to illustrateeconomic viability of different modelsfor transmigration.Of the five Bank supportedtransmigration projects audited so far (TransmigrationI,1I Ill, IV, and SwampsI), only the two projectsbased on rubber productionhave proveneconomically viable. 5.76 The EconomicRates of Return have been recalculatedunder the same assumptionsas those in the PCRs but havingthe advantageof more recent data on yields,prices production, area cultivated,and off farm incomeas derivedfrom the 1992survey. Cost and benefit streams until projectcompletion r-e those reportedin the PCRswhile from1991 onwards they are based on the 1992survey, the interveningyears' data are interpolationsbetween PCR data and 1992data, for detailssee AnnexI-Tables 24, 25 and 26. 5.77 The calculationof rubberyields requires a specialmention. The ImpactEvaluation has taken into accounta gradualincrease in the farmers'investment in rubberplantation as theystart harvestingthe early crops,as well as an increasein the intensityof rubber tappingwhich was noted in the PCR's and in the ImpactEvaluation Survey for both TransmigrationI and III Accordingly, the activelife of the rubber trees is assumedto be only 15 years,with four yearsof intense tapping at the rate of 2.47 tons/haper year.
Table5.5: EconomicRates of Retun )
Sm PCR Mp TransmigratonI 11.5 16.6 19 TransmigrationII 120 2.7 0 TransmigramlonIII 14.0 11.3 25
Source:Annex I-Tabies 24, 25 & 26
5.78 The revsed rate of returnis 19 percentfor TransmigrationL The differencein the ERR estimatesof the SAR and PCR, and the ImpactEvaluation for TransmigrationI is mainlybecause the fact that off-farmincome stream has been includedin the impactestimates. Excludingthe off- farm incomethe ERR is 15 percent which is only slightlylower than the PCR estimateof 16.6 - 42 - percent. This difference can be accounted for by the lower levels of income from food crops and livestock noted in the Survey than those estimated in the PCR. 5.79 In Transmigration II the RERR is about 0 as compared to the PCR estimate of 2.7 percent. The smalldifference, between the two is due to the higher actual agriculturalcosts observed by the Impact Evaluation Survey. The PAR estimated the ERR to be negative. As the differences between estimates are minor no attempt has been made by this evaluation to trace the reasons further. 5.80 The 25 percent RERR for Transmigration mHis considerablyhigher than both SAR and PCR estimates primarily due to the inclusion of off farm income (without off farm income RERR would be 19 percent) and to earlier than previouslyestimated additional planting of rubber combined with an assumption that intensive tapping will also be the norm in this project area. There is some uncertainty about the magnitude of farmers' own investment in additional rubber and about rubber maintenance and harvesting costs; the latter has been assumed similar to costs in Transmigration I where more reliable data are available. The analysisis not very sensitive to variations in costs. The major uncertainty concerns rubber tapping intensity and timing of planting additional rubber trees which greatly affects yields. G. Conclusion 5.81 The tree crop model applied in Transmigration I and III must be judged very successful having provided a relativelyhigh level of income on an economicallyand environmentallysustainable basis. 5.82 A state owned rubber processing plant, PTP X was established under Transmigration III and had monopoly on rubber purchased. The monopoly was broken in 1991 by private traders offering prices 30-40 percent higher than PT? X; this has contributed to the high income levels. If, however, the PTP X is forced out of the market, the extension service it provideswill also disappear.
5.83 Intensive cultivation of mixed food crops: cassava/maize/rice/legumeswas foreseen in Transmigration II. The cropping pattern was based on a high input/high output model with sharp labor peaks, requiring sophisticatedmanagement and timing. The cropping intensitywas assumedto be 2.0. In practice, the mixed cropping system never developed as intended because of a multitude of constraints: poor soil conditions,pests, inadequate access to markets, shortage of capital, and poor extension service. The appraisal expectations for food crop in Transmigration II and III must be characterized as highly unrealistic if not faulty. Most of the sites in Transmigration II are not sustainablewith the present mode of production. The Government is now relying on private sectors investment in tree crops for rehabilitation. While this may in the short to medium run prove beneficial to transmigrants,the uncontrolled plantation development as is presently executed has the potential to cause severe environmental damage. 5.84 The per family investment was higher in the tree crop based projects, $15,500 and $19,200 for Transmigration I and m respectively against $8,200 in the food crop project. The cost per ha developed was $7,750 and $8,550 for the tree crop projects and $5,155 for Transmigration II." The substanti.lly higher economic rate of return in tree crops: 19 percent and 25 percent against 0 percent in food crops fullyjustifies the higher cost per family.3 Thus the higher cost per familyis fullyjustified.
32 1992US$.
33 TheERR calculation does not capture benefits of relievingpopulation pressure on Java and environmental costs. - 43 -
VI REGIONALAND NATIONALASPECTS
A. Regional Development
6.1 Under the three Bank sponsored projects approximately25,000 families were settled in southern Sumatra. This is less than 10 percent of the more than 300,000 sponsored families transmigratingto Sumatra during 1977 - 1986. No attempt has been made to estimate the impact on the receiving areas by individualtransmigration projects. The 1986 Transmigration Study34assessed the role of transmigration in regional development. A few points are discussed further here.
6.2 One of the most important contributions to the regional economy is claimed to be the construction and maintenance of roads essential to marketing agriculturalproducts. One of the major infrastructure projects in Sumatra is the Trans-SumatranHighway opening the central plains of the island to transmigration. It has benefitted the relatively sparse original farming population but harmed the tribal population (see 6.8). Only in few cases do the project specific access- and connecting road systembenefit the local population because of the "island"design of transmigration sites.
6.3 Transmigration contributes significantlyto public cxpenditure in receiving areas. The transmigration development budget in Jambi constituted 37 percent of provincial development budgets in 1985/86. The corresponding share in South Sumatra was 29.8 percent. A major share of the employment generated by such investments benefit transmigrants and migrant contract workers but the local communitiesalso benefit, directlyor indirectly,as suppliers of goods and services to the n--wpopulation.
6.4 Recurrent expenditure budgets for, e.g., roads are based on a population density and road standard & length formula providingproportionally increased budgets to receivingprovinces and districts when administrative responsibilityis transferred from MoT to local authorities. Thus local budget should increase commensurate with increased maintenance needs. Judging from the road condition in the sites surveyedlittle or no maintenance is being done. Two issues need to be raised in this connection. First, as maintenance funds have not been provided during the site establishment period, which with normal delays last 6-8 years, roads are generally in a very poor condition when handed over to local authorities and repairs are beyond the means allocated35 and second, local authorities may place higher priority on roads other than those serving transmnigrationsites - and a common complaint by transmigrants is that they frequently do neglect transmigration sites.
6.5 The expansion of public services such as agricultural extension, education and health services requires both increased administrative capacity at local level and increased budgetary provisions. The frequent complaints heard by the evaluation team about non payment of salaries to extension workers and teachers indicates that administrativecapacity has not expanded in line with needs. Health care delivery has not had excessivevacancies nor problems with salary payment.
6.6 While local communities,in particular towns along the main transport routes, benefit from the increased economic activity, they also experience rapid population growth and increased
34 Op.clt
35 Thisdespite a programin the closingyears of TransmigrationIIIto rehabilitateroads which had been allowed to deteriorateIn TransmigrationI and 111. - 44 - trafficintensity, none of whichthe townsare plannedto accommodate.The result is poorlymanaged or chaotic town developmentwith traffic congestionand, more serious,shortage of safe drinking water supplyand lack of seweragetreatment. 6.7 The institutionalaspects of implementationof transmigrationhas been adequatelydealt with in the 1986Study and subsequentaudits which concluded as follows: TransmigrationI A special Project ManagementUnit (PMU) which after a faltering start efficientlycoordinated the activitiesof several participating agencies was creditedfor efficientimplementation.%
TransmigrationII Resources and responsibilitywere allocated to various ministriesand a coordinatingboard, consisting of involvedministries was to reportdirectly to the President. Thisarrargement resulted in considerablemanagerial problems and provedunsatisfactory.37
Transmigrationm The PMU concept establishedunder TransmigrationI was continued for Transmigration m, but reported to the newly created Ministry of Transmigration. The PMU was consideredthe most efficientarrangement amongcontemporary systemsO
6.8 Thisex-post impact evaluation offers the opportunityto assessthe longterm effectsof the three different institutionalarrangements for implementation.It iq importantto note that, in terms of qualityof operationsand maintenanceafter administrativeresponsibilities are transferred to localauthorities this evaluationcannot discern any difference between the three projectsstudied.
6.9 This finding may implicitlysupport proponents of a single strong institution responsible for implementation.However, the problemsof budgetaryconstraints, administrative capacity and lack of ownershipare not the resultsof the specificinplementation model chosen by centralauthorities but the result of central management of inplemenation whether by several line ministries or one ministry. Local(district level) authorities were scarcelyinvolved in planningor implementationof what, in many places, amountsto a 50 percent increasein populationand infrastructure. As a consequencethe local authorities are ill prepared to manageintegration of the new "implanted" societyat projectcompletion.
6.10 The necessarybuilding of localcapacity, both quantitativelyand qualitatively,cannot not take nlace simultaneouslywith the buildingof the new transmigrationsociety as longas the resource flov ypass the District (Kabupaten)administration. An implementationmodel where the local administrationgradually assumes responsibility, adequately supported and supervisedby a central authority(MOT) througha PMU shouldbe considerer-.
3B PARNo.5157 op cIt p.6
3' PAR No.11431op.clt p.15.
38 PAR No.11431op.cl. p.15.
39 A decentralzed (provincial)Implementation model was suggestedfor Transmigra8tonII, but rejected as too complex -45 - B Iigenous People 6.11 The forest-coveredinterfluves and foothillsof southernSumatra, sometimes referred to as "tanah kosong' or empty land, have snce prehistorictumes been home to groups of nomadic, hunter-gathererpeople knownto others as the Kubu or AnakDalam, and amongthemselves as the Orang Rimbaand Orang Dalam. As the area of the forestshas diminishedand as the forestblocks have becomefragmented, a few Kubuhave adaptedto a setded wayof life. Somehave resorted to beggingat bus stations or stoppingcars, weanng little more than a loincloth,and carryinga long huntingspear, but capitalizingon the considerablefear that mostIndonesians have of them. Most, however,have determinedlytried to retain their traditionalpattern of existence;the Orang Dalam are primarilyswidden cultivators while the Orang Rimbaare essentiallyhunter-gatherers who also practiceswidden cultivation. There may now be about 4-5,000nomadic Kubu left for whomthe forestprovides game, tubers, forest fruit, leaves,honey, snails, river prawns and a range of valuable productscollected for externaltrade. Their knowledgeof, and familiaritywith, the forest hasbeen exploitedby surveyteams fromoil or timbercompanies over the years. 6.12 The nomadicway of lifecasts the Kubuoutside the Indonesianadministrative structure, and they fail to qualifyfor landownership because, under the BasicAgrarian Law of 1960,land title can be granted only to those who cultivatedry land or irrigatedcrops, not to nomadichunter- gathererswho livein forestswhich are regardedas the propertyof the State. As a result,they had, until recently,no acknowledgedbasis from which to protestagainst the conversionof 'their' forests for plantationsand settlements. Their chosenlifestyle is completelyin oppositionto the policyof government,and a numberof attemptshave been madeover the yearsto providesettlements where it washoped they wouldadopt setded agriculture.Few if any of these attemptscan be countedas successes. 6.13 In 1984,representatives of the Kubu livingjust east of Bangko,between the Bank- supportedtransmigration settlements of KuamangKuning and HitamUlu, made direct representation to the localregent or "Bupati"who sympatheticallyheard their requestfor an area of forest in which they could live in the way they desired,safe from loggingand clearance. The designationof the DuabelasHills to the north and northeastof HitamUlu as a protectedarea for the Kubuwas agreed by the Governor of Jambi and the proposal was forwarded to the Ministe.rof Forestry for confirmation.The necessaryletters for renegotiatinglogging concessions and establishingthe reserve have, however,remained unsigned. 6.14 Under the landmarklegislation of LawNo.10/1992 on PopulationDevelopment and the Developmentof Happyand ProsperousFamilies, the Kubucan be recognizedas 'vulnerablepeoples', thosewho in the past havebeen peripheralto governmentconcerns, forced to changetheir cultures, relinquishtheir territories,and benefittedlittle fromdevelopment activities. The new law explicitly recognizesthe rightsof suchvulnerable people to utilizetheir customaryterritorial heritage including landand resources,to maintaintheir livelihood,and to chosealternatives in development.The same rightscould also be affordedto the moresettled non-tribalMelayu farmers who still find themselves in land disputeswith transmigrantsbecause they have been in the areas for hundredsof years. It should be realizedthat there are as yet no regulationsto enforce the new law,but its implications are clear and very appropriate. 6.15 Issuesof indigenous(tribal) peoples and conservationwere not requiredto be addressed in projectpreparation. The terms of referencedid refer to identifyingindigenous settlements in the proposedtransmigration areas, but since the Kubu have no settlements,their interestscould not be incorporated,although the presenceof Kubu groupswas well-known to the field surveygroups. - 46 - 6.16 As a followup on the preliminaryfindings of this evaluation,the Bank conducteda special investigationon the fate of the Kubus. The investigationconfirmed that the Bank- supportedsites at KuamangKuning, Hitam Ulu and KubangUjo have had major negativeand probablyunmitigable ihipacts on about 370Kubu Rimba and the on-goingsecond stage development is Ukelyto seriouslyaffect another 300 Kubu Rimba, unless the proposal for a reserve area is implemented.Without forests the Kubuare unableto Uivein the waysthey wish to retain and so the widespreaddeforestation vnthin their formerranges has had seriousconsequences. The presenceof Kubu within conservationareas or even withinwell-managed production forest is generallynot regarded as problematic,but their needs have not yet been addressedin any way other than immediatesettlement. Giventhat mostKubu nowhave at least occasionalcontacts with the settled and materialculture, their rejectionof the authorities'efforts is not based on ignoranceof the 'benefits'of such a wayof life,but on a deliberaterejection of a lifestylethat conflictsin almostevery waywith the lifestyleof their parents and ancestors. C. Enlvmjument 6.17 Much has been made in the popular mediaof the direct and indirectcontribution of transmigrationto the lossof forestsin Indonesia.Before examining this, it is importantto appreciate that dLing the early 1980s,each provinceallocated the forest areaswithin its boundaries,on the basis of objectivecriteria related to access,rainfall, topography and soil type, to one of five functional categories:conservation forest (to preservebio-diversity), protection forest (to preservehydrological functions),limited production forest, normal prod. tionforest, and conversionforest. These Forest Use By Consensus(TGHK) maps formedthe basisfor regionalland use planning 6.18 Unfortunately,from the environmentalpoint of view,the maps are inadequate. First, the mapsand other materialon whichthey were based are widelyacknowledged to havebeen neither insufficientlydetailed and inaccurateto draw boundariesbetween the different forest categories. Second,the recommendationsof the NationalConservation Plan producedin 1982by FAO/PHPA were not taken into account. This plan made objectivejudgements about the conservationarea systemand identifiedareas to be includedin the systemif the Governmentwas to achieveits policy of a comprehensivecoverage of conservednatural ecosystems. Proposed conservation areas between the Barisanrange and the east coast whichhave not yet been affordedthe status of conservation areas are shown in Map IBRD 25113. The existingand proposed conservationareas were incorporated in the maps produced in 1988 by the Bank-supportedRePPProT project of Transmigration111 and V. 6.19 Indeed, one of the major contributionsof the RePPProT studies was definingthe changesin foreststatus that werenecessary if the Government'scriteria for landuse designationwere to be appliedproperly. The WorldBank together with other multilateraland bilateralagencies have supporteda formalrevision of the TGHKsin line with the recommendationsof RePPProT,but no action has yet been taken. However,many provinces,including Jambi have produced'structure plans' based on the RePPProT land designationsand the Ministryof Forestryis movingto make major changes to the boundariesof loggingconcessions to represent more exactlythe extent of remainingforest and the appropriateuse of the land.
40 Evaluationof the Impactof TransmigrationProjects on tUeKuibu People In Jambi. WorldBank ResidentMission in Jakarta- Indonesia. June 1993. - 47 - 6.20 The settlementssupported by the Bank duringTransmigration II in a regionalcontext are shown in Map IBRD 25114. The map shows the extent of forest in 1985,areas currently scheduledas conversionforest, proposedand gazetted conservationareas, and land allocated to plantationand transmigrationprojects. ITe followingshould be noted: The originalmaps of forest cover were prepared from imagesdating from 1985. Since then, large areas of logged over forest have been destroyedor severely damagedby fire. * The extent of the Bank-supportedsettlements is clearlysmall in comparisonwith all the transmigrationsites and mostof the sites are locatedin extensiveareas of alreadycleared land. * Much of the land cleared for the settlementswas scheduledas conversionforest and destinedto be clearedfor agriculturalpurposes at some time. * Transmigrationis but one of severalmajor programs resulting in the lossof forests. Others include rubber plantations,oil palm plantations,and industrial timber plantations. - Tbe establishedconservation areas are in the mountainousBarisan range and none of those proposedfor gazettingin the lowlandshave yet been accepted. 6.21 The scaleof forestloss resulting from transmigration activities was examined by the 1986 Review.4' In brief it was found that in almost all provincesthe land allocated to sponsored transmigrationamounted to less than 10 percentof the definedconversion forest and less than one percent of the total forest area. About 30 percent of the land prepared for transmigration settlementshad been forested (includinglogged-over forest). However,at that time not all the allocatedforest had actuallybeen cleared, and the landcleared for the accessroads and developments along them were not includedin the figures. Also,in terms of conservation,the aggregatedfigures disguisethe fact that certain forest types,such as those on shallowpeat soils,had suffered a loss much greater than 10 percent. 6.22 Someconsidered attempts have been madein the lastfew years to placenumbers on the levelof deforestationcaused by differentagents, but the data availableare so poor that the reliability of any estimateis low. Not onlydo the estimatesdisagree on the basicannual loss of forest, but also on the relative contributionsof government-sponsoredclearance and clearanceresulting from the activitiesof smallholders.In any case, the relative contributionshave changedthrough time and annualrates derivedfrom longer periods are misleading.The impactsof spontaneoustransmigrants on the remainingforests are cause for concern since they underminegovernment policies on sustainabledevelopment, permanent forest estates, and conservation. 6.23 The lossof forestwith high biological and hydrologicalvalue would be of far lessconcern both vithin and outside the countzyif there were any degree of certaintyabout the securityof the remainingblocks of forest. As indicatedin Map IBRD 25114,-ome of the conservationareas and other parts of the recommendedpermanent forest estate are alreadydevoid of forest and attrition from the forest edge and from aroundenclaves continues unabated.
41 OP.CIL -48- 6.24 Since the initialsurveys were not requiredto emine potentialloss of uniquehabitats and bio-diversity,and sinceno independentsurveys of similarcoverage have ever been madeon the areasconverted for the Bank-supportedsettlements, asesing the biologicalimpact is difficult Even so, it is knownthat the area of the sitesin northernJambi used to have someof the best and most remarkableironwood (Eulder lon zwagrl) forestsanywhere. 4 6.25 Ihe area coveaedby the KuamangKuning and adjacentsettlements almost certainly comprisedrich ironwood forests, but in the broadercontext this tree has sufferedfar morefrom legal and illegallogging, from smanholders clearng land, and from land ciarance for other large-scale agriculturalprojects than from the implementationof the Bank-supportedtransmigration settlements. 6.26 The TransmigrationI sites were primarly on grasslandand scrub and so little forest clearancewas necessary. The extensionsoffected during Transmigration Im however,required that about 7000ha of loggedover forestwas cleared. At projectcompletion of TransmigrationIL, some 29,000ha o. less than 40 percentof the 80,,W0ha ailocatedwas actuallybeing cleared and utilized. More than 90 percent of the clearedland had been coveredby logged-overforest. 6.27 While this tends to engendera certain complacency,logged-over forest can be a very importantreservoir of bio-diversity,and for this reasonefforts are currentlybeing madeto promote conservationin productionforests. Logged-overforests normally support substantial wildlife and the clearingof it is almostas seriousas losingpristine forest 4 It shouldalso be realizedthat the many speciesof wildlifeand plantsrestricted to lowlandforest are not generallyfound near the forest edge. Thus in the forests adjacentto Batumarta16, larger animalssuch as elephants,tigers and other primatesare no longerseen. 6.28 Thecombination of heavyrainfall (up to morethan 5,000mm/yr) and largelyunprotected and susceptiblesomls, inevitably leads to sedimentbeing washedinto the rivers. This is a natural process,and Sumatra'snvers have probablyalways carried large quantites of silt into the sea which, in the east, has resultedin majorextension of the coastline.The quantitiesof silt have increasedover recent decades,particularly because of large-scaledevelopments where extensiveareas are cleared. 6.29 Whenviewed in the contextof the entire BatangHari and Musicatchments, or even of the sub-catchments,the contributionof the Bank-supportedtransmigation settlements to downstream environmentalimpacts on the biologicaland physicalsystems is negligible. This is not to say, of course, that the Bank should not have exercisedevery degree of influenceto ensure that the subcontractorsclearing the land conducted their work strictly in accordancewith the agreed guidelinesto ensure sustaitudagricultural production, and as a demonstrationin later phasesof what can be achievedwhen care is taken. 6.30 When viewedalone, it is likely that no transmigrationsite, tree crop area, logging concession,or industrialtimber plantationresults in a lss of forest or bio-diversitythat has any
42 It Is rar exceptionl In the contextof the highlydiverse iwandforests of southeastAsia, that Ironwoodgrows (or grew) In virtuallypure standsaround Muara TembesL Sustainable cropping of the tree Is possiblenot least becauseit is unusuaiamong Asian timber trs In sproutingsuckers from the bass of the trunk after cuting. Unfortunatelyneither In Sumatra nor in Kanrmantanwhere it is also found, Is thisvaluable tree managed sustainable as it could so easily be.
43 The loss of a total of nearly90,000 ha d lwd ain forest (e allocaed forestedarea In the Transmigration11 and 1IIprojects) is equivalnt to the space used by, among other, approxdyately:90 elephants,90 tapirs, 9 rhinoceros,18 tigs, 27,000monkeys, 4S00 hombs and S440gibbors -49 - significance at national leveL It is only when they are viewed in combination that their serious and unmitgable impacts can be appreciated. Unfortunately, under current legislation, assessments of development projects do not consider cumulativeimpacts, which should be the primay issue when conversion of Sumatra's lowland forests are concerned. It is likely,however, that the regulations for the enforcement of the Spatial Planning Act of 1991 will require that a regional view be taken, but this will be too late for Sumatra's lowlands. 631 The lack of concern for conservation and broader issues during project preparation is perhaps understandable given that at the time of the field surveys,deforestation/loss of rain forests and indigenous peoples were not major development issues.MThe OMS 2.34 on Indigenous People in Bank-financed Projects was issued in 1982, the OMS 2.36 on Environment in 1984, and the OPN 11.02 on Wildlandsin 1986. On the other hand, the SARs did elaborate on the fragilityof the soils and set standards for land clearing and development which, if adhered to, would have ensured that the land was not irreparably damaged. 6.32 The implementingauthorities and the supervisingengineer in each development contract in Transmigration II areas did not ensure that slopes over eight percent were not cleared, that trees were not bulldozed into waterways,and that the erosion control measures along the contours were undertaken in line with the SAR. Seeds of cover crops were broadcast as a cheaper option. Despite relatively intensive supervision (see Basic Data sheets), Bank missionswere also unable to ensure compliance with the most appropriate development practices.' The Bank agreed to the change from contour banks to cover crops on the grounds that the required maintenance of the former would not be guaranteed in the absence of immediate settlement. D. Conclusion 633 One project has had a negative impact on a group of indigenouspeoples. These nomadic Kubu have resisted attempts by government to adopt a sedentary life style. Although they requested, in 1984, lands where they would be safe from logging and development, the necessary clearing to establish such a reserve have not been finalized. Bank guidelines for protection of indigenous peoples came into effect in 1983. Tiis issue was not reviewed, however, by subsequent supervision missions,although the presence of Kubu were known at the time of appraisaL
6.34 There has been substantial progress made in delineating forest use and conservation areas, largelyas a result of the technical assistance supplied for mapping under Transmigration III. 6.35 The experience of these projects, however,indicates that much more attention needs to be given to protecting the designated forest and conservation areas, as well bs to the cumulative impacts of individual projects on surrounding areas. For the Bank's part, the experience illustrate the importance, when new guidelinesare introduced, of such guidelinesbeing applied retrospectively.
4" TheSAR of Transmigration I was conducted In 1976, of TransmlgrationII In 1979, and of TransmigratlonInIin 1983 a Inpractice, despite Bank supervision Inputs at twoto seventimes the Bankaverage per year, the widedistribution of the devexopmentsites andthe difficutyof access meantthat Bankst couldonly see a limitedamount of developmentduring superslom Reliancehad to be placedon the supervisingengineers contracted by the Impiementingagencies for each developmentproject. Table 1: POPULATION(BY SEX AND REIGION)
No. Usk Name Origia s IM Nmhw of People R*h. Sp rd lncreamed Nubur of- sette Fanu M F Tot Msiad cbd.dmu Hindu Bodlbt
I DalumWatn DatumaflI so5 210 15S2 3674 3141 6815 6737 78 - -
2 BaumaitaV Sins Amada 362 64 592 1723 1203 2926 2921 5 - -
3 banumnatVU Wan a b 386 37 S28 1324 1214 2556 2112 24 410 -
4 BaumuataX Suk Danuu 301 10 332 866 833 1699 1649 - - -
5 EabtznazX) MargasakSl 717 23 89 1678 1611 3289 3238 50 1 - 6 BaunnadtX= Kry. Jay 503 10 552 1302 1198 2500 2388 108 - 4 7 Dannumt XVI TAnjungManwr 400 12 447 983 943 1926 1836 90 - - 8 KuanungKunig I Puzwasai SW 28 640 1562 14S1 3013 2976 37 -
9 Kumng K=ung V SumnberMulia 340 9 370 840 834 1724 1662 61 1 -
10 K_mng KuningX Mulia Bakti 348 6 328 614 66S 1349 1326 19 - 4
11 KwuungKunsngX lKalarja 2S4 9 277 648 594 1242 1194 28 10 -
12 Kumang KuningXIX Kup Haapan Muktd 446 5 466 1126 996 2124 2106 18 -
13 KelingiIV C-li K1 MuHa 250 30 325 679 700 1379 1367 12 - -
14 KelingiIV C-VI MargpPbs 316 1 319 789 719 1506 1400 1O8 - - IS KubangUjo I PaubMenang 457 40 639 1402 1251 2653 2567 72 7 7
Sourc: Vilag Monogrphy 1992
IV Table 2. EDUCATION
VILLAGE PRINRYSCHOOL Low SCHOOL NIGIHSCHOOL RELIGIOUS TK
lo. 1 2 3 4 S No. 1 2 3 4 No. 1 2 3 4 No. 1 2 3 4 5 No. 1 2 3 4 TRANS I 5atimrta 2 20 19 1 20 19 1 20 19 3 20 7 13 17 6 11 Batunrts 5 20 13 7 10 9 1 10 10 10 4 5 1 9 1 4 2 2 fttunurta 7 20 11 9 10 10 10 10 10 2 71 10 6 4 Satuinrts 9 20 4 16 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Satumerta 71 20 4 16 20 9 it 9 9
TRANS III Satumrt 13 20 6 14 19 a 10 1 6 3 10 9 1 haturts 16 20 1 4 14 1 9 2 6 1 12 11 1
TRANS11 KuinasuK.ade 1 20 3 1? I? 1 16 13 2 11 14 2 7 4 1 14 9 4 1 KuamuuUKwnin 5 20 1 18 1 17 2 13 2 19 3 14 2 IS 6 8 1 Kuumn"Kuing 10 19 4 11 4 3 1 2 2 1 1 13 1 11 1 K1 lmnKuniing13 20 19 1 9 9 1 1 KuomnsKunu 19 20 14 6 1 1 16 12 3 1 20 1 18 1
Kelingi V-C 2 20 12 5 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 KItinfl IV-C 6 20 1 19 20 19 1 19 19
Kubon Ujo 20 5 14 1 16 1 13 2 1 1 7 1 4 2
Source: 1992 Lurwy of 20 houteholds fn each viltaep notes 1. For Information about primy schools met people dasredeAether they had children at the scdhol or not. 2. y respnnts did not aser questiS aboutlower and hflhar secondaryshools either becue their children attended a school fn another unt, ihfch they were not faultierwith; or theyhad no children at these schools. Table 3: EDUCATIONALFACUTlIES
No. UNIT Namen HIGHER SECONDARY DSTANCE(D OTHER Buiiidin Pupils Teacher SMP SMA Building Pupils Teacher I Batumarta11 Batumaria 11 1 225 19 _ 40 6 2 Balumarta Y Bina Amarta - _ _ - _ _ _ 3 Batumarla VII Wana Bakti - - - _ _ _ _ 4 Balumaria IX Suka Damai - - - _ _ _ - _ 5 Balumarta XI Marga Bakti - - - _ .1 101 10 6 BalumarlaXIII Karya Jaya - - - - 1 45 5 7 Batumarta XVI Tanjung Makmur - 17 - 15 55 1 20 ,. 4 8 KuamnangKuning I Purwasari I . 210 18 _ _ . _ _ 9 Kuamang Kuning V Sumber Mulia _- 1 20 3 10 Kuamang Kuning X Mulia Bakil - _ - _ _ _ _ _ 11 Kuamang KuningXiII Kotraja - 7 _ z 16 1 45 .2 12 KuamangKuningXiX Karya Harapan Mukti _- _ _ _- .13 Kclingi IV-c II Karya Mulya - _ _ _ _ 2 80 9 14 Kelingi IV-c VI Marga Puspita - _ _ 6 30 _ - 15 Kubang Ujo I Pauh Menang - _ _ 10 34 1 100 7
Source: Village Monography 1992
0 Vable 4. 61fSRL Jn 01rMitLOFIIC UUEIAO AMDfEALT CAll 613V1C3 P&2OM
really Planning NIAI. Caut S3ZtvZCK
Village Atteedenta ~~ContreceptIvesBealtb Sub Souldiwg Medicine Doctor Medical Attendanto Centre Centre Clinic
12a234 1 22343 £2 343I * 2 4 3 *2314 S I2I3 45 1313 I *atn.rteZ2 143 10I 0 * 14 0 1 089 a000 0 16 120 0Is331 hatetwrte 102aa090 0*is330 0 0 6s320 0 1 0 Is4 00 0??I 5 0 00a27I0 Uetnnert?I 300*to000 439 00a 10to90a I 013 70 Uatwarta9# 0a a10 91I0 0a00 100a 01010000 42a14 00 A 1 la@ a 011t900a 0 4313 0 00a 10 a40sa i a00 UatirttalI 0 03Is 0 01 91 to 0 2 Is. o 0 0 16 40 00 0 42 02111 I0 TAM tit Istimartio I 002to000 0 014 6 I 0 139 00 0 020 00 03514 10 00a1460a leaartalto 08116 30 03a142 a 0 11is00 00191 I0 00 00a2 00033?s 13M3 it benoosgol"ninA 0 30640 0 312 0 I 0II7 0 0 0 312 a0 0 7810 0 0 6113I0 Roumaquain gl 0030a0 0 0 30 a 06&14 00 0 1)is6 0 0 0 0 01 to &useenglninl$ o 04 9 10 01121t I1 02a I?0 011 s000 0313s3I0 06 1 0 Ruamosgswing *3 0 * a2IS2 1a a41Is0 0 0020 1 0 11900 0 a0 3170a suame"nAuig a0 0019o 00 111is to 013s5 00 0 4 160a I 0311 000 0 4141A0 01I0 00 0 1171 I0 Kalungi Ivc2 013s700a 0 911 0 1 0 a6410 03*31 KelettgiI- I0 0 2 010 032a6 10 46 020 0 00 0 1 isOa I 020 0 00 0191 0 0 00 000a 020a0 00 lubangfjo 02a?5 0 03103o I 0 61220a 0 1163a0 0 003 10 a0a1s231 fourcst 1962 sueay et 20 boueb.lda per vilaSge lutes 1. leapondentewero cia)d to veto th, quslity of aeorviee provided with I a the blaboet rating. The vsbaber ia the c,lmaa shin the sasber of irespoedeate 2. tn the vllage IUb one than ebo gawe "eab ntin co hoelb faclity the aomaer relatin aly to the bigbeet level bar bee. iclwded. Table SA. PERCEITAOF FMILIS SURVEM MWNVUFFEEDPRM NALMIA IN TNELAST TEAt
No unitName Children Wife Nus Family Total Pecant Total Percent Totat Peccnt Total Percent Tras I I Satum rtsI1 Oatuaerta 11 6 302 3 lS 4 202 7 35S 2 aturahte V Bins Amarta 2 102 1 5S 4 202 5 25X 3 BatunrtaVIl UanaIakti 4 202 3 1S2 3 15X 7 352 4 BatuwarteIX SukaDamal 2 10X 1 5X 3 15X S 2S5 S UatumrteXl NargaEaktl 2 102 1 5X 2 102 4 202 SubTotal Trwna 16 16X 9 9X 16 162 28 282 TransIII 6 atuimartaXIl Kary Jaya 2 102 1 S 3 152 4 20X 7 a tuartoXVI TnJungsakmar 1 52 0 02 0 02 1 SX SubTotal Tranm II 3 8X 1 32 3 8X S 132 Trans11 8 KuondgKuning I Puasari 5 252 4 20X 6 302 12 602 9 KuamangKunin V Susberfulta 2 102 0 OX 2 102 4 20X 10 Kumang uning X Nulia Baktl 4 20X 2 102 3 15 5 252 t1 KuamoKuningXKllt Kotarals 0 Os 2 1OX 9 45X 10 502 12 KumangKuning XIX KarysNerapnMukti 2 102 1 SX 9 452 12 602 Sub Total 13 132 9 92 29 292 43 432 13 KelingiIV-C. It KarysMulya 0 02 1 5X S 25 6 302 14 KelingiIV-C. VI aNa Puapita 3 152 1 SX 7 352 9 4S5 Sub Total 3 8X 2 5X 12 30X 1s 38X 15 KubenUJo I Pau MenanM 2 OX 0 02 4 202 6 302 Sb Total TramnI 1S 112 11 7X 45 28X 64 40X T oo t l 37 12X 21 7X 64 21X 97 32X
Souree: 1992Survey of 20 housaboldsin each village Note: The values given are from therespondents theoelves not frg bhelthcentre, the figures my be overestimatedas there ts a tendncy to calltwdiaosed feve mntcis. Athtoughrespondents were asked aboutfncfdencas of mawi8 swtferd in the lost year, it to possible that this tileepen wasonly loosely pplied. the pecentoa given for children Is the perentage of families In which an. or morechildren 1 ha suffed fromm*slrle. Table Sb: NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN WHICH MEMBERS HAVE SUFFEREDILLNESES OTHER THAN MALARIA
.itiate . .cvcrSkin . Flu/ Diarohea Dysente Typhus Ulcer TBC Othe4 Villtc:-1 >tlwvcr italon Couih . . ; N. TRANS I B3aiumarla 11 14 7 t 2 llighbloodpressure Batumata V 9 7 2 3 1 I 1 I l3atumarlaVII 9 6 2 2 1 lhalumarlaIX 8 I 4 1 Eyes. Backache,Asma Iatumarta XI 10 I S 2 1 Kidney,Hypertension, Piles
IRANS III BalutnartlXIII 9 4 8 5 I SkinFungus, Chicken pox, Rheumatism FlalumartaXVI 11 I 8 3 1 llernia, Bloodpressure, Rheumatism,Stress TRANSII KuamangKuning I 14 9 3 1 1 KunmangKuning V 4 2 I Tonsil,Asma, Kidney, Toothache KuamangKuning X 10 5 6 3 2 1 KuamangKuning XII 19 8 KuamangKuning XI 12 4 1 Gums KelingiIVC - 2 16 5 I t 1 3 Ileast, Rheumatism,FaR KMlingiIVC - 6 16 10 1 I Toothache(X 2), Carbuncle KubangUjo 8 4 2 Toothache,Tumor, Chicken pox
Sotm: 19 SuwvoI20 househJ17iiit o village- Notes: Valuesare the numbersof familiesin which one or moremembers has sufferedfrom the illness FluCugh andlphus wer notspecifically asked on the questoablireand am thuslikely to be understated Toble 6. NUBER OF RESPONDENTSUSING VILLAGE COOPERATIVE
Agricultural Inputs Buying of Agricultural Produce Shop ~~~~~~....-...... Villge KD Coods Credit WUD Goods Credit KaD Goods Credit Active Available Available Active AvailabLe vavable Active Available Avallable
TRANS I Batuarta2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Batu.mrta5 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Batumrta7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bhtuart 9 20 20 20 20 20 2 0 0 0 BatuartaI 2 2 2 0 0 0 9 8 9
TRANS III Eatuartc13 0 0 0 5 4 2 20 19 2 Batmurta16 0 0 0 7 7 1 20 20 1 TRANSIt Kumfh Kuning1 9 11 4 1 0 0 4 9 0 Kummangmungs S 0 2 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 Kuwam Kunin, 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 Kuamn Kuning13 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 Kuman Kuning19 19 20 1 0 0 0 20 10 0 Kelingf IV-C 2 7 S 3 7 7 1 1 18 2 KelingiIV-C 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 1 Kubew UJo 13 12 0 0 0 0 19 16 2
Source 1992Survey of 20 housholdsper villagse Note The figurein thetable sho the muaberof respondentsgiving affirmative ansers. -
Table7: IDENTITYOF SURVEYRESPONDENTS
S;momsosrceU.Npintaincotis -.- ' Pro'I'vince *,it O)riin Villagc 'I'ransnigrants Transnigrantb _ WcstJava Central Java | Fast Java Yogyakarta ali Sumatra 'I'___otal Pcrccnt 'I'otal l'crccnt 'Iotal lirccnt 'I'otal I'crcent 'IToal 'crent I'olal Percct TIotal Icrcent To7ta Prcecat
TR/ANS I 13a dumanaIt 15 75% 5 25% 0 o0 15 71% _ I 5% 4 20% 0 0% 0 0% Battumata V 13 65% 7 35% 6 30% 9 45% 2 10% 2 10% 0 0% 1 5% TlatumadaVII 13 65% 7 35% 0 0% 6 30% 3 15% 0 0% I - 50%/0 I 5% llatumatnaIX 15 75% 5 25% I 5% I 5% 17 85% o 0% 0 0% I 5% fatunmana Xi 14 70% 6 30% I 5% 2 10% 21 -55% 6 30% 0 0% 0 0% Su-l) al Transl 70 70% 30 30% -8 __ 8% 33 33% 34 34% 12 1_% 10 20% 3 3% TRANS Tit M-1111111artaXIII 15| 75%b 51 2M% 3 15°4| If 55% 5 2s5%> o 0% ol 0% 1l 5e IlhiumanaXVI 15 75% 5 25% 1 5% 12 60% 61 30%n1 5% 01 0% S-u 'r_t_lr;!!ls II 30 1J-5% 10 25% 41 ioeI 23 58%j _ _ 28% 1 3% 0|-° 0| _ 3% TRANS It KuanmingKuniiug H 20 10O0O%fo 0 0% 0 0% 15 75% 5 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% KuaniangKumiingV 19 95% 1 5% 1 5% 13 65% 6 30% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Kuamang KuningX 20 100% 0 0% 6 30% 6 30% 7 35% 0 0% 6 0% 1 5% KuasnarigKunitig Xlll 19 95% 1 5% 0 0% 11 55% 8 40% 0 0% 0 0% 1 s% Ku.nmustgKumsitmgXIX 17 85% 3 15% 1 5% 13 65% 6 30%0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Kclii:giIV-C I D1 13 65% 7 35% 0 0% 10 50% 2 10% I 5% 0 0% 7 35% KelimugiIV-C VI 15 75% 5 25% 4 20% 6 30% 7 35% 0 0% 0 0% 3 15% Kuba.g~UjoI 16 80%/o 4 20% 1 5% 13 65% 5 25% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% SulTotalTrans il 139I 8% 21 13% 13 8% 87 54% 46 29% i2 ol0 0% 12 8% twrotai b 80%Fisi 61J 20% _2_M 8% 1 t43 48%1 911 30%j- 151_ 5%L= 101 3%11~2 1 O Sotrce: 1992Surveyof 20 hoisestoldsin cach villa,g
Notes 1."SpottanccusR'lranismiigranitseincludestilc folklwing: Sctilerswho moved into the areaat theirown cxpcnse anid took over the allocatioisof sponsoredti,nsmigrants who hadrctumned Setitcrswho moved in at theirown wycIescto join relatives (diliren oftilic sp1osored tranIsMIISsIId.Inswho have lctStheir iarmntisihouse and tnovced illt(l ltames of lihcir own 2. [n additionTRANS I has pcndataaag"indculded in tlic surveysampile, iesc arepcople who have nmoved in at their ownlexpense andcultivate commnonvillagc land (rsmnalh R), in additionto workingas lalsouers. 3. .Setlerswho have msoved mn specifimlaly to as macacantitsasnd traders are not gencrally inchided. 4. In 'I'RANS I theprtpoasltn of spsonsotedandsplintancus trAtisnigrants was delibteraiely lixetl tn epesentfigmes fur thesegroupsgivctt in villagerecords 5. Thesamplscsin 'lltANS 11and 11I tIle sampleswerechiosen randomly, however. most of the spontanicoustransnaigrants inthese areaswere tlose whro Sable 6. AVRCG ACS AND EsDCATtI LUZ.S
Average Averaes 4e Average not Edcated PerentageEducate4 Pereentase l.aeted Percentage lectevd No DIt Nam Age(g) Oft vWi NM. Cbild Level(a) to PriaaryLevel (El)to Lower Sec.() Nigber tducatiote (IX ,...... _. . ._____...... ____....._____. ______...... ____.___...... _____._.______.__..._.____.. total Totel percent Total Perce*t Total Vercnt Total Pertcet Trans I 3 latnirts It Ottmate II 4S.00 37.60 51.00 I 132 17 on 0 o0 0 02 2 Uattsrti T lins hearts 45.10 36.60 54.00 2 102 Is 65S 3 I5 2 102 s latuarta Pt Vaon sltti 40.10 34.70 49.00 5 2)S 9 4fS 5 252 1 5t 4 Setreuta 1Z Suka DPae 39.60 32.10 53.00 s I 13 65S 4 lot 0 oX S satuarta It Merge sblbn 43.60 33.40 47.00 2 lt 6 502 9 452 S 312 SubTotal frame 1 42.72 34.96 236.00 is II2 50 5CR 2I 212 6 6t
transIt * lUatnert Rttl gorys Jay. 45.60 39.00 51.00 I St 19 M5 0 ox a ox I etueerta mV Tajung Kalsm 43.30 34.40 62.00 2 lo0 la So0 4 2in 4 202 sub Total SrmeIII 44.53 37.30 3.e00, 5 n 29 72 4 lCt 4 102
* Sanmars lamint I pwart 45.30 3.30 10.00 * 102 14 70x 2 o0 2 1ot * too"" gLaningt v Ouabrelle 41.30 34.40 51.00 2 1in 32 402 4 202 a lot L 10 gae"a 7mn It sale Oaati 41.90 S3.40 47.00 a 10S 14 702 0 at 4 2lo Is t eang latmlg 2m lotereaj 44.40 36.00 49.00 2 102 17 052 I 5n 0 ex 12 guemang 9"n 7JS Erya Rarepoan*ti 37.40 30.20 S4.00 1 St 17 63I I St I 52 sub total 42.10 34.42 271.00 9 O* 74 742 t et 9 9t U3 llingi MtC. tt arya aulTa 36.90 32.00 *e.00 3 Us le 502 s II 4 2l 14 lselitkg M4. 1t Merge Puapits 36.60 $1.00 15.00 lo l2 602 4 202 a 102 Subtotal 38.75 31.S0 113.00 5 in 22 M52 7 lS A I52 15 labang Ojo t Peub "meang 43.40 33.00 47.00 0 at is 652 s 25 1 St Cub Total Tremt 12 40.62 32.7 43s.00 14 92 to 6du 2 In 16 10x
P * t a 1 42.70 35.24 600.00 32 i1s 194 652 45 ls5 26 92
soe I ftrineyonto 1992
-4- TIMI~~~~~~~~~~~~I
vsmtaujIt snlLo 0zaaI a cv 1rzcu 2 Itm or az u 0 rn at Ittac 13* 5 1t10 40
Iai,marte21 19?? 0 a 0 0 1 a 2 1 1 1 8 35 a 0 0 4 a 7 2 11 £ 3at.martal1 i.tU 0 0 a* a a aa 0 a 0 s * 0 aAs4 as
IstuMert.?8 1979 0 0 0 a I0 a0 2 a a S a0 44 a 4 A a. 6.tu4 Aart9 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 1 2 0 0 a a a a a a Outeaaer9eal 8960W 0 a 0 i 0 A a a a a a a a aa 0 0 8 I 0 7 I
Seumargtual)gt 1902 0 a 0 01 0 1 0 1 A1 a s a 0 a a a a 8 6
Rumollatalql 196) 0 0 0 0 a1 0 2 0 2 5 a A Io a a * a a a a a
Retinal IV-C 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I2 a I 141 0 0 0 0a 0 0 I ta.bangJo 1960 0 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 a 5 0 2 I 4 2 0 I
Sourc.u 8992 6urvey of 20 Uau.b.1d in .O"b villege
L.cia DIoeomipSt..i 1. WPtbis the treassolratifsst*0. 2. owtled the treumlgv.tims *It*. LuwU. district. 2. Outeld. the dietrlctwitbia tb. proviseo.. 4. Out of -'.. prowleceD. Table 10: PERCENTAGEOF SURVEY RESPONDENTSWHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED LANDCERTIFICATES
ru 171~~~ flousc-Un odn J.an slaI- aan Msah-aIIAg Ja anUalaIII______*.. Total : : All Sorfet Alt Spoasoitad. AAllS S araee4_ Alsl etc4 ' '' Al td |______Spemged Totd_ !crtci Toal I' tcea Total Pe ecrn Total Pa,eai tal Pemas Total Percept Total 0Pecat Total fic;t Teta l r1Peecott TRANSI sagumtats2 15 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19 95% 14 93% 19 95% 14 93% BtauamanaS 13 3 15% 0 0% 3 15% 0 0% 4 20% 1 8% 20 100% 13 100% 20 100% 13 100% asisiaatla7 13 5 25% 0 0% 4 20% 0 0% 3 15% 0 0% 19 95% 12 92% 19 95% 12 92% tlatlsmasa 9 15 4 20% 0 0% 9 45% 6 40% 15 75% 11 73% 19 95% 13 87% 20 100% Ii 100% tiatwrnas4tatI 14 6 30% 4 29% 20 OM0% 14 100% 20 100% 14 10X% 20 10(X% 14 100% 20 1(0% 14 1(53% _ubTotal r.ns t0 |318 18% 4 s 3 29 2_% 42 42 _ 26 17 _ _§ 98 _ 6 _97%
TRANS 11 -- - 1 1 W1asimastaII 15 20 100% 1 0% 2 0% 1 0% 20 l3itaouuta !6 13 2 15 I 5% 107% 2010% I 17% 20 25D%% I15 5 100%330% 20 100l%100% I3515 100% 20 100% 151 5 10100% 0I% fSt%isdtaMeilL 1 21_ 21j 53% 16 S 27% _0% 7 40101_IU ! 30 I400% 4 100_M% i
TRANS It Kwasn"s,Xura;otI1 20 1 5% I 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% KaainangKuilas |S 19 1 5% 1 5% I 5% 1 5% 3 15% 3 16% KIaa.taaKuniag10 20 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% KOatO4 Kuniot 13 19 1 5% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 2 10% 1 5% KuamangKunnia 19 17 2 1,0% A A 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
K9*00;tIV-C. 2 13 1 5% 0o 0%, I 5% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% K.tungelV-C. | 156 2' 10% j 7%j 1 5% 0 0% 10 50% 7 47%
_ 2~~~~~6 1 5% I 6%' 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% SubtTa n| H 77RA:w P!3|=9;|" 9 4 -Ij.:1=|
Sow.o 191JSuvey of 20 bosebohh ja ead"hvilase
Notes r irguresin the All column arethe nunmber and perctntage of the20 resxondents who hbve not receivedcertificates. Figuresin the 'Sonsprea d column give tlhenumber of the sponsoredtransmigrants in the surveysamples wlho have not receivedtheir certificates
ta, to
0~
Table 11. AVX= VSMUL? taS cCloW To VIWM WCUMus-
Ul value. g1heo 10 hq.ie 1TWAL Ur? icmS
_____...... _._... _...... _...... _bor of " to per 9ob. I B*cb.2Ss Lnet Av*orge, Tn 1o0e LtY36OC n a"2VAINcJ 636 11112UID AlI ati ric et V&lw etof * e uIber of _umd twmlte op.epla l*oot S.f uffictlet Family lcom LLAC1 CaOmS CamPC ClOtS Con,md Coeuesd alse Co 1t 82 Is 84 is 86 3 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 to TIM3 I 58s 5.40,346 1.532 6.737 4.34 789.265 1.09S.694 1.064.807 s.tmszte a 46,813,590 (590,6005 1.044,500 710.500 2,672,000 2.400,000 18.630 9.962 4,7*9,542 .2 2,921 4.93 .68.405 8,502.600 2.144.177 Stuett. S 22.010,454 (96,050) 08,7510 50.000 1.49.167 6.240,000 1425as 8.598 550 526 1.811 4.00 704.000 1.054.000 2.10.9815 eit,mette I 13.2)s.956 (O9,s50o) 5.I4,000 11.00e 5.70.634 1,440.000 15,560 6.s40 50. ."6.SSS 4,123.649 332 1,699 5.12 816.7*5 1.226,195 2.909.560 at..erte 9 40,564.227 (1.S12.400)2.793,000 78.800 ,026, 3.000,000, 15.740 0,247 500 1.44S.378 89 3.289 5.74 5se.680 898.020 4.062.647 *et_mtrta I 5I .251.674, 1,166,450 I.174.500 2.4,09.250IS,8 86 7.942,600 4.616 2.891 500 I7I ,3.52 4.43 743.829 1,115.141 2.956.706 Average Uram 1 38,765.741 (582,030) 1,883,750 653.710 9.162564 4*,222,520 13.04 7,82 525 4,553,854
552 2,500 4.53 724.638 15.086.93 1.644.823 aestum,te 13 5,798,199 1,06.259 1,073,050 1.602.900 20,519.440 6,476.7)5 8.9O S.378 300 2.6s9.076 1.24S,498 447 1.926 4.31 6 3,56 1,04,094 2,006.702 Sat,mettes 6 ,636414 44, ,217.475 1.509.7S02S,00.S9 1.09.400 4.1S0 1.491 500 soo 2,235 4.42 707,017 1,060.325 1,925.763 A"rage Itran tt 6,207.556 3.232,825 1,*4S.663 1,556,32522,590.678 5707.158 6.555 .95,5 500 1,967,287
675 2.066,327 640 5.015 4.71 1,056.866 .525,58 1.304.66S mamasg stig I o0 ,201,500 432.000 5,004,670 11.169,000 200,000 5.100 .061 5.054.922 340 1.724 5.07 5,05,247 1.642,671 1.873,092 mimang b.ing 5 £74,7SO 4.8,925 958,400 79,S300 13.066,750 2.464,000 7.540 4.526 675 .3469 4.11 888.566 1,552,549 5,557l.42 Muimeig unntng1 77.500 2.604,025 1,294,700 8,215,430 136,s0,600 840,000 30,575 6,227 67 4.20.S556 528 4,059.076 277 1.242 4.46 1.004,161 3.5106.42 5.298.64 usaming 3XloS 60.000 1.903,17S 1.71,S00 547,500 16,257.367 430,000 9.613 5,770 700 600 5,509,244 446 2.124 4.76 914,568 1.51,532 1,444.962 u-" tussuning s 5 572,000 7703,0 745550 8,006,750 5s,562.166 0 9,744 5.849
5,693,273 523 1,39 4.24 712,837 8,069,25S 5.576.126 KI.lai tv-c 2 J82,67S 3.664,470 2,796,2S0 3,01,830 0,455,000 457,000 1S.073 80.048 525 510 1,506 4.71 632,000 8,246.000 839.804 ingsttvc 6 0 7,51.9SS 2,165.100 645.250 1,847,S5o 215,000 15.347 8,081 550 4,406,275
639 2,65 4.2S 770.374 5,855,661 1.600.802 bUn tlo 0 13.550.580 1,076,500 2,"7700 13,846300 800,000 6.33S 3.8S se0 2.205,462 1,874 4.55 94,330 15356,49S 1 271.97J Average tran tt 15.5624 6,255,070 1,597,950 1,36369611,945,255 6e0o750 10,016 6,012 625 5.647,517 414
Sc.:.. 1992 surf" el 2.10 mAaeb is *acI v13.
Colain 1-7 Take itn previous tables.c r the total income of tbo ourwy simple to1"cb category C6drm S ieo coamd te cI verted to * bhled dic Ligte. by dividing by 1.46 Celu_ 9 Daet collected an sit. Col,...It, 12 Froc Secondary dote table. 9) C41 14 toor - kverage no. peoptle pr tfamly a 320 Us Ibotled rtie) a plies of rice (celm (metboddeveloped by Proete er Seaoyo et ogotr Ariulttral Untretetty) Colm 15 UAcetSeIt Sufficient(AS*) - Averg 1-. eole "er AmilyX 4804Stb4114d riec) S ptice ot VICe (COl.w *1 Celu 16 Sus of coluae 1-6 plus thevsle of rice comeumeddivide by 20 Table 12.. ULRNED INCOIS Alt values given In Ruplah
Vilal" Pension Rent Shared Livestock Merchant Other Total .,...... go. Amuet No. Amount No. Ausut so. Amowt No. Amount No. Amount
TRANS I Batuarta 2 0 1 1,800,000 1 600,000 0 0 2 2,400,000 *atumrta 5 2 6,240,000 0 0 0 0 2 6,240.000 latunarta I 0 0 0 0 2 1.440,000 2 1,440,000 Satumrta 9 0 0 0 0 3 3.090,000 3 3,090.000 atuwarts 11 2 3,807.600 0 1 175,000 0 4 3,960,000 7 7,942.60 Average Tram 1 2,009,520 360,000 lSS.000 0 1,698,000 4,222.520
TRANS I t t Batumrta 13 4 6,120,000 0 0 0 5 356,71S 9 6,476,?15 Datiarta 16 0 0 1 350.000 1 537,600 I 210,000 3 1,097.600 Average Tras III 3.060,000 0 1mo.000 268,800 283,358 3,787.158
TRANSII Ku_am Ituning 1 0 0 0 0 1 200,000 1 200,000 Kunmeng twin 1 2,48,000 0 0 0 0 1 2,464,000 KumaKngking 10 0 0 0 1 540,000 1 300,000 2 840,000 0 2 350,000 1 50,000 0 1 50,000 4 450,000 Ku a e ngming19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ketfngf IV-C 2 0 0 1 25 :00 0 2 432.000 3 4S57000 telinl tV-C 1 215,000 0 0 0 0 1 215,000 Kixeng Ujo 0 4 800o000 0 0 0 4 800,000 Avera9 Trams I1 315,571 50,000 10,714 77 143 140.2e6 663.714
Source 1992 Survey of 20 households In each village
Note$ 1) No.0 Ie the nevair of survey respondents having an Incoenfrom each source. f1) Pnsions are utually from th armedforces. iii)Rent Is from lendrented out eftherlocally or In areoof origin. Iv) Incomofrom shared livestock Is theshare-of the prof It fromcalves sold were cows are ownedby the respandent,but lookedafter - _ v) UneernedIncomes of mercha.teare theprofits usda in the coure of buyingwnZ selling goods (cattlterice) where no wuorkis under_ken. le. Traders, shop eoners etc. are not Included. A2NNEX -64- Page 14 of 37
Table 12b. OFF FARMAND UNEARNZDINCoME SOURCES PER FANILY No. of Off Farm Income TOTAL TOTAL Village sources per Family Off Farm Unearr.-d 1 2 3 (a) (b) TRANS I Batumarta 2 6 0 6 2 Batumarta 5 6 2 1 9 2 Batumarta 6 4 10 2 Batumarta 7 2 9 3 Batumarta 11 7 1 8 6 TRANS III Batumarta 13 11 3 5 19 8 Batumarta 16 13 7 20 2 TRANS II Kuamang Kuning 1 9 6 15 1 Kuamang Kuning 5 5 8 1 14 1 uamangSKuninq 10 6 6 6 18 2 Xuamanq Kuning 13 3 7 10 20 4 Kuamang Kuning 19 9 10 19 Kelingi Iv-C 2 3 3 6 2 Kelingi iv-c 6 8 1 9 1 Kubang Ujo 8 5 13 4
Source : 1992 Survey of 20 Households in each village Notes : (a) Total number of families is the survey sample who have one or more off farm income sources (a) Total number of families is the survey sample who have one or more unearned incoe sources t410 12c. r rte All Valme.,gives to Impish £W3 MINSm MM 310381o2 n3 tcga down
No tetal AVeVP ero Avoeae, er Eerevulg AasmttI Sam1l ftamly Civil rtamer tetate CrepOe brOCt co01 cratteas Imbarta se sabereftta Other willi" leeo."aa) TlIeS. .01. a (1) (t) tOrvast. Labwtr Vorbar tnc_o Traders tldatry
ainsrta 2 * 2,4672000 445.333 1233s. 40.000eo0.000 344,000 etumartns3 3 1224,467 1.342.10 421,s3 1,4)1.000 7n0ooo 50."I7 I,06.0 21uo0 2,140,000 et.mertleI 10 3.790,64 379.043 2s,S342 10.000 i0.00n40.000 eo0.000 306¢4.3 260.000 Iat nrga3 * *.028.33S 1.003.146 431.417 *as.3s 260.000 2.262.718 30.000 *60.000 otmant Is ISI,81,40 1,363.164 794,074 1.300.000 10. 1,00 2.100.000 ).300.000 Averasg Tram I 6.40 *p.s141.1.oo i,0nomos 4U03116.201. 1.07.00.00 72,30.00 7t2.44.38 U47.1U5.6t7 U33,633.33 ".344.47 .6000,000.00 30,000.00 1.140.000.00
atrmerte23 19 20.13,440 1.062,04 8,000.673 S30.210 170.673 2.62,300 O3.000 3,000,000 240.000 noStirta 14 g0o 3s00o3s.3s 1,u20.163 2.2301 420.000 123.103 1.69S.644 1.441.428 260,000 3o0o00 1.200.000 Average tram 1t 19.30 22,366,677.30 1,134304.32 1,12.9.33.66 343,123.00 4412,67.37 2.029,074.36 313,714.17 4,640,000.00 330,000.00 240,000.00 1,200,00.00
ra_ag UsingI Is 11.16.000 743,633 336,430 122,000 133.000 212.750 600.000 746.000 230.00 _m-g Eunisg 3 11.060.70 791,462 34.0316 323,300 3SS.621 47.300 640.000 2O,000 945,730 12S.000 1,200.000 Rueang Emtia I Is 14,307,600 n003.70 6S13SOO 2o60,00 17.000 341.324 420.000 72S.000 60S,000 2.762.300 30.000 Emameng&mmin I 2o 16,237.367 612,86 612,46 341,600 166,029 301,400 212,327 '44,621 166,000 460.000 120,000 410,311 Immed. CanIg a 13t 1S362,164 616,041 776,106 44,f000 436,33S 633,167 3,1,7s0 S7S,600 291.000
Celiut 13.0 2 6 3,45,000 2,3S3.33 472.730 34S,750 ,S50,00 1,227,300 SO8.1S 9I4Igti 1.c 6 * 1.647,00 203,27S 32,373 1S7,300 326,730 260.000 267,0 242,300
bang 63 1s 13,640 1,064,111 492.321 2.300 172,423 466.000 2.330.9 n720.000
Averag Trm It 24.23 21,346,233.36 6S'19S.48 137,161.77 337.221.00 143,226.63 2771,53.76 260,00.00 4621,16.43 6,133.62 732,464.62 1.230.177.7 147,200.00 763,431.50
SertC a I332 Survey of 20 Immebolda &n "ea villap
Note. I Se table 9* tor dIttamtio of eac categq tl) Avrag ter Latly Me levnoff fesr mas_ 12) Aversg r total aemle I.e. 20 tLaUle a - mer of familiesraceiviue off tofae _om
Ut
-... PI -
Table 13: HOME IMPROVEMENTS
rl_angodflooor thani Wallsl Chaigcd Roof - -- Ncwllousc - Villsae Added Added| Ccmcai Wood lrick Wood Tirle Zinc Other Total Itriclk/ Birick/ W60d/ Wown Woodi CemcntAdded |-___ _ ~Roomsliousc ___ - lolife__ Zinc Tiec Zinc Other Floor Kitchen Tl %NSI latumnata2 6 4 4 4 4 19 16 3 1 Is 4 fatumarta5 7 1 2 I 3 5 6 1 7 2 3 1 3 3 1atumarna7 7 6 5 5 7 7 4 2 1 1 6 2 natumafta9 17 1 5 5 I 1 12 3 5 5 4 1 BatumaflaII 1 1 I 1 1 1 17 10 7 11
TRANS III Batumalta13 7 2 5 I 4 12 1 9 3 6 1 4 10 Batunarta16 8 5 7 2 4 4 7 2 3 1 1 1 2 S
TRANS It KuwsangKunng L 14 10 10 6 5 10 5 9 6 2 I 1 2 6 2 KuamangKuning 5 6 7 4 2 3 6 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 KuamangKwuing 10 7 2 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 9 KumaningKuning 13 11 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 5 KuamangKuning 19 15 8 5 3 3 6 2 7 3 1 1 1 1 2
KelingiIV-C 2 13 4 6 2 2 5 2 5 5 4 1 3 1 KelingiIV-C 6 14 2 10 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 2 1
KubangUjo IS 3 8 2 4 2 3 3 3 1 1
SoucI 1 Suy o(20houhol inviha villag
Figures reprcsent Ihc nmbimerof respondents who thad madcthc improvements (i.e. in Blalumt ta 9, 17respondents had added at leastone room to Iheir hossc, and not that 17rooms had been added in total) Table 14. PERCENTAGEOf FAMILIES OWItIG MATERIAL GOODS
Unit TV Notorbike Car Truck Bicycle Sewing Machine Radio
total X Total X Total X Total 2 Totat X Total 2 Total X TRANSI Batumrts 11 13 652 9 45S 0 O 1 S 16 802 4 202 13 652 astuaarteV 6 302 1 52 1 SX 0 eX 15 752 2 10X 16 802 Datumarta VI[ 8 402 S 252 0 OX 0 OX 1? 85X 2 102 13 65X Batumart. IX 6 302 7 352 2 102 0 OX 18 902 2 102 12 60X Betumrta Xi 12 602 8 402 0 OX 0 OX 15 752 2 102 14 70X Sub TotalTras 1 45 452 30 302 3 3X 1 12 81 812 12 12X 68 682 TRANS I1. Batumrta sII 4 202 1 5S 0 OX 0 OX 11 552 2 102 12 602 BatuuartsXVI 5 252 2 10X 0 02 0 02 13 652 3 15X 11 S5X Sub TotalTrensam 9 232 3 82 0 02 0 O 24 602 5 132 23 58X
TRANS I11 Kumsng Kuning 1 4 202 1 52 0 02 0 OX 19 952 3 15X 12 602 Ktuaan KuningV 2 10 2 10 0 ox 0 OX 16 80X 2 10 6 302 KumaW KuninuX 0 0 0 Os 0 OX 0 O 9 45X 1 SX 6 302 KuamangKuning Xltl 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 OX 11 552 0 O2 10 502 KtiM.ng KwIng XIX 2 102 2 0OX 0 OX 0 02 1i 75X 0 02 11 552 KelingiIV-C. It 0 O2 0 OX 0 OX 0 O 7 352 0 OX 6 302 KelIngI IV-C. VI 0 OX 1 SX 0 OX 0 OX 1S 75 1 5X 14 702 KubonsUJo I 2 lOX 3 1SX 0 02 0 OX 20 1OOX 1 5X 14 70M S TotalTrans I 2 12 3 22 0 OX 0 O2 20 132 1 1X 14 92 T o t a 556 192 36 122 3 1X 1 0x 125 42X 18 62 105 352 0i
Table 15. LEVEL OF SATISFACTIONAMONG SPONSORED TRANSNIGRAITS
no Unit now Dissatisfied StlightlyDissatisfied Stlihgtty Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied
Totat Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Totat Percent Trans I I Setuarta I1 Batumart Is 0 O 0 O I SX 2 10X 12 60X 2 Btusmrts V BfnaAmrta 0 OX 0 OX 1 5S 6 302 6 302 3 Batuarta VItIaa Bakti 0 Os 0 OX 0 OX 7 352 6 302 4 Batumarts IX Suka Damel 0 O 1 52 0 OX 2 102 12 602 5 BatwiartaXi argsa Bakti 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX 2 10X 12 602 Sth Total Trans 0 Os 1 1X 2 22 19 19X 4 48X
Trans III 6 Satwarts XlII KaryaJaya 0 OX 1 5X 0 OX 7 352 7 352 7 latartt XVI TeniungMoakur 0 Os 0 OX 0 O0 1 S2 14 702 S total Trans III 0 OX 1 32 OX 8 20X 21 53X
Trans II 8 KuWong Kuning I Puuissar 0 OX 0 0 1 5X 13 652 6 302 9 Kuuer Kuning V Sumber mutae 0 OX 4 20X 1 5X 3 15X 11 55X 10 Kum" Kuning X Nutle Bakti 0 OX 1 5X 1 SX 8 402 10 502 1t Kuaavn Kunivg XIII Kotaraja 0 OX 0 OX 2 102 15 752 2 102 12 Kum KIuningXIX Karya Harapan Nukti 0 OX 1 52 4 202 7 352 S 252 Sub Total 0 OX 6 62 9 9X 46 462 34 342
13 Kelingi IV-C. l IaryoNluys 1 52 0 OX 2 10 4 202 6 302 14 Kelingi IV-C. VI Norg Puspita 0 Os 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX 16 602 Sub Total 1 3X 0 0o 2 52 4 10X 22 552
1sKubeng UJo I Pauh Naang 0 OX 3 152 2 102 9 452 2 102 S" Total Trans It 1 1 9 6X 13 8X S9 37X 58 36X
T otl 1 OX 11 42 1S 52 86 29X 127 42X
Source: Primary Data 1992 Table 16. LEVEL Of SATISFACTIONAMONG SPONTANEOUS TRANISIGRANTS
No Unit N Dissatisfied Slightly Dissats SlihgtlySatisfted Satisfied Very Satisfied ...... Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Totat Percent Total Percent Trans I 1 Batuarta 11 Batuarta It 0 OX 0 01 0 OX OX 5 25X 2 Batuarto V Bins Amarta 0 OX 2 101 0 O0 4 20X 1 5S 3 Batuarta VlI Wan Saktl 0 0 0 OX 1 5X 3 15X 3 15X 4 Satuarta IX Suka Damif 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX 4 20X I SX S Batwmrts Xl Narga Bakti 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX 3 151 3 151 Sub Total Trans I 0 OX 2 21 1 1X 14 141 13 131
Trns III 6 Bttuarta Xlil Karya Jay 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX 2 101 3 151 r Btaumrta XVI TanjungNakwr 0 OX 0 01 0 OX 3 1%1 2 101 Sub Total Trans III 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX S 131 S 131
Trans It 8 Kummng Kuninj I Pumuasrl 0 01 0 O1 0 OX OX 01 9 Kuaswno Kuning V Sweer Nulia 0 OX 0 01 0 ox ox 1 5X 10 KuwnsAr Kuning X Nuli Baktli 0 O 0 OX 0 OX OX OX 11 Kumwng Kuninl Xlil Kotaraja 0 OX 0 OX 0 OX 1 5S OX 12 Kuamn Kuning XIX Karya Nrapena ukti 0 OX 0 OX 2 101 I S OX Sub Total 0 01 0 OX 2 21 2 2X 1 1X
13 Kelingl IV-C. It Karya Nulya 0 OX 0 0O 0 OX 2 10X S 25X 14 KeIingi IV-C. VI Narga Puspita 0 01 0 01 0 OX I Ss 3 15X Sub Total 0 O1 0 OX 0 OX 3 ex 8 201
15 Kiag Ujo I Pau Nenang 0 OX 2 101 0 01 1 5X 1 5X Su Total Trana t 0 OX 2 1X 2 1X 6 41 10 6X
T o t a I 0 OX 4 1X 3 1X 25 8X 28 9X
Sauree : Primry Data 1992
50 ANNEXI 70- Page 20 of 37
Table 17: RESPONDENTS PERCEPTION OF TIE FUTURE
;< -;-Average t Desired Meh6d1tioijorI Wisne for Childrens -Village n No. of Rubber or Oil Palm - 'Future: .;:______.. - Childrenj No. - DyPr Other L -. 3. -_____ Wanted Reupnd orM I .., _ _ .. . - TRNS I Baamm 2 3-S 20 0% i00% 0% 0% 75% 1S% 109% Ba&Mm85 3.4 16 31% 69% 0% 0% 60% 10% 30% Ba arta7 33 20 0% 90% 0% 0% 80% 15% S% Ba&naMar9 32 18 11% 89% 0% 0%1 85% 10% 5% Bamara Il 3.1 201 10% 90% 0% 0% 30% 70%. 0% AverageTransI if 3.41 11%1 89%i 0%I 0%1 310%66% 24%.
TRANSm I Batxmarta13 3A 18 33% 50% 6% 11% 40% 25% 30 Bawa i6 43 20 45% 50% 0% S% 65% 30% 5% AveraeeTransUi 39%3 S0% 3% 8% 53%1 28%
TLNSa I II I H ICKumang g 1 3.9 20 80% 10% 0% 10% 40% 35% 20% XuauadgMningSS| 3.0 201 95%| 5%1 0%l 0%| 50%| o 45% Xuamang=in to || 3.6|| 201 65%| 35%| °%| °%|| 45% 35% 20% Kumng Kuning13 || 3311 20 | 95%| S% | 0% °%||0| 40% 10% 50% KuamangEaDing V| 3.4 20 95% 0% 0% 5% 10% 35% 55%
KelingIV-C 2 3.7 20 95% 5% 0% 0% 95% 5% 0% | I.KelingilV-C6 32 20 85% 15% 0% 0% 85%| 5% 10%|
IKubanaUio 1L 3.8 20 70%1 30%1 0%1 0%1L 65% 30% 5% cAverceTransm 3.5 _ 85%1 I3% 0%1 2%1[ 54% 19%i 26%1 I I ______Source:1992Suwwof20housejodsm ech vap
Notes 1.) he aerage numberof childrenwanted is the averageof thenumbers given by the20 espondents in eachvilag. Trbmwho aieady hadchDdren usually pave the nruaetr of childrenthey had. 2.) T or PT meuma publicor privatecompany 3.) Values in in coluns 4-7 are the pcrntage of spondentswho answered the question 4.) Wuhesforchddens futum: L Stayin the trismigration site and be emplopd in agriculture 2.Stay in the transmigrationsite but workoutside agricuture 3.Live and work outside the transnigrationarea 5.) Thefies givenin columns8 - 10are the pementap of thesurvey sample (i.e. 20 famiies) Table 88. 1*8 UrZL22afl
UIL2M Ttolisi viable Aze (be) Ttotl Cultivated Arms tbe) Caltiwated Am " I of AvLlallebi Ane, be? Cultiva ted re pot feanny (be)
Gotr LU LU 9 Osit LO LO Got LO LO La Got LO L LO dea Iitit As H 81832£a dea I Ut sW Alt*22 AS dea I i II?tl& A Al* la AS dea lIf tt LI at 3at A
3etinarte It 4.60 16.5 56.6 80.6 a., as5 0.1 0.0 17.0 4.60 15 aa.. IS 2.8 a.s 0.8 0.0 a.. 800 91 63 96 10800 100to I 0.25 0.6 1.8 0.* 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 sstmamrt* VP 5.8as MS0.0. 15.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 5. 25 9 9.5 I2 8 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t00 47 58 800 300 0 S."6 0.5 0.5 0.? 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 satamertt 91t 4.25 16.0 38.0 14.0 a.. 8.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 4.25 14.s 23.3 14 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 100 65 75 200 tOO t00 47 0.21 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 SetuneArte t3 4.91 J4.5 80.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.& 0.0 84.0 4.91 15.6 IS £4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 £00 95 64 t00 a9 0.25 0.? 0.9 0.? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Istmamete Ut 4.56 14.6 2s.a 82.5 £1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 £2.0 4.54 25£1 7.5 aa.s11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 £00 90 I7 £00 t00 £4 0.25 0.? 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Average frome 1 4.75 85.2 50.6 16.6 5.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 £5.4 4.75 13 14.8 14.4 5.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 a.. £00 66 55 99 100 lo0 £00 82 0.24 0.? 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
Satuinate 21tt 5.01 19.5 IS.$ 20.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.08 9.94 0 20 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 too 50 0 too 95 0.85 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 etamertt WE1 6.05 18.6 25.0 20.0 8.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.28 10.5 5 20 8.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 003 56 8 100 800 100 0.26 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 AverageIrene KU 5.52 £9.5 24.4 20.0 2.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 515 £10.2 2.5 20 3.6 a.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95 is 80 £00 95 100 0.84 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Knenang Earing 1 5.00 £9.8 45.0 0.0 5.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S £4.5 45 0 5.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 t00 ei 100 too 0.21 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00. KU-"e ""uarin 4.66 24. 45.0 0.0 5. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.60 £9.6 0 0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 £00 60 0 £00 too 0.24 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. an-neng Eaning 1 4.70 19.7 45.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 Me. 45 0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 £00 56 £00 95 0.24 0.6 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 taaaaeg Earning 21tt f-.2S 20.1 47.3 0.0 1.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.25 £5.4 2.25 0 2.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 16 5 100 100 0.86 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Enemoutnt arng III 5.85 2.8. 41.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.25 26.5 0 0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 £00 is 0 too 0.26 0.6 0,0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kelingi UGC . 2 5.26 20.1 45.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.24 26.6 42.9 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200 95 95 too 0.26 0.9 2.1 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kelingi 196 * 6 5.25 84.0 25.5 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.25 24 88.5 0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200 100 58 £00 0.26 8.8 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Suahe g 1ja 5.01 20.9 45.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.02 16.1 45 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 £00 So 800 800 £oo 0.25 0.9 a.S 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Average Irene It 5.06 21.5 42.9 0.0 S.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.00 18.8 24 0 5.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 t00 as 56 99 £00 £00 0.25 0. 91.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scarce a £992 snrvey of 20 bouaeehold. to eecb Villaep
Sotee a 8. Aveileble area to the mea of oil area. arned "ndor oaativeted by roeepadeat (Survey 9WOMaeti 2.8 MAn2.2) it.e. based no current aituatien ratber than original elocetimo.. S. .6utivatad .me* tolacde land mood by geependen but cultivated by other.. S. it - Unumed Atea need witbts village bundartee, so pyeynet sedem. Bs - Uammed Acea aaed outede village bendarie.. no peynente nade. Al - OUmmedArea need withIn villag boundertee rented or eeerlpd 32 - gummaedAm" need outaide village booarndert. tented or ebarecrqpe. AS - 'Cedoogeal.a oI b e of unopened lead gIven In Trma I as pert ot the ellocattarn. cli
Table 19. LAuD USE TYPES
Total Total AvailableCultivated VILLAGE Area (he) Area (ha) TotalArem (ha) X of AvaltableArea X Cultivatedrea Cultivatedper family(ha) ...... Sawah Food Tree Other Sewab Food Tree Other Smash Food Tree Other Sawah food Tree ot'.. tCrop Crepe Crope Crepe Crepe Crope Crops Crepe TRANSI Satuarta It 99.03 67.78 5.31 11.72 50.73 0.00 5 12 51 0 8 17 75 0 0.2? 0.59 2.54 0.00 Batunarta V 73.25 38.25 0.00 16.50 20.50 1.25 0 23 28 2 0 43 54 3 0.00 0.83 1.03 0.06 Batunrta Vll 84.00 65.75 3.50 14.40 47.85 0.50 4 17 5T 1 5 22 73 1 0.18 0.72 2.39 0.03 Batuarte IX 75.91 55.16 1.70 11.59 41.87 0.00 2 15 55 0 3 21 76 0 0.09 0.58 2.09 0.00 Batumarta XI 91.79 60.09 4.96 8.50 45.00 0.75 5 9 49 1 8 14 75 1 0.2S 0.43 2.25 0.04 Average Trans I 84.80 57.41 3.09 12.54 41.19 0.50 4 15 49 1 5 22 72 1 0.1S 0.63 2.06 0.03
TRANS fli satumarta X2il 72.91 39.03 2.94 8.96 27.13 0.00 4 12 37 0 8 23 70 0 0.15 0.45 1.36 0.00 Datumarta XVI 72.91 46.29 5.38 6.73 33.88 0.25 7 9 46 0 12 1S 73 1 0.27 0.34 1.69 0.01 AverageTrans III 72.91 42.66 4.16 7.85 30.S1 0.13 6 11 42 0 10 18 72 0 0.21 0.39 1.53 0.01 TRANSIt KuamengKuning 1 73.25 69.75 1.25 22.75 45.75 0.00 2 31 62 0 2 33 66 0 0.06 1.14 2.29 0.00 KuamongKuning V 78.43 28.48 1.25 19.78 7.45 0.00 2 25 9 0 4 69 26 0 0.06 0.99 0.37 0.00 KuaemngKuning X 74.09 71.09 4.84 17.80 48.20 0.25 7 24 65 0 7 25 68 0 0.24 0.89 2.41 0.01 KuamangKuwing XIII 75.83 26.08 5.53 17.05 3.50 0.00 7 22 5 0 21 65 13 0 0.28 0.85 0.18 0.00 Ku ang Kuning XIX 78.51 2U.01 2.94 20.S7 1.50 0.00 4 26 2 0 12 82 6 0 0.15 1.03 0.08 0.00 KelinglIVC - 2 70.T7 67.02 1.51 62.06 3.20 0.25 2 88 5 0 2 93 5 0 0.08 3.10 0.16 0.01 KelinglIVC - 6 60.14 48.89 8.51 13.23 26.40 0.75 14 22 4 1 17 27 54 2 0.43 0.6" 1.32 0.04 KatengUjo 74.67 72.42 3.34 20.83 48.25 0.00 4 28 65 0 5 t9 67 0 0.17 1.04 2.41 0.00 AverageTrans It 73.21 51.09 3.65 24.26 23.03 0.16 5 33 31 0 7 Z 4S 0 0.18 1.21 1.1S 0.01
Sourice 1992Survey of 20 huseholds per village notes: 1. Tree Crop areas Includeland beirg planted and mnlatained by pubticor privatecoopanfes 2. Other Land, is usually land whichhas ben opened but which Is not currentty being used. 04
ow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ml qe ome ges £;msa;leidds. eq Agt)espa, .%I%oedes, see **I.. a s...... Steqs £,Iwesase U.sse.spsp @541 eqs.s .;qes m eqs us W10eetvatso; 0ds dos Aq do aeq.q uee *hA"no se eqq e'.9 seqs3 0S..qq ;Tme esesepis 0iS eqs vW5 gems"ue5 ss.S~ Om*j .Iu"0 inX - e *&MD.o qi- pea Pa sswen q g * siqes eSWa, m&il WM-1 des0 quo Je .s eqISje - eqs u - su2V TesoA 'I _031P&W- as sot, q Wpeas p *1 4 mlt *
oot w*.0 . I 9po or, ous s@ts ost wl goPf it set:t i fier *J mlut ' t f,*1bs
"It9 St* lo ll of* 0 glf "I Wol clwe"I "ltsi> tt' -vi el el t*$0
Wz.!!:on t t-l 7so's.1 0ltJ te Oslo We *mr" t St sI *q* weplWtalls w itt of - so Oslo 0ore an |ee-eIu9610 n-eee-e . e _t0s e t g et w tills} e Otet4t I0S "es,o, I0s-t"'t oOiStsovot $II WIO- WO- aO as's *"It*.4crC I I WOt-el 0U9911: Lg'.tn ItA" te 01110 081s- " t t a 50-$ 1g1._t -el n-0 Set tt "IC -tel am 1 A n-e t'l ett' * Sel nn'g tTt eto n Us l;nn onore so I ~ dts* *90 "9 I05es'sU5 r motel of no teIS 00 a irs1 "Ifs SIt0'S of gft VAi . 0 arO n-t eet e t-O et-o O t t09* n-ei eeOOn et n-e Mt*o t-tet4 I'TOIStatga TOMe t "Is ft,* oft I " tI "t ,Sdtlet cn* 9 U-t U-tt eu'i n U1 VT01&To"S MR&a 01"A10304 1410 11910At-§SIM U-neetinn 11141%tet n t5e sUe,,oe*.eti e WOotv I so-iItO etW 50t a ""A tg"sifus t5a 01011Itnt ore10004sesy nogwpsit isei t ~isot eSamse ssans golo 9 silt 0 go,t IS'S~01 1t304U eo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00l' *.-e.-t.e-eA 000 0* n 0111 90,1 050'So of e- -e tt- .. . ete.t.e.n..-...... - .e .. of *smm"$. et ee te gm t t s t "VIMun U-o110 eroi s1 9 all e Sule n31 o,41 eteamt it's WI Go I to'sitso nf ttu- 1910O" SAIDI "IC~eg o", o*ga to's eWsUt n tsei u'swool I Sit ireo go, I osi0 isis1nn egitgWL'S itof eS esiomesest S5t ere oCI e I I tS'O11uns"t 03? eVeW U or=VT"& amam log ~ ~ n meet eV n-tt eMe ett tntow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111#n out PTeuA eM-OSW e "SW-S.e c & & '-'
Table 21A. TREE CROPYIELDS AND FARNOATEPltICES
Total Gross Price Are Yleld Total Gross Price No. of iteld ITotataroms Price so. of Yield Viltage | ield ItoUne per Year I Yield Irmxoe Trees per Yew IYield Income Trees per Yea .^+...... + ...... + ...... (kg) (Rp.) (Rp/kg) (ha) (kg/ba) (kg) (Np.) (Np/kg) (kg/tree) (kg) (tp.) (cp/kg) (kg/tre TRANSI Rumo^r Raubutan Coffee Batuatra 2 100,950 S1.817.500 513 24.75 4,079 500 50,000 100 Satumatre 5 40,680 27,384,000 673 13.S 2,9s9 400 22.000 Ss 40 10.00 Batustre 7 51.000 33,300,000 653 1S.2S 3,344 Batwurte 9 66,000 44.757,600 678 6.SO 4,000 Batumtra 11 94,to2 67,309.020 715 20.50 4,590
TRANS tlI flatuastre13 14,520 3,998,580 275 20 726 100 Batuatre 16 1S.300 8,70000 s69 S 3,060
| Total Gross Price No. of Yield Yield Income Tree per Year ...... TRUNS111 Jenskol KuasnwnKuning I Kumun Kuning 5 1,140 150.000 132 86 13.26 250 25,000 100 85 2.94 Kung Kwiing 10 s5o 50,000 100 2C 2S.00 K qusoKutning 13 75 60,000 800 Soo 0.1S Kuang Kuning 19 1,1S0 160,000 139 250 4.60 185 212,000 1.146 300 0.6*
Kelsing IVC - 2 2,780 161,000 58 1o 278.00 190 18,000 969 340 O.S6 Ketingf IVC - 6 KubwngUjo
Source: 1992 Survesy of 20 IbuBeholdsIn each vitlage Table 21b. FAMLT 1Ah3 DAIS III NO CaN V0AOUT
VILLAC4 SCTOM UANDNEPASATtUN PtAflTIM URDUGc 1UTLIZUa MT? cUmnII uAtMOsMic mnawvm ?TOAL.
it.* Vmon. ChlSd Kme flamesCa4Tc. Chtltra.U"Vsel laa b4 Mme Vse. Child NMellama Child %.. Von.. Child "Gea wamenCbsid fle U.... Child boeo Slms ChUEdTract. 8.tusetteZ TOTA6L 1 3 4 360 K?1 3325 go 43 3) 214 32130 La 43 0 46 3 0 340 2800 1 4 7734 12237s? 31661I CO51n 2 a A Is 0 a 4 to Is a I1 1s A It 6 0 Is I 0 Is Is I to it 3 latamertel TOarL I 0 0 420 its s0 0 St s6 14 560 to13 so 6 A Is 0 0 23 501 is 86 as62o 33 3005a1 56 0 COUNrt I * * Is Is I a id is o is a4 * Al s A a 0 a Is a 1 It is a
Iooet TOTAL a 0 0 4)S 30 540 304 04 632 13 246 lot 41 a0 6 3 33 1 I 365 340 30 302 l0t 41 12iS 464 All 304 COUNT I 0 0 36 1 3 1 34 34 1 II K6 3 30 1 2 34 3 5 la 33 3 30 to 4
Set.amarr g TOTAL 2 0 a 414 313 31 Is 34 20 4 541 kid641 10 S 0 if Is 20 14 36 4 133 150722 *22 413 ad61Is cowlS I 0 a 56 6 3 I Is 6 4 is Is a Is 5 0 It I I 6 3 a Si Is a
*ecuetam Ise TOTAL a 0 0 230 4 0 0 39 S 0 es I1 0 13 4 0 20 a 0 0 6 a 00 t0 0 422 II. COUNT 4 0 0 0 0 6 I 0 0 6 4 0 I 2 0 50 4 a s0 2 0 l0 3 0 t0 2 0 TIMS tit *etqumcteIs MOAL. 3 0 0 240 20 7 K6 46 14 4 346 24 40 l0 0 0 it 0 0 64 400 30s Is23 464 12 34434 COUNT 4 0 0 3s I a a is I a Is 1 6 6 0 0 s 0 0 4 A 3 34 6 2
B.t.s.arte314 TOTAL I 0 0 213 21 0 0 37 I3 3 74 31 0 0 3 A 50 a 0 63 0 0 Os 14 Sol01324 30 ai COUNT 3 a 0 Is a 0 1 I1 a A a 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 is I 2
TUANSit £5Mm56 ua5ig4A TOTAL 3 a 0 476 311 I St Si? 13) 6233 55Is4)3 s0 of 506 3' so 32 l0 0 a 0 Its 511 45 5340 I06 333 OOUNT I I 0 1? 2 1 2 to Is 0 Is I I Is I I 6 a I 0 0 0 54 is 4
5.UmenSKualiag TOTAL 0 0 620 440.32 0 II0 316 3? 601 333 6 It 4 0 24 I 0 0 0 a0 233303i Al 71668OG 446 00456? 0 0 24 6 I 0 Id la 2 Is 6 6 6 4 0 6 I 0 I 0 0 34 14 a
RAe"aeS ualSO 10 OTAL 17 0 0 1346 333 0 0 to? 42 4 440 tog670 34 6 6 40 0 4 36 44 30 ail I90 2* 1256 I6 540 0 COUNT 2 0 0 Is 4 0 0 is 0 2 to Is S 36 4 3 14 a I 6 3 I It 14 a
Ruseeeg tuning 1TOTAL 21 6 6 $3) 0 73316 543 126 is 201 362330o 51 243 3434 0 I Ito 42310 2003056 4 33021I"S0 3 136 COUNT 2 a 1 34 6 3 2 Is is 6 Is 32 2 54 4 3 13 0 I 2 2 1 it if 6
5aseaeq3ar1S ItTOTAL. 40 0 0 Sol no4 3 41 so 0s 4 222 32336o 34 If 0 is I 0 360 0 0 1t0to 4230i Toy10 2145 cowN 0 Is1 4 I Is Is a i31 Is I is 0 0 6 1 a 3 0 6 35 6 a
LelislIzV.C3 TOTrAL 36 7 47 623 718 402 42 363 43 234 470 Sit $0 10 34 31 5IQ0 is 51 6 0 so0 4046 033o ji241414 5864424 COUTw 3 a a 30 la t0 s 30 Is 30 It Is 0 34 6 4 to I 4 2 0 A 30 it I
Wimst IV-C 6 TOTA Ss St 4 303 223 $1 0 t0 42 34 In376 3628SsS 233 104 0 0 so 0 0 322330O43 4572?I 322 00 COANT It is I 30 Is S 0 to t6 6 3o is 1 56 is 3 ii 0 6 3 0 6 to to 1 0 Km*-%$0 TOTAL It to S 362 60 2031 342.7 t 34 344 33O 0 W17 7 6: SS 4080O 0 0 0 in0 33? 39 32716 260$1, cow! s 4 3 54 6 3 6 34 a 6 to 4 03la 4 I I A a 0 6 0 Is 6 6
UrCMea..preb Interviews with we.... at we. toted that the. emusimtsems to ternb .1 1.3b.w #ay le agts mad.cetl.tsm hp the heed at the teatlp aeqi - Table. li. - PMULAMOR1 DAYS 3INSFM3 CM OI?
WRULACE 6SU0I LIM I011*MuCS PLATI073* w£U0133121 NWI c01u.a UAUaU3 fav33nu TomA
5.tus.g.2 tOTAL 0 0 00 £01s 0 Is 14 SI £6 00 040 00 000 0a 0 e00a0 00a0a 0a2@So0 210 too a£I 24 cow? 0 00a0 2 £0a a 0 4 00 0 £0 0 0000 000 0 000 0 0000 77 0£1
Betma..t.3 TOTAL 0 0 00 its3302018t 0 41 24 0 30 42as0 0 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 000 034 020 2012s3" to£6 cocui 000 0 4 11 3 0 6 is0a A 4 0 0 4 £ t 010000 0 000 77 0 1
B.tum.wI. 7 TOTAL a000 0 23530 0 0 S i£0070 a318000 0a 0a0 0 £o0 000 00a 024 20 70 0 124 351 240 0 12ale cOwSTa 0000 2 a002 0 2 20?r I £ 0 00 0 000 £ 000a 000a 2 4 071
3.uars TOTAL 0 0 00 326 0 0 44 0230186 0??1 20 147 0 45 6 00a0 0 00 0 to61s 01 £0lt6O 02 to0322 0 44 132 COONS @0 0 0 30a0 4 0 7 7 00 a£4 021 £0 0 0 000 0 a2I0a I 44 0 1
5.tumart.12I TOTAL 0 0 00 30 0 030 0 4 10 025 31 00a0 5 0 00 7 0060 00 0000 00 0 0 0110030 25I cOw a 000 0 £ 00 3 0 A £01 2000 3a0002 200 0 0 000 20 00a
TIM3 lit x8tweate, 3 TOTAL. 0 0 00 70002 0 1 0 230 42 29 a000 a0000 0 000a 4 0 00 013s 030110260018 t00 COUN? 0 0 00 3 0 03 0 3 310 4 40a0 0 00 0000 0 a000 1 a000 2 1 03a
0.tmrst.I16 TOrAL 2 00 0 400 0 3426so"000 0000 I01 00 1 0 .0 00 0 000 261it 0 0 03 0 0 0 0a.2 COON? 20 00 1 00a0 0 4 3 0 0 00 0000 2000 1 00 a0 000 0 32 0 0
T3IM Ui aanKcg atog I TOTAL 0000 a40050247 10 10 0104 000712 040 a 0 a000a 440 0 40is3 007140$147020so422 cour 0 0 00 7 0 0 3 2 3046 000£1 09a00 0 0 00 110 0 6 4 03 tuma.ngtuning 5 TOTAL 0 0 00 30000 I15t 42 0 01is 36 40 00 1 0 00 4 0 00 30 00 43 0 0 t0163 40 02is120 COUNT 0 0 00 1 00 0 1 4 0 0£ a2 0 0 1 00 0 1 0 00 £00a0 40a 03
I*umsag Ruclug10 TOTAL 0 0 00 20 a0024 0 202to00241 100as a00000 0 00a0 0060 0 72)0 050oI £20 014 322 COW? 000 0 1003a 3 2 a201 Is I10a0 a0 000 0000a 0 000 a 51 0
Summag ua1q23? TWAL 00&0 0 44 0021 t1 £900so 101 ot 2 02 000 a0 000a0 312t0 0 400Os 033 £14220 0101 62 cowN 0000 4 00 10 1 2 60£1 £10 3 0 0 0 0 000 0 1 10 0 7 4 01a gamma&0.ul5u0 1U3IITAL 0 000 04 0 00 40 1oa0 0056 100a0s 0000 00 0 0 0 00a0 0 700 02 StO7 00 0 ISS cowII 0 00a0 4 0 00 a I 0 03 £ 000 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 30 0 4 te11tag Y-Cl TOTAL 00a0 0 00 ato2000 at42 0 6730so?0 02t aa0 a00 0 a00 0 000 0 $333245 04)31 22070102270o COUN? 0 0 00 0 0 02 Is 3 a2012s 2002A 0 000 1a0a00 0 000a 74I 0?7
3*22og££7-C 4 TOTAL 000a0 202"00021202 20 £0 03$43 0 0 0 40 0 000 0 a0000 000 0 3143283 0 142a"4all0 020"? COUN. 000 0 £1 00 I 3 £ 0 13 7 a0 01a 0 000 0 0 00 00 00 £213s 02a
"W'sUj tOTAL 410 00 -0002a 12 0 442"00100 03in0000 0 to000 0 00 a0 000 000 07nSt £20239 023 £70II COON?a 300a0 0 0 07 0 3 4 04 0 1 00.0 I£0 0 0 00a0 000 0 3a 0 4
Sauvo., ~19092Otmvy .0 t20 Emeebo la IsSaabillage,
Doe.. . £1 Sem seelts mob a. wedie. ou hemotleW ego .mtlao eomtuee£o out to Sant. Is shea. amem the weo.oad.et son Sive, on1y the pcL4o.be paid .d met the amebg of lebwt 4.70 Ismvoe. .77. ANNEXI Page 27 of 37
AU1value. given Un 3.9b.
c a Valu valueic c a Val"e vainjc C U Val"e valuel () () ()(1) (1)() (3) (4) (1) (21 (3) 04) (5) (6) istrmauat2 13 161 631.000 48.538 3 7 325.000 108.333 15 31 10.325.000 701.667 11.441.000 374.050 Satamart5 17 328 707.500 41.618 4 7 205.000 31.250 0 0 0 Uk 912.000 43.800 Satmear 7 U5 489 2.194.000 79.eOO 3 t0 350.000 116.667 t0 30 11.70.000 1.170.000 6106.000.300 Iatmata 9 1o 654 1.041.000 58.944 I 1 60.00. 40.000 7 24 9.100.000 1.300.000 10.221.000 511.050 9atmatta 11 14b 447 1.414.700 101.030 3 a 240.000 80.000 6 is 5.955.000 099.500 7.324.700 376.235 AvoageTraue I 15.&4'27.8 1.001.040 65.003 2.5 6.6 236.000 84.286 7.6 20 7.454.000 981.053 6.640.840 42.847
8au teol 13 1s 671 1.412.900 78.494 5 2U M7000 194.000 3 4 14830.000 460.040 3.762.400 1118.120 5.tinzra 1d 16 737 2.310.150 144.391 4 17 505.000 124.250 S 7 770.040 256.467 4.031.250 :44.563 Average Tram. tI? 17.0704.0 1.861.373 109.504 4.5 32.5 737.500 163.U89 3.0 5.5 1.073.000 358.333 5.896.623 154.842 tutes" tunin 1 7 22 938.300 134.011 0 0 0 En a S 1.200.000 450.000 2.0123500 WAY.S7 Zuneng-adIn 5 14 70 219.230 15.461 1 2 50.000 SO.000 3 3 750.000 230.000 a.092.130 54.608 ludueng lanng1 19 521 1.306.500 48.921 1 I 5.000 3.000 8 12 4.700.000 587.500 5.957.500 3046.75 UwKuagIng 1 IS1 "I7 1.161.000 90.844 2 I 130.000 125.000 13 19 7.450.000 573.077 8.81.M 440.550 ZUareag ffming 19 18 383 1.089.000 60.500 0 0 0 33 4. 9 3.300.000 825.000 4.395.000 219.750 zeling 17.0 2 20 7451.512.500 75.623 9 it 365.000 6247 8S 14 4.100.000 112.300 64.69.500 532.475 Leitngi 17.06 l0 844 1.392.000 69.600 a 0 33 6 20 5.800.00 944.67 8.587.000 429,350 lubeCag jo 9 131 542.000 42.64" 5 12 300.000 40.000 13 2U 11.615.000 895.442 14.393.000 729.450 veage Tran. iI 15.0 419.-, 1.025.449 .8.365 2.3 5.3 144.000 64.889 7.1 13.3 4.876.&75 484,474 6.487.331 324.367
981180 IOO=f fulL £5131S LU20 AXUlLS TMTL VA=O Value per Iai
C U value Valuate c I VeIn. VeIns/C C a Valne ValmelC (2) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (32 (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)() TAMs I Eermfta 2 1s3271 933.000 7S.769 3 10 435.000 145.000 14 S0 11.M0.000 815.114 13.119.500 633.975 Eat.mguta S 18 223 534.300 29,694 4 13 380.000 95.000 1 2 400.000 400.000 1.314.500 65.72 Sat.msgta 7 19 276 660.000 34.737 4 La 370.000 92.500 it 26 12.550.000 1.045.833 1.478.000 67t.90 Iatgtaw 9 19 280 576.000 50.316 2 3 90.000 45.000 4 22 9.600.0001.633.333 10.466.000 523.30 satmarta1t 14 330 903.000 64.300 4 17 440.000 110.000 6 20 7,975.000 1.1329.167 91198.000 458.90 Averge Transt 14.6 276 731.700 44,078 3.4 11.4 343.000 L00.892 7.8 g0 8.485.0001.087.821 9.515.200 475.740
TIM1 tit RatattA 1S 1t 525 1.754.250 92.329 6 i8 1.042.000173.667 4 10 3.435.000 858.750 62150 311.563 EaamotA 16 18 3891.295.500 71.961 5 1t 505.000 101.000 3 6 1.130.000 383.333 4.126.300 206.315 Averagefraus LU 18.3457.0 1.524.M7 82.420 5.5 32.0 775.500 140.636 3.5 8.0 2.292.500 655.000 5.178.775 258.939
TIMs U Euiinatunin I I 129 989.800 141.371 0 0 0 gm I 2 1.350.000 675.000 1.709.600 85.440 luamangtuAni 5 14 400 790.400 54.457 1 10 125.000 125.000 3 7 !.335.000 445.000 2.320.700 111.03 turnig tunIn 10 19 268 697.500 36.711 1 2 5.000 5.000 9 19 6.625.000 736.121 7.368.000 366.400 Xtwasagtuing 13 LS 384 664.000 37.733 3 17 650.000 214.647 13 3t 12,450.000973.077 14.037.000 701.650 taam.n Laming It 16 253 723.300 40.194 0 0 0 as 4 It 3.400.000 850.000 4.243.500 212.175 ge*ngiL17.0 2 20 7031.132.500 564.25 9 15 440.000 71.111 a is 5.750.000 718.730 8.m9.000 439.600 ueliag 17.06 20 830 1.8440.00092.000 0 0 0 as 6 17 7.000.0001.146.667 10.643.000 532.250 1 Sue u@ 9 190 452.500 50.278 3 20 462.000 94.400 13 37 14.350.000 1. 103.844 17.624.500 UI1.223 seemg" Tran. U 13.3 394.6 934.500 61.410 2.4 8.0 237.730 100.105 7.3 17.5 6.557.500 904.483 8.330.036 416.502
Saatcas1992 Stvey .f820bhuebold In eeahvlLge toste. 1. LSegen (1)C * comatt n9Atvy 2aniln Gwaningthe livenatoktype. (2)I * aitbger.2animal in tbe livestocktye wmed by the femilleeuzveyed in eachvillage (3)VeIn. of tOe lveeteaktype inmed by the genimile. s.uvye In eachvillage (4) Avrerge valu et. Ilvetee type owandby eachfamily (0). (3)Tentl Val"e of livestock owned by the familieesurveyed in eachvUilag. (6)Average value .f Livestockowned by each. teidoIillee eurvayedin eachvillage (i.e.20 temi &isa. 2. Value.age caltuj.ated from the reapan4entam-eerlaat et thevalue of hi. stek 3. Raber endv.2l,. .f chicken.chege, constuantY eni ar thereforeecimate onlY. Sm ee*gpondetaA go"e tU. mbrsgag breeding bonw only.Others tueludedbar byike.. Table 23: WOOD AND FODDER
: u4prIh 9ml MmartipnE o Dis&j io Wou Supp'7 Np I:rn ii-01 M11-1imHiiirn6mbc tcqru|jiib fot ~Collected ~~~~~~woodtot Colletci;woodlot Wdd .e .id huse build; s ______oiclhg Father Molbcr C£Fi£rca Mixcd Ncar l4cdi Far _ ddcs ,t'PalIme other !
TRANS I Batumafta2 19 4 4 11 5 13 2 .14 8 2 2 3 16 1 BatuniattaS 20 6 1 3 10 9 It 3 I 2 12 2 Datumarta7 20 4 9 4 3 13 6 I 14 5 6 3 10 I Oalumart 9 20 14 3 3 16 4 9 6 1 2 16 2 DatumartlaI 20 9 2 2 7 7 7 5 8 5 I I 1 12 0
TRANS Ilt llatumarga13 19 11 2 6 11 5 3 10 4 1 5 3 14 2 3aumartsa16 20 9 3 a of a 7 3 f 3 7 3 0
I'tRANS11 KuamangKuning I 20 16 4 19 £ 3 2 1 7 KuamanglCuning 5 20 12 2 1 5 13 7 9 2 4 3 5 4 KusmangKuning 10 20 13 2 5 16 2 2 11 7 3 1 12 Kuamaiglairsng 13 20 6 1 13 20 13 6 1 6 17 KuamangKun£ng 19 20 8 3 2 7 17 3 2 2 3
Keingi IV-C 2 20 1t 4 £ 4 17 2 £ 13 5 6 3 3 KelivgiIV-C 6 20 15 t 4 20 15 It 4
KubangUjo I .0 19 1 17 2 1 17 Il 3 2 1 13 I J& Total Tjans It I _ I_ Sorume:19925unvyof 2thotsholds baeh villsge
Notes Valuestcepmsentthe numbet oftlNinlesgivingpositive responses t otbe spe ot20 TABLE24
Tt aulul,.amraatII FPontmkRnte of RedurnCmkultleo
All va*lusI,:,se iN Ruplbhmillions,1982 Cobts DetIts Farm Prod. Y ;o lnvestsnent O&M lavatment Mkting Total Rubber Foodao lvwatock Off-tam ToWl Net
1976 / 77 793 713 41 1,547 - 23 23 (154) 1977/ 78 1,281 82C - 68 2,175 75 8 83 (202) 1978 1 79 2,313 747 135 3,19S - I50 26 * 176 (3.019) 1979 / 80 3,51S 738 286 4,539 364 5S I,3S2 1,271 (2,768) 1980 J 81 3,093 772 - 1,190 5,055 - 838 86 1,352 2,276 (2,779) 1981 / 82 3,486 836 * 1,310 5,632 189 82S 96 1,352 2,462 (3.170) 19821 83 2,388 917 - 1,414 4,719 494 813 107 1,352 2,766 (t,953) 1983/ 84 * 281 789 1,475 2,S45 876 800 118 1,352 3,146 601 1984/ 85 281 789 1,537 2,606 2,892 787 129 13352 5,160 2,554 198S 1 86 281 789 1,598 2,668 4,008 774 140 1,352 6,27S 3,607 1986/ 87 281 789 1,660 2,729 6,257 762 152 1,352 8,522 5,793 19871 88 - 281 789 1,721 2,791 8,660 749 163 1,352 10,924 8,133 1988/ 89 281 789 1,782 2,852 9,640 736 174 1.352 11,902 9.050 19891 90 * 281 789 1.844 2,913 8,177 724 185 1,352 10,437 7,524 1990/ 91 281 789 1,905 2,97S 7,628 711 196 1,352 9.887 6,912 19911 92 * 281 789 1,967 3,037 7,913 698 197 1,352 10,16w 7,123 1992 1 93 - 281 789 1,967 3,037 7,198 698 197 1,352 9,445 6,408 19931 94 - 281 789 1,967 3.037 7,803 698 197 1,352 tO,05 7,013 19941 95 - 281 789 1,967 3,037 8,158 698 197 1,352 10,40S 71368 19951 96 - 281 789 1,967 3.037 8,365 698 197 1,352 10,612 7,S75 19961 97 * 281 /89 1,967 3,037 9,461 698 197 1,352 11,708 8.671 1997/ 98 281 789 1,967 3.037 12,960 698 197 1,352 S,20? 122,170 1998( 99 * 281 789 1,967 3,037 9,121 698 t9? 1,352 11,36M I,331 1999/ 00 - 281 789 1,967 3,037 10,731 698 197 1,352 12,978 9,941 2000 1 01 - 28t 789 1,967 3,037 12.229 698 197 1,352 14,476 11,439 2001 / 02 - 281 789 1,967 3.037 13,478 698 197 1,352 15,125 12,689 2002 1 03 281 789 1,967 3,037 14,S37 698 I9? 1,352 16,784 13,747 2003/ 04 283 789 1,967 3,037 1S,536 698 197 1,352 17,783 14,746 2004 / 05 * 281 789 1,967 3,037 16,83S 698 197 1,352 19,082 S,04S 2005/ 06 . 281 789 1,967 3,037 17,058 698 19 1,352 19,30S lu68
Bc.omk Rau d Rotto 1S2% a/ Off-farm Snoonaftom 1979-91ha beenestimate&
Note Figuresbetween th^ PCRyear (1984) and IBR year (1993) bmae bIen htepoate& Source.Until the year 1984,figures have beentaken from the PCR t After the year 1984,the regurus haw beencakulated from the lmpactEvaluadon Surwvey." (M 1993). The Rubber Price are based on the World Bank Commodity Ple Pw)ctlon, October1991
N. DabehlciaVWRANSIMTARMIl.WOA (AI..IS50) 11/22=1993 ANNEX I-80- Page 30 of 37
Tieeis"_ L I ' Cu 8"dHs-t w_.itbo eM
Nsm L. wdV rq 14 h .Me ( h 8g_: 1003 au
ToWaNuutrd Pm_ uSeuld
?abd34GROSS1NCV4zSwr-nTabW.b
ToIal).i At Gem Gm 3./il mp.u gZM4eEx u.n
R. 974a2 1415 U 1 T*uxw a_ _ MIsew50 4$ 33 mwlf Sm mw 30 O 1016m 49
rdsm. me * 5 ms so~e 210 1 m 105 7n
-P 11 1410P TO 4
Pine. 130 1.2 0R0 mo40 J .T l 10 070 330 BMW mW*tO 10 i0 1710 8 Rvbbr(~swq-v""IW V4 n 311= pwe m 3 am a0 t%e a
Wa,bmwmd SIdm51 3150 17
Toa PeC_ Cio_ )6S7M1.1
.b4w b 1 0
Ofl.Fns _om.(Se. ToMS.
NM.JxetunW lhge ?.Pai Vflgi (Ink) (aa)(IflM adSam 3 24300 7440 335 ?aedelAuim' Iu.41001 Famel atex 2e tO007.01 2mCtepVW. t32 75M7 338 Pam lae. I413 1945 tl0
0um 3 1S0 445 2t
MaaemtIOWAd &"51sW 277.372 7"
Umeedlae (...Tol.S) S de 21.3 500
COnE
T, Cip Puducaim (CSamMa Tae) t 461 Trw cp lRw.Mo (SmT ) 341 1s6e
LI_ Cc SaMT". 4) 3i5 t5 Lauta himsaic (S :TI*4m) 73 19
Food"p las*dCwxd (Sm:T&MeS&) 490s
lmAdFsad Lab-rC.(QR&20 p4Dq,) 23t
IOfALCOSMI44 Table 24: SuppftlngTable IL
Trarnsulrs llon 1. IndonesIa: Comgputtin of Revenue from Rubber. PCR Harvest Planting of Planted Total Total TOa estimate Rubber pcr family new nbbe land Toal number reveaue GDP revenu of revenue price on on tres holding harvet of from rubber deflator from rubber fnrm zubber Year (nomInal) hectare per fainny perfalyb per family familes (nominal) 192i1C0 (192 ons2) (1982canL) (RiAg) (in tons) (ia ha.) (ha.) (ia tons) M.) (R.
1976 / 77 1o1 1.00 450 1977 /78 153 1.0 4500 1978 /79 350 - 1.00 4S0o 1979 /80 SS7 * 1.00 4500se 1980/ 81 S18 * 1.00 * 4500 1981 /82 374 1.00 4500 - * 189 1982 J 83 502 O.4S 1.00 0.4S 4500 1017 1.00 1017 494 1983 / 84 681 4.7S 0.12 1.12 o.J 45C0 2297 1.14 2015 S76 1984 / 85 632 1.25 0.12 1.24 1.25 4500 3558 1.23 2892 1626 1985 / 86 662 1.7S 0.12 I331.7S 4500 S210 130 4008 2297 1986 / 87 977 1.8S 0.12 1.48 1.85 4S00 8134 130 6257 3307 1987 / 88 1352 2.15 0.12 1.60 2.1S 4500 13077 IS5 8660 4309 1988 / 89 1405 2.47 0.12 1.72 2.47 4500 15617 1.62 9640 530S 1989 1 90 1281 2.47 0.12 1.84 2.S2 4seo 14554 1.78 8177 53W 1990 / 91 1271 2.47 0.12 1.96 2.61 4s5o 14952 z.96 7628 9291 1991 / 92 1342 2.47 0.12 .08 2.76 450 16696 211 7913 11993 1992 / 93 1413 2.02 0.12 2.20 252 4s5o 16052 2.23 7198 1363 1993 / 94 149S 1.86 0.12 2.32 2.59 4500 17400 223 7803 14327 1994 / 95 1602 154 0.12 2.44 2.52 4500 18192 2.23 8tS8 15210 I995 / 96 1720 1.13 0.12 256 2.41 4500 18653 2.23 83aS 16094 1996 / 97 1841 0.97 0.12 2.68 2.5 4500 21098 2.23 9461 16978 1997 / 98 1962 1.40 0.12 2.80 127 4500 28902 2.23 12960 17862 1998 / 99 2083 0.00 0.12 1.92 2.17 45o 20341 223 9121 17862 1999 / 00 220S 0.00 0.12 2.04 141 4500 23929 223 10731 178C2 2000Q/01 2300 0.00 0.12 2.16 2.64 450 27Z7t 223 12Z29 17862 2001 1 02 2368 0.00 0.12 228 2.2 4510 30056 2.23 13478 17862 2002 1 03 2437 0.00 0.12 2.40 2.96 4500 32417 2.23 14S37 17862 2003 1 04 2506 0.00 0.12 2.52 307 4500 34645 2.23 15536 17862 200' / 05 2575 0.00 0.12 2.64 324 4500 37543 2.23 1683S 17862 200S / 06 2609 0.00 012 264 3.24 4s5o 38039 2.23 17058 17862 a/ Uaed on Word bank Commodity Pice rojec tPn October, 1992. b/ A thib rate of investmcnt the fam w wI teab an equilbim In the yer200 "ac famerill hav an average of Z64 ha. oplaned rubber tres, and wil havt 345 tos of rubbe per year n average.
N. DabeltefiANSMRU3 B8BR.WQR1 Table I (A1849) P ltl2Vt9S !_ Tramml.2 raSlon 1, Indoneila: ComPuLt ot FmonomikFarmgate Prlces of Rubber.
Rubbe Fr*e PooKISt_ Km pzic. and Le"a hdo.ula Racbag hdoouak and! 1aTU Pnaui cre to cA Iww Qua1ie Poe(le taJ Rafte(R.4 fot"(P.44) HandIn MA.IO ae Yew .i bi el di
97S 6 6 9.90 0.50 4IS 207.92 17' I040 2LS2 3976 87 6 13.05 .6" 415 251.99 17S 1410 92.8 1977 n 13.0 072 4eS 29.63 7s H4.9 09.65 1978 II 6 1665 0.o8 442 39033 I75 19.3 395.98 1979 142 6 21.30 I.IS 623 ?1I.5 175 3&7 503s5 90 162 6 24.30 1.32 67 825.76 OS 4129 609.47 ss8 U5 6 Is7 3.00 632 833.58 '75 31.68 42690 1*82 ICO 6 IS.00 .7s9 "61 s2.9 175 2611 321.08 t983 124 6 8.60 o.99 909 9s3ss IS 415.188 683.3 1984 Io 6 3&6.50 0.8 I02 897.75 17S 44.09 W77 1985 92 6 33.80 0.72 l1il1 80214 1s '9.11 snm03 1986 9f 6 14.25 0.7s 1283 99.04 175 47.95 716.09 3987 112 6 3660 0.89 1644 146645 175 73.32 12man 1988 129 6 19.35 1.0O 3U6 174754 175 87.38 t4K5. 1989 112 6 1680 0.89 1770 1578.84 175 18.4 1324.90 1990 102 6 Is.30 0.31 It43 1487.30 175 7437 1237.94 1991 l0 6 IS.S 0.80 19 ISS7.08 17S n TI5 3022 1992 102 6 15.30 0.8S 2029 1637.40 175 * Its7 1KS303 3993 106 6 15.90 0.8 2029 170 17S 5.s32 1446.07 M994 1 1 2 6 16.80 0.9 2029 38.097. 175 94 537 3sf 119 6 17.S5 0.95 2029 1930.59 17S 9S3 1659.6 3998 126 6 3896 3.03 2022 375 1n019 17TO31 1997 134 S 20.o7 1.08 20" 1854 17S 109.29 1901.5S 3998 141 6 21.18 1.14 2029 233347 ns 36s.7 202279 3999 149 6 2Z29 1.20 2029 241.09 175 m0s 2n4404 2000 156 6 23.40 1.27 2029 2568.71 175 128.44 262 2001 160 6 24.03 1.30 2029 2641.15 . 7s 13206 2m409 2002 164 6 24.66 1.34 229 27135, 315 135.8 240291 2O03 369 6 2S.29 3.37 2029 2786.2 n7s 139.30 2471.72 2(04 173 6 25.92 1.41 229 2858.46 175 3492 2540.53 200 17 6 26.55 1.44 2029 2930.a9 3s n 34654 260935 slOSSNo. 1. ibalm,spa NewYOeL bl 5%of PRSSNY. el* of B 4 NY Sio . (Prait &ad a e)) *na Ieuly. madng andtIandlgH -. Tweea M .
Soue: IrmAbp"st I_RWIrTla W*Dt attOQt fo PmyOc t , 199i(Re t 412 8l le IECW 1~eUo,enSmabI Devtjma hojo pg (Rtpe No 1023614
. TANSltLU llOER.WQ3(Tbl 2: WSOAsQIO1 81394993 .83- ANNEX I Page 33 of 37
I i l~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------
g ~~~~----5------Gg02oo=o88- - -- _ ----- ______S s #!gg§gffgggggg|RRplflfl i] ANNEX 1 Page 34 of 37
TSokSt_nbE ILTAmoCum sm%fd wIt
tat_ Iw - VW t b^b N.eL t "e hol tt tbholmrt1x_5IS0
us"= a vi SW_
so m 5 A lobe emm no . ZOST-_ uAs UES6 WS bma us ts 1S
.- _todow= ule
hasw s4 S 4 lmk u ia a G&W Dm a
-OAd_um tM
P~~Immmft I _m tm SM
sohm am_ um 0 do *=dkg1 I0 TM la2 oelt 5U 1 du
0 mbmmouTso o as ag
T*Wb wk SOT"34b 2X
X_mg4m(UMTdl3^ Xt I
TOACOLSrU9 -li! o38e8$28$28383tlt3n*828^tX: S .-
LE D Jo; Olga
------
}a XSNNV - - - S- i. I I ------_------o--- ' Ii~il . X X,.X. MfXXXXMXX !' M''
_ ------a-8 - -- a--X-- n2g
r E g gS *-^-- Swis---XE--- M -
------^ggiti§§g}------5
I X3NNV ANNEX I - 86 - Page 36 of 37
TWO: WWW TW L
lm.iunntem5 III,Iioeh 00.4.mgabtN B..ifit fe VWVW' 190142t
#4.4 1. Th 3a 4sudtome.t bIi bs ieP ehi0 k.' 163
033tf00 f331:
7Td 1d* Ass.VWi ma SwSul Gmhsie fwaumvsy Ps' fiui Pies vlssI* 1o
Fssd C ($Am Tabh Sb) P.43mw 0_ 2.00 OW 1 F40 on~00.0 vAto a am~~5.5 u a
OhM= 0 0.00 0
TW. 3fod Oe oe o 47o
Umbeb hAomuu(8emesTawbb) 74541 145
cmd GudssuPs 4mama TaW 66) SQ_>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1" sn ML ft*bw(maassg31~~~~~~~~ 100~1342 416.60 an1 Mdhlp_0 LOO I
93Uus messe (Imim Tame9s) mm uaWV AM5.aawy AwmePy Tb- w
Elmoo 421 Fe aw :7416 7413 74 ~~~nua 1 61~~~~~~~~47143 WAY16 21 NW~ ~ ~ ~ I400W 11.00 24 06w 1 1100000~~~~~~~to is=6 185
lOW @U.#UU huSm 1MOW6 am
Uleltd ess (h 14S3518) 1"
Cm" lady T,aua.a TmsW PusisaMeCh- (Sums 7*40 1035 n F& t
Tmcm Vu,wnt Om=Ne TafW 4318
U- I (Saue 17158tT4s) 6
Fuvmw #3186.4 g03 Isu Table IS)151 A
Fom. Do~ (SONSama T*1.18 1Sam 1
TOM cam, 13 |3.' ------a
FX .oooopoPPpooo*'. . }I 5_ #"#""""#""""##"#-@"iO"1a 3 &t Ig
OsIi;:iSr^2ieS¢f
# wBN;SSPui8GGGe,,,,...... Bat t ;;SSdo5e*SS3;SE;3t3iiSi~t6' ' X1
I~~~~~~~~~~~X' - 88 -
ANNEX II
SocioeconomicSurvey of Trausmigrants In Transmxigraton 1, 11 & hI: METHODOLOGY
Objectives (e) villagesselected in TransmigrationII covered the oldest,middle age and youngestsettlement sites; As part of the Impactevaluation cf thesethree projects, and a soclo economicsurvey was commissionedwith the followingobjectives: tfl villagesselected are to be proportionateto those which iamain under MOT responsibility(slightly (a) determiningthe economicand sociai Impact of the morethan 50 percentage). projects on sponsored and spontaneous transmigrants; Questionnaire (b) armlyzingthe perceptionof the settlerson their The surveywas based on a questionnalrewith the currentand future welfare and quality of lIfe; followingsubject headings:
(c) a detailedeconomic analysis of the annualfood . SettlerIdentity. cropmodel and the rubbertree crop model. .Agricuituraland Off-Farrn kctiitles otSettler Fam!ly. SampleDesign Incomeof SettlerFamily. The surveywas carriedout In fifteenvillages In four trarismigrationsites. In eachvillage twenty families were . SentlerProgress Indicators (capital goods). interviewed,giving a total sampleof 300 households representing1.15 percentageof the transmigrant . Healthand Education. population. SettlersPerception of Currentand Future Quality of Thesample was stratifled as folows: Life.
(a) reflectingthe Importanceof the treecropmodel as . SetrqrsAttitudes towards Services. opposed to the food crop model for future development,proportionately more householdswere . VilageManagement coveredin TransmigrationI and III (140)than In TransmigrationIt (160); In additionto the householdInterviews, the consuitants also undertook15 groupdiscussions with settlersand (b) sincethere Is likelyto greaterdifference between Interviewedall village headmenIndependently. In sites- becauseof thesite selection difficuitles -than additionto bringingnew inform.1don, the survey data was withinsites, where all familieswere given the same to be usedto checkofficial agricuitural production data, resources,the survey covered 15 of the44 villages, whichIs weak,and to re-estimatethe project ERRs. with20 householdsinterviewed In eachvillage; FollowingL.& original survey In September1992, a (c) as almost35 percentageof the total populationIn secondvisit was made to clartfyIssues which had arisen TransmigrationI and IlIlare spontaneoussettlers, from preliminaryanalysis of the data The secondvisit aboutone third of householdsto be surveyedIn took placeIn earlyNovember 1992. An OEDmission thesevillages were spontaneous settlers, selected Includinga consulant ecologistrevisited the surveyed randomlyfrom thecensus list; sitesduring February 1993 accompanied by the team leaderof the surveyteam. This missionhad meetings (d) the remaining250 householdswere selectedby withvillage headmen, farmers and women in 13of the randomsample frtm villageregisters; surveyedvillages. -89 -
DEPARTMENTOF TRANSMIGRATION ANNEXm AND FOREST SQUATTER RESETTLEMENT . Pe I of 7 JWanMaklm Pahinwan Kalib4ua No. 17, J.k= 12740Tep. 7999912s/d 7999919 TiomolPos 70/JXSMPM/Kby /Telex. 47338-47391
Nr.: B. 49iJe194 Jnuary A *1994
Mr,Graham Donaldson Chlef Agricultureand Human Development Division OperationEvaluation Department The WorldBank
DearMr. Donaldson,
Re: Impact Evaluation on INDONESIA TransmigrationI (Ln. 1318-IND) Transmigration1U (Li. 1707/Cr.0919-ID) TransmiartLionIII (Lii. 2248-IND)
Referringto your letterof January3, about the subject menioned above, we deeply appreciatefor the World Bank's efforts in order to canryout impactevaluation on the saidprojects.
It should be considered,however, that all project villages have been handed over to the Local Government, therefore, soe commnts submittedbased on in-puts fom resourcepersoni who involvedin those projects.
For your further considcration,our comments oi Impact Evaluation repon are as follows: cm C,.0UnA
1. The Departmentof Transmigradionand Forest Squatterjaesslement is L OEDa tto principallyreponible for the transmigrationsites for five (5) years paci a locali only. Further guidanceand responsibilityfor thos villagesare the $0acaause bb is s the Locl Government Therefore after handing over to the Lca tranau4cationsie Assrud in Governmentcoordination among the tansmigration vilages bocomes' pa aIO thecapacity oflO ad- to be weak. dveoped nu_ be
2. in case of Trans I project, as its sites were stated, the Tata una Hutan that s the mcu duarg dwe Kesepakatan(agreed forest use categories)issued by the Mnisties of PI*IS Forestry,wich is also agreed by varioussectrs, was not available. Therefore, land dispute problems could be emerged. The project was delayed because the land status problems had to solved first 2. TIs b u crade inthe OED Pefouan AuditRepa 11431, ded Dember 1, 1992 .90- ANNEX m Pare 2 of 7
3. Land title problemsin Kuasang Kuniagwere not our responsibUlIty 3. ASsated in Pam 4.6.the and dig. anymore because it energed after the project was handedover to the - pust ought to haveben rslved Local Governmcnt.Due to land occupationby local people during %wet Mon ratilas o SdUB project development period, the Government ha iuued land underMO re pons'blUty. certificates for the new sites which have bwe determined. T'e problems rised since the transmigrants changed their mind and 4. As statedin para5.75, the ERR as returned to their previous lands whicl was allocated and developed clalated doesnot include beacits fosprivatoestate. Of easing popuation prsure in Jmanor the evronmentalcots n SumaUraThe surfve used an LISS 4. It is necessaryto re-calculatethe ERR sisce we are reallynot sure that nndom sample whichshoud be the respondents are not significantand representativeenough to the sufficientlyrepresentative for the purpose of the survey. purpose of comparingtree COPS with food crops. S. We undrsttnd that the Bank has also approved the contractors and consultants,but they could not avoid the problems of land status, S. issu wase cveredin theOED thereforetheir performancewas notsati3fied. PeformanceAudit Report 11431, dated DecemberS, 1992. 6. Land clearing works have been limited only to secondary forest. 'Me method used was fully rnechanization. To m.iXfiwz the 6 Bothlogged over forest and second. negative impact of using heavy eqLipmeutsduring lai clearing myforta wer clearedfor TramW- (soil disturbance),contractors were instructed to plaui cover crops gration11 and III, se pam 2.12. (leguminaceac cover CJops) of 20 kgtba and to spread rock Land dearingwas not a"ays (or phosphate (0.5 ton/ba) on the house lots and far.. g plots. These rt1a rarely)completed in compl- ldnds of treatment to the soil have recovered the soil fertlity, as thebas Bit; inttions wandiiae- t=nmigrants often had grett barvesting seasons (except for the quate to ensu compiane. Smilar above mentioned enmoteand unsuitable areas). On the other hand poor lad dearingmactio bypsi the project staffs and su.,evisioits bave also assigned the ve empanias preparingfor PJR- involvement of expertises in agriculture, civil engineering and scbemes were obsrd in Juning and Xubayg M9u mechanization. tfseCha~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~duingtO: iuaningfield smqFcb 199 In tbis case the DO of Estates, Hpeully, thesebriAet comments would be useful. We ae looldkg forwad MOA should supavise the lnd to t more comprehensivediscussion in the comingmeeting. dadi&
Thankyou verymuch for yourmost kindattention. We remain,
c.c.: .- inisterfor Tansmigration and Forest Squater Ese lement - Direct General.Selement and Environment,DOTFSP and - DireC1rGeneraL Mobilization and DevelopmteWDO'FSR; -Mr. B Fisher,Head, EA3ES, WB RSI. Jakarta -91 -
ANNEX III Page 3 of 7 g PT KRESNA DUTA AGROINDO
O/Ref.: 001/Um/01/94 Jantary 20. 1994
Mr. Grbam Donaldson Chief Agriculture& Human Development Division Operations Evaluation Departmcnt The World Bank 1818 H Street. N.W. Washington.D.C. Z0433 U.S.A. Pax and_1
Dear Mr. Donaldson. Re.: Impact Evaluationon INDONESIA Tranmigration I (LIs 1318-END) Trasmigrazin 11 (La. 17071Cr.0919-ND) bansmigaion (Ln. 2248-ND)
Thank you for your letter of Januarv 3, 1994 and for sending me a draft of the Impact EvaluatuonReport on the above projects. I appreciate your consideration in seeking to obtain the comments of the participants in these schemes and also the fact that such comments will be taken into account when revis- ing the Report for submissionto your Board. This is of particular concern to Sinar Mas as the Report. as it stands, reflects the condi- tions which obtained in Kubang Ujo (Transmigration II) prior to our acquisition of the majority shareholdingin PT Kresna Duta Agroindo and to our assumption of responsibility for the managementof this project. Our preliminary comments are attached. However. we wish to supplement these with a somewhatmore detailed review which will reach you before Febnuary 11. In the interim I note that the Operations Evaluation Department intends to hold a workshop in Jakirta on February 3. and look forvard to receiving further information about this from your Residem Mission here.
Yours sincerely,
Cef Executive Officer
GEDUNG JITC LT. 9 - 10. JL. MANGGA DUA RAYA JAKARTA 14430 - INDONESIA TELP. (021) 6017070 FAX 1021) 6017080 TELEX: 40145 SMART IA ANNEX III Page 4 o' 7
PT KRESNA DUTA AGROINDO
Re.: ImpactEvaluaton Report oo INDONESIA Tranrigation I (La. 1318-IND) TmonmigratiouII (L. 1707/Cr.0919-END) Transmigraionm (Ln.2248-IND)
KubaneUio ffransmiErationII) -Commenssby SinarMas Grou,
Thefollowine comments are made in respectof SectionV of the ImpactEvaluation Report and refer specificallyto paragraphs5.23 to 2.25 on pages43 and 44. 1. The Sinar Mias Group acquired a majority shareholdingin PT Kresna Duta Agroindoin September1992 and assumedthe Managementof Kubang Ujo with effectfrom that date. 2. Weconsider it inappropriateto express views on the land clearing and planting practicesemployed hv the previousmanagement. but would agreethat the qualify- ingcomments made on pages43 and 44 of the Reportare consistentwith the condi- tionsobtaining at the ntmewe assumedmanagement of the project. 3. Sincethen land clearinghas been underaken in a professionalmanner. with due regardto terrain and to the requirementsfor soil conservation. The problemof impededdra.nage caused bv felled timber has now been resolved. Timber of commercialvalue is now harvested. 4. Previouslyunweeded areas have since been completelvrehabilitated with conse- quentmarked improvement in palm growthand crop production. 5. Wehave initiatedand coMinueto engagein a dialoguewith the settlersregarding theirfuture paricipation in the project. It has alreadybeen agreedin principlethat PT KresnaDua Agroindowill provideoverall project mraagement until payback is achieved. We believe that such an arrangementis in the best interestof the senlersthemselves. In the event that the settlersmav wish to PT Kresna Duta Agromndoto manageafter that date this wouldalso be considered.
GEDUNGJITC LT 9- 10 'L MANGGA DUA RAVA JAKARTA1J430 - INDONESIA TELP. (021) 6017070FAX. 1021)6017080 TELEX : 40145 SMART IA -93-
ANNEXm Pae 5 of 7 A&PT Sari AdityaLoka KamorPow: Ji. 1td. kend. S. PagmnKnv. 107Jakwt& 1140 tdp. ! SeAIS.66469934W60. 51bSI Fax.: 665528 K bue RtanauI mau Manui. Kab. Buw S Seiko. iambi.
January26, 1994
To. Mr. Nicholas C. Hope DirectorResident Staff in Indonesia
Pleaseforward one copy To. Mr. GrahasDonaldson, chiet Agriculture and HumanDe7elopment Division operation Evaluation Departement The World Bank IBRD InteriiationalDevelopment Association Re : Your ImpactEvaluation Report on Indonesia
Thank you very such for givingus chanceto study the draft of your impact evaluationsReport on Indonesia. ierewithare severalcomments of what we have noted from your draft among than are On the executivesusma-y page xix No.29 Line 6 ... the uncontrolled plantationsdevelopment as is presentlyexecuted has the potentialto cause severeenvironmental damage. Comment : The changing of natural forest into tree crop plantationsin general will not causea big impacton the environment,because where the forest has been a new better arranged line of trees will growwich will be more productive. Chapter V page 43 No.5.24. The positive effect of the private company ibvestment is, in part offset by several negative factors Land clearing is often done without regard to proper methods and proced'res. Large tracts are clear felled without consideration of slopes, streams and rivulets, resulting serious erosion and logging of damage. Comment 1. Land clearing for plantat.on purposes is always done with a well plannedblock design and based on topographicdata and takinginto considerationtb- overallterrain, i.e. slopes, streamsand rivulets. 2. Suitabilityfor oil palm plantingusing standardreference for slopes is max 40X and especiallyat the locationof PT Sari Aditya Loka the conditionof land is undulated,with a relativelymore flatarea with slopesas slantedto lessthan 8 percent and a very small area over 8 percent but less than 40 X. ANNEXM 9 Page 6 of 7
PT Sad Adt Ld
3. Judgingby this terraincondition (<8X) even before the land cleari.g was started part of this area is already known to be low land (swampy)with the posibility of floods during rainy season. This can be observerd by consulting the topographic maps (JOG) USArmy scale 250.000. Page 44 line 1 No attempt is made to harvest commercial timber left partly burned in the field an uncompleted sawmill in Kuaaang Kuning indicates that harvesting was planned but not executed. Comment 1. Forest than can be converted into plantations has its own criteria which is directed by Indonesian law under the regulationsset up by the IndonesianDepartement of Forestry usuallycalled conversion forest (hutan konversi). 2. Conversionforest means that the volumeof the tree is less than 20 cubicmetres with a trunk diameter of averaging less than 30 cm. 3. Type of iood product is not considered economical or has no commercial value. Page 44 line 12
Oil palm are planted on steep slopes and in swampy botton of depressions reducingpotential yield. Comment 1. Thereare no steep slopes in our area (PT Sari Aditya Loka). 2. Planting oil pala in swampy area as long as the peat soil is not sore than 1,5 metres deep is consideredsuitable with additional notes that there should be set up a good water management. Comment 1. Statement on para 5 25 gives us the impresion that the your evaluation team does not know of the existence and rules/regulations of the PIR-Trans Pattern. 2. To enlight you here are several of it's basic regulations PIR-TransPattern is based on the PresidentialInstruction No.1/1986. To put this instruction into operational directives, The GOI's Related Departeaents ministers (i.e. Agriculture, Forrestry, Land Use, Public Works) according to their related functions used a set of regulations consisting of : a. Funding Procedures. b. Procedures of obtaining related permits. c. Land aquisition. d. Procedure/criteriaof selectingthe plasam participants e. Cultivation methods and fturers economicorganization, it's by laws and it's functions. f. Rights and responsibilities of the company (neuclus) and the participating farmers. g. Procedures of technical evaluation of the plantationT Developments. -95-e
ANNEXIm Page 7 of 7
PTSaAdiyaLer
h. Conversionmethods and it's criteria for the farmers's creditto the FinancialInstitution in it's conversion process. Sumary
1. By studying the ispact evaluation report of transaigration project, we O°D ComireB think that the team has resulted a balanced study. On the other band we questionthe team'scapacity wbether it is qualified to review and evaluate the plantation project. 2. le point made in pma 5.26 is, that the Um- 2. By reading the report of which we have stated our comments especially on Migrantsinvoled in the chapter V where the private sector was mentioned to be involved we come sceme W not ben mde to a conclusion that your institution ham not been made aware of the filyawreoftheppdndcpl existenceof the KepresNo.1/1986 (the GOl's Presidentialinstruction of he PIR.¶-Tnas)us No. 1/1986)the PIS-Transpattern. andthek ftue rghts and 3. In short we concludedthat your team made etfort to evaluate the technicalaspects of settingup a plantationi.e. from land clearing, i Mm rnutsof poorbad planting oil palm, planting in steep slopes and swampy areas, yield cieng prctcs and of potention without mentioning one single data from PT Sari Aditya Loka, ph co-'n s ib to making it look like a story from sounth to *ounth that has been sreuF rvTueta ad in formulated into a more indept report. awan ansre" (some of 4. How ever the neucles/smalholder plantation project with "Inpres No. 1 whkh cread by natui tahun 1986" is an effort of the GOt to make the Indonesian People free dramgebeiagblockeddur- from poverty. The task of Pr Sari Aditya Loka, especially in the case of ing land deadng)wa ob- lahan II (LU II) Kuasang Kuning in the effort to convert non productive sered by the evaUion land into productive land and pass it to the, participating farmers as team duringfidd work in soon as the planted trees are in production which is approximately 48 Feuay 1993. months after the oil palm was planted in the field. We have also received your latter dated Jan 21 1994. Thank you for your attention and herewith I would like to aknowledge that Mr. Kiki Sutantyo will not be available to attend the workshop on February 3, because of his prearanged schedule on the first week of February. If you don't have any objections Mr. Arie Malangyudo, Mr. Djoko Udjianto and Mr. Thory Tulaar will be glad to attend the coming workshop. Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerely, PT.SA AtiityaLoka
Arie Malansvudo Thov uiaaz Deputy Director Deputy Director IBRD25113 IW\ 102R4I U 106
PADANG* ~9 f 4 / SOUTHCHINA
| SUMATrERA 13'lonJ g SF \ BARATf' sw- S - E \orobungaA! Hilir JAMBI \ , ,>~~~~~~arobungo < ur-e
J 2 Ht < /SKW, * JAMBI
INDIAN 1 S bl\
>Bongko^ ng ( 0 \BANGKA
OCEAN - K 2-
qm, * innenang , *&rotSuns fKetapat Babat
- - ngkof ~~~~~~~~S s _Wd rrQ;i~~~~~~~~~'omanf 2S
n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ w t 8,ug,n KetoaptBabaA INDONESIA
TRANSMIGRATIONSITES aroling IV '" I
[ill SURVEYDTRANSMIGRATION sITEs T , oguJy LMTR L~A OTHERWORLD BANK SJPPOUED 5ST BENGKULU ukTnEL Du OTHERTRANSMIGRATION SITESMnVA gu
TRANS-SUMATERAHIGHWAY . i
OTHERROADS u r n \7g
RAILROADSBEK 1 % La
-.. ~ RIVERS
* PROVINCEHEADQUARTERS B8turoi matang
PROVINCEBOUNDARIES ' 'buggang
0 S0 1C0 150 250 Poku KILOMETERS
This map hos been preporedby The World BankWs staffexclusively for , * * _o _b / the convenience of reoders and is for the internal use of The World Bank Group. The denominations used and the boundaries shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment LAMPU on the legal r,to1vs of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundories,
10, 1012' 10t4l r1Thnjungkarong 106'
SEPTEMBER1993 IBRE25114
4 t 9 <'%..-.... -lX
OCE IAN
IINDONESLA :aUK L FORESTCOVER AND TRANSMIGRATION SITES ,
LiTGHK CONVERSIONFORM$TARAS K~s: , AllOCAkTEDPlANTATION AREAS S(GSTINGTRW4SMIRATIONMSIS W AzETTEcoNsERVATIoN AREAs m PROPOSeDcONsERVAnIoN AREAs RECOMMSENEDPEARNVNT FOREST AREAS (CONSERVATIONAEAS, PROTECTION FORES,' KP.OIACIIONFORESTS) (R.PPPT.T 1988)
MtRAS SUMATIEEHIGHWAYT R
OINER- ROADS
0 20 40 60 RU 110 4 ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 4 KMUONx
a o*o,eq*.c. S~
OCT0BER 493