Livelihood vulnerability in Rural Indonesia: Case Study of tobacco growers living in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM)
Widiyanto Widiyanto Matrikelnummer: 1519303
DISSERTATION
eingereicht im Rahmen des Doktoratsstudiums Geographie i Fakultät für Geo- und Atmosphärenwissenschften an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck
Institute für Geographie Innsbruck Betreuer: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Coy
Innsbruck, am Juni 2019
ii This page intentionally left blank
Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Ich erkläre hiermit an Eides Statt durch meine eigenhändige Unterschrift, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Alle Stellen, die wörtlich oder inhaltlich den angegebenen Quellen entnommen wurden, sind als solche kenntlich gemacht.
Die Vorliegende Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder änlicher Form noch nicht als Dissertation eingereicht.
Innsbruck, am Juni 2019 Datum Unterschrift iii
Table of contents
Eidesstattliche Erklärung ...... iii Table of contents ...... iv List of tables ...... viii List of figures ...... ix List of boxes ...... xv Acknowledgments ...... xvi Summary ...... xviii Abbreviations and acronyms ...... xxi Glossary of the local terms ...... xxv
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Research context ...... 2 1.2. Problem statement ...... 3 1.3. Research objectives ...... 5 1.4. The significance of the research ...... 5 1.4.1. Livelihood studies in Indonesia ...... 5 iv 1.4.2. Research on tobacco growers in Indonesia ...... 6 1.4.3. The theoretical contributions of the dissertation ...... 8 1.5. Limitation of the research ...... 8 1.6. Dissertation organization ...... 9 2. Theoretical Framework ...... 13 2.1. Introduction: structure-agency dualism in human geography ...... 14 2.2. The development of livelihood studies ...... 16 2.2.1. From structure and agency to livelihood ...... 16 2.2.2. Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) ...... 18 2.2.3. SLA under critics ...... 22 2.3. Livelihood vulnerability ...... 24 2.4. Bourdieu´s theory of social practice ...... 28 2.4.1. Bourdieu and human geography ...... 28 2.4.2. Historical background of practice theory ...... 30 2.4.3. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice: a conceptual framework ...... 33 2.5. Theoretical framework ...... 41
3. Research Design and Methodology ...... 45 3.1. Introduction: philosophy, theory, and methods ...... 46 3.2. Research approach ...... 46 3.2.1. Qualitative approach ...... 46 3.2.2. Case study ...... 47 3.3. Research structures ...... 48 3.3.1. Research site ...... 48 3.3.2. Villages selection ...... 49 3.3.3. Research steps ...... 49 3.4. Data collection and methods ...... 50 3.4.1. Primary data ...... 50 3.4.1.1. Interviews ...... 50 3.4.1.2. Focus group discussion ...... 52 3.4.1.3. Participant observation ...... 53 3.4.2. Secondary data ...... 55 3.5. Validity and data analysis ...... 56 3.5.1. Validity ...... 56 v 3.5.2. Qualitative data analysis ...... 57 4. The Case Study Area ...... 61 4.1. General Overview ...... 62 4.2. Population ...... 68 4.3. Education ...... 70 4.4. Land use ...... 71 4.5. Agriculture ...... 74 4.6. Tobacco growers’ characteristics ...... 82 4.6.1. Tobacco grower: peasant, farmer, or peasant farmer? ...... 82 4.6.2. Family household characteristics ...... 86 4.7. Poverty ...... 89 4.8. Resume: general characteristics of the research focused villages ...... 92 5. Tobacco in Indonesia: History and Figures ...... 95 5.1. Tobacco history ...... 96 5.1.1. Tobacco origin ...... 96 5.1.2. Tobacco history in Indonesia ...... 97
5.2. Tobacco growing in Indonesia ...... 100 5.2.1. The position of Indonesian tobacco at the global level ...... 100 5.2.2. Tobacco production ...... 101 5.2.3. Tobacco diversity ...... 109 5.2.4. Tobacco export and import ...... 111 5.3. Cigarette manufacturers ...... 115 5.3.1. The origin of kretek ...... 115 5.3.2. The development of kretek cigarette ...... 117 5.4. Tobacco growing and government income ...... 119 5.5. Tobacco cultivation and production in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM) ...... 123 5.5.1. The origin of tobacco in SSM: a folklore and myths ...... 123 5.5.2. Tobacco production ...... 128 5.5.2.1. Harvested areas ...... 128 5.5.2.2. Tobacco production and productivity ...... 130 5.5.2.3. Tobacco farmers ...... 132 6. Rise, Fall, and Challenges of Tobacco Growing in SSM ...... 135 vi 6.1. The golden era of tobacco ...... 136 6.2. The fall of tobacco: price decline and the high cost of tobacco ...... 141 6.2.1. Cigarette industry development ...... 142 6.2.2. Economy of tobacco growing: excess supply and price decline ... 145 6.2.3. Tobacco farming system ...... 147 6.2.3.1. Climatic variability and crop failure ...... 147 6.2.3.2. Manure ...... 150 6.2.3.3. Labor ...... 153 6.3. Tobacco challenges ...... 160 6.3.1. Global policies on tobacco control ...... 160 6.3.1.1. The main concern of tobacco control policies ...... 160 6.3.1.2. The issues of alternative crops to tobacco ...... 161 6.3.2. Tobacco control in Indonesia ...... 162 6.3.2.1. Tobacco control policies ...... 162 6.3.2.2. Controversies of tobacco control policies...... 163 6.3.2.3. The struggle of tobacco peasants to keep growing tobacco ...... 165
7. Tobacco Growers’ Strategies: Negotiations for Livelihood ...... 173 7.1. Agents’ position in the field of tobacco ...... 175 7.2.1. Graders ...... 177 7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and small middlemen ...... 182 7.2.3. First suppliers ...... 185 7.2. Dispositions and livelihood strategies ...... 191 7.2.1. Graders and tobacco merchants ...... 192 7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and the first suppliers ...... 194 7.3. Who are the most vulnerable agents? ...... 202 8. Conclusion ...... 211 8.1. Principal findings ...... 212 8.2. Contributions of the research ...... 222 8.2.1. Theoretical contributions ...... 222 8.2.2. Policy contributions ...... 223 Bibliography ...... 227 Appendices ...... 253 vii
List of tables
Table 1: Rainfall and rainy days in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ...... 67 Table 2: General characteristics of Gentingsari and Pagergunung villages ...... 92 Table 3: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household by province in Indonesia, 2017 ...... 108 Table 4: Tobacco variants and planting areas by province in Indonesia ...... 111 Table 5: The production of cigarettes in Indonesia ...... 143 Table 6: Tobacco control policies in Indonesia, 1965-now ...... 162 Table 7: Tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) and lobby group ...... 164 Table 8: A series of demonstrations involving tobacco farmers of Temanggung related to tobacco control policies, import policies, and the fatwa that tobacco is haram...... 167 Table 9: Quality of Temanggung tobacco ...... 178 Table 10: Grade of tobacco and its characteristics...... 180 Table 11: The most important capital possessed by household groups in tobacco community ...... 190 viii
List of figures
Figure 1: Tobacco growing in Sumbing mountainside, Temanggung regency ...... 1 Figure 2: The structure of the dissertation ...... 11 Figure 3: Tobacco seedbeds ...... 13 Figure 4: Agency-structure relationship in livelihood analysis ...... 16 Figure 5: IDS´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework ...... 21 Figure 6: DFID´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework...... 21 Figure 7: The framework of livelihood and vulnerability concept integration ..... 25 Figure 8: Key spheres of the concept of vulnerability ...... 26 Figure 9: Bohle´s (left) and Etzold´s model (right) of the double structure of vulnerability ...... 28 Figure 10: The general structure of the dialectic between social space and physical space ...... 30 Figure 11: The conceptual scheme of the logic of practice ...... 36 Figure 12: The interplay of field, capital, and habitus ...... 37 Figure 13: Sakdapolrak’s (top) and Etzold´s schematic illustration (bottom) of Bourdieu’s practice theory ...... 39 ix Figure 14: Theoretical framework of the dissertation ...... 44 Figure 15: Basket (kenthung) sales for sliced drying tobacco packaging in the Parakan market...... 45 Figure 16: Semi-structured interview with tobacco growers ...... 51 Figure 17: Unstructured key informant interviews with the head of the Department of Agriculture, Estate Crops, and Forestry ...... 52 Figure 18: Focus group discussion in Pagergunung village...... 53 Figure 19: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (1) ...... 54 Figure 20: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (2) ...... 55 Figure 21: A circular process of qualitative analysis ...... 58 Figure 22: Component of data analysis: an interactive model ...... 59 Figure 23: Tobacco growers’ village on Sumbing mountainside ...... 61 Figure 24: Administrative structure of local government in Indonesia ...... 62 Figure 25: Total land area based on altitude in Temanggung regency ...... 63 Figure 26: Total land area based on slope in Temanggung regency ...... 63 Figure 27: Map of Temanggung regency ...... 65 Figure 28: Mt. Sumbing (left) and Mt. Sindoro (right) ...... 66
Figure 29: The average rainfall (mm) in Temanggung regency by month, 2013-2017 ...... 67 Figure 30: Population pyramid of Temanggung regency, 2017 ...... 69 Figure 31: Population pyramid of Gentingsari village, 2017 ...... 69 Figure 32: Population pyramid of Pagergunung village, 2017 ...... 69 Figure 33: The education level of the residents of Temanggung regency, 2017 . 70 Figure 34: The education level of the residents of Gentingsari village, 2017 ...... 71 Figure 35: The education level of the residents of Pagergunung village, 2017 .... 71 Figure 36: Children in the village of Pagergunung, returning from school by foot ...... 71 Figure 37: Land use in Temanggung regency, 2017 ...... 73 Figure 38: Land use in Gentingsari village, 2017 ...... 73 Figure 39: Land use in Pagergunung village, 2017...... 73 Figure 40: Occupation of the residents in Temanggung regency, 2017 ...... 74 Figure 41: Occupation of the residents in Gentingsari village, 2017 ...... 74 Figure 42: Occupation of the residents in Pagergunung village, 2017 ...... 74 Figure 43: Area of staple food production (in thousands of hectares) in x Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ...... 75 Figure 44: Area of vegetables production (in thousands of hectares) in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ...... 76 Figure 45: Area of estate crops production (in thousands of hectares) in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ...... 76 Figure 46: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Gentingsari village, 2013-2017 ...... 77 Figure 47: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Pagergunung village, 2013-2017 ...... 77 Figure 48: Some commodities harvested by tobacco peasants ...... 78 Figure 49: Pola Tlahap, cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and suren tree in the same land (top), coffeshop built by the farmers’ group of Daya Sindoro (bottom) ...... 81 Figure 50: Farm household based on land tenure in Indonesia, 2018 ...... 82 Figure 51: Farm household based on land tenure in Central Java province, 2018 83 Figure 52: Farm household based on land tenure in Temanggung regency, 2018 83 Figure 53: The position of peasant farming and its interlink with other modes of farming (entrepreneurial and capitalist agriculture) ...... 85
Figure 54: Age group of head of farm households in Indonesia, 2018 ...... 88 Figure 55: Age group of head of farm households in Central Java province, 2018 ...... 88 Figure 56: Age group of head of farm households in Temanggung regency, 2018 ...... 88 Figure 57: Village environment of tobacco growers...... 91 Figure 58: An example of a house of tobacco grower with wooden walls ...... 92 Figure 59: The warehouse of Cigarette Company of Gudang Garam in Temanggung regency ...... 95 Figure 60: Areas of tobacco production in around Kedu residency in the1800s .. 99 Figure 61: The top ten tobacco-growing countries in the world, 2016 ...... 100 Figure 62: Share of tobacco production by country in Southeast Asia 2016 ...... 101 Figure 63: Area of tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017 ...... 102 Figure 64: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco cultivation in Indonesia, 2013-2017 ...... 103 Figure 65: Tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017 ...... 103 Figure 66: Tobacco productivity in Indonesia (tons/ha), 2017 ...... 104 Figure 67: The proportion of tobacco production area by province in Indonesia, xi 2017...... 105 Figure 68: Tobacco production areas by province in Indonesia, 2017 ...... 106 Figure 69: The number of tobacco growers in Indonesia, 2009-2017 ...... 107 Figure 70: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household (ha/household) by province in Indonesia, 2017 ...... 108 Figure 71: Classification of Indonesian tobacco ...... 110 Figure 72: Export-import volume of tobacco, 1997-2017 ...... 112 Figure 73: Export-import value of tobacco, 1997-2017...... 112 Figure 74: Proportion of tobacco import based on origin countries, 2017 ...... 114 Figure 75: Proportion of tobacco export based on destination countries, 2017 .. 115 Figure 76: Number of cigarette companies in Indonesia, 2006-2015 ...... 118 Figure 77: Cigarette production in Indonesia, 2006-2015 ...... 118 Figure 78: Market share of tobacco industries in Indonesia, 2016 ...... 119 Figure 79: Tobacco product excise in Indonesia, 2010-2017 ...... 120 Figure 80: Revenue sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT) of Indonesia, 2010-2017 ...... 121
Figure 81: The proportion of sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT) by province, 2017...... 121 Figure 82: Tobacco product excise of Central Java province, 2010-2017 ...... 122 Figure 83: The proportion of DBH-CHT based on regency/city in Central Java province, 2017...... 122 Figure 84: DBH-CHT of Temanggung regency, 2010-2017 ...... 123 Figure 85: Ritual feast (slametan) of ‘among tebal’ ...... 125 Figure 86: Tobacco festival: 3matra (tobacco-coffee-culture) ...... 126 Figure 87: Tobacco shredding festival (lembutan festival) ...... 126 Figure 88: The icon of tobacco in the billboard of the family planning campaign (top) and the town square of Temanggung (bottom), ‘Kota Tembakau’ means the city of tobacco ...... 127 Figure 89: Harvested areas of tobacco in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 ..... 128 Figure 90: Proportion of the harvested areas of tobacco by sub-districts during 2012-2016 in average per year ...... 129 Figure 91: Proportion area of tobacco production (percentage) to total agricultural land by sub-districts, 2016 ...... 129 Figure 92: Tobacco production in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 ...... 130 xii Figure 93: Tobacco productivity in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 ...... 131 Figure 94: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco cultivation in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ...... 131 Figure 95: Tobacco productivity (ton/ha) in Temanggung regency by sub-district, 2016...... 132 Figure 96: The number of tobacco growers in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ...... 133 Figure 97: The post built by tobacco growers as the expression of rejection to policies on tobacco control. ‘Mati urip mbako’ (keep on planting tobacco)...... 135 Figure 98: Garangan tobacco that is still produced in Wonosobo regency ...... 136 Figure 99: Tumbon or kentungan tobacco, drying process (top) and packaging activities (bottom) ...... 137 Figure 100: The school built and funded by tobacco growers ...... 140 Figure 101: The village hall (balai desa) established by peasant farmers ...... 140 Figure 102: Production of cigarettes in Indonesia (billions), 1972-1993 ...... 142 Figure 103: The development of tobacco production in Indonesia ...... 143 Figure 104: World tobacco leaf production, 1970-2016 ...... 146
Figure 105: The proportion of the world's tobacco production by region, 2016 146 Figure 106: Tobacco growers burn tobacco on the road, because of the delay in purchasing tobacco by cigarette companies ...... 148 Figure 107: Manure dropped in the village before being distributed to the farmland ...... 151 Figure 108: Manure dropped in the locations can be reached by truck before being distributed to the farmland ...... 152 Figure 109: The location of planting tobacco in hilly and mountainous areas makes high labor costs for transporting manure to farmland ...... 152 Figure 110: Manure distribution to the farmland by motorcycle ...... 153 Figure 111: Manure distribution to the farmland on foot ...... 153 Figure 112: Manual tools (cacak and gobang) for tobacco shredding ...... 154 Figure 113: Machine-based tobacco chopper ...... 155 Figure 114: Laborers needed for tobacco drying ...... 157 Figure 115: Tobacco drying around the house ...... 158 Figure 116: A deliberated concrete roof for tobacco drying ...... 158 Figure 117: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (1) ...... 159 Figure 118: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (2) ...... 159 xiii Figure 119: Congregational prayers (isthighotsah) as an expression of resistance to policies on tobacco control and the fatwa haram of tobacco consumption (Temanggung, 08.05.2010) ...... 168 Figure 120: Insistence not to legalize the PP 109/2012 and insistence to legalize the bill regarding to tobacco (RUU Pertembakauan) (Jakarta, 03.07.2012) ...... 169 Figure 121: The peasants of Campurejo villages, Tretep Sub-district insisted on revoking the PP 109/2012 (Temanggung, 12.01.2013) ...... 169 Figure 122: Insistence to legalize RUU Pertembakauan and rejection on tobacco control policies (Jakarta, 16.11.2016) ...... 170 Figure 123: Rejection of tobacco import policies and insistence to legalize RUU Pertembakauan (Central Java Governor's office yard, 17.01.2017) ..... 170 Figure 124: The tobacco merchant’s warehouse ...... 173 Figure 125: The position of tobacco ‘players’ based on the tobacco market chain in Temanggung regency ...... 177 Figure 126: Tobacco quality based on the position of the leaves on the plant ... 179 Figure 127: Special price of srinthil tobacco ...... 181 Figure 128: An example of KTA ...... 183
Figure 129: Proportion of farm household based on land tenure in Gentingsari village, 2017 ...... 185 Figure 130: Proportion of farm household based on land tenure in Pagergunung village, 2017 ...... 185 Figure 131: The relationship between graders and tobacco merchants ...... 200 Figure 132: The relationship between tobacco merchants and the first tobacco suppliers ...... 200 Figure 133: Relations among agents in the field of tobacco ...... 203 Figure 134: Discussion with the tobacco growers applying cropping system of pola tlahap (tobacco, coffee, and suren tree) ...... 211 Figure 135: Double structure of livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers .... 213
xiv
List of boxes
Box 1: Labor for tobacco growing ...... 156 Box 2: Profile of tobacco merchants ...... 183 Box 3: Profile of small middlemen (gaok) ...... 185 Box 4: Profile of perajang ...... 188 Box 5: Peasant’s livelihood in the most vulnerable situations ...... 205 Box 6: Coping strategies carried out by peasant farmers ...... 207 Box 7: Non-farm livelihood activities of tobacco growers ...... 209
xv
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank to all those who supported the research and made this dissertation accomplished. First of all, I would like to say ‘matur nuwun’ to tobacco growers living in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM) especially in Gentingsari and Pagergunung villlages and other people that I have interviewed. Thank you for telling me your stories, experiences, and knowledge about tobacco growing in Temanggung regency. Thank for your hospitality during my stay in Temanggung. Indeed, I could not have done this dissertation without you. Thanks also to my field assistants, Arif, Agung, Mega, Fatku who have seriously worked to assist me with collecting primary and secondary data.
In Sebelas Maret University (UNS), I would thank to the Rector and the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture for giving me support and permission. For my colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, thank you for allowing me to be temporarily free from my daily assignments as a xvi lecturer in the department. Special thanks to Dr. Rer.Nat. Nurhadi in the Department of Anthropology-Sociology Education thanks for all his assistance during my study at the Universität Innsbruck.
I would like to thank especially to my supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Coy for his excellent guidance, patience, and caring from the beginning to the end of this study. Indeed, I have learned a lot from you about a comprehensive, integrative, strategic and wise way of thinking.
I am grateful to my colleagues in the Arbeitsgruppe fuer Entwicklungsforschung (AGEF) – Institut of Geography, University of Innsbruck: Armin Kratzer, Carine Pachoud, Christoph Huber, Felix Dorn, Fernando Ruiz Peyré, Frank Zirkl, Gerhard Rainer, Jutta Kister, Michael Klingler, Nils Unthan, Robert Hafner, Simone Sandholz, Tobias Töpfer, and Ute Ammering. Special thanks to Christian Obermayr for checking the spelling, grammar, and writing style, and for criticizing this work.
To all my Indonesian friends in Innsbruck: Agung Dewanto, Ainun Pulungan, Annas Binarjo, Arko Jatmiko, Dominik Suktristiono, Giovanny, Jenny Hadisubrata, Muhammad Saleh, Navista Octa, Niko Prasetyo, Nina Novira, Nona schopper-bolangitan, Nuri Efiana, Stenley Pondaag, Veronika Samosir, Yohanes Subali, Yosafat Hermawan, and others, thank you so much for the great friendship.
To fellow awardees IASP (Indonesia-Austrian Scholarship Programme) in 2015, Adryan Fristiohady and Ira Darwati (Uni Wien), Prasetyono Hari (TU Graz), and Rini Dwi (Uni Boku Wien), thank you for your cooperation in arranging the administrative requirements before departure to Austria.
I would also like to thank to the Directorate General of Resources for Science Technology and Higher Education (DIKTI), Österreichischer Austauschdienst (ÖeAD), and the ASEAN European Academic University Network (ASEA- UNINET) for the financial support.
My gratitude to my mother and my late father, my younger brother, my father and xvii mother-in-law, my brothers and sisters-in-law, thanks for always supporting me and taking care of my family during my stay in Innsbruck, Austria.
Last but certainly not least, I am indebted to my beloved wife Astri for always being there for me, supporting me, and taking care of our children. To my son and daughter, Dias and Danesha, you are truly my greatest spirit in completing this dissertation.
Innsbruck, June 2019
Summary
Indonesia, today, is the fifth largest tobacco producer in the world and the largest in the region of Southeast Asia. The tobacco in Indonesia is grown in 15 provinces with different ecological characteristics, some are planted on dry land, irrigated land and also in the lowlands and highlands. Currently, however, the role of tobacco as a source of livelihood is declining. In the external side, this is due to the trend of decreasing producer prices and lowering tobacco farmers’ profits. It is caused by an excess supply of tobacco in the global market. The surplus supply of tobacco in the world market opens possibilities for cigarette manufacturers to increase import that is cheaper than the local tobacco price. Another cause is the changing demand of cigarette from heavy to light taste or from high to middle- low nicotine. It leads to declining prices of Temanggung tobacco, which contains high-nicotine. Tobacco growers also face challenges and problems at all stages both on-farm and off-farm such as increased costs, complicated marketing and payment systems, unequal position in the market, climatic variability, etc. In the xviii internal side, there is considerable inequality of power relations among agents in the field of tobacco. Both factors cause tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability. Therefore, the objectives of this dissertation are to analyze the impacts of the external side of vulnerability on tobacco-based livelihood, to investigate strategies employed by households to maintain or improve livelihood, and to examine how vulnerable the livelihoods of tobacco farmers are. The concepts of livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice are employed and connected in this dissertation. The concept of livelihood is used to investigate household activities in order to make a living. Bohle's theory of the double structure of vulnerability is applied to analyze livelihood vulnerability that includes an external and internal side. For Bohle, the external side is the structural dimensions called exposure. Meanwhile, the internal side is a coping strategy, which is embedded in an agent. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice is applied to integrate the concept of livelihood and vulnerability. Livelihood vulnerability, then, refers to the dialectic relationship between
structure and agent. This encompasses an external side (exposure) and an internal side (livelihood strategies as social practice). As a social practice, livelihood strategies are not always the results of purely rational strategic decisions. For Bourdieu, social practice is the interplay between capital, habitus, and field. This dissertation applies a qualitative research approach and case study method. This research is conducted in Temanggung regency, Central Java province with a focus on two villages, namely Gentingsari village, Bansari sub- district, and Pagergunung village, Bulu sub-district. This research encompasses three steps described as follows: examine the exposure, analyze the influences of exposures to tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability, and investigate the livelihood strategies employed by agents. Several sub-methods used are interviews (semi- structured interview, unstructured key informant interviews, and unstructured in- depth interviews), focus group discussions, and participant observation. It also uses both primary (self-constructed data) and secondary data (pre-constructed data). The methodological, data, and theory triangulation are applied for data validation. This dissertation employs qualitative data analysis that encompasses xix the process of describing phenomena, classifying, and seeing how concepts are interconnected. This dissertation finds that the external sides of vulnerability (exposure) affect directly and indirectly tobacco-based livelihoods. Every agent in the tobacco field then employs strategies to cope with the exposure. The livelihood strategies employed by agents are various depending on the position in the tobacco field and dispositions (habitus). The volume, composition, and value of the capital types possessed by agents and habitus determine the extent to which exposure affects the livelihoods of tobacco farmer households. In sum, livelihood vulnerability is embedded in the everyday life of tobacco growers’ community because of the asymmetric power relations among agents. The field of tobacco includes the dominant and dominated agents. The dominated agent is in the most vulnerable position. The livelihood vulnerability is then the dialectic between the external (exposures) and internal side (livelihood strategies in relation to the field). Therefore, the agent is the hinge between exposure and field.
This research contributes to the development of theory and policymaking. Theoretically, this dissertation involves the dialectical relationship between structure and agent, considers agents that cannot act freely but are also not fully bound by rules or norms, and interconnects the three theories namely livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice. Related to policymaking, based on the position and authority, the government must take an obvious role regarding the sustainability of farmers' livelihoods. The government can take a position to support the continuity of tobacco growing or must propose alternative crops. In case the government stays to support the continuity of tobacco growing, the government must be seriously facilitating the needs of tobacco growers from the cultivation stage to market guarantees. In case the government wants to introduce an alternative crop, this needs to pay attention to its suitability with the previous farmers’ habitus.
xx
Abbreviations and acronyms
AMTI : Aliansi Masyarakat Tembakau Indonesia (Indonesia tobacco society alliance) APCI : Asosiasi Petani Cengkeh Indonesia (Indonesian clove farmers association) APTI : Asosiasi Petani Tembakau Indonesia (Indonesia tobacco farmers association) ASEAN : the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Balittas : Balai Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (sweetener and fiber crops research institute) BAPPEDA : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (development planning agency at sub-national level) Bappenas : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National development planning agency) BEII : Bank Ekspor Impor Indonesia (Indonesian import-export bank) BKKBN : Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga Berencana Nasional (the board of population and national family planning) BLT : Bantuan Langsung Tunai (cash transfer programs) BMKG : Badan Metereologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika (Indonesian xxi Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics) BP4K : Badan Pelaksana Penyuluhan Pertanian Perikanan dan Kehutanan (the Implementing Agency of Agricultural, Fisheries, and Forestry Extension) BPP : Balai Penyuluhan Pertanian (agricultural extension agencies) BPS : Badan Pusat Statistik (central bureau of statistics) DAS : Daerah Aliran Sungai (watersheds) DBH-CHT : Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau (the revenue sharing fund of tobacco product excise) DFID : The Department for International Development Ditjenbun : Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan (Directorate general of estate crops) ESATG : Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing FAKTA : Forum Warga Kota Jakarta (the Jakarta citizens ‘forum) FCTC : the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control FCV : Flue-Cured Virginia FGD : Focus Group Discussion FORMASI : Forum Masyarakat Industri Rokok Indonesia (Indonesia forum of tobacco industry community)
FSP : Federasi Serikat Pekerja Rokok, Tembakau, Makanan dan RTMM- Minuman (Federation of Trade Union of Cigarette, Tobacco, SPSI Food, and Beverages) GAPPRI : Gabungan Perserikatan Pabrik Rokok Indonesia (Corporate Federation of Indonesian Cigarette Industries) GAPRINDO : Gabungan Produsen Rokok Putih Indonesia (Corporate of Indonesian White Cigarette Producers) Ha : Hectare Hh : Household HICs : High-Income Countries HKTI : Himpunan Ketukunan Tani Indonesia (Indonesia Farmers Association) IAKMI : Ikatan Ahli Kesehatan Masyarakat Indonesia (the Indonesian public health experts association) ICW : Indonesia Corruption Watch IDI : Ikatan Dokter Indonesia (the Indonesian doctors association) IDS : Institute of Development Studies IIED : the International Institute for Environment and Development ITR : Intensifikasi Tembakau Rakyat (intensification of smallholder xxii tobacco) Jamkesmas : Jaminan Kesehatan Masyarakat (community health insurance programs) KNPK : Koalisi Nasional Penyelamat Kretek (clove national rescue coalition) Komnas-PA : Komisi Nasional Perlindungan Anak (the national commission for child protection) KS : Keluarga Sejahtera (prosperous family) LM3 : Lembaga Menanggulangi Masalah Merokok (the institute for preventing smoking problems) LMICs : Low-Middle Income Countries LTLN : Low Tar Low Nicotine MK : Mahkamah Konstitusi (constitutional court) MPSI : Mitra Produksi Sigaret Indonesia (Indonesian cigarette manufacturing association) Mt. : Mountain MUI : Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Indonesian council of ulama) NFRE : Non-Farm Rural Employment NGOs : Non-Governmental Organizations
NO : Na Oogst NU : Nahdatul Ulama PBN : Perkebunan Besar Negara (the government estate) PDAM : Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (local water supply company) PLN : Perusahaan Listrik Negara (National electricity company) PMUP : Pengembangan Model Usahatani Partisipatif (the development program of the participatory farming model) PP : Peraturan Pemerintah (government regulation) PPTSS : Paguyuban Petani Tembakau Sindoro-Sumbing (the assemblage of tobacco farmers in Sindoro-Sumbing) PSP-IPB : Pusat Studi Pembangunan-Institute Pertanian Bogor (center for development studies, Bogor Agricultural University) PTPN : PT Perkebunan Nusantara RI : Republik Indonesia (The Republic of Indonesia) RT : Rukun Tetangga (neighborhoods) RUU : Rancangan Undang-undang (bill) RW : Rukun Warga (sub-hamlets) RYO : Roll Your Own SKM : Sigaret Kretek Mesin (machine-rolled kretek cigarettes) xxiii SKT : Sigaret Kretek Tangan (hand-rolled kretek cigarettes) SLA : Sustainable Livelihood Approach SLF : Sustainable Livelihood Framework SPM : Sigaret Putih Mesin (white cigarette) SSM : Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside SUSENAS : Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (National socio-economic survey) TCAs : Tobacco-control advocates TTCs : Transnational Tobacco Companies UNDP : the United Nations Development Programme UPP : Unit Pelaksana Proyek (Project Implementation Unit) UU : Undang-undang (law) VO : Voor Oogst VOC : Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (the Dutch East India Company) WCED : the World Commission on Environment and Development WHO : World Health Organization
WITT : Wanita Indonesia Tanpa Tembakau (Indonesian women without tobacco) YJI : Yayasan Jantung Indonesia (the Indonesian heart foundation) YKI : Yayasan Kanker Indonesia (the Indonesian cancer foundation) YLKI : Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia (the Indonesian consumers foundation)
xxiv
Glossary of the local terms Bakul : petty trader Balai desa : village meeting hall Bèngkok : agricultural land that can be managed by village officials in exchange for salaries. Borongan : wage system based on the basic unit of work to be done, for example: tilling the soil Buruh bangunan : construction workers Buruh tani : farm workers Cacak-gobang : manual tools for tobacco shredding Camat : sub-district head Dendeng : Low-quality tobacco, which is dried in the form of leaf sheets, not cut into pieces. Emas hijau : the term for high-value tobacco leaves, especially during the golden era of tobacco. Gaok/pengepul : small intermediaries, which is sometimes working for tobacco merchants. Garangan/emplengan : tobacco processing by means of a thin layer of shredded tobacco, compressed and dried over a fire Grader/greder : people who because of their expertise in determining xxv the quality of tobacco are trusted by cigarette companies to buy tobacco from farmers. Haram : actions that are prohibited in Islamic teachings. For example, if smoking is declared haram, so that this activity is prohibited. Harga kètokan : very low prices of tobacco because the time of sale is outside the period of factory purchase. Harian : wage system based on basic time unit of one working day. Juragan : name for people who have a lot of capital and is very influential on the tobacco market. it often refers to tobacco merchants or graders. In addition to buying tobacco, juragans often provide debt for farming cost. Kepala desa : village head Kisuk : unit area of agricultural land which is equal to 0.1 ha. Lamsi : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing with altitude more than 1,000 m. This can be found in Tembarak, Bulu, and Parakan sub-district.
Lamuk : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing with altitude more than 1,000 m. This can be found in Tlogomulyo sub-district. Lintingan : roll-your-own cigarette Mbako impor : tobacco ‘imported’ from areas outside Temanggung regency Mbako owol : sliced-dried tobacco traded with the aim of being mixed with other tobacco of various qualities. This tobacco is commonly mbako impor. Mbako : tobacco which is cultivated in the areas around temanggungan sumbing-sindoro mountainside such as: Wonosobo and Kendal regency Mitulasi : a system of debts with an interest of 75 % per tobacco growing season. Nganjang : activity of making an arrangement of sliced tobacco on boards made of woven bamboo Ngimpor : activities to buy tobacco both in the form of raw and sliced-dried leaves from outside to be sold in Temanggung regency Nglimolasi : a system of debts with an interest of 50% per tobacco xxvi growing season. Paksi : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in the eastern side of Mt. Sindoro with altitude more than 1,000 m. This can be found in Ngadirejo and Tretep sub-district. Pengrajin : name for people who blend sliced dried tobacco of various qualities. They buy tobacco from other regions to be blended with the original tobacco of Temanggung. Perajang : name for people who buy tobacco leaf from other regions to be shredded and sold in Temanggung Perangkat desa : village apparatus Petani gurem : a land holder household with agricultural land of less than 0.5 hectares Pola tlahap : the cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and Suren tree in the same land Pranata mangsa : a local knowledge on the management of agricultural land for Javanese people. Pulung : God's grace in the form of the best tobacco quality bestowed upon certain tobacco growers. Rego girik : the estimated price set by gaok
Rigen/widig : tobacco drying boards made of woven bamboo Rit : a truck rental system to whose calculation is not based on distance or unit hours but is based on one loading and unloading of goods or one transaction. In the context of tobacco farmers, one rit refers to the transportation of manure per truck from the location of manure producers or sellers to farmer’s house or farmland. Sawah : Rice fields Sewu selawe : the obligation of farmers to donate 25 rupiah for every 1,000 rupiah obtained from the sale of tobacco. Sistem girik : the way of selling tobacco where tobacco merchants employ gaok to collect tobacco. Gaok is given the authority to estimate the quality and price of tobacco. Sistem nitip : the way of selling tobacco where the first suppliers use the sales service of merchants with such an agreement of fee. Srinthil : the tobacco containing the highest nicotine, which is only produced in certain areas in the slope of Mt. Sumbing. Swanbing : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in the slope of Mt. Prahu with altitude more than 900- xxvii 1,400 m. Tebasan : system for purchasing crop that are carried out before harvesting. In the context of tobacco farmers, they buy tobacco leaves before being picked. Hence, farmers usually buy tobacco at a price per plant unit. Tegal : dry fields Tempe : Indonesian traditional food made from soybean Tionggang : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in an altitude 500-700 m. This can be found in Kedu, Tembarak, Bulu, Parakan, and Ngadirejo sub-district. Toalo : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted between Mt. Sumbing and Mt. Sindoro with altitude more than 1,000 m. This can be found in Parakan and Ngadirejo sub-district. Totol : grade Tumbon/kenthungan : a way of packaging of tobacco by using the basket which is made from bamboo as the outer part and dried banana tree midrib as the inside piece
xxviii This page intentionally left blank
Introduction 1
1
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 1: Tobacco growing in Sumbing mountainside, Temanggung regency
1.1. Research context
Tobacco has been cultivated in Indonesia mainly in Java, Eastern Indonesia, Kalimantan, and Sumatera since the 1600s. Under the Cultivation System (cultuurstelsel)1 that was imposed by the Dutch government in the 1800s, tobacco became an essential crop beside coffee, sugar, and indigo. It was one of the causes that of tobacco growing spread quickly in Java including West Java, East Java, and Central Java. In West Java, tobacco growing can be found in Priangan and Cirebon area. In East Java, tobacco was grown in the regency of Pasuruan, Probolinggo, Bondowoso, and Jember. In Central Java, tobacco cultivation was concentrated in Kedu region and its surrounding (Boomgaard, 2005). Tobacco had become an essential commodity for farmers when the crop was
used as the main ingredient for cigarette, especially kretek cigarette. Kretek is a typical Indonesian tobacco product consisting of tobacco, crushed cloves and saus (sauce), which serves to give a distinctive aroma, to the cigarettes (Arnez, 2009). Haji Djamhari, a farmer in Kudus Central Java, created kretek in around 1880. 2 Since then kretek cigarette has become famous as a commercial product. Nitisemito was the pioneer of kretek cigarettes where in 1906 he launched a private cigarette company in Kudus (Djajadi, 2015). Now, tobacco in Indonesia is planted in 15 provinces with various ecological characteristics, from dry to irrigated land and from low to high land areas. The different environmental conditions included soil, climate or weather, and geographical features cause many variants of tobacco in Indonesia. The largest growing area is in East Java (55 %), West Nusa Tenggara (19 %), Central Java (17 %) and the rest of it is situated in the other provinces. In 2017, the livelihood of 493 thousand households depends on the tobacco cultivation. They grew tobacco on 202 thousand hectares of land, producing 181 thousand tons of dried tobacco leaves (Ditjenbun, 2018).
1 The Cultivation system was initiated by Governor-General, Johannes van den Bosch that arrived in Java in 1830. The system regulates that every village must set aside part of its land to produce export crops for sale at a fixed price for the colonial government. About 20 % (later 33 %) of the yield will be used to cover the land tax commitment. If the village earned more by the sale of crops to the government than its land tax obligation, it could keep the excess payment; if less, it must still pay the difference from other sources (Ricklefs, 2001).
Currently, Indonesia is the fifth largest tobacco producer in the world (FAOSTAT, 2016) and the largest in Southeast Asia (Lian & Dorothea, 2016). To fulfill the need of the cigarette industry, Indonesia is still importing more than 30 % of its tobacco leaf. During the past five years from 2013-2017, Indonesia imported 98.7 thousand tons of tobacco in average per year. Tobacco leaf required by big and middle cigarette companies is about 300 thousand tons per year. These figures do not include the ‘illegally' small and home industries, which produce cigarettes without paying excise and having a brand (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013). Tobacco remains an economically important commodity for the Indonesian government. It can be traced from tax revenues of cigarette industries collected by the government, which increase from year to year. In 2017, the excise reached 147 trillion rupiah (Kementerian Keuangan RI, 2017).
1.2. Problem statement
The residency of Kedu, today named as Temanggung, was the favorite place producing tobacco with a typical high quality, low sugar, and high nicotine level, 3 which is very important for cigarette manufacturers to produce kretek. During the time hand-rolled cigarettes (sigaret kretek tangan, SKT) still dominated cigarette production in Indonesia, tobacco Temanggung was the main ingredient for kretek. Temanggung tobacco structures 14-26 % of each kretek cigarette (GAPPRI, 1997 in Murdiyati, 2000). Generally, the price of tobacco was relatively high. Therefore, tobacco was famous as a golden leaf (emas hijau). At that time, tobacco was a promising commodity in supporting the livelihood systems of farmers. Meanwhile, currently, the contribution of tobacco yield as a source of livelihood for farmers is declining. This is caused due to the trend of decreasing producer prices and lowering tobacco farmers' profits, which is caused by an excess supply of tobacco in the global market (WHO, 2008). Another driving force is the change in the demand of cigarettes from heavy to light taste that has encouraged cigarette industries to produce machine-rolled kretek cigarettes (SKM-Sigaret Kretek Mesin). SKM is more light and aromatic and contains less
tobacco in each stick of cigarette. The dependence of cigarette industries on tobacco produced in Temanggung and its surrounding (mbako temanggungan), which contain high nicotine is decreasing. The circumstances are aggravated by various challenges and problems faced by tobacco growers at all stages, both on- farm, and off-farm (WHO, 2012), such as increased costs, complicated marketing and payment systems, unequal position in the market2 (Keyser, 2007), climatic variability, etc. The role of tobacco for farmers’ livelihood is significantly decreasing; even their livelihood tends to be vulnerable. For Bohle (2001), vulnerability encompasses the interplay between external and internal sides. The external side is exposure, which refers to the structure. The vulnerability is not only determined by the exposure, but also by coping strategies employed by the agents. The coping ability is included as the internal side of vulnerability. Social vulnerability is a characteristic of an agent, which results from the interplay between these two sides. 4 In the livelihood approach, the livelihood strategies prefer to be used as an internal side rather than coping. Livelihood strategies refer to various activities and choices conducted by people to achieve livelihood goals (DFID, 2000). The definition of livelihood strategies raises some critics mainly related to overemphazing agents as homo economicus. Furthermore, agent is assumed able to act freely. Another weakness is that livelihood studies are inadequate to grasp power-relations. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice can be employed to overcome the shortcomings of the livelihood approach. In this sense, livelihood strategies are considered as social practice. For Bourdieu, practice is the interplay between one's dispositions (habitus) and one's position in a field (capital), within the current rules of the game of that social arena (field). In sum, the livelihood vulnerability encompasses an external side (exposure) and an internal side (livelihood strategies as social practice). The exposures are related to various problems caused by external factors. Livelihood strategies are
2 The tobacco market is an oligopoly-oligopsony, where only a few manufacturers that dominate the market. Consequently, the tobacco price is mostly determined by tobacco companies. This situation is exacerbated by weak cooperation among the tobacco growers (Hamid, 1991).
not always the results of purely rational strategic decisions as assumed in the livelihood approach; instead, it also involves dispositions (habitus). Simply put, habitus refers to ways of acting, feeling, thinking and being (Maton, 2008). The habitus can be acquired from the family during childhood (primary habitus), formal and non-formal education, life experiences, etc. (Walther, 2013).
1.3. Research objectives
The following objectives are the focus of this dissertation: 1. Analyzing the effects of the exposures as the external side of vulnerability on tobacco-based livelihood. 2. Investigating strategies employed by households to maintain or improve livelihood. 3. Examining the vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihoods. In order to explore each of these objectives, this research was carried out in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM), Temanggung regency over a period of 6 months. 5
1.4. The significance of the research
1.4.1. Livelihood studies in Indonesia Research about poverty and inequality in the rural area in Indonesia has been conducted at least since the 1970s. Sajogjo and the scholars from the Center for Development Studies, Bogor Agricultural University (PSP-IPB) are the initiators of these studies. The research was gaining momentum when there was the project of ‘Non-Farm Rural Employment (NFRE) in West Java' at the end of the 1980s till the early of 1990s which involved PSP-IPB, Center for environment research-Bandung Institute of Technology, and Institute of Social Studies-The Hague. The underlying assumptions built on the research project were poverty and marginalization of rural economies, which is caused by modernization processes. Modernization has triggered social and agrarian changes in the rural area, and has caused the diversity of rural livelihood strategies. The poor are the victim of modernization and rural development (Dharmawan, 2007).
Livelihood diversification means the inclination of rural people to enter non-farm activities. The ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors are used to analyze whether the movement of rural labor out of agriculture is because of necessities or opportunities. White (1991) categorized households into three groups based on the engagement in non-farm activities as livelihood strategies, namely: survival, consolidation, and accumulation strategies that are carried out by landless, small- farm, and large-farm or landowner households, respectively. In the case when the income from non-farm activities is lower than agricultural income, Sajogyo (1990) called it as self-exploitation. In Java, population growth has forced peasants in the low land to do intensification. Peasants involve all household members in cultivating the limited land. The increasing of labor intensity in the paddies enhances the output per area, but does not improve output per head. The mechanism is called ‘shared poverty' (Geertz, 1983). This mechanism does not drive significant change but creates the agricultural involution. Hayami and Kikuchi (1982) analyzed the impacts of the 6 green revolution program and agricultural modernization on peasants’ livelihoods. They conclude that the patron-client relationship is the mechanisms built by small-scale peasants to meet subsistence needs. In the 2000s, Bogor scholars continued their research on the livelihoods of the poor. The research is not only limited to focus on irrigated rice paddies (sawah), but also gives attention to community life in various ecological settings, such as: in the mountain area, fishing community, the community around the forest, and others. The studies consistently focused on structural constraints (social-economic-politics), which drive rural livelihood dynamics. Agent is considered as a victim of political and economic structures. Different from that, this dissertation assumes that livelihood is not driven by structure or agents separately, rather the interplay between both of them.
1.4.2. Research on tobacco growers in Indonesia Studies about tobacco development in Indonesia are conducted continuously by Balai Penelitian Tanaman tembakau dan serat (Fiber and tobacco crop research
institute, Balittas). Since 2011, the name changed to Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute, Balittas). The research results can be traced from the monographs, proceedings, and bulletins published by Balittas. The study series about Virginia, Madura, and Temanggung tobacco can be found in the monographs published in 1997-1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively. The proceedings of tobacco agribusiness development were also published in 2001, 2004, and 2007. The studies comprehensively examine tobacco from various viewpoints, including production and marketing in terms of supporting tobacco development, particularly related to increased production through the discovery of new varieties. The global policies of tobacco control seem to affect Indonesian policies on tobacco development. It can be found in the strategic plan of Balittas 2010-2014 that move toward the development of tobacco containing lower nicotine. Balittas also tries to find an alternative crop for tobacco (Mastur, et al., 2012). The International issues of tobacco control encourage the emergence of groups both pro and contra tobacco. Tobacco Control Support Center (TCSC) and 7 the Indonesian Ministry of Health conducted research in terms of examining tobacco facts in Indonesia. The series books were published in 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2012. These books presented tobacco facts in terms of supporting tobacco control in Indonesia. On the side of opposing groups, such as Koalisi Nasional Penyelamatan Kretek (National Coalition for Kretek Rescue) and Indonesia Berdikari, they published books to counter the allegations of anti-tobacco groups3. The studies about tobacco, then, tend to be tendentious to support or oppose tobacco control policies. Research focusing on tobacco growers itself is mostly ignored.
3 Some books published are ‘Kretek: Kemandirian dan Kedaulatan Bangsa Indonesia (2014)’, ‘Kretek: kajian Ekonomi dan Budaya 4 kota (2010)’, ‘Nicotine War: perang Nikotin dan para pedagang obat (2010)’, ‘Tipuan Bloomberg: mengungkap sosok agen industry farmasi di balik filantropi kampanye anti rokok (2012)’, ‘Tembakau atau Mati (2012)’, ‘Perempuan berbicara Kretek (2012)’, ‘Muslihat Kapitalis Global: Selingkuh industry farmasi dengan perusahaan Rokok AS (2012)’, ‘Kudeta Putih (2012)’, and many others. The e-books are freely downloaded from http://bukukretek.com.
1.4.3. The theoretical contributions of the dissertation The debate about the interconnection between structure and agency and how both of them can be consolidated has become a concern in livelihood studies (Rigg, 2007) and is inherent in vulnerability research (Etzold & Sakdapolrak, 2016). The attendance of the SLA approach initiated by Gordon Conway and Robert Chambers has returned the agent at the center of analysis. Previously, in the early development of livelihood studies, agents (the poor) are considered as a victim of structural constraints (de Haan & Zoomers, 2003; Rigg, 2007). In the vulnerability concept, Bohle (2001) also pays attention to aspects of structure and agency and how they are related to one another. The structure is indicated as exposure (external side), and agent ability is addressed by coping (internal side). Recently, some geographers have employed Bourdieu’s theory of social practice to reconcile the structure and agency in livelihood and vulnerability studies. This dissertation will engage the concept of livelihood vulnerability based on Bohle’s idea of the external and internal side of vulnerability. Exposure is 8 considered as the external side. Meanwhile, livelihood strategies, one of the essential elements in the livelihood approach, are examined as an internal side. By adopting Bourdieu’s theory, livelihood strategies are considered as a social practice, which is the result of the interplay between capital, habitus, and field.
1.5. Limitation of the research
The research is conducted in Temanggung regency, Central Java province, Indonesia. The regency is divided into twenty sub-districts consisting of 266 villages (desa) and 23 urban villages (kelurahan). Temanggung is mostly a plateau with varying elevation and slope that significantly influences the tobacco quality. This research is focused in two villages, namely: Gentingsari, Bansari sub-district, and Pagergunung, Bulu sub-district. Several other data are also obtained from other villages to be more comprehensive in analyzing the results of the study. Regarding this, the regency selected may not be representative of other locations in Indonesia. This is the case because tobacco in Indonesia is cultivated
in 15 provinces with various ecological characteristics. The selected villages may also not represent other villages in Temanggung regency because tobacco cultivated in the region is also varies. Furthermore, farmers’ livelihood is not only sourced from tobacco, but also from other commodities. Tobacco is one of three crop rotations per year. Nevertheless, the analysis of farmer’s livelihood will be emphasized on tobacco cultivation. It is because tobacco is considered as the most valuable crop structuring tobacco growers’ livelihoods.
1.6. Dissertation organization
This dissertation is organized into eight chapters (figure 2). Each section is described as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter provides the overall research context and objectives. It presents the significances and limitations of the research. The structure and the brief explanation of the dissertation content are also 9 delivered in this part. Chapter 2: Theoretical framework This chapter explores the theories that are applied to analyze this dissertation. It comprises of the embeddedness of structure-agencies analysis in livelihood and vulnerability studies and the use of Bourdieu’s theory of practice in the tradition of human geography. This section ends with the theoretical framework applied in this dissertation. The framework integrates the theory of livelihood, vulnerability, and social practice. Chapter 3: Research design and methodology Chapter 3 provides details of the research approaches, methods, sub- methods, and data analysis that are employed in this thesis. The research applies a qualitative approach and case study method. The sub-methods used will be explored in detail in this section.
Chapter 4: The case study area Chapter 4 introduces and describes the case study area. The section presents the ecological, social, cultural, and economic profile of Temanggung regency, with a specific focus on the two villages selected namely: Pagergunung and Gentingsari village. Chapter 5: Tobacco in Indonesia: history and figures This chapter describes and explores the general situation of tobacco farming in Indonesia, including history and tobacco production. It also portrays the development of cigarette manufacturers and its role to government income. The specific description of tobacco cultivation and production at SSM is conveyed at the end of this chapter. Chapter 6: Rise, fall, and challenges of tobacco growing in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM) Chapter 6 analyses the exposures influencing the disruption of tobacco-based livelihood. It begins with a description of the golden 10 era of tobacco growing at SSM. It is, then, followed by explaining the fall of tobacco caused by some circumstances such as cigarette industry development, global economic of tobacco growing, and various vulnerability contexts in the tobacco farming systems. The issue of tobacco control policies, which is one of the challenges in the sustainability of tobacco growing, is examined in this section. Chapter 7: Tobacco growers’ strategies: negotiations for livelihood This chapter maps out the objective structures of relations among the positions occupied by the social agents in the tobacco field. The strategies undertaken and the distribution of power in the tobacco field are examined. The vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihood, that is determined by exposure (external side) and livelihood strategies carried out (internal side), is analyzed.
Chapter 8: Conclusion Chapter 8 describes the principal findings and the contributions of the research (theoretical and policy contributions).
Chapter 1: Chapter 5:
Introduction Tobacco in Indonesia: History and Figures
Chapter 6: Chapter 2: Rise, Fall, and Theoretical Framework Challenges of Tobacco Growing at SSM
Chapter 7: Chapter 3: Tobacco Growers’ Research Design and Strategies: Negotiations Methodology for Livelihood
11
Chapter 4: Chapter 8: The Case Study Area Conclusion
Figure 2: The structure of the dissertation
12 This page intentionally left blank
Theoretical Framework 2
13
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 3: Tobacco seedbeds
2.1. Introduction: structure-agency dualism in human geography
The question of how to break the dualism4 has received increasing attention from human geographers (Gerber, 1997). One of the intensive debates is related to a problem in an increasing polarity between ‘agency' and ‘structure' (Philo, 2016) or the individual-society binary (Brettell, 2002), which is still discussed not only in human geography, but also in philosophy and the social sciences (Chouinard, 1997). The questions of whether individuals can act freely, or be constrained, or even determined by structural forces have become the heart of many debates in contemporary human geography (Sharp, 2009). There is the assumption that structure (context) is seen as external while agency (intentionality) is seen as internal. Structure externalization causes to deny the personal in the social. Otherwise, the internalizing agency tends to put people at the center that are fully self-aware (Pile, 1993). In human geography, chronologically, the dichotomy agent-structure has started in the 1920s where individuals’ actions were considered to be determined 14 by the environment or Sauer’s superorganic notion of culture. In the 1950s and 1960s, geography as spatial science placed agent in the logic of neo-classical economic modeling, which assumes that human behavior is driven by rational profit maximization5. The Marxist geography attended with the assumption that a human agent is determined by structure. To counter Marxist geography, humanistic geography, in the 1970s, placed back people and their thoughts at the center of the discipline. The structure-agency debate continued at that time responding to the cultural turn. It was Nigel Thrift, which offered Non- representational theory in an attempt to refuse an over-interpretation of agency, which regards people as being too theoretical in their own decision making (Sharp, 2009).
4 The effort to break down geographical binaries, such as agency/structure, state/society, culture/economy, space/place, etc., can be seen in the book titled ‘Spaces of geographical thought: deconstructing human geography’s binaries’ edited by Cloke & Johnston (2005). 5 Theories included in this category are such as central place theory, land use theory, industrial location theory, and spatial interaction theory (Buang, 1992).
As the debate in the social sciences as a whole, one of the important parts of the discussion is how agent-structure might be reconciled in a single approach (Peet & Thrift, 1989). By comparing the ideas of ‘the structurationist school’, Thrift (1983) showed how agent and structure could be mediated by the position- practice system (Bhaskar), system and institution (Giddens), habitus (Bourdieu), and organizations/institutions and interaction (Layder). Applying the theory of Giddens and Bourdieu can be useful to reconcile the polarization between determinism and voluntarism or the dualism between agency and structure (Buang, 1992; Gregory, 1981). In the recent literature of human geography, the ongoing debate over structure and agency and how they can be reconciled has announced the growing concern for and interest in livelihoods (Rigg, 2007) and is also inherent in vulnerability research (Etzold & Sakdapolrak, 2016). Inherently debate of structure-agency in livelihood approach can be seen the early development of livelihood studies in the 1970s and 1980s, which delineate people (the poor) as victims of structural constraints (structural approach). In the 1990s, however, 15 when Gordon Conway and Robert Chambers proposed the concept of sustainable livelihood in an IDS discussion paper in 1992, people are placed at the center. Agency, actors, and action became the slogan of this shift in attention (de Haan & Zoomers 2003, Rigg 2007, Sakdapolrak 2014). In vulnerability literature, (Bohle, 2001) introduced the double structure of vulnerability. The idea was adopted from Chamber´s concepts related to the external and internal side of vulnerability (Chambers, 1989). The external side (exposure) refers to the structure and the internal side (coping) indicates the agent. Social vulnerability is a characteristic of people, resulting from interactions between the two factors. Related to agent-structure relation, de Haan (2000) proposed that livelihood analysis should consider both agent and structure level. ‘Agency’ is embodied in the individual and embedded in social relations. Individual choices and decision- making are embedded in values, norms, and institutional structures. Through ‘human agency’, structures may change. Actors, both individuals and social groups, influence structure through agency. Therefore, agency is the hinge
between actor and structure. The agent is neither powerless objects nor free agent who can become whatever they choose. There are the feedback loops between actor and structure. The structure should be thought of as the shell in which the ‘capitals’ are embedded. The social part of ‘structure’ consists in the shell of common rules, norms and sanctions mutually agreed or handed down, around social capital. ‘Capitals’ are used by actors to ‘produce’ livelihood; structure determines the direction of the outcome, although the direction may eventually change through the agency of the actors’ livelihood strategies. The feedback loops of agency from actor to structure run through the vital capitals (figure 4).
Livelihood System
Agency Actors‘ Livelihood Strategies Social Human Access Capital Capital
16
Natural Financial Capital Capital Physical Structure Capital
Source: de Haan (2000)
Figure 4: Agency-structure relationship in livelihood analysis
2.2. The development of livelihood studies
2.2.1. From structure and agency to livelihood The term of livelihood in modern geography originates from classical French Geography in early twentieth-century. Vidal de la Blache (1911) introduced the term genre de vie which means the entity of livelihood strategies of a human group in a specific region (de Haan and Zoomers 2003, de Haan 2012).
In 1940, Evans-Pritchard, the anthropologist, used ‘livelihood’ to describe the Nuer’s strategies for making a living. While in classic French geography individual livelihoods formed a regional system with a clear history and identity, in anthropology livelihood was used much more concretely as a set of activities, especially economics, where people make a living (de Haan, 2012). The economist, Polanyi, published a book titled 'The Livelihood of Man' in 1977. In the book, he developed an economy that is not merely occupied with individual maximizing behavior like the formalist economy assumption, rather socially, culturally and historically embedded (Kaag, et al., 2004). The concept of livelihood disappeared from development geography after World War II as most scholars turned their attention to the dominant structural perspectives of the time–dependency and neo-Marxist approaches (de Haan & Zoomers, 2003). Those approaches and perspectives of the 1970s and 1980s tended to present people, and especially poor people in the Global South, as victims of structural forces and limitations (Rigg, 2007) and focuses on aspects of material life from the perspective of certain human and land interactions (de Haan 17 & Zoomers, 2003). The reemergence of livelihood studies began with the recognition of the concept of survival strategies in the 1970s, which highlighted the active, productive role of poor people and recognized their behavior and actions as both logical and well informed. ‘Survival strategies’ were used in reference to poor people’s coping strategies in the face of economic crisis and to stress the rationality of their risk minimization strategies (de Haan 2003, Owusu 2007). Studies of survival strategies showed that poor people were not passive victims of structural forces; instead, proponents argued that although poor people make decisions that affect their survival within the limits of structural conditions, they often have room to maneuver. As a result, individual and household actions in livelihood studies were often considered strategic and well informed (Owusu, 2009). Livelihood strategies concentrate on households. It was considered useful for its potential to link the gap between micro-economics, with its focus on the
atomistic behavior of individuals, and historical-structuralism, which concentrated on the political economy of development. A wide variety of household studies appeared in the 1980s. Most studies of the household were conducted under the title 'new household economy', focusing on the allocation of labor and land, and income strategies. It was also using micro-economic household modeling as an explanatory tool (Owusu, 2009). For Long (1984), ‘survival strategies' were also called ‘livelihood strategies. Although most of these researches began with the idea that households have a free choice layer, they show that household decisions are often carried out within structural constraints. Families continue to operate at a level of relative autonomy (Schmink, 1984). However, many household studies end in rather pessimistic conclusions. They show how poorer households are increasingly excluded from the compensations of economic growth. Therefore, they are even marginalized (de Haan & Zoomers, 2005). Since the 1990s, this perspective has gained momentum as to view development by placing people at the central point. It emphasizes their active role 18 in investigating opportunities and overcoming change (de Haan & Zoomers, 2003). Agency, actors, and action became the slogan of this shift in attention (Rigg, 2007). At that time, a new generation of more optimistic household researches appeared. They approached households from a livelihood viewpoint and showed how poor people can survive. The livelihood approach is an expression of the frustating results of the prior method, which arranged poverty policies based on the criteria of income, consumption, and basic needs (de Haan & Zoomers, 2005).
2.2.2. Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) Solesbury (2003) notes a metamorphosis of the sustainable livelihood framework. It started from The World Commission on Environment and Development, which firstly introduced the sustainable livelihoods idea in 1987 (WCED, 1987). In 1988, the term was put in the book titled ‘The Greening of Aid: Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice’ (Chambers, 2005). The UN Conference on Environment and Development carried out in 1992 was the great momentum
where sustainable livelihoods as an extensive goal for poverty alleviation was advocated (Krantz, 2001). UN forums supposed to involve people and their livelihood activities into a sustainable development policy framework. In the conference, Robert Chambers from the Institute of Development Studies (IDS, Sussex, UK) and Gordon Conway from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED, London) presented the ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century’. The paper published was based on their research on food security and agro-ecological sustainability (Owusu, 2009). The livelihood is defined as follows:
‘A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term (Chambers & Conway, 1991)'.
19 By the late 1990s, some donor communities and international organizations adopted the sustainable livelihood approach as an operational tool for poverty reduction. By applying the approach, development practice changed from needs based and resource centered solutions to people-centered, holistic, and dynamic approaches. This tends to concentrate on people and their capacity to sustain livelihood improvement. Development theorists and practitioners, governments, non-governmental organization, and international organization contributed to broadening its definition and focus (Owusu, 2009). A comparison of the livelihood approaches of DFID, CARE, Oxfam, and UNDP can be seen in Carney, et al. (1999). Kaag, et al. (2004) claims that the livelihood approach is strongly developed by economist and human geographers. The other disciplines such as anthropology and social psychology shaped the debate later. Some scholars focus on the study of livelihood strategies of a particular group of people in a particular environment. Meanwhile, some other researchers such as Ellis (2000), Bebbington (1999), and
de Haan (2000) contributed to theoretical development. The latter is the livelihood framework, which tends to be focused on formulating policy interventions. The international institutions such as DFID, the World Bank, and Oxfam are the representatives of such an approach. DFID is a well-known organization, which actively promoted the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. The framework was adopted from an IDS working paper written by Scoones (1998) that was published in June 1998 (figure 5). The article provides an analytical framework for sustainable rural livelihoods. The framework highlights five interacting elements, namely contexts, resources, institutions, strategies, and outcomes. Based on his writing, Scoones was recruited by DFID to become a member of the DFID Rural Livelihoods Advisory Group. The popular sustainable livelihood framework was presented at the DFID Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference in July 1998 (Solesbury, 2003). Indeed, the group was assigned to operationalize the sustainable livelihoods concept to which the White Paper had committed UK policy (Carney, 1998). DFID claims that 20 sustainable livelihood approach consists of some principles, namely people- centered, holistic, dynamic, building on strengths, macro-micro links, and sustainability. The DFID framework encompasses five main elements, namely vulnerability contexts, livelihood assets, transforming structures and processes, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes (figure 6). The vulnerability context includes trends, shocks, and seasonality. Shocks are associated with events that destroys assets directly such as floods, storms, civil conflict, etc. Trends are situations that are more predictable, such as population, resources, technological trends, etc. Lastly, seasonality refers to a shift in prices, production, health, and employment opportunities.
CONTEXTS, LIVELIHOOD INSTITUTIONAL LIVELIHOOD SUSTAINABLE CONSITIONS AND RESOURCES PROCESSES & STRATEGIES LIVELIHOOD TRENDS ORGANISATIONAL OUTCOMES STRUCTURES
Policy Livelihood
1. Increased numbers of working History days created
Natural capital 2. Poverty reduced Politics Agricultural
intensification – 3. Well-being and Economic/financial extensification Institutions capabilities Macro-economic capital improved Conditions
and Human capital Livelihood diversification Terms of trade Sustainability
Climate Organization 4. Livelihood, Social capital adaptation, Demography vulnerability and Migration resilience enhanced
Agro-ecology And others 5. Natural resource base sustainability Social ensured differentiation
Contextual analysis Analysis of Analysis of Analysis of Analysis of of condition and livelihood resources: institutional/organizational livelihood strategy outcomes and trends and trade-offs, influences on access to portfolios and trade-offs assessment of combinations, livelihood resources and pathways policy setting sequences, trends composition of livelihood strategy portfolio Source: Scoones (1998) 21 Figure 5: IDS´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework
Sustainable Livelihoods framework Key H = Human Capital S = Social Capital N = Natural Capital P = Physical Capital F = Financial Capital
I n Livelihood Assets o r d H e Vulnerability TRANSFORMING r LIVELIHOOD t LIVELIHOOD STRUCTURES o contexts S N Influence AND PROCESSES STRATEGIES OUTCOMES & access a c h P F i e v e
Source: DFID (2000)
Figure 6: DFID´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework
The term ‘livelihood resources’ proposed by Scoones (1998) is replaced with a livelihood asset. This involves human (skills, knowledge, and health status), social (networks, membership in a certain group, trust, and reciprocity), natural (land, forests, and water), physical (infrastructure), and financial capitals (stocks, money). The five capitals are known as the pentagon asset, which seems to be a central point in the framework. This has a close interaction with the other elements. For example, vulnerability context may destroy assets or assets can enlarge or restrict livelihood strategies employed, which in turn will influence livelihood outcomes. Transforming structures and processes refers to institutions, organizations, policies, and legislation that shape people’s livelihoods. The institution can be the public or the private sector. The public sector can be political bodies, executive agencies (ministries, departments), judicial bodies, and others. The private sector comprises commercial enterprises and corporations, civil society, or NGOs (international, national, local). They play a role particularly in determining access 22 to various types of capital. Choice, opportunity, and diversity are important things promoted by the livelihood approach. Livelihood strategies refer to the variety and combination of activities and choices that poor people carry out to accomplish their livelihood goals including productive activities, investment strategies, reproductive choice, etc. The outputs of livelihood strategies are livelihood outcomes. The outcome leads to a sustainable livelihood. This can be more income, increased well-being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security, and more sustainable use of the natural resource base.
2.2.3. SLA under critics The shifting back of agency as the focus in the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA), however, raises some critics. SLA is considered to overemphasize people as a free agent (Sakdapolrak, 2014). Households as a unit of analysis are normally regarded as independent units. Furthermore, the term ‘livelihood strategy’ overemphasizes the capacity of individuals and households
to choose and select strategies and activities to make a living depending on their endowments and capabilities and denies the importance of the chances available to the individual/household. The assumption about households as unitary entities gives less attention to intrahousehold dynamics and conflicts. The ability of individuals and households to choose and select is overemphasized, while the structural constraints that limit such choices are neglected (Prowse, 2010). Furthermore, because the focus is on the strength of the agent, it does not take into account the limited space for poor people to maneuver (Wood & Salway, 2000). Although the livelihood approach explicitly involves structural aspects in livelihoods studies, the SLA does not give any direction or explanation of how structural aspects such as institutions and policies influence livelihoods, or of how livelihoods influence the structural level (Sakdapolrak, 2014). The livelihood approach also portrays people as homo economicus, using capitals to gain well-defined economic goals and ignoring their perception, ideas, hopes, fears, norms, and values (Kaag, et al., 2004). Livelihood studies focus primarily on income activities of individuals or households (Brons, Dietz, Niehof, 23 & Witsenburg, 2007). Actors are perceived to use their assets in order to achieve clear ends and maximize their utilities (van Dijk, 2011). Capitals are understood in a very economistic and materialistic way (White & Ellison, 2006). Capital is apprehended mainly as any material or virtual asset or holding (a thing) (Wilshusen, 2014). The term social capital is too optimistic because it ignores the processes of dependency, such as patron-client relations, and social exclusion (Wood & Salway, 2000). Livelihood studies are also criticized for lacking emphasis on the ‘vulnerability’ context (Prowse, 2010). The elements of the ‘vulnerability context’ only embrace limited circumstances. Meanwhile, the broader vulnerability situations such as rampant inflation, conflict, violence, and warfare are not taken into account (Murray, 2000; Brons et al., 2007). The term of shock and trend in the livelihood literature contains some weaknesses. For example, ‘shock’ tends to be applied in a certain condition that occurs randomly. A chronic set of conditions, which maintain people in a constantly vulnerable state are ignored.
The ‘trends’ are not also considering any reference to the political economy such as socio-economic exploitation or unequal power relation in the structure (patron- clientelism), which significantly restrict and constrain people’s livelihood strategies (Wood & Salway, 2000). For Prowse (2010), the term ‘sustainable’ in the SLF is too ambiguous. This still raises questions, such as 'sustainable' for whom? With what criteria? And in the short or long term? (Murray, 2000). Rakodi (2002) claimed that to describe the ability of people to recover from shocks and stresses and maintain or enhance assets, it is more appropriate to use the term livelihood security than sustainable livelihood. Scoones (2009) criticizes that livelihood approach tends to emphasize the people living in the current situations. The central concerns are then the stability, durability, resilience, and robustness in times of disruption. Sakdapolrak (2014) claims that the livelihood approach does not acknowledge the role of history, long-term social change, and socio-ecological transformation. Livelihood studies 24 are static and a-historic.
2.3. Livelihood vulnerability
Some scholars try to understand the susceptibility of people’s livelihoods and to overcome critics of livelihood by integrating the concept of livelihood and vulnerability. Lin (2013), for example, investigates vulnerability, which is incorporated with the livelihood framework. Besides applying the instruments of the livelihood framework such as capitals and livelihood strategies, he also analyses the vulnerability determinants, i.e. exposure, sensitivity, and adaptation (figure 7). Besides the element of the environment, McLaughlin & Dietz (2008) assert to engage social structure and human agency in the analysis of vulnerability. It would be useful to understand a more integrated perspective of vulnerability.
Vulnerability context-Exposure, sensitivity, adaptability
Poverty-vulnerability traps
Cohes Negative Feedback Loop Human System Environment system
Rights Instructions Policies
Access Social Meteorology structure H Geology Knowledge/ Hydrology S N Cohes Positive Technology Livelihood Biology Culture Feedback Loop C P
Adaptive and resilient transformability
Notes: cohes = coupled human and environment systems, H = human capital; S = social capital; C = cultural capital; P = produced capital; N = natural capital Source: Lin (2013)
Figure 7: The framework of livelihood and vulnerability concept integration 25 The concept of vulnerability itself has been the core analysis framework for various disciplines since the 1980s. Geography and natural hazard research are the roots of the use of the concept of vulnerability scientifically. Recently, vulnerability has become a central concept in various research contexts including livelihood studies (Füssel, 2007). The current literature includes more than 25 different definitions, concepts and methods to systematize vulnerability (Birkmann, 2006). The debate over vulnerability definitions and vulnerability assessment practice has emerged from three broad intellectual lineages: (a) studies that draw heavily from risk/hazard or biophysical approaches, (b) the application of political ecological and/or political-economic frameworks, and (c) recent research on vulnerability inspired by the concept of resilience in ecology (Eakin & Luers, 2006). Early hazards-risk vulnerability studies emphasized the physical system such as agricultural production, human settlement, etc., or the hazard itself (e.g., flooding, coastal erosion, hurricanes, fires, etc.). More recently, other disciplines
have pushed for consideration of the underlying social conditions that make humans vulnerable (Adger, 2006). Specifically, political ecology and geography have focused on ‘social vulnerability’ by accentuating socio-economic, demographic, cultural, and political characteristics, as well as the role of institutions and governance for shaping vulnerability (Engle, 2011). There are the extensions of the concept of vulnerability from focusing ‘internal side of risk’, vulnerability as the likelihood to experience harm, double structure to multi- structure of vulnerability, and multi-dimensional of vulnerability (Birkmann, 2006) (figure 8).
Multi-dimensional vulnerability encompassing physical, social, economic, environmental and institutional features
Vulnerability as a multiple structure: susceptibility, coping capacity, exposure, adaptive capacity
26 Vulnerability as dualistic approach of susceptibility and coping capacity
Widening of the concept Vulnerability as the likelihood to experince harm (human centred)
Vulnerability as an internal risk factor (intrinsic vulnerability)
Source: Birkmann (2006) Figure 8: Key spheres of the concept of vulnerability
The sustainable Livelihood Approach is one of the conceptual frameworks, which involve vulnerability in its analysis. Some other conceptual frameworks of vulnerability are the risk-hazard approach, the political economy approach, the pressure-and-release model, integrated approaches, and the resilience approach
(Füssel, 2007). Other approaches are the double structure of vulnerability, the ISDR framework for disaster risk reduction, vulnerability in the global environmental change community, the onion framework, a holistic approach to risk and vulnerability assessment, and the BBC conceptual framework (Birkmann, 2006). Etzold (2013) integrates the concept of livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice by applying the double structure of vulnerability, adopted from Bohle (figure 9). Bohle’s idea is initiated by Chambers (1989) who defines vulnerability as exposure to contingencies and stress, and difficulty in coping with them. Thus, Vulnerability has two sides, an external and an internal. Bohle (2001), then, proposed the double structure of vulnerability. The "external" perspective refers primarily to the structural dimensions of vulnerability and risk, while the "internal" dimension of vulnerability focuses on coping and actions to overcome or at least reduce the negative impacts of economic and ecological changes. In this context, it refers to the dialectic relationship between the external and internal side of vulnerability. 27 Etzold (2013) refers driving force and exposure as the structural factor that accounts for the kind of vulnerability (vulnerable to what?), whereas sensitivity and adaptive capacity are main aspects of the agent´s habitus and their social practices that (should) enable them to organize their everyday life and respond to stressors. Sensitivity is a social category that generally refers to knowledge (cultural capital), social networks (social capital), impoverishment (economic capital), power relations, inequalities and interdependencies and thus to the specific socio-economic positions of agents. The sensitivity, then, influences the ability to anticipate and adjust the change (adaptive capacity). Both sensitivity and adaptive capacity are determined by the position of the agent in the structure of the field. Together, driving force, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity produce a certain vulnerability outcome that in turn perpetuates the other factors.
The ‚external‘ side The ‚external‘ side of of vulnerability vulnerability
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE TO DRIVING FORCES Political Economy Approaches Public Spaces as Arena THE DOUBLE STRUCTURE OF VULNERABILITY THE DOUBLE STRUCTURE OF VULNERABILITY Crisis and Conflict Theory Fields of street food vending COPING SENSITIVITY AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
The ‚internal‘ side of The ‚internal‘ side of vulnerability vulnerability
Source: Bohle (2001) Source: Etzold (2013)
Figure 9: Bohle´s (left) and Etzold´s model (right) of the double structure of vulnerability 28 By integrating the concept of vulnerability and Bourdieu's theory of social practice in analyzing livelihood, some weaknesses of the livelihood approach are overcome. The involvement of the vulnerability concept will resolve the problem of less attention to vulnerable households. Additionally, by applying Bourdieu's theory of social practice, it will examine the involvement of power-relations in livelihood vulnerability analysis.
2.4. Bourdieu´s theory of social practice
2.4.1. Bourdieu and human geography The attention of human geographers in employing the Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field, and capital has increased particularly in social, cultural, urban, and historical geography since the late 1990s (Etzold, 2013). Moreover, this is also triggered by the increasing interest of contemporary human geography in social theory, particularly for German-speaking geographers (Deffner & Haferburg, 2012). Even, in 2014, the Journal of Geographica Helvetica published
the special issue of ‘Bourdieu and development geography’6. The concepts initiated by Bourdieu, as Everts et al. (2011) note, have been widely used by German-speaking geographers in studies of a number of contexts (Dirksmeier 2007; Dörfler et al. 2003; Janoschka 2011; Lippuner 2005; Rothfuss 2006). Cresswell (2013) states that engaging Bourdieu’s theory in human geography is driven by involving human geography in the theoretical development in social science. Bourdieu is considered as poststructuralist, which concern in solving the problem of structure and agency dichotomy. Bourdieu’s theory is applied by human geography in various ways, namely: first, as a bridge between structure and agency; second, in relation to class, cultural capital, choice, and constraint; third, as a perspective on the body, embodied knowledge, practice, and performance (Setten, 2009). Thrift (1996, 2008) applies the theory of social practice to analyze non-representation theory. Setten (2004) work with habitus to analyze the relationship between body and landscape in the landscape practices of a farming community in Southwestern Norway. Gerber (1997) claims that the concept of habitus can mediate culture and 29 nature dichotomy. Habitus is also useful for reconciling the duality of the physical, the mental, and the social world. In line with Gerber’s idea, Fogle (2011) reveals that habitus can integrate social and physical space. Every social system must be understood to involve three general components: social space, physical space, and habitus. Physical space is implicated in the kinesthetic process of the embodiment of habitus, as well as in the equally kinesthetic practices of everyday life (Figure 10). In urban space, Bridge (2001) analyzed that gentrification has built a new field which drives the new habitus and established new class traditions.
6 See http://www.geogr-helv.net/special_issue281.html
Social Space
Habitus
Physical Space
Source: Fogle (2011)
Figure 10: The general structure of the dialectic between social space and physical space
Currently, Bourdieu’s theory of social practice is employed in various issues. Thrift (2008) applies the concept to develop a non-representational theory. Some other scholars apply social practice theory to analyze several studies such as geographies of memory (Maus, 2015), consumption (Warde, 2005; Steigemann, 2017), climate change and human migration (Ober & Sakdapolrak, 2017), and 30 governance (Zimmer & Sakdapolrak, 2012). In livelihood and vulnerability studies, the Bourdieu’s idea is also employed some researchers i.e. Thieme (2008), Obrist, Pfeiffer, & Henley (2010), van Dijk (2011), Didero (2012), Etzold (2013), and Sakdapolrak (2014). For Etzold & Sakdapolrak (2016), Bourdieu’s concept of ‘field’ is useful for the geographer to illuminate the sociospatial categories such as “field”, “arena”, or “mobility”.
2.4.2. Historical background of practice theory Practice theory is rooted in diverse disciplines, namely philosophy, cultural theory, social theory (history, sociology, anthropology), and science and technology studies. Philosophers emphasize the analysis on subjects and objects, highlight non-propositional knowledge, and illuminate the conditions of intelligibility. Social theorists employ practice in an attempt to reconcile the agent-structure dilemma. Cultural theorists depict language as discursive activity in opposition to structuralist, semiotic, and poststructuralist scholars. Theorists of science and technology put interest in opposing representation and the
reconsideration of humanist dichotomies between human and non-human entities (Schatzki, 2001). Postill (2010) distinguishes practice theorists into two ‘waves’ or generations. The first generation is the initiator of what now is regarded as practice theory. The scholars involved in that generation are Bourdieu, de Certeau, Foucault, and Giddens. Meanwhile, Ortner, Schatzki, Reckwitz, and Warde are the second generation that is currently testing and developing the theory. Practice theory actually has been becoming interested among scholars since nearly 30 years ago. However, there are only a few scientists who explicitly acquaint themselves as ‘practice theorist' (Soler, Zwart, Lynch, & Israel-Jost, 2014). Together with philosophers, sociologists, and scholars of science, Schatzki brings back ‘practice' as an important term in contemporary theory (Schatzki, Cetina, & Savigny, 2001). It is usually called a ‘practice turn’ that is interchangeably used with ‘practical turn’ or ‘turn to practice’ (Stern, 2003). The label ‘‘practice theory’’ refers to a group of approaches in late twentieth century social and cultural theory, which highlights the routinized and 31 performative character of action, its dependence on tacit knowledge and implicit understanding (Ritzer & Ryan, 2011). The principle of practice theory is the refusing of a series of classical dualisms and the confession of the inherent correlation between elements that are often treated dichotomically (Schatzki, 2001; Reckwitz, 2002; Stern, 2003; Ritzer & Ryan, 2011). These include such conceptual oppositions as mind and body, cognition and action, objective and subjective, structure and agency, individual and institutional, free will and determinism, consciousness and the unconscious, micro and macro (Schatzki, 1996; Reckwitz, 2002). It also opposes numerous current and recent paths of thinking, such as intellectualism, representationalism, individualisms, structuralism, structure-functionalism, systems theory, and semiotics (Schatzki, 2001). According to Reckwitz (2002) the emersion of ‘theories of social practices’ or practice theories’ have made a conceptual alternative, which is disappointed with both classically modern and high-modern types of social theories. Classically
modern social theories embrace the contradictive paradigms between the homo economicus (the purpose-oriented theory of action) and homo sociologicus (norm- oriented theory of action). The label ‘high-modern social theories’ in this context refers to culture-oriented action theories, which involve culturalist mentalism (in an objectivist and a subjectivist version), culturalist textualism, intersubjectivism – and practice theory. The practice theory vocabulary then refers to both the purpose-oriented and the norm-oriented models to explain the action. Reckwitz, as Eichner (2014) notes, distinguishes three paradigms in the development of social theory. The first one is normative paradigm (the homo economicus to the homo sociologicus). The second one is interpretative approaches (from homo sociologicus to homo symbolicum)7. Lastly, practice theory is included in the newest paradigm, the praxeological approach. The concepts of practice, behavior and action have a different meaning. Behavior assumes that every act in term of an (observable) ‘stimulus’ and an (observable) ‘response'. Otherwise, action is a reflexive and intentional activity: a 32 consciously considered, ‘freely' performed activity that is goal oriented. It includes internal (mental) or external activity (observable muscle activity) as opposed to a mere response to stimuli (Werlen, 1993). An action is differentiated from practice, because the classical action theory starts from an end, a motive, a reflected goal, and is constrained by the conditions of material means and cultural norms. Nevertheless, most practices are understood as routines and not loaded with spectacular ‘meanings' at all (Sulkunen, 2009).
A ‘practice’ (praktik) is a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things' and their use, background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, emotional states and motivational knowledge (Reckwitz, 2002).
In a simple way, ‘a practice is something people do, not just once, but on a regular basis’ (Stern, 2003). Feldman & Orlikowski (2011) characterize practice theory into three principles. First, the structure of social life is produced by
7 It included the label of ‘high-modern social theories’, the culturalist mentalism, culturalist textualism, and intersubjectivism.
everyday action. Second, practice theory rejects the dualisms and recognizes the inherent relationship between elements. Third, there is mutual constitution between structure and agency. Social orders (structures, institutions, routines, etc) cannot be understood without considering the role of agency in producing them. Otherwise, agency cannot be simply understood as human action, but rather must be conceived in relation to structural conditions. Practice theory is the relationality of mutual constitution.
2.4.3. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice: a conceptual framework Bourdieu’s theory of social practice consists of a concised formulation, which involves three related concepts: habitus, capital, and field. The equation is stated in the book of ‘Distinction’, as follows: ‘‘[(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice’ (Bourdieu, 1984). Practice, then, is the output of the relation between one's disposition (habitus) and one's position in a field (capital), in a social arena (field) (Maton, 2008). The idea of Bourdieu’s theory of practice starts with the objection of the 33 objectivism-subjectivism dichotomy. Objectivism, in the form of structuralism, is criticized because of overstating the role of objective structures and regularities in the form of social practice and disregarding human agency. Bourdieu also denied the ideas of subjectivist claiming that human agencies have free will to act (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2016). Bourdieu, habitus is a system of schemes of perception and thought that maintain particular ways of thinking, behaving, understanding and interpreting the world (Walther, 2013; Anderson, 2016). Bourdieu (1977) stated that habitus is a system of dispositions that are durable and transposable.
‘…,systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively "regulated" and "regular" without in any way being the product of obedience to rules, objectively adapted to their goals without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary to attain them and, being all this, collectively orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a conductor.’ (Bourdieu, 1977 p.72)
These dispositions are durable because they last a long time. At the same time dispositions are also transposable because they have a capability to active within various kinds of social actions. Maton (2008) claim that habitus is as a property of social agents (individuals, groups, or institutions). Habitus is ‘the feel for the game’ or the feel for the regularities of social fields (Jenkins, 1992). Habitus is both structured structures (opus operatum, the result of practices) and structuring structures (modus operandi, mode of practices) at the same time (Walther, 2013; Fuch, 2003). Habitus is also "the dialectic of the internalization of externality and the externalization of internality" (Jenkins, 1992). The habitus is 34 both structured by conditions of existence composing of an economy of interests invested and saturated with past and present experiences (Chandler, 2013) and generates practices, beliefs, perceptions, feelings and so forth in compliance with its own structure through the system of dispositions. Therefore, Habitus is the link not only between past, present, and future, but also between the social and the individual, the objective and subjective, and structure and agency (Maton, 2008). Capital has a significant role in forming the habitus in the development of the internalization of structure, especially during childhood. For example, in education study, there have been many young adults from the working class, who are talented and academic, dropping out of school only because of a lack of confidence. In Bourdieu's perspective, this phenomenon can be explained as the concept of the 'subjective expectations of objective probability' (Yang, 2014). Bourdieu proposed four forms of capital: economic (money and assets); cultural (e.g. forms of knowledge; taste, aesthetic and cultural preferences; language, narrative and voice); social (e.g. affiliations and networks; family, religious and
cultural heritage) and symbolic (things that stand for all of the other forms of capital) (Thomson, 2008). Economic capital is related to one's opportunities and income. This can be directly exchanged into money and can be institutionalized in property rights (Bourdieu, 1986). Cultural capital is especially transmitted by family, education, and probably institutionalized in the forms of educational qualifications. Cultural capital can be in the form of incorporated (or embodied), objectivied, and institutionalized cultural capital. Social capital can be institutionalized in nobility and requires effort to create and maintain it, eg by reciprocal invitation. Lastly, the notion of symbolic capital is related to honor and recognition (Walther, 2013). Habitus and capital do not exist in a vacuum, rather than function in relation to a field. A field is a social arena within which struggles or maneuvers take place over specific resources or stakes and access to them. A field constitutes a structured system of social position (Jenkins, 1992). In a field, habitus as the system of dispositions that is firstly acquired by the individual through early childhood socialization shape and orient human action (Swartz, 2002). If the field 35 is like a game, habitus is ‘the feel for the game’ that leads people to act in a certain way. The volume and structure of capital play an essential role in determining the the agent position in the field. Dörfler et al. (2003) and Walther (2013) illustrated the interplay between the social field (objective structure) and habitus (agency) in generating social practice (strategies). Dörfler et al. (2003) state that social practice is not determined solely by a conscious calculation, but also based on the relation between subject and society. The relation between subject and society is characterized by objective power relations and dispositions. The objective power relations constitute social fields in which the subjects take positions based on the capital occupied (figure 11).
Objektive Machtbeziehungen
Feld Matrix des Sozialen/ ‚Socialer Raum‘
Subjekt Praxis Gesell- schaft
Habitus Gesellschaflich erworbener
Handlungssinn
Fokus Fokus der geographischen Sozialforschung
Dispositionen
Source: Dörfler et al. (2003) 36 Figure 11: The conceptual scheme of the logic of practice
Social practice encompasses three main elements, namely field, capital, and habitus. The interaction of these elements leads to strategy (practice) by investing capital and fighting for capital. Social practice is the result of a dialectical relationship between objective structures (field) and subjective dispositions or habitus (agency). Habitus is produced by social structure (opus operatum) as well as generate social structure (modus operandi). In a certain situation, habitus can be in the form of ‘illusio’ when the rules of the social game have been internalized or have become a collective belief. Habitus also can become ‘doxa’ when actors act in accordance with their position on the field. This doxa forms the sense of agent’s position and the feeling of what is possible and what is not (Walther, 2013) (figure 12).
Social Field
Rules of the game Agent’s position
Determine: Value of type of Depend on: Relative quantity and Opus
capital structure of capital
Opus Operatum
Operatum
Illusio Doxa
Habitus
Operatum
Modus Operandi
Opus Opus PRACTICE (Strategy) Investing Economic capital Social capital Cultural capital
Source: Walther (2013)
Figure 12: The interplay of field, capital, and habitus 37
A field as a structured social capital contains people who dominate and others who are dominated. It is because the field is characterized by an unequal distribution of capital (Lahire, 2015) or asymmetric power relations (Sakdapolrak, 2007). The rules of the game in the field are commonly set by the powerful players or the dominant actors that is endowed with the largest volume and the best structure capital (Sakdapolrak, 2007). Then, social actors continue to be involved in struggle and competition by applying various strategies to maintain or improve their position in a field (Raedeke, Green, Hodge, & Valdivia, 2000; Sakdapolrak, 2007; Maton, 2008; Thomson, 2008). A strategy is associated with the "maximizing of material and symbolic profit". For Bourdieu, strategies encompass conservation, succession, and subversion. Conservation strategies tend to be overtaken by those who hold dominant positions and take the position of seniority in the field. Strategies of
succession are efforts to have access to dominant positions in a field and are generally pursued by the new entrants. Finally, the strategy of subversion is sought by those who expect to obtain little from the dominant groups (Swartz, 1997). In other words, the practices designed to maintain one’s position are reproduction strategies and practices used to either acquire a greater volume of capital or new types of capital or alter the field of practice are named by reconversion strategies (Raedeke, Green, Hodge, & Valdivia, 2003). Sakdapolrak (2007) illustrates the theory of Bourdieu by integrating the elements forming and influencing social practice in such an interesting figure. He distinguishes the concept of network and field. Fields are defined by differential relations between properties, while networks are defined by actual connections. In a field, unlike in a network, people with little interaction with one another can be grouped together very closely. Based on the sakdapolrak’s illustration, Etzold (2013) adds the arena in the so-called socio-structural layers beside the field and the network. The term arena refers to Bourdieu’s notion of the occupied or 38 appropriated physical space in order to describe the spatial representations or effects of social fields. Compared to the field which is considered space-less arena emphasizes the actual physical presence of space (space-based and non spaced- based) of agents, the spatial distance or proximity between them, their own spatial practices, and the visible material manifestations (products). Etzold gives an example of streets and other public spaces as an arena. They are distinct physical places, where agents know one another and recognize their common interests. A shared identity, in turn, builds the foundation for their interaction and enables collective and political action (figure 13).
Source: Sakdapolrak (2007)
39
Agent
Agent Agent
Agent
Agent
Agent Agent
Agent Agent
Draft: Etzold 11/2010 Direct network relations Based on Indirect field relations Sakdapolrak 2007:55
Source: Etzold (2013)
Figure 13: Sakdapolrak’s (top) and Etzold´s schematic illustration (bottom) of Bourdieu’s practice theory
Strategy is the habitus in action (Lingard & Christie, 2003). The strategy is based on mastery of its logic acquired through experience, part of habitus (Eacott, 2010). In other words, a strategy is the product of a practical sense of a certain ‘social game’ that is engendered by habitus (Anderson, 2016). The concept of habitus, practical mastery of the logic, and strategy is used by Bourdieu as the effort to get away from objectivism without falling into subjectivism (Lamaison & Bourdieu, 1986). Habitus as the system of disposition suggests "capability" and "reliability," not frequency or repetition. Disposition suggests that past socialization "predisposes" individuals to act out what they have internalized from past experience but does not "determine" them to do so. The dispositions of habitus shape and orient human action; they do not determine it (Swartz, 2002). The disposition of habitus can either be continued or changed. The past behavior can be successfully reproduced when the fields consist of similar constraints and opportunities compared to those present during the formative 40 period of the habitus. In fact, however, the fit between the dispositions of habitus and the structures of the situation is seldom perfect. This causes the habitus to be also adjusted in accordance with the changes (Swartz, 1997). Even, when there is a remarkable gap between field opportunities and habitus expectations, there will be the hysteresis of habitus (Bourdieu, 1977). Yang (2014) states that hysteresis is associated with a high level of risk that is potential to urge the change of habitus. Agents are not puppets whose actions are fully determined by external field forces. Agents have a certain level of freedom in their choice of strategies and practices. In other words, they have a certain level of agency in their struggle for relative positions on the social field (Walther, 2013). Practice and strategies involve a permanent dialectic between organizing consciousness and automatic behaviors (Bourdieu, 1990). Some parts of human actions can be determined more or less unconsciously whereas others are determined as a consequence of conscious, and perhaps rational, decision making. The unconscious level is used when the behavior reference has been embedded in habitus. In case the reference of behavior is not provided in the habitus, then the
consciousness must be invoked to provide a decision that will complete the set of dispositions required to determine the action to be implemented. The strategies undertaken are based on habitus that is the result of structure internalization and a lifetime of critical reflection upon agent experiences, including their experiences of those structures (Elder-Vass, 2007). In other words, strategy conducted by agents takes place at more than one level. An actor performs certain conscious calculations in a particular ‘game’ (the rules ‘determined’ by the relatively autonomous logic of that field). However, the strategy he or she adopts may also have unconscious "determinants". That is, they may be unconscious on one level, yet conscious of another (Potter, 2000). Potter easily explains this in the following illustration:
‘For example, a manual laborer’s son “decides” not to try hard to answer a difficult arithmetic problem on a school test. Underlying this “decision”, is perhaps a habitualized but nonetheless relatively rationally justifiable stance: that “academic achievement is not for people like me, so why should I bother? It won’t give me any advantage”. But yet he is not consciously thinking about the facts and logic which might support this argument; he is simply doodling and day dreaming during 41 his arithmetic test. However, he both understands, and could, if pressed, articulate a version of the social mobility argument alluded to (he has possibly heard something like it all his life—from his father, friends and even his teachers). The argument itself (as he understands it) is neither wholly individual or non-individual. Rather, he has individualized (applied to himself) an argument which is essentially collective (that is, class based and probabilistic).’ (Potter, 2000 p. 241)
2.5. Theoretical framework
Livelihood encompasses capabilities, asset, and activities. Capabilities and assets are essential to encounter vulnerability contexts such as shock and trends. Capabilities refer to the ability to find opportunities. Therefore capabilities are proactive and dynamically adaptable (Chambers & Conway, 1991). The definition of livelihood is a set of activities and strategies pursued by household members, using their various assets in order to make a living. In the SLA framework, ‘livelihood strategies are the proactive actions that refer to the range and combination of activities and choices’. Through productive activities, investment
strategies, reproductive choices, etc., people can attain their livelihood goals. (DFID, 2000). Based on its assumptions, SLA is criticized because it portrays people as homo economicus that act freely without considering the non-economic elements such as perception, norms, values, etc. The framework is also built under the assumption that agents have the capability to improve their livelihood without considering the structural constraints and power-relations. The vulnerability is only understood as an external factor. Every actor has the same opportunities and can act freely to overcome the circumstances without taking into account the possibilities of unequal power relationships among agents. This dissertation is integrating the concept of livelihood, vulnerability and Bourdieu's theory of social practice to overcome some criticism related to the livelihood approach. By adopting Bohle’s concept of the double structure of vulnerability, livelihood vulnerability refers to the dialectic relationship between the external and internal side. The exposure as the external side is interrelated and 42 influenced either direct or indirect to tobacco-based livelihood. The impacts of the exposure to household livelihood depend on the capability of the agent to maintain or improve their livelihood through a set of strategies. Strategies are also called as social practices (Hurtado, 2010; Walther, 2013). Livelihood strategies that are considered as social practices are the result of the interplay between agent's dispositions (habitus) and agent’s position (capital) in the field of tobacco. Habitus as the system of dispositions is influenced by the social factor and a lifetime of critical reflections upon actor's experiences. This is managed in the mental world through the social-psychological process. The mental world provides economy of interests, which is culturally obtained from structure. The variety of interests among agents is caused by differences in capital that they possess. The social-psychological process negotiates the cultural interests (Chandler, 2013). The process can be guided by structure internalization that will generate the automatic behavior. The fit between the disposition and the field drive the habitus reproduction. The social-psychological process is also oriented by the critical reflection (reflexivity), which may be driven by the gap
between the habitus and structure or between expectations and reality. The change of restraints and opportunities in the field is one of the impetuses of the reflexivity. Habitus is ‘the feel for the game’ that guides people to act in a certain way. A field denotes a structured system of social positions. Social positions are determined by the volume and structure of capital possessed. The capital is unequally distributed in the field. Therefore, the power relations among agents are asymmetric. There are dominant and dominated agents. The different position in the field causes diverse livelihood strategies undertaken and generates varying degrees of vulnerability between agents (figure 14).
43
EXPOSURE (External side of livelihood vulnerability)
FIELD AGENT
Agent SoC s Habitus reproduction u t i
b C a
The social- a Agent
LIVELIHOOD p
CAPITAL CULTURAL Agent H
EC CC HABITUS i psychological t
INTERESTS STRATEGIES a l 44 processes
Critical reflection (reflexivity) SyC Agent ■ Volume and composition ■ Value of type of capital
. Unequal power-relations Note: EC: economic capital, SoC: social capital, CC: cultural capital, and SyC: symbolic capital (Internal side of livelihood vulnerability) . Dominant-dominated agents
Source: My own draft (08/05/19)
Figure 14: Theoretical framework of the dissertation
Research Design and Methodology 3
45
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 15: Basket (kenthung) sales for sliced drying tobacco packaging in the Parakan market
3.1. Introduction: philosophy, theory, and methods
Research design involves theory, approaches, and methods. It links to philosophy and geographical knowledge (Graham, 2005). Philosophy is helpful to contextualize and justify the answers to research questions. Philosophy makes geographical knowledge more systematic. The theory helps to extend the knowledge to the experiences of everyday life (Aitken & Valentine, 2006). In human geography, there are four groups of philosophies namely: empirist, positivist, humanistic, and structuralist (Johnston, 1986). Cresswell (2013) states that in the post-1980s human geography has involved the ‘post- position’ such as post-colonialism, post-humanism, as well as post-structuralism. Poststructuralism strives to solve the problem of structure (and therefore agency). Pierre Bourdieu is one of the scholars, which is categorized as poststructuralist. This research tries to solve the problem of dualism particularly between ‘agency’ and ‘structure’, which is embedded in the livelihood and vulnerability perspective. This view has been employed by development geography concerning 46 studies of poverty and inequality. The basic assumption developed by livelihood approaches in understanding the poor (agent) is parallel with the ongoing debate of structure and agency. The debate seems to be important to meet alternative perspectives that are neither structural nor agent-oriented. Some human geographers apply Bourdieu’s theory of social practice as an alternative view to analyze people’s livelihoods.
3.2. Research approach
3.2.1. Qualitative approach The choice of using social practice theory brings the consequence of determining the methodology used. The Bourdieusian perspective essentially adopts a qualitative approach (Grenfell, 2014). A qualitative approach is categorized as intensive research design, which tends to emphasize on in-depth inquiry and investigation. It portrays a small number of cases studies with a more detailed illustration. It is different from the extensive research design that emphasizes on representation and generalization that is generated by involving
large samples. It usually engages questionnaires, large-scale surveys, and statistical analysis (Clifford, French, & Valentine, 2010). Qualitative research has some characteristics, firstly, focusing on how people figure out and interpret their experiences. The understanding of the phenomenon is from themselves, not from outsider’s view. Secondly, the primary instrument of data collection and analysis is the researcher. The human instrument can generate data that are more accurate by involving both verbal and non-verbal communication. Thirdly, the research process is inductive where concepts or theories can be built form the field rather than deductively testing hypotheses. Finally, the product of a qualitative approach is richly descriptive obtained from diverse sources and methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
3.2.2. Case study A qualitative approach has various types of methods. A case study is one of the type of qualitative approaches beside comparative, retrospective, snapshots and longitudinal studies (Flick, 2004). For Yin (2016) case study is one of the twelve other methods in a qualitative approach. 47 ‘Case’ means a human activity that is always embedded in the real world and can only be studied or understood in context. A case can be an individual, group (family, class), institutional (school, factory), or community (a town, a rural). A case can be single or multiple. A single case only involves one group, institution, or community. Meanwhile, multiple cases comprise several groups, institutions, or communities. In the qualitative approach, a case study is a primary method that involves some sub-methods such as interviews, observations, document and record analysis, work samples, and so on. The various sub-methods employed together on the same issue are called multi-method approach (Gillham, 2000). This dissertation employs a case study on the livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers living in Sumbing-Sindoro Sumbing (SSM) by applying the concept of livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice. Grenfell & James (1998) claim that case studies offer an excellent opportunity to research in a Bourdieusian way. It can grasp individual life trajectories as the
entrance into their habitus. It is also possible to investigate the interaction between habitus and field in empirical terms. Furthermore, field analysis that helps to map out livelihood strategies and the livelihoods of vulnerable groups within a web of power-laden social relations can be dismantled. Tobacco communities’ case studies will be beneficial to map the field, rule, and distribution of capitals. The social practices or livelihood strategies carried out by households can be identified.
3.3. Research structures
3.3.1. Research site This research is conducted in Temanggung regency, Central Java province, Indonesia. Residency of Kedu, today named Temanggung, was well known as a tobacco-producing area since 1746. The tobacco in this area is cultivated in high places, especially in Sumbing and Sindoro mountainside, with a diverse agro- ecosystem (dry land, rainfed, irrigated fields) and topography ranging from flat 48 areas, air-hills, up the slopes with a slope of 60° (Nurnasari & Djumali, 2010; Rochman & Suwarso, 2000). Temanggung is a famous place producing tobacco with a typical high quality, low sugar, and high nicotine level, which is very important for a cigarette, manufacturers to produce kretek. Nitisastro (2016) noted that Temanggung tobacco contains 1.0-8.0 % of nicotine. Meanwhile, the tobacco containing the highest nicotine, srinthil, contains about 5-8 % of nicotine (Djajadi, 2015). The best quality of tobacco is produced at altitude of more than 1,000 meters and positioned at the slope to the northeast and north. The diversity of the growing areas causes a variety of tobacco qualities produced (Mamat, Sitorus, Hardjomidjojo, & Seta, 2006).
3.3.2. Villages selection This research is focused on two villages namely Gentingsari village, Bansari sub-district, and Pagergunung village, Bulu sub-district. These villages are chosen because they are located in different agro-systems. Gentingsari village represents an area, where farmers plant tobacco in the ricefields and is situated on the slope of Mt. Sindoro. Meanwhile, Pagergunung village is situated on the slope of Mt. Sumbing in which farmers planted tobacco in a dry land with an elevation more than 1,000 meters.
3.3.3. Research steps This research encompasses three steps: a. Examine the exposures. It involves the identification of exposures that influence tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability. The primary data is investigated to grasp the perception of tobacco peasant households related to the forces affecting their livelihood. The secondary data is collected to seek global, national, and local state associated with the sustainability of tobacco 49 peasant livelihood. Official and non-official sources are used. b. Analyze the influences of exposures on tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability. Exposure is considered to cause the tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability. c. Investigate the livelihood strategies employed by agents. This step tries to reach the livelihood strategies taken among the agents in the social field. Bourdieu’s field analysis including map out the objective structure of relations between the positions occupied by agents who compete for the legitimate forms of specific authority of which the field is a site and analyze the habitus or disposition system of agents (Grenfell & James, 1998; Grenfell & Hardy, 2007; Grenfell, 2008; Grenfell and Lebaron, 2014). The position and disposition in the field cause the different livelihood strategies employed. Based on the strategies undertaken, it is useful to examine who among the agents whose livelihoods are most vulnerable.
3.4. Data collection and methods One of the characteristics of a qualitative approach is triangulation of data and methods (Cope, 2010). Therefore, to collect data for this dissertation on livelihood vulnerability of tobacco farmers in Central Java, Indonesia, this research employs multiple data and methods. There were several methods used, namely interview (semi-structured interview, unstructured key informant interviews, and unstructured in-depth interviews), Focus Group Discussion (FGD), and participant observation. This research also uses both primary and secondary data. The detail description about the methods used is in the following:
3.4.1. Primary data 3.4.1.1. Interviews Interviews are verbal interchanges where the interviewer tries to obtain information from another person. The interviews can be structured, unstructured, and semi-structured (Dunn, 2010). A structured interview is directed by a detailed script, which is prepared before the interview. Semi-structured interview 50 underlines the importance of a guide rather than a script (Mann, 2016). However, the interviewer has prepared for the listed question; a semi-structured interview is possible to offer the participant to explore the issues that are considered to be significant (Longhurst, 2010). Unstructured interview relies on a few open-ended questions. The interviewer stimulates the interviewees to talk at length about what they are experiencing and what seems significant for their life (Weiss, 1994). Research interviews are useful for some reasons. The complex behaviors, motivations investigation, or examination of the diversity of meaning, opinion, or experience can be grasped through an interview that may be unreachable by other methods. Besides, the interview is beneficial in dismantling the interviewee's interior experiences and embracing the perception, thought, and feeling of a certain event (Weiss, 1994).
This dissertation uses semi-structured interview, unstructured interview, and an in-depth interview, which is described as follows: 1. Semi-structured interview: the interviews involved 30 households in each village of Gentingsari and Pagergunung. The household interviewed considers the position of farmers in the field of tobacco such as tobacco merchants, pengrajin, perajang, gaok, and tobacco growers in the position of suppliers with diverse land tenure (small, medium, and large).
51
Photo by Arif Figure 16: Semi-structured interview with tobacco growers
2. Unstructured key informant interviews: the interview involves several key informants as following: . The head of the Department of Agriculture, Estate Crops, and Forestry (Dinas Pertanian, Perkebunan, dan Kehutanan), . The head and staff of the Implementing Agency of Agricultural, Fisheries, and Forestry Extension (BP4K), . Organization staff of APTI (Association of Indonesian Tobacco Farmers), . Peasants producing ‘srinthil‘, high quality of tobacco . The village head of Legoksari,
. Peasants who adopted ‘Tlahab cultivation system’ which combines coffee, tobacco, and suren tree.
Photo by Arif Figure 17: Unstructured key informant interviews with the head of the Department of Agriculture, Estate Crops, and Forestry 52 3. Unstructured in-depth interviews: this type of interviews was conducted in more depth to farmers in various position in the field of tobacco including tobacco merchants, pengrajin, perajang, gaok, and tobacco growers in the position of suppliers with diverse land tenure (small, medium, and large). The participants were asked related to their experiences, both bad and good, in making a livelihood with tobacco growing activities and what strategies they conduct to make a sustainable livelihood.
3.4.1.2. Focus group discussion Focus group discussion (FGD) is the discussion involving a group of people selected by the researcher related to a specific set of issues or topics of the research subject (Powell & Single, 1996). The people participating in the discussion for one and a half to two hours can contain six to eight people (Patton, 2002). The essential purpose of focus group research is to identify a range of different views around the research issue and to obtain comprehension of the topic from the perspective of the participants themselves (Hennink, 2007).
FGD is useful to grasp participants’ views on a particular issue, the different opinions among the various social groups, and the gap between what people say and do. Furthermore, the method is fruitful to develop interview questions, disseminate research result, and get feedback (Conradson, 2005). FGD is sometimes helpful to investigate specific sensitive topics (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001). It also can generate a wide range of data in a quick time and be applied in a flexible way (Hennink, 2014). Focus Group Discussions were held in two areas with different agrosystems. The two FGDs involved tobacco farmers that have various positions in the tobacco field, such as tobacco growers, gaok, and tobacco merchants. There are seven tobacco farmers in Pagergunung and eight tobacco growers in Gentingsari villages, which participated in the FGDs.
53
Photo by Gilang Figure 18: Focus group discussion in Pagergunung village
3.4.1.3. Participant observation Participant observation is a method where the researcher involves and has personal involvement in the daily activities of particular communities (Laurier, 2010; Hoggart, Lees, & Davies, 2002). The researcher spends the time to live and/or work with them in order to comprehend how they make life ‘from the inside’ (Cook, 2005). The basis of this approach is to become, or stay, as close to
the spatial phenomenon being studied as possible (Laurier, 2010). Participant observation is one way to learn about the explicit and tacit aspects of routine and cultural life in certain groups of people or communities (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011). Spradley (1980) classifies the participation type of the researcher in the fieldwork. From the lowest to the highest level of involvement, sequentially, they are non-participant, passive, moderate, active, and complete participation. This dissertation posits the researcher in moderate participation. Moderate participation occurs when the researcher seeks to maintain a balance between being an insider and an outsider, between participation and observation. The researcher was involved in some tobacco farmers activities that are related to the dissertation questions. The researcher stayed in the field area for approximately six months that is divided into two periods each for three months. During the stay, the researcher conducted a series of activities in accordance with the methods that had been 54 developed previously. The methods used are not rigid, rather more flexible, so that they can be adjusted to the field conditions. In addition, the researcher also participated in several daily activities carried out by farmers.
Photo by Arif
Figure 19: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (1)
Photo by Arif Figure 20: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (2)
3.4.2. Secondary data For Cloke et al. (2004), data can be divided into pre-constructed and self- constructed geographical data. Preconstructed geographical data is data that has 55 been constructed or ‘made' by somebody else at a previous moment in time. Meanwhile, self-constructed geographical data is data that is collected or constructed by researchers themselves through active fieldwork. The first can be referred to as secondary data, and the second is usually referred to as primary data. Secondary data means information that has already been collected by someone else and which is available for the researcher to use (Clark, 2005). The data can be in the form of official, non-oficial, and imaginative sources. Official source is published by a government that may be available in textual, graphical and cartographical, aural or numerical in form. A non-official source can be reference material (academic books, journals, and articles), research report, company report, documentary media (broadcast news, documentary programs, photographs, newspaper and press reports, publicity and promotional material, personal documents, and maps. Lastly, imaginative sources can be in the form of
literature (novels, poetry), music, the performing arts, the visual arts, film, photography, architecture and electronic media (Cloke, et al., 2004). Secondary data can provide information about the area and people’s characteristics in the present and the past. This data can be employed as a reference for in-depth research or for a more ‘intensive’ investigation (White, 2010; Clark, 2005). Secondary data provide three overlapping types of context (geographical, historical and socio-economic) which is useful for the researcher employing a case study method. The researcher can make comparative studies based on the three types of context (Clark, 2005). In this dissertation, the secondary data include both the official and non- official source. The official sources are useful to gain data related to geographical condition, meteorological and socio-economic characteristics, tobacco development production and policies, and community livelihood. The data were obtained from the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), Agricultural Bureau, Development Planning Agency at Sub-National Level (Bappeda), The Sweetener 56 and Fiber Crops Research Institute (Balittas) and the Directorate General of Estate Crops (ditjenbun). Meanwhile, the non-official sources were gained from WHO reports, FAOstat, Indonesian Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI), academic books, journals, articles, research reports, and documentary media such as newspapers and maps.
3.5. Validity and data analysis 3.5.1. Validity Validation research procedure can be made by using triangulation that is popularized by Norman Denzin in 1989 (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001). In social research, the term 'triangulation' is used as a strategy to validate the procedures and results of empirical social research (Flick, 2004). Triangulation is commonly embedded in a qualitative approach by combining different methods (Flick, 2007). According to Flick (2004) triangulation encompasses data, investigator, theory, and methodological triangulation. Triangulation of data combines data
obtained from various sources and at different times, in different places or from different people. Investigator triangulation is characterized by the use of different observers or interviewers, to balance out the subjective influences of individuals. Triangulation of theories means ‘approaching data with multiple perspectives and hypotheses. Methodological triangulation includes the ‘within-method’ (for example, the use of different subscales within a questionnaire) and the ‘between- method’. This dissertation adopts methodological, data, and theory triangulation. There are various methods used, namely interview (semi-structured interview, unstructured key informant interviews, and unstructured in-depth interviews), FGD, and participant observation. It also applies both primary (self-constructed data) and secondary data (pre-constructed data). Several theories, concepts, and perspectives namely livelihood, vulnerability, and social practice theory are employed in this dissertation.
3.5.2. Qualitative data analysis 57 The data in this dissertation is examined by using qualitative data analysis. This analysis encompasses the process of describing phenomena, classifying it, and seeing how interconnection among concepts (Dey, 1993). Comprehensive descriptions of the phenomenon to study are the first step in the qualitative analysis. They include three aspects, namely the context of action, the intentions of the actor, and the process in which action is embedded. Classifying is associated with the process of splitting the data up into parts and specifying them to categories or classes, which unite these parts again. Classifying the data lays the conceptual foundations for analysis. Connecting among concepts in qualitative analysis can be made by examining the association between different variables and using structural or causal analysis (figure 21).
Describing
Qualitative Analysis
Connecting Classifiyng
Account
Connecting
Classifying 58
Describing
Data Source: Dey (1993)
Figure 21: A circular process of qualitative analysis
Meanwhile, Miles & Huberman (1994) classified qualitative data analysis into three components, namely: data reduction, data display, and conclusions (drawing/verification). Data reduction involves to the action of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data sourced from field notes or transcriptions. The process of data reduction or transformation is carried out continuously starting from the collection and analysis of field data to the completion of the final report. Display data that includes types of matrices, graphs, charts, and networks is a collection of organized information that allows
researchers to draw conclusions. The third step of the analysis activity is drawing conclusions and verification. Data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification are takes place before, during, and after data collection in parallel. The whole process is called 'analysis' (figure 22).
Data Collection
Data Display Data Reduction
Conclusions: drawing/verification
Source: Miles & Huberman (1994)
Figure 22: Component of data analysis: an interactive model 59
60 This page intentionally left blank
The Case Study Area 4
Photo by Widiyanto 61
Figure 23: Tobacco growers’ village on Sumbing mountainside
4.1. General Overview
Temanggung regency is located in Central Java province with 110o23’- 110o46’30’’ east longitude, and between 7o14’-7o32’35’’ south latitude. In terms of geographic position, it is bordered on the north by Kendal and Semarang regency. In the south and west, Temanggung has a boundary with Magelang and Wonosobo regency. Finally, in the east, the region is adjacent to Semarang and Magelang areas (figure 27). Administratively, in 2017, Temanggung is divided into twenty sub-districts consisting of 266 villages (desa); 23 urban villages (kelurahan); 1,354 hamlets (dusun); 1,529 sub-hamlets (Rukun Warga-RW); and 5,692 neighborhoods (Rukun Tetangga-RT) (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a). The division of the administrative area from the province to the smallest unit such as villages, hamlets, RT, and RW is based on the village government law, UU No. 5 1979 (Presiden RI, 1979). The administrative structure from province to neighborhood unit can be seen in figure 24. 62 Province Propinsi
Region Kabupaten
District Kecamatan
Village Desa Kelurahan
Hamlet Dusun Lingkungan
Sub-Hamlet Rukun Warga (RW)
Neighbourhood unit Rukun Tetangga (RT) Source: adapted from Warren (1990) Figure 24: Administrative structure of local government in Indonesia
Desa and kelurahan have the same level in the government hierarchy. In its management, however, desa is more autonomous, having genuine authority to regulate and manage their own households. The village head (kepala desa) is not appointed by the government, but he is elected by the local inhabitants or
villagers. The village is formed not only because of its territorial aspects but also from the genealogy background, such as a clan or ethnic group. Village regulation is a function of community self-government (Presiden RI, 2014). Meanwhile, kelurahan is formed primarily because of territorial considerations and population density. It is also based on certain criteria, which indicate that the area belongs to the urban categories. These indicators include population density, percentage of agricultural households, and the existence or access to urban facilities such as education, health, and others. Therefore, kelurahan is characterized by a high population density, low dependence on agriculture, and easy access to various urban facilities such as education and health (BPS, 2010). Lurah as the head of the kelurahan is not elected by the community as in the village head election but is appointed by the government. Hence, lurah is directly responsible to the sub-district government, camat. The status of lurah is a civil servant (Presiden RI, 2005). The Temanggung regency is mostly a plateau with an altitude between 500- 1,450 m with 87,065 ha of total land area. Based on elevation, 22 % of the land is 63 at an altitude of more than 1,000 m (figure 25). Around 38 % of the area is on a slope between 15 % and 40 % (steep). Meanwhile, 17,983 ha (21.64 %) of land is at the gradient of more than 40 % (very steep) (figure 26).
1% 8% 10% 22% 14% 39% 400-500 m 500-750 m 750-1,000 m 1,000-1,500 m > 1,500 m 0-2 % (flat) 24% 44% 38% 2-15 % (sloping) 15-40 % ( steep) > 40 % (very steep)
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2016a) Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2016a)
Figure 25: Total land area based on Figure 26: Total land area based on altitude in Temanggung regency slope in Temanggung regency
Gentingsari village, Bansari sub-district and Pagergunung village, Bulu sub- district that are the focus areas in this study are located at an altitude of 850 m and 1,100 m, respectively. Gentingsari has a total area of 59.36 ha. Meanwhile, the area of Pagergunung village is 388.62 ha. Gentingsari consists of three hamlets, three RW, and six RT. Meanwhile, Pagergunung consists of four hamlets, six RW, and fourteen RT. Temanggung regency is flanked by two high mountains namely Mt. Sumbing (3,340 m) and Sindoro (3,150 m) (figure 28). These two mountains, known as the twin volcanoes, are active volcanos despite their activities are very limited. However, in 2011, the volcanic activity of Mt. Sindoro increased, followed by earthquakes. Mt. Prahu is another mountain, which is located in Temanggung with an altitude of 2,650 m. Tobacco is planted on the slopes of the mountains, especially in the Sumbing and Sindoro Mountainside, which is famous for its good quality. The geographical conditions and topography of the Temanggung region, 64 which is mostly located on the mountainside, make this area to have many springs. The inhabitants can access 720 springs for their daily needs. Until 2012, there were 16 natural springs that have been managed by local water supply company (PDAM) (Pemerintah Kab. Temanggung, 2014). This area is traversed by several watersheds (DAS) including the Progo, Bodri, and Serayu. DAS Progo consists of several sub-watersheds (Sub-DAS), namely Tangsi, Elo, and Progo Hulu. Meantime, the Bodri watershed includes sub-DAS Logung, Lutut, and Putih. The longest river that passes Temanggung regency is the Kali Progo, which is 57 kilometers long. The river is the primary water sources for irrigation.
Mt. Prahu 2,650 m
65
Mt. Sindoro 3,150 m
Mt. Sumbing 3,340 m
Source: Bappeda Kabupaten Temanggung (2013)
Figure 27: Map of Temanggung regency
66
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 28: Mt. Sumbing (left) and Mt. Sindoro (right)
Temanggung has a temperature range from 20oC to 30oC. Some sub-districts such as Tretep, Bulu, Tembarak, Ngadirejo, and Candiroto have a cooler climate. Meanwhile, the average annual rainfall during 2013-2017 was around 2,315 mm (BMKG, 2018). The rainfall during June-September is not appropriate for tobacco cultivation. The less rainfall during the period, the better the tobacco quality and quantity that can be produced. Based on table 1 and figure 29, in 2015, this was the best weather for tobacco growing, because there was almost no rain at the time of tobacco planting (around June) and harvesting (August-September). On the contrary, in 2013, 2014, and 2016, there was an intensive rainfall in June and July. This has an impact on declining tobacco production in this region.
Table 1: Rainfall and rainy days in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 Year Average 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Month rainfall Rainfall rainy Rainfall rainy Rainfall rainy Rainfall rainy Rainfall rainy (mm) (mm) day (mm) day (mm) day (mm) day (mm) day Jan 325 18 389 17 263 13 269 13 329 24 315 Feb 160 13 156 13 333 16 290 16 374 21 263 Mar 513 17 230 12 459 13 254 15 216 18 334 Apr 224 14 123 7 537 16 159 14 382 16 285 67 May 192 9 113 7 86 4 205 9 106 8 140 Jun 126 11 0 0 2 1 150 7 141 7 84 Jul 149 5 188 10 0 0 293 12 28 2 132 Aug 23 1 16 2 0 0 77 7 14 1 26 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 17 60 5 62 Oct 120 8 58 3 0 0 NA NA 186 16 91 Nov 127 13 237 14 219 14 358 22 358 18 260 Dec 132 15 325 18 382 21 513 21 352 17 341 Total 2,091 124 1,835 103 2,281 98 2,820 153 2,546 153 2,315
400 334 341 350 315 300 285 263 260 250 200 140 150 132 84 91 100 62 50 26 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Source: BMKG (2018) Figure 29: The average rainfall (mm) in Temanggung regency by month, 2013-2017
4.2. Population
Temanggung had 759,120 inhabitants in 2017 (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a). The population growth during 2010-2017 was 0.96 %. This figure is higher than the rate of population growth in Central Java, which was 0.78 % and lower than Indonesia, which was 1.36 % in the same year. In 2017, the population density was 872 inhabitants per kilometer square; lower than the Central Java provincial figure of 1,053 inhabitants/km2 (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2018a). Temanggung regency has 213,995 households with a number of 3.55 members per household in average (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a). Based on the age group, the percentage of the inhabitant in Temanggung regency that is included in the productive age category (15-65 years old) is 68.24 %. Meanwhile, in the two focus villages of the study in 2017, the population figure for productive age was 71.14 % in Gentingsari and 69.69 % in Pagergunung village. Furthermore, the age dependency ratio (percentage of working-age population) in Temanggung regency, Gentingsari, and Pagergunung 68 in a row was 46.55 %, 40.57 %, and 43.49 %. The number indicates that the age dependency ratio is low because the amount is below 50 %. The description of population structure based on age group can be depicted by the population pyramid. This can portray the age-sex distribution simultaneously. Generally, there are three main shapes of the pyramid, namely: expansive, constrictive, and stationary. The expansive shape is characterized by the fast-growing populations, where the birth rate is high and more significant than the previous year. The constrictive shape shows lower percentages of younger population along with low birth rates. Lastly, when there are similar percentages for almost all age groups, the population pyramid is stationary (Korenjak-Cerne, Kejžar, & Batagelj, 2008). Based on figure 30, 31, and 32, the population pyramid of Temanggung regency, Gentingsari, and Pagergunung village seem to be in the constrictive shape. The population under 15 years in those areas was around 20 %.
Female Male
65+ 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 Age 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 Percent of population
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018a) Figure 30: Population pyramid of Temanggung regency, 2017
Female Male
65 + 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 Age 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 69 10-14 5-9 0-4 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 Percent of population
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b) Figure 31: Population pyramid of Gentingsari village, 2017
Female Male
65 + 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 Age 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4
15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 Percent of population
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018c) Figure 32: Population pyramid of Pagergunung village, 2017
4.3. Education
BPS (2017) noted that in 2017, in the urban area of Indonesia, the average years of schooling of population age 15 years and over was 9.35 years. Meanwhile, in the rural area, the figure was 7.30 years or equivalent to second grade in junior high school. In the same year, the average years of schooling in Temanggung regency was 6.9 years. This number is lower than the average figure in Central Java province of 7.27 years (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2017). The people of Temanggung regency show low literacy. In 2017, as many as 21 % of the population did not complete primary school, 36 % were graduated from elementary school, 5 % were college graduates, and the rest (38 %) were senior and junior school graduates (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a) (figure 33). In Gentingsari dan Pagergunung village, the education of the people is generally lower. In the villages of Gentingsari and Pagergunung, respectively, 79 % and 83 % of the population only graduated from elementary school or less (figure 34 and 35). 70
Did not College completed from 5% Senior high primary school school 21% 15%
Primary School Junior High 36% School 23%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018a)
Figure 33: The education level of the residents of Temanggung regency, 2017
Did not Senior Did not completed College completed High Junior College Senior high primary 3% primary School High 1% school school school 7% School 4% Junior high 37% 17% 11% school 12%
Z Primary Primary School school 42% 66%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b) Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018c) Figure 34: The education level of the Figure 35: The education level of the residents of Gentingsari village, residents of Pagergunung village, 2017 2017
71
Photo by Widiyanto Figure 36: Children in the village of Pagergunung, returning from school by foot
4.4. Land use Land use in Temanggung regency is largely dominated by agricultural activities; only 18 % of the land is employed for non-agricultural purposes. The farming cultivation is usually classified into drylands and wetlands. This term is based on differences in surface hydrology. Some scholars also split it into upland
and lowland. This terminology is built on differences in relative elevation or topography (Mackill, Coffman, & Garrity, 1996). The term upland and lowland usually refers to the crop-oriented vocabulary (Moormann & Breemen, 1978). Therefore, there are terms of upland and lowland crops. Upland crop farming is characterized by cultivating land without standing water throughout the growing season. Water is used only to humidify the land, to ensure good growth of roots and of aerobic soil microorganisms (Fagi, 1992). On the contrary, cultivating lowland crops requires waterlogging. Hence, there is a possibility that in the same land lowland crops can be planted, such as rice, and in the following season upland crops, such as palawija (non-rice food crops) (Notohadiprawiro, 1989). Moormann & Breemen (1978) prefer to make a classification based on land- oriented term, which emphasizes human intervention. For example, the use of the term irrigated rice land implies the modifications in the water regime by human action. The term can be developed into irrigated lowlands, rainfed lowlands, and rainfed uplands. In irrigated lowlands, rice usually is planted under irrigation with 72 well-maintained dikes that can accommodate 30 cm of water. In rainfed lowlands, crops are planted in muddy soil in fields bounded by dikes that hold about 30 cm of water. Rainfed highlands depend on rainfall for crop production but do not flood. Rainwater runoff and infiltration is so high that water does not accumulate on the ground. Most are sloping land or higher altitude land than the surrounding area (Gerpacio & Pingali, 2007). The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) tends to apply such a land-oriented term, which emphasizes aspects of human intervention. BPS (2016) classifies agricultural activities based on wetlands (sawah) and drylands. The wetlands consist of irrigation and non-irrigation rice fields. Rainfed (tadah hujan) is grouped into non-irrigation rice fields. Meanwhile, dryland refers to unirrigated land, which includes tegal (dry fields), gardens, ladang, shifting cultivation land (huma), and temporarily unused land. Based on the classification, in 2017, 53 % of the land was cultivated by peasants in Temanggung regency. It consisted of irrigated rice fields (22 %), unirrigated rice fields (1 %), dry fields (29 %), and shifting cultivation (4 %)
(figure 37). Meanwhile, in Gentingsari village, crop cultivation was held in the rice fields (65 %) and dry fields (13 %) (figure 38). In Pagergunung village, crops planting was fully carried out in dry fields (figure 39).
Non-agricultural land use Irrigated rice fields 18% 22%
Other agricultural land use 5% Unirrigated rice fields 1%
State forest 10%
Private forest Dry fields 4% 29% Plantation 10% Shifting cultivation 1%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018a)
Figure 37: Land use in Temanggung regency, 2017
73 Housing Housing 6% 19% State forest 26%
Others 3%
Irrigated Dry fields rice fields 68% Dry fields 65% 13%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b) Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018c)
Figure 38: Land use in Gentingsari Figure 39: Land use in Pagergunung village, 2017 village, 2017
4.5. Agriculture Agriculture was the primary source of livelihood in the Temanggung regency in 2017. About 58 % of people living in Temanggung are farmers (figure 40). In Gentingsari and Pagergunung village, agricultural activities are carried out by 62 % and 92 % of the inhabitants, respectively (figure 41 and 42).
Services Others Transportation 12% 1% and communication 3% Trading 14%
Construction 5% Industry 7% Agriculture 58%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018a) Figure 40: Occupation of the residents in Temanggung 74 regency, 2017
Transportati Others Trading Services on and Construction Services 9% 5% 2% communicat 1% 11% Others ion 0% 0% Industry Transportati 0% on and communicat ion 2%
Trading 12% Agriculture Constructio 62% n 2% Agriculture Industry 92% 2%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b) Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018c)
Figure 41: Occupation of the Figure 42: Occupation of the residents residents in Gentingsari village, 2017 in Pagergunung village, 2017 Paddy, maize, and cassava are the dominant staple food grown in the region of Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside. Some other areas in Temanggung regency also cultivate potato and sweet potato but only in a tiny quantity. Especially for maize commodities, Boomgaard (2005) illustrated that this is as important as potatoes in
Europa and cassava in Africa. He is pairing maize (subsistence crop) and tobacco (commercial crop) as equal in importance, even sometimes dominant in agriculture, particularly in upland areas. It is because both crops are annuals that can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, particularly in the dry- upland. Before the green revolution campaign on rice planting and consuming in the 1980s, maize was an important staple food mainly in the dry land area, including in the site of Sumbing and Sindoro mountainside. The successful introduction of rice, however, has shifted the maize consumption to rice. The people sell maize to buy rice. The government program for promoting chili cultivation has encouraged farmers to replace maize with such commodity. Agricultural land for chili cultivation significantly increased. Another essential crop, tobacco, has another long history that will be explored in chapter 5. Other commodities grown by peasants are red beans, cabbage, shallot, garlic, potato, and mustard. Tobacco and coffee, mainly of the robusta type, are the important estate crops planted in the Regency (figure 43, 44, and 45). In the 75 two villages, Gentingsari and Pagergunung, tobacco, maize, chili, and cabbage are the major cultivated crops (figure 46 and 47).
35 30 25
20
15 10
5
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Paddy Maize Cassava Sweet Potato
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014a-2018a)
Figure 43: Area of staple food production (in thousands of hectares) in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017
9
8 7 6
5
4
3 2 1
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Tomato Garlic Shallot Potato Cabbage Chilli Mustard Red Beans
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014a-2018a)
Figure 44: Area of vegetables production (in thousands of hectares) in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017
76 20 18 16 14
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Arabica Coffee Robusta Coffee Clove Tobacco
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014a-2018a), Ditjenbun (2013-2017)
Figure 45: Area of estate crops production (in thousands of hectares) in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017
180
160
140 120 100 80
60
40
20
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Maize Chili Shallot Tobacco Coffe Cabbage Tomato
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014b-2018b) Figure 46: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Gentingsari village, 2013-2017
77 250
200
150
100
50
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Maize Chili Tobacco Cabbage Mustard
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014c-2018c) Figure 47: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Pagergunung village, 2013-2017
Photo by Widiyanto
78
Photo by Widiyanto Figure 48: Some commodities harvested by tobacco peasants
Tobacco peasants usually grow plants using the intercropping or relay cropping system. There are two seasons every year, the wet and dry season. The wet season is commonly from September to May and the dry season from June to August. In the rainy season, a majority of the farmers grow maize or other relay crops that grow well before the start of the heavy rains. There are many variations of crops planted by farmers depending on the location. In the second rotation, peasant farmers usually grow maize, shallot, chili, cabbage, red beans, garlic, or
other vegetables depending on the length of maturity for each product and time available before the next tobacco cycle must begin. The farmers usually start growing tobacco in June. In exceptional cases of high rainfall, tobacco cultivation can be delayed until the low precipitation. The deviation of rainfall in the dry season cause harvest failure. Sunshine is required in the phase of plant growth, harvesting, and drying. However, they mostly also produce other crops in addition to tobacco, but tobacco often gives higher cash income than any other crops grown especially in the dry land farming area (Barber, Adioetomo, Ahsan, & Setyonaluri, 2008). Tobacco and coffee are the most important estate crops planted in Temanggung regency. Tobacco and coffee are normally planted in a monoculture. It was just in 2000 when the government introduced a cropping system, which combined tobacco and coffee cultivation in the same land. The program was carried out by the estate agency of Central Java Province (Dinas Perkebunan Propinsi Jawa Tengah) during 2000-2004. The program was named ‘the development program of the participatory farming model (PMUP). This activity 79 did not intend to change the tobacco cultivation but to decrease the negative impact of tobacco farming on the environment and increase the farmers’ income. It raised a controversy, however, because of suspicions of attempts to replace tobacco with other commodities. The program involved 381 tobacco growers who are members of the Marga Rahayu farmers’ group (kelompok tani) located in Tlahap village, Kledung sub- district. During five years, the program areas gradually embraced 200 ha of land. The government provided program assistance in the form of livestock and seedling support and extension activities. As many as 163 goats were granted for farmers gradually during 2000-2002. The government also supplied the seedlings of coffee, suren trees (Toona Sureni), and elephant grass (rumput gajah) as many as 200,000; 56,000; and 90,000; respectively. The first harvest of coffee was in 2003 (Arfianto, 2012). The program was continued by the Agency of Agriculture, Estate Crop, and Forestry (Dinas Pertanian, Perkebunan, dan Kehutanan) Temanggung regency.
This Agency was in collaboration with The Implementing Agency of Agricultural, Fisheries, and Forestry Extension (BP4K) and Livestock Office (Dinas Peternakan). The program took place from August to December 2009. The program involved 42 farmers who are the members of ‘Daya Sindoro’ farmer groups. The program included 25 hectares of agricultural land. During the periods, the government supported seedling of coffee, suren tree, and elephant grass as many as, sequentially, 50,000; 8,000; and 30,000. The farmers also received assistance in the form of 57 goats. The cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and Suren tree in the same land is commonly called by the pola tlahap (figure 49). As an illustration, 18,000 tobacco plants can be grownn in every one hectare of land. After adopting the tlahap system, the proportion of tobacco decreased by about 22 %. The tobacco was reduced to 14,000 plants per hectare. This is planted together with 1,000 coffee trees. The limited land owned by almost all tobacco growers living in the 80 Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside becomes a barrier for applying to participate in the cropping systems. Furthermore, besides coffee is an annual crop that is harvested only once a year, but it also reduces seasonal crop yields. It has caused only certain tobacco growers to adopt the system, particularly those who own a large area of land. Some farmers grew coffee in very small quantities, which planted is in the edges of the field.
Photo by Widiyanto
81
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 49: Pola Tlahap, cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and suren tree in the same land (top), coffeshop built by the farmers’ group of Daya Sindoro (bottom)
4.6. Tobacco growers’ characteristics
4.6.1. Tobacco grower: peasant, farmer, or peasant farmer? Tobacco growers mostly cultivate in a piece of small land. They are usually called petani gurem, which is defined as a landholder household with agricultural land of less than 0.5 hectares (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2018b). At the national level, Indonesia had 26.1 million farmers in 2013, 56 % of which (14.25 million) cultivate land less than half a hectare (<0.5 ha), and only 6 % have more than three ha of land (BPS, 2013). In 2018, the number of petani gurem was 15.81 million or increased by 10.95 % compared to 2013. The highest number of petani gurem in Indonesia can be found in Java Island, with 10.95 million households (71.80 %) (BPS, 2018) (Figure 50). In Central Java province, where Temanggung regency is located, in 2018, the percentage of gurem farmers was 81 % or 3.58 million. It has increased by 8.14 % compared to the figure in 2013. Conversely, in Temanggung regency, the number of gurem households declined by 3.67 %. It decreased from 86.13 82 thousand in 2013 to 82.97 thousand in 2018 (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2018a) (figure 51 and 52).
5% 6%
< 0,5 ha 14% 0.5-0.99 ha 1.0-1.99 ha 2-2.99 ha >3 ha 16%
59%
Source: BPS (2018) Figure 50: Farm household based on land tenure in Indonesia, 2018
0% 1% 0% 1% 8% 4% 14%
< 0,5 ha < 0,5 ha 24% 0.5-0.99 ha 0.5-0.99 ha 1.0-1.99 ha 1.0-1.99 ha 2-2.99 ha 2-2.99 ha >3 ha >3 ha
67% 81%
Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018a) Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018a)
Figure 51: Farm household based on Figure 52: Farm household based on land tenure in Central Java province, land tenure in Temanggung regency, 2018 2018
In Indonesian literature, petani gurem is often translated into English as ‘peasant’ (Syahyuti, 2013). For Wolf (1955) and Redfield (1956), a peasant is as a 83 rural producer, who mainly works on his own piece of land. Meanwhile, Firth (1966, 2017) does not restrict the term 'peasant' only to those people who cultivate the land, but also to peasant fishermen, peasant craftsmen, and peasant marketers, if they are part of the same community or social system. In many cases, such people are often, in fact, part-time cultivators as well. Wolf (1955, 1966) distinguished ‘peasant’ from ‘farmer’. Based on the orientation, a peasant aims at subsistence. The peasant’s starting point is the needs that are oriented by his culture. Peasants may cultivate both subsistence and cash crops. The subsistence crops are grown as a stable minimum livelihood guarantee. The peasant also plants and sells cash crops to get money, which is used in turn to buy goods and services required to subsist and to maintain his social status, rather than to enlarge his scale of operations. Cash crops pledge higher money returns, but it is risky for market fluctuations. The peasant is always concerned with the problem to find a balance between subsistence and commercial crop production. It can be noted that the cash crop production can enable peasants to buy goods and
services that they cannot afford when they only cultivate subsistence crops. Similar to the idea of Wolf, Redfield (1956) describes peasants as agricultural producers following a way of life on land where they control. The piece of land cultivated has long been bound by ties of tradition and sentiment. Different from the term ‘peasant’, the farmer considers agriculture as a business enterprise. The aim of the farmer is to reinvestment in a farm. The crops cultivated are sold not only to supply goods and services for agriculture but also to expand business (Wolf, 1955; Redfield, 1956). 'Family farmers' are also sometimes employed to mention ‘peasant’. It is based on the two criteria namely farm size and type of farming. Hence, family farmers refer to ‘small farms’ with less than two hectares of cropland and are characterized by a low level of technology, dependence on family labor and a ‘subsistence’ orientation (Bernstein, 2010). The term ‘peasant family farm' is also used, which is classified based on less of the degree of tied labor and small-scale of agricultural labor unit (Bryceson, 2000). 84 In the 1950s, some economists tended to employ the term ‘smallholder', which refers to rural producers cultivating on their own land on relatively 'small' farms. Attention was neglected from the fact that rural cultivators are politically subordinated in state and market relations, or that their work motivation derives from providing family subsistence as well as profit-maximization (Bryceson, 2000). Additionally, the term ‘smallholder’ is ambiguous because it tends to vague inequalities and critical class-based differences within rural households involved in agricultural production (Cousins, 2010). While some scholars define ‘peasant’ and ‘farmer’ as a contrast, van der Ploeg rather puts peasant farming on a continuum with “entrepreneurial” or large- scale corporate farming (Edelman, 2013). An entrepreneurial type of agriculture is moving along the scale dimension from smaller to larger units. Otherwise, corporate farming is more extensive and stronger. The production is directed and regulated as a function of profit maximization. If entrepreneurial farmers succeed, they can join the ranks of corporate farmers. Peasant farming aims at defending and improving peasant livelihoods. Labor is provided by the family (or mobilized
within the rural community through relations of reciprocity). The agricultural product is oriented towards the market as well as towards the reproduction of the farm unit and the family. Peasant farmer actively and continually struggles to strengthen the resource base, improve the process of co-production, enlarge autonomy and, thus, reduce dependency, marginalization, and deprivation (van der Ploeg, 2008).
Large food processing industries and supermarkets
Capitalist Entre- farming preneurial farming 85
Peasant farming
Short, decentralized circuits Source: van der Ploeg (2008)
Figure 53: The position of peasant farming and its interlink with other modes of farming (entrepreneurial and capitalist agriculture)
This dissertation tends to follow the idea of van der Ploeg (2008) in categorizing tobacco growers. Hence, tobacco cultivators can be classified as peasant farmers. The use of the word ‘peasant farmers’ can accommodate some views, which claim that peasant is a small land cultivator. Meanwhile, the small farm cultivator is also part of the constellation of other bigger farmers. Therefore, in this thesis, the term of tobacco growers, farmers, peasants, peasant farmers are used interchangeably. They all refer to small tobacco growers.
4.6.2. Family household characteristics In studies on farmers, some scholars employ household as a unit of analysis, and others apply family farms. Family refers to the social unit that its members have relations birth, adoption, and marriage in any shared tasks. Conversely, household is defined by shared tasks in production and/or consumption, regardless or whether members are connected through kinship or marriage relations or are co-resident (Carter, 1984). However, kinship and marriage might be the main mechanisms of recruitment into the household (Roberts, 1991). A household can be defined as a domestic unit with decision-making autonomy about production and consumption (Roberts, 1991). The word ‘household’, then, indicates the fact of shared location, kinship, and activity (Laslett, 1972). Household is also characterized by regular sharing of resources and expenses for a certain period of time (Casimir & Tobi, 2011). Conceptually the terms 'family' and 'household' are different. However, in its application, both are sometimes difficult to analyze separately. This is the case 86 when the function of production and consumption in the household is handled entirely by family members. For example, Djurfeldt (1996) describes the concept of family overlapping between three functional units, namely the production unit (agriculture), consumption unit (household), and kinship unit (family). McFalls Jr. (2003) offers the concept of family households and nonfamily household. The former consist of two or more individuals, who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption, although they also may include other unrelated people. Meanwhile, nonfamily households consist of people who live alone or who share their residence with unrelated individuals. McConnell & Dillon (1997) claimed that the use of the concept of farm household is more flexible. It can consist only of the farm's nucleus family, but more often includes extended-family members. It also commonly includes some numbers of more or less permanent domestic and farm workers, and miscellaneous dependants. In social scientific research and analysis, selecting the household as a common focus has both practical and theoretical justifications. It is because
almost everyone grew up in a household and continues to live in such a unit. Hence, there is pervasive recognition of the reality and relevance of this group. Household is a fundamental social unit. Households are more than groups of dyadic pairs. They are the main arena for the expression of age and the role of sex, kinship, socialization, and economic cooperation where cultural things are mediated and transformed into action (Netting, Wilk, & Arnould, 1984). Furthermore, households are obviously as the basic units of society in which the activities of production, reproduction, consumption and the socialization of children take place (Roberts, 1991). In livelihood studies, the household remains a useful unit of analysis. The household is both a social as well as an economic unit, which also involves norms, cultures, and values. Therefore, there seems to be a compelling reason to employ households rather than individuals as a unit of analysis (Wallace, 2002). In the context of tobacco growers’ community, the use of family household, as McFalls Jr. (2003) proposed, seems to be more appropriate. It is because the farm household mostly consists of members who have kinship relations. It is only 87 during the harvest season, about two months for maximum, some family households also hire other laborers, who are not bound by kinship to work and live under the same roof with them. In Indonesia, the farm household head is dominated by the eldery people. In 2018, 75 % of the household heads in Temanggung were more than 45 years old. This percentage is higher than the figures in Indonesia and Central Java province, which were 65 % and 72%, respectively. The farm households in Temanggung regency were headed by 94 % males and 6 % females.
1% 10% 15%
<25 years 24% 25-34 years 34-44 years 45-54 years
55-64 years
>65 years
22%
28%
Source: BPS (2018) Figure 54: Age group of head of farm households in Indonesia, 2018
0% 6% 0% 19% 7% 19% 16% 21% <25 years <25 years 25-34 years 25-34 years 34-44 years 34-44 years 45-54 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 55-64 years 88 >65 years >65 years
29% 25% 27% 31%
Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018b) Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018b)
Figure 55: Age group of head of Figure 56: Age group of head of farm households in Central Java farm households in Temanggung province, 2018 regency, 2018
In 2018, Temanggung had 123,785 farm households with the households’ members as many as 456,355 people. Hence, the average household size in Temanggung regency is 3.6 persons. Based on the size of the farm household in detail, 88 % of households have as many as 2-5 people. Meanwhile, 9 % of the farm household has a size of more than six people, and the rest (3 %) only consist of one member.
4.7. Poverty
In Indonesia, there are some indicators employed by the government to measure the level of poverty. For example, the Board of Population and National Family Planning (BKKBN) classified the indicators of prosperity into five levels namely: pre-prosperous family (pra-sejahtera), wealthy family level I (KS-I), prosperous family level II (KS-II), prosperous family level III (KS-III), prosperous family level three plus (KS-III plus). The indicators are developed based on the fulfillment of basic needs, psychological needs, developmental needs, and self- esteem. A household will be included in the pre-prosperous level if it is not able to fulfill basic needs. If the households cannot meet the psychological needs, they will be grouped in the prosperous family level I, and so on (Bappenas 2010, Isdijoso et al. 2016). Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) measures poverty by using the concept of the ability to meet basic needs (basic need approach). Poverty is seen as an economic inability to meet basic food and non-food needs as 89 measured by expenditure. Based on the indicators, BPS calculates and sets the poverty line. The inhabitant is considered poor if expenditure per month is below the poverty line. Calculation of the poverty line is carried out separately for urban and rural areas. The poverty line consists of two components, the food and non- food poverty line (Bappenas, 2010). The food poverty line refers to the daily minimum requirement of 2,100 kcal per capita per day. The non-food poverty line refers to the minimum requirement for household necessities for clothing, education, health, and other basic individual needs. The value of expenditure consumption approach only can be applied at the macro level such as national, province, regency. Based on the criteria of BKKBN; in 2017; as many as 19 %, 54 %, and 27 % of the household in Temanggung were categorized into the pre-prosperous family (pra-sejahtera), prosperous family level 1, and wealthy family level II, respectively. Meantime, by using the poverty line of BPS, there were 11.46 % of poor people in 2017 (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a).
For the implementation of certain programs such as the cash transfer program (BLT) and community health insurance programs (Jamkesmas), which require specific data at the household level, BPS uses a non-monetary approach. Some of the indicators set out are similar to BKKBN measures such as housing standards (Bappenas, 2010). Household access to health, water, electricity, and education facilities is also a consideration in measuring poverty. Based on the welfare indicators according to BPS in National Socio- Economic survey (Susenas) 2011, quality of the houses indicate the socio- economic condition of the household. The quality is measured based on the state of roof, floor, and wall. The houses with brick walls, tile roofs, and non-earth floors (such as ceramics) are of the best quality (BPS, 2011). The highest quality of the houses is categorized as a permanent house. Conversely, the house with simple walls such as zinc and earth floors is classified as impermanent building. Semi-permanent house quality is between permanent and impermanent houses such as the wall is a combination between concrete and wood, or with the cement 90 floor (BPS, 2008). Based on the categories, In Gentingsari villages, 54.15 %; 40.62%; and 5.23%, sequently, were categorized as permanent, semi-permanent, and impermanent houses in 2015. Meanwhile, in Pagergunung village, the majority of the houses owned by peasants were in the category of permanent as many as 70.87% (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2017b). Regarding water use, the inhabitants in Gentingsari village are fully supplied from springs. Besides consuming water from springs, 1.74 % of the villagers in Pagergunung also use well water. Electricity access of all inhabitants in both villages is provided by the National Electricity Company (PLN) (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2017c).
Photo by Arif
91
Photo by Arif
Figure 57: Village environment of tobacco growers
Photo by Arif
Figure 58: An example of a house of tobacco grower with wooden walls
92 4.8. Resume: general characteristics of the research focused villages
Table 2: General characteristics of Gentingsari and Pagergunung villages Characteristics Gentingsari village Pagergunung village Altitude 850 m 1,100 m Total area 59.36 ha 388.62 ha Administration Three hamlets (dusun), three Four hamlets (dusun), six RW, and six RT RW, and 14 RT Population 323 households, 1,178 591 households, 2,520 inhabitants (597 males, 581 inhabitants (1,318 males, females) 1,202 females) Water supply Spring (100 %) Spring (98.26 %), well (1.74 %) Electricity National electricity company National electricity (PLN) company (PLN) Fuel Gas, petroleum Gas, petroleum Communication Cell phones, radio, Cell phones, radio, television, public television, public broadcasting system (public broadcasting system (public loudspeaker). loudspeaker). Health center One village polyclinic One village polyclinic One midwife Two midwives
Characteristics Gentingsari village Pagergunung village School One kinder garden Two kinder gardens One primary school Two primary schools Agricultural land 38.58 ha is rice fields 261,72 ha (100 %) is dry 7.43 ha is dry fields fields Livestock 61 cattle; 180 goats; 441 12 cattle; 1,032 goats; 1,112 chickens chickens Agricultural Maize (132 ha), chili (30.54 Maize (123.19 ha), chili commodity ha), shallots (14.7 ha), (125.80 ha), mustard (5 Ha), tomato (3.38 ha), cabbage cabbage (4 ha), tobacco (10.80 ha), tobacco (19.09 (128.7 ha) ha), coffee (3.75 ha) Housing Permanent: 176 (54.15%) Permanent: 489 (70.87%) Semi-permanent:132 Semi-permanent: 54 (40.62%), (7.89%) Impermanent: 17 (5.23%) Impermanent: 147 (21.30%) Transportation Car, motorcycle Car, motorcycle, truck, pick-up car Religion Islam: 1,154 (97.9 %) Islam: 2,516 (99.8 %) Christian: 3 (0.3 %) Christian: 4 (0.2 %) Buddhism: 21 (1.8 %) Worship place Two mosques Four mosques One muslim prayer house four muslim prayer house 93 (surau)8 (surau) One Vihara Market Twelve stalls Thirty stalls Credit . Bank . Bank . Local money lenders, . Local money lenders, particularly from tobacco particularly from tobacco traders traders Debt Most households are in debt, Most households are in particularly for tobacco debt, particularly for cultivation tobacco cultivation Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b, 2018c)
8 Surau is place of worship for Muslims. It is similar to mosque but tend to be smaller. Additionally, surau is usually not used for Friday prayers.
94 This page intentionally left blank
Tobacco in Indonesia: History and Figures 5
95
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 59: The warehouse of Cigarette Company of Gudang Garam in Temanggung regency
5.1. Tobacco history
5.1.1. Tobacco origin Goodman (2005) noted that tobacco cultivation had been found in central Mexico in ca. 5000 BC. In world commerce, tobacco belongs to the species of Nicotiana tabacum and the family of Solanaceae, which includes the potato, tomato, eggplant, petunia, and many other cultivated and ornamental plants (Nee, 2005). Nicotiana tabacum was named by a Swedish botanist, Carl Linnaeus, in 1753 as a greatly respect to Jean Nicot de Villemain, France’s ambassador to Portugal in 1560, which prescribed snuff for the son of Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, who suffered from headache. Since then, the tobacco plant quickly gained popularity in France and the plant, then, came to be called the Herb of Nicot (Pierce, 2005; Santora & Henningfield, 2005). The word “Tobago” or “tobacco” appears to be the Native American name for the pipe or cylinder used by many to inhale smoke from the burning leaves of this plant (Pierce,
96 2005). According to Killebrew & Myrick (1920, Spaniards called tobacco by ‘tobaco’, which was the inhaling apparatus of the Caribbean. On the continent of America, by the West India Islanders, it was usually called ‘petum’ or ‘yoli’. Tobacco has many species in the genus of Nicotiana, which is scattered in South America, North America, Australia and the South Pacific (Goodspeed, 1947). Botanists generally consider the genus Nicotiana to include more than 60 distinct species. Almost all botanists believe that the genus originated in the Andean region. It spreads throughout most of the American continent. Through the European colonizers, it disperses to the rest of the world, becoming established in vast areas of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. Nicotiana tabacum and Nicotiana rustica dominated all the species of Nicotiana scattered in the world (Tomas, 2005). However, according to Akehurst (1981), as Goodman (1993) note, Rustica only existed in a few parts of the world such as the former USSR, India, Pakistan, and parts of North Africa.
5.1.2. Tobacco history in Indonesia Tobacco in Asia was brought by the Spanish from Mexico to the Philippines in 1575. As written in the chronicles of Mataram (Babad ing Sangkala 1738), tobacco arrived in Central Java in 1601 or 1523 saka year, which coincided with the death of King Senopati (Reid, 1985;1988). Tobacco also can be found in Banten, West Java in 1603 and the Central Javanese court of Mataram in 1624. Before 1800, tobacco was cultivated in Java (East Java, Kedu, Cirebon, and Batavia), Eastern Indonesia (Ternate) in 1671, Kalimantan in the 1660s, and Sumatera in 1603 (Boomgaard, 2005). The growing of tobacco spread quickly in Java. Tobacco was, after rice, the most important smallholder export commodity. Between 1800 and 1830, tobacco was found growing in many regions of Java. It can be seen in West Java, Central Java, and East Java. In West Java, it was concentrated in Priangan and Cirebon. Kedu and its surrounding areas such as the regencies of Banjarnegara (in Banyumas), Ledok, later named Wonosobo (Bagelen), Batang (Pekalongan), and Kendal (Semarang) are the well-known places which produced a typical quality of 97 tobacco. The tobacco from Kedu was even exported to the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and the Spice Islands. In East Java, most tobacco was to be found in the regencies of Malang (in Pasuruan), Lumajang (Probolinggo), and Puger (Bondowoso), and Jember (Besuki) (Boomgaard, 2005). Between 1836 and 1845, besides coffee, sugar, and indigo, tobacco became an essential and ‘compulsory' crop under the Cultivation System (cultuurstelsel). Some tobacco contracts were made with private entrepreneurs. Because of the low returns of tobacco growing for the peasants, in 1860 compulsory cultivation of tobacco was abolished in principle, and the last contract expired in 1864. Non- governmental tobacco production, supervised by European entrepreneurs under various contractual relations, started in Java (and Sumatra) between 1855 and 1865, producing the still well-known trade names of Vorstenlanden, Besuki or Jember, and Deli. In 1856, VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), the Dutch East India Company, also planted tobacco extensively in the Besuki area of East Java, with a
research center, besoekisch profstation in 1910. The results of the research center were crossing and obtaining suitable tobacco species in the archipelago. The type of cigar tobacco that is now widely planted in Besuki is the result of a cross between the type of Kedu and the type of Deli. Two years later, in 1858, another type of cigar tobacco was planted in the Yogyakarta-Surakarta area, precisely in the Klaten area (PTPN X, 2015). Between 1900 and 1940, smallholder tobacco was cultivated in a great many districts, but it was heavily concentrated in a few areas only, namely the Dieng highlands and surrounding area (regencies of Banjarnegara, Wonosobo, Batang, Kendal, Salatiga, and the Residency Kedu), the Residency of Rembang, and the Residencies of Probolinggo and Besuki (regencies Lumajang, Jember, Bondowoso). Smaller centers were to be found in Kediri and Madura (Boomgaard, 2005). Tobacco, which was developed in the former Kedu residency area was called Kedu tobacco. The planting area spread mainly on the slopes of Mt. 98 Sumbing-Sindoro, and Prahu. Administratively, the area included Wonosobo, Temanggung and Kendal regencies. In 1940, tobacco in this region contributed almost 50 % of the tobacco land area in Central Java province (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000).
99
Source: Carey (1984), original source without scale
Figure 60: Areas of tobacco production in around Kedu residency in the1800s
5.2. Tobacco growing in Indonesia
5.2.1. The position of Indonesian tobacco at the global level There are at least 124 tobacco-growing countries in the world, producing 7.5 million tons of tobacco. Tobacco is grown on almost 4.3 million hectares of agricultural land (Eriksen, Mackay, Schluger, Gomeshtapeh, & Drope, 2015). The ten largest tobacco-growing countries contribute about 80 % of tobacco yield in the world. China is the most significant contributor, which produced 3.1 million tons of tobacco or about 42 % of world tobacco production in 2016 (FAOSTAT, 2016). The world´s five largest Transnational Tobacco Companies (TTCs) are China National Tobacco Corporation, Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Tobacco. They dominated the global cigarette market share, 82 % in 2014 (Lian & Dorothea, 2016).
100 China 2.806
India 761
Brazil 676
USA 285
Indonesia 196
Zimbabwe 172
Zambia 125
Pakistan 116 Tanzania 102 Argentina 94 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000
Tobacco production (in thousands of tons)
Source: FAOSTAT (2016)
Figure 61: The top ten tobacco-growing countries in the world, 2016 Indonesia is the fifth largest tobacco producer in the world. The four largest tobacco-growing countries are China, India, Brazil, and the USA, which
contribute 42 %, 11 %, 10 %, and 4 %, respectively. Indonesia shares 3 % of the total world production of tobacco (FAOSTAT, 2016). In the region of Southeast Asia, Indonesia is the largest tobacco leaf producer. From ten countries, there are eight ASEAN countries, which engage in tobacco cultivation on a different scale. Tobacco is cultivated in 301,650 hectares of land across the region in 2016. Indonesia contributes 43 % of tobacco production in Southeast Asia. The other major producers are Lao PDR (15 %), the Philippines (13 %), Thailand (13 %) and Vietnam (7 %) (Lian & Dorothea, 2016) (figure 62).
Cambodia 3% Malaysia Myanmar 0% Vietnam 6% 7% Indonesia 43% Philippines 13%
101 Thailand 13%
Lao People's Democratic Republic 15%
Source: FAOSTAT (2016)
Figure 62: Share of tobacco production by country in Southeast Asia, 2016
5.2.2. Tobacco production Tobacco production in Indonesia is dominated by smallholders (perkebunan rakyat). They contribute more than 97 %. Meanwhile, only until 2014, the government estates (PBN) contributed to the cultivation of tobacco with a very small percentage, 1.0-2.0 %. Its contribution continued to decline even less than 0.5 percent in 2017. During the past ten years (2008-2017), Indonesia produced 182 thousand tons in average per year (Ditjenbun, 2018). Area of tobacco production in
Indonesia fluctuates. During the last 20 years, the largest and the smallest area for tobacco cultivation were in 2012 (270,290 ha) and 2016 (155,950 ha), in a row (figure 63). The main reason for the rise and fall of the tobacco planting area is due to uncertain and unpredictable weather. The high rainfall in the planting period causes peasant farmers to cultivate other commodities besides tobacco.
300 270 261 256 257 249 240 250 229 216 216 204 209 201 198 198 197 202 200 193 165 167 172 156 150
100
50
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Area (in thousands of hectares)
Source: Ditjenbun (2018) 102 Figure 63: Area of tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017 The data displayed in figure 63 is the area of land at the time of planting tobacco. Because tobacco production is very vulnerable to changeable weather, crop failures often occur. Therefore, the harvested area can be smaller than the land area at the time of planting. For example, in 2013 and 2016, tobacco land that could be harvested was only around 80 % of the land area in the planting period. Meanwhile, in 2017, the weather seemed to support tobacco growth, so the harvested area reached 98 %.
250 216 209 202 193 200
198 194 156 198 150 164
100 126
50
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planted (in thousands of hectares) Harvested (in thousands of hectares)
Source: Ditjenbun (2014-2018)
Figure 64: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco cultivation in Indonesia, 2013-2017
Tobacco production in Indonesia was 181,976 tons during 2008-2017 in average per year. In 1998, it was the lowest production that was only 105,580 tons. The production declined up to 50 % compared to tobacco yield in 1997. Besides being caused by weather, this was also triggered by Indonesian economic 103 crises. The high rainfall, such as occurred in 2010 and 2016, caused the low production of tobacco.
300 261 250 210 215 204 201 199 192 198 194 200 177 181 165 165 168 164 153 146 135 136 150 127 106 100
50
0
2001 2008 2015 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017
Production (in thousands of tons)
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 65: Tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017
Climate anomalies such as excessive rainfall have a negative impact on tobacco productivity. This was due to the occurrence of waterlogging on tobacco cropland from the growth to harvest phase. Stagnant water around the roots of tobacco will cause the plant to wilt, because the roots of the plants are damaged. Furthermore, an insufficient intensity of sunlight during post-harvest processing also affects the quantity and quality of tobacco (Sholeh, 2011). During 2007-2017, the productivity of tobacco was 0.9 tons/ha in average per year. It was higher compared to the average figure during 1997-2006, which was 0.79 tons/ha. The lowest productivity was in 1998, only 0.64 tons per ha.
1,20 1,01 1,00 0,85
0,80 0,92
0,60 0,76 0,64 0,40
0,20 104 0,00
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1997 Productivity (tons/ha)
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 66: Tobacco productivity in Indonesia (tons/ha), 2017
In Indonesia, tobacco is cultivated in 15 provinces with varied ecological characteristics, from dry to irrigated land and from low to high land areas. The three largest tobacco-growing provinces contribute about 89 % of tobacco yield in Indonesia. The regions of tobacco producers are East Java (50 %), Central Java (22 %), West Nusa Tenggara (17 %) and the rest of it is located in the other provinces (figure 67 and 68).
Aceh Others South Sulawesi 1% 4% 1%
West Java 5%
West Nusa Tenggara 17%
East Java 50%
Central Java 22%
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 67: The proportion of tobacco production area by province in Indonesia, 2017
105
Aceh
Central Sulawesi Nort Sumatera
West Sumatera South Sumatera
South Sulawesi Jambi Lampung Central Java 1 East Java 0 Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara 6 = <20,000 ha West Java = 20,000-40,000 ha = 40,000-60,000 ha Special Region of Yogyakarta = >60,000 ha 0 200 400 800 Kilometers
Source: Data from Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 68: Tobacco production areas by province in Indonesia, 2017
The number of tobacco growers in Indonesia fluctuates, but it tends to decline. It depends on the prediction of tobacco planting, which is usually related to good weather and reasonable selling prices. For example, in 2012, the numbers of peasants peaked. It is because the weather was appropriate for tobacco growing, which was indicated by the high productivity in that year. In 2017, there were 493 thousand households involved in tobacco cultivation. They grew tobacco on 202 thousand hectares of land; producing 181 thousand tons of dried tobacco leaves (figure 69).
900 786 761 800 680 700 641 568 559 528 600 493 500 396 400 300
200 100
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 107
The number of tobacco growers (in thousands)
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 69: The number of tobacco growers in Indonesia, 2009-2017
In 2017, the land tenure cultivated by tobacco growers in 15 Provinces in Indonesia was 0.58 ha/household in average. The largest land owned by peasants was in Jambi, with 1.23 ha/household. Meanwhile, in Special Region of Yogyakarta every household only cultivated 0.19 ha of land to grow tobacco (table 3 and figure 70).
Table 3: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household by province in Indonesia, 2017 per Land No Provinces Peasants household (ha) (ha) 1 Aceh 3,728 2,134 0.57 2 Nort Sumatera 2,491 1,378 0.55 3 West Sumatera 2,321 704 0.30 4 Jambi 632 776 1.23 5 South Sumatera 740 250 0.34 6 Lampung 1,174 818 0.70 7 West Java 25,128 9,339 0.37 8 Central Java 117,633 45,085 0.38 9 Special Region of Yogyakarta 6,181 1,204 0.19 10 East Java 283,566 100,750 0.36 11 Bali 1,283 808 0.63 12 West Nusa Tenggara 40,361 33,793 0.84 13 East Nusa Tenggara 3,672 1,783 0.49 14 Central Sulawesi 376 340 0.90 15 South Sulawesi 3,286 2,747 0.84 Total 492,572 201,909 0.58 108 Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Jambi 1,23 Central Sulawesi 0,90 South Sulawesi 0,84 West Nusa Tenggara 0,84 Lampung 0,70 Bali 0,63 Nort Sumatera 0,55 Aceh 0,57 East Nusa Tenggara 0,49 East Java 0,38 Central Java 0,37 West Java 0,36
South Sumatera 0,34 West Sumatera 0,30
Special Region of Yogyakarta 0,19 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 Source: Ditjenbun (2018) Figure 70: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household (ha/household) by province in Indonesia, 2017
5.2.3. Tobacco diversity Tobacco cultivated in Indonesia diverse. Tobacco growth and quality are associated with ecological conditions, such as soil, climate or weather, and geographical attributes (Wu, Tang, Yang, Liu, & Guo, 2013). According to Suwarso, as Djajadi (2015) noted Tobacco has been adapted as a commodity for centuries in many areas in Indonesia. Tobacco has a high diversity with distinctive characteristics. Differences in the ecological conditions of the tobacco cultivating area have resulted in special tobacco quality. The environments have significantly affected the characteristics of tobacco for a long time. This condition caused Indonesia to have many tobacco variants with different morphology and features. Basuki, Rochman, & Yulaikah (2000) explain the diversity of Indonesian tobacco through a schematic diagram. It involves species, planting season, processing, type of product, variants, and function (figure 71). Based on the planting time period; tobacco is classified into Voor Oogst (VO) and Na Oogst (NO). VO tobacco is grown at the end of the rainy season and harvested in the dry season. Meanwhile, NO is planted at the end of the dry season and harvested 109 during the rainy/wet season. Based on usages, Djajadi (2015) categorized tobacco in Indonesia into four groups, namely cigar, kretek cigarette, roll your own (RYO) cigarette, and chewy tobacco. Cigar tobacco in Indonesia is particularly cultivated in three areas, namely Besuki NO in Jember (East Java), Vorstenlanden in Klaten (Central Java), and Deli tobacco in North Sumatera (Budiarto, 2007). Cigar tobacco is mostly used for tobacco for export purposes. The type of tobacco functions as both filler and wrapper (Sholeh, 2007). Especially Deli tobacco serves as a wrapper. In 2017, Besuki NO contributed 90 % of cigar tobacco in Indonesia. Virginia tobacco is also called flue-cured Virginia (FCV) or bright tobacco. In trade, this is often called Virginia FC. On the international market, FCV tobacco is mostly needed to make cigarettes, and a small portion is used for pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco. In Indonesia, Virginia tobacco is used for a blend of white cigarettes and kretek, for shag tobacco and export. Virginia tobacco is developed in various regions, namely North Sumatra, West Java, Central Java,
Yogyakarta, East Java, Bali, and West Nusa Tenggara (Lombok) (Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011). In 2017, the largest Virginia tobacco producer in Indonesia was West Nusa Tenggara (74.6 %). Meanwhile, the contribution of Virginia tobacco to the total production in Indonesia was 17.3 % (Ditjenbun, 2018).
Type of Species Planting season Processing Variants Function/used for product Madura
Temanggung
Weleri Kretek cigarette Sliced type Selopuro
Sun cured Mranggen Rembang Voor Oogst Paiton & others Chewy tobacco Kasturi Kretek cigarette Leaf type (kerosok) Lumajang Pipe tobacco Nicotiana Tabacum Air cured Leaf type Burley White/kretek cigarette 110 Flue cured Leaf type Virginia White/kretek cigarette Dark flue cured Leaf type Boyolali Shag (RYO) (asepan) Deli Cigar tobacco
Na Oogst Air cured Leaf type Vorstenlanden Cigar tobacco
Besuki No Cigar tobacco
Source: adopted from Basuki, Rochman, & Yulaikah (2000)
Figure 71: Classification of Indonesian tobacco
The majority of tobacco variants cultivated in Indonesia is native tobacco (tembakau rakyat). This includes various types of local tobacco that develop in certain areas. In general, the kinds of tobacco are named according to the area where they are grown. Several of these tobaccos include madura, temanggungan, weleri/kendal, mranggen, paiton, and others. Most of the tobaccos are produced for kretek cigarette manufacturers, and the rest are for own rolled tobacco and export (Murdiyati, Djajadi, & Herwati, 2007). In 2017, the production land of
tembakau rakyat reached 80 % of the national tobacco planting area (Ditjenbun, 2018).
Table 4: Tobacco variants and planting areas by province in Indonesia No Variants Provinces Functions/used for 1. Rajang (sliced- Central Java, Special Region of kretek cigarette dried tobacco) Yogyakarta, Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, East Java 2. Paiton Special Region of Yogyakarta, chewy tobacco East Java 3. Kasturi East Java kretek cigarette 4. Lumajang East Java pipe tobacco 5. White Burley East Java white/kretek cigarette 6. Virginia Central Java, Bali, West Nusa White/kretek Tenggara, East Java, North cigarette Sumatera, West Java, Special Region of Yogyakarta 7. Asepan (shag) Central Java shag (ryo) 8. Deli North Sumatera cigar tobacco 9. Vorstenlanden Central Java cigar tobacco 10. Besuki N.O East Java cigar tobacco 111
Temanggung tobacco is classified as Voor Oogst with a sun-cured method of processing. The tobacco is sold in the form of sliced dried tobacco for kretek cigarette use (Basuki, Rochman, & Yulaikah, 2000). Sliced dried tobacco is processed through sortating of leaves based on maturity, fermentation, slicing with size 0.5–1 cm, and sun drying (Djajadi, 2015). Based on the cigarette ingredients, sliced-dried Temanggung tobacco, kasturi, and Madura are mostly used for flavor. White burly and Paiton tobacco serve as a modifier. Meanwhile, Virginia (particularly cultivated in Bojonegoro, Blitar, and Special Region of Yogyakarta), Chinese, and Weleri tobacco serve as filler (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013).
5.2.4. Tobacco export and import Indonesia is both importer and exporter of tobacco leaf. The volume of export and import fluctuates. However, the trend of import increases, while the export tends to decline. Since 2006, import has been higher than the volume of
tobacco export. The highest volume of import was in 2012, 137.4 thousand tons with a total value of 658.9 million US$, which was almost four times the amount of export. Meanwhile, the quantity of import has declined since 2010. During the last ten years (2008-2017), the average volume of tobacco import and import, in a row, was 93.4 and 40.1 thousand tons. Meanwhile, the total values of import and export in the same period was 487.1 and 160.6 million US$, respectively.
160 140 120 100
80 60 40 20
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Export (in thousands of tons) Import (in thousands of tons)
112 Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 72: Export-import volume of tobacco, 1997-2017
700 600 500 400
300
200
100
0
2005 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Export (million US$) Import (million US$)
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 73: Export-import value of tobacco, 1997-2017
Tobacco leaf needed by 47 large and middle-sized cigarette companies in Indonesia is about 300 thousand tons per year. It does not include the ‘illegally'
small and home industries, which produce cigarettes without paying excise and having a brand (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013). In the meantime, the tobacco production in Indonesia during the past five years (2013- 2017) was only 172.8 tons in average per year. Therefore, based on supply and demand balance, Indonesia still needs about 42.4 % of tobacco leaf from other countries to cover the lack of domestic production. During 2008 - 2017, the average volume of imports was 52 % of domestic yields. The increase in tobacco imports is not only driven by the lack of quantity but also the inadequate quality of domestic tobacco. Furthermore, the development of the production of local cigarette factories, which acquired several types of tobacco such as Virginia, burley, and oriental contributed to the increase in the volume of imports (Rais, 2007). The rise in the campaign for the consumption of low tar and nicotine cigarettes has contributed to the increasing interest of smokers, especially young people, to consume cigarettes with low nicotine and tar. Unfortunately, this type of cigarette requires a type of tobacco that cannot be fully met by domestic production (Suprihanti, Harianto, Sinaga, & 113 Kustiari, 2018). In 2017, 47 % of tobacco was imported from China in 2017. Meanwhile, Brazil contributed 13 %. The rest of it was imported from some countries such as the United States, Zimbabwe, India, Turkey, and others. The tobacco leaf is used for both white and kretek cigarettes. Virginia FC, Burley, Oriental, cut-rolled stem, and reconstituted tobacco with a specific composition is commonly used for making white cigarettes (Fisher, 1999). To make one type of cigarette 5-10 kinds of tobacco are required. In general, there are three kinds of tobacco structuring cigarettes based on the functions, namely: flavor, modifier, and filler grades (Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011). Tobacco leaf from China is commonly classified as a filler grade (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013). Furthermore, the ingredients structuring kretek cigarettes are typical of each company. For Bogie, as Murdiyati & Basuki (2011) note, classifies the types of tobacco needed for kretek based on its function, namely: filler, semi-aromatic, and aromatic. The composition of those types (filler, semi-aromatic, and fragrant) is as
much as 10-30 %, 60-80 %, and 10-30 %, in a row. GAPPRI (1999) noted that imported tobacco contributed less than 10 % to each kretek cigarette. Some kinds of tobacco structure kretek cigarettes namely Virginia FC leaf (10-24 %), Kasturi leaf (10-24 %), Temanggung/muntilan slice dried tobacco (14-26 %), Madura (14- 22 %), Bojonegoro (8-16 %), Weleri/Mranggen (4-8 %), and imported tobacco (< 10 %). Tobacco leaf from China is used as filler. Meanwhile, tobacco imported from the USA, Brazil, Zimbabwe are classified as a semi-aromatic type (Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011). In 2017, about 55 % of Indonesian tobacco was delivered to some countries namely Dominican Republic, the United States, Egypt, Vietnam, Belgium, Netherlands, Singapore, and Germany. The two biggest volume of export were delivered to Dominican Republic (17 %) and the United States (11 %). Beside tobacco leaf, Indonesia also exported cigarettes, especially kretek, although only less than 10 percent of domestic cigarette production. Indonesian tobacco is one of the important raw materials for a cigar, mainly as a wrapper (34 %) and 27-30 114 % for binder and filler (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013).
Others 20% Greece 1%
Italy 1% China Turkey 47% 3% India 4% Zimbabwe 5% United States 6% Brazil 13%
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 74: Proportion of tobacco import based on origin countries, 2017
Dominican Republic 17%
Others United 45% States 11%
Egypt 7% Vietnam Germany 7%
3% Singapore Netherlands Belgium 3% 3% 4%
Source: Ditjenbun (2018)
Figure 75: Proportion of tobacco export based on destination countries, 2017
5.3. Cigarette manufacturers 115 5.3.1. The origin of kretek The cigarette’s origin can be traced from pre-Colonial South and Central America, where among the Maya smoking tobacco was commonly wrapped in banana skin, bark, and maize leaves. The Spanish brought it and replaced the maize-wrappers with fine paper. In the 1830s, it crossed into France, and the French tobacco monopoly named it ‘cigarette' in 1845 (Rudy, 2005). In Indonesia, smoking activities have been found at Mataram court in 1601, Aceh in 1603, and in Banten in 1604 (Reid, 1988). Before 1900, Indonesian people commonly consumed betel (Arnez, 2009). Betel chewing usually involved areca, betel, and lime. They also put spices, aromatics, and other precious commodities to the betel. By the end of the eighteenth-century, gambier and tobacco also became an essential ingredient of betel chewing. It is speculated that the habit of chewing tobacco was learned from Portuguese and Dutch sailors, who were forbidden to smoke on board of their ships because of the risk of fire. Betel chewing in Indonesia was not solely for personal preference, but a necessity for
every adult in society. At the marriage ceremony, the betel ingredients were usually part of the bride-price. A Javanese bride and groom threw betel leaves at each other. Betel chewing was also consumed for medical use, such as to prevent dental decay and toothache and to sweeten the breath (Reid, 1985). Between 1900 and 1950, the use of tobacco spread widely in Indonesia. Indigenous cigarettes were made of shredded tobacco wrapped up in dried cornhusk, banana or palm leaves. Later, they were called klobot or kelobot (husk, bracts of the corn ear) in Javanese or strootje in Dutch (Arnez, 2009). The history of a new form of cigarettes started in around 1880 when an inhabitant of Kudus, Central Java province, named Djamhari was suffering from a mild case of asthma. His Asthma was relieved after he applied clove oil on his chest. He, then, initiated to mix clove with tobacco and inhaled the mixture. As a result, his Asthma ended immediately. He started to distribute the hand-rolled cigarettes, rokok cengkeh (clove cigarette), through the local apotik (pharmacies) (Hanuz, 2005). After he died, several other Kudus inhabitants started to produce their own clove 116 cigarettes. They wrapped clove cigarette in cornhusk (kelobot). Another kind of clove cigarettes also included tobacco, klembak (a type of root) and menyan (incense). They rolled the kretek at home; they were not branded, and were only distributed in a limited area (Hanuz 2000 in Arnez 2009). It is named kretek (kreh-TEK) because of the pop and crackle the cloves make when burned (keretek-keretek) (Hanuz, 2005; Cribb & Kahin, 2004). The development of the clove cigarette, which was dominated by Javanese, attracted Chinese entrepreneurs to involve it in their business. It raised the violence between Javanese and Chinese, which culminated on 31 October 1918. Factories and houses were burnt down, and even some people were killed. However, the Chinese firms gained a competitive advantage at an early stage of the kretek industry. In 1921, even, a kongsi (partnership of Chinese entrepreneurs) built the first factory for kreteks using paper wrappers. At that time, the local people preferred the old kretek with a maize wrapper (Colombijn, Colombijn, & Colombijn, 2001). Chinese found a new market outside Kudus in in the future, the
largest kretek companies are played by Indonesian Chinese entrepreneurs such as Djarum, Bentoel, Gudang Garam, and Sampoerna (Arnez, 2009). The habit of smoking tobacco mixed with clove encouraged Nitisemito, a Kudus resident, to sell a branded kretek cigarette. At that time, all kretek were hand-rolled. All ingredients were bought separately. In 1906, Nitisemito launched his klobot kretek brand named ‘Bal Tiga’ (three balls). The 1920s and 1930s saw a rapid rise of kretek production, but kretek was unable to displace white cigarettes as the most popular cigarette in the region (Hanuz, 2005). In 1930, the company fell into a crisis and eventually went bankrupt in 1953 (Arnez, 2009).
5.3.2. The development of kretek cigarette Until 1968, kretek cigarettes were rolled by hand with its varieties such as kretek without a filter, hand-rolled with filter, and kelobot (Arnez, 2009). The three companies in Solo and Kudus started mechanizing kretek cigarettes in 1968. Bentoel, a big company with greater capital, also began producing machine-made kretek cigarettes (SKM) in the same year. A few years later, some medium and 117 large companies also started to produce SKM, namely Djarum in 1976, Gudang Garam in 1978, Sukun and Sampoerna in 1983, Noroyono in 1984, and Jambu bol in 1986 (Tarmidi, 1996). SKM production continues to increase. Even in 2015, it contributed 66.2 percent (Kementerian Perindustrian, 2015). The numbers of cigarettes produced by manufacturers in Indonesia continued to decline from 2007-2015. In 2015, the number of tobacco companies was 713, a decline of 83 % compared to the amount in 2006 (Kurnaini, 2016). This decrease was due to the tightening of the application of rules relating to excise payments. The government became strict about applying the regulations. The government closed companies that violated the regulations, especially regarding compliance with excise payments. Almost four thousand cigarette manufacturers were closed during 2007-2015.
5.000 4.669 4.500 4.198
4.000 3.500 3.281 3.000 2.495 2.500 1.994 2.000 1.664 1.500 1.320 1.206 995 1.000 713 500 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: Kurnaini (2016)
Figure 76: Number of cigarette companies in Indonesia, 2006-2015
Even though the numbers of cigarette companies are decreasing, the
118 cigarette production is increasing. In the last five years (2011-2015), cigarette production grew an average of 3.6 % per year. In the same period, the production was an average of 336.42 billion stick of cigarettes per year.
400 346 345 348 350 318 326 292 281 300 266 237 250 217 200 150 100
50
0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Cigarette production (billions)
Source: Kurnaini (2016)
Figure 77: Cigarette production in Indonesia, 2006-2015
Based on market shares, Gudang Garam Tbk, HM Sampoerna Tbk, and Djarum are the three big cigarettes manufacturers in Indonesia. They together had a market share of 70 % in 2016 (figure 78). Those three companies are also the biggest excise contributors. They are the biggest clove cigarette manufacturers.
Nojorono Other Tobacco companies Gudang Indonesia 10% Garam Tbk 6% 29% Philip Morris Indonesia 7% Bentoel Internasional Investama Tbk 7% HM Djarum Sampoerna 12% Tbk 29%
Source: Lian & Dorothea (2016) 119 Figure 78: Market share of tobacco industries in Indonesia, 2016
5.4. Tobacco growing and government income Tobacco products excise is one of the important incomes for the Indonesian government. The products include SKM, SKT, and SPM. In 2015, SKM that was produced by 246 cigarette manufactures has the biggest contribution, which reached 81.9 %. Meanwhile, the excise collected from SKT and SPM was 11.8 % and 6.3 %, respectively. The number of cigarette companies producing SKT was 441, and the rest of it, 26 manufacturers, were SPM producers (Kurnaini, 2016). The amount of excise on tobacco products obtained by the government increased from year to year. The excise was about tripled by 2017 compared to 2009. In 2017, the government got 147 trillion rupiah from excise on tobacco products (figure 79).
147 160 139 142 140 111 120 105 100 84 69 80 61 60 40 20 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Excise (trillions rupiah)
Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2010-2017) Figure 79: Tobacco product excise in Indonesia, 2010-2017
The rise of the excise also implies an increase in the amount of the revenue sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT). DBH-CHT is a shared fund obtained from 2 % of total tobacco excise, which is distributed to tobacco and 120 cigarette producer provinces. This policy is following the law number 39 of 2007 on excise duty. DBH-CHT can be used for quality improvement of raw materials, industrial development, social environment development, socialization of provisions in the field of excise, and/or the eradication of illegally taxable goods. The composition of the distribution of CHT-DBH is 30 and 40 percent, respectively, for provinces and regencies/cities producing tobacco products. Meanwhile, the remaining 30 percent is for other regions that are not contributors to excise.
3,5 3,0 2,8 3,0 2,8
2,5 2,1 2,2 2,0 1,7 1,4 1,5 1,2 1,0 0,5 0,0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
DBH-CHT (trillion rupiah)
Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2010-2017)
Figure 80: Revenue sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT) of Indonesia, 2010-2017 DBH-CHT funds are provided to the 16 provincial governments. The number of funds earned depends on the contribution of excise duty obtained from tobacco and its products. East Java received the most funds (52 %). It is because 121 the region is the largest tobacco producer, and there are many cigarette companies built in the area. The second largest province obtaining the fund is Central Java (23 %). It is followed by other provinces, namely West Java (11 %), West Nusa Tenggara (8 %), and others (6 %) (figure 81).
West Nusa Others Tenggara 6% 8%
West Java 11%
East Java 52% Central Java 23%
Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2017) Figure 81: The proportion of sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT) by province, 2017
800 680 700 628 642 600 546 482 427 500 392 400 282 300 200 100
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
DBH-CHT (billions rupiah) Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2010-2017)
Figure 82: Tobacco product excise of Central Java province, 2010-2017
In Central Java, Kudus is the largest beneficiary regency of the fund. It received 22 % of the DBH-CHT of this province. It is because of a large number of cigarette industries operating in the area. Temanggung is the second largest 122 beneficiary regency. The total amount of the fund increases from year to year. In 2017, the regency received 31.2 billion rupiah (figure 83 and 84).
Central Java Others 30% 37%
Boyolali 3% Kendal Kudus 3% Temanggung 22% 5%
Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2017)
Figure 83: The proportion of DBH-CHT based on regency/city in Central Java province, 2017
35 31 28 28 30 25 25 23 18 20 15 13 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 DBH-CHT (billions rupiah)
Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2010-2017) Figure 84: DBH-CHT of Temanggung regency, 2010-2017
5.5. Tobacco cultivation and production in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM) 5.5.1. The origin of tobacco in SSM: a folklore and myths Temanggung tobacco is believed to be introduced by Ma Kuw Kwan. He is 123 also called by Syarif Hidayat, Jaka Teguh, Ki Ageng Makukuhan or Ki Ageng Kedu. Ma Kuw Kwan is a Chinese, who was a santri (student at traditional Muslim school) of Sunan Kudus in Pondok Pesantren Glagahwangi (Islamic boarding school) in Kudus, Central Java. Later, he also became a santri of Sunan Kalijaga. In the Pondok pesantren, he learned about the religion of Islam, agriculture, and supernatural powers. After finishing his study, Ma kuw kwan was given the task of spreading Islam in the region Kedu by Sunan Kalijaga. He started to integrate with the local people through farming activities. He also spread Islam by an example. His praying activities (worship of salat) encouraged inhabitants to ask what salat is. Makukuhan explained that salat is one of the activities to ask God for their abundant yield. In the end, many people embraced the religion of Islam. The fame of the success of farming in Kedu encouraged Sunan Kudus to introduce new crops by sending one of his santri, Bramanti. Later, He was also called Ki Ageng Parakan because he also spread Islam in the area of Parakan.
Sunan Kudus sent Makukuhan three seed crops, namely: Rojolele and Cempa paddy seed, and the seeds, which was in the future called mbako (tobacco). The word mbako was taken from the Javanese word, ‘tambaku’, which means ‘my healer’. At that time, a local resident was sick. Ki Ageng Makukuhan came to cure him by using tobacco flowers. Then, the sick resident said ‘iki tambaku’, which means ‘this is my healer’. The word tambaku changed to ‘tembako’. In the simpel way, thus, it was called ‘mbako’. In this region, there is also a well-known story about the origin of the typical quality of Temanggung tobacco, srinthil. The story started from Sunan Kudus, who threw rigen or ndaru rigen, a woven bamboo used for drying tobacco, toward Temanggung region. The site where the rigen falls will be a great place to grow tobacco. The rigen fell down in the slope of Sumbing Mountain. The area, then, was called Legoksari village. Until now, the inhabitants of Temanggung believe that the best quality of tobacco would be obtained on the farmland, which at night is shaded by ndaru rigen. It can be seen in the form of the ray. 124 Ki Ageng Makukuhan also introduced the slametan (ritual feast), which is conducted before tobacco planting (wiwit). Recently, the ritual is called among tebal. The word slametan comes from Arabic language, salama, which means ‘safe’. The ritual fest is conducted in the farmland. The inhabitants provide tumpeng robyong. This contains the cone-shaped black sticky rice. In its surrounding, there are assorted Javanese dishes such as ingkung, anchovies pepes9, shredded omelet, fried tofu and tempe, jajan pasar (traditional market snack), fruit, and black coffee. Tumpeng is shaped like a mountain. Mountain expresses the place where the dead souls reside with other invisible beings after they are released from this world. By making the tumpeng, thus, the host can make easy contact with those who will bring the state of safety. The tumpeng is also the symbol of this world. The tumpeng, taking the form of a cone, has only one peak. As a metaphor, it delivers a message that God (Allah) is one and human beings cannot be the same as Him. Another part of tumpeng is ingkung made from a rooster (jago) that
9 Pepes is an Indonesian cooking method using banana leaf as food wrappings.
symbolizes a human being as the best and the cleverest among all creatures of God (Kim, 2007). Anchovies, which are characterized by always living in groups, represent having a good relationship with family and neighbors. Slametan is also held before the first time of tobacco purchasing. This activity is conducted by grader which is attended by all the big middlemen. Some big middlemen also carry out the slametan by inviting all the farmers selling tobacco to them (MPIG Tembakau Srinthil Temanggung, 2013). Currently, some other festivals are also conducted. It usually integrates with tourist attractions. festival lembutan Bansari and 3matra (tobacco-coffee-culture) are the examples of festivals carried out to preserve the culture of tobacco growing.
125
Source: Metrotvnews.com (2016)
Figure 85: Ritual feast (slametan) of ‘among tebal’
Source: temanggungkab.go.id (2018)
Figure 86: Tobacco festival: 3matra (tobacco-coffee-culture)
126
Source: jatengprov.go.id (2018)
Figure 87: Tobacco shredding festival (lembutan festival)
Tobacco growing has been embedded in the every day life of the people in Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside. Temanggung itself is always heralded by the local government as the city of tobacco ‘kota tembakau’. The development of tobacco growing is often used as political promises by the regent candidates to get votes in the local elections.
127
Photo by Widiyanto
Photo by Aryo
Figure 88: The icon of tobacco in the billboard of the family planning campaign (top) and the town square of Temanggung (bottom), ‘Kota Tembakau’ means the city of tobacco
5.5.2. Tobacco production 5.5.2.1. Harvested areas In 2017, the tobacco production area in Temanggung contributed 38 % of the total tobacco cultivation in the province of Central Java. Tobacco in this area is planted in all sub-districts in Temanggung regency except Bejen and Pringsurat. During the last 15 years, the tobacco production area was 14.5 thousand ha in average per year. During the period, the area for tobacco cultivation fluctuated. The harvested area of tobacco in 2004 and 2015 was the highest, 19.3 and 18.2 ha, in a row. In contrast, in 2006 the production area was only 9.3 ha.
25
19,3 18,2 20 16,8 15,6 14,5 14,5 14,5 15 13,0 12,3 16,1 15,0 14,2 10 12,6 11,4 9,3 5 128 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Harvested areas (in thousands of hectares)
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2004-2018) Figure 89: Harvested areas of tobacco in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 During 2012-2016, around 75 % of tobacco in this regency was cultivated in eight sub-districts, namely Kledung, Ngadirejo, Bulu, Tlogomulyo, Bansari, Tretep, Tembarak, and Parakan. The sub-district of Bulu, Tlogomulyo, Tembarak, and Parakan, which is located on the slopes of the Mt. Sumbing contributes 12 %, 10 %, 8 %, and 7 %; respectively. The areas situated on the slopes of Mount Sindoro such as in the sub-district of Ngadirejo and Tretep contributed 20 %. Meanwhile, Kledung sub-district, which is lied on both slope of SSM, accounted for 13 % (figure 90).
Kledung 13% Others 23%
Ngadirejo 12% Parakan 7% Bulu 12% Tembarak 7% Tretep Tlogomulyo 8% Bansari 10% 8%
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2013-2017) Figure 90: Proportion of the harvested areas of tobacco by sub-districts during 2012-2016 in average per year
In some of the largest sub-districts of tobacco contributors in Temanggung such as Tlogomulyo, Bansari, and Kledung, in 2016, more than 90 % of agricultural land was planted with tobacco. Meanwhile, in Bulu, Parakan, Tembarak and Ngadirejo sub-districts, the ratio of land used for tobacco 129 cultivation is between 60-80 %. Meantime, other sub-districts show a proportion lower than 60 % (figure 91).
Tlogomulyo 94,2 Bansari 92,3 Kledung 92,1 Ngadirejo 79,8 Tembarak 77,1 Parakan 68,9 Bulu 60,3 Candiroto 58,4 Selopampang 48,7 Jumo 48,4 Wonoboyo 47,1 Tretep 39,0 Kedu 16,7 Temanggung 7,9 Kranggan 2,6 Kandangan 2,6 Kaloran 2,3 Gemawang 0,4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2017) Figure 91: Proportion area of tobacco production (percentage) to total agricultural land by sub-districts, 2016
5.5.2.2.Tobacco production and productivity Tobacco produced by 18 sub-districts in Temanggung regency in the period 2003-2017 was 7.4 thousand tons in average per year. The highest production was in 2015, which reached 10.6 thousand tons. For the past 15 years, only in that year tobacco production reached more than 10 thousand tons. Meanwhile, the lowest yields were in 2005 and 2006, where the production was below 5 thousand tons (figure 92).
12 10,61 9,98 9,90 9,50 10 9,13 8,02 7,15 8 6,79
6 7,11 6,92 6,37 6,04 4 5,01 3,92 4,26 2
0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Production (in thousands of tons) 130 Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2004-2018)
Figure 92: Tobacco production in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017
The average tobacco productivity during the period 2003-2017 in Temanggung was 0.51 tons/ha, still below the national average of around 0.9 tons/ha. The highest productivity was achieved in 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2017, which reached more than 0.6 tons/ha. Meanwhile, the lowest production was in 2005, which only produced 0.27 tons/ha. In 2016, yields were also very low, only 0.36 tons/ha (figure 93).
0,70 0,61 0,62 0,64 0,64 0,58 0,60 0,55 0,49 0,50 0,55 0,46 0,49 0,40 0,47 0,44 0,44 0,30 0,36
0,20 0,27
0,10
0,00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Productivity (ton/ha)
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2004-2018)
Figure 93: Tobacco productivity in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017
In part 5.2.2, it has been mentioned that tobacco cultivation is very risky to climate anomalies, particularly high rainfall during the planting and harvesting period. That is way, not all of the area planted with tobacco can be harvested.
During 2013-2015, the crop failure was about 9.5 % of planted land in average per 131 year. In 2017, almost 100 % of tobacco planted could be harvested. Meanwhile, in 2014, it was only about 80 % of tobacco planted, which did not fail to be harvested (figure 94).
25 19,2 20 17,0 16,1 14,9 15,7 15 18,2 16,8 16,1 14,2 10 12,6
5
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planted (in thousands of hectares) Harvested (in thousands of hectares)
Source: Ditjenbun (2014-2018)
Figure 94: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco cultivation in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017
At the sub-district level, tobacco productivity in Kedu, Tembarak, Parakan, Kledung, and Tretep was higher than the average in Temanggung regency in 2016. Kedu showed the highest yield of 0.65 tons/ha. Meanwhile, the majority of other sub-districts had productivity below the average at the regency level. Kranggan Sub-district was the area with the lowest yield of 0.21 tons/ha (figure 95).
Kedu 0,65 Tembarak 0,57 Parakan 0,54 Kledung 0,52 Tretep 0,52 Selopampang 0,51 Wonoboyo 0,49 Bansari 0,49 Candiroto 0,49 Ngadirejo 0,49 Kaloran 0,49 132 Jumo 0,49 Tlogomulyo 0,48 Bulu 0,45 Gemawang 0,44 Temanggung 0,38 Kandangan 0,32 Kranggan 0,21 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70
Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2017) Figure 95: Tobacco productivity (ton/ha) in Temanggung regency by sub-district, 2016
5.5.2.3.Tobacco farmers In the last five years (2013-2017), the average number of farmers in Temanggung regency was 55.5 thousand. This amount was 48 % of the total tobacco farmers in the province of Central Java. During the same period, the highest number of farmers, who planted tobacco in 2015, was 64 thousand farmers. They planted tobacco in an area of 19.2 thousand ha with a total production of 10.6 tons. This figure is also the highest for the past five years.
70 64 60 57 52 54 50 50
40
30
20
10
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Tobacco growers (thousands)
Source: Ditjenbun (2014-2018)
Figure 96: The number of tobacco growers in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017
Changes in the number of farmers are caused by weather forecasts and tobacco prices. Farmers who grow crops in the rice fields have the choices of whether they will plant tobacco or not. Several alternative crops that can be planted in the dry season. Meanwhile, farmers who grow on dry land, especially 133 on the upper slopes of the Mt. Sumbing-Sindoro, they have no possibility to plant crops except tobacco. Therefore, in the dry season, it is inevitable that farmers can only grow tobacco because it is the only plant that can grow well.
134 This page intentionally left blank
Rise, Fall, and Challenges of Tobacco Growing in SSM 6
135
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 97: The post built by tobacco growers as the expression of rejection to policies on tobacco control. ‘Mati urip mbako’ (keep on planting tobacco).
6.1. The golden era of tobacco
Before the 1970s, tobacco in Temanggung was processed as garangan/emplengan tobacco. The tobacco is processed in a way thin shredded, compressed and dried on a fire. In the local language, the drying process on the fire is called garang. The tobacco produced is named garangan, which was used for roll-your-own cigarette (lintingan). Klembak (a kind of root) and incense (kemenyan) was added to the cigarette. Until now, garangan tobacco is still produced by tobacco growers living in Kejajar sub-district, Wonosobo regency, approximately 30 km from the Temanggung regency (figure 98).
136
Source: antarafoto.com (2011)
Figure 98: Garangan tobacco that is still produced in Wonosobo regency
For supplying the local market, since 1956, the farmers living in Temanggung regency expanded their farm area to the mountain with an elevation up to 1,100 m (Purlani & Rachman, 2000). At that time, merchants went to the peasants to collect tobacco and then sold it to other regions. Garangan tobacco changed to tumbon/kenthungan tobacco after the establishment of cigarette factory representative in the area, Gudang Garam, in the 1970s. The word tumbon is derived from the word ‘tumbu’, which means basket. The basket is made from
bamboo as the outer part and dried banana tree midrib as the inside piece (figure 99). Every basket contains 35-45 sliced dried tobacco. This type of tobacco was created to fulfill the cigarette manufacturers’ demand. Sliced dried tobacco is processed through leaves sortation based on maturity, fermentation, slicing with size 0.5–1 cm, and sun drying (Djajadi, 2015).
137 Photo by Arif
Photo by Arif
Figure 99: Tumbon or kentungan tobacco, drying process (top) and packaging activities (bottom)
‘In the past time, tobacco was in the form of emplengan/garangan. From 1966 until 1968, I witnessed my grandfather making emplengan/garangan tobacco. Today tobacco is made for supplying company need, tobacco was formerly retailing for lintingan (RYO). Chinese merchants bought tobacco for sale at Karawang, West Java and other regions. In 1968, it was the transition time from garangan/emplengan to sliced-dried tobacco which was sold to the Gudang Garam company’. (Sukadi)
At the time hand-rolled cigarettes (SKT) still lead the cigarette production in Indonesia, tobacco cultivated in Temanggung was the main ingredient for kretek. Each kretek cigarette contains almost 30 % of Temanggung tobacco. One of tobacco quality became contested by many cigarette manufacturers was srinthil, the highest quality of tobacco. It contains about 5-8 % of nicotine (Djajadi, 2015). At that time, generally, the price of tobacco was very significant. Therefore, the crop was popular as a golden leaf (emas hijau). The following quotations show that tobacco was a promising commodity in supporting the livelihood systems of peasant farmers:
138 ‘In 1976, the highest price was 120 thousand per kilo. If the net weight of one basket were 40 kilos, the total money obtained would be 4.8 million. The price was equal to a new car price.’ (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000) ‘In the early 1980s, 1 kilo gram of tobacco was equal to 1 gram of gold price.’ (Dahono Kuwat) ‘As I remember, in 1982, I had become a tobacco grower. Farmers were prosperous; the price reached 12 thousand per kilo, where the previous price was only 6-7 thousand. It was surprising. At that time, we could buy the motorcycle ‚GL‘ for 850 thousand that was equal to two bales of tobacco. In 1999 and 2001, the tobacco price was also high. In 1999, the price was 40 thousand per kilo where the previous price was only 20-25 thousand per kilo. At that time, the price of cattle was 1.5 million. It is equal to one bale of tobacco price.’ (Sukadi)
Additionally, in 1979, the government issued the program called intensification of smallholder tobacco (ITR). The primary goal of the ITR program was to increase the productivity and quality of tobacco smallholders. The government established some institutions, namely: a project implementation unit (UPP), an Indonesian import-export bank (BEII), Agricultural extension agencies (BPP), and farmer groups, each consisting of 22 household farmers in average to
support the program. The project includes 17.6 ha of land in Temanggung regency. In outline, the implementation of the program consists of the provision of means of production, market and decent price guarantee, and providing technical guidance (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000). In general, the living standard of tobacco farmers was much higher. After getting money from tobacco selling, they bought the secondary and tertiary needs such as cars and motorcycles. Some others spent money on building or renovating a house, buying land, or purchasing livestock. In the tobacco season, farmers bought goods without bargaining the price. Many dealers came to the villages to sell motorcycles or cars. In many cases, the farmers bought them in cash. There are some expressions describing the situation, such as ‘tuku sepeda motor koyo tuku krupuk, endog di rego sawo, tongkol dirego gesek’ ‘buying motorcycle, egg, and tuna fish is like to buy crackers, sawo (kind of fruit), and anchovy, respectively. This expression illustrates that during the high price of tobacco, peasants bought their needs without any strict consideration of the price offered. Even in the golden era of tobacco, there was a rule issued by the village 139 head (kepala desa), which regulates that farmers need to donate a portion of the money received from the sale of tobacco for village development, such as to build schools, mosques, streets, etc. Infrastructures built in the villages were almost all contributed by farmer donations. In Legoksari village, for example, they built a school (figure 100) and village meeting hall (balai desa) (figure 101). The school was built in 1969 and was renovated in 1998. Balai desa built in 1984, which costs 30 million rupiah. The village regulation sets donation system named by sewu selawe. This obliged farmers to donate 25 rupiah for every 1,000 rupiah obtained from the sale of tobacco.
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 100: The school built and funded by tobacco growers
140
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 101: The village hall (balai desa) established by peasant farmers
6.2. The fall of tobacco: price decline and the high cost of tobacco
‘The golden era of tobacco was over in the 2000s. Today, peasants have no profit from tobacco growing. However, we could not leave the activity because tobacco growing is the only thing we can do. Furthermore, I have great experiences with tobacco cultivation. Sometimes, there is a surprise for me when the tobacco price is high, my debts during the last four years before could be paid off. However, it has been difficult to repeat the same situation as before. The price of tobacco is often unfavorable. It makes miserable. Today, tobacco is not cultivated in monoculture anymore; peasants also grow vegetables or chili, although only on the edge of the land. It was a disaster for a peasant in 1978 because of the low quality of tobacco caused by rainfall at the harvest time. Cigarette company did not buy tobacco. Farmers often lose money. The price of tobacco is mysterious and unexplainable. The buyers determined it. The lower quality of tobacco is possible to get a better price compared to the high quality of tobacco. The government actually can take a role in regulating the price. The standard rate of each grade of tobacco quality must be agreed and implemented consistently. For example, tobacco with quality B must be purchased at the standard B price.’ (Sukadi) ‘Tobacco is beneficial when the price of tobacco is more than one hundred thousand rupiah per kilo. Become a peasant is apprehensive. Everything for tobacco farming is expensive both cost for cultivation and market. If the standard price is only 70 thousand per kilo, it is just sufficient for buying manure and paying labor. There will be no profit.’ (Marjo) 141
Tobacco growers are in a vulnerable position because the volatile and declining price of tobacco and the increasing cost of tobacco farming. The declining price is caused by the development of the cigarette industry that has shifted from hand-rolled kretek cigarettes (SKT) to machine-rolled kretek cigarettes (SKM). The use of SKM drives cigarette companies to buy tobacco containing low-middle nicotine. The price of Temanggung tobacco that comprises high nicotine is declining. The excess of the world tobacco production also contributes to the decline and fluctuations in local tobacco prices. In other situations, the cost of farming mainly for manure, labor, and marketing increases. The circumstances are getting worse because of climate variability, which causes crop failure and significant price reductions. How some of these factors affect the livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers will be described in detail in the following part.
6.2.1. Cigarette industry development Kreteks were solely hand rolled until 1968 when three small companies began to mechanize cigarette production in 1968. It was followed by the larger manufacturers, namely: Djarum, Gudang Garam, and Sampoerna that started mechanizing in 1976, 1978, and 1983, respectively. SKT still dominated kretek cigarette industries until the mid-1980s. Since 1985, the production of SKM was higher than SKT. Even in 1989, SKM contributed almost 60 % of cigarette production in Indonesia (Tarmidi, 1996). SKT productivity is an average of 4,000–5,000 sticks per 8 hours, while SKM is 2,000–8,000 sticks per minute, so finally SKM production far exceeds SKT (Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011).
120
100
80
60 142 40
20
0
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
SKT SKM
Source: Tarmidi (1996)
Figure 102: Production of cigarettes in Indonesia (billions), 1972-1993
Beside SKT and SKM, tobacco is produced into white cigarettes (sigaret putih mesin-SPM). SPM is more popularly called rokok putih. Compared to SKT and SKM, the contribution of SPM is smaller particularly after the mechanization of kretek cigarette. In the 1970s, SPM still contributed around 30% and continued to decline in the following years. During 2001-2010, kretek contributed 92 % of the total production. Meanwhile SPM only contributed 8 % (Murdiyati & Basuki,
2011). Indef (2018) noted that during the last four years, the production of SKT decreased 6.1 % annualy in average.
Table 5: The production of cigarettes in Indonesia Production (billions) Year SKT % SKM % SPM % Total 1961–1970 (average) 19,72 55 0 0 15,83 45 35,55 1971–1980 (average) 33,16 60 2,82 5 18,94 34 54,92 1981–1990 (average) 40,09 35 52,15 45 22,65 20 114,89 1991–2000 (average) 57,83 29 119,26 60 21,43 11 198,52 2001–2010 (average) 79,04 36 123,64 56 18,49 8 221,18 Source: Murdiyati & Basuki (2011)
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 143 1961–1970 1971–1980 1981–1990 1991–2000 2001–2010 (average) (average) (average) (average) (average)
SKT SKM SPM
Source: Murdiyati & Basuki (2011)
Figure 103: The development of tobacco production in Indonesia
The popularity of filter cigarettes among consumers was one of the reasons for mechanization (Arnez, 2009). SKM was enthused because of the light taste. Compared to SKT, SKM is more light and aromatic and contains smaller tobacco in every stick of cigarette. Meanwhile, SKT commonly has heavy taste and high nicotine. Regarding to the market share, Departemen Perindustrian (2009) notes that consumption rate of SKM is continually rising. In 2000, the market share of SKM, SKT, and SPM was 50.3 %; 39 %, and 10.7 %; respectively. In 2009, SKT and SPM sequentially dropped to 37 % and 7 %. In contrast, SKM's market share rose to 58 %. In 2013, SKM contributed 66.20 % (237.2 billlions cigarettes).
Meanwhile, the market share of SKT declined by 26.1 % (97.9 billions cigarettes) (Kementerian Perindustrian, 2015). Ernst & Young (2015) also analyzes that during the period of 2012-2014, the retail sales volume of the cigarette industry grew by 13.7 billion units, with the largest growth contributed by the SKM segment. The sales volume of the SKM segment grew by 27 billion cigarettes. On the other hand, the sales volume of the SKT cigarettes has decreased significantly, with sales volume falling by 12 billion cigarettes or 16.5 % from 2012 to 2014. The change of cigarette demand is in line with the global policy and the Indonesian government regulation on tobacco control. One of the policies is the reduction of nicotine addiction. Sampoerna, the biggest cigarette manufactureerir in Indonesia, claimed as a pioneer of producing a cigarette with low tar low nicotine (LTLN), since 1989. Simultaneously, Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute (Balittas) has developed tobacco varieties containing middle- low nicotine since 1993 (Siswanto, 2004). These developments drove cigarette manufacturers to buy tobacco containing middle-low nicotine10. 144 Changes of tobacco demand from high to middle-low nicotine by cigarette companies have reduced role of this commodity for peasants’ livelihood, especially for those who grew tobacco on dry land, since the early 1990s. At that time, the price of tobacco containing the highest nicotine, srinthil, declined. Conversely, the rate of middle nicotine (grade C, D, E) slightly increased. This development was exacerbated by the increasing production costs, particularly for manure and labor (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000). Shifting tastes from SKT to SKM causes the change of tobacco demand from heavy to light taste. The heavy flavor is contained in quality of F and G, while light and the mild taste is in grade A-E. It has increased the price of grade D and E. Conversely, the price of grade F and G declined. As an illustration, the tobacco price of grade D-E was 16 thousand rupiah in 1988 and it increasingly became 22.5 thousand per kilo in 1990. Otherwise, in the same period, the price of
10 Even in 2010, Djarum as one of the tobacco consumers in Temanggung did not buy the highest grade of tobacco (Suara Merdeka, 2010) because the companies tend to develop the light kretek cigarette.
grade F-G declined from 60 thousand rupiah to 35 thousand per kilo (Subangun and Tanuwidjoyo, 1993 in Mukani and Isdijoso 2000). The price of both low and high nicotine tobacco tends to decrease, particularly when there is still rain during the dry season (harvesting time). Temanggung tobacco is classified as voor oogst, which does not require rainfall in the harvesting time. Deviation of rainfall during the dry season affects crop failure.
6.2.2. Economy of tobacco growing: excess supply and price decline The tobacco leaf production of the world is characterized by the shift from High-Income Countries (HICs) to Low-Middle Income Countries (LMICs). From 1970 to 2013, tobacco leaf production increased, by 240 percent (%) (figure 104). In contrast to that, during the same period, the production in HICs declined 2.5 times. Several factors influence the increasing participation of LMICs in the world tobacco production. First, the cost of production in LMICs is lower compared to
HICs. It is because in the HICs there are strict regulations related to environments 145 protection. Less support for tobacco cultivation causes tobacco growing to be unattractive. Second, it is related to declining tobacco use in HICs. In contrary, in LMICs tobacco use and export is increasing. Thirdly, there is an expansion of Multinational tobacco companies (MTCs) to LMICs. Fourthly, tobacco in LMICs is considered more profitable compared with traditional food crops (U.S. National Cancer Institute and WHO, 2016). Jacobs et al. (2000) note that between 1975 and 1998 the production of tobacco leaf in developing countries rose by 128 %. Related to the share of world tobacco production, Asia (including the Middle East) contributed from 40 % to 60 % during the period 1977-1997. Africa’s share also rose from 4% to 6%. Conversely, the contribution of the high-income countries fell from 30 % to 15 % (figure 105).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0
2016 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Production (millions of tons)
Source: FAOSTAT (2016)
Figure 104: World tobacco leaf production, 1970-2016
Oceania Europe Africa 0% 3% 11%
146 Americas 18%
Asia 68%
Source: FAOSTAT (2016)
Figure 105: The proportion of the world's tobacco production by region, 2016
World tobacco production is indicated by oversupply in the global market. It is caused by global production, which tends to exceed the actual global consumption of tobacco leaves. Economically, it will be followed by decreasing producer prices and lowering tobacco farmers’ profits (WHO, 2008). Continuous oversupply is considered a cigarette industry method to keep tobacco leaf prices low at the farm gate. Based on the value-added chain, tobacco peasants earn very
little compared to cigarette companies. The tobacco leave companies will obtain 47.2 times compared to peasant income in every one ton of row tobacco produced (WHO, 2014). Except for China and India, tobacco price in the farm gate (producer) in the top five major producing countries decreased during the 1990s to 2000s. Generally, the prices received by tobacco growers in LMICs are much lower than those obtained by tobacco growers in HICs. It is one of the reasons for MTCs to invest in LMICs (U.S. National Cancer Institute and WHO, 2016). During the past ten years from 2008-2017, Indonesia has imported 93.4 thousand tons annually in average. The tobacco imported significantly rose from year to year. In 2012, tobacco import has double compared to 2010. Tobacco was imported from China, Brazil, the US, and others (see part 5.2.4.). The increasing import with low import duty tariff is considered responsible for the decline in local tobacco prices.
6.2.3. Tobacco farming system 147 6.2.3.1. Climatic variability and crop failure Tobacco is considered as a risky crop due to climatic variability and market price fluctuation (Boomgaard, 2005). The deviation of rainfall during the harvest period causes tobacco quality to become worse. In this case, productivity will decrease, and the price automatically will go down. Deviation of rainfall drove tobacco manufacturers to postpone buying tobacco leaf, and the farmer loss will be more. In 2004, farmers burnt tobacco on the road as a protest, because the time of purchasing crop was delayed. In such cases tobacco is not bought by the companies; the peasants sometimes enforce them to buy their tobacco. Peasants bring tobacco to the cigarette company warehouse. Because of that, there is sometimes chaos in the warehouse.
Source: Suara Merdeka (2004)
Figure 106: Tobacco growers burn tobacco on the road, because of the delay in purchasing tobacco by cigarette companies
148 The peasants usually start growing tobacco in June each year. In exceptional cases of high rainfall, tobacco cultivation could be delayed until the low rainfall. The deviation of rainfall on dry season causes a harvest failure. In the past time, to determine the start of growing and harvesting time, tobacco community used pranata mangsa, local knowledge about managing agricultural land for Javanese people. The traditional Javanese calendar has a function as a practical guide of farming activities for the rural peasants (Daldjoeni, 1984). The peasant starts to harvest tobacco at the end of the first season (mongso kaso) and will end on the fourth season (mongso kapat) (Purlani & Rachman, 2000). The explanation of pranata mangsa in detail will be described as follows: a. The first season (mongso kaso). It starts from June 22 to August 2. During the period, peasants maintain tobacco in order to get high quality. At the end of this season, the harvest starts with picking 1-3 leaves at the bottom. b. The second season (mongso karo). This period is 23 days long starting from August 3 to August 25. Cigarette manufacturers began buying dried sliced tobacco from suppliers (merchants). During this period, the peasants in lamuk,
lamsi, and paksi areas will have picked 2-3 times on the position of bottom until middle leaves of the plant. c. The third season (mongso katigo). The duration of this phase is 24 days starting from August 26 to September 18. The period is the guidance for peasants in Lamuk, Lamsi, and Paksi to begin harvesting the position of the middle and upper leaves. Tobacco with high quality (grade E, F, and G) can be found in this season. d. The fourth season (mongso kapat). This period starts from September 19 to October 13. The duration of this season is 24 days. During this period, only tobacco cultivated in lamuk and lamsi area will be available. The highest grade of tobacco leaves can be found in this season. At the time of high rainfall during the tobacco harvest season, the cigarette companies buy tobacco in a short period. Therefore, the cigarette manufacturers only buy tobacco in a small amount. To reduce losses, some peasants sell at a meager price. They also make tobacco in the way of ‘dendeng’, where tobacco leaves are dried without being shredded. 149 Based on the experience of farmers, there are cycles of good and bad weather for tobacco as well as high and low prices of the crop. They believe that the good weather and high price will occur in every 3-4 years. In this case, the profit obtained in one season can cover losses for three years.
‘In 1998, cigarette manufacturers only bought tobacco whose grade was at least grade E. We can say that the price will be reasonable in every three years. If lucky, the sale of tobacco for one season can be used to pay the debt for three years.’ (Sukardi) ― ‘We can observe that the cycle of good tobacco price will occur in every four years. I got a bad price for four years. I was in debt. In the following year, however, the tobacco price was relatively high and I could pay off the debt for 4 years.’ (Sukadi) ‘The problem of tobacco is about the weather. The better the weather, the easier it is to sell the tobacco. If the weather is like this year, it will be challenging to sell tobacco. However, as a human being, we only accept our fate. In 1978, 1982, 1998, and 2010 tobacco price was inexpensive.’ (Sariyono)
6.2.3.2. Manure Manure is a precondition for the cultivation of tobacco. In the 1940s, human manure was used in Batavia for tobacco cultivation. In 1960, the use of human manure was also applied in Wonosobo beside manure from cattle and horses. In 1920, goat and horse dung were used as fertilizer for tobacco cultivation in the Dieng and Kedu areas. However, in the upland areas, buffalo and cattle manure was not available, because the farmlands were hoeded not ploughed. Because of the importance of manure in tobacco cultivation, this seems that there is a relationship between tobacco growing and livestock rearing. It can be found phrases such as ‘Kedu horses and Madura cattle’ (Boomgaard, 2005). Planting tobacco in the mountains at an altitude of 1,100 meters and with a slope of up to 40 % is very risky for decreasing soil fertility. The farming activity has an impact on the increasing demand for manure to maintain productivity of tobacco. Hence, the price of manure goes up from year to year. Meanwhile, the price of tobacco tends to fall and fluctuate. Tobacco growers sometimes express 150 the unfavorable situation by connecting the price of manure and tobacco compared to the past time.
‘In 1979, the price of tobacco was ten thousand rupiah per kilogram. At that time, I paid 40 thousand rupiah per trip made by truck (rit). Now, the price of manure is 2.0-2.5 million rupiah or increased 50 times. Otherwise, the price of tobacco only rose 5-10 times depending on the quality. In the mountain areas, we have to pay additional labor cost to deliver the manure from the nearest road that can be reached to the farmland.' (Sariyono)
Tobacco growers usually use cattle or chicken manure. They buy it from other regencies around Temanggung, even sometimes also from East Java province. The increasing demand for manure and the less amount of manure produced in Temanggung regency drives peasants to find manure from other regions. It causes a high price of the fertilizer. The rate is between 1.5-2.5 million per rit. For the peasants living at a higher altitude of Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside, the additional cost is necessary to deliver the manure from the locations that can be reached by truck where the manure is placed to the farmland.
‘The price of manure is rising. I have to use it at any cost because it is essential for tobacco cultivation.’ (Sumaryo) ― ‘The price of manure is high, reaching 1.5 million rupiah per rit. Therefore, if the tobacco price is low, farmers will lose.’ (Sutino) ― ‘The price of manure was 1.75 million per rit. Meanwhile, farming costs are not always available. We must borrow it from money lenders (juragan), even though the interest is high.’(Mujiono) ― ‘The price of manure is high. For land cultivation, I need two rit of manure with each price of 1.6 million.’ (Suroyo) ― ‘Manure is essential for tobacco cultivation. I need 1.5 trucks of manure for 2 million per rit.’ (Busri) ― ‘Manure is expensive; the price is 2.5 million per rit. I often owe to buy the fertilizer.’ (Saidi)
Peasants usually put three rit of manure in every hectare of land in average. Besides manure, the tobacco peasants also put chemical fertilizer and pesticide. It is obligatory to use a specific fertilizer such as 'fertila' especially for the farmers who have a contract with the cigarette company, PT. Djarum. The fertilizer consists of sodium, phosphorus, and potassium.
151
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 107: Manure dropped in the village before being distributed to the farmland
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 108: Manure dropped in the locations can be reached by truck before being distributed to the farmland
152
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 109: The location of planting tobacco in hilly and mountainous areas makes high labor costs for transporting manure to farmland
Photo by Widiyanto Figure 110: Manure distribution to the farmland by motorcycle
153
Photo by Widiyanto Figure 111: Manure distribution to the farmland on foot
6.2.3.3. Labor Tobacco is considered as a labor-intensive crop. The labor is commonly hired, mainly, for land preparation and tobacco leaf picking and drying. Man labor is required for land preparation, which is usually carried out during February- March every year. Harvesting time is during the end of June or the early of July to the end of August. In the higher altitude of Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside, the harvesting time is until the end of September or early of October. During the
periods, the labor is required to handle some activities such as tobacco leaf picking, curing, shredding, and drying. The activities must be on time. The delay will decrease the quality of tobacco. Therefore, intensive use of labor is needed. Farmers cultivating small piece of land usually mobilize family labor in growing tobacco activities. Meanwhile, the farmers cultivating more than one ha hire people from other regions such as Wonosobo and Banjarnegara regency. The hiring laborers from other regions is caused by the amount of labor required and driven by scarcity of laborers provided in Temanggung. In the past time, there was local mutual help (royongan), where people helped their neighbors to cultivate land in the rotation without paying. Tobacco growers only serve food, beverages, and cigarettes during work. Recently, however, tobacco growers have to spend money to hire labor. This was triggered by the economic crises in 1999, where at the time all prices were higher. Tobacco peasants needed more money to buy daily necessities. Another reason is due to the excessive activity of purchasing tobacco from outside Temanggung held by 154 tobacco shredders (perajang). The use of chopping machines drives peasants to shred tobacco more and more. The more tobacco chopped by farmers, the more laborers are needed.
Photo by Arif Figure 112: Manual tools (cacak and gobang) for tobacco shredding
Photo by Arif
Figure 113: Machine-based tobacco chopper
There are men and women groups of hired labor. Land preparation is usually carried out by men. Meanwhile, picking and curing of tobacco leaves can 155 be done by both men and women. Shredding is an extraordinary work for men. Meanwhile, make an arrangement of sliced tobacco on rigen/widig, which is called nganjang, is only undertaken by women. It is due to the importance of neatness and thoroughness in arranging the sliced tobacco on rigen. Drying tobacco can be operated by both men and women. The payment system of land preparation is generally with the piecework or contract system (borongan) and others is paid per one working day (harian). The costs of the contract system are usually determined based on per unit per type of work. Tobacco peasants usually use kisuk as a unit cost of land cultivation. Kisuk is derived from the word ‘esuk‘, Javanese language, that refers to the duration of time starting in the morning until midday. Kisuk is often equated with an area of 0.1 ha, where farmer households can accomplish cultivating their land before noon. Therefore, one kisuk itself is used for mentioning 0.1 ha of land. For example, farmers say that the land planted with tobacco is four kisuk, this is equivalent to 0.4 ha.
The laborers employed commonly stay in Temanggung for two or three months. The laborers are not only hired by tobacco growers, but also for tobacco shredders (perajang). They need more laborers for tobacco shredding and drying. Tobacco drying depends on the sunlight. Tobacco growers producing small and medium quantity, they often dry sliced-tobacco along the street, around the yard, or on the concrete roof of their house. In cases, when a large amount of tobacco was produced, they sometimes rent farmland, which was deliberately left to fallow. This can be also in the football fields, the courtyard of the village head office, and other areas. The location for drying tobacco is sometimes far away from their house. Laborers are needed to take care of the tobacco during the drying process. Fields for tobacco drying are chosen based on the adequacy of sunlight. Local inhabitants call the people who are looking for areas to get sufficient sunlight to dry tobacco as ‘pengejar matahari’ (sunlight seekers).
Box 1: Labor for tobacco growing
Faturahman, Ngaten, and Sri are tobacco growers. They mostly hire labor 156 for tobacco cultivation. Faturahman and his wife cultivate 0.4 ha (4 kisuk) located in four (4) separated sites. They hire laborers for tilling the land with a contract system (borongan). They pay the laborers 500 thousand rupiah per kisuk of land. Ngaten and the three household members cultivate 0.5 ha of inherited land. They hire labor for land preparation with the contract system. Sri and her husband cultivate 3 hectares of land inherited from their parents. In tobacco growing, they hire laborers from Wonosobo regency. They are seven men and five women.
When tobacco growers hire labor mostly for cultivation, perajang employs labor for tobacco shredding and drying. Nasihin is one of the perajang living in Bansari sub-district. In the tobacco season, during about two months, he buys tobacco leaves from other regions. He employs laborers from Wonosobo regency. The wage he has to pay is 70 thousand rupiah per day for men and 60 thousand rupiah per day for woman. He provides the daily needs of the laborers during the 2 months. At the end of the tobacco season, he also pays an additional wage particularly when the price of tobacco is high. He needs about 1.5 tons of raw tobacco leaves to get seven bales of sliced dried tobacco per day (to get one bale of sliced dried tobacco, it requires two quintals of raw tobacco leaves). Every bundle of sliced dried tobacco needs the cost of 200 thousand rupiah.
The use of intensive-labor of tobacco growing encourages people to stay for living in the region under any circumstances. Tobacco farming is considered to be
able to accommodate the number of laborers in Temanggung. Therefore, the number of migrations to the urban area is very small. This seem to be similar to the results of Geertz's research in the 1970s in Java. Population is increasing, rural labor is abundant, while agricultural land is limited. The abundant laborers can be still absorbed to work on limited agricultural land. Therefore, rice cultivation in Java is characterized by the use of the highly labor-intensive cultivation technique. Geertz calls it a 'shared poverty', an effort to distribute work and income to all residents (Geertz, 1983). For perajang, the laborers are hired for tobacco shredding and drying. It involves men and woman labor. The number of laborers acquired depends on the amount of tobacco leaf that is bought every day.
157
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 114: Laborers needed for tobacco drying
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 115: Tobacco drying around the house
158
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 116: A deliberated concrete roof for tobacco drying
Photo by Arif
Figure 117: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (1)
159
Photo by Arif
Figure 118: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (2)
6.3. Tobacco challenges
6.3.1. Global policies on tobacco control 6.3.1.1. The main concern of tobacco control policies A global policy on tobacco control echoed by the World Health Organization (WHO) was firstly initiated in the international convention for tobacco control in 1993. On May 21, 2003, as many as 168 countries signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). State parties formally adopted the treaty on February 27, 2005 (Roemer, Taylor, & Lariviere, 2005). Through the framework, The WHO promoted a new global policy (Mamudu, Cairney, & Studlar, 2015). Tobacco is considered a ‘dangerous crop’ because it is linked to health, socio-economic, and environmental problems (Bellagio statement on tobacco and sustainable development, 1995). Tobacco has been claimed to kill 1 billion people in the 21st century (Eriksen et. al., 2015). Tobacco farming has removed an estimated 200,000 ha of forests/woodlands each year (Geist, 1999). Tobacco is 160 also often linked to poverty increase, world hunger, economic productivity reduction, and labor exploitation. In the agricultural perspective, tobacco farming is claimed to cause the risks of green tobacco sickness and exposure to pesticides, farmer indebtedness, and unequal trading relations between farmers and tobacco companies (Keyser, 2007). The main concerns of the FCTC are tobacco demand and supply reduction and environment protection. The measures of tobacco demand reduction can be found in the FCTC protocol Part III article 6-14. These include raising price and tax, banning smoking in public places, use of pictorial health warnings, bans of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, etc. Meanwhile, tobacco supply reduction encompasses controlling the illicit trade in a tobacco product, and prohibiting the sales of tobacco to and by minors, and finding alternative crops to tobacco (Part III article 15-17). Part V article 18 adresses concerns regarding the serious risks posed by tobacco growing to human health and to the environment.
6.3.1.2. The issues of alternative crops to tobacco Tobacco agricultural issues are addressed in article 17 (the provision of support for economically viable alternative activities), and article 18 (protecting environment and health persons in respect of tobacco cultivation). The Study Group on Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (ESATG)11 is mandated to take care of the relation to articles 17 and 18. Since 2007, ESATG has carried meeting as many as seven times. ESATG identified some reasons why farmers rely on tobacco cultivation. It is summarised into economic, cultural, and ecological causes. Firstly, there is a ’guarantee’ of providing loans for tobacco cultivations and tobacco market given by the first processor. Farmers also believe that tobacco is more profitable than other crops. Secondly, tobacco cultivation is becoming a habit which is successfully transmitted from generation to generation. Lastly, in regions where irrigation is inadequate, adverse soil, and a particular climate condition, tobacco is cultivated, because of its drought resistance. Jacobs et al. (2000) note that in certain low-income and middle-income countries, tobacco growing is essential for 161 several reasons, chiefly because of its labor intensity and its ability to generate steady cash flow for poor small farmers. Tobacco is among the more labor- intensive crops. Currently, however, the profitability of tobacco is beginning to decrease because globally there is an excess supply of tobacco leaf due to the upward trend in production, surpassing actual global consumption of tobacco leaf. This trend decreases producer prices and tobacco farmers’ profits. Finding an alternative to tobacco crop and even possibilities of alternative livelihoods becomes the international agenda to reduce the supply of tobacco. The vulnerability of tobacco farmers might be opening a window opportunity for farmers to shift resources away from tobacco production towards other crops (WHO 2008). Although tobacco is considered no longer profitable, farmers continue to grow tobacco
11 ESATG is an ad hoc organization established in the first conference of WHO FCTC parties in Geneva 6-17 February 2006. Its main task is to examine and recommend economically viable alternative crops to tobacco or even alternative livelihoods (WHO, 2008)
every year. Therefore, the regulation on tobacco control issued by the Indonesian government raised the protest from the farmers.
6.3.2. Tobacco control in Indonesia 6.3.2.1. Tobacco control policies Indonesia has no definite position of government in responding the global issues on tobacco control. However, the international pressures on tobacco control seem to make the Indonesian government turn the policy towards the creation of healthier human as well as environmental conditions (Hadi, Kustiari, & Anugrah, 2008). The government issued some regulations related to tobacco control, such as PP 81/1999, 38/2000, 19/2003 on cigarette control for health and PP 109/2012 on control of substances that contain addictive chemicals in the form of tobacco products for health (Rosser 2015, Heriyanto 2014). Even, PP 81/1999 specifically set maximum nicotine and tar levels for cigarettes (article 4). The regulations set 1.5 mg nicotine and 20 mg tar as the maximum in every stick of cigarette. 162 However, two years later the restriction on maximum nicotine and tar levels was canceled by the issuance of PP 19/2003.
Table 6: Tobacco control policies in Indonesia, 1965-now Regime Policies Contents New Order Period The Indonesian government did almost nothing to restrict the (1965-1998) sale, marketing, or use of tobacco products. At the same time, the government actively promoted the production of tobacco products, in particular, kretek that were first manufactured in Kudus, East Java, in the late 1800s. Driven by mechanization, cigarette production increased from roughly 38 billion per year in 1971 to 154 billion in 1992. Post-New Order Period B.J. Habibie PP 81/1999 on The regulation restricts on the sale, (1998-1999) cigarette control for marketing, and tobacco product use health and also sets maximum nicotine and tar levels for cigarettes. Abdurrahman PP 38/2000, an Permitted cigarette advertising in Wahid (1999- amendment to the electronic media between 9:30 p.m. 2001) 1999 regulation and 5:00 a.m. Megawati S. PP 19/2003 on . The government refused to sign or (2001-2004) cigarette control for ratify the FCTC framework.
Regime Policies Contents health . On contrary, the government has continued to promote domestic tobacco production by issuing a roadmap of tobacco products industry and excise policy 2007- 2020. . The government removed the restriction on maximum nicotine and tar levels. S.B. Yudhoyono UU 36 2009 on This law explicitly identified tobacco (2004-2014) health as an addictive substance, reinforced earlier requirements for cigarette packages to contain a health warning, and stipulated that certain places would be “smoke-free areas‘. PP 109/2012 on This regulate the packaging and control of substances labeling, pictorial warning, and that contain smoke-free places, restrictions on addictive chemicals tobacco company sponsorship of in the form of music concerts and sporting events, tobacco products for including a ban on the use of health company or product logos and 163 brands (including brand images). Joko Widodo - - (2014-2019) Source: Rosser (2015)
In the respond of tobacco control related to the reduction of nicotine addiction, Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute (Balittas) has been developing tobacco varieties containing middle-low nicotine since 1993. It is carried out mainly for Madura tobacco in Pamekasan and Sumenep regency (Siswanto, 2004). Sampoerna, the biggest cigarette manufacturer in Indonesia, claimed as a pioneer of producing a cigarette with low tar low nicotine (LTLN), since 1989.
6.3.2.2. Controversies of tobacco control policies Tobacco control policies have stirred up debates. It has involved many elements of institutions, such as religion institutions, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), universities, health professional organizations, community
institutions, peasants association, and so on. In religious value, Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), the country’s highest authority on Islamic affairs, and representative of Muhammadiyah have declared smoking to be haram, or forbidden, in public places, for pregnant women and children. However, NU (Nahdatul Ulama) as Indonesia's most significant Muslim association considers smoking for Muslims only objectionable (makruh), but not forbidden. Therefore, the majority of Indonesian populations consider that smoking is not banned by God (Tandilittin & Luetge, 2013). Generally, there is contestation between the lobby group, on the one hand, and tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) in NGOs, health professional organizations, universities, and international organizations, on the other (Rosser, 2015; Lian & Dorothea, 2016) (see table 7). Kretek community (komunitas kretek) takes part to oppose tobacco control policies. The slogan promoted by this community is ‘kretek is an Indonesian cultural heritage’ (Salim, 2014). Indonesia Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI) also struggles to refuse tobacco control 164 policies because it is considered to threat tobacco growers’ livelihood.
Table 7: Tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) and lobby group Tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) NGOs, health professional organizations, universities, and international organizations, and others . The Indonesian heart foundation (YJI), . The Indonesian cancer foundation (YKI), . Indonesian women without tobacco (WITT), . The Indonesian consumers foundation (YLKI), . The Jakarta citizens ‘forum (FAKTA), . The Institute for preventing smoking problems (LM3), . Indonesia corruption watch (ICW), . The national commission for child protection (Komnas PA), . The Indonesian doctors association (IDI), . The Indonesian public health experts association (IAKMI); . Some Universities (UI, UMY) . WHO . World bank Front Group and Lobby Group . Indonesia Tobacco Society Alliance (AMTI) . Indonesia Forum of Tobacco Industry Community (FORMASI) . Indonesia Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI)
. Indonesia Farmers Association (HKTI) . Corporate Federation of Indonesian Cigarette Industries (GAPPRI) . Corporate of Indonesian White Cigarette Markers (GAPRINDO) . Clove National Rescue Coalition (KNPK) . Indonesia Clove cigarette community . Indonesian clove farmers association (APCI) . Federation of Trade Union of Cigarette, tobacco, food, and beverages (FSP RTMM-SPSI) . Cigarette Manufacturing Association (MPSI) Source: Rosser (2015), Lian & Dorothea (2016)
6.3.2.3. The struggle of tobacco peasants to keep growing tobacco Tobacco control policies that ‘pressure’ tobacco peasants to find an alternative crop to tobacco even alternative livelihood have become challenges for tobacco growers. The policies are considered threatening the sustainability of tobacco farmers’ livelihood. The action of refusing the global policies on tobacco control is one of the strategies conducted by tobacco growers to maintain the existence of the tobacco field and actor position in the arena. Pioneered by some tobacco merchants, the assemblage of tobacco farmers in 165 Sindoro-Sumbing (PPTSS, Paguyuban Petani Tembakau Sindoro-Sumbing) was established on March 13, 2000. The association consists of tobacco growers living in Sindoro-Sumbing, which includes Temanggung dan Wonosobo regency. Considering the importance of the struggle for tobacco advocacy at the national level, on October 14, 2000, Indonesian tobacco growers’ alliance built the Association of Indonesian Tobacco Farmers (APTI-Asosiasi Petani Tembakau Indonesia) (Brata, 2012). The establishment of PPTSS was forced by the rejection of the issuance of PP 81/1999 on cigarette control for health. The crucial part of the regulation is in chapter two (2), article four (4), and verse one (1) regarding the content of nicotine and tar in each cigarette. The verse stated that every stick of cigarettes circulated in Indonesia must contain less than 1.5 mg of nicotine and 20 mg of tar (Presiden RI, 1999). This rule is considered to threaten their livelihoods because tobacco grown in Temanggung contains high levels of nicotine. Their struggle was paying off with the issuance of PP 38/2000 about an amendment to the PP 81/1999 in the reign of Abdurrahman Wahid. Unfortunately,
the regulation did not revise the verse of nicotine and tar level in every cigarette (Presiden RI, 2000). PPTSS together with APTI continue to struggle. Finally, in the reign of Megawati Soekarnoputri the PP 19/2003 on cigarette control for health was issued. This regulation removed the restriction on maximum nicotine and tar levels (Presiden RI, 2003). The struggle of tobacco farmers is not over. During two periods (2004- 2014), in the reign of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, there were issuances of the UU 36 2009 on health and PP 109/2012 on control of substances that contain addictive chemicals in the form of tobacco products for health (Presiden RI, 2009, 2012). Tobacco growers assumed that the 2009 Health law is discriminatory. Chapter 17, chapter 113, and verse two regarding safeguarding addictive substances tend to lead to tobacco and its products. Some of the caretakers of APTI applied the judicial review to Constitutional Court (MK). The plea, unfortunately, was rejected by the issuance of constitutional court decision No 34/PUU-VIII/2010 (Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 2010). 166 Since the establishment of PPTSS and APTI, many protests and demonstrations were conducted by tobacco growers not only because of government regulations on tobacco control, but also related to import policies and the fatwa from the Council of Indonesian Ulama (MUI) and Muhammadiyah, which state that tobacco is haram. The low import duty policy causes the price of imported tobacco to be cheaper than local tobacco. It threatens the livelihoods of tobacco farmers because the price of a local tobacco can be very cheap. The Fatwa from MUI and Muhammadiyah are accused not solely because of the religious matter but also because of the global intervention on tobacco control. A series of demonstrations of tobacco farmers related to tobacco control policies, import policies, and the fatwa that tobacco is haram can be seen in table 8. The protest series presented in the table does not intend to represent all of the activities of PPTSS and APTI; it is rather limited to actions published in electronic media.
Table 8: A series of demonstrations involving tobacco farmers of Temanggung related to tobacco control policies, import policies, and the fatwa that tobacco is haram. Substance Date Subject Location The insistence to 16.10.2002 PPTSS) Governor’ office of revoke the PP Central Java, Semarang 81/1999 28.10.2002 PPTSS Jakarta Rejection of the 16.02.2009 APTI The main road of Fatwa that tobacco Temanggung is forbidden 31.08.2010 Tobacco farmers of Legoksari village, Legoksari village Tlogomulyo sub-district 08.05.2010 Tobacco growers of Temanggung square Temanggung and (alun-alun) and main some local religious road leaders 21.03.2010 Tobacco growers of Banaran villages, Temanggung Tembarak sub-district The insistence not to 28.02.2010 About 4,000 of Jakarta legalize the tobacco growers in Government Central Java Regulation Bill on (Temanggung, Control of Klaten, Wonosobo, substances that Magelang, Boyolali) 167 contain addictive 10.05.2011 Tobacco growers and Jakarta chemicals in the Kretek community form of tobacco 22.12.2011 Tobacco growers in Parakan sub-district, products for health the region of Temanggung regency Temanggung, Magelang, Wonosobo, Kebumen, and Purworejo 03.07.2012 APTI and KNPK Jakarta The insistence to 12.01.2013 The peasants of Campurejo village, revoke the PP Campurejo village Tretep sub-district 109/2012 15.01.2013 Tobacco peasants of Temanggung regency Temanggung 23.01.2013 Tobacco peasants of Banaran villages, Temanggung Tembarak sub-district 05.02.2013 Tobacco peasants of Legoksari village, Legoksari Tlogomulyo sub-district 19.02.2013 Tobacco peasants of Bansari district Bansari District 13.03.2013 Tobacco peasants of Temanggung Temanggung
Substance Date Subject Location Rejection of the 31.05.2014 Tobacco peasants of Temanggung square ‘World No Tobacco Temanggung (alun-alun) Day’ Rejection of rising 23.08.2016 Tobacco peasant of The regent's office yard cigarette prices Temanggung of Temanggung The insistence to 16.11.2016 APTI The House of legalize the bill Representative's office regarding tobacco yard of Indonesia, (RUU Jakarta Pertembakauan) 17.03.2017 APTI Temanggung Temanggung Rejection of the 09.01.2017 APTI of Central Java Central Java Governor's tobacco import office yard policies 17.01.2017 APTI of Central Java Governor's Temanggung office yard 17.03.2017 APTI Temanggung Temanggung Source: Compiled from various electronic media
168
Source: kabarjinggan.blogspot.com (2010)
Figure 119: Congregational prayers (isthighotsah) as an expression of resistance to policies on tobacco control and the fatwa haram of tobacco consumption (Temanggung, 08.05.2010)
Source: beritasatu.com (2012)
Figure 120: Insistence not to legalize the PP 109/2012 and insistence to legalize the bill regarding to tobacco (RUU Pertembakauan) (Jakarta, 03.07.2012)
169
Source: antaranews.com (2013)
Figure 121: The peasants of Campurejo villages, Tretep Sub- district insisted on revoking the PP 109/2012 (Temanggung, 12.01.2013)
Source: cendananews.com (2016)
Figure 122: Insistence to legalize RUU Pertembakauan and rejection on tobacco control policies (Jakarta, 16.11.2016)
170
Source: tirto.id (2017)
Figure 123: Rejection of tobacco import policies and insistence to legalize RUU Pertembakauan (Central Java Governor's office yard, 17.01.2017)
Farmers also create and spread slogans that aim to inspire the enthusiasm to continue growing tobacco and oppose tobacco control policies. The motto is such as ‘ngrokok matek, gak ngrokok matek, ngrokok ae sampai matek’ (you smoke, you will die...you do not smoke, you also will die. Then, keep going to smoke until you die). Another slogan is ‘mati urip mbako’, which means 'keep on planting tobacco'. In Legoksari village, there is a post, which was built as a gathering place for tobacco farmers. In that place, they discussed various matters related to tobacco farming (Sobary, 2016).
171
172 This page intentionally left blank
Tobacco Growers’ Strategies: Negotiations for Livelihood 7
173
Photo by Arif
Figure 124: The tobacco merchant’s warehouse
‘Since 2013 until now, tobacco is not favorable anymore. In 2015, it was the most severe situation, the weather was appropriate, but the price of tobacco was low. The price set by the factories is tough to understand. The price is getting lower. In 2010, the cost was also very low, only 35-40 thousand per kilo. I owed to a Chinese merchant for land cultivation. It was without collateral, but I must sell tobacco to him. Last year, I could not pay the debts because the price of tobacco was terrible. Then, I was in debt to the merchant. Without debt, it is hard to sustain our livelihood. It is complicated to become a peasant, always live in uncertainty. However, we never give up. Tobacco cultivation is a tradition. It is possible to grow vegetables, but the price cannot surpass the price of tobacco. Finding crops at a higher price than tobacco will be difficult. In every three years, the weather will be bad. The cost of manure is reaching two million per rit (per truck). We cannot control the weather. We also cannot bargain the price at the intermediaries' level, let alone at the company level. The Regent may be able to pressure the factories to raise the price.’ (Marjo)
In chapter six, the external sides of vulnerability including cigarette industry development, the excess supply of tobacco production in the global market, and various problems in the tobacco farming system have been explored. The
174 exposures can directly or indirectly to influence the vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihoods. The surplus supply of tobacco in the world market opens possibilities for cigarette manufacturers to increase tobacco import that is cheaper than the local tobacco price. Changes in cigarette production from heavy to light taste have decreased the price of Temanggung tobacco, which contains high-nicotine. In everyday life, tobacco growers are engaged in all stages, both on-farm and off- farm. At each of these stages, farmers face challenges related to high cost in every gate level, crop failure because of climatic variability and uncertainty related to volatile prices. In general, tobacco growers spent more money on manure, labor, and market cost. Furthermore, climatic variability especially rainfall at harvest time causes crop failure which is followed by low prices of tobacco. Tobacco price tends to be volatile and decreasing. The exposures are not the only factor, which influences the tobacco-based livelihood because vulnerability also depends on the internal capability of each actor to employ livelihood strategies. Livelihood strategies as social practice are the interplay between capital, habitus, and field. A field is a structured system of
social positions, which is determined by the volume, and structure of capitals possessed. The capitals are unequally distributed in the field. Therefore, the power relation among agents is asymmetric. The unequal power generates dominant and dominated agents. This chapter will reveal some matters. First, it describes the agents’ positions in the field of tobacco. Second, it will analyze the strategies undertaken by agents and power-relations among them in order to maintain or improve their livelihood. The strategies are employed based on the habitus (disposition) and their relative position in the field. Finally, based on the position, disposition, and strategies undertaken, the most vulnerable agents in the field of tobacco will be analyzed. The livelihood vulnerability depends on the influence of the exposure on tobacco-based livelihoods and on how far the strategies engaged can maintain or improve the farmers’ livelihoods.
7.1. Agents’ position in the field of tobacco
‘Tobacco problems are particularly related to the intermediaries' cunning in 175 the market. Farmers rely on tobacco for livelihoods because of its high quality (price). Tobacco growers should get more profit. However, intermediaries are the ones, who receive the most benefits.’ (Sarwan) ‘In 2015, the weather was appropriate for tobacco cultivation, but the price was meager. I do not know who is the most decisive factor in reducing tobacco prices, whether cigarette company, tobacco merchants, or intermediaries. Roughly analyzed, graders put a price of 25 thousand per kilo, tobacco merchants buy tobacco at the rate of 20 thousand, and intermediaries set a price of 17.5 thousand. The tobacco merchants and intermediaries want to get the most significant profit.’ (Jamzuri) ‘From 2013 until now, tobacco growers are not getting an advantage. In 2015, the weather was good, but the price determined by tobacco companies was meager. The average price was only 65 thousand per kilo.’ (Marjo)
A field is a ‘system' or a structured ‘space' of positions where various agents struggle to occupy multiple positions (Lahire, 2015). The positions are determined by the volume and composition of capital (Yang, 2014). The agent with the most significant volume and the best structure of capital will be posited as the dominant agents in the field.
Bourdieu (1986) devides capital into economic capital, cultural capital, social capital, and symbolic capital. Economic capital refers to material assets or kinds of material resources such as land or property ownership. Cultural capital is divided into three forms. Firstly, the incorporated (embodied) cultural capital is in the form of long-lasting disposition of the mind and body. Secondly, the objectified form of cultural capital includes cultural goods such as pictures, books, machines, and so forth. Lastly, institutionalized cultural capital can be in the form of educational qualification or a certificate of cultural competence. Meanwhile social capital is ‘the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationship of mutual acquitance and recognition’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Szreter & Woolcock (2003) divides social capital into bonding, bridging, and linking. Bonding social capital is networking among friends, family, and neighbors. Bridging social capital is trusting relations between those from different demographic and spatial groups. Linking social capital is as norms of 176 respect and networks of trusting relationships between people who are interacting across explicit, formal or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society. The volume of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) possessed depends on the ability to mobilize economic, cultural, or symbolic capitals. Symbolic capital is related to honor and recognition. The field of tobacco refers to a structured space of positions among actors, which are involved in the tobacco-based livelihood. The structure of position can be observed through the tobacco market chain where the dominant and dominated groups are generated by the differences of the volume and composition of their capital. From the most dominant to dominated agents, in the tobacco field, it can be grouped as follows graders, tobacco merchants, and the first suppliers. The first suppliers include tobacco growers, perajang, and pengrajin (figure 125). A detailed description of the agents positioned on the tobacco field can be observed in the following section.
Tobacco from outside Temanggung regency
Tobacco Growers The home The home industry industry of Small Medium Large of tobacco tobacco shredding blending (perajang) (pengrajin)
Small middlemen (gaok)
Tobacco Merchants
Graders
177
Cigarette manufacturers: Domestic wholesalers Leaf processing and cigarette production Domestic consumers National International
Exporters International consumers
Figure 125: The position of tobacco ‘players’ based on the tobacco market chain in Temanggung regency 7.2.1. Graders At the farm gate, graders are employed by cigarette manufacturers to handle tobacco leaf purchasing. The graders must be proficient in specifying quality of tobacco including the color, elasticity, and aroma. The capability of deciding the tobacco quality is commonly passed down from generation to generation. In Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM), there are about 25 graders. They are the
employers of some cigarette manufacturers such as Gudang Garam (GG), Djarum, Noroyono, Bentoel, Wismilak, and Sukun. GG as the largest buyer of tobacco grown in SSM employs five graders. In this area, GG buys more than 50% of tobacco leaf produced in Temanggung regency. Every grader also hires some employees. The skill of determining tobacco quality is very important and requires special expertise because tobacco produced in Temanggung varies. The diversity of the growing areas causes the various quality of tobacco. In this region, tobacco is cultivated in high areas especially at SSM characterized by diverse agro- ecosystems and topography. Tobacco is grown in the dry land, rainfed, and irrigated fields. The topography ranges from flat areas and hill slopes up to 60 degrees (Nurnasari & Djumali, 2010). Mamat et al. (2006) reveal that the best quality of tobacco will be produced at an altitude of more than 1,000 meters and the position of the slope to the northeast and north. Basuki et al. (2000) classified Temanggung tobacco into five 178 types namely lamsi, paksi, toalo, swanbing, and tionggang. Furthermore, Purlani and Rochmad (2000) add a specific quality named lamuk.
Table 9: Quality of Temanggung tobacco No Tobacco Agro- Topography quality ecosystem 1 Lamuk dry fields . the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing . altitude > 1,000 meters . on a slope of 15-40 % 2 Lamsi dry fields . the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing . altitude > 1,000 meters . on a slope of 15-40 % 3 Paksi dry fields . the eastern side of Mt. Sindoro . altitude > 1,100 4 Toalo dry fields . between the valley of Mt. Sindoro and Mt. Sumbing . altitude > 1,000 meters 5 Swanbing dry fields . on the slope of Mt. Prahu . altitude 900-1,400 meters . on a slope of 15-40 % 6 Tionggang rice fields . altitude 500-700 meters . on a slope of 3-15 % Source: Basuki et al. (2000) and Purlani and Rochmad (2000)
The quality of tobacco from the lowest up to the best quality sequence is from grade A to K. Based on the location of tobacco cultivation, farmers living in higher elevations generally produce a more significant percentage of better quality tobacco than those at low altitudes. Besides being influenced by location, tobacco quality is also determined by the position of the leaves on the plant. The top position of tobacco leaf is the best quality. Otherwise, leaf tobacco at the bottom position has the lowest quality. Picking tobacco starts from the bottom to the top, a sequence which is called koseran, kaki (middle low), tengahan/dada (middle), tenggokan (middle up), and pronggolan (top leaves).
Top leaves (pronggolan) (4-5 leaves) D/E/F quality
Middle up (tenggokan) 179 (4-5 leaves) D quality
Middle (tengahan/dada) (6-8 leaves) C/D quality
Middle low (kaki) (6-8 leaves) B/C quality
Bottom (koseran) (4-5 leaves) A/B quality
Source: adapted from Tirtosastro (2000)
Figure 126: Tobacco quality based on the position of the leaves on the plant
The lowest quality is on koseran leaves and the highest quality is on pronggolan leaves. Leaves in the koseran position are potential to produce A/B quality. The leaves on the top position (pronggolan) are probable to make the highest quality (D, E, F, and so on). The middle leaves including kaki, tengahan, and tenggokan can produce B-D quality. Typically, the number of sheets before being trimmed is 20-28 per plant. Each leaf can be shredded in around 20-23 pieces (Tirtosastro, 2000). Each type of tobacco quality has its characteristics. The features are related to its color (werno), elasticity (cekel) and aroma (ambu) (see table 10).
Table 10: Grade of tobacco and its characteristics Grade of Characteristics tobacco Color Elasticity Flavor Leaves position Reddish brown Dense and Fresh, sweet- Top leaves Best grade to black heavy scented, very (pronggolan) (E, F, G, (nyamber (antep), oily, fragrant, H, I, K) lilin), bright sticky (lekat, tasteful Brownish red, ngempel) Middle up D 180 bright (tenggokan) In between Brownish In between Middle C grade A and yellow, bright grade A and (tengahan/dada) E-K Brownish E-K Middle low B yellow, bright (kaki) Yellowish Thin, light, Fresh, Bottom A green dry (kepyar) tasteless (koseran) (ampang), Source: SNI, 01-4101-1996 in Hartono, Hastono, & Tirtosastro (2000)
The highest quality of tobacco is from grade E and above. In the local language, the best quality is named srinthil. It is only possible to be produced in lamuk and lamsi area. Lamuk area includes the village of Legoksari. Meanwhile, lamsi area encompasses Losari, Pagergunung, Pagersari, Tlilir, Wonosari, Bansari, Kemloko, Banaran, Gandu, and Gedegan villages. Its limited production causes a high price of srinthil in every season. There are 200 hectares of land, which potentially can produce it. In addition to being influenced by location, srinthil can only be obtained in a supported climate. No one can predict accurately where it will be produced and how much the quantity
will be. Therefore, local inhabitants believe that ‘srinthil’ is the grace of God. They call the phenomenon pulung. The price of each tobacco grade is generally set by applying multiples based on the lowest grade rate. For example, if the price of grade A is 15 thousand, then the price for grade B is 30 thousand, grade C is 45 thousand, and so on. Specifically for grade E, F, to the top, these rules do not apply. Price of this quality varies from 300 thousand to 1 million rupiah per kg. The tobacco quality standard has been set by Indonesian National Standard number 01-4101-1996 (SNI-01-4101-1996) (table 10). However, the application of this standard is difficult to be implemented (Tirtosastro & Widowati, 2017). Therefore, the quality standard and price of tobacco is applied and determined by graders. The problem arises because quality and price is not only determined by the tobacco characteristics itself, but also influenced by the proximity between the graders and tobacco merchants. Moreover, it often happens that the price can be different among tobacco merchants depending on the closeness between a specific trader and grader. 181
Photo by Widiyanto
Figure 127: Special price of srinthil tobacco
7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and small middlemen At the very beginning, before the establishment of cigarette companies, tobacco merchants were the determiner of tobacco quality. To collect tobacco, they visited directly tobacco growers. The tobacco was to be sold to other regions. After tobacco was produced for cigarette manufacturers, the market flow changed. Tobacco growers sold tobacco through small intermediaries and merchants. The traders, then, carried it to graders in the warehouse of cigarette manufacturers. Due to many large and small traders in the warehouse, there was often a riot. To avoid chaos and maintain the quality of tobacco, graders limited the number of traders selling in warehouses. Therefore, graders issued Kartu Tanda Anggota (KTA), some kind of wholesale membership card. Today, there are about 400 people, who have the authority to sell tobacco directly to the factories. KTA is given to tobacco merchants who can collect tobacco leaf with a certain number and quality. The amount of tobacco collected by tobacco merchants are between 3,000 bales and 20,000 bales or more. Every bundle 182 contains about 35-40 kg of net sliced dried tobacco. This authority is commonly given to people who are cultivating relatively large land, having a significant amount of financial capital, having authority or ability in collecting tobacco, or having specific strategic position in the community. This is also usually based on trust, status in the society, or proximity. In many cases, the authority can be inherited to their descendants. The trust between graders and certain traders allows graders to deliver KTA to merchants’ children. Some village heads (kepala desa) occupy the position of tobacco merchants. They commonly cultivated large land because village heads are authorized to manage land (bèngkok) as a reward or compensation for their position. They also have the authority to organize people, including farmers. Furthermore, village heads also generally come from a respected and wealthy family. To become a village head, they have to spend much money to organize mass to get a vote.
Photo by Arif
Figure 128: An example of KTA
183 Box 2: Profile of tobacco merchants
Joko is now a village head (kepala desa) in Gentingsari village. He became a tobacco trader since 1988. He also has 2.5 Ha of land. He does not cultivate the land by himself; instead, it is leased to farmers with sharecropping (bagi hasil). He is one of the three tobacco traders in the village who has KTA due to a high trust from tobacco graders to him. He obtained KTA in 2003, the first time when the KTA was launched. KTA was introduced because in 2002, the tobacco price was low and riots occurred. The farmers burnt tobacco in a high way. There was a mess in the tobacco warehouse. The chaos was also triggered by tobacco traders, who brought their small intermediaries in the tobacco warehouse. Since the KTA was issued, only a cardholder can be in the warehouse. He said: ‘becoming a supplier is not easy because we have to provide tobacco with the quantity and quality, which has been agreed upon'. He sells about 3,000 bales of sliced dried tobacco every year, which each bale contain 35-40 kg in every season. Four years ago, besides cooperating with farmers, he also collaborated with small intermediaries. He lends money to more than one hundred farmers with almost one billion rupiah. Tobacco price is not only determined by the quality but is also influenced by the subjectivity of the grader. Therefore, luck (bejo) is an essential thing in tobacco trading. In 1998, it was the worst situation of tobacco price. The tobacco sent to the tobacco warehouse was rejected. At that time, he entrusted his tobacco to another trader, who can sell it to a different grader. Finally, his tobacco was sold.
In small cases, the KTA is also rented out. It occurred when the KTA holders do not have enough capital to carry out tobacco trading or because of the inappropriate weather for tobacco cultivation. Renting out a KTA is risky, particularly when the lessee cannot maintain the quality of tobacco sold. In the situation, graders can revoke the ownership of the KTA.
“I was offered by someone to rent his KTA. I refused the bid because I felt mentally not capable of being a tobacco merchant. In case, the tobacco is bad quality; graders sometimes reproach us. It will be traumatic. Even though the tobacco sample has been priced, after sending one truck of tobacco, it can be refused and returned. There was a tobacco trader who died because of such case.’(Nas)
Tobacco merchants who owned large lands; they usually lease their land to farmers with the agreement of the sharecropping system (bagi hasil). The merchants also mostly lend money to the land tenants for tobacco cultivation. As a return, the farmers must sell their tobacco to the moneylenders. To fulfill the quantity of tobacco to be sold to graders, tobacco merchants hire some small intermediaries (gaok/pengepul). A gaok is someone who is 184 trusted by merchants to collect tobacco. They gather tobacco from the first suppliers (tobacco growers, pengrajin, and perajang). A detailed explanation of who are the first suppliers will be presented in section 7.2.3. Some tobacco traders give trust to gaoks to buy tobacco from the first suppliers by cash and carry (outright sale). In the majority, gaoks apply sistem girik. Based on the system, the gaok comes to the first suppliers to estimate the price of tobacco to be sold. The price that has been set by the gaok is called rego girik. After the price agreed, the gaok will bring the sample of tobacco to the merchant. Henceforth, the traders will bring the tobacco to the grader. In case, the estimated price is higher than the amount determined by graders, the tobacco price will be adjusted. In the local language, this is called ‘regone direvisi’. The price adjustments will not be made if the estimated price is lower than the price set by the grader.
Box 3: Profile of small middlemen (gaok)
Ruswanto is a small intermediary (gaok) and perajang. He is one of seven pengepuls in Pagergunung village. He buys tobacco leaf from Magetan regency, East Java. He also buys sliced dried tobacco from peasants. There are 40 peasants selling tobacco to him. They are peasants living in Wonotirto, Nggubuk, Tlodas, Petoran, Ponggangan, and Gondosuli villages. In 2016, he sold
tobacco as many as 2,650 bales. He usually owes money to tobacco traders to buy tobacco and lend it to tobacco peasants with an interest of 2.5 % per month.
7.2.3. First suppliers The first suppliers include tobacco growers, pengrajin and perajang. Farmers cultivate tobacco with different land tenure. In Gentingsari village, the range of land tenure is between 0.1 ha – 2.5 ha. Almost 90 % of 29 tobacco growers interviewed only cultivate land less than 0.5 Ha (figure 129). Meanwhile, in Pagergunung village, the land tenure is larger, between 0.1 ha - 5.0 ha. From 27 tobacco growers interviewed, about 65 % of them cultivate land with an area of 185 less than 0.5 ha (figure 130). Most of the land cultivated is the inheritance of their parents, which is passed down from generation to generation.
0% 12% 4% 7% 0% 0% 8%
15%
65%
89% < 0,49 ha 0,5-0,99 ha < 0,49 ha 0,5-0,99 ha 1,0-1,99 ha 2,0-2,99 ha 1,0-1,99 ha 2,0-2,99 ha >3,0 ha >3,0 ha
Source: Primary Data (2017) Source: Primary data (2017)
Figure 129: Proportion of farm Figure 130: Proportion of farm household based on land tenure in household based on land tenure in Gentingsari village, 2017 Pagergunung village, 2017
Pengrajin is a name addressed to people who blend sliced dried tobacco of various qualities. The various qualities of tobacco blended are called mbako owolan. They buy tobacco from other regions to be blended with the original tobacco of Temanggung. Meanwhile, the people who buy raw tobacco leaf from other regions to be shredded and sold in Temanggung are called perajang. Both pengrajin and perajang often manipulate tobacco quality by blending tobacco of various qualities and adding some substances such as sugar, dye, etc. to falsify color, aroma, and elasticity of tobacco. The attendance of pengrajin and perajang is triggered by the increasing demand for tobacco with low-middle nicotine. Djajadi (2015) claimed that Temanggung tobacco demand is about 30,000 tons every year. Otherwise, the average yield in the past six years from 2013-2017 was only 8.1 tons (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2014b-2018b). Gudang Garam and Djarum are the two major companies which buy farmers’ tobacco. In every beginning of growing season of tobacco, the cigarette companies announce the amount of tobacco that 186 will be bought in the meeting facilitated by the local government. It has been set at in advance. The tobacco bought by the cigarette company can be higher or lower than the amount that has been specified. The decision on the amount they will buy is depending on the climate that significantly influences tobacco quality. For example, in 2014, Gudang Garam (GG) announced to buy tobacco at quantities of 8.5 thousand tons. In reality, the company purchased 12 thousand tons, in 2015 GG even bought 17.5 thousand tons. Otherwise, if there is high rainfall in the harvest time, the cigarette manufacture buys less than the number has been announced. The activities of buying both raw tobacco leaf and sliced dried tobacco from outside Temanggung are well known as ngimpor. The term ngimpor is adapted from English language ‘import’ that means ‘bring (good or services) into a country from abroad for sale’ (McKean, 2006). In the context of the tobacco community, ngimpor means buying tobacco from outside Temanggung regency. The tobacco bought from other regencies is called ‘mbako impor’.
Buying tobacco leaf is common for tobacco growers. It is because they can only sell sliced dried tobacco in an amount of 40-50 kg (1 bale) for the minimum. Tobacco peasants frequently obtain one bale of sliced tobacco in one time picking in every 0.3 ha of land cultivation. For tobacco growers that own less than 0.3 ha, they have to buy additional tobacco leaf from the local market or other peasants. They sometimes combine with other tobacco to meet one bale of sliced dried tobacco as the minimum amount that can be sold. Tobacco growers, which have a significant amount of money, buy tobacco in large quantities from other regions. Then, they are called pengrajin and perajang. The tobacco is usually ‘imported’ from Magetan, Banyuwangi, Jember, Jombang, Tuban (East Java), Garut (West Java), Magelang, Weleri, Boyolali, Wonosobo, Purwodadi (Central Java). The ‘imported’ tobacco has lower quality compared to Temanggung tobacco. Ngimpor is massively carried out by people living in the tobacco growing area with a lower quality, grade D for maximum, primarily grown in the rice fields. The farmers with a small piece of land or people with a significant amount of money are involved in these “ngimpor” 187 activities. The people who buy sliced dried tobacco, perajang, assume that the process of sliced dried tobacco blending is more straightforward. The people buying tobacco leaves need a long process of tobacco shredding and drying. However, purchase of sliced-dried tobacco to be blended (mbako owolan) requires particular expertise, primarily related to accuracy. The ‘imported' tobacco sometimes is not appropriately processed, such as imperfect drying or too much other materials (e.g. sugar) added. Furthermore, not everyone can properly mix tobacco with a variety of different qualities. There are various ways of how farmers buy tobacco leaves from other regions. They can purchase tobacco based on per kilo of leaves or per tobacco plant. They usually come first to the location to make a decision what kind of tobacco will be bought. Payment is usually made after the tobacco leaves have been sent to the homebuyer. Sometimes, a down payment is necessary. This depends on the social proximity between pengrajin/perajang and tobacco
suppliers. They mostly buy tobacco by using money borrowed from banks or tobacco merchants both living in or outside Temanggung.
Box 4: Profile of perajang Mujiono, Sukardi, and Marjo are perajang, which have different ways on how, and where to buy tobacco leaves. Mujiono has become perajang since 1980. He is one of 60 perajang in Gentingsari village. He usually buy tobacco leaf from Boyolali, Weleri, dan Magetan, each of 0.5 tonnes. He sells 250 bales of tobacco.
Sukardi has become perajang since 1990. He is one of about 15 perajang in his hamlet. He usually buys tobacco from Ngablak, Semarang, Magetan, and Boyolali. He said that each area has different characteristics. Tobacco leaf from Boyolali is special for cekel (elasticity) and ambu (aroma), and Semarang for werno (color). He visits the location to find appropriate tobacco. After there is an agreement, the tobacco will be dropped to his house in Temanggung at night. The tobacco will be paid after it has arrived. Occasionally, it is necessary to pay a down payment. He buys tobacco leaves with the price of 4-5 thousand per kilo. In the form of sliced dried tobacco, commonly, the tobacco will be sold with a price of 60 thousand. In the tobacco season, he receives 15 quintals tobacco per day for two 188 months. He sells tobacco to gaok/pengepul living around the village. He sells about 250 bales of tobacco in every year.
Marjo usually buys tobacco from Boyolali. In a small number, he also buys Temanggung tobacco. In 2016, he sold 50 bales of sliced dried tobacco. He bought tobacco leaves using the tebasan system (wholesale). He went to Boyolali to find the location of appropriate tobacco. After getting tobacco quality as expected, he paid 2,000 rupiah per plant. Every plant contains fifteen leaves. The tobacco leaves from Boyolali are wide. He bought tobacco leaf with a price of eight thousand per kilo. Generally, the quality of Boyolali’s tobacco is in grade D with a selling price of 45-50 thousand per kilo.
A perajang usually buys tobacco from various areas. What kinds of tobacco will be shredded is based on their own specific experiences. Tobacco from different regions has typical characteristics. For example, tobacco leaf from Boyolali is particular for its elasticity and aroma. Semarang's tobacco has the specificity for its color. The proportion of blending tobacco from each region varies. They mostly also combine with the Temanggung tobacco. The blending tobacco can be made in grade D for maximum.
‘I usually buy tobacco leaf from some regions, namely: Boyolali, Weleri/Semarang, and Garut with a price of 8,000; 4,500-5,000, and 4,000 rupiah per kilo, respectively. The good qualities of tobacco should consider three elements, namely: color, elasticity, and aroma. Tobacco should contain a combination of colors green-yellow, yellow-red, and red-black. For example, if the color of tobacco is green-red, it will be of low quality. If we grip the tobacco, it should not be mushy or hard. The smell of tobacco must be fragrant. It should not sting. Tobacco from Boyolali is good for the elasticity aspect. Meanwhile, Semarang tobacco is good for bright color. If the combination is precise, the quality of tobacco will be the same as Temanggung tobacco.’ (Nasihin) ‘I prefer to buy sliced dried tobacco (mbako owol) from Garut. The tobacco is processed to be in grade D. Weleri tobacco is cheapest, but the aroma is not proper. The tobacco price from Boyolali, Ngablak, and Temanggung are similar. Based on the color, the characteristic of tobacco leaves can be A (green), B (green-yellow), C (yellow), and D (red). In 2016, I also bought mbako owol from Temanggung. There were tobacco growers, who harvested tobacco late. The time of selling grade D has been terminated by the cigarette manufacture. I then bought tobacco with a very low price, only 10 thousand per kilo. The reasonable price should be 60 thousand. I collaborated with the tobacco merchants in Muntilan to get money to buy the sliced dried tobacco.’ (Mugi)
In summary, in tobacco field, graders are posited as a dominant group, because of the cultural and social capital they occupy. Cultural capital is related to 189 the competence or skill in determining the tobacco quality and capability to collect tobacco in a certain amount. Competence and ability are commonly inherited from their parents. From year to year, tobacco graders usually come from the same family. The capabilities have built the trust of cigarette companies to represent them in purchasing tobacco from farmers. Tobacco merchants are the people trusted by graders to collect tobacco leaf with a certain number and quality. To become a tobacco trader, they should occupy social, economic, and cultural capital. Social capital is acquired to access the relation to graders. The trust is not only based on the capability of the tobacco merchants itself, but it is sometimes also built upon the proximity and relationship between a confidant grader and their parents or relatives. Economic capital is vital for merchants to buy tobacco from the first suppliers. In some cases, they are also money lenders. Competence and skill to specify the quality of tobacco are crucial for a tobacco merchant. Inaccuracies in determining quality and price will have an impact on losses.
Cultural, social, and economic capitals are very influential for pengrajin and perajang. The primary skill that must be possessed by pengrajin and perajang is how to blend the various kinds of tobacco in order to create a certain quality. The tobacco is gained from other tobacco-producing regions. The relationship with tobacco growers or traders from the other areas is essential to get good quality and low price of tobacco. Great trust with them opens the opportunity to establish a partnership. On one side, perajang and pengrajin have the skill of tobacco blending, while on another side, the tobacco merchants from other regions have money. The partnership is carried out based on a profit sharing system. For tobacco growers, economic capital such as land tenure is essential. The localtion of where the land located is also crucial, since the quality of tobacco is not only determined by how the crop is cultivated but also by the location of the land. The considerable cost of tobacco cultivation supposes tobacco growers to have access to banks or money lenders. In this situation social capital is substantial.
190 Table 11: The most important capital possessed by household groups in tobacco community ACCESS TO CAPITAL Hh Economic Cultural capital Social Capital (SC) Groups capital (CC) Bonding Bridging Linking (EC) Grader Competence and skill Trust from of determining cigarette tobacco quality and companies price Tobacco Capital for Competence and skill Trust merchants buying of determining from tobacco tobacco quality and graders price Pengrajin Capital for Skill of tobacco Trust to Trust to and buying processing tobacco tobacco perajang tobacco merchants traders Tobacco Land tenure Skill for tobacco Trust to growers farming tobacco merchants
7.2. Dispositions and livelihood strategies
For Bourdieu, field is like a game. The players involving should know how to play the game. Therefore, there is a specific rule that is commonly set by influential players in the game (the dominant agents). Agents are engaged in struggle and use strategies to maintain or improve their position within a social space. A strategy is the product of practical sense (what and when to do) that is generated by the habitus. The habitus is a system of perception schemes and thought, which maintain particular ways of thinking, understanding and interpreting the world. The habitus as the system of dispositions is firstly acquired by the individual through early childhood socialization and is continually developed and modified by life experiences. The habitus composes of an economy of interests invested and saturated with past and present experiences. The habitus always adjusts along with the changes of constraints and the opportunities offered in the field. Habitus is the result of both oriented by a system of dispositions influenced by social factors and a lifetime of critical reflection upon the actors‘ experiences. Human 191 action can be the product of “a permanent dialectic between an organizing consciousness and automatic behaviors” (Bourdieu, 1990). Oriented by habitus, strategies are employed by the agents such as graders, tobacco merchants, and the first suppliers to maintain or improve their position in the field. The agents in the dominant position tend to apply the conservation strategies to keep their status in the field. The dominated agents strategize to gain access to the dominant positions. In the tobacco community, ‘the players' interact with each other by agreeing to several rules of the game which are generally dominated by groups that have substantial capital. The rule set then includes many things such as that only tobacco merchants holding KTA are permitted to sell tobacco directly to graders. Another rule is that graders are the only people having authority to set the quality and price of tobacco. The tobacco sold to graders should be pure without a mixture of other materials and harvested from Sumbing-Sindoro area. Every tobacco merchant is only permitted to sell tobacco to a certain grader that has
been appointed as stated in the KTA. For example, Joko is only allowed to sell
tobacco to TTY (Tjhin Tjong Yien). The market process generally must be from the first suppliers, small intermediaries (gaok), tobacco merchants (juragan), and graders. In some cases, the first suppliers can sell directly to tobacco merchants. A grader is a person who can determine tobacco grade and price. It is carried out unilaterally and arbitrarily. Tobacco suppliers have no bargaining power included tobacco merchants (juragan). They have just to accept the rate determined by a grader.
7.2.1. Graders and tobacco merchants The sale of tobacco takes a long process. Consequently, it involves high cost of transportation, collie, and so forth. It is also common that tobacco merchants must spend money to bribe the grader’s employees. It is to accelerate the purchasing processes and reduce tightness in the process of matching between the samples offered and the whole tobacco to be sold.
192 The processes of tobacco selling must obey the following rule. First, merchants bring samples of tobacco to graders. The sample is the representation of tobacco quality in every bale. The quality of tobacco in one basket must be similar. At this stage, they have to wait in long queues because there are only five graders for all tobacco suppliers, in case of Gudang Garam factory. Bribing the graders’ employees will accelerate the queue. Second, the graders will check the samples. They decide the quality and set prices per sample. After the price is determined, the samples will be marked fit for the tobacco merchant identity, which is stated in his KTA. The traders get a receipt which informs them when they can come back to bring the entire tobacco. It will take about three days. Third, merchants bring the entire tobacco for as much as the samples that has been priced to the warehouse. The graders’ employee will match between each sample and each basket of tobacco as the whole. In this phase, it is possible for the grader’s employee to reject the tobacco because the quality does not fit
with the samples. Bribing the employee will reduce the strictness in the matching process. In case the tobacco is rejected, merchants will bring the tobacco back to the first suppliers. The first suppliers will reprocess the tobacco. They usually will add some substances such as a dye or blend it with higher quality. Then, the tobacco will be resold. The processes will start from the beginning, from proposing samples to the payment stage. In some other cases, tobacco merchants bring the rejected tobacco to other traders, who have more proximity to a confidant grader. They will help to resell the tobacco with an exclusive agreement of fee. The more often tobacco is rejected, the greater the fee must be paid and the higher the chances for a grader to revoke the merchants' KTA.
‘At the time of bad quality, the tobacco is often refused. I add a dye. Then I dried the tobacco one more time. Finally, the tobacco was sold, even at low prices'.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘Tobacco was rejected because of the lousy quality. I sold to other intermediaries at a low price.’ (Faturahman) ― ‘When the tobacco is refused, I process it again by mixing with tobacco having better quality.’ (Purwanto) ― ‘Tobacco is refused because of selling tobacco beyond the period of purchase for a particular variety. His neighbor bought 193 the tobacco at a low price.’ (Duryanto) ― ‘When tobacco was refused, I sold it to other tobacco traders.’ (Mujiono) ― ‘The tobacco is often rejected; tobacco was sold at half of the regular price.’ (Supariyah) ‘I also have experience when the prominent tobacco merchants refused my tobacco. The first time, I sent ten bales of tobacco, and then 20 bales of tobacco through small intermediaries. All tobacco bales were paid at the price of 60 thousand per kilo. Then, I also sent 100 bales. Only five bundles were purchased, the rest was returned. The cost of each bale is 2 million rupiah.’ (Nasihin)
Because graders buy tobacco based on samples, merchants sometimes propose samples without having tobacco ready for sale. They make the samples as high of quality as possible based on color, aroma, and elasticity. Some inhabitants have particular expertise in creating samples. Tobacco merchants will bring the samples to the warehouse. After getting the price, the traders collect the tobacco that is similar to the samples. In some cases, the samples and the tobacco collected does not fit. Consequently, the graders will frequently reject tobacco.
7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and the first suppliers Even though tobacco traders are less powerful than graders, they are in the position of the dominant group when dealing with small intermediaries and the first suppliers (tobacco growers, pengrajin/perajang). The market rule system of tobacco situates the first suppliers depending on traders. The hierarchy of the market tends to put the merchants in a more favorable position compared to the first suppliers. Tobacco merchants mostly are dishonest about the price of tobacco, scale, and cost paid during the market process. Tobacco traders mostly do not tell honestly to the first suppliers how the price set by the graders for the tobacco that has been sold. After there is a deal for the price, the grader will issue the bill, which states the quality and price. The bill is hidden. Instead, they make a bill published by themselves. The most suppliers are not aware about the price set by graders. They just received the bill issued by tobacco traders. ‘In the tobacco market, the greatest problem is the deceitfulness of tobacco traders; it is very challenging to find an honest trader.’ (Ramidi) ― ‘Traders 194 fully determine the price of tobacco. Tobacco growers can do nothing. The tobacco market rules are not allowed farmers to sell directly to the factory. We often, particularly in good weather, sell tobacco through intermediaries by paying a certain fee. We also finance all the market cost to be paid. In the case when tobacco quality is low, I prefer to sell tobacco cash and carry even though with a low price.’ (Sumaryo) ― ‘The price of tobacco is luck. We follow the price set by intermediaries. The most important thing is that tobacco can be immediately sold to meet daily needs.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘The cost of tobacco is unpredictable. It is just chancy ‘mbok menowo’. The most important thing, the intermediaries are not cheating the price.’ (Duryanto) ― ‘It is often that the scale of tobacco is not accurate. The middlemen usually manipulate scales.’ (Karyanto) ― ‘The tobacco market is complicated; there are too many intermediaries.’ (Jumadi) ― ‘The price is unpredictable, we cultivate tobacco in the same land, but the price can be different, the market is fully controlled by traders.’ (Saidi) ‘In addition to expensive raw materials, low prices of tobacco, poor quality due to weather, the problem faced by peasants are fraud committed by traders. In the first stage, small intermediaries bought two bales of tobacco at a reasonable price. Then, they retook tobacco in more quantities without being paid in advance. I trust him. The tobacco was taken away without payment forever. It is very rare to find trustworthy traders, only about 15 %. There are a few good traders; unfortunately, the sales quota is tiny.’ (Nasihin)
Related to the cost that should be paid during the selling process, it depends on in which way the agreement between tobacco merchant (juragan) and the first suppliers. There are some kinds of ways to sell sliced dried tobacco. First, the merchants buy tobacco with an outright sale or cash and carry. This type tends to be rare. Second, tobacco traders hire small intermediaries (gaok) to purchase tobacco from the first suppliers. The kind of sale can be sistem girik. In the first and the second way of selling, the merchants are responsible for marketing operational cost. Third, merchants apply sistem nitip (consignment). In this system, the first suppliers sell tobacco by using the sales service of merchants. There will be an agreement about the fee to be paid by the first suppliers. In this way, the first suppliers are responsible for operational cost during the market process, such as for the transportation, the porters, etc. How much the cost should be paid depends on the agreement. However, the juragan generally determines it. There are many types of transaction, such as paid per bale/basket or per kilo. In case the tobacco rejected by the grader, the first suppliers will cover all the costs. 195 Fourth, there is a complex relationship between the first suppliers and tobacco merchants particularly if the first suppliers have a debt to the merchants. Taking credit to juragan needs a simple process, mostly without collateral. Debt repayment is made after harvesting, for six months (one tobacco season), with an interest of 50 %; the local language of the debt is nglimolasi12. The interest is relatively high, particularly in the situation when farmers cannot pay in time because of crop failure. They can postpone the repayment until the next season. The interest will become 75 %. In this case, farmers have ties to sell the tobacco to a juragan. Consequently, it will be difficult for farmers to negotiate the price. They are stuck in a debt of gratitude. In this situation, the way of selling is usually by sistem nitip.
12 In tobacco community living in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside, there is the credit system that is well known as nglimolasi, mitulasi, etc. ‘Limolas’, Javanesse language, means fifteen. If we owe ‘ten', then we have to return ‘fifteen'. ‘Ten' can refer to 100 thousand, one million, etc. For example, if we borrow money of one million rupiah, then we have to return 1.5 million rupiah. Hence, nglimolasi has the interest rate of 50 %. In the case farmers owe to the ‘third hand', the interest can be more, such as 70 % (mitulasi).
‘I usually sell tobacco to a Chinese trader (juragan) in Temanggung downtown. I bring tobacco to this juragan, and then I get money of a certain amount. After the tobacco is sold, I just got the money at a price set by the juragan. The money I receive, the price has been deducted by five thousand per kilo for sales costs. According to the tobacco company regulation, the net weight of sliced dried tobacco is obtained after cutting the basket weight by 20 %. For example, the gross weight of each basket is 50 kg, it means that the net weight is only 40 kg.‘ (Marjo)
Tobacco growers express traders’ behavior as ‘gelem bathine, emoh rugine’. It means that tobacco traders always get more profit. However, in a low piece of tobacco, the loss must be shared; even the farmers bear more. Trust is crucial in the tobacco market. The transactions are mostly based on trust. It is rare to find cash and carry. The tobacco merchants usually postpone the payment until getting money from the grader. Farmers typically prefer to sell tobacco to merchants who will pay in cash in shorter time. There are some cases that tobacco brought by tobacco merchants or intermediaries is not paid or the price is reduced to become very lower. The gaok comes to the first tobacco suppliers and estimates the price of 196 tobacco by taking the free sample from every basket. The sample taken by intermediaries has the amount of 0.5-1.0 kg. The problem occurs when intermediaries sometimes take a sample of more than 1 kg. The losses will be more significant when there are many gaok to take samples.
‘Some small intermediaries take a sample before purchasing; this type of gaok must be avoided.’ (Muslim)
For farmers, pengrajin, and perajang, it is common to add some other substances, such as sugar, dye, and so forth. The activity aims to make the product quality appropriate for the manufacturers’ requirement. To get the smell more aromatic and the grip more oily (antep), pengrajin and perajang add sugar as many as 3-10 kilogram per basket (kenthung) or more. Dye is added to make the color in every basket alike. Tobacco growers also add sugar with smaller amounts. This practice of adding substances to tobacco is considered prohibited, but there is no apparent consequence. The graders still purchase the tobacco. Indeed, in some cases, these affect the price of tobacco to become lower. In a few incidents,
graders will revoke the authority of selling tobacco (KTA), if they catch tobacco merchants, who are practicing of tobacco falsification.
‘The amount of sugar used is various. The better the quality of tobacco, the lesser sugar is added. If we mix sliced dried tobacco (mbako owolan), the sugar added should be more, about 15 kg per bale.’ (Sarwan) ― ‘Dye is added to synchronize the tobacco color.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘Based on my experiences, Gudang Garam prioritizes the color of tobacco, whereas Djarum prefers to emphasize the aroma.’ (Bambal)
The attendance of pengrajin and perajang raises the benefit to tobacco traders. This is because the quantities of tobacco sold to graders also increase. A large amount of tobacco sold by pengrajin and perajang causes the abundance of tobacco in the graders' warehouse. Consequently, graders only buy small quantities of tobacco cultivated in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside. Tobacco blending is massively carried out by farmers cultivating tobacco in a limited land. The tobacco they grow generally has low quality. The numbers of pengrajin and perajang in Gentingsari village are more than in the village of Pagergunung. This is because the tobacco quality produced in Gentingsari village 197 is lower compared to Pagergunung village. For farmers mainly living in a good quality tobacco area, lamuk and lamsi, ngimpor is considered as a prohibited behavior or a licentious act. The activity can influence the graders’ trust. Impurity of tobacco will defame the image of high quality produced in this area. Some farmers buy tobacco from other regions clandestinely. The tobacco leaf purchased from outside is put in land and then brought back home as if it was harvested from their land. A barrier was placed at the entrance of the village to minimalize the amount of the ‘impor’ activity. The behavior was considered as illegal. It is supposed to influence tobacco quality and eventually will decrease the price. The tobacco impurity becomes one of the reasons for cigarette manufacturers to give a low price. Then, the price volatility became crucial.
‘In the area of lamuk quality tobacco, there are also peasants buying tobacco from other regions. Peasants are not allowed to buy tobacco from outside. The tobacco bought is dropped in the field. It is carried out to avoid getting caught buying tobacco from other areas. The activity will show that tobacco is harvested as if it were from its own land. The tobacco is brought home using a car and immediately put into the garage. Neighbors may not know that tobacco is bought from other areas. Some people do not buy tobacco from outside, maybe one, two, or three peasants. Not only in lamuk, but also in some other areas the same things happen. Farmers buy the leaves as if the tobacco was harvested from their fields.’ (Sariyono)
‘In Bansari village, people do not buy tobacco leaf from outside Temanggung because they are afraid that the tobacco will not be bought. I ever stayed there for four years. I do not feel comfortable to shred tobacco leaf bought from outside Temanggung. It is different if I buy leaves to be shredded in here (Gentingsari village). We are afraid of being blamed for causing low tobacco prices because of buying tobacco leaves from other regions. In my opinion, if we are only shredding tobacco from our field, it will be profitable when the tobacco price is more than 150 thousand rupiah per kilo. It is because all the cost for tobacco cultivation such as the rent land fee, operational cost, and others are expensive. If we buy tobacco leaf, the profit is depending on how much price is the tobacco leaf. If the price of tobacco leaf is 5,000 rupiah per kilo, and the price of sliced dried tobacco is 60,000 rupiah per kilo. It is still profitable.’ (Nasihin)
198 Even though ngimpor is considered as an illegal activity, in fact, tobacco manufacturers stay to buy the mbako impor. In many cases, because of the abundant tobacco from other regions, companies can refuse tobacco from the local area. It is because the period of buying for a specific grade (A-D) has been over. The period is shorter, because the tobacco acquired by cigarette manufacturers for certain qualities has been met by mbako impor. For example, the harvesting period for peasants in toalo, swanbing, and tionggang, is typically from the end of July until the end of August. The tobacco quality of the area is from A-D. Tobacco manufacturers will only buy slice-dried tobacco within 2-3 weeks. Peasants will get a very low price (until 80 % decrease) if they sell out of this time range. In the local language, this case is called harga ketokan (Purlani &
Rachman, 2000). Ngimpor activities becomes for some tobacco growers a threat, because the quality becomes relative and absurd. The different price between local tobacco having high quality and mbako impor with the lower grade is not
significant. Even, in many cases, the price of local tobacco is lower than mbako impor.
‘Tobacco selling must be on time. Sometimes, grade D of tobacco is only possible to sell for ten days. After that, cigarette manufacturer only buys tobacco of grade E. Last year, the factory bought grade C, then grade D, but it was just in a short time, and then opened for grade E. I sold 50 bales of tobacco at the price of 22,500-25,000 rupiah per kilo.’ (Nasihin) ‘Another problem arises when the tobacco “imported" from other regions are purchased at the same price or even higher than the original tobacco from Temanggung. The tobacco company must buy the Temanggung tobacco first. There has been abundant "imported" tobacco in the company warehouse, which is supplied by tobacco traders who have much money. Consequently, Temanggung tobacco is bought at a low price or not even bought. It is difficult to control wealthy tobacco traders not to buy tobacco from other regions. Before planting, the tobacco company defines how much tobacco will be purchased by considering the amount of tobacco produced in Temanggung. Tobacco companies at some time, especially when inappropriate weather appears buy twice or more tobacco supplied from other regions. Rich people control tobacco. In the time of good weather, wealthy traders have shredded tobacco bought from other areas. Then, they sell it to tobacco representative storage through a back way. As a result, tobacco will be plentiful, and Temanggung tobacco price will be lower.‘ (Sukadi) 199 From the above description, graders, tobacco merchants, and the first suppliers use various strategies to maintain or improve their position within a field. An agent sometimes struggles by employing strategies in the position of those dominant group in a specific situation and may be positioned as a dominated group in other states. For example, tobacco merchants are in a dominated position when dealing with graders (figure 131). In another situation, tobacco merchants are in the dominant position when being exposed to the first suppliers (figure 132).
Grader’s field position
Amount and distribution of capital Stakes Interests
Grader‘s habitus Practices/ Strategies Grader (Dominant Position)
Exercise of Social relationships symbolic Struggles power
Tobacco merchant (Dominated Position) Practices/ Strategies Tobacco merchant’s habitus
Amount and distribution of Stakes Interests capital
Tobacco Trader’s field position Source: the figure is adapted from Hurtado (2010) Figure 131: The relationship between graders and tobacco merchants 200 Tobacco merchant’s field position
Amount and distribution of capital Stakes Interests
Tobacco merchant’s habitus Practices/ Tobacco merchant Strategies (Dominant Position)
Exercise of Social relationships symbolic Struggles power
The first suppliers (Dominated Position) Practices/ Strategies The first supplier’s habitus
Amount and Stakes Interests distribution of capital
The first tobacco supplier’s field position Source: the figure is adapted from Hurtado (2010) Figure 132: The relationship between tobacco merchants and the first tobacco suppliers
The rules of the game tend to be more favorable for the position of the grader. They determine the amount of tobacco and the kind of tobacco quality that will be purchased. Graders can appoint those merchants who are able to hold KTA and can decide to revoke KTA from tobacco traders, who are deemed inappropriate. Tobacco traders also use various strategies to struggle in the field. The strategies used include bribing the grader’s employee to accelerate the queue in the purchasing process and to loosen the tightness of the tobacco quality matching process. Especially when certain graders reject tobacco, by doing collusion among tobacco traders, they can sell tobacco to other graders. This is actually not allowed because every tobacco trader can only be possible to sell tobacco to the graders has been appointed. Tobacco traders also sometimes manipulate tobacco samples to get a higher price offers. Related to the struggle with the first suppliers, tobacco merchants decide about the purchasing system used, whether cash and carry or consignment (nitip). Another possibility is to use the sistem girik where tobacco traders employ several 201 intermediaries (gaok). To maximize the profits, most traders are fraudulent by manipulating the weight, price, and dishonesty with costs during the sales process. Tobacco traders lend money to tobacco growers for tobacco cultivation cost. Merchants apply this as a strategy to provide tobacco as the quota set by the graders. From this strategy, tobacco merchants also can control the price of tobacco at the farmer level. In the time of inappropriate weather for tobacco, farmers are bound by debt agreements with juragan. The loans have relatively high-interest rates (nglimolasi/mitulasi). The relationship sometimes is in the form of patron-client. Pengrajin and perajang apply various strategies such as deciding to buy sliced dried tobacco (owol) or tobacco leaves. Each pengrajin/perajang has various preferences from which regions tobacco is bought or what types of tobacco will be blended. They also have different considerations on how much tobacco to buy depending on the price and quality of tobacco, the climate, the
available funds, and so on. How much sugar and dye will be added also varies based on experiences and the kind of tobacco that will be blended. Farmers also have several strategies, such as whether selling tobacco in the form of raw leaves (tebasan) or sliced dried tobacco, to whom tobacco will be sold, etc. The sale system chosen is divers among tobacco growers whether with a cash and carry (consignment, nitip), or girik system. If the quality of tobacco is appropriate, they usually choose a consignment system because they expect to obtain a higher price than if it is purchased by cash. To those who are in debt, each farmer also has different references to whether it is owed to the bank or juragan. In case of inappropriate weather, tobacco growers commonly owe to juragan by using the nglimolasi/mitulasi system. Besides being in debt, coping strategies are also applied such as selling livestock, motorcycles, jewelry. Some others conduct non-farming activities such as working as a laborer. Farmers can sell the rejected tobacco at low prices, store, and process it again to be sold in the following season, etc. 202 7.3. Who are the most vulnerable agents?
Livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers encompasses both external and internal side. The external side of vulnerability is considered as an exposure. Exposure is the degree to which a human group or ecosystem meets particular stresses (Clark, et al., 2000). There are three exposures identified: global economics in tobacco growing, cigarette industry development, and the tobacco farming system. The three exposures have reduced the role of tobacco in livelihoods (chapter 6). The vulnerability of livelihood is also determined by internal side that comprises strategies or social practices undertaken by households in the field of tobacco. Strategies carried out depend on the position within the field, which is determined by the volume and structure of capital possessed. Because there is no equal distribution of capital in the field, there are dominant and dominated agents.
FIELD OF TOBACCO
Trader
Peasant Grader
s u t i
b Pengrajin/ C a
a
p
H perajang
i
t a l ■ Unequal power -relations ■ Dominant-dominated agents
Livelihood strategies
Figure 133: Relations among agents in the field of tobacco
Both, the dominant and dominated agents struggle to maintain or improve the position. In everyday life, dominated agents tend to be more vulnerable. For example, peasant farmers are vulnerable, because they possess less capital even 203 there is no shock and trend. The attendance of pengrajin and perajang in the field causes an abundance of tobacco supply. This leads to the cigarette companies to limit the tobacco purchasing quantities produced in SSM. Additionally, the deadline of purchasing a certain quality of tobacco causes everyone to sell tobacco immediately. The tobacco merchants, who have more significant capital can supply the company needs following the time set by graders. They can buy tobacco from other regions. For tobacco growers, tobacco is sold to merchants at a very low price (the price of ketokan), because it is bought outside the specified period. In contrary, merchants are in an advantageous position because they could buy tobacco at meager prices. Regarding the way of selling tobacco such as cash and carry, sistem nitip, and sistem girik, the peasants are in the disadvantaged group. Tobacco will usually be priced lower if the payment system is made in cash. The price with the sistem girik is highly uncertain. Generally, the price paid is lower than the price set at the beginning (the price of girik). In sistem nitip, small farmers get the
smallest profit, but they are most at risk. Farmers do not know the exact prices set by graders. Tobacco merchants usually will put the price lower than the actual price specified by graders. In this situation, the traders get a double profit. First, they get a sales fee from the farmers, pengrajin, or perajang. Second, the merchants get benefit from the price difference between the price set by the graders and paid to the farmer. Farmers are the social group who bear the most significant risk, especially the risk of rejection from the graders. In this situation, the farmer carries the double risk of failing to sell tobacco, but still has to bear the costs. Meanwhile, traders do not suffer any losses. Therefore, traders are often referred to as the people that ‘gelem bathine ning emoh rugine’ which means that they want to get more profit, but with low risk. The exposures aggravate the situation of vulnerability for agents, who stand in dominated positions. For example, the inappropriate weather for tobacco causes the limited amount of tobacco that will be bought by the cigarette manufacture. 204 The tobacco commonly will only be supplied by tobacco merchants or tobacco growers cultivating a large land. The purchasing delaying of tobacco and a very limited amount of tobacco to be bought make farmers suffer huge losses. At the same time, the farmers must pay the debt that is used for tobacco cultivation. The falling of the tobacco price forces farmers to take loans from traders (juragan). The merchants may control the rate of tobacco in the next seasons. The farmers usually pay the debt by selling their tobacco to the moneylender. It is a vicious circle because tobacco growers continually cultivate tobacco until the debt is paid off. It is also one of the conservation strategies to perpetuate the position of tobacco traders. Furthermore, tobacco traders can also accumulate capital because of the high interest charged. The situation of tobacco rejection, deceitfulness, and accumulation of debt has posited farmers in the weakest position. Furthermore, at the time of inappropriate weather, tobacco growers are at the time of crises. Cigarette warehouse postpones buying tobacco. Graders usually start to purchase tobacco in August. In reality, the tobacco factory begins to buy tobacco in September. At that time, the price is very low or almost nothing.
Box 5: Peasant’s livelihood in the most vulnerable situations Tobacco growers living in Gentingsari village In 1992, 1995, and 1998, Mujiono suffered losses. He, then, worked as a laborer in the market and farm. In order to raise the price, he added tobacco with a dye, which was bought from Magelang. He also added 10 kilos sugar per bale. When the tobacco was rejected, he reprocesses and resent the tobacco to pengepul. The tobacco was sold at a lower price. Money to buy tobacco was obtained by owing to his friends with an interest of one percent per month. ― In 1998, Sukardi suffered heavy losses. Nobody bought his tobacco. The company only bought the grade E for the minimum. He plans to sell the tobacco in the next year. In 2015, the price was also low. He bought tobacco leaf with a rate of 4 thousand per kilo. After being processed into sliced dried tobacco, the price was only 15 thousand per kilo. At that time, he sold 68 bales of tobacco.
Tobacco growers living in Pagergunung village In 1992 and 1998, no one bought the tobacco. Sukadi decided to make tobacco as a fertilizer. This often happens. ― In 1994, the price was very low. Tarmudi only sold his tobacco with the price of 10 thousand per kilo. ― In 1995, tobacco price was only 30 thousand per kilo. Solihin sold two bales of tobacco. In 1998, the price significantly decreased, only seven thousand per kilo and in 2004 the price was only 25 thousand per kilo for grade D. ― In 1978 and 1998, the factory just bought tobacco in minimal quantities. The warehouse opened in a short time. Three bales of tobacco were not bought. In 2005, the price of grade C and D was 25 thousand per kilo. Ramidi sold 40 bales. He could not pay the debt. ― In 2006 and 2008, Sarmidi sold eight bales of tobacco at the price of five and seven thousand per kilo. ― In 2000, the price of tobacco was between 205 10 thousand and 30 thousand. In 2012, 16 bales of tobacco sold by Muslim were not paid. ― In 2013, Busri sold his tobacco with the price of 15 thousand as much as two bales and 13 thousand as much as 15 bales.
The low price does not only occur in the time of bad weather. In appropriate weather, the price sometimes is also very low. According to Harno (2006) cited in Murdiyati et al. (2007), some variables are determining the companies to buy tobacco leaves such as quantity needed, quality, the type of tobacco in each region, and the price. ‘From 2013 until now, tobacco farmers are not getting profit. In 2015, the weather was appropriate; but the price was low. The factory is getting difficult (to give a reasonable price). The price was only 65 thousand in average. In 2010, the price was meager, 35-40 thousand.’ (Marjo) ― ‘In 2015, I sold five bales of tobacco, and the price was only 10 thousand per kilo’ (Waljono).’ ― In 2015, tobacco was at a bad price. However, I believe that if the price of tobacco is high once again, it can cover debts for three years.’ (Mujiono) ― ‘The weather sometimes is appropriate, but the price is low, I just accept the price even though the price is low. Most importantly, tobacco is sold quickly.’ (Zainal Arifin)
There are various strategies undertaken to maintain tobacco growers’ livelihood. They sell the crop stocks (such as paddy for tobacco growers living in Gentingsari village), possessions (motorcycle), and livestock (goats). It is quite common for tobacco growers to have credit from tobacco merchants (juragan). Some others carry out livelihood diversification. Related to the credit system in the tobacco grower community, it has existed since the late 19th century. Indebtedness is one of the systems of tobacco cultivation. This is because tobacco is considered as a risky crop caused by market price fluctuation or climatic variability. The system of patronage mostly involves Chinese merchants. Besides giving credit to tobacco farmers, the merchants also gave credit to Javanese bakul or intermediaries, who in turn gave advances to the producers (Boomgaard, 2005). The loan was not only through the ‘third hand’ but also sometimes through the ‘fourth hand'. As a consequence, the interest that must be paid is also getting higher, between 30 and 50 % (Claver, 2014). The increasing price for tobacco needs particularly on manure and labor 206 drives tobacco grower to take credit. The farmers who have collateral can access the loan from the bank. Taking credit from tobacco merchants is also possible. Many farmers are in debt to juragan because it is considered more convenient and more straightforward. It is not necessarily to provide collateral. Additionally, they can give a market ‘guarantee'. In the bad weather and low price of tobacco, it is more favorable to take loan from merchants because the debt payments can be deferred until the next tobacco season with an increased interest rate. ‘Now, the price of manure significantly increases. I sometimes cannot afford it. Owing to the bank or juragan is the solution.’ (Sumaryo) ― ‘For tobacco cultivation, I usually take credit from juragan.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘In the case of bad weather, the cost of tobacco cultivation is gained from juragan or the bank. Farming cost is often obtained by debt, ‘gali lobang tutup lobang’ ‘taking from one to give another.’ (Sudiyono) ― ‘When the price of tobacco goes down, livelihood is disrupted, farming costs are not affordable, and the best way is debt.’ (Sukirman) ― ‘In the previous year, I usually could pay off debts, but last year I could not. I needed about 75 million for tobacco cultivation. I always worry if I can not pay the debt particularly in the time of bad weather.’ (Marjo) ― ‘The severe weather causes the low price of tobacco. Additionally, the price of manure is high. It can reach 1.5 million per rit. If the price is not proper, we will lose.’ (Sutino) ― ‘The rate of fertilizer is increasing by 1.75 million per rit. However, the farming cost is not always available. In the meantime, if we are in debt to juragan, the interest is too high.’ (Mujiono)
Box 6: Coping strategies carried out by peasant farmers
Tobacco growers living in Gentingsari village ‘Buying manure in the next season is by selling stored paddy. To obtain a high price of tobacco, I trust to Pak H. Kuncung and Pak Rukun*. To meet our daily needs (meals) is fulfilled from vegetable sales. In case of bad weather, the tobacco unsold is processed to become dendeng***.’ (Ramidi) ― ‘I worked as a tempe seller**.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘I owed to my relative. I have previously owed to juragan with ngimolasi system.’ (Suwaldi) ― ‘I owed to the bank by using the collateral of land certificate and certificate of ownership of motor vehicles (BPKB).’ (Nuriyadi) ― ‘I worked as a labor of agriculture and become a worker in the market-buruh pasar.’ (Mujiono) ― ‘I sold rice stock and goats.’ (Nur Said) ― ‘I sold a motorcycle and owed money to juragan with the nglimolasi system.’ (Jamzuri) ― ‘I did not rent the land anymore and only focused on cultivating my own land.’ (Muslim) ― I borrowed money to juragan. Consequently, I must sell tobacco to him.’ (Suhadi) Tobacco growers living in Pagergunung village ‘I owed and sold stores. In 1998, I sold a motorcycle. I sold tobacco to
juragan who put high price and is honest. In the bad weather, I mostly owed to juragan by nglimolasi system. For example, I owed one million; the interest is 50 %, 500 thousand per season (6-7 months). If we owed to juragan , we could delay the payment when the weather is terrible. This year 207 I still have a debt of 9 million, totally 13.5 million including the interest. I owed to a Chinese merchant living in Parakan. In case I delay the payment, I should pay the additional interest. For example, I owed one million, I must pay off the debt as much as 1.5 million, and including the interest, if we cannot pay, then the debt becomes 1.75 million. When we owe to the bank, the interest is lower. However, in case of bad weather, owing to juragan is more appropriate, because it is easier to be accessed.’ (Jamzuri) ― ‘I usually owed to a Chinese merchant without interest and collateral. I pay off the debt by selling tobacco to him. Last year I could not pay the debt.
Consequently, I cannot get the debt to him anymore until the debt is paid off. Then, I owed to other people to buy manure.’ (Marjo) Note: * Pak is a call for a respected person, ** Tempe is Indonesian traditional food made from soybean, *** Low-quality tobacco, which is dried in the form of leaf sheets, not cut into pieces.
Some scholars are concerned with livelihood diversification as strategies.
They found that in Java, mainly those people living in lowland areas; tend to be involved in non-farm activities to support their livelihood. This strategy is also named livelihood diversification, which means the inclination of rural people inclining to enter into non-farm activities. The ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors are used to
analyze whether the movement of rural labor out of agriculture is because of necessities or opportunities. Ellis (1998) defined livelihood diversification as ‘the process by which rural families construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in their struggle for survival and in order to improve their standards of living’. In economic studies referring to diverse income portfolios, income sources are categorized into farm, off-farm, and non-farm activities. Farm income includes livestock and crop income either self-consumption or cash income derived from sales. Off-farm income refers to wage or exchange labor on other farms which also include labor payment such as the harvest share systems and other non-wage labor system. Non-farm income encompasses non-agricultural income sources. It can include non-farm rural wage employment, non-farm rural self-employment, property income (rents, etc.), national remittance, and international remittances. In the tobacco community, however, there are non-farm activities, but they are only a few. They mostly stay to cultivate the land. The peasants with small 208 land still rely on a wage from agriculture (off-farm). The less migration of the local inhabitants in SSM causes the limitation of income from both national and international remittance. Agricultural surplus, which is commonly obtained by tobacco merchants isinvested both for agriculture trading or non-farm activities. For a farmer with large land or a significant amount of capital, the agricultural surplus is invested particularly for tobacco growing and trading for the next season. They also spend money on building house, buying card and motorcycle, pilgrim, organizing a wedding party held for several days, and others. In this sense, non-farm activities are part of accumulation strategies. Meanwhile, for peasants with a small farm, off-farm or non-farm activities are intended to survive though sometimes the income is lower than income from agriculture.
Box 7: Non-farm livelihood activities of tobacco growers
Tobacco growers living in Gentingsari village Sumaryo is 62 years old. He has cultivated tobacco since 1976. His family consists of five household members (two in school and three income generators). He cultivates an inherited area of 0.15 ha. Besides being a farmer, he also works as a civil servant (Pegawai Negeri Sipil-PNS). ― Purwanto is 60 years old. He has cultivated tobacco since 1970. He lives with his wife and three children in which two of them are in school. He and his family cultivate a heritage land of 0.1 ha. His daughter works as a petty vegetable trader to support their livelihood. ― Suwaldi is 60 years old. He lives with his wife. He has cultivated land since 1976. Besides cultivating the land, his wife works as tobacco drying labor. ― Sabar is 43 years old. He lives with his wife and two children. He has cultivated land since 1988. He cultivated an inherited land of 0.1 ha and bèngkok land of 0.3 Ha. He also works as village apparatus (perangkat desa) with a salary of one million rupiah per month. ― Jumeri is 60 years old. His family consists of six members. They have cultivated land since 1980. The land planted is an inherited land of 0.2 ha. Some of the household members also work as farm labor (buruh tani). ― Duryanto is 60 years old. He lives with four other household members. In the family, there are four income generators. They cultivated land since the 1980s. His son and daughter also work as farm and construction labor (buruh bangunan). ― Sarmidi is 65 years old. Together with his wife, he rents 0.4 ha of farmland by paying 3.5 million per 0.1 ha (one kisuk). Sarmidi and his wife work as farm labor (buruh tani). 209 His wife is also a vegetable petty trader.
Tobacco growers living in Pagergunung village Sutino is 40 years old. There are four household members including one kid, one in school, and two-income generators. He graduated from secondary school. He has cultivated 0.1 ha of inherited land since 1996. He also works as a labor of tobacco leaf picker with a salary of 70 thousand rupiah per day. His wife works as a labor of tobacco drying with a wage of 50 thousand per day. ― Sukindro is 80 years old. He has an elementary school education. His family consists of six members (one kid, one in school, four-income generators). Since 1980, he cultivated 0.6 ha of land. His daughter also works as a petty trader.
210 This page intentionally left blank
Conclusion 8
211
Photo by Arif
Figure 134: Discussion with the tobacco growers applying cropping system of pola tlahap (tobacco, coffee, and suren tree)
This chapter is providing an overview of the principal findings and the thesis contributions. The contributions are divided into two sub-parts illustrating the theoretical and policy contributions.
8.1. Principal findings
This dissertation concludes that the double structure of livelihood vulnerability encompasses an external side (exposure) and an internal side (livelihood strategies conducted in the field). Therefore, the agent is the hinge between exposure and field. Exposure can have a positive or negative impact to the agent’s livelihood. The impacts can influence the volume, composition, and value of capital types. To overcome those impacts, agents apply multiple livelihood strategies, which are oriented by habitus. The habitus is the product of the social-psychological processes. These processes involve the negotiations and agreements about on which cultural interests that is suitable to be employed to cope with the exposure. This is influenced by the magnitude of the exposure. It can be sufficient to apply cultural interests, which are usually engaged. In this 212 sense, there will be a habitus reproduction. It means that exposure does not interfere with the existence of habitus. Another alternative is based on critical reflection (reflexivity). This way is pursued when the existing cultural interest is no longer able to overcome the impact of exposure. In this case, the agent might create a new habitus, which then will be followed by finding new livelihood strategies. The strategies implemented by an agent are not in the vacuum. It is because the strategy must deal and compete with other agents’ strategies in the field. A field is characterized by an unequal distribution of capital. Hence, it contains agents who dominate and others who are dominated. In the context of the tobacco growers’ community, the agents involved in the field are graders, traders, peasant farmers, and pengrajin/perajang (figure 135).
EXPOSURE:
. The change of cigarette products (from heavy to light taste) . Excess supply of world tobacco leaves . Tobacco farming system (high costs, climate variability, etc.) . Tobacco control policies
(External side of livelihood vulnerability)
FIELD
AGENT SoC Trader
Habitus reproduction 213 The social- CULTURAL LIVELIHOOD EC CAPITAL CC psychological HABITUS INTERESTS STRATEGIES Peasant Grader processes
Critical reflection (reflexivity) s u SyC t i
b Pengrajin/ C a
. Volume and composition a p
H perajang
i
t
. Value of type of capital a l • Unequal power-relations Note: EC: economic capital, SoC: social capital, CC: cultural capital, and SyC: symbolic capital (Internal side of livelihood vulnerability) • Dominant-dominated agents
Source: My own draft (08/05/19)
Figure 135: Double structure of livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers
Based on the framework in figure 135, the following parts show the major research findings. The first research findings refer to the first objective: to analyze what are the external side of vulnerability and its impact on tobacco-based livelihood, as explained in chapter 6. The next finding is consistent with the second objective: to investigate strategies employed by households to maintain or improve livelihoods, as covered in chapter 7. The two last results are based on the third objective: to examine how vulnerable the livelihoods of tobacco farmers are, as covered also in chapter 7.
Research finding 1: The main external sides of vulnerability affect direct and indirect tobacco-based livelihoods. Tobacco has been become a part of tobacco growers’ livelihood since long time ago. Tobacco has also received special attention from the government. This can be seen in the Dutch Colonial policy in the 1800s, which has made tobacco as a vital commodity under the cultivation system (cultuurstelses). In the new order era (1965-1998), the government actively promoted the production of tobacco 214 products, especially kretek. The mechanization of cigarettes began and developed in this era. In 2007, there were nearly 5,000 cigarette companies established in Indonesia. The amount of tobacco product excise obtained increased from year to year. The excise was about tripled in 2017 compared to 2009. In 2017, the government got 147 trillion rupiah of tobacco product excise. The golden era of tobacco, particularly in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside, occurred when the Temanggung tobacco was still the main ingredient for Kretek. This situation coincided when hand-rolled cigarette (sigaret kretek tangan, SKT) still dominated cigarette production in Indonesia. Temanggung tobacco structures 14-26 % of each kretek cigarette. The highest quality of tobacco, srinthil, was also still contested by many cigarette companies. At that time, tobacco cultivation was in the golden era called ‘emas hijau’ (golden leaf) local people. It is because the price of tobacco produced in SSM is generally high. Indeed, tobacco was a promising commodity, which significantly contributed to tobacco growers’ livelihood.
Currently, the golden era of tobacco is almost over. There are the exposures which direct or indirect influence the vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihood. The livelihood vulnerability of farmers is caused by the volatile and declining price of tobacco and the increasing cost of tobacco farming. The declining rate is caused by the change in cigarette production from SKT to SKM. The changing tastes of smokers drive the shift from heavy to light cigarettes. SKM has a light taste because this type of cigarette contains less tobacco with lower graden of nicotine in every cigarette. Consequently, the price of Temanggung tobacco, which contains high-nicotine, is declining. Moreover, the excess of the world tobacco production also contributed to the decline and fluctuations in local tobacco prices. Furthermore, the surplus supply of tobacco in the world market opens possibilities for cigarette manufacturers to increase import that is cheaper than the local tobacco price. In everyday life, tobacco growers are engaged in all stages both on-farm and off-farm. At each of these levels, tobacco growers face challenges related to high cost at every gate level, crop failure because of climatic variability, uncertainty, and volatile price. In general, tobacco growers must spend 215 more money on manure, labor, and market cost. Additionally, climatic variability, especially rainfall at the harvesting time, causes crop failure that is followed by low prices. Tobacco price tend to decrease and are volatile. Therefore, the livelihood of tobacco growing has been economically questionable. Meanwhile, the global policies on tobacco control actually could be considered as a way out for tobacco problems, which are claimed economically, are no longer profitable. Finding an alternative crop or even an alternative livelihood seems to be a solution for sustaining tobacco growers’ livelihoods. On the contrary, tobacco farmers consider the tobacco control policies as disrupting their livelihood.
Research finding 2: There are various strategies employed by agents that are determined by the position in the field and dispositions The unequal distribution of capitals in the field causes the dominant and dominated groups in the tobacco growers’ community. Graders hold the most dominant position compared to tobacco merchants and the first suppliers (tobacco growers, pengrajin, and perajang). The first suppliers are the dominated agents. Tobacco merchants are positioned in the middle. In a certain situation they are dominated by graders and in the other circumstances, they dominate the first suppliers. The cultural capital, particularly the skill of determining tobacco quality and trust from the cigarette company, is the crucial capital that sets grader as the dominant agent. For tobacco merchants, economic and social capitals are the primary assets. Cultural and social capital is essential for pengrajin and perajang. Meanwhile, land tenure is the key for tobacco growers to engage in the field of tobacco. In this sense, social capital, particularly related to trust, is urgent for all 216 agents involved in the tobacco field. Principally, every agent takes maneuvers through multiple strategies to maintain or improve the position in the field. The strategies are oriented by agent habitus, which are the result of structural influences and a lifetime of critical reflection upon an agent’s experiences. Graders and tobacco merchants tend to apply conservation strategies. These are intended to maintain their dominant position. It can be seen in the issuance of KTA by the grader. The cigarette industry whose production leads to light taste causes the need for tobacco leaf containing middle-low nicotine. This tendency drives pengrajin and perajang to become involved in the field of tobacco. They buy tobacco leaf from other regions that contain lower nicotine compared to Temanggung tobacco. The strategy is called the strategy of succession, which usually conducted by a new entrants or new players. Tobacco growers posited as dominated agents apply strategies of subversion to gain little from the dominant group.
Research finding 3: The extent to which exposure affects tobacco peasant households is highly dependent on the volume, composition, and value of the type of capital possessed by the agent and habitus.
How far the impact of the vulnerability context or exposure will affect sustainable livelihoods for the poor is one of the important focuses within the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF). DFID (2000) defined sustainable livelihood as follows:
‘A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base’
Rakodi (2002) considers that the term ‘sustainable’ in the SLF can refer to resilience, the ability to cope, or adaptive capacity. Resilience is the ability of groups or communities to overcoe external pressures and disturbances as a result of social, political, and environmental changes (Adger, 2006). In the context of SLF, the external perturbations are caused by shocks, trends, and seasonality. 217 Bohle (2001) considered exposure as external disturbances. Exposure is the degree to which a human group or ecosystem is exposed to particular stresses (Clark, et al., 2000). Exposure as the structural factor accounts for the kind of vulnerability (vulnerable to what?) (Etzold, 2013). In sum, resilience is a state when the vulnerability context (exposure) does not significantly influence the poor livelihood. By using Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, resilience can manifest in various forms depending on the volume, composition, and value of the type of capital that the agent occupies to respond to exposure. This can be measured by how far the exposure influences the agent’s habitus. Learning from the context of tobacco growers’ community, there are three types of effects of exposure to tobacco farmer’s habitus. First, exposure does not significantly influence to the agent’s habitus. The agent is still persistent with cultural interests. The habitus and its social field are still on a regular basis. The exposure does not fundamentally change the field structure. The agent has the capacity to adapt to the threat caused
by the exposure. In the structure of tobacco farmers, graders and tobacco traders are in this position. In fact, they are trying to maintain the stability of the tobacco fields so that they can still get the benefits of the fields. For example, the FCTC policies, which are considered to destabilize and even eliminate the existence of the tobacco field, are rejected by these agents. This is one of the conservation strategies, which is used to maintain their status in the tobacco field. Second, exposure raises doubts among agents about their habitus. In this manner, individual reflexivity will emerge as an effort to confirm the compatibility of their habitus with a certain situation. Reflexivity refers to the questioning of the condition of production of particular interests. This will drive agents to suspend particular interest because of crises (Chandler, 2013). The crisis is caused by a significant gap between field opportunities and habitus or hysteresis (Bourdieu, 1977). Hysteresis is associated with a high level of risk that is potential to drive the change of habitus (Yang, 2014). A crisis is not solely perceived as a negative state. It can be positive if there 218 are opportunities, which are better compared to a prior habitus. It will be considered negative when the reflexivity is more triggered by necessity than chances. The reflexivity process results in the new commitment of particular interests and strategies. It is possible to apply these strategies in the same field or the new social field. The social practice and social field carried out are based on the principle of maintaining or improving their position within a social space. In the context of tobacco growers, the various exposures have raised questions about the compatibility of their habitus with certain constraints. Unfortunately, they often have no better alternative for switching to another habitus. This occurs to tobacco farmers, who live on the upper slopes of Mt. Sumbing-Sindoro. Indeed, it is quite dilemmatic. On the one hand, tobacco is economically questionable because the price tends to be decreased and the plant is vulnerable to climate variability. On the other hand, ecologically, in the dry season, it is not possible to grow other crops than tobacco. Furthermore, there is still an expectation to see high tobacco prices that have been experienced in the past. The
tobacco prices that are very volatile raises the belief that once every 3-4 years the price of tobacco will be high so that the sale of tobacco can pay their debts accumulated during the previous years. Indeed, tobacco grown in this region has good quality, which allows selling it for a higher price than tobacco grown in rice fields. Therefore, in the mental world, the social-psychology process negotiates various cultural interests, such as whether to stay to cultivate tobacco or to find other alternative crops. Preserving the previous habitus is based on the good experience of high tobacco prices in the past. Meanwhile, another option is to look for other alternative crops. It is because the price of tobacco, which continues to fluctuate and tends to decline, can threaten the livelihood system. This second group also plays a role in maintaining the existence of the tobacco field. For example, related to efforts to oppose the FCTC, by affiliating with tobacco traders they participated in supporting the activity of rejection of the policy. Related to the FCTC policies, the Study Group on Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (ESATG) mandated to investigate 219 an alternative crop to tobacco has identified some reasons why farmers rely on tobacco cultivation. Economically, there is a ’guarantee’ of providing loans for tobacco cultivation and a tobacco market given by the first processor. Farmers also believe that tobacco is more profitable than other crops. Ecologically, in regions where irrigation is inadequate, adverse soil, and a particular climate condition, tobacco is planted because of its drought resistance. Culturally, tobacco cultivation has become a habit, which is successfully transmitted from generation to generation. For Bourdieu, the three causes, namely economy, culture, and ecology are related to one another. Tobacco growing has been passed down from generation to generation. Tobacco cultivation has become a social practice, which is guided by habitus. Habitus orients farmers' action to continue growing tobacco from year to year. Some sayings, beliefs, and idioms express the embeddedness between farmers and tobacco cultivation.
‘isone ming’ (tobacco growing is the only thing that can be carried out to support farmers’ livelihoods) ‘nandur mbako kuwi tradisi, turun temurun’ (tobacco growing is a tradition inherited from ancestors) ‘Temanggung kuwi cocoke mung mbako’ (tobacco is the only crop that can be grown in Temanggung) ‘rumongso isin yen tonggone nandur mbako, aku ora melu nandur’ (I feel embarrassed when I don't plant tobacco as my neighbors do) ‘bathi pisan, utang 3 tahun ketutup’ (when the price of tobacco is high even though it is only one season, this can pay off debt of 3 years) Ora ono tanduran sing keuntungane ngluwihi mbako (it is so hard to find other crops whose profits exceed tobacco) ‘mbako kuwi pulung/bejo’(tobacco growing is luck) ‘ngrokok matek, gak ngrokok matek, ngrokok ae sampai matek’ (You 220 smoke, you will die...You do not smoke, you also will die. Then, keep going to smoke until you die). ‘mati urip mbako’ (keep on planting tobacco)
However, it does not mean that habitus is immutable; instead, the disposition of habitus can either be continued or changed. Habitus always adjusts in accordance with the changes. The fit between the inclinations of habitus and the structures of the situation will cause the reproduction of the habitus. However, the changes in constraints and opportunities in the field, which affect the significant gap between field opportunities and habitus expectation, will open the chances of the reflexivity process. This is the questions of compatibilities of habitus with the field opportunities. Reflexivity will open the gate of creativity towards a new habitus. Habitus does not exist in a vacuum, rather functions in relation to capitals and a field. Capital possessed will orient the habitus and at the same time determine its position in the field based on the volume and composition of capital
employed. The agents holding dominant positions commonly will maintain their position in the field by employing various strategies. The action of refusing the global policies on tobacco control is one of the strategies conducted by farmers to maintain the existence of the tobacco field and actor positions in the arena. The greater resources occupied by agents in the field, the stronger the effort to refuse the policies. This is the reason why tobacco growers, particularly those who are in the dominant position, tend to resist. Third, exposure has driven the agents to find a new habitus, with or without eliminating the previous habitus. This group is usually the farmers who have a low dependence on tobacco in their livelihood system. They are usually farmers, who grow tobacco in the rice fields. They cultivate tobacco when the weather is appropriate. Whereas when the weather is not good for growing tobacco, they grow the crop on a small part of the land. Meanwhile, most other land is planted with other crops. In this dissertation, thus, resilience is defined as the ability of people to reproduce their habitus or to create a new habitus with or without eliminating the 221 previous habitus. This needs to be noted, that resilience does not mean not to be vulnerable. This is because vulnerability is not only caused by external factors such as shocks, trends, seasonality or exposure, but also by the imbalance of power relations among agents in the field of tobacco where peasant farmers are part of it. In fact, there are the unequal power relations among agents in the field of tobacco that are also an element of vulnerability. For example, farmers experience crop failure, and then borrow money to traders. In this case, farmers are considered as resilient, because they can still carry out their activities as they did before. Nevertheless, this debt has consequences as a result of the relationship between farmers and traders that keeps farmers vulnerable, dependent, and having no bargaining power. In other words, debt can make them resilient, but leaves them in a vulnerable condition. Therefore, sustainable livelihoods should not only refer to the resilience of the poor in responding to external disturbances. However, it must consider the inequality of power relations among agents in the field.
Finally, the rules of the game in the field that distribute resources in the field are also an important part for analyzing livelihood sustainability.
Research finding 4: Livelihood vulnerability is embedded in the everyday life of tobacco growers, because of asymmetric power relations among agents. The dominated agent is the most vulnerable.
In everyday life, the power relations among agents in the field are asymmetric because of uneven capitals possessed. The dominated group, particularly tobacco peasants, is the most vulnerable in the field. The livelihoods will be more vulnerable when exposures happen, such as rainfall deviation. Is such cases, they will be forced to sell crop stocks, possessions, livestock, etc. Their debts cannot be paid off, but even increase with high-interest rates. In many cases, debt forces tobacco growers to sell tobacco to moneylenders that are also tobacco merchants (juragan). Peasant farmers are stuck in a debt of gratitude. It puts the peasants in a weak position. As another strategy, some of 222 them are also forced to work as laborers (buruh) or petty traders. In sum, livelihood vulnerability occurs in their daily lives because of the asymmetric position of agents in the field. The external side, exposures, exacerbates the situation of vulnerability for agents, particularly for those who are standing in the dominated position. The livelihood vulnerability is then the dialectic between the external (exposures) and internal side (livelihood strategies in relation to the field).
8.2. Contributions of the research
8.2.1. Theoretical contributions The significant theoretical contribution of this research is in the area of livelihood vulnerability, which is one of the concerns of human geography. First, this dissertation is concerned with the dialectical relationship between structure and agency. In the previous livelihood studies, structure and agenc were analyzed in a separate way. This resulted in over-emphasize of one of them, instead of conceiving them as an interplay.
Second, this dissertation considers that agents cannot act freely but are also not fully bound by rules or norms. Livelihood strategies employed are oriented by habitus. Habitus is the system of disposition that is related to the position in the structure and the results of the actors’ reflection during their life. Habitus actively makes an adjustment to encounter the mismatch between the disposition of habitus and the structure (field). This consideration can overcome criticism of the SLA, which overemphasizes the agent as an independent unit. Lastly, another major contribution of this research is the interconnection between three theories: livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice. The interplay between the three concepts is useful to contribute to livelihood studies that consider both external and internal side of vulnerability. By employing Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, power relations among agents in the internal side of vulnerability can be grasped.
8.2.2. Policy contributions
Based on the position and authority, the government can take an obvious 223 role regarding the sustainability of farmers' livelihoods. The possible options offered are whether the government will support the continuity of tobacco growing or will propose alternative crops to tobacco. Several things that must be considered related to the choices will be delivered as follows: First, in case the government stays to support the continuity of tobacco growing, the government must be seriously facilitating the needs of tobacco growers from the cultivation stage to market guarantees. The crucial things in the tobacco farmers’ community are the availability of loans and the fairness of market rule. Limited finance for tobacco cultivation drives the farmers to obtain credit with high interest. The complicated market rule creates unbalanced power-relations among agents in the field of tobacco.
Second, in case the government put aside the role of tobacco for the livelihood sustainability of farmer, several things must be considered: a. Adopting alternative crop is not new for tobacco growers. In the tobacco community, maize is a vital crop supporting farmers’ livelihood. Boomgard (2005) illustrated how important maize in dry land could be including the region of SSM by associating with potatoes in Europe and cassava in Africa. He is pairing maize (subsistence crop) and tobacco (commercial crop), which has an important role in agriculture, particularly in upland areas. It is because both crops can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, particularly in the dry-upland. However maize, slowly but sure, has shifted to chili since the government started to promote this commercial crop. Agricultural land for chili cultivation significantly increases. It is slightly different from the case when the government introduced coffee, suren tree, and elephant grass (rumput gajah) as crops planted together with tobacco. Based on 224 the experiences, the innovation should not have a striking difference with the previous habitus. Based on the experiences, the shift of maize to chili is more acceptable compared to the shift of tobacco to other crops such as coffee, suren tree, and elephant grass. It is because both maize and chili is a seasonal crop. b. Tobacco growing has been successfully inherited from generation to generation. Tobacco as a source livelihood has been embedded in their everyday life. It had a significant contribution not only for household income but also for the local development. Hence, the alternative crops offered should have similar roles both in contributing to household livelihood and local development. In other words, alternative crops must be more profitable and more beneficial for both households and community development. c. In Bourdieu’s perspective, tobacco growing is considered as a social practice. Bourdieu's theory of social practices involves three related concepts: habitus, capital, and field. The action of refusing the global
policies on tobacco control is one of the strategies conducted by farmers to maintain the existence of the tobacco field and to preserve their position in the arena. The greater resources possessed by agents in the tobacco field, the stronger are efforts to refuse the policies. It is the reason why farmers, particularly those who hold significant capital, tend to resist. Based on the tobacco field, several things must be considered: First, finding alternative crops means building new social fields. It should recognize the players who will be involved in the new fields. In principle, every agent struggles to improve and maintain his or her resources. The possibilities of conflict between new agents involved must be calculated. Second, the field of tobacco was established a long time ago. There is a rule of the game that has been embedded in the agent’s habitus. Creating a new field will raise the resistance, particularly from those agents, which possess more resources. They are agents, which are in the dominant position, like the tobacco merchants 225 and are located in the area, where a high quality of tobacco is cultivated (e.g. the srinthil area). Hence, new fields that will be established should be able to accommodate the interests of all agents in the tobacco field, including the dominant position groups. It also needs to be ensured that these agents have the opportunity and capability to be involved in the new fields. Established institutions, good facilities of infrastructure, marketing guarantees, and on-farm supporting systems in the new fields are very useful as consideration for agents in the tobacco field to develop new habitus and livelihood strategies.
226 This page intentionally left blank
Bibliography
Adger, W. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281. Aitken, S., & Valentine, G. (2006). Ways of Knowing and Ways of Doing Geographic Research. In S. Aitken, & G. Valentine, Approaches to Human Geography (S. 1-12). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Anderson, K. (2016). Bourdieu’s distinction between rules and strategies and secondary principal practice: A review of selected literature. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(4), 688–705. antarafoto.com. (2011, 09 13). Tembakau Garangan. Retrieved from https://www.antarafoto.com/mudik/v1315914901/tembakau-garangan antaranews.com. (2013, 01 12). Aksi Tolak PP Tembakau. Retrieved from https://www.antaranews.com/foto/39273/aksi-tolak-pp-tembakau Arfianto, A. (2012). Respon Petani Tembakau terhadap Kegiatan Pengembangan Model Usahatani Partisipatif (PMUP) di Desa Tlahab Kecamatan Kledung, Kabupaten Temanggung. Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan Kota, 8(2), 105‐117. Arnez, M. (2009). Tobacco and Kretek: Indonesian Drugs in Historical Change. 227 Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 2(1), 49-69. Retrieved from https://aseas.univie.ac.at/index.php/aseas/article/view/408. Bappeda Kab. Temanggung. (2009). Rencana Induk Pertembakauan Kabupaten Temanggung. Temanggung: Badan Perencanaan Pembanggunan Daerah (Bappeda) Kab. Temanggung. Bappeda Kab. Temanggung. (2013). Retrieved from http://laman.temanggungkab.go.id/info/detail/2/26/peta-administrasi.html. Bappeda Kab. Temanggung. (2016). Statistik Kabupaten Temanggung 2016. Temanggung. Bappenas. (2010). Evaluasi Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana bagi Masyarakat Miskin (Keluarga Prasejahtera/KPS dan Keluarga Sejahtera-I/KS-I. Jakarta. Barber, S., Adioetomo, S., Ahsan, A., & Setyonaluri, D. (2008). Tobacco Economics in Indonesia. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union). Basuki, S., Rochman, F., & Yulaikah, S. (2000). Biologi Tembakau Temanggung (Sesanti Basuki, Fathkur Rochman. In Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 1-6). Malang.
Bellagio statement on tobacco and sustainable development. (1995). CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153(8), 1109–1110. beritasatu.com. (2012, 07 03). 7.000 Petani Tembakau Macetkan Rasuna Said. Retrieved from https://www.beritasatu.com/megapolitan/57744-7000- petani-tembakau-macetkan-rasuna-said.html Bernstein, H. (2010). Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change. Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. In J. Birkmann, Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies (S. 9-54). Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. BMKG. (2018). Curah Hujan dan Hari Hujan Kabupaten Temanggung. Retrieved from http://data.jatengprov.go.id/dataset/curah-hujan-dan-hari- hujan-kabupaten-temanggung-2015-2017/resource/bd8ceab9-f010-44c6- a491-8bb0baaf58d7 Bohle, H.-G. (2001). Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from Social 228 Geography. IHDP Update, 2(1), 3-5. Boomgaard, P. (2005). Maize and Tobacco in Upland Indonesia, 1600–1940. In T. Li, Transforming the Indonesian Uplands (S. 47-80). Amsterdam: Harwood academic publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (S. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. BPS. (2008). Indonesia-Pendataan Potensi Desa. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.
BPS. (2010). Peraturan Kepala Badan Pusat Statistik Nomor 37 Tahun 2010 tentang Klasifikasi Perkotaan dan Perdesaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS. (2011). Statistik Kesejahteraan Rakyat 2011. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS. (2013). Laporan Hasil Sensus Pertanian 2013 (Pencacahan Lengkap). Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS. (2017). Potret Pendidikan Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS. (2018). Hasil Survei Pertanian antar Sensus SUTAS2018. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2009). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2008. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2010). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2009. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2011). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2010. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2012a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2011. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. 229 BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2012b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2011. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2012c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2011. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2013a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2012. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2013b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2012. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2013c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2012. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2013d). Hasil Sensus Pertanian 2013. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2014a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2013. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2014b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2013. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik.
BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2014c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2013. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2015). Statistik Daerah Kabupaten Temanggung. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2015b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2014. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2015c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2014. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2016a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2015. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2016b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2015. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2016c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2015. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2017a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2016. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2017b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2016. 230 Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2017c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2016. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2018a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka 2017. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2018b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2017. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2018c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2017. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2013). Laporan Hasil Sensus Pertanian 2013 (Pencacahan Lengkap). Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2017). Statistik Pendidikan Propinsi Jawa Tengah 2017. Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2018a). Propinsi Jawa Tengah dalam Angka 2017. Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik. BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2018b). Hasil Suvei Pertanian antar Sensus (SUTAS) 2018 Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik.
Budiarto, H. (2007). Tantangan dan Peluang Agribisnis Tembakau Cerutu. Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (pp. 14-21). Surabaya: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas). Brata, W. (2012). Tembakau atau Mati: Kesaksian, Kegelisahan, dan Harapan Seorang Petani Tembakau. Jakarta: Indonesia Berdikari. Brettell, C. (2002). The Individual/Agent and Culture/Structure in the History of the Social Sciences. Social Science History, 26(3), 429-445. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40267785 Bridge, G. (2001). Bourdieu, rational action and the time-space strategy of gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(2), 205-216. Bridge, G. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu. In P. Hubbard, & R. Kitchin, Key Thinkers on Space and Place (S. 76-81). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Brons, J., Dietz, T., Niehof, A., & Witsenburg, K. (2007). Dimensions of Vulnerability of Livelihoods in Less-favoured Areas: Interplay Between the Individual and the Collective. In R. Ruben, J. Pender, & A. Kuyvenhoven, Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Less-Favoured Areas (S. 91-110). Wallingford UK/Cambridge MA USA: CAB International. 231 Bryceson, D. (2000). Peasant Theories and Smallholder Policies: Past and Present. In D. Bryceson, C. Kay, & J. Mooij, Disappearing Peasantries? Rural Labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America (pp. 1-36). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Buang, A. (1992). Epistemological Problems in Human geography: An Overview and A Preliminary Islamic Evaluation. The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 9(1). Carey, P. (1984). Changing Javanese Perceptions of the Chinese Communities in Central Java, 1755-1825. Indonesia, 37, 1-47. Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable Livelihoods Approaces: progress and Possibitilies for Change. DFID. Carter, A. T. (1984). Household Histories. In R. M. Netting, R. R. Wilk, & E. J. Arnould, Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (pp. 44-83). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Casimir, G., & Tobi, H. (2011). Defining and using the concept of household: a systematic review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 498– 506.
cendananews.com. (2016, 11 16). Para Petani Demo DPR Tolak Kovensi Pengendalian Tembakau. Retrieved from https://www.cendananews.com/2016/11/para-petani-demo-dpr-tolak- kovensi-pengendalian-tembakau.html Chambers, R. (1989). Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy. IDS Bulletin, 20(2), 1-7. Chambers, R. (2005). Ideas for Development. London: Earthscan. Chandler, B. (2013). The Subjectivity of Habitus. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 43(4), 469-491. Chouinard, V. (1997). Structure and Agency: Contested Concepts in Human Geography. The Canadian Geographer, 41(4), 363-377. Clark, G. (2005). Secondary data. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S. 57- 73). Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall. Clark, W., Jäger, J., Corell, R., Kasperson, R., McCarthy, J., Cash, D., . . . Wilbanks, T. (2000). Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental Risks.” Report of the Workshop on Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change: Challenges for Research, Assessment and Decision Making. 232 Warrenton, Virginia: Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA). Claver, A. (2014). Dutch Commerce and Chinese Merchants in Java: Colonial Relationships in Trade and Finance, 1800–1942. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Clifford, N., French, S., & Valentine, G. (2010). Getting Started in Geographical Research: how this book can help. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography (S. 3-15). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cloke, P., & Johnston, R. (2005). Spaces of Geographical Thought: Deconsttructing Human Geography's Binaries. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J., & Philo, C. (2004). Practising Human Geography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Colombijn, F., Colombijn, H., & Colombijn, M. (2001). Kreteks Crackle in Children’s Hands. The impact of advertisements and peers on smoking behaviour of adolescents in Bandung, Indonesia. In F. Hüsken, & D. der Meij, Reading Asia: a research of Asian Studies (S. 49-63). Richmond: Curzon.
Conradson, D. (2005). Focus groups. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S. 128- 143). Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall. Cook, I. (2005). Participant observation. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S. 167-188). Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall. Cope, M. (2010). A History of Qualitative Research in Geography. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (S. 25-45). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cousins, B. (2010). What is a ‘smallholder’? Class-analytic perspectives on small-scale farming and agrarian reform in South Africa. working Paper 16: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS). Cresswell, T. (1996). In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic Thought: A Critical Introduction. Chichester, West Sussex, UK : Wiley-Blackwell. Cribb, R., & Kahin, A. (2004). Historical Dictionary of Indonesia (2nd). Maryland: Scarecrow Press. 233 Daldjoeni, N. (1984). Pranatamangsa, the Javanese agricultural calendar—Its bioclimatological and sociocultural function in developing rural life. Environmentalist, 4(Supplement 7), 15-18. de Haan, L. (2000). Globalization, Localization and Sustainable Livelihood. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(3), 339-365. de Haan, L. (2012). The Livelihood Approach: A Critical Exploration. Erdkunde, 66(4), 345-357. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41759104 de Haan, l., & Zoomers, A. (2003). Development Geography at The Crossroads of Livelihood and Globalisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94(3), 350-362. de Haan, L., & Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the Frontier of Livelihoods Research. Development and Change, 36(1), 27–47. Deffner, V., & Haferburg, C. (2012). Raum, Stadt und Machtverhältnisse: Humangeographische Auseinandersetzungen mit Bourdieu. Geographische Zeitschrift, 100(3), 164-180.
Departemen Perindustrian. (2009). Roadmap Industri Pengolahan Tembakau. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Industri Agro dan Kimia, Departemen Perindustrian. DeWalt, K., & DeWalt, B. (2011). Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge. DFID. (2000). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: DFID. Dharmawan, A. (2001). Farm Household Livelihood Strategies and Socio- Economic Change in Rural Indonesia. Socioeconomic Studies on Rural Development Vol. 124. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG. Didero, M. (2012). Cairo's Informal Waste Collectors: A Multi-Scale and Conflict Sensitive Perspective on Sustainable Livelihoods. Erdkunde, 66(1), 27-44. Dirksmeier, P. (2007). Mit Bourdieu gegen Bourdieu empirisch denken: Habitusanalyse mittels reflexiver Fotografie. ACME: An International E- Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(1), 73-97. Ditjenbun. (2014). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2013-2015: Tembakau. 234 Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan. Ditjenbun. (2015). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2014-2016: Tembakau. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan. Ditjenbun. (2016). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2015-2017: Tembakau. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan. Ditjenbun. (2017). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2016-2018. Tembakau. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan. Ditjenbun. (2018). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2017-2019: Tembakau. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan, Kementeraian Pertanian. Djajadi. (2015). Tobacco Diversity in Indonesia. Journal of Biological Researches, 20, 27-32. Djurfeldt, G. (1996). Defining and Operationalizing Family Farming from a Sociological Perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 36(3), 340-351. Dörfler, T., Gracfe, O., Müller-Mahn, D., & Bayreuth. (2003). Habitus und Feld: Anregungen für eine Neuorientierung der geographischen Entwicklungsforschung auf der Grundlage von BOURDIEUS 'Theorie der Praxis'. Geographica Helvetica, 11-23.
Dunn, K. (2010). Interviewing. In I. Hay, Qualitative research methods in human geography (6th ed) (S. 101-138). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eakin, H., & Luers, A. (2006). Assesing the Vulnerability of Social- Environmental Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 365-394. Edelman, M. (2013). What is a peasant? What are peasantries? A briefing paper on issues of definition. Prepared for the first session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, Geneva, 15-19 July 2013. Eichner, S. (2014). Agency and Media Reception: Experiencing Video Games, Film, and Television. Potsdam: Springer VS. Elder-Vass, D. (2007). Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an Emergentist Theory of Action. Sociological Theory, 25(4), 325-346. Ellis, F. (1998). Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The Journal of Development Studies, 35(1), 1-38. Engle, N. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change, 21, 647–656. 235 Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., Schluger, N., Gomeshtapeh, F., & Drope, J. (2015). The Tobacco Atlas (Fifth Edition). Atlanta, Georgia: The American Cancer Society, Inc. Ernst & Young. (2015). Kajian Singkat Potensi Dampak Ekonomi Rokok di Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Ernst & Young Indonesia. Arnez, M. (2009). Tobacco and Kretek: Indonesian Drugs in Historical Change. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 2(1), 49-69. Retrieved from https://aseas.univie.ac.at/index.php/aseas/article/view/408 Etzold, B. (2013). The Politics of Street Food: Contested Governance and Vulnerabilities in Dhaka’s Field of Street Vending. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Etzold, B., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2016). Socio-spatialities of vulnerability: towards a polymorphic perspective in vulnerability research. DIE ERDE, 143(4), 234-251. Everts, J., Lahr-Kurten, M., & Watson, M. (2011). PRACTICE MATTERS! Geographical inquiry and theories of practice. ERDKUNDE, 65(4), 323– 334.
Fagi, A. (1992). Upland Crop Production in Indonesia with Regard to Fertilizer Utilization. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center (FFCT). Retrieved from http://www.fftc.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&style=type&id=201107 22070944 Feldman, M., & Orlikowski, W. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. Firth, R. (1966). Malay Fishermen: Their Peasant Economy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Firth, R. (2017). Capital, Saving and Credit in Peasant Societies: A Viewpoint from Economic Anthropology. In R. Firth, & B. Yamey, Capital, Saving, & Credit in Peasant Societies (pp. 15-34). New York: Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group. Fisher, P. (1999). Tobacco Blending. In D. Davis, & M. Nielsen, Tobacco: Production, Chemistry and Technology (S. 346-52). London: Blackwell Science Ltd. Flick, U. (2004). Design and Process in Qualitative Research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke, A Companion to Qualitative Research (S. 146- 236 152). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Flick, U. (2007). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Fogle, N. (2011). The Spatial Logic of Social Struggle: A Bourdieuian Topology. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Füssel, H.-M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 155–167. Geertz, C. (1983). Involusi Pertanian: Proses Perubahan Ekologi di Indonesia. Jakarta: Bharata Karya Aksara. Geist, H. (1999). Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control, 8, 18–28. Gerber, J. (1997). Beyond dualism - the social construction of nature and the natural and social construction of human beings. Progress in Human Geography, 21(1), 1-17.
Gerpacio, R., & Pingali, P. (2007). Tropical and Subtropical Maize in Asia: Production Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. Mexico: CIMMYT. Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum. Goodman, J. (1993). Tobacco in History: the Cultures of Dependence. London: Routledge. Goodman, J. (2005). Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 1. Detroit: Thomson Gale. Goodspeed, T. (1947). On the Evolution of the Genus Nicotiana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 33(6), 158-171. Graham, E. (2005). Philosophies underlying human geography research. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S. 8-33). Harlow, England: Printice Hall. Gregory, D. (1981). Human Agency and Human Geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 6(1), 1-18. Grenfell, M. (2008). Postscript: Methodological Principles. In M. Grenfell, Pierre 237 Bourdieu: Key Concepts (S. 219-227). Stocksfield: Acumen. Grenfell, M. (2014). Introduction to Part II. In M. Grenfell, & F. Lebaron, Bourdieu and Data Analysis: Methodological Principles and Practice (S. 37-39). Bern: Peter Lang AG. Grenfell, M., & Hardy, C. (2007). Art Rules: Pierre Bourdieu and the Visual Arts. Oxford: Berg. Grenfell, M., & James, D. (1998). Theory as Method. In M. Grenfell, D. James, P. Hodkinson, D. Reay, & D. Robbins, Bourdieu and Education: Acts of Practical Theory (S. 153-181). London: UK Falmer Press. Hadi, P., Kustiari, R., & Anugrah, I. (2008). Case Study of Tobacco Cultivation and Alternate Crops in Indonesia. Jakarta: Indonesian Center for Agricultural Socio-Economic and Policy Studies Department of Agriculture in Collaboration with WHO Representative to Indonesia. Hamid, E. (1991). Kajian Ringkas: Bentuk Pasar Industri Rokok dan Tembakau di Indonesia. UNISIA, 10, 80-82. Hanuz, M. (2005). Kretek. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: an Ecnyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 287-289). Detroit: Thomson Gale.
Hartono, J., Hastono, A., & Tirtosastro, S. (2000). Penilaian dan Penetapan Mutu Tembakau Rajangan Temanggung. In Balai Penelitian Tanaman Tembakau dan Serat (Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 87- 91). Malang: Balittas. Hayami, Y., & Kikuchi, M. (1987). Dilema Ekonomi Desa: Suatu Pendekatan Ekonomi terhadap Perubahan Kelembagaan di Asia. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia. Hennink, M. (2007). International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hennink, M. (2014). Focus Group Discussions. New York: Oxford University Press. Heriyanto, D. (2014). Recent Development on Tobacco Control Policy in Indonesia: Analyzing Obstacles Faced by Indonesia in the Ratification of Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 21(2), 157 - 174. Hoggart, K., Lees, L., & Davies, A. (2002). Researching Human Geography. London: Arnold. Hurtado, P. (2010). Assessing the use of Bourdieu's key concepts in the strategy- 238 as-practice field. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(1), 52-61. Indef. (2018). Mau Kemana Industri Hasil Tembakau Pasca PMK 146/2017. Jakarta : Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef). Isdijoso, W., Suryahadi, A., & Akhmadi. (2016). Penetapan Kriteria dan Variabel Pendataan Penduduk Miskin yang Komprehensif dalam Rangka Perlindungan Penduduk Miskin di Kabupaten/Kota. Jakarta: The SMERU Research Institute. Isdijoso, W., Suryahadi, A., & Akhmadi. (2016). Penetapan Kriteria dan Variabel Pendataan Penduduk Miskin yang Komprehensif dalam Rangka Perlindungan Penduduk Miskin di Kabupaten/Kota. Jakarta: The SMERU Research Institute. Jacobs, R., Gale, H., Capehart, T., Zhang, P., & Jha, P. (2000). The Supply-Side Effects of Tobacco-Control Policies. In P. Jha, & F. Chaloupka, Tobacco control in developing countries (S. 311-41). Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Human Development Network, the World Bank, and The Economics Advisory Service,World Health Organization.
Janoschka, M. (2011). Habitus and radical reflexivity: a conceptual approach to study political articulations of lifestyle- and tourism-related mobilities. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 3(3), 224–236. jatengprov.go.id. (2018, 10 11). Festival Lembutan Bansari Tunjukkan Kualitas Tembakau Temanggung. Retrieved from https://jatengprov.go.id/beritadaerah/festival-lembutan-bansari-tunjukkan- kualitas-tembakau-temanggung/ Jenkins, R. (1992). Key Sociologist: Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge. Johnston, R. (1986). Philosophy and Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Approaches. Baltimore, Maryland: Edward Arnold. Kaag, M., van Berkel, R., Brons, J., de Bruijn, M., van Dijk, H., de Haan, L., . . . Zoomers, A. (2004). Poverty is Bad: Ways Forward in Livelihood Research. In D. Kalb, W. Panster, & H. Siebers, Globalization Development: Themes and concepts in Current Research (S. 49-74). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.springeronline.com kabarjinggan.blogspot.com. (2010, 05 14). Demo Petani Tembakau Temanggung. Retrieved from http://kabarjinggan.blogspot.com/2010/05/demo-petani- tembakau-temanggung.html 239 Kementan PPN/Bapennas. (2014). Analisis Rumah Tangga, lahan, dan Usaha Pertanian di Indonesia: Sensus Pertanian 2013. Jakarta: Direktorat Pangan dan Pertanian Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2008). PMK Nomor 60/PMK.07/2008 tentang Dana Alokasi Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2008. Jakarta: 24 April 2008. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2009). PMK Nomor: 85/PMK.07/2009 tentang Alokasi Sementara Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2009. Jakarta: 23 April 2009. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2010). PMK Nomor: 243/PMK.07/2010 tentang Alokasi Definitif Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggran 2010. Jakarta: 23 Desember 2010. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2011). PMK Nomor: 195/PMK.07/2011 tentang Alokasi Definitif Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2011. Jakarta: 1 Desember 2011.
Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2012). PMK Nomor: 197/PMK.07/2012 tentang Alokasi Definitif Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2012. Jakarta: 10 Desember 2012. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2013). PMK Nomor: 181/PMK.07/2013 tentang Alokasi Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2013. Jakarta: 13 Desember 2013. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2014). Peraturan Menteri Keuangan RI Nomor 216/PMK.07/2014 tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Menteri Keuangan No. 106/PMK.07/2014 tentang Perkiraan Alokasi DBHCHT Tahun Anggaran 2014. Jakarta: 5 Desember 2014. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2015). PMK Nomor: 135/PMK.07/2015 tentang Rincian Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau menurut Provinsi/Kabupaten/Kota Tahun Anggaran 2015. Jakarta: 14 Juli 2015. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2016). PMK Nomor: 178/PMK.07/2016 tentang Rincian Dana Bagi Hasil Tembakau menurut Provinsi/Kabupaten/Kota Tahun Anggaran 2016. Jakarta: 18 November 2016. Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2017). PMK Nomor: 192/PMK.07/2017 tentang Rincian Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Tembakau menurut 240 Provinsi/Kabupaten/Kota Tahun Anggaran 2017. Jakarta: 8 Desember 2017. Kementerian Perindustrian RI. (2013). Gambaran Umum Industri Rokok. Retrieved from www.kemenperin.go.id/jawaban_attachment.php?id=438&id_t=3154 Kementerian Perindustrian RI. (2015). Pengembangan Industri Prioritas Agro. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Industri Agro, Kementerian Perindustrian. Keyser, J. (2007). Crop substitution and alternative crops for tobacco. Crop substitution and alternative crops for tobacco: study conducted as a technical document for the first meeting of the ad hoc study group on alternative crops established by the conference of the parties to the WHO framework convention on tobacco contr. Keyser, J., & Juita, N. (2005). Smallholder Tobacco Growing in Indonesia: Cost and Profitability Compared with Other Agricultural Enterprises. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Killebrew, J., & Myrick, H. (1920). Tobacco Leaf: Its Culture and Cure, Marketing, and Manufacture. New York: Orange Judd Company.
Kim, H.-J. (2007). Reformist Muslims in a Yogyakarta Village: The Islamic Transformation of Contemporary Socio-Religious Life. Canberra: ANU Press. Korenjak-Cerne, S., Kejžar, N., & Batagelj, V. (2008). Clustering of Population Pyramids. Informatica, 32, 157–167. Krantz, L. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction: Introduction. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Kurnaini, Z. (2016). Kebijakan Cukai Hasil Tembakau. Round Table Discussion Rokok: Perspektif Kesehatan Masyarakat vs Perspektif Ekonomi. Universitas Indonesia: 15 Oktober 2016. Lahire, B. (2015). The limits of the field: elements for a theory of the social differentiation of activities. In M. Hilgers, & E. Mangez, Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Fields: Concepts and applications (S. 62-101). Oxon, New York: Routledge. Lamaison, P., & Bourdieu, P. (1986). From Rules to Strategies: An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology, 1(1), 110-120. Laslett, P. (1972). Introduction: the history of the family. In P. Laslett, & R. Wall, 241 Household and family in past time (pp. 1-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laurier, E. (2010). Participant Observation. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography (S. 116-130). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Lian, T., & Dorothea, U. (2016). The Tobacco Control Atlas: ASEAN Region (Third Edition). Bangkok: Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA). Lin, K.-H. (2013). Everyday crises: Marginal society livelihood vulnerability and adaptability to hazards. Progress in Development Studies, 13(1), 1–18. Lingard, B., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading theory: Bourdieu and the field of educational leadership. An introduction and overview to this special issue. Int. J. Leadership in Education, 6(4), 317-333. Lipunner, R. (2005). Reflexive Sozialgeographie. Bourdieus Theorie der Praxis als Grundlage für sozial- undkulturgeographisches kulturgeographisches Arbeiten nach dem cultural turn. Geographische Zeitschrift, 93(3), 135- 147.
Longhurst, R. (2010). Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography (S. 103- 115). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Mackay, J., & Eriksen, M. (2002). The Tobacco Atlas. Geneva: World Health Organization. Mackill, D., Coffman, W., & Garrity, D. (1996). Rainfed Lowland Rice Improvement. Manila: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Mahkamah Konstitusi RI. (2010). Putusan Nomor 34/PUU-VIII/2010. Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Mamat, H., Sitorus, S., Hardjomidjojo, H., & Seta, A. (2006). Analisis Mutu, Produktivitas, Keberlanjutan dan Arahan Pengembangan Usahatani Tembakau di Kabupaten Temanggung, Jawa Tengah. Jurnal Littri, 12(4), 146 - 153. Mamudu, H., Cairney, P., & Studlar, D. (2015). Global Public Policy: Does The New Venue for Transnational Tobacco Control Challenge the Old Way of Doing Things? Public Administration, 93(4), 856–873. Mann, S. (2016). The Research Interview: Reflective Practice and Reflexivity in Research Processes. Palgrave Macmillan. 242 Mastur, Sulistyowati, E., Nurindah, Subiyakto, Sudjindro, Purwati, R., . . . Rahmawati, L. (2012). Rencana Strategies (Edisi Perbaikan) Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat 2010-2014. Malang: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat. Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell, Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (S. 49- 66). Durham: Acumen. Maus, G. (2015). Landscapes of memory: a practice theory approach to geographies of memory. Geogr. Helv., 70, 215–223. McConnell, D. J., & Dillon, J. L. (1997). Farm Management for Asia: A Systems Approach. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/w7365e/w7365e00.htm#Contents McFalls Jr., J. A. (2003). Population: A Lively Introduction, 4th Edition. PRB Population Bulletin, 58(4), 3-40. McKean, E. (2006). Concise Oxford American Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, P., & Dietz, T. (2008). Structure, agency and environment: Toward an integrated perspective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 18, 99–111. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Metrotvnews.com. (2016, 05 03). Among Tebal, Tradisi Selamatan Masuki Musim Tanam tembakau. Retrieved from http://http:foto.metrotvnews.com/view/2016/05/03/522977/among-tebal- tradisi-selamatan-masuki-musim-tanam-tembakau# Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. California: SAGE Publication, Inc. MPIG Tembakau Srinthil Temanggung. (2013). Buku Persyaratan Indikasi Geografis Tembakau Srinthil Temanggung. Temanggung: MPIG Srinthil. Mukani, & Isdijoso, S. (2000). Sejarah dan Peranan Tembakau Temanggung. In Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 92-96). Malang: Balittas. Murdiyati, A., Djajadi, & Herwati, A. (2007). Upaya Pembenahan Mutu Tembakau Rakyat. Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (pp. 148- 155). Malang: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas). 243 Murdiyati, A., & Basuki, T. (2011). Agribisnis Tembakau Virginia. In Balittas, Tembakau Virginia: Monograf Balittas (S. 156-169). Malang: Balittas. Murray, C. (2000). Changing Livelihoods: The Free State, 1990s. African Studies, 59(1), 115-142. Moormann, F., & Breemen, N. (1978). Rice: Soil, Water, Land. Manila: The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Nee, M. (2005). Origin and Diffusion. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 397-402). Detroit: Thomson Gale. Netting, R. M., Wilk, R. R., & Arnould, E. J. (1984). Introduction. In R. M. Netting, R. R. Wilk, & E. J. Arnould, Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (pp. xiii-xxxviii). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Notohadiprawiro, T. (1989). Pertanian Lahan Kering di Indonesia: Potensi, Prospek, Kendala dan Pengembangannya. Lokakarya Evaluasi Pelaksanaan Proyek Pengembangan Palawija SCFCDPUSAID. Bogor: 6- 8 Desember 1989.
Nurnasari, E., & Djumali. (2010). Pengaruh Kondisi Ketinggian Tempat Terhadap Produksi dan Mutu Tembakau Temanggung. Buletin Tanaman Tembakau, Serat & Minyak Industri, 2(2), 45-59. Ober, K., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2017). How do social practices shape policy? Analysing the field of ‘migration as adaptation’ with Bourdieu’s ‘Theory of Practice’. The Geographical Journal, 1-11. Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi-layered social resilience: a new approach in mitigation research. Progress in Development Studies, 10(4), 283–93. Owusu, F. (2007). Conceptualizing Livelihood Strategies in African Cities: Planning and Development Implications of Multiple Livelihood Strategies. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 450-465. Owusu, F. (2009). Livelihoods. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography Volume 6 (S. 219-224). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Method. California: Sage Publications. Peet, R., & Thrift, N. (1989). New models in geography: The political-economy 244 perspective. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd. Pemerintah Kab. Temanggung. (2014). Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah (RKPD) Kabupaten Temanggung Tahun 2015. Temanggung: Bappeda. Philo, C. (2016). Theory and Methods: Critical Essays in Human Geography. New York: Routledge. Pierce, J. (2005). Consumption (Demographics). In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: An Ecnyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 167-186). Detroit: Thomson Gale. Pile, S. (1993). Human Agency and Human Geography Revisited: A Critique of 'New Models' of the Self. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(1), 122-139. Postill, J. (2010). Introduction: Theorising Introduction: Theorising. In B. Bräuchler, & J. Postill, Theorising Media and Practice (S. 35-54). Berghahn Books. Potter, G. (2000). For Bourdieu, Against Alexander: Reality and Reduction. Journal for Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(2), 229-246.
Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus Groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8(5), 499-504. Presiden RI. (1979). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1979 tentang Pemerintahan Desa. Jakarta: Menteri/Sekretaris Negara RI. Presiden RI. (1999). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 81 Tahun 1999 tentang Pengamanan Rokok bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Kementerian Sekretariat Negara RI. Presiden RI. (2000). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 38 Tahun 2000 tentang Perubahan atas Peraturan pemerintah Nomor 81 Tahun 1999 tentang Pengamanan Rokok bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia RI. Presiden RI. (2003). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 19 Tahun 2003 tentang Pengamanan bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: ementeraian Sekretariat Negara RI. Presiden RI. (2005). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 73 Tahun 2005 tentang Kelurahan. Jakarta: Kementeraian Sekretariat Negara RI. Presiden RI. (2009). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 36 Tahun 2009 tentang Kesehatan. Jakarta: Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia RI. Presiden RI. (2012). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 109 tahun 2012 tentang Pengamanan Bahan yang Mengandung Zat Adiktif berupa 245 Produk Tembakau bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia RI. Presiden RI. (2014). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa. Jakarta: Kementerian Sekretariat Negara RI. Prowse, M. (2010). Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research. Progress in Development Studies, 10(3), 211–231. PTPN X. (11. 03 2015). Sejarah Perkebunan Tembakau di Nusantara. Retrieved from http://www.ptpn10.co.id/blog/sejarah-perkebunan-tembakau-di- nusantara Purlani, E., & Rachman, A. (2000). Budidaya Tembakau Temanggung. In Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 19-31). Malang: Balittas. Raedeke, A., Green, J., Hodge, S., & Valdivia, C. (2003). Farmers, the Practice of Farming and the Future of Agroforestry: An Application of Bourdieu’s Concepts of Field and Habitus. Rural Sociology, 68(1), 64–86. Rais, A. (2007). Prospek Ekspor dan Impor Tembakau. Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (S. 82-88). Malang: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas).
Rakodi, C. (2002). A Livelihod Approach-Conceptual Issues and Definition. In C. Rakodi, & T. Lloyd-Jones, Urban Livelihoods: A People-centred Approach to Reducing Poverty (pp. 3-22). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. Redfield, R. (1956). Peasant Society and Culture: An Anthropological Approach to Civilization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Reed-Danahay, D. (2017). Bourdieu, Social Space, and the Nation-State: Implications for Migration Studies. Sociologica, 2, 1-22. Reid, A. (1985). From Betel-Chewing to Tobacco In Indonesia. Journal of Asian Studies, 44(3), 529-547. Reid, A. (1988). Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Ricklefs, M. (2001). A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1200 (Third Edition). Hampshire: Palgrave. Rigg, J. (2007). An Everyday Geography of the Global South. New York: 246 Routledge. Ritzer, G., & Ryan, J. (2011). The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell. Roberts, P. (1991). Anthropological Perspectives on the Household. IDS Bulletin, 22(1), 60-65. Rochman, F., & Suwarso. (2000). Kultivar Lokal Tembakau Temanggung dan Usaha Perbaikannya (Fakhtur. In Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 7-13). ISSN: 0853-9308. Roemer, R., Taylor, A., & Lariviere, J. (2005). Origins of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. American Journal of Public Health, 95(6), 936-938. Rosser, A. (2015). Contesting Tobacco-Control Policy in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 47(1), 69-93. Rothfuß, E. (2006). Hirtenhabitus, ethnotouristisches Feld und kulturelles Kapital Zur Anwendung der 'Theorie der Praxis' (Bourdieu) im Entwicklungskontext: Himba-Rindernomaden in Namibia unter dem Einfluss des Tourismus. Geographica Helvetica, 61, 32-40.
Rudy, J. (2005). Cigarette. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 144-150). Detroit: Thomson Gale. Sajogyo. (1990). Pembangunan Pertanian dan Pedesaan dalam rangka Industrialisasi. In Sajogyo, & M. Tambunan, Industrialisasi Pedesaan. Jakarta: Sekindo Eka Jaya. Sakdapolrak, P. (2007). Water Related Health Risk, Social Vulnerability and Pierre Bourdieu. In K. Warner, Perspectives on Social Vulnerability (S. 50-59). Bonn: UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU- EHS). Sakdapolrak, P. (2014). Livelihoods as social practices – re-energising livelihoods research with Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Geogr. Helv., 69, 19–28. Retrieved from https://www.geogr-helv.net/69/19/2014/ Salim, I. (2014). Kiprah Komunitas Kretek Melawan Hegemoni Gerakan Antirokok. Jurnal WACANA, 34. Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2016). Practice theory: What it is, its philosophical base, and what it offers organization studies. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies (S. 184-198). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 247 Santora, P., & Henningfield, J. (2005). Nicotine. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 2 (S. 387-91). Detroit: Thomson Gale. Schatzki, T. (1996). Social Practice: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schatzki, T. (2001). Introduction: Practice Theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, & E. von Savigny, The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (S. 10-23). New York: Routledge. Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social : a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. The Pennsylvania State University Press. Schatzki, T., Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge. Schmink, M. (1984). Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research Agenda. Latin American Research Review, 19(3), 87-101. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper 72.
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171-196. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150902820503 Setten, G. (2004). The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape. cultural geographies, 11, 389–415. Setten, G. (2009). Habitus. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift, International Encyclopedia of Human geography Volume 5 (S. 1-3). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sharp, J. (2009). Human Agency. In D. Gregory, R. Johnston, G. Pratt, M. Watts, & S. Whatmore, The Dictionary of Human Geography (S. 347-348). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Sholeh, M. (2007). Paket Teknologi Budidaya Tembakau Cerutu Besuko di Jember Selatan. Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (pp. 108-113). Surabaya: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas). Sholeh, M. (2011). Keterkaitan Kondisi Iklim dan Perencanaan Tanam Tembakau Virginia. In Balittas, Tembakau Virginia (pp. 53-63). Malang: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Tembakau dan Serat. Siswanto. (2004). Pengembangan Tembakau Unggulan di Sumenep. Surabaya: UPN 'Veteran' Jawa Timur. 248 Sobary, M. (2016). Perlawanan Politik dan Puitik Petani Tembakau Temanggung. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia. Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science After the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York: Routledge. Solesbury, W. (2003). Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy. London: Overseas Development Institute. Spradley, J. (1980). Participant Observation. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Steigemann, A. (2017). Social practices in a café: community through consumption? Geogr. Helv, 72, 45–54. Stern, D. G. (2003). The Practical Turn. In S. P. Turner, & P. A. Roth, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (S. 185-206). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Suara Merdeka. (2004, 08 12). Petani Demo Bakar Tembakau. Retrieved from http://www.suaramerdeka.com/harian/0408/12/nas02.htm
Suara Merdeka. (2010, 04 13). Djarum Tak Akan Beli Totol F dan G. Retrieved from http://suaramerdeka.com/v1/index.php/read/news/2010/04/13/51886/Djaru m-Tak-Akan-Beli-Totol-F-dan-G Sulkunen, P. (2009). Disturbing Concepts: from Action Theory to a Generative Concept of Agency. In M. Leone, Actants, Actors, Agents. The Meaning of Action and the Action of Meaning, from Theories to Territories. (S. 95- 117). Rome: Aracne. Suprihanti, A., Harianto, Sinaga, B., & Kustiari, R. (2018). Dinamika Konsumsi Rokok dan Impor Tembakau di Indonesia. SEPA, 14(2), 183-194. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University og Chicago Press. Swartz, D. (2002). The Sociology of Habit: The Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 22, 61-69. Syahyuti. (2013). Pemahaman terhadap Petani Kecil sebagai Landasan Kebijakan Pembangunan Pertanian. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 31(1), 15-29. Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2003). Health by association? Social capital, social theory and the political economy of public health. International Journal of 249 Epidemiology, 33, 1–18. Tandilittin, H., & Luetge, C. (2013). Civil Society and Tobacco Control in Indonesia: The Last Resort. The Open Ethics Journal, 7, 11-18. Tarmidi, L. (1996). Changing Structure and Competition in The Kretek Cigarette Industry. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 32(3), 85-107. temanggungkab.go.id. (2018, 05 17). 3 Matra (Tobacco.Coffe.Culture). Retrieved from http://wisata.temanggungkab.go.id/?s=tembakau Thieme, S. (2008). Sustaining Livelihoods in Multi-local Settings: Possible Theoretical Linkages Between Transnational Migration and Livelihood Studies. Mobilities, 3(1), 51–71. Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell, Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (S. 67- 81). Durham: Acumen. Thrift, N. (1983). On the determination of social action in space and time. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1, 23-57. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial Formation. London: Sage Publication. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, and Affect. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
tirto.id. (2017, 01 17). Ribuan Petani Tolak Impor Tembakau. Retrieved from https://tirto.id/ribuan-petani-tolak-impor-tembakau-cg77 Tirtosastro, S. (2000). Panen dan Pengolahan Tembakau Rajangan Temanggung. In Balai Penelitian Tanaman Tembakau dan Serat, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 71-86). Malang: Balittas. Tirtosastro, S., & Widowati. (2017). Implementasi Standar Nasional Indonesia tembakau Memerlukan Komitmen Semua Pihak. Buana Sains, 16(2), 195- 200. Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province. (2013). Mengapa Impor Tembakau?. Jember: UPT. PSMB-LT, Dinas Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Provinsi Jawa Timur. Tomas, J. (2005). Botany (History). In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia (S. 85-88). Detroit: Thomson Gale. U.S. National Cancer Institute and WHO. (2016). The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. Bethesda, MD and Geneva: National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA-8029A. van der Ploeg, J. (2008). The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan. 250 van Dijk, T. (2011). Livelihoods, capitals and livelihood trajectories: a more sociological conceptualisation. Progress in Development Studies, 11(2), 101–17. Wallace, C. (2002). Household Strategies:Their Conceptual Relevance and Analytical Scope in Social Research. Sociology, 36(2), 275–292. Walther, M. (2013). Repatriation to France and Germany: A Comparative Study Based on Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Brussel: Springer Gabler. Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and Theories of Practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131-153. Warren, C. (1990). The Bureucratisation of Local Government in Indonesia: The Impact of the Village Government Law (UU No. 5 1979) in Bali. Victoria: The Centre of Souteast Asian Studies Monash University. Watson, A., & Till, K. (2010). Ethnography and Participant Observation. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (S. 121-137). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: United Nations. Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press. Werlen, B. (1993). Society, Action and Space: An alternative human geography. London: Routledge. White, B. (1991). in the Shadow of Agriculture: Economic Diversification and Agrarian Change in Java, 1900-1990. ISS Working Paper Series / General Series, 96, 1-39. White, P. (2010). Making Use of Secondary Data. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography (S. 61-76). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. White, S., & Ellison, M. (2006). Wellbeing, Livelihoods and Resources in Social Practice. Bath: ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD). WHO. (2008). Study Group on Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention). Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 251 (Third session). Durban: WHO. WHO. (2012). Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Fifth session). Seoul: WHO. WHO. (2014). Economically Sustainable Alternative to Tobacco Growing (in Relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Sixth Session). Moscow: WHO. Wilshusen, P. (2014). Capitalizing Conservation/Development: Dissimulation, Misrecognition, and the Erasure of Power. In B. Büscher, W. Dressler, & R. Fletcher, Nature™ Inc.: Environmental Conservation in the Neoliberal Age (S. 127-157). Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press. Wolf, E. (1955). Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion. American Anthropologist, 57(3), 452-471. Wolf, E. (1966). Peasants. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Wood, G., & Salway, S. (2000). Introduction: Securing Livelihoods in Dhaka Slums. Journal of International Development, 12, 669-688.
Wu, W., Tang, X.-P., Yang, C., Liu, H.-B., & Guo, N.-J. (2013). Investigation of ecological factors controlling quality of flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) using classification methods. Ecological Informatics, 16, 53- 61. Yang, Y. (2014). Bourdieu, Practice and Change: Beyond the criticism of determinism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(14), 1522-1540. Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The Guilford Press. Zimmer, A., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2012). The Social Practices of Governing: Analysing Waste Water Governance in a Delhi Slum. Environment and Urbanization Asia, 3(2), 325–341.
252
Appendices Appendix 1 : Tobacco grower’s household characteristics in Pagergunung village No Hh13 land Characteristics Source of Commodities Head (ha) livelihood grown 1 Heru 5.00 46 years old, four hh-members Agriculture Tobacco, chili, (two in school, two income cabbage generators), cultivated land since 2011 2 Bambal 4.00 27 years old, tertiary school, five Agriculture Tobacco, maize, hh-members (one kid, two elderly shallot, chili, red parents, cultivated land since 2010 bean 3 H. Khoiri 3.00 43 years old, military academy, Army, Tobacco, chili, four hh-members, cultivated land agriculture shallot, cabbage, since 2004 maize 4 Suroyo 1.50 51 years old, tertiary school, four Agriculture Tobacco, chili, hh-members, cultivated land since tomato 1992 5 Sutoro 1.50 42 years old, four hh-members Agriculture Tobacco, chili, (one in school, three income maize generators), cultivated land since 1995 6 Mujiono 0.75 50 years old, primary school, four Agriculture Tobacco, chili, hh-members (one in school, three red bean income generators), cultivated land since 1998 7 Paidi 0.70 44 years old, six hh-members (one Agriculture Tobacco, chili, 253 kid, one in school, four income cabbage, maize generators), cultivated land since 21 years ago 8 Ahmad 0.70 86 years old, did not completed Agriculture Tobacco, chili, primary school, three hh- maize members, cultivated land since 70s years ago 9 Sukindro 0.60 80 years old, primary school, six Agriculture, Tobacco, shallot, hh-members (two in school, four a petty trader chili income generators), cultivated tobacco since 1980 10 Busri 0.60 56 years old, primary school, five Agriculture Tobacco, chili hh-members, cultivated land since 1990, 11 Sarwan 0.50 72 years old, four hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, maize, cultivated tobacco since 1972 chili 12 Mujiono 0.50 45 years old, five hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, shallot, not/never attending school chili 13 Suhadi 0.50 38 years old, primary school, four Agriculture Tobacco, maize. hh-members (two in school, two Tomato income generators) 14 Madyo 0.50 47 years old, tertiary school, five agriculture Tobacco, maize. hh-members (one kid, four income Chili, red bean generators, cultivated land since 1996
13 Hh: household
No Hh13 land Characteristics Source of Commodities Head (ha) livelihood grown 15 Supariyah 0.50 58 years old, primary school, three agriculture Tobacco, chili, hh-members, cultivated land since shallot 15 years ago 16 Jumadi 0.50 47 years old, four hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, chili, cultivated land since 1992 long bean, spring onion 17 Marjo 0.40 65 years old, five hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, shallot, cultivated tobacco since 1980 potato, cabbage 18 Sariyono 0.40 69 years old, two hh-members Agriculture Tobacco, maize 19 Jamzuri 0.30 49 years old, three hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, chili cultivated tobacco since 1982 20 Karyanto 0.30 49 years old, primary school, Agriculture Tobacco, chili cultivated tobacco since he was in the third grade of primary school 21 Zainal 0.30 48 years old, six hh-members (two agriculture Tobacco, shallot, Arifin in school, four income generators), chili cultivated tobacco since 2003 22 Sisworo 0.25 28 years old, five hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, maize, cultivated tobacco since 2013 chili, red bean 23 Wajito 0.25 50 years old, primary school, four Agriculture Tobacco, maize, hh-members (one in school, one red bean elderly man, two income generators) 24 Waljono 0.25 43 years old, secondary school, Agriculture Tobacco, chili, 254 four hh-members, cultivated land tomato since 1993 25 Saidi 0.25 55 years old, primary school, three agriculture Tobacco hh-members, cultivated land since 1982 26 Suryono 0.25 40 years old, secondary school, Agriculture Tobacco, chili, four hh-member (one in school, maize three income generators), cultivated land since 1996 27 Suwondo 0.25 55 years old, primary school, three agriculture Tobacco, chili, hh-members, cultivated land since maize 1984 28 Muslim 0.20 52 years old, primary school, four Agriculture Tobacco, chili hh-members 29 Sutino 0.10 40 years old, four hh-members Agriculture, Tobacco, chili (one kid, one in school, two wage labor income generators), secondary (tobacco school, cultivated tobacco since picker and 1996 drying) Source: Primary data
Appendix 2: Tobacco grower’s household characteristics in Gentingsari village
No Hh Head land Characteristics Source of Commodities (ha) livelihood grown 1 Joko P. 2.50 Became tobacco merchant since Agriculture, Tobacco, 1988 tobacco vegetables merchant 2 Ramidi 2.00 55 years old, cultivate tobacco since Agriculture Tobacco, maize, 1976, primary school, 4 hh-members chili, cabbage 3 Dahono K. 1.10 53 years old, two hh-members, Agriculture, Tobacco, cultivate tobacco since 1986 tobacco vegetables merchant 4 Parsuki 0.50 53 years old, cultivate tobacco since Agriculture, a Tobacco, paddy, 1978, 4 hh-members (one in school petty trader chili and three income generators) 5 Ngaten 0.50 54 years old, 4 hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, paddy, cultivated tobacco since 1980 maize, chili 6 Slamet 0.50 43 years old, four household Agriculture Tobacco, chili, members (two in school, two income cabbage generators) 7 Nur Sain 0.43 78 years old, five hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, paddy, cultivated tobacco since 1976 chili 8 Faturahman 0.40 40 years old, vocational school, Agriculture Tobacco, maize, three hh-members (one child and chili two income generators) 9 Sabar 0.40 43 years old, four hh-members, Agriculture, Tobacco, chili cultivated tobacco since 1988 village officials 10 Sukirman 0.40 46 years old, four hh-members (one Agriculture Tobacco, paddy, 255 in school), cultivated tobacco since tomato, cabbage 1993 11 Sukadi 0.40 62 years old, cultivate tobacco since Agriculture Tobacco, chili, 1977, did not completed secondary cabbage, paddy school, one hh-member 12 Duryanto 0.40 60 years old, five hh-members (one Agriculture, Tobacco, chili in school), cultivated tobacco since wage labor, 1980s, did not completed education construction of religious teachers (tertiary school) labor 13 Pariman 0.40 51 years old, three hh-members Agriculture, Tobacco, chili, village officials cabbage, guava 14 Sarwodi 0.40 50 years old, four hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, chili cultivated tobacco since 25 years ago 15 Sarmidi 0.40 65 years old, two hh-members Agriculture, Tobacco, chili, wage labor, maize, red bean, petty trader paddy 16 Nuriyadi 0.38 65 years old, three hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, cultivated tobacco since the 1970s vegetables, paddy 17 Tarmudi 0.35 51 years old, cultivate tobacco since Agriculture Tobacco, paddy, 1994, Islamic elementary school, chili three hh-members 18 Ramlan 0.30 44 years old, junior high school, Agriculture Tobacco, paddy, cultivated tobacco since 1999, three chili, maize hh-members (one in school and two income generators)
No Hh Head land Characteristics Source of Commodities (ha) livelihood grown 19 Sudiyono 0.30 60 years old, primary school, Agriculture Tobacco, paddy, cultivated tobacco since 1970, three maize, chili hh-members 20 Solihin 0.25 46 years old, cultivate tobacco since Agriculture Tobacco, chili, 1997, primary school, four hh- cabbage, celery, members (two in school, two income mustard generators) 21 Slamet G. 0.25 53 years old, three hh-members, Agriculture Tobacco, tomato, cultivated tobacco since 2014 cabbage 22 Rismanto 0.20 35 years old, four hh-members (one Agriculture Tobacco, maize, in school, one kid), cultivated eggplant, chili, tobacco since 2000 guava 23 Jumeri 0.20 60 years old, six hh-members, Agriculture, Tobacco, chili cultivated tobacco since 1980 wage labor 24 Sumaryo 0.15 62 years old, cultivate tobacco since Agriculture, Tobacco, chili 1976, 5 hh-members (two in school civil servant and three income generators) (PNS) 25 Purwanto 0.10 60 years old, cultivated tobacco Agriculture, a Tobacco, chili since 1970, primary school fresh vegetable (dropout), five hh-members (two in trader school) 26 Suwaldi 0.10 60 years old, did not completed Agriculture, Tobacco, chili, primary school, two hh-members, wage labor paddy cultivated tobacco since 1976 27 Mu’ilan 0.10 67 years old, four hh-members, Agriculture, Tobacco, chili 256 cultivated tobacco since 1970 village officials Source: Primary data (2017)