11 Transforming Exploitative Land-Based Economy to Reduce …
241
effective than the others in different places and periods of time, or more or less acceptable by different stakeholders. These inadequacies demand optimally combining the
different strategies to reach both ends. On the positive side, these strategies may
create synergies between each other. For example, shifting agricultural expansion
onto non-forested land with alternative incentives can be viewed as a big synergy to
the REDD+ programme. However, due to the fundamental differences in nature, it is
difficult to define ‘optimal’ combinations as not all outcomes can be easily measured
and linked to the policy actions for analytical evaluation. For example, the attempt
to create values for nature has found to be very challenging even for carbon stock
which is relatively easy to measure compared to other functions like biodiversity. In
this sense, the choice of strategies may rely more on value judgement.
The existence of multiple stakeholders with different interests, values and education level means that the ‘optimal’ set of strategies would more likely be a result
of political negotiations that can be practically implemented. One vivid example
has been the proposal to divert agricultural expansion onto ULC land. Exploiting
ULC land for productivity may seem acceptable purely from an environmental
point of view, especially when the governments are under strong economic pressure. However, it may significantly alter local socio-cultural dynamics through, e.g.
lifestyle changes and migration, and potentially victimised certain groups of people.
For example, a large part of local communities may be left out from the discussion
about large-scale investments in converting ULC land to productive plantations as
shown in some cases in the past. Some can be very eager to integrate into market
economies, but some may opt to go for traditional self-sufficient farming. Crucially,
people change their minds from time to time. For example, the author’s recent visit
to West Kalimantan revealed that some villagers who were strongly against oil palm
a decade ago are now planting oil palm themselves, while some former oil palm
smallholders who failed in planting have either switched to other crops or went for
off-farm jobs.
It is thus vital to recognise that there are no straightforward solutions considering these profound differences in both spatial and temporal dimensions. To better
understand the dynamics of such transformation, careful attention must be paid to
the territorial-specific characteristics and on-the-ground realities. This must also
include the historical background of land-based development and its continuity. It
is necessary to recognise the differences in values that deeply rooted in the mindsets of the people, as well as the dynamic socio-economic changes. These ‘human
factors’ require in-depth understanding of a territory beyond just physical and monetary analyses when one intends to understand how the transformation of land-based
economies was driven. While generalised knowledge can help to layout the framework, in-depth area studies would play a much larger role when it comes to actual
implementation and execution of transformative strategies. That would require a
more holistic development thinking beyond just ‘land’ but the entire territory.
(Note that this chapter is a summary of the other two full research papers by the
author submitted elsewhere.)
241
effective than the others in different places and periods of time, or more or less acceptable by different stakeholders. These inadequacies demand optimally combining the
different strategies to reach both ends. On the positive side, these strategies may
create synergies between each other. For example, shifting agricultural expansion
onto non-forested land with alternative incentives can be viewed as a big synergy to
the REDD+ programme. However, due to the fundamental differences in nature, it is
difficult to define ‘optimal’ combinations as not all outcomes can be easily measured
and linked to the policy actions for analytical evaluation. For example, the attempt
to create values for nature has found to be very challenging even for carbon stock
which is relatively easy to measure compared to other functions like biodiversity. In
this sense, the choice of strategies may rely more on value judgement.
The existence of multiple stakeholders with different interests, values and education level means that the ‘optimal’ set of strategies would more likely be a result
of political negotiations that can be practically implemented. One vivid example
has been the proposal to divert agricultural expansion onto ULC land. Exploiting
ULC land for productivity may seem acceptable purely from an environmental
point of view, especially when the governments are under strong economic pressure. However, it may significantly alter local socio-cultural dynamics through, e.g.
lifestyle changes and migration, and potentially victimised certain groups of people.
For example, a large part of local communities may be left out from the discussion
about large-scale investments in converting ULC land to productive plantations as
shown in some cases in the past. Some can be very eager to integrate into market
economies, but some may opt to go for traditional self-sufficient farming. Crucially,
people change their minds from time to time. For example, the author’s recent visit
to West Kalimantan revealed that some villagers who were strongly against oil palm
a decade ago are now planting oil palm themselves, while some former oil palm
smallholders who failed in planting have either switched to other crops or went for
off-farm jobs.
It is thus vital to recognise that there are no straightforward solutions considering these profound differences in both spatial and temporal dimensions. To better
understand the dynamics of such transformation, careful attention must be paid to
the territorial-specific characteristics and on-the-ground realities. This must also
include the historical background of land-based development and its continuity. It
is necessary to recognise the differences in values that deeply rooted in the mindsets of the people, as well as the dynamic socio-economic changes. These ‘human
factors’ require in-depth understanding of a territory beyond just physical and monetary analyses when one intends to understand how the transformation of land-based
economies was driven. While generalised knowledge can help to layout the framework, in-depth area studies would play a much larger role when it comes to actual
implementation and execution of transformative strategies. That would require a
more holistic development thinking beyond just ‘land’ but the entire territory.
(Note that this chapter is a summary of the other two full research papers by the
author submitted elsewhere.)