Towards Wellbeing
Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur Indonesia
November 2009
A joint report compiled by the research teams of the Government of Kutai Timur, PT. Kaltim Prima Coal and the GTZ supported project Capacity Building for Local Governments in East Kalimantan (CB Kaltim) and the Forest and Climate Change Programme (FORCLIME). Designed by Rja Alfian - Designad Printed by Matahari Indonesia Photographs Š Protected Forest Management Board Wehea Published by: GTZ (Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH) - German Technical Cooperation Menara BCA 46th Floor Jl. MH. Thamrin No. 1 Jakarta 10310 Indonesia November 2009
ISBN 978-979-25-7575-0
Foreword
I
mproving people’s wellbeing is the ultimate goal of development. German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), as a partner for the future worldwide, maintains its corporate goal in line with that objective. On behalf of the German government, GTZ promotes sustainable development practices, i.e. to support the “Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs) which are the key reference framework for international development policies, at the heart of which lies the issue of poverty reduction. Nested Spheres of Poverty (NESP) is a methodology which facilitates improved understanding about and measurement of wellbeing and poverty as well as the interaction among its various spheres such as the social, economic, ecological and institutional dimensions. The unique point of the NESP approach is its holistic way of addressing poverty and wellbeing. It allows local governments to link the spheres with the public services provided, as well as to inform the planning and monitoring systems of local development. The results of the NESP survey presented here are very significant for future local development in Kutai Timur. It can be used not only to understand the current wellbeing, its conditions and determinants (the “core”) but also to anticipate the opportunities and threats (the “context”). The wellbeing data is also relevant for the priority areas of German development cooperation in Indonesia, including the two GTZ supported programmes of Decentralisation/Good Governance, as well as the Forests and Climate Change Programme (FORCLIME). Through the project Capacity Building for Local Governments in Kalimantan Timur (CB Kaltim), the Good Governance/Decentralization programme is cooperating with Bappeda Kutai Timur to utilize the information on the core and context of wellbeing for local development planning. Meanwhile, FORCLIME and its local counterparts intend to use the data from NESP as a baseline for the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) activities which support Indonesia’s efforts in climate change mitigation within the Forestry sector. We would like to express our deep appreciation to the Local Government of Kutai Timur, as well as to PT. Kaltim Prima Coal for their significant commitment and contribution during this process which started in 2007 and lasted until early 2009. We hope the local government and PT. KPC, as local stakeholders, will optimize the utilization of the data to improve people’s living conditions on a sustainable basis.
Manfred Poppe
Rolf Krezdorn
V
Foreword
P
.T. Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) responded positively to an offer from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GTZ) and the Government of East Kutai Regency in early 2008 to support a Monitoring Survey of People’s Welfare in the East Kutai Regency which took place in 2008/2009. KPC had a great commitment to support the survey and ensured that its preparation and implementation on the field, data processing and reporting were well undertaken in order to provide accurate information that can be used by the local government, communities, KPC’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program, and other interested enterprises. The main objective of the survey is to provide an overview of people’s welfare in all villages of East Kutai Regency to be used by the local government in developing a more integrated regional plan and budget. However, KPC can also use this information as a valuable input for the development and evaluation of its community development programs as part of KPC’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In the effort of accelerating its regional development and improving the people’s welfare, the Government of East Kutai Regency calls for support from all parties and stakeholders. This is in line with KPC’s commitment to support Public Social Private Partnership (PSPP) therefore the programs of regional development and community welfare enhancement can be collaborated with multi-parties, including private sectors/enterprises. Under this partnership, KPC wishes the survey can portray the welfare conditions of the community in the East Kutai Regency that will be beneficial, not only for KPC, but also for other companies in implementing their community development programs in more efficient and effective manners and simultaneously are in accordance with more accountable, participative and transparent regional development programs. Last but not least, we would like to thank the Government of East Kutai and GTZ who provided KPC with an opportunity to participate in this survey. Hopefully, this survey will not end up merely as a report but its information will be used for regional development and community welfare enhancement programs in East Kutai Regency.
Endang Ruchijat CEO P.T. KPC
VI
Foreword Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh
W
e are very grateful to the Great Unity, God, for His blessing that enabled us to accomplish the 2008 Monitoring Survey on People Welfare in East Kutai. The survey was conducted by the Government of East Kutai Regency in cooperation with the GTZ supported project Capacity Building for Local Governments in East Kalimantan (CB Kaltim/Probangkit) and PT Kaltim Prima Coal (PT KPC), and supported by Bikal NGO, Wawasan NGO and STIPER-East Kutai. This multi-stakeholder cooperation is actually a manifestation of awareness that all elements - the government, private sectors, communities and universities - should be responsible for people’s welfare improvement. The Government of East Kutai Regency is concerned with this survey in order to: (1) obtain information directly from the community on developmental achievements in East Kutai; (2) obtain information on developmental achievements and problems faced by East Kutai’s people that will be processed as a refe-rence for future development programs. Such information will be more likely to meet people’s needs; (3) improve the existing welfare indicators which mostly come from the national level and in many cases do not fit to the local condition, meanwhile the survey adopts welfare indicators from the local level. On this occasion, as the Regent of East Kutai, I have a commitment to utilize the data from this survey as the basis for developing more effective planning in the future. Therefore, I insist that all government agencies of East Kutai use the results of the survey as planning basis relevant to their own institutions. Last but not least, I would like to thank the government agencies of East Kutai, particularly Bappeda (the Regional Development Planning Board) of East Kutai that has coordinated the survey, CB – East Kalimantan, PT KPC, Bikal NGO, Wawasan NGO, STIPER-East Kutai, sub-district apparatus, and village data collectors who actively contributed to the survey. Wassalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
VII
Table of contents
Foreword Acknowledgements Glossary Executive Summary • Chapter 1. Introduction • Chapter 2. A Brief Overview of Kutai Timur • Chapter 3. Poverty and Wellbeing: A New Concept Poverty or Wellbeing? Poverty Is More than Low Income Poverty and Wellbeing Have Many Dimensions Poverty Is Dynamic Trade-Offs Between Poverty Spheres • Chapter 4. Methods Institutional Arrangements Developing The Poverty and Wellbeing Monitoring System Field Methods Calculating And Comparing Indices • Chapter 5. A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing Health and Nutrition Wealth Knowledge Natural Economy Social Political Infrastructure and Services • Chapter 6. Why Are Some People Poor in Kutai Timur? • Chapter 7 What Has Been Done in Kutai Timur? • Chapter 8 Conclusions
V X XI XIII
Annex 1 Questionnaire for Poverty and Wellbeing Monitoring Annex 2 Wellbeing per Sub-District (Bar Diagrams) Annex 3 Wellbeing per Sub-District (Pie Diagrams)
43
1 5 9 9 9 10 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 15 15 17 18 19 21 23 24 26 31 37 39
Acknowledgements
T
his report is the result of a close cooperation between the district government of Kutai Timur, PT Kaltim Prima Coal and the GTZ supported project ‘Strengthening Capacity of Local Governments in East Kalimantan (Pengembangan Kapasitas Pemerintahan Daerah di Kalimantan Timur, ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim). The enthusiastic involvement of persons from all three organisations has been instrumental in initiating, implementing and processing the extensive household wellbeing survey throughout Kutai Timur. Since well over 500 persons were in the effort to produce this report, it is not possible to mention them one by one without the risk of omitting some of them. At the district level, representatives from a wide range of technical agencies, staff from the national statistics agency, the NGOs BIKAL (Bina Kelola Lingkungan), Wawasan and Stiper Kutai Timur as well as PT KPC have been engaged in the various stages of the conceptualisation, preparation and implantation of the survey. At the sub-district and village level, the successful implementation of this survey would have been impossible without the tireless involvement of the sub-district staff and the large group of village enumerators. We thank all staff from the GTZ supported projects ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim and FORCLIME projects who had the vision to make the data obtained through the household wellbeing survey available to the wider public. A special thanks to staff of the Kutai Timur Regional Planning Agency (BAPPEDA) and ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim staff for their kind support, access to their data and quick response to questions and the FORCLIME senior staff for providing the opportunity and financial support to compile this report.
X
Glossary
BKKBN BLT BMZ BPS CIFOR GDP Gerdabang Agri GTZ HDI HPI IDR IMF KPK NESP PRS SWB UN UNDP
Badan Koordinasi Keluarga Berencana Nasional (National Family Planning Coordination Agency) Bantuan Langsung Tunai (Direct Cash subsidies) Bundes Ministerium f端r Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop ment, Germany) Badan Pusat Statistik (National Statistics Agency) Center for International Forestry Research Gross Domestic Product Gerakan Pembangunan Daerah Agrobisnis (Movement for District Development through Agribusiness) Deutsche Gesellschaft f端r Technische Zusammenarbeit Human Development Index Human Poverty Index Indonesian Rupiah International Monetary Fund Komite Penanggulangan Kemiskinan (Poverty Alleviation Committee) Nested Spheres of Poverty (natural, economic, social and political spheres) Poverty Reduction Strategy Subjective Wellbeing United Nations United Nations Development Programme
XI
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Executive Summary
T
his report compiles the information collected in a comprehensive wellbeing survey jointly implemented in Kutai Timur by the district government, the GTZ supported ProBANGKIT/CBKaltim project and PT Kaltim Prima Coal. Some 50 indicators on household conditions and poverty were measured in over 14,000 households in 134 villages1. The results of this survey are presented in this report. The poverty model used in this survey does not consist of one single poverty or wellbeing indicator but uses the Nested Spheres of Poverty concept which encompasses multiple dimensions of poverty. The information obtained is, as much as possible, presented in maps and tables to provide a visual overview of the conditions in Kutai Timur. As the data of this survey provide important input to the district planning process, the data is mainly analyzed at the village level, the level which the district government uses in its planning process. • • • • • • •
1)
The core values (health, knowledge and material wealth) in the majority of villages are moderate to good In one third of villages, the knowledge sphere is in critical condition 43% of villages face critical conditions in the natural sphere The main sources of livelihood are farming, company employment and casual labour In 62% of villages, the economic sphere is still critical The situation in the social and political spheres is relatively good, with 10% and 20% of villages showing critical conditions respectively
•
Over 60% of villages still suffer critical conditions regarding the infrastructure and services sphere, especially remote villages
Based on the survey and the secondary data, the following observations can be made in Kutai Timur: •
•
•
Basic government services (health care and education) are reaching an increasing number of people. However, the number of school-going age children that drop out of school needs special attention as it is relatively high (12.6%) Economic opportunities are increasing, especially around the district capital and areas where mining companies are operating The district government has a strong focus on improving education, a long term investment to address poverty and improve peoples’ opportunities to escape poverty. Secondly, it focuses on agriculture, the main source of income for more than 50 % of the population
In general, since decentralisation began, the condition of households in Kutai Timur has improved. The network of government services is expanding and economic opportunities have increased. This progress has benefited everybody. People living in remote areas still face more challenges, mainly due to limited (road) infrastructure, access to services and income generating opportunities. Vulnerable households (those headed by single women, widows or those including orphans or disabled persons) are at greater risk and their situation is often worse than other households. The main driver for local development has been palm oil plantations and coal mines. The expected trickle down effect, to improve the economic conditions of the people, has not always been achieved. Economic progress is still confined to the direct surroundings of the major growth centres (district capital and areas were companies are operating). The trade-
The total number of villages in Kutai Timur is 135. The survey could not be conducted in 1 village therefore the findings are based on the data from 134 villages.
XIII
Executive Summary
off of this development model is that the influence of fluctuating prices in the world market, which is beyond the control of the district government, is big. Too great a reliance on only one commodity puts the local economy in a precarious situation. The other trade-off is between economic development and maintaining good conditions in the natural, social and political spheres. Many villages are starting to experience increased difficulties in obtaining good quality water for household use. Likewise, uncertainty with regards to land rights, an essential production asset for farmers, is increasing.
To conclude, it can be said that the general condition of people in Kutai Timur has improved, though it has not yet reached everybody. Increased attention towards achieving a more equitable distribution of opportunities and services is needed to avoid an (unhealthy) increase in disparity between one community and other communities and between community members and community elite. The progress has come at the cost of environmental degradation, though currently, the conditions are still relatively good. However, increased care should be taken to halt ongoing degradation and avoid major future degradation as the environmental, social, political, and eventually, economic costs will be significant.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 1
to centrally determined criteria related to basic needs such as housing, food consumption and water. This programme was implemented for 2 years (2005 – 2007) and re- implemented in late 2008.
Introduction •
I
n August 2006, the President of Indonesia announced that poverty had reduced from 23.4% in 1999 to 16% in 2006 (Anon. 2006a). Just before this announcement was made, fuel prices had risen significantly, therefore, logically, it was expected that the number of poor people would increase. The result was a re-emergence of the debate on poverty figures and definitions of poverty (Anon. 2006a, b, c; Khomsan 2006; Agusta 2006; Lesmana 2006; Sugema 2006). In Indonesia, a number of different indicators have been used over time to measure poverty, these include: •
The National Statistics Agency (BPS) uses regionally determined poverty lines related to household consumption. According to BPS figures in March 2008, the poverty line for East Kalimantan was IDR 205,255 in rural areas whilst in urban areas, it was IDR 257,862 per capita per month.
•
The former National Family Planning Coordination Agency (BKKBN) measured poverty in terms of a family’s basic needs, such as clothing, housing and food consumption, and categorised them into levels of prosperity, e.g. pre-prosperity, prosperity I, prosperity II.
•
The Compensation Programme for reduced fuel subsidies (BLT). BPS identified poor households with input from village leaders and then surveyed tentative poor households. The 2005 programme aimed to determine households eligible for direct cash subsidies as compensation for increased fuel prices. Households were selected based on a Rp. 150,000 per capita per month poverty line and according
The district’s own data collection in support of their self-sufficiency initiative; Movement for District Development through Agribusiness (Gerdabang Agri).
Despite all these measurement systems, poverty in remote areas is often not captured (Ediawan et al. 2005). Sometimes, this is because people in remote areas may have relatively high cash incomes but remain very vulnerable because of the lack of access to basic services and an enabling context, meaning the natural, economic, political and structural spheres which influence people’s core wellbeing (see Sitorus et al. 2004 for an example of the Punan in East Kalimantan). This results in policies which do not address the specific problems of poor people in remote areas, namely the people living in and around forests. Because of these different definitions of poverty and the resulting discrepancies between the number of poor people, it is not surprising that the Indonesian Government’s efforts over the past three decades in effectively addressing poverty have been unsuccessful. Poor people remain highly vulnerable to changes in economic, social and political conditions and natural disasters occurring in different regions. Weaknesses in the poverty eradication strategies have been: centralised policies, too much focus on charity, a focus on macroeconomic growth, an economy orientated viewpoint of poverty, positioning communities as objects, and assumptions that poverty problems and management are uniform throughout the country (see KPK 2003 or Paul Polak 2008 “Out of Poverty: What Works when Traditional Approaches Fail” Page 34-48). The period from 1976 to the mid 1990s saw a gradual decrease in the number of
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
poor. The number increased significantly after the economic and political crisis in 1997 – 1998. In 1998, the number of poor people in Indonesia rose to approximately 24.2% of the total population compared to only 11.3% in 1996 (Figure 1). This sharp increase, resulting from the economic and political crisis of 1997–1998, forced the Indonesian Government to drastically change economic policies and reform the government system. The decentralisation policy of 1999 was part of these reforms. With decentralisation, local governments were given greater authority to develop locally specific policies, but they were also given the responsibility for poverty alleviation in their districts. At the national level, succeeding presidents issued a series of poverty alleviation policies that have now been coalesced into three types of policies shaping districts’ current interest in poverty. (1) The national drive to develop and implement a Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) as imposed by the IMF. Among other things,
the PRS established Poverty Alleviation Committees (KPK) responsible for creating poverty alleviation strategies at the district, provincial and national levels. (2) National assistance programmes intended to promote food security and reduce economic vulnerability. The national assistance programmes provide important subsidies, such as for rice, relying on the district to distribute benefits fairly. (3) Districts’ own interest in creating selfsufficient, prosperous villages to maintain the financial viability of the district. The districts’ interest in improving village self-sufficiency has driven districts to lead empowerment and prosperity movements and community forestry programmes. These, however, are not necessarily targeted at specific groups of the poor, but rather are a drive for general economic development. From 2003 to 2007, CIFOR implemented the BMZ funded project ‘Making local governments more responsive to the poor: Developing indicators and tools to sup-
Figure 1. Proportion of poor people in Indonesia2.
50 40 30 20 10 0 1976 1978 1980 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Source: BPS (2008; 2004a, b) The first figures are from 1984 with measurements covering the years 1976 to 1984 using the Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (Susenas) consumption module. Poverty was defined as the inability to fulfill basic requirements, using poverty line measurements. The national poverty line measurement is the number of Rupiah needed by individuals to consume the equivalent of 2100 kilocalories per person per day and to fulfil non-food requirements such as clothing, healthcare, education, transport and a number of other goods and services. With everchanging patterns of consumption and rising prices, the poverty line was adjusted every year to keep up with developments.
2)
2
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
port sustainable livelihood development under decentralisation‘. This project was implemented in cooperation with the local governments of Kutai Barat and Malinau, Indonesia and Pando in Bolivia. It applied a participatory learning approach for improving the understanding of trends in local poverty and wellbeing and for developing local monitoring and planning tools to strengthen local governments’ poverty alleviation efforts. This project resulted in the publication of a sourcebook for local governments (Albornoz et al, 2007), site reports (Gönner, 2007; Moeliono, 2007) and a manual on the poverty monitoring system developed in Kutai Barat, Indonesia (Cahyat, 2007). The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) began the implementation of the project ‘Strengthening Capacity of Local Government in East Kalimantan (Pengembangan Kapasitas Pemerintahan Daerah di Kalimantan Timur, ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim) in 2006. This project is implemented at the district level in Tarakan and Kutai Timur and, during the later stage, in Bontang and at the provincial level. This project focuses on building the capacity of local government to support the fulfillment of basic needs, local economic development and prevention of corruption. In developing the pro-
ject strategy, the poverty monitoring system that had been implemented in Kutai Barat was adopted in order to generate basic data on the local wellbeing, an important prerequisite for improved planning that better targets the basic needs of the population. The key partner in the approach is the local government, whilst involving other local stakeholders with the focus being on improving the wellbeing of communities. In the case of Kutai Barat, several local NGOs were involved in the preparation and implementation of the survey, whereas, in Kutai Timur, a private company and a local NGO were involved. The ongoing discussion concerning climate change and the initiation of pilot projects in several areas in Indonesia has drawn attention to the need for accurate and up-to-date information concerning the condition of communities living in forested areas. The NESP concept is considered an appropriate approach to generate the necessary socio-economic baseline data. Presently, the partnership is planning to conduct training on the methodology for its local NGO network and FORCLIME is planning to use the approach to generate REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) socio-economic baseline data in the pilot districts of the programme.
3
4
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 2 A Brief Overview Of Kutai Timur
influx of people from other parts of Indonesia utilizing the economic opportunities which ensue. Developments in the more hilly and mountainous western and northern part of Kutai Timur have been slower and, until today, some parts are still difficult to reach. These areas are still predominantly inhabited by Kutai and Dayak people, two indigenous groups in this area.
K
utai Timur was established in 1999, when the district of Kutai was divided into three districts and one municipality. The new district still covers a vast area (3.5 million ha.), comprising of some more easily accessible areas along the coast of East Kalimantan, and some remote areas in the northern and western part of the district (see figure 2). The more easily accessible areas have experienced three major periods of development, starting in the late 1960s, with timber exploitation, followed by the development of palm oil plantations and most recently coal exploitation. These developments have resulted in more infrastructure development in the coastal, flatter areas and an
Ethnic Groups Because of the high influx of people, at present the population of Kutai Timur is made up of many different ethnic groups (see Table 1). This includes a large number of people who migrated from other parts of Indonesia to Kutai Timur. This is demonstrated by the fact that the two dominant ethnic groups are Javanese and Bugis. The Kutai people are the native inhabitants of this area. The establishment of a new administrative centre for the district government in Sengata and the expansion of the palm oil and the coal mining industries have
Table 1. Ethnic majority within households Jawa
26 %
Timor
4%
Bali
1%
Bugis
21 %
Lombok
2%
Batak
1%
Kutai
20 %
Wehea
2%
Madura
1%
Banjar
7%
Makkasar
2%
Modang
1%
Toraja
4%
Basap
2%
Kelompok Lain
3%
Kenyah
4%
Kayan
1%
Source: Survey data ProBANGKIT/CB-Kaltim, Pemerintah Kabupaten Kutai Timur, PT Kaltim Prima Coal, 2009
5
Figure 2. Administrative map of Kutai Timur3
The official map for the current 18 sub-districts has not yet been released because the boundaries have not yet been fully mapped. The new sub-districts, not included in this map, are: Sengata Selatan, Teluk Pandan, Rantau Pulung (originally part of Sengata), Karangan, Kaubun, Long Mesangat and Batu Ampar
Source: BAPPEDA/Planning Agency of Kutai Timur, 2008 3)
 
6
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
resulted in a rapid increase of the total population of Kutai Timur (see figure 3). One third of the population of Kutai Timur is concentrated around Sengata and some of the more easily accessible subdistricts (Muara Ancalong, Muara Bengkal, Muara Wahau and Sangkulirang). The implementation of the decentralisation law increased the local governments’ role and responsibilities in regional development. The district government became responsible for delivering public services, e.g. education and health care. It also received increased authority to manage natural resources including issuing permits for natural resource exploitation (timber and mining) and it had to establish a complete new government structure.
The new district government recognized the agricultural potential of the area and the fact that the majority of people are working in agriculture. In an effort to support agricultural development as a means to improve people’s livelihood in 2001, the new district head, assisted by the Pusat Studi Pembangunan Pertanian dan Pedesaan (Study Centre for Agrocultural and Rural Development) from the Agrocultural Institute in Bogor, launched the local movement for agribusiness development (Gerdabang Agri). This movement was aimed at increasing economic possibilities for the people as a means to improve peoples’ wellbeing. The strategy was to recruit agricultural engineers and post them in communities to advise on local agricultural potentials and development possibilities.
Figure 3. Population growth in Kutai Timur (2000 – 2007)
250.000 200.000 150.000 100.000 50.000
2000
2001
2002
2003 2004 Tahun
2005
2006
2007
Source: BPS Kutim, 2008
7
Chapter 2: A Brief Overview Of Kutai Timur
Box 1: Kutai Timur at a glance Official establishment of district
October 1999
Population
208,662 persons
Area
35,747.50 km2
Population density
5.8 jiwa/km2
Population growth
6.05 % per tahun (2000-2007)
Number of sub-districts
18
Number of villages
135
Land status
70.8 % of area is state forest land
Literacy rate
94.7 %
Life expectancy
68.08 years
Mean years of schooling
7.57 years
Poverty (BPS)
14 % (2005)
Poverty (BKKBN)
15.2 % (2008)
Poverty (BTL)
48.3 % (2008)
Economy
Swidden agriculture, coal mines, palm oil plantations, fisheries
GDP
IDR 18.1 trillion or USD 1.8 billion p.a.
Annual district budget 2007
IDR 1.48 trillion or USD 148 million
Source: BPS Kutim, 2008
8
* 1 USD = IDR 10,000 (June 2009)
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 34 Poverty And WellBeing: A New Concept
Poverty or wellbeing?
U
nderstanding wellbeing and poverty is the first step to reducing poverty. Meaningful definitions are important in order to identify the causes of poverty, the objectives of poverty reduction, and the scope of what should be done. Declining poverty means increasing wellbeing. Both terms are interwoven and look at the same problem from two different sides. A broad definition of poverty comes very close to ‘a lack of wellbeing’, so both terms are used almost interchangeably. For instance, if a person completely lacks wellbeing, she is in poverty. On the other hand, if she is in a state of high well being, her life is characterized by prosperity, happiness and satisfaction.
Although this definition is not conventional, it is useful when combining different national concepts and helpful when assessing and analysing the various dimensions of poverty. Furthermore, ‘poverty’ often has a negative connotation of passivity, incompetence or backwardness and the use of the term can be offensive or demeaning. The term ‘wellbeing’ allows a discussion of poverty in more positive terms. Hence, ‘poverty’ should be read as a ‘lack of wellbeing’ and ‘wellbeing’ as ‘reduced poverty’.
Poverty is more than low income For many years, being poor was defined as not having enough money. Many countries continue to measure poverty only in terms of income, consumption or access to services. Even today, one of the most well-known poverty definitions is the poverty line of a minimum income of US$1 per day. The World Bank continues to use this standard for its global comparison of poverty (World Bank 2000/01, 2002). Of course, money is important. It is used to pay for food, medicine or education.
Box 2: Who is officially poor? On a global scale, the World Bank and the UN define extreme economic poverty as having an income of less than $1 per day in purchasing power parity. The Human Development Index (HDI) of UNDP (e.g. UNDP 2005) measures three fields: longevity, knowledge and a decent standard of living. Longevity is measured by the percentage of people who die before age 40; knowledge is measured by adult literacy combined with the gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools; and standard of living is measured by real GDP/capita. The Human Poverty Index (HPI) uses the same fields, but measures standards of living in terms of access to safe water and health care, and by the percentage of underweight children younger than five. In Indonesia, the poor are defined by poverty lines of 2100 kCal of daily food consumption (plus non-food consumption) equalling about 136 – 150,000 Rp of monthly per capita consumption (BPS). Wellbeing was defined by BKKBN using a five ‘prosperity’ (kesejahteraan) strata adopting a basic needs approach. Families living in the ‘Pra Sejahtera’ stratum were considered as extremely poor, those in ‘Sejahtera I’ as poor (Cahyat 2004).
4)
This chapter is reproduced with permission from CIFOR. It was first published by CIFOR in Gönner et al. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Barat, Indonesia and Moeliono et al. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring Poverty in Malinau, Indonesia.
9
Chapter 3: Poverty And Wellbeing: A New Concept
h alt Knowledge
re
P Sp oliti h e ca re l
he
l
10
Sp
ia
5)
E Sp con he om re ic
SWB c So
Poverty is most severe when one not only feels poor, but also lacks the means to get out of poverty. Poverty is not only “having no fish”, it is also “not knowing how to fish”, ”not knowing where to fish”, “not having a rod and line” or “lacking the right to fish.” In addition, often there simply are no fish, because there is no pond, or the pond has dirty water. For many poor people, capabilities, opportunities or the freedom to escape poverty do not exist: they are trapped in poverty.
Services
He
Poverty is a lack of various things. It may mean a lack of sufficient income to meet household needs or shortage of assets to provide stability or cope with changes such as the loss of a job, illness or other crises. It may mean that other basic needs, such as health, education or housing, are inadequate. But poverty is also subjective, and may be caused by feelings, such as deprivation, vulnerability, exclusion, shame, or pain. A person can feel poor if her wellbeing declines, or if she compares herself to others who are better off.
lth
Poverty and wellbeing have many dimensions
Graphically,the NESP idea can be represented as a series of concentric circles (see Figure 4). The centre is formed by subjective wellbeing (SWB), surrounded by core aspects of poverty, including basic needs, and the context that enables the poor to escape from poverty.
W ea
Over the last two decades, poverty concepts have changed from the simple consideration of income or consumption to definitions that include multiple dimensions of deprivation and wellbeing. Today, despite the 1 $ index mentioned above, leading development organisations like the World Bank and UNDP also apply poverty definitions that comprise aspects such as basic needs, self-determined lifestyles, choices, assets, capabilities, social inclusion, inequality, human rights, entitlement, vulnerability, empowerment and subjective wellbeing5.
To capture all these facets of poverty and wellbeing, a multidimensional concept is necessary. One approach is the Nested Spheres of Poverty (NESP) model (Gönner et al., 2007). In the NESP model, poverty and wellbeing are constituted by different spheres, or aspects of daily life. The central sphere of the model is subjective wellbeing. The core spheres that influence this subjective wellbeing are health, wealth and knowledge. These – and therefore indirectly also subjective wellbeing – are influenced by context spheres. By these we mean nature, economic, social and political aspects of life that directly or indirectly influence the core spheres. The context spheres, in turn, are influenced by external structures and services.
N Sp atu h e ra l re
But money alone is not sufficient. Families could have enough relative income, but lack access to healthcare, clean drinking water or formal education. In other cases, a family may have little cash income, but meet all of its subsistence needs. Does this automatically mean that the family is poor?
Structures
Figure 4 Nested Spheres of Poverty (NESP)
The capability approach was developed by Nobel Prize Laureate Amartya Sen (e.g. Sen 1993, 1997, 1999). The approach was also used by Narayan et al. (2000a, b, 2002) in the World Bank’s ‘Voices of the Poor’ study.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Subjective wellbeing (SWB) is highly individual and emotional. It does not have a constant value, but varies with moods and circumstances. People compare their standard of living with that of others or with their own prior wellbeing. Personal feelings of happiness, safety, inclusion and contentedness also contribute to the overall subjective wellbeing. It also includes other forms of wellbeing like bodily wellbeing, social wellbeing, having self respect or feeling safe and secure. The core of the model includes ‘basic needs’, such as food, health, housing and education. It also comprises of general individual capabilities (i.e. skills and physical condition) to get out of poverty. In the NESP model, basic needs and individual capabilities are aggregated into three categories: health, adequate wealth and knowledge (both formal and informal or traditional). The core is also what most local people in the Indonesia study expressed as the principal aspects of poverty. Together with subjective wellbeing, it is a good measure of the poverty or wellbeing of a household. The context consists of five spheres. The natural sphere includes availability and quality of natural resources. The economic sphere covers economic opportunities and safety nets. Social capital and cohesion, but also trust and conflicts make up the social sphere. The political sphere comprises of rights and participation or representation in decision making, empowerment and freedom. The outer layer of the NESP model is the fifth sphere, which influences the other four: services and (infra) structures, often provided by government agencies, NGOs, development projects or the private sector. The context is the enabling environment for supporting self-driven attempts to escape poverty. The categories presented in the NESP model are intentionally comprehensive. For any given setting, a local government may wish to define the spheres and their indicators according to their own
priorities.
Poverty is dynamic The dynamics and causal links between the spheres of poverty is reflected by the different layers of the NESP model. Subjective wellbeing has a very momentary nature. It often fluctuates due to many influences. But, subjective wellbeing is also correlated with the combined core aspects. Hence, improvement of core wellbeing generally leads to improved subjective wellbeing. By the same token, low wellbeing in the core usually means low subjective wellbeing. On a longer time scale, both core wellbeing and subjective wellbeing are influenced by the context. For instance, knowledge increases as a result of improved education, health problems grow because of environmental pollution, subjective wellbeing declines due to social conflict. Hence, there is a strong causal link from the outside towards the centre. Successful poverty reduction needs to address the dynamics of poverty. Sustaining wellbeing means creating opportunities and ‘freedom for development’ (Sen 1999) for people, but it also means reducing vulnerability to avoid people falling (back) into poverty and getting chronically trapped.
Trade-offs between poverty spheres In many cases, economic development is not sustainable and comes at the expense of the natural or social spheres. Such trade-offs become easily visible in the NESP representation and can optically alert decision-makers. Figure 5, on the page overleaf, shows an illustrative example of the positive economic sphere being accompanied by a critical natural sphere, critical health, wealth and subjective wellbeing.
11
I&S
N
E W
H SWB
S
K
P
Figure 5. Trade-offs among wellbeing spheres
12
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 4 Methods
T
his project builds on the approach already developed in Kutai Barat as part of the BMZ project CIFOR ‘Making local governments more responsive to the poor: Developing indicators and tools to support sustainable livelihood development under decentralisation‘. Some adjustments in the methods had to be made as a result of differences in local conditions. The following section provides a brief overview of the field methods used.
Institutional arrangements To provide in-depth data on the conditions of communities in Kutai Timur, as a baseline for regional development planning, the GTZ supported project ProBANGKIT suggested conducting a district wide poverty monitoring survey to the Kutai Timur district government. The main agencies involved were the regional planning agency and the national statistics agency. GTZ provided facilitation of the process, the technical assistance and the training. PT Kaltim Prima Coal supported the implementation of the surveys by involving several of their staff members and providing logistical support.
Developing the poverty and wellbeing monitoring system Several sources were used to develop the Kutai Timur specific dimension of poverty and wellbeing: • Government staff’s perceptions of poverty and wellbeing (collected during workshops) • The local people’s perceptions of local conditions in Kutai Timur, based on discussions in 9 villages
• •
Official poverty and wellbeing models used in Indonesia (BPS, BKKBN) The NESP model developed by the BMZ project, CIFOR
Based on the above sources, the first list of wellbeing indicators was developed. This list was then used during a trial in 8 villages covering 1,300 households. Based on the results of this trial, the set of indicators was evaluated. As a result, some indicators were dropped as they did not provide purposeful information and some new indicators were proposed for the second trial. The revised list of indicators was tested in the second trial which covered 6 villages and 428 households.
Field methods The survey, which covered 18 sub-districts and 134 villages6, was conducted from November 2008 till January 2009. Preparation for the survey, training of the monitoring team and training of trainers, started in mid-2008. The survey covered a total of 14,011 households, sampled according to the following principles: • In villages with 20 households or less, a census was conducted • In villages with 21 – 60 households, 20 randomly selected households were interviewed • In village with more than 60 households, one third of all households were surveyed In each house, an adult household member was interviewed by a trained village assessor using the standardized questionnaire (see Annex 1).
Calculating and comparing Indices For all indicators applied in the household survey, a simple scoring system was used:
6) The total number of villages in Kutai Timur is 135. The survey could not be conducted in 1 village therefore the findings s are based on the data from 134 villages.
13
Chapter 4: Methods
Critical Intermediate Good Figure 6. Colour coding of Indices
Figure 6. Colour coding of Indices: If the condition of the respective indicator is critical (see figure 6, red), it is given 1 point, an intermediate condition (yellow) was awarded 2 points and a good con-
14
dition (green) was given 3 points. Some indicators only included critical or good conditions. For most indicators, conditions were assessed on the basis of the respondents’ answers. The only exceptions were the condition of the house and the assessment of household assets which were both measured according to the assessor’s direct observation rather than the respondents’ statements. The indices for the nine spheres of the NESP model (see chapter 3) were calculated as normalised totals of the respective indicators for each sphere. Also, for the indices of each sphere, the same colour coding system as above is used for better visualization of the results.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 5 A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
T
he results of the monitoring survey carried out in 134 villages between November 2008 and January 2009 provide a picture of household conditions in Kutai Timur. This comes almost 10 years after decentralisation was endorsed. Similar to the findings for Kutai Barat (GÜnner et al. 2007), the most significant improvements in peoples’ conditions have occurred in the areas closer to the district capital. Obstacles to economic development and service provision are higher in the more remote areas. Often, there is a clear trade-off for remote areas where economic opportunities and services are limited, but the conditions within the natural sphere is better than in the more accessible and densely populated
areas. In Kutai Timur, respondents from a number of remote areas indicated that the natural sphere is in an intermediary or critical condition. This is a reflection of recent changes resulting from increased economic activities (palm oil plantation development and the mining industry). Nonetheless, forests in these remote parts of Kutai Timur are still relatively abundant. In the following section we will summarize the major findings at the village level and trend for each sphere. The main source of information is the survey data, complemented with general information and observations in the area. Table 2 provides an overview of the indicators used for each sphere. The full questionnaire can be found in annex 1.
HEALTH AND NUTRITION Where are health and nutrition critical? In general the health condition in the villages is moderate to good (see figure 7). There are only 9 villages (7% of the
Table 2: Overview of indicators for each sphere Sphere
Indicators
Subjective Wellbeing
Feeling of wellbeing, being poor, happiness
Health
Incidence of serious illness, access to medical services, sufficiency of staple food, access to clean water
Wealth
Housing conditions, family assets
Knowledge
Education level of household, school attendance, skills, access to vocational training
Natural
Environmental degradation, occurrence of disasters, water quality, occurrence of indicators species
Economic
Main source of livelihood, purchasing power, income opportunities, family savings
Sosial
Incidence of conflict, mutual trust, level of community self-help
Political
Level of aspiration incorporated into government policy/ programmes, land tenure, access to information, adherence to local regulations
Infrastructure & Services
Access and quality of education, quality of health services, infrastructure, access to training/extension
15
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
total number of villages) where the health situation is critical. These villages are not limited to remote areas, but also found in the areas closer to the district capital, e.g. Teluk Sangkima which is less than 1 hour’s drive from the district capital. In four of these villages, the majority of the population is Basap.
Why are health and nutrition critical in these areas?
protein or vegetables. In most villages, over fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they have temporary problems to obtain water. This problem is experienced by more remote villages, but also by many villages close to the district capital.
What are the general trends? •
The critical health situation is related to limited access to health services. In the village with a critical health situation, over 75 % of the households stated that they did not receive medical services. In the majority of the villages, a quarter or more of households reported that they had a family member that was seriously ill during the last 12 months. Only few households have difficulties in fulfilling the household requirements for staple foods, although some households occasionally can not supplement their meals with
•
Due to increased economic opportunities, villagers now encounter fewer problems in obtaining their staple foods. However, economic development, mainly plantations and mining, have decreased the possibilities for obtaining protein from hunting or fishing since the environment has significantly changed. These developments also frequently have a negative effect on the availability of water for the communities. The quality of the water may be especially affected if appropriate measures to avoid erosion and run offs are not considered, thus resulting in murky
Figure 7. Health condition of all Villages in Kutai Timur
16
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
•
water and siltation. High use of herbicides in the palm oil plantations over prolonged periods of time will also impact the water quality. The public healthcare infrastructure is gradually improving. In the district capital, a hospital has been constructed and is being expanded. All sub-districts have a health clinic, staffed by a doctor and one or more medical staff. One remaining problem is in providing health services to remote, difficult to access villages and in ensuring that medical staff spend the majority of their time at the health clinic and on visits to surrounding villages rather than elsewhere.
found in 12 sub-districts. This does not only include some of the more remote areas, but also villages found close to the district capital. It is only the sub-district of Sengata Utara, the district capital, and location of PT Kaltim Prima Coals mining operations, that all four villages experience good material wealth conditions. The worse conditions are in the Sandaran sub-district where 5 out of 7 villages have a critical material wealth situation. Twenty eight percent of villages have good material wealth conditions. These villages are spread across the district, however, a majority of these villages tend to be in areas with large scale economic operations, such as mining or palm oil plantations.
WEALTH Where is wealth low? The majority of households have an intermediate material wealth condition. Villages with critical material wealth conditions are
Figure 8. Material wealth condition of villages in Kutai Timur
17
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
Why is wealth low in these areas? In many areas of Kutai Timur, economic opportunities are still limited, especially in terms of finding regular sources of income. The upper-scale employment opportunities can often not be acquired by local people due to a lack of adequate skills or training. Meanwhile, farmers experience problems in marketing their products thereby making it difficult to generate an additional income. This situation is reflected through the fact that in most villages where people have limited material wealth (motorbike/motorized boats), they also have difficulties in purchasing basic items such as sugar (indicator for the purchasing power). In some cases, people do have more purchasing power. How they use this purchasing power is a matter of choice. In several villages, few households have transport means (which can be considered an economic productive asset) but the number of the households possessing a television set (consumptive asset) is far higher. It is difficult to assess whether households invest some of their income elsewhere, as a result of the economic opportunities in their village being limited.
What is the general trend? Remote villages face limited economic opportunities, amongst others, because of the difficulties in obtaining fuel. The high price of fuel results in high transportation costs that, in turn, influence purchasing power. Until recently, the palm oil sector and the coal mining industry were booming because of the high prices paid for the commodities. This provided opportunities for communities living close to these operations. These opportunities are often limited to irregular unskilled labour with low payment. Households deriving their livelihood from agriculture, cash crops or fisheries still face problems relating to efficient production and marketing.
KNOWLEDGE7 Where is knowledge low?
In more than one third of the villages, the knowledge condition is critical. This situation is found in all sub-districts except for Sengata Utara. The situation is worse in the sub-districts of Sangkulirang and Sandaran where more than 75% of the villages experience critical knowledge conditions (see figure 9).
Why is knowledge low in these areas? One important condition affecting the level of education is the dispersed distribution of the population. This often results in relatively long travelling distances to schools, increasing the difficulties in attending school. Lack of economic opportunities further reduces the chances of children attending school since children maybe requested and needed to assist the household in making ends meet.
What are the general trends? •
•
The level of education of adults in many villages is elementary school or less. In half of the villages, more than 50% of respondents reported that the highest level of education in the household was elementary school. School attendance for their children, the next generation, is generally improving. However, the survey found that the overall drop out rate is still 12.6 %, which remains quite high. It will take time for current efforts aimed at improving the knowledge condition to show results. Almost all villages have, at least,
The term knowledge refers not only to formal education level but also to general skills and opportunities for vocational s training. 7)
18
Additional income is commonly used to improve housing, and consequently other assets (transport or TV). The recent global crises and its impact on the price of palm oil have demonstrated that dependence on one commodity or economic activity is risky.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
•
elementary school facilities. All subdistricts have at least one junior high school. The possibilities for parents to send their children to junior high school depend on their economic status and the distance (travel time and costs). A majority of respondents stated that they have limited skills with which to earn an additional income added to the fact that, so far, opportunities to acquire new (income generating) skills are limited. These opportunities are especially important for the older generations who have limited formal education to rely on in order to improve their economic situation. Other generations will also be able to reap the benefits of better training opportunities and thus increase their chances of pursuing higher education.
NATURAL Where is the natural sphere low? Overall, in 43% of the villages, the natural sphere is in critical condition. The villages with a critical natural sphere are found in all sub-districts (except in Sengata Utara). The worse condition is found in the subdistricts of Busang, Muara Bengkal and Kaubun, where over 70% of villages are experiencing critical conditions in the natural sphere. The best natural sphere conditions are found in the Sangkulirang sub-district with over half of the villages enjoying good natural sphere conditions (see figure 10).
Why is the natural sphere low in these areas? The main factor influencing the natural sphere in Kutai Timur is the ongoing development of (large scale) economic activities. These activities are supposed to
Figure 9. Knowledge condition of villages in Kutai Timur
19
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
increase peoples’ welfare, but, the tradeoff is that these activities often have a negative impact on the natural environment. The indicators to measure the status of the natural sphere include the respondents’ general assessment of their environment. In more than half of the villages, a majority of households stated that their environment was seriously degraded. Some caution is needed when interpreting this data since the statements often relate more to processes of degradation than an accurate assessment of the percentage of the village territory that has been affected. As a result of this environmental degradation, the water quality has also been affected. In two thirds of the villages, the majority of respondents said that the water for household use needs some treatment due to the sediment load. This indicates increased erosion. According to the respondents, however, the environmental degradation has not yet reached critical levels, causing major natural
disasters. They mentioned that some disasters occured (esp. flooding and some wild/forest fires), but the damage caused so far is still limited.
What are the general trends? •
•
•
In over 40% of the villages, the environment is degraded. This includes the forests, beaches, sea, rivers and lakes. One contributing factor is the recurrent wild fires in these areas, with the worst events in 1982/83 and 1997/98. The degradation of the environment is further aggravated by the large scale economic development (palm oil plantations and coal mining). The degradation causes increased flooding, land slides, wild fires and pest outbreaks. It also affects indicator species that require good environmental conditions (e.g. orangutans, proboscis monkeys, hornbills and lesser adjutant). These species are increasingly rare. Large companies continue to expand
Figure 10. Natural sphere condition of villages in Kutai Timur
20
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
their operations. This will result in further impacts on the environment. If not carefully planned and monitored, these economic developments will have a negative impact on the environment, decrease options for the communities and affect their longterm wellbeing (due to reduced environmental quality)
ECONOMY Income sources
There are three main strategies for households to fulfil their basic needs and/ or generate income: agriculture, (permanent) employment, casual labour often supplemented with other sources of income (see table 3). Agriculture, mainly for subsistence, is often complemented with other activities depending on opportunities available.
Permanent employment in companies is often the sole source of income for households, because it limits the time available for other activities and the source of income is considered guaranteed. Households deriving income from casual labour often engage in other economic activities if possible. Agriculture and casual labour represent the main sources of livelihood in almost all areas of Kutai Timur, except in Sengata. The most important sources of income can be divided according to locality, such as: • Most company employees live in Sengata Utara, Sengata Selatan, and Bengalon (areas with coal mining operations) • Perennial cash crops are found in Busang, Kombeng, and Muara Wahau (areas with palm oil plantations) • Fisheries are common in Muara Bengkal, Sangkulirang and Sandaran (in Muara Bengkal; fresh water fishe-
Table 3. Relative importance of income sources *) Income source
Percentage
Agriculture
38.4
Company employee
25.6
Casual labour
23.2
Small shop
9.9
Cash crops (perennial)
9.3
Civil servant
6.6
Trade
6.5
Services
5.4
Fish
4.4
Honorarium for village leaders
3.8
Animal husbandry
3.7
Timber
3.0
Non-timber forest products
1.1
Aquaculture (fish, shrimps, seaweed)
0.4
Others
3.2
*) Measured in percentage of households who reported an income source as one of the three most important sources
21
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
• •
•
ries, and in Sangkulirang and Sandaran; maritime fisheries) Small shops and trade are dominant in Bengalon, Sangkulirang and Muara Bengkal Timber and NTFP are not important sources of income. Illegal timber felling and processing was once important for a number of areas but stricter law enforcement has closed the possibilities associated with timber processing and trading Aquaculture has a big potential in this area (esp. in the sub-districts of Teluk Pandan, Sengata Selatan, Sengata Utara, Bengalon, Sangkulirang, Kaliorang, and Sandaran), but is still a new enterprise. So far only 2% of households derive an income from aquaculture.
Where is the economic sphere low? The economic condition in a total of 83 villages (62%) is critical, whilst 22% of the villages are experiencing a good economic situation. The best economic conditions are found in the villages of the subdistricts of Sengata Utara (100% good) and Sengata Selatan (75% good). These areas are the closest to the district capital and PT Kaltim Prima Coal’s operations. In three sub-districts, Sandaran, Teluk Pandan and Rantau Pulung, all villages have a critical economic condition (see figure 11).
Why is the economic sphere low in these areas? At the household level, more than 50% of respondents expressed problems in obtaining a sufficient income to meet their needs. This can be related to income; one third of households have no regular source of income. This results in with a reduced purchasing power (a problem for a quarter of the households) and the
Figure 11. Economic sphere of all villages in Kutai Timur
22
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
inability to set money aside (more than half the households are not able to save money). Recently, Kutai Timur has experienced a dramatic increase in population. People have been attracted by the prospect of economic opportunities in the area, i.e.: the mining industry and palm oil plantations. However, apparently, the opportunities are not as promising as people had anticipated. Those who were able to secure a steady job in the mining industry are among those who are better off, and the economic sphere conditions in the mining areas are good. In areas with more palm oil plantations, it is more difficult to secure regular employment. The percentage of households employed in Sengata Utara (60%), Sengata Selatan (38%) and Bengalon (27%) are significantly higher than in the areas where palm oil plantations are operating (Kombeng 15%, Telen 14%, Muara Wahau 13%, and Batu Ampar 10%). Often, only casual labour is available in the plantations which results in irregular income; during some periods, income may be sufficient, whilst during other times, there may be no income at all. In addition, the global crisis has had more impact on the palm oil industry and price than on coal mining. Thus, people have fewer temporary employment options while alternative income sources are limited. This could be the result of locations being too remote, leading to high costs to reach them, or due to the lack of available natural resources and land since it has been converted into palm oil plantation.
What are the general trends? The district has two important pillars for regional development: (1) support for large scale economic development, based on the potential in the area: coal deposits and vast, relative flat areas close to the coast facilitating transport of products. (2) Development of village level agribusiness. Recently there have been some protests by community members
because the palm oil companies that had promised to develop smallholder palm oil plantations have not fulfilled their promises. This results in decreased availability of natural resources and land for the communities added to a lack of steady income from a cash crop. Development of the mining sector may have a positive economic impact in the short-term, but long-term impacts must be anticipated in order to avoid a later drop in the economic conditions of people that are permanently based in the areas of mining operations. Infrastructure development, which is essential to promote and make local agribusiness a viable economic option, has been slow and dependent on company operations. This can be disadvantageous in some cases, for example; logging companies constructed roads to access their timber concessions but, since those companies have ceased operations, the roads have not been maintained and are now in a state of disrepair.
SOCIAL Where is the social sphere in critical condition? In general, the condition of the social sphere is intermediate (24% of villages) to good (66% of villages). In only 13 villages is the social sphere in a critical situation. (see figure 12). Once again, all villages in the two sub-districts closest to the district capital (Sengata Utara and Sengata Selatan) show the most positive results for the social sphere conditions. The same is true for villages in the Kombeng sub-district.
Why is the social sphere in a critical condition in these areas? The indicators measuring the status of the social sphere include land disputes,
23
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
mutual trust and cooperation in village self-help. Although a high number of respondents expressed that they feel they have weak rights to the land (see the political sphere below), apparently, presently the number of conflicts over land is relatively low. One exception is the villages of the Long Mesangat sub-districts, where the majority of respondents stated that there are often land disputes.
What are the general trends? Although many villages in Kutai Timur are facing rapid changes, the indicators for the social sphere show that, so far, people have adjusting. Trust and cooperation amongst villagers remains good and the number of land disputes in general seems low. It can be anticipated that with the rapid development and ongoing influx of people to the area, the population increase will continue. Combined with the expansion of large scale economic activities, this is likely to increase the pressure on land. If not anticipated, these increa-
ses may cause problems in the communities. For instance, community members often have conflicting views on the benefits or negative impacts of large scale operations. These different views can cause division and sometimes decrease mutual trust. This can be further aggravated by conflicts over land.
POLITICAL Where is the political sphere in critical condition? In two thirds of all villages, the political sphere is in an intermediate condition. 20% of villages report that their political sphere in critical condition. These villages are located in 13 (out of the 18) sub-districts. One particular case is in the Teluk Pandan sub-district where two thirds of villages (4 out of 6) are in critical condition. Sengata Utara is the only sub-district where the condition of the political sphere for all villages is good (see figure 13).
Figure 12. Social sphere condition of villages in Kutai Timur
24
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Why is political sphere in critical condition in these areas? In most case, a critical condition is linked to land tenure issue. In almost one quarter of villages, more than half the households felt that they have no certainty of tenure at all. In many other cases, people felt that they had some recognition of their rights but that their position is weak. A special case is Teluk Pandan sub-district where villages are located in the Kutai National Park and there remains much uncertainty on the issue of land ownership. Inhabitants of the land recognize that they occupy the land illegally, even though they have been there for many years. This situation results in a critical condition with regards to the political sphere, since two of the four indicators for the political sphere are negatively affected: the people have insecure land tenure and they perceive that the government is not accommodating their aspirations to legalize their presence in the national park.
Generally, another cause for a critical condition of the political sphere is the feeling of isolation and of a lack of government attention. This is due to their distant and remote location from the district capital and the ensuing limited or no access to information, including from the government. In approximately 50% of the village, more than a quarter of the respondents stated that they have no access to information (television, newspaper or radio). Most often, the television is the main source of information, which covers little local information.
What are general trends? •
Government staff at both the district and the sub-district level includes more local personnel. Having family members or friends in government agencies lowers the threshold for people to contact them. Also, there is more chance of people interacting with government staff outside the formal setting of the office (during family
Figure 13. Political sphere condition in villages in Kutai Timur
25
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
•
•
or religious activities). This enables people to access information related to government policies and programmes both through official channels but also through informal networks. Some groups, e.g. the Basap, face a problem as they are lagging behind in education. It is therefore more difficult for them to enter government services. This, combined with the often remote location of their villages, results in less access to government information and programmes. Communication networks are rapidly expanding with the mobile network covering almost all sub-districts. Thus even if people have limited access to information from the mass media, an alternative channel is available. Land tenure remains a difficult issue, especially with expanding large scale economic operations, people face increased uncertainty in accessing land, an essential productive asset for farmers. One mechanism that has been attractive to villagers is to form cooperatives and establish joint ventures with palm oil plantations. In this way, villagers hoped to establish secure rights over their smallholder plantations at least. However, not all schemes have lived up to this expectation.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Where are infrastructure and services in critical condition? Two thirds of all villages in Kutai Timur face critical conditions with regards to the infrastructure and services sphere. The situation is most critical in the remote areas, exemplified by the condition in the sub-districts of Busang and Karangan where the condition for the infrastructure and services sphere in all villages is critical.
26
Why are infrastructure and services in critical condition? In many of the remote areas, a major factor affecting this sphere is physical access to services. The dispersed location of the villages increases the problems for the district government to provide sufficient services. Transport infrastructure is often limited or in bad condition adding to the problems of access to services, which are still concentrated in the sub-district capital. In many villages, the respondents stated that they still face difficulties in ensuring that their children attend junior high school (again due to the long distances and expensive transport costs between the village and the school). At this point in time, the physical access to education is the main concern of the villagers. When asked about the quality of the present education, generally, people were relatively satisfied. For some of the remote areas, access to health facilities is still limited (e.g. in Sangkulirang, Bengalon, Sandaran and Busang). In some cases the concern about health care was related to the quality of the service provided, for instance in several sub-district capitals where the health centres are located. Another indicator for service provision was the opportunity for villagers to improve their skills through training or extension services. In more than 50 % of the villages, three quarters of the respondents said that they had not received any training or extension. For extension work, it should be understood that providing training and extension is often more effective if provided to smaller groups. In this way, the transfer of information or skills will be more effective, but the downside is that the number of people reached is small.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
What are general trends? Education infrastructure and services An important programme of the district government of Kutai Timur is to improve education. A first step towards this goal is the commitment to allocate 20% of the budget to education. In 2006, a total of 202 billion Rupiah was allocated to education. This total increased to 262 billion Rupiah in the 2007 budget. The district government has been very actively campaigning for a minimum of 12 years of basic education (higher than the national policy aiming for minimum 9 years of basic education). In terms of education infrastructure, the district government has implemented the following programmes: • Construction of new schools • Rehabilitation of school buildings • Establish senior high school with national / international standard • Establishment of Agricultural College (STIPER) in Sengata • Assistance to private schools. Other programmes focused on improving access to and the quality of education; recruitment of more teachers, further education for teacher, competence exams for teachers, financial support for school’s operational costs and incentives for teachers (additional honorarium and vehicles for headmasters). These programmes aimed at ensuring there are sufficient schools and teachers within accessible distances to each village. Although significant efforts have been made to stimulate education, the survey showed that still 12.6% of households have children that drop out of education. It is not clear whether this is a result of a lack of facilities, especially in remote areas, or caused by a lack of emphasis by parents on sending their children to school. The survey found that the drop out rate is higher for boys. This could suggest that boys are required to assist their parents in fulfilling the basic household needs.
Health facilities and services have improved Since the formation of Kutai Timur district, the number of sub-districts was 5, then, the number increased to 11 and now there are a total of 18 sub-districts. The district government has succeeded in increasing the number of health clinics in accordance with the growing number of subdistricts. Presently, each sub-district has a health clinic. Also, all these health clinics have, at least, a general practitioner, and some even have a dentist. The number of paramedic staff has also increased. The number of government and private health facilities and the number of doctors in Sengata has increased significantly. Access to information improved Over the last few years, the mobile phone network has rapidly expanded. This has opened a new channel for access to information. Although the government has not yet designed a strategy to use this new possibility to the full extend, at least this development increases the possibilities for village leaders and sub-district staff to communicate with the various agencies of the district government. It also facilitates people to obtain more information about commodity prices and other opportunities.
Wellbeing at sub-district level In this section, we analyze whether certain sub-districts have significantly different general conditions from other sub-districts. One way to examine this is to calculate the aggregate value per sub-district based on the score in all the villages in the sub-district. The score is calculated for all spheres of the core (subjective wellbeing, health, knowledge and material wealth) and all spheres of the enabling context (natural, economic, social and political). The results are shown in figure 14. The aggregated data for the core and context indices at the sub-district level indicates that the situation is not very different across most sub-districts. This is because the worse conditions found in some of the
27
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
sub-district villages may be balanced by better circumstances in other villages in the same sub-district. In the sub-district closest to the district capital, the conditions are overall significantly better than in the other sub-districts. On the other hand, Sandaran, one of the most remote subdistricts, is the extreme opposite.
Teluk Pandan sub-district, a relatively easily accessible area, is also low. As explained on page 21, Teluk Pandan is a special case of people occupying land in Kutai National Park. Many of these people are recent migrants and legally, their position is at best uncertain and the basis for development support is also weak.
Another way to assess the condition at the sub-district level is to calculate the scores for each sphere at the sub-district level. This allows an assessment of whether certain sub-districts are worse off than others. It also allows an analysis of whether there is a geographical pattern among critical scores within certain spheres. The detailed scores per sphere for each subdistrict are presented in table 4. The three most critical sub-districts for each sphere are highlighted in bold.
Table 5 summarizes the largest differences found between the scores for the economic and the natural spheres. This is to assess in how far the often encountered trade-off between economic development at the expense of the natural sphere is evident in Kutai Timur. The conditions in Kutai Timur are typical of the development pattern in many (relative) remote forested areas, where the most rapid development is concentrated around the main (capital) centre. This rapid development has a negative impact on the natural sphere whilst areas within the periphery of the district often enjoy better conditions for the natural sphere,
Similarly to figure 14, the results in table 4 illustrate that the Sandaran sub-district score in many spheres is amongst the lowest. Surprisingly, the score for the
0.8 0 Sengata Utara
0.7 0
Core
Bengalon M. Wahau
0.6 0
Batu Ampar L. Mesangat Karangan Telen
0.5 0
Kaubun
Rantau M. Ancalong Pulung Busang Kaliorang
Sengata Selatan Sangkulirang
Teluk Pandan
0.4 0
0.3 0
Kombeng
Sandaran
0.3 0
0.4 0
0.5 0
0.6 0
Context
Figure 14. Core and context values in the 18 sub-districts of Kutai Timur
28
0.7 0
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Table 4. Wellbeing scores by sub-district and sphere *) SWB
H
K
W
N
E
S
P
I&S
Muara Ancalong
0.54
0.65
0.48
0.52
0.35
0.50
0.64
0.45
0.39
Muara Wahau
0.57
0.65
0.52
0.60
0.38
0.51
0.72
0.54
0.38
Muara Bengkal
0.54
0.62
0.41
0.55
0.30
0.46
0.52
0.51
0.51
Sengata Utara
0.75
0.75
0.62
0.75
0.53
0.69
0.72
0.67
0.51
Sangkulirang
0.55
0.69
0.41
0.57
0.62
0.48
0.71
0.53
0.50
Busang
0.51
0.57
0.43
0.59
0.34
0.47
0.65
0.48
0.24
Telen
0.42
0.59
0.43
0.49
0.35
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.32
Kombeng
0.59
0.61
0.52
0.63
0.39
0.49
0.74
0.52
0.47
Bengalon
0.69
0.70
0.55
0.66
0.51
0.51
0.62
0.45
0.41
Kaliorang
0.52
0.61
0.43
0.52
0.49
0.39
0.75
0.43
0.34
Sandaran
0.42
0.47
0.37
0.33
0.49
0.25
0.64
0.36
0.23
Sengata Selatan
0.68
0.76
0.49
0.58
0.38
0.57
0.75
0.58
0.61
Teluk Pandan
0.48
0.50
0.48
0.42
0.42
0.32
0.71
0.39
0.40
Rantau Pulung
0.54
0.65
0.49
0.53
0.44
0.34
0.72
0.54
0.38
Kaubun
0.57
0.60
0.50
0.58
0.34
0.45
0.75
0.50
0.27
Karangan
0.59
0.55
0.46
0.56
0.42
0.38
0.58
0.37
0.21
Batu Ampar
0.61
0.69
0.46
0.58
0.38
0.33
0.70
0.47
0.37
Long Mesangat
0.59
0.59
0.48
0.54
0.36
0.52
0.64
0.45
0.28
Average
0.56
0.63
0.47
0.55
0.42
0.45
0.66
0.48
0.38
*) SWB=Subjective wellbeing, H=Health, K=Knowledge, W=Wealth, N=Natural sphere, E=Economic sphere, S=Social sphere, P=Political sphere, I&S=Infrastructure and Services
Table 5. Sub-districts with largest difference between the economic and natural spheres Sub-district
Difference
Trade-off due to
Sengata Utara
1.87
District capital, coal mining
Sengata Selatan
1.62
Close to district capital, coal mining
Long Mesangat
1.58
Oil palm plantation development
Kaliorang
-1.0
Intact environment but little economic development
Sanglukirang
-1.4
Intact environment but little economic development
Sandaran
-2.4
Intact environment but little economic development
29
Chapter 5: A Portrait Of Household Wellbeing
but are lagging behind economically. One exceptional case in Kutai Timur is the sub-district of Long Mesangat. This sub-district is relatively remote, but its economic deve-lopment is comparatively good, although it is at the expense of the environment. Palm oil development has just started in this area, therefore creating many employment opportunities Looking more closely at the sub-district level data, the index for the natural sphere in Sengata Utara seems rather high considering that the natural conditions there are poor when compared to more remote sub-districts with better natural conditions but lower scores. The actual situation is that Sengata Utara is the most densely populated part of Kutai Timur, with rapid development, very little forest left, and rivers with high sediment loads. One possible explanation could be that the
30
people of Sengata Utara are generally more positive about their circumstances or, another reason could be that the condition of the natural sphere has not changed much over the last few years. Another possible explanation is that most of the environmental degradation resul-ting from mining around Sengata is confined to specific areas which are seldom visited, whereas in other areas, the operations are more open and visible. Similarly, in some of the more remote sub-districts, respondents rated the conditions of the natural sphere as relatively low. This again may reflect recent (rapid) changes in the conditions and not necessarily the overall conditions of the natural sphere which may remain relatively good compared to other areas (such as, for example, Sengata Utara).
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 6 Why Are Some People Poor In Kutai Timur?
Poverty and ethnicity
A
s described in chapter 2, there are many different ethnic groups in Kutai Timur. A total of ten ethnic groups make up 90% of the total population. These are: Java, Bugis, Kutai, Banjar, Toraja, Kenyah, Timor, Lombok, Wehea, and Makassar. The aggregated index of these major ethnic groups shows that none is in critical condition (see table 6). The conditions of some of the smaller ethnic groups (Basap, Lebo and Kaili), however, appear to be worse. In the case of the Basap and Lebo, original inhabitants of Kutai Timur, the remote location in which they live also contributes to their lower wellbeing. The Kaili, who migrated from Sulawesi, report that four spheres are in critical condition.
household assets. This analysis is only possible for whole households. There is no separate data for migrants who temporarily live within another household. On the one hand, these migrants may have similar or slightly better circumstances, as they might receive help from their host. On the other hand, the condition of the host might deteriorate due to the additional burden of additional persons that need to be supported. The number of people that migrate to Kutai Timur is a significant proportion of the total population. As figure 15 shows, more the 25% of the population has lived less than 9 years (since 2000) in Kutai Timur. When the palm oil business and coal mining were still expanding and the prospects were positive, the district government was supporting and encouraging migrants to come to the area, in order to fulfil the labour demands. In times of economic downturn, such as after the global crisis, those people that have recently moved to the area, and have little economic reserves, will be especially vulnerable.
Poverty and migration When analyzing the relation between the number of years people have been residing in Kutai Timur and their wellbeing, there is a slight tendency for longer term residents to report better scores. However, none of the groups express critical values in the core or context spheres. It seems likely that, for many migrants who move to Kutai Timur, their wellbeing actually improves given the range of opportunities and resources present in the district. As table 7 illustrates, new arrivals (with less than one year of residence in the district) still experience critical conditions in the economic sphere. Over time, conditions appear to improve as reflected by the long term residents who have the highest score for the wealth sphere. This indicates that they have been able to accumulate sufficient surplus to acquire
Figure 15. Division of population of Kutai Timur based on length of residence in the area
31
Chapter 6: Why Are Some People Poor In Kutai Timur?
Table 6. Wellbeing index for each sphere among different ethnic groups*) SWB
H
K
W
N
E
S
P
I&S
Core
Context
Aggregate
Jawa
0,652
0,698
0,549
0,655
0,476
0,563
0,722
0,554
0,508
0,646
0,563
0,610
Bugis
0,620
0,665
0,523
0,592
0,503
0,517
0,695
0,537
0,471
0,605
0,548
0,584
Kutai
0,577
0,669
0,469
0,587
0,462
0,492
0,613
0,500
0,521
0,588
0,519
0,557
Banjar
0,689
0,737
0,536
0,694
0,500
0,597
0,695
0,575
0,546
0,662
0,585
0,626
Toraja
0,737
0,708
0,637
0,726
0,516
0,658
0,747
0,615
0,504
0,701
0,608
0,664
Kenyah
0,492
0,551
0,460
0,546
0,422
0,434
0,628
0,488
0,359
0,521
0,466
0,491
Timor
0,547
0,596
0,500
0,531
0,469
0,428
0,664
0,502
0,351
0,543
0,486
0,517
Lombok
0,596
0,629
0,436
0,563
0,491
0,400
0,754
0,499
0,432
0,553
0,515
0,542
Wehea
0,408
0,584
0,533
0,438
0,449
0,426
0,647
0,485
0,355
0,537
0,472
0,516
Makassar
0,654
0,672
0,547
0,603
0,517
0,533
0,697
0,621
0,480
0,634
0,568
0,613
Basap
0,458
0,493
0,282
0,356
0,537
0,255
0,646
0,392
0,268
0,402
0,416
0,415
Kayan
0,692
0,579
0,586
0,633
0,455
0,511
0,593
0,534
0,615
0,595
0,542
0,567
Bali
0,507
0,648
0,434
0,559
0,483
0,419
0,863
0,516
0,402
0,553
0,536
0,548
Batak
0,791
0,781
0,669
0,775
0,518
0,746
0,708
0,666
0,611
0,753
0,653
0,709
Madura
0,535
0,620
0,409
0,508
0,511
0,382
0,716
0,495
0,438
0,512
0,509
0,515
Modang
0,505
0,620
0,512
0,533
0,329
0,558
0,567
0,437
0,422
0,568
0,459
0,518
Kaili
0,443
0,506
0,452
0,341
0,604
0,241
0,695
0,356
0,339
0,474
0,447
0,480
Lebo
0,446
0,611
0,396
0,519
0,500
0,361
0,648
0,444
0,367
0,542
0,464
0,515
*) SWB=Subjective wellbeing, H=Health, K=Knowledge, W=Wealth, N=Natural sphere, E=Economic sphere, S=Social sphere, P=Political sphere, I&S=Infrastructure and Services
Table 7. Scores for each sphere among groups with different length of residence in Kutai Timur *) SWB
H
K
W
N
E
S
P
I&S
Core
Context
< 1 tahun
0,622
0,645
0,521
0,501
0,537
0,458
0,708
0,531
0,487
0,561
0,538
1-3 tahun
0,631
0,682
0,516
0,565
0,476
0,500
0,707
0,536
0,495
0,591
0,543
3-9 tahun
0,627
0,678
0,518
0,603
0,478
0,525
0,680
0,542
0,480
0,606
0,542
> 9 tahun
0,611
0,666
0,516
0,615
0,483
0,519
0,680
0,530
0,486
0,613
0,540
*) SWB=Subjective wellbeing, H=Health, K=Knowledge, W=Wealth, N=Natural sphere, E=Economic sphere, S=Social sphere, P=Political sphere, I&S=Infrastructure and Services
32
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Disadvantaged households Just over 10% of the households have at least one member who is a widow, widower, an orphan or disabled. These households, on average, have lower wellbeing scores, especially in the wealth and health spheres. Their economic chances are also less than those of other households (see table 8). 7.7% of households in Kutai Timur are led by a woman. Households led by men are better off and have better economic, social and political chances than those led by women.
Household size The impact of household size on its wellbeing is not very clear. Households with 3 to 4 and 5 to 6 members show slightly better conditions than the very small or big
households. This is especially relevant in the economic and wealth spheres.
Perception of local stakeholders on factors influencing household wellbeing In the early stage of the programme, representatives of various government agencies were asked on what they regarded as the underlying causes of poverty. During the same phase, focus group discussions were conducted in seven villages to grasp a better understanding of the perceptions of villagers on causes of poverty. A list of the most commonly mentioned causes by government officials is provided in table 10. Table 11 presents the results of the discussions held in the seven villages,
Table 8. Impact of number of vulnerable persons (widows, widowers, orphans, disabled persons) on household wellbeing spheres *) SWB
H
K
W
N
E
S
P
I&S
Core
Context
Aggregate
>1
0,486
0,589
0,490
0,522
0,474
0,391
0,650
0,476
0,458
0,537
0,490
0,516
1
0,505
0,584
0,483
0,525
0,477
0,404
0,660
0,473
0,457
0,549
0,499
0,531
none
0,631
0,680
0,521
0,620
0,483
0,534
0,685
0,540
0,490
0,618
0,587
0,588
Total
0,615
0,669
0,516
0,609
0,482
0,519
0,682
0,532
0,486
0,610
0,541
0,581
*) SWB=Subjective wellbeing, H=Health, K=Knowledge, W=Wealth, N=Natural sphere, E=Economic sphere, S=Social sphere, P=Political sphere, I&S=Infrastructure and Services
Table 9. Impact of household size on spheres of wellbeing *) SWB
H
K
W
N
E
S
P
I&S
Core
Context
Aggregate
1-2
0,531
0,625
0,397
0,485
0,485
0,425
0,681
0,487
0,449
0,527
0,509
0,540
3-4
0,631
0,688
0,507
0,621
0,485
0,537
0,685
0,542
0,492
0,518
0,548
0,590
5-6
0,631
0,675
0,524
0,640
0,485
0,538
0,685
0,544
0,496
0,616
0,549
0,584
7 or more
0,597
0,633
0,538
0,595
0,469
0,490
0,671
0,513
0,471
0,588
0,524
0,558
*) SWB=Subjective wellbeing, H=Health, K=Knowledge, W=Wealth, N=Natural sphere, E=Economic sphere, S=Social sphere, P=Political sphere, I&S=Infrastructure and Services
33
Chapter 6: Why Are Some People Poor In Kutai Timur?
and represents the different conditions of the villagers in Kutai Timur; geographical distribution, population size, ethnicity, general economic conditions, main sources of livelihood. The main causes of poverty mentioned relate to work ethics, access to basic services (esp. health, education), delivery of the right services to the villages (information dissemination, extension, appropriate skill training). Furthermore, another cause mentioned is the lack of economic opportunities (esp.
34
stable income, better prices for products) to enable people to fulfil their basic needs, to purchase production inputs or to set some money aside. It is interesting to note that government officials mentioned the lack of (secured) access to natural resources as one of the causes of poverty. From their experience, villagers mentioned that large family size and family composition (e.g. headed by widow, included orphans or disabled persons) are causes of poverty.
35
• • • •
Health & Nutrition
Political sphere
•
Knowledge
• • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
Wealth
•
•
• • • • •
Subjective Wellbeing
Discrimination in government services Corruption Lack of motivation of senior officials Development priorities have not been integrated yet
Infrastructure and Services
•
Social sphere
• • • • •
• • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
Economic sphere
• • •
• •
• •
• •
Natural sphere
Limited capacity Lack of access to materials Lack of information Limited transport infrastructure Physical isolation
Do not adhere to customary and religious rules Lack of solidarity Lack of work ethics, Apathy High number of household members (family) Conflicts Inequality and jealousy Consumerism Lack of recognition of role of women Resistance to new ideas / information Customs limit economic activities
Unstable economy and low income Limited access to capital Subsistence livelihood Lack of work ethics Inability to use available natural resources Lack of employment opportunities Lack of production means Women have no access to capital
Limited natural resources Lack of innovation in processing natural resources Lack of access to natural resources Limited natural resources because of overexploitation, fires and natural disasters No ownership of natural resources Vulnerability (due to floods, pests, high waves at sea) Access to natural resources is monopolized Pollution Too much reliance on natural resources
Poverty causes
Sphere
Source: Workshop on perceptions on causes of poverty, district government Kutai Timur, October 2007
Lack of skills or experience to develop enterprises Low level of education Can not afford education for children Education system not meeting peoples’ needs Lack of non formal education institutions Lack of specialization in one business Lack of empowerment
No regular employment or regular income Lack of (family) assets No proper housing Difficulty to fulfil daily needs No access to capital Inability to increase family assets Can not provide assistance to others in need Dependence on other people
Lack of health services Low level of health Nutritional needs not fulfilled Cannot access necessary health care (lack of money) Problems to fulfil basic needs (food and housing) Health service is not provided equally
Subsistence orientation Apathy Lack of self confidence Lack of opportunity No chance to express opinion
Poverty causes
Sphere
Table 10. Perceptions of government officials on causes of poverty in Kutai Timur
Subjective Wellbeing
Sphere • • • •
Lack of work ethics Lack of information Large families Bad management of household finances
Poverty causes
•
Natural disasters (land slides, floods, pests, wild fires) Low soil fertility Deteriorating natural resources
Lack of aid and assistance from the government Lack of information and extension Lack of services Lack of empowerment Negative impact from fight against illegal logging
• •
Irregular income Low income or low prices for produce
• • • •
• •
•
Economic sphere
• • • •
Social sphere
Infrastructure and Services
Lack of access to water Lack of electricity Lack of schools Lack of roads No market
Source: Focus group discussion in 7 villages
• • • • •
Large family size Disadvantaged families (widows, widowers, orphans, disabled persons) Conflict and jealousy Change in lifestyle
Natural sphere
Political sphere
Table 11. Perception of respondents in 7 villages on poverty causes in Kutai Timur
Health & Nutrition
• • • •
•
Low level of education of the older generation Difficult access to education Lack of money to purchase goods essential for education (books, bags etc) or to continue education Limited skills
• Lack of purchasing power to obtain: -Basic needs (food, housing, -------education,clothing) -Production means (agricultural equipment or inputs) Lack of savings or family assets
•
•
Lack of access to health services Low level of health Lack of water and toilet facilities Nutrition: lack of right nutrition, and too few meals per day Not enough money to obtain medical care or go to hospital Health service not good enough
Wealth
Knowledge
• • • •
36
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 7 What Has Been Done In Kutai Timur?
S
ince decentralisation, district governments in areas rich in natural resources, like Kutai Timur, have seen a dramatic increase in their annual budgets. The annual budget provides the district government with substantial means to address poverty. The district government has to decide on the best strategy to alleviate poverty, should they concentrate on special programmes targeting the poor households, or poor villages? Or should they focus on increasing the general standard of living, assuming that poor households would equally benefit from these improvements? The district poverty alleviation committee has listed all government programmes that aim to improve the wellbeing of people of Kutai Timur. Table 12 provides an overview of the programmes that have been implemented in 2007 and 2008. It shows the total budget for the various sectors that support improvement of livelihoods in Kutai Timur. The majority are general programmes, not specifically targeting poor households. Within this budget-line, there are several programmes that explicitly focus on poor households. A substantial amount of budget is allocated to the core spheres of wellbeing, knowledge (education and labour/skill development), health and material wealth (aid for the improvement of houses of poor households under empowerment). The remaining budget is related to providing enabling conditions with regards to the development of economic activities and infrastructure & services (irrigation, village infrastructure).
In 2007, the budget for education included a significant amount for building and repairs in schools (almost 70% of the budget). The remaining budget was spent on improving the quality of the education, through the purchase of educational materials, computers, development of libraries and further training for teachers. In 2008, a similar percentage of the budget for health care was spent on developing the infrastructure (health clinics) and the remaining budget was allocated to the provision and improvement of the health services. Most of the government programmes do not specifically target poor households. In the case where the majority of households in a village experience similar conditions and constraints to increase their wellbeing, general programmes will be equally effective as it is highly likely that any household involved in or benefiting from the programme will be a poor household. However, if there is only a small number of poor households in a village, general programmes may not be enough to address the specific needs and conditions faced by the poorer households. They generally experience significant obstacles to access or benefit from general programmes. These include, among others, lower education levels and limited skills, less involvement in the decision-making process at the village level, less time available as they may be too occupied with obtaining and fulfilling their daily needs. In 2007, the Kutai Timur district government had several programmes targeting poor households: assistance for health service costs, support for economic activities and free distribution of solar panels (mainly targeting isolated communities). The budget allocated to the programme specifically for poor households increased significantly in 2008 (almost four times higher than in 2007), it also included a wider variety of activities. In addition to the programme activities implemented in 2007, in 2008, the programme further
37
Chapter 7: What Has Been Done In Kutai Timur?
Table 12. Government programmes aimed at improving livelihoods in Kutai Timur in 2007 and 2008 SECTOR
2007 (x Billion Rp.)
Programmes aimed at poor households (x Billion Rp.)
2008 (x Billion Rp.)
Programmes aimed at poor households (x Billion Rp.)
Education
90.2
Health
5.0
69.2
Labour
4.9
1.3
Empowerment
9.5
54.1
2.9
Social Welfare
1.5
2.2
2.2
Agriculture
22.6
41.2
1.5
Fisheries
5.6
13.4
Tourism
1.5
1.2
Energy & Mining
9.4
Irrigation
7.4
1.1
1.5
0.5
9.2
2.3
1.1
2.9
Industry, trade & cooperatives TOTAL
19.9
3.9 157.7
3.1
218.5
11.2
Source: KPK Kutai Timur, 2009
included support for the improvement of housing of poor households. Another interesting programme, which should benefit the poor households, is land redistribution. This should provide poorer household with better and more secure access to an important means of production; land. We have, however, no detailed information on the exact implementation of the programme. As with other general programmes to improve the standard of living, if land redistribution is not specifically targeting the poor, and the implementation is not done properly, such a programme may actually have the perverse result of providing cheap land
38
to the better-off at the expenses of the poorer households, the intended beneficiaries of the programme. The district government of Kutai Timur is allocating a significant amount of money to raise the standards of living of the people in Kutai Timur and alleviate poverty. Since this survey is just a snapshot, it is not yet possible to conclude how effective these efforts have been. Some results can be observed in a short time frame, such as the health conditions. Others will need more time to bear fruit, such as the increase in the level of education.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
CHAPTER 8 Conclusions
• • •
Why are some people poor in Kutai Timur? A summary The causes of poverty are manifold and multilayered. Some causes can be identified at the household level, for example, low education level and limited motivation from parents to stimulate their children into continuing education. Other causes are related more to the programmes, policies and actions of institutions at the subdistrict and district levels. For example, efforts to establish more schools in order to decrease distances to schools, or, the granting of permits to companies which has both positive (e.g. employment) and negative (conflicts over land) impacts. Yet others are beyond the control of any local stakeholder, like, for example, the impact of the global crisis. Macro-level causes (international/national level) that affect people in Kutai Timur: • Volatile resource prices on the world market, primarily palm oil and coal prices • Severe prolonged droughts related to the year of El Niño • Increased cost of living, due to the economic crisis, may particularly affect prices in remote areas • Unclear policies and power divisions, resulting in reduced capability of district government to develop local strategies to meet specific local conditions Meso-level causes (district level) • Limited technical capacity in government agencies • Unclear planning process and identifi-
• •
cation of development needs Corruption/inefficient use of funds available Limited (road) infrastructure, unequal distribution and quality of infrastructure Lack of enforcement of legal obligations of commercial companies (mining, palm oil), resulting in - Excessive environmental degradation - Pollution - Conflicts over land and resources High cost of providing services to remote areas with a low population density Heterogeneity of population, resulting in wider range of development needs and related specific development programmes.
Micro-level causes (village and household): • • • • • •
Physical isolation Individual vulnerability (widows, widowers, orphans, disabled persons) Lack of knowledge and appropriate skills Limited economic opportunities Decreasing social coherence and related decreased bargaining power Mobility of households and household members (in search of better economic opportunities, but may cause at least temporary decrease in household wellbeing)
What are the poor’s chances of escaping poverty in Kutai Timur? At the initiation of decentralisation, one of the main reasons given for decentralisation was to improve services to the people and enable the development of policies and programmes better suited to the local circumstances. In Kutai Timur, since decentralisation, services have improved significantly. However, the services do not yet reach all parts of Kutai Timur.
39
Chapter 8: Conclusions
Box 3 Increased vulnerability due to climate changes? Impact of forest clearing and climatic changes on the people of Long Segar Dr. Carol Colfer has conducted long term anthropological research in Long Segar since 1979, concerning changes that have occurred over time in the landscape, its impact on the Dayak people and the strategies people have used to deal with the changes. Based on her research, Dr. Colfer concluded that rice yields have gradually decreased. This reduction in rice yields is less related to reduction of land availability (resulting in shorter fallows, lower soil fertility and more weed problems), but largely caused by climatic conditions. She states that, although her study can not conclusively prove this, it is likely that the forest clearing activities that are drastically altering the landscape also have a causal link to the unusual weather patterns documented in Long Segar. The coping strategy of the people is to supplement their subsistence needs that they fulfil from the produce of their rice field with wage labour. Dr. Colfer draw attention to the need for secured tenure of the local people to avoid that they become landless rural proletariat that can only sell its labour and which has a weak bargaining position. Conditions in many other villages in the area are similar to the conditions in Long Segar. Source: Colfer, 2008, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Longhouse of the Tarsier: Changing Landscapes, Gender and Wellbeing in Borneoâ&#x20AC;?
Remoteness not only results in higher costs and greater difficulty in developing infrastructure (health clinics, schools), it also results in greater challenges to ensure staff are willing to work in these remote locations. The survey has shown that many households are still more concerned with physical access to services, than the quality of the services. The government has made significant progress in making services more accessible to communities. It also continues effort to improve the services provided (by further training for teachers, increased dispatching of dentist, etc.) Decentralisation in Kutai Timur has brought some rapid development and provided some new economic opportunities. Business has expanded and so have opportunities for employment. The general development paradigm followed is that attracting companies will bring the direct benefit of employment, with increased opportunities for local enterprises/entrepreneurs, as well as support towards road infrastructure development that the company needs for its operations and which
40
benefits nearby communities. The survey indicated that in over 60% of villages, the economic sphere is critical. As there is no earlier data for comparison, it is difficult to conclude whether or not opportunities have increased. It maybe that conditions were worse some years ago and have just started to improve. Some households have benefited not only economically, but have also got better access to services. The ongoing influx is also an indication that the opportunities available in Kutai Timur are interesting to people from other parts of Indonesia. However, the opportunities are not felt by all household. It will be an important task for the district government to deve-lop policies and programmes and guide other actors that have significant impact on local development (esp. companies) to recognize this fact. Increased disparity, either between households in the same village or between neighbouring villages may affect other wellbeing spheres, especially. the social and political ones.
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
This, in turn, may increase conflicts and vulnerability. Those most affected will be the people who are already worse off, those with no regular income, weak political representation and connections and little material assets to allow them to invest in resolving conflicts or using available opportunities. Another development that is gradually increasing peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; vulnerability is degradation of the environment. If environmental degradation is accompanied by (substantial) economic benefits to all, people might be less concerned about the initial deterioration of their environment and have sufficient means to access alternatives to fulfil those needs that they originally obtained from their environment (e.g. water, protein, fire wood). Fortunately, since the catastrophic fires of 1997/98, no major natural or man-made disaster has occurred. Concluding, it can be said that the general condition of people in Kutai Timur has improved. It has not yet reached everybody. Increased attention to achieve a more equitable distribution of opportunities and services is needed to avoid an (unhealthy) increase in disparity between communities and community members. The progress has come at a cost, which is environmental degradation. Luckily enough, the conditions are still relatively good, but
increased attention should be paid to halt ongoing degradation and avoid major future degradation as the environmental, social, political, and eventually economic, costs will be significant. One initiative to assist the district government in considering environmental impacts and innovative ways to support local development without causing environmental degradation is the cooperation between the district government and The Nature Conservation. Since 2003, based on survey data from TNC, the district government realized that the forests of Wehea contain important biodiversity, provide important environmental services (watershed protection) and are important to the local communities. The district government and TNC are trying to change the status of the production forest in this area to protected forest and develop tourism to the area. So far, the district government of Kutai Timur has had little exposure to the initiatives related to mitigation of climate change and REDD pilot projects. Innovative approaches used to tackle this issue could assist in reducing environmental degradation, maintain essential environmental services of importance to local communities and also benefit local development.
41
42
References
References •
Agusta,I. (2006) Kemiskinan dan Kebijakan Opini Kompas, 22 Agustus http://www.kompas. com/kompas-cetak/0608/22/opini/2894551.htm
•
Albornoz, M.A., Becker, M., Cahyat, S., Cronkleton, P., de Jong, W., Evans, K., Fuentes, D., Gönner, C., Haches, R., Haug, M., Iwan, R., Limberg, R., Moeliono, M. and Wollenberg, E. (2007) Towards Wellbeing in Forest Communities: A source book for local governments. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 90 hal.
•
Anon., (2006a) Data Kemiskinan Diragukan: Wapres: Data-data itu Benar. Kompas, 19 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/19/utama/2891993.htm
•
Anon., (2006 b) Data Kemiskinan: Anggurnya Baru Kantongnya Lama. Kompas, 23 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/23/Politikhukum/2900103.htm
•
Anon., (2006c) Sajikan Data Sebenarnya: BPS Laporkan Mutasi Kemiskinan yang Terjadi Sejak Maret 2006. Kompas, 25 Agustus http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/25/ ekonomi/2903590.htm
•
BAPPEDA Kutai Timur (2007) Penyusunan Data Basis Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (IPM) Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Tahun 2007. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Kabupaten Kutai Timur & Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Sengata, Indonesia
•
BPS (2004a) Data dan Informasi Kemiskinan Tahun 2003. Buku 1 Propinsi. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Jakarta, Indonesia
•
BPS (2004b) Data dan Informasi Kemiskinan Tahun 2003. Buku 1 Kabupaten. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Jakarta, Indonesia
•
BPS (2008) Profil Kemiskinan Di Indonesia Maret 2008 http://www.bps.go.id/releases/files/ kemiskinan-01jul08.pdf
•
BPS Kutim (2008) Kabupaten Kutai TImur dalam Angka 2008. Badan Pusat Statisitik Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Sangatta, Indonesia, 2008
•
Cahyat, A. (2004) Bagaimana Kemiskinan Diukur? Beberapa model penghitungan kemiskinan di Indonesia. Governance Brief no. 2. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
•
Cahyat, A., Gönner, C., and Haug, M. (2007) Assessing Household Poverty and Wellbeing - A Manual with Examples from Kutai Barat, Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 2007
•
Colfer, C.J.P. (2008) The Longhouse of the Tarsier: Changing landscapes, gender and wellbeing in Borneo. Borneo Research Council (Monograph Series no. 10) Phillips ME, USA
•
Ediawan, A., Wells, A. and Shepherd, G. (2005) Keterkaitan Kemiskinan dan Kehutanan di Indonesia: Apa buktinya? Bagaimana menguatkan targeting terhadap masyarakat miskin di dalam dan sekitar hutan? Briefing paper no. 2 Center for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) and Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Jakarta, Indonesia
•
Gönner, C., Cahyat, A., Haug, M., Limberg, G. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring poverty in Kutai Barat, Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/ pdf_files/.../BGoenner0701Ina.pdf
43
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
44
•
Gönner, C., Haug, M., Cahyat, A., Wollenberg, E., de Jong, W., Limberg, G., Cronkleton, P., Moeliono, M., and Becker, M. (2007) Capturing Nested Spheres of Poverty: A model for multidimensional poverty analysis and monitoring. Occasional Paper no. 46. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia (http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/detail?pdf=2255
•
Khomsan, A. (2006) Yang Disebut Orang Miskin. Opini. Kompas, 25 Agustus. http://www. kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/25/opini/2903405.htm accessed ...
•
KPK (2003) Dokumen Intern Strategi Penanggulangan Kemiskinan. Sebuah kerangka proses penyusunan strategi penanggulangan kemiskinan jangka panjang. Komite Penanggulangan Kemiskinan (KPK), Jakarta, Indonesia
•
Lesmana, T. (2006) Tidak Ada Data Sahih di Republik Ini. Opini. Kompas, 24 Agustus http:// www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/24/opini/2895600.htm
•
Moeliono, M., Limberg, G., Gönner, C., Wollenberg, E., Iwan, R. (2007) Towards Wellbeing – Monitoring Poverty in Malinau, Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
•
Narayan, D. and Petesch, P. (2002) Voices of the Poor: From many lands. World Bank and Oxford University Press, New York, USA
•
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Kaul Shah, M., and Petesch, P. (2000a) Voices of the Poor: Crying out for change. Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York, USA
•
Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., and Koch-Schulte, S. (2000b) Voices of the Poor: Can anyone hear us? Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York, USA
•
Sen, A.K. (1993) Capability and Wellbeing. In Nussbaum, M.C. and Sen, A.K. (eds) The Quality of Life, 30-53. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
•
Sen, A.K (1997) Editorial: Human capital and human capability. World Development 25(12):1959 - 1961
•
Sen, A.K. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
•
Sitorus, S., Levang, P., Dounias, E., Mamung, D., and Abot, D. (2004) Potret Punan Kalimantan Timur. Sensus Punan 2002-2003. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
•
Sugema, I. (2006) Data yang Mematikan. Opini. Kompas, 22 Agustus http://www.kompas. com/kompas-cetak/0608/22/opini/2894501.htm
•
World Bank (2000/01) World Development Report (WDR) 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. World Bank, Washington DC, USA
•
World Bank (2002) A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies. World Bank, Washington DC, USA
Annex 1 : Questionnaire For Poverty And Wellbeing Monitoring
ANNEX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR POVERTY AND WELLBEING MONITORING
Household number
Household Survey Wellbeing Monitoring Kutai Timur District 2008
Village
House hold
General Interview information
Name
Date
Name of HH head
Village Code (Var 1a)
Village
Sub-district code (Var 1b)
Sub-district Sexe of household head (Var 2) Name of Surveyor Male Female
!
Household members are all persons that live in the same house or persons still supported by the family
Basic Information on Household Var 3 Var 4 Var 5 Var 6 Var 7 Var 8
Write the number in this
How many members has your household? How many families live in this household? How many adult male household members are still alive? How many adult female household members are still alive? How many male children (below age 17 years) are still alive? How many female children (below age 17 years) are still alive? Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 9
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
What is the main ethnic group in this household? 1. Basap
2. Modang
3. Wehea
4. Kayan
5. Kutai
6. Lebo
7. Kenyah
8. Bugis
9. Makasar
10. Toraja
11. Jawa
12. Banjar
13. Timor
14. Kaili
15. Lombok/Sasak
16. Batak
17. Bali
18. Madura
19. Suku lain
Var 10
Are there any orphans, widowers, widows or handicapped persons in this household? 1 2 3
Yes, more than one person Yes, one person No
45
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 11
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
How long has this household been living in Kutai Timur? 4 5 6 7 8
Var 12
Less than 1 year Less than 1 year Between 1 - 3 years Between 3 - 9 years More than 9 years
Is yours a prosperous household? 1 2 3
No, it is not prosperous Fairly Yes, it is prosperous
Nutrition & Health Var 13
During the last 12 months, has any household member been seriously ill? 4 5
Var 14
No
How was medical service (doctor, nurse, paramedical) when the household member was ill? 6 7 8
Var 15
Seldom receive medical service Usually receive medical service, but not always good enough to cure illness Always receive medical service and always get cured
During the last 12 month, how did your household fulfill its staple food? 1 2 3
Var 16
There were times we did not eat rice We always ate rice but sometimes have no side dishes (protein, vegetables) We never have problems to eat rice with side dishes (protein, vegetables)
Can your household obtain clean water (not necessarily from PDAM/ government water utility)? 4 5 6
Var 17
We can not or it is always a problem Sometimes we have problems We never have a problem
Do you consider your household to be poor? 7 8 9
46
Yes
Yes, it is poor Fairly No
Annex 1 : Questionnaire For Poverty And Wellbeing Monitoring
Knowledge Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 18
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
What is the highest education level among the adult household members (including the household head)? 1 2 3
Var 19
Primary school (SR/SD/MI) or packet A or lower Junior high school (SMP) or passed packet B Senior high school (SLTA or MA) or passed packet C or higher
Are there any children aged between 7 - 16 years old in your household attending school (children funded by your household)? 4 5 6
Var 20
Not all attend school All attend school No children aged between 7 - 16 years
Are there any household members with off-farm qualifications (traditional healing, mechanic, carpentry, handicrafts, driving etc.)? 7 8
Var 21
None One or more persons
Are there any household members that have had the opportunity to increase their knowledge or skills relevant for work? 1 2 3
Very difficult, no opportunities Possible, but not easy Easy, many opportunities
Wealth Var 22
(PLEASE ASSESS FOR YOURSELF, DO NOT ASK) What is the quality of the respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house (owned, rented or borrowed)? 4 5 6
Var 23
Below standard Standard Above standard
Does your household have sufficient clothes for daily use and for special occasions like religious celebrations, go to the mosque/ church or attend parties etc? 7 8
Not enough for daily activities or special occasions Enough for daily activities and special occasions
47
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 24 a-b a
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
Does your household own one of the following items (Please choose more than one)? (FOR THOSE THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW/CAN SEE FILL IN DIRECTLY) Motorbike or motorized canoe TV b
Economic Sphere Var 25
During the last 12 months, has your household ever experienced difficulties buying sugar? 1 2
Var 26 a b c d e f g h Var 27a
Never
Are there any children aged between 7 - 16 years old in your household attending school (children funded by your household)? Civil servant Agriculture i Company employment Perennial cash crops (oil palm, j
cocoa, coffee, bananas, rubber, oranges)
Casual labour Village leader honorarium Small shop Trade Services
k l m n o
Timber Non timber Forest Products Aquaculture (shrimp, fishponds Freshwater fisheries Others (explain)
Animal husbandry
(PLEASE FILL YOURSELF, NO NEED TO ASK) How many sources of income has the respondent? 3 4
Var 27b
One More than one
Is it a stable source of income? 5 6
Var 28
No there is no stable source Yes
What are the opportunities to generate income in this area, as a civil servants, fishermen, farmer, trader, services or from other income sources? 7 8 9
48
Yes
It is difficult to make enough money It is easy to obtain sufficient income It is easy even to get a big income
Annex 1 : Questionnaire For Poverty And Wellbeing Monitoring
Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 29
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
During the last 12 months, could your household save money? 1 2 3
No Yes but not regularly Yes and routine / always
Political Sphere Var 30
Are the (village, sub-district, district) government decisions reflecting your household's aspirations (opinion, interest)? 3 4 5
Var 31
No To some extend Yes in general
How secure is your householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tenure of land in your village? 6 7 8
Var 32
There is no certainty at all Some certainty, but the position of the people is weak Guaranteed and the position of the people is strong
Does your household have daily access to news and information from the TV, newspapers or radio? 1 2 3
Var 33
No Yes, from one source of information Yes from more than one source of information
How is the implementation of local regulations in your village? 4 5 6
They are seldom followed, and there are no sanctions They are sometimes followed, but there are sanctions Usually the people follow the regulations
Social Sphere Var 34
During the last 12 months, have there been land disputes or other conflicts that involved the villagers? 7 8 9
Var 35
Often Sometimes Seldom
How are the feelings of mutual trust among the villagers? 1 2
Some trust each other, but some are suspicious Most people trust each other
49
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 36
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
If there is gotong royong/ community self help, how many households participate? 3 4 5
Less than half Approx. half The majority
Natural Sphere Var 37
How is the environment (forest, beaches, lakes, rivers etc.) in your village at this moment (not only in the settlement)? 6
More the half degraded and polluted (many trees cut, mangroves converted to ponds, species becoming rare etc.)
7 8
Half of the area is degraded and polluted
Var 38
During the last 12 months, has your village experienced flooding, landslides, forest fires or pests? 1 2 3
Var 39
Yes, with major damage Yes, with major damage Never
Can the water (river, lakes, springs) in your village area (including outside the settlement) be used for drinking water or cooking? 4 5 6
Var 40
The water can not be used It can be used but needs treatment first (let it settle or add tawas) The water can be used directly (only needs to be boiled)
Are there still orangutans, proboscis monkeys, hornbills or lesser adjutants (USE LOCAL NAMES) in the forest, mangroves, swamps, lakes around this village? 7 8 9
Var 41
No more Yes but few Yes there are still plenty
Do you consider your household to be happy? 1 2 3
50
Less than half is degraded and polluted
No, it is unhappy Reasonable happy Yes, it is happy
Annex 1 : Questionnaire For Poverty And Wellbeing Monitoring
Infrastructure and Services Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 42
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
How difficult is it for the villagers to get to the closest junior high school (SMP)? 4 5
Var 43
A bit difficult Reasonable happy
What is the quality of the education in the school where children in this village usually go? 6 7 8
Var 44
Not good enough Reasonable Very good
What is the health service like where the villagers usually go? 1 2 3
Var 45
Not good enough Reasonable Very good
What is the quality of the roads / bridges that connect your village to the sub-district capital? 4 5
Var 46
There are none or in bad condition There are and in good condition
During the last 12 months have there been any training, extension, courses or facilitation of enterprises in your village? 6 7 8
No Yes, 1 -2 times in the last year More than 2 times in last year
Gender Equality Var 47a
Are there any boys between 7 - 16 years in the household who do not attend school (children that are paid for by the household)? 1 2
Var 47b
Yes, there are that do not attend school All attend school
Are there any girls between 7 -16 years in the household who do not attend school (children that are paid for by the household)? 4 2
Yes, there are that do not attend school All attend school
51
Towards Wellbeing: Monitoring Poverty in Kutai Timur, Indonesia
Encircle the choosen answer below!
Var 48a
What is the highest level of education of any adult male in the household? 6 7 8
Var 48b
Elementary school (SR/SD/MI) or packet A or less Junior high school (SMP / MTs) or passed packet B Senior high school (SLTA / MA) or passed packet or higher
What is the highest level of education of any adult female in the household? 1 2 3
Var 49a
Elementary school (SR/SD/MI) or packet A or less Junior high school (SMP / MTs) or passed packet B Senior high school (SLTA / MA) or passed packet or higher
What was the age of the husband when you got married? 1 2 3
Var 49b
14 years or younger 14-18 years Over 18 yearsr
What was the age of the wife when you got married? 4 5 6
Var 50
14 years or younger 14-18 years Over 18 yearsr
Does any adult female household member contribute to the household income? 7 8 9
Var 51
No Yes, but not important Yes and very important
What is the role of the women in decision making in the neighbourhood? 1 2 3
52
Fill in the box in accordance with encircled answer
They are never involved They are seldom involved They are often involved
P P
1&S P&P
E E
S S
P P
Kesejahteraan KesejahteraanPer PerKecamatan Kecamatan(Diagram (DiagramBatang) Batang)
LAMPIRAN LAMPIRAN 22
N A
1&S P&P
0.00
W M
0.00
K PGT
0.20
0.20
H KS
0.40
0.40
SWB SJS
0.60
0.60
100 0.80
MUARA BENGAL
S S
0.80
100
E E
0.00
N A
0.00
W M
0.20
0.20
K PGT
0.40
0.40
H KS
0.60
0.60
SWB SJS
0.80
MUARA BAHAU
100
0.80
100
SWB SJS
SWB SJS
H KS
K PGT
W M
N A
E E
S S
K PGT
W M
N A
E E
S S
SENGATA UTARA
H KS
P P
P P
MUARA ANCALONG
1&S P&P
1&S P&P
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
100
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
100
SWB SJS
SWB SJS
H KS
H KS
W M
N A
E E
W M
N A
E E
S S
S S
1&S P&P
1&S P&P
ANNEX 2
P P
P P
Wellbeing per sub-district (bar diagrams)
K PGT
BUSANG
K PGT
SANGKULIRANG
100 0.80
TELEN
100 0.80
H KS
W M
N A
E E
KOMBENG
K PGT
S S
P P
1&S P&P
100 0.80 0.60
SWB SJS
0.60
1&S P&P
0.60
P P
0.40
S S
0.40
E E
0.40
N A
0.20
W M
0.80
100
0.20
K PGT
E E
KALIORANG
N A
1&S P&P
0.20
H KS
100 0.80
0.00
W M
P P
0.00
0.00
K PGT
S S
0.00 SWB SJS
BENGALON
H KS
0.00
100 0.80
SWB SJS
0.00
0.60
1&S P&P
0.60
P P
0.60
S S
0.40
E E
0.40
N A
0.40
W M
0.20
K PGT
0.20
H KS
0.20
SWB SJS
LAMPIRAN 2 Kesejahteraan Per Kecamatan (Diagram Batang)
SWB SJS
SWB SJS
K PGT
W M
W M
N A
N A
E E
E E
SANDARAN
K PGT
S S
S S
P P
P P
1&S P&P
1&S P&P
SENGATA SELATAN
H KS
H KS
ANNEX 2
Wellbeing per sub-district (bar diagrams)
P P
1&S P&P
N A
E E
S S
Kesejahteraan Per Kecamatan (Diagram Batang)
LAMPIRAN 2
W M
P P
1&S P&P
0.00
K PGT
0.00
H KS
0.20
0.20
SWB SJS
0.40
0.40
0.80
100
0.60
RANTAU PULUNG
S S
0.60
0.80
100
E E
SWB SJS
H KS
K PGT
W M
N A
E E
S S
P P
1&S P&P
SWB SJS
H KS
K PGT
W M
N A
E E
S S
BATU AMPAR
P P
1&S P&P
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
100
0.00
N A
0.00
W M
0.00
K PGT
0.20
0.20
0.20
H KS
0.40
0.40
0.80
0.40
SWB SJS
KAUBUN 0.60
0.80
100
0.60
TELUK PANDAN
100
0.60
0.80
100
SWB SJS
SWB SJS
H KS
H KS
W M
N A
E E
S S
W M
N A
E E
S S
1&S P&P
1&S P&P
ANNEX 2
P P
P P
Wellbeing per sub-district (bar diagrams)
K PGT
LONG MESANGAT
K PGT
KARANGAN
N/A
S
N/A
S
W/ M
W/ M
LAMPIRAN 3
I&S/P&P
SWB/ SJS K/ PGT
H/ KS
P
E
N/A
S
W/ M
I&S/P&P
SWB/ SJS K/ PGT
H/ KS
P
E
E
N/A
S
N/A
W/ M
W/ M
I&S/P&P
SWB/ SJS
K/ PGT
SWB/ SJS
Batu Ampar
H/ KS
Rantau Pulung
SWB/ SJS
K/ PGT
Long Mesangat
E
E
P
H/ KS
H/ KS
P
ANNEX 3
Wellbeing Per Sub-District (Pie Diagrams)
S
Teluk Pandan
N/A W/ M
K/ PGT
Karangan
P
I&S/P&P
E
S
I&S/P&P
H/ KS
P
I&S/P&P
SWB/ SJS K/ PGT
Kaubun
Kesejahteraan Per Kecamatan (Diagram Bundar)