COMMUNITY IN CONSERVATION
SOUTHEAST ASIA
GENERAL AGRICULTURE FOREST WATERSHED TENURE MARINE MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREA WILDLIFE
GENERAL
Abdoellah, OS (1993). Indonesia Transmigrants and Adaptation: An Ecological Anthropological Perspective. Berkeley, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Asian Development Forum (1994). Let a hundred communities bloom: report of the First Asian Development Forum "Community based natural resource management: NGO experiences and challenges", 4-6 February 1992, New Delhi, India. Manila, Philippines, Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
Baines, G (1991). “Asserting traditional rights: community conservation in Solomon Islands.” Cultural Survival Quarterly 15(2): 49-51.
Basiago, AD (1995). “Sustainable development in Indonesia: a case study of an indigenous regime of environmental law and policy.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2(3): 199-211.
The tropical rainforests of Indonesia are threatened with deforestation caused by rapid economic development. Because this development hastens global warming and reduces biodiversity, it violates the doctrine of sustainable development. The Brundtland report, Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987), defined sustainable development as 'development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. Sustainable development was adopted as the overarching world development policy of the 21st century at the Earth Summit in 1992, which introduced international accords to integrate economic development and environmental protection, manage and conserve the world's forests, stabilize production of the gases that cause global warming, and conserve the variety of living species. Indonesia views sustainable development with suspicion and is committed to economic development on the Western model. Sustainable development advocates, however, seek to save the Indonesian rainforests because they amount to 10% of those remaining in the world. They fear that the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests will, by hastening global warming, burden future generations with such problems as coastal flooding, migration of agricultural regions and habitat loss and, by reducing biodiversity, deprive them of the opportunity to study species and use them to
improve the human condition. The conservation of the tropical rainforests of Indonesia may depend on the rediscovery of its indigenous natural resource systems, which are tantamount to a regime of environmental law and policy. These systems include the water temple system of Ball, the home-garden system of Java, the adat and sasi systems of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku, the land-tenure system of West Kalimantan, the shifting cultivation system of East Kalimantan, and the traditional non-timber production systems of forest dwellers. These systems, which are characterized by permaculture, biodiversity conservation, property rights, and sustained yields, prevent Hardin's 'tragedy of the commons' (Hardin, 1968), and foster Leopold's 'biotic integrity' (Leopold, 1968). As a paradigm of land use governance, such systems have sustained the economy and environment of Indonesia on behalf of its people for millennia. It is concluded that the indigenous natural resource systems of Indonesia have a vital role to play in its sustainable development. (Source)
Boomgaard, P, F Colombijn, et al., Eds. (1997). Paper Landscapes: Explorations in the Environmental History of Indonesia. Leiden, KITLV Press.
Braatz, S (1992). Conserving Biological Diversity - A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region. Washington, World Bank Technical Paper No. 193.
Bremen, J (1988). Shattered Image: Construction and Deconstruction of the Village in Colonial Asia. Dordrecht, Foris Publications.
Broad, R and J Cavanagh (1993). Plundering Paradise: The Struggle for the Environment in the Philippines. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Brookfield, H and Y Byron (1993). Southeast Asia's Environmental Future: The Search for Sustainability. Singapore, United Nations University Press.
Brosius, JP (1986). “River, forest and mountain: the Penan Gang landscape.” Sarawak Museum Journal 36(57): 173-184.
Bryant, RL (1998). Resource politics in colonial south-east Asia: a conceptual analysis. in Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia. VT King, Ed. Surrey, UK, Curzon Press.
Colchester, M (1989). Pirates, Squatters and Poachers: The Political Ecology of Dispossession of the Native Peoples of Sarawak. London, Survival International.
Colombijn, F (1998). “Global and local perspectives on Indonesia's environmental problems and the role of NGOs.” Bijdragen Tot De Taal- Land- En Volkenkund 154(2): 305-334.
Contreras, A (1994). “The two faces of environmentalism: the case of the Philippines.” Capitalism, Nature, Society 19(5).
Contreras, AP (1991). “The political economy of state environmentalism: the hidden agenda and its implications on transnational development in the Philippines.” Capitalism/Nature/Society 2(1): 66-85.
Cooper, R (1984). Resource Scarcity and the Hmong Response: Patterns of Settlement and Economy in Transition. Singapore, Singapore University Press.
Dorall, RF (1990). The dialectic of development: tribal responses to development capital in the Cordillera central, Northern Luzon, Philippines. in Tribal Peoples and Development in Southeast Asia. LT Ghee and AG Gomes, Ed. Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.
Dove, M (1986). “Peasant vs. government perception and use of the environment: a case-study of Banjarese ecology and river basin development in South Kalimantan.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 27(1): 113-136.
Dove, M (1986). “Practical reason of weeds in Indonesia: peasant versus state views of Imperata and Chrmolaena.” Human Ecology 14(2): 163-190.
Eccelston, B and D Potter (1996). Environmental NGOs and different political contexts in South-east Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. in Environmental Politics in Southeast Asia. R Bryant and M Parnwell, Ed. London, Routledge.
Ghee, LT and AG Gomes (1990). Tribal Peoples and Development in Southeast Asia. Petaling Jaya, Sun U Book Co.
Ghee, LT and M Valencia, Eds. (1990). Conflict Over Natural Resources in the Asia-Pacific Region. Singapore, Oxford University Press.
Gomes, AG (1990). Confrontation and continuity: simple commodity production among the Orang Asli. in Tribal Peoples and Development in Southeast Asia. LT Ghee and AG Gomes, Ed. Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.
Grove, R, V Damodaran, et al. (1998). Nature and the Orient: The Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Heersink, C (1998). Environmental adaptations in southern Sulawesi. in Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia. VT King, Ed. Surrey, UK, Curzon Press.
Hirsch, P (1989). “The state in the village: interpreting rural development in Thailand.” Development and Change 20: 35-56.
Hirsch believes that most studies of peasant/state relations fall into one of two paradigms. The study either believes the state enters the village and imposes institutional innovation and modernity through integration in the wider economy, or the other type is concerned with the extension of state power and hegemony into the village resulting in peasant exploitation. As a result, most village/state studies presuppose a big distinction between the two. Hirsch argues that is no longer the case, especially in the rural Thai village on which he bases his study. He argues that recent attention to rural development in Thailand has resulted in two contradictory development processes: citizen participation (in which the village becomes the state) and extended domination (in which the state becomes the village). (P. McElwee)
Hirsch, P (1990). Development Dilemmas in Thailand. Singapore, Oxford University Press.
Hirsch, P (1992). What is the Thai village? in National Identity and its Defenders, Thailand, 1939-1989. CJ Reynolds, Ed. Canberra, Monash Papers on Southeast Asia No. 25.
Hirsch, P (1993). Political Economy of the Environment in Thailand. Manila, Journal of Contemporary Asia Publishers.
Hirsch, P (1994). “Community resource management and political-economic restructuring in mainland Southeast Asia.” Journal of Business Administration 22: 69.
Hirsch, P (1995). “A state of uncertainty: political economy of community resource management at Tab Salao, Thailand.” Sojourn 10(2): 172-197.
Hirsch, P (1996). Environment and environmentalism in Thailand: material and ideological bases. in Seeing Forests for Trees: Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand. P Hirsch, Ed. Bangkok, Silkworm Books.
Hirsch, P (1998). Dams, resources and the politics of environment in mainland Southeast Asia. in The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia. P Hirsch and C Warren, Ed. London, Routledge.
Hirsch, P and C Warren (1998). Introduction: through the environmental looking glass: the politics of resources and resistance in Southeast Asia. in The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia. P Hirsch and C Warren, Ed. London, Routledge.
Hirsch, P and C Warren, Eds. (1998). The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia. London, Routledge.
Hoadley, MC and C Gunnaesson (1996). The Village Concept in the Transformation of Rural Southeast Asia. Honolulu, Curzon Press.
Howitt, R, J Connell, et al., Eds. (1996). Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples: Case Studies from Australasia, Melanesia, and Southeast Asia. Melbourne, Oxford University Press.
Hutterer, K, Ed. (1985). Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Kalland, A and G Persoon (1999). Environmental Movements in Asia. Honolulu, Curzon Press.
Kemp, J (1988). Seductive Mirage: The Search for Community in Southeast Asia. Comparative Asian Studies Number Report #3, Amsterdam, Center for Asian Studies.
Kemp, J (1992). Hua Kok : social organization in North-Central Thailand. Canterbury, United Kingdom, Centre for Social Anthropology and Computing and the Centre of South-East Asian Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury.
King, VT (1997). Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia. Honolulu, Curzon Press.
Mitchell, B (1994). “Sustainable development at the village level in Bali, Indonesia.” Human Ecology 22(2): 189-211.
Using a stress-capability framework, the problems and opportunities for sustainable development at the village level in Bali are examined. Balinese culture incorporates a traditional form of local government which emphasizes cooperation, consensus building, and balance. These aspects provide a strong foundation for sustainable development initiatives. At the same time, many decisions are being taken external to the villages, and even to Bali, which may lead to problems for development initiatives. (Journal)
Parnwell, M and R Bryant (1996). Conclusion: towards sustainable development in Southeast Asia. in Environmental Politics in Southeast Asia. R Bryant and M Parnwell, Ed. London, Routledge.
Parnwell, M and R Bryant, Eds. (1996). Environmental Change in South-East Asia. London, Routledge.
Peluso, N (1993). Coercing conservation: the politics of state resource control. in The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics. R Lipschutz and K Concac, Ed. New York, Columbia University Press.
International environmental agreements assume that nation-states have the capacity, internal legitimacy, and the will to manage resources within their territorial boundaries. Although many state agencies or factions may be interested in joining international
conservation interests to preserve threatened resources and habitats, some state interests appropriate the ideology, legitimacy, and technology of conservation as a means of increasing or appropriating their control over valuable resources and recalcitrant populations. While international conservation groups may have no direct agenda for using violence to protect biological resources, their support of states which either lack the capacity to manage resources or intend to control 'national' resources at any price, contributes to the disenfranchisement of indigenous people with resource claims. This paper compares two examples of state efforts to control valuable resources in Kenya and Indonesia. In both cases, the maintenance of state control has led to a militarization of the resource 'conservation' process. International conservation interests either directly or indirectly legitimate the states' use of force in resource management. (SSCI)
Perry, JA and RK Dixon (1986). “An interdisciplinary approach to community resource management: Preliminary field test in Thailand.” Journal of Developing Areas 21(1): 31-47.
Porio, E and B Taylor (1995). Popular environmentalists in the Philippines: people's claims to natural resources. in Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism. BR Taylor, Ed. Albany, SUNY Press.
Pragtong, K and DE Thomas (1990). Evolving management systems in Thailand. in Keepers of the Forest. M Poffenberger, Ed. Washington, Kumarian Press.
Rambo, T, K Gillogly, et al., Eds. (1988). Ethnic Diversity and the Control of Natural Resources in Southeast Asia. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Rigg, J (1994). “Redefining the village and rural life: lessons from Southeast Asia.” The Geographic Journal 160(2): 123-135.
Rigg, JD (1991). “Grassroots development in Thailand: a lost cause?” World Development 19(2-3): 199-211.
Sage, C (1996). The search for sustainable livelihoods in Indonesian transmigration settlements. in Environmental Politics in Southeast Asia. R Bryant and M Parnwell, Ed. London, Routledge.
Sutton, K and J McMorrow (1998). Land use change in eastern Sabah. in Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia. VT King, Ed. Surrey, UK, Curzon Press.
Talbott, LM and MH Talbott, Eds. (1968). Conservation in Tropical South East Asia. Morges Switzerland, IUCN.
Tan-Kim-Yong, U (1992). Participatory land-use planning for natural resource management in Northern Thailand. ODI Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 14b. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Tegbaru, A (1998). Local environmentalism in Northeast Thailand. in Environmental movements in Asia. A Kalland and G Persoon, Ed. Richmond, Curzon Press: 151-178.
Tsing, A and P Greenough, Eds. (1999). Environmental Discourses and Human Welfare in South and Southeast Asia. Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Vandergeest, P (1993). “Constructing Thailand: regulation, everyday resistance.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 35: 133-158.
Vandergeest, P and N Peluso (1995). “Territorialization and state power in Thailand.” Theory and Society 24: 385-426.
Vayda, AP (1979). “Human ecology and economic development in Kalimantan and Sumatra.” Borneo Research Bulletin 11: 23-32.
Watson, DJ (1989). The evolution of appropriate resource-management systems. in Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. F Berkes, Ed. London, Bellhaven: 55-69.
Winzeler, RL (1976). “Ecology, culture, social organization, and state formation in Southeast Asia.” Current Anthropology 17(4): 623-.
Yap, E (1998). The environment and local initiatives in southern Negros. in The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia. P Hirsch and C Warren, Ed. London, Routledge.
AGRICULTURE:
Aumeeruddy, Y and B Sansonnens (1994). “Shifting from simple to complex agroforestry systems: an example of buffer-zone management from Kerinci (Sumatra, Indonesia).” Agroforestry Systems 28(2): 113-141.
Bass, S and E Morrison (1994). Shifting Cultivation in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam: Regional Overview and Policy Recommendations. London, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Belsky, J (1993). “Household food security, farm trees, and agroforestry: a comparative study in Indonesia and the Philippines.” Human Organization 52(2): 130-140.
Increasing numbers of studies suggest that farm trees and agroforestry practices improve household food security. Some have further speculated that poor farmers are responding to decreasing access to land and declining agricultural productivity by increasing farm tree and agroforestry activities because of the multiple benefits of trees, which are cash crops that demand relatively low levels of labor. This paper argues that the choice to cultivate trees, the decision as to which specific tree species are to be cultivated, and the determination of the spatial and temporal association of those trees with annual crops must all be evaluated on a historical and regional basis. Furthermore, in Southeast Asia, food security and upland farm decisions must be viewed within the broader context of the rice economy-the value people have for consuming rice, and its central position in household production decisions. (SSCI)
Belsky, J (1994). “Soil conservation and poverty: Lessons from upland Indonesia.” Society and Natural Resources 7(5): 429-443.
Bouis, H and LJ Haddad (1990). Effects of agricultural commercialization on land tenure, household resource allocation and nutrition in the Philippines. Washington, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Bryant, RL (1994). “Shifting the cultivator: the politics of teak regeneration in colonial Burma.” Modern Asian Studies 28(2): 225-250.
Colfer, C (1983). “Change and indigenous agroforestry in East Kalimantan.” Borneo Research Bulletin 15: 3-21.
Conklin, H (1957). Hanunoo Agriculture: A Report on an Integral System of Agriculture in the Philippines. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Conklin distinguishes between partial systems of shifting cultivation (a technological expedient for a given purpose) and integral systems (the whole of the practitioners way of life and system of crop growing are inseparable). Within partial systems, there are supplementary swiddens (where a permanent field cultivator devotes part of his agricultural efforts to swiddening) and incipient or opportunistic swiddens (where the cultivator, often a migrant with little knowledge of swiddening, moves into a new area and devotes his energies to swidden fields). Within integral systems, Conklin distinguishes between those that clear primary or pioneer land, and those that swidden in secondary lands or previously swiddened areas. He says that the difference between these groups are important, as “partial system farms rarely intercrop or plant as many crops in the same field as integral system farmers”. Partial system farmers have strong sociocultural ties outside the immediate swidden areas into which they bring permanent field agricultural concepts of land use and ownership unknown in integral system areas. The Hanunoo of the Philippines are integral system swiddeners, and Conklin document their seasonal activities and various cropping systems. He says that there is much less data available about partial systems of swidden: “it appears that many partial systems, for a variety of reasons (from general inexperience to undiversified cropping) are less productive and more destructive than most integral systems. However, quantified data, or even detailed qualitative descriptions to make these views more explicit are almost entirely lacking”. In order to analyze swidden systems, Conklin says the first step should be the analysis of the structure and content of the particular agricultural systems involved. Conklin also suggests that subtypes of swiddening be distinguished on the basis of ten criteria: 1) principal crops raised, 2) crop associations and successions 3) crop fallow time ratios 4) dispersal of swiddens 5) use of livestock 6) use of specified tools and techniques 7) treatment of soil 8) vegetation cover of land cleared 9) climatic conditions 10) edaphic conditions. (P. McElwee)
Conklin, HC (1954). “An ethnoecological approach to shifting agriculture.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 17: 133-142.
Based on his fieldwork in the Philippines, Conklin concludes the following are the realities about swiddening: swidden farming follows a locally determined, well defined pattern and requires constant attention and hard labor; for swidden making, second-growth forest is preferred; swidden fires are usually controlled by firebreaks around plots; details of swidden techniques vary from locale to locale; weeds in swiddens often serve a purpose: for example, Imperata is used for pasture and thatch; swiddens are rarely planted in monocrops; the efficiency of swiddens are best judged by total yield per unit of labor, not by productivity per acre; intercropping occurs in swiddens, and can sustain one swidden cycle for 2-3 years; crop rotation is practiced in swiddens, particularly wet cereals alternating with dry season legumes; and finally, fallow periods differ according to local ecology, and most swiddeners know the right cycle for their type of land. (P. McElwee)