Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography

27

(2006) 67–81

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00240.x

fire and policy, eastern Indonesia Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

Livelihoods, fire and policy in eastern Indonesia

Luca Tacconi

1

and Yayat Ruchiat

2

1

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor Barat, Indonesia and Asia Pacific

School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

2

PT Riap Indonesia, Bogor, Indonesia

Correspondence: Luca Tacconi (email: luca.tacconi@anu.edu.au)

Indonesian legislation calls for a zero-burning policy. This approach to fire management is largely in

response to significant negative impacts on the economy and the environment, not only in Indone-

sia but also the neighbouring region, that result annually from peat fires in Kalimantan and

Sumatra. In this context, the present paper investigates the local use and management of fire in

Flores and Sumba islands in eastern Indonesia. Our appraisals show that people’s livelihoods depend

on fire to maintain grasslands and, therefore, that the national policy and legislation for zero-

burning is inappropriate and needs to be revised. This follows from the fact that not all fires cause

damage and are unwanted. Through a series of rapid rural appraisal interviews, we found that the

fires in grasslands are often lit intentionally to maintain the grasslands that local people use to sus-

tain a variety of livelihood activities such as cattle rearing, hunting and farming. Although fires can

damage or destroy remnant dry forests in eastern Indonesia, in order to be effective, future policy

formulations need to account for this human livelihood dimension and the geographic variation in

fuels, climate and land use.

Keywords:

livelihoods, fire, grasslands, forest, policy, Indonesia

Introduction

In 1997–98, a strong El Niño southern oscillation event caused serious forest fires inPapua New Guinea and northern Australia through Indonesia and Malaysia. In Indone-sia, fires throughout the entire archipelago affected some 11.7 million ha of forested andother lands with economic costs estimated to be between USD 5 billion and USD 6.3 bil-lion (Tacconi, 2003). During the height of the fires, the resultant smoke and hazestretched over 1 million km

2

, adversely affecting the health of millions of people inIndonesia and neighbouring countries (Glover & Jessup, 1999) and attracting world-wide attention. This immediate increase in concern resulted in new policy initiatives –such as the 2002 regional Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Agreementon Transboundary Haze Pollution – and increased funding for research activities tounderstand the causes and possible solutions to this recurrent annual problem, althoughnot always occurring with the severity of the 1997–98 fires.

Much research has focused on the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan, which havelarge areas of peat lands (Page

et al

., 2002) and important biodiversity values that will beseverely affected by large-scale fires. The realization that there was a gap in knowledgeabout the causes and impacts of fires in the eastern Indonesian islands led to a speciallyfocused workshop (Russell-Smith

et al

., 2000) and a follow-up project aimed at investi-gating in detail the causes and impacts of fires in the islands of Flores and Sumba in NusaTenggara Timur (NTT) Province. This paper, prepared as a contribution to that project (andfunded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; ACIAR),

1

assesses fire management issues in those islands with a focus on the implications for policy.We focus on grassland fires as these account for most of the area burned annually in Floresand Sumba according to preliminary interviews conducted with farmers and governmentofficials, and the preliminary findings of remote sensing analysis on the same project.

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

68

Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

The assessments presented here are addressed to the broader Indonesian context.While policies to reduce the recurrent haze problem have been proposed (Quah, 2002;Tacconi, 2003), there is still limited investigation on the contributions of the differenthuman activities in different geographical areas to the national fire ‘problem’. This studytherefore furthers knowledge on a better understanding of fire issues specific to easternIndonesia (Dove, 2004). By focusing on grassland fires and their uses from the local farm-ers’ perspective, we seek to contribute to a more grounded and open environmentaldiscourse, which in Indonesia (Glover & Jessup, 1999) as well as in other countries(Amanor, 2002) has focused mainly on the negative impacts of fire.

Our study is based on information derived from fieldwork and rapid rural appraisalinterviews and discussions on fire use in Flores and Sumba conducted in 2003 and 2004,which we evaluate in light of the perceived impacts of these fires. The potential impactsof these fires are considered in the context of the limited existing information and theimplications for policy. The findings clearly point to the need for further information onthe distribution and causes of fires in specific local environments for improving policy for-mulation and the need for this to account for grassland management and livelihoods ifpolicy is to be effective.

Study area and methods

Nusa Tenggara, which includes the province of NTT, is the driest region in Indonesia as aresult of low rainfall (

<

1000 mm), high wind speeds and intense solar radiation (Monk

et al

., 1997). The driest east monsoon climate has been recorded on the north coast ofeastern Sumba island with an average of 45 mm of rainfall over the dry season (June–October). The study sites in Flores and Sumba (Figure 1) have 0–4 and 5–8 months a yearwith average rainfall of less than 100 mm, respectively. Approximately 45 per cent of the

Figure 1.

Location of the study sites in East Sumba District, Sumba and Ngada District, Flores, Nusa Tenggara

Timur (NTT) Province, Indonesia.

0 50 100 150 200km

N

Study Site

Study Site

Bajawa

Waingapu

WanggametiNational Park

Kupang

WEST TIMOR

FLORES ISLAND

SUMBA ISLAND SAWU SEA

Ngada

East Sumba

120 122 124 8

1010

8 O O O O

O

O

O

120 122OO

0 800km

JAKARTA

J A V ABALI

NUSA TENGGARA

KALIMANTAN

SU

MA

TR

A IRIAN JAYA

M A L A Y S I ASINGAPORE

BRUNEIPHILIPPINES

AUSTRALIA

SULAWESI

PACIFIC OCEAN

N

INDIAN OCEAN

110 120 130

0

10

110

10

0

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia

69

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

land area in NTT has slopes of over 40 per cent gradient and about 24 per cent has slopesin the range 26–40 per cent. Steep slopes, poor soils and low rainfall make a large area ofNTT unsuitable for agriculture.

In 1993 it was estimated that grasslands covered some 16 500 km

2

in NTT (Garrity

et al

., 1997), or about 35.8 per cent of the land area. The extent to which the increasingrural population density (74 people per km

2

in 2000) has resulted in the conversion ofgrasslands to semipermanent or permanent land uses is uncertain. Accurate statistics onforest cover loss in NTT are not available,

2

but much of the area covered by grasslands wasonce forest, as the grasslands are thought to be an anthropogenic consequence (Monk

et al

., 1997). Data from a vegetation cover assessment conducted by the Center for Inter-national Forestry Research (CIFOR) thus show that human activities had reduced forestcover in NTT to about 4463 km

2

(9.6 per cent of land area) in 2002, with grasslands, crop-lands and non-vegetated areas occupying 34 389 km

2

(74 per cent).

3

Flores has been inhabited for 0.8 million years (van den Bergh

et al

., 2001) and agri-culturalists have inhabited Sumba for about 2000 years (Seavoy, 1975). The long-termhabitation of the islands and the limited area of forest remaining indicate that the conver-sion of forests to grasslands has probably been completed in Sumba and possibly also inFlores, and that the remaining forest is probably secondary regrowth.

The research sites encompassed the participation of the villages of Kuhiwatu Kiritana,Pray Kalipar, Ngaruka Hiri and Lukuingir, all in East Sumba District, and, in Flores, thevillages Dhereisa and Dorameli in Ngada District. The field information summarized inthis study was collected through rapid rural appraisal (RRA) interviews and discussion.The preliminary round of interviews focused on understanding if/how rural villagersconsidered fire to be a problem, how they used it, and how it affects their livelihoods.Conducted during the dry season (18–29 July 2003 in Sumba and 1–10 August 2003 inFlores) in each village, these involved group discussions; the construction of timelines ofrecent village history including livelihood changes, fire use and its impacts; and preparingsketch maps to describe fire use and the spread of fire across vegetation types. The follow-up round of rapid appraisal interviews, conducted during the following dry season(25–31 July 2004 in Sumba and 15–21 August 2004 in Flores), sought to confirm theinformation and previous appraisals carried out, with particular focus on causes of igni-tion of fires.

In August 2004 we conducted interviews in Waingapu with the East Sumba DistrictVice-Head and district officials from various government departments: namely Planning,Forestry, Plantations, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. In October 2004, we con-ducted similar interviews in Bajawa with Ngada District officials from the departments ofPlanning, Forestry, Plantations and Agriculture as well as the district’s EnvironmentalManagement Agency. In the same month, we interviewed NTT officials from the Plan-ning and Forestry departments and the Environmental Management Agency in the pro-vincial capital Kupang, West Timor. Finally, in collaboration with the respective districtplanning departments, we organized a one-day workshop in Waingapu, Sumba, on 2August 2004, and in Bajawa, Flores, on 14 October 2004 to discuss if/how fire was a prob-lem in the district, and how it could be addressed. The summary of these discussions arereported below (Table 1).

Fires in Flores and Sumba islands, NTT

Fire is widely used in swidden agricultural activities and in grassland managementin both Flores and Sumba, not unlike elsewhere in the tropics. However, increasing

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

70

Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

population densities and intensified agricultural activities have resulted in a decrease inburning associated with shifting cultivation (McWilliam, 2000). Grasslands that areburned annually now are mostly to improve visibility for hunting and to encourageregrowth for grazing.

The efficiency and suitability of shifting cultivation to various environments, and themyths regarding it, have been well documented (Thrupp

et al

., 1997) and are notaddressed in detail here. It suffices to say that shifting cultivation ‘requires a lower inputof labour per unit of food production than any other form of agriculture’ (Fisher,1969:48) and that swidden fires are generally well controlled – that is, when the farmerdoes intend to control them. However, Fisher (1969:50) thought that shifting cultivatorshad no means of controlling the spread of grassland fires into secondary forests; he notes:

as long as there is an abundance of land and hunting has a high social value, the creation of

Imperata

grasslands at the expense of forest is not an irrational use of land. The agriculturalists of

Kalimantan have little reason to care if a whole forest is destroyed as long as unoccupied forests

are nearby to which the village can move.

It bears stressing that once the grassland has been established, it offers an environmentsuitable to agriculture and grazing (Sherman, 1980) and, therefore, farming communi-ties may not move.

While there are still doubts about the contribution of shifting cultivation and grass-land fires to the large-scale forest fires that occurred in other areas of Indonesia in 1997and 1998, the information from our rapid rural appraisal interviews and workshopsreveals that in Flores and Sumba agricultural fires are unlikely to burn large areas (i.e.hundreds or thousands of hectares) of forest. First, there are few large forest areas left andthe hilly and mountainous topography of these islands is not conducive to uncontrolledlarge-scale fires. Uncontrolled fires may burn rapidly upslope, but fires burn slowlydownslope and can be controlled, especially given the fragmented nature of the vegeta-tion (or absence of large contiguous forests). Higher population densities have alsoresulted in the greater emphasis on better control of agricultural fires. Grasslands areburned yearly to promote regrowth of grass for grazing cattle during the dry season,which in eastern Sumba can be as long as 9 months (Monk

et al

., 1997).

Table 1. Participants in the 1-day workshop in Sumba and in Flores, 2004.

Workshop in Waingapu, East Sumba District, 2 August 2004 (30 participants)

1. East Sumba District government department heads including Forestry; Community Education and Food; Agriculture; Agricultural Plantations; Animal Husbandry; Environmental Management; Official Information of Agricultural Training; Planning; Economics; Research and Development, and other officials from these departments.

2. Representatives of the communities in the study villages: Subdistrict Head of Pandawai; Village Head of Lukuwingir; Subvillage Head of Lukuwingir; Subvillage Head of Ngaru Kahiri; Village Head of Kiritana; Subvillage Head of Kuhi Watu; and Subvillage Head of Marada Mundi.

3. Representatives of Tananua Foundation and Sumba Sejahtera Foundation, two local nongovernment officials (NGOs) and our project partners.

Workshop in Bajawa, Ngada District, Flores, 14 October 2004 (28 participants)

1. Ngada District government department heads including Forestry; Community Education and Food; Agriculture; Agricultural Plantations; Animal Husbandry; Environmental Management; Community Development for Health and Protection; Planning; and included a Community Police representative and other officials from these departments.

2. Representatives of the communities in the study villages.

3. Representatives of Mitra Tani Mandiri Foundation, a local NGO and a project partner.

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia

71

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Our interviews indicated that grasslands are burned late in the dry season, when cat-tle cannot find any more grass and, particularly in Flores, to aid in hunting. Burning ear-lier in the season can negatively affect grasslands if a second burn is needed to stimulateregrowth for cattle grazing. At a workshop organized in Waingapu in July 2004, an offi-cial of the East Sumba Livestock Department noted that fire management practices werenot yet ideal for grass regeneration, and that firing before the dry season is not recom-mended because it can reduce the amount of grass available during the peak of the dryseason. Therefore, proposed changes in burning practices to reduce the negative impactsof fire (such as those being experimented with as part of the project which fundedresearch for this paper) should account for livelihood strategies besides potential negativeenvironmental impacts. We are not suggesting that the experience gained controllingwildfires in savannas in Australia and Africa is not relevant to eastern Indonesia but,rather, that better knowledge of fire ecology and livelihood needs is required before con-clusions are drawn on whether or not early burning should be adopted.

There is significant local knowledge about fire use in the study villages in Sumba andFlores. The management of agricultural fires involves establishing fire breaks and, attimes, fires are set at dusk, when cooler temperatures allow better control. The implica-tions of high temperatures and strong winds are well known and villagers take advantageof these conditions if they want to burn large areas, as informed by farmers in Flores.Whether or not many such fires escape and damage property is uncertain as there are nostatistics on this issue (see discussion below). This is not to imply that villagers necessarilyhave full knowledge of fire management; Fisher (1969) thought that farmers did nothave ways to stop grassland fires from burning secondary forest. Clearly, local knowledgeof fire management needs to be documented to determine if and how fire managementcan be improved.

The contribution of fire to the local economy is a relevant issue in relation to develop-ing a fire policy; in both the study districts, agricultural and pastoral activities contributesignificantly to the economy. Part of the agricultural output can probably be producedwithout fire, and those that depend on fire could be produced by alternative means, butprobably at a much higher cost. Livestock activities in particular benefit considerablyfrom the maintenance of grasslands through burning, the farmers say, otherwise it wouldprobably not be viable.

In Ngada District Flores, agriculture accounts for 52 per cent of the regional grossdomestic product (GDP), with farm products and livestock contributing 43.7 per cent and8.2 per cent, respectively; forestry contributes only 0.55 per cent to the regional GDP(BPS Ngada District, 2002). In East Sumba District, agriculture accounts for 43.9 per centof the regional GDP, with farm products and livestock contributing 24.6 per cent and 16per cent, respectively, and forestry contributing just 0.16 per cent (BPS, 2003). The rapidappraisals conducted in the study sites in Flores and Sumba indicate that rural people relyon natural resource exploitation linked to fire as a tool to a greater degree than suggestedby aggregate district statistics (Table 2). The actual contribution of the large areas of grass-land to the formal and informal economy remains uncertain. This raises a question as towhether all grasslands used for livelihood activities are partly maintained by escapedfires. Furthermore, could grasslands contribute more to livelihoods if escaped fires (ifthey occur) were controlled and the vegetation was allowed to regenerate?

4

Table 2 indicates potential tradeoffs in the use of the remaining forest areas. In someinstances, forests still contribute significantly to livelihoods. A further reduction in forestcover would reduce this livelihood source. The overall impact on livelihoods will dependon if the alternative use of the cleared forest areas generates higher livelihood benefits, or

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

72

Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

if the benefits are lower, making it less likely that forests would be cleared – unless thereare institutional failures such as an open access situation or lack of knowledge about thecontrol of grassland fires. This supports the need for further assessment of local knowl-edge of fire management and the implications for natural resource management.

Perceived impact of fire in NTT

A fire ‘problem’ implies that there are several negative impacts, and this is said to be thecase in NTT. At the provincial departments of Economic Planning and of EnvironmentalManagement in Kupang, fire is considered to be problematic when it escapes into theforest. A senior official of the Economic Planning Department explained that a majorproblem faced by the province is water availability: fires and illegal logging reduce forestcover, which in turn results in reduced water availability. In Sumba, government offi-cials expressed concern about the impact of fires on the Wanggameti National Park(Figure 1). These local-level concerns about the impact of fires are exemplified by a cer-emonial event promoted by government officials and nongovernment officials (NGOs)in the two study districts in Flores and Sumba a few years ago, in which customary rep-resentatives vowed to stop the use of fire in rural areas. Despite this occasion, regularburning continues.

At the focused workshop discussions, local government officials expressed a range ofviews on fire, influenced to a certain extent by their own institutional affiliations. Thus,forestry officials thought that fires were a problem given that they spread from grasslandsto forests, thus causing deforestation. One official even stated that he would have pre-ferred the title of the workshop to address ‘fire control’ rather than ‘fire management’,which implied that fire use was acceptable. Livestock officials recognized that fire is a use-ful tool in land management. An agriculture official noted both the positive and negativeuses of fires: farmers, he said, cannot do without fire for land preparation and to kill pests(a view vigorously affirmed by one of the villagers participating in the workshop), but ofcourse fires can damage crops and fences, the latter increasing the risk of crop damagefrom livestock. A tree-crop plantation official felt that fire is problematic while a planningofficial stressed the importance of forests for hydrological functions and the potentiallinks between fire, forest loss and reduced water availability.

Table 2. Income sources in selected villages in the study sites in East Sumba District and in

Ngada District, Flores, 2004.

Income source

SumbaLukuwingir-Kiritana

(%)

Flores

Dhereisa(%)

Dorameli(%)

Food crops 36.0 19.7 22.0

Tree crops 4.2 2.8 6.0

Livestock

†

23.8 17.1 35.5

Timber and non-timber products 30.7 27.1 26.0

Grasslands

‡

5.3 7.1 6.9

Handicraft – 20.1 3.6

Other income – 6.1 –

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

†

While livestock raising benefits from grasslands, the relative contribution of extensive and intensive

practices is uncertain.

‡

From the PRA reports this category refers to the collection, domestic use and

sale of grasses.

Sources

: Maan

et al

. (2004); Pandanga and Rawambaku (2004).

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia

73

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

The available literature has focused particularly on the negative impacts of fire. Forinstance, how in the case of Timor, an increase in population seems to have led to the deg-radation or conversion of forest into grassland (Ormeling, 1957), a process apparentlyaggravated by an increase in livestock and the related use of fire to burn scrub and grassessince the beginning of the twentieth century (Barlow

et al

., 1990). The transformation offorest into grassland is considered the main negative impact of fire (Gadas, 2000; Mudita,2000). ‘Fires’ are often taken to mean ‘escaped fires’, intentionally set to stimulateregrowth of grass for grazing and spreading to forest (Foenay, 2000) and reforestationareas (Wibowo

et al

., 1997; Djoeroemana

et al

., 2000). Shifting cultivation and grasslandfires are also thought to be contributing to sedimentation and flooding (Juspan, 2000;Mudita, 2000), the destruction of property such as wood fences in the fields (Mudita,2000), the reduction of air quality (Grist & Menz, 1997; Mudita, 2000), and causing car-bon emissions that affect climate change (Grist & Menz, 1997).

Dove (2004) pertinently notes that Western societies idealize forest cover: hence,national and international agencies view grasslands not as a common class of land coverbut as a ‘development problem’. This has reinforced significant research efforts focusingon how to prevent the creation of grasslands and on how to ‘rehabilitate’ grassland.Research focusing on grassland management in Kalimantan and Sumatra shows that theIndonesian government is inclined towards this view, even though the local people con-tinue to regard grasslands as intrinsic to their livelihoods (Sherman, 1980; Potter, 1997;Dove, 2004). One study quotes local people so dismayed by a forestry plantation projectlocated on the grasslands: ‘the trees are healthy but the people are sick at heart’ (Potter,1997:45). The officially endorsed perspective is, in fact, a continuing legacy of the Dutchcolonial authorities’ misreading of the landscape as representing an ‘unwanted’ spread ofgrasslands and as a sign of environmental decline (Dove, 2004).

In Southeast Asia, increases in population have historically resulted in a transforma-tion of land use patterns from natural forest-based to shifting cultivation, which includesgrassland areas, and from shifting cultivation to permanent agriculture (Grist & Menz,1997). Explained differently, a hunting-gathering system supports up to three people perkm

2

, a shifting cultivation system about 30 people per km

2

, and a savanna-based palmsystem up to 120 people per km

2

(Monk

et al

., 1997). It can be expected that some of thegrassland areas will be transformed into permanent agriculture, and the informationderived from the field appraisals confirms that agricultural intensification is probably pro-ceeding in NTT. Not all grasslands areas are suitable for permanent agriculture, such aslarge areas of East Sumba District, because of poor soil, steep topography and low rainfall.In this context, the use of fire supports agricultural intensification and maintenance of avegetation type that benefits livelihoods.

Grasslands, however, still remain the target of ‘rehabilitation’ activities. The Indone-sian Ministry of Forestry defines a ‘rehabilitation area’ as land other than closed forestwithin the state forest area, which means secondary forests, dry land agriculture, ricefields and grassland can be subject to rehabilitation (Departemen Kehutanan, 2003).Given the contribution that grasslands and other agricultural lands provide to liveli-hoods, Fox (2000) raises concerns about the significant increase of the area allocated tostate forest land (but not necessarily covered by forest) from 22 per cent to 66 per centover the period 1979–95. Land use data based on the national land use plan and collectedas part of our appraisal show that as much as 35 per cent of the land area of NTT is allo-cated as state land for forestry use which, in the light of the relatively high populationdensity of NTT, could pose significant constraints on livelihoods.

It seems important to recognize that degradation means different things to different

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

74

Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

stakeholders and to take this into account when developing policy, legislation and initia-tives directed at addressing specific natural resource management problems, includingfire management. To some, reduced forest cover may imply degradation because ofreduced biodiversity; to others, reduced forest cover may imply the increased viability oflivelihoods.

In summary, fire contributes to livelihoods in savanna-based and swidden agricul-tural systems. Grasslands are intentionally and purposefully managed by rural commu-nities to derive the best benefits to livelihood within the available human resources,technology and markets. Therefore, policy initiatives should not target or demonize firesolely as an impediment to the ‘rehabilitation’ of grasslands. In many cases, the reversesituation may apply: fire is used to maintain grasslands. Certainly, in some situations, firesmay have negative impacts, but this cannot be presumed.

Assessing the impact of fire use

If, as can be seen, grassland fires are important for local livelihoods, do these fires havenegative impacts for the broader society (i.e. externalities) that exceed the benefits tolocal people? An affirmative answer immediately raises the question of if or how burningpractices could be modified to reduce wider costs and impacts. If fires result in net sociallosses

5

then there is a need to consider the conversion or use of grasslands without anyapplication of fire. But, if grassland fires result in net social benefits, there would be noneed to consider changes to grassland management and fire use, unless current resourceuse technologies led to unsustainable outcomes, in which case a modification of use pat-terns and technology could be justified.

To assess whether or not resource use results in net positive or negative social benefitsit suffices to consider if significant externalities result from current resource use, assum-ing that the social benefits of grassland use equal private financial benefits. This is a safeassumption given that economic benefits can be expected to be higher than the financialbenefits directly derived from resource management due, for instance, to economic mul-tiplier effects of grassland-based activities. We could also assume that the use of grasslandsfor livelihoods in Flores and Sumba is the best current use from the perspective of finan-cial profitability, which is partly supported by the evidence that more intensive land usesare taking place where environmental conditions allow them. However, the develop-ment of more profitable land uses cannot be excluded given the existing conditions. Thepotential negative impacts of grassland fires need to be considered in the order of local toglobal problems.

Immediate effects: property, soil erosion and pests

Farmers in Flores and Sumba participating in our rural appraisals reported that escapedfires had sometimes burnt crops and damaged property, such as the burning of an agricul-tural shed reported in Flores. In Ngada District, 23 houses are officially recorded as havingbeen burned in 2001, down from 154 in 1996, but there is no indication if the fires orig-inated in the houses or from other sources (BPS, Ngada District, 2002). Overall, the farm-ers interviewed thought that in most cases fire damage to property was not significant, andthat fire prevention could be further improved in cropped areas and around houses. RohanFisher (pers. comm., October, 2004), a member of the ACIAR project team at Charles Dar-win University, recounted that farmers had indicated some cases involving significant croplosses. Improved collection of statistics on property losses caused by fire would enable amore accurate assessment of these impacts and the extent of losses sustained.

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia

75

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Grass cover stabilizes the soil, limiting erosion to a degree equal to forest plantationsand secondary forest (Doolette & Smyle, 1990; Bruijnzeel, 2004). This indicates that theconversion of forest to grasslands in itself does not necessarily increase soil erosion andsiltation. Soil erosion may increase if grassland burning is followed by rain on bare soil.Most of our rural informants indicated that the burning of grasslands occurs during thedry season, suggesting that the risk of erosion is low. However, given that the late seasonfires are particularly hot and that only limited grass regrowth may take place before theonset of the wet season, soil erosion cannot be discounted.

6

Thus, data on soil erosion,presently not available, are needed to assess the local sustainability of both fire manage-ment and grazing practices; methods of study relating to this should differentiate betweenerosion caused by burning practices and erosion caused by grazing practices.

The only mammal species found to inhabit

Imperata

grasslands are four species of rats(Whitten

et al

., 1987; cf Tomich

et al

., 1997) that are known agricultural pests. Both ininterviews and workshops, villagers and government officials in the study areas believedthat dry season burning kills insects that are harmful to livestock, indicating that fire isvalued as a means of pest control.

Impacts on local climate and hydrology

The smoke from the large-scale fires that occurred in 1998 in Kalimantan suppressedprecipitation (Rosenfeld, 1999). Moreover, the quantities of rain-suppressing particlesand smoke generated were all the more significant because large areas of forest and, inparticular, peatlands were affected (Tacconi, 2003). Research on the impacts on local cli-mate and hydrology of agricultural and grassland fires in NTT is lacking. However, firecould be expected to have rather limited local impacts in Flores and Sumba due to thesmall amount of biomass per unit of area that is burnt because, according to our apprais-als, grassland fires are used to burn small surface areas at a time. In Sumba, closer atten-tion to land use in and around the Wanggameti National Park may be required as this isthe headwaters of the catchment area for the whole of the East Sumba District (Fox,2000).

Wider impacts: transport and health

The 1997–98 fires caused significant disruption to transport activities, particularly airtransport (Glover & Jessup, 1999). Disruption of flights due to poor visibility is an almostannual event in Indonesia when forest fires and peatlands burn in Sumatra and Kaliman-tan. By comparison, participants at the workshops pointed out, grassland fires in Floresand Sumba generate a small amount of smoke and there is no evidence that transport dis-ruptions have been caused by such fires. The 1997–98 fires had significant and wide-spread health impacts resulting from continuous exposure to high levels of air pollutionfor a long period (Tacconi, 2003). In Sumatra and Kalimantan, the worst affected areaswere blanketed in smoke pollution for several months. The health impacts caused bythose fires were especially severe because of the high levels of fine particulate matter,originating from burning peat, which affects lung function (Osterman & Brauer, 2001).In Flores and Sumba, fires often burn for short periods (we observed fires sometimes asshort as 20 minutes) and the small amount of smoke generated rarely spreads to inhab-ited areas. Furthermore, the smoke does not carry the significant quantities of fine partic-ulate matter generated by peat fires and does not pose any similar health risk. In thiscontext, Osterman and Brauer (2001) have noted that daily inhalation of smoke fromburning firewood for cooking poses greater threats to health than occasional smoke inha-lation from agricultural or forest fires.

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

76

Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

Loss of biodiversity

Results from both the rural appraisal interviews and the workshops reveal that, whenfires affect the remaining secondary forest areas, they are often intentional fires set foragricultural purposes. When these fires are part of the swidden system that has been prac-tized in Flores and Sumba for thousands of years, biodiversity may not be affected as theforest will regrow. If areas of permanent or intensive agriculture or grazing pasturesreplace forests, biodiversity might decrease; however, if the fires were intentional, thenthe cause of biodiversity loss would be the change in land use rather than fire per se. Onlyescaped fire can be said to contribute to biodiversity loss if it causes the conversion of for-est into grassland, which often have lower biodiversity values than forests (Whitten

et al

.,1987). Once grasslands are established, repeated fires might not reduce their biodiversityvalue, unless the fire regime contributes to a depletion of floral and faunal diversity.Indeed, it should be noted that grasslands are ecologically important ecosystems and insome cases it is their conservation rather than ‘rehabilitation’ that needs to be consideredas well (Young & Solbrig, 1993). More critically, in many ecosystems, flora and fauna spe-cies are fire-dependent and removing fire can result in a loss of biodiversity (Watson

et al

.,2000). Therefore, assessment of the biodiversity impacts of fire must identify those stem-ming from attempts, if any, aimed at changing fire regimes.

Climate change

Grasslands fires release carbon annually; however, grass regrowth captures carbon.Therefore, grassland burning involves a short-term transfer of carbon to the atmospherewhich, under an unchanging fire regime, is balanced by regrowth of vegetation (Watson

et al

., 2000). Declines in soil carbon pools in grasslands may result from an increase in firefrequency (which can reduce grass biomass production through loss of soil nitrogen) andenhanced decomposition processes. However, Watson

et al

. (2000) also note that theeffects of increased fire frequency on grass biomass pools varies, with some grasslandsbeing little affected. While ‘rehabilitation’ of grasslands is thought to have the benefit ofcapturing carbon – with a difference of up to about 270 t C ha

−

1

between dipterocarp for-ests and grasslands (Tomich

et al

., 1997) – it cannot be guaranteed that this will lead to apermanent increase in carbon captured. If and for how long the carbon is maintained ineither the rehabilitated system or its products depends on if harvesting or burning of thevegetation takes place and on the final use of the products.

Towards improved fire policy in Indonesia

The evidence available and obtained from our field appraisals in Sumba and Flores seemto indicate that fires have no significant local negative impacts, although the informationnecessary to make an exhaustive assessment is still lacking. At the national and globallevel, escaped grassland fires could be contributing to a reduction in biodiversity, but sta-tistics on the number and extent of these fires do not exist and need to be collected. Biodi-versity loss is caused by changes in land use: intentional fires are not a cause. At the globallevel, grassland fires are not contributing to climate change – unless the fire regime isreducing the soil carbon pool, which, also, is not known for NTT. Research on this impor-tant and topical issue would have to consider the soil carbon lost, the economic costs, andthe cost of remedial actions compared with the benefits in relation to a specific landscapeand livelihoods, and policy formulated accordingly.

Several regulations, laws and government organizations deal with fire managementin Indonesia (Simorangkir & Sumantri, 2002). However, the fundamental policy and

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia

77

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

legal principle for fire management is set in the Government Regulation No 4/2001 on‘Control of Environmental Degradation and or Pollution Related to Forest and LandWildfire’. This mandates that ‘no one shall be conducting forest and or land burning’(Article 11) and, further, that all persons responsible for a business that may cause ‘majorand significant’ environmental degradation and pollution from fire is obligated to pre-vent fire in the location of their business (Article 13), mitigate it (Article 17), and carryout rehabilitation activities (Article 20).

Passed in the aftermath of the 1997–98 fires, when the Indonesian government cameunder strong international pressure, particularly from its ASEAN neighbours, to limit therecurrence of uncontrolled fire events, Regulation 4/2001 reflects the zero-burningpolicy endorsed by the regional Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. It also per-petuates the Indonesian government’s exclusive focus on fire suppression and crisismanagement instead of fire management, which is a continuation of failed colonial leg-islation from the 1870s onwards to ban burning, including in the grasslands (Potter,1997). Because this zero-burning policy has not appropriately addressed the Indonesiancontext, it cannot be enforced – and it is not being enforced at the local level. In our studyareas, for example, local governments have not passed regulations implementing Regu-lation 4/2001, as required by the same regulation.

In the context of eastern Indonesia, fire is used for livelihood activities that includeagriculture (to clear land), livestock management (to regenerate grassland), and hunting(to locate prey). Burning is not only the most efficient method of land clearing and regen-erating grasslands for smallholders, but also the only possible way, at least currently, tomaintain grazing land in Flores and Sumba. Our appraisals, interviews and workshopsfound that these fires do not appear to have significant negative environmental and eco-nomic impacts. Therefore, there is no apparent justification to ban these grassland fires.Furthermore, fires for agriculture, grazing and hunting are dispersed in the landscape,making their prevention and suppression impossible. Thus, a regulation that bans all firesis doomed to fail.

A necessary review of the current fire regulatory framework should take into accountthat fire, in many situations, is a useful, effective and efficient land management tool.Rather than banning fires, the regulatory framework should usefully determine the typesof fires to be banned, which types need strict monitoring due to particular risk factors, andwhich fires may be set freely (with precautions). This approach to fire managementwould require government agencies to become jointly involved in fire management withthe local stakeholders, rather than be seen as a repressive and therefore not to be trustedpresence that elicits little cooperation in data collection. Government agencies couldwork with local stakeholders to identify fire risks, prevent unwanted fires and, mostimportantly, develop improved management approaches to useful fires.

Discussions that emerged during our rapid rural appraisal study in Sumba and Floresrevealed no systematic attempt at implementing the total ban on fires in the study areas.There was, however, the well intentioned attempt to enlist customary institutions to stopfires, guided primarily by concerns about the perceived negative impacts of fire on wateravailability and biodiversity. Addressing this, our research aims to clarify how and whyfire is used in NTT, as well as its linkages with water and biodiversity. In the absence ofdetailed hydrological studies of the study areas, particularly in Sumba, it simply cannotbe assumed that stopping grassland fires will result in an increase of forest area that, inturn, would lead to increased water availability. With regard to biodiversity, as fire is sim-ply a tool for land management, any land use conflicts over ecologically significant areas(such as the Wanggameti National Park) need to be addressed through appropriate

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

78

Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

management. In the case of fires escaped from grasslands to a national park, it wouldseem viable to apply (preferably after revision) Government Regulation 4/2001 if landownership around the park was mapped properly and owners held accountable for suchfires. This could be implemented in the context of community involvement in themanagement of the park.

Grasslands are considered to be relatively unproductive lands (Tomich

et al

., 1997;Friday

et al

., 1999) and grass to be tenacious (Dove, 2004), that is, difficult to convert toother land cover types such as forest. Therefore, significant research has been devoted toassessing options for their ‘rehabilitation’. There are several examples, however, showingthat farmers have an interest in changing grasslands to another land use if it can be doneeconomically (Dove, 2004; Potter, 1997), as can be observed from the fact that onceextensive grassland areas on Java have all but disappeared (Grist & Menz, 1997). Eco-nomic analysis shows that it is not profitable, or in some cases marginally profitable, toconvert large areas of grasslands (Tomich

et al

., 1997). More important policy directedresearch would therefore focus on how grassland-based livelihood systems could beimproved (Potter, 1997; Dove, 2004) and supplemented, including the role of agrofor-estry options.

To improve fire management and policy, more detailed data about fires are needed, apoint that has already been noted by other authors (Ormeling, 1957; McWilliam, 2000).Local governments, in collaboration with customary and civil society organizations,should consider developing simple systems of data collection to record, at least for thefires that have negative impacts, the possible ignition source, extent, environmental con-ditions prevailing and the impacts, including type and value of property losses. Thiswould also enable local stakeholders to better monitor fire and, if needed, adopt appro-priate policies.

Detailed information on the impacts of fires on livelihoods is required to determine ifburning practices could be changed to reduce these negative impacts. Attempts at chang-ing fire management should proceed from documenting local knowledge to determinehow practice could be improved. This analysis could be carried out in conjunction withan assessment of the contribution of grasslands to the formal and informal economy. Amultidisciplinary assessment (based on social, economic and geographic analysis inte-grated into a Geographic Information System) could seek to determine if all grasslandsare used for livelihood activities or are, in part, maintained by escaped fires. The assess-ment should fully consider whether or not the grasslands could contribute more to live-lihoods through reducing soil erosion (if it is occurring), improving pastures andmodifying fire management, perhaps even introducing fire resistant trees for fodder and/or human use. Given that the ‘usefulness of areas with increased woody biomass . . . willoften decline as a result of reductions in grass productivity and species changes’ (Watson

et al

., 2000:208), care should be taken in ensuring that livelihoods are not negativelyaffected by changes in fire and grassland management.

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared with funding from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural

Research project FST/2000/01. We would like to thank all the rural participants, the local NGO part-

ners and the government officials who participated in interviews and the workshops in Sumba and

Flores; Ani Nawir for providing the Indonesian government’s definition of ‘rehabilitation area’; and

Rohan Fisher for comments on parts of the paper. We also thank the Special Issue editors for con-

structive comments on various drafts of the paper. The views expressed here are those of the authors

and not necessarily those of the organizations associated with this research.

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia

79

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Endnotes

1 As a contribution to the ACIAR project ‘Impacts of fire and its use for sustainable land and forest

management in Indonesia and northern Australia’, most of the work for this paper was carried

out while the authors worked at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor,

as Senior Economist (Tacconi) and Research Assistant (Ruchiat). Institutional project partners

included Charles Darwin University, Australia, Wira Wancana University, Sumba, and CIFOR.

The results of the remote sensing analysis conducted by another project team have yet to be pub-

lished.

2 Fox (2000) presents data from the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics to show that in 1995, grass-

lands covered 11 per cent of NTT, and he further reports an apparent decrease in grasslands (

−

1

per cent) and fallow areas (

−

6 per cent), and an increase in woodland (3 per cent) and perma-

nent agriculture (5 per cent) over the period 1979–95. However, these data do not seem to be

reliable because the land use categories reported for 1979 account for only 73 per cent of the

provincial area, whereas for 1995 they account for 118 per cent. Fox’s data are also problematic

because some categories represent vegetation cover while others, such as forest, refer to land

use.

3 Tacconi and Kurniawan (2005) use MODIS (Moderate Imaging Spectrometer) data at a 500 m

resolution and it is not possible to distinguish accurately between cropland, grasslands and non-

vegetated areas.

4 We acknowledge Professor Greg Hill, Charles Darwin University, for raising these issues.

5 Net social losses occur when the social costs of fires (e.g. pollution costs) are higher than the

social benefits derived (e.g. using reduced costs of land clearance and, consequently, produc-

tion). Social benefits may be equal or greater than the financial profitability of fire use.

6 We thank Jeremy Russell-Smith for this observation.

References

Amanor KS (2002) Bushfire management, culture and ecological modernization in Ghana.

IDS Bul-

letin

33

(1)

,

65–74.

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Ngada District (2002)

Ngada in Figures – 2001

. BPS, Bajawa.

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) (2003)

Sumba Timur in Figures

. East Sumba District Government,

Waingapu.

Barlow C, Gondowarsito R, Birowo AT

et al.

(1990)

Development in Eastern Indonesia: The Case of Nusa

Tenggara Timur

. Australian International Assistance Development Bureau, Canberra.

van den Bergh GD, de Vos J, Sondaar PY (2001) The late quarternary palaeogeography of mammal

evolution in the Indonesian archipelago.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

171,

385–408.

Bruijnzeel L (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests, not seeing the soil for the trees? Agri-

culture,

Ecosystems and Environment

104

(1)

,

185–228.

Departemen Kehutanan (2003)

Kebijakan Penyusunan Masterplan Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan

.

Badan Planologi, Departemen Kehutanan, and Japan International Coorperation Agency,

Jakarta.

Djoeroemana S, Semangun H, Saragih B

et al.

(2000) The implications of fire management and

reforestation for economic development in East Nusa Tenggara. In Russell-Smith J, Djoeroem-

ana HGS, Myers B (eds)

Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Development in Eastern Indo-

nesia and Northern Australia, 52–5. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

(ACIAR), Canberra.

Doolette JB, Smyle JW (1990) Soil and water conservation technologies: review of literature. In

Doolette JB, Magrath WB (eds) Watershed Development in Asia: Strategies and Technologies, 35–69.

The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Dove MR (2004) Anthropogenic grasslands in Southeast Asia: sociology of knowledge and implica-

tions for agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 61 (1), 423–35.

Fisher CA (1969) Southeast Asia: A Social, Economic and Political Geography. Methuen, London.

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

80 Luca Tacconi and Yayat Ruchiat

Foenay EL (2000) Shifting cultivation and fire: a challenge to NTT’s development. In Russell-Smith

J, Djoeroemana HGS, Myers B (eds) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Development in

Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia, 19–20. ACIAR, Canberra.

Fox J (2000) Land use and land cover change in Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia. In Russell-Smith

J, Djoeroemana HGS, Myers B (eds) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Development in

Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia, 32–8. ACIAR, Canberra.

Friday KS, Drilling ME, Garrity DP (1999) Imperata Grassland Rehabilitation Using Agroforestry and

Assisted Natural Regeneration. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Bogor.

Gadas SR (2000) Forest land and fire management in East Nusa Tenggara. In Russell-Smith J,

Djoeroemana HGS, Myers B (eds) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Development in

Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia, 62–4. ACIAR, Canberra.

Garrity DP, Soekardi M, van Noordwijk M et al. (1997) The Imperata grasslands of tropical Asia:

area, distribution, and typology. Agroforestry System 36, 3–29.

Glover D, Jessup T (eds) (1999) Indonesia’s Fires and Haze: The Cost of Catastrophe. Institute of South-

east Asian Studies and International Development Research Centre, Singapore.

Grist P, Menz K (1997) On-site effects of imperata burning by Indonesian smallholders: a bioeco-

nomic model. Agroforestry Systems 33 (3), 79–96.

Juspan (2000) Forest fragmentation and water catchment hydrology: case study on Sumba. In

Russell-Smith J, Djoeroemana HGS, Myers B (eds) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry

Development in Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia, 86–9. ACIAR, Canberra.

Maan J, Rengo F, Wilfrida Erlinda BR et al. (2004) Results of PRA in Study Areas in Ngada, Flores, NTT.

ACIAR Project FST/2000/001, Bajawa.

McWilliam A (2000) Fire and cultural burning in Nusa Tenggara Timur. In Russell-Smith J, Djoero-

emana HGS, Myers B (eds) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Development in Eastern

Indonesia and Northern Australia, 80–5. ACIAR, Canberra.

Monk KA, De Fretes Y, Reksodihardjo LG (1997) The Ecology of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku. Periplus

Editions, Singapore.

Mudita W (2000) Fire and management of agricultural systems in East Nusa Tenggara. In Russell-

Smith J, Djoeroemana HGS, Myers B (eds) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and Forestry Develop-

ment in Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia, 56–61. ACIAR, Canberra.

Ormeling FJ (1957) The Timor Problem: A Geographical Interpretation of an Underdeveloped Island. JB

Woltens, Groningen.

Osterman K, Brauer M (2001) Air quality during haze episodes and its impact on health. In

Radojevic M (ed) Forest Fires and Regional Haze in Southeast Asia, 195–226. Nova Science Pubish-

ers, New York.

Page SE, Siegert F, Rieley JO et al. (2002) The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires

in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420, 61–5.

Pandanga P, Rawambaku AU (2004) Results of PRA in Study Areas in East Sumba, NTT. ACIAR Project

FST/2000/001, Waingapu.

Potter LM (1997) The dynamics of Imperata: historical overview and current farmer perspectives,

with special reference to South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 36, 31–51.

Quah E (2002) Transboundary pollution in Southeast Asia: the Indonesian fires. World Development

30, 429–41.

Rosenfeld D (1999) TRMM observed first direct evidence of smoke from forest fires inhibiting rain-

fall. Geophysical Research Letters 26, 3105–8.

Russell-Smith JGH, Djoeroemana S, Myers B (eds) (2000) Fire and Sustainable Agricultural and For-

estry Development in Eastern Indonesia and Northern Australia. ACIAR, Canberra.

Seavoy R (1975) The origin of tropical grasslands in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Tropical Geog-

raphy 40, 48–52.

Sherman G (1980) What ‘Green Desert’? The ecology of Batak grassland farming. Indonesia 29, 113–

49.

Simorangkir D, Sumantri (2002) A Review of Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Aspects of Forest and Land

Fires in Indonesia. Project Firefight South East Asia (PFFSEA), Bogor.

Livelihoods, fire and policy, eastern Indonesia 81

© 2006 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Tacconi L (2003) Fires in Indonesia: Causes, Costs and Policy Implications, Center for International For-

estry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper No. 38. CIFOR, Bogor.

Tacconi L, Kurniawan I (2005) Deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia. Draft project

report. CIFOR, Bogor.

Thrupp LA, Hecht S, Browder J (1997) The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Reali-

ties, and Policy Implications. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Tomich T, Kuusipalo J, Menz K et al. (1997) Imperata economics and policy. Agroforestry Systems 36,233–61.

Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B et al. (eds) (2000) Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Whitten AJ, Damanik SJ, Anwar J et al. (1987) The Ecology of Sumatra. Gadjah Mada University,

Yojakarta.

Wibowo A, Suharti M, Sagala APS et al. (1997) Fire management on Imperata grasslands as part of

agroforestry development in Indonesia. Agroforestry System 36, 203–17.

Young MD, Solbrig OT (eds) (1993) The World’s Savannas. UNESCO and Parthenon, Paris and

Lancashire.