Introduction 400
In Asia, coffee is ecologically and economically important not just due to the vast amount of land it covers, but that it tends to be grown in highly biodiverse tropical areas in some of the least developed countries, with large impoverished populations (Donald, 2004). Smallholders produce 75% of the world’s coffee and Indonesia is the fourth-largest coffee producing country in the world (Gunnarsson, 2009). The research proposed by this report aims to investigate the sustainable livelihoods of coffee smallholders in the Bener Meriah regency in North Sumatra, Indonesia (see Appendix map on page for location reference).
Presently, most literature on coffee production in Southeast Asia focuses on conserving protected, biodiverse areas due to mass deforestation for full-sun, monoculture techniques of growing. However, not enough research is available specifically as to how conservation and responsible production can support livelihoods of smallholders meanwhile preserving the environment. Small coffee producers are a critical group to study because they dominate the international market and as a result, manage the responsibilities of economic vitality, land stewardship, and responsible crop diversity of millions of hectares all over the world (Vandermeer, 2003). Syam et al. (2012) discuss land use and cover change in hilly areas of South Sumatra, noting the significant increase in coffee plantations operated by smallholders between the years of 1970 and 1990, with plantations becoming the largest land cover (43% of total area) by 1984. Traditionally, shade-grown coffee is grown under a canopy of trees in mid-elevational forests, and has been proven to generate greater economic benefits over full-sun monoculture techniques, enhancing the livelihoods of smallholders (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2008). In a similar study, Belcher et al. (2005) describe the diverse and complex forest garden systems in Indonesia and their importance as being cash and subsistence incomes; spreading risk (i.e. in case of disease, pests, price fluctuation), and providing ways to accumulate capital as collateral to demonstrate ownership. The labor requirements of these permaculture systems are proven to be low, and the returns to labor tend to be quite high. Bennet and Godoy (1992) investigate the linkages between lower quality coffee of smallholder coffee in South Sumatra as a response to higher demands for ‘instant’ or cheaper coffee, and that price premiums for higher quality are not large enough to encourage more sustainable growing practices. This report illustrates how global market factors significantly affect choices made in local production by smallholders.
There is insufficient finding as to how alternative methods of coffee production can ensure social, economic, and environmental sustainability in the production of Arabica coffee in the Aceh region in North Sumatra. Sumatra itself produces a significant portion of Indonesia’s coffee, and is therefore critical to investigate (Wahyudi and Jati, 2012). This research will attempt to ‘bridge the gap’ between relations of production, economic development and environmental conservation by exercising a bottom-up, local, ‘sustainable livelihoods’ approach to understanding these connections.
Aim and Objectives (100w)
This study aims to understand the strategies smallholders are using to maintain sustainable livelihoods producing coffee in four villages in the Bandar district of the Bener Meriah regency of Aceh, Northern Sumatra. The research will determine the social and economic costs and benefits of various methods of coffee production in the area through qualitative methods. By interacting with coffee-farming smallholder families, I will determine what exactly motivates them to produce their coffee with certain techniques (i.e. shaded vs full-sun, diversification vs mono-cropping, organic vs chemical), and how the global and local coffee trade affects these production methods. Supplemental research questions to be answered will include the following:
-How has diversification of plants affected coffee yields/quality, and as a result, farmer’s income in the area?
-How and to what extent have smallholders’ quality of life and well-being improved or unimproved in the area in the last 20 years?
-Can shaded coffee production prove to be a sustainable method for future economic and social development of the region?
Conceptual Framework (800w)
The conceptual lens for looking at this issue will be drawn from the ‘sustainable livelihood’ (SL) approach, an integrative concept. A livelihood is essentially the combined capabilities, assets, and activities contributing to a means of gaining a living (Chambers and Conway, 1991). ‘Sustainable livelihoods’ is the combination of capabilities, equity, and sustainability. De Haan and Zoomers (2003) write that the SL approach is mainly people-centered on actions and strategies for means of making a living, holistic and multidimensional. A SL can cope with stresses and shocks (for instance if a household can maintain a decent livelihood given a decrease in global/local coffee prices), and provides coping mechanisms that maintain its resources in the short- and long-term (Chambers and Conway, 1991). Positive livelihood activities can improve productivity of renewable resources like organic soil fertility and bean growth, whereas negative activities may contribute to deforestation, all affecting both global and local scales. As one of the world’s most traded commodities, coffee possesses a great role within a sociopolitical and economic landscape, and the balance between economic development and environmental conservation is difficult to maintain. Therefore, the SL conceptual framework is appropriate to apply to this project due to its multi-faceted nature, as it will help to determine what makes a prolonged, local economic scheme for villagers in a globalized world.
Peet and Watts (1996) illustrate SL development as the crossroads between nature and capital, particularly in developing countries, it is the reconciliation of economic growth and environmental preservation meanwhile recognizing the value of native knowledge. Research has shown that there is a lack of knowledge in “relationships between human communities, local resources, and sustainable management,” and that an integrated approach with adaptive management of human-modified landscapes is needed to understand sustainable rural livelihoods (Chazdon et al., 2009: 143; Gardner et al. 2009). The SL approach follows an alternative, post- development scheme as “a combination of basic needs, self-reliance, sustainable and endogenous development,” it is equitable and participatory, another reason why it is useful in this study where the aim is to understand smallholders’ problems (Pieterse, 1998: 348). A critique of this approach is included in Pieterse’s article, claiming that SL development is not doing anything for alternative managerialism and merely reinforcing the status quo, as there really are no alternatives to development, for there will always be growth plus sustainable growth. Pieterse disagrees with this critique, mentioning that what alternative development is referring to, is looking at development from a bottom-up, local, grassroots point of view. The SL approach is not anti-growth, but a continuity between growth and human development, as research has linked growth with social development and investment in social capital correlating with an increase in economic development. Therefore, the framework improves on previous modern approaches to development such as top-down project failure, false assumptions that approach sectoral problems in isolation, and addresses new social and ecological problems. In this proposed research, the framework will be appropriate for working with local knowledge and assessing the viability and impact of development projects that have previously influenced the area.
The SL approach assumes that people in poverty are agents that are capable of shaping their own lives and the local development around them. However, the SL approach gives little attention to the structural and geographical constraints (i.e. availability of resources and to diversify economic activities), therefore multi-level analysis including multi-sector analysis, rather than micro-level, is needed to gain an understanding of sustainable livelihood trends (De Haan and Zoomers, 2003). For instance, rather than focussing on coffee agriculture, the dynamics between sectors need to be taken into account across all villages in the methods of study. Peet and Watts (1996) critique their own argument by saying that there cannot be sustainable development without changes in demand and the market system, for otherwise exploitative management is inevitable. In addition, the sustainable livelihoods discourse tends to consider nature just as capital, so that there is a focus on capital to be sustained and managed by local communities as responsible stewards of the environment, disregarding the various benefits nature produces. While the approach has the potential to improve the focus of programmes of Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and policy makers, it can be regarded as quite complex and requiring more administrative and financial flexibility (Conway et al., 2002). Taking these critiques into account, the research will aim to include multi-level/sectoral analysis, consider the holistic benefits nature brings to coffee-producing villages beyond capital production, and include comprehensive planning that recognizes the diversity of livelihood strategies to navigate the approaches’ complexity.
On local peoples’ priorities, Sheil et al. claim; “Conservation planning without adequate local consultation alienates local stakeholders, and many conservation interventions are just one more attempt by outsiders to gain control over land and natural resources,” (Sheil et al., 2006: 23). Their study in Indonesia showed the value in shared comprehension between scientists and villagers. Chambers (1995) argues that professionals typically maintain reductionist and standardised views of poverty and conventional concepts of development, whereas realities are much more complex and dynamic, and that the poor’s needs differ than those assumed by researchers. The sustainable livelihoods approach will allow me to critically evaluate my position in the field and build a trusting relationship with local smallholders. Meanwhile, I will be assessing their complex economic and social interactions within their community and the environment through open-ended, discussion-based questions, to obtain more relevant findings and gain a deeper sense of understanding of their sustainable livelihoods.
Context (500w)
Poverty in the Aceh region is largely a rural phenomenon, with about 30 percent of households living below the poverty line according to (Subroto et. al, 2008). Reconstructive efforts since the 2004 earthquake and tsunami devastation are focused on long-term and sustainable development. According to the World Bank report, the Acehnese are a highly vulnerable population due to risk associated with increasing forest land-use change for timber and agricultural use, resulting in frequent droughts and floods, irrigation/erosion problems, and a reduction in agricultural productivity (Subroto et. al, 2008). Most coffee farmers make below the national minimum wage, earning up to 869 USD/harvest period, a fulltime job during from May to October (Gunnarsson, 2009).
The Dutch brought coffee to plant and cultivate in 1696 to Jakarta, Indonesia (Wahyudi and Jati, 2012). Ever since, the commodity trade has exploded, supporting many livelihoods all over the country that have emerged from subsistence farming. Coffee was essentially, “fitted into a subsistence agriculture previously devoted to other activities,” (Barlow and Jayasurija, 1986: 639). There are over 1.9 million coffee farmers throughout Indonesia and a typical farm size is one hectare, enough for one smallholder household to manage (Gunnarsson, 2009). Smallholder family farming are essentially small farms rely almost exclusively on family labour. Over the past few decades, there has been a steady shift toward smallholder polyculture farming including subsistence agriculture plus one or two cash crops, over large-scale monoculture plantations (Godoy and Bennett, 1988; Gunnarsson, 2009). Research will take place in villages of the Bandar district of the Bener Meriah regency surrounding the Gayo mountain basin in the region of Aceh (North Central Sumatra), northwest of Lake Tawar and the larger town of Takengon. The region is said to produce some of the best high-quality Arabica coffee in Indonesia, small-scale shade farming and the use of little-to-no chemicals is a largely popular practice amongst farmers here (Gunnarsson, 2009). The highlands area is said to have abundant rainfall and fertile soil, producing the strongly aromatic coffee that is the most consumed in the nation, with a sweet, earthy, low-acid profile (Wahyudi and Jati, 2012).
The implementation regional autonomy in 2000, the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and subsequent devaluation of the Indonesia Rupiah, and the fall of President Suharto in 1998, all had a profound impact on the area, therefore it would be interesting to see how poverty levels have changed over the past 20 years since these occurrences (Gaveau et al., 2009). The spike in the price of coffee following these events led to increasing deforestation, overproduction and intensification of production via full-sun monoculture farms and chemical production. This also led to decreased government investment in rural development and labor standards, intensified widespread poverty, and conversion of farms to other kinds of agricultural production. Evidence has proven that there is a strong, positive correlation between world coffee prices and rates of deforestation (Donald, 2004). On full-sun farms, chemicals in coffee production are used to replace the functions of shade trees including weed suppression and nitrogen fixation (Vandermeer 2003, page 4.) In most shaded farms, many growers plant perennial species under customary systems to convey that they are the long-term owners of the land (Belcher et al., 2005). Otsuka et al. (2000) studied in Sumatra that land tenure security spurred early tree planting under a customary system which can lead to more socially efficient resource allocation.
Methods (500w)
A qualitative methodic approach in the form of structured open-ended interviews and surveys will be performed to coherently gather the experiences, beliefs, values, and opinions of local peoples. The aim of this research is to speak with about 20 smallholder groups in four villages with approximately 100-200 beneficiaries, and receive follow-up survey responses from each worker of the farm to confirm additional information. As mentioned previously, this is due to the large share of the coffee smallholders have, and these farmers are largely underrepresented in the global market.
Surveys integrating biodiversity inventories and how people value the land they are on, can help shed light on people’s needs and help improve sustainable management. Questions on the survey will range from how large the farm is, to basic questions on their methods of coffee production, to questions about their family, cost/quality of life, working environment, labor shortages, minimum wage, other methods of income, to how much money they estimate they receive for their coffee (as it is difficult for a farmer to measure exactly how much coffee they produce), to questions of consumption and property, and personal aspirations (do they want to remain a farmer or settle in a metropolitan area). Of course, there will be some quantitative data asked in the surveysto help place their responses into a certain context, but the research is focused on the social and economic benefits of certain methods of coffee farming, therefore qualitative studies are more appropriate as social encounters in this situation.
Structured open-ended interviews questions will be determined before and highly standardized, however the questions are up to the respondent to give whatever answer they choose and are not constrained (Kitchin & Tate, Chapter 7, p. 213). In this way, it is expected that the interviews will help to expand upon the survey’s answers and lead to deeper, enlightening discussion about well-being and quality of life (i.e. free time spent, health, services, security, access to goods and services, justice, social life) meanwhile having some comparability among answers. The interviews will likely have 15-20 questions and be about an hour long to not take too much time from the farmers.
Before the interview, I will meet with the smallholder family to visit their coffee farm and afterwards complete the survey. This will help build a sense of rapport before I return for an interview. The farmers will be allowed to choose from assortment of seeds (allocated from research budget) as reimbursement for their time. An interpreter will be hired in order to effectively communicate with the local people speaking Acehnese as well as Indonesian/Malay language found throughout Indonesia.
I will record the interviews using a Dictaphone to verify the answers later and type down via laptop. I
This research is intended to be completed within one year. Within one month, I will complete preparation for the fieldwork, including literature review to help me understand the history of the area, as well as looking at data involving poverty levels and yields as well as prices of produced Arabica Gayo coffee over the last 20 years. In seven months of fieldwork, I will be visiting with the selected villages and smallholder farms (first two weeks), distributing and collecting surveys (one month), and interviewing subjects (two months). Then, I will return back to Canada to write up my result interpretations and analysis to answer my research questions for another four months.
Communication of Results (200)
The determined results of the projects will help NGOs and academic researchers to aid locals in aligning economic goals with conservation and social justice goals in regards to coffee production in the region. Therefore, the produced academic article is to be published and shared on various NGO and academic literature streams such as the Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development. NGOs could improve implantation of sustainable cultivation practices and help increase smallholders’ income with higher premiums for specialty Gayo coffee. Fellow researchers may continue similar work to help make multi-level connections between how place and space influence the way coffee farmers cope with global challenges.
If the research shows that an increase in shade cover, results in an increase in yields, controls pest problems, and produces a better tasting finished product that could sell better on the growing international specialty market, this information could be used to facilitate the re-planting of native species in areas that have been deforested. In the North of Sumatra, the Sumatra Rainforest Institute, a small grass root Indonesian NGO, works to increase productivity of coffee growth, while improving rainforest management and protecting endangered species (http://sumatranrainforest.org). They also run a sustainable Arabica coffee revitalization campaign programme to improve local economic incomes and ecosystem health. Also in North Sumatra, the Tropical Forest Conservation Action Sumatra (TSFCAS) works at the community level to facilitate sustainable management of Sumatra’s forests meanwhile improving welfare and income through a project called Collective Community Forest Management (http://tfcasumatera.org).
Furthermore, this research may have policy implications in terms of enhancing capabilities of the poor. This may take form in terms of enabling infrastructure and services for education of livelihood capabilities, and offering more choices for agriculture diversification and support for farmers’ experiments, offering secure rights to land, and safety nets like counter-seasonal work opportunities so farmers do not feel the need to increase their land use to produce higher yields to cope with risk.