The best of both worlds: balancing conservation and development in Indonesia

Tropical forests are under threat from development. However, development also brings benefits such as improved access to healthcare. Is it possible to protect forests and ensure a better life for local people?

Researchers from the ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research studied the attitudes of Punanhunter-gatherers. This group originally lived around the Tubu Riverin East Kalimantan, Indonesia. During the early 1970s, the Indonesiangovernment resettled eight Punan villages in Respen Sembuak, near the city of Malinau. However, five villages remained inthe remote forests of upper Tubu. The two groups have had very differentexperiences in the last thirty years.

The researchers compared the two Punangroups over five years, analysing cultural factors andaspects of well-being, such as household economics, health and nutrition. They askedthe groups of all ages to rank the advantages and disadvantages of living in thecity and the forest.

Findings showed that child andinfant mortality rates amongst resettled Punan were low, and literacy amongst youngpeople was very high. However, older respondents complained about the loss oftheir culture and that nothing was free in the city. Key findings in Respen included:

• 76percent of men and women considered good access to healthcare as the mainadvantage of living near the city, followed by access to formal education,information and job opportunities.
• 62percent ranked the lack of security as the main disadvantage; problems includedharassment, poor integration with locals and competition with other ethnicgroups.
• Drugsand alcohol were a key problem among the younger generation.

The Punan whoremained in the forest had limited access to healthcare and education, withhigh rates of infant and child mortality and widespread illiteracy, especiallyamongst women. However, they were able to live without using money much, andthe whole community took care of poor and vulnerable people. Their standard ofnutrition, diet and level of fitness were better than Punan in the city. Keyfindings for this group included:

• Themain advantage of living in the forest was that everything was free andplentiful, including food (ranked first by 77 percent of respondents), areas ofland for swidden (upland rice) cultivation and forestproducts
• Themain disadvantage of living in the forest was limited access to healthcare (rankedfirst by 67 percent of respondents), followed by the high price of basic goods.

Is it possible to take the best ofboth worlds? The Punan ofthe Sule-Pipasettlement in the remote Apo Kayan provide aninteresting example. They have good healthcare and education, combined with athriving local economy. The lack of road infrastructure protects the forests from intensive logging or conversion to plantations, with anairstrip providing access to goods and services. Theresearchers conclude that:

• ThePunan in upper Tubu should move into larger, more permanentsettlements. A minimum of 150–200 households is essential to attract teachers,paramedics and traders
• Tocover the increased cost of providing services in remote areas, it isimperative to secure subsidies either from government or from conservation andmedical non-governmental organisations.