Paul Thung, Kartika Juniwaty, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett and Made Sanjaya
19th of September, 2018
FLARE Conference, Copenhagen
MIGRATION AND LAND USE
CHANGE IN THE FOREST
FRONTIERS OF INDONESIA

OUTLINE
• Migration and remittances in the global development agenda
• Literature on migration and forests in Indonesia: gaps and openings
• Key questions and two-pronged methodology
• Research context – Malinau District, North Kalimantan
• CIFOR’s place based research and observable land use change
• Key finding 1 – Generational shifts in migration patterns
• Key finding 2 – Effects on livelihood and labor
• Key finding 3 – Observable impact on ‘trees’ rather than on ‘forests’
• Key finding 4 – State making in the frontiers as driving migration
• Recommendations – demographic shift, context-specific modalities.

OVERVIEW
OF
LITERATURE –
GAPS AND
OPENINGS
• Narratives of environmentally destructive migrants and rates of
deforestation and forest degradation - Secrett 1986 article in the
Ecologist
• Continuation of narratives – attempts to quantify effects of migration
on forest cover change (see Darmawan et al. 2016 and Maertens et
al. 2002)
• But problems – attribute environmental destruction to the activities
of migrants rather than underlying social, economic and political
structures. Processes and mechanisms of change remain
unexplored. And the ’net effects’ migration on environmental change
not considered (Black et al. 2011, Hect et al. 2015, Thung and
Juniwaty 2018).
• But mostly focus on ‘in-migration’ and not on on ‘out-migration’,
‘circular migration’ etc. Important exception includes Nancy Peluso
‘Remittance forests’ - re-visiting research site in the context of
growing female out-migration for care work in Hong Kong and
Singapore and land use change attributed to the sending of
remittance and domestic decision-making.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS
• Opportunity to address gaps through
BMZ/BEAF funded comparative research
project on migration and forests.
• Main research questions: trends and
trajectories of migration; mobility and
remittances; effects on livelihood and
land use change; implications for GIZ
Forclime.
• Research methods: 2-pronged –
household survey in 8 villages in upper
and lower Malinau, 30 per village (360
total respondents). Complemented with
additional qualitative data collection –
key informant interviews, follow up semi-
structured interviews at household level,
individual interviews, and FGDs (total +
200+)
• Research site – Malinau District – GIZ
Forclime operations and also CIFOR’s
long-term, place based research site.

MALINAU
• Long-term research site from 1980s to 2009
• 2009 – documenting the effects of decentralization on deforestation
(Moeliono et al. 2009)
“…what happened after decentralization and democracy reforms in Indonesia,
when district governmetns gained new authority and local communiteis gained
new rights”. Research concluded that “these local arrangements are fragile and
flux…uncertainty accompanying new policies has created a window of
opportunity for rapid resource exploitation” (xv-xvi).
• In 2008, Wunder et al. (2008) describes “…the case of an unsuccessful
attempt to establish a community conservation concession in the village of
Setulang (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) to safeguard a biologically valuable
area from predatory logging” in an article in Ecology and Society.
• Deforestation focus, but supported by recent spatial data analyses?

KEY FINDING 1: CHANGES IN MIGRATION PATTERNS
• GIZ expected out-migration to Malaysia. Historical ‘pelesai’.
• But educational migration more prominent. And surge since 2001, around
the time of implementation of decentralization.
• 80% of migrants go for educational reasons
• 90% of migrants receive transfers from home
9.52 9.17
16.22
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
1980 1990 2000 2010
Rural Site Remote Site Total
Proportion of youth with
tertiary education by cohort

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY COHORT
21.31 30.23
13.48 6.2 1.47 1.25 2.01 1
31.14 13.96
50.56
45.74
52.94
62.5
51.01 47.77
3.28
13.95 4.49 12.4 14.71 17.5
42.28 45.27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
n=61 n=86 n=89 n=129 n=137 n=160 n=149 n=201
1980 1990 2000 2010
None Primary school Secondary school Tertiary level

MIGRATION FOR
EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES
[JKS(1]Maps need to be udpdated
Destination of Youth Migrants from Lower Malinau
Destination of Youth Migrants from Upper Malinau
• In both research locations, high out-
migration for educational purposes
• Lower Malinau (rural)  diverse
destinations, including Java
• Upper Malinau (remote)  Malinau
city, Samarinda, Tarakan (within
Kalimantan)
• Higher percentage of migrants from
lower Malinau that enrol in senior
high school (37%) than in upper
Malinau (17%). But those from
remote mostly migrate for higher
education

TRANSFER OUT
175 education
migrants
159 (91%) receive
transfer from
home
114 (72%) receive
each month
Median of
transfer : IDR
800,000
7%-Once in few
months
21% -infrequent
16 did not receive
transfer
Median of total expenditure of
Transfer out households:
IDR 2,500,000 IDR

PRICES (BASIC NEED)*
*RESEARCH SITE CASE
Research site
Rice (medium quality) IDR 13.000/kg
Sugar IDR 25.000/kg
Chicken IDR 35.000/kg
Eggs IDR 60.000/kg
Dairy IDR 15.000/can
Salt IDR 7.000/250 gram
Gasoline IDR 18.000/liter
National*
Rice (medium quality) IDR 9.450/kg
Sugar IDR 13.750/kg
Chicken IDR 28.000/Kg
Eggs IDR 22.000/kg
Dairy IDR 12.000/can
Salt IDR 3.500/250 gram
Gasoline IDR 9.300/liter
Differences
 37%
 81%
 25%
 172%
 25%
 100%
 93%
Why?
• Access
1 day to the nearest urban area
1 hour to Malaysia border
• Resources
• Supply < Demand
Trans Kalimantan
Financial services
• Local bank newly open

• Out of interviews with 23 current and returnee migrants: 10 reported that
they received scholarship, 7 did not receive scholarship, while 6 was not
asked this questions
https://humas.kaltaraprov.go.id/pengumuman/view/3745/pe
ngumuman-beasiswa-kaltara-cerdas-2018.html

UNEVENESS ACCESS TO SCHOLARSHIPS

• More diversified livelihoods in lower than upper
Descriptive Statistics: Household Characteristics
Lower Malinau Upper Malinau
Variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Number of income sources 2.22 1.11 2.27 0.88
Main Source of Livelihood (%)
Agriculture 36.11 48.16 48.89 50.12
Micro Enterprise 10.00 30.08 6.67 25.01
Casual Work 13.89 34.67 7.78 26.85
Remittance 1.67 12.84 1.67 12.83
Forest Product 1.11 10.51 5.00 21.85
Other 8.89 28.55 2.22 14.78
Salary 28.33 45.18 27.78 44.91

Outflow of funds:
– On average, 28% of total expenditure is education cost in household with
migrant – compared to 12% in non migrant household
– Migrants household: In the lower Malinau spent 36%, while in upper
Malinau 23%
• No. different in non migrants household
• Total monthly HH expenditure: 145-195 USD, average HH size: 6
persons,
• Per capita monthly expenditure: 24-32 USD.
2 distinct groups among the households with youth migrants:
• salaried jobs (teachers, officials, entrepreneurs; continuation);
• forest &farm-based livelihoods (stretching resources and larger investment)
Major expense for latter households
• No evident loss in Labor

KEY FINDING 2: HOW ARE PEOPLE PAYING FOR
EDUCATION?
• Effects on livelihood differentiated by geography and previous sources of
income.
• Upper and lower Malinau – upper less diversified income and more
dependent on forests.Descriptive Statistics: Household Characteristics
Lower Malinau Upper Malinau
Variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Forest Dependency
Mentioning Forest Product as one of income sources (%) 2.78 16.47 26.11 44.04
Think that forest product is very important for livelihood (%) 53.98 49.98 88.27 32.27
Think that forest product is very important for livelihood, 5
years ago (%) 56.25 49.74 88.27 32.27
Number of types of forest product collected (%) 1.97 0.94 2.83 1.12
Sell timber (including Gaharu) (%) 2.77 16.47 13.88 34.67
Sell NTFP (%) 3.33 13.41 2.77 12.28
Sell Firewood (%) 0.50 7.40 0.00 0.00
Sell Bushmeat (%) 9.40 29.32 25.55 43.73
Sell Fruit (%) 3.30 18.00 0.50 7.45
Observation 180 180

KEY FINDING 3: OBSERVABLE IMPACT ON ‘TREES’ RATHER
THAN ON ‘FORESTS’
• Upper and lower Malinau – diversified livelihoods, access to salary and
uneven access to scholarships
• Trees – Gaharu economy – questions of sustainability. Contribute to gaharu
extraction but not to exploitation.
• Swidden – not cease, but desire for more settled agriculture.

FOREST AND LAND COVER CHANGE IN
MALINAU 1990 - 2017

KEY FINDING 4: WHAT’S DRIVING THE MGIRATION FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
• Different narratives – overwhelmingly interested to return. Aspire to
combine swidden and non-agriculture. But also place-based narratives.
• ‘Youth exodus’ from forestry and agriculture not founded in research areas.
• Economic – income from previous migration, wages lead to increased
opportunities
• Political - ongoing processes of ‘state-making’ and ‘pemekaran’. Expectation
of jobs opening up that would require qualified individuals .
•

MINING

PEMEKARAN AND DEMAND OF CIVIL SERVANTS
• Effects of decentralization - infrastructure and
more connection to markets, bureaucracy and
possibilities of jobs (PNS and casual work),
secondary economy (shops, new sources of
demand).
• According to Governor of North Kalimantan,
demand for PNS in North Kalimantan is 6000
people and only have 3500.
• For now in 2018, they have requested 1,770
new opening for PNS jobs, however, the quota
is 1,397 position. For Malinau District
government, the quota is 230 position.
https://sscn.bkn.go.id/lowongan

DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
• Demographic shift – advantage and risk
• Importance of contextual factors
How to ‘manage migtation’?
• Support systems
• Some openings:
• Eco-tourism in Setulang village
• Restoration once mining jobs cease in Long Loreh village
• Involvement of youth and FPIC in Apau Kayan village

cifor.org
blog.cifor.org
ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org
THANK
YOU