Presented by Moira Moeliono, from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the 7th Conference of the ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry (AWG-SF) in Chiang Mai (Thailand), June 12-16, 2017.

1. Regional polices and practices on fire and
haze
A case study in West Kalimantan
Presented by Moira Moeliono based on the work of Paul Thung

2. Fire and Haze in ASEAN
• Fire and Haze: annual crisis in the
region since 1980s
• In response:
o The Regional Haze Action Plan 1997
o the ASEAN Agreement on
Transboundary Haze Pollution 2014
o National laws (e.g Singapore re
prosecuting people and firms that
contribute to the haze.
o Regional meetings, consultations,
e.g. In early August 2015,
Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand, Myanmar, and Vietnam
met to discuss the haze problem
NASA image by Adam Voiland (NASA Earth Observatory)
and Jeff Schmaltz (LANCE MODIS Rapid Response) -
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=866
81, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=437
44984

3. From policy to practice or practice to policy?
• Looking beyond the
letter of law
• Translations: how polices
are interpreted,
accommodated,
negotiated, and/or
resisted

4. A case study on the persistence of shifting
cultivation in the context of post-2015 anti-haze
regulations in West-Kalimantan, Indonesia
A dissertation supervised by Evan Killick (University of Sussex)
and a result of a 3-month internship working with Maria
Brockhaus, Moira Moeliono, Indah Waty, Cynthia Maharani,
Shintia Arwida and Grace Wong,

5. Fire and Haze
• 2015 haze crisis
• >2000 hotspots
• Loss of >47billion USD

6. In response Indonesia issued a ban on burning

7. 2. Swidden in ASEAN: driver of fire and haze?
• Social, ecological, economic systems
• Large-scale patterns
• Policies of swidden
• Politics of swidden

8. Drivers of Swidden Transformation
(Van Vliet, 2012)
Demographic Drivers (In/out) migration
Population growth
Population distribution
Economic Drivers Road network
Logging and mining
Infrastructure development
Market development
Economic structures (e.g. credit, cooperatives)
Urbanization
Agro technical innovations
Policy and institutional drivers Public policies (e.g. land use, forest,
agriculture)
Social and cultural drivers Public attitudes towards swidden
Social trigger
Environmental and biophysical drivers Environmental and biophysical drivers (slope,
topography, fires, droughts, floods and pests
etc.)

9. Actors’ perceptions on swidden (ASFCC case
study Vietnam)
National level: swidden is considered as a major driver of deforestation
and forest degradation and needs to be eliminated
Provincial level: persistence of swidden is considered as a failure of
political performance, thus no data is collected
District level: swidden is allowed at the margins as one way to maintain
national security at border areas
Commune and village level: allows swidden to harmonize interests of
different groups and avoid protest of ethnic groups to government
Household level: swidden as a normal practice for food security

10. 3. Theoretical Framework
(after Scott)
• Subsistence ethic
• Everyday resistance
• Legibility

11. 4. Data Collection
• Semi-structured
stakeholder interviews
• Informal interviews
• Participant observation
(13-25 August)

12. Site Description

13. Positions and interpretations regarding the ban
Formal
stance
Immediate
necessity of
fire for
subsistence
Swidden
responsible
for haze?
Legal status of
burning
swidden
Explanation of
the ban
District
government
Opposed Yes No [not discussed] Political
Police Supportive Yes Yes Illegal Political
Indigenous
rights NGO
Opposed Yes No Legal Political
Environmental
NGO
Opposed Yes Yes Illegal Political
Village
government
Supportive Yes No Illegal Political
Villagers Opposed Yes No Legal Political

14. Positions and interpretations
• Subsistence
o “If not burnt, then how?”,
o “If the government can feed us, they can prohibit us to burn”,
• Swidden and Haze
o the burning of land had been practiced since the time of the
villagers’ ancestors (dari nenek moyang), and this had never
been a problem until now
• Legality
o the right to burn lands under specific circumstances was
protected by law

15. …Haze Politics and the Police
• Haze-relations of accountability
• Ban or no ban
• “We have to be very, very careful” (sangat hati
sekali)

16. …Village Government Politics
• “The village government is the lowest
government”
o “Smart people in Jakarta have defined this policy,
they have thought about it – just right. Us
ignorant farmers, what do we know?”
• Sawah
• Far from the road

17. Possible responses to the ban as mentioned in
discussions
Obedience “Ways Out” Conflict
Not burning endangers
subsistence
Coordinate to prevent
simultaneous fires
Fighting risks getting hurt
Political confrontation risks
losing political favour
Choose remote locations
Choose untitled land
Use young and small fallows
for quicker and smaller fires
Eat for free in jail (bring pets
and family)
Burn after jail is full
Burn while the Iban fight the
police
Rely on reputation of
aggression to keep the police
out
Negotiate with the police

18. 8. Conclusions
• Subsistence confronts
authority
• Uncoordinated
collaboration
• The two faces illegibility

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