Resilience in a communitythe story of Orang Asli of Royal Belum-Temengor Forest Complex, Perak

Rural Research & Planning Group (RRPG) 5th International Conference and Field Study in Malaysia 2014, 26-28 August, INFRA Bangi, Malaysia

Khairul Hisyam Kamarudin . Ibrahim Ngah . Khamarrul Azahari Razak . Mohd Safuan Ibrahim . Anwar Harun

content Some thoughts on ‘resilience community’

Orang Asli of Royal Belum-Temengor

Stories of two communities

Conclusion

Royal Belum State Park andTemengor Forest Complex (RBTFC) associated with the conservationof its mega biodiversity resources inMalaysia.

Recently, RBTFC came into thelimelight UNESCO worldheritage site.

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/05/10/Dream-of-Unesco-listing-for-Belum-forest-Najib-calls-for-study-of-forests-heritage-and-economic-val/

PLUS 1

“Indigenous people and their communitiesand other local communities, have a vitalrole in environmental management anddevelopment because of their knowledgeand traditional practices. States shouldrecognize and duly support their identity,culture and interest and enable theireffective participation in the achievementof sustainable development”

(Earth Summit, 1992: 13) PLUS 2

Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) – recognition from Earth Summit (1992)

Adherent to sustainable development principles

Modernization/ Development

Disappearance of traditional values and practices

Threaten the local biodiversity and resources

Create further new problems

Abandonment of traditional practices and knowledge on

resource management

Infrastructure development and support services

Housing quality, job opportunities, income

Conservation / carrying capacity / limit to growth?

Training, human capital development

vs

PLUS 1

PLUS 2

Where to go from here?

Orang Asli (Orang Asal) the oldest community ever known to inhabit thepeninsular land, (historical record dated back to 25,000 years ago), live ininterior rural area with an intimate contact to nature.

RBTFC context associated with high levels of poverty and low levels ofdevelopment.

Community’s ability to surviveresiliently in today’s socio-economicenvironment jeopardized in along term? if they failed to solvethe current internal and/or externalsocio-economic weaknesses bringin the interest for study (on resilientcommunity).

Big Q: have the nature

and its inhabitants (theOrang Asli in this context)being included in theregional conservation anddevelopment plan?

Some thoughts on resilience community

Arise from the need to develop understandingon how people would respond to internal andexternal disturbances, either caused by naturalor human-induced disasters.

Rural communities facing complex socio-political and economic disturbances drasticdrop of rubber price affected the farmers,small holders, and workers caused farmersto abandon their rubber plantations forcingthem to migrate to search for alternativemeans of living.

Community resilience and vulnerability measure using economic, social and environmental capitals.

Source: (an adaptation from Wilson, 2010)

a ‘resilient community’ can be described as a community which is able to create and maintain the balance needs in economy, social, and environmental capitals in a long run

(Kamarudin et al., 2014: 170)

Orang Asli of Royal Belum-Temengor

Area Name of Kampung Population Area Name of Kampung Population

RPS Banun Sungai Banun 122 RPS Kemar Penderas 120

Kabel 51 Banun 99

Sungai Raba 143 Bal 693

Desa Permai 24 Chuwau 178

Pengkalan Permai 68 Akei 188

Desa Damai 113 Katong 351

Cadak 20 Lediau 159

Desa Ria 87 Senangit 225

Semelor* 159 Lerlar 235

Sungai Tekam 83 Badak 185

Pulau Tujuh 87 Shah 255

Sungai Chuweh 97 Ralak 294

Sungai Tebang 131 Rantau 522

Selaor 113 Jarau Lama 299

Sungai Kelab 75 Jarau Baru 117

Sungai Tiang* 409

Desa Pelancongan 143

Sungai Chiong 234

Charok Bus 100

Sungai Kejar 397

Total 2656 Total 3920

Sou

rce: JAKO

A G

erik , Perak (2

01

4)

Stories of two communities

Village (or Kampung) Population Number

of

families

Male Female Total

Semelor 85 74 159 30

Sungai Tiang 191 218 409 83

Village (or Kampung) Sub Ethnic Religion TOTAL

Jahai Temiar Islam Christian Bahai Animism

e

Semelor - 159 80 - - 79 159

Sungai Tiang 409 - 49 47 43 - 409

Field study and data collection

Observation of

Community’s

Resilient Issues

Proposed Specific Indicators at Community Level

Economic

Capital

(12)

a. Average household income

b. Do households have more than one source of income?

c. Has there been a need for the household to develop multiple sources of income?

d. Has there been any significant change in the main employment sector in the last 20 years?

e. How stable are the existing employment sectors?

f. What are the prospects for ongoing/future economic development and employment

sectors?

g. Do households depend on money from relatives living and working outside of the

community?

h. Is the community receiving government welfare support/funds/subsidies? If yes, how

important are they to the community?

i. Are there opportunities for new businesses to be developed? Is there any prospect for

tourism-related activities?

j. What are the potentials tourism development might offer to the community?

k. Who makes the decisions within the community on matters of economic activities?

l. Are locally produced goods only sold locally?

Observation of

Community’s

Resilient Issues

Proposed Specific Indicators at Community Level

Social

Capital

(10)

a. Is training in relevant skills and knowledge available to community members?

b. Are local knowledge or skills passed on from the older to the younger generation?

c. Is there any knowledge or skills passed on from the younger to the older generation?

d. Is there any authority in local/indigenous knowledge still available in your community? If

yes, how is his/her knowledge useful in addressing local problems?

e. Which stakeholder groups are involved in decision-making?

f. Do those who can participate actually participate in decision-making?

g. Would those with opposing viewpoints be allowed to participate in decision-making?

h. Do young people get involved in decision-making process?

i. Do young people think differently/have different ideas as compared to older people?

j. Do young people get involved in developing new opportunities/projects in the community?

Observation of

Community’s Resilient

Issues

Proposed Specific Indicators at Community Level

Environmental

Capital

(10)

a. Is everyone involved in planning the use of natural resources in the community?

b. Does the environment pose limitations on the community?

c. Are water resources of good quality?

d. Are water resources sufficient for local needs?

e. Are water resources distributed fairly?

f. Are soils of good quality?

g. Are soil resources managed sustainably?

h. What are the main environmental issues/problems occurring in your village?

i. How does the community react/respond to these issues/problems?

j. Are there important traditions/taboos which would influence the management of

community resources?

Result & Discussions

Proposed Specific Indicators Findings/Results Remarks/Comments

• Average household

income

100% live in poverty

(<RM600)

WEAK: High incidence of poverty.

• Do households have

more than one source of

income?

15% have more than one

source of income

85% have only one source of

income

WEAK: High level of dependence

on single source of income.

• Has there been a need

for households to

develop multiple sources

of income?

100% agreed that they need

to develop multiple sources

of income

STRONG: High level of perception

on the need to develop multiple

sources of income.

• Has there been any

significant change in the

main employment sector

in the last 20 years?

63% maintain doing the

same jobs for the last

20 years

37% change jobs

WEAK: Most respondents remain

in traditional/forest-related jobs

(which offered a low, short term,

and unstable income).

• How stable are the

existing employment

sectors?

54% said that they are

unstable

37% said that they are

stable

9% were not sure

WEAK: Most respondents believe

that their existing employment

sectors could not offer stable

employment

• What are the prospects

for ongoing/future

economic development

and employment

sectors?

69% mentioned about

the lack of prospects

23% were still confident

8% were not sure

WEAK: High level of dissatisfaction

among respondents regarding the

prospects of the employment

sectors

• Do households depend

on money from relatives

living and working

outside of the

community?

23% said yes

77% are not receiving

money from relatives

outside

WEAK: Low number of family

members living and working

outside of the villages.

Proposed Specific Indicators Findings/Results Remarks/Comments

• Is the community

receiving government

welfare

support/funds/subsidies?

If yes, how important are

they to the community?

100% said yes (i.e. welfare

payment for low household

income)

WEAK: High level of dependence on

government welfare support

(mostly financial). *NGOs are also

directly involved in supporting

these communities.

• Are there opportunities

for new businesses to be

developed? Is there any

prospect for tourism-

related activities?

85% were optimistic

with development of

new businesses

92% were positive about

the future prospects of

tourism

STRONG: High level of optimism

towards planning and developing

new form of businesses, in

particular tourism-related activities.

• What are the potentials

tourism development

activities might offer to

your community?

69% emphasized on job

creation and income

generation

31% were looking for

training and

conservation of local

resources

STRONG: Majority of respondents

were aware of economic potentials

offered by tourism.

• Who makes the decisions

within the community on

matters of economic

activities?

85% said it was made by

the village council (JKKK)

15% did not specify any

answer

STRONG: Strong local leadership

and organization in decision-

making process.

• Are locally produced

goods only sold locally?

62% of products are

internally/locally

consumed

38% are sold to the

external market

Local produce is still

sufficient to cater local

market.

New opportunity for tourism

to be marketed internally and

externally.

Findings from the Economic Capital Survey (Both Villages)

A photo of the village houses in Kampung Sungai Tiang; only in

deteriorating state and have not experienced significant physical

improvement since 10 years ago.

Proposed Specific Indicators Findings/Results Remarks/Comments

• Is training in relevant skills

and knowledge available to

community members?

92% received

training

8% did not

receive training

STRONG: Majority have received/were

given training in relevant skills (i.e. bee

farming, boat engine maintaining,

porter servicing, and sewing).

However, there was a lack of follow-up

and/or continuous guidance after

training.

• Are local knowledge or

skills passed on from the

older to the younger

generation?

100% said yes STRONG: High level of knowledge/skills

transfer; mainly for survivability (i.e.

knowledge of the forest, use of plants

for medication, crafts, traditional

songs, and dances).

• Is there any knowledge or

skills passed on from the

younger to the older

generation?

92% said yes STRONG: Mainly on the use of

technology (i.e. mobile phones and

electrical appliances).

• Is there any authority in

local/indigenous

knowledge still available in

your community? If yes,

how is his/her knowledge

useful in addressing local

problems?

100% said yes STRONG: Authorities in SME (or IKS in

Malay) maintain their roles in guiding

youths to learn about their

environment for economic survival.

• Which stakeholder groups

are involved in decision-

making?

100% said all are

involved

STRONG: High level of openness and

democracy.

Findings from the Social Capital Survey (Both Villages)

Proposed Specific Indicators1 Findings/Results Remarks/Comments

• Do those who can

participate actually

participate in decision-

making?

92% said yes

8% said no

STRONG: High level of local stake-

holding representatives in decision-

making processes.

• Would those with opposing

viewpoints be allowed to

participate in decision-

making?

52% did not have

any problem with

that

24% normally

would follow the

majority

24% were not

sure

STRONG: High level of tolerance, and

also voice of majority play crucial role in

dealing with dispute or opposing

opinions.

• Do young people get

involved in decision-making

process?

92% said yes

8% were not sure

STRONG: High level of youth

participation;

community welcomes new ideas from

young people, shared their views and to

strengthen community togetherness.

• Do young people think

differently/have different

ideas as compared to older

people?

77% agreed that

young people

have different

way of thinking

23% disagreed

Younger generations were exposed to

basic education and the outside world.

For others, it is more convenient to just

follow decisions made by the elders.

• Do young people get

involved in developing new

opportunities/projects in the

community?

100% said yes, in

relations to

trainings

STRONG: High level of involvement in

local economic projects, such as bee

farming, rubber tapping, and porter

services.

Training - Kelulut beehives in Kampung SemelorFree time activities in Sungai Tiang

Findings from the Environmental Capital Survey (Both Villages)

Proposed Specific

Indicators

Findings/Results Remarks/Comments

• Is everyone involved

in planning the use of

natural resources in

the community?

85% said yes

15% were not sure

STRONG: High level of

involvement in planning the use

of local resources.

• Does the

environment pose

limitations on the

community?

100% agreed with

issues of

environmental

limitations.

WEAK: There were complains

about smugglers/trespassers

from Thailand coming and

stealing gaharu, and killing

wildlife.

• Are water resources

of good quality?

92% said no

8% said yes

WEAK: Low water quality; water

level is low during dry seasons

and water is murky during raining

seasons.

• Are water resources

sufficient for local

needs?

92% mentioned about

insufficient supply of

clean water

8% were not sure

WEAK: Low water capacity to

cater the local needs.

• Are water resources

distributed fairly?

85% disagreed

15% mentioned only a

small portion of the

community received

water through the

pipelines

WEAK: Poor level of water

distribution for each village. Most

water distribution systems were

built on individual

initiatives/funding.

Proposed Specific

Indicators

Findings/Results Remarks/Comments

• Are soils of good

quality?

100% agreed STRONG: High level of soil fertility.

• Are soil resources

managed sustainably?

38% manage their land

properly

62% do not

WEAK: Poor management of soil

resources; this is mainly due to constant

threats from animals (i.e. elephants

destroying their farms).

• What are the main

environmental

issues/problems

occurring in your village?

40% mentioned about

illegal poachers stealing

gaharu

40% mentioned about

threats from wild elephants

20% mentioned about

excessive logging and illegal

fishing

Majority agreed with the issues of illegal

poachers/trespassers and threats from

wild elephants.

• How does the

community

react/respond to these

issues/problems?

Building electric fences

Reporting to Park Rangers.

Building electric fences surrounding

their farms.

Reporting to Park Rangers if they

spotted trespassers or poachers.

Current measures were found to be

ineffective to tackle the problems.

• Are there important

traditions/taboos which

would influence the

management of

community resources?

The importance of gotong-

royong, sewang, forest

resources harvesting, and

shifting farming – 23%

respectively

8% did not specify any

STRONG: Strong sense of belonging and

togetherness in protecting the local

environment.

Supply of water is shared among a few houses in Kampung Sungai Tiang

Weak Economic Capital

Weak Environmental

Capital

Strong Social Capital

Conclusion

Community resilience/vulnerability

represented by economic, social, and environmental

capitals of the two villages. Source: (Research Fieldwork,

2014)

Main Sponsor

Co-Sponsor

Rural Research & Planning Group (RRPG) 5th International Conference and Field Study in

Malaysia 2014, 26-28 August, INFRA Bangi, Malaysia

National Conference on Royal Belum 201402-03 December 2014, Belum Rainforest Resort, Gerik(www.utm.my/royalbelum/)