| Abstract: |
| Three years have passed since the notorious earth--quake and tsunami of December 2004. The earthquake and tsunami occurred in a province that was already experiencing prolonged violent conflict. Throughout the province, and particularly in rural areas, infrastructure sustained serious damage and further deteriorated because the security situation made maintenance difficult or impossible. The study was designed to get a quick insight into the socio-economic conditions and forest resources of Aceh and Nias Island through consultation, detailed household surveys and rapid appraisal techniques.
Rural livelihoods in Aceh and Nias are essentially based on three resources: fisheries; paddy cultivation (and some dry-land crops grown in rotation); and tree crops. The relative importance of these three varies with landscape position; fishing for people living near the coast, rice cultivation in river valleys, tree crops both in the coastal and inland areas (rubber, cacao, coconut, pinang palms, fruit trees) and peat domes (sago palms, rubber, some conversion to oil palm). In general, the tree crop plantations in the study sites cultivated by self supporting systems without recommended technology. The farmers do not have convenient access to productivity-enhancing inputs or information and technologies associated with their use, and are not well informed about the full market potential of their products.
People in the coastal areas are better off than those living further inland. The highest income per capita is in the coastal area of Pidie (IDR 6.86 million). However, the difference between the two zones in Pidie is very wide, reflecting a very high income from tambak cultivation in the coastal area. Per capita income was lowest in Nias. There appears to be an unequal distribution of land holdings in the study area with 20% households controlling about 57% of the total land the bottom 60% of the households owning only 22% of the total land.
The capacity of coastal ecosystems to regenerate after disasters and to continue to produce resources and services for human livelihoods can no longer be taken for granted. Socio-ecological resilience must be understood at a broader scale and actively managed and nurtured. Incentives for generating ecological knowledge and translating this into information that can be used in governance are essential. |
|
