Understanding patterns of resource use and consumption: a prelude to co-management.
For co-management of conservation areas to be effective, detailed information on local people's use of natural resources is essential. This chapter offers one method to obtain some of that information, a household recordkeeping study. It is simple to implement and analyze, and provides useful, quantitative data on resource use and income levels. Here we describe the method and present data derived from three such studies of Malay and Iban communities in and around the Danau Sentarum National Park in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. These data show the strong reliance of Malay and Iban peoples on fisheries and forests respectively, and suggest avenues for working with both groups to manage and conserve local resources. This is a companion article to one entitled, "understanding Local People's Use of Time: A Pre-Condition for Good Co-Management" (published in Environmental Conservation) in which we suggest a time allocation method for use in community-based conservation work.
In recent years the importance of working with local people in protected areas has been increasingly recognized. There has been a continual stream of information showing how forest people participate in complex systems of resource management and use, often based on long experience with local conditions and involving extensive indigenous knowledge about local flora and fauna. That such ecological knowledge and local natural resources are often intimately interwined with forest people's cultures and ways of life has also become clear.
However, success in the implementation of such desirable management cooperation has been limited (cf. Wells 1997; Western and Wright 1994), partly we would argue because outside managers often lack appropriate knowledge about local people and how they have traditionally used and managed resources. In order to manage a protected area in a manner that both protects that environment and either maintain or enhances the quality of life of the people residing in and around it, managers need to know more about existing human impacts on and benefits from that environment. Knowledge of such human patterns can also help managers identify shared goals between local people and conservationists and provide insights on ways to tap into the real management potential that local people represent.
That management of protected areas requires biophysical expertise has long been acknowledged. However, with the recognition that local people must often be involved in formal management, the importance of expertise from the social sciences has increasingly been recognized. There are several kinds of social science expertise that are needed in the management of protected areas, including, for example,
* Anthropological description of the extant human uses of and benefits from the environment (as described in this chapter), as well as the values, norms and goals local people have
* Skills and knowledge of group dynamics for facilitating cooperative interaction and sharing of perspectives among local stakeholders
* Political knowledge to provide a "vertical" bridging function between local stakeholders and the wider governmental, industrial, and conservation worlds
These kinds of expertise have only recently begun to be available to managers of protected areas. Often responsibility for such ethnographic investigations, group dynamics, and political know-how fall to biophysical scientists who may be, quite understandably, poorly prepared to take on such additional (and perhaps unforeseen) responsibilities.
This chapter, based on the conclusion that management of protected areas will increasingly be conducted in a co-management, or partnership, mode, provides one simple recordkeeping method for learning about local people's uses and benefits from natural resources. Because this volume is focused on the management of Danau Sentarum National Park (DSNP), there is more detail about that park than is necessary strictly to demonstrate how to use the method.
Based on experience with people living in other forested areas of Kalimantan and from Giesen's (1986) study of DSNP, we identified a number of issues that seemed significant for improving management there:
* What are the people using from their environment?
* What quantities of important products are they harvesting?
* Who is managing and/or collecting these products?
* Who is profiting from them, and by how much?
* Where are they finding what products?
* What is the balance between subsistence and market uses?
Developing a management plan for DSNP that both protects the environment and maintains or enhances local people's way of life requires knowledge of existing patterns of resource use and standard of living. Without such knowledge, park management could disadvantage local people, fail to mobilize potential positive contributions and, equally important, arouse unnecessary opposition to overall conservation goals.
Capturing the obvious human variation in the area--as the recordkeeping study does--was an important first step at DSNP. Some of the important local variation that emerged from the study, and is discussed below in more detail, includes:
* different resources provided the basis for different ethnic groups' livelihoods--e.g. Iban rice cultivation vs. Malay fishing;
* different seasons brought different products--e.g. for the Malay, honey in January, increased fishing in July and August;
* different resource use patterns characterized different communities--e.g. floating gardens in Bukit Rancong, none in nearby Ng. Kedebu'; and
* men and women dominated in different activities--e.g. for the Iban, male circular migration, female dominance in rice cultivation.
These kinds of variation are common among forest dwellers. Diversity in sources of income and subsistence represent an effective mechanism for dealing with the very real risks that characterize agricultural endeavours in tropical rain forest areas (Dove 1988; Colfer et al. 1997a; Wadley 1997a; Puri 1997). There is also commonly specialization or a kind of division of effort, among ethnic or user groups, such as the Malay concentration on wetlands and the Iban focus on uplands. In Long Segar, East Kalimantan, for instance, Golfer found the Kutai emphasizing commercial rattan collection, and the Kenyah avoiding it, with an explicit "division of labor" philosophy. In Sitiung, West Sumatra, the Minangkabau planted rubber and other tree crops which the Javanese eschewed, the Sundanese planted elaborate home gardens including fishponds, and the Javanese focused on rice, soybeans, and cassava production (Golfer et al. 1989:91). Each emphasized the link between their crops and their ethnicity. (This sort of specializ ation appears to have deep historical and prehistorical roots throughout Southeast Asia [see e.g. Higham 1989].)
Such ethnic specialization has important implications for natural resource management and for co-management in general. Although such diversity of use may appear to complicate the managers' tasks, taking it into consideration can contribute to more realistic planning, improved trust and cooperation from local people, nurturing of their initiative, and avoidance of unnecessary and counter-productive conflicts with them. Building on the opportunities, in terms of "social capital" or human resources, available from any community, requires quite specific information about their different forest use patterns (e.g., which plants are most important for which group of people? Where are those plants found? During which seasons are they abundant?).
The kind of data provided by the recordkeeping study must be augmented by cooperative input from biophysical scientists who must play a central role in understanding the conservation implications of these details of local forest use. Local names of flora and fauna must be converted to scientific names; ecological interdependencies must be interpreted in light of the impacts of local use on resource availability; the use of indigenous ecological knowledge requires communication and evaluation by those with related expertise (including zoologists, ecologists, fisheries biologists, and botanists).
Another, equally important, component of such co-management, not fully addressed here but mentioned above, is the process of working together with local people. Biophysical scientists and conservation area managers tend to be less accustomed to regular interaction with local people in a partnership mode than are anthropologists. Such interaction, however, is essential for effective co-management. Managing together requires regular communication, as well as an understanding of local values, norms and beliefs. The collection of data in the studies reported here and elsewhere (Colfer et al. forthcoming) can serve as a mechanism for facilitating and ensuring regular interaction between formal conservation area managers and local people--a function of critical importance. (Jeanes  provides a very thorough examination of factors affecting management at DSNP.)
In this chapter, data from Malay and Iban communities serve as a means to explain a simple method, household recordkeeping, that can help managers to understand how local people use local resources. Such understanding is a necessary first step in using and building on indigenous management systems to fashion new approaches that incorporate conservation concerns in a more meaningful way.
The design of the recordkeeping study was based on a couple of months of data gathering by three of the authors at DSNP, and on Giesen's (1987) ecological monograph.
* the Malay were avid fisherfolk, suggesting a need to know which fish they caught, and which ones supplied them with the most income and food.
* the Iban collected a number of non-timber forest products, suggesting the need to know the repertoire of useful NTFPs in the area--in both flooded (primarily Malay) and hilly (primarily Iban) areas.
* Agriculture was obviously important for the Iban, but little was known beyond the simple observation that it was a swidden system. What were their crops and how dependent were they on agriculture for food and cash? What about agriculture among the Malay, whose agricultural activities would have a more direct effect on DSNP?
* Local interest in income generation seemed probable, but how dependent were these groups on cash income? Determining both what they were doing to make money, and just how poor they really were, had important management implications.
* Finally, documenting people's eating behavior would grant a better understanding of which plants and animals were really crucial to human wellbeing in the area, and which ones they might be persuaded to stop harvesting (all within the Wildlife Reserve; and endangered ones outside it).
More importantly, perhaps, the results could be used while the study was in progress, to plan additional activities and to keep the project "on track." It also served the function of beginning to integrate project activities with those of the local people, and vice versa.
The search for this range of information was motivated by the conviction that understanding existing forest and other resource uses would enhance cooperation and effective collaborative management with local people. Such knowledge and cooperation would prove valuable in trying to change any harmful practices and in promoting traditional practices with conservative effects.
Because this chapter appears with a great deal of other research on the area, Very little introductory information about locale, beyond the introduction of main study villages, (1) is presented here. Ng. Kedebu' is a small Malay fishing community of 108 people (Colfer's de jure census, 1992) in the heart of the DSNP (see Figure 1). It claims an area of 70.54 [km.sup.2], including a protected area (Hutan Nung) shared with other communities (Dennis et al. 1998). Its inhabitants are formally registered as residents of the larger community, Selimbau, on the Kapuas River, from which there is a yearly inundation of additional fishers during the dry season (raising the de facto population in October 1992, to 199). They are Muslims, sharing significant common cultural features with related peoples described by Firth (1966), Harrisson (1970), Furukawa (1994), and Scott (1985). Based on time series, remote sensing data (1973, 1990 and 1994), Dennis et al. (1998) concluded that local management of forest resources appea red to be sustainable (minimal change in forest cover); (2) their fisheries management, less so (see Dudley, this volume).
Wong Garai is an Iban longhouse to the northeast of DSNP. Its inhabitants have resided in the area for over one hundred and fifty years. Within a traditionally-defined territory of around 24 [km.sup.2], they practice a complex agroforestry system based on swidden rice cultivation, forest gardens, hunting, fishing, and wages earned on trips across the border to Malaysia (described in detail in Wadley 1997a, 1997b, n.d.a; Wadley et al. 1997, n.d.; Colfer et al. 1997a). Their belief system includes a mixture of Christianity and traditional ancestor worship (Wadley n.d.b), and they share many characteristics with other Iban and Ibanic groups (as described by Freeman 1970; Padoch 1982; Sutlive 1988; Dove 1981; Drake 1982).
Bemban, site of a partial study, is an Iban longhouse of 15 households, including 71 people (village records, 1992) on the western edge of DSNP. Its territory comprises 67.28 [km.sup.2] (Dennis et al. 1998), and is adjacent to the lakes, making the community's resource use somewhat more similar to the Malay patterns than are the other Iban communities. Half of the community is Protestant, half Catholic, all with a considerable animist admixture.
Comparable remote sensing data are unavailable for Wong Garai, but their system includes rotating of fields with long forest fallows (see Colfer et al. 1997a; Wadley n.d.a). Bemban has a similar system. The ecologist, Peters (1993) comments, "All factors considered, the [Bemban] system comes very close to the ideal of sustainable forest utilization." (p. 35). The remote sensing data from Bemban (Dennis et al. 1998) suggest more forest change there than in Wong Garai, but the shifting patterns of forest type over the years (1974, 1990, and 1994) suggest a normal long rotation forest fallow system, with probable sustainability under recent conditions. (3)
This study was conducted in Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai, and briefly in Bemban. In Ng. Kedebu', 8 to 10 families (20% of households) kept records; in Bemban, eight families (67%); and in Wong Garai, the entire longhouse of 13 families (100%). Each recordkeeping component (Fishing, Agriculture/ Agroforests, Forest Products, Wage Labor, and Food Consumption) had its own forms in the appropriate language: Malay or Iban.
Families filled in forms in booklets with multiple sheets for each month of the studies. Literate members of participating families recorded what their members caught, found, produced, sold, and ate, as fully as possible. If possible, they also specified producer, harvester, owner, and seller. They kept records every day for one month every quarter (4) resulting in four months of data during 1992-93, from Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai, and one month (December 1992) from Bemban.
In Ng. Kedebu', Golfer began the study and later supervised a village assistant, Sahar, after he took a lead role in monitoring the recordkeeping. Golfer resided there from August--October 1992; in a distant DSNP community from November 1992--February 1993; and at the DSNP headquarters, a short canoe ride from Ng. Kedebu', from March--July 1993. An attempt was made to reflect the limited community diversity by selecting half the respondents from "upriver" newcomers and half from "downriver" oldtimers, and by including one woman-headed household and one riverboat dweller. There was a slight change in cooperators over the year.
In Wong Garai, recordkeeping forms were modified by using the Iban language and adding a form on rice cultivation for use during the February rice harvest (See Golfer et al. 1993b; also Wadley 1997a for a fuller analysis of rice). This form included information on land use and ownership, and agricultural production. The entire community participated, under Wadley's resident supervision.
Colfer started supervising the study in Bemban but due to constraints on her time and low levels of literacy in the community, only one month of data collection was possible. The Wong Garai Iban forms were also used in Wong Garai.
Significant problems with the method included: difficulties finding sufficiently literate family members, people's fears about the confidentiality and use of the results, and difficulty reading people's handwriting, which became particularly acute during data entry. (5) This could be overcome by more regular supervision, which would also increase interaction with community members. Another difficulty was the rather amazing number of ways people measured things. As will be clear from the tables A-C and I-K, this problem was never satisfactorily resolved. A related problem was translation and comparison of different Iban and Malay resource categories, particularly regarding forest use (see discussion on Agriculture/Agroforests and Forest Products below).
Results of Recordkeeping
Fish and Fishing Gear
Many types of fish were recorded by local people (Appendices A-C). But it is important to note that their List by no means includes all fish species in these waters (cf. Dudley, this volume; Widjanarti 1995, for biological studies of local fish), but rather indicates those fish that local people consider important in their daily lives. There are inevitably some inconsistencies in identification of fish by local people (as well as some difficulty in linking common names to scientific names). However, these data, imperfect as they are, indicate the variety of fish people recognize and use, as well as the relative abundance of useful species.
Because project activities emphasized work in the park's lakes area, work to match scientific with Malay fish names has proceeded further than with Iban fish names. (Appendices A-C). It is almost certain that many of the same species recorded in the Malay data set are also in the Iban data set, but this match to local names has not yet been made. Nevertheless, species habitat preferences result in real differences between the fish fauna in the two areas. The Iban fish names are included to show the depth of indigenous knowledge of fish among that group and the comparative abundance of species, leaving for future researchers the task of matching the local and scientific names.
Differences between Iban and Malay emphases on fishing are related to the very different environments they inhabit. On one hand, Malay live in the lakes area which has been an extremely rich fishery for much of the year, while the Wong Garai Iban live in the headwaters of a Leboyan tributary. The people of Wong Garai have complained of increased fishing by communities downriver from them which they believe have decreased local yields. These factors no doubt contribute to some of the differences between Ng. Kedebu', and Wong Garai.
The lists of fish caught also show the significant differences in amount of fish caught in the three communities. Analysis of fishing records was complicated significantly by the fact that some fish were recorded by "tail" (ekor in Malay, iko' in Iban, which refers to counts of individual fish) and some were recorded by kilogram (Appendices A-C). Ng. Kedebu' average total catches reported in kg were more than seven times those recorded in Wong Garai, and more than twice Bemban catches. The dominance of Ng. Kedebu' in fisheries was even more pronounced in the comparisons by "tails."
Malay fisherfolk are much more likely than Iban swidden cultivators to be comfortable making estimates in kilograms, because many Malay commercial transactions require sale by kg. There is considerably greater fishing success among the people of Ng. Kedebu', where they of course also put considerably greater effort into such activities.
The three communities employed a variety of gear to catch fish (Table 1). These data are important because of the varying efficiency of different fishing gear and their consequent potential impact on fish stocks. Again, the frequencies show the different importance and methods of fishing among the Malay vis-a-vis the Iban. Although 60% of the cases of gear use among the Iban coincided with Malay gear, five of the twelve Iban methods were not mentioned by the Malay. The Malay identify at least 45 fishing gear types (Dudley 1996b) but recorded only 13 gear types (ignoring the unknown methods recorded by both ethnic groups).
The fishing implements used by the Wong Garai Iban reflect their reliance on fast-moving streams and small rivers. The small number recorded in Bemban is due in part to the fact that the recordkeeping study only encompassed the month of December.
Despite the Iban reputation for using poisons in fishing, these data (supplemented by Wadley's long term, day to day exposure to life in Wong Garai) suggest limited use of natural poisons in fishing by these communities. Where commercial interests come into play poison may be more likely to be used (see Aglionby 1995).
Fish and Money
Ng. Kedebu' is comparatively more dependent on income derived from fish than the Iban communities (Table 2).
The variety of valuable fish and the amount of selling evident in Ng. Kedebu' is in obvious contrast to the pattern in Wong Garai (where no fish were sold) and Bemban, where only the very valuable soft-shelled aquatic turtle was exported for a very good price, across the Malaysian border. This fairly large amount of money (Rp. 176,400) was obtained by one man from the sale of one or two large turtles. (6)
Fish as a contribution to normal family incomes is only important in Ng. Kedebu', where fishing forms the economic base for all families. Table 3 shows the monthly incomes from fishing by study families in Ng. Kedebu'. The wild fluctuations are clear, as is the low overall average income from fishing (See Figures 5 and 6, for the place of fishing in overall income).
One important point concerning the Bemban data is that they come from December, a month of typically high water, when people normally do not fish much. Given their proximity to the Lakes, Bemban fishing and income derived from fishing are likely to increase in the dry months. This is in contrast to the upriver Wong Garai Iban, who fish for household consumption only--reflected in their absence in these data.
The average monthly income from fishing is about Rp. 175,000, reasonably substantial for rural forest dwellers in Kalimantan. The problem for local people arises from the rather extreme variations in income. DSNP fisherfolk live with a high degree of uncertainty. Sometimes they catch fish of high value or in large quantities, while at other times they catch or are able to sell nothing. In addition to the perversities (from the human perspective) of fish reproduction and movements, there are uncertainties related to transport. During the dry season, trade boats have difficulty getting to many communities, thus sometimes interfering with the sale of fish when fish are most easily caught.
In Ng. Kedebu', the average cash received per trip is Rp. 1800. In Wong Garai, it is nothing, and in Bemban it is Rp. 3000 (statistically significant differences, using Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test, [chi square] = 49.09 with 2 d.f. (P < 0.001). This yields an overall average of Rp. 1,800/trip. The fisheries related income in Ng. Kedebu (1), the lack of fisheries-related income in Wong Garai, and the dramatic (but more occasional) fisheries-related income in Bemban reflect local patterns of resource use. Malay rely for a low, marginal income, on fisheries. Iban experience occasional, windfall profits from fisheries, but they do not rely on fish for primary subsistence needs (except as part of one's own diet, see last "Results" section; also Wadley 1997a).
Ng. Kedebu', as the only location with recurring income from fisheries, provides the only opportunity to examine income data, disaggregated by gender. There, males earn an average of Rp. 1,500/trip and females, Rp. 1,200/trip, with mixed outings yielding an average of Rp. 3,900/trip. The overall average income per trip is Rp. 1,800. The lower female earnings may relate to their tendency to "fish for supper." The higher earnings for mixed groups cannot be disaggregated from the fact that a mixed group is, by definition, more than one person, where a single sex trip is often a single fisher. The amount of cash received by mixed gender groups is significantly greater than that received by single sex outings, whether male or female (Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test, [chi square] = 100.2 with 2 df, P < 0.00).
Level of effort
One simple indicator of level of efforts is the number of fishing trips undertaken. Tables 4 and 5 show these, disaggregated by gender, for Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai, respectively.
In both Iban and Malay data sets, there is no statistically significant difference in length of trips by men and women, but among the Malay trips involving males and females together were significantly longer than single-sex ones.
Bemban is excluded from this comparison because the sample was too small. For the Malay, the predominance of mixed gender trips in June, a comparatively busy fishing season, is striking when contrasted with the other months, in which single-sex outings are more common. An increase in fishing by both genders during the dry season (typically June-August) was also demonstrated in a time allocation study conducted in Ng. Kedebu' (Colfer et al. forthcoming).
Among the Iban, the greater involvement of men in fishing contrasts with the greater involvement of women in subsistence agriculture (see Wadley 1997a). On the one hand, men fish more in the months when they must get fresh food to feed guests during post-harvest rituals (June) and after rice planting, their peak agricultural labor (September). Women, on the other hand, who are overwhelmingly more involved in rice cultivation, thus have less time for fishing. The months where there is no recorded female fishing reflect periods when women are busy preparing and attending post-harvest rituals (June) as well as weeding hill swiddens and planting swamp swiddens (September).
The much higher number of trips among the Malay also provides further confirmation that fishing is a major economic activity among these people. The larger number of trips undertaken in Ng. Kedebu' vis-a-vis Wong Garai is statistically significant ([chi square] = 55.69 with 2 d.f., P < 0.001).
The amount of time consumed in fishing differed significantly by community as well. In Ng. Kedebu' the mean number of hours per trip was 4.88; in Wong Garai, 1.64, and in Bemban, 1.51. Fishing trips made in Ng. Kedebu' are significantly longer than trips in the other two locations (Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test, [chi square] = 803.43 with 2 d.f. (P < 0.001).
A number of other researchers have noted the active involvement of women in Indonesia's inland fisheries (e.g., Upton and Susilowanti 1992; Pollnac and Malvestuto 1992; Malvestuto 1989; C. Bailey et al. 1990; Colfer et al. forthcoming). These data confirm such involvement, though to a statistically significant lesser degree than male involvement (Tables 4 and 5).
Malay spend more time fishing, and they have access to much denser (seasonal) populations of fish. In all probability, Bemban patterns, were data available, would more closely parallel the Malay during the dry months.
Almost as obvious as the Malay dependence on fisheries is the Iban dependence on agriculture. Their economic base is rice cultivation (cf. Wadley 1997a; Colfer et al. 1993b). Although Iban cultural, economic, and ritual dependence on rice is essential to understand, it is not a monocrop system. Instead rice cultivation is part of a larger agroforestry system. Rice fields themselves are really multicrop gardens with rice as the principal crop.
During data collection, an attempt was made to provide comparable categories for Malay and Iban. In doing so, Iban field, garden, and managed forest categories were collapsed into a broader category of "things that are tended or cultivated" (utai ke dipara). Thus in these data there are a number of products that might best be placed in the forest products section, and indeed there is considerable overlap with that section (see below). This shows that a neat division of cultivation and forest is a rather foreign concept to Iban, and results in the cumbersome category of "agriculture/agroforestry" used here.
Comparing Iban rice fields and gardens to Malay gardens in the field, the greater diversity of crops is obvious at Wong Garai. In this data set, Wong Garai collaborators recorded 21 items, and Ng. Kedebu', 17 (Appendices D and E). Add to this, products from Iban agroforests (including the animals captured in agroforests and uncultivated plants collected), and Iban "crop" diversity is far higher.
For the Malay data, the Latin names were not determined on the basis of identified samples but rather on the basis of the best estimates of botanically trained fieldworkers in the Reserve. For the Wong Garai data, the Latin names were determined from the extensive ethnobotanical work of Hanne Christensen (n.d.b) at a closely related longhouse just across the border in Sarawak. The animals captured were identified by Wadley in the field.
In Bemban, in December, people reported a preponderance of corn, cucumbers and cassava. These are crops normally available at that time of the agricultural cycle.
The diversity of crop locations is among the Iban is in striking contrast to the Malay agricultural system. In Ng. Kedebu' only one source was listed, the tayak, or small fields located directly behind the village. Colfer measured a sample of nine (of 45) fields, and they ranged in size from 24 [m.sup.2] to 297 [m.sup.2], with the mean being 117 [m.sup.2]. These fields were flooded most of the year, and the ability to bring a crop to fruition was greatly influenced by the timing of the annual flood. Table 6 shows the Wong Garai locations from which people harvested crops or collected/captured agroforest products. The much more complex agroforestry system of the Iban is reflected in the variety of locations listed below.
Harvesting, Ownership and Gender
Besides crops and locations, the division of labor by sex in these two communities had potential management implications. Participating households recorded who harvested the crops recorded, shown in Table 7. The predominance of women harvesters is evident in both communities, though much more dramatically so in Ng. Kedebu.'
There is a significantly different gender pattern among the three villages. In Ng. Kedebu', women are very dominant, probably because of their emphasis on tayak cultivation. In contrast, among the Iban, men's and women's contributions are more evenly spread although women still dominate. Men's involvement in agroforest management is relevant here.
Given the importance of tenure considerations to sustainable forest management (e.g., Prabhu et al. 1996; Golfer et al. 1997b), recorders were asked to indicate who owned the land from which the crops were harvested.
In Ng. Kedebu', women were the primary land owners (though the land owned covers a remarkably small area), (7) (Table 8). In Wong Garai, the pattern shifts, from one slightly dominated by women to one where mixed gender ownership is predominant, with males having a significantly greater part in land ownership than women. The "unspecified" category is also likely to be mixed gender; it refers to "same household" and "kin in another household."
This pattern at Wong Garai is probably a product of the prevailing patrilocal residence, whereby a woman goes to live with her husband's family upon marriage. Consequently, men are more likely to be regarded as the formal heads of households and thus more likely to be listed as land owners. However, this oversimplifies the matter because among the Iban, households own land, not individuals (Wadley 1997a, 1997b).
Furthermore, in many areas of Borneo, crops can be owned on land belonging to someone else. Participants in the study therefore also indicated who owned the crops that were harvested (a separate issue from land ownership, in many cases). In Ng. Kedebu', the land owner and the crop owner were in all cases identical, i.e., women own the plants as well as the land.
This was not the case in Wong Garai where the largest category of plant ownership (almost 40%) came from land belonging to the unspecified category (i.e., "same household" or "kin in another household"). Women were the second largest category of plant owner (29%). Men were the least likely to own the plants (13%), in contrast to their more meaningful position in land ownership (28%). This represents evidence for local acceptance of the idea that allocating one's labor confers rights (sometimes called "sweat equity")--a commonly stated view in Borneo and other areas of Indonesia.
Again, however, for the Iban this conflates notions of ownership. Women are listed as "owners" for two reasons: (1) They were more likely to have planted the items in question, and (2) with high rates of male absence due to labor migration, women might have been listed as owning something because they were the effective household heads. The predominance of mixed gender (including "unspecified") shows that gender is not a particularly important ownership issue in Iban households.
This pattern with women or mixed categories dominating suggests that efforts by conservation area managers to intensify agriculture, improve fallow management, or develop income generation projects related to agroforestry would do well to include local women. In the DSNP context, approaching formal male leaders is an important prelude to cooperation with communities. However, once such cooperation has been secured, planning, implementation and evaluation will need to involve women as well (cf. Golfer et al. 1997c). The complete dominance of women in Ng. Kedebu' agriculture makes it particularly important there. The wider distribution of responsibilities among the Iban suggests that both need to be involved, although women do dominate in rice cultivation (cf. Wadley 1997a).
The forest product portion of the recordkeeping study prompts some conclusions about people's dependence on the forest, forest culture interaction, and indigenous knowledge--all issues of relevance for sustainability (Golfer 1995).
Four issues emerge as important from this portion of the study:
1. The repertoire of items that were collected by people in the three communities. This indicates existing patterns of use, probable areas of indigenous knowledge, and hints about potential for expansion or need for reduction in harvesting.
2. The uses to which those items were put. If a large number of items was necessary for subsistence (food, fuel, building materials, etc.), this would suggest a strong dependence of local people on the forest. It could also, less directly, reflect indigenous knowledge of forest products usage, including possibly environmentally benign areas for income generation.
3. The locations from which the items were collected. The number of locations mentioned can provide an indication of the people's indigenous geographical knowledge--and provide useful hints to their use of space within the park.
4. The income derived from these products. This would reflect people's dependence on forests for cash, either as part of subsistence or as supplementary income.
Repertoire of Forest Products
A variety of forest products are collected throughout the year in each of the three communities (Appendices F-H). The Wong Garai data set (Appendix G) is much more extensive than either of the other two, reflecting greater Iban forest use than Malay forest use; and also the longer research period, vis-a-vis Bemban (Appendix H). Again, as with the data on agriculture/agroforests, there is some overlap here with "cultivated" categories.
Although the Bemban data set is not comparable (because of the reduced period of time for which records were kept), the Bemban Iban represent an intermediate category. This is not surprising but nonetheless interesting because their community is located much closer to the Lakes than Wong Garai. One might therefore expect Bemban forest use to take an intermediate position between the Wong Garai forest use patterns and those of Ng. Kedebu'.
The data reveal a rather sharp (and not surprising) division between the pattern of forest use of the Malay, on the one hand, and the Iban, on the other. The 207 forest products recorded by the Malay were exclusively wood and rattan (with one exception). The Iban of Wong Garai, in sharp contrast, recorded primarily foods (556 items), with a few other forest products (60).
Our attempts to determine amounts of forest products collected have been somewhat confusing primarily because of the different "counters" (or units) used for different kinds of item (appendices I-K). The Malay recorded the fewest ways of measuring quantities of forest products (Appendix I), with three (sticks, canoesful, and sheets) standards.
A greater number of measurements for forest produce (eight) were used, as well as a greater variety of products collected from the forests of Wong Garai. The terms used to count items collected are stick (batang), seed (igi'), bundle (tungkus), tail (iko'), backpack (ladong), sheet (keping), basket (raga'), and stem (tangkai) (Appendix J).
The products, the amounts regularly used in all three communities, and the effort required (measured as number of trips) to search for them, varies between the communities.
Uses of Forest Products
The uses for these forest products were also recorded. In Ng. Kedebu' people use forest products in three primary ways--as firewood (24.5%), for smoking fish (33.2%), and for sale (27.4%). In Bemban they use forest products for making mats (35.0%), boat construction (22.5%), and food (15.0%). In Wong Garai people use forest products for eating (92.3%) and cooking (5.9%). The Malay use forest products commercially although also for subsistence purposes.
Among the Iban, forest products are primarily foods or items used in subsistence. This reflects the Iban tendency to take for granted the many forest products that they use daily. Golfer had difficulty obtaining comparable information on non-food uses of forest products from a similar group (the Uma' Jalan Kenyah of East Kalimantan). This was simply because the local people could not conceive of someone a) not knowing about these products and their uses already, or b) having any particular interest in something so common. The items, not typically in short supply, were used daily by the people themselves (see Colfer et at. 1997a). (8)
Certainly Iban dependence on forest fibres, firewood, and timber is more obvious when one is confronted with their lifestyle (housing, cooking and agricultural implements, binding materials, weaving materials for mats and containers of various kinds, furniture, boats, etc.) than is evident from these data. Their extensive ecological knowledge and lexicon for forest resources further support this view (e.g. Golfer et at. 1997b; Wadley n.d.a; Christensen n.d.a; Pearce et at. 1987).
The Bemban data, though minimal, again reflect an intermediate position between Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai, in the comparative dominance of wood products collected. Besides firewood, foods, and construction materials, the people of Bemban collect forest products for ceremonies. Again, in all three villages, the subsistence uses (or commercial uses which are then immediately converted to subsistence uses) of--and thus dependence on--the forest are clear.
Locations from Which Forest Products were Collected
The final analysis on this data sub-set revolves around the areas in which people collect forest products (appendices L-N). The fact that Bemban's data set is smaller than the others derives from the fact that data were only collected for one month there. However, as with the other results, Bemban seems to represent an intermediate situation between Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai.
The Wong Garai data sets includes a large number of items in a small number of locations; whereas the Ng. Kedebu' dataset includes a smaller number of items in a larger number of named locations. There are several possible interpretations to this observation. First, the terrestrial homeland of the Wong Garai Iban (lowland Dipterocarp forests) is richer in terms of the repertoire of forest products than the flooded forest areas which the Malay inhabit. (9) The Malay may require a more refined geographical knowledge base--Where do we find the few products available, during what periods of the year?--compared to the greater botanical and zoological knowledge base required in the Iban context--Which of the many products are useful/edible?
The most probable interpretation, however, is related to the codes used: Malay codes represent specific named locations while Iban codes refer to categories of places, which have many specific names. For example, within Wong Garai territory, there are 26 (named) old longhouse sites and over 46 (named) forest or tree reserves (including sacred sites) (see Golfer et al. 1997b).
This difference is probably researcher-derived. In trying to produce comparable categories in the data collection, the Malay category of forest (hutan) encompasses a range of Iban forest types (managed forest, preserved forest, and fallow forest), each of which has its own set of sub-categories. In asking the Iban to record forest products, this range of location types had to be identified on the forms in order for all types to be included. Another result of this effort was the considerable overlap in items between agriculture/agroforests and forest data sets (see above).
Income from Forest Products
One important issue conservation managers must understand in local contexts is the degree of market dependence among local people. Table 9 provides a clear indicator of the relative market involvement of the Malay and the Iban. Interestingly, the Malay often sell forest products in small amounts vis-a-vis the Iban who rarely sell forest products, but receive much larger amounts of money for them.
The sample families in Ng. Kedebu', taken together, earned Rp. 699,244 from the sale of forest products during the four recordkeeping months. This results in an average monthly income per family of Rp. 19,513 (Figure 5). Extrapolating from these data, one gets over Rp. 2,000,000 for a whole year for those families, or an estimated Rp. 10,500,000 village annual income from forest products. (10)
The Iban in Wong Garai, by contrast, recorded a total income from forest products of Rp. 330,950 (representing only 17 records of forest product sales, from seven households). Bemban families recorded no income from forest products, during the month they kept records. Both Iban and Malay are dependent on forest products for their livelihoods, but in very different ways.
Looking more closely at the Ng. Kedebu' data set, where money is a more pervasive element in people's lives, there is an interesting pattern, with one family having a much larger income than the others (Figure 2). Golfer also found this pattern in a similar study of Kenyah income patterns in Tanah Merah and Long Segar, East Kalimantan (Golfer et al. 1997a).
A slightly different pattern exists in Wong Garai, where seven of the thirteen families sold forest products and with one household making Rp. 92,950 from one sale of illipe nuts and another, Rp. 130,000 from three such sales.
There is a significant gender difference in the amount of income received for forest products in Ng. Kedebu' (Using Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test, [chi square] = 7.41 with 2 d.f (P < 0.025). There, men received an average of Rp. 8,100, while women only received an average of Rp. 3,600, with mixed gender outings averaging less than Rp. 1,000. The overall average income from these products was Rp. 6,300.
From the 17 records in Wong Garai, Iban women generate more cash from forest products than men. From only six records of selling illipe nuts, women earned Rp. 265,450--80% of the total earned and Rp. 44,000 for the average transaction. In contrast, men earned only Rp. 65,500 from the sale of rubber and palm wine; this was from 11 records of two households (only 20% of the total and only Rp. 5,900 for the average transaction).
Despite this source of income, people in all three communities are poor. The Malay are dependent on cash (from fishing, fish processing, and forest product collection) to buy their rice and other non-fish foods; and they are dependent on the forest to supply many of their daily subsistence needs (boats, houses, construction materials, etc.).
The Iban use less cash in daily life, though they may have access to more wealth than the Malay through remittances and goods brought back by the circular migrant men. Almost all of their food comes from the surrounding agroforests.
Conservation area managers have often devoted considerable effort to increasing incomes in conservation areas, as a means to enhance protection of local resources. Indeed, CIFOR has devoted one of its ten projects to trying to assess the truth of this widely held belief, in East Kalimantan. This issue was considered important enough to include in the recordkeeping study.
The jobs performed in Ng. Kedebu' included private chainsaw operator, carpenter, and fish processing (Table 10). One man served as a guide for the timber company (P.T. Mekanik) in transporting logs through the Reserve, another hired out himself and his canoe.
Wong Garai recordkeeping included very little wage labor. Of the three individuals recording any income from wage labor in Ng. Kedebu', two were outsiders who had come for the busy fishing season. All the recorded wage was from the months of September and October. The overall income recorded totaled Rp. 100,500. If extrapolated to the entire community of about 50 households, this would yield an annual village income from wage labor of roughly Rp. 1,500,000.
Five Ng. Kedebu' families reported earnings from fish processing (either sale of smoked, dried, or salted fish). The important fish are listed in Table 11, along with related income. The total fish processing income for the year for these five families was Rp. 315,050, which converts to an annual village income from this source of over Rp. 4,700,000 (11)--considerably more important than wage labor, per se, which provided only Rp. 100,500 to four individuals.
No families recorded wage labor or fish processing income from Bemban. Although there is unquestionably income coming into this village from wage labor performed elsewhere, apparently none of the circular migrants returned during the period of recordkeeping. At Wong Garai, there were eight cases of locally-generated wage labor income--six cases of carrying lumber or other things, one case of escorting outsiders, and one of a village official receiving a fee of Rp. 36,000 from a local logging company (Table 10). The total income amounts to only Rp. 67,150 or Rp. 5,165 if averaged across households. Of the eight cases, three involved women while the majority (six) involved teenagers working for money primarily to pay for school supplies, though such money was also subject to use for other household expenses. Given the small amount of cash Iban appear to use for daily subsistence, the money earned here stands out as important.
The income from wage labor is quite small, and even the fish processing income recorded in Ng. Kedebu' does not represent a particularly significant amount for an entire village. Ironically, the poverty of the people of Ng. Kedebu', who need cash every day for food and who do report some wage labor, is more observable than the poverty of the Iban, who recorded little involvement in wage labor, or income therefrom.
The explanation lies in regular circular labor migration to Malaysia and Brunei by Iban men. There they work in a range of jobs including logging and construction, and receive very high wages by Indonesian standards. (12) The average monthly wage ranges from US$170 to US$900, or Rp. 340,000 to Rp. 1,800,000 at early 1990s rates (US$1 = Rp. 2,000). The amounts of money men remit to their families range from around US$50 to US$600 (or Rp. 100,000-1,200,000) (see Wadley 1997a for a full analysis).
However, no remittances were ever recorded in these data, nor is there any record of men's wages when they returned (as we would expect in the June recordkeeping when men regularly come home to visit). These omissions may have two causes: (1) People are extremely reticent to discuss money matters, particularly how much money they actually might have. Wadley was unable to get complete information on income from circular labor migration because of this. (2) The data recorders may have fallen into the habit of writing down things collected and produced by resident household members. Because people become so accustomed to male absence, they might have thought non-resident production beyond the scope of the study.
Figs. 3-6 provide an overview of incomes. The people of Ng. Kedebu' are much more dependent for subsistence on cash incomes than are those of Wong Garai; and substantial additional, unrecorded cash is available in Wong Garai from remittances (Figures 3 and 4).
Figures 5 and 6 are pie charts, showing the distribution of sources of family cash income recorded in the two communities. These data do clearly show the importance of natural resources are very important to these people, and are used in very different ways by the two ethnic groups (Figures 5 and 6).
The people of Danau Sentarum are poor by most outside standards. It is therefore especially important to be able to assess and monitor their nutritional situation. Food consumption recordkeeping gives a reasonably accurate portrayal of the kinds and distribution of foods available to people in the area. It also provides an indicator of people's dependence on local resources as well as hints on which local resources are critically important for subsistence.
Repertoire of Foods
Overall, there were 127 types of foods listed in the data set. The most striking feature is the dominance of rice in the local diet. Mentioned 4,511 times, 1,582 of them come from Ng. Kedebu' and the rest come from Wong Garai. The second most frequently mentioned food item was cassava leaves, with 648 occurrences--127 come from Ng. Kedebu' and the rest come from Wong Garai.
There was a significantly different pattern of food consumption between the Malay fisherfolk and the Iban swidden cultivators. This can be seen in Appendices o and P, which show the frequencies of foods consumed by month for each ethnic group. One important difference between the two ethnic groups is the Iban preference for eating three times a day, and the Malay tendency to eat only twice.
This kind of information is important in attempts to work with local people. If certain animals, for instance, form a critical part of local diets, forbidding people to hunt them may be unrealistic. On the other hand, extended protection of old growth forest may serve to maintain populations of forest pig, which is prized by Iban and is not illegal to hunt outside the Reserve (see Wadley et. al. 1997). Similarly if people's most basic food item, rice, is rooted in swidden cultivation, attempts by conservation managers to persuade people not to cut forest lands are unlikely to succeed (without very attractive incentives and alternatives). However, efforts to work with farmers to improve fallow management in order to sustain the economically and ritually important swiddens may be met with a good deal of interest.
Timing is another issue that influences management. Certain foods may be abundant at certain times of the year, whereas there may be times of scarcity as well. Among the Iban, for example, green leafy foods and vegetables are more common from October to December when those crops are ripe in the hill swiddens. Thereafter they are increasingly scarce until the next farming year (see Figure 8).
Nutritional Categories of foods
The distribution of foods among the different nutritional categories can give some hints (though not a definitive statement) about the nutritional status of local people. Again, there is a divergence of situations existing in Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai (Figures 7 and 8).
The primary carbohydrate in both communities is rice-although in Ng. Kedebu' it is virtually all bought, and in Wong Garai it is all home grown. In previous analyses of comparable data from Dayaks, we deleted rice from our graphs and figures, because of its overwhelming dominance in the local diet (e.g., Colfer and Soedjito 1996; Golfer et al. 1997a). In this study we retain it, for local comparative purposes.
Sources of Foods
Another important, food-related issue for natural resource management is the source f people's foods. The degree to which people are integrated into a cash economy is important, and the proportion of their food that is bought represent two indicators of this integration (or its lack). The two ethnic groups differ dramatically in the amount of food
That they buy, with the Malay purchasing an average of 59 % of their food, and the Iban purchasing 9 %, during the four months of study periods (figure 9 and 10).
In both Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai aquatic and bought sources of food are significant in their agroforestry systems. The people of Ng. Kedebu' are intimately integrated into a money economy, but at the bottom end of the economic hierarchy. The Iban, of the other hand, do not use their money for subsistence purposes; rather they are more likely to buy consumer goods and pay for their children's education (Wadley 1997a). Both communities' dependence on natural resources is equally clear (primarily rivers and lakes for the Malay; the forest for the Iban).
Summary and Conclusions
What then is the use of all this information and its gathering process about local people, in the pursuit of better conservation area management?
First, and most simply, in the process of supervising data collection, a manager meets with the local people, ensuring continuing data entry and asking questions about records that are unclear. In this way, a holistic understanding of local people's constraints and opportunities critical to good co-management begins to emerge. The rapport building process, necessary in co-management, progresses.
Second, the specific results help the manager in the creative process of developing management strategies, where a variety of goals, assumptions, and practices by different stakeholders need to come together into an integrated and complementary whole.
Although a manager may quickly recognize that there are two ethnic groups in the area, the extent of their differences in resource use is not immediately obvious to most biophysical scientists whose attention is normally directed elsewhere. This recordkeeping provides the very specific kinds of information that are often needed to make links between, for instance, biodiversity and human use issues. Who uses what, and how much of it?
Knowing how dependent are particular groups on particular resources can help managers to accept or reject various management ideas they may have. A manager who knows how dependent local people are on a specific endangered species will have a much clearer idea of how much effort may be required to protect it. The level of integration into a monetary economy also may influence managers' decisions about various potential strategies (e.g., to develop income generating activities or not; to propose management actions that require monetary expenditures or financial sacrifice on the part of local people or not).
The recordkeeping also provides information on the division of labor within households and communities. This kind of information is crucial for a manager in trying to tap into and enhance local management practices. DSNP managers who may want to reduce agricultural activity within the Reserve, for example, need to know that women are the farmers there; managers need to address their efforts to them, whether the technique is encouraging floating gardens, income generation activities, or awareness campaigns.
Conversely, if DSNP management wants to focus on a particular habitat (like flooded forest or old growth), this kind of data can clarify what is taken from that habitat by whom and in what quantities. Patterns of resource use emerge quite clearly and, combined with the biophysical knowledge of most managers, can be used to pinpoint problem areas, potential benign marketing strategies, and areas of useful indigenous knowledge and management (potential or extant).
Finally, these data, easily quantifiable, provide convenient material to support management's conclusions about appropriate "next steps" in local management. They can also help to explain problem areas (e.g., trying to protect an endangered otter in a community where fishing is a critical subsistence base). Very pragmatically, these data are useful in demonstrating to funding agencies, evaluators, and central planners, the reasons behind local management decision, in areas where the needs of local people are considered important.
Appendix A Fish Reported Captured, Ng. Kedeu', 1992-93. Malay Name Probable Latin Name Bilis Clupeichthys bleekeri Lais [various kinds] * Lais Pelteobagrus cf ornatus * Lais butu Ompok hypophthalmus * Lais Kryptopterus apogon jungang * Lais p ? * Lais banga Kryptopterus micronema * Lais sengro ? * Lais panak ? Total Lais [various kinds] Patik/Baung * Patik Mystus nemurus * Baung Mystus planiceps Total Patik/Baung Total Recorded as Lais or Patik/ Baung (1) Umpan Puntioplites waandersii Kelabau Osteochilus melanapleura Landin Mystus nigriceps Jelawat Leptobarbus hoevenii Kapas Rohteicthys microlepis Buin Cyclocheilichthyssp. Genus Channa * Toman Channa micropeltes * Delak Channa striata * Runtuk Channa sp. * Piyang Channa maruljoides Total for Genus Channa Kelampak Parachela oxygastroides Tengku-lan ? Nuayang Pseudeutropius sp. Juara Pangasius polyuranodon Belantau Macrochirichihys mnacrochirus Palau Osteoclzilus kahajanensis Emperas Cyclocheilichthys apogon Patung Pristolepis fasciata Belida Chitala lopis Ulang uli Botia macrachantus macracanthus Entukan Thynnichihys thynnoides Kebali Osteochilus schlegelil Tebirin Belondotichthys dinema Senara Paradoxcodacna piratica Butug ? Bauk [various kinds] # Bauk ? # Bauk ketup Thynnichthys polylepis # Bauk tuduy ? Total Bauk Tilan Macrognathus maculatus Kenyuar Luciosoma trinema Bundong ? Tapah Wallago leeri Biawan Helostoma temminckii Tengalan Puntioplites bulu Siluari Lycothrissa crocodilus Kelik Clarias sp. Lipi Parachela spp. Other fishes * [various kinds, reported less than 5 times] Undifferentiated Species # BK [large fish] # BT [medium size] # BTK [med. Large] # Ikan barang [junk fish] # Ikan campur [mixed fish] Total Undifferentiated species Total Malay Name No. times Percent Amount reported times reported reported in Kg Bilis 552 21.2 3251.45 Lais * Lais 344 13.2 284.00 * Lais butu 79 3.0 23.00 * Lais 42 1.6 4.00 jungang * Lais p 21 0.8 0 * Lais banga 19 0.7 7.00 * Lais sengro 1 0.1 0 * Lais panak 3 0.1 0 Total Lais [various kinds] 509 19.5 318.00 Patik/Baung * Patik 469 18.0 1680.30 * Baung 39 1.5 69.70 Total Patik/Baung 508 19.5 1750.00 Total Recorded as Lais or Patik/ 1029 39.5 2132.00 Baung (1) Umpan 176 6.8 292.25 Kelabau 99 3.8 93.40 Landin 51 2.0 427.00 Jelawat 41 1.6 0 Kapas 39 1.5 70.00 Buin 38 1.4 56.00 Genus Channa * Toman 20 0.7 129.50 * Delak 16 0.6 78.50 * Runtuk 2 0.1 1.00 * Piyang 1 0.1 1.00 Total for Genus Channa 39 1.5 210.00 Kelampak 37 1.4 8.00 Tengku-lan 33 1.3 72.50 Nuayang 31 1.2 43.80 Juara 30 1.1 22.50 Belantau 23 0.9 11.00 Palau 22 0.8 24.00 Emperas 22 0.8 18.50 Patung 21 0.8 22.50 Belida 20 0.8 64.00 Ulang uli 20 0.8 0 Entukan 19 0.7 75.00 Kebali 17 0.6 22.50 Tebirin 16 0.6 27.50 Senara 15 0.6 1.00 Butug 14 0.5 0 Bauk # Bauk 7 0.3 60.00 # Bauk ketup 3 0.1 32.00 # Bauk tuduy 1 0.1 4.00 Total Bauk 11 0.4 96.00 Tilan 11 0.4 15.50 Kenyuar 10 0.4 7.50 Bundong 10 0.4 0 Tapah 8 0.3 10.50 Biawan 8 0.3 18.50 Tengalan 8 0.3 11.00 Siluari 7 0.3 0 Kelik 6 0.2 0 Lipi 6 0.2 0.13 Other fishes * 32 1.8 45.50 Undifferentiated Species # BK 25 1.0 134.00 # BT 17 0.6 72.00 # BTK 5 0.2 16.00 # Ikan barang 28 1.1 74.30 # Ikan campur 3 0.1 9.00 Total Undifferentiated species 78 3.0 305.3 Total 2599 100.0 7462.33 Malay Name Amount reported in Ekor Bilis 1 Lais * Lais 18457 * Lais butu 4763 * Lais 775 jungang * Lais p 1222 * Lais banga 123 * Lais sengro 10 * Lais panak 90 Total Lais [various kinds] 25440 Patik/Baung * Patik 238 * Baung 92 Total Patik/Baung 330 Total Recorded as Lais or Patik/ 26658 Baung (1) Umpan 424 Kelabau 228 Landin 79 Jelawat 770 Kapas 139 Buin 88 Genus Channa * Toman 16 * Delak 8 * Runtuk 2 * Piyang 0 Total for Genus Channa Kelampak 452 Tengku-lan 36 Nuayang 350 Juara 46 Belantau 75 Palau 24 Emperas 100 Patung 87 Belida 7 Ulang uli 2004 Entukan 57 Kebali 39 Tebirin 38 Senara 96 Butug 658 Bauk # Bauk 0 # Bauk ketup 0 # Bauk tuduy 0 Total Bauk 0 Tilan 6 Kenyuar 37 Bundong 330 Tapah 5 Biawan 0 Tengalan 17 Siluari 27 Kelik 29 Lipi 17 Other fishes * 1247 Undifferentiated Species # BK 4 # BT 127 # BTK 0 # Ikan barang 441 # Ikan campur 0 Total Undifferentiated species 572 Total 34759 (1)These are trips where lais or patik/baung, or both lais and patik/baung together were caught. * Names of fish which were reported less than 5 times, in Ng. Kedebu', 1992-93: Seluang (Rasbora sp.), Temunit (Labeo chrysophekadison), Ketutuk (Oxyelotris marmorata), Tamban (?), Tengadak (Barbodes schwanenfeldii), Keroyak (?), Langkung (Hampala macrolepitoda), Kujam (Labiobarbus spp.), (Tetraodon spp), Kedukul (Amblyrhynchthys truncatus), Kelukoi, Ringau (Datnoides microlepis), Tawang (?), Piyam (Leptobarbus melanopterus). Appendix B Fish Reported Captured, Wong Garai, 1992-93. Iban Name Probable Latin Name No. times reported Lais [various kinds] * Lais Pelteobagrus cf. Ornatus 1 * Lais Kryptopterus micronema 24 banga * Lelipai Silurichthys spp. 13 Total Lais [various kind] 38 Patik/ Baung * Baung Mystus planiceps 68 Total Patik/Baung 68 Total Recorded as Lais or Patik/ 106 Baung (1) Banta' Osteochilus 74 microcephalus Undai [shrimp] 59 Enseluai Rasbora sp. 53 Keli' Clarias sp. 43 Geregit Leiocassis cf. Stenomus 29 Pansik Botia hymenophysa 25 Palau Osteochilus kahajanensis 20 Kujam Labiobarbus spp. 16 Kemujuk ? 14 Gerama' Gecarcinus spp. 13 Tekuyong [snails] 12 Genus Channa * Toman Channa micropeltes 1 * Delak Channa striata 10 Total for Genus Channa 11 Buing Cyclocheilichthys sp. 11 ? Macrognathus maculatus 8 Gerang ? 8 Adong Hampala macrolepitoda 7 Buntal Tetraodon sp. 6 Unknown 6 Other [various kinds, reported 56 less than 5 times] Fishes * Total 577 Iban Name Percent Amount Amount in times in Kg "Iko" reported Lais [various kinds] * Lais 0.2 0 0 * Lais 4.2 4.00 41 banga * Lelipai 2.2 3.00 20 Total Lais 6.6 7.00 61 Patik/ Baung * Baung 11.7 12.00 134 Total Patik/Baung 11.7 12.00 134 Total Recorded as Lais or Patik/ 18.3 19.00 195 Baung (1) Banta' 12.8 21.00 100 Undai 10.2 11.55 63 Enseluai 9.3 8.00 135 Keli' 7.4 7.00 110 Geregit 5.0 6.50 85 Pansik 4.3 1.50 39 Palau 3.5 4.50 16 Kujam 2.8 3.50 14 Kemujuk 2.4 0.50 14 Gerama' 2.2 0 42 Tekuyong 2.1 4.00 0 Genus Channa * Toman 0.2 0 0 * Delak 1.8 11.00 10 Total for Genus Channa 2.0 11.00 10 Buing 1.9 0 115 ? 1.4 1.00 4 Gerang 1.4 0 17 Adong 1.2 0.50 3 Buntal 1.0 5.00 28 Unknown 1.0 0 8 Other 4.9 15.00 205 Fishes * Total 100.0 121.05 1247 (1)These are trips where lais or patik/baung, or both lais and patick/baung together were caught. * Names of fish which were reported less than 5 times, in Wong Garai, 1992-93: Nyenyuar (Luciosoma trinema), Lelabi [soft-shelled turtles], Kerimpok (?), Patong (Pristolepis fasciata), Engkarit (Punitius eugrammus), Lelekat (?), Bauk (?), Pama [frogs], Ngewai (?), Runto' (Ophiocephalus sp.), Keyulong (Xenentodon conciloides), Memuri' [tadpoles], Riu' (Pangasius macronema), Leladin (Mystus nigriceps), Rusit (?), Anak beluh (?), Bah (?), Belau (Ophiocephalus sp.), Buntat (?), Empelasi' (Betta spp.), Entebali (?), Gerau (?), Keripalu (?), Memayut (?), Empelung (?), Peranak (?), Surik (?). Appendix C Fish Reported Captured, Bemban, 1992. Iban Name Probable Latin Name No. times Percent Amount reported times in Kg reported Baung Mystus planiceps 14 25.5 13.50 Leladin Mystus nigriceps 13 23.6 7.00 Runto' Ophiocephalus sp. 7 12.7 0.10 Bawan Helostoma temminckii 6 10.9 1.00 Lais Pelteobagrus cf. Ornatus 4 7.3 0 Patong Pristolepis fasciala 2 3.6 0 Kerimang ? 2 3.6 1.00 Ni ? 2 3.6 3.00 Delak Channa striata 1 1.8 0 Lelabi [Soft-shelled turtles] 1 1.8 49.00 Gerinung ? 1 1.8 0 Kerandung Ophiocephalus 1 1.8 0 pleurothakmus Padi ? 1 1.8 0 Total 55 100.0 74.60 Iban Name Amount in "Iko" Baung 157 Leladin 81 Runto' 5 Bawan 95 Lais 0 Patong 0 Kerimang 15 Ni 40 Delak 0 Lelabi 4 Gerinung 0 Kerandung 0 Padi 0 Total 397 Appendix D Crops Harvested in Ng. Kedebu', 1992-93. Local Names Probable Latin Names Frequency Percentage Retak [Green beans] 52 22.3 Buah perenggi [Squash] 46 19.7 Daun ubi Manihot esculenta [cassava 31 13.3 leaves] Retak panjang Vigna sinensis [longbeans] 31 13.3 Jagung Zea mays [corn] 23 9.9 Daun retak panjang Vigna sinensis [longbean 8 3.4 leaves] Daun retak [Green beans leaves] 7 3.0 Ubi Manihot esculenta[cassava] 6 2.6 Entimun Cucumis sativus [cucumber] 6 2.6 Daun perenggi [Squash leaves] 5 2.1 Kacang duduk [peanuts] 4 1.7 Buah kusut (Gambas) ? 4 1.7 Daun cangkok Sauropus spp. 4 1.7 Terong cina [Chinese eggplant] 2 0.9 Daun timun Cucumis sativus [cucumber 2 0.9 leaves] Daun kangkung Ipomoea aquatica [swamp 1 0.4 cabbage] Paku' manis [fern] 1 0.4 Appendix E Agricultural/Agroforest Products in Wong Garai, 1992-93. Field and Garden Products Local Names Probable Latin Names Frequency Cangkok Sauropus spp. 36 Daun empasa' Manihot esculenta [cassava 27 leaves] Daun ensabi Allantospermum borneensis 21 Kebari Bittermelon? 20 Tebu Saccharum officinarum 16 [sugarcane] Retak [Green beans] 16 Empusut Luffa aegyptica 11 Terong Solanum spp. [eggplant] 10 Daun subung [Xanthosoma mafaffa leaves] 4 Terong pipit Solanum torvum 4 Lia' Zingiber spp. [ginger] 3 Kacang (Cabe) Capsicum frutescens [chillie] 3 Terong cina Chinese eggplant 1 Buah rampo' Cucumis sativus [cucumber] 1 Buah empasa' Manihot esculenta[cassava] 1 Pisang Musa spp. [banana] 1 Daun entaban Poikilospernum spp. 1 Daun jebuk Celosia argentea 1 Pako' & Cangkok 1 Local Names Percentage Cangkok 8.5 Daun empasa' 6.4 Daun ensabi 5.0 Kebari 4.7 Tebu 3.8 Retak 3.8 Empusut 2.6 Terong 2.4 Daun subung 0.9 Terong pipit 1.0 Lia' 0.7 Kacang (Cabe) 0.7 Terong cina 0.2 Buah rampo' 0.2 Buah empasa' 0.2 Pisang 0.2 Daun entaban 0.2 Daun jebuk 0.2 Pako' & Cangkok 0.2 Agroforests Products Local Names Probable Latin Names Frequency Ai' ijuk [Wine of] Arenga pinnata 48 Buah rian Durio zibethinus [durian] 32 Buah sibau Nephelium reticulatum 17 Buah pedalai Artocarpus sericicarpus 15 Dedabai Canarium odontophyllum 13 Kayo' api [Firewood, various kinds] 13 Bukoh Artocarpus integer 13 Engkabang Shorea macrophylla 9 Ketuntum 8 Kulat [mushroom] 6 * Kemiding Stenochlaena spp. 6 Upa' panto' Eugeissonia utilis 6 Engkala Litsea garciae 5 Buah asam Mangifera decandra 5 Rembai Baccaurea motleyana 4 Tubo' [Bamboo shoots] 4 Karet/getah Harvea braziliensis 3 * Kayo' engkelong Shorea quadrinervis 3 Daun koko Theobroma cacao 3 Asam pauh Mangifera petandra 2 Nangka Artocarpus heterophyllus 2 Buah rungan Carica papaya 2 * Tucung kecala' Etlingera elatior 2 * Daun sabong Gnetum gnemon 2 Petai Parkia speciosa 2 * Wi [various species of rattan]. 2 * Kulat mata jane' Calostoma spp. 1 Inyak Cocos nucifera 1 Belimbing Averrhoa bilimbing [starfruit] 1 ** Kijang Muntiacus spp. 1 ** Pelandok Tragulus spp. 1 ** Jane' Sus barbatus [wild pig] 1 * Upa' encala 1 Mawang Mangifera pajang 1 Engkeranje' Dialium indum 1 Purur Artocarpus communis 1 Ruas [Lengths of Bamboo] 1 Upa' payau 1 Local Names Percentage Ai' ijuk 11.4 Buah rian 7.6 Buah sibau 4.0 Buah pedalai 3.6 Dedabai 3.1 Kayo' api 3.0 Bukoh 3.0 Engkabang 2.1 Ketuntum 1.8 Kulat 1.4 * Kemiding 1.4 Upa' panto' 1.4 Engkala 1.2 Buah asam 1.2 Rembai 0.9 Tubo' 0.9 Karet/getah 0.7 * Kayo' engkelong 0.7 Daun koko 0.7 Asam pauh 0.5 Nangka 0.5 Buah rungan 0.5 * Tucung kecala' 0.5 * Daun sabong 0.5 Petai 0.5 * Wi 0.5 * Kulat mata jane' 0.2 Inyak 0.2 Belimbing 0.2 ** Kijang 0.2 ** Pelandok 0.2 ** Jane' 0.2 * Upa' encala 0.2 Mawang 0.2 Engkeranje' 0.2 Purur 0.2 Ruas 0.2 Upa' payau 0.2 * Uncultivated plants ** Game animal Appendix F Forest Products with Number of Collecting Trips Recorded in Ng. Kedebu' (1992-93). Species (Local Name) Latin/English Name Number of Yearly Trips estimate * Kayu api/bakar [various kinds, firewood] 62 248 Rotan antu Calamus sp [Rattan] 61 244 Kayu Ntangis Randia sp 28 112 Kayu kelansau Dryobalanops abnormis 11 44 Kayu mengkupas wood? 9 36 Kayu limut Casaeria sp. nov. 6 24 Kayu putat Barringtonia acutangula 6 24 Kayu tahun Garcinia sp 5 20 Kayu jijap Eugenia sp 4 16 Kayu ngkurung Grewia spp 2 8 Atap emang Hopea griffithii 2 8 Atap sirap [various kinds, shingles] 2 8 Kayu sikop Garcinia celebica 1 4 Kayu kebesi Memecylon edule 1 4 Kayu ngkunik Antidesma stipulare 1 4 Kayu merandap wood 1 4 Kayu tembesuk Fragraea fragrans 1 4 Kayu kemarauan Shorea platycarpa 1 4 Kayu ngkelopak wood 1 4 Papan pukul Shorea virescens 1 4 Kayu belanti Baccaurea bracteata 1 4 Unknown 1 4 * The results from the four months of recordkeeping (number of trips) were multiplied by 3 to estimate the yearly number of trips. This estimate must be taken with a grain of salt, since there are a number of species marked by real seasonality (i.e., likely to occur only once a year). Appendix G Forest Products with Number of Collecting Trips Recorded in Wong Garai (1992-93) Species (Local Name) Latin / English Names Number of Yearly Trips Estimate ~ * Daun empasa' Cassava leaves 101 404 Kayo' api Firewood [various kind] 64 256 Tubo' Bamboo shoots 46 184 * Buah empasa' Cassava roots 39 156 Pako' Fern 31 124 Kemiding Stenochlaena spp. 28 112 * Daun subong Xanthasoma mafaffa leaves 25 100 Terong Solanum spp. 25 100 Kulat Mushroom [general] 22 88 Upa' panto' Eugeissonia utilis 20 80 * Tebu Saccharum officinarum 16 64 Pako' ikan Diplazium esculentum 11 44 Entaban Poikilospernum spp. 11 44 * Empusut Luffa aegyptica 11 44 Daun rebung Callaria spp.? 9 36 Ai'ijuk Arenga pinnata 8 32 Buah pedalai Artocarpus sericicarpus 8 32 Pako' kero' Nephrolepis bisserata 7 28 Dedabai Canarium odontophyllum 7 28 * Kacang (cabe) Capsisum frutescens 7 28 ** Munsang Various species of civet 6 24 Upa' entibap Arenga saccharifera 6 24 Buah rian Durio zibethinus 6 24 Buloh Bambusa vulgaris 6 24 Tubo' betong Gigantochloa latifolia 5 20 Buah bukoh Artocarpus integer 5 20 Kulat mata jane' Calostoma spp. 5 20 Daun daup Bauhinia spp. 5 20 ** Jane' Sus barbatus 5 20 Kulat buab Hygrocybe sp. 4 16 Kulat bulu Panus rudia 4 16 Kulat ikan Pleurotus sp. 4 16 Daun gelabak Pseuderanthenum borneense 4 16 ** Kijang Muntiacus spp. 4 16 Daun Various kind of leaves 4 16 Buah asam kecala Etlingera elatior 4 16 Ramo'/papan Lumber [various kind] 4 16 Upa' encala ? 3 12 Kulat kerop [mushroom] 3 12 Kulat lepit Auricularia auricula-judae 3 12 Buab asam Mangifera decandra 3 12 Kulat dilah kepayang Pleurotus sp. 3 12 Asam pauh Mangifera petandra 3 12 Kulat jalong Cookeina sulcipes 2 8 Kulat gelos Lentinus sp 2 8 ** Nyumboth Macaca nemestrina 2 8 * Cangkok Sauropus spp. 2 8 Kayo'jijap Eugenia sp 2 8 Kayo' engkelong Shorea quadrinervis 1 4 ** Empeliau Hylobates muelleri 1 4 Daun arak Ficus oleaefolia? 1 4 Inyak Cocos nucifera 1 4 * Kebari' bittermelon? 1 4 Buah sibau Nephelium reticulatum 1 4 Kulat burak Gerronema and other 1 4 Kulit pukul Tree bark for house siding 1 4 Kulan Pandanus spp. 1 4 Kayo' limut Casaeria sp. nov. 1 4 Kayo' belanti Baccaurea bracteata 1 4 Unknown ? 33 ~ The results from the four months of recordkeeping (number of trips) were multiplied by 3 to estimate the yearly number of trips. * Cultivated plants ** Game animal Appendix H Forest Products with Number of Collecting Trips, Bemban (December 1992). Local Names Latin/English Names Number of Trips Empukung Termite nest 14 Senggang Hornstedtia scyphifera 5 Tubo' Bamboo shoots 4 Kulan Pandanus spp. 4 Papan Board [various kinds] 3 Kulit pukul Tree bark for siding of houses 2 Buloh Bambusa vulgaris 2 Kayu api Firewood [various kinds] 2 Daun daup Bauhinia spp. 1 * Babi Sus barbatus 1 Kayu ntangis Randia sp. 1 * Game animal Appendix I Quantities of Forest Products Gathered in Ng. Kedebu' (1992-93). Species (Local Name) Latin Names Measures Stick Canoeful Kayu ntangis Randia sp 178 16 Rotan antu' * Calamus sp 0 0 Kayu bakar [various kind] 500 43 Kayu belanti Baccaurea bracteata 2 0 Papan pukul Shorea virescens 0 0 Atap sirap [various kind] 0 0 Atap emang Hopea griffithii 0 0 Kayu ngkelopak wood? 0 0 Kayu kemarauan Shorea platycarpa 15 0 Kayu tembesuk Fragraea fragrans 7 0 Kayu mengkupas wood? 2 0 Kayu merandap wood? 10 0 Kayu kelansau Dryobalanops abnormis 416 0 Kayu ngkunik Antidesma stipulare 100 0 Kayu jijap Eugenia sp 0 4 Kayu tahun Garcinia sp 0 4 Kayu putat Barringtonia acutangula 0 3 Kayu limut Casaeria sp. nov. 0 5 Kayu ngkurung Grewia spp 0 2 Kayu kebesi Memecylon edule 0 2 Kayu sikop Garcinia celebica 0 1 Species (Local Name) Measures Sheet Kayu ntangis 0 Rotan antu' * 8429 Kayu bakar 0 Kayu belanti 0 Papan pukul 10 Atap sirap 600 Atap emang 750 Kayu ngkelopak 15 Kayu kemarauan 0 Kayu tembesuk 0 Kayu mengkupas 0 Kayu merandap 0 Kayu kelansau 496 Kayu ngkunik 0 Kayu jijap 0 Kayu tahun 0 Kayu putat 0 Kayu limut 0 Kayu ngkurung 0 Kayu kebesi 0 Kayu sikop 0 * We find it rather odd that the people measure rattan in "sheets," but that is how they recorded it. Appendix J Quantities of Forest Products Gathered in Wong Garai (1992-93). Species Latin Measures (Local Names Name) Stick Seed Bundle Tails Kayo' Baccaurea 6 belanti bracteata Kayo' Eugenia sp 2 jijap Kayo' Casaeria limut sp. nov. Kayo' api firewood 4 [various kinds] Kulan Pandanus 2 sp Ramo'/ Beam 2 papan [various kinds] Buloh Bambusa vulgaris Tubo' Bamboo 22 8 24 shoots Kulit Tree bark pukul for siding of houses Jane' Sus 3 barbatus Daun [various kinds] Daun Bauhinia Daup sp Kemiding Stenoch- 4 laena spp. Kacang Capsicum 5 1 (cabe) frutescens Terong Solanum 6 13 10 spp. Asam Mangifera 2 pauh petandra Daun cassava 5 6 30 empasa' leaves Buah cassava 18 4 11 empasa' roots Buah rian Durio zibethinus Kulat Calostoma mata jane' spp. Kulat Gerronema burak and other Kulat Pleurotus 2 dilah sp. kepayang Kulat Mushroom 3 [general] Buah Nephelium 1 sibau sp Dedabai Canarium 13 odonto- phyllum Kebari' Bittermelon ? Daun Xantho- 2 1 subong soma mafaffa leaves Empusut Luffa aegyptica Buah Artocarpus 4 bukoh integer Buah Artocarpus 20 5 6 pedalai serici- carpus Pako' fern 3 [general] Cangkok Sauropus spp. Upa' Arenga 11 2 2 entibap sacchari- fera Upa' Eugeis- 3 6 19 panto' sonia utilis Buah Mangifera 3 asam sp Nyur/ Cocos inyak nucifera Entaban ? 1 Kayo' api Firewood 16 2 [various kinds] Ai'ijuk Arenga pinnata Kijang Muntiacus 5 spp. Daun Callaria 11 6 rebung spp.? Daun arak Ficus oleaefolia Tucung Etlingera kecala elatior Nyum- Macaca 1 boh namestrina Pako' ikan Dipazium 8 esculentum Tubo' Giganto- 5 betung chloa latifolia Daun Pseuderan- 6 gelabak thenum borneense Kulat ikan Pleurotus 3 sp. Munsang Various 6 species of civet Kulat lepit Auricularia auricula- judae Kulat bulu Panus 8 rudia Empe-liau Hylobates 1 muelleri Kulat Lentinus sp gelos Kulat Cookeina jalong sulcipes Pako' Nephrolepi 1 5 kero' s biserrata Kulat a mush- 1 kerop room Kulat Hygrocybe buah sp. Upa' encala Kayo' Shorea 9 engke- quadri- long nervis Tebu Saccharum 6 15 officinarum Unknown ? 13 9 Species Measures (Local Name) Backpack Sheet Basket Stem Kayo' belanti Kayo' jijap Kayo' 1 limut Kayo' api 61 2 Kulan Ramo'/ 1 3 papan Buloh 6 1 Tubo' 5 28.10 Kulit 1 pukul Jane' 2 Daun 3 2 Daun 5 Daup Kemiding 20.63 Kacang 2 3 (cabe) Terong 5 11.20 Asam 1 1 pauh Daun 26 2 57.95 empasa' Buah 21 16 empasa' Buah rian 6 Kulat 3.50 mata jane' Kulat 0.25 burak Kulat 1 0.50 dilah kepayang Kulat 6 9.20 Buah sibau Dedabai Kebari' 2 Daun 8 13.85 subong Empusut 11 Buah 3 1 bukoh Buah 1 pedalai Pako' 7 22.26 Cangkok 2 Upa' 1 1 entibap Upa' 6 panto' Buah 5 asam Nyur/ 1 inyak Entaban 10.25 Kayo' api 9 2 Ai'ijuk 13 Kijang Daun 1 2.55 rebung Daun arak 0.50 Tucung 1.13 2 kecala Nyum- 1 boh Pako' ikan 2 4 Tubo' 2 1.05 betung Daun 3 gelabak Kulat ikan 0.26 Munsang 1 Kulat lepit 0.31 Kulat bulu 2.13 Empe-liau Kulat 2.13 gelos Kulat 1.50 jalong Pako' 6 kero' Kulat 2.05 kerop Kulat 4 buah Upa' 2 1 encala Kayo' engke- long Tebu 5 7.05 Unknown 10 9.10 Appendix K Quantities of Forest Products Gathered in Bemban (December 1992). Spesies Latin/English Measures (Local Name Names) Stick Seed Canoeful Bundle Kayu Randia sp 0 0 0 0 Ntangis Kayu api Firewood 7 0 3 0 (various kind] Empukung Termite 0 80 0 0 nest Kulan Pandanus 0 0 0 6 spp. Senggang Hornstedtia 0 0 0 8 scyphifera Papan Board 49 0 0 0 [various kind] Buloh Bambusa 4 0 0 0 vulgaris Tubo' Bamboo 5 30 0 0 shoots Kulit pukul Tree bark 20 0 0 0 for siding of houses Babi Sus 1 0 0 0 barbatus Daun daup Bauhinia 1 0 0 0 spp. Spesies Measures (Local Names) Backpack Sheet Kayu 1 0 Ntangis Kayu api 0 0 Empukung 16 0 Kulan 0 0 Senggang 0 0 Papan 0 0 Buloh 0 0 Tubo' 0 0 Kulit pukul 0 0 Babi 0 0 Daun daup 0 0 Appendix L Frequency of forest product collected in Ng. Kedebu', 1992-1993, by location. Location Kind of Forest Product 1 2 3 4 5 Bangkal begetah Batang 1 1 Pengembung Belibis 18 Danau Dua Menanga 3 9 5 Kuran Besar 1 Lebak Resau Lebak T.H. 1 1 Lengkong 2 Lengkong Pangas 2 Lengkung Bt. 2 2 Tekenang Lubuk Mensidang Lungai 1 Menyuku' 1 Ng.Santik/ 3 9 Lengkong Santik Ngkuran 8 3 1 Penyelawat 4 Pintas Jenat 7 Pintas Senten 2 Pulau Midin Seberang Batu 2 Petuleh Seberang kampung 1 Sepandan 5 2 Sepandan Kerinan 1 2 Sg. Lebak Langkan 9 2 Sg. Nanga 1 Sg. Panjang 7 Sg. Pekah 3 Sg. Ramut 1 Sikeng Telak 1 tonggak Suak Panjang 3 Sumpa' 5 Tekenang Telok Jengger 1 (Selimbau) Tepi Tawang 1 1 2 1 Tong 4 Tong 2 7 1 Besar/Pulaunya Location Kind of Forest Product 6 7 8 9 10 Bangkal begetah 1 Batang Pengembung Belibis Danau Dua Menanga Kuran Besar Lebak Resau Lebak T.H. Lengkong Lengkong Pangas Lengkung Bt. Tekenang Lubuk Mensidang Lungai Menyuku' Ng.Santik/ Lengkong Santik Ngkuran Penyelawat 2 Pintas Jenat Pintas Senten Pulau Midin Seberang Batu Petuleh Seberang kampung Sepandan Sepandan Kerinan Sg. Lebak Langkan Sg. Nanga Sg. Panjang Sg. Pekah Sg. Ramut 1 Sikeng Telak tonggak Suak Panjang Sumpa' Tekenang Telok Jengger 1 (Selimbau) Tepi Tawang 2 Tong Tong Besar/Pulaunya Location Kind of Forest Product 11 12 13 14 15 Bangkal begetah Batang Pengembung Belibis Danau Dua Menanga Kuran Besar 1 Lebak Resau Lebak T.H. Lengkong Lengkong Pangas Lengkung Bt. Tekenang Lubuk Mensidang 1 Lungai Menyuku' Ng.Santik/ 6 Lengkong Santik Ngkuran 2 Penyelawat 9 Pintas Jenat Pintas Senten Pulau Midin 1 Seberang Batu 1 Petuleh Seberang kampung 1 Sepandan 1 Sepandan Kerinan 1 Sg. Lebak Langkan Sg. Nanga Sg. Panjang Sg. Pekah Sg. Ramut 1 1 Sikeng Telak tonggak Suak Panjang Sumpa' Tekenang Telok Jengger (Selimbau) Tepi Tawang 1 Tong Tong Besar/Pulaunya Location Kind of Forest Product 16 17 18 19 20 Bangkal begetah Batang Pengembung Belibis Danau Dua Menanga Kuran Besar Lebak Resau Lebak T.H. Lengkong Lengkong Pangas Lengkung Bt. Tekenang Lubuk Mensidang Lungai Menyuku' Ng.Santik/ 1 1 Lengkong Santik Ngkuran 1 1 1 Penyelawat Pintas Jenat 1 Pintas Senten 1 Pulau Midin 1 Seberang Batu Petuleh Seberang kampung 1 Sepandan 1 Sepandan Kerinan 1 Sg. Lebak Langkan Sg. Nanga 3 Sg. Panjang Sg. Pekah Sg. Ramut Sikeng Telak tonggak Suak Panjang Sumpa' Tekenang Telok Jengger (Selimbau) Tepi Tawang Tong Tong Besar/Pulaunya Location Kind of Forest Product 21 Bangkal begetah Batang Pengembung Belibis Danau Dua Menanga Kuran Besar Lebak Resau Lebak T.H. Lengkong Lengkong Pangas Lengkung Bt. Tekenang Lubuk Mensidang Lungai Menyuku' Ng.Santik/ Lengkong Santik Ngkuran Penyelawat Pintas Jenat Pintas Senten Pulau Midin Seberang Batu Petuleh Seberang kampung Sepandan Sepandan Kerinan Sg. Lebak Langkan 1 Sg. Nanga Sg. Panjang Sg. Pekah Sg. Ramut Sikeng Telak tonggak Suak Panjang Sumpa' Tekenang Telok Jengger (Selimbau) Tepi Tawang Tong Tong Besar/Pulaunya 1 = Kayu ntangis (wood) 2 = Rotan antu' (rattan) 3 = Kayu bakar (firewood) 4 = Kayu belanti (wood) 5 = Papan pukul (wood) 6 = Atap sirap (shingles) 7 = Atap emang 8 = Kayu ngkelopak (wood) 9 = Kayu kemarauan (wood) 10 = Kayu tembesuk (wood) 11 = Kayu mengkupas (wood) 12 = Kayu merandap (wood) 13 = Kayu kelansau (wood) 14 = Kayu ngkunik (wood) 15 = Kayu jijap (wood) 16 = Kayu tahun (wood) 17 = Kayu putat (wood) 18 = Kayu limut (wood) 19 = Kayu ngkurung (wood) 20 = Kayu kebesi (wood) 21 = kayu sikop (wood) Appendix M Frequency of forest product collected in Bemban, December 1992, by location. Location Forest Product kayu em- kula- seng- papan api pu- an gang kung Babas(forest) 1 13 4 5 Bangkal begetah 1 Danau Danau Pegah (lake) Emperan 2 (floodplain) Lubuk Mensidang 1 Ng. Santik/ 6 Lengkong Santik Ngkuran Penyelawat 4 Pintas Jenat 3 Seberang 4 1 kampung Sepandan Kerinan 1 Sg. Empaik 1 1 1 Sg. Lebak Langkan Tembawai (ex- housesite) Location Forest Product buluh tubu kulit babi daun pukul Babas(forest) 1 1 Bangkal begetah Danau 1 Danau Pegah 1 (lake) Emperan 1 6 (floodplain) Lubuk Mensidang Ng. Santik/ Lengkong Santik Ngkuran Penyelawat Pintas Jenat Seberang 4 1 kampung Sepandan Kerinan Sg. Empaik 2 Sg. Lebak Langkan Tembawai (ex- 1 4 housesite) Location Forest Product daun dacip Babas(forest) 1 Bangkal begetah Danau Danau Pegah (lake) Emperan (floodplain) Lubuk Mensidang Ng. Santik/ Lengkong Santik Ngkuran Penyelawat Pintas Jenat Seberang kampung Sepandan Kerinan Sg. Empaik Sg. Lebak Langkan Tembawai (ex- housesite) Appendix N Frequency of forest product collected in Wong Garai, 1992-1993, by location Forest Product Location 1 2 3 4 5 Kayu belanti Kayu jijap Kayu limut Kayu api 1 2 4 1 Kulaan Papan 1 Buluh 2 Tubu (Rebung) 2 42 Kulit pukul 1 Babi/Jane' 1 Daun 1 Daun daup Kemiding 2 13 2 1 Kacang (Cabe) 3 2 Terong 19 Asam pauh Daun empasak 37 27 Buah empasak 22 7 Buah rian 1 Kulat mata jane 2 2 Kulat burak 1 Kulat dilab kepayang 1 1 1 Kulat 3 5 6 Buah sibau 1 Dedabai 1 5 Kebari' Daun subung 13 2 4 1 Empusut 1 Buah bukoh 1 1 1 Buah Pedalai 7 Pako' 1 6 17 2 Cangkok 2 Upa' entibab 3 Upa' panto' 2 1 Buah asam Buah asam keeala 1 Nyur/inyak 1 Enteban 1 1 Ai' ijok 1 5 Kijang 2 1 Daun rebung 4 1 Daun arak 1 Tucung kecala 2 Nyumboh 1 Pako' ikan 2 7 1 Tubo betung 4 Daun gelabak 4 Kulat ikan 4 Munsang 1 1 Kulat lepit 1 2 Kulat bulu 1 1 Empeliau 1 Kulat gelos 1 1 Kulat jalong 2 Pako kero 3 3 Kulat kerop 3 Kulat buah 2 Upa' encala Kayo engkelong 1 Tebu 7 4 Unknown 11 12 Forest Product Location 6 7 8 9 10 Kayu belanti Kayu jijap 1 Kayu limut 1 Kayu api 1 43 6 Kulaan Papan 1 Buluh 1 3 Tubu (Rebung) 1 Kulit pukul Babi/Jane' 1 Daun 1 Daun daup 5 Kemiding 10 Kacang (Cabe) 1 1 Terong 1 5 Asam pauh 2 Daun empasak 1 20 13 Buah empasak 2 7 Buah rian 1 1 2 Kulat mata jane Kulat burak Kulat dilab kepayang Kulat 3 3 Buah sibau Dedabai Kebari' 1 Daun subung 1 1 Empusut 10 Buah bukoh 1 Buah Pedalai Pako' 5 Cangkok Upa' entibab 1 2 Upa' panto' 1 6 Buah asam 2 Buah asam keeala 1 Nyur/inyak Enteban 6 3 Ai' ijok 2 Kijang Daun rebung 1 1 Daun arak Tucung kecala Nyumboh 1 Pako' ikan 1 Tubo betung Daun gelabak Kulat ikan Munsang 1 Kulat lepit Kulat bulu 1 1 Empeliau Kulat gelos Kulat jalong Pako kero Kulat kerop Kulat buah 1 1 Upa' encala 2 Kayo engkelong Tebu 1 4 Unknown 1 3 Forest Product Location 11 Kayu belanti Kayu jijap Kayu limut Kayu api Kulaan Papan Buluh Tubu (Rebung) Kulit pukul Babi/Jane' Daun Daun daup Kemiding Kacang (Cabe) Terong Asam pauh Daun empasak Buah empasak Buah rian Kulat mata jane Kulat burak Kulat dilab kepayang Kulat Buah sibau Dedabai Kebari' Daun subung Empusut Buah bukoh Buah Pedalai Pako' Cangkok Upa' entibab Upa' panto' Buah asam Buah asam keeala Nyur/inyak Enteban Ai' ijok Kijang Daun rebung Daun arak Tucung kecala Nyumboh Pako' ikan Tubo betung Daun gelabak Kulat ikan Munsang Kulat lepit Kulat bulu Empeliau Kulat gelos Kulat jalong Pako kero Kulat kerop Kulat buah Upa' encala Kayo engkelong Tebu Unknown 3 1 = Lake (Danau) 2 = Forest (Babas) 3 = Floodplain (Emperan) 4 = Housegarden (Redas/Kebun) 5 = Tree reserve (Pulau) 6 = Rubber grove (Kebun) 7 = Old longhouse site (Tembawai) 8 = Hill field (Umai bukit) 9 = Fallowed forest (Damun) 10 = Swamp (Paya') 11 = Unknown Appendix O Frequencies of foods consumed by month, Ng. Kedebu' (1992-93) Food Category/ Latin/ Sept. 92 Dec. 92 Local Names English Freq/% Freq/% Names Carbohydrates 441 38.5 326 37.0 Nasi Oryza 414 36.2 295 33.5 sativa Ubi Manihot 10 0.9 21 2.4 esculenta Mie Noodles 7 0.6 4 0.5 Kerupuk ikan Belida 5 0.4 2 0.2 chips Kentang Solanum 3 0.3 1 0.1 spp. Keladi Taro 1 0.1 3 0.3 Green Leaves 111 9.7 14 1.6 Daun ubi Cassava 73 6.4 9 1.0 leaves Daun Squash 15 1.3 perenggi leaves Perenggi Daun retak Long- 13 1.1 panjang bean leaves Panjang Daun entimun Cucumis 4 0.3 sativus leaves Sawi ? 4 0.3 Kangkung Ipomoea 3 0.3 1 0.1 aquatica Daun Sauropus 2 0.2 spp. Cangkok Paku' fern 2 0.2 kemiding [general] .2 Paku' kubuk ? Paku' keruk Nephro- lepis biserrata Paku' ikan Diplazium esculentum Bayam Amaran- thus spp. Kucai Allium tuberosum Kantu rungan Papaya leaves Vegetables 134 11.7 190 21.6 Entimun Cucumis 42 3.7 66 7.5 sativus Kacang/cabe Capsicum 23 2.0 40 4.6 frutescens Lungkang jeli' Baby 18 1.6 corn Buah perenggi Squash 9 0.8 65 7.4 perenggi perenggi Terong Solanum 8 0.7 spp. Jagung Zea 7 0.6 mays Nangka Artocarpus 6 0.5 7 0.8 integer Kol Cabbage 4 0.3 1 0.1 Terong Cina Chinese 4 0.3 Eggplant Empusut Luffa 2 0.1 aegyptica Kepare Bittermelon 2 0.2 1 0.1 Labu Gourd 1 0.1 Rebung Bamboo 1 0.1 7 0.8 shoots Tomat Tomato 1 0.1 Chinese Cucumber Cangkok Sauropus 3 0.3 spp. Jantung banana flower pisang Lia' Zingiber sp Legumes 166 14.5 8 0.9 Retak panjang Green 163 14.2 beans Jengkol Pithecellobium 2 0.2 7 0.8 jiringa Kacang ? 1 0.1 1 0.1 duduk Fish/Meat 263 23.0 301 34.2 Patik/Baung Mystus 67 5.9 33 3.8 spp. Lais [various 46 4.0 15 1.7 kind] Ikan asin Salt- 43 3.8 12 1.4 Dried fish Landin Mystus 29 2.5 nigriceps Belida Chitala 16 1.4 3 0.3 lopis Ringau Datnoi- 10 0.9 des micro- lepis Ikan Fish 8 0.7 15 1.7 [general] Telor ayam Chicken 6 0.5 3 0.3 egg Bauk [various 6 0.5 44 5.0 kind] Genus Channa 5 0.4 24 2.7 * Toman Channa 4 0.3 23 2.6 microl- peltes * Delak Channa 1 0.1 1 0.1 striata Tapah Wallago 4 0.3 1 0.1 leeri Bawan Helosto- 4 0.3 ma tem- minckii Bangah ? 4 0.3 3 0.3 Telor Ikan Fish egg 4 0.3 Juara Panga 3 0.2 10 1.1 sius poly- urano- don Tengalan Puntio- 2 0.2 1 0.1 plites bulu Patung Pristo- 2 0.2 1 0.1 lepis fasciata Kenyuar Lucio- 2 0.2 soma trinema Kelabau Osteo- 2 0.2 2 0.2 chilus melanopl eura Sarden Sardines 1 0.1 3 0.3 Kaloi Osphron 1 0.1 emus goramy Bantak Osteo- 1 0.1 chilus micro- cephalus Salai fish 1 0.1 Jukut Fermen- 1 0.1 ted fish Tebirin Belon- 1 0.1 dotich- thys dinema Bilis Clu- 86 9.8 peichthys bleekeri Keli' Clarias 2 0.2 sp. Ayam Chicken 5 0.6 Kijang Munti- 38 4.3 acus sp. Bayak ? Fungi Kulat Mush- room Fruits 19 1.7 7 0.8 Tempoyak Durio 14 1.2 zibethi- nus Nuyr Cocos 4 0.3 nucifera Asam kandis ? 1 0.1 Pisang Musa 1 0.1 spp. Nenas Ananas 6 0.7 comosus Rampai Unknown 11 0.9 33 3.7 Total Record 1145 100.0 879 100.0 Food Category/ Mar. 93 June 93 Local Names Freq/% Freq/% Carbohydrates 334 41.3 638 44.2 Nasi 296 36.6 577 40.0 Ubi 6 0.7 38 2.6 Mie 13 1.6 16 1.1 Kerupuk ikan 15 1.9 4 0.3 Kentang 3 0.4 3 0.2 Keladi 1 0.1 Green Leaves 28 3.5 48 3.3 Daun ubi 16 2.0 29 2.0 Daun 1 0.1 perenggi Perenggi Daun retak panjang Panjang Daun entimun 48 5.9 Sawi 2 0.2 Kangkung 1 0.1 2 0.1 Daun 1 0.1 Cangkok Paku' 2 0.2 3 0.2 kemiding Paku' kubuk 8 0.6 Paku' keruk 2 0.1 Paku' ikan 1 0.1 Bayam 2 0.2 1 0.1 Kucai 3 0.4 Kantu rungan 1 0.1 Vegetables 89 11.0 1,206 8.3 Entimun 48 5.9 8 0.6 Kacang/cabe 21 2.6 32 2.2 Lungkang jeli' 1 0.1 Buah perenggi 10 1.2 1 0.1 perenggi perenggi Terong 3 0.4 45 3.1 Jagung Nangka 2 0.2 10 0.7 Kol Terong Cina 3 0.2 Empusut Kepare Labu 4 0.5 1 0.1 Rebung 15 1.0 Tomat 1 0.1 Cangkok Jantung 1 0.1 pisang Lia' 1 0.1 Legumes 18 2.2 1 0.1 Retak panjang Jengkol 18 2.2 Kacang 1 0.1 duduk Fish/Meat 264 32.7 603 41.8 Patik/Baung 84 10.4 98 6.8 Lais 58 7.2 64 4.4 Ikan asin 33 4.1 89 6.2 Landin 7 0.9 6 0.4 Belida 10 1.2 5 0.3 Ringau 3 0.4 6 0.4 Ikan 6 0.7 125 8.7 Telor ayam 5 0.6 8 0.6 Bauk 3 0.4 37 2.6 Genus Channa 11 1.3 37 2.5 * Toman 11 31 2.1 * Delak 6 0.4 Tapah 1 0.1 Bawan 2 0.2 5 0.3 Bangah 2 0.2 17 1.2 Telor Ikan 1 0.1 Juara 7 0.9 22 1.5 Tengalan 8 0.6 Patung 2 0.1 Kenyuar 1 0.1 Kelabau 1 0.1 Sarden 6 0.7 3 0.2 Kaloi Bantak 3 0.4 49 3.4 Jukut 1 0.1 Tebirin 7 0.5 Bilis 15 1.9 9 0.6 Keli' 2 0.1 Ayam 1 0.1 Kijang 6 0.7 Bayak 1 0.1 Fungi 5 0.3 Kulat 5 0.3 Fruits 10 1.2 17 1.2 Tempoyak 9 1.1 Nuyr 1 0.1 Asam kandis Pisang 7 0.5 Nenas 9 0.6 Rampai 1 0.1 Unknown 65 8.0 11 0.7 Total Record 808 100.0 1434 100.0 Appendix P Frequencies of Foods consumed by month, Wong Garai (1992-93) Food/ Latin/ Dec. 92 Mar. 93 Category/ English Freq/% Freq/% Local Names Names Carbo- 355 27.1 511 40.6 hydrates Asi' Oryza 350 26.7 434 34.5 sativa Buah Manihot 3 0.2 27 2.1 empasa' escu- lenta Mie Noodles 1 0.1 Kerupuk Belida 1 0.1 ikan chips Buah Colo- 1 0.1 49 3.9 subong casia esculenta Green Leaves 150 11.4 154 12.2 Daun Cassava 13 1.0 104 8.3 empasa' leaves Daun Squah 2 0.2 3 0.2 entekai leaves Daun Cucumis 103 7.9 1 0.1 rampo' sativus Ensabi Allanto- spp. Daun Sauropus 4 0.3 3 0.2 cangkok spp. Pako' ferns 4 0.3 8 0.6 [general] [general] Pako' Steno- 8 0.6 4 0.3 kemiding chlaena spp Pako' kubuk Pako' kero' Neph- 1 0.1 lorepis biserrata Pako' ikan Dipla- 1 0.1 zium esculen- tum Bayam Amaran- 2 0.2 thus spp. Kucai Allium 2 0.2 19 1.5 tubero- sum Kantok Papaya rungan leaves Daun Poikilosp 2 0.2 entaban ernum spp. Daun Gnetum 7 0.5 2 0.2 sabong gnemon Daun Xanthoso 2 0.2 subung ma mafaffa leaves Kantok ? 1 0.1 4 0.3 lekan Kantok Lygo- 4 0.3 remat dium spp.? Ketuntum ? Kantok ? mawan Vegetables 496 37.8 358 20.5 Buah Cucumis 99 7.9 rampo' sativus Kacang/ Capsi- 2 0.2 cabe cum frute- scens Kelapong Baby 4 0.3 corn Lingkau Buah Squash 96 7.3 86 6.8 entekai Terong Solanum 176 13.4 spp. Lingkau Zea 85 6.5 23 1.8 mays Upa' Palm cabbages Terong Chinese Cina eggplant Empusut Luffa 4 0.3 aegyp- tica Kebari' Bittermel 6 0.5 on Genok Gourd 72 5.5 5 0.4 Tubo' Bamboo 20 1.5 18 1.4 shoots Tomat Tomato 7 0.5 Tungkul Banana 1 0.1 pisang flower pisang Lia' Zingiber 10 0.8 sp Bungai Squash 19 1.4 entekai flower Daun arak Ficus 4 0.3 oleae- folia Tucung Etlingera 2 0.2 2 0.2 kecala' elatior Upa' Arenga 1 0.1 3 0.2 entibap sacchari- fera Terong Solanum 4 0.3 pipit torvum Upa' panto' Eugeis- 5 0.4 sonia utilis Legumes 12 0.9 38 3.0 Retak Long- 12 0.9 38 3.0 beans Petai Parkia spp. Fish/Meat 154 11.7 256 20.3 Patik/ Mystus 2 0.2 Baung spp. Ikan Baror Salt- 60 4.6 79 6.3 Dried fish Ikan Fish 13 1.0 51 4.1 [general] Telo' Chicken 14 1.1 13 1.0 manok egg Genus Channa Channa spp. * Delak Channa striata * Toman Channa micro- peltes Tapah Wallago leeri Bangah ? Telo' ikan Fish egg Tengalan Puntio- plites balu Sarden Sardines Kaloi Osphro- nemus goramy Bantak Osteo- chilus micro- chepalus Salai Smoked 15 1.1 35 2.8 fish Jukut Pickled 1 0.1 20 1.6 fish Undai shrimp 6 0.5 18 1.4 Bilis Clu- peichthys bleekeri Keli' Clarias 14 1.1 sp. Manok Chicken 1 0.1 Kijang Munitia 8 0.6 2 0.2 cus spp. Buing Cyclo- chei- lichthys sp. Gerama' Gegar- 2 0.2 3 0.2 cinus spp. Pama' Frog 1 0.1 2 0.2 Jane' Sus 29 2.2 14 1.1 barbatus Kesa' Ant nest 1 0.1 Capi Cow 4 0.3 Lelabi Soft- 1 0.1 shelled turtle Empeliau Hylo- 1 0.1 bates muelleri Rusit Dried fish Burong Birds [general] Rasong Nasalis larvatus Fungi 13 1.0 9 0.7 Kulat [mush 7 0.5 9 0.7 room] Kulat burak Gerro- 2 0.2 nema and other Kulat mata Calo- 2 0.2 jane' stoma spp. Kulat dilah Pleuro- 1 0.1 tus spp. Kepayang Kulat muyong ? 1 0.1 muyong Kulat risik ? Fruits 120 9.2 17 1.3 Empikau/ Durio 5 0.4 tempoyak zibethi- nus Inyak Cocos 31 2.4 nucifera Pisang Musa sp. 1 0.1 3 0.2 Buah Ananas 9 0.7 brunei comosus Buah Arto- 55 4.2 pedalai carpus spp. Buah Baccau- rembai rea motle- yana Buah asam Mangi- 1 0.1 fera decandra Buah ? 12 0.9 punsut Buah purur Artocar- 3 0.2 1 0.1 pus commu- nis Buah Canari- 9 0.7 dedabai um odonto- phyllum Buah Arto- 3 0.2 4 0.3 bukoh carpus integer Buah Horn- senggang stedtia scyphi- fera Buah sibau Nephe- lium reticu- latum Limau Citrus spp. Tebu Saccha- rum offici- narum Unknown 12 0.9 15 1.2 Total Record 1,312 100.0 1,358 100.0 Food/ June 93 Sep. 93 Category/ Freq/% Freq/% Local Names Carbo- 810 37.2 1412 37.8 hydrates Asi' 770 35.4 1347 36.1 Buah 17 0.7 30 0.8 empasa' Mie 6 0.3 24 0.6 Kerupuk ikan Buah 17 0.8 11 0.3 subong Green Leaves 289 13.3 511 13.7 Daun 177 8.2 227 6.1 empasa' Daun 3 0.1 129 3.5 entekai Daun rampo' Ensabi 1 0.03 Daun 21 1.0 32 0.9 cangkok Pako' 8 0.4 21 0.6 [general] Pako' 19 0.9 35 0.9 kemiding Pako' 3 0.1 1 0.03 kubuk Pako' kero' Pako' ikan 2 0.1 Bayam 7 0.2 Kucai 12 0.6 6 0.2 Kantok 12 0.3 rungan Daun 2 0.1 6 0.2 entaban Daun 32 1.5 6 0.2 sabong Daun 4 0.2 15 0.4 subung Kantok 1 0.1 2 0.1 lekan Kantok remat Ketuntum 5 0.2 10 0.3 Kantok 1 0.03 mawan Vegetables 292 13.5 445 12.0 Buah 2 0.1 8 0.2 rampo' Kacang/ 9 0.5 3 0.1 cabe Kelapong Lingkau Buah 2 0.1 83 2.2 entekai Terong 100 4.6 43 1.2 Lingkau 1 0.1 1 0.03 Upa' 5 0.1 Terong 1 0.1 1 0.03 Cina Empusut 1 0.03 Kebari' 1 0.1 176 4.7 Genok 2 0.1 Tubo' 86 4.1 58 1.6 Tomat Tungkul pisang pisang Lia' 2 0.1 2 0.1 Bungai entekai Daun arak Tucung 6 0.3 5 0.1 kecala' Upa' 7 0.3 8 0.2 entibap Terong 5 0.2 4 0.1 pipit Upa' panto' 70 3.2 45 1.2 Legumes 3 0.1 20 0.5 Retak 3 0.1 15 0.4 Petai 5 0.1 Fish/Meat 672 30.9 1,184 31.8 Patik/ 14 0.6 1 0.03 Baung Ikan Baror 132 6.0 166 4.5 Ikan 164 7.5 119 3.2 Telo' 48 2.2 manok Genus 11 0.6 12 0.3 Channa * Delak 1 0.1 11 0.3 * Toman 10 0.5 1 0.03 Tapah 2 0.1 Bangah 1 0.1 Telo' ikan 102 2.7 Tengalan 1 0.1 Sarden 3 0.1 Kaloi Bantak 1 0.03 Salai 71 3.3 132 3.5 Jukut 6 0.3 208 5.6 Undai 47 2.2 11 0.3 Bilis 1 0.1 Keli' 1 0.1 5 0.1 Manok 34 1.6 53 1.4 Kijang 37 1.7 8 0.2 Buing 1 0.03 Gerama' 6 0.3 Pama' 12 0.6 2 0.1 Jane' 36 1.7 312 8.4 Kesa' Capi 1 0.03 Lelabi 10 0.3 Empeliau 17 0.5 Rusit 48 2.2 10 0.3 Burong 7 0.2 Rasong 3 0.1 Fungi 14 0.6 38 1.0 Kulat 12 0.6 23 0.6 Kulat burak 1 0.1 12 0.3 Kulat mata 2 0.1 jane' Kulat dilah Kepayang Kulat muyong 1 0.1 muyong Kulat risik 1 0.1 Fruits 76 3.5 88 2.3 Empikau/ 21 0.5 tempoyak Inyak 12 0.6 Pisang 4 0.2 2 0.1 Buah 1 0.1 brunei Buah 29 1.3 pedalai Buah 5 0.2 rembai Buah asam 10 0.5 15 0.4 Buah 2 0.1 23 0.6 punsut Buah purur 3 0.1 Buah 1 0.1 dedabai Buah 7 0.3 24 0.6 bukoh Buah 1 0.1 senggang Buah sibau 1 0.1 Limau 1 0.03 Tebu 2 0.1 Unknown 18 0.8 29 0.8 Total Record 2,174 100.0 3,727 100.0
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Figure 5 Pie chart showing the percentages of average monthly income per family from various sources in Ng. Kedebu' (Rp 228,849) during the study periods. Forest Product Rp. 19,513, - (9%) Wage Labour & Processing Fish Rp. 36,147, - (16%) Fishing RP. 173,219,- (75%) Note: Table made from pie chart Figure 6 Pie chart showing the percentages of average monthly income per family from various sources in wong Garai (Rp 7,655) during the study periods. Wage Labour & Processing Fish RP. 1,291, - (17%) Forest Product RP. 6,364, - (83%) Note: Table made from pie chart
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
Table 1 Frequencies of Fishing Gear/Methods Recorded in Ng. Kedebu', Wong Garai and Bemban, 1992-93. Gear/Methods Ng. Kedebu' Wong Garai Bemban Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Gillnet 1612 61.3 56 9.5 3 5.1 Flat liftnet 444 16.9 Castnet 267 10.2 33 5.6 Small trap 81 3.1 Multiple 59 2.2 hooks/long lines Individual hooks 59 2.2 40 6.8 4 6.8 Large meshed 41 1.6 gillnet Speargun/diving 18 0.7 125 21.3 Tube trap 15 0.6 Larger trap 9 0.3 Longline 7 0.3 By hand 1 <0.1 7 1.2 Fish trap 191 32.5 48 81.4 Wide mesh 110 18.7 basket Poison 11 1.9 Bush knife 9 1.5 Unknown 16 0.6 6 1.0 4 6.8 Total 2629 100.0 588 100.0 59 100.0 Table 2 Income from Most Valuable Fish Sold in Ng. Kedebu' and Bemban. Local Names Latin Names [Probable] Total Money (Rp) Received During 4 mo. Ng. Kedebu' Bemban Bilis Clupeichthys bleekeri 1,444,270 Lais [various kind] * Lais 1,004,450 * Lais butu Ompok hypophthalmus 133,500 * Lis p 2,500 * Lais banga Kryptopterus micronema 81,500 * Lais jungana Kryptopterus apogon 2,500 Total Lais 1,224,450 Patik/Baung * Patik Mystus nemurus 860,395 * Baung Mystus planiceps 96,350 Total Patik/Baung 1,053,095 Toman [various kinds] Channa spp. * Toman Channa micropeltes 178,600 * Delak Channa striata 71,400 * Piyang Channa marulioides 500 Total Toman 250,500 Lelabi Soft shelled turtles 176,400 Ulang uli Botia macracanthus 176,225 Umpan Puntioplites wandersii 86,350 Other fish 531,245 Total 4,766,135 176,400 Note: No fish were sold Wong Garai. Table 3 Average cash received from fishing by family and month in Ng. Kedebu' (1992-93). Family Month September December March 1993 June 1993 Family 1992 1992 Average (Rp) C 109,400 112,035 381,000 91,750 173,546 H 49,400 37,200 120,350 124,540 82,873 L 16,170 1,200 9,000 59,900 21,568 M NA 82,000 305,900 186,050 191,317 J NA 123,375 120,550 54,850 99,592 F NA 0 45,350 0 15,117 N 14,150 5,475 31,500 NA 17,042 E NA NA 192,150 163,500 177,825 G NA NA 157,850 169,145 163,498 D 53,650 NA NA NA 53,650 O 0 NA NA NA 0 B 0 NA NA NA 0 Q 0 NA NA NA 0 I NA 35,645 NA NA 35,645 P NA NA 713,100 NA 713,100 K NA NA NA 992,200 992,200 A NA NA NA 207,750 207,750 Month average 30,346 49,616 207,675 204,969 173,219 NA refers to months when that family was not included in the study. Table 4 Number of Trips by Gender and Month--Ng. Kedebu' (1992-93). Gender Month September 1992 December 1992 March 1993 Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Male 156 63.1% 377 70.3% 710 72.5% Female 49 19.4% 89 16.6% 231 23.6% Mixed 44 17.5% 70 13.1% 38 3.9% Gender Month June 1993 Freq. Percent Male 649 76.1% Female 0 0% Mixed 204 23.9% [chi square] = 333.2 with 6 df, P < 001. Table 5 Number of Trips by Gender and Month--Wong Garai (1992-93). Gender Month December 1992 March 1993 June 1993 Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Male 81 76.4% 135 75.0% 151 100.0% Female 25 23.6% 45 25.0% 0 0% Gender Month September 1993 Freq. % Male 151 100.0% Female 0 0% [chi square] = 84.0 with 3 df, P < 0.001. Table 6 Sources of Agricultural/Agroforest Products, Wong Garai, 1992-93. English Names Iban Names Frequency Percentage Homegarden Kebun/Redas 142 33.6 Forest reserve Pulau 95 22.5 Old longhouse site Tembawai 74 17.5 Floodplain Emperan 63 14.9 Hill rice field Umai bukit 21 5.0 Newly fallowed field Temuda 11 2.6 Longhouse yard Laman 7 1.7 Forest cemetery Pendam 4 0.9 Fallow forest Damun 3 0.7 Rubber grove Kebun getah 1 0.2 Swamp rice field Umai paya' 1 0.2 Table 7 Gender of Harvester in Ng. Kedebu.' Wong Garai and Bemban, 1992-1993. Gender Villages Ng. Kedebu' Wong Garai Bemban Freq N Freq N Freq Male 42 18.0% 159 37.7% 7 Female 190 81.6% 230 54.5% 35 Mixed 0 0 23 5.5% 51 Unspecified 1 0.4% 10 2.4% 1 Total 233 100% 422 100% 94 Gender Villages Bemban Total N Male 7.4% 208 Female 37.2% 455 Mixed 54.3% 74 Unspecified 1.1% 12 Total 100% 749 [chi square] = 281.9 with 4 d.f (P < 0.001), there is a different gender pattern among three villages. In this table 12 observations are missing. Table 8 Gender of Land Owners from Which Crops were Harvested, Ng. Kedebu and Wong Garai, 1992-93. Gender Ng. Kedebu' Wong Garai (N) (%) (N) (%) Female 230 98.7 28 6.6 Male 1 0.4 118 28 Mixed gender 2 0.9 182 43.1 Unspecified 0 0 94 22.3 Totals 233 100 422 100 Table 9 Totals and Mean Money Received from Forest Products, Ng. Kedebu' and Wong Garai, 1992-93. Villages Total Rp. Received (Rp) N Mean Rp Received Ng. Kedebu' 699,244 82 8,527 Wong Garai 330,950 17 19,500 (Here we have combined data from "forest" and "agroforest" sections.) Table 10 Kinds of work performed in Ng. Kedebu and Wong Garai, 1992-1993. Work Ng. Kedebu' Wong Garai Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Sale of dried fish 29 56.9 0 0 Carpenter 13 25.5 0 0 Sale of smoked fish 5 9.8 0 0 Operate boat (logging 2 3.9 0 0 company) Chainsaw operator 1 2.0 0 0 Escort/guide 1 2.0 1 12.5 Carry things 0 0 6 75.0 Logging fee 0 0 1 12.5 Table 11 Average kilograms, prices, and income from fish sale by month, Ng. kedebu' (1992-93). * Fish September 1992 December 1992 Kg. Price Income Kg. Price Income Bilis 0 0 0 4.78 1362 6624 Lais 1.43 3625 6013 0 0 0 Landin 15.25 1000 15250 0 0 0 Patik 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fish March 1993 Kg. Price Income Bilis 21.67 1267 26367 Lais 3.00 5167 15167 Landin 0 0 0 Patik 17 650 11050 * No fish sale from June 1993
We are indebted to many people and organizations. Colfer and Dudley thank Asian Wetlands Bureau (now Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme), Indonesia's Forest Protection and Nature Conservation Agency (PHPA), and the Overseas Development Administration of the United Kingdom (now Department for International Development) for their support during the research (1992-1993). Wadley's research (1992-94) was funded by the US National Science Foundation (Grant No. BNS-9114652), Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Sigma Xi, and Arizona State University, and was sponsored by the Balai Kajian Sejarah dan Nilai Tradisional Pontianak with permits from the Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. (Any conclusions or opinions drawn here are not necessarily those of the above agencies.)
Throughout most of 1992-93, we were working only with local data collectors, Pak Sahar of Ng. Kedebu', Pak Andi Erman of Pulau Duri', and boat driver, Pak Markan of Cincin. All three provided invaluable support and help to this research.
This analysis was conducted under the auspices of the Center for International Forestry Research in Bogor, Indonesia. The research contributes to CIFOR's projects, "Local Livelihoods, Community-Based Management and Devolution" (led by Dr. Eva Wollenberg, whose support and careful critiques of this manuscript are gratefully acknowledged), "Assessing Sustainable Forest Management: Testing Criteria and Indicators" (led by Dr. Ravi Prabhu), and to gender analysis at CIFOR (led by Golfer). Thanks also to Rona Dennis for her help with maps, and to John Tumbull and Wil de Jong for their constructive comments. Special thanks go to Yvonne Byron for her extensive and constructive editing.
We would finally like to thank the people of Ng. Kedebu', Wong Garai, and Bemban who must remain nameless, but to whom we owe so much for their kindness, generosity, and patience.
(1.) We use pseudonyms throughout this chapter in order to protect the privacy and trust of the people whose lives we studied.
(2.) Dudley points out, as counter-evidence, the increasing scarcity of tembesu' (Fragraea fragrans), the most popular local building material, and the presence of many large stumps throughout the area (an undetermined number deriving from previous authorized, large scale logging in the area). He acknowledges that much of the forest remains, but questions why, feeling that low demand, lack of valuable timber, and regular flooding are more important factors than good management.
(3.) There is some evidence that with the current Indonesian financial problems, these conditions may worsen. There is renewed interest in establishing a huge 47,000 ha oil palm plantation to the north of DSNP, and a transmigration settlement is apparently proceeding to the northeast as well as smaller oil palm projects along the middle and lower Leboyan river (see Wadley 1998).
(4.) We paid participating families a nominal Rp. 15,000 per month for this work; this was roughly US$7.50 at the exchange rate of the time, US$1 = Rp. 2,000.
(5.) This handwriting problem was compounded by language barriers as those who entered the data were from Java and unfamiliar with Malay and Iban. This resulted in numerous errors which we could only correct by returning to the original forms.
(6.) In late 1993, Wadley recorded from only one of many such transactions in Lanjak, a boat-load of 111 hard-shelled turtles (buko' or biuku)--1,191 kg. total-and nine soft-shelled turtles (lelabi)--87.5 kg. total. They sold for Rp. 800 per kg. and Rp. 2,750 per kg. respectively. A Nanga Badau merchant bought them for further marketing into Sarawak, where turtles are reportedly sold as far away as Miri at very good profit (Wadley 1998). The Iban who had caught the turtles (and bought some from others) came from a longhouse on the eastern edge of the Reserve. So, like the Malay, Iban living within easy access of the Lakes also rely on them to make money.
(7.) Dennis et al. (1998) found a total of only 31 ha of cleared forest in their total territory of 7,054 ha, based on 1994 remote sensing data. The cultivated area behind the village was not more than 5 ha in 1992.
(8.) One other factor here may involve the method and its implementation at Wong Garai. Most data recorders were schoolchildren of various ages (none younger than 10 years), and they were less likely to be involved in collection of non-edible forest products. In addition and given their diligence at recording meals, they may have placed an over-emphasis on food items compared to the other entries. On several occasions Wadley had to ask them why they had not recorded certain things (e.g. lengths of bamboo for cooking) when it was obvious that members of their households had collected them.
(9.) Numerous researchers have commented on the relative poverty of these flooded forests in terms of flora and fauna (Giesen 1987, 1996). In his surveys in upland and lowland areas of this area, Peters (1993:7) found 133 species in the upland areas compared to only 44 species in the lowlands. Its "claim to fame" is uniqueness rather than abundance or diversity.
(10.) These estimates were computed by multiplying the per family income by three (to reflect the unrecorded remainder of the year) and then multiplied again based on the proportion of the community's households included in the studies. The figures, of course, must be taken with a grain of salt, since many local products are truly seasonal, i.e., only available during a short period--so even though we tried to reflect seasonal variation, by scheduling our recordkeeping every three months, in tropical rain forests this kind of estimate is less reliable than it would be in many contexts.
(11.) We get village total income during the periods of study by multiplying the total income that we got from survey by 5, to represent the sample of 20% of the community extrapolated to the whole community. Then we get the annual village income by multiply the village total income during the periods of study by 3 to represent the rest of the months that we extrapolated.
(12.) Wadley (1997a) found that in areas where smallholdings of rubber or pepper were profitable (i.e., stable prices and close markets), the incidence of labor migration was lower than in Wong Garai.
1995 The economics and management of natural resources in Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia: A collection of papers. Indonesia-UK Tropical Forestry Management Programme, Project 5: Conservation.
Bailey, C and Zerner C.
1992 Local management of fisheries resources in Indonesia: Opportunities and constraints, in Contributions to fishery development policy in Indonesia (pp. 38-56). Jakarta: CRIFI Publication.
Bailey, C., Pollnac R., and Malvestuto, S.
1990 The Kapuas river fishery: Problems and opportunities for local resource management. Paper presented at the International Association for the Study of Common Property, 27-30 September, Duke University.
n.d.a. Botany: Plant names and plant classification in an Iban community in Sarawak, Malaysia. In An Encyclopedia of Iban Studies. Vinson H. Sutlive et al. (eds). Kuching, Sarawak: The Tun Jugah Foundation, forthcoming.
n.d.b. Appendix: Botanical species. In An Encyclopedia of Iban Studies. Vinson H. Sutlive (eds). Kuching, Sarawak: The Tun Jugah Foundation, forthcoming.
1991 Toward Sustainable Agriculture in the Humid Tropics: Building on the Tropsoils Experience in Indonesia. Tropsoils Technical Bulletin No. 91/02. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Colfer, C.J.P. and Soedjito, H.
1996 Food, Forests and Fields in a Bornean Rain Forest: Toward Appropriate Agroforestry Development, in C. Padoch and N. Peluso (eds.), Borneo in Transition: People, Forests, Conservation and Development (pp. 162-186). Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Colfer, C.J.P., Newton, B., and Herman
1989 Ethnicity: An important consideration in Indonesian Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 6(3): 52-67. [Earlier version published in Proceedings Centre for Soils Research Technical Meetings, Bogor, Indonesia (1986).]
Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., and Suriansyah, B.
1993a Study 3: a recordkeeping study of terrestrial gardening in Wong Garai, Ng. Pengembung and Empaik. In Conservation Sub-Project Quarterly Report and Attachments, June 1993 (R. G. Dudley and C. J. P. Colfer). Bogor: Asian Wetlands Bureau.
Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., and Zulkarnain, E.
1993b Study 4: Rice cultivation among the Iban of Wong Garai. In Conservation Sub-Project Quarterly Report and Attachments, June 1993 (R. G. Dudley and C. J. P. Colfer). Bogor: Asian Wetlands Bureau.
Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., Noveriawan, H., and Suriansyah, B.
1993c Study 6: Wage labour and access to cash: Ng. Pengembung and Wong Garai. In Conservation Sub-Project Quarterly Report and Attachments, June 1993 (R. G. Dudley and C. J. P. Colfer). Bogor: Asian Wetlands Bureau.
Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., Suriansyah, B., and Widjanarti, E.
1993d Study 7: Use of forest products in three communities: A preliminary view. In Conservation Sub-Project Quarterly Report and Attachments, June 1993 (R. G. Dudley and C. J. P. Colfer). Bogor: Asian Wetlands Bureau.
Colfer, C.J.P., Peluso, N., and C.S. Chung.
1997a Beyond Slash and Burn: Building on indigenous management of Borneo's tropical rain forests. New York: New York Botanical Gardens.
Carol C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., Harwell, E., and Prabhu, R.
1997b Intergenerational Access to Resources: Developing Criteria and Indicators. CIFOR Working Paper No. 18, Bogor, Indonesia.
Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., Joseph Woelfel and Emily Harwell
1997c From Heartwood to Bark in Indonesia: Gender and Sustainable Forest Management. Women in Natural Resources 18(4):7-114.
Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., and Salim, A.
Forthcoming Understanding local people's use of time: a pre-condition for good co-management. Environmental Conservation.
Dennis, R., Puntodewo, A., and Colfer, C.J.P.
1998 Fishermen, farmers, forest change and fire. GIS Asia Pacific (February/March):26-30.
1981 Subsistence strategies in rain forest swidden agriculture. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
1988 The ecology of intoxication among the Kantu' of West Kalimantan, in M. Dove (eds.), The real and imagine role of culture in development: Case studies from Indonesia. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 139-182.
1982 The material provisioning of Mualang society in hinterland Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University.
1996a The fishery of the Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia: fishery analysis. Report to Wetlands International, Bogor, Indonesia.
1996b The Fishery of the Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia: management considerations. Report to Wetlands International, Bogor, Indonesia.
Dudley, R.G. and Colfer, C.J.P.
1993 Conservation Sub-Project Quarterly Report and Attachments (June). Bogor: Indonesia Tropical Forestry Management Project, Asian Wetlands Bureau/PHPA.
1966 Malay fishermen: Their peasant economy. New York: W. W. Norton Co.
1970 Report on the Iban. London: Athlone Press.
1994 Coastal wetlands of Indonesia: environment, subsistence and exploitation (translated by Peter Hawkes). Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
1987 Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve; Inventory, ecology and management guidelines. PHPA/WWF, Bogor.
1996 The habitat types and their management: Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Consultancy report. UK-Indonesia Tropical Forest Management Programme: Project 5--Conservation. Wetlands International--PHPA-ODA.
1970 The Malays of southwest Sarawak before Malaysia. London: Macmillan.
1989 The archaeology of mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1997 Guidelines for conservation management: Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan. PHPA/ODA/Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme, Pontianak, West Kalimantan.
1989 Research and development strategies for the Kapuas River fishery in West Kalimantan, Indonesia: A project proposal. Submitted to USAID, Jakarta (November 7).
1982 Migration and its alternatives among the Iban of Sarawak. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Pearce, K.G., Amen, V.L., and Jok, S.
1987 An ethnobotanical study of an Iban community of the Pantu sub-district, Sri Aman, Division 2, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal 37:193-270.
1993 Forest resources of the DSNP: Observations on the ecology, use and management potential of timber and non-timber products (Field Report 1). Asian Wetlands Bureau (now Wetlands International), Bogor, Indonesia.
Pollnac, R.B. and Malvestuto, S.
1992 Biological and socioeconomic conditions for development and management of riverine fisheries resources on the Kapuas and Musi rivers, in R. B. Pollnac, C. Bailey, and A. Poernomo (eds.), Contributions to fishery development policy in Indonesia (pp. 24-37). Jakarta: CRIFI Publication.
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Venkateswarlu, P., L.C. Tan., Soekmadi, R., Wollenberg, E.
1996 Testing Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Forest: Phase I Final Report. Bogor: CIFOR Special Publication.
1997 An emerging NTFP market and its future prospects: The case of the fruit 'mata kucing' (Dimocarpus longan) in East Kalimantan. CIFOR internal document, Bogor.
1985 Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Soemarna, K. and Giesen, W.
1993 Developing a model to combine exploitation and conservation: Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Bogor: Indonesia-UK Tropical Forestry Management Programme, Project 5: Conservation (Wetlands International).
Sutlive, V.H., Jr.
1988 The Iban of Sarawak: Chronicle of a vanishing world. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Upton, M. and Susilowati, T.
1992 The role of women in small-scale fishery development in Indonesia, in Contributions to fishery development policy in Indonesia (pp. 126-168). Jakarta: CRIFI Publication.
1997a Circular labor migration and subsistence agriculture: A case of the Iban in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University (Anthropology).
1997b Variation and changing tradition in Iban land tenure. Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 28:98-108.
1998 The road to change in the Kapuas Hulu borderlands: Jalan Lintas Utara.Borneo Research Bulletin Vol. 29.
n.d.a Iban agroforestry: Sustaining the long fallow. Unpublished ms.
1999 Disrespecting the dead and the living: The violation of Iban mourning taboos. Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute 5(4):595-610.
Wadley, R.L., Colfer, C.J.P., and Hood, I.G.
1997 Hunting primates and managing forests: The case of Iban forest farmers in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Human Ecology 25:243-271.
n.d. Sacred forest, hunting, and conservation: An Iban case from West Kalimantan, Indonesia. In Sacred places and biodiversity conservation. G. N. Appell and L. Sponsel, eds.
1997 Indonesia ICDP study: interim report of findings. Jakarta: World Bank (January).
Western, D. and Wright, M.R.(eds.)
1994 Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
1995 Keragaman jenis dan potensi fauna ikan di kawasan Suaka Margasatwa Danau Sentarum, Kalimantan Barat: Pemanfaatan dan konservasi. [Species variety and potential of fish in DSNP, West Kalimantan: Uses and Conservation]. Paper presented at the Workshop on DSNP Development, Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Indonesia (26-27 January).
RELATED ARTICLE: Fisheries and Management Issues
* Which fish are most commonly caught? Does this reflect abundance in the Reserve? What sorts of management considerations are needed to safeguard these fish, from both biodiversity and production points of view?
* How much fish do the various communities actually catch?
* What are the management implications of these kinds and amounts of gear? Are they likely to result in serious resource degradation? What regulatory regimes would best safeguard the fish while maintaining the people's livelihoods?
* Which fish are most important economically? Are these fish abundant in the area? How can we make sure they remain abundant? If they are abundant, how can we enhance the profitability of their use to local people?
* How do people's incomes vary over the course of the year? What is their standard of living, as measured by incomes? What management actions are feasible, given this level of income for local people?
* How do the different communities differ in their incomes from fishing? What sorts of management differentiation will these differences imply?
* Who fishes and who receives the cash from fishing? How do we ensure that those who benefit now from fishing do not lose out under new management regulations?
* How does the distribution of fishing effort by gender and ethnicity differ over the course of the year?
* How much time do people spend fishing? How does this differ among the different communities?
Agriculture/Agroforestry and Management Issues
* What agroforestry products do the people in these communities grow and collect? In what quantities?
* Where do local people gather and grow these products? What management strategies might be useful in intensifying existing land uses, such as through fallow improvement in order to minimize expansion of agricultural areas?
* Who grows and collects these products? Who would be appropriate partners in efforts to improve or experiment with new management techniques?
* Whose permission will be needed to experiment with new management techniques on village lands?
Forest Products and Management Issues
* What products do the local forests provide for local people? How intense is this use? How might forest management be improved to protect biodiversity while accommodating local people's needs?
* What quantities of which forest products are being harvested? Is this putting a strain on biodiversity or on the resources? How might these products be better managed, or protected?
* Where are local people finding the forest products they use? Are there areas that are over-harvested? Are there special niches for particular forest products?
* How important are forest products to the people's livelihoods and to their cash incomes? What effect would reduction in access bring? Could we increase revenues through processing or improved marketing of the same amount of produce?
* Who gains the income from sale of forest products? How much income do forest products provide to men and women?
Wage Labor and Management Issues
* What kinds of wage labor are available in the area? How involved are local people in wage labor?
* How reliable and how profitable are fisheries related work in the Reserve? Are there ways to stabilize incomes, or to increase incomes, without increasing harvesting, through better marketing or improved processing methods?
* Who are the wage laborers in and around the Reserve? How common is wage work?
* What is the dependence of these people on cash incomes? What is the distribution of sources of income in the various study communities?
Food and Management Issues
* What foods do people in the main study communities eat? How balanced is their diet, or how balanced could it be, given local resources? How does this vary over the course of a year?
* How nutritious is the diet available to local people?
* Where are the main sources of food for local people and how do these vary by ethnic group?