DISSERTATION - Universität Innsbruck

i

Livelihood vulnerability in Rural Indonesia: Case Study of tobacco

growers living in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM)

Widiyanto Widiyanto

Matrikelnummer: 1519303

DISSERTATION

eingereicht im Rahmen des

Doktoratsstudiums Geographie

Fakultät für Geo- und Atmosphärenwissenschften

an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck

Institute für Geographie Innsbruck

Betreuer: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Coy

Innsbruck, am Juni 2019

ii

This page intentionally left blank

iii

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre hiermit an Eides Statt durch meine eigenhändige Unterschrift, dass ich

die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen

Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Alle Stellen, die wörtlich oder inhaltlich

den angegebenen Quellen entnommen wurden, sind als solche kenntlich gemacht.

Die Vorliegende Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder änlicher Form noch nicht

als Dissertation eingereicht.

Innsbruck, am Juni 2019

Datum

Unterschrift

iv

Table of contents

Eidesstattliche Erklärung ....................................................................................... iii

Table of contents .................................................................................................... iv

List of tables ......................................................................................................... viii

List of figures ......................................................................................................... ix

List of boxes .......................................................................................................... xv

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ xvi

Summary ............................................................................................................ xviii

Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................ xxi

Glossary of the local terms .................................................................................. xxv

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Research context ......................................................................................... 2

1.2. Problem statement ....................................................................................... 3

1.3. Research objectives ..................................................................................... 5

1.4. The significance of the research .................................................................. 5

1.4.1. Livelihood studies in Indonesia ......................................................... 5

1.4.2. Research on tobacco growers in Indonesia ........................................ 6

1.4.3. The theoretical contributions of the dissertation ................................ 8

1.5. Limitation of the research ........................................................................... 8

1.6. Dissertation organization ............................................................................. 9

2. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 13

2.1. Introduction: structure-agency dualism in human geography ................... 14

2.2. The development of livelihood studies ..................................................... 16

2.2.1. From structure and agency to livelihood ......................................... 16

2.2.2. Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) ........................................ 18

2.2.3. SLA under critics ............................................................................. 22

2.3. Livelihood vulnerability ............................................................................ 24

2.4. Bourdieu´s theory of social practice .......................................................... 28

2.4.1. Bourdieu and human geography ...................................................... 28

2.4.2. Historical background of practice theory ......................................... 30

2.4.3. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice: a conceptual framework ....... 33

2.5. Theoretical framework .............................................................................. 41

v

3. Research Design and Methodology ............................................................... 45

3.1. Introduction: philosophy, theory, and methods ......................................... 46

3.2. Research approach ..................................................................................... 46

3.2.1. Qualitative approach ........................................................................ 46

3.2.2. Case study ........................................................................................ 47

3.3. Research structures .................................................................................... 48

3.3.1. Research site .................................................................................... 48

3.3.2. Villages selection ............................................................................. 49

3.3.3. Research steps .................................................................................. 49

3.4. Data collection and methods ..................................................................... 50

3.4.1. Primary data ..................................................................................... 50

3.4.1.1. Interviews .......................................................................... 50

3.4.1.2. Focus group discussion ...................................................... 52

3.4.1.3. Participant observation ...................................................... 53

3.4.2. Secondary data ................................................................................. 55

3.5. Validity and data analysis ......................................................................... 56

3.5.1. Validity ............................................................................................ 56

3.5.2. Qualitative data analysis .................................................................. 57

4. The Case Study Area ...................................................................................... 61

4.1. General Overview ..................................................................................... 62

4.2. Population .................................................................................................. 68

4.3. Education ................................................................................................... 70

4.4. Land use .................................................................................................... 71

4.5. Agriculture ................................................................................................ 74

4.6. Tobacco growers’ characteristics .............................................................. 82

4.6.1. Tobacco grower: peasant, farmer, or peasant farmer? ..................... 82

4.6.2. Family household characteristics ..................................................... 86

4.7. Poverty ...................................................................................................... 89

4.8. Resume: general characteristics of the research focused villages ............. 92

5. Tobacco in Indonesia: History and Figures .................................................. 95

5.1. Tobacco history ......................................................................................... 96

5.1.1. Tobacco origin ................................................................................. 96

5.1.2. Tobacco history in Indonesia ........................................................... 97

vi

5.2. Tobacco growing in Indonesia ................................................................ 100

5.2.1. The position of Indonesian tobacco at the global level ................. 100

5.2.2. Tobacco production ....................................................................... 101

5.2.3. Tobacco diversity .......................................................................... 109

5.2.4. Tobacco export and import ........................................................... 111

5.3. Cigarette manufacturers .......................................................................... 115

5.3.1. The origin of kretek ....................................................................... 115

5.3.2. The development of kretek cigarette ............................................. 117

5.4. Tobacco growing and government income ............................................. 119

5.5. Tobacco cultivation and production in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside

(SSM) ...................................................................................................... 123

5.5.1. The origin of tobacco in SSM: a folklore and myths ..................... 123

5.5.2. Tobacco production ....................................................................... 128

5.5.2.1. Harvested areas ................................................................ 128

5.5.2.2. Tobacco production and productivity .............................. 130

5.5.2.3. Tobacco farmers .............................................................. 132

6. Rise, Fall, and Challenges of Tobacco Growing in SSM .......................... 135

6.1. The golden era of tobacco ....................................................................... 136

6.2. The fall of tobacco: price decline and the high cost of tobacco .............. 141

6.2.1. Cigarette industry development ..................................................... 142

6.2.2. Economy of tobacco growing: excess supply and price decline ... 145

6.2.3. Tobacco farming system ................................................................ 147

6.2.3.1. Climatic variability and crop failure ................................ 147

6.2.3.2. Manure ............................................................................. 150

6.2.3.3. Labor ................................................................................ 153

6.3. Tobacco challenges ................................................................................. 160

6.3.1. Global policies on tobacco control ................................................ 160

6.3.1.1. The main concern of tobacco control policies ................. 160

6.3.1.2. The issues of alternative crops to tobacco ....................... 161

6.3.2. Tobacco control in Indonesia ......................................................... 162

6.3.2.1. Tobacco control policies .................................................. 162

6.3.2.2. Controversies of tobacco control policies........................ 163

6.3.2.3. The struggle of tobacco peasants to keep growing tobacco

......................................................................................... 165

vii

7. Tobacco Growers’ Strategies: Negotiations for Livelihood ....................... 173

7.1. Agents’ position in the field of tobacco .................................................. 175

7.2.1. Graders .......................................................................................... 177

7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and small middlemen ..................................... 182

7.2.3. First suppliers ................................................................................. 185

7.2. Dispositions and livelihood strategies ..................................................... 191

7.2.1. Graders and tobacco merchants .................................................... 192

7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and the first suppliers ..................................... 194

7.3. Who are the most vulnerable agents? ...................................................... 202

8. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 211

8.1. Principal findings .................................................................................... 212

8.2. Contributions of the research .................................................................. 222

8.2.1. Theoretical contributions ............................................................... 222

8.2.2. Policy contributions ....................................................................... 223

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 227

Appendices ......................................................................................................... 253

viii

List of tables

Table 1: Rainfall and rainy days in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ................ 67

Table 2: General characteristics of Gentingsari and Pagergunung villages .......... 92

Table 3: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household by province in

Indonesia, 2017 ..................................................................................... 108

Table 4: Tobacco variants and planting areas by province in Indonesia ............ 111

Table 5: The production of cigarettes in Indonesia ............................................. 143

Table 6: Tobacco control policies in Indonesia, 1965-now ................................ 162

Table 7: Tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) and lobby group ........................... 164

Table 8: A series of demonstrations involving tobacco farmers of Temanggung

related to tobacco control policies, import policies, and the fatwa that

tobacco is haram. .................................................................................. 167

Table 9: Quality of Temanggung tobacco ........................................................... 178

Table 10: Grade of tobacco and its characteristics.............................................. 180

Table 11: The most important capital possessed by household groups in tobacco

community ............................................................................................ 190

ix

List of figures

Figure 1: Tobacco growing in Sumbing mountainside, Temanggung regency ...... 1

Figure 2: The structure of the dissertation ............................................................ 11

Figure 3: Tobacco seedbeds .................................................................................. 13

Figure 4: Agency-structure relationship in livelihood analysis ............................ 16

Figure 5: IDS´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework ............................................ 21

Figure 6: DFID´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework.......................................... 21

Figure 7: The framework of livelihood and vulnerability concept integration ..... 25

Figure 8: Key spheres of the concept of vulnerability .......................................... 26

Figure 9: Bohle´s (left) and Etzold´s model (right) of the double structure of

vulnerability ............................................................................................ 28

Figure 10: The general structure of the dialectic between social space and physical

space ........................................................................................................ 30

Figure 11: The conceptual scheme of the logic of practice .................................. 36

Figure 12: The interplay of field, capital, and habitus .......................................... 37

Figure 13: Sakdapolrak’s (top) and Etzold´s schematic illustration (bottom) of

Bourdieu’s practice theory ...................................................................... 39

Figure 14: Theoretical framework of the dissertation ........................................... 44

Figure 15: Basket (kenthung) sales for sliced drying tobacco packaging in the

Parakan market........................................................................................ 45

Figure 16: Semi-structured interview with tobacco growers ................................ 51

Figure 17: Unstructured key informant interviews with the head of the

Department of Agriculture, Estate Crops, and Forestry ......................... 52

Figure 18: Focus group discussion in Pagergunung village.................................. 53

Figure 19: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (1) ...................................... 54

Figure 20: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (2) ...................................... 55

Figure 21: A circular process of qualitative analysis ............................................ 58

Figure 22: Component of data analysis: an interactive model .............................. 59

Figure 23: Tobacco growers’ village on Sumbing mountainside ......................... 61

Figure 24: Administrative structure of local government in Indonesia ................ 62

Figure 25: Total land area based on altitude in Temanggung regency ................. 63

Figure 26: Total land area based on slope in Temanggung regency ..................... 63

Figure 27: Map of Temanggung regency .............................................................. 65

Figure 28: Mt. Sumbing (left) and Mt. Sindoro (right) ......................................... 66

x

Figure 29: The average rainfall (mm) in Temanggung regency by month,

2013-2017 ............................................................................................... 67

Figure 30: Population pyramid of Temanggung regency, 2017 ........................... 69

Figure 31: Population pyramid of Gentingsari village, 2017 ................................ 69

Figure 32: Population pyramid of Pagergunung village, 2017 ............................. 69

Figure 33: The education level of the residents of Temanggung regency, 2017 . 70

Figure 34: The education level of the residents of Gentingsari village, 2017 ...... 71

Figure 35: The education level of the residents of Pagergunung village, 2017 .... 71

Figure 36: Children in the village of Pagergunung, returning from school by foot

................................................................................................................. 71

Figure 37: Land use in Temanggung regency, 2017 ............................................. 73

Figure 38: Land use in Gentingsari village, 2017 ................................................. 73

Figure 39: Land use in Pagergunung village, 2017............................................... 73

Figure 40: Occupation of the residents in Temanggung regency, 2017 ............... 74

Figure 41: Occupation of the residents in Gentingsari village, 2017 .................... 74

Figure 42: Occupation of the residents in Pagergunung village, 2017 ................. 74

Figure 43: Area of staple food production (in thousands of hectares) in

Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 .......................................................... 75

Figure 44: Area of vegetables production (in thousands of hectares) in


Figure 45: Area of estate crops production (in thousands of hectares) in


Figure 46: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Gentingsari village, 2013-2017

................................................................................................................. 77

Figure 47: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Pagergunung village, 2013-2017

................................................................................................................. 77

Figure 48: Some commodities harvested by tobacco peasants ............................. 78

Figure 49: Pola Tlahap, cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and suren

tree in the same land (top), coffeshop built by the farmers’ group of Daya

Sindoro (bottom) ..................................................................................... 81

Figure 50: Farm household based on land tenure in Indonesia, 2018 ................... 82

Figure 51: Farm household based on land tenure in Central Java province, 2018 83

Figure 52: Farm household based on land tenure in Temanggung regency, 2018 83

Figure 53: The position of peasant farming and its interlink with other modes of

farming (entrepreneurial and capitalist agriculture) ............................... 85

xi

Figure 54: Age group of head of farm households in Indonesia, 2018 ................ 88

Figure 55: Age group of head of farm households in Central Java province, 2018

................................................................................................................. 88

Figure 56: Age group of head of farm households in Temanggung regency, 2018

................................................................................................................. 88

Figure 57: Village environment of tobacco growers............................................. 91

Figure 58: An example of a house of tobacco grower with wooden walls ........... 92

Figure 59: The warehouse of Cigarette Company of Gudang Garam in

Temanggung regency .............................................................................. 95

Figure 60: Areas of tobacco production in around Kedu residency in the1800s .. 99

Figure 61: The top ten tobacco-growing countries in the world, 2016 ............... 100

Figure 62: Share of tobacco production by country in Southeast Asia 2016 ...... 101

Figure 63: Area of tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017 ....................... 102

Figure 64: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco cultivation in

Indonesia, 2013-2017 ............................................................................ 103

Figure 65: Tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017 ................................... 103

Figure 66: Tobacco productivity in Indonesia (tons/ha), 2017 ........................... 104

Figure 67: The proportion of tobacco production area by province in Indonesia,

2017....................................................................................................... 105

Figure 68: Tobacco production areas by province in Indonesia, 2017 ............... 106

Figure 69: The number of tobacco growers in Indonesia, 2009-2017 ................ 107

Figure 70: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household (ha/household) by

province in Indonesia, 2017 .................................................................. 108

Figure 71: Classification of Indonesian tobacco ................................................. 110

Figure 72: Export-import volume of tobacco, 1997-2017 .................................. 112

Figure 73: Export-import value of tobacco, 1997-2017...................................... 112

Figure 74: Proportion of tobacco import based on origin countries, 2017 ......... 114

Figure 75: Proportion of tobacco export based on destination countries, 2017 .. 115

Figure 76: Number of cigarette companies in Indonesia, 2006-2015 ................. 118

Figure 77: Cigarette production in Indonesia, 2006-2015 .................................. 118

Figure 78: Market share of tobacco industries in Indonesia, 2016 ..................... 119

Figure 79: Tobacco product excise in Indonesia, 2010-2017 ............................. 120

Figure 80: Revenue sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT) of

Indonesia, 2010-2017 ............................................................................ 121

xii

Figure 81: The proportion of sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT)

by province, 2017.................................................................................. 121

Figure 82: Tobacco product excise of Central Java province, 2010-2017 .......... 122

Figure 83: The proportion of DBH-CHT based on regency/city in Central Java

province, 2017....................................................................................... 122

Figure 84: DBH-CHT of Temanggung regency, 2010-2017 .............................. 123

Figure 85: Ritual feast (slametan) of ‘among tebal’ ........................................... 125

Figure 86: Tobacco festival: 3matra (tobacco-coffee-culture) ........................... 126

Figure 87: Tobacco shredding festival (lembutan festival) ................................ 126

Figure 88: The icon of tobacco in the billboard of the family planning campaign

(top) and the town square of Temanggung (bottom), ‘Kota Tembakau’

means the city of tobacco ...................................................................... 127

Figure 89: Harvested areas of tobacco in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 ..... 128

Figure 90: Proportion of the harvested areas of tobacco by sub-districts during

2012-2016 in average per year .............................................................. 129

Figure 91: Proportion area of tobacco production (percentage) to total agricultural

land by sub-districts, 2016 .................................................................... 129

Figure 92: Tobacco production in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 ................ 130

Figure 93: Tobacco productivity in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017 .............. 131

Figure 94: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco cultivation in

Temanggung regency, 2013-2017 ........................................................ 131

Figure 95: Tobacco productivity (ton/ha) in Temanggung regency by sub-district,

2016....................................................................................................... 132

Figure 96: The number of tobacco growers in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017

............................................................................................................... 133

Figure 97: The post built by tobacco growers as the expression of rejection to

policies on tobacco control. ‘Mati urip mbako’ (keep on planting

tobacco)................................................................................................. 135

Figure 98: Garangan tobacco that is still produced in Wonosobo regency ........ 136

Figure 99: Tumbon or kentungan tobacco, drying process (top) and packaging

activities (bottom) ................................................................................. 137

Figure 100: The school built and funded by tobacco growers ............................ 140

Figure 101: The village hall (balai desa) established by peasant farmers .......... 140

Figure 102: Production of cigarettes in Indonesia (billions), 1972-1993 ........... 142

Figure 103: The development of tobacco production in Indonesia .................... 143

Figure 104: World tobacco leaf production, 1970-2016 ..................................... 146

xiii

Figure 105: The proportion of the world's tobacco production by region, 2016 146

Figure 106: Tobacco growers burn tobacco on the road, because of the delay in

purchasing tobacco by cigarette companies .......................................... 148

Figure 107: Manure dropped in the village before being distributed to the

farmland ................................................................................................ 151

Figure 108: Manure dropped in the locations can be reached by truck before being

distributed to the farmland .................................................................... 152

Figure 109: The location of planting tobacco in hilly and mountainous areas

makes high labor costs for transporting manure to farmland ............... 152

Figure 110: Manure distribution to the farmland by motorcycle ........................ 153

Figure 111: Manure distribution to the farmland on foot ................................... 153

Figure 112: Manual tools (cacak and gobang) for tobacco shredding ............... 154

Figure 113: Machine-based tobacco chopper ..................................................... 155

Figure 114: Laborers needed for tobacco drying ................................................ 157

Figure 115: Tobacco drying around the house .................................................... 158

Figure 116: A deliberated concrete roof for tobacco drying ............................... 158

Figure 117: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (1) .............................................. 159

Figure 118: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (2) .............................................. 159

Figure 119: Congregational prayers (isthighotsah) as an expression of resistance

to policies on tobacco control and the fatwa haram of tobacco

consumption (Temanggung, 08.05.2010) ............................................. 168

Figure 120: Insistence not to legalize the PP 109/2012 and insistence to legalize

the bill regarding to tobacco (RUU Pertembakauan) (Jakarta,

03.07.2012) ........................................................................................... 169

Figure 121: The peasants of Campurejo villages, Tretep Sub-district insisted on

revoking the PP 109/2012 (Temanggung, 12.01.2013) ........................ 169

Figure 122: Insistence to legalize RUU Pertembakauan and rejection on tobacco

control policies (Jakarta, 16.11.2016) ................................................... 170

Figure 123: Rejection of tobacco import policies and insistence to legalize RUU

Pertembakauan (Central Java Governor's office yard, 17.01.2017) ..... 170

Figure 124: The tobacco merchant’s warehouse ................................................. 173

Figure 125: The position of tobacco ‘players’ based on the tobacco market chain

in Temanggung regency ........................................................................ 177

Figure 126: Tobacco quality based on the position of the leaves on the plant ... 179

Figure 127: Special price of srinthil tobacco ...................................................... 181

Figure 128: An example of KTA ........................................................................ 183

xiv

Figure 129: Proportion of farm household based on land tenure in Gentingsari

village, 2017 .......................................................................................... 185

Figure 130: Proportion of farm household based on land tenure in Pagergunung

village, 2017 .......................................................................................... 185

Figure 131: The relationship between graders and tobacco merchants .............. 200

Figure 132: The relationship between tobacco merchants and the first tobacco

suppliers ................................................................................................ 200

Figure 133: Relations among agents in the field of tobacco ............................... 203

Figure 134: Discussion with the tobacco growers applying cropping system of

pola tlahap (tobacco, coffee, and suren tree) ........................................ 211

Figure 135: Double structure of livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers .... 213

xv

List of boxes

Box 1: Labor for tobacco growing ...................................................................... 156

Box 2: Profile of tobacco merchants ................................................................... 183

Box 3: Profile of small middlemen (gaok) .......................................................... 185

Box 4: Profile of perajang .................................................................................. 188

Box 5: Peasant’s livelihood in the most vulnerable situations ............................ 205

Box 6: Coping strategies carried out by peasant farmers .................................... 207

Box 7: Non-farm livelihood activities of tobacco growers ................................. 209

xvi

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank to all those who supported the research and made this

dissertation accomplished. First of all, I would like to say ‘matur nuwun’ to

tobacco growers living in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM) especially in

Gentingsari and Pagergunung villlages and other people that I have interviewed.

Thank you for telling me your stories, experiences, and knowledge about tobacco

growing in Temanggung regency. Thank for your hospitality during my stay in

Temanggung. Indeed, I could not have done this dissertation without you. Thanks

also to my field assistants, Arif, Agung, Mega, Fatku who have seriously worked

to assist me with collecting primary and secondary data.

In Sebelas Maret University (UNS), I would thank to the Rector and the Dean of

the Faculty of Agriculture for giving me support and permission. For my

colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication,

thank you for allowing me to be temporarily free from my daily assignments as a

lecturer in the department. Special thanks to Dr. Rer.Nat. Nurhadi in the

Department of Anthropology-Sociology Education thanks for all his assistance

during my study at the Universität Innsbruck.

I would like to thank especially to my supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Coy for

his excellent guidance, patience, and caring from the beginning to the end of this

study. Indeed, I have learned a lot from you about a comprehensive, integrative,

strategic and wise way of thinking.

I am grateful to my colleagues in the Arbeitsgruppe fuer Entwicklungsforschung

(AGEF) – Institut of Geography, University of Innsbruck: Armin Kratzer, Carine

Pachoud, Christoph Huber, Felix Dorn, Fernando Ruiz Peyré, Frank Zirkl,

Gerhard Rainer, Jutta Kister, Michael Klingler, Nils Unthan, Robert Hafner,

Simone Sandholz, Tobias Töpfer, and Ute Ammering. Special thanks to Christian

Obermayr for checking the spelling, grammar, and writing style, and for

criticizing this work.

xvii

To all my Indonesian friends in Innsbruck: Agung Dewanto, Ainun Pulungan,

Annas Binarjo, Arko Jatmiko, Dominik Suktristiono, Giovanny, Jenny

Hadisubrata, Muhammad Saleh, Navista Octa, Niko Prasetyo, Nina Novira, Nona

schopper-bolangitan, Nuri Efiana, Stenley Pondaag, Veronika Samosir, Yohanes

Subali, Yosafat Hermawan, and others, thank you so much for the great

friendship.

To fellow awardees IASP (Indonesia-Austrian Scholarship Programme) in 2015,

Adryan Fristiohady and Ira Darwati (Uni Wien), Prasetyono Hari (TU Graz), and

Rini Dwi (Uni Boku Wien), thank you for your cooperation in arranging the

administrative requirements before departure to Austria.

I would also like to thank to the Directorate General of Resources for Science

Technology and Higher Education (DIKTI), Österreichischer Austauschdienst

(ÖeAD), and the ASEAN European Academic University Network (ASEA-

UNINET) for the financial support.

My gratitude to my mother and my late father, my younger brother, my father and

mother-in-law, my brothers and sisters-in-law, thanks for always supporting me

and taking care of my family during my stay in Innsbruck, Austria.

Last but certainly not least, I am indebted to my beloved wife Astri for always

being there for me, supporting me, and taking care of our children. To my son and

daughter, Dias and Danesha, you are truly my greatest spirit in completing this

dissertation.

Innsbruck, June 2019

xviii

Summary

Indonesia, today, is the fifth largest tobacco producer in the world and the

largest in the region of Southeast Asia. The tobacco in Indonesia is grown in 15

provinces with different ecological characteristics, some are planted on dry land,

irrigated land and also in the lowlands and highlands. Currently, however, the role

of tobacco as a source of livelihood is declining. In the external side, this is due to

the trend of decreasing producer prices and lowering tobacco farmers’ profits. It is

caused by an excess supply of tobacco in the global market. The surplus supply of

tobacco in the world market opens possibilities for cigarette manufacturers to

increase import that is cheaper than the local tobacco price. Another cause is the

changing demand of cigarette from heavy to light taste or from high to middle-

low nicotine. It leads to declining prices of Temanggung tobacco, which contains

high-nicotine. Tobacco growers also face challenges and problems at all stages

both on-farm and off-farm such as increased costs, complicated marketing and

payment systems, unequal position in the market, climatic variability, etc. In the

internal side, there is considerable inequality of power relations among agents in

the field of tobacco. Both factors cause tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability.

Therefore, the objectives of this dissertation are to analyze the impacts of the

external side of vulnerability on tobacco-based livelihood, to investigate strategies

employed by households to maintain or improve livelihood, and to examine how

vulnerable the livelihoods of tobacco farmers are.

The concepts of livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social

practice are employed and connected in this dissertation. The concept of

livelihood is used to investigate household activities in order to make a living.

Bohle's theory of the double structure of vulnerability is applied to analyze

livelihood vulnerability that includes an external and internal side. For Bohle, the

external side is the structural dimensions called exposure. Meanwhile, the internal

side is a coping strategy, which is embedded in an agent. Bourdieu’s theory of

social practice is applied to integrate the concept of livelihood and vulnerability.

Livelihood vulnerability, then, refers to the dialectic relationship between

xix

structure and agent. This encompasses an external side (exposure) and an internal

side (livelihood strategies as social practice). As a social practice, livelihood

strategies are not always the results of purely rational strategic decisions. For

Bourdieu, social practice is the interplay between capital, habitus, and field.

This dissertation applies a qualitative research approach and case study

method. This research is conducted in Temanggung regency, Central Java

province with a focus on two villages, namely Gentingsari village, Bansari sub-

district, and Pagergunung village, Bulu sub-district. This research encompasses

three steps described as follows: examine the exposure, analyze the influences of

exposures to tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability, and investigate the livelihood

strategies employed by agents. Several sub-methods used are interviews (semi-

structured interview, unstructured key informant interviews, and unstructured in-

depth interviews), focus group discussions, and participant observation. It also

uses both primary (self-constructed data) and secondary data (pre-constructed

data). The methodological, data, and theory triangulation are applied for data

validation. This dissertation employs qualitative data analysis that encompasses

the process of describing phenomena, classifying, and seeing how concepts are

interconnected.

This dissertation finds that the external sides of vulnerability (exposure)

affect directly and indirectly tobacco-based livelihoods. Every agent in the

tobacco field then employs strategies to cope with the exposure. The livelihood

strategies employed by agents are various depending on the position in the

tobacco field and dispositions (habitus). The volume, composition, and value of

the capital types possessed by agents and habitus determine the extent to which

exposure affects the livelihoods of tobacco farmer households. In sum, livelihood

vulnerability is embedded in the everyday life of tobacco growers’ community

because of the asymmetric power relations among agents. The field of tobacco

includes the dominant and dominated agents. The dominated agent is in the most

vulnerable position. The livelihood vulnerability is then the dialectic between the

external (exposures) and internal side (livelihood strategies in relation to the

field). Therefore, the agent is the hinge between exposure and field.

xx

This research contributes to the development of theory and policymaking.

Theoretically, this dissertation involves the dialectical relationship between

structure and agent, considers agents that cannot act freely but are also not fully

bound by rules or norms, and interconnects the three theories namely livelihood,

vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice. Related to policymaking,

based on the position and authority, the government must take an obvious role

regarding the sustainability of farmers' livelihoods. The government can take a

position to support the continuity of tobacco growing or must propose alternative

crops. In case the government stays to support the continuity of tobacco growing,

the government must be seriously facilitating the needs of tobacco growers from

the cultivation stage to market guarantees. In case the government wants to

introduce an alternative crop, this needs to pay attention to its suitability with the

previous farmers’ habitus.

xxi

Abbreviations and acronyms

AMTI : Aliansi Masyarakat Tembakau Indonesia (Indonesia tobacco

society alliance)

APCI : Asosiasi Petani Cengkeh Indonesia (Indonesian clove farmers

association)

APTI : Asosiasi Petani Tembakau Indonesia (Indonesia tobacco farmers

association)

ASEAN : the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Balittas : Balai Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (sweetener and fiber crops

research institute)

BAPPEDA : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (development

planning agency at sub-national level)

Bappenas : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National

development planning agency)

BEII : Bank Ekspor Impor Indonesia (Indonesian import-export bank)

BKKBN : Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga Berencana Nasional (the

board of population and national family planning)

BLT : Bantuan Langsung Tunai (cash transfer programs)

BMKG : Badan Metereologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika (Indonesian

Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics)

BP4K : Badan Pelaksana Penyuluhan Pertanian Perikanan dan

Kehutanan (the Implementing Agency of Agricultural, Fisheries,

and Forestry Extension)

BPP : Balai Penyuluhan Pertanian (agricultural extension agencies)

BPS : Badan Pusat Statistik (central bureau of statistics)

DAS : Daerah Aliran Sungai (watersheds)

DBH-CHT : Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau (the revenue sharing

fund of tobacco product excise)

DFID : The Department for International Development

Ditjenbun : Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan (Directorate general of estate

crops)

ESATG : Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing

FAKTA : Forum Warga Kota Jakarta (the Jakarta citizens ‘forum)

FCTC : the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

FCV : Flue-Cured Virginia

FGD : Focus Group Discussion

FORMASI : Forum Masyarakat Industri Rokok Indonesia (Indonesia forum

of tobacco industry community)

xxii

FSP

RTMM-

SPSI

: Federasi Serikat Pekerja Rokok, Tembakau, Makanan dan

Minuman (Federation of Trade Union of Cigarette, Tobacco,

Food, and Beverages)

GAPPRI : Gabungan Perserikatan Pabrik Rokok Indonesia (Corporate

Federation of Indonesian Cigarette Industries)

GAPRINDO : Gabungan Produsen Rokok Putih Indonesia (Corporate of

Indonesian White Cigarette Producers)

Ha : Hectare

Hh : Household

HICs : High-Income Countries

HKTI : Himpunan Ketukunan Tani Indonesia (Indonesia Farmers

Association)

IAKMI : Ikatan Ahli Kesehatan Masyarakat Indonesia (the Indonesian

public health experts association)

ICW : Indonesia Corruption Watch

IDI : Ikatan Dokter Indonesia (the Indonesian doctors association)

IDS : Institute of Development Studies

IIED : the International Institute for Environment and Development

ITR : Intensifikasi Tembakau Rakyat (intensification of smallholder

tobacco)

Jamkesmas : Jaminan Kesehatan Masyarakat (community health insurance

programs)

KNPK : Koalisi Nasional Penyelamat Kretek (clove national rescue

coalition)

Komnas-PA : Komisi Nasional Perlindungan Anak (the national commission

for child protection)

KS : Keluarga Sejahtera (prosperous family)

LM3 : Lembaga Menanggulangi Masalah Merokok (the institute for

preventing smoking problems)

LMICs : Low-Middle Income Countries

LTLN : Low Tar Low Nicotine

MK : Mahkamah Konstitusi (constitutional court)

MPSI : Mitra Produksi Sigaret Indonesia (Indonesian cigarette

manufacturing association)

Mt. : Mountain

MUI : Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Indonesian council of ulama)

NFRE : Non-Farm Rural Employment

NGOs : Non-Governmental Organizations

xxiii

NO : Na Oogst

NU : Nahdatul Ulama

PBN : Perkebunan Besar Negara (the government estate)

PDAM : Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (local water supply company)

PLN : Perusahaan Listrik Negara (National electricity company)

PMUP : Pengembangan Model Usahatani Partisipatif (the development

program of the participatory farming model)

PP : Peraturan Pemerintah (government regulation)

PPTSS : Paguyuban Petani Tembakau Sindoro-Sumbing (the assemblage

of tobacco farmers in Sindoro-Sumbing)

PSP-IPB : Pusat Studi Pembangunan-Institute Pertanian Bogor (center for

development studies, Bogor Agricultural University)

PTPN : PT Perkebunan Nusantara

RI : Republik Indonesia (The Republic of Indonesia)

RT : Rukun Tetangga (neighborhoods)

RUU : Rancangan Undang-undang (bill)

RW : Rukun Warga (sub-hamlets)

RYO : Roll Your Own

SKM : Sigaret Kretek Mesin (machine-rolled kretek cigarettes)

SKT : Sigaret Kretek Tangan (hand-rolled kretek cigarettes)

SLA : Sustainable Livelihood Approach

SLF : Sustainable Livelihood Framework

SPM : Sigaret Putih Mesin (white cigarette)

SSM : Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside

SUSENAS : Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (National socio-economic

survey)

TCAs : Tobacco-control advocates

TTCs : Transnational Tobacco Companies

UNDP : the United Nations Development Programme

UPP : Unit Pelaksana Proyek (Project Implementation Unit)

UU : Undang-undang (law)

VO : Voor Oogst

VOC : Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (the Dutch East India

Company)

WCED : the World Commission on Environment and Development

WHO : World Health Organization

xxiv

WITT : Wanita Indonesia Tanpa Tembakau (Indonesian women without

tobacco)

YJI : Yayasan Jantung Indonesia (the Indonesian heart foundation)

YKI : Yayasan Kanker Indonesia (the Indonesian cancer foundation)

YLKI : Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia (the Indonesian

consumers foundation)

xxv

Glossary of the local terms

Bakul : petty trader

Balai desa : village meeting hall

Bèngkok : agricultural land that can be managed by village

officials in exchange for salaries.

Borongan : wage system based on the basic unit of work to be

done, for example: tilling the soil

Buruh bangunan : construction workers

Buruh tani : farm workers

Cacak-gobang : manual tools for tobacco shredding

Camat : sub-district head

Dendeng : Low-quality tobacco, which is dried in the form of

leaf sheets, not cut into pieces.

Emas hijau : the term for high-value tobacco leaves, especially

during the golden era of tobacco.

Gaok/pengepul : small intermediaries, which is sometimes working for

tobacco merchants.

Garangan/emplengan : tobacco processing by means of a thin layer of

shredded tobacco, compressed and dried over a fire

Grader/greder : people who because of their expertise in determining

the quality of tobacco are trusted by cigarette

companies to buy tobacco from farmers.

Haram : actions that are prohibited in Islamic teachings. For

example, if smoking is declared haram, so that this

activity is prohibited.

Harga kètokan : very low prices of tobacco because the time of sale is

outside the period of factory purchase.

Harian : wage system based on basic time unit of one working

day.

Juragan : name for people who have a lot of capital and is very

influential on the tobacco market. it often refers to

tobacco merchants or graders. In addition to buying

tobacco, juragans often provide debt for farming cost.

Kepala desa : village head

Kisuk : unit area of agricultural land which is equal to 0.1 ha.

Lamsi : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in

the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing with

altitude more than 1,000 m. This can be found in

Tembarak, Bulu, and Parakan sub-district.

xxvi

Lamuk : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in

the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing with

altitude more than 1,000 m. This can be found in

Tlogomulyo sub-district.

Lintingan : roll-your-own cigarette

Mbako impor : tobacco ‘imported’ from areas outside Temanggung

regency

Mbako owol : sliced-dried tobacco traded with the aim of being

mixed with other tobacco of various qualities. This

tobacco is commonly mbako impor.

Mbako

temanggungan

: tobacco which is cultivated in the areas around

sumbing-sindoro mountainside such as: Wonosobo

and Kendal regency

Mitulasi : a system of debts with an interest of 75 % per tobacco

growing season.

Nganjang : activity of making an arrangement of sliced tobacco

on boards made of woven bamboo

Ngimpor : activities to buy tobacco both in the form of raw and

sliced-dried leaves from outside to be sold in

Temanggung regency

Nglimolasi : a system of debts with an interest of 50% per tobacco

growing season.

Paksi : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in

the eastern side of Mt. Sindoro with altitude more

than 1,000 m. This can be found in Ngadirejo and

Tretep sub-district.

Pengrajin : name for people who blend sliced dried tobacco of

various qualities. They buy tobacco from other

regions to be blended with the original tobacco of

Temanggung.

Perajang : name for people who buy tobacco leaf from other

regions to be shredded and sold in Temanggung

Perangkat desa : village apparatus

Petani gurem : a land holder household with agricultural land of less

than 0.5 hectares

Pola tlahap : the cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and

Suren tree in the same land

Pranata mangsa : a local knowledge on the management of agricultural

land for Javanese people.

Pulung : God's grace in the form of the best tobacco quality

bestowed upon certain tobacco growers.

Rego girik : the estimated price set by gaok

xxvii

Rigen/widig : tobacco drying boards made of woven bamboo

Rit : a truck rental system to whose calculation is not based

on distance or unit hours but is based on one loading

and unloading of goods or one transaction. In the

context of tobacco farmers, one rit refers to the

transportation of manure per truck from the location

of manure producers or sellers to farmer’s house or

farmland.

Sawah : Rice fields

Sewu selawe : the obligation of farmers to donate 25 rupiah for every

1,000 rupiah obtained from the sale of tobacco.

Sistem girik : the way of selling tobacco where tobacco merchants

employ gaok to collect tobacco. Gaok is given the

authority to estimate the quality and price of tobacco.

Sistem nitip : the way of selling tobacco where the first suppliers

use the sales service of merchants with such an

agreement of fee.

Srinthil : the tobacco containing the highest nicotine, which is

only produced in certain areas in the slope of Mt.

Sumbing.

Swanbing : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in

the slope of Mt. Prahu with altitude more than 900-

1,400 m.

Tebasan : system for purchasing crop that are carried out before

harvesting. In the context of tobacco farmers, they

buy tobacco leaves before being picked. Hence,

farmers usually buy tobacco at a price per plant unit.

Tegal : dry fields

Tempe : Indonesian traditional food made from soybean

Tionggang : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted in

an altitude 500-700 m. This can be found in Kedu,

Tembarak, Bulu, Parakan, and Ngadirejo sub-district.

Toalo : name for tobacco quality, where the crop is planted

between Mt. Sumbing and Mt. Sindoro with altitude

more than 1,000 m. This can be found in Parakan and

Ngadirejo sub-district.

Totol : grade

Tumbon/kenthungan : a way of packaging of tobacco by using the basket

which is made from bamboo as the outer part and

dried banana tree midrib as the inside piece

xxviii


1

Introduction

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 1: Tobacco growing in Sumbing mountainside,

Temanggung regency

1

2

1.1. Research context

Tobacco has been cultivated in Indonesia mainly in Java, Eastern Indonesia,

Kalimantan, and Sumatera since the 1600s. Under the Cultivation System

(cultuurstelsel)1 that was imposed by the Dutch government in the 1800s, tobacco

became an essential crop beside coffee, sugar, and indigo. It was one of the causes

that of tobacco growing spread quickly in Java including West Java, East Java,

and Central Java. In West Java, tobacco growing can be found in Priangan and

Cirebon area. In East Java, tobacco was grown in the regency of Pasuruan,

Probolinggo, Bondowoso, and Jember. In Central Java, tobacco cultivation was

concentrated in Kedu region and its surrounding (Boomgaard, 2005).

Tobacco had become an essential commodity for farmers when the crop was

used as the main ingredient for cigarette, especially kretek cigarette. Kretek is a

typical Indonesian tobacco product consisting of tobacco, crushed cloves and saus

(sauce), which serves to give a distinctive aroma, to the cigarettes (Arnez, 2009).

Haji Djamhari, a farmer in Kudus Central Java, created kretek in around 1880.

Since then kretek cigarette has become famous as a commercial product.

Nitisemito was the pioneer of kretek cigarettes where in 1906 he launched a

private cigarette company in Kudus (Djajadi, 2015).

Now, tobacco in Indonesia is planted in 15 provinces with various

ecological characteristics, from dry to irrigated land and from low to high land

areas. The different environmental conditions included soil, climate or weather,

and geographical features cause many variants of tobacco in Indonesia. The

largest growing area is in East Java (55 %), West Nusa Tenggara (19 %), Central

Java (17 %) and the rest of it is situated in the other provinces. In 2017, the

livelihood of 493 thousand households depends on the tobacco cultivation. They

grew tobacco on 202 thousand hectares of land, producing 181 thousand tons of

dried tobacco leaves (Ditjenbun, 2018).

1 The Cultivation system was initiated by Governor-General, Johannes van den Bosch that arrived

in Java in 1830. The system regulates that every village must set aside part of its land to produce

export crops for sale at a fixed price for the colonial government. About 20 % (later 33 %) of the

yield will be used to cover the land tax commitment. If the village earned more by the sale of

crops to the government than its land tax obligation, it could keep the excess payment; if less, it

must still pay the difference from other sources (Ricklefs, 2001).

3

Currently, Indonesia is the fifth largest tobacco producer in the world

(FAOSTAT, 2016) and the largest in Southeast Asia (Lian & Dorothea, 2016). To

fulfill the need of the cigarette industry, Indonesia is still importing more than 30

% of its tobacco leaf. During the past five years from 2013-2017, Indonesia

imported 98.7 thousand tons of tobacco in average per year. Tobacco leaf required

by big and middle cigarette companies is about 300 thousand tons per year. These

figures do not include the ‘illegally' small and home industries, which produce

cigarettes without paying excise and having a brand (Tobacco Information Center

of East Java Province, 2013). Tobacco remains an economically important

commodity for the Indonesian government. It can be traced from tax revenues of

cigarette industries collected by the government, which increase from year to year.

In 2017, the excise reached 147 trillion rupiah (Kementerian Keuangan RI, 2017).

1.2. Problem statement

The residency of Kedu, today named as Temanggung, was the favorite place

producing tobacco with a typical high quality, low sugar, and high nicotine level,

which is very important for cigarette manufacturers to produce kretek. During the

time hand-rolled cigarettes (sigaret kretek tangan, SKT) still dominated cigarette

production in Indonesia, tobacco Temanggung was the main ingredient for kretek.

Temanggung tobacco structures 14-26 % of each kretek cigarette (GAPPRI, 1997

in Murdiyati, 2000). Generally, the price of tobacco was relatively high.

Therefore, tobacco was famous as a golden leaf (emas hijau). At that time,

tobacco was a promising commodity in supporting the livelihood systems of

farmers.

Meanwhile, currently, the contribution of tobacco yield as a source of

livelihood for farmers is declining. This is caused due to the trend of decreasing

producer prices and lowering tobacco farmers' profits, which is caused by an

excess supply of tobacco in the global market (WHO, 2008). Another driving

force is the change in the demand of cigarettes from heavy to light taste that has

encouraged cigarette industries to produce machine-rolled kretek cigarettes

(SKM-Sigaret Kretek Mesin). SKM is more light and aromatic and contains less

4

tobacco in each stick of cigarette. The dependence of cigarette industries on

tobacco produced in Temanggung and its surrounding (mbako temanggungan),

which contain high nicotine is decreasing. The circumstances are aggravated by

various challenges and problems faced by tobacco growers at all stages, both on-

farm, and off-farm (WHO, 2012), such as increased costs, complicated marketing

and payment systems, unequal position in the market2 (Keyser, 2007), climatic

variability, etc.

The role of tobacco for farmers’ livelihood is significantly decreasing; even

their livelihood tends to be vulnerable. For Bohle (2001), vulnerability

encompasses the interplay between external and internal sides. The external side

is exposure, which refers to the structure. The vulnerability is not only determined

by the exposure, but also by coping strategies employed by the agents. The coping

ability is included as the internal side of vulnerability. Social vulnerability is a

characteristic of an agent, which results from the interplay between these two

sides.

In the livelihood approach, the livelihood strategies prefer to be used as an

internal side rather than coping. Livelihood strategies refer to various activities

and choices conducted by people to achieve livelihood goals (DFID, 2000). The

definition of livelihood strategies raises some critics mainly related to

overemphazing agents as homo economicus. Furthermore, agent is assumed able

to act freely. Another weakness is that livelihood studies are inadequate to grasp

power-relations. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice can be employed to

overcome the shortcomings of the livelihood approach. In this sense, livelihood

strategies are considered as social practice. For Bourdieu, practice is the interplay

between one's dispositions (habitus) and one's position in a field (capital), within

the current rules of the game of that social arena (field).

In sum, the livelihood vulnerability encompasses an external side (exposure)

and an internal side (livelihood strategies as social practice). The exposures are

related to various problems caused by external factors. Livelihood strategies are

2 The tobacco market is an oligopoly-oligopsony, where only a few manufacturers that dominate

the market. Consequently, the tobacco price is mostly determined by tobacco companies. This

situation is exacerbated by weak cooperation among the tobacco growers (Hamid, 1991).

5

not always the results of purely rational strategic decisions as assumed in the

livelihood approach; instead, it also involves dispositions (habitus). Simply put,

habitus refers to ways of acting, feeling, thinking and being (Maton, 2008). The

habitus can be acquired from the family during childhood (primary habitus),

formal and non-formal education, life experiences, etc. (Walther, 2013).

1.3. Research objectives

The following objectives are the focus of this dissertation:

1. Analyzing the effects of the exposures as the external side of vulnerability on

tobacco-based livelihood.

2. Investigating strategies employed by households to maintain or improve

livelihood.

3. Examining the vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihoods.

In order to explore each of these objectives, this research was carried out in

Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM), Temanggung regency over a period of 6

months.

1.4. The significance of the research

1.4.1. Livelihood studies in Indonesia

Research about poverty and inequality in the rural area in Indonesia has

been conducted at least since the 1970s. Sajogjo and the scholars from the Center

for Development Studies, Bogor Agricultural University (PSP-IPB) are the

initiators of these studies. The research was gaining momentum when there was

the project of ‘Non-Farm Rural Employment (NFRE) in West Java' at the end of

the 1980s till the early of 1990s which involved PSP-IPB, Center for environment

research-Bandung Institute of Technology, and Institute of Social Studies-The

Hague. The underlying assumptions built on the research project were poverty and

marginalization of rural economies, which is caused by modernization processes.

Modernization has triggered social and agrarian changes in the rural area, and has

caused the diversity of rural livelihood strategies. The poor are the victim of

modernization and rural development (Dharmawan, 2007).

6

Livelihood diversification means the inclination of rural people to enter

non-farm activities. The ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors are used to analyze whether the

movement of rural labor out of agriculture is because of necessities or

opportunities. White (1991) categorized households into three groups based on the

engagement in non-farm activities as livelihood strategies, namely: survival,

consolidation, and accumulation strategies that are carried out by landless, small-

farm, and large-farm or landowner households, respectively. In the case when the

income from non-farm activities is lower than agricultural income, Sajogyo

(1990) called it as self-exploitation.

In Java, population growth has forced peasants in the low land to do

intensification. Peasants involve all household members in cultivating the limited

land. The increasing of labor intensity in the paddies enhances the output per area,

but does not improve output per head. The mechanism is called ‘shared poverty'

(Geertz, 1983). This mechanism does not drive significant change but creates the

agricultural involution. Hayami and Kikuchi (1982) analyzed the impacts of the

green revolution program and agricultural modernization on peasants’ livelihoods.

They conclude that the patron-client relationship is the mechanisms built by

small-scale peasants to meet subsistence needs.

In the 2000s, Bogor scholars continued their research on the livelihoods of

the poor. The research is not only limited to focus on irrigated rice paddies

(sawah), but also gives attention to community life in various ecological settings,

such as: in the mountain area, fishing community, the community around the

forest, and others. The studies consistently focused on structural constraints

(social-economic-politics), which drive rural livelihood dynamics. Agent is

considered as a victim of political and economic structures. Different from that,

this dissertation assumes that livelihood is not driven by structure or agents

separately, rather the interplay between both of them.

1.4.2. Research on tobacco growers in Indonesia

Studies about tobacco development in Indonesia are conducted continuously

by Balai Penelitian Tanaman tembakau dan serat (Fiber and tobacco crop research

7

institute, Balittas). Since 2011, the name changed to Balai Penelitian Tanaman

Pemanis dan Serat (Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute, Balittas). The

research results can be traced from the monographs, proceedings, and bulletins

published by Balittas. The study series about Virginia, Madura, and Temanggung

tobacco can be found in the monographs published in 1997-1998, 1999, and 2000,

respectively. The proceedings of tobacco agribusiness development were also

published in 2001, 2004, and 2007. The studies comprehensively examine tobacco

from various viewpoints, including production and marketing in terms of

supporting tobacco development, particularly related to increased production

through the discovery of new varieties. The global policies of tobacco control

seem to affect Indonesian policies on tobacco development. It can be found in the

strategic plan of Balittas 2010-2014 that move toward the development of tobacco

containing lower nicotine. Balittas also tries to find an alternative crop for tobacco

(Mastur, et al., 2012).

The International issues of tobacco control encourage the emergence of

groups both pro and contra tobacco. Tobacco Control Support Center (TCSC) and

the Indonesian Ministry of Health conducted research in terms of examining

tobacco facts in Indonesia. The series books were published in 2004, 2007, 2010,

and 2012. These books presented tobacco facts in terms of supporting tobacco

control in Indonesia. On the side of opposing groups, such as Koalisi Nasional

Penyelamatan Kretek (National Coalition for Kretek Rescue) and Indonesia

Berdikari, they published books to counter the allegations of anti-tobacco groups3.

The studies about tobacco, then, tend to be tendentious to support or oppose

tobacco control policies. Research focusing on tobacco growers itself is mostly

ignored.

3 Some books published are ‘Kretek: Kemandirian dan Kedaulatan Bangsa Indonesia (2014)’,

‘Kretek: kajian Ekonomi dan Budaya 4 kota (2010)’, ‘Nicotine War: perang Nikotin dan para

pedagang obat (2010)’, ‘Tipuan Bloomberg: mengungkap sosok agen industry farmasi di balik

filantropi kampanye anti rokok (2012)’, ‘Tembakau atau Mati (2012)’, ‘Perempuan berbicara

Kretek (2012)’, ‘Muslihat Kapitalis Global: Selingkuh industry farmasi dengan perusahaan

Rokok AS (2012)’, ‘Kudeta Putih (2012)’, and many others. The e-books are freely downloaded

from http://bukukretek.com.

8

1.4.3. The theoretical contributions of the dissertation

The debate about the interconnection between structure and agency and how

both of them can be consolidated has become a concern in livelihood studies

(Rigg, 2007) and is inherent in vulnerability research (Etzold & Sakdapolrak,

2016). The attendance of the SLA approach initiated by Gordon Conway and

Robert Chambers has returned the agent at the center of analysis. Previously, in

the early development of livelihood studies, agents (the poor) are considered as a

victim of structural constraints (de Haan & Zoomers, 2003; Rigg, 2007). In the

vulnerability concept, Bohle (2001) also pays attention to aspects of structure and

agency and how they are related to one another. The structure is indicated as

exposure (external side), and agent ability is addressed by coping (internal side).

Recently, some geographers have employed Bourdieu’s theory of social

practice to reconcile the structure and agency in livelihood and vulnerability

studies. This dissertation will engage the concept of livelihood vulnerability based

on Bohle’s idea of the external and internal side of vulnerability. Exposure is

considered as the external side. Meanwhile, livelihood strategies, one of the

essential elements in the livelihood approach, are examined as an internal side. By

adopting Bourdieu’s theory, livelihood strategies are considered as a social

practice, which is the result of the interplay between capital, habitus, and field.

1.5. Limitation of the research

The research is conducted in Temanggung regency, Central Java province,

Indonesia. The regency is divided into twenty sub-districts consisting of 266

villages (desa) and 23 urban villages (kelurahan). Temanggung is mostly a

plateau with varying elevation and slope that significantly influences the tobacco

quality. This research is focused in two villages, namely: Gentingsari, Bansari

sub-district, and Pagergunung, Bulu sub-district. Several other data are also

obtained from other villages to be more comprehensive in analyzing the results of

the study.

Regarding this, the regency selected may not be representative of other

locations in Indonesia. This is the case because tobacco in Indonesia is cultivated

9

in 15 provinces with various ecological characteristics. The selected villages may

also not represent other villages in Temanggung regency because tobacco

cultivated in the region is also varies.

Furthermore, farmers’ livelihood is not only sourced from tobacco, but also

from other commodities. Tobacco is one of three crop rotations per year.

Nevertheless, the analysis of farmer’s livelihood will be emphasized on tobacco

cultivation. It is because tobacco is considered as the most valuable crop

structuring tobacco growers’ livelihoods.

1.6. Dissertation organization

This dissertation is organized into eight chapters (figure 2). Each section is

described as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter provides the overall research context and objectives. It

presents the significances and limitations of the research. The

structure and the brief explanation of the dissertation content are also

delivered in this part.

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework

This chapter explores the theories that are applied to analyze this

dissertation. It comprises of the embeddedness of structure-agencies

analysis in livelihood and vulnerability studies and the use of

Bourdieu’s theory of practice in the tradition of human geography.

This section ends with the theoretical framework applied in this

dissertation. The framework integrates the theory of livelihood,

vulnerability, and social practice.

Chapter 3: Research design and methodology

Chapter 3 provides details of the research approaches, methods, sub-

methods, and data analysis that are employed in this thesis. The

research applies a qualitative approach and case study method. The

sub-methods used will be explored in detail in this section.

10

Chapter 4: The case study area

Chapter 4 introduces and describes the case study area. The section

presents the ecological, social, cultural, and economic profile of

Temanggung regency, with a specific focus on the two villages

selected namely: Pagergunung and Gentingsari village.

Chapter 5: Tobacco in Indonesia: history and figures

This chapter describes and explores the general situation of tobacco

farming in Indonesia, including history and tobacco production. It also

portrays the development of cigarette manufacturers and its role to

government income. The specific description of tobacco cultivation

and production at SSM is conveyed at the end of this chapter.

Chapter 6: Rise, fall, and challenges of tobacco growing in Sumbing-Sindoro

Mountainside (SSM)

Chapter 6 analyses the exposures influencing the disruption of

tobacco-based livelihood. It begins with a description of the golden

era of tobacco growing at SSM. It is, then, followed by explaining the

fall of tobacco caused by some circumstances such as cigarette

industry development, global economic of tobacco growing, and

various vulnerability contexts in the tobacco farming systems. The

issue of tobacco control policies, which is one of the challenges in the

sustainability of tobacco growing, is examined in this section.

Chapter 7: Tobacco growers’ strategies: negotiations for livelihood

This chapter maps out the objective structures of relations among the

positions occupied by the social agents in the tobacco field. The

strategies undertaken and the distribution of power in the tobacco field

are examined. The vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihood, that is

determined by exposure (external side) and livelihood strategies

carried out (internal side), is analyzed.

11

Chapter 8: Conclusion

Chapter 8 describes the principal findings and the contributions of the

research (theoretical and policy contributions).

Figure 2: The structure of the dissertation

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Chapter 5:

Tobacco in Indonesia:

History and Figures

Chapter 3:

Research Design and

Methodology

Chapter 7:

Tobacco Growers’

Strategies: Negotiations

for Livelihood

Chapter 8:

Conclusion

Chapter 4:

The Case Study Area

Chapter 2:

Theoretical Framework

Chapter 6:

Rise, Fall, and

Challenges of Tobacco

Growing at SSM

12


13

Theoretical Framework

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 3: Tobacco seedbeds

2

14

2.1. Introduction: structure-agency dualism in human geography

The question of how to break the dualism4 has received increasing attention

from human geographers (Gerber, 1997). One of the intensive debates is related to

a problem in an increasing polarity between ‘agency' and ‘structure' (Philo, 2016)

or the individual-society binary (Brettell, 2002), which is still discussed not only

in human geography, but also in philosophy and the social sciences (Chouinard,

1997). The questions of whether individuals can act freely, or be constrained, or

even determined by structural forces have become the heart of many debates in

contemporary human geography (Sharp, 2009). There is the assumption that

structure (context) is seen as external while agency (intentionality) is seen as

internal. Structure externalization causes to deny the personal in the social.

Otherwise, the internalizing agency tends to put people at the center that are fully

self-aware (Pile, 1993).

In human geography, chronologically, the dichotomy agent-structure has

started in the 1920s where individuals’ actions were considered to be determined

by the environment or Sauer’s superorganic notion of culture. In the 1950s and

1960s, geography as spatial science placed agent in the logic of neo-classical

economic modeling, which assumes that human behavior is driven by rational

profit maximization5. The Marxist geography attended with the assumption that a

human agent is determined by structure. To counter Marxist geography,

humanistic geography, in the 1970s, placed back people and their thoughts at the

center of the discipline. The structure-agency debate continued at that time

responding to the cultural turn. It was Nigel Thrift, which offered Non-

representational theory in an attempt to refuse an over-interpretation of agency,

which regards people as being too theoretical in their own decision making

(Sharp, 2009).

4 The effort to break down geographical binaries, such as agency/structure, state/society,

culture/economy, space/place, etc., can be seen in the book titled ‘Spaces of geographical

thought: deconstructing human geography’s binaries’ edited by Cloke & Johnston (2005). 5 Theories included in this category are such as central place theory, land use theory, industrial

location theory, and spatial interaction theory (Buang, 1992).

15

As the debate in the social sciences as a whole, one of the important parts of

the discussion is how agent-structure might be reconciled in a single approach

(Peet & Thrift, 1989). By comparing the ideas of ‘the structurationist school’,

Thrift (1983) showed how agent and structure could be mediated by the position-

practice system (Bhaskar), system and institution (Giddens), habitus (Bourdieu),

and organizations/institutions and interaction (Layder). Applying the theory of

Giddens and Bourdieu can be useful to reconcile the polarization between

determinism and voluntarism or the dualism between agency and structure

(Buang, 1992; Gregory, 1981).

In the recent literature of human geography, the ongoing debate over

structure and agency and how they can be reconciled has announced the growing

concern for and interest in livelihoods (Rigg, 2007) and is also inherent in

vulnerability research (Etzold & Sakdapolrak, 2016). Inherently debate of

structure-agency in livelihood approach can be seen the early development of

livelihood studies in the 1970s and 1980s, which delineate people (the poor) as

victims of structural constraints (structural approach). In the 1990s, however,

when Gordon Conway and Robert Chambers proposed the concept of sustainable

livelihood in an IDS discussion paper in 1992, people are placed at the center.

Agency, actors, and action became the slogan of this shift in attention (de Haan &

Zoomers 2003, Rigg 2007, Sakdapolrak 2014). In vulnerability literature, (Bohle,

2001) introduced the double structure of vulnerability. The idea was adopted from

Chamber´s concepts related to the external and internal side of vulnerability

(Chambers, 1989). The external side (exposure) refers to the structure and the

internal side (coping) indicates the agent. Social vulnerability is a characteristic of

people, resulting from interactions between the two factors.

Related to agent-structure relation, de Haan (2000) proposed that livelihood

analysis should consider both agent and structure level. ‘Agency’ is embodied in

the individual and embedded in social relations. Individual choices and decision-

making are embedded in values, norms, and institutional structures. Through

‘human agency’, structures may change. Actors, both individuals and social

groups, influence structure through agency. Therefore, agency is the hinge

16

between actor and structure. The agent is neither powerless objects nor free agent

who can become whatever they choose. There are the feedback loops between

actor and structure. The structure should be thought of as the shell in which the

‘capitals’ are embedded. The social part of ‘structure’ consists in the shell of

common rules, norms and sanctions mutually agreed or handed down, around

social capital. ‘Capitals’ are used by actors to ‘produce’ livelihood; structure

determines the direction of the outcome, although the direction may eventually

change through the agency of the actors’ livelihood strategies. The feedback loops

of agency from actor to structure run through the vital capitals (figure 4).

Source: de Haan (2000)

Figure 4: Agency-structure relationship in livelihood analysis

2.2. The development of livelihood studies

2.2.1. From structure and agency to livelihood

The term of livelihood in modern geography originates from classical

French Geography in early twentieth-century. Vidal de la Blache (1911)

introduced the term genre de vie which means the entity of livelihood strategies of

a human group in a specific region (de Haan and Zoomers 2003, de Haan 2012).

Agency

Access

Actors‘

Livelihood

Strategies Human

Capital

Natural

Capital Physical

Capital

Financial

Capital

Social

Capital

Structure

Livelihood System

17

In 1940, Evans-Pritchard, the anthropologist, used ‘livelihood’ to describe the

Nuer’s strategies for making a living. While in classic French geography

individual livelihoods formed a regional system with a clear history and identity,

in anthropology livelihood was used much more concretely as a set of activities,

especially economics, where people make a living (de Haan, 2012). The

economist, Polanyi, published a book titled 'The Livelihood of Man' in 1977. In

the book, he developed an economy that is not merely occupied with individual

maximizing behavior like the formalist economy assumption, rather socially,

culturally and historically embedded (Kaag, et al., 2004).

The concept of livelihood disappeared from development geography after

World War II as most scholars turned their attention to the dominant structural

perspectives of the time–dependency and neo-Marxist approaches (de Haan &

Zoomers, 2003). Those approaches and perspectives of the 1970s and 1980s

tended to present people, and especially poor people in the Global South, as

victims of structural forces and limitations (Rigg, 2007) and focuses on aspects of

material life from the perspective of certain human and land interactions (de Haan

& Zoomers, 2003).

The reemergence of livelihood studies began with the recognition of the

concept of survival strategies in the 1970s, which highlighted the active,

productive role of poor people and recognized their behavior and actions as both

logical and well informed. ‘Survival strategies’ were used in reference to poor

people’s coping strategies in the face of economic crisis and to stress the

rationality of their risk minimization strategies (de Haan 2003, Owusu 2007).

Studies of survival strategies showed that poor people were not passive

victims of structural forces; instead, proponents argued that although poor people

make decisions that affect their survival within the limits of structural conditions,

they often have room to maneuver. As a result, individual and household actions

in livelihood studies were often considered strategic and well informed (Owusu,

2009).

Livelihood strategies concentrate on households. It was considered useful

for its potential to link the gap between micro-economics, with its focus on the

18

atomistic behavior of individuals, and historical-structuralism, which concentrated

on the political economy of development. A wide variety of household studies

appeared in the 1980s. Most studies of the household were conducted under the

title 'new household economy', focusing on the allocation of labor and land, and

income strategies. It was also using micro-economic household modeling as an

explanatory tool (Owusu, 2009). For Long (1984), ‘survival strategies' were also

called ‘livelihood strategies. Although most of these researches began with the

idea that households have a free choice layer, they show that household decisions

are often carried out within structural constraints. Families continue to operate at a

level of relative autonomy (Schmink, 1984). However, many household studies

end in rather pessimistic conclusions. They show how poorer households are

increasingly excluded from the compensations of economic growth. Therefore,

they are even marginalized (de Haan & Zoomers, 2005).

Since the 1990s, this perspective has gained momentum as to view

development by placing people at the central point. It emphasizes their active role

in investigating opportunities and overcoming change (de Haan & Zoomers,

2003). Agency, actors, and action became the slogan of this shift in attention

(Rigg, 2007). At that time, a new generation of more optimistic household

researches appeared. They approached households from a livelihood viewpoint

and showed how poor people can survive. The livelihood approach is an

expression of the frustating results of the prior method, which arranged poverty

policies based on the criteria of income, consumption, and basic needs (de Haan

& Zoomers, 2005).

2.2.2. Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA)

Solesbury (2003) notes a metamorphosis of the sustainable livelihood

framework. It started from The World Commission on Environment and

Development, which firstly introduced the sustainable livelihoods idea in 1987

(WCED, 1987). In 1988, the term was put in the book titled ‘The Greening of

Aid: Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice’ (Chambers, 2005). The UN Conference

on Environment and Development carried out in 1992 was the great momentum

19

where sustainable livelihoods as an extensive goal for poverty alleviation was

advocated (Krantz, 2001). UN forums supposed to involve people and their

livelihood activities into a sustainable development policy framework. In the

conference, Robert Chambers from the Institute of Development Studies (IDS,

Sussex, UK) and Gordon Conway from the International Institute for

Environment and Development (IIED, London) presented the ‘Sustainable rural

livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century’. The paper published was

based on their research on food security and agro-ecological sustainability

(Owusu, 2009). The livelihood is defined as follows:

‘A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims

and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is

sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks,

maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable

livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes

net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the

short and long term (Chambers & Conway, 1991)'.

By the late 1990s, some donor communities and international organizations

adopted the sustainable livelihood approach as an operational tool for poverty

reduction. By applying the approach, development practice changed from needs

based and resource centered solutions to people-centered, holistic, and dynamic

approaches. This tends to concentrate on people and their capacity to sustain

livelihood improvement. Development theorists and practitioners, governments,

non-governmental organization, and international organization contributed to

broadening its definition and focus (Owusu, 2009). A comparison of the

livelihood approaches of DFID, CARE, Oxfam, and UNDP can be seen in

Carney, et al. (1999).

Kaag, et al. (2004) claims that the livelihood approach is strongly developed

by economist and human geographers. The other disciplines such as anthropology

and social psychology shaped the debate later. Some scholars focus on the study

of livelihood strategies of a particular group of people in a particular environment.

Meanwhile, some other researchers such as Ellis (2000), Bebbington (1999), and

20

de Haan (2000) contributed to theoretical development. The latter is the livelihood

framework, which tends to be focused on formulating policy interventions. The

international institutions such as DFID, the World Bank, and Oxfam are the

representatives of such an approach.

DFID is a well-known organization, which actively promoted the

Sustainable Livelihood Framework. The framework was adopted from an IDS

working paper written by Scoones (1998) that was published in June 1998 (figure

5). The article provides an analytical framework for sustainable rural livelihoods.

The framework highlights five interacting elements, namely contexts, resources,

institutions, strategies, and outcomes. Based on his writing, Scoones was recruited

by DFID to become a member of the DFID Rural Livelihoods Advisory Group.

The popular sustainable livelihood framework was presented at the DFID Natural

Resources Advisers’ Conference in July 1998 (Solesbury, 2003). Indeed, the

group was assigned to operationalize the sustainable livelihoods concept to which

the White Paper had committed UK policy (Carney, 1998). DFID claims that

sustainable livelihood approach consists of some principles, namely people-

centered, holistic, dynamic, building on strengths, macro-micro links, and

sustainability.

The DFID framework encompasses five main elements, namely

vulnerability contexts, livelihood assets, transforming structures and processes,

livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes (figure 6). The vulnerability

context includes trends, shocks, and seasonality. Shocks are associated with

events that destroys assets directly such as floods, storms, civil conflict, etc.

Trends are situations that are more predictable, such as population, resources,

technological trends, etc. Lastly, seasonality refers to a shift in prices, production,

health, and employment opportunities.

21

Source: Scoones (1998)

Figure 5: IDS´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework

Source: DFID (2000)

Figure 6: DFID´s Sustainable Livelihood Framework

History

Politics

Macro-economic

Conditions

Terms of trade

Climate

Demography

Agro-ecology

Social

differentiation

Natural capital

Economic/financial

capital

Human capital

Social capital

And others

Institutions

and

Organization

Agricultural

intensification –

extensification

Livelihood

diversification

Migration

Livelihood

1. Increased

numbers of working

days created

2. Poverty reduced

3. Well-being and

capabilities

improved

Sustainability

4. Livelihood,

adaptation,

vulnerability and

resilience enhanced

5. Natural resource

base sustainability

ensured

Contextual analysis

of condition and

trends and

assessment of

policy setting

Analysis of

livelihood resources:

trade-offs,

combinations,

sequences, trends

Analysis of

institutional/organizational

influences on access to

livelihood resources and

composition of livelihood

strategy portfolio

Analysis of

livelihood strategy

portfolios and

pathways

Analysis of

outcomes and

trade-offs

CONTEXTS,

CONSITIONS AND

TRENDS

LIVELIHOOD

RESOURCES

INSTITUTIONAL

PROCESSES &

ORGANISATIONAL

STRUCTURES

LIVELIHOOD

STRATEGIES

SUSTAINABLE

LIVELIHOOD

OUTCOMES

Policy

LIVELIHOOD

OUTCOMES LIVELIHOOD

STRATEGIES

H

P F

N

Vulnerability

contexts

TRANSFORMING

STRUCTURES

AND PROCESSES Influence

& access

Key

H = Human Capital S = Social Capital

N = Natural Capital P = Physical Capital

F = Financial Capital

S

Livelihood Assets I

n

o

r

d

e

r

t

o

a

c

hi

e

v

e

Sustainable Livelihoods framework

22

The term ‘livelihood resources’ proposed by Scoones (1998) is replaced

with a livelihood asset. This involves human (skills, knowledge, and health

status), social (networks, membership in a certain group, trust, and reciprocity),

natural (land, forests, and water), physical (infrastructure), and financial capitals

(stocks, money). The five capitals are known as the pentagon asset, which seems

to be a central point in the framework. This has a close interaction with the other

elements. For example, vulnerability context may destroy assets or assets can

enlarge or restrict livelihood strategies employed, which in turn will influence

livelihood outcomes.

Transforming structures and processes refers to institutions, organizations,

policies, and legislation that shape people’s livelihoods. The institution can be the

public or the private sector. The public sector can be political bodies, executive

agencies (ministries, departments), judicial bodies, and others. The private sector

comprises commercial enterprises and corporations, civil society, or NGOs

(international, national, local). They play a role particularly in determining access

to various types of capital.

Choice, opportunity, and diversity are important things promoted by the

livelihood approach. Livelihood strategies refer to the variety and combination of

activities and choices that poor people carry out to accomplish their livelihood

goals including productive activities, investment strategies, reproductive choice,

etc. The outputs of livelihood strategies are livelihood outcomes. The outcome

leads to a sustainable livelihood. This can be more income, increased well-being,

reduced vulnerability, improved food security, and more sustainable use of the

natural resource base.

2.2.3. SLA under critics

The shifting back of agency as the focus in the Sustainable Livelihood

Approach (SLA), however, raises some critics. SLA is considered to

overemphasize people as a free agent (Sakdapolrak, 2014). Households as a unit

of analysis are normally regarded as independent units. Furthermore, the term

‘livelihood strategy’ overemphasizes the capacity of individuals and households

23

to choose and select strategies and activities to make a living depending on their

endowments and capabilities and denies the importance of the chances available

to the individual/household. The assumption about households as unitary entities

gives less attention to intrahousehold dynamics and conflicts. The ability of

individuals and households to choose and select is overemphasized, while the

structural constraints that limit such choices are neglected (Prowse, 2010).

Furthermore, because the focus is on the strength of the agent, it does not take into

account the limited space for poor people to maneuver (Wood & Salway, 2000).

Although the livelihood approach explicitly involves structural aspects in

livelihoods studies, the SLA does not give any direction or explanation of how

structural aspects such as institutions and policies influence livelihoods, or of how

livelihoods influence the structural level (Sakdapolrak, 2014).

The livelihood approach also portrays people as homo economicus, using

capitals to gain well-defined economic goals and ignoring their perception, ideas,

hopes, fears, norms, and values (Kaag, et al., 2004). Livelihood studies focus

primarily on income activities of individuals or households (Brons, Dietz, Niehof,

& Witsenburg, 2007). Actors are perceived to use their assets in order to achieve

clear ends and maximize their utilities (van Dijk, 2011). Capitals are understood

in a very economistic and materialistic way (White & Ellison, 2006). Capital is

apprehended mainly as any material or virtual asset or holding (a thing)

(Wilshusen, 2014). The term social capital is too optimistic because it ignores the

processes of dependency, such as patron-client relations, and social exclusion

(Wood & Salway, 2000).

Livelihood studies are also criticized for lacking emphasis on the

‘vulnerability’ context (Prowse, 2010). The elements of the ‘vulnerability context’

only embrace limited circumstances. Meanwhile, the broader vulnerability

situations such as rampant inflation, conflict, violence, and warfare are not taken

into account (Murray, 2000; Brons et al., 2007). The term of shock and trend in

the livelihood literature contains some weaknesses. For example, ‘shock’ tends to

be applied in a certain condition that occurs randomly. A chronic set of

conditions, which maintain people in a constantly vulnerable state are ignored.

24

The ‘trends’ are not also considering any reference to the political economy such

as socio-economic exploitation or unequal power relation in the structure (patron-

clientelism), which significantly restrict and constrain people’s livelihood

strategies (Wood & Salway, 2000).

For Prowse (2010), the term ‘sustainable’ in the SLF is too ambiguous. This

still raises questions, such as 'sustainable' for whom? With what criteria? And in

the short or long term? (Murray, 2000). Rakodi (2002) claimed that to describe

the ability of people to recover from shocks and stresses and maintain or enhance

assets, it is more appropriate to use the term livelihood security than sustainable

livelihood.

Scoones (2009) criticizes that livelihood approach tends to emphasize the

people living in the current situations. The central concerns are then the stability,

durability, resilience, and robustness in times of disruption. Sakdapolrak (2014)

claims that the livelihood approach does not acknowledge the role of history,

long-term social change, and socio-ecological transformation. Livelihood studies

are static and a-historic.

2.3. Livelihood vulnerability

Some scholars try to understand the susceptibility of people’s livelihoods

and to overcome critics of livelihood by integrating the concept of livelihood and

vulnerability. Lin (2013), for example, investigates vulnerability, which is

incorporated with the livelihood framework. Besides applying the instruments of

the livelihood framework such as capitals and livelihood strategies, he also

analyses the vulnerability determinants, i.e. exposure, sensitivity, and adaptation

(figure 7). Besides the element of the environment, McLaughlin & Dietz (2008)

assert to engage social structure and human agency in the analysis of

vulnerability. It would be useful to understand a more integrated perspective of

vulnerability.

25

Notes: cohes = coupled human and environment systems, H = human capital; S = social

capital; C = cultural capital; P = produced capital; N = natural capital

Source: Lin (2013)

Figure 7: The framework of livelihood and vulnerability concept

integration

The concept of vulnerability itself has been the core analysis framework for

various disciplines since the 1980s. Geography and natural hazard research are the

roots of the use of the concept of vulnerability scientifically. Recently,

vulnerability has become a central concept in various research contexts including

livelihood studies (Füssel, 2007). The current literature includes more than 25

different definitions, concepts and methods to systematize vulnerability

(Birkmann, 2006).

The debate over vulnerability definitions and vulnerability assessment

practice has emerged from three broad intellectual lineages: (a) studies that draw

heavily from risk/hazard or biophysical approaches, (b) the application of political

ecological and/or political-economic frameworks, and (c) recent research on

vulnerability inspired by the concept of resilience in ecology (Eakin & Luers,

2006). Early hazards-risk vulnerability studies emphasized the physical system

such as agricultural production, human settlement, etc., or the hazard itself (e.g.,

flooding, coastal erosion, hurricanes, fires, etc.). More recently, other disciplines

Rights

Instructions

Policies

Social

structure

Knowledge/Technology

Culture

Meteorology

Geology

Hydrology

Biology

H

N

P C

S

Access

Vulnerability context-Exposure, sensitivity, adaptability

Poverty-vulnerability traps

Environment system Human System

Adaptive and resilient transformability

Livelihood Cohes Positive

Feedback Loop

Cohes Negative

Feedback Loop

26

have pushed for consideration of the underlying social conditions that make

humans vulnerable (Adger, 2006). Specifically, political ecology and geography

have focused on ‘social vulnerability’ by accentuating socio-economic,

demographic, cultural, and political characteristics, as well as the role of

institutions and governance for shaping vulnerability (Engle, 2011). There are the

extensions of the concept of vulnerability from focusing ‘internal side of risk’,

vulnerability as the likelihood to experience harm, double structure to multi-

structure of vulnerability, and multi-dimensional of vulnerability (Birkmann,

2006) (figure 8).

Source: Birkmann (2006)

Figure 8: Key spheres of the concept of vulnerability

The sustainable Livelihood Approach is one of the conceptual frameworks,

which involve vulnerability in its analysis. Some other conceptual frameworks of

vulnerability are the risk-hazard approach, the political economy approach, the

pressure-and-release model, integrated approaches, and the resilience approach

Vulnerability as the

likelihood to experince

harm (human centred)

Vulnerability as dualistic

approach of susceptibility

and coping capacity

Vulnerability as a multiple structure:

susceptibility, coping capacity,

exposure, adaptive capacity

Multi-dimensional vulnerability

encompassing physical, social, economic,

environmental and institutional features

Vulnerability as

an internal risk

factor (intrinsic

vulnerability)

Widening of the

concept

27

(Füssel, 2007). Other approaches are the double structure of vulnerability, the

ISDR framework for disaster risk reduction, vulnerability in the global

environmental change community, the onion framework, a holistic approach to

risk and vulnerability assessment, and the BBC conceptual framework (Birkmann,

2006).

Etzold (2013) integrates the concept of livelihood, vulnerability, and

Bourdieu’s theory of social practice by applying the double structure of

vulnerability, adopted from Bohle (figure 9). Bohle’s idea is initiated by

Chambers (1989) who defines vulnerability as exposure to contingencies and

stress, and difficulty in coping with them. Thus, Vulnerability has two sides, an

external and an internal. Bohle (2001), then, proposed the double structure of

vulnerability. The "external" perspective refers primarily to the structural

dimensions of vulnerability and risk, while the "internal" dimension of

vulnerability focuses on coping and actions to overcome or at least reduce the

negative impacts of economic and ecological changes. In this context, it refers to

the dialectic relationship between the external and internal side of vulnerability.

Etzold (2013) refers driving force and exposure as the structural factor that

accounts for the kind of vulnerability (vulnerable to what?), whereas sensitivity

and adaptive capacity are main aspects of the agent´s habitus and their social

practices that (should) enable them to organize their everyday life and respond to

stressors. Sensitivity is a social category that generally refers to knowledge

(cultural capital), social networks (social capital), impoverishment (economic

capital), power relations, inequalities and interdependencies and thus to the

specific socio-economic positions of agents. The sensitivity, then, influences the

ability to anticipate and adjust the change (adaptive capacity). Both sensitivity and

adaptive capacity are determined by the position of the agent in the structure of

the field. Together, driving force, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity

produce a certain vulnerability outcome that in turn perpetuates the other factors.

28

Source: Bohle (2001) Source: Etzold (2013)

Figure 9: Bohle´s (left) and Etzold´s model (right) of the double

structure of vulnerability

By integrating the concept of vulnerability and Bourdieu's theory of social

practice in analyzing livelihood, some weaknesses of the livelihood approach are

overcome. The involvement of the vulnerability concept will resolve the problem

of less attention to vulnerable households. Additionally, by applying Bourdieu's

theory of social practice, it will examine the involvement of power-relations in

livelihood vulnerability analysis.

2.4. Bourdieu´s theory of social practice

2.4.1. Bourdieu and human geography

The attention of human geographers in employing the Bourdieu’s concepts

of habitus, field, and capital has increased particularly in social, cultural, urban,

and historical geography since the late 1990s (Etzold, 2013). Moreover, this is

also triggered by the increasing interest of contemporary human geography in

social theory, particularly for German-speaking geographers (Deffner &

Haferburg, 2012). Even, in 2014, the Journal of Geographica Helvetica published

THE DOUBLE STRUCTURE OF VULNERABILITY

COPING

Crisis and Conflict Theory

The ‚external‘ side

of vulnerability

Political Economy Approaches

EXPOSURE

The ‚internal‘ side of

vulnerability

THE DOUBLE STRUCTURE OF VULNERABILITY

SENSITIVITY AND

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

Fields of street food vending

The ‚external‘ side of

vulnerability

Public Spaces as Arena

EXPOSURE TO

DRIVING FORCES

The ‚internal‘ side of

vulnerability

29

the special issue of ‘Bourdieu and development geography’6. The concepts

initiated by Bourdieu, as Everts et al. (2011) note, have been widely used by

German-speaking geographers in studies of a number of contexts (Dirksmeier

2007; Dörfler et al. 2003; Janoschka 2011; Lippuner 2005; Rothfuss 2006).

Cresswell (2013) states that engaging Bourdieu’s theory in human geography is

driven by involving human geography in the theoretical development in social

science. Bourdieu is considered as poststructuralist, which concern in solving the

problem of structure and agency dichotomy.

Bourdieu’s theory is applied by human geography in various ways, namely:

first, as a bridge between structure and agency; second, in relation to class,

cultural capital, choice, and constraint; third, as a perspective on the body,

embodied knowledge, practice, and performance (Setten, 2009). Thrift (1996,

2008) applies the theory of social practice to analyze non-representation theory.

Setten (2004) work with habitus to analyze the relationship between body and

landscape in the landscape practices of a farming community in Southwestern

Norway. Gerber (1997) claims that the concept of habitus can mediate culture and

nature dichotomy. Habitus is also useful for reconciling the duality of the

physical, the mental, and the social world. In line with Gerber’s idea, Fogle

(2011) reveals that habitus can integrate social and physical space. Every social

system must be understood to involve three general components: social space,

physical space, and habitus. Physical space is implicated in the kinesthetic process

of the embodiment of habitus, as well as in the equally kinesthetic practices of

everyday life (Figure 10). In urban space, Bridge (2001) analyzed that

gentrification has built a new field which drives the new habitus and established

new class traditions.

6 See http://www.geogr-helv.net/special_issue281.html

30

Source: Fogle (2011)

Figure 10: The general structure of the dialectic between social

space and physical space

Currently, Bourdieu’s theory of social practice is employed in various

issues. Thrift (2008) applies the concept to develop a non-representational theory.

Some other scholars apply social practice theory to analyze several studies such as

geographies of memory (Maus, 2015), consumption (Warde, 2005; Steigemann,

2017), climate change and human migration (Ober & Sakdapolrak, 2017), and

governance (Zimmer & Sakdapolrak, 2012). In livelihood and vulnerability

studies, the Bourdieu’s idea is also employed some researchers i.e. Thieme

(2008), Obrist, Pfeiffer, & Henley (2010), van Dijk (2011), Didero (2012), Etzold

(2013), and Sakdapolrak (2014). For Etzold & Sakdapolrak (2016), Bourdieu’s

concept of ‘field’ is useful for the geographer to illuminate the sociospatial

categories such as “field”, “arena”, or “mobility”.

2.4.2. Historical background of practice theory

Practice theory is rooted in diverse disciplines, namely philosophy, cultural

theory, social theory (history, sociology, anthropology), and science and

technology studies. Philosophers emphasize the analysis on subjects and objects,

highlight non-propositional knowledge, and illuminate the conditions of

intelligibility. Social theorists employ practice in an attempt to reconcile the

agent-structure dilemma. Cultural theorists depict language as discursive activity

in opposition to structuralist, semiotic, and poststructuralist scholars. Theorists of

science and technology put interest in opposing representation and the

Social Space

Physical Space

Habitus

31

reconsideration of humanist dichotomies between human and non-human entities

(Schatzki, 2001).

Postill (2010) distinguishes practice theorists into two ‘waves’ or

generations. The first generation is the initiator of what now is regarded as

practice theory. The scholars involved in that generation are Bourdieu, de Certeau,

Foucault, and Giddens. Meanwhile, Ortner, Schatzki, Reckwitz, and Warde are

the second generation that is currently testing and developing the theory.

Practice theory actually has been becoming interested among scholars since

nearly 30 years ago. However, there are only a few scientists who explicitly

acquaint themselves as ‘practice theorist' (Soler, Zwart, Lynch, & Israel-Jost,

2014). Together with philosophers, sociologists, and scholars of science, Schatzki

brings back ‘practice' as an important term in contemporary theory (Schatzki,

Cetina, & Savigny, 2001). It is usually called a ‘practice turn’ that is

interchangeably used with ‘practical turn’ or ‘turn to practice’ (Stern, 2003).

The label ‘‘practice theory’’ refers to a group of approaches in late twentieth

century social and cultural theory, which highlights the routinized and

performative character of action, its dependence on tacit knowledge and implicit

understanding (Ritzer & Ryan, 2011). The principle of practice theory is the

refusing of a series of classical dualisms and the confession of the inherent

correlation between elements that are often treated dichotomically (Schatzki,

2001; Reckwitz, 2002; Stern, 2003; Ritzer & Ryan, 2011). These include such

conceptual oppositions as mind and body, cognition and action, objective and

subjective, structure and agency, individual and institutional, free will and

determinism, consciousness and the unconscious, micro and macro (Schatzki,

1996; Reckwitz, 2002). It also opposes numerous current and recent paths of

thinking, such as intellectualism, representationalism, individualisms,

structuralism, structure-functionalism, systems theory, and semiotics (Schatzki,

2001).

According to Reckwitz (2002) the emersion of ‘theories of social practices’

or practice theories’ have made a conceptual alternative, which is disappointed

with both classically modern and high-modern types of social theories. Classically

32

modern social theories embrace the contradictive paradigms between the homo

economicus (the purpose-oriented theory of action) and homo sociologicus (norm-

oriented theory of action). The label ‘high-modern social theories’ in this context

refers to culture-oriented action theories, which involve culturalist mentalism (in

an objectivist and a subjectivist version), culturalist textualism, intersubjectivism

– and practice theory. The practice theory vocabulary then refers to both the

purpose-oriented and the norm-oriented models to explain the action. Reckwitz, as

Eichner (2014) notes, distinguishes three paradigms in the development of social

theory. The first one is normative paradigm (the homo economicus to the homo

sociologicus). The second one is interpretative approaches (from homo

sociologicus to homo symbolicum)7. Lastly, practice theory is included in the

newest paradigm, the praxeological approach.

The concepts of practice, behavior and action have a different meaning.

Behavior assumes that every act in term of an (observable) ‘stimulus’ and an

(observable) ‘response'. Otherwise, action is a reflexive and intentional activity: a

consciously considered, ‘freely' performed activity that is goal oriented. It

includes internal (mental) or external activity (observable muscle activity) as

opposed to a mere response to stimuli (Werlen, 1993). An action is differentiated

from practice, because the classical action theory starts from an end, a motive, a

reflected goal, and is constrained by the conditions of material means and cultural

norms. Nevertheless, most practices are understood as routines and not loaded

with spectacular ‘meanings' at all (Sulkunen, 2009).

A ‘practice’ (praktik) is a routinized type of behaviour which consists

of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily

activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things' and their use, background

knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, emotional states

and motivational knowledge (Reckwitz, 2002).

In a simple way, ‘a practice is something people do, not just once, but on a

regular basis’ (Stern, 2003). Feldman & Orlikowski (2011) characterize practice

theory into three principles. First, the structure of social life is produced by

7 It included the label of ‘high-modern social theories’, the culturalist mentalism, culturalist

textualism, and intersubjectivism.

33

everyday action. Second, practice theory rejects the dualisms and recognizes the

inherent relationship between elements. Third, there is mutual constitution

between structure and agency. Social orders (structures, institutions, routines, etc)

cannot be understood without considering the role of agency in producing them.

Otherwise, agency cannot be simply understood as human action, but rather must

be conceived in relation to structural conditions. Practice theory is the relationality

of mutual constitution.

2.4.3. Bourdieu’s theory of social practice: a conceptual framework

Bourdieu’s theory of social practice consists of a concised formulation,

which involves three related concepts: habitus, capital, and field. The equation is

stated in the book of ‘Distinction’, as follows: ‘‘[(habitus) (capital)] + field =

practice’ (Bourdieu, 1984). Practice, then, is the output of the relation between

one's disposition (habitus) and one's position in a field (capital), in a social arena

(field) (Maton, 2008).

The idea of Bourdieu’s theory of practice starts with the objection of the

objectivism-subjectivism dichotomy. Objectivism, in the form of structuralism, is

criticized because of overstating the role of objective structures and regularities in

the form of social practice and disregarding human agency. Bourdieu also denied

the ideas of subjectivist claiming that human agencies have free will to act

(Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2016).

Bourdieu, habitus is a system of schemes of perception and thought that

maintain particular ways of thinking, behaving, understanding and interpreting the

world (Walther, 2013; Anderson, 2016). Bourdieu (1977) stated that habitus is a

system of dispositions that are durable and transposable.

34

‘…,systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures

predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles

of the generation and structuring of practices and representations

which can be objectively "regulated" and "regular" without in any way

being the product of obedience to rules, objectively adapted to their

goals without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express

mastery of the operations necessary to attain them and, being all this,

collectively orchestrated without being the product of the

orchestrating action of a conductor.’ (Bourdieu, 1977 p.72)

These dispositions are durable because they last a long time. At the same

time dispositions are also transposable because they have a capability to active

within various kinds of social actions. Maton (2008) claim that habitus is as a

property of social agents (individuals, groups, or institutions). Habitus is ‘the feel

for the game’ or the feel for the regularities of social fields (Jenkins, 1992).

Habitus is both structured structures (opus operatum, the result of practices)

and structuring structures (modus operandi, mode of practices) at the same time

(Walther, 2013; Fuch, 2003). Habitus is also "the dialectic of the internalization of

externality and the externalization of internality" (Jenkins, 1992). The habitus is

both structured by conditions of existence composing of an economy of interests

invested and saturated with past and present experiences (Chandler, 2013) and

generates practices, beliefs, perceptions, feelings and so forth in compliance with

its own structure through the system of dispositions. Therefore, Habitus is the link

not only between past, present, and future, but also between the social and the

individual, the objective and subjective, and structure and agency (Maton, 2008).

Capital has a significant role in forming the habitus in the development of

the internalization of structure, especially during childhood. For example, in

education study, there have been many young adults from the working class, who

are talented and academic, dropping out of school only because of a lack of

confidence. In Bourdieu's perspective, this phenomenon can be explained as the

concept of the 'subjective expectations of objective probability' (Yang, 2014).

Bourdieu proposed four forms of capital: economic (money and assets); cultural

(e.g. forms of knowledge; taste, aesthetic and cultural preferences; language,

narrative and voice); social (e.g. affiliations and networks; family, religious and

35

cultural heritage) and symbolic (things that stand for all of the other forms of

capital) (Thomson, 2008). Economic capital is related to one's opportunities and

income. This can be directly exchanged into money and can be institutionalized in

property rights (Bourdieu, 1986). Cultural capital is especially transmitted by

family, education, and probably institutionalized in the forms of educational

qualifications. Cultural capital can be in the form of incorporated (or embodied),

objectivied, and institutionalized cultural capital. Social capital can be

institutionalized in nobility and requires effort to create and maintain it, eg by

reciprocal invitation. Lastly, the notion of symbolic capital is related to honor and

recognition (Walther, 2013).

Habitus and capital do not exist in a vacuum, rather than function in relation

to a field. A field is a social arena within which struggles or maneuvers take place

over specific resources or stakes and access to them. A field constitutes a

structured system of social position (Jenkins, 1992). In a field, habitus as the

system of dispositions that is firstly acquired by the individual through early

childhood socialization shape and orient human action (Swartz, 2002). If the field

is like a game, habitus is ‘the feel for the game’ that leads people to act in a

certain way. The volume and structure of capital play an essential role in

determining the the agent position in the field.

Dörfler et al. (2003) and Walther (2013) illustrated the interplay between

the social field (objective structure) and habitus (agency) in generating social

practice (strategies). Dörfler et al. (2003) state that social practice is not

determined solely by a conscious calculation, but also based on the relation

between subject and society. The relation between subject and society is

characterized by objective power relations and dispositions. The objective power

relations constitute social fields in which the subjects take positions based on the

capital occupied (figure 11).

36

Source: Dörfler et al. (2003)

Figure 11: The conceptual scheme of the logic of practice

Social practice encompasses three main elements, namely field, capital, and

habitus. The interaction of these elements leads to strategy (practice) by investing

capital and fighting for capital. Social practice is the result of a dialectical

relationship between objective structures (field) and subjective dispositions or

habitus (agency). Habitus is produced by social structure (opus operatum) as well

as generate social structure (modus operandi). In a certain situation, habitus can

be in the form of ‘illusio’ when the rules of the social game have been internalized

or have become a collective belief. Habitus also can become ‘doxa’ when actors

act in accordance with their position on the field. This doxa forms the sense of

agent’s position and the feeling of what is possible and what is not (Walther,

2013) (figure 12).

Feld Matrix des Sozialen/

‚Socialer Raum‘

Habitus Gesellschaflich

erworbener

Handlungssinn

Praxis

Objektive Machtbeziehungen

Gesell-

schaft

Subjekt

Dispositionen

Fokus

der

geo

gra

phis

chen

Sozi

alfo

rsch

ung

37

Operandi

Social Field

PRACTICE (Strategy) Investing

Economic capital

Social capital

Cultural capital

Habitus

Illusio Doxa

Rules of the game Determine: Value of type of

capital

Agent’s position Depend on: Relative quantity and

structure of capital

Op

us

Modus

Op

eratu

m

Opus

O

per

atu

m

Opus Operatum

Source: Walther (2013)

Figure 12: The interplay of field, capital, and habitus

A field as a structured social capital contains people who dominate and

others who are dominated. It is because the field is characterized by an unequal

distribution of capital (Lahire, 2015) or asymmetric power relations (Sakdapolrak,

2007). The rules of the game in the field are commonly set by the powerful

players or the dominant actors that is endowed with the largest volume and the

best structure capital (Sakdapolrak, 2007).

Then, social actors continue to be involved in struggle and competition by

applying various strategies to maintain or improve their position in a field

(Raedeke, Green, Hodge, & Valdivia, 2000; Sakdapolrak, 2007; Maton, 2008;

Thomson, 2008). A strategy is associated with the "maximizing of material and

symbolic profit". For Bourdieu, strategies encompass conservation, succession,

and subversion. Conservation strategies tend to be overtaken by those who hold

dominant positions and take the position of seniority in the field. Strategies of

38

succession are efforts to have access to dominant positions in a field and are

generally pursued by the new entrants. Finally, the strategy of subversion is

sought by those who expect to obtain little from the dominant groups (Swartz,

1997). In other words, the practices designed to maintain one’s position are

reproduction strategies and practices used to either acquire a greater volume of

capital or new types of capital or alter the field of practice are named by

reconversion strategies (Raedeke, Green, Hodge, & Valdivia, 2003).

Sakdapolrak (2007) illustrates the theory of Bourdieu by integrating the

elements forming and influencing social practice in such an interesting figure. He

distinguishes the concept of network and field. Fields are defined by differential

relations between properties, while networks are defined by actual connections. In

a field, unlike in a network, people with little interaction with one another can be

grouped together very closely. Based on the sakdapolrak’s illustration, Etzold

(2013) adds the arena in the so-called socio-structural layers beside the field and

the network. The term arena refers to Bourdieu’s notion of the occupied or

appropriated physical space in order to describe the spatial representations or

effects of social fields. Compared to the field which is considered space-less arena

emphasizes the actual physical presence of space (space-based and non spaced-

based) of agents, the spatial distance or proximity between them, their own spatial

practices, and the visible material manifestations (products). Etzold gives an

example of streets and other public spaces as an arena. They are distinct physical

places, where agents know one another and recognize their common interests. A

shared identity, in turn, builds the foundation for their interaction and enables

collective and political action (figure 13).

39

Source: Sakdapolrak (2007)

Source: Etzold (2013)

Figure 13: Sakdapolrak’s (top) and Etzold´s schematic

illustration (bottom) of Bourdieu’s practice theory

Direct network relationsIndirect field relations

Draft: Etzold 11/2010Based on Sakdapolrak 2007:55

Agent

AgentAgent

Agent

Agent

Agent

Agent

Agent

Agent

40

Strategy is the habitus in action (Lingard & Christie, 2003). The strategy is

based on mastery of its logic acquired through experience, part of habitus (Eacott,

2010). In other words, a strategy is the product of a practical sense of a certain

‘social game’ that is engendered by habitus (Anderson, 2016). The concept of

habitus, practical mastery of the logic, and strategy is used by Bourdieu as the

effort to get away from objectivism without falling into subjectivism (Lamaison &

Bourdieu, 1986).

Habitus as the system of disposition suggests "capability" and "reliability,"

not frequency or repetition. Disposition suggests that past socialization

"predisposes" individuals to act out what they have internalized from past

experience but does not "determine" them to do so. The dispositions of habitus

shape and orient human action; they do not determine it (Swartz, 2002).

The disposition of habitus can either be continued or changed. The past

behavior can be successfully reproduced when the fields consist of similar

constraints and opportunities compared to those present during the formative

period of the habitus. In fact, however, the fit between the dispositions of habitus

and the structures of the situation is seldom perfect. This causes the habitus to be

also adjusted in accordance with the changes (Swartz, 1997). Even, when there is

a remarkable gap between field opportunities and habitus expectations, there will

be the hysteresis of habitus (Bourdieu, 1977). Yang (2014) states that hysteresis is

associated with a high level of risk that is potential to urge the change of habitus.

Agents are not puppets whose actions are fully determined by external field

forces. Agents have a certain level of freedom in their choice of strategies and

practices. In other words, they have a certain level of agency in their struggle for

relative positions on the social field (Walther, 2013).

Practice and strategies involve a permanent dialectic between organizing

consciousness and automatic behaviors (Bourdieu, 1990). Some parts of human

actions can be determined more or less unconsciously whereas others are

determined as a consequence of conscious, and perhaps rational, decision making.

The unconscious level is used when the behavior reference has been embedded in

habitus. In case the reference of behavior is not provided in the habitus, then the

41

consciousness must be invoked to provide a decision that will complete the set of

dispositions required to determine the action to be implemented. The strategies

undertaken are based on habitus that is the result of structure internalization and a

lifetime of critical reflection upon agent experiences, including their experiences

of those structures (Elder-Vass, 2007). In other words, strategy conducted by

agents takes place at more than one level. An actor performs certain conscious

calculations in a particular ‘game’ (the rules ‘determined’ by the relatively

autonomous logic of that field). However, the strategy he or she adopts may also

have unconscious "determinants". That is, they may be unconscious on one level,

yet conscious of another (Potter, 2000). Potter easily explains this in the following

illustration:

‘For example, a manual laborer’s son “decides” not to try hard to answer a

difficult arithmetic problem on a school test. Underlying this “decision”,

is perhaps a habitualized but nonetheless relatively rationally

justifiable stance: that “academic achievement is not for people like

me, so why should I bother? It won’t give me any advantage”. But yet

he is not consciously thinking about the facts and logic which might

support this argument; he is simply doodling and day dreaming during

his arithmetic test. However, he both understands, and could, if pressed,

articulate a version of the social mobility argument alluded to (he

has possibly heard something like it all his life—from his father, friends

and even his teachers). The argument itself (as he understands it) is

neither wholly individual or non-individual. Rather, he has individualized

(applied to himself) an argument which is essentially collective (that is,

class based and probabilistic).’ (Potter, 2000 p. 241)

2.5. Theoretical framework

Livelihood encompasses capabilities, asset, and activities. Capabilities and

assets are essential to encounter vulnerability contexts such as shock and trends.

Capabilities refer to the ability to find opportunities. Therefore capabilities are

proactive and dynamically adaptable (Chambers & Conway, 1991). The definition

of livelihood is a set of activities and strategies pursued by household members,

using their various assets in order to make a living. In the SLA framework,

‘livelihood strategies are the proactive actions that refer to the range and

combination of activities and choices’. Through productive activities, investment

42

strategies, reproductive choices, etc., people can attain their livelihood goals.

(DFID, 2000).

Based on its assumptions, SLA is criticized because it portrays people as

homo economicus that act freely without considering the non-economic elements

such as perception, norms, values, etc. The framework is also built under the

assumption that agents have the capability to improve their livelihood without

considering the structural constraints and power-relations. The vulnerability is

only understood as an external factor. Every actor has the same opportunities and

can act freely to overcome the circumstances without taking into account the

possibilities of unequal power relationships among agents.

This dissertation is integrating the concept of livelihood, vulnerability and

Bourdieu's theory of social practice to overcome some criticism related to the

livelihood approach. By adopting Bohle’s concept of the double structure of

vulnerability, livelihood vulnerability refers to the dialectic relationship between

the external and internal side. The exposure as the external side is interrelated and

influenced either direct or indirect to tobacco-based livelihood. The impacts of the

exposure to household livelihood depend on the capability of the agent to

maintain or improve their livelihood through a set of strategies. Strategies are also

called as social practices (Hurtado, 2010; Walther, 2013).

Livelihood strategies that are considered as social practices are the result of

the interplay between agent's dispositions (habitus) and agent’s position (capital)

in the field of tobacco. Habitus as the system of dispositions is influenced by the

social factor and a lifetime of critical reflections upon actor's experiences. This is

managed in the mental world through the social-psychological process. The

mental world provides economy of interests, which is culturally obtained from

structure. The variety of interests among agents is caused by differences in capital

that they possess. The social-psychological process negotiates the cultural

interests (Chandler, 2013). The process can be guided by structure internalization

that will generate the automatic behavior. The fit between the disposition and the

field drive the habitus reproduction. The social-psychological process is also

oriented by the critical reflection (reflexivity), which may be driven by the gap

43

between the habitus and structure or between expectations and reality. The change

of restraints and opportunities in the field is one of the impetuses of the

reflexivity.

Habitus is ‘the feel for the game’ that guides people to act in a certain way.

A field denotes a structured system of social positions. Social positions are

determined by the volume and structure of capital possessed. The capital is

unequally distributed in the field. Therefore, the power relations among agents are

asymmetric. There are dominant and dominated agents. The different position in

the field causes diverse livelihood strategies undertaken and generates varying

degrees of vulnerability between agents (figure 14).

44

Figure 14: Theoretical framework of the dissertation

Source: My own draft (08/05/19)

(Internal side of livelihood vulnerability)

CAPITAL CC

■ Volume and composition ■ Value of type of capital

EC

SoC

SyC

The social-

psychological

processes HABITUS

Critical reflection (reflexivity)

Habitus reproduction

CULTURAL INTERESTS

LIVELIHOOD

STRATEGIES

AGENT

Note: EC: economic capital, SoC: social capital, CC: cultural capital, and SyC: symbolic capital

EXPOSURE

(External side of livelihood vulnerability)

FIELD

Unequal power-relations Dominant-dominated agents

Habit

us

Capital

Agent Agent

Habit

us

Capital

Agent

Habit

us

Capital

Agent

45

Research Design and Methodology

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 15: Basket (kenthung) sales for sliced drying tobacco

packaging in the Parakan market

3

46

3.1. Introduction: philosophy, theory, and methods

Research design involves theory, approaches, and methods. It links to

philosophy and geographical knowledge (Graham, 2005). Philosophy is helpful to

contextualize and justify the answers to research questions. Philosophy makes

geographical knowledge more systematic. The theory helps to extend the

knowledge to the experiences of everyday life (Aitken & Valentine, 2006).

In human geography, there are four groups of philosophies namely:

empirist, positivist, humanistic, and structuralist (Johnston, 1986). Cresswell

(2013) states that in the post-1980s human geography has involved the ‘post-

position’ such as post-colonialism, post-humanism, as well as post-structuralism.

Poststructuralism strives to solve the problem of structure (and therefore agency).

Pierre Bourdieu is one of the scholars, which is categorized as poststructuralist.

This research tries to solve the problem of dualism particularly between

‘agency’ and ‘structure’, which is embedded in the livelihood and vulnerability

perspective. This view has been employed by development geography concerning

studies of poverty and inequality. The basic assumption developed by livelihood

approaches in understanding the poor (agent) is parallel with the ongoing debate

of structure and agency. The debate seems to be important to meet alternative

perspectives that are neither structural nor agent-oriented. Some human

geographers apply Bourdieu’s theory of social practice as an alternative view to

analyze people’s livelihoods.

3.2. Research approach

3.2.1. Qualitative approach

The choice of using social practice theory brings the consequence of

determining the methodology used. The Bourdieusian perspective essentially

adopts a qualitative approach (Grenfell, 2014). A qualitative approach is

categorized as intensive research design, which tends to emphasize on in-depth

inquiry and investigation. It portrays a small number of cases studies with a more

detailed illustration. It is different from the extensive research design that

emphasizes on representation and generalization that is generated by involving

47

large samples. It usually engages questionnaires, large-scale surveys, and

statistical analysis (Clifford, French, & Valentine, 2010).

Qualitative research has some characteristics, firstly, focusing on how

people figure out and interpret their experiences. The understanding of the

phenomenon is from themselves, not from outsider’s view. Secondly, the primary

instrument of data collection and analysis is the researcher. The human instrument

can generate data that are more accurate by involving both verbal and non-verbal

communication. Thirdly, the research process is inductive where concepts or

theories can be built form the field rather than deductively testing hypotheses.

Finally, the product of a qualitative approach is richly descriptive obtained from

diverse sources and methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

3.2.2. Case study

A qualitative approach has various types of methods. A case study is one of

the type of qualitative approaches beside comparative, retrospective, snapshots

and longitudinal studies (Flick, 2004). For Yin (2016) case study is one of the

twelve other methods in a qualitative approach.

‘Case’ means a human activity that is always embedded in the real world

and can only be studied or understood in context. A case can be an individual,

group (family, class), institutional (school, factory), or community (a town, a

rural). A case can be single or multiple. A single case only involves one group,

institution, or community. Meanwhile, multiple cases comprise several groups,

institutions, or communities. In the qualitative approach, a case study is a primary

method that involves some sub-methods such as interviews, observations,

document and record analysis, work samples, and so on. The various sub-methods

employed together on the same issue are called multi-method approach (Gillham,

2000).

This dissertation employs a case study on the livelihood vulnerability of

tobacco growers living in Sumbing-Sindoro Sumbing (SSM) by applying the

concept of livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social practice.

Grenfell & James (1998) claim that case studies offer an excellent opportunity to

research in a Bourdieusian way. It can grasp individual life trajectories as the

48

entrance into their habitus. It is also possible to investigate the interaction between

habitus and field in empirical terms. Furthermore, field analysis that helps to map

out livelihood strategies and the livelihoods of vulnerable groups within a web of

power-laden social relations can be dismantled. Tobacco communities’ case

studies will be beneficial to map the field, rule, and distribution of capitals. The

social practices or livelihood strategies carried out by households can be

identified.

3.3. Research structures

3.3.1. Research site

This research is conducted in Temanggung regency, Central Java province,

Indonesia. Residency of Kedu, today named Temanggung, was well known as a

tobacco-producing area since 1746. The tobacco in this area is cultivated in high

places, especially in Sumbing and Sindoro mountainside, with a diverse agro-

ecosystem (dry land, rainfed, irrigated fields) and topography ranging from flat

areas, air-hills, up the slopes with a slope of 60° (Nurnasari & Djumali, 2010;

Rochman & Suwarso, 2000).

Temanggung is a famous place producing tobacco with a typical high

quality, low sugar, and high nicotine level, which is very important for a cigarette,

manufacturers to produce kretek. Nitisastro (2016) noted that Temanggung

tobacco contains 1.0-8.0 % of nicotine. Meanwhile, the tobacco containing the

highest nicotine, srinthil, contains about 5-8 % of nicotine (Djajadi, 2015). The

best quality of tobacco is produced at altitude of more than 1,000 meters and

positioned at the slope to the northeast and north. The diversity of the growing

areas causes a variety of tobacco qualities produced (Mamat, Sitorus,

Hardjomidjojo, & Seta, 2006).

49

3.3.2. Villages selection

This research is focused on two villages namely Gentingsari village, Bansari

sub-district, and Pagergunung village, Bulu sub-district. These villages are chosen

because they are located in different agro-systems. Gentingsari village represents

an area, where farmers plant tobacco in the ricefields and is situated on the slope

of Mt. Sindoro. Meanwhile, Pagergunung village is situated on the slope of Mt.

Sumbing in which farmers planted tobacco in a dry land with an elevation more

than 1,000 meters.

3.3.3. Research steps

This research encompasses three steps:

a. Examine the exposures. It involves the identification of exposures that

influence tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability. The primary data is

investigated to grasp the perception of tobacco peasant households related to

the forces affecting their livelihood. The secondary data is collected to seek

global, national, and local state associated with the sustainability of tobacco

peasant livelihood. Official and non-official sources are used.

b. Analyze the influences of exposures on tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability.

Exposure is considered to cause the tobacco-based livelihood vulnerability.

c. Investigate the livelihood strategies employed by agents. This step tries to

reach the livelihood strategies taken among the agents in the social field.

Bourdieu’s field analysis including map out the objective structure of relations

between the positions occupied by agents who compete for the legitimate

forms of specific authority of which the field is a site and analyze the habitus

or disposition system of agents (Grenfell & James, 1998; Grenfell & Hardy,

2007; Grenfell, 2008; Grenfell and Lebaron, 2014). The position and

disposition in the field cause the different livelihood strategies employed.

Based on the strategies undertaken, it is useful to examine who among the

agents whose livelihoods are most vulnerable.

50

3.4. Data collection and methods

One of the characteristics of a qualitative approach is triangulation of data

and methods (Cope, 2010). Therefore, to collect data for this dissertation on

livelihood vulnerability of tobacco farmers in Central Java, Indonesia, this

research employs multiple data and methods. There were several methods used,

namely interview (semi-structured interview, unstructured key informant

interviews, and unstructured in-depth interviews), Focus Group Discussion

(FGD), and participant observation. This research also uses both primary and

secondary data. The detail description about the methods used is in the following:

3.4.1. Primary data

3.4.1.1. Interviews

Interviews are verbal interchanges where the interviewer tries to obtain

information from another person. The interviews can be structured, unstructured,

and semi-structured (Dunn, 2010). A structured interview is directed by a detailed

script, which is prepared before the interview. Semi-structured interview

underlines the importance of a guide rather than a script (Mann, 2016). However,

the interviewer has prepared for the listed question; a semi-structured interview is

possible to offer the participant to explore the issues that are considered to be

significant (Longhurst, 2010). Unstructured interview relies on a few open-ended

questions. The interviewer stimulates the interviewees to talk at length about what

they are experiencing and what seems significant for their life (Weiss, 1994).

Research interviews are useful for some reasons. The complex behaviors,

motivations investigation, or examination of the diversity of meaning, opinion, or

experience can be grasped through an interview that may be unreachable by other

methods. Besides, the interview is beneficial in dismantling the interviewee's

interior experiences and embracing the perception, thought, and feeling of a

certain event (Weiss, 1994).

51

This dissertation uses semi-structured interview, unstructured interview, and

an in-depth interview, which is described as follows:

1. Semi-structured interview: the interviews involved 30 households in each

village of Gentingsari and Pagergunung. The household interviewed considers

the position of farmers in the field of tobacco such as tobacco merchants,

pengrajin, perajang, gaok, and tobacco growers in the position of suppliers

with diverse land tenure (small, medium, and large).

Photo by Arif

Figure 16: Semi-structured interview with tobacco growers

2. Unstructured key informant interviews: the interview involves several key

informants as following:

The head of the Department of Agriculture, Estate Crops, and Forestry

(Dinas Pertanian, Perkebunan, dan Kehutanan),

The head and staff of the Implementing Agency of Agricultural, Fisheries,

and Forestry Extension (BP4K),

Organization staff of APTI (Association of Indonesian Tobacco Farmers),

Peasants producing ‘srinthil‘, high quality of tobacco

The village head of Legoksari,

52

Peasants who adopted ‘Tlahab cultivation system’ which combines coffee,

tobacco, and suren tree.

Photo by Arif

Figure 17: Unstructured key informant interviews with the head of

the Department of Agriculture, Estate Crops, and Forestry

3. Unstructured in-depth interviews: this type of interviews was conducted in

more depth to farmers in various position in the field of tobacco including

tobacco merchants, pengrajin, perajang, gaok, and tobacco growers in the

position of suppliers with diverse land tenure (small, medium, and large). The

participants were asked related to their experiences, both bad and good, in

making a livelihood with tobacco growing activities and what strategies they

conduct to make a sustainable livelihood.

3.4.1.2. Focus group discussion

Focus group discussion (FGD) is the discussion involving a group of people

selected by the researcher related to a specific set of issues or topics of the

research subject (Powell & Single, 1996). The people participating in the

discussion for one and a half to two hours can contain six to eight people (Patton,

2002). The essential purpose of focus group research is to identify a range of

different views around the research issue and to obtain comprehension of the topic

from the perspective of the participants themselves (Hennink, 2007).

53

FGD is useful to grasp participants’ views on a particular issue, the different

opinions among the various social groups, and the gap between what people say

and do. Furthermore, the method is fruitful to develop interview questions,

disseminate research result, and get feedback (Conradson, 2005). FGD is

sometimes helpful to investigate specific sensitive topics (Bloor, Frankland,

Thomas, & Robson, 2001). It also can generate a wide range of data in a quick

time and be applied in a flexible way (Hennink, 2014).

Focus Group Discussions were held in two areas with different agrosystems.

The two FGDs involved tobacco farmers that have various positions in the

tobacco field, such as tobacco growers, gaok, and tobacco merchants. There are

seven tobacco farmers in Pagergunung and eight tobacco growers in Gentingsari

villages, which participated in the FGDs.

Photo by Gilang

Figure 18: Focus group discussion in Pagergunung village

3.4.1.3. Participant observation

Participant observation is a method where the researcher involves and has

personal involvement in the daily activities of particular communities (Laurier,

2010; Hoggart, Lees, & Davies, 2002). The researcher spends the time to live

and/or work with them in order to comprehend how they make life ‘from the

inside’ (Cook, 2005). The basis of this approach is to become, or stay, as close to

54

the spatial phenomenon being studied as possible (Laurier, 2010). Participant

observation is one way to learn about the explicit and tacit aspects of routine and

cultural life in certain groups of people or communities (DeWalt & DeWalt,

2011).

Spradley (1980) classifies the participation type of the researcher in the

fieldwork. From the lowest to the highest level of involvement, sequentially, they

are non-participant, passive, moderate, active, and complete participation. This

dissertation posits the researcher in moderate participation. Moderate participation

occurs when the researcher seeks to maintain a balance between being an insider

and an outsider, between participation and observation. The researcher was

involved in some tobacco farmers activities that are related to the dissertation

questions.

The researcher stayed in the field area for approximately six months that is

divided into two periods each for three months. During the stay, the researcher

conducted a series of activities in accordance with the methods that had been

developed previously. The methods used are not rigid, rather more flexible, so

that they can be adjusted to the field conditions. In addition, the researcher also

participated in several daily activities carried out by farmers.

Photo by Arif

Figure 19: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (1)

55

Photo by Arif

Figure 20: Involving tobacco grower daily activities (2)

3.4.2. Secondary data

For Cloke et al. (2004), data can be divided into pre-constructed and self-

constructed geographical data. Preconstructed geographical data is data that has

been constructed or ‘made' by somebody else at a previous moment in time.

Meanwhile, self-constructed geographical data is data that is collected or

constructed by researchers themselves through active fieldwork. The first can be

referred to as secondary data, and the second is usually referred to as primary

data.

Secondary data means information that has already been collected by

someone else and which is available for the researcher to use (Clark, 2005). The

data can be in the form of official, non-oficial, and imaginative sources. Official

source is published by a government that may be available in textual, graphical

and cartographical, aural or numerical in form. A non-official source can be

reference material (academic books, journals, and articles), research report,

company report, documentary media (broadcast news, documentary programs,

photographs, newspaper and press reports, publicity and promotional material,

personal documents, and maps. Lastly, imaginative sources can be in the form of

56

literature (novels, poetry), music, the performing arts, the visual arts, film,

photography, architecture and electronic media (Cloke, et al., 2004).

Secondary data can provide information about the area and people’s

characteristics in the present and the past. This data can be employed as a

reference for in-depth research or for a more ‘intensive’ investigation (White,

2010; Clark, 2005). Secondary data provide three overlapping types of context

(geographical, historical and socio-economic) which is useful for the researcher

employing a case study method. The researcher can make comparative studies

based on the three types of context (Clark, 2005).

In this dissertation, the secondary data include both the official and non-

official source. The official sources are useful to gain data related to geographical

condition, meteorological and socio-economic characteristics, tobacco

development production and policies, and community livelihood. The data were

obtained from the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), Agricultural Bureau,

Development Planning Agency at Sub-National Level (Bappeda), The Sweetener

and Fiber Crops Research Institute (Balittas) and the Directorate General of Estate

Crops (ditjenbun). Meanwhile, the non-official sources were gained from WHO

reports, FAOstat, Indonesian Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI), academic

books, journals, articles, research reports, and documentary media such as

newspapers and maps.

3.5. Validity and data analysis

3.5.1. Validity

Validation research procedure can be made by using triangulation that is

popularized by Norman Denzin in 1989 (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson,

2001). In social research, the term 'triangulation' is used as a strategy to validate

the procedures and results of empirical social research (Flick, 2004).

Triangulation is commonly embedded in a qualitative approach by combining

different methods (Flick, 2007).

According to Flick (2004) triangulation encompasses data, investigator,

theory, and methodological triangulation. Triangulation of data combines data

57

obtained from various sources and at different times, in different places or from

different people. Investigator triangulation is characterized by the use of different

observers or interviewers, to balance out the subjective influences of individuals.

Triangulation of theories means ‘approaching data with multiple perspectives and

hypotheses. Methodological triangulation includes the ‘within-method’ (for

example, the use of different subscales within a questionnaire) and the ‘between-

method’.

This dissertation adopts methodological, data, and theory triangulation.

There are various methods used, namely interview (semi-structured interview,

unstructured key informant interviews, and unstructured in-depth interviews),

FGD, and participant observation. It also applies both primary (self-constructed

data) and secondary data (pre-constructed data). Several theories, concepts, and

perspectives namely livelihood, vulnerability, and social practice theory are

employed in this dissertation.

3.5.2. Qualitative data analysis

The data in this dissertation is examined by using qualitative data analysis.

This analysis encompasses the process of describing phenomena, classifying it,

and seeing how interconnection among concepts (Dey, 1993). Comprehensive

descriptions of the phenomenon to study are the first step in the qualitative

analysis. They include three aspects, namely the context of action, the intentions

of the actor, and the process in which action is embedded. Classifying is

associated with the process of splitting the data up into parts and specifying them

to categories or classes, which unite these parts again. Classifying the data lays

the conceptual foundations for analysis. Connecting among concepts in qualitative

analysis can be made by examining the association between different variables

and using structural or causal analysis (figure 21).

58

Source: Dey (1993)

Figure 21: A circular process of qualitative analysis

Meanwhile, Miles & Huberman (1994) classified qualitative data analysis

into three components, namely: data reduction, data display, and conclusions

(drawing/verification). Data reduction involves to the action of selecting,

focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data sourced from field

notes or transcriptions. The process of data reduction or transformation is carried

out continuously starting from the collection and analysis of field data to the

completion of the final report. Display data that includes types of matrices,

graphs, charts, and networks is a collection of organized information that allows

Qualitative

Analysis

Connecting Classifiyng

Describing

Data

Describing

Connecting

Classifying

Account

59

researchers to draw conclusions. The third step of the analysis activity is drawing

conclusions and verification. Data reduction, data display, and conclusion

drawing/verification are takes place before, during, and after data collection in

parallel. The whole process is called 'analysis' (figure 22).

Source: Miles & Huberman (1994)

Figure 22: Component of data analysis: an interactive model

Data

Collection

Data

Display Data

Reduction

Conclusions:

drawing/verification

60


61

The Case Study Area

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 23: Tobacco growers’ village on Sumbing mountainside

4

62

4.1. General Overview

Temanggung regency is located in Central Java province with 110o23’-

110o46’30’’ east longitude, and between 7

o14’-7

o32’35’’ south latitude. In terms

of geographic position, it is bordered on the north by Kendal and Semarang

regency. In the south and west, Temanggung has a boundary with Magelang and

Wonosobo regency. Finally, in the east, the region is adjacent to Semarang and

Magelang areas (figure 27).

Administratively, in 2017, Temanggung is divided into twenty sub-districts

consisting of 266 villages (desa); 23 urban villages (kelurahan); 1,354 hamlets

(dusun); 1,529 sub-hamlets (Rukun Warga-RW); and 5,692 neighborhoods

(Rukun Tetangga-RT) (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a). The division of the

administrative area from the province to the smallest unit such as villages,

hamlets, RT, and RW is based on the village government law, UU No. 5 1979

(Presiden RI, 1979). The administrative structure from province to neighborhood

unit can be seen in figure 24.

Province Propinsi

Region Kabupaten

District Kecamatan

Village Desa

Kelurahan

Hamlet Dusun

Lingkungan

Sub-Hamlet Rukun Warga (RW)

Neighbourhood unit Rukun Tetangga (RT)

Source: adapted from Warren (1990)

Figure 24: Administrative structure of local government in Indonesia

Desa and kelurahan have the same level in the government hierarchy. In its

management, however, desa is more autonomous, having genuine authority to

regulate and manage their own households. The village head (kepala desa) is not

appointed by the government, but he is elected by the local inhabitants or

63

villagers. The village is formed not only because of its territorial aspects but also

from the genealogy background, such as a clan or ethnic group. Village regulation

is a function of community self-government (Presiden RI, 2014).

Meanwhile, kelurahan is formed primarily because of territorial

considerations and population density. It is also based on certain criteria, which

indicate that the area belongs to the urban categories. These indicators include

population density, percentage of agricultural households, and the existence or

access to urban facilities such as education, health, and others. Therefore,

kelurahan is characterized by a high population density, low dependence on

agriculture, and easy access to various urban facilities such as education and

health (BPS, 2010). Lurah as the head of the kelurahan is not elected by the

community as in the village head election but is appointed by the government.

Hence, lurah is directly responsible to the sub-district government, camat. The

status of lurah is a civil servant (Presiden RI, 2005).

The Temanggung regency is mostly a plateau with an altitude between 500-

1,450 m with 87,065 ha of total land area. Based on elevation, 22 % of the land is

at an altitude of more than 1,000 m (figure 25). Around 38 % of the area is on a

slope between 15 % and 40 % (steep). Meanwhile, 17,983 ha (21.64 %) of land is

at the gradient of more than 40 % (very steep) (figure 26).

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2016a) Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2016a)

Figure 25: Total land area based on

altitude in Temanggung regency

Figure 26: Total land area based on

slope in Temanggung regency

10%

44% 24%

14%

8%

400-500 m

500-750 m

750-1,000 m

1,000-1,500 m

> 1,500 m

1%

39%

38%

22%

0-2 % (flat)

2-15 % (sloping)

15-40 % ( steep)

> 40 % (very steep)

64

Gentingsari village, Bansari sub-district and Pagergunung village, Bulu sub-

district that are the focus areas in this study are located at an altitude of 850 m and

1,100 m, respectively. Gentingsari has a total area of 59.36 ha. Meanwhile, the

area of Pagergunung village is 388.62 ha. Gentingsari consists of three hamlets,

three RW, and six RT. Meanwhile, Pagergunung consists of four hamlets, six

RW, and fourteen RT.

Temanggung regency is flanked by two high mountains namely Mt.

Sumbing (3,340 m) and Sindoro (3,150 m) (figure 28). These two mountains,

known as the twin volcanoes, are active volcanos despite their activities are very

limited. However, in 2011, the volcanic activity of Mt. Sindoro increased,

followed by earthquakes. Mt. Prahu is another mountain, which is located in

Temanggung with an altitude of 2,650 m. Tobacco is planted on the slopes of the

mountains, especially in the Sumbing and Sindoro Mountainside, which is famous

for its good quality.

The geographical conditions and topography of the Temanggung region,

which is mostly located on the mountainside, make this area to have many

springs. The inhabitants can access 720 springs for their daily needs. Until 2012,

there were 16 natural springs that have been managed by local water supply

company (PDAM) (Pemerintah Kab. Temanggung, 2014).

This area is traversed by several watersheds (DAS) including the Progo,

Bodri, and Serayu. DAS Progo consists of several sub-watersheds (Sub-DAS),

namely Tangsi, Elo, and Progo Hulu. Meantime, the Bodri watershed includes

sub-DAS Logung, Lutut, and Putih. The longest river that passes Temanggung

regency is the Kali Progo, which is 57 kilometers long. The river is the primary

water sources for irrigation.

65

Figure 27: Map of Temanggung regency

Mt. Sumbing

3,340 m

Mt. Sindoro

3,150 m

Mt. Prahu

2,650 m

Source: Bappeda Kabupaten Temanggung (2013)

66

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 28: Mt. Sumbing (left) and Mt. Sindoro (right)

67

315

263

334

285

140

84

132

26

62

91

260

341

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Temanggung has a temperature range from 20oC to 30

oC. Some sub-districts

such as Tretep, Bulu, Tembarak, Ngadirejo, and Candiroto have a cooler climate.

Meanwhile, the average annual rainfall during 2013-2017 was around 2,315 mm

(BMKG, 2018). The rainfall during June-September is not appropriate for tobacco

cultivation. The less rainfall during the period, the better the tobacco quality and

quantity that can be produced. Based on table 1 and figure 29, in 2015, this was

the best weather for tobacco growing, because there was almost no rain at the time

of tobacco planting (around June) and harvesting (August-September). On the

contrary, in 2013, 2014, and 2016, there was an intensive rainfall in June and July.

This has an impact on declining tobacco production in this region.

Table 1: Rainfall and rainy days in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017

Month

Year Average

rainfall

(mm)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Rainfall

(mm)

rainy

day

Rainfall

(mm)

rainy

day

Rainfall

(mm)

rainy

day

Rainfall

(mm)

rainy

day

Rainfall

(mm)

rainy

day

Jan 325 18 389 17 263 13 269 13 329 24 315

Feb 160 13 156 13 333 16 290 16 374 21 263

Mar 513 17 230 12 459 13 254 15 216 18 334

Apr 224 14 123 7 537 16 159 14 382 16 285

May 192 9 113 7 86 4 205 9 106 8 140

Jun 126 11 0 0 2 1 150 7 141 7 84

Jul 149 5 188 10 0 0 293 12 28 2 132

Aug 23 1 16 2 0 0 77 7 14 1 26

Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 17 60 5 62

Oct 120 8 58 3 0 0 NA NA 186 16 91

Nov 127 13 237 14 219 14 358 22 358 18 260

Dec 132 15 325 18 382 21 513 21 352 17 341

Total 2,091 124 1,835 103 2,281 98 2,820 153 2,546 153 2,315

Source: BMKG (2018)

Figure 29: The average rainfall (mm) in Temanggung regency by month,

2013-2017

68

4.2. Population

Temanggung had 759,120 inhabitants in 2017 (BPS Kabupaten

Temanggung, 2018a). The population growth during 2010-2017 was 0.96 %. This

figure is higher than the rate of population growth in Central Java, which was 0.78

% and lower than Indonesia, which was 1.36 % in the same year. In 2017, the

population density was 872 inhabitants per kilometer square; lower than the

Central Java provincial figure of 1,053 inhabitants/km2 (BPS Propinsi Jawa

Tengah, 2018a). Temanggung regency has 213,995 households with a number of

3.55 members per household in average (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a).

Based on the age group, the percentage of the inhabitant in Temanggung

regency that is included in the productive age category (15-65 years old) is 68.24

%. Meanwhile, in the two focus villages of the study in 2017, the population

figure for productive age was 71.14 % in Gentingsari and 69.69 % in

Pagergunung village. Furthermore, the age dependency ratio (percentage of

working-age population) in Temanggung regency, Gentingsari, and Pagergunung

in a row was 46.55 %, 40.57 %, and 43.49 %. The number indicates that the age

dependency ratio is low because the amount is below 50 %.

The description of population structure based on age group can be depicted

by the population pyramid. This can portray the age-sex distribution

simultaneously. Generally, there are three main shapes of the pyramid, namely:

expansive, constrictive, and stationary. The expansive shape is characterized by

the fast-growing populations, where the birth rate is high and more significant

than the previous year. The constrictive shape shows lower percentages of

younger population along with low birth rates. Lastly, when there are similar

percentages for almost all age groups, the population pyramid is stationary

(Korenjak-Cerne, Kejžar, & Batagelj, 2008). Based on figure 30, 31, and 32, the

population pyramid of Temanggung regency, Gentingsari, and Pagergunung

village seem to be in the constrictive shape. The population under 15 years in

those areas was around 20 %.

69

15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

65+

Percent of population

Age

Female Male

15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

65 +


Age

Female Male

15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-2930-34

35-39

40-44

45-4950-54

55-59

60-64

65 +


Age

Female Male

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018a)

Figure 30: Population pyramid of Temanggung

regency, 2017

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b)

Figure 31: Population pyramid of Gentingsari

village, 2017

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018c)

Figure 32: Population pyramid of Pagergunung

village, 2017

70

4.3. Education

BPS (2017) noted that in 2017, in the urban area of Indonesia, the average

years of schooling of population age 15 years and over was 9.35 years.

Meanwhile, in the rural area, the figure was 7.30 years or equivalent to second

grade in junior high school. In the same year, the average years of schooling in

Temanggung regency was 6.9 years. This number is lower than the average figure

in Central Java province of 7.27 years (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2017).

The people of Temanggung regency show low literacy. In 2017, as many as

21 % of the population did not complete primary school, 36 % were graduated

from elementary school, 5 % were college graduates, and the rest (38 %) were

senior and junior school graduates (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a) (figure

33). In Gentingsari dan Pagergunung village, the education of the people is

generally lower. In the villages of Gentingsari and Pagergunung, respectively, 79

% and 83 % of the population only graduated from elementary school or less

(figure 34 and 35).


Figure 33: The education level of the residents of

Temanggung regency, 2017

College

5% Senior high

school

15%

Junior High

School

23%

Primary School

36%

Did not

completed from

primary school

21%

71

Z

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b) Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018c)

Figure 34: The education level of the

residents of Gentingsari village,

2017

Figure 35: The education level of the

residents of Pagergunung village,

2017

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 36: Children in the village of Pagergunung, returning

from school by foot

4.4. Land use

Land use in Temanggung regency is largely dominated by agricultural

activities; only 18 % of the land is employed for non-agricultural purposes. The

farming cultivation is usually classified into drylands and wetlands. This term is

based on differences in surface hydrology. Some scholars also split it into upland

College

3%

Senior

High

School

7%

Junior

High

School

11%

Primary

School

42%

Did not

completed

primary

school

37%

College

1%

Senior high

school

4% Junior high

school

12%

Primary

school

66%

Did not

completed

primary

school

17%

72

and lowland. This terminology is built on differences in relative elevation or

topography (Mackill, Coffman, & Garrity, 1996). The term upland and lowland

usually refers to the crop-oriented vocabulary (Moormann & Breemen, 1978).

Therefore, there are terms of upland and lowland crops. Upland crop farming is

characterized by cultivating land without standing water throughout the growing

season. Water is used only to humidify the land, to ensure good growth of roots

and of aerobic soil microorganisms (Fagi, 1992). On the contrary, cultivating

lowland crops requires waterlogging. Hence, there is a possibility that in the same

land lowland crops can be planted, such as rice, and in the following season

upland crops, such as palawija (non-rice food crops) (Notohadiprawiro, 1989).

Moormann & Breemen (1978) prefer to make a classification based on land-

oriented term, which emphasizes human intervention. For example, the use of the

term irrigated rice land implies the modifications in the water regime by human

action. The term can be developed into irrigated lowlands, rainfed lowlands, and

rainfed uplands. In irrigated lowlands, rice usually is planted under irrigation with

well-maintained dikes that can accommodate 30 cm of water. In rainfed lowlands,

crops are planted in muddy soil in fields bounded by dikes that hold about 30 cm

of water. Rainfed highlands depend on rainfall for crop production but do not

flood. Rainwater runoff and infiltration is so high that water does not accumulate

on the ground. Most are sloping land or higher altitude land than the surrounding

area (Gerpacio & Pingali, 2007).

The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) tends to apply such a land-oriented

term, which emphasizes aspects of human intervention. BPS (2016) classifies

agricultural activities based on wetlands (sawah) and drylands. The wetlands

consist of irrigation and non-irrigation rice fields. Rainfed (tadah hujan) is

grouped into non-irrigation rice fields. Meanwhile, dryland refers to unirrigated

land, which includes tegal (dry fields), gardens, ladang, shifting cultivation land

(huma), and temporarily unused land.

Based on the classification, in 2017, 53 % of the land was cultivated by

peasants in Temanggung regency. It consisted of irrigated rice fields (22 %),

unirrigated rice fields (1 %), dry fields (29 %), and shifting cultivation (4 %)

73

Irrigated rice fields

22%

Unirrigated rice

fields

1%

Dry fields

29%

Shifting

cultivation

1%

Plantation

10%

Private forest

4%

State forest

10%

Other agricultural

land use

5%

Non-agricultural

land use

18%

(figure 37). Meanwhile, in Gentingsari village, crop cultivation was held in the

rice fields (65 %) and dry fields (13 %) (figure 38). In Pagergunung village, crops

planting was fully carried out in dry fields (figure 39).


Figure 37: Land use in Temanggung regency, 2017


Figure 38: Land use in Gentingsari

village, 2017

Figure 39: Land use in Pagergunung

village, 2017

Irrigated

rice fields

65% Dry fields

13%

Others

3%

Housing

19%

Dry fields

68%

State forest

26%

Housing

6%

74

4.5. Agriculture

Agriculture was the primary source of livelihood in the Temanggung

regency in 2017. About 58 % of people living in Temanggung are farmers (figure

40). In Gentingsari and Pagergunung village, agricultural activities are carried out

by 62 % and 92 % of the inhabitants, respectively (figure 41 and 42).


Figure 40: Occupation of the residents in Temanggung

regency, 2017


Figure 41: Occupation of the

residents in Gentingsari village, 2017

Figure 42: Occupation of the residents

in Pagergunung village, 2017

Paddy, maize, and cassava are the dominant staple food grown in the region

of Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside. Some other areas in Temanggung regency also

cultivate potato and sweet potato but only in a tiny quantity. Especially for maize

commodities, Boomgaard (2005) illustrated that this is as important as potatoes in

Agriculture

58%

Industry

7%

Construction

5%

Trading

14%

Transportation

and

communication

3%

Services

12%

Others

1%

Agriculture

62%

Industry

2%

Constructio

n

2%

Trading

12%

Transportati

on and

communicat

ion

2%

Services

11%

Others

9%

Agriculture

92%

Industry

0%

Transportati

on and

communicat

ion

0%

Construction

1%

Trading

5% Services

2% Others

0%

75

Europa and cassava in Africa. He is pairing maize (subsistence crop) and tobacco

(commercial crop) as equal in importance, even sometimes dominant in

agriculture, particularly in upland areas. It is because both crops are annuals that

can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, particularly in the dry-

upland.

Before the green revolution campaign on rice planting and consuming in the

1980s, maize was an important staple food mainly in the dry land area, including

in the site of Sumbing and Sindoro mountainside. The successful introduction of

rice, however, has shifted the maize consumption to rice. The people sell maize to

buy rice. The government program for promoting chili cultivation has encouraged

farmers to replace maize with such commodity. Agricultural land for chili

cultivation significantly increased. Another essential crop, tobacco, has another

long history that will be explored in chapter 5.

Other commodities grown by peasants are red beans, cabbage, shallot,

garlic, potato, and mustard. Tobacco and coffee, mainly of the robusta type, are

the important estate crops planted in the Regency (figure 43, 44, and 45). In the

two villages, Gentingsari and Pagergunung, tobacco, maize, chili, and cabbage are

the major cultivated crops (figure 46 and 47).

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014a-2018a)

Figure 43: Area of staple food production (in thousands of hectares)

in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Paddy Maize Cassava Sweet Potato

76

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014a-2018a)

Figure 44: Area of vegetables production (in thousands of hectares)


Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014a-2018a), Ditjenbun (2013-2017)

Figure 45: Area of estate crops production (in thousands of hectares)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tomato Garlic Shallot Potato

Cabbage Chilli Mustard Red Beans

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Arabica Coffee Robusta Coffee Clove Tobacco

77

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014b-2018b)

Figure 46: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Gentingsari village,

2013-2017

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2014c-2018c)

Figure 47: Area of agriculture production (ha) in Pagergunung village,

2013-2017

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Maize Chili Shallot Tobacco Coffe Cabbage Tomato

0

50

100

150

200

250

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Maize Chili Tobacco Cabbage Mustard

78

Photo by Widiyanto

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 48: Some commodities harvested by tobacco peasants

Tobacco peasants usually grow plants using the intercropping or relay

cropping system. There are two seasons every year, the wet and dry season. The

wet season is commonly from September to May and the dry season from June to

August. In the rainy season, a majority of the farmers grow maize or other relay

crops that grow well before the start of the heavy rains. There are many variations

of crops planted by farmers depending on the location. In the second rotation,

peasant farmers usually grow maize, shallot, chili, cabbage, red beans, garlic, or

79

other vegetables depending on the length of maturity for each product and time

available before the next tobacco cycle must begin. The farmers usually start

growing tobacco in June. In exceptional cases of high rainfall, tobacco cultivation

can be delayed until the low precipitation. The deviation of rainfall in the dry

season cause harvest failure. Sunshine is required in the phase of plant growth,

harvesting, and drying. However, they mostly also produce other crops in addition

to tobacco, but tobacco often gives higher cash income than any other crops

grown especially in the dry land farming area (Barber, Adioetomo, Ahsan, &

Setyonaluri, 2008).

Tobacco and coffee are the most important estate crops planted in

Temanggung regency. Tobacco and coffee are normally planted in a monoculture.

It was just in 2000 when the government introduced a cropping system, which

combined tobacco and coffee cultivation in the same land. The program was

carried out by the estate agency of Central Java Province (Dinas Perkebunan

Propinsi Jawa Tengah) during 2000-2004. The program was named ‘the

development program of the participatory farming model (PMUP). This activity

did not intend to change the tobacco cultivation but to decrease the negative

impact of tobacco farming on the environment and increase the farmers’ income.

It raised a controversy, however, because of suspicions of attempts to replace

tobacco with other commodities.

The program involved 381 tobacco growers who are members of the Marga

Rahayu farmers’ group (kelompok tani) located in Tlahap village, Kledung sub-

district. During five years, the program areas gradually embraced 200 ha of land.

The government provided program assistance in the form of livestock and

seedling support and extension activities. As many as 163 goats were granted for

farmers gradually during 2000-2002. The government also supplied the seedlings

of coffee, suren trees (Toona Sureni), and elephant grass (rumput gajah) as many

as 200,000; 56,000; and 90,000; respectively. The first harvest of coffee was in

2003 (Arfianto, 2012).

The program was continued by the Agency of Agriculture, Estate Crop, and

Forestry (Dinas Pertanian, Perkebunan, dan Kehutanan) Temanggung regency.

80

This Agency was in collaboration with The Implementing Agency of Agricultural,

Fisheries, and Forestry Extension (BP4K) and Livestock Office (Dinas

Peternakan). The program took place from August to December 2009. The

program involved 42 farmers who are the members of ‘Daya Sindoro’ farmer

groups. The program included 25 hectares of agricultural land. During the periods,

the government supported seedling of coffee, suren tree, and elephant grass as

many as, sequentially, 50,000; 8,000; and 30,000. The farmers also received

assistance in the form of 57 goats.

The cropping system by planting tobacco, coffee, and Suren tree in the same

land is commonly called by the pola tlahap (figure 49). As an illustration, 18,000

tobacco plants can be grownn in every one hectare of land. After adopting the

tlahap system, the proportion of tobacco decreased by about 22 %. The tobacco

was reduced to 14,000 plants per hectare. This is planted together with 1,000

coffee trees.

The limited land owned by almost all tobacco growers living in the

Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside becomes a barrier for applying to participate in

the cropping systems. Furthermore, besides coffee is an annual crop that is

harvested only once a year, but it also reduces seasonal crop yields. It has caused

only certain tobacco growers to adopt the system, particularly those who own a

large area of land. Some farmers grew coffee in very small quantities, which

planted is in the edges of the field.

81

Photo by Widiyanto

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 49: Pola Tlahap, cropping system by planting tobacco,

coffee, and suren tree in the same land (top), coffeshop built by the

farmers’ group of Daya Sindoro (bottom)

82

4.6. Tobacco growers’ characteristics

4.6.1. Tobacco grower: peasant, farmer, or peasant farmer?

Tobacco growers mostly cultivate in a piece of small land. They are usually

called petani gurem, which is defined as a landholder household with agricultural

land of less than 0.5 hectares (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2018b). At the national

level, Indonesia had 26.1 million farmers in 2013, 56 % of which (14.25 million)

cultivate land less than half a hectare (<0.5 ha), and only 6 % have more than

three ha of land (BPS, 2013). In 2018, the number of petani gurem was 15.81

million or increased by 10.95 % compared to 2013. The highest number of petani

gurem in Indonesia can be found in Java Island, with 10.95 million households

(71.80 %) (BPS, 2018) (Figure 50).

In Central Java province, where Temanggung regency is located, in 2018,

the percentage of gurem farmers was 81 % or 3.58 million. It has increased by

8.14 % compared to the figure in 2013. Conversely, in Temanggung regency, the

number of gurem households declined by 3.67 %. It decreased from 86.13

thousand in 2013 to 82.97 thousand in 2018 (BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah, 2018a)

(figure 51 and 52).

Source: BPS (2018)

Figure 50: Farm household based on land

tenure in Indonesia, 2018

59%

16%

14%

6%

5%

< 0,5 ha

0.5-0.99 ha

1.0-1.99 ha

2-2.99 ha

>3 ha

83

Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018a) Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018a)

Figure 51: Farm household based on

land tenure in Central Java province,

2018

Figure 52: Farm household based on

land tenure in Temanggung regency,

2018

In Indonesian literature, petani gurem is often translated into English as

‘peasant’ (Syahyuti, 2013). For Wolf (1955) and Redfield (1956), a peasant is as a

rural producer, who mainly works on his own piece of land. Meanwhile, Firth

(1966, 2017) does not restrict the term 'peasant' only to those people who cultivate

the land, but also to peasant fishermen, peasant craftsmen, and peasant marketers,

if they are part of the same community or social system. In many cases, such

people are often, in fact, part-time cultivators as well.

Wolf (1955, 1966) distinguished ‘peasant’ from ‘farmer’. Based on the

orientation, a peasant aims at subsistence. The peasant’s starting point is the needs

that are oriented by his culture. Peasants may cultivate both subsistence and cash

crops. The subsistence crops are grown as a stable minimum livelihood guarantee.

The peasant also plants and sells cash crops to get money, which is used in turn to

buy goods and services required to subsist and to maintain his social status, rather

than to enlarge his scale of operations. Cash crops pledge higher money returns,

but it is risky for market fluctuations. The peasant is always concerned with the

problem to find a balance between subsistence and commercial crop production. It

can be noted that the cash crop production can enable peasants to buy goods and

81%

14% 4%

1% 0%

< 0,5 ha

0.5-0.99 ha

1.0-1.99 ha

2-2.99 ha

>3 ha

67%

24%

8% 1%

0%

< 0,5 ha

0.5-0.99 ha

1.0-1.99 ha

2-2.99 ha

>3 ha

84

services that they cannot afford when they only cultivate subsistence crops.

Similar to the idea of Wolf, Redfield (1956) describes peasants as agricultural

producers following a way of life on land where they control. The piece of land

cultivated has long been bound by ties of tradition and sentiment. Different from

the term ‘peasant’, the farmer considers agriculture as a business enterprise. The

aim of the farmer is to reinvestment in a farm. The crops cultivated are sold not

only to supply goods and services for agriculture but also to expand business

(Wolf, 1955; Redfield, 1956).

'Family farmers' are also sometimes employed to mention ‘peasant’. It is

based on the two criteria namely farm size and type of farming. Hence, family

farmers refer to ‘small farms’ with less than two hectares of cropland and are

characterized by a low level of technology, dependence on family labor and a

‘subsistence’ orientation (Bernstein, 2010). The term ‘peasant family farm' is also

used, which is classified based on less of the degree of tied labor and small-scale

of agricultural labor unit (Bryceson, 2000).

In the 1950s, some economists tended to employ the term ‘smallholder',

which refers to rural producers cultivating on their own land on relatively 'small'

farms. Attention was neglected from the fact that rural cultivators are politically

subordinated in state and market relations, or that their work motivation derives

from providing family subsistence as well as profit-maximization (Bryceson,

2000). Additionally, the term ‘smallholder’ is ambiguous because it tends to

vague inequalities and critical class-based differences within rural households

involved in agricultural production (Cousins, 2010).

While some scholars define ‘peasant’ and ‘farmer’ as a contrast, van der

Ploeg rather puts peasant farming on a continuum with “entrepreneurial” or large-

scale corporate farming (Edelman, 2013). An entrepreneurial type of agriculture is

moving along the scale dimension from smaller to larger units. Otherwise,

corporate farming is more extensive and stronger. The production is directed and

regulated as a function of profit maximization. If entrepreneurial farmers succeed,

they can join the ranks of corporate farmers. Peasant farming aims at defending

and improving peasant livelihoods. Labor is provided by the family (or mobilized

85

within the rural community through relations of reciprocity). The agricultural

product is oriented towards the market as well as towards the reproduction of the

farm unit and the family. Peasant farmer actively and continually struggles to

strengthen the resource base, improve the process of co-production, enlarge

autonomy and, thus, reduce dependency, marginalization, and deprivation (van

der Ploeg, 2008).

Source: van der Ploeg (2008)

Figure 53: The position of peasant farming and its interlink with

other modes of farming (entrepreneurial and capitalist agriculture)

This dissertation tends to follow the idea of van der Ploeg (2008) in

categorizing tobacco growers. Hence, tobacco cultivators can be classified as

peasant farmers. The use of the word ‘peasant farmers’ can accommodate some

views, which claim that peasant is a small land cultivator. Meanwhile, the small

farm cultivator is also part of the constellation of other bigger farmers. Therefore,

in this thesis, the term of tobacco growers, farmers, peasants, peasant farmers are

used interchangeably. They all refer to small tobacco growers.

Capitalist

farming

Entre-

preneurial

farming

Peasant

farming

Large food processing industries and

supermarkets

Short, decentralized circuits

86

4.6.2. Family household characteristics

In studies on farmers, some scholars employ household as a unit of analysis,

and others apply family farms. Family refers to the social unit that its members

have relations birth, adoption, and marriage in any shared tasks. Conversely,

household is defined by shared tasks in production and/or consumption, regardless

or whether members are connected through kinship or marriage relations or are

co-resident (Carter, 1984). However, kinship and marriage might be the main

mechanisms of recruitment into the household (Roberts, 1991).

A household can be defined as a domestic unit with decision-making

autonomy about production and consumption (Roberts, 1991). The word

‘household’, then, indicates the fact of shared location, kinship, and activity

(Laslett, 1972). Household is also characterized by regular sharing of resources

and expenses for a certain period of time (Casimir & Tobi, 2011).

Conceptually the terms 'family' and 'household' are different. However, in its

application, both are sometimes difficult to analyze separately. This is the case

when the function of production and consumption in the household is handled

entirely by family members. For example, Djurfeldt (1996) describes the concept

of family overlapping between three functional units, namely the production unit

(agriculture), consumption unit (household), and kinship unit (family).

McFalls Jr. (2003) offers the concept of family households and nonfamily

household. The former consist of two or more individuals, who are related by

birth, marriage, or adoption, although they also may include other unrelated

people. Meanwhile, nonfamily households consist of people who live alone or

who share their residence with unrelated individuals.

McConnell & Dillon (1997) claimed that the use of the concept of farm

household is more flexible. It can consist only of the farm's nucleus family, but

more often includes extended-family members. It also commonly includes some

numbers of more or less permanent domestic and farm workers, and

miscellaneous dependants.

In social scientific research and analysis, selecting the household as a

common focus has both practical and theoretical justifications. It is because

87

almost everyone grew up in a household and continues to live in such a unit.

Hence, there is pervasive recognition of the reality and relevance of this group.

Household is a fundamental social unit. Households are more than groups of

dyadic pairs. They are the main arena for the expression of age and the role of sex,

kinship, socialization, and economic cooperation where cultural things are

mediated and transformed into action (Netting, Wilk, & Arnould, 1984).

Furthermore, households are obviously as the basic units of society in which the

activities of production, reproduction, consumption and the socialization of

children take place (Roberts, 1991).

In livelihood studies, the household remains a useful unit of analysis. The

household is both a social as well as an economic unit, which also involves norms,

cultures, and values. Therefore, there seems to be a compelling reason to employ

households rather than individuals as a unit of analysis (Wallace, 2002).

In the context of tobacco growers’ community, the use of family household,

as McFalls Jr. (2003) proposed, seems to be more appropriate. It is because the

farm household mostly consists of members who have kinship relations. It is only

during the harvest season, about two months for maximum, some family

households also hire other laborers, who are not bound by kinship to work and

live under the same roof with them.

In Indonesia, the farm household head is dominated by the eldery people. In

2018, 75 % of the household heads in Temanggung were more than 45 years old.

This percentage is higher than the figures in Indonesia and Central Java province,

which were 65 % and 72%, respectively. The farm households in Temanggung

regency were headed by 94 % males and 6 % females.

88

0% 7%

21%

31% 25%

16% <25 years

25-34 years

34-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

>65 years

1% 10%

24%

28%

22%

15%

<25 years

25-34 years

34-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

>65 years

0% 6% 19%

29%

27%

19%

<25 years

25-34 years

34-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

>65 years

Source: BPS (2018)

Figure 54: Age group of head of farm

households in Indonesia, 2018

Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018b) Source: BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah (2018b)

Figure 55: Age group of head of

farm households in Central Java

province, 2018

Figure 56: Age group of head of

farm households in Temanggung

regency, 2018

In 2018, Temanggung had 123,785 farm households with the households’

members as many as 456,355 people. Hence, the average household size in

Temanggung regency is 3.6 persons. Based on the size of the farm household in

detail, 88 % of households have as many as 2-5 people. Meanwhile, 9 % of the

farm household has a size of more than six people, and the rest (3 %) only consist

of one member.

89

4.7. Poverty

In Indonesia, there are some indicators employed by the government to

measure the level of poverty. For example, the Board of Population and National

Family Planning (BKKBN) classified the indicators of prosperity into five levels

namely: pre-prosperous family (pra-sejahtera), wealthy family level I (KS-I),

prosperous family level II (KS-II), prosperous family level III (KS-III), prosperous

family level three plus (KS-III plus). The indicators are developed based on the

fulfillment of basic needs, psychological needs, developmental needs, and self-

esteem. A household will be included in the pre-prosperous level if it is not able to

fulfill basic needs. If the households cannot meet the psychological needs, they

will be grouped in the prosperous family level I, and so on (Bappenas 2010,

Isdijoso et al. 2016).

Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) measures poverty by

using the concept of the ability to meet basic needs (basic need approach). Poverty

is seen as an economic inability to meet basic food and non-food needs as

measured by expenditure. Based on the indicators, BPS calculates and sets the

poverty line. The inhabitant is considered poor if expenditure per month is below

the poverty line. Calculation of the poverty line is carried out separately for urban

and rural areas. The poverty line consists of two components, the food and non-

food poverty line (Bappenas, 2010). The food poverty line refers to the daily

minimum requirement of 2,100 kcal per capita per day. The non-food poverty line

refers to the minimum requirement for household necessities for clothing,

education, health, and other basic individual needs. The value of expenditure

consumption approach only can be applied at the macro level such as national,

province, regency.

Based on the criteria of BKKBN; in 2017; as many as 19 %, 54 %, and 27

% of the household in Temanggung were categorized into the pre-prosperous

family (pra-sejahtera), prosperous family level 1, and wealthy family level II,

respectively. Meantime, by using the poverty line of BPS, there were 11.46 % of

poor people in 2017 (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2018a).

90

For the implementation of certain programs such as the cash transfer

program (BLT) and community health insurance programs (Jamkesmas), which

require specific data at the household level, BPS uses a non-monetary approach.

Some of the indicators set out are similar to BKKBN measures such as housing

standards (Bappenas, 2010). Household access to health, water, electricity, and

education facilities is also a consideration in measuring poverty.

Based on the welfare indicators according to BPS in National Socio-

Economic survey (Susenas) 2011, quality of the houses indicate the socio-

economic condition of the household. The quality is measured based on the state

of roof, floor, and wall. The houses with brick walls, tile roofs, and non-earth

floors (such as ceramics) are of the best quality (BPS, 2011). The highest quality

of the houses is categorized as a permanent house. Conversely, the house with

simple walls such as zinc and earth floors is classified as impermanent building.

Semi-permanent house quality is between permanent and impermanent houses

such as the wall is a combination between concrete and wood, or with the cement

floor (BPS, 2008). Based on the categories, In Gentingsari villages, 54.15 %;

40.62%; and 5.23%, sequently, were categorized as permanent, semi-permanent,

and impermanent houses in 2015. Meanwhile, in Pagergunung village, the

majority of the houses owned by peasants were in the category of permanent as

many as 70.87% (BPS Kabupaten Temanggung, 2017b).

Regarding water use, the inhabitants in Gentingsari village are fully

supplied from springs. Besides consuming water from springs, 1.74 % of the

villagers in Pagergunung also use well water. Electricity access of all inhabitants

in both villages is provided by the National Electricity Company (PLN) (BPS

Kabupaten Temanggung, 2017c).

91

Photo by Arif

Photo by Arif

Figure 57: Village environment of tobacco growers

92

Photo by Arif

Figure 58: An example of a house of tobacco grower with

wooden walls

4.8. Resume: general characteristics of the research focused villages

Table 2: General characteristics of Gentingsari and Pagergunung villages

Characteristics Gentingsari village Pagergunung village

Altitude 850 m 1,100 m

Total area 59.36 ha 388.62 ha

Administration Three hamlets (dusun), three

RW, and six RT

Four hamlets (dusun), six

RW, and 14 RT

Population 323 households, 1,178

inhabitants (597 males, 581

females)

591 households, 2,520

inhabitants (1,318 males,

1,202 females)

Water supply Spring (100 %) Spring (98.26 %), well (1.74

%)

Electricity National electricity company

(PLN)

National electricity

company (PLN)

Fuel Gas, petroleum Gas, petroleum

Communication Cell phones, radio,

television, public

broadcasting system (public

loudspeaker).

Cell phones, radio,

television, public

broadcasting system (public

loudspeaker).

Health center One village polyclinic

One midwife

One village polyclinic

Two midwives

93

Characteristics Gentingsari village Pagergunung village

School One kinder garden

One primary school

Two kinder gardens

Two primary schools

Agricultural land 38.58 ha is rice fields

7.43 ha is dry fields

261,72 ha (100 %) is dry

fields

Livestock 61 cattle; 180 goats; 441

chickens

12 cattle; 1,032 goats; 1,112

chickens

Agricultural

commodity

Maize (132 ha), chili (30.54

ha), shallots (14.7 ha),

tomato (3.38 ha), cabbage

(10.80 ha), tobacco (19.09

ha), coffee (3.75 ha)

Maize (123.19 ha), chili

(125.80 ha), mustard (5 Ha),

cabbage (4 ha), tobacco

(128.7 ha)

Housing Permanent: 176 (54.15%)

Semi-permanent:132

(40.62%),

Impermanent: 17 (5.23%)

Permanent: 489 (70.87%)

Semi-permanent: 54

(7.89%)

Impermanent: 147 (21.30%)

Transportation Car, motorcycle Car, motorcycle, truck,

pick-up car

Religion Islam: 1,154 (97.9 %)

Christian: 3 (0.3 %)

Buddhism: 21 (1.8 %)

Islam: 2,516 (99.8 %)

Christian: 4 (0.2 %)

Worship place Two mosques

One muslim prayer house

(surau)8

One Vihara

Four mosques

four muslim prayer house

(surau)

Market Twelve stalls Thirty stalls

Credit Bank

Local money lenders,

particularly from tobacco

traders

Bank

Local money lenders,

particularly from tobacco

traders

Debt Most households are in debt,

particularly for tobacco

cultivation

Most households are in

debt, particularly for

tobacco cultivation Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2018b, 2018c)

8 Surau is place of worship for Muslims. It is similar to mosque but tend to be smaller.

Additionally, surau is usually not used for Friday prayers.

94


95

Tobacco in Indonesia:

History and Figures

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 59: The warehouse of Cigarette Company of Gudang

Garam in Temanggung regency

5

96

5.1. Tobacco history

5.1.1. Tobacco origin

Goodman (2005) noted that tobacco cultivation had been found in central

Mexico in ca. 5000 BC. In world commerce, tobacco belongs to the species of

Nicotiana tabacum and the family of Solanaceae, which includes the potato,

tomato, eggplant, petunia, and many other cultivated and ornamental plants (Nee,

2005). Nicotiana tabacum was named by a Swedish botanist, Carl Linnaeus, in

1753 as a greatly respect to Jean Nicot de Villemain, France’s ambassador to

Portugal in 1560, which prescribed snuff for the son of Catherine de Medici,

Queen of France, who suffered from headache. Since then, the tobacco plant

quickly gained popularity in France and the plant, then, came to be called the

Herb of Nicot (Pierce, 2005; Santora & Henningfield, 2005). The word “Tobago”

or “tobacco” appears to be the Native American name for the pipe or cylinder

used by many to inhale smoke from the burning leaves of this plant (Pierce,

2005). According to Killebrew & Myrick (1920, Spaniards called tobacco by

‘tobaco’, which was the inhaling apparatus of the Caribbean. On the continent of

America, by the West India Islanders, it was usually called ‘petum’ or ‘yoli’.

Tobacco has many species in the genus of Nicotiana, which is scattered in

South America, North America, Australia and the South Pacific (Goodspeed,

1947). Botanists generally consider the genus Nicotiana to include more than 60

distinct species. Almost all botanists believe that the genus originated in the

Andean region. It spreads throughout most of the American continent. Through

the European colonizers, it disperses to the rest of the world, becoming

established in vast areas of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. Nicotiana tabacum

and Nicotiana rustica dominated all the species of Nicotiana scattered in the

world (Tomas, 2005). However, according to Akehurst (1981), as Goodman

(1993) note, Rustica only existed in a few parts of the world such as the former

USSR, India, Pakistan, and parts of North Africa.

97

5.1.2. Tobacco history in Indonesia

Tobacco in Asia was brought by the Spanish from Mexico to the Philippines

in 1575. As written in the chronicles of Mataram (Babad ing Sangkala 1738),

tobacco arrived in Central Java in 1601 or 1523 saka year, which coincided with

the death of King Senopati (Reid, 1985;1988). Tobacco also can be found in

Banten, West Java in 1603 and the Central Javanese court of Mataram in 1624.

Before 1800, tobacco was cultivated in Java (East Java, Kedu, Cirebon, and

Batavia), Eastern Indonesia (Ternate) in 1671, Kalimantan in the 1660s, and

Sumatera in 1603 (Boomgaard, 2005).

The growing of tobacco spread quickly in Java. Tobacco was, after rice, the

most important smallholder export commodity. Between 1800 and 1830, tobacco

was found growing in many regions of Java. It can be seen in West Java, Central

Java, and East Java. In West Java, it was concentrated in Priangan and Cirebon.

Kedu and its surrounding areas such as the regencies of Banjarnegara (in

Banyumas), Ledok, later named Wonosobo (Bagelen), Batang (Pekalongan), and

Kendal (Semarang) are the well-known places which produced a typical quality of

tobacco. The tobacco from Kedu was even exported to the Malay Peninsula,

Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and the Spice Islands. In East Java, most tobacco

was to be found in the regencies of Malang (in Pasuruan), Lumajang

(Probolinggo), and Puger (Bondowoso), and Jember (Besuki) (Boomgaard, 2005).

Between 1836 and 1845, besides coffee, sugar, and indigo, tobacco became

an essential and ‘compulsory' crop under the Cultivation System (cultuurstelsel).

Some tobacco contracts were made with private entrepreneurs. Because of the low

returns of tobacco growing for the peasants, in 1860 compulsory cultivation of

tobacco was abolished in principle, and the last contract expired in 1864. Non-

governmental tobacco production, supervised by European entrepreneurs under

various contractual relations, started in Java (and Sumatra) between 1855 and

1865, producing the still well-known trade names of Vorstenlanden, Besuki or

Jember, and Deli.

In 1856, VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), the Dutch East India

Company, also planted tobacco extensively in the Besuki area of East Java, with a

98

research center, besoekisch profstation in 1910. The results of the research center

were crossing and obtaining suitable tobacco species in the archipelago. The type

of cigar tobacco that is now widely planted in Besuki is the result of a cross

between the type of Kedu and the type of Deli. Two years later, in 1858, another

type of cigar tobacco was planted in the Yogyakarta-Surakarta area, precisely in

the Klaten area (PTPN X, 2015).

Between 1900 and 1940, smallholder tobacco was cultivated in a great

many districts, but it was heavily concentrated in a few areas only, namely the

Dieng highlands and surrounding area (regencies of Banjarnegara, Wonosobo,

Batang, Kendal, Salatiga, and the Residency Kedu), the Residency of Rembang,

and the Residencies of Probolinggo and Besuki (regencies Lumajang, Jember,

Bondowoso). Smaller centers were to be found in Kediri and Madura

(Boomgaard, 2005).

Tobacco, which was developed in the former Kedu residency area was

called Kedu tobacco. The planting area spread mainly on the slopes of Mt.

Sumbing-Sindoro, and Prahu. Administratively, the area included Wonosobo,

Temanggung and Kendal regencies. In 1940, tobacco in this region contributed

almost 50 % of the tobacco land area in Central Java province (Mukani &

Isdijoso, 2000).

99

Figure 60: Areas of tobacco production in around Kedu residency in the1800s

Source: Carey (1984), original source without scale

100

94

102

116

125

172

196

285

676

761

2.806

0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000

Argentina

Tanzania

Pakistan

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Indonesia

USA

Brazil

India

China

Tobacco production (in thousands of tons)

5.2. Tobacco growing in Indonesia

5.2.1. The position of Indonesian tobacco at the global level

There are at least 124 tobacco-growing countries in the world, producing 7.5

million tons of tobacco. Tobacco is grown on almost 4.3 million hectares of

agricultural land (Eriksen, Mackay, Schluger, Gomeshtapeh, & Drope, 2015). The

ten largest tobacco-growing countries contribute about 80 % of tobacco yield in

the world. China is the most significant contributor, which produced 3.1 million

tons of tobacco or about 42 % of world tobacco production in 2016 (FAOSTAT,

2016). The world´s five largest Transnational Tobacco Companies (TTCs) are

China National Tobacco Corporation, Philip Morris International, British

American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Tobacco. They

dominated the global cigarette market share, 82 % in 2014 (Lian & Dorothea,

2016).

Source: FAOSTAT (2016)

Figure 61: The top ten tobacco-growing countries in the world,

2016

Indonesia is the fifth largest tobacco producer in the world. The four largest

tobacco-growing countries are China, India, Brazil, and the USA, which

101

Indonesia

43%

Lao People's

Democratic

Republic

15%

Thailand

13%

Philippines

13%

Vietnam

7%

Myanmar

6%

Cambodia

3% Malaysia

0%

contribute 42 %, 11 %, 10 %, and 4 %, respectively. Indonesia shares 3 % of the

total world production of tobacco (FAOSTAT, 2016). In the region of Southeast

Asia, Indonesia is the largest tobacco leaf producer. From ten countries, there are

eight ASEAN countries, which engage in tobacco cultivation on a different scale.

Tobacco is cultivated in 301,650 hectares of land across the region in 2016.

Indonesia contributes 43 % of tobacco production in Southeast Asia. The other

major producers are Lao PDR (15 %), the Philippines (13 %), Thailand (13 %)

and Vietnam (7 %) (Lian & Dorothea, 2016) (figure 62).


Figure 62: Share of tobacco production by country in

Southeast Asia, 2016

5.2.2. Tobacco production

Tobacco production in Indonesia is dominated by smallholders (perkebunan

rakyat). They contribute more than 97 %. Meanwhile, only until 2014, the

government estates (PBN) contributed to the cultivation of tobacco with a very

small percentage, 1.0-2.0 %. Its contribution continued to decline even less than

0.5 percent in 2017.

During the past ten years (2008-2017), Indonesia produced 182 thousand

tons in average per year (Ditjenbun, 2018). Area of tobacco production in

102

249

165 167

240

261 256 257

201 198

172

198 197 204

216 229

270

193

216 209

156

202

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

Area (in thousands of hectares)

Indonesia fluctuates. During the last 20 years, the largest and the smallest area for

tobacco cultivation were in 2012 (270,290 ha) and 2016 (155,950 ha), in a row

(figure 63). The main reason for the rise and fall of the tobacco planting area is

due to uncertain and unpredictable weather. The high rainfall in the planting

period causes peasant farmers to cultivate other commodities besides tobacco.

Source: Ditjenbun (2018)

Figure 63: Area of tobacco production in Indonesia,

1997-2017

The data displayed in figure 63 is the area of land at the time of planting

tobacco. Because tobacco production is very vulnerable to changeable weather,

crop failures often occur. Therefore, the harvested area can be smaller than the

land area at the time of planting. For example, in 2013 and 2016, tobacco land that

could be harvested was only around 80 % of the land area in the planting period.

Meanwhile, in 2017, the weather seemed to support tobacco growth, so the

harvested area reached 98 %.

103

210

106

135

204 199 192

201

165 153

146

165 168 177

136

215

261

164

198 194

127

181

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

Production (in thousands of tons)

193

216 209

156

202

164

198 194

126

198

0

50

100

150

200

250

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Planted (in thousands of hectares) Harvested (in thousands of hectares)

Source: Ditjenbun (2014-2018)

Figure 64: Gap between planted and harvested area of

tobacco cultivation in Indonesia, 2013-2017

Tobacco production in Indonesia was 181,976 tons during 2008-2017 in

average per year. In 1998, it was the lowest production that was only 105,580

tons. The production declined up to 50 % compared to tobacco yield in 1997.

Besides being caused by weather, this was also triggered by Indonesian economic

crises. The high rainfall, such as occurred in 2010 and 2016, caused the low

production of tobacco.


Figure 65: Tobacco production in Indonesia, 1997-2017

104

0,64

0,85

0,76

1,01

0,92

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

Productivity (tons/ha)

Climate anomalies such as excessive rainfall have a negative impact on

tobacco productivity. This was due to the occurrence of waterlogging on tobacco

cropland from the growth to harvest phase. Stagnant water around the roots of

tobacco will cause the plant to wilt, because the roots of the plants are damaged.

Furthermore, an insufficient intensity of sunlight during post-harvest processing

also affects the quantity and quality of tobacco (Sholeh, 2011). During 2007-2017,

the productivity of tobacco was 0.9 tons/ha in average per year. It was higher

compared to the average figure during 1997-2006, which was 0.79 tons/ha. The

lowest productivity was in 1998, only 0.64 tons per ha.


Figure 66: Tobacco productivity in Indonesia (tons/ha), 2017

In Indonesia, tobacco is cultivated in 15 provinces with varied ecological

characteristics, from dry to irrigated land and from low to high land areas. The

three largest tobacco-growing provinces contribute about 89 % of tobacco yield in

Indonesia. The regions of tobacco producers are East Java (50 %), Central Java

(22 %), West Nusa Tenggara (17 %) and the rest of it is located in the other

provinces (figure 67 and 68).

105

East Java

50%

Central Java

22%

West Nusa

Tenggara

17%

West Java

5%

South Sulawesi

1%

Aceh

1% Others

4%


Figure 67: The proportion of tobacco production area by

province in Indonesia, 2017

1

0

6

Source: Data from Ditjenbun (2018)

Figure 68: Tobacco production areas by province in Indonesia, 2017

Nort Sumatera

Aceh

West Sumatera

Jambi Lampung

West Java

Special Region of

Yogyakarta

Central Java East Java

Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara

South Sulawesi

Central Sulawesi

South Sumatera

= <20,000 ha

= 20,000-40,000 ha

= 40,000-60,000 ha

= >60,000 ha 0 200 400 800

Kilometers

107

641 680

761 786

528 568 559

396

493

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

The number of tobacco growers (in thousands)

The number of tobacco growers in Indonesia fluctuates, but it tends to

decline. It depends on the prediction of tobacco planting, which is usually related

to good weather and reasonable selling prices. For example, in 2012, the numbers

of peasants peaked. It is because the weather was appropriate for tobacco

growing, which was indicated by the high productivity in that year. In 2017, there

were 493 thousand households involved in tobacco cultivation. They grew

tobacco on 202 thousand hectares of land; producing 181 thousand tons of dried

tobacco leaves (figure 69).


Figure 69: The number of tobacco growers in Indonesia,

2009-2017

In 2017, the land tenure cultivated by tobacco growers in 15 Provinces in

Indonesia was 0.58 ha/household in average. The largest land owned by peasants

was in Jambi, with 1.23 ha/household. Meanwhile, in Special Region of

Yogyakarta every household only cultivated 0.19 ha of land to grow tobacco

(table 3 and figure 70).

108

0,19

0,30

0,34

0,36

0,37

0,38

0,49

0,57

0,55

0,63

0,70

0,84

0,84

0,90

1,23

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40

Special Region of Yogyakarta

West Sumatera

South Sumatera

West Java

Central Java

East Java

East Nusa Tenggara

Aceh

Nort Sumatera

Bali

Lampung

West Nusa Tenggara

South Sulawesi

Central Sulawesi

Jambi

Table 3: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household by province in

Indonesia, 2017

No Provinces Peasants Land

(ha)

per

household

(ha)

1 Aceh 3,728 2,134 0.57

2 Nort Sumatera 2,491 1,378 0.55

3 West Sumatera 2,321 704 0.30

4 Jambi 632 776 1.23

5 South Sumatera 740 250 0.34

6 Lampung 1,174 818 0.70

7 West Java 25,128 9,339 0.37

8 Central Java 117,633 45,085 0.38

9 Special Region of Yogyakarta 6,181 1,204 0.19

10 East Java 283,566 100,750 0.36

11 Bali 1,283 808 0.63

12 West Nusa Tenggara 40,361 33,793 0.84

13 East Nusa Tenggara 3,672 1,783 0.49

14 Central Sulawesi 376 340 0.90

15 South Sulawesi 3,286 2,747 0.84

Total 492,572 201,909 0.58 Source: Ditjenbun (2018)


Figure 70: Land tenure for tobacco cultivation per household

(ha/household) by province in Indonesia, 2017

109

5.2.3. Tobacco diversity

Tobacco cultivated in Indonesia diverse. Tobacco growth and quality are

associated with ecological conditions, such as soil, climate or weather, and

geographical attributes (Wu, Tang, Yang, Liu, & Guo, 2013). According to

Suwarso, as Djajadi (2015) noted Tobacco has been adapted as a commodity for

centuries in many areas in Indonesia. Tobacco has a high diversity with distinctive

characteristics. Differences in the ecological conditions of the tobacco cultivating

area have resulted in special tobacco quality. The environments have significantly

affected the characteristics of tobacco for a long time. This condition caused

Indonesia to have many tobacco variants with different morphology and features.

Basuki, Rochman, & Yulaikah (2000) explain the diversity of Indonesian

tobacco through a schematic diagram. It involves species, planting season,

processing, type of product, variants, and function (figure 71). Based on the

planting time period; tobacco is classified into Voor Oogst (VO) and Na Oogst

(NO). VO tobacco is grown at the end of the rainy season and harvested in the dry

season. Meanwhile, NO is planted at the end of the dry season and harvested

during the rainy/wet season. Based on usages, Djajadi (2015) categorized tobacco

in Indonesia into four groups, namely cigar, kretek cigarette, roll your own (RYO)

cigarette, and chewy tobacco.

Cigar tobacco in Indonesia is particularly cultivated in three areas, namely

Besuki NO in Jember (East Java), Vorstenlanden in Klaten (Central Java), and

Deli tobacco in North Sumatera (Budiarto, 2007). Cigar tobacco is mostly used

for tobacco for export purposes. The type of tobacco functions as both filler and

wrapper (Sholeh, 2007). Especially Deli tobacco serves as a wrapper. In 2017,

Besuki NO contributed 90 % of cigar tobacco in Indonesia.

Virginia tobacco is also called flue-cured Virginia (FCV) or bright tobacco.

In trade, this is often called Virginia FC. On the international market, FCV

tobacco is mostly needed to make cigarettes, and a small portion is used for pipe

tobacco and chewing tobacco. In Indonesia, Virginia tobacco is used for a blend

of white cigarettes and kretek, for shag tobacco and export. Virginia tobacco is

developed in various regions, namely North Sumatra, West Java, Central Java,

110

Species Planting season Processing Type of

product Variants Function/used for

Madura

Temanggung

Weleri

Selopuro

Mranggen

Rembang

Paiton & others Chewy tobacco

Kasturi Kretek cigarette

Lumajang Pipe tobacco

Air cured Leaf type Burley White/kretek cigarette

Flue cured Leaf type Virginia White/kretek cigarette

Dark flue cured Leaf type Boyolali

(asepan) Shag (RYO)

Deli Cigar tobacco

Vorstenlanden Cigar tobacco

Besuki No Cigar tobacco

Nicotiana

Tabacum

Voor Oogst

Sun cured

Sliced type Kretek cigarette

Leaf type

(kerosok)

Na Oogst Air cured Leaf type

Yogyakarta, East Java, Bali, and West Nusa Tenggara (Lombok) (Murdiyati &

Basuki, 2011). In 2017, the largest Virginia tobacco producer in Indonesia was

West Nusa Tenggara (74.6 %). Meanwhile, the contribution of Virginia tobacco to

the total production in Indonesia was 17.3 % (Ditjenbun, 2018).

Source: adopted from Basuki, Rochman, & Yulaikah (2000)

Figure 71: Classification of Indonesian tobacco

The majority of tobacco variants cultivated in Indonesia is native tobacco

(tembakau rakyat). This includes various types of local tobacco that develop in

certain areas. In general, the kinds of tobacco are named according to the area

where they are grown. Several of these tobaccos include madura, temanggungan,

weleri/kendal, mranggen, paiton, and others. Most of the tobaccos are produced

for kretek cigarette manufacturers, and the rest are for own rolled tobacco and

export (Murdiyati, Djajadi, & Herwati, 2007). In 2017, the production land of

111

tembakau rakyat reached 80 % of the national tobacco planting area (Ditjenbun,

2018).

Table 4: Tobacco variants and planting areas by province in Indonesia

No Variants Provinces Functions/used for

1. Rajang (sliced-

dried tobacco)

Central Java, Special Region of

Yogyakarta, Bali, West Nusa

Tenggara, East Java

kretek cigarette

2. Paiton Special Region of Yogyakarta,

East Java

chewy tobacco

3. Kasturi East Java kretek cigarette

4. Lumajang East Java pipe tobacco

5. White Burley East Java white/kretek

cigarette

6. Virginia Central Java, Bali, West Nusa

Tenggara, East Java, North

Sumatera, West Java, Special

Region of Yogyakarta

White/kretek

cigarette

7. Asepan (shag) Central Java shag (ryo)

8. Deli North Sumatera cigar tobacco

9. Vorstenlanden Central Java cigar tobacco

10. Besuki N.O East Java cigar tobacco

Temanggung tobacco is classified as Voor Oogst with a sun-cured method

of processing. The tobacco is sold in the form of sliced dried tobacco for kretek

cigarette use (Basuki, Rochman, & Yulaikah, 2000). Sliced dried tobacco is

processed through sortating of leaves based on maturity, fermentation, slicing

with size 0.5–1 cm, and sun drying (Djajadi, 2015).

Based on the cigarette ingredients, sliced-dried Temanggung tobacco,

kasturi, and Madura are mostly used for flavor. White burly and Paiton tobacco

serve as a modifier. Meanwhile, Virginia (particularly cultivated in Bojonegoro,

Blitar, and Special Region of Yogyakarta), Chinese, and Weleri tobacco serve as

filler (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013).

5.2.4. Tobacco export and import

Indonesia is both importer and exporter of tobacco leaf. The volume of

export and import fluctuates. However, the trend of import increases, while the

export tends to decline. Since 2006, import has been higher than the volume of

112

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

Export (in thousands of tons) Import (in thousands of tons)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

Export (million US$) Import (million US$)

tobacco export. The highest volume of import was in 2012, 137.4 thousand tons

with a total value of 658.9 million US$, which was almost four times the amount

of export. Meanwhile, the quantity of import has declined since 2010. During the

last ten years (2008-2017), the average volume of tobacco import and import, in a

row, was 93.4 and 40.1 thousand tons. Meanwhile, the total values of import and

export in the same period was 487.1 and 160.6 million US$, respectively.


Figure 72: Export-import volume of tobacco, 1997-2017


Figure 73: Export-import value of tobacco, 1997-2017

Tobacco leaf needed by 47 large and middle-sized cigarette companies in

Indonesia is about 300 thousand tons per year. It does not include the ‘illegally'

113

small and home industries, which produce cigarettes without paying excise and

having a brand (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013). In the

meantime, the tobacco production in Indonesia during the past five years (2013-

2017) was only 172.8 tons in average per year. Therefore, based on supply and

demand balance, Indonesia still needs about 42.4 % of tobacco leaf from other

countries to cover the lack of domestic production. During 2008 - 2017, the

average volume of imports was 52 % of domestic yields.

The increase in tobacco imports is not only driven by the lack of quantity

but also the inadequate quality of domestic tobacco. Furthermore, the

development of the production of local cigarette factories, which acquired several

types of tobacco such as Virginia, burley, and oriental contributed to the increase

in the volume of imports (Rais, 2007). The rise in the campaign for the

consumption of low tar and nicotine cigarettes has contributed to the increasing

interest of smokers, especially young people, to consume cigarettes with low

nicotine and tar. Unfortunately, this type of cigarette requires a type of tobacco

that cannot be fully met by domestic production (Suprihanti, Harianto, Sinaga, &

Kustiari, 2018).

In 2017, 47 % of tobacco was imported from China in 2017. Meanwhile,

Brazil contributed 13 %. The rest of it was imported from some countries such as

the United States, Zimbabwe, India, Turkey, and others. The tobacco leaf is used

for both white and kretek cigarettes. Virginia FC, Burley, Oriental, cut-rolled

stem, and reconstituted tobacco with a specific composition is commonly used for

making white cigarettes (Fisher, 1999). To make one type of cigarette 5-10 kinds

of tobacco are required. In general, there are three kinds of tobacco structuring

cigarettes based on the functions, namely: flavor, modifier, and filler grades

(Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011). Tobacco leaf from China is commonly classified as a

filler grade (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013).

Furthermore, the ingredients structuring kretek cigarettes are typical of each

company. For Bogie, as Murdiyati & Basuki (2011) note, classifies the types of

tobacco needed for kretek based on its function, namely: filler, semi-aromatic, and

aromatic. The composition of those types (filler, semi-aromatic, and fragrant) is as

114

China

47%

Brazil

13%

United

States

6%

Zimbabwe

5%

India

4%

Turkey

3%

Italy

1%

Greece

1%

Others

20%

much as 10-30 %, 60-80 %, and 10-30 %, in a row. GAPPRI (1999) noted that

imported tobacco contributed less than 10 % to each kretek cigarette. Some kinds

of tobacco structure kretek cigarettes namely Virginia FC leaf (10-24 %), Kasturi

leaf (10-24 %), Temanggung/muntilan slice dried tobacco (14-26 %), Madura (14-

22 %), Bojonegoro (8-16 %), Weleri/Mranggen (4-8 %), and imported tobacco (<

10 %). Tobacco leaf from China is used as filler. Meanwhile, tobacco imported

from the USA, Brazil, Zimbabwe are classified as a semi-aromatic type

(Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011).

In 2017, about 55 % of Indonesian tobacco was delivered to some countries

namely Dominican Republic, the United States, Egypt, Vietnam, Belgium,

Netherlands, Singapore, and Germany. The two biggest volume of export were

delivered to Dominican Republic (17 %) and the United States (11 %). Beside

tobacco leaf, Indonesia also exported cigarettes, especially kretek, although only

less than 10 percent of domestic cigarette production. Indonesian tobacco is one

of the important raw materials for a cigar, mainly as a wrapper (34 %) and 27-30

% for binder and filler (Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province, 2013).


Figure 74: Proportion of tobacco import based on

origin countries, 2017

115

Dominican

Republic

17%

United

States

11%

Egypt

7%

Vietnam

7%

Belgium

4%

Netherlands

3%

Singapore

3%

Germany

3%

Others

45%


Figure 75: Proportion of tobacco export based on

destination countries, 2017

5.3. Cigarette manufacturers

5.3.1. The origin of kretek

The cigarette’s origin can be traced from pre-Colonial South and Central

America, where among the Maya smoking tobacco was commonly wrapped in

banana skin, bark, and maize leaves. The Spanish brought it and replaced the

maize-wrappers with fine paper. In the 1830s, it crossed into France, and the

French tobacco monopoly named it ‘cigarette' in 1845 (Rudy, 2005).

In Indonesia, smoking activities have been found at Mataram court in 1601,

Aceh in 1603, and in Banten in 1604 (Reid, 1988). Before 1900, Indonesian

people commonly consumed betel (Arnez, 2009). Betel chewing usually involved

areca, betel, and lime. They also put spices, aromatics, and other precious

commodities to the betel. By the end of the eighteenth-century, gambier and

tobacco also became an essential ingredient of betel chewing. It is speculated that

the habit of chewing tobacco was learned from Portuguese and Dutch sailors, who

were forbidden to smoke on board of their ships because of the risk of fire. Betel

chewing in Indonesia was not solely for personal preference, but a necessity for

116

every adult in society. At the marriage ceremony, the betel ingredients were

usually part of the bride-price. A Javanese bride and groom threw betel leaves at

each other. Betel chewing was also consumed for medical use, such as to prevent

dental decay and toothache and to sweeten the breath (Reid, 1985).

Between 1900 and 1950, the use of tobacco spread widely in Indonesia.

Indigenous cigarettes were made of shredded tobacco wrapped up in dried

cornhusk, banana or palm leaves. Later, they were called klobot or kelobot (husk,

bracts of the corn ear) in Javanese or strootje in Dutch (Arnez, 2009). The history

of a new form of cigarettes started in around 1880 when an inhabitant of Kudus,

Central Java province, named Djamhari was suffering from a mild case of asthma.

His Asthma was relieved after he applied clove oil on his chest. He, then, initiated

to mix clove with tobacco and inhaled the mixture. As a result, his Asthma ended

immediately. He started to distribute the hand-rolled cigarettes, rokok cengkeh

(clove cigarette), through the local apotik (pharmacies) (Hanuz, 2005). After he

died, several other Kudus inhabitants started to produce their own clove

cigarettes. They wrapped clove cigarette in cornhusk (kelobot). Another kind of

clove cigarettes also included tobacco, klembak (a type of root) and menyan

(incense). They rolled the kretek at home; they were not branded, and were only

distributed in a limited area (Hanuz 2000 in Arnez 2009). It is named kretek

(kreh-TEK) because of the pop and crackle the cloves make when burned

(keretek-keretek) (Hanuz, 2005; Cribb & Kahin, 2004).

The development of the clove cigarette, which was dominated by Javanese,

attracted Chinese entrepreneurs to involve it in their business. It raised the

violence between Javanese and Chinese, which culminated on 31 October 1918.

Factories and houses were burnt down, and even some people were killed.

However, the Chinese firms gained a competitive advantage at an early stage of

the kretek industry. In 1921, even, a kongsi (partnership of Chinese entrepreneurs)

built the first factory for kreteks using paper wrappers. At that time, the local

people preferred the old kretek with a maize wrapper (Colombijn, Colombijn, &

Colombijn, 2001). Chinese found a new market outside Kudus in in the future, the

117

largest kretek companies are played by Indonesian Chinese entrepreneurs such as

Djarum, Bentoel, Gudang Garam, and Sampoerna (Arnez, 2009).

The habit of smoking tobacco mixed with clove encouraged Nitisemito, a

Kudus resident, to sell a branded kretek cigarette. At that time, all kretek were

hand-rolled. All ingredients were bought separately. In 1906, Nitisemito launched

his klobot kretek brand named ‘Bal Tiga’ (three balls). The 1920s and 1930s saw a

rapid rise of kretek production, but kretek was unable to displace white cigarettes

as the most popular cigarette in the region (Hanuz, 2005). In 1930, the company

fell into a crisis and eventually went bankrupt in 1953 (Arnez, 2009).

5.3.2. The development of kretek cigarette

Until 1968, kretek cigarettes were rolled by hand with its varieties such as

kretek without a filter, hand-rolled with filter, and kelobot (Arnez, 2009). The

three companies in Solo and Kudus started mechanizing kretek cigarettes in 1968.

Bentoel, a big company with greater capital, also began producing machine-made

kretek cigarettes (SKM) in the same year. A few years later, some medium and

large companies also started to produce SKM, namely Djarum in 1976, Gudang

Garam in 1978, Sukun and Sampoerna in 1983, Noroyono in 1984, and Jambu bol

in 1986 (Tarmidi, 1996). SKM production continues to increase. Even in 2015, it

contributed 66.2 percent (Kementerian Perindustrian, 2015).

The numbers of cigarettes produced by manufacturers in Indonesia

continued to decline from 2007-2015. In 2015, the number of tobacco companies

was 713, a decline of 83 % compared to the amount in 2006 (Kurnaini, 2016).

This decrease was due to the tightening of the application of rules relating to

excise payments. The government became strict about applying the regulations.

The government closed companies that violated the regulations, especially

regarding compliance with excise payments. Almost four thousand cigarette

manufacturers were closed during 2007-2015.

118

217 237

266 281

292 318 326

346 345 348

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cigarette production (billions)

4.198

4.669

3.281

2.495

1.994

1.664

1.320 1.206

995

713

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Kurnaini (2016)

Figure 76: Number of cigarette companies in Indonesia, 2006-2015

Even though the numbers of cigarette companies are decreasing, the

cigarette production is increasing. In the last five years (2011-2015), cigarette

production grew an average of 3.6 % per year. In the same period, the production

was an average of 336.42 billion stick of cigarettes per year.

Source: Kurnaini (2016)

Figure 77: Cigarette production in Indonesia, 2006-2015

119

Gudang

Garam Tbk

29%

HM

Sampoerna

Tbk

29%

Djarum

12%

Bentoel

Internasional

Investama

Tbk

7%

Philip Morris

Indonesia

7%

Nojorono

Tobacco

Indonesia

6%

Other

companies

10%

Based on market shares, Gudang Garam Tbk, HM Sampoerna Tbk, and

Djarum are the three big cigarettes manufacturers in Indonesia. They together had

a market share of 70 % in 2016 (figure 78). Those three companies are also the

biggest excise contributors. They are the biggest clove cigarette manufacturers.

Source: Lian & Dorothea (2016)

Figure 78: Market share of tobacco industries in Indonesia, 2016

5.4. Tobacco growing and government income

Tobacco products excise is one of the important incomes for the Indonesian

government. The products include SKM, SKT, and SPM. In 2015, SKM that was

produced by 246 cigarette manufactures has the biggest contribution, which

reached 81.9 %. Meanwhile, the excise collected from SKT and SPM was 11.8 %

and 6.3 %, respectively. The number of cigarette companies producing SKT was

441, and the rest of it, 26 manufacturers, were SPM producers (Kurnaini, 2016).

The amount of excise on tobacco products obtained by the government increased

from year to year. The excise was about tripled by 2017 compared to 2009. In

2017, the government got 147 trillion rupiah from excise on tobacco products

(figure 79).

120

61 69

84

105 111

139 142 147

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Excise (trillions rupiah)

Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2010-2017)

Figure 79: Tobacco product excise in Indonesia, 2010-2017

The rise of the excise also implies an increase in the amount of the revenue

sharing fund of tobacco product excise (DBH-CHT). DBH-CHT is a shared fund

obtained from 2 % of total tobacco excise, which is distributed to tobacco and

cigarette producer provinces. This policy is following the law number 39 of 2007

on excise duty. DBH-CHT can be used for quality improvement of raw materials,

industrial development, social environment development, socialization of

provisions in the field of excise, and/or the eradication of illegally taxable goods.

The composition of the distribution of CHT-DBH is 30 and 40 percent,

respectively, for provinces and regencies/cities producing tobacco products.

Meanwhile, the remaining 30 percent is for other regions that are not contributors

to excise.

121

1,2 1,4

1,7

2,1 2,2

2,8 2,8 3,0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

DBH-CHT (trillion rupiah)

East Java

52%

Central

Java

23%

West Java

11%

West Nusa

Tenggara

8%

Others

6%


Figure 80: Revenue sharing fund of tobacco product excise

(DBH-CHT) of Indonesia, 2010-2017

DBH-CHT funds are provided to the 16 provincial governments. The

number of funds earned depends on the contribution of excise duty obtained from

tobacco and its products. East Java received the most funds (52 %). It is because

the region is the largest tobacco producer, and there are many cigarette companies

built in the area. The second largest province obtaining the fund is Central Java

(23 %). It is followed by other provinces, namely West Java (11 %), West Nusa

Tenggara (8 %), and others (6 %) (figure 81).

Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2017)

Figure 81: The proportion of sharing fund of tobacco

product excise (DBH-CHT) by province, 2017

122

Central Java

30%

Kudus

22% Temanggung

5%

Kendal

3%

Boyolali

3%

Others

37%


Figure 82: Tobacco product excise of Central Java province,

2010-2017

In Central Java, Kudus is the largest beneficiary regency of the fund. It

received 22 % of the DBH-CHT of this province. It is because of a large number

of cigarette industries operating in the area. Temanggung is the second largest

beneficiary regency. The total amount of the fund increases from year to year. In

2017, the regency received 31.2 billion rupiah (figure 83 and 84).

Source: Kementerian Keuangan RI (2017)

Figure 83: The proportion of DBH-CHT based on

regency/city in Central Java province, 2017

282

392 427

546 482

628 642 680

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

DBH-CHT (billions rupiah)

123


Figure 84: DBH-CHT of Temanggung regency, 2010-2017

5.5. Tobacco cultivation and production in Sumbing-Sindoro

Mountainside (SSM)

5.5.1. The origin of tobacco in SSM: a folklore and myths

Temanggung tobacco is believed to be introduced by Ma Kuw Kwan. He is

also called by Syarif Hidayat, Jaka Teguh, Ki Ageng Makukuhan or Ki Ageng

Kedu. Ma Kuw Kwan is a Chinese, who was a santri (student at traditional

Muslim school) of Sunan Kudus in Pondok Pesantren Glagahwangi (Islamic

boarding school) in Kudus, Central Java. Later, he also became a santri of Sunan

Kalijaga. In the Pondok pesantren, he learned about the religion of Islam,

agriculture, and supernatural powers.

After finishing his study, Ma kuw kwan was given the task of spreading

Islam in the region Kedu by Sunan Kalijaga. He started to integrate with the local

people through farming activities. He also spread Islam by an example. His

praying activities (worship of salat) encouraged inhabitants to ask what salat is.

Makukuhan explained that salat is one of the activities to ask God for their

abundant yield. In the end, many people embraced the religion of Islam.

The fame of the success of farming in Kedu encouraged Sunan Kudus to

introduce new crops by sending one of his santri, Bramanti. Later, He was also

called Ki Ageng Parakan because he also spread Islam in the area of Parakan.

15 13

18

25 23

28 28

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

DBH-CHT (billions rupiah)

124

Sunan Kudus sent Makukuhan three seed crops, namely: Rojolele and Cempa

paddy seed, and the seeds, which was in the future called mbako (tobacco).

The word mbako was taken from the Javanese word, ‘tambaku’, which

means ‘my healer’. At that time, a local resident was sick. Ki Ageng Makukuhan

came to cure him by using tobacco flowers. Then, the sick resident said ‘iki

tambaku’, which means ‘this is my healer’. The word tambaku changed to

‘tembako’. In the simpel way, thus, it was called ‘mbako’.

In this region, there is also a well-known story about the origin of the typical

quality of Temanggung tobacco, srinthil. The story started from Sunan Kudus,

who threw rigen or ndaru rigen, a woven bamboo used for drying tobacco,

toward Temanggung region. The site where the rigen falls will be a great place to

grow tobacco. The rigen fell down in the slope of Sumbing Mountain. The area,

then, was called Legoksari village. Until now, the inhabitants of Temanggung

believe that the best quality of tobacco would be obtained on the farmland, which

at night is shaded by ndaru rigen. It can be seen in the form of the ray.

Ki Ageng Makukuhan also introduced the slametan (ritual feast), which is

conducted before tobacco planting (wiwit). Recently, the ritual is called among

tebal. The word slametan comes from Arabic language, salama, which means

‘safe’. The ritual fest is conducted in the farmland. The inhabitants provide

tumpeng robyong. This contains the cone-shaped black sticky rice. In its

surrounding, there are assorted Javanese dishes such as ingkung, anchovies

pepes9, shredded omelet, fried tofu and tempe, jajan pasar (traditional market

snack), fruit, and black coffee.

Tumpeng is shaped like a mountain. Mountain expresses the place where the

dead souls reside with other invisible beings after they are released from this

world. By making the tumpeng, thus, the host can make easy contact with those

who will bring the state of safety. The tumpeng is also the symbol of this world.

The tumpeng, taking the form of a cone, has only one peak. As a metaphor, it

delivers a message that God (Allah) is one and human beings cannot be the same

as Him. Another part of tumpeng is ingkung made from a rooster (jago) that

9 Pepes is an Indonesian cooking method using banana leaf as food wrappings.

125

symbolizes a human being as the best and the cleverest among all creatures of

God (Kim, 2007). Anchovies, which are characterized by always living in groups,

represent having a good relationship with family and neighbors.

Slametan is also held before the first time of tobacco purchasing. This

activity is conducted by grader which is attended by all the big middlemen. Some

big middlemen also carry out the slametan by inviting all the farmers selling

tobacco to them (MPIG Tembakau Srinthil Temanggung, 2013). Currently, some

other festivals are also conducted. It usually integrates with tourist attractions.

festival lembutan Bansari and 3matra (tobacco-coffee-culture) are the examples

of festivals carried out to preserve the culture of tobacco growing.

Source: Metrotvnews.com (2016)

Figure 85: Ritual feast (slametan) of ‘among tebal’

126

Source: temanggungkab.go.id (2018)

Figure 86: Tobacco festival: 3matra (tobacco-coffee-culture)

Source: jatengprov.go.id (2018)

Figure 87: Tobacco shredding festival (lembutan festival)

127

Tobacco growing has been embedded in the every day life of the people in

Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside. Temanggung itself is always heralded by the

local government as the city of tobacco ‘kota tembakau’. The development of

tobacco growing is often used as political promises by the regent candidates to get

votes in the local elections.

Photo by Widiyanto

Photo by Aryo

Figure 88: The icon of tobacco in the billboard of the family

planning campaign (top) and the town square of Temanggung

(bottom), ‘Kota Tembakau’ means the city of tobacco

128

5.5.2. Tobacco production

5.5.2.1. Harvested areas

In 2017, the tobacco production area in Temanggung contributed 38 % of

the total tobacco cultivation in the province of Central Java. Tobacco in this area

is planted in all sub-districts in Temanggung regency except Bejen and Pringsurat.

During the last 15 years, the tobacco production area was 14.5 thousand ha in

average per year. During the period, the area for tobacco cultivation fluctuated.

The harvested area of tobacco in 2004 and 2015 was the highest, 19.3 and 18.2 ha,

in a row. In contrast, in 2006 the production area was only 9.3 ha.

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2004-2018)

Figure 89: Harvested areas of tobacco in Temanggung regency,

2003-2017

During 2012-2016, around 75 % of tobacco in this regency was cultivated in

eight sub-districts, namely Kledung, Ngadirejo, Bulu, Tlogomulyo, Bansari,

Tretep, Tembarak, and Parakan. The sub-district of Bulu, Tlogomulyo, Tembarak,

and Parakan, which is located on the slopes of the Mt. Sumbing contributes 12 %,

10 %, 8 %, and 7 %; respectively. The areas situated on the slopes of Mount

Sindoro such as in the sub-district of Ngadirejo and Tretep contributed 20 %.

Meanwhile, Kledung sub-district, which is lied on both slope of SSM, accounted

for 13 % (figure 90).

15,0

19,3

14,5

9,3

13,0

11,4

12,3

14,5

14,2

15,6 14,5

12,6

18,2 16,8

16,1

0

5

10

15

20

25

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Harvested areas (in thousands of hectares)

129


Figure 90: Proportion of the harvested areas of tobacco

by sub-districts during 2012-2016 in average per year

In some of the largest sub-districts of tobacco contributors in Temanggung

such as Tlogomulyo, Bansari, and Kledung, in 2016, more than 90 % of

agricultural land was planted with tobacco. Meanwhile, in Bulu, Parakan,

Tembarak and Ngadirejo sub-districts, the ratio of land used for tobacco

cultivation is between 60-80 %. Meantime, other sub-districts show a proportion

lower than 60 % (figure 91).

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2017)

Figure 91: Proportion area of tobacco production (percentage) to total

agricultural land by sub-districts, 2016

Kledung

13%

Ngadirejo

12%

Bulu

12%

Tlogomulyo

10% Bansari

8%

Tretep

8%

Tembarak

7%

Parakan

7%

Others

23%

0,4

2,3

2,6

2,6

7,9

16,7

39,0

47,1

48,4

48,7

58,4

60,3

68,9

77,1

79,8

92,1

92,3

94,2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gemawang

Kaloran

Kandangan

Kranggan

Temanggung

Kedu

Tretep

Wonoboyo

Jumo

Selopampang

Candiroto

Bulu

Parakan

Tembarak

Ngadirejo

Kledung

Bansari

Tlogomulyo

130

5.5.2.2.Tobacco production and productivity

Tobacco produced by 18 sub-districts in Temanggung regency in the period

2003-2017 was 7.4 thousand tons in average per year. The highest production was

in 2015, which reached 10.6 thousand tons. For the past 15 years, only in that year

tobacco production reached more than 10 thousand tons. Meanwhile, the lowest

yields were in 2005 and 2006, where the production was below 5 thousand tons

(figure 92).


Figure 92: Tobacco production in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017

The average tobacco productivity during the period 2003-2017 in

Temanggung was 0.51 tons/ha, still below the national average of around 0.9

tons/ha. The highest productivity was achieved in 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2017,

which reached more than 0.6 tons/ha. Meanwhile, the lowest production was in

2005, which only produced 0.27 tons/ha. In 2016, yields were also very low, only

0.36 tons/ha (figure 93).

7,11

9,50

3,92 4,26

8,02

5,01

6,79

6,37

9,13

9,98

7,15

6,92

10,61

6,04

9,90

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Production (in thousands of tons)

131


Figure 93: Tobacco productivity in Temanggung regency, 2003-2017

In part 5.2.2, it has been mentioned that tobacco cultivation is very risky to

climate anomalies, particularly high rainfall during the planting and harvesting

period. That is way, not all of the area planted with tobacco can be harvested.

During 2013-2015, the crop failure was about 9.5 % of planted land in average per

year. In 2017, almost 100 % of tobacco planted could be harvested. Meanwhile, in

2014, it was only about 80 % of tobacco planted, which did not fail to be

harvested (figure 94).


Figure 94: Gap between planted and harvested area of tobacco

cultivation in Temanggung regency, 2013-2017

0,47

0,49

0,27

0,46

0,61

0,44

0,55

0,44

0,64 0,64

0,49

0,55

0,58

0,36

0,62

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Productivity (ton/ha)

14,9 15,7

19,2

17,0 16,1

14,2 12,6

18,2 16,8 16,1

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Planted (in thousands of hectares) Harvested (in thousands of hectares)

132

At the sub-district level, tobacco productivity in Kedu, Tembarak, Parakan,

Kledung, and Tretep was higher than the average in Temanggung regency in

2016. Kedu showed the highest yield of 0.65 tons/ha. Meanwhile, the majority of

other sub-districts had productivity below the average at the regency level.

Kranggan Sub-district was the area with the lowest yield of 0.21 tons/ha (figure

95).

Source: BPS Kabupaten Temanggung (2017)

Figure 95: Tobacco productivity (ton/ha) in Temanggung regency by

sub-district, 2016

5.5.2.3.Tobacco farmers

In the last five years (2013-2017), the average number of farmers in

Temanggung regency was 55.5 thousand. This amount was 48 % of the total

tobacco farmers in the province of Central Java. During the same period, the

highest number of farmers, who planted tobacco in 2015, was 64 thousand

farmers. They planted tobacco in an area of 19.2 thousand ha with a total

production of 10.6 tons. This figure is also the highest for the past five years.

0,21

0,32

0,38

0,44

0,45

0,48

0,49

0,49

0,49

0,49

0,49

0,49

0,51

0,52

0,52

0,54

0,57

0,65

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70

Kranggan

Kandangan

Temanggung

Gemawang

Bulu

Tlogomulyo

Jumo

Kaloran

Ngadirejo

Candiroto

Bansari

Wonoboyo

Selopampang

Tretep

Kledung

Parakan

Tembarak

Kedu

133


Figure 96: The number of tobacco growers in

Temanggung regency, 2013-2017

Changes in the number of farmers are caused by weather forecasts and

tobacco prices. Farmers who grow crops in the rice fields have the choices of

whether they will plant tobacco or not. Several alternative crops that can be

planted in the dry season. Meanwhile, farmers who grow on dry land, especially

on the upper slopes of the Mt. Sumbing-Sindoro, they have no possibility to plant

crops except tobacco. Therefore, in the dry season, it is inevitable that farmers can

only grow tobacco because it is the only plant that can grow well.

50 52

64

57 54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tobacco growers (thousands)

134


135

Rise, Fall, and Challenges of

Tobacco Growing in SSM

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 97: The post built by tobacco growers as the expression of

rejection to policies on tobacco control. ‘Mati urip mbako’ (keep on

planting tobacco).

6

136

6.1. The golden era of tobacco

Before the 1970s, tobacco in Temanggung was processed as

garangan/emplengan tobacco. The tobacco is processed in a way thin shredded,

compressed and dried on a fire. In the local language, the drying process on the

fire is called garang. The tobacco produced is named garangan, which was used

for roll-your-own cigarette (lintingan). Klembak (a kind of root) and incense

(kemenyan) was added to the cigarette. Until now, garangan tobacco is still

produced by tobacco growers living in Kejajar sub-district, Wonosobo regency,

approximately 30 km from the Temanggung regency (figure 98).

Source: antarafoto.com (2011)

Figure 98: Garangan tobacco that is still produced in Wonosobo

regency

For supplying the local market, since 1956, the farmers living in

Temanggung regency expanded their farm area to the mountain with an elevation

up to 1,100 m (Purlani & Rachman, 2000). At that time, merchants went to the

peasants to collect tobacco and then sold it to other regions. Garangan tobacco

changed to tumbon/kenthungan tobacco after the establishment of cigarette factory

representative in the area, Gudang Garam, in the 1970s. The word tumbon is

derived from the word ‘tumbu’, which means basket. The basket is made from

137

bamboo as the outer part and dried banana tree midrib as the inside piece (figure

99). Every basket contains 35-45 sliced dried tobacco. This type of tobacco was

created to fulfill the cigarette manufacturers’ demand. Sliced dried tobacco is

processed through leaves sortation based on maturity, fermentation, slicing with

size 0.5–1 cm, and sun drying (Djajadi, 2015).

Photo by Arif

Photo by Arif

Figure 99: Tumbon or kentungan tobacco, drying process

(top) and packaging activities (bottom)

138

‘In the past time, tobacco was in the form of emplengan/garangan.

From 1966 until 1968, I witnessed my grandfather making

emplengan/garangan tobacco. Today tobacco is made for supplying

company need, tobacco was formerly retailing for lintingan (RYO).

Chinese merchants bought tobacco for sale at Karawang, West Java and

other regions. In 1968, it was the transition time from

garangan/emplengan to sliced-dried tobacco which was sold to the

Gudang Garam company’. (Sukadi)

At the time hand-rolled cigarettes (SKT) still lead the cigarette production in

Indonesia, tobacco cultivated in Temanggung was the main ingredient for kretek.

Each kretek cigarette contains almost 30 % of Temanggung tobacco. One of

tobacco quality became contested by many cigarette manufacturers was srinthil,

the highest quality of tobacco. It contains about 5-8 % of nicotine (Djajadi, 2015).

At that time, generally, the price of tobacco was very significant. Therefore, the

crop was popular as a golden leaf (emas hijau). The following quotations show

that tobacco was a promising commodity in supporting the livelihood systems of

peasant farmers:

‘In 1976, the highest price was 120 thousand per kilo. If the net weight of

one basket were 40 kilos, the total money obtained would be 4.8 million.

The price was equal to a new car price.’ (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000)

‘In the early 1980s, 1 kilo gram of tobacco was equal to 1 gram of gold

price.’ (Dahono Kuwat)

‘As I remember, in 1982, I had become a tobacco grower. Farmers were

prosperous; the price reached 12 thousand per kilo, where the previous

price was only 6-7 thousand. It was surprising. At that time, we could buy

the motorcycle ‚GL‘ for 850 thousand that was equal to two bales of

tobacco. In 1999 and 2001, the tobacco price was also high. In 1999, the

price was 40 thousand per kilo where the previous price was only 20-25

thousand per kilo. At that time, the price of cattle was 1.5 million. It is

equal to one bale of tobacco price.’ (Sukadi)

Additionally, in 1979, the government issued the program called

intensification of smallholder tobacco (ITR). The primary goal of the ITR

program was to increase the productivity and quality of tobacco smallholders. The

government established some institutions, namely: a project implementation unit

(UPP), an Indonesian import-export bank (BEII), Agricultural extension agencies

(BPP), and farmer groups, each consisting of 22 household farmers in average to

139

support the program. The project includes 17.6 ha of land in Temanggung

regency. In outline, the implementation of the program consists of the provision of

means of production, market and decent price guarantee, and providing technical

guidance (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000).

In general, the living standard of tobacco farmers was much higher. After

getting money from tobacco selling, they bought the secondary and tertiary needs

such as cars and motorcycles. Some others spent money on building or renovating

a house, buying land, or purchasing livestock. In the tobacco season, farmers

bought goods without bargaining the price. Many dealers came to the villages to

sell motorcycles or cars. In many cases, the farmers bought them in cash. There

are some expressions describing the situation, such as ‘tuku sepeda motor koyo

tuku krupuk, endog di rego sawo, tongkol dirego gesek’ ‘buying motorcycle, egg,

and tuna fish is like to buy crackers, sawo (kind of fruit), and anchovy,

respectively. This expression illustrates that during the high price of tobacco,

peasants bought their needs without any strict consideration of the price offered.

Even in the golden era of tobacco, there was a rule issued by the village

head (kepala desa), which regulates that farmers need to donate a portion of the

money received from the sale of tobacco for village development, such as to build

schools, mosques, streets, etc. Infrastructures built in the villages were almost all

contributed by farmer donations. In Legoksari village, for example, they built a

school (figure 100) and village meeting hall (balai desa) (figure 101). The school

was built in 1969 and was renovated in 1998. Balai desa built in 1984, which

costs 30 million rupiah. The village regulation sets donation system named by

sewu selawe. This obliged farmers to donate 25 rupiah for every 1,000 rupiah

obtained from the sale of tobacco.

140

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 100: The school built and funded by tobacco growers

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 101: The village hall (balai desa) established by peasant

farmers

141

6.2. The fall of tobacco: price decline and the high cost of tobacco

‘The golden era of tobacco was over in the 2000s. Today, peasants have no

profit from tobacco growing. However, we could not leave the activity

because tobacco growing is the only thing we can do. Furthermore, I have

great experiences with tobacco cultivation. Sometimes, there is a surprise for

me when the tobacco price is high, my debts during the last four years before

could be paid off. However, it has been difficult to repeat the same situation

as before. The price of tobacco is often unfavorable. It makes miserable.

Today, tobacco is not cultivated in monoculture anymore; peasants also

grow vegetables or chili, although only on the edge of the land. It was a

disaster for a peasant in 1978 because of the low quality of tobacco caused

by rainfall at the harvest time. Cigarette company did not buy tobacco.

Farmers often lose money. The price of tobacco is mysterious and

unexplainable. The buyers determined it. The lower quality of tobacco is

possible to get a better price compared to the high quality of tobacco. The

government actually can take a role in regulating the price. The standard rate

of each grade of tobacco quality must be agreed and implemented

consistently. For example, tobacco with quality B must be purchased at the

standard B price.’ (Sukadi)

‘Tobacco is beneficial when the price of tobacco is more than one hundred

thousand rupiah per kilo. Become a peasant is apprehensive. Everything for

tobacco farming is expensive both cost for cultivation and market. If the

standard price is only 70 thousand per kilo, it is just sufficient for buying

manure and paying labor. There will be no profit.’ (Marjo)

Tobacco growers are in a vulnerable position because the volatile and

declining price of tobacco and the increasing cost of tobacco farming. The

declining price is caused by the development of the cigarette industry that has

shifted from hand-rolled kretek cigarettes (SKT) to machine-rolled kretek

cigarettes (SKM). The use of SKM drives cigarette companies to buy tobacco

containing low-middle nicotine. The price of Temanggung tobacco that comprises

high nicotine is declining. The excess of the world tobacco production also

contributes to the decline and fluctuations in local tobacco prices. In other

situations, the cost of farming mainly for manure, labor, and marketing increases.

The circumstances are getting worse because of climate variability, which causes

crop failure and significant price reductions. How some of these factors affect the

livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers will be described in detail in the

following part.

142

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

SKT SKM

6.2.1. Cigarette industry development

Kreteks were solely hand rolled until 1968 when three small companies

began to mechanize cigarette production in 1968. It was followed by the larger

manufacturers, namely: Djarum, Gudang Garam, and Sampoerna that started

mechanizing in 1976, 1978, and 1983, respectively. SKT still dominated kretek

cigarette industries until the mid-1980s. Since 1985, the production of SKM was

higher than SKT. Even in 1989, SKM contributed almost 60 % of cigarette

production in Indonesia (Tarmidi, 1996). SKT productivity is an average of

4,000–5,000 sticks per 8 hours, while SKM is 2,000–8,000 sticks per minute, so

finally SKM production far exceeds SKT (Murdiyati & Basuki, 2011).

Source: Tarmidi (1996)

Figure 102: Production of cigarettes in Indonesia (billions), 1972-1993

Beside SKT and SKM, tobacco is produced into white cigarettes (sigaret

putih mesin-SPM). SPM is more popularly called rokok putih. Compared to SKT

and SKM, the contribution of SPM is smaller particularly after the mechanization

of kretek cigarette. In the 1970s, SPM still contributed around 30% and continued

to decline in the following years. During 2001-2010, kretek contributed 92 % of

the total production. Meanwhile SPM only contributed 8 % (Murdiyati & Basuki,

143

2011). Indef (2018) noted that during the last four years, the production of SKT

decreased 6.1 % annualy in average.

Table 5: The production of cigarettes in Indonesia

Year Production (billions)

SKT % SKM % SPM % Total

1961–1970 (average) 19,72 55 0 0 15,83 45 35,55

1971–1980 (average) 33,16 60 2,82 5 18,94 34 54,92

1981–1990 (average) 40,09 35 52,15 45 22,65 20 114,89

1991–2000 (average) 57,83 29 119,26 60 21,43 11 198,52

2001–2010 (average) 79,04 36 123,64 56 18,49 8 221,18 Source: Murdiyati & Basuki (2011)

Source: Murdiyati & Basuki (2011)

Figure 103: The development of tobacco production in Indonesia

The popularity of filter cigarettes among consumers was one of the reasons

for mechanization (Arnez, 2009). SKM was enthused because of the light taste.

Compared to SKT, SKM is more light and aromatic and contains smaller tobacco

in every stick of cigarette. Meanwhile, SKT commonly has heavy taste and high

nicotine.

Regarding to the market share, Departemen Perindustrian (2009) notes that

consumption rate of SKM is continually rising. In 2000, the market share of SKM,

SKT, and SPM was 50.3 %; 39 %, and 10.7 %; respectively. In 2009, SKT and

SPM sequentially dropped to 37 % and 7 %. In contrast, SKM's market share rose

to 58 %. In 2013, SKM contributed 66.20 % (237.2 billlions cigarettes).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1961–1970

(average)

1971–1980

(average)

1981–1990

(average)

1991–2000

(average)

2001–2010

(average)

SKT SKM SPM

144

Meanwhile, the market share of SKT declined by 26.1 % (97.9 billions cigarettes)

(Kementerian Perindustrian, 2015). Ernst & Young (2015) also analyzes that

during the period of 2012-2014, the retail sales volume of the cigarette industry

grew by 13.7 billion units, with the largest growth contributed by the SKM

segment. The sales volume of the SKM segment grew by 27 billion cigarettes. On

the other hand, the sales volume of the SKT cigarettes has decreased significantly,

with sales volume falling by 12 billion cigarettes or 16.5 % from 2012 to 2014.

The change of cigarette demand is in line with the global policy and the

Indonesian government regulation on tobacco control. One of the policies is the

reduction of nicotine addiction. Sampoerna, the biggest cigarette manufactureerir

in Indonesia, claimed as a pioneer of producing a cigarette with low tar low

nicotine (LTLN), since 1989. Simultaneously, Sweetener and Fiber Crops

Research Institute (Balittas) has developed tobacco varieties containing middle-

low nicotine since 1993 (Siswanto, 2004). These developments drove cigarette

manufacturers to buy tobacco containing middle-low nicotine10

.

Changes of tobacco demand from high to middle-low nicotine by cigarette

companies have reduced role of this commodity for peasants’ livelihood,

especially for those who grew tobacco on dry land, since the early 1990s. At that

time, the price of tobacco containing the highest nicotine, srinthil, declined.

Conversely, the rate of middle nicotine (grade C, D, E) slightly increased. This

development was exacerbated by the increasing production costs, particularly for

manure and labor (Mukani & Isdijoso, 2000).

Shifting tastes from SKT to SKM causes the change of tobacco demand

from heavy to light taste. The heavy flavor is contained in quality of F and G,

while light and the mild taste is in grade A-E. It has increased the price of grade D

and E. Conversely, the price of grade F and G declined. As an illustration, the

tobacco price of grade D-E was 16 thousand rupiah in 1988 and it increasingly

became 22.5 thousand per kilo in 1990. Otherwise, in the same period, the price of

10 Even in 2010, Djarum as one of the tobacco consumers in Temanggung did not buy the highest

grade of tobacco (Suara Merdeka, 2010) because the companies tend to develop the light kretek

cigarette.

145

grade F-G declined from 60 thousand rupiah to 35 thousand per kilo (Subangun

and Tanuwidjoyo, 1993 in Mukani and Isdijoso 2000).

The price of both low and high nicotine tobacco tends to decrease,

particularly when there is still rain during the dry season (harvesting time).

Temanggung tobacco is classified as voor oogst, which does not require rainfall in

the harvesting time. Deviation of rainfall during the dry season affects crop

failure.

6.2.2. Economy of tobacco growing: excess supply and price decline

The tobacco leaf production of the world is characterized by the shift from

High-Income Countries (HICs) to Low-Middle Income Countries (LMICs). From

1970 to 2013, tobacco leaf production increased, by 240 percent (%) (figure 104).

In contrast to that, during the same period, the production in HICs declined 2.5

times. Several factors influence the increasing participation of LMICs in the world

tobacco production. First, the cost of production in LMICs is lower compared to

HICs. It is because in the HICs there are strict regulations related to environments

protection. Less support for tobacco cultivation causes tobacco growing to be

unattractive. Second, it is related to declining tobacco use in HICs. In contrary, in

LMICs tobacco use and export is increasing. Thirdly, there is an expansion of

Multinational tobacco companies (MTCs) to LMICs. Fourthly, tobacco in LMICs

is considered more profitable compared with traditional food crops (U.S. National

Cancer Institute and WHO, 2016).

Jacobs et al. (2000) note that between 1975 and 1998 the production of

tobacco leaf in developing countries rose by 128 %. Related to the share of world

tobacco production, Asia (including the Middle East) contributed from 40 % to 60

% during the period 1977-1997. Africa’s share also rose from 4% to 6%.

Conversely, the contribution of the high-income countries fell from 30 % to 15 %

(figure 105).

146

Oceania

0% Africa

11%

Americas

18%

Asia

68%

Europe

3%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

197

0

197

2

197

4

197

6

197

8

198

0

198

2

198

4

198

6

198

8

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

201

2

201

4

201

6

Production (millions of tons)


Figure 104: World tobacco leaf production, 1970-2016


Figure 105: The proportion of the world's

tobacco production by region, 2016

World tobacco production is indicated by oversupply in the global market. It

is caused by global production, which tends to exceed the actual global

consumption of tobacco leaves. Economically, it will be followed by decreasing

producer prices and lowering tobacco farmers’ profits (WHO, 2008). Continuous

oversupply is considered a cigarette industry method to keep tobacco leaf prices

low at the farm gate. Based on the value-added chain, tobacco peasants earn very

147

little compared to cigarette companies. The tobacco leave companies will obtain

47.2 times compared to peasant income in every one ton of row tobacco produced

(WHO, 2014).

Except for China and India, tobacco price in the farm gate (producer) in the

top five major producing countries decreased during the 1990s to 2000s.

Generally, the prices received by tobacco growers in LMICs are much lower than

those obtained by tobacco growers in HICs. It is one of the reasons for MTCs to

invest in LMICs (U.S. National Cancer Institute and WHO, 2016).

During the past ten years from 2008-2017, Indonesia has imported 93.4

thousand tons annually in average. The tobacco imported significantly rose from

year to year. In 2012, tobacco import has double compared to 2010. Tobacco was

imported from China, Brazil, the US, and others (see part 5.2.4.). The increasing

import with low import duty tariff is considered responsible for the decline in

local tobacco prices.

6.2.3. Tobacco farming system

6.2.3.1. Climatic variability and crop failure

Tobacco is considered as a risky crop due to climatic variability and market

price fluctuation (Boomgaard, 2005). The deviation of rainfall during the harvest

period causes tobacco quality to become worse. In this case, productivity will

decrease, and the price automatically will go down. Deviation of rainfall drove

tobacco manufacturers to postpone buying tobacco leaf, and the farmer loss will

be more. In 2004, farmers burnt tobacco on the road as a protest, because the time

of purchasing crop was delayed. In such cases tobacco is not bought by the

companies; the peasants sometimes enforce them to buy their tobacco. Peasants

bring tobacco to the cigarette company warehouse. Because of that, there is

sometimes chaos in the warehouse.

148

Source: Suara Merdeka (2004)

Figure 106: Tobacco growers burn tobacco on the road, because

of the delay in purchasing tobacco by cigarette companies

The peasants usually start growing tobacco in June each year. In exceptional

cases of high rainfall, tobacco cultivation could be delayed until the low rainfall.

The deviation of rainfall on dry season causes a harvest failure. In the past time, to

determine the start of growing and harvesting time, tobacco community used

pranata mangsa, local knowledge about managing agricultural land for Javanese

people. The traditional Javanese calendar has a function as a practical guide of

farming activities for the rural peasants (Daldjoeni, 1984). The peasant starts to

harvest tobacco at the end of the first season (mongso kaso) and will end on the

fourth season (mongso kapat) (Purlani & Rachman, 2000). The explanation of

pranata mangsa in detail will be described as follows:

a. The first season (mongso kaso). It starts from June 22 to August 2. During the

period, peasants maintain tobacco in order to get high quality. At the end of

this season, the harvest starts with picking 1-3 leaves at the bottom.

b. The second season (mongso karo). This period is 23 days long starting from

August 3 to August 25. Cigarette manufacturers began buying dried sliced

tobacco from suppliers (merchants). During this period, the peasants in lamuk,

149

lamsi, and paksi areas will have picked 2-3 times on the position of bottom

until middle leaves of the plant.

c. The third season (mongso katigo). The duration of this phase is 24 days starting

from August 26 to September 18. The period is the guidance for peasants in

Lamuk, Lamsi, and Paksi to begin harvesting the position of the middle and

upper leaves. Tobacco with high quality (grade E, F, and G) can be found in

this season.

d. The fourth season (mongso kapat). This period starts from September 19 to

October 13. The duration of this season is 24 days. During this period, only

tobacco cultivated in lamuk and lamsi area will be available. The highest grade

of tobacco leaves can be found in this season.

At the time of high rainfall during the tobacco harvest season, the cigarette

companies buy tobacco in a short period. Therefore, the cigarette manufacturers

only buy tobacco in a small amount. To reduce losses, some peasants sell at a

meager price. They also make tobacco in the way of ‘dendeng’, where tobacco

leaves are dried without being shredded.

Based on the experience of farmers, there are cycles of good and bad

weather for tobacco as well as high and low prices of the crop. They believe that

the good weather and high price will occur in every 3-4 years. In this case, the

profit obtained in one season can cover losses for three years.

‘In 1998, cigarette manufacturers only bought tobacco whose grade was

at least grade E. We can say that the price will be reasonable in every

three years. If lucky, the sale of tobacco for one season can be used to pay

the debt for three years.’ (Sukardi) ― ‘We can observe that the cycle of

good tobacco price will occur in every four years. I got a bad price for

four years. I was in debt. In the following year, however, the tobacco

price was relatively high and I could pay off the debt for 4 years.’

(Sukadi)

‘The problem of tobacco is about the weather. The better the weather, the

easier it is to sell the tobacco. If the weather is like this year, it will be

challenging to sell tobacco. However, as a human being, we only accept

our fate. In 1978, 1982, 1998, and 2010 tobacco price was inexpensive.’

(Sariyono)

150

6.2.3.2. Manure

Manure is a precondition for the cultivation of tobacco. In the 1940s, human

manure was used in Batavia for tobacco cultivation. In 1960, the use of human

manure was also applied in Wonosobo beside manure from cattle and horses. In

1920, goat and horse dung were used as fertilizer for tobacco cultivation in the

Dieng and Kedu areas. However, in the upland areas, buffalo and cattle manure

was not available, because the farmlands were hoeded not ploughed. Because of

the importance of manure in tobacco cultivation, this seems that there is a

relationship between tobacco growing and livestock rearing. It can be found

phrases such as ‘Kedu horses and Madura cattle’ (Boomgaard, 2005).

Planting tobacco in the mountains at an altitude of 1,100 meters and with a

slope of up to 40 % is very risky for decreasing soil fertility. The farming activity

has an impact on the increasing demand for manure to maintain productivity of

tobacco. Hence, the price of manure goes up from year to year. Meanwhile, the

price of tobacco tends to fall and fluctuate. Tobacco growers sometimes express

the unfavorable situation by connecting the price of manure and tobacco

compared to the past time.

‘In 1979, the price of tobacco was ten thousand rupiah per kilogram. At

that time, I paid 40 thousand rupiah per trip made by truck (rit). Now, the

price of manure is 2.0-2.5 million rupiah or increased 50 times.

Otherwise, the price of tobacco only rose 5-10 times depending on the

quality. In the mountain areas, we have to pay additional labor cost to

deliver the manure from the nearest road that can be reached to the

farmland.' (Sariyono)

Tobacco growers usually use cattle or chicken manure. They buy it from

other regencies around Temanggung, even sometimes also from East Java

province. The increasing demand for manure and the less amount of manure

produced in Temanggung regency drives peasants to find manure from other

regions. It causes a high price of the fertilizer. The rate is between 1.5-2.5 million

per rit. For the peasants living at a higher altitude of Sumbing-Sindoro

mountainside, the additional cost is necessary to deliver the manure from the

locations that can be reached by truck where the manure is placed to the farmland.

151

‘The price of manure is rising. I have to use it at any cost because it is

essential for tobacco cultivation.’ (Sumaryo) ― ‘The price of manure is

high, reaching 1.5 million rupiah per rit. Therefore, if the tobacco price is

low, farmers will lose.’ (Sutino) ― ‘The price of manure was 1.75

million per rit. Meanwhile, farming costs are not always available. We

must borrow it from money lenders (juragan), even though the interest is

high.’(Mujiono) ― ‘The price of manure is high. For land cultivation, I

need two rit of manure with each price of 1.6 million.’ (Suroyo) ―

‘Manure is essential for tobacco cultivation. I need 1.5 trucks of manure

for 2 million per rit.’ (Busri) ― ‘Manure is expensive; the price is 2.5

million per rit. I often owe to buy the fertilizer.’ (Saidi)

Peasants usually put three rit of manure in every hectare of land in average.

Besides manure, the tobacco peasants also put chemical fertilizer and pesticide. It

is obligatory to use a specific fertilizer such as 'fertila' especially for the farmers

who have a contract with the cigarette company, PT. Djarum. The fertilizer

consists of sodium, phosphorus, and potassium.

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 107: Manure dropped in the village before being distributed

to the farmland

152

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 108: Manure dropped in the locations can be reached by

truck before being distributed to the farmland

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 109: The location of planting tobacco in hilly and

mountainous areas makes high labor costs for transporting manure

to farmland

153

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 110: Manure distribution to the farmland by motorcycle

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 111: Manure distribution to the farmland on foot

6.2.3.3. Labor

Tobacco is considered as a labor-intensive crop. The labor is commonly

hired, mainly, for land preparation and tobacco leaf picking and drying. Man labor

is required for land preparation, which is usually carried out during February-

March every year. Harvesting time is during the end of June or the early of July to

the end of August. In the higher altitude of Sumbing-Sindoro mountainside, the

harvesting time is until the end of September or early of October. During the

154

periods, the labor is required to handle some activities such as tobacco leaf

picking, curing, shredding, and drying. The activities must be on time. The delay

will decrease the quality of tobacco. Therefore, intensive use of labor is needed.

Farmers cultivating small piece of land usually mobilize family labor in growing

tobacco activities. Meanwhile, the farmers cultivating more than one ha hire

people from other regions such as Wonosobo and Banjarnegara regency. The

hiring laborers from other regions is caused by the amount of labor required and

driven by scarcity of laborers provided in Temanggung.

In the past time, there was local mutual help (royongan), where people

helped their neighbors to cultivate land in the rotation without paying. Tobacco

growers only serve food, beverages, and cigarettes during work. Recently,

however, tobacco growers have to spend money to hire labor. This was triggered

by the economic crises in 1999, where at the time all prices were higher. Tobacco

peasants needed more money to buy daily necessities. Another reason is due to the

excessive activity of purchasing tobacco from outside Temanggung held by

tobacco shredders (perajang). The use of chopping machines drives peasants to

shred tobacco more and more. The more tobacco chopped by farmers, the more

laborers are needed.

Photo by Arif

Figure 112: Manual tools (cacak and gobang) for tobacco shredding

155

Photo by Arif

Figure 113: Machine-based tobacco chopper

There are men and women groups of hired labor. Land preparation is

usually carried out by men. Meanwhile, picking and curing of tobacco leaves can

be done by both men and women. Shredding is an extraordinary work for men.

Meanwhile, make an arrangement of sliced tobacco on rigen/widig, which is

called nganjang, is only undertaken by women. It is due to the importance of

neatness and thoroughness in arranging the sliced tobacco on rigen. Drying

tobacco can be operated by both men and women.

The payment system of land preparation is generally with the piecework or

contract system (borongan) and others is paid per one working day (harian). The

costs of the contract system are usually determined based on per unit per type of

work. Tobacco peasants usually use kisuk as a unit cost of land cultivation. Kisuk

is derived from the word ‘esuk‘, Javanese language, that refers to the duration of

time starting in the morning until midday. Kisuk is often equated with an area of

0.1 ha, where farmer households can accomplish cultivating their land before

noon. Therefore, one kisuk itself is used for mentioning 0.1 ha of land. For

example, farmers say that the land planted with tobacco is four kisuk, this is

equivalent to 0.4 ha.

156

The laborers employed commonly stay in Temanggung for two or three

months. The laborers are not only hired by tobacco growers, but also for tobacco

shredders (perajang). They need more laborers for tobacco shredding and drying.

Tobacco drying depends on the sunlight. Tobacco growers producing small and

medium quantity, they often dry sliced-tobacco along the street, around the yard,

or on the concrete roof of their house. In cases, when a large amount of tobacco

was produced, they sometimes rent farmland, which was deliberately left to

fallow. This can be also in the football fields, the courtyard of the village head

office, and other areas. The location for drying tobacco is sometimes far away

from their house. Laborers are needed to take care of the tobacco during the

drying process. Fields for tobacco drying are chosen based on the adequacy of

sunlight. Local inhabitants call the people who are looking for areas to get

sufficient sunlight to dry tobacco as ‘pengejar matahari’ (sunlight seekers).

The use of intensive-labor of tobacco growing encourages people to stay for

living in the region under any circumstances. Tobacco farming is considered to be

Box 1: Labor for tobacco growing

Faturahman, Ngaten, and Sri are tobacco growers. They mostly hire labor

for tobacco cultivation. Faturahman and his wife cultivate 0.4 ha (4 kisuk)

located in four (4) separated sites. They hire laborers for tilling the land

with a contract system (borongan). They pay the laborers 500 thousand

rupiah per kisuk of land. Ngaten and the three household members cultivate

0.5 ha of inherited land. They hire labor for land preparation with the

contract system. Sri and her husband cultivate 3 hectares of land inherited

from their parents. In tobacco growing, they hire laborers from Wonosobo

regency. They are seven men and five women.

When tobacco growers hire labor mostly for cultivation, perajang employs

labor for tobacco shredding and drying. Nasihin is one of the perajang

living in Bansari sub-district. In the tobacco season, during about two

months, he buys tobacco leaves from other regions. He employs laborers

from Wonosobo regency. The wage he has to pay is 70 thousand rupiah per

day for men and 60 thousand rupiah per day for woman. He provides the

daily needs of the laborers during the 2 months. At the end of the tobacco

season, he also pays an additional wage particularly when the price of

tobacco is high. He needs about 1.5 tons of raw tobacco leaves to get seven

bales of sliced dried tobacco per day (to get one bale of sliced dried

tobacco, it requires two quintals of raw tobacco leaves). Every bundle of

sliced dried tobacco needs the cost of 200 thousand rupiah.

157

able to accommodate the number of laborers in Temanggung. Therefore, the

number of migrations to the urban area is very small. This seem to be similar to

the results of Geertz's research in the 1970s in Java. Population is increasing, rural

labor is abundant, while agricultural land is limited. The abundant laborers can be

still absorbed to work on limited agricultural land. Therefore, rice cultivation in

Java is characterized by the use of the highly labor-intensive cultivation

technique. Geertz calls it a 'shared poverty', an effort to distribute work and

income to all residents (Geertz, 1983).

For perajang, the laborers are hired for tobacco shredding and drying. It

involves men and woman labor. The number of laborers acquired depends on the

amount of tobacco leaf that is bought every day.

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 114: Laborers needed for tobacco drying

158

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 115: Tobacco drying around the house

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 116: A deliberated concrete roof for tobacco drying

159

Photo by Arif

Figure 117: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (1)

Photo by Arif

Figure 118: Laborers for tobacco leaf picking (2)

160

6.3. Tobacco challenges

6.3.1. Global policies on tobacco control

6.3.1.1. The main concern of tobacco control policies

A global policy on tobacco control echoed by the World Health

Organization (WHO) was firstly initiated in the international convention for

tobacco control in 1993. On May 21, 2003, as many as 168 countries signed the

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). State parties formally

adopted the treaty on February 27, 2005 (Roemer, Taylor, & Lariviere, 2005).

Through the framework, The WHO promoted a new global policy (Mamudu,

Cairney, & Studlar, 2015).

Tobacco is considered a ‘dangerous crop’ because it is linked to health,

socio-economic, and environmental problems (Bellagio statement on tobacco and

sustainable development, 1995). Tobacco has been claimed to kill 1 billion people

in the 21st century (Eriksen et. al., 2015). Tobacco farming has removed an

estimated 200,000 ha of forests/woodlands each year (Geist, 1999). Tobacco is

also often linked to poverty increase, world hunger, economic productivity

reduction, and labor exploitation. In the agricultural perspective, tobacco farming

is claimed to cause the risks of green tobacco sickness and exposure to pesticides,

farmer indebtedness, and unequal trading relations between farmers and tobacco

companies (Keyser, 2007).

The main concerns of the FCTC are tobacco demand and supply reduction

and environment protection. The measures of tobacco demand reduction can be

found in the FCTC protocol Part III article 6-14. These include raising price and

tax, banning smoking in public places, use of pictorial health warnings, bans of

tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, etc. Meanwhile, tobacco supply

reduction encompasses controlling the illicit trade in a tobacco product, and

prohibiting the sales of tobacco to and by minors, and finding alternative crops to

tobacco (Part III article 15-17). Part V article 18 adresses concerns regarding the

serious risks posed by tobacco growing to human health and to the environment.

161

6.3.1.2. The issues of alternative crops to tobacco

Tobacco agricultural issues are addressed in article 17 (the provision of

support for economically viable alternative activities), and article 18 (protecting

environment and health persons in respect of tobacco cultivation). The Study

Group on Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (ESATG)11

is mandated to take care of the relation to articles 17 and 18. Since 2007, ESATG

has carried meeting as many as seven times.

ESATG identified some reasons why farmers rely on tobacco cultivation. It

is summarised into economic, cultural, and ecological causes. Firstly, there is a

’guarantee’ of providing loans for tobacco cultivations and tobacco market given

by the first processor. Farmers also believe that tobacco is more profitable than

other crops. Secondly, tobacco cultivation is becoming a habit which is

successfully transmitted from generation to generation. Lastly, in regions where

irrigation is inadequate, adverse soil, and a particular climate condition, tobacco is

cultivated, because of its drought resistance. Jacobs et al. (2000) note that in

certain low-income and middle-income countries, tobacco growing is essential for

several reasons, chiefly because of its labor intensity and its ability to generate

steady cash flow for poor small farmers. Tobacco is among the more labor-

intensive crops.

Currently, however, the profitability of tobacco is beginning to decrease

because globally there is an excess supply of tobacco leaf due to the upward trend

in production, surpassing actual global consumption of tobacco leaf. This trend

decreases producer prices and tobacco farmers’ profits. Finding an alternative to

tobacco crop and even possibilities of alternative livelihoods becomes the

international agenda to reduce the supply of tobacco. The vulnerability of tobacco

farmers might be opening a window opportunity for farmers to shift resources

away from tobacco production towards other crops (WHO 2008). Although

tobacco is considered no longer profitable, farmers continue to grow tobacco

11

ESATG is an ad hoc organization established in the first conference of WHO FCTC parties in

Geneva 6-17 February 2006. Its main task is to examine and recommend economically viable

alternative crops to tobacco or even alternative livelihoods (WHO, 2008)

162

every year. Therefore, the regulation on tobacco control issued by the Indonesian

government raised the protest from the farmers.

6.3.2. Tobacco control in Indonesia

6.3.2.1. Tobacco control policies

Indonesia has no definite position of government in responding the global

issues on tobacco control. However, the international pressures on tobacco control

seem to make the Indonesian government turn the policy towards the creation of

healthier human as well as environmental conditions (Hadi, Kustiari, & Anugrah,

2008). The government issued some regulations related to tobacco control, such

as PP 81/1999, 38/2000, 19/2003 on cigarette control for health and PP 109/2012

on control of substances that contain addictive chemicals in the form of tobacco

products for health (Rosser 2015, Heriyanto 2014). Even, PP 81/1999 specifically

set maximum nicotine and tar levels for cigarettes (article 4). The regulations set

1.5 mg nicotine and 20 mg tar as the maximum in every stick of cigarette.

However, two years later the restriction on maximum nicotine and tar levels was

canceled by the issuance of PP 19/2003.

Table 6: Tobacco control policies in Indonesia, 1965-now

Regime Policies Contents

New Order Period

(1965-1998)

The Indonesian government did almost nothing to restrict the

sale, marketing, or use of tobacco products. At the same

time, the government actively promoted the production of

tobacco products, in particular, kretek that were first

manufactured in Kudus, East Java, in the late 1800s. Driven

by mechanization, cigarette production increased from

roughly 38 billion per year in 1971 to 154 billion in 1992.

Post-New Order Period

B.J. Habibie

(1998-1999)

PP 81/1999 on

cigarette control for

health

The regulation restricts on the sale,

marketing, and tobacco product use

and also sets maximum nicotine and

tar levels for cigarettes.

Abdurrahman

Wahid (1999-

2001)

PP 38/2000, an

amendment to the

1999 regulation

Permitted cigarette advertising in

electronic media between 9:30 p.m.

and 5:00 a.m.

Megawati S.

(2001-2004)

PP 19/2003 on

cigarette control for

The government refused to sign or

ratify the FCTC framework.

163

Regime Policies Contents

health On contrary, the government has

continued to promote domestic

tobacco production by issuing a

roadmap of tobacco products

industry and excise policy 2007-

2020.

The government removed the

restriction on maximum nicotine

and tar levels.

S.B. Yudhoyono

(2004-2014)

UU 36 2009 on

health

This law explicitly identified tobacco

as an addictive substance, reinforced

earlier requirements for cigarette

packages to contain a health

warning, and stipulated that certain

places would be “smoke-free areas‘.

PP 109/2012 on

control of substances

that contain

addictive chemicals

in the form of

tobacco products for

health

This regulate the packaging and

labeling, pictorial warning, and

smoke-free places, restrictions on

tobacco company sponsorship of

music concerts and sporting events,

including a ban on the use of

company or product logos and

brands (including brand images).

Joko Widodo

(2014-2019)

- -

Source: Rosser (2015)

In the respond of tobacco control related to the reduction of nicotine

addiction, Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute (Balittas) has been

developing tobacco varieties containing middle-low nicotine since 1993. It is

carried out mainly for Madura tobacco in Pamekasan and Sumenep regency

(Siswanto, 2004). Sampoerna, the biggest cigarette manufacturer in Indonesia,

claimed as a pioneer of producing a cigarette with low tar low nicotine (LTLN),

since 1989.

6.3.2.2. Controversies of tobacco control policies

Tobacco control policies have stirred up debates. It has involved many

elements of institutions, such as religion institutions, NGOs (Non-Governmental

Organizations), universities, health professional organizations, community

164

institutions, peasants association, and so on. In religious value, Indonesian

Council of Ulama (MUI), the country’s highest authority on Islamic affairs, and

representative of Muhammadiyah have declared smoking to be haram, or

forbidden, in public places, for pregnant women and children. However, NU

(Nahdatul Ulama) as Indonesia's most significant Muslim association considers

smoking for Muslims only objectionable (makruh), but not forbidden. Therefore,

the majority of Indonesian populations consider that smoking is not banned by

God (Tandilittin & Luetge, 2013).

Generally, there is contestation between the lobby group, on the one hand,

and tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) in NGOs, health professional

organizations, universities, and international organizations, on the other (Rosser,

2015; Lian & Dorothea, 2016) (see table 7). Kretek community (komunitas

kretek) takes part to oppose tobacco control policies. The slogan promoted by this

community is ‘kretek is an Indonesian cultural heritage’ (Salim, 2014). Indonesia

Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI) also struggles to refuse tobacco control

policies because it is considered to threat tobacco growers’ livelihood.

Table 7: Tobacco-control advocates (TCAs) and lobby group

Tobacco-control advocates (TCAs)

NGOs, health professional organizations, universities, and international

organizations, and others

The Indonesian heart foundation (YJI),

The Indonesian cancer foundation (YKI),

Indonesian women without tobacco (WITT),

The Indonesian consumers foundation (YLKI),

The Jakarta citizens ‘forum (FAKTA),

The Institute for preventing smoking problems (LM3),

Indonesia corruption watch (ICW),

The national commission for child protection (Komnas PA),

The Indonesian doctors association (IDI),

The Indonesian public health experts association (IAKMI);

Some Universities (UI, UMY)

WHO

World bank

Front Group and Lobby Group

Indonesia Tobacco Society Alliance (AMTI)

Indonesia Forum of Tobacco Industry Community (FORMASI)

Indonesia Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI)

165

Indonesia Farmers Association (HKTI)

Corporate Federation of Indonesian Cigarette Industries (GAPPRI)

Corporate of Indonesian White Cigarette Markers (GAPRINDO)

Clove National Rescue Coalition (KNPK)

Indonesia Clove cigarette community

Indonesian clove farmers association (APCI)

Federation of Trade Union of Cigarette, tobacco, food, and beverages (FSP

RTMM-SPSI)

Cigarette Manufacturing Association (MPSI) Source: Rosser (2015), Lian & Dorothea (2016)

6.3.2.3. The struggle of tobacco peasants to keep growing tobacco

Tobacco control policies that ‘pressure’ tobacco peasants to find an

alternative crop to tobacco even alternative livelihood have become challenges for

tobacco growers. The policies are considered threatening the sustainability of

tobacco farmers’ livelihood. The action of refusing the global policies on tobacco

control is one of the strategies conducted by tobacco growers to maintain the

existence of the tobacco field and actor position in the arena.

Pioneered by some tobacco merchants, the assemblage of tobacco farmers in

Sindoro-Sumbing (PPTSS, Paguyuban Petani Tembakau Sindoro-Sumbing) was

established on March 13, 2000. The association consists of tobacco growers living

in Sindoro-Sumbing, which includes Temanggung dan Wonosobo regency.

Considering the importance of the struggle for tobacco advocacy at the national

level, on October 14, 2000, Indonesian tobacco growers’ alliance built the

Association of Indonesian Tobacco Farmers (APTI-Asosiasi Petani Tembakau

Indonesia) (Brata, 2012).

The establishment of PPTSS was forced by the rejection of the issuance of

PP 81/1999 on cigarette control for health. The crucial part of the regulation is in

chapter two (2), article four (4), and verse one (1) regarding the content of

nicotine and tar in each cigarette. The verse stated that every stick of cigarettes

circulated in Indonesia must contain less than 1.5 mg of nicotine and 20 mg of tar

(Presiden RI, 1999). This rule is considered to threaten their livelihoods because

tobacco grown in Temanggung contains high levels of nicotine.

Their struggle was paying off with the issuance of PP 38/2000 about an

amendment to the PP 81/1999 in the reign of Abdurrahman Wahid. Unfortunately,

166

the regulation did not revise the verse of nicotine and tar level in every cigarette

(Presiden RI, 2000). PPTSS together with APTI continue to struggle. Finally, in

the reign of Megawati Soekarnoputri the PP 19/2003 on cigarette control for

health was issued. This regulation removed the restriction on maximum nicotine

and tar levels (Presiden RI, 2003).

The struggle of tobacco farmers is not over. During two periods (2004-

2014), in the reign of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, there were issuances of the

UU 36 2009 on health and PP 109/2012 on control of substances that contain

addictive chemicals in the form of tobacco products for health (Presiden RI, 2009,

2012). Tobacco growers assumed that the 2009 Health law is discriminatory.

Chapter 17, chapter 113, and verse two regarding safeguarding addictive

substances tend to lead to tobacco and its products. Some of the caretakers of

APTI applied the judicial review to Constitutional Court (MK). The plea,

unfortunately, was rejected by the issuance of constitutional court decision No

34/PUU-VIII/2010 (Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 2010).

Since the establishment of PPTSS and APTI, many protests and

demonstrations were conducted by tobacco growers not only because of

government regulations on tobacco control, but also related to import policies and

the fatwa from the Council of Indonesian Ulama (MUI) and Muhammadiyah,

which state that tobacco is haram. The low import duty policy causes the price of

imported tobacco to be cheaper than local tobacco. It threatens the livelihoods of

tobacco farmers because the price of a local tobacco can be very cheap. The Fatwa

from MUI and Muhammadiyah are accused not solely because of the religious

matter but also because of the global intervention on tobacco control. A series of

demonstrations of tobacco farmers related to tobacco control policies, import

policies, and the fatwa that tobacco is haram can be seen in table 8. The protest

series presented in the table does not intend to represent all of the activities of

PPTSS and APTI; it is rather limited to actions published in electronic media.

167

Table 8: A series of demonstrations involving tobacco farmers of Temanggung

related to tobacco control policies, import policies, and the fatwa that

tobacco is haram.

Substance Date Subject Location

The insistence to

revoke the PP

81/1999

16.10.2002 PPTSS) Governor’ office of

Central Java, Semarang

28.10.2002 PPTSS Jakarta

Rejection of the

Fatwa that tobacco

is forbidden

16.02.2009 APTI The main road of

Temanggung

31.08.2010 Tobacco farmers of

Legoksari village

Legoksari village,

Tlogomulyo sub-district

08.05.2010 Tobacco growers of

Temanggung and

some local religious

leaders

Temanggung square

(alun-alun) and main

road

21.03.2010 Tobacco growers of

Temanggung

Banaran villages,

Tembarak sub-district

The insistence not to

legalize the

Government

Regulation Bill on

Control of

substances that

contain addictive

chemicals in the

form of tobacco

products for health

28.02.2010 About 4,000 of

tobacco growers in

Central Java

(Temanggung,

Klaten, Wonosobo,

Magelang, Boyolali)

Jakarta

10.05.2011 Tobacco growers and

Kretek community

Jakarta

22.12.2011 Tobacco growers in

the region of

Temanggung,

Magelang,

Wonosobo,

Kebumen, and

Purworejo

Parakan sub-district,

Temanggung regency

03.07.2012 APTI and KNPK Jakarta

The insistence to

revoke the PP

109/2012

12.01.2013 The peasants of

Campurejo village

Campurejo village,

Tretep sub-district

15.01.2013 Tobacco peasants of

Temanggung

Temanggung regency


Temanggung

Banaran villages,

Tembarak sub-district


Legoksari

Legoksari village,

Tlogomulyo sub-district


Bansari District

Bansari district


Temanggung

Temanggung

168

Substance Date Subject Location

Rejection of the

‘World No Tobacco

Day’


Temanggung

Temanggung square

(alun-alun)

Rejection of rising

cigarette prices

23.08.2016 Tobacco peasant of

Temanggung

The regent's office yard

of Temanggung

The insistence to

legalize the bill

regarding tobacco

(RUU

Pertembakauan)

16.11.2016 APTI The House of

Representative's office

yard of Indonesia,

Jakarta

17.03.2017 APTI Temanggung Temanggung

Rejection of the

tobacco import

policies

09.01.2017 APTI of Central Java Central Java Governor's

office yard

17.01.2017 APTI of

Temanggung

Central Java Governor's

office yard

17.03.2017 APTI Temanggung Temanggung Source: Compiled from various electronic media

Source: kabarjinggan.blogspot.com (2010)

Figure 119: Congregational prayers (isthighotsah) as an expression of

resistance to policies on tobacco control and the fatwa haram of

tobacco consumption (Temanggung, 08.05.2010)

169

Source: beritasatu.com (2012)

Figure 120: Insistence not to legalize the PP 109/2012 and

insistence to legalize the bill regarding to tobacco (RUU

Pertembakauan) (Jakarta, 03.07.2012)

Source: antaranews.com (2013)

Figure 121: The peasants of Campurejo villages, Tretep Sub-

district insisted on revoking the PP 109/2012 (Temanggung,

12.01.2013)

170

Source: cendananews.com (2016)

Figure 122: Insistence to legalize RUU Pertembakauan and

rejection on tobacco control policies (Jakarta, 16.11.2016)

Source: tirto.id (2017)

Figure 123: Rejection of tobacco import policies and insistence

to legalize RUU Pertembakauan (Central Java Governor's office

yard, 17.01.2017)

171

Farmers also create and spread slogans that aim to inspire the enthusiasm to

continue growing tobacco and oppose tobacco control policies. The motto is such

as ‘ngrokok matek, gak ngrokok matek, ngrokok ae sampai matek’ (you smoke,

you will die...you do not smoke, you also will die. Then, keep going to smoke until

you die). Another slogan is ‘mati urip mbako’, which means 'keep on planting

tobacco'. In Legoksari village, there is a post, which was built as a gathering place

for tobacco farmers. In that place, they discussed various matters related to

tobacco farming (Sobary, 2016).

172


173

Tobacco Growers’ Strategies:

Negotiations for Livelihood

Photo by Arif

Figure 124: The tobacco merchant’s warehouse

7

174

‘Since 2013 until now, tobacco is not favorable anymore. In 2015, it was the

most severe situation, the weather was appropriate, but the price of tobacco

was low. The price set by the factories is tough to understand. The price is

getting lower. In 2010, the cost was also very low, only 35-40 thousand per

kilo. I owed to a Chinese merchant for land cultivation. It was without

collateral, but I must sell tobacco to him. Last year, I could not pay the debts

because the price of tobacco was terrible. Then, I was in debt to the

merchant. Without debt, it is hard to sustain our livelihood. It is complicated

to become a peasant, always live in uncertainty. However, we never give up.

Tobacco cultivation is a tradition. It is possible to grow vegetables, but the

price cannot surpass the price of tobacco. Finding crops at a higher price

than tobacco will be difficult. In every three years, the weather will be bad.

The cost of manure is reaching two million per rit (per truck). We cannot

control the weather. We also cannot bargain the price at the intermediaries'

level, let alone at the company level. The Regent may be able to pressure the

factories to raise the price.’ (Marjo)

In chapter six, the external sides of vulnerability including cigarette industry

development, the excess supply of tobacco production in the global market, and

various problems in the tobacco farming system have been explored. The

exposures can directly or indirectly to influence the vulnerability of tobacco-based

livelihoods. The surplus supply of tobacco in the world market opens possibilities

for cigarette manufacturers to increase tobacco import that is cheaper than the

local tobacco price. Changes in cigarette production from heavy to light taste have

decreased the price of Temanggung tobacco, which contains high-nicotine. In

everyday life, tobacco growers are engaged in all stages, both on-farm and off-

farm. At each of these stages, farmers face challenges related to high cost in every

gate level, crop failure because of climatic variability and uncertainty related to

volatile prices. In general, tobacco growers spent more money on manure, labor,

and market cost. Furthermore, climatic variability especially rainfall at harvest

time causes crop failure which is followed by low prices of tobacco. Tobacco

price tends to be volatile and decreasing.

The exposures are not the only factor, which influences the tobacco-based

livelihood because vulnerability also depends on the internal capability of each

actor to employ livelihood strategies. Livelihood strategies as social practice are

the interplay between capital, habitus, and field. A field is a structured system of

175

social positions, which is determined by the volume, and structure of capitals

possessed. The capitals are unequally distributed in the field. Therefore, the power

relation among agents is asymmetric. The unequal power generates dominant and

dominated agents.

This chapter will reveal some matters. First, it describes the agents’

positions in the field of tobacco. Second, it will analyze the strategies undertaken

by agents and power-relations among them in order to maintain or improve their

livelihood. The strategies are employed based on the habitus (disposition) and

their relative position in the field. Finally, based on the position, disposition, and

strategies undertaken, the most vulnerable agents in the field of tobacco will be

analyzed. The livelihood vulnerability depends on the influence of the exposure

on tobacco-based livelihoods and on how far the strategies engaged can maintain

or improve the farmers’ livelihoods.

7.1. Agents’ position in the field of tobacco

‘Tobacco problems are particularly related to the intermediaries' cunning in

the market. Farmers rely on tobacco for livelihoods because of its high

quality (price). Tobacco growers should get more profit. However,

intermediaries are the ones, who receive the most benefits.’ (Sarwan)

‘In 2015, the weather was appropriate for tobacco cultivation, but the price

was meager. I do not know who is the most decisive factor in reducing

tobacco prices, whether cigarette company, tobacco merchants, or

intermediaries. Roughly analyzed, graders put a price of 25 thousand per

kilo, tobacco merchants buy tobacco at the rate of 20 thousand, and

intermediaries set a price of 17.5 thousand. The tobacco merchants and

intermediaries want to get the most significant profit.’ (Jamzuri)

‘From 2013 until now, tobacco growers are not getting an advantage. In

2015, the weather was good, but the price determined by tobacco companies

was meager. The average price was only 65 thousand per kilo.’ (Marjo)

A field is a ‘system' or a structured ‘space' of positions where various agents

struggle to occupy multiple positions (Lahire, 2015). The positions are determined

by the volume and composition of capital (Yang, 2014). The agent with the most

significant volume and the best structure of capital will be posited as the dominant

agents in the field.

176

Bourdieu (1986) devides capital into economic capital, cultural capital,

social capital, and symbolic capital. Economic capital refers to material assets or

kinds of material resources such as land or property ownership. Cultural capital is

divided into three forms. Firstly, the incorporated (embodied) cultural capital is in

the form of long-lasting disposition of the mind and body. Secondly, the

objectified form of cultural capital includes cultural goods such as pictures, books,

machines, and so forth. Lastly, institutionalized cultural capital can be in the form

of educational qualification or a certificate of cultural competence. Meanwhile

social capital is ‘the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an

individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less

institutionalized relationship of mutual acquitance and recognition’ (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992). Szreter & Woolcock (2003) divides social capital into bonding,

bridging, and linking. Bonding social capital is networking among friends, family,

and neighbors. Bridging social capital is trusting relations between those from

different demographic and spatial groups. Linking social capital is as norms of

respect and networks of trusting relationships between people who are interacting

across explicit, formal or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society.

The volume of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) possessed depends

on the ability to mobilize economic, cultural, or symbolic capitals. Symbolic

capital is related to honor and recognition.

The field of tobacco refers to a structured space of positions among actors,

which are involved in the tobacco-based livelihood. The structure of position can

be observed through the tobacco market chain where the dominant and dominated

groups are generated by the differences of the volume and composition of their

capital. From the most dominant to dominated agents, in the tobacco field, it can

be grouped as follows graders, tobacco merchants, and the first suppliers. The

first suppliers include tobacco growers, perajang, and pengrajin (figure 125). A

detailed description of the agents positioned on the tobacco field can be observed

in the following section.

177

Figure 125: The position of tobacco ‘players’ based on the tobacco market chain

in Temanggung regency

7.2.1. Graders

At the farm gate, graders are employed by cigarette manufacturers to handle

tobacco leaf purchasing. The graders must be proficient in specifying quality of

tobacco including the color, elasticity, and aroma. The capability of deciding the

tobacco quality is commonly passed down from generation to generation. In

Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside (SSM), there are about 25 graders. They are the

Tobacco Growers

Small Medium Large

The home industry

of tobacco

shredding

(perajang)

Small middlemen (gaok)

Tobacco Merchants

Graders

The home

industry of

tobacco

blending

(pengrajin)

Cigarette manufacturers:

Leaf processing and cigarette

production

Domestic wholesalers

Domestic consumers

Exporters International consumers

National

International

Tobacco from outside

Temanggung regency

178

employers of some cigarette manufacturers such as Gudang Garam (GG), Djarum,

Noroyono, Bentoel, Wismilak, and Sukun. GG as the largest buyer of tobacco

grown in SSM employs five graders. In this area, GG buys more than 50% of

tobacco leaf produced in Temanggung regency. Every grader also hires some

employees.

The skill of determining tobacco quality is very important and requires

special expertise because tobacco produced in Temanggung varies. The diversity

of the growing areas causes the various quality of tobacco. In this region, tobacco

is cultivated in high areas especially at SSM characterized by diverse agro-

ecosystems and topography. Tobacco is grown in the dry land, rainfed, and

irrigated fields. The topography ranges from flat areas and hill slopes up to 60

degrees (Nurnasari & Djumali, 2010).

Mamat et al. (2006) reveal that the best quality of tobacco will be produced

at an altitude of more than 1,000 meters and the position of the slope to the

northeast and north. Basuki et al. (2000) classified Temanggung tobacco into five

types namely lamsi, paksi, toalo, swanbing, and tionggang. Furthermore, Purlani

and Rochmad (2000) add a specific quality named lamuk.

Table 9: Quality of Temanggung tobacco

No Tobacco

quality

Agro-

ecosystem

Topography

1 Lamuk dry fields the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing

altitude > 1,000 meters

on a slope of 15-40 %

2 Lamsi dry fields the eastern and northern side of Mt. Sumbing



3 Paksi dry fields the eastern side of Mt. Sindoro

altitude > 1,100

4 Toalo dry fields between the valley of Mt. Sindoro and Mt.

Sumbing


5 Swanbing dry fields on the slope of Mt. Prahu

altitude 900-1,400 meters


6 Tionggang rice fields altitude 500-700 meters

on a slope of 3-15 % Source: Basuki et al. (2000) and Purlani and Rochmad (2000)

179

The quality of tobacco from the lowest up to the best quality sequence is

from grade A to K. Based on the location of tobacco cultivation, farmers living in

higher elevations generally produce a more significant percentage of better quality

tobacco than those at low altitudes. Besides being influenced by location, tobacco

quality is also determined by the position of the leaves on the plant. The top

position of tobacco leaf is the best quality. Otherwise, leaf tobacco at the bottom

position has the lowest quality. Picking tobacco starts from the bottom to the top,

a sequence which is called koseran, kaki (middle low), tengahan/dada (middle),

tenggokan (middle up), and pronggolan (top leaves).

Source: adapted from Tirtosastro (2000)

Figure 126: Tobacco quality based on the position of the leaves on the plant

Top leaves (pronggolan)

(4-5 leaves)

D/E/F quality

Middle up (tenggokan)

(4-5 leaves)

D quality

Middle (tengahan/dada)

(6-8 leaves)

C/D quality

Middle low (kaki)

(6-8 leaves)

B/C quality

Bottom (koseran)

(4-5 leaves)

A/B quality

180

The lowest quality is on koseran leaves and the highest quality is on

pronggolan leaves. Leaves in the koseran position are potential to produce A/B

quality. The leaves on the top position (pronggolan) are probable to make the

highest quality (D, E, F, and so on). The middle leaves including kaki, tengahan,

and tenggokan can produce B-D quality. Typically, the number of sheets before

being trimmed is 20-28 per plant. Each leaf can be shredded in around 20-23

pieces (Tirtosastro, 2000). Each type of tobacco quality has its characteristics. The

features are related to its color (werno), elasticity (cekel) and aroma (ambu) (see

table 10).

Table 10: Grade of tobacco and its characteristics

Grade of

tobacco

Characteristics

Color Elasticity Flavor Leaves position

Best grade

(E, F, G,

H, I, K)

Reddish brown

to black

(nyamber

lilin), bright

Dense and

heavy

(antep), oily,

sticky (lekat,

ngempel)

Fresh, sweet-

scented, very

fragrant,

tasteful

Top leaves

(pronggolan)

D Brownish red,

bright In between

grade A and

E-K

Middle up

(tenggokan)

C Brownish

yellow, bright

In between

grade A and

E-K

Middle

(tengahan/dada)

B Brownish

yellow, bright

Middle low

(kaki)

A

Yellowish

green

Thin, light,

dry (kepyar)

Fresh,

tasteless

(ampang),

Bottom

(koseran)

Source: SNI, 01-4101-1996 in Hartono, Hastono, & Tirtosastro (2000)

The highest quality of tobacco is from grade E and above. In the local

language, the best quality is named srinthil. It is only possible to be produced in

lamuk and lamsi area. Lamuk area includes the village of Legoksari. Meanwhile,

lamsi area encompasses Losari, Pagergunung, Pagersari, Tlilir, Wonosari,

Bansari, Kemloko, Banaran, Gandu, and Gedegan villages.

Its limited production causes a high price of srinthil in every season. There

are 200 hectares of land, which potentially can produce it. In addition to being

influenced by location, srinthil can only be obtained in a supported climate. No

one can predict accurately where it will be produced and how much the quantity

181

will be. Therefore, local inhabitants believe that ‘srinthil’ is the grace of God.

They call the phenomenon pulung.

The price of each tobacco grade is generally set by applying multiples based

on the lowest grade rate. For example, if the price of grade A is 15 thousand, then

the price for grade B is 30 thousand, grade C is 45 thousand, and so on.

Specifically for grade E, F, to the top, these rules do not apply. Price of this

quality varies from 300 thousand to 1 million rupiah per kg.

The tobacco quality standard has been set by Indonesian National Standard

number 01-4101-1996 (SNI-01-4101-1996) (table 10). However, the application

of this standard is difficult to be implemented (Tirtosastro & Widowati, 2017).

Therefore, the quality standard and price of tobacco is applied and determined by

graders. The problem arises because quality and price is not only determined by

the tobacco characteristics itself, but also influenced by the proximity between the

graders and tobacco merchants. Moreover, it often happens that the price can be

different among tobacco merchants depending on the closeness between a specific

trader and grader.

Photo by Widiyanto

Figure 127: Special price of srinthil tobacco

182

7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and small middlemen

At the very beginning, before the establishment of cigarette companies,

tobacco merchants were the determiner of tobacco quality. To collect tobacco,

they visited directly tobacco growers. The tobacco was to be sold to other regions.

After tobacco was produced for cigarette manufacturers, the market flow changed.

Tobacco growers sold tobacco through small intermediaries and merchants. The

traders, then, carried it to graders in the warehouse of cigarette manufacturers.

Due to many large and small traders in the warehouse, there was often a riot. To

avoid chaos and maintain the quality of tobacco, graders limited the number of

traders selling in warehouses. Therefore, graders issued Kartu Tanda Anggota

(KTA), some kind of wholesale membership card. Today, there are about 400

people, who have the authority to sell tobacco directly to the factories.

KTA is given to tobacco merchants who can collect tobacco leaf with a

certain number and quality. The amount of tobacco collected by tobacco

merchants are between 3,000 bales and 20,000 bales or more. Every bundle

contains about 35-40 kg of net sliced dried tobacco. This authority is commonly

given to people who are cultivating relatively large land, having a significant

amount of financial capital, having authority or ability in collecting tobacco, or

having specific strategic position in the community. This is also usually based on

trust, status in the society, or proximity. In many cases, the authority can be

inherited to their descendants. The trust between graders and certain traders

allows graders to deliver KTA to merchants’ children.

Some village heads (kepala desa) occupy the position of tobacco merchants.

They commonly cultivated large land because village heads are authorized to

manage land (bèngkok) as a reward or compensation for their position. They also

have the authority to organize people, including farmers. Furthermore, village

heads also generally come from a respected and wealthy family. To become a

village head, they have to spend much money to organize mass to get a vote.

183

Photo by Arif

Figure 128: An example of KTA

Box 2: Profile of tobacco merchants

Joko is now a village head (kepala desa) in Gentingsari village. He became

a tobacco trader since 1988. He also has 2.5 Ha of land. He does not

cultivate the land by himself; instead, it is leased to farmers with

sharecropping (bagi hasil). He is one of the three tobacco traders in the

village who has KTA due to a high trust from tobacco graders to him. He

obtained KTA in 2003, the first time when the KTA was launched. KTA

was introduced because in 2002, the tobacco price was low and riots

occurred. The farmers burnt tobacco in a high way. There was a mess in

the tobacco warehouse. The chaos was also triggered by tobacco traders,

who brought their small intermediaries in the tobacco warehouse. Since the

KTA was issued, only a cardholder can be in the warehouse. He said:

‘becoming a supplier is not easy because we have to provide tobacco with

the quantity and quality, which has been agreed upon'. He sells about 3,000

bales of sliced dried tobacco every year, which each bale contain 35-40 kg

in every season. Four years ago, besides cooperating with farmers, he also

collaborated with small intermediaries. He lends money to more than one

hundred farmers with almost one billion rupiah. Tobacco price is not only

determined by the quality but is also influenced by the subjectivity of the

grader. Therefore, luck (bejo) is an essential thing in tobacco trading. In

1998, it was the worst situation of tobacco price. The tobacco sent to the

tobacco warehouse was rejected. At that time, he entrusted his tobacco to

another trader, who can sell it to a different grader. Finally, his tobacco

was sold.

184

In small cases, the KTA is also rented out. It occurred when the KTA

holders do not have enough capital to carry out tobacco trading or because of the

inappropriate weather for tobacco cultivation. Renting out a KTA is risky,

particularly when the lessee cannot maintain the quality of tobacco sold. In the

situation, graders can revoke the ownership of the KTA.

“I was offered by someone to rent his KTA. I refused the bid because I felt

mentally not capable of being a tobacco merchant. In case, the tobacco is bad

quality; graders sometimes reproach us. It will be traumatic. Even though the

tobacco sample has been priced, after sending one truck of tobacco, it can be

refused and returned. There was a tobacco trader who died because of such

case.’(Nas)

Tobacco merchants who owned large lands; they usually lease their land to

farmers with the agreement of the sharecropping system (bagi hasil). The

merchants also mostly lend money to the land tenants for tobacco cultivation. As a

return, the farmers must sell their tobacco to the moneylenders.

To fulfill the quantity of tobacco to be sold to graders, tobacco merchants

hire some small intermediaries (gaok/pengepul). A gaok is someone who is

trusted by merchants to collect tobacco. They gather tobacco from the first

suppliers (tobacco growers, pengrajin, and perajang). A detailed explanation of

who are the first suppliers will be presented in section 7.2.3.

Some tobacco traders give trust to gaoks to buy tobacco from the first

suppliers by cash and carry (outright sale). In the majority, gaoks apply sistem

girik. Based on the system, the gaok comes to the first suppliers to estimate the

price of tobacco to be sold. The price that has been set by the gaok is called rego

girik. After the price agreed, the gaok will bring the sample of tobacco to the

merchant. Henceforth, the traders will bring the tobacco to the grader. In case, the

estimated price is higher than the amount determined by graders, the tobacco

price will be adjusted. In the local language, this is called ‘regone direvisi’. The

price adjustments will not be made if the estimated price is lower than the price

set by the grader.

185

7.2.3. First suppliers

The first suppliers include tobacco growers, pengrajin and perajang.

Farmers cultivate tobacco with different land tenure. In Gentingsari village, the

range of land tenure is between 0.1 ha – 2.5 ha. Almost 90 % of 29 tobacco

growers interviewed only cultivate land less than 0.5 Ha (figure 129). Meanwhile,

in Pagergunung village, the land tenure is larger, between 0.1 ha - 5.0 ha. From 27

tobacco growers interviewed, about 65 % of them cultivate land with an area of

less than 0.5 ha (figure 130). Most of the land cultivated is the inheritance of their

parents, which is passed down from generation to generation.

Source: Primary Data (2017) Source: Primary data (2017)

Figure 129: Proportion of farm

household based on land tenure in

Gentingsari village, 2017

Figure 130: Proportion of farm

household based on land tenure in

Pagergunung village, 2017

Box 3: Profile of small middlemen (gaok)

Ruswanto is a small intermediary (gaok) and perajang. He is one

of seven pengepuls in Pagergunung village. He buys tobacco leaf

from Magetan regency, East Java. He also buys sliced dried

tobacco from peasants. There are 40 peasants selling tobacco to

him. They are peasants living in Wonotirto, Nggubuk, Tlodas,

Petoran, Ponggangan, and Gondosuli villages. In 2016, he sold

tobacco as many as 2,650 bales. He usually owes money to

tobacco traders to buy tobacco and lend it to tobacco peasants with

an interest of 2.5 % per month.

89%

0% 4%

7% 0%

< 0,49 ha 0,5-0,99 ha

1,0-1,99 ha 2,0-2,99 ha

>3,0 ha

65%

15%

8% 0%

12%

< 0,49 ha 0,5-0,99 ha

1,0-1,99 ha 2,0-2,99 ha

>3,0 ha

186

Pengrajin is a name addressed to people who blend sliced dried tobacco of

various qualities. The various qualities of tobacco blended are called mbako

owolan. They buy tobacco from other regions to be blended with the original

tobacco of Temanggung. Meanwhile, the people who buy raw tobacco leaf from

other regions to be shredded and sold in Temanggung are called perajang. Both

pengrajin and perajang often manipulate tobacco quality by blending tobacco of

various qualities and adding some substances such as sugar, dye, etc. to falsify

color, aroma, and elasticity of tobacco.

The attendance of pengrajin and perajang is triggered by the increasing

demand for tobacco with low-middle nicotine. Djajadi (2015) claimed that

Temanggung tobacco demand is about 30,000 tons every year. Otherwise, the

average yield in the past six years from 2013-2017 was only 8.1 tons (BPS

Kabupaten Temanggung, 2014b-2018b). Gudang Garam and Djarum are the two

major companies which buy farmers’ tobacco. In every beginning of growing

season of tobacco, the cigarette companies announce the amount of tobacco that

will be bought in the meeting facilitated by the local government. It has been set

at in advance. The tobacco bought by the cigarette company can be higher or

lower than the amount that has been specified. The decision on the amount they

will buy is depending on the climate that significantly influences tobacco quality.

For example, in 2014, Gudang Garam (GG) announced to buy tobacco at

quantities of 8.5 thousand tons. In reality, the company purchased 12 thousand

tons, in 2015 GG even bought 17.5 thousand tons. Otherwise, if there is high

rainfall in the harvest time, the cigarette manufacture buys less than the number

has been announced.

The activities of buying both raw tobacco leaf and sliced dried tobacco from

outside Temanggung are well known as ngimpor. The term ngimpor is adapted

from English language ‘import’ that means ‘bring (good or services) into a

country from abroad for sale’ (McKean, 2006). In the context of the tobacco

community, ngimpor means buying tobacco from outside Temanggung regency.

The tobacco bought from other regencies is called ‘mbako impor’.

187

Buying tobacco leaf is common for tobacco growers. It is because they can

only sell sliced dried tobacco in an amount of 40-50 kg (1 bale) for the minimum.

Tobacco peasants frequently obtain one bale of sliced tobacco in one time picking

in every 0.3 ha of land cultivation. For tobacco growers that own less than 0.3 ha,

they have to buy additional tobacco leaf from the local market or other peasants.

They sometimes combine with other tobacco to meet one bale of sliced dried

tobacco as the minimum amount that can be sold. Tobacco growers, which have a

significant amount of money, buy tobacco in large quantities from other regions.

Then, they are called pengrajin and perajang.

The tobacco is usually ‘imported’ from Magetan, Banyuwangi, Jember,

Jombang, Tuban (East Java), Garut (West Java), Magelang, Weleri, Boyolali,

Wonosobo, Purwodadi (Central Java). The ‘imported’ tobacco has lower quality

compared to Temanggung tobacco. Ngimpor is massively carried out by people

living in the tobacco growing area with a lower quality, grade D for maximum,

primarily grown in the rice fields. The farmers with a small piece of land or

people with a significant amount of money are involved in these “ngimpor”

activities.

The people who buy sliced dried tobacco, perajang, assume that the process

of sliced dried tobacco blending is more straightforward. The people buying

tobacco leaves need a long process of tobacco shredding and drying. However,

purchase of sliced-dried tobacco to be blended (mbako owolan) requires particular

expertise, primarily related to accuracy. The ‘imported' tobacco sometimes is not

appropriately processed, such as imperfect drying or too much other materials

(e.g. sugar) added. Furthermore, not everyone can properly mix tobacco with a

variety of different qualities.

There are various ways of how farmers buy tobacco leaves from other

regions. They can purchase tobacco based on per kilo of leaves or per tobacco

plant. They usually come first to the location to make a decision what kind of

tobacco will be bought. Payment is usually made after the tobacco leaves have

been sent to the homebuyer. Sometimes, a down payment is necessary. This

depends on the social proximity between pengrajin/perajang and tobacco

188

Box 4: Profile of perajang

Mujiono, Sukardi, and Marjo are perajang, which have different ways

on how, and where to buy tobacco leaves. Mujiono has become

perajang since 1980. He is one of 60 perajang in Gentingsari village.

He usually buy tobacco leaf from Boyolali, Weleri, dan Magetan, each

of 0.5 tonnes. He sells 250 bales of tobacco.

Sukardi has become perajang since 1990. He is one of about 15

perajang in his hamlet. He usually buys tobacco from Ngablak,

Semarang, Magetan, and Boyolali. He said that each area has different

characteristics. Tobacco leaf from Boyolali is special for cekel

(elasticity) and ambu (aroma), and Semarang for werno (color). He

visits the location to find appropriate tobacco. After there is an

agreement, the tobacco will be dropped to his house in Temanggung at

night. The tobacco will be paid after it has arrived. Occasionally, it is

necessary to pay a down payment. He buys tobacco leaves with the

price of 4-5 thousand per kilo. In the form of sliced dried tobacco,

commonly, the tobacco will be sold with a price of 60 thousand. In the

tobacco season, he receives 15 quintals tobacco per day for two

months. He sells tobacco to gaok/pengepul living around the village.

He sells about 250 bales of tobacco in every year.

Marjo usually buys tobacco from Boyolali. In a small number, he also

buys Temanggung tobacco. In 2016, he sold 50 bales of sliced dried

tobacco. He bought tobacco leaves using the tebasan system

(wholesale). He went to Boyolali to find the location of appropriate

tobacco. After getting tobacco quality as expected, he paid 2,000

rupiah per plant. Every plant contains fifteen leaves. The tobacco

leaves from Boyolali are wide. He bought tobacco leaf with a price of

eight thousand per kilo. Generally, the quality of Boyolali’s tobacco is

in grade D with a selling price of 45-50 thousand per kilo.

suppliers. They mostly buy tobacco by using money borrowed from banks or

tobacco merchants both living in or outside Temanggung.

A perajang usually buys tobacco from various areas. What kinds of tobacco

will be shredded is based on their own specific experiences. Tobacco from

different regions has typical characteristics. For example, tobacco leaf from

Boyolali is particular for its elasticity and aroma. Semarang's tobacco has the

specificity for its color. The proportion of blending tobacco from each region

varies. They mostly also combine with the Temanggung tobacco. The blending

tobacco can be made in grade D for maximum.

189

‘I usually buy tobacco leaf from some regions, namely: Boyolali,

Weleri/Semarang, and Garut with a price of 8,000; 4,500-5,000, and 4,000

rupiah per kilo, respectively. The good qualities of tobacco should consider

three elements, namely: color, elasticity, and aroma. Tobacco should contain

a combination of colors green-yellow, yellow-red, and red-black. For

example, if the color of tobacco is green-red, it will be of low quality. If we

grip the tobacco, it should not be mushy or hard. The smell of tobacco must

be fragrant. It should not sting. Tobacco from Boyolali is good for the

elasticity aspect. Meanwhile, Semarang tobacco is good for bright color. If

the combination is precise, the quality of tobacco will be the same as

Temanggung tobacco.’ (Nasihin)

‘I prefer to buy sliced dried tobacco (mbako owol) from Garut. The tobacco

is processed to be in grade D. Weleri tobacco is cheapest, but the aroma is

not proper. The tobacco price from Boyolali, Ngablak, and Temanggung are

similar. Based on the color, the characteristic of tobacco leaves can be A

(green), B (green-yellow), C (yellow), and D (red). In 2016, I also bought

mbako owol from Temanggung. There were tobacco growers, who harvested

tobacco late. The time of selling grade D has been terminated by the cigarette

manufacture. I then bought tobacco with a very low price, only 10 thousand

per kilo. The reasonable price should be 60 thousand. I collaborated with the

tobacco merchants in Muntilan to get money to buy the sliced dried tobacco.’

(Mugi)

In summary, in tobacco field, graders are posited as a dominant group,

because of the cultural and social capital they occupy. Cultural capital is related to

the competence or skill in determining the tobacco quality and capability to

collect tobacco in a certain amount. Competence and ability are commonly

inherited from their parents. From year to year, tobacco graders usually come

from the same family. The capabilities have built the trust of cigarette companies

to represent them in purchasing tobacco from farmers.

Tobacco merchants are the people trusted by graders to collect tobacco leaf

with a certain number and quality. To become a tobacco trader, they should

occupy social, economic, and cultural capital. Social capital is acquired to access

the relation to graders. The trust is not only based on the capability of the tobacco

merchants itself, but it is sometimes also built upon the proximity and relationship

between a confidant grader and their parents or relatives. Economic capital is

vital for merchants to buy tobacco from the first suppliers. In some cases, they are

also money lenders. Competence and skill to specify the quality of tobacco are

crucial for a tobacco merchant. Inaccuracies in determining quality and price will

have an impact on losses.

190

Cultural, social, and economic capitals are very influential for pengrajin and

perajang. The primary skill that must be possessed by pengrajin and perajang is

how to blend the various kinds of tobacco in order to create a certain quality. The

tobacco is gained from other tobacco-producing regions. The relationship with

tobacco growers or traders from the other areas is essential to get good quality and

low price of tobacco. Great trust with them opens the opportunity to establish a

partnership. On one side, perajang and pengrajin have the skill of tobacco

blending, while on another side, the tobacco merchants from other regions have

money. The partnership is carried out based on a profit sharing system.

For tobacco growers, economic capital such as land tenure is essential. The

localtion of where the land located is also crucial, since the quality of tobacco is

not only determined by how the crop is cultivated but also by the location of the

land. The considerable cost of tobacco cultivation supposes tobacco growers to

have access to banks or money lenders. In this situation social capital is

substantial.

Table 11: The most important capital possessed by household groups in tobacco

community

Hh

Groups

ACCESS TO CAPITAL

Economic

capital

(EC)

Cultural capital

(CC)

Social Capital (SC)

Bonding Bridging Linking

Grader Competence and skill

of determining

tobacco quality and

price

Trust from

cigarette

companies

Tobacco

merchants

Capital for

buying

tobacco

Competence and skill

of determining

tobacco quality and

price

Trust

from

graders

Pengrajin

and

perajang

Capital for

buying

tobacco

Skill of tobacco

processing

Trust to

tobacco

merchants

Trust to

tobacco

traders

Tobacco

growers

Land tenure Skill for tobacco

farming

Trust to

tobacco

merchants

191

7.2. Dispositions and livelihood strategies

For Bourdieu, field is like a game. The players involving should know how

to play the game. Therefore, there is a specific rule that is commonly set by

influential players in the game (the dominant agents). Agents are engaged in

struggle and use strategies to maintain or improve their position within a social

space. A strategy is the product of practical sense (what and when to do) that is

generated by the habitus. The habitus is a system of perception schemes and

thought, which maintain particular ways of thinking, understanding and

interpreting the world.

The habitus as the system of dispositions is firstly acquired by the individual

through early childhood socialization and is continually developed and modified

by life experiences. The habitus composes of an economy of interests invested

and saturated with past and present experiences. The habitus always adjusts along

with the changes of constraints and the opportunities offered in the field. Habitus

is the result of both oriented by a system of dispositions influenced by social

factors and a lifetime of critical reflection upon the actors‘ experiences. Human

action can be the product of “a permanent dialectic between an organizing

consciousness and automatic behaviors” (Bourdieu, 1990).

Oriented by habitus, strategies are employed by the agents such as graders,

tobacco merchants, and the first suppliers to maintain or improve their position in

the field. The agents in the dominant position tend to apply the conservation

strategies to keep their status in the field. The dominated agents strategize to gain

access to the dominant positions.

In the tobacco community, ‘the players' interact with each other by agreeing

to several rules of the game which are generally dominated by groups that have

substantial capital. The rule set then includes many things such as that only

tobacco merchants holding KTA are permitted to sell tobacco directly to graders.

Another rule is that graders are the only people having authority to set the quality

and price of tobacco. The tobacco sold to graders should be pure without a

mixture of other materials and harvested from Sumbing-Sindoro area. Every

tobacco merchant is only permitted to sell tobacco to a certain grader that has

192

been appointed as stated in the KTA. For example, Joko is only allowed to sell

tobacco to TTY (Tjhin Tjong Yien).

The market process generally must be from the first suppliers, small

intermediaries (gaok), tobacco merchants (juragan), and graders. In some cases,

the first suppliers can sell directly to tobacco merchants. A grader is a person

who can determine tobacco grade and price. It is carried out unilaterally and

arbitrarily. Tobacco suppliers have no bargaining power included tobacco

merchants (juragan). They have just to accept the rate determined by a grader.

7.2.1. Graders and tobacco merchants

The sale of tobacco takes a long process. Consequently, it involves high cost

of transportation, collie, and so forth. It is also common that tobacco merchants

must spend money to bribe the grader’s employees. It is to accelerate the

purchasing processes and reduce tightness in the process of matching between the

samples offered and the whole tobacco to be sold.

The processes of tobacco selling must obey the following rule. First,

merchants bring samples of tobacco to graders. The sample is the representation

of tobacco quality in every bale. The quality of tobacco in one basket must be

similar. At this stage, they have to wait in long queues because there are only five

graders for all tobacco suppliers, in case of Gudang Garam factory. Bribing the

graders’ employees will accelerate the queue.

Second, the graders will check the samples. They decide the quality and set

prices per sample. After the price is determined, the samples will be marked fit for

the tobacco merchant identity, which is stated in his KTA. The traders get a

receipt which informs them when they can come back to bring the entire tobacco.

It will take about three days.

Third, merchants bring the entire tobacco for as much as the samples that

has been priced to the warehouse. The graders’ employee will match between

each sample and each basket of tobacco as the whole. In this phase, it is possible

for the grader’s employee to reject the tobacco because the quality does not fit

193

with the samples. Bribing the employee will reduce the strictness in the matching

process.

In case the tobacco is rejected, merchants will bring the tobacco back to the

first suppliers. The first suppliers will reprocess the tobacco. They usually will

add some substances such as a dye or blend it with higher quality. Then, the

tobacco will be resold. The processes will start from the beginning, from

proposing samples to the payment stage. In some other cases, tobacco merchants

bring the rejected tobacco to other traders, who have more proximity to a

confidant grader. They will help to resell the tobacco with an exclusive agreement

of fee. The more often tobacco is rejected, the greater the fee must be paid and the

higher the chances for a grader to revoke the merchants' KTA.

‘At the time of bad quality, the tobacco is often refused. I add a dye. Then I

dried the tobacco one more time. Finally, the tobacco was sold, even at low

prices'.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘Tobacco was rejected because of the lousy quality. I

sold to other intermediaries at a low price.’ (Faturahman) ― ‘When the

tobacco is refused, I process it again by mixing with tobacco having better

quality.’ (Purwanto) ― ‘Tobacco is refused because of selling tobacco

beyond the period of purchase for a particular variety. His neighbor bought

the tobacco at a low price.’ (Duryanto) ― ‘When tobacco was refused, I sold

it to other tobacco traders.’ (Mujiono) ― ‘The tobacco is often rejected;

tobacco was sold at half of the regular price.’ (Supariyah)

‘I also have experience when the prominent tobacco merchants refused my

tobacco. The first time, I sent ten bales of tobacco, and then 20 bales of

tobacco through small intermediaries. All tobacco bales were paid at the

price of 60 thousand per kilo. Then, I also sent 100 bales. Only five bundles

were purchased, the rest was returned. The cost of each bale is 2 million

rupiah.’ (Nasihin)

Because graders buy tobacco based on samples, merchants sometimes

propose samples without having tobacco ready for sale. They make the samples as

high of quality as possible based on color, aroma, and elasticity. Some inhabitants

have particular expertise in creating samples. Tobacco merchants will bring the

samples to the warehouse. After getting the price, the traders collect the tobacco

that is similar to the samples. In some cases, the samples and the tobacco collected

does not fit. Consequently, the graders will frequently reject tobacco.

194

7.2.2. Tobacco merchants and the first suppliers

Even though tobacco traders are less powerful than graders, they are in the

position of the dominant group when dealing with small intermediaries and the

first suppliers (tobacco growers, pengrajin/perajang). The market rule system of

tobacco situates the first suppliers depending on traders. The hierarchy of the

market tends to put the merchants in a more favorable position compared to the

first suppliers. Tobacco merchants mostly are dishonest about the price of

tobacco, scale, and cost paid during the market process.

Tobacco traders mostly do not tell honestly to the first suppliers how the

price set by the graders for the tobacco that has been sold. After there is a deal for

the price, the grader will issue the bill, which states the quality and price. The bill

is hidden. Instead, they make a bill published by themselves. The most suppliers

are not aware about the price set by graders. They just received the bill issued by

tobacco traders.

‘In the tobacco market, the greatest problem is the deceitfulness of tobacco

traders; it is very challenging to find an honest trader.’ (Ramidi) ― ‘Traders

fully determine the price of tobacco. Tobacco growers can do nothing. The

tobacco market rules are not allowed farmers to sell directly to the factory.

We often, particularly in good weather, sell tobacco through intermediaries

by paying a certain fee. We also finance all the market cost to be paid. In the

case when tobacco quality is low, I prefer to sell tobacco cash and carry even

though with a low price.’ (Sumaryo) ― ‘The price of tobacco is luck. We

follow the price set by intermediaries. The most important thing is that

tobacco can be immediately sold to meet daily needs.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘The cost

of tobacco is unpredictable. It is just chancy ‘mbok menowo’. The most

important thing, the intermediaries are not cheating the price.’ (Duryanto) ―

‘It is often that the scale of tobacco is not accurate. The middlemen usually

manipulate scales.’ (Karyanto) ― ‘The tobacco market is complicated; there

are too many intermediaries.’ (Jumadi) ― ‘The price is unpredictable, we

cultivate tobacco in the same land, but the price can be different, the market

is fully controlled by traders.’ (Saidi)

‘In addition to expensive raw materials, low prices of tobacco, poor quality

due to weather, the problem faced by peasants are fraud committed by

traders. In the first stage, small intermediaries bought two bales of tobacco at

a reasonable price. Then, they retook tobacco in more quantities without

being paid in advance. I trust him. The tobacco was taken away without

payment forever. It is very rare to find trustworthy traders, only about 15 %.

There are a few good traders; unfortunately, the sales quota is tiny.’

(Nasihin)

195

Related to the cost that should be paid during the selling process, it depends

on in which way the agreement between tobacco merchant (juragan) and the first

suppliers. There are some kinds of ways to sell sliced dried tobacco. First, the

merchants buy tobacco with an outright sale or cash and carry. This type tends to

be rare. Second, tobacco traders hire small intermediaries (gaok) to purchase

tobacco from the first suppliers. The kind of sale can be sistem girik. In the first

and the second way of selling, the merchants are responsible for marketing

operational cost.

Third, merchants apply sistem nitip (consignment). In this system, the first

suppliers sell tobacco by using the sales service of merchants. There will be an

agreement about the fee to be paid by the first suppliers. In this way, the first

suppliers are responsible for operational cost during the market process, such as

for the transportation, the porters, etc. How much the cost should be paid depends

on the agreement. However, the juragan generally determines it. There are many

types of transaction, such as paid per bale/basket or per kilo. In case the tobacco

rejected by the grader, the first suppliers will cover all the costs.

Fourth, there is a complex relationship between the first suppliers and

tobacco merchants particularly if the first suppliers have a debt to the merchants.

Taking credit to juragan needs a simple process, mostly without collateral. Debt

repayment is made after harvesting, for six months (one tobacco season), with an

interest of 50 %; the local language of the debt is nglimolasi12

. The interest is

relatively high, particularly in the situation when farmers cannot pay in time

because of crop failure. They can postpone the repayment until the next season.

The interest will become 75 %. In this case, farmers have ties to sell the tobacco

to a juragan. Consequently, it will be difficult for farmers to negotiate the price.

They are stuck in a debt of gratitude. In this situation, the way of selling is usually

by sistem nitip.

12 In tobacco community living in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside, there is the credit system that is well

known as nglimolasi, mitulasi, etc. ‘Limolas’, Javanesse language, means fifteen. If we owe ‘ten', then we

have to return ‘fifteen'. ‘Ten' can refer to 100 thousand, one million, etc. For example, if we borrow money

of one million rupiah, then we have to return 1.5 million rupiah. Hence, nglimolasi has the interest rate of

50 %. In the case farmers owe to the ‘third hand', the interest can be more, such as 70 % (mitulasi).

196

‘I usually sell tobacco to a Chinese trader (juragan) in Temanggung

downtown. I bring tobacco to this juragan, and then I get money of a certain

amount. After the tobacco is sold, I just got the money at a price set by the

juragan. The money I receive, the price has been deducted by five thousand

per kilo for sales costs. According to the tobacco company regulation, the net

weight of sliced dried tobacco is obtained after cutting the basket weight by

20 %. For example, the gross weight of each basket is 50 kg, it means that

the net weight is only 40 kg.‘ (Marjo)

Tobacco growers express traders’ behavior as ‘gelem bathine, emoh rugine’.

It means that tobacco traders always get more profit. However, in a low piece of

tobacco, the loss must be shared; even the farmers bear more.

Trust is crucial in the tobacco market. The transactions are mostly based on

trust. It is rare to find cash and carry. The tobacco merchants usually postpone the

payment until getting money from the grader. Farmers typically prefer to sell

tobacco to merchants who will pay in cash in shorter time. There are some cases

that tobacco brought by tobacco merchants or intermediaries is not paid or the

price is reduced to become very lower.

The gaok comes to the first tobacco suppliers and estimates the price of

tobacco by taking the free sample from every basket. The sample taken by

intermediaries has the amount of 0.5-1.0 kg. The problem occurs when

intermediaries sometimes take a sample of more than 1 kg. The losses will be

more significant when there are many gaok to take samples.

‘Some small intermediaries take a sample before purchasing; this type of

gaok must be avoided.’ (Muslim)

For farmers, pengrajin, and perajang, it is common to add some other

substances, such as sugar, dye, and so forth. The activity aims to make the product

quality appropriate for the manufacturers’ requirement. To get the smell more

aromatic and the grip more oily (antep), pengrajin and perajang add sugar as

many as 3-10 kilogram per basket (kenthung) or more. Dye is added to make the

color in every basket alike. Tobacco growers also add sugar with smaller amounts.

This practice of adding substances to tobacco is considered prohibited, but there is

no apparent consequence. The graders still purchase the tobacco. Indeed, in some

cases, these affect the price of tobacco to become lower. In a few incidents,

197

graders will revoke the authority of selling tobacco (KTA), if they catch tobacco

merchants, who are practicing of tobacco falsification.

‘The amount of sugar used is various. The better the quality of tobacco, the

lesser sugar is added. If we mix sliced dried tobacco (mbako owolan), the

sugar added should be more, about 15 kg per bale.’ (Sarwan) ― ‘Dye is

added to synchronize the tobacco color.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘Based on my

experiences, Gudang Garam prioritizes the color of tobacco, whereas Djarum

prefers to emphasize the aroma.’ (Bambal)

The attendance of pengrajin and perajang raises the benefit to tobacco

traders. This is because the quantities of tobacco sold to graders also increase. A

large amount of tobacco sold by pengrajin and perajang causes the abundance of

tobacco in the graders' warehouse. Consequently, graders only buy small

quantities of tobacco cultivated in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside.

Tobacco blending is massively carried out by farmers cultivating tobacco in

a limited land. The tobacco they grow generally has low quality. The numbers of

pengrajin and perajang in Gentingsari village are more than in the village of

Pagergunung. This is because the tobacco quality produced in Gentingsari village

is lower compared to Pagergunung village.

For farmers mainly living in a good quality tobacco area, lamuk and lamsi,

ngimpor is considered as a prohibited behavior or a licentious act. The activity can

influence the graders’ trust. Impurity of tobacco will defame the image of high

quality produced in this area. Some farmers buy tobacco from other regions

clandestinely. The tobacco leaf purchased from outside is put in land and then

brought back home as if it was harvested from their land. A barrier was placed at

the entrance of the village to minimalize the amount of the ‘impor’ activity. The

behavior was considered as illegal. It is supposed to influence tobacco quality and

eventually will decrease the price. The tobacco impurity becomes one of the

reasons for cigarette manufacturers to give a low price. Then, the price volatility

became crucial.

198

‘In the area of lamuk quality tobacco, there are also peasants buying tobacco

from other regions. Peasants are not allowed to buy tobacco from outside.

The tobacco bought is dropped in the field. It is carried out to avoid getting

caught buying tobacco from other areas. The activity will show that tobacco

is harvested as if it were from its own land. The tobacco is brought home

using a car and immediately put into the garage. Neighbors may not know

that tobacco is bought from other areas. Some people do not buy tobacco

from outside, maybe one, two, or three peasants. Not only in lamuk, but also

in some other areas the same things happen. Farmers buy the leaves as if the

tobacco was harvested from their fields.’ (Sariyono)

‘In Bansari village, people do not buy tobacco leaf from outside

Temanggung because they are afraid that the tobacco will not be bought. I

ever stayed there for four years. I do not feel comfortable to shred tobacco

leaf bought from outside Temanggung. It is different if I buy leaves to be

shredded in here (Gentingsari village). We are afraid of being blamed for

causing low tobacco prices because of buying tobacco leaves from other

regions. In my opinion, if we are only shredding tobacco from our field, it

will be profitable when the tobacco price is more than 150 thousand rupiah

per kilo. It is because all the cost for tobacco cultivation such as the rent land

fee, operational cost, and others are expensive. If we buy tobacco leaf, the

profit is depending on how much price is the tobacco leaf. If the price of

tobacco leaf is 5,000 rupiah per kilo, and the price of sliced dried tobacco is

60,000 rupiah per kilo. It is still profitable.’ (Nasihin)

Even though ngimpor is considered as an illegal activity, in fact, tobacco

manufacturers stay to buy the mbako impor. In many cases, because of the

abundant tobacco from other regions, companies can refuse tobacco from the local

area. It is because the period of buying for a specific grade (A-D) has been over.

The period is shorter, because the tobacco acquired by cigarette manufacturers for

certain qualities has been met by mbako impor. For example, the harvesting

period for peasants in toalo, swanbing, and tionggang, is typically from the end of

July until the end of August. The tobacco quality of the area is from A-D.

Tobacco manufacturers will only buy slice-dried tobacco within 2-3 weeks.

Peasants will get a very low price (until 80 % decrease) if they sell out of this time

range. In the local language, this case is called harga ketokan (Purlani &

Rachman, 2000). Ngimpor activities becomes for some tobacco growers a threat,

because the quality becomes relative and absurd. The different price between local

tobacco having high quality and mbako impor with the lower grade is not

199

significant. Even, in many cases, the price of local tobacco is lower than mbako

impor.

‘Tobacco selling must be on time. Sometimes, grade D of tobacco is only

possible to sell for ten days. After that, cigarette manufacturer only buys

tobacco of grade E. Last year, the factory bought grade C, then grade D, but

it was just in a short time, and then opened for grade E. I sold 50 bales of

tobacco at the price of 22,500-25,000 rupiah per kilo.’ (Nasihin)

‘Another problem arises when the tobacco “imported" from other regions are

purchased at the same price or even higher than the original tobacco from

Temanggung. The tobacco company must buy the Temanggung tobacco first.

There has been abundant "imported" tobacco in the company warehouse,

which is supplied by tobacco traders who have much money. Consequently,

Temanggung tobacco is bought at a low price or not even bought. It is

difficult to control wealthy tobacco traders not to buy tobacco from other

regions. Before planting, the tobacco company defines how much tobacco

will be purchased by considering the amount of tobacco produced in

Temanggung. Tobacco companies at some time, especially when

inappropriate weather appears buy twice or more tobacco supplied from

other regions. Rich people control tobacco. In the time of good weather,

wealthy traders have shredded tobacco bought from other areas. Then, they

sell it to tobacco representative storage through a back way. As a result,

tobacco will be plentiful, and Temanggung tobacco price will be lower.‘

(Sukadi)

From the above description, graders, tobacco merchants, and the first

suppliers use various strategies to maintain or improve their position within a

field. An agent sometimes struggles by employing strategies in the position of

those dominant group in a specific situation and may be positioned as a dominated

group in other states. For example, tobacco merchants are in a dominated position

when dealing with graders (figure 131). In another situation, tobacco merchants

are in the dominant position when being exposed to the first suppliers (figure

132).

200

Source: the figure is adapted from Hurtado (2010)

Figure 131: The relationship between graders and tobacco merchants

Source: the figure is adapted from Hurtado (2010)

Figure 132: The relationship between tobacco merchants and the first

tobacco suppliers

Grader

(Dominant

Position)

Social relationships

Grader’s field position

Tobacco Trader’s field

position

Stakes Interests

Practices/

Strategies

Practices/

Strategies

Struggles

Exercise of

symbolic

power

Amount and

distribution of

capital

Amount and

distribution of

capital

Interests

Stakes

The first suppliers

(Dominated

Position)

Amount and

distribution of

capital

Amount and

distribution of

capital

Social relationships

Tobacco merchant’s field

position

The first tobacco supplier’s

field position

Stakes Interests

Practices/

Strategies

Practices/

Strategies

Struggles

Exercise of

symbolic

power

Stakes

Interests

Tobacco merchant

(Dominated

Position)

Tobacco merchant’s

habitus

Grader‘s habitus

Tobacco merchant

(Dominant Position)

Tobacco merchant’s habitus

The first supplier’s habitus

201

The rules of the game tend to be more favorable for the position of the

grader. They determine the amount of tobacco and the kind of tobacco quality

that will be purchased. Graders can appoint those merchants who are able to hold

KTA and can decide to revoke KTA from tobacco traders, who are deemed

inappropriate.

Tobacco traders also use various strategies to struggle in the field. The

strategies used include bribing the grader’s employee to accelerate the queue in

the purchasing process and to loosen the tightness of the tobacco quality matching

process. Especially when certain graders reject tobacco, by doing collusion

among tobacco traders, they can sell tobacco to other graders. This is actually not

allowed because every tobacco trader can only be possible to sell tobacco to the

graders has been appointed. Tobacco traders also sometimes manipulate tobacco

samples to get a higher price offers.

Related to the struggle with the first suppliers, tobacco merchants decide

about the purchasing system used, whether cash and carry or consignment (nitip).

Another possibility is to use the sistem girik where tobacco traders employ several

intermediaries (gaok). To maximize the profits, most traders are fraudulent by

manipulating the weight, price, and dishonesty with costs during the sales process.

Tobacco traders lend money to tobacco growers for tobacco cultivation cost.

Merchants apply this as a strategy to provide tobacco as the quota set by the

graders. From this strategy, tobacco merchants also can control the price of

tobacco at the farmer level. In the time of inappropriate weather for tobacco,

farmers are bound by debt agreements with juragan. The loans have relatively

high-interest rates (nglimolasi/mitulasi). The relationship sometimes is in the form

of patron-client.

Pengrajin and perajang apply various strategies such as deciding to buy

sliced dried tobacco (owol) or tobacco leaves. Each pengrajin/perajang has

various preferences from which regions tobacco is bought or what types of

tobacco will be blended. They also have different considerations on how much

tobacco to buy depending on the price and quality of tobacco, the climate, the

202

available funds, and so on. How much sugar and dye will be added also varies

based on experiences and the kind of tobacco that will be blended.

Farmers also have several strategies, such as whether selling tobacco in the

form of raw leaves (tebasan) or sliced dried tobacco, to whom tobacco will be

sold, etc. The sale system chosen is divers among tobacco growers whether with a

cash and carry (consignment, nitip), or girik system. If the quality of tobacco is

appropriate, they usually choose a consignment system because they expect to

obtain a higher price than if it is purchased by cash. To those who are in debt,

each farmer also has different references to whether it is owed to the bank or

juragan. In case of inappropriate weather, tobacco growers commonly owe to

juragan by using the nglimolasi/mitulasi system. Besides being in debt, coping

strategies are also applied such as selling livestock, motorcycles, jewelry. Some

others conduct non-farming activities such as working as a laborer. Farmers can

sell the rejected tobacco at low prices, store, and process it again to be sold in the

following season, etc.

7.3. Who are the most vulnerable agents?

Livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers encompasses both external and

internal side. The external side of vulnerability is considered as an exposure.

Exposure is the degree to which a human group or ecosystem meets particular

stresses (Clark, et al., 2000). There are three exposures identified: global

economics in tobacco growing, cigarette industry development, and the tobacco

farming system. The three exposures have reduced the role of tobacco in

livelihoods (chapter 6).

The vulnerability of livelihood is also determined by internal side that

comprises strategies or social practices undertaken by households in the field of

tobacco. Strategies carried out depend on the position within the field, which is

determined by the volume and structure of capital possessed. Because there is no

equal distribution of capital in the field, there are dominant and dominated agents.

203

Figure 133: Relations among agents in the field of tobacco

Both, the dominant and dominated agents struggle to maintain or improve

the position. In everyday life, dominated agents tend to be more vulnerable. For

example, peasant farmers are vulnerable, because they possess less capital even

there is no shock and trend. The attendance of pengrajin and perajang in the field

causes an abundance of tobacco supply. This leads to the cigarette companies to

limit the tobacco purchasing quantities produced in SSM.

Additionally, the deadline of purchasing a certain quality of tobacco causes

everyone to sell tobacco immediately. The tobacco merchants, who have more

significant capital can supply the company needs following the time set by

graders. They can buy tobacco from other regions. For tobacco growers, tobacco

is sold to merchants at a very low price (the price of ketokan), because it is bought

outside the specified period. In contrary, merchants are in an advantageous

position because they could buy tobacco at meager prices.

Regarding the way of selling tobacco such as cash and carry, sistem nitip,

and sistem girik, the peasants are in the disadvantaged group. Tobacco will

usually be priced lower if the payment system is made in cash. The price with the

sistem girik is highly uncertain. Generally, the price paid is lower than the price

set at the beginning (the price of girik). In sistem nitip, small farmers get the

■ Unequal power-relations

■ Dominant-dominated agents

Livelihood strategies

FIELD OF TOBACCO

Peasant

Habit

usCapital

Pengrajin/

perajang Habitus C

apital

Habit

us

Capital H

abit

us

Capital

Grader

Trader

204

smallest profit, but they are most at risk. Farmers do not know the exact prices set

by graders. Tobacco merchants usually will put the price lower than the actual

price specified by graders. In this situation, the traders get a double profit. First,

they get a sales fee from the farmers, pengrajin, or perajang. Second, the

merchants get benefit from the price difference between the price set by the

graders and paid to the farmer.

Farmers are the social group who bear the most significant risk, especially

the risk of rejection from the graders. In this situation, the farmer carries the

double risk of failing to sell tobacco, but still has to bear the costs. Meanwhile,

traders do not suffer any losses. Therefore, traders are often referred to as the

people that ‘gelem bathine ning emoh rugine’ which means that they want to get

more profit, but with low risk.

The exposures aggravate the situation of vulnerability for agents, who stand

in dominated positions. For example, the inappropriate weather for tobacco causes

the limited amount of tobacco that will be bought by the cigarette manufacture.

The tobacco commonly will only be supplied by tobacco merchants or tobacco

growers cultivating a large land. The purchasing delaying of tobacco and a very

limited amount of tobacco to be bought make farmers suffer huge losses. At the

same time, the farmers must pay the debt that is used for tobacco cultivation.

The falling of the tobacco price forces farmers to take loans from traders

(juragan). The merchants may control the rate of tobacco in the next seasons. The

farmers usually pay the debt by selling their tobacco to the moneylender. It is a

vicious circle because tobacco growers continually cultivate tobacco until the debt

is paid off. It is also one of the conservation strategies to perpetuate the position of

tobacco traders. Furthermore, tobacco traders can also accumulate capital because

of the high interest charged. The situation of tobacco rejection, deceitfulness, and

accumulation of debt has posited farmers in the weakest position.

Furthermore, at the time of inappropriate weather, tobacco growers are at

the time of crises. Cigarette warehouse postpones buying tobacco. Graders

usually start to purchase tobacco in August. In reality, the tobacco factory begins

to buy tobacco in September. At that time, the price is very low or almost nothing.

205

Box 5: Peasant’s livelihood in the most vulnerable situations

Tobacco growers living in Gentingsari village

In 1992, 1995, and 1998, Mujiono suffered losses. He, then, worked as a laborer

in the market and farm. In order to raise the price, he added tobacco with a dye,

which was bought from Magelang. He also added 10 kilos sugar per bale. When

the tobacco was rejected, he reprocesses and resent the tobacco to pengepul. The

tobacco was sold at a lower price. Money to buy tobacco was obtained by owing

to his friends with an interest of one percent per month. ― In 1998, Sukardi

suffered heavy losses. Nobody bought his tobacco. The company only bought

the grade E for the minimum. He plans to sell the tobacco in the next year. In

2015, the price was also low. He bought tobacco leaf with a rate of 4 thousand

per kilo. After being processed into sliced dried tobacco, the price was only 15

thousand per kilo. At that time, he sold 68 bales of tobacco.

Tobacco growers living in Pagergunung village

In 1992 and 1998, no one bought the tobacco. Sukadi decided to make tobacco

as a fertilizer. This often happens. ― In 1994, the price was very low. Tarmudi

only sold his tobacco with the price of 10 thousand per kilo. ― In 1995, tobacco

price was only 30 thousand per kilo. Solihin sold two bales of tobacco. In 1998,

the price significantly decreased, only seven thousand per kilo and in 2004 the

price was only 25 thousand per kilo for grade D. ― In 1978 and 1998, the

factory just bought tobacco in minimal quantities. The warehouse opened in a

short time. Three bales of tobacco were not bought. In 2005, the price of grade C

and D was 25 thousand per kilo. Ramidi sold 40 bales. He could not pay the

debt. ― In 2006 and 2008, Sarmidi sold eight bales of tobacco at the price of

five and seven thousand per kilo. ― In 2000, the price of tobacco was between

10 thousand and 30 thousand. In 2012, 16 bales of tobacco sold by Muslim were

not paid. ― In 2013, Busri sold his tobacco with the price of 15 thousand as

much as two bales and 13 thousand as much as 15 bales.

The low price does not only occur in the time of bad weather. In appropriate

weather, the price sometimes is also very low. According to Harno (2006) cited in

Murdiyati et al. (2007), some variables are determining the companies to buy

tobacco leaves such as quantity needed, quality, the type of tobacco in each

region, and the price.

‘From 2013 until now, tobacco farmers are not getting profit. In 2015, the

weather was appropriate; but the price was low. The factory is getting

difficult (to give a reasonable price). The price was only 65 thousand in

average. In 2010, the price was meager, 35-40 thousand.’ (Marjo) ― ‘In

2015, I sold five bales of tobacco, and the price was only 10 thousand per

kilo’ (Waljono).’ ― In 2015, tobacco was at a bad price. However, I believe

that if the price of tobacco is high once again, it can cover debts for three

years.’ (Mujiono) ― ‘The weather sometimes is appropriate, but the price is

low, I just accept the price even though the price is low. Most importantly,

tobacco is sold quickly.’ (Zainal Arifin)

206

There are various strategies undertaken to maintain tobacco growers’

livelihood. They sell the crop stocks (such as paddy for tobacco growers living in

Gentingsari village), possessions (motorcycle), and livestock (goats). It is quite

common for tobacco growers to have credit from tobacco merchants (juragan).

Some others carry out livelihood diversification.

Related to the credit system in the tobacco grower community, it has existed

since the late 19th century. Indebtedness is one of the systems of tobacco

cultivation. This is because tobacco is considered as a risky crop caused by market

price fluctuation or climatic variability. The system of patronage mostly involves

Chinese merchants. Besides giving credit to tobacco farmers, the merchants also

gave credit to Javanese bakul or intermediaries, who in turn gave advances to the

producers (Boomgaard, 2005). The loan was not only through the ‘third hand’ but

also sometimes through the ‘fourth hand'. As a consequence, the interest that

must be paid is also getting higher, between 30 and 50 % (Claver, 2014).

The increasing price for tobacco needs particularly on manure and labor

drives tobacco grower to take credit. The farmers who have collateral can access

the loan from the bank. Taking credit from tobacco merchants is also possible.

Many farmers are in debt to juragan because it is considered more convenient and

more straightforward. It is not necessarily to provide collateral. Additionally, they

can give a market ‘guarantee'. In the bad weather and low price of tobacco, it is

more favorable to take loan from merchants because the debt payments can be

deferred until the next tobacco season with an increased interest rate.

‘Now, the price of manure significantly increases. I sometimes cannot afford it.

Owing to the bank or juragan is the solution.’ (Sumaryo) ― ‘For tobacco

cultivation, I usually take credit from juragan.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘In the case of bad

weather, the cost of tobacco cultivation is gained from juragan or the bank.

Farming cost is often obtained by debt, ‘gali lobang tutup lobang’ ‘taking from

one to give another.’ (Sudiyono) ― ‘When the price of tobacco goes down,

livelihood is disrupted, farming costs are not affordable, and the best way is

debt.’ (Sukirman) ― ‘In the previous year, I usually could pay off debts, but last

year I could not. I needed about 75 million for tobacco cultivation. I always

worry if I can not pay the debt particularly in the time of bad weather.’ (Marjo)

― ‘The severe weather causes the low price of tobacco. Additionally, the price

of manure is high. It can reach 1.5 million per rit. If the price is not proper, we

will lose.’ (Sutino) ― ‘The rate of fertilizer is increasing by 1.75 million per rit.

However, the farming cost is not always available. In the meantime, if we are in

debt to juragan, the interest is too high.’ (Mujiono)

207

Box 6: Coping strategies carried out by peasant farmers


‘Buying manure in the next season is by selling stored paddy. To obtain a

high price of tobacco, I trust to Pak H. Kuncung and Pak Rukun*. To meet

our daily needs (meals) is fulfilled from vegetable sales. In case of bad

weather, the tobacco unsold is processed to become dendeng***.’ (Ramidi)

― ‘I worked as a tempe seller**.’ (Parsuki) ― ‘I owed to my relative. I have

previously owed to juragan with ngimolasi system.’ (Suwaldi) ― ‘I owed to

the bank by using the collateral of land certificate and certificate of

ownership of motor vehicles (BPKB).’ (Nuriyadi) ― ‘I worked as a labor of

agriculture and become a worker in the market-buruh pasar.’ (Mujiono) ―

‘I sold rice stock and goats.’ (Nur Said) ― ‘I sold a motorcycle and owed

money to juragan with the nglimolasi system.’ (Jamzuri) ― ‘I did not rent

the land anymore and only focused on cultivating my own land.’ (Muslim)

― I borrowed money to juragan. Consequently, I must sell tobacco to him.’

(Suhadi)


‘I owed and sold stores. In 1998, I sold a motorcycle. I sold tobacco to

juragan who put high price and is honest. In the bad weather, I mostly owed

to juragan by nglimolasi system. For example, I owed one million; the

interest is 50 %, 500 thousand per season (6-7 months). If we owed to

juragan, we could delay the payment when the weather is terrible. This year

I still have a debt of 9 million, totally 13.5 million including the interest. I

owed to a Chinese merchant living in Parakan. In case I delay the payment, I

should pay the additional interest. For example, I owed one million, I must

pay off the debt as much as 1.5 million, and including the interest, if we

cannot pay, then the debt becomes 1.75 million. When we owe to the bank,

the interest is lower. However, in case of bad weather, owing to juragan is

more appropriate, because it is easier to be accessed.’ (Jamzuri) ― ‘I usually

owed to a Chinese merchant without interest and collateral. I pay off the

debt by selling tobacco to him. Last year I could not pay the debt.

Consequently, I cannot get the debt to him anymore until the debt is paid off.

Then, I owed to other people to buy manure.’ (Marjo)

Note: * Pak is a call for a respected person, ** Tempe is Indonesian traditional food

made from soybean, *** Low-quality tobacco, which is dried in the form of leaf

sheets, not cut into pieces.

Some scholars are concerned with livelihood diversification as strategies.

They found that in Java, mainly those people living in lowland areas; tend to be

involved in non-farm activities to support their livelihood. This strategy is also

named livelihood diversification, which means the inclination of rural people

inclining to enter into non-farm activities. The ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors are used to

208

analyze whether the movement of rural labor out of agriculture is because of

necessities or opportunities.

Ellis (1998) defined livelihood diversification as ‘the process by which rural

families construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in

their struggle for survival and in order to improve their standards of living’. In

economic studies referring to diverse income portfolios, income sources are

categorized into farm, off-farm, and non-farm activities. Farm income includes

livestock and crop income either self-consumption or cash income derived from

sales. Off-farm income refers to wage or exchange labor on other farms which

also include labor payment such as the harvest share systems and other non-wage

labor system. Non-farm income encompasses non-agricultural income sources. It

can include non-farm rural wage employment, non-farm rural self-employment,

property income (rents, etc.), national remittance, and international remittances.

In the tobacco community, however, there are non-farm activities, but they

are only a few. They mostly stay to cultivate the land. The peasants with small

land still rely on a wage from agriculture (off-farm). The less migration of the

local inhabitants in SSM causes the limitation of income from both national and

international remittance.

Agricultural surplus, which is commonly obtained by tobacco merchants

isinvested both for agriculture trading or non-farm activities. For a farmer with

large land or a significant amount of capital, the agricultural surplus is invested

particularly for tobacco growing and trading for the next season. They also spend

money on building house, buying card and motorcycle, pilgrim, organizing a

wedding party held for several days, and others. In this sense, non-farm activities

are part of accumulation strategies. Meanwhile, for peasants with a small farm,

off-farm or non-farm activities are intended to survive though sometimes the

income is lower than income from agriculture.

209

Box 7: Non-farm livelihood activities of tobacco growers


Sumaryo is 62 years old. He has cultivated tobacco since 1976. His family

consists of five household members (two in school and three income

generators). He cultivates an inherited area of 0.15 ha. Besides being a farmer,

he also works as a civil servant (Pegawai Negeri Sipil-PNS). ― Purwanto is 60

years old. He has cultivated tobacco since 1970. He lives with his wife and

three children in which two of them are in school. He and his family cultivate a

heritage land of 0.1 ha. His daughter works as a petty vegetable trader to

support their livelihood. ― Suwaldi is 60 years old. He lives with his wife. He

has cultivated land since 1976. Besides cultivating the land, his wife works as

tobacco drying labor. ― Sabar is 43 years old. He lives with his wife and two

children. He has cultivated land since 1988. He cultivated an inherited land of

0.1 ha and bèngkok land of 0.3 Ha. He also works as village apparatus

(perangkat desa) with a salary of one million rupiah per month. ― Jumeri is 60

years old. His family consists of six members. They have cultivated land since

1980. The land planted is an inherited land of 0.2 ha. Some of the household

members also work as farm labor (buruh tani). ― Duryanto is 60 years old. He

lives with four other household members. In the family, there are four income

generators. They cultivated land since the 1980s. His son and daughter also

work as farm and construction labor (buruh bangunan). ― Sarmidi is 65 years

old. Together with his wife, he rents 0.4 ha of farmland by paying 3.5 million

per 0.1 ha (one kisuk). Sarmidi and his wife work as farm labor (buruh tani).

His wife is also a vegetable petty trader.


Sutino is 40 years old. There are four household members including one kid,

one in school, and two-income generators. He graduated from secondary

school. He has cultivated 0.1 ha of inherited land since 1996. He also works as

a labor of tobacco leaf picker with a salary of 70 thousand rupiah per day. His

wife works as a labor of tobacco drying with a wage of 50 thousand per day.

― Sukindro is 80 years old. He has an elementary school education. His family

consists of six members (one kid, one in school, four-income generators). Since

1980, he cultivated 0.6 ha of land. His daughter also works as a petty trader.

210


211

Conclusion

Photo by Arif

Figure 134: Discussion with the tobacco growers applying cropping

system of pola tlahap (tobacco, coffee, and suren tree)

8

212

This chapter is providing an overview of the principal findings and the

thesis contributions. The contributions are divided into two sub-parts illustrating

the theoretical and policy contributions.

8.1. Principal findings

This dissertation concludes that the double structure of livelihood

vulnerability encompasses an external side (exposure) and an internal side

(livelihood strategies conducted in the field). Therefore, the agent is the hinge

between exposure and field. Exposure can have a positive or negative impact to

the agent’s livelihood. The impacts can influence the volume, composition, and

value of capital types. To overcome those impacts, agents apply multiple

livelihood strategies, which are oriented by habitus. The habitus is the product of

the social-psychological processes. These processes involve the negotiations and

agreements about on which cultural interests that is suitable to be employed to

cope with the exposure. This is influenced by the magnitude of the exposure. It

can be sufficient to apply cultural interests, which are usually engaged. In this

sense, there will be a habitus reproduction. It means that exposure does not

interfere with the existence of habitus. Another alternative is based on critical

reflection (reflexivity). This way is pursued when the existing cultural interest is

no longer able to overcome the impact of exposure. In this case, the agent might

create a new habitus, which then will be followed by finding new livelihood

strategies. The strategies implemented by an agent are not in the vacuum. It is

because the strategy must deal and compete with other agents’ strategies in the

field. A field is characterized by an unequal distribution of capital. Hence, it

contains agents who dominate and others who are dominated. In the context of the

tobacco growers’ community, the agents involved in the field are graders, traders,

peasant farmers, and pengrajin/perajang (figure 135).

213

Figure 135: Double structure of livelihood vulnerability of tobacco growers

(Internal side of livelihood vulnerability)

EXPOSURE: The change of cigarette products (from heavy to light taste)

Excess supply of world tobacco leaves

Tobacco farming system (high costs, climate variability, etc.)

Tobacco control policies

(External side of livelihood vulnerability)

CAPITAL CC

Volume and composition

Value of type of capital

EC

SoC

SyC

The social-

psychological

processes HABITUS

Critical reflection (reflexivity)

Habitus reproduction

CULTURAL INTERESTS

LIVELIHOOD

STRATEGIES

FIELD

• Unequal power-relations

• Dominant-dominated agents

Peasant

Habit

us

Capital

Pengrajin/

perajang

Habitus C

apital

Habit

us

Capital

Grader

Trader

AGENT

Note: EC: economic capital, SoC: social capital, CC: cultural capital, and SyC: symbolic capital

Source: My own draft (08/05/19)

214

Based on the framework in figure 135, the following parts show the major

research findings. The first research findings refer to the first objective: to analyze

what are the external side of vulnerability and its impact on tobacco-based

livelihood, as explained in chapter 6. The next finding is consistent with the

second objective: to investigate strategies employed by households to maintain or

improve livelihoods, as covered in chapter 7. The two last results are based on the

third objective: to examine how vulnerable the livelihoods of tobacco farmers are,

as covered also in chapter 7.

Research finding 1: The main external sides of vulnerability affect direct and

indirect tobacco-based livelihoods.

Tobacco has been become a part of tobacco growers’ livelihood since long

time ago. Tobacco has also received special attention from the government. This

can be seen in the Dutch Colonial policy in the 1800s, which has made tobacco as

a vital commodity under the cultivation system (cultuurstelses). In the new order

era (1965-1998), the government actively promoted the production of tobacco

products, especially kretek. The mechanization of cigarettes began and developed

in this era. In 2007, there were nearly 5,000 cigarette companies established in

Indonesia. The amount of tobacco product excise obtained increased from year to

year. The excise was about tripled in 2017 compared to 2009. In 2017, the

government got 147 trillion rupiah of tobacco product excise.

The golden era of tobacco, particularly in Sumbing-Sindoro Mountainside,

occurred when the Temanggung tobacco was still the main ingredient for Kretek.

This situation coincided when hand-rolled cigarette (sigaret kretek tangan, SKT)

still dominated cigarette production in Indonesia. Temanggung tobacco structures

14-26 % of each kretek cigarette. The highest quality of tobacco, srinthil, was also

still contested by many cigarette companies. At that time, tobacco cultivation was

in the golden era called ‘emas hijau’ (golden leaf) local people. It is because the

price of tobacco produced in SSM is generally high. Indeed, tobacco was a

promising commodity, which significantly contributed to tobacco growers’

livelihood.

215

Currently, the golden era of tobacco is almost over. There are the exposures

which direct or indirect influence the vulnerability of tobacco-based livelihood.

The livelihood vulnerability of farmers is caused by the volatile and declining

price of tobacco and the increasing cost of tobacco farming. The declining rate is

caused by the change in cigarette production from SKT to SKM. The changing

tastes of smokers drive the shift from heavy to light cigarettes. SKM has a light

taste because this type of cigarette contains less tobacco with lower graden of

nicotine in every cigarette. Consequently, the price of Temanggung tobacco,

which contains high-nicotine, is declining. Moreover, the excess of the world

tobacco production also contributed to the decline and fluctuations in local

tobacco prices. Furthermore, the surplus supply of tobacco in the world market

opens possibilities for cigarette manufacturers to increase import that is cheaper

than the local tobacco price. In everyday life, tobacco growers are engaged in all

stages both on-farm and off-farm. At each of these levels, tobacco growers face

challenges related to high cost at every gate level, crop failure because of climatic

variability, uncertainty, and volatile price. In general, tobacco growers must spend

more money on manure, labor, and market cost. Additionally, climatic variability,

especially rainfall at the harvesting time, causes crop failure that is followed by

low prices. Tobacco price tend to decrease and are volatile. Therefore, the

livelihood of tobacco growing has been economically questionable.

Meanwhile, the global policies on tobacco control actually could be

considered as a way out for tobacco problems, which are claimed economically,

are no longer profitable. Finding an alternative crop or even an alternative

livelihood seems to be a solution for sustaining tobacco growers’ livelihoods. On

the contrary, tobacco farmers consider the tobacco control policies as disrupting

their livelihood.

216

Research finding 2: There are various strategies employed by agents that are

determined by the position in the field and dispositions

The unequal distribution of capitals in the field causes the dominant and

dominated groups in the tobacco growers’ community. Graders hold the most

dominant position compared to tobacco merchants and the first suppliers (tobacco

growers, pengrajin, and perajang). The first suppliers are the dominated agents.

Tobacco merchants are positioned in the middle. In a certain situation they are

dominated by graders and in the other circumstances, they dominate the first

suppliers.

The cultural capital, particularly the skill of determining tobacco quality and

trust from the cigarette company, is the crucial capital that sets grader as the

dominant agent. For tobacco merchants, economic and social capitals are the

primary assets. Cultural and social capital is essential for pengrajin and perajang.

Meanwhile, land tenure is the key for tobacco growers to engage in the field of

tobacco. In this sense, social capital, particularly related to trust, is urgent for all

agents involved in the tobacco field.

Principally, every agent takes maneuvers through multiple strategies to

maintain or improve the position in the field. The strategies are oriented by agent

habitus, which are the result of structural influences and a lifetime of critical

reflection upon an agent’s experiences. Graders and tobacco merchants tend to

apply conservation strategies. These are intended to maintain their dominant

position. It can be seen in the issuance of KTA by the grader. The cigarette

industry whose production leads to light taste causes the need for tobacco leaf

containing middle-low nicotine. This tendency drives pengrajin and perajang to

become involved in the field of tobacco. They buy tobacco leaf from other regions

that contain lower nicotine compared to Temanggung tobacco. The strategy is

called the strategy of succession, which usually conducted by a new entrants or

new players. Tobacco growers posited as dominated agents apply strategies of

subversion to gain little from the dominant group.

217

Research finding 3: The extent to which exposure affects tobacco peasant

households is highly dependent on the volume, composition,

and value of the type of capital possessed by the agent and

habitus.

How far the impact of the vulnerability context or exposure will affect

sustainable livelihoods for the poor is one of the important focuses within the

Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF). DFID (2000) defined sustainable

livelihood as follows:

‘A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses

and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and

in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base’

Rakodi (2002) considers that the term ‘sustainable’ in the SLF can refer to

resilience, the ability to cope, or adaptive capacity. Resilience is the ability of

groups or communities to overcoe external pressures and disturbances as a result

of social, political, and environmental changes (Adger, 2006). In the context of

SLF, the external perturbations are caused by shocks, trends, and seasonality.

Bohle (2001) considered exposure as external disturbances. Exposure is the

degree to which a human group or ecosystem is exposed to particular stresses

(Clark, et al., 2000). Exposure as the structural factor accounts for the kind of

vulnerability (vulnerable to what?) (Etzold, 2013). In sum, resilience is a state

when the vulnerability context (exposure) does not significantly influence the

poor livelihood.

By using Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, resilience can manifest in

various forms depending on the volume, composition, and value of the type of

capital that the agent occupies to respond to exposure. This can be measured by

how far the exposure influences the agent’s habitus. Learning from the context of

tobacco growers’ community, there are three types of effects of exposure to

tobacco farmer’s habitus. First, exposure does not significantly influence to the

agent’s habitus. The agent is still persistent with cultural interests. The habitus and

its social field are still on a regular basis. The exposure does not fundamentally

change the field structure. The agent has the capacity to adapt to the threat caused

218

by the exposure. In the structure of tobacco farmers, graders and tobacco traders

are in this position. In fact, they are trying to maintain the stability of the tobacco

fields so that they can still get the benefits of the fields. For example, the FCTC

policies, which are considered to destabilize and even eliminate the existence of

the tobacco field, are rejected by these agents. This is one of the conservation

strategies, which is used to maintain their status in the tobacco field.

Second, exposure raises doubts among agents about their habitus. In this

manner, individual reflexivity will emerge as an effort to confirm the

compatibility of their habitus with a certain situation. Reflexivity refers to the

questioning of the condition of production of particular interests. This will drive

agents to suspend particular interest because of crises (Chandler, 2013). The crisis

is caused by a significant gap between field opportunities and habitus or hysteresis

(Bourdieu, 1977). Hysteresis is associated with a high level of risk that is potential

to drive the change of habitus (Yang, 2014).

A crisis is not solely perceived as a negative state. It can be positive if there

are opportunities, which are better compared to a prior habitus. It will be

considered negative when the reflexivity is more triggered by necessity than

chances. The reflexivity process results in the new commitment of particular

interests and strategies. It is possible to apply these strategies in the same field or

the new social field. The social practice and social field carried out are based on

the principle of maintaining or improving their position within a social space.

In the context of tobacco growers, the various exposures have raised

questions about the compatibility of their habitus with certain constraints.

Unfortunately, they often have no better alternative for switching to another

habitus. This occurs to tobacco farmers, who live on the upper slopes of Mt.

Sumbing-Sindoro.

Indeed, it is quite dilemmatic. On the one hand, tobacco is economically

questionable because the price tends to be decreased and the plant is vulnerable to

climate variability. On the other hand, ecologically, in the dry season, it is not

possible to grow other crops than tobacco. Furthermore, there is still an

expectation to see high tobacco prices that have been experienced in the past. The

219

tobacco prices that are very volatile raises the belief that once every 3-4 years the

price of tobacco will be high so that the sale of tobacco can pay their debts

accumulated during the previous years. Indeed, tobacco grown in this region has

good quality, which allows selling it for a higher price than tobacco grown in rice

fields.

Therefore, in the mental world, the social-psychology process negotiates

various cultural interests, such as whether to stay to cultivate tobacco or to find

other alternative crops. Preserving the previous habitus is based on the good

experience of high tobacco prices in the past. Meanwhile, another option is to

look for other alternative crops. It is because the price of tobacco, which continues

to fluctuate and tends to decline, can threaten the livelihood system.

This second group also plays a role in maintaining the existence of the

tobacco field. For example, related to efforts to oppose the FCTC, by affiliating

with tobacco traders they participated in supporting the activity of rejection of the

policy. Related to the FCTC policies, the Study Group on Economically

Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (ESATG) mandated to investigate

an alternative crop to tobacco has identified some reasons why farmers rely on

tobacco cultivation. Economically, there is a ’guarantee’ of providing loans for

tobacco cultivation and a tobacco market given by the first processor. Farmers

also believe that tobacco is more profitable than other crops. Ecologically, in

regions where irrigation is inadequate, adverse soil, and a particular climate

condition, tobacco is planted because of its drought resistance. Culturally, tobacco

cultivation has become a habit, which is successfully transmitted from generation

to generation.

For Bourdieu, the three causes, namely economy, culture, and ecology are

related to one another. Tobacco growing has been passed down from generation to

generation. Tobacco cultivation has become a social practice, which is guided by

habitus. Habitus orients farmers' action to continue growing tobacco from year to

year. Some sayings, beliefs, and idioms express the embeddedness between

farmers and tobacco cultivation.

220

‘isone ming’ (tobacco growing is the only thing that can be carried out to

support farmers’ livelihoods)

‘nandur mbako kuwi tradisi, turun temurun’ (tobacco growing is a tradition

inherited from ancestors)

‘Temanggung kuwi cocoke mung mbako’ (tobacco is the only crop that can

be grown in Temanggung)

‘rumongso isin yen tonggone nandur mbako, aku ora melu nandur’ (I feel

embarrassed when I don't plant tobacco as my neighbors do)

‘bathi pisan, utang 3 tahun ketutup’ (when the price of tobacco is high even

though it is only one season, this can pay off debt of 3 years)

Ora ono tanduran sing keuntungane ngluwihi mbako (it is so hard to find

other crops whose profits exceed tobacco)

‘mbako kuwi pulung/bejo’(tobacco growing is luck)

‘ngrokok matek, gak ngrokok matek, ngrokok ae sampai matek’ (You

smoke, you will die...You do not smoke, you also will die. Then,

keep going to smoke until you die).

‘mati urip mbako’ (keep on planting tobacco)

However, it does not mean that habitus is immutable; instead, the

disposition of habitus can either be continued or changed. Habitus always adjusts

in accordance with the changes. The fit between the inclinations of habitus and the

structures of the situation will cause the reproduction of the habitus. However, the

changes in constraints and opportunities in the field, which affect the significant

gap between field opportunities and habitus expectation, will open the chances of

the reflexivity process. This is the questions of compatibilities of habitus with the

field opportunities. Reflexivity will open the gate of creativity towards a new

habitus.

Habitus does not exist in a vacuum, rather functions in relation to capitals

and a field. Capital possessed will orient the habitus and at the same time

determine its position in the field based on the volume and composition of capital

221

employed. The agents holding dominant positions commonly will maintain their

position in the field by employing various strategies. The action of refusing the

global policies on tobacco control is one of the strategies conducted by farmers to

maintain the existence of the tobacco field and actor positions in the arena. The

greater resources occupied by agents in the field, the stronger the effort to refuse

the policies. This is the reason why tobacco growers, particularly those who are in

the dominant position, tend to resist.

Third, exposure has driven the agents to find a new habitus, with or without

eliminating the previous habitus. This group is usually the farmers who have a

low dependence on tobacco in their livelihood system. They are usually farmers,

who grow tobacco in the rice fields. They cultivate tobacco when the weather is

appropriate. Whereas when the weather is not good for growing tobacco, they

grow the crop on a small part of the land. Meanwhile, most other land is planted

with other crops.

In this dissertation, thus, resilience is defined as the ability of people to

reproduce their habitus or to create a new habitus with or without eliminating the

previous habitus. This needs to be noted, that resilience does not mean not to be

vulnerable. This is because vulnerability is not only caused by external factors

such as shocks, trends, seasonality or exposure, but also by the imbalance of

power relations among agents in the field of tobacco where peasant farmers are

part of it.

In fact, there are the unequal power relations among agents in the field of

tobacco that are also an element of vulnerability. For example, farmers experience

crop failure, and then borrow money to traders. In this case, farmers are

considered as resilient, because they can still carry out their activities as they did

before. Nevertheless, this debt has consequences as a result of the relationship

between farmers and traders that keeps farmers vulnerable, dependent, and having

no bargaining power. In other words, debt can make them resilient, but leaves

them in a vulnerable condition. Therefore, sustainable livelihoods should not only

refer to the resilience of the poor in responding to external disturbances. However,

it must consider the inequality of power relations among agents in the field.

222

Finally, the rules of the game in the field that distribute resources in the field are

also an important part for analyzing livelihood sustainability.

Research finding 4: Livelihood vulnerability is embedded in the everyday life of

tobacco growers, because of asymmetric power relations

among agents. The dominated agent is the most vulnerable.

In everyday life, the power relations among agents in the field are

asymmetric because of uneven capitals possessed. The dominated group,

particularly tobacco peasants, is the most vulnerable in the field. The livelihoods

will be more vulnerable when exposures happen, such as rainfall deviation. Is

such cases, they will be forced to sell crop stocks, possessions, livestock, etc.

Their debts cannot be paid off, but even increase with high-interest rates.

In many cases, debt forces tobacco growers to sell tobacco to moneylenders

that are also tobacco merchants (juragan). Peasant farmers are stuck in a debt of

gratitude. It puts the peasants in a weak position. As another strategy, some of

them are also forced to work as laborers (buruh) or petty traders. In sum,

livelihood vulnerability occurs in their daily lives because of the asymmetric

position of agents in the field. The external side, exposures, exacerbates the

situation of vulnerability for agents, particularly for those who are standing in the

dominated position. The livelihood vulnerability is then the dialectic between the

external (exposures) and internal side (livelihood strategies in relation to the

field).

8.2. Contributions of the research

8.2.1. Theoretical contributions

The significant theoretical contribution of this research is in the area of

livelihood vulnerability, which is one of the concerns of human geography. First,

this dissertation is concerned with the dialectical relationship between structure

and agency. In the previous livelihood studies, structure and agenc were analyzed

in a separate way. This resulted in over-emphasize of one of them, instead of

conceiving them as an interplay.

223

Second, this dissertation considers that agents cannot act freely but are also

not fully bound by rules or norms. Livelihood strategies employed are oriented by

habitus. Habitus is the system of disposition that is related to the position in the

structure and the results of the actors’ reflection during their life. Habitus actively

makes an adjustment to encounter the mismatch between the disposition of

habitus and the structure (field). This consideration can overcome criticism of the

SLA, which overemphasizes the agent as an independent unit.

Lastly, another major contribution of this research is the interconnection

between three theories: livelihood, vulnerability, and Bourdieu’s theory of social

practice. The interplay between the three concepts is useful to contribute to

livelihood studies that consider both external and internal side of vulnerability. By

employing Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, power relations among agents in

the internal side of vulnerability can be grasped.

8.2.2. Policy contributions

Based on the position and authority, the government can take an obvious

role regarding the sustainability of farmers' livelihoods. The possible options

offered are whether the government will support the continuity of tobacco

growing or will propose alternative crops to tobacco. Several things that must be

considered related to the choices will be delivered as follows:

First, in case the government stays to support the continuity of tobacco growing,

the government must be seriously facilitating the needs of tobacco growers

from the cultivation stage to market guarantees. The crucial things in the

tobacco farmers’ community are the availability of loans and the fairness of

market rule. Limited finance for tobacco cultivation drives the farmers to

obtain credit with high interest. The complicated market rule creates

unbalanced power-relations among agents in the field of tobacco.

224

Second, in case the government put aside the role of tobacco for the livelihood

sustainability of farmer, several things must be considered:

a. Adopting alternative crop is not new for tobacco growers. In the tobacco

community, maize is a vital crop supporting farmers’ livelihood.

Boomgard (2005) illustrated how important maize in dry land could be

including the region of SSM by associating with potatoes in Europe and

cassava in Africa. He is pairing maize (subsistence crop) and tobacco

(commercial crop), which has an important role in agriculture,

particularly in upland areas. It is because both crops can tolerate a wide

range of environmental conditions, particularly in the dry-upland.

However maize, slowly but sure, has shifted to chili since the

government started to promote this commercial crop. Agricultural land

for chili cultivation significantly increases. It is slightly different from the

case when the government introduced coffee, suren tree, and elephant

grass (rumput gajah) as crops planted together with tobacco. Based on

the experiences, the innovation should not have a striking difference with

the previous habitus. Based on the experiences, the shift of maize to chili

is more acceptable compared to the shift of tobacco to other crops such as

coffee, suren tree, and elephant grass. It is because both maize and chili

is a seasonal crop.

b. Tobacco growing has been successfully inherited from generation to

generation. Tobacco as a source livelihood has been embedded in their

everyday life. It had a significant contribution not only for household

income but also for the local development. Hence, the alternative crops

offered should have similar roles both in contributing to household

livelihood and local development. In other words, alternative crops must

be more profitable and more beneficial for both households and

community development.

c. In Bourdieu’s perspective, tobacco growing is considered as a social

practice. Bourdieu's theory of social practices involves three related

concepts: habitus, capital, and field. The action of refusing the global

225

policies on tobacco control is one of the strategies conducted by farmers

to maintain the existence of the tobacco field and to preserve their

position in the arena. The greater resources possessed by agents in the

tobacco field, the stronger are efforts to refuse the policies. It is the

reason why farmers, particularly those who hold significant capital, tend

to resist. Based on the tobacco field, several things must be considered:

First, finding alternative crops means building new social fields. It

should recognize the players who will be involved in the new

fields. In principle, every agent struggles to improve and maintain

his or her resources. The possibilities of conflict between new

agents involved must be calculated.

Second, the field of tobacco was established a long time ago. There is a

rule of the game that has been embedded in the agent’s habitus.

Creating a new field will raise the resistance, particularly from

those agents, which possess more resources. They are agents,

which are in the dominant position, like the tobacco merchants

and are located in the area, where a high quality of tobacco is

cultivated (e.g. the srinthil area). Hence, new fields that will be

established should be able to accommodate the interests of all

agents in the tobacco field, including the dominant position

groups. It also needs to be ensured that these agents have the

opportunity and capability to be involved in the new fields.

Established institutions, good facilities of infrastructure,

marketing guarantees, and on-farm supporting systems in the new

fields are very useful as consideration for agents in the tobacco

field to develop new habitus and livelihood strategies.

226


227

Bibliography

Adger, W. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281.

Aitken, S., & Valentine, G. (2006). Ways of Knowing and Ways of Doing

Geographic Research. In S. Aitken, & G. Valentine, Approaches to

Human Geography (S. 1-12). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Anderson, K. (2016). Bourdieu’s distinction between rules and strategies and

secondary principal practice: A review of selected literature. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 44(4), 688–705.

antarafoto.com. (2011, 09 13). Tembakau Garangan. Retrieved from

https://www.antarafoto.com/mudik/v1315914901/tembakau-garangan

antaranews.com. (2013, 01 12). Aksi Tolak PP Tembakau. Retrieved from

https://www.antaranews.com/foto/39273/aksi-tolak-pp-tembakau

Arfianto, A. (2012). Respon Petani Tembakau terhadap Kegiatan Pengembangan

Model Usahatani Partisipatif (PMUP) di Desa Tlahab Kecamatan

Kledung, Kabupaten Temanggung. Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan

Kota, 8(2), 105‐117.

Arnez, M. (2009). Tobacco and Kretek: Indonesian Drugs in Historical Change.

Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 2(1), 49-69. Retrieved from

https://aseas.univie.ac.at/index.php/aseas/article/view/408.

Bappeda Kab. Temanggung. (2009). Rencana Induk Pertembakauan Kabupaten

Temanggung. Temanggung: Badan Perencanaan Pembanggunan Daerah

(Bappeda) Kab. Temanggung.

Bappeda Kab. Temanggung. (2013). Retrieved from

http://laman.temanggungkab.go.id/info/detail/2/26/peta-administrasi.html.

Bappeda Kab. Temanggung. (2016). Statistik Kabupaten Temanggung 2016.

Temanggung.

Bappenas. (2010). Evaluasi Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana bagi Masyarakat

Miskin (Keluarga Prasejahtera/KPS dan Keluarga Sejahtera-I/KS-I.

Jakarta.

Barber, S., Adioetomo, S., Ahsan, A., & Setyonaluri, D. (2008). Tobacco

Economics in Indonesia. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis

and Lung Disease (The Union).

Basuki, S., Rochman, F., & Yulaikah, S. (2000). Biologi Tembakau Temanggung

(Sesanti Basuki, Fathkur Rochman. In Balittas, Monograf Tembakau

Temanggung (S. 1-6). Malang.

228

Bellagio statement on tobacco and sustainable development. (1995). CMAJ:

Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153(8), 1109–1110.

beritasatu.com. (2012, 07 03). 7.000 Petani Tembakau Macetkan Rasuna Said.

Retrieved from https://www.beritasatu.com/megapolitan/57744-7000-

petani-tembakau-macetkan-rasuna-said.html

Bernstein, H. (2010). Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change. Canada: Fernwood

Publishing.

Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient

societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. In J. Birkmann,

Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient

Societies (S. 9-54). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in

Social Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

BMKG. (2018). Curah Hujan dan Hari Hujan Kabupaten Temanggung.

Retrieved from http://data.jatengprov.go.id/dataset/curah-hujan-dan-hari-

hujan-kabupaten-temanggung-2015-2017/resource/bd8ceab9-f010-44c6-

a491-8bb0baaf58d7

Bohle, H.-G. (2001). Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from Social

Geography. IHDP Update, 2(1), 3-5.

Boomgaard, P. (2005). Maize and Tobacco in Upland Indonesia, 1600–1940. In

T. Li, Transforming the Indonesian Uplands (S. 47-80). Amsterdam:

Harwood academic publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory

and Research for the Sociology of Education (S. 241–258). Westport, CT:

Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

BPS. (2008). Indonesia-Pendataan Potensi Desa. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.

229

BPS. (2010). Peraturan Kepala Badan Pusat Statistik Nomor 37 Tahun 2010

tentang Klasifikasi Perkotaan dan Perdesaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan

Pusat Statistik.

BPS. (2011). Statistik Kesejahteraan Rakyat 2011. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS. (2013). Laporan Hasil Sensus Pertanian 2013 (Pencacahan Lengkap).

Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS. (2017). Potret Pendidikan Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS. (2018). Hasil Survei Pertanian antar Sensus SUTAS2018. Jakarta: Badan

Pusat Statistik.

BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2009). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka

2008. Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik.





BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2012a). Kabupaten Temanggung dalam Angka


BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2012b). Kecamatan Bansari dalam Angka 2011.

Temanggung: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2012c). Kecamatan Bulu dalam Angka 2011.








BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2013d). Hasil Sensus Pertanian 2013.






230



BPS Kabupaten Temanggung. (2015). Statistik Daerah Kabupaten Temanggung.
























BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2013). Laporan Hasil Sensus Pertanian 2013

(Pencacahan Lengkap). Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2017). Statistik Pendidikan Propinsi Jawa Tengah

2017. Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2018a). Propinsi Jawa Tengah dalam Angka 2017.

Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS Propinsi Jawa Tengah. (2018b). Hasil Suvei Pertanian antar Sensus (SUTAS)

2018 Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Semarang: Badan Pusat Statistik.

231

Budiarto, H. (2007). Tantangan dan Peluang Agribisnis Tembakau Cerutu.

Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (pp. 14-21). Surabaya: Balai

Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas).

Brata, W. (2012). Tembakau atau Mati: Kesaksian, Kegelisahan, dan Harapan

Seorang Petani Tembakau. Jakarta: Indonesia Berdikari.

Brettell, C. (2002). The Individual/Agent and Culture/Structure in the History of

the Social Sciences. Social Science History, 26(3), 429-445. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40267785

Bridge, G. (2001). Bourdieu, rational action and the time-space strategy of

gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(2),

205-216.

Bridge, G. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu. In P. Hubbard, & R. Kitchin, Key Thinkers on

Space and Place (S. 76-81). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Brons, J., Dietz, T., Niehof, A., & Witsenburg, K. (2007). Dimensions of

Vulnerability of Livelihoods in Less-favoured Areas: Interplay Between

the Individual and the Collective. In R. Ruben, J. Pender, & A.

Kuyvenhoven, Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Less-Favoured Areas (S.

91-110). Wallingford UK/Cambridge MA USA: CAB International.

Bryceson, D. (2000). Peasant Theories and Smallholder Policies: Past and Present.

In D. Bryceson, C. Kay, & J. Mooij, Disappearing Peasantries? Rural

Labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America (pp. 1-36). London:

Intermediate Technology Publications.

Buang, A. (1992). Epistemological Problems in Human geography: An Overview

and A Preliminary Islamic Evaluation. The American Journal of Islamic

Social Sciences, 9(1).

Carey, P. (1984). Changing Javanese Perceptions of the Chinese Communities in

Central Java, 1755-1825. Indonesia, 37, 1-47.

Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable Livelihoods Approaces: progress and Possibitilies

for Change. DFID.

Carter, A. T. (1984). Household Histories. In R. M. Netting, R. R. Wilk, & E. J.

Arnould, Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the

Domestic Group (pp. 44-83). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University

of California Press.

Casimir, G., & Tobi, H. (2011). Defining and using the concept of household: a

systematic review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 498–

506.

232

cendananews.com. (2016, 11 16). Para Petani Demo DPR Tolak Kovensi

Pengendalian Tembakau. Retrieved from

https://www.cendananews.com/2016/11/para-petani-demo-dpr-tolak-

kovensi-pengendalian-tembakau.html

Chambers, R. (1989). Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy.

IDS Bulletin, 20(2), 1-7.

Chambers, R. (2005). Ideas for Development. London: Earthscan.

Chandler, B. (2013). The Subjectivity of Habitus. Journal for the Theory of Social

Behaviour, 43(4), 469-491.

Chouinard, V. (1997). Structure and Agency: Contested Concepts in Human

Geography. The Canadian Geographer, 41(4), 363-377.

Clark, G. (2005). Secondary data. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in

Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S. 57-

73). Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall.

Clark, W., Jäger, J., Corell, R., Kasperson, R., McCarthy, J., Cash, D., . . .

Wilbanks, T. (2000). Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental

Risks.” Report of the Workshop on Vulnerability to Global Environmental

Change: Challenges for Research, Assessment and Decision Making.

Warrenton, Virginia: Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs (BCSIA).

Claver, A. (2014). Dutch Commerce and Chinese Merchants in Java: Colonial

Relationships in Trade and Finance, 1800–1942. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Clifford, N., French, S., & Valentine, G. (2010). Getting Started in Geographical

Research: how this book can help. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G.

Valentine, Key Methods in Geography (S. 3-15). London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Cloke, P., & Johnston, R. (2005). Spaces of Geographical Thought:

Deconsttructing Human Geography's Binaries. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J., & Philo, C. (2004).

Practising Human Geography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Colombijn, F., Colombijn, H., & Colombijn, M. (2001). Kreteks Crackle in

Children’s Hands. The impact of advertisements and peers on smoking

behaviour of adolescents in Bandung, Indonesia. In F. Hüsken, & D. der

Meij, Reading Asia: a research of Asian Studies (S. 49-63). Richmond:

Curzon.

233

Conradson, D. (2005). Focus groups. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in

Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S. 128-

143). Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall.

Cook, I. (2005). Participant observation. In R. Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods

in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (S.

167-188). Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall.

Cope, M. (2010). A History of Qualitative Research in Geography. In D. DeLyser,

S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell, The SAGE Handbook of

Qualitative Geography (S. 25-45). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cousins, B. (2010). What is a ‘smallholder’? Class-analytic perspectives on

small-scale farming and agrarian reform in South Africa. working Paper

16: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS).

Cresswell, T. (1996). In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and

Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic Thought: A Critical Introduction. Chichester,

West Sussex, UK : Wiley-Blackwell.

Cribb, R., & Kahin, A. (2004). Historical Dictionary of Indonesia (2nd).

Maryland: Scarecrow Press.

Daldjoeni, N. (1984). Pranatamangsa, the Javanese agricultural calendar—Its

bioclimatological and sociocultural function in developing rural life.

Environmentalist, 4(Supplement 7), 15-18.

de Haan, L. (2000). Globalization, Localization and Sustainable Livelihood.

Sociologia Ruralis, 40(3), 339-365.

de Haan, L. (2012). The Livelihood Approach: A Critical Exploration. Erdkunde,

66(4), 345-357. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41759104

de Haan, l., & Zoomers, A. (2003). Development Geography at The Crossroads of

Livelihood and Globalisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale

Geografie, 94(3), 350-362.

de Haan, L., & Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the Frontier of Livelihoods

Research. Development and Change, 36(1), 27–47.

Deffner, V., & Haferburg, C. (2012). Raum, Stadt und Machtverhältnisse:

Humangeographische Auseinandersetzungen mit Bourdieu.

Geographische Zeitschrift, 100(3), 164-180.

234

Departemen Perindustrian. (2009). Roadmap Industri Pengolahan Tembakau.

Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Industri Agro dan Kimia, Departemen

Perindustrian.

DeWalt, K., & DeWalt, B. (2011). Participant Observation: A Guide for

Fieldworkers. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social

scientists. London: Routledge.

DFID. (2000). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: DFID.

Dharmawan, A. (2001). Farm Household Livelihood Strategies and Socio-

Economic Change in Rural Indonesia. Socioeconomic Studies on Rural

Development Vol. 124. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG.

Didero, M. (2012). Cairo's Informal Waste Collectors: A Multi-Scale and Conflict

Sensitive Perspective on Sustainable Livelihoods. Erdkunde, 66(1), 27-44.

Dirksmeier, P. (2007). Mit Bourdieu gegen Bourdieu empirisch denken:

Habitusanalyse mittels reflexiver Fotografie. ACME: An International E-

Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(1), 73-97.

Ditjenbun. (2014). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2013-2015: Tembakau.

Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan.





Ditjenbun. (2017). Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia 2016-2018. Tembakau. Jakarta:

Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan.


Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Perkebunan, Kementeraian Pertanian.

Djajadi. (2015). Tobacco Diversity in Indonesia. Journal of Biological

Researches, 20, 27-32.

Djurfeldt, G. (1996). Defining and Operationalizing Family Farming from a

Sociological Perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 36(3), 340-351.

Dörfler, T., Gracfe, O., Müller-Mahn, D., & Bayreuth. (2003). Habitus und Feld:

Anregungen für eine Neuorientierung der geographischen

Entwicklungsforschung auf der Grundlage von BOURDIEUS 'Theorie der

Praxis'. Geographica Helvetica, 11-23.

235

Dunn, K. (2010). Interviewing. In I. Hay, Qualitative research methods in human

geography (6th ed) (S. 101-138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eakin, H., & Luers, A. (2006). Assesing the Vulnerability of Social-

Environmental Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,

365-394.

Edelman, M. (2013). What is a peasant? What are peasantries? A briefing paper

on issues of definition. Prepared for the first session of the

Intergovernmental Working Group on a United Nations Declaration on

the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, Geneva,

15-19 July 2013.

Eichner, S. (2014). Agency and Media Reception: Experiencing Video Games,

Film, and Television. Potsdam: Springer VS.

Elder-Vass, D. (2007). Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an Emergentist

Theory of Action. Sociological Theory, 25(4), 325-346.

Ellis, F. (1998). Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The

Journal of Development Studies, 35(1), 1-38.

Engle, N. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental

Change, 21, 647–656.

Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., Schluger, N., Gomeshtapeh, F., & Drope, J. (2015). The

Tobacco Atlas (Fifth Edition). Atlanta, Georgia: The American Cancer

Society, Inc.

Ernst & Young. (2015). Kajian Singkat Potensi Dampak Ekonomi Rokok di

Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Ernst & Young Indonesia.

Arnez, M. (2009). Tobacco and Kretek: Indonesian Drugs in Historical Change.

Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 2(1), 49-69. Retrieved from

https://aseas.univie.ac.at/index.php/aseas/article/view/408

Etzold, B. (2013). The Politics of Street Food: Contested Governance and

Vulnerabilities in Dhaka’s Field of Street Vending. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner

Verlag.

Etzold, B., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2016). Socio-spatialities of vulnerability: towards a

polymorphic perspective in vulnerability research. DIE ERDE, 143(4),

234-251.

Everts, J., Lahr-Kurten, M., & Watson, M. (2011). PRACTICE MATTERS!

Geographical inquiry and theories of practice. ERDKUNDE, 65(4), 323–

334.

236

Fagi, A. (1992). Upland Crop Production in Indonesia with Regard to Fertilizer

Utilization. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center (FFCT). Retrieved

from

http://www.fftc.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&style=type&id=201107

22070944

Feldman, M., & Orlikowski, W. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing

Theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.

Firth, R. (1966). Malay Fishermen: Their Peasant Economy. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

Firth, R. (2017). Capital, Saving and Credit in Peasant Societies: A Viewpoint

from Economic Anthropology. In R. Firth, & B. Yamey, Capital, Saving,

& Credit in Peasant Societies (pp. 15-34). New York: Routledge-Taylor &

Francis Group.

Fisher, P. (1999). Tobacco Blending. In D. Davis, & M. Nielsen, Tobacco:

Production, Chemistry and Technology (S. 346-52). London: Blackwell

Science Ltd.

Flick, U. (2004). Design and Process in Qualitative Research. In U. Flick, E. von

Kardorff, & I. Steinke, A Companion to Qualitative Research (S. 146-

152). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Flick, U. (2007). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Fogle, N. (2011). The Spatial Logic of Social Struggle: A Bourdieuian Topology.

Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

Füssel, H.-M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework

for climate change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 155–167.

Geertz, C. (1983). Involusi Pertanian: Proses Perubahan Ekologi di Indonesia.

Jakarta: Bharata Karya Aksara.

Geist, H. (1999). Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming.

Tobacco Control, 8, 18–28.

Gerber, J. (1997). Beyond dualism - the social construction of nature and the

natural and social construction of human beings. Progress in Human

Geography, 21(1), 1-17.

237

Gerpacio, R., & Pingali, P. (2007). Tropical and Subtropical Maize in Asia:

Production Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. Mexico:

CIMMYT.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum.

Goodman, J. (1993). Tobacco in History: the Cultures of Dependence. London:

Routledge.

Goodman, J. (2005). Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 1.

Detroit: Thomson Gale.

Goodspeed, T. (1947). On the Evolution of the Genus Nicotiana. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),

33(6), 158-171.

Graham, E. (2005). Philosophies underlying human geography research. In R.

Flowerdew, & D. Martin, Methods in Human Geography: A guide for

students doing a research project (S. 8-33). Harlow, England: Printice

Hall.

Gregory, D. (1981). Human Agency and Human Geography. Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, 6(1), 1-18.

Grenfell, M. (2008). Postscript: Methodological Principles. In M. Grenfell, Pierre

Bourdieu: Key Concepts (S. 219-227). Stocksfield: Acumen.

Grenfell, M. (2014). Introduction to Part II. In M. Grenfell, & F. Lebaron,

Bourdieu and Data Analysis: Methodological Principles and Practice (S.

37-39). Bern: Peter Lang AG.

Grenfell, M., & Hardy, C. (2007). Art Rules: Pierre Bourdieu and the Visual Arts.

Oxford: Berg.

Grenfell, M., & James, D. (1998). Theory as Method. In M. Grenfell, D. James, P.

Hodkinson, D. Reay, & D. Robbins, Bourdieu and Education: Acts of

Practical Theory (S. 153-181). London: UK Falmer Press.

Hadi, P., Kustiari, R., & Anugrah, I. (2008). Case Study of Tobacco Cultivation

and Alternate Crops in Indonesia. Jakarta: Indonesian Center for

Agricultural Socio-Economic and Policy Studies Department of

Agriculture in Collaboration with WHO Representative to Indonesia.

Hamid, E. (1991). Kajian Ringkas: Bentuk Pasar Industri Rokok dan Tembakau di

Indonesia. UNISIA, 10, 80-82.

Hanuz, M. (2005). Kretek. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: an

Ecnyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 287-289). Detroit: Thomson Gale.

238

Hartono, J., Hastono, A., & Tirtosastro, S. (2000). Penilaian dan Penetapan Mutu

Tembakau Rajangan Temanggung. In Balai Penelitian Tanaman

Tembakau dan Serat (Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 87-

91). Malang: Balittas.

Hayami, Y., & Kikuchi, M. (1987). Dilema Ekonomi Desa: Suatu Pendekatan

Ekonomi terhadap Perubahan Kelembagaan di Asia. Jakarta: Yayasan

Obor Indonesia.

Hennink, M. (2007). International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the

Health and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hennink, M. (2014). Focus Group Discussions. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Heriyanto, D. (2014). Recent Development on Tobacco Control Policy in

Indonesia: Analyzing Obstacles Faced by Indonesia in the Ratification of

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA

IUSTUM, 21(2), 157 - 174.

Hoggart, K., Lees, L., & Davies, A. (2002). Researching Human Geography.

London: Arnold.

Hurtado, P. (2010). Assessing the use of Bourdieu's key concepts in the strategy-

as-practice field. Competitiveness Review: An International Business

Journal, 20(1), 52-61.

Indef. (2018). Mau Kemana Industri Hasil Tembakau Pasca PMK 146/2017.

Jakarta : Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef).

Isdijoso, W., Suryahadi, A., & Akhmadi. (2016). Penetapan Kriteria dan Variabel

Pendataan Penduduk Miskin yang Komprehensif dalam Rangka

Perlindungan Penduduk Miskin di Kabupaten/Kota. Jakarta: The SMERU

Research Institute.

Isdijoso, W., Suryahadi, A., & Akhmadi. (2016). Penetapan Kriteria dan Variabel

Pendataan Penduduk Miskin yang Komprehensif dalam Rangka

Perlindungan Penduduk Miskin di Kabupaten/Kota. Jakarta: The SMERU

Research Institute.

Jacobs, R., Gale, H., Capehart, T., Zhang, P., & Jha, P. (2000). The Supply-Side

Effects of Tobacco-Control Policies. In P. Jha, & F. Chaloupka, Tobacco

control in developing countries (S. 311-41). Oxford: Oxford University

Press on behalf of The Human Development Network, the World Bank,

and The Economics Advisory Service,World Health Organization.

239

Janoschka, M. (2011). Habitus and radical reflexivity: a conceptual approach to

study political articulations of lifestyle- and tourism-related mobilities.

Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 3(3), 224–236.

jatengprov.go.id. (2018, 10 11). Festival Lembutan Bansari Tunjukkan Kualitas

Tembakau Temanggung. Retrieved from

https://jatengprov.go.id/beritadaerah/festival-lembutan-bansari-tunjukkan-

kualitas-tembakau-temanggung/

Jenkins, R. (1992). Key Sociologist: Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.

Johnston, R. (1986). Philosophy and Human Geography: An Introduction to

Contemporary Approaches. Baltimore, Maryland: Edward Arnold.

Kaag, M., van Berkel, R., Brons, J., de Bruijn, M., van Dijk, H., de Haan, L., . . .

Zoomers, A. (2004). Poverty is Bad: Ways Forward in Livelihood

Research. In D. Kalb, W. Panster, & H. Siebers, Globalization

Development: Themes and concepts in Current Research (S. 49-74).

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from

http://www.springeronline.com

kabarjinggan.blogspot.com. (2010, 05 14). Demo Petani Tembakau Temanggung.

Retrieved from http://kabarjinggan.blogspot.com/2010/05/demo-petani-

tembakau-temanggung.html

Kementan PPN/Bapennas. (2014). Analisis Rumah Tangga, lahan, dan Usaha

Pertanian di Indonesia: Sensus Pertanian 2013. Jakarta: Direktorat

Pangan dan Pertanian Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan

Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional.

Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2008). PMK Nomor 60/PMK.07/2008 tentang Dana

Alokasi Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2008. Jakarta: 24 April

2008.

Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2009). PMK Nomor: 85/PMK.07/2009 tentang

Alokasi Sementara Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun

Anggaran 2009. Jakarta: 23 April 2009.


Alokasi Definitif Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggran

2010. Jakarta: 23 Desember 2010.


Alokasi Definitif Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun

Anggaran 2011. Jakarta: 1 Desember 2011.

240


Alokasi Definitif Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun



Alokasi Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau Tahun Anggaran 2013.

Jakarta: 13 Desember 2013.

Kementerian Keuangan RI. (2014). Peraturan Menteri Keuangan RI Nomor

216/PMK.07/2014 tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Menteri Keuangan

No. 106/PMK.07/2014 tentang Perkiraan Alokasi DBHCHT Tahun



Rincian Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Hasil Tembakau menurut

Provinsi/Kabupaten/Kota Tahun Anggaran 2015. Jakarta: 14 Juli 2015.


Rincian Dana Bagi Hasil Tembakau menurut Provinsi/Kabupaten/Kota

Tahun Anggaran 2016. Jakarta: 18 November 2016.


Rincian Dana Bagi Hasil Cukai Tembakau menurut

Provinsi/Kabupaten/Kota Tahun Anggaran 2017. Jakarta: 8 Desember

2017.

Kementerian Perindustrian RI. (2013). Gambaran Umum Industri Rokok.

Retrieved from

www.kemenperin.go.id/jawaban_attachment.php?id=438&id_t=3154

Kementerian Perindustrian RI. (2015). Pengembangan Industri Prioritas Agro.

Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Industri Agro, Kementerian Perindustrian.

Keyser, J. (2007). Crop substitution and alternative crops for tobacco. Crop

substitution and alternative crops for tobacco: study conducted as a

technical document for the first meeting of the ad hoc study group on

alternative crops established by the conference of the parties to the WHO

framework convention on tobacco contr.

Keyser, J., & Juita, N. (2005). Smallholder Tobacco Growing in Indonesia: Cost

and Profitability Compared with Other Agricultural Enterprises.

Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

/ The World Bank.

Killebrew, J., & Myrick, H. (1920). Tobacco Leaf: Its Culture and Cure,

Marketing, and Manufacture. New York: Orange Judd Company.

241

Kim, H.-J. (2007). Reformist Muslims in a Yogyakarta Village: The Islamic

Transformation of Contemporary Socio-Religious Life. Canberra: ANU

Press.

Korenjak-Cerne, S., Kejžar, N., & Batagelj, V. (2008). Clustering of Population

Pyramids. Informatica, 32, 157–167.

Krantz, L. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction:

Introduction. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency (Sida).

Kurnaini, Z. (2016). Kebijakan Cukai Hasil Tembakau. Round Table Discussion

Rokok: Perspektif Kesehatan Masyarakat vs Perspektif Ekonomi.

Universitas Indonesia: 15 Oktober 2016.

Lahire, B. (2015). The limits of the field: elements for a theory of the social

differentiation of activities. In M. Hilgers, & E. Mangez, Bourdieu’s

Theory of Social Fields: Concepts and applications (S. 62-101). Oxon,

New York: Routledge.

Lamaison, P., & Bourdieu, P. (1986). From Rules to Strategies: An Interview with

Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology, 1(1), 110-120.

Laslett, P. (1972). Introduction: the history of the family. In P. Laslett, & R. Wall,

Household and family in past time (pp. 1-89). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Laurier, E. (2010). Participant Observation. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G.


Publications Ltd.

Lian, T., & Dorothea, U. (2016). The Tobacco Control Atlas: ASEAN Region

(Third Edition). Bangkok: Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance

(SEATCA).

Lin, K.-H. (2013). Everyday crises: Marginal society livelihood vulnerability and

adaptability to hazards. Progress in Development Studies, 13(1), 1–18.

Lingard, B., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading theory: Bourdieu and the field of

educational leadership. An introduction and overview to this special issue.

Int. J. Leadership in Education, 6(4), 317-333.

Lipunner, R. (2005). Reflexive Sozialgeographie. Bourdieus Theorie der Praxis

als Grundlage für sozial- undkulturgeographisches kulturgeographisches

Arbeiten nach dem cultural turn. Geographische Zeitschrift, 93(3), 135-

147.

242

Longhurst, R. (2010). Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In N.

Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography (S. 103-

115). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mackay, J., & Eriksen, M. (2002). The Tobacco Atlas. Geneva: World Health

Organization.

Mackill, D., Coffman, W., & Garrity, D. (1996). Rainfed Lowland Rice

Improvement. Manila: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Mahkamah Konstitusi RI. (2010). Putusan Nomor 34/PUU-VIII/2010. Jakarta:

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia.

Mamat, H., Sitorus, S., Hardjomidjojo, H., & Seta, A. (2006). Analisis Mutu,

Produktivitas, Keberlanjutan dan Arahan Pengembangan Usahatani

Tembakau di Kabupaten Temanggung, Jawa Tengah. Jurnal Littri, 12(4),

146 - 153.

Mamudu, H., Cairney, P., & Studlar, D. (2015). Global Public Policy: Does The

New Venue for Transnational Tobacco Control Challenge the Old Way of

Doing Things? Public Administration, 93(4), 856–873.

Mann, S. (2016). The Research Interview: Reflective Practice and Reflexivity in

Research Processes. Palgrave Macmillan.

Mastur, Sulistyowati, E., Nurindah, Subiyakto, Sudjindro, Purwati, R., . . .

Rahmawati, L. (2012). Rencana Strategies (Edisi Perbaikan) Balai

Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat 2010-2014. Malang: Balai

Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat.

Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell, Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (S. 49-

66). Durham: Acumen.

Maus, G. (2015). Landscapes of memory: a practice theory approach to

geographies of memory. Geogr. Helv., 70, 215–223.

McConnell, D. J., & Dillon, J. L. (1997). Farm Management for Asia: A Systems

Approach. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/3/w7365e/w7365e00.htm#Contents

McFalls Jr., J. A. (2003). Population: A Lively Introduction, 4th Edition. PRB

Population Bulletin, 58(4), 3-40.

McKean, E. (2006). Concise Oxford American Dictionary. New York: Oxford

University Press.

243

McLaughlin, P., & Dietz, T. (2008). Structure, agency and environment: Toward

an integrated perspective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change,

18, 99–111.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design

and Implementation. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Metrotvnews.com. (2016, 05 03). Among Tebal, Tradisi Selamatan Masuki

Musim Tanam tembakau. Retrieved from

http://http:foto.metrotvnews.com/view/2016/05/03/522977/among-tebal-

tradisi-selamatan-masuki-musim-tanam-tembakau#

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data

Analysis. California: SAGE Publication, Inc.

MPIG Tembakau Srinthil Temanggung. (2013). Buku Persyaratan Indikasi

Geografis Tembakau Srinthil Temanggung. Temanggung: MPIG Srinthil.

Mukani, & Isdijoso, S. (2000). Sejarah dan Peranan Tembakau Temanggung. In

Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 92-96). Malang: Balittas.

Murdiyati, A., Djajadi, & Herwati, A. (2007). Upaya Pembenahan Mutu

Tembakau Rakyat. Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (pp. 148-

155). Malang: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas).

Murdiyati, A., & Basuki, T. (2011). Agribisnis Tembakau Virginia. In Balittas,

Tembakau Virginia: Monograf Balittas (S. 156-169). Malang: Balittas.

Murray, C. (2000). Changing Livelihoods: The Free State, 1990s. African Studies,

59(1), 115-142.

Moormann, F., & Breemen, N. (1978). Rice: Soil, Water, Land. Manila: The

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Nee, M. (2005). Origin and Diffusion. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and

Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 397-402). Detroit: Thomson Gale.

Netting, R. M., Wilk, R. R., & Arnould, E. J. (1984). Introduction. In R. M.

Netting, R. R. Wilk, & E. J. Arnould, Households: Comparative and

Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (pp. xiii-xxxviii). Berkeley, Los

Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Notohadiprawiro, T. (1989). Pertanian Lahan Kering di Indonesia: Potensi,

Prospek, Kendala dan Pengembangannya. Lokakarya Evaluasi

Pelaksanaan Proyek Pengembangan Palawija SCFCDPUSAID. Bogor: 6-

8 Desember 1989.

244

Nurnasari, E., & Djumali. (2010). Pengaruh Kondisi Ketinggian Tempat Terhadap

Produksi dan Mutu Tembakau Temanggung. Buletin Tanaman Tembakau,

Serat & Minyak Industri, 2(2), 45-59.

Ober, K., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2017). How do social practices shape policy?

Analysing the field of ‘migration as adaptation’ with Bourdieu’s ‘Theory

of Practice’. The Geographical Journal, 1-11.

Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi-layered social resilience: a

new approach in mitigation research. Progress in Development Studies,

10(4), 283–93.

Owusu, F. (2007). Conceptualizing Livelihood Strategies in African Cities:

Planning and Development Implications of Multiple Livelihood Strategies.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 450-465.

Owusu, F. (2009). Livelihoods. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift, International

Encyclopedia of Human Geography Volume 6 (S. 219-224). Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Method. California: Sage

Publications.

Peet, R., & Thrift, N. (1989). New models in geography: The political-economy

perspective. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.

Pemerintah Kab. Temanggung. (2014). Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah

(RKPD) Kabupaten Temanggung Tahun 2015. Temanggung: Bappeda.

Philo, C. (2016). Theory and Methods: Critical Essays in Human Geography.


Pierce, J. (2005). Consumption (Demographics). In J. Goodman, Tobacco in

History and Culture: An Ecnyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 167-186). Detroit:

Thomson Gale.

Pile, S. (1993). Human Agency and Human Geography Revisited: A Critique of

'New Models' of the Self. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, 18(1), 122-139.

Postill, J. (2010). Introduction: Theorising Introduction: Theorising. In B.

Bräuchler, & J. Postill, Theorising Media and Practice (S. 35-54).

Berghahn Books.

Potter, G. (2000). For Bourdieu, Against Alexander: Reality and Reduction.

Journal for Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(2), 229-246.

245

Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus Groups. International Journal for Quality

in Health Care, 8(5), 499-504.

Presiden RI. (1979). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1979

tentang Pemerintahan Desa. Jakarta: Menteri/Sekretaris Negara RI.

Presiden RI. (1999). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 81 Tahun

1999 tentang Pengamanan Rokok bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Kementerian

Sekretariat Negara RI.


2000 tentang Perubahan atas Peraturan pemerintah Nomor 81 Tahun

1999 tentang Pengamanan Rokok bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Menteri

Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia RI.


2003 tentang Pengamanan bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: ementeraian

Sekretariat Negara RI.

Presiden RI. (2005). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 73 Tahun 2005 tentang

Kelurahan. Jakarta: Kementeraian Sekretariat Negara RI.


tentang Kesehatan. Jakarta: Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia RI.

Presiden RI. (2012). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 109 tahun

2012 tentang Pengamanan Bahan yang Mengandung Zat Adiktif berupa

Produk Tembakau bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Menteri Hukum dan Hak

Asasi Manusia RI.


tentang Desa. Jakarta: Kementerian Sekretariat Negara RI.

Prowse, M. (2010). Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research. Progress in

Development Studies, 10(3), 211–231.

PTPN X. (11. 03 2015). Sejarah Perkebunan Tembakau di Nusantara. Retrieved

from http://www.ptpn10.co.id/blog/sejarah-perkebunan-tembakau-di-

nusantara

Purlani, E., & Rachman, A. (2000). Budidaya Tembakau Temanggung. In

Balittas, Monograf Tembakau Temanggung (S. 19-31). Malang: Balittas.

Raedeke, A., Green, J., Hodge, S., & Valdivia, C. (2003). Farmers, the Practice of

Farming and the Future of Agroforestry: An Application of Bourdieu’s

Concepts of Field and Habitus. Rural Sociology, 68(1), 64–86.

Rais, A. (2007). Prospek Ekspor dan Impor Tembakau. Lokakarya Nasional

Agribisnis Tembakau (S. 82-88). Malang: Balai Penelitian Tanaman

Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas).

246

Rakodi, C. (2002). A Livelihod Approach-Conceptual Issues and Definition. In C.

Rakodi, & T. Lloyd-Jones, Urban Livelihoods: A People-centred

Approach to Reducing Poverty (pp. 3-22). London: Earthscan Publications

Ltd.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in

Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.

Redfield, R. (1956). Peasant Society and Culture: An Anthropological Approach

to Civilization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Reed-Danahay, D. (2017). Bourdieu, Social Space, and the Nation-State:

Implications for Migration Studies. Sociologica, 2, 1-22.

Reid, A. (1985). From Betel-Chewing to Tobacco In Indonesia. Journal of Asian

Studies, 44(3), 529-547.

Reid, A. (1988). Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680. New Haven

and London: Yale University Press.

Ricklefs, M. (2001). A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1200 (Third Edition).

Hampshire: Palgrave.

Rigg, J. (2007). An Everyday Geography of the Global South. New York:

Routledge.

Ritzer, G., & Ryan, J. (2011). The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. Chichester,

West Sussex, U.K. ; Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell.

Roberts, P. (1991). Anthropological Perspectives on the Household. IDS Bulletin,

22(1), 60-65.

Rochman, F., & Suwarso. (2000). Kultivar Lokal Tembakau Temanggung dan

Usaha Perbaikannya (Fakhtur. In Balittas, Monograf Tembakau

Temanggung (S. 7-13). ISSN: 0853-9308.

Roemer, R., Taylor, A., & Lariviere, J. (2005). Origins of the WHO Framework

Convention on Tobacco Control. American Journal of Public Health,

95(6), 936-938.

Rosser, A. (2015). Contesting Tobacco-Control Policy in Indonesia. Critical

Asian Studies, 47(1), 69-93.

Rothfuß, E. (2006). Hirtenhabitus, ethnotouristisches Feld und kulturelles Kapital

Zur Anwendung der 'Theorie der Praxis' (Bourdieu) im

Entwicklungskontext: Himba-Rindernomaden in Namibia unter dem

Einfluss des Tourismus. Geographica Helvetica, 61, 32-40.

247

Rudy, J. (2005). Cigarette. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and Culture: An

Encyclopedia Vol. 1 (S. 144-150). Detroit: Thomson Gale.

Sajogyo. (1990). Pembangunan Pertanian dan Pedesaan dalam rangka

Industrialisasi. In Sajogyo, & M. Tambunan, Industrialisasi Pedesaan.

Jakarta: Sekindo Eka Jaya.

Sakdapolrak, P. (2007). Water Related Health Risk, Social Vulnerability and

Pierre Bourdieu. In K. Warner, Perspectives on Social Vulnerability (S.

50-59). Bonn: UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-

EHS).

Sakdapolrak, P. (2014). Livelihoods as social practices – re-energising livelihoods

research with Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Geogr. Helv., 69, 19–28.

Retrieved from https://www.geogr-helv.net/69/19/2014/

Salim, I. (2014). Kiprah Komunitas Kretek Melawan Hegemoni Gerakan

Antirokok. Jurnal WACANA, 34.

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2016). Practice theory: What it is, its philosophical

base, and what it offers organization studies. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M.

Greenwood, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization

Studies (S. 184-198). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Santora, P., & Henningfield, J. (2005). Nicotine. In J. Goodman, Tobacco in

History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Vol. 2 (S. 387-91). Detroit:

Thomson Gale.

Schatzki, T. (1996). Social Practice: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human

Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schatzki, T. (2001). Introduction: Practice Theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K.

Cetina, & E. von Savigny, The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (S.

10-23). New York: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social : a philosophical account of the

constitution of social life and change. The Pennsylvania State University

Press.

Schatzki, T., Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. (2001). The Practice Turn in

Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.

Schmink, M. (1984). Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research

Agenda. Latin American Research Review, 19(3), 87-101.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.

Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper 72.

248

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal

of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171-196. Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150902820503

Setten, G. (2004). The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape. cultural

geographies, 11, 389–415.

Setten, G. (2009). Habitus. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift, International Encyclopedia

of Human geography Volume 5 (S. 1-3). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sharp, J. (2009). Human Agency. In D. Gregory, R. Johnston, G. Pratt, M. Watts,

& S. Whatmore, The Dictionary of Human Geography (S. 347-348). West

Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sholeh, M. (2007). Paket Teknologi Budidaya Tembakau Cerutu Besuko di

Jember Selatan. Lokakarya Nasional Agribisnis Tembakau (pp. 108-113).

Surabaya: Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pemanis dan Serat (Balittas).

Sholeh, M. (2011). Keterkaitan Kondisi Iklim dan Perencanaan Tanam Tembakau

Virginia. In Balittas, Tembakau Virginia (pp. 53-63). Malang: Balai

Penelitian Tanaman Tembakau dan Serat.

Siswanto. (2004). Pengembangan Tembakau Unggulan di Sumenep. Surabaya:

UPN 'Veteran' Jawa Timur.

Sobary, M. (2016). Perlawanan Politik dan Puitik Petani Tembakau

Temanggung. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia.

Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science After the

Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science.


Solesbury, W. (2003). Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of

DFID Policy. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant Observation. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich College Publishers.

Steigemann, A. (2017). Social practices in a café: community through

consumption? Geogr. Helv, 72, 45–54.

Stern, D. G. (2003). The Practical Turn. In S. P. Turner, & P. A. Roth, The

Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (S. 185-206).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Suara Merdeka. (2004, 08 12). Petani Demo Bakar Tembakau. Retrieved from

http://www.suaramerdeka.com/harian/0408/12/nas02.htm

249

Suara Merdeka. (2010, 04 13). Djarum Tak Akan Beli Totol F dan G. Retrieved

from

http://suaramerdeka.com/v1/index.php/read/news/2010/04/13/51886/Djaru

m-Tak-Akan-Beli-Totol-F-dan-G

Sulkunen, P. (2009). Disturbing Concepts: from Action Theory to a Generative

Concept of Agency. In M. Leone, Actants, Actors, Agents. The Meaning of

Action and the Action of Meaning, from Theories to Territories. (S. 95-

117). Rome: Aracne.

Suprihanti, A., Harianto, Sinaga, B., & Kustiari, R. (2018). Dinamika Konsumsi

Rokok dan Impor Tembakau di Indonesia. SEPA, 14(2), 183-194.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.

Chicago: The University og Chicago Press.

Swartz, D. (2002). The Sociology of Habit: The Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu.

The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 22, 61-69.

Syahyuti. (2013). Pemahaman terhadap Petani Kecil sebagai Landasan Kebijakan

Pembangunan Pertanian. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 31(1), 15-29.

Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2003). Health by association? Social capital, social

theory and the political economy of public health. International Journal of

Epidemiology, 33, 1–18.

Tandilittin, H., & Luetge, C. (2013). Civil Society and Tobacco Control in

Indonesia: The Last Resort. The Open Ethics Journal, 7, 11-18.

Tarmidi, L. (1996). Changing Structure and Competition in The Kretek Cigarette

Industry. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 32(3), 85-107.

temanggungkab.go.id. (2018, 05 17). 3 Matra (Tobacco.Coffe.Culture). Retrieved

from http://wisata.temanggungkab.go.id/?s=tembakau

Thieme, S. (2008). Sustaining Livelihoods in Multi-local Settings: Possible

Theoretical Linkages Between Transnational Migration and Livelihood

Studies. Mobilities, 3(1), 51–71.

Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell, Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (S. 67-

81). Durham: Acumen.

Thrift, N. (1983). On the determination of social action in space and time.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1, 23-57.

Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial Formation. London: Sage Publication.

Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, and Affect.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

250

tirto.id. (2017, 01 17). Ribuan Petani Tolak Impor Tembakau. Retrieved from

https://tirto.id/ribuan-petani-tolak-impor-tembakau-cg77

Tirtosastro, S. (2000). Panen dan Pengolahan Tembakau Rajangan Temanggung.

In Balai Penelitian Tanaman Tembakau dan Serat, Monograf Tembakau

Temanggung (S. 71-86). Malang: Balittas.

Tirtosastro, S., & Widowati. (2017). Implementasi Standar Nasional Indonesia

tembakau Memerlukan Komitmen Semua Pihak. Buana Sains, 16(2), 195-

200.

Tobacco Information Center of East Java Province. (2013). Mengapa Impor

Tembakau?. Jember: UPT. PSMB-LT, Dinas Perindustrian dan

Perdagangan Provinsi Jawa Timur.

Tomas, J. (2005). Botany (History). In J. Goodman, Tobacco in History and

Culture: An Encyclopedia (S. 85-88). Detroit: Thomson Gale.

U.S. National Cancer Institute and WHO. (2016). The Economics of Tobacco and

Tobacco Control. Bethesda, MD and Geneva: National Cancer Institute

Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA-8029A.

van der Ploeg, J. (2008). The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and

Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan.

van Dijk, T. (2011). Livelihoods, capitals and livelihood trajectories: a more

sociological conceptualisation. Progress in Development Studies, 11(2),

101–17.

Wallace, C. (2002). Household Strategies:Their Conceptual Relevance and

Analytical Scope in Social Research. Sociology, 36(2), 275–292.

Walther, M. (2013). Repatriation to France and Germany: A Comparative Study

Based on Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Brussel: Springer Gabler.

Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and Theories of Practice. Journal of Consumer

Culture, 5(2), 131-153.

Warren, C. (1990). The Bureucratisation of Local Government in Indonesia: The

Impact of the Village Government Law (UU No. 5 1979) in Bali. Victoria:

The Centre of Souteast Asian Studies Monash University.

Watson, A., & Till, K. (2010). Ethnography and Participant Observation. In D.

DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell, The SAGE

Handbook of Qualitative Geography (S. 121-137). London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

251

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on

Environment and Development. New York: United Nations.

Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative

Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press.

Werlen, B. (1993). Society, Action and Space: An alternative human geography.

London: Routledge.

White, B. (1991). in the Shadow of Agriculture: Economic Diversification and

Agrarian Change in Java, 1900-1990. ISS Working Paper Series / General

Series, 96, 1-39.

White, P. (2010). Making Use of Secondary Data. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G.


Publications Ltd.

White, S., & Ellison, M. (2006). Wellbeing, Livelihoods and Resources in Social

Practice. Bath: ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing

Countries (WeD).

WHO. (2008). Study Group on Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco

Growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention). Conference

of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

(Third session). Durban: WHO.

WHO. (2012). Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing (in

relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the WHO Framework Convention on

Tobacco Control). Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework

Convention on Tobacco Control (Fifth session). Seoul: WHO.

WHO. (2014). Economically Sustainable Alternative to Tobacco Growing (in

Relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the WHO Framework Convention on

Tobacco Control. Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework

Convention on Tobacco Control (Sixth Session). Moscow: WHO.

Wilshusen, P. (2014). Capitalizing Conservation/Development: Dissimulation,

Misrecognition, and the Erasure of Power. In B. Büscher, W. Dressler, &

R. Fletcher, Nature™ Inc.: Environmental Conservation in the Neoliberal

Age (S. 127-157). Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.

Wolf, E. (1955). Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion.

American Anthropologist, 57(3), 452-471.

Wolf, E. (1966). Peasants. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wood, G., & Salway, S. (2000). Introduction: Securing Livelihoods in Dhaka

Slums. Journal of International Development, 12, 669-688.

252

Wu, W., Tang, X.-P., Yang, C., Liu, H.-B., & Guo, N.-J. (2013). Investigation of

ecological factors controlling quality of flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana

tabacum L.) using classification methods. Ecological Informatics, 16, 53-

61.

Yang, Y. (2014). Bourdieu, Practice and Change: Beyond the criticism of

determinism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(14), 1522-1540.

Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Zimmer, A., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2012). The Social Practices of Governing:

Analysing Waste Water Governance in a Delhi Slum. Environment and

Urbanization Asia, 3(2), 325–341.

253

Appendices

Appendix 1 : Tobacco grower’s household characteristics in Pagergunung village

No Hh13

Head

land

(ha)

Characteristics Source of

livelihood

Commodities

grown

1 Heru 5.00 46 years old, four hh-members

(two in school, two income

generators), cultivated land since

2011

Agriculture Tobacco, chili,

cabbage

2 Bambal 4.00 27 years old, tertiary school, five

hh-members (one kid, two elderly

parents, cultivated land since 2010

Agriculture Tobacco, maize,

shallot, chili, red

bean

3 H. Khoiri 3.00 43 years old, military academy,

four hh-members, cultivated land

since 2004

Army,

agriculture

Tobacco, chili,

shallot, cabbage,

maize

4 Suroyo 1.50 51 years old, tertiary school, four

hh-members, cultivated land since

1992


tomato

5 Sutoro 1.50 42 years old, four hh-members

(one in school, three income


1995


maize

6 Mujiono 0.75 50 years old, primary school, four

hh-members (one in school, three

income generators), cultivated

land since 1998


red bean

7 Paidi 0.70 44 years old, six hh-members (one

kid, one in school, four income


21 years ago


cabbage, maize

8 Ahmad 0.70 86 years old, did not completed

primary school, three hh-

members, cultivated land since

70s years ago


maize

9 Sukindro 0.60 80 years old, primary school, six

hh-members (two in school, four

income generators), cultivated

tobacco since 1980

Agriculture,

a petty trader

Tobacco, shallot,

chili

10 Busri 0.60 56 years old, primary school, five


1990,

Agriculture Tobacco, chili

11 Sarwan 0.50 72 years old, four hh-members,

cultivated tobacco since 1972


chili

12 Mujiono 0.50 45 years old, five hh-members,

not/never attending school

Agriculture Tobacco, shallot,

chili

13 Suhadi 0.50 38 years old, primary school, four

hh-members (two in school, two

income generators)

Agriculture Tobacco, maize.

Tomato

14 Madyo 0.50 47 years old, tertiary school, five

hh-members (one kid, four income

generators, cultivated land since

1996

agriculture Tobacco, maize.

Chili, red bean

13 Hh: household

254

No Hh13

Head

land

(ha)


livelihood

Commodities

grown

15 Supariyah 0.50 58 years old, primary school, three


15 years ago

agriculture Tobacco, chili,

shallot

16 Jumadi 0.50 47 years old, four hh-members,

cultivated land since 1992


long bean, spring

onion

17 Marjo 0.40 65 years old, five hh-members,


Agriculture Tobacco, shallot,

potato, cabbage

18 Sariyono 0.40 69 years old, two hh-members Agriculture Tobacco, maize

19 Jamzuri 0.30 49 years old, three hh-members,



20 Karyanto 0.30 49 years old, primary school,

cultivated tobacco since he was in

the third grade of primary school


21 Zainal

Arifin

0.30 48 years old, six hh-members (two

in school, four income generators),


agriculture Tobacco, shallot,

chili

22 Sisworo 0.25 28 years old, five hh-members,



chili, red bean

23 Wajito 0.25 50 years old, primary school, four

hh-members (one in school, one

elderly man, two income

generators)


red bean

24 Waljono 0.25 43 years old, secondary school,

four hh-members, cultivated land

since 1993


tomato

25 Saidi 0.25 55 years old, primary school, three


1982

agriculture Tobacco

26 Suryono 0.25 40 years old, secondary school,

four hh-member (one in school,

three income generators),

cultivated land since 1996


maize

27 Suwondo 0.25 55 years old, primary school, three


1984

agriculture Tobacco, chili,

maize

28 Muslim 0.20 52 years old, primary school, four

hh-members


29 Sutino 0.10 40 years old, four hh-members

(one kid, one in school, two

income generators), secondary

school, cultivated tobacco since

1996

Agriculture,

wage labor

(tobacco

picker and

drying)

Tobacco, chili

Source: Primary data

255

Appendix 2: Tobacco grower’s household characteristics in Gentingsari village

No Hh Head land

(ha)


livelihood

Commodities

grown

1 Joko P. 2.50 Became tobacco merchant since

1988

Agriculture,

tobacco

merchant

Tobacco,

vegetables

2 Ramidi 2.00 55 years old, cultivate tobacco since

1976, primary school, 4 hh-members


chili, cabbage

3 Dahono K. 1.10 53 years old, two hh-members,

cultivate tobacco since 1986

Agriculture,

tobacco

merchant

Tobacco,

vegetables

4 Parsuki 0.50 53 years old, cultivate tobacco since

1978, 4 hh-members (one in school

and three income generators)

Agriculture, a

petty trader

Tobacco, paddy,

chili

5 Ngaten 0.50 54 years old, 4 hh-members,


Agriculture Tobacco, paddy,

maize, chili

6 Slamet 0.50 43 years old, four household

members (two in school, two income

generators)


cabbage

7 Nur Sain 0.43 78 years old, five hh-members,



chili

8 Faturahman 0.40 40 years old, vocational school,

three hh-members (one child and

two income generators)


chili

9 Sabar 0.40 43 years old, four hh-members,


Agriculture,

village officials

Tobacco, chili

10 Sukirman 0.40 46 years old, four hh-members (one

in school), cultivated tobacco since

1993


tomato, cabbage

11 Sukadi 0.40 62 years old, cultivate tobacco since

1977, did not completed secondary

school, one hh-member


cabbage, paddy

12 Duryanto 0.40 60 years old, five hh-members (one

in school), cultivated tobacco since

1980s, did not completed education

of religious teachers (tertiary school)

Agriculture,

wage labor,

construction

labor

Tobacco, chili

13 Pariman 0.40 51 years old, three hh-members Agriculture,

village officials

Tobacco, chili,

cabbage, guava

14 Sarwodi 0.40 50 years old, four hh-members,

cultivated tobacco since 25 years

ago


15 Sarmidi 0.40 65 years old, two hh-members Agriculture,

wage labor,

petty trader

Tobacco, chili,

maize, red bean,

paddy

16 Nuriyadi 0.38 65 years old, three hh-members,

cultivated tobacco since the 1970s

Agriculture Tobacco,

vegetables,

paddy

17 Tarmudi 0.35 51 years old, cultivate tobacco since

1994, Islamic elementary school,

three hh-members


chili

18 Ramlan 0.30 44 years old, junior high school,

cultivated tobacco since 1999, three

hh-members (one in school and two

income generators)


chili, maize

256

No Hh Head land

(ha)


livelihood

Commodities

grown

19 Sudiyono 0.30 60 years old, primary school,

cultivated tobacco since 1970, three

hh-members


maize, chili

20 Solihin 0.25 46 years old, cultivate tobacco since

1997, primary school, four hh-

members (two in school, two income

generators)


cabbage, celery,

mustard

21 Slamet G. 0.25 53 years old, three hh-members,


Agriculture Tobacco, tomato,

cabbage

22 Rismanto 0.20 35 years old, four hh-members (one

in school, one kid), cultivated

tobacco since 2000


eggplant, chili,

guava

23 Jumeri 0.20 60 years old, six hh-members,


Agriculture,

wage labor

Tobacco, chili

24 Sumaryo 0.15 62 years old, cultivate tobacco since

1976, 5 hh-members (two in school

and three income generators)

Agriculture,

civil servant

(PNS)

Tobacco, chili

25 Purwanto 0.10 60 years old, cultivated tobacco

since 1970, primary school

(dropout), five hh-members (two in

school)

Agriculture, a

fresh vegetable

trader

Tobacco, chili

26 Suwaldi 0.10 60 years old, did not completed

primary school, two hh-members,


Agriculture,

wage labor

Tobacco, chili,

paddy

27 Mu’ilan 0.10 67 years old, four hh-members,


Agriculture,

village officials

Tobacco, chili

Source: Primary data (2017)

DISSERTATION - Universität Innsbruck

Documents