Abstract :
Sugarcane is a mainstay commodity crop as raw materials for sugar. Therefore, increasing domestic production through partnerships is an effort to suppress the high value of imports. The purposes of this study are to identify the farmer’s household land use, to analyze the income structure and livelihood strategies, and then to conduct an economic dependency analysis on the sugarcane industry in relation to rural area development. The research method used a survey approach of 131 households and interviews with the head of village and the heads of farmer groups. For data analysis, descriptive statistics and analysis of farm income were used. The results show that farmers use land for sugarcane partnership with a choice of Kerjasama Operasional (KSO) or operational cooperation, the Independence (Mandiri), and Hutan Tanaman Industri (HTI) or industrial forest plantation partnership. The sources of livelihood structure of farmers are from non-sugarcane agriculture, sugarcane farming, Non-Timber Forest Products (HHNK), and non-farm. Engaging in sugarcane partnership is a new livelihood strategy for the rural communities surrounding the plantations with benefits that are affected by the area of owned land. While farmers who do not own land, they earn a living by becoming plantation laborers. Farmer involvement in sugarcane partnership contributes to the household income, the existence of uneven welfare, and the emergence of household economic dependence on sugarcane plantations. The sugarcane partnership is a source of income and an engine of rural economic growth; however, the realization of sustainable rural development has not yet emerged.
Keywords :
Economic Dependence, Livelihood, Rural Development, Sugarcane PartnershipReferences :
1. Oliverio, J., Carmo, V., & Gurgel, M. (2010). The DSM-Dedini sustainable mill: a new concept in designing complete sugarcane factories. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol, 27, 1–34.
2. Ministry of Agriculture. (2017). Outlook Tebu: Komoditas pertanian, sub sektor perkebunan. Jakarta: ISSN : 1907-1507.
3. Ministry of Agriculture. (2015). Tree Corp Estate Statistics of Indonesia 2014-2016. Jakarta.
4. Ministry of Agriculture. (2013). Pedoman teknis perluasan areal perkebunan ta 2013. Direktorat Perluasan dan Pengelolaan Lahan Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana dan Sarana Pertanian Kementerian Pertanian. Jakarta.
5. Tigris, H.J. (2016). Kebijakan dan pelaksanaan landreform di era pemerintahan Jokowi-Jk. Rechtsvinding Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 1–4.
6. Hani, E.S. (2016.) Stakeholder response to the development strategy of sugarcane dry land agriculture in east java. Agriculture and Agricultural Sciences Procidia, 9, 469–474.
7. Cardoso, T.F., Watanabe, M.D.B., Souza, A., Chagas, M.F., Cavalett, O., Morais, E.R., & Cnpem, M. (2019). Biomass and bioenergy a regional approach to determine economic , environmental and social impacts of different sugarcane production systems in brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy, 120, 9–20.
8. Eduardo, C., Gilio, L. (2018). Expansion of the sugarcane industry and its effects on land use in sao paulo: analysis from 2000 through 2015. Land use policy, 76, 264–274. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.008
9. Prasara, A.J., & Gheewala, S.H. (2015). Sustainability of sugarcane cultivation : case study of selected sites in. Journal of Cleaner Production, xxx, 1-10.
10. Sawaengsak, W., & Gheewala, S.H. (2017). Analysis of social and socio-economic impacts of sugarcane production : A case study in Nakhon Ratchasima province of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1169–1175.
11. Moraes, M.A.F.D.de., Oliveira, F.C.R.de., & Chavez, R.A.D. (2015). Socio-economic impacts of Brazilian sugar cane industry. Environmental Development, S2211-4645(15)00062-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.06.010
12. Fahrizal, Marimin, Purwanto, M.Y.J., Yani, M., & Sumaryanto. (2014). Decision support model for sugarcane agroindustrial development (a case study at east nusa tenggara province). Teknologi Industri Pertanian, 24(3), 189–199.
13. Dessatria, A.N.U. (2013). Petani tebu (studi kasus : pabrik gula kebon agung kecamatan pakisaji kabupaten malang). Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa FEB Universitas Brawijaya, 1(2).
14. Nurjayanti, E.D., & Naim, S. (2014). Analisis kelayakan usahatani tebu (studi kasus petani tebu mitra PG. Pakis Baru di kecamatan Tayu kabupaten Pati). Mediagro, 10(1), 60–68.
15. Lestari, E.K., Fauzi, A., Hutagaol, M.P., & Hidayat, A. (2015). Keuntungan petani tebu rakyat melalui kemitraan di kabupaten Jember. Buletin Tanaman Tembakau, Serat dan Minyak Indutri, 7(2), 79–89.
16. Yustika, A.E. (2013). Ekonomi kelembagaan paradigma, teori dan kebijakan. Jakarta: Erlangga.
17. West, J,J,, & Haug, R. (2017). The vulnerability and resilience of smallholder- inclusive agricultural investments in Tanzania. Journal of Eastern African Studies. 11(4), 670–691.
18. Budiyanti, I., & Dharmawan, A.H., (2018). Strategi nafkah dan relasi sosial rumah tangga petani tebu (studi kasus: desa jenar, kecamatan jenar, sragen). Jurnal Sains Komunikasi dan Pengembangan Masyarakat (JSKPM), 2(1), 105–122.
19. Gatto, M., Wollni, M., & Qaim, M. (2015). Oil palm boom and land-use dynamics in Indonesia : The role of policies and socio economic factors. Land Use Policy, 46, 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.001
20. Wulandari, Y. A., Hartadi, R., & Sunartomo, A. F. (2017). Analysis Of Factors Affecting Decisions Farmers Are Conversing Land And Fishings Impact On Farmers Revenues (Case Study of Wetland Rice Conversion in Kecamatan Kaliwates Kabupaten Jember ). Jurnal Agribest, 01(02), 152-167
21. Emerton, L., & Snyder, K.A. (2018). Rethinking sustainable land management planning: Understanding the social and economic drivers of farmer decision-making in Africa. Land Use Policy, 79, 684–694.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.041
22. Chambers, R., Conway, G.R. (1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.
23. Dharmawan, A.H. (2007). Sistem penghidupan dan nafkah pedesaan. Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 01(02), 169–192.
24. Ellis F. (1999.) Rural Livelihood Diversity in Developing Countries: Evidence and Policy Implication.
25. Yulian, B.E., Dharmawan, A.H., Soetarto, E., & Pacheco, P. (2018). Livelihood dilemma of the rural household around the oil palm plantation in East Kalimantan. Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 5(3), 1–8.
26. Mudiarta, K.G. (2011). Perspektif dan peran sosiologi ekonomi dalam pembangunan ekonomi masyarakat. Forum Penelitian Ekonomi, Pusat Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian, 29(1), 55–66.
27. Andri, K.B. (2006). Perspektif pembangunan wilayah pedesaan. Inovasi, 6 (13).
28. Santika, T., Wilson, K.A., Meijaard, E., Budiharta, S., Law, E.E., Sabri, M., Poh, T. (2019). Land use policy changing landscapes, livelihoods and village welfare in the context of oil palm development. Land Use Policy, 87, 104073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104073
29. Sugiarto, T. (2003). Teknik Sampling. Gramedia. Jakarta
30. Roxborough, I. (1979). Theories of Underdevelopment (First Publ). Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press Inc.
31. Mulyadi, M., Lestari, T.R.P., Alawiyah, F., Wahyuni, D., Astri, H., Martiany, D., & Qodriyatun, S.N. (2015). Pembangunan berkelanjutan: dimensi sosial, ekonomi dan lingkungan. Jakarta: Pusat Pengkajian, Pengolahan Data dan Informasi (P3DI) Sekretariat Jenderal DPR RI dan Azza Grafika, Anggota IKAPI DIY.
32. Fauzi, A. (2014). Valuasi ekonomi dan penilaian kerusakan sumber daya alam dan lingkungan. IPB Pr, Bogor.
