Rattan in Village Life & Livelihood Context The observation that “rattans were so invaluable to village life that one can speak of the rattan civilizations of Southeast Asia” (Corner, 1966) or my friend, the rattan artisan Harun’s assertion that “rattan is like sambel (spicy hot chili paste) … we must have sambel” captures a sense of the importance and ubiquity of rattan in the lives of rural people throughout much of the Old World tropics. Domestic, non-market uses of rattan are as old as human inhabitation of tropical forests, that is for thousands of years. Americans, Europeans and other consumers of rattan products are perhaps most familiar with rattan canes used in furniture or handicrafts. In contrast, rural villagers are more likely to associate rattan with binding, basketry, food, thatch, construction and countless other uses, only some of which are provided by canes. The fruits, leaves, shoots, and even spines of some species, along with canes, are relied upon virtually every day by millions of men, women and children in villages throughout tropical Asia and Africa. I know of no comparable product or material in the temperate world and, with the possible exception of bamboo, no plant is more important in the tropics.
The small rattan, Calamus exilis, has been used to weave baskets in Kerinci, Sumatra for centuries.
Rattans are widely collected and used throughout the Old World tropics as one of many ways rural households piece together a livelihood. They are sometimes planted as well. Most rural households are farmers cultivating a variety of food and/or cash crops on lowland or upland farms they may own, rent, lease or cultivate as tenants. Many rural household also combine farming with wage labor, fishing, remittances from family members working elsewhere, and a wide variety of other food and income producing activities on an annual, seasonal or intermittent basis. Irrigated rice farming (sawah) is the preferred livelihood in the village of Moa (seen here). However, only a few households have access to rice fields in Moa due to the limited availability of suitable land; the village borders Lore Lindu N.P. on three sides. Their local Salvation Army church has sought title to irrigated rice lands elsewhere for Moa households, but has yet to secure any.
Tapri regularly carried 6070 kg bundles of C. exilis canes 25 km from forest collection sites to basket and handicraft artisans in his home village of Sungai Tutung, Kerinci. Rattan basket sizes, shapes and styles are as diverse as the people and cultures that weave them. Rattan, like most other non-timber forest products, was considered a “minor” forest product by colonial administrations and post-colonial independent governments who did not realize their multiple uses and non-market values. While the market significance of rattan is now appreciated, there are still no reliable, quantitative data which calculates the non-market value of rattans, their contribution to household well-being, or to the cost of replacing rattan with ‘modern’ products, such as synthetic rope or plastic baskets. Historically, rattan was free, that is it was gathered from wild populations as needs arose (a “subsidy from nature”, Hecht et al., 1983). The cost of replacing rattan with purchased alternatives concerns many households and will likely become more pronounced in the future due to declining wild supplies, the establishment of protected areas which prohibit collecting, and the degradation and conversion of tropical forests through logging and vast cash crop plantations.
In the village of Moa and other forest communities in Asia, most villagers use some part of some rattan on a daily basis.
Historically, the most widespread and important uses made of rattan in Moa were binding and basketry. Here, Yasirule from Au, a village a half day’s walk downstream from Moa, splits a togisi (Calamus leptostachys) cane. While of little commercial value, togisi has long been the most important rattan for domestic purposes in Au, Moa and other forest villages in Central Sulawesi.
Rattans are widely used in home construction. In Moa, ombol (Calamus symphysipus), lambang (C. ornatus) and noko (Daemonorops robusta) are used for roofing. Shingles made from the leaves of these rattans are lashed to bamboo or wood-pole frames using split togisi (C. leptostachys) or ronti (C. leiocaulis) canes.
Recent migrants to forests, as well as long-term, indigenous forest inhabitants, use rattan to construct homes. For example, in San Vicente, Leyte, villagers split rattan to bind shingles woven from nipa (Nypa fruticans) palm fronds to roof frames. San Vicente is located about 10 km from the ocean and was established in the early 1900s by poor, landless families. The steep slopes above the village support annual and perennial crops, while the forest provides rattan, timber and a variety of other wild forest products.
Nido, a neighbor in San Vicente, helped construct our home (right rear) using split rattan (Calamus sp.) to lash nipa palm shingles to the bamboo roofing frame.
Rattan shoots are a popular vegetable in South and Southeast Asia. In Moa, noko (D. robusta) and batang (C. zollingeri) are regularly eaten by village households. Noko tastes a bit like asparagus and is preferred by most people, while batang is quite bitter.
Noko propagates vegetatively and grows wild in dense stands. Ample noko shoots can be harvested within 2 km of Moa and are cooked by boiling or frying and served with rice.
Rattans were historically used in Moa for making animal snares and as a medicine. Pieces of batang (C. zollingeri) cane in clove, eucalyptus and cinnamon oils treat muscle aches and bone breaks and are available in the medicinal section of the market in Palu, Sulawesi.
Split togisi (Calamus leptostachys) and ronti (C. leiocaulis) rattans are used like rope to trap jungle fowl (above) or larger animals such as deer and wild pig.
Togisi (Calamus leptostachys) rattans have been used to build bridges in Central Sulawesi for centuries. Togisi canes are well suited to the task as they are flexible, strong, durable, reach lengths of 100 m or more, and can support hundreds of kilos.
While walking through the forests around Moa one may meet elderly villagers, such as this fellow who said that he never leaves home without his pig spear, the shaft of which is made with a stout batang (C. zollingeri) cane.
The Ifugao have inhabited the mountains of northern Luzon, Philippines for centuries and use rattan to craft beautiful and highly functional household items from rattan. Clockwise from below: a bamboo salt container and pot with split rattan handles, a small machete with a woven rattan grip, and a basket woven from split rattan that is used to transport fish and crustaceans (various Calamus species).
In the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, 5 or 6 rattan species occur in lowland forests and all appear to have some market or domestic, nonmarket value.
Split Calamus spp. rattan canes are used to weave baskets and to cover bamboo arak containers (a brandy-like drink made from rice, wheat, barley or corn).
Shoots of Plectocomia himalayana and Calamus spp. are a favorite vegetable in Bhutan and are transported from lowland forests to markets throughout the country.
Regular use of rattans can often be observed far beyond the tropical and subtropical environments in which they grow. An interesting example is the widespread use of split rattan (Calamus sp.) to weave horse packing baskets by yak herders throughout the mountains of Bhutan, while a close look at cooking utensils in this yak herder’s hut reveals split rattan cane used to insulate the handle of a teapot.
Livelihood Activities in San Vicente, Leyte, Philippines ‘Illegal’ rattan cane harvesting in a national park (distant hills in this photo) is a primary livelihood source for many landless households. Hillside farms and swiddens produce annual food crops and abaca (Musa textilis) for cash income. Coconut (Cocus nucifera) is a cash crop in the lowlands Irrigated rice fields are highly desired, but few households own rice fields; some work as share croppers or wage laborers.
Many rural households depend on hunting for meat. Arnol frequenly hunts birds (wild fowl and pigeons) in the forest near his home in Moa, Sulawesi. He also uses his pellet gun to kill forest rats that devour his cacao. His outfit includes a variety of clothes he has acquired from the occasional western tourist/trekker, both male and female. When in the forest, rattan collectors rely exclusively on hunting, or more commonly snaring, to secure meat. Unlike tropical Africa, there is no commercial bushmeat trade in Central Sulawesi and populations of wild deer, pig, jungle fowl and other animals appear to be abundant.
An important source of protein for many rural households is wild fish and crustaceans. Young boys in San Vicente craft goggles from empty pop bottles and spears from rattan. They frequently work for hours to gather meat for their families evening meal. This “subsidy from nature” was the only regular source of protein available to most households in this village.
Young boys in San Vicente are responsible for collecting water for their families. The wheeled bamboo contraption on the right enables them to carry several gallons at a time. These young fellows usually work together and search for crayfish when gathering water.
Discussion Topics: 1) Estimate the non-market value of rattan or some other NTFP by considering what it would cost to replace its use with purchased alternatives. For example, bridges in Moa have been constructed with togisi (C. leptostachys) canes gathered for free in nearby forests for centuries. What costs and benefits are associated with replacing togisi with steel cables (e.g., material and transport costs, durability, etc.)? 2) Rattan baskets have been replaced by plastic containers throughout Asia. Compare and contrast the specific benefits and costs to different sectors of society (i.e., who gains & loses at the individual, community and society-wide levels) of: a) households and small firms who produce baskets made from natural, biodegradable forest products sustainably harvested from forests (e.g., rattan, bamboo, etc.) vs. b) industrially manufactured products derived from petroleum (e.g., plastic baskets).
An elderly woman repairs a rattan basket in Central Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia.
Discussion Topics (cont.): 3) Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) occur in most forest types/plant communities. Make a list of NTFPs that are gathered from forests, fields or deserts near your home. a) Which NTFPs are collected for sale and which are collected for non-market, domestic use? b) How significant are NTFP resources to households in your community? c) Is NTFP harvesting a traditional or customary activity? d) Are there any traditions or customs that regulate the location, amount, frequency, or other aspect of NTFP harvesting? e) What is the nature of land ownership where NTFPs are harvested (e.g., public, private, community forest, etc.)? f) Have the availability of NTFPs changed over time? g) If so, how and why, and is anything being done to manage these changes?
Morels are a highly valued NTFP in Montana and are collected for commercial sale and non-market household consumption. Morels are abundant the first year after fire in conifer forests and most harvesting occurs on public (i.e., National Forest) lands. The USFS manages morel harvesting by designating some areas for commercial picking where a fee is charged and other areas for domestic collection where no fee is charged, but there is a daily harvest limit.
Additional readings: Ecology & Society – an on line journal with numerous NTFP articles that integrate social and ecological aspects of resource use and management from around the world: www.ecologyandsociety.org Economic Botany – publishes articles dealing with the utilization of plants by people from around the world with particular focus on botany, history, evolution, cultural significance and management. Hecht, S., A. Anderson, P. May. 1988. The subsidy from nature: shifting cultivation, successional palm forests, and rural development. Human Organization 47:25-35. Jones, E., R. McLain, J. Weigand (eds.) 2002. Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. Univ. of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS. Shackleton, S., C. Shackleton, P. Shanley. 2011. Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global Context. Springer, NY. UNFAO – Non-Wood Forest Products series of monographs. Available on line and in print form:
[email protected]. UNFAO, Rome. van Valkenburg, J. 1997. Non-Timber Forest Products of East Kalimantan. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
