-ALL GARDENS
ON OWN LAND 53 47 23 91 51 not applicable -MOST GARDENS
ON LAND OF
OTHERS* 27 30 62 - 30 not applicable
PROPORTION OF HH WITH -CATTLE 39 25 31 34 33 32 75 40 -PIGS 87 87 100 100 91 100 100 100 -CHICKENS 84 84 92 100 87 94 100 95 PROPORTION OF HH OWNING LAND ELSEWHERE 24 15 38 - 20 44 75 50
[*] Refers to a twelve-month period, October 1981-September 1982. [#] Total 2 excludes rural salary earners (teachers, nurses). [ + ] Refers to more than half of all gardens by each households.
P a a m e s e an d R a g a stu d y villages can hence be at least p a r tly ex plained in such term s. However, th e fact t h a t a higher p r o p o r tio n of H u rilao villagers work outside th e su b siste n ce s e c to r m u s t also be linked to th e in i ti a t i v e of som e village chiefs, Local A re a C ouncil a n d clinic s ta ff w ho realized t h a t if p rim a rily y o u n g u n m a r r ie d m en and wom en are not given so m e o p p o r t u n i t ie s to earn som e m oney for th e m se lv e s, little can be done to p re v e n t a large-scale exodus to to w n , d e sp ite local m o b ility n o rm s as previously m e n tio n e d . S u ch s e n t i m e n t s , m e n tio n e d to m e by several village elders a n d young people, are reflected in a m uch g r e a t e r p ro p o r tio n a l abse nce of Liro a r e a re s id e n ts aged 15-24 as em p h a siz e d in t h e p re vious section.
A p a r t fro m su b siste n ce h o r t i c u l t u r e , m o st Liro a r e a an d H urilao households raise som e livestock, m a in ly pigs a n d chickens. C a t t l e are less i m p o r t a n t , because of a lack of cash to p u r c h a s e calves a n d of enough land for g r a z i n g 10. W hile th e im p o rta n c e of d o m e s t i c a t e d pigs lies in th e ir value for ex c h an g e, p a r ti c u la r l y so in R a g a , fowls are k ept p rim a rily for s u b siste n c e p u rp o se s, to s u p p le m e n t a r a t h e r m o n o t o n o u s diet based on t u b e rs , aelan kabis, edible fern a n d t in n e d fish or m e a t. F re sh Fish does n o t form p a r t of th e re g u la r diet for m o st families despite th e c o a sta l lo c a tio n of all six v illages11; only Five Liro a r e a a n d t h r e e H urilao m en Fished on a re g u la r basis a b o u t tw ice a week. T he lack of canoes, bro k e n lines, lost fish-hooks, insufficient t im e a n d fear of sh a r k a t t a c k s are generally cited as th e m ain reasons by th o se w ho h a r d ly ever or never Fish. T h e overall im p o r t a n c e of s u b siste n c e fa rm in g , th e absence of a local m a r k e t on w hich produce could be sold, a n d t h e p ro h ib itiv e t r a n s p o r t costs to ship such p ro d u c e to P o r t Vila or S a n to explain th e sim ila r n u m b e r of food g a rd e n s in all six villages, a v e ra g in g 1.5 gardens per household m e m b e r (T a b le 5-5). B oth on P a a m a a n d in R aga, these g ard en s average a b o u t 500 s q u a r e m etre s for y am g ard en s, a n d b etw e en 200 a n d 300 s q u a r e m etres for
10Only seven of 35 cows owned by Liro area households, and all animals owned by Hurilao households graze on land purchased or inherited on neighbouring Epi or in Lolkasai district respectively.
^ T h i s situation started to change on Paam a during Fieldwork, with the establishment of a village fishery project in Tahi, as part of the Governm ent’s aim to (i) progressively replace tinned Fish with fresh Fish, (ii) generate local employment and income in rural areas, and(iii) provide an important source of protein (Vanuatu, 1984:117). As part of this program, a Paamese Fishing co operative formed and established in Tahi, purchased a double-hulled aluminium catamaran for deap-sea drop-line fishing and for tuna-trawling, to sell Fish to all Paamese villages as well as regularly supplying the Port Vila market. Unlike many Paamese co-operative ventures of the past, this project was still running successfully in September 1986.
taro p a tc h e s 1 .
Although local wage- or salary-employm ent affects only 18 per cent of Liro area households compared to 55 per cent of Hurilao households, all rural households are definitely involved in a cash economy, as indicated by the nu m b er of European-stvle houses or dwellings at least partly built from p e rm a nen t m aterial, and by material possessions ranging from essential kitchen utensils and kerosene lamps to transistor radios
or radio-cassetterecorders. All households own such items, and the nu m b er of forks and knives, sheets and pillows, tea-cups and buckets varies according to household size or needs rath e r th an indicating different degrees of w ealth. Only two Liro area households, both from Asuas, and one Hurilao (Aroa) household own a small dinghy equipped with an o u tb oard m otor, and five Liro area and four Hurilao households each own an old Singer sewing machine; cars, m otor bikes or even bicycles do not appear am ongst Liro area and Hurilao household possessions. The greater num ber of European-style houses in the Liro
area th a n in Hurilao is not a reflection of a greater, contem porary economic well-being as a p p a re n t from overall rural household incomes (T able 5-5). This feature partly reflects a more pronounced past mobility experience of Liro area th an Hurilao men (Chapters 6 and
8). It is also due to different land tenure systems discussed in the previous chapter, in t h a t Hurilao men who could have afforded a European-style house have refrained from building one, because their m atriline does not own any land in the area which represents the site of Abwatunt.ora or Aroa villages; some men, allegedly, did not obtain the permission from the vara elders to build such a dwelling, whereas others worried about falling victim to local jealousies and feared being asked to move to their ‘ow n’ land once they had built a European-style house.
R u r a l h o u s e h o ld in c o m e a n d e x p e n d itu r e provide a more appropriate illustration of Liro area and Hurilao households’ contem porary rural involvement in a cash economy given both the widespread na tu re of m aterial possessions, and the fact th a t the accum ulation of such m aterial wealth is more a reflection of past than present involvement in a cash economy. R u ra l in c o m e is here defined as the sum total of earnings by all resident household members from rural wage-em ploym ent, from business
1 9
Apart from these approximate indicators, exact measures concerning the size of food gardens cannot be given. After my arrival in Vanuatu in 1982. I was told in no uncertain terms by various government officials to stay clear of land issues during my fieldwork, particularly to refrain from mapping land- and coconut holdings. The delicate nature of land issues at the time became manifest, when after just one day of mapping the four settlements in the Liro area, I was asked go
come to the nakamal to explain my activity. Only after presenting the assembled chiefs with some sketches barely resembling Liro and Asuas villages, and explaining that I would be utterly lost in my efforts to conduct a local census without a map of the villages and the location of each household, was I allowed to proceed. 1 had absolute freedom to go anywhere, but only after giving a solemn promise to refrain from taking along rope, sticks and compass when stalking through people’s food gardens and visiting various coconut groves.
activities, and from the sale of copra to either local co-operatives or to B u r n s Philp or
B allande trad in g vessels. A reference period of twelve m onths has been adopted, from
October 1981 until Septem ber 198213. During this period, Liro area households sold 35 metric tonnes of copra, averaging 400 kg per household, with Voravor households clearly d o m inating production (Table 5-5). While this greater o u tp u t could obviously be related to larger coconut holdings - a hypothesis which c annot be tested, however, given the problems of m apping mentioned previously - this figure could also be merely artefactual in t h a t the other villages produced more during the previous year, or because no Voravor household has a member earning a rural wage. Paam ese interpretatio ns of major
problems associated with rural cash-cropping, however, underline t h a t the availability of land and access to coconuts per se are not necessarily strong indicators of rural income earning opportunities. While the island’s land shortage canot be denied, only 44 per cent of Liro area household heads regard a lack of land or land under coconuts as a major problem (Table 5-6). Sixty-eight per cent refer to one or more of the following aspects as a m ajor problem with local cash-cropping, and as principal reasons for non-production and under-production: a much lower fixed price for copra produced on outer islands com pared to prices paid on Efate and Espiritu S a n t o 1-1; chronic price instability; frequent ‘s te a lin g ’ by co-operative store-keepers15; and the lack of a proper balance between labour inputs and economic returns. Irrespective of w hether or not Liro area households could solely depend on copra production to meet local dem ands for cash, the deliberate tem p orary disengagement from cash-cropping by some households, and the production well below capacity by others, is only possible by adhering to other survival strategies or dependence on external subsidies. The im portance of periodic rural-based circulation and the reliance on rem ittances respectively, are clearly evident from a cross-classification between annual rural income and recurrent rural expenditure as discussed below (Figure 5-4).
The situation in both Hurilao villages reveals a rem arkable co ntrast, in th a t, despite much grea ter opportunities, only five of 42 households produced any copra at all in 1982,
com pared to ten households in 1981: twelve households had not produced any copra since
1 9
^Incom plete co-operative accounts in the Liro area and Hurilao before Independence in 1980, and the widespread practice before 1980 of selling copra to Chinese traders, prim arily operating out of Santo and keeping no trading records, do not perm it a longer-term evaluation of household copra production. Cocoa was also occasionally sold by three Liro area and five Hurilao households before 1981, b u t not during the period under investigation.
1 A
In 1982. Paam ese producers were paid VT 13,000 for their smoked copra, whereas producers on Efate and Espiritu Santo received VT 18.000. This s itu a tio n has been rectified in late 1983, with the in tro d u ctio n of a quality grading system, irrespective of the location of the producers.
15Most producers referred to the four per cent cut - they had originally agreed to when the Liro area co-operatives were founded - taken by the co-operative societies, to cover themselves against sudden price-drops, as ‘stealing'.
T a b l e 5-6: MAIN PR O B L E M S W ITH C A S H -C R O P P IN G ID E N T IF IE D BY LIRO AREA AND HURILAO HOUSEHOLD HEADS*