As agroforestry declines in Indonesia’s Flores, a traditional ecological lexicon fades with it – Mongabay

Report on the Erosion of Indigenous Agroforestry Knowledge in Manggarai, Indonesia, and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Land Use

In the highlands of Flores Island, Indonesia, the traditional agroforestry practices of the Manggarai people represent a vital form of Indigenous ecological knowledge. These practices, which integrate diverse farming with forest conservation, are intrinsically linked to a specialized lexicon of hundreds of terms. A recent study by Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) has documented that this linguistic heritage is critically endangered. The erosion of this knowledge system poses a direct threat to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by undermining biodiversity, food security, and cultural resilience.

Key Findings: The Intersection of Language, Culture, and Conservation

Documentation of an At-Risk Lexicon

The BRIN research team, working with the Ruteng Pu’u community, successfully documented 253 distinct agroforestry-related terms in the Manggarai language that are at risk of disappearing. These terms, which have no direct equivalent in the national Indonesian language, encompass a deep understanding of the local ecosystem.

Lexicon as a Framework for Sustainable Management

The documented vocabulary serves as a practical guide for sustainable resource management, directly supporting the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). This knowledge system includes:

• Precise Agricultural Terminology: The language distinguishes between wini (seed for replanting) and ni’i (seed for consumption), embedding the practice of saving seeds for future harvests. Verbs like nggale (sorting seed by use) and kawo (covering newly planted seed) describe specific techniques for crop care and protection.
• Sustainable Harvesting Methods: Terms such as korut (twisting rice or coffee grains to pluck them cleanly) and peruk (shelling corn kernels individually) reflect careful, crop-specific harvesting techniques that ensure minimal waste.
• Ecological Land Mapping: The lexicon maps the landscape for sustainable use, designating ponceng as forest edges for collective agroforestry, puar as sacred forest zones requiring ritual before entry, and pong as swampy areas unsuitable for farming. This classification system is a cornerstone of traditional environmental management.

Threats to Sustainability and Associated SDG Targets

Impact on SDG 15 (Life on Land)

The decline of traditional agroforestry is directly linked to environmental degradation. Since 1960, the expansion of monoculture farming has driven deforestation and biodiversity loss.

• Between 2002 and 2024, the Manggarai region lost approximately 71 hectares (175 acres) of humid primary forest.
• This forest loss, primarily for monoculture plantations, disrupts ecosystems and contravenes the targets of SDG 15 aimed at halting deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Impact on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)

The shift from diverse agroforestry systems to monoculture rice paddies has severe implications for food security and climate resilience.

• Traditional staples like sorghum and tubers, cultivated in resilient upland systems, are being replaced by wet paddy rice, which requires extensive water and chemical fertilizers. This shift increases vulnerability and threatens the food security of the Manggarai, undermining SDG 2.
• Agroforestry systems maintain canopy cover, regulate water cycles, and buffer against climate risks. Their replacement with monocultures reduces the landscape’s ability to absorb rainfall, leading to increased flooding and diminishing climate resilience, a critical component of SDG 13.

Impact on SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities)

The erosion of the agroforestry lexicon represents a significant loss of cultural heritage, directly impacting SDG Target 11.4 (protecting the world’s cultural and natural heritage). Furthermore, the growth of tourism is converting traditional landscapes into visitor sites, accelerating the decline of both the practices and the language rooted in them.

Recommendations for Revitalization and SDG Alignment

Educational Integration and Community Empowerment

To counteract these trends and advance multiple SDGs, a coordinated revitalization effort is necessary. The study proposes a multi-pronged approach:

1. Achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education): Local schools and cultural institutions should integrate the agroforestry lexicon into their curricula. This will ensure that younger generations inherit the ecological wisdom embedded in their language, fostering a connection to their cultural heritage and sustainable practices.
2. Fulfilling SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities): Community-led initiatives, such as workshops where elders share knowledge with youth, are vital for intergenerational transfer. These exchanges keep both the language and the sustainable practices alive, strengthening community resilience.
3. Strengthening SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Regional and national governments must provide policy support. Official recognition of traditional ecological knowledge and linguistic diversity is essential for integrating these Indigenous systems into national conservation and climate strategies.

Conclusion: Linking Cultural and Environmental Sustainability

The decline of the Manggarai agroforestry lexicon is more than a linguistic loss; it is the erosion of a knowledge system critical for sustainable development. Revitalizing this language is an essential strategy for restoring practices that support biodiversity, ensure food security, and build climate resilience. The case of the Manggarai demonstrates that protecting Indigenous cultural heritage is inseparable from achieving global environmental goals, offering a powerful model for aligning conservation efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article discusses the shift from diverse, traditional agroforestry systems that sustained the Manggarai people to monoculture farming. This change impacts food security, as it replaces traditional staples like tubers and sorghum with rice, making the community’s food supply less diverse and potentially more vulnerable.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: The core of the article is about the loss of traditional ecological knowledge, which is embedded in the Manggarai language. The proposal to revive this lexicon by reintroducing it in schools and community spaces directly relates to ensuring that learners acquire knowledge for sustainable development and appreciate cultural diversity.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article highlights the fading agroforestry lexicon as an endangered part of the Manggarai people’s cultural heritage. The research and revitalization efforts described are actions to protect and safeguard this intangible cultural heritage.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly states that traditional agroforestry systems “buffer climate risks.” The loss of these systems to monoculture plantations, which absorb less rainfall, has led to increased flooding, demonstrating a decrease in climate resilience and adaptive capacity.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: This is a central theme. The article details the loss of primary forest (“lost about 71 hectares”) due to clearing for monoculture. It contrasts this with traditional agroforestry, which blends agriculture with biodiversity conservation, maintains canopy cover, and represents a form of sustainable forest management.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 2.4: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices…” The traditional Manggarai agroforestry, which “kept soils healthy and limited forest clearing,” is a prime example of such a system. The shift to monoculture represents a move away from this target.
• Target 2.5: “By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants…” The article points to a loss of this diversity as “sorghum and upland rice, once staples, have given way to wet paddy rice and plantation crops.” The lexicon itself, with distinct words for seeds for replanting (*wini*) versus seeds for consumption (*ni’i*), shows an embedded practice of maintaining genetic diversity.
• Target 4.7: “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development…and appreciation of cultural diversity…” The proposal to bring the lexicon into schools is a direct effort to use cultural heritage (the language) to teach sustainable practices (agroforestry).
• Target 11.4: “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.” The documentation of the 253 fading agroforestry terms is a direct action to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of the Manggarai people.
• Target 13.1: “Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards…” The article links the loss of forest-based agroforestry systems to increased flood risk, indicating a weakening of resilience. Reviving these practices would help strengthen it.
• Target 15.2: “By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests…” The article’s focus on the loss of primary forest to monoculture plantations directly addresses the failure to halt deforestation. The promotion of traditional agroforestry is presented as a solution for sustainable forest management.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Rate of deforestation: The article provides a specific metric that can be used as an indicator for Target 15.2. It states, “From 2002 to 2024, Manggarai lost about 71 hectares (175 acres) of humid primary forest.” Tracking this rate over time would measure progress or decline.
• Status of linguistic diversity and traditional knowledge: The study’s documentation of “253 agroforestry-related words at risk of disappearing” serves as a baseline indicator for Targets 4.7 and 11.4. The number of these words successfully reintroduced into schools and common usage could measure progress in revitalization efforts.
• Extent of sustainable agricultural practices: The article implies an indicator for Target 2.4 by describing the rapid spread of “monoculture farming” since 1960, which has replaced traditional agroforestry. The area of land cultivated using agroforestry versus monoculture would be a key indicator of progress towards sustainable food production.
• Status of agricultural biodiversity: The shift in staple crops from “tubers and sorghum” to primarily rice is an implied indicator for Target 2.5. Measuring the variety of crops cultivated by the community would reflect the status of agricultural genetic diversity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com