Governance and Institutional Arrangements in Green Trade Distribution of Spices in South Sumatra
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22437/proca.v2i3.59976Keywords:
green economy, spice agriculture, institutional governance, village activation, climate change mitigation, sustainable value chain, community empowermentAbstract
Background: South Sumatra’s reliance on extractive industries and monoculture plantations has intensified ecological risks and reduced the prominence of traditional spice agriculture. Objective: This study examines the governance and institutional arrangements needed to revitalize spice agriculture and support green trade distribution through village activation. Methods: A qualitative action research approach combined field observations, stakeholder interviews, focus group discussions, and literature review in spice-producing areas of the upstream Musi River watershed. Participants included farmers, government officials, academics, and civil-society representatives. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Cinnamon, candlenut, pepper, and clove offer livelihood diversification, watershed protection, soil stabilization, and carbon-sequestration potential. Farmers viewed spice-based agroforestry as an alternative to dependence on coal mining and large-scale palm oil. Effective distribution requires empowered farmer cooperatives, transparent supply-chain institutions, sustainability certification, value-added processing, digital traceability, and collaboration among village government, communities, private actors, civil society, and academia. Conclusion: A strong village-level institutional framework and multi-stakeholder governance are essential to build an equitable, resilient, and climate-adaptive green spice value chain in South Sumatra.
References
1. Lo MGY, Morgans CL, Santika T, Mumbunan S, Winarni N, Supriatna J, et al. Nickel mining reduced forest cover in Indonesia but had mixed outcomes for well-being. One Earth. 2024; 2024;7(11):2019–2033. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.10.010
2. Werner TT, Toumbourou T, Maus V, Lukas MC, Sonter LJ, Muhdar M, et al. Patterns of infringement, risk, and impact driven by coal mining permits in Indonesia. Ambio. 2024;53(2):242–256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01944-y
3. Fuso Nerini F, Sovacool B, Hughes N, Cozzi L, Cosgrave E, Howells M, et al. Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:674–680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y
4. Leal Filho W, Wall T, Salvia AL, Dinis MAP, Mifsud M. The central role of climate action in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Sci Rep. 2023;13:20582. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47746-w
5. Soergel B, Kriegler E, Weindl I, Rauner S, Dirnaichner A, Ruhe C, et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11:656–664. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3
6. Vazquez-Brust DA, Sarkis J, editors. Green growth: managing the transition to a sustainable economy. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4417-2
7. Speck S, Zoboli R. The green economy in Europe: in search of a successful transition. In: Shmelev SE, editor. Green economy reader: lectures in ecological economics and sustainability. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 141–160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38919-6
8. Mundaca L, Neij L, Markandya A, Hennicke P, Yan J. Towards a green energy economy? Assessing policy choices, strategies, and transitional pathways. Appl Energy. 2016;179:1283–1292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.086
9. Wezel A, Brives H, Casagrande M, Clément C, Dufour A, Vandenbroucke P. Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2016;40(2):132–144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1115799
10. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a new conservation paradigm. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1134(1):173–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.011
11. Liere H, Jha S, Philpott SM. Intersection between biodiversity conservation, agroecology, and ecosystem services. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2017;41(7):723–760. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1330796
12. Palm C, Blanco-Canqui H, DeClerck F, Gatere L, Grace P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: an overview. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014;187:87–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010
13. Powlson DS, Gregory PJ, Whalley WR, Quinton JN, Hopkins DW, Whitmore AP, et al. Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy. 2011;36 Suppl 1:S72–S87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.025
14. Power AG. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1554):2959–2971. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
15. Schoneveld GC, Weng X. Smallholder value creation in agrifood chains: value network approach. Land Use Policy. 2023;131:106676. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106676
16. Bredenkamp H, Bersch J. Commodity price volatility: impact and policy challenges for low-income countries. In: Arezki R, Pattillo CA, Quintyn M, Zhu M, editors. Commodity price volatility and inclusive growth in low-income countries. Washington (DC): International Monetary Fund; 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781616353797.071
17. Tröster B. Commodity price stabilization: the need for a policy mix that breaks the vicious cycle of commodity dependence and price volatility. Policy Note No. 20. Vienna: Austrian Foundation for Development Research; 2018. link: https://www.oefse.at/fileadmin/content/Downloads/Publikationen/Policynote/PN20-Commodity-Price-Stabilization.pdf
18. Miljkovic D, Olson F. The impacts of futures markets on commodity prices (in)stability. Choices. 2023;38(1):1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.337192
19. Basuki I, Adinugroho WC, Utomo NA, Syaugi A, Tryanto DH, Krisnawati H, et al. Reforestation opportunities in Indonesia: mitigating climate change and achieving sustainable development goals. Forests. 2022;13(3):447. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030447
20. Adnan BA, Dadi D. Tropical forest conservation efforts as climate change mitigation in Indonesia: a review. Interdiscip Int J Conserv Cult. 2023;1(2):80–89. doi: https://doi.org/10.25157/iijcc.v1i2.3633
21. Aryapratama R, Schulte S, Pauliuk S. Climate change mitigation potential of producing wood-based materials and energy from restoring degraded land in Indonesia: a nationwide scenario analysis. Biomass Bioenergy. 2026;211:109191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2026.109191
22. Triyanti A, Indrawan M, Nurhidayah L, Marfai MA, editors. Environmental governance in Indonesia. Cham: Springer; 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15904-6
23. Warren C, McCarthy JF, editors. Community, environment, and local governance in Indonesia: locating the commonweal. Abingdon: Routledge; 2012.
24. Sahide MAK, Fisher MR, Sirimorok N, Faturachmat F, Dhiaulhaq A, Maryudi A, et al. Blind spots and spotlights in bureaucratic politics: an analysis of policy co-production in environmental governance dynamics in Indonesia. Dev Policy Rev. 2023;41(5):e12693. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12693
25. Aspinall E, Berenschot W, Savirani A, Ruhyanto A. Analyzing and explaining variation in village governance regimes across Indonesia. South East Asia Res. 2025;33(1):12–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828X.2025.2483168
26. Clark D, Southern R, Beer J. Rural governance, community empowerment and the new institutionalism: a case study of the Isle of Wight. J Rural Stud. 2007;23(2):254–266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.10.004
27. Ahmad MS, Talib NBA. Empowering local communities: decentralization, empowerment, and community-driven development. Qual Quant. 2015;49:827–838. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0025-8
28. Angelia N, Batubara BM, Zulyadi R, Hidayat TW, Hariani RR. Analysis of community institution empowerment as a village government partner in the participative development process. Budapest Int Res Crit Inst J. 2020;3(2):1352–1359. doi: https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v3i2.991
29. Landini F, Vargas G, Bianqui V, Mathot y Rebolé MI, Martínez M. Contributions to group work and to the management of collective processes in extension and rural development. J Rural Stud. 2017;56:143–155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.014
30. Swanson BE, Bentz RP, Sofranko AJ, editors. Improving agricultural extension: a reference manual. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1997. link: https://www.fao.org/4/w5830e/w5830e00.htm
31. Raynolds LT. Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair trade movements. Agric Hum Values. 2000;17(3):297–309. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007608805843
32. Jaffee D, Howard PH. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards. Agric Hum Values. 2010;27(4):387–399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9231-8
33. Antlöv H. Village government and rural development in Indonesia: the new democratic framework. Bull Indones Econ Stud. 2003;39(2):193–214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00074910302013
34. Sambodo MT, Hidayat S, Rahmayanti AZ, Handoyo FW, Yuliana CI, Hidayatina A, et al. Towards a new approach to community-based rural development: lessons learned from Indonesia. Cogent Soc Sci. 2023;9(2):2267741. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2267741
35. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854–857. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662
36. Ingram M, Gall A, Murrieta L, Guernsey de Zapien J. Community engagement strategies in a participatory action research study with farmworkers. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of social inclusion: research and practices in health and social sciences. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 1505–1524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89594-5_82
37. Lauri MA. WASP—Write a Scientific Paper: collecting qualitative data using focus groups. Early Hum Dev. 2019;133:65–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.03.015
38. Leung FH, Ratnapalan S. Spotlight on focus groups. Can Fam Physician. 2009;55(2):218–219. link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2642503/
39. Mishra L. Focus group discussion in qualitative research. TechnoLearn. 2016;6(1):1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5223.2016.00001.2
40. Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6
41. Maurer M, Mangrum R, Hilliard-Boone T, Amolegbe A, Carman KL, Forsythe L, et al. Understanding the influence and impact of stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: a qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37 Suppl 1:6–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07104-w
42. Heiden T, Saia T. Engaging stakeholders for research impact [Internet]. Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, American Institutes for Research; 2021. link: https://ktdrr.org/products/info-briefs/index.html
43. Rais H, Kersapati MI, Farid M, Aswandi A, Faturohman F, Avicenna M, et al. Living heritage: biocultural conservation on spice cultivation in the Maluku Archipelago, the heartland of clove and nutmeg. Ethnobiol Conserv. 2026;15:04. doi: https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2026-02-15-04-1-27
44. Ellen RF. The trade in spices. Indonesia Circle. 1977;5(12):21–25. link: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cimw19/5/12
45. Thee KW. Colonial extraction in the Indonesian archipelago: a long historical view. In: Frankema E, Buelens F, editors. Colonial exploitation and economic development: the Belgian Congo and the Netherlands Indies compared. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 41–59.
46. Dalheimer B, Parikoglou I, Brambach F, Yanita M, Kreft H, Brümmer B. On the palm oil–biodiversity trade-off: environmental performance of smallholder producers. J Environ Econ Manage. 2024;125:102975. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.102975
47. Wang W, Nguyen KTK, Zhao C, Hung HC. Earliest curry in Southeast Asia and the global spice trade 2000 years ago. Sci Adv. 2023;9(29):eadh5517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh5517
48. Ghale B, Mitra E, Sodhi HS, Verma AK, Kumar S. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems and its potential in climate change mitigation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022;233:228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-022-05689-4
49. Kay S, Graves A, Palma JHN, Moreno G, Roces-Díaz JV, Aviron S, et al. Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe. Land Use Policy. 2019;83:581–593. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.025
50. Lal R. Soil conservation and ecosystem services. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. 2014;2(3):36–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30021-6
51. Gamage A, Gangahagedara R, Gamage J, Jayasinghe NS, Kodikara N, Suraweera P, et al. Role of organic farming for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Farming Syst. 2023;1(1):100005. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100005
52. Lee S. Toward a just green economy transition. Veolia Institute Review—FACTS Reports. 2022;(24):38–43. link: https://www.institut.veolia.org/sites/g/files/dvc2551/files/document/2022/11/38%20Toward%20a%20just%20green%20economy%20transition.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ade Indriani Zuchri, Novita Wulandari, Masayu Adiah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Published with license by LPPM Universitas Jambi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0 International). This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator.
