Biophysical and socioeconomic context for assessment of land use alternatives
“Best bet” Land-use Systems
Country reports
Alternatives To Slash-And-Burn In Indonesia
Unique id: IDAZAQCE
Source file: D:\Projects\ASB\ASB Country and Thematic reports\Indonesia PhaseII report\Part I.xml
Authors: Thomas P. Tomich, Meine van Noordwijk, Suseno Budidarsono, Andy Gillison, Trikurnianti Kusumanto, Daniel Murdiyarso, Fred Stolle, Ahmad M. Fagi, Iswandi Anas, A.F.S. Budiman, Kenneth Chomitz, Rebecca Elmhirst, Chip Fay, Hubert de Foresta, Dennis Garrity, Danan P. Hadi, Suryo Hardiwinoto, Kurniatun Hairiah, Genevieve Michon, Nu Nu San, Cheryl Palm, Soetjipto Partoharjono, Djuber Pasaribu, Eric Penot, Robert Simanungkalit, Martua Sirait, S.M. Sitompul, F.X. Susilo, David Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals of the global
Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB) research project are to identify means to
reduce the rate of tropical deforestation driven by slash-and-burn and to
reduce poverty of smallholders dwelling at the forest margins. ASB was
formulated as a partnership among national and international institutions to
undertake research on sustainable upland systems as alternatives to
unsustainable slash-and-burn in various parts of the tropics. This report presents results from ASB study
sites ('benchmark areas') in Jambi and Lampung provinces on the
I.1 ASB-Indonesia benchmark sites and associated study areas
The
1. A
narrow western coastal zone,
2. A mountain zone, dominated by andosols
and latosols of reasonable to high soil fertility
3. A
narrow piedmont (foothill) zone, the
lower slopes of the mountain range on the NE side, dominated by latosols and
red-yellow podzolics;
4. A broad peneplain zone, almost flat land with
Tertiary sediments, deposited in the sea; at present its altitude is less than
100 m above sea level and it consists of about 10% river levees and floodplains
with more fertile alluvial soils and 90% uplands with a gently undulating
landscape and mostly red-yellow podzolic soils
5. A coastal swamp zone with peat and acid
sulphate soils
Ongoing work seeks to span this
full landscape gradient, but because of the emphasis on lowland tropical
rainforests (and derived land uses) in ASB Phase I and Phase II, most of the
work in

Map 1. Agroecological zones of
Table I.1 Comparative statistics
for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Levels |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GNP, mid -1995
(US$ billions) |
688.7 |
8.7 |
189.4 |
35.5 |
|
|
Population,
mid-1995 (millions) |
159.2 |
13.3 |
193.3 |
40.8 |
|
|
Labor force,
1990 (millions) |
65.8 |
5.1 |
78.5 |
18.1 |
|
|
Agricultural
GDP, mid-1995 (US$ billions) |
96.3 |
3.1 |
33.7 |
4.7 |
|
|
Agricultural
land (millions ha) |
238.3 |
9.0 |
45.7 |
16.0 |
|
|
Agricultural
labor, 1990 (millions) |
15.1 |
3.5 |
44.8 |
8.6 |
|
|
|
5,611.0 |
204.0 |
1,095.0 |
265.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Key Ratios |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GNP/Capita -
US$ (1995) |
3,640 |
650 |
980 |
870 |
|
|
GNP/Capita -
US$ PPP (1995) |
5,400 |
2,110 |
3,800 |
-- |
|
|
Poverty :
population w/<US$ 1 PPP/day |
28.7% |
-- |
14.5% |
-- |
|
|
Income
distribution : share of top quintile |
67.5% |
-- |
40.7% |
-- |
|
|
Agriculture's
share of GDP, 1990 |
11.1% |
26.6% |
19.0% |
12.9% |
*) |
|
Agriculture's
share of labor force, 1990 |
23.0% |
70.0% |
57.0% |
66.3% |
|
|
Ag GDP / Ag
labor, US$/person |
6,377.5 |
885.7 |
752.2 |
548.8 |
|
|
Ag GDP / Ag
land, US$/ha |
404.0 |
343.3 |
737.1 |
294.3 |
|
|
Ag land / Ag
labor, 1990, ha/person |
15.8 |
2.6 |
1.0 |
1.9 |
|
|
Cropland / Ag
land, 1994 |
78% |
96% |
93% |
97% |
*) |
|
Permanent
pasture / Ag land, 1994 |
22% |
4% |
7% |
3% |
|
|
CO2 from
industrial sources, MT/capita, 1992 |
1.4 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rates of change
(per year) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GDP growth
1990-1995 |
2.7% |
-1.8% |
7.6% |
7.7% |
|
|
Agricultural
GDP growth, 1990 - 1995 |
3.7% |
2.2% |
2.9% |
3.3% |
|
|
Population
growth, 1990 – 1995 |
1.5% |
2.9% |
1.6% |
2.2% |
|
|
Labor force
growth, 1990 – 1995 |
1.6% |
3.1% |
2.5% |
3.5% |
|
|
Agricultural
labor force growth |
2.0% |
0.4% |
-2.3% |
-1.0% |
|
|
Agricultural
land area growth |
0.5% |
0.0% |
-1.1% |
1.4% |
|
|
Forestland area
growth, 1980 - 1990 |
-0.6% |
-0.6% |
-1.1% |
-1.2% |
|