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% |
**) |
Note: for
*) 1995
**) 1984 - 1995
Sources:
World Development Report 1997
Statistical Year Book of
Map 2
Within
Sumatra, a clear gradient in population density occurs from
Because of these activities, most remaining fragments of lowland
tropical rainforest are in the piedmont zone and little natural forest remains
in
To
assess how well ASB’s Sumatran research sites in Jambi and Lampung represent
lowland tropical rainforests of Asia and the rest of the world, domain software
(Carpenter, Gillison and Winter 1993) was used to conduct a spatial analysis of
an index of similarity combining 7 biophysical variables (spanning ranges of
precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration, and altitude). The results for Asia indicate a high degree
of similarity between the ASB sites in the peneplains and piedmont of Sumatra
and significant areas of
Jambi sites. Two sites
in
Forestry and the rubber processing
industry (crumb rubber) contributed virtually all (99%) of the exports from
Jambi province in 1993. In the rubber
industry, smallholder rubber plays a crucial role. The total area of rubber
cultivation in Jambi in 1993 was 502 642 ha, of which only 3 447 ha was planted
with high-yielding varieties under intensive management and the rest was
‘jungle rubber’ (the rubber agroforests).
64% of the land in Jambi is
categorized as
After the completion of the
Virtually every smallholder household interviewed in the ASB characterization surveys in Jambi is engaged in agriculture. Less than 10% of households of local farmers and spontaneous migrants engage in non-agricultural activities. This is in strong contrast to transmigrants. Although non-agricultural activities may not be the main occupation of transmigrants, 75% of these households reported non-agricultural work (in trading, services, and paid labor). The vast majority of household heads did not complete primary school: this proportion exceeded 70% in each case and was as high as 95% for the sample of local people in Bungo Tebo.
Lampung sites. ASB research in Lampung now has two foci: the ASB
benchmark site in the peneplains of
Lampung is
sometimes described as 'North Java', indicating its nature as a transition
between the densely populated
The ASB peneplain benchmark area in
Some migrants settled on their own accord,
despite the hardships in the area, including the second generation of
government-sponsored transmigrants for whom there is no land in the
village. Spontaneous migrants tend to
use agricultural systems intermediate between the local and Javanese food-crop
based system, with a greater emphasis on tree crops.
The
indigenous Lampung people, who live along the rivers, still have their
semi-permanent food crop production on flooded river banks, but two decades ago
gave up on the extensive shifting cultivation of the lowland peneplain. Along the rivers, their old 'jungle rubber'
gardens exist as this is on the margin of
The ASB benchmark area in Lampung
has been selected as one of the sites for a new proposal to the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) for rehabilitation of Imperata grasslands that the Central Research Institute for Food
Crops (CRIFC) is preparing on behalf of the ASB-Indonesia consortium. On the edge of the Lampung benchmark area is
the Biological Management of Soil
Fertility (BMSF) research site, which is managed by
Krui
is on the west coast, across the mountains of the Bukit Barisan range, where a
relatively narrow coastal strip has had a long history of settlement but
relatively little immigration over the last century. Here an extraordinary form of agroforestry
was developed by local farmers about a century ago, the damar agroforests. More than 15 years of research by ORSTOM,
BIOTROP, and ICRAF with national partners (united in the 'team Krui') has
helped in obtaining government recognition for the value of this land use
system (Fay et.al., 1998). This work culminated in the signing by the
Minister of Forestry of a decree creating a special class within
Map3
I.2 Conflicting interest groups
The comprehensive measurements undertaken in ASB Phase II are intended to
add to our understanding of the balance of economic and environmental effects
of forest conversion and the resulting land uses. At least six distinct interest groups
have a stake in the trajectory of land use change in
·
The growing ‘international community’ concerned with global climate change,
extinction of species, and loss of distinctive ecosystems. It can be argued that all humans belong to
this group since we share a collective interest in the global public goods of
climatic stability and biodiversity conservation. These interests are served by preserving as
much tropical rainforest as possible.
·
Several thousand hunter-gatherers who continue their traditional migratory lifestyle
within remaining forest fragments and national parks in Jambi Province and
elsewhere in central Sumatra. These
small family groups do not contribute to deforestation, so they have not been
emphasized in the ASB research project.
However, because their livelihoods depend heavily on extraction of
forest products, they also benefit from preserving as much natural forest as
possible in
·
Although there can be conflict among indigenous
groups, spontaneous migrants, or government-sponsored transmigrants over land,
these millions of small-scale farmers
all depend primarily on land converted from forest in order to make a
living. Significant numbers also gather
products from the forest and they share everyone’s (diffuse) interest in the
global environment, but their over-riding interest is in the profitability of
their agricultural production systems and sustainability of their livelihood
strategies.
·
Large-scale
public and private estates (operating forest concessions and plantations of 10,000–300,000 ha or
more) pursue profitable resource extraction and land use alternatives. Like smallholders, these large operators
presently receive few if any incentives or sanctions regarding the environmental
impacts of their activities. But large estates and smallholders compete for a
limited area of land, which contributes pressure for forest conversion.
Moreover, the land uses and management strategies of large-scale estates differ
significantly from smallholders’ land uses in their social, economic, and
environmental impacts.
·
Absentee
farmerswith medium-sized holdings of 10-25 ha or more. They often live in nearby towns and are
referred to as ‘petani berdasi;’ which means ‘farmers with neckties.’ These operators use similar technology to
smallholders, but may be able to exert substantial influence, especially on
local officials. Thus this category is
intermediate between smallholders and large-scale estates.
·
Public
policymakers,
who increasingly are ‘caught in the middle’ of these various groups, especially
since
I.3 Criteria used in assessment of land use alternatives
Conversion of tropical forests causes release of stored carbon, which has been linked to global climate change, and the extinction of species. The search for ‘alternatives’ to unsustainable slash-and-burn derives from these global problems (climate change; loss of biodiversity), but objectives of smallholders and policymakers also are central concerns of ASB. Since many small-scale farmers practicing slash-and-burn appear to do so because they lack other feasible livelihood options, land use alternatives must meet these smallholders’ objectives and fit their adoption constraints if they are to be viable.
Global environmental concerns.Alternative land uses at the
forest margins differ significantly in their ability to substitute for the
global environmental services of forests. Quantification of at least 3
indicators of the global environmental consequences of deforestation and other
land use changes is essential to formulating sound policy responses--or even in
knowing whether intervention is needed. Two of these indicators are linked to
global climate change: carbon stocks and net
absorption of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide. ASB researchers have taken an
innovative and eclectic approach to measurements of biodiversity in order to
assess richness of the alternative land use systems for major groups of
organisms above and belowground.
Aboveground measurements are done for plant functional groups as well as
the more conventional taxonomic approach.
Gillison’s ‘plant functional attributes’ (PFA) approach provides an
overall indicator of biodiversity richness that is suitable for cross-continent
comparisons. Belowground assessments focus on organisms that influence
agronomic sustainability. Results of
these measurements for
Agronomic sustainability.Agronomic
sustainability refers to long term production capacity at the plot level, but
researchers and farmers may differ in their assessment of what ‘sustainable’
means. Soil scientists and agronomists
collaborating in ASB research identified a minimum set of seven components of
agronomic sustainability, including adequate soil organic matter and nutrient
balances (Weise 1998). Discussion of
results for agronomic sustainability assessments undertaken for major land use
systems in
Smallholders’ socioeconomic concerns. A minimum set of 3 quantifiable
socioeconomic objectives were judged necessary for assessment of land use
alternatives from the smallholders’ perspective (Vosti et al. 1998; Tomich et al.
1998):
·
Production incentives. Is the alternative profitable for smallholders? In other words, does it pay smallholders to
invest in this alternative compared to other options?
·
Labor constraints. Is it feasible for these households to
supply the necessary labor themselves or to hire workers?
·
Household food security. Even if the alternative is profitable and feasible
given household labor constraints and labor market conditions, is it so risky
(either in terms of variance in food yields or as a source of income to
exchange for food) that adoption would jeopardize food security for the
household?
Policymakers’ concerns. Before the severe recent setback,
·
Growth. What is the potential profitability of the activity? In other words, does the country have
comparative advantage in the activity?
If so, expansion of this activity can contribute to economic growth.
· Equity. Would
expansion of this activitycreate employment
opportunities, especially for unskilled rural workers? Or would it displace these workers, forcing
more to migrate to
· Stability. ‘Stability’
has many possible interpretations.
Stability of staple food prices --
national food security – has been a hallmark of Indonesian development
strategy. However, since none of the
land use alternatives considered below could make a significant contribution to
national food security, this topic receives no attention in the analysis. Loss of macroeconomic
stability over the past year has led to even more emphasis on export
promotion, including primary products from forestry and agriculture. (After petroleum, plywood, rubber, and coffee
are among
One of the strategic challenges
facing policymakers will be to reinterpret the ‘development trilogy’ in light
of the fundamental structural changes that are occurring in
Institutional barriers to adoption. Quantitative
measures of the concerns of smallholders and policymakers need to be
supplemented by (usually qualitative) assessment of institutional endowments as
they affect land, labor, capital, and commodity markets as well as availability
of information on production technology.
In turn, markets and other institutions affect feasibility of adoption
of technological innovations by smallholders. Formal and informal land and tree
tenure institutions, often operating at the community
level,appear to be key determinants of incentives (and disincentives) for
investment in productive assets and for sustainable resource management. Do
formal and informal institutions and the regulatory framework create incentives
that are compatible with sustainable resource management? Could banks supply
initial capital requirements of land use alternatives? If not, are interest rates in the informal
market prohibitive? Do infrastructure
bottlenecks inhibit input supply and output marketing? Can formal or informal channels of
communication provide useful information about new techniques and land use alternatives
that are not already familiar? These
issues are addressed in Parts V and VI.
I.4 The ASB Matrix
The central task of the ASB
research program is to identify which land use systems (and technological
innovations to raise their productivity) have the best chance of attaining
these multiple environmental, agronomic, socioeconomic, and policy objectives and
to quantify any tradeoffs among these objectives. Measurement of field-level differences in the
economic, agronomic and global environmental consequences of the various land
use systems provides a starting point for quantifying some of the major tradeoffs
involved in land use change and for identifying ‘best bet’ alternatives that
provide an attractive balance among competing objectives.
What do we mean by best
bet? Tomich et al (1998) define a best bet land use alternative as ‘a way
to manage tropical rainforests or a forest-derived land use that, when
supported by necessary technological and institutional innovation and policy
reform, somehow takes into consideration the local private and global public
goods and services that tropical rainforests supply.’ This implies a significant contribution to
each of the broad sets of criteria discussed above regarding the global
environment, agronomic sustainability, smallholders’ concerns, and
policymakers’ objectives.
The ASB ‘
If
measurements reveal many tradeoffs across objectives, either a multidimensional
decision-scheme or some system of weighting competing objectives is needed to
identify a ‘best bet’. Economic valuation provides a suitable weighting scheme
for some of the indicators, but is problematic for others (e.g., biodiversity).
The difficulty of this task is compounded by the differing perceptions of these
criteria across the various interest groups concerned and the difficulty in
identifying appropriate indicators for the various criteria. Thus it is unlikely that this problem of
choice of ‘best bet’ land use alternatives (and possibilities for development
of suitable technological innovations) can be captured in a single, summary
measure.
A general matrix format was
developed (Tomich et al., 1998) as an
alternative to a futile quest for a single indicator. This matrix is a framework to organize the
data for assessment of possible tradeoffs and complementarities across specific
indicators used for assessment of the broad classes of criteria discussed so
far. The general version of this
framework, the ‘ASB Meta Matrix,’ appears in Figure I.1. The columns of this matrix are the general
classes of criteria discussed above. The rows are seven ‘meta’ land uses that
were selected for global comparisons across ASB study sites. These rows correspond to specific land uses
found in
Figure I.1ASB Matrix For Evaluating Land Use Systems as Potential Best Bets for
Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn at
|
|
Global Environmental Concerns |
Agronomic Sustainability |
Smallholders’
Socioeconomic Concerns |
Policy &
Institutional Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complex,
Multistrata Agroforestry Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
Simple
Treecrop Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
Crop/Fallow
Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
Continuous
Annual Cropping Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
Grasslands/Pasture |
|
|
|
|
I.5 ASB ‘meta’ land uses and major land uses in
Seven ‘
Table
I.2 ASB ‘meta’ land uses &
corresponding land uses of
|
‘ land use |
Corresponding land use in peneplains of Sumatra |
Scale of operating unit |
|
Natural forest |
Natural forest |
n.a. |
|
|
Community-based forest management |
Community-level |
|
Commercial logging |
Large-scale enterprise |
|
|
Complex, multistrata agroforestry systems |
Rubber agroforests |
Smallholdings |
|
Simple treecrop systems |
Rubber monoculture |
Smallholdings participating in a government project |
|
Oil palm / industrial timber monoculture |
Large-scale estate enterprise |
|
|
Crop / fallow systems |
Upland rice / bush fallow rotation |
Smallholdings |
|
Continuous annual cropping systems |
Monoculture cassava degrading to Imperata cylindrica |
Smallholdings in a government settlement project |
|
Grasslands / pasture |
Imperata cylindrica |
Sheet Imperata (>10,000 ha) used for grazing, hunting & other activities by local communities. |
Table
I.2 also indicates major land uses of
one wet
rice field (sawah), but this important example of a continuous annual cropping
system was not studied in Phase II because wet rice does not account for a
significant share of ongoing forest conversion.[1]
Coordinating
data collection for ASB Phase II required a great deal of attention to specific
characteristics of the major land uses selected for detailed study. Along with additional descriptive information
for each land use, Table I.3 also provides information on two characteristics
of Sumatran systems – type / scale of operation and landscape mosaic – that are
particularly important in
The
Sumatran sites, and
The
dualism in scale of operation produces an important distinction in landscapemosaic context between the
ecological functions of an indigenous smallholder landscape mosaic and the
landscape produced by large-scale plantation monoculture. These landscape scale issues are beyond the
scope of ASB Phase II, but this is expected to be a major thrust in future ASB
research in
Table I.3 Specifications for major land uses at the forest margin
of the peneplains of
|
‘ |
Corresponding
land use in lowland Sumatra |
Type / scale
of operation |
Landscape
mosaic context |
Description |
|
Natural
forest |
Natural
forest |
25
ha fragment within a logging concession |
|
Reference point: primary baseline for assessment
of land use alternatives. Undisturbed
for at least 100 years. |
|
|
Community-based
forest management |
Common
forest land of 10,000 ha to 35,000 ha |
Indigenous
smallholder landscape |
Reference point/possible ASB best bet: products
are honey (every 2 years), fish, petai, rattan, songbirds, jengkol, and
durian, among others. |
|
|
||||
|
Commercial
logging |
Logging
concession of 35,000 ha or more |
|
Reference point / best bet from official
perspective: simulation of Indonesian
‘sustainable logging system’; 40 yr cycle.
Reference point: based on estimates of actual
harvesting behavior for a concession that recently has been renewed; 20-25 yr
cycle. |
|
|
|
||||
|
Complex,
multistrata agroforestry systems |
Rubber
agroforests |
Smallholders’
plots of 1-5 ha |
Indigenous
smallholder landscape |
Indigenous system: forest clearing followed by
upland rice and planting of ‘unselected’ rubber seedlings, with natural
regeneration of forest species. This
is the dominant smallholder land use. |
|
Rubber
agroforests with improved planting material |
Smallholders’
plots of 1-5 ha |
Indigenous
smallholder landscape |
Possible ASB best bet: forest clearing followed by
upland rice and planting of rubber
clones, with natural regeneration of natural forest species. |
|
|
Simple
treecrop systems |
Rubber
monoculture |
Smallholders’
plots of 1-5 ha |
Indigenous
smallholder landscape |
(Formerly) best bet from official perspective:
upland rice and planting of rubber clones, with intensive use of inputs and
labor to prevent regeneration of natural forest species. |
|
Oil
palm monoculture |
Large-scale
private estate of 35,000 ha or more |
Monoculture
plantation |
Best bet from official perspective: plantation oil
palm grown in close association with processing mill. (Processing not included in the economic
analysis.) |
|
|
Industrial
timber monoculture |
Large-scale
private estate of 35,000 ha or more |
Monoculture
plantation |
Best bet from official perspective: plantation
timber grown for pulp (Acacia mangium)
or for sawn timber (Paraserianthes
falcata). (Processing not included
in the economic analysis.) |
|
|
Crop
/ fallow systems |
Upland
rice / bush fallow rotation (shifting
cultivation) |
Smallholders’
plots of 1-2 ha per year, often located in community land |
Indigenous
smallholder landscape |
Reference point: One year of upland rice followed
by bush fallow of 10 years of more.
The dominant smallholder land use of 100 years ago, now rare. Reference point: One year of upland rice followed
by a short bush fallow of 5 years or less.
Now found only in isolated areas. |
|
Continuous
annual crops / grasslands |
Continuous
cassava degrading to Imperata
cylindrica grassland |
Smallholders’
plots of 1-2 ha within large-scale
settlement project |
Large
transmigration project divided into small plots |
Reference point: monocrop cassava with little use
of purchased inputs. (See land cover
table for pattern.) Reference point: monocrop cassava with intensive
use of purchased inputs. |
from
initial forest clearing in cases where forest conversion occurs through the
subsequent 25 years for the major land uses studied in
It is worth
emphasizing that ‘slash-and-burn’ is
both a technique for land clearing
and a land use system
(‘slash-and-burn’ agriculture, shifting cultivation). Of course, it is inaccurate to equate
‘slash-and-burn’ agriculture with permanent forest conversion and unsustainable
land use. Traditional shifting cultivation of foodcrops, as practiced for
generations by local people in
Figure 1.2 Transitions
between land covers as part of fallow
rotation systems
Figure I.2 shows the natural succession and the various
types of 'shifting cultivation', 'long rotation fallow' and 'short rotation
fallow', where forest or shrub land is opened to grow food crops. The grass
fallows that are formed, especially after prolonged cropping, tend to be
perpetuated by fire and can lead to an 'arrested succession' in the form of
large ('sheet') alang-alang (Imperata
cylindrica) grasslands. Figure I.3
includes the major ‘alternative to slash-and- burn’ in
Figure 1.3 Land use systems that are alternatives to
traditional slash-and-burn systems.