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 island of Sumatra in Indonesia, which are part of this ongoing global research project. 

Indonesia, Brazil, and Cameroon were the first three countries to join in the ASB research effort in 1994.  Indonesia’s forests covered over 1 million square km in 1990 (World Bank 1997) and ranked third in area – behind the Amazon and the Congo Basin – among the world’s remaining tropical rainforests.  Table I.1 presents comparative statistics for three ASB countries (Brazil, Cameroon, and Indonesia) and, where data are available, for Sumatra.  In terms of the key ratios in Table I.1, agriculture’s role in the gross regional product of Sumatra – because of its mineral wealth -- was comparable to Brazil and lower than Indonesia as a whole.  On the other hand, the share of Sumatra’s labor force that depended on agriculture was almost as high as Cameroon.  Agricultural land of 1.9 ha per worker in Sumatra was almost twice the average for Indonesia, but was less than for Cameroon and only a fraction of the ratio for Brazil.  Another key contrast is that over 20% of Brazil’s agricultural land is permanent pasture, while that proportion is less than 5% for Sumatra and for Cameroon.

 

I.1 ASB-Indonesia benchmark sites and associated study areas

 

The island of Sumatra was chosen to represent the lowland humid tropical forest zone in Asia for the global ASB project.  Within Sumatra five major agro‑ecological zones (Map 1) are identified with boundaries running from NW to SE approximately parallel to the coast:

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 Indonesia to date has focused on the peneplains and piedmont.


Map 1.  Agroecological zones of Sumatra

 

 

Table I.1 Comparative statistics for Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia and Sumatra

 

 

Brazil

Cameroon

Indonesia

Sumatra

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

 

Forest land, 1990 (thousands sq. km.)

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%