| [Back to
OccPaper Top Page] [Chapter 1]
Introduction
[Chapter 2]
The problem of imprecise and conflicting definitions
[Chapter 3]
Smallholders
[Chapter 4]
Logging and the timber industry
[Chapter 5]
Estates and plantations
[Chapter 6]
Guidelines for the determination of rates and causes
[Chapter 7]
Summary and conclusion
[Chapter 8]
Acknowledgements
[References]
Tables
[Table 1]
Change over time in views on causes of deforestation in Indonesia
[Table 2]
Estimates of annual deforestation in Indonesia (thousands of ha)
[Table 3]
Population density and forest cover by Province in Indonesia (1982) (ranked in ascending
order of population density) |
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Some
degree of deforestation in Indonesia is necessary to satisfy growing demand for food
production and other activities related to economic development. The government of
Indonesia has designated conversion forests (approximately one-quarter of total forest
land) as areas appropriate for deforestation. Deforestation and degradation, however, go
well beyond the boundaries of conversion forests, and there have been some notable
problems with inappropriate land use designations. The RePPProT study (1990: 36), for
example, found that 30.8 million ha of production forest should be reclassified as
protection forest.
In order to adequately address the problems posed by inappropriate forest cover loss in
Indonesia, it is necessary to know the rate of forest cover change and its causes. It is
necessary to resolve certain fundamental ambiguities concerning the rate and causes of
deforestation in Indonesia. A clearer understanding of the situation is a necessary
precondition for formulating new policies and adapting existing policies aimed at
improving the welfare of forest communities and the conservation and management of
Indonesia's forests.
Towards this end, the main questions to be addressed are the following:
(1) How are we to define "forest", "deforestation" and
"agency" in the context of Indonesia? This is a fundamental step not only
for interpreting the information that exists, and for forming a cogent theoretical base
for conducting further research, but also for establishing a "common language"
among researchers and policy makers. We suggest researchers adopt the terms and
methodology proposed by FAO (1996) in addressing this issue.
(2) What are the socio-economic characteristics and land-use practices of the
various agents that have been lumped under the term "shifting cultivation"?
Related questions are: What are the proportions of the various kinds of smallholders who
farm in the forest or at the forest margin (i.e., shifting cultivators, forest pioneers
and tree crop producers)? What are the geographic areas where these smallholders tend to
operate? What is the relationship of levels of livelihood (i.e., the search for
subsistence vs. the search for additional household income) with forest conservation?
(3) Is the relationship between increasing population density and loss of forest
cover causal or incidental? There is considerable practical content in the answer to
this question, given that decisions will continue to be made on where transmigrants will
and will not be sited, and where settlement in general will or will not be allowed. Useful
interpretation of inverse correlations between population density and forest cover must be
based on a clear and consistent conceptualisation of agency in deforestation,
acknowledgement of population as an intermediate variable and recognition of all relevant
independent variables.
(4) Why do some concessionaires reportedly maintain their sites well, while others
do not? Related questions are: To what extent would certain proposed policy reforms
(increased government rent capture, lengthened concession cycle and tenure security,
enhanced competition for access to concessions, increase of area-based fees) improve the
performance of concession management? What is the nature of state interests in connection
with the long-term conservation and management of primary forests?
(5) What have been the net forest cover effects of macro-economic restructuring and
changes of commodity prices since the early 1980s? Answers to these and other
questions at the macro-economic level will have great practical value for shaping reforms
in existing sectoral, as well as extra-sectoral policies.
Beyond addressing these questions, future research on the extent and causes of
deforestation in Indonesia should observe two principles that surface from a review of
analysis conducted to date (see Table 1). First, it should be
recognised that several forms of agency have a significant role in the process of forest
conversion. Researchers should therefore rise above a general tendency to identify one
primary cause and to do so to the exclusion of sufficient attention to other causes.
Policy solutions to inappropriate forms of deforestation that focus on only one form of
agency will surely fail to meet their goal, because they would under-appreciate the
complexity of the problem.
Second, future research should continue the trend, begun after 1990 (see Table 1), of going beyond analysis limited to the agents of forest
cover removal (transmigrants, forest pioneers, loggers, etc.). If the immediate and
underlying causes of land-use change are to be adequately understood, then it is necessary
to analyse the broader political, economic and social trends, at the local, regional,
national and international levels, that influence behaviour at the forest margin. |