Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and tree crops in Indonesia ... › 8425 ›...

Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and tree crops in Indonesia:nationwide patterns of smallholder agriculture at the forest frontier

Draft 1.0 24 May 1996

Comments welcome

Kenneth M. ChomitzCharles Griffiths

Environment, Infrastructure, and Agriculture DivisionPolicy Research Department

The World Bank

Note: The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of theauthors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or thecountries they represent. The paper should not be cited without permission of an author.

Please send comments to:K. ChomitzPRDEIWorld BankWashington DC 20433

fax 202 522 3230e-mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We have benefitted greatly from discussions with Tom Tomich and his colleagues at ICRAF,who introduced us to jungle rubber. William Sunderlin provided useful comments. All errors areour own.

This work was supported by the research project on the Social and Environmental Consequencesof Growth-oriented Policies.

Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and tree crops in Indonesia p. 1

1. IntroductionAs agriculture expands into tropical forests, what crops are in the vanguard? Crop choice at theagricultural frontier bears on the nature of the deforestation problem, on its relation with poverty,and on appropriate responses. Where deforestation is associated with the expansion of marginal,subsistence-oriented swidden farming, improved farming technologies can simultaneously fightpoverty and reduce forest loss. On the other hand, where the expansion of profitable tree cropsthreatens the forest, policy choices are more limited and the trade-offs more complex.

While there are many site-specific case studies, there is relatively little quantitative informationrelating deforestation and crop choice over large areas. This note uses village-level data coveringall of Indonesia to analyze crop choice in areas experiencing current deforestation. The plan ofthe paper is as follows. First we discuss the policy relevance of cropping patterns at the forestfringe. Next we review information about agricultural conversion of forests in Indonesia. Following a discussion of data sources and quality, we then discuss some simple descriptivestatistics relating cropping patterns to Indonesian deforestation.

2. Crops and deforestation: policy implications

Economic incentives -- mediated by institutions such as land tenure regulations and customs --govern the expansion of agriculture into the forest. The strength and malleability of thoseincentives determines what can be done to reduce deforestation, what can be done to boostfarmers' incomes -- and whether the two sets of policies are compatible.

Imagine a typology of crops (and other agricultural land uses) according to three dimensions:current returns to land, labor intensity, and elasticity of demand (for an entire forested region).(See table 1). Current returns to land measure the incentive to convert additional forest tocultivation. Where these returns are high, it is difficult to resist expansion of cultivation into theforest. (Hyde et al. 1993, Chomitz and Gray 1995, 1996; Tomich and van Noordwijk 1995; vanNoordwijk et al. 1995; Angelsen 1995). But returns to alternative land uses will be sensitive towages and prices, which in turn may be subject to policy manipulation. Labor intensity and theprice-elasticity of demand are indicators of the sensitivity of land use to such manipulation.

Using this typology, consider first consider crops which offer a low return per hectare, have lowto moderate labor intensity, and are located in areas not well integrated with wider markets. Swidden cultivation of staple crops in low population density areas is the best example, and is thepopular stereotype of agriculture at the forest fringe. Even if returns to the land are low inabsolute terms, this form of cultivation may expand where there are no higher-value land usesand where the returns to labor are relatively high. For this scenario, a common policy suggestionis to provide these farmers with technologies to intensify production, boosting per hectare yields. If demand is inelastic, then the price of output plummets, and returns to land drop sharply. Another way of putting it is that, given relatively fixed demand for local consumption, increasedyields translate into reduced area of cultivation, and thus lower pressure on the forest. (Tomich


and van Noordwijk 1995, van Noordwijk et al. 1995). However, if increased yields are associatedwith substantially higher returns to labor, intensification may actually attract workers intosubsistence agriculture. In effect, an elastic supply of migrants means that the demand forsubsistence crops is elastic.

Next consider a situation where food crops are being produced for a national market under verylow productivity conditions -- for example, short-fallow shifting agriculture in areas ofmoderately high population density. Here interventions to boost farm productivity may alleviatepoverty, but will again backfire from an environmental viewpoint. Because the national marketcan elastically absorb production from the forest fringe, enhanced farm profitability willencourage expansion to still more marginal areas. However, if production is fairly labor-intensive, then returns to land may be quite sensitive to prevailing wages. Provision of alternativeemployment opportunities may drastically reduce the attractiveness of shifting cultivation,reducing pressures for conversion.

Finally, imagine a third scenario: tree crops with high returns per hectare, possibly high returns tolabor, and perfectly elastic demand from the world market. In this situation, interventions toboost farm profitability, such as introduction of higher-yielding varieties, would result inincreased pressures for forest conversion. Moreover, if the returns to labor are high, introductionof alternative employment opportunities may have little impact on the incentives to expand treecrops.

These three scenarios also have disparate implications for the links between macroeconomicchange and deforestation. In the first scenario, farmers are relatively insulated frommacroeconomic changes. In the second, changes in agricultural pricing policies, and changeswhich affect real wages and labor demand may have direct effects on deforestation rates. In thethird, changes in world market prices, and in the exchange rate, will have corresponding impactson incentives to expand or reduce cropped area.

To sum up, appropriate policy interventions to address deforestation depend very much on thecrops or land uses associated with deforestation. While much attention focuses on the case ofmarginal, subsistence-oriented shifting agriculture, policies tailored to this situation could haveperverse effects if applied in a different context.

3. Deforestation and agriculture in Indonesia

Indonesia contains 10% of the world's tropical rainforests (World Bank, 1994), and these forestsare disproportionately rich in biodiversity (Ministry of State for Population and Environment,1992). Consequently conservation of Indonesia's forests is a global priority. Nevertheless, ourunderstanding of the quantitative dimensions of deforestation in Indonesia is surprisingly poor. Estimates of deforestation range from 1.3 million ha. to 300,000 ha. per year (World Bank, 1994). Apportionment of the deforestation rate among proximate causes is even less precise. Logging isthought to cause deforestation not through clear cutting, but by facilitating entry and clearing by


shifting cultivators (Barbier et al.1994) Much deforestation is associated with the settlement ofofficial transmigration sites, and with the establishment of large plantations for palm oil orpulpwood. Much of the remainder is attributed to shifting cultivators, often presumed to besubsistence-oriented.

Shifting cultivation in Indonesia, however, encompasses more than just subsistence or foodcrops. There are shifting cultivation systems which include both staple crops and export-orientedtree products. For instance, in some low-population density areas, coffee is grown by shiftingcultivators, who abandon plots after six or seven years due to declining yields. (Smith andBouvier, 1993).

A shifting cultivation system of particular interest is jungle rubber. (Gouyon et al. 1993, Angelsen1995). A cycle of jungle rubber cultivation begins with forest clearing and burning. Both rice andrubber are planted. Rice is harvested for two years, and the plot is then left to revert to forest.After about eight years, a rubber-rich secondary forest results. The rubber can be tappedprofitably for twenty to thirty years before declining yields prompt another cycle of burning andreplanting.

Jungle rubber is particularly interesting for two reasons. First, it is relatively profitable, andentirely smallholder-oriented. A jungle rubber plot produces approximately 600 kg (dryequivalent) of rubber per hectare per year (van Noordwijk et al. 1995); the current rubber price isabout $1.60/kg. There are essentially no input costs aside from labor. Where tappers are hired,they work on a 2/3 share basis, currently netting about $4.50/day, which is far above theminimum wage. Thus, allowing a 1/3 return to land, assuming that 1/3 of an area devoted tojungle rubber is too young to tap, land devoted to jungle rubber has a rental value of more than$100/ha.

Second, it is an environmentally attractive land use. Jungle rubber, being essentially oldsecondary forest, strongly resembles the primary forest. Its species richness is about half the levelof the primary forest. Michon and de Foresta (1994) found that sample jungle rubber sitescontained 92 tree species, 97 lianas, and 28 epiphytes vs. 171, 89, and 63 respectively in theprimary forest -- and compared to 1,1, and 2 in monoculture estates. Thiollay (1995) estimatesthat jungle rubber supports about 137 (45% of them associated with primary forests) bird speciesvs. 241 in the primary forest itself. We would expect jungle rubber also to resemble primaryforest in its hydrological functions.

Jungle rubber is widespread in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Administrative reports from theDirectorate General of Estate Crops put smallholder rubber at 2,649,993 ha nationwide for 1991;the Survey of Smallholder Estate Crops estimates the area for 1991 at 1,649,910 ha. (CentralBureau of Statistics, 1993) However, these may both be underestimates. A detailed (1:250000scale) land use map of Jambi province for the late 1980's classifies approximately 625,000


hectares as jungle rubber1. However, field visits suggest that much of the 500,000 hectaresclassified as ‘secondary regrowth’ (belukar) is in fact jungle rubber. Thus Jambi alone maycontain a million hectares of rubber, versus administrative reports of about half a million hectares. This disparity may be due to the peculiar characteristics of jungle rubber, inherently much harderto inventory than monoculture plantations. It may in part reflect classification errors in the landuse maps, since jungle rubber is difficult to distinguish using remote-sensing data. It may alsoreflect rubber cultivation which falls outside the scope of surveys, either because it is on nationalland or because it has been abandoned, perhaps temporarily.

While there are published data on cropping area at the district (kabupaten) level, they permit only limited insight into the relation between agriculture and deforestation, for several reasons. First,as we have seen, administrative reports may not provide a comprehensive view of cropped area. Second, published data do not allow us to distinguish between cropping patterns in long-settledareas, and areas at the current agricultural frontier. Finally, administrative reports do notdistinguish, and may not even cover, shifting cultivators. Below we describe a data set whichcircumvents these problems.

4. Data

The PODES (Potensi Desa) is a census of all Indonesian villages carried out by the CentralBureau of Statistics. Information is gathered by interview of the village head or other designatedvillage representative. From the 1993 round we extract the following information for ruralvillages:

Agricultural households by type: the PODES asks for the number of households involved in foodcrops (tanaman pangan, encompassing staple crops, vegetables, fruits, and decorative plants);tree crops (perkebunan rakyat, literally smallholder estate crops, including tobacco), forestry,animal husbandry, and some minor additional categories. A separate part of the survey('environment and housing') asks for the number of shifting cultivator (peladang berpindah)households. These are defined as "farmers who undertake cultivation of annual crops on fields inthe forest to which they do not have rights, without fixed location". Inclusion of this question inthe environment section of the questionnaire suggests that the respondents may have includedshifting cultivators who live near the village but are not considered residents.

The survey instructions do not specify that these various categories (shifting cultivation, foodcrops, etc.) are to be considered mutually exclusive, and we assume that an individual householdmay be tallied under multiple categories. The sum of the categories often exceeds the totalnumber of agricultural households (reported in a third section of the survey). This could resulteither from overlap among categories, or from the well-known survey phenomenon in which

1 Based on analysis of a digital map derived from the ReppproT survey.


disaggregation of a broad category prompts more accurate recall.

Deforestation: PODES requests a breakdown of forest land (hutan) converted to other uses overthe period 1990-93, in hectares. This variable requires careful interpretation. First, therespondents may lack the facilities to make precise areal estimates. Second, it is possible thatsome respondents may have included secondary forest or tree crop estates in the 'forest' category,since there are no questions dealing explicitly with the former. Third, the instructions for a priorquestion on land use specifically exclude from consideration state forest land (which constitutesthe bulk of all forested areas). However, those instructions are not repeated for the conversionquestion. Moreover, the boundaries between village lands and state lands may be imperfectlyknown. For the purposes of this analysis, we are content to use the deforestation response as acrude qualitative indicator. Villages reporting zero hectares of deforestation are assumed to bewithin the agricultural frontier. Villages reporting more than zero, but less than 100 hectares ofdeforestation are classed as moderate deforestation areas. Villages reporting more than 100hectares of deforestation are classed as high deforestation areas.2

Crops: If tree crops were grown in the village the previous year, the respondent is asked to list upto five, in order of importance. For crops of interest (rubber, coffee, coconuts), we codedwhether the crop was grown at all, and if so whether it was cited as the most important tree crop.

5. Results

Table 2a reports the ratio of shifting cultivator households to all agricultural households, bydeforestation group and island group. As expected, the table shows deforestation to beassociated with an increasing proportion of shifting cultivators (with the exception of ananomalous low percentage in high deforestation villages in Maluku). In Sumatra, for instance,that ratio rises from just 0.03 in areas classed as non-deforesting, to 0.11 in high deforestationareas3. It is striking, however, that the relative number of shifting cultivators is quite low inSumatra and Sulawesi. More surprisingly, even in the high deforestation areas of Kalimantan, theratio is only 36%. Only in high deforestation areas of Irian Jaya does the ratio reach 50%. As arobustness check, unweighted means of the village ratios were calculated (see table 2b). Themeans are slightly higher -- plausibly indicating high shifting cultivator ratios in small villages --but the qualitative results are the same: shifting cultivators are not in the majority at the forestfrontier.

Table 3a reports the ratio of tree crop households to total agricultural households by island and

2 An alternative classification could be based on deforestation area divided by village area,

but the latter may not be well defined.

3 Table 6 gives sample sizes. For some island groups, the number of villages in high-deforestation areas is small.


deforestation group. Again the ratio tends to rise with increasing level of deforestation. InKalimantan and Nusa Tenggara, almost half of households in high deforestation areas areinvolved in tree crops. The ratio is higher still for Sumatra, Sulawesi, and Maluku. Only in IrianJaya are tree crops of minor importance to households. Table 3b shows very similar results froman unweighted mean.

What are these tree crops? Table 4a and 4b and maps 1 and 2 show that rubber is the dominantsmallholder crop for both deforesting and non-deforesting areas in much of Sumatra andKalimantan4. In high deforestation areas in Sumatra, two thirds of villages report growing rubber,and 54% of villages report that rubber is not only grown but is the most important tree crop5. Coconuts are widespread in Nusa Tenggara and Sulawesi and are almost universally found indeforesting villages in Maluku. (See table 4c and 4d). As maps 3 and 4 suggests, coconuts areoften associated with conversion of coastal forests -- though it should be noted that coconuts alsooccur naturally in coastal ecosystems. In Sulawesi, coconut planting is viewed as a convenientway to establish tenure over land, because the trees require little maintenance and can beharvested at any time6. Cocoa is locally important in Maluku and Sulawesi (table 4e and 4f), butin Maluku is less important to the village than coconuts. Coffee is found in significant proportionsof all villages in Sumatra and Nusa Tenggara, and in many deforesting villages in Kalimantan andSulawesi (table 4g and 4h), though it is usually not the most important tree crop.

Table 5 shows the proportion of villages reporting a large tree-crop estate present. There is astrong association between deforestation and the presence of estates in Sumatra and Sulawesi. Note that large estates may border several villages, so the total number of estates is less than thenumber reporting them.

6. Discussion

Tree crop cultivation by smallholders is a prominent feature of the agricultural frontiereverywhere except Irian Jaya. Large tree crop estates are prominent in deforestation areas inSumatra and Sulawesi. Shifting cultivation of annual crops, by contrast, is common only in IrianJaya and Kalimantan -- and in the latter case, may often be part of a cultivation system whichincludes perennials.

4 Again note that sample sizes by kabupaten can be very small. See maps 5 and 6.

However, there is strong geographical similarity between cropping patterns in the moderate andhigh deforestation areas.

5 Table 4b shows the proportion of all villages which report both that rubber is grown andthat it is the most important tree crop.

6 Robin Bourgeouis, pers. comm.


The key role of tree crops has important implications for conservation and development policy. First, it suggests that research and extension policies to increase farmer productivity may increasepressure on remaining forests. For instance, efforts are underway to introduce higher-yieldingrubber varieties into jungle rubber systems. If this results in higher profits, it might benefit a largegroup of smallholders, but it would increase conversion pressure on remaining lowland forestareas in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Thus interventions to boost yields need to be linked withstrengthened forest protection, particularly of logged-over forests.

Second, it suggests that deforestation in many areas will be sensitive to the exchange rate and toworld commodity market, especially rubber, coffee, and cocoa. Angelsen (1995), for instance, ina case study of Riau province, reports a strong forest-clearing response to rising rubber prices inthe mid 1980's.

Third, one would expect that provision of alternative livelihoods will have variable impacts ondeforestation, depending on local cropping patterns and incentives. It may, for instance, bedifficult to reduce conversion incentives for rubber or coffee by providing alternativeemployment opportunities. This is because wages for hired workers are already high relative toalternatives in Javanese agriculture (Smith and Bouvier, p. 157). Even if those wages could bematched and current workers lured away, there would be a ready stream of potential migrants totake their place, and continued strong incentives for land owners or claimants to employ them.

Finally, environmental impacts vary substantially between crops, suggesting a regionally nuancedapproach to conservation and development strategies. For instance, jungle rubber is one of themost environmentally desirable land uses imaginable, preserving a significant fraction of thebiodiversity represented in the primary forest. Thus a far-sighted conservation approach wouldbe to find instruments that encourage jungle rubber relative to monoculture plantations, whilepreserving plots of primary forest as seed areas. Over the next two or three decades, asIndonesian wages increase and urbanization proceeds, jungle rubber will become less profitable,and rural inhabitants will seek better opportunities in towns and cities. Barring unforeseen newland uses, much of this area could then revert to mature forest. On the other hand, conversion ofswamp forest to coconuts involves major, probably irreversible changes to the ecosystem andestablishment of a monoculture not conducive to biodiversity.

7. Conclusions and future directions

We have reviewed evidence from the Indonesian village census suggesting that tree crops, ratherthan subsistence-oriented shifting cultivation, play a major role in deforestation. While this dataset is notable for its extraordinary spatial precision, it is limited in its coverage of deforestationand of economic incentives affecting land use. Future work will attempt to validate and extendthis analysis in a number of directions. First, we will seek farm budget data with which tocalculate returns per hectare of alternative land uses. Second, we will link the village census withthe Susenas (a large-sample household socioeconomic survey) in order to compare earnings and


welfare measures of households at the agricultural frontier with households in other areas. Thiswill provide additional information on the potential migration response at the forest frontier tochanges in employment opportunities in towns or in long-established agricultural areas. Finally,we will use spatially disaggregate data to examine the impact of infrastructure, especially roads,on forest conversion, crop choice, and welfare. This is of particular policy importance given thevery large investments Indonesia is making in extending and upgrading rural roads in the OuterIslands.


Bibliography

Angelsen, Arild. (1995) "Shifting Cultivation and 'Deforestation': A Study from Indonesia". World Development, 23(10), 1713-1729.

Barbier, Edward, Nancy Bockstael, Joanne Burgess, Ivar Strand (1994). "The timber trade andtropical deforestation in Indonesia". In Katrina Brown and David W. Pearce, eds., The Causes ofTropical Deforestation. London, UCL Press.

Central Bureau of Statistics (Indonesia). (1993). Survei Perkebunan Rakyat 1991 (HasilPencacahan Rumahtangga).

Charras, Muriel, and Marc Pain (1993). Spontaneous Settlements in Indonesia: AgriculturalPioneers in Southern Sumatra. Jakarta: Departement of Transmigration and Bondy, France:ORSTOM.

Chomitz, Kenneth M. and David A. Gray. (1995) Roads, Land, Markets and Deforestation: ASpatial Analysis of Land Use in Belize. World Bank, Policy Research Department, WorkingPaper no. 1444.

Chomitz, Kenneth M. and David A. Gray (1996, forthcoming) "Roads, Land Use, andDeforestation: A Spatial Model applied to Belize". World Bank Economic Review.

Gouyon, A., H. de Foresta, and P. Levang. (1993) "Does 'jungle rubber' deserve its name? Ananalysis of rubber agroforestry". Agroforestry Systems 22, 181-206.

Hyde, William F., Gregory S. Amacher, and William Magrath, 1993. "Deforestation, ScareceForest Resources, and Forest Land Use: Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Policy Implications". Draft revision of paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the International Associationfor the Study of Common Property, Manila, June 15-19, 1993.

Michon, Genevieve and Hubert de Foresta (1994) “Forest Resouce Management and BiodiversityConservation: the Inodnesian Agroforest Model”. Annex 5: Communication to the IUCNWorkshop “Biodiversity Conservation outside protect areas”, Madrid, March 1994.

Ministry of State for Population and Environment (Indonesia) (1992). Indonesian CountryStudy on Biological Diversity.

Smith, Glenn, and Hélène Bouvier (1993) "Spontaneous migrants strategies and settlementprocessees in mountains and plains" in Charras and Pain (1993), q.v.

Thiollay, Jean-Marc (1995) "The Role of Traditional Agroforests in the Conservation of Rain


Forest Bird Diversity in Sumatra". Conservation Biology 9 (2), pp 335-353.

Tomich, Thomas P. and Meine van Noordwijk. "What Drives Deforestation in Sumatra?" Paperpresented at Regional Symposium on "Montane Mainland Southeast Asia in Transition" ChiangMai, 13-16 November 1995.

van Noordwijk et al., eds. (1995) Alternatives to Slash-and-burn in Indonesia: Summary Reportof Phase 1. ASB-Indonesia Report no. 4. Bogor: ICRAF-SE Asia.


Table 1: A typology of cropping systems

Cropping system Returns to land Labor intensity Price-elasticity ofoutput demand

Effect ofintensification onforest conversion

Effect of wageincreases on forestconversion

Sensitivity to macroconditions

Shifting cultivationfor subsistence

Very low low to moderate low reduces conversionunless migrants areattracted

depends on returns tolabor;possibledecrease

low

upland agriculturetied to nationalmarkets for staplecrops

low moderate to high high increasesconversion; probablyincreases welfare

strong decrease aslabor is attractedaway

high

export oriented treecrops, e.g. rubber

relatively high moderate high increases conversion possible reduction inconversion

high


Table 2: Ratio of Shifting Cultivator to Agricultural Households

NoDeforestation

ModerateDeforestation

HeavyDeforestation

AllVillages

Table 2a: Weighted Mean

Sumatra 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.04

Nusa Tenggara 0.03 0.07 0.22 0.03

Kalimantan 0.18 0.26 0.36 0.21

Sulawesi 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.04

Maluku 0.17 0.33 0.08 0.19

Irian Jaya 0.15 0.20 0.50 0.17

Table 2b: Unweighted Mean

Sumatra 0.04 0.12 0.17 0.05

Nusa Tenggara 0.05 0.10 0.33 0.06

Kalimantan 0.22 0.39 0.45 0.27

Sulawesi 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.07

Maluku 0.22 0.35 0.10 0.23

Irian Jaya 0.24 0.31 0.54 0.25

Table 3: Ratio of Tree Crop to Agricultural Households

NoDeforestation


HeavyDeforestation

AllVillages

Table 3a: Weighted Mean

Sumatra 0.37 0.49 0.56 0.39

Nusa Tenggara 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.36

Kalimantan 0.36 0.38 0.45 0.37

Sulawesi 0.44 0.51 0.63 0.45

Maluku 0.66 0.69 0.76 0.67

Irian Jaya 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.14

Table 3b: Unweighted Mean

Sumatra 0.40 0.56 0.55 0.42

Nusa Tenggara 0.42 0.45 0.56 0.42

Kalimantan 0.34 0.38 0.48 0.36

Sulawesi 0.48 0.53 0.63 0.49

Maluku 0.66 0.68 0.77 0.66

Irian Jaya 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.22


Table 4: Crop production

NoDeforestation


HeavyDeforestation

AllVillages

Table 4a: Proportion of Villages Growing Rubber

Sumatra 0.32 0.53 0.67 0.35

Nusa Tenggara 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kalimantan 0.46 0.52 0.58 0.48

Sulawesi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maluku 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Irian Jaya 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04

Table 4b: Proportion of Villages Reporting Rubber as the Most Important Tree Crop

Sumatra 0.26 0.43 0.54 0.28

Nusa Tenggara 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kalimantan 0.41 0.47 0.49 0.43

Sulawesi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maluku 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Irian Jaya 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04

Table 4c: Proportion of Villages Growing Coconut

Sumatra 0.38 0.42 0.34 0.38

Nusa Tenggara 0.68 0.73 0.77 0.68

Kalimantan 0.28 0.27 0.43 0.29

Sulawesi 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.63

Maluku 0.82 0.86 0.97 0.83

Irian Jaya 0.35 0.35 0.19 0.35

Table 4d: Proportion of Villages Reporting Coconut as the Most Important Tree Crop

Sumatra 0.24 0.15 0.14 0.23

Nusa Tenggara 0.47 0.55 0.57 0.48

Kalimantan 0.17 0.11 0.16 0.16

Sulawesi 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.39

Maluku 0.63 0.68 0.89 0.65

Irian Jaya 0.24 0.26 0.12 0.24

Table 4e: Proportion of Villages Growing Cocoa

Sumatra 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.07

Nusa Tenggara 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.14

Kalimantan 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.07

Sulawesi 0.50 0.65 0.68 0.52

Maluku 0.37 0.59 0.56 0.41

Irian Jaya 0.20 0.12 0.14 0.19


Table 4f: Proportion of Villages Reporting Cocoa as the Most Important Tree Crop

Sumatra 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Nusa Tenggara 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Kalimantan 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03

Sulawesi 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.18

Maluku 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02

Irian Jaya 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.10

Table 4g: Proportion of Villages Growing Coffee

Sumatra 0.28 0.42 0.27 0.29

Nusa Tenggara 0.36 0.28 0.36 0.35

Kalimantan 0.16 0.29 0.28 0.19

Sulawesi 0.22 0.38 0.37 0.24

Maluku 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.10

Irian Jaya 0.12 0.22 0.17 0.13

Table 4h: Proportion of Villages Reporting Coffee as the Most Important Tree Crop

Sumatra 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.13

Nusa Tenggara 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.18

Kalimantan 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.04

Sulawesi 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.06

Maluku 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

Irian Jaya 0.07 0.20 0.17 0.08

Table 5: Proportion of Villages Reporting Tree Crop Estates

NoDeforestation


HeavyDeforestation

AllVillages

Sumatra 0.04 0.04 0.20 0.04

Nusa Tenggara 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01

Kalimantan 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.02

Sulawesi 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.04

Maluku 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02

Irian Jaya 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01


Table 6: Number of Villages

NoDeforestation


HeavyDeforestation

AllVillages

Sumatra 17321.00 1938.00 631.00 19890.00

Nusa Tenggara 2833.00 253.00 47.00 3133.00

Kalimantan 4070.00 1125.00 286.00 5481.00

Sulawesi 4443.00 487.00 171.00 5101.00

Maluku 1174.00 216.00 62.00 1452.00

Irian Jaya 1877.00 259.00 42.00 2178.00


Proportion of villages growing rubber - continuous gray scale

.00 villages report rubber growing




1.00 villages report rubber growing

KM

2000150010005000

Map 1

Proportion of Villages Growing Rubber

in areas of high deforestation

out of sample

Proportion of villages growing rubber - continuous gray scale





1.00 villages report rubber growing

KM

2000150010005000

Map 2

Proportion of Villages Growing Rubber

in areas of moderate deforestation

out of sample

Proportion of villages growing coconut - continuous gray scale

.00 villages report coconut growing




1.00 villages report coconut growing

KM

2000150010005000

Map 3

Proportion of Villages Growing Coconut


out of sample

Proportion of villages growing coconut - continuous gray scale





1.00 villages report coconut growing

KM

2000150010005000

Map 4

Proportion of Villages Growing Coconut


out of sample

Number of Villages

0 villages

1 to 5 villages

6 to 10 villages

11 to 60 villages

Missing

KM

2000150010005000

Map 5

Number of Villages


Number of Villages

0 villages

1 to 5 villages

6 to 10 villages

11 to 60 villages

61 to 167 villages

Missing

KM

2000150010005000

Map 6

Number of Villages


Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and tree crops in Indonesia ... › 8425 ›...

Documents

Transcript of Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and tree crops in Indonesia ... › 8425 ›...