WHERE THE LAND GOES?

Land Use Change Trends in IndonesiaabMarissa Malahayati and Toshihiko Masuia) Department of Industrial Engineering and Economics, Tokyo Institute of Technologyb) Centre for Social and Environmental System Research, National Institute of Environmental Studies

FUTURE RESEARCH: HOW THE EMISSION MITIGATION IN LANDUSE CHANGE MAY AFFECT THE ECONOMYINTRODUCTION AND CONDITION OVERVIEW
Most GHG emission (63%) in Indonesia is a result of land use change both inmineral and peatland area .
AREA CHANGE IN MINERAL LAND BASED ON LAND CATEGORIESBETWEEN 2006-2011 (000 HA)

AREA CHANGE IN MINERAL LAND BASED ON LAND CATEGORIESBETWEEN 2006-2011 (000 HA)
SwampSwampMinning

Minning

Transmigration

Transmigration

Airport/Port

Airport/Port

Ponds

Ponds

Rice Fields

Rice Fields

Mixed Dry Agriculture

Mixed Dry Agriculture

Dry land agriculture-1000000

BushesSecondary Swamp forest

Secondary Swamp forest

Secondary mangrove

Secondary mangrove

Savanna

Savanna

Open Land

Open Land

Building

Building

Plantation

Plantation

Shurbs

ShurbsIndustrial forest

Industrial forest

Primary Swamp forest

Primary Swamp forest

Primary mangrove

Primary mangrove

Secondary forest

Secondary forest

Primary forest

Primary forest-500000Despite, we need to re-classify the land category from “forest land-basedclassification” to “social economy classification” to match with Indonesia
Input-Output table.

Dry land agriculture

Bushes-1500000

The limitation of the available statistical and spatial data is it still couldn’t
predict the impact of land use change and its mitigation action to theIndonesia economics. To do that, we are building a national CGE model forIndonesia which also considering the land use change factor.

0500000

1000000

1500000-800000-600000-400000-200000

0200000

Forest landbasedclassification400000

FIGURE 1. Total Area Change from Mineral and Peatland area from 2006-2011 (Source: F Agus et al, 2013calculated)• The most complete
source of land allocationand land conversion
come from Ministry ofForestry

The most significant land area lost in the mineral land came from Primaryand Secondary Forest and predicted to be switched for dryland agriculture,plantation, and rice field. On the Other side, in peatland, there is a vast area
lost from swamp forest, and the highest additional land is for plantation,
shrubs, and industrial forest. It is because the land productivity factor whichmakes peatland more potential to be used as plantation area than for theagriculture.

Other Forest
1.6%
Wood
4.2%

mining Building (inc.
0.1% transmigration)
0.5%
Cassava
4.8%

Corn
8.8%
Livestock
12.9%

In Sumatera and Kalimantan, LUC
allegedly mainly because of theplantation establishment, dominatedby Palm Oil. While in Java, it is mainly
because agriculture and settlement

Oth Plantation
7.6%
Other Agriculture
41.8%

Palm
11.5%

Paddy

Rubber
5.7%
Other (open land,water body)
1.0%

mining Building (inc.
0.2% transmigration)
0.2%

Forest
9.9%
Paddy
30.6%
Livestock
21.0%

In the same time, peat land area inIndonesia also located in Sumatera andKalimantan. This area also sometimes
opened and utilized for plantation

Social Economy
Classification

Corn
5.9%

Other Agriculture
27.9%

Plantation

CGE Model

INPUT• Keep the consistency
with economic data• To ease cost
determination between
each land utilization

Other(openland,waterbody)
0.4%

Building (inc.
transmigration)mining 0.2%

Other Forest
1.5%

0.1%

Wood
4.1%

The re-classification is done by assumingthat the land allocation is directly
proportional to the total production. For
example, because in the IO table thecontribution of Palm Oil, Rubber, andOther Plantation are 46%, 23%, and 31%,
then the plantation land is also divided inthe same ratio.

Other (open land,water body)
0.3%

Livestock
12.3%
Paddy
45.1%

Oth Plantation
7.2%
Palm
10.9%

OtherAgriculture

Rubber
5.5% Cassava
4.5%

After the re-classification, we found thatfrom the economic perspective, Indonesia
tends to convert agricultural andplantation land for the paddy sector. In theother hand, forest and another land(including open and degraded land) tend
to be converted as plantation area.
Moreover, we also found that after paddy,
the next preference of land use change
goes to plantation especially palm oil.

Corn
8.2%

Other (open land,water body)
8.6%
Building (inc.

transmigration)
7.7%

Paddy
16.5%

mining
1.7%

Cassava
1.7%

Livestock
10.9%

ForestCorn
3.1%

Other Agriculture
14.7%
Plantation
35.1%

Cassava
3.2%
Building (inc.
transmigration)
8.1%
mining
1.8%

Cassava
0.5%

Corn
0.9%

Other Agriculture
4.3%

Paddy
6.2%

Rubber
7.8%

Other Forest
17.0%

Palm
15.8%
Wood
13.8%

Other Land
(Incld. Open Land)

Livestock
13.6%

Oth Plantation
10.4%

FIGURE 4. Land Use Change between 2006-2011 after re-classification to Socio-Economics Classification

RESEARCH CHALLENGES: CONVERSION COST AND CONSIDERATION
OF THE PEAT LANDFIGURE 2. (Top-Below) 1. Indonesia Land Cover by type (Ministry of Forestry, 2009), Palm Oil (Ministry of Forestry , 2012), tree
cover loss 2000-2010 (Hansen et al, 2013). 2. Indonesia Peat Land (Ministry of Agriculture, 2012) and Palm Oil Plantation(Ministry of Forestry, 2012)

Although the total area of peatland is far below the total area of mineralland, the vast peatland decomposition due to the establishment of theplantation and other commercial plantation make peatland gives a huge
contribution to GHG emission.
CO2 Emission caused by Land Use Change- Mineral Land 2006-2011 Mton
CO2eq)

Emission:
245 Mton
CO2eq

Swamp

Minning

Minning

Emission:
260.4 Mton
CO2eq

Transmigration
Airport/Port
Ponds
Rice Fields

For example, Gran (2008) shows the cost of
converting the forest to other land use.
However, there still lack of information
about how much the cost by converting
those LU to the forest. Good assumption
and consideration still needed.

CO2 Emission caused by Land Use Change- Peat Land 2006-2011 (MtonCO2eq)

Swamp

Transmigration
Airport/Port
Ponds
RiceFields
Mixed Dry
Agricult…
Dry land
agricult…

Mixed Dry Agriculture
Dry land agriculture
BushesTABLE 1. Example of Land Use Conversion CostBushes
Secondary Swamp forest

Secondary…
Secondary…

Secondary mangrove
SavannaOpen
Land

Building

Building

Plantation

Plantation

Shurbs

ShurbsIndustrial forest

Industrialforest
Primary
Swamp…
Primarymangrove
Secondary forest
Primaryforest

Primary Swamp forest
Primary mangrove
Secondary forest
Primary forest-20

Land Use Change

Savanna

Open Land00

20406080

100

Higher-density

Lower-density

00

Cost (USD/ha/year)

Forest Oil Palm

4,439 USD

Forest Rubber

1,171 USD

Forest Rice field

28 USD

Palm, rubber, rice field Forest
1020

30

40

50

607080???

90

FIGURE 3. Carbon Emitted by the Land Use Change in 2006-2011 period in Mineral land and Peat Land

Although we found that primary forest, primary mangrove, and industrial
forest in the mineral forest still hold a role for carbon sequestration, but that
becomes too small compared to the carbon emitted by the land conversion
to lower density land.

EnergyOutputEnergyNon-LandOutputLand(mineral + peat)GHG same emission
factor(current model design)

Non-LandOne of the biggest challenges for LUC
modeling in Indonesia is about the cost. To
get more accurate and reasonable result,the cost for each land use change should beconsidered. However, mainly available
research only shows the cost of doing theland-based high-profit economic activity(e.g., converting forest to palm oilplantation). But rarely about the cost of
doing land rehabilitation or recover thedegraded area to higher density land suchas agriculture or plantation.
Another concern about peatland emission
treatment also needs to be considered.
Without the distinction between the land
use change in mineral land and peatland in
the CGE simulation, the total GHG emission
in the simulation become undervalued.
MineralGHG

Peat

GHG

Land

(future plan model design)

FIGURE 5. Simple Diagram for LUC-CGE Model Design

REFERENCES[1] F. Agus, I. Santoso, S. Dewi, P. Setyanto, S. Thamrin, Y.C. Wulan, F. Suryaningrum (eds.). 2013. Pedoman Teknis Penghitungan
Baseline Emisi dan Serapan Gas Rumah Kaca Sektor berbasis Lahan: Buku I Landasan Ilmiah. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan
Nasional, Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.

[3] Ministry of Forestry. 2009. “ Land Use Cover.” Accessed through Global Forest Watch in 2017. www.globalforestwatch.org[2] Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R.
Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2013. “High-Resolution Global Maps of 21stCentury Forest Cover Change.” Science 342 (15 November): 850–53.

[5] Ministry of Agriculture. 2012. "Indonesia peat lands." Accessed through Global Forest Watch in 2017. www.globalforestwatch.org[4] Ministry of Forestry. 2012. “ Palm Oil.” Accessed through Global Forest Watch in 2017. www.globalforestwatch.org[6] Gran, Maryanne Grieg. 2008. The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation. International Institute for Environment and Development, London