Advertisement

A Crisis of Confidence: Stakeholder Experiences of REDD+ in Indonesia

  • Ashley EnriciEmail author
  • Klaus Hubacek
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Identifying challenges and opportunities for REDD+ will help to inform future policy and implementation of the program in Indonesia and other countries. The aim of this research is to identify and elucidate challenges and opportunities for REDD+ and other environmental governance initiatives. We present the perceptions of stakeholders and practitioners involved in REDD+ in Indonesia at multiple scales varying from global to local. Our research demonstrates stakeholders are struggling with problems of bureaucracy and a lack of confidence in REDD+, in addition to problems surrounding funding, logistics of implementation, corruption, stakeholder engagement and buy-in. Ultimately, our respondents and supporting documents reflect the particularly complex cultural and governance contexts in Indonesia. Despite challenges, REDD+ may have increased attention to these issues and acted as a catalyst for change. Effective implementation of REDD+ projects in Indonesia will require both nuanced understanding of the local and cultural context as well as long-term perspectives.

Keywords

Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) Forest management Payment for ecosystem services Environmental governance Indonesia Stakeholders Ethnography 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Fulbright Commission and a Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship from the University of Maryland.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. (MoF) Ministry of Forestry Center for Forestry Planning and Statistics. (2009). Indonesia forestry outlook study. APFSOS II/WP/2009/13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.Google Scholar
  2. (WRI GFW) World Resources Institute Global Forest Watch. (2016). Indonesia | Global Forest Watch. 2016. Accessed 9 January 2016. http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/IDN.
  3. (WWF) World Wide Fund for Nature. (2013). Palming Off a National Park: Tracking Illegal Oil Palm Fruit in Riau, Sumatra. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://awsassets.wwf.or.id/downloads/wwf_indonesia_palming_off_a_national_park_final.pdf.
  4. Abood, S. A., Lee, J. S. H., Burivalova, Z., Garcia-Ulloa, J., and Koh, L. P. (2014). Relative contributions of the logging, Fiber, oil palm, and mining industries to Forest loss in Indonesia. Conservation Letters. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12103/full.
  5. Bakker, L., and Moniaga, S. (2010). The space between: Land claims and the law in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Social Science 38(2): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr, C. M., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Dermawan, A., McCarthy, J., Moeliono, M., and Setiono, B., eds. (2006). Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia: Implications for Forest sustainability, economic development, and community livelihoods. CIFOR. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-bh1QmnPD_cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=forest+concessions+sanctions+indonesia&ots=RnJsm167lp&sig=FnoVU9WCjYyrMZKqMGvlZATj7Eg.
  7. Beckert, B., Dittrich, C., and Adiwibowo, S. (2014). Contested land: An analysis of multi-layered conflicts in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies 7(1): 75–92.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, G. F. (2003). Indonesia: The new regional autonomy Laws, two years later. Southeast Asian Affairs: 117–131.Google Scholar
  9. Blumenthal, D., and Jannink, J.-L. (2016). A Classification of Collaborative Management Methods. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/66233.
  10. Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., and Luttrell, C. (2012). An overview of Forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: Is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics 18(May): 30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broich, M., Hansen, M., Stolle, F., Potapov, P., Margono, B. A., and Adusei, B. (2011). Remotely sensed Forest cover loss shows high spatial and temporal variation across Sumatera and Kalimantan, Indonesia 2000–2008. Environmental Research Letters 6(1): 014010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busch, J., Ferretti-Gallon, K., Engelmann, J., Wright, M., Austin, K. G., Stolle, F., Turubanova, S., et al (2015). Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(5): 1328–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412514112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, R. A., Koh, L. P., and Ghazoul, J. (2009). REDD in the red: Palm oil could undermine carbon payment schemes. Conservation Letters 2(2): 67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00047.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butt, S. (2011). Anti-corruption reform in Indonesia: An obituary? Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 47(3): 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carbon Market Watch. (2016). “REDD Archive - Carbon Market Watch.“ 2016. http://carbonmarketwatch.org/category/redd/.
  16. Carlson, K. M., Curran, L. M., Ratnasari, D., Pittman, A. M., Soares-Filho, B. S., Asner, G. P., Trigg, S. N., Gaveau, D. A., Lawrence, D., and Rodrigues, H. O. (2012). Committed carbon emissions, deforestation, and community land conversion from oil palm plantation expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(19): 7559–7564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications Limited. Accessed 10 January 2019.http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w2sDdv-S7PgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=charmaz+grounded+theory&ots=p_qn0SGJav&sig=pcji1ThvK9n979FiCal9QhdS7kE.
  18. Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 4: 359–380.Google Scholar
  19. Climate Investment Funds. (2013). FIP: REDD+ Stakeholder Collaboration. Accessed 10 January 2016. https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/knowledge-documents/fip_learning_product_redd_stakeholder_collaboration_0.pdf.
  20. Colchester, M. (2010). Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Making FPIC Work for Forests and Peoples. Research Paper 11.Google Scholar
  21. Contreras-Hermosilla, A., Fay, C., Effendi, E., and Trends, F. (2005). Strengthening Forest Management in Indonesia through land tenure reform: Issues and framework for action. Forest Trends Washington, DC. Accessed 17 July 2014. http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/WCA2009/regions/southeast_asia/publications?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=BK0092-05.
  22. Convention on Biological Diversity. (n.d.) “Indonesia - country profile.“ Convention on Biodiversity Country Profiles. Accessed 2 December 2018. https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=id.
  23. Dermawan, A., Petkova, E., Sinaga, A. C., Muhajir, M., and Indriatmoko, Y. (2011). Preventing the risks of corruption in REDD+ in Indonesia. CIFOR. Accessed January 10th, 2019. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=K2czHGS_iIcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=Preventing+the+risks+of+corruption+in+REDD%2B+in+Indonesia&ots=1Sjq_KqXFo&sig=CG1dah9GI11-bOXRT_p2A-2cFsI.
  24. Diana, E., and Jong, H. N. (2018). End of funding dims hopes for a Sumatran Forest targeted by palm oil growers. Mongabay Environmental News, November 9, 2018. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/11/end-of-funding-dims-hopes-for-a-sumatran-forest-targeted-by-palm-oil-growers/.
  25. Dixon, R., and Challies, E. (2015). Making REDD+ pay: Shifting rationales and tactics of private finance and the governance of avoided deforestation in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 56(1): 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Enrici, A., and Hubacek, K. (2016). Business as usual in Indonesia: Governance factors effecting the acceleration of the deforestation rate after the introduction of REDD+. Energy, Ecology and Environment 1(4): 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Enrici, A., and Hubacek, K. (2018). Challenges for REDD+ in Indonesia: A case study of three project sites. Ecology and Society 23(2).Google Scholar
  28. Ewing-Chow, M., and Losari, J. J. (2015). Multiple authorisation: The legal complexity of Desentralisasi in Indonesia and the potential contribution of IIAs in reducing confusion. Indonesia Law Review 5(3): 241–256.Google Scholar
  29. Faure, M., and Wibisana, A. (2013). Regulating Disasters, Climate Change and Environmental Harm. Edward Elgar Publishing. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xQsCAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Regulating+Disasters,+Climate+Change+and+Environmental+Harm&ots=0lIxr2YL9v&sig=Z4HACb6BaUE_Qp110icsXmu49KU.
  30. Fauzi, A., and Anna, Z. (2013). The complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A case study of two Indonesian PES schemes. Ecosystem Services 6: 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Büscher, B., and Anderson, Z. R. (2016). Questioning REDD+ and the future of market-based conservation. Conservation Biology 30(3): 673–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Forrester, G. (1999). Post-Soeharto Indonesia: Renewal or Chaos? St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  33. Galinato, G. I., and Galinato, S. P. (2012). The effects of corruption control, political stability and economic growth on deforestation-induced carbon dioxide emissions. Environment and Development Economics 17(01): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galinato, G. I., and Galinato, S. P. (2013). The short-run and long-run effects of corruption control and political stability on Forest cover. Ecological Economics 89: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gallemore, C. T., and Moeliono, M. (2014). Discursive barriers and cross-scale Forest governance in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecology and Society 19(2).Google Scholar
  36. Galudra, G., Van Noordwijk, M., Sardi, S., Sardi, I., Pradhan, U., and Catacutan, D. (2011). Hot spots of confusion: Contested policies and competing carbon claims in the peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Forestry Review 13(4): 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gaveau, D. L. A., Kshatriya, M., Sheil, D., Sloan, S., Molidena, E., Wijaya, A., Wich, S., et al (2013). Reconciling Forest conservation and logging in Indonesian Borneo. PloS One 8(8): e69887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Global Canopy Programme. (2013). The REDD Desk | A Collaborative Resource for REDD Readiness. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://www.theredddesk.org/.
  39. Government of Norway, Government of the United Kingdom, and Government of Germany. (2015). Joint Statement by Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Unlocking the Potential of Forests and Land Use. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/joint_statement_redd_cop21_en_bf.pdf.
  40. Holloway, V., and Giandomenico, E. (2009). The history of REDD policy. Carbon Planet White Paper, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  41. Human Rights Watch (HRW). (2013). The dark side of green growth the Human Rights impacts of weak governance in Indonesia’s forestry sector. Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  42. Indonesia Ministry of Forestry (2014). Forest area statistics 2013, Indonesia Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta. Accessed 25 January 2014. http://www.dephut.go.id/uploads/files/2fba7c7da8536e31671e3bb84f141195.pdf.
  43. Indrarto, Giorgio Budi, Prayekti Murharjanti, Josi Khatarina, Irvan Pulungan, Feby Ivalerina, Justitia Rahman, Muhar Nala Prana, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, and Efrian Muharrom.  (2012) The Context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. Vol. 92. Cifor. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdf/2012/the_context_of_redd_in_indonesia.pdf.
  44. Indriatmoko, Y., Atmadja, S., Ekaputri, A. D., and Komalasari, M. (2014). Rimba Raya biodiversity reserve project, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In REDD+ on the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives across the Globe. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://www.cifor.org/library/5280/rimba-raya-biodiversity-reserve-project-central-kalimantan-indonesia/.
  45. Johannsdottir, L., and McInerney, C. (2016). Calls for carbon markets at COP21: A conference report. Journal of Cleaner Production 124: 405–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jong, H. N. (2015). BP REDD+ officially disbanded - national - the Jakarta post. The Jakarta Post, January 29, 2015. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/01/29/bp-redd-officially-disbanded.html.
  47. Kolstad, I., and Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development 37(3): 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krishna, V. V., Pascual, U., and Qaim, M. (2014). Do emerging land markets promote forestland appropriation? Evidence from Indonesia. EFForTS Discussion Paper Series.Google Scholar
  49. Kuncoro, A., Adrison, V., Isfandiarni, I., et al. (2013). Varieties of governance of public goods delivery in Indonesia: The case of roads after decentralization and local democratization. Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://econ.feb.ui.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/201301.pdf.
  50. Larson, A. M., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., Duchelle, A., Babon, A., Dokken, T., Pham, T. T., et al. (2013). Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change, April.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.014.
  51. Luttrell, C., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Muharrom, E., Brockhaus, M., and Seymour, F. (2014). The political context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Constituencies for change. Environmental Science & Policy 35: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Margono, B. A., Turubanova, S., Zhuravleva, I., Potapov, P., Tyukavina, A., Baccini, A., Goetz, S., and Hansen, M. C. (2012). Mapping and monitoring deforestation and Forest degradation in Sumatra (Indonesia) using Landsat time series data sets from 1990 to 2010. Environmental Research Letters 7(3): 034010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Margono, B. A., Potapov, P. V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F., and HansenM, C. (2014). Primary Forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nature Climate Change.Google Scholar
  54. McFarland, W., Whitley, S., and Kissinger, G. (2015). Subsidies to key commodities driving Forest loss: Implications for private climate finance. Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  55. Moeliono, M., Gallemore, C., Santoso, L., Brockhaus, M., and Di Gregorio, M. (2014). Information networks and power: Confronting the ‘Wicked problem’ of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 19, no. 2.Google Scholar
  56. Natahadibrata, N. (2013). Government recognizes customary forests. The Jakarta Post, May 18, 2013. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/18/government-recognizes-customary-forests.html.
  57. Parlina, I., and Nicholas, H. (2016). Norway slams slow REDD+ project Progress. The Jakarta Post, February 4, 2016. Accessed 10 January 2019.http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/02/04/norway-slams-slow-redd-project-progress.html.
  58. Parry, R. L. (2007). In the time of madness: Indonesia on the edge of Chaos. Grove Press. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8imo5gPToE8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=chaos+indonesia&ots=mKW483MAZE&sig=CuM4p1l6lt8kjIlJJZq4ConEt1E.
  59. Phelps, J., Webb, E. L., and Koh, L. P. (2011). Risky business: An uncertain future for biodiversity conservation finance through REDD+. Conservation Letters 4(2): 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prasetyia, F. (2012). Corruption and decentralisation: Some evidence in Indonesia. Journal of Indonesian Applied Economics 4(1). Accessed 10 January 2019. http://jiae.ub.ac.id/index.php/jiae/article/view/121.
  61. Redford, K. H., Padoch, C., and Sunderland, T. (2013). Fads, funding, and forgetting in three decades of conservation. Conservation Biology 27(3): 437–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Resosudarmo, I. A. P. (2004). Closer to people and trees: Will decentralisation work for the people and the forests of Indonesia? The European Journal of Development Research 16(1): 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Mardiah, S., and Utomo, N. (2011). Extractive Land Use, Spatial Planning and Their Implications for REDD+ in Indonesia: A Preliminary Analysis. 3rd IRSA International Institute, Padang, 19–21.Google Scholar
  64. Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Atmadja, S., Ekaputri, A. D., Intarini, D. Y., Indriatmoko, Y., and Astri, P. (2014). Does tenure security Lead to REDD+ project effectiveness? Reflections from five emerging sites in Indonesia. World Development, Land Tenure and Forest Carbon Management 55(March): 68–83  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.015.Google Scholar
  65. Romijn, E., Ainembabazi, J. H., Wijaya, A., Herold, M., Angelsen, A., Verchot, L., and Murdiyarso, D. (2013). Exploring different Forest definitions and their impact on developing REDD+ reference emission levels: A case study for Indonesia. Environmental Science & Policy 33: 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Royal Norwegian Embassy in Jakarta. (2016). Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership - Frequently Asked Questions. Norway - the Official Site in Indonesia. Accessed 20 July 2016. http://www.norway.or.id/Norway_in_Indonesia/Environment/Questions%2D%2Danswers/#.V48A8I40rPc.
  67. Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Maryudi, A., Kim, Y.-S., and Giessen, L. (2016). Decentralisation policy as recentralisation strategy: Forest management units and community forestry in Indonesia. International Forestry Review 18(1): 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sills, Erin O., Atmadja, S. S., de Sassi, C., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D. L, Resosudarmo, I. A. P., and Sunderlin, W. D. (2014) REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. CIFOR. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=co4UBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=REDD%2B+on+the+ground:+A+case+book+of+subnational+initiatives+across+the+globe&ots=KiZfg-8Ynm&sig=yPSBYceSHSiorExOIPwIs1xo8sI.
  69. Simamora, A. P. (2011). SBY vows to protect palm oil interests. The Jakarta Post, March 26, 2011. Accessed 10 January 2019. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/26/sby-vows-protect-palm-oil-interests.html.
  70. Smith, J., Obidzinski, K., Subarudi, S., and Suramenggala, I. (2003). Illegal logging, collusive corruption and fragmented governments in Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Forestry Review 5(3): 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stevens, C., Winterbottom, R., Springer, J., and Reytar, K. (2014). Securing Rights, combating climate change: How strengthening community Forest Rights mitigates climate change. World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  72. Streck, C. (2012). Financing REDD+: Matching needs and ends. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4/6 Climate systems 4(6): 628–637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sunderlin, W. D., Ekaputri, A. D., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D., Diprose, R., Doggart, N. et al. (2014a). The challenge of establishing REDD+ on the ground: Insights from 23 subnational initiatives in six countries. Vol. 104. CIFOR. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5Ze2AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=%22redd+on+the+ground%22&ots=5kyGEple-V&sig=285Ej7DHfI_A-v1cb7iTPFX-YNI.
  74. Sunderlin, W. D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Huynh, T. B., Awono, A., and Dokken, T. (2014b). How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development 55: 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sunderlin, W. D., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Ekaputri, A. D., Kweka, D., Toniolo, M. A., Ball, S., Doggart, N., Pratama, C. D., and Padilla, J. T. (2015). REDD+ at a critical juncture: Assessing the limits of polycentric governance for achieving climate change mitigation. International Forestry Review 17(4): 400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Transparency International (2011). Forest governance integrity report Indonesia. Indonesia: TransperancyInternational. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://lccn.loc.gov/2012330932.
  77. UN-REDD Programme. (2018). Regions and Countries Overview. 2018. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://www.unredd.net/regions-and-countries/regions-and-countries-overview.html.
  78. Vacik, H., Kurttila, M., Hujala, T., Khadka, C., Haara, A., Pykäläinen, J., Honkakoski, P., Wolfslehner, B., and Tikkanen, J. (2014). Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting Programme-based planning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 144: 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Virah-Sawmy, M., Stoklosa, J., and Ebeling, J. (2015). A probabilistic scenario approach for developing improved reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) baselines. Global Ecology and Conservation 4: 602–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walsh, T. A., Asmui, Y.H., Hidayanto, Y., and Utomo, A. B. (2012). Supporting ecosystem restoration concessions in Indonesia’s production forests: A review of the licensing framework 2004–2012. Burung Indonesia-Climate and Land Use Alliance. Accessed 31 December 2015. http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/uploads/PDFs/Working_Paper_ER_Licensing.pdf.
  81. World Bank Group. (2013). Emissions reduction program in Indonesia: A district-wide approach to REDD+. June 25, 2013. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/District%20Approach%20to%20REDD%20in%20Indonesia%20-%20FCPF%20Carbon%20Fund%20Jun_20.pdf.
  82. WRI. (2018). World resources institute | understanding Indonesia’s OneMap initiative. February 2, 2018. Accessed 10 January 2018. https://www.wri.org/tags/understanding-indonesias-onemap-initiative.
  83. Yuliani, L., Indriatmoko, Y., Salim, A., Farid, I. Z., Muhajir, M., Prasetyo, L. B., and Heri, V. (2010). Biofuel Policies and Their Impact on Local People and Biodiversity: A Case Study from Danau Sentarum. Accessed 10 January 2019. https://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/20773.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations