Given these results, one can evaluate the ways in which deforestation may be reduced. Forest resources are used widely by households living in the vicinity of the Lore Lindu National Park, and in the research area 76% of the households collect forest products (Schwarze et al. 2007). Specifically poor households rely on forest products like rattan as an additional income source. For the poorest tercile of the households, income from selling forest products has been found to account for 21% of total household income (Schwarze et al. 2006). This situation is similar to the one from East Kalimantan described by Purnamasari (2008) where 85% of the households have some kind of forest income and again poor farmers are more dependent on forest income than better- off farmers.
However, in contrast to the analysis of Purnamasari (2008), who found poor Indonesian smallholders are less likely to clear natural rainforests, our analysis suggests that poverty fosters deforestation, at least in the vicinity of LLNP. Therefore, we have reason to assume that degradation will continue if poverty in the area persists. Thus we can conclude that poverty reduction in the region is crucial not only to improve peoples’ livelihoods, but also to protect the natural rainforest. However, Zwane (2005) found for rural areas in Peru that poverty reduction would not hold to reduce deforestation. He state that small increases in income will not reduce the rate at which smallholder households clear land. Also Chomitz et al. (2006) doubt that added income will people deter from deforestation.
In our research area, natural rainforest is mainly cleared to grow cacao, followed by the cultivation of dry rice which is a subsistence crop. As relatively poorer households are
125
more engaged in the cultivation of dry rice and maize one can argue that they need more space to grow subsistence crops for food production. Nevertheless, the biggest area share is dedicated tot cocoa production which could indicate that cash crop production is seen as a pathway out of poverty, even if there is no empirical evidence so far. However, newly cleared plots are often cultivated with annual crops like maize and beans to make the forest plots arable before the transition to cocoa.
As mentioned above, forest is often cleared by local households but later sold to migrant households (Weber et al. 2007). In the latter case the question should be asked who then is the “agent” of deforestation: the poor household who cleared the plot, or rather the rich household who bought the plot afterwards (most likely to grow cocoa). A similar kind of discussion on the correct terminology was raised by Sunderlin and Resosudarmo (1996). The discrepancy between these views, i.e. who is the intrinsic deforestation agent, can also be supported studies by Schwarze et al. (2006; 2007). The authors found that perennial crops as coffee or cocoa in the research area are mainly grown by wealthier households and that the cultivation of these crops is a major source of deforestation. Regardless, the pressure on forests induced by the extension of tree cropping could be reduced by enhancing the technical efficiency of existing tree crop production as concluded by Keil et al. (2007). However, increased revenues by efficient cocoa cropping could make cocoa cropping more attractive and therefore increase deforestation.
Membership in organizations, which we used as proxy for social capital, normally is seen as very positive for the poor, as ties to extended family members and one’s community can help absorb shocks as the onset of disability etc. (Gertler et al. 2006) and therefore strengthen a household resilience (Keil et al. 2008). However, our analysis suggests that these memberships foster deforestation. Possible reasons are that “spillover-effects” are channeled through these organizations and that organization- members have access to additional labor force (other members). Therefore, qualitative research on the role of different organizations in the process of deforestation is needed. Capacity building regarding the negative consequences of deforestation within local organizations could help building awareness.
Another component determining deforestation is land tenure. As a lack of secure land titles enhances the probability that a household will clear forest, it is urgent to find ways to guarantee land property rights. Unfortunately, the process of getting a land title is
126
very complex and costly (Nuryartono 2005, Klasen et al. 2010). Thus only 20% of the land has a land title at all. Migrants often purchase land, often former forest plots, from local people. Sometimes these plots are sold without legal transfer or land certificate. But also land which is inherited often does not have any formal land title. Another complication is that there are different types of land titles ranging from pretty insecure and time-restricted ones issued by the kepala desa (the village head) to very secure, but expansive titles issued by the BPN (Badan Pertahanan Nasioinal, the national agriculture board). Even if there was a program (PRONA) to subsidize the certification of land titles the problem is still prevalent (Nuryartono 2005, Klasen et al. 2010).
To summarize, important implications for the protection of LLNP have to include the reduction of poverty, awareness building within local institutions regarding the negative consequences of deforestation, and the enforcement of land titling of other than the encroached plots.
Interestingly, the Indonesian commitments to the Consultative Group on Indonesia (CGI) which concern forest and forest policy, does not take issues as poverty or land tenure security for the sake of forests into account. Instead it deals with illegal logging, timber production, forest fires, and over all forest management issues (FWI/ GIF 2002). However, for the design of projects dealing with both the reduction of deforestation and poverty alleviation in the research area, these commitments do not seem suitable. For achieving the goals of poverty reduction and to slow down deforestation, the above mentioned strategies seem more suitable. The already existing „Community Agreements on Conservation” (Birner et al 2006) in the region, the World Bank’s Forest Strategy and Operational Policy (World Bank 2004), the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestations and Degradation) mechanism (REED-I 2009), and Payments for Environmental Services (PES) schemes (e.g. Seeberg-Elverfeldt 2008, Seeberg-Elverfeldt et al. 2009) are possible frameworks for such a project.
In the future, it would be interesting to include some additional physio-geographic parameters as slope or soil quality into the analysis. Deininger and Minten (2002) found such factors being the major determinants of forest conversion in two Mexican provinces. Additionally, an extended period of observation, i.e. more survey waves, would be an advantage.
127