Fig. 3. Hotspot 1997 overlaid on 1998 land-cover map (sources: land-cover map from the unsupervised classification of Landsat imagery path 127, row 60, and hot spot 1997 from Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project, EU-FFPCP 8).

The highest hotspot density occurred on the mosaics of grassland and cultivation areas (0.51 km^-2). These areas are known to burn readily. The hotspot density on oil palm plantations, timber plantations, and smallholder plantations ranged from 0.22 to -0.31 km^-2. This result also suggests that fire is more controllable in plantations than in grassland and cultivated areas.

One of the most common reasons for using fire in land preparation is economics. The cost of mechanical techniques, as currently practiced by many contractors, is higher than using fire to remove the residual organic debris. Table 3 shows that land preparation using fire is 300 000 Rupiah/ha cheaper than using mechanical techniques, so there is little incentive to implement zero burning techniques in land preparation. Because this is an important issue, greater use should be made of existing knowledge of cost-effective tree harvesting and mechanical/manual site preparation methods.

The second major cause of fire on this site was to prepare land for timber plantation establishment. The total planted area of timber plantations on this site is almost 13 000 ha, most of which was established between 1997 and 1999. Similar to the establishment of oil palm plantations, the cost of using mechanical techniques for site preparation is higher than using fire. Table 4 shows a cost comparison between burning and mechanical techniques for land preparation in 1997. The cost of mechanized land preparation per hectare is almost 200 000 Rupiah/ha higher than the cost of using fire to prepare the site for planting.

Smallholders, including both local and migrant communities, also use fire for land preparation. This is the third major cause of fire. Migrants play an important role in the production of fire and smoke in this area. Migration has increased markedly since 1990, with the development of transmigration schemes and oil palm plantations. Most of the migration occurred between 1996 and 1998, with most people settling on land purchased from local Petapahan communities along the CALTEX road.

Local farmers have the highest average area of land holding per household (8 ha), and the average land holding per household of spontaneous migrant farmers and transmigrant farmers is 3.6 ha and 2.4 ha, respectively. None of these three types of farmers have wet rice fields. The major land use here is tree cropping, especially oil palm, with more than 64% of the farmers involved in oil palm production and the remainder farming upland fields and living off secondary forests.

Almost all farmers have experience with fire in land preparation. Seventy-two percent reported that the main reason fire is used for land preparation is because it is a cheap, easy-to-use tool. However, 12% of respondents stated that improving land fertility is the main reason for using fire in land preparation. Most farmers (more than 76%) stated that they knew that sanctions would be imposed if fire spread from their fields and destroyed a neighbor's field. The sanctions, however, are not rigid, with the amount of compensation to be paid open to negotiation. Most local farmers (92%) and spontaneous migrants (80%) did not agree with the Government's ban on fire for land preparation and did not agree with the Government imposing alternative techniques for land clearing and site preparation.

The two examples strongly suggest that clear land ownership is the most important variable in reducing the conflict between communities and companies. They also show the importance of an open and transparent system of land-use allocation and compensation for expropriated land.

The study found that, even when no partnership exists between farmers and companies for oil palm production, there is less conflict over land when the status of land ownership is clearly understood by both parties. Although the local communities surrounding the oil palm concession had already taken back and cultivated more than 90% of the area, the company was willing to compensate the community for land taken previously.

A transparent mechanism was developed to ensure all appropriate farmers received compensation, thus avoiding further conflict. In a nearby area, a timber plantation company in similar circumstances, has a serious problem because it has not compensated the local communities for land taken in the past. The communities believe that all of the concession area belongs to them (ulayat) under adat law. In addition, some land has been encroached on by migrants. As a result, numerous conflicts have arisen, and new plantings have ceased.

Developing a sound partnership between communities and companies when developing timber or oil palm plantations is a key factor in the successful management of these resources. The survey shows that there was a very weak incentive for communities to assist in suppressing fire in a plantation, when no partnership scheme existed between the company and the community. On the other hand, the willingness to fight fires in plantations where a viable partnership scheme is in place is high. This survey found that only 4% of farmers are willing to suppress fire in timber plantations (with no partnerships), although 68–92% are willing to fight fire if it occurs in oil palm plantations (with partnership). The partnership scheme not only provides security of land and tree tenure but also enhances the source of income for the community. In contrast, all of the farmers are willing to assist if fire invades a farmer's field. The reasons for this are the social relationships and the desire to prevent the fire spreading to their own fields. The survey found that the willingness of local farmers to fight fire in forested areas is higher than the willingness of spontaneous migrants and transmigrants. This indicates that local smallholders have a higher affinity with the forest and place a higher value on it than do spontaneous migrants and transmigrants.

In the study site, as is the case with many other areas in Riau Province, most fires were set deliberately to prepare land for the establishment of large-scale timber and oil palm plantations, as well as for government-sponsored transmigration schemes. The allocation of huge areas for conversion, without the development or training in appropriate cost-effective and environmentally sound land-clearing procedures and techniques, is an underlying cause of most of the large area fires. The policy of establishing large transmigration settlements through nucleus estate schemes has facilitated an increase in the area of oil palm plantations and, therefore, significantly contributrf to the fire and smoke problem in Indonesia, particularly in Riau and neighboring provinces. Smallholders also use fire to prepare land oil palm plantations and other crops. The economic incentive to use fire for land clearing is very high, as it is cheaper than using mechanical or manual methods.

The establishment of timber and oil palm plantations on land that was often obtained by force, or through a less than transparent process at the local level, has resulted in conflict over tenure with communities surrounding the plantations. In many cases, tenure conflict between companies and communities, resulting from past government policies and practices, is often the motive behind forest and land fires, and is triggered by the frustrations involved in getting satisfactory representation to have claims heard in a fair and transparent judicial system. The nature of the partnership between communities and companies in land-use development is also a very important factor influencing the incidence and suppression of fire.

The study suggests that the problems of land-tenure conflict should be addressed by more open and accountable land-use planning and resource allocation. A moratorium on the burning practices of many land managers would also reduce the amount of smoke and haze that is causing increased health problems among local people, as well as those in adjoining provinces and countries. Based on the analysis of the underlying causes of fire in the Petapahan site, some policy issues for both the national and provincial levels are outlined:

Zero Burning Policy

A total ban on the use of fire for land preparation for plantation development is currently impractical and unnecessary in many situations. As an alternative, intermediate-level regulations and policy change appear to be more feasible, such as:

• A total ban on the use of fire in land clearing during El Niño years, or at other critical times. Fire for land clearing may still be permitted in normal years.
• An evaluation of readily available methods and procedures for treating flammable organic fuels to ensure they dry and burn with a hot flame and produce little smoke and haze.
• Applied and adaptive research on zero or reduced burning technologies for use by communities and plantation managers in remote areas.

Reduce the Amount of Timber (Biomass) Burned

Some of the many ways to reduce the need to burn or to reduce the quantity of biomass to be burned are to:

• Develop policies and institutional mechanisms that facilitate the sale of residual timber both from large- and small-scale logging operations to medium-density fiberboard (MDF) mills, pulp and paper mills, and sawmills.
• Explore the response to removing all policy barriers (taxes and levies) at national and regional levels in marketing timber residue.
• Analyze the provincial demand for wood residue and how it might be better utilized.
• Investigate the use of different timber harvesting procedures and practices that reduce the amount of residue left after logging and clearcutting and, thus, eliminate the need to burn an area before it is planted with oil palm or timber-crop seedlings.

Forest Fire Management

In many regions, there is a need to improve the skills of forest workers, communities, and land managers in all aspects of fire management. It may be necessary to investigate the feasibility of:

• Working in cooperation with large-scale plantation operations to develop and implement suitable forest and fire management plans. These efforts should include setting up facilities and establishing practices to prevent and suppress accidental or escaped fires in plantations, or in other valuable resources.
• Developing the capacity of communities to manage the forest land under their control, by assisting with inputs to improve fire management, prevention, and suppression through the use of local materials and institutions and by being cognizant of the conditions under which many remote forest communities live.
• Investigating the introduction of a rewards system for stakeholders who maintain environmental values by the judicious use of fire in land preparation.
• Reviewing and strengthening law-enforcement mechanisms to curb land and forest fires, and delegating management of forest land to the district level.

Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a comment, follow this link. To read comments already accepted, follow this link.

The support of the European Union (EU) through a research grant to determine the underlying causes and impacts of fire in Indonesia is gratefully acknowledged. The scientists at CIFOR and ICRAF would like to thank the Tropical Research Information Center, Michigan State University, and, in Indonesia, NOAA and LAPAN for facilitating the purchase of the necessary satellite imagery used in the research. Thanks go to the EU-funded Forest Fire Prevention and Control Project in Palembang for providing fire hotspot data. We thank M. Harir Khodari and Pedi Nopialdi for their excellent assistance in the field, along with staff from oil palm and timber plantation companies and Forestry officials in Riau for their cooperation during our interviews. We are grateful to our respondents in all villages in Petapahan for their cooperation and patience during our interviews.

Applegate, G. B., R. Smith, J. Fox, A. Mitchell, D. Packham, N. Tapper, and G. Baines. 2001. Forest fires in Indonesia: impacts and solutions. Pages 293–308 in C. J. Colfer Pierce and I. Pradnja Resosudarmo, editors. Which way forward? RFF Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Barber, C. V., and J. Schweithelm. 2000. Trial by fire. Forest fire and forestry policy in Indonesia's era of crisis and reform. World Resources Institute, in collaboration with WWF Indonesia and Telapak Indonesia Foundation.

Barr, C. 2001. Banking on sustainability: structural adjustment and forestry reform in post-Suharto Indonesia. Macroeconomics for Sustainable Development Program Office, WWF, Washington, D.C., USA.

Casson, A. 2000. The hesitant boom: Indonesia's oil palm sub-sector in an era of economic crisis and political change. Occasional Paper No. 29. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Cohen, M., and M. Hiebert. 1997. Where there's smoke... spread of Indonesia's oil palm plantations fuels the haze. Pages 28–29 in Far Eastern Economics Review, October 2, 1997.

Directorate General of Estate Crops. 2000. Statistik Perkebunan Indonesia: oil palm. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Kartodihardjo, H., and A. Supriono. 2000. The impacts of sectoral development on natural forest conversion and degradation: the case of timber and tree crop plantations in Indonesia. Occasional Paper No. 26 (E). Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Bogor, Indonesia.

Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops. 1992. Statistik Pengusahaan Hutan Tahun 1991–1992. Departemen Kehutanan (Ministry of Forestry). Jakarta, Indonesia.

Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops. 2000. Statistik Pengelolaan Hutan Tahun 1999–2000. Departemen Kehutanan dan Perkebunan (Ministry of Forestry and Estate Corps). Jakarta, Indonesia

Riau Provincial Forestry Office. 2000. Pembangunan Hutan Tanaman Industri. Pekanbaru, Indonesia. Indonesia.
Suyanto, S., Y. Ruchiat, F. Stolle, and G. Applegate. 2000. The underlying causes and impacts of fires in Southeast Asia. Site 3. Tanah Tumbuh, Jambi, Indonesia. Site Report. CIFOR, ICRAF, USAID, and USFS. Bogor, Indonesia.

Tomich, T. P., M. van Noordwijk, S. Budidarsono, A. Gillison, T. Kusumanto, D. Murdiyarso, F. Stolle, and A. M. Fagi. 1998a. Alternative to slash and burn in Indonesia, summary report and synthesis of phase II. ASB-Indonesia Report No. 8. ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia.

Tomich, T. P., A. M. Fagi, H. de Foresta, G. Michon, D. Murdiyarso, F. Stolle, and M. van Noordwijk. 1998b. Indonesia's fires: smoke as a problem, smoke as a symptom. Agroforestry Today 10(1):4–7.

World Bank. 2001. Indonesia environments and natural resource management in a time of transition. World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.