Expansion of Oil Palm Plantations in Indonesia’s Frontier: Problems of Externalities and the Future of Local and Indigenous Communities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper discusses the issue of oil palm expansion in Indonesia and the related issues and implications for local communities. Although I find the topic timley and relevant I feel like the study suffers from several major flaws.
There is no clear research question stated in the study. This makes the following sections be extremly hard to follow.
The structure of the paper is disproportionate. The introduction is way to short and does not provide any context to the scientific topic. The information that is currently forming the Introduction of the paper is a description of the study region and as such belongs in the Methods section.
The research is not placed in the broader scientific context. How does the situation in Papua compare to other regions that experience oil palm expansion? Why is this study relevant? What can we learn from this region for other regions in the world? These are points that need to be addressed both in the introduction and the discussion sections.
The Methods are very briefly described. It is unclear to me why a visual interpretation of Landsat data was conducted. There are not many results reported about this analysis. If it is not central to the study, it should be left out. If it is central to the study, it needs to be developed more. Also, it would be possible to use exisiting remote sensing products that would allow to quantify the area under land use chance.
The Results section is information rich,. but often times it is unclear how the information provided there is leading to answering the research question. Also, there are places where information that is of no apparent use to the understanding of the oil palm situation is present. This could be removed, and would make the text easier to follow (eg. children going to school barefoot).
The abstract is too vague. Please avoid formulations like 'through various struggles involving actors and contexts' but instead present results of your research. The abstract needs to have the same general structure as the paper: introduction, research question, method, result, relevance.
Author Response
Thanks for reviewing the manuscript. The inputs provided are very helpful in improving the manuscript.
We have addressed each input suggested. in particular we have:
- added research questions
- revised the abstract with adjusted sequence: introduction, research question, method, result, relevance.
- improved the introduction section by adding 1 paragraph that relates to some of the scientific debates on the externalities of investment and the well-being and future of local communities.
- [The method section] added an explanation about the use of spatial analysis, which held in carrying out household surveys. Thus, we maintain spatial analysis section.
- [the results section] added information on time and took out a few sentences to make the paragraph more easily understandable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the article “Oil Palm Plantation Expansion in Indonesia’s Frontier…”
The manuscript is an important contribution to the discussion of local people’s rights and the impacts of large external investments (for palm oil development) on the environment and people’s livelihoods and wellbeing in the Papua region of Indonesia. However, though already quite well developed, in my opinion it still requires further work before it can be published – including some clarifications that are needed (see below) as well as general substantial language editing/improvement.
Requested and suggested edits:
Linew 2-4: Change title as follows: “Expansion of Oil Palm Plantations in Indonesia’s Frontier: Problems of Externalities and the Future of Local and Indigenous Communities”
Lines 13: First time the term ‘land owners’ is introduced, it is not clear to me whether this is referring to ‘local people’ or to the external investors. Somehow this will need to be addressed in the paper. Perhaps with a footnote (or otherwise, with clarification) when it is first introduced in the main text.
Line 15: First time the term ‘externalities’ is introduced, was not clear on the meaning or implications… Therefore, here also it should be ensured that greater definition and clarity is brought the first place it is used in main text.
Line 16: Mention of 7 oil palm companies, where throughout the text only 5 are mentioned.
Line 22: What is the continent of Sahul? Even when web-searching, it is ambiguous. I would recommend a different descriptive.
Line 22: When describing the area of a whole province (i.e. large area), would it not be more meaningful if the figure is given in km2? (rather than hectares)
Line 30: Where ‘externalities’ are introduced, further clarity should be brought. Maybe use of explanation (or new term) “secondary impacts” or “unintended impacts”.
Line 36: After “land owners” could possibly also mention in parenthesis “(local people)” or “(local communities)” or “local and/or indigenous communities)”
Line 39: Not sure if “spillover effects” is the appropriate term. To be (re)considered.
Line 40: Is use of the term “unrelated third parties” appropriate? Externalities can be both on one or the other of the ‘two parties’ of an agreement as well as ‘third parties’.
Line 47: Use full term for FGDs the first time it is used; focus group discussions.
Line 58: Are the terms ‘ethnic’ and ‘resident’ truly exclusive of each other? (within the category ‘land owner’ in table 1)
Line 58: Typo in the land area of ACP; cannot be 37.59 ha.
Line 58: Should spell out ACP, APM, etc. as footnotes, to include below the table.
Line 59: For all the sources pertaining to the table, these should link to different elements in the table with superscript numbers.
Line 72: How is it possible that the government is mandated (forced? obligated?) to grant concessions to the private sector, at the same time as the status of “indigenous communities” and/or “indigenous peoples” (IPs) is recognized in both Indonesia’s and Papua’s constitutions? This sounds likely to be contradictory, or at least pulling in opposite directions.
Line 75: “potentially developed into plantations” – How is this assessed? Based on what? – on ecology? habitat? biodiversity? protected areas (PAs)? IPs? etc.
Line 88: The figure of “1.7 million ha” seems wrong. Is it not 184,046 hectares? (see table)
Line 107: Can the acronyms DP, ACP, APM etc be clarified, as footnotes to the table? Also, can % of areas planted with oil palms in (as of) 2013 be included, too?
Line 116: Can you include dates (years) for the New Order era?
Line 119: Can you include dates (years) for the Reform Order era?
Line 124: What does LMA stand for?
Lines 126-136: The authors indicate that little is known about local customs etc. Is there not a separate literature, perhaps within sociology or anthropological circles, that could shed more light on this? or is there really no relevant information, literature, first-hand knowledge or experience, etc.?
Lines 156-160: Question – has any “co-management” approach been tried? Rather than processed driven first by external investors, who obviously will have their own interests in mind, first and foremost. Also, would recommend that the authors introduce and build on the notion of FPIC – Free, Prior, and Informed Consent – every word of which is important, and a concept/approach/requirement that is reasonably well established within international “indigenous peoples” related discussions…
Line 161: Not all the #s in the figure match with numbered elements in the boxes below the figure, e.g. “Family meeting 4” – and it might also be worth noting somewhere that the “11 steps” or “phases” are not purely sequential..
Line 161: What is the difference between the two columns (on left and on right) below the figure?
Line 162: What is HGU?
Line 197: Can you further explain the column “Land released to company”? The question arises in my mind: Did wealthier people give more land to the company? Or did they become wealthier because of the sale (or some form of transfer of land) over to the company?
Lines 206-209: The figures about consumption (e.g. 3kg) is over what period of time?
Lines 220-221: To be deleted.
Line 246: Did the companies start operations before they were formally approved to do so?
Line 254-257: Did the investors/companies receive (generate) profits from replanting trees, after having removed trees (e.g. for building access roads)? Are those trees that are ‘replanted’ with support from the ‘reforestation fund’ palm oil trees? If so, how is it possible for them to receive grants (does the reforestation fund provide grants?) for changing native forest into plantation forest? These are never the same, and there is great loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services, etc.
Line 255: “Landowners get compensation” – How do they receive this? as individuals, or as communities, and/or Indigenous Peoples (i.e. larger groupsthan single communities)
Line 369: What is a ‘plasma’ garden?
In summary…
I hope the above questions, comments and suggestions are helpful. The topic is not only very interesting but also extremely important. In due course (hopefully soon), this article should be published. However, it does still require that the above comments/questions be addressed, and beyond this I would also strongly recommend that it be fully reviewed by a language editor, in order to enhance overall ease of comprehension (as there are quite a few places where the language can be improved).
Best regards,
--
Author Response
in responding to the reviewer's comments, we have done the following:
Linew 2-4: revised
Lines 13: revised: local people.
Line 15: revised:see line number…
Line 16: revised : 5
Line 22: revised: Australia continent
Line 22: revised Km2
Line 30: revised, add clarity
Line 36: revised: indigenous communities
Line 39: revised
Line 40: deleted
Line 47: revised
Line 58: No exact exclusive, there were some overlap. to show that various tribes live in scattered locations. Add explanation at note
Line 58: revised: 37,058 ha
Line 58: revised, spell out in the table. 1.
Line 59: revised
Line 72: yes there are contradictory situation. At the time, local government stand for the investor vested. Revised to 2 sentences.
Line 75: revised, add information, comply with district spatial planning.
Line 88: revised
Line 107: revised, the acronyms are texted in table 1. Add % planted areas
Line 116: revised: 1966-1998
Line 119: revised: start 1998
Line 124: Lembaga Masyarakat Adat
ines 126-136: revised: the content of the references more on land-tenure arrangements within the tribal internally. While for the release of land by the clan to outsiders were not discussed yet. Thus, it makes limited help in practice on land transferred issue. Outsiders thought, that indigenous customary land acquisition is enough by asking to the tribal chief. Whereas in fact land ownership in Marind, Mandobo, and Awyu tribes are under each one clan communal ownership.
Lines 156-160: Never. thanks, will add in discussion
Line 161: revised
Line 161: no differences revised into one
Line 162: revised HGU- Hak Guna Usaha
Line 197: Income earned from collecting natural products on clan ownership land, which is then released to the company into a palm oil plantation concession. Both wealthier or poorer people will only release the customary land trough the clan agreement. Due to the land are under the clan property right. Because did not have experience in investment, the compensation money they received will be spent on the consumer goods. They enjoy being wealthier in a very short time.
Lines 206-209: revised: per day
Lines 220-221: deleted
Line 246: not all formal doc they have for the entire concession. If they have, is should be coming from falsification supporting documents
Line 254-257: No. oil palm plantation companies generate first profits from logging by clearing the forest.
No, company planted oil palm, not wood tree. Oil palm will be planted with support from bank credit with HGU collateral.
“Reforestation Fund - DR” is non-tax state income, calculated based on the volume and type of timber harvested. The DR bill was then transferred to the Ministry of Forestry's bank account. Every year the Ministry of Forestry will redistribute the DR funds to the Provinces and Districts where the wood originates. The DR funds are only used in the forest rehabilitation project in the area
Line 255: as Indigenous Peoples
Line 369: revise: oil palm plasma scheme
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revisions made to the paper.
I applaud the efforts made to improve the paper. The paper reads better and some of key findings are better highlighted in the revised version.
I still have several concerns regarding the manuscript:
The main findings are not well highlighted in the Discussions section. I would include a summarzing paragraph on this at the very beginning of the discussion
Can you add a figure or table of the results from the landsat image analysis?
Figure 1 is still very complex, and hard to follow. Are there ways in which this can be simplified?
I still believe that the introduction is too short and unbalanced in comparison to the amount of text and information in the rest of the manuscript. What other regions in the world are facing similar oil-palm plantation issues, and what can we learn from them. How does this paper contribute to the overall understaning of effects of oil palm plantation on local communities.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for doing this review of the paper very sharply.
We try to refine this paper as suggested, i.e. with revisions such as:
Insert the requested points and add one paragraph at the beginning of the discussion chapter
Add a land cover analysis map for 2008 and 2013
Simplifying image 1
Strengthen the introduction by adding 1 paragraph and inserting additional information as suggested.
Hopefully this draft paper meets the standards of this publication and contributes positively in disseminating empirical information and lessons from the field.
Regards
on behalf the authors
Agus
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I have found this revised version to be a significant improvement on the previous version of the manuscript. Thank you for the additional time you put into this.
Please find attached an annotated PDF document in which I have made several detailed final editorial suggestions, and also highlighted several (not many) sentences or topics/issues that remained unclear to me (and therefore am suggesting/requesting that you re-consider those sentences and improve their content and/or presentation, in light of the queries).
These changes should not be too difficult to you, but will further improve the paper. I believe that with these final (relatively minor) changes, the paper would be ready for publication.
Please see attached. You will likely need to open the document with Adobe Acrobat to view the annotations. (Simply using Acrobat Reader might not work.)
Regards,
***
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2,
Thank you for a positive review in an effort to help us improve this paper.
We have revised the manuscript based on each comments written in the PDF file, related sentences / topics that are not clear, improve in the discussion section, and especially in the conclusions section.
Best regards
Agus
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the careful reviews of the manuscript!
Author Response
dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for a positive review in an effort to help us improve this paper.
Best regards
Agus
