IS IT WORTH CONVERTING FOREST INTO PALM OIL PLANTATION?

AN ENVIRONMENTAL CASE OF INDONESIA

By

Adnan Yasir (1906387221)

I. Problem Setting
The Indonesian archipelago consist of more than 17,000 islands with its diversity
in faiths, cultures, and landscapes. As the third largest tropical forests and the second
longest coastline in the world, making this country abundances of natural resources. Within
its richness and natural beauty store precious resources which has long been utilized by the
nation and people, so they gained benefits. Thus, the economic and environmental factors
play an important role for enhancing welfare and prosperity of society. Human productivity
generates any kind of natural resources to be something with value-added. In this case,
plant can be used as a source of raw material and energy, especially oil palm.
Indonesia is the first palm oil producer in the world and is contributing over half
the global supply (FAO, 2017). Basically, there are two types of oil palm harvest products
namely crude palm oil (CPO) and palm kernel oil (PKO). Palm oil provides a variety of
derivatives that can be used as a biofuel raw material (Pirard et al., 2015). Both CPO and
PKO are used to be an additional raw material either for food or non-food product such as
butter, chocolate, soap, and biodiesel. This kind of oil raw material is relative cheaper than
others such as olive oil, soybean oil, and sunflower oil. That is why global demand for
palm oil is relatively high which makes the production rapidly increase.
As the main commodity, palm oil production in Indonesia has significant impact
on economy sector. Data from Central Bureau of Statistics BPS (2020) shows that in 2019
Indonesia produced 58,1 million tons including of 48,42 million tons CPO and 9,68 million
tons PKO. The largest domestic producer (CPO) came from Riau which produce 9,86
million tones or equals to 20,38% of total product, then following by Central Kalimantan
which produce 7,44 million tones or equals to 15,37% of total product. Most of the total
palm oil production has exported to across countries while the rest distributed to locals.
The 94,08% of total CPO production was exported to India, Malaysia, Spain, Singapore,
and Netherland with average selling price at 601** US$/mt. In other hand, Indonesia also
imported palm oil amount to 93,56 thousand tones in the same year.
BPS (2020) also reported that total area palm oil plantation reached to 14.595.579
ha in 2019. If we separate by the category producers, private estates have the biggest
proportion which occupy 54,4% of total area, following by smallholders (41,35%), and
government estates (4,23%). Also, private estate is the most contribute to palm oil
production up to 62% of total production, while smallholders and government estates
contribute 33,51%, and 4,41 %. Furthermore, Riau which is the largest production have the
widest relative area of palm oil plantation round 2,82 million Ha in 2019.
By the time, the area of oil plantation getting wider as well as the production of
palm oil increase. A research from Alatas (2015) shows average production of palm oil is
559.130 tons per year and potentially continue to increase. According to Bondan
Andriyanu, Head of Sawit Watch Campaign Department, annual average occurs 500
thousand Ha of new palm oil plantations in Indonesia that obtained from agricultural land
conversion. A suitable tropical climate supports the growth and development of oil palm
vegetative (Alatas, 2015). Both production and area of palm oil in Indonesia has steadily
increased over the years, however between 2000 and 2019, the total area expanded by more
than 3 times. (See Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Oil palm area and palm oil production 2000-2019

Source: Modified from BPS (2020)

 However, despite its large production, it needs some sacrifices as a trade-off,
especially with forest land. In fact, Indonesia has been converting vast forestry to palm oil
plantation. According to Global Forest Watch (GFW), as of 2002-2020, primary forest lost
2,14 million ha in oil palm concessions. The term of primary forest is mature natural humid
tropical forest cover that has not been totally cleaned and regrown before (GFW, 2021). In
the same period, Indonesia lost 5.81 million ha of tree cover in oil palm concessions which
Riau had the most tree cover loss at 3.90 million ha. Tree cover is all vegetation taller than
five meters including primary forest, secondary forest, juggle rubber, scrubland,
agroforestry, or plantation in height as of 2000 (GFW, 2021; Ministry of Environment and
Forestry, 2020).
Statistic from World Resource Institute (WRI) shows that from 2000-2015 palm oil
concession is the most contribute among other contributors (mining, logging, and fiber)
and responsible about 1,6 million ha forest loss. Another report from Mongabay (2020),
Indonesia was the second greatest country with greatest tropical primary forest loss up to
9.5 million ha during 2001-2019 after Brazil (24,5 million ha). Ironically, Riau was the
state/province with the largest relative primary forest loss in the world where large swathes
of forestland and peatland have been converted to acacia and oil palm plantations over the
past 20 years (Mongabay, 2020). Those facts above are generally agreed that oil palm
plantation led to deforestation result in Indonesia.
Indonesia's forest conversion permission system is the leading cause of
environmental impact such as forest loss and forest degradation in the country (Indarto,
2015; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001). Deforestation has associated with
loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity was drastically diminished in regions where forests were
converted to agriculture and grazing (Harris & Roach, 2017). According to Worldwide
Fund for Nature (WFF), an average of vertebrate populations has decreased more than 50%
since 1970. If tropical deforestation continues, Alroy (2017) predicts that world
biodiversity would face a massive extinction event. The volume of water sources such as
lakes and rivers has also decreased as a deforestation result (Wilson, 2018).
Deforestation also has associated with carbon emission. Deforestation is
responsible for around 15 percent of world carbon emissions, more than the total emissions
from the motor vehicles (Harris & Roach, 2017). As of 1970 tropical deforestation is one
of the most significant contributors to CO2 emissions which around to 20-25% of global
CO2 (Penman et al., 2003). Statistic from Global Forest Watch (GFW) shows from 2001
until 2020, Indonesia has lost 5.95Mha of tree cover in oil palm concessions which is
equivalent to 3.83Gt of CO2 emissions. Many studies found that converting tropical
rainforest to palm oil plantations accommodate in a carbon debt of 610 Mg of CO2 per
hectare, which need 86-93 years to payback (Obidzinski et al., 2012). From 1990-2005,
Indonesia has become one of the ten countries with the highest greenhouse gases emissions
in the world due to the large opening of plantations (Hansen et al., 2009; Indonesian
Ministry of Environment, 2010).
Forest conversion to agriculture is the leading cause of forest loss in the developing
countries (Harris & Roach, 2017). According to (Giam, 2017) there are some developing
countries around low to middle income levels with primary tropical climate, they more
prioritize economic growth over environmental protection efforts. The reason because
palm oil is the main tropical agricultural commodity to enhance capitalization of
agricultural development as high demand internationally, which is driving the huge
conversion of forests to oil palm plantations (Muthee et al., 2018).
Indeed, the forests of Indonesia provide significant economic, social, and
environmental benefits to the Indonesian people. (Ministry of Forestry, 2009 in Turner et
al., 2010). By considering all positive and negative impact especially on environment, we
need a strong basic theory and data to prove which acts more better. On one side, palm oil
production economically brings advantages to the country, whilst creates negative impacts
such as biodiversity and carbon emission. While if we decide maintain forest ecosystem,
how much benefits it creates from ecosystem services. Therefore, this paper will examine
which action has more net benefit using Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) method and how
much economic value of forest ecosystem in monetary term.
II. Review Literature
2.1 Cost-benefit Analysis

This paper employs a book entitled “Environmental and Natural Resource

Economics” by Jonathan Harris and Brian Roach (2017) as a review literature. Based
on the page 151-15 cost-benefit analysis (CBA) defined as “a tool for policy analysis
that attempts to monetize all the costs and benefits of a proposed action to determine
the net benefit”. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is attempting to measure all the costs and
benefits of a given project or program in monetary terms such as dollar. So, CBA can
be used as a tool to get easier to assess tradeoffs objectively for decision making process
or policy recommendation. CBA result can be calculated in two different ways either
net benefit or B/C ratio – both have same purpose. Net benefits is obtained by subtract
total benefits with total costs. Note that if costs were greater than benefits, net benefits
would be negative which means the proposed program or project is not feasible. While
B/C ratio is obtained by total benefits divided by total costs. If costs greater than
benefits, a ratio will be less than 1 which means proposed program or project is not
feasible.

Some of the costs and benefits in most CBAs occur in the future. We know in
long-term above 5-10 years, a money of $50 now is not equivalent in the future due to
inflation. Thus, the value of $100 in the future will generally not be the same as its
value today. Most economists agree that, in addition to adjusting for inflation, to
compare current and future impacts, more adjustments are required. This adjustment is
known as discounting. For example, a $50 benefit in ten years is not worth as much as
a $50 benefit today, despite the fact that both are expressed in real terms. Conversely,
the $50 benefit in ten years would be worth less than $100 now. So, to determine the
present, or discounted, value of a future benefit or cost, is shown in the formula below:

PV(Xn) = Xn / (1 + r)n

As you can see by the formula above, present value (PV) is the current value of
a stream of future costs or benefits; a discount rate is used to convert future costs or
benefits to present values. (Xn) denote refers to all the costs or benefits in proposed
project. And then (n) refers to the number of years in the future the benefit or cost
occurs. While (r) denote to discount rate which defined as the annual discount rate for
future benefits or costs in comparison to current benefits or costs. It is important to note
that the higher discount rates significantly reduce the relevance of effects that occur in
the next few decades.

Even though this CBA method conducting discount rate and number of years,
we can also find its net as same as net benefit and B/C ratio. It is called net present
value (NPV). NPV can be obtained by PV of total benefits minus PV of total costs.
While B/C ratio obtained by PV of total benefits divided by PV of total costs. Of course,
the higher NPV or B/C ratio represent more efficiency of project or program in the
future. NPV and present value B/C ratio are formulated as below:

NPV = ∑ (Btotal – Ctotal)/ (1 + r)n

B/C Ratio = PV (Benefits)/PV (Costs)

In a nutshell, the higher net benefits or B/C ratio of proposed action may be
considered as the best choice among other actions. To simply understand, there are six
steps of a cost-benefit analysis:

1. Make a list of all the costs and benefits associated with a proposed action.
2. Obtain realistic estimates for costs and benefits that are normally measured in
monetary terms by converting to dollar.
3. Nonmarket valuation approaches can be used to estimate costs and benefits that
are not normally measured in monetary units (e.g., human health, ecosystem
impacts, or nonmarket).
4. Consider transferred values or expert opinions if actual nonmarket values
cannot be approximated due to budgetary or other constraints.
5. Calculate all the costs and benefits, preferably using a variety of reasonable
assumptions or situations.
6. Compare total costs to total benefits to obtain which program is better.

In most CBAs, multiple alternatives are considered, including a baseline or "no

action" option. Of course, in practice CBA can be a technically difficult undertaking.
Estimating all nonmarket effects in monetary units, for example, may not be feasible
 or even desirable. Sometimes it is difficult to put monetary values on all cost and
benefits to monetize all aspects in society foremost environment, human health, or non-
market. Thus, most CBAs, to some extent, are incomplete. This does not deny the
possibility of obtaining certain policy recommendations.

2.2 Economic Value: Indirect-Use Value

Second literature will examine economic value in chapter 6 but only focus on
indirect-use value from page 126-128. From natural resources that give our economy
with basic material inputs to ecological services, the environment is extremely valuable
to humanity that provide us with clean air, water recharge, soil protection, flood
prevention, and recreation. As we mentioned previous section, it is difficult to put
monetary values on all cost and benefits to monetize environment. Many of the benefits
we get from nature are not always the result of market activities. In standard economic
theory, Nature only has value when humans give value to it. Therefore, to value
nonmarket benefits from environment, we first need to quantify all these benefits using
a common metric such as dollar. One way to expressing various benefits and costs in
monetary terms for nonmarket valuation is knowing the economic value that people
obtain from their willingness to pay (WTP) for a specific resource. In this book
willingness to pay (WTP) described as the maximum amount of money people are
willing to pay for a good or service that increases their well-being (Harris & Roach,
2017). But, when a policy has the potential to reduce environmental benefits, we might
ask how much individuals are willing to accept (WTA) in compensation for these
changes. In this book willingness to accept (WTA) described as the minimum amount
of money people would accept as compensation for an action that reduces their well-
being (Harris & Roach, 2017).
Economists have devised a method to describe the several types of
environmental values we place which are use values or nonuse values. Use values
defined as the value that individuals place on a product's or service's tangible or
physical benefits. Use values are further distinguished into direct-use value and
indirect-use value. Direct use refers to the value derived from the direct use of a natural
resource, such as harvesting a tree or visiting a national park. While, indirect-use value
ecosystem benefits that are not valued in markets, such as erosion prevention, water
recharge, and pollution absorption. For this paper, we only focus on applying indirect-
use value because we want to highlight the role of forest and calculate how much cost
and benefit from it.
Indirect-use values are tangible benefits derived from nature that we do not have
to make any effort to receive. That also referred to as ecosystem services including
erosion prevention, flood prevention, pollution assimilation, pollination by bees, and
water recharge. While these benefits may not be as visible or tangible as direct-use
benefits, they are nevertheless significant economic benefits that should be included
when doing an economic analysis. Environmental economists would consider these
benefits as economic values, just like the monetary benefits of cutting lumber or
extracting oil, as long as people are willing to pay something for an ecosystem service.
Keep in mind that indirect-use value is only part of the various types of economic
values. This value further sums up to the entire use and nonuse values in order to find
total economic value. To summary of economic values, see figure below that show
some types of valuation along with relevant example for a particular resource.
Figure 2.1 Components of Total Economic Value

Source: Harris & Roach (2017:130)

III. Basic Analysis – Elaborative Argumentative
3.1 Building Argument
In this section, this paper attempts to prove either establish palm oil plantation
or maintain forest conversion is feasible to environmental impact. Given by evidence
from secondary data in recent study by Akhmad Yani (2020) on his research:
“Feasibility Assessment of Converting Forest into Palm Oil Plantation and Its
Implication for Forest Policy and Palm Oil Sustainability Challenges: A Case Study in
Melawi Regency of West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia”. This research was
undertaking a survey on 105 respondents. His paper examines cost-benefit analysis
calculation measured with NPV and B/C ratio approaches. CBA calculation is
distinguished by three different aspects: financial cost-benefit analysis, environmental
cost-benefit analysis, and socio-economic cost-benefit analysis. Keep in note that this
paper only focused on environmental aspect in this CBA, so we ignore the financial
and socio-economic aspect. Based on the following step in CBA, he listed all the costs
and benefits that associated with both action between establish palm oil plantation or
maintain forest ecosystems. All the variables that related to environmental aspect are
written below (See Table 3.1 and Table 3.2).

Table 3.1.1 List of cost-benefit components

for palm oil plantation to environment aspect.

Component Calculation Variables

Benefits of Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB), shell, and fibers for fertilizer;
Benefit erosion controller; water nutrient cycle regulator; and carbon
absorber; value of palm oil plantation as water regulator;

Opportunity cost of the lost ecosystem benefits occurring due to

forest conversion; environmental cost embodies the potential value of
logging stands; forest ecosystem value as the controller of natural
interference; erosion controller; water controller; and carbon
Cost
absorber; nutrient cycle controller; flood controller; biodiversity
source; soil formation; non-logging products within the forest
ecosystem; heritage value of forest ecosystems; and other values of
forest ecosystems.

Source: Yani (2020:5)

 Table 3.1.2 List of cost-benefit components
for forest ecosystem to environment aspect

Component Calculation Variables

flood controller; biodiversity source; soil formation; erosion

controller; value of forest ecosystem as natural interference
Benefit controller; nutrient cycle controller; heritage value of forest
ecosystem; water regulator; carbon absorber; other values of forest
ecosystem.

Environmental cost of forest ecosystem embodies the benefits of

Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB), shells, and fibers for fertilizer; water
Cost erosion controller; water nutrient cycle controller; and carbon
absorber: Opportunity cost of the environmental benefits of palm oil
plantation; ecosystem value of the plantation as water regulator;

Source: Yani (2020:6)

After that, he calculated the total of the NPV of palm oil plantation’s activity
feasibility. The calculation method based on the insurance value concept and Head-to-
Head Comparative Analysis (HHCA) approach if the forest is converted into palm oil
plantation. He also calculates the total benefit value of the forest ecosystems based on
the insurance value concept and Head-to-Head Comparative Analysis (HHCA)
approach, if only the forest does not become a palm oil plantation. Each net total
benefits are compared to palm oil plantation and forest ecosystem. The CBA results is
then compared to both options (See Table 3.3).

Based on Table 3.3, forest ecosystem protection actions are evaluated more
feasible to undertake than land clearing activities in the cost-benefit analysis for
environmental feasibility aspect. This is indicated by the larger NPV and B/C ratio for
forest ecosystem protection efforts (−254,220,563,585 thousand IDR) and (4.24) than
establishing palm oil plantations (33,830,435,558 thousand IDR) and (0.005). If we
apply one hectare for opening palm oil plantation, we will get negative benefits
interpreted by NPV equals to (−25,422,056 thousand IDR). While if we apply one
hectare for maintaining forest ecosystem, we will get positive benefits interpreted by
NPV equals to (3,383,044 thousand IDR).
 Table 3.1.3 Cost-benefit of environmental aspect feasibility for
palm oil plantation and forest ecosystem protection (in thousands IDR*).
Aspect Components Palm oil plantation Forest Ecosystem

PV Total Benefits 1,207,895,320 44,286,460,585

PV Total Cost 255,428,458,905 10,456,045,027
Environmental NPV −254,220,563,585 33,830,435,558
Cost-Benefit
Analysis B/C Ratio 0.005 4.24
NPV per hectare −25,422,056 3,383,044
B/C per hectare 0.005 4.24
Source: Yani (2020:6)

So, we have an evidence to argue that forest ecosystem protection is much better
to be applied for more efficient action in the future. Forest ecosystem gives positive
benefits due to its higher total benefits than total cost unlike palm oil plantation. Based
on the forest ecosystem benefits variable (See Table 3.1.2), forest service such as flood
controller, biodiversity source, soil formation, erosion controller, water regulator,
carbon absorber. But the concern is what makes forest ecosystem’s variables so
expensive? How much is it price society to pay for ecosystem services? Of course, we
need to how much economic value for forest ecosystem services as explained in
literature review.

3.2 Elaborative Argument

To strengthen the argument why forest ecosystem is so valuable, the writer
employs a study from United Nations Office for REDD Coordination in Indonesia
(UNORCID) entitled “Forest Ecosystem Valuation Study: Indonesia” published in
2015. The Forest Ecosystem Valuation Study (FEVS) aims to raise knowledge of the
role of forests in the Indonesian economy and society by valuing the ecosystem services
provided by Indonesian forests. This study attached various studies research for an
overview of the economic valuations' findings of the regulating services which attempts
to value three regulating service there are soil erosion, carbon sequestration and
storage, and water augment. Selected five regions was undertaken for research: Central
Sulawesi, NTT, Jambi, East Java, and Central Kalimantan (See table 3.2.1).
Table 3.2.1 Economic value of ecosystem services
in five provinces in 2012
The economic valuations of Province
the regulating services Central NTT Jambi East Central
Sulawesi Java Kalimantan
Economic value of soil
conservation (million USD) 81 5 2 4 29

Economic value of carbon

stock as of 2010 (Billion 9.6 1.9 1.5 1.2 19.5
USD, and as a percentage (714%) (34%) (22.7%) (1.3%) (479%)
of 2011 GDP)
Economic value of
additional water recharge 2.4 0.435 0.874 - 1.25 (30%)
(billion USD) (% as (178%) (8.5%) (13%)
compared to GDP)
Source: Turner et al., (2010:54-56)
The economic value of soil conservation consists of nutrient conservation value
(organic carbon, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphorus) and
soil erosion prevented by primary forest. Central Sulawesi has the highest value which
is 81 million USD due to the area under primary forest is much larger. The economic
value of carbon stock calculated from the quantity of carbon stored and sequestered
then has multiplied with social cost of carbon, measured in USD per ton of carbon.
The highest value of carbon sequestration and carbon stock is conducted by Central
Kalimantan worth of 19.5 billion USD due to very high containing peat forest. The
economic value of additional water recharge is derived from the amount of
precipitation subtracted to run-off water, evapotranspiration, and amount of moisture
required to soil field capacity. Central Sulawesi has the highest value of additional
recharge water which is 2.4 billion USD due to much larger primary forest area. The
facts above indicate that the larger area of primary forest, give more benefits to society
represented by the highest economic value of ecosystem services such as erosion
prevention, carbon stock, and water recharge.
IV. Conclusion
Regarding the basic analysis by calculating cost-benefit analysis and economic
value of an activity that related to forest, it would be more enlightened our perspective to
natural capital. Forest ecosystem stores so much intangible benefits that indirectly effects
organism in daily basis. We should not be easily tempted by the number of profits from
palm oil production. Expanding area of palm oil plantation leads to deforestation ended up
with huge loss of environment benefits and economic value of forest ecosystem.
Government should take a main part by enacting courageous regulation and sustainability
certification for saving tropical forest in Indonesia. Therefore, it is crucial to choose action
wisely especially if it is a natural capital-related activity. As a human-being, we bear great
responsibility to protect our earth to keep sustainable. Instead of enforce self-interest
activities that merely has short-term usage, it is a must for having a foresight to stabilize
our future generation. Environmental action is necessary from any stakeholder in avoiding
many possible worst threats in the future.
 References

Alatas, A. (2015). Trend Produksi dan Ekspor Minyak Sawit (CPO) Indonesia. AGRARIS:
Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research, 1(2), 114–124.
https://doi.org/10.18196/agr.1215

BPS Indonesia. (2020). Indonesian Oil Palm Statistics 2019. 1–155.

Index, H. D. (2017). Fao Food and Agricultural Policy Trend. 8, 2012–2017.

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7696e.pdf

Obidzinski, K., Andriani, R., Komarudin, H., & Andrianto, A. (2012). Environmental and social
impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia.
Ecology and Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04775-170125

Turner, R. K., Morse-Jones, S., & Fisher, B. (2010). Ecosystem valuation. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2009.05280.x

Yani, A. (2020). Feasibility Assessment of Converting Forest Into Palm Oil Plantation and Its
Implication for Forest Policy and Palm Oil Sustainability Challenges: A Case Study in
Melawi Regency of West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Systems, 4(October). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.521270

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2017). Socio-Economic
Context and Role of Agriculture: Indonesia.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2001). Global Forest
Resources Assessment 2000, Main Report, FAO Forestry Paper 140. Rome: FAO.
Harris, J. M., & Roach, B. (2017). Environmental and natural resource economics: A
contemporary approach. Routledge.
Pirard, R., Fishman, A., Gnych, S., Obidzinski, K., and Pacheco, P. (2015). Deforestation-Free
Commitments: The Challenge of Implementation – An Application to Indonesia Report.
Center for International Forestry Research.
Sawit Watch (2014). Kedaulatan Pangan, Hanyalah Mimpi, Bila Konversi Lahan Pangan Tidak
Dihentikan. Accessed from: https://sawitwatch.or.id/2014/12/09/kedaulatan-pangan-
hanyalah-mimpi-bila-konversi-lahan-pangan-tidak-dihentikan/
Global Forest Watch (GFW). (2021). Indonesia. Accessed from: https://gfw.global/3y7MNcS
Wijaya, Arief et al. (2017). Drivers of Deforestation in Indonesia, Inside and Outside
Concessions Areas. WRI Indonesia. Accessed from: https://wri-
indonesia.org/en/blog/drivers-deforestation-indonesia-inside-and-outside-concessions-areas
Indarto, J., Kaneko, S., and Kawata. (2015). Do forest permits cause deforestation in
Indonesia?. Int Forest Rev. 17, 165–181. doi: 10.1505/146554815815500651
Alroy, J. (2017). Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6056–6061 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1611855114
Wilson, J. (2018). The effect of deforestation on rainfall in Malawi. Soc. Malawi J. 71, 1–6.
Penman, J., Gytarsky,M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., et al. (2003). Good
Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. Institute for Global
Environmental Panel on Climate Change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Tokyo.
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., et al.
(2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science. 342, 850–
853. doi: 10.1126/science.1244693
Indonesian Ministry of Environment (2010). Second National Communications Report to the
UNFCCC. Jakarta: Indonesian Ministry of Environment, 63–84.
Giam, X. (2017). Global biodiversity loss from tropical deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 114, 5775–5777. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706264114
Muthee, K. W., Mbow, C., Macharia, G. M., and Filho, W. L. (2018). Ecosystem services in
adaptation projects in West Africa. Int. J. Climate Change Strat. Manag. 10, 533–550.
Butler, Rhett. (2020). How much rainforest is being destroyed?. Mongabay. Accessed from:
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/how-much-rainforest-is-being-destroyed/

Suhayati, Yaomi. (2020). Terminologi yang Digunakan Global Forest Watch Berbeda, Menteri
KLH Siti Nurbaya Luruskan Deforestasi dan Hutan Primer. Okenews. Accessed from:
https://news.okezone.com/read/2020/06/05/1/2224890/terminologi-yang-digunakan-global-
forest-watch-berbeda-menteri-klh-siti-nurbaya-luruskan-deforestasi-dan-hutan-primer