There is increasing experience with the valuation of ecosystem services. However, to date, less attention has been devoted to who is actually benefiting from ecosystem services. This nevertheless is a key issue, in particular, if ecosystem services analysis and valuation is used to support environmental management. This study assesses and analyzes how the monetary benefits of seven ecosystem services are generated in Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, are distributed to different types of beneficiaries. We analyze the following ecosystem services: (1) timber production; (2) rattan collection; (3) jelutong resin collection; (4) rubber production (based on permanent agroforestry systems); (5) oil palm production on three management scales (company, plasma farmer, and independent smallholder); (6) paddy production; and (7) carbon sequestration. Our study shows that the benefits generated from these services differ markedly between the stakeholders, which we grouped into private, public, and household entities. The distribution of these benefits is strongly influenced by government policies and in particular benefit sharing mechanisms. Hence, land-use change and policies influencing land-use change can be expected to have different impacts on different stakeholders. Our study also shows that the benefits generated by oil palm conversion, a main driver for land-use change in the province, are almost exclusively accrued by companies and at this point in time are shared unequally with local stakeholders.

The Indonesian government recently confirmed its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to mitigate global climate change. A forest moratorium policy that protects forest and peatland is a significant part of the INDCs; however, its effectiveness is unclear in the face of complex land-use and land-cover change. This study aims to assess the dynamics of land-use change and ecosystem service supply as a function of local decision-making. We developed an agent-based model, Land-Use Change and Ecosystem Services (LUCES), and used it to explore the possible effects of the forest moratorium policy on the land-use decisions of private companies and communities. Our simulations for two districts in Central Kalimantan show that the current implementation of the forest moratorium policy is not effective in reducing forest conversion and carbon emissions. This is because companies continue to invest in converting secondary forest on mineral soils and the moratorium does not affect community decision-making. A policy that combines a forest moratorium with livelihood support and increases farm-gate prices of forest and agroforestry products could increase the local communities’ benefits from conservation. Forest and agroforestry areas that are profitable and competitive are more likely to be conserved and reduce potential carbon emission by about 36 %. The results for the two districts, with different pressures on local resources, suggest that appropriate additional measures require local fine-tuning. The LUCES model could be an ex ante tool to facilitate such fine-tuning and help the Indonesian government achieve its INDC goals as part of a wider sustainable development policy.

Smallholders are a substantial part of the oil palm sector and thus are key to achieving more sustainable production. However, so far their yields remain below potential. The Roundtable on Sustainable Oil Palm (RSPO) aims to include smallholders in sustainability certification to strengthen rural livelihoods and reduce negative environmental impacts. This study aims to determine if and how certified smallholders perform differently from their non-certified counterparts in terms of management practices and yields, and to what extent this is related to RSPO certification. Certified smallholders had significantly better management practices in terms of planting material (tenera) and fertiliser use (16.8 vs 4.8 bags ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹) and had significantly higher yields (22.5 vs 14.5 ton fresh fruit bunches ha⁻¹1 yr⁻¹1, corrected for palm age). Planting material and harvesting frequency significantly explained higher yields. These differences could not be attributed to certification per se but were probably due to pre-certification conditions, including strong group organisation. It remains a question as to how sustainability certification can be a driver of change by including smallholders who have relatively larger yield gaps, and who lag behind in eligibility criteria for certification.

The growing global demand for bioplastics highlights the need for sustainable starch sources, and Indonesia has considerable potential for cultivating such feedstock. While cassava has been widely promoted, there is limited scientific justification for prioritizing it over alternatives such as sago. An important distinction is that cassava is grown on mineral soils, where many alternative crops are viable, whereas sago is cultivated on peatlands, where relatively few crops can be grown sustainably. This study compares the socio-economic benefits of cassava and sago, considering their competitiveness against their main competing crops (i.e., corn on mineral soils and oil palm on peatlands). For new plantations, sago generated lower farm-level benefits than cassava, with net present values of 1534 EUR/ha and 5719 EUR/ha, respectively. However, when integrating starch processing and environmental impacts, sago provided greater benefits than cassava (4166 EUR/ha vs. 3555 EUR/ha). In the long term, sago may become more profitable than cassava due to its low maintenance and lack of replanting needs. Additionally, sago offers broader societal and environmental advantages, as it thrives on undrained peatlands, for which few alternatives exist. This study concludes that sago, as a paludiculture crop, is a sustainable option for bioplastic feedstock and can support peatland restoration.