In almost all forms of agriculture and farming practice, land clearing is the initial step. In Indonesia, in general, the most cost effective means of clearing land is through the use of fire. However, this use of fire often results in uncontrolled outbreaks, particularly in lowland areas especially and during prolonged dry seasons. In recent years, these uncontrolled fire outbreaks have had a catastrophic environmental, social and economic impact. The Indonesian government has expressed a strong commitment to controlling these outbreaks, as demonstrated by a broad set of laws, regulations, decrees, guidelines, and directives to control and manage land and forest fire. However, despite these measures, the occurrence of widespread, high-intensity fire outbreaks is still unacceptably high. This study assessed land-clearing techniques associated with a low risk of fire outbreaks, comparing the costs associated with a range of these techniques. It then analyzed intervention options that would involve the adoption of these techniques by farmers. These low-risk techniques included: (i) zero-burning practices involving traditional machinery and farmer groups; (ii) zero-burning involving modern machinery and partnerships with government agencies/private enterprises; (iii) controlled burning; and (iv) the chemical removal of biomass using herbicides. The study finds that the costs for all four of these options are higher than with land-clearing techniques that use fire alone. However, it also showed that the cost implications for farmers could be mitigated by taking a more holistic view of farming practices as a system, rather than focusing only on land-clearing practices in isolation. It found that when land-clearing practices that involve low risks of fire outbreak are combined with good agricultural practices (GAP), farmers could still achieve higher levels of profitability and productivity than under a business as usual (BAU) scenario. The study produced scenarios involving BAU practices; land clearing without fire and with BAU practices; and land clearing without fire and with good agricultural practices (GAP) for four agricultural commodities (oil palm, cocoa, rubber, and paddy). It found that the return on land (NPV) in the case of the scenario involving land clearing without fire and with GAP was still higher than under the BAU scenario, except in the case of rubber, with which the NPV was higher in the scenario with modern machinery and GAP. The study concludes that a systems approach is necessary to effectively control fire outbreaks. Government programs should be designed and implemented on the basis of this systems approach with the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, including through partnerships with the private sector operators, to effectively control the risk of fire outbreaks while at the same time supporting farmers' livelihoods by ensuring that they are enabled to generate higher levels of productivity and profitability from their land.

在几乎所有形式的农业和耕作实践中，土地清理都是第一步。在印度尼西亚，一般来说，清理土地最具成本效益的方法是使用火。然而，这种使用火通常会导致不受控制的爆发，特别是在低地地区，尤其是在漫长的旱季期间。近年来，这些不受控制的火灾爆发对环境、社会和经济造成了灾难性的影响。印度尼西亚政府已表达了对控制这些爆发的坚定承诺，正如一系列广泛的法律、法规、法令、指导方针和指令所证明的那样，以控制和管理土地和森林火灾。然而，尽管采取了这些措施，大面积、高强度火灾爆发的发生率仍然高得令人无法接受。本研究评估了与火灾爆发风险低相关的土地清理技术，并比较了与一系列这些技术相关的成本。然后分析了涉及农民采用这些技术的干预方案。这些低风险技术包括： (i) 涉及传统机械和农民群体的零燃烧做法；(ii) 零燃烧涉及现代机械以及与政府机构/私营企业的伙伴关系；(iii) 控制燃烧；(iv) 使用除草剂化学去除生物质。研究发现，所有这四种选择的成本都高于单独使用火的土地清理技术。然而，它还表明，通过更全面地将农业实践视为一个系统，可以减轻对农民的成本影响，而不是孤立地只关注土地清理实践。研究发现，当火灾爆发风险较低的土地清理实践与良好农业规范 (GAP) 相结合时，农民仍然可以获得比照常营业 (BAU) 情景更高水平的盈利能力和生产力。该研究产生了涉及 BAU 实践的情景；没有火灾和 BAU 实践的土地清理；以及对四种农产品（油棕、可可、橡胶和稻谷）进行无火和良好农业规范 (GAP) 的土地清理。它发现，在涉及没有火灾和 GAP 的土地清理场景的情况下，土地回报率 (NPV) 仍然高于 BAU 场景，但橡胶的情况除外，在橡胶的情况下，NPV 更高。现代机械和 GAP。该研究得出的结论是，需要一种系统方法来有效控制火灾爆发。政府计划应在这种系统方法的基础上设计和实施，并有广泛的利益相关者参与，包括与私营部门运营商建立伙伴关系，以有效控制火灾爆发的风险，同时支持农民的生计通过确保他们能够从他们的土地上产生更高水平的生产力和盈利能力。