Reviewer 1
the authors must clarify the method of
producing the distribution of each primate
species, as the description is rather brief and no
maps are provided showing species
distributions. Where extent of occurrence maps
are used to produce distributional ranges, known
commission (predicted presence in places of
absence) and omission (predicted absence in
place of presence) errors have largely resulted in
their replacement with more sophisticated
predictor methods, such as ecological and
predictive niche modelling.
L 64 A more recent reference than 1990 for
this point regarding currently high rates of
deforestation would be more pertinent.
L 68 A reference for this statement is required.
L 88 Reference required for the respective
software programmes.
Ll 99-115 Based on the information provided of
the method used in producing the distributional
maps, it is impossible for the reader to assess
their accuracy, as no maps or rationale to the
determining of a distributional map are provided
L 185 the western tarsier present on Borneo is
also a subspecies, Cephalophacus bancanus
borneanus (Roos et al. 2014 Asian primates
journal).
Ll 278-280 - See:
Carlson KM, Curran LM, Asner GP, Pitner AM,
Trigg SN, Adney JM (2012) Carbon emissions
from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm
plantations. Nat Clim Change 3:283287
Miettinen J, Shi C, Tan W, Liew S (2011) 2010
land cover map of insular Southeast Asia in 250-
m spatial resolution. Remote Sens Lett 3:1120
L 306 The opening paragraph suggests a review
of primate declines in Indonesia, but the
following paragraphs are concerned only with
We have revised the text in the Methods section
to reflect the following. We examined all records
of primates on Sumatra in the Bogor Museum
and updated the distribution maps of Groves
(2001). These were published in Supriatna
(1016). Field tests were conducted during 2014
using the following criteria: species that have not
been studied intensively, for example, species
recently described; species whose systematics
have recently been revised; checking on areas
that had been recently logged and/or converted
to plantation. We did not formally model these
distributions and accept that there may be
errors, especially of commission. However, niche
models also suffer from these errors, especially
when they use presence only data, such as
museum data.. We believe that our maps, based
on extensive prior surveys (references cited),
updated museum records and the extensive
personal knowldege of the authors, are as good
as formal models using presence only data.
We have added Margono et al (2014)
We have added a reference for this
Done
WE have revised the text. See first comment
above and the response to the first comment of
reviewer 2.
We have reviese the text here.
This is interesting and adds weight to our
argument but we have not included it because it
does not deal with Sumatra.
We have revised the opening paragraph. We are
not in a position to expend the analysis to the
rest of Indonesia
Sumatra. It would be useful to include a
comparison across Indonesian islands, especially
Java, Borneo (Kalimantan) and Sulawesi, as
trends are largely consistent.

Reviewer 2

I am concerned by the lack of clarity regarding We used Ministry of Forestry deforestation data
the origin of the dataset used to calculate and have amended the methods section
deforestation rates. There are a number of accordingly.
datasets available for Sumatra during the period
analyzed here (2000-2012), but the paper does
not describe which dataset has been used.
Page 1, Line 21: You should always report the This is from the abstract. We did report hectares
areas in hectares. You report percent values, but in Table 1. We have edited the abstract to reflect
you do not state what these values are based this.
upon. You must report the total area lost from
2000 until 2012 in hectares, island-wide, and
then by province. You must report the area of
remaining forest in 2012 in hectares?
Page 1, Line 21: What is your definition of Forests are defined in the Methods section as
Forest? I suspect it is old-growth natural and parks, protected forest, company concessions and
selectively logged forest, the preferred habitat of other forested lands. It does include primary and
primates, and not planted forests. You should secondary forest but does not include tree crops
define what it is you mean by Forest. or production forest. We have added this to the
Methods.
Page 2, Line 1-5: There are a number of reasons This is also from the abstract where we did
why the Indonesian government is unable to mention more factors than simply enforcing
enforce regulations aimed at conserving forests. regulations. The issue is dealt with at length in
Could you discuss recommendations for moving the Discussion section. We cannot include a
forward other than say law enforcement must discussion of all of these points, which are in fact
improve? I would like to see a clear discussion of issues for all land use planning and policy
the challenges faced for each of these listed throughout the world. However, we have added
below? some more text there to address the agrian
nature of most of Indonesia.
- Vested interests and the market
demand/high returns from certain
agricultural products, e.g. oil palm i.e.
neoliberalism and capitalism. Everyone
wants cash. Money talks. Solutions that
would not enable this are not wanted
- The messed up land use planning
plagued by corruption, resulting in
overlapping land claims and conflicts
which enables the above to be a free for
all.
- Past deforestation and (draining on
peatlands) has created vast areas of fire-
prone degraded lands that keep burning
every year, and escape into forests at
 the margins.
- The problem is compounded by the fact
that Indonesia remains an agricultural
country where a significant chunk of the
population relies on farming for survival.
Population pressure and lack of off-farm
employment compounded by low
education levels are important factor,
- Political will - if there was political will
for change, surely change would be
possible. A lot of local heads do not want
to change things because they benefit
from this corrupt system, for example
district heads issue oil palm licences
often in the Kawasan Hutan which is
against national law.
- Land Mafia. Complex networks of power
involving local officials, open up forest
areas and speculate on the land.

What are the practical recommendations for

moving forward with such sensitive issues?
Partial land amnesty?
Map de-facto land ownership ?
Involve KPK in illegal land acquistions?
Invest in high level education?
Page 2, Line 21: Can you please define what you See our earlier response.
mean by forest ? I understand you mean old-
growth natural forest, but this should be stated
clearly. You are not referring to planted forests
for example. You are using a conservationists
definition of what constitutes forest (also see my
earlier comment).
Page 2, Line 25-28: based on these two Thanks for this. You have identified an important
publications ((Gaveau et al. 2012, Margono et al. issue. We have deleted reference to 6.6 Mha and
2012), you write that Sumatra has lost between revised the text here to include the Margono
5 Mha and 6.6 Mha. What is the time period ? estimate and our own, which is 3.5 Mha. We
Sumatra lost 5 Mha between 1990-2000 (Gaveau explain that the discrepancy is due to our use of
et al. 2012). And nearly 3 Mha between 2000- Ministry deforestation data, which shows 3.5
2012 (Margono et al. 2014). So Sumatra lost an Mha lost between 2000 and 2012.
estimated 8 Mha of old growth and selectively
logged forest between 1990 and 2012.
Methods See next comment below
Page 3, Line 18-23: Please define clearly which
dataset of deforestation you used.
Did you re-processed imagery to derive forest
loss in 2000-2012? If yes, why would you do this
since Margono et al. 2014 already did this very
well, with help from Hansen, the guru in
mapping forest loss. So why re-invent the wheel?
 Looking at Figure 2, I suspect that you used the Yes, we used the Ministry deforestation data.
deforestation data from the Ministry of Forestry We have amended the text to say this.
and Environment (BAPLAN) because you slice the
deforestation for 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
which is what MoEF did. This dataset is Ok to
use. The quality is not as good as that created by
Margono et al 2014, but it is fairly good. Please
state which dataset you have used or if you have
reprocessed imagery yourselves?
Table 1. Add a column with forest area loss in Thanks for this comment. We had not expalined
hectare and a row for totals for Sumatra, with the discrepancy between our figure of 3.5 Mha
your data I find a loss of 3.5 Mha. Compared and Margono et als figure of 3 Mha. We used
with Margono et a. 2014 who find 3Mha during the Ministry of Forestry deforestation data,
the same period (2000-2012), there is a 500,000 which show a loss of 3.5Mha. This is now
ha difference. Without knowing wich dataser explained in the text
you are using to derive these numbers it will be
impossible to understand the difference
between datasets.
It would make sense to present stats of loss per
protected areas as a new table.
Figure 1. This is a poor layout. National parks are We have revised the figure so that it is clearer
not shown well. Please show their extent and
boundaries, not these weird blue discs.
Page 11, Line 2. The major cause of We say that the major cause of deforestsation is
deforestation in Sumatra is logging. Incorrect. logging followed by conversion to plantations
We need to choose our words carefully here. and agriculture, not logging alone. We agree that
Logging per se in Indonesia is not a driver of logging, in and of itself, does not cause
deforestation studies show. Logging is done deforestation. But as discussed extensively, it is a
selectively. The forest remains, Overall satellite driver of deforestation for the reasons this
analysis point to regrowth in those areas after reviewer lists here, which are the same ones we
logging. However, after logging, politicians identify in the paper. We have edited the text to
change the zoning status of the area from make this clearer.
permanent production forest to conversion
forest, and in doing so, legalize conversion to
plantations, planned deforestation. It is not
however, logging per se, the culprit. In some
places like Riau province, there was massive
illegal logging for the pulp and paper mills,
where wholesale land clearance has been
practiced abundantly, so no more selective
logging in this case. But this, we cannot call
logging anymore. This is land clearing.
Page 11, line 9 to 16: what you describe here has Companies are definitely not the only actors but
happened a lot in Riau. But, it is more they do play a major part and open up the
complicated. Companies are not the only actors. forests for others to exploit. We have amended
Local cooperatives, farmers associations, village the text to reflect this.
organisations, fake companies, and smallholders
also clear-cut forests and sell by creating parallel
permits like SKT or SKGR that are not land titles
the central or even provincial government would
recognize. You mention overlapping land claims
as a major problem in the abstract.
Page 13, paragraph: Policy changes: More policy We agree and we have added a short paragraph
changes were associated with deforestation. under the Policy heading to reflect this.
Indonesias government willingness to become
the number producer of palm oil for example.
There has been a major boom in oil palm
expansion since 2005 as a result and more
deforestation. Everyone wants to grow oil palm,
from small medium to large in Riau for example,
where you show that 1.8 Mha of forest were
converted in 2000-2012. Decentralization also
allowed bupatis to issue oil palm licenses more
freely. This has had a more important impact on
forest than the 100 ha logging concessions you
write about in this paragraph.