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.
Sutawijaya et al. (Thu,) studied this question.