Synergy between Adaptation-Mitigation in Land-based sector: Best practices in Indonesia and Elsewhere
Side event of the UNFCCC, co-hosted with the Government of Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture.
Improving the profits from peatland without exacerbating the environmental impacts- By Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia)
1. Improving the profits from
peatland without exacerbating
the environmental impacts
Fahmuddin Agus, Neneng L. Nurida, Wahyunto, et al.
Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development
F_agus@litbang.pertanian.co.id
Side Event IAARD-ICRAF COP 20
Lima, Peru , 5 December 2014
www.litbang.deptan.go.id
2. Multifunctional roles of peatland
• Environmental services:
-Water storage and regulator
- Carbon storage
- Niche of peatland-specific biodiversity
• Agricultural production. Agricultural land is
expanding rapidly on peatland, despite its sub-optimal
inherent fertility
Need to balance the two roles, although
sometimes they are mutually exclusive
3. Distribution of Indonesian Peatland
Island Area (ha)
Sumatra 6.436.649
Kalimantan 4.778.004
Papua 3.690.921
Total 14.905.594
4. Research objectives
(ICCTF Phase II Program)
• Analyze GHG emissions and sequestration as
well as the costs and benefits under different
LULUC
• Policy recommendations for the sustainable
peatland management
• Capacity building
• Strengthening networks for scientific
exchange
5. Activities
• Mapping and recommendations of the use and management of
degraded peatland,
• Evaluation of:
- crop responses,
- hydrology,
- GHG Emissions,
- carbon stock
- Costs – benefits
Terhubung ke komputer
Atau data logger
Terhubung ke baterei
Outlet
Inlet
Infrared gas analyzer (IRGA)
Gas chromatography
8. Districts with dominant peatland
District
Total area
(million ha)
Peatland area
(million ha, %)
Pelalawan/Riau 1.39 0.70 (50%)
Muaro Jambi/Jambi 0.54 0.20 (37%)
Kubu Raya/Kalbar 0.70 0.52 (76%)
Pulang Pisau/Kalteng 0.98 0.62 (63%)
Mimika/Papua 1.78 0.24 (13%)
Little flexibility of there district to use mineral land
9. Land cover of peatland as of 2011
(Mha, %)
Peat Shrub:
• Unproductive
• Emission sources
• Fire subscribers
Data uncertainty:
Other plantation
& Multistrata ?
10. How good is Ag. productivity on
peatland
Treatments
FFB, Jambi;
6 yr old oil
palm
plantation
(t/ha/yr)
FFB, Riau; 6 yr
old oil palm
pantation)
(t/ha/yr)
Crumb rubber;
Central
Kalimantan, 5
yr old rubber
plantation
(t/ha/5 months)
Maize, West
Kalimantan,
(t/ha/season)
Base fertilizer 11.4 a 18.5 a 1.6 a 2.7 a
Peat fertilizer 17.4 ab 19.3 a 1.9 a 3.8 a
Manure 18.8 b 19.6 a 1.8 a 3.0 a
EFB/Mineral soil 17.7 ab1) 20.1 a1) 1.2 a2)
Dolomite 3.5 a
Dolomite
+manure
+Trichoderma
3.4 a
11. Sawah pada lahan
gambut di Kaltim
Ex PLG Sejuta Ha
(Rice Mega Project)
Crop performance varies depending on the management level
12. Is peat farming profitable?
Analysis using 10% df
Land use Location NPV
(USD/ha/yr)
B/C
Oil palm Jambi 896 1.09
Oil palm Riau 2,421 1.21
Rubber C. Kalimantan 4,421 1.60
Maize-pineapple W. Kalimantan 315 1.44
Sago palm Papua 478 1.40
Oil palm is the main driver of LUC,
despite the higher NPV for rubber:
• Easy marketing
• Low labor requirement compared to
rubber
13. NPV (USD/ha/yr), Net emission, Emission
redxn cost USD/t CO2, 10% df
Land use
Oil palm,
Jambi
Oil palm,
Riau
Rubber, C.
Kalimantan
Maize, W.
Kalimantan Sago, Papua
NPV (USD/ha/yr)
Agriculture 1) 896 2,421 4,421 315 478
Initial land uses
Difference in net emissions from biomass carbon loss and
gain and peat decomposition (t CO2/ha/tahun)
Shrub 19.6 22.8 30.8 -3.3 -15.4
Secondary peat forest 37.9 62.5 49.1 48.9 3.0
Primary peat forest 63.3 87.9 74.5 74.3 28.4
Emission reduction cost (USD/t CO2)
Shrub 45.8 106.4 143.7 -104 -34
Secondary peat forest 23.6 38.8 90.0 7 175
Primary peat forest 14.1 27.5 59.3 5 18
14. Opportunity costs (USD/t CO2) at different
discount factors and different LUCs
Discount factor
Oil palm, Jambi
Oil Palm,
Riau
Rubber, C.
Kalimantan
Shrub - Agriculture
10% 45.8 106.4 143.7
12.50% 19.5 58.0 87.3
15% 0.9 24.3 49.4
Secondary peat forest to Agric.
10% 23.6 38.8 90.0
12.50% 10.1 21.1 54.7
15% 0.4 8.9 30.9
Primary peat forest to Agric.
10% 14.1 27.5 59.3
12.50% 6.0 15.0 36.0
15% 0.3 6.3 20.4
Low input, smallholder
15. Degraded peatland is a subscriber of
peat fire
60 cm deep burn scar from 6 days event in Oct 2014,
emitting about 300 ton CO2-C ha-1 or 1101 CO2 ha-1
Photo: Maswar, 8 Oct 2014
60 cm layer burnt
in 6 days
Photo: Maswar, 8 Oct 2014
16. Farmers safeguarded their land
from fire
ICCTF site in Jabiren, Central Kalimantan, surrounded by peat forest fire. 8 Oct. 2014:
Photo: Maswar
17. What kind of incentives required by
smallholder for rehabilitating
degraded peatland?
• Secure and (semi) permanent land tenure
• Subsidies for initial investment, especially for
smallholder rubber plantation
• Infrastructure, including drainage canals and
water table control system
• High quality planting materials and fertilizers
• Technical guidance
18. Land swap
Peat forest Degraded peatland
Hutan lindung/protection forest jur.
APL: production area jur.
APL: production area jur.
Protection forest jur.
19. Conclusions
• Emission reduction from peatland is not a low hanging
fruit. Combination of incentives, carbon market
mechanism and regulatory measures are needed to
reduce emissions from peatland.
• Being an important source of emission from
decomposition and fire, degraded peatland should be
rehabilitated for (smallholder) livelihood and reduce
peat fire risk.
• A land swap mechanism to protect natural forest is
plausible, although very challenging. It requires an
agrarian reform.
Editor's Notes
Peatlands have very important environment functions, among others as water storage, carbon storage and conservation of peatland-specific fauna and flora, above and below ground. Although these lands are considered as sub-optimal agronomically, but its role as agricultural land is increasingly important because of the limitations of optimal land for agricultural expansion. It’s our responsibility to keep the balance between environmental and economic roles. Winning one role and sacrificing the other is not the way to go.
Recent study which are supported by field surveys indicated that the best estimate of Indonesian peat land area is about 14.9 million ha. These lands are distributed primarily on the East coast of Sumatra, especially in Riau, Jambi and South Sumatra provinces; Kalimantan, especially Central and West Kalimantan and the southern coast of Papua and West Papua.
Recent study which are supported by field surveys indicated that the best estimate of Indonesian peat land area is about 14.9 million ha. These lands are distributed primarily on the East coast of Sumatra, especially in Riau, Jambi and South Sumatra provinces; Kalimantan, especially Central and West Kalimantan and the southern coast of Papua and West Papua.
In some districts, the peatland area exceeds 50% of the total land area. As a result, landholders and local governments have no choice but to utilize the peatland, although the land is considered sub-optimal for economic purposes.
Our study has demonstrated that, when properly managed, crop production on peatland is comparable to that of mineral land, but the initial investment to build the drainage network and increase soil fertility could be impeding for smallholders.
Various economic indicators such as net present value (NPV) and benefit cost ratio (B/C ratio) showed satisfactory profitability of agriculture on peatlands. NPV from peatland are relatively high, ranging from USD 315 to 4421 per hectare per year.
The opportunity costs or emission reduction costs is very high in general that may hardly be attainable by the carbon market. Therefore, using peat shrub is an outlet to high land pressure.
Degraded peatland is a subscriber of peat fire as shown by this short-duration video, taken by one of our researcher on 8 October 2014 in Jebiren, Central Kalimantan. Fires or arson causes high amount of CO2 emissions in addition to pollution caused by smog and carbon monoxide. These causes various respiratory and lung problems, especially the upper respiratory infection syndrome or better known as ISPA in Indonesia.
At the study site of ICCTF, where the land is covered by rubber and pineapple, farmers safeguarded their land so that it was safer from fire. Maintenance of shallow water table, for instance by using flap gate system, reduces fire risks even better.
Most farmers can not afford to rehabilitate the degraded peatland by themselves. They need incentives for doing so. The main forms of incentives required include:
Secure and preferably semi permanent tenure
Subsidies for initial investment
Development of infrastructure, including drainage canals and water table control system
High quality planting materials and fertilizers
Technical guidance from extension agents
The investments needed for such incentives is much cheaper compared to emissions reduction schemes through carbon trading.
“Land swap” is a mechanism in which forest land on production area (APL) is conserved and allocated as protection forest, while peat shrubs, regardless of their status (APL or forest areas) is allocated for APL. This mechanism requires coordination among ministries. The challenge is whether we are ready to reform the legal systems related to land allocations.