This document discusses reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land use changes for oil palm development. It aims to analyze land use change in major oil palm producing countries, estimate emissions rates, and recommend emission reduction scenarios. Key points include perceptions that oil palm expansion often replaces forests, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, and the voluntary nature of emission reductions among RSPO members.

1. Reducing green house gas emissions from land
use changes for oil palm development
(Literature Study in Progress)
Fahmuddin Agus1, Petrus Gunarso2, Bambang H. Saharjo3, Abdul
Rashid4, K.T. Joseph5, Nancy Harris6, and Meine van Noordwijk7
1Indonesian Soil Research Institute, Bogor, Indonesia, 2Tropenbos Indonesia, 3Bogor Agricultural
University/Sawit Watch, Bogor, Indonesia , 4Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 5University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6Winrock International, Little Rock, USA, 7World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
To be Presentaed at “Sustainable palm oil: challenges, a common vision and the way
forward” symposium, 5-6 May 2011, London

2. Why do we do this?
 Perception that oil palm expansion replaces
forest and thus the main source of GHG
emission
 Voluntary GHG emission reduction among
RSPO members

3. Objectives
 Analyze land use change in OP
producing countries
 Estimate of the rate of emissions
 Recommend emission reduction
scenarios

4. 10 largest oil palm producers
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=palm-
oil&graph=production
Annual CPO
No Country Production (t)
1. Indonesia 20,750.00
2. Malaysia 18,500.00
3. Thailand 1,300.00
4. Nigeria 820.00
5. Colombia 800.00
6. Papua New Guinea 440.00
7. Ecuador 340.00
8. Côte D'ivoire 320.00
9. Costa Rica 285.00
10. Congo 175.00

5. Coverage of the study
LU/LC spatial C stocks
analysis -Plant Biomass
-Necromass
-Soil
Govt. Policy
LUC matrix
EF, RF
Market pulls
C fluxes
- Soil
- Burning
Projected LUC
Historical and predicted
emission under BAU
Mitigation
Legal system
scenarios
Emission reduction
scenarios

6. Processes entailed in forest conversion
(1) Change in time
average C stock
0~250 t C/ha 30-50 t C/ha
CH4 & N2O?
(3) Peat (soil) burning
Peat subsidenc
e (peat)
60 cm
300-800 t C/m/ha in
peat soil
15-200 t C/ha in (2) Soil C oxidation
surface of mineral
soil

7. C budget
ΔC= Σij Aij [ΔCijLB + ΔCijDOM + ΔCijSOILS] / Tij
ΔC = net C stock change [ton C/yr]
Aij = Area under land use i that changes to j [ha]
ΔCijLB = change in C stock in the living biomass of land
use i that changes into land use j, [ton C/ha]
ΔCijDOM = change in C stock in dead plant [ton C/ha]
ΔCijSOILS = change in soil C stock [ton C/ha]
Tij = time scale

8. 1. Above ground C stock
Forest
Plantn, scrub
Grass, agric

9. 2. Peat soil C oxidation
CO2-e = Area * 0.7 * 0.9 t CO2/ha/yr * cm drainage
(Hooijer et al., 2010, corrected for root-related respiration based on
Handayani 2010)

10. 3. Emission from mineral soil
Emision = Area * ΔC * 44/12
Initial LU Successive LU Remarks
Forest Plantation
Logged Oil palm 32% and 15% C increase in 0-45 cm, in 1st
forest and 2nd cycle under intesnsive OM mngmt
(Mathews et al., 2010)
Forest Long term 30% soil C decrease (Murty et al. 2002) from
cultivation 120±60 t/ha (IPCC, 2006)
Forest ‘Degraded’ land 50% decrease
Forest No tillage 0-10% increase w/ crop residues are
retained.
Degraded Plantation 30% increase (Germer and Sauerborn,
land 2008)

11. Emission from burning
Above ground:
 Under forest: Partial emission of plant biomass
 Under clear felling: Speed up biomass
oxidation, but AG biomass also oxidized in
various ways within 2 years.
Below ground
 Peatland area burning ≠ peat burning
 If peat is burned, then
∆C= Vol. of burned peat [m3] * BD [t m-3] * Corg [t t-1] *3.67
but high uncertainty in prediction.

12. Estimated Emission from AG peat burning in
Riau 2005 (in CO2-e/ha)
LAND COVER CO2 NOx CH4
DISTURBED FOREST - - -
UNDISTURBED SWAMP FOREST - - -
TIMBER PLANTATION 0.0 0.00 0.00
SCHRUB 8.8 0.04 0.09
RUBBER PLANTATION 3.2 0.01 0.03
BARELAND 0.9 0.00 0.01
DISTURBED MANGROVE 0.4 0.00 0.00
DISTURBED SWAMP FOREST 4.4 0.02 0.05
SWAMP SCHRUB 3.2 0.01 0.03
DRY CULTIVATION LAND 2.5 0.01 0.03
MIXED TREE CROPS 3.3 0.02 0.03
RICE FIELD 2.2 0.01 0.02
OIL PALM PLANTATION 1.4 0.01 0.01
No data for peat (BG) fire, not included in current national level analysis

13. Emission/removal factors
Land cover Time avg AG Peat Wtr table Peat Mineral Soil C
C (t/ha) (cm) emission(t stock 0-30cm
CO2/ha/yr) (t/ha)
UNDISTURBED FOREST 230 0 0 120
DISTURBED FOREST 203 0 0 80
UNDISTURBED SWAMP
FOREST 196 0 0 x
UNDISTURBED MANGROVE 170 0 0 x
DISTURBED SWAMP FOREST 155 30 16 x
DISTURBED MANGROVE 120 0 0 x
SMALLHOLDER RUBBER 46 50 27 80
OIL PALM PLANTATION 40 60 33 80
TIMBER PLANTATION 37.5 50 27 80
MIXED TREE CROPS 30 50 27 80
SCHRUB 30 0 0 40
SWAMP SCHRUB 30 30 16 x
DRY CULTIVATION LAND 10 30 16 40
SETTLEMENTS 5 70 38 40
GRASS 4.2 0 0 40
SWAMP GRASS 2 30 16 x
RICE FIELD 2 10 5 x

14. Area (Million ha)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
OIL PALM 1990
UNDIST FOREST
DIST FOREST
UNDIST SWAMP …
UNDIST …
DIST SWAMP …
Forest, 32%
DIST MANGROVE
RUBBER
TIMBER …
TIMBER …
SCHRUB
SWAMP SCHRUB
ANNUAL UPLAND
GRASS
Non-forest, 68%
SWAMP GRASS
RICE FIELD
BARELAND
Peatland
OTHERS
Non-peatland
Land use change to OP from 1990-2009

15. Land use change in Malaysia (million ha)
Land Use 1990 2000 2005 2007
Permanent 12.6 14.4 14.4 14.3
Reserve Forest
Totally 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.95
Protected Areas
State land 6.8 4.64 4.14 3.42
Total forest 20.54 20.16 19.93 19.66
Rubber 1.84 1.43 1.23 1.21
Oil palm 2.03 3.38 4.05 4.44
Cocoa 0.4 0.08 0.033 0.027
Source: FRA 2010, MPOB, MCB

16. Oil Palm
Oil Palm
Papua New Guinea
Google earth image of early 2000s
Landsat TM 1990
Estimated total oil palm area
in early 2000: 64,335 ha

17. Emission estimate
• Above ground and soil oxidation only (peat fire
is not included yet)
• This interim calculation assumes same
emission factors for the three islands

18. Interim conclusions
 Oil palm plantation is growing rapidly in Indonesia and Malaysia in
response to increasing market demands.
 Most of the land converted into oil palm were those of relatively
low C stock scrub, and agricultural lands. Forest areas that were
converted are mostly disturbed forest under “APL”
 Average annual emission depends on land use change
trajectories. Emission is low during the period that involves
conversions of low C stock lands and vise versa. Therefore,
emission can be reduced by prioritizing the use of low C stock
land.