Improving the profits  from peatland without exacerbating the environmental impacts- By Fahmuddin...

Side Event IAARD-ICRAF COP 20Lima, Peru , 5 December 2014

www.litbang.deptan.go.id

Fahmuddin Agus, Neneng L. Nurida, Wahyunto, et al. Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development

F_agus@litbang.pertanian.co.id

Improving the profits from peatland without exacerbating

the environmental impacts

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

Distribution of Indonesian Peatland

Island Area (ha)

Sumatra 6.436.649Kalimantan 4.778.004Papua 3.690.921Total 14.905.594

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

Activities• Mapping and recommendations of the use and management of

degraded peatland,

• Evaluation of:- crop responses, - hydrology, - GHG Emissions, - carbon stock - Costs – benefits

Inlet

Outlet

Terhubung ke baterei

Terhubung ke komputerAtau data logger

Infrared gas analyzer (IRGA)

Gas chromatography

Research sites

Riau

Jambi C. Kalimantan

W. Kalimantan

Papua

Research Results

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

Land cover of peatland as of 2011 (Mha, %)

Peat Shrub:• Unproductive • Emission sources • Fire subscribers

Data uncertainty:Other plantation & Multistrata ?

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

Sawah pada lahan gambut di Kaltim

Ex PLG Sejuta Ha (Rice Mega Project)

Crop performance varies depending on the management level

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

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

Opportunity costs (USD/t CO2) at different discount factors and different LUCs

Discount factorOil 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

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

laye

r b

urn

t in

6 d

ays

Photo: Maswar, 8 Oct 2014

ICCTF site in Jabiren, Central Kalimantan, surrounded by peat forest fire. 8 Oct. 2014: Photo: Maswar

Farmers safeguarded their land from fire

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

Land swap

Peat forest Degraded peatland

Hutan lindung/protection forest jur.

APL: production area jur.

APL: production area jur.

Protection forest jur.

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.