Science-based pathway for a long-term solution to fire & hazeDaniel Murdiyarso

Contributors• David Gaveau• Sofyan Kurnianto• Imam Basuki• Nisa Novita

What are our charges?• What policy or regulatory changes and associated tools need to be put in

place to restore degraded peat lands and swamps and/or improve the productivity of degraded mineral soils?

• Can drainage-intensive activities be accommodated on peat-lands and swamps in the long-term, and what are the alternatives? What needs to be done to stop further development and drainage of peat-land?

• How can degraded mineral and peat lands and swamps contribute to a long-term solution to fire and haze?

• What are best management practices on managing and utilizing degraded tropical peat lands and swamps that can be replicated and up-scaled?

Outline• Introduction

• Fires: past and present• Newly burned forests/lands?

• Characterizing biophysical properties• Hydrology/water regimes• Geophysical properties

• Quantifying C budget• Flux and stock change approaches• Emission factors

• Policy implications• Key messages

Fires: past and present

Gaveau et al. In prep

Newly burned forests and lands?

Gaveau et al. In prep

Ground Penetrating RadarCMP survey

Comas et al. In prep

100 150 200

Ground Penetrating Radar – CO survey

Comas et al. In prep

Kurnianto et al. In prep

Hydraulic conductivity – forests

Canal

Plot for the slug test

150 m

30 m

2rw

2rc

y

H

L

slug

Water levelrecorder

D

Peat

Ks = 0.01 to 13.8 m/dayMean Ks = 1.33 m/day

Ks = 0.02 to 3.5 m/dayMean Ks = 0.28 m/day

Kurnianto et al. In prep

Hydraulic conductivity – oil palm

More canals more fires

Gaveau et al. In prep

Flux change approach 11.8 ± 0.7 Mg CO2-eq ha-1yr-1, or 294 ± 18 Mg CO2-eq ha−1 over 25 yrs Stock change approach2221 ± 269 Mg CO2-eq ha-1 (maximum peat depth was 3 m)

Note:• C losses from multiple fires during

land preparation are not included • Net emissions from protected PSF

12 Mg CO2-eq ha-1 yr-1

CO2 emissions from forest conversion to oil palm plantation

Novita et al. 5 In prep.

Total C stocksAboveground

C stoksBelowground

C stocks(Mg ha-1yr-1)

Undrained sec. swamp forest(N=4)

4359 239 (5.5%) 4119 (94.5%) 0 0

Drained sec. swamp forest(N=6)

4085 191 (4.7%) 3893 (95.3%) 274 11.0

Wet shrub(N=5) 3413 39 (1.2%) 3373 (98.8%) 946 37.8

Oil palm (N=5) 3679 23 (0.6%) 3655 (99.4%) 680 27.2

Land use types(Mg ha-1)

Emission Factor

Emission factors

Basuki et al. In prep

CO2 Emission CO2 Gains Balance Emission Factor

(Mg ha-1 yr-1)

Undrained sec. swamp forest(N=3)

31.6 34.4 2.8 0.0

Drained sec. swamp forest(N=3)

32.4 31.0 -1.4 -4.2

Wet shrub(N=3)

28.9 4.2 -24.7 -27.5

Oil palm (N=3)

37.4 2.8 -34.6 -37.4

(Mg ha-1 yr-1)Land use types

1.4 4.2

24.7 27.5

34.6 37.4

Scaling impacts and policy responses

days year years decades

Spa

tial s

cale

Temporal scale

Global

Regional

National

Landscape

Patch Post-fireNutrient releases

Transformed multi-levelpolicies

Damages to property and crops

Spatial planning and fire prevention capacity development

Elevated watershedsediment exports

Regional haze treaty Regional cooperation on early warning

systems and fire-fighting capacities

Technical assistance programs

GHG emissions &Climate change

Murdiyarso and Lebel 2007

Changes in landdevelopment policies

Reversing land-use trajectory?

Key messages• Fire regimes change over time but they are completely

anthropogenic and mainly associated with land-use policy, governance and tenure systems

• Peat swamp (forest) fires and smoldering haze cause detrimental impacts on human health and GHG emissions

• Quantifying peat biogeochemical and physical properties would facilitate informed land-use decisions and fire prevention

• Information on peat depth, hydrology are key for multi-levels policy formulation

CIFOR advances human well-being, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries.

Thank you

www.cifor.orgwww.cifor.org/swamp