IIPC 2013: Synthesis

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

I N D O N E S I A

Peatland Conversation

Published by

Indonesia Climate Change Center BUMN Building 18th floor Jl. Medan Merdeka Selatan no.13 Jakarta 10110 - Indonesia Ph. +6221 3511 400, Fax + 6221 3511 403 www.iccc-network.net

SYNTHESIS REPORT Strengthening Science to Policy Linkages For Sustainable Peatland Management In Indonesia

TABLE OF CONTENT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 2 II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 • Purpose of IIPC ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 • Goals and Structure of IIPC ....................................................................................................................................... 4 • Represented Organizations ........................................................................................................................................ 4 • Program Agenda........................................................................................................................................................... 5 III. CONVERSATIONS AND OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................. 8

Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 • Uncertainties and Credibility in Policy Making ...................................................................................................... 8 • A Development Enabling Instrument for Decision Making for One Map Initiative ......................................... 11

• Status of Peatland Research and Capacity in Indonesia ......................................................................................... 12 Conversation I: Climate Mitigation and Co-Benefits from Sustainable Peatland Management: An International Perspective on Science Based Policy Development ................................................................ 16 • Conversation Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 • Summary of Inputs ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

• Conversation Outputs ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Conversation II: Sustainable Peatland Management in Indonesia – issues to be addressed for a robust policy framework .................................................................................................................................... 20 • Conversation Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 • ICCC Sustainable Peatland Management Elements ................................................................................................ 20

• Conversation Outputs ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Conversation III: Strengthening the Linkages of Science to Policy in Indonesia ............................................ 24 • Conversation Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 • Summary of Inputs ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

• Conversation outputs .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Way Forward ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 • Peat Management Leadership .................................................................................................................................... 28 • Addressing Policy Gaps .............................................................................................................................................. 28 • Improved Science to Policy Linkage ......................................................................................................................... 28

IV. ANNEX: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................... 30

IIPC . Synthesis Report

1

INTERNATIONAL INDONESIA PEATLAND CONVERSATION Synthesis Report

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Indonesian National Council on Climate Change (Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim/DNPI) and Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC) facilitated an international conversation on peatland management in Indonesia. Taking place in Bandung from 25 to 27 February 2013, the International Indonesia Peatland Conversation (IIPC) serves as a discussion forum aiming to increase awareness on and understanding of what is needed to achieve Indonesia’s targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from peatland.

Attended by 50 participants from 10 countries, from over 35 institutions, including both national and international scientists and policymakers from Indonesia, IIPC identified the challenges and opportunities in policy implementation to achieve Indonesia’s GHG emission reduction target from peatland emissions, and determined priority needs in policy development for a sustainable and effective peatland management.

The dialogue between scientific experts in peatland management and government of Indonesia policy makers discussed several topics, including key elements for effective peatland management that should be considered in Indonesia, as well as notable case studies of policy development processes that have produced positive results. This conversation also identified issues and opportunities to be further explored in Indonesia in order to mitigate the impact of climate change from peatland; as well as the starting points to develop a near-term policy agenda.

The dialogue affirmedthe need to have a strong commitment from all stakeholders – the government, private sector, technical experts in peatland, and environmental organization, as well as the communities – to utilize scientific input in order to develop arobust peatland

2

IIPC . Synthesis Report

management policy. ICCC suggested five focus areas for sustainable peatland management, including protection of remaining intact peat forests; restoration of degraded and drained peatland; prevention of peat forest fires; restrictions on the development of new plantation concessions on peat; and reduction of emissions from existing plantations. IIPC proposed a sixth focus area as another important component towards Sustainable Peatland Management, namely,to raise awareness about the importance of peatland and capacity building. IIPC suggests that many issues remain to be addressed to support sustainable peatland management in Indonesia, such as the need of institutional arrangement to enforce better coordination and leadership in peat management.

ICCC is currently in the process of synthesizing key action points. In line with its function to facilitate dialogues between scientific experts and Indonesia’s policy makers, ICCC will organize a series of expert discussions to focus on deliberating key strategies into policy recommendations for the Government of Indonesia. It was acknowledged at the IIPC that Indonesia needs more robust policy enforcement. In order to achieve that, scientists and government representatives have agreed on the basis for analyzing the gaps in peatland policy and the need for greater harmonization and an improved interministerial coordination for peat management. It was recognized that sivil society organization (CSO) and the private sectormusthave a stronger role in peat management, and, therefore, they need to be involved. As such, focus group discussion within the near future will have to reach out to these two important stakeholders.”

ICCC will facilitate a kick off meeting as a follow up of to IIPC to further refine the details of the strategic plan for Sustainable Peatland Management in Indonesia thatwill focus on, among others,accurate peatland mapping; incentives in peatland; Indonesian GHG inventory; and spatial planning.

IIPC . Synthesis Report

3

INTRODUCTION II. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF IIPC International Indonesia Peatland Conversation (IIPC) 2013 brought together internationally renowned scientists, policymakers, NGOs, and peatland managers from relevant ministries in a dialogue that aimed to promoteawareness and understanding of what is needed to achieve Indonesia’s targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions from peatland. A limited number of commissioned extended abstracts served as the basis for critical discussion.

The results from the conversation will directly informthe concurrent development of ICCC’s Sustainable Peatland Management Policy Brief.

GOALS AND STRUCTURE OF IIPC The goals of IIPC are: 1. To build a common understanding of the elements of effective peatland management that should be considered in Indonesia; 2. To learn from examples of policy development processes that have produced positive results; 3. To identify the issues and opportunities to be further explored in Indonesia; and 4. To develop a near-term policy agenda.

To achieve those goals, IIPC heldthree conversations covering the following topics: 1. Conversation I: Climate Mitigation and Co-Benefits from Sustainable Peatland Management: An International Perspective on Science Based Policy Development; 2. Conversation II: Sustainable Peatland Management in Indonesia – issues to be addressed for a robust policy framework; and 3. Conversation III: Strengthening the Linkages of Science to Policy in Indonesia REPRESENTED ORGANIZATIONS GOI Representation: UKP4, BPPT, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forestry, BIG, DNPI, BAPPENAS, Ministry Public Works.

Indonesia-based participants: Agriculture Faculty – Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia Swampland Agriculture Institute, Indonesia Peat Society, IPCC University of Tanjungpura, CCROM – Bogor Agricultural Institute, CIFOR, Wetlands International, WWF, GIZ/FORCLIME, Deltares, JICA, AusAid, UN REDD. International Representation: GEC, NASA, University Greifswald, University Nottingham, FAO, IUCN, Winrock, USG/USFS, USGS, IPCC, University Hokkaido, Kyoto University, JICA, Euroconsult Mott McDonald

4

IIPC . Synthesis Report

SESSION

PRESENTER Monday, 25 February 2013

Official Opening/Welcome and Introduction to Peatland Conversation Program 18:00 - 18:30 IIPC Registration

Amanda Katili (DNPI)

Ben Wohlauer (US Embassy, Jakarta) Farhan Helmy (DNPI)

Official Opening/Welcome

Overview of Conference Program and Introduction of Participants 19:45 - 20:45

Banquet Dinner Tuesday, 26 February 2013

Setting The Context for Peatland Conversation 08:30:00

Overview of the day’s program

Facilitator

08:40 - 09:00 Context of the Peat Conversation Meeting

Farhan Helmy (DNPI)

09:00 - 09:20 National Task Force REDD+ Perspective on Peatland Management

Nirarta Samadhi (UKP4)

09:20 - 09:40 Status of Peatland research and capacity in Indonesia

Gusti Z. Anshari (Tanjungpura University)

09:40 - 10:00 Q & A 10:00 - 10:30 Coffee Break Conversation I: Climate Mitigation and Co-Benefits from Sustainable Peatland Management: An International Perspective on Science Based Policy Development 10:35 - 10:55 Climate Mitigation Through Sustainable Peatland Management: Opportunities and Challenges

Riccardo Biancalani (FAO)

10:55 - 11:15 Integrating Peatland Science and Policy: UK-IUCN Peatland Shashi Kumaran (IUCN) Program Case Study 11:15 - 11:35 Current State and Case Studies from Other ASEAN Countries

Faizal Parish (GEC)

11:35 - 13:00 Discussion

Matt Warren (USFS)

13:00 - 14:00

Lunch

Conversation II: Sustainable Peatland Management in Indonesia – issues to be addressed for a robust policy framework 14:00 - 14:10 Introduction of Session

Facilitator

14:10 - 14:30 Update of National Emission Reduction Plan RAN-GRK

Wahyuningsih Darajati (BAPPENAS)

14:40 - 14:50 ICCC Sustainable Peatland Management Elements – Overview

Eli Nur Nirmala Sari (ICCC)

IIPC . Synthesis Report

5

14:50 - 15:30 Working Groups 15:30 - 16:00 Coffee Break & Gallery Walk 16:00 - 17:00 Discussion of Policy Issues 17:00

Summary of the Day and Close Wednesday, 27 February 2013

08:30-8:40

Overview of agenda

Conversation III: Strengthening The Linkages Between Science and Policy in Indonesia 08:40 - 09:00 Integrating Peatland Science and Policy: Data Quality and Transparency; Political Will and Action

Jack O. Rieley (University of Nottingham/ IPS)

09:00 - 09:20 Compliance and Voluntary Markets/Carbon Credits in Europe

Hans Joosten (Greifswald University)

09:20 - 09:35 Q & A 09:35 - 09:55 CIFOR

Kristell Hergoualc’h (CIFOR)

09:55 - 10:15 Wetlands International – Peatland Mapping in Indonesia

Dipa Satriadi Rais (Wetlands International)

10:15 - 10:30 Q & A 10:30 - 10:50

Coffee Break

10:50 - 11:10 AusAid- KFCP

Grahame Applegate (AusAid)

11:10 - 11:30 FORCLIME – GIZ Forest and Climate Change Program

Helmut Dotzauer (GIZ)

11:30 - 11:50 UN-REDD – Methods for integration of science into policy

Yuyu Rahayu (UN-REDD)

11:50 - 12:15 Q & A 12:15 - 13:30

Lunch

13:30 - 14:30 Conversation Groups 14:30 - 15:10 Group Reports and Discussion 15:10 - 15:30

Gary Geller (NASA)

Coffee Break

15:30 - 16:15 Group Reports and discussion

Bill Rush (USFS)

16:15 - 16:30 Closing remarks

Farhan Helmy (DNPI)

16:45

6

Depart for Saung Mang Udjo

IIPC . Synthesis Report

IIPC . Synthesis Report

7

Conversations and Outcomes III. CONVERSATIONS AND OUTCOMES Overview Uncertainties and Credibility in Policy Making Peatland is projected, by far,to be one of the largest contributors to Indonesian’s current and future GHG emissions. Current data projects that Indonesia’s emissions will grow from an estimated 770 MtCO2e to 990 MtCO2e between 2005 and 2030 (Table 1).Several challenges influence the assessment of GHG fluxes from peatland, such as the large diversity of peatlands and climatic conditions, spatial heterogeneity (peat thickness

and land use), the various GHGs involved, the transient dynamics of emission as well as the variability of parameters (weather, water level, vegetation growth, land use, etc.). It is, therefore, critical to have a consensus definition of peatland and a proper assessment to arrive atjustifiable figures for policymaking decision.

Table 1: Emission reduction plan from several sectors

Source: DNPI, 2011

8

IIPC . Synthesis Report

The government has formulated a set of policies to support climate change mitigation in Indonesia, including: 1) Presidential Instruction No. 10/2011 on Forest Moratorium anddevelopment of REDD+ schemes including Indicative Moratorium maps; 2) Presidential Decree No. 25/2011 on the National REDD+ Task Force, which also provided for the REDD+agency and related institutional development (finance and MRV); 3) Presidential Regulation No. 61/2011 on National Action Plan for Emission Reduction (RAN-GRK), that set the basis for 70 programs to achieve 26/41% emission reduction across five main sectors(agriculture, forestry and peat, energy and transportation, industry, waste and other supporting activities); and 4)Presidential Regulation No. 71/2011 on National GHG Inventory System.

This regulationstipulated regular information on the levels, status and trends of GHG emission change and absorption, including national and subnational carbon stocks as well as GHG emission reduction.

Considering the urgent need to address the uncertainties, the following strategic approaches need to be taken: 1) Encourage strategic integrative research in responding to the immediate demand of climate change actions, e.g. REDD+, energy security; 2) Integration of science and capacity building efforts in economy-wide climate change research, policy development and planning, e.g RAN-GRK (National Action Plan on GHG Emission Reduction); 3) Extensive use of geospatial technology for data collation, new-data acquisition, integration and management, open source-based systems(data, modeling, policy assessment, etc.), new approach on decision support system; 4) Devising a new approach to mobilize and deploy financial/technical resources not only from government but also private sector/industry; 5) Policy information exchange and database development, as a robust and comprehensive technical and scientific information is needed to fill the gaps inmodels, particularly in targeted areas that significantly contribute emissions, through data ‘collation’, ‘collection’ and consensus building.

Several technical meetings on peatland were heldto addressthe dynamics of peatland, including: 1) The 3rd Technical Roundtable on MRV, with the topic of ‘Peatland Mapping: Uncertainties and Available Technologies’, 20 September 2010, by DNPI; 2) Workshop on ‘Tropical Wetland Ecosystem of Indonesia: Science Needs to address CC Adaptation and Mitigation’, April 2011 in Bali, by USFS and CIFOR; 3) Indonesia – US Partnership Meeting on Climate Change Center, 23-24 July 2011 by DNPI; Consultative meetings with universities, June-August 2011

by DNPI; 4) A series of technical meetings on peatland mapping methodology and sustainable peatland management.

One of the outputs from several expert panel meetings held by DNPI and ICCC is the Peatland Definition Policy Memo (Figure 1). The Peatland Definition Policy Memo will informthe assessment of peatland. Although studies onpeatland emissions and emission measurements are underway in Indonesia, scientific understanding of peatland emissions is still growing, particularly for tropical emissions.

Therefore, a comprehensive framework is needed to resolve critical issues in the management of peatland, especially in relation to GHG emissions. A precise definition of ‘peat’ is, therefore, a cornerstonefor creatinga robust peatland management policy to serve as reference in developing peat assessments and management practices in support of the President’s commitment to reduce emissions by 26% by 2020.

Several rounds of meetings facilitated by ICCC that involvedpeatland experts from various institutions (both national and national) as well as ministries produced a consensus on the definition of ‘peat’. This definitionhas beenusedas the benchmark forimproving the Government Draft Regulation on Peatin 2012, and has also beenincorporated into ISOdocumentproduced by the National Standardization Agency (BSN). This definition is theobviousfirst steptowards auniformunderstanding ofpeatlandinIndonesiaand sustainablepeatland management.

IIPC . Synthesis Report

9

As part of the ‘One Map’ initiative, ICCC has facilitated scientific discussions and international research on peatland and peatland mapping, in coordination with Geospatial Information Agency (BIG), to support peatland map revision process;broaden peatland assessment to capture the prevailing institutional dynamics,including National Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAN-GRK), REDD+, Spatial Planning, and Master Plan of Acceleration of Indonesian Economic Development

(MP3I);continue collaborative, comprehensive and long-term research and development to understand complex peatland systems involving scientists with support from local stakeholder;build capacity through training and education for academia and technicians;build research network on peatland and peatland mapping;networking and cooperation between parties and bring peatland issues to international attention.

Fig. 1: Consensus ‘Peatland Definition’ by ICCC

10 IIPC . Synthesis Report

A Development-Enabling Instrument for One Map Initiative The President of Indonesia asserted that it is important to keep peatland as intact as possible.As such, peatland is one of the main components addressed in the REDD+ National Strategy. Many licenses have been grantedfor peatland use, and there is an urgency to improve the management system in peatland.

The REDD+ National Strategy made peatland the centerpiecein the sustainable management of natural forests and peatland as national assetsfor the prosperity and welfare of the people. As forest and peatland sectors are the biggest contributors to Indonesia’s emissions, it is critical toreduceemissions from forest and peatland degradation and to create additional benefits by taking into consideration the welfare of the local people, preservation of biodiversity, and protection of ecosystem services.

The Presidential Delivery Unit (UKP4) has set five pillars in theREDD+ National Strategy, namely: Institutions and processes; Regulatory and legal framework; Strategic program: Changes to work paradigm and culture; and Involvement of stakeholders.

These five pillars should be addressed to achieve emission reduction, increased carbon stocks,conservation and maintenance of biodiversity and economic growth. To achieve these goals, there is an urgency to:

1. Define peatland by taking into account the aspects of carbon content and its dependency on water existence; 2. Delineate peatland using the proposed definition, resulting in how is peatland zonation layered; and 3. Manage layers of peatlandzone accordingly following a set of peatland management guidelines.

An accurate peatland map is essential for a robust peatland management policy. However, many urgent and critical issuesneed to be addressed to produce a single accurate peatland map, most notably the availability, access and use of reliable, up-to-date and accurate geospatial information. Geospatial information must be consistent and accountable as an analytical toolfor peatland management (Figure 2). Consistencybetween information sources and consistency in depicting reality on the ground is necessary. The map must be accessible and free of charge,and its production process must be transparent and collaborative. The mapping process should comply with four agreed aspects: one reference, one standard, one database, and one geoportal.

Fig. 2: Geospatial information required for peatland mapping

1. Improve data and permit issuance system for peatland; 2. Control conversion of peatland; 3. Rehabilitate peatland; 4. Prevent and control fires in peatland; 5. Apply sustainable peatland management 6. Strengthen the peatland governance; and 7. Empower local economies in peatland.

Peatland should be in wet conditionsat all times. In that regards, it is important also to synchronize peatland and swamp regulations as part of sustainable peatland management. To reach this goal, the following steps should be implemented:

Source: UKP4

IIPC . Synthesis Report

11

Historical Summary and Status of Peatland Research and Capacity in Indonesia Early peatland research in Indonesia dates back to the late Dutch period. Koorders (1890) was the first to describe tropical peats of Sumatra. The occurrence of tropical peats in the upper Kapuas river basin, West Kalimantan, was also mentioned by Dutch explorers (e.g. Mollengraff). Forest and peat fires had been recorded in the upper Kapuas lakes, the Mahakam lakes, and South Kalimantan. One Dutch researcher in particular, B. Polak, had conducted notable studies of peatland between 1940 and 1950.

During President Soeharto’s New Order regime, most peatland research focused on the use of peats for agriculture, particularly rice paddy, as well as for energy.

One of the first publications about tropical peatland was written by JP Andriesse, in 1988 (Nature and Management of Tropical Peat Soils, FAO Soil Bulletin 59). Notable Indonesian peatland researchers in the 1970s included Soepratohardjo, Subagyo, Suhardjo, and Rochimah (perhaps the only female researcher on peatland at that time). Supardi and Euroconsult produced several reports on the use of peat for energy.

As part of New Order government’s idea to develop peatland for agriculture, Rasau Jaya Peat complex in West Kalimantan was drained and converted into transmigration area in 1972. The main actor in this conversion included the Department of Public Works, who built the drainage canals, as well as Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), who ran test farms where it conducted field experiments. In 1980s, The government of Indonesia carried out the so-called one-million-hectare peatland project for rice paddy production in Central Kalimantan in 1996. This mega rice project site later suffered massive fires in the 1997-1998 El Nino Drought.

Peat fire and haze attracted a significant number of foreign researchers, particularly to Central Kalimantan, who carried out many studies and development projects. Notable peat researchers in Central Kalimantan included the group from the United Kingdom led by Jack O’Riley group from United Kingdom and 12 IIPC . Synthesis Report

several other European countries, such as Finland, which included Susan Page, Jyrki Jauhainen, and Chris Bank. A major peat research group from Hokkaido University also a lot of work in Central Kalimantan. This group included Mitsuru Osaki, Hidenori Takahashi, and Hiroshi Hayasaka.

Suwido Limin and Bambang Setiadi are two other prominent Indonesian peat researchers. Bambang Setiadi established the Indonesian Peat Society (HGI) in 1992, and the Center for Tropical Peat Research (Purigatro) in West Kalimantan and Riau Provinces (in 1992/1993). In Central Kalimantan, there were plans to establish a Center for Information and Promotion on Tropical Peats (in 1992/1993). Among other things, Bambang Setiadi managed to attract local policymakers to improve peat fertility by adding volcanic ash into peat soils and conducted a series of national seminar on peat. In 1992-1993, there were several initiatives related to the use of peat as a source of energy (led by the Department of Mine and Energy in association with Purigatro in West and Central Kalimantan).

Suwido Limin, with assistance from Jack O’Riley, established the Center for International Cooperation on Sustainable Management of Tropical Peatland (CIMTROP) in 1998 at Palangkaraya University (UNPAR), Central Kalimantan. In 1999, Jack O’Riley et. al. published a book called Biodiversity and Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands (Samara Publishing, Cardigan,UK). Other soil scientists included researchers from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and Bogor Agriculture University (IPB), namely, Tejoyuwono Hadiprawiro, Bostang Radjagukguk, Azwar Maas, and Sabiham Supiandi.

The 1997/1998 big peat fires at the Mega Rice Project (MRP) led to a paradigm shift in peatland research and development. There was a stark move in peatland research from peat uses for agriculture to environmental issues and concerns. In addition to big fires of 1997/1998, the Brundtland Report (i.e. Our Common Future), the Forest Principles, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and Agenda 21 also have had a major role in encouraging this shift. It was during this period that high deforestation

rates of tropical peat swamp forests in Sumatra and Kalimantan were observed and recorded. It is important to note that the collapse of Soeharto regime in 1998 and subsequent political changes in the country have had a significant impact on land use changes that has led to further peatland forest decline.

Since 2000 to present, carbon trade has become the new ‘buzzword’ for peat conservation and peat carbon became a new tradeable commodity. Expansion of oil palms and forest plantation on peats has

been very rapid and is seen as a major threat. In early 2000s, most peat areas (both APL and logged�over peat forests) in Sumatra and Kalimantan were not well managed, leading to an opportunity to access and make the land use changes those areas.

A historical summary of peatland research in Indonesia is presented in the Table 2.

The occurrence of peats in Indonesia opens new opportunities for scientific development since the

Table 2: The history of peatland research in Indonesia

IIPC . Synthesis Report

13

Dutch times. As the nature of peatland research has shifted from peatland agricultural use to sustainable peatland use and conservation, Indonesian peatland research has become even more globally important.

Many scientists and donors have been attracted to conduct and fund peatland research in Indonesia, and we have seen an increase in the number of peatland scientists doing studies in Kalimantan and Sumatera (with the exception of Papua). In spite of this, this has not been followed by the improvement in the qual-

14 IIPC . Synthesis Report

ity of laboratory equipment and technicians, which remain poor. From a research point of view, there is the need to: 1) Standardize the methodology on peatlands research; 2) Gather the unpublished and scattered data of peatland from few scholars; 3) Establish a Peatland Research Center; 4) Develop network and professional collaboration, nationally and internationally; 5) Develop regional capacity building; and 6) Optimize the scientific funding into practice.

CONVERSATION I: Climate Mitigation and Co-Benefits from Sustainable Peatland Management: An International Perspective on Science Based Policy Development Conversation Scope In Conversation I, FAO, IUCN-UK and GEC shared their experiences on sustainable peatland management in Europe and Asia. The expected output is to learn lessons, as well as the challenges and opportunities in sustainable peatland management in other countries.

Summary of Inputs

Fig. 3: Emissions share per sector, AR4, all gases (Source: Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations)

LULUCF is by far contributes 18% of global emission (Figure 3). This means that there is wide scope for mitigation actions, including improved management and conservation of the remaining forest, including peatland. Agriculture is the largest contributor to emissions in global greenhouse gas emissions from 1970 to 2004, and it means that there is a scope for climate mitigation related to food security and sustainable development goals (Figure 4).

16 IIPC . Synthesis Report

Fig. 4: Global greenhouse gas emissions 1970-2004 (Source: IPCC 4th AR – Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations)

IUCN-UK Peatland Program is a voluntary partnership of scientists, policymakers and land managers with a common vision for peatland to be functioning and delivering a wide array of natural services.

The UK has some of the deepest peat deposits in Europe; it has about 9-15% of Europe’s peatland areas and supports about 13% of the world’s blanket bog, which is one of the three types of peatland found in the UK and is an internationally important habitat.

Blanket bog and raised bog peatland cover over 9% of the UK land area, and current estimates indicate that they store over 3 billion tones of carbon. Of the world’s 180 countries with peatland, the UK is in the top 10 in terms of its peatland area.

Similar to tropical peat, peatland in Europe is important in the debate on climate change because of their function as stores of carbon – it has been estimated that a loss of only 5% of UK’s peatland carbon would equate to its total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions. Undamaged bogs, as we know, also have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through sequestration. Temperate peatland contain on average seven times more carbon per hectare than any other ecosystem of that climatic zone.

At the start of the IUCN UK Peatland Program three years ago, there were strong global signals to conserve and restore peatland. Peatland restoration and sustainable management was described as ‘the low hanging fruit for climate change mitigation and a prime example of nature providing valuable ecosystem services’. However, despite the strong international emphasis on the importance of peatland, in the EU peatland conservation targets were not being met and even in the UK, peatlands were not in a favorable state. The best available evidence suggests that only less than 20% of the blanket bog in the UK is in a natural or near-natural condition. The majority of the UK’s peatland were found to be non-peat forming – 16% severely eroded, 10% have been afforested, 11% are affected by past peat cutting and 40% have been modified or destroyed by conversion to agriculture.

Most of the peatland in the UK are privately owned, either by farmers, foresters or other landowners, and historically peatlands have been seen as a resource to be developed, with widespread drainage for agriculture and forestry, and deliberate burning to encourage growth of heather or other plants for grazing animals.

In fact, much of the land use change was supported IIPC . Synthesis Report

17

by Government policies and incentives were aimed at increasing production of livestock, timber and crops.

It is important to note here that most of these threats have now stopped, as there are no longer grants to damage peatland. However, we are left with thousands of hectares of damaged bog that is deteriorating because of the old drains. In more recent years, new threats from the expansion in renewable energy developments, particularly from wind farms and associated access tracks and turbine foundations have also been found to damage peatland.

The IUCN UK Peatland Program was developed to help build consensus on science and policy – in other words to bring the scientists and policymakers together to ensure that science and recent research was advising policy direction, and that policy was addressing convincing research results. There was another focus for the program, namely, to ensure effective practice through delivering action.

One of the first activities of the IUCN Peatland Program was the Commission of Inquiry on Peatland.

This was an 18-month long investigation into the state and value of peatland ecosystems and it also examined ways to safeguard and restore them. Over 300 contributors and 50 organizations were involved in the entire exercise, comprising a multi-disciplinary team of experts. As a result the inquiry report presents one of the largest bodies of evidence on the state of peatland that has been seen in the UK. The Commission of Inquiry on Peatland was an open process, involving a broad partnership between invited government agencies and departments, NGOS, academics and individual farmers and landowners, and industry to give their views and they were asked what they thought was needed to help conserve and restore peatland. The Commission of Inquiry also supported discussions nationally and a series of annual conferences called ‘Investing in Peatland’ were held in three subsequent years – the first one was on Climate change, then on Delivering Multiple Benefits and the one last year was on Demonstrating Success.

These conferences represented the biggest gatherings on peat in the UK for many years and they were cross-sectoral and had representatives from various 18 IIPC . Synthesis Report

groups, even international expertise. The conferences identified the need for a synthesis of current science to address and answer policy and practice challenges – it was agreed that the issue was not whether to deliver peatland conservation and restoration but how to deliver it and to quantify the benefits. The Commission of Inquiry essentially confirmed that peatland are extremely important for human well-being: It confirmed the important role that peatlands play in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

It also highlighted that peatland formed a very significant part of the UK’s natural heritage and biodiversity and that we had important species and habitats, which we have an obligation to conserve and restore under Convention on Biological Diversity. The Commission also recognized the role that peatland play in providing high-quality cheap water because 70% of all drinking water is derived from surface water that comes mainly from upland catchments that are generally peat dominated.

Recognizing all these important ecosystem services, the challenge now is to find a way to get payment for these services to the people who manage the land.

There is a growing community of interest in peatland - not just from the usual environmental organizations, but increasingly from the corporate sector, the water companies looking to reduce the impact of damaged peatland on water supplies and the increasing wider business interest in carbon reduction. We have a clear ambition, as a result of the Commission of Inquiry, to ensure they are brought into good condition and maintained.

The UK has a good experience of restoring damaged peatland; the booklet on ‘Demonstrating Success’ gives examples of peatland restoration and is available on the IUCN PP website. The Inquiry has demonstrated the benefits of partnerships between government departments and agencies, NGOs, businesses and communities in delivering world leading examples of peatland restoration; so broad based partnerships with a leading body and properly staffed with expert practitioners are key to providing necessary resource to deliver restoration on the ground.

Key recommendations from the work of the Programme are that we need to gather the considerable peatland expertise and resources across the public and private sectors to achieve the scale and urgency of the action that was required.

The immediate goal was to bring 1 million ha of peatland into good condition or under conservation management by 2020.

The Inquiry recommendations present three key actions: • To build a strong policy framework, • To ensure that the necessary public and private funding are in place • To coordinate action to have the right science, skills and targeted effort IIPC . Synthesis Report

19

CONVERSATION II: Sustainable Peatland Management in Indonesia – issues to be addressed for a robust policy framework CONVERSATION SCOPE The first Peatland discussion (Conversation I) drew examples from around the world to understand how peatland management has been approached in international fora, such as the FAO, and in other countries, including the UK and Malaysia.

Building on the first conversation, Conversation II introduced Indonesian national efforts to understand the role of peatland in national development, natural resource conservation, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The goal of Conversation II was to identify key concepts in peatland conservation, and then use the combined experience of the participants to brainstorm and identify key issues that define the problems faced in implementing peatlands conservation measures.

The first presentation, by Wahyuningsih Darajati of BAPPENAS, examined the contribution of peatland conversion national greenhouse gas emissions. An introduction was made of Indonesia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases through the national emission reduction action plan (RAN-GRK), with particular emphasis on the role of peatlands in current emissions. Following the first presentation, Eli Nur Nirmala Sari of the Indonesia Climate Change Center introduced key priority that, if introduced, should greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands. They are (1) the imperative to protect remaining natural peat forests on undisturbed peat domes; (2) the need to rehabilitate degraded peatlands, particularly through addressing water management by blocking drainage canals; (3) the urgency to prevent peat soil fires; (4) the goal to restrict new plantations on peatlands, and (5) the reduction of emissions from existing plantations.

These two presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion in which participants voluntarily joined one of five groups to identify key issues on the five themes presented by Dr. Eli. These were discussed in a summary presentation that centered on the identification of

20 IIPC . Synthesis Report

common themes, knowledge gaps, and identification of potential areas of conflict led by Nick Mawdsley of Mott MacDonald. The discussion looked at the outputs of the table discussions and touched on several key policy issues (e.g. the role of peatland in forest policy and spatial planning law) thus informing Conversation III that would follow the next day.

ICCC SUSTAINABLE PEATLAND MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS Peatland and Peatland Mapping Cluster held multiple technical meetings and consultations and discussed SPM in the context of reducing GHG emissions from peatland.

There is a general consensus that in order to achieve sustainable peatland management in Indonesia and GHG emission reductions targets, it is necessary to have a robust policy framework that covers five following areas: 1. Protection of remaining natural peat forests 2. Restoration of degraded and drained peatland 3. Prevention of peat forest fires 4. Restriction of new plantation concessions on peat 5. Reduction of emission from existing plantations

CONVERSATION OUTPUTS

Protection of Remaining Intact Peat Forests 1. Create an accurate peatland map 2. Characterize, prioritize remaining peat forest (identify the buffer zone): • Threats • Ecosystem services • Biodiversity • Representativeness • Economic value • Social value • Land tenure • Down scaling climate models 3. Review the regulations and policies (avoiding the

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

overlapping) to identify synergies and conflicts Top down and bottom up policies, alignment spatial planning (national, provincial, district and sub-district level) Designation of peat domes as HCVF and protection area Law enforcement mechanism and monitoring; early warning of disturbance Funding mechanism and Payment Ecosystem Services (PES) Providing infrastructures

Restoration of Degraded and Drained Peatland IIPC recommends the term ‘rehabilitation’ rather than ‘restoration’ as restoration has been ineffective in some drained peatland. Rehabilitation is making the peatland useful again after a disturbance, and it involves the recovery of ecosystem functions and processes in a degraded habitat. Meanwhile, restoration is the process of repairing damage of peatland to the diversity and dynamics of ecosystems.

Peatland degradation ranges from just an apparent loss of forest cover to the severely drained areas. Drained peatland is a major issue in climate change since annual GHG emissions from already drained peatlands is constant and increases the risk of peatland fire. However, rewetting drained peatland creates the risk of methane emission.

Global emissions from drained peatland have increased by 25% since 1990, especially in South East Asia. Drainage of peatland also causes subsidence, which makes agricultural and plantation land undrainable and, consequently, abandoned. The best thing that can be done for drained peatland is to slow down the rate of emission and subsidence by replanting natural vegetative cover.

Cover crops help to maintain lower temperature and increase moisture level.

FAO introduces Decision Support Tree, a tool to support policy and actions for peatland (Figure 5).

In the Decision Support Tree, there is a clear decision-

Fig. 5: Decision Support Tree, FAO IIPC . Synthesis Report

21

making flow: designate pristine peatlands for conservation. If productive use of peatland is necessary, it is better managed by rewetting and paludiculture. However, if rewetting not possible due to socio-economic needs, best practice management should be followed accordingly.

Peatland use should minimize drainage as much as possible to reduce oxidation and degradation. It also requires choosing the right crop that can adapt to high soil moisture. Identification of high economic value of such crops will be different in each country where research work is conducted. Crops that require deep drainage are not suitable for agriculture on peatland.

Water management to maintain the balance between productivity and drainage should be based on nature and characteristics of the peat. For Indonesia, best practice in oil palm and acacia cultivation on peatland should avoid drainage or blocking of natural surface as well as sub-surface flow.

Some of the best practices that can be adopted to restrict carbon emission from peatland: 1. Avoiding lvand clearing by fire on peatland; 2. Preference on crops that provide shades to reduce surface temperature; 3. Limiting fertilization, especially on drained peatland. This actually sets the maximum output that can be harvested from drained peatland, which may be uneconomical to pursue; 4. Amelioration essentially changes water regime of peatland draining territory.

Prevention of Peat Forest Fires Forest fires are the main contributor of deforestation and forest degradation, accounting for 57% of total deforestation and forest degradation. In 1997, forest fires in Indonesia ignited an area of peatland that smoldered for months. When peat ignites, it produces a smoldering, smoky burn that is difficult to extinguish, as peat depth can reach several meters beneath the ground. By the time it was over, it is estimated that between 3,000 and 9,000 MtCO2e were released into the atmosphere from forest and peat fires that year, equaling 20 to 40

22 IIPC . Synthesis Report

percent of the total worldwide emissions that year from fossil fuels.

Importantly, in regard to peat fires in particular, one needs to: 1) Differentiate between peat fires and peat forest fires; 2) Focus on prevention, rather than suppression, e.g. keep peat soils wet, canal blocking; 3) Monitor water levels in peatland, along with climate and weather conditions (Fire Danger Rating SystemFDRS); 4) Measure peat and peat forest emissions factors; 5) Understand the causes of peat and peat forest fires (not simply land clearing – e.g. land tenure issues and conflict); 6) Institute policy change in zero-burn policy – implement prescribed burning methods appropriately; and 7) Create greater public awareness and understanding of the negative effects (health, economic, etc.) of peat fires.

Restriction on Development of New Plantation Concessions on Peatland 1. Consider the condition of peatland 2. Identify areas that can physically be conserved or rehabilitated a. No new concessions for plantation b. Alternatives for existing concession • Revoke – Land swap - Reduced impact • Political will – REDDT 3. In some cases, plantations improve existing conditions where peatland is already severely degraded • Fire suppression/management • H2O management options • Bio-resource replacing fossil fuels • Reduce pressure on intact area • Potential areas for land swap • Forest left • Dome shape left Reduction on Emissions from Existing Plantations Many types of plantations can be found in peatland, such as oil palm plantation, forest plantation for pulp and paper, food crop plantation, etc. Those plantations can be categorized into two types, large scale plantation, such as oil palm and pulp and paper forestry, and small

scale plantation, such as most food crop plantations. As far as plantations on peatland, several components contribute to emissions, namely drainage, peat fires, fertilizer use, low productivity, and energy use.

Peatland drainage is a major cause of emissions in peatland and remains a critical issue to address in order to achieve sustainable peatland management. Particular issues include how to elevate water table in peatland, how to implement better peatland monitoring system as well as who shall do this, the need to explore other crop option with lower emissions.

Another biggest emission factor in peatland is peat fires, and there are several issues to be addressed in this regard. Particular issues include how to do more effective fire control, how to better implement zero-burning policy, how to do better education about peat fires, and how to implement incentives and disincentives in peatland.

Fertilizer use will trigger accretion emission if it is applied unsustainably. Particular issues under this rubric includes improving of application techniques, mini-

mizing inorganic fertilizers, enriching organic material with cropland residue, using effective microorganism to compost, using slow release fertilizers with good timing, and exploring possibility to use ameliorants to help reduce emissions.

In regard to energy, the use of biomass residue as fuel, consuming less fuel, and improving fuel efficiency will contribute to reducing emissions.

Improve land productivity will also help reduce peatland emissions, but it must be linked with government policy on restricting peatland conversion, agriculture technique, and exploring the possibility to increase peat density as a measure of oxidation reduction.

IIPC . Synthesis Report

23

CONVERSATION III: Strengthening the Linkages of Science to Policy in Indonesia

CONVERSATION SCOPE In this conversation, Jack Rieley (University of Nottingham) shared his experience and knowledge about integrating peatland science and policy: Data quality and transparency; political will and action to answer the following questions: 1) What can happen when sound science is not a part of policy making – examples; 2) Where things are going under the current policy scenario – Indonesia’s vulnerability; and 3) Changing course – what would be required. Grahame Applegate (AusAID) shared his knowledge about his experience in KFCP by giving an overview of the work being done in Indonesia, what scientific results have been or are being generated, and the relevance of the outputs to GOI policy needs.

Helmut Dotzauer from FORCLIME shared the experience on GIZ Forest and Climate Change Program.

Dipa Satriadi Rais from Wetlands International shared the experience of peatland mapping, and Yuyu Rahayu from UN-REDD shared the methods for integrating science into policy.

This conversation also included a discussion on how to move forward and utilize the science input, and consider: 1) Obstacles to be overcome; 2) Breakthroughs required for more effective utilization of science in policy making; 3) Recommendations to support improved science to policy linkages; 4) What is missing in supporting a robust policy development based on science; 5) The roadmap for the next two years.

SUMMARY OF INPUTS There is a small interaction between Science, Policy, Politic and Peatland. It is difficult for scientists and policymakers to communicate, as they do not understand each other’s requirements. The major gulf between science researchers and users are: 1) Policymakers are required to make decisions rapidly; 2) Scientists need to test, analyse and interpret data; 3) A common language is needed for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders; and 4) Use of ‘knowledge brokers’ (consultants)

24 IIPC . Synthesis Report

is increasing to bridge the language gap. Social and political requirements are turbulent, driven by hidden agendas and subject to multiple short-term pressures.

Flexibility, patience and perseverance of all parties are required to wait for a window of opportunity when politics, policy and science coincide. Promising initiatives may be stalled or abandoned owing to unforeseen circumstances such as elections, bureaucratic changes or social events. Scientific knowledge is a fundamentally important underpinning of peatland policy and management. This requires understanding the needs of policymakers (but do they know what they need?). Scientific information can be acquired in a ‘random’ manner (e.g. blue skies research favored in developed countries) or ‘targeted’ in response to particular needs of industry or governments.

Peat is initiated and accumulates only under permanently waterlogged, acidic and nutrient and oxygen deficient conditions. Peatlands have formed mostly in sub-coastal locations, mainly during the last 6000 years.

However, inland peat in Central Kalimantan has been dated to more than 25,000 years before present (YBP).

Lowland peatland is covered with rainforest trees up to 45m tall that are the source of the peat. They are reservoirs of considerable biodiversity (HCV) and many species are rare and endangered, and are very large carbon stores, mostly in the peat, with around 2000 t CO2e per hectare for each meter of peat thickness.

All forms of land use change involve deforestation, drainage, fire and lead to loss of fauna and flora, lowering of the water table and large emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions increase with depth of drainage. Peatland water management aims to maintain water tables as high as possible, however, crops cannot grow in permanently waterlogged and flood conditions. Under all development land uses, peat will decompose under the oxic conditions, releasing CO2 constantly, leading to subsidence and eventual disappearance of the peat.

There are several things we need to pay attention to in

regard to peatland: 1) Degraded, drained and plantation peatlands will emit CO2 constantly until the peat disappears; 2) Fire must be controlled, preferably prevented; 3) Peat subsidence will continue until peat disappears and/or the drainage base is reached when flooding will prevent further cultivation; 4) Converting degraded peatland to plantations will not reduce emissions; 5) Conversion of HCV/HCS peatland to other land uses should cease; 6) Ideally degraded peatland should be rehabilitated to swamp forest; 7) Local people must be involved and provided with livelihoods; and 8) Alternative income streams replacing plantations must be found (REDD+). To support the sustainable peatland management, Jack O’Rieley suggested that several activities should be done: 1) Stop converting peat swamp forest to other land uses; 2) Rehabilitate degraded peatland; 3) Remove plantations from deep peat/domes; 4) Cancel concession licences already granted; 5) Establish a cross-agency/Ministry coordinating body directly responsible to the President to have authority and oversight for all aspects of land use on Indonesia’s peatlands.

The person in charge should have high level status on an equal footing with Ministers and Director Generals; 6) This body must be staffed with peatland scientists, managers and regulators as well as technocrats and international advisors; and 7) Training is required.

Decreasing the rate of deforestation will decrease annual GHG emissions. Decreasing the rate of peatland drainage will still increase annual GHG emissions because the emissions from newly drained peatland add to those of already drained peatland. Stopping new peatland drainage keeps annual GHG emissions constant because the emissions from already drained peatland continue. Only decreasing the area of drained peatland decreases annual GHG emissions.

KFCP Experience in Peat Measurements and GHG Estimations concludes that comprehensive and reliable peatland data can only be obtained by: 1) Good design, planning, work plan, managing, and documenting data collection; 2) Trained and experienced personnel under tight supervision using credible and internationally accepted methodologies and practices; and 3) SOP, guidebooks/manuals, and clear instruction on how to under-

take the various monitoring tasks in the field.

The relevance of KFCP experience and peatland policy in Indonesia: 1) Peatland difficult to get consistently good quality data-all methods and information used for policy should be verified; 2) Clear relation between water table depth and carbon loss from oxidation and fire in space and time-supports canal blocking to reduce GHG emissions; 3) Lack of elevation and reliable peat depth lead to inaccurate assumptions on land suitability and vulnerability; 4) Solution-Lidar and other remote sensing in combination with credible field data(bulk density, elevation for DEMs and peat loss.

Scope of responsibility of Ministry of Forestry in peatland is managing peatland in forest state land by considering aspects of production, biodiversity, hydrology, emission, and pollution. The mandates that have yet to be fulfilled for policies in Ministry of Forestry are: 1) Production (Renewable); 2) Biodiversity (Representativeness); 3) Hydrology (Water table, Fluctuation); 4) Pollution (haze, water, soil); 5) Emission (Sequestration, Subsidence); 6) Vulnerability (Fire, Encroachment).

CONVERSATION OUTPUTS Peat Management Conversation Task: to identify institutional arrangement that would produce the greatest breakthroughs in peat management in Indonesia, including: 1) Greater leadership for peat management; 2) Harmonization of policies across agencies; and 3) Enhanced implementation from national to local levels.

The following concerns have been raised in response to the above question: • There is clear and strong rationale and strategic objectives that could be used as a basis of institutional arrangement, including the total peatland areas (estimated around 20 million hectares) and their major contribution to the GHG emission reduction target counted together with forestry sectors. Also, there is the need for harmonizing the existing rules and reg-

IIPC . Synthesis Report

25

ulations as well as programs controlled by different line ministries and agencies, such as Bappenas, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture as well as other related agencies such as Geospatial Information Agency(BIG), National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) and BPPT. • The role of local government is critical in implementing sustainable peatland management on the ground.

• Noting that diverse institutional arrangement proposals have been recommended for better sustainable peatland management in Indonesia, including adding additional functions to the existing ministries, i.e. Ministry of Forestry, as well as to the new breakthroughs by establishing a new agencies such as REDD+ agency or authoritative agencies responsible for peatland management. However, looking at the challenges of the recent institutional dynamics, more modest institutional arrangement was proposed, that is, an agency that can play a ‘coordinating’ role to mobilize and direct other agencies at all levels of governance, both national and sub-national.

• A comprehensive roadmap is critical in driving a sustainable peatland management agenda. The

26 IIPC . Synthesis Report

roadmap should cover short, medium, and longterm actions. In the short-run, legal review, gap analysis, awareness raising and lobbying to the key policymakers and stakeholders are some of the strategic activities that need to be initiated.

Sustainable Peatland Management Policy Gaps To support the establishment of sustainable peatland management, wetland mapping is important to enable the exact delineation of swamps, peatlands and mangroves. It is critical also to define ‘peat domes’ for peatland delineation. The next step after delineating wetlands is to make the spatial planning framework guidelines of RTRWP/RTRWK on peatland and reviewing PP No. 44/2004 by Ministry of Forestry. It is also important to establish guidelines for the designation and delineation inventory criteria, as well as an environment impact assessment.

Existing Peat Legislation The existence of peat legislation will determine the success of peatland management. The stipulation of the depth of 3 meters in the peatland regulation is not

strongly supported by scientific criteria. The peat legislation should emphasize the protection of existing peat swamp forest, which essentially protects domes, the need to have buffer zones around existing forests, the rehabilitation of open deforested peat, replanting trees on all drained open peatland, investigation of potentials for paludiculture, and the guidance of buffer zone location by new laws and regulations (currently timber concessions can choose the location of concession area = 20 %).

2.

3.

4.

Water Management Good water management is the best way to preserve peatland, as provided in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) manual on best management practices. For certified members of RSPO, water table should be maintained at a mean of 60cm (within a range of 5075cm) below ground surface, for existing plantings on peat. Growers and millers should address the effects of their use of water and the effects of their activities on local water resources. However, we need to pay special attention to smallholder-community farming. Those standards should not be imposed on this type of farming, as such, there needs to be flexibility in applying the standards.

There is sufficient degraded, abandoned and low-carbon value land available to meet the land requirements for biofuel needs, as well as food and feed, without adverse impacts on bio-diverse habitats, forests and other valuable areas Higher temperature and lower rainfall conditions are very suitable for the decomposition of organic matter, so as to increase CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, due to global warming, rainfall change in the future may have immediate effects on water table distribution and result in the dryness of surface peatland. Therefore, water management will be a strategic issue for sustainable peatland management. The water management in peatland is purposed for: 1. Emission Reduction. Potential increase of GHG emissions from peatland are likely to remain high due to the high carbon stock contained therein.

5.

6.

Therefore, GHG emission reduction from peatland should include water management; Fire Prevention. Peatland degradation and fires lead to GHG emissions and haze. Burning peat causes regional haze problems, and CO2 emission, particularly from drained peatland; Subsidence Reduction. Although not always, drainage causes land surface subsidence. Drainage should be avoided through water management in order to reduce subsidence; Optimal Productivity/according to crop. Oil palm is the most efficient oil crop than other oil seed crops. Due to its productivity, its expansion has encroached into tropical forest and has had a serious impact on greenhouse gas emissions; Flood control/water supply control; Water combined with vegetation will lead to microclimate regulation.

To achieve the safe water level management in peatland, some systems are required: 1. Hydrological unit approach / Basin; 2. Integrated plan – water table modeling / monitoring; 3. Trade Off = optimum levels; 4. Water management scheme – capital investment / Government / Cooperative; 5. Relatively simple – low cost approaches available; 6. Promote BMP; 7. All existing plantations must follow Best Management Practices (BMP), such as water levels no more than 50 cm below surface, GHG monitoring and reporting for all, replanting only if drainage assessment shows viability of drain, new plantations must avoid or minimize extent in peatland, develop GHG minimization/sequestration strategy.

IIPC . Synthesis Report

27

WAY FORWARD PEAT MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP To realize sustainable peatland management, it is important to have the leadership to align and coordinate the activities related to the management of peatland. There is a leadership need to synergize all plans and programs carried out by ministries and institutions, so that those plans and programs can be well integrated.

ADDRESSING POLICY GAPS The sustainable peatland management proposed by ICCC involves five areas, such as protection of remaining intact peat forests; restoration of degraded and drained peatland; prevention of peat forest fires; restriction on the development of new plantation concessions on peat; and reduction of emissions from existing plantations. The IIPC, additionally, has proposed a sixth area as another important component towards Sustainable Peatland Management, namely, to raise awareness on the importance of peatland and capacity building. However, sustainable peatland management must be viewed in the context of the larger policy issues related to spatial planning, incentives and disincentives, robust GHG initiative inventory and one map initiative. To follow them up, ICCC plans to immediately follow up by conducting focus group discussions with four themes mentioned above, by convening experts, stakeholders and policy makers, and other relevant parties.

Improved Science-to-Policy Linkage The following is an open list of outstanding issues to be addressed in upcoming discussions: 1. How realistic is it (e.g. politically) to rescind existing concessions, and on what timeframe? This is highly relevant to the recommendation from the Policy Breakout that Step 1 should be ‘no development’ of intact peatland;

28 IIPC . Synthesis Report

2. What is the policy for degraded land? Should they be targeted for development? Is it restoration? Some mix? How realistic is it to implement that policy (esp. restoration)? This was another important question that arose in the Policy Breakout; 3. What are the objectives of peatland management that will be used to derive policy? There are many competing objectives depending on perspective (e.g., local communities, concession owner, scientist, conservationist, etc.) but these objectives will drive the policy and, ultimately, the management approach; 4. What are the consequences of various policy options? Perhaps the important point here is that this is a ‘system’ question—there are many players and components to the system: some physical, some scientific, some social, some political. A system view will be essential if the true consequences of a policy are to be understood; 5. Integrated ecosystem assessment and ecosystembased management seems very relevant here; 6. Flipcharts did not always capture the conversation well and so may not reflect some valuable discussion; 7. The suggestion to create placenames for domes was a simple but potentially very effective activity; 8. For water management—although that working group seemed to be fairly optimistic that this could be effectively implemented, there was some skepticism outside of the WG about how realistic that was; 9. IIPC focused on the science aspects of the problem, but of course both it and Social Science inputs are needed to be sure realism is injected; and 10. Unlike oil palm, for example, peat swamps and the carbon they contain have no ‘constituency’, no powerful group to argue for their protection and restoration. This seems a critical point as it has at least two implications: a) It means the divide between what makes sense scientifically (and probably socially) and what is possible is large; and b) It means that working to create a constituency is probably important. And on that latter point, it is one more argument for the importance of education, both of local communities as well as policy makers at all levels.

IV. ANNEX: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No

Name

Institution

City

Country

1

Aep Purnama

Ministry of Environment

Jakarta

Indonesia

2

Agus Kristijono

Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)

Jakarta

Indonesia

3 4 5 6 7

Aljosja Hooijer Arief Darmawan Arif Budiman Artissa Panjaitan Azwar Maas

Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Yogyakarta

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia

8

Bambang Setiadi

Jakarta

Indonesia

9 10 11 12 13 14

Bill Rush Chandra Kirana Dadang Hilman Dedi Nursyamsi Dipa Satriadi Rais Douglas Muchoney

Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Banjarmasin Bogor Washington DC

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia US

15

Eli Nur Nirmala Sari

ICCC

Jakarta

Indonesia

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Erin Swails Erna Rosita Fahmuddin Agus Faizal Parish Farhan Helmy Gary Geller Grahame Applegate Gusti Anshari Hans Joosten Helmut Dotzauer Huda Achsani Jack O'Neil Rieley Kristell Hergoualc'h Matthew Warren Mitsuru Osaki Mohammad Rayan Nabiha Shahab

Virginia Jakarta Bogor Petaling Jaya Jakarta California Jakarta Pontianak Greifswald Jakarta Jakarta Nottingham Bogor Durham Sapporo Jakarta Jakarta

US Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia US Indonesia Indonesia Germany Indonesia Indonesia UK Indonesia US Japan Indonesia Indonesia

33

Nana Sudiana

Winrock International Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Agriculture Global Environment Centre DNPI NASA/California Institute of Technology AusAID IPCC/University of Tanjungpura University of Greifswald FORCLIME Ministry of Environment University of Nottingham CIFOR USDA Forest Service IPCC/University of Hokkaido FORCLIME UKP4 Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) Euroconsult Mott MacDonald UKP4 BIG Kyoto University Ministry of Social Welfare FAO Deltares US Geological Survey

Jakarta

Indonesia

Palangka Raya Jakarta Jakarta Kyoto Jakarta Rome Jakarta Virginia

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Italy Indonesia US

34 Nick Mawdsley 35 Nirarta Samadhi 36 Nurwajedi 37 Osamu Kozan 38 Pudjo Hardijanto 39 IIPC Riccardo Biancalani . Synthesis Report 30 40 Ronald Vernimmen 41 Sandra Neuzil

Deltares UKP4 WWF ICCC Agriculture Faculty, Gadjah Mada University Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) USFS UKP4 ICCC Indonesian Swampland Agriculture Institute Wetlands International USGS

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No 29 1 30 31 2 32 3 33 4 34 5 35 6 36 7 37 8 38 9 39 10 40 11 41 12 42 13 43 14 44

Grahame Applegate Gusti Anshari Hans Joosten Helmut Dotzauer Huda Achsani Jack O'Neil Rieley Kristell Hergoualc'h MatthewName Warren Aep Purnama Mitsuru Osaki Mohammad Rayan Agus Kristijono Nabiha Shahab Aljosja Hooijer Nana Sudiana Arief Darmawan Nick Mawdsley Arif Budiman Nirarta Samadhi Artissa Panjaitan Nurwajedi Azwar Maas Osamu Kozan Bambang Setiadi Pudjo Hardijanto Bill Rush Biancalani Riccardo Chandra Kirana Ronald Vernimmen Dadang Hilman Sandra Neuzil Dedi Nursyamsi Shashi Kumaran Dipa Satriadi Rais Stephen Krecik Douglas Supiandi Muchoney Sabiham

AusAID IPCC/University of Tanjungpura University of Greifswald FORCLIME Ministry of Environment University of Nottingham CIFOR Institution USDA Forest Service Ministry of Environment IPCC/University of Hokkaido FORCLIME Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) UKP4 Agency for Assessment and Application of Deltares Technology (BPPT) UKP4 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald WWF UKP4 ICCC BIG Agriculture Faculty, Gadjah Mada University Kyoto University Agency for Assessment and Application of Ministry of Social Welfare Technology (BPPT) USFS FAO UKP4 Deltares ICCC US Geological Survey Indonesian Swampland Agriculture Institute IUCN Wetlands International USFS USGS Indonesian Peat Society

Jakarta Pontianak Greifswald Jakarta Jakarta Nottingham Bogor City Durham Jakarta Sapporo Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Palangka Raya Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Yogyakarta Kyoto Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Rome Jakarta Jakarta Virginia Banjarmasin Kuala Lumpur Bogor US Washington DC Bogor

15 45 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Eli NurAnwar Nirmala Sari Syaiful Erin Swails Erna Rosita Fahmuddin Agus Faizal Parish Farhan Helmy Gary Geller Grahame Applegate Gusti Anshari Hans Joosten Helmut Dotzauer Huda Achsani Jack O'Neil Rieley Kristell Hergoualc'h Matthew Warren Mitsuru Osaki Mohammad Rayan Nabiha Shahab

Jakarta Virginia Jakarta Bogor Petaling Jaya Jakarta California Jakarta Pontianak Greifswald Jakarta Jakarta Nottingham Bogor Durham Sapporo Jakarta Jakarta

33

Nana Sudiana

Jakarta

Indonesia

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Nick Mawdsley Nirarta Samadhi Nurwajedi Osamu Kozan Pudjo Hardijanto Riccardo Biancalani Ronald Vernimmen Sandra Neuzil

ICCC Ministry of Forestry Winrock International Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Agriculture Global Environment Centre DNPI NASA/California Institute of Technology AusAID IPCC/University of Tanjungpura University of Greifswald FORCLIME Ministry of Environment University of Nottingham CIFOR USDA Forest Service IPCC/University of Hokkaido FORCLIME UKP4 Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) Euroconsult Mott MacDonald UKP4 BIG Kyoto University Ministry of Social Welfare FAO Deltares US Geological Survey

Indonesia Indonesia Germany Indonesia Indonesia UK Indonesia Country US Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Italy Indonesia Indonesia US Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia US US Indonesia Indonesia US Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia US Indonesia Indonesia Germany Indonesia Indonesia UK Indonesia US Japan Indonesia Indonesia

Palangka Raya Indonesia Jakarta Indonesia Jakarta Indonesia Kyoto Japan Jakarta Indonesia Rome IIPC . SynthesisItaly Report 31 Jakarta Indonesia Virginia US

32 IIPC . Synthesis Report

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

I N D O N E S I A

Peatland Conversation

Published by

Indonesia Climate Change Center BUMN Building 18th floor Jl. Medan Merdeka Selatan no.13 Jakarta 10110 - Indonesia Ph. +6221 3511 400, Fax + 6221 3511 403 www.iccc-network.net

SYNTHESIS REPORT Strengthening Science to Policy Linkages For Sustainable Peatland Management In Indonesia