IIPC 2014: Synthesis

2nd International Indonesia Peatland Conversation

SYNTHESIS REPORT The Use of Research Findings to Improve Policy and Measures

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

1

Suggested Citation: ICCC. 2014. International Indonesia Peatland Conversation 2014 Synthesis Report.

Indonesia Climate Change Center. Jakarta, Indonesia.

2

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

TABLE OF CONTENT

Foreword ..............................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................3 Purpose of IIPC........................................................................................................................................7

Objectives and Structure Of IIPC 2014......................................................................................7

Program Schedule..........................................................................................................................8 Conversation I.........................................................................................................................10

Peatland Mapping: State of The Art..............................................................................10

Conversation Scope.....................................................................................................................10

Summary of Inputs......................................................................................................................10

Conversation Outputs.................................................................................................................22 Conversation II......................................................................................................................................25

GHG Emissions – Improving Estimations From Fire and Drained Land...................25

Conversation Scope.....................................................................................................................25

Summary of Inputs......................................................................................................................25

Conversation Outputs.................................................................................................................37 Key Outcomes and Follow Up.................................................................................................40

Key Outcomes..............................................................................................................................40

ICCC Follow-up..........................................................................................................................40

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

3

INTERNATIONAL INDONESIA PEATLAND CONVERSATION Synthesis Report

FOREWORD

International Indonesia Peatland Conversation (IIPC) is an annual event organized by National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) and Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC). IIPC served as a dialog forum aiming to increase awareness on and understanding of what is needed to achieve Indonesia’s targets of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from peatland.

The 2nd IIPC 2014 has successfully done in Jakarta, on 11-12 February 2014, and attended by more than 50 participants (comprising both national and international scientists, and policy makers from Indonesia) from over 30 institutions.

The IIPC 2014 bring together internationally renowned scientists, policymakers, NGOs, and peatland managers from relevant ministries to conduct a dialogue on the current status of Indonesia’s peatland mapping efforts, and greenhouse gas inventory from peatland, including emissions from peat fire.

IIPC 2014 has identified the challenges and opportunities in realizing policy implementation based on research findings that will contribute to Indonesia’s GHG emission reduction target from best practice of peatland management. IIPC 2014 has also identified the issues and opportunities to be further explored in Indonesia in order to mitigate the impact of climate change from peatland, focusing on:

4

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

(1) Data quality improvement, access and standardization of methods (SNI); (2) Verification and ground truthing to improve existing peatland maps; (3) Promoting collaborative efforts to minimize duplication of activities and competing results; (4) Identifying specific gaps and resolving the political issues that are in the way of moving forward for emission factors and activity data; and (5) Recognizing need for an agency to take the lead on GHG Inventory from peat fire.

Synthesis Report of IIPC 2014 summarizes results of dialogue and proposes further works in achieving sustainable peatland management.

We thank all participants of IIPC 2014 who have contributed to this IIPC 2014 and joined us in bridging current scientific understanding with policy development in order to achieve national targets of GHG emission reductions from peatland, updating the information of ongoing research on peatland; and identifying the policy development process on how to link peatland with the related issues of REDD+, GHG inventory and Moratorium Map.

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tropical peat swamp forest ecosystems have sequestered atmospheric carbon for thousands of years, where it is stored in thick layers of waterlogged, partially decomposed plant materials (peat). Indonesia contains almost half of the world’s tropical peatlands, which are among the most dense carbon pools on Earth; the amount of carbon stored is of global significance. However, over the past few decades much of Indonesia’s peatlands have been replaced from sinks of atmospheric carbon to large-scale sources. In addition, peatland degradation, land use change and burning are now Indonesia’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Improved peatland management is therefore critical to climate mitigation strategies aimed to achieve Indonesia’s emission reduction targets. In addition, improved management can help sustain numerous ecological co-benefits including numerous ecosystem services and conservation of biological diversity.

Policies which guide peatland management and spatial planning are challenged to keep pace with rapidly advancing science and technology. Most policies predate climate mitigation goals, and do not reflect the current state of knowledge to optimize human and environmental well-being in peatland areas. The International Indonesia Peatland Conversation (IIPC) is designed to facilitate the transfer of knowledge between scientists and policymakers, thereby encouraging climate smart, informed peatland policy for the future. This is accomplished through open dialogues and discussions among a broad group of participants representing government

agencies, research institutions, and international organizations. Held on February 2013, the first annual IIPC invited extensive participation from the international community to discuss Indonesia’s peatlands in a global context, and to evaluate five critical elements to Sustainable Peatland Management (SPM): 1) Protection of intact peatlands; 2) Restoration of drained and degraded peatlands; 3) Restrict development of new concessions on peatland; 4) Reduce emissions from existing plantations; 5) Restore degraded and drained peatland. In addition, a sixth key element was identified during the meeting: 6) Raise awareness and build peatland research capacity.

Based on the outputs from IIPC 2013, ICCC identified the need to narrow the focus of IIPC 2014 to two critical topics related to peatlands and their role in Indonesia’s Climate Change strategy: The current status of Indonesia’s peatland mapping efforts, and greenhouse gas inventories from peatland, including emissions from peat fire.

Under the theme: The Use of Research Findings to Improve Policy and Measures, the IIPC 2014 was organized into two conversations: 1) Peatland Mapping; and 2) Greenhouse gas emissions: Improving estimations from fire and drained land.

The objectives of these conversations were to understand the state of the art of peatland

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

5

mapping in Indonesia, discuss data transparency issues and discrepancies in mapping methodologies, understand the requirements for estimating GHG emissions from drained peatlands and peat fire, determine Indonesian inter-agency arrangements necessary to produce accurate emission estimates, and to clarify needed data to support accurate GHG estimates. The conversations were structured to include topic presentations delivered by invited experts, followed by breakout group discussions which considered critical components of each topic. Each conversation was then followed by a synthesis of discussions held by focus groups.

The first conversation is titled Peatland Mapping: State of the Art began with three expert presentations which described the status and progress of peatland mapping in Indonesia.

Dr. Nurwadjedi of the Indonesia Geospatial Information Agency (BIG), described how peatland mapping fit into the broader context of Indonesia’s One Map Policy. For the first time, Indonesia is developing a single authoritative geospatial reference for land management across multiple agencies. A peatland data layer is to be included in the national “One Map”, and a multi-stakeholder working group was formed to specifically focus on the task. The ultimate goal of the peatland mapping working group is to coordinate mapping activities across agencies to produce an accurate 1:50,000 scale national peat map. To accomplish this, the working group will also develop national standards for peatland mapping, legalize one map policy for peatland mapping, and emphasize capacity building and data and technology sharing among stakeholders.

The second presentation was delivered by Dr. Kusumo Nugroho from the Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). The MoA is also the 6

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

chair of the BIG working group coordinating the development of Indonesia’s peatland data layer for One Map. Dr. Nugroho presented the MoA strategy for peatland mapping, including a conceptual background for the functions and use of soil map resources. These include Exploration Maps, Reconnaissance Maps, Detailed Reconnaissance Maps, Semi-detailed maps, and Detailed Maps (descending from coarse 1:1,000,000 scale to fine 1:10,000 scale maps). Current efforts are to achieve semidetailed 1:50,000 scale national peatland maps.

The presentation also included current satellite technology and analysis techniques implemented in the mapping process. An emphasis on data transparency was highlighted by both speakers.

The final presentation for Conversation I was given by Dr. Eli Nur Nirmala Sari of the Indonesia Climate Change Center’s Peatland and Peatland Mapping cluster (ICCC-PPMC). The presentation focused on recent and ongoing ICCC activities to advance peatland mapping processes in Indonesia. The ICCC held a series of focus group discussions leading to the development of Indonesia’s national definition of peatland.

This was a critical first step toward standardized peatland mapping, as several Indonesian natural resource ministries define peatland and peat in different ways. The ICCC-PPMC then facilitated the development of a peatland mapping methodology, or three-step approach to peatland mapping recommended to MoA and the BIG working group. The methodology was assessed through a comprehensive study, which also explored the use of ecological modeling to refine peat depth classification. The results from this study demonstrated that large discrepancies exist among current peatland maps, illustrating the need to improve peat maps using updated technology while mining data from past surveys

and research. In conclusion, the ICCC identified four key principles for Indonesia’s peatland mapping efforts: 1) Consistency among data sources; 2) Transparency of data and methodologies; 3) Consistency with One Map policy; and 4) Accessibility and open access.

The peatland mapping conversation then shifted to smaller group discussions tasked to address three major peatland mapping issues: Transparency, Methodology, and Data layers necessary for better SPM. The outputs from the conversations on these topics were: • A list of criteria and quality assurance for data sharing necessary to increase transparency • The need for developing standard procedures for data acquisition and reporting • Political will to build open access data sharing platforms • Increased ground-based data acquisition and verification is needed, especially in areas poorly represented in historic surveys or with high uncertainty • Peat depth is a critical component in peatland maps, as current Indonesian legislation allows land conversion on peat less than 3m deep • Peatland mapping methodologies need standardization following a rigorous review process • Models used for peatland mapping need additional validation to assess accuracy • Multiple ancillary thematic layers are needed to achieve SPM goals, including ecological, hydrological, geological, and socio-economic data, and clear administrative, management, and ownership boundaries.

The second conversation of IIPC 2014 focused on GHG Emissions-Improving Estimations from

Fire and Drained Land. The objectives of this conversation were to understand what is required for Indonesia to produce national peatland GHG inventories compliant with international standards, and to discuss what developments are needed within the Indonesian Government to include peatland GHG emissions into national inventory and accounting systems. Dr. Lou Verchot (CIFOR) was the first presenter for the session, and overviewed the newly released 2013 Wetlands Supplement to IPCC Good Practice Guidelines covering GHG inventory from drained organic soils. IPCC procedures and methods for obtaining the currently recommended emission factors for drained tropical peatland were presented. Although the IPCC guidance provides the necessary framework and emission factors for Tier 1 estimates of GHG emissions from peatlands, considerable development is necessary to refine emission factors for multiple land uses, and to design and implement a standardized measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) system to produce higher tiered estimates.

On June 2013, burning peatlands in Riau Province, Sumatra produced considerable trans-boundary haze which heavily impacted Singapore and Malaysia. This incident once again brought the chronic problem of peatland burning into the forefront of political and public discussion, and reports of the event reached newsrooms worldwide. Although it is known that peat burning contributes substantially to Indonesia’s national GHG emission profile, current estimates are highly uncertain and based on rough calculations. To address this issue, Dr. Kevin Ryan of the United States Forest Service Fire Laboratory described what is necessary to accurately quantify GHG emissions from forest and peat fires, and multiple sources of uncertainty involved in parameterizing emission IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

7

equations. Variability in fire emissions was emphasized, as the type and quantity of fuel, ignition of peat, duration of peat burning, and smoldering versus flaming combustion are highly variable depending on field conditions; the climate and moisture conditions at the time of burning also determine the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. The need for interagency cooperation and coordination to estimate emissions from peat fire was also described.

The final presentation in the second conversation was delivered by Dadang Hilman, of the ICCC Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) cluster, who explained ICCC contributions to Indonesia Peatland GHG Inventory, with a focus on fire emissions. The ICCC-MRV Cluster held a Peat Fire Workshop in October, 2013 to discuss the development of a MRV system and standard methodology for estimating peat fire emissions.

The workshop produced a conceptual framework on the issue, including scientific review and analysis. Based on the outcomes of the workshop, the ICCC-MRV cluster is currently conducting three major projects to address issues related to peat fire emissions: 1) Methodology development for GHG emission estimates, 2) A pilot study on VIIRS Nightfire detection from the June 2013 fires, and 3) Training workshop on “The application of IPCC methodology on GHG emission estimation�. Through these activities, ICCC will develop a set of recommendations to refine peat fire GHG estimates and integrate more accurate GHG inventories from fire into national accounting systems.

Following the presentation, discussion groups convened once again to discuss critical issues 8

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

related to peatland GHG inventory from drained lands and fire. Participants were asked to identify: What emission factor and activity data are already available for Indonesia? What additional data is needed to achieve higher tier GHG inventory?

What is required to move beyond reliance on hotspot data for more accurate and credible emission estimates from fires?

Several sources of existing data were identified, including existing emission factors produced through IPCC processes which were largely based on regional studies from Indonesia and Malaysia. However, these emission factors need to be further validated at sub-national levels to approach Tier 2 GHG inventories. Activity data is also becoming available through the One Map initiative and sources of general statistical databases such as FAOSTAT, however there is a need to standardize data acquisition and quality control at sub-national levels. A framework for data management is also needed to handle the large and complex datasets involved in national GHG accounting.

To improve peat fire GHG estimation, significant scientific research is needed to validate and integrate remotely sensed data with groundbased studies. To accurately interpret satellite data, ground verification and calibration is necessary which includes site-specific estimates of the amount and type of fuel consumed, including peat. These data are lacking for Indonesia peatlands, and resources should be focused on the acquisition of this ground-based data. Participants acknowledged that an existing framework for GHG accounting framework exists, and fire emissions could be fairly easily integrated once a responsible coordinating agency is identified.

In Summary, the following themes were consistent throughout IIPC 2014, and are a focus for future consideration: • Data quality, access, transparency, and standardization of methods are needed for peatland GHG accounting; • Significant collaboration among multiple stakeholders is necessary to achieve higher tier peatland GHG inventory and climate mitigation goals; • Rigorous technical review is a critical process for standardization of methodology; • Ministry of Environment supported by multiple technical agencies is recommended to administer GHG inventory from peatland, based on existing frameworks; • Resources should be allocated to extensive ground-based data acquisition and verification.

The 2014 IIPC proved to be a very successful and productive meeting of multiple stakeholders involved in peatland management and GHG inventory. The IIPC provides a rare opportunity for semi-structured dialogue among participants, and a forum to exchange information and ideas.

The outputs from the meeting will be adapted into ICCC activities and efforts to translate current scientific knowledge into policy action including recommendations to the BIG peatland mapping working group, and facilitating discussion on the inter-agency arrangements needed to manage peatland GHG inventory and improved SPM. ICCC will commits to being a model of open data sharing, high technical standards, and rigorous review of any science based inputs to policy makers.

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

9

Purpose of IIPC

PURPOSE OF IIPC

International Indonesia Peatland Conversation (IIPC) is an annual event organized by the Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC), which is supported through a partnership between the National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) and United States Forest Service (USFS). IIPC serves as a discussion forum aiming to increase awareness and understanding of what is needed to achieve Indonesia’s targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from peatland.

The goals of IIPC are: 1. To build a common understanding of the elements of effective peatland management that should be applied 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.

The first IIPC was held in Bandung on 25-27 February 2013. IIPC 2013 identified challenges and opportunities in realizing policy implementation that will contribute to Indonesia’s GHG emission reduction target from best practice peatland management and has determined priority needs in policy development for Sustainable Peatland Management. IIPC 2013 also identified the issues and opportunities to be further explored in Indonesia to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and impacts of climate change from peatland.

Significant examples include: 1. The importance of leadership in peatland management;

10

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

2. The importance of overcoming policy gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies; and 3. The importance of strengthening science to support climate smart policy related to peatland.

IIPC 2013 suggested that significant commitments are needed from all stakeholders, (including government, private sector, technical experts, environmental organizations, and communities) to enhance and utilize science input for robust policy development on peatland management. In order to achieve that, the scientists and representatives of the government have agreed on a basis for analyzing gaps in peat policy, and the needs for greater harmonization and improved inter-ministerial coordination for peat management. Productive inter-ministerial relationships are needed to confront challenges related to improved peatland management, emphasizing a clear and urgent need for well-defined leadership towards peatland management, which is currently lacking at national, provincial and local levels.

OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE OF IIPC 2014 The second IIPC took place in Jakarta on February 11 and 12, 2014. For IIPC 2014, organizers identified an ongoing need to further synthesize key action points and priorities to improve the sustainability of peatland management in Indonesia. The objectives of IIPC 2014 were: 1. Understand the state of the art of Peatland Mapping in Indonesia;

2.

Discuss and develop strategies for increasing data transparency, resolving mapping methodology discrepancies, and supplementing available data layers for improved peatland mapping; 3. Understand the unique requirements for effective emission estimations from drained lands and from fires; and 4. Determine the GOI inter-agency arrangements necessary to ensure adequate GHG emission estimation capability; and

5. Clarify the available and required data to support accurate GHG estimations that meet international standards.

To achieve those objectives, IIPC held two conversations covering the following topics: 1. Conversation I: Peatland Mapping; and 2. Conversation II: GHG Emissions – Improving Estimations from Fire and Drained Land.

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

11

PROGRAM SCHEDULE

Session

Presenter Tuesday, 11 February 2014

10.00 am

Opening Welcoming Remarks Overview of Objectives/Agenda

Farhan Helmy (ICCC) Taya Levine

Conversation I Peatland Mapping: State of the Art 10.30-12.30 One Map Policy for National Dr. Nurwadjedi (Geospatial Peatland Mapping Information Agency) State of the Art: Peat Soil Mapping Dr. Kusumo Nugroho (Ministry of (In Indonesia) Agriculture) Peatland and Peatland Mapping Dr. Eli Nur Nirmala Sari (ICCC) Cluster – Progressing towards Results Q&A Wednesday, 12 February 2014 Conversation II GHG Emissions – Improving Estimations from Fire and Drained Land 10:35 - 10:55 Opening IPCC Guidelines GHG Estimation from Peat Fires ICCC Activities

10.30-11.00 11.00-12.30 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 15.30-16.00 16.00

12

Q&A Coffee Break Working Groups Lunch Report Outs and Discussions Action Plans for Next Steps Closing Remarks

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Dr. Lou Verchot – CIFOR Research Director, Forests and Environment Dr. Kevin Ryan – USFS Fire Science Expert Dadang Hilman – ICCC

3 Groups

Farhan Helmy (ICCC)

Conversation I

Peatland Mapping: State of the Art

Conversation Scope The first conversation of IIPC 2014 examined peatland mapping in Indonesia. The objectives of Conversation I were to understand the state of the art of peatland Mapping in Indonesia and to discuss and develop strategies to increase data transparency, resolve mapping methodology discrepancies and supplement available data layers to improve peatland mapping.

Three presentations were delivered for the mapping conversation. The first presentation,

by Nurwadjedi of the Geospatial Information Agency (BIG), introduced One Map Policy for National Peatland Mapping in Indonesia.

He presented peatland mapping updates and associated challenges for a national Indonesia peatland GHG inventory. Following the first presentation, Kusumo Nugroho of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) shared the state of the art of peat soil mapping in Indonesia, including the current MoA platform for the development of a national peatland map. The third presentation,

by Eli Nur Nirmala Sari of ICCC, introduced a range of activities that have been implemented by the Peatland and Peatland Mapping Cluster of ICCC and progress towards results. The presentation included a recent evaluation of a peatland mapping approach developed by the ICCC in two pilot districts.

The three presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion in which participants joined one of three working groups to discuss some key issues regarding peatland mapping.

Each group discussed and sought answers to the following questions: (1) What data transparency is needed to ensure GOI can generate precise and accurate peatland maps? What is required to increase transparency? (2) What can be done to resolve differences in mapping methodologies and resulting discrepancies in peatland maps? (3) What additional data layers need to be developed to equip GOI to make effective land management decisions?

Summary of Inputs One Map Policy for National Peatland Mapping - Peatland mapping update and its challenges for Indonesia peatland Presented by Nurwadjedi - Geospatial Information Agency The idea of One Map Policy started from a cabinet meeting of the Government of Indonesia, held on 23 December 2010, in which President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono expressed his wish that there should be One Map as a single national geospatial reference. This was followed by the issuance of Presidential Instruction Number 10/2011 (Inpres 10/2011). Main points of Inpres 10/2011 are: • To coordinate and synchronize thematic maps required for preparing a map of concession moratorium on primary forests and peatland (moratorium map) in the framework of one map policy; • Moratorium map is regarded as a prototype of implementation of one map policy; IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

13

• Moratorium map can be used as a basis of national decision making related to improving primary forest and peatland management; and • The improvement of primary forest and peatland management is a key approach in achieving 26% carbon emission reduction.

Beyond Inpres 4/2011 and beyond Moratorium Map, One Map Approach is: One Reference, One Standard, One Database, and One Geoportal.

According to Law No. 4/2011 on Geospatial Information, Geospatial Information Agency (Badan Informasi Geospasial/BIG) has three main tasks: (1) Produce Basic Geospatial Information (IGD); (2) Supervise agencies to Establish Thematic Geospatial Information (IGT); and (3) Develop Infrastructure and Geospatial Information Networks. IGD is a fundamental factor for One Map Policy. There are two types of IGD, namely base maps and geodetic control networks. As the organizer of geospatial information in Indonesia, BIG has set up a new geospatial reference system called the Indonesia Geospatial Reference System 2013 (SRGI 2013). SRGI is needed to support One Map Policy for Indonesia. With One Map in place, all development and implementation in Indonesia can be run simultaneously without overlapping interests or confounding spatial references. SRGI 2013 has defined several standards, including: • Coordinate Reference System: Global Reference • National Geodetic Control Network: Epoch 2012.0 1 January 2012 • Geometric Datum: WG84 • Vertical Reference System: Geoid

14

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

The strategy to implement One Map Policy is through working groups. Twelve working groups (WG) have been established, including a Peatland Mapping WG. The organization structure of Peatland Mapping WG is as follows: • Chairman: Head of Agricultural Land Resource Agency (Ministry of Agriculture) • Secretary: Head of Center for Thematic Mapping and Integration (BIG) • Members: Land Administry Agency, Ministry of Public Work, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Environment, ICCC, BMKG, UGM, IPB, ITB, Wetlands International.

The functions of Peatland Mapping WG include: • Conduct coordination and synergy of peatland mapping program among ministries/agencies; • Develop national standards for peatland mapping; • Authorize one map for peatland; and • Strengthen human resources capacity building in ministries/agencies by sharing experiences in using new technology.

Peatland Mapping WG has produced the Indonesian National Standard (SNI) of Peatland Mapping with 1:50,000 scale.

Definition of peatland in the Indonesian National Standard (SNI 7925-2013) is as follows: “Lahan dengan tanah jenuh air, terbentuk dari endapan yang berasal dari penumpukan sisa tanaman (residu) jaringan tumbuhan masa lampau yang melapuk dengan ketebalan lebih dari 50cm.”

“Peatland is land with water saturated soil, composed of organic residue formed from the decomposition of vegetation tissue with thickness of more than 50 cm.”

This definition provides the basic concept of peatland mapping in Indonesia for 1:50,000 scale.

The Indonesian National Standard (SNI) for peatland mapping at 1:50,000 scale uses a multistage approach: • Peatland map at 1:50,000 scale is derived from the interpretation of medium- high resolution satellite imagery on the basis of peatland typology.

• Peatland typology: peatland unit with specific characteristics that include formation processes, depth, degree of decomposition,

sulfidic materials, and peat substratum.

• Existing peatland map with scale of 1:250,000 (PIPIB) is used as main source of data for delineating peatland typology, which are classified into 3 classes (utilized peatland, unutilized peatland, and non-peatland).

Figure 1 show the peatland map of Indonesia, which was extracted from PIPIB map (Rev. 5.0).

Total area of peatland in Indonesia is around 15.01 M Ha, which is distributed mainly in Sumatra (43%), Kalimantan (33%), and Papua (24%).

Fig. 1: Peatland Map of Indonesia (Source: Geospatial Information Agency (BIG))

An example of peatland mapping at 1:50,000 scale using SNI is shown in Figure 2, which depicts the area of peatland in Kubu Raya District, West Kalimantan Province.

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

15

Fig. 2: Example of Peatland Mapping on 1:50,000 Scale Using SNI

The BIG peatland mapping program for 20132014 consists of 1:50,000 scale peatland mapping for: • Pelalawan District, Riau Province • Muara Jambi District, Jambi Province • Kubu Raya District, West Kalimantan Province • Pulang Pisau District, Central Kalimantan Province • Mimika District, West Papua Province • Selected districts from 10 provinces in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua.

The implementation of peatland mapping at 1:50,000 scale is confronted by many obstacles: • Base maps of RBI (Rupa Bumi Indonesia) of 1:50,000 scale have not been completed; • Budget limitations; • Remote sensing technology limitations to penetrate peat depth; and • Accessibility of peatland terrain is often very difficult.

16

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Some closing remarks from this presentation: • One Map policy is a strategic approach to synchronize and integrate thematic maps, including peatland maps • One Map policy for supporting sustainable peatland management is implemented by establishing the Peatland Mapping WG • The Peatland Mapping WG has produced SNI for Peatland Mapping at 1:50,000 scale, which is used for the national peatland mapping standard.

• SNI for peatland mapping developed

by Peatland Mapping WG is open for improvement, particularly for measuring peat depth using new remote sensing technology.

• Peatland mapping at 1:50,000 scale requires the participation of international agencies for technical capacity and budget needs.

State of the Art: Peat Soil Mapping (in Indonesia) Presented by Kusumo Nugroho – Ministry of Agriculture A soil map is a map (i.e. a geographical representation) showing a diversity of soil types and/or soil properties (soil pH, texture, organic matter content, depths of horizons, etc.) in the area of interest. It is typically the end result of a soil survey inventory, i.e. soil survey. Soil maps are most commonly used for land evaluation, spatial planning, agricultural extension, environmental protection and similar projects, including restrictions on land use permits according to Presidential Instruction 6. Traditional soil maps typically show only the general distribution of soils, accompanied by a soil survey report and database. Many new soil maps are derived using digital soil mapping techniques. Such maps are typically richer in context and show higher spatial detail than traditional soil maps. Soil maps which are produced using (geo) statistical techniques also include an estimate of the model uncertainty.

Important terms regarding peat and peatland mapping include: • Peat a. is an accumulation of partly decomposed organic matter, with ash content equal to or less than 35%, peat depth equal to or deeper than 50 cm, and organic carbon content (by weight) of at least 12% (ICCCDNPI, June 2012). b. is organic material formed naturally from decayed vegetation that, has been partly decomposed and accumulated in swamp and inundated water (RPP GambutMinistry of Environment).

• Peatland a. is an area with the heterogeneous mixture of organic matter and inorganic minerals, with a texture classification applying to all organic soils with 0-50% ash content and minimum organic layer thickness of 50 cm (ICCC-DNPI, June 2012). b. is land formed from the accumulation of vegetation that is not completely decomposed, having thickness of 50 cm or more and containing organic carbon content of at least 12% (by dry weight) (Ministry of Agriculture, 2012).

Standard procedures for determining peat distribution consists of several model as follows, 1) Pedogenetic Model 2) Empirical Model - Shimada Model: phenological model for estimating peat depth - Estimating peat depth using regression with water level conditions - Using remote sensing data and surface conditions (Carbon stock, Biomass, Forest density).

3) Spatial Model - Geo-statistic calculation (Digital Soil Mapping) - Overlaying different layers with GIS Peat soil mapping can be done using several approaches, i.e.: 1) Pedogenetical approach; 2) Ecosystem boundaries; and 3) Peatland delineation detection approach.

Peat soil mapping has several purposes as described in Table 1. The progress of Indonesia’s areas with mapped soil at different scales, as of 2013, is presented in Table 2

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

17

Table 1: Purposes of Peat Soil Mapping

Map type

Scale

Purposes of map scale mapping level

1. Exploration 2. Reconnaissance 3. In-depth Reconnaissance 4. Semi-detailed

<1:500,000 1:250,000 1:100,000

National Planning Indication for Planning - regional/ Provincial Planning - district/special: e.g. watershed, critical areas, AEZ Implementation of Planning â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sub-district/District: e.g. irrigation, plantation Improving the peat Database - to determine the carbon balance and sustainability of peat management based on peat characteristics database, with field-trials, and detailed measurements.

5. Detailed

1:25,000 1:50,000 >1:25,000

Source: www.litbang.deptan.go.id

Table 2: Areas in Indonesia with Available Soil Maps in Various Scales (as of 2013) Island

Total Area

Exploration Map 1:1,000,000

Reconnaissance Map 1:250,000

Detailed Reconnaissance Map 1:100,000

Semi Detailed Map (1:50,000) - Detailed Maps (1:10,000)

47,241 13,210 7,209 52,890 18,743 7,817 41,105 188,215

47,241 13,210 7,209 52,890 18,743 7,817 41,105* 188,215

2,227 2,715 12 891 1,003 55 684 7,587

5,320 4,401 2,447 19,624 8,318 2,062 7,697 49,869

x 1000 ha Sumatra Java, Madura Nusa Tenggara Kalimantan Sulawesi Maluku Papua (in progress) TOTAL

47,241 13,210 7,209 52,890 18,743 7,817 41,105 188,215

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, 2013

18

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Peatland mapping program in Indonesian Center for Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development ICALRD (2011) includes: 1. Peatland map is updated regularly (at any given 6 months matched with PIPIB schedule) through: a) Ground check and field validation; and b) Soil survey conducted by ICALRD; 2. In line with PIPIB activities, spatial distribution of peatland especially in

plantation concessions are validated and updated by PIPIB (BIG, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, National Land Agency); 3. The most recently updated peatland map will be published in the end of May 2013.

Recent peat soil mapping in ICALRD was summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Recent Peat Soil Mapping in ICALRD

Area mapped

Scale

Year

Institution

Sumatra, Kalimantan, Papua Sumatra (compilation) Kalimantan (compilation) Sumatra, Kalimantan, Papua (compilation) Jabiren (4 sheets) survey based on RS interpretation Muaro Jambi, Pulang Pisau, Kubu Raya, Pelalawan, Mimika, Bintuni

1:250,000 1:250,000 1:250,000 1:250,000

2002 2009 2010 2011

WI (CSAR team) ICALRD ICALRD ICALRD

1:50,000

2011

ICALRD

1:50,000

2013

ICCTF-ICALRD

Source: ICALRD

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

19

We are still facing several challenges to complete peat soil mapping in Indonesia. Hence, the following strategies were developed. Settlement strategy includes: a. Enhance mapping techniques, both in the laboratory and in the field considering new technology for implementing Measurement, Reporting and Verification systems (MRV); b. Use of tools, such as combining Digital Soil Mapping Techniques and conventional peat mapping; c. Considerations of site conditions: conflicted areas are high priority (areas of concerns for the environment, sustainable productivity against poverty, local government policy); d. Increasing availability of funds and improving personnel: mappers with skills and knowledge.

Strategies for the completion of peat soil mapping are as follows: 1. The selection of priority areas in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua.

2. Utilization of advanced technology through integration of satellite imagery, digital elevation models (DEMs), geology, and digital base maps, with the support of Digital Soil Mapping, and GIS techniques.

3. Meet data needs to revise peat soil information at the reconnaissance level, done through available 1:50.000 - 1:100.000 scale maps.

4. Results dissemination through: a.

Geo-portal (Indonesia geo-portal), increasing the degrees of exposure and technology/exhibition in local areas by presenting information of interest; such as the development of superior commodities to generate business opportunities and higher profits in order to increase local income, and environmental protection; 20

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

b. Publication of popular science articles on peatland issues which can be easily understood by local agencies, and c. Development of peat mapping models relevant to land use, making data available for local problem solving. For example, to estimate soil water content to determine cropping patterns, soil fertility status, estimation of erosion and soil conservation, land use planning and watershed analysis.

Exposure is expected to generate material feedback for better planning in the future.

5. Central and regional efforts need coordinating to implement technical field mapping programs, and to review and monitor soil mapping progress.

Concluding remarks: - Maps of soil resources provide information that is critical for agricultural planning.

Remarkable progress has been made in recent years in terms of mapping techniques and presentation of results. Utilization to support agricultural development is still not optimal, and has not been socialized.

- Skilled personnel, adequate funding, and cutting-edge technology for mapping soil (satellite imagery, DEM, GIS) provides an opportunity to complete land mapping more efficiently and accurately, so that the potential of land for agricultural development in each region can be realized.

- The national soil mapping program should be continued, particularly at the review level (scale 1:250,000) according to development priorities, especially in eastern Indonesia.

To realize such a program, it is necessary to establish central and regional cooperation in the technical fields and secure funding.

- Exploiting existing field data should be considered in the review of land mapping,

especially for areas of low accessibility, given the technological support of satellite imagery, DEM, and GIS technology. Financing and operation time are limited, therefore implementing large scale surveys in the field is challenging.

- Presentation and utilization of land resource maps should consider user needs. Positive developments can be made by the development of a Land Resource Atlas of Indonesia. Models of land use alternatives based on soil resource maps are needed for local problem solving, including issues related to food security and environmental quality.

Peatland and Peatland Mapping Cluster â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Progressing towards Results Presented by Eli Nur Nirmala Sari (ICCC) Peatland and Peatland Mapping Cluster (PPMC) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ICCC activities during 2013 have resulted in various outputs, namely: 1. Policy Memo: Peatland Definition; 2. The first International Indonesia Peatland Conversation (IIPC), February 2013; 3.

Peatland Mapping Methodology recommendation; 4. Peatland Definition and Peatland Mapping Methodology Assessment; and 5. Pelalawan and Katingan Districts peat depth maps.

The achievements of PPMC as of January 2014 consist of: - PPMC Update PPMC activities include: a) Final phase of

Peatland Mapping and Methodology in two pilot areas, i.e. Pelalawan District in Riau and Katingan District in Central Kalimantan; and b) early phase of Sustainable Peatland Management.

- Inter-Ministerial and Key Stakeholders Policy Dialogues, include: a) One Map Movement (UKP4, BIG); and b) Sustainable Peatland Management (MoA, MoF, MoE, REDD+ Task force).

Peatland should remain in naturally wet conditions at all times to avoid large scale emissions from peat decomposition and reduce risks from fires. In that regard, it is important to synchronize peatland and swamp regulations to support sustainable peatland management.

To reach this goal, the following steps should be implemented: 1) Define peatland by taking into account the aspects of carbon content and its dependency on water; 2) Delineate peatland using the proposed definition, resulting in peatland zonation; and 3) Manage layers of peatland zone accordingly following a set of peatland management guidelines. ICCC has been conducting pilot projects regarding peatland definition and a peatland mapping methodology assessment.

Through these pilot projects, ICCC is testing and developing a new science-based peatland mapping methodology based on a peatland definition proposed by ICCC and accepted as a national standard. Study sites of the pilot projects are located in Pelalawan and Katingan Districts.

In developing a new peatland map, ICCC is assessing traditional geospatial methods

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

21

(including visual interpretation and kriging methods), and the Shimada Model to estimate peat depth. The Shimada Model estimates the spatial trend of peat depths based on swamp forest phenology. This Model is based on the following assumptions: - In tropical peat swamp forest, the type of forest stand and its phenology correspond to peat depths and seasonal groundwater level fluctuations.

- Spatial trends in seasonal plant activity can be obtained from groundwater level fluctuations.

Limitations of the Shimada Model include: - Seasonality must be divided into distinctive dry and wet periods to obtain phenological variables from NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index).

- This method is limited to areas with natural swamp vegetation, and cannot be applied to areas that have been deforested, degraded, or converted to agriculture lands or plantations.

- Accuracy is strictly dependent on the quantity and quality of activity data.

The data processing steps of Shimada Model are illustrated in Figure 3.

Fig. 3: Shimada Model Data Processing Steps

A total of 101 sampling points were used for ground truthing in the two study sites. The WI map (2004) was used as a base map. Figure 4 shows the new peatland maps with estimated peat depth results, while Figures 5 and 6 show the differences between new peatland maps

22

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

with the existing WI Map and MoA Map. Table 4 summarizes the differences between new peatland maps and existing WI map and MoA maps. Differences in peat area and depth were found among all three map sources (ICCC, MoA, and WI).

Fig. 4: New Peatland Map with Estimated Depth Results

Fig. 5: Differences between New Katingan Peatland Map and Existing WI Map and MoA Map

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

23

Differences between the new Pelalawan peatland Differences between the new Pelalawan peatland map with MoA peatland map map with WI patland map

Fig. 6: Differences between New Pelalawan Peatland Map and Existing WI Map and MoA Map

24

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Table 4: Differences between New Peatland Map and Existing WI Map and MoA Map

Wetlands Key differences found in the ICCC Ministry of Color International peatland map compared with WI and Agriculture indication peatland map MoA maps: peatland map (ha) (ha) Pelalawan District 1. Area with deeper peat deposits

313,489

351,998

2. Area with no noticeable differences

300,574

267,203

3. Area with shallower peat deposits

18,975

15,121

4. Area identified as non-­‐peatland in this study but as peatland by WI and/or MoA

46,571

42,859

5. Area identified as peatland in this study but as non-­‐peatland by WI and/or MoA

99,713

97,226

1. Area with deeper peat deposits

205,526

224,921

2. Area with no noticeable differences

138,958

141,884

3. Area with shallower peat deposits

141,336

140,340

4. Area identified as non-­‐peatland in this study but as peatland by WI and/or MoA

25,213

28,886

5. Area identified as peatland in this study but as non-­‐peatland by WI and/or MoA

98,455

79,580

Katingan District

Based on ICCC results from the pilot projects, recommendations include: - Peatland mapping methodologies need to be standardized and verified; - Unpublished and scattered field survey data need to be integrated into current mapping efforts; - Networks and professional collaboration should be enhanced both nationally and internationally to support peatland mapping activities; - Regional capacity building is needed; and - Scientific findings need to be integrated into land management practices.

Towards One Peatland Map, ICCC also suggests the following: - Consistency between information sources and consistency in depicting reality on the ground is necessary; - 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; - The map must be accessible and free of charge.

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

25

Conversation Outputs Data Transparency Conversation Task: to identify: 1) What data transparency is needed to ensure the Government of Indonesia can generate precise and accurate peatland maps; 2) What is required to increase transparency.

The following concerns were raised in response to the above questions: Key points before data sharing: • Explain the meta data before sharing the data; • Develop clear data sharing protocols; • What will the data be used for?

• How to assess data quality?

• Methodology used for data collection should be clear; • The time of data collection should be documented; Peatland mapping field data should contain: • The location of peat formation (important for conservation areas); • Peat depth classification; • Land cover classification; this is related to peatland typology; • The data needs to meet standard methodology; should assessed for every institution • Data should be verified; finally will be submitted to BIG for finalizing and distribution (through BIG’s website).

Requirements to increase transparency: • Mechanisms to develop Standard Operating Procedures for data acquisition and reporting (e.g.: SOP under BIG’s development, which

26

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

will be legalized by Head of BIG); • Need political will to improve data quality and develop a data sharing framework; Capacity building at the sub-national level for data acquisition and reporting: • Challenges: • Budget limitations; • Overlapping regulations by several ministries responsible for peatland management; • Technical limitations; • Limited data access to concession holders (particularly private sector); • Limited human resources, technical expertise, and logistical capacity of agencies at the local level.

How to solve the challenges?

• Identify critical peatland issues; • Invite and involve private sectors (such as Kadin, NGOs, and universities in peatland mapping activities); • Improve existing SNI; • Develop standard tools; • Stakeholders (such as Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Environment, and BIG) need to have an in-depth discussion to clarify peatland mapping authority, because according to current regulations, the authority of peatland mapping is held by MoA. In actuality, other ministries are also involved in peatland mapping efforts.

• Increased institutional and individual capacity building at sub-national levels.

Agenda items will be brought to the Peatland Mapping Working Group to be discussed and to work toward overcoming the above challenges.

Summary of Discussion: • Try not to let budget limitations define ability to accomplish peat mapping objectives’ • Look creatively at how to re-allocate resources, and combine MoA and MoF’s efforts; • Protocol needed for national ⇔ local data sharing; • Identify the root drivers of conflicts of interest and strive to resolve issues; • Define the minimum information necessary to improve peatland management; Mapping Methodology Conversation Task: What can be done to resolve differences in mapping methodologies and resulting discrepancies in peatland maps?

The working group discussed several approaches to mapping methodology. The groups were not looking at large differences in mapping methodology, rather about different data sets available and limitations of related to insufficient ground-based data and verification to produce reliable map products. Some concerns have been raised to answer the above question.

To resolve differences in mapping methods: • Transparency is critical to understand what mapping methodologies are used and uncertainties are inherent in the maps produced. Data quality assurance and verification are critical; • Need more thorough evaluation of data and methodologies; • Legal entity: it is difficult to manage the area of peatland if there is no clear legal jurisdiction or mandate to do so; • Increased resource allocation is needed for peatland mapping at sub-national levels; • Political will and leadership; Political will needs to be continued and strengthened into the future.

Summary of Discussion: • Ground-based data acquisition and verification is needed; • Current maps need to be thoroughly evaluated; • Peat depth is an important dimension. Focus on 3 meter (boundary) should be priority given its relevance for land management under current regulations. More precise measurements may not be attainable in the near future; • Shimada model needs thorough assessment and validation; • Expert judgment is required to assess data quality. Data that cannot be openly shared needs validation and quality assessment.

• National standards need improvement; • Peatland mapping methodology should comply with SNI (Indonesian National Standard).

• Quality control, validation, and a rigorous peer review process are key elements of setting national standards.

Data Layers Conversation Task: What additional data layers need to be developed to equip GOI to make effective land management decisions?

Some concerns were raised by discussion group participants to answer the above question: Available data layers: • Forest area • Plantation and other concession areas, although overlapping boundaries need to be resolved • Peatland maps • Road maps • Geological maps IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

27

Data layers that need further development: • Biophyisics data/land use • Hydrometerological data • Peat depth • Hydrotopography • Spatial planning • Biodiversity conservation status • Peatland unit map Future efforts need to focus on: • Multi-scale information systems; multiple data sources need to come together; • Information and knowledge systems; • Clear legal status of the land.

28

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Summary of discussion: • Clear transparent process for evaluating existing data and generating new data; • Consider mapping of socio-economic information; • Environmental and ecological conditions of peatlands need to be characterized.

For example, fuel loads and hydrological conditions can be used to assess fire risk; Refer to Presidential decree national 85/2007 to evaluate what developments have already been legally assigned.

Conversation II

GHG Emissions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Improving Estimations from Fire and Drained Land

Conversation Scope The first conversation of IIPC 2014 discussed the state of the art of peatland mapping in Indonesia, the strategies to increase data transparency, resolving mapping methodology discrepancies, and data layers that need to be added for improved peatland mapping. Building on the first conversation, the second conversation examined the IPCC Guidelines regarding GHG Inventory and GHG Estimation from peat fires.

The objectives of Conversation II were to understand the unique requirements for effective emission estimations from drained lands and from fires, to determine the GOI inter-agency arrangement necessary to ensure adequate GHG emission estimation capability, and to clarify the existing and needed data to support accurate GHG estimations that meet international standards.

There were three presentations in this conversation. The first presentation was given

by Lou Verchot of CIFOR. He presented current IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas inventory for tropical peatlands and the basis for current IPCC emission factors. Following the first presentation, Kevin Ryan of the US Forest Service presented methods for GHG Emission Estimation from Peatland Fires. The third presentation, by Dadang Hilman of ICCC, introduced a range of activities that have been implemented by the MRV Cluster Program of ICCC and their ongoing work.

The three presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion in which participants joined one of three working groups to discuss some key issues regarding GHG inventory from Indonesian peatlands. Each group discussed and sought answers to any of the following questions: 1) What are the most significant weaknesses in GOI capability to effectively quantify GHG emissions from peat fire? What is required to strengthen GOI capacity? Who should be responsible?; 2) What is required to move beyond reliance on hotspot data for more accurate and credible emission estimations fires?; and 3) What emission factor (EF) and activity data (AD) are already available in Indonesia and what additional data is needed to achieve higher tier GHG inventory?.

Summary of Inputs IPCC emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories in tropical peatlands Presented by Louis Verchot - CIFOR Research Director, Forests and Environment The IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) produces guidelines on compiling estimates of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals in a standardized way to ensure transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency and comparability between countries.

The IPCC Guidelines are intended to be used by

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

29

all Parties to the UNFCCC. They provide default data and methods and allow the use of more sophisticated methods if countries wish to use them and they are consistent with the guidelines.

Until now the Revised 1996 Guidelines and Good Practice Guidance (2000, 2003) have been used, and for estimates for 2013 onwards, the 2006 Guidelines should be used by Annex I Parties 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories consist of the following: 1. Overview 2. Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting

3. Volume 2: Energy 4. Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) 5. Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) 6. Volume 5: Waste There are six land use categories in Vol. 4 AFOLU. Stock changes of C pools are estimated and reported for the six â&#x20AC;&#x153;top-levelâ&#x20AC;? land-use categories as follow: forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements, and other land uses.

Fig. 7: Procedures for Making of IPCC Guidelines

30

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

The 2013 Wetlands Supplement consists of 7 Chapters and an Overview Chapter. It was written by 68 Lead Authors and 15 Review Editors from 29 countries, with 22 Contributing Authors from 11 countries and over 1100 scientific publications cited. The review processes involved many comments from reviewers: • Expert Review: Over 270 individuals registered and 5,053 comments from 128 Expert Reviewers on the First Order Draft (FOD) • Government and Expert Review: Over 240 individuals registered and 3,740 comments from 112 Expert Reviewers and 14 Governments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) • Final Government Distribution: 347 comments from 14 Governments on the Final Draft (FD) Below is the structure of the “2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands” which contains Methodological Guidance on Lands

with Wet and Drained Soils, and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: • • • • • • • •

Overview Chapter Glossary Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils Chapter6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment • Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting • List of CLAs, LAs, CAs, REs and reviewers Chapter 2 provides updated guidance for managed inland organic soils including land drained for forestry, cropland, grassland, and settlements across climate zones, including: - updated emission factors - new guidance on Dissolved Organic Carbon and CH4 from ditches - new guidance on emissions from peat fires

Table 5: Guidance for wetlands in the 2006 Guidelines

Land-use Peatlands category/GHG Wetlands Remaining Wetlands CO2 Section 7.2.1.1 CH4 No Guidance (Assumed Negligible) N2O Section 7.2.1.2 Lands Converted to Wetlands CO2 Section 7.2.2.1 CH4 No Guidance (Assumed Negligible) N2O Section 7.2.2.2

Flooded Land

No Guidance (Included Elsewhere) Appendix 3 No Guidance (Included Elsewhere) Section 7.3.2.1 and Appendix 2 Appendix 3 No Guidance (Included Elsewhere)

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

31

Flux change approach: Annual peat net CO2 uptake/emissions

Litterfall (L)

Root mortality (R)

Heterotrophic soil respiration (Sh)

Dissolved organic C (DOC)

Net CO2 = (Sh + DOC) – (L + R) (Robertson & Grace, 2004) Fig. 8: Flux change approach in annual peat net CO2 uptake/emission Heterotrophic soil respiration = Total Source: Robertson and soil Grace resp.

(2004) – root resp.

Heterotrophic soil respiration ≠ Peat C loss Most studies in the literature do not quantify inputs (root mortality and litterfall) THINKING beyond the canopy Heterotrophic soil respiration = Total soil respiration– root respiration Heterotrophic soil respiration ≠ Peat C loss

Most studies in the literature do not quantify inputs (root mortality and litterfall).

Most studies were incomplete and steps were required in each case to make a calculation.

There are two approaches to calculate emission from peatlands, namely: 1. Site-by-site 2. Generic calculations There are concerns about belowground C inputs in mass balance approaches, i.e. with and without belowground litter.

32

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Based on the two approaches, the Final Approach was developed as follows: - One Gain-Loss calculation based on site-bysite without belowground litter - One Gain-Loss calculation using generic approaches with belowground litter - Average taken of subsidence and gain-loss in each calculation, so two estimates of EF - Final EF = Average of the two approaches Table 6 below summarizes C-CO2 emissions factors for tropical peatland based on land-use categories, while Table 7 presents annual peat non-CO2 fluxes.

Table 6: C-CO2 Emission Factors for Tropical Peatlands

Table 7: Annual peat non-CO2 fluxes

Lfire = A * MB * Cf * Gef *10-3 Lfire = amount of CO2 or non-CO2 emissions, e.g., CH4 from fire, tonnes A = total area burned annually, ha MB = mass of fuel available for combustion, tonnes ha-1 (i.e. mass of dry organic soil fuel) (default values in Table 2.6; units differ by gas species) Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless Gef = emission factor for each gas, g kg-1 dry matter burnt (default values in Table 2.7)

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

33

The new emission factors (EFs) are important to Indonesia for the following reasons; - Indonesian peatland: a. Almost 50% of tropical peatlands (Page et al., 2011); b. Among the most dense C pools on earth (emission potential from conversion very high); and c. 90% of ecosystem C stored in peat (Murdiyarso et al., 2009) - GHG emissions from LUC and fires a. Large amounts of CO2 lost from the soil; b. Peat C loss contributes more than 63% to total C loss (Hergoualcâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;h and Verchot, 2011)

- Lack of guidance for GHG accounting, especially for the soil e.g. IPCC guidelines (2006) Table 8 presents carbon emission data from the 2nd National Communication, which shows emissions from various sources in 2000-2005.

Under BAU, peat will remain the main source of emissions (Figure 9). In 2005-2006, peat land accounted for almost 50% of national emissions, while its contribution to Indonesiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total GDP is only about USD1.06 billion (0.26%).

Table nd8: Indonesia Carbon Emission (2000-2005)

2

national communication

Source&

2000& 2001& 2002& 2003& 2004& 2005& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 281&& 307&& 328&& 334&& 372&& 370&& Energy& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 43&& 50&& 44&& 48&& 48&& 49&& Industrial&Process& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 75&& 78&& 77&& 80&& 78&& 80&& Agriculture& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 649&& 561&& 1,287&& 345&& 617&& 675&& LUCF& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 172&& 194&& 678&& 246&& 440&& 451&& Peat&Fire& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 157&& 161&& 163&& 164&& 166&& 167&& Waste& Total&with&LULUCF&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Peat&Fire& 1,378&& 1,349&& 2,577&& 1,217&& 1,721&& 1,791&& Total&without&LULUCF& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&Pear&Fire& 557&& 595&& 611&& 626&& 664&& 666&& X1000(Gt(CO2e(

X1000 Gt CO2e

THINKING beyond the canopy

Fig. 9: Predicted Indonesia Carbon Emission under BAU

34

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

The key towards better Tier 2 inventories is to improve the quantity of data and the quality of reporting.

- Subsidence studies • Many non-validated assumptions in current studies • Many key parameters poorly measured or not measured • Lack of quantification of uncertainty • Results depend largely on the analytical model used • No constraints within the method on the emissions estimate - Chamber approaches • Many key parameters poorly measured or not measured • Need to separate peat decomposition flux from litter and plant fluxes • Need to understand ecosystem processes better in systems replacing forests and degraded land - All studies need better descriptions of the site including management and methods - EFs need studies with adequate spatial representation The Complexity of GHG Emission Estimations from Peatland Fires Presented by Kevin Ryan - USFS Fire Science Expert The objectives of this presentation included: - Describe factors affecting fire emissions - Outline data needs for monitoring or predicting fire-caused changes (fuel consumption, emissions) - Identify activities of interest - Initiate discussion

Emissions from fire are unique. Some characteristics of fire: - Rapid Oxidation - Releases energy (heat) - Releases Chemicals; such as ash (Ca, Mg, K), GHGs (CO2, CO, CH4,), and particulates (PM2.5, Pm10).

Emissions from fires are complex and dynamic, but not unpredictable.

In fire science the living and dead biomass that burns is termed fuel, i.e. what burns. Fuel chemistry, size, and packing affect combustion and emissions.

IPCC Carbon Accounting vs. Fuels: • Biomass: a. Above Ground Biomass (AGB): - Litter - Herbaceous plants - Foliage - Woody Shrubs - Trees (boles, branches, twigs) b. Below Ground Biomass (BGB): - Roots c. Soil Carbon and Peat (SCP) Thus, Total Biomass = AGB + BGB + SCP • Fuel: - Total Fuel: Worst Case – Maximum Burnable Biomass - Available Fuel: Actual Case – Biomass that burns in a given fire situation – depends on specific site conditions, for example: - Light surface: fire in shrub-dominated peatland - Ground fire in shrub-dominated peatland, where pockets of peat are dry enough to burn

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

35

Physical laws controlling combustion suggest that global data and models can inform Indonesian emissions estimation. This information needs synthesis and evaluation to be applied in the Indonesian context.

Emissions depend on the fire’s environment, namely: vegetation structure, terrain-hydrology (e.g. drainage), and weather history (day, season, cyclic, e.g. El Niño). These factors will determine how much biomass burns, what kind of biomass burns, and how biomass burns, e.g. flaming vs. smoldering. Available fuel is less than total fuel, and total fuel is less than total biomass.

The problem is how to determine available fuel (predict, measure, monitor) for any fire event/episode. For this, we need good site and environmental data.

For MRV, we need to know how much biomass burns, but what kind of biomass and how it burns matter, too. Emission factors vary by combustion environment, e.g.: • Surface fuels flaming will result high combustion efficiency.

• Emission factors vary for flaming vs. smoldering • Light surface fuel will burn quickly and “cleanly” • Ground fuels (peat) smoldering will result low combustion efficiency • Ground fuels (peat) will burn slowly and “dirty” Worse case fire emissions occur under the following conditions: • Heavy Surface Fuels • Deep Peat • Drained Peatland • Extreme Drought (e.g., Strong El Niño)

36

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

Best case of fire emissions occur under the following conditions: • Light Herbaceous Fuels • Short-term Drying • Low Relative Humidity • Light Wind In order to achieve more accurate GHG estimation from peat fire, several sources of information need to be improved, including: • Land cover maps (vegetation/fuels, incl. peat) • Land use maps (e.g., drainage canals) • Ability to detect and map fires • Ability to monitor environmental conditions (ENSO, weather, WTD) • Decision support systems Emissions calculation approach: • Carbon stock (total biomass) as determined from mapable, identifiable vegetation/site classification • Total fuel determined by adjusting total biomass (expert judgment) • Available (consumed) fuel as determined from combustion indicators • Combustion efficiency (emission factors) The elements of Fire Emissions MRV consist of: • Context – Base Map Layers: e.g., VegetationLand Cover, Terrain, Soils, Political/Admin, etc.

• Situational Dynamics – Fire Weather/ Moisture Monitoring, Detection, Mapping, and Strategic Deployment (Remote sensing e.g., MODIS, Landsat, TRMM, VIIRS) • Field Reference/Validation • Emission Calculations and Reporting • Internal Review

Challenges faced regarding fire emission MRV elements are: 1) accumulating and integrating data; and 2) aligning top down and bottom up components of emission estimation.

IPCC Emission calculation requirements on Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 are: 1. Tier 1: - Data on the amount of fuel combusted - A default emission factor (e.g. IPCC) 2. Tier 2: - Amount and type of fuel combusted - A country-specific emission factor for each gas accounting for country-specific data 3. Tier 3: - Spatially explicit data and models support fuel combustion statistics - Emission factors dependent upon specific fuel-environmental combinations Indonesian Climate Change Center - MRV Cluster activities related to fire emissions, include: • ICCC State of Knowledge Synthesis • ICCC Fire Emissions Demonstration • ICCC Intra-governmental Communication • ICCC Inter-governmental coordination, e.g., NOAA – VIIRS, NASA – MRV. Long range vision: • Tier 1 capabilities for Indonesia (quick, reliable, unbiased) • Systematically evolve toward Tier 3 capabilities • Enhanced support of policy • Best Practices Guidelines for managing fire emissions

The steps that need to be done to begin the achievement of the vision: • Determine which organizations have interest, capability, responsibility • Identify data or models that are potentially available • Commit to developing the necessary data • Commit to developing infrastructure Summary thoughts pertaining to fire emissions: • Emissions are Complex – no “quick fix” • Need for interdisciplinary, interagency integration: - Vegetation Classification and Mapping - Meteorological Sciences - Fire Science - Remote Sensing Sciences ICCC Contribution to Indonesia Peatland GHG Inventory Presented by Dadang Hilman - ICCC MRV Cluster Program Coordinator Indonesia’s commitment is to reduce GHG emission 26 – 41% from BAU in 2020. Table 9 shows the Government of Indonesia’s regulations on GHG emissions reduction.

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

37

Table 9: Indonesiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Regulations to Reduce GHG Emissions

PERPRES 61/2011 RAN-GRK/ GHG NAP 1. Agriculture, forestry and peatland 2. Energy and transportation 3. Industry 4. Waste Management 5. Other supporting activities.

PERPRES 71/2011 INVENT GRK/ GHG INVENTORY 1. Agriculture, forestry and peatland, and other land uses 2. Procurement and use of energy 3. Industrial Process and Product uses; 4. Waste Management

As shown in Table 9, under the Indonesia National Action Plan on GHG Reduction, emissions from peat land, including peat fires is among the main targets for reduction in Indonesia.

EMISSION CONTRIBUTION (SNC) 5 + 47 (LUCF) + 13 (PF) = 65% 20% (incl. Transp) 3% 11%

An example of alternative approaches to the estimation of GHG emissions from peat fires are presented in Table 10. The large differences between studies illustrate a need for standardization of methods consistent with national reporting requirements.

Emission Estimates from PL & Peat Fire Table 10: Emission Estimates from Peatland and Peat Fire Source

Notes

Bappenas (2003) in Ai Dariah

903

From 2000 - 2006 Including peat fire;

Rieley et al (2008)

20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 40

Per ha ; natural forest

DNPI (2009)

1,034

In 2005 (55% of LUCF)

Source

38

Emission (M ton CO2-e/ yr)

Emission (ton CO2-e/ha)

Notes

Haranto (2004)

275

Ave Carbon content: 50 kg/m3 Depth: 15 cm;

Van der Werf (2007) in SNC

466

Ave from 2000-2006 from peat and forest

World Bank (2008)

1,270 Mt CO2/yr

53% from LUCF

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

The ICCC MRV cluster organized a Peat Fire Workshop on October 3, 2013 which produced the following outputs: • In order to develop a robust MRV system, a standardized methodology on GHG emission estimation/calculation, including emission from peat fires, should be in place.

Furthermore, measuring and monitoring are basic key components of GHG inventory and needs to be strengthened; • The workshop identified potential methods and methodologies, data availability, and potential relevant agencies to become development partners for implementing methodologies; • Several immediate activities necessary include: development of a conceptual framework on this issue, including scientific review and analysis, creating a better understanding of current methods for estimating GHG emissions from fires, and evaluating the potential for achieving Tier 2 estimations.

ICCC - MRV Cluster Program consists of three projects: 1) Project 1: Methodology Development for Estimating GHG Emission from Peat Fires 2) Project 2: Pilot study on VIIRS Nightfire estimation of emissions from the June 2013 Sumatra fires

3) Project 3: Training Workshop on “Application of IPCC methodology on GHG emission estimation for peat fire from recently burned area in Pekanbaru”.

The main objective of Project 1 is to improve GHG emission estimation procedures for forest/ peat fires, which will contribute to Indonesia’s MRV System (that is now being developed

by Indonesian agencies), in particular via an inventory component and provision of scientific information for GHG estimation from peat fires in Indonesia. Project 2 aims to validate night fire detections through comparison with other satellite fire products and a combination of high resolution satellite data and field surveys. The main objectives of Project 3 are: (a) to increase capacity of relevant agencies in estimating GHG emission from peat fire; (b) to improve inter-ministerial/inter-agency communication and coordination in Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of Greenhouse Gas emissions resulting from the burning of forested and degraded peatlands, including peat fires.

The following figures show the progress of VIIRS Nightfire estimation of emissions (Figures 10, 11, and 12).

Fig. 10: Recent VIIRS Nightfire Data (26 January 2014 and 2 February 2014) IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

39

2013 Burn Area Map of Riau The sum of burn area from MayAugust, 2013 from VIIRS Nightfire data. The area of active burning is estimated from each detected hotspot pixel. These burn areas are summed across the fire season.

ICCC-NOAA Fire Project January 28, 2014

60 m^2

15,000+ m^2

3,000 m^2

Fig. 11: 2013 Burn Area Map of Riau Source: ICCC-NOAA Fire Project, 28 January 2014

2013 Radiant Heat Map of Riau The sum of radiant heat (MW) from May-August, 2013 from VIIRS Nightfire data. The radiant heat of active burning is estimated from each detected hotspot pixel. These burn areas are summed across the fire season.

ICCC-NOAA Fire Project January 28, 2014

1 MW

100+ MW

35 MW

Fig. 12: 2013 Radiant Heat Map of Riau Source: ICCC-NOAA Fire Project, January 28, 2014

40

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

The sum of the burned area from May-August, 2013 was taken from VIIRS Nightfire data (Figure 10). The area of active burning was estimated from each detected hot-spot pixel. These burn areas were calculated across the fire season.

The sum of radiant heat (MW) from MayAugust, 2013 was taken from VIIRS Nightfire data (Figure 11). The radiant heat of active burning is estimated from each detected hot-spot pixel. These burn areas are summed across the fire season.

Concluding remarks: - ICCC’s contribution for filling gaps on GHG inventory in Indonesia are ongoing; - Activities to support MRV for peat fire are under development.

Conversation Outputs Strengthening GOI Capacity Conversation Tasks: 1. What are the most significant weaknesses in the GOI capability to effectively estimate GHG emissions from fire? 2.

What is required to strengthen GOI capacity? 3.

Who should be responsible?

The following concerns were discussed by the breakout group:

Significant Weaknesses • Definition: Fire on peat or peat fire? Fire variability in peatlands is seldom considered.

Fires my range from low intensity surface fires to severe, deep burning peat fires.

• Lack of information: Data to parameterize the emission equation (peat volume, fuel, burn temperature, variation).

• Information quality and flow among agencies; no data/information sharing among agencies in Indonesia.

• No designated responsible agencies: Who is the coordinating agency? DNPI, MoF, MoE, MoA, LAPAN? • Lack of 4 Cs: Communication, Coordination, Cooperation, and Commitment. Need knowledge and skill regarding these 4 Cs. What is required to strengthen GOI Capacity?

• Existing framework is in place, and advanced compared to many countries. Clear responsibilities for estimating GHG emissions from peat fire need to be defined.

• Many capacity building programs implemented (modalities), but still need to strengthen existing framework.

• One Map initiative is very important for bundling spatial information (forest and peat cover).

• Local capacity exists including existing project based local estimates - need to institutionalize.

• Who should be responsible?

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

41

This proposal will be applied at sub-national (provincial level and district level) Fig. 13: Proposed Organization Scheme

Summary of Discussion: • Include early warning systems in capacity building efforts • Ensure Ministry of agriculture in the proposed scheme • REDD+ should be included in the proposed scheme • Community involvement is essential • Strengthening should be at local → national level • Bring together agencies in the proposed scheme to discuss how to take this idea forward Estimation of Fire Emission Conversation Tasks: What is required to move beyond reliance on hotspot data for more accurate and credible emission estimations from fires?

Hot spot data is collected temporarily from satellite remote sensing data: • Hot spot data can be obtained from MODIS satellite data, collected twice a day if there is no cloud cover. Coverage of hot spot data is 42

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

limited by cloud cover. Hot spots only give the location of fire. Many agencies have hot spot data, such as LAPAN, MoF, BNPB, and others.

• RADAR data then can be used to obtain area of burns.

• The peat burn depth then can be detected by LIDAR. The accuracy of LIDAR measurements have to be verified with field data.

We need baseline data in order to estimate fire emission. It would be useful to have baseline data, before the fire assessment: • Land cover: alive, dead, charred • Pet surface elevation or peat thickness → peat loss • Water table → help estimate available peat fuel • Peat composition → what will smolder Summary of Discussion: • Be careful about how hot spot data are interpreted; only a small percentage of data can be relied upon (gaps exist) • Landsat data can be useful – timing of data is important • Hot spot data can tell us where to look, but not what happened

• Should identify priority questions to avoid generating multiple investments in technologies just for the sake of more science • Delineate what is the minimum size to determine the hotspot.

Activity data – situation • One-Map initiative on-going • General statistics (FRA, FAOSTAT) • Poor data collection capacity • Non-homogeneous capacity at local level

GHG Inventory

Activity data – needs • Prepare a stock taking of available information • Strengthen the institutional capacity to collect and process data • Establish a national framework for data management and processing, at national and decentralized levels

Conversation Tasks: 1. What emission factor (EF) and activity data (AD) are already available in Indonesia? and 2. What additional data is needed to achieve higher tier GHG inventory?

Emission factors – situation: • IPCC defined its new EFs (2013) from studies in Indonesia and Malaysia • They can be used for a national tier-1 approach • A national tier-2 would be possible after those EFs have been validated for national level purposes • Tier-3 is not yet possible for national inventories. It can be used at the project level (MRV) Emission factors – needs • Define key categories • Support national research institutions • Establish national authority to define the tier levels

Summary of Discussion: • Identify what specific gaps need to be addressed to achieve Tier 2 • Consider political implication of water level and land use connection to emissions • Perhaps more spatial data is needed – repeat studies on same land uses • Determine additional parameters that may be needed

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

43

Key Outcomes and Follow Up

Key Outcomes • Common theme focusing on improved data quality, access and standardization of methods (SNI) • Focus resources on verification and ground truthing to improve existing maps • Suggested additional data layers • Continued emphasis on ministries working together to minimize duplication of activities and competing results • Call for rigorous peer review of mapping methodology studies and other technical outputs • Recognized need for an agency to take the lead on GHG Inventory from Peat Fire – recommend MoE with supporting scheme of agencies • All strategies to include local/community to national approaches • Coherent sequence of questions/issues to be addressed should be developed before

44

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

investing in new/more technologies and data sources • For Emission Factors (EF) and Activity Data (AD), identify specific gaps and how to resolve the political issues that are in the way of moving forward ICCC Follow-Up 1. Synthesis Report from IIPC 2.

Continued close collaboration and coordination with BIG-led inter-agency mapping working group 3. ICCC commits to being a model of open data sharing, high standards and rigorous review of any science based inputs to policy makers 4. Convene GHG Inventory from Peatland inter-agency group to discuss institutional arrangement recommendations 5. ICCC will continue to facilitate dialogues

No

Name

Institution

City

Country

1

Adi Pradana

President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4)

Jakarta

Indonesia

2

Akihiko Hirayama

Shimizu Corp

Tokyo

Japan

3

Amanda Katili Niode

National Council on Climate Change (DNPI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

4

Andhyta Utami

World Resource Institute (WRI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

5

Ari Wibowo

Ministry of Forestry

Bogor

Indonesia

6

Arif A.

Geospatial Information Agency (BIG)

Jakarta

Indonesia

7

Artissa Panjaitan

Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC)

Jakarta

Indonesia

8

Aswin Usup

University of Palangkaraya

Palangkaraya

Indonesia

9

Atiek Widayati

ICRAF

Bogor

Indonesia

10

Azwar Maas

University of Gadjah Mada

Yogyakarta

Indonesia

11

Bambang Hero Saharjo

Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB)

Bogor

Indonesia

12

Bambang Setiadi

Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)

Jakarta

Indonesia

13

Bramantyo

JICA and DNPI Partnership

Jakarta

Indonesia

14

Cynthia Mackie

USFS International Program

Washington

US

15

Dadang Hilman

Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC)

Jakarta

Indonesia

16

Daniel Murdiyarso

CIFOR

Bogor

Indonesia

17

Darmanto

University of Gadjah Mada

Yogyakarta

Indonesia

18

Dewi Aprianti

National Council on Climate Change (DNPI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

19

Dharsono Hartono

PT RMU

Jakarta

Indonesia

20

Doddy S. Sukadri

National Council in Climate Change (DNPI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

21

Eli Nur Nirmala Sari

Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC)

Jakarta

Indonesia

22

Farhan Helmy

Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC)

Jakarta

Indonesia

23

Genichiro Sanamura

Shimizu Corp

Tokyo

Japan

24

Gordon Church

US Embassy

Jakarta

Indonesia

25

Grahamme Applegate

Consultant

Australia

Australia

26

Gusti Anshari

University of Tanjungura

Pontianak

Indonesia

27

Haris Gunawan

University of Riau

Pekanbaru

Indonesia

29

Ita Carolita

LAPAN

Bogor

Indonesia

30

Jack O'Rielley

International Peat Society

Nottingham

UK

31

Jun Ichihara

JICA

Jakarta

Indonesia

32

Kazuyo Hirose

Japan Space System

Tokyo

Japan

33

Kent Elliot

USFS International Program

Washington

US

34

Kevin Ryan

Consultant

Missoula

US

35

Kiki Taufik

Greenpeace

Jakarta

Indonesia

36

Klaudia O.S.

Ministry of Public Works

Jakarta

Indonesia

37

Kristanto H.

Ministry of Public Works

Jakarta

Indonesia

38

Kusumo Nugroho

Ministry of Agriculture

Jakarta

Indonesia

39

Louis Verchot

CIFOR

Bogor

Indonesia

40

Matt Warren

New Hampshire US

41 42

Muhammad Afifudin

USDA Forest Service Department of Agriculture, Plantation and Forestry

Tegal

Indonesia

Muhammad Farid

National Council on Climate Change (DNPI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

43

Nick Mawdsley

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald

Palangkaraya

Indonesia

44

Nirarta Samadhi

President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4)

Jakarta

Indonesia

45

Noeroso

Ministry of Environment

Jakarta

Indonesia

46

Nurwadjedi

Geospatial Information Agency (BIG)

Jakarta

Indonesia

47

Nyoman Suryadiputra

Wetlands International

Jakarta

Indonesia

48

Oka Karyanto

University of Gadjah Mada

Yogyakarta

Indonesia

49

Prasetyadi Utomo

Ministry of Environment

Jakarta

Indonesia

50

Randy Kolka

USFS Northern Reasearch Station

New Hampshire US

51

Riccardo Biancalani

FAO

Rome

Italy

52

Rini Sulaiman

USFS

Jakarta

Indonesia

53

Ruandha Sugardiman

Ministry of Forestry

Jakarta

Indonesia

54

Rumi Naito

Mazars Starling Resources

Denpasar

Indonesia

55

Sandra Neuzil

Consultant

Virginia

US

56

Tatik Kartika

LAPAN

Jakarta

Indonesia

57

Titi Murni Resdiana

National Council in Climate Change (DNPI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

58

Wahyunto

Ministry of Agriculture

Bogor

Indonesia

59

Zenzi Suhadi

The Indonesian Forum for Environment (WALHI)

Jakarta

Indonesia

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

45

Published by

Indonesia Climate Change Center BPPT Building 1 16th Floor Jl. M.H. Thamrin 8 Jakarta 10340 - Indonesia Ph. +6221 319 4635, Fax +6221 319 4635 www.iccc-network.net

IIPC. Synthesis Report 2014

47