CARBON BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR PEATLAND: CASE STUDY IN

KUBU RAYA AND PONTIANAK DISTRICTS , WEST KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA

Fahmuddin Agus, Wahyunto, Ai Dariah, Prihasto Setyanto, I.G. Made Fahmuddin Agus, Wahyunto, Ai Dariah, Prihasto Setyanto, I.G. Made Subiksa, Eleonora Runtunuwu, Erni Susanti, Wahyu Supriatna

Indonesian Center for Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development, Bogor, Indonesia

International Workshop on Evaluation and Sustainable Management of Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Tropics, Bogor, Indonesia,

28-29 September 2010 28 29 September 2010

Peatland area is about 21 of 183 million ha total Indonesian land; mainly in Sumatra Kalimantan and Indonesian land; mainly in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua, stocking around 37-55 Gt C. Used to be considered as wasteland but now become increasingly important land as wasteland, but now become increasingly important land resource for agriculture because of scarcer mineral land.

Peatland

Properties of PeatProperties of Peat

Holds water up to 10 times or more of its mass Holds water up to 10 times or more of its mass and thus an important hydrological buffer to the surrounding areas from floods and droughts g g

Contains 30-70 kg C/m3 or 300-700 t C/m/ha Sinks carbon; the thickness grows 0-3 mm Sinks carbon; the thickness grows 0 3 mm

annually under pristine forest Net emitter when converted and drained Net emitter when converted and drained

subsides due to emissions and consolidation Could be highly profitable if managed Could be highly profitable if managed

intensively. Thus there are opportunity costs of peatland conservationp

Peat vs mineral soilPeat vs mineral soilProperties Properties Mineral soil Peat soilBulk density (t/mBulk density (t/m33)) 0.70.7--1.41.4 0.020.02--0.40.4

C b t t (t/C b t t (t/ 33)) 0 010 01 0 040 04 0 030 03 0 070 07Carbon content (t/mCarbon content (t/m33)) 0.010.01--0.04, 0.04, concentratesconcentrates

in 0in 0--30 cm layer30 cm layer

0.030.03--0.070.07surface to surface to

substratum , substratum , yy0.50.5-->10 m thick>10 m thick

Carbon content (% weight)Carbon content (% weight) 0.50.5--7%7% 2020--60%60%

C stock (t/ha)C stock (t/ha) 1515--210210 250250--50005000

Forest aboveground plant Forest aboveground plant 200200--300300 100100--200200biomass C (t/ha)biomass C (t/ha)Water content at saturation (% Water content at saturation (% volume)volume)

3030--5555 7070--9595volume)volume)

Peatland conversion

Examples of farming failures on peatland

Paddy field in East Kalimantan Ex Rice Mega Project in Central Kalimantan

Examples of success of Peatland Agriculturep g

Tanaman BuahTanaman Buah

Tanaman PerkebunanTanaman Perkebunan

120 6 0

100

120

(%)

Pineapple

Dragon fruit

Chili 5.0

5.5

6.0

Pineapple

Dragon fruit

Chili

60

80

ase

satu

ratio

n (

Eggplant

Oil palm

Rubber 4.0

4.5

Soil

pH

Eggplant

Oil palm

Rubber

20

40

Ba

2.5

3.0

3.5

010 35 75

Soil depth (cm)

2.0 10 35 75

Soil depth (cm)

Some generic relationship Some generic relationship of management level and g

CO2 Emissions

Drainage Depth vs CO2 Emission

9.1 t CO2/ha/yr 10per 10 cm

drainage depth

The previous graph were mostly based on closed chamber measurement which combines autotrophic root respiration (which may contribute to 20-40% total peat soil emission)

and heterotrophic microbial respiration. Need a ti f t f b t 0 6 0 8 (H d i 2009correction factor of about 0.6-0.8 (Handayani, 2009;

experiment in Aceh Barat District)

Age of oil palm No root Rooted N t-testp

Year t CO2/ha/yr

1 24.3 ± 9.7 40.9 ± 18.0 8 0.2109

5 18.2 ± 11.1 27.3 ± 15.6 27 0.00015 18.2 ± 11.1 27.3 ± 15.6 27 0.0001

10 19.3 ± 16.6 32.9 ± 20.7 21 0.0020

A 19 5 ± 13 2 31 3 ± 18 3 56 0Average 19.5 ± 13.2 31.3 ± 18.3 56 0

Peat subsidence (Wösten et al., 1997): decomposition (60%) + consolidation (40%) afterdecomposition (60%) + consolidation (40%) after

consolidation stabilizes

GHG/ C stock emission research on peatland by ICALRRD and partners since 2008

Component C stock EmissionAG Biomass Allometric equation -Litter Destructive;

negligible-

N D t tiNecromass Destructive, negligible

-

Soil Peat sample: • GasSoil Peat sample:• Bulk density• C content (LOI or

• Gas chromatography,

• IRGA, EGM C & N Auto analyzer)

• Empirical relationship of managementmanagement systems

Ab dAboveground C measurement

Belowground C stock measurement

Observation in April 2009, Rasau Jaya, West Kalimantan (Agus et al. 2010)(1) oil palm 55 cm drainage 2004 (2) pineapple 70 cm drainage since (1) oil palm , 55 cm drainage, 2004, (2) pineapple , 70 cm drainage, since 2008 , (3) maize 200 cm secondary drainage canal, 1970s

y = 0.0331x + 651.55R2 = 0.1241700

800

y = 55.965Ln(x) + 343.94500

600

ess

(cm

)

Oil palm Pi l

y = 10.515Ln(x) + 188.6

y ( )R2 = 0.903

300

400

t thi

ckne Pineapple

Maize

R2 = 0.2226

100

200Peat

00 50 100 150 200 250

Distance from drainage canal (m)

C Stock vs distance from drainage canal (Agus et al., 2010)(1) oil palm, 55 cm drainage, 2004, (2) pineapple , 70 cm drainage,

3500

( ) p , g , , ( ) p pp , g ,since 2008 , (3) maize 200 cm secondary drainage canal, 1970s

y = 2.267x + 2338.4R2 = 0.8713

2500

3000

y = -0.0526x + 2492.6R2 = 0.00872000

2500

ck (t

/ha)

y = -0.0192x + 1149.7R2 = 5E-051000

1500

C st

oc

Maize

0

500 PineappleOil palm

00 50 100 150 200 250

Distance from drainage canal (m)g ( )

Lack of data of initial C stock

Peat maturity and C (volume base)Peat maturity and Corg (volume base)

Peat maturity C-content Mean±stdev

No. of sample

(kg m-3)Sapric 66 ± 20 39Sapric 66 ± 20 39

Hemic 50 ± 14 75

Fibric 39 ± 11 212

Peat maturity, coupled with peat thickness can be used as a proxy of C stock

Gas sampling from closed chamber usingGas sampling from closed chamber using syringe for GC analysis

Recommended measurement time: 10-30 minutes per chamber

Water table depth vs CO2 flux, measured in April and June 2009 in Kubu Raya West Kalimantan (Agus et al 2010) 2009, in Kubu Raya, West Kalimantan (Agus, et al., 2010).

60,000

y  =  4246.7Ln(x) +  7359.6R 2 =  0.3945

50,000

day)

30,000

40,000

mg/m2/d

20,000

,

O2 flu

x (m

0

10,000CO

00 20 40 60 80 100

Water table (cm)Water table (cm)

High variation, but some trend in this instataneous measurement

CO2 flux under different land use types in Kubu Raya District, W t K li t A il d J 2009 (Ag t l 2010) West Kalimantan, April and June 2009 (Agus et al., 2010)

60,000da

y)

40,000

50,000

CO2/

m2/

d

20 000

30,000

40,000

lux

(mg

C

10,000

20,000

age

CO2

fl

0

Oil palm

eapple

Maize

Rubber

mperata

re land

Chiligg

plant

on fru

ite for

estShru

bAver

a

Oil

Pine

M Ru

Imp

Bare EggDrag

onDens

e f S

Land use

This instantaneous measurement may not reflect the long terms trend

IRGA (Infra Red CO2 Gas Analyzer)

25 cmcm20

Recommended measurement time: 2 -3 minutes/chamber

600

)

y = 391.37e0.0009x

R² = 0.996400

500

(μm

ol/m

ol)

200

300

cent

ratio

n (

0

100

CO

2 co

nc

Time

Emission Processes(1) Plant biomass

burning/decomposition(2) Peat burning

(4) C Sequestration

100~200 t C/ha 30-50 t C/ha

60 c

m6

(3) Peat decomposition

300-700 t/ m depth/ha

C budgetC budget∆C= Σij Aij [∆CijLB +∆CijDOM +∆CijSOILS] / Tij

∆C = net C stock change [ton C/yr]

j j [ j j j ] j

∆C net C stock change [ton C/yr]

Aij = Area under land use i that changes to j [ha]∆CijLB = change in C stock in the living biomass of land∆CijLB = change in C stock in the living biomass of land

use i that changes into land use j, [ton C/ha]∆CijDOM = change in C stock in dead plant [ton C/ha]∆CijDOM = change in C stock in dead plant [ton C/ha]

∆CijSOILS = change in soil C stock [ton C/ha]

Tij = time scale

Net CO2-e emission

E = ( Ea + Ebb + Ebo - Sa ) / t

EEaa

Emission from above ground biomass burning = above Emission from above ground biomass burning = above ground C stock (t/ha) * 3.67ground C stock (t/ha) * 3.67aa g ( )g ( )Emissions from below ground peat burning (mainly Emissions from below ground peat burning (mainly during deforestation) = volume of peat burned (mduring deforestation) = volume of peat burned (m33) * C ) * C

EbbEbbcontent (t/mcontent (t/m33)*3.67. )*3.67. CHCH44 and Nand N22O neglectedO neglected. . C content = ash free bulk density * % C C content = ash free bulk density * % C

EEbobo

Emission from below ground oxidation (peat Emission from below ground oxidation (peat decomposition) (t COdecomposition) (t CO22/ha/yr) /ha/yr) various approachesvarious approaches

SSaa

Sequestration in the above ground = above ground C Sequestration in the above ground = above ground C stock (t/ha) * 3.67stock (t/ha) * 3.67

tt Ti lTi l f l l tif l l titt Time scale Time scale of calculationof calculation

The case of Kubu Raya and Pontianak Districts West Kalimantan Districts, West Kalimantan

Land use change under BAU linear trend until 2035 a d use c a ge u de U ea t e d u t 035(Kubu Raya & Pontianak Districts)

500,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

300,000

350,000

a (h

a)

200,000

250,000 VegetablesPineappleMaize

Are

a

50 000

100,000

150,000 SawahRubberOil palmShrub

-

50,000

985

990

995

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

ShrubForest

1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Year

Scenarios for emission reductionScenario Description Assumed Costs

BAU Continuation of the 1985-2010 trend

I Legal compliance: Ministry of A i l d N 14/2009 (

PengawasanAgriculture decree No. 14/2009 (no extensification on peatland >3m and in conservation designated areas)

II Use of peat amelioration for polymerization of simple organic acids on agricultural and plantation areas

Excavation, transportation and applicationon agricultural and plantation areas and application of ameliorant

III No burning. Fertilizer and manure as Fertilizer/manure nutrient sources subsidy

IV Land swap to mineral soils Opportunity costscosts

Assumptions, Emission/removal factorsAssumptions, Emission/removal factors

PeatBurned peat from

Burned peat from

LUT Drainage AG C stock

Peat Decomposition

peat from peat forest

peat from peat shrub

Burn peat on maize

cm t C/ha/25 yrNat Forest 0 157 0 0 0Shrub 40 15 147 75 0 0Shrub 40 15 147 75 0 0Oil palm 60 40 221 75 25 0Rubber/AF 30 60 110 75 25 0Sawah 10 2 37 75 25 0Sawah 10 2 37 75 25 0Maize 30 2 110 75 25 250Pineapple 35 7 129 75 25 0Vegetable 30 2 110 75 25 0

C content = 0.05 t/m3

Depth of peat burned from forest and shrub clearing: 15 and 5 cm one time respDepth of peat burned from forest and shrub clearing: 15 and 5 cm, one time, resp.Depth of peat burned on traditional maize cultivation: 2 cm/yrCalculation is based on 25 yr period, one economic cycle of oil palm

Carbon balance related to LULUCF Carbon balance related to LULUCF (t CO2/ha/year)

Land usePeat forest Shrub Oil palm

Rubber/AF Sawah Maize

Pine-apple

Vege-table

Peat forest 0 56 66 50 39 87 53 50Peat forest 0 56 66 50 39 87 53 50Shrub 22 38 22 11 59 25 22Oil palm 32 x x x x xRubber/AF 16 x x x xSawah 5 x x xM i 53Maize 53 x xPineapple 19 xVegetable 16g

Management optionsManagement optionsLand use type Description Possible mitigation technologies Forest About 60% of the total forest area Maintain as forest and let the

is logged forests (especially along the main rivers) with the C stock of about 40 60 Mg ha-1 while about

natural regrowth happens. In case of pressing need for development, prioritize the use of secondary orabout 40-60 Mg ha 1, while about

40% is natural peat forest with the C stock of 100-200 Mg ha-1. This

prioritize the use of secondary or log over forest.

land is decreasing and turns into shrub and plantation.

Shrub With about ±2 m tall bushes with May be used for plantation bay diameter <5 cm. This land stocks C about ±15 Mg ha-1.

taking consideration of peat thickness as stipulated in Permentan No. 14/2009.Permentan No. 14/2009.

Rubber plantation

With traditional management system; planting using seedling

th th l f tili

Adjustment of drainage system to ≤ 30 cm; use of ameliorant.

rather than clone, no fertilizer application; drainage depth of 20-50 cm.

Oil palm Drainage depth of 50 80 cm Adjustment of drainage canalOil palm plantation

Drainage depth of 50-80 cm, and in general involves intensive fertilization (300 kg of urea ha-

Adjustment of drainage canal depth to maintain water level at 50 cm; amelioration with laterite

1 yr-1) or steel slag.

D f it C ti i i t i E t ifi ti f thi tDragon fruit and vegetables

Continuous cropping, intensive fertilization, heavy use of barnyard manure and ash.

Extensification of this system should be directed to shrub; use of ameliorant step-wisely until g y p yreaching about 5-10 Mg ha-1.

Pineapple l i

Replanting every 3 years, d i d h f b 70

Adjustment of drainage depth to 30 50 li i i hplantation drainage depth of about 70 cm,

fertilization though plant residue recycling; no use of fertilizers.

30-50 cm; amelioration with laterite or steel slag up to 10 Mg ha-1.recycling; no use of fertilizers. ha .

Pineapple Water table level of 25-45 cm Increase of plant population;Pineapple, traditional system

Water table level of 25 45 cm, without application of fertilizer. Sparse plant spacing.

Increase of plant population; use of ameliorant.

Traditional maize farming with

About 8 months fallow and one maize crop per year. The fallow is burned to generate ash and

Transformation into a more intensive system and this should be initiated triggered byfarming with

short fallow rotation

is burned to generate ash and this often burn about 2 cm peat layer per year. The smoke from

be initiated triggered by addition of ameliorant.

burning also upsets the flight schedule of the nearby Supadio airportairport.

Estimates of historical and future CO2 emission d l iunder several scenarios

Emission reduction cost and adjusted cumulative emission reduction between 2010-2035

Scenario Abatement Adjusted Cumulative emission cost reduction

USD/t CO2 Mt CO2/25 % of BAUyears

I. Legal compliance 0.21 7±4.5 5.5±3.520 7 15 5 5 5II. Ameliorant 2.09 20±7 15.5±5.5

III. No burning 7.50 25±8 19±7IV. Land swap 17.52 30±9 24±7

Emission reduction cost versus cumulative amount of emission reductionamount of emission reduction

15.00

20.00

CO

2) S IV: Land swap

10.00

15.00

st (U

SD/t

C

S III: No burnBilateral?

C-market?

5.00

. red

xn c

os

S I: Legal Compliance

S II: AmeliorationUnilateral/bilateral?

Bilateral?

0.00- 5 10 15 20 25 30

Adjusted cumulative emission reduction (Mt CO /25 yr)

Em Unilateral?

Adjusted cumulative emission reduction (Mt CO2/25 yr)

ConclusionsConclusions Peatland is becoming more and more important land

resource for the livelihood, but its fragile C storage can easily transform into CO2 when the peat forest

t i di t decosystem is disrupted. Agricultural land, except for rubber plantation, expands,

but shrub land also increase at the expense ofbut shrub land also increase at the expense of decreasing forest area of Kubu Raya and Pontianak Districts . This indicates that not all of land clearing are gintended for agricultural expansion.

From the various land uses, the slash and burn maize emits the highest CO2 per unit area and time because of high emission from the annual burning practice in dditi t th fi ld d d d i ditiaddition to the open field and deep drainage condition.

A few scenarios have been proposed including legal A few scenarios have been proposed including legal compliance, use of ameliorant, banning of burning practice and land swap to mineral land. Each of the Scenario prompts different levels of difficulties and costs and thus different prospects of success. The option dealing with on farm treatment (ameliorant no burning)dealing with on farm treatment (ameliorant, no burning) likely have better chance of success while those dealing with land tenure, land status and legal system is likelywith land tenure, land status and legal system is likely more complicated and requiring regulatory reforms.

The scenarios developed under this study will form a p ybasis for a follow-up stringent test of the local acceptance. Verification of some technical details such

th ff t f li t d b i ill ias the effects of ameliorant and no burning will require a set of monitoring and/or research in the area.