Tropical Peatlands and Global Carbon Budget

1. Tropical Peatlands and Global Carbon Budget Daniel Murdiyarso Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) I Nyoman Suryadiputra Wetland International – Indonesia Program (WI-IP) Regional Carbon Budgets Workshop: From Methodologies to Quantification Beijing, 15-18 November 2004

2. Outline • Basic terminology and approaches • Global significance of petlands • Degrading peatlands • Role of fires • Methodologies and quantification • Static vs dynamic • Towards modeling/predictive capabilities • Identified gaps • Trends • Conclusions

3. Basic terminology Carbon stock (mass/area) Carbon pool (mass) Carbon flux Carbon emissions (mass/area/time) C-budget: distribution of C in the compartments and flux rate between them (units??) Residual: how large?

4. Tropical peatlands • Globally the area of tropical peat is ca. 40 Mha • 50% in Indonesia • Formed over a period of 10,000 years • Depth ranges 1-12 m • Store 5,800 t C/ha (> 10 x tropical forests)

5. Decreasing area (Mha)

6. Peatlands and C-budgets • Annual GHGs released due to peatland drainage or degradation 2-20 tC/ha (Maltby and Immirzy, 1993) • Carbon stored in tropical peatlands 1700-2880 t C/ha (GACGC, 2000) • Forest fires in Indonesia during 1997 and 1998 involved 2.12 Mha of peatlands (Tacconi, 2002) • The estimated C-loss from peatland fires in 1997 ranged 0.81-2.57 Gt (Page et al., 2002).

7. Disturbance regimes and terrestrial C-budget CO2 Plant respiration Soil and litter respiration Disturbance GPP Short-term carbon uptake NPP 60 Gt/yr Medium-term carbon storage NEP 10 Gt/yr Long-term carbon storage NBP 1-2 Gt/yr Source: IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group (1998)

8. Fire & Haze from Sumatra and Kalimantan Sep 11, 1997

9. Can hotspots tell anything? Source: Murdiyarso et al. (2002)

10. Estimated C-loss 7 Mt

11. But fire scars may not tell everything 1989 1997

12. Mega rice project – Central Kalimantan

13.     El-Nino events 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Fire event Area burnt (Mha) C-loss (Gt) SOI 3.6 0.1 0.5 11.6 (2.1) 0.45 0.01 0.06 1.45 (0.47) 1982 1987 1991 1997 Note: Global CO2 growth = 1.5 ppmv/yr (IPCC, 1995) LUC is both affecting and affected by climate change

14. From methodologies to quantification? • C- loss from peatland degradation (field data) • Area of change – remote sensing • Bulk density – lab analysis • C-content – lab analysis • Depth of peat layer – auger bor • Emissions from volatile biomass burning • Future development • Leaching of dissolved elements (organic carbon) • Towards modeling exercises

15. n C-loss =  (A x B x C x D) i = 1 i Estimating C-loss from peatlands *) Occupy relatively thin layer of less than 50 cm

16. Estimated C-loss 3.5 Gt 0o 0o

17. Land-use trajectory and fallow periods Primary forests High secondary forests Low secondary forests Change of stocks Shrubs Logged-over forests Tree-based systems Bare Crop-based systems Imperata | | | | | Years 5 10 20 30 40 Long cycle (Protected areas) Medium cycle Short cycle

18. 250 3 200 150 Carbon stocks, Mg ha-1 2 100 1 50 0 Mature forest Annual crops Shrubs Logged-over forest Young agroforest Older agroforest C-stocks in changing land-use

19. CENTURY: Forest - Cassava - Imperata

20. CENTURY: Forest - Rice/Bush fallow

21. Emissions from biomass burning - 1997 Source: Levine (1998)

22. Burning and nutrient losses • Nutrient losses due to volatilisation during the burning of residual biomass are generally higher than the losses by leaching (Bruijnzeel, 1998) • This is not only for N, which comprise of more than 90 percent of the biomass but often also for mineral nutrients • Reduction of burning in land clearing practices will reduce atmospheric losses • Burning also increases leaching losses compared to non-burning practices (Malmer et al., 1994)

23. Trends – peatland development • Needs of agricultural land expansions • Growing oil-palm and pulpwood industries • People in-migration into the area • Unclear tenure systems (conflicts remain)

24. Trends – fire will be used • Fire is the cheapest method for land clearing • Fire can add ash that temporarily improve soil conditions • Pests and weeds control • The economic value of the biomass ‘waste’ is so low • Smallholders’ wood pricing discourages producers

25. Economic values of peatlands goods* *) Based on survey conducted in East Kalimantan from 100 respondents. **) Converted using an exchange rate of US$ 1 = Rp 8,500 Source: Wetlands International, 2004

26. Fresh impetus …… • 23 Jul 2004 – Indonesian Parliament approved the Law on the Kyoto Protocol ratification • 23 Sep 2004 – Germany geared towards the inclusion of avoiding deforestation (in addition to A/R) in the CDM in the 2nd commitment period • 23 Oct 2004 – Duma voted in favor of Russia’s accession to the Kyoto Protocol • ASEAN Agreement on Fires and Haze Transboundary Pollution • ASEAN Peatlands Management Initiative (APMI)

27. Future research questions • What are our fundamental understanding of peatland ecosystems vulnerability to climate change? • How can the understandings be disseminated to influence public policy-making? • Are there scientifically sound adaptive management options for the ecosystems to mitigate climate change? • How accessible the markets are? • Multilateral: e.g GEF/GCF to pay extra for carbon removed in biodiversity/watershed conservation projects • Bilateral: ODA, DNS • Unilateral: national and local markets

28. Conclusions • Peatland is an important terrestrial C-stocks under increasing human pressure • Peat forest clearing followed by drainage makes the landscape more susceptible to fires • Decreasing peatlands area is associated with decreasing depth and carbon content • C and nutrients are mainly released into the atmosphere during fire in addition to DOC and nutrient leaching and drainage • Modeling C-budgets on tropical peatlands requires the incorporation of human dimensions

29. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)