How can REDD scheme support the management of vulnerable carbon pools of Indonesian peatlands?

1. How can REDD scheme support the management of vulnerable carbon pools of Indonesian peatlands? Daniel Murdiyarso CIFOR Forest Day 2 Side EventPoznan, 6 December 2008

2. Outline • Introduction • The progress on REDD • Why peatlands? • Where peatlands are distributed? • Clustering peat typologies • Management options • Possible interventions • REDD challenges and opportunities • Large-scale industries • Capacity development • Managing risks • Conclusions

3. REDD is one of the decisions to reduce emissions Conservation SFM C-stock enhancement Bali Action Plan Bali Action Plan

4. Forests are important for climate mitigation • Some 20% of global emissions are from forest and landuse change • Indonesia and Brazil now globally-significant sources of emissions due to deforestation and forest fires • Peatlands have been the major source of GHGs

5. Land-based emissions Source: PEACE (2007)

6. Supporting figures • Peat oxidation following drainage Ranging between 355 and 874 Mt/y with a mean of 632 Mt/y for Southeast Asia (Hooijer et al. 2006) • Peatland fires A conservative estimate of CO2 emission from episodic fires during 1997-2006 was 1400 Mt/y (Hooijer et al. 2006). • Peat oxidation following conversions Agriculture, infrastructure, and peat extraction 890 Mt/y (Joosten and Couwenberg, 2008) • Changes of C-stock Change of area of each peat depth classes during 1990-2002 Knowing peat physical properties (BD and % carbon) - CO2 emission for Sumatra was 1061 Mt/y.

7. As comparison Development aid to the forestry sector in Indonesia over the last two decades = $1 billion cumulative Loss to the Indonesian economy from “undocumented” timber extraction = $3 billion per year Assuming A baseline of 3 billion tons of carbon emissions per year A reduction of 20% below the baseline A price of $5/ton of avoided carbon emissions = $3 billion per year How much does it cost?

8. Shallow to deep (5.8 Mha = 11 GtC) Deep to very deep (7.2 Mha = 19 GtC) Source: Shallow to moderate (8.0 Mha = 3 GtC) Where peatlands are distributed? Shallow: 0.5 – 1 m Moderate: 1 – 2 m Deep: 2 – 4 m Very deep: 2 – 4 m Extremely deep: > 8 m

9. Annual deforestation rate on forested peatlands during 2000-2005 by designated forest land-use (x1000 ha/yr)

10. Annual deforestation rate on forested peatlands during 2000-2005 by peat depth (x1000 ha/yr)

11. Production cluster (HPH=2.5 Mha, HTI=2.1 Mha, OP=2.8 Mha) VI IV V Protection cluster (10 Mha) Conversion cluster (3 Mha) II III I Clustering peatlands for management options

12. Clusters by district and level of threats

13. Possible interventions • Clusters of forested peatlands • Cluster I conversion (APL and HPK), • Cluster II production (HP, HPT, HFK, HNB) • Cluster III protection (HSAW, TN, HL, CA) • Management options • Cluster 1 REDD/CDM rehabilitation (NP, Ex-MRP) • Cluster 2 REDD SFM - wise use development (HPH, HTI, OP) • Cluster 3 REDD conservation (NP, BioD) • Water is friend and fire is enemy for REDD • Water co-management to avoid subsidence • Fire co-management to avoid wild fires • Regulatory framework • Keppres 32/1990: Not to develop peat >3m • Inpres 2/2007: Rehabilitation of ex-Mega Rice Project • MenEkon 14/2001: Integrated Water Resource • PP 4/2001: Forbidding the use of fire

14. Evapotranspiration CO2 emissions Evaporation < < < > > > < < < Fire  Fire Fire Oxidation + Compaction Oxidation + Compaction Subsidence = = Subsidence Water table Drainage canal Managing emissions: drainage and fires

15. Evapotranspiration CO2 emissions Evaporation < < < > > > < < < Fire  Fire Fire Oxidation + Compaction Oxidation + Compaction Subsidence = = Subsidence Water table Drainage canal Managing emissions: drainage and fires

16. C&I for demonstration activities

17. REDD challenges:Pulp and paper industries • Over-capacity of pulp mills – leads to further conversions of natural (peat) forests • Insufficient supply of fiber – potentially leads to emission displacement • Paper demand in international markets – leads to international leakage

18. REDD challenges:Oilpalm development in Indonesia(x 1000 ha) Sumber: World Bank, 1999

19. REDD challenges:Biofuels development • Oil palm plantations often result in forest conversions and thus increase emissions • Peatlands are the target for further expansions • Can we avoid deforestation while promoting biofuels?

20. Mineral soil – 75 yrs Involving fire – 110 yrs On peatlands – 600 yrs Impacts on emissions

21. Potential for REDD “win-wins” Emissions reduction and…. • Reduce poverty • Improved livelihoods • Conservation of biological diversity and watershed functions • Improved forest governance

22. Potential risks for REDD • Human rights violation • Marginalize the worse-off • Mis-use of funds • Emission reduction effectiveness

23. Can REDD moves ahead? • Bali Action Plan • Demonstration activities • Future and on-going capacity development

24. Conclusions • REDD on peatlands may be implemented using three different management options: • Peatlands conservation, • Wise use development, and • Peatlands rehabilitation • C&I for peatlands REDD are needed to be tested against verifiers during demonstration activities • Strong governance, institutions and regulatory framework are needed • Water and fire co-management are necessary

25. Money may finally grow on trees left standing and peat kept protected

26. d.murdiyarso@cgiar.orghttp://www.cifor.cgiar.org